Lucky...

First you talk about national debt, then when that gets refuted, you return with an article on budget deficit. Do you even realize there is a difference? Either you are being deliberately obtuse, or you have no clue..... No - I misread the post that I responded to. I read it as "increased". No you didn't, you first responded by citing a debt, called it a National dept but we know what ya meant. Then you referenced a deficit. That's your fuck-up; nice try to divert.

I suggest you read post 28, I responded to post 27 there.

First you talk about national debt, then when that gets refuted, you return with an article on budget deficit. Do you even realize there is a difference? Either you are being deliberately obtuse, or you have no clue..... I posted this exact thing before I read yours. They really don't get it, they just parrot their heroes, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc and don't even do a perfect job of that.

For fuck's sake, you answered your own point and cannot even see that. The R's are homophobes via their agenda, they do something gay, they are hypocrites. The D's are generally more gay-friendly, they do something gay, they aren't hypocrites. Cheating on spouses falls under the same basis as the D's understand, teh R's want to hang people and establish covenant marriages, etc.

And yours is hell-bent on doubling it in record time - this is supposed to be an improvement? ANYTHING has to be an improvement.... If I ran my finances the way you guys ran shit since 1981..... I would just do the world a favor... and blow my fucking brains out. You might want to pull that last sentence out, seeing as how your guy is doing EXACTLY that and even more than the Reps. While I don't agree with your ideology, I'd miss you if you weren't around anymore. Really? Even your heroes at the Heritage Foundation are honest enough to post this graph: http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/growth-federal-spending-revenue Why won't you be? Spending is down and revs are way up. Sorry, it's not hard to read, no words, just pics for you, Mike.

The thread was going good with no shortage of humor and it really was light on the partisanship (there were a few partisan stabs from miscellaneous sources, but for the most part it was kept to a minimum) ... until of course Lucky came along to spoil it and spew his rhetoric. A guy responding as teh author and directly stabbing at Dems is your idea of 'kept to a minimum?' "Some can not be bothered with facts or logic, they are called democrats!" Peterson Jonas http://www.entertonement.com/clips/jsbnpgwdyx--Sad-feeling-Sad-Violin-AudioMicro

Now there's a real old-school intellect whom which we can hang our hats How about these facts: http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdp_glance.htm http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=%5EDJI+Interactive#chart1:symbol=^dji;range=2y;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined Jobs are being created, the GDP is smoking, the market is up; what data do you have. Wait, wait, wait, not the rhetoric, but the data/facts as you suggested. After the Great Republican Depression, Hoover had to raise taxes to bail us out, quite a bit too late, but he finally did. Obama chose to deficit spend to help the little guy after this Great Republican Recession; either process works, but an action had to occur. Isn't it amazing how there's always a string of Republicans right before fucked economic times and a string of Dem presidents during the repair? - 3 terms of scumpublicans leading to the GD - 3 terms of scumpublicans leading to the 1990 recession - 2 terms of scumpublicans leading to our current Great Republicans Recssion Most of the debt is attributable to 2 scumbags: Fascist pif Ronnie and GWB. Yet you say that's illogic? Why? For fuck's sake, lucky, do you find it impossible to respond to a thread without using it to further your own totally unrelated vendetta? SO no repsonse?

TURTLESPEED: He succeeded in not pushing the national dept into the trillions. AMAZON: DUUUUUUUDE... maths is your friend...delusion is not. I agree that it was a record deficit, but it was hardly over a trillion. TURTLESPEED: Reality isn't your strong point, or are you just living in one that survives only in your head? Ok, you first posted the debt (dept), the national debt. Amazon asks WTF you are talking about and then you support your claim by making reference to the deficit. Here’s’ my question: Do you know the difference between the debt and a deficit? DEFICIT = annual increase DEBT = overall tally In your first assertion, did you mean to say: ‘He succeeded in not pushing the annual deficit into the trillions.’ Or do you really know what you’re talking about? Because GWB DID manage to push the national debt into the trillions; 5 or so.

And exactly what great things did Bush accomplish when the R's dominated congress as well? GWB was able to successfully veto the children's HC Bill, which that evil demon Obama and the congressional Dems passed 2 weeks in. GWB did great things

HUH? The Senate was a 49-49-2 split with fat Cheney as the tie breaker where he cast the 1tth most tie breaks of 47 VP's if memory serves. You mean the Dems controlled the House for tha last 2 years, yes we know. You don't understand how congress works. GWB vetoed 1 bill in 5.5 years and it was a stem cell bill, not a financial one. Then the D's come in and fight your dictator and cause him to veto 11 more, 4 were overridden giving him an overall 33% override rate (really higher if you count the dems 4 of 11) which I think was 3rd highest of all time since Washington. So you say the dems did nothing? They kept your beloved dictator in check as well as they could with a small House lead and tie in the Senate.

But your saying that Democrats believe people can't and shouldn't take care of themselves is not putting words in other people's mouths? Gimme a break. Oh wait, your response will be, "According to their votes." Very profound. Also not backed by any analysis or evidence from you, just a regurgitation of what you've been told to say. Expanding food stamps Expanding unemployment benifits Good job too, or the BUSH RECESSION would have had people starving when their benefits ran out. You seem to conveniently ignore that YOUR guy was President during the bank melt-down, the mortgage crisis and a 25% drop in the stock market over his 8 years in office. And the bogus wars, and the 5T addition to the debt.

I will, as long as you keep telling me you know what I think about every issue in world politics because I voted for Obama in 2008. Still puttin words in others mouths to try and save your point http://www.wavsource.com/snds_2010-05-17_1897130623974059/sfx/cuckoo_clock2_x.wav

I'll go as far as to say, anymore, it's only mildly interesting when any politician does it. What's more interesting is when they tell us it's bad, don't do it, then they do it. Did John Edwards preach abstinence from the pulpit? Did he have his lover interview him about what a great guy he was for being so abstinent? John Edwards isn't any better than this guy, just less interesting. And less hypocritical.

But if a Democrat does it It's "Oh well." If Joe Biden was to have gay sex in an airport it would be "Oh well, that's Joe, It's OK, he's a democrat." It's only bad if republicans do it. Didn't you learn anything from John Edwards? EXACTLY, because D's accept gays or any people who cheat, etc. It's the nuts on teh right who don't, hence box themselves into a corner. Glad you figured it out; the higher you raise the bar, even if it's a pseudo raising, the higher you must jump.

R's clean house? WTF are you talking about? Larry Craig refused to resign and the cowardly R Party wasn't even talking impeachment, not even censure. Shall we talk Scooter Libby and his communtation? Clean house - bull fucking shit. FAIL.

Are you sure he's a republican? I thought they only had sex in airport men's rooms. Hey, Larry Craig didn't have gay sex, he just has a wide stance when he shits

Now there's a real old-school intellect whom which we can hang our hats How about these facts: http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdp_glance.htm http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=%5EDJI+Interactive#chart1:symbol=^dji;range=2y;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined Jobs are being created, the GDP is smoking, the market is up; what data do you have. Wait, wait, wait, not the rhetoric, but the data/facts as you suggested. After the Great Republican Depression, Hoover had to raise taxes to bail us out, quite a bit too late, but he finally did. Obama chose to deficit spend to help the little guy after this Great Republican Recession; either process works, but an action had to occur. Isn't it amazing how there's always a string of Republicans right before fucked economic times and a string of Dem presidents during the repair? - 3 terms of scumpublicans leading to the GD - 3 terms of scumpublicans leading to the 1990 recession - 2 terms of scumpublicans leading to our current Great Republicans Recssion Most of the debt is attributable to 2 scumbags: Fascist pif Ronnie and GWB. Yet you say that's illogic? Why?

Care to address the fact that you used a pro-communist approach to illegal immigration? Conservatives have so much more in common with Communist ideology that they are totally oblivious to anyway, like the distribution of wealth; Capitalism and Communism are much more alike than Socialism. Here it is again: Sure, cause you're white. So your fellow Mexican-American born Americans s/b subject to constant harrassment w/o giving any PC? So that constitutional thing is just not important? 4th, 14th. I see, the conservatives selectively wave the US COnst around. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I agree with what Spock said; "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sorry, you stepped directly in it this time. What you've definded is Utilitarianism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism Utilitarian has been assigned to Bentham http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Bentham an English jurist, philosopher, and legal and social reformer. He was a basic old school liberal socialist and you've just aligned with him, welcome on board. See, America was allegedly, reportedly founded upon teh principles of INDIVIDUAL LIBERTIES AND RIGHTS, whereas Utilutarianism doesn't care about that, they care about the whole and a few losing rights so teh masses can emmerge is just fine with Utilitarianism. In the American model, the system was designed so that individuals are guaranteed rights, thus the whole are collectively guaranteed rights. In systems that subscribe to Utilitarianism, the indivuals aren't really worried about so much, it's about the survival of the mass; if a few get dropped along the way, that's ok, the whole needs to survive and you've just agreed with that and with Bentham the Socialist. Here's a real good encyclopedic-type definition: http://www.urbandictionary.com/...?term=Utilitarianism A collectivist moral philosophy which states that the moral worth of an action is directly dependant upon how much pleasure or good that action brings upon others. It is the belief in the most good for the most people. Under this moral philosophy the person exists solely to serve the community. According to Utilitarianism the person has no value, only the people do. Communism is the philosophy of Utilitarianism put into practice as a socio-economic means of organizing society. So guess what? You've aligned yourself with Bentham the liberal Socialist as well COMMUNIST thinking, as general Communism follows Utilitarianism. Congratulations. So, is the new AZ Law, 1070 a communist-based law? Yes of course, you said so yourself w/o knowing.

His stands and Mine gets deleted and you won't answer the question? Really? You won't address the issue. Does this make the maggots happy when you side with them? Increase/maintain your site hits under teh giuse of keeping the forum clean? And they acuse me of status quo? Do what ya gotta do, it's pathetic that you delete mine and his BS stands. Address it or do what ya gotta do to continue the pandering to website hits and general so-called forum etequite. You don’t even do shit when a guy says, “Lucky, you are one bigoted, senseless asshole who doesn't deserve the oxygen you are stealing from the rest of us. “ And when another guy says something ½ that vile and I ask what’s up his ass I get dinged, that’s moderation. Just tell us, delete me or do whatever it is you consider fair as usual. Talk about status quo; keeping the lemmings happy via Utilitarianism. Bill, what are you waiting for? I mean why haven't you already deleted me? Really, every MF and his brother take shots at me constantly. I realize it's not about fairness, it's about keeping the clique happy in order to keep the website hits up. I realize it's nothing personal, just a jack-me-off game of balancing things to keep the majority happy under the guise of FORUM RULES. BULLSHIT, all those times where people took major shots and you said, "I took care of it in private." Right, keeps the majority happy so they keep coming back, so the sponsors keep paying, etc. Example: Lucky, you are one bigoted, senseless asshole who doesn't deserve the oxygen you are stealing from the rest of us. If you were half as smart as you think you are, you would be twice as smart as you actually are. (Take your time and figure it out, or find a 5th grader to explain it to you.) Yes, this post is a PA, and is not disguised as anything else. JCEMAN http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=3858630;page=2;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25; And then Quade says, "aw shucks, cut it out." I've been here for years, you know who I am by username and my real name, I'm just curious as to why you don't delete me. I'm the kind of motherfucker to face a man and ask WTF, so here I am. I'm not like the pussy punk 5'4", 140 lbs squirrels on here who are all balls on the keyboard with manicured nails, yet face to face they look at the floor. Do you not delete me because you don't want to look like a total Nazi; a guy like me who takes constant shots, yet I even ask what's up their ass and I get warned? I mean, might that hurt your website hits on the other end? And no, I'm not complaining. And no, I'm not questioning. I understand your job is to keep the old-time trolls happy to get the website hits and when I say things like, "fascist Pig Ronnie" that hurts some of your clientele. so you have to find a way to rid the forum of that in order to keep the maggots (conservatives) happy. So again, am I right that you don't just delete me due to that looking like you're catering too much to that side, hurting hits from the lefties? Bill, I don't think you're a punk, man-up and tell me what keeps you from deleting me rather than just letting people take massive shots at me, trying to warn me off every time I even almost start to defend myself. Do it in open forum, I mean, everyone knows the moderation is arbitrary and capricious, I think everyone wants to know. You could be a dick and delete me and all this BS, but I am asking you to clarify this for the forum, I guarantee all would read. Explain why some people get away with murder, others can’t breathe. We all kinda know, so this is basically a rhetorical question, but just take the high road here.

Bill, what are you waiting for? I mean why haven't you already deleted me? Really, every MF and his brother take shots at me constantly. I realize it's not about fairness, it's about keeping the clique happy in order to keep the website hits up. I realize it's nothing personal, just a jack-me-off game of balancing things to keep the majority happy under the guise of FORUM RULES. BULLSHIT, all those times where people took major shots and you said, "I took care of it in private." Right, keeps the majority happy so they keep coming back, so the sponsors keep paying, etc. Example: Lucky, you are one bigoted, senseless asshole who doesn't deserve the oxygen you are stealing from the rest of us. If you were half as smart as you think you are, you would be twice as smart as you actually are. (Take your time and figure it out, or find a 5th grader to explain it to you.) Yes, this post is a PA, and is not disguised as anything else. JCEMAN http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=3858630;page=2;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25; And then Quade says, "aw shucks, cut it out." I've been here for years, you know who I am by username and my real name, I'm just curious as to why you don't delete me. I'm the kind of motherfucker to face a man and ask WTF, so here I am. I'm not like the pussy punk 5'4", 140 lbs squirrels on here who are all balls on the keyboard with manicured nails, yet face to face they look at the floor. Do you not delete me because you don't want to look like a total Nazi; a guy like me who takes constant shots, yet I even ask what's up their ass and I get warned? I mean, might that hurt your website hits on the other end? And no, I'm not complaining. And no, I'm not questioning. I understand your job is to keep the old-time trolls happy to get the website hits and when I say things like, "fascist Pig Ronnie" that hurts some of your clientele. so you have to find a way to rid the forum of that in order to keep the maggots (conservatives) happy. So again, am I right that you don't just delete me due to that looking like you're catering too much to that side, hurting hits from the lefties? Bill, I don't think you're a punk, man-up and tell me what keeps you from deleting me rather than just letting people take massive shots at me, trying to warn me off every time I even almost start to defend myself. Do it in open forum, I mean, everyone knows the moderation is arbitrary and capricious, I think everyone wants to know. You could be a dick and delete me and all this BS, but I am asking you to clarify this for the forum, I guarantee all would read. Explain why some people get away with murder, others can’t breathe. We all kinda know, so this is basically a rhetorical question, but just take the high road here.

One of top ten stupidest comments ever made on DZ.com....or anywhere. What crawled up your ass? Now you're hawking my posts just because of the 2-hands on each handle thread. Deal with it. What I find really stupid is when people make an assertion, criticism, etc w/o any support, and that goes to all.

http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/publicaccess/caselookup.aspx It appears he had just gotten an extreme DUI shortly before his death. Sounds like a crazy mofo for a 22 YO. Lotta livin in a few years,

Apparently you didn't read 1070 and/or you didn't read my post where I illustrated on its face that it is a law that promotes racial profiling. http://www.azleg.gov/...2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf E. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A PEACE OFFICER MAY LAWFULLY STOP ANY PERSON WHO IS OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE IF THE OFFICER HAS REASONABLE SUSPICION TO BELIEVE THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF ANY CIVIL TRAFFIC LAW AND THIS SECTION. Listen....wait, wait, wait, just listen up. Clear your mind of all your preconceptions. In order to pull you over, you know, the good white people of America, not the shady, lying, cheating brown ones, but in order to pull you over a cop must have PROBABLE CAUSE. This law lowers the bar so that a cop may pull over a person whom he suspects is illegal with just REASONABLE SUSPICION. OK, so what would a =n AZ cop use to determione via his REASONABLE SUSPICION that a motorist is an illegal alien. Well, we know the problem here is that it's teh Mexicans who are sneaking over the border, not the French, the Italians, the Australians, etc. So a cop could formulate his own RS that a car full of Latinos is full of illegals or some could be. So he could pull them over and ask for papers from all and be within the scope of 1070. If 1070 never was, that cop would have to have PC, not RS, so this law does place a HUGE racial element on people who are brown. Wrong, because in order to pull over and issue a traffic ticket an officer must establish PC, not just RS. And issuing a search or arrest warrant is a directive; way above RS or PC, so that's a different issue altogether. You're convoluting your standards of proof here. http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s217.htm STANDARD OF PROOF The amount of evidence which a plaintiff (or prosecuting attorney, in a criminal case) must present in a trial in order to win is called the standard of proof. Different cases require different standards of proof depending on what is at stake. The common standards are: •Beyond a reasonable doubt (criminal cases)--for a criminal defendant to be convicted of a crime, the prosecutor must prove her case to the point that the jurors have no reasonable doubts in their minds that the defendant did whatever he is charged with having done. •Clear and convincing evidence (civil cases involving the potential loss of important interests such as the termination of parental rights)--for a party to prove a case under this standard, she must show something more than it is more likely than not, but not as much as beyond a reasonable doubt. No legal scholar has ever been able to define clear and convincing evidence more precisely than that. •Preponderance of the evidence (most civil cases including fault divorces)--preponderance of the evidence generally means that a party will win if she can show that it is more likely than not that her contention is true. That cover the top 3, clear and convincing evidence is more obscure. The bottom 2 are: PC and RS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof#Reasonable_suspicion Standards for detentions, searches, arrests or warrants [edit] Reasonable suspicion Reasonable suspicion is a low standard of proof in the U.S. to determine whether a brief investigative stop or search by a police officer or any government agent is warranted. It is important to note that this stop and/or search must be brief; its thoroughness is proportional to, and limited by, the low standard of evidence. A more definite standard of proof (often probable cause) would be required to warrant a more thorough stop/search. In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the United States Supreme Court ruled that reasonable suspicion requires specific, articulable, and individualized suspicion that crime is afoot. A mere guess or "hunch" is not enough to constitute reasonable suspicion. A investigatory stop is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The state must justify the seizure by showing that the officer conducting the stop had a reasonable articulable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot. The important point is that officers cannot deprive a citizen of liberty unless the officer can point to specific facts and circumstances and inferences there from that would amount to a reasonable suspicion. The officer must be prepared to establish that criminal activity was a logical explanation for what he perceived. The requirement serves to prevent officers from stopping individuals based merely on hunches or unfounded suspicions. The purpose of the stop and detention is to investigate to the extent necessary to confirm or dispel the original suspicion. If the initial confrontation with the person stopped dispels suspicion of criminal activity the officer must end the detention and allow the person to go about her business. If the investigation confirms the officer's initial suspicion or reveals evidence that would justify continued detention the officer may require the person detained to remain at the scene until further investigation is complete. In some cases, the investigation may develop sufficient evidence to constitute probable cause. So you see the law lowers the bar to the lowest rung possible for people who could be illegals, brown people. If a cop stopped me for RS of being an illegal, found a bag of dope, I would likely to have the charge and evidence thrown out via fruits of the poisonous tree doctrine; poisonous search warrants poisonous fruit; no admission. If I were brown it would come in as the stop would be legal. OK, several brown people in a car, driving north from Tucson, a cop hears them speaking Spanish at a light and there you go. What could happen, they all have ID and let em go? Sure, where's the civil rts violation considering the new law? There isn't one. Absent the law it's all there; lawsuit. RS is the lowest S.O.P. and the line is very thin; pure discretion.

Hey Jakee, can you answer the question? Facing professionally trained soldiers in a free country, no. I would no more expect to face a volley of gunfire for throwing a stone from over 70 yards away than I would for just being there. My turn. Your earlier line of questioning indicates that you would shoot someone who threw a stone at you from 70 feet away. Can you confirm that this is the case? Honest answer: It would depend on the situation and the variables. 70 yards is NOT an unreachable distance. You would have to put a LOT of effort into the throw though. That would make it possibly a deadly weapon. How many people are throwing the rocks? What other options are there? I would take steps to avoid actually having to pull the trigger, and leave firing the weapon as the very last option. Self defense requires emminent danger. 70 feet or 70 yards; good luck in court.

I agree that it would not be simple or inexpensive but...... Just because it is not simple or expensive should not be a valid reason to not enforce laws, regardless of what you may think. Where did I write that it would be? Do pay attention, dear boy. Where did timmyfitz write that it would be, before you posed the question to him? Do pay attention, dear boy. Hillarious, a guy w/o education addressing a tenured proff as, "Dear Boy." Thx, Mike, ya made my day Nice PA, Mr. Legal Eagle Acft Mechanic. Too bad your education didn't include the definitions of sarcasm or irony, something I picked up in grade school but evidently you missed out on in your mail order jurisprudence course. I have 200 college / univ credits, you have maybe a vo-tech, Kallend has a PhD and you call him - dear boy. Gotta laugh.