Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 1 Mar 2009 21:46:33 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 11:30:13 -0700, slide
wrote:

Stephen Trapani wrote:


So the fire is the massive deficit and spending of the Republicans who
have been out of power in Congress for years and the now quadrupling
of
the deficit and spending, by the Democrats, is the water on the fire?
Is
that how your analogy works?



PLEASE!!! Stop making sense. You will give the Believers a headache!!!!

Don't you know the MESSIAH now that He is here in our midst? You must
BELIEVE. No thinking allowed.


You Sir, are Wrong! You are allowed to think.... But it must be
"right thinking".

Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


That would be "left thinking" duhh... lol


I'm a conservative :-(

Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


I am too when it comes to fiscal policy. Certainly true when it comes to my
own finances. I'm liberal on social issues.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 1 Mar 2009 21:49:23 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 11:18:44 -0500, hpeer wrote:

Stephen Trapani wrote:
Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 11:51:36 -0500, Marty wrote:

Jon, I think he must be really great, President for only 40 days and
already decisions made by 10 years of Republican Congresses and 8
years of Republican Presidency are his fault! Now that's talent!

More interesting is how all of these guys got into financial trouble
in only 40 days. That's talent also.

That said, this really isn't the right place.


In order to fervently believe what we want to believe we have to
desperately ignore what we have to ignore in order to think that the
Congress has been controlled by Republicans for the last four years.
Whatever you do, *don't* actually check this easily checked fact
anywhere, like, say, he

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgov...division_2.htm

Instead, use blinding strategies like maybe ridicule this **** out of
this post so you can continue to blame who you've been blaming,
instead
of learning anything new. After all, we wouldn't all want to be
supporting a large increase in the same thing we've been doing for the
last four years, would we? That would be insane!

Steph

The problem is that Congress has been ruled by POLITICIANS, whatever
their ilk. People whose only goal is to get reelected. No fish monger
ever cried "Bad fish for sale!"

The problem is the people who perfumed over the stink figuring they were
going to get a piece of the profit.

People vote for who tells them what they want to hear. Forget the 2000
election. Who voted for W in 2004? The People! Idiots.

So don't blame Bush now, and don't blame Obama in 2012. They are merely
characters in a play - speaking their lines - written by "We The
People."

Rant off.

In fact, while I don't remember exactly what Obama said during the
primary and the campaign the overwhelming recollection I have is that
he intended to "bring the boys home" right now! Of course, once
elected "right now" isn't exactly "this instance" it is "sometime next
year", "the year after", "well, maybe in a while".

He was reported on the news, over here, as saying that he is going to
balance the budget by "cutting government expenditures and taxing rich
people" which seems a little misleading coming, as it did, just after
the reporting that it was "the biggest bail-out in history".

My impression is that Obama, to give him all the credit due was simply
the better "politician". and I suppose deserves to be President.

On the other hand, I have the sneaking suspicion that it may not make
much difference what party is in power as if the boat has a big hole
in it all you can do is bail.

Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


He said 16 mos. It's now going to be 19, plus longer for core troops. I
think he's following the advise he's being given by the generals and
following his campaign promise as best he can.

I don't think what he's attempting to do is misleading, although it may
not
be intuitive. The short term needs to be dealt with in the, um, short
term.
The longer term is next.


As I said, I really didn't pay much attention and it was only a
impression I was left with.

But good on him if he can get out of that mess. Of course, there is
another 70,000 tip-toeing off to Afghanistan but apparently we are
getting out of Iraq... well, except for some that will be left to
ensure peace, aid the locals, or whatever.

I do wonder about the Afghan thing though. It is my certain, sure,
recollection that a number of people have gone over there to teach 'em
"what is what". None successfully, but they went. the Brits even went
twice if my memory serves me.

There is that quote about "those who refuse to read history are doomed
to repeat it".


Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Afganistan is a different war for a different and most would argue for
legitimate reason. If we had started and stopped there, we'd be in a lot
better place IMHO, but in any case, we have to try. I think the best model
is to build up their infrastructure (as the Romans did) and that'll help
stablize the country.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"slide" wrote in message
...
Bruce in Bangkok wrote:
On Sun, 1 Mar 2009 21:49:23 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:


As I said, I really didn't pay much attention and it was only a
impression I was left with.

But good on him if he can get out of that mess. Of course, there is
another 70,000 tip-toeing off to Afghanistan but apparently we are
getting out of Iraq... well, except for some that will be left to
ensure peace, aid the locals, or whatever.

I do wonder about the Afghan thing though. It is my certain, sure,
recollection that a number of people have gone over there to teach 'em
"what is what". None successfully, but they went. the Brits even went
twice if my memory serves me. There is that quote about "those who refuse
to read history are doomed
to repeat it".


First, Obama is just another dishonest misdirecting politician in the mold
of Clinton. His claim that he'll get US 'combat troops' out of Iraq by X
date only means he'll switch their title from combat troops to something
else - probably 'peace keepers'. So we'll remain in the morass
indefinitely but change the names we're in the morass under.

Afghanistan is scary and dangerous. I am plugged into an Afghan local
community which has close ties to the home nation and whose members travel
there regularly. The place is a mess - kept afloat by the heroin trade,
being fought over by the Russians, Pakistanis, al Qeada, and Taliban as
well as the US and the US backed government in Kabul. It makes Iraq look
like a well organized peaceful kingdom.

We cannot fix these places. We can only ruin our economy further while
leaving our dead and wounded soldiers on the field of battle. Obama is
just Bush sporting even less fiscal responsibility. He's disgusting.


Sounds like you're pretty bitter about your buddies losing the election. You
should probably get over it. Obama has been in for a month. Bush was on
vacation for the first eight months.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote
I'm a conservative :-(


The more truly conservative you are, the more upset you should be over what
the Republican party became and what it did to the country.

Well, it tells a lot that Rush Limbaugh is "the face and voice of the
Republican Party."

However it looks like somebody is finally growing the balls to tell
him to shut up and get to the back of the bus.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS...eele.limbaugh/

DSK

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"Capt. JG" wrote:
Afganistan is a different war for a different and most would argue for
legitimate reason.

Not so much a "war" as chasing & killing bad guys.


.... If we had started and stopped there, we'd be in a lot
better place IMHO, but in any case, we have to try. I think the best model
is to build up their infrastructure (as the Romans did) and that'll help
stablize the country.


It wasn't the Romans, it was Alexander and his successors.

DSK

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

wrote in message
...

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote
I'm a conservative :-(


The more truly conservative you are, the more upset you should be over
what
the Republican party became and what it did to the country.

Well, it tells a lot that Rush Limbaugh is "the face and voice of the
Republican Party."

However it looks like somebody is finally growing the balls to tell
him to shut up and get to the back of the bus.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS...eele.limbaugh/

DSK


More likely it's out of political necessity. Steele and the others don't
want to be out in the wilderness any longer than necessary.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

wrote in message
...
"Capt. JG" wrote:
Afganistan is a different war for a different and most would argue for
legitimate reason.

Not so much a "war" as chasing & killing bad guys.


.... If we had started and stopped there, we'd be in a lot
better place IMHO, but in any case, we have to try. I think the best
model
is to build up their infrastructure (as the Romans did) and that'll help
stablize the country.


It wasn't the Romans, it was Alexander and his successors.

DSK


Besides encouraging the marrying of foreigners, he mostly just fought a lot,
although he did build some road/shipyard/etc. I believe the Romans actually
built the infrastructure.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...

I am too when it comes to fiscal policy. Certainly true when it comes to
my own finances. I'm liberal on social issues.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Me three. I've been told that makes me a Libertarian. I used to think so,
too, but too many Libertarians who "represent the Party" are downright
loony-tunes. They complain about the "sheeple," then expect their own flock
to follow them in lockstep.

So instead I consider myself a "Cooperativist."

"Can't we all just get along?" Saint Rodney King of the Many Blows

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

wrote in message
...

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote
I'm a conservative :-(


The more truly conservative you are, the more upset you should be over
what
the Republican party became and what it did to the country.

Well, it tells a lot that Rush Limbaugh is "the face and voice of the
Republican Party."

However it looks like somebody is finally growing the balls to tell
him to shut up and get to the back of the bus.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS...eele.limbaugh/

DSK

If the Crushed Lintball can't drive the bus, he doesn't want to be on it at
all. Personally, I do not believe for a minute that he is actually a
"conservative." I believe he simply found "being a conservative" to be one
hell of a cash cow, and started milking for all she was worth. What he
actually believes in is the Almighty Dollar.

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...

I am too when it comes to fiscal policy. Certainly true when it comes to
my own finances. I'm liberal on social issues.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Me three. I've been told that makes me a Libertarian. I used to think so,
too, but too many Libertarians who "represent the Party" are downright
loony-tunes. They complain about the "sheeple," then expect their own
flock to follow them in lockstep.

So instead I consider myself a "Cooperativist."

"Can't we all just get along?" Saint Rodney King of the Many Blows

Sort of like Ron Paul. I like the guy, don't get me wrong. But, if we were
stupid enough to implement his ideas, there would be a lot of continuing
suffering.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com