I finally get it: If GW is not man-made, then God is punishing us with it
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
quick to deny Global Warming as if it was a plot by Satan himself to
confuse their simple minds... Anyway, I just realized that if man is
not to blame for GW, then they can keep happily driving their SUVs,
and --and here's the thing-- God is to blame for GW, which is to say
he's punishing us for something.
What is that "something" I don't know, but it may come later when I
dedicate my wisdom to these mundane yet important issues.
Peace, Love & Banana!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Give a bike and peanuts to a monkey and he'll be happy"
TheTibetanMonkey
> On Feb 1, 2:10 pm, TheTibetanMonkey <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > It’s not very easy to follow the “logic” of these Christians who are
> > quick to deny Global Warming as if it was a plot by Satan himself to
> > to blame for GW, then they can keep happily driving their SUVs, and—
> > and here’s the thing—God is to blame for GW, which is to say he’s
> > punishing us for something.
>
> Ah, but GW doesn't exist! It's a hoax cooked up by those business-
> hating liberala.
>
> Medusa
I thought God was the real hoax.
jeff
> On Feb 1, 8:40 pm, Medusa <Medusa4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 1, 2:10 pm, TheTibetanMonkey <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> quick to deny Global Warming as if it was a plot by Satan himself to
>>> to blame for GW, then they can keep happily driving their SUVs, and�
>>> and here�s the thing�God is to blame for GW, which is to say he�s
>>> punishing us for something.
>> Ah, but GW doesn't exist! It's a hoax cooked up by those business-
>> hating liberala.
>>
>> Medusa
>
> I thought God was the real hoax.
What about heaven? Is that ridiculous or what!
Jeff
TheTibetanMonkey
> TheTibetanMonkey wrote:
> > On Feb 1, 8:40 pm, Medusa <Medusa4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Feb 1, 2:10 pm, TheTibetanMonkey <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> quick to deny Global Warming as if it was a plot by Satan himself to
> >>> to blame for GW, then they can keep happily driving their SUVs, and—
> >>> punishing us for something.
> >> Ah, but GW doesn't exist! It's a hoax cooked up by those business-
> >> hating liberala.
>
> >> Medusa
>
> > I thought God was the real hoax.
>
> What about heaven? Is that ridiculous or what!
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
That sounds like a place for all the gods to share...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deities
Occasionally they bump into each other and say, "Excuse me!"
jeff
> On Feb 1, 10:54 pm, jeff <jeff_th...@att.net> wrote:
>> TheTibetanMonkey wrote:
>>> On Feb 1, 8:40 pm, Medusa <Medusa4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Feb 1, 2:10 pm, TheTibetanMonkey <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> quick to deny Global Warming as if it was a plot by Satan himself to
>>>>> to blame for GW, then they can keep happily driving their SUVs, and�
>>>>> punishing us for something.
>>>> Ah, but GW doesn't exist! It's a hoax cooked up by those business-
>>>> hating liberala.
>>>> Medusa
>>> I thought God was the real hoax.
>> What about heaven? Is that ridiculous or what!
>>
>> Jeff- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> That sounds like a place for all the gods to share...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deities
>
> Occasionally they bump into each other and say, "Excuse me!"
Ooops, Excuse me!
Jeff
TheTibetanMonkey
> TheTibetanMonkey wrote:
> > On Feb 1, 10:54 pm, jeff <jeff_th...@att.net> wrote:
> >> TheTibetanMonkey wrote:
> >>> On Feb 1, 8:40 pm, Medusa <Medusa4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Feb 1, 2:10 pm, TheTibetanMonkey <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> quick to deny Global Warming as if it was a plot by Satan himself to
> >>>>> to blame for GW, then they can keep happily driving their SUVs, and—
> >>>>> punishing us for something.
> >>>> Ah, but GW doesn't exist! It's a hoax cooked up by those business-
> >>>> hating liberala.
> >>>> Medusa
> >>> I thought God was the real hoax.
> >> What about heaven? Is that ridiculous or what!
>
> >> Jeff- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > That sounds like a place for all the gods to share...
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deities
>
> > Occasionally they bump into each other and say, "Excuse me!"
>
> Ooops, Excuse me!
>
> Jeff- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, sometimes they do try to make one another trip and fall. Then
they exchange some foul words, like a cyclist would if another one
crossed his path.
delboy
the-jungle <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It's not very easy to follow the "logic" of these Christians who are
> quick to deny Global Warming as if it was a plot by Satan himself to
> confuse their simple minds... Anyway, I just realized that if man is
> not to blame for GW, then they can keep happily driving their SUVs,
> and --and here's the thing-- God is to blame for GW, which is to say
> he's punishing us for something.
>
> What is that "something" I don't know, but it may come later when I
> dedicate my wisdom to these mundane yet important issues.
>
> Peace, Love & Banana!
>
>
> "Give a bike and peanuts to a monkey and he'll be happy"
>
> http://webspawner.com/users/BIKEFORPEACE
I normally ignore anything written by the Tibetan Monkey, but this
tine I won't.
The history of the Earth is that the climate is somewhat variable due
to changes in its orbit, changes in the activity of the sun, volcanic
activity and large meteorite strikes (probably what wiped out the
large dinosaurs). There have been major Ice Ages when much of Europe
and North America were under many feet of ice, and Inter-Glacial
periods when tropical animals such as Hippos frolicked in the River
Thames in England. These episodes had nothing to do with human
activity!
Between the 14th and 19th century there was a cold period known as the
Little Ice Age from which we are probably still emerging.
We have only been able to accurately measure surface temperatures for
a few hundred years and Carbon Dioxide concentrations in the
atmosphere for a few tens of years. In the 20th century there was an
0.7 degree increase in average global temperature, accompanied by an
increase in CO2 levels of about 30% due to burning fossil fuels.
Global temperatures now appear to have stopped rising. Indeed Northern
Europe had a particularly cold winter this year.
Certain scientists and universities have jumped on to the above
correlation between global temperatures and CO2 emissions to extract
funding (and personal wealth) from Governments for research into into
so-called 'Anthropenic Global Warming' (AGW). Governments in turn are
using AGW as an excuse to terrify, control and tax their citizens. In
the UK we have suffered massive increases in 'Carbon taxes' on motor
fuel and larger engined cars. A lot of our taxes are being given the
dodgy third world dictators to 'preserve the rain forests'. They will
probably just spend the money on weapons to subdue their own
populations and do nothing to preserve the rain forests! Atmospheric
CO2 is a food stuff for trees and plants, used in photosynthesis, by
the way,
When global temperatures stopped increasing, AGW was renamed 'Climate
Change' so that scientists could continue to extact Government funding
and Governments could continue to tax and control us.
AGW/Climate Change is just a racket, that has nothing to do with man
or God!
DC.
P.S. A cyclist pedalling hard breathes out more CO2 than a person at
rest or driving a car. Perhaps carbon taxes should be applied to
cyclists as well!
jeff
> On 1 Feb, 16:24, TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-
> the-jungle <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I normally ignore anything written by the Tibetan Monkey, but this
> tine I won't.
>
> The history of the Earth is that the climate is somewhat variable due
> to changes in its orbit, changes in the activity of the sun, volcanic
> activity and large meteorite strikes (probably what wiped out the
> large dinosaurs). There have been major Ice Ages when much of Europe
> and North America were under many feet of ice, and Inter-Glacial
> periods when tropical animals such as Hippos frolicked in the River
> Thames in England. These episodes had nothing to do with human
> activity!
Sure. So?
>
> Between the 14th and 19th century there was a cold period known as the
> Little Ice Age from which we are probably still emerging.
We are way warmer than anytime in the last million years.
>
> We have only been able to accurately measure surface temperatures for
> a few hundred years and Carbon Dioxide concentrations in the
> atmosphere for a few tens of years. In the 20th century there was an
> 0.7 degree increase in average global temperature, accompanied by an
> increase in CO2 levels of about 30% due to burning fossil fuels.
A good bit higher, and ice core data is fairly close. The relationship
between CO2 and the greenhouse effect is well established. Other gasses,
like methane, have larger GH potential, but they exist in much smaller
quantities and do not persist anywhere near as long.
In fact it is impossible to add 40% CO2 to the atmosphere and not have
warming.
> Global temperatures now appear to have stopped rising. Indeed Northern
> Europe had a particularly cold winter this year.
It's all about global averages. Do you really think that global
warming says that the earth warms uniformly, each year. In fact 2009 was
near (some say tied for) the warmest year on record, and for the
southern hemisphere, the warmest.
So, your argument is that because mother nature has natural cycles
that we should ignore the man made changes.
>
> Certain scientists and universities have jumped on to the above
> correlation between global temperatures and CO2 emissions to extract
> funding (and personal wealth) from Governments for research into into
> so-called 'Anthropenic Global Warming' (AGW). Governments in turn are
> using AGW as an excuse to terrify, control and tax their citizens. In
> the UK we have suffered massive increases in 'Carbon taxes' on motor
> fuel and larger engined cars. A lot of our taxes are being given the
> dodgy third world dictators to 'preserve the rain forests'. They will
> probably just spend the money on weapons to subdue their own
> populations and do nothing to preserve the rain forests! Atmospheric
> CO2 is a food stuff for trees and plants, used in photosynthesis, by
> the way,
Plants fed increased CO2 grow larger but have less nutritional value. A
net loss.
Warming the poles changes the steering currents of the jet stream,
leading to more erratic and extreme weather.
The arguments against global warming are of the same type, to cloud
and confuse, as those used against the smoking/cancer link. Or against
seat belt use (too costly), or so may others.
What we do is another matter, but the link is clear. Only those who
believe in fairy tales, like Intelligent Design or Trickle Down
Economics, disbelieve.
Jeff
TheTibetanMonkey
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh thank you, brother. We have long suspected the correlation between
GW denial and the Christian SneakySnake. ;)
Now, what were we saying about the overcrowded heavens. Who can deny
that!
TheTibetanMonkey
the heavens. You know, I find the Mongol gods particularly colorful...
(This inspired Genghis Khan the way Jesus inspires the Christians to
conquer the world)
Turkic
Shaman drum showing the world treeThe Wolf symbolizes honour and is
also considered the father of most Turkic peoples. Asena (Ashina Tuwu)
is the wolf mother of Bumen, the first Khan of the Göktürks.
The Horse is also one of the main figures of Turkic mythology; Turks
considered the horse an extension of the individual -though generally
dedicated to the male- and see that one is complete with it. This
might have led to or sourced from the term "At-Beyi" (Horse-Lord).
The Dragon, also expressed as a Snake or Lizard, is the symbol of
might and power. It is believed, especially in mountainous Central
Asia, that dragons still live in the mountains of Tian Shan/Tengri
Tagh and Altay. Dragons also symbolize the god Tengri (Tanrı) in
ancient Turkic tradition, although dragons themselves are not
worshipped as gods.
The legend of Timur (Temir) is the most ancient and well-known. Timur
found a strange stone that fell from the sky (an iron ore meteorite),
making the first iron sword from it. Today, the word "temir" or
"timur" means "iron".
Turkic mythology was influenced by other local mythologies. For
example, in Tatar mythology elements of Finnic and Indo-European myth
co-exist. Subjects from Tatar mythology include Äbädä, Şüräle, Şekä,
Pitsen, Tulpar, and Zilant.
delboy
>
> - Show quoted text -
Typical arguments from those who earn a living by studying AGW/Climate
Change, or believe that it is true. The climate change scientists have
been caught being selective with their data, or even making it up! Why
should we believe them?
Are you happy to pay much increased 'carbon taxes' to be given to
third world dictators as 'carbon offsets'? I'm not!
DC.
TheTibetanMonkey
> im glad to see you admit that you find mundane things important. it
> certainly answers some questions in my mind ;^-}
Mundane things are not important to the Christians who think of the
heavens, but it's important to the monkey who lives in reality. It's
just like "peanuts," which means "nothing" to the believers, but means
everything to the monkey. Another example is the bicycle, which is so
important to the monkey.
By the way, "mundane" also means:
•belonging to this earth or world; not ideal or heavenly; "not a fairy
palace; yet a mundane wonder of unimagined kind"; "so terrene a being
as himself"
TheTibetanMonkey
To understand where the truth lies (or be able to tell the lies from
the truth) it helps to understand the metaphor of "MONEY JUNGLE." You
know full well that EVERYTHING is about MONEY in capitalism. For
example, you can NOT ride a bicycle in peace because it costs peanuts
to do so. It must be something BIG & WASTEFUL like an SUV to feed all
the predators out there, such as BIG OIL, etc...
Then it becomes obvious that the BIGGER MONEY is in denying man-made
Global Warming, which means it doesn't make a difference if you ride a
bicycle or not. But I don't expect the Christians and others who
believe in CONSPIRACY THEORIES to believe so. Tell you what: IT'S THE
JEWS WHO COOKED UP THE DATA TO CONTROL US.
Happy now? ;)
Bill Sornson
Excellent summation. Bravo.
BS (not a bit)
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's not perfect. When a cyclist farts he pollutes more than an SUV!
jeff
>>
>> The arguments against global warming are of the same type, to cloud
>> and confuse, as those used against the smoking/cancer link. Or against
>> seat belt use (too costly), or so may others.
>>
>> What we do is another matter, but the link is clear. Only those who
>> believe in fairy tales, like Intelligent Design or Trickle Down
>> Economics, disbelieve.
>>
>> Jeff- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Typical arguments from those who earn a living by studying AGW/Climate
> Change, or believe that it is true.
Except, I'm not. I didn't get my information out of the Telegraph or
some such either.
The climate change scientists have
> been caught being selective with their data, or even making it up! Why
> should we believe them?
The overall evidence is overwhelming. You are quibbling over details.
Even Dr Roy Spencer, Limbaugh's Expert, does not deny man made CO2 is
causing global warming. He only can argue the force of the effect.
>
> Are you happy to pay much increased 'carbon taxes' to be given to
> third world dictators as 'carbon offsets'? I'm not!
So much fear of what might happen, instead of what is happening.
Your side has abrogated the say in how to deal with this because they
are off in la la land living in denial of that which is only not real by
force of wishful thinking.
I'll tell you exactly what is the problem with Conservatives.
They hate government and want to break it. And when they are in power
that is what they deliver: broken government.
It's a one trick pony where *every* solution is less taxes, less
regulation and less government. To believe this, you have to deny
reality and push the blame off somewhere else.
In my country, we have seen exactly what faithfully following such
practices can lead to.
Jeff
>
> DC.
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
8 years...
People tend to focus on the here and now. The problem is that, once
global warming is something that most people can feel in the course of
their daily lives, it will be too late to prevent much larger,
potentially catastrophic changes.
ELIZABETH KOLBERT, The New Yorker, Apr. 25, 2005
Some of the scientists, I believe, haven’t they been changing their
opinion a little bit on global warming? There’s a lot of differing
opinions and before we react I think it’s best to have the full
accounting, full understanding of what’s taking place.
GEORGE W. BUSH, presidential debate, Oct. 11, 2000
delboy
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Himalayan Glaciers are not Melting!
A pro climate change scientist recently claimed that all the Himalayan
glaciers would be gone by 2032, based on the 20th Century rate of
global warming. In fact these glaciers are not only holding their own,
but getting longer!
DC.
jeff
> On 2 Feb, 16:51, jeff <jeff_th...@att.net> wrote:
>> delboy wrote:
>>> On 2 Feb, 14:02, jeff <jeff_th...@att.net> wrote:
>>>> delboy wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> DC.- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Himalayan Glaciers are not Melting!
>
> A pro climate change scientist recently claimed that all the Himalayan
> glaciers would be gone by 2032, based on the 20th Century rate of
> global warming. In fact these glaciers are not only holding their own,
> but getting longer!
Nope:
http://blog.taragana.com/science/2010/01/22/himalayan-glaciers-are-in-retreat-un-body-4218/
NEW DELHI - Himalayan glaciers are retreating, and small glaciers will
probably disappear by the end of the century, the UN body in charge of
the Himalayas said Friday.
It was commenting on another UN report that had admitted it blundered by
predicting disappearance of all Himalayan glaciers by 2035.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the UN is under
fire for having included in its 2007 report � without adequate peer
review � an assertion that glaciers in the Himalayas will disappear by
2035 due to global warming. It has since retracted the statement.
The International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (Icimod),
however, supported the overall conclusions of the IPCC.
�We can state that the majority of glaciers in the region are in a
general condition of retreat, although with some regional differences;
that small glaciers below 5,000 metres above sea level will probably
disappear by the end of the century, whereas larger glaciers well above
this level will still exist but be smaller; and that deglaciation could
have serious impacts on the hydrological regime of the downstream river
basins,� it said in a statement.
>
Among many other articles...
On another note, there is increasing evidence that Sarah Palin's brain
is shrinking faster than anyone could have imagined:
http://trueslant.com/johnknefel/2010/01/14/oh-god-sarah-palin-cant-name-a-founding-father-haha-tear/
With the current rate of mental decline, analysts predicts she will will
be a shoe in for the 2012 GOP nomination.
Jeff
> DC.
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
> delboy wrote:
> > On 2 Feb, 16:51, jeff <jeff_th...@att.net> wrote:
> >> delboy wrote:
> >>> On 2 Feb, 14:02, jeff <jeff_th...@att.net> wrote:
> >>>> delboy wrote:
> >> <snip>
>
> >>> DC.- Hide quoted text -
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Himalayan Glaciers are not Melting!
>
> > A pro climate change scientist recently claimed that all the Himalayan
> > glaciers would be gone by 2032, based on the 20th Century rate of
> > global warming. In fact these glaciers are not only holding their own,
> > but getting longer!
>
> Nope:
>
>
> NEW DELHI - Himalayan glaciers are retreating, and small glaciers will
> probably disappear by the end of the century, the UN body in charge of
> the Himalayas said Friday.
>
> It was commenting on another UN report that had admitted it blundered by
> predicting disappearance of all Himalayan glaciers by 2035.
>
> The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the UN is under
> review — an assertion that glaciers in the Himalayas will disappear by
> 2035 due to global warming. It has since retracted the statement.
>
> The International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (Icimod),
> however, supported the overall conclusions of the IPCC.
>
> general condition of retreat, although with some regional differences;
> that small glaciers below 5,000 metres above sea level will probably
> disappear by the end of the century, whereas larger glaciers well above
> this level will still exist but be smaller; and that deglaciation could
> have serious impacts on the hydrological regime of the downstream river
>
>
>
> Among many other articles...
>
> On another note, there is increasing evidence that Sarah Palin's brain
> is shrinking faster than anyone could have imagined:
>
>
> With the current rate of mental decline, analysts predicts she will will
> be a shoe in for the 2012 GOP nomination.
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hi IQ is not required for high office. It may be a hindrance. She only
needs to lead the sheep...
http://www.icelandicsheep.com/images/Leading_the_sheep_2.jpg
I wonder if they can also deny the extinction of species...
"The interaction between climate change and habitat loss might be
disastrous."
delboy
the-jungle <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Hi IQ is not required for high office. It may be a hindrance. She (Sarah Palin) only
> needs to lead the sheep...
>
>
DC
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
> On 3 Feb, 04:01, TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi IQ is not required for high office. It may be a hindrance. She (Sarah Palin) only
> > needs to lead the sheep...
>
> I think George W. Bush has already proved that point!
>
> DC
Yep, this lady has all the qualities of a good shepherd. Now all she
needs is a sheep dog... and some wolves to scare them.
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
> Of course the big companies will do this whether the doubt is well-
> founded or not. So the mere act of them doing it actually tells us
> very little about what is really happening.
>
> But one thing has to be considered: We know for a fact that global
> warming has been happening. The temperatures have gone up in a
> relatively rapid fashion. What we do not know for a fact is that the
> cause of it is human activity. There are many natural processes
> affecting the global temperatures. Atmosphere is big, coupled with
> many other factors (like oceans and land). This makes it very
> complicated to understand. So we do not even know the governing
> equation(s) of the atmospheric changes let alone their solutions.
> Numerical models inevitably do not take certain factors into account
> (and in some cases important ones, like water vapour - see sayhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/29/water-vapour-climat...).
> These problems are significant and so currently we do not actually
> know for a fact what is going on.
Once you "understand" it (if you ever can something so complex) it'll
be too late. It's simpler to allow people like me to ride a bike as
means of prevention, than to allow the SUVs to keep spewing CO2.
OK, let's apply some science to it...
(I quote)
How much carbon dioxide does a typical SUV release into the
atmosphere, and how many trees does it take to absorb all that CO2?
The answer is anybody's guess, but here's my take on it:
One gallon of gasoline weighs about 8 lbs. Of that, about 7 lbs. is
carbon (the rest is hydrogen). If a typical SUV gets 15 mpg on the
highway and is driven 15,000 miles a year, it will burn 1,000 gallons
of gas. That puts about 7,000 lbs. of carbon into the atmosphere
(combined with oxygen as CO2).
A mature tree 40 to 50 feet high weighs around 10,000 lbs. Of that, at
least 7,000 lbs. is organic carbon compounds (the exact amount will
vary depending on the species and the density of the wood). To reach
this size, most trees need 30 to 40 years of growing time. This too
will vary depending on the species of tree, its geographical location,
soil conditions and weather. Trees in hot, wet tropical climates grow
a lot faster than trees in northern climates.
Assuming these estimates are reasonably accurate, one mature tree
contains about as much carbon as the 1,000 gallons of gasoline burned
by a typical SUV in a year. But remember it takes 30 to 40 years for
the tree to absorb all that carbon from the atmosphere. Photosynthesis
takes time. It doesn't happen overnight. In fact, leaves use sunlight
and water during the daytime only to convert CO2 from the atmosphere
into tree sap (glucose) that the tree then uses to grow and build more
wood fiber. The tree's average carbon uptake, therefore, may only be
about 200 lbs. of carbon a year.
To offset the carbon released by driving a SUV 15,000 miles a year,
therefore, it takes at least 35 medium-sized healthy trees to convert
CO2 into wood.
Bill Sornson
jeff
Goes to show what a decade or so of coke and booze will do. By the
time he was president he must have killed off most of his brain. There's
little evidence that he gave anything he did much thought.
Pretty much all seat of the pants and kicking it down the road when
the ideology failed.
Jeff
>
Bill Sornson
Yeah, and Gore flunked out of divinity school and ripped off the country to
the tune of hundreds of millions on the natch. Obama smoked dope and did
coke (admitted). Where are HIS college records?
jeff
None of those ran the country straight into the ditch while they were
being ideologues.
8 years of essentially zero job growth. The stock market about where
it was when he took office. The worst terrorist incident on his watch
and then he lets the master mind get away while he is avenging Daddies
honor in Iraq.
Not one thing improved on his watch if you don't count the rich
getting richer. Mind you, he took the country to two wars off budget and
pushed through that prescription drug benefit without the least thought
to how to pay for it.
And he left the financial system in shambles, most branches of the
government in disfunction and the country in the worst recession since
the 30's.
Or did you forget all that? You think it is just a coincidence it all
happened on his watch?
What you got besides fear, hatred and innuendo?
Jeff
>
>
Bill Sornson
Dude, you're delusional. Unemployment was under 5% (technically "full
employment") for record number of quarters under Bush. It's no coincidence
that the economy started going to hell when the Dems took control of
Congress in the 2006 elections. (And yes, the most ideological president in
history -- then Senator Barrack H. Obama -- voted for all the spending bills
and complained that they weren't enough.) Bush's biggest mistake was not
vetoing a ton of shit. (He did try 18 separate and distinct times to reform
Fanny and Freddie; see "Burning Down the House" unless Obama has had it
removed from the internet like he just did a Reuters article on new "back
door taxes".)
Out, BS
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
>
> - Show quoted text -
I can live with any president that has 3 lovers, smokes pot, and has
an ugly family, but not with one that ignores the issues, particularly
the role of cycling in fighting climate change.
Let me know when you find one like that.
clams_casino
>
>Dude, you're delusional. Unemployment was under 5% (technically "full
>employment") for record number of quarters under Bush. It's no coincidence
>that the economy started going to hell when the Dems took control of
>Congress in the 2006 elections. (And yes, the most ideological president in
>history -- then Senator Barrack H. Obama -- voted for all the spending bills
>and complained that they weren't enough.) Bush's biggest mistake was not
>vetoing a ton of shit. (He did try 18 separate and distinct times to reform
>Fanny and Freddie; see "Burning Down the House" unless Obama has had it
>removed from the internet like he just did a Reuters article on new "back
>door taxes".)
>
>Out, BS
>
>
>
>
Amazing - biggest case of denial I've seen yet. You may want to
actually get some facts, but reality is obviously not something to which
you will apparently ever admit.
Poor GW - nothing was his fault (none of his numerous failings were ever
his fault - through he's whole life he's just been a victim of
circumstances).
Meanwhile, it'll be many years before the US recovers from the
disastrous results of the GW years / decisions.
Hint - it's no coincidence that the US began falling apart almost to the
day he was appointed president as business & investors ran to the
sidelines for the safety of CDs & bonds while minimizing / reducing
expansion plans.
Meanwhile, eight years later the country saw a loss in employment, lose
in real wages, a significantly reduced stock market value, a $1T
off-the-budget, bill of borrowed money for a pissing contest in Iraq,
increased terrorism as the real terrorists were essentially left alone
to strengthen, etc. Did he ever veto any spending bill (even when
republicans controlled both the senate and congress)? GW's extensive
spending makes Obama seem a fiscally conservative.
Come to think of it, can you name even one success of the eight GW
years. I can think of only one - He was so inept that he opened the
door for the first minority in US history to be elected president.
If you don't like Obama being president, you can thank GW - His inept
leadership made it all possible.
Although GW made numerous mistakes, his biggest were likely tinkering
with a successful tax code (his rebates for the wealthy were all made
with borrowed money and failed to add any jobs), failing to curtail any
spending, invading Iraq (100% with again borrowed money) and allowing
the 9/11 terrorists to essentially run free only to strengthen in
numbers and force. Is there any doubt this loser will go down in
history as the #1 worst president?
jeff
Unemployment rate is a fictional number that comes in many flavors. The
figure you quote doesn't include those that have given up looking.
How many people are employed can be more accurately determined:
132,469K when he took office
134,333K when he left
Now, natural job growth due to population increase should be about
2,000K a year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms
It's no coincidence
> that the economy started going to hell when the Dems took control of
> Congress in the 2006 elections.
Mind you that the Iraq War was in freefall under Rumsfeld, when the Dems
came in and forced Bush to change to Gates who Obama retained.
Everything that Bush and the Republican congress did was a house of
cards. Largely unfunded. And both wars off budget. No wonder it has all
unwound. No problem spending, you just need another tax break for the
rich to pay for it. Crazy, huh? The Deficit nearly tripled under W.
Obama put the wars in the budget. So you have real numbers, not
fantasy. But you like the fantasy.
(And yes, the most ideological president in
> history -- then Senator Barrack H. Obama -- voted for all the spending bills
> and complained that they weren't enough.)
Historically money is put away for a rainy day. In the relatively good
days of W the debt kept rising. Nothing but debt was left when the house
of cards fell. Historically you spend your way out of a recession, the
most notable exception was Hoover's policies at the start of the Great
Depression.
And just where did all those tax breaks for the rich go? They didn't
go to building a better economy, they went into all those exotic
financial instruments that wrecked the economy.
Bush's biggest mistake was not
> vetoing a ton of shit. (He did try 18 separate and distinct times to reform
> Fanny and Freddie; see "Burning Down the House" unless Obama has had it
> removed from the internet like he just did a Reuters article on new "back
> door taxes".)
Fanny and Freddie are not the main reasons the economy collapsed. It
was bad oversite in just about every department. Your conservative
buddies had done a fine job of dismantling all the safeguards and
removing the watch dogs. When W left office almost every department was
leaderless down through the top several rungs and had been that way for
a while. Broken government and a broken economy is what W delivered.
Obama has done nothing less than save the economy from freefall. The
TARP money spent under Obama has largely been recovered or will be, much
of the money spent under W is lost.
But you think he did everything right. That is as delusional as you get.
Now go run away and hide like you so want to.
Jeff
>
> Out, BS
>
>
jeff
The Tea Party itself is going back to Reagan, their Purity pledge is
all about Reagan and little anything else:
WHEREAS, President Ronald Reagan believed that the Republican Party
should support
and espouse conservative principles and public policies; and
WHEREAS, President Ronald Reagan also believed the Republican Party
should welcome
those with diverse views; and
WHEREAS, President Ronald Reagan believed, as a result, that someone who
agreed with
him 8 out of 10 times was his friend, not his opponent; and
WHEREAS, Republican faithfulness to its conservative principles and
public policies and
Republican solidarity in opposition to Obama�s socialist agenda is
necessary to preserve the
security of our country, our economic and political freedoms, and our
way of life; and
WHEREAS, Republican faithfulness to its conservative principles and
public policies is
necessary to restore the trust of the American people in the Republican
Party and to lead to
Republican electoral victories; and
WHEREAS, the Republican National Committee shares President Ronald
Reagan�s belief
that the Republican Party should espouse conservative principles and
public policies and
welcome persons of diverse views; and
WHEREAS, the Republican National Committee desires to implement
President Reagan�s
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/A_Politics/Reagan_First_Read.pdf
Of course, W really was the president that most clearly followed what
the Tea Party wants. Crazy is doing the same thing over and over again
and expecting a different result. Yet that is what the Tea Party expects.
Jeff
Tom Sherman °_°
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>
>>
>> Dude, you're delusional. Unemployment was under 5% (technically "full
>> employment") for record number of quarters under Bush. It's no
>> coincidence that the economy started going to hell when the Dems took
>> control of Congress in the 2006 elections. (And yes, the most
>> ideological president in history -- then Senator Barrack H. Obama --
>> voted for all the spending bills and complained that they weren't
>> enough.) Bush's biggest mistake was not vetoing a ton of shit. (He
>> did try 18 separate and distinct times to reform Fanny and Freddie;
>> see "Burning Down the House" unless Obama has had it removed from the
>> internet like he just did a Reuters article on new "back door taxes".)
>>
>> Out, BS
>>
>>
>>
It's Sorni - what else is new?
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
Edward Dolan
"Tom Sherman �_�" <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote in message
news:hkfpa2$tur$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Liberals are so blinded by ideology that they are unable to comprehend, much
less deal with, the simplest facts. Folks, there is nothing dumber in this
world than a liberal. I give you Mr. Sherman as a prime example of the
species.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
Tom Sherman °_°
Now if there was a Libertine Party, I would vote for them. ;)
jeff
Lets look at these remarks as it explains a lot.
People, tend to think that others would do the same thing as they do.
Hence, if you are an ideologue, you think your opponent must be also.
Now, Mr Dolan has not refuted a single fact, he has instead engaged
in the most typical conservative line of personal attack. That gets
around those pesky facts which are so hard to explain.
In fact, for those on the right, this is a favorite approach.
Now, I believe that sometimes taxes are too high and sometimes there
is too much government regulation. An ideologue always believes that.
And he will follow that path irregardless of results.
It's all a bit selfish and not as self serving as they wish. To do
only things that are of benefit to yourself often backfires. The country
grows weaker and serves the individual less well. Certainly that is the
result of W blindly following tax cuts primarily aimed at the rich. Many
of those have lost also.
Those on the right tend to see this a zero sum game. They certainly
look at taxes that way. But wrecking the economy for your personal
benefit is not really self serving.
Jeff
Les Cargill
<snip>
>
> Those on the right tend to see this a zero sum game. They certainly
> look at taxes that way.
Not... really. The Laffer curve story isn't zero sum at all. The
Phillips curve story is closer to being zero-sum.
> But wrecking the economy for your personal
> benefit is not really self serving.
>
Bush tax cuts to the side, I gotta say - it's the people who
like government who seem the most self-serving. Doing a stint in
Congrefs, then taking a megabuck job at a lobbying firm ... is
highly... bipartisan.
> Jeff
>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>> aka
>> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>>
>>
--
Les Cargill
Tom Sherman °_°
> [...]
> Now, Mr Dolan has not refuted a single fact,[...]
Facts and Mr. Ed Dolan do not get along. ; )
Edward Dolan
"jeff" <jeff_...@att.net> wrote in message
news:hkhemt$e6b$1...@news.albasani.net...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]
>> Liberals are so blinded by ideology that they are unable to comprehend,
>> much less deal with, the simplest facts. Folks, there is nothing dumber
>> in this world than a liberal. I give you Mr. Sherman as a prime example
>> of the species.
>
> Lets look at these remarks as it explains a lot.
>
> People, tend to think that others would do the same thing as they do.
> Hence, if you are an ideologue, you think your opponent must be also.
>
> Now, Mr Dolan has not refuted a single fact, he has instead engaged in
> the most typical conservative line of personal attack. That gets around
> those pesky facts which are so hard to explain.
Bill Sornson gives anyone all the facts they would ever need. I go to the
heart of the matter which is the ideology of liberals. It is wrongheaded. I
have never known a liberal whom didn't deserve to be executed for crimes
against humanity. A liberal is a socialist is a communist. They are kin to
Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. Leftists all!
[...]
Edward Dolan
"Tom Sherman �_�" <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote in message
> jeff anonymous wrote:
>> [...]
>> Now, Mr Dolan has not refuted a single fact,[...]
>
> Facts and Mr. Ed Dolan do not get along. ; )
An ideologue (liberal-socialist-communist) like Mr. Sherman only knows those
few facts which buttress his ideology. He is like a primitive savage who
believes in voodoo. Since he will not emigrate to France I suggest Haiti.
jeff
> "jeff" <jeff_...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:hkhemt$e6b$1...@news.albasani.net...
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
> [...]
>>> Liberals are so blinded by ideology that they are unable to comprehend,
>>> much less deal with, the simplest facts. Folks, there is nothing dumber
>>> in this world than a liberal. I give you Mr. Sherman as a prime example
>>> of the species.
>> Lets look at these remarks as it explains a lot.
>>
>> People, tend to think that others would do the same thing as they do.
>> Hence, if you are an ideologue, you think your opponent must be also.
>>
>> Now, Mr Dolan has not refuted a single fact, he has instead engaged in
>> the most typical conservative line of personal attack. That gets around
>> those pesky facts which are so hard to explain.
>
> Bill Sornson gives anyone all the facts they would ever need.
Which is none.
I go to the
> heart of the matter which is the ideology of liberals. It is wrongheaded.
I
> have never known a liberal whom didn't deserve to be executed for crimes
> against humanity. A liberal is a socialist is a communist. They are kin to
> Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. Leftists all!
These are all strawman arguments. You make your opponent out to be
something of your own creation, so you can attack it. To actually
believe that Obama is a communist is bereft of any real understanding
and delusional. You don't have a clue.
BTW, I assume that you will be giving up up your Social Security and
Medicare. Send us proof.
I'm reminded of what Col Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powels longtime
aid, has said about George W Bush, he should be tried for treason.
Jeff
jeff
> "Tom Sherman �_�" <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote in message
> news:hkic7b$n0m$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> jeff anonymous wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> Now, Mr Dolan has not refuted a single fact,[...]
>> Facts and Mr. Ed Dolan do not get along. ; )
>
> An ideologue (liberal-socialist-communist) like Mr. Sherman only knows those
> few facts which buttress his ideology. He is like a primitive savage who
> believes in voodoo. Since he will not emigrate to France I suggest Haiti.
Typical talk from an ideologue. Nothing but personal attacks.
Tell me Bucko, why does the number employed, the GDP and Stock Market
always far worse under Republican Presidents?
BTW, here is a chart of National Debt as a percent of GDP.
Republican failure to manage the debt also.
Every time I tread a post from you guys on the right fringe, I think:
"Do these guys have anything but fear and hatred?". It appears not.
Jeff
Edward Dolan
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "Tom Sherman �_�" <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote in message
>> news:hkic7b$n0m$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> jeff anonymous wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> Now, Mr Dolan has not refuted a single fact,[...]
>>> Facts and Mr. Ed Dolan do not get along. ; )
>>
>> An ideologue (liberal-socialist-communist) like Mr. Sherman only knows
>> those few facts which buttress his ideology. He is like a primitive
>> savage who believes in voodoo. Since he will not emigrate to France I
>> suggest Haiti.
>
> Typical talk from an ideologue. Nothing but personal attacks.
Tom Sherman has become nothing but a quipster. If you take anything he says
seriously, then you are as nuts as he is.
> Tell me Bucko, why does the number employed, the GDP and Stock Market
> always far worse under Republican Presidents?
>
> BTW, here is a chart of National Debt as a percent of GDP.
>
> http://uspolitics.about.com/od/thefederalbudget/ig/Political-Economic-Measures/Debt-GDP-by-President.htm
>
> Republican failure to manage the debt also.
The Repubs are penny pinchers compared to free spending Dems. No comparison
at all.
> Every time I tread a post from you guys on the right fringe, I think:
> "Do these guys have anything but fear and hatred?". It appears not.
You are describing liberals who fear and hate everything under the sun. All
we conservatives fear and hate are liberals - damn their rotten souls all
the way to hell and back!
Edward Dolan
That is the ultimate destination of all liberals. After all, communism is
nothing but liberalism perfected. Marxism is basic to all Leftists.
> BTW, I assume that you will be giving up up your Social Security and
> Medicare. Send us proof.
I am one of the few persons in this country my age who does not have Social
Security and Medicare. As you can see, I marched to a different drummer than
the common man.
> I'm reminded of what Col Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powels longtime aid,
> has said about George W Bush, he should be tried for treason.
You have got everything backwards. It is Obama who will be tired for
treason. After all, he is destroying America as we have known it for several
hundred years.
Colin Powell in fact is guilty of treason himself. He was never loyal to
Bush. Why did he not resign if he did not agree with Bush on the Iraq war?
He was nothing but an opportunist and owed everything he was to the Repubs.
Fuck that cowardly general - who never met a war that he liked.
jeff
> "jeff" <jeff_...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:hkjvo7$egg$1...@news.albasani.net...
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>> "Tom Sherman �_�" <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote in message
>>> news:hkic7b$n0m$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> jeff anonymous wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> Now, Mr Dolan has not refuted a single fact,[...]
>>>> Facts and Mr. Ed Dolan do not get along. ; )
>>> An ideologue (liberal-socialist-communist) like Mr. Sherman only knows
>>> those few facts which buttress his ideology. He is like a primitive
>>> savage who believes in voodoo. Since he will not emigrate to France I
>>> suggest Haiti.
>> Typical talk from an ideologue. Nothing but personal attacks.
>
> Tom Sherman has become nothing but a quipster. If you take anything he says
> seriously, then you are as nuts as he is.
I'm not following him.
>
>> Tell me Bucko, why does the number employed, the GDP and Stock Market
>> always far worse under Republican Presidents?
>>
>> BTW, here is a chart of National Debt as a percent of GDP.
>>
>> http://uspolitics.about.com/od/thefederalbudget/ig/Political-Economic-Measures/Debt-GDP-by-President.htm
>>
>> Republican failure to manage the debt also.
>
> The Repubs are penny pinchers compared to free spending Dems. No comparison
> at all.
You must have missed the Medicare Drug Benefit. The most expensive
giveaway in decades.
Or did you miss the trillion dollars plus on the Iraq war.
Or did you miss the largest expansion in government in generations
with the convoluted mess of Homeland security.
It's mere wishful thinking that anyone could have spent more.
>
>> Every time I tread a post from you guys on the right fringe, I think:
>> "Do these guys have anything but fear and hatred?". It appears not.
>
> You are describing liberals who fear and hate everything under the sun. All
> we conservatives fear and hate are liberals - damn their rotten souls all
> the way to hell and back!
You hate a lot. And your perception of the typical Democrat is of
your own creation. You just believe what you are told.
Jeff
jeff
Er, did you miss that the financial system was in collapse?
Did you miss that this is widely referred to as the worst recession
since the Great Depression?
Did you miss that growth has returned and the unemployment rate
(which you seem to like) is heading down.
Did you miss that the Deficit nearly tripled under Bush?
Bush was twiddling his thumbs when all this was going down. Did you
not notice how much of the initial reaction was waste?
Jeff
Edward Dolan
> Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]
>>
>> The Repubs are penny pinchers compared to free spending Dems. No
>> comparison at all.
>
> You must have missed the Medicare Drug Benefit. The most expensive
> giveaway in decades.
When you get old one of your major expenses will be for prescription drugs
which you can least afford. This was a badly needed reform, but of course it
should have been paid for somehow.
> Or did you miss the trillion dollars plus on the Iraq war.
What would the Middle East have cost us if we hadn't invaded Iraq?
> Or did you miss the largest expansion in government in generations with
> the convoluted mess of Homeland security.
The main duty of the federal government is to protect the people.
> It's mere wishful thinking that anyone could have spent more.
The Dems are presently spending more than we could ever have imagined.
>>> Every time I tread a post from you guys on the right fringe, I think:
>>> "Do these guys have anything but fear and hatred?". It appears not.
>>
>> You are describing liberals who fear and hate everything under the sun.
>> All we conservatives fear and hate are liberals - damn their rotten souls
>> all the way to hell and back!
>
> You hate a lot. And your perception of the typical Democrat is of your
> own creation. You just believe what you are told.
I see what is being presented to us daily via the liberal media. CNN and
MSNBC especially have become nothing but conduits for liberal propaganda.
I fear the debt that liberal Dems are piling up. It is unsustainable and
highly dangerous. The only way out will be hyperinflation, the gravest sort
of tax on the middle class and the working poor.
Edward Dolan
> Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]
>> You have got everything backwards. It is Obama who will be tired for
>> treason. After all, he is destroying America as we have known it for
>> several hundred years.
>
> Er, did you miss that the financial system was in collapse?
Something that everyone in the country contributed to, most especially the
liberal Dems in Congress.
> Did you miss that this is widely referred to as the worst recession since
> the Great Depression?
>
> Did you miss that growth has returned and the unemployment rate (which
> you seem to like) is heading down.
>
> Did you miss that the Deficit nearly tripled under Bush?
>
> Bush was twiddling his thumbs when all this was going down. Did you not
> notice how much of the initial reaction was waste?
The liberal Dems are making everything a thousand times worse. Just keep
your eye on the debt.
TheTibetanMonkey
> "jeff" <jeff_th...@att.net> wrote in message
Some people here love to kiss the Republican ass, but I don't want to
say who they are.
Edward Dolan
"TheTibetanMonkey" <comandan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2e77d2db-f485-453a...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 6, 7:59 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> "jeff" <jeff_th...@att.net> wrote in message
>
> news:hkl1la$883$1...@news.albasani.net...
>
> > Edward Dolan wrote:
> [...]
> >> You have got everything backwards. It is Obama who will be tired for
> >> treason. After all, he is destroying America as we have known it for
> >> several hundred years.
>
> > Er, did you miss that the financial system was in collapse?
>
> Something that everyone in the country contributed to, most especially the
> liberal Dems in Congress.
>
> > Did you miss that this is widely referred to as the worst recession
> > since
> > the Great Depression?
>
> > Did you miss that growth has returned and the unemployment rate (which
> > you seem to like) is heading down.
>
> > Did you miss that the Deficit nearly tripled under Bush?
>
> > Bush was twiddling his thumbs when all this was going down. Did you not
> > notice how much of the initial reaction was waste?
>
> The liberal Dems are making everything a thousand times worse. Just keep
> your eye on the debt.
>>>> Some people here love to kiss the Republican ass, but I don't want to
say who they are.
90% of all cycling newsgroups posters are liberal. We conservatives are few
and far between.
tmclone
> Every time I tread a post from you guys on the right fringe, I think:
> "Do these guys have anything but fear and hatred?". It appears not.
>
> Jeff
Why do you waste your breath on these guys? It's not as if
rightwingnuts are capable of actual thought. They can only parrot what
they hear on faux news. It's sad, but hopeless. Move on.
jeff
> "jeff" <jeff_...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:hkl12r$7g4$1...@news.albasani.net...
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
> [...]
>>> The Repubs are penny pinchers compared to free spending Dems. No
>>> comparison at all.
>> You must have missed the Medicare Drug Benefit. The most expensive
>> giveaway in decades.
>
> When you get old one of your major expenses will be for prescription drugs
> which you can least afford. This was a badly needed reform, but of course it
> should have been paid for somehow.
There were a lot of ways to reduce drug cost other than subsidizing a
very well of drug business. You realize that drug companies spend far
more money on advertising than research.
And, not a thought was given to how to pay for that.
Who implemented Pay Go. Who got rid of it.
I see no trace of Republicans minding spending, just paying.
>
>> Or did you miss the trillion dollars plus on the Iraq war.
>
> What would the Middle East have cost us if we hadn't invaded Iraq?
In a lot better shape. Iran wouldn't be the huge problem it is in now,
because Iraq would have kept it in check. And we would have finished
Afghanistan.
>
>> Or did you miss the largest expansion in government in generations with
>> the convoluted mess of Homeland security.
>
> The main duty of the federal government is to protect the people.
>
>> It's mere wishful thinking that anyone could have spent more.
>
> The Dems are presently spending more than we could ever have imagined.
Much of that was spent by W and simply never put on the books. How much
do you think the Iraq war costs? Obama put that in the budget so at
least it shows up in the deficit. W was manipulating the books.
>
>>>> Every time I tread a post from you guys on the right fringe, I think:
>>>> "Do these guys have anything but fear and hatred?". It appears not.
>>> You are describing liberals who fear and hate everything under the sun.
>>> All we conservatives fear and hate are liberals - damn their rotten souls
>>> all the way to hell and back!
>> You hate a lot. And your perception of the typical Democrat is of your
>> own creation. You just believe what you are told.
>
> I see what is being presented to us daily via the liberal media. CNN and
> MSNBC especially have become nothing but conduits for liberal propaganda.
As opposed to Fox? You guys are so thin skinned.
>
> I fear the debt that liberal Dems are piling up.
Clinton worked hard to pay down the debt. The first thing W did was give
it all away. You should have cared before, I did.
It is unsustainable and
> highly dangerous. The only way out will be hyperinflation, the gravest sort
> of tax on the middle class and the working poor.
No sign of hyperinflation. Plenty of signs of fear and rabid
behaviour on the right. The debt will have to be handled, but the right
has no plans other than tax cuts and more spending off books. But first
the economy. You always spend your way out of a recession, that is if
you want to get out. Historically money is put back during good times. W
drained the pot.
Jeff
jeff
> "jeff" <jeff_...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:hkl1la$883$1...@news.albasani.net...
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
> [...]
>>> You have got everything backwards. It is Obama who will be tired for
>>> treason. After all, he is destroying America as we have known it for
>>> several hundred years.
>> Er, did you miss that the financial system was in collapse?
>
> Something that everyone in the country contributed to, most especially the
> liberal Dems in Congress.
Who gutted the regulatory departments? It was W.
And Democrats come in all flavors. Republicans only come in one
flavor and all vote in lock step. Who is behind your curtain?
>
>> Did you miss that this is widely referred to as the worst recession since
>> the Great Depression?
>>
>> Did you miss that growth has returned and the unemployment rate (which
>> you seem to like) is heading down.
>>
>> Did you miss that the Deficit nearly tripled under Bush?
>>
>> Bush was twiddling his thumbs when all this was going down. Did you not
>> notice how much of the initial reaction was waste?
>
> The liberal Dems are making everything a thousand times worse. Just keep
> your eye on the debt.
Why, you didn't care before? The solution was Pay Go, which got in the
way of all those unfunded tax cuts and spending.
You can look up the actual budgets and you will see that indeed W
kept the biggest cost off budget (it is now on budget and part of the
deficit).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget
Now look at the discretionary spending.
# $663.7 billion (+12.7%) – Department of Defense (including Overseas
Contingency Operations)
Do you want that to be less, while we are at war?
# $78.7 billion (−1.7%) – Department of Health and Human Services
Note the reduction
# $72.5 billion (+2.8%) – Department of Transportation
A modest increase for badly neglected infrastructure.
# $52.5 billion (+10.3%) – Department of Veterans Affairs
Huge problems here, or did you forget.
Your side cares not a whit about controlling debt, all they care about
is taxes. Why then did the non partisan commission to make
recommendations get no support from Republicans?
Costs need to be controlled in mandatory programs, but the
Republicans have no plans. Go look at the little they have ponied up and
it is little more that Sarah's Hand Notes:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stefan-sirucek/did-palin-use-crib-notes_b_452458.html
As someone put it, The Tea Party is like a dog chasing a car. If they
ever caught it they wouldn't know what to do with it.
Jeff
jeff
> On Feb 6, 9:52 am, jeff <jeff_th...@att.net> wrote:
>> Every time I tread a post from you guys on the right fringe, I think:
>> "Do these guys have anything but fear and hatred?". It appears not.
>>
>> Jeff
>
> Why do you waste your breath on these guys?
Because it's easy. And I think their nonsense needs to be refuted. I
think it gives you some good facts and arguments. If it is clogging up
the cycling groups, which I don't read, I'll kill it. I'm in frugal living.
Jeff
Edward Dolan
> Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]
>> What would the Middle East have cost us if we hadn't invaded Iraq?
>
>
> In a lot better shape. Iran wouldn't be the huge problem it is in now,
> because Iraq would have kept it in check. And we would have finished
> Afghanistan.
Bush will go down in history as the president who took on the Islamic
terrorists while the rest of the world stood by and did nothing. To his
credit, Obama seems to be doing the right thing in Afghanistan.
[...]
> It [the debt] is unsustainable and
>> highly dangerous. The only way out will be hyperinflation, the gravest
>> sort of tax on the middle class and the working poor.
>
> No sign of hyperinflation. Plenty of signs of fear and rabid behaviour
> on the right. The debt will have to be handled, but the right has no plans
> other than tax cuts and more spending off books. But first the economy.
> You always spend your way out of a recession, that is if you want to get
> out. Historically money is put back during good times. W drained the pot.
This business of spending your way out of a recession may be seriously
flawed. However, time will tell and any chickens out there will soon come
home to roost. The debt is very worrisome.
Bush was a big spender and he never vetoed anything. He was not a true
conservative by any means.
Edward Dolan
"tmclone" <tmc...@searchmachine.com> wrote in message
news:ae1a388a-292e-4fbb...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
What a laugh! Bill Sornson constantly posts links which refute every liberal
myth as to what constitutes the facts. But there are none so blind as those
who will not see, i.e., liberals.
Edward Dolan
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "jeff" <jeff_...@att.net> wrote in message
>> news:hkl1la$883$1...@news.albasani.net...
>>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> You have got everything backwards. It is Obama who will be tired for
>>>> treason. After all, he is destroying America as we have known it for
>>>> several hundred years.
>>> Er, did you miss that the financial system was in collapse?
>>
>> Something that everyone in the country contributed to, most especially
>> the liberal Dems in Congress.
>
> Who gutted the regulatory departments? It was W.
It was both Repubs and Dems who wanted everyone to own their own houses.
Bush tried to reign it in, but Congress wanted everyone to have a mortgage,
whether you could afford it or not. Barney Frank, a liberal Dem, was one of
the main villains in all of this.
> And Democrats come in all flavors. Republicans only come in one flavor
> and all vote in lock step. Who is behind your curtain?
Repubs have better party discipline than do the Dems.
[...]
> Your side cares not a whit about controlling debt, all they care about is
> taxes. Why then did the non partisan commission to make recommendations
> get no support from Republicans?
The Repubs do blather on about taxes way too much I must admit. But we have
got to get some control over spending. That is the problem, not taxes.
[...]
> As someone put it, The Tea Party is like a dog chasing a car. If they ever
> caught it they wouldn't know what to do with it.
The Tea Party movement is a sign of hope. They want smaller government and
less spending. If you are on the frugal living group, you should be for it.
jeff
> "jeff" <jeff_...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:hkmimr$p4o$1...@news.albasani.net...
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
> [...]
>>> What would the Middle East have cost us if we hadn't invaded Iraq?
>>
>> In a lot better shape. Iran wouldn't be the huge problem it is in now,
>> because Iraq would have kept it in check. And we would have finished
>> Afghanistan.
>
> Bush will go down in history as the president who took on the Islamic
> terrorists while the rest of the world stood by and did nothing.
Er, did he have a choice? He will go down as the president on whose
watch 9/11 happened and who let binLaden get away while he strated a war
that had nothing to do with alQaeda in Iraq. You do realize that the
drones that were tracking binLaden were pilled out of Afghanistan to
track Iraq instead?
To his
> credit, Obama seems to be doing the right thing in Afghanistan.
> [...]
After languishing for years, because the eye was on Iraq.
Note that 2009 was a record year for killing alQaeda and Taliban. 2010
is well on the way to eclipsing that. The leader of Pak Taliban is dead.
But in additional much progress has been made in cutting off their
finances. The difference between a working government and one trying to
limp to the finish line. Attention is finally being paid to Yemen. You
did know that Bush had a bit of a tiff and halted efforts there?
>
>> It [the debt] is unsustainable and
>>> highly dangerous. The only way out will be hyperinflation, the gravest
>>> sort of tax on the middle class and the working poor.
>> No sign of hyperinflation. Plenty of signs of fear and rabid behaviour
>> on the right. The debt will have to be handled, but the right has no plans
>> other than tax cuts and more spending off books. But first the economy.
>> You always spend your way out of a recession, that is if you want to get
>> out. Historically money is put back during good times. W drained the pot.
>
> This business of spending your way out of a recession may be seriously
> flawed. However, time will tell and any chickens out there will soon come
> home to roost. The debt is very worrisome.
Yes. Reagan was wrong in that deficits don't matter. So was Bush 2.
Remember he was given near surpluses.
But the recession comes first. Note that the value of the dollar
which had fallen so much under W is up under Obama. That borrowing rates
are historically low and that the % debt to GDP was higher post war.
You can not lower taxes and fix the debt. It has always been the
opposite. Even Reagan and George Bush 1 had to raise taxes after a
while. Trickle Down does not work.
There is little discretionary spending that can be cut, and the right
refuses to consider tackling mandatory. The only plan they had was to
privatize SS, the safety net. How many people would be destitute now if
that had been in place?
>
> Bush was a big spender and he never vetoed anything. He was not a true
> conservative by any means.
He was the darling of the conservative set, how can you deny that? You
still defend and admire him.
Jeff
jeff
> "tmclone" <tmc...@searchmachine.com> wrote in message
> news:ae1a388a-292e-4fbb...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 6, 9:52 am, jeff <jeff_th...@att.net> wrote:
>> Every time I tread a post from you guys on the right fringe, I think:
>> "Do these guys have anything but fear and hatred?". It appears not.
>>
>> Jeff
>
>>> Why do you waste your breath on these guys? It's not as if
> rightwingnuts are capable of actual thought. They can only parrot what
> they hear on faux news. It's sad, but hopeless. Move on.
>
> What a laugh! Bill Sornson constantly posts links which refute every liberal
> myth as to what constitutes the facts.
Repost one. Go ahead. I have a close friend who is a Tea Partier and I
hear all kinds of things. I always look into them and it always comes up
all opinion and little to no facts.
But there are none so blind as those
> who will not see, i.e., liberals.
You have only beliefs, no facts. Just because someone you like says
it's so, does not make it so.
I heard a Tea Partier saying they liked Sarah because she think like
they do. Exactly.
Jeff
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
> Edward Dolan wrote:
> > "jeff" <jeff_th...@att.net> wrote in message
> >news:hkmimr$p4o$1...@news.albasani.net...
> >> Edward Dolan wrote:
> > [...]
> >>> What would the Middle East have cost us if we hadn't invaded Iraq?
>
> >> In a lot better shape. Iran wouldn't be the huge problem it is in now,
> >> because Iraq would have kept it in check. And we would have finished
> >> Afghanistan.
>
> > Bush will go down in history as the president who took on the Islamic
> > terrorists while the rest of the world stood by and did nothing.
>
> Er, did he have a choice? He will go down as the president on whose
> watch 9/11 happened and who let binLaden get away while he strated a war
> that had nothing to do with alQaeda in Iraq. You do realize that the
> drones that were tracking binLaden were pilled out of Afghanistan to
> track Iraq instead?
I think he will also go down as the president that marks the
"beginning of the end." Because he invaded Iraq precisely because it
had NO WMDs, Iran and N. Korea decided to get the real thing. WELCOME
TO THE JUNGLE.
jeff
> "jeff" <jeff_...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:hkmk8b$rro$1...@news.albasani.net...
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>> "jeff" <jeff_...@att.net> wrote in message
>>> news:hkl1la$883$1...@news.albasani.net...
>>>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>> You have got everything backwards. It is Obama who will be tired for
>>>>> treason. After all, he is destroying America as we have known it for
>>>>> several hundred years.
>>>> Er, did you miss that the financial system was in collapse?
>>> Something that everyone in the country contributed to, most especially
>>> the liberal Dems in Congress.
>> Who gutted the regulatory departments? It was W.
>
> It was both Repubs and Dems who wanted everyone to own their own houses.
> Bush tried to reign it in, but Congress wanted everyone to have a mortgage,
> whether you could afford it or not. Barney Frank, a liberal Dem, was one of
> the main villains in all of this.
You guys are always looking for villains. The problem was not in
wanting more mortgages, the problem was that they didn't follow proper
procedures. It was not the government sponsored loans that failed, they
perform at average to above average rates. It was all those mortgages
based on fiction, none of which followed government standards.
>
>> And Democrats come in all flavors. Republicans only come in one flavor
>> and all vote in lock step. Who is behind your curtain?
> r
> Repubs have better party discipline than do the Dems.
> [...]
Absolutely. Which is why we are where we are today.
>
>> Your side cares not a whit about controlling debt, all they care about is
>> taxes. Why then did the non partisan commission to make recommendations
>> get no support from Republicans?
>
> The Repubs do blather on about taxes way too much I must admit. But we have
> got to get some control over spending. That is the problem, not taxes.
> [...]
Exactly what spending? I've posted the links to the 2010 budget, did
you look? What would you cut in the discretionary that would make a
difference?
Would you take the wars off budget again so the numbers look better?
>
>> As someone put it, The Tea Party is like a dog chasing a car. If they ever
>> caught it they wouldn't know what to do with it.
>
> The Tea Party movement is a sign of hope. They want smaller government and
> less spending. If you are on the frugal living group, you should be for it.
Sarah is a woman with much ambition, but little ability. She has
little clue of what is going on. She has narrow dogmatic beliefs. It is
not just liberals that believe that.
Sarah ran a state where the average citizen received far more from
the government dole than the lower 48. Indeed while she was mayor of
Wasilla she lobbied heavily and got government dollars. And she quit the
Governership in shambles, she treated the office like it was for family
and personal benefit. What a messy family life she leads.
But she think like you, which is to say, not deeply.
Jeff
jeff
I missed this before.
They were all loyal, and they all came to understand the facts were
being manipulated. It is not just Colin Powell but George Tenet, Paul
O'Neill, Scott McClellan, Richard Clarke...
Powell was a typical army general, not wanting to get out ahead, and
being faithful. The UN speech is what gave the Iraq war it's rationale.
It was all misinformation made up by the OVP (Cheney).
Jeff
Rod Speed
>>>>> What would the Middle East have cost us if we hadn't invaded Iraq?
>>>> In a lot better shape. Iran wouldn't be the huge problem it is in now, because
>>>> Iraq would have kept it in check. And we would have finished Afghanistan.
>>> Bush will go down in history as the president who took on the Islamic
>>> terrorists while the rest of the world stood by and did nothing.
>> Er, did he have a choice? He will go down as the president on whose
>> watch 9/11 happened and who let binLaden get away while he strated a
>> war that had nothing to do with alQaeda in Iraq. You do realize that
>> the drones that were tracking binLaden were pilled out of
>> Afghanistan to track Iraq instead?
> I think he will also go down as the president that marks the "beginning of the end."
I dont. Bet he ends up being seen like that fool Hoover or Spiro Agnew.
> Because he invaded Iraq precisely because it had NO
> WMDs, Iran and N. Korea decided to get the real thing.
They did indeed.
> WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE.
There's no jungle in North Korea either.
Edward Dolan
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "jeff" <jeff_...@att.net> wrote in message
>> news:hkmimr$p4o$1...@news.albasani.net...
>>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> What would the Middle East have cost us if we hadn't invaded Iraq?
>>>
>>> In a lot better shape. Iran wouldn't be the huge problem it is in now,
>>> because Iraq would have kept it in check. And we would have finished
>>> Afghanistan.
>>
>> Bush will go down in history as the president who took on the Islamic
>> terrorists while the rest of the world stood by and did nothing.
>
> Er, did he have a choice? He will go down as the president on whose watch
> 9/11 happened and who let binLaden get away while he strated a war that
> had nothing to do with alQaeda in Iraq. You do realize that the drones
> that were tracking binLaden were pilled out of Afghanistan to track Iraq
> instead?
Compared to Clinton, Bush did indeed do a lot. We shall have to effect
regime change in Iran too sooner or later.
> To his
>> credit, Obama seems to be doing the right thing in Afghanistan.
>> [...]
>
> After languishing for years, because the eye was on Iraq.
>
> Note that 2009 was a record year for killing alQaeda and Taliban. 2010 is
> well on the way to eclipsing that. The leader of Pak Taliban is dead. But
> in additional much progress has been made in cutting off their finances.
> The difference between a working government and one trying to limp to the
> finish line. Attention is finally being paid to Yemen. You did know that
> Bush had a bit of a tiff and halted efforts there?
Iraq was the central battleground as long we we there. Even the Islamic
extremists agreed with that. What difference does it make whether we kill
them in Iraq or Afghanistan or Pakistan or anywhere else. The important
thing is to kill them wherever they are.
>>> It [the debt] is unsustainable and
>>>> highly dangerous. The only way out will be hyperinflation, the gravest
>>>> sort of tax on the middle class and the working poor.
>>> No sign of hyperinflation. Plenty of signs of fear and rabid behaviour
>>> on the right. The debt will have to be handled, but the right has no
>>> plans other than tax cuts and more spending off books. But first the
>>> economy. You always spend your way out of a recession, that is if you
>>> want to get out. Historically money is put back during good times. W
>>> drained the pot.
>>
>> This business of spending your way out of a recession may be seriously
>> flawed. However, time will tell and any chickens out there will soon come
>> home to roost. The debt is very worrisome.
>
> Yes. Reagan was wrong in that deficits don't matter. So was Bush 2.
> Remember he was given near surpluses.
Their means of fighting a recession was to lower taxes, especially on the
rich. It seemed to have worked rather well. So far, Obama is making a mess
of everything.
> But the recession comes first. Note that the value of the dollar which
> had fallen so much under W is up under Obama. That borrowing rates are
> historically low and that the % debt to GDP was higher post war.
>
> You can not lower taxes and fix the debt. It has always been the opposite.
> Even Reagan and George Bush 1 had to raise taxes after a while. Trickle
> Down does not work.
Trickle down works in the short term, but not in the long term. We all
believe in the progressive income tax, don't we?
> There is little discretionary spending that can be cut, and the right
> refuses to consider tackling mandatory. The only plan they had was to
> privatize SS, the safety net. How many people would be destitute now if
> that had been in place?
Agree with you on the above.
>> Bush was a big spender and he never vetoed anything. He was not a true
>> conservative by any means.
>
> He was the darling of the conservative set, how can you deny that? You
> still defend and admire him.
I admire Bush for taking on the Islamic extremists, something Clinton never
did. The invasion of Iraq was a stroke of genius. Bravo Bush!
Edward Dolan
"jeff" <jeff_...@att.net> wrote in message news:4B702D1...@att.net...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]
> But there are none so blind as those
>> who will not see, i.e., liberals.
>
> You have only beliefs, no facts. Just because someone you like says it's
> so, does not make it so.
I leave it to others with lesser minds than mine to supply facts. I supply
ideology. I hate Leftists because they have been wrong about most everything
for the past hundred years. Furthermore, it was Leftists that gave us the
20th century, the worst century in the history of the West.
> I heard a Tea Partier saying they liked Sarah because she think like they
> do. Exactly.
Keep your eye on Sarah. She has hit a raw nerve in this country. She may or
may not ever become president, but she is changing how things are discussed.
She makes the Leftists look like the fools that they are.
Edward Dolan
> Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]
>> The Repubs do blather on about taxes way too much I must admit. But we
>> have got to get some control over spending. That is the problem, not
>> taxes.
>> [...]
>
> Exactly what spending? I've posted the links to the 2010 budget, did you
> look? What would you cut in the discretionary that would make a
> difference?
ALL spending - you dolt!
> Would you take the wars off budget again so the numbers look better?
There is one main reason why we have a federal government, to protect the
people. Why do the Dems always want to cut defense spending?
>>> As someone put it, The Tea Party is like a dog chasing a car. If they
>>> ever caught it they wouldn't know what to do with it.
>>
>> The Tea Party movement is a sign of hope. They want smaller government
>> and less spending. If you are on the frugal living group, you should be
>> for it.
>
> Sarah is a woman with much ambition, but little ability. She has little
> clue of what is going on. She has narrow dogmatic beliefs. It is not just
> liberals that believe that.
Just keep believing that and you will soon get the surprise of your life.
McCain was dead until he got hold of Sarah.
> Sarah ran a state where the average citizen received far more from the
> government dole than the lower 48. Indeed while she was mayor of Wasilla
> she lobbied heavily and got government dollars. And she quit the
> Governership in shambles, she treated the office like it was for family
> and personal benefit. What a messy family life she leads.
Who cares about any of the above. Alaska has always been fucked up. So what
else is new?
Sarah at least is not a murderer like liberals are (abortion).
> But she think like you, which is to say, not deeply.
We deep thinkers are alike in that we hate liberals. But Mass. gives us
hope. Imagine people so stupid as to keep voting for Kennedy even though he
was a murderer (Chappaquiddick) and a craven coward. But that is a liberal
for you!
jeff
> "jeff" <jeff_...@att.net> wrote in message news:4B702D1...@att.net...
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
> [...]
>> But there are none so blind as those
>>> who will not see, i.e., liberals.
>> You have only beliefs, no facts. Just because someone you like says it's
>> so, does not make it so.
>
> I leave it to others with lesser minds than mine to supply facts. I supply
> ideology.
Yes. Which makes you an ideologue. Someone who believes just because
they do.
I hate Leftists because they have been wrong about most everything
> for the past hundred years. Furthermore, it was Leftists that gave us the
> 20th century, the worst century in the history of the West.
An odd turn there. Was it not the right wing that brought us both world
wars?
>
>> I heard a Tea Partier saying they liked Sarah because she think like they
>> do. Exactly.
>
> Keep your eye on Sarah. She has hit a raw nerve in this country. She may or
> may not ever become president, but she is changing how things are discussed.
> She makes the Leftists look like the fools that they are.
She is incompetent. She flaked out on the big Republican fund raiser,
and she hit this one to get the 100K. You did know that, didn't you?
Jeff
Edward Dolan
> jeff wrote:
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>> Colin Powell in fact is guilty of treason himself. He was never loyal to
>>> Bush. Why did he not resign if he did not agree with Bush on the Iraq
>>> war? He was nothing but an opportunist and owed everything he was to the
>>> Repubs. Fuck that cowardly general - who never met a war that he liked.
>
> I missed this before.
>
> They were all loyal, and they all came to understand the facts were
> being manipulated. It is not just Colin Powell but George Tenet, Paul
> O'Neill, Scott McClellan, Richard Clarke...
Yup, they were all just too dumb to ever see anything until it was too late.
> Powell was a typical army general, not wanting to get out ahead, and
> being faithful. The UN speech is what gave the Iraq war it's rationale. It
> was all misinformation made up by the OVP (Cheney).
Nothing was made up - you confounded dolt. Everyone in the world believed
that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and that he would use them (as
he had in the past). Apparently, only you ever believed otherwise.
Bill Sornson has posted many times what everyone was saying at the time. But
of course, liberals are never deterred by any facts. All liberals know how
to do is spin, spin, spin and lie, lie, lie! And of course, hindsight is
always 20/20.
Edward Dolan
> Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]
>> I leave it to others with lesser minds than mine to supply facts. I
>> supply ideology.
>
> Yes. Which makes you an ideologue. Someone who believes just because they
> do.
I am a conservative ideologue based on my reading of history and my views on
human nature. What do you base your beliefs on?
> I hate Leftists because they have been wrong about most everything
>> for the past hundred years. Furthermore, it was Leftists that gave us the
>> 20th century, the worst century in the history of the West.
>
> An odd turn there. Was it not the right wing that brought us both world
> wars?
WWI was brought on by a general lust for war by all the great powers. It
marked the end of three empires. WWII was brought on by Leftists like
Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin; Korea and Vietnam, again by Leftists. Or do
you think republican democracies start wars?
>>> I heard a Tea Partier saying they liked Sarah because she think like
>>> they do. Exactly.
>>
>> Keep your eye on Sarah. She has hit a raw nerve in this country. She may
>> or may not ever become president, but she is changing how things are
>> discussed. She makes the Leftists look like the fools that they are.
>
> She is incompetent. She flaked out on the big Republican fund raiser,
> and she hit this one to get the 100K. You did know that, didn't you?
Let's talk about Edwards, a real scum bucket if ever there was one. Kerry
was a scum bucket too.
jeff
> "jeff" <jeff_...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:hkpa5q$lcu$1...@news.albasani.net...
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>> "jeff" <jeff_...@att.net> wrote in message
>>> news:hkmimr$p4o$1...@news.albasani.net...
>>>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>> What would the Middle East have cost us if we hadn't invaded Iraq?
>>>> In a lot better shape. Iran wouldn't be the huge problem it is in now,
>>>> because Iraq would have kept it in check. And we would have finished
>>>> Afghanistan.
>>> Bush will go down in history as the president who took on the Islamic
>>> terrorists while the rest of the world stood by and did nothing.
>> Er, did he have a choice? He will go down as the president on whose watch
>> 9/11 happened and who let binLaden get away while he strated a war that
>> had nothing to do with alQaeda in Iraq. You do realize that the drones
>> that were tracking binLaden were pilled out of Afghanistan to track Iraq
>> instead?
>
> Compared to Clinton, Bush did indeed do a lot. We shall have to effect
> regime change in Iran too sooner or later.
Bzzt.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/index.htm
W sat on his ass.
>
>> To his
>>> credit, Obama seems to be doing the right thing in Afghanistan.
>>> [...]
>> After languishing for years, because the eye was on Iraq.
>>
>> Note that 2009 was a record year for killing alQaeda and Taliban. 2010 is
>> well on the way to eclipsing that. The leader of Pak Taliban is dead. But
>> in additional much progress has been made in cutting off their finances.
>> The difference between a working government and one trying to limp to the
>> finish line. Attention is finally being paid to Yemen. You did know that
>> Bush had a bit of a tiff and halted efforts there?
>
> Iraq was the central battleground as long we we there. Even the Islamic
> extremists agreed with that.
Hows that? There was no alQaeda in any part of Iraq that Saddam
controlled. There was only after we invaded. Get the difference?
What difference does it make whether we kill
> them in Iraq or Afghanistan or Pakistan or anywhere else. The important
> thing is to kill them wherever they are.
The crew in Iraq didn't exist before. Iraq turned into a huge
recruiting boost for alQaeda. One of the reasons, now that we are on the
way out, that their influence has fallen.
>
>>>> It [the debt] is unsustainable and
>>>>> highly dangerous. The only way out will be hyperinflation, the gravest
>>>>> sort of tax on the middle class and the working poor.
>>>> No sign of hyperinflation. Plenty of signs of fear and rabid behaviour
>>>> on the right. The debt will have to be handled, but the right has no
>>>> plans other than tax cuts and more spending off books. But first the
>>>> economy. You always spend your way out of a recession, that is if you
>>>> want to get out. Historically money is put back during good times. W
>>>> drained the pot.
>>> This business of spending your way out of a recession may be seriously
>>> flawed. However, time will tell and any chickens out there will soon come
>>> home to roost. The debt is very worrisome.
>> Yes. Reagan was wrong in that deficits don't matter. So was Bush 2.
>> Remember he was given near surpluses.
>
> Their means of fighting a recession was to lower taxes, especially on the
> rich. It seemed to have worked rather well.
The recession, largely caused by after effects of Vietnam and oil
shocks, was on the way out long before any of those tax breaks took effect.
But those tax breaks are miniscule compared to what W did. Look up
the marginal tax rates if you don't believe me.
So far, Obama is making a mess
> of everything.
Except the economy is on the mend. GDP is up, unemployment heading
down. Much success in killing alQaeda. Millions of people retained their
unemployment benefits.
>> But the recession comes first. Note that the value of the dollar which
>> had fallen so much under W is up under Obama. That borrowing rates are
>> historically low and that the % debt to GDP was higher post war.
>>
>> You can not lower taxes and fix the debt. It has always been the opposite.
>> Even Reagan and George Bush 1 had to raise taxes after a while. Trickle
>> Down does not work.
>
> Trickle down works in the short term, but not in the long term. We all
> believe in the progressive income tax, don't we?
All that money that W gave to the rich didn't help the economy. It
wasn't invested in productive work. A lot of it went into those exotic
financial instruments that wrecked the economy.
The economy did very well under Clinton with a top marginal Tax Rate
of 39.6%. Not that anyone pays that after tax breaks. What's wrong with
going back to that?
>
>> There is little discretionary spending that can be cut, and the right
>> refuses to consider tackling mandatory. The only plan they had was to
>> privatize SS, the safety net. How many people would be destitute now if
>> that had been in place?
>
> Agree with you on the above.
I'm glad we agree on something!
>
>>> Bush was a big spender and he never vetoed anything. He was not a true
>>> conservative by any means.
>> He was the darling of the conservative set, how can you deny that? You
>> still defend and admire him.
>
> I admire Bush for taking on the Islamic extremists, something Clinton never
> did. The invasion of Iraq was a stroke of genius. Bravo Bush!
Nope. Clinton had a comprehensive plan, one that was handed off to W who
did nothing. Read Richard Clarke, George Tenet, Paul O'Neill, any of
those who worked in the W Whitehouse (all Republicans) and they will
tell you that W was obsessed with Saddam and cared not a whit about
alQaeda, until... and then the first reaction was to go after Iraq.
Mind you that the designers of the first WTC attack were all arrested
and successfully prosecuted.
While all that was happening the right repeatedly said that Clinton
was too obsessed with alQaeda. The focus shifted when W took office.
And, you do realize there was no alQaeda in any part of Iraq that
Saddam controlled. After the invasion, those were alQaeda converts, that
didn't exist before. All for the loss of thousands of American
Military personnel and many many innocent civilians (The average
civilian death toll was on the order of a hundred a day for years) and a
trillion dollars or so.
What has happened is you have been swept up in the strong talk and
breast beating. Results are what matters.
Jeff
jeff
> "jeff" <jeff_...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:hkposf$fj1$1...@news.albasani.net...
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
> [...]
>>> I leave it to others with lesser minds than mine to supply facts. I
>>> supply ideology.
>> Yes. Which makes you an ideologue. Someone who believes just because they
>> do.
>
> I am a conservative ideologue based on my reading of history and my views on
> human nature. What do you base your beliefs on?
I'm a pragmatist and know a good bit about history and warfare.
>
>> I hate Leftists because they have been wrong about most everything
>>> for the past hundred years. Furthermore, it was Leftists that gave us the
>>> 20th century, the worst century in the history of the West.
>> An odd turn there. Was it not the right wing that brought us both world
>> wars?
>
> WWI was brought on by a general lust for war by all the great powers. It
> marked the end of three empires.
And you think Kaiser Wilhelm, Hötzendorf and Berchtold were leftists?
WWII was brought on by Leftists like
> Hitler,
Bzzt. Leftist? Get real, he was a right wing fascist.
Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, is a political ideology that seeks to
combine radical and authoritarian nationalism[1][2][3][4] with a
corporatist economic system.[5] Scholars generally consider it to be on
the far right of the traditional left-right political spectrum.
Mussolini
Bzzt. fascist.
and Stalin; Korea and Vietnam, again by Leftists. Or do
> you think republican democracies start wars?
You don't have clue about the difference between being a Socialist, a
Communist and a Democrat. Have you ever talked to people that lived
under communism? I know quite a number that escaped from the iron
curtain. There is no comparison between Obama and Communism in their minds.
>
>>>> I heard a Tea Partier saying they liked Sarah because she think like
>>>> they do. Exactly.
>>> Keep your eye on Sarah. She has hit a raw nerve in this country. She may
>>> or may not ever become president, but she is changing how things are
>>> discussed. She makes the Leftists look like the fools that they are.
>> She is incompetent. She flaked out on the big Republican fund raiser,
>> and she hit this one to get the 100K. You did know that, didn't you?
>
> Let's talk about Edwards, a real scum bucket if ever there was one.
Why. Is he running? Was he president? I never liked him. Did I ever say
I did?
Is he worse than Mark Sanford? Or any of the numerous closeted gay
republicans that have taken a wide stance?
Kerry
> was a scum bucket too.
Same as above.
Jeff
jeff
> "jeff" <jeff_...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:hkpbno$nuq$1...@news.albasani.net...
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
> [...]
>>> The Repubs do blather on about taxes way too much I must admit. But we
>>> have got to get some control over spending. That is the problem, not
>>> taxes.
>>> [...]
>> Exactly what spending? I've posted the links to the 2010 budget, did you
>> look? What would you cut in the discretionary that would make a
>> difference?
>
> ALL spending - you dolt!
So, no roads, no government services of any kind.
Doesn't matter what is in your sausage, your water or your air.
No police, CIA, FBI or Fire Department.
That is just stupid.
>
>> Would you take the wars off budget again so the numbers look better?
>
> There is one main reason why we have a federal government, to protect the
> people. Why do the Dems always want to cut defense spending?
>
>>>> As someone put it, The Tea Party is like a dog chasing a car. If they
>>>> ever caught it they wouldn't know what to do with it.
>>> The Tea Party movement is a sign of hope. They want smaller government
>>> and less spending. If you are on the frugal living group, you should be
>>> for it.
>> Sarah is a woman with much ambition, but little ability. She has little
>> clue of what is going on. She has narrow dogmatic beliefs. It is not just
>> liberals that believe that.
>
> Just keep believing that and you will soon get the surprise of your life.
> McCain was dead until he got hold of Sarah.
Then he was really dead.
>
>> Sarah ran a state where the average citizen received far more from the
>> government dole than the lower 48. Indeed while she was mayor of Wasilla
>> she lobbied heavily and got government dollars. And she quit the
>> Governership in shambles, she treated the office like it was for family
>> and personal benefit. What a messy family life she leads.
>
> Who cares about any of the above. Alaska has always been fucked up. So what
> else is new?
>
> Sarah at least is not a murderer like liberals are (abortion).
Why is it that right wingers care more about a 1 minute old embryo
than a 1 minute old baby. Seems wrong to me. I do not support abortion
willy nilly either.
>
>> But she think like you, which is to say, not deeply.
>
> We deep thinkers are alike in that we hate liberals. But Mass. gives us
> hope. Imagine people so stupid as to keep voting for Kennedy even though he
> was a murderer (Chappaquiddick) and a craven coward. But that is a liberal
> for you!
I've mostly just seen seething blind hatred. Surely no reflection on
past failures or what the policies will actually do. There are no
numbers, no facts, just a divine belief that you are right. That is just
pure crazy.
Jeff
jeff
> "jeff" <jeff_...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:hkpdi9$r2q$1...@news.albasani.net...
>> jeff wrote:
>>> Edward Dolan wrote:
> [...]
>>>> Colin Powell in fact is guilty of treason himself. He was never loyal to
>>>> Bush. Why did he not resign if he did not agree with Bush on the Iraq
>>>> war? He was nothing but an opportunist and owed everything he was to the
>>>> Repubs. Fuck that cowardly general - who never met a war that he liked.
>> I missed this before.
>>
>> They were all loyal, and they all came to understand the facts were
>> being manipulated. It is not just Colin Powell but George Tenet, Paul
>> O'Neill, Scott McClellan, Richard Clarke...
>
> Yup, they were all just too dumb to ever see anything until it was too late.
You haven't read a word of what any of them have said, have you? You
just believe, because you believe. Any evidence that might oppose what
you believe must be blocked.
Such blind faith. Pride comes before the fall.
>
>> Powell was a typical army general, not wanting to get out ahead, and
>> being faithful. The UN speech is what gave the Iraq war it's rationale. It
>> was all misinformation made up by the OVP (Cheney).
>
> Nothing was made up - you confounded dolt.
All of it was made up by wishful interpretation of raw intelligence.
They used to call it "feith based", because Doug Feith made it all up.
He would put in anything that strengthened the case for war, no matter
how unlikely or discredited it was. All of it came out of the OVP which
ran it's own (faulty) intel analysis. Absolutely all of it has been
discredited. Even W, Cheney and Rumsfeld now say there were no weapons
of mass destruction.
Colin Powell had one week to write that UN speech. The OVP kept
putting stuff that had to be thrown out. What remained in there the OVP
vouched that is was true.
Everyone in the world believed
> that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and that he would use them (as
> he had in the past). Apparently, only you ever believed otherwise.
Nope. The Germans warned repeatedly that Curveball (that's the basis
of the bio terror) was not to be relied on. In fact they never even
talked to him to check (US) as he was in Germany. All that came out of
some screwball report.
There was plenty of evidence that the aluminum tubes were completely
unsuited for centrifuges, and for multiple reasons. And there was plenty
of evidence for what they were really used for.
>
> Bill Sornson has posted many times what everyone was saying at the time. But
> of course, liberals are never deterred by any facts.
I haven't seen a fact yet from you. I like facts. Show me one.
All liberals know how
> to do is spin, spin, spin and lie, lie, lie! And of course, hindsight is
> always 20/20.
No spin, just the truth. I've posted references to what Clinton did,
what is in the budget, what W didn't do. And you have, nothing... but
your blind convictions.
Jeff
Edward Dolan
> Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]
>> Iraq was the central battleground as long we we there. Even the Islamic
>> extremists agreed with that.
>
> Hows that? There was no alQaeda in any part of Iraq that Saddam
> controlled. There was only after we invaded. Get the difference?
There were other good and sufficient reasons for taking out Iraq. Once we
invaded we got two for the price of one. Get the difference?
> What difference does it make whether we kill
>> them in Iraq or Afghanistan or Pakistan or anywhere else. The important
>> thing is to kill them wherever they are.
>
> The crew in Iraq didn't exist before. Iraq turned into a huge recruiting
> boost for alQaeda. One of the reasons, now that we are on the way out,
> that their influence has fallen.
That is because we defeated them in Iraq, something that would never have
happened if liberal Dems had been in charge.
[...]
> So far, Obama is making a mess
>> of everything.
>
> Except the economy is on the mend. GDP is up, unemployment heading down.
> Much success in killing alQaeda. Millions of people retained their
> unemployment benefits.
Nothing much is happening yet if you ask me.
>>> But the recession comes first. Note that the value of the dollar which
>>> had fallen so much under W is up under Obama. That borrowing rates are
>>> historically low and that the % debt to GDP was higher post war.
>>>
>>> You can not lower taxes and fix the debt. It has always been the
>>> opposite. Even Reagan and George Bush 1 had to raise taxes after a
>>> while. Trickle Down does not work.
>>
>> Trickle down works in the short term, but not in the long term. We all
>> believe in the progressive income tax, don't we?
>
> All that money that W gave to the rich didn't help the economy. It
> wasn't invested in productive work. A lot of it went into those exotic
> financial instruments that wrecked the economy.
Nope, we had a good economy under Bush until the bubble burst.
> The economy did very well under Clinton with a top marginal Tax Rate of
> 39.6%. Not that anyone pays that after tax breaks. What's wrong with going
> back to that?
Yes, I am in favor of that too.
>>> There is little discretionary spending that can be cut, and the right
>>> refuses to consider tackling mandatory. The only plan they had was to
>>> privatize SS, the safety net. How many people would be destitute now if
>>> that had been in place?
>>
>> Agree with you on the above.
>
> I'm glad we agree on something!
>>
>>>> Bush was a big spender and he never vetoed anything. He was not a true
>>>> conservative by any means.
>>> He was the darling of the conservative set, how can you deny that? You
>>> still defend and admire him.
>>
>> I admire Bush for taking on the Islamic extremists, something Clinton
>> never did. The invasion of Iraq was a stroke of genius. Bravo Bush!
>
> Nope. Clinton had a comprehensive plan, one that was handed off to W who
> did nothing. Read Richard Clarke, George Tenet, Paul O'Neill, any of those
> who worked in the W Whitehouse (all Republicans) and they will tell you
> that W was obsessed with Saddam and cared not a whit about alQaeda,
> until... and then the first reaction was to go after Iraq.
It was time to accomplish several things at the time. Only Bush had the guts
to do it.
> Mind you that the designers of the first WTC attack were all arrested
> and successfully prosecuted.
Clinton never woke up from his slumbers. He treated them as criminals, not
Islamic terrorists that were at war with us.
> While all that was happening the right repeatedly said that Clinton was
> too obsessed with alQaeda. The focus shifted when W took office.
>
> And, you do realize there was no alQaeda in any part of Iraq that Saddam
> controlled. After the invasion, those were alQaeda converts, that didn't
> exist before. All for the loss of thousands of American Military personnel
> and many many innocent civilians (The average civilian death toll was on
> the order of a hundred a day for years) and a trillion dollars or so.
Who cares how many Iraqis die for whatever reason. Did you care about the
Iraqis that were being murdered under Saddam? Did you care about the Kurds
that were being gassed to death by Saddam?
American losses have also been minimal. You like statistics so much, why not
compare our military losses with losses from road accidents on our highways.
Or is a soldier more valuable than a civilian?
Edward Dolan
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "jeff" <jeff_...@att.net> wrote in message
>> news:hkposf$fj1$1...@news.albasani.net...
>>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> I leave it to others with lesser minds than mine to supply facts. I
>>>> supply ideology.
>>> Yes. Which makes you an ideologue. Someone who believes just because
>>> they do.
>>
>> I am a conservative ideologue based on my reading of history and my views
>> on human nature. What do you base your beliefs on?
>
> I'm a pragmatist and know a good bit about history and warfare.
You are libearl idealogeu I cna't underatdn what yo ar edoign on frugal
lviing. Yo are abig spender jstu liek all liberasl are. Waht is frugal about
that?
>>
>>> I hate Leftists because they have been wrong about most everything
>>>> for the past hundred years. Furthermore, it was Leftists that gave us
>>>> the 20th century, the worst century in the history of the West.
>>> An odd turn there. Was it not the right wing that brought us both world
>>> wars?
>>
>> WWI was brought on by a general lust for war by all the great powers. It
>> marked the end of three empires.
>
> And you think Kaiser Wilhelm, H�tzendorf and Berchtold were leftists?
I clearly stated taht WWI was exceptional.
>
>
> WWII was brought on by Leftists like
>> Hitler,
>
>
> Bzzt. Leftist? Get real, he was a right wing fascist.
>
> Fascism, pronounced /'f�??z?m/, is a political ideology that seeks to
> combine radical and authoritarian nationalism[1][2][3][4] with a
> corporatist economic system.[5] Scholars generally consider it to be on
> the far right of the traditional left-right political spectrum.
Jeez, I wonder where they ever got the term NAZI? Look it up!
> Mussolini
>
> Bzzt. fascist.
>
> and Stalin; Korea and Vietnam, again by Leftists. Or do
>> you think republican democracies start wars?
>
> You don't have clue about the difference between being a Socialist, a
> Communist and a Democrat. Have you ever talked to people that lived under
> communism? I know quite a number that escaped from the iron curtain. There
> is no comparison between Obama and Communism in their minds.
The goal of leftist ideology is complete control of the people. Then they
find out that they can only accomplish that by dictatorship and tyranny.
Why? Because your leftist crap goes against human nature and indeed history
itself.
[...]
>> Let's talk about Edwards, a real scum bucket if ever there was one.
>
> Why. Is he running? Was he president? I never liked him. Did I ever say I
> did?
Is Sarah running for president?
> Is he worse than Mark Sanford? Or any of the numerous closeted gay
> republicans that have taken a wide stance?
Dems do not have enough shame to closet themselves. Barney Frank ran a male
prostitution ring out of his house in Mass.
> Kerry
>> was a scum bucket too.
>
> Same as above.
Sanford never ran for president. Unlike Kerry, I think he always supported
this nation in its wars. Repubs are not treasonous bastards like liberal
Dems.
Edward Dolan
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "jeff" <jeff_...@att.net> wrote in message
>> news:hkpbno$nuq$1...@news.albasani.net...
>>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> The Repubs do blather on about taxes way too much I must admit. But we
>>>> have got to get some control over spending. That is the problem, not
>>>> taxes.
>>>> [...]
>>> Exactly what spending? I've posted the links to the 2010 budget, did
>>> you look? What would you cut in the discretionary that would make a
>>> difference?
>>
>> ALL spending - you dolt!
>
> So, no roads, no government services of any kind.
>
> Doesn't matter what is in your sausage, your water or your air.
>
> No police, CIA, FBI or Fire Department.
>
> That is just stupid.
Just cut spending. You would not know frugal if it jumped up and bit you in
your ass.
[...]
>> We deep thinkers are alike in that we hate liberals. But Mass. gives us
>> hope. Imagine people so stupid as to keep voting for Kennedy even though
>> he was a murderer (Chappaquiddick) and a craven coward. But that is a
>> liberal for you!
>
> I've mostly just seen seething blind hatred. Surely no reflection on
> past failures or what the policies will actually do. There are no numbers,
> no facts, just a divine belief that you are right. That is just pure
> crazy.
You like immoral bastards like Ted Kennedy. I don't. President Kennedy was
also a scofflaw and a terrible president who bungled the Cuban invasion.
Apparently only the Bushs know how to invade and win.
Edward Dolan
> Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]
> Everyone in the world believed
>> that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and that he would use them
>> (as he had in the past). Apparently, only you ever believed otherwise.
> Nope. The Germans warned repeatedly that Curveball (that's the basis of
> the bio terror) was not to be relied on. In fact they never even talked to
> him to check (US) as he was in Germany. All that came out of some
> screwball report.
>
> There was plenty of evidence that the aluminum tubes were completely
> unsuited for centrifuges, and for multiple reasons. And there was plenty
> of evidence for what they were really used for.
Have you ever thought of going to work for an intelligence agency? We badly
need those who are expert in hindsight.
>> Bill Sornson has posted many times what everyone was saying at the time.
>> But of course, liberals are never deterred by any facts.
>
> I haven't seen a fact yet from you. I like facts. Show me one.
Only if you tell me how you are frugal. So far, all you have done is defend
big free spending liberal Dems.
> All liberals know how
>> to do is spin, spin, spin and lie, lie, lie! And of course, hindsight is
>> always 20/20.
>
> No spin, just the truth. I've posted references to what Clinton did,
> what is in the budget, what W didn't do. And you have, nothing... but your
> blind convictions.
Facts are the last refuge of a scoundrel. We can all pick and choose our
facts. Your liberal bias disqualifies you from having any credibility when
it comes to facts. You and Tom Sherman should get together. He only likes
his "liberal" facts too. I will stick with Bill Sornson who at least knows a
fact when he sees one.
Edward Dolan
> Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]
>> Sarah at least is not a murderer like liberals are (abortion).
>
> Why is it that right wingers care more about a 1 minute old embryo than
> a 1 minute old baby. Seems wrong to me. I do not support abortion willy
> nilly either.
A human life begins at conception. A woman should not fuck if she does not
want a baby. A man similarly should not fuck if he does not want a baby.
What is there about this that you do not understand?
Saint Edward the Great is the last celibate in the known universe. That is
because He never wanted a baby and indeed would not mind if mankind perished
from this earth. Now perhaps you get a glimmer of what is meant by frugal
living!
jeff
> "jeff" <jeff_...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:hkprom$krc$1...@news.albasani.net...
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
> [...]
>>> Iraq was the central battleground as long we we there. Even the Islamic
>>> extremists agreed with that.
>> Hows that? There was no alQaeda in any part of Iraq that Saddam
>> controlled. There was only after we invaded. Get the difference?
>
> There were other good and sufficient reasons for taking out Iraq.
So it had nothing to do with the real reason. And just what was that?
What justifies the loss of 4K Americans, 100's of thousand of
innocent civilians and the inexorable rise of Iran?
Once we
> invaded we got two for the price of one. Get the difference?
There is little benefit for the cost paid. Your reasons look like
accidents.
>
>> What difference does it make whether we kill
>>> them in Iraq or Afghanistan or Pakistan or anywhere else. The important
>>> thing is to kill them wherever they are.
>> The crew in Iraq didn't exist before. Iraq turned into a huge recruiting
>> boost for alQaeda. One of the reasons, now that we are on the way out,
>> that their influence has fallen.
>
> That is because we defeated them in Iraq, something that would never have
> happened if liberal Dems had been in charge.
Wrong. The alQaeda threat in Pak remained, it didn't move to Iraq so we
could kill them there. It grew dramatically. You think alQaeda just got
on the bus and moved from Islamabad to Baghdad. Crazy. The amount of
foreign born alQaeda in Iraq was never more that 5% or so of alQaeda's
strength.
> [...]
>
>> So far, Obama is making a mess
>>> of everything.
>> Except the economy is on the mend. GDP is up, unemployment heading down.
>> Much success in killing alQaeda. Millions of people retained their
>> unemployment benefits.
>
> Nothing much is happening yet if you ask me.
Doesn't seem like you know much.
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm
Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services
produced by labor and property
located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 5.7
percent in the fourth quarter of 2009,
(that is, from the third quarter to the fourth quarter), according to
the "advance" estimate released by the
Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the third quarter, real GDP increased
2.2 percent.
>
>>>> But the recession comes first. Note that the value of the dollar which
>>>> had fallen so much under W is up under Obama. That borrowing rates are
>>>> historically low and that the % debt to GDP was higher post war.
>>>>
>>>> You can not lower taxes and fix the debt. It has always been the
>>>> opposite. Even Reagan and George Bush 1 had to raise taxes after a
>>>> while. Trickle Down does not work.
>>> Trickle down works in the short term, but not in the long term. We all
>>> believe in the progressive income tax, don't we?
>> All that money that W gave to the rich didn't help the economy. It
>> wasn't invested in productive work. A lot of it went into those exotic
>> financial instruments that wrecked the economy.
>
> Nope, we had a good economy under Bush until the bubble burst.
Really. It was all bubble. The size of the workforce rose by less
than 2%, normal growth is 2% a year, not over 8 years.
GDP was markedly worse than under Clinton, or almost anyone else.
The financial system collapsed.
And that is your opinion of a good economy?
>
>> The economy did very well under Clinton with a top marginal Tax Rate of
>> 39.6%. Not that anyone pays that after tax breaks. What's wrong with going
>> back to that?
>
> Yes, I am in favor of that too.
Good.
>
>>>> There is little discretionary spending that can be cut, and the right
>>>> refuses to consider tackling mandatory. The only plan they had was to
>>>> privatize SS, the safety net. How many people would be destitute now if
>>>> that had been in place?
>>> Agree with you on the above.
>> I'm glad we agree on something!
>>>>> Bush was a big spender and he never vetoed anything. He was not a true
>>>>> conservative by any means.
>>>> He was the darling of the conservative set, how can you deny that? You
>>>> still defend and admire him.
>>> I admire Bush for taking on the Islamic extremists, something Clinton
>>> never did. The invasion of Iraq was a stroke of genius. Bravo Bush!
>> Nope. Clinton had a comprehensive plan, one that was handed off to W who
>> did nothing. Read Richard Clarke, George Tenet, Paul O'Neill, any of those
>> who worked in the W Whitehouse (all Republicans) and they will tell you
>> that W was obsessed with Saddam and cared not a whit about alQaeda,
>> until... and then the first reaction was to go after Iraq.
>
> It was time to accomplish several things at the time. Only Bush had the guts
> to do it.
Exactly what did he accomplish? He didn't finish anything and left a
huge deteriorating mess in Afghanistan. The first thing Obama did was
double the commitment to Afghanistan, something that had been needed for
years and was turned down under W.
>
>> Mind you that the designers of the first WTC attack were all arrested
>> and successfully prosecuted.
>
> Clinton never woke up from his slumbers. He treated them as criminals, not
> Islamic terrorists that were at war with us.
Er, how was Richard Reid prosecuted under W? In fact there have been
many successful terrorist prosecution and absolutely none under a
military commission. You believe in a fairy tale.
>
>> While all that was happening the right repeatedly said that Clinton was
>> too obsessed with alQaeda. The focus shifted when W took office.
>>
>> And, you do realize there was no alQaeda in any part of Iraq that Saddam
>> controlled. After the invasion, those were alQaeda converts, that didn't
>> exist before. All for the loss of thousands of American Military personnel
>> and many many innocent civilians (The average civilian death toll was on
>> the order of a hundred a day for years) and a trillion dollars or so.
>
> Who cares how many Iraqis die for whatever reason.
Well that sums up your feelings doesn't it?
Jeff
jeff
> "jeff" <jeff_...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:hkpt5k$n64$1...@news.albasani.net...
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>> "jeff" <jeff_...@att.net> wrote in message
>>> news:hkposf$fj1$1...@news.albasani.net...
>>>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>> I leave it to others with lesser minds than mine to supply facts. I
>>>>> supply ideology.
>>>> Yes. Which makes you an ideologue. Someone who believes just because
>>>> they do.
>>> I am a conservative ideologue based on my reading of history and my views
>>> on human nature. What do you base your beliefs on?
>> I'm a pragmatist and know a good bit about history and warfare.
>
> You are libearl idealogeu I cna't underatdn what yo ar edoign on frugal
> lviing. Yo are abig spender jstu liek all liberasl are. Waht is frugal about
> that?
You are so upset you can't even hit the right keys!
You are clueless because you only believe what you want, you haven't
really looked into anything other than to take someones word for it.
In fact I work at lowering my cost of living. I have a largely solar
heated home (all home made) and am currently making multiple layer mylar
insulating windows.
>>>> I hate Leftists because they have been wrong about most everything
>>>>> for the past hundred years. Furthermore, it was Leftists that gave us
>>>>> the 20th century, the worst century in the history of the West.
>>>> An odd turn there. Was it not the right wing that brought us both world
>>>> wars?
>>> WWI was brought on by a general lust for war by all the great powers. It
>>> marked the end of three empires.
>> And you think Kaiser Wilhelm, H�tzendorf and Berchtold were leftists?
>
> I clearly stated taht WWI was exceptional.
>>
>> WWII was brought on by Leftists like
>>> Hitler,
>>
>> Bzzt. Leftist? Get real, he was a right wing fascist.
>>
>> Fascism, pronounced /'f�??z?m/, is a political ideology that seeks to
>> combine radical and authoritarian nationalism[1][2][3][4] with a
>> corporatist economic system.[5] Scholars generally consider it to be on
>> the far right of the traditional left-right political spectrum.
>
> Jeez, I wonder where they ever got the term NAZI? Look it up!
So just because it has the word socialist it is the same as the USSR?
That is rather superficial, don't you think? I suppose North Korea is
a democracy because it is the Peoples Democratic Republic of Korea?
>
>> Mussolini
>>
>> Bzzt. fascist.
>>
>> and Stalin; Korea and Vietnam, again by Leftists. Or do
>>> you think republican democracies start wars?
>> You don't have clue about the difference between being a Socialist, a
>> Communist and a Democrat. Have you ever talked to people that lived under
>> communism? I know quite a number that escaped from the iron curtain. There
>> is no comparison between Obama and Communism in their minds.
>
> The goal of leftist ideology is complete control of the people. Then they
> find out that they can only accomplish that by dictatorship and tyranny.
> Why? Because your leftist crap goes against human nature and indeed history
> itself.
You have made up a strawman of your own creation to attack. The
Democratic party does not enforce any dictates, unlike the Republicans
who are noted for party discipline and intolerance.
> [...]
>
>>> Let's talk about Edwards, a real scum bucket if ever there was one.
>> Why. Is he running? Was he president? I never liked him. Did I ever say I
>> did?
>
> Is Sarah running for president?
It appears so. She has specifically said she might.
>
>> Is he worse than Mark Sanford? Or any of the numerous closeted gay
>> republicans that have taken a wide stance?
>
> Dems do not have enough shame to closet themselves. Barney Frank ran a male
> prostitution ring out of his house in Mass.
You have not a shred of proof.
>
>> Kerry
>>> was a scum bucket too.
>> Same as above.
>
> Sanford never ran for president.
He was the next great Republican hope.
Unlike Kerry, I think he always supported
> this nation in its wars. Repubs are not treasonous bastards like liberal
> Dems.
I remember Orin Hatch giving away military secrets. In fact there are
far more Democrats in Congress with military records than Republicans.
Jeff
jeff
> "jeff" <jeff_...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:hkptob$o5v$1...@news.albasani.net...
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>> "jeff" <jeff_...@att.net> wrote in message
>>> news:hkpbno$nuq$1...@news.albasani.net...
>>>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>> The Repubs do blather on about taxes way too much I must admit. But we
>>>>> have got to get some control over spending. That is the problem, not
>>>>> taxes.
>>>>> [...]
>>>> Exactly what spending? I've posted the links to the 2010 budget, did
>>>> you look? What would you cut in the discretionary that would make a
>>>> difference?
>>> ALL spending - you dolt!
>> So, no roads, no government services of any kind.
>>
>> Doesn't matter what is in your sausage, your water or your air.
>>
>> No police, CIA, FBI or Fire Department.
>>
>> That is just stupid.
>
> Just cut spending. You would not know frugal if it jumped up and bit you in
> your ass.
What spending? There is little that can be cut.
> [...]
>
>>> We deep thinkers are alike in that we hate liberals. But Mass. gives us
>>> hope. Imagine people so stupid as to keep voting for Kennedy even though
>>> he was a murderer (Chappaquiddick) and a craven coward. But that is a
>>> liberal for you!
>> I've mostly just seen seething blind hatred. Surely no reflection on
>> past failures or what the policies will actually do. There are no numbers,
>> no facts, just a divine belief that you are right. That is just pure
>> crazy.
>
> You like immoral bastards like Ted Kennedy. I don't. President Kennedy was
> also a scofflaw and a terrible president who bungled the Cuban invasion.
> Apparently only the Bushs know how to invade and win.
Er win? Democrats have actually won more wars in recent history than
Republicans. WWI, WWII, Korea, Kosovo all waged and won by democratic
presidents.
Seems to me that both Bushes left the Iraq war unfinished. And Nixon
bailed on Vietnam.
Jeff
jeff
> "jeff" <jeff_...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:hkptob$o5v$1...@news.albasani.net...
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
> [...]
>>> Sarah at least is not a murderer like liberals are (abortion).
>> Why is it that right wingers care more about a 1 minute old embryo than
>> a 1 minute old baby. Seems wrong to me. I do not support abortion willy
>> nilly either.
>
> A human life begins at conception. A woman should not fuck if she does not
> want a baby.
Now there's a platform that will be popular with Americans.
A man similarly should not fuck if he does not want a baby.
> What is there about this that you do not understand?
I don't believe a one cell egg is a human. Millions and millions of
fertilized eggs are silently removed with a womans cycle. Very few eggs
become human.
>
> Saint Edward the Great is the last celibate in the known universe. That is
> because He never wanted a baby and indeed would not mind if mankind perished
> from this earth.
I believe that. It goes to the Republican motto: "I've got mine, screw you."
Now perhaps you get a glimmer of what is meant by frugal
> living!
Well, we each have things we are proud of.
Jeff
jeff
> "jeff" <jeff_...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:hkpv05$qd4$1...@news.albasani.net...
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
> [...]
>> Everyone in the world believed
>>> that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and that he would use them
>>> (as he had in the past). Apparently, only you ever believed otherwise.
>> Nope. The Germans warned repeatedly that Curveball (that's the basis of
>> the bio terror) was not to be relied on. In fact they never even talked to
>> him to check (US) as he was in Germany. All that came out of some
>> screwball report.
>>
>> There was plenty of evidence that the aluminum tubes were completely
>> unsuited for centrifuges, and for multiple reasons. And there was plenty
>> of evidence for what they were really used for.
>
> Have you ever thought of going to work for an intelligence agency? We badly
> need those who are expert in hindsight.
That took no hindsight. What is clearly documented is that the OVP
took raw intelligence, something they had no training to analyze, and
believed what they wanted to believe and discarded what was
inconvenient. Only the "pro" was given to Powell.
>
>>> Bill Sornson has posted many times what everyone was saying at the time.
>>> But of course, liberals are never deterred by any facts.
>> I haven't seen a fact yet from you. I like facts. Show me one.
>
> Only if you tell me how you are frugal. So far, all you have done is defend
> big free spending liberal Dems.
I don't support free spending. You have yet to tell me what spending
you are talking about other than "all spending". Some spending is
always necessary and for the public good.
The spending that needs to be controlled the right has no plans or
desires to tackle. You defended the Medicare Drug Bill drug company
giveaway. That is the better part of a trillion dollars. I oppose that.
I oppose the Iraq War and it's trillion dollar cost. Not because I
oppose war, but because it was a fools errand.
I also oppose subsidizing rich farming conglomerates.
Now, there's over 2T I would have cut. What can you come up with?
>
>> All liberals know how
>>> to do is spin, spin, spin and lie, lie, lie! And of course, hindsight is
>>> always 20/20.
>> No spin, just the truth. I've posted references to what Clinton did,
>> what is in the budget, what W didn't do. And you have, nothing... but your
>> blind convictions.
>
> Facts are the last refuge of a scoundrel. We can all pick and choose our
> facts. Your liberal bias disqualifies you from having any credibility when
> it comes to facts.
I have posted statistics that have their sources fully disclosed.
You have what? Your opinion?
You and Tom Sherman should get together. He only likes
> his "liberal" facts too.
You think that any statistic you don't like is a liberal fact. And just
making something up is just as good because it is a "fact" from your side?
I see the same thing referenced to Fox Opinion shows. You give them
weight because you believe that an opinion is equal to something that
has journalistic news standards to uphold. Rush et all are noting but
opinion, if they make a mistake there is no journalists standard to
apply. They just go on about their business of making themselves rich
feeding tripe to a gullible audience. Hitler and Goebells did the same.
I will stick with Bill Sornson who at least knows a
> fact when he sees one.
Based on purely belief.
I always look into sources, no matter which side the "fact" is on. You
certainly don't as you are admittedy going on blind faith.
Jeff
Edward Dolan
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "jeff" <jeff_...@att.net> wrote in message
>> news:hkprom$krc$1...@news.albasani.net...
>>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> Iraq was the central battleground as long we we there. Even the Islamic
>>>> extremists agreed with that.
>>> Hows that? There was no alQaeda in any part of Iraq that Saddam
>>> controlled. There was only after we invaded. Get the difference?
>>
>> There were other good and sufficient reasons for taking out Iraq.
>
>
> So it had nothing to do with the real reason. And just what was that?
>
> What justifies the loss of 4K Americans, 100's of thousand of innocent
> civilians and the inexorable rise of Iran?
We got a lot at not much cost. Quite a bargain really.
> Once we
>> invaded we got two for the price of one. Get the difference?
>
> There is little benefit for the cost paid. Your reasons look like
> accidents.
We got Iraq on our side.
>>> What difference does it make whether we kill
>>>> them in Iraq or Afghanistan or Pakistan or anywhere else. The important
>>>> thing is to kill them wherever they are.
>>> The crew in Iraq didn't exist before. Iraq turned into a huge
>>> recruiting boost for alQaeda. One of the reasons, now that we are on the
>>> way out, that their influence has fallen.
>>
>> That is because we defeated them in Iraq, something that would never have
>> happened if liberal Dems had been in charge.
>
> Wrong. The alQaeda threat in Pak remained, it didn't move to Iraq so we
> could kill them there. It grew dramatically. You think alQaeda just got on
> the bus and moved from Islamabad to Baghdad. Crazy. The amount of foreign
> born alQaeda in Iraq was never more that 5% or so of alQaeda's strength.
The important thing is to kill them wherever they are.
[...]
>> Clinton never woke up from his slumbers. He treated them as criminals,
>> not Islamic terrorists that were at war with us.
>
> Er, how was Richard Reid prosecuted under W? In fact there have been
> many successful terrorist prosecution and absolutely none under a military
> commission. You believe in a fairy tale.
Clinton needed to do more that lob a few missiles into Afghanistan. He need
to go after them like Bush did. Maybe 9/11 would never have happened if he
had.
[...]
>> Who cares how many Iraqis die for whatever reason.
>
> Well that sums up your feelings doesn't it?
Yup, just the same as you.
Edward Dolan
> Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]
>> You are libearl idealogeu I cna't underatdn what yo ar edoign on frugal
>> lviing. Yo are abig spender jstu liek all liberasl are. Waht is frugal
>> about that?
>
> You are so upset you can't even hit the right keys!
I never hit the right keys because I can't type. Amazing how it is still
readable though.
> You are clueless because you only believe what you want, you haven't
> really looked into anything other than to take someones word for it.
>
> In fact I work at lowering my cost of living. I have a largely solar
> heated home (all home made) and am currently making multiple layer mylar
> insulating windows.
What good does it do to be frugal in your personal life when the country is
going to hell?
[...]
>> Jeez, I wonder where they ever got the term NAZI? Look it up!
>
> So just because it has the word socialist it is the same as the USSR?
> That is rather superficial, don't you think? I suppose North Korea is a
> democracy because it is the Peoples Democratic Republic of Korea?
Words matter. Hitler knew from what political spectrum he was coming even if
you don't.
[...]
> Unlike Kerry, I think he [Sanford] always supported
>> this nation in its wars. Repubs are not treasonous bastards like liberal
>> Dems.
>
> I remember Orin Hatch giving away military secrets. In fact there are far
> more Democrats in Congress with military records than Republicans.
Military records don't count. What does count is patriotism, something that
liberal Dems don't seem to have a clue about.
Edward Dolan
> Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]
>> You like immoral bastards like Ted Kennedy. I don't. President Kennedy
>> was also a scofflaw and a terrible president who bungled the Cuban
>> invasion. Apparently only the Bushs know how to invade and win.
>
> Er win? Democrats have actually won more wars in recent history than
> Republicans. WWI, WWII, Korea, Kosovo all waged and won by democratic
> presidents.
Yes, all Democratic wars, as Dole once characterized them. Maybe if we had
had more Repubs in office there would not have been so many wars nor would
they have ended so badly.
> Seems to me that both Bushes left the Iraq war unfinished. And Nixon
> bailed on Vietnam.
Wars drag on forever these days. Nixon had to bail on Vietnam because the
Dem Congress refused to support the war and cut off funding.
Edward Dolan
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "jeff" <jeff_...@att.net> wrote in message
>> news:hkptob$o5v$1...@news.albasani.net...
>>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> Sarah at least is not a murderer like liberals are (abortion).
>>> Why is it that right wingers care more about a 1 minute old embryo
>>> than a 1 minute old baby. Seems wrong to me. I do not support abortion
>>> willy nilly either.
>>
>> A human life begins at conception. A woman should not fuck if she does
>> not want a baby.
>
> Now there's a platform that will be popular with Americans.
>
> A man similarly should not fuck if he does not want a baby.
>> What is there about this that you do not understand?
>
> I don't believe a one cell egg is a human. Millions and millions of
> fertilized eggs are silently removed with a womans cycle. Very few eggs
> become human.
What does a fertilized egg become if not a human being?
>> Saint Edward the Great is the last celibate in the known universe. That
>> is because He never wanted a baby and indeed would not mind if mankind
>> perished from this earth.
>
> I believe that. It goes to the Republican motto: "I've got mine, screw
> you."
But I don't got mine. I also took a vow of poverty. The only vow I never
took was one of obedience. When it comes to frugal-living, you haven't a
clue! You are just another big spending liberal Dem who does not give a damn
about indebtedness. Hey, let the next generation pay for my easy living.
Edward Dolan
> Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]
>> Only if you tell me how you are frugal. So far, all you have done is
>> defend big free spending liberal Dems.
>
> I don't support free spending. You have yet to tell me what spending you
> are talking about other than "all spending". Some spending is always
> necessary and for the public good.
>
> The spending that needs to be controlled the right has no plans or
> desires to tackle. You defended the Medicare Drug Bill drug company
> giveaway. That is the better part of a trillion dollars. I oppose that. I
> oppose the Iraq War and it's trillion dollar cost. Not because I oppose
> war, but because it was a fools errand.
You can spend more money trying to avoid a war than you do by going to war.
> I also oppose subsidizing rich farming conglomerates.
>
> Now, there's over 2T I would have cut. What can you come up with?
Just cut all spending by a certain percentage. And keep on doing it until
the debt is eliminated.
[...]
> You and Tom Sherman should get together. He only likes
>> his "liberal" facts too.
>
> You think that any statistic you don't like is a liberal fact. And just
> making something up is just as good because it is a "fact" from your side?
>
> I see the same thing referenced to Fox Opinion shows. You give them
> weight because you believe that an opinion is equal to something that has
> journalistic news standards to uphold. Rush et all are noting but opinion,
> if they make a mistake there is no journalists standard to apply. They
> just go on about their business of making themselves rich feeding tripe to
> a gullible audience. Hitler and Goebells did the same.
I recognize opinion when I see it. I also recognize facts and hard news when
I see it. I don't conflate the two.
Nevertheless, facts and hard news need interpretation and to be put in some
kind of context. If you don't do that, all you have got is confusion and
anarchy which no one can make any sense of. It is the business of
commentators to make sense of the facts and hard news. You have your
commentators and I have mine.
By the way, Rush at least is entertaining, something you can't claim for
that god damn fucking Chris Matthews on MSNBC.
> I will stick with Bill Sornson who at least knows a
>> fact when he sees one.
>
> Based on purely belief.
>
> I always look into sources, no matter which side the "fact" is on. You
> certainly don't as you are admittedy going on blind faith.
I mostly have contempt for facts until they are put into some kind of
context. Facts on their own are like lost orphan children wandering in a
wilderness searching for an adult to save them.
jeff
> "jeff" <jeff_...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:hkrvro$5g9$1...@news.albasani.net...
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>> "jeff" <jeff_...@att.net> wrote in message
>>> news:hkprom$krc$1...@news.albasani.net...
>>>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>> Iraq was the central battleground as long we we there. Even the Islamic
>>>>> extremists agreed with that.
>>>> Hows that? There was no alQaeda in any part of Iraq that Saddam
>>>> controlled. There was only after we invaded. Get the difference?
>>> There were other good and sufficient reasons for taking out Iraq.
>>
>> So it had nothing to do with the real reason. And just what was that?
>>
>> What justifies the loss of 4K Americans, 100's of thousand of innocent
>> civilians and the inexorable rise of Iran?
>
> We got a lot at not much cost. Quite a bargain really.
That is One Trillion and that does not include all the cost of
replacing worn out and blown up equipment. And you never explained what
we got.
You are living a fantasy.
>
>> Once we
>>> invaded we got two for the price of one. Get the difference?
>> There is little benefit for the cost paid. Your reasons look like
>> accidents.
>
> We got Iraq on our side.
>
>>>> What difference does it make whether we kill
>>>>> them in Iraq or Afghanistan or Pakistan or anywhere else. The important
>>>>> thing is to kill them wherever they are.
>>>> The crew in Iraq didn't exist before. Iraq turned into a huge
>>>> recruiting boost for alQaeda. One of the reasons, now that we are on the
>>>> way out, that their influence has fallen.
>>> That is because we defeated them in Iraq, something that would never have
>>> happened if liberal Dems had been in charge.
>> Wrong. The alQaeda threat in Pak remained, it didn't move to Iraq so we
>> could kill them there. It grew dramatically. You think alQaeda just got on
>> the bus and moved from Islamabad to Baghdad. Crazy. The amount of foreign
>> born alQaeda in Iraq was never more that 5% or so of alQaeda's strength.
>
> The important thing is to kill them wherever they are.
> [...]
The important thing is not to breed them faster than we can kill kill
them. W years were banner years for alQaeda.
>
>>> Clinton never woke up from his slumbers. He treated them as criminals,
>>> not Islamic terrorists that were at war with us.
>> Er, how was Richard Reid prosecuted under W? In fact there have been
>> many successful terrorist prosecution and absolutely none under a military
>> commission. You believe in a fairy tale.
>
> Clinton needed to do more that lob a few missiles into Afghanistan. He need
> to go after them like Bush did. Maybe 9/11 would never have happened if he
> had.
> [...]
Ah, but he did. You didn't read a damn thing, did you?
>
>>> Who cares how many Iraqis die for whatever reason.
>> Well that sums up your feelings doesn't it?
>
> Yup, just the same as you.
That's what you think. I know people who have been there and not just
in the service.
Jeff
jeff
> "jeff" <jeff_...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:hks0oj$6vh$1...@news.albasani.net...
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
> [...]
>>> You are libearl idealogeu I cna't underatdn what yo ar edoign on frugal
>>> lviing. Yo are abig spender jstu liek all liberasl are. Waht is frugal
>>> about that?
>> You are so upset you can't even hit the right keys!
>
> I never hit the right keys because I can't type. Amazing how it is still
> readable though.
>
>> You are clueless because you only believe what you want, you haven't
>> really looked into anything other than to take someones word for it.
>>
>> In fact I work at lowering my cost of living. I have a largely solar
>> heated home (all home made) and am currently making multiple layer mylar
>> insulating windows.
>
> What good does it do to be frugal in your personal life when the country is
> going to hell?
It's your boy W that sent us into the deepest recession since the
Great Depression.
The country is on the mend. Unless you are an unreasoning ideologue
who just has these feelings. It's really all personal to you anyways. I
mean, you have brought up all the names you hate, and not said one word
about any policy except that you agree that the top marginal rate should
go back to where it was. Which I agree on.
You are like Sarah, what do you like, "all of them". What do you
hate, all of them.
Does that not seem shallow and unthinking to you?
> [...]
>
>>> Jeez, I wonder where they ever got the term NAZI? Look it up!
>> So just because it has the word socialist it is the same as the USSR?
>> That is rather superficial, don't you think? I suppose North Korea is a
>> democracy because it is the Peoples Democratic Republic of Korea?
>
> Words matter.
They mattered a lot to your hero W. Trouble is, reality didn't.
Hitler knew from what political spectrum he was coming even if
> you don't.
> [...]
You are the only one who thinks that Hitler was just left of Stalin.
>
>> Unlike Kerry, I think he [Sanford] always supported
>>> this nation in its wars. Repubs are not treasonous bastards like liberal
>>> Dems.
>> I remember Orin Hatch giving away military secrets. In fact there are far
>> more Democrats in Congress with military records than Republicans.
>
> Military records don't count. What does count is patriotism, something that
> liberal Dems don't seem to have a clue about.
So, someone who believes as you do is patriotic, and someone who doesn't
is not? Sound like Stalin to me.
The VA went to holy hell under W, how is that patriotic?
Jeff
jeff
> "jeff" <jeff_...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:hks10o$7ee$1...@news.albasani.net...
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
> [...]
>>> You like immoral bastards like Ted Kennedy. I don't. President Kennedy
>>> was also a scofflaw and a terrible president who bungled the Cuban
>>> invasion. Apparently only the Bushs know how to invade and win.
>> Er win? Democrats have actually won more wars in recent history than
>> Republicans. WWI, WWII, Korea, Kosovo all waged and won by democratic
>> presidents.
>
> Yes, all Democratic wars, as Dole once characterized them. Maybe if we had
> had more Repubs in office there would not have been so many wars nor would
> they have ended so badly.
We didn't start those wars. It was the republicans who did not want to
get involved in WWII. Traitors. So, you would have kept us out of WWII?
Amazing what a patriot you are.
>
>> Seems to me that both Bushes left the Iraq war unfinished. And Nixon
>> bailed on Vietnam.
>
Jeff
jeff
> "jeff" <jeff_...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:hks1bc$7vl$1...@news.albasani.net...
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>> "jeff" <jeff_...@att.net> wrote in message
>>> news:hkptob$o5v$1...@news.albasani.net...
>>>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>> Sarah at least is not a murderer like liberals are (abortion).
>>>> Why is it that right wingers care more about a 1 minute old embryo
>>>> than a 1 minute old baby. Seems wrong to me. I do not support abortion
>>>> willy nilly either.
>>> A human life begins at conception. A woman should not fuck if she does
>>> not want a baby.
>> Now there's a platform that will be popular with Americans.
>>
>> A man similarly should not fuck if he does not want a baby.
>>> What is there about this that you do not understand?
>> I don't believe a one cell egg is a human. Millions and millions of
>> fertilized eggs are silently removed with a womans cycle. Very few eggs
>> become human.
>
> What does a fertilized egg become if not a human being?
Usually, nothing. Sometime a human.
>
>>> Saint Edward the Great is the last celibate in the known universe. That
>>> is because He never wanted a baby and indeed would not mind if mankind
>>> perished from this earth.
>> I believe that. It goes to the Republican motto: "I've got mine, screw
>> you."
>
> But I don't got mine. I also took a vow of poverty. The only vow I never
> took was one of obedience. When it comes to frugal-living, you haven't a
> clue! You are just another big spending liberal Dem who does not give a damn
> about indebtedness. Hey, let the next generation pay for my easy living.
As I've posted before the debt to GDP is consistently lower under
Democratic Presidents than under Republicans. What is frugal about
spending money you don't have?
Also your bud W is responsible for the largest increase in government
in a generation.
Jeff
jeff
> "jeff" <jeff_...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:hks2do$9ru$1...@news.albasani.net...
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
> [...]
>>> Only if you tell me how you are frugal. So far, all you have done is
>>> defend big free spending liberal Dems.
>> I don't support free spending. You have yet to tell me what spending you
>> are talking about other than "all spending". Some spending is always
>> necessary and for the public good.
>>
>> The spending that needs to be controlled the right has no plans or
>> desires to tackle. You defended the Medicare Drug Bill drug company
>> giveaway. That is the better part of a trillion dollars. I oppose that. I
>> oppose the Iraq War and it's trillion dollar cost. Not because I oppose
>> war, but because it was a fools errand.
>
> You can spend more money trying to avoid a war than you do by going to war.
>
>> I also oppose subsidizing rich farming conglomerates.
>>
>> Now, there's over 2T I would have cut. What can you come up with?
>
> Just cut all spending by a certain percentage. And keep on doing it until
> the debt is eliminated.
> [...]
So, we cut the military. How unpatriotic? We cut transportation? How
short sighted.
>
>> You and Tom Sherman should get together. He only likes
>>> his "liberal" facts too.
>> You think that any statistic you don't like is a liberal fact. And just
>> making something up is just as good because it is a "fact" from your side?
>>
>> I see the same thing referenced to Fox Opinion shows. You give them
>> weight because you believe that an opinion is equal to something that has
>> journalistic news standards to uphold. Rush et all are noting but opinion,
>> if they make a mistake there is no journalists standard to apply. They
>> just go on about their business of making themselves rich feeding tripe to
>> a gullible audience. Hitler and Goebells did the same.
>
> I recognize opinion when I see it. I also recognize facts and hard news when
> I see it. I don't conflate the two.
Really?
>
> Nevertheless, facts and hard news need interpretation and to be put in some
> kind of context. If you don't do that, all you have got is confusion and
> anarchy which no one can make any sense of. It is the business of
> commentators to make sense of the facts and hard news. You have your
> commentators and I have mine.
I don't have commentators, you do. It is only Republicans that need
wingnut radio. Note that there is no Air America, because Dems don't
need to be told what to think like Republicans do.
>
> By the way, Rush at least is entertaining, something you can't claim for
> that god damn fucking Chris Matthews on MSNBC.
I don't watch him or any other commentator. You are the addict.
>
>> I will stick with Bill Sornson who at least knows a
>>> fact when he sees one.
>> Based on purely belief.
>>
>> I always look into sources, no matter which side the "fact" is on. You
>> certainly don't as you are admittedy going on blind faith.
>
> I mostly have contempt for facts until they are put into some kind of
> context. Facts on their own are like lost orphan children wandering in a
> wilderness searching for an adult to save them.
So, you want the spin? You sure got it. Democrats want to know,
Republican want to be told. That's why Repubs march in lock step and
Dems don't.
Jeff
Edward Dolan
> Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]
>>>> There were other good and sufficient reasons for taking out Iraq.
>>>
>>> So it had nothing to do with the real reason. And just what was that?
>>>
>>> What justifies the loss of 4K Americans, 100's of thousand of innocent
>>> civilians and the inexorable rise of Iran?
>>
>> We got a lot at not much cost. Quite a bargain really.
>
> That is One Trillion and that does not include all the cost of replacing
> worn out and blown up equipment. And you never explained what we got.
"We got Iraq on our side." - Ed Dolan
[...]
>> The important thing is to kill them wherever they are.
>> [...]
>
> The important thing is not to breed them faster than we can kill kill
> them. W years were banner years for alQaeda.
It was all destined to happen no matter what. Arab Islamists hate us for
what we are, not for what we do.
[...]
Edward Dolan
"gregg" <tot...@NOSPAMnewsguy.com> wrote in message
news:hkuas...@news1.newsguy.com...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>> Clinton needed to do more that lob a few missiles into Afghanistan. He
>> need
>> to go after them like Bush did. Maybe 9/11 would never have happened if
>> he
>> had.
>> [...]
>
> with 9/11 nor did the war in Iraq. If you believe in that, tell me what
> Santa is going to bring you for Christmas.
Al-Qaeda was situated in Afghanistan and protected by the Taliban. What
planet do you live on?
There were other good and sufficient reasons to take out Iraq.
Thank God Bush was president during this time and not Gore!
Edward Dolan
> Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]
>> What good does it do to be frugal in your personal life when the country
>> is going to hell?
>
> It's your boy W that sent us into the deepest recession since the Great
> Depression.
>
> The country is on the mend. Unless you are an unreasoning ideologue
> who just has these feelings. It's really all personal to you anyways. I
> mean, you have brought up all the names you hate, and not said one word
> about any policy except that you agree that the top marginal rate should
> go back to where it was. Which I agree on.
Start viewing Glenn Beck on Fox and get educated. The country is NOT on the
mend!
> Hitler knew from what political spectrum he was coming even if
>> you don't.
>
> You are the only one who thinks that Hitler was just left of Stalin.
Hitler and Stalin were both Leftists. Words mean something after all.
Leftists all become tyrants eventually.
[...]
> The VA went to holy hell under W, how is that patriotic?
Not aware of that. The VA in Sioux Falls takes very good care of me.
Edward Dolan
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "jeff" <jeff_...@att.net> wrote in message
>> news:hks10o$7ee$1...@news.albasani.net...
>>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> You like immoral bastards like Ted Kennedy. I don't. President Kennedy
>>>> was also a scofflaw and a terrible president who bungled the Cuban
>>>> invasion. Apparently only the Bushs know how to invade and win.
>>>
>>> Er win? Democrats have actually won more wars in recent history than
>>> Republicans. WWI, WWII, Korea, Kosovo all waged and won by democratic
>>> presidents.
>>
>> Yes, all Democratic wars, as Dole once characterized them. Maybe if we
>> had had more Repubs in office there would not have been so many wars nor
>> would they have ended so badly.
>
> We didn't start those wars. It was the republicans who did not want to get
> involved in WWII. Traitors. So, you would have kept us out of WWII?
> Amazing what a patriot you are.
Maybe Churchill should have let Hitler have Poland instead of going to war
over it. After all, what did Poland matter to the West.
WWII did not end well for the West. Russia took over all of Eastern Europe
because Roosevelt did not have the guts to oppose it. But that is a liberal
Dem for you - always gutless and brainless to the bitter end!
Let's see what Obama is going to do about Iran, if anything.
[...]
Edward Dolan
> Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]
>> What does a fertilized egg become if not a human being?
>
> Usually, nothing. Sometime a human.
Why was there a doctor in Kansas performing late term abortions? Maybe it is
OK for parents to kill their children when they no longer want them?
>>>> Saint Edward the Great is the last celibate in the known universe. That
>>>> is because He never wanted a baby and indeed would not mind if mankind
>>>> perished from this earth.
>>> I believe that. It goes to the Republican motto: "I've got mine, screw
>>> you."
>>
>> But I don't got mine. I also took a vow of poverty. The only vow I never
>> took was one of obedience. When it comes to frugal-living, you haven't a
>> clue! You are just another big spending liberal Dem who does not give a
>> damn about indebtedness. Hey, let the next generation pay for my easy
>> living.
>
> As I've posted before the debt to GDP is consistently lower under
> Democratic Presidents than under Republicans. What is frugal about
> spending money you don't have?
That is what I am asking you! You need to slow down and read me more
carefully!
> Also your bud W is responsible for the largest increase in government in
> a generation.
Evidently, you have stopped following the news altogether. The present debt
is the greatest in our history and is unsustainable. If you had any smarts,
you would be frightened by the way things are going.
Edward Dolan
> Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]
>> Just cut all spending by a certain percentage. And keep on doing it until
>> the debt is eliminated.
>> [...]
>
> So, we cut the military. How unpatriotic? We cut transportation? How
> short sighted.
Yes, just cut EVERYTHING by a certain percentage. Hard times will be good
for us all. It will give your term "frugal-living" some meaning.
[...]
>> Nevertheless, facts and hard news need interpretation and to be put in
>> some kind of context. If you don't do that, all you have got is confusion
>> and anarchy which no one can make any sense of. It is the business of
>> commentators to make sense of the facts and hard news. You have your
>> commentators and I have mine.
>
> I don't have commentators, you do. It is only Republicans that need
> wingnut radio. Note that there is no Air America, because Dems don't need
> to be told what to think like Republicans do.
Everyone needs commentators, unless you regard yourself as the smartest man
in the world. Original thinking is vastly overrated. There is not one man in
ten thousand who is capable of it.
>> By the way, Rush at least is entertaining, something you can't claim for
>> that god damn fucking Chris Matthews on MSNBC.
>
> I don't watch him or any other commentator. You are the addict.
That is why you don't seem to know much about anything, not even
frugal-living.
[...]
>> I mostly have contempt for facts until they are put into some kind of
>> context. Facts on their own are like lost orphan children wandering in a
>> wilderness searching for an adult to save them.
>
> So, you want the spin? You sure got it. Democrats want to know,
> Republican want to be told. That's why Repubs march in lock step and Dems
> don't.
The mass media, which is overwhelmingly liberal, just spins all day long.
You can't get any honest political news from them. Only Fox News is fair and
balanced. Even liberals are flocking to Fox because they are fed up with the
spin of the rest of the media. MSNBC is the worst of the bunch and is truly
reprehensible. Journalism, as we have known it in the past, is dead.
jeff
> "jeff" <jeff_...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:hku4nc$gvs$1...@news.albasani.net...
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
> [...]
>>>>> There were other good and sufficient reasons for taking out Iraq.
>>>> So it had nothing to do with the real reason. And just what was that?
>>>>
>>>> What justifies the loss of 4K Americans, 100's of thousand of innocent
>>>> civilians and the inexorable rise of Iran?
>>> We got a lot at not much cost. Quite a bargain really.
>> That is One Trillion and that does not include all the cost of replacing
>> worn out and blown up equipment. And you never explained what we got.
>
> "We got Iraq on our side." - Ed Dolan
Do you really think so?
Do you have a any idea how close Iran and Iraq are? You do realize
that they have very close religious ties amongst other ties?
Doesn't Rush ever talk about that?
Remember Muntadar al-Zaidi? The guy who threw the shoes at W. He
didn't serve much jail time.
Jeff