Harry,
All of your post recently seem to evolve around a homoerotic theme. Is
there a reason for that?



"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
Real Name wrote:
Harry,


Bite me.


--
Let's pray the United States survives the rest of Bush's term.

"Real Name" wrote in message
...
Harry,
All of your post recently seem to evolve around a homoerotic theme. Is
there a reason for that?

Most people I have met that make those sort of accusations end up coming out
of the closet eventually





"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
Real Name wrote:
Harry,


Bite me.


--
Let's pray the United States survives the rest of Bush's term.

"thunder" wrote in message

That's a myth.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Talking about the deficit (which we were) and talking about the national
debt are different, albiet interrelated, things. Also, try an unbiased
source - - you may get a more balanced view.

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:45:19 -0400, John Gaquin wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message

That's a myth.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Talking about the deficit (which we were) and talking about the national
debt are different, albiet interrelated, things. Also, try an unbiased
source - - you may get a more balanced view.

Balanced view? I'd be interested in reading any source that can show
Reagan, and the two Bushes weren't the worst deficit producing Presidents
in the past 50 years. Now that would take a real spin-master.

John H. wrote:
So the news was really *bad* news? Suppose the deficit evaporated overnight.
Would that be *really* bad news?


I didn't say the news was bad.

I said- it hasn't happened yet, so nobody knows for sure AND- the Bush
Administration has poured out so much gov't cashola that sooner or
later, it *has* to accelerate the money-go-round... most economists have
been surprised it's taken this long (if it is in fact happening). Them's
the facts.

OTOH the standard for the Bush Administration: economy sucks, yell about
terrorism terrorism Iraq terrorism... oh wait terrorism is up and Iraq
has turned into the expensive bloody quagmire they warned us about...
let's talk about the economy.

Works for some, eh JohnH?

DSK

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 22:08:35 -0400, DSK wrote:

John H. wrote:
So the news was really *bad* news? Suppose the deficit evaporated overnight.
Would that be *really* bad news?


I didn't say the news was bad.

I said- it hasn't happened yet, so nobody knows for sure AND- the Bush
Administration has poured out so much gov't cashola that sooner or
later, it *has* to accelerate the money-go-round... most economists have
been surprised it's taken this long (if it is in fact happening). Them's
the facts.

OTOH the standard for the Bush Administration: economy sucks, yell about
terrorism terrorism Iraq terrorism... oh wait terrorism is up and Iraq
has turned into the expensive bloody quagmire they warned us about...
let's talk about the economy.

Works for some, eh JohnH?

DSK

So it was good news. Thanks.

Don't need a rant on the whole world. The subject was a decrease in the deficit.

--
John H.
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

"thunder" wrote in message

I'd be interested in reading any source that can show
Reagan, and the two Bushes weren't the worst deficit producing Presidents
in the past 50 years.


Dealing with a large budget deficit, and wreaking grievous long-term harm on
the country, are not necessarily one and the same. There have been
Presidents and Legislatures who have created little or no deficit, yet
harmed the economy and the society through $billions worth of wasteful,
pointless, non-productive, failed programs designed only to placate some
group of whining potential voters.

I'd be interested in reading any source that can show
Reagan, and the two Bushes weren't the worst deficit producing Presidents
in the past 50 years.



John Gaquin wrote:
Dealing with a large budget deficit, and wreaking grievous long-term harm on
the country, are not necessarily one and the same.

Spoken like a true conservative ;)

... There have been
Presidents and Legislatures who have created little or no deficit, yet
harmed the economy and the society through $billions worth of wasteful,
pointless, non-productive, failed programs designed only to placate some
group of whining potential voters.


For example, the Faith-Based Initiative which is a gov't hand-out (which
BTW has never been audited AFAIK) to churches, so they'll harangue the
flock to vote Bush/Cheney?

Maybe you can come up with some other examples.

It certainly causes long-term harm to the nation & to the economy to
hand out billion$ worth of wasteful, pointless, non-productive, failed
rpgrams designed to placate lobbyists who've donated heavily to certain
campaign funds.

DSK