Lucky...

Isn't it sociopathic or perhaps sadistic to wait with glee for one of my family members to die? I'm so sorry your hero, Haig the Nixon protege was corrupt and you can't admit it and don't like hearing it. Thsi thread wasn't aimed at you, just breeze on by.

Unbelievable. I know, how could such a war hero be tied to such corrpution? Oh well, it happens. No, that you can't even reign in your attacks in an obit thread. Of course, given your past history, I really shouldn't have expected anything better of you. So you could: - Address Haig's alleged corruption - Start a counter-attack series of posts against me We see that since you can't develope an argument against the former, you create one for the latter. We call that acquiescense and ad hominem.

Right, a percentage of change. Tell ya what, you want to make an argument, then post my words in context rather than being too afraid to. For once, trailer mechanic, make an argument.

Not so fast there skippy. The 'civilian' population in Japan was ready to do battle with anyone who invaded their country. Hardly makes those events terrorism. OK, the women and children, 300k worth were ready to battle US/allied GI's? Riiiight, I see teh nationalist sector justifying our act of terrorism all the time.

Unbelievable. I know, how could such a war hero be tied to such corrpution? Oh well, it happens.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100220/ap_on_go_ot/us_obit_haig Altho a war hero, he was certainly tainted with typical Republican corruption. Oh well, RIP.

Well, the bar is set higher for white Christian Americans. In Oklahoma City, a whole lot of people died, so that was terrorism. Only 2 innocents died this time, so it isn't. hey where'd I put that damn race card...? crap, I can never find it when I need it... Agree with your sarcasm, but disagree with the methodology. With WASP's, it has mor eto do with the perpitrator than the voctims. Therefore teh WASp definition renders this not to be terrorism.

Yep, a former conservative friend of mine was in that school, he thought it had to be done by a foreign faction to be terrorism. I asked if he thought the OK city bombing was terrorism, of course he said it wasn't. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism ter·ror·ism   /ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ Show Spelled[ter-uh-riz-uhm] Show IPA –noun 1.the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes. 2.the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization. 3.a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government. Yes, OK City was terrorism, this guy in Austin was a terrorist and Hiroshima / Nagisaki were acts of terrorism, as they were directed at civilian populations.

Sure. Too bad you don't have a clue as to what any of it means. Yea: - GDP - Market - Unemp data - Historical tax cut / increase data See, you still can't show me a major federal tax cut taht has led to anything but disaster and supposedly I can't read and extrapolate data. Start your little proff session by doing just that, a MAJOR FEDERAL TAX CUT THAT LED TO + THINGS, other than + deficit and debt. Hey, Dude, you're the one who thinks GDP is expressed in percentage. Point out where I stated that. The change is %. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3788559#3788559 You not only stated (mulitiple times), but you used it as a thread title. Sure, I wrote: Well you're right, it's 5.7%! So what's 5.7%? The change of course; love how you don't post my exact words - if they supported your point you certainly would have. It's your extrapolation that I meant something else, perhaps you just figured that out and are proud. It's such a commonly used figure that it is cumbersome and repetitive to constantly say the rate of change, percent of change, etc. There are many ways to perceive the GDP too, as in relation to the debt, gross GDP, per capita in nominal terms or real GDP, compared to other countries and likely others. If we're casually talking GDP in usual terms, do we have to specify all of those? See, it's the RW side that looks ugly when talking GDP, Debt, ect so they get semantic and try to divide lines to manufacture a point rather than be honest and admit their policies ruin all of these and have since WWI. A good example of this semantic protocol is when Mike pretended to think we were using a rarely referenced nominal GDP rather than real GDP, thne says, "I got the data from the same place you got the data." See, you can pretend in your own minds that you're making a point, but in reality you just further elaborate how much your side really fucks things up. And you're still unable to tell me 1 major federal tax cut that has ended up well. Now, show me where I stated that I overtly wrote that GDP wasn't measured in % change, released quarterly, not some interpretation or extrapolation of yours. Hell, even in yiour own example you cited me writing: Well you're right, it's 5.7%! Now you claim I don't know that GDP is measured in percent change? You need a little help.

Dude. Not all off-hand ad-hominems rise to the level of "Oooh!! That's a PA!! I'm telling Mom!!" You take this shit much too personally. The thing is they try to pull me into their BS so I get nailed. I take teh high road and call it out and you think it's lame. I'd rather trade fuck you's, but that's not allowed here so I guess you think I'm the bad guy for playhing by the rules. Brilliant. Saying: - you'd come across as much less of a loony - make you seem like less of a knee-jerker Those are PA's, esp the former. I constantly try to take it to PM but guys like Belgian then get all offended and block, so they want to make a public spectacle. You don't have all the info in.

A federal tax cut will increase tax revenue. That's what both Kennedy and Reagan did. You're response to me will be something like this: "The tax cuts only benefeited the rich corp-facist fatcats and did nothing for the poor." I will pre-respond back: Through increased personal income and spending, the added tax revenue is like the government getting a big raise. And it's more money to spend on the social programs that you like so much! That's how it's drawn up, now show me application. You know the GM proving grounds, yea, figure it out. They design a car, produce it and see how it performs and what breaks. Kennedy wasn't here long enough to see how his policies worked and the top brkt was still > 70% so that argument only supports my position. Fascist Pig Ronnie cut the top rate from 70% to 28% abd we see what happened. Altho tax receipts were high, spending was higher and we see teh net result; HE TRIPLED THE FUCKING DEBT IN CASE YOU WEREN'T WATCHING. I realize you call that success, we just define that differently. Clinton raised taxes and the deficit/debt were repaired, that's the outcome I call success, but I'm not from your parts.

Sure. Too bad you don't have a clue as to what any of it means. Yea: - GDP - Market - Unemp data - Historical tax cut / increase data See, you still can't show me a major federal tax cut taht has led to anything but disaster and supposedly I can't read and extrapolate data. Start your little proff session by doing just that, a MAJOR FEDERAL TAX CUT THAT LED TO + THINGS, other than + deficit and debt. Hey, Dude, you're the one who thinks GDP is expressed in percentage. Point out where I stated that. The change is %.

Which is why we need full-on soc emds w/o any cuts or other prohibiting provisions. But I guess tax cuts and spending > the rest of the world on teh military trumps that. SO no, I didn't miss that. This is just an article detailing the exponential mess we're in from so many angles. Don't worry tho, HC is dead and you can be delightled that the 30-45M will still not have it and now seniors will lose some benefit too; this is a good day for you, Mike.

I am retired with Medicare supplement insurance. Last year the copay for a specialist was $25 this year it is $30. Copay for a regular doc is $10. Last year I was treated for cancer and it cost me around $4K. We get no COLA in Social Security and an increase in Dr charges. I am a veteran so I get some care through the VA with a copay of $15. What is worse, sometimes I have to wait an hour or more just to see a doctor. I am a citizen and the government should take care of me. I spent my working years trying to help the dregs of society. Those social services were federally funded. They owe me. I think we should have free meals on wheels with pizza and bar-b-que on the menu also. Easier to be sarcastic than constructive. Watch this, kids, this is how yopu lose these types. So tell me, what of the 30-45 million w/o any coverage whatsoever? What of the elderly who may lose their benefits in part? I know: FUCK THEM. We get ya loud and clear.

Says the acft structural expert who knows < a first year A&P student , yet tries to challenge 25+ year veterans.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100219/ap_on_bi_ge/us_medicare_costs Premiums jump 14 percent on Medicare private plans Yep, no need for HC overhaul here, move along. Thing is, it will happen, apparently the wheels haven't fallen off yet, as righties want to see before change.

Sure. Too bad you don't have a clue as to what any of it means. Yea: - GDP - Market - Unemp data - Historical tax cut / increase data See, you still can't show me a major federal tax cut taht has led to anything but disaster and supposedly I can't read and extrapolate data. Start your little proff session by doing just that, a MAJOR FEDERAL TAX CUT THAT LED TO + THINGS, other than + deficit and debt.

Oh, did MLK promote any violence? Please show us where via quotes. you'd come across as much less of a loony if you would at least reference something backing up your side of the argument before you demand proof (in this and other threads). Maybe doing something like http://lmgtfy.com/?q=mlk+peace+quote would at least make you seem like less of a knee-jerker just trying to help. sure you'll find some negative way to respond. You're very good at that. Get ahold of yoruself and quit the PA's. You commit 2 PA's and tell me not to? Bizzare. Some things in life are so obvious and well-known that evidence is hardly neeed, but all you have to do is ask w/o PA's and youget, at least from me. I just posted a cite in the post above this before I read your PA's.

Oh, did MLK promote any violence? Please show us where via quotes. Wow, if that's the qualtiy of misdirection used in SC, you guys' rep is way, way overated. Any reasonable person would not misconstrue my argument as you intnetionally have. But to spell it out for you, Im not saying he advocated violence, jus that he obviously didn't have the perfect answer with total nonviolence. But if you'd life a nonviolent figure ehad advocating violence: It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence. ~Gandhi As I said: Sometimes there are no good answer and you're left with choosing the lesser evil. -Blind Look, dude, I wrote that MLK was non-violent, you wrote: Wrong. MLK established that sometimes there's a better answer. So you say I'm wrong, I ask for evidence of any kind and you go all That's how you guys roll in SC on me. Whatever. Yes, the intelligent people ask for reasonable evidence, not some standard of absolute proof, just something to support your assertion. Perhaps in Bonfire they don't get as deep into issues, so just a mention is all you do and it's believed. To ask for a little supporting evidence is not misdirection. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misdirection 1 : a wrong direction 2 a : the act or an instance of misdirecting or diverting b : the state of being misdirected So how is asking for evidence of MLK being not all about non-vilence a diversion from your assertion? Seems like it's right in line, but I guess ya gotta write something if you have no evidence. Now that's misdirection; the issue was MLK and my assertion of nonviolence vs Wrong. MLK established that sometimes there's a better answer. By saying, "Wrong" you make the claim that MLK didn't disavow violence. Any reasonable person wouldn't say, "Wrong" unless they had a little supporting evidence. Not having the perfect answer for nonviolence isn't the same as disavowing violence, which in my opinion he did. Here's a little help for you: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1426 Nonviolence: The Only Road to Freedom Now carry on with your inanity.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out. I know I've heard that somewhere before; how original. Still holds true. You ain't left yet? And cliches are the crap de jure: - Never got a job from a poor guy - Better fight it there than here - Don't let the door hit ya in the ass Silly me, I actually look to data to see the progress of the country under various leadership; how inane.

Yea, we'll just call em ports. I realize your post is sarcasm, but the crisis mentality reactionary process makes me believe that more restrictions are coming.

Oh, did MLK promote any violence? Please show us where via quotes.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out. I know I've heard that somewhere before; how original.

But make no misunderstanding, this was an act of terrorism.

Wait, wait, wait, I am on John Rich's side on only 1 issue; guns. Good point, bad example