Selling off national forest and national parks? TU alert

Bill McKee wrote:

"David Snedeker" wrote in message
. ..

Thing is he does. Lots of folks put it together like Bill. They don't
really have the time or critical facility to keep up, so they tend to
string
things together into a plausible rap that closes the loop between what
they
thought, and what they think is happening now. It really does "make
sense"
to them. The characteristic "tell" for this kind of thinker is that the
story, the rap, is complete, ie it explains the entire situation. It
doesn't depend on observation, experiment, research, confirmation etc. for
personal validity, only on its completeness. It is a personal ideology.

You
sound like my very liberal, school teacher neighbor who thinks Hillary would
be a great POTUS. Why would she be good? No executive leadership position
in her work history. Could not keep husband at least from fooling around
with the hired help. Was a 2nd rate attorney, who could not find her law
firm records for 3 years and they were in the bedroom. There a a lot of
very capable women out there for POTUS. Hillary is not on the list. Now
what reasons do you have to prove the William Jefferson Clinton was a great
President?

Er, you might want to re-read what David wrote above, because you
just made his whole point for him with this little diatribe.


Chuck Vance

Bill McKee wrote:

And the randyness. You are the CEO of the country.
You do not fool around with the company employees, and at least fat, ugly
employees.

So your position is that if Clinton ... ooops, "Klinton" had been
fooling around with a skinny, pretty employee it would have been OK?


Chuck Vance (who learns something new every day)

Conan The Librarian typed:
Bill McKee wrote:

And the randyness. You are the CEO of the country.
You do not fool around with the company employees, and at least fat,
ugly employees.

So your position is that if Clinton ... ooops, "Klinton" had been
fooling around with a skinny, pretty employee it would have been OK?

You have to admit, Chuck, it would have made more sense. ;-)
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj/

Bill McKee wrote:
"rw" wrote in message
nk.net...

Bill McKee wrote:

Clinton was a failure in my book, just because he had the charisma,
intelligence etc. to make some great fundamental changes.

You forgot the part about leaving office with record-high surpluses as far
as the eye could see, or at least until the tax-cuts-for-the-rich crowd
got in.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.


I missed the surplus. So did the accounting office. The integrated federal
budget throws in the Social Security money as income also. If he had a true
surplus the National Debt would not have increased every year of his
administration. And the tax cuts were for everybody. Well except those who
do not pay taxes.

Take a look at this graph:

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 07:01:34 -0600, Conan The Librarian
wrote:

Bill McKee wrote:

"David Snedeker" wrote in message
. ..

Thing is he does. Lots of folks put it together like Bill. They don't
really have the time or critical facility to keep up, so they tend to
string
things together into a plausible rap that closes the loop between what
they
thought, and what they think is happening now. It really does "make
sense"
to them. The characteristic "tell" for this kind of thinker is that the
story, the rap, is complete, ie it explains the entire situation. It
doesn't depend on observation, experiment, research, confirmation etc. for
personal validity, only on its completeness. It is a personal ideology.

You
sound like my very liberal, school teacher neighbor who thinks Hillary would
be a great POTUS. Why would she be good? No executive leadership position
in her work history. Could not keep husband at least from fooling around
with the hired help. Was a 2nd rate attorney, who could not find her law
firm records for 3 years and they were in the bedroom. There a a lot of
very capable women out there for POTUS. Hillary is not on the list. Now
what reasons do you have to prove the William Jefferson Clinton was a great
President?

Er, you might want to re-read what David wrote above, because you
just made his whole point for him with this little diatribe.

Er, you might want to re-read what David wrote above, because David made
his point for himself with his little diatribe...

And then, you might wish re-read the questions Bill asked. Whatever he
intended as his point aside, two of them are particularly germane to all
the ****ing contests, be they here on ROFF or on a larger front. Just
like the most Clintonistas, Steve and Dave rely on the same tactic they
rail against - Clinton was good because Bush is bad, and whatever acts
he committed or lies he got caught (and admitted) telling are
inconsequential and not material compared to what others, well, at least
Republicans, may (at least at this point) have told.

Here's something to ponder Presidents and the economy. A major
indicator, either economic or societal or both, depending on the
philosophy of the observer, is home ownership. While Bush has been in
office, more people in the US are homeowners than at any other time, and
with comparatively lower rates than any other time. The real estate
boom has resulted in many people having a large amount of equity in
their home, thus increasing their net worth or the low rates have
allowed people to (and here begins "the other shoe" making its sure and
certain appearance) buy much more house than they previously could have.

Foreclosure rates are reaching an all-time high and the increase in
foreclosures tends to mirror the increase in home-overbuy...er,
home-ownership. Much of the highest _percentage_ increase in price,
which many objective observers looking with a trained, experienced
investor's eye have called ridiculous, unsustainable levels with no
relationship to rational factors, has come in properties well above
national average prices, and for houses with finish-out costing factors
well beyond the national average (IOW, the construction/remodel itself
is well beyond the average). And most of the truly ridiculous increases
in both have come in the most (already-expensive) "liberal" areas of the
US. So, how do Clinton and Bush fit into the real estate market - IOW,
who is responsible for what?

HTH,
R

wrote:
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 07:01:34 -0600, Conan The Librarian
wrote:

Bill McKee wrote:

"David Snedeker" wrote in message
. ..

Thing is he does. Lots of folks put it together like Bill. They don't
really have the time or critical facility to keep up, so they tend to
string
things together into a plausible rap that closes the loop between what
they
thought, and what they think is happening now. It really does "make
sense"
to them. The characteristic "tell" for this kind of thinker is that the
story, the rap, is complete, ie it explains the entire situation. It
doesn't depend on observation, experiment, research, confirmation etc. for
personal validity, only on its completeness. It is a personal ideology.

You
sound like my very liberal, school teacher neighbor who thinks Hillary would
be a great POTUS. Why would she be good? No executive leadership position
in her work history. Could not keep husband at least from fooling around
with the hired help. Was a 2nd rate attorney, who could not find her law
firm records for 3 years and they were in the bedroom. There a a lot of
very capable women out there for POTUS. Hillary is not on the list. Now
what reasons do you have to prove the William Jefferson Clinton was a great
President?

Er, you might want to re-read what David wrote above, because you
just made his whole point for him with this little diatribe.

Er, you might want to re-read what David wrote above, because David made
his point for himself with his little diatribe...

And then, you might wish re-read the questions Bill asked. Whatever he
intended as his point aside, two of them are particularly germane to all
the ****ing contests, be they here on ROFF or on a larger front. Just
like the most Clintonistas, Steve and Dave rely on the same tactic they
rail against - Clinton was good because Bush is bad, and whatever acts
he committed or lies he got caught (and admitted) telling are
inconsequential and not material compared to what others, well, at least
Republicans, may (at least at this point) have told.

Here's something to ponder Presidents and the economy. A major
indicator, either economic or societal or both, depending on the
philosophy of the observer, is home ownership. While Bush has been in
office, more people in the US are homeowners than at any other time, and
with comparatively lower rates than any other time. The real estate
boom has resulted in many people having a large amount of equity in
their home, thus increasing their net worth or the low rates have
allowed people to (and here begins "the other shoe" making its sure and
certain appearance) buy much more house than they previously could have.

Foreclosure rates are reaching an all-time high and the increase in
foreclosures tends to mirror the increase in home-overbuy...er,
home-ownership. Much of the highest _percentage_ increase in price,
which many objective observers looking with a trained, experienced
investor's eye have called ridiculous, unsustainable levels with no
relationship to rational factors, has come in properties well above
national average prices, and for houses with finish-out costing factors
well beyond the national average (IOW, the construction/remodel itself
is well beyond the average). And most of the truly ridiculous increases
in both have come in the most (already-expensive) "liberal" areas of the
US. So, how do Clinton and Bush fit into the real estate market - IOW,
who is responsible for what?


"more people in the US are homeowners than at any other time.."
Another example of the liars and statisticans thing. While more people
"own" the amount of equity they own in those homes is lower than it
ever has been.
More americans are in more debt than ever before. Facts like that and
the credit card debt being shielded from bankruptcy are moving
americans toward corporate serfdom. For the neocons it's better than
slavery, you don't have to feed them.


HTH,
R

"Conan The Librarian" wrote in message
...
Bill McKee wrote:

And the randyness. You are the CEO of the country. You do not fool
around with the company employees, and at least fat, ugly employees.

So your position is that if Clinton ... ooops, "Klinton" had been
fooling around with a skinny, pretty employee it would have been OK?


Chuck Vance (who learns something new every day)

As with your previous post, I see you are reading comprehension challenged.

"rw" wrote in message
k.net...
Bill McKee wrote:
"rw" wrote in message
nk.net...

Bill McKee wrote:

Clinton was a failure in my book, just because he had the charisma,
intelligence etc. to make some great fundamental changes.

You forgot the part about leaving office with record-high surpluses as
far as the eye could see, or at least until the tax-cuts-for-the-rich
crowd got in.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.


I missed the surplus. So did the accounting office. The integrated
federal budget throws in the Social Security money as income also. If he
had a true surplus the National Debt would not have increased every year
of his administration. And the tax cuts were for everybody. Well except
those who do not pay taxes.

Take a look at this graph:

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

And where did the National Debt go down during Clinton's years?

"BJ Conner" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 07:01:34 -0600, Conan The Librarian
wrote:

Bill McKee wrote:

"David Snedeker" wrote in message
. ..

Thing is he does. Lots of folks put it together like Bill. They don't
really have the time or critical facility to keep up, so they tend to
string
things together into a plausible rap that closes the loop between what
they
thought, and what they think is happening now. It really does "make
sense"
to them. The characteristic "tell" for this kind of thinker is that
the
story, the rap, is complete, ie it explains the entire situation. It
doesn't depend on observation, experiment, research, confirmation etc.
for
personal validity, only on its completeness. It is a personal
ideology.

You
sound like my very liberal, school teacher neighbor who thinks Hillary
would
be a great POTUS. Why would she be good? No executive leadership
position
in her work history. Could not keep husband at least from fooling
around
with the hired help. Was a 2nd rate attorney, who could not find her
law
firm records for 3 years and they were in the bedroom. There a a lot
of
very capable women out there for POTUS. Hillary is not on the list.
Now
what reasons do you have to prove the William Jefferson Clinton was a
great
President?

Er, you might want to re-read what David wrote above, because you
just made his whole point for him with this little diatribe.

Er, you might want to re-read what David wrote above, because David made
his point for himself with his little diatribe...

And then, you might wish re-read the questions Bill asked. Whatever he
intended as his point aside, two of them are particularly germane to all
the ****ing contests, be they here on ROFF or on a larger front. Just
like the most Clintonistas, Steve and Dave rely on the same tactic they
rail against - Clinton was good because Bush is bad, and whatever acts
he committed or lies he got caught (and admitted) telling are
inconsequential and not material compared to what others, well, at least
Republicans, may (at least at this point) have told.

Here's something to ponder Presidents and the economy. A major
indicator, either economic or societal or both, depending on the
philosophy of the observer, is home ownership. While Bush has been in
office, more people in the US are homeowners than at any other time, and
with comparatively lower rates than any other time. The real estate
boom has resulted in many people having a large amount of equity in
their home, thus increasing their net worth or the low rates have
allowed people to (and here begins "the other shoe" making its sure and
certain appearance) buy much more house than they previously could have.

Foreclosure rates are reaching an all-time high and the increase in
foreclosures tends to mirror the increase in home-overbuy...er,
home-ownership. Much of the highest _percentage_ increase in price,
which many objective observers looking with a trained, experienced
investor's eye have called ridiculous, unsustainable levels with no
relationship to rational factors, has come in properties well above
national average prices, and for houses with finish-out costing factors
well beyond the national average (IOW, the construction/remodel itself
is well beyond the average). And most of the truly ridiculous increases
in both have come in the most (already-expensive) "liberal" areas of the
US. So, how do Clinton and Bush fit into the real estate market - IOW,
who is responsible for what?


"more people in the US are homeowners than at any other time.."
Another example of the liars and statisticans thing. While more people
"own" the amount of equity they own in those homes is lower than it
ever has been.
More americans are in more debt than ever before. Facts like that and
the credit card debt being shielded from bankruptcy are moving
americans toward corporate serfdom. For the neocons it's better than
slavery, you don't have to feed them.


HTH,
R



Credit card debt shielded from bankruptcy? The new BK laws change the fact
that if you can pay off your debt via a lifestyle change, (cut up the credit
cards, and do not lease another BMW) you will pay off the debt. Chapter 13
if you were a company as opposed to Chapter 7. If you can not pay off the
debt, it is just like before the law change. I am a fiscal conservative and
social liberal. Like probably a majority of the country. Why should the
rest of us pay for your irresponsibility?

"Conan The Librarian" wrote in message
...
Bill McKee wrote:

"David Snedeker" wrote in message
. ..

Thing is he does. Lots of folks put it together like Bill. They don't
really have the time or critical facility to keep up, so they tend to
string
things together into a plausible rap that closes the loop between what
they
thought, and what they think is happening now. It really does "make
sense"
to them. The characteristic "tell" for this kind of thinker is that the
story, the rap, is complete, ie it explains the entire situation. It
doesn't depend on observation, experiment, research, confirmation etc.
for
personal validity, only on its completeness. It is a personal ideology.

You sound like my very liberal, school teacher neighbor who thinks
Hillary would be a great POTUS. Why would she be good? No executive
leadership position in her work history. Could not keep husband at least
from fooling around with the hired help. Was a 2nd rate attorney, who
could not find her law firm records for 3 years and they were in the
bedroom. There a a lot of very capable women out there for POTUS.
Hillary is not on the list. Now what reasons do you have to prove the
William Jefferson Clinton was a great President?

Er, you might want to re-read what David wrote above, because you just
made his whole point for him with this little diatribe.


Chuck Vance

Answer the questions and maybe we will figure you can comprehend what you
read, instead of just classifying books.