From: Chris H on
In message <FJCdnepMLfD7ulXXnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d(a)>, Bill Graham
<weg9(a)> writes
>"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

You really are an idiot. Without understanding how we go to where we are
in this mess you can't get out of it.

> Just remember that when WW-III starts, you too will suffer from the

WW3 is all but over and the USA lost.

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

From: Bill Graham on

<bajohnson29(a)> wrote in message
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.

Here in Oregon, the unemployment rate is 12%. That means that about one
person in 8 is out of work. This tells me that the youth, and everyone else
who has any kind of a job at all is using their money to buy food for their
families, even if their families are their parents.

As to where the money is coming from....The government is either borrowing
it, or they are printing it. In either case, it is coming from ME. I am
retired, and my 401K has shrunk drastically, and the price of everything is
going up, which means that my standard of living is going down, down,
down.....That's where the money is coming from......

From: Neil Harrington on

"Chris H" <chris(a)> wrote in message
> 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
>>is or is not the legitimate government there
> At the time of the invasion the Taliban were the legitimate government
> of Afghanistan

I wasn't aware that Afghanistan had any such thing as a "legitimate
government of" then. And the one they have now seems only barely so, if
that. It does not seem to be a country that one associates easily with the
concept of legitimate government.

>> 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.

I doubt that's the only reason and question whether it's an important one.
Afghanistan's political instability seems to be rooted largely in its

> 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.

And at least two earlier British efforts. But "discussions" with the Taliban
seem a naive and foolish idea, something like having a discussion about
future relationships with a rattlesnake. When you're dealing with a group
that believes cutting off people's hands, feet, arms or legs are reasonable
forms of corrective punishment for paying insufficient attention to their
view of proper Muslim rectitude, what common ground is there for discussion?

From: Ray Fischer on
Neil Harrington <secret(a)> wrote:
>Many people in the news media do have political bias, of course.
>Nevertheless the news people have the means and resources to get the overall
>picture that your anecdotal sources "who know what is going on" do not.

That doesn't mean that they make use of the means. Just like you.

Ray Fischer

From: Neil Harrington on

How many posts are there in this whole "Value of an apology" thread now,

I'm using Outlook Express and it doesn't tell me that, but I think some
other newsreaders do.