Lucky...

Best to throw out BOTH pieces of crap and start over. Right, and pretend that Poor Joe Blow who can't afford HC in his state, allowing him to shop all states, if even 10% cheaper would be affordable. Your plan is another way of saying, "fuck those w/o HC."

The Senate wouldn't pass it.

Good - now they can try to find a better way. Taking down the bar and allowing insurance companies to sell between states would be a start. In terms of Republicans, that's a complete overhaul. It benefits corporations, it's called, "Deregulation." Amazing, a republican advocating corporate rights. Corporatism is an element of fascism.

A) Immitation = flattery B) You're scared to bet meaning you agree, the GDP will within 20% of 4% in 2009 4th Q What announcement? Why should I, I'm willing to back my belief in the estimates. You would be the one shooting the mouth off when you won't back your beliefs. It works on people willing to back their beliefs rather than just using trickery, decsption, denial, etc. So tell me, who's fault was the 1st Q 2009? Even Gawain isn't blaming Obama. No one is, not even you. It would be retarded to blame a guy who came in during a period that is already fucked, has been fucked for 1.5 years + and to say it's his mess and his fault. Just as Clinton pulled yoru tired ideology out of the shitter, so will Obama and the idiot American voter will reinstall another spendy Nazi piece of trash in the name of patriotism.

The transition from -6.4 to est +6 = a 12 point swing. True, but the start and end point of the early recovery span a 12 point range. If you look at shrinking at .7 as compared to 6.4 yes it did, it shrank both quarters, but it's unrealistic to think the economy could go from -6.4 to +2 in one quarter. See, this is how your side calls Obama a failure by saying he hasn't parted the Red Sea in 2 weeks so he's the same as Bush. It's ridiculous but it's all you have so what are ya gonna do? Yes, from a previous -6.4 so a massive transitional gain. No, it grew from a previous -.7 to +2.2% in a transitional sense. See, we're getting hung up on semantics and abstract mathematics, to depart from that and use mean, median and mode type data to see where we're going vs where we cam from you can look at the data in a visual sense and see that. http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdp_glance.htm So we can spar over semantics, 2.2 vs 2.9, or we can say, "your party fucked things up, mine fixd things on deficit stimulus. I would have preferred tax-derrived stimulus, but the righties would cry. I'm surprised your party doesn't have the character to praise Obama for not just raising taxes as he should do like Clinton did. Taxes are not at all-time lows since WWI, but not far from it. It's tired, let it go. Esp from a party that thinks the Heritage Foundation and the Cato institute are reliable and honest.

And yet he served in the military, I'm guessing you didn't. Of course the party of tea baggers who show dissent only love selective dissent. Lucky...WAY out of line there. Max lost a leg in Iraq,,,, he has walked the walk Don't worry about it Jeane...that's the second time he's accused me of not serving. All poseurs forget how to maintain the lies every now and again. I've never claimed to be a war vet, just a peacetime vet. In that regard I'm not a poser and I wished I was a wartime soldier as I served, as VN ended only 8 years after I enlisted, but it didn't take long to exit the military to realize I was fortunate not to have served during war for a myriad of reasons. But I was willing and stupidly excited about going to war at a moment's notice.

Yea, Sweeden has had a hell of a time sustaining peace, huh? You don't see Sweden's military at practice. Do not confuse their "lack of involvement" as some sort of peace-at-all-cost agenda. They will fight at a drop of the hat. Might not be for our reasons, but they will. The diff is that they use it as a very last option, we use it as practice and exhibition.

And you're scared to make the bet; you've just been pwned . Make the bet or crawl away. That's an aspect of the NBER, not teh BEA, so they wouldn't have it. And again, I never said the recovery was complete even tho the recession is by technical terms over. Too bad you're too scared to bet. Nope, and you're scared to bet that the projections are far off. Here I thought Texans were tough.

OK, I'll bet you that when the 4th Q numbers are first released by the BEA that they are within 20% of the 4%. I lose, I don't post for 1 month, you lose and you don't post for 1 month. It wasn't a post, it was a thread and it read, "Recession is over, but..." 2 innacuracies Mike, better go back to spellchecking. It takes a month to tabulate them. Using estimates form experts doesn't denote denial, but refusing to listen to numerous experts IS denial. Can't answer a simple question: IS THE 1ST Q OF 2009 OBAMA'S DOING OR NOT? Let's look at it this way, if QB "A" starts a game and runs it into the ground, down 4 TD's, they bring in QB "B" and the game ends as he inherited it, maybe some better, but still the team loses; who's fault is the loss? Of course QB "A." A better example is with baseball, the starting picher is given the loss unless he leaves with a tie or lead, no one on base. Blaming the 2009 1st Q on Obama is retarded, I'm glad you're not doing that.

I am guessing you are not aware of the sacrifice Gawain has paid for his country. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=2129353;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25; This was covered, I don't do Bonfire so I didn't know, but this is accessory to the issue. Is Gawain or anyone saying this war dissenter has sacrificed less because he didn't see action? Furthermore, who knows what this guy saw? Again, all war vets have a right to their opinion. Losing body parts or a life renders a great sacrifice, but all US war vets are huge on my list and I don't diminish one over teh other. Thsi thread is now going to tangent and I'd rather keep it on track to the merits of what this guy said.

And yet he served in the military, I'm guessing you didn't. Of course the party of tea baggers who show dissent only love selective dissent. Lucky...WAY out of line there. Max lost a leg in Iraq,,,, he has walked the walk He didn't make that known to me so I'm not out of line. But I salute all US soldiers of all wars - the best of the best. I do retract that assertion about not being in the military.

So in your mind it was justifyable terrorim? OK, it WAS terrorism to drop the bombs, that's a given based upon the definition of the word, "terrorism" in the dictionary; do you agree? Now give me your BS about how justification makes it 'un-terrorism.' The number of US tropps that would have died just justifies the terrorist act of killing 300k mostly women and children, it doesn't remove the definition of terrorism from the act, just as AQ's 911 act was terrorist and whatever BS reasons they had don't remove the terrorism from it. I see, both theatres caused just over 400k dead US heroes, but to invade Japan would have killed 100's of thousands? Not likely - just doesn't make sense. BTW, my dad's brother died in Germany in WWII. Again, to mitigate the number of potential dead US soldiers doesn't undo the classification of the acts being terroristic, they were terrorism per the definition. So now you're Jean Dixon? You don't know the death tolls. Furthermore, dropping 1 bomb as a warning exhibition could have been tried and wasn't. Dropping a bomb on riddled Tokyo could have been tried and wasn't. WE INTENTIONALLY CHOSE TO DROP BOMBS ON CITIES THAT WERE MOSTLY RESIDENTIAL AND THAT HAD NOT BEEN CONVENTIONALLY BOMBED BEFORE. WE WANTED LARGE CIVILIAN CASUALTIES. And before you start, junior, I've been to the cliff where many Japanese jumped to their death. I've flown over Tinian, I know a shitload about that history. Just because civilians and Japanese soldiers died in Saipan that doesn't make our act of terrorism not an act of terrorism. It might justify it to you and that's your opinion, but you cannot undo the definition for good cause. And many chose not to be bombed after a conditional surrender was offered, esp ones who lived in citied that were basically not military cities.

If ever we needed a 3rd party the time is now. While I agree, that would, (at this point) put another Obama style admin in control Maybe...but the 2 party system is broken. It's like a couple of 4 year olds anymore. Maybe but it does expose the drifting of the two parties from thier roots. I would advocate taking the parties back from the extreemists that have coopted them for thier own use How has teh Dems been controlled by extremists? Hell, Clinton signed the homophobic 1996 Marriage Defense Act, the corporate-loving NAFTA tax cut/dereg for rich boys; what leftist extremism? Obama and most Dems were for the 700B gift to the banks so tehy could continue their millions dollar fuck-fests. If the Dems were so extreme left they could have found a way to pass the HC Bill which now looks doomed - you simply can't substantiate your silly claim that the left is extreme. Shit, Obama even decided to continue the RW Iraq/AFG Wars, where's the LW extremism? You're outta gas. I am outa gas? Spoken by a man wearing rose colored glasses http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zJq8SIIB9s So you have no comment, just more rhetoric. Same/same. No sir, your sense of reality is so distorted I can only pray for you And yet you cannot idnetify Democratic extremism, but you'll hold your opinion. How has teh Dems been controlled by extremists? Hell, Clinton signed the homophobic 1996 Marriage Defense Act, the corporate-loving NAFTA tax cut/dereg for rich boys; what leftist extremism? Obama and most Dems were for the 700B gift to the banks so tehy could continue their millions dollar fuck-fests. If the Dems were so extreme left they could have found a way to pass the HC Bill which now looks doomed - you simply can't substantiate your silly claim that the left is extreme. Shit, Obama even decided to continue the RW Iraq/AFG Wars, where's the LW extremism? You're outta gas.

Yep, 3 Q's: - 2009 2nd Q took it from -6.4 to -.7 = 5.7 in the + direction - 2009 3rd Q took it from -.7 to +2.2 = 2.9 in the + direction - 2009 4th Q took it from +2.2 to +4.0 (est) = 1.8 in the + direction Not sure if math is not your suit or what, but those are big gains: >12% in 1 year. I do own it, you are either real bad at math or in denial. I'll address the rest soon, but I want this posted alone so you can't dodge it: Do you assign the 1st quarter of 2009 to Obama even tho he entered the quarter 20 days into it and he didn't obviously have time to pass stimulus and start working it so the benefit of it could be realized? Before Q 1, 2009 GWB had 3 of the previous 4 Q's negative, so the trend was set and in force. Again, do you blame Obama for the horrible 1st Q of 2009? Look at the chart. There was a decline since late 2007with all Q's declining more than the previous with the exception of 1 quarter, sinc Obama they are all going north, the 4th Q of 2009 is projected to be 4%. DO YOU ASSESS THE 1ST Q OF 2009 TO OBAMA AND WHY OR WHY NOT? Now, I'll make it easy: - Yes Obama is responsible for 2009 Q1 GDP - No Obama is not responsible for 2009 Q1 GDP - Continue to squirm Come on, Mike, real easy - can't make it easier for ya.

If ever we needed a 3rd party the time is now. While I agree, that would, (at this point) put another Obama style admin in control Maybe...but the 2 party system is broken. It's like a couple of 4 year olds anymore. Maybe but it does expose the drifting of the two parties from thier roots. I would advocate taking the parties back from the extreemists that have coopted them for thier own use How has teh Dems been controlled by extremists? Hell, Clinton signed the homophobic 1996 Marriage Defense Act, the corporate-loving NAFTA tax cut/dereg for rich boys; what leftist extremism? Obama and most Dems were for the 700B gift to the banks so tehy could continue their millions dollar fuck-fests. If the Dems were so extreme left they could have found a way to pass the HC Bill which now looks doomed - you simply can't substantiate your silly claim that the left is extreme. Shit, Obama even decided to continue the RW Iraq/AFG Wars, where's the LW extremism? You're outta gas. I am outa gas? Spoken by a man wearing rose colored glasses http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zJq8SIIB9s So you have no comment, just more rhetoric. Same/same.

Since the agenda was profit.... why yes it did work.

War on drugs War on Terrorism War on Communism Just keep looking for wars and you'll find them. Funny how nations that look for peace seem to find that...... hmmmmm.

Thxs for the 411 ... now I know not to waste any time watching this fellow's video. PS: If I am not mistaken you are a veteran and you did pay a pretty big price for your efforts. I will take your word on combat before I take the word of someone from the "Party for Socialism and Liberation". That's right, the most important issue is not found in the merits but in the character, opinions, etc of the person delivering the message.

And yet he served in the military, I'm guessing you didn't. Of course the party of tea baggers who show dissent only love selective dissent.

Yea, Sweeden has had a hell of a time sustaining peace, huh?

America is the best and only country in the world; you're a terrorist, Bill.

How do you propose to make the other side think of war as absolutely and totally unacceptable? easy, nuke the fuck out of them. The thing is that we nuked the fuck out of women and children; they weren't in a position to be made aware of anything. That was teh US' most cowardly act since the fleecing of the American Indians.

How do you propose to make the other side think of war as absolutely and totally unacceptable? Same kind of garbage Reagan fed us when he told us the USSR wanted to defeat us, even tho we were feeding them a lot of their grain, the USSR had little ability to reach out and touch and the USSR had all they could handle with Afghanistan. Just keep an enemy visible and make them viable via lies and we can keep the idiot machine turning out garbage.

If ever we needed a 3rd party the time is now. While I agree, that would, (at this point) put another Obama style admin in control Maybe...but the 2 party system is broken. It's like a couple of 4 year olds anymore. Maybe but it does expose the drifting of the two parties from thier roots. I would advocate taking the parties back from the extreemists that have coopted them for thier own use How has teh Dems been controlled by extremists? Hell, Clinton signed the homophobic 1996 Marriage Defense Act, the corporate-loving NAFTA tax cut/dereg for rich boys; what leftist extremism? Obama and most Dems were for the 700B gift to the banks so tehy could continue their millions dollar fuck-fests. If the Dems were so extreme left they could have found a way to pass the HC Bill which now looks doomed - you simply can't substantiate your silly claim that the left is extreme. Shit, Obama even decided to continue the RW Iraq/AFG Wars, where's the LW extremism? You're outta gas.

If ever we needed a 3rd party the time is now. While I agree, that would, (at this point) put another Obama style admin in control Maybe...but the 2 party system is broken. It's like a couple of 4 year olds anymore. You say that, but look at 12 years of Reagan/GHWB. The debt went from 900B to 4T, taxes went from 70% top brkt to 31% and that was after GHWB raised them a bit. Spending went thru the roof and GHWB's last year left a 290B annual deficit. Clinton came in, cut spending, raised taxes to 40% top brkt and things were awesome; the market went from 3500 to 9800 in 8 years - the longest growth period in US history. Then your guy comes in and trashes it all - hands it off to Obama and now you want us to believe that there are no good parties out there. In 1 year the market has made an insane recovery, the GDP is just sailing high and unemployment is finally curbed off - work needs to be done there. If, in another year the unemp is 7% and shrinking and all other eco aspects look good, it's gonna be even harder for you to make your silly argument. From 1981 to 2009, 28 years, 20 of those were presided by Republicans and you want to argue there are no good parties left; good luck.