Lucky...

corrupt is the correct word To be corrupt it would have to be intentionally false data, not missing data via apathy. Of course I'm referring to reasonable logic tho.

I see, so if I post Moveon or the sorts you're gonna jump up and give it credence? See, when people can't make their own arguments, they turn to partisan trash pubs. If I wanted to argue with Cato, HF, etc I would just do so directly. I realize your side is so hammered by gov data that now you're regrouping to jump all over your parent repository of false info. I've proven enough false with the likes of the garbage sites you mention that it's not worth going back. However, if you or yours has the ability to put together an arg of your own, I welcome it. You can even plagiarize the rags to which you adore, but I'm not gonna start addressing any extremist fringe rags. Sure, Wiki isn't gospel, just a good place to start. Therags, they're a good place to avoid. I've written thema nd they never seem to have the time to return my emails. Hard to say, but the site has no bias, unlike left or right extremist fringe rags.

Yes it was public opinion, just like it was in Nov 08 and that didn't work well for you. See, even if Obama is unpopular in Nov 1012, the voters have the other option and that is hugely fugly. You guys have to quit trying to grenade the Dems and start fixing yourself, I heard I think it was Lindsey Graham saying the same thing. Slander campaigns go so far, then the voters are faced with other option and that can work counter-productively. The public at large may be against the pub option, but they are for allowing pre-existing conds, so the voters, by the stats/polls, have neither choice and the recent economic meltdown has been attached to the right, so it will take time for us to forget about the mess the R's gave us. It's best if your side drops the attacks and focuses on getting better within. I mean 3 straight election cycles getting your party's ass handed to your party should be enough teach even a fool.

You posting HF is like me posting Moveon, I never have and never will. I realize you are that desperate but I don't read a word past me scaning for HF. You would do the same if I posted Moveon, so don't ask me to consider your garbage as legitimate. Not even close my friend not even close At least Heritage is respected. but I guess you respect move on and the huffington puffington[/laugh] HF is respected by the people in your circle, the ones who say FO to people w/o HC, etc. I don't read or respect Moveon as a legit source of data. I don't even visit it as I know what to expect as far as partian feel-good crap that as I see it, only boobs would enjoy. Huffington is good for fun, nothing real. I know the gov GDP data by the BEA drops shit all over you so now you're last gasp measure is to legitimize HF..... good luck my friend. Go wiki man go Try again, this time answer the points: HF is respected by the people in your circle, the ones who say FO to people w/o HC, etc. I don't read or respect Moveon as a legit source of data. I don't even visit it as I know what to expect as far as partian feel-good crap that as I see it, only boobs would enjoy. Huffington is good for fun, nothing real. I know the gov GDP data by the BEA drops shit all over you so now you're last gasp measure is to legitimize HF..... good luck my friend. If you decided to go the intelligent route, you could have supported your initial position by showing some Washington sources that find HF to be respected. Best to show non-partisan or lib sources, but the prob is you cannot, becuase there are none, so you refer to ridiculous endless emoticons. Sorry about the BEA and BLS numbers, the country isn't failing and is succeeeding quite well in spite of your wishes.

Lucky: Posts gov data Mike, Rush, etc: Posts Heritage Fondation Heritage USES gov data YOU SPIN gov data And so does Moveon I'm sure, then they bastardize it. I don't spin gov data, show where I have ever done that. Oh, you can't. GDP: a year ago -6.4, now +5.9 Market: 10,600, was in freefall when Obama inherited and fell to 6500 Unemp: Was in freefall and at 8% as Obama inherited. Grew by 3.4% from Feb 08 to Feb 09; the year before Obama took office. Kept shooting to 10.1 as it peaked in Oct 09, now down to 9.7% Show me where I'm morphing it. Oh, you can't? Back to HF to get more brainwashed. Yep It is as simple as you post Or it is as simple as you need it to be to understand what you post I've made my assertion, so you have a few options: - Agree - Agree but find another reason why the numbers are looking better - Disagree with an alternative set of numbers - Ask me to prove up these numbers - Etc.... Or, just post highly biased websites with an obvious agenda that take gov data and spin it. Here's an idea, why not take the gov numbers yourself, consult HF and other trash sites, post in your words what they are saying and sell it that way. Of course you can't use HF as a source, so you're out on a ledge if you cannot support your ideas pretty much independently. Give it a try, but it's ridiculous to ask the opposition to accept an agenda site as anything that can be referred to as reliable. Didn't get enough sleep last night? Or it it Obama and his flock are looking so corrupt right now it is making you grouchy? Trash websites? and you sig line Huffington puffington Oh the irony Rush, try this again: I've made my assertion, so you have a few options: - Agree - Agree but find another reason why the numbers are looking better - Disagree with an alternative set of numbers - Ask me to prove up these numbers - Etc.... Or, just post highly biased websites with an obvious agenda that take gov data and spin it. Here's an idea, why not take the gov numbers yourself, consult HF and other trash sites, post in your words what they are saying and sell it that way. Of course you can't use HF as a source, so you're out on a ledge if you cannot support your ideas pretty much independently. Give it a try, but it's ridiculous to ask the opposition to accept an agenda site as anything that can be referred to as reliable. - Trash websites? Yes, any agenda site is a sort of trash vs an objective nfo site. - and you sig line Huffington puffington Yes, it's a quick ref to an SNL skit, it's not an article. If you cannot tell the diff, I'm sorry for you. Have you notcied teh flow: - Jan 09: Repubs hope Obama falls on his ass via the economy getting way worse and no signs of recovery in a year. - Feb 10: a year later, the economy is showing huge signs of recovery, the R's are freaking out that gov data spells success for Obama, so they ignore that and turn to sites that morph gov data; enter HF, Cato, etc. Is it really that hard to see?

Yep, lacking but not corrupted. I agree, he should ensure it is kept accurate. I imagine he is so overwhelmed with the tasks at hand that he has prioritized it to a more minimal level. But congratulation for not posting Fox, Cato, HF or the likes.

Lucky: Posts gov data Mike, Rush, etc: Posts Heritage Fondation Heritage USES gov data YOU SPIN gov data And so does Moveon I'm sure, then they bastardize it. I don't spin gov data, show where I have ever done that. Oh, you can't. GDP: a year ago -6.4, now +5.9 Market: 10,600, was in freefall when Obama inherited and fell to 6500 Unemp: Was in freefall and at 8% as Obama inherited. Grew by 3.4% from Feb 08 to Feb 09; the year before Obama took office. Kept shooting to 10.1 as it peaked in Oct 09, now down to 9.7% Show me where I'm morphing it. Oh, you can't? Back to HF to get more brainwashed. Yep It is as simple as you post Or it is as simple as you need it to be to understand what you post I've made my assertion, so you have a few options: - Agree - Agree but find another reason why the numbers are looking better - Disagree with an alternative set of numbers - Ask me to prove up these numbers - Etc.... Or, just post highly biased websites with an obvious agenda that take gov data and spin it. Here's an idea, why not take the gov numbers yourself, consult HF and other trash sites, post in your words what they are saying and sell it that way. Of course you can't use HF as a source, so you're out on a ledge if you cannot support your ideas pretty much independently. Give it a try, but it's ridiculous to ask the opposition to accept an agenda site as anything that can be referred to as reliable.

If you have a point to make, make it. Whatever point you are trying to make, it is obviously a microcosm of the more global issue of getting everyone HC. Of course, as we all know, the R's don't give a fuck about the masses, so I'm not really referencing them here.

That's just the type of stuff that Lucky thinks is legit. I don't think it's legit, it's just a satirical demonstration of how Repubs work. It doesn't detail an issue, it just illustartes a modus operendi. Nope, That Huffington site is not a Huffington article, it's an SNL skit. Poor try.

No website or web address? Hmmmm, Mikeism is spreading, huh? From teh party of stolen elections we now have dishonest postings.

Lucky: Posts gov data Mike, Rush, etc: Posts Heritage Fondation Heritage USES gov data YOU SPIN gov data And so does Moveon I'm sure, then they bastardize it. I don't spin gov data, show where I have ever done that. Oh, you can't. GDP: a year ago -6.4, now +5.9 Market: 10,600, was in freefall when Obama inherited and fell to 6500 Unemp: Was in freefall and at 8% as Obama inherited. Grew by 3.4% from Feb 08 to Feb 09; the year before Obama took office. Kept shooting to 10.1 as it peaked in Oct 09, now down to 9.7% Show me where I'm morphing it. Oh, you can't? Back to HF to get more brainwashed.

You guys can't help yourself, can you? I just ignored a Heritage Foundation post yesterday. Hillarious, some of you guys think wikipedia is BS. Heritage is respected in Washington at least at some level but again you generalize and ignore issues when you have to,. Oh,and the article was AP lucky my boy Then post the AP article. Most likely the AP writeup was extraploated and bastardized to their liking. Respected at some level? Yea, a real low level in a partisan sense. Anyone with a couple braincells knows they are a highly partisan rag, Hannity and Limbaugh refernce them all of the time. Nice try though, keep trying to legitimate them. You sure do drool and fall all over your tongue when your "facts" get thrown back in your face don't you I didn't read your bastardized article. If you would like me to post gov data, I would be glad to, but then you would post HF or Cato. I get it, the gov data keeps crawling up your ass, so you guys have to reference garbage. What else can you do?

That's just the type of stuff that Lucky thinks is legit. I don't think it's legit, it's just a satirical demonstration of how Repubs work. It doesn't detail an issue, it just illustartes a modus operendi.

The link is a satirical SNL skit that demonstrates how guys like you work with your political thinking. I'm not referencing them as a legit site, just a fun ref. In case you read my posts, I try to stick with or very close to gov data, but I won;t confuse you with the facts.

Right about the healthcare issue? 53% Remain Opposed to Health Care Plan If true, barely over half. I wonder what % opposed slavery abolition? Yea, you still are too scared to tell us what should happen with people who are ill and have no coverage. There's that R compassion showing thru, I've seen it before. I guess you call yours silent compassion in that you refuse to show us how you really feel about the ill w/o coverage and pose as a person with gobs of compassion. Ah, yes, the "Lucky scramble®" to cover his ass again....always predictable! TRANSLATION: Mike has no answer. Here, I'll post it again: 53% Remain Opposed to Health Care Plan If true, barely over half. I wonder what % opposed slavery abolition? Yea, you still are too scared to tell us what should happen with people who are ill and have no coverage. There's that R compassion showing thru, I've seen it before. I guess you call yours silent compassion in that you refuse to show us how you really feel about the ill w/o coverage and pose as a person with gobs of compassion. And I'll post mine again: Ah, yes, the "Lucky scramble®" to cover his ass again....always predictable! Odd, you seemed to think over 50% was good enough when it was FOR the healthcare fiasco...funny how that doesn't hold true when the number are against you. I don't think it really matters as for popularity of big public health issues. You're advocating a democratic process; 2 wolves and sheep voting on what's for dinner constitute a democracy. Really. Then it did not matter what the public or the Dems thought when Bush tried to redo SS??? When you say, "redo" I guess that's your veiled way of saying, "privatize" so everyone's SS could tank with Bush's market and then te uber-rich could buy it back as the market was at 6500-7000. But no, public good should and did prevail, not public opinion. Of course they were one in the same (GWB's wants and an inverse public opinion) as with most of what GWB and your buds embraced.

You posting HF is like me posting Moveon, I never have and never will. I realize you are that desperate but I don't read a word past me scaning for HF. You would do the same if I posted Moveon, so don't ask me to consider your garbage as legitimate. Not even close my friend not even close At least Heritage is respected. but I guess you respect move on and the huffington puffington[/laugh] HF is respected by the people in your circle, the ones who say FO to people w/o HC, etc. I don't read or respect Moveon as a legit source of data. I don't even visit it as I know what to expect as far as partian feel-good crap that as I see it, only boobs would enjoy. Huffington is good for fun, nothing real. I know the gov GDP data by the BEA drops shit all over you so now you're last gasp measure is to legitimize HF..... good luck my friend.

Stimulus bill, anyone? Stimulus bill, anyone? Raising the debt ceiling twice (3 times?) in a year shows responsible stewardship, how? Who did that when. Not saying you're wrong, just for once, make a complete point.

Wikipedia gets revised by readers, but then overseen by their moderation staff. If the article is questionable, they state so and can lock it for any reason. HF and Moveon duke it out....revisions? WTF? No, they are agenda-basd sites that post partisan BS. They take an honsest set of data and spin it their way. My experience is that weak-minded people refer to these agenda sites as they serve up pre-morphed BS packaged as tho it's legit. Wiki is reference only, IMO. HF, Cato, Moveon, etc are there for entertainment but are factually unreliable. I realize the connies are hanging their hats on HF as they look at gov data and it spits in their eyes. I imagine some libs might do the same if gov data rejetced their points.

Lucky: Posts gov data Mike, Rush, etc: Posts Heritage Fondation

For which we were all INCREDIBLY thankful. Hilarious, coming from the guy that thinks the Onion is non-satire. No, I thought it was a RW rag with a satirical, "we're just joking" spin on the homophobia present in most current Repubs. Sad thing is, you actually think the Heritage Foundation is legitimate and non-partisan .

You guys can't help yourself, can you? I just ignored a Heritage Foundation post yesterday. Hillarious, some of you guys think wikipedia is BS. Heritage is respected in Washington at least at some level but again you generalize and ignore issues when you have to,. Oh,and the article was AP lucky my boy Then post the AP article. Most likely the AP writeup was extraploated and bastardized to their liking. Respected at some level? Yea, a real low level in a partisan sense. Anyone with a couple braincells knows they are a highly partisan rag, Hannity and Limbaugh refernce them all of the time. Nice try though, keep trying to legitimate them.

Right about the healthcare issue? 53% Remain Opposed to Health Care Plan If true, barely over half. I wonder what % opposed slavery abolition? Yea, you still are too scared to tell us what should happen with people who are ill and have no coverage. There's that R compassion showing thru, I've seen it before. I guess you call yours silent compassion in that you refuse to show us how you really feel about the ill w/o coverage and pose as a person with gobs of compassion. Ah, yes, the "Lucky scramble®" to cover his ass again....always predictable! TRANSLATION: Mike has no answer. Here, I'll post it again: 53% Remain Opposed to Health Care Plan If true, barely over half. I wonder what % opposed slavery abolition? Yea, you still are too scared to tell us what should happen with people who are ill and have no coverage. There's that R compassion showing thru, I've seen it before. I guess you call yours silent compassion in that you refuse to show us how you really feel about the ill w/o coverage and pose as a person with gobs of compassion. And I'll post mine again: Ah, yes, the "Lucky scramble®" to cover his ass again....always predictable! Odd, you seemed to think over 50% was good enough when it was FOR the healthcare fiasco...funny how that doesn't hold true when the number are against you. I don't think it really matters as for popularity of big public health issues. You're advocating a democratic process; 2 wolves and sheep voting on what's for dinner constitute a democracy.

You posting HF is like me posting Moveon, I never have and never will. I realize you are that desperate but I don't read a word past me scaning for HF. You would do the same if I posted Moveon, so don't ask me to consider your garbage as legitimate.

Right, at the cost of the debt. It's no accomplishent to take a stable debt and overspend, which created jobs via borrowed money, increased revenues as a result of circulating borrowed money. Clinton increased revs more, stopped Reagan's debt bleeding of 250B/yr for 12 years, all while cutting spending to that of inflation and population growth. What you're advocating is going into debt creating a lot of pseudo-success and calling it real growth. I call it a lie. All I see is your proposition of facts, no real facts or numbers. And quites? Who gives a fuck about quotes? Your side is so into theatrics and not into substance, the numbers show that. BTW, gov numbers, not HF numbers.

Right about the healthcare issue? 53% Remain Opposed to Health Care Plan If true, barely over half. I wonder what % opposed slavery abolition? Yea, you still are too scared to tell us what should happen with people who are ill and have no coverage. There's that R compassion showing thru, I've seen it before. I guess you call yours silent compassion in that you refuse to show us how you really feel about the ill w/o coverage and pose as a person with gobs of compassion. Ah, yes, the "Lucky scramble®" to cover his ass again....always predictable! TRANSLATION: Mike has no answer. Here, I'll post it again: 53% Remain Opposed to Health Care Plan If true, barely over half. I wonder what % opposed slavery abolition? Yea, you still are too scared to tell us what should happen with people who are ill and have no coverage. There's that R compassion showing thru, I've seen it before. I guess you call yours silent compassion in that you refuse to show us how you really feel about the ill w/o coverage and pose as a person with gobs of compassion. So barely over 1/2 is supposed to make some shining argument? Again, Brown V Board of Education, slavery abolition, Civili Rts Act of 1964, etc, etc, etc would have all failed if put to a vote, so there's for your majority rules utopian scenario..... put that in your pipe and smoke it,.