Tuesday, November 08, 2005

pitchers tuck by buddy don: still trine to shoot the moon

i aint satisfide yet, but heres my latest atempt to shoot the moon:

thay used to be songs of protest that wuz art at the same time n one of the bes wuz bad moon risin dun by creedence clearwater revival. thays been plenty of hurricanes n earthquakes n such. reminds me of when we wuz invadin iraq, rite after the shock n awe, rite after we gut to baghdad, whar thay wuz so much lootin a'goin on. i called mama lack i do ever sundy mornin n sed sumthin bout how twuz a shame that we dint real eyes how folks mite steal sum of humanties oldest artifacks. she anserd how it dont matter nun on a counta how the end is upon us. i druther not bleeve that n dont thank tiz sumthin innybidy kin know.

but thays plenty evidents that it could be the end fer sum. lease i hope so. will we git a return to the rule of law? or will the presdint be the rule? them supremes is a'gone take up the topick.

could be that sum publicans thanks the end is cum on a counta how even thar budget cuts on the poorest could be in truble. ye kin read bout it in a articull name of GOP Budget Cuts Face Varied Opposition. ifn that wuznt a nuff, ye gut that probe of prewar intelligents a'growin, mr bush n mr cheney aint hardly gittin along lack they used to do, n they know that sum of the intelligents they used to cunvints folks we orta invade iraq wuz knowd to be rong!

mayhap bleevin the world is about to end is whar they git the idee that this kinda math is ok:
To review this ridiculous math, that's more than $60 billion extra for Katrina, minus between $35 billion and $55 billion in program cuts, followed by roughly $70 billion in tax cuts. Such is life under Bush, Hastert, and Frist.

Before the Senate voted last week, there was a final irony. Democrat Kent Conrad of North Dakota proposed that Congress return to the rules of the '90s that helped produce record surpluses -- strict pay-as-you go budgeting, meaning no spending increases or revenue reductions without compensating cuts in spending or increases in revenue. It needed 60 votes and got 50. The ''conservatives" were against it; the progressives for it -- a reflection of the fundamental political reality in this upside-down age.

No comments: