<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Democrats Should Follow Donna Brazile&#8217;s Advice</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/04/13/democrats-2/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/04/13/democrats-2/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Mar 2009 18:49:09 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jim R</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/04/13/democrats-2/comment-page-2/#comment-37520</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim R</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 Apr 2005 14:56:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/04/13/democrats/#comment-37520</guid>
		<description>&quot;Sounding religious or being â€œborn againâ€ isnâ€™t enough. I want a politician who appreciates my values and whose actions show that he respects them.&quot;

Right on Evon. R_E_S_P_E_C_T. Is it so hard to understand for smart adult people. Well yes, if you&#039;re smart and adult but really don&#039;t respect religion like most of the Democratic Party leadership. 


</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Sounding religious or being â€œborn againâ€ isnâ€™t enough. I want a politician who appreciates my values and whose actions show that he respects them.&#8221;</p>
<p>Right on Evon. R_E_S_P_E_C_T. Is it so hard to understand for smart adult people. Well yes, if you&#8217;re smart and adult but really don&#8217;t respect religion like most of the Democratic Party leadership.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/04/13/democrats-2/comment-page-2/#comment-37302</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Apr 2005 22:12:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/04/13/democrats/#comment-37302</guid>
		<description>SCSI, you&#039;re right.  It used to be 2/3 as opposed to 60%.  I wonder why ;)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>SCSI, you&#8217;re right.  It used to be 2/3 as opposed to 60%.  I wonder why <img src='http://lashawnbarber.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SCSIwuzzy</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/04/13/democrats-2/comment-page-2/#comment-37292</link>
		<dc:creator>SCSIwuzzy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Apr 2005 20:37:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/04/13/democrats/#comment-37292</guid>
		<description>Shayne,
You don&#039;t remember a time republicans weren&#039;t in charge?  It hasn&#039;t been very long, you do know?
http://www.factcheck.org/article317.html
Also, in 1975 it was the democrats who lowered the filibuster level from 66 to 60 votes.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Shayne,<br />
You don&#8217;t remember a time republicans weren&#8217;t in charge?  It hasn&#8217;t been very long, you do know?<br />
<a href="http://www.factcheck.org/article317.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.factcheck.org/article317.html</a><br />
Also, in 1975 it was the democrats who lowered the filibuster level from 66 to 60 votes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Evon Bachaus</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/04/13/democrats-2/comment-page-2/#comment-37285</link>
		<dc:creator>Evon Bachaus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Apr 2005 18:16:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/04/13/democrats/#comment-37285</guid>
		<description>Stan,
 
My complaint about your comments is that they are often longwinded and it is often difficult to figure out the point you are trying to make.  
 
I was too brief on one of my points.
 
When I said: 
 
&quot;Be careful about trying to pander to the &quot;faith and values&quot; vote...   During the debates, John Kerry&#039;s statement about how he had faith, he just didn&#039;t wear it on his sleeve sounded just like the line I used to get from a lot of basically pagan guys who never went to church and didn&#039;t know Genesis from Revelation.  There was a day when a politician could sound religious by just quoting a few Bible verses and praising his religious mama.  Those days are gone.&quot; 
 
I was speaking to your point.  (I think)

Sounding religious or being &quot;born again&quot; isn&#039;t enough.  I want a politician who appreciates my values and whose actions show that he respects them.
 
I originally was for John &quot;I love to appear before TV cameras and play Maverick&quot; McCain in the primaries in 2000.  To my knowledge he never pretended to be born again.  My first vote for President was for Barry Goldwater a Episcopalian/Jewish candidate who also didn&#039;t pretend to be born again. [Ever wonder why he carried the &quot;Bible Belt&quot; if Christians are so hung up on &quot;born again&quot; candidates?] Although Richard Nixon had, at different times, two different &quot;conversion stories&quot; in Decision Magazine, his campaign  didn&#039;t seem to present him as a particularly religious candidate.  I voted for him because I thought he would be a better President.  I voted for Jimmy Carter over Gerald Ford mainly because I was angry about the pardon.  I voted for Mondale because I wanted him to carry my state, Minnesota.  I was sure Reagan was going to be elected.  
 
You may have voted for people just because they claimed to be &quot;born again.&quot; I never have and I don&#039;t know anyone else that has.
 
When confessing, it is usually best to confess just for yourself and not project your motives and mistakes on other people.

George Bush was and still is the better choice for America in foreign relations, taxes, social security reform, pro-life issues, and a number of others.  John Kerry lacked character and a did not tell us clearly what his vision was.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Stan,</p>
<p>My complaint about your comments is that they are often longwinded and it is often difficult to figure out the point you are trying to make.  </p>
<p>I was too brief on one of my points.</p>
<p>When I said: </p>
<p>&#8220;Be careful about trying to pander to the &#8220;faith and values&#8221; vote&#8230;   During the debates, John Kerry&#8217;s statement about how he had faith, he just didn&#8217;t wear it on his sleeve sounded just like the line I used to get from a lot of basically pagan guys who never went to church and didn&#8217;t know Genesis from Revelation.  There was a day when a politician could sound religious by just quoting a few Bible verses and praising his religious mama.  Those days are gone.&#8221; </p>
<p>I was speaking to your point.  (I think)</p>
<p>Sounding religious or being &#8220;born again&#8221; isn&#8217;t enough.  I want a politician who appreciates my values and whose actions show that he respects them.</p>
<p>I originally was for John &#8220;I love to appear before TV cameras and play Maverick&#8221; McCain in the primaries in 2000.  To my knowledge he never pretended to be born again.  My first vote for President was for Barry Goldwater a Episcopalian/Jewish candidate who also didn&#8217;t pretend to be born again. [Ever wonder why he carried the "Bible Belt" if Christians are so hung up on "born again" candidates?] Although Richard Nixon had, at different times, two different &#8220;conversion stories&#8221; in Decision Magazine, his campaign  didn&#8217;t seem to present him as a particularly religious candidate.  I voted for him because I thought he would be a better President.  I voted for Jimmy Carter over Gerald Ford mainly because I was angry about the pardon.  I voted for Mondale because I wanted him to carry my state, Minnesota.  I was sure Reagan was going to be elected.  </p>
<p>You may have voted for people just because they claimed to be &#8220;born again.&#8221; I never have and I don&#8217;t know anyone else that has.</p>
<p>When confessing, it is usually best to confess just for yourself and not project your motives and mistakes on other people.</p>
<p>George Bush was and still is the better choice for America in foreign relations, taxes, social security reform, pro-life issues, and a number of others.  John Kerry lacked character and a did not tell us clearly what his vision was.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Evon Bachaus</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/04/13/democrats-2/comment-page-2/#comment-37277</link>
		<dc:creator>Evon Bachaus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Apr 2005 16:16:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/04/13/democrats/#comment-37277</guid>
		<description>Stan,

My complaint about your comments is that they are often longwinded and it is often difficult to figure out the point you are trying to make.  

I was too brief on one of my points.

When I said: 

&quot;Be careful about trying to pander to the &quot;faith and values&quot; vote...   During the debates, John Kerry&#039;s statement about how he had faith, he just didn&#039;t wear it on his sleeve sounded just like the line I used to get from a lot of basically pagan guys who never went to church and didn&#039;t know Genesis from Revelation.  There was a day when a politician could sound religious by just quoting a few Bible verses and praising his religious mama.  Those days are gone.&quot; 

I was speaking to your point.  (I think)

Sounding religious or being &quot;born again&quot; isn&#039;t enough.  I want a politician who appreciates my values and whose actions show that he respects them.

I originally was for John &quot;I love to appear before TV cameras and play Maverick&quot; McCain in the primaries in 2000.  To my knowledge he never pretended to be born again.  My first vote for President was for Barry Goldwater a Episcopalian/Jewish candidate who also didn&#039;t pretend to be born again. [Ever wonder why he carried the &quot;Bible Belt&quot; if Christians are so hung up on &quot;born again&quot; candidates?] Although Richard Nixon had, at different times, two different &quot;conversion stories&quot; in Decision Magazine, his campaign  didn&#039;t seem to present him as a particularly religious candidate.  I voted for him because I thought he would be a better President.  I voted for Jimmy Carter over Gerald Ford mainly because I was angry about the pardon.  I voted for Mondale because I wanted him to carry my state, Minnesota.  I was sure Reagan was going to be elected.  

You may have voted for people just because they claimed to be &quot;born again.&quot; I never have and I don&#039;t know anyone else that has.

When confessing, it is usually best to confess just for yourself and not project your motives and mistakes on other people.

What I saw in John Kerry was a lack of integrity [his grandmother was onto something]and character.  In foreign relations, taxes, life issues, etc. George Bush is much better.  He&#039;s not perfect, just better.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Stan,</p>
<p>My complaint about your comments is that they are often longwinded and it is often difficult to figure out the point you are trying to make.  </p>
<p>I was too brief on one of my points.</p>
<p>When I said: </p>
<p>&#8220;Be careful about trying to pander to the &#8220;faith and values&#8221; vote&#8230;   During the debates, John Kerry&#8217;s statement about how he had faith, he just didn&#8217;t wear it on his sleeve sounded just like the line I used to get from a lot of basically pagan guys who never went to church and didn&#8217;t know Genesis from Revelation.  There was a day when a politician could sound religious by just quoting a few Bible verses and praising his religious mama.  Those days are gone.&#8221; </p>
<p>I was speaking to your point.  (I think)</p>
<p>Sounding religious or being &#8220;born again&#8221; isn&#8217;t enough.  I want a politician who appreciates my values and whose actions show that he respects them.</p>
<p>I originally was for John &#8220;I love to appear before TV cameras and play Maverick&#8221; McCain in the primaries in 2000.  To my knowledge he never pretended to be born again.  My first vote for President was for Barry Goldwater a Episcopalian/Jewish candidate who also didn&#8217;t pretend to be born again. [Ever wonder why he carried the "Bible Belt" if Christians are so hung up on "born again" candidates?] Although Richard Nixon had, at different times, two different &#8220;conversion stories&#8221; in Decision Magazine, his campaign  didn&#8217;t seem to present him as a particularly religious candidate.  I voted for him because I thought he would be a better President.  I voted for Jimmy Carter over Gerald Ford mainly because I was angry about the pardon.  I voted for Mondale because I wanted him to carry my state, Minnesota.  I was sure Reagan was going to be elected.  </p>
<p>You may have voted for people just because they claimed to be &#8220;born again.&#8221; I never have and I don&#8217;t know anyone else that has.</p>
<p>When confessing, it is usually best to confess just for yourself and not project your motives and mistakes on other people.</p>
<p>What I saw in John Kerry was a lack of integrity [his grandmother was onto something]and character.  In foreign relations, taxes, life issues, etc. George Bush is much better.  He&#8217;s not perfect, just better.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Shayne</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/04/13/democrats-2/comment-page-2/#comment-37243</link>
		<dc:creator>Shayne</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Apr 2005 00:54:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/04/13/democrats/#comment-37243</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m Gen Y, so I don&#039;t remember a time when Republicans weren&#039;t in charge. For those of you who are older than I, how much &quot;wailing&quot; and &quot;no no no&quot; and filibustering did the Republicans do when they were a minority? Please be unbiased about this. :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m Gen Y, so I don&#8217;t remember a time when Republicans weren&#8217;t in charge. For those of you who are older than I, how much &#8220;wailing&#8221; and &#8220;no no no&#8221; and filibustering did the Republicans do when they were a minority? Please be unbiased about this. <img src='http://lashawnbarber.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/04/13/democrats-2/comment-page-2/#comment-37210</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Apr 2005 21:38:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/04/13/democrats/#comment-37210</guid>
		<description>Ooops. Correction

&quot;&lt;em&gt;Haydek, Adams, even their own&lt;/em&gt;&quot; 

I got sidetracked and forgot to finish that section as follows: 
===================================
Haydek, Adams, even France&#039;s own FrÃ©dÃ©ric Bastiat could have warned them that this would have happened.

Chienraq would do well to heed Bastiat&#039;s &quot;Selected Essays on Political Economy&quot; 
www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html
and throw collected works of Marx/Stalin/Lenin in the trash where it belongs.
===================================</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ooops. Correction</p>
<p>&#8220;<em>Haydek, Adams, even their own</em>&#8221; </p>
<p>I got sidetracked and forgot to finish that section as follows:<br />
===================================<br />
Haydek, Adams, even France&#8217;s own FrÃ©dÃ©ric Bastiat could have warned them that this would have happened.</p>
<p>Chienraq would do well to heed Bastiat&#8217;s &#8220;Selected Essays on Political Economy&#8221;<br />
<a href="http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html</a><br />
and throw collected works of Marx/Stalin/Lenin in the trash where it belongs.<br />
===================================</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: M. Woodward</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/04/13/democrats-2/comment-page-2/#comment-37198</link>
		<dc:creator>M. Woodward</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Apr 2005 20:18:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/04/13/democrats/#comment-37198</guid>
		<description>I am not sure what Donna Brazille&#039;s credibity is in the Democratic Party is but, she has hit on something and the Dems would be wise to take note. The only way the Democrats can make themselves relavant again is to become the Limited Government, Constitution Party. Since the current Republicans in power have taken thier place as the big government &quot;to hell with the Constitution&quot; party, the Dems should take up the issues the Republicans were supposed to stand for:

Limited Government, Individual and State&#039;s Rights, and Homeland Security (specifically border security).

Being an independant and viewing the activities of both camps I know that the Dems won&#039;t take on those issues because they have always liked spending and can&#039;t stop. Also, Republicans will never get back to thier roots because they are now power drunk and have developed the same affinity for spending and enlarging government.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am not sure what Donna Brazille&#8217;s credibity is in the Democratic Party is but, she has hit on something and the Dems would be wise to take note. The only way the Democrats can make themselves relavant again is to become the Limited Government, Constitution Party. Since the current Republicans in power have taken thier place as the big government &#8220;to hell with the Constitution&#8221; party, the Dems should take up the issues the Republicans were supposed to stand for:</p>
<p>Limited Government, Individual and State&#8217;s Rights, and Homeland Security (specifically border security).</p>
<p>Being an independant and viewing the activities of both camps I know that the Dems won&#8217;t take on those issues because they have always liked spending and can&#8217;t stop. Also, Republicans will never get back to thier roots because they are now power drunk and have developed the same affinity for spending and enlarging government.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/04/13/democrats-2/comment-page-2/#comment-37159</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Apr 2005 19:44:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/04/13/democrats/#comment-37159</guid>
		<description>Anom, you have got to stop reciting those over-the-top AND delusional talking points.  Stick to the study of dead fish and leave the psuedo-economics to Krugman.  

&quot;they already did roar past our economy...&quot;  How do you figure?  When Euroland barely made 2% growth for 04?  In spite of the infusion of 10 low-tax and growing economies last year.  Injecting New Europe into the overall GDP only prolongs the inevitable collaspe of the socialistic and parasitic economy.  And in contrast, our economy grew how much?  &lt;em&gt;I caaaan&#039;t hear you, speak up!!&lt;/em&gt;

Here, check out these two and be edified.
www.timbro.com/euvsusa/pdf/EU_vs_USA_English.pdf 
&amp; 
www.johannorberg.net/?page=articles_en 


Unemployment: 
Lessee, Germany just announced yet another round of social spending rollbacks in less than a month since I was there.  Not to mention tinkering with their stats and rules (if a brothel wants to hire Ilse who is an unemployed typist and she turns it down, she&#039;ll lose her benefits) to drive down the reported rates.  Know what? They still can&#039;t drive down the rates, in fact, it just crept up another point or two.

Yup, Germany is smoking. Hash that is.

Lessee, while I was in Euroland last month, Chienraq reluctantly rolled back the mandatory 35 hour workweek.  Contrary to what his esteemed ecole de commerce insisted, back in 98/99 was a surefire way to increase jobs, instead companies outsourced their labor.  And unemployment crept from around 8% when introduced to the current 11%.  Haydek, Adams, even their own 

Yup, France is smoking. The Hookah that is.

Why do you cling to that myth that Bush presided over the 1st net job loss since Hoover?  It&#039;s not what BLS says.  Certainly doesn&#039;t jibe with our 5-something% unemployment rate.  Certainly doesn&#039;t jibe with our economic growth rate which still outpaces Euroland.

If anyone deserves that title, it&#039;s Jimmah Cartah.  Does anyone remember double-digit inflation &amp; unemployment?  Does anyone remember how Michael &quot;fat-head&quot; Moore staked his claim to fame?  Try half-truths on the backs of the 22% unemployed in Flint.  Which is why I hightailed it outta Flint heading for TX.

Yeah, we&#039;re smoking alright.  Cigars wrapped in $100 bills.

Excange Rate:
You obviously don&#039;t understand how that works.  Against their will, Bush got Germany &amp; France to finance our GWOT.  How?  By weakening our dollar.  More of our products flow to them and less of their products flow to us, not to mention more of their $$.  Now that he&#039;s done milking them, rates are going back down.

Quick Figures:
Jan 01, $0.94/Euro (repercussion of DotCom Bust)
Jun 01, $0.85/Euro (Stablizing towards historical pre-Euro trends)
Sep 01, $0.91/Euro (9/11)
Mar 03, $1.07/Euro (Invade Iraq)
Dec 04, $1.34/Euro (Peak)
Apr 05, $1.28/Euro :D
Dec 05, $1.15/Euro (My guess)

It&#039;s leveraging the economy stupid.  This is what moonbats w/o HBU MBAs don&#039;t get.

Now, do pray tell us another moonbat reality-based truth.  Hint, if someone offers you Kool-aid, just say no.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Anom, you have got to stop reciting those over-the-top AND delusional talking points.  Stick to the study of dead fish and leave the psuedo-economics to Krugman.  </p>
<p>&#8220;they already did roar past our economy&#8230;&#8221;  How do you figure?  When Euroland barely made 2% growth for 04?  In spite of the infusion of 10 low-tax and growing economies last year.  Injecting New Europe into the overall GDP only prolongs the inevitable collaspe of the socialistic and parasitic economy.  And in contrast, our economy grew how much?  <em>I caaaan&#8217;t hear you, speak up!!</em></p>
<p>Here, check out these two and be edified.<br />
<a href="http://www.timbro.com/euvsusa/pdf/EU_vs_USA_English.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.timbro.com/euvsusa/pdf/EU_vs_USA_English.pdf</a><br />
&#038;<br />
<a href="http://www.johannorberg.net/?page=articles_en" rel="nofollow">http://www.johannorberg.net/?page=articles_en</a> </p>
<p>Unemployment:<br />
Lessee, Germany just announced yet another round of social spending rollbacks in less than a month since I was there.  Not to mention tinkering with their stats and rules (if a brothel wants to hire Ilse who is an unemployed typist and she turns it down, she&#8217;ll lose her benefits) to drive down the reported rates.  Know what? They still can&#8217;t drive down the rates, in fact, it just crept up another point or two.</p>
<p>Yup, Germany is smoking. Hash that is.</p>
<p>Lessee, while I was in Euroland last month, Chienraq reluctantly rolled back the mandatory 35 hour workweek.  Contrary to what his esteemed ecole de commerce insisted, back in 98/99 was a surefire way to increase jobs, instead companies outsourced their labor.  And unemployment crept from around 8% when introduced to the current 11%.  Haydek, Adams, even their own </p>
<p>Yup, France is smoking. The Hookah that is.</p>
<p>Why do you cling to that myth that Bush presided over the 1st net job loss since Hoover?  It&#8217;s not what BLS says.  Certainly doesn&#8217;t jibe with our 5-something% unemployment rate.  Certainly doesn&#8217;t jibe with our economic growth rate which still outpaces Euroland.</p>
<p>If anyone deserves that title, it&#8217;s Jimmah Cartah.  Does anyone remember double-digit inflation &#038; unemployment?  Does anyone remember how Michael &#8220;fat-head&#8221; Moore staked his claim to fame?  Try half-truths on the backs of the 22% unemployed in Flint.  Which is why I hightailed it outta Flint heading for TX.</p>
<p>Yeah, we&#8217;re smoking alright.  Cigars wrapped in $100 bills.</p>
<p>Excange Rate:<br />
You obviously don&#8217;t understand how that works.  Against their will, Bush got Germany &#038; France to finance our GWOT.  How?  By weakening our dollar.  More of our products flow to them and less of their products flow to us, not to mention more of their $$.  Now that he&#8217;s done milking them, rates are going back down.</p>
<p>Quick Figures:<br />
Jan 01, $0.94/Euro (repercussion of DotCom Bust)<br />
Jun 01, $0.85/Euro (Stablizing towards historical pre-Euro trends)<br />
Sep 01, $0.91/Euro (9/11)<br />
Mar 03, $1.07/Euro (Invade Iraq)<br />
Dec 04, $1.34/Euro (Peak)<br />
Apr 05, $1.28/Euro <img src='http://lashawnbarber.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif' alt=':D' class='wp-smiley' /><br />
Dec 05, $1.15/Euro (My guess)</p>
<p>It&#8217;s leveraging the economy stupid.  This is what moonbats w/o HBU MBAs don&#8217;t get.</p>
<p>Now, do pray tell us another moonbat reality-based truth.  Hint, if someone offers you Kool-aid, just say no.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anomalocaris</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/04/13/democrats-2/comment-page-2/#comment-37001</link>
		<dc:creator>Anomalocaris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:02:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/04/13/democrats/#comment-37001</guid>
		<description>Andy: &quot;France and Germany are practically bankrupt. Where oh where are those commmenters now that insisted last year that Old Europe was set to roar past our economy?&quot; Excuse me, they already did roar past our economy. Unemployment: President Bush is the first president since Herbert Hoover to preside over a net loss of jobs. Even now, our economy is creating jobs at a rate barely sufficient to cover population growth, if that. There&#039;s a reason the U.S. dollar is tanking against the euro. &quot;It&#039;s the economy, stupid!&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Andy: &#8220;France and Germany are practically bankrupt. Where oh where are those commmenters now that insisted last year that Old Europe was set to roar past our economy?&#8221; Excuse me, they already did roar past our economy. Unemployment: President Bush is the first president since Herbert Hoover to preside over a net loss of jobs. Even now, our economy is creating jobs at a rate barely sufficient to cover population growth, if that. There&#8217;s a reason the U.S. dollar is tanking against the euro. &#8220;It&#8217;s the economy, stupid!&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joseph Marshall</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/04/13/democrats-2/comment-page-2/#comment-36998</link>
		<dc:creator>Joseph Marshall</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:01:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/04/13/democrats/#comment-36998</guid>
		<description>Please allow me to apologise for any such misunderstanding.  My comments were directed to a general meme and not you personally.  I&#039;m deeply sorry if I have in any way offended.

Joseph Marshall</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Please allow me to apologise for any such misunderstanding.  My comments were directed to a general meme and not you personally.  I&#8217;m deeply sorry if I have in any way offended.</p>
<p>Joseph Marshall</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Frank Zavisca</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/04/13/democrats-2/comment-page-2/#comment-36947</link>
		<dc:creator>Frank Zavisca</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Apr 2005 12:53:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/04/13/democrats/#comment-36947</guid>
		<description>Donna Brazille is sounding more like a Republican every day.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Donna Brazille is sounding more like a Republican every day.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/04/13/democrats-2/comment-page-2/#comment-36946</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Apr 2005 12:50:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/04/13/democrats/#comment-36946</guid>
		<description>&quot;&lt;em&gt;If only we had the French health system&lt;/em&gt;&quot;

The only way you&#039;ll get it is if you move there.  Just do your grandparents a favor and leave them here lest they wind up dying from a summer heatwave.

France and Germany are practically bankrupt.  Where oh where are those commmenters now that insisted last year that Old Europe was set to roar past our economy?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;<em>If only we had the French health system</em>&#8221;</p>
<p>The only way you&#8217;ll get it is if you move there.  Just do your grandparents a favor and leave them here lest they wind up dying from a summer heatwave.</p>
<p>France and Germany are practically bankrupt.  Where oh where are those commmenters now that insisted last year that Old Europe was set to roar past our economy?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DaveD</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/04/13/democrats-2/comment-page-1/#comment-36943</link>
		<dc:creator>DaveD</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Apr 2005 12:40:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/04/13/democrats/#comment-36943</guid>
		<description>Anomalocaris,
I am coming in really late here.  But your comment from early yesterday evening on welfare reform under Clinton, please review carefully.  The program was designed by a Republican lead Congress.  The only significant input Clinton had was his signature on the bill.  Healthcare reform?  Andy covered that above.  I took a serious look at Kerry during the last election.  Then I visited the White House web site which detailed the President&#039;s initiatives.  I followed that up by visiting the DNC and Kerry web site - woefully vague in details for a Party which claimed to be quite aware (at least on the surface) why the President was ruining America.  Frankly it pains me to say this but I think there is at least a sliver of truth in what Brazile says.  But why these people begin to think AFTER the election when the epiphany is no longer helpful is beyond me.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Anomalocaris,<br />
I am coming in really late here.  But your comment from early yesterday evening on welfare reform under Clinton, please review carefully.  The program was designed by a Republican lead Congress.  The only significant input Clinton had was his signature on the bill.  Healthcare reform?  Andy covered that above.  I took a serious look at Kerry during the last election.  Then I visited the White House web site which detailed the President&#8217;s initiatives.  I followed that up by visiting the DNC and Kerry web site &#8211; woefully vague in details for a Party which claimed to be quite aware (at least on the surface) why the President was ruining America.  Frankly it pains me to say this but I think there is at least a sliver of truth in what Brazile says.  But why these people begin to think AFTER the election when the epiphany is no longer helpful is beyond me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ConservativeOutpost.com</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/04/13/democrats-2/comment-page-1/#comment-36939</link>
		<dc:creator>ConservativeOutpost.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Apr 2005 12:24:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/04/13/democrats/#comment-36939</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Advice the Dems won&#039;t take&lt;/strong&gt;
I would say that she&#039;s fairly close to being right.  I say fairly because I think most people DO have a pretty good idea of where the Democrats stand...and if they do a BETTER job of getting the message out, (and people get an even BETTER understandin...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Advice the Dems won&#8217;t take</strong><br />
I would say that she&#8217;s fairly close to being right.  I say fairly because I think most people DO have a pretty good idea of where the Democrats stand&#8230;and if they do a BETTER job of getting the message out, (and people get an even BETTER understandin&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
