Lucky...

Yea, me in -30 to -50 degree weather, towing a B-52 in a total fucking whiteout, walking the icy backbone carrying a 15-foot stick to dip the tanks. Pussy punk bitch fascist Ronnie making war training movies , getting laid by LA hotties and kicki it. Nice comparison. BTW, I served longer than you before I showed up for basic Yea, he was able to be inducted in 37 for the reserves, but 5 years later when he showed up for his call to active, he developed an eye problem; he couldn't see going to war to fight with them men. Yet we never see him with glasses after the fact, just doesn't have teh ring of truth to it, just like crackhead GWB. It didn't keep him from being inducted in 37, so it must not have been that bad. But I see we're back to needing an affidavit from God before it's believed

It's realy a meaningless point, but if it isn't worth supporting your assertion I see how much you care. Mike, the thread topic: Ever hear the right say: Well GHWB, now this is your economy? What does Gawain's military service have to do to support it? Right. Not whatsoever, just maybe your loyalty/sacrifice to this country.

I was talking any president at any given time, he can strike uo to 535 votes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat. So then the pres couldn't claim serious threat let's say after 911 and move in w/o congress? Yea. The pres can do what he/she wants, there may be consequences later, but he/she can do what he/she wants as far as sending troops in.

Right, and you qualify based upon teh PITI, as the I falls, the P can climb and you still have the same payment with a higher P amount, hence housing cost escallation. Yep and when the I lowers the monthly payment drops and you can qualify for mor ehouse, but sellers compensated by raising house prices knowing the same people would qualify for more expensive houses and have the same monthly mortgage. A 100k house with a 7% loan will have a $900 PITI lets say. If the same house drops to 5% I, the note is now let's say around $750 PITI. So then the same house sells for 130k @ 5% I and the payment goes back up to $900. These are round numbers, I didn;t use a mort calculator, but you get the idea. And with a lower I rate the payment/note is lower, so sellers compensated by jacking up the cost of their houses. Before long, that same house was worth 200k and anyone could qualify due to lenders not caring about the credibility of the borrower, but the credibility was in the house for which they speculated would continue to increase in value. This is how subprime borrowers were able to get into houses or get 2nds, 3rds, etc. OK, I'm just asking what act, law or whatever was it that proposed that, required that, etc? The low I rates enabled the accelleration of artificial principle escallation. As with qualifying, if teh I is low the P can be more, creating and artifical bubble. Not a lot different by concept with the Dot.com bubble. Creative finacing was yet another arm of the octopus. Massive int only loans, balloon payments, etc were all part of the mess. I agree. In fact, as for unsecured debt, a person should have to qualify as tehy would a traditional home loan. Take your annual salary and be allowed no more than 1/2 that in total unsecured CC balance.

And then the pres vetoes, so the purpose is to get congress aligned with what the pres will sign. That's happened before, so not sure what your piont is. That's why the pres sends congress a proposal. Congress can piggyback, but the pres can veto, so the pres is the ultimate legislator absent overrides. The pres can claim we are being attacked and send us to war; unilaterally. Really? Did he want even bigger cuts? Are you talking Bush 1 or 2?

I've run engines on B-52's, crew chiefed them and flew on them 3 times. I'm guessing you're not a vet.

He didn't say that to me...but if he had, that would've been the icing on the cake... Oh, yeah he did... in the healthcare bill thread, after you asked him about his 'full VA benefits'. I was going to mention it to him that he didn't know who he was talking about, but I already had Ian up my ass about defending another vet, so I held off. Where did I state Gawain wasn't a vet? Post it. If I did it was errant, post it, I don't recall that. Regardless, it's insignificant to the point. I don't have to ask if you were a vet, Mike. I positive you weren't, but you have the rhetoric down-pat.

I do have full VA benefits for a 1-term enlistee. Not sure what you have a hard time understanding there. How bout that shitbag Reagan, ever have the disservice of meeting that pussy fucking war dodger? Yet you'll hammer drag dodger Clinton, praise Reagan; they both contributed about the same to the military. Yep and was able to enlist in the reserve, which requires induction, physical and basic training. Then the war came along and his number was up and found an excuse not to go, yet never saw him wear glasses in his life. I'm sure he did occassionally, but he wasn't blind as a bat. I bet you defend crack-head GWB and his loyal service too. Nope, he served 6 years, his dad died so he went to take care of the farm. He didn't run from war, ever. Do you really need to ask? I don't know about it. If he ran from military duty, yes I would slam him. So now I'm lying about being in the AF? Is it really a long stretch? And the idiotic rants from teh Army and MArines are BS too. I know 1 peson who died in this GWB war and he was AF. WHen I was in I was stationed at now closed KI Sawyer AFB, just off Lake Superior, few miles from Canada. I would work outside all noght for 3 weeks in a row, 12-hr days for ORI's and other excercizes. Not to mention work teh alert pad for a week ata time, not being able to leave as if I were in jail. So all that grunt bravado might work for some AFSC's (called something else now), bit not mine. Reagan's a punk ass fucking pussy; don't like - too bad. If you want to pretend his wiggling out of war to go to LA and make training movies was credible, I'm super glad for you

You've stuck a fork in that a while ago. You expect me to take shots and ignore them. YOU want to trash this forum with petty BS, not me. I really get nothing from your discourse, but love to hand you your ass. Wanna grow up, just ignore or address constructively. Wanna keep trashing the forum, keep doing this: I find it surprising that even you would stoop so low as to say... And then you claim I'm trying to start shit, you started that.

Child, this is shit I know and have cited before. As a military vet that I am and YOU'RE NOT, I know that guard and reserve military members get inducted and sent to basic just like any full-time military member. They get physicals just like the reguar military members and I find it BS to think he made it past those and was allowed into reserve military duty, but not to the war. We were so hard-up for military guys we had established the draft > 6 moths before Coward Ronnie weaseled his way out goin gto fight with the men, rather cower with the bitches in Hollywood. Which also makes me wonder how he turned on them after the war, acting as tho he was the only real American. How dumb the electorate to think FR was true-blue, he was FR yellow. We were taking anyone and everyone in 1942, a little eye problem wouldn't be a deal-breaker. Oh, and I always saw him wearing glasses during an after politics too. I know he wore contacts, as the arrogant coward he was, but his eyes were not that bad. I guess you bought all the BS about GWB and his cowardly escape from VN and his AWOL from the guard too, huh? You claim to have voted for Obama, yet all you do is to defend Republicans; do you think anyone here is dumb, naive, gullable enough to buy that? I don't. I find it believable that a person such as you, a person w/o military service, would defend a WWII dodger like Reagan. Right and making training movies, fucking LA beotches was his order, what a dedicated sacrificing man . Here's a little hint: He used his Hollywood connections to avoid going to fight with the men.

Apparently you don't or you would add something constructive.

Perhaps because he succeeded FR and was part of the admin that sent us down teh toilet, but still not his personal doing. Yes, I knew that factoid, Carville's kind of a freak, but he's great. Again, the operative word you used is, 'politics.' Yes, you want to blame the other side just like FR and his, "There you go again" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_you_go_again_(Reagan) in reference to Carter's attack on Reagan's Medicare record (not to shining). Then Reagan went on to spend like no one else. FDR's VP Garner called Hoover a Socialist after Hoover signed the Revenue Act of 1932, running teh top bracket up 260%. Of course then FDR's admin went on to become the biggest socialists of all time in the US. And then there was, "Read my lips." So you want to hang your hat on campaign slogans as tho they're meaningful? Good luck with yourself. But to address the economy under GHWB, he inherited a mess that was just waiting to pop. The debt had increased so much in such a short time in time of peace. Some want to call the Cold War, wartime. This is ridiculous and to say that therefore FR couldn't help but to overspedn for this pseudo-war, gee, the debt fell during a couple years under Eisenhower and he had the Korean War to contend with, the debt fell in 1969 during the heat of the VN War and both of these times were also under the period of the Cold War, so WTF? Here's one explanation: The top tax rate under Eisenhower was 91%, in 1969 I think it was in teh 70's% and during the Great Fasist Pig Ronnie it went from 70% to 50% to 38% to 28%. Then this mess of shit was handed off to GHWB and he had to be a good Republican bitch and promise to keep taxes low in the midst of alarming peacetime debt increase in order to get elected. Basically, FR maxed out a stack of credit cards and handed them to GHWB on the way out. It's a delluded fantasy to think you can take a tax rate that has worked since 1932 and in 1980 cut it form 70% to 28% and continue the spending mess. So was FR delluded? Of course. - Thought the USSR wanted to start a fight with us just as they were dedicating a lot of their arms to AFG. Not to mention we were feeding them. - Thought cutting taxes and grossly overspending would be possible w/o trashing the economy. So when you look at a president's record, you have to look at what they inherited, what they endured and what they left. Examine the processes and the intent for which they meant and measure their accomplishments. GHWB: - Inherited a mess by way of debt, deficit, military, tax rate way too low, etc. - Had to endure the Gulf War and did so fantastically - Raised taxes in disobedience of his own party to control the debt - Cut teh military in disobedience of his own party to control the debt I think he did well.

Love how you say/infer Reagan-credit / Bush-blame. You could have stated it the other way. As for any pres being tHE major driver of the economy,of course they are. When I was in high school that was the chant, but please, tell me: - Who sends the initial proposal for the annual budget to congress? - Who has veto power to nix out 535 members of congress in 1 strike of a pen? - Who has unilatteral war powers, sending troops and billions of dollars away? - Who signs tax laws? Other than veto overrides, the president IS THE ULTIMATE LEGISLATOR. Actually, no. The low interest rates were the ultimate catalyst and cause of this mess. Are you talking about Gramm, Leach, Bliliey? Again, which laws/acts, etc? Since, as a whole, we have shown we cannot be responsible on our own, the gov needs to regulate. Furtermore, cutting teh int rates that low that long is the primary cause and catalyst, GLB was just an accellerator. W/o GLB and with bargain basement int rates we would still have had this mess. No arg there, but since we can't/won't act responsibly we need the gov to nanny us. Agreed. That's why the destruction of our dollar will be just what the doctor ordered. We make good stuff and if our dollar just crashes our goods will be in huge demand around the world, which is why Chian is tasked with artifically propping the USD up. Yep and then your currency crashes - bout where we are now.

I'm not going to nitpick his motives, he did well with the mess he got from FR. And Clinton could say damned the other side and make radical changes, GHWB had to tip-toe, as it was his predecessor he was unfucking. GHWB was 2 things fascist Ronnie (FR) wasn't: - A proud military member who was willing and did fight for his country - Sane So I don't think GHWB thought the Russians were out to get us as the delluded, senile one, FR. So I think GHWB would have scaled back anyway. Besides, he could have kept the mess going under the guise of another enemy lurking out there. After all, the world is full of combative enemies that all they do is to seek out ways to destroy the US, right? I think it's criminal not to spend twice the already 8 times that of #2 . Dudee, he did the right thing under the scrutiny and against the wishes of the paranoid nuts party, quit questioning his motives. He treid to be a faithful Republican as the people who put him there wished and keep taxes low. That was a failed idea so around teh time he enterd the Gulf War he had to raise taxes along with his spending cuts. He was a model president under the worst of circumstances: - Following an extremely popular president that is now being discovered as a spendy POS - Being an incumbent (party) and having to change policy from the previous - Having to cut the military - Having to raise taxes, albeit not that much - Enjoying a recession as gifted from the previous pres - Inheriting a bad economy - Facing a war in the ME - handling it impecably So to consider the, 'totality of the circumstances' I would give him a solid B if not an A-. More substance, less rhetoric, please.

Sure. I could argue using facts to show you where you are wrong. I could also try to drag a dead mule. I would have more success with the latter. Or you could just go and find some assertions I refuted and try to refute mine. Hey, I thought the rhetoric mess was over between us, are you gonna go back to trashing this place or can we keep it substantive?

Actually Jan 93 would be 4 years, but more importantly, he tried to change direction of fascist Ronnie. He cut the military and raised taxed slightly, so he went the other way with it. Albeit in small ways, for a Republcian he was honerable and the first since Eisenhow to not be a coward. Yea but he tried to change and did a little at the cost of his presidencey. I just disagree. Clinton and GHWB were he same president; Reagan and GWb were the same. Now that's all true. I bet if you were close to GHWB he would tell you how ashamed he is of his dipshit kid.

Well, I think Bush was held over the coals by his own for raising taxes. The ignorant American wasn't able to understand that Reagan cut taxes from: - 70% - 50% - 50% - 38% - 38% - 28% So where else could he go with them, esp in the era of the Gulf War? I think to typical dumb American blamed Bush minute tax increase, 28% - 31% and the luxury tax, etc was the demon for the bad economy, when it was the Reagan cuts over the 8 years before him. He inherited Reagan's mess and lost for it, really unfair. Love how you dislike the content, so it's now incomprehensible. Typical.

IOW, you're going to continue to use it to describe anyone that disagrees with you. Just like "liberal" in the early 90s. Seems like a continuation of other threads started by him. More accurate thread title would be "Conservative Bashing, Part IV" Or in this case, THE TRUTH from the left uncovering the BS from the right wing rags. Can you argue any of the entries I posted?

IOW, you're going to continue to use it to describe anyone that disagrees with you. Just like "liberal" in the early 90s. Actually I'm probably not, as I think it has been littered with ambiguity. Liberal hasn't chamged it's def, it has just come into fashion after 8 years of awesome growth, followed by 8 years of massive devastation from the conservative side.

I used to be a tandem instructor and my students, most of them sccared, relied on me for their lives and l let them know they have an aly in me. They all really appreciated it.

Can you say: Intentional infliction of emotional distress? Is this more than a summary judgment case? Funny: yes. Smart/prudent: No.

Agree. Pranks between these 2 guys are fine, but the DZ has a fiduciary duty to administer tandem rides as if they were taking a daughter, mother, etc. This is not a rub on the student or his prank buddy, but on the DZ and TI. Altho I do find it funny, I would never do this to anyone. With tandems, it's all fun and pranks along the way until the door opens - then it's 100% business. This is not as bad as the TI who stuck a streamer onto his student a while back, but it's not really that far off. If a student pays a DZ/TI to take him for a ride, the loyalty is to the student, not his jackass friend. As a 1st time student as we all were, we place our 100% trust in that person who we entrusted our life with.

We all know that 15 minutes after Obama took office, it was his ecconomy. Well, the turd Reagan handed GHWB was bad, not near as bad as now, but it was a couple years out of a recession, so after it tanked did people blame GHWB? I don't redcall it, I just recall GHWB getting elected under the promise of no new taxes, but never: It's your economy now. Same with Clinton, since the economy was flourishing shortly after Clinton took office, no one form the right said: It's your economy now. Why do people say this horrific mess is Obama's? That question is somewhat rhetorical, but I ask it looking for a contrast from previous presidents who have receieved a bad economy and weren't so ridiculed.

So back to the issue; aren't these RW rags just grand? I mean, why don't they at least try to be creative rather than post blatant lies as with the alleged tripling of taxes by FDR?

All true, but I think some ideals of fascism that are constant are: - Corporatism - Anti-organized labor - Some older forms would include minor totalinarianism But yea, the word has been bastardized based upon need and it appears so has neoconservatism. I imagine the side that gets called whatever term that has derrogatory connotations would tend to manufacture alternates in defense. Of course it isn't always that coreoghaphed, but it can work that way.