From: tony cooper on
On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 20:08:55 -0400, John A. <john(a)nowhere.invalid>

>On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 19:25:26 -0400, tony cooper
><tony_cooper213(a)> wrote:
>>On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 22:51:48 +0100, Chris H <chris(a)> wrote:
>>>However this was fully discussed in 2001 in UK.current-events.terrorisum
>>Well that's sorted, then. Nothing like a bunch of know-nothing net
>>kooks to set us straight on "terrorisum".
>Attempting to refute his arguments with ad-hominems and pointing out
>spelling errors, while a usenet staple (or, rather, cliche',) does not
>do much for your side of the argument.
>Just sayin'.

I don't have a side of any argument.

"Ad hominem" isn't hyphenated, by the way. Also, it is singular since
it is a style or type of argument or a rebuttal in the form of an
attack on the person. If you choose to correct me, do it properly.

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: bajohnson29 on
On Oct 1, 2:18 pm, "Bill Graham" <w...(a)> wrote:
> "D. Peter Maus" <DPeterM...(a)> wrote in messagenews:ha2t7p$mf6$1(a)
> > On10/1/09 13:25 , Walter Banks wrote:
> >> Bill Graham wrote:
> >>> "Walter Banks"<wal...(a)>  wrote in message
> >>>news:4AC4E6CE.857D24B(a)
> >>>> Clinton, was the last government in the US to even come close to a
> >>>> balanced budget.
> >>> This is only true if you define, "Balanced budget" to be not spending
> >>> more
> >>> money than you take in in any given year or years. If you define it the
> >>> way
> >>> I would define it in the case of my own family, I mean that I don't owe
> >>> anybody any money, or the amount I owe is less than the amount I am
> >>> worth.
> >>> In this case, Clinton was a long way from balancing the budget. We
> >>> haven't
> >>> had a balanced budget since before Roosevelt. It kills me that we can be
> >>> trillions of dollars in debt, and the politicians still talk about
> >>> "balancing the budget". This is never going to happen.....
> >> Bill
> >> It is a political convenience  when ever the numbers get nasty
> >> politicians
> >> take the first derivative and use the result as their new talking point.
> >> Think about it from a math perspective it will explain a lot of the
> >> rhetoric
> >> for the last century or so.
> >> w..
> >   This is not limited to the art of politics. When I worked for AT&T, and
> > we wanted more money, it was my job to look at the current figures and
> > find losses. Whether they were there or not.
> >   It was done entirely by taking the first and second derivatives, and
> > showing flat revenue where there was growth, and loss where revenues were
> > steady.
> >   Worked everytime.
> Yes, because there was no other choice. IOW, you couldn't manufacture money
> from nowhere, so all you could do was save where you could, and wait for it
> to "catch up". We're in the same predicament, so there is nothing else we
> can do either. I'm not objecting to that. What I am objecting to is the
> terminology. I just want them to make a clear distinction between not going
> further into debt, and paying off the present debt. All we can do is not
> spend more than we earn from year to year. We can't pay off what we already
> owe, and I want them to make that fact very clear.

Could someone please explain to me where the money is coming from to
pay these people that are getting subsidized employment? My
understanding of pArt of the stimulus program was summer jobs for
youth. It was touted as a way to provide meaningful work experience
for youth 14-24. The thought behind that being that those youth would
put their earnings back into the economy because they are one of the
largest spending demographics. Most programs ran mid June to late
July. Yet retail spending was way down in July. And unemployment was
way up. Makes me wonder what the youth did with their earnings. But
what really concerns me is where the monies to pay them came from in
the first place.
From: Chris H on
In message <n_SdnTrQ2MPR-1vXnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d(a)>, Neil
Harrington <secret(a)> writes
>"DRS" <drs(a)> wrote in message
>> "Chris H" <chris(a)> wrote in message
>> news:louP8iQosOxKFAND(a)
>>> In message <gaSdndFLGuUoe1nXnZ2dnUVZ_jWdnZ2d(a)>, DRS
>>> <drs(a)> writes
>> [...]
>>> And why the US is seen as a rouge stage by most of the world.
>> A rouge state? Only by the wingnuts in here. ;)
>>>> It is not acceptable to merely
>>>> deem someone a terrorist or a criminal by fiat. It must be
>>>> established by evidence.
>>> Afghanistan offered to give OBL to the US is the USA had any credible
>>> evidence.... the USA could not produce any evidence and the Afghans
>>> did not turn him over. SO the USA illegally invaded.
>> There is genuine dispute among international jurists about the legitimacy
>> of the Taliban government given the state of armed resistance to it.
>The "Taliban GOVERNMENT"?!
>You seem to be saying that there is some question about whether the Taliban
>is or is not the legitimate government there

At the time of the invasion the Taliban were the legitimate government
of Afghanistan

> because the Afghan government
>and army are showing "armed resistance to it." That certainly seems an odd

After the invasion "elections" were held at which some parties were not
permitted to run for office.... So it was hardly free and democratic.
This is why there is still a war going on.

It is also why the US has now followed the UK's lead (and greater
experience) in saying any solution must now involve discussions with the
Taliban. An "organisation" that has run the US military into the ground
for the last 7 years, as it did the Russians.

\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/

From: tony cooper on
On Sat, 3 Oct 2009 15:12:37 +0100, Chris H <chris(a)> wrote:

>In message <jfeac5dblldvnd2b5rv6i4ih2v2ba7hnaa(a)>, tony cooper
><tony_cooper213(a)> writes
>>On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 22:51:48 +0100, Chris H <chris(a)> wrote:
>>>However this was fully discussed in 2001 in UK.current-events.terrorisum
>>Well that's sorted, then. Nothing like a bunch of know-nothing net
>>kooks to set us straight on "terrorisum".
> See link
>The "kooks" I spend my time with are people at the defence industry and
>counter terrorist business.

You have no idea of the legitimacy of the people you exchange posts
with in that newsgroup. You have no idea of the real extent of their
knowledge. You accept what you want to hear.

>My own personal experiences having years of experience in the Military,

Years of experience in the military doesn't mean squat to me. It is
what was done and at what level, that makes a difference. You don't
impress me as someone who functioned at a level important enough to be
in on much. For all I know, your years in the military could have
been as a cook and all you really know is how to prepare bubble and
squeak for 200.

>Most here calling me a "kook" don't even use real id's and email
>addresses let alone have any real information other than stuff on the TV
>and the web.

Speaking of TV, when are you going to reply to my questions about your
"real information" about Fox News? Were your "informed" comments
about the news segments or the political commentary segments? Have
you ever actually watched Fox News? Do you know the difference
between a political commentary segment and a news segment?

>They have no credibility at all. They do have a political
>bias which clouds their view of the media they use for information to
>make up for their real lack of any first hand knowledge.

That pretty much sums up my take on you.

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Bill Graham on

"Rol_Lei Nut" <Speleo_Karstlenscap(a)> wrote in message
> Bill Graham wrote:
>> I loaned my neighbor a gun. I thought he would use it to defend himself
>> against intruders. Instead, he went out and shot a dozen people. Now, I
>> am worried about what I should do about it. So, I asked Chris H what he
>> thinks I should do. Chris says, "You loaned him the gun to begin with."
>> So, I say, "Yes, yes.....but now, what should I do? and, Chris says, "If
>> you hadn't loaned him your gun to begin with, you wouldn't have the
>> problem you have now." And, I say, "Even if that's true, I still would
>> like to find a way to solve the present situation. Do you have any
>> suggestions?" And Chris says, "You Americans always do the wrong things".
>> So this is the logic of Chris H. It solves nothing, and is of no use or
>> help at all.....
> But before you loaned that neighbour that gun, all your friends (and, yes,
> they were real friends) from around the World told you that it was
> dangerous and a bad idea to loan a gun to that neighbour, giving you very
> good reasons not to.
> You responded by calling them cowards, renaming food items and being
> generally insulting and abnoxious.
> It is little wonder that those friends are now thinking "I told you so"
> and are totally convinced that it is *your* problem.

Well congratulations. You too have joined the blame game club. So you too
have no useful suggestion as to what should now be done to fix the
situation. Just remember that when WW-III starts, you too will suffer from
the fallout.