Terrorists on ROFF?
 

On 18 Oct 2004 15:16:30 GMT, (Jonathan Cook) wrote:

Willi & Sue wrote:
wrote:

economies are cyclical, and so, the troughs don't worry me and the
crests don't make me spend-crazy.

The problem is, deficit spending is no longer just a trough, it
is the norm, for what, 40 years now? (Apart from the couple of
years of accidental windfall from the dot-com ponzi scheme).

The budget deficit does bother me.

Me too. But what's worse to me is that everyone talks about the
deficit, but you hardly ever hear anyone talking about the DEBT,
the total accumulation of all the deficits.

http://www.uwsa.com/uwsa-usdebt.html says it is $25K per citizen,
and that is HUGE. The numbers behind Willi's complaint about the
interest are big, too. More than $1000 per year per citizen just
to pay the interest.

I'd love to see every father and grandfather look into the eyes
of their kids and say "I'm passing on the bills for my lifestyle
onto you". Cause that's what we're doing.

Jon.

"What do you mean "we", white man?"

/daytripper (that's *your* team, not mine...)

Terrorists on ROFF?
 

On 19 Oct 2004 01:37:57 GMT, (Jonathan Cook) wrote:

daytripper wrote:

/daytripper (that's *your* team, not mine...)

If you think both parties don't share equal blame for the
last 40 years of deficit, watch out for the white rabbit...

Reagan ballooned the debt. Bush I tried to mitigate the damage and took the
hit for that. While Clinton was in, the country took the opportunity to pay
down the debt while there was the chance - stock bubble, internet Ponzi
scheme, whatever, makes no difference. They took the responsible course while
they had the opportunity.

The First ****wit in the White House, otoh, clearly went another way, on
behalf of Cheney and his gang of thieves, and by spending like there's no
tomorrow even while cutting taxes for his sponsors, is burying the country in
debt. He hasn't vetoed a single bill, while the Rs - in control of
*everything* in Washington - slop at the trough. Nobody to blame but them this
time.

The White Rabbit was only a storybook character, Jon. Try to remember that.
This damage is real and lasting, and it's squarely on the heads of the Rs...

/daytripper (Yup, they're putting the "con" in "conservative"....)

Terrorists on ROFF?
 

In article ,
wrote:

However, the deaths in Falluja are as either a direct or
indirect result of the fighting started/sponsored/fueled by Abu al-Zarqawi, in
defiance of both his secular and religious leaders

What charmingly twisted logic.

By the same reasoning, someone could argue that the deaths in the twin
towers were either as a direct or indirect result of the actions of the
President of the United States.

A truly sick argument.

Lazarus

--
Remover the rock from the email address

Terrorists on ROFF?
 

In article ,
wrote:

However, the deaths in Falluja are as either a direct or
indirect result of the fighting started/sponsored/fueled by Abu al-Zarqawi, in
defiance of both his secular and religious leaders

What charmingly twisted logic.

By the same reasoning, someone could argue that the deaths in the twin
towers were either as a direct or indirect result of the actions of the
President of the United States.

A truly sick argument.

Lazarus

--
Remover the rock from the email address

Terrorists on ROFF?
 

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:06:55 +0100, Lazarus Cooke
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

However, the deaths in Falluja are as either a direct or
indirect result of the fighting started/sponsored/fueled by Abu al-Zarqawi, in
defiance of both his secular and religious leaders

What charmingly twisted logic.

By the same reasoning, someone could argue that the deaths in the twin
towers were either as a direct or indirect result of the actions of the
President of the United States.

A truly sick argument.

Really? From your website:

And excerpt from under the heading, "Does your count include deaths from
indirect causes?"

"The test for us remains whether the bullet (or equivalent) is attributed to a
piece of weaponry where the trigger was pulled by a US or allied finger, or is
due to "collateral damage" by either side (with the burden of responsibility
falling squarely on the shoulders of those who initiate war without UN Security
Council authorization)"

I've never said, even intimated, that I think that even ONE civilian death is
good, unimportant, or even unworthy of discussion, but you started out with a
completely, utterly false and ridiculous number, and when called on it, you
cited some half-assed, ulterior-motive website, and then danced around when your
own site made your claim look ridiculous.

Terrorists on ROFF?
 

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:06:55 +0100, Lazarus Cooke
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

However, the deaths in Falluja are as either a direct or
indirect result of the fighting started/sponsored/fueled by Abu al-Zarqawi, in
defiance of both his secular and religious leaders

What charmingly twisted logic.

By the same reasoning, someone could argue that the deaths in the twin
towers were either as a direct or indirect result of the actions of the
President of the United States.

A truly sick argument.

Really? From your website:

And excerpt from under the heading, "Does your count include deaths from
indirect causes?"

"The test for us remains whether the bullet (or equivalent) is attributed to a
piece of weaponry where the trigger was pulled by a US or allied finger, or is
due to "collateral damage" by either side (with the burden of responsibility
falling squarely on the shoulders of those who initiate war without UN Security
Council authorization)"

I've never said, even intimated, that I think that even ONE civilian death is
good, unimportant, or even unworthy of discussion, but you started out with a
completely, utterly false and ridiculous number, and when called on it, you
cited some half-assed, ulterior-motive website, and then danced around when your
own site made your claim look ridiculous.

Terrorists on ROFF?
 

Tim J. wrote:


BTW, you guys on the far left can have ol' Pat. He seems to be
drifting
further from reality all the time. Should be a good fit. :-))

Speaking of drifting and reality, you giving us Bush too? Not that we
want him but that was your criteria.

Terrorists on ROFF?
 

Tim J. wrote:


BTW, you guys on the far left can have ol' Pat. He seems to be
drifting
further from reality all the time. Should be a good fit. :-))

Speaking of drifting and reality, you giving us Bush too? Not that we
want him but that was your criteria.

Terrorists on ROFF?
 

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 14:19:35 -0400, "Tim J."
wrote:

Nah. . . they're too objective for that,
eh? ;-)

Objective like a Fox(news) you mean?
--
Charlie...

Terrorists on ROFF?
 

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 14:19:35 -0400, "Tim J."
wrote:

Nah. . . they're too objective for that,
eh? ;-)

Objective like a Fox(news) you mean?
--
Charlie...