Lucky...

Sorry, I apologize to Lucky. I got carried away No prob man, just tell me how I can punch a clock to get paid for all this, I'll even fix the typos

I do know the diff, rememeber, I posted the slang fro these lovely methods. All BC are based upon probabilities and these success rates are the lowest: - Coitus interuptus - Timing the period - Titty fucking - Titty sucking The highest are condom and pill. So as I said, we call your method-users parents, then due to your boy, Hoover an his, "TAX CUTS MY FRIENDS" ideals, they have kids and the kids have a great rate of mortality. But enough running from the issues, answer the ?'s. Hell, I played your game of questions, now you don't play mine there or here after I demonstrated your virtual total lack of acft mech knowledge. Tisk-tisk, tell us why Hoover's GD escape sucked balls. 1) Do you have any evidence of that? 2) Cheap, we're talking about millions of people digging thru garbage cans for food and others above them using every clothing item and just everything to it's bitted end use, so I think it likely they use your methods of birth control from your page than buy rubbers. But enough running from the issues, answer the ?'s. Hell, I played your game of questions, now you don't play mine there or here after I demonstrated your virtual total lack of acft mech knowledge. Tisk-tisk, tell us why Hoover's GD escape sucked balls. And I have said it is probably moe like 7 million, possibly lower. I will probably go to the local univ and research some peer reviewed journals if tehy have any that cover the issue. You did make the assertion that Hoover's handling of the GD sucked balls, I'm asking for clarification. You won't give any because his handling was to cut taxes and let the market fix itself and there's no way you can squirm out of that. I've already and immediately admitted my source was bad, so to argue it further is moot. And since XXXXX dead GD era people were based largely upon the gov handling of aid, you made a related assertion, it is fair game too. This reminds me of when you threw questions at me, I handed you your ass, I asked you questions and you refused to answer any more as you started looking silly. But enough running from the issues, answer the ?'s. Hell, I played your game of questions, now you don't play mine there or here after I demonstrated your virtual total lack of acft mech knowledge. Tisk-tisk, tell us why Hoover's GD escape sucked balls. Hoover's handkling of the GD sucked balls, in total, why? What should he have done? Wjhat effect of taxes played a role? What, in total did he do? It was your claim, support it with your external source. It wasn't a guesstimate, it was a quick and probably falacious search. I think thr truth is that even on a bad day, the number is at least 1 million if you count infant mortality, suicide increases, malnutrition leading to starvation or to suppressed immune systems and death, etc. So tell me, I will hypothetically revise it to 1/12 of my claim glady, as we have no real way of knowing; there was no tracking of the depression-caused deaths, so let's ask it again: How were Hoover's policies that sucked balls responsible for at the very least, 1 million deaths?

Your point is that Utah, Breitbart CNN Money and some folks at the WSJ deem the NBER to be the official arbiter of recessions. I cannot counter that they think it. I can counter the underlying assumption. But you are asking me to prove a negative, such as producing an "official" source stating the NBER is not the official arbiter. You'd have similar luck finding an official source saying that I am NOT the official arbiter of whether the strategy in Afghanistan is correct. GDP wise, thsi chart shows that the economy had turned down by mid-2007, only 1 Q opposes the downward hit; 2nd Q of 2008. See teh constant downward turn from 3rd Q 2007? http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/gdp.htm And look at teh 5-year on the market DJIA from mid 2007 - it flattens and soon turns down in subsequesnt years. http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/gdp.htm Unemp starts to mount in mid 2008 - jobs usually lag a year. http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?series_id=LNS14000000 Officially the recession is a different animal, many economists have been abandoning that antequated practice of defining a recession by 2 consecutive Q's of the GDP and looking at all real indicators. I see that the recession logically started in mid-late 2007 by teh indicators; can you argue that by using the data?

See, this is why I spend time here; I am forced to learn by inquisitive people. The very thing I'm refering to with the gov manufacturing things was found in the GD era as part of the New Deal is the NRA, National Recovery Administration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Recovery_Administration It was est in 1933 and ater struck as unconst under the separation of powers under the United States Constitution. It was later reinserted as the National Labor Relations Act (Wagner Act). So FDR did what he had to to get people back to work. You guys hate presidents like FDR and maybe Eisenhower, as he left taxes reallly high, but the schoolars love these guys and have worked them to the top in teh lost of best presidents, guys like Reagan started high, is down to 12 now, and falling. Hoover and GWB are like 7th from the end, Clinton is working his way up as we see what debt does to us and which presidents pander to the rich. That seems to be the criteria; pander to the rich and find the bottom; work for the people and climb up.

Yea, but you're not in charge - welcome to your opinion, but the gov is lots more than that and should be.

Ok, but ur kinda dodging me here. Many people can't help themselves. This is what Hoover said in regard to the great depression, volunteerism, bla, bla,.... And I don't think it's a responsibility of the gov to spend 8 times that of #2 military spending wise, many R's are ok with it. It is a job of gove to ensure basic safety and security of the people.

Eitehr show me the roadmap between HC and your pocket or quit the rhetoric. just so we're straight... you seriously believe that taxes won't be raised to pay for the HC program, or as a result of it's cost. Is that about right then? 1) In the bill has provisions for essentially millionaires to be taxed, esp for cadillas HC poicies. That's very obscure. 2) Under Obama taxes will raise even if the HC bill dies in teh senate and is never vrought up again. So it isn't the HC that will raise taxes, it's that Obama guy and the D congress. Same with Clinton, HC failed to even get written, yet taxes rose - saem, here. Will your taxes increase due top the HC bill if it passes? No way. Did your taxes raise as a result of the Iraq War 1 trillion dollars later?

Are you kidding me? Have you read all 2000 pages? I didn't think so. Whatever the outcome, youyr party didn't want to propose a fix, so here it is. The R electorate passed McCain by and chose a war coward and his VP thug; quit acting as if there isn't blame to spread and virtually all the debt was incurred under an R. What party you talkin bout Willis? I'm not down with the GOP.... Libertarians are even worse when it comes to welfare; they just don't care and ignore it. So the Libertarians didn't propose anything I read, or was it to let the church fix everything as they always sing?

Maybe not here, but the R's did fight the child HC Bill. I'm sure you're aware.

Eitehr show me the roadmap between HC and your pocket or quit the rhetoric. Right, and that was before Clinton's Workfare. So what, deal with the 25%, bit don't act as tho ALL welfare recipients are ALWAYS sucking it down; it's actually a small minority.

The the Speaker of the House is the 3rd person in line of succession and isn't necessarily tied to the party of either of the first two. As much as we should be saving money, it's a position that needs to have access to private travel. Commercial flights are simply not secure enough when you consider the information and importance of the job. This is what she deserves, and its private. http://www.baseops.net/militarypilot/t6.html A bitch on a long trip, but GD it, gimme that turbine T-6. That is sweet.

Yeah, but its ok for Princess Pelousi to jet back and forth every few days in a 757? Come on, she should be flying Southwest Airlines. This is off the point, BUT I TOTALLY AGREE THAT EVERYONE BUT THE PRES AND VP S/B FLYING COMMERCIAL IN EVERY ADMIN. The point that I made was that the Limbaughs would chide Obama for the money as well if he caravaned out there for the ceremnoy. Not only a photo-op, but an expensive one at that; we're paying for the president's low ratings inmore ways than one...... And you guys eat it up. No, the people of New York were eating it up that day. I suspect several went home for a change of underwear. Which people of NY? The Tea partiers? WHom?

The the Speaker of the House is the 3rd person in line of succession and isn't necessarily tied to the party of either of the first two. As much as we should be saving money, it's a position that needs to have access to private travel. Commercial flights are simply not secure enough when you consider the information and importance of the job. I am aware of their ranking behind the Pres and VP, and you have a point. They should find the line somewhere and draw it; all others fly cattlecar . So perhaps ur right, S ot House is up there. But a lot of Congress needs to be more fiscally tight.

If I can get it to open. I'll keep trying, but if not, maybe you can post it on photobucket for us. Their best ability to gather historical fact. Most data wasn't complied until after WWII, as with GDP and other primary data. The GDP data we have now pre-WWII is an after-thought compilation. So I can't wait to read it. Actually they weren't an agenda site. Oh nice, now let's not let you run too far from the issue, but your website's methods for contraceptioon: - withdrawal, - fertility awareness (also known as the Rhythm Method), - outercourse, and - continuous breastfeeding So let's see, we have in plain terms, respectively: - Coitus interuptus - Timing the period - Titty fucking - Titty sucking That's rich. You know what they call people who use these methods? PARENTS! So YOUR GUESS is that the depression-era poor practiced pull out and squirt and that justifies the drop between 7 and 11 million in the 30's: NICE TRY. You have only refuted mine with your guesses. It's absurd to think that on teh ridiculously low side that just 1M people died as a result of the GD, including infants, so I see teh R's haven't changed, hence that's why they started calling them neo-cons in the early 20's; tehy went from being the best party around that saved the country, full of compassion, to being greedy, selfish, bah humbugers that were willing to trade lives for money. They did it then, they did it then, they are willing to do it now. Hear about the R fighting HC for kids? They refused to help kids in the GD too; TAX CUTS, MY FRIENDS. What a fucking party See, you intentionally fail to throw out anumber of dead as a result of teh GD because then the sequential line of ?'s start: - So Hoover dicked it up? - Well Hoover cut taxes? - Hoover turned away the Bonus Army and had their Hoovervilles burned down and WWI soldiers beaten. - Then after almost 3 years of this, Hoover finally raised taxes to 63%, virtually trippling them. - Shortly thereafter the healing started. So you refuse to walk down that path of the fact that even just 1 Million died as a result of, sing it along with me folks......T A X C U T S M Y F R I E N D S. Come on, show us your guts, TELL US WHY HOOVER'S HANDLING OF THE GD "SUCKED BALLS." I mean your right, but I want to hear why in your version.

Yeah, but its ok for Princess Pelousi to jet back and forth every few days in a 757? Come on, she should be flying Southwest Airlines. This is off the point, BUT I TOTALLY AGREE THAT EVERYONE BUT THE PRES AND VP S/B FLYING COMMERCIAL IN EVERY ADMIN. The point that I made was that the Limbaughs would chide Obama for the money as well if he caravaned out there for the ceremnoy. Not only a photo-op, but an expensive one at that; we're paying for the president's low ratings inmore ways than one...... And you guys eat it up.

Also, let's face it, the veiled message here is that tax cuts kill people in a horrid economy, tax increases bring things together and save lives; that's where this is going and you're trying to mitigate the number of GD deaths attributable to Hoover's tax cuts. So let's just clear the air since that's where this is going and that's why you have faield to touch the other post I just entered; I will repost it. Failure to touch it and answer it comprehensively will illustrate to everyone that you are out of gas and running. So please, you made teh assertion that Hoover's recovery "sucked balls." tells us why. ____________________ Well it is what I'm faulting and referencing, it is highly relevant to what we're talking about. Tell me about Hoover's reaction to teh GD: - What did he do that sucked balls? - What should he have doen? - What did he do that led to the XX # of deaths? - Where do you place the number of deaths caused by the GD? I posted that 12million had died, I provided a link where I did a quick search, I agree with you that it isn't a reliable site, altjo the data *might* be correct and may very well not be correct. But I did provide a link, not saying that it is accurate. Well how about this, as the GD was rolling, there wereradical dust storms in the midwest and drought. So the gov could have worked irrigation projects and I'm sure construction equip could be needed to accomplish those, so open and run those factories. This is what I'm talking about. Find the need and supply it with out of work people, 25% were by the time FDR took office. The Hoover Dam 1930-1936 was one such project, but it was alos fraught with horrid conditions and when the workers struck in protest of deadly working conditions the contractor brought in strike-busters with clubs and guns, so it wasn't all so peachy either. The gov should ha ve run it directly than subcontracted it. If the private sector wants to profit too much and monopolize it, HC, etc, etc, etc, then the gov can bring it back around. If it is a deal like a major project, the gov can handle it unless a private contractor is cheaper. I don't think an attiitude that prescribes we let the gov do everything or that we let the private sector do everything is healthy. Most people seem to not be able to find a middle and are the problem. Then these people have kids and they procreate, etc, etc, etc.....

To where the wealth is distributed so the top guy is a multi-millionaire and the turds are begging for HC.

Tell me where I can apply for a job like that, I spend way too much time on here for free . Also, do tehy have HC benefits? Or is that still in the works.

Wikipedia is usually pretty accurate, but the Wiki site I initially posted was Wiki answers and I agreed a while back that was an unreliable source, so I did alot of other research, quit beating a dead horse. Now don't go on a rave as to the reliability of Wikipedia vs Wiki answers vs anything else, this is teh 2nd time I have agreed that it was a bad ref, so I spent a lot of time researching the truth; let's focus on that. I'll try again. And it's their opinion, not gospel unseen, but it certainly is worthy of review being a U of Arizona-based report. So tell me, how do they justify the fact that during that decade there were 7 million fewer people added than there were in the 30's, and there were 11 million more added the following decade. IOW's - 1920's 15M more people - 1930's 8m more people - 1940's 17M more people How is that explained if the mortality rate isn't that much higher? I think the data from that era is shaky at best, I don't think census data was even taken then - correct me if I'm wrong. Could it be that infant mortality was actually way higher than the U of A document stated? Again, was it even tracked? I agree, infant mortality could be most of the loss, what makes them believe that it was minimal? If they couldn't afford to have large families, could they afford whatever birth control was available? Did they just not fuck? Me thinks not, I would like to see support for you assertion, as it is obviously a guess on your part. Famine, disease, malnutrition and then a common cold can lead to death quickly, not to mention a steep increase in suicide which is documented. I don't think any of us can fathom what it was like back then, so to minimize it by saying there were no deaths attributable to the GD is so errant, a person from that era, if still alive, would be insulted and entertained by it. And if you delve into a post, pick some of it apart and ignore the rest, that's called acquiescence, as in you have agreed to it by not objecting. So you have in fact agreed to all that you have not objeccted to. You won't see it that way, but if you let it stand, you fail to reject it, it is considered undisputed. Here's what you failed to reject or even respond to: This citation states 7 mill died of humger, I'm sure the other 5 mill is based upon lacking medical care, suicide, etc. http://aotearoaawiderperspective.wordpress.com/...ce-great-depression/ Here's where I got the number too: http://www.infowars.com/...ng-great-depression/ The researcher touched upon quite a hot topic in the article – the estimation of the number of victims of the Great Depression in the USA. The material presented in the article apparently made Wikipedia’s moderators delete the piece from the database of the online encyclopedia. http://www.cherada.com/...reat-depression-time Voluntary defenders of U.S. values who venture to discuss the matter with me, normally begin with a statement that those people were simply not born. However, if we take the age pyramid and distribute the people according to their dates of birth, it becomes apparent that 5.5 million children and two million grown-ups are missing from the 7.5 million. So, those two million people could not have been non-existent ? as they had been born. They could only die. So I dunno, I think no one really knows, they just use inferrential data like the census. Also, fertility rates dropped significantly, so some may count the lives that would have been. I'm glad you asked and I spent all morning researching, I think I'll revise that to 7 million, that seems like a safe and fair number. It's not relevant tho, 2 million, 7 million, 12 million; it really doesn't matter, it could have been avoided if the gov/Hoover would have considered the economic mess as significant. Anyway, then Hoover realized how bad he fucked up and raised taxes in June 1932 with the Revenue Act of 1932: http://en.wikipedia.org/.../Revenue_Act_of_1932 The, uh, market then fixed itself after intervention, not by voodoo. Oh I did, we agree that my initial thought of 12 million might be high, probbaly is, my quick research then was likely not valid. So since then I have done extensive reseach and found several more pieces of data, so now you have to attack it which you have not. Also, what is your theory as to the number of people that died as a result of the GD?

NICE PERSONAL ATTACK.

As much as GWB was with Hilter; why didn't GWB go visit the Bumker site, now burried, when he was in office - using that logic?

Or would they tally the cost of a trip there at 2,3, or 6 million dollars; take your pick. At a time when the deficit/debt is huge, he wants to use the 20-year old falling of the wall as a photo-op to try to recover his ratings. Bla, bla, bla....

That is the difference for most of us. Please know I am NOT disputing your comment here. That being said....... No, it is what scares the hell out of many of us. lucky is so far left anything being right of Marx looks radical to him Binary Rush.

Well it is what I'm faulting and referencing, it is highly relevant to what we're talking about. Tell me about Hoover's reaction to teh GD: - What did he do that sucked balls? - What should he have doen? - What did he do that led to the XX # of deaths? - Where do you place the number of deaths caused by the GD? I posted that 12million had died, I provided a link where I did a quick search, I agree with you that it isn't a reliable site, altjo the data *might* be correct and may very well not be correct. But I did provide a link, not saying that it is accurate. Well how about this, as the GD was rolling, there wereradical dust storms in the midwest and drought. So the gov could have worked irrigation projects and I'm sure construction equip could be needed to accomplish those, so open and run those factories. This is what I'm talking about. Find the need and supply it with out of work people, 25% were by the time FDR took office. The Hoover Dam 1930-1936 was one such project, but it was alos fraught with horrid conditions and when the workers struck in protest of deadly working conditions the contractor brought in strike-busters with clubs and guns, so it wasn't all so peachy either. The gov should ha ve run it directly than subcontracted it. If the private sector wants to profit too much and monopolize it, HC, etc, etc, etc, then the gov can bring it back around. If it is a deal like a major project, the gov can handle it unless a private contractor is cheaper. I don't think an attiitude that prescribes we let the gov do everything or that we let the private sector do everything is healthy. Most people seem to not be able to find a middle and are the problem. Then these people have kids and they procreate, etc, etc, etc.....

Because I ddi look it up as cited in post #77: So then 12 million Americans died acording to this cite:http://wiki.answers.com/...the_Great_Depression If I made it up, kinda coincidental that this cite says the same thing, huh? I agree, I had JCD try to complain about a legitimate article with clowns posting in various idiotic stataements in the bottom comment's section. As cited, it was a quick search, a couple other quicky sites I ref'dd said the same, so I went with it. It isn't a ref and may very well be off - which is why I spent the morning researching further. Anywhere near reliable? The US Census Bureau? It doesn't get a lot more near than that. It was wholy reliable and asserted as I posted the website data: I think they're basing their findings on the census population, at least in part: http://www.census.gov/...990s/popclockest.txt That shows a disparity of 5.3M from 1930 to 1937. And yes, I thought the middle data column was a scale of the actual population, but it still makes my point. Even with XX million dead as a result of the GD, whatever the number is, population would likely still increase, but we can see the dent made by way of incredibly decreased population growth. 1900 - 1909 = +18% / +14M pop growth - 1910 - 1919 = +13% / +12M pop growth in the midst of WWI 1920 - 1929 = +14% / +15M pop growth 1930 - 1939 = +6.5% / +8M pop growth 1940 - 1949 = +13% / +17M pop growth in the midst of WWII 1950 - 1959 = +16% / +25M pop growth during Korean War 1960 - 1969 = +12% / +22M pop growth during VN War 1970 - 1979 = +9.8% / +20M pop growth end of VN War 1980 - 1989 = +8.5% / +19M pop growth 1990 - 1999 = +9% / +23M pop growth So this clrears it up, I extrapolated the data and if you look at population trends, there was a population increase of 7 million the decade before the GD and a 11M more the decade after the GD. So perhaps this is how some say 12M, some say 7M. Of course you'll make something sarrcatic and want notorized certificates of death from all 7 or 12M dead people, you are using futility, but after hours of reseach I see this is how people come to these numbers. Which one is honest, which is factually correct? I dunno, I'm gonna start using 7M to be sure that I'm not too high and that I'm probably close. I did look at the wrong coloumn of the census graph I provided. The data still answers the question as to the 7M or 12M tho. By calling you a cherry-picker? You are; here's what you avoided: This citation states 7 mill died of humger, I'm sure the other 5 mill is based upon lacking medical care, suicide, etc. http://aotearoaawiderperspective.wordpress.com/...ce-great-depression/ Here's where I got the number too: http://www.infowars.com/...ng-great-depression/ The researcher touched upon quite a hot topic in the article – the estimation of the number of victims of the Great Depression in the USA. The material presented in the article apparently made Wikipedia’s moderators delete the piece from the database of the online encyclopedia. http://www.cherada.com/...reat-depression-time Voluntary defenders of U.S. values who venture to discuss the matter with me, normally begin with a statement that those people were simply not born. However, if we take the age pyramid and distribute the people according to their dates of birth, it becomes apparent that 5.5 million children and two million grown-ups are missing from the 7.5 million. So, those two million people could not have been non-existent ? as they had been born. They could only die. So I dunno, I think no one really knows, they just use inferrential data like the census. Also, fertility rates dropped significantly, so some may count the lives that would have been. I'm glad you asked and I spent all morning researching, I think I'll revise that to 7 million, that seems like a safe and fair number. It's not relevant tho, 2 million, 7 million, 12 million; it really doesn't matter, it could have been avoided if the gov/Hoover would have considered the economic mess as significant. Anyway, then Hoover realized how bad he fucked up and raised taxes in June 1932 with the Revenue Act of 1932: http://en.wikipedia.org/.../Revenue_Act_of_1932 The, uh, market then fixed itself after intervention, not by voodoo. YOUR CITE ISN'T LOADING, I WILL GET BACK TO IT LATER, REMIND ME IF I DON'T GET TO IT, IT LOOKS INTERESTING - THE FORST PAGES POPS UP BUT ONLY 227 OF 283 KB LOADS AND FREEZES. GIVE ME THE HTML ADDY IF IT HAS ONE, I WANT TO READ IT.