Lucky...

When I see people constantly use absolutes, I realize they are just of out of constructive arguments and use these to create emotion. I'm a lib and I think immigrants should learn conversational English. \ Should or must? Why would any immigrant from south of the border learn english when everywhere you go they cater to spanish for them? I think there needs to a comprehensive immigration program that requires a basic level of English reading/writing and speaking. There, ya feel better?

fixie.

That these were written in 2008, before the stock disaster. Tell ya what, let's go 6:1 which is very generous to you, ignores GWB's last year which was pure disaster; IS 6:1 A GOOD RATIO FOR REPUBLICANS? IS THAT YOUR ARGUMENT? 6:1 or 10:1 is fairly semantic esp when considering the 25:1 computer generated result. Again, the real number is difficult to establish, what we do know is that the disparity is gross and that R's are caustic to the market and the economy. This is not a dissertation, just a review of the data when you submit 10k to teh market during opposing party's presidencies. Don't look for a peson to spend 1000 hours on a posting board. If youw ant to claim voctory because I haven't dedicated my life's work to this issue then you'll be using and expected escape. If you want to actually admit R's have been disasterous, I'll be surprised. I don't care what the actual ratio is, it isn't even close and R's do a great job smaching everything and parasitizing whatever is left. See, you can't control a free system, so you have to smash it into a corner and pick what wasn't destroyed. Right, since I didn't dedicate 10 years of my life to it, it's invalid. I get your redundant point. I, or anyone could take that approach to any issue; IT'S CALLED A COP OUT. And actully, political science and to a degree fiscal sciences are bastard sciences anyway as there is no way to run the tests over and over again, rendering a sample size of 1. But it's all we have so we review teh available data and here we have it; THE REPUBLICANS HAVE A POOR RECORD WITH THE DEBT AND WITH THE MARKET. And then he failed to respond to 2 of my posts; kind of a hit-n-run, I guess better than your approach that I won't spend 10 years dissecting every aspecct of it. As well, he illustrated in another thread that the gov of Cali has COMPLETE control of his/her economic legislation. And in federal finance the pres submits the budget, the house writes it, the senate passes it, the pres signs of vetoes. One of the worst economic times in US history was under the GWB presidency and they ran congress; GWB didn't veto 1 thing until 5.5 years later, so the R's completely ran that into the ground. The Clinton presidency enjoyed the 1st years with D's owning congress and most of the big taxing and spending bills came out of that, the last 6 years were full of stalemates. Either way, if teh pres signs it, he owns it. Even tho NAFTA was bipartisan, how many R's would say that Clinton is off the hook for sing it into law? IF YOU SIGN IT - YOU OWN IT. If you took 1 or presidencies, I see your point. We are talking 80 years of typical party politics, morons thnking tax cuts actually stimulate the economy and sensibility illustrating tax cuts stagnate the economy. Other than Eisenhower and to a small degree GHWB, Dems have raised taxes to needed levels and R's have chopped them to Great Depression levels every chance they've had. Tax policy is the biggest driver to the economy, the market is somewhat a byproduct to that. Of course you are, you've said nothing, provided no data. Hell, you didn't even address the issues I posed to you. Another one-hit wonder who's just fluffed us full of ambiguity and claimed victory. Run along now...

When I see people constantly use absolutes, I realize they are just of out of constructive arguments and use these to create emotion. I'm a lib and I think immigrants should learn conversational English.

When are you guys gonna pick a side of the fence and build a house on it? - Reagan = hero - Amnesty = bad - Obama = amnesty Seriously, figure yourselves out. NOTE: In case you didn't get it, Reagan's 1986 amnesty to all illegal Mexicans creates such a massive hypocrisy that even you guys can't escape it with BS.

(Un-named) Presidential Scholars.... Now there's a good unbiased source. Awwww, is this a liberal conspiracy? Remember, the all-time poll has Lincoln or Washington at #1, Pierce, Buchanan and Andrew Johnson at the bottom, so there goes your silly conspiracy. Are you saying Bush shouldn't be 5th from the bottom? Polls also put Eisenhower in the top 10 with Teddy Roosevelt up around there too. There are plenty of Dems near the bottom too, esp pre-Civil War Dems.

Make a point.

Yea, the real reason is balance of power. Once resources dry up, it may be 20 years of 100's of years, we won't give 2 shits about Palestine, Israel, Saudi or any of the others. I've gone back and forth with this, but I'm now at the position that it's all about resource.

Hey, you guys are all whiners with this recession stuff...... as per McCain's Financial advisor. BTW, the key to getting out of the Great Depression was raising taxes 260% as Hoover did in 1 fell swoop, then FDR raised them more. We deficit spend as we hate to offend the rich, but that is only a shot in the arm. Give a poor person money, he spends it; give a rich person money, he saves it stagnating the economy. You can create demand with welfare/assistance, you will create supply with the fear of excess inventory, hence a recession with a tax cut. Every time taxes have been the in 20's% or 30's% since Harding/Coolidge dropped them to 25% top brkt in the mod 1920's we have been in great fiscal trouble. With taxes over that we've only had minor recessions. I guess the exception to that is immediately post-WWII, but the same happened immediately post WWI, so that influence is expected. I guess the insanity thing applies; expect a different result for doing the same thing. Paethic thing is that even most rich do better in an environment with higher taxes, yet they screm for lower taxes. Kinda like a kid eating broccoli; do the painful and you will be better in the longrun.

But very material to that of your point: From your point of view, not a thing - when something good happens, it's always because of a Dem and whenever something bad happens, it's always the fault of a Rep. TRUTH: The tax increases that were well on the way to changing deficit numbers occurred before Jan 95. Clinton signed budgets that he agreed with, at least 1 he refused to until the R's sent him one that didn't cater to teh rich. CLINTON OWNED WHAT HE SIGNED, HE REFUSED TO OWN THE BS THE R's SENT HIM, SO HE VETOED AND LET THE GOV SHUTDOWN. The budget was fixed in 93 as Clinton decided to undo some of fascist pig Ronny's tax cuts, all else after that were a series of compromises where some taxes were cut again. Of course as compromise, the cap gains tax was cut, receipts dipped a little, but the tax increases were enough to carry them. Once again, WHAT CLINTIN SIGNED, HE OWNED - GOOD OR BAD. Good, as I said, WHAT CLINTON SIGNED - HE OWNED - WHAT HE REFUSED TO SIGN, HE REFUSED TO OWN.

Ahh, the good ole days when employers could just call in strike busters to beat picketers to death as an example to others. God what I would gove for that; you with me, brother? Workers need to realize they are shit and that they are servants to the rich and quit asking for rights and esp silly things like HC; that's only for some people, right Lawrocket? The church often heavily contributes to the Nazi (Republican) Party so they will do neato things like kill stem cell research funding; what's your point? And how wages drop to that of redneck states.

_________________________________________________ So you want to revoke the federal right to collectively bargian in teh name of less government intervention? I'm not saying that collective bargaining s/b mandatory, but you're saying teh government should prohibit it. I see, the less-controlling right. Then explain how wages might stay at what they are now? Do you really believe an employee, all employees not represented have a chance against the bigs? Again, I'm not an anarchist so I want unions to continue to represent the workers pending their acceptance of the union into the workplace.

WRONG! Texas appoints them to the Texas State Board of Education. Or to the governor's chair.

According to Bill Von, in Cali the gov writes the budgets, the legislature passes them and the gov line item vetoes what he doesn't want and then signs it, so apparently your understanding is lacking. As for federal, the pres writes a proposal, the house writes and passes a budget, the senate votes to pass it or it gets volleyed back and forth and then teh pres signs or vetoes it. See, the part you really have to pay attention to and get a grasp of is the last part where the pres signs or vetoes it. A president can't claim he was out numbered other than a veto override. If the pres signs, he owns it; quit making excuses for the garbage you've elected and actually own their dirty deeds. You can blather on about how the other guy wouldn't have been better, but what we know is the guy you elected took an awesome economy and ran it to hell, then left Obama to put it back together again. ***If a president or governor can veto line items, it doesn't help the process to much, it's still crap in, crap out. If a gov can line item, he/she then has zero to bitch about, he/she owns the entire thing. At least in reality anyway. Term limits won't help, GHW, Reagan and the whole Republican mess fucked up lots in just 1 term, so it's an entire flushing of the morons who think letting teh rich hang on to all/most of their money won't lead to economy stagnation.

Yup - almost half (49%) of the total increase over the Bush years in just 18% of the time. Scary thought, ain't it? Yep, and GWB was handed teh tailend of the most robust, largest growth in history, Obama the 2nd worst economy in history and you call it a draw . Actually, at least Hoover raised taxes from 25% top brkt ro 63% top brkt 9 or so months before he left office, so he laid the framework. GWB just kept his thumb in his ass, shrugging his shoulders, so really Obama may have inherited the worst economy in some regards. But hey, inheriting a 1 trillion dolalr + deficit is the same as inheriting a 236B surplus in Mikeeworld

GWB left = 10.7T Now = 13.1T diff 2.4T The debt would have to be 16T in order for you to be right. Not to mention GWB gave Obama a record deficit that was climbing, unemp that was soaring (3.4% in the year preceeding) and a banking system on the verge of total collapse. Of course if we ignore that then all is well. If we clamped down on the debt as you wish by cutting social programs, of course keep the military massive and growth to fight our imaginary enemy, we would enjoy the GD part II. _________________________________________________ http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/ here is proof that lucky is wrong again.. Why even look at Heritage? Are you not aware that taht's tehrag that Hannity, Limbaugh and the rest of the maggots turn to constantly? What would you do if I posted Moveon.org at all, but esp as some kind of reputable and objective source? Go ahead and extrapolate what you want and make an argument OF YOUR OWN, but I won't address a partisan rag, nor would you. Tellme why I'm wrong in your words, not a cut-n-paste from a partisan rag; you wouldn't participate in me doing the same.

No, his tax increases happened in 93, the Reps then tried to get him to sign off on tax cuts and he rejected most of them, shutting down the gov for a bit. So your point is once again wasted, Clinton stood up to the R's in congress and rejected one of their annual budgets that was way too much for the rich, hence his presidency was fiscally successful. It's your fantasy world, live it like you want it. As with Rush, I hope hitting the quote button feels good, as you have failed to respond to any content. Gotta provide some, first. Like I said, it's your fantasy world, live it like you want it. Here they are: No, his tax increases happened in 93, the Reps then tried to get him to sign off on tax cuts and he rejected most of them, shutting down the gov for a bit. So your point is once again wasted, Clinton stood up to the R's in congress and rejected one of their annual budgets that was way too much for the rich, hence his presidency was fiscally successful. What in that is untrue? From your point of view, not a thing - when something good happens, it's always because of a Dem and whenever something bad happens, it's always the fault of a Rep. Let me simplify this for you via enumeration: 1) No, his tax increases happened in 93, 2) the Reps then tried to get him to sign off on tax cuts and he rejected most of them, 3) shutting down the gov for a bit. 4) So your point is once again wasted, Clinton stood up to the R's in congress and rejected one of their annual budgets that was way too much for the rich, 5) hence his presidency was fiscally successful. I really can't simlify it much more, unless you want everyone to see you continue to run, answer them comprehensively.

Yes, if you can revoke the federally granted power to collectively bargain, you can keep the little guy down and the rich will do better - nice to see we agree on something. Shall we also state that wages are lower and workplace mortality higher in red states, which are usually right to work states?

Other than line item veto powers, the fed model is the same. I didn't realize the Cali gov had line itme veto powers.

I have no idea what that sentence means. It makes as much sense as the rest of his posts.

The majority votes of 2 separate Supreme Court panels, each coincidentally in 7 to 2 decisions, have disagreed with that analysis. In 1965, Griswold v. Connecticut recognized a right to marital privacy derived from the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. In 1973, the Constitutional right-to-privacy analysis in Griswold was held to apply to abortion in Roe v. Wade. Griswold synopsis Roe v. Wade synopsis That's kinda what I've been saying, forgot the caselaw but I've heard of them before. More macrostructurally, what is the difference between the US const and SCOTUS decisions rendered as a result of issues being decided upon review of it? The living constitution, in many ways, is more relevant than the original drafting. The way the living const is weaker is that it can go away, but once it's reached stare decisis status it becomes even stronger in that it's contemporary and binding today; the original draft almost becomes a museum piece as far as relevance once issues/decisions become long-standing - stare decisis. That was my point these guys can't grasp, they're so in love with the original draft, probably because it's easier, that they don't want to hear about the constitution that matters; the living constitution.

No, his tax increases happened in 93, the Reps then tried to get him to sign off on tax cuts and he rejected most of them, shutting down the gov for a bit. So your point is once again wasted, Clinton stood up to the R's in congress and rejected one of their annual budgets that was way too much for the rich, hence his presidency was fiscally successful. It's your fantasy world, live it like you want it. As with Rush, I hope hitting the quote button feels good, as you have failed to respond to any content. Gotta provide some, first. Like I said, it's your fantasy world, live it like you want it. Here they are: No, his tax increases happened in 93, the Reps then tried to get him to sign off on tax cuts and he rejected most of them, shutting down the gov for a bit. So your point is once again wasted, Clinton stood up to the R's in congress and rejected one of their annual budgets that was way too much for the rich, hence his presidency was fiscally successful. What in that is untrue?

I look forward to see the numbers California's prison population has grown exponentially. Two primary factors caused the growth" 1. Ronald Reagan closed all the state hospitals, causing a trans-institutional effect where now, the mentally ill are serving prison time instead of being safeguarded in hospitals, 2. the three strikes law. While in theory, the three strikes law is great. However, there are circumstances where it is completely inappropriate. For instance, on can steal a pack of gum and it is a misdemeanor. Steal a second gum and becomes felony petty theft. Steal a third pack of gum, it's felony petty theft with priors, three strikes, your out and in prison for 25 years. You might want to restudy your figures! I don't sdeee a single fact Other than the deruglating mental hospitals, whic I think was a huge mistake! It's really a national trend to incarcerate mentally ill people, or in the case of Texas, execute them.

No, his tax increases happened in 93, the Reps then tried to get him to sign off on tax cuts and he rejected most of them, shutting down the gov for a bit. So your point is once again wasted, Clinton stood up to the R's in congress and rejected one of their annual budgets that was way too much for the rich, hence his presidency was fiscally successful. It's your fantasy world, live it like you want it. As with Rush, I hope hitting the quote button feels good, as you have failed to respond to any content.

If ya feel the need to reply just to do so, it makes you lok as if you have nothing to say. Here it is again, try to address substance. No, his tax increases happened in 93, the Reps then tried to get him to sign off on tax cuts and he rejected most of them, shutting down the gov for a bit. So your point is once again wasted, Clinton stood up to the R's in congress and rejected one of their annual budgets that was way too much for the rich, hence his presidency was fiscally successful.