In article , Ed Huntress says...

"shu" wrote in message
. ..

It's all about Individual rights and liberties, something the left is keen
on handing too the government for control.

I think shu is still ****ed off that she can't use peasants for trapshooting
targets. d8-)

Hmm. Individual rights and liberties. I thought those were
in the first ten amendments to the constitution, eh Ed?

Maybe all the right wing whackos should create an organization
to defend those rights and liberties guaranteed within. They
could probably get some funding from Rush or the NRA or maybe
from those folks who paid a quarter million dollars to push
the 'no child left behind' thing. [1]

I bet they could even come up with some sort of catchy name,
like maybe American Civil Liberties Association. Or something
like that.....

Jim

[1] I think you, Ed, as a journalist, should see if you could
tap into that source of funding. Imagine getting paid
Big Money (tm) to yak on about something you wanted to talk
about anyway.


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 22:44:17 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

One only has to look at the "intelligensia" or what is claimed to be
one by the neoliberals to see that yes, they do indeed think they are
better than anyone else and indeed, they are sadly delusional.

It sounds, then, like you think you're better than them, huh? g

Ed....Im no better nor no worse than any other quasi normal human
being.

Well, I'm glad to hear you believe the liberals are as good as you are. It
sort of restores my faith.

On the other hand, you will never find me mandating how you or anyone
else should live, or stealing your money or goods or land or
liberties.

We'll see who is stealing from whom when the bills come due for our
trillion-dollar deficits. One little Republican payoff to the banking
industry last year, a "deregulation," cost me over $240. Meantime, the
people who live off of dividends are going to wind up paying less than 1/2
of what you and I pay in taxes, as a percentage of their income.

So much for not stealing our money. It's hiding away in little corners that
you and I can hardly see.


The only thing I do though..is try to make sure some other son of a
bitch doesnt try to force their agendas or goals on me and mine, or
steal from me.

That's exactly the way half of the country feels about the current
administration.

--
Ed Huntress

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...

[1] I think you, Ed, as a journalist, should see if you could
tap into that source of funding. Imagine getting paid
Big Money (tm) to yak on about something you wanted to talk
about anyway.

Yeah. A book of lies about Anita Hill bought David Brock a big, black
Mercedes-Benz and a nice stock portfolio. There are some attractions to that
kind of work.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 03:46:57 GMT, the inscrutable Gunner
spake:

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 20:26:14 -0500, Strider
wrote:

They are anti YOU having a gun.
Remember the Million Mom March anti-gun zealot who shot the person who
molested her kid..and put the victim in a wheel chair for life. Only
problem was...it was not the perp she fired up.

I hadn't seen that so I DAGS.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=21617


Then there was Sarah Brady herself, buying through a strawman
purchase, a deer rifle...er...Deadly Sniper Rifle, for her son.

Wow, the hypocrite really did that! UFR!
http://www.restoringamerica.org/arch..._gun_laws.html


P.S: How come you're still quoting Cliff and Strider, a process which
defeats our killfilters?


----------------------------------
VIRTUE...is its own punishment
http://www.diversify.com Website Applications
==================================================

excellent reply Gunner, I could not have said it better myself. I see a
spark of Libertarian in there somewhere...

Wayne

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 22:44:17 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

One only has to look at the "intelligensia" or what is claimed to be
one by the neoliberals to see that yes, they do indeed think they are
better than anyone else and indeed, they are sadly delusional.

It sounds, then, like you think you're better than them, huh? g

Ed....Im no better nor no worse than any other quasi normal human
being. Im good at some things, excellent at a very few, and
incompentent at millions of things.
My **** stinks, I occasionally get BO, and I dont walk on water.

On the other hand, you will never find me mandating how you or anyone
else should live, or stealing your money or goods or land or
liberties.

If you want to have sex with a dog, and its not harmful to the dog,
help yourself. If you want to marry your Uncle Fud, feel free, just
clean up the rice at the wedding. If you want to paint your house like
a pychodelic zebra, I would hope you dont color clash, but..shrug..its
your house.

The only thing I do though..is try to make sure some other son of a
bitch doesnt try to force their agendas or goals on me and mine, or
steal from me. Unfortunately...when picking politicians at this place
in time, I can only vote for those that will steal less then the other
guy, or the one that will encroach on my liberties the least.

So I DONT vote for liberals, leftists or socialists. Which means the
Democrats will never see a vote from me.

Pragmatism sometimes is a bitch, but you have to be pragmatic about
the things you cannot change immediately.

Gunner
It's better to be a red person in a blue state
than a blue person in a red state. As a red
person, if your blue neighbors turn into a mob
at least you have a gun to protect yourself.
As a blue person, your only hope is to appease
the red mob with herbal tea and marinated tofu.

(Phil Garding)

Great research! Thank you!

Wayne

"Willcox" wrote in message
ress.com...
Cliff wrote:

Gunner believed the WMD lies & all the rest.
He probably still does.

A lot of people got fooled by Kerry and the liberal press:


John Kerry said, "for 7-1/2 years we found weapons of mass destruction"
(in Iraq) (this quote towards bottom of page)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in573309.shtml
http://server2.cybertarp.com/~peryno...-FOUND-WMD.jpg
Short video (140k) of Kerry saying that:
http://server2.cybertarp.com/~peryno...rryWMD140k.mov

Long, high quality video of Kerry saying that and other Kerry flip-flops
on Iraq:
http://www.kerryoniraq.com

President Bill Clinton announces he is ordering US forces to "attack
Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs...."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middl...ton_12-16.html
Long, high quality video of MANY Clinton quotes saying WMD in Iraq:
http://www.republicanfilms.com

Russian intelligence service warned Bush that Iraq was planning attacks
against U.S. targets after 9-11:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jun18.html

Nearly two tons of radiological and nuclear materials removed from Iraq:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...ear/index.html

Iraqi nuclear scientist Hussein Isma'il Al-Bahdli saying Saddam was
within two years of having a nuclear bomb:
http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=190

A group of about 12 middle-ranking Iraqi nuclear technicians and
their families were transported to Syria before the collapse of
Saddam's regime.
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai.../09/26/wiran26
.xml


9-11 Commission found ties between Iraq and al Qaeda:
(page 66, section 2.5)
http://server2.cybertarp.com/~peryno...-ties.lies.jpg
http://www.9-11commission.gov/

Cliffy will think that these are all fake conservative conspiracy. He is
someone that accuses everyone of lying that doesn't hold his opinion. His
only frame of reference is his own experience with truth. An honest man
assumes honesty in others, and...


"Willcox" wrote in message
ress.com...
Cliff wrote:

Gunner believed the WMD lies & all the rest.
He probably still does.

A lot of people got fooled by Kerry and the liberal press:


John Kerry said, "for 7-1/2 years we found weapons of mass destruction"
(in Iraq) (this quote towards bottom of page)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in573309.shtml
http://server2.cybertarp.com/~peryno...-FOUND-WMD.jpg
Short video (140k) of Kerry saying that:
http://server2.cybertarp.com/~peryno...rryWMD140k.mov

Long, high quality video of Kerry saying that and other Kerry flip-flops
on Iraq:
http://www.kerryoniraq.com

President Bill Clinton announces he is ordering US forces to "attack
Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs...."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middl...ton_12-16.html
Long, high quality video of MANY Clinton quotes saying WMD in Iraq:
http://www.republicanfilms.com

Russian intelligence service warned Bush that Iraq was planning attacks
against U.S. targets after 9-11:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jun18.html

Nearly two tons of radiological and nuclear materials removed from Iraq:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...ear/index.html

Iraqi nuclear scientist Hussein Isma'il Al-Bahdli saying Saddam was
within two years of having a nuclear bomb:
http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=190

A group of about 12 middle-ranking Iraqi nuclear technicians and
their families were transported to Syria before the collapse of
Saddam's regime.
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai.../09/26/wiran26
.xml


9-11 Commission found ties between Iraq and al Qaeda:
(page 66, section 2.5)
http://server2.cybertarp.com/~peryno...-ties.lies.jpg
http://www.9-11commission.gov/

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 20:29:35 GMT, "Wayne Lundberg"
wrote:

Great research! Thank you!

Wayne

"Willcox" wrote in message
dress.com...
Cliff wrote:

Gunner believed the WMD lies & all the rest.
He probably still does.

Gunner believed the WMD lies & all the rest.
He probably still does.
--
Cliff

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 20:45:30 GMT, "Tom Gardner"
wrote:

Cliffy will think that these are all fake conservative conspiracy. He is
someone that accuses everyone of lying that doesn't hold his opinion. His
only frame of reference is his own experience with truth. An honest man
assumes honesty in others, and...

Gunner believed the WMD lies & all the rest.
He probably still does.

You folks are *very* slow learners, right?
Is that why you are wingers or is it the other way?

How many lies to you need to catch them in to discover
that being dishonest & telling whoppers (that cost about
everyone else) IS their stock in trade?

BTW, By supporting those well known winger lies you
are an accomplice to those 100,000+ murders.
Sleep tight.
--
Cliff

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 10:21:34 -0700, vaguely proposed a
theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

It's better to be a real arsehole, so that when the nice, normal
people around finally decide that you are a friggin wacko and try to
do something, you can blow em away. If you are one of the others, the
arseholes are just going to walk all over you, probably because you're
different.

It's better to be a red person in a blue state
than a blue person in a red state. As a red
person, if your blue neighbors turn into a mob
at least you have a gun to protect yourself.
As a blue person, your only hope is to appease
the red mob with herbal tea and marinated tofu.

(Phil Garding)

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 09:35:04 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 22:44:17 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

One only has to look at the "intelligensia" or what is claimed to be
one by the neoliberals to see that yes, they do indeed think they are
better than anyone else and indeed, they are sadly delusional.

It sounds, then, like you think you're better than them, huh? g

Ed....Im no better nor no worse than any other quasi normal human
being.

Well, I'm glad to hear you believe the liberals are as good as you are. It
sort of restores my faith.

On the other hand, you will never find me mandating how you or anyone
else should live, or stealing your money or goods or land or
liberties.

We'll see who is stealing from whom when the bills come due for our
trillion-dollar deficits. One little Republican payoff to the banking
industry last year, a "deregulation," cost me over $240. Meantime, the
people who live off of dividends are going to wind up paying less than 1/2
of what you and I pay in taxes, as a percentage of their income.

So much for not stealing our money. It's hiding away in little corners that
you and I can hardly see.


The only thing I do though..is try to make sure some other son of a
bitch doesnt try to force their agendas or goals on me and mine, or
steal from me.

That's exactly the way half of the country feels about the current
administration.

Which goals or agendas are being forced on the leftwingers by the
right?

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 16:47:37 GMT, "Wayne Lundberg"
wrote:

excellent reply Gunner, I could not have said it better myself. I see a
spark of Libertarian in there somewhere...

Wayne

Ah..Wayne? I am a libertarian..or perhaps more
properly..republitarian.

As anyone with an understanding of the very wide umbrella called
"libertarian"... it incompasses a very very wide and diverse group of
beliefs, from total anarchy to "minarchists".

Which is one of the reasons libertarians have such a hard time
focusing on platforms long enough to get elected. Its like trying to
herd cats.

Gunner


"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 22:44:17 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

One only has to look at the "intelligensia" or what is claimed to be
one by the neoliberals to see that yes, they do indeed think they are
better than anyone else and indeed, they are sadly delusional.

It sounds, then, like you think you're better than them, huh? g

Ed....Im no better nor no worse than any other quasi normal human
being. Im good at some things, excellent at a very few, and
incompentent at millions of things.
My **** stinks, I occasionally get BO, and I dont walk on water.

On the other hand, you will never find me mandating how you or anyone
else should live, or stealing your money or goods or land or
liberties.

If you want to have sex with a dog, and its not harmful to the dog,
help yourself. If you want to marry your Uncle Fud, feel free, just
clean up the rice at the wedding. If you want to paint your house like
a pychodelic zebra, I would hope you dont color clash, but..shrug..its
your house.

The only thing I do though..is try to make sure some other son of a
bitch doesnt try to force their agendas or goals on me and mine, or
steal from me. Unfortunately...when picking politicians at this place
in time, I can only vote for those that will steal less then the other
guy, or the one that will encroach on my liberties the least.

So I DONT vote for liberals, leftists or socialists. Which means the
Democrats will never see a vote from me.

Pragmatism sometimes is a bitch, but you have to be pragmatic about
the things you cannot change immediately.

Gunner
It's better to be a red person in a blue state
than a blue person in a red state. As a red
person, if your blue neighbors turn into a mob
at least you have a gun to protect yourself.
As a blue person, your only hope is to appease
the red mob with herbal tea and marinated tofu.

(Phil Garding)


Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

What is the difference between Bill Clinton lying about WMD and George Bush
lying about WMD? What is the difference between Bill Clinton getting bad intel
about WMD and George Bush getting bad intel about WMD? Is it Bill Clinton saying
we should do something about Iraqi WMD and George Bush doing it?

David

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

Which goals or agendas are being forced on the leftwingers by the
right?

Gunner

They aren't just being forced on the left wing. They're also being forced on
us moderates:

1) Pax Americana: Remaking the Middle East, and as much of the world as
possible, in our image. (See "The Project For The New American Century.")

2) Break down the barriers between religion and government. (See Tom DeLay
and the "Biblical-based Government.")

3) "Starve the Beast," mortgaging America's future with deficit spending in
order to destroy Social Security, Medicare (it's next), and the rest of the
very modest American safety net.

4) Eliminating taxes for the rich who live off of investment income, which
inevitably will push the burden down the economic scale to the middle class.

And so on. It's quite a long list. As Bush said before his second
inauguration, he has a big agenda, and not much time to do it. By the time
conservative Americans wake up to the implications and consequences, it will
be too late.

About $1.7 billion/day, and the clock is ticking...time to wake up, Gunner.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 23:22:45 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

Which goals or agendas are being forced on the leftwingers by the
right?

Gunner

They aren't just being forced on the left wing. They're also being forced on
us moderates:

1) Pax Americana: Remaking the Middle East, and as much of the world as
possible, in our image. (See "The Project For The New American Century.")

You say that likes its a bad thing?


2) Break down the barriers between religion and government. (See Tom DeLay
and the "Biblical-based Government.")

But no one is being forced to participate in any religious attributes.

3) "Starve the Beast," mortgaging America's future with deficit spending in
order to destroy Social Security, Medicare (it's next), and the rest of the
very modest American safety net.

Come on Ed..thats been going on since the 60s by both parties.

4) Eliminating taxes for the rich who live off of investment income, which
inevitably will push the burden down the economic scale to the middle class.

I disagree.

And so on. It's quite a long list. As Bush said before his second
inauguration, he has a big agenda, and not much time to do it. By the time
conservative Americans wake up to the implications and consequences, it will
be too late.

Too late for the Left, or the Right? Whats good for the nation is not
generally good for the Left. Hence their howls of protest. Like
yours.

About $1.7 billion/day, and the clock is ticking...time to wake up, Gunner.

Yes? When the left does this, its a good thing then?

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

In article , Ed Huntress says...

And so on. It's quite a long list. As Bush said before his second
inauguration, he has a big agenda, and not much time to do it. By the time
conservative Americans wake up to the implications and consequences, it will
be too late.

It's sort of odd that most elederly count themselves as 'conservatives,'
probably based more on fiscal conservatisim more than anything else.
So it has come to a large shock to them that their welfare program
(social security) has come under fire by the very politicians they
voted for.

I think this well-illustrates the difference between being conservative
with money, and being part of a political party that calls itself by
that name, but really should be called the "me, me, mine, mine, nothin'
for nobody else" party.

The same is true regarding their so-called "conservative" approach to
intermingling religion and government.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Gunner says...

Which goals or agendas are being forced on the leftwingers by the
right?

Well, mr Dweeb just showed up with his hat in his hand on my
doorstep again. He's asking for $85 BILLION dollars *more*
to pay for his party in Iraq.

Not eight-five billion. Eighty-five billion MORE. I have
no idea how much we've payed so far. I'm sure somebody
here could put a number on that. 200, 300 B?

I told him that Gunner said I didn't have to have any right
wing agendas forced on me, and that he should go and get
my share from you. So yer paying double now.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

DUHHH, Gee do you think it's POSSIBLE that weapons were exported as Sadam
recieved his guests? Let's see in 10 years what shakes out of this tree.
Using you're mentality, Usama and Zarkoui don't exist and never did...they
haven't been found yet. They both were just Photoshop creations of the
"wingers"



"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 20:45:30 GMT, "Tom Gardner"
wrote:

Cliffy will think that these are all fake conservative conspiracy. He is
someone that accuses everyone of lying that doesn't hold his opinion. His
only frame of reference is his own experience with truth. An honest man
assumes honesty in others, and...

Gunner believed the WMD lies & all the rest.
He probably still does.

You folks are *very* slow learners, right?
Is that why you are wingers or is it the other way?

How many lies to you need to catch them in to discover
that being dishonest & telling whoppers (that cost about
everyone else) IS their stock in trade?

BTW, By supporting those well known winger lies you
are an accomplice to those 100,000+ murders.
Sleep tight.
--
Cliff

David, you are trying to apply logic to Cliffy...think about it.


"David R. Birch" wrote in message
...

What is the difference between Bill Clinton lying about WMD and George
Bush lying about WMD? What is the difference between Bill Clinton getting
bad intel about WMD and George Bush getting bad intel about WMD? Is it
Bill Clinton saying we should do something about Iraqi WMD and George Bush
doing it?

David

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 23:22:45 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

Which goals or agendas are being forced on the leftwingers by the
right?

Gunner

They aren't just being forced on the left wing. They're also being forced
on
us moderates:

1) Pax Americana: Remaking the Middle East, and as much of the world as
possible, in our image. (See "The Project For The New American Century.")

You say that likes its a bad thing?

That's for another day. You asked what "goals or agendas" are being forced
by the right on the rest of the country. That's one of them.

2) Break down the barriers between religion and government. (See Tom
DeLay
and the "Biblical-based Government.")

But no one is being forced to participate in any religious attributes.

You asked about "goals and agendas." That's a goal of the right. That's an
important part of their agenda.

3) "Starve the Beast," mortgaging America's future with deficit spending
in
order to destroy Social Security, Medicare (it's next), and the rest of
the
very modest American safety net.

Come on Ed..thats been going on since the 60s by both parties.

Baloney. It was a specific agenda named and implemented by my old classmate,
David Stockman, under Reagan. Bush II picked it up again. You'll see the
term all over the conservative press, Gunner, usually expressed with glee.

4) Eliminating taxes for the rich who live off of investment income,
which
inevitably will push the burden down the economic scale to the middle
class.

I disagree.

It's something we could sort out fairly easily. It's all numbers, and the
question is whether you know them or if you've accepted a right-wing snow
job.


And so on. It's quite a long list. As Bush said before his second
inauguration, he has a big agenda, and not much time to do it. By the
time
conservative Americans wake up to the implications and consequences, it
will
be too late.

Too late for the Left, or the Right? Whats good for the nation is not
generally good for the Left. Hence their howls of protest. Like
yours.

I rarely howl. g I just stick to the facts.

When you tell us how we're going to duck around the trillions of dollars of
debt that will be incurred with Bush's projected budgets, his plans for SS,
and a declining dollar, you'll have something worth thinking about.
Meantime, if you know some economics and compound interest, you'll see that
it's quite a task to explain it all away -- or to figure out how we're going
to pay for it. There isn't enough discretionary money in the budget left to
squeeze. You have military spending, Medicare, Medicaid, and, possibly, SS.
That's where it has to come from.


About $1.7 billion/day, and the clock is ticking...time to wake up,
Gunner.

Yes? When the left does this, its a good thing then?

The left has never done this. Not even remotely close. This is a policy the
likes of which we've never seen before. The WWII budget was a short, wartime
emergency. Bush it planning this one for eternity.

--
Ed Huntress

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress says...

And so on. It's quite a long list. As Bush said before his second
inauguration, he has a big agenda, and not much time to do it. By the
time
conservative Americans wake up to the implications and consequences, it
will
be too late.

It's sort of odd that most elederly count themselves as 'conservatives,'
probably based more on fiscal conservatisim more than anything else.

The older they get, the less most people like change. That's their idea of
"conservatism." For example, my AARP newsletter tells me that most older
people don't want privatization of Social Security.

So it has come to a large shock to them that their welfare program
(social security) has come under fire by the very politicians they
voted for.

They're outraged. They're turning up the voltage to the third rail.


I think this well-illustrates the difference between being conservative
with money, and being part of a political party that calls itself by
that name, but really should be called the "me, me, mine, mine, nothin'
for nobody else" party.

The meaning of "conservatism" has been debased to mean whatever a person
wants it to mean. The funniest thing is to see the Christian right (highly
authoritarian) in bed with libertarians (magnetically drawn toward
anarchism, but with their current switched on "low.")


The same is true regarding their so-called "conservative" approach to
intermingling religion and government.

It's a foul brew of conflicting ideas. Fortunately for their peace of mind,
they have very selective vision.

--
Ed Huntress

On 16 Feb 2005 05:11:56 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Which goals or agendas are being forced on the leftwingers by the
right?

Well, mr Dweeb just showed up with his hat in his hand on my
doorstep again. He's asking for $85 BILLION dollars *more*
to pay for his party in Iraq.

Not eight-five billion. Eighty-five billion MORE. I have
no idea how much we've payed so far. I'm sure somebody
here could put a number on that. 200, 300 B?

I told him that Gunner said I didn't have to have any right
wing agendas forced on me, and that he should go and get
my share from you. So yer paying double now.

Jim

Was this a request or an "unfunded mandate"?

Snicker

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

In article , Gunner says...

Not eight-five billion. Eighty-five billion MORE.
Was this a request or an "unfunded mandate"?

Yes.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Ed Huntress says...

The meaning of "conservatism" has been debased to mean whatever a person
wants it to mean.

Like, "let's run up the national debt to record-setting levels and
then say we're financially conservative."

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Ed Huntress says...

Too late for the Left, or the Right? Whats good for the nation is not
generally good for the Left. Hence their howls of protest. Like
yours.

I rarely howl. g I just stick to the facts.

When you tell us how we're going to duck around the trillions of dollars of
debt that will be incurred with Bush's projected budgets, his plans for SS,
and a declining dollar, you'll have something worth thinking about.
Meantime, if you know some economics and compound interest, you'll see that
it's quite a task to explain it all away -- or to figure out how we're going
to pay for it. There isn't enough discretionary money in the budget left to
squeeze. You have military spending, Medicare, Medicaid, and, possibly, SS.
That's where it has to come from.

Wait'll they screw with social security. Then you'll hear some
howling. Once the republicans get their nuts in *that* vise
it's gonna be an awe-inspiring howl. I cannot believe they're
really doing this.

About $1.7 billion/day, and the clock is ticking...time to wake up,
Gunner.

Yes? When the left does this, its a good thing then?

The left has never done this. Not even remotely close.

Sure, Clinton did. Didn't he have a huge deficit when he was in
office? Oh, ooops. My error. I was mistaking 'balanced budget'
for 'huge deficit.' How silly of me.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , nospam says...

DUHHH, Gee do you think it's POSSIBLE that weapons were exported as Sadam
recieved his guests?

Yep, they went to north korea. How come we're not invading
*them*? I guess WMDs only exist in the middle east. If
they're anywhere else they're just pesky scrap metal.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

I'm with you!

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 16:47:37 GMT, "Wayne Lundberg"
wrote:

excellent reply Gunner, I could not have said it better myself. I see a
spark of Libertarian in there somewhere...

Wayne

Ah..Wayne? I am a libertarian..or perhaps more
properly..republitarian.

As anyone with an understanding of the very wide umbrella called
"libertarian"... it incompasses a very very wide and diverse group of
beliefs, from total anarchy to "minarchists".

Which is one of the reasons libertarians have such a hard time
focusing on platforms long enough to get elected. Its like trying to
herd cats.

Gunner


"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 22:44:17 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

One only has to look at the "intelligensia" or what is claimed to be
one by the neoliberals to see that yes, they do indeed think they
are
better than anyone else and indeed, they are sadly delusional.

It sounds, then, like you think you're better than them, huh? g

Ed....Im no better nor no worse than any other quasi normal human
being. Im good at some things, excellent at a very few, and
incompentent at millions of things.
My **** stinks, I occasionally get BO, and I dont walk on water.

On the other hand, you will never find me mandating how you or anyone
else should live, or stealing your money or goods or land or
liberties.

If you want to have sex with a dog, and its not harmful to the dog,
help yourself. If you want to marry your Uncle Fud, feel free, just
clean up the rice at the wedding. If you want to paint your house like
a pychodelic zebra, I would hope you dont color clash, but..shrug..its
your house.

The only thing I do though..is try to make sure some other son of a
bitch doesnt try to force their agendas or goals on me and mine, or
steal from me. Unfortunately...when picking politicians at this place
in time, I can only vote for those that will steal less then the other
guy, or the one that will encroach on my liberties the least.

So I DONT vote for liberals, leftists or socialists. Which means the
Democrats will never see a vote from me.

Pragmatism sometimes is a bitch, but you have to be pragmatic about
the things you cannot change immediately.

Gunner
It's better to be a red person in a blue state
than a blue person in a red state. As a red
person, if your blue neighbors turn into a mob
at least you have a gun to protect yourself.
As a blue person, your only hope is to appease
the red mob with herbal tea and marinated tofu.

(Phil Garding)


Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

Jim, We can't go into NC...they might have WMD and use them!

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , nospam
says...

DUHHH, Gee do you think it's POSSIBLE that weapons were exported as Sadam
recieved his guests?

Yep, they went to north korea. How come we're not invading
*them*? I guess WMDs only exist in the middle east. If
they're anywhere else they're just pesky scrap metal.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 03:55:04 GMT, David R. Birch wrote:

What is the difference between Bill Clinton lying about WMD and George Bush
lying about WMD?

It's only "lying", if (a) there are no WMDs, and (b) you _know_ that there
are no WMDs.

On 16 Feb 2005 05:11:56 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Gunner says...

Which goals or agendas are being forced on the leftwingers by the
right?

Well, mr Dweeb just showed up with his hat in his hand on my
doorstep again. He's asking for $85 BILLION dollars *more*
to pay for his party in Iraq.

The one that Kerry and Edwards both voted for, you mean?
That one?

On 16 Feb 2005 09:07:14 -0800, jim rozen wrote:

Sure, Clinton did. Didn't he have a huge deficit when he was in
office? Oh, ooops. My error. I was mistaking 'balanced budget'
for 'huge deficit.' How silly of me.

Clinton never had a balanced budget. He played enron-type numbers
games, but the deficit kept getting bigger each of his 8 years.
Doesn't sound like a balanced budget, or the "surplus" he claims
to have had to me.

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On 16 Feb 2005 09:07:14 -0800, jim rozen wrote:

Sure, Clinton did. Didn't he have a huge deficit when he was in
office? Oh, ooops. My error. I was mistaking 'balanced budget'
for 'huge deficit.' How silly of me.

Clinton never had a balanced budget. He played enron-type numbers
games, but the deficit kept getting bigger each of his 8 years.
Doesn't sound like a balanced budget, or the "surplus" he claims
to have had to me.

I'd like to see your numbers on that if you don't mind, Dave.

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 18:31:09 GMT, Tom Gardner wrote:
Jim, We can't go into NC...they might have WMD and use them!

I didn't know North Carolina was a concern?

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 13:39:15 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On 16 Feb 2005 09:07:14 -0800, jim rozen wrote:

Sure, Clinton did. Didn't he have a huge deficit when he was in
office? Oh, ooops. My error. I was mistaking 'balanced budget'
for 'huge deficit.' How silly of me.

Clinton never had a balanced budget. He played enron-type numbers
games, but the deficit kept getting bigger each of his 8 years.
Doesn't sound like a balanced budget, or the "surplus" he claims
to have had to me.

I'd like to see your numbers on that if you don't mind, Dave.

Didn't we _just_ do this like a month ago?
Anyone got that GAO link, or do I have to google for Ed?

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 13:39:15 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On 16 Feb 2005 09:07:14 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

Sure, Clinton did. Didn't he have a huge deficit when he was in
office? Oh, ooops. My error. I was mistaking 'balanced budget'
for 'huge deficit.' How silly of me.

Clinton never had a balanced budget. He played enron-type numbers
games, but the deficit kept getting bigger each of his 8 years.
Doesn't sound like a balanced budget, or the "surplus" he claims
to have had to me.

I'd like to see your numbers on that if you don't mind, Dave.

Didn't we _just_ do this like a month ago?
Anyone got that GAO link, or do I have to google for Ed?

Well, if we did, I don't remember it, or I didn't see it. I'm only here
about half the time.

Do you remember the thread name or a keyword? Maybe I can find it on your
name and "Clinton"?

I'll give it a try.

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:21:55 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 13:39:15 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On 16 Feb 2005 09:07:14 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

Sure, Clinton did. Didn't he have a huge deficit when he was in
office? Oh, ooops. My error. I was mistaking 'balanced budget'
for 'huge deficit.' How silly of me.

Clinton never had a balanced budget. He played enron-type numbers
games, but the deficit kept getting bigger each of his 8 years.
Doesn't sound like a balanced budget, or the "surplus" he claims
to have had to me.

I'd like to see your numbers on that if you don't mind, Dave.

Didn't we _just_ do this like a month ago?
Anyone got that GAO link, or do I have to google for Ed?

Well, if we did, I don't remember it, or I didn't see it. I'm only here
about half the time.
Do you remember the thread name or a keyword? Maybe I can find it on your
name and "Clinton"?

Well, this isn't the link that I remember from last time, but it's
a good clear one from a solid source:

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm

To me, that looks like the debt is going up every year, including
during the Clinton years. If that's a surplus, it's a definitino of
"surplus" that I have not previously encountered.

Dave Hinz

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 13:39:15 -0500, Ed Huntress

wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On 16 Feb 2005 09:07:14 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

Sure, Clinton did. Didn't he have a huge deficit when he was in
office? Oh, ooops. My error. I was mistaking 'balanced budget'
for 'huge deficit.' How silly of me.

Clinton never had a balanced budget. He played enron-type numbers
games, but the deficit kept getting bigger each of his 8 years.
Doesn't sound like a balanced budget, or the "surplus" he claims
to have had to me.

I'd like to see your numbers on that if you don't mind, Dave.

Didn't we _just_ do this like a month ago?
Anyone got that GAO link, or do I have to google for Ed?

I just looked. All I found was you and Gunner making the assertion, with no
support whatsoever.

Did I miss something, or is that about it?

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:21:48 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 13:39:15 -0500, Ed Huntress

wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On 16 Feb 2005 09:07:14 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

Sure, Clinton did. Didn't he have a huge deficit when he was in
office? Oh, ooops. My error. I was mistaking 'balanced budget'
for 'huge deficit.' How silly of me.

Clinton never had a balanced budget. He played enron-type numbers
games, but the deficit kept getting bigger each of his 8 years.
Doesn't sound like a balanced budget, or the "surplus" he claims
to have had to me.

I'd like to see your numbers on that if you don't mind, Dave.

Didn't we _just_ do this like a month ago?
Anyone got that GAO link, or do I have to google for Ed?

I just looked. All I found was you and Gunner making the assertion, with no
support whatsoever.

See my next (already posted) message.

Did I miss something, or is that about it?

Yeah, by the time you posted this I'd already sent a specific link. If
you don't see it there, it's he
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm

What years was Clinton president again? Can't tell by the amount of
debt going down, so either the treasury department is wrong, or Clinton
was lying when he said there was a surplus.

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:21:55 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 13:39:15 -0500, Ed Huntress

wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On 16 Feb 2005 09:07:14 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

Sure, Clinton did. Didn't he have a huge deficit when he was in
office? Oh, ooops. My error. I was mistaking 'balanced budget'
for 'huge deficit.' How silly of me.

Clinton never had a balanced budget. He played enron-type numbers
games, but the deficit kept getting bigger each of his 8 years.
Doesn't sound like a balanced budget, or the "surplus" he claims
to have had to me.

I'd like to see your numbers on that if you don't mind, Dave.

Didn't we _just_ do this like a month ago?
Anyone got that GAO link, or do I have to google for Ed?

Well, if we did, I don't remember it, or I didn't see it. I'm only here
about half the time.
Do you remember the thread name or a keyword? Maybe I can find it on
your
name and "Clinton"?

Well, this isn't the link that I remember from last time, but it's
a good clear one from a solid source:

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm

To me, that looks like the debt is going up every year, including
during the Clinton years. If that's a surplus, it's a definitino of
"surplus" that I have not previously encountered.

When Gunner posts such stats I generally ignore them, because he gets them
from right-wing blogs and websites and they're usually b.s. In this case, I
wonder what led you to this figure. Anyone sophisticated enough to go
looking for the numbers probably is sophisticated enough to know what's
wrong with the ones you refer to.

In fact, the national debt went down both in actual dollar terms (adjusted
for inflation) and as a percent of the GDP during Clinton's second term. For
almost all sensible purposes, the national debt as a percentage of GDP is
the meaningful number.

But you don't even have to use that to show that the debt went down. Again,
not knowing what your background in this is I'm not sure what to use as
illustration. You could look at the debt figures published by the White
House from their own OMB figures:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...5/pdf/hist.pdf

In Table 7.1 you'll find the columns that reflect the gross federal debt and
one that shows "Held By Federal Government Accounts." You subtract the
latter from the former.

The reason you do that is that the "Held By" is that "debt" is acquired any
time the federal government issues a Treasury security -- including the ones
that the government issues to itself. In all honest discussions of the
national debt, except those made by economists who are looking at the
several different definitions of national debt for various reasons, the
figures used are those of the "debt held by the public."

Here are the definitions from the U.S. Treasury Dept.:

===========================

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/faq...onal-debt.html

FAQs: National Debt
THE NATIONAL DEBT

What is the National Debt?

The term national debt refers to direct liabilities of the United States
Government. There are several different concepts of debt that are at various
times used to refer to the national debt:

*
Public debt is defined as public debt securities issued by the U.S.
Treasury. U. S. Treasury securities primarily consist of marketable Treasury
securities (i.e., bills, notes and bonds), savings bonds and special
securities issued to state and local governments (State and Local Government
Series securities, or SLGS). A portion is debt held by the public and a
portion is debt held by government accounts.
*

Debt held by the public excludes the portion of the debt that is held
by government accounts.
*

Gross federal debt is made up of public debt securities and a small
amount of securities issued by government agencies.

Debt held by the public is the most meaningful of these concepts and
measures the cumulative amount outstanding that the government has borrowed
to finance deficits.

snip

Additional statistics on the public debt may be found in the Budget of the
United States and the Economic Report of the President, and on the
Congressional Budget Office website. Daily, monthly, and quarterly updates
on the public debt may be found on the Financial Management Service (FMS)
website.

===============================

Using the definitions from Treasury, look at the figures from the same
website you pointed to:

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm#years

See what's going on? The intergovernmental holdings (that's money we owe to
ourselves g) went 'way up, but the debt held by the public went down.

So, why are you looking at the gross debt, including interdepartmental
issuances of Treasury securities? Most people wouldn't even go looking for
that. Did you follow some blog or website there, or did you find it with
Google?

I'm reasonably sure where Gunner got it. Suffice to say, it's not a real
figure. It's one that someone would use if he wanted to tell us that black
is really white. That's Gunner's hobby. g

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 16:52:45 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

Well, this isn't the link that I remember from last time, but it's
a good clear one from a solid source:

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm

To me, that looks like the debt is going up every year, including
during the Clinton years. If that's a surplus, it's a definitino of
"surplus" that I have not previously encountered.

When Gunner posts such stats I generally ignore them, because he gets them
from right-wing blogs and websites and they're usually b.s.

I found supporting evidence with the same numbers from a left-wing
blog, but didn't post it in preference to this.

In this case, I
wonder what led you to this figure.

Well, let's see. It's the freaking treasury department. The numbers
keep going up, regardless of who is the President. Seems pretty obvious
that there's not a real surplus for the Clinton years, or the numbers
would go, you know, _down_.

Anyone sophisticated enough to go
looking for the numbers probably is sophisticated enough to know what's
wrong with the ones you refer to.

What, specifically, do I have wrong? Are the numbers not really
going up? Are those not the years Clinton was President?

In fact, the national debt went down both in actual dollar terms (adjusted
for inflation)

That is _NOT_ a surplus, that just means (arguably) that spending
increased at a slower rate than inflation. But it's still a real deficit.

and as a percent of the GDP during Clinton's second term. For
almost all sensible purposes, the national debt as a percentage of GDP is
the meaningful number.

Except for the "were we above bugdget, or below budget" sensible purpose,
which is what you and Clinton claim in the face of the actual numbers.
He lied to you. You believed it. It's OK, he's a really, really good
liar. But the numbers are right in front of you, Ed. I know it's
disheartening to find out that someone you trust is lying, but it's
hard to argue with hard numbers from a reputable source.

But you don't even have to use that to show that the debt went down.

Good, because it didn't.

Again,
not knowing what your background in this is I'm not sure what to use as
illustration. You could look at the debt figures published by the White
House from their own OMB figures:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...5/pdf/hist.pdf
In Table 7.1 you'll find the columns that reflect the gross federal debt and
one that shows "Held By Federal Government Accounts." You subtract the
latter from the former.

I see "gross federal debt" continuing to rise throughout. "Held by
federal government accounts" is money (SS, primarily) that is already
spent, and isn't an asset. You have fallen into Clinton's lie by thinking
that you can spend that money _again_ to show a surplus. You can't. Try
it with your checkbook and see how well spending the same money twice
works. This is precisely the enron-esque accounting trick I was
talking about.

The reason you do that is that the "Held By" is that "debt" is acquired any
time the federal government issues a Treasury security -- including the ones
that the government issues to itself.

yes, like money set aside for social security. For instance.

Using the definitions from Treasury, look at the figures from the same
website you pointed to:

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm#years

See what's going on? The intergovernmental holdings (that's money we owe to
ourselves g) went 'way up, but the debt held by the public went down.

So, why are you looking at the gross debt, including interdepartmental
issuances of Treasury securities? Most people wouldn't even go looking for
that. Did you follow some blog or website there, or did you find it with
Google?

Google. I don't have a hidden agenda, I'm not some Rove operative
or something, Ed, I googled for historical debt and found that,
despite clinton's claims, the debt continued to get worse during his
tenure.

I'm reasonably sure where Gunner got it. Suffice to say, it's not a real
figure. It's one that someone would use if he wanted to tell us that black
is really white. That's Gunner's hobby. g

The numbers are black and white, Ed. If you think you can spend allocated
funds twice, then yes, there was a surplus during the Clinton years. Me,
I don't think that it works that way.