Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
Not going to play your game Doug - you know what you did,

Yes, I do.

Apparently, you do not.


... it was
offensive (probably not only to me) and I called you on it.


You "called" me on something that you lied about? You "called" me on
something that you refuse to answer questions about your own statements?

Why are you so ashamed of your own statements?

May be you should do more thinking about your own values.

DSK

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 21:12:53 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 16:43:48 -0400, DSK wrote:

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
Let me see if I understand this properly.

You are bashing President Bush by extolling the virtues of Adolf
Hitler who was a genocidal maniac.

???

Where in my above post did I say that *anything* Hitler did was good,
much less "extoll the virtues of Adolf Hitler."
____________
Dixon wrote:
So no, my moderately liberal friends, Bush falls far short of Hitler
in many respects.

Sure.

Adolf Hitler enlisted in his country's army and actually fought in a
war.

Hitler was a talented public speaker.

Hitler wrote a book. Bush can barely read.

Hitler announced his political principles, and stood by them.

The differences are obvious.

DSK
----------------------------

There is a serious disconnect somewhere and I'm sure it's not with me
because frankly, I find this so offensive I can't even describe it.

Think about it some more.

Maybe if it really really bothers you, you'll think before you vote next
time.

The problem with liberals today is that they honestly believe that
they, and I assume you include yourself as one, believe that anything
is fair game when denigrating President Bush.

I don't think there is one person in this newsgroup who will stand up
and say that your comparison is fine and dandy - that you made a valid
point.

If there are, then I don't belong here.

Maybe *they* don't belong here!

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

PocoLoco wrote:
Maybe *they* don't belong here!


If you think that lying, false accusations, insults in response to
reasonable questions, and ignoring plain facts, are all *good* things
then perhaps you should be the one to explain who does not "belong here"
and why

DSK

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 09:47:54 -0400, DSK wrote:

Do you believe in the Easter Bunny too?

Why of course I do. And Santa Claus, The Great Pumpkin, The Tooth
Fairy, Goofy and Pluto.

Everything else is a figment of my imagination.

Ship the Ranger and the Contender to me. You will not miss them as they are
just figments of your mind.

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

wrote in message
oups.com...

Increased spending alone, and tax cuts alone, do not create deficits.

I agree.



Deficits result from the failure to balance income and outgo.


Thanks for stating the obvious.

If the
government wants to spend more money, it needs to collect *enough* more
money to cover the increased expenditure, (not just "some" more money).

Of course. But Republicans believe that cutting the tax rate will
increase
tax receipts as the economy expands.


If the government wants to decrease taxation, it needs to decrease
spending by as much or more than the tax cut.

A tax "cut" does not equal a decrease in tax revenue. In fact, just the
opposite occurs.


chuckie is suffering from static thinking like the typical liebral.




I have stated many times that I don't have a problem with tax
cuts...provided they are coupled with spending cuts. What we have now
are tax cuts and spending increases.

Cap spending increases and cut the tax rate and you'll have a surplus as
the
economy grows.

But the problem is that when the news talks about a "cut" in spending,
they're really just talking about a reduction in the size of next year's
increase in spending.




Regardless of the excuses for increased spending, (invasion of Iraq,
sort of responding to hurricanes, etc)fiscal reality says that any
entity must generate enough income to cover the increased spending.


Yes, eventually. But not necessarily every single year.

Take the NOYB household. Let's say you earn $400k a year from your
practice and take home $250k. (just a guess based on some dentists that
I know, don't be insulted.....).

Those are realistic numbers for dentists in their peak earning years (age
40-50). Once my practice is paid off in 4 years, I'll be 38, and my
income
should pretty much match your example. So no offense taken. ;-)

Mrs. NOYB runs the household on $240k
a year, so you've got enough left over for a week in the Bahamas once
in a while. The next year, Mrs. NOYB comes to you with a household
budget that calls for the expenditure of $350k, not $240k. You tell her
that will be fine because you expect your billings to go up 15% during
the year. Now you're earning $460k and taking home $300k so you can
claim that you have additional income, but the household spending (not
the lack of income) is going to put you in deep doo-doo before too many
years go by.

If my household were like the government, I could expect that revenues
and
spending will increase and decrease over time as the economy goes through
cycles.

I could draw on my home equity line in the lean years, and then pay it
down
in the stronger years. Of course, I have a limited lifespan in which to
spread these fluctuations out over. But eventually it's time to pay the
piper.

The federal government doesn't have a finite lifespan...and can therefore
borrow ad infinitum.


Nope, is not static thinking. Is the truth. Hurts does it not? The tax
cuts were pulling us out of a recession that was happening at the end of the
Clinton Years. Unfortunately, the Congress, and Bush have showed absolutely
no fiscal restraint! The first Gulf war spending bill was 20% pork. The
Highway Transportation bill was at least 26 Billion of pork. All the
Congress Persons who did not stand up and complain about the pork when the
bills were in discussion, should go to jail for fraud when ever they
complain about the spending of money by the Federal Government. And that is
both Republicans and Democrats!

PocoLoco wrote:

Maybe *they* don't belong here!

Discarding personal feelings and apathy, which of the 10 points do you
disagree with and why? Be specific, and be able to back your statements
with facts.

Kevin,
Do you really not understand how illogical it is to use this type of
comparison (Hitler vs. Bush) to prove a theory?


wrote in message
oups.com...

PocoLoco wrote:

Maybe *they* don't belong here!

Discarding personal feelings and apathy, which of the 10 points do you
disagree with and why? Be specific, and be able to back your statements
with facts.

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
nk.net...

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

wrote in message
oups.com...

Increased spending alone, and tax cuts alone, do not create deficits.

I agree.



Deficits result from the failure to balance income and outgo.


Thanks for stating the obvious.

If the
government wants to spend more money, it needs to collect *enough*
more
money to cover the increased expenditure, (not just "some" more
money).

Of course. But Republicans believe that cutting the tax rate will
increase
tax receipts as the economy expands.


If the government wants to decrease taxation, it needs to decrease
spending by as much or more than the tax cut.

A tax "cut" does not equal a decrease in tax revenue. In fact, just
the
opposite occurs.


chuckie is suffering from static thinking like the typical liebral.




I have stated many times that I don't have a problem with tax
cuts...provided they are coupled with spending cuts. What we have now
are tax cuts and spending increases.

Cap spending increases and cut the tax rate and you'll have a surplus
as
the
economy grows.

But the problem is that when the news talks about a "cut" in spending,
they're really just talking about a reduction in the size of next
year's
increase in spending.




Regardless of the excuses for increased spending, (invasion of Iraq,
sort of responding to hurricanes, etc)fiscal reality says that any
entity must generate enough income to cover the increased spending.


Yes, eventually. But not necessarily every single year.

Take the NOYB household. Let's say you earn $400k a year from your
practice and take home $250k. (just a guess based on some dentists
that
I know, don't be insulted.....).

Those are realistic numbers for dentists in their peak earning years
(age
40-50). Once my practice is paid off in 4 years, I'll be 38, and my
income
should pretty much match your example. So no offense taken. ;-)

Mrs. NOYB runs the household on $240k
a year, so you've got enough left over for a week in the Bahamas once
in a while. The next year, Mrs. NOYB comes to you with a household
budget that calls for the expenditure of $350k, not $240k. You tell
her
that will be fine because you expect your billings to go up 15%
during
the year. Now you're earning $460k and taking home $300k so you can
claim that you have additional income, but the household spending
(not
the lack of income) is going to put you in deep doo-doo before too
many
years go by.

If my household were like the government, I could expect that revenues
and
spending will increase and decrease over time as the economy goes
through
cycles.

I could draw on my home equity line in the lean years, and then pay it
down
in the stronger years. Of course, I have a limited lifespan in which
to
spread these fluctuations out over. But eventually it's time to pay
the
piper.

The federal government doesn't have a finite lifespan...and can
therefore
borrow ad infinitum.


Nope, is not static thinking.

Thinking that a tax cut automatically equals a drop in tax revenue is Static
Thinking

Is the truth. Hurts does it not? The tax
cuts were pulling us out of a recession that was happening at the end of
the
Clinton Years.

I agree

Unfortunately, the Congress, and Bush have showed absolutely
no fiscal restraint! The first Gulf war spending bill was 20% pork. The
Highway Transportation bill was at least 26 Billion of pork. All the
Congress Persons who did not stand up and complain about the pork when the
bills were in discussion, should go to jail for fraud when ever they
complain about the spending of money by the Federal Government. And that
is
both Republicans and Democrats!

I agree

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 18:38:24 -0400, DSK wrote:

PocoLoco wrote:
Maybe *they* don't belong here!


If you think that lying, false accusations, insults in response to
reasonable questions, and ignoring plain facts, are all *good* things
then perhaps you should be the one to explain who does not "belong here"
and why

DSK

You have just described the behavior of yourself and several of your friends
here.

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

On 5 Oct 2005 05:16:46 -0700, wrote:


PocoLoco wrote:

Maybe *they* don't belong here!

Discarding personal feelings and apathy, which of the 10 points do you
disagree with and why? Be specific, and be able to back your statements
with facts.

May I use the same kind of 'facts' you use when 'backing up' your stories?

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes