Bicylist shot and killed for thrill

Bill Sornson" wrote in message
...
George Karabotsos wrote:

BTW anyone knows the latest figure on the US debt and maybe the
current yearly deficit?

Since you're Canadian, NOYB!
:-P

Be nice to the potential sucker, I mean US government bond customer.

(Bonds denominated in another currency from your own carry higher risk due
to currency fluctuations.)

Neil Brooks wrote:
George Karabotsos wrote:

BTW anyone knows the latest figure on the US debt and maybe the
current yearly deficit?

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

$8 trillion. I'm rolling up my pennies right now....

Basic annual budget deficit info:

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index...nce=0#table1-1

Can we count on your support?

Don't need it. Stock market and consumer confidence up; unemployment and
inflation down. Economy's strong, revenues under the tax cuts are higher
than without them. Deficit during wartime not a big deal; won't take much
to reel back in...

But stick with the Doom 'n Gloom Dems -- you fit right in!

N&F

Nuck 'n Futz wrote:
Neil Brooks wrote:

George Karabotsos wrote:


BTW anyone knows the latest figure on the US debt and maybe the
current yearly deficit?

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

$8 trillion. I'm rolling up my pennies right now....

Basic annual budget deficit info:

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index...nce=0#table1-1

Can we count on your support?


Don't need it. Stock market and consumer confidence up; unemployment and
inflation down. Economy's strong, revenues under the tax cuts are higher
than without them. Deficit during wartime not a big deal; won't take much
to reel back in...


Except most of that debt was created in peace time, when the economy was
doing well, because politicians in the United States realise that
government deficits have less political damage potential then something
like say increasing taxes to the point where the government is breaking
even.

Look at Canada, the economy is doing well, and governments have cut out
a lot of waste, and the national debt is DROPPING when I started typing
I checked a debt clock, it said 805,587,446,676 or CA$25,216.91 (US$
21,719.99 for comparison) per Canadian, this is for ALL levels of
government, Federal, Provincial and Municipal, the number is actually
dropping. The political issue now is, is the Federal Government
properly handling the budget surpluses?

The United States on the other hand, is looking at a mind numbing total
of US$8,114,717,974,342.92 or US$27,241.81 per American, and as far as I
can tell this doesn't include State or Municipal debt, and it's rising.

Deficits are intended to get through rough times, when times are bad,
the government can create work projects, to bolster employment and the
economy, when times are good, the government plan should be to restore
any reserves and pay off any debt. This is a cycle which you repeat, ad
nausium.

W

Nuck 'n Futz wrote:
Zoot Katz wrote:
On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 15:31:01 GMT, Jeff Starr
wrote:

So your condemning us all because of the Bush Administration, his
followers,

And Clinton and Reagan and Nixon and Johnson. I think Carter was the
last decent human being to have held that position.

Yeah, hostages and gas lines and rampant inflation and high unemployment --
"malaise" -- good times!

Apparently, you can't conceive of a good person being in charge during
bad times.

- Frank Krygowski

Neil Brooks wrote:

Out of context, of course, but I am curious, Bob, if you think it is
proper, just, or reasonable that we do NOT have access to a 'real'
number of dead on the Iraqi side, whether or not they attempt to
discern combatants from non-combatants.

Proper or just in a humane sense? No. Reasonable in a practical sense?
Yes. First, there's the problem of actually determining that number.
It's one thing to know 100 men from a military unit entered a battle
and 90 returned. It's quite another to guess how many individuals took
time out of their day to engage in armed hostilities and of those that
didn't return to their homes that night how many died in those
hostilities. Second, there's the "why bother?" factor. Since, if that
number were to be supplied by the Iraqi government or the US forces, it
would be instantly dismissed by a large portion of the very people
clamoring for the number it wouldn't serve any useful purpose to those
that would have to go out and actually count bodies. Others have tried
to compare the war in Iraq with the US war in Vietnam. This is yet
another difference between the two. A military commander in Vietnam had
a motive to *increase* enemy body count. High body counts in Iraq, even
if absolutely accurate, have no advantage to the military.

Last I knew, the official policy was still that of Tommy Franks: "We
don't do body counts."

Why is it that the only sources we have for Iraqi (alleged) civilian
deaths are sites like iraqbodycount.org (current min: 27,295; max:
30,789) or the Lancet's estimate of 100,000? If we really don't "do
body counts" (I can't believe we don't), then why don't we?

To Chalo's point, I find it odd, sad, and tragic that most people I
know are aware that there have been some 2,100 US deaths, but none has
any idea how many Iraqis have died in this war. To me, there is some
latent "prejudice" there, valuing American lives so much more than
other lives. We hear it with every news report of bombings, natural
disasters, etc. The 'news' tends to be American deaths. The rest is
rather a footnote.

That's not prejudice, it's human nature. Listen to news reports of
those same bombings, natural disasters, etcetera in France and you'll
hear about how many Frenchmen were killed. In Canada, it'll be
Canadians and in Japan, Japanese.

It has been said that--until we view each human as having equal worth
as ourselves--little on this planet will change.

A noble goal but not one I have much hope we'll ever achieve.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

wrote:
Nuck 'n Futz wrote:
Zoot Katz wrote:
On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 15:31:01 GMT, Jeff Starr
wrote:

So your condemning us all because of the Bush Administration, his
followers,

And Clinton and Reagan and Nixon and Johnson. I think Carter was the
last decent human being to have held that position.

Yeah, hostages and gas lines and rampant inflation and high
unemployment -- "malaise" -- good times!

Apparently, you can't conceive of a good person being in charge during
bad times.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...0/202353.shtml

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3093

http://www.patriotist.com/miscarch/as20020610.htm

http://www.regnery.com/regnery/040412_carter.html

(On and on.)

Plus, of course, he still says "nookular". LOL

N&F

Osborn, 43, was shot to death at 47th Street and Blue Ridge Boulevard Sunday
morning as he rode his bike home from work.

FYI, area cyclists are planning a memorial ride for murder victim
Robert Osborn, who was an avid cyclist.

11 AM, Sunday, December 11th, 2005, starting from the parking lot of
HyVee, 4545 Noland Rd, Independence, Missouri.

More info he

http://www.mobikefed.org/2005/12/rob...ride-safe.html

If you live in the Kansas City area, come on out. If you know anyone
who lives in he area, please forward this along.

Bill Sornson wrote:
George Karabotsos wrote:


BTW anyone knows the latest figure on the US debt and maybe the
current yearly deficit?


Since you're Canadian, NOYB!

:-P

Well considering the one billion/day trade between our countries, I 'll
say its my business as well

:P

"George Karabotsos" wrote in message
...

Well considering the one billion/day trade between our countries, I 'll
say its my business as well

That's just a decent bar tab.

that biker must have done something stupid to get a bullet

"The Wogster" wrote in message
.. .
Chalo wrote:
The Wogster wrote:

Chalo wrote:

Bill Sornson wrote:

To people like
Shallow Chalo, apparently, NO war is ever just (after all, he despised
Pat
Tillman for fighting in Afghanistan -- an action MOST people thought
justified).

According to the criteria for initiating a Just War, the methods of
Just War, or the terms by which a Just War must be ended, the US
aggression against Afghanistan has been a gross travesty on all counts,
no matter what the indoctrinated cracker rabble thought about it.

I'll agree with Bill, there is no such thing as a just war, every war
through history has been based on wanting more of something, or
retaining something that has passed it's prime.


That might well be so, but if you look at a struggle like WWII and hold
it up to the standards of Just War, it passes far more criteria that it
fails. Afghanistan is by far the opposite, and Iraq looks like a
textbook un-Just War.

Just War is a standard to uphold. All involved parties are better off
the closer a conflict conforms to the principles of Just War. To
proscute war in any other way just plants the seeds for more frequent
and more brutal conflicts in the future. The proponents of the
aggression in Afghanistan and in Iraq seem to be oblivious to the
consequences of doing it their way. We won't be able to dismiss our
aggrieved enemies as "terrorists" anymore when they are everyone else
in the world.



WW-II was a direct result of greed and power corruption, although I
maintain if it wasn't for WW-I's outcome, WW-II would not have happened.

WW-I was actually started by Germany retaliating to French greed, and
Britain, then betraying an old friend (Germany) to back up an old enemy
(France), if Britain would have stayed neutral or sided with Germany,
then the Kaiser (related to Britains royal family), would have stayed in
power, and Germanys economy would not have collapsed in the 1920's
giving rise to a situation where Hitler gained enough power to start
WW-II.

Every war has the same result, the winners write the history books, they
become the "good guys", the losers become bad guys.

W