Selling off national forest and national parks? TU alert

[Johnson]

This might be the most dangerous thing I have seen yet to hit fly
fishing in the U.S. This would have devestating effects on the nations
best trout streams, and we would lose access to many of those streams.

Seems that's what Pombo and Bush are up to. I never in all my days
thoguht I would have ever seen this. No joke, this plan would sell off
our national parks and forests, having a terrible ipact on our trout
streams.

www.tu.org

Please email your Member of the House of Representatives and ask them
to vote against the House Reconciliation Bill (HR 4241) because
sections 6201-6207 would allow the sale of public lands from public
ownership.



The U.S. House of Representatives is likely voting tomorrow, Thursday
November 10, on a bill that would allow for the sale of public lands to
mining companies and other development interests that are crucial for
fish, wildlife, and water resources.



These harmful provisions are buried within the so-called House
Reconciliation Bill. The measures were inserted into the bill without
any public hearings or debate by Congressman Richard Pombo of
California.



Congressman Pombo's provisions would amend the 1872 Mining Law to allow
public lands to be patented, or sold off, to mining companies that
expressed an interest in mining an area for a maximum of $1,000 per
acre. The provisions actually weaken standards set under the lax 1872
Mining Law by allowing miners and other development interests to
privatize public land without any review or federal oversight.



Public lands are managed in trust by the U.S. Forest Service and the
Bureau of Land Management for all of the people of the United States,
and contain more than half of the nation's blue-ribbon trout streams.
They are strongholds for all of the imperiled native trout in the
western United States, and contain the best remaining habitat for
migrating salmon and steelhead.



Congressman Pombo's fire-sale of public lands would reverse a 30-year
congressional mandate that public lands should remain in public
ownership. Please call your Member of Congress in the House of
Representatives and ask them to vote against the Reconciliation Bill
unless the harmful mining provisions are removed.


-------

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9991573/



Controversial mining plan nears House vote
Debate centers on what federal lands would be sold, and at what price
Environment slide shows ARCHIVE
Updated: 11:17 a.m. ET Nov. 10, 2005
WASHINGTON - Mining industry critics braced for a House vote on a
budget bill that includes a provision that could allow the sales of
millions of acres of public lands.

The provision would overturn a congressional ban on letting mineral
companies and individuals buy public lands at cheap prices if they hold
mineral deposits.

"If this provision became law, it could literally lead to the
privatization of millions of acres of public land, including national
park and national forestland," said Dave Alberswerth, public lands
director for The Wilderness Society.

A vote on the overall bill could come as early as Thursday.

Congress has decided each year since 1994 to prohibit mining companies
from exploiting an obscure part of the 1872 mining law that allows
businesses and individuals to "patent," or buy, some of the
nation's most scenic lands at 19th century prices - just $2.50 to
$5 per acre. It gives them absolute title, including mineral rights, to
the properties.

The Interior Department over the past decade has approved slightly more
than half of the 405 patent applications it received before 1994, and
is still processing the final 50.

Mineral value wouldn't count
House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo, R-Calif., and other
committee members want to lift the ban preventing anyone from applying
for a new patent application. They propose raising the price to $1,000
per acre or "fair market value," whichever is more. That doesn't
take into account the value of the minerals the lands might contain.

Until now, companies have had to convince the Interior Department that
the land has a valuable mineral deposit and it can be mined at a
profit. Department officials say companies typically spend about
$10,000 to $15,000 per acre trying to document that it is economically
viable to mine there.

Once a patent is granted, the law does not let the government challenge
a company if it drops its plan to mine at a site and resell the
property as real estate.

Most of the available land that could be bought is managed by the
Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management. Officials there say
they received 320,000 mining claims this year, a huge amount driven by
high gold prices. The average size mining claim is on 20 acres.

That adds up to 6.4 million acres of BLM land - generally remote
acreage used for grazing, recreation and a multitude of other purposes
- that could be sold if it were "patented."

Some claims in protected areas
Though the bill exempts national parks, monuments and wilderness areas,
The Wilderness Society says lands with existing mining claims in
national parks could still be sold. There are 900 such mining claims,
including 700 in California; the rest are mostly in Alaska.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates the changes in law could
raise several hundred million dollars, including $100 million that
could be spent over the next 10 years for mining cleanups and schools
that offer training in petroleum, mining or mineral engineering.

The new language lowers the threshold for obtaining a permit and
generally mirrors what the National Mining Association advocated. Luke
Popovich, a spokesman for the trade group, said those changes would
help boost rural Western economies by drawing investment "in areas
where mining companies are clearly the high-wage employers."

Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., chairman of the House Resources energy and
mineral resources subcommittee, said the law needed to be changed
because "continuously suspending the patent process is not a
solution, it is merely a temporary fix."

"Patenting and purchase of lands is absolutely vital to the health of
Nevada's rural communities because it expands the tax base of the
local government, which in turn funds schools, emergency services and
other infrastructure," he said.

However, Rep. Nick Rahall of West Virginia, the senior Democrat on the
committee, said the mining provision "would result in a blazing fire
sale of federal lands" to U.S. and international companies.

[JR]

Johnson wrote:
> This might be the most dangerous thing I have seen yet to hit fly
> fishing in the U.S.

Worse than indicators?

> This would have devestating effects on the nations
> best trout streams, and we would lose access to many of those streams.

Well, you could make friends with a couplefew prominent roffians (whose
names I won't mention), and once they buy up the best trout streams,
they'll invite you fishing....

> Seems that's what Pombo and Bush are up to. I never in all my days
> thoguht I would have ever seen this. No joke, this plan would sell off
> our national parks and forests, having a terrible ipact on our trout
> streams.

All joking aside, the only thing surprising about this is that anyone
should be surprised.....

the extremist "all-government-is-always-bad" wing of the Republican
party has always had privatization of public lands as an important goal.

[rw]

Johnson wrote:
>
> Please email your Member of the House of Representatives and ask them
> to vote against the House Reconciliation Bill (HR 4241) because
> sections 6201-6207 would allow the sale of public lands from public
> ownership.

It's failed to pass the House, so far.

The sticking point: a provision that would extend the tax cut on capital
gains and dividends through 2009, according to reports in Tax Notes and
the Wall Street Journal.

Most of them don't give a **** about the environmental issues.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[Larry L]

"JR" > wrote

>
> All joking aside, the only thing surprising about this is that anyone
> should be surprised.....
>
> the extremist "all-government-is-always-bad" wing of the Republican party
> has always had privatization of public lands as an important goal.

THE surprise to me all along is that any 'outdoorsman' would ever vote for
the BushGang in the first place .... where the hell do they expect to be
outdoorsmen after the outdoors is spoiled forever or locked up for the
richest of the rich? I guess many of them think keeping their submachine
guns is more important than having clean places to use their shotguns and
deer rifles .... or keeping those damn monogamous gays and lesbians third
class citizens so we have someone easy to hate is more important than water
safe to drink for their own 'family valued' children .... or, or,


..... or, maybe, many outdoorsmen are simply dumb as posts and easily led to
vote for their own extinction.

[Wolfgang]

"JR" > wrote in message ...

> ...the extremist "all-government-is-always-bad" wing of the Republican
> party has always had privatization of public lands as an important goal.

Aside from that wing of the Republican party, I can't think of anybody else
who really despises highly effective tools that they own outright. :)

Wolfgang
um......and the nazis were socialists.....hey, it says so right there in
their name! :)

[gary]

Clinton started this by charging for access in some parks, by not funding
the Forest Dept and allowing private contractors to run our forest camps.


"JR" > wrote in message ...
> Johnson wrote:
> > This might be the most dangerous thing I have seen yet to hit fly
> > fishing in the U.S.
>
> Worse than indicators?
>
> > This would have devestating effects on the nations
> > best trout streams, and we would lose access to many of those streams.
>
> Well, you could make friends with a couplefew prominent roffians (whose
> names I won't mention), and once they buy up the best trout streams,
> they'll invite you fishing....
>
> > Seems that's what Pombo and Bush are up to. I never in all my days
> > thoguht I would have ever seen this. No joke, this plan would sell off
> > our national parks and forests, having a terrible ipact on our trout
> > streams.
>
> All joking aside, the only thing surprising about this is that anyone
> should be surprised.....
>
> the extremist "all-government-is-always-bad" wing of the Republican
> party has always had privatization of public lands as an important goal.

[gary]

The economy is important too. Bozo!!! We aren't quite a socialist state
yet, but voting folks like you will try your best.


"rw" > wrote in message
...
> Johnson wrote:
> >
> > Please email your Member of the House of Representatives and ask them
> > to vote against the House Reconciliation Bill (HR 4241) because
> > sections 6201-6207 would allow the sale of public lands from public
> > ownership.
>
> It's failed to pass the House, so far.
>
> The sticking point: a provision that would extend the tax cut on capital
> gains and dividends through 2009, according to reports in Tax Notes and
> the Wall Street Journal.
>
> Most of them don't give a **** about the environmental issues.
>
> --
> Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[gary]

Get a brain there pal, or move to France.


"Larry L" > wrote in message
...
>
> "JR" > wrote
>
> >
> > All joking aside, the only thing surprising about this is that anyone
> > should be surprised.....
> >
> > the extremist "all-government-is-always-bad" wing of the Republican
party
> > has always had privatization of public lands as an important goal.
>
> THE surprise to me all along is that any 'outdoorsman' would ever vote for
> the BushGang in the first place .... where the hell do they expect to be
> outdoorsmen after the outdoors is spoiled forever or locked up for the
> richest of the rich? I guess many of them think keeping their submachine
> guns is more important than having clean places to use their shotguns and
> deer rifles .... or keeping those damn monogamous gays and lesbians third
> class citizens so we have someone easy to hate is more important than
water
> safe to drink for their own 'family valued' children .... or, or,
>
>
> .... or, maybe, many outdoorsmen are simply dumb as posts and easily led
to
> vote for their own extinction.
>
>
>
>

[Ken Fortenberry]

gary wrote:
> Clinton started this ...

<SPLORK>

Who had ten minutes in the "How Long Will It Take A
Right-Wing Whackjob To Blame Clinton" pool ? Send me
an email, you've won a fruit basket and a membership
in Trout Unlimited.

--
Ken Fortenberry

[Ken Fortenberry]

gary wrote:
> The economy is important too. Bozo!!! We aren't quite a socialist state
> yet, but voting folks like you will try your best.

A top-poster calling someone else a bozo. Now *that's* rich.

--
Ken Fortenberry

[Larry L]

>
> "Larry L" > wrote >>
>> .... or, maybe, many outdoorsmen are simply dumb as posts and easily led
> to
>> vote for their own extinction.
>>


Then

"gary" > wrote

or move to France.
>>
>>


Wow Gary!

Stunning originality of thought, elegant use of the language, and the
masterful final touch of top posting. I concede that you do seem especially
qualified to add evidence in any conversation about the intellectual
capacity of Bushies.

[Johnson]

"Clinton started this by charging for access in some parks, by not
funding
the Forest Dept and allowing private contractors to run our forest
camps. "


That might be the most inaccurate and idiotic thing I have ever read on
this forum.

[Tim J.]

Johnson wrote:
> "Clinton started this by charging for access in some parks, by not
> funding
> the Forest Dept and allowing private contractors to run our forest
> camps. "
>
> That might be the most inaccurate and idiotic thing I have ever read
> on this forum.

What a difference a day makes. . .
--
TL,
Tim
---------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj/

[Wolfgang]

"Johnson" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> "Clinton started this by charging for access in some parks, by not
> funding
> the Forest Dept and allowing private contractors to run our forest
> camps. "
>
>
> That might be the most inaccurate and idiotic thing I have ever read on
> this forum.

Stick around......it gets MUCH better. :)

Wolfgang

[Cyli]

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 16:07:29 GMT, "gary" > wrote:

>Clinton started this by charging for access in some parks, by not funding
>the Forest Dept and allowing private contractors to run our forest camps.
>

Many officially designated Parks, national and state, have been
charging for access for decades. Many state and national Forests have
been using private contractors to run Forest camps (and Park camps and
housing and concessions) for decades.

Are you very young or did you just not get out in the woods often
before Clinton was president?

Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: (strip the .invalid to email)

[Bob Patton]

"Cyli" > wrote in message
...
//snip//>
> Are you very young or did you just not get out in the woods often
> before Clinton was president?
>


You hit the nail on the head - I don't think this guy is over fifteen.
Bob

[A Diamondcutter]

Bravo
"Ken Fortenberry" > wrote in message
t...
> gary wrote:
>> Clinton started this ...
>
> <SPLORK>
>
> Who had ten minutes in the "How Long Will It Take A
> Right-Wing Whackjob To Blame Clinton" pool ? Send me
> an email, you've won a fruit basket and a membership
> in Trout Unlimited.
>
> --
> Ken Fortenberry

[A Diamondcutter]

Or any forum for that matter.
"Johnson" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> "Clinton started this by charging for access in some parks, by not
> funding
> the Forest Dept and allowing private contractors to run our forest
> camps. "
>
>
> That might be the most inaccurate and idiotic thing I have ever read on
> this forum.
>

[vincent p. norris]

>The economy is important too.

Forbes Magazine said, a couple of years ago, that Clinton had the best
economic record of any president since WW II.

I don't suppose you remember a guy named Forbes who wanted to be the
REPUBLICAN candidate for the Presidency a few years ago.

vince

[Bill McKee]

"vincent p. norris" > wrote in message
...
> >The economy is important too.
>
> Forbes Magazine said, a couple of years ago, that Clinton had the best
> economic record of any president since WW II.
>
> I don't suppose you remember a guy named Forbes who wanted to be the
> REPUBLICAN candidate for the Presidency a few years ago.
>
> vince

That is because Clinton was lucky. Lucky in that he had a Republican
Congress that actually controlled the spending for a couple of years, and
the huge dot.bomb bust that cranked up a huge amount of surplus money to the
Fed's.

[Wolfgang]

"Bill McKee" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "vincent p. norris" > wrote in message
> ...
>> >The economy is important too.
>>
>> Forbes Magazine said, a couple of years ago, that Clinton had the best
>> economic record of any president since WW II.
>>
>> I don't suppose you remember a guy named Forbes who wanted to be the
>> REPUBLICAN candidate for the Presidency a few years ago.
>>
>> vince
>
> That is because Clinton was lucky. Lucky in that he had a Republican
> Congress that actually controlled the spending for a couple of years, and
> the huge dot.bomb bust that cranked up a huge amount of surplus money to
> the Fed's.

Hee, hee, hee.

Wolfgang

[JR]

Bill McKee wrote:
>
> That is because Clinton was lucky. Lucky in that he had a Republican
> Congress that actually controlled the spending for a couple of years ...

Thing is, you really believe this nonsense, don't you?.....

[rw]

Bill McKee wrote:
>
> That is because Clinton was lucky. Lucky in that he had a Republican
> Congress that actually controlled the spending for a couple of years, and
> the huge dot.bomb bust that cranked up a huge amount of surplus money to the
> Fed's.

If I have to choose between a lucky, intelligent, involved, popular,
randy-assed President and, well, lets just say someone the opposite,
that's an easy choice.

BTW, I see that those Republicans are doing a phenomenally ****ty job of
controlling spending now that they've controlled both houses of Congress
and the Presidency for the past five years. Somehow, I feel it must be
Clinton's fault, but I can't figure out exactly how.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[vincent p. norris]

> Somehow, I feel it must be
>Clinton's fault, but I can't figure out exactly how.

Geez, I don't know why you're having trouble with that!

Clinton's a Democrat.

See how easy it is? ((:-))

vince

[Bill McKee]

"JR" > wrote in message ...
> Bill McKee wrote:
>>
>> That is because Clinton was lucky. Lucky in that he had a Republican
>> Congress that actually controlled the spending for a couple of years ...
>
> Thing is, you really believe this nonsense, don't you?.....

Yup! And I am a Democrat. Moderate, not the ultra lefties that have control
now. And Newt and the Contract with America actually slowed down the
spending. A few years and an election later, that good point disappeared.
And all those stock options coming due poured billions in to the State and
Fed coffers. Soon as the option was exercised, 28% went to the Feds, even
if you did not sell the stock. What did Clinton do to help the economy?

[Bill McKee]

"rw" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Bill McKee wrote:
>>
>> That is because Clinton was lucky. Lucky in that he had a Republican
>> Congress that actually controlled the spending for a couple of years, and
>> the huge dot.bomb bust that cranked up a huge amount of surplus money to
>> the Fed's.
>
> If I have to choose between a lucky, intelligent, involved, popular,
> randy-assed President and, well, lets just say someone the opposite,
> that's an easy choice.
>
> BTW, I see that those Republicans are doing a phenomenally ****ty job of
> controlling spending now that they've controlled both houses of Congress
> and the Presidency for the past five years. Somehow, I feel it must be
> Clinton's fault, but I can't figure out exactly how.
>
> --
> Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Clinton was a failure in my book, just because he had the charisma,
intelligence etc. to make some great fundamental changes. We still have
base line budgeting, amendments to bills do not have to be germane to the
bills, he did nothing concrete about the terrorism attacks during his 8
years. We need to vote out the legislators we now have, a clean sweep.
Both the Republicans and the Democrats have not met a spending bill they did
not like or add pork to. And Bush? Where is the veto? Clinton tried to
run the Federal business just like the single party Arkansas state business.
Does not work that way. And the randyness. You are the CEO of the country.
You do not fool around with the company employees, and at least fat, ugly
employees. Kennedy, at least picked good looking women not in his employ.
And you forget the original investigation was on a probably crooked real
estate deal. Intelligence may be over rated for POTUS. Carter was probably
the smartest POTUS we have had, and he had both an ineffective Presidency,
and part of his legacy is the terrorism we now have. When Iranian's could
take captive our embassy staff with no repercussions, we birthed the modern
terrorism movement.

[rw]

Bill McKee wrote:
>
> Clinton was a failure in my book, just because he had the charisma,
> intelligence etc. to make some great fundamental changes.

You forgot the part about leaving office with record-high surpluses as
far as the eye could see, or at least until the tax-cuts-for-the-rich
crowd got in.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[David Snedeker]

"JR" > wrote in message ...
> Bill McKee wrote:
> >
> > That is because Clinton was lucky. Lucky in that he had a Republican
> > Congress that actually controlled the spending for a couple of years
....
>
> Thing is, you really believe this nonsense, don't you?.....

Thing is he does. Lots of folks put it together like Bill. They don't
really have the time or critical facility to keep up, so they tend to string
things together into a plausible rap that closes the loop between what they
thought, and what they think is happening now. It really does "make sense"
to them. The characteristic "tell" for this kind of thinker is that the
story, the rap, is complete, ie it explains the entire situation. It
doesn't depend on observation, experiment, research, confirmation etc. for
personal validity, only on its completeness. It is a personal ideology.

Dave





know how to cross

[Bill McKee]

"rw" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Bill McKee wrote:
>>
>> Clinton was a failure in my book, just because he had the charisma,
>> intelligence etc. to make some great fundamental changes.
>
> You forgot the part about leaving office with record-high surpluses as far
> as the eye could see, or at least until the tax-cuts-for-the-rich crowd
> got in.
>
> --
> Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

I missed the surplus. So did the accounting office. The integrated federal
budget throws in the Social Security money as income also. If he had a true
surplus the National Debt would not have increased every year of his
administration. And the tax cuts were for everybody. Well except those who
do not pay taxes.

[Bill McKee]

"David Snedeker" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "JR" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Bill McKee wrote:
>> >
>> > That is because Clinton was lucky. Lucky in that he had a Republican
>> > Congress that actually controlled the spending for a couple of years
> ...
>>
>> Thing is, you really believe this nonsense, don't you?.....
>
> Thing is he does. Lots of folks put it together like Bill. They don't
> really have the time or critical facility to keep up, so they tend to
> string
> things together into a plausible rap that closes the loop between what
> they
> thought, and what they think is happening now. It really does "make
> sense"
> to them. The characteristic "tell" for this kind of thinker is that the
> story, the rap, is complete, ie it explains the entire situation. It
> doesn't depend on observation, experiment, research, confirmation etc. for
> personal validity, only on its completeness. It is a personal ideology.
>
> Dave
>

Bull ****! Why did the National Debt increase every year of Clinton's
administration? His first 2 years were extreme over spending. And we were
going into a recession at the end of his administration. I am a retired
engineer, and the cognitive ability seems to be more than yours. Why was
Clinton a great POTUS? What did he do to stimulate the economy? What did
he do as POTUS to increase jobs? What did he do to stop terror attacks?
The WTC2 was planned on his watch, and the pilots were trained on his watch.
I am not a supporter of Bush, but am also not a supporter of Clinton. You
sound like my very liberal, school teacher neighbor who thinks Hillary would
be a great POTUS. Why would she be good? No executive leadership position
in her work history. Could not keep husband at least from fooling around
with the hired help. Was a 2nd rate attorney, who could not find her law
firm records for 3 years and they were in the bedroom. There a a lot of
very capable women out there for POTUS. Hillary is not on the list. Now
what reasons do you have to prove the William Jefferson Clinton was a great
President?

[Conan The Librarian]

Bill McKee wrote:

> "David Snedeker" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>Thing is he does. Lots of folks put it together like Bill. They don't
>>really have the time or critical facility to keep up, so they tend to
>>string
>>things together into a plausible rap that closes the loop between what
>>they
>>thought, and what they think is happening now. It really does "make
>>sense"
>>to them. The characteristic "tell" for this kind of thinker is that the
>>story, the rap, is complete, ie it explains the entire situation. It
>>doesn't depend on observation, experiment, research, confirmation etc. for
>>personal validity, only on its completeness. It is a personal ideology.
>
> You
> sound like my very liberal, school teacher neighbor who thinks Hillary would
> be a great POTUS. Why would she be good? No executive leadership position
> in her work history. Could not keep husband at least from fooling around
> with the hired help. Was a 2nd rate attorney, who could not find her law
> firm records for 3 years and they were in the bedroom. There a a lot of
> very capable women out there for POTUS. Hillary is not on the list. Now
> what reasons do you have to prove the William Jefferson Clinton was a great
> President?

Er, you might want to re-read what David wrote above, because you
just made his whole point for him with this little diatribe.


Chuck Vance

[Conan The Librarian]

Bill McKee wrote:

> And the randyness. You are the CEO of the country.
> You do not fool around with the company employees, and at least fat, ugly
> employees.

So your position is that if Clinton ... ooops, "Klinton" had been
fooling around with a skinny, pretty employee it would have been OK?


Chuck Vance (who learns something new every day)

[Tim J.]

Conan The Librarian typed:
> Bill McKee wrote:
>
>> And the randyness. You are the CEO of the country.
>> You do not fool around with the company employees, and at least fat,
>> ugly employees.
>
> So your position is that if Clinton ... ooops, "Klinton" had been
> fooling around with a skinny, pretty employee it would have been OK?

You have to admit, Chuck, it would have made more sense. ;-)
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj/

[rw]

Bill McKee wrote:
> "rw" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>
>>Bill McKee wrote:
>>
>>>Clinton was a failure in my book, just because he had the charisma,
>>>intelligence etc. to make some great fundamental changes.
>>
>>You forgot the part about leaving office with record-high surpluses as far
>>as the eye could see, or at least until the tax-cuts-for-the-rich crowd
>>got in.
>>
>>--
>>Cut "to the chase" for my email address.
>
>
> I missed the surplus. So did the accounting office. The integrated federal
> budget throws in the Social Security money as income also. If he had a true
> surplus the National Debt would not have increased every year of his
> administration. And the tax cuts were for everybody. Well except those who
> do not pay taxes.

Take a look at this graph:

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 07:01:34 -0600, Conan The Librarian
> wrote:

>Bill McKee wrote:
>
>> "David Snedeker" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>
>>>Thing is he does. Lots of folks put it together like Bill. They don't
>>>really have the time or critical facility to keep up, so they tend to
>>>string
>>>things together into a plausible rap that closes the loop between what
>>>they
>>>thought, and what they think is happening now. It really does "make
>>>sense"
>>>to them. The characteristic "tell" for this kind of thinker is that the
>>>story, the rap, is complete, ie it explains the entire situation. It
>>>doesn't depend on observation, experiment, research, confirmation etc. for
>>>personal validity, only on its completeness. It is a personal ideology.
>>
>> You
>> sound like my very liberal, school teacher neighbor who thinks Hillary would
>> be a great POTUS. Why would she be good? No executive leadership position
>> in her work history. Could not keep husband at least from fooling around
>> with the hired help. Was a 2nd rate attorney, who could not find her law
>> firm records for 3 years and they were in the bedroom. There a a lot of
>> very capable women out there for POTUS. Hillary is not on the list. Now
>> what reasons do you have to prove the William Jefferson Clinton was a great
>> President?
>
> Er, you might want to re-read what David wrote above, because you
>just made his whole point for him with this little diatribe.

Er, you might want to re-read what David wrote above, because David made
his point for himself with his little diatribe...

And then, you might wish re-read the questions Bill asked. Whatever he
intended as his point aside, two of them are particularly germane to all
the ****ing contests, be they here on ROFF or on a larger front. Just
like the most Clintonistas, Steve and Dave rely on the same tactic they
rail against - Clinton was good because Bush is bad, and whatever acts
he committed or lies he got caught (and admitted) telling are
inconsequential and not material compared to what others, well, at least
Republicans, may (at least at this point) have told.

Here's something to ponder re: Presidents and the economy. A major
indicator, either economic or societal or both, depending on the
philosophy of the observer, is home ownership. While Bush has been in
office, more people in the US are homeowners than at any other time, and
with comparatively lower rates than any other time. The real estate
boom has resulted in many people having a large amount of equity in
their home, thus increasing their net worth or the low rates have
allowed people to (and here begins "the other shoe" making its sure and
certain appearance) buy much more house than they previously could have.

Foreclosure rates are reaching an all-time high and the increase in
foreclosures tends to mirror the increase in home-overbuy...er,
home-ownership. Much of the highest _percentage_ increase in price,
which many objective observers looking with a trained, experienced
investor's eye have called ridiculous, unsustainable levels with no
relationship to rational factors, has come in properties well above
national average prices, and for houses with finish-out costing factors
well beyond the national average (IOW, the construction/remodel itself
is well beyond the average). And most of the truly ridiculous increases
in both have come in the most (already-expensive) "liberal" areas of the
US. So, how do Clinton and Bush fit into the real estate market - IOW,
who is responsible for what?

HTH,
R

[BJ Conner]

wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 07:01:34 -0600, Conan The Librarian
> > wrote:
>
> >Bill McKee wrote:
> >
> >> "David Snedeker" > wrote in message
> >> . ..
> >>
> >>>Thing is he does. Lots of folks put it together like Bill. They don't
> >>>really have the time or critical facility to keep up, so they tend to
> >>>string
> >>>things together into a plausible rap that closes the loop between what
> >>>they
> >>>thought, and what they think is happening now. It really does "make
> >>>sense"
> >>>to them. The characteristic "tell" for this kind of thinker is that the
> >>>story, the rap, is complete, ie it explains the entire situation. It
> >>>doesn't depend on observation, experiment, research, confirmation etc. for
> >>>personal validity, only on its completeness. It is a personal ideology.
> >>
> >> You
> >> sound like my very liberal, school teacher neighbor who thinks Hillary would
> >> be a great POTUS. Why would she be good? No executive leadership position
> >> in her work history. Could not keep husband at least from fooling around
> >> with the hired help. Was a 2nd rate attorney, who could not find her law
> >> firm records for 3 years and they were in the bedroom. There a a lot of
> >> very capable women out there for POTUS. Hillary is not on the list. Now
> >> what reasons do you have to prove the William Jefferson Clinton was a great
> >> President?
> >
> > Er, you might want to re-read what David wrote above, because you
> >just made his whole point for him with this little diatribe.
>
> Er, you might want to re-read what David wrote above, because David made
> his point for himself with his little diatribe...
>
> And then, you might wish re-read the questions Bill asked. Whatever he
> intended as his point aside, two of them are particularly germane to all
> the ****ing contests, be they here on ROFF or on a larger front. Just
> like the most Clintonistas, Steve and Dave rely on the same tactic they
> rail against - Clinton was good because Bush is bad, and whatever acts
> he committed or lies he got caught (and admitted) telling are
> inconsequential and not material compared to what others, well, at least
> Republicans, may (at least at this point) have told.
>
> Here's something to ponder re: Presidents and the economy. A major
> indicator, either economic or societal or both, depending on the
> philosophy of the observer, is home ownership. While Bush has been in
> office, more people in the US are homeowners than at any other time, and
> with comparatively lower rates than any other time. The real estate
> boom has resulted in many people having a large amount of equity in
> their home, thus increasing their net worth or the low rates have
> allowed people to (and here begins "the other shoe" making its sure and
> certain appearance) buy much more house than they previously could have.
>
> Foreclosure rates are reaching an all-time high and the increase in
> foreclosures tends to mirror the increase in home-overbuy...er,
> home-ownership. Much of the highest _percentage_ increase in price,
> which many objective observers looking with a trained, experienced
> investor's eye have called ridiculous, unsustainable levels with no
> relationship to rational factors, has come in properties well above
> national average prices, and for houses with finish-out costing factors
> well beyond the national average (IOW, the construction/remodel itself
> is well beyond the average). And most of the truly ridiculous increases
> in both have come in the most (already-expensive) "liberal" areas of the
> US. So, how do Clinton and Bush fit into the real estate market - IOW,
> who is responsible for what?
>

"more people in the US are homeowners than at any other time.."
Another example of the liars and statisticans thing. While more people
"own" the amount of equity they own in those homes is lower than it
ever has been.
More americans are in more debt than ever before. Facts like that and
the credit card debt being shielded from bankruptcy are moving
americans toward corporate serfdom. For the neocons it's better than
slavery, you don't have to feed them.


> HTH,
> R

[Bill McKee]

"Conan The Librarian" > wrote in message
...
> Bill McKee wrote:
>
>> And the randyness. You are the CEO of the country. You do not fool
>> around with the company employees, and at least fat, ugly employees.
>
> So your position is that if Clinton ... ooops, "Klinton" had been
> fooling around with a skinny, pretty employee it would have been OK?
>
>
> Chuck Vance (who learns something new every day)

As with your previous post, I see you are reading comprehension challenged.

[Bill McKee]

"rw" > wrote in message
k.net...
> Bill McKee wrote:
>> "rw" > wrote in message
>> nk.net...
>>
>>>Bill McKee wrote:
>>>
>>>>Clinton was a failure in my book, just because he had the charisma,
>>>>intelligence etc. to make some great fundamental changes.
>>>
>>>You forgot the part about leaving office with record-high surpluses as
>>>far as the eye could see, or at least until the tax-cuts-for-the-rich
>>>crowd got in.
>>>
>>>--
>>>Cut "to the chase" for my email address.
>>
>>
>> I missed the surplus. So did the accounting office. The integrated
>> federal budget throws in the Social Security money as income also. If he
>> had a true surplus the National Debt would not have increased every year
>> of his administration. And the tax cuts were for everybody. Well except
>> those who do not pay taxes.
>
> Take a look at this graph:
>
> http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm
>
> --
> Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

And where did the National Debt go down during Clinton's years?

[Bill McKee]

"BJ Conner" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 07:01:34 -0600, Conan The Librarian
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Bill McKee wrote:
>> >
>> >> "David Snedeker" > wrote in message
>> >> . ..
>> >>
>> >>>Thing is he does. Lots of folks put it together like Bill. They don't
>> >>>really have the time or critical facility to keep up, so they tend to
>> >>>string
>> >>>things together into a plausible rap that closes the loop between what
>> >>>they
>> >>>thought, and what they think is happening now. It really does "make
>> >>>sense"
>> >>>to them. The characteristic "tell" for this kind of thinker is that
>> >>>the
>> >>>story, the rap, is complete, ie it explains the entire situation. It
>> >>>doesn't depend on observation, experiment, research, confirmation etc.
>> >>>for
>> >>>personal validity, only on its completeness. It is a personal
>> >>>ideology.
>> >>
>> >> You
>> >> sound like my very liberal, school teacher neighbor who thinks Hillary
>> >> would
>> >> be a great POTUS. Why would she be good? No executive leadership
>> >> position
>> >> in her work history. Could not keep husband at least from fooling
>> >> around
>> >> with the hired help. Was a 2nd rate attorney, who could not find her
>> >> law
>> >> firm records for 3 years and they were in the bedroom. There a a lot
>> >> of
>> >> very capable women out there for POTUS. Hillary is not on the list.
>> >> Now
>> >> what reasons do you have to prove the William Jefferson Clinton was a
>> >> great
>> >> President?
>> >
>> > Er, you might want to re-read what David wrote above, because you
>> >just made his whole point for him with this little diatribe.
>>
>> Er, you might want to re-read what David wrote above, because David made
>> his point for himself with his little diatribe...
>>
>> And then, you might wish re-read the questions Bill asked. Whatever he
>> intended as his point aside, two of them are particularly germane to all
>> the ****ing contests, be they here on ROFF or on a larger front. Just
>> like the most Clintonistas, Steve and Dave rely on the same tactic they
>> rail against - Clinton was good because Bush is bad, and whatever acts
>> he committed or lies he got caught (and admitted) telling are
>> inconsequential and not material compared to what others, well, at least
>> Republicans, may (at least at this point) have told.
>>
>> Here's something to ponder re: Presidents and the economy. A major
>> indicator, either economic or societal or both, depending on the
>> philosophy of the observer, is home ownership. While Bush has been in
>> office, more people in the US are homeowners than at any other time, and
>> with comparatively lower rates than any other time. The real estate
>> boom has resulted in many people having a large amount of equity in
>> their home, thus increasing their net worth or the low rates have
>> allowed people to (and here begins "the other shoe" making its sure and
>> certain appearance) buy much more house than they previously could have.
>>
>> Foreclosure rates are reaching an all-time high and the increase in
>> foreclosures tends to mirror the increase in home-overbuy...er,
>> home-ownership. Much of the highest _percentage_ increase in price,
>> which many objective observers looking with a trained, experienced
>> investor's eye have called ridiculous, unsustainable levels with no
>> relationship to rational factors, has come in properties well above
>> national average prices, and for houses with finish-out costing factors
>> well beyond the national average (IOW, the construction/remodel itself
>> is well beyond the average). And most of the truly ridiculous increases
>> in both have come in the most (already-expensive) "liberal" areas of the
>> US. So, how do Clinton and Bush fit into the real estate market - IOW,
>> who is responsible for what?
>>
>
> "more people in the US are homeowners than at any other time.."
> Another example of the liars and statisticans thing. While more people
> "own" the amount of equity they own in those homes is lower than it
> ever has been.
> More americans are in more debt than ever before. Facts like that and
> the credit card debt being shielded from bankruptcy are moving
> americans toward corporate serfdom. For the neocons it's better than
> slavery, you don't have to feed them.
>
>
>> HTH,
>> R
>


Credit card debt shielded from bankruptcy? The new BK laws change the fact
that if you can pay off your debt via a lifestyle change, (cut up the credit
cards, and do not lease another BMW) you will pay off the debt. Chapter 13
if you were a company as opposed to Chapter 7. If you can not pay off the
debt, it is just like before the law change. I am a fiscal conservative and
social liberal. Like probably a majority of the country. Why should the
rest of us pay for your irresponsibility?

[Bill McKee]

"Conan The Librarian" > wrote in message
...
> Bill McKee wrote:
>
>> "David Snedeker" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>
>>>Thing is he does. Lots of folks put it together like Bill. They don't
>>>really have the time or critical facility to keep up, so they tend to
>>>string
>>>things together into a plausible rap that closes the loop between what
>>>they
>>>thought, and what they think is happening now. It really does "make
>>>sense"
>>>to them. The characteristic "tell" for this kind of thinker is that the
>>>story, the rap, is complete, ie it explains the entire situation. It
>>>doesn't depend on observation, experiment, research, confirmation etc.
>>>for
>>>personal validity, only on its completeness. It is a personal ideology.
>>
>> You sound like my very liberal, school teacher neighbor who thinks
>> Hillary would be a great POTUS. Why would she be good? No executive
>> leadership position in her work history. Could not keep husband at least
>> from fooling around with the hired help. Was a 2nd rate attorney, who
>> could not find her law firm records for 3 years and they were in the
>> bedroom. There a a lot of very capable women out there for POTUS.
>> Hillary is not on the list. Now what reasons do you have to prove the
>> William Jefferson Clinton was a great President?
>
> Er, you might want to re-read what David wrote above, because you just
> made his whole point for him with this little diatribe.
>
>
> Chuck Vance

Answer the questions and maybe we will figure you can comprehend what you
read, instead of just classifying books.

[Conan The Librarian]

Bill McKee wrote:

> "Conan The Librarian" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Bill McKee wrote:
>>
>>
>>>And the randyness. You are the CEO of the country. You do not fool
>>>around with the company employees, and at least fat, ugly employees.
>>
>> So your position is that if Clinton ... ooops, "Klinton" had been
>>fooling around with a skinny, pretty employee it would have been OK?
>>
>>
>> Chuck Vance (who learns something new every day)
>
>
> As with your previous post, I see you are reading comprehension challenged.

The quote is right up there. Feel free to try to disavow it.


Chuck Vance

[JR]

Bill McKee wrote:
> "rw" > wrote
>>
>>http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm
>
> And where did the National Debt go down during Clinton's years?

When did the national debt go down during *any* president's years?

A better graph than Steve's (i.e., using a more appropriate metric) is this:

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP.gif

Had Gore's election in 2000 not been nullified by the Supreme Court, the
budget surpluses would now be reducing the debt in absolute terms as well.

And jobs?

http://www.econotarian.org/Images/unemploymentrate

[rw]

Bill McKee wrote:
> "rw" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>
>>
>>Take a look at this graph:
>>
>>http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm
>
> And where did the National Debt go down during Clinton's years?

I never said it did. I said that when Clinton left office we were
running record surpluses, and had been for some years. A surplus does
not automatically mean that the national debt goes down, although you
can see from the graph that the growth of the national debt flattened
out under Clinton and then rocketed up under GWB. Look at the ****ing
graph, asshole.

When Clinton left office there was a debate about what to do with the
projected surpluses. Fiscal conservatives, like Clinton, wanted to use
it to pay down the debt. Alan Greenspan actually said that one of the
dangers we faced was that we'd pay down the debt TOO FAST! Basically, he
was saying that our problem was that we were up to our asses in ice cream.

The NeoCon ideologues decided to spend the surpluses on tax cuts that
went disproportionately to the rich. Oh, and by the way, let's start a
hideously expensive and bloody and bungled no-exit-strategy war, and
lets give billions of dollars in no-bid contracts to Halliburton and
Bechtel. And while we're at it, let's pass a hugely expensive Medicare
"reform" which was merely a thinly disguised giveaway to the drug
companies. And while we're still at it, let's pass a pork-laden farm
bill and an even more pork-laden transportation bill. Now we're in the
fix we're in.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[Wolfgang]

"Bill McKee" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> ...Why should the rest of us pay for your irresponsibility?

You do anything that anyone could categorize as dangerous, irresponsible,
risky, or of questionable worth?

Ever cross the street at some place other than a marked crosswalk?

Ever exceed posted speed limits?

Work with any dangerous machinery or substances?

Eat too much?

Eat the wrong things?

Drink a bit too much wine, beer, liquor, coffee, milk.....maybe some water
high in carcinogens or other health risks?

Go out on open water?

Exercise too little?

Too much?

Ever ride out a thunderstorm anyplace other than a certified bomb shelter?

Ever get close to a flood plain?......tornado alley?.....the gulf coast?

Ever breath second hand smoke?.....third?.....fourth?.......

Idiot.

Wolfgang

[Wolfgang]

"Bill McKee" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Conan The Librarian" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Bill McKee wrote:
>>
>>> And the randyness. You are the CEO of the country. You do not fool
>>> around with the company employees, and at least fat, ugly employees.
>>
>> So your position is that if Clinton ... ooops, "Klinton" had been
>> fooling around with a skinny, pretty employee it would have been OK?
>>
>>
>> Chuck Vance (who learns something new every day)
>
> As with your previous post, I see you are reading comprehension
> challenged.

Don't be too hard on him. I believe that isn't a required skill in his line
of work.

Wolfgang
oh, this one is gonna be SUCH fun. :)

[JR]

Bill McKee wrote:
>>
>And the randyness. You are the CEO of the country. You do not fool
>around with the company employees, and at least fat, ugly employees.

Ya get old and cast aside, ya get a little bitter, all eat up with
jealousy, don't ya, Bill?

http://tinyurl.com/8engs

And oh, Bill, btw,

http://tinyurl.com/7qj2j

HTH,

[rw]

JR wrote:
>
> A better graph than Steve's (i.e., using a more appropriate metric) is
> this:
>
> http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP.gif

That's a cool graph, JR. It makes the point better than the one I posted.

What the hell is with these NeoCon lunatics that they can neither grasp
nor admit or even acknowledge actual data? They aren't grounded in
reality, but rather in ideological cant. Snedeker is right. Ideology sucks.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[BJ Conner]

rw wrote:
> JR wrote:
> >
> > A better graph than Steve's (i.e., using a more appropriate metric) is
> > this:
> >
> > http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP.gif
>
> That's a cool graph, JR. It makes the point better than the one I posted.
>
> What the hell is with these NeoCon lunatics that they can neither grasp
> nor admit or even acknowledge actual data? They aren't grounded in
> reality, but rather in ideological cant. Snedeker is right. Ideology sucks.
>
> --
> Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Jimmy Carter has them pegged pretty well in his new book "Our
Endangered Values".
Good read and the money goes for a good cause. It's a call for santiy
that will hopefully get some people back to the center.

[Wolfgang]

"rw" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> JR wrote:
>>
>> A better graph than Steve's (i.e., using a more appropriate metric) is
>> this:
>>
>> http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP.gif
>
> That's a cool graph, JR. It makes the point better than the one I posted.
>
> What the hell is with these NeoCon lunatics that they can neither grasp
> nor admit or even acknowledge actual data? They aren't grounded in
> reality, but rather in ideological cant. Snedeker is right. Ideology
> sucks.

Hee, hee, hee.

Wolfgang
who always supposed that the point of a petting zoo was for the animals to
be fondled by people......not each other. :)

[Tim J.]

rw typed:
> Snedeker is right. Ideology sucks.

Which one?

Here - I'll give you an assist (why wait for Ken?):
Snedecker - good
Left-wing ideology - good
Conservative ideology - bad
--
HTH,
Tim
who would personally reverse the above, but it won't be read anyway.
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj/

[David Snedeker]

"Tim J." > wrote in message
...
> rw typed:
> > Snedeker is right. Ideology sucks.
>
> Which one?
>
> Here - I'll give you an assist (why wait for Ken?):
> Snedecker - good
> Left-wing ideology - good
> Conservative ideology - bad
> --
> HTH,
> Tim
> who would personally reverse the above, but it won't be read anyway.


Who is this Guy "Snedecker?" Maybe its like the Unibomber and his Unabomber
bro? :-)

Actually I don't like using any ideology as a method for determining what is
happening, or more importantly to me, what I think about what is happening.
I consider ideology, (and organized religion by the way) both crutches, and
the lazy man's way out of thinking. I much prefer an empirical approach,
over blind faith and sheep-like submission. And my ideas are a hell of alot
closer to what the Founding Fathers practiced, notwithstanding the ignorant
mouthings of the besotted priests and their snake-handler cousins. I
consider personal descents into ideology akin to embarrassing moral lapses.

Having said all this, I do find it easier to overlook the sloth of
ideological thinking from libs and progressives, than from conservatives and
neo-fascists. I justify this by referencing my life and career experience
which has taught me that progressive policies are much more humane in a
world where much of the human condition is determined by chance factors.
However, I can assure you that lib reasoning from mere ideological grounds
also disgusts me.

Dave
Ideology sucks

[Bill McKee]

"Wolfgang" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bill McKee" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>>
>> ...Why should the rest of us pay for your irresponsibility?
>
> You do anything that anyone could categorize as dangerous, irresponsible,
> risky, or of questionable worth?
>
> Ever cross the street at some place other than a marked crosswalk?
>
> Ever exceed posted speed limits?
>
> Work with any dangerous machinery or substances?
>
> Eat too much?
>
> Eat the wrong things?
>
> Drink a bit too much wine, beer, liquor, coffee, milk.....maybe some water
> high in carcinogens or other health risks?
>
> Go out on open water?
>
> Exercise too little?
>
> Too much?
>
> Ever ride out a thunderstorm anyplace other than a certified bomb shelter?
>
> Ever get close to a flood plain?......tornado alley?.....the gulf coast?
>
> Ever breath second hand smoke?.....third?.....fourth?.......
>
> Idiot.
>
> Wolfgang
>
>

You are the idiot. I use to race cars. But I kept enough insurance to
repair me if I got broke. I do not speak of the normal hazards of life, I
speak of those done by choice. And overspending on your credit cards for
the pleasures of life is one of those. It is not the person who lost his
job and is paying for groceries with the credit card while looking for a new
job, or someone who becomes ill and tries to pay for it on the card, until
later. It is the people who have run up $50k- to 500k on the card, for
vacations, jewelry, etc. These are the ones affected by the new BK laws.

[Bill McKee]

"JR" > wrote in message ...
> Bill McKee wrote:
>> "rw" > wrote
>>>
>>>http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm
>>
>> And where did the National Debt go down during Clinton's years?
>
> When did the national debt go down during *any* president's years?
>
> A better graph than Steve's (i.e., using a more appropriate metric) is
> this:
>
> http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP.gif
>
> Had Gore's election in 2000 not been nullified by the Supreme Court, the
> budget surpluses would now be reducing the debt in absolute terms as well.
>
> And jobs?
>
> http://www.econotarian.org/Images/unemploymentrate
>
>
>

That is a large supposition that AGore's election would have prevented 9/11
and all it's extra costs, as well as AGore not having his spending program.
As to the comment about the SCOTUS, proves you are loser who can not accept
the party ran a bad candidate. And all the recounts of the votes by
indepent news orgs in Florida, gave the election count to Bush. If a person
can not punch out a piece of chad, and only dimples it, the vote must not
count. We may not have had as much debt, but would Gore have vetoed the
spending bills? You realize that the POTUS does not spend money that is not
authorized by Congress?

[Bill McKee]

"rw" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> JR wrote:
>>
>> A better graph than Steve's (i.e., using a more appropriate metric) is
>> this:
>>
>> http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP.gif
>
> That's a cool graph, JR. It makes the point better than the one I posted.
>
> What the hell is with these NeoCon lunatics that they can neither grasp
> nor admit or even acknowledge actual data? They aren't grounded in
> reality, but rather in ideological cant. Snedeker is right. Ideology
> sucks.
>
> --
> Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Statistics? Where does the graph show that the National Debt went down? It
plots the debt against GDP. And GDP was unrealistically high for a few
years while the dot.bomb was getting ready to explode.

[Bill McKee]

"rw" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Bill McKee wrote:
>> "rw" > wrote in message
>> k.net...
>>
>>>
>>>Take a look at this graph:
>>>
>>>http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm
>>
>> And where did the National Debt go down during Clinton's years?
>
> I never said it did. I said that when Clinton left office we were running
> record surpluses, and had been for some years. A surplus does not
> automatically mean that the national debt goes down, although you can see
> from the graph that the growth of the national debt flattened out under
> Clinton and then rocketed up under GWB. Look at the ****ing graph,
> asshole.
>
> When Clinton left office there was a debate about what to do with the
> projected surpluses. Fiscal conservatives, like Clinton, wanted to use it
> to pay down the debt. Alan Greenspan actually said that one of the dangers
> we faced was that we'd pay down the debt TOO FAST! Basically, he was
> saying that our problem was that we were up to our asses in ice cream.
>
> The NeoCon ideologues decided to spend the surpluses on tax cuts that went
> disproportionately to the rich. Oh, and by the way, let's start a
> hideously expensive and bloody and bungled no-exit-strategy war, and lets
> give billions of dollars in no-bid contracts to Halliburton and Bechtel.
> And while we're at it, let's pass a hugely expensive Medicare "reform"
> which was merely a thinly disguised giveaway to the drug companies. And
> while we're still at it, let's pass a pork-laden farm bill and an even
> more pork-laden transportation bill. Now we're in the fix we're in.
>
> --
> Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

If we had a surplus the National Debt would not go down unless we paid off
some of the bonds. But also the National Debt would not have gone up as we
would not have had to borrow money. Now where was this surplus? Other than
projected 10 years hence?

[Bill McKee]

"Conan The Librarian" > wrote in message
...
> Bill McKee wrote:
>
>> "Conan The Librarian" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Bill McKee wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>And the randyness. You are the CEO of the country. You do not fool
>>>>around with the company employees, and at least fat, ugly employees.
>>>
>>> So your position is that if Clinton ... ooops, "Klinton" had been
>>> fooling around with a skinny, pretty employee it would have been OK?
>>>
>>>
>>> Chuck Vance (who learns something new every day)
>>
>>
>> As with your previous post, I see you are reading comprehension
>> challenged.
>
> The quote is right up there. Feel free to try to disavow it.
>
>
> Chuck Vance
>
>

The quote was badly worded. But the questions are still unanswered.

[Bill McKee]

"Wolfgang" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bill McKee" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>>
>> "Conan The Librarian" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Bill McKee wrote:
>>>
>>>> And the randyness. You are the CEO of the country. You do not fool
>>>> around with the company employees, and at least fat, ugly employees.
>>>
>>> So your position is that if Clinton ... ooops, "Klinton" had been
>>> fooling around with a skinny, pretty employee it would have been OK?
>>>
>>>
>>> Chuck Vance (who learns something new every day)
>>
>> As with your previous post, I see you are reading comprehension
>> challenged.
>
> Don't be too hard on him. I believe that isn't a required skill in his
> line of work.
>
> Wolfgang
> oh, this one is gonna be SUCH fun. :)
>
You want to try to answer the hard questions?

[Bill McKee]

"JR" > wrote in message ...
> Bill McKee wrote:
>>>
>>And the randyness. You are the CEO of the country. You do not fool around
>>with the company employees, and at least fat, ugly employees.
>
> Ya get old and cast aside, ya get a little bitter, all eat up with
> jealousy, don't ya, Bill?
>
> http://tinyurl.com/8engs
>
> And oh, Bill, btw,
>
> http://tinyurl.com/7qj2j
>
> HTH,
>

The 2nd one was for you. And why was he in court perjuring himself? I
remember something about an Arkansas state employee suing for sexual
harassment. And Clinton must have been somewhat guilty, as he signed over
$850,000 to her. You have Alzheimer's? Seems as a bunch of the very
liberal in Congress are suffering Alzheimer. They forget what they said
8-10 years ago.

[Mike Connor]

"David Snedeker" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
. ..
<SNIP>
> Having said all this, I do find it easier to overlook the sloth of
> ideological thinking from libs and progressives, than from conservatives
> and
> neo-fascists. I justify this by referencing my life and career experience
> which has taught me that progressive policies are much more humane in a
> world where much of the human condition is determined by chance factors.
> However, I can assure you that lib reasoning from mere ideological grounds
> also disgusts me.
>
> Dave
> Ideology sucks
>
>

It is not my place to comment on what might be appropriate, or what might
not.

I would merely like to know what you hope to achieve? You must have some
reason for publishing your views here, what is it?

Do you wish to convert others to your point of view? Do you imagine that
nobody else is frustrated or disgusted at what goes on in the world? Quite
irrespective of their individual leanings or beliefs.

Presumably, many go fishing, or do other things, like discussing it, or
related matters, or indeed completely unrelated matters, in order to escape
just such unfortunate realities, as they know full well that they can not
affect them, or at best only marginally, and not by posting their views on
such things to relatively obscure theme related newsgroups.

Do you still go fishing? Perhaps you should?

TL
MC

[Mike Connor]

"Bill McKee" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
nk.net...

Don´t any of you realise how boring this is? Why don´t you post to a
political group if it is so important to you?

Hell, I live more or less on the other side of the world, and even I know
that Clinton is no longer president, so what is the point in discussing his
shortcomings?

MC

[JR]

Bill McKee wrote:
>
> That is a large supposition that AGore's election would have prevented 9/11
> and all it's extra costs, as well as AGore not having his spending program.

> <rest of childishly illiterate blather snipped>

Who said anything about preventing 9/11?

What is certain is that Gore would not have instituted massive tax cuts
weighted overwhelmingly in favor of the rich.

Nor would he have waged an unprovoked, hugely expensive war of
aggression, thereby losing us our allies, diverting us from the real war
on terror following 9/11, and entrapping us in a ruinous, totally
unnecessary occupation of an Arab nation.

On the other hand, there is no reason to believe Gore wouldn't have had
a spending program every bit as fiscally responsible as Clinton's, one
that resulted in massive surpluses.

[JR]

Mike Connor wrote:

> Hell, I live more or less on the other side of the world, and even I know
> that Clinton is no longer president, so what is the point in discussing his
> shortcomings?

Well, for what it's worth, I think both Helmut Kohl and Maggie Thatcher
sucked big time.... :)

JR
(and don't get me started on Giscard d'Estaing or Suharto....)

[Mike Connor]

"JR" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
> Mike Connor wrote:
>
>> Hell, I live more or less on the other side of the world, and even I know
>> that Clinton is no longer president, so what is the point in discussing
>> his shortcomings?
>
> Well, for what it's worth, I think both Helmut Kohl and Maggie Thatcher
> sucked big time.... :)
>
> JR
> (and don't get me started on Giscard d'Estaing or Suharto....)

Doubtless correct, but they stopped publicly sucking some considerable while
ago, and are thus more or less consigned to the dross of yesteryear. If
Helmut gets a blowjob now, most would merely be thankful that he was at
least not sticking his corrupt nose, or whatever, into politics.

Can´t some of you get together and finance a blow job for Georgie? Might
solve an awful lot of problems?

TL
MC

[JR]

Mike Connor wrote:

> Can´t some of you get together and finance a blow job for Georgie? Might
> solve an awful lot of problems?

Ah ha! .... a solution that has occurred to others as well:

http://tinyurl.com/cs4wd

:)

[rw]

Mike Connor wrote:
>
> Do you still go fishing? Perhaps you should?

In the past few days you've posted about musical instruments, song
lyrics, static cling, and Irish mental health, among other
non-fishing-related topics. All of those topics bore me to tears, so
please spare me the sanctimonious BS about off-topic posts.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[rw]

Bill McKee wrote:
>
>
> If we had a surplus the National Debt would not go down unless we paid off
> some of the bonds. But also the National Debt would not have gone up as we
> would not have had to borrow money. Now where was this surplus? Other than
> projected 10 years hence?

I hope to God you're not an accountant, because you have no idea what
budget "deficit" and "surplus" mean.

http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm

You're merely regurgitating deliberately misleading talking points from
Rush Limbaugh.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[David Snedeker]

"Mike Connor" > wrote in message
...
>
> It is not my place to comment on what might be appropriate, or what might
> not.
>
> I would merely like to know what you hope to achieve? You must have some
> reason for publishing your views here, what is it?
>
> Do you wish to convert others to your point of view? Do you imagine that
> nobody else is frustrated or disgusted at what goes on in the world? Quite
> irrespective of their individual leanings or beliefs.
>
> Presumably, many go fishing, or do other things, like discussing it, or
> related matters, or indeed completely unrelated matters, in order to
escape
> just such unfortunate realities, as they know full well that they can not
> affect them, or at best only marginally, and not by posting their views on
> such things to relatively obscure theme related newsgroups.
>
> Do you still go fishing? Perhaps you should?
>
> TL
> MC

Nag, nag,
Nag, nag,
Nag, nag, nag.

Jesus Connors you are sounding like a pubescent net nanny.
You think I got all day to read you complaining about me, complaining about
Wolfgang, complaining about me, complaining about . . . Oh whats the use.
You probably won't stop until I write you a poem and then who knows where
that will end. Oh I know what You want, you want to trick this whole NG into
a becoming a German Language NG. I can hear it in your tone. Thats it, isn't
it? Well its just not going to happen.

Dave
Ideology saugen

[Mike Connor]

"rw" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
nk.net...
> Mike Connor wrote:
>>
>> Do you still go fishing? Perhaps you should?
>
> In the past few days you've posted about musical instruments, song lyrics,
> static cling, and Irish mental health, among other non-fishing-related
> topics. All of those topics bore me to tears, so please spare me the
> sanctimonious BS about off-topic posts.
>
> --
> Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

I fear you are in error. I was not complaining about off topic posts, a
manifestly pointless exercise on this newsgroup. In fact, it might well be
that this is one of the few subjects on which one might just possibly obtain
almost universal agreement, although I would not bank on that either. I was
merely trying to find out the aims being pursued in such posts, as they are
by no means obvious.

Sanctimonious?

Yeah well, that would presuppose that your estimate of my motives was
correct, which it is not, and that more or less precludes anything else you
write as a result of your incorect estimate being correct.

Life is only hard if you don´t weaken.

TL
MC

[Mike Connor]

"David Snedeker" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
. ..
<SNIP>
> Nag, nag,
> Nag, nag,
> Nag, nag, nag.
>
> Jesus Connors you are sounding like a pubescent net nanny.
> You think I got all day to read you complaining about me, complaining
> about
> Wolfgang, complaining about me, complaining about . . . Oh whats the use.
> You probably won't stop until I write you a poem and then who knows where
> that will end. Oh I know what You want, you want to trick this whole NG
> into
> a becoming a German Language NG. I can hear it in your tone. Thats it,
> isn't
> it? Well its just not going to happen.
>
> Dave
> Ideology saugen
>

:) Scheisse! Erwischt! :) :) Ich kann aber echt gut noergeln was?

PH
MC

[Wolfgang]

"Bill McKee" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> You are the idiot.

We'll see. :)

> I use to race cars.

Oh? What, specifically, is it that you use to race cars? Is it something
that resembles cars, perchance? Are you going to TELL us what it is you use
to race cars......or do we have to guess until we get it? Any hints?

> But I kept enough insurance to repair me if I got broke.

Actually, I think you overpaid on your premiums......grossly.

> I do not speak of the normal hazards of life, I speak of those done by
> choice.

Ah! Then we are to take it that whatever it is you use to race cars is one
of the normal hazards of life? Is it......um......a pogo stick, perhaps?
Or is it what Stevie thinks your hands are holding? Is it bigger than a
breadbox? Does it smell funny?

> And overspending on your credit cards for the pleasures of life is one of
> those.

O.k., I opt for the pogo stick. I mean, none of the other choices makes any
sense at all.......right?

> It is not the person who lost his job and is paying for groceries with the
> credit card while looking for a new job, or someone who becomes ill and
> tries to pay for it on the card, until later.

Uh.......what isn't? Have you been drinking?......or driving, for that
matter? You shouldn't. :(

> It is the people who have run up $50k- to 500k on the card, for vacations,
> jewelry, etc.

Well, this is getting just a bit weird. WHAT is those people? And,
shouldn't it be "are"? I mean, how much people are we talking about here?
Are these REAL people?......or do they have breasts?

> These are the ones affected by the new BK laws.

Burger King has laws?!! Are these (or "this".....I really don't know
anymore) widely applicable?......or is it only those with whoppers.....say,
dicklet, for example.....that need to be concerned? Should *I* be paying
for all this?......or should Marx? Have any species been exterminated in
the process?.....or is it just engineers?.....or PhDs? Where ARE your
hands, anyway? :(

Wolfgang
this is all starting to look just a bit disgusting......even for roff!
:(

[rw]

Mike Connor wrote:
>
> I fear you are in error. I was not complaining about off topic posts, a
> manifestly pointless exercise on this newsgroup. In fact, it might well be
> that this is one of the few subjects on which one might just possibly obtain
> almost universal agreement, although I would not bank on that either. I was
> merely trying to find out the aims being pursued in such posts, as they are
> by no means obvious.

Oh, I see. It's just the off-topic posts that don't interest you that
you're complaining about.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[Wolfgang]

"rw" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Mike Connor wrote:
>>
>> Do you still go fishing? Perhaps you should?
>
> In the past few days you've posted about musical instruments, song lyrics,
> static cling, and Irish mental health, among other non-fishing-related
> topics. All of those topics bore me to tears, so please spare me the
> sanctimonious BS about off-topic posts.


And yet, you read. You boys really do need help.

Hee, hee, hee.

Wolfgang

[Wolfgang]

"David Snedeker" > wrote in message
. ..

> Nag, nag,
> Nag, nag,
> Nag, nag, nag.
>
> Jesus Connors you are sounding like a pubescent net nanny.
> You think I got all day to read you complaining about me, complaining
> about
> Wolfgang, complaining about me, complaining about . . . Oh whats the use.
> You probably won't stop until I write you a poem and then who knows where
> that will end. Oh I know what You want, you want to trick this whole NG
> into
> a becoming a German Language NG. I can hear it in your tone. Thats it,
> isn't
> it? Well its just not going to happen.
>
> Dave
> Ideology saugen

YEAH! THAT'S IT! LASH OUT AT RANDOM!

Wolfgang
can't touch this.
hee, hee, hee :)

[Wolfgang]

"JR" > wrote in message ...
> Mike Connor wrote:
>
>> Hell, I live more or less on the other side of the world, and even I know
>> that Clinton is no longer president, so what is the point in discussing
>> his shortcomings?
>
> Well, for what it's worth, I think both Helmut Kohl and Maggie Thatcher
> sucked big time.... :)
>
> JR
> (and don't get me started on Giscard d'Estaing or Suharto....)

BUZZ! Thatcher had breasts. Inherently uninteresting. Not human.
Disqualified. Five yards. Second Down. Play ball!

Wolfgang

[Wolfgang]

"Bill McKee" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Wolfgang" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Bill McKee" > wrote in message
>> k.net...
>>>
>>> "Conan The Librarian" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Bill McKee wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And the randyness. You are the CEO of the country. You do not fool
>>>>> around with the company employees, and at least fat, ugly employees.
>>>>
>>>> So your position is that if Clinton ... ooops, "Klinton" had been
>>>> fooling around with a skinny, pretty employee it would have been OK?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Chuck Vance (who learns something new every day)
>>>
>>> As with your previous post, I see you are reading comprehension
>>> challenged.
>>
>> Don't be too hard on him. I believe that isn't a required skill in his
>> line of work.
>>
>> Wolfgang
>> oh, this one is gonna be SUCH fun. :)
>>
> You want to try to answer the hard questions?

Hm......

Nah.

Tell you what I WILL do, though.......I promise that I will take you every
bit as seriously as I do stevie, davie, davie, kennie, dicklet........and
jon.

Wolfgang
yeah, i know whatcher thinking.......which kennie? :)

[Mike Connor]

"rw" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
ink.net...
<SNIP>
> Oh, I see. It's just the off-topic posts that don't interest you that
> you're complaining about.
>
> --
> Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Usually, I am interested in just about everything, doubtless a character
defect of not inconsiderable magnitude. As far as I am aware, I submitted no
complaints. I don´t know what you read, but it can hardly be what I wrote,
and as a consequence I am in no position to comment on your interpretation
of what you "saw". Unfortunate, but there it is.

TL
MC

[Mike Connor]

"David Snedeker" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
. ..
>
<SNIP>
> Jesus Connors you are sounding like a pubescent net nanny.
> You think I got all day to read you complaining about me, ´

What makes you think I am complaining? You are apparently not the only one
who thinks so either. I asked you what I thought were perfectly reasonable
questions.

Apparently you don´t even consider taking them seriously. You do have
reasons I suppose?

TL
MC

[David Snedeker]

"Wolfgang" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bill McKee" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> >
> > "Wolfgang" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "Bill McKee" > wrote in message
> >> k.net...
> >>>
> >>> "Conan The Librarian" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>>> Bill McKee wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> And the randyness. You are the CEO of the country. You do not fool
> >>>>> around with the company employees, and at least fat, ugly employees.
> >>>>
> >>>> So your position is that if Clinton ... ooops, "Klinton" had been
> >>>> fooling around with a skinny, pretty employee it would have been OK?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Chuck Vance (who learns something new every day)
> >>>
> >>> As with your previous post, I see you are reading comprehension
> >>> challenged.
> >>
> >> Don't be too hard on him. I believe that isn't a required skill in his
> >> line of work.
> >>
> >> Wolfgang
> >> oh, this one is gonna be SUCH fun. :)
> >>
> > You want to try to answer the hard questions?
>
> Hm......
>
> Nah.
>
> Tell you what I WILL do, though.......I promise that I will take you every
> bit as seriously as I do stevie, davie, davie, kennie, dicklet........and
> jon.
>
> Wolfgang
> yeah, i know whatcher thinking.......which kennie? :)
>

What Im thinking is WOW, Jon made the Wolflout list! I mean, Jon, of all
people! Well spoken, polite, civil Jon. Wow. What did I miss?

Dave
Wolfology been sucken agin.

[David Snedeker]

"Mike Connor" > wrote in message
...
>
> "David Snedeker" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> . ..
> <SNIP>

> :) Scheisse! Erwischt! :) :) Ich kann aber echt gut noergeln was?
>
> PH
> MC
>
Ja, Erwischt! Aber, norgein ist normal. Kein problem.

Dave
Wir hatten gern zwei fahrkarten nach Berlin, Bitte.

[Mike Connor]

"David Snedeker" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
. ..
<SNIP>
> Dave
> Wir hatten gern zwei fahrkarten nach Berlin, Bitte.
>
>

Kein Problem;

http://www.firmenreisen24.de/db/main.htm#

Oder moechten Sie auch Rabatt?

TL
MC

[David Snedeker]

"Mike Connor" > wrote in message
...
>
> "David Snedeker" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> . ..
> >
> <SNIP>
> > Jesus Connors you are sounding like a pubescent net nanny.
> > You think I got all day to read you complaining about me, ´
>
> What makes you think I am complaining? You are apparently not the only one
> who thinks so either. I asked you what I thought were perfectly reasonable
> questions.
>
> Apparently you don´t even consider taking them seriously. You do have
> reasons I suppose?
>
> TL
> MC
>

Well one reason is that as I dissed you sometime last year or so back, and
felt bad about it, so Im avoiding my dark side with you because I like it
that you are back on ROFF, even if sometimes we can all be a pain in the
ass. Please do not take my attempt at humor as disrespect. Is that serious
enough?

Dave

[rw]

David Snedeker wrote:
>
> What Im thinking is WOW, Jon made the Wolflout list! I mean, Jon, of all
> people! Well spoken, polite, civil Jon. Wow. What did I miss?

Listen up and listen good, Snedeker. Never EVER cross Wolfgang, or you
will PAY FOR IT!

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[Mike Connor]

"David Snedeker" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
. ..
<SNIP>
> Well one reason is that as I dissed you sometime last year or so back, and
> felt bad about it, so Im avoiding my dark side with you because I like it
> that you are back on ROFF, even if sometimes we can all be a pain in the
> ass. Please do not take my attempt at humor as disrespect. Is that serious
> enough?
>
> Dave
>

Seems fair enough, but I have been "dissed" ( I assume the meaning from the
context), so many times, that it would hardly be fair to expect me to
remember all such occasions. Normally, I bear no grudges in any case. That
is not to say that my attitude is still the same towards somebody who has
somehow annoyed me, intentionally or otherwise, as it would be were that not
the case, and I remembered it! :)

My questions were serious. What do you hope to gain, or why do you do it? I
really would like to know, and I am curious as to whether you can explain it
in a manner which I would understand.

As you, I invariably try to explain things to myself in the light of my own
knowledge and experience, and apart from a humorous reference now and again,
I am simply unable to imagine myself posting anything at all about German
politics here, or any other politics for that matter. I can see no point in
it. But you obviously do see some point or other, and I would like to know
what it is.

Casual observers please note, THAT IS NOT A COMPLAINT!

TL
MC

[David Snedeker]

"Bill McKee" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "JR" > wrote in message
...
> > Bill McKee wrote:
> >>>
> >>And the randyness. You are the CEO of the country. You do not fool
around
> >>with the company employees, and at least fat, ugly employees.
> >
> > Ya get old and cast aside, ya get a little bitter, all eat up with
> > jealousy, don't ya, Bill?
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/8engs
> >
> > And oh, Bill, btw,
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/7qj2j
> >
> > HTH,
> >
>
> The 2nd one was for you. And why was he in court perjuring himself? I
> remember something about an Arkansas state employee suing for sexual
> harassment. And Clinton must have been somewhat guilty, as he signed over
> $850,000 to her. You have Alzheimer's? Seems as a bunch of the very
> liberal in Congress are suffering Alzheimer. They forget what they said
> 8-10 years ago.
>

Bill, tonight your Pres is in Japan hiding and next week he will be in
Mongolia. Do you think he is planning to ask for asylum? :-) This week the
Vice President interrupted his management of the chain of foreign-based
"secret" torture chambers, to entertain Mr. Chalaby, Iranian spy, NeoCon oil
bagman, and identified bribe taker and maker.

Today the Republican controlled Senate asked the White House for its plan
for Iraq, and another torture chamber was discovered in Baghdad. This week
the Republican House stopped the administration's deficit ridden financial
plans in their tracks, virtually choking on the size of the Bushies over
spending.

And you are so befuddled and overwhelmingly ashamed of the small part your
irresponsible voting behavior had in this fiasco, that all you can do is
mumble some word salad rehash of Clintons failings. Get a hold of yourself,
accept that this fiasco is not just your fault, and get ready like a man to
absorb your share of the pain our country will suffer as a result of this
mess. There is no free lunch, never was.

Dave
Senate report actually shows Bush lied 50+ times about Iraq Intel. Yesterday
he did it again. Thats one reason even the the Rs in Congress are getting
off the train.

[Bill McKee]

"Wolfgang" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bill McKee" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> You are the idiot.
>
> We'll see. :)
>
>> I use to race cars.
>
> Oh? What, specifically, is it that you use to race cars? Is it something
> that resembles cars, perchance? Are you going to TELL us what it is you
> use to race cars......or do we have to guess until we get it? Any hints?
>
>> But I kept enough insurance to repair me if I got broke.
>
> Actually, I think you overpaid on your premiums......grossly.
>
>> I do not speak of the normal hazards of life, I speak of those done by
>> choice.
>
> Ah! Then we are to take it that whatever it is you use to race cars is
> one of the normal hazards of life? Is it......um......a pogo stick,
> perhaps? Or is it what Stevie thinks your hands are holding? Is it bigger
> than a breadbox? Does it smell funny?
>
>> And overspending on your credit cards for the pleasures of life is one of
>> those.
>
> O.k., I opt for the pogo stick. I mean, none of the other choices makes
> any sense at all.......right?
>
>> It is not the person who lost his job and is paying for groceries with
>> the credit card while looking for a new job, or someone who becomes ill
>> and tries to pay for it on the card, until later.
>
> Uh.......what isn't? Have you been drinking?......or driving, for that
> matter? You shouldn't. :(
>
>> It is the people who have run up $50k- to 500k on the card, for
>> vacations, jewelry, etc.
>
> Well, this is getting just a bit weird. WHAT is those people? And,
> shouldn't it be "are"? I mean, how much people are we talking about here?
> Are these REAL people?......or do they have breasts?
>
>> These are the ones affected by the new BK laws.
>
> Burger King has laws?!! Are these (or "this".....I really don't know
> anymore) widely applicable?......or is it only those with
> whoppers.....say, dicklet, for example.....that need to be concerned?
> Should *I* be paying for all this?......or should Marx? Have any species
> been exterminated in the process?.....or is it just engineers?.....or
> PhDs? Where ARE your hands, anyway? :(
>
> Wolfgang
> this is all starting to look just a bit disgusting......even for roff! :(
>

Yes it is disgusting to see someone make as big a fool of themselves as you
do.

[Bill McKee]

"JR" > wrote in message ...
> Mike Connor wrote:
>
>> Hell, I live more or less on the other side of the world, and even I know
>> that Clinton is no longer president, so what is the point in discussing
>> his shortcomings?
>
> Well, for what it's worth, I think both Helmut Kohl and Maggie Thatcher
> sucked big time.... :)
>
> JR
> (and don't get me started on Giscard d'Estaing or Suharto....)

Maggie Thatcher was good.

[Bill McKee]

"JR" > wrote in message ...
> Bill McKee wrote:
>>
>> That is a large supposition that AGore's election would have prevented
>> 9/11 and all it's extra costs, as well as AGore not having his spending
>> program.
>
>> <rest of childishly illiterate blather snipped>
>
> Who said anything about preventing 9/11?
>
> What is certain is that Gore would not have instituted massive tax cuts
> weighted overwhelmingly in favor of the rich.
>
> Nor would he have waged an unprovoked, hugely expensive war of
> aggression, thereby losing us our allies, diverting us from the real war
> on terror following 9/11, and entrapping us in a ruinous, totally
> unnecessary occupation of an Arab nation.
>
> On the other hand, there is no reason to believe Gore wouldn't have had
> a spending program every bit as fiscally responsible as Clinton's, one
> that resulted in massive surpluses.
>


And which part of the fiscally responsible spending was Clinton's choice?

[Bill McKee]

"rw" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Bill McKee wrote:
>>
>>
>> If we had a surplus the National Debt would not go down unless we paid
>> off some of the bonds. But also the National Debt would not have gone up
>> as we would not have had to borrow money. Now where was this surplus?
>> Other than projected 10 years hence?
>
> I hope to God you're not an accountant, because you have no idea what
> budget "deficit" and "surplus" mean.
>
> http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm
>
> You're merely regurgitating deliberately misleading talking points from
> Rush Limbaugh.
>
> --
> Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

If you have a surplus, you do not have to borrow.

[Bill McKee]

"David Snedeker" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Bill McKee" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "JR" > wrote in message
> ...
>> > Bill McKee wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>And the randyness. You are the CEO of the country. You do not fool
> around
>> >>with the company employees, and at least fat, ugly employees.
>> >
>> > Ya get old and cast aside, ya get a little bitter, all eat up with
>> > jealousy, don't ya, Bill?
>> >
>> > http://tinyurl.com/8engs
>> >
>> > And oh, Bill, btw,
>> >
>> > http://tinyurl.com/7qj2j
>> >
>> > HTH,
>> >
>>
>> The 2nd one was for you. And why was he in court perjuring himself? I
>> remember something about an Arkansas state employee suing for sexual
>> harassment. And Clinton must have been somewhat guilty, as he signed
>> over
>> $850,000 to her. You have Alzheimer's? Seems as a bunch of the very
>> liberal in Congress are suffering Alzheimer. They forget what they said
>> 8-10 years ago.
>>
>
> Bill, tonight your Pres is in Japan hiding and next week he will be in
> Mongolia. Do you think he is planning to ask for asylum? :-) This week
> the
> Vice President interrupted his management of the chain of foreign-based
> "secret" torture chambers, to entertain Mr. Chalaby, Iranian spy, NeoCon
> oil
> bagman, and identified bribe taker and maker.
>
> Today the Republican controlled Senate asked the White House for its plan
> for Iraq, and another torture chamber was discovered in Baghdad. This week
> the Republican House stopped the administration's deficit ridden financial
> plans in their tracks, virtually choking on the size of the Bushies over
> spending.
>
> And you are so befuddled and overwhelmingly ashamed of the small part your
> irresponsible voting behavior had in this fiasco, that all you can do is
> mumble some word salad rehash of Clintons failings. Get a hold of
> yourself,
> accept that this fiasco is not just your fault, and get ready like a man
> to
> absorb your share of the pain our country will suffer as a result of this
> mess. There is no free lunch, never was.
>
> Dave
> Senate report actually shows Bush lied 50+ times about Iraq Intel.
> Yesterday
> he did it again. Thats one reason even the the Rs in Congress are getting
> off the train.
>
>
>

Actually he is your President also. And I did not vote for him, but since
this is a Representative Republic, he is the President of the Republic.
Like it or not, he is your president also. And since the Dem's in the last
Administration kept saying Saddam had WMD's and fired a bunch of Cruise
missiles in to Baghdad, I guess they are liars also. We need to vote out
all the incumbents. We have the Dem's putting up the most unelectable
candidates they can find for POTUS. Putting a drooling, screaming jerk in
as head of the DNC. This is not the same party anymore I have belonged to
for 41 years. Both sides of the aisle are voting for excess spending bills.
How much Pork in the transportation bill for both sides. The first Iraq war
bill, was 25% pork for both parties. Quite endorsing the incompetence of
the Dem's while ragging on the Repubs. They both suck these days!

[David Snedeker]

"Mike Connor" > wrote in message
...
>
> "David Snedeker" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> . ..
> <SNIP>
> > Well one reason is that as I dissed you sometime last year or so back,
and
> > felt bad about it, so Im avoiding my dark side with you because I like
it
> > that you are back on ROFF, even if sometimes we can all be a pain in the
> > ass. Please do not take my attempt at humor as disrespect. Is that
serious
> > enough?
> >
> > Dave
> >
>
> Seems fair enough, but I have been "dissed" ( I assume the meaning from
the
> context), so many times, that it would hardly be fair to expect me to
> remember all such occasions. Normally, I bear no grudges in any case. That
> is not to say that my attitude is still the same towards somebody who has
> somehow annoyed me, intentionally or otherwise, as it would be were that
not
> the case, and I remembered it! :)
>
> My questions were serious. What do you hope to gain, or why do you do it?
I
> really would like to know, and I am curious as to whether you can explain
it
> in a manner which I would understand.
>
> As you, I invariably try to explain things to myself in the light of my
own
> knowledge and experience, and apart from a humorous reference now and
again,
> I am simply unable to imagine myself posting anything at all about German
> politics here, or any other politics for that matter. I can see no point
in
> it. But you obviously do see some point or other, and I would like to know
> what it is.
>
> Casual observers please note, THAT IS NOT A COMPLAINT!
>
> TL
> MC
>
I will be brief.
My country is in the 6th year of a nearly successful fascist takeover. My
country is nearly bankrupt. My country is engaged in a long, drawn out war.
Right now, it appears that the tide is turning. Politicians who went along
to get along, are choking on the results of the incompetence, cronyism and
corruption of the Bushies.

I find it impossible not to think about and talk about these events in just
about every venue I am in. I know that can be irritating. That is one of the
reasons why tyrannical regimes hurt or kill lots of artists and writers
whenever they get firmly entrenched. And of course Id like to influence
others with my expression.

Dave

[David Snedeker]

"Mike Connor" > wrote in message
...
>
> "David Snedeker" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> . ..
> <SNIP>
> > Dave
> > Wir hatten gern zwei fahrkarten nach Berlin, Bitte.
> >
> >
>
> Kein Problem;
>
> http://www.firmenreisen24.de/db/main.htm#
>
> Oder moechten Sie auch Rabatt?
>
I don't understand. Is there another Rabatt site?

Dave

[David Snedeker]

"rw" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> David Snedeker wrote:
> >
> > What Im thinking is WOW, Jon made the Wolflout list! I mean, Jon, of all
> > people! Well spoken, polite, civil Jon. Wow. What did I miss?
>
> Listen up and listen good, Snedeker. Never EVER cross Wolfgang, or you
> will PAY FOR IT!
>

A vengeful arschloch ratgutter. Mein Gott! Alles klar.

Dave
Ideology, Oh jemine!

[Wolfgang]

"Bill McKee" > wrote in message
.net...
>
>> this is all starting to look just a bit disgusting......even for roff! :(
>>
>
> Yes it is disgusting to see someone make as big a fool of themselves as
> you do.

Well, myselves am big enough and numerous enough to bear the burden.

Wolfgang

[Stan Gula]

Mike Connor wrote:
> Seems fair enough, but I have been "dissed" ( I assume the meaning
> from the context), so many times<...>

Maybe interesting: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Diss
--
Stan Gula
http://gula.org/roffswaps

[Jeff Miller]

Bill McKee wrote:

> "rw" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>Bill McKee wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>If we had a surplus the National Debt would not go down unless we paid
>>>off some of the bonds. But also the National Debt would not have gone up
>>>as we would not have had to borrow money. Now where was this surplus?
>>>Other than projected 10 years hence?
>>
>>I hope to God you're not an accountant, because you have no idea what
>>budget "deficit" and "surplus" mean.
>>
>>http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm
>>
>>You're merely regurgitating deliberately misleading talking points from
>>Rush Limbaugh.
>>
>>--
>>Cut "to the chase" for my email address.
>
>
> If you have a surplus, you do not have to borrow.
>
>

oh scheiss, ****e, ****..."whatever". it's all made clear now. perhaps
you'll borrow a clue then? <g>

by the way, bill, where do you usually go fishing? please, please, go
there soon.

jeff (but, um, i'm not complaining, of course. it's all quite
entertaining... really)

[Wolfgang]

"David Snedeker" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "rw" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>> David Snedeker wrote:
>> >
>> > What Im thinking is WOW, Jon made the Wolflout list! I mean, Jon, of
>> > all
>> > people! Well spoken, polite, civil Jon. Wow. What did I miss?
>>
>> Listen up and listen good, Snedeker. Never EVER cross Wolfgang, or you
>> will PAY FOR IT!
>>
>
> A vengeful arschloch ratgutter. Mein Gott! Alles klar.
>
> Dave
> Ideology, Oh jemine!

I don't get it. Why are you guys so mean to me?

Wolfgang

[rw]

Bill McKee wrote:
>
>
> If you have a surplus, you do not have to borrow.

The Federal government does not count interest payments on the national
debt as part of the deficit. That may sound screwy, but these are the
rules that everyone, both Republican and Democrat, has been playing
under for many years. In the case in question -- Clinton's four
consecutive and growing surpluses -- the interest was to service the
enormous increase in the national debt during the previous 12 years of
the Reagan and Bush administrations.

When Clinton raised taxes in his first term the Republicans screamed
bloody hell. They said it was certain to lead to a recession, or even a
depression. Instead, we started the largest economic expansion in
history. Face facts. McKee.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[David Snedeker]

"Wolfgang" > wrote in message
...
>
> "David Snedeker" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >
> > "rw" > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> >> David Snedeker wrote:
> >> >
> >> > What Im thinking is WOW, Jon made the Wolflout list! I mean, Jon, of
> >> > all
> >> > people! Well spoken, polite, civil Jon. Wow. What did I miss?
> >>
> >> Listen up and listen good, Snedeker. Never EVER cross Wolfgang, or you
> >> will PAY FOR IT!
> >>
> >
> > A vengeful arschloch ratgutter. Mein Gott! Alles klar.
> >
> > Dave
> > Ideology, Oh jemine!
>
> I don't get it. Why are you guys so mean to me?
>
> Wolfgang

Don't know about RW but Im just jealous because you are so cute and cuddly.

Dave
Wait a minute, is this a new turn? HAVE I been too nasty? Maybe I could . .
.. maybe I should... maybe he will hold the football and then I CAN kick it .
.. . . (Snoopy 1968)
>
>

[David Snedeker]

"Wolfgang" > wrote in message
...
>
> I don't get it. Why are you guys so mean to me?
>
> Wolfgang
>

Clue: Notice that no one is messing with you on the song lyric thread?

Dave

[Wolfgang]

"David Snedeker" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Wolfgang" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I don't get it. Why are you guys so mean to me?
>>
>> Wolfgang
>>
>
> Clue: Notice that no one is messing with you on the song lyric thread?

Hm......

Maybe you shouldn't hold that ball after all.

Wolfgang
who thinks there really should be a helmet law.

In article t>, rw56
says...
> JR wrote:
> >
> > A better graph than Steve's (i.e., using a more appropriate metric) is
> > this:
> >
> > http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP.gif
>
> That's a cool graph, JR. It makes the point better than the one I posted.
>
> What the hell is with these NeoCon lunatics that they can neither grasp
> nor admit or even acknowledge actual data? They aren't grounded in
> reality, but rather in ideological cant. Snedeker is right. Ideology sucks.

Not trying to be argumentative, but I'd be interested in seeing relative
inflation adjusted spending in absolute values (not as percent of GNP).
GNP isn't really in a president's control and changes in GNP and taxes
can make the above graph look better/worse. The dot.com bubble and
burst have way more influence on the graph above than they should.

I'm certain GWB looks bad regardless of how you look at it, but I think
it would give a more accurate picture.
- Ken

[JR]

wrote:

> Not trying to be argumentative, but I'd be interested in seeing relative
> inflation adjusted spending in absolute values (not as percent of GNP).

OK. (but concerning the debt, which we were talking about, not spending)

http://tinyurl.com/dqrnx

(from http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/TheNationalDebt.html)

JR

In article >, says...
> wrote:
>
> > Not trying to be argumentative, but I'd be interested in seeing relative
> > inflation adjusted spending in absolute values (not as percent of GNP).
>
> OK. (but concerning the debt, which we were talking about, not spending)
>
> http://tinyurl.com/dqrnx
>
> (from http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/TheNationalDebt.html)

That doesn't really do it, I poked around near your data and found:

http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/TheNationalDebtImages/TheNation
alDebt.htm

Has the raw #'s, but unfortunately not inflation adjusted.

To sorta factor out inflation, percent spending increase year over year
and percent increase of money collected year over year.

Spending Collected
Carter: 12.3% 14.8%
Reagan_1: 9.6% 6.8%
Reagan_2: 5.8% 8.1%
Bush: 6.8% 4.7%
Clinton_1: 3.1% 7.4%
Clinton_2: 3.4% 8.7%
Bush_1: 6.7% -2.9%
Bush_2*: 3.5% 13.3%

* Not the full term obviously.

While Bush (#2) wasn't nearly as frugal as Clinton, he's definitely not
out of line compared to others. Even at his spending rate, if the
economy hadn't been hit so hard from 2000-2004 we'd still be running
surpluses.
- Ken

[Bill McKee]

"rw" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Bill McKee wrote:
>>
>>
>> If you have a surplus, you do not have to borrow.
>
> The Federal government does not count interest payments on the national
> debt as part of the deficit. That may sound screwy, but these are the
> rules that everyone, both Republican and Democrat, has been playing under
> for many years. In the case in question -- Clinton's four consecutive and
> growing surpluses -- the interest was to service the enormous increase in
> the national debt during the previous 12 years of the Reagan and Bush
> administrations.
>
> When Clinton raised taxes in his first term the Republicans screamed
> bloody hell. They said it was certain to lead to a recession, or even a
> depression. Instead, we started the largest economic expansion in history.
> Face facts. McKee.
>
> --
> Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

The expansion was already happening. Just as the recession was already
happening at the end of his term. And the "largest economic expansion in
history" was a bubble. No basis. No actual real continuing jobs created.
When a business with a website does an IPO and is worth a billion dollars
capitalization the next week, there is over extended exuberance as to stock
value. Greenspan should have put more controls on the market.
Unfortunately when the bubble burst, a lot of good companies got hurt also.
Face Facts. rw.

[rw]

Bill McKee wrote:
>
> The expansion was already happening. Just as the recession was already
> happening at the end of his term. And the "largest economic expansion in
> history" was a bubble. No basis. No actual real continuing jobs created.
> When a business with a website does an IPO and is worth a billion dollars
> capitalization the next week, there is over extended exuberance as to stock
> value. Greenspan should have put more controls on the market.
> Unfortunately when the bubble burst, a lot of good companies got hurt also.
> Face Facts. rw.


Clinton came into office in a recession. He raised taxes in the face of
dire warnings from the right. The economy grew at the fastest pace ever
over the next eight years. We had four straight years of increasing
budget surpluses in his second term. The next recession started in
March, 2000, after Bush took office in January, and that's according to
official Federal government statistics. Since then, the budget deficit,
the size of government, and the amount of government spending have been
growing at a record pace, while the Republicans have controlled both
houses of Congress and the Presidency.

Face facts, McKee.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[[email protected]]

JR wrote:

> Bill McKee wrote:
>
>>
>> That is because Clinton was lucky. Lucky in that he had a Republican
>> Congress that actually controlled the spending for a couple of years ...
>
>
> Thing is, you really believe this nonsense, don't you?.....

'splain to me about the current republican congress then... explain why
bush has increased spending far faster than clinton?

[Bill McKee]

" > wrote in message
...
> JR wrote:
>
>> Bill McKee wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> That is because Clinton was lucky. Lucky in that he had a Republican
>>> Congress that actually controlled the spending for a couple of years
>>> ...
>>
>>
>> Thing is, you really believe this nonsense, don't you?.....
>
> 'splain to me about the current republican congress then... explain why
> bush has increased spending far faster than clinton?

To quote what I wrote: "Republican Congress that actually controlled the
spending for a couple of years ..." Since then, neither the Republicans or
Democrats have found a spending bill they did not like and not added pork
to. You give Clinton way too much credit for economic expansion. He was
lucky. Mostly, Presidents have very little affect on the economy, other
than as supporting perceptions. And Bush has not increased spending faster
than Clinton, except in not wielding the veto pen. You need to review who
can allocate spending money in our government. And then vote out both sides
of Congress, and hope the DNC does not run another clinker for a candidate.