| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Sean C" |
| Date: |
08 Jan 2004 03:38:20 PM |
| Object: |
OT: Bush in 30 Seconds |
Some of the finalists for MoveOn.org's "Bush in 30 Seconds"
competition. Some of them are funny, but all are sadly true. I
especially like the "Hood Robbin'" and "What are We Teaching Our
Children?" ones. May require Apple Quicktime plug-in.
http://www.bushin30seconds.org/
Sean C
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
.
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush in 30 Seconds |
08 Jan 2004 04:40:27 PM |
|
|
"Sean C" <redhawk@hvc.rr.com> wrote
Some of the finalists for MoveOn.org's "Bush in 30 Seconds"
competition. Some of them are funny, but all are sadly true.
I especially like the "Hood Robbin'" and "What are We
Teaching Our Children?" ones.
"In my country" and "What are we teaching our children" were
my top picks.
http://www.bushin30seconds.org/
Some of the youth entries were really good, too.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Kiewicz" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush in 30 Seconds |
09 Jan 2004 06:32:42 AM |
|
|
JTEM said:
"Sean C" <redhawk@hvc.rr.com> wrote
Some of the finalists for MoveOn.org's "Bush in 30 Seconds"
competition. Some of them are funny, but all are sadly true.
I especially like the "Hood Robbin'" and "What are We
Teaching Our Children?" ones.
"In my country" and "What are we teaching our children" were
my top picks.
Agreed. Definite standouts.
http://www.bushin30seconds.org/
--
Pat K. aa#1154 ('someplace.net' is comcast)
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
(attributed to Don Marti)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush in 30 Seconds |
08 Jan 2004 09:07:28 PM |
|
|
Lo, many moons past, on Thu, 8 Jan 2004 17:40:27 -0500, a stranger
called by some "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> came forth and told this
tale in alt.atheism
"Sean C" <redhawk@hvc.rr.com> wrote
Some of the finalists for MoveOn.org's "Bush in 30 Seconds"
competition. Some of them are funny, but all are sadly true.
I especially like the "Hood Robbin'" and "What are We
Teaching Our Children?" ones.
"In my country" and "What are we teaching our children" were
my top picks.
http://www.bushin30seconds.org/
Some of the youth entries were really good, too.
I really liked "In My Country" as well.
As a veteran, "Army of One" and "Human Cost of War" worked well.
But my vote goes to "Child's Pay" Simple, effective, and well made..
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
.
|
|
|
| User: "ShrikeBack" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush in 30 Seconds |
11 Jan 2004 04:59:13 PM |
|
|
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
But my vote goes to "Child's Pay" Simple, effective, and well made..
And, unfortunately, stupid. Who paid off the debt after World War 2,
when it was 150% of America's GDP? If the debt were 150% of our GDP
today, it would be up around 15 trillion dollars.
What is the Keynesian prescription for recession again? Oh yeah:
deficit spending.
It's funny that Democrats allege that Keynesianism worked to get us
out of the Great Depression, but Keynesianism doesn't apply today.
It's unsurprising that Democrats wouldn't want this latest recession
to end before the election. It was their only hope to win.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush in 30 Seconds |
11 Jan 2004 05:08:07 PM |
|
|
"ShrikeBack" <hewpiedawg@hotmail.com> wrote
And, unfortunately, stupid. Who paid off the debt after
World War 2, when it was 150% of America's GDP?
It's already been longer without paying off Reagan's debt.
Did you ever once consider that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "ShrikeBack" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush in 30 Seconds |
11 Jan 2004 09:05:28 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<yYGdnbPaIeTiS5zdRVn-tw@comcast.com>...
"ShrikeBack" <hewpiedawg@hotmail.com> wrote
And, unfortunately, stupid. Who paid off the debt after
World War 2, when it was 150% of America's GDP?
It's already been longer without paying off Reagan's debt.
The only thing that counts is the debt to GDP ratio. Economic
growth is the only way to reduce that. Keynes tells us that
the way to escape a recession, and foster economic growth is
to engage in deficit spending. If you want to claim Keynes
is wrong, that's fine; go for it.
Did you ever once consider that?
Of course, it's been utilized by lurid hysterical Democrat
propaganda for a good long time.
The goofiest thing about Democrats is that they think the
whole high tax thing is an election winner. Good thinking,
that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush in 30 Seconds |
11 Jan 2004 11:32:51 PM |
|
|
"ShrikeBack" <hewpiedawg@hotmail.com> wrote
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote
The only thing that counts is the debt to GDP ratio.
Lie.
What counts is our ability to pay off the debt.
We could & did pay off the debt from WWII, while
we have been unable to pay off Reagan's debt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ShrikeBack" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush in 30 Seconds |
12 Jan 2004 10:43:54 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<XvOdneQrU5g3rZ_dRVn-gg@comcast.com>...
"ShrikeBack" <hewpiedawg@hotmail.com> wrote
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote
The only thing that counts is the debt to GDP ratio.
Lie.
What counts is our ability to pay off the debt.
We could & did pay off the debt from WWII,
Actually, we did not pay off that debt. When did the national
debt go down to zero after WW2? The GDP did, however, grow
faster than the debt.
while
we have been unable to pay off Reagan's debt.
Just as we never paid off the debt from WW2. The federal debt
in the seventies was about a trillion dollars. That was a lot
of money back then, because that was also approximately the
same as the GDP. Today, the GDP is significantly larger than the
federal debt. In fact, back in 1990, the GDP was larger than the
federal debt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush in 30 Seconds |
12 Jan 2004 06:17:00 PM |
|
|
"ShrikeBack" <hewpiedawg@hotmail.com> wrote
We could & did pay off the debt from WWII,
Actually, we did not pay off that debt. When did the national
debt go down to zero after WW2?
Because the government was always floating debt does not
mean that the government never paid off WWII.
It did.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ShrikeBack" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush in 30 Seconds |
13 Jan 2004 09:02:31 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<n46dnfO2G6i5pZ7d4p2dnA@comcast.com>...
"ShrikeBack" <hewpiedawg@hotmail.com> wrote
We could & did pay off the debt from WWII,
Actually, we did not pay off that debt. When did the national
debt go down to zero after WW2?
Because the government was always floating debt does not
mean that the government never paid off WWII.
It did.
With debt. This isn't "paying it off", in the sense that you
seem to mean it. This is refinancing.
The video under discussion shows kids working in sweatshops
presumably to pay off the debt. How realistic is this when
you consider refinancing the equivalent of paying off the
debt? You are trying to present a moving target.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush in 30 Seconds |
14 Jan 2004 12:45:17 AM |
|
|
"ShrikeBack" <hewpiedawg@hotmail.com> wrote
With debt. This isn't "paying it off", in the sense that you
seem to mean it. This is refinancing.
Not at all. I'm in debt right now, but my car -- which at one
point represented most of my debt -- is completely paid off.
That doesn't mean that other priorities hadn't come up since,
and that none of those other priorities produced debt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ShrikeBack" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush in 30 Seconds |
14 Jan 2004 09:50:06 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<svGdnXBUGZQ5eZndRVn-ig@comcast.com>...
"ShrikeBack" <hewpiedawg@hotmail.com> wrote
With debt. This isn't "paying it off", in the sense that you
seem to mean it. This is refinancing.
Not at all. I'm in debt right now, but my car -- which at one
point represented most of my debt -- is completely paid off.
That doesn't mean that other priorities hadn't come up since,
and that none of those other priorities produced debt.
Heh. As you have said, the federal debt does not come with little
Post It notes reading "for WW II". They aren't going to repo WW II
on us. You're being absurd, buddy. If the debt was paid off, then
it was paid off, and you can point out what year the federal debt
was zero. Face it, you've lost, and all you are going to be able
to do by continuing this is get sillier.
So, the current debt will be paid off too. It won't be paid off
by the children, of course, it'll be paid off by shuffling the
debt around. So, either way, you're screwed because you want
to eat your mad cow and have it too.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush in 30 Seconds |
14 Jan 2004 09:38:47 PM |
|
|
"ShrikeBack" <hewpiedawg@hotmail.com> wrote
Heh. As you have said, the federal debt does not come with little
Post It notes reading "for WW II".
1) I didn't say that.
2) WWII was financed, and the sources of that financing were
readily identifiable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ShrikeBack" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush in 30 Seconds |
15 Jan 2004 09:53:55 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<suydnaBC7vfyl5vd4p2dnA@comcast.com>...
"ShrikeBack" <hewpiedawg@hotmail.com> wrote
Heh. As you have said, the federal debt does not come with little
Post It notes reading "for WW II".
1) I didn't say that.
2) WWII was financed, and the sources of that financing were
readily identifiable.
So what, dipshit? The debt was never paid off. We are talking
about the US Government going into debt, and whether the debt
was ever paid off. If the debt hasn't gone down to zero (and
in fact, most years it went up), then the debt was not paid off.
It's as simple as that. Stop being an idiot.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush in 30 Seconds |
15 Jan 2004 05:37:25 PM |
|
|
"ShrikeBack" <hewpiedawg@hotmail.com> wrote
2) WWII was financed, and the sources of that financing
were readily identifiable.
So what, dipshit?
So you claimed that they weren't paid off. Yet, you have
no idea what they are.
Moron.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Emi M Briet" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush in 30 Seconds |
12 Jan 2004 01:57:04 PM |
|
|
In article <59b8bc96.0401120843.18b7d2bb@posting.google.com>,
(ShrikeBack) wrote:
Actually, we did not pay off that debt. When did the national
debt go down to zero after WW2? The GDP did, however, grow
faster than the debt.
In actuality, the national debt hasn't been $0 since Washington was
President...
.
|
|
|
| User: "ShrikeBack" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush in 30 Seconds |
13 Jan 2004 08:59:04 PM |
|
|
Emi M Briet <emi@emiofbrie.cx> wrote in message news:<emi-330DBC.13570412012004@hermes-ge0.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
In article <59b8bc96.0401120843.18b7d2bb@posting.google.com>,
hewpiedawg@hotmail.com (ShrikeBack) wrote:
Actually, we did not pay off that debt. When did the national
debt go down to zero after WW2? The GDP did, however, grow
faster than the debt.
In actuality, the national debt hasn't been $0 since Washington was
President...
Indeed.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "eyelessgame" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush in 30 Seconds |
15 Jan 2004 03:52:59 PM |
|
|
(ShrikeBack) wrote in message news:<59b8bc96.0401111459.38ad7f92@posting.google.com>...
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
But my vote goes to "Child's Pay" Simple, effective, and well made..
And, unfortunately, stupid. Who paid off the debt after World War 2,
when it was 150% of America's GDP? If the debt were 150% of our GDP
today, it would be up around 15 trillion dollars.
And we raised taxes to pay it off. We had a 90% tax bracket at the
top after WWII. Are we going to raise taxes to pay this one off? We
haven't made a dent in Reagan's debt yet, and it's been 22 years now.
What is the Keynesian prescription for recession again? Oh yeah:
deficit spending.
Not all tax cuts or spending increases are the same. Tax breaks to
the wealthy, huge giveaways to large corporations, and cuts to
services for the poor are not part of a Keynesian plan. Also, the
other part of the Keynesian prescription is to run a surplus during
boom times. We only actually do that when there's a Democratic
president -- without a tax increase we're going to be in huge deficits
forever.
What's more, Clinton demonstrated that another way to boost an economy
out of recession was to show fiscal responsibility --- it reassures
financial markets and encourages investment.
It's funny that Democrats allege that Keynesianism worked to get us
out of the Great Depression, but Keynesianism doesn't apply today.
That's because it's not being applied today. Also, we know more now
than we did then.
It's unsurprising that Democrats wouldn't want this latest recession
to end before the election. It was their only hope to win.
I am a Democrat, and I want the economy to boom, the sooner the
better. I have too many unemployed friends. But the economy hasn't
in any visible way recovered yet.
Are we going to run a surplus during the next expansion, assuming it
happens? No? Then what will we do during the /next/ recession, when
we're already in a huge hole? And what will we do when Asian banks
figure out we're not ever going to pay off any of it?
When one asks the major players of financial markets why they're not
already panicking about the U.S. fiscal insanity, their answer is a
variant of "we expect a return to fiscal responsibility after the next
election."
Uh huh. You betcha.
eyelessgame
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush in 30 Seconds |
15 Jan 2004 09:28:31 PM |
|
|
And, unfortunately, stupid. Who paid off the debt after World War 2,
when it was 150% of America's GDP? If the debt were 150% of our GDP
today, it would be up around 15 trillion dollars.
And we raised taxes to pay it off. We had a 90% tax bracket at the
top after WWII. Are we going to raise taxes to pay this one off? We
haven't made a dent in Reagan's debt yet, and it's been 22 years now.
The surest way to cut the deficit is to cut federal spending. Bush, in his
three years in office is rapidly approaching what Clinton spent in eight. Bush
has raised spending to previously unheard of levels, lavishing his political
allies with anti-constitutional pork-barrel programs like the "faith-based
initiatives" and the recent "federal support of marriage" spending program.
If Bush were a genuine conservative upholding the principles of personal
responsibility and limited government we wouldn't have this problem. Instead
his answer always is "throw money at it and maybe it will go away." Bush
supports big-government more than any so-called "tax and spend liberal" ever
dreamed of doing.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Use
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking, which
leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy." - Robert Anton
Wilson
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carl Kaufmann" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush in 30 Seconds |
11 Jan 2004 07:01:46 PM |
|
|
ShrikeBack wrote:
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
But my vote goes to "Child's Pay" Simple, effective, and well made..
And, unfortunately, stupid. Who paid off the debt after World War 2,
when it was 150% of America's GDP? If the debt were 150% of our GDP
today, it would be up around 15 trillion dollars.
It was paid by the largest generation in history. Guess what?
They're retiring right now.
What is the Keynesian prescription for recession again? Oh yeah:
deficit spending.
It's funny that Democrats allege that Keynesianism worked to get us
out of the Great Depression, but Keynesianism doesn't apply today.
It's unsurprising that Democrats wouldn't want this latest recession
to end before the election. It was their only hope to win.
--
EAC Liar, Damned Liar, and Statistician
A.A. #1966
"Statistical thinking will one day be as necessary for efficient
citizenship as the ability to read and write." - H.G. Wells
.
|
|
|
| User: "ShrikeBack" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush in 30 Seconds |
12 Jan 2004 10:50:06 AM |
|
|
Carl Kaufmann <cwkaufmann@netscape.net> wrote in message news:<%lmMb.26963$ti2.1865@lakeread03>...
ShrikeBack wrote:
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
But my vote goes to "Child's Pay" Simple, effective, and well made..
And, unfortunately, stupid. Who paid off the debt after World War 2,
when it was 150% of America's GDP? If the debt were 150% of our GDP
today, it would be up around 15 trillion dollars.
It was paid by the largest generation in history. Guess what?
They're retiring right now.
No. It was never paid off. The GDP merely grew faster than the
debt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush in 30 Seconds |
12 Jan 2004 03:32:09 PM |
|
|
On 12 Jan 2004 08:50:06 -0800 in alt.atheism, ShrikeBack
(hewpiedawg@hotmail.com (ShrikeBack)) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
Carl Kaufmann <cwkaufmann@netscape.net> wrote in message news:<%lmMb.26963$ti2.1865@lakeread03>...
ShrikeBack wrote:
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
But my vote goes to "Child's Pay" Simple, effective, and well made..
And, unfortunately, stupid. Who paid off the debt after World War 2,
when it was 150% of America's GDP? If the debt were 150% of our GDP
today, it would be up around 15 trillion dollars.
It was paid by the largest generation in history. Guess what?
They're retiring right now.
No. It was never paid off. The GDP merely grew faster than the
debt.
On a side note, the UK managed to pay of the debts incurred by the
Napoleonic wars sometime in the 1980s. Amazing, eh?
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush in 30 Seconds |
12 Jan 2004 06:21:15 PM |
|
|
"ShrikeBack" <hewpiedawg@hotmail.com> wrote
The GDP merely grew faster than the
debt.
So you're ignorant! Why didn't you just say so?
Please, by all means, detail for us the sources of the WWII
debt. Go on. Demonstrate for us that it's all still there.
Go on.
Hint: It's not. Sure, new debts sprung up, but the WWII
debt is gone.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ShrikeBack" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush in 30 Seconds |
13 Jan 2004 08:58:04 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Gr2dndGg2L--pJ7dRVn-ig@comcast.com>...
"ShrikeBack" <hewpiedawg@hotmail.com> wrote
The GDP merely grew faster than the
debt.
So you're ignorant! Why didn't you just say so?
Pol Pot, Kettle, Red.
Please, by all means, detail for us the sources of the WWII
debt. Go on. Demonstrate for us that it's all still there.
Demonstrate when it was paid off. If the federal debt was not
reduced to zero, it was not paid off. It's very simple, really.
Paying off the debt with new debt is not paying it off. It is
refinancing.
Go on.
Hint: It's not. Sure, new debts sprung up, but the WWII
debt is gone.
What you are saying is that the debt was paid off with other debt.
But this is sophistry. The federal debt never went to zero, therefore
the debt was not paid off. In point of fact, since WW II, the debt
has, for most years, increased. The surpluses don't even make up for
the deficits in this time frame.
You can say that the "WW II debt" is gone, because the debt doesn't
have little post-it notes on it reading "for WW II". But, if the
debt was not brought down to zero, the debt, incurred originally during
the New Deal/WW II years, did not simply go away. You are either still
in debt, or you are not. Please show me evidence that the federal debt
was ever zero since WW II.
Moreover, the debt from the eighties has no post it notes on it, either.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush in 30 Seconds |
14 Jan 2004 12:43:34 AM |
|
|
"ShrikeBack" <hewpiedawg@hotmail.com> wrote
So you're ignorant! Why didn't you just say so?
Pol Pot, Kettle, Red.
Go on, now stuff your other foot in your mouth....
Please, by all means, detail for us the sources of the WWII
debt. Go on. Demonstrate for us that it's all still there.
Demonstrate when it was paid off.
When what was paid off? You have yet to tell us. So, go on.
Detail for us the sources of the U.S. debt during WWII.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ShrikeBack" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush in 30 Seconds |
14 Jan 2004 09:54:08 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<QcqdnTFSBpigeZndRVn-gQ@comcast.com>...
"ShrikeBack" <hewpiedawg@hotmail.com> wrote
So you're ignorant! Why didn't you just say so?
Pol Pot, Kettle, Red.
Go on, now stuff your other foot in your mouth....
Please, by all means, detail for us the sources of the WWII
debt. Go on. Demonstrate for us that it's all still there.
Demonstrate when it was paid off.
When what was paid off? You have yet to tell us. So, go on.
Detail for us the sources of the U.S. debt during WWII.
Obviously, for the debt to be "paid off" it needs to be "paid
off". We aren't talking about a particular account. We're
talking about the total cummulative debt that had accrued at
the time WW II ended. It doesn't matter whether this debt was
accrued by WW II itself or by paying farmers not to grow alfalfa,
or by the War of 1812. The point is that the debt at the time
WW II was over was 150% of the GDP. This debt was never eliminated,
so it was not "paid off".
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush in 30 Seconds |
14 Jan 2004 09:39:40 PM |
|
|
"ShrikeBack" <hewpiedawg@hotmail.com> wrote
Obviously, for the debt to be "paid off" it needs to be "paid
off".
Great. So now all you need to do is identify the sources of
the financing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ShrikeBack" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush in 30 Seconds |
15 Jan 2004 02:12:31 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3q6dnbnle8E7l5vdRVn-tA@comcast.com>...
"ShrikeBack" <hewpiedawg@hotmail.com> wrote
Obviously, for the debt to be "paid off" it needs to be "paid
off".
Great. So now all you need to do is identify the sources of
the financing.
I don't have to. The US was never out of debt. That is the point.
You can get all schizoed out about this as much as you want.
The debt of the US has never been paid off. That's the way it is.
This is the point. Got me? Think hard about that. Get some sleep,
maybe. Try meditation, even.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush in 30 Seconds |
15 Jan 2004 03:19:37 AM |
|
|
"ShrikeBack" <hewpiedawg@hotmail.com> wrote
Great. So now all you need to do is identify the sources of
the financing.
I don't have to.
Of course not. One ready alternative is to admit that you're
wrong.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ShrikeBack" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush in 30 Seconds |
14 Jan 2004 09:44:58 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<QcqdnTFSBpigeZndRVn-gQ@comcast.com>...
"ShrikeBack" <hewpiedawg@hotmail.com> wrote
So you're ignorant! Why didn't you just say so?
Pol Pot, Kettle, Red.
Go on, now stuff your other foot in your mouth....
Heh. Que?
Please, by all means, detail for us the sources of the WWII
debt. Go on. Demonstrate for us that it's all still there.
Demonstrate when it was paid off.
When what was paid off? You have yet to tell us. So, go on.
Detail for us the sources of the U.S. debt during WWII.
No. If the debt still exists, it doesn't matter who it is owed
to. You're the one making the claim that it was paid off. That's
an outrageous claim. It requires proof.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
