[snipped for space]
Hey, this rant of yours had some substance, including some actual facts.
Obviously you lack an understanding of the nature of NG rants. Please kill
some of your brain cells, or take some being-hit-in-the-head lessons,
before reposting. Thank you, that is all. -- Igor
Not that much substance to rant ratio. Remember, inflation concerns
"housing costs," not the cost of housing.
A dollar spent by government benefits everyone. A dollar saved by an
individual, however just creates another undeserving rich b*st*rd....
George, as an economist, you are probably an excellent woodworker.
The thing that _really_ scares me is that you are among the tiny
minority of voters who even give a damn about economics. Kinda like
realizing that the people who devour supermarket tabloids are among
the minority of Americans who actually read.
"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.
You left off the part that applies to the governor - he's one of the
undeserving rich, or hoped to be. The dollars spent for "prevailing wage"
and "affirmative action" preferences were a definite societal plus.
Besides, as you know, it's employment, regardless of output, that counts.
It's a liberal Shibboleth - don't you remember how the WPA "pulled the
country out of the depression?"
Of course then there's the AlGore modification,where government money should
go to "the right people...."
And to the moronic bookend boys who replied so viciously - GOTCHA!
... and then there's the GB II modification, where the prez
spends huge amounts of money but does not have the
morals or courage to collect enough taxes to pay for it
(come to think of it, that Ronnie Reagan did the same
Reagan lowered taxes for high-income people but he raised
taxes on everyone else a number of times throughout his tenure.
In spite of that, he and the Dem-controlled congress still managed
to produce huge deficits (they seemed huge then, but GB II's
make them seem small by comparison).
Ok, Reagan had huge deficits. Do you think it only cost a dollar and ninety
five cents to win the Cold War? Wasn't the deficit worth it? Years ago my
wife and I took a tour with a group to Russia. I asked the tour guide that
all we ever saw about Russia on TV was their military might. How come we
don't see it any more? The tour guides response to me was, "your President
Reagan broke us". Now Greg tell me if the deficit was worth it.
You are obviously a liberal democrat and nothing Bush or the Republicans do,
will you EVER agree with. I used to be a democrat when they were for the
working man. Like in the days of Truman, Roosevelt, and JFK. Now look at
who the leaders of my old party are.
It cost a huge chunk of our wealth and apx 90,000 US servicemens'
lives (and that's not counting the wounded) over a period of 40-odd
years to "win" the Cold War. Do you truly believe that RR was
"responsible ?" Or did he accelerate it by a few years ?
Are you talking about WW2? I don't recall that many lives lost in the Cold
War. I served 8 years during the cold war and accidents excluded I do not
recall any casualties. I don't think you know what ur talking about.
And that's the facts Jack
The conflicts you refer to below were not part of the Cold War. They were
wars started by the Democrat administrations. You are obviously not a
student of history. Why don't you take some courses at night? Maybe you'll
learn something. Get over the last election the left wing of our party lost
the election for us old Democrats. When they start believing , so-to-speak,
in motherhood and apple pie again, my grand old party will once again
Greg get a life, wake up and smell the coffee.
The conflicts -- Vietnam, Korea -- were absolutely part of the Cold
War. The only reason we got involved at all was because the Russians
would be supporting the `other' side and our politicians would get
nervous about being tagged as the people who `lost' (fill in the
Or, the Russians and/or Chinese would seek to
stir up trouble
right a wrong
(pick your version of events) and the U.S. would respond.
The phrase `Cold War' does not mean there was no shooting. It just
means that the U.S. and the Russians didn't shoot at each other
directly, since that would quickly escalate into our Mutually Assured
Destruction. (the policy of MAD).
It would more accurate to call that time the
`Decades of War by Proxy.'
And before you tag the Dems as the warmonger party, remember that the
Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which became the thin reed of authorization
for prosecuting the conflict, says in part ...
``Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress approves
and supports the determination of the President, as Commander in
Chief, to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack
against the forces of the United States and to prevent further
Surely there were one or two Republicans that voted for the measure.
would love to find the actual vote breakdown, but it escapes me for
Talking up to the vocal ...
(remove the star etc ....)
You're quite a case.
Soviet sector of Germany
Lost because we wouldn't - thought we couldn't - resist. Then we learned
Damn close in Greece, Yugoslavia and Austria.
Had you forgotten, or did you never learn why the cold war began?
I think it was actually Truman, on September 27, 1950 when the U.S. established a
Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) in Saigon to aid the French Army.
Buffalo, NY - USA
(Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)
You're mixing up your Limbaughisms. You are also creating
both sides, actually about a dozen sides, to some unnown
arguments that only you know about and then slinging insults
against all of them. What, precisely, is your point, other than
that you are a good little ditto head out for a gang bang ?
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.