|
Home > Archive > Home Repair forum > February 2008 > Re: John McCain, liar and liberal punk
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: John McCain, liar and liberal punk
|
|
|
| In article <enKpj.2818$FW3.1223@trndny03>,
"Dave Bugg" <davebugg2@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Kurt Ullman wrote:
>
> LOL!!! Another case of Bush Derangement Syndrome.
You got that right. Derange from Old French desrengier, literally Œmove
from orderly rows.¹ The fact that your laughing indicates that you
haven't the faintest freakin' idea as to what has happened to this
country over the last seven horrendous years. So I guess I can thank you
and you ilk for turning this monster loose on the world.
--
Billy
Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moveme..._George_W._Bush
| |
| Don Homuth 2008-02-05, 5:25 pm |
| On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 06:45:24 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@> wrote
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Lousy, essentially because its a lot more politically palatable to run deficits instead,
>particularly when its an immense amount of money involved like it is with Iraq.
QED.
>
>Greenspan and Bernanke.
I said Seriously -- someone in a position actually to Do it, rather
than just talk about it.
>
>
>
>WW2 is, the cold war and Vietnam, arguably.
No -- none of them are fully paid. The costs were rolled over and
over and over endlessly.
>
>No thanks. And it isnt a presumption anyway.
Yeah -- really it is.
>
>Nope, they have been paid for, the interest on the deficit.
They have, unfortunately Not been paid for. And the interest on the
deficit keeps growing, and now somewhere between 15 and 20% of annual
revenues pay it right off the top.
Much to governments who do not have Our best interests foremost.
| |
| Rod Speed 2008-02-05, 5:25 pm |
| Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> QED.
Nope, particularly if the obscenity of the rathole for money, Iraq, is done with.
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> I said Seriously
You 'think' they are joking about that ?
> -- someone in a position actually to Do it, rather than just talk about it.
You said 'suggesting', not able to do that.
None of the prez candidates are in any position to do it either,
until one of them actually gets elected, and even then, that
individual still gets to convince the congress to do it like that.
There are reasonable prospects for paying down the national debt if Iraq is
finished with, particularly if the Democrats retain their power in the Congress.
Some countrys have paid down their national debt, but they dont have
the problem of the immense amount of money that Iraq has cost the US.
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> No -- none of them are fully paid.
Wrong with WW2.
> The costs were rolled over and over and over endlessly.
Thats not really true about the costs of WW2.
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> Yeah -- really it is.
Nope, try a dictionary some time.
http://onelook.com/?w=presumption
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> They have, unfortunately Not been paid for.
They have in the sense that thats what the grandkids etc are paying.
> And the interest on the deficit keeps growing,
Only because the national debt keeps growing. See above on Iraq.
> and now somewhere between 15 and 20% of annual revenues pay it right off the top.
And that is clearly being paid, so you are just plain wrong.
> Much to governments who do not have Our best interests foremost.
You aint established that that national debt is a significant problem.
The only downside with it is that more taxes are paid to pay
the interest on it than would otherwise need to be raised.
Thats clearly affordable for the US today, just like WW2 was at that time too.
|
|
|
|
|