Lucky...

I thought you said that Obama's first quarter didn't count, Lucky? On the bright side, one more positive quarter and your 'three huge quarters' boast may have some actual truth behind it. >>>>>>>>>>I thought you said that Obama's first quarter didn't count, Lucky? Let me spell this out, I'm sorry I used English; I wrote: The change started the first whole quarter of Obama's term and it has just gottne better every time. The first whole qaurter, what does that mean? He entered in midst of a fiscal quarter, at least fiscal in terms of BEA GDP growth + or neg. Ok, so that one wasn't whole, but partial in terms of Obama's influence, so teh first whole Q would be the 2nd Q of 2009; is this simplified enough? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On the bright side, one more positive quarter and your 'three huge quarters' boast may have some actual truth behind it. So going from -6.4 in the quarter he enetered office in, while the Q was in progress, then going north every Q and 3 Q's later being at +5.9 isn't good enough? You're taht guy who loses a coin toss and says, "2 out of 3," "3 out of 5," "4 out of 7." I don't care if growth falls to 3 or 4%, it's an amzing feat to grow as much as it has, granted it was bought and paid for with the stimulus, but that beats repreating the GD.

I just answer a post fo yours that said to quit changing the subject

You're trying to show what a great human you are, I was merely giving you the opportunity to show us that in all ways other than mere words. Anyone can say flowery things, then take teh crutches away from a 5-year old kid. Here ya go, answer these: 1) How do you feel about people w/o HC? 2) Rich people who have 20 lifetimes of cash who use that cash as score rather than survival, yet whine about the gov removing a little more of that score to pay for things for the poor and/or to pay down the debt?

It's not the celebrtation, it's the venue and the time. I realize in order to make an argument you must put blinders on and look only at the celebration and nothing else, but the governing bodies both in Canada and with the IOC disagree; sorry.

An emotionless olypmics maybe your idea of a great event but its certainly not mine. Do you really believe my profile? I'm not from Zimbabwe, just to be clear. Emotion and underage drinking with a "mostly empty arena" meaning there are some people still there isn't in accordance with the Olympics and the team, the Canadian Hockey athority of some sort and all aggree and it's a done issue. But it was inappropriatee.

At first I thought this was from Mike, as it had no cite. Then I realized You were posting a partial assertion and the rest would have DEBUNKED YOUR POINT, which it does. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/vancouver/hockey/2010-02-26-oly-canada-celebrate_N.htm Canadian hockey captain Wickenheiser defends gold-medal celebration By Roxanna Scott, USA TODAY VANCOUVER — Hayley Wickenheiser, captain of the Canadian women's hockey team, has a message for those who have criticized her and her teammates for their boozy postgame celebration after winning gold. "All I have to say is, get real. Really get real," Wickenheiser said when asked whether under-age drinking was an issue for her team. "We were enjoying the moment. We've got a couple of young kids … It was probably not the right thing to be on the ice and doing that. But in the moment you get caught up and things happen. Trust me, there's a lot worse things that go on at the Olympics than this. Everybody just take a deep breath and just chill out. It's not a big deal." OFFICIAL NOT BOTHERED: Canadian chief says no scandal with team Wickenheiser, 31, and her team were the talk of the town a day after posting a 2-0 victory in the gold-medal game against the United States Thursday night. Goaltender Shannon Szabados made 28 saves to lift Canada to its third consecutive gold medal. It was the eighth gold medal for Team Canada at the 2010 Winter Games and 16th overall. But it was the players' postgame partying on the ice in a mostly empty arena —where only reporters and photographers were still working —that drew scrutiny. Players were photographed wearing their medals and drinking champagne and beer. Marie-Philip Poulin, a center who scored both goals, is 18. The legal drinking age in British Columbia is 19. Hockey Canada released a statement of apology late Thursday night. The International Olympic Committee announced Friday it will send a letter to the Canadian organizing committee asking for more details of the celebration. But officials downplayed the issue in a news conference. "To be honest I think people are in search of a story that doesn't exist," IOC director of communications Mark Adams said Friday. PODIUM POWER: U.S. hangs on to overall medals lead RESULTS: Men's, women's ice hockey "We have seen all sorts of pictures, we have heard the stories," Adams said. "But I would say there has been a clear apology from the team and from the athletes. It looks to me pretty much where we draw the line on this." USA Hockey executive director Dave Ogrean had no comment on the matter. "My only comment would be, I wish it was the Americans who had been in a position to do that," U.S. Olympic Committee CEO Scott Blackmun told the Associated Press. Wickenheiser, who has three Olympic gold medals and a silver, said the players went on the ice when they thought Canada Hockey Place had been cleared of fans, about 90-100 minutes after the game. "I think this is so common in sports to celebrate like that, especially in hockey it's kind of a tradition," said Wickenheiser, a member of the national team since 1993. The players also had cigars, although Wickenheiser said there are no smokers on the team. "The girls were doing nothing wrong but just taking some pictures. Unfortunately people just looking to dig up stuff. It's not going to detract us from celebrating the gold medal." She said she spoke to Team Canada's chef de mission Nathalie Lambert Friday morning to apologize for "any embarrassment or grief we might have caused anybody." All of the attention on the women's celebration has raised the question of whether Canadian men's hockey players will be warned should they advance to the gold-medal game and beat the United States on Sunday. "I think they'll be told what they can and cannot do," Wickenheiser said. "These guys are pros. They know how to handle themselves. For sure everybody will be watching. I hope they go out and celebrate when they win, too." If you look at Michael Phelps smoking dope, is it a big deal? No. But the words of Charles Barkley, "I'm not your role model" fall flat when he gets a DUI and then aplogizes. Phelps admits and apologizes; it just goes with the turf. Don't you hate Hollywood types whining about the ever-present paparazzi? Don't like it, don't want for so much fame. These people are on the fringe of to deep into imortalization, the rules of behavior are different, as well as the fruits of those rules are much different. And now we have underrage drinking? And some advocate it? Nice. So thx for teh partial quote, it really helps your cause.

I've only ever claimed to be an acft sheetmetal expert, which I am. You also claimed that with X years building trailers, gave me a 4th grade test, I handed it back with 3rd grade questions you failed on then said, "this test is over." Just because you can't answer issues doesn't make me less quakified, but it serves as great misdirection.

I didn't expecct shortsightedness from you of all. 1) I don't personally care, hope they have great time celebrating. 2) You can't behave how you want in the Olympics, after the Olympics, etc. It is an EXTREME priviledge to participate in or host the Olympics, so you must raise teh bar. Granted, teh US and Canada won't have hard feelings, but what if it were the US and one of the countries we like to threaten or blow up on the other end? Geezus talk about some anal idiotic assholes... there are a bunch of them on the IOC for sure….. butt some of you are too... pull the fucking butt plugs out already who ever you guys are.

(Sarcasm) And I'm American, I see nothing wrong with going to other countries and blowing them up for target practice; my taxes pay for part of that armament. 1) That ice belongs to the Olympic committee during the games, so the ownership argument is lame. 2) The Olympic rules/ethics outweigh what any/every Canuck thinks. I personally don't have an issue either, but I'm being objective and see how grossly inappropriate it is.

In case you don't notice the outcry of people who hate speeding laws FAR outnumber those who support them. In case you didn't notice, there were just a couple people who dissented against slavery abolition. I could go on, but anyone foolish enough to believe that majority rules is up for some real awakenings. \ Shall we talk about the tax code and those who agree with it vs those who don't? And your assertion that the coach/girls didn't actually sovber up and see how it could be construed as brash shows your bias in this issue. I doubt you understand the frailty of international issues very well; the intent of the olympics is for the world to come together and be nice. Who said it was? Also, I understand that conservatives know black and white, but there are degrees here and the olympics are the ultimate highest in this context, collegiate sports next,then pros. SO if they spray champagne around IN THE LOCKER ROOM after a Rose Bowl win, then that is quite diff than on the center of the ice. Another great example is that of when T Owens I think it was scored a TDwon and went to the center of Dallas field, (he didn't play for them then, I think it was SF) and knelt down and basically said, "This is my house." Another player came up and nailed him. SO that's an example of when even in pro sports there is a limit. Granted, that was during a game, but still, ethere are ethics rules, written or not that are to be followed. I think he was even fined for that. Because the jurisdiction of the ice belongs to the olympic committee until the games are over, I doubt you can grasp tthat concept, but this won't help the future chances for Canada getting the olympics back soon. And how it could be construed as objectionable is that it could be viewd as brash celebration. I don't personally give a shit, good for them, but it is in bad taste.

How do you feel about people w/o HC? Rich people who have 20 lifetimes of cash who use that cash as score rather than survival, yet whine about the gov removing a little more of that score to pay for things for the poor and/or to pay down the debt?

Why? Are you going to whine about it? Check PM's Read, chuckled, deleted 1) I won't let peopel suck me into PA's so I get booted. 2) Enjoy calling me a a pussy from the safety of your keyboard.

TRANSLATION: I'm a conservative who hates Dems but can't muster an argument.

And those adults who don't see it your way are simply not responsible. Even if the crap you wrote about Obama not being fit to be a leader were believed, what's teh other choice(s)? The Repugs who have clearly shown they will double, triple the debt and favor the rich? The Libertarians who are just too busy smoking dope to understand anything but how to open the chip bag and flip channels? Your case really isn't strong, esp when you look at recent economic data.

It's an even year. (ie, elections are coming) Consider it his last attempt to sell it to the public. If they're still not buying, he'd be wise to move on. Though I suppose if he figures he's fucked in November anyway, get it passed now. However, I'd be surprised if they think their prognosis is that bleak to give up the election now. So all the Dems in congress think that passing it over the last year as they did would have a different election outcome than passing it now? It makes absolutley no sense.

They haven't listened to the public yet, what makes you think they miraculously will, now? They will not. why would Obama and his media lose a good talking point So you think it's "a trap", too. Gotcha. In the sense that there is nothing to be gained for the R's Obama and the REPUBS definition of comprimise is "you agree with us or you are being partisan" *fixed it* And..... enough about the tax cuts put thru via reconcilliation almost 10 years ago by the Republicans.

Riiiiight, becaused they won't let the rich lawyers hang on to all their cash w/o taxing it, so they can't be trusted. Because the party you belong to that is a spinoff of the Republican Party has fucked this up and blocked it for years. I wonder what the public opinion of slavery abolition was? How about handicapped parking spots? How about speed limits? See, public opnion means shit, the unprotected must be protected regardless if the masses disapprove. Here come the black helicopters. Unions in teh private sector have been stomped virtually out and that's not enough? Yea, you're not a Republican . Yea, teh people who will be able to get cheaper HC or HC at all. See, if you and your sister party weren't so busy denying, then we wouldn't be here. The best approach is to beat them down, not out; your extremist party has beat many people out and now thsi is the backlash you may have to deal with.

It's not really the same thing, is it? Ice rinks are designed for tens of thousands of people to drink beer and eat hot dogs (or the Canuck variant) while watching a game or a concert. The reason the venue exists is for the performers. C-130s are military transport planes. Their purpose was not to assist skydivers, but they accommodated your team's needs voluntarily. And there are practical reasons for not wanting loose alcoholic beverages on board, which in the hands of drunks are more likely to be spilled. If the focus was on the smoking, fine, but it's really this assertion that these damn women should be controlling themselves. This thread has really taken a shit, it has zero to so with: - Hockey - C-30's - Thailanders - skydiving - Canada It has to do with a world organization called the olympics and the rules. The venue is irrelevant as well as the sport. WHat matters is a universal set of rules that are followed regardless of sport, nationality or degree of hapiness/sadness/anger/glee. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's just be glad this happened in a country where the winners can celebrate, as opposed to one where the losers might get shot on the streets. Sounds to me like you;re jealous.. What countries might the losers get shot? And oh, BTW, perhaps the Olympics selection committees might take this into consideration, which perhaps explains why we lost the future olympics in Chicago. I imagine your odds of getting killed go way up while in Chicago, NY and the likes. What am I allegedly jealous of?

Most peopel in an online posting board? WOW, you are shooting high. But the girls admitted they were wrong and so do the rules, the codified rules or the essence of sportsmanship rules, so you ahve been trumped as far as your, "Guys on the skydive forum say it's ok." What you're doin g is transposing your thoughts and trying to pull others in to reinforce your opinion. Right, as you're saying, those pesky rules in place of the guys on the forum and their oh-so valuable opinions. It must be a hoot to watch you fight a traffic ticket: "But your honor, everyone else was speeding too." ROFLOL. I don't see it as a revocation issue, I see it as an issue that could result in public admonishment if tehy didn't admit they broke the rules that the guys in this club disagree with. Again, apples/oramges = olympics to pro sports. I don't see anything wrong with pro teams pouring champagne on each other after the World Series, but I do for any celebration that is out of the ordinary for any olympic event, perhaps most collegiate events too. BTW, the pro leagues can punish for acts that are considerd excessive too, but there are tons more lattitude for them than for the olympics as it could lead to international strife. Nah, maybe you and the fellers at the corner store, but international rules are apparently too intrinsic for you to grasp.

Why? Are you going to whine about it? Check PM's

Are you calling me trash?

It's not really the same thing, is it? Ice rinks are designed for tens of thousands of people to drink beer and eat hot dogs (or the Canuck variant) while watching a game or a concert. The reason the venue exists is for the performers. C-130s are military transport planes. Their purpose was not to assist skydivers, but they accommodated your team's needs voluntarily. And there are practical reasons for not wanting loose alcoholic beverages on board, which in the hands of drunks are more likely to be spilled. If the focus was on the smoking, fine, but it's really this assertion that these damn women should be controlling themselves. This thread has really taken a shit, it has zero to so with: - Hockey - C-30's - Thailanders - skydiving - Canada It has to do with a world organization called the olympics and the rules. The venue is irrelevant as well as the sport. WHat matters is a universal set of rules that are followed regardless of sport, nationality or degree of hapiness/sadness/anger/glee.

Exactly.

I'm guessing you don't have much of an olympics background or understand world politics. Thsi has absolutley ZERO to do with hockey and everythign to do with rules. Buy an NBA ref.... interesting......breal olympics rules/ethics and get the fuck out.

Entirely agree. +1