Leaving the community

Chris E wrote:

Cecil Chapman wrote:


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.


The surplus budget was a scam, since much of that income turned out to be
losses due to technology speculation, rampant unchecked corporate fraud in the
late 90s, and even during the "surplus" social security monies were still
being siphoned off. The Nasdaq market peaked Jan 2000, and NYSE was dropping
steadily after March 2000,well before Bush was in office. Also keep in mind
that Bush had nothing to do with FY 2001 budget, which was in effect through
30 Sep 2001. The deficit did have much to do with an attack that happened on
Sept 2001, you may recall it, and the war on the terrorists. More attacks and
there wouldn't be much of an economy to worry about deficits. I don't recall
FDR holding off entering the WWII after Pearl Harbor because of worrying about
current deficits. We all remember the deficit scare stories from the 1980s,
and as the economy grew and expanded in time, the tax revenue came back in.
Deficits now are not extraordinary when properly compared to GDP, historically
speaking. Current GDP growth is about 4.3%, showing strong growth, especially
when compared with other Western nations, such as Germany, that hope, hope for
GDP growth in the 0.2% range this year.

Also remember a deficit is a flow concept, not a stock concept that can be
inherited.


True, but the national debt is passed along.


Matt

Jay Honeck wrote:

Mark my words: If they nominate Hillary next time around -- as they appear
to be angling toward -- it will set the Democratic Party back 50 years.
They won't see the White House again in our lifetime.

And now, back to flying!

I agree on both counts! Now if it just wasn't so cold here in PA already.


Matt

Roy Epperson wrote:

Michael
(A confirmed gun control advocate...)


Confirmed gun control is using two hands!



No, it's hitting your target. Many folks can't do that even using both
hands.


Matt

Dave Stadt wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Newps wrote:


Matt Whiting wrote:



I'm thinking of moving to a state like yours (SD, right?).


Montana. The democrats here couldn't get elected as republicans in
Pennsylvania. They'd be too far to the right.


I've lived


in PA all my life, but it is becoming such a liberal cesspool that I
may have to retire elsewehere.


A Wyoming address would be good and even more conservative than here. No
taxes.

Why are all of the conservatives states in places that are cold in the
winter? My grandfather always said that the cold winters "kept the
riff-raff out" and I'm beginning to think he was right. :-)


Matt


Seems half a dozen or so southern states went republican big time yesterday.
Seems the heat is keeping the riff-raff out also.



Good point! I can't take a hot climate so I guess I'm stuck with
Montana and Wyoming... :-) At least the airways shouldn't be so
congested there as here in the northeast.


Matt

AES/newspost wrote:

In article ,
"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:


He's opposed to private ownership of any firearm except shotguns plugged to
three
shells. And just where in the Constitution exactly is hunting mentioned? He
prattles
about "military-style assault weapons" while trying to ban semi-automatics,
knowing
full well that no military-style assault weapon is semi-automatic.

I have the right to own and fire my Mauser, and, as far as I'm concerned,
that
includes the right to be allowed to buy ammunition for it. Kerry tried to ban
that,
and we aren't talking anything armor-piercing here.



Want to give us a few details, just for the record, about the "well
regulated militia" to which you, personally, belong? (given your focus
on the Constitution, I assume you do) -- Name, location where it's
registered, number of members, just who it's "well regulated" by, that
sort of thing?

You better go back and learn what "well regulated" meant in the time
when the Constitution was written. And while you are at it, learn what
militia meant at that time as well. Hint, the meanings aren't at all
the same as the generally accepted meanings today.


Matt

"Greg Butler" wrote in message
. ..
[...] most Bush voters, however, look at the data first, then make up
their minds.

Which Bush voters? The 64% that still believe that Saddam Hussein was
involved in the 9/11 attacks?

Jim Fisher wrote:

Gay+high wing: Expected and proper.
Straight+low wing: Expected and proper

You got this half wrong. Birds are high wing, therefore high wing is
natural and proper. :-)


Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
This is hilarious. Do you think that people who voted for Kerry had their
facts any more straight?

Yes. The Gallup poll shows that to be the case, at least with respect to
Bush's statements.

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

This is hilarious. Do you think that people who voted for Kerry had their
facts any more straight?


Yes. The Gallup poll shows that to be the case, at least with respect to
Bush's statements.



Have you been this deluded for a long time or is it something that
happened recently? Polls are statistics, not facts.


Matt

No, it's not "spouting off." Those exit polls are what are routinely
released to various news outlets *during* the polling.

Thats not true. The do not release any of the data to anyone because it
would sway the remaining votes one way.

If it were a matter
of waiting until the polls closed, there'd be little value to an exit poll
since the ballots would soon be counted, anyway.

That's how it worked in the 70's and early 80's, but not today. Today the
exit polls are used after the polls have closed so that they do not have to
wait on all the precincts to report in which can take an hour at the least.
With the exit polls, it allows them to call the state as soon as the polls
close.