On Apr 13, 12:09*pm, Tom Veatch wrote:
On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 08:33:17 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy

wrote:
But *I* think that Ted Nugent's suggestion that if you drill a few car-
jackers, right through the door of your car, and putting a .45 on your
lap as you drive through bad areas of Detroit, had a LOT to do with
that car-jacking incident rate dropping like a stone.

Two things are required for punishment to be a deterrent, immediacy
and certainty. Nugent's suggestion meets both criteria. On the other
hand the US criminal justice system meets neither.

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA

Yup. And if 85+% of the hijackers off the Somalia coast don't return,
I have a feeling that others will somewhat less eager to go and take
those risks.
Now the problem is those 200+ hostages that are being held...and I
might add, being held due to inaction.

If they are in a legitimate fishing boat, they should be registered
and carry the appropriate transponder. If they get within 1 nmile of a
merchant vessel, ice the *******s.

Charlie Self wrote:

Sure, Amway. Something does need to be done to help improve conditions
in the area, so that piracy is a less attractive option. With a few
more operations such as the one yesterday, piracy is going to look
less good to unemployed, and unemployable, youth, but there seem to be
few other options avaiable.

What I can't understand is how these impoverished people come by all
their AK47s and RPGs and other weapons, none of which, in operating
conditon, is cheap. Not to mention the ammo they seem to blast into
the air every few minutes to express anger, joy, dismay or peaceful
intent.

AK47s go for as little as $30 in most parts of the world (of course $30 is a
lot of money is most parts of the world). The weapon itself only has seven
moving parts and can be fabricated from scratch in most machine shops.

I have one and am impressed with how simple the sucker is. Search the web
and compare exploded diagrams for an AK47 and an AR15. Heck, even a modern
Smith & Wesson revolver has twice as many parts as an AK47!

AK47
http://www.ak47rifles.net/ak47rifleschematics.asp

AR15
http://www.dogfightink.com/ARparts.html


And, yes, there are machine shops in Somalia (and TV stations and
waffle-irons).

J. Clarke wrote:


What happened to all those guys from Blackwater? Arene't a lot of
them unemployed these days? How much could it cost to put a few of
them on a merchant ship, with armament of their choice?

You mean set a pirate to catch a pirate?

U.S. Constitution, Section 8

The Congress shall have the power... To ... grant Letters of Marque and
Reprisal*...

--------------
* A letter of marque is an official warrant or commission from a government
authorizing the designated agent to search, seize, or destroy specified
assets or personnel belonging to a foreign party which has committed some
offense under the laws of nations against the assets or citizens of the
issuing nation, and has usually been used to authorize private parties to
raid and capture merchant shipping of an enemy nation...

In article ,
HeyBub wrote:
Charlie Self wrote:
...snipped...
I have one and am impressed with how simple the sucker is. Search the web
and compare exploded diagrams for an AK47 and an AR15. Heck, even a modern
Smith & Wesson revolver has twice as many parts as an AK47!

AK47
http://www.ak47rifles.net/ak47rifleschematics.asp

AR15
http://www.dogfightink.com/ARparts.html
...snipped...

Perhaps the AK parts are simpler than the AR, but surprisingly, according to
the drawings in the links, the AK has more parts than the AR.


--
Better to be stuck up in a tree than tied to one.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar.org

In article ,
HeyBub wrote:
...snipped...
--------------
* A letter of marque is an official warrant or commission from a government
authorizing the designated agent to search, seize, or destroy specified
assets or personnel belonging to a foreign party which has committed some
offense under the laws of nations against the assets or citizens of the
issuing nation, and has usually been used to authorize private parties to
raid and capture merchant shipping of an enemy nation...
...snipped...

Interesting trivia: The only letter of marque issued since the war of 1812
was for a dirigible used to patrol for submarines during WW2.




--
Better to be stuck up in a tree than tied to one.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar.org

Stuart wrote:
In article ,
Morris Dovey wrote:

It struck me some time ago that anyone with a healthy family and a full
belly was unlikely to pick up a gun or strap on a suicide vest.

Unless motivated by religious extremism -|

Case in point is Ossama bin Laden. His family is one of the richest in
Saudi Arabia.

Morris Dovey wrote:

It struck me some time ago that anyone with a healthy family and a
full belly was unlikely to pick up a gun or strap on a suicide vest.

I don't think removing four Somali pirates (or even blowing up a
pirate HQ) is going to produce any noticeable change.


Uh, I don't think you can find a case where the hungry, the destitute, the
deprived of all hope, has, as a group, taken up arms to better their
condition.

It takes weapons, planning, and leadership to wage a war. But more
importantly, it takes calories. Despots don't retain power by providing a
society of plenty; they remain in control by making the populace weak. Weak
in spirit and in body.

"Only the hard and strong may call themselves Spartans. Only the hard. Only
the strong."

On Apr 13, 3:45*pm, "David G. Nagel"
wrote:
Stuart wrote:
In article ,
* *Morris Dovey wrote:

It struck me some time ago that anyone with a healthy family and a full
belly was unlikely to pick up a gun or strap on a suicide vest.

Unless motivated by religious extremism -|

Case in point is Ossama bin Laden. His family is one of the richest in
Saudi Arabia.

In most other societies, he'd be in a padded cell, talking to others
through a mike.

Larry Blanchard wrote:

And therein lies the problem. You're doing a good job Morris, but there
will always be people like the ones described above. And the fanatics
who think killing _____________ will get them a ticket to paradise.

That's true, and it's worth considering whether, why, how, and by whom
their activities are supported - because a fanatic without a support
context is just another shouter.

The fanatics feed on perceived unfairness, injustice, and dishonesty -
and accumulate power when they succeed at inducing others to resonate
with their outrage.

The rest of us have, as I see it, these options:

[1] We can ignore, either by conscious choice or by choosing to not
inform ourselves, what's happening in the world around us.

[2] We can act to suppress any and all destabilizing influences.

[3] We can examine the situation and attempt to reveal truth, ensure
fairness, and provide justice.

The first is the usual option. The second is generally the knee-jerk
response when the first option is removed. The third is the most
expensive and least comfortable option.

Yes, I suppose there'll always be fanatics. Some of 'em will simply be
crazies - but it's probably worth noticing that at least some will be
people acting to provoke the third kind of response.

I'm inclined toward finding criminally insane all of those who believe
that any kind of paradise can be achieved through murder.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 15:51:39 -0400, "Matt"
wrote:

http://digg.com/world_news/American_...ffici al_says


The one thing I find disturbing in all this is that the neo-cons have
been whining for years that liberals are soft on everything. I saw a
post on one of the other message boards yesterday that said:

"The last time we had a US President with the balls to face
down pirates..."

followed by a link to an article, no doubt about Jefferson
and the Barbary pirates, and nothing else.

So, let me see if I have this straight:

Who ordered the SEALs in? The battalion commander?
The captain of the ship carrying them? Southern Command?
SecNav? DefSec?

No, I'm guessing an overt military act like that pretty much
had to come from the Commander in Chief, just like in Jefferson's
day. I guess the implication is pretty clear, Obama does have balls,
and he deserves as much credit for it as Jefferson gets.





--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net
http://www.normstools.com

Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997

email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
care to correspond with you anyway.

LRod wrote:


No, I'm guessing an overt military act like that pretty much
had to come from the Commander in Chief, just like in Jefferson's
day. I guess the implication is pretty clear, Obama does have balls,
and he deserves as much credit for it as Jefferson gets.

According to news reports Obama twice authorized the military to use deadly
force to resolve the situation, but no way will you see Obamaphobes giving
him credit for that. If it had gone wrong and Capt. Phillips had been
killed it would be a different story, then they'd be blaming Obama every
hour on the hour, but since it was successful the President is out of the
equation so far as they're concerned. This is what we've come to,
hyper-partisanship to the point of absurdity.

DGDevin wrote:
LRod wrote:


No, I'm guessing an overt military act like that pretty much
had to come from the Commander in Chief, just like in Jefferson's
day. I guess the implication is pretty clear, Obama does have balls,
and he deserves as much credit for it as Jefferson gets.

According to news reports Obama twice authorized the military to use deadly
force to resolve the situation, but no way will you see Obamaphobes giving
him credit for that. If it had gone wrong and Capt. Phillips had been
killed it would be a different story, then they'd be blaming Obama every
hour on the hour, but since it was successful the President is out of the
equation so far as they're concerned.

Oh pshaw.

This is what we've come to, hyper-partisanship to the point of absurdity.

In which you're not also participating?

Ok, that's enough for me; I'll go back to waiting for the woodworking
threads now.

waiting
waiting

--
"Our beer goes through thousands of quality Czechs every day."
(From a Shiner Bock billboard I saw in Austin some years ago)
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

LRod wrote:
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 15:51:39 -0400, "Matt"
wrote:

http://digg.com/world_news/American_...ffici al_says


The one thing I find disturbing in all this is that the neo-cons have
been whining for years that liberals are soft on everything. I saw a
post on one of the other message boards yesterday that said:

"The last time we had a US President with the balls to face
down pirates..."

followed by a link to an article, no doubt about Jefferson
and the Barbary pirates, and nothing else.

So, let me see if I have this straight:

Who ordered the SEALs in? The battalion commander?
The captain of the ship carrying them? Southern Command?
SecNav? DefSec?

No, I'm guessing an overt military act like that pretty much
had to come from the Commander in Chief, just like in Jefferson's
day. I guess the implication is pretty clear, Obama does have balls,
and he deserves as much credit for it as Jefferson gets.

I'm with you. If some news reports of the pirates ages are correct, Obama
should get all the credit for killing the children.

On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:03:57 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

I'm with you. If some news reports of the pirates ages are correct, Obama
should get all the credit for killing the children.

I'm not sure where you're going with that, but a 10 year old kid with
a grenade or AK47 or whatever, can kill you just as dead as an adult.
When the individual is armed and actively threatening, age is the last
consideration.

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA

On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:48:07 -0500, Tom Veatch wrote:


When the individual is armed and actively threatening, age is the last
consideration.

It's not last. It's not on the list of considerations.



--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net
http://www.normstools.com

Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997

email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
care to correspond with you anyway.

"HeyBub" wrote:

I'm with you. If some news reports of the pirates ages are correct,
Obama
should get all the credit for killing the children.


Gee whiz, it's happy horse **** time.

Has Rush used this one yet?

It's about his speed.

Lew

DGDevin wrote:

This is what we've come to,
hyper-partisanship to the point of absurdity.

Yep, you got that right ... but for a short span of time there would now
be headlines screaming about Bush murdering 3 black, impoverished,
muslim, Somalian teenager's.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Swingman" wrote:

Yep, you got that right ... but for a short span of time there would
now be headlines screaming about Bush murdering 3 black,
impoverished, muslim, Somalian teenager's.

Naw, he already has a full ration, they are members of the US
military.

Lew

On Apr 14, 4:13*pm, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote:
I'm with you. If some news reports of the pirates ages are correct,
Obama
should get all the credit for killing the children.

Gee whiz, it's happy horse **** time.

Has Rush used this one yet?

It's about his speed.

Lew

WTF is next? Our friends the Saudis allow marriage to an 8-year old.
Why wouldn't somebody from over there arm a 9-year old to " get
himself a few of those capitalist pigs"?
Just when you think mankind couldn't sink any lower....guess what?

Steve Turner wrote:

According to news reports Obama twice authorized the military to use
deadly force to resolve the situation, but no way will you see
Obamaphobes giving him credit for that. If it had gone wrong and
Capt. Phillips had been killed it would be a different story, then
they'd be blaming Obama every hour on the hour, but since it was
successful the President is out of the equation so far as they're
concerned.

Oh pshaw.

So if I'm wrong you should have no problem pointing me to those folks who
would normally crawl over broken glass for a chance to slam Obama but who
have given him credit for making the right call on this occasion.

crickets

This is what we've come to, hyper-partisanship to the point of
absurdity.

In which you're not also participating?

Correct, I'm not. I have no problem criticizing the Obama administration
when it screws up, e.g. their incredibly idiotic proposal for making wounded
veterans use their own private health insurance to pay for their medical
care. That was one of the worst plans ever to come out of Washington, the
home planet for bad plans, the only bright spot is they quickly dropped it
when even their own party treated it with the contempt it deserved. However
unlike some folks I'm also prepared to give them credit when they get it
right, that's the difference.

Ok, that's enough for me; I'll go back to waiting for the woodworking
threads now.

waiting
waiting

I visited the College of the Redwoods fine woodworking campus last week. I
think I saw some future stars in their formative years--very cool place.

Swingman wrote:


This is what we've come to,
hyper-partisanship to the point of absurdity.

Yep, you got that right ... but for a short span of time there would
now be headlines screaming about Bush murdering 3 black, impoverished,
muslim, Somalian teenager's.

Rubbish. I accept that the media as a whole leans liberal. But you seem to
have forgotten the NY Times cheerleading for the invasion of Iraq, to
pretend the media did nothing but attack Bush whether he deserved it or not
is not a credible position. There were certainly people prepared to believe
that if it rained on their birthday Bush was responsible, but there were at
least as many willing to cut his administration a mind-boggling amount of
slack. If Carter's attempted rescue of the hostages in Iran had worked he'd
have been re-elected in a landslide, and if those WMDs in Iraq we were
warned about had really been there Bush would have left office a hero
instead of a bum. We haven't heard about WMDs in Iraq because there were
none to be found, not because the media didn't tell us about it.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
LRod wrote:
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 15:51:39 -0400, "Matt"
wrote:

http://digg.com/world_news/American_...ffici al_says


The one thing I find disturbing in all this is that the neo-cons
have
been whining for years that liberals are soft on everything. I saw
a
post on one of the other message boards yesterday that said:

"The last time we had a US President with the balls to face
down pirates..."

followed by a link to an article, no doubt about Jefferson
and the Barbary pirates, and nothing else.

So, let me see if I have this straight:

Who ordered the SEALs in? The battalion commander?
The captain of the ship carrying them? Southern Command?
SecNav? DefSec?

No, I'm guessing an overt military act like that pretty much
had to come from the Commander in Chief, just like in Jefferson's
day. I guess the implication is pretty clear, Obama does have
balls,
and he deserves as much credit for it as Jefferson gets.

I'm with you. If some news reports of the pirates ages are correct,
Obama should get all the credit for killing the children.

Well, lets think about that for a minute, when I was in Vietnam, the
"children" along
the side of the road with a grenade would kill you just as quick as a
NVA soldier, not to
forget, the women who are now carrying bombs strapped around their
waist killing US
soldiers in the war we are now in, It doesn't matter who kills you,
you are still dead.
War is hell and that is the way it is, kill or be killed,, the other
option is talk about it and
just let them kill you. It's your life, which do you want?
War is hell
CC

"DGDevin" wrote in message
...



If Carter's attempted rescue of the hostages in Iran had worked he'd
have been re-elected in a landslide,

You are being funny right? It was his total inability to be effective with
every thing the he was involved in that got him elected out of office. The
economy was the bigger problem.




and if those WMDs in Iraq we were
warned about had really been there Bush would have left office a hero
instead of a bum. We haven't heard about WMDs in Iraq because there were
none to be found, not because the media didn't tell us about it.


When you tell your enemy that you are going to invade and destroy their
weapons AND give them 6 months to hide them....

On 15-Apr-2009, "Leon" wrote:

"DGDevin" wrote in message

and if those WMDs in Iraq we were
warned about had really been there Bush would have left office a hero
instead of a bum. We haven't heard about WMDs in Iraq because there were
none to be found, not because the media didn't tell us about it.

When you tell your enemy that you are going to invade and destroy their
weapons AND give them 6 months to hide them....

Thus making Bush more of a bum...? Or less of one?

On Apr 15, 12:22*pm, "CW" wrote:
On 15-Apr-2009, "Leon" wrote:

"DGDevin" wrote in message
and if those WMDs in Iraq we were
warned about had really been there Bush would have left office a hero
instead of a bum. *We haven't heard about WMDs in Iraq because there were
none to be found, not because the media didn't tell us about it.

When you tell your enemy that you are going to invade and destroy their
weapons AND give them 6 months to hide them....

Thus making Bush more of a bum...? *Or less of one?

Bush is a swaggering loudmouth who knows that he isn't going to have
to pay the bill, be it economic or physical.

On Apr 15, 12:08*pm, "Leon" wrote:
"DGDevin" wrote in message

...

* If Carter's attempted rescue of the hostages in Iran had worked he'd

have been re-elected in a landslide,

You are being funny right? *It was his total inability to be effective with
every thing the *he was involved in that got him elected out of office. *The
economy was the bigger problem.

and if those WMDs in Iraq we were

warned about had really been there Bush would have left office a hero
instead of a bum. *We haven't heard about WMDs in Iraq because there were
none to be found, not because the media didn't tell us about it.

When you tell your enemy that you are going to invade and destroy their
weapons AND give them 6 months to hide them....

Nothing to hide. Hussein was just full of **** trying to intimidate
the area.

But I tell you Americans one thing: Don't even THINK of trying to
invade Sarnia, Ontario, because I have a 1 gigaton neutron particle
anihilator sword.

"Charlie Self" wrote:

Bush is a swaggering loudmouth who knows that he isn't going to have
to pay the bill, be it economic or physical.

So true.

Lew

Robatoy wrote:
On Apr 15, 12:08 pm, "Leon" wrote:
"DGDevin" wrote in message

...

If Carter's attempted rescue of the hostages in Iran had worked he'd

have been re-elected in a landslide,
You are being funny right? It was his total inability to be effective with
every thing the he was involved in that got him elected out of office. The
economy was the bigger problem.

and if those WMDs in Iraq we were

warned about had really been there Bush would have left office a hero
instead of a bum. We haven't heard about WMDs in Iraq because there were
none to be found, not because the media didn't tell us about it.
When you tell your enemy that you are going to invade and destroy their
weapons AND give them 6 months to hide them....

Nothing to hide. Hussein was just full of **** trying to intimidate
the area.

But I tell you Americans one thing: Don't even THINK of trying to
invade Sarnia, Ontario, because I have a 1 gigaton neutron particle
anihilator sword.
That's Nuthin'. I gots a 5 giga-ohm computer desk!
gronk,
j4

On Apr 15, 2:45*pm, jo4hn wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Apr 15, 12:08 pm, "Leon" wrote:
"DGDevin" wrote in message

...

* If Carter's attempted rescue of the hostages in Iran had worked he'd

have been re-elected in a landslide,
You are being funny right? *It was his total inability to be effective with
every thing the *he was involved in that got him elected out of office. *The
economy was the bigger problem.

and if those WMDs in Iraq we were

warned about had really been there Bush would have left office a hero
instead of a bum. *We haven't heard about WMDs in Iraq because there were
none to be found, not because the media didn't tell us about it.
When you tell your enemy that you are going to invade and destroy their
weapons AND give them 6 months to hide them....

Nothing to hide. Hussein was just full of **** trying to intimidate
the area.

But I tell you Americans one thing: Don't even THINK of trying to
invade Sarnia, Ontario, because I have a 1 gigaton neutron particle
anihilator sword.

That's Nuthin'. *I gots a 5 giga-ohm computer desk!
* * * * gronk,
* * * * j4

Oh yea?? Well *I* gots a trebuchet and one of my ex's cheese-cakes!!
So there!

Leon wrote:
"DGDevin" wrote in message
...



If Carter's attempted rescue of the hostages in Iran had worked he'd
have been re-elected in a landslide,

You are being funny right? It was his total inability to be
effective with every thing the he was involved in that got him
elected out of office. The economy was the bigger problem.


I dunno. Some think his response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan -
boycotting the Moscow Olympics - was a masterstroke of the unexpected.

Then there was the whole sordid business with the rabbit...




and if those WMDs in Iraq we were
warned about had really been there Bush would have left office a hero
instead of a bum. We haven't heard about WMDs in Iraq because there
were none to be found, not because the media didn't tell us about it.


When you tell your enemy that you are going to invade and destroy
their weapons AND give them 6 months to hide them....

Charlie Self wrote:
On Apr 15, 12:22 pm, "CW" wrote:
On 15-Apr-2009, "Leon" wrote:

"DGDevin" wrote in message
and if those WMDs in Iraq we were
warned about had really been there Bush would have left office a
hero instead of a bum. We haven't heard about WMDs in Iraq because
there were none to be found, not because the media didn't tell us
about it.

When you tell your enemy that you are going to invade and destroy
their weapons AND give them 6 months to hide them....

Thus making Bush more of a bum...? Or less of one?

Bush is a swaggering loudmouth who knows that he isn't going to have
to pay the bill, be it economic or physical.

"Swaggering?" Heh! That's what Sadaam thought. We invaded his country,
evicted him from his homes, confiscated his money, exiled his family,
imprisoned his friends, killed his children, then, ultimately, had his
skanky ass hanged.

As for "paying the bill," I'll remind you that the deficit under Obama's
first year is larger than the deficits of all the Bush years.

Combined.

Here's a graph:
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/.../obamadebt.jpg

On Apr 15, 3:54*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Charlie Self wrote:
On Apr 15, 12:22 pm, "CW" wrote:
On 15-Apr-2009, "Leon" wrote:

"DGDevin" wrote in message
and if those WMDs in Iraq we were
warned about had really been there Bush would have left office a
hero instead of a bum. We haven't heard about WMDs in Iraq because
there were none to be found, not because the media didn't tell us
about it.

When you tell your enemy that you are going to invade and destroy
their weapons AND give them 6 months to hide them....

Thus making Bush more of a bum...? Or less of one?

Bush is a swaggering loudmouth who knows that he isn't going to have
to pay the bill, be it economic or physical.

"Swaggering?" Heh! That's what Sadaam thought. We invaded his country,
evicted him from his homes, confiscated his money, exiled his family,
imprisoned his friends, killed his children, then, ultimately, had his
skanky ass hanged.

As for "paying the bill," I'll remind you that the deficit under Obama's
first year is larger than the deficits of all the Bush years.

Combined.

Here's a graph:http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/.../obamadebt.jpg

Now, add the war costs to Bush's graphs....

On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 14:53:42 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:


Now, add the war costs to Bush's graphs...

Doing so implies those figures don't already include those government
expenditures. If they don't, the graph is misleading. If they do,
adding them a second time is just as misleading.

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA

"Robatoy" wrote

Oh yea?? Well *I* gots a trebuchet and one of my ex's cheese-cakes!!
So there!
========================

Caewful there. We have an unlimited supply of "perpetual fruitcakes" we
could toss your way.

Robatoy wrote:
On Apr 15, 3:54 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Charlie Self wrote:
On Apr 15, 12:22 pm, "CW" wrote:
On 15-Apr-2009, "Leon" wrote:
"DGDevin" wrote in message
and if those WMDs in Iraq we were
warned about had really been there Bush would have left office a
hero instead of a bum. We haven't heard about WMDs in Iraq because
there were none to be found, not because the media didn't tell us
about it.
When you tell your enemy that you are going to invade and destroy
their weapons AND give them 6 months to hide them....
Thus making Bush more of a bum...? Or less of one?
Bush is a swaggering loudmouth who knows that he isn't going to have
to pay the bill, be it economic or physical.
"Swaggering?" Heh! That's what Sadaam thought. We invaded his country,
evicted him from his homes, confiscated his money, exiled his family,
imprisoned his friends, killed his children, then, ultimately, had his
skanky ass hanged.

As for "paying the bill," I'll remind you that the deficit under Obama's
first year is larger than the deficits of all the Bush years.

Combined.

Here's a graph:http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/.../obamadebt.jpg

Now, add the war costs to Bush's graphs....

And the $400 billion or so of the trust funds that are counted as
revenue and spent every year and replaced with an IOU which isn't
counted as an expenditure.

Interesting that the graph shows a surplus in 2000 and 2001, but the
national debt has increased each and every year since 1960.

On Apr 15, 6:16*pm, Tom Veatch wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 14:53:42 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy

wrote:

Now, add the war costs to Bush's graphs...

Doing so implies those figures don't already include those government
expenditures.


That is what I am implying.


If they don't, the graph is misleading. If they do,
adding them a second time is just as misleading.

Indeed.


Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA

On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 15:51:28 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:

Interesting that the graph shows a surplus in 2000 and 2001, but the
national debt has increased each and every year since 1960.

I don't know one way or the other whether the graph represents any
reliable view of reality, but from what I've seen, accountants can
play some funny games with numbers and it sometimes looks like
government accountants play games that would get private sector
accountants locked up.

Once you get away from the principle of "take the money you get,
subtract the money you spend, and what's left is what you've got"
there's way too much room for misrepresentation.

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA

Doug Winterburn wrote:

And the $400 billion or so of the trust funds that are counted as
revenue and spent every year and replaced with an IOU which isn't
counted as an expenditure.

Interesting that the graph shows a surplus in 2000 and 2001, but the
national debt has increased each and every year since 1960.

Rounding error.

HeyBub wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote:
And the $400 billion or so of the trust funds that are counted as
revenue and spent every year and replaced with an IOU which isn't
counted as an expenditure.

Interesting that the graph shows a surplus in 2000 and 2001, but the
national debt has increased each and every year since 1960.

Rounding error.


Yup, a $300+ billion one - every year...

LRod wrote:

The one thing I find disturbing in all this is that the neo-cons have
been whining for years that liberals are soft on everything.

The "neo-cons" are very wrong. Socialists have been killing people by
the millions for years. Think of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and others. I
would expect Obama to have no trouble exploding heads of folks getting
in his way...

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com