Now, one more time, so that your addled brain might understand...what I said (this would be the third time now), is that President Bush HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO SHRINK THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT AND REDUCE THE BURDEN ON THE TAXPAYER, which hopefully will bring capital back into the markets. All of your BS about Clinton and Rubin covers HOW IT HAPPENED. I'm trying to cover HOW WE'RE GOING TO GET PAST IT. I hope you would agree that GW Bush has accepted the role of the leader of this country. He was handed a crappy economy...you might notice I didn't disagree with that. I'm still waiting for what he's going to do to fix it. Before you go crowing about the tax cut and blah blah blah, THE BUDGET IS THE BIGGEST EVER. IT'S TOO BIG, AND GOVERNMENT IS TOO INTRUSIVE IN OUR LIVES AND OUR BUSINESSES.
Your comments about the stock market are insulting. What if $750,000 is 10% of my portfolio? Is it okay then? Tell you what, though. I think I've done okay up until now without your sage advice, so I think I'll just keep going the way I am. ONE MORE TIME (this would be number 4): BUSH SHOULD BE LEADING ON THE ECONOMY. That's what I hired him for.
And I'm still real confused about the whole NAZI thing. I never called you a Nazi, nor did I imply it. But whatever. Honestly I'd rather debate someone who sticks to the facts rather than innuendo and name calling, which is what passes for debate with Bushbots.
And I certainly have no idea what you're talking about with your Jesus Christ comment. Maybe you should direct your worship to the Lord instead of GW Bush. Man, you are nuts.
Please, go debate someone else. Try someone a little closer to your level, like the family pet.
PS = My abject stupidity and lack of understanding of the financial markets allowed me to retire three years ago when I was 36. Which garbage truck do you work off the back of (or let me guess, you're a public employee)?
