Lucky...

Exactly, this is why I get pissed when people creep out of a traffic jam. I was just reaffirming this the other day while in traffic, leaving a jam. Everyone at the relief end of the jam should floor it. It's all about selfish driving, whatever works for me at the time. Just as free traffic in like 4 lanes. The right lane should be for mergers and people driving the limit or just below, the #3 lane s/b forpeople driving 5-10 over, #2 lane for 10-15 over and left lane faster. It's all about limiting differentials in speed, but us Americans are too selfish to work together so it's just theory here.

This is where I quit reading. The Lucky... part is usually where I quit reading. Evidently not, or you wouldn't have replied. Main Entry: usu·al Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French usuel, from Late Latin usualis, from Latin usus use Date: 14th century 1 : accordant with usage, custom, or habit : normal 2 : commonly or ordinarily used 3 : found in ordinary practice or in the ordinary course of events : ordinary Thx for the 3rd grade English lesson, maybe some of your contemporaries have gained something by that. I understand that you didn't mean exclusively; understood it then. Now: Evidently not, or you wouldn't have replied. Now go show us all your Newsmax sites. Then I can post Moveon and we can have a masturbation contest. This is why I post data, preferably gov data top make my points. But as I see, your side isn't too fond of that approach. Let's see your oh-so-valuable Newsmax, Fox, Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, etc and call it gospel.

OMG, count me in, hate to think I would miss rolecall here: +3. And no, I'm not a sheeple; swear it.

This is where I quit reading. The Lucky... part is usually where I quit reading. Gossh gooly ROFL..... what a good one, how do you come up with this hillarity?

Knee-slapper +1 for my good buddy - yep, were still here for each other as the conservatove handbook calls for.

This is where I quit reading. The Lucky... part is usually where I quit reading. Evidently not, or you wouldn't have replied. Now go show us all your Newsmax sites. Then I can post Moveon and we can have a masturbation contest. This is why I post data, preferably gov data top make my points. But as I see, your side isn't too fond of that approach.

Yep, same guys: Bush got us into this mess, all indicators down, Obama passed real stimulus and is getting us out - all indicators up. Same/same

Hoover was evidently able to count to 12 million. That's true, it could be only 1 or 2 million.....tax cuts, my friends. Amazing the Repugs could even win another election after that debacle; shows how 'tarded the American voter really is.

Nice totalitarian view you have there. maybe it is not his totalitarian view but what is actually happening What's happening is as unions get busted, wages and benefits drop, more people are w/o HC and the corporate sector grows. OF course you entitle this as normal and descent.

People donate money to help a cause they appreciate. People are able to donate more money because there is a tax write off available. Nobody donates money for a tax write off. That doesn't even make sense. Haven't there been cases where someone forms a foundation, gives a bunch of money to it, puts their son in charge, and then uses that money to pay for the kid's travel, jet, and other goodies? Answer -yes, because I know of someone who did exactly that. certainly. there are ways to game any system. especially when our tax code is so complicated. simplify the tax code. Abolish income tax, institute a national sales tax. OK, then you persude hiring and diussuade buying. Then there's no need to hire as fewer people are buying. The tax system needs to be in every aspect of our lives or certain areas will be avoided. Look at boom/bust cycles and that's what would happen.

Yes and just let corporations decide our wages. At what point will you guys understand the motive behind corporations is to make money and minimize expense? Hillarious you can't see corps as anything but saints.

Haven't there been cases where someone forms a foundation, gives a bunch of money to it, puts their son in charge, and then uses that money to pay for the kid's travel, jet, and other goodies? Answer -yes, because I know of someone who did exactly that. Three things are certain in life: death, taxes, and people who find ways to cheat the latter until they succumb to the former. But you correctly left the word "donate" out of your scenario. But donate to a so-called charity to avoid taxes or mitigate the tax table for which you belong has been a hobby forever. The party that decries a gov with checks and balances wants neither, just totalitarianism.

GWB said it was, so don't misunderestimate him. I've heard it used often enough that it's probably just a matter of time. It seems to be a common tendency of late to turn nouns into verbs. It was sarcasm.

People donate money to help a cause they appreciate. People are able to donate more money because there is a tax write off available. Nobody donates money for a tax write off. That doesn't even make sense. Haven't there been cases where someone forms a foundation, gives a bunch of money to it, puts their son in charge, and then uses that money to pay for the kid's travel, jet, and other goodies? Answer -yes, because I know of someone who did exactly that. Not only that, but the biggest lie/scam, organized religion, is tax exempt. Taxes drive everything from politics, religion to charity.

There's often a threshold where people need to fall below in order to not be taxed at a certain brkt. The taxpayer's accountant infirms the taxpayer of this and they donate where they want as much as the accountant says they need to. Also, some donation is done for political reasons, esp when corporations do it. Oh, isn't that cute, yes, people in capitalized countries do things out of the goodness of their hearts. Quit pretending capilatism has elements of compassion, you're confusing capitalism with socialism.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ A real knee-slapper.

Does that mean drunk? OK, whatever

Your point is????? The 1920 recession that lsted a year or so? Right, and then as the Republicans just became corrupt and cut taxes to shit, the whole dynamic changed. Not to mention the 1920 recession was a WWI to a non-military economy rather than an economy spurred by massive tax cuts and Wall Street corruption/bank failure as the GD was, so you're talking apples/oranges. Also, your Hoover tried to ignore it and look what happened. So 2 1/2 years later he signed the largest tax increase in US history and the damage started repairing. So to cite the GD as an example of what doing nothing does for the recovery is a great example of what is neccesary in time slike these. Yes you did, you stated: - Had the gov stayed out of this we would be farther along toward recovery. - But we all know this is Bush's fault (as to say it isn't) So it must be Bush's fault if gov interference hampered it and GWB did sign the 700B recovery. You can't have it both ways. And that isn't even addressing the cause of the mess and who sat by and did nothing, as you prescribe to be the best, which obviously isn't. Then how can you claim it wasn't Bush's fault if you were against the 700B bailout? See, you just can't stop stepping all over your own dick.

It's just fun to see how high you guys can count; strictly a scientific experiment.

So he lied and he had to do it because it is Bush's fault? Ok Thanks Remember "Not one dime" "Read my lips" Einstein, the economy was in total collapse and now all indicators have moved the right direction, some drastically +. You act as if the economy was ok but a little bad, it was the SECOND WORST ECONOMY IN US HISTORY. Just keep tellin yourself this excused the bs going on Had the gov stayed out of this we would be farther along toward recovery. But we all know this is Bush's fault Yea, just like with the Great Depression. History not your strong point? As for Bush, if you think the gov interferecne has hampered the recovery, NEWFLASH (no, I didn't say Newsmax - your only source for news): GWB signed the 700B bank bailout, so he must be complicit. And that doesn't cover the origin of the mess and his ignoring all the signs. SO your own advice just dumped all over you.

This is where I quit reading. Your loss, but I dont care anymore what radicals like you think anyway as long as you are in the extreme minority. But, It is ALL over the web (if you care to be more learned) rush called me a radical . Right after he posted Newsmax

So he lied and he had to do it because it is Bush's fault? Ok Thanks Remember "Not one dime" "Read my lips" Einstein, the economy was in total collapse and now all indicators have moved the right direction, some drastically +. You act as if the economy was ok but a little bad, it was the SECOND WORST ECONOMY IN US HISTORY.

This is where I quit reading.

GWB said it was, so don't misunderestimate him.

Funny how you say that RW is rich/greedy. I know plenty of greedy people that are poor. I know plenty of wealthy people that employ people and give money to charity/church/community/family..and their ass is taxed to no end at the same time. Show me a poor guy that creates jobs... Do you want everyone to be poor? or do you want everyone to be rich? Pick So poor people who hoard all ther little cash are now greedy? Yea, look at that section 8 family hoarding their 15k / yr salary and not giving to the poor . DO you actually look at what you write before you hit POST? Wealthy people employ people to make money, no make monmey - no hire people. Now some are better/worse than others, but a business has to make money off its people and its practice or it ceases to exist. Waelthy people donate money for 2 main reasons: - Help a cause they appreciate - Tax writeoff The rich guy is taxes at a smaller rate with the writeoff. Do you know rich people to donate money and refuse to take teh wrioteoff? Poor prople use goods/svs, that creates jobs. Bowing to the rich is dangerous, pretty soon you sell your sould for a piece of bread. If the gov wasn't there to limit teh powers of the rich we would go back to the renaissance era. >>>>>>>>>>Do you want everyone to be poor? or do you want everyone to be rich? Pick Thx, I need that chuckle before I go to work. RWers = all this way or all that way. Hysterical. How about a system where everyone has a baseline of basic care and support if they need, then a free market so if you want to put more work into it and become rich, you can. Of course teh first part of this will raise taxes and slightly impede the rich foilks, but they can still succeed if they wish.