'Bama killing more civilians.
 

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 11:08 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 7:05 AM, bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 06:16:23 -0700,
wrote:



Have a better explanation for why all of a sudden the government can
spend it's way out of debt to prosperity? What economic theory is
this?
Bankruptcy?

it's called 'keynesian' economics. and it's on pretty solid
foundations.

Lets see. Iceland tried it, fell flat on its ass.

Socialist Greece tried it, and to fund it now looks like they mistated
their real debt levels and is failing real bad.

Socialist Spain tried it, not fairing too well.

Japan tried it and hasn't seen valued growth in 2 decades.

Show me where in history I can find that it worked? I can't see any.
Even
Roman times tried it and resulted in the disbandment of the Roman
Empire.

and our debt service after ALL the money is spent over the next 10
years?

3.4%

That is amost $500 billion a year every year for nothing of value. Or
about a perpetual debt payment of $3770 per worker every year and no
return.

Given the currency float has also been diluted, that is a wildly
optimistic number too. Reality is much worse as inflation will force
rates up or the currency will devalue like a rock.

debt burden under george bush the first?

3.4%

gee. i guess canuck doesn't know that

3.4=3.4.

Does not mater at this point who you blame really. Even if you choose
to
forget Obama's 3.5 trillion 18% increase in just 2 years,
debt-corruption
spend at the end of 2010, the debt of $14.5 trillion isn't far off.

Each worker now supports about $108,000 in federal debt. And it adds
ZERO
value to their lives. Taxation enslavement. Permanent wealth rob.
Money
not spent so it can't create jobs.

Liberal debt borrowing, liberal ponzi currency management is bringing
down
the United States to it's financial knees. Get over it. Probably too
late to stop it too, and no politicial vision and will too either as DC
**** fests the taxpayers with corporate corruption bailouts - certain
long
term doom for the US economy.

As in essence, Congress just expanded the administration debt mongering
capabilities to $14.5 to prevent the US federal government from going
into
default for non-payment. Since they can't borrow, they create. A fancy
way to say United States of America itself is NOT paying it's debts and
debt is now out of control just like Greece.

Ever heard the investment term, "Dead cat a falling..."? Just about
where
we are right now.


You're just daft. Take an econ class and get back to us.

Nope, don't want to polute my mind with liberalism. Prevents one from
making money.


Ah... economics = liberalism. That's a brainiac response for sure!

--
Nom=de=Plume

'Bama killing more civilians.
 

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 11:07 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:

Have a better explanation for why all of a sudden the government can
spend
it's way out of debt to prosperity? What economic theory is this?
Bankruptcy?

It's basic economics, and it's not about "spending it's way out of debt."
That's your foolish twist. You don't cut back spending during a financial
crisis. Hoover did it and we know what happened.

Actually, Hoover was in office when 1929 hit, and too tried to spend out
of it. But had to stop as the governemtn ran out of cash and mounting
debt. Which forced the issue of pulling back on spending.

Problem wasn't solved until the advent of WW II when people got cash paid
to them for the war effort. Bottom line, people need money to spend to
have an economy based on fiat currency.

Think about the logic of Obama's policy, how insane it is. Debt-spend
to
prosperity.

See previous.

I could list the countries that have tried it, and none to date have
managed to do it any more than individuals can.

I can assure you that if you are in debt and have problems with debt,
the
last thing you do to fix it is borrow more and spend it on ****.

I am not a government responsible for more than 300m people.

But will admit Obama be like the Pied Piper. Has a good talk and sings
a
song. When are you ordering the jack boots?

Like I said, I'm sure you feel fine calling him a nazi or stalinist or
similar. Go for it.

1935 or so, all over again. As Obama deflects blame, he will pick on
banks, Japanese, Chinese, even Euros... just does not want people at home
looking too closely at the monumentious screw up of US politicial history.


You're just wrong. It's really not much of an argument to make up facts as
you go.

--
Nom=de=Plume

'Bama killing more civilians.
 

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 15:21:51 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...


Please read previous response.

Why do people like yourself automatically jump to the conclusion that a
statement of fact that may illuminate a broader influence on a
controversial subject means that the author of that statement is a
"rightie" or Bush supporter? This is exactly the type of current
political animosity that has divided this country. Now-a-days you are
either left or right apparently. There's no middle ground anymore.

I have never "defended" Bush without reservation. I have, on occasion,
expressed support for some of Obama's initiatives. I don't agree with
much of how he is trying to accomplish them however.

The first step to getting this country back on track is to stop the
stupid finger pointing.

Eisboch



If that's the case, why bring up something that was always obvious. I
notice you didn't mention Bush the First's invasion either. Or,
Rumsfeld's or Cheney's previous involvement with Saddam. You didn't
mention the British establishing Iraq to begin with either. The first
step to getting this country back on track is to be intellectually
honest.



Based on the few posts of yours that I have read, I would respectfully
suggest that you lead the way.

Eisboch


Really? Please show me where I've done finger pointing without cause. I've
been vilified here for being female, not "beautiful", "vacuous", a
"typical" liberal (which I'm not even), told I'm not a patent attorney, a
liar, etc. I've hardly ever even responded to those posters, especially
not at that level.


No offense, but I don't have a clue who you are, what you are
professionally, what you look like or if you are male or female, nor to I
care. I've only read a handful of your posts. My take is that your mind
is pretty well made up about anything and everything. Maybe wrong, but
that's the impression I have.

Carry on. Didn't mean to interrupt. I have other things to do.

Eisboch

I expect most of what "things" you have to do, include being an ass.

You're more likely than Plume to be disagreeable while you disagree.

'Bama killing more civilians.
 

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 13:22:36 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:



Nope, don't want to polute my mind with liberalism. Prevents one from
making money.

prevents one from stealing money...

'Bama killing more civilians.
 

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 13:29:56 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:

On 15/02/2010 11:07 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:

Have a better explanation for why all of a sudden the government can spend
it's way out of debt to prosperity? What economic theory is this?
Bankruptcy?

It's basic economics, and it's not about "spending it's way out of debt."
That's your foolish twist. You don't cut back spending during a financial
crisis. Hoover did it and we know what happened.

Actually, Hoover was in office when 1929 hit, and too tried to spend out
of it. But had to stop as the governemtn ran out of cash and mounting
debt. Which forced the issue of pulling back on spending.

how can the govt run out of cash? you yourself have been crapping your
diaper over mounting govt debt. so what you just said is that the
depression was caused by the govt NOT going into debt.

thanks. we already knew that.


and why not check he

http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_m...debt_2008.html

to see how govt debt REALLY was. govt debt went to 120% of GDP during
ww2

we're still here, moron


Problem wasn't solved until the advent of WW II when people got cash
paid to them for the war effort. Bottom line, people need money to
spend to have an economy based on fiat currency.

uh...govt debt was 120% of GDP when the depression ended.

just like obama has planned.

and people need money? where they gonna get it?

you right wingers want unemployment at 25%. you want wages cut and tax
increases on the middle class while the middle class bails out your
rich buddies.

what else you got in mind? why not the right of first privilege where
the rich get to rape middle class women before they get married?


Think about the logic of Obama's policy, how insane it is. Debt-spend to
prosperity.

See previous.

I could list the countries that have tried it, and none to date have
managed to do it any more than individuals can.

gee. tell it to the USA in 1943, OK?


I can assure you that if you are in debt and have problems with debt, the
last thing you do to fix it is borrow more and spend it on ****.

I am not a government responsible for more than 300m people.

But will admit Obama be like the Pied Piper. Has a good talk and sings a
song. When are you ordering the jack boots?

Like I said, I'm sure you feel fine calling him a nazi or stalinist or
similar. Go for it.

1935 or so, all over again. As Obama deflects blame, he will pick on
banks, Japanese, Chinese, even Euros... just does not want people at
home looking too closely at the monumentious screw up of US politicial
history.

he's not picking on banks HARD enough THAT'S the problem.

as to the screw up, he hasn't been president for 9 years, regardless
of what you morons say.

'Bama killing more civilians.
 

On 2/15/2010 4:19 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 12:54 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...


Please read previous response.

Why do people like yourself automatically jump to the conclusion that
a
statement of fact that may illuminate a broader influence on a
controversial subject means that the author of that statement is a
"rightie" or Bush supporter? This is exactly the type of current
political animosity that has divided this country. Now-a-days you
are
either left or right apparently. There's no middle ground anymore.

I have never "defended" Bush without reservation. I have, on
occasion,
expressed support for some of Obama's initiatives. I don't agree with
much of how he is trying to accomplish them however.

The first step to getting this country back on track is to stop the
stupid finger pointing.

Eisboch



If that's the case, why bring up something that was always obvious. I
notice you didn't mention Bush the First's invasion either. Or,
Rumsfeld's or Cheney's previous involvement with Saddam. You didn't
mention the British establishing Iraq to begin with either. The first
step to getting this country back on track is to be intellectually
honest.



Based on the few posts of yours that I have read, I would respectfully
suggest that you lead the way.

Eisboch


Really? Please show me where I've done finger pointing without cause.
I've
been vilified here for being female, not "beautiful", "vacuous", a
"typical"
liberal (which I'm not even), told I'm not a patent attorney, a liar,
etc.
I've hardly ever even responded to those posters, especially not at that
level.

Cause is in the eye of the beholder. Your cause isn't neccessarily
someone elses.


Stop acting so stupid. You're actually arguing with an adult.


I am having trouble keeping up with this thread, I thought he was
arguing with nom=de=plume

'Bama killing more civilians.
 

On 15/02/2010 2:19 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 12:54 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...


Please read previous response.

Why do people like yourself automatically jump to the conclusion that
a
statement of fact that may illuminate a broader influence on a
controversial subject means that the author of that statement is a
"rightie" or Bush supporter? This is exactly the type of current
political animosity that has divided this country. Now-a-days you
are
either left or right apparently. There's no middle ground anymore.

I have never "defended" Bush without reservation. I have, on
occasion,
expressed support for some of Obama's initiatives. I don't agree with
much of how he is trying to accomplish them however.

The first step to getting this country back on track is to stop the
stupid finger pointing.

Eisboch



If that's the case, why bring up something that was always obvious. I
notice you didn't mention Bush the First's invasion either. Or,
Rumsfeld's or Cheney's previous involvement with Saddam. You didn't
mention the British establishing Iraq to begin with either. The first
step to getting this country back on track is to be intellectually
honest.



Based on the few posts of yours that I have read, I would respectfully
suggest that you lead the way.

Eisboch


Really? Please show me where I've done finger pointing without cause.
I've
been vilified here for being female, not "beautiful", "vacuous", a
"typical"
liberal (which I'm not even), told I'm not a patent attorney, a liar,
etc.
I've hardly ever even responded to those posters, especially not at that
level.

Cause is in the eye of the beholder. Your cause isn't neccessarily
someone elses.


Stop acting so stupid. You're actually arguing with an adult.

There is no magic day you stop being a kid and become an adult. Human
observation only confirms it. We all look at out own viewpoint, and few
look beyond it. Your statement sounded sort of presumptious about
without cause. Of course we all finger point. Human nature.

'Bama killing more civilians.
 

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 2:19 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 12:54 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...


Please read previous response.

Why do people like yourself automatically jump to the conclusion
that
a
statement of fact that may illuminate a broader influence on a
controversial subject means that the author of that statement is a
"rightie" or Bush supporter? This is exactly the type of current
political animosity that has divided this country. Now-a-days you
are
either left or right apparently. There's no middle ground anymore.

I have never "defended" Bush without reservation. I have, on
occasion,
expressed support for some of Obama's initiatives. I don't agree
with
much of how he is trying to accomplish them however.

The first step to getting this country back on track is to stop the
stupid finger pointing.

Eisboch



If that's the case, why bring up something that was always obvious. I
notice you didn't mention Bush the First's invasion either. Or,
Rumsfeld's or Cheney's previous involvement with Saddam. You didn't
mention the British establishing Iraq to begin with either. The first
step to getting this country back on track is to be intellectually
honest.



Based on the few posts of yours that I have read, I would respectfully
suggest that you lead the way.

Eisboch


Really? Please show me where I've done finger pointing without cause.
I've
been vilified here for being female, not "beautiful", "vacuous", a
"typical"
liberal (which I'm not even), told I'm not a patent attorney, a liar,
etc.
I've hardly ever even responded to those posters, especially not at
that
level.

Cause is in the eye of the beholder. Your cause isn't neccessarily
someone elses.


Stop acting so stupid. You're actually arguing with an adult.

There is no magic day you stop being a kid and become an adult. Human
observation only confirms it. We all look at out own viewpoint, and few
look beyond it. Your statement sounded sort of presumptious about without
cause. Of course we all finger point. Human nature.



Have you reached the age of ascension ... mentally? What does "Your
statement sounded sort of presumptious about without cause" mean in English?

--
Nom=de=Plume

'Bama killing more civilians.
 

On 15/02/2010 2:20 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 11:08 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 7:05 AM, bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 06:16:23 -0700,
wrote:



Have a better explanation for why all of a sudden the government can
spend it's way out of debt to prosperity? What economic theory is
this?
Bankruptcy?

it's called 'keynesian' economics. and it's on pretty solid
foundations.

Lets see. Iceland tried it, fell flat on its ass.

Socialist Greece tried it, and to fund it now looks like they mistated
their real debt levels and is failing real bad.

Socialist Spain tried it, not fairing too well.

Japan tried it and hasn't seen valued growth in 2 decades.

Show me where in history I can find that it worked? I can't see any.
Even
Roman times tried it and resulted in the disbandment of the Roman
Empire.

and our debt service after ALL the money is spent over the next 10
years?

3.4%

That is amost $500 billion a year every year for nothing of value. Or
about a perpetual debt payment of $3770 per worker every year and no
return.

Given the currency float has also been diluted, that is a wildly
optimistic number too. Reality is much worse as inflation will force
rates up or the currency will devalue like a rock.

debt burden under george bush the first?

3.4%

gee. i guess canuck doesn't know that

3.4=3.4.

Does not mater at this point who you blame really. Even if you choose
to
forget Obama's 3.5 trillion 18% increase in just 2 years,
debt-corruption
spend at the end of 2010, the debt of $14.5 trillion isn't far off.

Each worker now supports about $108,000 in federal debt. And it adds
ZERO
value to their lives. Taxation enslavement. Permanent wealth rob.
Money
not spent so it can't create jobs.

Liberal debt borrowing, liberal ponzi currency management is bringing
down
the United States to it's financial knees. Get over it. Probably too
late to stop it too, and no politicial vision and will too either as DC
**** fests the taxpayers with corporate corruption bailouts - certain
long
term doom for the US economy.

As in essence, Congress just expanded the administration debt mongering
capabilities to $14.5 to prevent the US federal government from going
into
default for non-payment. Since they can't borrow, they create. A fancy
way to say United States of America itself is NOT paying it's debts and
debt is now out of control just like Greece.

Ever heard the investment term, "Dead cat a falling..."? Just about
where
we are right now.


You're just daft. Take an econ class and get back to us.

Nope, don't want to polute my mind with liberalism. Prevents one from
making money.


Ah... economics = liberalism. That's a brainiac response for sure!

Not at all. Liberalism is bull****. It always fails in time. Liberals
are more likely to gamble for example. And at Vegas, you are guaranteed
to loose given enough play and time. Because you liberally gamble you
will loose more.

Stuff like Keynesian for example, fantasy horse****.

Want money? Want wealth? Want want want?

Simple, take in more than you spend. Works for governemtns, people,
companies you name it. If GM did this, they would not be stealing $100
billion from coast to coast to support a ****** business model.

'Bama killing more civilians.
 

jps wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 15:21:51 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

Please read previous response.

Why do people like yourself automatically jump to the conclusion that a
statement of fact that may illuminate a broader influence on a
controversial subject means that the author of that statement is a
"rightie" or Bush supporter? This is exactly the type of current
political animosity that has divided this country. Now-a-days you are
either left or right apparently. There's no middle ground anymore.

I have never "defended" Bush without reservation. I have, on occasion,
expressed support for some of Obama's initiatives. I don't agree with
much of how he is trying to accomplish them however.

The first step to getting this country back on track is to stop the
stupid finger pointing.

Eisboch


If that's the case, why bring up something that was always obvious. I
notice you didn't mention Bush the First's invasion either. Or,
Rumsfeld's or Cheney's previous involvement with Saddam. You didn't
mention the British establishing Iraq to begin with either. The first
step to getting this country back on track is to be intellectually
honest.


Based on the few posts of yours that I have read, I would respectfully
suggest that you lead the way.

Eisboch

Really? Please show me where I've done finger pointing without cause. I've
been vilified here for being female, not "beautiful", "vacuous", a
"typical" liberal (which I'm not even), told I'm not a patent attorney, a
liar, etc. I've hardly ever even responded to those posters, especially
not at that level.

No offense, but I don't have a clue who you are, what you are
professionally, what you look like or if you are male or female, nor to I
care. I've only read a handful of your posts. My take is that your mind
is pretty well made up about anything and everything. Maybe wrong, but
that's the impression I have.

Carry on. Didn't mean to interrupt. I have other things to do.

Eisboch

I expect most of what "things" you have to do, include being an ass.

You're more likely than Plume to be disagreeable while you disagree.


Eisboch is probably the most knowledgeable, level headed and caring
persons that dares post in this group. Of course you and a couple
others won't agree but that's to be expected.

'Bama killing more civilians.
 

On 15/02/2010 2:24 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 13:22:36 -0700,
wrote:



Nope, don't want to polute my mind with liberalism. Prevents one from
making money.

prevents one from stealing money...

It does. Self sufficiency is great for ones self esteme. No need to
stoop to steal from others if you are a good honest conservative. As
while times were good, you packed it away...

Why wait for government to do it? If you wait for governemtn, you are
certainly going to be disappointed.

People have generally become too useless. Preditors like Obama know the
theme well with people that have a poor attitude. Obama knows how to
manipulate the low end mentality.

'Bama killing more civilians.
 

On 15/02/2010 2:21 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 11:07 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:

Have a better explanation for why all of a sudden the government can
spend
it's way out of debt to prosperity? What economic theory is this?
Bankruptcy?

It's basic economics, and it's not about "spending it's way out of debt."
That's your foolish twist. You don't cut back spending during a financial
crisis. Hoover did it and we know what happened.

Actually, Hoover was in office when 1929 hit, and too tried to spend out
of it. But had to stop as the governemtn ran out of cash and mounting
debt. Which forced the issue of pulling back on spending.

Problem wasn't solved until the advent of WW II when people got cash paid
to them for the war effort. Bottom line, people need money to spend to
have an economy based on fiat currency.

Think about the logic of Obama's policy, how insane it is. Debt-spend
to
prosperity.

See previous.

I could list the countries that have tried it, and none to date have
managed to do it any more than individuals can.

I can assure you that if you are in debt and have problems with debt,
the
last thing you do to fix it is borrow more and spend it on ****.

I am not a government responsible for more than 300m people.

But will admit Obama be like the Pied Piper. Has a good talk and sings
a
song. When are you ordering the jack boots?

Like I said, I'm sure you feel fine calling him a nazi or stalinist or
similar. Go for it.

1935 or so, all over again. As Obama deflects blame, he will pick on
banks, Japanese, Chinese, even Euros... just does not want people at home
looking too closely at the monumentious screw up of US politicial history.


You're just wrong. It's really not much of an argument to make up facts as
you go.

Those who don't knwo history, are doomed to repeat it.

Take Iran, all the news about nukes... so freaking what? But Obama
probably thinks a good war will stimulate the economy and deflect blame
off of DC.

Just like Adolph did with Germany. A slow deterioration of morals such
as China is the enemy, Iran is bad, must fight, tax, baracade,
protectionism. Not really different at all. Do I think he will get as
far? Nope. But will not stop Obama's ego from trying to keep control
at all costs, including what is best for Americans.

Obama should be focusing his issues on Americans broken financials
including government overweight footprint on the economy.

'Bama killing more civilians.
 

On 15/02/2010 2:35 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 13:29:56 -0700,
wrote:

On 15/02/2010 11:07 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:

Have a better explanation for why all of a sudden the government can spend
it's way out of debt to prosperity? What economic theory is this?
Bankruptcy?

It's basic economics, and it's not about "spending it's way out of debt."
That's your foolish twist. You don't cut back spending during a financial
crisis. Hoover did it and we know what happened.

Actually, Hoover was in office when 1929 hit, and too tried to spend out
of it. But had to stop as the governemtn ran out of cash and mounting
debt. Which forced the issue of pulling back on spending.

how can the govt run out of cash? you yourself have been crapping your
diaper over mounting govt debt. so what you just said is that the
depression was caused by the govt NOT going into debt.


Government can manufacture as much cash as it wants. True, the
government can create as much as it wants to. Create a billion dollar
bill if you want one.

But if no one wants it, it is as good as toilet paper if it wipes good
enough. I could legally print the CanuckBuck. If people want it, it
has value. If they don't, it is worthless. And the more you create,
the less it is worth.

That all being said, the creation of currency is directly linked to
inflation. Create too much and it isn't as valued as much.

To give you an idea how bad it can get:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6982749.stm

Annual inflation of 7,634% and 80% unemployment because of governemtn
carzyness in money creation. I am sure Haiti has a currency, but it is
hard to get because no one wants it.

thanks. we already knew that.


and why not check he

http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_m...debt_2008.html

to see how govt debt REALLY was. govt debt went to 120% of GDP during
ww2

we're still here, moron

Yep, and you have to show it on a log scale to look half normal. Go
find a non-log chart and weap. USA is already well along to currency
valuation colapse.

Remember, inflation is the opposit of currency deflation.

Problem wasn't solved until the advent of WW II when people got cash
paid to them for the war effort. Bottom line, people need money to
spend to have an economy based on fiat currency.

uh...govt debt was 120% of GDP when the depression ended.

And most people were dirt poor.

just like obama has planned.

and people need money? where they gonna get it?

Get off your ass and work for it.

[ sillyness snip ]

I could list the countries that have tried it, and none to date have
managed to do it any more than individuals can.

gee. tell it to the USA in 1943, OK?

Back then, governemtn borrowed money, they didn't create it ponzi style.
See "War bonds". 3% rate in low inflation was considered a good return.

Today it is all risk and not worht the gas to get a t-bill.

1935 or so, all over again. As Obama deflects blame, he will pick on
banks, Japanese, Chinese, even Euros... just does not want people at
home looking too closely at the monumentious screw up of US politicial
history.

he's not picking on banks HARD enough THAT'S the problem.

as to the screw up, he hasn't been president for 9 years, regardless
of what you morons say.

The converstations went sort of this way:

Obama: Screw you banks, you are evil!
Bank: We hold your debt.
Obama: I am going to screw you....rant...rant.shoot the mouth off.
Bank: OK, our investors are out, we are over leveraged, we are
forclosing on 10% of the delinquent losers. Your problem.
Obama: You BSing me?
Bank: Round one, just to demonstraight. Whack...10% forclosures, GM
included.
Obama: That isn't fair!
Bank: You welshers don't pay your debts...you need us, we don't need
another welsher.
Obama: Hissy fit, make excuses. Bailout banks.
Congress: We like you banks, nice contributions, thanks.
Bank: Raise taxes.
Obama: No.
China: Pay your bills and back your currency.
Obama: No.
China: Ok, we tighten credit as we don't want more useless USDs.
Obama: Slaps a tax on them.
China: Tightn up credit some more.
Obama: That isn't fair!
China: Neither is not paying your bills.
Obama: I want 0% interest rate.
China: Nope, 5%...today only.
Obama: We will print it.
China: Tighten up credit some more.
Greece: Hell, we can't boorrow and have $16 billion Euro coming up!
Spain: Damn, we are in trouble, can't boorow either. Bad credit.
Iceland: Poor beggars.
Germany: How do we save face, we are broke too.
Obama: To GM, I need cash from you ******s...
GM: Still losing money.
GMAC: Those loans we made to poor Amricans to buy GM are defaulting,
need another $6 billion...
Obama: Congress, so I don't default, raise the debt ceiling to $14.5
billion from $12.3 billion Ok?
Congress: You bet, we love debt!
Toyota: Why you picking on us GM/NTFSA?
Obama: I hate asians.
Toyota: Will come to congress for a real showdown... Want a 500,000 lay off?
Obama: Maybe we aught to temper this.
Toyota: Too late, honor, something you know little of is at stake.
Obama: Cool off.
Japan: Knock some sense into that skull of yours Obama, we go down
because of Toyota, you go down.

----
And it gets worse.

'Bama killing more civilians.
 

"D.Duck" wrote in message
...
jps wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 15:21:51 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

Please read previous response.

Why do people like yourself automatically jump to the conclusion
that a statement of fact that may illuminate a broader influence on
a controversial subject means that the author of that statement is a
"rightie" or Bush supporter? This is exactly the type of current
political animosity that has divided this country. Now-a-days you
are either left or right apparently. There's no middle ground
anymore.

I have never "defended" Bush without reservation. I have, on
occasion, expressed support for some of Obama's initiatives. I
don't agree with much of how he is trying to accomplish them
however.

The first step to getting this country back on track is to stop the
stupid finger pointing.

Eisboch


If that's the case, why bring up something that was always obvious. I
notice you didn't mention Bush the First's invasion either. Or,
Rumsfeld's or Cheney's previous involvement with Saddam. You didn't
mention the British establishing Iraq to begin with either. The first
step to getting this country back on track is to be intellectually
honest.


Based on the few posts of yours that I have read, I would respectfully
suggest that you lead the way.

Eisboch

Really? Please show me where I've done finger pointing without cause.
I've been vilified here for being female, not "beautiful", "vacuous", a
"typical" liberal (which I'm not even), told I'm not a patent attorney,
a liar, etc. I've hardly ever even responded to those posters,
especially not at that level.

No offense, but I don't have a clue who you are, what you are
professionally, what you look like or if you are male or female, nor to
I care. I've only read a handful of your posts. My take is that your
mind is pretty well made up about anything and everything. Maybe
wrong, but that's the impression I have.

Carry on. Didn't mean to interrupt. I have other things to do.

Eisboch

I expect most of what "things" you have to do, include being an ass.

You're more likely than Plume to be disagreeable while you disagree.


Eisboch is probably the most knowledgeable, level headed and caring
persons that dares post in this group. Of course you and a couple others
won't agree but that's to be expected.


Never said he was unknowledgeable, crazy, or uncaring. He does seem to jump
to conclusions based on minimal observations, which is what he said.


--
Nom=de=Plume

'Bama killing more civilians.
 

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 2:20 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 11:08 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 7:05 AM, bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 06:16:23 -0700,
wrote:



Have a better explanation for why all of a sudden the government can
spend it's way out of debt to prosperity? What economic theory is
this?
Bankruptcy?

it's called 'keynesian' economics. and it's on pretty solid
foundations.

Lets see. Iceland tried it, fell flat on its ass.

Socialist Greece tried it, and to fund it now looks like they mistated
their real debt levels and is failing real bad.

Socialist Spain tried it, not fairing too well.

Japan tried it and hasn't seen valued growth in 2 decades.

Show me where in history I can find that it worked? I can't see any.
Even
Roman times tried it and resulted in the disbandment of the Roman
Empire.

and our debt service after ALL the money is spent over the next 10
years?

3.4%

That is amost $500 billion a year every year for nothing of value. Or
about a perpetual debt payment of $3770 per worker every year and no
return.

Given the currency float has also been diluted, that is a wildly
optimistic number too. Reality is much worse as inflation will force
rates up or the currency will devalue like a rock.

debt burden under george bush the first?

3.4%

gee. i guess canuck doesn't know that

3.4=3.4.

Does not mater at this point who you blame really. Even if you choose
to
forget Obama's 3.5 trillion 18% increase in just 2 years,
debt-corruption
spend at the end of 2010, the debt of $14.5 trillion isn't far off.

Each worker now supports about $108,000 in federal debt. And it adds
ZERO
value to their lives. Taxation enslavement. Permanent wealth rob.
Money
not spent so it can't create jobs.

Liberal debt borrowing, liberal ponzi currency management is bringing
down
the United States to it's financial knees. Get over it. Probably too
late to stop it too, and no politicial vision and will too either as
DC
**** fests the taxpayers with corporate corruption bailouts - certain
long
term doom for the US economy.

As in essence, Congress just expanded the administration debt
mongering
capabilities to $14.5 to prevent the US federal government from going
into
default for non-payment. Since they can't borrow, they create. A
fancy
way to say United States of America itself is NOT paying it's debts
and
debt is now out of control just like Greece.

Ever heard the investment term, "Dead cat a falling..."? Just about
where
we are right now.


You're just daft. Take an econ class and get back to us.

Nope, don't want to polute my mind with liberalism. Prevents one from
making money.


Ah... economics = liberalism. That's a brainiac response for sure!

Not at all. Liberalism is bull****. It always fails in time. Liberals
are more likely to gamble for example. And at Vegas, you are guaranteed
to loose given enough play and time. Because you liberally gamble you
will loose more.

Stuff like Keynesian for example, fantasy horse****.

Want money? Want wealth? Want want want?

Simple, take in more than you spend. Works for governemtns, people,
companies you name it. If GM did this, they would not be stealing $100
billion from coast to coast to support a ****** business model.


And, that relates to economics how???

As I said, you're off your rocker.

--
Nom=de=Plume

'Bama killing more civilians.
 

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 2:21 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 11:07 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:

Have a better explanation for why all of a sudden the government can
spend
it's way out of debt to prosperity? What economic theory is this?
Bankruptcy?

It's basic economics, and it's not about "spending it's way out of
debt."
That's your foolish twist. You don't cut back spending during a
financial
crisis. Hoover did it and we know what happened.

Actually, Hoover was in office when 1929 hit, and too tried to spend out
of it. But had to stop as the governemtn ran out of cash and mounting
debt. Which forced the issue of pulling back on spending.

Problem wasn't solved until the advent of WW II when people got cash
paid
to them for the war effort. Bottom line, people need money to spend to
have an economy based on fiat currency.

Think about the logic of Obama's policy, how insane it is. Debt-spend
to
prosperity.

See previous.

I could list the countries that have tried it, and none to date have
managed to do it any more than individuals can.

I can assure you that if you are in debt and have problems with debt,
the
last thing you do to fix it is borrow more and spend it on ****.

I am not a government responsible for more than 300m people.

But will admit Obama be like the Pied Piper. Has a good talk and
sings
a
song. When are you ordering the jack boots?

Like I said, I'm sure you feel fine calling him a nazi or stalinist or
similar. Go for it.

1935 or so, all over again. As Obama deflects blame, he will pick on
banks, Japanese, Chinese, even Euros... just does not want people at
home
looking too closely at the monumentious screw up of US politicial
history.


You're just wrong. It's really not much of an argument to make up facts
as
you go.

Those who don't knwo history, are doomed to repeat it.

Which is what you're doing... actually, you're just re-writing history,
which is a bit worse in my opinion.


Take Iran, all the news about nukes... so freaking what? But Obama
probably thinks a good war will stimulate the economy and deflect blame
off of DC.

You're just a scared little boy with access to a keyboard, who listens to
too much Rush.

Just like Adolph did with Germany. A slow deterioration of morals such as
China is the enemy, Iran is bad, must fight, tax, baracade, protectionism.
Not really different at all. Do I think he will get as far? Nope. But
will not stop Obama's ego from trying to keep control at all costs,
including what is best for Americans.

Obama should be focusing his issues on Americans broken financials
including government overweight footprint on the economy.

You should focus on retaking that high-school equivalency test.

--
Nom=de=Plume

'Bama killing more civilians.
 

On 15/02/2010 3:52 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 2:19 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 12:54 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...


Please read previous response.

Why do people like yourself automatically jump to the conclusion
that
a
statement of fact that may illuminate a broader influence on a
controversial subject means that the author of that statement is a
"rightie" or Bush supporter? This is exactly the type of current
political animosity that has divided this country. Now-a-days you
are
either left or right apparently. There's no middle ground anymore.

I have never "defended" Bush without reservation. I have, on
occasion,
expressed support for some of Obama's initiatives. I don't agree
with
much of how he is trying to accomplish them however.

The first step to getting this country back on track is to stop the
stupid finger pointing.

Eisboch



If that's the case, why bring up something that was always obvious. I
notice you didn't mention Bush the First's invasion either. Or,
Rumsfeld's or Cheney's previous involvement with Saddam. You didn't
mention the British establishing Iraq to begin with either. The first
step to getting this country back on track is to be intellectually
honest.



Based on the few posts of yours that I have read, I would respectfully
suggest that you lead the way.

Eisboch


Really? Please show me where I've done finger pointing without cause.
I've
been vilified here for being female, not "beautiful", "vacuous", a
"typical"
liberal (which I'm not even), told I'm not a patent attorney, a liar,
etc.
I've hardly ever even responded to those posters, especially not at
that
level.

Cause is in the eye of the beholder. Your cause isn't neccessarily
someone elses.


Stop acting so stupid. You're actually arguing with an adult.

There is no magic day you stop being a kid and become an adult. Human
observation only confirms it. We all look at out own viewpoint, and few
look beyond it. Your statement sounded sort of presumptious about without
cause. Of course we all finger point. Human nature.

Have you reached the age of ascension ... mentally? What does "Your
statement sounded sort of presumptious about without cause" mean in English?

Nope, don't think I have ascended. Mentally, yep, ever study Maslow?

'Bama killing more civilians.
 

Eisboch wrote:

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...


Please read previous response.

Why do people like yourself automatically jump to the conclusion
that a statement of fact that may illuminate a broader influence
on a controversial subject means that the author of that statement
is a "rightie" or Bush supporter? This is exactly the type of
current political animosity that has divided this country.
Now-a-days you are either left or right apparently. There's no
middle ground anymore.

I have never "defended" Bush without reservation. I have, on
occasion, expressed support for some of Obama's initiatives. I
don't agree with much of how he is trying to accomplish them however.

The first step to getting this country back on track is to stop
the stupid finger pointing.

Eisboch



If that's the case, why bring up something that was always obvious.
I notice you didn't mention Bush the First's invasion either. Or,
Rumsfeld's or Cheney's previous involvement with Saddam. You didn't
mention the British establishing Iraq to begin with either. The
first step to getting this country back on track is to be
intellectually honest.



Based on the few posts of yours that I have read, I would
respectfully suggest that you lead the way.

Eisboch


Really? Please show me where I've done finger pointing without cause.
I've been vilified here for being female, not "beautiful", "vacuous",
a "typical" liberal (which I'm not even), told I'm not a patent
attorney, a liar, etc. I've hardly ever even responded to those
posters, especially not at that level.


No offense, but I don't have a clue who you are, what you are
professionally, what you look like or if you are male or female, nor
to I care. I've only read a handful of your posts. My take is that
your mind is pretty well made up about anything and everything.
Maybe wrong, but that's the impression I have.

Carry on. Didn't mean to interrupt. I have other things to do.

Eisboch




Her name is Irene.

'Bama killing more civilians.
 

On 15/02/2010 5:24 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 2:20 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 11:08 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 7:05 AM, bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 06:16:23 -0700,
wrote:



Have a better explanation for why all of a sudden the government can
spend it's way out of debt to prosperity? What economic theory is
this?
Bankruptcy?

it's called 'keynesian' economics. and it's on pretty solid
foundations.

Lets see. Iceland tried it, fell flat on its ass.

Socialist Greece tried it, and to fund it now looks like they mistated
their real debt levels and is failing real bad.

Socialist Spain tried it, not fairing too well.

Japan tried it and hasn't seen valued growth in 2 decades.

Show me where in history I can find that it worked? I can't see any.
Even
Roman times tried it and resulted in the disbandment of the Roman
Empire.

and our debt service after ALL the money is spent over the next 10
years?

3.4%

That is amost $500 billion a year every year for nothing of value. Or
about a perpetual debt payment of $3770 per worker every year and no
return.

Given the currency float has also been diluted, that is a wildly
optimistic number too. Reality is much worse as inflation will force
rates up or the currency will devalue like a rock.

debt burden under george bush the first?

3.4%

gee. i guess canuck doesn't know that

3.4=3.4.

Does not mater at this point who you blame really. Even if you choose
to
forget Obama's 3.5 trillion 18% increase in just 2 years,
debt-corruption
spend at the end of 2010, the debt of $14.5 trillion isn't far off.

Each worker now supports about $108,000 in federal debt. And it adds
ZERO
value to their lives. Taxation enslavement. Permanent wealth rob.
Money
not spent so it can't create jobs.

Liberal debt borrowing, liberal ponzi currency management is bringing
down
the United States to it's financial knees. Get over it. Probably too
late to stop it too, and no politicial vision and will too either as
DC
**** fests the taxpayers with corporate corruption bailouts - certain
long
term doom for the US economy.

As in essence, Congress just expanded the administration debt
mongering
capabilities to $14.5 to prevent the US federal government from going
into
default for non-payment. Since they can't borrow, they create. A
fancy
way to say United States of America itself is NOT paying it's debts
and
debt is now out of control just like Greece.

Ever heard the investment term, "Dead cat a falling..."? Just about
where
we are right now.


You're just daft. Take an econ class and get back to us.

Nope, don't want to polute my mind with liberalism. Prevents one from
making money.


Ah... economics = liberalism. That's a brainiac response for sure!

Not at all. Liberalism is bull****. It always fails in time. Liberals
are more likely to gamble for example. And at Vegas, you are guaranteed
to loose given enough play and time. Because you liberally gamble you
will loose more.

Stuff like Keynesian for example, fantasy horse****.

Want money? Want wealth? Want want want?

Simple, take in more than you spend. Works for governemtns, people,
companies you name it. If GM did this, they would not be stealing $100
billion from coast to coast to support a ****** business model.

And, that relates to economics how???

As I said, you're off your rocker.

You can't talk or think economics today without factoring in debt be it
government, the company you work for or your own finances. For example,
I liquidates to cash all banks, mutuals, mortgage funds, bonds, etc
between 2005 and 2007. Just because the interest rates inverted on
inlfation. So when 2008 went bad, my losses were small. Right out of
some old time investment books and congress chose to ignore.

Debt and credit have a whole lot to do with economics.

'Bama killing more civilians.
 

On 15/02/2010 5:26 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 2:21 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 11:07 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:

Have a better explanation for why all of a sudden the government can
spend
it's way out of debt to prosperity? What economic theory is this?
Bankruptcy?

It's basic economics, and it's not about "spending it's way out of
debt."
That's your foolish twist. You don't cut back spending during a
financial
crisis. Hoover did it and we know what happened.

Actually, Hoover was in office when 1929 hit, and too tried to spend out
of it. But had to stop as the governemtn ran out of cash and mounting
debt. Which forced the issue of pulling back on spending.

Problem wasn't solved until the advent of WW II when people got cash
paid
to them for the war effort. Bottom line, people need money to spend to
have an economy based on fiat currency.

Think about the logic of Obama's policy, how insane it is. Debt-spend
to
prosperity.

See previous.

I could list the countries that have tried it, and none to date have
managed to do it any more than individuals can.

I can assure you that if you are in debt and have problems with debt,
the
last thing you do to fix it is borrow more and spend it on ****.

I am not a government responsible for more than 300m people.

But will admit Obama be like the Pied Piper. Has a good talk and
sings
a
song. When are you ordering the jack boots?

Like I said, I'm sure you feel fine calling him a nazi or stalinist or
similar. Go for it.

1935 or so, all over again. As Obama deflects blame, he will pick on
banks, Japanese, Chinese, even Euros... just does not want people at
home
looking too closely at the monumentious screw up of US politicial
history.


You're just wrong. It's really not much of an argument to make up facts
as
you go.

Those who don't knwo history, are doomed to repeat it.

Which is what you're doing... actually, you're just re-writing history,
which is a bit worse in my opinion.

I can assure you neither of us is going to change history.

Take Iran, all the news about nukes... so freaking what? But Obama
probably thinks a good war will stimulate the economy and deflect blame
off of DC.

You're just a scared little boy with access to a keyboard, who listens to
too much Rush.

Can't get Rush, wish I could. Government censored up here.
Did you know Canadians can't get real Coco Puffs up her as they contain
real and uncracked coco?

Just like Adolph did with Germany. A slow deterioration of morals such as
China is the enemy, Iran is bad, must fight, tax, baracade, protectionism.
Not really different at all. Do I think he will get as far? Nope. But
will not stop Obama's ego from trying to keep control at all costs,
including what is best for Americans.

Obama should be focusing his issues on Americans broken financials
including government overweight footprint on the economy.

You should focus on retaking that high-school equivalency test.

You always know when you have won an arguement with a liberal loser.
They always degrade into some crap statement like that.

But then again, pretty sure you are a debtor.

'Bama killing more civilians.
 

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 17:11:49 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:

On 15/02/2010 2:35 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 13:29:56 -0700,
wrote:


how can the govt run out of cash? you yourself have been crapping your
diaper over mounting govt debt. so what you just said is that the
depression was caused by the govt NOT going into debt.


Government can manufacture as much cash as it wants. True, the
government can create as much as it wants to. Create a billion dollar
bill if you want one.

But if no one wants it, it is as good as toilet paper if it wipes good
enough. I could legally print the CanuckBuck. If people want it, it
has value. If they don't, it is worthless. And the more you create,
the less it is worth.

so you're wrong about the govt running out of money

thanks. i already knew that.


and why not check he

http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_m...debt_2008.html

to see how govt debt REALLY was. govt debt went to 120% of GDP during
ww2

we're still here, moron

Yep, and you have to show it on a log scale to look half normal. Go
find a non-log chart and weap. USA is already well along to currency
valuation colapse.

sorry sport. it doesnt matter what SCALE you use if the burden is not
as high today as it was under roosevelt

in 1943 debt was 120% of GDP. aint that high today. sorry.


Remember, inflation is the opposit of currency deflation.

Problem wasn't solved until the advent of WW II when people got cash
paid to them for the war effort. Bottom line, people need money to
spend to have an economy based on fiat currency.

uh...govt debt was 120% of GDP when the depression ended.

And most people were dirt poor.

as they are today under the rich folks like yourself who want
unemployment to triple


just like obama has planned.

and people need money? where they gonna get it?

Get off your ass and work for it.

yep like i said, he's rich so he thinks the middle class is lazy.

got that everyone? only the rich work hard. the rest of us are lazy.


[ sillyness snip ]

I could list the countries that have tried it, and none to date have
managed to do it any more than individuals can.

gee. tell it to the USA in 1943, OK?

Back then, governemtn borrowed money, they didn't create it ponzi style.
See "War bonds". 3% rate in low inflation was considered a good return.

and inflation today? about 2.5% and the govt is borrowing money...and
spending it

YOU said above that the govt COULDNT borrow money back in 29. NOW you
admit that was horsehit. they just DIDNT borrow money and unemployment
went to 25%

but that's ok with you rich guys. 'cuz average wages dropped 43%
during the depression

and you're loving it. cuz the middle class keeps getting screwed


Today it is all risk and not worht the gas to get a t-bill.

1935 or so, all over again. As Obama deflects blame, he will pick on
banks, Japanese, Chinese, even Euros... just does not want people at
home looking too closely at the monumentious screw up of US politicial
history.

he's not picking on banks HARD enough THAT'S the problem.

as to the screw up, he hasn't been president for 9 years, regardless
of what you morons say.

The converstations went sort of this way:

Obama: Screw you banks, you are evil!

and the rich complain that the middle class STILL has money, the
*******s! so drive up unemployment MORE!!

so how did coddling the banks work out for the middle class?

'Bama killing more civilians.
 

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 3:52 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 2:19 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 12:54 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...


Please read previous response.

Why do people like yourself automatically jump to the conclusion
that
a
statement of fact that may illuminate a broader influence on a
controversial subject means that the author of that statement is a
"rightie" or Bush supporter? This is exactly the type of current
political animosity that has divided this country. Now-a-days
you
are
either left or right apparently. There's no middle ground
anymore.

I have never "defended" Bush without reservation. I have, on
occasion,
expressed support for some of Obama's initiatives. I don't agree
with
much of how he is trying to accomplish them however.

The first step to getting this country back on track is to stop
the
stupid finger pointing.

Eisboch



If that's the case, why bring up something that was always obvious.
I
notice you didn't mention Bush the First's invasion either. Or,
Rumsfeld's or Cheney's previous involvement with Saddam. You didn't
mention the British establishing Iraq to begin with either. The
first
step to getting this country back on track is to be intellectually
honest.



Based on the few posts of yours that I have read, I would
respectfully
suggest that you lead the way.

Eisboch


Really? Please show me where I've done finger pointing without cause.
I've
been vilified here for being female, not "beautiful", "vacuous", a
"typical"
liberal (which I'm not even), told I'm not a patent attorney, a liar,
etc.
I've hardly ever even responded to those posters, especially not at
that
level.

Cause is in the eye of the beholder. Your cause isn't neccessarily
someone elses.


Stop acting so stupid. You're actually arguing with an adult.

There is no magic day you stop being a kid and become an adult. Human
observation only confirms it. We all look at out own viewpoint, and few
look beyond it. Your statement sounded sort of presumptious about
without
cause. Of course we all finger point. Human nature.

Have you reached the age of ascension ... mentally? What does "Your
statement sounded sort of presumptious about without cause" mean in
English?

Nope, don't think I have ascended. Mentally, yep, ever study Maslow?


You're at the physiological level. I get it.

--
Nom=de=Plume

'Bama killing more civilians.
 

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 5:24 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 2:20 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 11:08 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 7:05 AM, bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 06:16:23 -0700,
wrote:



Have a better explanation for why all of a sudden the government
can
spend it's way out of debt to prosperity? What economic theory is
this?
Bankruptcy?

it's called 'keynesian' economics. and it's on pretty solid
foundations.

Lets see. Iceland tried it, fell flat on its ass.

Socialist Greece tried it, and to fund it now looks like they
mistated
their real debt levels and is failing real bad.

Socialist Spain tried it, not fairing too well.

Japan tried it and hasn't seen valued growth in 2 decades.

Show me where in history I can find that it worked? I can't see
any.
Even
Roman times tried it and resulted in the disbandment of the Roman
Empire.

and our debt service after ALL the money is spent over the next 10
years?

3.4%

That is amost $500 billion a year every year for nothing of value.
Or
about a perpetual debt payment of $3770 per worker every year and no
return.

Given the currency float has also been diluted, that is a wildly
optimistic number too. Reality is much worse as inflation will
force
rates up or the currency will devalue like a rock.

debt burden under george bush the first?

3.4%

gee. i guess canuck doesn't know that

3.4=3.4.

Does not mater at this point who you blame really. Even if you
choose
to
forget Obama's 3.5 trillion 18% increase in just 2 years,
debt-corruption
spend at the end of 2010, the debt of $14.5 trillion isn't far off.

Each worker now supports about $108,000 in federal debt. And it
adds
ZERO
value to their lives. Taxation enslavement. Permanent wealth rob.
Money
not spent so it can't create jobs.

Liberal debt borrowing, liberal ponzi currency management is
bringing
down
the United States to it's financial knees. Get over it. Probably
too
late to stop it too, and no politicial vision and will too either as
DC
**** fests the taxpayers with corporate corruption bailouts -
certain
long
term doom for the US economy.

As in essence, Congress just expanded the administration debt
mongering
capabilities to $14.5 to prevent the US federal government from
going
into
default for non-payment. Since they can't borrow, they create. A
fancy
way to say United States of America itself is NOT paying it's debts
and
debt is now out of control just like Greece.

Ever heard the investment term, "Dead cat a falling..."? Just about
where
we are right now.


You're just daft. Take an econ class and get back to us.

Nope, don't want to polute my mind with liberalism. Prevents one from
making money.


Ah... economics = liberalism. That's a brainiac response for sure!

Not at all. Liberalism is bull****. It always fails in time. Liberals
are more likely to gamble for example. And at Vegas, you are guaranteed
to loose given enough play and time. Because you liberally gamble you
will loose more.

Stuff like Keynesian for example, fantasy horse****.

Want money? Want wealth? Want want want?

Simple, take in more than you spend. Works for governemtns, people,
companies you name it. If GM did this, they would not be stealing $100
billion from coast to coast to support a ****** business model.

And, that relates to economics how???

As I said, you're off your rocker.

You can't talk or think economics today without factoring in debt be it
government, the company you work for or your own finances. For example, I
liquidates to cash all banks, mutuals, mortgage funds, bonds, etc between
2005 and 2007. Just because the interest rates inverted on inlfation. So
when 2008 went bad, my losses were small. Right out of some old time
investment books and congress chose to ignore.

Debt and credit have a whole lot to do with economics.


You equated liberalism with economics. Take a class.

--
Nom=de=Plume

'Bama killing more civilians.
 

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 5:26 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 2:21 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 11:07 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:

Have a better explanation for why all of a sudden the government can
spend
it's way out of debt to prosperity? What economic theory is this?
Bankruptcy?

It's basic economics, and it's not about "spending it's way out of
debt."
That's your foolish twist. You don't cut back spending during a
financial
crisis. Hoover did it and we know what happened.

Actually, Hoover was in office when 1929 hit, and too tried to spend
out
of it. But had to stop as the governemtn ran out of cash and mounting
debt. Which forced the issue of pulling back on spending.

Problem wasn't solved until the advent of WW II when people got cash
paid
to them for the war effort. Bottom line, people need money to spend
to
have an economy based on fiat currency.

Think about the logic of Obama's policy, how insane it is.
Debt-spend
to
prosperity.

See previous.

I could list the countries that have tried it, and none to date have
managed to do it any more than individuals can.

I can assure you that if you are in debt and have problems with
debt,
the
last thing you do to fix it is borrow more and spend it on ****.

I am not a government responsible for more than 300m people.

But will admit Obama be like the Pied Piper. Has a good talk and
sings
a
song. When are you ordering the jack boots?

Like I said, I'm sure you feel fine calling him a nazi or stalinist
or
similar. Go for it.

1935 or so, all over again. As Obama deflects blame, he will pick on
banks, Japanese, Chinese, even Euros... just does not want people at
home
looking too closely at the monumentious screw up of US politicial
history.


You're just wrong. It's really not much of an argument to make up facts
as
you go.

Those who don't knwo history, are doomed to repeat it.

Which is what you're doing... actually, you're just re-writing history,
which is a bit worse in my opinion.

I can assure you neither of us is going to change history.

Take Iran, all the news about nukes... so freaking what? But Obama
probably thinks a good war will stimulate the economy and deflect blame
off of DC.

You're just a scared little boy with access to a keyboard, who listens to
too much Rush.

Can't get Rush, wish I could. Government censored up here.
Did you know Canadians can't get real Coco Puffs up her as they contain
real and uncracked coco?

Just like Adolph did with Germany. A slow deterioration of morals such
as
China is the enemy, Iran is bad, must fight, tax, baracade,
protectionism.
Not really different at all. Do I think he will get as far? Nope. But
will not stop Obama's ego from trying to keep control at all costs,
including what is best for Americans.

Obama should be focusing his issues on Americans broken financials
including government overweight footprint on the economy.

You should focus on retaking that high-school equivalency test.

You always know when you have won an arguement with a liberal loser. They
always degrade into some crap statement like that.

But then again, pretty sure you are a debtor.


You're the guy who can't get enough Rush.

--
Nom=de=Plume

'Bama killing more civilians.
 

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 17:49:17 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:




You can't talk or think economics today without factoring in debt

like all fundamentalists he's unable to see the situatoin for what it
is.

fundamentalists are like that.

'Bama killing more civilians.
 

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 16:23:09 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"D.Duck" wrote in message
m...
jps wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 15:21:51 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

Please read previous response.

Why do people like yourself automatically jump to the conclusion
that a statement of fact that may illuminate a broader influence on
a controversial subject means that the author of that statement is a
"rightie" or Bush supporter? This is exactly the type of current
political animosity that has divided this country. Now-a-days you
are either left or right apparently. There's no middle ground
anymore.

I have never "defended" Bush without reservation. I have, on
occasion, expressed support for some of Obama's initiatives. I
don't agree with much of how he is trying to accomplish them
however.

The first step to getting this country back on track is to stop the
stupid finger pointing.

Eisboch


If that's the case, why bring up something that was always obvious. I
notice you didn't mention Bush the First's invasion either. Or,
Rumsfeld's or Cheney's previous involvement with Saddam. You didn't
mention the British establishing Iraq to begin with either. The first
step to getting this country back on track is to be intellectually
honest.


Based on the few posts of yours that I have read, I would respectfully
suggest that you lead the way.

Eisboch

Really? Please show me where I've done finger pointing without cause.
I've been vilified here for being female, not "beautiful", "vacuous", a
"typical" liberal (which I'm not even), told I'm not a patent attorney,
a liar, etc. I've hardly ever even responded to those posters,
especially not at that level.

No offense, but I don't have a clue who you are, what you are
professionally, what you look like or if you are male or female, nor to
I care. I've only read a handful of your posts. My take is that your
mind is pretty well made up about anything and everything. Maybe
wrong, but that's the impression I have.

Carry on. Didn't mean to interrupt. I have other things to do.

Eisboch

I expect most of what "things" you have to do, include being an ass.

You're more likely than Plume to be disagreeable while you disagree.


Eisboch is probably the most knowledgeable, level headed and caring
persons that dares post in this group. Of course you and a couple others
won't agree but that's to be expected.


Never said he was unknowledgeable, crazy, or uncaring. He does seem to jump
to conclusions based on minimal observations, which is what he said.

Richard always makes a point of saying "I don't give a ****" so why
"caring" has leaked into the discussion is a mystery. Donald Duck has
blessed Eisboch with character qualities that simply don't exist.

In my second-hand experience of reading his recountings, he's a
self-absorbed, sour headed curmudgeon. Don't try to sell him anything
unless you're a famous musician or suffer from low-self esteem.
Otherwise, he'll bite your head off for sport.

'Bama killing more civilians.
 

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 19:33:51 -0500, Bruce wrote:

Eisboch wrote:

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...


Please read previous response.

Why do people like yourself automatically jump to the conclusion
that a statement of fact that may illuminate a broader influence
on a controversial subject means that the author of that statement
is a "rightie" or Bush supporter? This is exactly the type of
current political animosity that has divided this country.
Now-a-days you are either left or right apparently. There's no
middle ground anymore.

I have never "defended" Bush without reservation. I have, on
occasion, expressed support for some of Obama's initiatives. I
don't agree with much of how he is trying to accomplish them however.

The first step to getting this country back on track is to stop
the stupid finger pointing.

Eisboch



If that's the case, why bring up something that was always obvious.
I notice you didn't mention Bush the First's invasion either. Or,
Rumsfeld's or Cheney's previous involvement with Saddam. You didn't
mention the British establishing Iraq to begin with either. The
first step to getting this country back on track is to be
intellectually honest.



Based on the few posts of yours that I have read, I would
respectfully suggest that you lead the way.

Eisboch


Really? Please show me where I've done finger pointing without cause.
I've been vilified here for being female, not "beautiful", "vacuous",
a "typical" liberal (which I'm not even), told I'm not a patent
attorney, a liar, etc. I've hardly ever even responded to those
posters, especially not at that level.


No offense, but I don't have a clue who you are, what you are
professionally, what you look like or if you are male or female, nor
to I care. I've only read a handful of your posts. My take is that
your mind is pretty well made up about anything and everything.
Maybe wrong, but that's the impression I have.

Carry on. Didn't mean to interrupt. I have other things to do.

Eisboch




Her name is Irene.

Clearly. That's why she calls herself Em.

'Bama killing more civilians.
 

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 17:24:41 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 3:52 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 2:19 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 12:54 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...


Please read previous response.

Why do people like yourself automatically jump to the conclusion
that
a
statement of fact that may illuminate a broader influence on a
controversial subject means that the author of that statement is a
"rightie" or Bush supporter? This is exactly the type of current
political animosity that has divided this country. Now-a-days
you
are
either left or right apparently. There's no middle ground
anymore.

I have never "defended" Bush without reservation. I have, on
occasion,
expressed support for some of Obama's initiatives. I don't agree
with
much of how he is trying to accomplish them however.

The first step to getting this country back on track is to stop
the
stupid finger pointing.

Eisboch



If that's the case, why bring up something that was always obvious.
I
notice you didn't mention Bush the First's invasion either. Or,
Rumsfeld's or Cheney's previous involvement with Saddam. You didn't
mention the British establishing Iraq to begin with either. The
first
step to getting this country back on track is to be intellectually
honest.



Based on the few posts of yours that I have read, I would
respectfully
suggest that you lead the way.

Eisboch


Really? Please show me where I've done finger pointing without cause.
I've
been vilified here for being female, not "beautiful", "vacuous", a
"typical"
liberal (which I'm not even), told I'm not a patent attorney, a liar,
etc.
I've hardly ever even responded to those posters, especially not at
that
level.

Cause is in the eye of the beholder. Your cause isn't neccessarily
someone elses.


Stop acting so stupid. You're actually arguing with an adult.

There is no magic day you stop being a kid and become an adult. Human
observation only confirms it. We all look at out own viewpoint, and few
look beyond it. Your statement sounded sort of presumptious about
without
cause. Of course we all finger point. Human nature.

Have you reached the age of ascension ... mentally? What does "Your
statement sounded sort of presumptious about without cause" mean in
English?

Nope, don't think I have ascended. Mentally, yep, ever study Maslow?


You're at the physiological level. I get it.

You should ask him if he's referring to Abraham or Elliott. My guess
is that he's an admirer of Lost.

'Bama killing more civilians.
 

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 19:33:51 -0500, Bruce wrote:

Eisboch wrote:

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...


Please read previous response.

Why do people like yourself automatically jump to the conclusion
that a statement of fact that may illuminate a broader influence
on a controversial subject means that the author of that statement
is a "rightie" or Bush supporter? This is exactly the type of
current political animosity that has divided this country.
Now-a-days you are either left or right apparently. There's no
middle ground anymore.

I have never "defended" Bush without reservation. I have, on
occasion, expressed support for some of Obama's initiatives. I
don't agree with much of how he is trying to accomplish them
however.

The first step to getting this country back on track is to stop
the stupid finger pointing.

Eisboch



If that's the case, why bring up something that was always obvious.
I notice you didn't mention Bush the First's invasion either. Or,
Rumsfeld's or Cheney's previous involvement with Saddam. You didn't
mention the British establishing Iraq to begin with either. The
first step to getting this country back on track is to be
intellectually honest.



Based on the few posts of yours that I have read, I would
respectfully suggest that you lead the way.

Eisboch


Really? Please show me where I've done finger pointing without cause.
I've been vilified here for being female, not "beautiful", "vacuous",
a "typical" liberal (which I'm not even), told I'm not a patent
attorney, a liar, etc. I've hardly ever even responded to those
posters, especially not at that level.


No offense, but I don't have a clue who you are, what you are
professionally, what you look like or if you are male or female, nor
to I care. I've only read a handful of your posts. My take is that
your mind is pretty well made up about anything and everything.
Maybe wrong, but that's the impression I have.

Carry on. Didn't mean to interrupt. I have other things to do.

Eisboch




Her name is Irene.

Clearly. That's why she calls herself Em.


Well, it's "Bruce" who's making the claim.
--
Nom=de=Plume

'Bama killing more civilians.
 

D.Duck wrote:
jps wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 15:21:51 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

Please read previous response.

Why do people like yourself automatically jump to the conclusion
that a statement of fact that may illuminate a broader influence
on a controversial subject means that the author of that
statement is a "rightie" or Bush supporter? This is exactly the
type of current political animosity that has divided this
country. Now-a-days you are either left or right apparently.
There's no middle ground anymore.

I have never "defended" Bush without reservation. I have, on
occasion, expressed support for some of Obama's initiatives. I
don't agree with much of how he is trying to accomplish them
however.

The first step to getting this country back on track is to stop
the stupid finger pointing.

Eisboch


If that's the case, why bring up something that was always
obvious. I notice you didn't mention Bush the First's invasion
either. Or, Rumsfeld's or Cheney's previous involvement with
Saddam. You didn't mention the British establishing Iraq to begin
with either. The first step to getting this country back on track
is to be intellectually honest.


Based on the few posts of yours that I have read, I would
respectfully suggest that you lead the way.

Eisboch

Really? Please show me where I've done finger pointing without
cause. I've been vilified here for being female, not "beautiful",
"vacuous", a "typical" liberal (which I'm not even), told I'm not a
patent attorney, a liar, etc. I've hardly ever even responded to
those posters, especially not at that level.

No offense, but I don't have a clue who you are, what you are
professionally, what you look like or if you are male or female, nor
to I care. I've only read a handful of your posts. My take is that
your mind is pretty well made up about anything and everything.
Maybe wrong, but that's the impression I have.

Carry on. Didn't mean to interrupt. I have other things to do.

Eisboch

I expect most of what "things" you have to do, include being an ass.

You're more likely than Plume to be disagreeable while you disagree.


Eisboch is probably the most knowledgeable, level headed and caring
persons that dares post in this group. Of course you and a couple
others won't agree but that's to be expected.

Yup. Richard is too good for this group. And too much a gentleman.
He should stay away.
You are also a gentleman, so you should butt out.
Just saying it like it is.
Leave the group to those of us who know how to handle the lib scum.
These times of national crisis are not the times for reasonable men.
The tree of Freedom sometimes needs the watering of the blood of patriots.

***Are you better off than you were FOUR TRILLION DOLLARS ago?***

'Bama killing more civilians.
 

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 23:33:39 -0600, Jim wrote:

D.Duck wrote:
jps wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 15:21:51 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

Please read previous response.

Why do people like yourself automatically jump to the conclusion
that a statement of fact that may illuminate a broader influence
on a controversial subject means that the author of that
statement is a "rightie" or Bush supporter? This is exactly the
type of current political animosity that has divided this
country. Now-a-days you are either left or right apparently.
There's no middle ground anymore.

I have never "defended" Bush without reservation. I have, on
occasion, expressed support for some of Obama's initiatives. I
don't agree with much of how he is trying to accomplish them
however.

The first step to getting this country back on track is to stop
the stupid finger pointing.

Eisboch


If that's the case, why bring up something that was always
obvious. I notice you didn't mention Bush the First's invasion
either. Or, Rumsfeld's or Cheney's previous involvement with
Saddam. You didn't mention the British establishing Iraq to begin
with either. The first step to getting this country back on track
is to be intellectually honest.


Based on the few posts of yours that I have read, I would
respectfully suggest that you lead the way.

Eisboch

Really? Please show me where I've done finger pointing without
cause. I've been vilified here for being female, not "beautiful",
"vacuous", a "typical" liberal (which I'm not even), told I'm not a
patent attorney, a liar, etc. I've hardly ever even responded to
those posters, especially not at that level.

No offense, but I don't have a clue who you are, what you are
professionally, what you look like or if you are male or female, nor
to I care. I've only read a handful of your posts. My take is that
your mind is pretty well made up about anything and everything.
Maybe wrong, but that's the impression I have.

Carry on. Didn't mean to interrupt. I have other things to do.

Eisboch

I expect most of what "things" you have to do, include being an ass.

You're more likely than Plume to be disagreeable while you disagree.


Eisboch is probably the most knowledgeable, level headed and caring
persons that dares post in this group. Of course you and a couple
others won't agree but that's to be expected.

Yup. Richard is too good for this group. And too much a gentleman.
He should stay away.
You are also a gentleman, so you should butt out.
Just saying it like it is.
Leave the group to those of us who know how to handle the lib scum.
These times of national crisis are not the times for reasonable men.
The tree of Freedom sometimes needs the watering of the blood of patriots.

***Are you better off than you were FOUR TRILLION DOLLARS ago?***

You mean before Bush spent 3 trillion dollars on Iraq and a trillion
on rich folk?

No, I'm not.

How about you, Jim?

'Bama killing more civilians.
 

On Feb 14, 3:56*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 14:53:20 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:



On 14/02/2010 12:50 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 14:30:11 -0500, John H
*wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/yhsqavk

actually he's not.

US troops are entering an area where terrorists are hiding behind
civilians

and no one killed more civilians than bush.

look at the hundreds of thousands dead in iraq

So is it OK that Obama does it because he is black or is it democrat?

LMAO...liberals are pathetic at rationalization.

and right wingers are great at cowardice. *they murder hundreds of
thousands in a useless war

then complain about a president who IS trying to protect america.

figures

And this is your supposed idea of protection?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle7026842.ece

'Bama killing more civilians.
 

On Feb 14, 3:57*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 14:47:01 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:

On 14/02/2010 12:38 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
"John *wrote in message
. ..
http://tinyurl.com/yhsqavk
--
*I never thought the greatest threat to the American way of life
would be our President!*

John H

And I'm sure there are those here who remember you marching on DC when Bush
invaded Iraq for no reason.... You are a hypocrite.

What part of the democrat involvement that you choose to forget?

the part where bush lied to us about WMD's.

of course, right wing revisionists have written that out of the
record.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

Don't worry, liberal-democrats do have short memories. *Even Hillary was
FOR the resultion. *Go figure.

yeah. she believed bush's lies.

That argument never could fly.

And she had access to the same intelligence he did? How gullible she
is, then. Especially when she had the facts in front of her. And the
same went for your former president Clinton, Senator Kennedy and Kerry
as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i87cZ3Og6ts

'Bama killing more civilians.
 

On Feb 14, 4:20*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Canuck57" wrote in message

...



On 14/02/2010 12:38 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
"John *wrote in message
. ..
http://tinyurl.com/yhsqavk
--
*I never thought the greatest threat to the American way of life
would be our President!*

John H

And I'm sure there are those here who remember you marching on DC when
Bush
invaded Iraq for no reason.... You are a hypocrite.

What part of the democrat involvement that you choose to forget?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

Don't worry, liberal-democrats do have short memories. *Even Hillary was
FOR the resultion. *Go figure.

So, when a group makes an error and admits it, that means it's ok for the
group that perpetrated the hoax to get off the hook.

--
Nom=de=Plume

D'Plume. Who has admitted to anything? Certainly no one is admitting
to making a 'mistake'

'Bama killing more civilians.
 

TopBassDog wrote:
On Feb 14, 4:20 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Canuck57" wrote in message

...



On 14/02/2010 12:38 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
"John wrote in message
...
http://tinyurl.com/yhsqavk
--
*I never thought the greatest threat to the American way of life
would be our President!*
John H
And I'm sure there are those here who remember you marching on DC when
Bush
invaded Iraq for no reason.... You are a hypocrite.
What part of the democrat involvement that you choose to forget?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution
Don't worry, liberal-democrats do have short memories. Even Hillary was
FOR the resultion. Go figure.
So, when a group makes an error and admits it, that means it's ok for the
group that perpetrated the hoax to get off the hook.

--
Nom=de=Plume

D'Plume. Who has admitted to anything? Certainly no one is admitting
to making a 'mistake'

Talking to reds just encourages them to talk some more.
Why give them a forum? They can blog at moveon.org or the NYT or NBC
and drown in their own misery without subjecting us to their whining.

'Bama - The liberal who can't hide his true colors

'Bama killing more civilians.
 

On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 05:53:34 -0600, Jim wrote:

TopBassDog wrote:
On Feb 14, 4:20 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Canuck57" wrote in message

...



On 14/02/2010 12:38 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
"John wrote in message
...
http://tinyurl.com/yhsqavk
--
*I never thought the greatest threat to the American way of life
would be our President!*
John H
And I'm sure there are those here who remember you marching on DC when
Bush
invaded Iraq for no reason.... You are a hypocrite.
What part of the democrat involvement that you choose to forget?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution
Don't worry, liberal-democrats do have short memories. Even Hillary was
FOR the resultion. Go figure.
So, when a group makes an error and admits it, that means it's ok for the
group that perpetrated the hoax to get off the hook.

--
Nom=de=Plume

D'Plume. Who has admitted to anything? Certainly no one is admitting
to making a 'mistake'

Talking to reds just encourages them to talk some more.
Why give them a forum? They can blog at moveon.org or the NYT or NBC
and drown in their own misery without subjecting us to their whining.

'Bama - The liberal who can't hide his true colors

You are just about the dumbest stump in rec.boats. Challenging Snotty
for the crown.

'Bama killing more civilians.
 

"TopBassDog" wrote in message
...
On Feb 14, 3:57 pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 14:47:01 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:

On 14/02/2010 12:38 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
"John wrote in message
. ..
http://tinyurl.com/yhsqavk
--
*I never thought the greatest threat to the American way of life
would be our President!*

John H

And I'm sure there are those here who remember you marching on DC when
Bush
invaded Iraq for no reason.... You are a hypocrite.

What part of the democrat involvement that you choose to forget?

the part where bush lied to us about WMD's.

of course, right wing revisionists have written that out of the
record.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

Don't worry, liberal-democrats do have short memories. Even Hillary was
FOR the resultion. Go figure.

yeah. she believed bush's lies.

That argument never could fly.

And she had access to the same intelligence he did? How gullible she
is, then. Especially when she had the facts in front of her. And the
same went for your former president Clinton, Senator Kennedy and Kerry
as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i87cZ3Og6ts


Yet more lies and blaming on everyone but Bush/Cheney (the torture
promoter).
--
Nom=de=Plume

'Bama killing more civilians.
 

"TopBassDog" wrote in message
...
On Feb 14, 4:20 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Canuck57" wrote in message

...



On 14/02/2010 12:38 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
"John wrote in message
. ..
http://tinyurl.com/yhsqavk
--
*I never thought the greatest threat to the American way of life
would be our President!*

John H

And I'm sure there are those here who remember you marching on DC when
Bush
invaded Iraq for no reason.... You are a hypocrite.

What part of the democrat involvement that you choose to forget?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

Don't worry, liberal-democrats do have short memories. Even Hillary was
FOR the resultion. Go figure.

So, when a group makes an error and admits it, that means it's ok for the
group that perpetrated the hoax to get off the hook.

--
Nom=de=Plume

D'Plume. Who has admitted to anything? Certainly no one is admitting
to making a 'mistake'


They've all admitted to making an error in judgement (except Obama and a few
others who was opposed to it). More revisionistic bs from the right... you
can't just accept the fact that Bush invaded for absolutely no reason with
made up intelligence.
--
Nom=de=Plume

'Bama killing more civilians.
 

On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 10:21:23 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

"TopBassDog" wrote in message
...
On Feb 14, 3:57 pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 14:47:01 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:

On 14/02/2010 12:38 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
"John wrote in message
. ..
http://tinyurl.com/yhsqavk
--
*I never thought the greatest threat to the American way of life
would be our President!*

John H

And I'm sure there are those here who remember you marching on DC when
Bush
invaded Iraq for no reason.... You are a hypocrite.

What part of the democrat involvement that you choose to forget?

the part where bush lied to us about WMD's.

of course, right wing revisionists have written that out of the
record.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

Don't worry, liberal-democrats do have short memories. Even Hillary was
FOR the resultion. Go figure.

yeah. she believed bush's lies.

That argument never could fly.

And she had access to the same intelligence he did? How gullible she
is, then. Especially when she had the facts in front of her. And the
same went for your former president Clinton, Senator Kennedy and Kerry
as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i87cZ3Og6ts


Yet more lies and blaming on everyone but Bush/Cheney (the torture
promoter).

WAFJ(oke)

'Bama killing more civilians.
 

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 10:21:23 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"TopBassDog" wrote in message
...
On Feb 14, 3:57 pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 14:47:01 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:

On 14/02/2010 12:38 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
"John wrote in message
. ..
http://tinyurl.com/yhsqavk
--
*I never thought the greatest threat to the American way of life
would be our President!*

John H

And I'm sure there are those here who remember you marching on DC
when
Bush
invaded Iraq for no reason.... You are a hypocrite.

What part of the democrat involvement that you choose to forget?

the part where bush lied to us about WMD's.

of course, right wing revisionists have written that out of the
record.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

Don't worry, liberal-democrats do have short memories. Even Hillary was
FOR the resultion. Go figure.

yeah. she believed bush's lies.

That argument never could fly.

And she had access to the same intelligence he did? How gullible she
is, then. Especially when she had the facts in front of her. And the
same went for your former president Clinton, Senator Kennedy and Kerry
as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i87cZ3Og6ts


Yet more lies and blaming on everyone but Bush/Cheney (the torture
promoter).

WAFJ(oke)


I guess you don't watch the news...

--
Nom=de=Plume