Oh, as though virulent Clinton-haters don't... ok.

"two wheels" wrote in message
...
Be cautious of
what the virulent Bush-haters do with numbers. They lie though
their teeth.

We had zero before, now we have a huge deficit, which will be around
for as far as anyone can reasonable project. This is not good news.

And, you'll be happy to know that the deficit
forecasts keep coming down as every month passes. I know you'll be
happy to hear that.

two wheels

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:12:27 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote:

Oh, as though virulent Clinton-haters don't... ok.

"two wheels" wrote in
message ...
Be cautious of
what the virulent Bush-haters do with numbers. They lie though
their teeth.

We had zero before, now we have a huge deficit, which will be
around for as far as anyone can reasonable project. This is not
good news.

Zero deficit, or even worse, surplus? You talk, er, write like
that's a good thing. It's not. It just encourges the politicians to
spend lots of money on their pet projects. Even Bush does it. His
biggest pet project just happens to be reforming Iraq and
Afganistan, and killing terrorists. It's an expensive hobby, but I
think in the long run it's worth the cost. What's not worth the
cost, is a non-means-tested Medicare prescription drug benefit. It
will be just an ever-growing money pit that we'll regret very soon.
But, thirty years from now, I don't think any sane person will
regret invading Iraq in 2003. Especially not the Iraqis.

two wheels


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQA/AwUBP5g9otCBA23eyf45EQKp5wCePA6HZtvZDjB845IpH6It84 3LZSgAoJVj
36tNIRLbbU6sHShLcBppf3KE
=x5Xx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

But, thirty years from now, I don't think any sane person will
regret invading Iraq in 2003.

At least plenty of people are not bothering to call it anything else but an
invasion these days.
This expensive and deadly war was brought about by WMD that did not exist. Once
it was clear that the weapons were gone, the search began for paper work about
WMD, and even that was old and little more than conversational material.
I don't care about anything except the fact that Saddam and Bin Laden are still
alive and issuing orders to kill Americans.
Bush failed in every way.

Capt RB

"two wheels" wrote in message On
Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:12:27 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote:

Oh, as though virulent Clinton-haters don't... ok.

We had zero before, now we have a huge deficit, which will be
around for as far as anyone can reasonable project. This is not
good news.

Zero deficit, or even worse, surplus? You talk, er, write like
that's a good thing. It's not. It just encourges the politicians to
spend lots of money on their pet projects. Even Bush does it. His
biggest pet project just happens to be reforming Iraq and
Afganistan, and killing terrorists.

Excellent news!!! Which terrorist has he managed to kill?



It's an expensive hobby,

It certainly is very expensive! Especially when he spends billions of
dollars fighting the wrong targets.

but I
think in the long run it's worth the cost.

That is why he can kill thousands of innocent civilians, and simultaneously,
create thousands of new terrorists.

What's not worth the
cost, is a non-means-tested Medicare prescription drug benefit. It
will be just an ever-growing money pit that we'll regret very soon.
But, thirty years from now, I don't think any sane person will
regret invading Iraq in 2003. Especially not the Iraqis.

You may well be right. It *is* possible that, in 30 years, you will still
not be able to make the connection between American violence, and terrorist
violence.

Regards


Donal
--

Pulees... you're saying that it's better to run a deficit than
have a surplus, which could legitimately used for the 100s
if not 1000s of social and infrastructure projects that we
desperately need?

Why do you equate surplus with pet projects? That's a
"typical right wing" viewpoint that has nothing to do with
reality.

You're damn right it's an expensive hobby. That's all it
is... a hobby. Get Saddam cause he tried to get dada.
There was no immediate need to do that. Then, we would
have time and another $87 billion to get the economy
moving.

Every 1st world country on earth has universal health
care and it pretty much works. Our private system
is ridiculously expensive and doesn't work any better.
Even some state governments are buying perscription
drugs from Canada now. Surely, they'll be sued because
we certainly wouldn't want to inconvenience the drug
companies and more than we'd want to inconvenience
the oil companies or car companies.

Bush and his administration have a stated agenda of
gutting the Federal involvement in society. Orgs like
the EPA and Dept. of Education are on the hit list.
That's how they'll pay for Iraq. Heaven forbid that
they actually increase the taxes on the wealthiest 10%
of the population. We wouldn't want to inconvenience
Ken Lay certainly! nor Dick Cheney's old pals at
Haliburton.

But I'll be damned if they don't want to limit free speech,
imprison people without due process, and generally
stomp all over the Bill of Rights in the name of terrorism.
Is it possible for anyone to be able to justify getting
librarians to reveal what people are reading?? Seems to
me that you can get all the really bad stuff for free and
without leaving your house right on the little box sitting
in front of your face right now.

Not to get on too much of a rant here, but it sure is
sick and funny to have the Federal courts say that it's
ok to call people during dinner for yet another solicitation
to buy something, but it's not ok for me to go to a public
library and read about nuclear weapons for fear of getting
on some Fed list.

Well, look who's in charge... Bush, a mostly stupid guy
who only got where he is because of his father, and who
was basically AWOL at one point, not to mention being
a reformed drunk... and Cheney who failed out of Yale
twice before finally getting through college at a second
rate school, someone who didn't have one second of regret
bailing out of the Vietnam draft.

GOD FORBID we should get someone who has a decent
education and the ability to think on his feet. And, don't
think I'm talking about Clinton here. There are plenty of
republicans who would qualify.

Too bad Ahhhnold was born outside the US. He'd be
the perfect president... all muscle no brain power... shoot
'em up, nuke 'em, hurry up and get us into yet another
lousy spot.

Thanks

"two wheels" wrote in message
news
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:12:27 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote:

Oh, as though virulent Clinton-haters don't... ok.

"two wheels" wrote in
message ...
Be cautious of
what the virulent Bush-haters do with numbers. They lie though
their teeth.

We had zero before, now we have a huge deficit, which will be
around for as far as anyone can reasonable project. This is not
good news.

Zero deficit, or even worse, surplus? You talk, er, write like
that's a good thing. It's not. It just encourges the politicians to
spend lots of money on their pet projects. Even Bush does it. His
biggest pet project just happens to be reforming Iraq and
Afganistan, and killing terrorists. It's an expensive hobby, but I
think in the long run it's worth the cost. What's not worth the
cost, is a non-means-tested Medicare prescription drug benefit. It
will be just an ever-growing money pit that we'll regret very soon.
But, thirty years from now, I don't think any sane person will
regret invading Iraq in 2003. Especially not the Iraqis.

two wheels


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQA/AwUBP5g9otCBA23eyf45EQKp5wCePA6HZtvZDjB845IpH6It84 3LZSgAoJVj
36tNIRLbbU6sHShLcBppf3KE
=x5Xx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----