Lucky...

So look at the improvement over a long period. Granted it's partially artificial via stimulus, but it could be worse, it could be that after the stimulus there would be no change. 3 quarters is long term? Personally, and with no data to back it up, I'm afraid next quarter might be negative again. I think Q3 was highly artificial partially due to cash for clunkers and the first time house buyer incentive. I worte it was a long period. When 4 of 5 quarters are negative, the following 2 plus the included 1st Q is a long term I guess, it's all perspective. Yea, it's a guess, I don't think they have projective data that goes the whole quarter that I would listen to. Let's get 1/2 way into it and then see how it looks. I see an artificiality to the 3Q, but we'll see. There had to be one, that's how they did it in the GD, of course there they cranked up the tax rate to 67% under Hoover and 70's-80's under FDR and as much as 94% at teh peak of teh war, so tey way we pay for it has changed, now we're afraid to offend our mega-wealthy.

Good thing you edited out that Freudian slip, Jeanne... Nope a keboard that requires slamming the Y ke reall hard Quit hitting the monitor with it!! its a 2 ear old 17" 64bit laptop... I need to order a new KB es, ou should get ourself a new one on ahoo computers. They have them in red and ellow.

Two very important differences: 1. This isn't court. 2. I don't give a fuck if you say "I lost" or not. That's clear by the way you create and support your arguments.

And, of course, the concurrent assumption that the WH numbers are accurate and unbiased....equally dubious. What do ya say, Mike, did you alos get your numbers from the same place? (Hence no citation needed) I haven't posted any numbers in this thread, sorry. Maybe the WH took a page from YOUR book and went to some geocities site for their data. Right, this is a carryover from another thread(s), you and your ghost data that came "from the same place as I got mine." That's right, it did. But you never posted a source, in your running away. That's like mailing it in with anything. You can't mail it in, think about if you were an attorney and you tried to convince people by saying, "where my opposition got his information - that's where I got mine." Game, set, match - you lose, just like here.

And, of course, the concurrent assumption that the WH numbers are accurate and unbiased....equally dubious. What do ya say, Mike, did you alos get your numbers from the same place? (Hence no citation needed) I haven't posted any numbers in this thread, sorry. Maybe the WH took a page from YOUR book and went to some geocities site for their data. Right, this is a carryover from another thread(s), you and your ghost data that came "from the same place as I got mine."

And, of course, the concurrent assumption that the WH numbers are accurate and unbiased....equally dubious. What do ya say, Mike, did you alos get your numbers from the same place? (Hence no citation needed)

Ding Ding Ding..... it's official, Rushmc and Rush LImbaugh are one in the same. And if Obama fails, teh US fails....... so who are the real patriots? If Obama's plan fails, it doesn't necessarily follow that the US would fail. It's not like he has some power where he's the only one with THE answer. Zach I see your point, but his plans are for lowering unemployment, continuing market growth, continuing GDP, bringing jobs here, etc. I see how your argument could work in relation to HC, but not to the larger overall economic issues.

This tired and erroneous POS has been here before, like a week ago.

Sure, I'd just like you to make a point and post your citations. You have a history of not pocting citations, then when you get called out on it, playing silly games of 'look it up yourself.' I didn't change my data, as usual you post obscure data. So I see this is a backdoor admisssion you posted nominal or other than REAL GDP data as is teh standard. Now you act as if it's not the standard. All people I've read in here use Real GDP and it's a known type, you don't have to cite REAL, you do if you cite nominal or other GDP data derivatives. So, back to our argument, the original one, you are wrong abouy your data and that GDP you posted was not real, hence invalid. As I stated before, Clinton and after only had 1 Q of neg GDP if we use nominal, truth is there were 3 non-consecutive with REAL GDP. I post honest numbers, you do not. That is such a cop out, you posted your data before I did. Dude, you can't crap outthe data; it's bogus. I post mine, as I stand behind them. You do not. I don't recall posting one of those either, if you have an argument to make, make it. It appears you don't, you allege I used ill refs, but you can't establish that. You post data of your own, I ask for a source and you stall and say it wa where I goit mine from. Considering you posted first, what does that mean? Either pony up your args and data or you lose - plain and simple.

I'M FORCED TO LAUGH MY ASS OFF, DUDE. CAN'T YOU EVEN OWN YOUR FUCKUP? YOU POSTED THIS BS ABOUT THE 2008 ELECTION BEING A BLACK THING, THAT OBAMA ONLY WON BECAUSE OF THE BLACK TURNOUT, I STARTED RESPONDING AND YOU QUICKLY DELETED KNOWING YOU FUCKED UP. OWN YOUR ERROR. You fucked up, didn't you. Uh huh, I caught you on this one. You posted this and deleted it, so it won't let me respond, but here it is: According to the Federal Election Commission those PEW numbers are a bit wrong. http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2008/2008presgeresults.pdf Barack Obama (D) 69,498,215 John McCain (R) 59,948,240 Diff of 9,522,083 Here's the US census be\ureau: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/socdemo/voting/publications/p20/2008/tables.html There are 26,528,000 total African Americans 18 and over as of last Nov. 16,133,000 voted. That's close to the 15.75 the pew reported. From the same site, they state: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/voting/013995.html About 131 million people reported voting in the 2008 U.S. presidential election, an increase of 5 million from 2004, according to a new table package released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. The increase included about 2 million more black voters, 2 million more Hispanic voters and about 600,000 more Asian voters, while the number of non-Hispanic white voters remained statistically unchanged. So the PEWS argument is BS since there were 2 million additional black voters that, let's face it, showed up to vote for Obama and wouldn't have shown up if it were 2 pasty white guys. 2 million, do we have to go further with PEWS lame argument? Obama won by 9.5M votes. Now I think it's fair to say that between the Dem white vote which appears to be unchanged, the 2M black vote, the 2M new Hisp vote, the previous Hisp votes who flipped and the new surge of young voters COLLECTIVELY made the difference, but not the black vote alone at 2M with a 9.5M victory. They, being the Hillary primary voters, mostly voted for Obama in the genral. If you posted my entire passge it would read: You guys are just delluded in thinking that the US in large still loves massive military, classism, massive debt, world-hate, Corporatism and all the lovely gifts the R's give us.....please don't change. YOU GUYS are the ones, usually conservatives, who think we all love the mess GWB and Reagan left us. But I do repsect your reference and constructive approach. PEW is a respectable ref, they are just all FU'd on this one. EDITED TO ADD: this is the citation/report you roiginally posted: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1209/racial-ethnic-voters-presidential-election

How did I attack you, saying you don't know economics if you use nominal data whne any serious economist uses REAL GDP? Furthermore, your failure to post any source except some RW rag is ridiculous. Everyone I've read on this site or anywhere uses REAL GDP except you, as you want to be obscure and use different data to be dishonest. I have nothjing to hide, I post REAL GDP and I post a citation almost all teh time and if anyone ever asks for a citation I IMMEDIATELY post one. You, OTOH, it's like pulling teeth and then you try to flip it. BTW, where is that GDP source you had? It's a link from teh cite to show its lack of objecctivity, the home page and that's how I refered to it. Now taht we can agree upon, you wan to pit your biased rags against leftist biased rags and call it a constructive argument. If my side was a POS I would prefer that misdirection too, but as it stands, data is on my side so I post reputable data/sites. Who are you saying does that? You posted this in another thread http://www.nationalreview.com/ and referenced it in this thread. You do post garbage agenda sites.

You fucked up, didn't you. Uh huh, I caught you on this one. You posted this and deleted it, so it won't let me respond, but here it is: According to the Federal Election Commission those PEW numbers are a bit wrong. http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2008/2008presgeresults.pdf Barack Obama (D) 69,498,215 John McCain (R) 59,948,240 Diff of 9,522,083 Here's the US census be\ureau: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/socdemo/voting/publications/p20/2008/tables.html There are 26,528,000 total African Americans 18 and over as of last Nov. 16,133,000 voted. That's close to the 15.75 the pew reported. From the same site, they state: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/voting/013995.html About 131 million people reported voting in the 2008 U.S. presidential election, an increase of 5 million from 2004, according to a new table package released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. The increase included about 2 million more black voters, 2 million more Hispanic voters and about 600,000 more Asian voters, while the number of non-Hispanic white voters remained statistically unchanged. So the PEWS argument is BS since there were 2 million additional black voters that, let's face it, showed up to vote for Obama and wouldn't have shown up if it were 2 pasty white guys. 2 million, do we have to go further with PEWS lame argument? Obama won by 9.5M votes. Now I think it's fair to say that between the Dem white vote which appears to be unchanged, the 2M black vote, the 2M new Hisp vote, the previous Hisp votes who flipped and the new surge of young voters COLLECTIVELY made the difference, but not the black vote alone at 2M with a 9.5M victory. They, being the Hillary primary voters, mostly voted for Obama in the genral. If you posted my entire passge it would read: You guys are just delluded in thinking that the US in large still loves massive military, classism, massive debt, world-hate, Corporatism and all the lovely gifts the R's give us.....please don't change. YOU GUYS are the ones, usually conservatives, who think we all love the mess GWB and Reagan left us. But I do repsect your reference and constructive approach. PEW is a respectable ref, they are just all FU'd on this one.

I have in some refs to GDP, it is considered typical by economists; nominal is too raw. Of course if you understood the least about economics you would know that. Again, just as with the wealth of teh top 20%, you posted income and wanted it to fly. You just look for loopholes in data that aren;t there, fail to post a citation and hope no one knows. Perhaps go a car club where the average age and intellect are 15ish and you might win that one. It's an opinion from a Dem-basher site. Since you won't post a site in this thread, I will. http://www.nationalreview.com/ I don't have to peek at that for long before I realize it's a biased site. Seriously, if you can't source something objective, just don't comment. Again, you wouldn't entertain anything from Moveon, don't try to feed me that.

I thought you were done here? I guess just done addressing the issues I've posted that you continue to ignore.

Well I'm glad you care since you could give a shit. The last 2 elections tell me I'm right.

Correction: All you had to do was not be a Republican. It was their office to lose starting on September 11, 2001. The country had been scared into re-electing GWB, but they certainly weren't going to fall for that gag a second time. As someone famously once said, "Fool me once . . ." Fool me - can't get fooled again..... Yea, that was the best part of Moore's Farenhight 911.

Obama won 52/45, how can you make that guess? Most blacks who do vote would vote Dem anyway, then you have some of the blacks that came out of the woodwork to vote, a very small number but certainly not 7%. You might have an argument of you must make the ast election race-based to call it the Hispanic difference. They are a much bigger contingency and Bushco took a nice healthy shit on them, or so they preceived and they were a deal-maker for Obama and he rewarded them. They mostly voted for her. You guys are just delluded in thinking that the US in large still loves massive military, classism, massive debt, world-hate, Corporatism and all the lovely gifts the R's give us.....please don't change.

Yea, in reference to the GDP, I used real GDP, you used nominal or some other derivative. So I'll just take your word for it? Hardly, how difficult is to go to the place where you got your numbers and cite them? YOU DIDN'T EVEN DO THAT!!!!! Furthermre, you should do that w/o prompting when you post data. Obvioulsy you've never been to any schooling beyond high school or you would the importance of a bibliography of a sort. People, like you, only fail to cite data because people like me will rip it apart if it's dishonest, vague, irrelevant, etc. Don't feel bad, it really isn;t you as much as it's the fact that any good data doesn't exist. Again, I shouldn't have to pry this data out of you and you have yet to provide your source for the GDP you posted, but we know it's nominal and not read GDP. Just like with the data relating to me posting the top 20% assets, you posted top 20% incomes; not sure if you're trying to be coy or you just don't know the diffs. I suppose USA Today is part of the liberal conspiracy too? http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-10-rape-exams_N.htm WASILLA, Alaska — In 2000, Alaska lawmakers learned that rural police agencies had been billing rape victims or their insurance companies $500 to $1,200 for the costs of the forensic medical examinations used to gather evidence And FActcheck.org too: [/url]http://www.factcheck.org/2008/10/mccain-palin-and-rape-kits/[url] A few weeks ago, we wrote about the pervasive rumor that Sarah Palin, when she was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, made women pay for their own forensic testing when reporting a rape. The verdict: This policy was enforced for at least some reported rapes in Wasilla, and in 2000, complaints about rape kit charges in Wasilla and other rural areas drove then-Gov. Tony Knowles to pass legislation requiring police departments to pay for the testing. Yea, Mikey, everyone is out to get you guys. Show where I've posted Limbaugh or Hannity - put up or shut up, Lucky. *** If you're able to read and interpret, see if you can decipher this again: LUCKY: Again, if I posted Moveon.org, you would shit a trail of ^*^$^( that would go on for years, but you think you can post NRO, Limbaugh, Hannity, the Onion or whatever and have it fly. See the, "or whatever?" That means anything like them. You posted NRO, basically a like version of Hannity and you think it can fly. It's hard communicating with binary thinkers, you have to be literal with everything or you lose them. Now, go find an OBJECTIVE citation that supports your claim that Palin isn't a rape-profiting pig.

Wrong. Well I congratulate you on your newfound ability to cite a source, but the NRO is simply another version of Hannity. Again, if I posted Moveon.org, you would shit a trail of ^*^$^( that would go on for years, but you think you can post NRO, Limbaugh, Hannity, the Onion or whatever and have it fly. Nice try, back to the drawing board, Mikey.

If that's your perception, isn't that racist? I think Obama was elected for several reasons, mostly because the R's have fucked things badly and people have had enough. Hillary would have been elected if she won the primary election; would you say it was because she was a woman? The US is 13% African American, don't try to convince me that all AA's voted and that it was that big of a deal. Furthermore, he won 52% to 45% of teh popular vote and 371 of the 538 EV's, so it wasn't that close. But I see how the racist right would blame his color on his election, I mean, it wasn't anything they did to lose it. But it was a nice and clumbsy reciprocation to put Michael Steele as RNC chief to appear not to be racist...it really looked dumb and desperate of the RNC.

Oh, how a black man can become president? Hey, times they are a changing. At least it's a departure from:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jx7a3leZJJI I'm pretty sure my guy knows his left from his right. Black Man???? Bullshit, A Marxist, Communist, Yes...Black? He is only half black! You can throw that crutch away.... Only 1/2 black so you only 1/2 hate him? Without using abstraction, metaphore or other ridiculous arguments, explain how he subscribes to Marxism or the rest. Oh, BTW, did n't address this: I'm pretty sure my guy knows his left from his right.

It's because of THIS and everything that comes after it. OMG what a good link, I have never seen it put together that well and that briefley before. But hey, let's go easy, that goat book was a good read, he hadn't read it before; gotta have priorities.

Don't forget the 1st Q: So look at the improvement over a long period. Granted it's partially artificial via stimulus, but it could be worse, it could be that after the stimulus there would be no change.

Yea, if those are clunkers, what's with my POS? I really hated to see the trucks, esp the s-10 trucks replaced by those ghey Colorado's, what POS and a 5 cylinder; WTF is that, a bastardized Volvo? I think they drained the oil and put some kind of lgass in them until they seized.

Oh, how a black man can become president? Hey, times they are a changing. At least it's a departure from:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jx7a3leZJJI I'm pretty sure my guy knows his left from his right.