EBSB52 0 #26 July 13, 2005 QuoteSo what? Most economists say that it is not a big deal! It is also smaller when compared to the GNP than in the past. It is a non issue........... and it is changing!X It's a very convoluted equation, but the fact that interest rates are at 45 year lows indicates a struggling economy. Now, why is it struggling? I think the shift of money to corps has a lot to do with it. BK's at all time highs during Bush's first term is a byproduct of Bushenomics as well. Of course they are all but doing away with BK's, so that number will fall just like unemployment rates did when Bush refused to sign extensions after 9/11 with all those people out of work, so the numbers get manipulated via a Nazi-run economic system. Deny benefits - looks good from up here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #27 July 13, 2005 QuoteQuoteOh yah, I keep forgetting that Bush, and the majority that voted for him are all stupid Since the American voters can't be trusted to vote the "correct way", (we were all duped) when are those that believe as you going to change the law so only your points of view will be supported when voting is done? Maybe you can have a test to make sure everyone meeting your inteligance levels before they can vote. You are a hoot!! Why not address the graph instead of writing that vile rhetoric? Maybe you can have a test to make sure everyone meeting your inteligance levels before they can vote Well, Kallend is probably the most intelligent person on the board, so your point??????? Address the graph...... Refute the graph...... Do something..... I did not start this by saying anybody was duped. Vile?.....give me a break The graph needs to be looked at in the correct context. 1) today's projected defict is less than years past when compared to the GNP (I did address this earlier) 2) I did do something! I voted for the best president we have had since Reagan. In my posts I did not insult anyone! I responded to the implied name calling. (you know, I was duped into voting for Bush, along with the rest of the majority) Give me a break......again"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #28 July 13, 2005 QuoteQuoteSo what? Most economists say that it is not a big deal! It is also smaller when compared to the GNP than in the past. It is a non issue........... and it is changing!X It's a very convoluted equation, but the fact that interest rates are at 45 year lows indicates a struggling economy. Now, why is it struggling? I think the shift of money to corps has a lot to do with it. BK's at all time highs during Bush's first term is a byproduct of Bushenomics as well. Of course they are all but doing away with BK's, so that number will fall just like unemployment rates did when Bush refused to sign extensions after 9/11 with all those people out of work, so the numbers get manipulated via a Nazi-run economic system. Deny benefits - looks good from up here. Struggling economy? Interest rates are on the rise if you haven't noticed. .......and I will not respond to name calling Nazi-run economic system......hhmmm....once again, it's only correct if it is done your way?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #29 July 13, 2005 QuoteQuoteOh yah, I keep forgetting that Bush, and the majority that voted for him are all stupid Since the American voters can't be trusted to vote the "correct way", (we were all duped) when are those that believe as you going to change the law so only your points of view will be supported when voting is done? Maybe you can have a test to make sure everyone meeting your inteligance levels before they can vote. You are a hoot!! Why not address the graph instead of writing that vile rhetoric? Maybe you can have a test to make sure everyone meeting your inteligance levels before they can vote Well, Kallend is probably the most intelligent person on the board, so your point??????? Address the graph...... Refute the graph...... Do something..... Read my post above regarding the surpluses under Clinton. Add to that 9/11 which caused a jump in unemployment, and add the cost of the war (whether you agree with it or not, you can't ignore the cost), so try hard to refrain from the usual Bushbash. I disagree quite a bit of with what Congress is spending money on. I think a lot of money is being wasted and I wouldn't vote for Bush if he could run for a third term. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #30 July 13, 2005 QuoteI find it interesting that a bunch of the same folks who are saying the Bush administration is just wiggling the numbers to their advantage are also taking the Clinton numbers as gospel. Honestly, I think that pretty much every administration (Clinton, Bush, whoever) mashes those numbers as hard as they can to put themselves in the best light. Honestly, I think that pretty much every administration (Clinton, Bush, whoever) mashes those numbers as hard as they can to put themselves in the best light. Definately, but in gross number situatins from government offices, it's hard to wiggle the numbers. I would like to see fiscal numbers from the Bush camp that cast him in a positive light. I realize many times the projected numbers get mixed with the actuals creating a lot of ambiguity. I find it interesting that a bunch of the same folks who are saying the Bush administration is just wiggling the numbers to their advantage are also taking the Clinton numbers as gospel. Fiscally,he was golden. His sihning of NAFTA after Bush 1 started it, sucked. His pardoning of Slimington sucked. I voted Perot and then Dole, so I didn't directly vote him in, but in retrospect he was great. He shifted tax revenue form the rich to the poor and made education possible for many.... now Bush is, uh, fixxing that. There is no right or wrong, fiscally, but if you are rich, go Repub - poor go Dem - they have your respective best wishes in mind of the 2 parties. Where the table gets skewed is with the moral vote;the Repubs have masterfully sucked the religious right,who might otherwise vote Dem, into going with them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #31 July 13, 2005 QuoteMaybe you can have a test to make sure everyone meeting your inteligance levels before they can vote I'd suggest if you want to talk about Intelligence, that you at least learn to spell it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #32 July 13, 2005 QuoteThe lefties also like to forget that Clinton wanted to nationalize healthcare which would have blown a hole in the US economy that we may never have recovered from. They also like to conveniently forget that Clinton didn't want a balanced budget and the only reason we had surpluses was that he was dragged kicking and screaming by a Republican controlled Congress and forced to balance the budget. I guess ignorance really is bliss. The lefties also like to forget that Clinton wanted to nationalize healthcare which would have blown a hole in the US economy that we may never have recovered from. Who does your crystal ball say will win the Superbowl? Most ofthe rest of the world has some form of Socialized Medicine - have for decades - how is that they are bankrupt? They also like to conveniently forget that Clinton didn't want a balanced budget and the only reason we had surpluses was that he was dragged kicking and screaming by a Republican controlled Congress and forced to balance the budget. OK, you can throw whatever you want out there as to your claims that he didi or did not go along with Congress, truth is that he signed a budget that worked god damned well. The most lucrative time in world history as I understand it - he must have done something right. So now that we have a COngress that is even more Republican, who's fault is it? Gonna live off 9/11 forever? BTW, is it ok if kids don't have medical coverage? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #33 July 13, 2005 QuoteQuoteI find it interesting that a bunch of the same folks who are saying the Bush administration is just wiggling the numbers to their advantage are also taking the Clinton numbers as gospel. Honestly, I think that pretty much every administration (Clinton, Bush, whoever) mashes those numbers as hard as they can to put themselves in the best light. What I think is funny is how when the numbers show a deficit when a Republican is in office, they believe them but when they show a surplus, then the numbers have been manipulated. Show us numbers from governmental agencies that show a Republican surplus. I'm not sayingthey don't exist, I'm just asking for your evidence. Look, Hoover, architect of tricle down, helped throw the country into a recession - FRD pulled us out. Reagan borrowed and spent us into a recession that Bush 1 took the heat for. Bush 2 is doing more than Reagan did to shift power/money to corps and we see the results. It has been established time and time again that a Republican economy shifts themoney to the corps, they sit on it and the market stagnates. The Dems give much ofit ot the poor who immediately spend it and the market thrives. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #34 July 13, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteOh yah, I keep forgetting that Bush, and the majority that voted for him are all stupid Since the American voters can't be trusted to vote the "correct way", (we were all duped) when are those that believe as you going to change the law so only your points of view will be supported when voting is done? Maybe you can have a test to make sure everyone meeting your inteligance levels before they can vote. You are a hoot!! Why not address the graph instead of writing that vile rhetoric? Maybe you can have a test to make sure everyone meeting your inteligance levels before they can vote Well, Kallend is probably the most intelligent person on the board, so your point??????? Address the graph...... Refute the graph...... Do something..... I did not start this by saying anybody was duped. Vile?.....give me a break The graph needs to be looked at in the correct context. 1) today's projected defict is less than years past when compared to the GNP (I did address this earlier) 2) I did do something! I voted for the best president we have had since Reagan. In my posts I did not insult anyone! I responded to the implied name calling. (you know, I was duped into voting for Bush, along with the rest of the majority) Give me a break......again 1) today's projected defict is less than years past when compared to the GNP (I did address this earlier) PROJECTED <---- key word. This is what Tom, me and others have scoffed at. This is one of the ways they skew the truth. Let's look at actuals. I have projected personal goals that will occur, but probably not inthe time frame I have slated. Projected isn't worth the binary it's coded with. SHOW ME ACTUALS FROM GOV AGENCIES 2) I did do something! I voted for the best president we have had since Reagan. That's just opinion and not substative to anything. In my posts I did not insult anyone! I responded to the implied name calling. (you know, I was duped into voting for Bush, along with the rest of the majority) You're a true victim . Again, this is not about any of that, just answer the graph questions? Can you reject their validity? Can you reject the data used to complie the numbers? These are the questions that s/b answered. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EricTheRed 0 #35 July 13, 2005 QuoteQuoteMaybe you can have a test to make sure everyone meeting your inteligance levels before they can vote I'd suggest if you want to talk about Intelligence, that you at least learn to spell it. Now that's funny Just think though, if not for all the arguably stupid people in FLA that didn't know how to read a ballot in 2000, we probably would be arguing about something totally different now. QuoteNo-one ever went broke underestimating the ignorance of the American publicillegible usually Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #36 July 13, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteSo what? Most economists say that it is not a big deal! It is also smaller when compared to the GNP than in the past. It is a non issue........... and it is changing!X It's a very convoluted equation, but the fact that interest rates are at 45 year lows indicates a struggling economy. Now, why is it struggling? I think the shift of money to corps has a lot to do with it. BK's at all time highs during Bush's first term is a byproduct of Bushenomics as well. Of course they are all but doing away with BK's, so that number will fall just like unemployment rates did when Bush refused to sign extensions after 9/11 with all those people out of work, so the numbers get manipulated via a Nazi-run economic system. Deny benefits - looks good from up here. Struggling economy? Interest rates are on the rise if you haven't noticed. .......and I will not respond to name calling Nazi-run economic system......hhmmm....once again, it's only correct if it is done your way? Struggling economy? Look at the entire Bush 1st term. Interest rates are on the rise if you haven't noticed. ....... Really, my GF just refi'd and got an even lower rate than a year ago. .......and I will not respond to name calling Nazi-run economic system I'm not calling you a Nazi - it's a metaphor to describe our chimp's economics. once again, it's only correct if it is done your way? This is not about you or me, it's about our current chimp and in general which party does what to the economy. It's not my way, never has, never will. Answer the substance ofthe questions. Fuck, getting some conservatives to answer questions is like writing interoggatories. I realize there is no data that makes your party / bush look good, which is why the distraction, but now that I've called it out, try to answer questions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #37 July 13, 2005 QuoteQuoteThe lefties also like to forget that Clinton wanted to nationalize healthcare which would have blown a hole in the US economy that we may never have recovered from. They also like to conveniently forget that Clinton didn't want a balanced budget and the only reason we had surpluses was that he was dragged kicking and screaming by a Republican controlled Congress and forced to balance the budget. I guess ignorance really is bliss. The lefties also like to forget that Clinton wanted to nationalize healthcare which would have blown a hole in the US economy that we may never have recovered from. Who does your crystal ball say will win the Superbowl? Most ofthe rest of the world has some form of Socialized Medicine - have for decades - how is that they are bankrupt?Quote Apparently you have very little knowledge of the finacial conditions of these countries you hold in such high esteem. http://www.economist.com/surveys/showsurvey.cfm?issue=20021207 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_France I could give you a lot more but I think you get the picture. Notice France has an unemployment rate of almost double that of the U.S. and you guys bitch about Bush. They also like to conveniently forget that Clinton didn't want a balanced budget and the only reason we had surpluses was that he was dragged kicking and screaming by a Republican controlled Congress and forced to balance the budget. QuoteOK, you can throw whatever you want out there as to your claims that he didi or did not go along with Congress, truth is that he signed a budget that worked god damned well. The most lucrative time in world history as I understand it - he must have done something right. So now that we have a COngress that is even more Republican, who's fault is it? Gonna live off 9/11 forever? I guess I could claim a contract is valid if I held a gun to your head and forced you to sign it too. Nobody is trying to live off 9/11 but you cannot ignore the fact that it had an effect on the economy. You also cannot deny that during the last year of Clintons term, we were entering into a recession. QuoteBTW, is it ok if kids don't have medical coverage? By all means their parents should provide them with medical coverage. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites storm1977 0 #38 July 13, 2005 Quote What amazing SPIN. We have record deficits due to Bush's tax cuts and Bush's war, but not quite as bad as originally forecast, so Bush must have been right. Someone seems to have forgotten that there was a surplus just 5 years ago. Wanna buy a bridge? Yup and someone forgot there was a recession, a terror attack, and a war which followed the attack. Even if you take Iraq out of it. But you wouldn't gone to Afganistan either would yo uhave Kallend? Oh, wait I forgot... 9/11 was Bush's fault.... THe huge worldwide conspiracy right??? ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #39 July 13, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteI find it interesting that a bunch of the same folks who are saying the Bush administration is just wiggling the numbers to their advantage are also taking the Clinton numbers as gospel. Honestly, I think that pretty much every administration (Clinton, Bush, whoever) mashes those numbers as hard as they can to put themselves in the best light. What I think is funny is how when the numbers show a deficit when a Republican is in office, they believe them but when they show a surplus, then the numbers have been manipulated. Show us numbers from governmental agencies that show a Republican surplus. I'm not sayingthey don't exist, I'm just asking for your evidence. Look, Hoover, architect of tricle down, helped throw the country into a recession - FRD pulled us out. Reagan borrowed and spent us into a recession that Bush 1 took the heat for. Bush 2 is doing more than Reagan did to shift power/money to corps and we see the results. It has been established time and time again that a Republican economy shifts themoney to the corps, they sit on it and the market stagnates. The Dems give much ofit ot the poor who immediately spend it and the market thrives. Why no mention of Carter in there before Reagan? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites storm1977 0 #40 July 13, 2005 Quote Answer the substance ofthe questions. Fuck, getting some conservatives to answer questions is like writing interoggatories. I realize there is no data that makes your party / bush look good, which is why the distraction, but now that I've called it out, try to answer questions. Funny.... Maybe you should read your first response in this thread!!!! lol... talk about not being able to answer questions. I sometimes wonder if you even read the questions. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites storm1977 0 #41 July 13, 2005 I am still waiting for your respone from another thread... Talk about Government waste!!! You are the one supporting NATCA the ATC Union, when it has been proven that in just one of 500 AT Facilities, that union wasted 4.12 Million in US tax dollars last year. But you think Union = Good. Union = Waste!!! ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #42 July 13, 2005 QuoteQuote What amazing SPIN. We have record deficits due to Bush's tax cuts and Bush's war, but not quite as bad as originally forecast, so Bush must have been right. Someone seems to have forgotten that there was a surplus just 5 years ago. Wanna buy a bridge? Yup and someone forgot there was a recession, a terror attack, and a war which followed the attack. Even if you take Iraq out of it. But you wouldn't gone to Afganistan either would yo uhave Kallend? Oh, wait I forgot... 9/11 was Bush's fault.... THe huge worldwide conspiracy right??? Hey, give them a break. It's got to be hard work trying to blame all the ills in the world today on Bush. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites EBSB52 0 #43 July 13, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteOh yah, I keep forgetting that Bush, and the majority that voted for him are all stupid Since the American voters can't be trusted to vote the "correct way", (we were all duped) when are those that believe as you going to change the law so only your points of view will be supported when voting is done? Maybe you can have a test to make sure everyone meeting your inteligance levels before they can vote. You are a hoot!! Why not address the graph instead of writing that vile rhetoric? Maybe you can have a test to make sure everyone meeting your inteligance levels before they can vote Well, Kallend is probably the most intelligent person on the board, so your point??????? Address the graph...... Refute the graph...... Do something..... Read my post above regarding the surpluses under Clinton. Add to that 9/11 which caused a jump in unemployment, and add the cost of the war (whether you agree with it or not, you can't ignore the cost), so try hard to refrain from the usual Bushbash. I disagree quite a bit of with what Congress is spending money on. I think a lot of money is being wasted and I wouldn't vote for Bush if he could run for a third term. Read my post above regarding the surpluses under Clinton. What is your post about regarding CLinton - which statements? Add to that 9/11 which caused a jump in unemployment,... Let's talk this for a moment. What was Bush's reaction? Well, he gave the airlines a multi-billion dollar gift and didin't require they keep all employees as a contingency of the gifts. Then he axed an unemplyment extension when those same workers ran out of unemployment due to the airline collapse after 9/11. I am an acft worker which is why this matters to me. So, is Bush2 a corporate POS or what? Just gloss over this paragraph..... I know you will. and add the cost of the war (whether you agree with it or not, you can't ignore the cost), OK, the war was an executive decision, even against the UN. Congress did vote for the war, so I don't exonerate them either. Whether or not I agree with the war matters not, what does matter is that Bush sent us to war and is keeping us there at 1 billion $ per week. We can't just avoud that. so try hard to refrain from the usual Bushbash. Find yourself defending Bush a lot? Ya, I sympathize. I disagree quite a bit of with what Congress is spending money on. You mean like the war that Bush started and refuses to quit? I think a lot of money is being wasted and I wouldn't vote for Bush if he could run for a third term. Wait, wait..... Bush is wonderful, projected this and that looks great, but I wouldn't vote for him again? WTF???? Hey, Clinton was my president even tho I didn't vote for him, but I can criticizethings he's done - learn to do the same. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #44 July 13, 2005 Thanks"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #45 July 13, 2005 "I'm not calling you a Nazi - it's a metaphor to describe our chimp's economics." I love this! Thanks for making my point!!"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #46 July 13, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo what? Most economists say that it is not a big deal! It is also smaller when compared to the GNP than in the past. It is a non issue........... and it is changing!X It's a very convoluted equation, but the fact that interest rates are at 45 year lows indicates a struggling economy. Now, why is it struggling? I think the shift of money to corps has a lot to do with it. BK's at all time highs during Bush's first term is a byproduct of Bushenomics as well. Of course they are all but doing away with BK's, so that number will fall just like unemployment rates did when Bush refused to sign extensions after 9/11 with all those people out of work, so the numbers get manipulated via a Nazi-run economic system. Deny benefits - looks good from up here. Struggling economy? Interest rates are on the rise if you haven't noticed. .......and I will not respond to name calling Nazi-run economic system......hhmmm....once again, it's only correct if it is done your way? Struggling economy? Look at the entire Bush 1st term. Interest rates are on the rise if you haven't noticed. ....... Really, my GF just refi'd and got an even lower rate than a year ago. .......and I will not respond to name calling Nazi-run economic system I'm not calling you a Nazi - it's a metaphor to describe our chimp's economics. once again, it's only correct if it is done your way? This is not about you or me, it's about our current chimp and in general which party does what to the economy. It's not my way, never has, never will. Answer the substance ofthe questions. Fuck, getting some conservatives to answer questions is like writing interoggatories. I realize there is no data that makes your party / bush look good, which is why the distraction, but now that I've called it out, try to answer questions. You know, you and I do not agree but, regardless your calling the president of the US a chimp is insulting at best. When you grow up maybe we can have a cordial exchange."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites EBSB52 0 #47 July 13, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe lefties also like to forget that Clinton wanted to nationalize healthcare which would have blown a hole in the US economy that we may never have recovered from. They also like to conveniently forget that Clinton didn't want a balanced budget and the only reason we had surpluses was that he was dragged kicking and screaming by a Republican controlled Congress and forced to balance the budget. I guess ignorance really is bliss. The lefties also like to forget that Clinton wanted to nationalize healthcare which would have blown a hole in the US economy that we may never have recovered from. Who does your crystal ball say will win the Superbowl? Most ofthe rest of the world has some form of Socialized Medicine - have for decades - how is that they are bankrupt?Quote Apparently you have very little knowledge of the finacial conditions of these countries you hold in such high esteem. http://www.economist.com/surveys/showsurvey.cfm?issue=20021207 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_France I could give you a lot more but I think you get the picture. Notice France has an unemployment rate of almost double that of the U.S. and you guys bitch about Bush. They also like to conveniently forget that Clinton didn't want a balanced budget and the only reason we had surpluses was that he was dragged kicking and screaming by a Republican controlled Congress and forced to balance the budget. QuoteOK, you can throw whatever you want out there as to your claims that he didi or did not go along with Congress, truth is that he signed a budget that worked god damned well. The most lucrative time in world history as I understand it - he must have done something right. So now that we have a COngress that is even more Republican, who's fault is it? Gonna live off 9/11 forever? I guess I could claim a contract is valid if I held a gun to your head and forced you to sign it too. Nobody is trying to live off 9/11 but you cannot ignore the fact that it had an effect on the economy. You also cannot deny that during the last year of Clintons term, we were entering into a recession. QuoteBTW, is it ok if kids don't have medical coverage? By all means their parents should provide them with medical coverage. How does that song go???? Oh yea, "Oops up side ya head." Your own site gave us this: Many Germans, on the centre-right as well as the centre-left, think their laisser-faire critics are exaggerating. Carpers have been saying much the same thing for decades, yet Germany remains a rich and comfortable country that treats its old, its sick and its unemployed far more generously than does, say, America or Britain. “Germans live very well. We have a fantastic welfare system,” said Alfred Tacke, a confidant of Mr Schröder in the economics ministry. “Our infrastructure is fantastic. Our workers have six or even eight weeks' holiday a year.” The Americans, he says, work about 25% more hours in a year. So what, he seems to be implying, if Germany drops a few places in those league tables of growth and productivity Ya, we Americans ar so fucking lucky...... what a joke. Wonder why I wanna move???? The French site gave me this: Legislation passed in 1998 shortened the legal workweek from 39 to 35 hours effective January 1, 2000. A key objective of the legislation is to encourage job creation, for which significant new subsidies will be made available. Which is opposite of the Fascist POCrap we have now that legislated the Overtime Bill, which would increase unemployment by way of requiring more workers into management rioles, working more hiours for free, hence requiring fewer employees. What did France do? They shortened the workweek so the companies had to hgire more workers. Other than that I don't see your point; the article makes those countries look fairly descent. I could give you a lot more but I think you get the picture. Notice France has an unemployment rate of almost double that of the U.S. and you guys bitch about Bush. Don't pretend to know how their system of UR work and I won't. I would guess that once an employee is out of work they are considered unemployed until reemployed. In the US once they drop off the eligibility roles they are no longer employed. With Europe's Social system I would guess that they don't do it the same way the US does. I guess I could claim a contract is valid if I held a gun to your head and forced you to sign it too. Veiled threat noted and I don't think a person of your statutre could get me in that predicament. As for duress, I don't see any correlation to the point at hand; was Clinton pursuaded into signing a budget, hence his record-breaking economy wasn't due to his actions. Nobody is trying to live off 9/11 but you cannot ignore the fact that it had an effect on the economy. Yes, a short-term affect but the reaction Bush taking care of the corps and disallowing unemp extensions defined his concerns. You also cannot deny that during the last year of Clintons term, we were entering into a recession. Last 6 months we had a downturn of most indicators. With that it wasn't going into the dump, it was slightly turning down. Bush's reaction was what? Give away the surplus. By all means their parents should provide them with medical coverage. You assume that these parents are working and / or intelligent enough to get them care or apply for access, etc... Tall assumption to make. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites EBSB52 0 #48 July 13, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI find it interesting that a bunch of the same folks who are saying the Bush administration is just wiggling the numbers to their advantage are also taking the Clinton numbers as gospel. Honestly, I think that pretty much every administration (Clinton, Bush, whoever) mashes those numbers as hard as they can to put themselves in the best light. What I think is funny is how when the numbers show a deficit when a Republican is in office, they believe them but when they show a surplus, then the numbers have been manipulated. Show us numbers from governmental agencies that show a Republican surplus. I'm not sayingthey don't exist, I'm just asking for your evidence. Look, Hoover, architect of tricle down, helped throw the country into a recession - FRD pulled us out. Reagan borrowed and spent us into a recession that Bush 1 took the heat for. Bush 2 is doing more than Reagan did to shift power/money to corps and we see the results. It has been established time and time again that a Republican economy shifts themoney to the corps, they sit on it and the market stagnates. The Dems give much ofit ot the poor who immediately spend it and the market thrives. Why no mention of Carter in there before Reagan? Why no mention of Carter in there before Reagan? Carter, like Ford, was a non-factor in most categories. The 70's weren't great presidential years. I didn't like Carter, although I like many things about Nixon. I despised LBJ - he was a Nazi just like Bush2 is. So b4 the conservs think I'm Repub bashing - wrong. I'm a registered Repub, but can't see myself voting that way again or in the near future. So to more fully answer your question, the country was in transition in the 70's, then the Fascist generation started around Reagan, which is why I started there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites EBSB52 0 #49 July 13, 2005 QuoteI am still waiting for your respone from another thread... Talk about Government waste!!! You are the one supporting NATCA the ATC Union, when it has been proven that in just one of 500 AT Facilities, that union wasted 4.12 Million in US tax dollars last year. But you think Union = Good. Union = Waste!!! Which thread? Post your question or the site. You are the one supporting NATCA ... HUH? the ATC Union Yes when it has been proven that in just one of 500 AT Facilities, that union wasted 4.12 Million in US tax dollars last year. Who proved what to whom? Make a little sense here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites EBSB52 0 #50 July 13, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo what? Most economists say that it is not a big deal! It is also smaller when compared to the GNP than in the past. It is a non issue........... and it is changing!X It's a very convoluted equation, but the fact that interest rates are at 45 year lows indicates a struggling economy. Now, why is it struggling? I think the shift of money to corps has a lot to do with it. BK's at all time highs during Bush's first term is a byproduct of Bushenomics as well. Of course they are all but doing away with BK's, so that number will fall just like unemployment rates did when Bush refused to sign extensions after 9/11 with all those people out of work, so the numbers get manipulated via a Nazi-run economic system. Deny benefits - looks good from up here. Struggling economy? Interest rates are on the rise if you haven't noticed. .......and I will not respond to name calling Nazi-run economic system......hhmmm....once again, it's only correct if it is done your way? Struggling economy? Look at the entire Bush 1st term. Interest rates are on the rise if you haven't noticed. ....... Really, my GF just refi'd and got an even lower rate than a year ago. .......and I will not respond to name calling Nazi-run economic system I'm not calling you a Nazi - it's a metaphor to describe our chimp's economics. once again, it's only correct if it is done your way? This is not about you or me, it's about our current chimp and in general which party does what to the economy. It's not my way, never has, never will. Answer the substance ofthe questions. Fuck, getting some conservatives to answer questions is like writing interoggatories. I realize there is no data that makes your party / bush look good, which is why the distraction, but now that I've called it out, try to answer questions. You know, you and I do not agree but, regardless your calling the president of the US a chimp is insulting at best. When you grow up maybe we can have a cordial exchange. 2 posts in a row you answer long posts with a 1-liner. I realize it's tough to defend the actions of a chimp like we have, so just fully acquiesce instead of pretending a response. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 2 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
storm1977 0 #38 July 13, 2005 Quote What amazing SPIN. We have record deficits due to Bush's tax cuts and Bush's war, but not quite as bad as originally forecast, so Bush must have been right. Someone seems to have forgotten that there was a surplus just 5 years ago. Wanna buy a bridge? Yup and someone forgot there was a recession, a terror attack, and a war which followed the attack. Even if you take Iraq out of it. But you wouldn't gone to Afganistan either would yo uhave Kallend? Oh, wait I forgot... 9/11 was Bush's fault.... THe huge worldwide conspiracy right??? ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #39 July 13, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteI find it interesting that a bunch of the same folks who are saying the Bush administration is just wiggling the numbers to their advantage are also taking the Clinton numbers as gospel. Honestly, I think that pretty much every administration (Clinton, Bush, whoever) mashes those numbers as hard as they can to put themselves in the best light. What I think is funny is how when the numbers show a deficit when a Republican is in office, they believe them but when they show a surplus, then the numbers have been manipulated. Show us numbers from governmental agencies that show a Republican surplus. I'm not sayingthey don't exist, I'm just asking for your evidence. Look, Hoover, architect of tricle down, helped throw the country into a recession - FRD pulled us out. Reagan borrowed and spent us into a recession that Bush 1 took the heat for. Bush 2 is doing more than Reagan did to shift power/money to corps and we see the results. It has been established time and time again that a Republican economy shifts themoney to the corps, they sit on it and the market stagnates. The Dems give much ofit ot the poor who immediately spend it and the market thrives. Why no mention of Carter in there before Reagan? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #40 July 13, 2005 Quote Answer the substance ofthe questions. Fuck, getting some conservatives to answer questions is like writing interoggatories. I realize there is no data that makes your party / bush look good, which is why the distraction, but now that I've called it out, try to answer questions. Funny.... Maybe you should read your first response in this thread!!!! lol... talk about not being able to answer questions. I sometimes wonder if you even read the questions. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #41 July 13, 2005 I am still waiting for your respone from another thread... Talk about Government waste!!! You are the one supporting NATCA the ATC Union, when it has been proven that in just one of 500 AT Facilities, that union wasted 4.12 Million in US tax dollars last year. But you think Union = Good. Union = Waste!!! ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #42 July 13, 2005 QuoteQuote What amazing SPIN. We have record deficits due to Bush's tax cuts and Bush's war, but not quite as bad as originally forecast, so Bush must have been right. Someone seems to have forgotten that there was a surplus just 5 years ago. Wanna buy a bridge? Yup and someone forgot there was a recession, a terror attack, and a war which followed the attack. Even if you take Iraq out of it. But you wouldn't gone to Afganistan either would yo uhave Kallend? Oh, wait I forgot... 9/11 was Bush's fault.... THe huge worldwide conspiracy right??? Hey, give them a break. It's got to be hard work trying to blame all the ills in the world today on Bush. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #43 July 13, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteOh yah, I keep forgetting that Bush, and the majority that voted for him are all stupid Since the American voters can't be trusted to vote the "correct way", (we were all duped) when are those that believe as you going to change the law so only your points of view will be supported when voting is done? Maybe you can have a test to make sure everyone meeting your inteligance levels before they can vote. You are a hoot!! Why not address the graph instead of writing that vile rhetoric? Maybe you can have a test to make sure everyone meeting your inteligance levels before they can vote Well, Kallend is probably the most intelligent person on the board, so your point??????? Address the graph...... Refute the graph...... Do something..... Read my post above regarding the surpluses under Clinton. Add to that 9/11 which caused a jump in unemployment, and add the cost of the war (whether you agree with it or not, you can't ignore the cost), so try hard to refrain from the usual Bushbash. I disagree quite a bit of with what Congress is spending money on. I think a lot of money is being wasted and I wouldn't vote for Bush if he could run for a third term. Read my post above regarding the surpluses under Clinton. What is your post about regarding CLinton - which statements? Add to that 9/11 which caused a jump in unemployment,... Let's talk this for a moment. What was Bush's reaction? Well, he gave the airlines a multi-billion dollar gift and didin't require they keep all employees as a contingency of the gifts. Then he axed an unemplyment extension when those same workers ran out of unemployment due to the airline collapse after 9/11. I am an acft worker which is why this matters to me. So, is Bush2 a corporate POS or what? Just gloss over this paragraph..... I know you will. and add the cost of the war (whether you agree with it or not, you can't ignore the cost), OK, the war was an executive decision, even against the UN. Congress did vote for the war, so I don't exonerate them either. Whether or not I agree with the war matters not, what does matter is that Bush sent us to war and is keeping us there at 1 billion $ per week. We can't just avoud that. so try hard to refrain from the usual Bushbash. Find yourself defending Bush a lot? Ya, I sympathize. I disagree quite a bit of with what Congress is spending money on. You mean like the war that Bush started and refuses to quit? I think a lot of money is being wasted and I wouldn't vote for Bush if he could run for a third term. Wait, wait..... Bush is wonderful, projected this and that looks great, but I wouldn't vote for him again? WTF???? Hey, Clinton was my president even tho I didn't vote for him, but I can criticizethings he's done - learn to do the same. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #44 July 13, 2005 Thanks"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #45 July 13, 2005 "I'm not calling you a Nazi - it's a metaphor to describe our chimp's economics." I love this! Thanks for making my point!!"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #46 July 13, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo what? Most economists say that it is not a big deal! It is also smaller when compared to the GNP than in the past. It is a non issue........... and it is changing!X It's a very convoluted equation, but the fact that interest rates are at 45 year lows indicates a struggling economy. Now, why is it struggling? I think the shift of money to corps has a lot to do with it. BK's at all time highs during Bush's first term is a byproduct of Bushenomics as well. Of course they are all but doing away with BK's, so that number will fall just like unemployment rates did when Bush refused to sign extensions after 9/11 with all those people out of work, so the numbers get manipulated via a Nazi-run economic system. Deny benefits - looks good from up here. Struggling economy? Interest rates are on the rise if you haven't noticed. .......and I will not respond to name calling Nazi-run economic system......hhmmm....once again, it's only correct if it is done your way? Struggling economy? Look at the entire Bush 1st term. Interest rates are on the rise if you haven't noticed. ....... Really, my GF just refi'd and got an even lower rate than a year ago. .......and I will not respond to name calling Nazi-run economic system I'm not calling you a Nazi - it's a metaphor to describe our chimp's economics. once again, it's only correct if it is done your way? This is not about you or me, it's about our current chimp and in general which party does what to the economy. It's not my way, never has, never will. Answer the substance ofthe questions. Fuck, getting some conservatives to answer questions is like writing interoggatories. I realize there is no data that makes your party / bush look good, which is why the distraction, but now that I've called it out, try to answer questions. You know, you and I do not agree but, regardless your calling the president of the US a chimp is insulting at best. When you grow up maybe we can have a cordial exchange."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #47 July 13, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe lefties also like to forget that Clinton wanted to nationalize healthcare which would have blown a hole in the US economy that we may never have recovered from. They also like to conveniently forget that Clinton didn't want a balanced budget and the only reason we had surpluses was that he was dragged kicking and screaming by a Republican controlled Congress and forced to balance the budget. I guess ignorance really is bliss. The lefties also like to forget that Clinton wanted to nationalize healthcare which would have blown a hole in the US economy that we may never have recovered from. Who does your crystal ball say will win the Superbowl? Most ofthe rest of the world has some form of Socialized Medicine - have for decades - how is that they are bankrupt?Quote Apparently you have very little knowledge of the finacial conditions of these countries you hold in such high esteem. http://www.economist.com/surveys/showsurvey.cfm?issue=20021207 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_France I could give you a lot more but I think you get the picture. Notice France has an unemployment rate of almost double that of the U.S. and you guys bitch about Bush. They also like to conveniently forget that Clinton didn't want a balanced budget and the only reason we had surpluses was that he was dragged kicking and screaming by a Republican controlled Congress and forced to balance the budget. QuoteOK, you can throw whatever you want out there as to your claims that he didi or did not go along with Congress, truth is that he signed a budget that worked god damned well. The most lucrative time in world history as I understand it - he must have done something right. So now that we have a COngress that is even more Republican, who's fault is it? Gonna live off 9/11 forever? I guess I could claim a contract is valid if I held a gun to your head and forced you to sign it too. Nobody is trying to live off 9/11 but you cannot ignore the fact that it had an effect on the economy. You also cannot deny that during the last year of Clintons term, we were entering into a recession. QuoteBTW, is it ok if kids don't have medical coverage? By all means their parents should provide them with medical coverage. How does that song go???? Oh yea, "Oops up side ya head." Your own site gave us this: Many Germans, on the centre-right as well as the centre-left, think their laisser-faire critics are exaggerating. Carpers have been saying much the same thing for decades, yet Germany remains a rich and comfortable country that treats its old, its sick and its unemployed far more generously than does, say, America or Britain. “Germans live very well. We have a fantastic welfare system,” said Alfred Tacke, a confidant of Mr Schröder in the economics ministry. “Our infrastructure is fantastic. Our workers have six or even eight weeks' holiday a year.” The Americans, he says, work about 25% more hours in a year. So what, he seems to be implying, if Germany drops a few places in those league tables of growth and productivity Ya, we Americans ar so fucking lucky...... what a joke. Wonder why I wanna move???? The French site gave me this: Legislation passed in 1998 shortened the legal workweek from 39 to 35 hours effective January 1, 2000. A key objective of the legislation is to encourage job creation, for which significant new subsidies will be made available. Which is opposite of the Fascist POCrap we have now that legislated the Overtime Bill, which would increase unemployment by way of requiring more workers into management rioles, working more hiours for free, hence requiring fewer employees. What did France do? They shortened the workweek so the companies had to hgire more workers. Other than that I don't see your point; the article makes those countries look fairly descent. I could give you a lot more but I think you get the picture. Notice France has an unemployment rate of almost double that of the U.S. and you guys bitch about Bush. Don't pretend to know how their system of UR work and I won't. I would guess that once an employee is out of work they are considered unemployed until reemployed. In the US once they drop off the eligibility roles they are no longer employed. With Europe's Social system I would guess that they don't do it the same way the US does. I guess I could claim a contract is valid if I held a gun to your head and forced you to sign it too. Veiled threat noted and I don't think a person of your statutre could get me in that predicament. As for duress, I don't see any correlation to the point at hand; was Clinton pursuaded into signing a budget, hence his record-breaking economy wasn't due to his actions. Nobody is trying to live off 9/11 but you cannot ignore the fact that it had an effect on the economy. Yes, a short-term affect but the reaction Bush taking care of the corps and disallowing unemp extensions defined his concerns. You also cannot deny that during the last year of Clintons term, we were entering into a recession. Last 6 months we had a downturn of most indicators. With that it wasn't going into the dump, it was slightly turning down. Bush's reaction was what? Give away the surplus. By all means their parents should provide them with medical coverage. You assume that these parents are working and / or intelligent enough to get them care or apply for access, etc... Tall assumption to make. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites EBSB52 0 #48 July 13, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI find it interesting that a bunch of the same folks who are saying the Bush administration is just wiggling the numbers to their advantage are also taking the Clinton numbers as gospel. Honestly, I think that pretty much every administration (Clinton, Bush, whoever) mashes those numbers as hard as they can to put themselves in the best light. What I think is funny is how when the numbers show a deficit when a Republican is in office, they believe them but when they show a surplus, then the numbers have been manipulated. Show us numbers from governmental agencies that show a Republican surplus. I'm not sayingthey don't exist, I'm just asking for your evidence. Look, Hoover, architect of tricle down, helped throw the country into a recession - FRD pulled us out. Reagan borrowed and spent us into a recession that Bush 1 took the heat for. Bush 2 is doing more than Reagan did to shift power/money to corps and we see the results. It has been established time and time again that a Republican economy shifts themoney to the corps, they sit on it and the market stagnates. The Dems give much ofit ot the poor who immediately spend it and the market thrives. Why no mention of Carter in there before Reagan? Why no mention of Carter in there before Reagan? Carter, like Ford, was a non-factor in most categories. The 70's weren't great presidential years. I didn't like Carter, although I like many things about Nixon. I despised LBJ - he was a Nazi just like Bush2 is. So b4 the conservs think I'm Repub bashing - wrong. I'm a registered Repub, but can't see myself voting that way again or in the near future. So to more fully answer your question, the country was in transition in the 70's, then the Fascist generation started around Reagan, which is why I started there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites EBSB52 0 #49 July 13, 2005 QuoteI am still waiting for your respone from another thread... Talk about Government waste!!! You are the one supporting NATCA the ATC Union, when it has been proven that in just one of 500 AT Facilities, that union wasted 4.12 Million in US tax dollars last year. But you think Union = Good. Union = Waste!!! Which thread? Post your question or the site. You are the one supporting NATCA ... HUH? the ATC Union Yes when it has been proven that in just one of 500 AT Facilities, that union wasted 4.12 Million in US tax dollars last year. Who proved what to whom? Make a little sense here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites EBSB52 0 #50 July 13, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo what? Most economists say that it is not a big deal! It is also smaller when compared to the GNP than in the past. It is a non issue........... and it is changing!X It's a very convoluted equation, but the fact that interest rates are at 45 year lows indicates a struggling economy. Now, why is it struggling? I think the shift of money to corps has a lot to do with it. BK's at all time highs during Bush's first term is a byproduct of Bushenomics as well. Of course they are all but doing away with BK's, so that number will fall just like unemployment rates did when Bush refused to sign extensions after 9/11 with all those people out of work, so the numbers get manipulated via a Nazi-run economic system. Deny benefits - looks good from up here. Struggling economy? Interest rates are on the rise if you haven't noticed. .......and I will not respond to name calling Nazi-run economic system......hhmmm....once again, it's only correct if it is done your way? Struggling economy? Look at the entire Bush 1st term. Interest rates are on the rise if you haven't noticed. ....... Really, my GF just refi'd and got an even lower rate than a year ago. .......and I will not respond to name calling Nazi-run economic system I'm not calling you a Nazi - it's a metaphor to describe our chimp's economics. once again, it's only correct if it is done your way? This is not about you or me, it's about our current chimp and in general which party does what to the economy. It's not my way, never has, never will. Answer the substance ofthe questions. Fuck, getting some conservatives to answer questions is like writing interoggatories. I realize there is no data that makes your party / bush look good, which is why the distraction, but now that I've called it out, try to answer questions. You know, you and I do not agree but, regardless your calling the president of the US a chimp is insulting at best. When you grow up maybe we can have a cordial exchange. 2 posts in a row you answer long posts with a 1-liner. I realize it's tough to defend the actions of a chimp like we have, so just fully acquiesce instead of pretending a response. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 2 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
EBSB52 0 #48 July 13, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI find it interesting that a bunch of the same folks who are saying the Bush administration is just wiggling the numbers to their advantage are also taking the Clinton numbers as gospel. Honestly, I think that pretty much every administration (Clinton, Bush, whoever) mashes those numbers as hard as they can to put themselves in the best light. What I think is funny is how when the numbers show a deficit when a Republican is in office, they believe them but when they show a surplus, then the numbers have been manipulated. Show us numbers from governmental agencies that show a Republican surplus. I'm not sayingthey don't exist, I'm just asking for your evidence. Look, Hoover, architect of tricle down, helped throw the country into a recession - FRD pulled us out. Reagan borrowed and spent us into a recession that Bush 1 took the heat for. Bush 2 is doing more than Reagan did to shift power/money to corps and we see the results. It has been established time and time again that a Republican economy shifts themoney to the corps, they sit on it and the market stagnates. The Dems give much ofit ot the poor who immediately spend it and the market thrives. Why no mention of Carter in there before Reagan? Why no mention of Carter in there before Reagan? Carter, like Ford, was a non-factor in most categories. The 70's weren't great presidential years. I didn't like Carter, although I like many things about Nixon. I despised LBJ - he was a Nazi just like Bush2 is. So b4 the conservs think I'm Repub bashing - wrong. I'm a registered Repub, but can't see myself voting that way again or in the near future. So to more fully answer your question, the country was in transition in the 70's, then the Fascist generation started around Reagan, which is why I started there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #49 July 13, 2005 QuoteI am still waiting for your respone from another thread... Talk about Government waste!!! You are the one supporting NATCA the ATC Union, when it has been proven that in just one of 500 AT Facilities, that union wasted 4.12 Million in US tax dollars last year. But you think Union = Good. Union = Waste!!! Which thread? Post your question or the site. You are the one supporting NATCA ... HUH? the ATC Union Yes when it has been proven that in just one of 500 AT Facilities, that union wasted 4.12 Million in US tax dollars last year. Who proved what to whom? Make a little sense here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #50 July 13, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo what? Most economists say that it is not a big deal! It is also smaller when compared to the GNP than in the past. It is a non issue........... and it is changing!X It's a very convoluted equation, but the fact that interest rates are at 45 year lows indicates a struggling economy. Now, why is it struggling? I think the shift of money to corps has a lot to do with it. BK's at all time highs during Bush's first term is a byproduct of Bushenomics as well. Of course they are all but doing away with BK's, so that number will fall just like unemployment rates did when Bush refused to sign extensions after 9/11 with all those people out of work, so the numbers get manipulated via a Nazi-run economic system. Deny benefits - looks good from up here. Struggling economy? Interest rates are on the rise if you haven't noticed. .......and I will not respond to name calling Nazi-run economic system......hhmmm....once again, it's only correct if it is done your way? Struggling economy? Look at the entire Bush 1st term. Interest rates are on the rise if you haven't noticed. ....... Really, my GF just refi'd and got an even lower rate than a year ago. .......and I will not respond to name calling Nazi-run economic system I'm not calling you a Nazi - it's a metaphor to describe our chimp's economics. once again, it's only correct if it is done your way? This is not about you or me, it's about our current chimp and in general which party does what to the economy. It's not my way, never has, never will. Answer the substance ofthe questions. Fuck, getting some conservatives to answer questions is like writing interoggatories. I realize there is no data that makes your party / bush look good, which is why the distraction, but now that I've called it out, try to answer questions. You know, you and I do not agree but, regardless your calling the president of the US a chimp is insulting at best. When you grow up maybe we can have a cordial exchange. 2 posts in a row you answer long posts with a 1-liner. I realize it's tough to defend the actions of a chimp like we have, so just fully acquiesce instead of pretending a response. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
