--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <no_re...@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" <shempmcgurk@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" <shempmcgurk@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" > > > steve.sundur@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" <shempmcgurk@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > "As an American I am not so shocked that Obama was given the > > > Nobel > > > > > Peace > > > > > > > > Prize without any accomplishments to his name, but that > > > America > > > > > gave him the > > > > > > > > White House based on: > > > > > > > > the same credentials." > > > > > > > > > > Shemp, take away health care for a moment. What is it you find to be > > > so > > > > > objectionable about Obama's presidency so far? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pretty much the same thing I found objectionable about Bush: the > > > deficit. > > > > > > > > Two years ago with about $10 trillion in National Debt, the United > > > States paid about $230 billion in interest on its National Debt. That > > > represents about $700 per person per year.> > > > > > > That's peanuts. Am I right you are therefore against the Bush tax cuts > > > for the rich because of this scenario? That would have made this figure > > > smaller per person, and the rich, who are experts at avoiding taxes by > > > all legal means, would hardly notice any significant difference if those > > > tax cuts were repealled. Problem solved, debt paid. > > > > > > Bush left us with a national debt of 11.3 trillion dollars, plus he hid > > > the cost of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. > > > > > > The national debt clock today shows 12.5 trillion, and Obama had the war > > > costs put on the books properly. > > > > > > So what's your point again Shemp? I don't get it. > > > > > > OffWorld > > > > > > > > > Off, it's time for you to come clean on your false representations on Ron > > Paul. > > > > You never responded to my previous posts on this subject. > > > > Time for you to come clean to me and everyone here. You can't keep > > misrepresenting yourself without being called on it. > > > > I responded to your questionso on this many times, You never read the > responses, because you do not like facts. Go back and find the responses > yourself. I am not answering this AGAIN! > > OffWolrd >
No, you didn't. Your response to post #243274, in which I demonstrated to you that Ron Paul's stance on embryonic stem cell research was the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of what you represented it to be, didn't address anything. And where was your respone to post #243273 in which I demonstrated to you that Ron Paul's position on two of today's biggest issues -- global warming and abortion -- are completely opposite of what you believe?
