Lucky...

Yea, the brain surgeons who elect them can't even decipher that Oct 81 to Oct 88 = 7 years. They also think low taxes = great economic times. Fuzzy math works wonders

OMG, I stand corrected. OK, so we use your numbers and your methodology: FY 1981 to FY 1989: 09/30/1981 * 997,855,000,000.00 09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32 Difference is: 1.86T And what I wrote was: So actually it was closer to 1.8T So really, I was being generous again, as I had it just below 1.8T and now, using your numbers, it's a solid 1.86T. Even with all your deciet you continue to hurt yourself. It's just sad to watch. Right, that makes it worse by today's standard. By adjusting your fascist heroes damage to today's money it's twice the 1.86T, or 3.72T. Explain how I was being dishonest? I used gross, raw numbers and expressed them that way. No, your 120% numbers was arrived at by this in your words: 9/30/1981 (start of Reagan budgets): 997,855,000,000 9/30/1989 (end of Reagan budgets): 2,200,221,839,344 Increase: 1,202,366,839,344 (120.5%) You're using budgetted numbers and I'm using reality as in real gross debt. Various expenditures are incurred that aren't in the budget, yet fall under the timeline of the administration; you want to ignore those for R's and count those for D's. That's like saying I put aside 5k to restore my old car, but the actual cots was more like 12k, but I'm in denial of reality and will say I only spent 5k. Loud and clear, Mikepoo; we've had years of this logic. So for clarity let me post your budgetary numbers in italics and actual debt numbers in bold so all can see how dishonest you're being: 9/30/1981 (start of Reagan budgets): 997,855,000,000 09/30/1981 * 997,855,000,000.00 9/30/1989 (end of Reagan budgets): 2,200,221,839,344 09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32 So why the debt difference of $657B? Interest on the debt? Maybe. Probably shortfalls on tax receipts, as that seems to happen when taxes are cut so drastically. Yea, you can argue budgets all you want and ignire receipts, but that is why you are such a dishonest person when it comes to these arguments and we all see it. Naw, I have a real degree, not a vo tech such as you. If I were on disability as you are, I would also have insurance.

Right to the point: McChrystal responded to the comments made by Biden by saying that he believed that they were “short sighted.” UCMJ Art 88: “Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.” Again: McChrystal responded to the comments made by Biden by saying that he believed that they were “short sighted.” That is considered contemptous in military protocol, esp to say them to the entire world. If said in private, it could be let go upon the discretion of the superior. I really, really care that you don't consider them contemptuous, it's just that military protocol does consider them contemptuous. Now do as the rest of the neo-cons and run along; you've been beaten here. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contempt Main Entry: con·tempt Pronunciation: \kən-ˈtem(p)t\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin contemptus, from contemnere Date: 14th century 1 a : the act of despising : the state of mind of one who despises : disdain b : lack of respect or reverence for something 2 : the state of being despised 3 : willful disobedience to or open disrespect of a court, judge, or legislative body

It's really sad that you cannot help yourself from gross dishonesty. You say FY 1981, but that is 8 months into the fascist pig's term. This gives the term, "rounding down" a whole new meaning. To be fair I took the miidle of FY 1980 to FT 1981, same with FY 1988 to FY 1989 as reference numbers. In fact, post #43 of this thread illustrates this completely. 09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32 09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16 09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00 09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42 09/30/1985 * 1,823,103,000,000.00 09/30/1984 * 1,572,266,000,000.00 09/30/1983 * 1,377,210,000,000.00 09/30/1982 * 1,142,034,000,000.00 09/30/1981 * 997,855,000,000.00 09/30/1980 * 907,701,000,000.00 Reagan inherited - 952 B Reagan left - 2.7T So actually it was closer to 1.8T -- in fact 2.7 is generous to the fascist pig, the debt increased > 250B in the FY and attributed only 100B to him. See, I'm generous and you're deceptive. Now, see if you can use your voodoo mathematics to figure a 100.61% increase or your revised "Increase: 1,202,366,839,344 (120.5%)" 120% increase. Mike, it's a 184% increase, or a gross 284%, nearly tripling the debt. Follow along: 2.7 divided by .952 = 2.836, or a 284% outcome, meaning he nearly tripled the debt. Now, let's look at the stable debt he took and the monster he left. The debt was increasing modestly as he inherited it, the curve just went steep and it took 12 years to turn flat again. What did the 2 presidents do after FR? They increased taxes. Then the following turd lowered them and look what happened; the debt went vertical again. Mike, welcome to mathematical reality, FR left the debt 284% higher than when he inherited it. Had you finished more than 2 semesters at U of T you may have been introduced to MAT 096 and been able to grasp this.

Cool! Then he'll be like that fascist pig you and yours worships; Fascist Ronnie. Quit demonizing the guy for doing things (if he does that) that other guys you admire did 24 years ago. It really looks partisan silly.

I don't have a problem with anything, Mike. Just keep on with your office job, playing tough. As I CLEARLY ILLUSTRATED, insubordination isn't charged against officers, the charge is "contempt toward officials." It is the equivalent to insubordination for officers. Either you didn't read what I wrote or you just can't understand. Furthermore, disagreeing isn't the issue, the issue is this: McChrystal responded to the comments made by Biden by saying that he believed that they were “short sighted.” Calling a superior, in this case at least VP Biden, "short sighted" does qualify as contempt toward officials. Would McCrystal meth have resigned otherwise? Is he a fighter or a pussy? He's a fighter and if he had a chance he would have fought rather than bowed and retired. Regardless of that, you cannot publicly call the VP, short sighted w/o being considered guilty for contempt toward officials per UCMJ Art 88. So instead of this game of hide the sausage as per, "disagreeing with superiors" let's come to the reality that publicly calling Biden, "short sighted" is the very least of the issues here. The rest of your cronies apparently have the sense to walk away from this thread, I admire your tenacity, it's just starting to look desperate. Nice strawman, this is clearly a case of calling the VP, "short sighted." Try to stay on track and quit denying the truth. One more time, an officer can't be charged with insubordination as per my research, it's called contempt toward officials and once again an excerpt from Art 88: “Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.” Now that I severly question. What major, what degree? Finished? I don't expect the truth here. BTW, BS justice, ASU. So you attended for 1 or 2 semesters and call yourself alumni Reiterated, why no understanding that what McTurd did was, "contempt toward officials?" Why? It was the officer's version of insubordination. Riiiiight. Disagreeing and calling someone short sighted are very different. Maybe in the Texas handbook they are one in the same, but the rest of the civilized world recognizes that as utter contempt. Seriously, you claim to have been in the AF, could you see calling your superior, short sighted as he issues commands? No sit down and quit looking silly. Oh, how so? In your mind how do you conjure that? I actually had a real job in the weather, in the grease, not a cushy job talking on a radio in a room somewhere. We usually got girls for that job. I don't really care. BTW, what do you do now, never see you brag of your vocation. Probably on disability or something. I do what I have to do. All these turds assuming I'm on welfare is laughable, considering some of them are probably on some form of welfare and those who work have beautiful manicured fingernails. Now see if you can defend that publicly (or privately for that matter) calling the VP, short sighted is not contempt toward officials.

The numbers aren't accurate, but what defines Mike's dishonest MO is his taking 81 to 88, rather than 81 to 89. This is as bad as Mike taking the nominal GDP numbers to dumb down GWB's wonderful success as president. Mike's not even worth debating. Perhaps if he finished college/univ he would understand statistical honesty.

Not really, seems the same, possibly lighter from some years, w/o researching numbers. Remember, summer is worse.

Ya never seem to talk about it or your current job much, waasn't sure you had either. BTW, what do you do? So if you have former military svs, why no understanding of military disrespect-based offenses to superiors? You should have known what McTurd did was, "contempt toward officials." Basically the officer's version of insubordination. Also, why no comment to this? “Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.” Kinda got shut down, huh? Maybe send DaVinci a think you for pushing the issue for an answer, making a few of you and yours look silly. Now that I severly question. What major, what degree? Finished? I don't expect the truth here. BTW, BS justice, ASU. Reiterated, why no understanding that what McTurd did was, "contempt toward officials?" Why? It was the officer's version of insubordination. Riiiiight. Oh, how so? In your mind how do you conjure that? I actually had a real job in the weather, in the grease, not a cushy job talking on a radio in a room somewhere. We usually got girls for that job.

Yeah. . . but I wasn't calling him McTurd. Chill out there. Wasn't saying you were.

Got quotes? Yep, right above Interesting theories you have on what is considered insubordination. Wrong, but interesting. You're right, wrong relationship to be insubordination. This is what it was under the UCMJ article 88. It was the equivalent, "contempt toward officials." “Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.” It wasn't insubordination, but still a prosecutable offense for which he took the smart road and quit. Bye now.

Weak even with your standards. Saying what you need is not insubordination. Notice which is in quotes and which is not.... You are not doing well here. Biden != the President. You have now struck out. You claim to have been in the Military, but it is pretty clear you have no idea what you are talking about here. What McChrystal did is covered under Article 88 and is called "contempt toward officials." “Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.” Run along now, you used to be entertaining.

Guess you never read the actual article, only others opinions of it. Or you could provide the quotes where McChrystal said anything like you claim. He has been asked the same more than once Cant be done so he ignores the query This whole issue is pretty prima facie; who isn't aware of the disparaging remarks made, I've cited a few above. Another 1-article cowboy. Remember, this was more about his career than his career-ending fuck ups; think outside the box every now and then. THINKING will provide a clear context Something that is not seen from you This is about getting ones head out of the box, not thinking outside the box And you still can not provide any comment made by McChrystal, cause there are none Any of these define military insubordination: http://news.spreadit.org/...ling-stone-comments/ 1) His first slip up came when he said during an autumn review of the strategy in Afghanistan that he felt that the war would fail unless they were provided thousands of addition troops to tackle different sections of the country. This put additional pressure on the White House before Barack Obama had decided on a strategy. That's called insubbordination; undermining your superior's authority. 2) Now, his career appears to be in jeopardy once again, for telling Rolling Stone that he was “disappointed” after his first meeting with Mr. Obama, and that the new US chief executive seemed intimidated by top military brass. Calling him intimidated is a name. 3) Last October, McChrystal was also involved in a public argument with Vice President Joe Biden over war strategy in Afghanistan. Biden had said that he hoped that the US would be able to adopt a narrow counterterrorism strategy. McChrystal responded to the comments made by Biden by saying that he believed that they were “short sighted.” They means Biden and Obama, the administration. That isn't calling someone a name? Actually, let me stand corrected. WHat the good McTurd did was called, "contempt toward officials." “Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.” See, president or vice president, so his words to Biden were as qualifyable as if they were to Obama. Now you kids go home, you just had your ass handed to you. http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/56176

Got quotes? Yep, right above Interesting theories you have on what is considered insubordination. Wrong, but interesting. From a guy who's never been in the military or to university, you even get the periphery of military protocol? Please.

This is by far the most accurate post on the situation in my opinion. Even in the lower NCO ranks, we are responsible for the culture of respect to our superiors and orders. This type of transgression is looked at as weak leadership traits and will get you replaced anywhere up and down your Chain of Command. There is no lack of up and coming talent to not risk chopping for unfavorable command environment. That what some of these geniuses in this thread don't get; you don't have to call your superior a stupid POS, merely suggesting he's incompetent is sufficient to get fired, demoted, etc. And saying to biden: Last October, McChrystal was also involved in a public argument with Vice President Joe Biden over war strategy in Afghanistan. Biden had said that he hoped that the US would be able to adopt a narrow counterterrorism strategy. McChrystal responded to the comments made by Biden by saying that he believed that they were “short sighted.” He believed they were short sighted, means Biden and Obama to rerasonable people. See, the drones here on DZ.COM call out a veiled and obvious insult, yet telling the VP, "they are short sighted" calls for semantic denials since Obama's name wasn't specifically called. Any reasonable person will get it. And this: His first slip up came when he said during an autumn review of the strategy in Afghanistan that he felt that the war would fail unless they were provided thousands of addition troops to tackle different sections of the country. This put additional pressure on the White House before Barack Obama had decided on a strategy. You don't undermine the CIC's decisions. This kind of candor must be made in private, NEVER TO THE PUBLIC. If a lib military man said the same to GWB or Reagan, they would be crucified by the R's. Either way, in a nonpartisan sense, there is no wiggle room to even give a hint of impropriety or any kind of mutiny, NON WHATSO-FUCKING EVER, and that ass-clown did just that and has to go. Amazing how the conservatives feel all this patriotism and demand for rank until it's them on the floor, then fuck the rules. WHat a joke.

In the US, a lot of people already do: those without health insurance - not just the unemployed and under-employed, but fewer employers nowadays offer health insurance to full-time employees than was the case, say, 20 years ago. And a lot of self-employed people don't have HI, either. Sure, it's a choice, and a risk; but when the choice for a struggling family is either paying a monthly premium for HI or keeping a roof over their heads and food on the table, the term "choice" takes on a certain irony. Personal responsibility . Come on, can't you afford a car note, auto ins, rent, food and medical insurance on $12 hour? You must be pissing away your money on silly things like work clothes and such.

Right, they are corporate controls, they decide who is insured, who gets procedures, etc.

Yep which is why we need price controls. Sorry, your beloved corporations need controls, yes it's true. We shall see what your precious parties health care policies do. Hopfully we can fix most of the mess after conservatives take control of the House and Senate in November. Then it may be like the Clinton years again when a GOP congress gets the job done despite who is president. Yes, let's fix this mess and return it to the way it was where only some people get HC. That was fixed; now is broken. As for the Clinton era being run by Republican Congress, Clinton was well under way with his Dems in congress before Jan 95, we just had gridlock after that. I mean really, what tax code changes occurred after Jan 95? In order to get min wage increase, Clintomn had to give them cap gains reduction of 8%, other than that nothing. And the economy was well under way loooong before that 97 cap gains cut. Try again, the 93 tax increase along with GHWB's 3% incr are what drove the recovery, it is entirely evident as by the time the only change to the tax code occurred, the economy had already turned around. If you dosagree, show the legislation that the R congress enacted and Clinton signed that made the recovery, even tho it had already happened. BTW, how's that market crash pediction going? Yea, looks real bad, even after the European market knocked us down 1200 pts or so, the market rebounded back 700ish. Yea, really time for a crash, just keep your guesses going and eventually one will come in.

I agree that federal-vs.-state authority is part of it, but as best as I can tell, it looks like all the issues are in the pot. Agreed again My point however is based on the bs the Obama admin used to publicly piss on the law. They claimed over and over again (as many did here) the infringdments on rights of people were the reason the law should not be allowed to stand Then, they go into court and never mention that. No, the reason is fed power! You just made a post today to intellectual honesty. This does not seem to meet that criteria (not aimed at you just your point made concerning another topic) I, a wgite make, gets pulled over w/o PC or lic/reg issues, the case gets tossed for illegal search / seizure. Now, same scenario with a brown person who is a legal citizen; the officer can argue he had RS to pull over and he thought the driver was illegal and the evidence of whatever was seized stands. That amounts to a 14th violation; unconstitutional. Hi Lucky You are a funny dude or dudet So you have nothing to respond with? Wow, I would be embarrassed if all I could is respond with a Bob Hope-type 1-liner. In case you develope an understanding of the law in the next day or so, I'll post it again: I, a white male, gets pulled over w/o PC or lic/reg issues, the case gets tossed for illegal search / seizure. Now, same scenario with a brown person who is a legal citizen; the officer can argue he had RS to pull over and he thought the driver was illegal and the evidence of whatever was seized stands. That amounts to a 14th violation; unconstitutional.

I agree that federal-vs.-state authority is part of it, but as best as I can tell, it looks like all the issues are in the pot. Agreed again My point however is based on the bs the Obama admin used to publicly piss on the law. They claimed over and over again (as many did here) the infringdments on rights of people were the reason the law should not be allowed to stand Then, they go into court and never mention that. No, the reason is fed power! You just made a post today to intellectual honesty. This does not seem to meet that criteria (not aimed at you just your point made concerning another topic) I, a white male, gets pulled over w/o PC or lic/reg issues, the case gets tossed for illegal search / seizure. Now, same scenario with a brown person who is a legal citizen; the officer can argue he had RS to pull over and he thought the driver was illegal and the evidence of whatever was seized stands. That amounts to a 14th violation; unconstitutional.

What does "arrested" mean? The judge wrote (in part); "Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," Bolton, a Clinton appointee, said in her decision. If you are arrested, how does this affect those who are not in the least involved. Cops routinely run your name through the data base to see if warrants have been issued for you if you are stopped for ... lets say speeding. Your friend is sitting in the passengers seat. "Step out of the car please,"... Wait I see my problem ... "lawfully-present aliens," the 10 people in the trunk are of course just having a family reunion. How about traffic stops based upon Reasonable Suspicion where registration/license issues are not the foundation of RS? Yea, that's a biggy too.

Would it be ok to enforce federal immigration law? Yes, but you cannot randomly pull people over for a reasonable suspicion federally either. That's the biggest rub that the RW wants to avoid discussing.

State law says if a resident purchases property out of state but brings it into Massachusetts within six months, it would be subject to state taxes, the Globe said. So he's following state law and you have a problem? Many people, Republicans and Dems alike would buy cars in sales tax-free Oregon and figure a way to register it there. Dems are typically for high taxes and generous loopholes, Repubs for low taxes and generous looholes. Libertarians, if even worth mentioning are for no taxes and few benefits. What a sci-fi movie that would make. So, you don't have any problems with the rich sheltering their assets so as not to pay taxes, now? I am for high taxe rates with generous shelters. This kind of tax maneuver, not really a shelter, is unusual as compared to most tax shelters which involve reinvestment. I'm for making the rich keep their money in the game via reinvestment or pay penalties for yanking much of it out in 1 swoop. Besides, this is a state tax anyway, I'm not that concerned about state taxes, just deferal.

Yep which is why we need price controls. Sorry, your beloved corporations need controls, yes it's true.

Show where it states that, if you please. Debt increase is based on gross dollars, not adjusted for any given time. If not, the debt would be some unknown number since it was taken from X time in history. http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/ So IOW's, $1 in 1985 is worth ~ 2.00 today. Shall we multiply Reagan's 1.8T by 2.0? I think yes. Reagan's added debt is 3.6T. In reality, it's a sliding scale since not all of his lofty debt was added in 1981, so that's why I chose 1985 to be honest; try it some time. Tell me, Mike, do you think the debt advertised is adjusted for future dates? It's bizzare to think you aren't aware the debt numbers are gross numbers for that time and for that matter, for all times but unadjusted.