Leaving the community

Peter Duniho wrote:

The military that makes a living going to war for the US?

It doesn't work that way. Sir Arthur Harris (commander of Bomber Command in WWII) put
it very well in his memoirs. During peacetime, soldiers get paid for doing a few
exercises. They have a fair amount of leisure time. When war breaks out, those near
the action have a relatively high casualty rate until things pretty much stabilize.
They are subject to the vagaries of weather, can't bathe, and are poorly fed. Low
ranking officers tend to have a very high casualty rate, though the chances for
promotion are good for the survivors. High ranking officers may be prematurely
retired or, conversely, yanked back out of retirement.

If you win the war, once peace settles in, many of the officers are discharged as
surplus and have their military careers cut short when they would have otherwise
served for decades at somewhat lower ranks. If you lose, many of your officers are
shot.

The last person who wants to go to war is the one who has to fight it.

Paraphrased from "Bomber Command", Sir Arthur Harris.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

(Malcolm Teas) wrote in message . com...
"C J Campbell" wrote in message ...
"Cecil Chapman" wrote in message
m...
P.S. You're right, we should all thank Mr. Bush for turning a hard-earned
surplus budget (earned under Clinton's rule) into a 4.3 trillion dollar
DEFICIT.

That is really funny coming from a Democrat. Here we have Democrats accusing
Bush of behaving too much like a Democrat. ROFL.

Just for historical accuracy I think the "behaving too much like a
Democrat" thing is pretty outdated. After all, the only balanced
budgets in the last thirty years has been with the Democrat Bill
Clinton in office. (Source: Appendix F of the CBO publication The
Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2005-2014.)

No matter what you think of Clinton, neither of the Bush presidents,
nor Ford, nor Reagan managed that. In fact, the deficit climbed
significantly in the Reagan and first Bush terms. First time over one
trillion. two trillion, and three trillion in those years.

So, high time to adjust our view to reality.

-Malcolm Teas

Matt Barrow says:
And his role in those surpluses was...?

Well, looking at the data, he proposed and succeeded in passing a
budget that reduced the overall deficit for the country.

If you're talking about how the surpluses came about, he took
advantage of the boom to propose budgets - and get them passed - that
created the surpluses.

Matt Whiting:
Luck. He was lucky to be following George Bush the First

Huh? Perhaps that was luck, perhaps not. I don't, for example,
remember any effort under Bush senior to, for example, make
governement more cost efficient. There was that under Clinton. But,
all presidents have some good luck and some bad. But not all
presidents use the good luck effectively.

John Theune:
I think a more balanced view might be the relative growth of the budget
vs inflation during various administrations. The main reason Clinton got
to run a surplus was a huge increase in income due to the internet bubble
and the capital gains taxes it generated. While a surplus is a good
thing, it must also be viewed against spending as I certainly don't want
a budget surplus if it means they take all my money!

Inflation fell during the Clinton years. It was higher, often
significantly higher in the Bush (senior) and Reagan years. Sure,
there was a boom or bubble. There were booms and bubbles in years
past. Several times in the 60's and 70's too. However, those
presidents didn't take advantage of it to lower our deficit then.

Bob Noel:
it's high time people learned which branch of the Federal
Government is responsible for appropriation.

Well, the president proposes the budget, Congress passes it. But,
it's also high time we recognize how these things get done too.
There's plenty of negotiation between the two branches on what gets in
and what doesn't. A successful president knows how to negotiate as
well as propose a budget.

Matt Barrow:
And time that people learned the difference between CORRELATION and
CAUSATION.

Also, it's time they learned to dig in and get economic data that
explains
such things as tax revenue during boom years, the y2K run-up, that
the boom
90's were mostly attributable to Bill GATES, not Bill CLINTON. That
the
ground work and foundation for the 90's were laid in the Reagan
80's...

Well, there's something interesting in that Clinton was the ONLY
president that had a budget with a surplus since 1962 (possibly
earlier, that's how early the data I looked as was). This was across
both parties, across differing Congresses, and across boom and bust
cycles. Sounds like correlation to me.

Bill Gates was not personally responsible for the boom. If any single
person was it's Tim Berners-Lee who came up with HTML, HTTP, and the
initial versions of web technology. But, it's not just one person.
It's many people in many areas expanding into the potential of
internet technology. Some of us succeeded wildly, some didn't, some
of us crashed and burned. Actually, Microsoft is more a marketing
driven company than a tech company. Like many large companies they're
more of a follower in technology than a leader. (I write software for
a living and have been involved in computers for a number of years,
seen 'em come and seen 'em go.)

As far as Reagan laying the groundwork, well, he was the one who
proposed & got passed the budgets that caused the significant deficit
in the first place. All prior deficits pale to his. Deficits raise
interest rates and slow investments.

In any case, that's it for me on this debate. Believe what you want.
I enjoy a good debate as a way of better understanding of what each
other thinks. But this isn't it. Back to aviation for me.

-Malcolm Teas

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...
The last person who wants to go to war is the one who has to fight it.

That's certainly not how I read CJ's question. He clearly is implying that
the people who have to fight the war are NOT the last people who want to go
to war.

Inasmuch as that may be true (and I'm not really agreeing that it is...I
doubt it's true that "the military voted overwhelmingly for Bush", not in
the sense of the word "overwhelming" I'm familiar with), there are plenty of
reasons why it might be true without contradicting anything CJ was replying
to.

Pete

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

not for the children killed during the abortion.

"Children" who in large numbers were dying anyway (making abortion illegal
doesn't get rid of abortion), or who if born would have suffered their
entire short life in many cases.

so, you are defending abortion in part because the child would die
anyway? (after all, making murder illegal doesn't get rid of murder).
Can you see the problem with that kind of reasoning?



Ignoring for the moment the huge chasm between people like you who claim
that it's a "child" the moment the egg is fertilized and a larger group of
people who don't feel that way, of course

I made no such claim.



In any case, since you're clearly "anti-choice", you should know as well as
anyone that no thread about abortion is going to get anywhere, not even on
an abortion newsgroup, nevermind a piloting one.

Then why did you bring up abortion?

--
Bob Noel

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
so, you are defending abortion in part because the child would die
anyway?

I am not of the opinion that a child dies in an abortion. I don't like
abortion, but I don't equate it to slitting the throat of a newborn.

(after all, making murder illegal doesn't get rid of murder).

Legalizing murder doesn't provide any benefit. But even if it did, we have
clear examples of legalized murder as well, right here in the US.
Ironically, the people who are generally most against abortion are the same
people most in favor of legalized murder.

Can you see the problem with that kind of reasoning?

What kind of reasoning? The kind of reasoning you falsely ascribe to me?

Ignoring for the moment the huge chasm between people like you who claim
that it's a "child" the moment the egg is fertilized and a larger group
of
people who don't feel that way, of course

I made no such claim.

Well perhaps you'd like to explain why you say abortion involves killing a
child then. What "child" is being killed, if not the fertilized egg?

Then why did you bring up abortion?

I didn't. CJ did. Foolishly, I believed we could stay focused on the
already off-topic discussion without getting mired in an impossible debate,
and responded to his reference to abortion.

Pete

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

Then why did you bring up abortion?

I didn't. CJ did.

ah. I must of missed that. My apologies.

--
Bob Noel

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
Then why did you bring up abortion?

I didn't. CJ did.

ah. I must of missed that. My apologies.

Accepted. We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming...

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Matt Barrow wrote:

The Greeks and Romans, had legends, but they were not based in
superstition.

They had religions and worshipped various Gods.

Their gods were not based on superstitions, but were super-humans.

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Malcolm Teas" wrote in message
om...
(Malcolm Teas) wrote in message
. com...
"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
"Cecil Chapman" wrote in message
m...
P.S. You're right, we should all thank Mr. Bush for turning a
hard-earned
surplus budget (earned under Clinton's rule) into a 4.3 trillion
dollar
DEFICIT.

That is really funny coming from a Democrat. Here we have Democrats
accusing
Bush of behaving too much like a Democrat. ROFL.

Just for historical accuracy I think the "behaving too much like a
Democrat" thing is pretty outdated. After all, the only balanced
budgets in the last thirty years has been with the Democrat Bill
Clinton in office. (Source: Appendix F of the CBO publication The
Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2005-2014.)

No matter what you think of Clinton, neither of the Bush presidents,
nor Ford, nor Reagan managed that. In fact, the deficit climbed
significantly in the Reagan and first Bush terms. First time over one
trillion. two trillion, and three trillion in those years.

So, high time to adjust our view to reality.

-Malcolm Teas

Matt Barrow says:
And his role in those surpluses was...?

Well, looking at the data, he proposed and succeeded in passing a
budget that reduced the overall deficit for the country.

If you're talking about how the surpluses came about, he took
advantage of the boom to propose budgets - and get them passed - that
created the surpluses.

Matt Whiting:
Luck. He was lucky to be following George Bush the First

Huh? Perhaps that was luck, perhaps not. I don't, for example,
remember any effort under Bush senior to, for example, make
governement more cost efficient. There was that under Clinton. But,
all presidents have some good luck and some bad. But not all
presidents use the good luck effectively.

John Theune:
I think a more balanced view might be the relative growth of the budget
vs inflation during various administrations. The main reason Clinton
got
to run a surplus was a huge increase in income due to the internet
bubble
and the capital gains taxes it generated. While a surplus is a good
thing, it must also be viewed against spending as I certainly don't want
a budget surplus if it means they take all my money!

Inflation fell during the Clinton years. It was higher, often
significantly higher in the Bush (senior) and Reagan years. Sure,
there was a boom or bubble. There were booms and bubbles in years
past. Several times in the 60's and 70's too. However, those
presidents didn't take advantage of it to lower our deficit then.

Bob Noel:
it's high time people learned which branch of the Federal
Government is responsible for appropriation.

Well, the president proposes the budget, Congress passes it. But,
it's also high time we recognize how these things get done too.
There's plenty of negotiation between the two branches on what gets in
and what doesn't. A successful president knows how to negotiate as
well as propose a budget.

Matt Barrow:
And time that people learned the difference between CORRELATION and
CAUSATION.


Well, there's something interesting in that Clinton was the ONLY
president that had a budget with a surplus since 1962 (possibly
earlier, that's how early the data I looked as was).

Think: Regan peace dividend, Republican cost saving via Welfare reform,
Internet bubble/gobs of tax revenue...

Also, On the Origins of the Long Boom
http://www.cato.org/dailys/04-27-00.html

This was across
both parties, across differing Congresses, and across boom and bust
cycles. Sounds like correlation to me.

Bill Gates was not personally responsible for the boom.

Not personnally, no.

If any single
person was it's Tim Berners-Lee who came up with HTML, HTTP, and the
initial versions of web technology. But, it's not just one person.

Except the liberal statists want to give Bubba the credit. And web
technology would have been stillborn with out Gates to give it life.

As far as Reagan laying the groundwork, well, he was the one who
proposed & got passed the budgets that caused the significant deficit
in the first place.

Not quite; it was the Democratic congress that spent all the money (and then
some) that his tax policies generated (a doubling of revenue in about eight
years). In addition, his de-regulation engendered the shift into new
technologies that Bubba's re-regulation helped to kill the technology rise.
For example, Bubba'sFCC essentially killed the telecomms and that led to the
bubble burst.
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/eps...ransition.html

and http://www.manhattan-institute.org/h...mm-telecom.htm

All prior deficits pale to his. Deficits raise
interest rates and slow investments.

Is that why we're still at 4% interst? Is that why Japan is at 1% interst
rates?


In any case, that's it for me on this debate. Believe what you want.

And you do (and do now) likewise. Well, at least you believe what your
MSM/academic handlers shoved down your throat.'

I enjoy a good debate as a way of better understanding of what each
other thinks. But this isn't it.

Not when all you do is barf back what the folks mentioned above feed you.
You've got to dig a bit further on your own.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Corky Scott" wrote

This
conflict of interest should have made them automatically suspect, and
they were suspect to the CIA, but not to the White House.

This is so close to lying to the American public that it's hard to see
the difference.

Corky Scott

Oh, kinda like Clinton telling us under oath, that he did not have sexual
relations with Monica?
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.788 / Virus Database: 533 - Release Date: 11/1/2004