Lucky...

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.

Mike, are you disputing that the Rolling Stone article exists, or that McChrystal and his staff made the comments ascribed to them in the article? Why do you think he was forced to resign? Don Look at it the story somewhat closer No quotes are attributed to McChrystal. Only to his staff Yes, the posted story, not the entire issue. This brief posted here is more about his retirement than his disparaging remarks.

Got quotes? Yep, right above

I guess if you're married to one article over a major issue, you're, "short sighted." http://news.spreadit.org/general-mcchrystalwhat-did-mcchrystal-say-rolling-stone-comments/ 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 yhour superior's authority. 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. 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? Enjoy squirming, I see it is you w/o a clue on this issue.

Despite his mistake, Obama will miss him. Today there is no one better at doing the job he did Yes, calling your boss, while in the military, disparaging names in the open public especially is a sign of a great military leader. A mistake does not preclude a great military history. Yea, mistake. Could I have another teaspoon of sugar on that?

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.

The end of the article indicates that it is a tradition of sorts in that part of the world. I thought they broke plates and belched a lot.

Prove it. The economy stagnated on 2001, I attribute that partially to the light recession, but it was exacerbated by the lowering of income tax. Lowering taxes allows and encourages profit-taking and saving rather than reinvesting. This stagnated the economy. The fed then lowered the int rate to try to encourage spending. They repeated this until the rate was at record lows, then home sellers adjusted their demand price to counter the low int rates and the mess started.

Yep, low taxes are the cause of them. GWB lowered taxes, the economy stagnated, the fed lowered int rates to spur the economy and house prices, being the inverse of prinicpal value, soared creating false appreciation of home values. Either way, cut taxes, things go to shit, it's been shown time and again, denied by the neos.

Republican one-liner #3,778,225,876,184 Acknowleged and filed accordingly.

You have the chance to secure employment that will be gainful vs some shitty job that will define you as such. In a tough economy it's better to be flexible and be able to start now. What happens to you is hardly statistically significant. Prove that unless it's you? I don;t know you, never will, thankfully, so congratulations on the theatrics. It's all dependent upon the situation as a whole, but many times it is better to collect than to take a job that pays what or slightly above what unemp pays. That's rich, a Republican making a moral statement about me! The R's have been defined as some of the most immoral/amoral peopel around as of the last 3 decades, yet they stand in judgement the most. Yea, so has BUSH; INTO THE GROUND. But I see your point, if you're hiring you want a buffoon you can manipulate and who will work extra hours for free, etc. Yea, no one carries their political ideology into every thread here in SC, no way. You just keep thinking that, we won't pretend we get it. BTW, I don't blame Repubs for collecting unemp while job searching, just find it nauseating when they do so and whine that others do it. As if the military is a Republican thing and not a Dem thing. Again, you've shown your need for history lessons, this one is free: - 4 of 5 wars in the 20th century were started while a Dem was in office. The 5th was started with a very moderate Republican. - Another irony is that I'm a Dem, you're a Repub, yet I don't hear you talking ever been in the military when I have. Irony score off the charts. You just did the same thing 1 passage above, is your memory going? Who did I go after? I attacked the source, not a person. You attacked the person. Victim Someone posted the Harvard source, I posted the Priceton source with more of an impressive resume and you don't like it. The simple point, for which you clearly missed, was that these professionals can have vastly differing opinions so take them with a grain of salt. You want yours to stand as correct, all others you just ignore and then do the victory dance. Oh, what data do you want? Here's one of my favorites: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e5/MarginalIncomeTax.svg/500px-MarginalIncomeTax.svg.png We have endured our worst times as the top merginal brkt has been lowered to the 30's and 20's percentage. Any other data issues you want? I link it all the time. I would be glad to provide any data that is available. Just as you would be as happy to avoid that data. My job is far more difficult, demanding than you and your manicured fingernails. I work in the 110+ degree environment and then with dangerous chemicals, now back to your office, looking down upon thise who actually do the work. BTW, you never have told us your career field, you must be proud. I post more data than most anyone here, WTF are you talking about. I'm constantly posting: - GDP data - Unemp data - DJIA - Historical tax brkt data You are obviously obtuse.

WTF are you smoking? I've never worked a toolroom, ever. I've been a mech since 17. CAREER FIELD: Engineer, Welder, Doctor or in your case, burger flipper EMPLOYER: Boeing, Kobelco, Johns Hopkins, or in your case, McDonalds How do you extrapolate employer from career field? Between that and your paranoia that peopel are going to call your employer, you've defined yourself.

Wow, how noble. You must be a Republican. Thx for the typical dishonest editorial of my words. No, if I were a Republican I would advocate low taxes for everyone because I stick to some taxation ideology that never has worked and then refuse to further talk about it, avoid it at all costs and run from history.

Bill has been notified, have a good one. waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa See posts #10 and #15 of this thread. It does seem to be her style. I know people who have been banned for less. Yeah, I've been given a time-out for far less. I was just amused at the irony of lucky whining about somebody having the balls to come right out and say what they mean instead of just dancing around it by formulating group insults that are obviously aimed at a particular person. Balls. Some gots 'em, some don't. Most have come out and told others to fuck themselves, I don't think it takes balls. And we all deliver light veiled insults, of course you, you're special. Awe, thank you , lucky. I didn't know you cared. But don't hold out hope. I'm already dating someone. And she's female!

This sounds like having your cake and eating it too. Kelp, you've gone from some posters here considering you somewhat objective and moderate to a typical RWer living on semantics and resorting to one-liners. The truth usually sorts itself out in time.

Tripling the debt isn't disater and you and your cronnies here whine about Obama allegedly being at fault for hammering the debt? You can't even help yourself from contradiction even in the same post can you? They were like .4% below 40%; I see you must be semantic to make a non-point. Arguing 39.6 is vastly different than 40 is semantic. If you're relegated to that, well, I'm sorry for you. Your garbage ran it from 70 to 28, then 40 (or 39.6 if you're afraid to round as is customary) to 35. Again, all these numbers are rounded to avoid the princess perfecctionist ridiculousness. You'll argue 39.6 vs 40, yet you won't argue lowering taxes, esp into teh 30's, 20's is a great way to fuck the economy. We see your agenda. I agree, there is no majic number, it's progressive and the top brkt s/b in the 50-60% range. Historically it's hard to argue that below that has been constantly great. Altho oour best run was at 40, that was once and with the assistance of LOWERED MILITARY SPENDING FOR 12 YEARS AND GENERAL MILITARY INNACTIVITY. Now be semantic and tell us about the Gulf War, a 2-week war. The idea is that we didn't get invloved in these protracted, expensive wars. So the GHWB era shouwed us that cutting the military and raising taxes works. Raising the top brkt to 50-60% would be a great safeguard, but the morons cry when we raise it to 40%, then lower it again, tacking on 5T to the debt and calling it success. 39.6 equals 40 in the real world, it doesn't when you have no argument to make. I guess it beats talking about how your turds have driven it way below 40 or 39.6 and fucked us all. It's a rendering of history, something neo-nothings don't acknowledge. 40 is a good point at which falling below trends bad things, falling below 30 yields huge trouble every time.

Well, as I said, almost identical, but I don't expect honest portrayal of what I write from you. No, if you had the ability to read you would have seen that I wrote that Reagan deficit spent, hence the massive debt not in time of war. Popularity means little, look at the 2004 election, the worst guy won the popularity contest and is now the 5th most unpopular pres ever. After Reagan, basically the country did, he took the debt from 900B to 2.7T and it took GHWB and Clinton 12 years to stop the bleeding, by then the debt was 5.5T. So yes, it really killed the nation. And it laid the template for the dumbest US president ever to follow Reagan's plan and finish us off. The world didn't end after Harding Collige, just killed many and millions suffered. > GWB, even tho he lowered taxes only 5%, when we get below 40% we have always had disaster since WWI. Tripling the debt isn't disater and you and your cronnies here whine about Obama allegedly being at fault for hammering the debt? You can't even help yourself from contradiction even in the same post can you? They were like .4% below 40%; I see you must be semantic to make a non-point. You can't bitch about the debt of others if you ignore the party who keeps taking a stable debt and turning it vertical.

Bill has been notified, have a good one. waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa See posts #10 and #15 of this thread. It does seem to be her style. I know people who have been banned for less. Yeah, I've been given a time-out for far less. I was just amused at the irony of lucky whining about somebody having the balls to come right out and say what they mean instead of just dancing around it by formulating group insults that are obviously aimed at a particular person. Balls. Some gots 'em, some don't. Most have come out and told others to fuck themselves, I don't think it takes balls. And we all deliver light veiled insults, of course you, you're special. Awe, thank you , lucky. I didn't know you cared. But don't hold out hope. I'm already dating someone. And she's female!

You mean, like have a comprehensive national health coverage system like every other industrialized nation in the world for the past 50 years, instead of a bloated military-industrial complex and being the de facto security umbrella for those other countries? How communist, and .... evil. I'd also much rather spend money on soldiers keeping armed criminals from crossing from Mexico into the US than on keeping them from crossing from Pakistan into Afghanistan. Where the fuck are our priorities? We can blame Reagan and GWB all we want, the real morons are ones who put them in place to make the decisions they do.

I read those as identical yes, short of someone in the first year of their working life. You want to dish it out, take it. We get your cheerleding, you stand alone thinking calling someone pathetic is the same as claiming someone must be a Cirle K clerk. Esp when you guys would order someone to be a Cirkle K clerk rather than go on unemp, so for once pick a side of the fence. Either way, just keep falling in line behind each other.

Not to mention that inheriting a budget out of control is hazzardous, you can't just chop these programs w/o causing total chaos, you must taper them off. Obama was in the unsavory position of having to not only support these illegitimate wars, but to fix a grossly upside down economy; Regan had a stable but sluggish economy and watched as Volkers contracted teh money, driving unemp from 7.5% to 10.8%.

Bush deficit: 450B Obama deficit: 1.4T When you're right, you're right. Gee, the fiscal year from 2008 to 2009, the addition to the debt was > $1T, I guess you're talking the fantasy deficit. When you want to be honest, come around. Oh, and that wasn't including TARP money. See, when you sit there and watch the mortgage indust run into the ground and start wars that yield no benefit, your fantasy budget gets doubled, tripled, etc. Back to your normally scheduled fantasy now.

Right now and the last couple years if we didn't have deficit spending we would be in the 2nd coming of the GD; disagree? You have choices and being partially pregnant is not one of them. Now you can adjust how much deficit spending, but if you don't deficit spend enough then we will have GD part II; agree? OK, I see you agree. I think we've spent teh right amount, give or take. *shot* Typo, not uncommon with me or here. Taxing to increase revs includes increasing income taxes, agreed? How do we reduce foreign spending? I guess keep letting the USD fall and we can achieve that. Agreed on domestic cash flow, to do that we need to enhance circulation which means break loose some of the cash and motivate investment; this is done by increased taxes. The RW approach is to cut taxes thinking it will free up money, this fairytale has never worked - show me where is has. When you lower taxes, it allows teh uber rich to take it out of the market, out of business and pocket it for a rainy day.

Right now and the last couple years if we didn't have deficit spending we would be in the 2nd coming of the GD; disagree? Low taxes allow the uber rich to remove their money from the game w/o penalty, high taxes and generous writeoffs require the uber rich to keep much of their money in the game vs stagnate in their account. Taxing to recover takes a lot longer than deficit stimulus spending, look at the GD and see how taht is obvious. Both are neccessary, but a big shit in the arm is a good thing. True, but that's a temp measure too. After we have at least stopped the bleeding, which Obamanomics have, now we need to inch up the tax brkts to hopefully restore jobs / investment. These aren't the very rich by any means, but these are the people with some fluid income who need higher taxes, hopefully they reinvest and hold that cash value while building a retirement which they can pullout in small measures as they age. But I agree, if you are in the brkt of a saver, cutting taxes means you save more in an economy that needs pissers; AKA low incomers. Yes, these tax writeoffs create jobs much of the time. That's the idea, wanna take your money out of the game at once, leave a bunch. Wanna take a little and reinvest most, go ahead. You still have to suffer a loss in order win a writeoff. Also, most peopel aren't that industrious or energetic to learn the game that well. But if they do, they have to circulate cash to get the deduction. Yea, nothing s/b done until we've stabilized, which is why Obama was right to not immediately institute taxes. Of course Hoover incr the top brkt from 25% to 63% in teh midst of a total mess, but I think he was right to then. I think the economy has stabilized enough to certainly let the GWB tax cuts expire, as it gets better raise them a little more to 50% top brkt-ish. Clinton received an already recovering economy, so he was able to jack them up 9% more immediatley, which still isn't that much. With the tax cuts expiring, I see some benefit realized by 2012, but we wouldn't see a lot of betterment until 2014-16, so hopefully we don't get another quack Republican in there in 12.

I think we all veil little jabs, I can think of one you posted today. But coming out and calling someone a pathetic ..... is too direct for this forum's moderation, so it seems. Right, another running exit; we're used to it.