President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

General Intelligent Discussion & One Thread About That Buttknuckle

Moderator: Andrew

Postby treetopovskaya » Fri Feb 12, 2010 12:45 am

User avatar
treetopovskaya
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3071
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 4:58 pm

Postby RossValoryRocks » Fri Feb 12, 2010 1:38 am

RedWingFan wrote:
7 Wishes wrote:I think you may have misunderstood, and I know you don't know the facts...yet. Here they are:

You forgot to reference your source again genius! :lol:


He's going to come back and say the treasury department...but the info is no where to be found there...
User avatar
RossValoryRocks
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 4:47 pm

Postby S2M » Fri Feb 12, 2010 1:51 am

179 pages of absolute comic drivel... :lol:

All these politicians are garbage.....'nuff said.

Two nights ago I wanted to jump into my TV and fucking strangle LaHood. His answers to Brian Williams( I think) 'softball
questions(without a hardball follow up) were absolutely ludicrous. He answered the same no matter what the query. 'We held their feet to the fire'.

Wake up.....post to a meaningful thread. i.e. any thread started by StevieW2.... :lol:
Tom Brady IS the G.O.A.T.
User avatar
S2M
MP3
 
Posts: 11981
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:43 am
Location: In a bevy of whimsy

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Fri Feb 12, 2010 4:05 am

treetopovskaya wrote:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704533204575047713014346530.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Garbage article.
No mention whatsoever that Obama's budgets actually acount for things like Iraq and Afghanistan (the last guy funded these via emergency supplemental appropriations bills), as well as the cost of natural disaster spending (the last guy left this completely off the books), and the real cost of Medicare reimbursements (also unaccounted for).
2.4 trillion of Obama's budget is mandatory spending (aka entitlements), while expenditures like tarp and stimulus were passed in direct response to the mess O stepped into.
Or has the writer, and the rest of the GOP conveniently forgotten this?
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16058
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Postby conversationpc » Fri Feb 12, 2010 4:10 am

RossValoryRocks wrote:
RedWingFan wrote:
7 Wishes wrote:I think you may have misunderstood, and I know you don't know the facts...yet. Here they are:

You forgot to reference your source again genius! :lol:


He's going to come back and say the treasury department...but the info is no where to be found there...


But you know it's "absolute fact", right? BUWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! :lol:
My blog = Dave's Dominion
User avatar
conversationpc
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 17830
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:53 am
Location: Slightly south of sanity...

Postby 7 Wishes » Fri Feb 12, 2010 8:13 am

For God's sake, guys, there are no less than five sources listed. Bloody hell.

Just deal with the fact that the GOP talks out of one side of its mouth. I particularly love how not ONE member of the House or Congress has mentioned the recent Tea Party...WTF?!!! Its keynote speaker says there should be literacy tests given to any prospective voters (hello, Senator Wallace)...and basically calls anyone who voted for Obama an idiot, even though he had a bigger plurality of the vote than anyone in history. Lovely. Hypocrisy and racism at its worst and mum's the word.
But around town, it was well known...when they got home at night
Their fat and psychopathic wives
Would thrash them within inches of their lives!
User avatar
7 Wishes
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4305
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 3:28 pm

Postby RossValoryRocks » Fri Feb 12, 2010 8:51 am

7 Wishes wrote:For God's sake, guys, there are no less than five sources listed. Bloody hell.

Just deal with the fact that the GOP talks out of one side of its mouth. I particularly love how not ONE member of the House or Congress has mentioned the recent Tea Party...WTF?!!! Its keynote speaker says there should be literacy tests given to any prospective voters (hello, Senator Wallace)...and basically calls anyone who voted for Obama an idiot, even though he had a bigger plurality of the vote than anyone in history. Lovely. Hypocrisy and racism at its worst and mum's the word.


Again...Slate...some dudes blog, and an opinion piece from the Washington Post, none of which actually have citations to back up their claims. The dudes blog was the best, it actually cited other posts in his own blog!

And again...I could care less about the GOP, it's more a matter of YOU being truthful to YOURSELF...I can go out an find a blog, and opinion peice or what have you that shows living in North Carolina is bad for your health and that you are all inbred...it doesn't make it true, but trust me it is out there.

Obama voters aren't idiots, but they were misled, as were Bush voters in 2000 & 2004, as every voter in HISTORY has been. Politicians LIE, ALL OF THEM, to garner your vote so they can stay in power. Anyone who actually BELIEVES that a politician actually puts the interest of the people the claim to represent ahead of their own interests is an idiot.

I will give Obama this, he really doesn't care what people think. He is going to do whatever the hell he wants, the wishes of the people be damned.
User avatar
RossValoryRocks
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 4:47 pm

Postby 7 Wishes » Fri Feb 12, 2010 12:47 pm

I don't support the enormity of this budget nor its priorities.

Obama should have made jobs his first priority. Whether he was misguided or midjudged is hard to ascertain. He has spent too much political capital on the healthcare reform issue; while I agree with it and even contend it would (in the long term) have a positive effect on the economy, the fact is he inherited a domestic fiscal disaster of historically unprecedented proportions and has done very little to address that directly.

I don't think his Administration in any way "owns" the continued (worsening) recession of 2010. While it is well known that government spending is the only real solution to a drawn-out economic downturn, this monstrosity of a budget is only going to make things worse.

So, how's that for an impartial perspective? He's an improvement over Bush, but I think he's in over his head.
But around town, it was well known...when they got home at night
Their fat and psychopathic wives
Would thrash them within inches of their lives!
User avatar
7 Wishes
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4305
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 3:28 pm

Postby separate_wayz » Sat Feb 13, 2010 2:50 am

I'd like to see the evidence that government purchases have any multiplier effect whatsoever.

When Robert Barro of Harvard University took a look at non-defense, peacetime government expenditures, he got a multiplier that was insignificantly different from zero.

That's: z-e-r-o.

Meaning: government expenditures likely have *no* multiplier effect, and (even worse) crowd-out other components of GDP, like consumption, private investment, and net exports. In other words, not only is there no free lunch (i.e., a government multiplier greater than 1), government takes your lunch and eats it.

If this is true (a "multiplier" around zero), it means that private consumption, private investment and net exports can all be raised by cutting government spending, not increasing it.

(By the way .... the Obama administration is assuming a government multiplier of 1.5, meaning that every additional dollar of government expenditure raises GDP by $1.50.)
User avatar
separate_wayz
LP
 
Posts: 492
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 9:14 am
Location: USA

Postby Lula » Sat Feb 13, 2010 3:30 am

separate_wayz wrote:I'd like to see the evidence that government purchases have any multiplier effect whatsoever.

When Robert Barro of Harvard University took a look at non-defense, peacetime government expenditures, he got a multiplier that was insignificantly different from zero.

That's: z-e-r-o.

Meaning: government expenditures likely have *no* multiplier effect, and (even worse) crowd-out other components of GDP, like consumption, private investment, and net exports. In other words, not only is there no free lunch (i.e., a government multiplier greater than 1), government takes your lunch and eats it.

If this is true (a "multiplier" around zero), it means that private consumption, private investment and net exports can all be raised by cutting government spending, not increasing it.

(By the way .... the Obama administration is assuming a government multiplier of 1.5, meaning that every additional dollar of government expenditure raises GDP by $1.50.)


ever hear of a little government spending program known as ww2? one third of the stimulus was tax cuts anyway. there goes that radical marxist obama trying to be bi-partisan again. :roll:
User avatar
Lula
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4561
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: santa monica

Postby separate_wayz » Sat Feb 13, 2010 4:31 am

Lula wrote:
separate_wayz wrote:I'd like to see the evidence that government purchases have any multiplier effect whatsoever.

When Robert Barro of Harvard University took a look at non-defense, peacetime government expenditures, he got a multiplier that was insignificantly different from zero.

That's: z-e-r-o.

Meaning: government expenditures likely have *no* multiplier effect, and (even worse) crowd-out other components of GDP, like consumption, private investment, and net exports. In other words, not only is there no free lunch (i.e., a government multiplier greater than 1), government takes your lunch and eats it.

If this is true (a "multiplier" around zero), it means that private consumption, private investment and net exports can all be raised by cutting government spending, not increasing it.

(By the way .... the Obama administration is assuming a government multiplier of 1.5, meaning that every additional dollar of government expenditure raises GDP by $1.50.)


ever hear of a little government spending program known as ww2? one third of the stimulus was tax cuts anyway. there goes that radical marxist obama trying to be bi-partisan again. :roll:


Robert Barro looked at the "little government spending program known as ww2" (as you call it) and concluded that when taking into account that the economy was already expanding off its low of 1933 (excepting the deep 1937-8 recession), that people adjusted expectations by believing the added wartime outlays to be partly temporary (so that consumer demand would not fall much), and that the military conscription of the Second World War had a distortionary effect on labor markets and total employment, it is entirely unreasonable to ascribe all the GDP growth during the Second World War to military expenditures. For the record, Barro looked at changes in GDP around the First World War and the Korean War as well, and didn't see any significant multiplier effects (certainly not greater than 1). In any event, today we're talking about peacetime, non-defense expenditures so the comparison is useless.

By the way, there were no "tax cuts" in the stimulus. If you're referring to the $8000 first-time home buyer tax credit, those are scored as tax expenditures. They are reductions in the tax base for specific tax subsidies (i.e., subsidies for qualified purchasers of houses).
User avatar
separate_wayz
LP
 
Posts: 492
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 9:14 am
Location: USA

Postby Lula » Sat Feb 13, 2010 5:08 am

separate_wayz wrote:
Lula wrote:
separate_wayz wrote:I'd like to see the evidence that government purchases have any multiplier effect whatsoever.

When Robert Barro of Harvard University took a look at non-defense, peacetime government expenditures, he got a multiplier that was insignificantly different from zero.

That's: z-e-r-o.

Meaning: government expenditures likely have *no* multiplier effect, and (even worse) crowd-out other components of GDP, like consumption, private investment, and net exports. In other words, not only is there no free lunch (i.e., a government multiplier greater than 1), government takes your lunch and eats it.

If this is true (a "multiplier" around zero), it means that private consumption, private investment and net exports can all be raised by cutting government spending, not increasing it.

(By the way .... the Obama administration is assuming a government multiplier of 1.5, meaning that every additional dollar of government expenditure raises GDP by $1.50.)


ever hear of a little government spending program known as ww2? one third of the stimulus was tax cuts anyway. there goes that radical marxist obama trying to be bi-partisan again. :roll:


Robert Barro looked at the "little government spending program known as ww2" (as you call it) and concluded that when taking into account that the economy was already expanding off its low of 1933 (excepting the deep 1937-8 recession), that people adjusted expectations by believing the added wartime outlays to be partly temporary (so that consumer demand would not fall much), and that the military conscription of the Second World War had a distortionary effect on labor markets and total employment, it is entirely unreasonable to ascribe all the GDP growth during the Second World War to military expenditures. For the record, Barro looked at changes in GDP around the First World War and the Korean War as well, and didn't see any significant multiplier effects (certainly not greater than 1). In any event, today we're talking about peacetime, non-defense expenditures so the comparison is useless.

By the way, there were no "tax cuts" in the stimulus. If you're referring to the $8000 first-time home buyer tax credit, those are scored as tax expenditures. They are reductions in the tax base for specific tax subsidies (i.e., subsidies for qualified purchasers of houses).

nice to see you can copy and paste a wall street journal op-ed. your highfalutin gobbledygook notwithstanding, when the government contracts with a private company, the private sector is not crowded out. maybe in normal economic times. not during a depression when the private sector is doa. whether it's a government contract or a private contract, employees are just grateful to be able to provide for their families.
User avatar
Lula
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4561
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: santa monica

Postby separate_wayz » Sat Feb 13, 2010 5:33 am

Lula wrote:
separate_wayz wrote:
Lula wrote:
separate_wayz wrote:I'd like to see the evidence that government purchases have any multiplier effect whatsoever.

When Robert Barro of Harvard University took a look at non-defense, peacetime government expenditures, he got a multiplier that was insignificantly different from zero.

That's: z-e-r-o.

Meaning: government expenditures likely have *no* multiplier effect, and (even worse) crowd-out other components of GDP, like consumption, private investment, and net exports. In other words, not only is there no free lunch (i.e., a government multiplier greater than 1), government takes your lunch and eats it.

If this is true (a "multiplier" around zero), it means that private consumption, private investment and net exports can all be raised by cutting government spending, not increasing it.

(By the way .... the Obama administration is assuming a government multiplier of 1.5, meaning that every additional dollar of government expenditure raises GDP by $1.50.)


ever hear of a little government spending program known as ww2? one third of the stimulus was tax cuts anyway. there goes that radical marxist obama trying to be bi-partisan again. :roll:


Robert Barro looked at the "little government spending program known as ww2" (as you call it) and concluded that when taking into account that the economy was already expanding off its low of 1933 (excepting the deep 1937-8 recession), that people adjusted expectations by believing the added wartime outlays to be partly temporary (so that consumer demand would not fall much), and that the military conscription of the Second World War had a distortionary effect on labor markets and total employment, it is entirely unreasonable to ascribe all the GDP growth during the Second World War to military expenditures. For the record, Barro looked at changes in GDP around the First World War and the Korean War as well, and didn't see any significant multiplier effects (certainly not greater than 1). In any event, today we're talking about peacetime, non-defense expenditures so the comparison is useless.

By the way, there were no "tax cuts" in the stimulus. If you're referring to the $8000 first-time home buyer tax credit, those are scored as tax expenditures. They are reductions in the tax base for specific tax subsidies (i.e., subsidies for qualified purchasers of houses).

nice to see you can copy and paste a wall street journal op-ed. your highfalutin gobbledygook notwithstanding, when the government contracts with a private company, the private sector is not crowded out. maybe in normal economic times. not during a depression when the private sector is doa. whether it's a government contract or a private contract, employees are just grateful to be able to provide for their families.


It's always funny to hear the goofballs on here attack the messenger -- it's either "cut and paste!", or "how dare you quote Fox News!", or "you're citing a poll by Scott Rasmussen?!?" [insert audible gasp]. I summarized -- there was no cut and paste. If you want the original working paper, you can read it here, but I thought you'd need help with the big words, so I didn't quote from it. Attacking the messenger by the left-wing nut-jobs on here (and other blogs) is getting tiresome -- it doesn't change the fact that the Democratic party and this administration don't have a clue about economic policy. I do think it has to do with leftwingers unable to face reality, or deal with a challenge to their nonsense.

http://www.economics.harvard.edu/facult ... %2B_2_.pdf

(Ooops .... is that too much highfalutin gobbledygook again?)
User avatar
separate_wayz
LP
 
Posts: 492
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 9:14 am
Location: USA

Postby Lula » Sat Feb 13, 2010 5:49 am

separate_wayz wrote:
Lula wrote:
separate_wayz wrote:
Lula wrote:
separate_wayz wrote:I'd like to see the evidence that government purchases have any multiplier effect whatsoever.

When Robert Barro of Harvard University took a look at non-defense, peacetime government expenditures, he got a multiplier that was insignificantly different from zero.

That's: z-e-r-o.

Meaning: government expenditures likely have *no* multiplier effect, and (even worse) crowd-out other components of GDP, like consumption, private investment, and net exports. In other words, not only is there no free lunch (i.e., a government multiplier greater than 1), government takes your lunch and eats it.

If this is true (a "multiplier" around zero), it means that private consumption, private investment and net exports can all be raised by cutting government spending, not increasing it.

(By the way .... the Obama administration is assuming a government multiplier of 1.5, meaning that every additional dollar of government expenditure raises GDP by $1.50.)


ever hear of a little government spending program known as ww2? one third of the stimulus was tax cuts anyway. there goes that radical marxist obama trying to be bi-partisan again. :roll:


Robert Barro looked at the "little government spending program known as ww2" (as you call it) and concluded that when taking into account that the economy was already expanding off its low of 1933 (excepting the deep 1937-8 recession), that people adjusted expectations by believing the added wartime outlays to be partly temporary (so that consumer demand would not fall much), and that the military conscription of the Second World War had a distortionary effect on labor markets and total employment, it is entirely unreasonable to ascribe all the GDP growth during the Second World War to military expenditures. For the record, Barro looked at changes in GDP around the First World War and the Korean War as well, and didn't see any significant multiplier effects (certainly not greater than 1). In any event, today we're talking about peacetime, non-defense expenditures so the comparison is useless.

By the way, there were no "tax cuts" in the stimulus. If you're referring to the $8000 first-time home buyer tax credit, those are scored as tax expenditures. They are reductions in the tax base for specific tax subsidies (i.e., subsidies for qualified purchasers of houses).

nice to see you can copy and paste a wall street journal op-ed. your highfalutin gobbledygook notwithstanding, when the government contracts with a private company, the private sector is not crowded out. maybe in normal economic times. not during a depression when the private sector is doa. whether it's a government contract or a private contract, employees are just grateful to be able to provide for their families.


It's always funny to hear the goofballs on here attack the messenger -- it's either "cut and paste!", or "how dare you quote Fox News!", or "you're citing a poll by Scott Rasmussen?!?" [insert audible gasp]. I summarized -- there was no cut and paste. If you want the original working paper, you can read it here, but I thought you'd need help with the big words, so I didn't quote from it. Attacking the messenger by the left-wing nut-jobs on here (and other blogs) is getting tiresome -- it doesn't change the fact that the Democratic party and this administration don't have a clue about economic policy. I do think it has to do with leftwingers unable to face reality, or deal with a challenge to their nonsense.

http://www.economics.harvard.edu/facult ... %2B_2_.pdf

(Ooops .... is that too much highfalutin gobbledygook again?)

whatever. :roll: if i recall correctly you also summarized an academic paper that proved that fox news was the most balanced news channel on tv. then 7 had to point out to you that your research paper looked at a total of just one fox news show. blindly throwing links around hoping they verify your pre-determined conclusions means nothing. once a liar always a liar. the only person on this forum with less credibility is journeytroll.
User avatar
Lula
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4561
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: santa monica

Postby separate_wayz » Sat Feb 13, 2010 6:11 am

Lula wrote:
separate_wayz wrote:
Lula wrote:
separate_wayz wrote:
Lula wrote:
separate_wayz wrote:I'd like to see the evidence that government purchases have any multiplier effect whatsoever.

When Robert Barro of Harvard University took a look at non-defense, peacetime government expenditures, he got a multiplier that was insignificantly different from zero.

That's: z-e-r-o.

Meaning: government expenditures likely have *no* multiplier effect, and (even worse) crowd-out other components of GDP, like consumption, private investment, and net exports. In other words, not only is there no free lunch (i.e., a government multiplier greater than 1), government takes your lunch and eats it.

If this is true (a "multiplier" around zero), it means that private consumption, private investment and net exports can all be raised by cutting government spending, not increasing it.

(By the way .... the Obama administration is assuming a government multiplier of 1.5, meaning that every additional dollar of government expenditure raises GDP by $1.50.)


ever hear of a little government spending program known as ww2? one third of the stimulus was tax cuts anyway. there goes that radical marxist obama trying to be bi-partisan again. :roll:


Robert Barro looked at the "little government spending program known as ww2" (as you call it) and concluded that when taking into account that the economy was already expanding off its low of 1933 (excepting the deep 1937-8 recession), that people adjusted expectations by believing the added wartime outlays to be partly temporary (so that consumer demand would not fall much), and that the military conscription of the Second World War had a distortionary effect on labor markets and total employment, it is entirely unreasonable to ascribe all the GDP growth during the Second World War to military expenditures. For the record, Barro looked at changes in GDP around the First World War and the Korean War as well, and didn't see any significant multiplier effects (certainly not greater than 1). In any event, today we're talking about peacetime, non-defense expenditures so the comparison is useless.

By the way, there were no "tax cuts" in the stimulus. If you're referring to the $8000 first-time home buyer tax credit, those are scored as tax expenditures. They are reductions in the tax base for specific tax subsidies (i.e., subsidies for qualified purchasers of houses).

nice to see you can copy and paste a wall street journal op-ed. your highfalutin gobbledygook notwithstanding, when the government contracts with a private company, the private sector is not crowded out. maybe in normal economic times. not during a depression when the private sector is doa. whether it's a government contract or a private contract, employees are just grateful to be able to provide for their families.


It's always funny to hear the goofballs on here attack the messenger -- it's either "cut and paste!", or "how dare you quote Fox News!", or "you're citing a poll by Scott Rasmussen?!?" [insert audible gasp]. I summarized -- there was no cut and paste. If you want the original working paper, you can read it here, but I thought you'd need help with the big words, so I didn't quote from it. Attacking the messenger by the left-wing nut-jobs on here (and other blogs) is getting tiresome -- it doesn't change the fact that the Democratic party and this administration don't have a clue about economic policy. I do think it has to do with leftwingers unable to face reality, or deal with a challenge to their nonsense.

http://www.economics.harvard.edu/facult ... %2B_2_.pdf

(Ooops .... is that too much highfalutin gobbledygook again?)

whatever. :roll: if i recall correctly you also summarized an academic paper that proved that fox news was the most balanced news channel on tv. then 7 had to point out to you that your research paper looked at a total of just one fox news show. blindly throwing links around hoping they verify your pre-determined conclusions means nothing. once a liar always a liar. the only person on this forum with less credibility is journeytroll.


Yawn.

I think you just proved that you're at the bottom of the heap, Loon-a. No credibility, and no smarts (even the common sense variety).

Tell you what -- get your GED, and then we'll we'll talk, Loon-a.
User avatar
separate_wayz
LP
 
Posts: 492
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 9:14 am
Location: USA

Postby Lula » Sat Feb 13, 2010 6:21 am

separate_wayz wrote:Yawn.

I think you just proved that you're at the bottom of the heap, Loon-a. No credibility, and no smarts (even the common sense variety).

Tell you what -- get your GED, and then we'll we'll talk, Loon-a.


loona? oh. i get it. because my name is lula right? don't quit your day job buddy. whatever that is. tho i'm guessing it involves knee pads, vaseline, and a security clearance for the bush family ranch.
User avatar
Lula
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4561
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: santa monica

Postby separate_wayz » Sat Feb 13, 2010 6:32 am

Lula wrote:
separate_wayz wrote:Yawn.

I think you just proved that you're at the bottom of the heap, Loon-a. No credibility, and no smarts (even the common sense variety).

Tell you what -- get your GED, and then we'll we'll talk, Loon-a.


loona? oh. i get it. because my name is lula right? don't quit your day job buddy. whatever that is. tho i'm guessing it involves knee pads, vaseline, and a security clearance for the bush family ranch.


No thanks. I'll let your mom keep the knee pads and vaseline. (She wasn't that good anyway.)

Again, I realize that you're upset that the Obama presidency (and the Democratic-socialist majority in congress) is going down the shitter, but please try to stay on topic, okey-doke?

(Did you get that GED yet? Just curious.)
User avatar
separate_wayz
LP
 
Posts: 492
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 9:14 am
Location: USA

Postby Lula » Sat Feb 13, 2010 6:46 am

separate_wayz wrote:
Lula wrote:
separate_wayz wrote:Yawn.

I think you just proved that you're at the bottom of the heap, Loon-a. No credibility, and no smarts (even the common sense variety).

Tell you what -- get your GED, and then we'll we'll talk, Loon-a.


loona? oh. i get it. because my name is lula right? don't quit your day job buddy. whatever that is. tho i'm guessing it involves knee pads, vaseline, and a security clearance for the bush family ranch.


No thanks. I'll let your mom keep the knee pads and vaseline. (She wasn't that good anyway.)

Again, I realize that you're upset that the Obama presidency (and the Democratic-socialist majority in congress) is going down the shitter, but please try to stay on topic, okey-doke?

(Did you get that GED yet? Just curious.)


easily one of the lamest comebacks in all of mr.com history. i'll kindly ask you to refrain from pestering me again. your plagiarized inaccurate posts are simply not worth the binary code.
User avatar
Lula
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4561
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: santa monica

Postby RossValoryRocks » Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:44 am

Lula wrote:
separate_wayz wrote:
Lula wrote:
separate_wayz wrote:Yawn.

I think you just proved that you're at the bottom of the heap, Loon-a. No credibility, and no smarts (even the common sense variety).

Tell you what -- get your GED, and then we'll we'll talk, Loon-a.


loona? oh. i get it. because my name is lula right? don't quit your day job buddy. whatever that is. tho i'm guessing it involves knee pads, vaseline, and a security clearance for the bush family ranch.


No thanks. I'll let your mom keep the knee pads and vaseline. (She wasn't that good anyway.)

Again, I realize that you're upset that the Obama presidency (and the Democratic-socialist majority in congress) is going down the shitter, but please try to stay on topic, okey-doke?

(Did you get that GED yet? Just curious.)


easily one of the lamest comebacks in all of mr.com history. i'll kindly ask you to refrain from pestering me again. your plagiarized inaccurate posts are simply not worth the binary code.


It's not the TRUE Lula folks...it's TNC posting as her. She would never post to a person like this. EVER.

And SW...the REAL Lula is a teacher, and a damn fine one, even if I disagree with her politics on most things, she is very educated and a very fine person.

TNC taking over her account like this in no way impacts what the REAL Lula is about.
User avatar
RossValoryRocks
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 4:47 pm

Postby 7 Wishes » Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:53 am

The facts show that, again and again, Republican economic policies are flat-out failures.

So you guys fuck up the economy, increase the size of the federal government, and try to impose hypocritical moral standards and religious doctrine into law...all the while claiming to be the champion of the "regular guy". Bullshit. You're the party of the rich white male, and nothing else.
But around town, it was well known...when they got home at night
Their fat and psychopathic wives
Would thrash them within inches of their lives!
User avatar
7 Wishes
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4305
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 3:28 pm

Postby RossValoryRocks » Sat Feb 13, 2010 8:05 am

7 Wishes wrote:The facts show that, again and again, Republican economic policies are flat-out failures.

So you guys fuck up the economy, increase the size of the federal government, and try to impose hypocritical moral standards and religious doctrine into law...all the while claiming to be the champion of the "regular guy". Bullshit. You're the party of the rich white male, and nothing else.


What facts??? The bullshit you keep bringing up on page 71 (you didn't get the page number right, it's 171 BTW).

Your facts are from sources that don't cite THEIR sources. You are FAIL on your research. You keep bringing it up, but not one ounce of what you posted is fact.

Oh and I am not republican, not even close. Yes I am for being rich, as rich as I can get, I am also for everyone else being rich but not getting there by taking over 50% of what I make and giving it to other people who didn't work for it because of some misguided notion of "fairness".

The ONLY thing in life that is fair, the only thing that should be fair, it that at birth we all have the opportunity for greatness if we so choose to take that route. After that there is no fair. It's work and ambition that allow for success. Those who do not want to be abitious or do the work necessary will by dint of not actually achieving have less than those who did, that's life and that is fair.
User avatar
RossValoryRocks
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 4:47 pm

Postby RedWingFan » Sat Feb 13, 2010 9:40 am

RossValoryRocks wrote:
Lula wrote:
separate_wayz wrote:
Lula wrote:
separate_wayz wrote:Yawn.

I think you just proved that you're at the bottom of the heap, Loon-a. No credibility, and no smarts (even the common sense variety).

Tell you what -- get your GED, and then we'll we'll talk, Loon-a.


loona? oh. i get it. because my name is lula right? don't quit your day job buddy. whatever that is. tho i'm guessing it involves knee pads, vaseline, and a security clearance for the bush family ranch.


No thanks. I'll let your mom keep the knee pads and vaseline. (She wasn't that good anyway.)

Again, I realize that you're upset that the Obama presidency (and the Democratic-socialist majority in congress) is going down the shitter, but please try to stay on topic, okey-doke?

(Did you get that GED yet? Just curious.)


easily one of the lamest comebacks in all of mr.com history. i'll kindly ask you to refrain from pestering me again. your plagiarized inaccurate posts are simply not worth the binary code.


It's not the TRUE Lula folks...it's TNC posting as her. She would never post to a person like this. EVER.

And SW...the REAL Lula is a teacher, and a damn fine one, even if I disagree with her politics on most things, she is very educated and a very fine person.

TNC taking over her account like this in no way impacts what the REAL Lula is about.

Didn't Andrew have a policy about this in the not so distant past?
Seven Wishes wrote:"Abysmal? He's the most proactive President since Clinton, and he's bringing much-needed change for the better to a nation that has been tyrannized by the worst President since Hoover."- 7 Wishes on Pres. Obama
User avatar
RedWingFan
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 7868
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:37 pm
Location: The Peoples Republic of Michigan

Postby Rockindeano » Sat Feb 13, 2010 9:49 am

RedWingFan wrote:Didn't Andrew have a policy about this in the not so distant past?


Did he? I never listened to any of his gay rules. I always just did what I wanted to do. The way I look at this, and I love the guy like mustard loves a weiner, but this Board needs us, not the other way around. Look at his upcoming show- if not for the traffic that was built up here because of many of us, there quite conceivably might not be a show in Elgin. Having said that, I love getting Andrew all worked up. Just tickles my asshole to think of the Wombat getting all fueled up over on the other side of the world.
User avatar
Rockindeano
Forever Deano
 
Posts: 25864
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 2:52 am
Location: At Peace

Postby strangegrey » Sat Feb 13, 2010 10:39 am

Rockindeano wrote:Just tickles my asshole to think of the Wombat getting all fueled up over on the other side of the world.



Narf!

A mental image of your asshole getting tickled wasn't what I expected when I logged in, Deano! ;)
User avatar
strangegrey
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3622
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 3:31 am
Location: Tortuga

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:50 am

Fact Finder wrote:The bill also establishes a statutory Pay-As-You-Go procedure requiring that new non-emergency legislation affecting tax revenue or mandatory spending not increase the Federal deficit – in other words, that any new spending or tax cuts be paid for with new taxes or spending cuts.


Can anyone explain why this was repealed in the first place?
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16058
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Postby RossValoryRocks » Sun Feb 14, 2010 1:27 pm

The_Noble_Cause wrote:
Fact Finder wrote:The bill also establishes a statutory Pay-As-You-Go procedure requiring that new non-emergency legislation affecting tax revenue or mandatory spending not increase the Federal deficit – in other words, that any new spending or tax cuts be paid for with new taxes or spending cuts.


Can anyone explain why this was repealed in the first place?


That would be an excellent question, but it wasn't repealed they let it end. THe over all answer is that it was STUPIDITY.

Wikipedia, which I usually loathe as a source has a good run down of it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAYGO

God, if it wasn't our government doing it, it would be funny!
User avatar
RossValoryRocks
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 4:47 pm

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Sun Feb 14, 2010 2:23 pm

RossValoryRocks wrote:
The_Noble_Cause wrote:
Fact Finder wrote:The bill also establishes a statutory Pay-As-You-Go procedure requiring that new non-emergency legislation affecting tax revenue or mandatory spending not increase the Federal deficit – in other words, that any new spending or tax cuts be paid for with new taxes or spending cuts.


Can anyone explain why this was repealed in the first place?


That would be an excellent question, but it wasn't repealed they let it end. THe over all answer is that it was STUPIDITY.

Wikipedia, which I usually loathe as a source has a good run down of it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAYGO

God, if it wasn't our government doing it, it would be funny!


Thanks Stu.
Wartime or not, there is no excuse for it not to have been reinstated all this time.
Common sense may be a rare commodity on capitol hill, but this is a welcome start.
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16058
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Postby 7 Wishes » Sun Feb 14, 2010 4:59 pm

Stu, I love ya, man. And I'm looking forward to drowning a few pints at MR Fest II, if you go.

But if you're not a Republican, I'm a balding Swedish short-order cook.
But around town, it was well known...when they got home at night
Their fat and psychopathic wives
Would thrash them within inches of their lives!
User avatar
7 Wishes
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4305
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 3:28 pm

Postby RossValoryRocks » Mon Feb 15, 2010 1:54 am

7 Wishes wrote:Stu, I love ya, man. And I'm looking forward to drowning a few pints at MR Fest II, if you go.

But if you're not a Republican, I'm a balding Swedish short-order cook.


I am what a Republic should be...I am TRUE Conservative...and a civil libertarian.

They lost their way some time around 2000...they let power go to their heads, with having the Presidency and both houses of Congress...and forgot what actually got them there in the first place.

Eerily, the Democrats are facing the same thing now. Both parties just forget about the people and assume they can do what they want once they get to Washington.

Morons...

I didn't know you were Swedish? And that weave looks good...most hair pieces are easy to spot...and you cook too...hell we should all pitch in and get some grub together and let you have at it in Elgin!

And PINTS? Gallons my friend...GALLONS!
User avatar
RossValoryRocks
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 4:47 pm

Postby slucero » Mon Feb 15, 2010 7:26 am

Fact Finder wrote:January 2007 the Dems take control of Congress. At that time..

Unemployment was 4.6% , today it's 10%
Dow Jones was at 12,400 , today it's at 10,000
Federal Deficit was $162 Billion , today it's at One and a half Trillion
Federal Debt was $8.7 Trillion , today it's at $14 Trillion

just sayin'.



You know FF.. I agree with ya most of the time.. but the country being where it is is the fault of both parties... AND the Federal Reserve.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.


~Albert Einstein
User avatar
slucero
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 5444
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 1:17 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Snowmobiles For The Sahara

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests