From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.flame
Subject: Big Intertial Spheroid (hiz head)
Date: 28 Sep 92 00:35:46 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson in North America.
              The opinions expressed are strictly those of the user and
              not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article <1992Sep26.124239.20926@news.cs.brandeis.edu> bis@chaos.
cs.brandeis.edu (Big Intertial Spheroid) writes:
>In article <exuptr.443.716051820@exu.ericsson.se> PATRICK Taylor writes:
>>In article <1992Sep12.161929.24984@news.cs.brandeis.edu> bis@chaos.cs.
brandeis.edu (Bis) writes:>>
>>>In article <exuptr.471.716142599@exu.ericsson.se> exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Sep10.131533.25653@news.cs.brandeis.edu> bis@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Bis) writes:
>>
>>>I didn't state a principle, you dipshit, I made very specific
>>>statement.  I didn't say "whenever the economy is bad, it's the
>>>president's fault", I said that Ronald Reagan is the one who destroyed
                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^    ^^^^^^^
>>>the economy.  

>> [patrick's comment removed for continuity]

>I never said he did it
>single-handedly, idiot!  

>Quote where I said Reagan did it all alone, with no
>cooperation from Congress, or eat your EMPTY words and choke on them.

See above text marked ^^^^, and look stupid.  You even included it in your
flame.  How brainless.  Makes my task easy, though.

If you're going to weasel, do a better job.

>>>>          We have a Congress that can't even balance their personal checking
>>>>accounts.  Only a moron would fail to see the connection between personal
>>>>hot checks and a HUGE national debt.
>>
>>>No, only a moron--an incredibly naive moron that doesn't know shit
>>>about government and doesn't understand finances--would say something
>>>as outrageously ludicrous as that Congress's check bouncing is
>>>responsible for the national debt.
>>
>>I didn't say that.  Read it again.  Did you graduate from high school?

>Yeah.  And if *you* also graduated from high school, it says a lot
>about the sorry state this country's education system is in.

That's fine.  Lose the point, change the subject.  Kebbie-style, yes?

>>There is a *connection* does not mean that the check bouncing is responsible.

>Yeah, I thought you might say that's what you meant, although judging
>from the level of intelligence you showed, I deemed the interpretation
>I answered more likely.  

You don't know likely from the hole in your ass.

>Who cares, this one isn't much better.  A
>*connection*, huh?  You're really hanging by a thin thread when you
>start babbling about vague speculations of what MUST HAVE happened and
>pay no attention to what DID happen.  Many congressmen bounced checks,
>and that's PROOF that Congress is responsible for the deficit. 

No, it's proof that these guys have questionable integrity.

> Where,
>except in your pathetic, simplistic, narrow little world?!  "Duh, gee,
>Congress bounced checks, so that *must* have *something* to with the
>deficit.  Never mind *what* the connection is, there just is one.
>Never mind *how* Congress did it, they just *must have*.  Don't
>confuse me with the facts, I know what I believe."

You're totally clueless, aren't you.  I explained all that.  Maybe I should
type slower ;-)

>>It goes like this:
>>
>>Mr X bounces checks
>>Mr X cannot balance his checkbook
>>Mr X does not understand balancing an economy, or he won't do it
>>Mr X is your congressman
>>Your country does not have a balanced budget.

>Are you really such an idiot, or do you just play one on the net?  You
>mean to tell me you actually think that the deficit is an accident,
>and comes from lack of understanding of how to balance a budget?!?!

Not so much lack of understanding as lack of responsible attitude.

>I think you need a few more CLUEs.

You could use any clue at all.

>CLUE: The deficit is DELIBERATE and CALCULATED!  The deficit doesn't
>  just mysteriously pop up after the fact because of errors and
>  loopholes in the budget.  The *exact* size of the deficit is
>  calculated when the budget is drafted.  

No shit?  Guess what?  Anyone that would write a personal check that will
not clear is a prime candidate for submitting a budget that won't clear.

Have you figured this out yet?  It's an attitude problem, unlike yours, 
which is just a simple problem of loose brain fittings.

>CLUE: Reagan asked for more spending than Congress approved EVERY
>  SINGLE FUCKING YEAR of his presidency, and several times rejected
>  budgets in order to force Congress to step spending up closer to
>  what he wanted.  So "or he won't do it" goes down the toilet as
>  well.

Reagan had as many cuts that were rejected.

>And I repeat, only a moron would see one.  And only a wimp would try
>to cop out by claiming some vague connection just because the facts
>don't support his contentions.

I just can't believe this guy.  Sheesh.

>>Spending more than you have is the only way to run out of money.

>No shit, Sherlock!  What the hell do you think the federal government
>has been doing for over a decade?  Oh, I forgot, you had your head in
>the sand when it happened.

Wait a minute.  I make a point, and you flame me for missing it?  You're
just pissing on yourself.  Someone hand this guy a kleenex.

>>If you spend less than your income you will have money left over.
>>They teach addition and subtraction in first grade now.  Maybe you want
>>to go back?

>Do you know what "deficit spending" means, or are you more ignorant
>than I dared to imagine?  "Deficit spending" means spending *more*,
>not less, than you have.  They don't teach that in first grade, which
>is probably why you don't know it.

I know it just fine.  Did you realize that we don't have to use it, O
Spacious One?

>>>CLUE:  Bounced checks CANNOT incur a debt, no matter how much money
>>>  they're written for.  Since you are obviously a child who has never
>>>  had a bank account and does not understand banking, allow me to
>>>  explain it to you:  Checks are vouchers for money.  When a check is
>>
>>This is only more crap that proves you totally missed the point.  What a
>>fool you are!  You've wasted all this energy on a point I didn't even
>>make.  

>You mean like when you argue that Reagan couldn't have ruined the
>economy without Congress's consent?  :)

See above, for proof.  ::::-----))))

>>I can't get over this.  This guy actually thinks I meant that these turkeys
>>personally wrote checks that put the whole country in debt.

>That's because you've shown yourself to be stupid and ignorant enough
>to believe something like that.  

You're the only one that DID believe it.  Welcome to your own flame, 
BONEHEAD.

>So I misinterperted your ambiguous
>words.  

Not ambiguous at all, just poignant.  

>So what?  If you don't believe Congress's check bouncing
>created the deficit, that's just a matter of chance, and you believe
>something equally stupid.  What you believe has nothing to do with
>what makes sense, it just has to do with your perception of Republican
>party line and various ideas you get spoon-fed here and there.

I said it before it was a popular "party line".  Again, it's a responsibility
thing.  

Maybe I'll try one more time.  Would you allow someone to figure your tax
return for a business if they were under investigation by the irs for 
cheating on their personal taxes?  If you did, would you be suprised to get 
an audit.  If so, you are *really*  *really* stupid.  I mean that sincerely.

>>CLUE:  We're on planet earth, where are you BIS?

>CLUE: You can only use the pronoun "we", PATRICK, when the group of
>  people you're referring to includes yourself.  You don't even need
>  to go to first grade to learn that.  Go back to your mommy.

Oh, I'm just bursting into a puff of un-smoke.  {42}

>Obviously you're as dense as you're clueless.  They don't teach how to
>recognize sarcasm in school, that's just a question of intelligence.
>So I guess there's no hope for you in that department.

Beat me!  Hurt me!  Make me write bad checks!  

>Thank God you're not the one deciding what's "good" and what's
>"stupid".  If you were, we wouldn't have a recession, we'd have an
>economy on par with Mali.

Oh, that's really to-the-point.

>You're so full of shit it's astounding.  

Anything would astound you.  Especially shit.

>Tell me, what exactly WERE
>George Bush's programs?  I mean *before* his second term flew out the
>window while he sat back and watched.

You mean you don't know, Mr. "You-Should-Know-Everything-About-The-Issue-
Before-You-Open-Your-Mouth"?

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "This must be Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
                                                       - Douglas Adams
  - Patrick Taylor                                       (Arthur Dent)
    Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                       "Don't let the .se fool you"
    or exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org, exu.exuptr@memo.ericsson.se
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc