Lucky...

Still looks good compared with 2008. Agreed.... I'm not stating anything just giving the information. I will say now though that jumping the gun on this "recovery" is not such a good idea. There is a lot of bad still coming our way. And alot more bad being created by the government You are entitled to your opinion, but recall that the worst economic fiasco in recent history started under the Bush administration who for months were in denial that there was a problem at all. The Bush administration then initiated the costly bailouts. wrong, the housing bubble (giving loans to people that did not deserve them) was started under carter and continued under clinton and blew up while bush was in office and the democrats (and some reb's) wrote the massive spending bills the last 3 years. I guess you still have not undewrstood what has been posted the last year. I have read and understood and I don't have a degree, maybe degrees make people less smart? Cutting taxes and giving away the surplus while entering an illegitimate war that has cost >1 T, causing the Fed to keep lowering int rates had absolutley nothing to do with it. When are the trolls going to actually show me a major federal tax cut with a rainbow on the eother end? BTW, much.most of the debt increase now is due to decreased receipts, not just massive spending to bailout yet another Republican mess.

Still looks good compared with 2008. Agreed.... I'm not stating anything just giving the information. I will say now though that jumping the gun on this "recovery" is not such a good idea. There is a lot of bad still coming our way. And alot more bad being created by the government Yea, good thing we have corporations to save us.

Still looks good compared with 2008. Agreed.... I'm not stating anything just giving the information. I will say now though that jumping the gun on this "recovery" is not such a good idea. There is a lot of bad still coming our way. OK, so 2.8% instead of 3.5%. Still, -6.4% to -1.0% is great. The entire GDP recodery is amazing since Obama, regardless of the revision or not. We are not recovered, obviously, but we are waaaaay farther ahead than we normally would be.

What you're proposing is that I take it on the chin, turn and walk.....repeat an unlimited # of times. There's a dignified way to handle all of this, people who can't play well together just agree not to directly or indirectly acknowledge each other. Taht fair and equitable. As a lwyer you wouldn't let an adverse party stick it up your ass and just shrug, yet you expecct me to. That's called acquiescing.

No, you're so much more fucking brilliant than me, spell it out I just love guys like you telling us how bad it is and how we're doing everything all wrong, but when cornered they have no resolve. Oh, oh, I know, tax cuts my friends - or -Hoover's secret to who knows how many tousands, millions dead; LET THE ECONOMY FIX ITSELF, IT WILL ADJUST. A person just looks foolish decrying the issues and not having resolve. Tell me, WHAT IS YOUR SOLUTION IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE STIMULUS. After all, what else has he/congress spent money on?

What is this, the 3rd grade? I'm asking all of you. Give us a fucking break already. Your balls won't fall off if you push away from a thread. Be the bigger adult. I tried to propose we mutually walk away. If I'm the only one walking, I'm getting slammed. You want me to just take it on the chin and refuse to defend myself, I propose the adverse parties just mutually walk away and stay away, that's reasonable.

Wow. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Dude, like Andy said and I proposed, either unblock PM's or just quit addressing me; it's trashing teh forum. Do you give a fuck about others here? They don't enjoy it. Show a little respect to this place.

Not to mention Ron already posted this. Are you so out of gas that you have to post BS twice? http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3736430;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

I agree, as with Belgian, I submitted we do that, he has blocked PM's saying I was abusive to him. I submitted we quit that, I see he can't help himself and just posted some garbage again. Tell them, not me. - You fucked up, just own it, it's easier that way. - Game, set, match. Admitting your wrong, which quite obviously you are, takes a responsibility attitude. Running as you are is typical neo-conservatism. You know Obama was elcted for reasons other than race and if you don't, just read my post in the thread you ran from: 2M blacks were called out due to Obama running, that isn't the difference. You'll still carry your prejudice that Obama was eleccted due to race and then call me an idiot for being prejudiced. I've fully dispelled the notion that Obama was elected by all the blacks coming out of the woodwork. _________________ Those are the 2 PM's I sent and then he blocked. HE wants the public show, not me. I recently proposed we take this shit to PM's or let it go, he posted again and now Rons' dragging a dead issue around. I agree, TELL THEM.

When I think FOX News I think Skychimp To pretend this mess, total economic collapse on teh brink, automakers weeks away from total collapse, most banks almost BK, the mortage mess almost breaking this country, unemp climbing fast, 2 wars that are way expensive and not winning and the HC mess in the toilet and all due to the mismanagement of the ground chimp, GWB, and you blame Obama? Please, oh please keep that mindset, I need the extra Congress seats in 2010. Oh, go brag your 2009 win of what, 2 gubbernatorial seats - the RW is back . This is also sad to watch the utter denials, blame throwing and victory cries for nothing wins while losing the WH and congress huge.

Actually I haven't seen a simple mechanical spelling error of yours, just gross errors of usage and syntax; far worse. That makes neo-cons look silly as they try to distant people from teh (for your Ron) ugly truths of the RW. I see you acknowledged this: You've just been relegated to boring entertainment, even by your own who aren't so depserate they become anal-retentive spelling nannies.

SPELL NANNY WROTE: No, you stated you thought it was a RW site.... Lame attempt at a back peddle [SIC] for you. No, I have a history of pointing out when others do it. See, I still type quickly and still make several typing errors at times, so wouldn't I be a hypocrite to make spelling errors and originate petty little whining tantrums over it? I don't, but I do point out spelling nannies who do make a hobby of trying to diminish the content by looking for spelling/grammar/punctuation errors. An error in ignorance is one thing, an error here or there in spelling is normal. It's not the spelling, it's the usage, genius. You still don't understand, do you? Let me work slowly with you. It was actually spelled correctly, it's just the 2 words don't work together in your intended use and syntax-wise are just awkward. I would never hunt that out, but with spelling nannies I do. Here is the original post by me: The joke's on you, I stated it was satire Your response: No, you stated you thought it was a RW site.... Lame attempt at a back peddle for you. So to apply your new logic and defintion, I was back disseminating, right? Dude, walk away, you just look silly. Here's what you were trying to state: Backpedal - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/backpedal back·ped·al (bkpdl) intr.v. back·ped·aled or back·ped·alled, back·ped·al·ing or back·ped·al·ling, back·ped·als 1. To move the pedals of a bicycle or similar vehicle backward, especially to apply a brake. 2. To move backward by taking short quick steps, as in boxing or football. 3. To retreat or withdraw from a position or attitude: The senator later backpedaled on the issue. You were trying to say I was retreating from an issue, not disseminate backwards. You just look silly! I admitted I thought it was a RW rag, I made an early assumption w/o checking and it was incorrect, so what? So I'm not even BACK PEDDLING , I'm stating the case that I agree I thought it was a RW rag. You guys are so sick of getting your ass handed to you with GDP data, Market data and all data that you look for spelling errors and other ridiculous errors like this and play on it. Yours was not an error of spelling, as tho you fat-fingered a key by hitting the adjacent one instead/too, it was an error of syntax, an error of ignorance rather than mechanical mistake. I have never heard in English I study the use of back disseminating , it's actually just funny. Not as funny as watching your squirm tho, thx. I've posted a bad source/ref and withdrew it. See, the pathetic ignorance comes in when a person posts a bad ref, bad data and sticks with it rather than saying, 'Oh yea, bad data, let's find new and good data.' Show where I've stuck with biased or bad data. I don't care if someone posts bad data - as long as it is objectively gad and tehy agree it is, but when they want me to regard FOX, Heritage Foundation and other rags as reliable then that is the worst. Raw data that is correct is great, we can draw our own conclusions and args, but when Heritage gets it they flip a spin and want us to buy their skewed positions. Kinda like when Gawain wanted me to eat the shit sandwich that Clinton's great fiscal success was only in 1997 when congress leveraged him into tax cuts, ecp capital gains. Clinton had great success years earlier and Gawain wanted me to drink teh (error for Ron) koolaid that somehow this tax cut had a retroactive efffect. I denied I thought the Onion was a RW rag? Show it. Here's post #1: Being the Onion I can't tell for sure. Is it satire meant to be total sarcatism, but with a flair of real intent? I'm sure the Onion would say it's pure sarcasm, but they really mean it. That is a strong inferrence that I think it's a RW rag. Post #4: I think it is real and legit, but hidden behind the guise of satire. I mean after all, it is teh Onion, the rag of the RW homophobic purveyors of the proposed homophoc 28th Amendment. Of course you a nd yours support the proposed 28th, yet claim this is pure satire. SNL could pull this off as pure humor, when teh Onion does it, it has a solid foundation of it being meant. Ron, you just look silly trying to sell this shit-sandwich to us that I thought it was anything besides a RW rag. That was my errant assumption, but admitted as I posted it with no subsequent denials, yet you claim I'm denying it. It's becoming sad to watch you post things that aren't true, sad to watch you spell nanny and then make errors of syntax that don't qualify for typos, but errors of ignorance in usage. It's realy sad, Ron. Which other claims? State them. I'm not inulting you. You insulted me and then apologized, then proceded to call me stupid on 2 occassions. Drop the notion I denied I thought it was other than a RW rag as I posted and drop the spell nannying, at this piont it all becomes simple hypocrisy on your part after you made the ultimate syntax offense. Let's talk issues...... oh wait, that's the point of your continual guarantees that I denied I thought it was a RW rag and your spell nannying; you want to remove attention from your party's messes over teh years.

Uh, don't look now, you just did. And you have a history of doing it. But once again lets look at my spelling. Back... Not forward. Peddle : Informal To seek to disseminate; give out peddle [ˈpɛdəl] vb 1. (Business / Commerce) to go from place to place selling (goods, esp small articles) 2. (Law / Recreational Drugs) (tr) to sell (illegal drugs, esp narcotics) 3. (tr) to advocate (ideas) persistently or importunately to peddle a new philosophy 4. (intr) Archaic to trifle So it actually fits...... It and your rabid defense of it goes to show your inability to properly vet sources... And that from a guy that jumps all over people for their sources is hypocritical and frankly funny as hell. You did deny it. And you need to show where I stated those other claims from you.... You can't. Like normal, when you are down, you just make things up or start throwing insults. OMG, I'll be back home later, dreaming of watching you spin out of this all day. then I'll address it. I'm not quote excited enough that I'm willing to be late, but almost . Ded yew theink yew wud nevur mak speeeling erurs? You've just been relegated to boring entertainment, even by your own who aren't so depserate they become anal-retentive spelling nannies.

I have to go to work, but you continuing your laughable little spelling nannying would be akin to me denying I though the Onion was a RW rag, I did and we get on, you still continue your ridiculous rant of trying to indicate a 'fat-finger typing error of hitting an adjacent key is important to an issue. Even you fellow neo-cons aren't that desperate. And 'back peddle' should not only be 1 word, but it is bastardized. That's not a misspelling, it's a total lack of understanding. But hey, I would never point it out WITH ANYONE unless they showed a total abundance of desperation and continued to cite quicky typing errors like I make. When I first started posting I did that, I thought the quality of the proofread somehow indicated the quality of the content. I grew up a long time ago. Lawrocket makes them too, it's probbaly a sign of him being a busy guy; so what, I look at what he meant. Dude, after back peddle you look silly to continue your spell check nannying, esp since your hero, GWB couldn't even speak, let alone type/write. I'll answer the rest tonight. And just so you don't go board today, I'll give you that context/usage error with a 'b.' Enjoy it, it's still not as lame as 'back peddle.'

Glad you're happy with it. America is classist, HC is just one the many examples. I'm rubber, you're glue This is the slide to ad hominemville. I'm not saying you personally have to do a thing, I'm saying in order for more people to get HC then some people need to volunteer, whereas civilized countries don't require volunteerism for basic needs. I'm a veteran, how about you? At this point, nothing. If HC gets passed and it's descent with a public option, I will donate blood twice a year - the good stuff: O - Ok, well I didn't state, "you" so quit acting as tho I did. I believe you have given time and skill, that's great, but it defines the toilet for what it is that you would be required to do this when we are so wealthy and so wasteful with military expenditures.

No I'm not. But to say the cafeteria plan is the answer-all is ridiculous. HMO meds are BS on so many levels. True, but so were they with fascist pig Ronnie in charge. Problem is, spending was up more and tax revenues were down far more. Congress and the pres. Before you try to saythe 1997 tax cuts did any good, again, remember the tax increases that fixed the Reagan mess, as you call it the post cold war period, these happened in 1990 and 2003 when the US Congress was dem controlled. The Newt and Nazi friends cam in and tried to cut taxes, Clinton had to close the gov to stop them, but they got in a few smaller ones toward the end of the Clinton era. Yep, as a deal when the Nazis came in to control congress. See, the compasionate Nazis wanted to dissallow min wage increases, so Clinton caved on teh first to get it passed as long as tax cuts accompanied. He refused the 2nd attempt. Yes, Greasy Gingrich just wasnted tax cuts, my friends. Yes and who was in control of the WH and congress when that happened? I see you cherry-picked this and didn;t want to explain the tax cuts 1997 and how they retroactively pulled us out of fascist pig Ronny's mess: What was used to balance the budget, the tax cut in capital gains? Is that your tired way of saying tax cuts my friends creates more revenue? I think Clinton's entire fiscal plan is what balanced the budget, but I'm entertained by you cherry-picking parts of Clinton's tax policy and making assumptions. I reached into the toilet and found this: http://www.heritage.org/...rch/Taxes/wm1835.cfm This is what you're saying. So in 1997, after the economy was well within it's prosperity run, the dot.com boom was driving things as were the 1990 and 1993 tax increases paying the deficit down-surplus up, Clinton signs this rag for minimum wage increase as well as other things. It was a deal with teh devils (Republicans). See, in order for your boased, flawed argument to work, you would have to explain away the amazing fiscal reform from Reagan's mess to this tax change - WELL INTO THE CLINTON SUCCESS PERIOD. Youc an't, it was all tax increases in 1990 and 1993. Nice try tho, I was waiting for that in the many fiscal threads I wrote. While you're at it, explain GWB's tax cuts and tehir enormous success. And if you still have the energy, tell us all about fascist Ronnie and his lovely tax cuts and their resulting success. It depends uponwhere you put low income earners, but as far as Obama's promise to cut their taxes, I agree, they don't make enough/pay enough taxes for it to matter. Because I don't know the name of the plan that allows savings accounts for medical and other related items, even tho I know what cafeteria plans are, just didn't know the name - therefore I don't know anything about them? brilliant ad hominem. See, again, it really supports my position of the toilet for not being acquainted with HC terms when it's because I haven't had HC ins for years, which explains why I don't know the term for a process that I am aware of. And no you didn't, I won't be your case study, if you care to, we can use jack and build a scenario. And that's your rhetoric as well as the neo-cons. So the worst economy since the GD is the fault of the inheritor 10 months later? Brilliant - please just keep chanting that as you and yours gets your ass handed to you in 2010, 2012, etc. I bet the neo-cons were saying that a year after FDR took office. Diff is they weren't so ridiculously in denial that they still thought tax cuts were the fix-all, as Hoover raised taxes in June 32. If you saw how hard I work for BS money you would keep ridiculous statements to yourself. Yea, dance around your office pretending you're someone, exploit the underclass and call yourself a true American. Even if it's a bit tart, as long as it pisses off the neo-cons it will be worth it. Says the guy who avoided telling us how small tax cuts Clinton was leveraged into signing in 97 somehow created growth, tax revenues and reduced spending starting in the early-mid 90's. Don't worry that I referred to medical savings flex accounts as just that and not cafeteria plans - purely semantic. But that is the basis of your args.

It's called sarcasm. Of course Americans have HC, but 40ish million don't have any and probably over 100M more thyat have it have ins with such high deductables and otehr costs that they are afraid to use it. BOTTOM LINE: American HC is pathetic for all but the very few at the top, like most things American. And I don't extend it. Amazing you would defend a system that is so selective and prohobitive. BTW, you prove my point; you have to do free work because Nazimerica is so selective and prohibitive with their HC. I do thank you for that. A civilized nation would have the gov ensuring HC, not at the whims of private citizens. I don't think I'm alone.

The "rich" would be stupid to pay American workers a minimum of $15,080 a year for full-time work when they can get semi-skilled Chinese or Indian laborers for $1800 a year. Yep, and with the corporations in control, that's what happens, which is why w/o govintervention we are truly fucked. The gov is not the bad guy anymore.

I'm willing ot bet that many on the train didn't know of the Onion either way. I thought it was a RW rag and they played a skit satirizing gya or could-be gay kids. I thought they were performing satire of an issue to show how they felt behind the guise of satire as an excuse. Tell me, is that so far off to what the RW thinks? I hope you aren't straying up late wringing your fists in glee that I had really no or little knowledge of the Onion. There is life after Lucky and the Onion. You may have to consult a counselor, but I'm sure you can come to terms with all this. BTW, you just wrote, 'back peddle' for, 'backpedal.' Not only did you grossly misspell it, but you made it 2 words. Drop the ridiculousness and pretend you can address the issue. OK, now address the ellusive death squads and Obama's secret Muslim rug he throws down between media speeches I want to hear them backed by fact/data. Nor do I know what back peddle is. (hos = his quite obviously). I don't care what your views are, I think they are typical RW neo-con. Ok, let's debate issues. No, I am mostly left but am pro-gun and anti-Aff Action. Enough about you and me (and spelling/typos we all make), let's talk issues. I paraphrase them in groups. But I don't focus on it, I'd rather talk issues, but I know what to expect when I see a person's name. Why waste your time with rhetoric like this, there's a world of typos to correct. TRANSLATION: Illegalize gay marriage in leiu of civil unions to prohibit benefits to those icky people. - Yep, like free comprehensive education. Of course your party(s) don't agrree with that, so your vote goes to pevent your beliefs. - I'm for drug screening too. I'm for legalization, but I think druggies, pot smokers on up are idiots. Yep. It's unwinnable even if we had a rt to be there. Another cop-out. But, er, cut spending a WHOLE bunch and raise taxes a little. Why not do em both simultaneously? GWB and Clinton did; how'd that work out. You praise guys who do teh opposite of what you just wrote, I find little sincerity in your assertion. Me too, I think it's trash as well as many users of it, but a person should have the right to be a turd. Virtually all Libers vote R and you fucking know it. They are more compelled by their fiscal mandates than their liberally moral desires. Look at Ron Paul flip-flopping; exemplary. So I can understand (rolls eyes). I think I defined a Liberatrian in here and elsewhere as that how many years ago? How many Dems have you voted for (pres)? I'm pro-guns and anti-AA as I stated above and have stated several times. See, I'm ok with being lib, unlike you with being a conservative/Repub..... it's ok, I know it's icky to be a Republican, but it's ok. Yes and Libertarian NJ's are 3 degrees off Repub NJ's. THAT IS THE SECOND TIME YOU'VE CALLED ME STUPID SINCE YOUR GROSS PA AND SUBSEQUENT PSUDO APOLOGY; HOW MANY TIMES ARE YOU GOING TO DO THAT BEFORE BANNING? - Sources I don't like? Anything with a bias is one I don't like, left or right. - I used a satire site thinking it was a RW rag, I agree that is not admissable. Unlike the neo-cons who will argue the Heritage Foundation is credible; diff is that once it is made apparent to me that an errant ref is made I agree. Get it? - What am I not dropping? Point is you didn't make note of it either way. Hell, you, the misspeller, corrects misspellings of, well, I guess only me, I haven't seen otherwise - perhaps you are spell-nanny to others as well. But you are quick to jump some - not all; that's my point. Really? Read much? Post 19 on Nov 15 I wrote: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=3728265;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25; It appears you're right http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Onion The Onion taken seriously - Upon occasion, the straight-faced manner in which The Onion reports non-existent happenings has resulted in outside parties mistakenly citing Onion stories as real news. I've seen people cite the Onion here before too, their humor is so typical of what radical media would state that it's very well disguised satire. You don't know what you're talking about, but you're good for spell-checking, that is, as a fellow misspeller that you are. No, your spell-check nannying is off the irony charts. Are you defending yourself, or is this just another..... back peddle [SIC]?

It appears you're right http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Onion The Onion taken seriously - Upon occasion, the straight-faced manner in which The Onion reports non-existent happenings has resulted in outside parties mistakenly citing Onion stories as real news. I've seen people cite the Onion here before too, their humor is so typical of what radical media would state that it's very well disguised satire. So, in an effort to legitimize the Onion, you cite Wikipedia?? Of course Wikipedia supports your claim, so you are actually stepping on your own dick here.

Ohhh, I think I'll be a **** and correct spelling. (backpedal) Trust me, I don't care. I'm not so desperate to strawman the argument like some. I briefed the site and it appeared to be RW, so what? All the RW kooks here who think Obama is a Muslim terrorist and there are death squads as provided in the HC Bill. And I'm crucified? Check yourselves. I don't deny that, see if you can get on with your life with that knowledge. I mean, you have all those death squads to hunt down and while you're at it, see if you can find the real killers of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. No, Want to see facts and data, I don't care about which people feel which way. I'll get right on it. Don't act as tho I don't post enough here. I mean Jebus, I don't avoid shit. BTW, look at my posting style vs yours or just about anyone's and notice how I address all statements within a post? Yea, perhaps save the post-didging BS for another world. Why do you cherry-pick posts? I don't and I don't avoid posts.

That's what I said. How about a little of each. It seems regimes only work in 1 mode. The paranoia used to be of the ellusive gov, since fascist pig Ronnie it's the corporate monster. Yes, normal within the bastard we call the USA. Using a world scale it is not normal, even in some 3rd world countries.

Ron.. did Lucky math rub off on you United States 77.1 < than all the others you list How is my math incorrect?

Well I'm an American and I have great health care. It is affordable, the quality is very good and I have not had any claims or services denied. I'm glad I don't live in your America. Where is this America with HC that you speak of? Oh, you live on that side of the tracks. Well, so long as you have HC and all is fine, I say you continue to thumb your nose at those who don't and tell em to fuck off.

Other than to scrap the entire program and let the elderly rot, what is your solution? No solution, welcome to socialism .