On 13-Nov-2004, wrote:

Winston Churchill once said -
To be 25 and not be a liberal means you have no heart.
To be 35 and not be a conservative means you have no brain.

Not much evidence he said any such thing.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5952/unquote.html

Note that those that are quoted refer to socialism, not liberalism.
I know that liberal is a four letter word in the US, but please
spare us the arbitrary and unnecessary misquoting.

See the recent editorial comment in The Economist concerning the
misuse, particularly in the US and in Britain, of the term "liberal".

Mike

Paddlec1 wrote:
It's at least as original as your constant bleating that the world is a
horrible place and we should all be as miserable over it as you are.
Even in the darkest times in my life, I've never been as defeatist,
pessimistic and depressing as you are as you wallow in your misery. I
truly feel sorry for people like you, but you've made your choice and
you have to live with it. I prefer to enjoy my life, however long it lasts.


You could be right about this Brian. With "undergod" on our side, how can we go
wrong?

What in the world are you talking about? It would really be nice if you
made sense once in a while.

Michael Daly wrote:
On 13-Nov-2004, wrote:

Winston Churchill once said -
To be 25 and not be a liberal means you have no heart.
To be 35 and not be a conservative means you have no brain.


Not much evidence he said any such thing.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5952/unquote.html

Note that those that are quoted refer to socialism, not liberalism.
I know that liberal is a four letter word in the US, but please
spare us the arbitrary and unnecessary misquoting.

The only difference between a "liberal" and a "socialist" (in the US) is
that people who call themselves socialists have the integrity to admit
what they are, instead of trying to disguise it with cutesy buzzwords
and deceptive terminology. I disagree with socialists, but I respect
their candor.

On 14-Nov-2004, Brian Nystrom wrote:

The only difference between a "liberal" and a "socialist" (in the US)

Only because so many folks fail to distinguish the two. What happens
to real liberals who are not socialists? They've lost the use of
the term.

Mike

You could be right about this Brian. With "undergod" on our side, how can
we go
wrong?

What in the world are you talking about? It would really be nice if you
made sense once in a while.

Went over your head huh Brian? Well try this....

http://fallujapictures.blogspot.com/

Paddlec1 wrote:
You could be right about this Brian. With "undergod" on our side, how can

we go

wrong?

What in the world are you talking about? It would really be nice if you
made sense once in a while.


Went over your head huh Brian? Well try this....

No, but unlike you, my life doesn't revolve around scouring the internet
for bad news that I can whine about. I have a life to live.

No, but unlike you, my life doesn't revolve around scouring the internet
for bad news that I can whine about. I have a life to live.

It's your "doom and gloom". It belongs to you and the rest of the neocon
cheeleaders for death. Don't blame the messenger.

Have fun paying down that seven and a half trillion dollar debt your
"conservative" president gave you.

Dennis

Paddlec1 wrote:
No, but unlike you, my life doesn't revolve around scouring the internet
for bad news that I can whine about. I have a life to live.


It's your "doom and gloom". It belongs to you and the rest of the neocon
cheeleaders for death. Don't blame the messenger.

Unlike you, I don't see the world as "doom and gloom" or hopeless and I
reject your pathethic "message".

Have fun paying down that seven and a half trillion dollar debt your
"conservative" president gave you.

As usual, you're wrong. Yes, the debt ceiling has been raised, but most
of the debt existed before Bush took office.

"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
...
Paddlec1 wrote:
No, but unlike you, my life doesn't revolve around scouring the internet
for bad news that I can whine about. I have a life to live.


It's your "doom and gloom". It belongs to you and the rest of the neocon
cheeleaders for death. Don't blame the messenger.

Unlike you, I don't see the world as "doom and gloom" or hopeless and I
reject your pathethic "message".

Have fun paying down that seven and a half trillion dollar debt your
"conservative" president gave you.

As usual, you're wrong. Yes, the debt ceiling has been raised, but most of
the debt existed before Bush took office.

That may depend on which Bush you are referring to.
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

BTW: Here are some numbers.

Date Amount

09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00

So we see that, when Bush took office in 2000, the debt was already 5.6
trillion. And in 4 years, he has escalated it by 1.8 trillion. The last time
the debt was escalated by that amount was from the previous 9 years, from
1991 until 2000. And the last time it escalated by 1.8 trillion before that
was from before this data. So even if Bush 'inherited' the debt, 87% of it
is from Bush Sr, Reagan and Bush Jr. 33% of it is from Junior alone, so far.

By the way, for a real eye-opener, try graphing this data on excel. Then
project to 2008. Here, I'l help you:
http://www.die.net/musings/national_debt/

--riverman

riverman wrote:

By the way, for a real eye-opener, try graphing this data on excel. Then
project to 2008. Here, I'l help you:
http://www.die.net/musings/national_debt/

Using logarithmic scale (2nd graph) the largest increase in federal debt
occurred after (not during!) the Civil War. I have never heard this before.
Was it due to the high costs of Reconstruction?

And contrary to those who say "debt was worse during WW2" note that
per-capita debt is much higher now. It had started to decline a bit
during the Clinton era.

From a river-runner's perspective, I suppose the best thing about this
is that the Feds won't be able to afford Auburn Dam now!

I love graphs.