Lucky...

Everyone knows that Obama was really born in Portugal, and is a Greek-Orthodox terrorist. Is Portugal the capital of Kenya then? This is way too confusing, these Republicans really have this geography stuff nailed, I say we send em to play Jeopardy.

Yes, but you see Belgian watches the market in increments, as the macro picture doesn't help his failed argument. He has to make the argument that 10,800 is bad for now, considering back in the shittier times we we're supposed to break 10k until later this year.

REALLY????? As per your rag, spending is shading off from your hero and revenues went from way down to slightly up. Perhaps you were looking at the graph with a little bias or were otherwise unable to understand it. http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/growth-federal-spending-revenue

OMG, what took you so long? I was calling this for months now, the market recoverd rom 6500 to 11,200 and it drops to just under 11k and as I said, you would be here to *TRY* to make your claim that the market would tank, the one you made 6 MONTHS AGO. Will you feel silly if it regains tomorrow, next week, etc? Nostradamas, this is not a completed prediction, it's an S&P adjustment to Greece and Portugal tanking. Until and unless the market falls to 8-9k and stays, your prediction is as expeccted, useless. Even then I said it could make adjustments, but you predicted a soon slide; 1 bad day 6 months later warrants you to claim victory. Hillarious. As I said, hang around long enough and you will see a bad day, bad week, and even a slide. Keeping your guess in the running for good until the market falls a mere 200 points is typical and expected from you.

Einstein, the right has been in power for most of the last 30 years, why would they protest? Let's see, you don't give a shit about poor people, you want most/all taxes cut to nothing so class disparity stretches even further, you want illegals shot on sight..... I'm guessing you would fit right in. Who's violence are you 2 referring to, or is it too much to ask for a citation?

Just as you cannot find any GWB voters, most of the bumper sticker long scraped off, if global warming is real and catastrophy occurs you won't be able to find any, 'global warming is BS' type people. Everyone will suddenly become retroactively green.

No one has yet to post an assertion of his for anyone to debunk; would you like to be the first?

OK, unlike the other guy who pipes in to show his dislike for liberals, I watched it and am unsure as to what you're referring to. It's so cute when you play the obtuse one. See if you can find some commentary from the Onion about it. It's so typical when you have to reply and resort to nothingness from long ago. That's as sad as an old married couple dragging shit out of the cellar when they have no argument. You posted crap, I watched it and asked; now you can't even back it; worthless thread. Or, you can go ask your conservative buddy, hwt about CNNBC and their take on this. You feign ignorance so you post this?? You can't make a claim/case either. Just another of the many, "I hate libs" rant from Gawain. Nice to be on this side of the fence.

OK, unlike the other guy who pipes in to show his dislike for liberals, I watched it and am unsure as to what you're referring to. It's so cute when you play the obtuse one. See if you can find some commentary from the Onion about it. It's so typical when you have to reply and resort to nothingness from long ago. That's as sad as an old married couple dragging shit out of the cellar when they have no argument. You posted crap, I watched it and asked; now you can't even back it; worthless thread. Or, you can go ask your conservative buddy, hwt about CNNBC and their take on this.

OK, unlike the other guy who pipes in to show his dislike for liberals, I watched it and am unsure as to what you're referring to.

Well, he's got something over George W. Bush then. Ooooooooooooo.....flop...did you work hard on that one? First, it's not even germane to the topic, and second, President Bush has more experience and knowledge from his business failures. Fascinating to know that you support a Republican philosophy of appointing proven failures to high office. You must like Sarah Palin too. To be honest, I have a bit of "Palin fatigue"...but I see her appeal... And that is......????? Her vast knowledge of SCOTUS cases and media publications, eps since she's a journalism major.

Yes and she took one of the easiest majors and broke it down into like 6 different schools inbetween partying gigs.

Same can be said for anyone of a number of politicians as well as a number of people in charge of enormous companies. That doesn't make them "bad people", just a bit out of touch with what the rest of us go through. For some jobs, I'm not even sure it bothers me all that much. For others, it's ridiculous. In the case of Geithner, I'm not really sure it matters all that much. He'd dealing with macro-economics that might not have much to do with being a dishwasher, waiter or whatever. I didn't say he was a "bad" person. He's clearly out of touch, and it's not about being a dishwasher. A CEO is at a macro-level as well as street level compared to a policy maker such as this. It does indeed matter. Oh, what has he done to fuck things up due to his alleged incompetence or from being out of touch? Let's start with his taxes...your homework assignment is to review his role while he was head of the NY Fed during the meltdown, and the deals that were brokered while he still held that position... I thought we were referring to him as fed chair. We could take Reagan and review bedtime with Bonzo, GWB and his coke-riddled parties and cowering from VN, of Clinton and his endless sexual tyrades, but what has Geitner done AS FED CHAIRMAN to fuck anything up. If you want to attack his former life: not interested and I don't even know what he did before.

He showed a video snipit of Obama saying that the cap and trade would skyrocket the price of electricty...than he cut back to his stupid chalk board and I fell back asleep... I think the best part of your story was the sleep. At least you were alone with your thoughts instead of being brainwashed with extremist garbage. Perhaps not a good idea to fall asleep with that show on.....subliminal messaging.

you asked for a position, now you are changing the argument? C'mon - lay out the scenarios if you want an opinion as for framing a law? I'm not in congress You obviously have no clue how the law works in regard to statute. Would you have it read: Gun rights restoration only for convicted felons who actually didn't commit the crime for which they were convicted. You must prove you didn't commit the crime and then you can be restored. See, statute doesn't work that way, it makes a clear point in most cases, it doesn't extend a lot of discretion; it's normally very black/white. Now, the process works where the ex-con petitions the court and the judge can use discretion, the prosector's office has the right to pipe in too, but they are sometimes ignored. The question is simple, you are dodging it as before. EDIT: I think we know you want a gun in the hand of every man, woman and child, regardless of criminal history or mental state. I'm still waiting for data supporting the claim that more gun ownership = less crime. Whoever that was who laid it and ran.

Only when the courts give them the right to own, back And I have seen one case of this personally Congratulations on having your rights restored Figures You dont even know the difference between "seen" and "experenced" If you know I'm making a funny, why the first part Sme reason you made you post to me? Can anyone decipher gibberish?

Only when the courts give them the right to own, back And I have seen one case of this personally Congratulations on having your rights restored Figures You dont even know the difference between "seen" and "experenced" If you know I'm making a funny, why the first part

Same can be said for anyone of a number of politicians as well as a number of people in charge of enormous companies. That doesn't make them "bad people", just a bit out of touch with what the rest of us go through. For some jobs, I'm not even sure it bothers me all that much. For others, it's ridiculous. In the case of Geithner, I'm not really sure it matters all that much. He'd dealing with macro-economics that might not have much to do with being a dishwasher, waiter or whatever. I didn't say he was a "bad" person. He's clearly out of touch, and it's not about being a dishwasher. A CEO is at a macro-level as well as street level compared to a policy maker such as this. It does indeed matter. Oh, what has he done to fuck things up due to his alleged incompetence or from being out of touch?

But the police union thugs are ok, cause they're cops and cops are all good Do you see how cops are generalized as pigs? It's too bad for like 10% of them who are not, I've met a few, went to school (Justice Studies) with a few. I realize it's a brainwashing even more extreme than military brainwashing. I think the Duke student beating is a great example of that.

The topic was all over the place WITHIN the realm of guns/ownership, asking about a person's position on ex-con gun ownership IS in line with the topic. We aren't so narrow here, at least everyone else, that we can't venture around and within an issue. REHMWA's position is that gun ownership shouldn't be abridged in any way, or so it appears, he feesl so as it is supposedly a way to reduce crime. The trap he wouldn't fall into, the very one you haven't figured out yet, was that once he says ex-cons are allowed to own guns, ex-cons recitivate at a high rate; you're putting guns in the hands of criminals. I see he was smart enough to act offended and run, you haven't understood what has been going on here. Yes, he wasn't about to give his true feelings that ex-cons s/b allowed to own guns; he was aware of the follow-up. So instead he ran off. >>> Why rhetorical question was brought up. Because it was a set-up so REHMWA could make his assertion that gun rts should not be withheld for anyone, even ex-cons, as it reduces crime. The follow-up would be to say that since the recidivism rate is high, 70% or so, that what you're doing is to put guns in the hands of criminals by permitting them to own guns. REHMWA, to his credit, was smart enough to act offended and run off; what's your excuse? Another area of confusion on your part: RW = right wing, REHMWA = REHMWA. No wonder you're so confused, see what happens when you come in so late in a thread? The taxes gaff: Here is REHMWA's response: how much extra tax did you volunteer to pay this April? (Convicted? I guess that depends on the rules the jail has for their inmates?) He was asked about ex-cons owning guns, squirmed knowing the follow-up, and asked about taxes as a misdirection; is that hard to see? Then how do you explain REHMWA bringing in taxes when cornered by KALLEND about ex-cons owning guns? Right, just cover your RW brother. I'm not flipping my lid, that's as brilliant as REHMWA bringing in taxes. Who cares what the affiliation of posters here is, address the issue. You should quit coming into threads midstream. Jebus, you sound as slapstick as Bob Hope. Is there a thread where you don't write: - Take a breath,back away from the keyboard - It'll be ok. You'll still be here tomorrow to whine about how everyone is "wronger" than you. I'll still be here to laugh at it. JTVAL, king of cliche; find a new spiel, it's now tired.

Alright. take a breath. In this thread? I don't see it? You jumped on Remwha for making a comment on different types of liberals. I didn't see anything about who should be giving the right to bear arms until you asked your first question. HERE'S A SUMMARY OF THE CONVERSATION: REHMWA: a more accurate label, instead of lib vs cons - would be pro or anti "right to bear arms" KALLEND: Do you think convicted felons have a right to bear arms? REHMWA: Convicted? I guess that depends on the rules the jail has for their inmates? LUCKY...: Answer the question. REHMWA: Answer the question? Inmates shouldn't be armed. LUCKY...: Because it's dishonest to avoid basic questions: Do you think convicted felons have a right to bear arms? REHMWA: oops - you went from decently discussing to your -less than courteous- mode and I won't continue to support that here KALLEND: The question was relevant to the discussion. Your answer was stupid. JTVAL: Rehmwa was simply stating the some people push their agendas on others. (using the bear arms issue as an example.) You asked your question which seems really idiotic to me. KALLEND: No, it is NOT, because there is no doubt that innocent (and sane) people have a right to bear arms. There seems, however, to be some dispute about how valid the limits are. JTVAL: In this thread? I don't see it? I didn't see anything about who should be giving the right to bear arms until you asked your first question. - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Now, let's look at the OP. The sign reads: My next door neighbor wants to ban all guns. It was a thread about those who want to ban guns vs those who want gun rights maintained, Kallend asking about the parameters of those who want gun ownership maintained IS in accord with the thread and the issue at hand. OTOH, REHMWA brought up taxes at least twice, something that isn't within the parametrs of this thread topic, but your participation here isn't to debate any issues, is it? You participation is what the RW does; cover each other's ass via distraction. You do this under the guise of safety in numbers, the very protocol of conservatives. The more people you can get to pull for you, the more right you must be. In fact, your participation in this thread has been worthless; you haven't even discusssed the issue at hand in any context, you just sat by your RW brother and tried to give support. At least REHMWA actually discussed the issue before he refused to answer the question and flew off when cornered. If you read the transcript you see that as soon as REHMWA had to answer if convicted felons should be allowed to own guns, he replied, "convicted?" What other kind of felons are there? Unconvicted felons isn't an actual term, perhaps defendants in a felony trial, but to ask about convicted felons is ridiculous. Then REHMWA answered that felons in prison shouldn't be allowed to own guns, another ridiculous reply and pure avoidance. When I stated it was dishonest to not answer the question, REHMWA suddently became offended and left in a flurry. I think we know REHMWA feels that ex-cons should be able to own guns, but then KALLEND would ask him of the recitivism rate, REHMWA would have to look that up and then be cornered knowing that the recitivism rate is high and to allow a demographic likely to commit crimes, to own guns would be counter to his agenda of gun ownership. The you jumped in for misdirection. You guys are as clumsy as the RNC for placing Steele as teh chair after Obama was elected. You guys look like a bunch of middle-aged white guys trying to dance.

Only when the courts give them the right to own, back And I have seen one case of this personally Congratulations on having your rights restored

How do you feel about police unions? Oh that's right, you're for them, right?

3 of your posts with ZERO of the issue. I posted all kinds of data, another guy posted a copy of the bill, yet all you have to do is bitch about me; do you think anyone here isn't aware that you're outta gas?

Where? The tough conservatives are all of the sudden the weak and bewildered when they get cornered. Bizzare. Maybe if you get time, show us where your feelings became hurt. EDITED TO ADD: I think it was this: Because it's dishonest to avoid basic questions: Do you think convicted felons have a right to bear arms? The question wasn't that of inmates, it was that of convicted felons; the obvious inference was that of released fleons on parole or even affter their parole is expired. Care to answer?