Selling off national forest and national parks? TU alert

"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

"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.

"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?

"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.

"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?

"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.

"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?

"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.

"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

"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