Buffalo wrote:
> If you looked at your graph, it hit the BIG low in early 2009
> 'before' Obama could have done anything to affect it either way. That
> graph shows how steep a dive the economy was in during W's last year
> in office. Did Obama cause THAT? NO, the Republicans did.
> You truely wear blinders and have selective memory loss.
> Sad,
> Buffalo
This is simple enough that with a little patience that even
you should be able to comprehend it.
1) At what point did the stock market hit its highest point ever?
2) At what point did the stock market reach the lowest point
in this graph of the last twelve years?
And republicans didn't have SHIT to do with the "steep dive".
That was all on the housing crash. Now if you want to find out
WHY the housing crash happened, take a look at Dodd and Frank.
Your attempt to rewrite history is pathetic at best.
>>>> Under Obama they have *doubled* in two years!
>>> What you mean to say is that they are finally coming back
>>> IN SPITE of Obama.
>> In spite of the Republican Party doing its very best to make sure it
>> would not come back before the 2012 election.
>> They knew that if the economy recovered much, they would be on a
>> sinking ship.
> Sooo... you REALLY believe a political party, be it left or right,
> controls the stock market? Can you actually back up what you
> stated and tell us HOW or WHO tried to "keep the stock market down''?
> Do not people from all parties have stock investment? Do all those
> greedy right-wingers want to see their stocks flat? Do you even
> consider what flies from your fingertips?
I never said that they controlled the stock market.
Can you even read?
>> Does the "Party of NO" ring a bell?
> Republicans <many of the last election> have held firm to
> their promise to not raise taxes or increase the debt.
Not increase the debt? Are you totally blind?
> I see that as a good thing. Or are you one that thinks anything
> over a million is just one of those 'make-believe' numbers?
>> Buffalo
>> PS: Another right winger with 'selective' memory loss.
> Horseshit.. memory has nothing to do with it. The chart for
> the Dow Jones is there in black and white. Look at where stocks
> were the absolute highest and then take a look at where and
> when they fell to. Take a look at how they recovered post 9-11
> and two wars -- then compare to the Obama years. "Selective
> memory" my ass.
>> If you looked at your graph, it hit the BIG low in early 2009
>> 'before' Obama could have done anything to affect it either way. That
>> graph shows how steep a dive the economy was in during W's last year
>> in office. Did Obama cause THAT? NO, the Republicans did.
>> You truely wear blinders and have selective memory loss.
>> Sad,
>> Buffalo
> This is simple enough that with a little patience that even
> you should be able to comprehend it.
> 1) At what point did the stock market hit its highest point ever?
> 2) At what point did the stock market reach the lowest point
> in this graph of the last twelve years?
> And republicans didn't have SHIT to do with the "steep dive".
> That was all on the housing crash.
You mean the housing crash that the Republicans knew was coming and did
nothing about when they had complete control? Yes, that's the one I am
talking about.
Have you had your head buried up your ass for the last 12 yrs or is that
about your age?
> Now if you want to find out
> WHY the housing crash happened, take a look at Dodd and Frank.
> Your attempt to rewrite history is pathetic at best.
You really are so frick'en ignorant of the cause it is not worth it.
Buffalo wrote:
>> Sooo... you REALLY believe a political party, be it left or right,
>> controls the stock market? Can you actually back up what you
>> stated and tell us HOW or WHO tried to "keep the stock market down''?
>> Do not people from all parties have stock investment? Do all those
>> greedy right-wingers want to see their stocks flat? Do you even
>> consider what flies from your fingertips?
> I never said that they controlled the stock market.
> Can you even read?
You said -->
"In spite of the Republican Party doing its very best to make
sure it would not come back before the 2012 election. They
knew that if the economy recovered much, they would be on
a sinking ship."
Are you really that stupid? Of COURSE you blamed them.
>>> Does the "Party of NO" ring a bell?
>> Republicans <many of the last election> have held firm to
>> their promise to not raise taxes or increase the debt.
> Not increase the debt? Are you totally blind?
How many examples do you need?
How many budgets has the house submitted that weren't
put up for consideration? How many times did the repubs
stand up and say no tax increases whatsoever? Who said
no raising taxes one dollar to every ten dollars cut? Do you
even follow politics? It really seems you are out of your
comfort/knowlege zone here.
>> I see that as a good thing. Or are you one that thinks anything
>> over a million is just one of those 'make-believe' numbers?
>>> Buffalo
>>> PS: Another right winger with 'selective' memory loss.
>> Horseshit.. memory has nothing to do with it. The chart for
>> the Dow Jones is there in black and white. Look at where stocks
>> were the absolute highest and then take a look at where and
>> when they fell to. Take a look at how they recovered post 9-11
>> and two wars -- then compare to the Obama years. "Selective
>> memory" my ass.
> Your reading skills are lacking.
It's a graph, minimal reading required. That's why I thought
you'd be able to understand it. My bad I guess.
Buffalo wrote:
> You mean the housing crash that the Republicans knew was coming and
> did nothing about when they had complete control? Yes, that's the one
> I am talking about.
> Have you had your head buried up your ass for the last 12 yrs or is
> that about your age?
>> Now if you want to find out
>> WHY the housing crash happened, take a look at Dodd and Frank.
>> Your attempt to rewrite history is pathetic at best.
> You really are so frick'en ignorant of the cause it is not worth it.
How about you just pour yourself a big'ol cup of ShutTheFuckUp
and do a little reading --
"In 1992, Congress mandated that Fannie and Freddie increase their purchases
of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers. Operating under
that requirement, Fannie Mae, in particular, has been aggressive and
creative in stimulating minority gains."
"The two companies are now required to devote 42% of their portfolios to
loans for low- and moderate-income borrowers"
"Although Fannie Mae actually has exceeded its target since 1994, it is
resisting any hike. It argues that a higher target would only produce more
loan defaults by pressuring banks to accept unsafe borrowers."
"The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory
overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a
decade ago."
"Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency
would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the
two largest players in the mortgage lending industry."
"McCain Letter Demanded 2006 Action on Fannie and Freddie"
"Sen. John McCain's 2006 demand for regulatory action on Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac could have prevented current financial crisis, as HUMAN EVENTS
learned from the letter shown in full text below."
Unlike Bush and McCain, as senator, Obama did nothing, other than earn the
distinction of becoming the second largest recipient of F&F contributions in
the entire congress, even in his short stint there.
Bill Clinton himself said it best:
"I think the responsibility the Democrats have may rest more in resisting
any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to
put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."
-Bill Clinton
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any
kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of
Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.
''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on
these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
<TheBigrrr669yy...@TheBigrrrr6669yyyy.com> wrote:
>On 10/6/2012 5:25 PM, joevan wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 13:51:42 -0700, karan...@irchiver.com wrote:
>>> And how much did he steal?
>>> karan...@irchiver.com
>> Another idiot to filter out. By by moron.
>It's just another form of a nym-shifting Turtle Head Fred and TJustice. >It's two of the same person, and this person is the same person. Look >man, there is no one new coming to Usenet. If you see someone that shows >all of a sudden, it's a nym-shift. It has nym-shifted and making >comments, because it doesn't like what it's seeing. :)
I have turtle Head fred and T Justice filtered long ago. Now all his
damn shifty garbage.
<TheBigrrr669yy...@TheBigrrrr6669yyyy.com> wrote:
>On 10/6/2012 5:25 PM, joevan wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 13:51:42 -0700, karan...@irchiver.com wrote:
>>> And how much did he steal?
>>> karan...@irchiver.com
>> Another idiot to filter out. By by moron.
>It's just another form of a nym-shifting Turtle Head Fred and TJustice.
>It's two of the same person, and this person is the same person. Look
>man, there is no one new coming to Usenet. If you see someone that shows
>all of a sudden, it's a nym-shift. It has nym-shifted and making
>comments, because it doesn't like what it's seeing. :)
I have turtle Head fred and T Justice filtered long ago. Now all his
damn shifty garbage.
=================================
So you take your orders from steelie and have no original thoughts
or facts.
>> On 10/6/2012 5:25 PM, joevan wrote:
>>> On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 13:51:42 -0700, karan...@irchiver.com wrote:
>>>> And how much did he steal?
>>>> karan...@irchiver.com
>>> Another idiot to filter out. By by moron.
>> It's just another form of a nym-shifting Turtle Head Fred and TJustice.
>> It's two of the same person, and this person is the same person. Look
>> man, there is no one new coming to Usenet. If you see someone that shows
>> all of a sudden, it's a nym-shift. It has nym-shifted and making
>> comments, because it doesn't like what it's seeing. :)
> I have turtle Head fred and T Justice filtered long ago. Now all his
> damn shifty garbage.
> =================================
> So you take your orders from steelie and have no original thoughts
> or facts.
> Gotcha!
Why can't you stop nym-shiting Turtle Head? You are just mad that no one really reads your crap under your other nym shitting nyms. It's just a sign that a nerve was struck on you again.
>>On 10/6/2012 5:25 PM, joevan wrote:
>>> On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 13:51:42 -0700, karan...@irchiver.com wrote:
>>>> And how much did he steal?
>>>> karan...@irchiver.com
>>> Another idiot to filter out. By by moron.
>>It's just another form of a nym-shifting Turtle Head Fred and TJustice.
>>It's two of the same person, and this person is the same person. Look
>>man, there is no one new coming to Usenet. If you see someone that shows
>>all of a sudden, it's a nym-shift. It has nym-shifted and making
>>comments, because it doesn't like what it's seeing. :)
>I have turtle Head fred and T Justice filtered long ago. Now all his
>damn shifty garbage.
>=================================
>So you take your orders from steelie and have no original thoughts
>or facts.
>Gotcha!
I take order from no one. Haven't seen any facts from any of your
shifty crap.
>>> On 10/6/2012 5:25 PM, joevan wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 13:51:42 -0700, karan...@irchiver.com wrote:
>>>>> And how much did he steal?
>>>>> karan...@irchiver.com
>>>> Another idiot to filter out. By by moron.
>>> It's just another form of a nym-shifting Turtle Head Fred and TJustice.
>>> It's two of the same person, and this person is the same person. Look
>>> man, there is no one new coming to Usenet. If you see someone that shows
>>> all of a sudden, it's a nym-shift. It has nym-shifted and making
>>> comments, because it doesn't like what it's seeing. :)
>> I have turtle Head fred and T Justice filtered long ago. Now all his
>> damn shifty garbage.
>> =================================
>> So you take your orders from steelie and have no original thoughts
>> or facts.
>> Gotcha!
> I take order from no one. Haven't seen any facts from any of your
> shifty crap.
And you never will, because it's just a nym-shifting clown.
>> Couldn't find anything about philo's investments there. Can't you
>> supply a link that's all about him?
> If he cares to post his specific investments, then sure... we'll see how
> he did comparing 2000-2008 to 2008-2012.
He already said how they did, and I have no reason to doubt his word. Did you miss that bit?
>>>> Under Obama they have *doubled* in two years!
>>> What you mean to say is that they are finally coming back IN SPITE of
>>> Obama.
>> LOL. Dream on.
> No dreaming involved. It has taken SIX YEARS for stocks to get back even
> close to where they were since Obama took office. Is your argument with
> me or with the graph?
I didn't look at the graph as it had nothing to do with philo's specific investments.
>>>> No notes were allowed but there he goes again cheating and lying
>>> Total and utter bullshit. It's a handkerchief.
>> See philo's next post where he admits he was wrong and says what it
>> really was.
>> Fuck, zero for three. What's it like being a failure?
> Hmmm... I"d imagine it's kinda like having no fucking life and spending
> every single fucking day bitching about the likes of Boater Dave....
> care to continue?
Funny, you're the one who brought him up. I was discussing the improvement in the value of philo's investments over two time periods.
Hey, you're on a roll, aren't you?
-- "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." Hubert H. Humphrey
According to the sources, a taxpayer watchdog group conducted a
nine-month investigation into presidential and congressional
fundraising and has uncovered thousands of cases of credit card
solicitations and donations to Obama and Capitol Hill, allegedly
from unsecure accounts, and many from overseas. That might be a
violation of federal election laws.
>>> Sooo... you REALLY believe a political party, be it left or right,
>>> controls the stock market? Can you actually back up what you
>>> stated and tell us HOW or WHO tried to "keep the stock market
>>> down''? Do not people from all parties have stock investment? Do
>>> all those greedy right-wingers want to see their stocks flat? Do
>>> you even consider what flies from your fingertips?
>> I never said that they controlled the stock market.
>> Can you even read?
> You said -->
> "In spite of the Republican Party doing its very best to make
> sure it would not come back before the 2012 election. They
> knew that if the economy recovered much, they would be on
> a sinking ship."
> Are you really that stupid? Of COURSE you blamed them.
The Stock Market is not THE economy.
Look, the stock market is at an all time high!!~! Is the Economy????
You must be a Tea Party member.
>>>> Does the "Party of NO" ring a bell?
>>> Republicans <many of the last election> have held firm to
>>> their promise to not raise taxes or increase the debt.
>> Not increase the debt? Are you totally blind?
> How many examples do you need?
> How many budgets has the house submitted that weren't
> put up for consideration? How many times did the repubs
> stand up and say no tax increases whatsoever? Who said
> no raising taxes one dollar to every ten dollars cut? Do you
> even follow politics? It really seems you are out of your
> comfort/knowlege zone here.
We lost over 1 trillion dollars due to W's tax cuts and INCREASED the DEBT.
Damn, you must read only right wing propaganda and actually believe it.
>>> I see that as a good thing. Or are you one that thinks anything
>>> over a million is just one of those 'make-believe' numbers?
>>>> Buffalo
>>>> PS: Another right winger with 'selective' memory loss.
>>> Horseshit.. memory has nothing to do with it. The chart for
>>> the Dow Jones is there in black and white. Look at where stocks
>>> were the absolute highest and then take a look at where and
>>> when they fell to. Take a look at how they recovered post 9-11
>>> and two wars -- then compare to the Obama years. "Selective
>>> memory" my ass.
>> Your reading skills are lacking.
> It's a graph, minimal reading required. That's why I thought
> you'd be able to understand it. My bad I guess.
You have selective comprehensive reading skills.
Buffalo
> According to the sources, a taxpayer watchdog group conducted a
> nine-month investigation into presidential and congressional
> fundraising and has uncovered thousands of cases of credit card
> solicitations and donations to Obama and Capitol Hill, allegedly
> from unsecure accounts, and many from overseas. That might be a
> violation of federal election laws.
>> You mean the housing crash that the Republicans knew was coming and
>> did nothing about when they had complete control? Yes, that's the one
>> I am talking about.
>> Have you had your head buried up your ass for the last 12 yrs or is
>> that about your age?
>>> Now if you want to find out
>>> WHY the housing crash happened, take a look at Dodd and Frank.
>>> Your attempt to rewrite history is pathetic at best.
>> You really are so frick'en ignorant of the cause it is not worth it.
> How about you just pour yourself a big'ol cup of ShutTheFuckUp
> and do a little reading --
> "In 1992, Congress mandated that Fannie and Freddie increase their
> purchases of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers.
> Operating under that requirement, Fannie Mae, in particular, has been
> aggressive and creative in stimulating minority gains."
> "The two companies are now required to devote 42% of their portfolios
> to loans for low- and moderate-income borrowers"
> "Although Fannie Mae actually has exceeded its target since 1994, it
> is resisting any hike. It argues that a higher target would only
> produce more loan defaults by pressuring banks to accept unsafe
> borrowers."
> "The Bush administration today recommended the most significant
> regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings
> and loan crisis a decade ago."
> "Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new
> agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume
> supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored
> companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending
> industry."
> "McCain Letter Demanded 2006 Action on Fannie and Freddie"
> "Sen. John McCain's 2006 demand for regulatory action on Fannie Mae
> and Freddie Mac could have prevented current financial crisis, as
> HUMAN EVENTS learned from the letter shown in full text below."
> Unlike Bush and McCain, as senator, Obama did nothing, other than
> earn the distinction of becoming the second largest recipient of F&F
> contributions in the entire congress, even in his short stint there.
> Bill Clinton himself said it best:
> "I think the responsibility the Democrats have may rest more in
> resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I
> was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie
> Mae and Freddie Mac."
> -Bill Clinton
> ''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing
> any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of
> Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services
> Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more
> pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms
> of affordable housing.''
Like I said, the Republican Pary knew all about it.
They tried to stop Clinton from forming it.
They also pressured Clinton to sign the bill removing many constraints that
the Banks were under, I believe in 1998.
SO, they KNEW of the Problems so why the fak didn't they FIX them when THEY
had their President and Congress in their pocket from 2003-2006?
They could have changed it all when they had the POWER.
Not one good answer to that question from anyone.
Good links. Did you get them all from the same right wing site.
Buffalo
PS:I am not defending the Democratic Party, I am saying that the Republican
Party is also very responsible for this economic disaster, but they are in
denial, as normal.
>>>>> No notes were allowed but there he goes again cheating and lying
>>>> Total and utter bullshit. It's a handkerchief.
>>> See philo's next post where he admits he was wrong and says what it
>>> really was.
>>> Fuck, zero for three. What's it like being a failure?
>> Dude, its a wingnut tradition.
> Says the biggesr wingnut of all to a newbie wingnut.
Aardvark wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 20:31:51 -0400, 83LowRider wrote:
>> Aardvark wrote:
>>>>> Under Bush they went down 40%.
>>>> Uhhhh.... not according to any actual facts --
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:DJIA_2000s_graph_%28log > %
>>>> 29.svg&page=1
>>> Couldn't find anything about philo's investments there. Can't you
>>> supply a link that's all about him?
>> If he cares to post his specific investments, then sure... we'll see how
>> he did comparing 2000-2008 to 2008-2012.
> He already said how they did, and I have no reason to doubt his word. Did > you miss that bit?
>>>>> Under Obama they have *doubled* in two years!
>>>> What you mean to say is that they are finally coming back IN SPITE of
>>>> Obama.
>>> LOL. Dream on.
>> No dreaming involved. It has taken SIX YEARS for stocks to get back even
>> close to where they were since Obama took office. Is your argument with
>> me or with the graph?
> I didn't look at the graph as it had nothing to do with philo's specific > investments.
>>>>> Also: I saw of video today of Romney bringing a "cheat sheet" to the
>>>>> debate
>>>>> No notes were allowed but there he goes again cheating and lying
>>>> Total and utter bullshit. It's a handkerchief.
>>> See philo's next post where he admits he was wrong and says what it
>>> really was.
>>> Fuck, zero for three. What's it like being a failure?
>> Hmmm... I"d imagine it's kinda like having no fucking life and spending
>> every single fucking day bitching about the likes of Boater Dave....
>> care to continue?
> Funny, you're the one who brought him up. I was discussing the > improvement in the value of philo's investments over two time periods.
> Hey, you're on a roll, aren't you?
Plus, 83 douche-bagger is ignoring the fact that the DOW is above where it was during BushCo's run.
>> You mean the housing crash that the Republicans knew was coming and
>> did nothing about when they had complete control? Yes, that's the one
>> I am talking about.
>> Have you had your head buried up your ass for the last 12 yrs or is
>> that about your age?
> How about you just pour yourself a big'ol cup of ShutTheFuckUp
> and do a little reading --
I actually went to all the links you posted. I read them from start to
finish and watched the videos from start to finish.
Did you?
> "In 1992, Congress mandated that Fannie and Freddie increase their
> purchases of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers.
> Operating under that requirement, Fannie Mae, in particular, has been
> aggressive and creative in stimulating minority gains."
> "The two companies are now required to devote 42% of their portfolios
> to loans for low- and moderate-income borrowers"
> "Although Fannie Mae actually has exceeded its target since 1994, it
> is resisting any hike. It argues that a higher target would only
> produce more loan defaults by pressuring banks to accept unsafe
> borrowers."
> "The Bush administration today recommended the most significant
> regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings
> and loan crisis a decade ago."
> "Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new
> agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume
> supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored
> companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending
> industry."
"Current members of Congress have received a total of $4.8 million from
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, with Democrats collecting 57 percent of that."
I guess that means the Republicans received 43% or $2.06 million and the
Democrats received $2.74 million according to that link. What real
significance it has, I don't know, except that they were giving OUR money to
politicians, Why?
"This video is no longer available because the YouTube account associated
with this video has been terminated. "
> "McCain Letter Demanded 2006 Action on Fannie and Freddie"
> "Sen. John McCain's 2006 demand for regulatory action on Fannie Mae
> and Freddie Mac could have prevented current financial crisis, as
> HUMAN EVENTS learned from the letter shown in full text below."
2006 was too late to start it and still head off the PROBLEM.
Like I've been saying all along, WTF didn't the Republicans take that action
when they had ALL the POWER from 2003-2006???????????
During those years they had the President and the Congress in their pocket.
Why??? Why???? Why didn't they use it to do it??????
> Unlike Bush and McCain, as senator, Obama did nothing, other than
> earn the distinction of becoming the second largest recipient of F&F
> contributions in the entire congress, even in his short stint there.
You keep on going with different timelines with different economies.
Damn, what might be said in one decade might not be correct in the next. Do
you understand?
> Bill Clinton himself said it best:
> "I think the responsibility the Democrats have may rest more in
> resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I
> was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie
> Mae and Freddie Mac."
> -Bill Clinton
Yes, at that time the ecomomy was booming, or did you forget that too? When
times change, some rules and regs must also change.
[snip]
On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 10:40:06 -0600, §ñühwö£f wrote:
> Aardvark wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 20:31:51 -0400, 83LowRider wrote:
>>> Aardvark wrote:
>>>>>> Under Bush they went down 40%.
>>>>> Uhhhh.... not according to any actual facts --
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:DJIA_2000s_graph_% 28log
>> %
>>>>> 29.svg&page=1
>>>> Couldn't find anything about philo's investments there. Can't you
>>>> supply a link that's all about him?
>>> If he cares to post his specific investments, then sure... we'll see
>>> how he did comparing 2000-2008 to 2008-2012.
>> He already said how they did, and I have no reason to doubt his word.
>> Did you miss that bit?
>>>>>> Under Obama they have *doubled* in two years!
>>>>> What you mean to say is that they are finally coming back IN SPITE
>>>>> of Obama.
>>>> LOL. Dream on.
>>> No dreaming involved. It has taken SIX YEARS for stocks to get back
>>> even close to where they were since Obama took office. Is your
>>> argument with me or with the graph?
>> I didn't look at the graph as it had nothing to do with philo's
>> specific investments.
>>>>>> Also: I saw of video today of Romney bringing a "cheat sheet" to
>>>>>> the debate
>>>>>> No notes were allowed but there he goes again cheating and lying
>>>>> Total and utter bullshit. It's a handkerchief.
>>>> See philo's next post where he admits he was wrong and says what it
>>>> really was.
>>>> Fuck, zero for three. What's it like being a failure?
>>> Hmmm... I"d imagine it's kinda like having no fucking life and
>>> spending every single fucking day bitching about the likes of Boater
>>> Dave.... care to continue?
>> Funny, you're the one who brought him up. I was discussing the
>> improvement in the value of philo's investments over two time periods.
>> Hey, you're on a roll, aren't you?
> Plus, 83 douche-bagger is ignoring the fact that the DOW is above where
> it was during BushCo's run.
> <nods>
It's fun to have a chew-toy from time to time, mate.
:-)
-- "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." Hubert H. Humphrey
