"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

In article ,
says...

"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

Hey Dick, good to see you checkin' in.

Scotty

"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.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"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

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.

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.

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:02:30 -0500, Don White wrote:

In article ,
says...

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 02:54:56 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


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



And, Clinton invaded Iraq when? And, Bush claimed that WMDs where where?
Bush listened to Clinton about anything??? Keep defending Bush. You're
doing so well!




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.

because it's an obvious distortion. no one cares what clinton thought
because he didn't invade iraq. and he may have been WRONG but bush
LIED.

so you guys just keep ignoring the FACTS and SPIN them to make it
look like bush was nothing more than some guy who worked for clinton.



That's a really strange and weird interpretation of what I said
however it furthers my point.

This place has gone to hell in a handbasket. No point in further
discussion.

Eisboch

It sure has! Herring does NOTHING here anymore but post political right
wing extreme bull****.

Oh, Loogy, cry a river, build a bridge, and get over it!
--
***Are you better off than you were FOUR TRILLION DOLLARS ago?***

John H

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.

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"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

So, basically, you're unwilling to admit that you don't have any supporting
facts... just your "opinion" based on "a handful" of posts you won't
identify. Typical.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Canuck57" 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.

--
Nom=de=Plume