If it hadn't been for Vietnam, the GS would have had a chance.


I would say on the whole that Johnson's 'Great Society' was
more of a success than Nixon's Viet Nam.


Dave wrote:
And if it hadn't been for the torching of our major cities.

??
Are you getting 'Great Society' confused with the Rural
Electrification Program? Torches were unnecessary.


And if it hadn't been for paying single teenage girls to stay home and make
babies.

It's about sex, isn't it? Poor people shouldn't be gettin'
any! Neither should Democrats!!

DSK

DSK wrote:
If it hadn't been for Vietnam, the GS would have had a chance.


I would say on the whole that Johnson's 'Great Society' was more of a
success than Nixon's Viet Nam.


Dave wrote:
And if it hadn't been for the torching of our major cities.

??
Are you getting 'Great Society' confused with the Rural Electrification
Program? Torches were unnecessary.


And if it hadn't been for paying single teenage girls to stay home
and make
babies.

It's about sex, isn't it? Poor people shouldn't be gettin' any! Neither
should Democrats!!

DSK

Spay and neuter them all, I say!!!!

"katy" wrote in message
...
DSK wrote:
If it hadn't been for Vietnam, the GS would have had a chance.


I would say on the whole that Johnson's 'Great Society' was more of a
success than Nixon's Viet Nam.


Dave wrote:
And if it hadn't been for the torching of our major cities.

??
Are you getting 'Great Society' confused with the Rural Electrification
Program? Torches were unnecessary.


And if it hadn't been for paying single teenage girls to stay home and
make
babies.

It's about sex, isn't it? Poor people shouldn't be gettin' any! Neither
should Democrats!!

DSK

Spay and neuter them all, I say!!!!

Can't argue with that.

It's about sex, isn't it? Poor people shouldn't be gettin' any! Neither
should Democrats!!



Spay and neuter them all, I say!!!!


Gilligan wrote:
Can't argue with that.


Well, you can, but why? It makes too much sense. In fact
IMHO it is inevitable.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
It's about sex, isn't it? Poor people shouldn't be gettin' any! Neither
should Democrats!!



Spay and neuter them all, I say!!!!


Gilligan wrote:
Can't argue with that.

Well, you can, but why? It makes too much sense. In fact IMHO it is
inevitable.

DSK


Affluence lowers the birth rates. In countries such as Germany and Japan the
birth rates aRE LOW ENOUGH to decrease the population unless there is
immigration. I beleieve it is true for the US but immigration is increasing
the population.

Why is it that our best and brightest breed the least? Pay the most taxes?

On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 09:58:01 -0600, Gilligan wrote:


Affluence lowers the birth rates. In countries such as Germany and Japan the
birth rates aRE LOW ENOUGH to decrease the population unless there is
immigration. I beleieve it is true for the US but immigration is increasing
the population.

With the declining birth rates, if you want a growing economy, you need
immigration.

Why is it that our best and brightest breed the least? Pay the most taxes?

Uh, because our best and brightest also have better access to health care,
providing a longer life span. That longer life span results in a smaller
proportion of women of child bearing age, hence, a declining birth rate.
It's, in effect, a Ponzi Scheme.