Econ101 said:
agman said:
I made the statement following the ruling on the Pickett case. When was that ruling? I quess you can't even get that correct. Par for someone with as little knowledge as you. :lol:
Agman, the fact that we have judges appointed by a president who is looting the country for himself and his buddies is the reason for that decision. GW does not care about laws and he has a bunch of republican lackeys that are protecting him now. If they don't turn around fast they may find themselves in a minority for many, many, years. It has happened before.
The Pickett decision didn't show Pickett was incorrect, it showed that now we have an elitist judicial system that doesn't mind following the president over the law. It is serious.
The recent poor polls may not all be related to Iraq. They may be related to issues so deep that all of your cronies in the USDA and the land grants are in trouble. I hope industry has enough positions for them, otherwise the unemployment rate may go up.
Your anti-Bush rhetoric borders really close to a demented obsession!
Lets wait, maybe five years after Pres. Bush is out of office and compare just who enriched himself the most as a result of the presidency, Pres. Bush, or Pres. Clinton.
Do y;ou hate all who have wealth to the degree you appear to hate this president?
Did you assume the guilt of every Democrat the way you do every Republican who is ACCUSED (as opposed to actual charges and conviction) with any supposed crime or lapse of propriety?
You do continue to amaze us with the depth of your vitriol (one definition is "injurious writing")
MRJ.
MRJ