funny things to do on a bike

Keith Willoughby wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:

You mean, like admit maybe O'Neill never actually said he wrote the
book, even though somehow 70% (or more) of the US population somehow
believe he did?

I take it you pulled this 70% from your arse. Your biggest straw man
yet, I'd say, and that's some pretty hot competition you've got going.

Heh. So you are saying that if I claim a large number of people
believe something that's not true for no other reason than they
believe it, and there's no evidence that the person in question ever
said anything to create that belief - it's only a straw man.

I rest my case.

You go first....

And do what? Waste my time arguing made up numbers?

OK. 84.7% of people on this newsgroup think you just sunk to a new low.

LOL

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Frank Krygowski wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:

So Frank - just to make sure I understand.

You're saying sarin in the hands of terrorists is NOT a danger, right?

No, once again you don't understand.

One unmarked shell purportedly containing sarin is not a Weapon of Mass
Destruction - no more than one handgun containing seven rounds, or one
large club in the hands of a strong man.

I imagine that, by now, all three of the above have been found in Iraq.
None of the above justify our attack and conquest of the country.

So one gallon of sarin is equal to one handgun or one club?

I give up.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Tom Sherman wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:

...
Right... (what's your point?). The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts mean there
are 4 million more people who pay no taxes at all....

Really? So these people pay no sales, payroll, property (directly or
indirectly through rent payments), excise and other taxes? News to me.

You KNOW I meant "federal income taxes".

In many cases tax cuts at the Federal level merely shift the tax burden
from progressive income taxes to more regressive state and local taxes,
as the state and local governments compensate for the reduction in
federal funding. A portion of the overall tax burden is shifted from the
rich to the middle and lower classes.

Do you have any stats on that? In states I've lived in the state
taxes aren't more regressive (or they're non-existent).

But your argument is setting up a hopeless Catch-22. Cut taxes and
you're hurting the poor because they get taxed even more at the local
level? I don't buy that for a second - the more local the collection
and disbursement of public funds remains, the more effective and
efficient it is.

I don't really want the federal government taking over more and more
of the responsibility and control that should lie with the state and
local governments. It's just not an efficient way to do things, IMHO.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Mark Hickey wrote:

Keith Willoughby wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:

You mean, like admit maybe O'Neill never actually said he wrote the
book, even though somehow 70% (or more) of the US population somehow
believe he did?

I take it you pulled this 70% from your arse. Your biggest straw man
yet, I'd say, and that's some pretty hot competition you've got going.

Heh. So you are saying that if I claim a large number of people
believe something that's not true for no other reason than they
believe it, and there's no evidence that the person in question ever
said anything to create that belief - it's only a straw man.

No. I'm saying you invented the whole O'Neill thing to cover up your own
ignorance. You then proceeded to make some kind of argument based on the
made up figure.

It's becoming exceedingly clear that you have no concept of the logical
argument.

I rest my case.

Your standards are getting lower by the day.

--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
Fair and Balanced -
http://blugg.com/stuff/foxs_view_of_the_bbc_player.htm

Hunrobe wrote:

Frank Krygowski


wrote in part:


None of the above justify our attack and conquest of the country.


So we have "conquered" Iraq then?

OK. Attempted conquest.


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Hunrobe wrote:

Tom Sherman


wrote in part:


Lead projectiles do not burn on impact the way the DU rounds used by US
military do. Therefore, there are not large quantities of airborne lead
oxide, but the use of DU munitions does produce a significant quantity
of uranium oxide dust that can be inhaled.


Tell that to the firearms ammunition manufacturers that the EPA is threatening
with legal action if they don't start phasing out the lead in their primers and
propellants and totally encapsulating the lead in their projectiles. Tell it to
the indoor shooting range owners faced with the EPA telling them they have to
install new, very expensive, ventilation systems or close their doors. While
you are at it, tell the outdoor shooting range operators that the EPA is wrong
when they tell those owners that they must remove all the spent lead
projectiles from their range's backstop or close.
Better yet, explain all this to the EPA. Shooters and gun ranges all over the
US will thank you.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

I doubt the EPA would look more kindly on DU bullets. In fact, I think
they'd be even more strict. Would you agree?




--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..
(Jonesy) wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote ...
(Jonesy) wrote:

You
seem to have a habit of assuming people said things that never left
their lips or keyboards...

Strawman.

Would it be rude of me to point
out that there seems to be a kind of consistent problem with your
reading comprehension.

Strawman. It's a nice try to avoid the question, but I see through
it.

Heh heh heh.

Look up "stawman" and get back to me.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

"Description of Straw Man

"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a
person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or
misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has
the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of
X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

"This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted
version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the
position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing
of a person to hurt the person.
Examples of Straw Man

1. Prof. Jones: "The university just cut our yearly budget by
$10,000."
Prof. Smith: "What are we going to do?"
Prof. Brown: "I think we should eliminate one of the teaching
assistant positions. That would take care of it."
Prof. Jones: "We could reduce our scheduled raises instead."
Prof. Brown: " I can't understand why you want to bleed us dry
like that, Jones."

2. "Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine
program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave
us defenseless like that."

By arguing that I have somehow not comprehended your writings, you are
then setting up the false argument that I somehow "don't understand",
and you will then attempt to discredit my entire argument on that
basis.

You may refute this conclusion with logic, but I doubt seriously that
you have a logical construct that can stand much scrutiny.
--
Jonesy

3. Bill and Jill are arguing about cleaning out their closets:
Jill: "We should clean out the closets. They are getting a bit
messy."
Bill: "Why, we just went through those closets last year. Do we
have to clean them out everyday?"
Jill: "I never said anything about cleaning them out every day.
You just want too keep all your junk forever, which is just
ridiculous."

Mark Hickey wrote:

The issue (that you seem to be constantly missing) is that no one in
the administration has suggested that (and I'll use your words to
prevent any further confusion) "Saddam was involved in 9/11".

I'm not the person Mark had been responding to, but--

Bush chose wordings that would plant the idea, while avoiding
making an explicit connection. He was crafty about it. Examples:

"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that
Saddam Hussein could be contained." 01-28-03
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030128-19.html

"He's [i.e. Hussein is] a threat because he is dealing
with al Qaeda." 11-07-02
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021107-7.html

"Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and
to support terror." 01-29-02
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...020129-11.html

for more, see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm


The Christian Science Monitor reported:

Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans
were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks,
only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this
year [2003], attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder
poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either "most" or "some"
of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. The answer is zero.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

A question for you, Mark: do you think Bush's statements
helped cause that shift in Americans' beliefs?


Tom Ace

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..
(Jonesy) wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote...
(Jonesy) wrote:

If you were to write a book about someone who fired you, why would I
believe it would be balanced?

See, here's what is a classic case of ad hominem commentary. By
questioning the character and honesty of a person, rather than the
actual content of his writings.

Bringing up the fact that he's writing about someone who fired him
(and by all accounts, a firing he's still quite upset about)

Cite?

is hardly
an "ad hominem" commentary. That should be obvious.

How is it obvious? Ad hominem commentary is where the *person* is
attacked, rather than the person's *position.* Since you have no
facts to refute his commentary, all you can do is impugn his
character. The very definition of ad hominem commentary.

Resorting to ad hominem commentary is a sure sign that you have lost.
Someone said that - I can't remember who...

How about resorting to claiming an ad hominem when there isn't one?

Just because you claim it isn't doen't prove that it isn't. Go ahead
and use the definition of the term "argumentum ad hominem" to show how
what you said isn't ad hominem. (Not a proof - proving a negative is
a logical impossiblity.)

O'Neill's book has been thoroughly discredited by those who were
there.

You mean those who have something at stake? After all, that's what
you are claiming for Mr. O'Neill, so it comes down to a "he said, she
said" sort of thing. I think we could dig up a paper from Cheney,
Perle and Wolfowitz that calls into question the veracity of some of
the folks who call O'Neill a liar.

It's well known there was a contingency plan for Iraq

There's a difference between some plan on a shelf (invasion of Mexico,
for instance) and the private foreign policy focus of "we need to take
that ******* down." (A paraphrase of Bush's quote "**** Saddam.")

[ad hominem snipped]

Heh. This is your day for accusing me of ad hominem (this accusation
must be VERY weak if you can't even leave the original quote).

LOL. You may repost it if you desire. You could also show why it's
not a reiteration of a previous ad hominem, but I doubt you could.

I notice you don't actually address my point.

O'Neill's account of that era doesn't coincide with any other member
of the cabinet.

If any of those folks were remotely objective, or had the reputation
for honesty that O'Neill does, then you might have a point. Now,
here's a question:

*If* what O'Neill says is true, does anyone in the current
administration stand to lose anything?

Explicitly, no (I've said as much) Implicitly, well, you'd have to be
a total idiot, or have you head firmly up your ass not to see ANY
implication.

Heh heh heh. So point one out.

Already have. If you have a problem with the logic presented, you may
wish to bring up which part is not logical.

Show me the quote that forces people
to believe there is a direct connection.

Look up the definition of "implication," Mr. Strawman.

Heh heh heh. So you can't point out anything that Bush said that led
anyone to the conclusion

Sure I have - it's called an "implication." People soemtimes reach
conclusions because of implied actions or statements - in fact, we do
it all the time. Non-verbal communication, at it's basis, is
implication. Here's a definition of "imply" for you:

"Main Entry: im·ply
Pronunciation: im-'plI
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): im·plied; im·ply·ing
Etymology: Middle English emplien, from Middle French emplier, from
Latin implicare
1 obsolete : ENFOLD, ENTWINE
2 : to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary
consequence rather than by direct statement rights imply obligations
3 : to contain potentially
4 : to express indirectly his silence implied consent
synonym see SUGGEST
usage see INFER"



but remain firmly convinced that somehow he
managed to do it - with words that don't support the conclusion.

And yet, nearly 70% of the public at one time reached such a
conclusion. You have yet to explain how that might be possible if
Bush didn't explicitly say anything to that effect (he didn't) or he
and his minions didn't imply it. You can feel free to explain it
without the misdirection, but watching you squirm is funny.

So which is he, a dupe or an evil genius who can say things and yet
convince the majority of those listening (or even those not listening
since more than 30% don't even bother to listen) that Iraq was
directly connected to 9/11?

False choice. Somehow, those folks got that idea. So, if he didn't
say it directly, how did they reach that conclusion?


While you being an asshole is my opinion, you being pedantic is quite
obvious. Hingeing your whole case on what was or was not implied
means that you really don't have much of a case. And real world data
suggest that you are in a small minority in your belief.

I have no case ? - and you can't provide a single quote to prove your
point. Heh.

I have already proved my point logically. Maybe you just don't
understand what the conversation is about.

Let's look at your logic...

1) Bush never actually said anything to support the conclusion that
Iraq and 9/11 are directly connected.
2) 70% of the US population believe there is a direct connection
3) Therefore Bush is responsible for the belief

I am at a loss to understand how you cannot use computer tools
effectively. That's not the argument I made, so why are you making up
a different one?

I don't consider that "logic".

Of course you don't. Misstating my position makes a lovely strawman,
doesn't it:

"Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a
person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or
misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has
the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of
X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted
version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the
position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing
of a person to hurt the person.
Examples of Straw Man

1. Prof. Jones: "The university just cut our yearly budget by
$10,000."
Prof. Smith: "What are we going to do?"
Prof. Brown: "I think we should eliminate one of the teaching
assistant positions. That would take care of it."
Prof. Jones: "We could reduce our scheduled raises instead."
Prof. Brown: " I can't understand why you want to bleed us dry
like that, Jones."

2. "Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine
program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave
us defenseless like that."

3. Bill and Jill are arguing about cleaning out their closets:
Jill: "We should clean out the closets. They are getting a bit
messy."
Bill: "Why, we just went through those closets last year. Do we
have to clean them out everyday?"
Jill: "I never said anything about cleaning them out every day.
You just want too keep all your junk forever, which is just
ridiculous."

But you remain convinced so I think we
are wasting our time discussing it - don't you agree?

The argument I actually made is the logical one. The one you invented
isn't.

snip
The fact that near 70% of Americans at one time thought as
much proves this point.

I rest my case.

If you had actually made some case, you might have a point. I am
asking you how they got that idea. You seem to think that it's
something other than by Administration implication. Something
undefined, or unprovable. I, on the other hand, beleive some
implication was made, in order to make a *subtle* connection, and let
peoples' imaginations do the rest. Propaganda isn't always about
whacking people with a big stick, "If you don't support this war, you
are commiting treason!" It's sometimes about making a suggestion.
"Kerry's intern was shuffled off to Africa, where she'd be 'out of the
way'."

[snip Liebermann quote]

If two people, one from the Republican party, the other from the
Democratic party, say that the moon is made of green cheese, does that
make it true? Is it a fact then?

You really like strawmen.

This is called an "analogy." Look it up. Just because Bush and some
Democrat(s) think something doesn't make it true. Plenty of folks
used to think the world was the center of the universe, for example.

Your definition of a strawman doesn't seem to agree with the textbook.

I am not claiming that you or any other real person believes any
particular thing. It is, in general, an analogy bent to the
ridiculous to illustrate a point. Let me recast it, so you won't try
and make it something more than it was ever meant to be:

If a Republican and a Democrat believe something that is not true, the
fact that both a Democrat and a Republican believe it does not make it
true. The "something" in this case is that "the moon is made of green
cheese."

That is, a hypothetical situation that is concocted in such a way to
be easy to destroy (like your "green cheese" example).

Bzzzt. I'm not claiming anyone actually believes it. This is a
really weak red herring.

I don't care if 10 or 100 or 1000 people believe something that's not
true. It doesn't become true by virtue of common thought, or whether
or not some authority believes it. Did you know, that at the turn of
the 20th century, most physicists believed that there was some
substance between stars and planets called "ether?" They were wrong,
and the fact that educated, professional and expert men believed it
didn't make it true.

Do you really think that there's only one
Democrat who believes there was a connection between Iraq and Al
Qaeda?

This is the perfect example of a strawman. Oh, I get it, you think I
like them, so you keep constructing them. Not the sharpest knife in
the drawer, are you?

Asking whether you believe
only one Democrat believes there's a connection between Iraq and AQ
consitutes a strawman in your mind?

This is an example of "poisoning the well." From:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-the-well.html


"Description of Poisoning the Well

This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person
might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or
false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:

1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is
presented.
2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious. The person making
such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias
listeners against the person in question and hence that they will
reject any claims he might make. However, merely presenting
unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly
counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make. This is
especially clear when Poisoning the Well is looked at as a form of ad
Homimem in which the attack is made prior to the person even making
the claim or claims. The following example clearly shows that this
sort of "reasoning" is quite poor.

Before Class:
Bill: "Boy, that professor is a real jerk. I think he is some sort
of eurocentric fascist."
Jill: "Yeah."

During Class:
Prof. Jones: "...and so we see that there was never any 'Golden
Age of Matriarchy' in 1895 in America."

After Class:
Bill: "See what I mean?"
Jill: "Yeah. There must have been a Golden Age of Matriarchy,
since that jerk said there wasn't."

Examples of Poisoning the Well

1. "Don't listen to him, he's a scoundrel."

2. "Before turning the floor over to my opponent, I ask you to
remember that those who oppose my plans do not have the best wishes of
the university at heart."

3. You are told, prior to meeting him, that your friend's boyfriend
is a decadent wastrel. When you meet him, everything you hear him say
is tainted."

The question contains a suggestion, and that suggestion is that I
might believe only one Democrat believes something. This, of course,
is false, and doesn't matter in the least.

If 1 or 10 or 100 believed something false, it would not make that
thing true.

I'll wait until you actually construct a logical argument. Until
then, I'll snip the text that contains the fallacy(ies) and name it
(them.)
--
Jonesy

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..
(JP) wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..

Did you show me anything to convince me that any legislation or
rulemaking by the Bush administration will do anything positive for
the environment?
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress...9?OpenDocument

Did you show me anything to convince me that any legislation or
rulemaking by the Bush administration will do anything positive for
the environment?

The Sierra Club sued the EPA in February of 2003 for failing to update
its Clean Air standards as required by the Clean Air Act. After being
forced into a consent decree, the EPA released these rules. Gosh, did
you not know this? Very impressive.

Wrong. A treaty is signed and then sent to the Senate for ratification
for it to become binding. It can be signed by the President or his
representative, usually the Secretary of State.

In fact my recollection turns out to be exactly right. Clinton never
submitted Kyoto to the Senate for ratification. The vote you are
talking about was a Senate resolution expressing its dissatisfaction
with the treaty. It was NOT, however, a ratification vote. President
Clinton negotiated and signed Kyoto and was actually accused by some
of trying to implement its provisions by Executive Order. To say that
he rejected it is purely and simply about as far from reality as you
can get. Fact: Clinton supported Kyoto, and Bush rejected it and
essentially rescinded the US signature to it.

Mea culpa - you're right... I had forgotten that Clinton signed the
thing. In any event, it was a symbolic action since he knew it would
never clear the Senate - and in fact he did absolutely nothing to try
to get it through the Senate.

Not true, but he didn't have the votes and he knew that once it was
rejected it was all over.

Rightfully so, IMHO. So seldom can you
get a unanimous decision out of the Senate that there should be no
doubt that Kyoto is a really, really bad idea.

The EU, Russia and Japan don't agree with you.

Everyone knows that Kyoto is flawed, but as an alternative to the Bush
plan, pretending that global warming doesn't exist and therefore doing
NOTHING, it's got a lot to recommend it.

Then I'm left wondering why you didn't get hired. Or maybe the job was
not in Iraq, maybe it could only theoretically have taken you there
briefly.

I'm sure there are people out there even more qualified than me, and I
am sure one (actually more than one) of them got the job(s). I'm well
aware of the work locations, and it would involve a lot of time in
Iraq (literally living in "military" style for periods of time
supporting the communications equipment used by the folks in the
field).

Could be that the security situation has deteriorated so badly that
the project has been put on hold. This has happened to reconstruction
projects all over Iraq, according to the news. But at least you were
willing to do it, over-the-top gesture or not.

I agree that was part of the equation (mortgage recasting).

The economy is not roaring.

Investment can't be ignored as one of the elements of getting the
economy roaring again.

What type of investment are you talking about? There has been very
little capital investement over the last three years; much of what
there was, was related to downsizing, outsourcing and off-shoring. Let
me repeat it: low interest rates and available capital (available
capital is what you get more of when you give taxcuts to people who
will not spend the proceeds on consumer goods) is going to be of very
limited effectiveness in stimultating the economy if there is already
considerable excess capacity, as there has been.

At any rate, it's all working, and the economy
is in a LOT better shape than it was before the tax cuts.

Only if you are willing to disregard the half trillion dollar annual
federal deficit and net two million jobs lost.

In some ways - but you're right in others. Most of the spending
increases are in social programs (which probably sounds like heresy to
the information sheltered). For example, Department of Education
outlays are up by 60%, Health and Human services by 21.6%, HUD by 6%.

Those percentages and where they are targeted are pratically of no
value in stimulating the economy when the actual dollar value is
compared to the size of the US economy. My favorite, though, is
Education, whose increase reflects the No Child Left Behind Act. It is
severely underfunded and does not offer even enough money to the
states to implement the program itself, let along provide improvements
to education, all this at a time when the states are themselves
squeezed by revenue shortfalls.

If I have to be a "True Believer" to think that massive tax cuts
stimulate the economy, then I'll be one (the alternative being in
permanent denial).

You really don't seem to have much capacity for the subtleties of an
issue, do you? Despite everything I've said, all you can get out of it
is that "massive taxcuts stimulate the economy". Nothing about how
much, what kind or for who, just "massive taxcuts stimulate the
economy". It's a pretty interesting form of self delusion (or you are
trying to delude us?), really, because what you said is, of course,
true, but it skips any analysis of whether *Bush's* taxcuts themselves
have been particularly effective at stimulating the economy or
creating jobs. And that's the really important issue.

As for Paul O'Neill's opinion... oh well.

Amazing to what degree the Bush administration depends on character
assisnation to defend its policies.

Everyone agrees that you stimulate the economy out of a recession with
taxcuts, but they have to go to people that will spend the money.

Right... (what's your point?). The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts mean there
are 4 million more people who pay no taxes at all. A single parent of
two making $20,000 a year is $750 ahead,

Only if they were already paying $750 in taxes, which they probably
weren't. Those 4 million people you're talking about are still paying
taxes- Medicare and Social Security, and their taxes are going to pay
for payments to current retirees and they're going to cover the
federal deficit so that Bush can give out his big taxcuts to the
ultrawealthy and still pretend that the deficit is *only* half a
trillion.

I NEVER said he wasn't. What I said was show me the specifics and
we'll talk about it. As I predicted, it turned out to be a business
taxcut targeted to help the American worker, in this case by trying to
stem the flow of jobs out of the US, something that Bush has refused
to address, despite the pleas of even GOP Congressmen. Note that
Kerry's proposed "taxcut" also removes present tax incentives for
moving jobs overseas.

Heh. So when Bush gives businesses a tax cut, he's cozying up to his
cronies. But when your guy does the same thing, he's a patriot trying
to protect the American worker.

Exactly. Otherwise Kerry would be a Republican.

The "flow of jobs" out of the US has remained relatively constant for
many, many years.

And it's been a problem for many, many years. It has caused
fundamental, negative changes in US society.

It's just gotten a lot of added interest during the
political silly season

The reason it's gotten a lot of interest is that it's now happening to
white collar jobs. When an accountant's job is off-shored, what should
they be retrained for? Perhaps as a "food service worker"?

(much as a 5.7% unemployment rate was a shining
indicator example of Clinton's economy in 1996 but an indicator of a
total disaster for the American worker in 2004).

There is no comparison between the economic conditions in 1996 and
now. At that time employment was improving- it had been adding jobs
for most of the last three years, the economy had been growing for
three years and the deficit was trending toward a surplus in the near
future. Those were the days.

Please don't try to tell us that things are as good now as they were
in '96. We know better, and it makes you look like a liar.

JP