Lucky...

Would you care to point out where I've been making typo attacks all over the place? I recall a few sarcastic quips, but they were not originated with me, but instead were retaliations when I saw others pulling that kind of crap. What I mean is, like on Amazon, for example, I "jumped on" her case for attacking someone else's grammar or spelling or something but then in her own (short) post she missed an error of her own. (I'm not talking about proofreading a 20 page legal brief, here, dude. We're talking about maybe three to ten lines of text.) You seem to be looking to get into it over nothing. I think I'm just gonna leave it alone. You have fun with it; but we are not getting anywhere, so I'll invest my time elsewise. You'll run along, cool...... I think it's universally known that you are the one correcting grammar, Amazon pointed it out once, I've pointed it out. It's an escape for you when you're stuck; can't find error in the logic, go after the spelling/grammar. I could look it up, I can even recall the thread, but what will that do, you simply aren't honest about that stuff.

Oh, come on, Mike -- how can anyone take your view seriously when you form it into such a run-on sentence?! (you'd better know I'm kidding!) Exactly my point, that's why you're here.

Nor can you help yourself. I have seen you pounce on people for a typo or spelling error but it is clear that you don't apply it to yourself. You don't try and win people over to see your view but rather try and belittle them and beat them into submission. You are like one of those little yipping fear biting dogs. I have sat back and watched you post for a while now and the sad thing is that even when you have good points to present, the way you present the information takes away from your contribution. Now you have two choices, you can in typical self proclaimed "nappy-headed ho" fashion shred this post like you do to everyone else or take it for the constructive criticism that it is intended and maybe change the way that you respond to people so that they want to be on your side and will value what you have to offer. The ball is in your court. Stay safe and be well, Mike >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I have seen you pounce on people for a typo or spelling error but it is clear that you don't apply it to yourself. Where? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You don't try and win people over to see your view but rather try and belittle them and beat them into submission. Where? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.You are like one of those little yipping fear biting dogs. And see I look at you as the shy little kid that wished he had the courage. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I have sat back and watched you post for a while now and the sad thing is that even when you have good points to present, the way you present the information takes away from your contribution. And that's true, but I like to see the ADDers who get distracted by shiney keys.... altho you are right, I do let people off the hook, but they would avoid, misdirect by themselves anyway. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.Now you have two choices, you can in typical self proclaimed "nappy-headed ho" fashion shred this post like you do to everyone else or take it for the constructive criticism that it is intended and maybe change the way that you respond to people so that they want to be on your side and will value what you have to offer. The ball is in your court. I really don't care what people think or people learn from me. I do learn things from people, esp Bill and a couple others, but when sopmeone is so ideologically closed that they, for example, can't address the obvious likelyhood that we've executed people, they just skirt it in chickenshit fashion, it really doesn't matter what they say or do, it's just for fun . I could take them more seriously and address them more seriously if they didn't dodge the tough questions, but address them.

And you didn't spell check, that's oodles for you. As well, you just refered to lock-stepped, as in you agreeing with him when he is incorrect about his assertions. What are you talking about? If you want to talk about spell-check, go look up "referred." You are one "r" short. That's my point, you can't help yourself. I've written several 20-page legal documents and I spend hours checking the sequence and flow, syntax, and grammar. I'll be god damned if I'm going to spend time checking that to a T for a posting board. I saw a few errors in Lawrocket's post today, so what? You and you alone think perfect spelling somehow bodes to better content..... at least when you've lost the argument that is. OK, so you attacked me for pointing out your misspelling of "referred"; but what was the INITIAL meaning of what you wrote BEFORE that?! How are you getting this confused?? It's your argument, you make it. My argument was that you constantly refer to spelling mistakes, fat-fingerring, etc. Posting baord posts typically have a few errors, I've seen legal docs and books with errors, which I find inexcusable. But posting boards are brief conversational boards where people don't spend that much time correcting errors..... live chat is obviously worse. The more permanent the document, the more precise the grammar. Try to put a little more effort into your substance, less on occassional grammatical errors.... or don't you look foolish pointing out simple fat-finger errrors. Lawrocket made a few today ina post, so what. He probably has more formalized credit education than both yoiu and me put together, so what if he doesn't spend an extra 10 mins a post making it Jefferey perfect?

Well, YOU WANTED [I]CHANGE![/I] YOU WANTED SOMEONE WHO WASN'T A "WASHINGTON INSIDER![/I] Suddenly the prospect of getting exactly that has the Left loading up their diapers. She's a joke, a MILF joke, but still a joke. I guess you guys are only just full of SHIT when you all chirp about "ch-ch-ch-ch-changes! Bill Von, I don't care about the PA's, but I wanna retaliate, but I know the consequence. See, I'm stuck, pls fix it.

London, Ontario, Canada Previous charges:"Jeffrey Woodworth earlier pleaded guilty to having sex with the daughter of his girlfriend. The 44-year-old mother had been living with Woodworth, even though police and county health officials repeatedly warned her Woodworth was a sex offender and was a risk to her children."http://sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com/2007/05/mother-faces-trial-for-failing-to.html So he was already a convicted sex offender. Then he raped the daughter of his girlfriend. And now he has tried to rape yet again. When is the justice system up there going to put this animal behind bars to protect the public? Seriously.

LOL- you promised to 'correct' my memory on Berkeley in the 90s, and your proof is ASU (the academic joke of the Pac10) a decade later? Fucking weak, even for you. \ Here ya go, I found my universities tuition history, you find yours, or is it somehow my duty to "proove" your assertions? http://www.abor.asu.edu/1_the_regents/reports_factbook/financial/6_tuitionhist.htm 96.9% under your guy in 8 years, 24.5% in 7 years when Clinton was president, the chart only goes back 7 years. So what does that mean? It's inferrential that Bush and the Repub Congress cut funding.

And you didn't spell check, that's oodles for you. As well, you just refered to lock-stepped, as in you agreeing with him when he is incorrect about his assertions. What are you talking about? If you want to talk about spell-check, go look up "referred." You are one "r" short. That's my point, you can't help yourself. I've written several 20-page legal documents and I spend hours checking the sequence and flow, syntax, and grammar. I'll be god damned if I'm going to spend time checking that to a T for a posting board. I saw a few errors in Lawrocket's post today, so what? You and you alone think perfect spelling somehow bodes to better content..... at least when you've lost the argument that is.

LOL- you promised to 'correct' my memory on Berkeley in the 90s, and your proof is ASU (the academic joke of the Pac10) a decade later? Fucking weak, even for you. Well, he pushed you to the point of using profanity. That's something, anyway. And you didn't spell check, that's oodles for you. As well, you just refered to lock-stepped, as in you agreeing with him when he is incorrect about his assertions.

LOL- you promised to 'correct' my memory on Berkeley in the 90s, and your proof is ASU (the academic joke of the Pac10) a decade later? Fucking weak, even for you. Your response is typical for you, basically worthless. Show me where I, "promised" to correct your memory on Berkely. Since proof is a fool's word, I did not use it. A decade later, I showed the 90's and the current as for tuition, that was the argument, under Clinton it barely rose, under your crackhead it doubled. Hell, it went up here 43% in 1 year under your guy.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Insurance you can't use because you die waiting is no deal at any cost. Emergency operations are done immediately per my Canadian friend, the MRI's might take months. Nice try to build this picture where stroke victims die on the doorstep. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Canadian Medicine is Sick: MRI? Go to the Back of the 4 Mo. Line in Ontario, Even With Brain Tumor http://members.aol.com/aleong1631/rainmake.html The Rainmaker..... true story, HMO refuses to pay an insured clients bill, client dies.

Well, YOU WANTED [I]CHANGE![/I] YOU WANTED SOMEONE WHO WASN'T A "WASHINGTON INSIDER![/I] Suddenly the prospect of getting exactly that has the Left loading up their diapers. She's a joke, a MILF joke, but still a joke.

It's circular, but who started the whole, "lack of experience" idiocy. Just like when Gore ran against your cokehead in 2000, it was all about the military experience. That changed when the same cokehead ran against Kerry in 04, a guy who had been to war in VN, the war chickenshit cockehead ran away from, then the military experience was downplayed.

Who's gonna wipe the drool off Biden's mouth the next time he has one of his brain aneurysms? I don't see that as probable, furthermore, he's #2 behind a healthy guy, not a sickly #1.

That pretty much sums up Obama. Maybe not narrow. How about ideologically rediculous. Ya, seriously, the thought oif everyone having healthcare is beyond absurd. And the war, it's a great way to limit population, I'm all for it.

I think he could have gotten more mileage out of other women in the GOP. This one is Qualye like. I'm not sure too many bitter Clinton fans want a woman that badly. Right, woman = good choice. Cheerleader ho-bag = bad choice. That was the most important selection this year, as McSame is on his deathbed and swing voters will worry that barbie bar whore could be the one. Damn you show alot of respect for women eh? Is there anything else about her being hot looking, conservative, a gun owner, educated, and successful, that you find repulsive? I do respect women, I think selecting a woman was the right choice, just not that one, which makes me happy the R is imploding still. As for repulsive, isn't her party affiliation enough?

Isn't that semantic? Enter a war on false premise, 10T in debt, Americans w/o healthcare and we must chant to some silly song.

I think he could have gotten more mileage out of other women in the GOP. This one is Qualye like. I'm not sure too many bitter Clinton fans want a woman that badly. Right, woman = good choice. Cheerleader ho-bag = bad choice. That was the most important selection this year, as McSame is on his deathbed and swing voters will worry that barbie bar whore could be the one.

That's crazy, they should have gone more moderate, she's Mitt Romney with a vagina.

That's your recolection based upon what you interperet as what probably happened. I can cite university data, can you? What univ did you attend? feel free, I couldn't find a history for it in the time I felt it warranted. Berkeley. Note that it currently estimates annual costs at $26,000, tuition being about 8k of that. Time warranted = you don't need to research anything, just take your word for it. http://wpcarey.asu.edu/seidman/reports/tuition.pdf I couldn't find the exact site I was looking for, but I did find this above. Look at page 6, it illustrates a slight falling of tuition costs national at the end of the Clinton era, then a rapid rise as your boy took office. Inferrential? Sure. http://media.www.dailytarheel.com/media/storage/paper885/news/2005/10/12/StateNational/Arizona.Universities.Live.With.Sharp.Tuition.Increases-1366845.shtml A USA Today survey reported a 74.1 percent increase in tuition at the University of Arizona since 2002-03 and a 70.4 percent increase during the same span at Arizona State University. Still not the site I was looking for, but it illustrates what I was talking about.

All I did was list the definitions of your buzzwords. Not my fault it pissed you off. Redistribution of wealth is the basis of communism. Canada is not communist. Thanks for the update. We'll go over the definition again. often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party. So empowering businesses, that employ citizens, is bad. Turning over health care to the government empowers the people. Copy. Glad you cleared up the pure fucking brilliance. How about a full citation with source, not half of some home-baked pos? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>All I did was list the definitions of your buzzwords. Not my fault it pissed you off. Not a buzzword, must piss you off with your response. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Redistribution of wealth is the basis of communism. Canada is not communist. But they have wealth redistribution via social svs, esp uni care, so using your logic of wealth redistribution, Canada has to be Communist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>So empowering businesses, that employ citizens, is bad. And that's the circular argument, trickle down (supply side) vs welfare. Show me in history where supply side has sustained viability? Supply side got us into the Great Depression, welfare got us out. Reaganomics/fascism preceded the 91 recession, Clinton welfare and taxation for the rich got us out. Altho your idea sounds better, don't give anything to poor people, when we test it it fails horribly. Reason is that corporations are smart and will hold teh capital until they are ready, poor people spend it immediately and thus spurring the economy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Turning over health care to the government empowers the people. Copy. Glad you cleared up the pure fucking brilliance. Yes, succeed or fail, the prople have medical care. Of course I don't expect a conservative like you to care about people. Hell, it took forever to get the child medical bill passed, that takes care of up to 7 year olds I think.

Mine rose 100% during Bush/Clinton. For UC, the state financial picture and governor matters a great deal more than the federal picture. For private schools, it's a different set of factors. So you won't seperate the increase as I have....OK, not surprised. What % rose under Clinton, what % under Bush for you, or are you not interested in the truth? that was a long time ago. I recall the start and end points. My best recollection is that the increases were backloaded, which would be during the Clinton years, but I've already tried to explain to you that this is more about California. In the latter 90s fees were held steady after the 100% gain during my period, largely because the state enjoyed substantial growth during the tech boom, and it was done dealing with the decline in military spending in the state which plagued it in the late 80s and early 90s. That's your recolection based upon what you interperet as what probably happened. I can cite university data, can you? What univ did you attend?

Neo-fascism is largely corporatism; putting corporations in charge of everything - the means of production. The definition of neo-fascism is government ruling all business and way of life. I'm pretty sure universal health care would fall under that. I think you're just shooting off buzzwords to try and make your argument sound reasonable. Universal health care run by the government is fascist, socialist, marxist, and communist. Another reference: http://www.virtualcitizens.com/articles/WelcometoNeoFascism 1. Economic fascism is based in a merger of big business and big government. Sometimes, a formal corporatism emerges; other times, the private sector (monopolies and oligopolies) simply pass over into the public sector (as in the US), capturing the state and using it to wage that most profitable of activities: war. This later scenario is what happened in the United States, and the incestuous relationship between Big Business and Big Government ushered in a new Gilded Age of cronyism and corruption. Benito Mussolini was clear: “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power.” Third, remind people who use the term “Islamo-Fascism” that the term is historically inaccurate and that the main ingredients of classical fascism – 1) monopoly capitalism; 2) erosion of democracy; and 3) militant nationalism – are coming together in the United States like a Perfect Storm.

Neo-fascism is largely corporatism; putting corporations in charge of everything - the means of production. The definition of neo-fascism is government ruling all business and way of life. I'm pretty sure universal health care would fall under that. I think you're just shooting off buzzwords to try and make your argument sound reasonable. Universal health care run by the government is fascist, socialist, marxist, and communist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_ideology#Fascism_and_the_United_States [edit] Fascism and conservatism One of the many controversies regarding the nature of fascism is its relationship to traditional authority and conservative ideology. Fascists often claimed to defend the social order, traditional values, national culture and civilization itself, against the forces of modernity (particularly liberalism and socialism). At the same time, fascists claimed to offer a radically new approach to politics, and a new form of government that could reshape society.[8] Thus, fascism attempted to be both conservative and radical. Benito Mussolini embraced this superficially-contradictory formulation, saying "I am a reactionary and a revolutionary."[9] World War I produced a great deal of social change in Europe and led to the dissolution of most traditional monarchies, including the German Empire, Austria-Hungary and Tsarist Russia. Conservatism, which drew its strongest supporters from the political, economic and intellectual elites in pre-war Europe, found itself in crisis. The established elites in Central and Eastern Europe were weakened or rendered powerless by the introduction of universal suffrage, the collapse of traditional social hierarchies, and the creation of nation-states in place of the old multinational empires. At the same time, many segments of the population - particularly the rural peasantry and the skilled professionals - felt threatened by the prospect of industrialization, increased social mobility or the creation of a welfare state. Following the Bolshevik Revolution, many also felt there was a real possibility that the working class might rise up in a communist insurrection. Normally, those segments of the population would have rallied behind traditional conservatism, but with traditional conservative parties severely weakened in the aftermath of the war, there was a political vacuum on the right.[10] This political vacuum was filled by the rising fascist movements. They gained power and support from older conservative classes, and in some cases received direct approval from the traditional conservative parties.[11] The conservative British newspaper The Daily Mail published a lead article in 1934 under the title "The Blackshirts have what the Conservatives need".[12] The rise to power of the Italian Fascists and German Nazis was largely funded and supported by aristocratic landlords, wealthy industrialists, army officers, and other groups with strong conservative leanings. The fascists gathered this support by successfully presenting themselves as the last line of defense against liberal democracy, land reform, demilitarization and the collectivization of the means of production. [13] Thus, many traditional conservatives were persuaded that fascism was the only realistic alternative to liberalism and socialism. A French businessman remarked in 1935, "better Hitler than Léon Blum". [14] Fascism did not rely solely on the support of traditional conservative elites. It was also a mass movement, drawing its rank-and-file members from the general population, particularly the lower middle class, skilled professionals, and the peasantry. Many of these people did not come from conservative backgrounds; some of them had been strongly influenced by classical liberalism.[15] To its voters, fascism presented itself as a form of new and even revolutionary conservatism that could reconcile the interests of the elite with those of the common man. Fascist ideology emphasized the concept of class collaboration, which held that social inequality and hierarchy could be beneficial to rich and poor alike. The fascist model of the corporate state was decidedly different from traditional monarchy, yet claimed to be based on the same fundamental principles. Adolf Hitler expressed the Nazi view of politics, in 1937, as follows: “ The main plank in our program is to abolish the liberal concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity, and to substitute for them the Volk community, rooted in the soil and united by the bond of its common blood.[16]

Neo-fascism is largely corporatism; putting corporations in charge of everything - the means of production. The definition of neo-fascism is government ruling all business and way of life. I'm pretty sure universal health care would fall under that. I think you're just shooting off buzzwords to try and make your argument sound reasonable. Universal health care run by the government is fascist, socialist, marxist, and communist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Universal health care run by the government is fascist, socialist, marxist, and communist. What took the brilliance so long to emerge? So then Canada is Communist? PURE FUCKING BRILLIANCE!!!! With us or against us, never got a job from a poor guy, better there than here..... any more brilliance you can post to enlighten us all? What privatized med care does is to empower corporations, businesses. What socialization, universality of care does is to empower the person.... Republicans = fascists. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The definition of neo-fascism is government ruling all business and way of life. You mean corporations, not gov.