Bush Has Never Met A Spending Bill He Didn’t Like
Bush Has Never Met A Spending Bill He Didn’t Like
At today’s press briefing, Scott McClellan was asked why President Bush has never vetoed a bill if he thinks Congress needs to restrain spending:
QUESTION: There’s been a lot of criticism of Congress in terms of restraining the growth of federal spending, but the president has yet to veto any spending bill. Why is that the case?
MCCLELLAN: Well, no, that’s a good question. I think the president has talked about it previously.
Under the way things currently are structured, I think it’s difficult to do that when Congress acts to meet the level the president has called for in the budget. And Congress has acted to fund priorities that the president has called for, and then to exercise spending restraint elsewhere in the budget.
In other words, the President has had a hard time vetoing spending bills because Congress has pretty much given him what he’s asked for, including big tax cuts for the very wealthy. The problem is, Bush’s policies have added nearly $2.5 trillion to the national debt.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
69 Responses to “Bush Has Never Met A Spending Bill He Didn’t Like”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Would priorities include the bridge to nowhere in Alaska for Stevens.
March 6th, 2006 at 2:00 pmOnly in America, and only under the shrub, would people pay less interest to buy an expensive home, than they would to send their chhild to college.
The rate for a home mortgatge is about 6.1 percent. The rate in June for a student loan is 8.1 percent.
Way to go Georgeie Porgie, you idiot. Education is once again a big loser.
March 6th, 2006 at 2:05 pmCouldn't a line item veto have been used to remove Bridge to Nowhere from the budget?
March 6th, 2006 at 2:05 pmCouldn’t a line item veto have been used to remove Bridge to Nowhere from the budget
March 6th, 2006 at 2:07 pmOver Ted Stevens' stinking corpse, you communist!
Easy come...easy go...
March 6th, 2006 at 2:10 pmWhy won't Chimpy field the press corp questions? Oh, yeah...
#3 - I think the line item was ruled unconstitutional (?) by the Supreme Court. I know Clinton used to use it.
March 6th, 2006 at 2:11 pmHere's an article on my #6 comment.
http://www.cato.org/dailys/8-06-98.html
March 6th, 2006 at 2:13 pmI've got to say, I'm with you on this one. Most conservatives are shocked at how much the budget has grown under Bush, without even getting into deficits. I still think Bush is overall better than Gore or Kerry would have been, but in this particular area there are many people who would have been better than Bush.
March 6th, 2006 at 2:13 pmMCCLELLAN: "Under the way things currently are structured"
They want the 'line item veto'.
March 6th, 2006 at 2:14 pmthe Line item Veto was voted in in 96 and ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Ct in 98. They said it steped across Congesses control of the purse.
So King dumbya goes and asks for it again. What does he think is unconstitutional this time? His two shiny new puppets on the supreme court?
For the record - I support a president having the line item veto. I was against Reagan having it cause he was such a Alzenheimers patient even when he WAS president, and I'd be really afraid of how our good King dumbya would use it, but, oh well.
March 6th, 2006 at 2:15 pmJuSt what the Executive Branch needs: more powers previously and Constitutionally prescribed to Congress.
b/t/w
What ever happened to:
Downing Street Memos?
Phase II of the investigation of pre-war intelligence?
Able Danger investigation?
and, soon to be added to the list
the NSA Wiretap investigation?
He ignored the PDB, Osama determined to attack within U.S., (which makes his administration culpable for it failure);
Lied outright to the American people in making his case to attack Iraq;
Failed to capture or kill OBL;
ETC.,ETC.,ETC.,...
He lied again about Katina, circumvents any law that interferes with his totalitarian domestic agenda and hegemonic foreign agenda, and refers to Pakistanis as Arabs in their own country. This is our President of the United States.
Yeah, let's give him a line-item veto power, and let's just declare him King of the World;
George W. Bush: the American Idol President.
March 6th, 2006 at 2:29 pm“Iran’s transparent cooperation with the IAEA inspectors and IAEA Deputy Director General Olli Heinonen’s trip to Iran, which led to the two positive paragraphs in ElBaradei’s report on Iran’s good cooperation with the agency’s inspectors, were effective in convincing members of the IAEA Board that Iran has behaved appropriately toward the IAEA. However, the U.S. and other Western media disseminated false reports over the past few weeks, saying that Iran has refused to accept inspections.â€
Link Here
March 6th, 2006 at 2:31 pmI'm afraid the line-item veto would only be effective over social programs, veterans benefits, Pell Grants, subsidized housing, OSHA enforcement, the FDA, appropriations for NOLA reconstruction and Blue-state earmarks.
March 6th, 2006 at 2:37 pm"I’ve got to say, I’m with you on this one. Most conservatives are shocked at how much the budget has grown under Bush, without even getting into deficits. I still think Bush is overall better than Gore or Kerry would have been, but in this particular area there are many people who would have been better than Bush. Comment by Seth II"
Wow, a bubble of reason in the vast sea of unreason. Good for you pumpkin - see I knew you had it in you to think for yourself! Glimmers of self awareness are a marvelous thing to see.
But then you relapse. On what basis do you believe that Bush would have been better than Gore or Kerry? After all, if you compare one of the largest economic booms under history under Clinton, with one of the worst recessions and the worst recovery in history, I'm not sure why you'd come to this conclusion. Are you using 'facts' or 'historical basis' for your speculation, or is it just because you're a conservative who hates abortion?
It's OK pumpkin, I forgive you for not being able to still fully think for yourself. Keep trying though! It's a good start to realize that Bush has flushed our economy down the toilet with his mad money spending (see I don't even sound like a liberal if you think about it pumpkin).
March 6th, 2006 at 2:40 pmOops.
How do we complain about runaway spending when we simultaneously admit that the spending is what we wanted?
March 6th, 2006 at 2:47 pmOk they lied!
March 6th, 2006 at 2:51 pmRightPunch - #14:
Oh there's a multitude of reasons I still prefer Bush to the his Democrat contenders, but those are for more appropriate threads.
And my distaste for the growth of government under Bush has nothing to do with the economy. It seems to be recovering okay DESPITE the massive government, but that's for once and future threads of more appropriate topics. It's just that I'm a small government conservative, and Bush has let me down on that front.
March 6th, 2006 at 3:09 pmThis is a little off subject but here it goes anyway. Bushie and his old lady are going to Texas to vote in the primary on Tuesday and guess who is paying for this. The Taxpayers. The Bushie staff was suppose to get a Texas ballot so they could mail it back but his imcompetent staff did not follow through on this. Everytime he takes Air Force one the taxpayer get stuck with paying millions and millions of dollar out. What a waste of money. Why doesn't he stay in Washington DC? He needs to be impeached soon.
March 6th, 2006 at 3:11 pmI love it. We're borrowing $1B each day from China, but our economy is just fine. How is it possible that anyone can say this? Oh right, more people own houses now, so let's ignore everything else.
March 6th, 2006 at 3:24 pmIf we ran our households like he runs the nation, not only would we be bankrupt, we would likely be in jail.
March 6th, 2006 at 3:24 pmSorry Marie, no more bankruptcies for the poor, only wealthy corporations.
March 6th, 2006 at 3:26 pmSend Bush a spending Bill for health care Im sure he will Veto that
March 6th, 2006 at 3:28 pm#18- That is nuts. What, they can't "overnight" it by UPS, or FED-X ? No wonder we are so deep in debt. Will someone buy them a CLUE ?
March 6th, 2006 at 3:32 pmWe've discussed more than just the housing metric in other threads. We can revisit those threads if you need.
March 6th, 2006 at 3:34 pm#19- Actually, it's 2 Billion a day.
March 6th, 2006 at 3:36 pmdude, you are the new one here. Please don't act like you are the moderator. Honestly, it's the grace of Judd that you're still here.
March 6th, 2006 at 3:39 pmLibrul George
March 6th, 2006 at 3:42 pm#26 -- I'm right there with you!
March 6th, 2006 at 3:42 pm26/28: Are you talking to me? I'm just trying to keep my conversations on the topic of this thread. That's usually considered respectable in other forums.
March 6th, 2006 at 3:45 pmSeth II,
They are talking about you telling other people what to post or not post. That isn't your job. That is Judd's job. If you want to be respectful and not go off topic, then don't answer.
March 6th, 2006 at 3:48 pmI'm not telling anybody to what to do. (Now I see where the frequent authoritarian accusations come from.) I'm just explicitly constraining what I'm going to respond to here. I ignore a TON of off-topic posts, but when I ignore somthing directed to me, the assumption becomes that I'm dodging it. It's a no-win situation with you people! That actually makes it easy for me. If it's no-win whatever I do, then I can do whatever I want.
March 6th, 2006 at 3:56 pmSeth II,
Do you expect us to beleive that you are trying to be respectful while not answering posts. You would be the first troll to use that tactic, so I commend you for being original. SO, you are going to pick and choose wht you will answer under the guise of "I am being respectful." Ha, good one.
March 6th, 2006 at 3:59 pmMaybe I had given seth ii more credit for brains than I should have. Apparently, you want it spelled out. OK, I find that dull but I'll give you some translation help.
in 24 you said"We’ve discussed more than just the housing metric in other threads. We can revisit those threads if you need."
in 26 I asked you not to try and play moderator.
in 29 you played Al Pacino's Taxi Driver "What? You talkin' to me?"
in 30 Spudge told you it wasn't your job to tell people what they can write.
in 31 your said:"I’m not telling anybody to what to do."
Now, clearly you are either a moron (I kind of doubt that, but will allow time to see if I'm wrong) or decietful (I'm more inclined to agree to this as you have done everything you could to wave the flag for our current Liar in Chief).
Please bare with us. You are new and we are just getting adjusted. But if you've come here expecting warm & fuzzy liberal/hippie vibes....well, you're mistaken. I know we have a reputation we have to uphold but sorry, that doesn't happen here much.
March 6th, 2006 at 4:12 pmFrankly, I'm just tired of posting something related to a topic started by a moderator, and then being barraged with about a dozen other topics by other posters EVERY SINGLE TIME. Often it's the same damn topics that those same posters left unfinished in other threads. It wastes all of our time. I truly care only about my time, so I'm going to do what I can use it efficiently from now on. What is the big freaking deal? Or do you just want me to jump for every question. Too bad.
March 6th, 2006 at 4:13 pm"Oh there’s a multitude of reasons I still prefer Bush to the his Democrat contenders, but those are for more appropriate threads. Seth II"
Would you care to list them?
"And my distaste for the growth of government under Bush has nothing to do with the economy. Seth II"
Then one might speculate you know nothing of the economy, or nothing of traditional Conservative values? I've read many a thing by conservative pundits and politicians over the years that consistently claimed that federal over spending was linked to the economy. Are you saying that your republican values were wrong for all of those decades, or that Bush is wrong now for ignoring those traditional conservative values?
"It seems to be recovering okay DESPITE the massive government, but that’s for once and future threads of more appropriate topics. Seth II"
If OK, you mean the slowest and worst economic recovery in american history, then I guess OK could be used. I'm not sure how it's for a separate thread, other than it's such an embarrassment for republicans that you wish to avoid the subject?
"It’s just that I’m a small government conservative, and Bush has let me down on that front. Comment by Seth II "
Ah, that means you're an actual historical republican conservative, instead of the Leninist NeoCon conservative like Bush and the mainstream of the Republican party currently is? Well sweetie, I hate to tell you this, but your party has left you. And if you think that's the only front bush has let you down on, then we'll just chalk it up to partisan brain pumpkin.
And just so you know, I hate wasteful and/or unproductive spending as well. That's why I'm so opposed to the Iraq war. It's an expensive boondoggle, and a waste of taxpayer money. It's communist leninism masquerading as conservativism. It's why I find it so ironic that the 'commie hating' mighty aphrodite and Hindraker are so willing to defend it while pretending to be anti-communist. There's not anything more leninist than invading a country to establish a 'more equitable' government. But sweetie, I forgive you guys for your hypocrisy and contradictions. I know it's hard to attack the home team, even when they're losing. I understand pumpkin.
March 6th, 2006 at 4:20 pmSeth, a simple solution is just put the metrics on a page and then link to it in your numerous replies to the 'barrage.' Works for me.
Anyone have the link to the $1B vs $2B/day that China is lending us? I'm still looking...
March 6th, 2006 at 4:21 pmOpening its argument that Zacarias Moussaoui be executed,
"He lied so the plot could proceed unimpeded," Spencer asserted. "With that lie, he caused the deaths of nearly 3,000 people. He rejoiced in the death and destruction."
I think Bush had watch out too as he is guilty Moussaouri is innocent
March 6th, 2006 at 4:23 pmKindness:
You had better spell it out deeper, because I was not telling anybody what to post. I was telling them about where I would discuss it. Damn you frighten easily!
Your post to which I was responding provided no indication about who it was to (name, post number, etc.), so I asked. Damn, you intimidate easily too! I may be new, but I at least know enough to avoid ambiguity by citing who it is I'm addressing.
And I answered him with:
And you still don't get it?
How about this: you can't stand me, so you assume I do everything with malice in my cold, black heart. You've made a lot of assumptions already, so this one is no stretch.
This much is true. You do not treat newcomers with different ideas with any warmth whatsoever. You attack them. That speaks a hell of lot more about you than about me.
March 6th, 2006 at 4:24 pmThen tell the other trolls at the DoD troll headquarters to stop doing it.
March 6th, 2006 at 4:28 pmImpeachment - #36:
That's actually the best idea yet. Actually, it's the only idea yet. But it's not a bad one.
The problem is that even after posting boilerplate text, other posters would still try to suck me into multiple, separate, off-topic conversations. My purpose now is to defer off-topic conversations until an appropriate thread comes along, or is returned to.
March 6th, 2006 at 4:37 pmSpudge, I'll let you deal with your own trolls. You don't have to let them do the same thing to you that y'all try to do to me.
March 6th, 2006 at 4:39 pmIt's too bad too, cause this is a thread that I think both traditional conservatives and (this) progressives can agree on.
And it isn't usually that we're spending too much, so much as what priorities an administraton chooses to spend it on.
For instance....Tax reductions is the same as spending in some instances. Most here would agree that giving the oil companies and extra 40 billion tax cut this last year (ostensibally for research) was COMPLETELY NUTS! Here they rack in the biggest most profitable year EVER, and bushco's cutting their taxes. Now I'll grant that that example is a tad one sided, but hey,
give us your examples of what money shouldn't be spent on and we'll discuss it.
ex 2 - the bridge to NOWHERE up in Alaska.
March 6th, 2006 at 4:41 pmRightPunch:
Actually, you caught what I did just after posting. I should have said my distaste of big government is INDEPENDENT of the economy. Even if the two weren't linked, I'd prefer a small government to a big one.
March 6th, 2006 at 4:46 pmSeth, you'll find this is the nicest of the liberal blogs in the entire universe, if you give us a chance.
On the economy, I just don't see how anyone can even have metrics on todays economy since so much of our spending (Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina) is not even on the books.
If you have to tell us the economy is doing well, that says a lot in itself. In 1999, no one had to tell anyone the economy was doing well.
March 6th, 2006 at 4:49 pmHere's some opinion on the economy posted by Representative Brad Miller in December:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/8/103222/171
"I have served on the House Financial Services Committee for three years now, so I now can understand conversational Fedspeak. "Bivariate income distribution" means that we are living in two Americans, one for the wealthy and privileged, and the other for the rest of us.
So why are Americans not giving President Bush credit for the economy? They are. They're giving him credit for the economy in their America. And for most Americans, the economic news in their America is not good."
March 6th, 2006 at 4:56 pmOn the $1B vs $2B per day, I think I have the answer at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/10/business/10cnd-econ.html?ex=1297227600&en=b4dd7be497c533f4&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Last year we borrowed $725B, or about $2B/day. But that's not all China. They only accounted for $201B for the year, of course they may have increased their purchases lately.
March 6th, 2006 at 5:39 pmLine item veto! Heck, there goes my retirement.
March 6th, 2006 at 5:40 pmOops, forgot, he's planning on putting all us Boomers on ice bergs, to fend for ourselves or die, then we can't collect our Social Security, which he's already spent.
Darn, forgot, ice caps are warmiing and melting, so no ice bergs. Can't shoot us, too many of us, though Chaney's tried. Guess none of us are going to be able to retire, just keep working to pay those taxes, to keep Corporate America and Corrupt Washington going.
The reality is, there is only so much money out there, and when you have a money sucking machine like Iraq,(not to mention these so-called tax reductions) you have to start taking away from somewhere, and we know it isn't the people with their lips to presidential and congressional as*es, its programs for the average american. School lunches, senior programs, daycare, college grants, health care, you name it, if it's for the average joe, it gets taken away or deleted.
The economy sucks, just ask the unemployed or the underemployed, the ones who don't make those quarterly statistical employment reports, because they either have a poor paying job or their benefits ran out, and are no longer counted.
Line item veto is another word for screwing over the American people.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/crisis/tradedeficit/2005/1230imbalances.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/crisis/indexbub.htm
March 6th, 2006 at 5:42 pmWake up. This administration has been about ONE THING and one thing only. The religious right agenda, the wars-for-oil, the subversion of the media...all smokescreens. This administration only took power to do one thing: TO TRANSFER THE PUBLIC WEALTH OF THE RICHEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD INTO PRIVATE HANDS.
March 6th, 2006 at 6:38 pmThis admin has been straight arrow loot-and-pillage on a scale never dreamed of. If Guiness had a world record book of crime, this is it, folks, the crime of the milenia. The wealth of the wealthiest country has already been looted, robbed and diverted from public coffers and banked in the accounts of private contractors, armament industries, communication and energy companies, favorite drug companies (what do you think the Medicade change was about?) and private buddy corporations during the last 5 years.
What's even more horrifying is is wasn't just the surplus the admin. inherited or revenue from the last 5 years. This deficit will have our kids and grandkids enslaved and endebted throughout their lifetimes. That's a killer coup, eh? Not just to steal the money, but to steal it in such a way that an entire nation will work 2 lifetimes to try and replace it.
Period. That's what all these scandals are about, that's why Bush has never vetoed a bill. We've all been hosed, by leaders who haven't hesistated to leave 3 generation of tax payers naked and bleeding on the ground, and 1000s of people dead and bleeding in the sands of the Middle East.
It's too late, we're screwed and they're rich beyond a greedy man's wet dream. They stole America's money, our money. Better wake up before the administration finally figures out how to transfer Social Security (the last, vast, untapped oil field of federal and public monies) into the pockets of the brokerage house.
Innumerable rants - Seth II,
March 6th, 2006 at 7:23 pmI'm going off-topic - The most items off-topic in this thread are your posts on off-topic items. You need a brain implant - is there a bird out there willing to be a donor?
50 years from now, that drip in my casket will be from my grandchildren and great-grandchildren pissing on my grave due to their reduced lifestyle because 80% of the federal budget goes to entitlements and debt payments. We are living it up and handing them the bill.
We, in this generation, at this time, will deserve to be pissed on.
March 6th, 2006 at 7:32 pmKindness - #42,
I agree, this is a thread where we can find common ground. But I disagree in that we are spending just way too much.
To be fair, we should probably point out that the tax cuts to oil companies occurred BEFORE the record profits. I'm not saying they were a good thing, just that the time sequence is crucial to assigning malice or insanity as a motive.
Regarding your example: dump the bridge to nowhere. $5 million per person when the people chose to live where they have and have done okay so far is just ludicrous.
Generally speaking, I don't like government spending programs that:
1. Hide the true cost of a service (i.e., subsidies),
2. provide services that local governments or the private sector can provide more efficiently,
3. artificially redistribute goods or wealth, or
4. attempt to promote or discourage behaviors that are perfectly legal personal choices.
There are probably others, but these are general categories of spending programs that I don't think the government should be handling.
March 6th, 2006 at 7:51 pmimpeachment - #44
That startles the hell out of me. I've been slogging through irrational attacks for over a week now. If this site is the nicest... I've met some nice people, though. A few.
Some of the economic metrics rely on government numbers (debt, deficit, etc.), but many of them are corporate/consumer metrics (productivity, confidence, stock market, housing, jobs, etc.). I'm of the philosophy that the economy belongs to the people, not the government. From that, clearly I'm of the philosophy that the government and the people are NOT the same entity.
The government metrics are not good, but that's largely a function of the sheer SCALE of government today. You can't cut taxes and raise spending. I'd far rather cut taxes and cut spending. Large governements have large impacts on the economy, and that is counter to my philosophy.
The economic decline began in 2000, before Bush even took office. You may not believe this, but I don't actually blame Clinton for it. I only point it out to show that it wasn't CAUSED by Bush, as so many people here like to claim. I know I was bitching about my investments before Bush took office. Probably even before the November election. The stock charts bear that out.
Compared to how bad everything got after that, most of today's corporate/consumer measures are much better. A lot of people here want to compare today to the peak under Clinton, but that's just ludicrous. The peak declined steeply before he was even out of office.
March 6th, 2006 at 8:14 pmSeth, the articles I referenced refer to numerous issues with the economy, namely that it is not sustainable. The housing bubble (55% increase in 5 years) is just as bad as the technology bubble that broke causing the 2001 recession.
And the unemployment figures?
You are not producing any references for your opinions. I'm afraid we just won't agree and not progress here. Good luck.
March 6th, 2006 at 8:28 pmimpeachment,
Sooooo thennnnnn, the housing recovery is TOO good. I'll agree that if such a housing bubble bursts, it could be a bad thing. The thing is, it hasn't happened yet, but you're blaming Bush for it anyway.
Even if it comes to pass, I can't imagine a recession as bad as 2000 because of it. Okay, I'm not posting others' analyses because I don't have a hell of a lot of time to research, but consider the following. When the market bubble burst, millions of investors lost over a trillion dollars, hundreds maybe thousands of companies closed, and millions of workers became unemployed. Does a housing bubble burst really cause that kind of fallout? Has it ever before? I'm not saying it doesn't, I just don't know why it would.
Referencing my opinions: you're not arguing that the market decline didn't begin in 2000, are you? And unemployment is down from a local maximum, right?. These are commonly reported figures. Most of the rest of what I wrote comes from my philosophy, and I said so. What specifically do you need a reference to?
March 6th, 2006 at 11:30 pmGot impeachment ... I also found this
and also this
March 7th, 2006 at 4:01 amToo bad there is not 1 senator that can defy and treat the 'president' like the spoiled little school brat he really is: "No George, you cannot pass GO, you cannot collect two-hundred dollars, and you WILL NOT steal Boardwalk! Barbara Bush is the best we can do.
March 7th, 2006 at 8:13 pmI think the point of the thread, and President Bush (43)'s legacy, is the horrendous indebtedness--$2.5 trillion and counting. How is this not a tax? We are obligated to pay it. Whatever shred of integrity and fiscal responsiblity that remained in the GOP is gone. For shame.
March 7th, 2006 at 8:37 pm"Referencing my opinions: you’re not arguing that the market decline didn’t begin in 2000, are you? And unemployment is down from a local maximum, right?. These are commonly reported figures. Seth II"
Sweetie, where do you get your information.
GDP Growth
1996 3.7
1997 4.5
1998 4.2
1999 4.5
2000 3.7
Then we have bush
2001 .8
So you say that the economy was getting bad in 2000, but 2004 is the only year where the GDP growth under Bush was greater. Your idea of a 'slow down' is interesting, because by your measure we're already in another Bush Slowdown pumpkin.
Oh as for unemployment, as I understand it that only measures people who can receive benefits - and is not a full measure of joblessness. But all of those lost jobs, and mediocre job creation numbers certainly doesn't make Bush shine.
But I'm guessing that you want to believe in your partisan leaders so much you'll continue to ignore facts, reality and history in favor of rewriting it to meet your preconception.
It's OK pumpkin, I forgive you for not being able to admit the truth - it must be really hard to do so, almost overwhelming at this point. Heck, Bush doesn't seem to even be a good Conservative by traditional measurement. He's in everyone's bedroom and has swolen government beyond imagination - and not in a good way. Hopefully the coolaid will wear off, and you'll enjoy some refreshing punch :)
March 8th, 2006 at 2:57 amBack to the question. When was the last time GW vetoed any bill period? I believe it has ben 5 yrs? 3rd longest stretch in presidential history and soon to be 2nd. Correct me if i'm, wrong on this as I am sometimes wrong.
March 9th, 2006 at 11:32 pmBad Credit Loans Personal Loan Auto Loan Calculator
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 30th, 2008 at 10:29 pmAuto Loan
Car Loans are usually purchasers that favor nimble coins and problemless method !
April 3rd, 2008 at 5:17 pmBurt Reynolds
I think God approves of you.
April 6th, 2008 at 8:36 am40 year interest only loan
I found your post comments while searching Google. Very relevant especially as this is not an issue which a lot of peaople are conversant with.
April 9th, 2008 at 9:06 pmhome daycare business
One notable blogging tool that does not support trackback yet is Blogger.It has since been implemented in most other blogging tools.
April 9th, 2008 at 10:02 pmis the national debt a problem
Six Apart started a working group in February 2006 to improve the Trackback protocol with the goal to eventually have it approved as
April 11th, 2008 at 2:03 pmAll about Digimon Adventure Online Game. Digimon Adventure Fans Blog....
...Digimon is a small virtual pet. You can download and play an online RPG in the Digimon universe. It looks and feels like 2D graphic RPG adventure. You can train and level up your Digimon, make hundreds of quests, and travel through a huge universe a...
February 23rd, 2009 at 1:37 amShag Hairstyles and Haircuts...
shag hairstyle basically gotits name from the word "shaggy" since ...once the hair is cutand layered it gives off a shaggy look. The shag hairstyle has always been apopular hairstyle, and there are plenty ofshag hairstyles to choose from...
March 26th, 2009 at 8:23 pmArbonne skin care products overview...
Arbonne is one of the prestigious companies in the world when it comes to skin and beauty care. Its skin care product line is one of the best in the world that many women. The products of Arbonne International skin care products are formulated in Swit...
April 20th, 2009 at 3:09 pm