Lucky...

Yours is simple, 1-liners and correct spelling/typos. You have yet to provide any data, just unsubstantiated opinion. this is an opinion thread , isn't it ? , maybe i patted you on the back too quickly ! It's not an opinion that ransome for this girl is not considered an embargo. It may be a reason to get us to have NATO embargo them, but this girl is not an exorted product subject to embargo - just insane to think that.

It's typical for moronic American voters to rebel againstthe party in power. Sure the R's will gain seats, this tax isssue could be the pickle that doesn't give them the majority in either house. Again, the youth will turnout and vote Obama in 2012, and they will also vote D for all congressional positions, so whatever happens here will be temporary.

1) And you correct spelling? I won't let you suck me into the spelling Nazi thing. 2) YAY Wendy http://images.paraorkut.com/img/funnypics/images/g/gay_cheerleader-12791.jpg Lovin Wendy in this thread - YAY

But will they gain enough to grab 60 votes in the Senate, the new bar set by the Republicans in order to get anything accomplished? Or will we return to the days when 50% (or less) represents the "will of the people"? I'd hate to think the latter was the case. That would appear hypocritical to the current 60% "minority" Repubs are the kings of reconcilliation, yet they act as tho they aren't.

And you're a fucking lawyer? I don't know what area you practice in, but generally you ahve to grow a thick skin. Truth is you would rather pretend to have your feelings hurt than to defend tax cuts where there is no data to show they do good things. Bullshit, it all speaks for itself. Cry me a fucking river, I insult the ideology, which is very supportable, not the person. Exactly, this allows you an escape from having to SHOW US ONE FUCKING MAJOR FED TAX CUT THAT HAS HELPED. Instead sit there and wipe your eyes. I'll start a thread and be completely w/o any hurty words for those with sensitivity issues and we'll see the usual suspects running teh same usual way. Just admit it's part of your ideology and you're sticking to your story w/o deliberate thought. Yea, I say Obama should just let all tax cuts expire, he's trying to help teh little guy tho. WOW! So now you ARE saying that the "Clinton Show me what you're talking about via data/ev otehr than RW rag. Is that better? Feelings doing ok? Yes, the longest growth period in US history and you act as tho it's bad????? WTF? No way, the young vote will come out in 2012, not 2010 unfortunately and reelect him. Youth are tired of crusty old WASP maggots tying to cut education funding and sending them to war in the name of patriotism. So Clinton's first 2 years with a Dem congress where he raised taxes 9% top brkt which laid the base for a hugely sucessful presidency weren't good? The following 6 years of gridlock were good for what? Clinton's major changes took place in his 1st 2 years in office.

I do it for fun as the neo-cons aren't going to answer anyway, so it just frames itin a way that is fun. If I have a substantive answer to a real question, I don;t care about peripheral BS; too sanctimonious. No offense, but this fluffy BS. I'm looking for hard counter data that shows how tax cuts actually help. I wrote: As for the issue, I've seen you state before that tax cuts create betetrment, that is my paraphrasation. Are you shitting me, now you're ducking and running due to 2 letters out of order. Whata joke, I've looked at you as more of a serious poster. Obviously that word is, "betterment." So you still runnin or are you going to show me a major fed tax cut thathas actually created BETTERMENT for society? Do run-run. If I can't answer a question, gte sticky looking for typos, etc, I, inside realize I have no argument. This is where you are to me right now. You're better that than to use a typo to run from an issue. This is not a soap opera, a fashion show etc, we need deliberate thought using empirical process to figure it out, not emotion. OK, so tehy aren't in good shape in any economy....so?????? Well, politics as they are, we have endless reformers coming to bat, so get used to it. I see a lot of nothing solid here, just a, "gee it's all messed up and I wish it wasn't" kind of response. Wendy, do tax cuts help or hurt? You have to have seen all of my data I posted, obviously, for some reason, you are unwilling to post the obvious: TAX CUTS FUCK THINGS UP. Our best years as a nation were under heavy taxes, now I'm not saying we should go to 90% again, but 60-70 would be good. And remember, few pay those taxes, they take their profits and reinvest as a writeoff, which stimulates growth. Historically that has been proven time and again. Now, care to actually address the issue?

Is that lame for Hussein? And this is your opninion-based genius rant? Amazing how the drones today blame FDR for making the GD last toolong too; these geniuses actually look away from who and how we got there and blame those who try to fix the mess for the origination of the mess. Let's test your inanity. http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States - 1990 recession: Wasn't that deep, unemployment never got that high, 7.8% and it touched there, not skyrocketed there, it was actually stable. Therecession last 8 months per the NBER, but recovery took years, unemp didn't drop below 6% until Sep, 1994, 3 1/2 years after the official end of the recession and that recession wasn't even comparable to this mess. The Great Recession is only 2nd to the Great Depression which took > 11 years to recover from. Seriously, you are underestimating the severity of this mess and you are doing so for obvious reasons. So if this mess takes all of Obama's term to fix, he'll be way ahead of schedule. But what can you do, what can you argue? It was your party who got us here so all you can do is to complain of the recovery and deny culpability in getting us here. How this for reco0very: http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdp_glance.htm That recovery is unprecedented in all of US historical GDP data and you say Obama is taking too long . But what can you do, argue the cause of the recession? Really, your turd took a robust economy, surplus and turned it into crap so what can you do w/o admitting your party is AFU? WOW, 22 months? And Obama has only been president for 20 months. Sweet Pea, trying to exadgerate Obama's time to try to give him ownership of your party's mess is tarded. And Clinton had that power and he fixed it in just those 2 years, the rest was gridlock. GWB had that for the first 6 yeards and that was all it took to tank it. And this has extended the recession, in your mind, exactly how? The stimulus took an unemp in freefall, 3.4% the previous year, and ended the bleeding in 9 months. Took a massively negative GDP and turned it enormously positive. HC hasn't had a ral impact yet and hasn't raised taxes yet, so that's no argument. What yu're doing is saying you hate Obamacare therefore Obama is taking too long to recover teh economy. Inanity. Now you speak for the average guy. This average guy wondered how GWB was gonna pay for the tax cuts and I found out; increased teh debt 5 trillion bucks. Right, because joe public is an idiot who thinks: - Tax cuts are going to affect his wallet. - He can't research simple data that shows everytime there is a major tax cut things go to fuck. He doeesn't have real money anyway, so what he does or doesn't do really doesn't change anything anyway, except for the warm/fuzzy feeling he may get. Really? Here I thought it was when the rich were required to reinveest rather than profit take, as all data suggests.

Yours is simple, 1-liners and correct spelling/typos. You have yet to provide any data, just unsubstantiated opinion.

So all the data I post is a product of emotionalism? Or is it how you escape from actually having to address the data? That was rhetorical, we know you do-run, do-run-run from data like all neo-cons. Even if the turds get control of either or both chambers of congress, it will just be deadlock as with Clinton. The tax cuts will expire and 200/250k and below won't get their meaningless tax cut, the deficit will fall and recovery will be sooner. Amazing how stupid Americans can't see history keep repeating, the moronic American voter (I was one then) threw the congress to the R's when he did amazing things with the economy. Just think if he had congress his last 6 years he could have made the debt fall, first time since 1969. How long of your tax cuts my friends losing policy until you admit tax cuts are damaging? Try, never. Ideologues never change their positions.

I didn't think you were teh type to get hung up on fun langauge. As for the issue, I've seen you state before that tax cuts create betetrment, that is my paraphrasation. I called you on it and you never responded. Here I see you saying the same. Can you show me a major fed tax cut that has bettered the country? I can show you some that have damaged it and show you tax increases that have bettered it. I can't think of 1 major tax cut that has helped, can you show me one? As for spending, it is subbordinate to taxing when considering the economy. We had huge spending during the Eisenhower years, Nuke build up, Korea, etc, yet with his high tax rate the debt fell 3 of his 8 years and never took off as with Reagan and his tax cuts and high spending. Other than Clinton, spending has gone wild under most/all other presidents, so it must be moot to argue for low spending and as I illustrated, taxing is more relevant than spending when considering the debt picture.

You didn't say some. Without specifying, the implication is all (or at least that's most people's inference), or the overwhelming majority. So -- when someone says "hispanics are illegal" or "asians are smarter" or "southerners are prejudiced" it uses those terms as determining characteristics of the population, rather than a characteristic of some members. And, in most cases, it's a characteristic of some members. I know stupid Asians. I know southerners who aren't prejudiced. I know legal hispanics. In fact, while I know more smart than stupid asians (mostly because I know more smart than stupid people), the majority of the folks in these groups I interact with don't fit those stereotypes. OK, that was a long-ass post. You could infer from that that all liberals are wordy, or just that I'm a pedant Wendy P. Wendy, this newby is just another neo-con who drops one-liners and runs, don't put a whole lot on his posts. You won't see him empirically debate an issue; he's our forum cheerleader http://images.paraorkut.com/img/funnypics/images/g/gay_cheerleader-12791.jpg even for you, you really missed the point here. You're the king of grossly inaccurate generalizations and you even included one within this post! Stalin would be proud. As would Hitler with you. If I must side with one Communist, I'm more of a Marxist, not that you would know the difference.

You didn't say some. Without specifying, the implication is all (or at least that's most people's inference), or the overwhelming majority. So -- when someone says "hispanics are illegal" or "asians are smarter" or "southerners are prejudiced" it uses those terms as determining characteristics of the population, rather than a characteristic of some members. And, in most cases, it's a characteristic of some members. I know stupid Asians. I know southerners who aren't prejudiced. I know legal hispanics. In fact, while I know more smart than stupid asians (mostly because I know more smart than stupid people), the majority of the folks in these groups I interact with don't fit those stereotypes. OK, that was a long-ass post. You could infer from that that all liberals are wordy, or just that I'm a pedant Wendy P. Wendy, this newby is just another neo-con who drops one-liners and runs, don't put a whole lot on his posts. You won't see him empirically debate an issue; he's our forum cheerleader http://images.paraorkut.com/img/funnypics/images/g/gay_cheerleader-12791.jpg

Come on, Wendy, of all people, I didn't expect that from you (as in someone who gets upset about silly symbolism). What do you think of the issue?

this one's true , unless it's a generalisation ! -spelling yank- ! Take your spelling Nazi shit outta here dude, no one cares.

All twatpuppets are a puppet of some kind. Not all puppets are twatpuppets.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tax_cuts OK, so the turds want to keep representing who they really care about and chop taxes, rather continue the GWB tax cuts across the board. Obama and the Dems wanna allow all GWB cuts to expire except for couples 250k and below and singles 200k and below. This is clear and undisputed. Now, if the Dems do nothing, tax cuts expire and they go back, across the board to the Clinton years w/o the help for lower earners. There is no legislative need to intercede, just do nothing and they increase across the board. But in order for Obama's tax plan to let all cuts expire except for the 200/250 earners, Obama must get legislative help from congress and this is where the tards are leveraging him. They're basically saying cuts for the rich as well as the MC as well as the poor or no deal. The rub here is that most voters reside in that 200/250 area so the R's may lose a few friends if they push that. This is why Rep Boner-boy has relented and is willing to give Obama what he wants, but the R's in the senate are not to sure. Of course what a Reps want is immaterial as all they need is >50% which they should have, but they would need 60 in the senate. So if Obama and the R's in the senate hold tough, the cuts expire across the baord, the voters will see the R's as the devil here, even many R voters. So this will be fun to watch play out but it puts the R's behind the 8 ball. Of course there will be the school that says Obama should give the minority R's what they want and that him not caving to the minority is what caused all the cuts to expire, but that will be a minority, fringe argument when in reality Obama/Dems will smell better to the masses. Taxes are a rich thing, they have almost all the money, so they pay most of the taxes. There are morons who still think low taxes for the rich bring prosperity for all, but I think they are a minority, even many R's probably don't buy that BS but are ideologues so they follow the path, looking at the sheeple ahead of them, afraid to differ. This is a hot-button issue that could really mitigate Dem losses in congress this time, we'll see how it plays out.

OK, yea right, well do it or have teh character to admit you're once again wrong, a develpoing trend. So do you still have to change the tires on your house? If you're so proud of what you, then tell us. You have yet to really what you do. Once again, wrong. Kiddo, I've worked acft for 25-30 years, do now and you wanna pretend I don't? I'm ok with that form of ignorance. It's not a huge leap to think of a person working on acft all their life, I work with several people who have. Remember, you're teh one who called the test off and quit. Yes, the work I have done in the military, on military acft in repair and manufacturing and in civilian work both manufacturing and civilian are still flying around today, some major repairs. Remember, I nver claimed to be a welder or an engineer, you have this god complex and feel you need to trump people even outside your carreer field. One day you'll realize that things are so specialized that you may know your field well, but know shit about other's fields. Look at lawyers or docs, outside their field they are pretty naive. I've known elect engineers who know nothing of my field, I certainly know nothing of theirs. You look really sad floundering around, pretending to know things in other fields. Even in sub fields in my career area, the 4 are: - A&P - Sheetmetal/structural - Avionics - the 4th new one spun out of sheetmetal is Composite. Formerly we have fiberglass and as Composites came in, they worked it, but now that it is so vast it is a sub-discipline of itt's own Anywway, Even with some systems that are under A&P I'm not super proficient. I know little of avionics and almost nothing of composites. Listen carefully kid, I KNOW NO ONE WHO HAS MASTERED ALL, A FEW GUYS WHO CAN DO 2 AND NO ONE WHO CAN DO 3 WELL. So yes, I am an acft sheetmetal guru, altho I'm a licensed AP/IA/FCC. I never took AP or FCC disciplines anywhere. With that said, I can pull gear, engines, etc, do it all the time where I'm at now. But a true hardcore AP can take a workcard and rig teh flight controls by lunch, it would take me a lot longer to be sure I followed each step along teh way. With sheetmetal I can follow repairs I've seen several times, lay them out and and not worry i didn't account for that gremlin or 10. AP's who can rig cables, as we say, give us job security with a drill and a rivet gun in tehir hands. But you see, you're a trailer engineer, a welding engineer of some sort and you helped a guy with his homebuilt acft for a week and you feel you are an acft genius. One of my better feats as reskinning a Piper Chieftain a few years back. I had to do it outside, we got a DER and I fabbed the 8 foot keel beams, aligned them, drilled/installed them and then fabbed the frames (bulkheads as they called them) that occurred every 12 inches; I fabbed the lower frames from "O" material, built forming blocks and then had them heat-treated/hardened. Anyway, then took a flat skin and massaged it to fit the belly with a slight compound contour. I have pics of all, I can post on photobucket and post if you'd like. The bitch was the acgt had been bellied in twice so I had really hammered material to work with. That was an advanced job, not something out of a box that you held a bucking bar for a week for a guy. The RV-6, 8, 10, etcs arelike that, you could build one and not be real proficient as an acft mech, as they are all pilot drilled s you cleco, ream holes up to size, debur, dimple and rivet. IOW's, I could teach an AP to do it. A person still wouldn't have cut their teeth on acft once tehy built an RV acft. My dream is an RV-8. So you see, it's sad watching you wish you were able to do acft sheetmetal work, realize you're over your head and now try to keep the myth alive. Hey, I'm gonna be good at what I've done all my life, you're not gonna be good at what you haven't done. I have no idea what you do, but I'm not good at it I'm sure; it has to do with welding, trailrs, etc, so I hve little experience of that. I took a 16 ft flatbed and encloed it, that makes me as much an expert on trailers as you helping a guy with his homebuilt for a week; diff is I can accept that and you cannot. No, I'd say I'm a wizard in acft sheetmetal, and educated/somewhat experienced in law, and fairly well read / can make good argumenst on political / economic history. You, OTOH, do something for 15 minutes and self-annoint as a seasoned pro.

So there will be no address of this then, huh? Why not just go away, you've illustrated you cannot answer, duck-n-run like a good little neo-con. _____________ Which explains you ducking out on these issues I keep trying to get you to address: _______________________ I can cite months, years ago where I used it in correct context. You need to take that shit to car forums; they're just that naive to be impressed. Now, as soon as the junior intellects stop changing the issue and trying to look bright and decide to address the issues I posted maybe we can actually get somewhere. Here, I'll post them again: Oh, so if they are mutually as important as each other, let's examine times when spending is high and taxes low and vice versa. Taxes low / spending high = Reagan, GWB resulted in high debt accrual. Taxes high / spending high = 1940's thru 1960's. Resulted in the debt falling several times and when it rose, it never ran away. To go to low spending we would have to go to the 1920's, an era where comparison to today's economy is irrelevant. Taxes were low and spending was low, the debt actually fell, but this led to an immediate era called the Great Depression, so that era was not a good model either. So it looks like high taxation periods were the best, yielded the best results as far as debt accrual and overall eonomic bliss. Spending will always be high from here on out and even if it isn't, there is no evidence that eevn low taxes would be beneficial other than RW supply side theory, which has gone unproven to be beneficial. Mine isn't theory, mine has been proven. Here is a chart of top tax brkts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MarginalIncomeTax.svg The best years were under high taxes, the worst under low taxes; so yours is unfounded theory, mine is statistically proven sound. Show me a major federal tax cut that has led to overall financial benefit. If you can dream one up, find 2, then 3, etc. Since, as you infer/claim, low taxes lead to prosperity, these examples should be plentiful. Tell ya what, you'll never address those, so just this: Show me a major federal tax cut that has led to overall financial benefit. If you can dream one up, find 2, then 3, etc. ___________________________ Here's your point I will address, as I'm not afraid to answer youyr questuions as you are mine: the federal government produces little tangible benefit to a capitalist economy , agree or disagree ? I guess we look at times when the government was more involved versus less involved. LESS INVOLVED: 1) 1920's tax cuts and deregualtion led to the Great Depression, massive suffering, bust of the markets, banks, etc. 2) 1980's under Reagan who cut taxes as corrupt Harding/Coolidge did, led to massive debt accrual as never seen before, esp not in time of war. 3) GWB lowered taxes and deegulated some industries, DOL, etc. We saw a great economy, fed surplus turn to 5 T debt in 8 years with most industrie on the brink of failure: Auto, banks, mortgage, etc. MORE INVOLVED: 4) Hoover finally raised income taxes 260% and other taxes 200%+ 2 1/2 years after Black Tuesday, then FDR raised them some too, then healing began. 5) FDR's New Deals opened up social programs, SS, 1938 FLSA, etc to create a form of hyper-involved government and people did much better, had protections, and were much more benefitted. 6) Thru the 1950's taxes were high, government was involved and the debt fell. Taxes were boosted up the last year of LBJ's term in 68-69 and the debt fell. LBJ signed the 1964 Civil Rts Act and peopel were benefitted. 7) Going back to the 1850's and back when the government was appathetic to slavery, people were disadvantaged, not just blacks, and then when Lincoln became involved the country became more advantageous to the masses. 8) When Clinton became more involved, raised taxes, gave education credits, etc the country benefitted. So I have illustrated several examples of tangible benefit/damage on both sides, so lay down your one-liner, avoid teh previous issues and comment on a typo and feel victorious. As long as you feel like a winner in your mind, that's what's important.

1. an order of a government prohibiting the movement of merchant ships into or out of its ports. 2. an injunction from a government commerce agency to refuse freight for shipment, as in case of congestion or insufficient facilities. 3. any restriction imposed upon commerce by edict. 4. a restraint or hindrance; prohibition. So her bail is a restraint or hinderance of Iran's operation? The idea behind this definition (the way you're applying it) isn't that they are restraining us, the idea is that if we apply an embargo against them, we apply a restraint against them; you are infering they are restraining us = applying an abstract embargo upon us. Your definitions are even more abstract than Mike's. When you find yourself being abstract to make a point, apply the idea to the court of common sense: I'm saying we should avoid doing commerce with them, you say them ransoming a hostage is a form of embargo since teh hostage is restrained - that makes no sense at all, you're trying to apply a singualr political incident and making it a routine product. I realize you have no argument, but a held hostage isn't a product that is embargoed, it could be the reason we embargo them.

Yea, I agree with all that. At the same time, look at all the wuffos who say the same thing about skydivers in the light of fatalities.

Then who do you want to fill the positions of power? Soccer moms.

Which explains you ducking out on these issues I keep trying to get you to address: _______________________ I can cite months, years ago where I used it in correct context. You need to take that shit to car forums; they're just that naive to be impressed. Now, as soon as the junior intellects stop changing the issue and trying to look bright and decide to address the issues I posted maybe we can actually get somewhere. Here, I'll post them again: Oh, so if they are mutually as important as each other, let's examine times when spending is high and taxes low and vice versa. Taxes low / spending high = Reagan, GWB resulted in high debt accrual. Taxes high / spending high = 1940's thru 1960's. Resulted in the debt falling several times and when it rose, it never ran away. To go to low spending we would have to go to the 1920's, an era where comparison to today's economy is irrelevant. Taxes were low and spending was low, the debt actually fell, but this led to an immediate era called the Great Depression, so that era was not a good model either. So it looks like high taxation periods were the best, yielded the best results as far as debt accrual and overall eonomic bliss. Spending will always be high from here on out and even if it isn't, there is no evidence that eevn low taxes would be beneficial other than RW supply side theory, which has gone unproven to be beneficial. Mine isn't theory, mine has been proven. Here is a chart of top tax brkts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MarginalIncomeTax.svg The best years were under high taxes, the worst under low taxes; so yours is unfounded theory, mine is statistically proven sound. Show me a major federal tax cut that has led to overall financial benefit. If you can dream one up, find 2, then 3, etc. Since, as you infer/claim, low taxes lead to prosperity, these examples should be plentiful. ___________________________ Tell ya what, you'll never address those, so just this: Show me a major federal tax cut that has led to overall financial benefit. If you can dream one up, find 2, then 3, etc.

Bail, deportation and embargos have nothing mutually in common. Embargos have to do with commerce as in import/export of products, this 500k is ransome. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/embargo em·bar·go   /ɛmˈbɑrgoʊ/ Show Spelled [em-bahr-goh] Show IPA noun, plural -goes, verb, -goed, -go·ing. –noun 1. an order of a government prohibiting the movement of merchant ships into or out of its ports. 2. an injunction from a government commerce agency to refuse freight for shipment, as in case of congestion or insufficient facilities. 3. any restriction imposed upon commerce by edict. 4. a restraint or hindrance; prohibition. So if this woman is a freight shipment or a product then I guess so, but you have to be that abstract in order to make your point. Obviously we need to get the world to disassociate them as much as possible if they want to beahve as they have been. an obtuse reply , surely , and don't call me surely ! So no address of the girl's ransome NOT being a product of a country? You do understand what an embargo is, right?

Find where I wrote that I had a CJ degree and I'll ban myself for a week. I don't expect that character from you. U of A has a CJ degree, ASU just a Justice Studies last I knew and when I was there. Unless they opened a CJ program, which I doubt since they are cutting progs, then they don't have one. Don't you ever get sick of being wrong? You build trailers, I went into the AF @ 17 and have worked acft all my life, any bystander would laugh at you trying to own my carreer. If I took this thread to work they would laugh their ass off. Just because trailers can be aluminum and most acft structures are aluminum doesn't mean once you build one you can build the other. Remember after the swell/draw issue you decided teh test was over? You should let go where you're owned. And you quit the quiz, an obvious admission of defeat. Again, how can you go into another man's field and expect to hold on? Tell me of your amazing and vast experience. My dad was a lifetime welder, I don't weld and don't pretend to. I can admit I know little about trailers, your field, but you cannot let it be that you know little about acft structure. It's ok, let it go, you just don't know acft structure, you don;t work it and haven't all your life like me so it's understandable; why live in that myth? OK, typical cut tax and spend neo-con that hammers teh debt and continues to live in teh fantasy that supply side works, even tho with 100 years of tax data that continually says otherwise, the dellusion is held alive. Yea and if you flip around, maybe you can find Barney or Sesame Street.

Sure, so deport them and refuse any further entry. I'm not convinced tehy were nabbed from the other side of the loose border anyway. If a person is hiking, is unarmed, has no intel-gathering equip and wanders in like that, they are just idiots, not spies. Besides, what's to spy on Iran that we don't already know?