(OT) : I Did Not See It Coming -was- Could See It Coming
 

~ RHF wrote:
On Mar 5, 5:17 pm, John Barnard wrote:
Bushcraftgregg wrote:
On Mar 4, 8:51 pm, John Barnard wrote:
Bushcraftgregg wrote:
On Mar 2, 7:35 am, dxAce wrote:
Michael W. Bryant, the dufus who once claimed to have a PhD, wrote:
On Mar 2, 3:47 am, BCBlazysusan wrote:
I can't say I am surprised. Every senator and congressman should be
labeled "traitor" and anyone in cahoots should be brought before the
people of the USA and judged IMO.
I wonder how Hillary felt as the person from China signed this.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0f8_1...r=newest_first
If this is genuine and on the up and up, I feel this country has
reached the point of no return. Why have I not heard about this on my
local news or any other news outlet? "Yes We Can" - - I guess this was
the "Change" we were all told about.
The fact that you re-post Hal Turner gossip is all anyone needs to
know about your brand of Christianity.
Please, inform us of the PhDufus brand of Christianity.
Don't reply to him Steve, it is just a waste of your time. He
literally "gets off" from yanking people and starting trouble on
usenet. I may have to speak to you back channel if he keeps harassing
me by continuing to respond to my posts, I'm trying to play nice but I
have a feeling he is just going to continue.
Anything that you post in a PUBLIC forum could be fair game for someone
else to put in their 2 cents worth. If you think that's harassment then
you may need to get a thicker skin.
JB- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
No JB- no thicker skin needed, I know what you're saying, I'm just
trying/asking him to stop before he gets out of hand. I HAVE seen him
out of hand years back, so my statement is valid. He DID email me
years back and tried to chum up to me but I'm hip to his type and
never responded. Of course, he is going to say he didn't and it's my
word against his and that's fine but I would hope the majority or at
least the ones I care about in here would believe me over him. IMO him/
his type are the most dangerous types of people to encounter on
usenet, he cloaks himself in a veil as "one that would do you no
wrong" but I do not buy it because I have seen the opposite of that. I
really don't want to speak about it anymore, really I don't. But I
know he is just going to keep on - he can't help it. I appreciate you
taking up for him, though you will say you weren't etc. etc. but lets
just stop it at this. Thanks.

- Unfortunately, as you've probably noticed in this group,
- lots of people get out of hand on here (myself included).
- It's all part of the game on here.
-
- JB

Dang JB - I am agreeing with you for once. ~ RHF
- - - and i did not see it coming . . .
.


That's the Law of Averages in action ;-)

JB

(OT) : Obama be Bye Bye !
 

On Mar 6, 4:59*pm, Telamon
wrote:
In article
,



*Telamon wrote:
In article
,
*Telamon wrote:

In article ,
*dxAce wrote:

Michael W. Bryant, the totally discredited dufus who once claimed to have
a
PhD,
wrote:

On Mar 6, 3:37 pm, "~ RHF" wrote:
On Mar 6, 5:24 am, Mike wrote:

On Mar 4, 8:23 pm, Telamon

wrote:

Political and cultural ties sure but I don't know any
conservatives
that
think the economic treaties between the USA and China are a good
thing.

I remember Ronald Reagan suggesting that trade pacts with China
would
eventually make sense. You should also remember that it was Reagan
who
got the ball rolling on NAFTA and it was King George, the First,
that
pretty much was responsible for finishing the negotiations on
NAFTA.

- Clinton just signed it shortly after being elected.

MWB 'just' More Liberal Re-Writing of History Again.

President Bill Clinton Signed the NAFTA Treaty
INTO LAW [.]
-ps- He could have Vetoed It
-but- He 'Choose' to Sign the NAFTA Treaty Into Law.

Yes History Will Show Clinton Was At The Very End
Responsible for the NAFTA Treaty Becoming LAW [. ]

mwb - the facts are the facts ~ RHF
.

RHF,

As usual, you're just choosing to be difficult. Though Clinton
signed NAFTA (and, yes,
*he took grief from the labor unions for doing so), but it was the
Reagan and Bush administrations that were responsible for the
negotiations during the 1980's.

The responsibility for NAFTA was clearly shared by both Democrats
and Republicans. Reagan was famous for his prediction that
countries that trade with each other have seldom fought wars. Yes,
even the great Conservative supported Free Trade Pacts. The
Republican Party has always been bigger supporters of such pacts.

What, RHF, no URLs to support your insanity this time? That clearly
says something..

What about your insanity, PhDufus?

After all, any 'tard boy who'd lie about having a PhD certainly must
have a screw or two loose.

You want insanity, this is insanity.

Obama's Radicalism Is Killing the Dow

By MICHAEL J. BOSKIN

"It's hard not to see the continued sell-off on Wall Street and the
growing fear on Main Street as a product, at least in part, of the
realization that our new president's policies are designed to radically
re-engineer the market-based U.S. economy, not just mitigate the
recession and financial crisis.

The illusion that Barack Obama will lead from the economic center has
quickly come to an end. Instead of combining the best policies of past
Democratic presidents -- John Kennedy on taxes, Bill Clinton on welfare
reform and a balanced budget, for instance -- President Obama is
returning to Jimmy Carter's higher taxes and Mr. Clinton's draconian
defense drawdown."

Go read the rest of it he
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123629969453946717.html

The obomination is looking more like Carter II everyday.

Well, that would be Carter II with a tele-prompter.

- Ah! A new moniker "Obama bin Biden"
-
- --
- Telamon
- Ventura, California

Better Obama be Bye Bye !
Impeach Obama Now He's Bad For America and The World Economy

RHF: Historical Revisionist
 

Mike wrote:
On Mar 6, 3:37�pm, "~ RHF" wrote:
On Mar 6, 5:24�am, Mike wrote:

On Mar 4, 8:23�pm, Telamon
wrote:
Political and cultural ties sure but I don't know any conservatives that
think the economic treaties between the USA and China are a good thing.
I remember Ronald Reagan suggesting that trade pacts with China would
eventually make sense. You should also remember that it was Reagan who
got the ball rolling on NAFTA and it was King George, the First, that
pretty much was responsible for finishing the negotiations on NAFTA.
- Clinton just signed it shortly after being elected.

MWB 'just' More Liberal Re-Writing of History Again.

President Bill Clinton Signed the NAFTA Treaty
INTO LAW [.]
-ps- He could have Vetoed It
-but- He 'Choose' to Sign the NAFTA Treaty Into Law.

Yes History Will Show Clinton Was At The Very End
Responsible for the NAFTA Treaty Becoming LAW [. ]

mwb - the facts are the facts ~ RHF
�.

RHF,

As usual, you're just choosing to be difficult. Though Clinton signed
NAFTA (and, yes,
he took grief from the labor unions for doing so), but it was the
Reagan and Bush
administrations that were responsible for the negotiations during the
1980's.

The responsibility for NAFTA was clearly shared by both Democrats and
Republicans.
Reagan was famous for his prediction that countries that trade with
each other have seldom
fought wars. Yes, even the great Conservative supported Free Trade
Pacts. The Republican
Party has always been bigger supporters of such pacts.

What, RHF, no URLs to support your insanity this time? That clearly
says something..
Come on, RHF, where are the URLs?

Mike

Top ten, Mike!

The House of Reps approved it 234 to 200 with 132 of those 234 being
Republicans and 102 being Democrats.

I can't believe RHF's revisionist history and pseudoscience approach to
things.

JB

RHF: Historical Revisionist
 

Telamon wrote:
In article ,
dxAce wrote:

Michael W. Bryant, the totally discredited dufus who once claimed to have a
PhD,
wrote:

On Mar 6, 3:37�pm, "~ RHF" wrote:
On Mar 6, 5:24�am, Mike wrote:

On Mar 4, 8:23�pm, Telamon

wrote:
Political and cultural ties sure but I don't know any conservatives
that
think the economic treaties between the USA and China are a good
thing.
I remember Ronald Reagan suggesting that trade pacts with China would
eventually make sense. You should also remember that it was Reagan who
got the ball rolling on NAFTA and it was King George, the First, that
pretty much was responsible for finishing the negotiations on NAFTA.
- Clinton just signed it shortly after being elected.

MWB 'just' More Liberal Re-Writing of History Again.

President Bill Clinton Signed the NAFTA Treaty
INTO LAW [.]
-ps- He could have Vetoed It
-but- He 'Choose' to Sign the NAFTA Treaty Into Law.

Yes History Will Show Clinton Was At The Very End
Responsible for the NAFTA Treaty Becoming LAW [. ]

mwb - the facts are the facts ~ RHF
�.
RHF,

As usual, you're just choosing to be difficult. Though Clinton
signed NAFTA (and, yes,
he took grief from the labor unions for doing so), but it was the
Reagan and Bush administrations that were responsible for the
negotiations during the 1980's.

The responsibility for NAFTA was clearly shared by both Democrats
and Republicans. Reagan was famous for his prediction that
countries that trade with each other have seldom fought wars. Yes,
even the great Conservative supported Free Trade Pacts. The
Republican Party has always been bigger supporters of such pacts.

What, RHF, no URLs to support your insanity this time? That clearly
says something..
What about your insanity, PhDufus?

After all, any 'tard boy who'd lie about having a PhD certainly must
have a screw or two loose.

You want insanity, this is insanity.

Obama's Radicalism Is Killing the Dow

By MICHAEL J. BOSKIN

"It's hard not to see the continued sell-off on Wall Street and the
growing fear on Main Street as a product, at least in part, of the
realization that our new president's policies are designed to radically
re-engineer the market-based U.S. economy, not just mitigate the
recession and financial crisis.

The illusion that Barack Obama will lead from the economic center has
quickly come to an end. Instead of combining the best policies of past
Democratic presidents -- John Kennedy on taxes, Bill Clinton on welfare
reform and a balanced budget, for instance -- President Obama is
returning to Jimmy Carter's higher taxes and Mr. Clinton's draconian
defense drawdown."

Go read the rest of it he
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123629969453946717.html

The obomination is looking more like Carter II everyday.


Failed capitalism and its supporters did Wall Street in NOT Barack
Obama. He has the unfortunate job of picking up the pieces.

JB

RHF: Historical Revisionist
 

~ RHF wrote:
On Mar 6, 1:08 pm, Mike wrote:
On Mar 6, 3:37 pm, "~ RHF" wrote:



On Mar 6, 5:24 am, Mike wrote:
On Mar 4, 8:23 pm, Telamon
wrote:
Political and cultural ties sure but I don't know any conservatives that
think the economic treaties between the USA and China are a good thing.
I remember Ronald Reagan suggesting that trade pacts with China would
eventually make sense. You should also remember that it was Reagan who
got the ball rolling on NAFTA and it was King George, the First, that
pretty much was responsible for finishing the negotiations on NAFTA.
- Clinton just signed it shortly after being elected.
MWB 'just' More Liberal Re-Writing of History Again.
President Bill Clinton Signed the NAFTA Treaty
INTO LAW [.]
-ps- He could have Vetoed It
-but- He 'Choose' to Sign the NAFTA Treaty Into Law.
Yes History Will Show Clinton Was At The Very End
Responsible for the NAFTA Treaty Becoming LAW [. ]
mwb - the facts are the facts ~ RHF
.
RHF,

As usual, you're just choosing to be difficult. Though Clinton signed
NAFTA (and, yes,
he took grief from the labor unions for doing so), but it was the
Reagan and Bush
administrations that were responsible for the negotiations during the
1980's.

The responsibility for NAFTA was clearly shared by both Democrats and
Republicans.
Reagan was famous for his prediction that countries that trade with
each other have seldom
fought wars. Yes, even the great Conservative supported Free Trade
Pacts. The Republican
Party has always been bigger supporters of such pacts.

What, RHF, no URLs to support your insanity this time? That clearly
says something..
Come on, RHF, where are the URLs?

Mike

MWB - Your 'logic' is typical of the Liberals
who blame the Gun Manufactures for the
Killing of by Guns and at the same time;
excusing the Criminal for coming from a
poor or abusive home.

MWB 'again' More Liberal Re-Writing of History Again.

President Bill Clinton Signed the NAFTA Treaty
INTO LAW [.]
-ps- He could have Vetoed It
-but- He 'Choose' to Sign the NAFTA Treaty Into Law.

Yes History Will Show Clinton Was At The Very End
Responsible for the NAFTA Treaty Becoming LAW [. ]

mwb - the facts are the facts ~ RHF
.


You know nothing of the facts you twisted, little thug.

JB

RHF: Historical Revisionist
 

In article ,
John Barnard wrote:

Telamon wrote:
In article ,
dxAce wrote:

Michael W. Bryant, the totally discredited dufus who once claimed to have
a
PhD,
wrote:

On Mar 6, 3:37�pm, "~ RHF" wrote:
On Mar 6, 5:24�am, Mike wrote:

On Mar 4, 8:23�pm, Telamon

wrote:
Political and cultural ties sure but I don't know any conservatives
that
think the economic treaties between the USA and China are a good
thing.
I remember Ronald Reagan suggesting that trade pacts with China would
eventually make sense. You should also remember that it was Reagan who
got the ball rolling on NAFTA and it was King George, the First, that
pretty much was responsible for finishing the negotiations on NAFTA.
- Clinton just signed it shortly after being elected.

MWB 'just' More Liberal Re-Writing of History Again.

President Bill Clinton Signed the NAFTA Treaty
INTO LAW [.]
-ps- He could have Vetoed It
-but- He 'Choose' to Sign the NAFTA Treaty Into Law.

Yes History Will Show Clinton Was At The Very End
Responsible for the NAFTA Treaty Becoming LAW [. ]

mwb - the facts are the facts ~ RHF
�.
RHF,

As usual, you're just choosing to be difficult. Though Clinton
signed NAFTA (and, yes,
he took grief from the labor unions for doing so), but it was the
Reagan and Bush administrations that were responsible for the
negotiations during the 1980's.

The responsibility for NAFTA was clearly shared by both Democrats
and Republicans. Reagan was famous for his prediction that
countries that trade with each other have seldom fought wars. Yes,
even the great Conservative supported Free Trade Pacts. The
Republican Party has always been bigger supporters of such pacts.

What, RHF, no URLs to support your insanity this time? That clearly
says something..
What about your insanity, PhDufus?

After all, any 'tard boy who'd lie about having a PhD certainly must
have a screw or two loose.

You want insanity, this is insanity.

Obama's Radicalism Is Killing the Dow

By MICHAEL J. BOSKIN

"It's hard not to see the continued sell-off on Wall Street and the
growing fear on Main Street as a product, at least in part, of the
realization that our new president's policies are designed to radically
re-engineer the market-based U.S. economy, not just mitigate the
recession and financial crisis.

The illusion that Barack Obama will lead from the economic center has
quickly come to an end. Instead of combining the best policies of past
Democratic presidents -- John Kennedy on taxes, Bill Clinton on welfare
reform and a balanced budget, for instance -- President Obama is
returning to Jimmy Carter's higher taxes and Mr. Clinton's draconian
defense drawdown."

Go read the rest of it he
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123629969453946717.html

The obomination is looking more like Carter II everyday.


Failed capitalism and its supporters did Wall Street in NOT Barack
Obama. He has the unfortunate job of picking up the pieces.

The stock market disagrees with you in strongest possible terms. It
didn't like Jimmy's policies and it doesn't think the obomination's
policies are any better.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

A URL Proving that RHF is a Historical Revisionist
 

On Mar 6, 5:00�pm, "~ RHF" wrote:


Yes History Will Show Clinton Was At The Very End
Responsible for the NAFTA Treaty Becoming LAW [. ]

mwb - the facts are the facts ~ RHF

While Clinton signed it into law, NAFTA was Reagan's dream. Please
note that the following URL is from the ultra-conservative Heritage
Foundation:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/tra...edom/EM371.cfm

Proof of RHF's revisionist tendencies....

A URL Proving that RHF is a Historical Revisionist
 

Michael W. Bryant, the mentally ill dufus who once laid claim to a PhD, wrote:

On Mar 6, 5:00�pm, "~ RHF" wrote:


Yes History Will Show Clinton Was At The Very End
Responsible for the NAFTA Treaty Becoming LAW [. ]

mwb - the facts are the facts ~ RHF

While Clinton signed it into law, NAFTA was Reagan's dream. Please
note that the following URL is from the ultra-conservative Heritage
Foundation:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/tra...edom/EM371.cfm

Proof of RHF's revisionist tendencies....

So what's your excuse, PhDufus?

dxAce
Michigan
USA

And, as always, don't let your children attend Louisville Technical Institute.
They've hired at least one dufus who once claimed to have a PhD, and who knows,
there may be more dufi there.

A URL Proving that RHF is a Historical Revisionist
 

Hitler HO Obama's girlfriend, Vera Baker.When Michelle Party Party Party
Obama found out Hitler HO Obama (T-Q-F-U) and Vera Baker were screwing
(Literally) around, Michelle Party Party Party Obama had Vera Baker sent
completely out of America, to Martinique.

FUBO
cuhulin

A URL Proving that RHF is a Historical Revisionist