Cheney caught on film, Bush SR. caught on film
 

William J. Clinton, the forty-second President of the United States
(1993-2001)
09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66

Thanks for supporting my point.

The debt grew by a lesser amount in *eight* years under Clinton than it has in
*four* years under Bush.

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On 09 Sep 2004 18:00:47 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

William J. Clinton, the forty-second President of the United States
(1993-2001)
09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66

Thanks for supporting my point.

The debt grew by a lesser amount in *eight* years under Clinton than it
has in
*four* years under Bush.


Now why would you delete the rest of my post?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

He has a habit of doing that lately, especially when he is on the losing end
of a discussion. He did the exact same think to me twice just today.

Now why would you delete the rest of my post?

Because you poked fun at Clinton for presiding over a 40% increse in the debt,
following the intellectually dishonest technique comparing radically different
periods of time.

It made no sense to repeat it.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Now why would you delete the rest of my post?

Because you poked fun at Clinton for presiding over a 40% increse in the
debt,
following the intellectually dishonest technique comparing radically
different
periods of time.

John previously posted:


09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66

"Pretty close to 40%, and no war! With a budget surplus! With huge military
cuts!
With the dot.com bubble causing capitol gains tax collections to go through
the
roof! No federalizing of a huge airport security force! "

What is so strange about the time periods he quoted. He took office in
January 1992 and left January 2000.

It made no sense to repeat it.

For you perhaps.

He has a habit of doing that lately, especially when he is on the losing end
of a discussion. He did the exact same think to me twice just today.



I don't have to reprint your entire post to call "bull****" on a portion of it.

What is so strange about the time periods he quoted. He took office in
January 1992 and left January 2000.

I'll type very slowly and see if that helps.

1. I pointed out that the national debt has increased by about 40% since Bush
took office.

2. John H rebutted that it also increased about 40% when Clinton was in office

***
Important difference: The increase under Clinton took place over an eight year
period. The increase under Bush in four.
Not an equivalent comparison.

********
At the rate the Bush debt is increasing, it could easily be *double* what it
was in 2000 if we see "four more years" of unrestrained spending by the party
that is supposed to be fiscally conservative and believes in "small
government".

Do you assert that the radically different periods of time had no bearing on
the
debt? By radically different I assume you're referring to the events that
occurred, correct?

John, I thought you were a math whiz.

Story Problem:

Bill sold his business to George.

During the last *eight* years that Bill operated the business, he increased the
firm's debt by 40%.

When George bought the business, he assumed Bill's debt- and within *four*
years increased that amount of that debt by an additional 40%.

Was Bill or George borrowing greater amounts of money?

Which manager was increasing the debt at a faster pace?

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
He has a habit of doing that lately, especially when he is on the losing
end
of a discussion. He did the exact same think to me twice just today.



I don't have to reprint your entire post to call "bull****" on a portion
of it.



Struck a nerve Chuck?

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
What is so strange about the time periods he quoted. He took office in
January 1992 and left January 2000.

I'll type very slowly and see if that helps.

1. I pointed out that the national debt has increased by about 40% since
Bush
took office.

2. John H rebutted that it also increased about 40% when Clinton was in
office

***
Important difference: The increase under Clinton took place over an eight
year
period. The increase under Bush in four.
Not an equivalent comparison.



So? Bush faced far greater challenges as I previously posted. Or should I
have typed them slower for you so you could understand Chuck?

Struck a nerve Chuck?

Not at all. But I do understand that some statements look even more absurd
when highlighted as the only item on the page, rather than surrounded by
meaningless pap.

When somebody posts a long batch of nonsense leading to a false conclusion, it
is appropriate to refute the conclusion without having to repeat all the
nonsense.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...

He has a habit of doing that lately, especially when he is on the
losing
end
of a discussion. He did the exact same think to me twice just today.

I don't have to reprint your entire post to call "bull****" on a portion
of it.

Struck a nerve Chuck?

Not at all. But I do understand that some statements look even more absurd
when highlighted as the only item on the page, rather than surrounded by
meaningless pap.

When somebody posts a long batch of nonsense leading to a false
conclusion, it
is appropriate to refute the conclusion without having to repeat all the
nonsense.

Bull****.

Bull****.

Convincing argument. :-)

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Bull****.

Convincing argument. :-)

Succinct and accurate. Something you should try.

Succinct and accurate. Something you should try.

If you find my style tedious or statements inaccurate, why are you compelled to
(attempt to) read and respond to nearly every one of my posts?

Gould 0738 wrote:
Succinct and accurate. Something you should try.

If you find my style tedious or statements inaccurate, why are you compelled to
(attempt to) read and respond to nearly every one of my posts?



You must be referring to Dim--wit, er, Jim--
You're very sharp, Chuckster...since I put him in my bozo bin and
therefore don't respond to his inanities, he's found himself a new
target of opportunity. If you ignore him, he'll be reduced once more,
and perhaps he'll create himself another right-wing dipstick with whom
to communicate.


--
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
And don't forget to pay your taxes so the rich don't have to!

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Succinct and accurate. Something you should try.

If you find my style tedious or statements inaccurate, why are you
compelled to
(attempt to) read and respond to nearly every one of my posts?



Do you also see black helicopters always following you?

Do you also see black helicopters always following you?

Nope. Just a guy compelled to read material he considers tedious and
inaccurate. How's that for weird?

Now the Dems are complaining about expenditures for health care and
education. Of course, the other complaint is that he's not spending
*enough* on health care and education.

How about size of government?

http://www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/gs/c...ht20030905.pdf

How about pork-barrel spending?

http://www.cagw.org/images/content/p...der/146526.jpg

"thunder" wrote in message
...

Now the Dems are complaining about expenditures for health care and
education. Of course, the other complaint is that he's not spending
*enough* on health care and education.

How about size of government?

http://www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/gs/c...ht20030905.pdf

How about pork-barrel spending?

http://www.cagw.org/images/content/p...der/146526.jpg



Don't forget Congress when you are spreading the blame.

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 17:36:48 -0400, jim-- wrote:


How about size of government?

http://www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/gs/c...ht20030905.pdf

How about pork-barrel spending?

http://www.cagw.org/images/content/p...der/146526.jpg



Don't forget Congress when you are spreading the blame.


Included, but I don't think Bush has used his veto either. (Could be wrong)

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 17:56:00 -0400, JohnH wrote:


How about pork-barrel spending?

http://www.cagw.org/images/content/p...der/146526.jpg


Before you go yanking Bush's chain, look at the rise during the Clinton
years.

Uh, Bush ran against Clinton's big government. Who would have thought it
was to make in bigger?

I am curious, why do you respond to people like JohnH, CalifBill and all the
other low life right wing dipsticks?


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Gould 0738 wrote:
Succinct and accurate. Something you should try.

If you find my style tedious or statements inaccurate, why are you
compelled to
(attempt to) read and respond to nearly every one of my posts?



You must be referring to Dim--wit, er, Jim--
You're very sharp, Chuckster...since I put him in my bozo bin and
therefore don't respond to his inanities, he's found himself a new
target of opportunity. If you ignore him, he'll be reduced once more,
and perhaps he'll create himself another right-wing dipstick with whom
to communicate.


--
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
And don't forget to pay your taxes so the rich don't have to!

No, John, I have no problem with you or anyone else I mentioned in my post,
I was just wondering why Harry responds to some of those he "thinks" is a
right wing dip stick, but ignores others.

He is an interesting bird and am trying to figure out what is going on in
his head.


"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 15:31:49 GMT, "Taco Heaven"
wrote:

I am curious, why do you respond to people like JohnH, CalifBill and all
the
other low life right wing dipsticks?


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Gould 0738 wrote:
Succinct and accurate. Something you should try.

If you find my style tedious or statements inaccurate, why are you
compelled to
(attempt to) read and respond to nearly every one of my posts?



You must be referring to Dim--wit, er, Jim--
You're very sharp, Chuckster...since I put him in my bozo bin and
therefore don't respond to his inanities, he's found himself a new
target of opportunity. If you ignore him, he'll be reduced once more,
and perhaps he'll create himself another right-wing dipstick with whom
to communicate.


--
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
And don't forget to pay your taxes so the rich don't have to!


Why do you call me names? Have I said something which offended you
personally?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:UDH0d.174541$mD.114156@attbi_s02...
No, John, I have no problem with you or anyone else I mentioned in my
post, I was just wondering why Harry responds to some of those he "thinks"
is a right wing dip stick, but ignores others.

He is an interesting bird and am trying to figure out what is going on in
his head.



He killfiled me because he got tired of losing discussions to me.

jim--,
That does seem to be his criteria. If he is not successful in using name
calling as a way to try to win an argument, he decides to just ignore them,
but those he thinks he is winning the argument of calling them names, he
keeps repeating his line.


" jim--" wrote in message
...

"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:UDH0d.174541$mD.114156@attbi_s02...
No, John, I have no problem with you or anyone else I mentioned in my
post, I was just wondering why Harry responds to some of those he
"thinks" is a right wing dip stick, but ignores others.

He is an interesting bird and am trying to figure out what is going on in
his head.



He killfiled me because he got tired of losing discussions to me.

Bingo.


"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:d_I0d.29202$D%.11894@attbi_s51...
jim--,
That does seem to be his criteria. If he is not successful in using name
calling as a way to try to win an argument, he decides to just ignore
them, but those he thinks he is winning the argument of calling them
names, he keeps repeating his line.


" jim--" wrote in message
...

"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:UDH0d.174541$mD.114156@attbi_s02...
No, John, I have no problem with you or anyone else I mentioned in my
post, I was just wondering why Harry responds to some of those he
"thinks" is a right wing dip stick, but ignores others.

He is an interesting bird and am trying to figure out what is going on
in his head.



He killfiled me because he got tired of losing discussions to me.

JohnH wrote:
Before you go yanking Bush's chain, look at the rise during the Clinton years.

Is that all you can say?

"Clinton was worse! Clinton was worse! squa-aark Polly wanna cracker!"

DSK

DSK wrote in message ...
JohnH wrote:
Before you go yanking Bush's chain, look at the rise during the Clinton years.

Is that all you can say?

"Clinton was worse! Clinton was worse! squa-aark Polly wanna cracker!"

DSK

Good one!

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
DSK wrote in message
...
JohnH wrote:
Before you go yanking Bush's chain, look at the rise during the Clinton
years.

Is that all you can say?

"Clinton was worse! Clinton was worse!

DSK


Glad to see you admit it.

" jim--" wrote in message ...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
DSK wrote in message
...
JohnH wrote:
Before you go yanking Bush's chain, look at the rise during the Clinton
years.

Is that all you can say?

"Clinton was worse! Clinton was worse!

DSK


Glad to see you admit it.

Are you so stupid that you don't even realize that the above is people
laughing at YOUR type?

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
" jim--" wrote in message
...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
DSK wrote in message
...
JohnH wrote:
Before you go yanking Bush's chain, look at the rise during the
Clinton
years.

Is that all you can say?

"Clinton was worse! Clinton was worse!

DSK


Glad to see you admit it.

Are you so stupid that you don't even realize that the above is people
laughing at YOUR type?

"...the above is people laughing..."??? "....at your type?"????

LOL!

LMAO!

ROTFLMAO!!!!!

Mr. Kisser,
It is funny to see you miss the obvious.


"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
" jim--" wrote in message
...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
DSK wrote in message
...
JohnH wrote:
Before you go yanking Bush's chain, look at the rise during the
Clinton
years.

Is that all you can say?

"Clinton was worse! Clinton was worse!

DSK


Glad to see you admit it.

Are you so stupid that you don't even realize that the above is people
laughing at YOUR type?

JohnH wrote:
On 14 Sep 2004 05:00:57 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

" jim--" wrote in message ...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
DSK wrote in message
...
JohnH wrote:
Before you go yanking Bush's chain, look at the rise during the Clinton
years.

Is that all you can say?

"Clinton was worse! Clinton was worse!

DSK


Glad to see you admit it.

Are you so stupid that you don't even realize that the above is people
laughing at YOUR type?

Speaking of stupid --

There was NO debt when Bush took over. None, nada, zilch. A balanced
budget. (b'asskisser says!)

At 09/30/1999, the national debt was $5,656,270,901,615.43.



He's talking about the deficit, asswiper. And you know it.
What's the matter...kicked off the approved list of substitute teachers?



--
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
And don't forget to pay your taxes so the rich don't have to!

" jim--" wrote in message ...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
" jim--" wrote in message
...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
DSK wrote in message
...
JohnH wrote:
Before you go yanking Bush's chain, look at the rise during the
Clinton
years.

Is that all you can say?

"Clinton was worse! Clinton was worse!

DSK


Glad to see you admit it.

Are you so stupid that you don't even realize that the above is people
laughing at YOUR type?

"...the above is people laughing..."??? "....at your type?"????

LOL!

LMAO!

ROTFLMAO!!!!!

You sure are obsessed with asses, huh?

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
" jim--" wrote in message
...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
" jim--" wrote in message
...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
DSK wrote in message
...
JohnH wrote:
Before you go yanking Bush's chain, look at the rise during the
Clinton
years.

Is that all you can say?

"Clinton was worse! Clinton was worse!

DSK


Glad to see you admit it.

Are you so stupid that you don't even realize that the above is people
laughing at YOUR type?

"...the above is people laughing..."??? "....at your type?"????

LOL!

LMAO!

ROTFLMAO!!!!!

You sure are obsessed with asses, huh?

Naw, I am not obsessed with you. LOL!!

" jim--" wrote in message ...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
" jim--" wrote in message
...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
" jim--" wrote in message
...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
DSK wrote in message
...
JohnH wrote:
Before you go yanking Bush's chain, look at the rise during the
Clinton
years.

Is that all you can say?

"Clinton was worse! Clinton was worse!

DSK


Glad to see you admit it.

Are you so stupid that you don't even realize that the above is people
laughing at YOUR type?

"...the above is people laughing..."??? "....at your type?"????

LOL!

LMAO!

ROTFLMAO!!!!!

You sure are obsessed with asses, huh?

Naw, I am not obsessed with you. LOL!!

Sorry, I'm heterosexual, and married.