Lucky...

If ever we needed a 3rd party the time is now. I agree, let's bring in the Libertarians to cut all social spending, hire dump truck drivers to go about and pick up all teh dead elderlies, etc. Then with all the vulnerable now dead, the system will work. Kind of Darwinism on roids under the guise of Christianity. Look at history, unlike conservatives like you do for fear of seeing where your ideologies evolved. Look at the 1850's where we had the slavery-loving Dems and the elitist trash Whigs (similar to neo-Republicans), there were 2 rotten parties and that opened the door for a 3rd to beat them. You (or anyone) can't muster intelligent reasoning to make us believe that the Dems today are for oppression of teh masses and that's what it would take. You can make that argument when describing the R's, but you need a clean-sweep in order to bring in a 3rd party and you don't have the goods.

The people have shown over and over that they will spend what is given, so regulations need to be put in place. How about unsecured credit; you can't be extended more than 50% of your proveable annual income. How about regulations on lending and borrowing for homes, etc. So the gov was complicit by being too lax on lending regs, GWB was complicit for being too stoooopid to understand simple economics and for doing nothing - congress too, and lenders were complicit by being too greedy to avert the obvious.

I know you posted this not as your position, but as a projection form teh R's to the D's, but Glass-Stegal was repealed under Gramm-Leach-Bliley; 3 REPUBLICANS. Point being, even if it was the repeal, it was drawn up by 3 Repubs.

No response? Acquiescence? Loud and clear. This undoubtedly is over your head, but you have committed an ad hominem. Not one word about the GDP, Obama's actions which led to the betterment or further deterioration of it, just, "you and yours." You attack the poster not the subject so you are irrelevant. Now, if you have the capacity to understand all that, go ahead and comment on the 1st Q of 09 and GWB's and Obama's efforts with that. I won't drop by all day checking; I'm sure just more ad hominem. In case this is still over your head, you could be right, hypothetically I might be the least educated person in economics, but that still fails to even start to address the 1st Q of 09. Mike appreciates the back slapping tho. Hit the site in my sig and perhaps understand the RW a little better.

And this is 'vontage' Lucky - spout bullshit and then scramble to cover your ass when you get called on it. That's from post #3 in this thread - go re-read it, and then whine to BEA about them not having Q4 up so you can cover your ass. Real easy, Lucky - can't make it easier for you. So now we're down to correcting mechanical spelling errors? You spend too much time with Ron I guess. And as for, "Real easy, Lucky - can't make it easier for you." I guess I have to say I'm flattered you would copy me. DO YOU THINK ANYONE DOESN'T UNDERSTAND WHY YOU MOVE TO CHECK SPELLING AND IMMITATION AND AVOID A SIMPLE QUESTION? THIS IS YOUR WAY OF SAYING, OF COURSE 2009 1ST Q WAS NOT OABAMA'S FAULT - WE GET IT. If you care to answer the very simple question, I'll repost: 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.

At the same time, those in charge said, "All looks good to me." They did nothing as hyperinflation set in, taxes were cut and we went off to a fabricated war that has cost > 1T to this point. That, to me, is the real problem.

Don't you think you guys shaped a pretty fucked up future already since 1980??? I mean YOU are the ones who spent the country to 11+ TRILLION dollar deficit..... seems you have not been paying the bills so well Another mistake made by the left. Just because a person attends a Tea party rally doesn't make them a republican. Yes, a lot of us are conservative, so that does open us up to attacks from the left. The tea party is about electing officials that represent the people and not special interests. Take a hard look at all the kickbacks the liberals are giving to Fanny May, Freddie Mac, and the unions. Read about the "Corn husker kick back, Louisiana Purchase, and tell me the democrats are representing you. Hmmmm, where were these guys under Bush and the biggest giveaway ever? Taking a descent economy that has just undergone the largest growth period ever and turing it into a POS that ends up 5T more in debt than when he got it, with a debt increase/decrease that was basically flat, is not a sign of fiscal brilliance. If you're trying to sell me that the Tea Baggers are anything but anti-Dems using fiscal issues to try to establish the Dems are bad, no thx, I've seen enough and you have nothing to substantiate your point unless you can show me where they were protesting in force since 2001.

Don't you think you guys shaped a pretty fucked up future already since 1980??? I mean YOU are the ones who spent the country to 11+ TRILLION dollar deficit..... seems you have not been paying the bills so well Any supporter of Obama has absolutely zero room to bitch about spending. List all the pork spending / non-stimulus spending Obama has done: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

And you acknowledged it, thats a PA per Lucky also! Not the first time her highness has accused me-I'm good with it Don't worry about him. He can get therapy sessions through his full VA benefits. You just have to lay out facts he can verify on Wiki and the Onion...go easy on him. Amazing how 4-year service full VA benefits can be construed as lifer benefits. Oh well, beats discussing the issues.

I never saw it, a wuffo friend sent it to me.

Ugh - once again you're caught making up facts. California was R for president from 1968 until 1992. It also picked Ike twice, so in 10 elections from 1952 to 1988, only twice did it vote Democrat - Kennedy and LBJ. Cali was R longer than I thought, they were R: - 1968 - 1972 - 1976 - Fascist Ronnie and and GHWB (essentially shared the same momentum) One thing to keep in mind is that EV's were alomost a complete sweep in: 1952 - 442/89 1956 - 457/73 1972 - 520/17 The only oddity is with 1976 when it was a closer election and Carter won w/o Cali. Eisenhower was a great pres and like FDR, he gave up < 100 EV's all elections. So this isn't so odd considering virtually teh entire country voted for him in an electoral college sense. Still, as I was saying, weird is the new normal.

We will be heard even if they dont listen, Did you say something? Nothing an ignorant person would have heard!

We will be heard even if they dont listen, Did you say something? Nothing an ignorant person would have heard!

Right, it was the indeps that made the deal for the R's, not the R's by themselves or alleged D's flipping. Right and Calif was always D for pres until fascist Ronnie came along. AZ always R for pres until Clinton in 96, so you're saying there was an anomoly? Weird is the new normal; welcome aboard. Welcome to a 41-57-2 split; now go celebrate. No, the loud noise was heard in the last 3 elections, not the Nazis win 3 Gov seats and 1 seante seat and they think they're the majority. I think the last 3 elections have shown that. OK, now define the BO part. What do Americans hate that BO is taking to huge proportions? Fixed it.

We will be heard even if they dont listen, Did you say something?

Or what; you'll shoot? Cindy Sheehan drew more cred than they do.

http://www.m2film.dk/fleggaard/trailer2.swf

Yea, seriously, under the R's since 2000 things were better than ever, bout time we get em back in office.

The Tea Baggers are nothing - irrelevant boobs.

You have a massive deficit in teh House, you have 41 senators in Congress; now you're claiming some kind of victory????

This undoubtedly is over your head, but you have committed an ad hominem. Not one word about the GDP, Obama's actions which led to the betterment or further deterioration of it, just, "you and yours." You attack the poster not the subject so you are irrelevant. Now, if you have the capacity to understand all that, go ahead and comment on the 1st Q of 09 and GWB's and Obama's efforts with that. I won't drop by all day checking; I'm sure just more ad hominem. In case this is still over your head, you could be right, hypothetically I might be the least educated person in economics, but that still fails to even start to address the 1st Q of 09. Mike appreciates the back slapping tho. Hit the site in my sig and perhaps understand the RW a little better.

That's from post #3 in this thread - go re-read it, and then whine to BEA about them not having Q4 up so you can cover your ass. This is vontage Mike. I focussed on this one question by itself so you couldn't squirm, here it is again: 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.

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?

I'm curious as to how that works if he were a clear winner, and the MA Sect'y of State certifies the result, does Sen. Reid really have a choice? Evidently he thinks he does. Whether he has a leg to stand on in a legal sense in that regard, I don't know. But all he has to do is delay it in order to allow passage of the HC bill, right? I'm *certain* that the "most ethical and transparent administration EVAH" would *never* stoop to anything like that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Texas_redistricting I don't understand how it would be so hard for you to understand political games. And bring in Watergate and it's 90/10.

And yet you blame Clinton and still write that