NFB Neighbors house robbed today

[Jeff_in_Atl]

Man I'm hopping mad. I took the day off to go to the dentist and the house across the street was robbed while I was gone. It looks like all they stole was a big screen TV. I say all because they didn't take the stereo. They ransacked the house though. Worst part is it was their parents house and they didn't have renters insurance. Man I would have loved to give the Ruger Mini 14 a workout. Or any of my other buddies like Smith and Wesson and Beretta.....

These people are such scum they won't get a job. They would rather steel from you. Grrrrrr What has the world become where some people are so screwed up they think Saddam is a good guy and George Bush is a villain. What the he** kind of logic is that. Let the guy who had been arrested 13 times go even after he violated parole so he can go out and kill a 12 year old girl. Man these people make me sick. OJ gets off. foreigners are breaking our laws every day crossing the border and nobody even Bush wants to stop them. They want to make law breakers legal. And the Mayer of California is giving out marriage license to gay couples breaking California law because he doesn't agree with it. Does that mean I can drive 120 mph on a highway because I don't agree with it. And Kerry wants to turn over the sovereignty of this nation over to the UN? The people would wouldn't enforce 17 resolutions for 12 years. I'm ready to start a new colony on Mars.

Sorry for my rant.

[TraceZ]

Re: NFB Neighbors house robbed today

Originally posted by Jeff 95 Z28
And Kerry wants to turn over the sovereignty of this nation over to the UN?

Not to defend him, I would never vote for him....
But.. He said that a *long* time ago. He was just a kid. I doubt he'd maintain that as his current belief. But then again, you never know. Even if elected he could never pass anything like that. The republican majoritys would shove it right back up his rearend.

One thing that really gets me hot is whaen all these liberals say they want to repeal the Bush tax cuts.

What do they think is causing our huge economic growth?
If rich people create our jobs, why do they want to tax them to death? They'll just stop hiring, or move overseas. Taxing the crap out of the rich will kill our economy.

As it is, about 10% of Americans pay 90% of the taxes.
ask yourself this... when was the last time you saw a poor person hire a dozen new employees?

We need rich people to prosper so they can expand their business and hire more, pay better, etc.

[DJ Taso]

I voted for Gore.

[Blazer]

I vote for Tracy next time we vote

[AmericanZ28]

Huge Economic growth? Only after one of the biggest falls! We're still in the recovery process of the economic decline thanks to Bush. You want to talk about a great economy, Clinton! Now theres an economy to brag about, and Gore would have carried the same flag. Like Taso, I voted for Gore too! Have you guys ever seen the movie, "Biodome?" Theres a scene in that movie where they joke about how everyone had a job.....

[Jeff_in_Atl]

I know I shouldn't do this but I will blame it on the devil. LOL

A few years ago I made a very bad decision voting for a person who at the time I didn't know anything about. She turned out to be a crook. I made the decision that the next time I go into the voting booth, I wouldn't do it again. So I started reading and learning what was going on in the world. Now I'm not trying to pick on anyone here and I'm going to try and make the politically correct.

First let me say that I am not a Democrat or a Republican. I am an independent. I choose who I think will be the best candidate for the job based on several factors not the least of which is telling the truth and not talking out of both sides of their mouth depending on who they are speaking too. Just for some fun, go take this short test. I was surprised where I fit in after I took it. Be honest. You can go back and take it as many times as you want. http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

OK now down to the facts. (not to pick on you "AmericanZ28") Like I said, I want the facts, you decide what you want to do with them.

"Huge Economic growth? Only after one of the biggest falls! We're still in the recovery process of the economic decline thanks to Bush. You want to talk about a great economy, Clinton! Now theres an economy to brag about, and Gore would have carried the same flag. Like Taso, I voted for Gore too!"

The economic growth of the 90's was due to the growth of the dot coms not Clinton. The internet became a huge tool to be able to market and sell goods to more people than any one person could reach before. People saw this potential growth market and started investing in them hoping for a huge return. Well what happened is there weren't enough people to buy all of the products and these companies went out of business. The bust of the dot com actually started in 1999. Economist put the start of the recession as January 2000 which is 10 months before Bush was elected and a full year before he took office. To be honest, it didn't matter who was in the white house during the 90's. The economy grew because of the internet not because of Clinton. If I were president it would have grown. To be honest, the president doesn't have very many levers to push or pull to make the economy grow or decline. About all they can do is tax cuts or increases. The stock market had already began to fall before Bush was sworn in. The stock market continued to fall at the same rate as it was while Clinton was in office. It didn't tank until after 9-11-01. To be honest again, it would have tanked no matter who was in office, me, you, Bush or Gore. The stock marker did not begin to climb again until Bush pushed through the tax cuts. Since then, the DOW is up over 25% and NASDAQ is up over 50%. Now I do believe that the markets would have gone up without the tax cuts because I think they went down too far, but I think the tax cuts sped up the increase.

BTW some correct figures for the people who say that we have "lost" jobs under the Bush administration. According to the department of labor, there was an increase of almost 800,000 jobs in the United States from Jan 2001 (When Bush was sworn in) to Jan 2002. The problem is during that same time period, the working population grew by almost 5,000,000 people. Therefore the unemployment went up. The economy was growing despite the stock market decline but it did not grow enough to keep up with the number of people entering the job market. This is a case of it depends on how you present the statistics as to the message that comes across. They call it "spinning".

Have you guys ever seen the movie, "Biodome?" Theres a scene in that movie where they joke about how everyone had a job.....

I have not heard of that movie. The Soviet Union had a system that promised everybody would have a job. For example, if you tried to buy a pair of pants, you looked on the shelf and found a pair you liked. Now they don't stock shelves there for you just to pick up a pair and go buy them at a register. You had to take them to a person who takes the information, give that to a person to go get a pair out of stock, then you took the ticket to the register to pay for them, then you took the paid for ticket to get your pants. Now here's the good part, those pants now cost $100 because you had to pay for all of those people to handle getting them. Hey but there was no unemployment in Russia.

I had the same kind of situation when I went to get my concealed weapons permit. I had to go to the court house and fill out a form. It cost $18. I then had to take that form to the police department to get fingerprinted and turn in that form. It cost $24 plus $5 for finger printing. Funny thing is, the police department was also the permits office for everything like liquor licenses and such. Why did I have to go to the court house? Why couldn't I fill that form out at the permits office? The answer is that gave them another $18 to hire that person to do the first form and to pay for a cashier to take that money. That is called a socialist government. A jobs program run by the government.

Good thing this thread says NFB

[TraceZ]

Originally posted by Jeff 95 Z28
The economic growth of the 90's was due to the growth of the dot coms not Clinton. The internet became a huge tool to be able to market and sell goods to more people than any one person could reach before. People saw this potential growth market and started investing in them hoping for a huge return. Well what happened is there weren't enough people to buy all of the products and these companies went out of business. The bust of the dot com actually started in 1999. Economist put the start of the recession as January 2000 which is 10 months before Bush was elected and a full year before he took office. To be honest, it didn't matter who was in the white house during the 90's. The economy grew because of the internet not because of Clinton. If I were president it would have grown. To be honest, the president doesn't have very many levers to push or pull to make the economy grow or decline. About all they can do is tax cuts or increases. The stock market had already began to fall before Bush was sworn in. The stock market continued to fall at the same rate as it was while Clinton was in office. It didn't tank until after 9-11-01. To be honest again, it would have tanked no matter who was in office, me, you, Bush or Gore. The stock marker did not begin to climb again until Bush pushed through the tax cuts. Since then, the DOW is up over 25% and NASDAQ is up over 50%. Now I do believe that the markets would have gone up without the tax cuts because I think they went down too far, but I think the tax cuts sped up the increase.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

[Jeff_in_Atl]

"You took the words right out of my mouth."

I bet you're hungry now. That was a lot of words to take out.

[TraceZ]

Originally posted by Jeff 95 Z28
"You took the words right out of my mouth."

I bet you're hungry now. That was a lot of words to take out.

Yup. I need a cheeseburger now!! YUMMIE

[N20LT4Bird]

Politics....dangerous topic. Sounds good. I am with you so far Jeff.

All I have to say is that if we dont want our good works and lost lives (on the war on terror) to go down the tubes we need to keep Bush in office. He's a man of integrity who wants to put an end to terrorism no matter what the political consequences. It really bothers me to think that some of the liberals of this country actually think that it was a mistake to defend freedom in Iraq. "Ohhhhh he didnt have weapons of mass destuction wahh wahh!" Do you really think that if he didnt have them already, he wasnt building them, or plotting to use them against the U.S., or aiding terrorist that are. He was the next Adolf Hitler. The last time we let another country do what they wanted with a madman as dictator, they exterminated 6,000,000 Jews. We just dont learn.

I agree with Jeff. What is this world coming to? When people defend people like Saddam Hussein, murderers walk free becasue they have the $$$, and Homosexuals are allowed to destroy the sanctity of marriage because they want special rights. Help!!!

[Ruz]

The issue of WMD is tricky. I don't think the gereral population who is using this issue against Bush is mad that they aren't there...they are mad because Bush went on television and told everyone that without a doubt he had them and is planning to use them. Now after not finding any, he has egg on his face and his credibility is shot. Who can believe anything he says when his answer if he is wrong can always be that he just went from his intelligence information? Just a bad situation overall.

About our economy, everyone should have to read a book called "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand. Very interesting book...

Ruz

[Jeff_in_Atl]

"The issue of WMD is tricky. I don't think the gereral population who is using this issue against Bush is mad that they aren't there...they are mad because Bush went on television and told everyone that without a doubt he had them and is planning to use them. Now after not finding any, he has egg on his face and his credibility is shot. Who can believe anything he says when his answer if he is wrong can always be that he just went from his intelligence information? Just a bad situation overall."

It is tricky. I agree that the majority thinks that liberating Iraq was a good thing to do. If you don't and you think that Kosovo was, you're a hypocrite. Saddam killed 10 times more people than Milosevic. Heck Clinton didn't even go to the UN over Kosovo. He went to NATO. I think both were the right thing to do.

For the record, Bush did go on TV and say that Saddam had them, he did not say he was going to use them. He said he could use them and that they could be given to terrorist to use. He did not say there was an eminent threat to the US. He did say that they could be used against us. He said there are ties between Saddam and Al Quada. That has been proven Heck they captured a whole Al Quada camp in North Eastern Iraq. They did find Rison by the gallons which is a chemical weapon but it is not one of the ones that was mentioned by Bush or Colin so it was aired too much. I don't understand why it wasn't. They did find a bunch of equipment to make WMDs. Some could be used to make fertilizer but some could not. We knew he had WMDs because he used them on more than one occasion. The problem is Colin said we know he has them and we know where they are. Well where are they? We know that when the inspectors got to a site to inspect, they spotted Iraqis going out the back door with trucks. On one occasion the UN inspectors took off chasing them. The Iraqi's started shooting at them with machine guns. Now it doesn't take much to figure out they were doing something they weren't supposed to be doing and trying to hide it. Here is another interesting fact. We found 25 Russian MIG25s buried in the desert. It took 4 months to find 25 planes. How long would it take to find a 55 gallon drum buried in the desert? UN resolution 687 put the burden of proof on Saddam to prove that he got rid of the WMDs. It was not the job of the UN to play hide and seek with Saddam. If he had them and got rid of them, he was in violation of UN resolution 687 in not proving what he did with them. BTW according to the armistice Iraq signed in 1991, they had 15 days to get rid of and tell the UN how they got rid of them. He was over 12 years late. Another thing to keep in mind, Clinton, Gore, Kennedy, Kerry, Dean, all have made statements saying that they new Saddam had WMDs. The odd thing is the only one of them who has come out saying that we should have gone in and deposed Saddam is Bill Clinton. I just don't understand how anybody can vote for the other 3 after them denying what they previously said. Keep in mind most of Bush's intelligence came from the Clinton administration and if Bush is wrong, so was Clinton, Gore, Kennedy, Kerry, Dean. Even Bill Clinton said he is surprised we haven't found any big stock piles of bad stuff. So since we know he had them and he did not prove anything about getting rid of them, where did they go? Are they buried in the desert? Are they in Syria? I have no idea. Obviously neither does our intelligence. I just hope they are not where a terrorist can get a hold of them. You know I heard a while back that they found a tanker truck buried in the desert but I never heard what if anything was in it. Anybody remember that?

[fastTa]

After the Super Bowl was over...

George W. Bush called the Patriots and complemented them on a great game.

Al Gore called the Panthers and said he thought they were robbed.

Bill Clinton called Janet Jackson.

[Bond Hawk]

Here are some facts the bleeding heart liberals seem to always overlook.

The following appeared in the Durham, NC local paper as a letter to the
editor. This will help to put things in their proper perspective:

Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They
complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush
was the worst president in U.S. history.

Let's clear up one point: We didn't start the war on terror. Try to
remember, it was started by terrorists on 9/11.

Historical Facts

FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did.
From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per
year.

Truman finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never
attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an ! average of
18,333 per year.

John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never
attacked us. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975,
58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia
never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter
three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on
multiple occasions.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has
liberate two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put
nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a
shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own
people. We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year. Bush did
all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.

Bush worst president in history?

[Jeff_in_Atl]

Hey "Bond Hawk". I see this thread got you so worked up you had to join just to post a comment. LOL Whatever it takes. Welcome aboard.