#Remember in November....

[Kurt Nicklas]

“I will be held accountable. I’ve got four years and … A year form
now, I think people are going to see that we’re starting to make some
progress, but there’s still going to be some pain out there … If I
don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-
term proposition.”
Feb 2009

[Syd M.]

I just love the smell of desperation, don't you?

[Samuel Harrigon]

"Syd M." <pauldav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > =93I will be held accountable. I=92ve got four years and =85 A year form
> > now, I think people are going to see that we=92re starting to make some
> > progress, but there=92s still going to be some pain out there =85 If I
> > don=92t have this done in three years, then there=92s going to be a one-
> > term proposition.=94

> > Feb 2009
>
> I just love the smell of desperation, don't you?

Well, they don't help themselves by making their leaders dress like the
bad guys in science fiction movies, do they? The church hierarchy's
continued presumption of moral authority in the wake of revelations that
the Church enables paedophilia, promotes AIDS and shelters terrorist
suspects is disgraceful. In the 19th Century, when Western Europe and
America were busy creating modern secular democracy, the Papal States
were still literally burning heretics in Italy. Nobody should have been
surprised that they were so amenable to the Nazis. The good news is that
the Church no longer has any meaningful claims to secular authority
outside their own little Mussolini-endorsed tinpot theocracy. If they
did, the poor bastards under their control would no doubt still be
living in a thirteenth century nightmare state.

[Mike Painter]

On 8/8/2012 5:05 PM, Syd M. wrote:
> On Aug 8, 6:16 pm, Kurt Nicklas <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> �I will be held accountable. I�ve got four years and � A year form
>> now, I think people are going to see that we�re starting to make some
>> progress, but there�s still going to be some pain out there � If I
>> don�t have this done in three years, then there�s going to be a one-
>> term proposition.�

>> Feb 2009
>
> I just love the smell of desperation, don't you?
>

Even the ultra conservative, Obama is going to destroy us and take
everything away from us, guy I work with now and again admitted to me
that there was no real difference between the two.

[Kurt Nicklas]

So does he have the economy fixed?

Why isn't he running on his record?

Hmmmm?

[raven1]

That, of course, was contingent on the GOP nominating someone
electable to run against him. Too bad.

[raven1]

Did FDR have the economy fixed three years into his first term?

>Why isn't he running on his record?

Why is Romney running away from his own?

[3109 Dead]

What have the Republicans done to fix it?

What do they propose to do to fix it?

Non-veternarian fix, I mean.

>
> Why isn't he running on his record?

He is. Obamacare, bin Laden, all of that.
>
> Hmmmm?

[Lee Curtis]

Fixed - from all the damage Bush did to it.

When can we expect the hiring surge from
all those tax cuts for the wealthy he signed?

[Lee Curtis]

Mike Painter wrote:

> On 8/8/2012 5:05 PM, Syd M. wrote:
> >On Aug 8, 6:16 pm, Kurt Nicklas <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > �I will be held accountable. I�ve got four years and � A year form
> > > now, I think people are going to see that we�re starting to make
> > > some progress, but there�s still going to be some pain out there
> > > � If I don�t have this done in three years, then there�s going to
> > > be a one- term proposition.�

> > > Feb 2009
> >
> > I just love the smell of desperation, don't you?
> >
>
> Even the ultra conservative, Obama is going to destroy us and take
> everything away from us, guy I work with now and again admitted to me
> that there was no real difference between the two.

And he is right.

Whoever wins in November we can count on:

More bailouts
More military adventurism
More secret Gitmo trials
More Patriot Act travesties
More TSA travesties
More more tweeking of the tax code
More federal raids on MJ clinics
More Cuban Embargo
More military spending
More "too big to fail" mergers
More Corporate welfare
More subsidies to "faith based" institutions
More tax breaks for exporting jobs

[SaPeIsMa]

"Lee Curtis" <cle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a7ednVtiPcdhTb7N...@giganews.com...

> Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>
>> On Aug 8, 8:05 pm, "Syd M." <pauldavidwri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > On Aug 8, 6:16 pm, Kurt Nicklas <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >

>> > > "I will be held accountable. I've got four years and . A year form

>> > > now, I think people are going to see that we're starting to make
>> > > some progress, but there's still going to be some pain out there

>> > > . If I don't have this done in three years, then there's going to

>> > > be a one- term proposition."
>> > > Feb 2009
>> >
>> > I just love the smell of desperation, don't you?
>>
>> So does he have the economy fixed?
>
>
> Fixed - from all the damage Bush did to it.
>

Try again numbnuts
The Mortgage meltdown was a process started by the Democrats, and
exacerbated by the Democrats over decades
Bush just happened to be in the White House when the meltdown occurred

> When can we expect the hiring surge from
> all those tax cuts for the wealthy he signed?
>

There you go being stupid again
The tax cuts applied to ALL

You just demonstrated twice in a row that
1) you are ignorant
2) you are ideologically driven
3) wrong premises lead to bad conclusions

[SaPeIsMa]

"Lee Curtis" <cle...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:LeCdnRPHvrqCRL7N...@giganews.com...

> Mike Painter wrote:
>
>> On 8/8/2012 5:05 PM, Syd M. wrote:
>> >On Aug 8, 6:16 pm, Kurt Nicklas <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> > > "I will be held accountable. I've got four years and . A year form

>> > > now, I think people are going to see that we're starting to make
>> > > some progress, but there's still going to be some pain out there

>> > > . If I don't have this done in three years, then there's going to

>> > > be a one- term proposition."
>> > > Feb 2009
>> >
>> > I just love the smell of desperation, don't you?
>> >
>>
>> Even the ultra conservative, Obama is going to destroy us and take
>> everything away from us, guy I work with now and again admitted to me
>> that there was no real difference between the two.
>
>
> And he is right.
>
> Whoever wins in November we can count on:
>
> More bailouts
> More military adventurism
> More secret Gitmo trials
> More Patriot Act travesties
> More TSA travesties
> More more tweeking of the tax code
> More federal raids on MJ clinics
> More Cuban Embargo
> More military spending
> More "too big to fail" mergers
> More Corporate welfare
> More subsidies to "faith based" institutions
> More tax breaks for exporting jobs
>

Well dang son, if things are so bad, why don't you just shoot yourself and
spare us your presence

[3109 Dead]

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 10:45:03 -0500, SaPeIsMa wrote:

> "Lee Curtis" <cle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a7ednVtiPcdhTb7N...@giganews.com...
>> Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 8, 8:05 pm, "Syd M." <pauldavidwri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> > On Aug 8, 6:16 pm, Kurt Nicklas <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > "I will be held accountable. I've got four years and . A year form
>>> > > now, I think people are going to see that we're starting to make
>>> > > some progress, but there's still going to be some pain out there .
>>> > > If I don't have this done in three years, then there's going to be
>>> > > a one- term proposition."
>>> > > Feb 2009
>>> >
>>> > I just love the smell of desperation, don't you?
>>>
>>> So does he have the economy fixed?
>>
>>
>> Fixed - from all the damage Bush did to it.
>>
>>
> Try again numbnuts The Mortgage meltdown was a process started by the
> Democrats, and exacerbated by the Democrats over decades

I always loved that right wing whine. Carter did it, and everyone paid
their mortgages for TWENTY-NINE YEARS before suddenly deciding to default.

Right wing brains go real slow.

[Jahnu]

"SaPeIsMa" <Sape...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You just demonstrated twice in a row that
> 1) you are ignorant
> 2) you are ideologically driven
> 3) wrong premises lead to bad conclusions
>
>
>

Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.

[Scout]

"raven1" <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:q6e7281mm8mh93k08...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 03:26:17 -0700 (PDT), Kurt Nicklas
> <kurtn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Aug 8, 8:05 pm, "Syd M." <pauldavidwri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Aug 8, 6:16 pm, Kurt Nicklas <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>

>>> > "I will be held accountable. I've got four years and . A year form

>>> > now, I think people are going to see that we're starting to make some

>>> > progress, but there's still going to be some pain out there . If I

>>> > don't have this done in three years, then there's going to be a one-
>>> > term proposition."
>>> > Feb 2009
>>>
>>> I just love the smell of desperation, don't you?
>>
>>So does he have the economy fixed?
>
> Did FDR have the economy fixed three years into his first term?

Did Obama promise us he would?

I think he did.

[Scout]

"3109 Dead" <de...@gone.com> wrote in message
news:k00edr$c8k$2...@dont-email.me...

> On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 03:26:17 -0700, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>
>> On Aug 8, 8:05 pm, "Syd M." <pauldavidwri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Aug 8, 6:16 pm, Kurt Nicklas <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > “I will be held accountable. I’ve got four years and … A year form
>>> > now, I think people are going to see that we’re starting to make some
>>> > progress, but there’s still going to be some pain out there … If I
>>> > don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-
>>> > term proposition.”
>>> > Feb 2009
>>>
>>> I just love the smell of desperation, don't you?
>>
>> So does he have the economy fixed?
>
> What have the Republicans done to fix it?
>
> What do they propose to do to fix it?

Quite a bit actually.....but it's being held up in the Senate by Democrats.

[Scout]

"Lee Curtis" <cle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a7ednVtiPcdhTb7N...@giganews.com...

> Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>
>> On Aug 8, 8:05 pm, "Syd M." <pauldavidwri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > On Aug 8, 6:16 pm, Kurt Nicklas <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >

>> > > "I will be held accountable. I've got four years and . A year form

>> > > now, I think people are going to see that we're starting to make
>> > > some progress, but there's still going to be some pain out there

>> > > . If I don't have this done in three years, then there's going to

>> > > be a one- term proposition."
>> > > Feb 2009
>> >
>> > I just love the smell of desperation, don't you?
>>
>> So does he have the economy fixed?
>
>
> Fixed - from all the damage Bush did to it.

And Clinton.

After all, both had their hands in the pie.

Though to give Bush credit he repeatedly warned Congress of the looming
danger when they may have been able to head it off.

They chose to ignore him. Republicans and Democrats alike.

Turns out he was right in issuing his warnings....so why should we blame him
alone?

[raven1]

No, he said he'd be held accountable if he didn't.

[Lee Curtis]

SaPeIsMa wrote:

>
> "Lee Curtis" <cle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a7ednVtiPcdhTb7N...@giganews.com...
> > Kurt Nicklas wrote:
> >
> >>On Aug 8, 8:05 pm, "Syd M." <pauldavidwri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> On Aug 8, 6:16 pm, Kurt Nicklas <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> >>> > "I will be held accountable. I've got four years and . A year
> form >>> > now, I think people are going to see that we're starting
> to make >>> > some progress, but there's still going to be some pain
> out there >>> > . If I don't have this done in three years, then
> there's going to >>> > be a one- term proposition."
> >>> > Feb 2009
> > > >
> >>> I just love the smell of desperation, don't you?
> > >
> > > So does he have the economy fixed?
> >
> >
> > Fixed - from all the damage Bush did to it.
> >
>
> Try again numbnuts

Who was president when the economy collapsed?

What president destroyed the budget SURPLUS?

Where are those WMD's we went to war over?

And who is still paying for that war?

> The Mortgage meltdown was a process started by the Democrats, and
> exacerbated by the Democrats over decades Bush just happened to be
> in the White House when the meltdown occurred

The Bush Administration directed Fannie and Freddie to
CUT their reserves just as the housing market was melting
down.
NY Times, Mar 20 2008


By reducing the extra cushion of capital the two companies
have been required to hold since 2004, the regulator, the
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, is enabling
the companies to invest $200 billion more in home loans.
In essence, the companies are being allowed to take billions
of dollars that had been used as a reserve against possible
further losses and invest that money now in the housing market.

But critics said that if the housing market continued to
decline, the move could put the two companies on a less sure
footing and ultimately require a huge taxpayer bailout.

"I think it's very dangerous and it's a sign that people
are very frightened," said Thomas H. Stanton, an expert on
the two companies who teaches a course on credit risk at
Johns Hopkins University. "At a time in which finance
companies are holding questionable assets and facing losses,
regulators typically require more capital, not less."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/business/20fannie.html?
partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

>
> > When can we expect the hiring surge from
> > all those tax cuts for the wealthy he signed?
> >
>
> There you go being stupid again
> The tax cuts applied to ALL

Evasion noted. More money to the "job
creators" was supposed to create more jobs.

So, like, where are they?

[Lee Curtis]

Scout wrote:

>
>
> "Lee Curtis" <cle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a7ednVtiPcdhTb7N...@giganews.com...
> > Kurt Nicklas wrote:
> >
> >>On Aug 8, 8:05 pm, "Syd M." <pauldavidwri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> On Aug 8, 6:16 pm, Kurt Nicklas <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> >>> > "I will be held accountable. I've got four years and . A year
> form >>> > now, I think people are going to see that we're starting
> to make >>> > some progress, but there's still going to be some pain
> out there >>> > . If I don't have this done in three years, then
> there's going to >>> > be a one- term proposition."
> >>> > Feb 2009
> > > >
> >>> I just love the smell of desperation, don't you?
> > >
> > > So does he have the economy fixed?
> >
> >
> > Fixed - from all the damage Bush did to it.
>
> And Clinton.
>
> After all, both had their hands in the pie.
>
> Though to give Bush credit he repeatedly warned Congress of the
> looming danger when they may have been able to head it off.

Wrong.


http://www.economonitor.com/blog/2008/12/bush-wh-ignored-mortgage-meltdo
wn-warnings/

[Lee Curtis]

The preceding has been brought to you by the
Compassionate Conservative wing of the GOP.

[Yak]

On Aug 9, 2:23 pm, "Lee Curtis" <clee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> SaPeIsMa wrote:
>
> > "Lee Curtis" <clee...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> >news:a7ednVtiPcdhTb7N...@giganews.com...
> > > Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>
> > >>On Aug 8, 8:05 pm, "Syd M." <pauldavidwri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >>> On Aug 8, 6:16 pm, Kurt Nicklas <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> > "I will be held accountable. I've got four years and . A year
> > form >>> > now, I think people are going to see that we're starting
> > to make >>> > some progress, but there's still going to be some pain
> > out there >>> > . If I don't have this done in three years, then
> > there's going to >>> > be a one- term proposition."
> > >>> > Feb 2009
>
> > >>> I just love the smell of desperation, don't you?
>
> > > > So does he have the economy fixed?
>
> > >  Fixed - from all the damage Bush did to it.
>
> > Try again numbnuts
>
>      Who was president when the economy collapsed?
>
>      What president destroyed the budget SURPLUS?
>
>      Where are those WMD's we went to war over?
>
>      And who is still paying for that war?

Hello, McFly, those were the excuses used by the incompetent buffoon
to elected the first time.

The incompetent buffoon had his chance. He failed and continues to
fail miserably. He makes Jimmy Carter look like Einstein.

[SaPeIsMa]

"Jahnu" <Jahn...@gamail.com> wrote in message
news:0823be1...@swing.com...

Religion has also driven men to create institutions such as libraries,
schools, hospitals, hospices, great art and music.
Science has also given us great evil

But hey, let's not let facts get in the way of your bigotry and prejudice
Far better to stick to superficial clich�s
That takes far less effort and thought

[SaPeIsMa]

"Lee Curtis" <cle...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:75ednTj5MfWPnbnN...@giganews.com...

> SaPeIsMa wrote:
>
>>
>> "Lee Curtis" <cle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:a7ednVtiPcdhTb7N...@giganews.com...
>> > Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Aug 8, 8:05 pm, "Syd M." <pauldavidwri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>> On Aug 8, 6:16 pm, Kurt Nicklas <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> >>> > "I will be held accountable. I've got four years and . A year
>> form >>> > now, I think people are going to see that we're starting
>> to make >>> > some progress, but there's still going to be some pain
>> out there >>> > . If I don't have this done in three years, then
>> there's going to >>> > be a one- term proposition."
>> >>> > Feb 2009
>> > > >
>> >>> I just love the smell of desperation, don't you?
>> > >
>> > > So does he have the economy fixed?
>> >
>> >
>> > Fixed - from all the damage Bush did to it.
>> >
>>
>> Try again numbnuts
>
>
> Who was president when the economy collapsed?

That's as stupid a claim as blaming Bush for 9/11 a project started LONG
BEFORE he became president
Just like the economy collapse was started LONG BEFORE he became President

Such childish arguments are worthy of.. well children..

>
> What president destroyed the budget SURPLUS?
>

What "budget surplus"
The false one claimed by Clintonistas ?
And how much economic damage was caused by 9/11, while you're at it
The shock and economic damage, both direct and indirect lasted much
longer than the actual attacks

> Where are those WMD's we went to war over?
>

They were found, dummy
Get yourself educated

> And who is still paying for that war?
>

Everyone
Just like everyone pays for all the other wars before or since

Did you have a point ?
Or did you just need to prove yourself a superficial misinformed drone with
a bad case of BDS ?

Grow up and get over it

Until then, you're a waste of time.

[Scout]

"raven1" <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote in message

news:3fv728lf25dc2sn8q...@4ax.com...

Which means he promised he was going to.

Can't be held accountable for something you didn't promise.

[Scout]

"Lee Curtis" <cle...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:75ednTj5MfWPnbnN...@giganews.com...

> SaPeIsMa wrote:
>
>>
>> "Lee Curtis" <cle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:a7ednVtiPcdhTb7N...@giganews.com...
>> > Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Aug 8, 8:05 pm, "Syd M." <pauldavidwri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>> On Aug 8, 6:16 pm, Kurt Nicklas <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> >>> > "I will be held accountable. I've got four years and . A year
>> form >>> > now, I think people are going to see that we're starting
>> to make >>> > some progress, but there's still going to be some pain
>> out there >>> > . If I don't have this done in three years, then
>> there's going to >>> > be a one- term proposition."
>> >>> > Feb 2009
>> > > >
>> >>> I just love the smell of desperation, don't you?
>> > >
>> > > So does he have the economy fixed?
>> >
>> >
>> > Fixed - from all the damage Bush did to it.
>> >
>>
>> Try again numbnuts
>
>
> Who was president when the economy collapsed?

Ah, so it's who's sitting in the chair that is to blame.

So that means Obama is responsible for everything that's happened since he
took office?

>
> What president destroyed the budget SURPLUS?

Clinton.

Because under Clinton the entire budget surplus was SPENT.

That's why Clinton ran a deficit for each year he was in office and why the
National Debt increase each year while he was in office.

He destroyed the budget surplus by spending it.

Bet that wasn't the answer you were expecting.

> Where are those WMD's we went to war over?

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/us_did_find_iraq_wmd_AYiLgNbw7pDf7AZ3RO9qnM

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/10/24/wikileaks-documents-show-wmds-found-in-iraq/

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/

And then we have the Russian connection...

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/3/2/230625.shtml

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/oct/28/20041028-122637-6257r/?page=2

http://jeremiahstrong.com/2012/02/01/flashback-satellite-photos-support-testimony-that-iraqi-wmd-went-to-syria/

http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqs-wmd-secreted-in-syria-sada-says/26514/

> And who is still paying for that war?

No one.

We are now paying for Obama's wars.

>> The Mortgage meltdown was a process started by the Democrats, and
>> exacerbated by the Democrats over decades Bush just happened to be
>> in the White House when the meltdown occurred
>
>
>
>
> The Bush Administration directed Fannie and Freddie to
> CUT their reserves just as the housing market was melting
> down.
> NY Times, Mar 20 2008
>
>
> By reducing the extra cushion of capital the two companies
> have been required to hold since 2004, the regulator, the
> Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight,

Congress ordered that, not Bush.

[Don Kresch]

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 13:23:14 -0500, "Lee Curtis" <cle...@gmail.com>
scrawled in blood:

>SaPeIsMa wrote:
>
>>
>> "Lee Curtis" <cle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:a7ednVtiPcdhTb7N...@giganews.com...
>> > Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Aug 8, 8:05 pm, "Syd M." <pauldavidwri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>> On Aug 8, 6:16 pm, Kurt Nicklas <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> >>> > "I will be held accountable. I've got four years and . A year
>> form >>> > now, I think people are going to see that we're starting
>> to make >>> > some progress, but there's still going to be some pain
>> out there >>> > . If I don't have this done in three years, then
>> there's going to >>> > be a one- term proposition."
>> >>> > Feb 2009
>> > > >
>> >>> I just love the smell of desperation, don't you?
>> > >
>> > > So does he have the economy fixed?
>> >
>> >
>> > Fixed - from all the damage Bush did to it.
>> >
>>
>> Try again numbnuts
>
>
> Who was president when the economy collapsed?
>
> What president destroyed the budget SURPLUS?

There hasn't been a surplus since Eisenhower.

And spare me your script; I'm an anarchocapitalist. Your
script will not work on me, so don't bother.

Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.

[Oglethorpe]

"Mike Painter" <md.pa...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:O42dnQFzuJecoL7N...@giganews.com...

> On 8/8/2012 5:05 PM, Syd M. wrote:
>> On Aug 8, 6:16 pm, Kurt Nicklas <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> “I will be held accountable. I’ve got four years and … A year form
>>> now, I think people are going to see that we’re starting to make some
>>> progress, but there’s still going to be some pain out there … If I
>>> don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-
>>> term proposition.”

>>> Feb 2009
>>
>> I just love the smell of desperation, don't you?
>>
>
> Even the ultra conservative, Obama is going to destroy us and take
> everything away from us, guy I work with now and again admitted to me that
> there was no real difference between the two.

He's a liar.

[3109 Dead]

Perhaps you could tell us what societies have benefited from your
philosophy.

[Gray Guest]

"Syd M." <pauldav...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:75e97c01-6e5d-4436-b72e-
edcf72...@l10g2000yqo.googlegroups.com:

> On Aug 8, 6:16 pm, Kurt Nicklas <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> “I will be held accountable. I’ve got four years and … A year form

>> now, I think people are going to see that we’re starting to make some

>> progress, but there’s still going to be some pain out there … If I

>> don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-
>> term proposition.”
>> Feb 2009
>
> I just love the smell of desperation, don't you?

I think that smell is your Depends.

--
Refusenik #1

[Jahnu]

3109 Dead <de...@gone.com> wrote:
> > script will not work on me, so don't bother.
>
> Perhaps you could tell us what societies have benefited from your
> philosophy.
> >
> > Don aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster Praise "Bob" or burn in
> > Slacklessness trying not to.
>

The average theologian (there are exceptions, of course) uses
"atheist" to mean a person who denies the existence of a God.
Even an atheist would agree that some atheists (a small minority)
would fit this definition. However, most atheists would stongly
dispute the adequacy of this definition. Rather, they would hold
that an atheist is a person without a belief in God.
The distiniction is small but important. Denying something means
that you have knowledge of what it is that you are being asked to
affirm, but that you have rejected that particular concept. To be
without a belief in God merely means that yhe term "god" has no
importance, or possibly no meaning, to you. Belief in God is not
a factor in your life. Surely this is quite different from denying
the existence of God. Atheism is not a belief as such. It is the
lack of belief.

When we examine the components of the word "atheism," we can see
this distinction more clearly. The word is made up of "a-" and
"-theism." Theism, we will all agree, is a belief in a God or gods.
The prefix "a-" can mean "not" (or "no") or "without." If it means
"not," then we have as an atheist someone who is not a theist
(i.e., someone who does not have a belief in a God or gods). If it
means "without," then an atheist is someone without theism, or
without a belief in God.

[Samuel Harrigon]

3109 Dead <de...@gone.com> wrote:
> > script will not work on me, so don't bother.
>
> Perhaps you could tell us what societies have benefited from your
> philosophy.
> >
> > Don aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster Praise "Bob" or burn in
> > Slacklessness trying not to.
>

The Mountain Meadows massacre was a mass killing of the Fancher-Baker
wagon train at Mountain Meadows in Utah Territory on September 11, 1857,
by a group of Mormons and Paiute Indians. The Arkansas emigrants were
traveling to California shortly before Utah War started. Mormons
throughout the Utah Territory had been mustered to fight the invading
United States Army, which they believed was intended to destroy them as
a people. Initially intending to orchestrate an Indian massacre, two men
with leadership roles in local military, church and government
organizations, Isaac C. Haight and John D. Lee, conspired for Lee to
lead militiamen disguised as Native Americans along with a contingent of
Paiute tribesmen in an attack.

The emigrants fought back and a siege ensued. Intending to leave no
witnesses of Mormon complicity in the siege and avoid reprisals
complicating the Utah War, militiamen induced the emigrants to surrender
and give up their weapons. After escorting the emigrants out of their
fortification, the militiamen and their tribesmen auxiliaries executed
approximately 120 men, women and children.

[Olrik]

Le 2012-08-09 19:39, Don Kresch a écrit :
> On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 13:23:14 -0500, "Lee Curtis" <cle...@gmail.com>

<>snip

> And spare me your script; I'm an anarchocapitalist.

BWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWAaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Always the facetious hypocrite, I see! Dear ol' «Kresch», always good
for a laugh!

> Your script will not work on me, so don't bother.

Whatever. It is our understanding that you still pay your taxes, that
you dutifully obey the laws of the country.

You must be one unhappy sumbitch, «Don Kresch»...

[3109 Dead]

I can't figure out why he hasn't moved to one of the many libertarian
paradises around the world.

[Olrik]

Maybe welfare doesn't pay enough to buy a one-way ticket or, more
likely, he's just afraid, and doesn't believe in hos own creed.

Poor «Don Kresch», fucked-up one way or another...

[Patrick]

Olrik <olri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I can't figure out why he hasn't moved to one of the many libertarian
> > paradises around the world.
>
> Maybe welfare doesn't pay enough to buy a one-way ticket or, more
> likely, he's just afraid, and doesn't believe in hos own creed.
>
> Poor «Don Kresch», fucked-up one way or another...
>

Fossil order presents a problem for creationists because they hold that
everything was created at once. They propose that the fossil record is a
result of the Flood. The details of how this worked and how humans
survived with the animals for the 371 days of the flood are vague. To
explain the order creationists say that animals living at the lowest
level are found buried there. Marine invertebrates at the bottom, fish
at higher level, reptiles higher at primitive water ground level, and
mammals and birds higher. Fossils of extinct species are those of
animals that God did not want placed on the ark.

[Joe Bruno]

Olrik <olri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I can't figure out why he hasn't moved to one of the many libertarian
> > paradises around the world.
>
> Maybe welfare doesn't pay enough to buy a one-way ticket or, more
> likely, he's just afraid, and doesn't believe in hos own creed.
>
> Poor «Don Kresch», fucked-up one way or another...
>

Jeffery Dahmer was a son of a fundamentalist.
Jeffery Dahmer was a son of a fundamentalist-creationist.
Jeffery Dahmer was a son of a Fundamentalist-creationist-first wife-abuser
Jeffery Dahmer was a son of a Fundamentalist-creationist-second wife-abuser

[raven1]

On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 17:27:08 -0400, "Scout"

No, it doesn't, and I have no more patience for your pointless
semantic games. Good day sir.

<plonk>

[3109 Dead]

I get the feeling that most of these soi-disant anarcho-capitalists are
sophomores in college, and on daddy's dime, at that.

[Lee Curtis]

So Bush LIED about the budget surplus he inherited?


"You see, the growing surplus exists because taxes
are too high, and government is charging more than
it needs," Bush said in February 2001.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/16/AR201011
1604942.html

[RD Sandman]

"Lee Curtis" <cle...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:oYWdnRvL9NMx37jN...@giganews.com:

No, he even showed a surplus in his first year..$127.3B. That coupled
with Clinton's forecasts were a big reason for the taxcut. See below.

> "You see, the growing surplus exists because taxes
> are too high, and government is charging more than
> it needs," Bush said in February 2001.
>
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2010/11/16/AR201011
> 1604942.html

--

Friendly fire...........isn't.


Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman)

[3136 Dead]

That was Clinton's last budget, not Bush's first.

His first one brought back the red ink.

[Scout]

"Lee Curtis" <cle...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:oYWdnRvL9NMx37jN...@giganews.com...

Yep, that would seem to follow.

Tell me, are you naturally this slow, or did you take classes?

[Scout]

"3136 Dead" <de...@gone.com> wrote in message
news:k03oo3$3mv$5...@dont-email.me...

All of them involved red ink since they always ran a deficit and the debt
always increased.

[u4z]

3136 Dead <de...@gone.com> wrote:
> >> are too high, and government is charging more than it needs," Bush said
> >> in February 2001.
> >>
> >>
> >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
> > dyn/content/article/2010/11/16/AR201011
> >> 1604942.html
>

Well, they don't help themselves by making their leaders dress like the
bad guys in science fiction movies, do they? The church hierarchy's
continued presumption of moral authority in the wake of revelations that
the Church enables paedophilia, promotes AIDS and shelters terrorist
suspects is disgraceful. In the 19th Century, when Western Europe and
America were busy creating modern secular democracy, the Papal States
were still literally burning heretics in Italy. Nobody should have been
surprised that they were so amenable to the Nazis. The good news is that
the Church no longer has any meaningful claims to secular authority
outside their own little Mussolini-endorsed tinpot theocracy. If they
did, the poor bastards under their control would no doubt still be
living in a thirteenth century nightmare state.

[Don Kresch]

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 12:19:40 -0500, "Lee Curtis" <cle...@gmail.com>
scrawled in blood:

Yes. There wasn't one.

http://www.socialistaction.org/news/200009/other.html

"The Times, playing along with the game of counting imaginary
chickens before they hatch, is nevertheless compelled to note that
"some critical subtractions" need to be made from this anticipated
bonanza: "About $2.3 trillion of the $4.2 trillion surplus comes from
the Social Security program."

That's a "subtraction" with immense significance since the $2.3
trillion "surplus" is really a negative quantity. That is, while
Social Security taxes are paid directly into the U.S. Treasury along
with all other government receipts each year, the government, until
two years ago, had been spending every penny of this
"surplus"-including the Social Security surplus-to pay for such things
as the military budget and other regular and unbudgeted government
expenditures.

That means that there is no Social Security surplus accumulating in
the U.S. Treasury, since it has already been spent to pay debts
incurred for other purposes. And to make up the shortfall between all
income and all expenditure, the government borrows the difference from
banks and other lenders."

[3136 Dead]

It's a bit more involved than that, but it is accurate to say that in
Clinton's last three years, he ran surpluses on the public debt.

[raven1]

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 18:39:40 -0500, Don Kresch

*Nothing* will work on you, Don, because you've gone crazier than a
three-wheeled orange. WTF happened? You weren't always this way.

---
raven1
aa # 1096
EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
BAAWA Knight

[raven1]

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 00:44:03 +0000 (UTC), 3109 Dead <de...@gone.com>

Somalia comes to mind.

[raven1]

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 14:35:28 +0000 (UTC), 3109 Dead <de...@gone.com>
wrote:

Largely true, but Don's been on alt.atheism since before I arrived 16
years ago. He was actually fairly normal then; I've no idea what
turned him into a dogmatic fanatic in the interim.

[3136 Dead]

Probably Ayn Rand. Leading cause of dementia amongst atheists.

[Scout]

"3136 Dead" <de...@gone.com> wrote in message

news:k0477h$qvu$6...@dont-email.me...

Which were all wiped out by increases in intragoverment debt. Leading to a
net increase in the National debt.

Who holds the note doesn't alter the fact that the government owes money,
because it spent more than it had.

To attempt to mislead people about that is probably dishonest, IMO.

[Oglethorpe]

"3136 Dead" <de...@gone.com> wrote in message
news:k03oo3$3mv$5...@dont-email.me...

Actually, there was no Clinton surplus.

[3136 Dead]

Paul owes Peter and Peter owes Paul and so there is debt. Right.

>
> Who holds the note doesn't alter the fact that the government owes
> money, because it spent more than it had.
>

Boy, you'll do anything to avoid admitting that Democrats are the only
ones who can balance a budget.

> To attempt to mislead people about that is probably dishonest, IMO.

You do say...?

[Scout]

"3136 Dead" <de...@gone.com> wrote in message

news:k04ktd$st1$1...@dont-email.me...

No Paul owes Peter and John. That John is Paul's brother while Peter is not,
does not alter the amount owed by Paul.

I know you don't really understand that, but just because the debt is within
the family doesn't mean you don't have to pay it.

>> Who holds the note doesn't alter the fact that the government owes
>> money, because it spent more than it had.
>>
> Boy, you'll do anything to avoid admitting that Democrats are the only
> ones who can balance a budget.

Since they haven't in a very long time, decades, then there is nothing to
admit.

They haven't. Republicans haven't. Government hasn't.

Deficits year after year after year, decade after decade after decade and
the debt only increases. Now to give credit where credit is due, Clinton, a
Democrat, backed by a Congress controlled by Republicans were the closes to
every approach and actual balanced budget and they came within about $18
billion dollars of doing so. Of course it was in boom economic times, and
within the steep increases in government spending they may have actually
managed it. But, as usual, it's tax and spend.

[3136 Dead]

There was, but the same Republicans who jiggled the books to hide their
own deficits whine about that.

[Scout]

"3136 Dead" <de...@gone.com> wrote in message

news:k04r5c$l33$2...@dont-email.me...

Then why did the National Debt increase every year for his entire term in
office and for 10 years or more before and after he left office?

Why do all we see are deficits for the fiscal years?

[BroilJAB]

3136 Dead <de...@gone.com> wrote:
> >> That was Clinton's last budget, not Bush's first.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > Actually, there was no Clinton surplus.
>
> There was, but the same Republicans who jiggled the books to hide their
> own deficits whine about that.

The only position that leaves me with no cognitive dissonance is
atheism. It is not a creed. Death is certain, replacing both the
siren-song of Paradise and the dread of Hell. Life on this earth, with
all its mystery and beauty and pain, is then to be lived far more
intensely: we stumble and get up, we are sad, confident, insecure, feel
loneliness and joy and love. There is nothing more; but I want nothing
more.

[3136 Dead]

Because the national debt includes items that aren't part of the budget,
such as the money the government owes to itself.

[3136 Dead]

It's a bookkeeping circle jerk. Something right wingers ought to
understand.

[Scout]

"3136 Dead" <de...@gone.com> wrote in message

news:k04tiv$l33$5...@dont-email.me...

Budget- The total sum of money allocated for a particular purpose or period
of time

The US federal budget is established to cover a period of time known as the
fiscal year.

For the fiscal year the budget shows a net deficit between debts and
revenue.

That's not a surplus.

[Scout]

"3136 Dead" <de...@gone.com> wrote in message

news:k04tl4$l33$6...@dont-email.me...

Exactly, no matter how you slice it...it's money owed.

Your implication that it doesn't matter unless it's Public debt is unethical
at best, and dishonest at worst.

[Gray Guest]

3136 Dead <de...@gone.com> wrote in news:k04fff$om0$7...@dont-email.me:

Figures. Anyone who is stridently profreedom you would consider insane.
Says more about you.

How about making it 3137?

>>
>> ---
>> raven1 aa # 1096 EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
>> BAAWA Knight
>
>

--
Refusenik #1

[raven1]

She was certainly strident, but her ideas about freedom were those of
a sociopath.

[RD Sandman]

3136 Dead <de...@gone.com> wrote in news:k03oo3$3mv$5...@dont-email.me:

Bush with Democrats in charge of BOTH Houses of Congress and the Finance
Committees.

>>>> Ah, so it's who's sitting in the chair that is to blame.
>>>>
>>>> So that means Obama is responsible for everything that's happened
>>>> since he took office?

No answer here.

>>>> > What president destroyed the budget SURPLUS?
>>>>
>>>> Clinton.

No, he didn't....but the dot.com bust occurred on the end of his watch.

>>>> Because under Clinton the entire budget surplus was SPENT.
>>>>
>>>> That's why Clinton ran a deficit for each year he was in office and
>>>> why the National Debt increase each year while he was in office.

Wrong.. Clinton had *budget* surpluses. What caused the debt to increase
was offbudget items.

>>> So Bush LIED about the budget surplus he inherited?
>>
>> No, he even showed a surplus in his first year..$127.3B. That coupled
>> with Clinton's forecasts were a big reason for the taxcut. See below.
>
> That was Clinton's last budget, not Bush's first.

I didn't say it was Bush's budget. Learn to read. I said Bush showed a
surplus his first year in office which he did.

> His first one brought back the red ink.

Not much of it though. Nothing that wasn't historical. The big deficits
occurred in 2009 (Bush's last one) and beyond.

[RD Sandman]

3136 Dead <de...@gone.com> wrote in news:k0477h$qvu$6...@dont-email.me:

It is accurate to say that he ran a **budget** surplus. He did not run
an overall surplus. The debt continued to rise under each of Clinton's
years.

[BroilJAB]

RD Sandman <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
> > It's a bit more involved than that, but it is accurate to say that in
> > Clinton's last three years, he ran surpluses on the public debt.
> >
>
> It is accurate to say that he ran a **budget** surplus. He did not run
> an overall surplus. The debt continued to rise under each of Clinton's
> years.
>

The commonality of many basic religious beliefs is hardly surprising, if
you take the view that religion is a product of society. From that
viewpoint, religions have borrowed ideas which contribute to a stable
society--such as respect for authority figures, a prohibition against
murder, and so on.

In addition, many common religious themes have been passed on to later
religions. For example, it has been suggested that the Ten Commandments
of the Old Testament actually have their roots in Hammurabi's code.

The claim that because something hasn't been proved false, it's less
likely to be nonsense, does not hold. As was pointed out earlier in this
dialogue, positive assertions concerning the existence of entities are
inherently much harder to disprove than negative ones. Nobody has ever
proved that unicorns don't exist, and there are many stories about them,
but that doesn't make it unlikely that they are myths.

It is therefore much more valid to hold a negative assertion by default
than it is to hold a positive assertion by default. Of course, "weak"
atheists may argue that asserting nothing is better still.

[RD Sandman]

3136 Dead <de...@gone.com> wrote in news:k04ktd$st1$1...@dont-email.me:

Interesting since surpluses were also shown under Eisenhower - 1956, 1957
and 1960 and NIxon - 1969.

[RD Sandman]

"Oglethorpe" <anti...@go.com> wrote in
news:Z6qdncA7krcdS7jN...@mchsi.com:

There was on budgeted items.

[Scout]

<Yoor...@Jurgis.net> wrote in message
news:u09d28tiiu3g508k7...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 13:10:32 -0500, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>>>>> > Who was president when the economy collapsed?
>>
>>Bush with Democrats in charge of BOTH Houses of Congress and the Finance
>>Committees.
>

> WHere in fuck were you? Whacking off to pictures of Raygun?
>
> The Government was totally (TOTALLY) republican from 2001-2007
>
> The housing bubble had already burst, the war was in full progress,
> unfunded HC mandates in place, and two massive tax cuts drove this
> nation over the bring before Obama even got started.
>
> Republicans OUTSPENT democrats from 2000-2006, Ran up $9 Trillion in
> debt/deficit, lost 9,000,000 jobs, 60,000,000 w/o health care.

Hmmm.. I have to say that's pretty fucking amazing given that on Dec 31,
2006 the TOTAL National Debt stood at $8,680,224,000,000[1].

[1] ftp://ftp.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opds122006.pdf

Now let's hammer a few more spikes into your coffin.

Debt outstanding - Annual

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

Seems like $5.6+ Trillion of that debt existed before FY2000 so you can
hardly claim that those who held office between 2000 and 2006 are solely
responsible for the entire public debt.

With your first claim refuted as factually untrue, the rest are dismissed
with prejudice since it's clear that factual reporting is not what you have
in mind, but simply rank partisanship.

When you can discuss this objectively, factually and without spittle all
over your monitor, we can try it again.

[Scout]

<Yoor...@Jurgis.net> wrote in message
news:haqf28dffufbddri8...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 20:05:35 -0400, "Scout"
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>> Republicans OUTSPENT democrats from 2000-2006, Ran up $9 Trillion in
>>> debt/deficit, lost 9,000,000 jobs, 60,000,000 w/o health care.
>>
>>Hmmm.. I have to say that's pretty fucking amazing given that on Dec 31,
>>2006 the TOTAL National Debt stood at $8,680,224,000,000[1].
>

> And----wanna tell us what amount spent after 2007 (thats the year
> Democrats started the 2 years, if you don't understand civics) that
> was:

I don't want to tell you, since you're clearly not interested in the facts,
but only your partisan bullshit of trying to play the blame game rather than
looking at the problem.

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 14:42:55 -0400, "Scout"
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in alt.atheism:

Because you know that the amount added by Democrats was trivial and the
Republicans were having hissy fits about any possibility of giving up
their "temporary" tax cuts that started this massive increase in debt.

As long as you don't acknowledge that the Republicans are far more
responsible for the financial situation the country is in and that they
have promised to make it worse, your opinion is of no value to anyone,
not even yourself.

[raven1]

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 17:27:20 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:

GOP hypocrisy on this issue is truly breathtaking. Federal spending is
only an issue for them if a Democrat is in the White House. If Romney
somehow manages to win, they'll pivot right back to Dick Cheney's
"deficits don't matter" position, and happily spend like drunken
sailors.

[Scout]

<Yoor...@Jurgis.net> wrote in message
news:7u8g28ldl9rqibnbj...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 14:42:55 -0400, "Scout"

> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>>> Republicans OUTSPENT democrats from 2000-2006, Ran up $9 Trillion in
>>>>> debt/deficit, lost 9,000,000 jobs, 60,000,000 w/o health care.
>>>>
>>>>Hmmm.. I have to say that's pretty fucking amazing given that on Dec 31,
>>>>2006 the TOTAL National Debt stood at $8,680,224,000,000[1].
>>>
>>> And----wanna tell us what amount spent after 2007 (thats the year
>>> Democrats started the 2 years, if you don't understand civics) that
>>> was:
>>
>>I don't want to tell you, since you're clearly not interested in the
>>facts,
>

> You want to ignore facts?

You do.

Otherwise you wouldn't be lying about them, and then trying to change the
subject when your lies are exposed.

[Scout]

"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:tabg28d46k0572m7u...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 14:42:55 -0400, "Scout"
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>>
>>
>><Yoor...@Jurgis.net> wrote in message
>>news:haqf28dffufbddri8...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 20:05:35 -0400, "Scout"
>>> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Republicans OUTSPENT democrats from 2000-2006, Ran up $9 Trillion in
>>>>> debt/deficit, lost 9,000,000 jobs, 60,000,000 w/o health care.
>>>>
>>>>Hmmm.. I have to say that's pretty fucking amazing given that on Dec 31,
>>>>2006 the TOTAL National Debt stood at $8,680,224,000,000[1].
>>>
>>> And----wanna tell us what amount spent after 2007 (thats the year
>>> Democrats started the 2 years, if you don't understand civics) that
>>> was:
>>
>>I don't want to tell you, since you're clearly not interested in the
>>facts,
>>but only your partisan bullshit of trying to play the blame game rather
>>than
>>looking at the problem.
>>
> Because you know that the amount added by Democrats was trivial

No, actually I don't know that. Indeed I have a spread sheet which documents
each years surplus/deficit, National Debt, Party in power of the White
House, House of Representatives and Senate, down to how many seats were held
by that party. Though seat are only back to about 1950. When one tracks the
changes in National debt per party in control between now and the founding
of this nation. One interesting fact shows up. When the Democrats controlled
at least one house in Congress there was more debt produced than when
Republicans did. When Democrats controlled Congress (ie both houses) there
was more debt produced than when Republicans did. When Democrats controlled
Congress and the White House there was more debt produced than when
Republicans did.

So no, I don't know that the amount added by the Democrats was trivial.
Indeed it would seem to appear that Democrats added a bit more than
Republicans did. IMO, the difference isn't that great so I'm of the mind to
hold BOTH sides responsible for overwhelming bulk of the debt that currently
exists.

Now, you can ignore the issue and try to point fingers because your
partisanship blinds you to the reality. However, denying the issue isn't
going to make it go away, nor is denying the issue going to allow us to
address and solve the real issues involved.

I suggest that before you claim the Democrats contribution to the Debt was
'insignificant' that you check to see if it really was.

[Scout]

"raven1" <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:qgbg28dhd8isjrq1f...@4ax.com...

While on the other hand it only seems to be an issue with you if a
Republican is there.

Hate to tell you this, but I'm not GOP....nor am I a Democrat.....I don't
have any particular issues with pointing fingers at who is to blame no
matter what Party they are in.

Are you aware, that right now, since Obama has been in office, the National
Debt has increased by more than under any other President and that he did so
in less than half the time of the next closest 'big spender'?

That the largest deficits in US history can all be laid at his doorstep?

Seems to me if there are any hypocrites here, you're one of them.

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 21:23:22 -0400, "Scout"

So you ignore the laws in place.

[Scout]

"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message

news:u2mg2892oorjv9act...@4ax.com...

Not at all. They could either repeal the laws, or they could spend less
money so as to avoid running a deficit.

The choice is theirs, the responsibility is theirs.

Oh, and FYI, I believe that if you check, most of that legislated mandated
spending, was enacted by Democrats.

>>by that party. Though seat are only back to about 1950. When one tracks
>>the
>>changes in National debt per party in control between now and the founding
>>of this nation. One interesting fact shows up. When the Democrats
>>controlled
>>at least one house in Congress there was more debt produced than when
>>Republicans did. When Democrats controlled Congress (ie both houses) there
>>was more debt produced than when Republicans did. When Democrats
>>controlled
>>Congress and the White House there was more debt produced than when
>>Republicans did.
>>
>>So no, I don't know that the amount added by the Democrats was trivial.
>>Indeed it would seem to appear that Democrats added a bit more than
>>Republicans did. IMO, the difference isn't that great so I'm of the mind
>>to
>>hold BOTH sides responsible for overwhelming bulk of the debt that
>>currently
>>exists.
>>
>>Now, you can ignore the issue and try to point fingers because your
>>partisanship blinds you to the reality. However, denying the issue isn't
>>going to make it go away, nor is denying the issue going to allow us to
>>address and solve the real issues involved.
>>
>>I suggest that before you claim the Democrats contribution to the Debt was
>>'insignificant' that you check to see if it really was.

Ah, blessed silence...the sound of your surrender.

[duke]

Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> f) Cost of 60,000,000 w/o Health care
>
> All of which added to the debt and deficit BEFORE Obama took over.
>
> Then calculate how much of the above is CONTINUING to need control
> under Obama-----not of his making.
>
> Take yer time.

Even after centuries of effort, nobody has come up with a
watertight logical proof of the existence of God. In spite
of this, however, people often feel that they can logically
prove that God exists.

Unfortunately, reality is not decided by logic. Even if you
could rigorously prove that God exists, it wouldn't actually
get you very far. It could be that your logical rules do not
always preserve truth--that your system of logic is flawed.
It could be that your premises are wrong. It could even be
that reality is not logically consistent. In the end, the only
way to find out what is really going on is to observe it. Logic
can merely give you an idea where or how to look; and most
logical arguments about God don't even perform that task.

Logic is a useful tool for analyzing data and inferring what is
going on; but if logic and reality disagree, reality wins.

[Scout]

<Yoor...@Jurgis.net> wrote in message
news:rntg289q6dgma3mq8...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 21:27:17 -0400, "Scout"
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>>>Because you know that the amount added by Democrats was trivial and the
>>>>Republicans were having hissy fits about any possibility of giving up
>>>>their "temporary" tax cuts that started this massive increase in debt.
>>>>
>>>>As long as you don't acknowledge that the Republicans are far more
>>>>responsible for the financial situation the country is in and that they
>>>>have promised to make it worse, your opinion is of no value to anyone,
>>>>not even yourself.
>>>
>>> GOP hypocrisy on this issue is truly breathtaking. Federal spending is
>>> only an issue for them if a Democrat is in the White House.
>>
>>While on the other hand it only seems to be an issue with you if a
>>Republican is there.
>>
>>Hate to tell you this, but I'm not GOP....nor am I a Democrat.....I don't
>>have any particular issues with pointing fingers at who is to blame no
>>matter what Party they are in.
>

> That's the old, tired standby of fingerpointing and evasion.

Yep, and yet so many on both sides are willing to do so that they can't
admit to the faults of their own party.

>>Are you aware, that right now, since Obama has been in office, the
>>National
>>Debt has increased by more than under any other President and that he did
>>so
>>in less than half the time of the next closest 'big spender'?
>

> More BS of course.

No, actually that's what is going on.

> You don't account for the IN-PLACE policies,

Certainly I do, but I also acknowledge that with control of the House,
Senate and Presidency. The Democrats under Obama could have changed any part
of this if they chose to do so.

Further Democrats were often involved in these in-place policies, as are
Republicans, and when a Republican is in the White House, Democrats use the
exact same measure.

I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy.

> the IN-PLACE
> deregulation,

You mean like that deregulation that was in place in Bush got into office?

Bet sooner are later you're going to blame Bush and/or the GOP for what
resulted.

>Tax cuts,

Like those under Obama?

>Obstruction,

Like that going on in the Senate?

>deliberate impeding legislation
> via Filibuster,

You mean like that done by Democrats when they are in the minority?

> and the ON-GOING after effects of the GOP caused
> economic disaster,

Wow, did I call that or what?

I suppose we should ignore the Democrat fingerprints all over the
deregulation that causes that economic disaster, as well as ignoring the
fact that both Democrats and Republicans ignored Bush's repeated warnings of
the looming disaster?


> the problem of 9,000,000 lost jobs, 60,000,000
> Without Health care,

Which Bush had to deal with as well.

>Two Wars from the Bush era,

And two more in the Obama era.

>IN-PLACE tax cuts

Renewed under Obama.

> that all add to the continuation of debt being added.

....or they could have simply stopped spending so much money.

After all, for the first two years of Obama's administration Democrats could
have changed any and all of the fiscal legislation if they chose to do so.
They didn't. They assumed responsibility by that if they didn't already have
it. That is if we were to blame a particular party, but that's not what
we're doing. After all, you're not playing the "old, tired standby of
fingerpointing and evasion" game are you?

The simple fact is that BOTH parties are fully involved in this spending and
attempting to suggest one is significantly more or less to blame than the
other is BS. Both had chances to enact such spending, and both had chances
to end such spending. The net result is the culmination of decisions from
BOTH sides.

> NONE of which was an Obama initiative, program or policy

Actually some of them are. Did Obama end either of the Bush era Wars?

No. Iraq continued and Obama dumped more and more into the Afgan war as "the
right war" and then started yet another without even bothering to obtain
Congressional approval.

He extended the tax cuts, so he assumes responsibility for the decreased
revenue they caused, just as he assumes any economic results from that
continuation.

Na, Obama had his chance. NONE of that was beyond the ability of Democrats
to change since they CONTROLLED ALL THREE SECTIONS NECESSARY TO PASS OR
REPEAL ANY FEDERAL LEGISLATION. They accepted it. They became, in part,
responsible for it. Even if it were purely and totally a GOP
measure....their failure to act means they agreed to let it stand.

>That the largest deficits in US history can all be laid at his doorstep?
>

> See above.

I did, and doesn't alter the fact one bit.

> BTW, name any major program, or policy STRICTLY Obama's that has added
> debt since 07.

Tarp II - $800 Billion.
GM bailout - $50 Billion
Iraq and Afgan wars under Obama - $550 Billion
Obamacare - $1.2 Trillion for the first 10 years
Obama's extension of the tax cuts.

Shall I go on?


Na, Democrats and Republican both have much to answer for both on federal
spending, our deficits, and our existing debt.

We need to address that issue, and stop pointing fingers trying to say one
side or the other is more guilty. They are both to blame and differences all
depend on your basis of measurement and are minor in relationship to the
total problem.

Now do you want to resort to "old, tired standby of fingerpointing and
evasion" tactic, or shall we address the issue objectively, and accept the
reality that both sides share massive responsibility for the problems our
spending, deficits and debt represent?

[Scout]

"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:a1e58f6...@swing.com...

> Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>> f) Cost of 60,000,000 w/o Health care
>>
>> All of which added to the debt and deficit BEFORE Obama took over.
>>
>> Then calculate how much of the above is CONTINUING to need control
>> under Obama-----not of his making.
>>
>> Take yer time.
>
> Even after centuries of effort, nobody has come up with a
> watertight logical proof of the existence of God. In spite
> of this, however, people often feel that they can logically
> prove that God exists.

Even after centuries of effort, nobody has come up with a

watertight logical proof of the non-existence of God. In spite

of this, however, people often feel that they can logically

prove that God does not exist.

So what's the difference?

Oh, and FYI I don't have a horse in this race. Just asking you think your
argument is any better than the exact mirror argument?

[Mike Lovell]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2012-08-13, Scout <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>> Even after centuries of effort, nobody has come up with a
>> watertight logical proof of the existence of God. In spite
>> of this, however, people often feel that they can logically
>> prove that God exists.
>
> Even after centuries of effort, nobody has come up with a
> watertight logical proof of the non-existence of God. In spite
> of this, however, people often feel that they can logically
> prove that God does not exist.
>
> So what's the difference?

You'll have to find someone who's claiming God doesn't exist first.

> Oh, and FYI I don't have a horse in this race. Just asking you think your
> argument is any better than the exact mirror argument?

Oh really? You better clarify your beliefs then.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iJwEAQECAAYFAlAoifAACgkQRuP0ePfiZW6JewQAzR8yZ3A+xfT1/MlpfOYmzsQ9
l87ATdp0ZMrpyd25R+nUKKuUrQ/euDlLCMoL2UN0SyyNBjNOJ9Hq3m+yxSytgcHi
fgtv2FP/6wENGvjlsDe9gyzt7Bv869R1WaizDm/qzBP8MQsh43rAwUBF7wkZmgHC
r9QMyj5LsEYX+4akk6w=
=ocrx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Scout]

"Mike Lovell" <dev....@b0h0.com> wrote in message
news:slrnk2h2fj....@usenet.home.b0h0.com...

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2012-08-13, Scout <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>> Even after centuries of effort, nobody has come up with a
>>> watertight logical proof of the existence of God. In spite
>>> of this, however, people often feel that they can logically
>>> prove that God exists.
>>
>> Even after centuries of effort, nobody has come up with a
>> watertight logical proof of the non-existence of God. In spite
>> of this, however, people often feel that they can logically
>> prove that God does not exist.
>>
>> So what's the difference?
>
> You'll have to find someone who's claiming God doesn't exist first.

Couldn't tell it from your argument.

>> Oh, and FYI I don't have a horse in this race. Just asking you think your
>> argument is any better than the exact mirror argument?
>
> Oh really? You better clarify your beliefs then.

I just did.

[Mike Lovell]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2012-08-13, Scout <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>> Even after centuries of effort, nobody has come up with a

>>> watertight logical proof of the non-existence of God. In spite
>>> of this, however, people often feel that they can logically
>>> prove that God does not exist.
>>>
>>> So what's the difference?
>>
>> You'll have to find someone who's claiming God doesn't exist first.
>
> Couldn't tell it from your argument.

What argument?

>>> Oh, and FYI I don't have a horse in this race. Just asking you think your
>>> argument is any better than the exact mirror argument?
>>
>> Oh really? You better clarify your beliefs then.
>
> I just did.

Ah so you're not a theist, and not an anti-theist.

So you're an atheist.

Completely clear.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iJwEAQECAAYFAlAojEYACgkQRuP0ePfiZW72bwQAzm9T9zKH4eO4TZycxDgXkHek
Wk9CmCklQm5+WoP2YapPdNuR3FH3qYyXvkv7a7cw133ECnY8l3f53k6ry1NjGOCw
MS9fdVLrSbB8m3T8KLjcxWGpzD8FCDAF4Hd0QYUbL9rsctuFC+FAukIzvgnZdMuz
lLa4ZaHq2da/Z2Z99j8=
=HxIk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Scout]

"Mike Lovell" <dev....@b0h0.com> wrote in message

news:slrnk2h32b....@usenet.home.b0h0.com...

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2012-08-13, Scout <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>> Even after centuries of effort, nobody has come up with a
>>>> watertight logical proof of the non-existence of God. In spite
>>>> of this, however, people often feel that they can logically
>>>> prove that God does not exist.
>>>>
>>>> So what's the difference?
>>>
>>> You'll have to find someone who's claiming God doesn't exist first.
>>
>> Couldn't tell it from your argument.
>
> What argument?
>
>>>> Oh, and FYI I don't have a horse in this race. Just asking you think
>>>> your
>>>> argument is any better than the exact mirror argument?
>>>
>>> Oh really? You better clarify your beliefs then.
>>
>> I just did.
>
> Ah so you're not a theist, and not an anti-theist.
>
> So you're an atheist.

In one sense, but I find the term agnostic to be a clearer descriptive
statement.

[Mike Lovell]

We're talking about beliefs. Theism or atheism are the choices.

So I take it atheism. Agnostic-atheism.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iJwEAQECAAYFAlAolfMACgkQRuP0ePfiZW5zVwQAjr4SHjFM+r51mtokqx/PW1v+
RAH6y1EJZHqTqldpFjXV6uhe3Dbolkv+RBP90HABPPxxZHAM7ExIsupAfa7k4w8g
DUMNq96Zp7uCiArK75sbN8AmWX9SbT8z8D487PzrNRNF1k0TdnNFmUj3jttR+8JK
qGobLHRn3plqBGmPLx0=
=xmbs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Scout]

"Mike Lovell" <dev....@b0h0.com> wrote in message

news:slrnk2h5fl....@usenet.home.b0h0.com...

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2012-08-13, Scout <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Oh, and FYI I don't have a horse in this race. Just asking you think
>>>>>> your
>>>>>> argument is any better than the exact mirror argument?
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh really? You better clarify your beliefs then.
>>>>
>>>> I just did.
>>>
>>> Ah so you're not a theist, and not an anti-theist.
>>>
>>> So you're an atheist.
>>
>> In one sense, but I find the term agnostic to be a clearer descriptive
>> statement.
>
> We're talking about beliefs. Theism or atheism are the choices.
>
> So I take it atheism. Agnostic-atheism.

Thanks for clarifying that. Otherwise we might get into the whole...which
sort of atheism are you talking about.

[Mike Lovell]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2012-08-13, Scout <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>> I just did.
>>>>
>>>> Ah so you're not a theist, and not an anti-theist.
>>>>
>>>> So you're an atheist.
>>>
>>> In one sense, but I find the term agnostic to be a clearer descriptive
>>> statement.
>>
>> We're talking about beliefs. Theism or atheism are the choices.
>>
>> So I take it atheism. Agnostic-atheism.
>
> Thanks for clarifying that. Otherwise we might get into the whole...which
> sort of atheism are you talking about.

Well if you insist on dancing around and not just coming out with it we
do have to play these games.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iJwEAQECAAYFAlAompUACgkQRuP0ePfiZW7y+wP+K648L3j+l2NXLm0MwEhj8uDx
BRyZxSpBv+ik3ahU/kausVdurdEMLkUKw8YGUB1kyDFnEMJf4dGPPJ2UlvXPX+ix
u+xxtqDj/ykXuee9fhVOSfvRXtQ1rF+IuyeD809XjKqQDYiCKx+GC6LmPyR+3MHv
aLKxTcXTzoA2zKCfVx8=
=BMBL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Scout]

"Mike Lovell" <dev....@b0h0.com> wrote in message

news:slrnk2h6ko....@usenet.home.b0h0.com...

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2012-08-13, Scout <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>> I just did.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah so you're not a theist, and not an anti-theist.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you're an atheist.
>>>>
>>>> In one sense, but I find the term agnostic to be a clearer descriptive
>>>> statement.
>>>
>>> We're talking about beliefs. Theism or atheism are the choices.
>>>
>>> So I take it atheism. Agnostic-atheism.
>>
>> Thanks for clarifying that. Otherwise we might get into the whole...which
>> sort of atheism are you talking about.
>
> Well if you insist on dancing around and not just coming out with it we
> do have to play these games.

It's not a matter of dancing around. It's simply an acknowledgement of the 2
vastly different definitions that exist and apply. Thus, IMO, making the
term somewhat unclear since it doesn't distinguish between simply non-belief
and active disbelief.
All it does is say that you're not a theist, beyond that it's wide open to
(mis)interpretation.

[Mike Lovell]

That's the problem of the people making the misinterpretation. If
someone mistakenly chocks it up to active disbelief, they shall be
corrected.

One idiot at a time.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iJwEAQECAAYFAlAonVYACgkQRuP0ePfiZW4dsQP/XcxPjCNiRBpA8E6jB1CPJ23P
gkwSGu+WAeGlGnRD3WiosnIssv9zWOU6sL31Qv9CI3B6Cs20EibvoWa7FAR+m5CY
M4POuaiFgL1cZqB2FzlDI2EtIFZe/f93JA9KG6Zc/oUSpznDAzqU340lMUBItlFj
tZSkuXsDDMj1QgWPkbg=
=ZOiu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Don Kresch]

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 21:48:03 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net scrawled in
blood:

>On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 21:16:02 -0400, "Scout"
><me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>> You want to ignore facts?
>>
>>You do.
>>
>>Otherwise you wouldn't be lying about them, and then trying to change the
>>subject when your lies are exposed.
>>
>

>I'll make it easy on you
>
>Name ANY policy, program, or initiative that is STRICTLY Obama's that
>accumulated massive debt.
>
>Account for:
>
>a) 2 unfunded wars begun in 2003
>
>b) 2 Major Tax cuts under bush

Tax cuts DO NOT increase debt. Overspending does.


Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.

[Don Kresch]

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 21:43:24 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net scrawled in
blood:

>On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 21:27:17 -0400, "Scout"
><me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>

>>>>Because you know that the amount added by Democrats was trivial and the
>>>>Republicans were having hissy fits about any possibility of giving up
>>>>their "temporary" tax cuts that started this massive increase in debt.
>>>>
>>>>As long as you don't acknowledge that the Republicans are far more
>>>>responsible for the financial situation the country is in and that they
>>>>have promised to make it worse, your opinion is of no value to anyone,
>>>>not even yourself.
>>>
>>> GOP hypocrisy on this issue is truly breathtaking. Federal spending is
>>> only an issue for them if a Democrat is in the White House.
>>
>>While on the other hand it only seems to be an issue with you if a
>>Republican is there.
>>
>>Hate to tell you this, but I'm not GOP....nor am I a Democrat.....I don't
>>have any particular issues with pointing fingers at who is to blame no
>>matter what Party they are in.
>

>That's the old, tired standby of fingerpointing and evasion.
>

>>Are you aware, that right now, since Obama has been in office, the National
>>Debt has increased by more than under any other President and that he did so
>>in less than half the time of the next closest 'big spender'?
>

>More BS of course.
>
>You don't account for the IN-PLACE policies, the IN-PLACE
>deregulation,

There was no deregulation.

>Tax cuts

Tax cuts do not cause the debt.

>, Obstruction,

Like the Democrats in Wisconsin?

Look, you simple-minded shit: the problem is government. The
problem is not one party or the other, you glib answer-spewing
fucktard. The problem is in the very nature of government itself.