Kentmere Papers Now Directly Available in USA?

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 04:17:32 GMT, Gregory Blank
wrote:

In article ,
Tom Phillips wrote:

From a photographer? Good luck collecting
is all I can say ;^)

Two guys keep me from paying, Smith & E. Weston ;-)

They come to my home and I'm gonna hit them with a Durst 138 !


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Please remove the "_" when replying via email

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:18:21 -0600, John
wrote:

....

Just 4 more years .....

Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Please remove the "_" when replying via email



[sorry, I'm OT and I can't help myself. History is
repeating itself and we're all going to pay ...]

jan2504 from Lloyd Erlick,

Four more years of what? Deficit financing? I see the
projections are for the US federal budget to be about a
half trillion dollars in deficit annually for the
foreseeable future. If there are deficits like that for
the next four years, it's not very likely year five
will be less! We've seen this in Canada (and didn't the
US go through the very same over the seventies and
eighties?). If you want a strong dollar, better not put
your economy that deeply into debt. And by the way, is
money being printed to stretch over that debt? We've
all had a pretty good look at what happens when the US
economy prints a lot of money...

I'm confused by American peoples' reactions to a half
trillion dollar debt every year. Is it considered a
large amount of money or not?

If the half trillion every year had to be raised by
taxation, would there not be a howl? Why is the same
half trillion raised as debt not a concern? It turns
into taxation later, when it's time to repay, except it
gets carrying costs added. Anyone suggesting this on
behalf of buying a health care system would be called a
commie.

Is the economy really so large it can borrow that much
every year and not be affected? Last time it happened
the worldwide money markets were powerfully affected,
and every householder was in competition with the USA
for borrowed money. Under Reagan, who set a few
record-breaking deficits in a row, interest rates went
through the roof. In those days (mid-eighties) I
remember being very relieved that the rates had come
*down* a tad before our mortgage needed renewal and we
were able to get one at 15%. That was a good rate!
Mortgages peaked at 22% in Canada.

Now another Republican comes along and starts setting
new federal deficit-financing records in the US. Pardon
me for saying, but this looks very bad from the
outside. Does it look good to anyone on the inside of
the US economy? Who would it be that thinks it's a good
thing? Who is benefiting?

And what evidence is there to suggest that it will last
only four years? Judging by the last time it happened,
for every year of deficit, several years of struggle to
slowly reduce deficits were required. Trillions (and
*how many* trillions will it end up being??) of dollars
debt means years and years of repayment later.

Fiscal conservatives always used to say it was wrong to
saddle our descendants with such a large debt. When did
the Republicans stop being fiscal conservatives?

In both our countries (Canada and USA) we see the
spectacle of so-called conservatives applying words
like reform and revolution to their activities. I
believe Bush used the word reform just the other day.

In Ontario, we just recently disposed of a decade-long
conservative administration that billed itself as a
'revolution'. The common sense revolution, they called
it. Once they were out it became known that the overall
deficit left behind (debt, that is) is over ten billion
dollars. So it's very hard for the new administration
to carry on any kind of activity, except repayment.
Sound familiar? (Interestingly, the new administration
here introduced legislation to prevent any government
from hiding debt before an election. Supposedly, it's
full disclosure and transparency now. Pretty late in
the game for this little improvement, isn't it? The
same trick has been pulled frequently.)

Not many people even ask where the money went. Who
holds that debt? Who is getting rich?

Compared to all this, a Canadian-style health care
system for all Americans would be cheap. (Believe me,
you'd like it.) And the money spent on it would mostly
remain circulating within the US. War is just a money
pit.

An American friend of mine remarked the other day that
we all should pray for the continued good health of
President Bush, because Vice President Cheney looks
even scarier! I remember exactly the same thing being
said about Spiro Agnew in Nixon times.

I'm afraid I've lost the thread -- exactly what was
wrong with Al Gore again?

sigh,
--le

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 04:14:53 GMT, Gregory Blank
wrote:

.... You'll get me started, and its not pretty
when I get mad. I've been semi mad for four years. Lets just think
photo.



Yes, sorry, I feel the same way. It's all too easy to
get me started on this.
--le

In article ,
Lloyd usenet-Erlick Lloyd at @the-wire. dot com wrote:


I'm afraid I've lost the thread -- exactly what was
wrong with Al Gore again?

The a majority of the American people seem to have a problem with
a leader that actually thinks.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 13:03:54 GMT, Gregory Blank
wrote:

In article ,
Lloyd usenet-Erlick Lloyd at @the-wire. dot com wrote:


I'm afraid I've lost the thread -- exactly what was
wrong with Al Gore again?

The a majority of the American people seem to have a problem with
a leader that actually thinks.



jan2505 from Lloyd Erlick,

It's very Canadian to wish to give no offense. In the
case of the USA, there is a great deal of friendly
feeling among Canadians. I'd guess it would the same
throughout the western world, even though there is a
lot of complaint, too. Mostly, the complaints seem to
be along the lines of 'wish you could improve', or
'wish you could follow your own precepts ....' Seldom
do I see such a harsh criticism as you've made, above.
Not that I'm doubting you, or contradicting you. Sadly.
It's interesting that from elsewhere complaints mainly
seem to be friendly requests from friends (could you
please not legitimize torture; it would be very nice if
you would apply your own laws to people you detain) or
name calling from this month's list of enemies
(infidel! the only good American is a dead Jew!).

There must be reasons for these peculiar traits.
American society was able to take significant steps to
rectify the huge problem of racist elements of law and
institutions in the 1960s and later; why can't this
problem be identified and corrected? Shunning
intelligent leadership is self-defeating. It also makes
the neighbours nervous.

regards,
--le

"Lloyd usenet-Erlick" wrote:

[sorry, I'm OT and I can't help myself. History is
repeating itself and we're all going to pay ...]

jan2504 from Lloyd Erlick,

Four more years of what? Deficit financing? I see the
projections are for the US federal budget to be about a
half trillion dollars in deficit annually for the
foreseeable future. If there are deficits like that for
the next four years, it's not very likely year five
will be less! We've seen this in Canada (and didn't the
US go through the very same over the seventies and
eighties?). If you want a strong dollar, better not put
your economy that deeply into debt. And by the way, is
money being printed to stretch over that debt? We've
all had a pretty good look at what happens when the US
economy prints a lot of money...

I'm confused by American peoples' reactions to a half
trillion dollar debt every year. Is it considered a
large amount of money or not?

If the half trillion every year had to be raised by
taxation, would there not be a howl? Why is the same
half trillion raised as debt not a concern? It turns
into taxation later, when it's time to repay, except it
gets carrying costs added. Anyone suggesting this on
behalf of buying a health care system would be called a
commie.

Is the economy really so large it can borrow that much
every year and not be affected? Last time it happened
the worldwide money markets were powerfully affected,
and every householder was in competition with the USA
for borrowed money. Under Reagan, who set a few
record-breaking deficits in a row, interest rates went
through the roof. In those days (mid-eighties) I
remember being very relieved that the rates had come
*down* a tad before our mortgage needed renewal and we
were able to get one at 15%. That was a good rate!
Mortgages peaked at 22% in Canada.

Now another Republican comes along and starts setting
new federal deficit-financing records in the US. Pardon
me for saying, but this looks very bad from the
outside. Does it look good to anyone on the inside of
the US economy? Who would it be that thinks it's a good
thing? Who is benefiting?

And what evidence is there to suggest that it will last
only four years? Judging by the last time it happened,
for every year of deficit, several years of struggle to
slowly reduce deficits were required. Trillions (and
*how many* trillions will it end up being??) of dollars
debt means years and years of repayment later.

Fiscal conservatives always used to say it was wrong to
saddle our descendants with such a large debt. When did
the Republicans stop being fiscal conservatives?

In both our countries (Canada and USA) we see the
spectacle of so-called conservatives applying words
like reform and revolution to their activities. I
believe Bush used the word reform just the other day.

In Ontario, we just recently disposed of a decade-long
conservative administration that billed itself as a
'revolution'. The common sense revolution, they called
it. Once they were out it became known that the overall
deficit left behind (debt, that is) is over ten billion
dollars. So it's very hard for the new administration
to carry on any kind of activity, except repayment.
Sound familiar? (Interestingly, the new administration
here introduced legislation to prevent any government
from hiding debt before an election. Supposedly, it's
full disclosure and transparency now. Pretty late in
the game for this little improvement, isn't it? The
same trick has been pulled frequently.)

Not many people even ask where the money went. Who
holds that debt? Who is getting rich?

Compared to all this, a Canadian-style health care
system for all Americans would be cheap. (Believe me,
you'd like it.) And the money spent on it would mostly
remain circulating within the US. War is just a money
pit.

An American friend of mine remarked the other day that
we all should pray for the continued good health of
President Bush, because Vice President Cheney looks
even scarier! I remember exactly the same thing being
said about Spiro Agnew in Nixon times.

I'm afraid I've lost the thread -- exactly what was
wrong with Al Gore again?

sigh,
--le

Uh... wow.

Sorry I brought up the subject of B&W photographic paper. Won't make that
mistake again...

Ken

Lloyd usenet-Erlick wrote:

snip...

Now another Republican comes along and starts setting
new federal deficit-financing records in the US. Pardon
me for saying, but this looks very bad from the
outside. Does it look good to anyone on the inside of
the US economy? Who would it be that thinks it's a good
thing? Who is benefiting?

But Lloyd you miss the point of all this. Deficits
are the major strategy of the Reagan Revolution neocons.
Being the anti-government zealots they are (meaning
their view is government shouldn't be in the business
of doing things for those citizens who's taxes pay to
run that government...), their strategy is to cut taxes
(mainly for CEOs to the tune of a trillion $$$), run
up a massive deficit thus creating a crisis, then cut
all government spending that isn't _pentagon_ related.
You'll notice in the new projections Bush's $100 billion
war expenditures aren't consider a part of this year's
deficit figures...

Fiscal conservatives always used to say it was wrong to
saddle our descendants with such a large debt. When did
the Republicans stop being fiscal conservatives?

When they stopped being conservatives...

In both our countries (Canada and USA) we see the
spectacle of so-called conservatives applying words
like reform and revolution to their activities. I
believe Bush used the word reform just the other day.

Yes, reform government by the people and for the people
to government by and for the CEOs...

snip again...

An American friend of mine remarked the other day that
we all should pray for the continued good health of
President Bush, because Vice President Cheney looks
even scarier! I remember exactly the same thing being
said about Spiro Agnew in Nixon times.

I would beg to differ. Cheney _is_ the president
You don't think a guy who spent the first 40 years
of his life blowing cocaine up his nose and
rearranging his brain has really been running this
country for the last 4 years, do you? ;^)

I'm afraid I've lost the thread -- exactly what was
wrong with Al Gore again?

Nothing. He actually won in 2000...

Gregory Blank wrote:

In article ,
Tom Phillips wrote:

I predict the radical right in congress tries to
repeal the 22nd Amendment so Bush can steal
another election and continue his world crusade.

After all, God has appointed him...

Be careful with that.

But it was on CNN :-)

You'll get me started, and its not pretty
when I get mad. I've been semi mad for four years. Lets just think
photo.

One has to consider the absurdity of Bush and his
so-called mission from God and apply appropriate
sardonic humor.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

Ken Nadvornick wrote:

"Lloyd usenet-Erlick" wrote:

snip

Uh... wow.

Sorry I brought up the subject of B&W photographic paper. Won't make that
mistake again...


Oh now, we all need a little OT diversion
now and then

But I wasn't familiar with this paper prior
so will have to try it.

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:04:22 GMT, "Ken Nadvornick"
wrote:

...
Uh... wow.

Sorry I brought up the subject of B&W photographic paper. Won't make that
mistake again...

Ken



Jan 2505 from Lloyd Erlick,

Yes, you're right. Sorry, this subject just pulls it
out no matter how I clench my teeth.

I'll try to stop.

regards,
--le