{OT} What's GWB?

From another newsgroup:


"Bush is not a Conservative because
he lacks the traditional Conservative values: small, unobtrusive
government, fiscal responsibility (no deficit spending, balanced
budgets, lower taxes), strong military, strong belief in individual
rights, reluctance to change things, etc. Not that he's a Liberal
either. He's something else, something sinister masquerading as a
Conservative. The quicker he and his ilk are gone, the better."

In article <4ns2i25sqlbascab2mla1gr1ceft091h3r@4ax.com>,
Stuart Krivis <jd@mongo.krivis.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> From another newsgroup:
>
>
> "Bush is not a Conservative because
> he lacks the traditional Conservative values: small, unobtrusive
> government, fiscal responsibility (no deficit spending, balanced
> budgets, lower taxes), strong military, strong belief in individual
> rights, reluctance to change things, etc. Not that he's a Liberal
> either. He's something else, something sinister masquerading as a
> Conservative. The quicker he and his ilk are gone, the better."[/color]

I'm gonna vote again for him in 08. Go GWB!! A great president, one of
the best in the last 100 years.
--

Stuart Krivis, 10/2/2006,4:15:39 PM, wrote:
[color=blue]
> From another newsgroup:[/color]

What other newsgroup? I'd like to know the source of this opinion.

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 21:34:55 GMT, dbu <howardyno@jackass.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>In article <4ns2i25sqlbascab2mla1gr1ceft091h3r@4ax.com>,
> Stuart Krivis <jd@mongo.krivis.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> From another newsgroup:
>>
>>
>> "Bush is not a Conservative because
>> he lacks the traditional Conservative values: small, unobtrusive
>> government, fiscal responsibility (no deficit spending, balanced
>> budgets, lower taxes), strong military, strong belief in individual
>> rights, reluctance to change things, etc. Not that he's a Liberal
>> either. He's something else, something sinister masquerading as a
>> Conservative. The quicker he and his ilk are gone, the better."[/color]
>
>I'm gonna vote again for him in 08. Go GWB!! A great president, one of
>the best in the last 100 years.[/color]



As courtesy to the rest of the group - perhaps you were looking for on
of the following news groups to post all your off topic stuff:

alt.radio.talk.dr-laura[color=blue]
>[/color]
alt.stupid.morons
alt.stupid.idiots
alt.stupid.signature.flame.flame.flame[color=blue]
>[/color]
alt.off-topic[color=blue]
>[/color]
In any case your "OT" rants are not appreciated here.[color=blue]
>[/color]

"Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength."

In article <5n23i2d9dkpof1i70ofi341j7ora6ohkah@4ax.com>,
A Troll <t555hssdrw@nothingon.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 21:34:55 GMT, dbu <howardyno@jackass.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
> >In article <4ns2i25sqlbascab2mla1gr1ceft091h3r@4ax.com>,
> > Stuart Krivis <jd@mongo.krivis.com> wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> >> From another newsgroup:
> >>
> >>
> >> "Bush is not a Conservative because
> >> he lacks the traditional Conservative values: small, unobtrusive
> >> government, fiscal responsibility (no deficit spending, balanced
> >> budgets, lower taxes), strong military, strong belief in individual
> >> rights, reluctance to change things, etc. Not that he's a Liberal
> >> either. He's something else, something sinister masquerading as a
> >> Conservative. The quicker he and his ilk are gone, the better."[/color]
> >
> >I'm gonna vote again for him in 08. Go GWB!! A great president, one of
> >the best in the last 100 years.[/color]
>
>
>
> As courtesy to the rest of the group - perhaps you were looking for on
> of the following news groups to post all your off topic stuff:
>
> alt.radio.talk.dr-laura[color=green]
> >[/color]
> alt.stupid.morons
> alt.stupid.idiots
> alt.stupid.signature.flame.flame.flame[color=green]
> >[/color]
> alt.off-topic[color=green]
> >[/color]
> In any case your "OT" rants are not appreciated here.[color=green]
> >[/color]
>
> "Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength."[/color]

I just killfiled you, how does that grab ya?
--

dbu wrote:[color=blue]
> In article <4ns2i25sqlbascab2mla1gr1ceft091h3r@4ax.com>,
> Stuart Krivis <jd@mongo.krivis.com> wrote:
>
>[color=green]
>>From another newsgroup:
>>
>>
>>"Bush is not a Conservative because
>>he lacks the traditional Conservative values: small, unobtrusive
>>government, fiscal responsibility (no deficit spending, balanced
>>budgets, lower taxes), strong military, strong belief in individual
>>rights, reluctance to change things, etc. Not that he's a Liberal
>>either. He's something else, something sinister masquerading as a
>>Conservative. The quicker he and his ilk are gone, the better."[/color]
>
>
> I'm gonna vote again for him in 08. Go GWB!! A great president, one of
> the best in the last 100 years.[/color]
Thank goodness that can't happen.

In article <vUgUg.8405$vJ2.2446@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
Carroll Boardway <mcboard@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
> dbu wrote:[color=green]
> > In article <4ns2i25sqlbascab2mla1gr1ceft091h3r@4ax.com>,
> > Stuart Krivis <jd@mongo.krivis.com> wrote:
> >
> >[color=darkred]
> >>From another newsgroup:
> >>
> >>
> >>"Bush is not a Conservative because
> >>he lacks the traditional Conservative values: small, unobtrusive
> >>government, fiscal responsibility (no deficit spending, balanced
> >>budgets, lower taxes), strong military, strong belief in individual
> >>rights, reluctance to change things, etc. Not that he's a Liberal
> >>either. He's something else, something sinister masquerading as a
> >>Conservative. The quicker he and his ilk are gone, the better."[/color]
> >
> >
> > I'm gonna vote again for him in 08. Go GWB!! A great president, one of
> > the best in the last 100 years.[/color]
> Thank goodness that can't happen.[/color]

Why are the dimmies still thinking he will?
--

"dbu" <howardyno@jackass.com> wrote in message
news:howardyno-48C4FA.18145402102006@news-rdr-02.rdc-kc.rr.com...[color=blue]
> In article <vUgUg.8405$vJ2.2446@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
> Carroll Boardway <mcboard@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> dbu wrote:[color=darkred]
>> > In article <4ns2i25sqlbascab2mla1gr1ceft091h3r@4ax.com>,
>> > Stuart Krivis <jd@mongo.krivis.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>From another newsgroup:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>"Bush is not a Conservative because
>> >>he lacks the traditional Conservative values: small, unobtrusive
>> >>government, fiscal responsibility (no deficit spending, balanced
>> >>budgets, lower taxes), strong military, strong belief in individual
>> >>rights, reluctance to change things, etc. Not that he's a Liberal
>> >>either. He's something else, something sinister masquerading as a
>> >>Conservative. The quicker he and his ilk are gone, the better."
>> >
>> >
>> > I'm gonna vote again for him in 08. Go GWB!! A great president, one
>> > of
>> > the best in the last 100 years.[/color]
>> Thank goodness that can't happen.[/color]
>
> Why are the dimmies still thinking he will?
> --
>[/color]

They keep wasting their efforts on hating Bush. Bush can't run again.
Period. Please note the 22d Amendment. Although they would love it if
Slick Willie would run for a third term. . .

Charles of Schaumburg

Carroll Boardway wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> I'm gonna vote again for him in 08. Go GWB!! A great president, one of
>> the best in the last 100 years.[/color]
> Thank goodness that can't happen.[/color]

Why do you say so? As far as I know he's now able to re-write
your constitution as he pleases.

[url]http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2006/Oct-02-1.html[/url]

That said, now they can also consider non-allegiance to Bush
as terrorism. Sounds like Hitlers 'Enabling act' of 1933.


--
// Janne

In article <TkwUg.25423$rY5.8722@reader1.news.jippii.net>,
Janne Karhunen <Janne.Karhunen@gmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Carroll Boardway wrote:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> I'm gonna vote again for him in 08. Go GWB!! A great president, one of
> >> the best in the last 100 years.[/color]
> > Thank goodness that can't happen.[/color]
>
> Why do you say so? As far as I know he's now able to re-write
> your constitution as he pleases.
>
> [url]http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2006/Oct-02-1.html[/url]
>
> That said, now they can also consider non-allegiance to Bush
> as terrorism. Sounds like Hitlers 'Enabling act' of 1933.[/color]

More political hay into the silo, hitler, bush ect ect ect. Horses and
bulls eat it and it's called B.S. and H.S., comes out the other end to
renew the earth and then the whole process starts all over again. It's
election time, LOL!!
--

"dbu" <howardyno@jackass.com> wrote in message
news:howardyno-95A9BA.16360002102006@news-rdr-02.rdc-kc.rr.com...[color=blue]
> In article <4ns2i25sqlbascab2mla1gr1ceft091h3r@4ax.com>,
> Stuart Krivis <jd@mongo.krivis.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> From another newsgroup:
>>
>>
>> "Bush is not a Conservative because
>> he lacks the traditional Conservative values: small, unobtrusive
>> government, fiscal responsibility (no deficit spending, balanced
>> budgets, lower taxes), strong military, strong belief in individual
>> rights, reluctance to change things, etc. Not that he's a Liberal
>> either. He's something else, something sinister masquerading as a
>> Conservative. The quicker he and his ilk are gone, the better."[/color]
>
> I'm gonna vote again for him in 08. Go GWB!! A great president, one of
> the best in the last 100 years.[/color]

Quite right, a close second to Chester A. Arthur or Warren Harding. Except
they didn't bankrupt the nation or kill thousands of Americans and Iraqis.
Or strip any liberties from loyal Americans, or paint loyal Americans as
terrorist-sympathizers. Quite a guy.

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 21:34:55 GMT, dbu <howardyno@jackass.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>In article <4ns2i25sqlbascab2mla1gr1ceft091h3r@4ax.com>,
> Stuart Krivis <jd@mongo.krivis.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> From another newsgroup:
>>
>>
>> "Bush is not a Conservative because
>> he lacks the traditional Conservative values: small, unobtrusive
>> government, fiscal responsibility (no deficit spending, balanced
>> budgets, lower taxes), strong military, strong belief in individual
>> rights, reluctance to change things, etc. Not that he's a Liberal
>> either. He's something else, something sinister masquerading as a
>> Conservative. The quicker he and his ilk are gone, the better."[/color]
>
>I'm gonna vote again for him in 08. Go GWB!! A great president, one of
>the best in the last 100 years.[/color]

Interestingly enough, the guy who I quoted is far more conservative
than you are, and is just amazingly (violently, vehemently) opposed to
the Clintons. He's like the Republican's Republican, or more
accurately, what Republicans used to be.

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 21:57:10 GMT, A Troll <t555hssdrw@nothingon.net>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 21:34:55 GMT, dbu <howardyno@jackass.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>In article <4ns2i25sqlbascab2mla1gr1ceft091h3r@4ax.com>,
>> Stuart Krivis <jd@mongo.krivis.com> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> From another newsgroup:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Bush is not a Conservative because
>>> he lacks the traditional Conservative values: small, unobtrusive
>>> government, fiscal responsibility (no deficit spending, balanced
>>> budgets, lower taxes), strong military, strong belief in individual
>>> rights, reluctance to change things, etc. Not that he's a Liberal
>>> either. He's something else, something sinister masquerading as a
>>> Conservative. The quicker he and his ilk are gone, the better."[/color]
>>
>>I'm gonna vote again for him in 08. Go GWB!! A great president, one of
>>the best in the last 100 years.[/color]
>
>
>
>As courtesy to the rest of the group - perhaps you were looking for on
>of the following news groups to post all your off topic stuff:[/color]

No, not at all.

[color=blue]
>In any case your "OT" rants are not appreciated here.[/color]

Well, not by you anyway, but you're just a stupid troll.

I could post an OT article detailing your likely ancestry. Would that
help?

dbu the benevolent one wrote:
[color=blue]
> More political hay into the silo, hitler, bush ect ect ect. Horses and
> bulls eat it and it's called B.S. and H.S., comes out the other end to
> renew the earth and then the whole process starts all over again. It's
> election time, LOL!![/color]

Except that history has proven that once powers are given
they are also used.


--
// Janne

On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 17:43:08 -0400, "badgolferman"
<REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Stuart Krivis, 10/2/2006,4:15:39 PM, wrote:
>[color=green]
>> From another newsgroup:[/color]
>
>What other newsgroup? I'd like to know the source of this opinion.[/color]

comp.sys.mac.advocacy

I'm not sure exactly what article it was, but it was recent and the
poster was George Graves.