What Right-Wing Governance Does For Cycling

On 3/16/2011 4:59 PM, Duane Hebert wrote:
On 3/15/2011 11:44 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 3/15/2011 11:37 AM, Duane Hebert wrote:
[...]
You should never have a sense of security on the road, whether in a car
or on a bike. You should drive or ride defensively.[...]

If some MFFY driver tries to take your right-of-way, and you are in a
comparable or larger vehicle, have the collision. They will *not*
forget the lesson.


I didn't say that you shouldn't retaliate.

What is MFFY though? GINMF today.

Me First, **** You.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 3/16/2011 8:15 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Edward Dolan:
And rightly so! What have the god damn liberal Dems ever done to free
anyone?

Under Carter/Clinton the federal deficit was reduced by 13%.
Under Reagan/Bush it was increased by 62%.

Check out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...idential_terms

From Roosevelt/Truman through Reagan/Bush, the deficit as a
percent of GDP increased by 43.7% under Republican
administrations and DECREASED by 75.7% under Democratic
administrations.

Freedom?

Report back on the larger meaning of "Freedom" when millions of
people who have worked all their lives plus more that are working
40-60 hours a week at the bottom of the wage scale don't have a
dime to their names because of double-digit inflation brought on
by deficit spending.

+2.99x10^6


What, not even a mole, Tom?

JS.

On 3/16/2011 8:36 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 3/16/2011 4:59 PM, Duane Hebert wrote:
On 3/15/2011 11:44 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 3/15/2011 11:37 AM, Duane Hebert wrote:
[...]
You should never have a sense of security on the road, whether in a car
or on a bike. You should drive or ride defensively.[...]

If some MFFY driver tries to take your right-of-way, and you are in a
comparable or larger vehicle, have the collision. They will *not*
forget the lesson.


I didn't say that you shouldn't retaliate.

What is MFFY though? GINMF today.

Me First, **** You.


Ah. The acronym doesn't do justice.

Per Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ":
Hey, some people still deny or justify the slaughter at Sabra and Shatila.

Yeah, I've even known a few Holocaust deniers.

Got to wonder if at least some of them are decent people, but
people whose world view depends on trusting their leaders - and
the cognitive dissonance is just too much for them so they
resolve it by denial.
--
PeteCresswell

On 3/17/2011 11:16 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Tºm Shermªn™ ":
Hey, some people still deny or justify the slaughter at Sabra and Shatila.

Yeah, I've even known a few Holocaust deniers.

Any who weren't the president of Iran?

Got to wonder if at least some of them are decent people, but
people whose world view depends on trusting their leaders - and
the cognitive dissonance is just too much for them so they
resolve it by denial.

Hard to make that case unless they are somehow prevented access to books
or any other form of information.

I guess anything is possible. The flat earth society still exists.

Per Edward Dolan:

Under Carter/Clinton the federal deficit was reduced by 13%.
Under Reagan/Bush it was increased by 62%.

Clinton was only able to reduce the deficit because of pressure coming from
a Republican Congress. But Bush was a big spender and did not even have
brains enough to defend our borders from illegal aliens. But no one in the
world can spend like liberal Dems. Obama is bankrupting the country.
[...]

That's what a lot of Republican damage-control types say, but
observe (in the link above) that after Clinton, G.W. Bush had a
Republican congress for six of his eight years in office, yet
they managed do add 15.1% to the national debt.

And that's not to mention Reagan with his Republican congress for
what? 8 years? that managed to run up the credit card by an
additional 20.6 percent.

All the while managing to convince their base that they were
champions of fiscal responsibility and the Dems were not.

I can't argue with the old sages that said that sex was the
original sin, but I'd say that stupidity and ignorance are
contenders for a close second place.

Lest you think I'm on one side or another, I would say that both
parties are very, very guilty of pandering to the fantasy that
our country is going to get out of the mess that it is in without
the voters experiencing some significant pain. The Republicans
may draw a little more ire bco the blatant hypocrisy of dumping
on Dems as big spenders while they add so much to the debt... but
in the end they're both lacking in integrity.

The Dems talk about "investing" when they're really just handing
out money.

The Repubs talk about "fiscal responsibility, "no new taxes" and
"cutting the budget" - when every non-partisan source I've heard
says balancing the budget cannot be done on cuts along and
they've increased the debt hugely while saying those words.

Neither one wants to talk about raising the retirement age for
social security, raising the social security contribution, or
cutting back on Medicare.

And I can't blame them. It's us, the electorate, that's behind
all this. Let a politician from any party even mention raising
taxes or cutting entitlements and see what happens - the others
are all over him like flies on dung.

Simpson/Bowles said it all in their report. The Repubs
pretended to be outraged over it and Obama sort of patted the
deficit reduction committee on the head and moved on.
--
PeteCresswell

On 3/17/2011 4:23 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Edward Dolan:

Under Carter/Clinton the federal deficit was reduced by 13%.
Under Reagan/Bush it was increased by 62%.

Clinton was only able to reduce the deficit because of pressure coming from
a Republican Congress. But Bush was a big spender and did not even have
brains enough to defend our borders from illegal aliens. But no one in the
world can spend like liberal Dems. Obama is bankrupting the country.
[...]

That's what a lot of Republican damage-control types say, but
observe (in the link above) that after Clinton, G.W. Bush had a
Republican congress for six of his eight years in office, yet
they managed do add 15.1% to the national debt.

And that's not to mention Reagan with his Republican congress for
what? 8 years? that managed to run up the credit card by an
additional 20.6 percent.

All the while managing to convince their base that they were
champions of fiscal responsibility and the Dems were not.

Something that they still seem able to do.

"(PeteCresswell)" wrote in message
...
Per Edward Dolan:

Under Carter/Clinton the federal deficit was reduced by 13%.
Under Reagan/Bush it was increased by 62%.

Clinton was only able to reduce the deficit because of pressure coming
from
a Republican Congress. But Bush was a big spender and did not even have
brains enough to defend our borders from illegal aliens. But no one in the
world can spend like liberal Dems. Obama is bankrupting the country.
[...]

That's what a lot of Republican damage-control types say, but
observe (in the link above) that after Clinton, G.W. Bush had a
Republican congress for six of his eight years in office, yet
they managed do add 15.1% to the national debt.

And that's not to mention Reagan with his Republican congress for
what? 8 years? that managed to run up the credit card by an
additional 20.6 percent.

All the while managing to convince their base that they were
champions of fiscal responsibility and the Dems were not.

Both Reagan and Bush were big spenders, but they can't compare to liberal
Dems and Obama. Clinton wanted to be a big spender too, but was constrained
by Congressional Repubs.

I can't argue with the old sages that said that sex was the
original sin, but I'd say that stupidity and ignorance are
contenders for a close second place.

Lest you think I'm on one side or another, I would say that both
parties are very, very guilty of pandering to the fantasy that
our country is going to get out of the mess that it is in without
the voters experiencing some significant pain. The Republicans
may draw a little more ire bco the blatant hypocrisy of dumping
on Dems as big spenders while they add so much to the debt... but
in the end they're both lacking in integrity.

The Dems talk about "investing" when they're really just handing
out money.

The Repubs talk about "fiscal responsibility, "no new taxes" and
"cutting the budget" - when every non-partisan source I've heard
says balancing the budget cannot be done on cuts along and
they've increased the debt hugely while saying those words.

Neither one wants to talk about raising the retirement age for
social security, raising the social security contribution, or
cutting back on Medicare.

Those are precisely what I DO want to talk about. There is no other way for
this nation to avoid going down the tubes.

And I can't blame them. It's us, the electorate, that's behind
all this. Let a politician from any party even mention raising
taxes or cutting entitlements and see what happens - the others
are all over him like flies on dung.

I think that is going to change very shortly when some chickens come home to
roost. Americans will not like being permanently poor like most in the rest
of the world.

Simpson/Bowles said it all in their report. The Repubs
pretended to be outraged over it and Obama sort of patted the
deficit reduction committee on the head and moved on.

Ony the Tea Party types are up to speed on this issue.

--
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

On Mar 17, 4:23*pm, "(PeteCresswell)" wrote:
Per Edward Dolan:



Under Carter/Clinton the federal deficit was reduced by 13%.
Under Reagan/Bush it was increased by 62%.

Clinton was only able to reduce the deficit because of pressure coming from
a Republican Congress. But Bush was a big spender and did not even have
brains enough to defend our borders from illegal aliens. But no one in the
world can spend like liberal Dems. Obama is bankrupting the country.
[...]

That's what a lot of Republican damage-control types say, but
observe (in the link above) that after Clinton, G.W. Bush had a
Republican congress for six of his eight years in office, yet
they managed do add 15.1% *to the national debt. *

And that's not to mention Reagan with his Republican congress for
what? 8 years? that managed to run up the credit card by an
additional 20.6 percent.

All the while managing to convince their base that they were
champions of fiscal responsibility and the Dems were not.

I can't argue with the old sages that said that sex was the
original sin, but I'd say that stupidity and ignorance are
contenders for a close second place.

Lest you think I'm on one side or another, I would say that both
parties are very, very guilty of pandering to the fantasy that
our country is going to get out of the mess that it is in without
the voters experiencing some significant pain. * The Republicans
may draw a little more ire bco the blatant hypocrisy of dumping
on Dems as big spenders while they add so much to the debt... but
in the end they're both lacking in integrity.

The Dems talk about "investing" when they're really just handing
out money.

The Repubs talk about "fiscal responsibility, *"no new taxes" and
"cutting the budget" - when every non-partisan source I've heard
says balancing the budget cannot be done on cuts along and
they've increased the debt hugely while saying those words.

Neither one wants to talk about raising the retirement age for
social security, raising the social security contribution, or
cutting back on Medicare.

And I can't blame them. * It's us, the electorate, that's behind
all this. * Let a politician from any party even mention raising
taxes or cutting entitlements and see what happens - the others
are all over him like flies on dung.

Simpson/Bowles said it all in their report. * The Repubs
pretended to be outraged over it and Obama sort of patted the
deficit reduction committee on the head and moved on.

I don't disagree with much that you've said, but I notice you didn't
mention "defense" spending at all. I think it's quite pertinent to any
budget discussion.

- Frank Krygowski

Per Edward Dolan:
Both Reagan and Bush were big spenders, but they can't compare to liberal
Dems and Obama. Clinton wanted to be a big spender too, but was constrained
by Congressional Repubs.

Assuming it was congress and not the president, why was Bush not
similarly constrained?
--
PeteCresswell