Lucky...

Hmmm...one wonders why you'd be so offended Dude...you were in such a hurry to do some right-bashing that you either didn't notice it was the Onion or didn't care. Either way...you came off looking foolish and the more you try to defend yourself the worse it gets. I guess that's what bothers me about your ILK, as Jeannie puts it. Even the most simple error on your part just can't be admitted. I didn't know what the Onion was about and I don't care what a bunch of neo-cons who can't extrapolate GDP and other relevant data think. Is it fun to hammer neo-cons? Yes. Are there abundant avenues by which to slam them? Yes. This is why you take something like me not knowing what the onion is and making an issue of it; what else are you going to do, defend your party's illegitimacy and corrupt fiscal policies? It's called a strawman, used to distract from the main issue. I've admitted several times that I didn't check what the Onion was. Look, I was listening to Limbaugh and Hannity as aco-worker listens to it and I don't object. SO after hearing the garbage from that radio show, nothing surprises me. I thought the Onion was a RW rag and made a satirical skit not meaning it, but really meaning it. I think I've stated that several times.

Dude, it's old and tired. This amounts to masturbation, unless another neo-con jumps in, then it's group masturbation.

That's what Belushi said in Animal House

I see you inherited Tommyfitz's 'spin' regurgitation; do you guys dress alike too? I could run this back at you and continue it, but I really like honest discourse with data, to prove it I suggest we quit trashing the forum with our petty bickering, I think everyone would be on-board for that; your call.

Does anyone give you any credibility? I mean, trying to come into a man's profession and tell him how it works is just so Belgian_Draft of you. Even your own clones back off that.

So, senior citizens should expect that the Republicans are going to support the full restoration of the Medicare program that they enjoy. Right? No, I truly wish that were possible, I really do.. Republicans would literally pee their pants in excitement, getting to take advantage of this once in a lifetime opportunity to restore seniors' healthcare, and consequently move large numbers of seniors into the heart of the Republican Party. But the money required to do so simply will not be there. Why? The health care legislation requires massive new spending to provide medical coverage for many of the thirty five million people who can't afford medical coverage today. The largest source of this "new" money, is the $600B to be cut from Medicare. Unfortunately, by the time we are able to really see the disaster it will cause in Medicare, the money will have already been spent on other groups. What then? How will we recover from that? OK, I will lean back and await your next claim that those on the right who disagree with you are all lying scums who just don't know what is going on. Surely you can do better than that, and discuss/debate the issues instead of slamming the people. Right, I see, you're not a Republican but a Libertarian/Indep and your beliefs mirror that of Republicans. Your little switcheroo fools no one, we all know you want the Repubs to becoem more maggoted and this little temper tantrum of switching out is yoru way of telling them. Tell me, who did you vote for last Nov? I don't expect the truth, we all know it was McCain.

Nice job, keep it up - you're doing well as of teh last 2 elections I didn't know that, yoru previosu statement must be wrong if you know that. Oh well, your hero's part is interchangeable; Repub...Libertaoran...same thing. I'm sure he'll come back. You are aware enough about politics to know he's posturing that the R's aren't maggotted enough, right? And by switching to Liber or Indep he's saying that. He's an idiot for trying to pull the party further away and I appreciate it. Why, my best advertisement is you and your party for, uh, disenfranchising us . Please keep it up, it's going well. Back to the original statement: MSM to the Dems is not Hannity to the R's - not even close. MSM would be FOX, Hannity would be Moveon.org

The truly sad thing is that this is satire where the following is real: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0D4uAW_3Gjg See how neo-cons roll; jab at the funny, ignore the truly scary. Here's one that could be true: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fws4RxWtnOg&feature=fvw Have fun.

And what % of that debt was incurred under an R president? Right, jokes on you and yours. Mr. Lucky, I wish to inform you that the SNL skit in the link is completely satire and is not to be taken seriously in any way, shape or form. I am sorry if you were again confused by the difference between reality and satire. In the future it may be wise to make a valid attempt to differentiate between the two before posting. It may prevent you from making an ass of yourself....again. Sincerely, Belgian p.s. The use of the word "differentiate" in this context has nothing to do with mathematics so do not become alarmed. He must have thought it was a serious site like the Onion. Amazon doesn't seem to have a sense of humor either. I fully support your right to belong to the Larry Craig Wing of your party.... not that there is anything wrong with that They're admiring sature which infers gay sex between men......not that there's anything wrong with that. They are being influenced by the Evil Banana's http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJ2r49WKQ5Y http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJ2r49WKQ5Y Some kind of man-to-man falice loving going on

Here we go again. Would you please point out where I ever made that claim? I never did and, in fact, stated I wasn't an expert in aircraft structure. But I still know more about them than you. Like when you asked me the absolutely general question of where dry ice is used in aircraft. A ridiculously general question. Then I told you ice box rivets and explained them to you - I even gave them the name of icebox rivets. Then instead of saying, yep, you proceded to parrot me, explaning how they work. Again, you're a lttle boy in my field, I would never pretend to have a clue in yours, but you insist to have one in mine. I've worked on acft for 25-30 years, 30 counting small accumulative breaks and you think you can waltz in and own what I do? Hillarious; even your neo-conners won't touch that with you. I just got thru doing a total set of mods to a 182; leading edge cuffs, tips, VG's, etc. BTW, I'm suuuuuure you knew this, but .020 and .025 are far more difficult to work with than .050 and up. As I said, I will post pics of that and the Chieftain belly-in I reskinned. And your alleged accomplishments? A kit you ALLEGEDLY built from plans; do you think anyone buys it? I've got a Snap-on KR1000 toolbox that weighs 2000 lbs full of acft tools. How bout you, a home depot drill bit case with 30 bits in it . I answered your questions, you ran from mine: 20 questions is over - ring a bell? Let's see your acft skill level at the most basic of measurements. WHat is the standard by which US aircraft drill bits are sized? You can probably get this or someone can PM you. Then we will try this again, unless you're scared.

And what % of that debt was incurred under an R president? Right, jokes on you and yours. Mr. Lucky, I wish to inform you that the SNL skit in the link is completely satire and is not to be taken seriously in any way, shape or form. I am sorry if you were again confused by the difference between reality and satire. In the future it may be wise to make a valid attempt to differentiate between the two before posting. It may prevent you from making an ass of yourself....again. Sincerely, Belgian p.s. The use of the word "differentiate" in this context has nothing to do with mathematics so do not become alarmed. Mr BD, let me inorm you that PH wasn't bombed in 1945, but 1942. Please try not to tell us the 1 key and the 5 key are next to each other. If yopu were better at covering your catshit, you would have said you used teh number pad to the right of the letters, but you haven't asserted that so we know you used the numbers up top. Stawman-spin-strawman-spin. So what was the date the Japanese attacked Pearl in 1942. I see your 1 to 5 was a typo per you and my 1 to 2 wasn't. Riiiiiiiiight. Good thing for your neo-con brothers or you never would have found that. As I said, look at my sig and tell me which you are. I stated 1942 when refering to the unemp #'s, as Dec 7, 1941 is 1942 for all intents unless a person is anal, then it's 1941 and 11/12th. I then wrote teh war officially started/ declared on Dec 8, 1942. With that, declaration was Dec 8, 1941, so that is an obvious typo. The 1 and the 2 are neighbors, not the 1 and 5. But to patronize you to make these args petty is really my fault, if you're wrong, you take a general statement and start picking it apart. I guess that deters from your Republcian Party, er, you voted Obama but don't like him, er, but everything you stand for is conservatism, er.....ugh, I give up - me thinks you here to lie and play.

Fixed it for ya. In the US it's a luxury. Well thanks But I like it better the other way. It's not a matter of semantics. The thing about basic human rights is that THEY EXIST regardless. They are "inalienable". This SHOULD BE self evident. In the U.S. basic health care is a luxury because the government is abridging this right to basic health care by allowing predators (mainly the useless insurance companies) to put themselves in the middle and extort huge sums of money from everyone. In this system, only the rich can afford to live. Couldn't agree more; under teh guise of freedom and liberty.

Sure, that's my point: Case law, AKA the living Constitution. My cite, Katz v Ohio: People have privacy not places alos brings in privacy. My point was the original rag didn't have that and was therefore incomplete. Furthrmore, we were in slavery at the time as well as womenhad no rights. Hell, coidified antimiscegenation was still almost 100 years away.

And what % of that debt was incurred under an R president? Right, jokes on you and yours. Mr. Lucky, I wish to inform you that the SNL skit in the link is completely satire and is not to be taken seriously in any way, shape or form. I am sorry if you were again confused by the difference between reality and satire. In the future it may be wise to make a valid attempt to differentiate between the two before posting. It may prevent you from making an ass of yourself....again. Sincerely, Belgian p.s. The use of the word "differentiate" in this context has nothing to do with mathematics so do not become alarmed. He must have thought it was a serious site like the Onion. Amazon doesn't seem to have a sense of humor either. I fully support your right to belong to the Larry Craig Wing of your party.... not that there is anything wrong with that They're admiring sature which infers gay sex between men......not that there's anything wrong with that.

And what % of that debt was incurred under an R president? Right, jokes on you and yours. Mr. Lucky, I wish to inform you that the SNL skit in the link is completely satire and is not to be taken seriously in any way, shape or form. I am sorry if you were again confused by the difference between reality and satire. In the future it may be wise to make a valid attempt to differentiate between the two before posting. It may prevent you from making an ass of yourself....again. Sincerely, Belgian p.s. The use of the word "differentiate" in this context has nothing to do with mathematics so do not become alarmed. He must have thought it was a serious site like the Onion. Amazon doesn't seem to have a sense of humor either. Which one are you in here? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/15/snl-republican-meeting-mo_n_167036.html

And what % of that debt was incurred under an R president? Right, jokes on you and yours. Mr. Lucky, I wish to inform you that the SNL skit in the link is completely satire and is not to be taken seriously in any way, shape or form. I am sorry if you were again confused by the difference between reality and satire. In the future it may be wise to make a valid attempt to differentiate between the two before posting. It may prevent you from making an ass of yourself....again. Sincerely, Belgian p.s. The use of the word "differentiate" in this context has nothing to do with mathematics so do not become alarmed. LMAO - Yo may have a future at SNL . . . that was great. As soon as he's done pretending to understand acft construction. After all, he has a PP license and 60 hrs, so he's a seasoned veteran of acft structure. just ask him

And what % of that debt was incurred under an R president? Right, jokes on you and yours. Mr. Lucky, I wish to inform you that the SNL skit in the link is completely satire and is not to be taken seriously in any way, shape or form. I am sorry if you were again confused by the difference between reality and satire. In the future it may be wise to make a valid attempt to differentiate between the two before posting. It may prevent you from making an ass of yourself....again. Sincerely, Belgian p.s. The use of the word "differentiate" in this context has nothing to do with mathematics so do not become alarmed. Mr BD, let me inorm you that PH wasn't bombed in 1945, but 1942. Please try not to tell us the 1 key and the 5 key are next to each other. If yopu were better at covering your catshit, you would have said you used teh number pad to the right of the letters, but you haven't asserted that so we know you used the numbers up top.

And what % of that debt was incurred under an R president? Right, jokes on you and yours. Holy Out Of Context Batman! You can NOT leave your adgenda alone and enjoy a little humor can you? Wow. The purpose of timmyfitz's posting of this was to say look at Obama and the debt. I'm here to say, 'look at Obama have to fix the mess your guys left.' Pretend that wasn't teh purpose of this thread - I'm ok with it.

And what % of that debt was incurred under an R president? Right, jokes on you and yours.

You're right, drop the military, close teh schools, stop fixing the roads and close the airports and schools; we will have your version of nirvana. Or perhaps we can privatize them, they seem to work real well that way. What? No one is bound to it. It's called an option for that reason. If you are rich, keep paying for your own if you wish. If you have employer-paid coverage and youylike it; keep it. YOUR EXEMPTION STSTEMENT MAKES NO SENSE, THERE IS NO COMPULSORY PARTICIPATION FOR ANYONE. Quit listening to Limbaugh so much

4th Amendment for privacy. Come on, what's so hard about posting what you're replying to? Pure ambiguity. I guess you're saying that the word, "privacy" is found in the 4th Amendment. This is my point, the 4th should have the word privacy in it, but it does not. No where in the Const, preamble or articles is teh word, "privacy." But I do appreciate you making my point, the living Const has it all over the place, as the original rag wasn't correct/valid enough to state it.

Post 100 is yours. In the real world it is thought of as honest to quote a person's own words, not some bastardization of that person's words in your misquoted terms. BTW, this is obvioulsy over your head, so what I mean is that you have to quote a person's entire statement to get context, an elementay concept in the legal world, the litterary world, etc. And guys like you denounce Wikipedia that has a bibliography and partial quote away. No, I posted this. I realize that sitting on your tractor you don't get big-city educcation, but the way it works is this: I think it is real and legit, but hidden behind the guise of satire. And to post it as a partial takes it out of context and is basically doishonest. But if you must do so you post it like this: I think it is real and legit, ..." That shows you omitted words that might change the meaning. Again, please finish plowing the fields, but that is your English lesson for today. I didn't research the Onion, which is why I posted the inquiry. But as you see, neo-cons won't talk the unprecidented GDP turnaround now or with Hoover's tripling of the tax rate in 32, followed by more of the same under FDR. No, they want to talk rhetoric and leave the tough stuff alone. Furthermore, see how the neo-cons stick together? Yea, ever see Kallend, Quade, Bill or other more liberal people swarm to each other? Nah. Watch that SNL skit I posted, here it is in case you can't find it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/15/snl-republican-meeting-mo_n_167036.html You'll better be able to understand yourselves. Spin, spin, spin. I see you don't want to address your dishonesty in mis-quoting.

Sure I do, I'm the one posting data and other source, weighing it out and if it doesn't meet musterI agree. Many R posters refuse to cite source on the rare occassion they even post data. Show examples. The 2 you posted don't measure to this. How is that walking past the issue? You example here when Mike says: Or, maybe people are tired of answering your loaded questions, then having to answer them again (and again and again) when you rephrase it to try and 'win' your point? You're citing a guy who says: - I got my source from the same place as yours, then refuses to cite his source. - Posts nominal GDP data, something that really isn't used by in the abstract and then acts surprised when you straighten him out. - Constantly runs from data Nice source and point I agree that she is a very substantive poster, but she kinda stepped in it here: LUCKY: right wing. Right wingers live on this deterrence theory. It might seem logical that it works, but we're talking about maniacal people with issues when we look at DP deterrence. And we're talking about this deterrence theory working against rogue associations as in the in the ME, peopel who do not care about consequence. Youhave to be dealing with peopel that care about consequence before deterrence can even start to become a factor, yet RWers will swear by it. MARG: Thanks for the clarification ... altho' oh my ... as a proponent of deterrence theory, by that explanation I'm a right winger. 'Old-school' deterrence theory (DT) in international relations (IR) -- as opposed to criminal justice -- did work on the rational actor model, i.e., the aggressor state is expected to behave rationally and consider consequence. There are folks who still argue that, e.g., Martha Crenshaw/Stanford (& she's not affiliated with Hoover Inst either). Much of more recent DT recognizes strategic culture (e.g., the work of Jack Snyder/RAND & Jeannie Johnson/Utah), norms (Richard price/Univ British Columbia), and a whole lot of other stuff. /Marg LUCKY: Terrific, so you're saying the deterrence model is going to work on Al Qaeda? I wrote: And we're talking about this deterrence theory working against rogue associations as in the in the ME, peopel who do not care about consequence. So again, you declare it does work? The results just don't pan out. Let's examine the Rational Actor Model: Rational actor model The rational actor model is based on rational choice theory. The model adopts the state as the primary unit of analysis, and inter-state relations (or international relations) as the context for analysis. The state is seen as a monolithic unitary actor, capable of making rational decisions based on preference ranking and value maximisation. According to the rational actor model, a rational decision making process is used by a state. This process includes: Goal setting and ranking. Consideration of options. Assessment of consequences. Value-maximisation. The rational actor model has been subject to criticism. The model tends to neglect a range of political variables, of which Michael Clarke includes: "political decisions, non-political decisions, bureaucratic procedures, continuations of previous policy, and sheer accident." Yea, so Al Quadea falls into this how? We're all real impressed with your 'name dropping' and are completely impressed, but it just doesn't work in this case. Hell, many ME countries you cannot apply this to, rogue groups as I mentioned you definatelt cannot. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - -- -- - - -- - - So I made my point, said she was name-dropping, and now I'm crucified for that. What you're doing is kinda being a groupie. IOW's, if Marg said, I;m good with it, don't doubt her. I think she is highly intelligent, but so was a PhD student who was my professor, he would say, "When you get a JD and PhD then you can talk at my level." He wouldn't run that shit by me, but I saw him say that to other people. I would say that you have to prove your points every time, regardless of your paper. I still feel that way, obviously you do not, you're saying, 'how dare you doubt the words of Marg-the-great.' Every issue stands on it own, regardless of the author or arguer(s). Apparently not in your world. And people like you argue the person rather than the issue(s). And your style of mob-mentality is also common. I mean, it's Marg-the-Great, how can she be wrong, even w/o reading the actual issue. This is the best example of an ad hominem I've seen. How about a challenge in logic? Go address the Marg issue on yoru own. As far as the petty fighting between Mike and me, we're talking about a guy that posts wild BS and refuses to cite source, so don't waste your time. Mike is patently dishonest in his approach, Marg is very honest and empirical. Go look at the Marg post in question, how was I the way you claim? We were both very empirical, which are teh arguments I like. Args with guys like Beligian end up in heim getting his ass handed to him and then he dissects to the .000001% and tries to claim some technicality. I don't enjoy those, but I can't acquiesce. Finally, if you can't see yet, these internet clubs are 1 big popularity contest. For example, if Bill was just another poster with his liberal opinions, he would draw scorn and PA's. If I were a greenie, I would not. That's just 1 example of many, so juts take these with a grain of salt and quit with your ad hominems and post empirical args.

That's the brightest thing you've written yet. I would love to take that as a compliment but coming from someone who a) Can't tell a satirical news site from one presenting real news and b) Won't admit he was fooled when confronted by the facts, your comment really doesn't mean much. I think you should take it as a compliment. Now go build me a trailer

' And they have the right to pursue the Iraq War, but not at my expense. They did and that's teh way it goes - don't like it; leave. Sound familiar?