| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
| Date: |
26 Jan 2005 01:17:35 PM |
| Object: |
Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
Worst fucking president? The numbers don't lie.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1756&e=1&u=/050125/photos_pl/deficit_2005_graphic
And these are the White House's own numbers.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
A.A #1143 PLONKED by Bob
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
27 Jan 2005 02:23:26 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" < > wrote in
news:b6pnc2-12u.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" < > wrote in
news:5nnnc2-rqt.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Vic Sagerquist <address@withheld.com> wrote in
news:Xns95EB5F91644F8vicman@127.0.0.1:
on 27 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Fred Stone dropped trou, farted,
whirled, then shouted:
Yeah, tough to argue with numbers.
Sorry, Rev, but damn near 1/2 the country aren't Moore-ons.
Oooo, there's a new one!
I got into an argument with my boss about those figures yesterday.
Turns out he was completely unaware of the state of the deficit.
As I suspect half the country is...
Shucks, there are more than a few who think that Clinton actually
had a budget surplus.
And ain't it a damn shame that the White House's own report, supports
that claim.
Fred, you don't look good with your foot in your mouth.
Too bad, sucker, you fell for the same old accounting fraud that the
Feds have used for decades. Just don't count Social Security and
Medicare as part of the "budget".
Fred, go back and read the link again.
IT's the report from the White House. As it were, right from hat
heads own mouth.
So? You believe everything that comes from the White House?
You are attempting to argue, against a report, by your bestest buddy,
and all of his little friends.
Yawn. Only to a singleminded idiot librul.
And their report, does not show a favorable light, on Mr. Cattle Crap.
Which means it must be the gospel truth, right?
So which is it Fred?
Is the White House lying?
Or is George lying?
However, since they are pretty much one in the same, it really does not
matter. Ultimately, George is responsible.
And you are just to fanatical in your following of the little man to see
past the lies.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
A.A #1143 PLONKED by Bob
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
27 Jan 2005 03:06:33 PM |
|
|
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote in
news:gcvnc2-9ou.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote in
news:b6pnc2-12u.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote in
news:5nnnc2-rqt.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Vic Sagerquist <address@withheld.com> wrote in
news:Xns95EB5F91644F8vicman@127.0.0.1:
on 27 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Fred Stone dropped trou, farted,
whirled, then shouted:
Yeah, tough to argue with numbers.
Sorry, Rev, but damn near 1/2 the country aren't Moore-ons.
Oooo, there's a new one!
I got into an argument with my boss about those figures
yesterday. Turns out he was completely unaware of the state of
the deficit. As I suspect half the country is...
Shucks, there are more than a few who think that Clinton actually
had a budget surplus.
And ain't it a damn shame that the White House's own report,
supports that claim.
Fred, you don't look good with your foot in your mouth.
Too bad, sucker, you fell for the same old accounting fraud that the
Feds have used for decades. Just don't count Social Security and
Medicare as part of the "budget".
Fred, go back and read the link again.
IT's the report from the White House. As it were, right from hat
heads own mouth.
So? You believe everything that comes from the White House?
You are attempting to argue, against a report, by your bestest buddy,
and all of his little friends.
Yawn. Only to a singleminded idiot librul.
And their report, does not show a favorable light, on Mr. Cattle
Crap.
Which means it must be the gospel truth, right?
So which is it Fred?
Is the White House lying?
Or is George lying?
Neither. Like most political spin, it's as transparent as glass, to anyone
who pays attention. Too bad you don't pay enough attention.
However, since they are pretty much one in the same, it really does
not matter. Ultimately, George is responsible.
And you are just to fanatical in your following of the little man to
see past the lies.
And you are just too fanatical in your hatred of the President to see past
the lies you've been swallowing.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Support bacteria! That's all the culture many people will ever have.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
27 Jan 2005 03:45:46 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" < > wrote in
news:gcvnc2-9ou.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" < > wrote in
news:b6pnc2-12u.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" < > wrote in
news:5nnnc2-rqt.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Vic Sagerquist <address@withheld.com> wrote in
news:Xns95EB5F91644F8vicman@127.0.0.1:
on 27 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Fred Stone dropped trou, farted,
whirled, then shouted:
Yeah, tough to argue with numbers.
Sorry, Rev, but damn near 1/2 the country aren't Moore-ons.
Oooo, there's a new one!
I got into an argument with my boss about those figures
yesterday. Turns out he was completely unaware of the state of
the deficit. As I suspect half the country is...
Shucks, there are more than a few who think that Clinton actually
had a budget surplus.
And ain't it a damn shame that the White House's own report,
supports that claim.
Fred, you don't look good with your foot in your mouth.
Too bad, sucker, you fell for the same old accounting fraud that the
Feds have used for decades. Just don't count Social Security and
Medicare as part of the "budget".
Fred, go back and read the link again.
IT's the report from the White House. As it were, right from hat
heads own mouth.
So? You believe everything that comes from the White House?
You are attempting to argue, against a report, by your bestest buddy,
and all of his little friends.
Yawn. Only to a singleminded idiot librul.
And their report, does not show a favorable light, on Mr. Cattle
Crap.
Which means it must be the gospel truth, right?
So which is it Fred?
Is the White House lying?
Or is George lying?
Neither. Like most political spin, it's as transparent as glass, to anyone
who pays attention. Too bad you don't pay enough attention.
Wow, what a great insight you have there Fred.
To bad facts don't support your claim.
However, since they are pretty much one in the same, it really does
not matter. Ultimately, George is responsible.
And you are just to fanatical in your following of the little man to
see past the lies.
And you are just too fanatical in your hatred of the President to see past
the lies you've been swallowing.
Oooooooo, nice try.
I don't hate the president Fred. I see him for the failure he is.
Economy shot all to hell. Illegal war. Job market in the toilet.
Record deficit.
Yeah, real pain in the ***** when facts get in the way of desires.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
A.A #1143 PLONKED by Bob
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
27 Jan 2005 04:22:10 PM |
|
|
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote in
news:t64oc2-96v.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote in
news:gcvnc2-9ou.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote in
news:b6pnc2-12u.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote in
news:5nnnc2-rqt.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Vic Sagerquist <address@withheld.com> wrote in
news:Xns95EB5F91644F8vicman@127.0.0.1:
on 27 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Fred Stone dropped trou, farted,
whirled, then shouted:
Yeah, tough to argue with numbers.
Sorry, Rev, but damn near 1/2 the country aren't Moore-ons.
Oooo, there's a new one!
I got into an argument with my boss about those figures
yesterday. Turns out he was completely unaware of the state of
the deficit. As I suspect half the country is...
Shucks, there are more than a few who think that Clinton
actually had a budget surplus.
And ain't it a damn shame that the White House's own report,
supports that claim.
Fred, you don't look good with your foot in your mouth.
Too bad, sucker, you fell for the same old accounting fraud that
the Feds have used for decades. Just don't count Social Security
and Medicare as part of the "budget".
Fred, go back and read the link again.
IT's the report from the White House. As it were, right from hat
heads own mouth.
So? You believe everything that comes from the White House?
You are attempting to argue, against a report, by your bestest
buddy, and all of his little friends.
Yawn. Only to a singleminded idiot librul.
And their report, does not show a favorable light, on Mr. Cattle
Crap.
Which means it must be the gospel truth, right?
So which is it Fred?
Is the White House lying?
Or is George lying?
Neither. Like most political spin, it's as transparent as glass, to
anyone who pays attention. Too bad you don't pay enough attention.
Wow, what a great insight you have there Fred.
To bad facts don't support your claim.
However, since they are pretty much one in the same, it really does
not matter. Ultimately, George is responsible.
And you are just to fanatical in your following of the little man to
see past the lies.
And you are just too fanatical in your hatred of the President to see
past the lies you've been swallowing.
Oooooooo, nice try.
I don't hate the president Fred. I see him for the failure he is.
Too bad he's not a failure.
Economy shot all to hell. Illegal war. Job market in the toilet.
Record deficit.
None of which are true. The economy is not "shot all to hell". The job
market is not "in the toilet". And the war wasn't illegal. Even the
"record deficit" isn't a record when it is adjusted for inflation.
Yeah, real pain in the ***** when facts get in the way of desires.
Yeah, it sure is, Rev.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Support bacteria! That's all the culture many people will ever have.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
27 Jan 2005 04:31:09 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" < > wrote in
news:t64oc2-96v.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" < > wrote in
news:gcvnc2-9ou.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" < > wrote in
news:b6pnc2-12u.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" < > wrote in
news:5nnnc2-rqt.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Vic Sagerquist <address@withheld.com> wrote in
news:Xns95EB5F91644F8vicman@127.0.0.1:
on 27 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Fred Stone dropped trou, farted,
whirled, then shouted:
Yeah, tough to argue with numbers.
Sorry, Rev, but damn near 1/2 the country aren't Moore-ons.
Oooo, there's a new one!
I got into an argument with my boss about those figures
yesterday. Turns out he was completely unaware of the state of
the deficit. As I suspect half the country is...
Shucks, there are more than a few who think that Clinton
actually had a budget surplus.
And ain't it a damn shame that the White House's own report,
supports that claim.
Fred, you don't look good with your foot in your mouth.
Too bad, sucker, you fell for the same old accounting fraud that
the Feds have used for decades. Just don't count Social Security
and Medicare as part of the "budget".
Fred, go back and read the link again.
IT's the report from the White House. As it were, right from hat
heads own mouth.
So? You believe everything that comes from the White House?
You are attempting to argue, against a report, by your bestest
buddy, and all of his little friends.
Yawn. Only to a singleminded idiot librul.
And their report, does not show a favorable light, on Mr. Cattle
Crap.
Which means it must be the gospel truth, right?
So which is it Fred?
Is the White House lying?
Or is George lying?
Neither. Like most political spin, it's as transparent as glass, to
anyone who pays attention. Too bad you don't pay enough attention.
Wow, what a great insight you have there Fred.
To bad facts don't support your claim.
However, since they are pretty much one in the same, it really does
not matter. Ultimately, George is responsible.
And you are just to fanatical in your following of the little man to
see past the lies.
And you are just too fanatical in your hatred of the President to see
past the lies you've been swallowing.
Oooooooo, nice try.
I don't hate the president Fred. I see him for the failure he is.
Too bad he's not a failure.
Economy shot all to hell. Illegal war. Job market in the toilet.
Record deficit.
None of which are true. The economy is not "shot all to hell". The job
market is not "in the toilet". And the war wasn't illegal. Even the
"record deficit" isn't a record when it is adjusted for inflation.
Yeah, real pain in the ***** when facts get in the way of desires.
Yeah, it sure is, Rev.
Nice little fantasy world you got there.
I'll remind you about it when the little ***** fails again.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
A.A #1143 PLONKED by Bob
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
27 Jan 2005 04:49:40 PM |
|
|
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote in
news:vr6oc2-ocv.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote in
news:t64oc2-96v.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote in
news:gcvnc2-9ou.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote in
news:b6pnc2-12u.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote in
news:5nnnc2-rqt.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Vic Sagerquist <address@withheld.com> wrote in
news:Xns95EB5F91644F8vicman@127.0.0.1:
on 27 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Fred Stone dropped trou,
farted, whirled, then shouted:
Yeah, tough to argue with numbers.
Sorry, Rev, but damn near 1/2 the country aren't Moore-ons.
Oooo, there's a new one!
I got into an argument with my boss about those figures
yesterday. Turns out he was completely unaware of the state
of the deficit. As I suspect half the country is...
Shucks, there are more than a few who think that Clinton
actually had a budget surplus.
And ain't it a damn shame that the White House's own report,
supports that claim.
Fred, you don't look good with your foot in your mouth.
Too bad, sucker, you fell for the same old accounting fraud that
the Feds have used for decades. Just don't count Social Security
and Medicare as part of the "budget".
Fred, go back and read the link again.
IT's the report from the White House. As it were, right from hat
heads own mouth.
So? You believe everything that comes from the White House?
You are attempting to argue, against a report, by your bestest
buddy, and all of his little friends.
Yawn. Only to a singleminded idiot librul.
And their report, does not show a favorable light, on Mr. Cattle
Crap.
Which means it must be the gospel truth, right?
So which is it Fred?
Is the White House lying?
Or is George lying?
Neither. Like most political spin, it's as transparent as glass, to
anyone who pays attention. Too bad you don't pay enough attention.
Wow, what a great insight you have there Fred.
To bad facts don't support your claim.
However, since they are pretty much one in the same, it really does
not matter. Ultimately, George is responsible.
And you are just to fanatical in your following of the little man
to see past the lies.
And you are just too fanatical in your hatred of the President to
see past the lies you've been swallowing.
Oooooooo, nice try.
I don't hate the president Fred. I see him for the failure he is.
Too bad he's not a failure.
Economy shot all to hell. Illegal war. Job market in the toilet.
Record deficit.
None of which are true. The economy is not "shot all to hell". The
job market is not "in the toilet". And the war wasn't illegal. Even
the "record deficit" isn't a record when it is adjusted for
inflation.
Yeah, real pain in the ***** when facts get in the way of desires.
Yeah, it sure is, Rev.
Nice little fantasy world you got there.
I'm not the one denying reality:
http://traxel.com/deficit/deficit-percentage-50-years.png
I'll remind you about it when the little ***** fails again.
I'll show you why your "reminder" is bogus when you do.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Support bacteria! That's all the culture many people will ever have.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin Anthoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
28 Jan 2005 11:55:53 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
I'm not the one denying reality:
http://traxel.com/deficit/deficit-percentage-50-years.png
Big budget deficits are a good thing in your world, then?
--
Kevin Anthoney
kanthoney[a]dsl.pipex.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
28 Jan 2005 12:42:18 PM |
|
|
Kevin Anthoney <kevin_anthoney@hotmail.com> wrote in news:54a84$41fa7dab
$51569c09$17055@nf1.news-service.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
I'm not the one denying reality:
http://traxel.com/deficit/deficit-percentage-50-years.png
Big budget deficits are a good thing in your world, then?
They're neither good nor bad in themselves. They essentially represent an
increase in the money supply, which is a good thing in times of a growing
economy. We *are* in a growing economy.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Support bacteria! That's all the culture many people will ever have.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin Anthoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
28 Jan 2005 12:55:24 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
Kevin Anthoney <kevin_anthoney@hotmail.com> wrote in news:54a84$41fa7dab
$51569c09$17055@nf1.news-service.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
I'm not the one denying reality:
http://traxel.com/deficit/deficit-percentage-50-years.png
Big budget deficits are a good thing in your world, then?
They're neither good nor bad in themselves. They essentially represent an
increase in the money supply, which is a good thing in times of a growing
economy. We *are* in a growing economy.
I'll have to remember that one.
"It's OK, Mr. Bank Manager, the reason I've run up this huge overdraft is
because I've got too much money."
--
Kevin Anthoney
kanthoney[a]dsl.pipex.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
28 Jan 2005 01:06:23 PM |
|
|
Kevin Anthoney <kevin_anthoney@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:d20c7$41fa8b9e$51569c09$22657@nf1.news-service.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Kevin Anthoney <kevin_anthoney@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:54a84$41fa7dab $51569c09$17055@nf1.news-service.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
I'm not the one denying reality:
http://traxel.com/deficit/deficit-percentage-50-years.png
Big budget deficits are a good thing in your world, then?
They're neither good nor bad in themselves. They essentially
represent an increase in the money supply, which is a good thing in
times of a growing economy. We *are* in a growing economy.
I'll have to remember that one.
"It's OK, Mr. Bank Manager, the reason I've run up this huge overdraft
is because I've got too much money."
Somehow, I knew that some dumbass would make a stupid comment like that.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Support bacteria! That's all the culture many people will ever have.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
27 Jan 2005 05:51:51 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 13:23:26 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@getnet.net> said in alt.atheism:
Fred Stone wrote:
Which means it must be the gospel truth, right?
So which is it Fred?
Is the White House lying?
Or is George lying?
Or is Fred lying? He ACCEPTS the same graph for 2012 that he REJECTS
for 2000.
--
"I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be under-
stood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can
comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of
humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism."
- 1954 or 1955; quoted in Dukas and Hoffman _Albert Einstein the Human Side_, p. 39
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
28 Jan 2005 07:22:45 AM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:uiviv0l4plkp7o72a7o7r3hb3jcg24eqe7@4ax.com:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 13:23:26 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@getnet.net> said in alt.atheism:
Fred Stone wrote:
Which means it must be the gospel truth, right?
So which is it Fred?
Is the White House lying?
Or is George lying?
Or is Fred lying? He ACCEPTS the same graph for 2012 that he REJECTS
for 2000.
Or is Al lying? I neither ACCEPTED nor REJECTED anything. I merely
pointed out where the cited article was being deliberately deceptive.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Support bacteria! That's all the culture many people will ever have.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin Anthoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
27 Jan 2005 01:13:29 PM |
|
|
Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote in
news:5nnnc2-rqt.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Vic Sagerquist <address@withheld.com> wrote in
news:Xns95EB5F91644F8vicman@127.0.0.1:
on 27 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Fred Stone dropped trou, farted,
whirled, then shouted:
Yeah, tough to argue with numbers.
Sorry, Rev, but damn near 1/2 the country aren't Moore-ons.
Oooo, there's a new one!
I got into an argument with my boss about those figures yesterday.
Turns out he was completely unaware of the state of the deficit. As
I suspect half the country is...
Shucks, there are more than a few who think that Clinton actually had
a budget surplus.
And ain't it a damn shame that the White House's own report, supports
that claim.
Fred, you don't look good with your foot in your mouth.
Too bad, sucker, you fell for the same old accounting fraud that the
Feds have used for decades. Just don't count Social Security and
Medicare as part of the "budget".
Fred, go back and read the link again.
Fred's talking about this:
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm
The debt held by the public decreased under Clinton. The overall debt
(including "Intragovernmental Holdings") went up.
Of course, he's still trouncing Bush. At the start of Clinton's stint, the
debt was increasing by about 6% pa; in the middle it was around 4%; towards
the end he got it down 2% pa; and in his last year it was a paltry increase
of 0.3%. Junior's currently batting at around 9% pa.
IT's the report from the White House. As it were, right from hat heads
own mouth.
You are attempting to argue, against a report, by your bestest buddy,
and all of his little friends.
And their report, does not show a favorable light, on Mr. Cattle Crap.
--
Kevin Anthoney
kanthoney[a]dsl.pipex.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
27 Jan 2005 03:09:07 PM |
|
|
Kevin Anthoney <kevin_anthoney@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:7d374$41f93e59$51569c09$16690@nf1.news-service.com:
Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote in
news:5nnnc2-rqt.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Vic Sagerquist <address@withheld.com> wrote in
news:Xns95EB5F91644F8vicman@127.0.0.1:
on 27 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Fred Stone dropped trou, farted,
whirled, then shouted:
Yeah, tough to argue with numbers.
Sorry, Rev, but damn near 1/2 the country aren't Moore-ons.
Oooo, there's a new one!
I got into an argument with my boss about those figures yesterday.
Turns out he was completely unaware of the state of the deficit.
As I suspect half the country is...
Shucks, there are more than a few who think that Clinton actually
had a budget surplus.
And ain't it a damn shame that the White House's own report,
supports that claim.
Fred, you don't look good with your foot in your mouth.
Too bad, sucker, you fell for the same old accounting fraud that the
Feds have used for decades. Just don't count Social Security and
Medicare as part of the "budget".
Fred, go back and read the link again.
Fred's talking about this:
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm
The debt held by the public decreased under Clinton. The overall debt
(including "Intragovernmental Holdings") went up.
Of course, he's still trouncing Bush. At the start of Clinton's
stint, the debt was increasing by about 6% pa; in the middle it was
around 4%; towards the end he got it down 2% pa; and in his last year
it was a paltry increase of 0.3%. Junior's currently batting at
around 9% pa.
Which is one of many indications that Clinton was draining too much
liquidity out of the economy, resulting in the recession of 2000-2001.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Support bacteria! That's all the culture many people will ever have.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
27 Jan 2005 12:41:18 PM |
|
|
on 27 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Fred Stone dropped trou, farted, whirled,
then shouted:
Fred, you don't look good with your foot in your mouth.
Too bad, sucker, you fell for the same old accounting fraud that the
Feds have used for decades. Just don't count Social Security and
Medicare as part of the "budget".
Are you saying we shouldn't trust what comes out of the White House, Fred?
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
______________
Why is it that most of the people who are against abortion are the kind of
people you wouldn't want to ***** in the first place?
--George Carlin
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
29 Jan 2005 09:42:47 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:41:18 -0600, Vic Sagerquist
<address@withheld.com> wrote:
on 27 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Fred Stone dropped trou, farted, whirled,
then shouted:
Fred, you don't look good with your foot in your mouth.
Too bad, sucker, you fell for the same old accounting fraud that the
Feds have used for decades. Just don't count Social Security and
Medicare as part of the "budget".
Are you saying we shouldn't trust what comes out of the White House, Fred?
ROFLMAO!
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
27 Jan 2005 12:43:40 PM |
|
|
Vic Sagerquist <address@withheld.com> wrote in
news:Xns95EB6CF0F35BFvicman@127.0.0.1:
on 27 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Fred Stone dropped trou, farted,
whirled, then shouted:
Fred, you don't look good with your foot in your mouth.
Too bad, sucker, you fell for the same old accounting fraud that the
Feds have used for decades. Just don't count Social Security and
Medicare as part of the "budget".
Are you saying we shouldn't trust what comes out of the White House,
Fred?
Are you saying we should? Or only when you can make hay out of the
conclusion?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Support bacteria! That's all the culture many people will ever have.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
27 Jan 2005 12:54:03 PM |
|
|
on 27 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Fred Stone dropped trou, farted, whirled,
then shouted:
Vic Sagerquist <address@withheld.com> wrote in
news:Xns95EB6CF0F35BFvicman@127.0.0.1:
on 27 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Fred Stone dropped trou, farted,
whirled, then shouted:
Fred, you don't look good with your foot in your mouth.
Too bad, sucker, you fell for the same old accounting fraud that the
Feds have used for decades. Just don't count Social Security and
Medicare as part of the "budget".
Are you saying we shouldn't trust what comes out of the White House,
Fred?
Are you saying we should? Or only when you can make hay out of the
conclusion?
What I'm saying is that I find it interesting that you think we should
trust Shrubya's statements on the WMDs and happily march off to war, while
on the other hand we can't trust the budget numbers they publish - as if
they are trying to hide something.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
______________
Why is it that most of the people who are against abortion are the kind of
people you wouldn't want to ***** in the first place?
--George Carlin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
27 Jan 2005 01:12:15 PM |
|
|
Vic Sagerquist <address@withheld.com> wrote in
news:Xns95EB6F1A7804Evicman@127.0.0.1:
on 27 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Fred Stone dropped trou, farted,
whirled, then shouted:
Vic Sagerquist <address@withheld.com> wrote in
news:Xns95EB6CF0F35BFvicman@127.0.0.1:
on 27 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Fred Stone dropped trou, farted,
whirled, then shouted:
Fred, you don't look good with your foot in your mouth.
Too bad, sucker, you fell for the same old accounting fraud that
the Feds have used for decades. Just don't count Social Security
and Medicare as part of the "budget".
Are you saying we shouldn't trust what comes out of the White House,
Fred?
Are you saying we should? Or only when you can make hay out of the
conclusion?
What I'm saying is that I find it interesting that you think we should
trust Shrubya's statements on the WMDs and happily march off to war,
while on the other hand we can't trust the budget numbers they publish
- as if they are trying to hide something.
First of all, I support the war on Islamic terrorism for more reasons
than just the simpleminded librul strawman of "WMD was the only reason".
No matter how many times Barbara Boxer and the other Democrats repeat
that lie it still isn't true.
Second, it's no secret that the "budget deficit" numbers don't include
the "off-budget" items known as "entitlements". If those are included,
there hasn't been a real surplus since Truman.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Support bacteria! That's all the culture many people will ever have.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
26 Jan 2005 07:04:39 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:19:23 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> drained
his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:44:26 -0600, Vic Sagerquist <address@withheld.com> wrote:
And these are the White House's own numbers.
Boy, look at the figures fall post Clinton. It's difficult to draw the
conclusion that Bush is the best thing that ever happened to this country,
as held by all the drooling neo-con religious half-wits that voted him in.
The American voter disagrees with you.
These would be the same people whoi gave Nixon two terms, right?
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
26 Jan 2005 09:08:53 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 01:04:39 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> said in alt.atheism:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:19:23 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> drained
his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:44:26 -0600, Vic Sagerquist <address@withheld.com> wrote:
And these are the White House's own numbers.
Boy, look at the figures fall post Clinton. It's difficult to draw the
conclusion that Bush is the best thing that ever happened to this country,
as held by all the drooling neo-con religious half-wits that voted him in.
The American voter disagrees with you.
These would be the same people whoi gave Nixon two terms, right?
The same ones who believed that his "get us out of Viet Nam" promise
meant *WITH* honor.
--
"If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can
solve them."
-Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
27 Jan 2005 05:43:41 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 01:04:39 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:19:23 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> drained
his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:44:26 -0600, Vic Sagerquist <address@withheld.com> wrote:
And these are the White House's own numbers.
Boy, look at the figures fall post Clinton. It's difficult to draw the
conclusion that Bush is the best thing that ever happened to this country,
as held by all the drooling neo-con religious half-wits that voted him in.
The American voter disagrees with you.
These would be the same people whoi gave Nixon two terms, right?
It means that the majority of American voters understood that we are talking
about clinton's post 911 economy.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tukla Ratte" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
27 Jan 2005 09:17:52 AM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:44:26 -0600, Vic Sagerquist <address@withheld.com> wrote:
And these are the White House's own numbers.
Boy, look at the figures fall post Clinton. It's difficult to draw the
conclusion that Bush is the best thing that ever happened to this country,
as held by all the drooling neo-con religious half-wits that voted him in.
The American voter disagrees with you.
Only the gullible voters who *still* believe that Saddam was involved
with 9/11.
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism, aa 1347
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
27 Jan 2005 09:34:54 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 09:17:52 -0600, Tukla Ratte
<tukla_ratte@tukla.net> wrote:
duke wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:44:26 -0600, Vic Sagerquist <address@withheld.com> wrote:
And these are the White House's own numbers.
Boy, look at the figures fall post Clinton. It's difficult to draw the
conclusion that Bush is the best thing that ever happened to this country,
as held by all the drooling neo-con religious half-wits that voted him in.
The American voter disagrees with you.
Only the gullible voters who *still* believe that Saddam was involved
with 9/11.
The dishonest pillocks knew what they were doing - they used the old
trick of never explicitly saying Hussein was involved in it, but made
sure they always mentioned him at the same time as the attacks. Which
was deliberate and dishonest.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
27 Jan 2005 05:45:29 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 09:17:52 -0600, Tukla Ratte <tukla_ratte@tukla.net> wrote:
The American voter disagrees with you.
Only the gullible voters who *still* believe that Saddam was involved
with 9/11.
Uh, noooooo. We, unlike you, have always recognized that yang's uncle saddam
did not have much to do with 911.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tukla Ratte" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
28 Jan 2005 12:36:56 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 09:17:52 -0600, Tukla Ratte <tukla_ratte@tukla.net> wrote:
The American voter disagrees with you.
Only the gullible voters who *still* believe that Saddam was involved
with 9/11.
Uh, noooooo. We, unlike you, have always recognized that yang's uncle saddam
did not have much to do with 911.
Then why do so many Bush supporters tell pollsters that they still think
that Saddam was involved in 9/11? Are they just stupid?
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism, aa 1347
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
28 Jan 2005 04:38:49 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 12:36:56 -0600, Tukla Ratte <tukla_ratte@tukla.net> wrote:
Uh, noooooo. We, unlike you, have always recognized that yang's uncle saddam
did not have much to do with 911.
Then why do so many Bush supporters tell pollsters that they still think
that Saddam was involved in 9/11? Are they just stupid?
You didn't read my words, did you. I said "much". Needless to say, he did let
them train in Iraq, etc. But as far as his participation in 911, no "red
person" including President Bush ever said such a thing.
That's just the blue people that believe that.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
28 Jan 2005 01:11:34 PM |
|
|
Tukla Ratte <tukla_ratte@tukla.net> wrote in
news:35vf2aF4rlgvaU1@individual.net:
duke wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 09:17:52 -0600, Tukla Ratte
<tukla_ratte@tukla.net> wrote:
The American voter disagrees with you.
Only the gullible voters who *still* believe that Saddam was involved
with 9/11.
Uh, noooooo. We, unlike you, have always recognized that yang's
uncle saddam did not have much to do with 911.
Then why do so many Bush supporters tell pollsters that they still
think that Saddam was involved in 9/11? Are they just stupid?
Can you give a link to the actual poll questions and the raw tabulations
of responses on that?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Support bacteria! That's all the culture many people will ever have.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
28 Jan 2005 04:39:44 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:11:34 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
Tukla Ratte <tukla_ratte@tukla.net> wrote in
news:35vf2aF4rlgvaU1@individual.net:
duke wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 09:17:52 -0600, Tukla Ratte
<tukla_ratte@tukla.net> wrote:
The American voter disagrees with you.
Only the gullible voters who *still* believe that Saddam was involved
with 9/11.
Uh, noooooo. We, unlike you, have always recognized that yang's
uncle saddam did not have much to do with 911.
Then why do so many Bush supporters tell pollsters that they still
think that Saddam was involved in 9/11? Are they just stupid?
Can you give a link to the actual poll questions and the raw tabulations
of responses on that?
Of course he can't. It's just another stupid and unfounded statement by a
blueface.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
28 Jan 2005 05:44:59 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:11:34 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
Tukla Ratte <tukla_ratte@tukla.net> wrote in
news:35vf2aF4rlgvaU1@individual.net:
duke wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 09:17:52 -0600, Tukla Ratte
<tukla_ratte@tukla.net> wrote:
The American voter disagrees with you.
Only the gullible voters who *still* believe that Saddam was involved
with 9/11.
Uh, noooooo. We, unlike you, have always recognized that yang's
uncle saddam did not have much to do with 911.
Then why do so many Bush supporters tell pollsters that they still
think that Saddam was involved in 9/11? Are they just stupid?
Can you give a link to the actual poll questions and the raw tabulations
of responses on that?
Of course he can't. It's just another stupid and unfounded statement by a
blueface.
duke
misleading from cheney:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0918-03.htm
polls:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0701-05.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm
bush misleading (and dont pretend it was accidental):
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html
bush says iraq was involved:
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/000563.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
