[Arny Krueger]

"Les Cargill" wrote in message


Scott Dorsey wrote:
Bill wrote:

The whole country was going broke, and my friend knew
it. So did Ronald Regan.....

Lets tell the truth. World-wide economic cycles are controlled by forces so
basic and so powerful that they transcend the ability of anybody to do much
of anything really compelling about them. If you are president of the US
when the world economy decides to turn down, well them's the breaks. It is
possible for governments to mismanage their affairs so that the downturns
really hurt, or hurt a little less. Mostly they just move the hurt around.
That is about it.

I find it hilarious that folks talked for seventy years
about how the Soviet system would collapse under its own
weight, and then when it finally did the same people
gave all the credit for the collapse to Reagan....
--scott

The people who said it would collapse under its own
weight were different people from who gave Reagan credit.

Some were, some weren't.

The idea that the Soviet system had grevious flaws and would eventually
collapse under its own weight goes back to no later than the 1930s. Ever
hear of Ayn Rand?

The latter group, the Neocons, had invented the "Russian
Superman Myth" and had to have a prime cause for the
collapse...

The "Russian Superman Myth" goes back to the 1950s. Please correct me if I'm
wrong but the word neocon hadn't even been invented back then.

The most credit that can be given to Reagan for the collapse of the Soviet
system is that he sort of blew on it from several thousand miles away when
it was that close to falling over anyway.

[Les Cargill[_2_]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Les wrote in message


Scott Dorsey wrote:
Bill wrote:

The whole country was going broke, and my friend knew
it. So did Ronald Regan.....

Lets tell the truth. World-wide economic cycles are controlled by forces so
basic and so powerful that they transcend the ability of anybody to do much
of anything really compelling about them. If you are president of the US
when the world economy decides to turn down, well them's the breaks. It is
possible for governments to mismanage their affairs so that the downturns
really hurt, or hurt a little less. Mostly they just move the hurt around.
That is about it.

I find it hilarious that folks talked for seventy years
about how the Soviet system would collapse under its own
weight, and then when it finally did the same people
gave all the credit for the collapse to Reagan....
--scott

The people who said it would collapse under its own
weight were different people from who gave Reagan credit.

Some were, some weren't.

The idea that the Soviet system had grevious flaws and would eventually
collapse under its own weight goes back to no later than the 1930s. Ever
hear of Ayn Rand?


I really meant closer to the time of Reagan's Presidency. in between,
Nixon had had detente, and other forms of reduced hostility were in play.

The latter group, the Neocons, had invented the "Russian
Superman Myth" and had to have a prime cause for the
collapse...

The "Russian Superman Myth" goes back to the 1950s. Please correct me if I'm
wrong but the word neocon hadn't even been invented back then.


Fair enough - although the ideas from it were certainly around. It
got trotted out for political purposes again in the '80s, mainly
to justify spending.

Leo Strauss was certainly holding court in the '50s.

The most credit that can be given to Reagan for the collapse of the Soviet
system is that he sort of blew on it from several thousand miles away when
it was that close to falling over anyway.



--
Les Cargill

[Bill Graham]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Bill Graham wrote:
The whole country was going broke, and my friend knew it.
So did Ronald Regan.....

I find it hilarious that folks talked for seventy years about how the
Soviet
system would collapse under its own weight, and then when it finally did
the same people gave all the credit for the collapse to Reagan....
--scott

Where did I say, "....thanks to Ronald Regan." ? Regan just helped push them
over the edge....They are the ones who played too close to the cliff.....

[Bill Graham]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Les Cargill" wrote in message


Scott Dorsey wrote:
Bill wrote:

The whole country was going broke, and my friend knew
it. So did Ronald Regan.....

Lets tell the truth. World-wide economic cycles are controlled by forces
so basic and so powerful that they transcend the ability of anybody to do
much of anything really compelling about them. If you are president of
the US when the world economy decides to turn down, well them's the
breaks. It is possible for governments to mismanage their affairs so that
the downturns really hurt, or hurt a little less. Mostly they just move
the hurt around. That is about it.

I find it hilarious that folks talked for seventy years
about how the Soviet system would collapse under its own
weight, and then when it finally did the same people
gave all the credit for the collapse to Reagan....
--scott

The people who said it would collapse under its own
weight were different people from who gave Reagan credit.

Some were, some weren't.

The idea that the Soviet system had grevious flaws and would eventually
collapse under its own weight goes back to no later than the 1930s. Ever
hear of Ayn Rand?

The latter group, the Neocons, had invented the "Russian
Superman Myth" and had to have a prime cause for the
collapse...

The "Russian Superman Myth" goes back to the 1950s. Please correct me if
I'm wrong but the word neocon hadn't even been invented back then.

The most credit that can be given to Reagan for the collapse of the Soviet
system is that he sort of blew on it from several thousand miles away when
it was that close to falling over anyway.

Exactly. It was economically an unsustainable system, because no one had any
incentive to do anything but sit around and drink vodka. Regan just happened
to be president when the end was near, and he helped push them off the
cliff.

[hank alrich]

Bill Graham wrote:

William Sommerwerck wrote:
To me, its the expectation of how much money you will make in the
future. I have always liked to think of myself as an "up and coming
millionare" I always expected to be wealthy in the future. I know a
lot of people who hated the rich, and wanted to tax the hell out of
them, and never expected themselves to ever become rich. These are
the ones I called liberals, and I still do. They have the attitude
that if you're rich, you must have stolen the money from the poor,
or gotten where you are by climbing up the backs of the poor. They
are the Robin-Hooders that think everyone who is rich is a thief.
This is the face of liberalism to me.

It's basically true. Most of the wealth of the wealthy is stolen from
their employees, not created directly by their labor. It's no
different from party leaders in Communist countries living the
(relative) high life on the work of the laborers.

There is no truly just economic system -- that is, a system in which a
person is entitled /only/ to the wealth they directly create by their
own labor. Communism is the worst of all systems. Market economies
are much better, but still hardly fair.

The reason most Americans don't accept the basic unfairness of our
system is that everyone wants to get rich, and they don't care how
they do it.

Look up "Labor theory of value" and /think/ about it.

Well, I have studied a lot of systems, and I still think capitalism is the
best. If each person charged what his services were worth, and each one paid
what those services were worth, then the system would be ideal.
Unfortunately, nothing works that way. Because some people are much better
salesmen than others, and some are better at running their businesses than
others. But there is an ideal we can all strive for, and I think capitalism
is that ideal.

Capitalism lives to pay less than the value of services so that it can
maximize profits for those at the top of the money pyrimaid.


--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

In article , wrote:

Y'all don't need to tell me, I"m scared for my grandson.
Yeah ditto, SArah Palin for president. HOw very ignorant
can we get?

Yes, I am disturbed at what has happened to the right. Guys like Barry
Goldwater and William F. Buckley have been replaced by Sarah Palin and
Rush Limbaugh.

I didn't like what Goldwater had to say, but he was articulate when he said
it, and he had a coherent message that he could support with valid arguments.
I often didn't agree with the points he began with in his arguments but at
least the arguments themselves made sense given where he was coming from.
--scott

He was in many ways an admirable man. He spoke at my highscool
graduation, and he was extremely coherent. He ignored racism in the
operation of his businesses. He hired people who could do the job and he
didn't care about the color of their skin.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman

[hank alrich]

Bill Graham wrote:

George's Pro Sound Co. wrote:
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...
Scott Dorsey wrote:
geoff wrote:
So let me get this right (not being from the USA).

A liberal is somebody tending towards what in the extreme becomes
communism.

A conservative is one who tends towards the direction that in
extreme becomes nazism.

Well, fascism, but yes. Either end tends toward state control when
you get too far to the extreme.

And George Bush was considered by many Americans to be too liberal
? Phew - that, combined with the religous fundamentalism to almost
rival the islamists, is really scary !!!

You're telling me.
--scott

In 8 years, George Bush did almost everything his congress wanted
him to do. The only bill he vetoed in 8 years was that stem cell
research thing, and I wanted him to sign that one. So, if you didn't
like his administration, then put the blame on where it belongs. On
the congress the American people voted in every two years during his
tenure. President have very little power, but they take the blame
for everything.

I suppose you feel the same way twards JFK? Bill Clinton? Millard
Fillmore?

Yes. I was not alive for Fillmore, but for Kennedy and Clinton, I thought
they were both OK.Kennedy was fine in my book until he wanted to go to the
moon. That was a ridiculous fiasco that involved 10x too much money for
something that we could have found out 90% as much about for 10% of the
price. But, what the hell, he was no technician, so he let the science boys
pull the wool over his eyes. I thought Clinton was fine, and the Monika
Lewinski thing was a joke. Only in America.....In France, they were laughing
at us.

Had we not gone to the moon you would not be postng in this forum.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman

[hank alrich]

Bill Graham wrote:

So, if you didn't like his administration, then
put the blame on where it belongs. On the congress the American people voted
in every two years during his tenure. President have very little power, but
they take the blame for everything.

Funny that in my lifetime the previous records for deficit spending are
all under Republican presidents.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman

[hank alrich]

Bill Graham wrote:

George's Pro Sound Co. wrote:
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Well, your remarks certainly do shout "liberal" to me.
I am sorry we disagree. As a conservative libertarian,
I only want individual responsibility...

I don't think you do. I know of no current political belief that
places any particular emphasis on personal responsibility. If you're
liberal, you believe that government should do almost everything. If
you're conservative, you believe people should do whatever they
like, especially with regard to making money.

You don't? What about all the liberal welfare programs? The special
low interest loans for fixing up the poor peoples houses. The social
security programs that are breaking the system and causing the
government to borrow money to cover? The millions of unwed mothers
who are on welfare. (I knew several of them when I was young and
living in California) What about Obama's "Caqsh for Clunkers"
program? You don't call these taking away peoples responsibility and
providing taxpayers money for them? Where do you think the money
comes from for all these programs? As a conservative, I don't think
people should do wahtever they like, unless what they do doesn't
take away anyone else's rights. Then they should be allowed to do
it. And, yes, making money is not a bad thing. Everyone should be
allowed.....Hell, encouraged, to do it.

hell while we are cutting out these socialist evils, lets get rid of
the largest socialist part of our society
The Armed forces
lets each take personal responsibility for our own defense.

If the year was -5000, I might agree with you.

So, you have also avoided studying ancient history. Tell us all about,
nevertheless.

But organized military
operations have been here for quite a while now, so in order to protect
ourselves, we have to have a standing army. Hence it is one of the necessary
prerogatives of government. I still believe in individual self protection,
however, and that's why we have the second amendment. The police can chase
down the criminals after the fact, but everyone has to be responsible for
their own protection from crime.


--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman

[PStamler]

On Dec 16, 1:07*am, (hank alrich) wrote:

Had we not gone to the moon you would not be postng in this forum.

Hank, I'm not sure you're right about that. From what I understand,
the real impetus was the Viet Nam war.

Back then, each computer needed its own software -- by which I don't
mean each model of computer, but each computer sitting there occupying
a large, air-conditioned room needed to have software written for it.
That was expensive, and the Pentagon was strapped because so much of
its funding was going toward fighting the war. So somebody at ARPA had
the bright idea that if every user in the country (there weren't that
many) could communicate via terminal with every computer in the
country, they would just need to write each piece of software for one
computer. So they invented the ARPAnet, which eventually became the
Internet. Somebody else figured out that the distributed nature of the
thing made it relatively invulnerable to little annoyances like
nuclear weapons, which was a nice side bonus. But the real impetus was
to save money so we could pour it into Viet Nam.

Peace,
Paul

[Scott Dorsey]

hank alrich wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:

So, if you didn't like his administration, then
put the blame on where it belongs. On the congress the American people voted
in every two years during his tenure. President have very little power, but
they take the blame for everything.

Funny that in my lifetime the previous records for deficit spending are
all under Republican presidents.

True, but the most egregious cases I can think of were ALSO under Republican
congresses too.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
hank alrich wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:

So, if you didn't like his administration, then
put the blame on where it belongs. On the congress the American people
voted
in every two years during his tenure. President have very little power,
but
they take the blame for everything.

Funny that in my lifetime the previous records for deficit spending are
all under Republican presidents.

True, but the most egregious cases I can think of were ALSO under
Republican
congresses too.

It is simply because the republicans are in control of more business(than
the democrats) that suck off the public tit, and moving money into the
deficit spending creates profits in their personal fortunes feed by not real
labor or productivity but rather by our tax dollars
so it is natural for the republicans to overfund the activities that funnel
our tax dollars into their pockets
George

[Scott Dorsey]

PStamler wrote:
On Dec 16, 1:07=A0am, (hank alrich) wrote:

Had we not gone to the moon you would not be postng in this forum.

Hank, I'm not sure you're right about that. From what I understand,
the real impetus was the Viet Nam war.

Some of it. The big deal with the arpanet -was- that computational power
was expensive and being able to use machines all over the country would
help equalize load... you could use a machine at Stanford when it was still
night there and nobody had come in yet, and then when it was after hours on
the east coast you could use a machine at MIT instead.

And some of that WAS due to the war.

However, there was a lot of other research done before the Arpanet, including
the original SAGE system in the 1950s which linked a large number of computers
over data lines as part of the distant early warning system to intercept
a possible Soviet attack.

A lot of additional research on data communications _was_ a result of the
space program. While the Soviets were willing to just allow spacecraft to
lose contact with mission control when they went over the horizon, the US
set up an extensive tracking network circling the world from Australia to
Hawaii to California to Florida to Ascension to Greenwich to Turkey
(and with a couple instrumented ships in the bargain), so that contact would
never be lost. A _huge_ amount of what we know today about pumping lots of
data from place to place and pretty much all of what we know about TDM
came out of that research. In the earlier Mercury days it was made worse
since the only actual big computer was up at Goddard and so all trajectory
calculations had to be done there and then shipped back to mission control
at Kennedy or Houston. Later on the Bermuda tracking station got a computer
and as prices came down soon they were all over. (All this stuff was circuit
switched, though... it took the Arpanet to make packet switching a reality.
In fact, the current Deep Space Network is still mostly circuit switched data
since it's dependant on meeting realtime deadlines.)

I recommend a book called "I Read You Loud and Clear" by Sunny Tsiao. It
skips over a lot of technical details and it doesn't talk so much about the
transitions between the various technologies (which were a lot more gradual
than official word would have you believe), but it's a good read.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Les Cargill[_2_]]

George's Pro Sound Co. wrote:
"Scott wrote in message
...
hank wrote:
Bill wrote:

So, if you didn't like his administration, then
put the blame on where it belongs. On the congress the American people
voted
in every two years during his tenure. President have very little power,
but
they take the blame for everything.

Funny that in my lifetime the previous records for deficit spending are
all under Republican presidents.

True, but the most egregious cases I can think of were ALSO under
Republican
congresses too.

It is simply because the republicans are in control of more business(than
the democrats) that suck off the public tit, and moving money into the
deficit spending creates profits in their personal fortunes feed by not real
labor or productivity but rather by our tax dollars

Nah. It is more that since the death of FDR, when Republicans
want to spend money, they spend it on things. The Democrats
want to spend money on people.

The people who are Republican now are not particularly white-shoe,
yacht club Yalies. They're carpet store owners, or members of certain
churches.

Interesting graphic he
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?type=A

Lotta blue at the top. "Rich" now means corporate America,
and that's pretty bipartisan.

so it is natural for the republicans to overfund the activities that funnel
our tax dollars into their pockets

The number of people who can do that is very, very small. The companies
they represent are basically what's left of the companies
that built these things in the first place.

The reason you have a Halliburton like we do ( it used to be just
an oilfield service company ) is because there has been so much
consolidation in those types of engineering. Much fewer people do
that sort of work now. A lot of the BP oil spill is also
due to relentless cost cutting. At some point, you are no
longer cost cutting - you're gambling - but it's hard
to tell where that exactly happens... the cost cuts are
tangible; the risk increases aren't.

George


--
Les Cargill

[Bill Graham]

hank alrich wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:

William Sommerwerck wrote:
To me, its the expectation of how much money you will make in the
future. I have always liked to think of myself as an "up and coming
millionare" I always expected to be wealthy in the future. I know a
lot of people who hated the rich, and wanted to tax the hell out of
them, and never expected themselves to ever become rich. These are
the ones I called liberals, and I still do. They have the attitude
that if you're rich, you must have stolen the money from the poor,
or gotten where you are by climbing up the backs of the poor. They
are the Robin-Hooders that think everyone who is rich is a thief.
This is the face of liberalism to me.

It's basically true. Most of the wealth of the wealthy is stolen
from their employees, not created directly by their labor. It's no
different from party leaders in Communist countries living the
(relative) high life on the work of the laborers.

There is no truly just economic system -- that is, a system in
which a person is entitled /only/ to the wealth they directly
create by their own labor. Communism is the worst of all systems.
Market economies are much better, but still hardly fair.

The reason most Americans don't accept the basic unfairness of our
system is that everyone wants to get rich, and they don't care how
they do it.

Look up "Labor theory of value" and /think/ about it.

Well, I have studied a lot of systems, and I still think capitalism
is the best. If each person charged what his services were worth,
and each one paid what those services were worth, then the system
would be ideal. Unfortunately, nothing works that way. Because some
people are much better salesmen than others, and some are better at
running their businesses than others. But there is an ideal we can
all strive for, and I think capitalism is that ideal.

Capitalism lives to pay less than the value of services so that it can
maximize profits for those at the top of the money pyrimaid.

Of course, but it also depends on competition for its success. Without
competition, it doesn't work. And in our democracy, the lobbiests have
effectively figured out how to eliminate competition by buying off our
legislaters to make laws in restraing to trade.

[Bill Graham]

hank alrich wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:

George's Pro Sound Co. wrote:
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...
Scott Dorsey wrote:
geoff wrote:
So let me get this right (not being from the USA).

A liberal is somebody tending towards what in the extreme becomes
communism.

A conservative is one who tends towards the direction that in
extreme becomes nazism.

Well, fascism, but yes. Either end tends toward state control
when you get too far to the extreme.

And George Bush was considered by many Americans to be too
liberal ? Phew - that, combined with the religous fundamentalism
to almost rival the islamists, is really scary !!!

You're telling me.
--scott

In 8 years, George Bush did almost everything his congress wanted
him to do. The only bill he vetoed in 8 years was that stem cell
research thing, and I wanted him to sign that one. So, if you
didn't like his administration, then put the blame on where it
belongs. On the congress the American people voted in every two
years during his tenure. President have very little power, but
they take the blame for everything.

I suppose you feel the same way twards JFK? Bill Clinton? Millard
Fillmore?

Yes. I was not alive for Fillmore, but for Kennedy and Clinton, I
thought they were both OK.Kennedy was fine in my book until he
wanted to go to the moon. That was a ridiculous fiasco that involved
10x too much money for something that we could have found out 90% as
much about for 10% of the price. But, what the hell, he was no
technician, so he let the science boys pull the wool over his eyes.
I thought Clinton was fine, and the Monika Lewinski thing was a
joke. Only in America.....In France, they were laughing at us.

Had we not gone to the moon you would not be postng in this forum.

How do you figure that? Had we not gone to the moon, there would have been
several billion dollars available for universities to research the solar
system that were sapped up by the Apollo fiasco. As it was, all that
research had to wait about 30 years. All those programs were scrapped by
giving a dozen ass-naughts a 1/2 million mile free ride.

[Bill Graham]

hank alrich wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:

So, if you didn't like his administration, then
put the blame on where it belongs. On the congress the American
people voted in every two years during his tenure. President have
very little power, but they take the blame for everything.

Funny that in my lifetime the previous records for deficit spending
are all under Republican presidents.

Then you must have died on January first, 2008. How can you post from the
grave?

[Bill Graham]

hank alrich wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:

George's Pro Sound Co. wrote:
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Well, your remarks certainly do shout "liberal" to me.
I am sorry we disagree. As a conservative libertarian,
I only want individual responsibility...

I don't think you do. I know of no current political belief that
places any particular emphasis on personal responsibility. If
you're liberal, you believe that government should do almost
everything. If you're conservative, you believe people should do
whatever they like, especially with regard to making money.

You don't? What about all the liberal welfare programs? The special
low interest loans for fixing up the poor peoples houses. The
social security programs that are breaking the system and causing
the government to borrow money to cover? The millions of unwed
mothers who are on welfare. (I knew several of them when I was
young and living in California) What about Obama's "Caqsh for
Clunkers" program? You don't call these taking away peoples
responsibility and providing taxpayers money for them? Where do
you think the money comes from for all these programs? As a
conservative, I don't think people should do wahtever they like,
unless what they do doesn't take away anyone else's rights. Then
they should be allowed to do it. And, yes, making money is not a
bad thing. Everyone should be allowed.....Hell, encouraged, to do
it.

hell while we are cutting out these socialist evils, lets get rid of
the largest socialist part of our society
The Armed forces
lets each take personal responsibility for our own defense.

If the year was -5000, I might agree with you.

So, you have also avoided studying ancient history. Tell us all about,
nevertheless.

Whoops! The "makes sense" meter just went to zero......

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

A lot of the BP oil spill is also
due to relentless cost cutting. At some point, you are no
longer cost cutting - you're gambling - but it's hard
to tell where that exactly happens... the cost cuts are
tangible; the risk increases aren't.

Myself I believe the BP cost cutting was done to keep BPcompetitve in the
USA market and it was us the consumers that demanded the cheapest gas we can
get there by setting up the dominios for such a disaster
George

[hank alrich]

Bill Graham wrote:

hank alrich wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:

So, if you didn't like his administration, then
put the blame on where it belongs. On the congress the American
people voted in every two years during his tenure. President have
very little power, but they take the blame for everything.

Funny that in my lifetime the previous records for deficit spending
are all under Republican presidents.

Then you must have died on January first, 2008. How can you post from the
grave?

In the dictionary you could find the word "previous". Then if you are an
honest man you would concede that a Repub admin handed the new guy a
load of deficit spending on wars.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman

[hank alrich]

Bill Graham wrote:

hank alrich wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:

George's Pro Sound Co. wrote:
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Well, your remarks certainly do shout "liberal" to me.
I am sorry we disagree. As a conservative libertarian,
I only want individual responsibility...

I don't think you do. I know of no current political belief that
places any particular emphasis on personal responsibility. If
you're liberal, you believe that government should do almost
everything. If you're conservative, you believe people should do
whatever they like, especially with regard to making money.

You don't? What about all the liberal welfare programs? The special
low interest loans for fixing up the poor peoples houses. The
social security programs that are breaking the system and causing
the government to borrow money to cover? The millions of unwed
mothers who are on welfare. (I knew several of them when I was
young and living in California) What about Obama's "Caqsh for
Clunkers" program? You don't call these taking away peoples
responsibility and providing taxpayers money for them? Where do
you think the money comes from for all these programs? As a
conservative, I don't think people should do wahtever they like,
unless what they do doesn't take away anyone else's rights. Then
they should be allowed to do it. And, yes, making money is not a
bad thing. Everyone should be allowed.....Hell, encouraged, to do
it.

hell while we are cutting out these socialist evils, lets get rid of
the largest socialist part of our society
The Armed forces
lets each take personal responsibility for our own defense.

If the year was -5000, I might agree with you.

So, you have also avoided studying ancient history. Tell us all about,
nevertheless.

Whoops! The "makes sense" meter just went to zero......

You're the one who brought up the year -5000...

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman

[Bill Graham]

George's Pro Sound Co. wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
hank alrich wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:

So, if you didn't like his administration, then
put the blame on where it belongs. On the congress the American
people voted
in every two years during his tenure. President have very little
power, but
they take the blame for everything.

Funny that in my lifetime the previous records for deficit spending
are all under Republican presidents.

True, but the most egregious cases I can think of were ALSO under
Republican
congresses too.

It is simply because the republicans are in control of more
business(than the democrats) that suck off the public tit, and moving
money into the deficit spending creates profits in their personal
fortunes feed by not real labor or productivity but rather by our tax
dollars so it is natural for the republicans to overfund the activities
that
funnel our tax dollars into their pockets
George

Replace "republicans" with "congressmen" and I would agree with all of that.
Putting taxpayers money in your pocket is not an activity peculiar to
republicans.

[Bill Graham]

hank alrich wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:

hank alrich wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:

So, if you didn't like his administration, then
put the blame on where it belongs. On the congress the American
people voted in every two years during his tenure. President have
very little power, but they take the blame for everything.

Funny that in my lifetime the previous records for deficit spending
are all under Republican presidents.

Then you must have died on January first, 2008. How can you post
from the grave?

In the dictionary you could find the word "previous". Then if you are
an honest man you would concede that a Repub admin handed the new guy
a load of deficit spending on wars.

First off, I don't blame him for the spending. I blame that on the liberal
democrats who still believe in Keneysian economics. (Nancy Pelosi, Barney
Frank, Chris Dodd, et al.) And secondly, who said I was in love with the
Republicans? They are all liberals under the skin. I am a libertarian.