From: bis@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Bis)
Subject: PATRICK can't think, and doesn't even try
Organization: Bis Information Services
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 12:42:39 GMT

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.  Your remark doesn't follow.
>
>My remark stands.  Ronnie was a president, and he could not have single-
>handedly have done anything to our economy.  Your theory is surpassed in
>emptiness only by your head.

No, you mean the theory you ascribe to me with your neat and
simple-minded opinion-package approach.  I never said he did it
single-handedly, idiot!  In fact, I said several times that he had
Congress's cooperation, but apparently you had your head buried in
sand at the time, which seems to be the same place it was throughout
the Reagan years.  Quote where I said Reagan did it all alone, with no
cooperation from Congress, or eat your EMPTY words and choke on them.

>>>          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.

>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.  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.  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."

>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?!?!
I think you need a few more CLUEs.

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.  It has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to
  do with understanding!  Balancing the budget is NOT something that
  the government tries to do but somehow keeps failing in.  We have a
  deficit because the government *decides* to spend more money than it
  has.  So "does not understand balancing an economy" goes straight 
  down the toilet, where it should have gone in the first place.

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.

>I repeat:  Only a moron would fail to see the connection.

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.

>>CLUE:  Deficit spending is what amassed the national debt!
>
>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.

>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.

>>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?  :)

>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.  So I misinterperted your ambiguous
words.  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.

>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.

>>Recommendation:  Get a CLUE!
>
>Recommendation: hopeless.

Yeah, my recommendation *was* hopeless, wasn't it?  :)

>>Hey, they tried, but Bush vetoed (or is that "vetod"?  Let's ask the
>>Vice President about that one, he's the expert...) 
>
>Obviously you're not.  It's vetoed.  2nd grade.

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.

>>their budgets for
>>having the audacity to try to sneak by changes to the sacred Status
>>Quo (I'm certain the White House staff capitalizes that).
>
>No, the budgets included ridiculous allocations for unnecessary programs.
>The President cannot pick and choose, so they can put something stupid in
>the bill along with a lot of "good" things and blame him for rejecting it.

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.

>Clue: politics is nasty.

Did I say it wasn't?  Did I *imply* it wasn't?  No?  Oops, you fucked
up again!

>>And what about the Reagan years, which is when the economy was
>>condemned to collapse?  Congress did pass most of Reagan's economic
>>programs, particularly in the early 80s.  Yeah, I suppose you can
>>blame Congress--for cooperating with Ronnie the Senile Fuckhead
>>Reagan.
>
>Congress passed severely crippled versions of some of Ronnie's programs, 

Then why did Ronnie hail them as great achievements?  Simple: Congress
passed the bulk of his programs during the years that his party
controlled the Senate.  (Of course, using your opinion-package
approach, you'll probably take this to mean that I think the House had
no responsibility for passing Ronnie's programs, even though I didn't
say it.)

>and have done worse to Bush.

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