justinb138

And what else floats? A duck!

I am the walrus... Shut the fuck up Donnie!

Well, if you count good marketing as accomplishing something...

Texas vs OU

I much prefer a foreign policy that make such defenses almost unnecessary.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/1389/saturday-night-live-dont-buy-stuff

That's kind of what I was thinking.

And if he pulled out of Iraq/Afghanistan you would be saying he's being true to his Muslim brothers. No win. Remember that statement? You're making assumptions about my response based on your own predetermined conclusions. You label anyone that disagrees with you as a war-mongering neo-conservative, when in reality it's far from the truth. And he said he didn't want to bail out the auto industry and did anyway. Wanting something isn't the same as doing it. He also said he would allow 5 days of public comment before signing bills. As with most politicians, I'll believe it when I see it. Why would he do that when he's said he supports it. ? So you support Bush's patriot act as well? Personally, I think the better option is to not be in everyone's business. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/09/BAGS15QB5B.DTL Meet the new boss, same as the old boss... Right. I'll believe it when I see it. What if Great Recession is the result of Clinton's great bubble? You mean the Bush stimulus has been very effective? Anytime someone talks bad about it you're keen to point that out. Not so much when you think it's working. I'm sure glad unemployment still isn't at 10%... Well, by doing very little different that would make him essentially the same right? Wow... such progress. And we will. I suspect we'll see more of the same: "If it's good, take credit for it; if it's bad, blame it on Bush; if it's bad and we can't blame it on Bush, say it's better than it would have been if we hadn't done it." My guy? When was Ron Paul the president? Fixed it for you. So plenty has changed but none of it's measurable? Which is it? And yet you still blame everything on Bush. Nice double standard. Look, I've never said I favored Bush at all, yet that's what you keep going back to. Bush is out, you're guy isn't much better, deal with it.

If you're going to argue with yourself, then why bother logging on here? TIP: Spend less time putting words in other people's mouths and more time listening to what they have to say. You'll be less annoying that way. What has he done? Not said he was going to do, what has he done? How is his foreign policy any different than Bush? Is it really that hard to answer? Want to compare those numbers to the increase in the national debt? True. Afghanistan - 137 to 143 Iraq - 140 to 144 It's a rank anyway - it's not necessarily a sign that the US got any more peaceful any more than it's an indication that other countries got more violent. Anyway, enough of that crap. Are you going to answer the question or not?

What part of the Bush agenda has he not allowed to continue? Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? The situation with Iran? Patriot Act? Closing Gitmo? Torture? Massive borrowing and debt? Really, I'm curious. What's the difference?

So you'd prefer bureaucrats in Washington get Bill Gates's $58 billion dollars instead of him donating it to his foundation? You'd like Chris Dodd to decide what to do with it as opposed to having it go towards HIV research, or Education? Don't you care about the children? Or do you just prefer to use the pretext of charity as a means to further your own agenda? I prefer all taxes be higher, esp for the rich so we can close the gap a bit and decrease the debt one day. Either do it on our own or it will be done for us. So that's a Yes on the last question?

So you'd prefer bureaucrats in Washington get Bill Gates's $58 billion dollars instead of him donating it to his foundation? You'd like Chris Dodd to decide what to do with it as opposed to having it go towards HIV research, or Education? Don't you care about the children? Or do you just prefer to use the pretext of charity as a means to further your own agenda?

So how is the prize committee going to react if Obama decides it's time to go after Iran? What would it say about the value of the prize if the current year's winner starts a war?

If Obama had actually enacted some (any) change in US foreign policy in comparison to the Bush presidency, I could see it as a possibility.

http://www.utu.org/print_news.cfm?ArticleID=48681 We're talking about Frick and Carnegie, remember?

Didn't realize they gave those out for simply not being Bush. Edit: He's even doing a really shitty job of not being Bush.

Nice attempt at a twist. It's good for everyone to read the bill (not just the few making the changes). It's a good idea to allow the public to view the final draft of a bill before voting on it - if the final draft hasn't even been printed, then there's a good chance the public hasn't had a chance to read it. Probably true. That month would probably be a pretty good time to determine that. It's certainly better than the alternative. Congress' approval rating (according to Gallup) is at 21% overall, with democrats not much higher. Not much to brag about.

Nice extremely biased and inaccurate article. The workers wanted a 60% increase in pay, management wouldn't give them more than 30% (Only a 30% pay increase?). Union still demanded 60%, so mgmt. locked them out. Frick then brought in outside workers and hired Pinkerton to provide security. The union got violent when the Pinkerton agents arrived and 7 workers and 3 pinkerton agents were killed. The governor called in the state militia. In revenge for the pinkerton issue, Berkman tried to assassinate Frick, shooting him twice in the neck before a third shot was interrupted by one of Frick's co-workers. Frick fought back and ended up being stabbed 4 times in the leg by Berkman in the process, Berkman was convicted of attempted murder and served 14 years of a 22 year sentence.

Not only can but did. Here in the US just before the turn of the 20th century. They called them "Robber Barons". Carnigie, Rockefeller, Brady, Fisk are the most famous (or notorious) Also the "Big Four" that ran California after the transcontinental railroad was built. that wasn't anarchy - that was capitalism. carnegie, rockefeller etc... were capitalists. So what did Carnegie do that was so bad, other than giving away a whole lot of money?

Why do YOU care? Healthcare bill has been online for several months now - and you still didn't read it! Ya right Not the one they are looking at now True, and the only reason the current one is out there is that they weren't able to force it through in a few days before the recess. Ron Paul has mentioned in a few of his interviews that some of the bills being voted on are covered in ink from overnight and last-minutes minute changes that no one in congress has had a chance to read, much less been released to the public. One of the most disappointing aspects of this issue is that the president himself promised to address the issue, and has done pretty much the exact opposite.

Ah, k. Hear what you want to hear. I get it.

We know stupid people like to associate with other stupid people. It seems stupid people also like to vote for stupid candidates. Makes them feel smarter I guess. Your logic explains the current president as well.

Not to get off topic here, but how is that different than our current system?

Well, there'd have to be a lot of people that were next in line in there with them. #2 - Biden (Worse than Obama?) #3 - Pelosi (Oh hell no...) #4 - Byrd (Seriously? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IindJIwH0_o) #5 - Clinton (She'd finally be pres...) #6 - Geithner (I can't imaging how much $ he'd give away as pres.) #7 - Gates (eh, ok.) #8 - Holder (there's a scary thought) Edit: sp.

In many ways, what private equity firms did at Simmons, and scores of other companies like it, mimicked the subprime mortgage boom. Fueled by easy money, not only from banks but also endowments and pension funds, buyout kings like THL upended the old order on Wall Street. These private investors were able to buy companies like Simmons with borrowed money and put down relatively little of their own cash. Then, not long after, they often borrowed even more money, using the company’s assets as collateral — just like home buyers who took out home equity loans on top of their first mortgages. For the financiers, the rewards were enormous. Twice after buying Simmons, THL borrowed more. It used $375 million of that money to pay itself a dividend, thus recouping all of the cash it put down, and then some. “Plus, the mind-set was, since the money was practically free, why not leverage the company to the maximum?” Yep, I'm sure the Fed's monetary policy had nothing to do with the situation at all.