Olbermann Suspended, Rachel Madcow gets identical haircut in support
Buddy Beavers
suspended Friday after his employer, MSNBC, discovered that he made campaign
contributions to three Democrats last month.
The indefinite suspension was a stark display of the clash between
objectivity and opinion in television journalism. While Mr. Olbermann is
anchor of what is essentially the "Democratic Nightly News," the decision
affirmed that he was being held to the same standards as other employees of
MSNBC and its parent, NBC News, both of which answer to NBC Universal. Most
journalistic outfits discourage or outright prohibit campaign contributions
by employees.
Hawke
> Keith Olbermann, the pre-eminent liberal voice on American television,
> was suspended Friday after his employer, MSNBC, discovered that he made
> campaign contributions to three Democrats last month.
>
> The indefinite suspension was a stark display of the clash between
> objectivity and opinion in television journalism. While Mr. Olbermann is
> anchor of what is essentially the "Democratic Nightly News," the
> decision affirmed that he was being held to the same standards as other
> employees of MSNBC and its parent, NBC News, both of which answer to NBC
> Universal. Most journalistic outfits discourage or outright prohibit
> campaign contributions by employees.
But not Fox. Over there they let their people shill for right wing
politicians all the time. Hannity, Palin, and Huckabee, all donate to
right wing candidates and do fund raisers for them too. So while some
networks have standards that are meant to keep them from being biased
Fox clearly does not. But since Fox is not a news outlet but is a
political organization they don't have to go along with the standards a
real news outlet has to follow. Olbermann knew the rules and he broke
them. So he has to pay the price for it. He should have known better.
Hawke
anorton
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:ib2h1d$tmq$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
And the right wing propaganda outlets do not insist their people check facts
either. See this CNN report about that supposed 200million/day figure for
the presidential trip.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2010/11/04/ac.obamas.india.trip.cost2.mov.cnn?hpt=C2
Buddy Beavers
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:ib2h1d$tmq$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> Olbermann knew the rules and he broke them. So he has to pay the price for
> it. He should have known better.
>
Ayup.
Buddy Beavers
"anorton" <ano...@removethis.ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:Br2dnVunyeitV0nR...@earthlink.com...
Don't tell us, they lowballed the figure?
Curly Surmudgeon
How about the fox report of a time traveler found in a 1928 Charley
Chaplin movie?
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/10/27/time-traveler-spied-chaplin-
film/
Yet the fuckheads here claim that Fox is in the same league as NPR and
MSNBC...
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lest We Forget: Dan Quayle
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hawke
Yep, that's Fox for you. In the old days if someone on the news spread
around a story like the 200 million a day for Obama's trip and it was
false, heads would have rolled. If you went on the news and basically
spread a baseless rumor like that you'd lose your job. Not so at Fox.
That story was passed from one commentator to the next and none of them
checked the facts. They just spread the rumor. That's bad enough but
what's worse is that even after doing that not one person on Fox will
even get a reprimand for saying things on TV that are blatantly untrue.
It seems you can lie all you want on Fox and nothing ever comes of it.
No wonder they don't call it a news station anymore.
Hawke
Gunner Asch
<ano...@removethis.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> But not Fox. Over there they let their people shill for right wing
>> politicians all the time. Hannity, Palin, and Huckabee, all donate to
>> right wing candidates and do fund raisers for them too. So while some
>> networks have standards that are meant to keep them from being biased Fox
>> clearly does not. But since Fox is not a news outlet but is a political
>> organization they don't have to go along with the standards a real news
>> outlet has to follow. Olbermann knew the rules and he broke them. So he
>> has to pay the price for it. He should have known better.
>>
>>
>> Hawke
>
>And the right wing propaganda outlets do not insist their people check facts
>either. See this CNN report about that supposed 200million/day figure for
>the presidential trip.
>http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2010/11/04/ac.obamas.india.trip.cost2.mov.cnn?hpt=C2
So Anderson had no numbers of the actual trip. No numbers of travelers,
no numbers of total dollars, no numbers of ships, aircraft etc.
So lets be fair and simply cut it in half, shall we?
$100 million a day, and costing nearly 1 billion dollars for the 9 day
trip.
Is that more fair to you?
Gunner
--
"Confiscating wealth from those who have earned it, inherited it,
or got lucky is never going to help 'the poor.' Poverty isn't
caused by some people having more money than others, just as obesity
isn't caused by McDonald's serving super-sized orders of French fries
Poverty, like obesity, is caused by the life choices that dictate
results." - John Tucci,
Buddy Beavers
"Gunner Asch" <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1ju9d65se9tooa1vj...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 20:22:57 -0700, "anorton"
> <ano...@removethis.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> But not Fox. Over there they let their people shill for right wing
>>> politicians all the time. Hannity, Palin, and Huckabee, all donate to
>>> right wing candidates and do fund raisers for them too. So while some
>>> networks have standards that are meant to keep them from being biased
>>> Fox
>>> clearly does not. But since Fox is not a news outlet but is a political
>>> organization they don't have to go along with the standards a real news
>>> outlet has to follow. Olbermann knew the rules and he broke them. So he
>>> has to pay the price for it. He should have known better.
>>>
>>>
>>> Hawke
>>
>>And the right wing propaganda outlets do not insist their people check
>>facts
>>either. See this CNN report about that supposed 200million/day figure for
>>the presidential trip.
>>http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2010/11/04/ac.obamas.india.trip.cost2.mov.cnn?hpt=C2
>
> So Anderson had no numbers of the actual trip. No numbers of travelers,
> no numbers of total dollars, no numbers of ships, aircraft etc.
>
> So lets be fair and simply cut it in half, shall we?
>
> $100 million a day, and costing nearly 1 billion dollars for the 9 day
> trip.
>
> Is that more fair to you?
>
I believe we will find out it cost more than 200 million a day when all of
the smoke clears.
Shall not be infringed
> On 11/5/2010 7:35 PM, Buddy Beavers wrote:
>
> > Keith Olbermann, the pre-eminent liberal voice on American television,
> > was suspended Friday after his employer, MSNBC, discovered that he made
> > campaign contributions to three Democrats last month.
>
> > The indefinite suspension was a stark display of the clash between
> > objectivity and opinion in television journalism. While Mr. Olbermann is
> > anchor of what is essentially the "Democratic Nightly News," the
> > decision affirmed that he was being held to the same standards as other
> > employees of MSNBC and its parent, NBC News, both of which answer to NBC
> > Universal. Most journalistic outfits discourage or outright prohibit
> > campaign contributions by employees.
>
> But not Fox. Over there they let their people shill for right wing
> politicians all the time. Hannity, Palin, and Huckabee, all donate to
> right wing candidates and do fund raisers for them too. So while some
> networks have standards that are meant to keep them from being
> biased
That clearly aren't working...
> Fox clearly does not.
And the Final results are?
> But since Fox is not a news outlet but is a
> political organization
So let's see... you have ABC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, and NPR.
We have Fox.
Is that what you're bitching about?
"It's so UNFAIR!" Cry, cry, cry, sob, sob, sob. "Fox is more
effective than everything we have, combined."
> they don't have to go along with the standards a
> real news outlet has to follow. Olbermann knew the rules and he broke
> them. So he has to pay the price for it. He should have known better.
>
> Hawke
The left will never be made to pay the price for the damage they've
done.
Shall not be infringed
> On 11/5/2010 8:22 PM, anorton wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yep, that's Fox for you. In the old days if someone on the news spread
> around a story like the 200 million a day for Obama's trip and it was
> false, heads would have rolled. If you went on the news and basically
> spread a baseless rumor like that you'd lose your job. Not so at Fox.
> That story was passed from one commentator to the next and none of them
> checked the facts. They just spread the rumor. That's bad enough but
> what's worse is that even after doing that not one person on Fox will
> even get a reprimand for saying things on TV that are blatantly untrue.
> It seems you can lie all you want on Fox and nothing ever comes of it.
> No wonder they don't call it a news station anymore.
>
> Hawke
Cool. It's funny how the punch-line of a joke becomes a reality...
"We just needed a really big number."
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
Don't forget the politicians who used the "Fox News" lies to gain face
time. Michelle Bachmann reported it word-for-word to the media and still
hasn't retracted the lies.
Steve B
"Gunner Asch" <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote
> So Anderson had no numbers of the actual trip. No numbers of travelers,
> no numbers of total dollars, no numbers of ships, aircraft etc.
>
> So lets be fair and simply cut it in half, shall we?
>
> $100 million a day, and costing nearly 1 billion dollars for the 9 day
> trip.
>
> Is that more fair to you?
>
> Gunner
So, why weren't you and I invited? How do they make up the invite lists to
these things? I expect an inspection of the guest lists would reveal some
interesting reading. Maybe we could get in on the next one. I don't really
want to go to India. I am not germophobic by any means, but I don't want to
go to any country where I am afraid to touch anything. It was like that in
Nigeria, after seeing those preparation briefings including graphic footage
of Ebola virus patients. You didn't even want to breathe in the air.
Steve
Spehro Pefhany
No problem for a few days.. Bernake just printed an additional ~ten
year's worth at that rate (point-six trillion dollars), or almost $10K
more per taxpayer (those paying Federal tax).
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
sp...@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
Rich Grise
> "Gunner Asch" <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote
>
>> So Anderson had no numbers of the actual trip. No numbers of travelers,
>> no numbers of total dollars, no numbers of ships, aircraft etc.
>>
>> So lets be fair and simply cut it in half, shall we?
>>
>> $100 million a day, and costing nearly 1 billion dollars for the 9 day
>> trip.
>>
>> Is that more fair to you?
>
> to
> these things? I expect an inspection of the guest lists would reveal some
> interesting reading. Maybe we could get in on the next one. I don't
> really
> want to go to India. I am not germophobic by any means, but I don't want
> to
> go to any country where I am afraid to touch anything. It was like that
> in Nigeria, after seeing those preparation briefings including graphic
> footage
> of Ebola virus patients. You didn't even want to breathe in the air.
>
Is it true that the whole continent of Africa smells like shit?
I hear France is pretty bad, too, with all the open benjo ditches and a
pissoir on every corner.
Thanks,
Rich
Rich Grise
>>>>
>>>> politicians all the time. Hannity, Palin, and Huckabee, all donate to
>>>> right wing candidates and do fund raisers for them too. So while some
>>>> networks have standards that are meant to keep them from being biased
>>>> Fox
>>>> clearly does not. But since Fox is not a news outlet but is a political
>>>> organization they don't have to go along with the standards a real news
>>>> outlet has to follow. Olbermann knew the rules and he broke them. So he
>>>> has to pay the price for it. He should have known better.
>>>
>>>facts
>>>either. See this CNN report about that supposed 200million/day figure for
>>>the presidential trip.
>>>http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2010/11/04/ac.obamas.india.trip.cost2.mov.cnn?hpt=C2
>>
>> So Anderson had no numbers of the actual trip. No numbers of travelers,
>> no numbers of total dollars, no numbers of ships, aircraft etc.
>>
>> So lets be fair and simply cut it in half, shall we?
>>
>> $100 million a day, and costing nearly 1 billion dollars for the 9 day
>> trip.
>>
>> Is that more fair to you?
>
> I believe we will find out it cost more than 200 million a day when all of
> the smoke clears.
So, do any of the activists around here know how to operate the "Freedom of
Information Act?"
Thanks,
Rich
Gunner Asch
Great Cull
Gunner Asch
Actually...no. Most of it is actually pretty nice. Except in the
villages. But then Ive not been there since the mid 70s.
>
>I hear France is pretty bad, too, with all the open benjo ditches and a
>pissoir on every corner.
>
>Thanks,
>Rich
--
Steve B
"Rich Grise" <ri...@example.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:ib48s9$tei$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
Nigeria was pretty bad. We arrived at night, and drove in a van with a
smelly Nigerian driver, and two men with AK47's. Didn't see a lot. Coming
back was daytime, and yes, it stank. And odd smells that were kind of like
chitlins cooking.................... strange, not bad, but not good. We
spent almost the whole time at the rig or airport. Driving back, roadside
vendors had all kinds of dead animal carcasses there, some with just the
hair singed off. Interesting, but not enough to stop, and we were not
allowed to get out of the van. Do not touch anything. Do not drink
ANYTHING, even if capped. Drink only water provided. If you do give a
beggar money, pitch it to them, or throw it on the ground, no contact.
Pretty groaty shit.
Steve
Heart surgery pending?
Read up and prepare.
Learn how to care for a friend.
http://cabgbypasssurgery.com
Steve B
>>> they don't have to go along with the standards a
>>> real news outlet has to follow. Olbermann knew the rules and he broke
>>> them. So he has to pay the price for it. He should have known better.
Just like the "I don't care about you" asshole that cuts into the line after
passing a whole line of cars by driving on the shoulder. Rules are for the
"small people", as Inside the Beltways call them.
Karma is a bitch, ain't it?
Steve
Heart surgery pending?
Read up and prepare.
Learn how to care for a friend.
http://cabgbypasssurgery.com
Steve
Rich Grise
>
>>>> they don't have to go along with the standards a
>>>> real news outlet has to follow. Olbermann knew the rules and he broke
>>>> them. So he has to pay the price for it. He should have known better.
>
> Just like the "I don't care about you" asshole that cuts into the line
> after
> passing a whole line of cars by driving on the shoulder. Rules are for
> the "small people", as Inside the Beltways call them.
>
improves traffic flow for everybody. I guess I'd rather be 10 minutes late
than dead. =:-O
Cheers!
Rich
Michael A. Terrell
Steve B wrote:
>
> ??? they don't have to go along with the standards a
> ??? real news outlet has to follow. Olbermann knew the rules and he broke
> ??? them. So he has to pay the price for it. He should have known better.
>
> Just like the "I don't care about you" asshole that cuts into the line after
> passing a whole line of cars by driving on the shoulder. Rules are for the
> "small people", as Inside the Beltways call them.
I had someone try that recently. He barely missed a headon collison
witha power pole when his lane ended.
--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.
Hawke
That's the amazing thing that is going on these days with the
republicans. They say all kinds of crazy and factually incorrect things
and it matters not in the least. It used to be if you made predictions
that didn't come true or you made wild statements that turned out to be
untrue that was it. Your credibility was shot. No one would listen to
you anymore. But now people on the right say things that are factually
incorrect, or outright lies, or are just plain made up by them and
nothing happens to them. It's like it isn't important what they say
because their followers accept it lock, stock, and barrel, and if it is
shown to be false they just move on and don't hold it against the people
who said it. Dick Morris is a good example. His last book was titled
Hillary vs Condi. He predicted they would be the two who were nominated
by their parties for the presidency. Last week he was saying the
republicans would get 100 seats in the House and would get the majority
in the Senate. But nobody says a thing when he's off by a mile. Is it
just that people on the right are so rabid in their following that none
of their leaders are accountable for anything they say? It sure seems
that way.
Hawke
Hawke
> I believe we will find out it cost more than 200 million a day when all
> of the smoke clears.
But remember that is based on not one single fact. Nothing other than
what you "think". And being horribly biased like you are what you think
most likely has no connection to reality whatsoever. With the facts you
have to work with your prediction is about as good as you accurately
predicting how many particles are in one of Saturn's rings.
Hawke
Hawke
We'll get around to that after we finish paying for all the damage done
to us by you and your boy George Bush. Electing that moron cost me
beaucoup bucks that I still haven't recouped. The way I see it you right
wingers owe me money. You handed the country over to an incompetent
nincompoop and he cost me dearly. When are you going to start your payments?
Hawke
Buddy Beavers
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:ib53f5$aor$3...@speranza.aioe.org...
So that's what you get for gambling on an election, especially against a
sure thing. Everyone made money during the Bush years though, you probably
were in the minority, flailing your wrists demanding a recount. One thing
you are right about, once Bush was finished, the right wingers did hand the
country over to an incompetent nincompoop. Glad you are finally realizing
it. The checks in the mail.
Rich Grise
>
> We'll get around to that after we finish paying for all the damage done
> to us by you and your boy George Bush.
Well, you've had the Congress since 2006 and the presidency since 2008 -
when do you plan to start?
Thanks,
Rich
Rich Grise
I looked into this - the actual numbers are classified. That's a pretty sure
sign they're up to no good.
And if it wasn't $200 mil, how much _was_ it?
Or are you simply afraid to tell the truth?
Thanks,
Rich
Buddy Beavers
"Rich Grise" <ri...@example.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:ib5pra$d0k$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
Electing a Republican House was a good start.
Hawke
That says it all. You think Bush is the smart one and Obama is the dumb
one. And the idea that everyone made money during the Bush years is a
crock. No matter how much you were ahead in 2006 by 2009 you had lost
all of that and more. It's like this Bonzo. If you go to Vegas and
gamble for half the night and are ahead 5,000 dollars but when you leave
you have lost 10,000 you are not ahead. When Bush walked out all our
homes were worth a lot less and so were our portfolios, no matter how
well diversified they were. So play stupid all you want. The facts are
still the same. Bush left us in the ditch. Obama is trying to get us
out. You can't change that fact even though you really, really, want to.
It's like the World Series. San Francisco won Texas lost. You get your
own opinions but not your own facts. Bush fucked things up, that's a
fact. Obama has to try to fix things. That's a fact too. That's reality.
Hawke
Hawke
Right after we get the country back to where it was when Clinton handed
it over to Bush. We were in good shape then. Unfortunately, Bush did
such a job on us it'll take at least 8 years to come back to where we
were when he took over. And now that you folks control the congress that
mean nothing is going to get better now, only worse. You guys never
learn. Nothing gets better when the corrupt republicans are running
things. They say one thing and do the opposite. But guys like you never
seem to notice that. Now if you had a brain.
Hawke
Hawke
Let the deficits continue. From Reagan to Bush I to Bush II every year
the country ran a deficit. Reagan doubled the debt, so did Bush II. Put
those guys back in charge and guess what? They will keep doing it. What
does it take for you to learn the republicans are never fiscally
conservative? They say they are but when in power always grow huge
deficits. But you never see that? You only notice a deficit when a
Democrat is in the White House. That's really stupid.
Hawke
Buddy Beavers
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:ib78n1$g6u$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> That says it all. You think Bush is the smart one and Obama is the dumb
> one.
Finally we can agree about something
> And the idea that everyone made money during the Bush years is a crock.
Not everyone, remember you said you took a beating. Without you, it's not
everyone, is it?
> No matter how much you were ahead in 2006 by 2009 you had lost all of that
> and more.
Why, this is complete bullshit. Just a post or teo ago you were telling us
how much you made from your investments that you were able to quit your
paralegal advice to smart lawyers job over at the donut shop.
> It's like this Bonzo. If you go to Vegas and gamble for half the night and
> are ahead 5,000 dollars but when you leave you have lost 10,000 you are
> not ahead. When Bush walked out all our homes were worth a lot less and so
> were our portfolios, no matter how well diversified they were.
Well I didn't bet against Bush like you did, so my returns were a bit
different than yours were. Nobody should tell you what you should do with
your money, it's your money, spend it how you see fit.
> So play stupid all you want. The facts are still the same. Bush left us in
> the ditch. Obama is trying to get us out.
Idiot, there was no ditch until Obama took the wheel. Obama has been driving
the bus for two years now. We were better off with Bush steering the ship.
> You can't change that fact even though you really, really, want to. It's
> like the World Series. San Francisco won Texas lost. You get your own
> opinions but not your own facts. Bush fucked things up, that's a fact.
> Obama has to try to fix things. That's a fact too. That's reality.
>
That was a baseball game. You ees knew to bazeball?
Buddy Beavers
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:ib795a$hcg$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> On 11/7/2010 7:33 AM, Buddy Beavers wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Rich Grise" <ri...@example.net.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:ib5pra$d0k$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Hawke wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We'll get around to that after we finish paying for all the damage done
>>>> to us by you and your boy George Bush.
>>>
>>> Well, you've had the Congress since 2006 and the presidency since 2008 -
>>> when do you plan to start?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Rich
>>>
>>
>> Electing a Republican House was a good start.
>
>
> Let the deficits continue. From Reagan to Bush I to Bush II every year the
> country ran a deficit. Reagan doubled the debt, so did Bush II.
Obama tripled the sum total from when the country began.
Rich Grise
>>> "Rich Grise" <ri...@example.net.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>> We'll get around to that after we finish paying for all the damage
>>>>> done to us by you and your boy George Bush.
>>>>
>>>> Well, you've had the Congress since 2006 and the presidency since 2008
>>>> - when do you plan to start?
>>>
>>
>> Let the deficits continue. From Reagan to Bush I to Bush II every year
>> the country ran a deficit. Reagan doubled the debt, so did Bush II.
>
> Obama tripled the sum total from when the country began.
Of course, that's Bush's fault too:
http://www.aurorasentinel.com/opinion/columnists/article_008243b2-1535-58e9-a4b8-75ad20b402a4.html
Hope This Helps!
Rich
Buddy Beavers
"Rich Grise" <ri...@example.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:ib7ks5$b7l$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
I can't believe that Bush would have the nerve to break so many of Obama's
promises. Grrr, that Bush!
Gunner Asch
<Bu...@Beavers.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>"Rich Grise" <ri...@example.net.invalid> wrote in message
>news:ib7ks5$b7l$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Buddy Beavers wrote:
>>> "Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
>>>> On 11/7/2010 7:33 AM, Buddy Beavers wrote:
>>>>> "Rich Grise" <ri...@example.net.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>> Hawke wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We'll get around to that after we finish paying for all the damage
>>>>>>> done to us by you and your boy George Bush.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, you've had the Congress since 2006 and the presidency since 2008
>>>>>> - when do you plan to start?
>>>>>
>>>>> Electing a Republican House was a good start.
>>>>
>>>> Let the deficits continue. From Reagan to Bush I to Bush II every year
>>>> the country ran a deficit. Reagan doubled the debt, so did Bush II.
>>>
>>> Obama tripled the sum total from when the country began.
>>
>> Of course, that's Bush's fault too:
>> http://www.aurorasentinel.com/opinion/columnists/article_008243b2-1535-58e9-a4b8-75ad20b402a4.html
>>
>> Hope This Helps!
>> Rich
>>
>
>I can't believe that Bush would have the nerve to break so many of Obama's
>promises. Grrr, that Bush!
<VVBG>!!
Buddy Beavers
"Gunner Asch" <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jv3fd6hcsbrkl0h8l...@4ax.com...
Do you think Bush will win a 4th term in 2012?
Hawke
>> That says it all. You think Bush is the smart one and Obama is the
>> dumb one.
>
> Finally we can agree about something
Yes, we agree that you have a crazy idea that is totally against the
grain of reality. If there is one thing that people agree on about Bush
is that he's not very bright. On the other hand Obama's reputation is
just the opposite. You see things very differently than most. To think
Bush is a smart guy flies in the face of reality. But I can see you
believe that. That's fine because it tells me what you're like. You
don't go on evidence. If you did you wouldn't think Bush is smarter than
Obama. Hell, Bush isn't smarter than hardly anyone.
>> And the idea that everyone made money during the Bush years is a crock.
>
> Not everyone, remember you said you took a beating. Without you, it's
> not everyone, is it?
I took a beating in 2008 when the stock market went down to 6600. Until
then I was up. Like everyone else. But then our home prices plunged and
so did our stocks. Of course poor people without assets weren't hurt.
>> No matter how much you were ahead in 2006 by 2009 you had lost all of
>> that and more.
>
> Why, this is complete bullshit. Just a post or teo ago you were telling
> us how much you made from your investments that you were able to quit
> your paralegal advice to smart lawyers job over at the donut shop.
Oh boy, a comedian you're not. Not much of a memory either. All I said
is that I don't have to be employed to live just fine. I have income
from investments. But that doesn't mean they didn't go down from Bush's
destruction of the economy. Fortunately, Obama has come to the rescue
and my investments have climbed back. Not all the way but at least some.
>> It's like this Bonzo. If you go to Vegas and gamble for half the night
>> and are ahead 5,000 dollars but when you leave you have lost 10,000
>> you are not ahead. When Bush walked out all our homes were worth a lot
>> less and so were our portfolios, no matter how well diversified they
>> were.
>
> Well I didn't bet against Bush like you did, so my returns were a bit
> different than yours were. Nobody should tell you what you should do
> with your money, it's your money, spend it how you see fit.
I have both real estate and a stock portfolio. All of it declined
because of Bush. I didn't bet on anyone. I have a diversified account
but that doesn't matter when the stock market goes from 14,000 to 6600.
You lose money. How much did you lose when that happened. Because if you
had anything you lost.
>> So play stupid all you want. The facts are still the same. Bush left
>> us in the ditch. Obama is trying to get us out.
>
> Idiot, there was no ditch until Obama took the wheel. Obama has been
> driving the bus for two years now. We were better off with Bush steering
> the ship.
Please do me the favor of not making up your own version of world
events. The economy was in the crapper when Bush left office, the
financial industry was in ruins, and the real estate of the nation was
in a serious problem. If that isn't in the ditch then nothing qualifies.
We are factually better off now than when Bush took office. There is no
way you can say otherwise. Knowing you that's what you'll do though.
Saying things were better under Bush is akin to saying Pee Wee Herman is
built like Ray Lewis. In other words total crap.
>> You can't change that fact even though you really, really, want to.
>> It's like the World Series. San Francisco won Texas lost. You get your
>> own opinions but not your own facts. Bush fucked things up, that's a
>> fact. Obama has to try to fix things. That's a fact too. That's reality.
>>
>
> That was a baseball game. You ees knew to bazeball?
Hey, if you can deny that Bush left the country in a mess then you sure
as hell can deny that the Giants beat Texas. You'd be crazy to do that.
But it's getting more obvious all the time that you have lost touch with
reality.
Hawke
Buddy Beavers
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:ib9o48$ftt$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
>>> That says it all. You think Bush is the smart one and Obama is the
>>> dumb one.
>>
>> Finally we can agree about something
>
> Yes, we agree that you have a crazy idea that is totally against the grain
> of reality. If there is one thing that people agree on about Bush is that
> he's not very bright. On the other hand Obama's reputation is just the
> opposite. You see things very differently than most. To think Bush is a
> smart guy flies in the face of reality. But I can see you believe that.
> That's fine because it tells me what you're like. You don't go on
> evidence. If you did you wouldn't think Bush is smarter than Obama. Hell,
> Bush isn't smarter than hardly anyone.
But wait! You are always spouting in this newsgroup in your fourth grade
writing style about how important an education is. It was already proven
that Bush had higher grades than both of his opponents, and most likely
higher than Obama as well. We're still waiting for that embarrassment to
release his grades.
Otherwise, being President is just like being a lawyer isn't it? What do you
call the President with the lowest grades? President.
So, stupid says what?
>>> And the idea that everyone made money during the Bush years is a crock.
>>
>> Not everyone, remember you said you took a beating. Without you, it's
>> not everyone, is it?
>
> I took a beating in 2008 when the stock market went down to 6600. Until
> then I was up. Like everyone else. But then our home prices plunged and so
> did our stocks. Of course poor people without assets weren't hurt.
Well sorry about your stocks and home values plunging, there are a lot of
people in the same boat. What you need to remember is that the Dow at
6626.94 on March 6, 2009. This happened on Obama's watch. Bush handed over
the Dow to Obama at 8281.22, it was Obama who drove the bus into the ditch.
As a matter of fact, if you study the charts you will see that Bush
inherited the Dow at about 10000 and with the exception of a dip after 9-11,
the Dow grew to as high as 14000, and it was slightly higher than it is now
on the day Obama accepted his party's nomination on August 28, 2008. All it
took was the realization that Obama might become President to send the Dow
into its death spiral. It began its dive and just 10 days later it was at
8450 and never recovered. Finally it's almost at the level of the day Obama
opened his gaping maw to proclaim he would try to become President.
Now, you are always bragging about your education and telling us how smart
you are, so I assume you know how to read financial charts to verify what
I'm saying. But, I don't know, I think that is expecting too much from you.
Hint, click on Dow Jones to access the charting tools
http://www.google.com/finance
>>> No matter how much you were ahead in 2006 by 2009 you had lost all of
>>> that and more.
>>
>> Why, this is complete bullshit. Just a post or teo ago you were telling
>> us how much you made from your investments that you were able to quit
>> your paralegal advice to smart lawyers job over at the donut shop.
>
>
> Oh boy, a comedian you're not. Not much of a memory either. All I said is
> that I don't have to be employed to live just fine. I have income from
> investments. But that doesn't mean they didn't go down from Bush's
> destruction of the economy. Fortunately, Obama has come to the rescue and
> my investments have climbed back. Not all the way but at least some.
Lots of people don't have to be employed. For example I also have real
estate and investments and never have to work another day. However, I'm out
there helping my fellow man, employing the poor stupid liberal bastards who
can't seem to make it without my help. I help them keep a roof over their
heads, feed themselves, help them send their kids to school, etc. They help
me grow my pie so that I have more to share. You on the other hand seem to
care little for your fellow man, in fact you have mentioned on several
occasions that you could care less about anyone but yourself.
If it wasn't for your dumb luck investments (which I doubt anyway) you would
be another street person kicking around in the curb. Even the stew bums
wouldn't have anything to do with you. Typical Obama lover personality, with
the limp wrists and all.
>>> It's like this Bonzo. If you go to Vegas and gamble for half the night
>>> and are ahead 5,000 dollars but when you leave you have lost 10,000
>>> you are not ahead. When Bush walked out all our homes were worth a lot
>>> less and so were our portfolios, no matter how well diversified they
>>> were.
>>
>> Well I didn't bet against Bush like you did, so my returns were a bit
>> different than yours were. Nobody should tell you what you should do
>> with your money, it's your money, spend it how you see fit.
>
> I have both real estate and a stock portfolio. All of it declined because
> of Bush. I didn't bet on anyone. I have a diversified account but that
> doesn't matter when the stock market goes from 14,000 to 6600. You lose
> money. How much did you lose when that happened. Because if you had
> anything you lost.
>
You're repeating yourself again. But, but, but...Bush! See above where I
totally explain how wrong you are and how your hatred of Bush has blinded
you from reality.
>
>>> So play stupid all you want. The facts are still the same. Bush left
>>> us in the ditch. Obama is trying to get us out.
>>
>> Idiot, there was no ditch until Obama took the wheel. Obama has been
>> driving the bus for two years now. We were better off with Bush steering
>> the ship.
>
> Please do me the favor of not making up your own version of world events.
> The economy was in the crapper when Bush left office, the financial
> industry was in ruins, and the real estate of the nation was in a serious
> problem. If that isn't in the ditch then nothing qualifies. We are
> factually better off now than when Bush took office. There is no way you
> can say otherwise. Knowing you that's what you'll do though. Saying things
> were better under Bush is akin to saying Pee Wee Herman is built like Ray
> Lewis. In other words total crap.
I have documented my version and provided references that you are free to
debunk with your own. Your attempts to obfuscate with bullshit unsupported
facts and references to Pee Wee Herman and baseball won't work against the
likes of me. Try that on someone with your own intellect.
>>> You can't change that fact even though you really, really, want to.
>>> It's like the World Series. San Francisco won Texas lost. You get your
>>> own opinions but not your own facts. Bush fucked things up, that's a
>>> fact. Obama has to try to fix things. That's a fact too. That's reality.
>>>
>>
>> That was a baseball game. You ees knew to bazeball?
>
> Hey, if you can deny that Bush left the country in a mess then you sure as
> hell can deny that the Giants beat Texas. You'd be crazy to do that. But
> it's getting more obvious all the time that you have lost touch with
> reality.
It's Obama's mess now. In two more years it will be someone else's mess
because it will take at least 10 years to get out of the ditch that Obama
has made by spinning his wheels. And I couldn't care less about the Giants,
I'm a Cubs fan. We've moved beyond the World Series decades ago.
Rich Grise
>
>>> That says it all. You think Bush is the smart one and Obama is the
>>> dumb one.
>>
>> Finally we can agree about something
>
> Yes, we agree that you have a crazy idea that is totally against the
> grain of reality. If there is one thing that people agree on about Bush
> is that he's not very bright. On the other hand Obama's reputation is
> just the opposite.
Yeah - too bad a high IQ doesn't buy common sense.
Thanks,
Rich
Hawke
Common sense is not that easy to come by and not many people agree what
it is. But at least I know you are sane for one reason, you don't
dispute that Obama has a high IQ. You may think he doesn't use it
properly or whatever but at least you recognize that he's a smart guy.
So does everyone else. Except for Beaver boy. He actually is trying to
make the argument that it is Bush who is known for his intellect. He's
saying that Bush is clearly smarter than Obama. You have to admit you
don't hear that often, do you? Bush may be many things but being really
smart isn't one of them. That's common knowledge. But as the Beaver boy
shows not everyone has that either.
Hawke
Hawke
But that has nothing to do with the fact that every republican president
sends the country further into debt. The other thing they do is they all
claim they are going to cut the deficit. Bush said he was going to cut
it 50% in 5 years. But instead he doubled it. So what you have is
republicans who say one thing and do the opposite. They say they are for
balanced budgets and then cut taxes and blow a hole in the deficit. Are
you going to believe the next republican president when he says he's
going to cut the deficit? I bet you do. Sucker!!!
Hawke
Hawke
> But wait! You are always spouting in this newsgroup in your fourth grade
> writing style about how important an education is. It was already proven
> that Bush had higher grades than both of his opponents, and most likely
> higher than Obama as well. We're still waiting for that embarrassment to
> release his grades.
Rationality is not your strong suit. You are talking about Bush vs
Kerry. Both of them had rather poor grades even though they were
students at an Ivy League school. But you overlook the central point,
which is that Bush had lousy grades, which isn't an indicator of being
smart. He also wasn't in an Ivy League school because of his high grades
either. He was only there because of his father. So we know that Bush
was no good as a student and he had no academic accomplishments.
Now Obama. We don't know his grades, that's true. But we do know that he
also went to a high rated school and we know he was head of the college
law review. They don't put the bad students in that job. We also know
Obama went on to law school, passed the bar, and got a job as a
constitutional law teacher. Those things all indicate a lot of brains.
> Otherwise, being President is just like being a lawyer isn't it? What do
> you call the President with the lowest grades? President.
>
> So, stupid says what?
>
>>>> And the idea that everyone made money during the Bush years is a crock.
>>>
>>> Not everyone, remember you said you took a beating. Without you, it's
>>> not everyone, is it?
>>
>> I took a beating in 2008 when the stock market went down to 6600.
>> Until then I was up. Like everyone else. But then our home prices
>> plunged and so did our stocks. Of course poor people without assets
>> weren't hurt.
>
>
> Well sorry about your stocks and home values plunging, there are a lot
> of people in the same boat. What you need to remember is that the Dow at
> 6626.94 on March 6, 2009. This happened on Obama's watch. Bush handed
> over the Dow to Obama at 8281.22, it was Obama who drove the bus into
> the ditch.
Uh huh, Obama takes office on January 20, 2009 and something he did in
less than fifty days caused the market to drop that low? Not something
that happened before that like when Bush was still in office? Things
were going well and then Obama tanked the market? Is that right? Please
give me the play by play of what exactly Obama did to bring down the
market. I'd like to know and I'm sure all the financial experts in the
country would like to hear an real pro like you tell us exactly how
Obama was the cause of our financial crisis. We're all waiting.
> As a matter of fact, if you study the charts you will see that Bush
> inherited the Dow at about 10000 and with the exception of a dip after
> 9-11, the Dow grew to as high as 14000, and it was slightly higher than
> it is now on the day Obama accepted his party's nomination on August 28,
> 2008. All it took was the realization that Obama might become President
> to send the Dow into its death spiral. It began its dive and just 10
> days later it was at 8450 and never recovered. Finally it's almost at
> the level of the day Obama opened his gaping maw to proclaim he would
> try to become President.
So your assertion is that it was the fear of Obama becoming president
that caused the market to tumble not anything that Bush did in the years
before it happened? I'd love to see some proof. I'd also love to see
some evidence that Bush's decisions didn't cause the financial crisis.
Because even people who are republicans and who support Bush all admit
that it was the Bush policies that caused the problems, not Obama.
> Now, you are always bragging about your education and telling us how
> smart you are, so I assume you know how to read financial charts to
> verify what I'm saying. But, I don't know, I think that is expecting too
> much from you. Hint, click on Dow Jones to access the charting tools
> http://www.google.com/finance
I have an education so it goes without saying that I understand charts,
graphs, etc. That goes along with your education, for your information.
But I don't need to look at any charts as I have been watching the
financial information every day. I was watching it daily when Bush was
president too. I manage my own money so I know what the market is doing
all the time. That's how I know your laughable claim that nothing was
Bush's fault is a joke.
>>>> No matter how much you were ahead in 2006 by 2009 you had lost all of
>>>> that and more.
>>>
>>> Why, this is complete bullshit. Just a post or teo ago you were telling
>>> us how much you made from your investments that you were able to quit
>>> your paralegal advice to smart lawyers job over at the donut shop.
>>
>>
>> Oh boy, a comedian you're not. Not much of a memory either. All I said
>> is that I don't have to be employed to live just fine. I have income
>> from investments. But that doesn't mean they didn't go down from
>> Bush's destruction of the economy. Fortunately, Obama has come to the
>> rescue and my investments have climbed back. Not all the way but at
>> least some.
>
>
> Lots of people don't have to be employed.
I mean by choice. Taking that into account, then no, lots of people do
have to be employed. In fact most people can't afford to lose even a
month's pay.
For example I also have real
> estate and investments and never have to work another day.
That's hard to believe.
However, I'm
> out there helping my fellow man, employing the poor stupid liberal
> bastards who can't seem to make it without my help.
Doing what exactly. You sure don't come across as any kind of
humanitarian. You strike me as a self centered, cold hearted republican.
Kindness isn't in your creed. Constantly getting more for yourself seems
more your cup of tea.
I help them keep a
> roof over their heads, feed themselves, help them send their kids to
> school, etc. They help me grow my pie so that I have more to share. You
> on the other hand seem to care little for your fellow man, in fact you
> have mentioned on several occasions that you could care less about
> anyone but yourself.
Funny isn't it. I'm supposedly the liberal. What are they known for?
Helping the downtrodden. Giving to others. Caring about the environment.
But supposedly it's you that are like that, wanting to help your fellow
man and wanting to share. Hmmm, it sounds like you say you are the real
liberal. But I don't buy that. You strike me as much more like a Dick
Cheney.
> If it wasn't for your dumb luck investments (which I doubt anyway) you
> would be another street person kicking around in the curb. Even the stew
> bums wouldn't have anything to do with you. Typical Obama lover
> personality, with the limp wrists and all.
Now that's more like it. No liberal there. Making negative comments,
implying weakness, and being gay. Now that sounds like a right winger. I
knew that kind, caring, decency, wasn't really you. You're a typical
selfish right winger, who thinks only about himself and his own. The
problem is you just couldn't be more wrong. Which is a habit you have.
You keep acting like I'm some kind of wimp. I'd sure like to meet you in
person some day. You would get a real surprise. I'd love to see the look
on your face when you looked up at me and finally realized you were so
wrong about your assumptions about me. To bad it'll never happen. Like I
said I'd love to see the look on your goofy face when you see me in person.
>
>
> You're repeating yourself again. But, but, but...Bush! See above where I
> totally explain how wrong you are and how your hatred of Bush has
> blinded you from reality.
Look who's talking. Obama has not been president for two years and you
hate him real bad already. You're obsessed with him. Look at your posts.
You can't even think about anything but him and you say I hated Bush.
Did you see me posting every day about him? I don't think so. From as
much as you write against Obama it's clear you have a problem, not me.
>>>> So play stupid all you want. The facts are still the same. Bush left
>>>> us in the ditch. Obama is trying to get us out.
>>>
>>> Idiot, there was no ditch until Obama took the wheel. Obama has been
>>> driving the bus for two years now. We were better off with Bush steering
>>> the ship.
That's a crackpot claim that has no connection to reality. Bush is rated
as the worst president in modern history by historians. His
mismanagement of the economy is one of the main reasons for that rating.
Clearly we were worse off with Bush steering the ship.
>> Please do me the favor of not making up your own version of world
>> events. The economy was in the crapper when Bush left office, the
>> financial industry was in ruins, and the real estate of the nation was
>> in a serious problem. If that isn't in the ditch then nothing
>> qualifies. We are factually better off now than when Bush took office.
>> There is no way you can say otherwise. Knowing you that's what you'll
>> do though. Saying things were better under Bush is akin to saying Pee
>> Wee Herman is built like Ray Lewis. In other words total crap.
>
>
> I have documented my version and provided references that you are free
> to debunk with your own. Your attempts to obfuscate with bullshit
> unsupported facts and references to Pee Wee Herman and baseball won't
> work against the likes of me. Try that on someone with your own intellect.
If you looked at the economy this year and compared it to Bush's last
year in office the difference would jump out at you. 2010 is so much
better than 2008 was it isn't even funny. Try getting the facts. It's easy.
For your information Ray Lewis is an all pro linebacker for the
Baltimore Ravens. That you don't know that and thought I was talking
about baseball only tells me you are ignorant about football as well as
most everything else we have talked about. So are you gay?
The facts still are the facts. Bush is the worst rated president in
modern history. He didn't get that rating for any reason other than how
bad he messed things up. When he took the country over in 2001 it was in
pretty good shape. When he handed it off in 2009 it was a basket case.
If you really don't understand this then I'm afraid that you simply
cannot learn. You have created a fantasy that has no connection to the
real world. I'm afraid that even I can't be of any help to someone as
profoundly screwed up as you seem to be. Unless everything you have said
is a joke and you've just been pulling a prank all this time.
>
> It's Obama's mess now. In two more years it will be someone else's mess
> because it will take at least 10 years to get out of the ditch that
> Obama has made by spinning his wheels. And I couldn't care less about
> the Giants, I'm a Cubs fan. We've moved beyond the World Series decades
> ago.
I agree that at this point the country is Obama's and what he does with
it will be on his record. But he has been working hard to get us back up
from being as down as we were when he took office. I expect that in
another two years we'll be a lot better off than where we were when he
was elected. After two more years of gains I also expect him to be
reelected. By the way, I'm pretty good at predicting elections. So if
Obama gets another term I expect your case of Obama hate is going to go
to a whole new level.
Hawke
Buddy Beavers
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:ibakcn$6lm$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
>> But wait! You are always spouting in this newsgroup in your fourth grade
>> writing style about how important an education is. It was already proven
>> that Bush had higher grades than both of his opponents, and most likely
>> higher than Obama as well. We're still waiting for that embarrassment to
>> release his grades.
>
>
> Rationality is not your strong suit. You are talking about Bush vs Kerry.
> Both of them had rather poor grades even though they were students at an
> Ivy League school. But you overlook the central point, which is that Bush
> had lousy grades, which isn't an indicator of being smart. He also wasn't
> in an Ivy League school because of his high grades either. He was only
> there because of his father. So we know that Bush was no good as a student
> and he had no academic accomplishments.
I'm talking about Bush vs. Gore too. Bush's grades weren't lousy or poor,
they were just mediocre. You confuse Gore's grades with Bush's. I suspect
Bush's grades would be somewhat higher than yours as well. Your hatred just
turned the mediocre into lousy. See how your hate does that? Just pointing
it out because you probably don't even notice yourself doing it.
Since we are talking about grades that were achieved in school, I don't see
where it matters how Bush got into the school, just what his performance
was. As for Obama, I don't see you complaining that he got into Harvard
because of Bill Ayers, and we still haven't seen that embarrassment's
grades.
No, Obama takes office and something Bush did causes it to drop 50 days
later. Just like Bush kept Obama from closing Gitmo, or keeping the
unemployment rate low, or making the seas stop rising. But Bush! Hate Bush!
Grr!
The mere thought of Obama becoming President was enough to shake the
markets, which as anyone who actually has investments knows, is very
dependent on confidence. The drop in the market, make no mistake, was
because of Obama entering the race. People pulled their purse string closed
and will not open them for Obama. They do not want Obama reaching into their
pockets and purses, or having their taxes raised by the Robbing Hood.
>
>
>
>> As a matter of fact, if you study the charts you will see that Bush
>> inherited the Dow at about 10000 and with the exception of a dip after
>> 9-11, the Dow grew to as high as 14000, and it was slightly higher than
>> it is now on the day Obama accepted his party's nomination on August 28,
>> 2008. All it took was the realization that Obama might become President
>> to send the Dow into its death spiral. It began its dive and just 10
>> days later it was at 8450 and never recovered. Finally it's almost at
>> the level of the day Obama opened his gaping maw to proclaim he would
>> try to become President.
>
> So your assertion is that it was the fear of Obama becoming president that
> caused the market to tumble not anything that Bush did in the years before
> it happened? I'd love to see some proof. I'd also love to see some
> evidence that Bush's decisions didn't cause the financial crisis.
The market did fine under Bush. Your pea brain can't seem to grasp that Bush
is no longer pilling any strings, he's retired and writing a book. Did you
forget the election and the victory party with the fake Roman columns?
That's when O'Doofus took over. Get over it, Bush isn't coming back to grow
your 401k or raise the value of your real estate. He only did that when he
was in office. Your hatred for Bush keeps you from believing your own eyes
and the data I posted here for you to review, I was right in my guess that
you wouldn't know how to read the charts. I guess you need to go back to
school, maybe another 50 years.
> Because even people who are republicans and who support Bush all admit
> that it was the Bush policies that caused the problems, not Obama.
There are some. But there are also a ton of democrats who just repudiated
Obama in the last election. If you look hard enough you will find people who
still believe the moon is made of cheese. I'm not telling you to take
someone else word for it. I'm telling you to look at the data for yourself
and ask your eyes what they are looking at. You won't believe your own eyes
once you stop hating and open your mind.
>
>> Now, you are always bragging about your education and telling us how
>> smart you are, so I assume you know how to read financial charts to
>> verify what I'm saying. But, I don't know, I think that is expecting too
>> much from you. Hint, click on Dow Jones to access the charting tools
>> http://www.google.com/finance
>
> I have an education so it goes without saying that I understand charts,
> graphs, etc. That goes along with your education, for your information.
> But I don't need to look at any charts as I have been watching the
> financial information every day. I was watching it daily when Bush was
> president too. I manage my own money so I know what the market is doing
> all the time. That's how I know your laughable claim that nothing was
> Bush's fault is a joke.
Ok, at first I just thought you were stupid, but I see now how you've
memorized all the chart data over the past 5 years or so. Maybe you could
change your name to Rain Man. If the hate won't let you look at the proof I
went through the trouble of posting for you, then you can remain stupid and
stumble in my footsteps for the rest of your life.
>>>>> No matter how much you were ahead in 2006 by 2009 you had lost all of
>>>>> that and more.
>>>>
>>>> Why, this is complete bullshit. Just a post or teo ago you were telling
>>>> us how much you made from your investments that you were able to quit
>>>> your paralegal advice to smart lawyers job over at the donut shop.
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh boy, a comedian you're not. Not much of a memory either. All I said
>>> is that I don't have to be employed to live just fine. I have income
>>> from investments. But that doesn't mean they didn't go down from
>>> Bush's destruction of the economy. Fortunately, Obama has come to the
>>> rescue and my investments have climbed back. Not all the way but at
>>> least some.
>>
>>
>> Lots of people don't have to be employed.
>
> I mean by choice. Taking that into account, then no, lots of people do
> have to be employed. In fact most people can't afford to lose even a
> month's pay.
>
Yes, by choice. Did you think you were the only one who had money? Lots of
people like to smoke crack. Lots of people like to shoot heroin. Most people
don't do drugs at all.
> For example I also have real
>> estate and investments and never have to work another day.
>
> That's hard to believe.
>
> However, I'm
>> out there helping my fellow man, employing the poor stupid liberal
>> bastards who can't seem to make it without my help.
>
> Doing what exactly. You sure don't come across as any kind of
> humanitarian. You strike me as a self centered, cold hearted republican.
> Kindness isn't in your creed. Constantly getting more for yourself seems
> more your cup of tea.
Doing quite a bit actually. For example, I have a small company that makes
things like campaign buttons, pencils, bumper stickers. Whenever Obama comes
to town, my people go out and hawk this stuff. Granted business was better
for them when Obama lived here, but he gets into town enough to draw some
crowds. Much smaller than they used to be though. Anyway, there's always
some libtard who comes in from out of town wanting a windy city souvenir.
The fools act like they never saw an Obama t-shirt before. A fool an his
money are soon parted.
I also have "green" products that they sell at events. Plastic cups,
lighters, etc. The libtards always go for the green colored items and I'm
happy when my crew brings home the green money.
I also set them up with a portable toilet company for big events. They set
up, dump, and clean toilets at one of my companies. I set some up with a
cleaning service, others maintain my buildings, some I even give very cheap
rent to. It's all about helping the unfortunate pull up their boots and get
on their feet. Mostly they are really dumb, liberal upbringing I guess, but
some do get over it, and make it on their own. Others will always be working
for me.
So actually I am quite benevolent to those who come to me for help and
remain loyal. Most do, the others are sent packing. Those people will never
learn, and I think that's kind of the category you would fit in. You have
shown that you would never be gracious or thankful for any help you would
receive from someone like me. Take as an example all of the data I gave you
to work with, a chance for you to learn something and pull your head out of
that cloud, but instead you come back with "I don't need charts" Time for
you to get packing as well.
>
> I help them keep a
>> roof over their heads, feed themselves, help them send their kids to
>> school, etc. They help me grow my pie so that I have more to share. You
>> on the other hand seem to care little for your fellow man, in fact you
>> have mentioned on several occasions that you could care less about
>> anyone but yourself.
>
> Funny isn't it. I'm supposedly the liberal. What are they known for?
> Helping the downtrodden. Giving to others. Caring about the environment.
> But supposedly it's you that are like that, wanting to help your fellow
> man and wanting to share. Hmmm, it sounds like you say you are the real
> liberal. But I don't buy that. You strike me as much more like a Dick
> Cheney.
Actually that's a myth. Liberals may say they want to help but all they
really want is to steal from those who work hard for what they have. They
are robbing hoods who love to reach into one pocket and distribute into
other pockets, and skimming a little bit for themselves. If you want to, you
could entertain us with your stories of helping the downtrodden and
environment, or how you gave the shirt off your back to someone. Should be a
good laugh.
>> If it wasn't for your dumb luck investments (which I doubt anyway) you
>> would be another street person kicking around in the curb. Even the stew
>> bums wouldn't have anything to do with you. Typical Obama lover
>> personality, with the limp wrists and all.
>
> Now that's more like it. No liberal there. Making negative comments,
> implying weakness, and being gay. Now that sounds like a right winger. I
> knew that kind, caring, decency, wasn't really you. You're a typical
> selfish right winger, who thinks only about himself and his own. The
> problem is you just couldn't be more wrong. Which is a habit you have. You
> keep acting like I'm some kind of wimp. I'd sure like to meet you in
> person some day. You would get a real surprise. I'd love to see the look
> on your face when you looked up at me and finally realized you were so
> wrong about your assumptions about me. To bad it'll never happen. Like I
> said I'd love to see the look on your goofy face when you see me in
> person.
Meeting you would not benefit me in any way, as I explained above, I would
just have to send you away. So yeah, too bad. It makes me sad. There, I'm
over it.
>> You're repeating yourself again. But, but, but...Bush! See above where I
>> totally explain how wrong you are and how your hatred of Bush has
>> blinded you from reality.
>
> Look who's talking. Obama has not been president for two years and you
> hate him real bad already. You're obsessed with him. Look at your posts.
> You can't even think about anything but him and you say I hated Bush. Did
> you see me posting every day about him? I don't think so. From as much as
> you write against Obama it's clear you have a problem, not me.
Well that's nonsense. I think about a lot of stuff besides Obama. And
actually yes, I do see you posting about him each time you are here.
Remember when I asked you to post the lat metal related post that you made
here in the at 3 months? I asked you to post the link right here--->
<----- Hmm, you must be posting about something because I don't see the
links.
>>>>> So play stupid all you want. The facts are still the same. Bush left
>>>>> us in the ditch. Obama is trying to get us out.
>>>>
>>>> Idiot, there was no ditch until Obama took the wheel. Obama has been
>>>> driving the bus for two years now. We were better off with Bush
>>>> steering
>>>> the ship.
>
> That's a crackpot claim that has no connection to reality. Bush is rated
> as the worst president in modern history by historians. His mismanagement
> of the economy is one of the main reasons for that rating. Clearly we were
> worse off with Bush steering the ship.
History will show that he was was one of our better Presidents. The problem
is you liberals have a short attention span and don't remember how good you
had it.
>>> Please do me the favor of not making up your own version of world
>>> events. The economy was in the crapper when Bush left office, the
>>> financial industry was in ruins, and the real estate of the nation was
>>> in a serious problem. If that isn't in the ditch then nothing
>>> qualifies. We are factually better off now than when Bush took office.
>>> There is no way you can say otherwise. Knowing you that's what you'll
>>> do though. Saying things were better under Bush is akin to saying Pee
>>> Wee Herman is built like Ray Lewis. In other words total crap.
>>
>>
>> I have documented my version and provided references that you are free
>> to debunk with your own. Your attempts to obfuscate with bullshit
>> unsupported facts and references to Pee Wee Herman and baseball won't
>> work against the likes of me. Try that on someone with your own
>> intellect.
>
> If you looked at the economy this year and compared it to Bush's last year
> in office the difference would jump out at you. 2010 is so much better
> than 2008 was it isn't even funny. Try getting the facts. It's easy.
It's getting back to how it was under Bush. It's not quite there yet, I
think I pointed out 11500 before, but what the hell, you said you wouldn't
read it so there's no point in looking it up again.
>
> For your information Ray Lewis is an all pro linebacker for the Baltimore
> Ravens. That you don't know that and thought I was talking about baseball
> only tells me you are ignorant about football as well as most everything
> else we have talked about. So are you gay?
Do you need a date? I'm still trying to make the connection of what Ray
Lewis has to do with Pee Wee Herman and how that connects to Obama's failure
as a President.
>
> The facts still are the facts. Bush is the worst rated president in modern
> history. He didn't get that rating for any reason other than how bad he
> messed things up. When he took the country over in 2001 it was in pretty
> good shape. When he handed it off in 2009 it was a basket case. If you
> really don't understand this then I'm afraid that you simply cannot learn.
> You have created a fantasy that has no connection to the real world. I'm
> afraid that even I can't be of any help to someone as profoundly screwed
> up as you seem to be. Unless everything you have said is a joke and you've
> just been pulling a prank all this time.
>
>
>>
>> It's Obama's mess now. In two more years it will be someone else's mess
>> because it will take at least 10 years to get out of the ditch that
>> Obama has made by spinning his wheels. And I couldn't care less about
>> the Giants, I'm a Cubs fan. We've moved beyond the World Series decades
>> ago.
>
>
> I agree that at this point the country is Obama's and what he does with it
> will be on his record. But he has been working hard to get us back up from
> being as down as we were when he took office. I expect that in another two
> years we'll be a lot better off than where we were when he was elected.
> After two more years of gains I also expect him to be reelected. By the
> way, I'm pretty good at predicting elections. So if Obama gets another
> term I expect your case of Obama hate is going to go to a whole new level.
Well he has to work harder. I agree things will be better in another two
years. The new Congress will help to control the runaway spending and help
the country improve, and the closer we get to 2012 when Obama gets his
walking papers, the more we will see our country getting restored to its
rightful place. Please don't try projecting your hateful self onto me, that
trick is for people of your own type.
Buddy Beavers
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:ibah17$119$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> On 11/8/2010 6:46 PM, Rich Grise wrote:
>> Hawke wrote:
>>>
>>>>> That says it all. You think Bush is the smart one and Obama is the
>>>>> dumb one.
>>>>
>>>> Finally we can agree about something
>>>
>>> Yes, we agree that you have a crazy idea that is totally against the
>>> grain of reality. If there is one thing that people agree on about Bush
>>> is that he's not very bright. On the other hand Obama's reputation is
>>> just the opposite.
>>
>> Yeah - too bad a high IQ doesn't buy common sense.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Rich
>>
>
> Common sense is not that easy to come by and not many people agree what it
> is. But at least I know you are sane for one reason, you don't dispute
> that Obama has a high IQ.
What's his IQ? Post it right here ----> <------
> You may think he doesn't use it properly or whatever but at least you
> recognize that he's a smart guy. So does everyone else. Except for Beaver
> boy. He actually is trying to make the argument that it is Bush who is
> known for his intellect. He's saying that Bush is clearly smarter than
> Obama. You have to admit you don't hear that often, do you? Bush may be
> many things but being really smart isn't one of them. That's common
> knowledge. But as the Beaver boy shows not everyone has that either.
Well, I'm not one who won't admit that I'm wrong when presented with the
facts. Post Obama's grades right here so that I can compare the to Bush's.
Use as many lines as it takes.
begin Obama's grades---->
<------- end Obama's grades
Buddy Beavers
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:ibah9g$119$2...@speranza.aioe.org...
It doesn't matter if she will or not, as long as Obama's history.
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
Still running away from my wager on the veracity of "Fox News"?
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Republicans vs. Democrats : Heartless vs. Spineless
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rich Grise
> On Mon, 08 Nov 2010 18:46:26 -0800, Rich Grise <ri...@example.net.invalid>
>>>
>>>>> That says it all. You think Bush is the smart one and Obama is the
>>>>> dumb one.
>>>>
>>>> Finally we can agree about something
>>>
>>> Yes, we agree that you have a crazy idea that is totally against the
>>> grain of reality. If there is one thing that people agree on about Bush
>>> is that he's not very bright. On the other hand Obama's reputation is
>>> just the opposite.
>>
>> Yeah - too bad a high IQ doesn't buy common sense.
>
>
decide who's telling "the truth" and who's lying?
You sound like a liberal, who will, no matter what Fox quote I quote, will
automatically cry, "LIAR", just because it's Fox, which is reviled by the
liberals.
It's been my experience that the liberals accuse their adversaries of doing
exactly what the liberals are doing.
So, why don't you go ahead and decide which "authority" or whatever can
actually be the arbiter of true statements vs lies, and let me (us?) know?
Thanks,
Rich
Hawke
> I'm talking about Bush vs. Gore too. Bush's grades weren't lousy or
> poor, they were just mediocre. You confuse Gore's grades with Bush's. I
> suspect Bush's grades would be somewhat higher than yours as well. Your
> hatred just turned the mediocre into lousy. See how your hate does that?
> Just pointing it out because you probably don't even notice yourself
> doing it.
Your view shows that you don't have much experience in academics. Bush's
grades were mainly Cs. That's pretty bad actually. An F means you
failed. So a C is only one rank above a D. Students that get Cs and Ds
have lousy grades. Maybe the fact that my grades were a lot better than
Cs is why I think they aren't good. In my book mediocre is lousy. My
standards are higher than yours.
> Since we are talking about grades that were achieved in school, I don't
> see where it matters how Bush got into the school, just what his
> performance was. As for Obama, I don't see you complaining that he got
> into Harvard because of Bill Ayers, and we still haven't seen that
> embarrassment's grades.
It matters how you get into a good school. If you have shown you don't
have the ability to work at a high level in school then you shouldn't be
there. Bush got a slot in school that someone with more brains and
better grades did not. And since you nor I know anything about how Obama
got into Harvard there is no point talking about it.
> No, Obama takes office and something Bush did causes it to drop 50 days
> later. Just like Bush kept Obama from closing Gitmo, or keeping the
> unemployment rate low, or making the seas stop rising. But Bush! Hate
> Bush! Grr!
The market was on a strong downward trend when Obama took over. That was
because of the financial crisis. The crisis that Bush caused by his
mismanagement. The market was headed in one direction and it didn't
matter that a new guy took over. It was going to keep going down. There
was nothing Obama could do to keep a downward trend from continuing. I
saw Bush on TV tonight. He came across as a cocky idiot just as before,
never taking credit for any screw ups. Still won't admit invading Iraq
was a mistake either. He's a lot like you.
> The mere thought of Obama becoming President was enough to shake the
> markets, which as anyone who actually has investments knows, is very
> dependent on confidence. The drop in the market, make no mistake, was
> because of Obama entering the race. People pulled their purse string
> closed and will not open them for Obama. They do not want Obama reaching
> into their pockets and purses, or having their taxes raised by the
> Robbing Hood.
Here's the thing. Obama has not raised taxes he cut them. That's a fact.
Another fact is the confidence in the financial system and the market
was shaken badly by the crisis the happened long before Obama took over.
You don't destroy a market and think it will be back to normal in a few
months. You know that. You know that all the trouble came prior to
Obama. You just won't admit to it.
>>
>>> As a matter of fact, if you study the charts you will see that Bush
>>> inherited the Dow at about 10000 and with the exception of a dip after
>>> 9-11, the Dow grew to as high as 14000, and it was slightly higher than
>>> it is now on the day Obama accepted his party's nomination on August 28,
>>> 2008. All it took was the realization that Obama might become President
>>> to send the Dow into its death spiral. It began its dive and just 10
>>> days later it was at 8450 and never recovered. Finally it's almost at
>>> the level of the day Obama opened his gaping maw to proclaim he would
>>> try to become President.
Nice imagination but the facts say otherwise. The facts say that it was
the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the fall of real estate, and the
financial crisis brought about by the irresponsible actions of banks,
lenders, and of deregulation that ruined things. Once those things
happened it was nothing but a guaranteed nosedive for the economy. But I
have to hand it to you. You did find a way to blame Bush's problems on
someone else. Way to go.
>> So your assertion is that it was the fear of Obama becoming president
>> that caused the market to tumble not anything that Bush did in the
>> years before it happened? I'd love to see some proof. I'd also love to
>> see some evidence that Bush's decisions didn't cause the financial
>> crisis.
>
> The market did fine under Bush. Your pea brain can't seem to grasp that
> Bush is no longer pilling any strings, he's retired and writing a book.
> Did you forget the election and the victory party with the fake Roman
> columns? That's when O'Doofus took over. Get over it, Bush isn't coming
> back to grow your 401k or raise the value of your real estate. He only
> did that when he was in office. Your hatred for Bush keeps you from
> believing your own eyes and the data I posted here for you to review, I
> was right in my guess that you wouldn't know how to read the charts. I
> guess you need to go back to school, maybe another 50 years.
I watch the market every day. I know what it is doing all year round. I
saw what happened then so I don't have to go back and look again. You
just won't admit that the destruction caused by Bush extends past his
last day in office. Sorry but it doesn't work that way. When you set in
motion something that is going to have lasting effects either good or
bad it's your responsibility. Your problem is that instead of Bush
leaving a legacy of a strong economy and financial system for Obama he
left a mess. That mess was like a roller coaster only half way down the
slope. It was going to keep going down for a long time. That's what Bush
did. You can't face it. That's all
>> Because even people who are republicans and who support Bush all admit
>> that it was the Bush policies that caused the problems, not Obama.
>
>
> There are some. But there are also a ton of democrats who just
> repudiated Obama in the last election. If you look hard enough you will
> find people who still believe the moon is made of cheese. I'm not
> telling you to take someone else word for it. I'm telling you to look at
> the data for yourself and ask your eyes what they are looking at. You
> won't believe your own eyes once you stop hating and open your mind.
I'm more than familiar with the financial data, thanks. Except for you
everyone in the world knows who made our financial mess.
>>> Lots of people don't have to be employed.
>>
>> I mean by choice. Taking that into account, then no, lots of people do
>> have to be employed. In fact most people can't afford to lose even a
>> month's pay.
>>
>
> Yes, by choice. Did you think you were the only one who had money? Lots
> of people like to smoke crack. Lots of people like to shoot heroin. Most
> people don't do drugs at all.
What does that have to do with anything? I've known all kinds of people
with drug and alcohol addictions that worked and made lots of money. You
think only poor people have problems with drugs? Wrong.
>> Doing what exactly. You sure don't come across as any kind of
>> humanitarian. You strike me as a self centered, cold hearted
>> republican. Kindness isn't in your creed. Constantly getting more for
>> yourself seems more your cup of tea.
>
>
> Doing quite a bit actually. For example, I have a small company that
> makes things like campaign buttons, pencils, bumper stickers. Whenever
> Obama comes to town, my people go out and hawk this stuff. Granted
> business was better for them when Obama lived here, but he gets into
> town enough to draw some crowds. Much smaller than they used to be
> though. Anyway, there's always some libtard who comes in from out of
> town wanting a windy city souvenir. The fools act like they never saw an
> Obama t-shirt before. A fool an his money are soon parted.
That's your kind heartedness? Parting fools from their money? That is
what I thought. All you care about is making a buck and if you rip off a
foolish person that's fine with you. You are a republican.
>
> I also have "green" products that they sell at events. Plastic cups,
> lighters, etc. The libtards always go for the green colored items and
> I'm happy when my crew brings home the green money.
Still waiting for the helpful to others part.
> I also set them up with a portable toilet company for big events. They
> set up, dump, and clean toilets at one of my companies. I set some up
> with a cleaning service, others maintain my buildings, some I even give
> very cheap rent to. It's all about helping the unfortunate pull up their
> boots and get on their feet. Mostly they are really dumb, liberal
> upbringing I guess, but some do get over it, and make it on their own.
> Others will always be working for me.
The dumb are not liberals. Liberals are the educated ones. The
uneducated are usually part of your party. So now you have to make
things up.
> So actually I am quite benevolent to those who come to me for help and
> remain loyal. Most do, the others are sent packing. Those people will
> never learn, and I think that's kind of the category you would fit in.
> You have shown that you would never be gracious or thankful for any help
> you would receive from someone like me. Take as an example all of the
> data I gave you to work with, a chance for you to learn something and
> pull your head out of that cloud, but instead you come back with "I
> don't need charts" Time for you to get packing as well.
I need your charts like you need instructions of how to eat a
cheeseburger. So far all I see of your kind nature is that you hire
people, probably at slave wages, and use them to enrich yourself. That
is what any republican in good standing would do.
>>
>> I help them keep a
>>> roof over their heads, feed themselves, help them send their kids to
>>> school, etc. They help me grow my pie so that I have more to share. You
>>> on the other hand seem to care little for your fellow man, in fact you
>>> have mentioned on several occasions that you could care less about
>>> anyone but yourself.
Not only do you never mention sharing anything with any one you want to
avoid paying any taxes too. It's clear your view of what you do and any
normal person's view would be completely opposite. You think you're
generous everyone else calls you Scrooge.
>> Funny isn't it. I'm supposedly the liberal. What are they known for?
>> Helping the downtrodden. Giving to others. Caring about the
>> environment. But supposedly it's you that are like that, wanting to
>> help your fellow man and wanting to share. Hmmm, it sounds like you
>> say you are the real liberal. But I don't buy that. You strike me as
>> much more like a Dick Cheney.
>
> Actually that's a myth. Liberals may say they want to help but all they
> really want is to steal from those who work hard for what they have.
> They are robbing hoods who love to reach into one pocket and distribute
> into other pockets, and skimming a little bit for themselves. If you
> want to, you could entertain us with your stories of helping the
> downtrodden and environment, or how you gave the shirt off your back to
> someone. Should be a good laugh.
When you go around repeating things that are untrue it really hurts your
credibility. Now you're repeating the myth of stealing from the
productive and giving it to the lazy, shiftless, bums. You need to add
colored or Mexican too to fit your stereotype.
>
>>> If it wasn't for your dumb luck investments (which I doubt anyway) you
>>> would be another street person kicking around in the curb. Even the stew
>>> bums wouldn't have anything to do with you. Typical Obama lover
>>> personality, with the limp wrists and all.
>>
>> Now that's more like it. No liberal there. Making negative comments,
>> implying weakness, and being gay. Now that sounds like a right winger.
>> I knew that kind, caring, decency, wasn't really you. You're a typical
>> selfish right winger, who thinks only about himself and his own. The
>> problem is you just couldn't be more wrong. Which is a habit you have.
>> You keep acting like I'm some kind of wimp. I'd sure like to meet you
>> in person some day. You would get a real surprise. I'd love to see the
>> look on your face when you looked up at me and finally realized you
>> were so wrong about your assumptions about me. To bad it'll never
>> happen. Like I said I'd love to see the look on your goofy face when
>> you see me in person.
>
> Meeting you would not benefit me in any way, as I explained above, I
> would just have to send you away. So yeah, too bad. It makes me sad.
> There, I'm over it.
Meeting me would be a great benefit to you. It would be a learning
experience for you, and you need one real bad. If you met me you would
learn that all your assumptions you have made about me are wrong, and
that you shouldn't do that. You would also learn to show some respect.
Because it would be me that sent you away. Lucky for you.
>> Look who's talking. Obama has not been president for two years and you
>> hate him real bad already. You're obsessed with him. Look at your
>> posts. You can't even think about anything but him and you say I hated
>> Bush. Did you see me posting every day about him? I don't think so.
>> From as much as you write against Obama it's clear you have a problem,
>> not me.
>
> Well that's nonsense. I think about a lot of stuff besides Obama. And
> actually yes, I do see you posting about him each time you are here.
> Remember when I asked you to post the lat metal related post that you
> made here in the at 3 months? I asked you to post the link right
> here---> <----- Hmm, you must be posting about something because I don't
> see the links.
How about your record. I think you have posted about a thousand posts
about Obama and zero about metal. With a record like that only an
asshole would say anything about anyone else.
>> That's a crackpot claim that has no connection to reality. Bush is
>> rated as the worst president in modern history by historians. His
>> mismanagement of the economy is one of the main reasons for that
>> rating. Clearly we were worse off with Bush steering the ship.
>
>
> History will show that he was was one of our better Presidents. The
> problem is you liberals have a short attention span and don't remember
> how good you had it.
Oh boy, I just about blew soda pop out my nose when I read that one.
Bush ranked as one of our better presidents. I wouldn't hold your breath
waiting for that one. His record as president stinks to high heaven.
He'll forever be at or near the bottom of the barrel. Join reality, Dude.
>>>> Please do me the favor of not making up your own version of world
>>>> events. The economy was in the crapper when Bush left office, the
>>>> financial industry was in ruins, and the real estate of the nation was
>>>> in a serious problem. If that isn't in the ditch then nothing
>>>> qualifies. We are factually better off now than when Bush took office.
>>>> There is no way you can say otherwise. Knowing you that's what you'll
>>>> do though. Saying things were better under Bush is akin to saying Pee
>>>> Wee Herman is built like Ray Lewis. In other words total crap.
>>>
>>>
>>> I have documented my version and provided references that you are free
>>> to debunk with your own. Your attempts to obfuscate with bullshit
>>> unsupported facts and references to Pee Wee Herman and baseball won't
>>> work against the likes of me. Try that on someone with your own
>>> intellect.
You're totally a joke. You didn't provide any references. Your claims
are bunk. There is no "version. There are just the facts. The facts say
Bush messed up really, really bad. That's not my opinion. I can show you
thousands of quotes from people all over the world who say the same
thing. Not just any people. Smart, educated, experts, all say Bush
screwed the pooch. So it's not just me. Your view is the one hard to
find support for. Give me a list of smart people saying Bush did a hell
of a job. That won't be easy.
>> If you looked at the economy this year and compared it to Bush's last
>> year in office the difference would jump out at you. 2010 is so much
>> better than 2008 was it isn't even funny. Try getting the facts. It's
>> easy.
>
> It's getting back to how it was under Bush. It's not quite there yet, I
> think I pointed out 11500 before, but what the hell, you said you
> wouldn't read it so there's no point in looking it up again.
I told you before. It doesn't matter that there were two or three years
that went well. It's like climbing a mountain and doing well and then
you fall and die. That is an unsuccessful climb. There were a few years
under Bush when the economy went well but then it all came crashing
down. The important point is that it all came crashing down under Bush
not Obama.
>>
>> For your information Ray Lewis is an all pro linebacker for the
>> Baltimore Ravens. That you don't know that and thought I was talking
>> about baseball only tells me you are ignorant about football as well
>> as most everything else we have talked about. So are you gay?
>
> Do you need a date? I'm still trying to make the connection of what Ray
> Lewis has to do with Pee Wee Herman and how that connects to Obama's
> failure as a President.
I'll spell it out for you. Ray Lewis is a giant muscle bound pro
football player. Pee Wee Herman is a tiny little wimpy guy. Your idea of
Bush being smarter than Obama is like the idea that Pee Wee is the
physically superior one of the two. In other words it's nonsense. What
you are claiming about Bush and about Obama is nonsense and the facts
show the opposite of what you believe. For example, Bush is a horrible
president and he's considered a failure. Obama is considered to be doing
a pretty good job considering what he got handed.
>> I agree that at this point the country is Obama's and what he does
>> with it will be on his record. But he has been working hard to get us
>> back up from being as down as we were when he took office. I expect
>> that in another two years we'll be a lot better off than where we were
>> when he was elected. After two more years of gains I also expect him
>> to be reelected. By the way, I'm pretty good at predicting elections.
>> So if Obama gets another term I expect your case of Obama hate is
>> going to go to a whole new level.
>
> Well he has to work harder. I agree things will be better in another two
> years. The new Congress will help to control the runaway spending and
> help the country improve, and the closer we get to 2012 when Obama gets
> his walking papers, the more we will see our country getting restored to
> its rightful place. Please don't try projecting your hateful self onto
> me, that trick is for people of your own type.
Since no republican congress has controlled runaway spending in 30 years
why do you think it'll be different this time? You know they want tax
cuts for the rich that will make the deficit keep getting bigger, don't
you? What more proof do you need than that to know the republican House
will not cut back the deficit? I know, facts mean nothing to you. At
least you have your hate of Obama to keep you going. It has to be very
strong for it too keep you at the keyboard day after day spending so
much time trying to tear Obama down. It only shows what a powerful case
of Obamaphobia you have.
Hawke
Buddy Beavers
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:ibddo7$7il$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
>> I'm talking about Bush vs. Gore too. Bush's grades weren't lousy or
>> poor, they were just mediocre. You confuse Gore's grades with Bush's. I
>> suspect Bush's grades would be somewhat higher than yours as well. Your
>> hatred just turned the mediocre into lousy. See how your hate does that?
>> Just pointing it out because you probably don't even notice yourself
>> doing it.
>
> Your view shows that you don't have much experience in academics. Bush's
> grades were mainly Cs. That's pretty bad actually. An F means you failed.
> So a C is only one rank above a D. Students that get Cs and Ds have lousy
> grades. Maybe the fact that my grades were a lot better than Cs is why I
> think they aren't good. In my book mediocre is lousy. My standards are
> higher than yours.
>
Lies by obfuscation. You do know Bush had better grades than Kerry or Gore,
don't you? Again you try to confuse Gore's grades with Bush. Gore is the one
who scored D's and failed five of eight classes in his pursuit of a Divinity
degree, and then later dropped out of Vanderbilt. But look at what your
hatred of Bush made you post in the paragraph above, but, but, but...Bush!
Once again you avoid the heart of the subject...why is Obama hiding his
failing grades? Did he fail more classes than Gore?
Buddy Beavers
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:ibddo7$7il$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
>> Since we are talking about grades that were achieved in school, I don't
>> see where it matters how Bush got into the school, just what his
>> performance was. As for Obama, I don't see you complaining that he got
>> into Harvard because of Bill Ayers, and we still haven't seen that
>> embarrassment's grades.
>
> It matters how you get into a good school. If you have shown you don't
> have the ability to work at a high level in school then you shouldn't be
> there. Bush got a slot in school that someone with more brains and better
> grades did not. And since you nor I know anything about how Obama got into
> Harvard there is no point talking about it.
>
>
Look at how your hatred of Bush blinds you to the fact that Obama got his
education because of the likes of traitors like Bill Ayers. Obama most
likely took a seat away from some deserving student who may have gone on to
do some good for mankind. Instead, Obama took his seat with possibly failing
grades, and then went on to drive ourr country into a ditch. Note how you
totally ignored the fact that Obama hid his grades and used an American
terrosit to steal the education from a more deserving student. Instead you
focus on "but, but, but...Bush!"
Buddy Beavers
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:ibddo7$7il$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
>
>> No, Obama takes office and something Bush did causes it to drop 50 days
>> later. Just like Bush kept Obama from closing Gitmo, or keeping the
>> unemployment rate low, or making the seas stop rising. But Bush! Hate
>> Bush! Grr!
>
> The market was on a strong downward trend when Obama took over. That was
> because of the financial crisis. The crisis that Bush caused by his
> mismanagement. The market was headed in one direction and it didn't matter
> that a new guy took over. It was going to keep going down. There was
> nothing Obama could do to keep a downward trend from continuing. I saw
> Bush on TV tonight. He came across as a cocky idiot just as before, never
> taking credit for any screw ups. Still won't admit invading Iraq was a
> mistake either. He's a lot like you.
>
Wow! You truly are an idjut. Obama started the downward trend when he
accepted his party's nomination. People had jobs and there were no starving
people when Bush was President. People had jobs and put food on their
families. It was all good until Obama drove the country into a ditch. His
ghetto cruiser spun its wheels so deep that it will take at least 10 years
to recover from all of the damage this Imposter has done. And talking to you
about it is like preaching to the choir. I posted documented evidence
including links to charts, (those are pictures in case you you have trouble
concentrating on numbers). You decided to contemplate the booger on your
finger instead. It's tiome to send you packing, I'm wasting time discussing
issues with you that you can't understand.
Buddy Beavers
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:ibddo7$7il$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
>
>> The mere thought of Obama becoming President was enough to shake the
>> markets, which as anyone who actually has investments knows, is very
>> dependent on confidence. The drop in the market, make no mistake, was
>> because of Obama entering the race. People pulled their purse string
>> closed and will not open them for Obama. They do not want Obama reaching
>> into their pockets and purses, or having their taxes raised by the
>> Robbing Hood.
>
> Here's the thing. Obama has not raised taxes he cut them. That's a fact.
> Another fact is the confidence in the financial system and the market was
> shaken badly by the crisis the happened long before Obama took over. You
> don't destroy a market and think it will be back to normal in a few
> months. You know that. You know that all the trouble came prior to Obama.
> You just won't admit to it.
>
Well here's the facts, Obama accepts his party's nomination, 10 days later
the Dow is in the shitter. After holding its own for 8 years, all it took
was the possibility of an imposter running to shake confidence in the
markets. True to my word, the market has not yet reached the level it was at
the day before Obama said he would run. He's been President for almost two
years. The man child imposter has driven the country into a ditch, and your
hate of Bush blinds you when you are presented with the facts. Sucks to be
you, hope you get culled quickly.
Buddy Beavers
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:ibddo7$7il$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
>>>
>>>> As a matter of fact, if you study the charts you will see that Bush
>>>> inherited the Dow at about 10000 and with the exception of a dip after
>>>> 9-11, the Dow grew to as high as 14000, and it was slightly higher than
>>>> it is now on the day Obama accepted his party's nomination on August
>>>> 28,
>>>> 2008. All it took was the realization that Obama might become President
>>>> to send the Dow into its death spiral. It began its dive and just 10
>>>> days later it was at 8450 and never recovered. Finally it's almost at
>>>> the level of the day Obama opened his gaping maw to proclaim he would
>>>> try to become President.
>
>
> Nice imagination but the facts say otherwise. The facts say that it was
> the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the fall of real estate, and the
> financial crisis brought about by the irresponsible actions of banks,
> lenders, and of deregulation that ruined things. Once those things
> happened it was nothing but a guaranteed nosedive for the economy. But I
> have to hand it to you. You did find a way to blame Bush's problems on
> someone else. Way to go.
>
It was Obama announcing the acceptance of his party's nomination. I gave you
the facts, you chose to ignore them in favor of your liberal fantasy. You
provided nothing. I'm done with you, even a child could understand it.
Buddy Beavers
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:ibddo7$7il$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
>> The market did fine under Bush. Your pea brain can't seem to grasp that
>> Bush is no longer pilling any strings, he's retired and writing a book.
>> Did you forget the election and the victory party with the fake Roman
>> columns? That's when O'Doofus took over. Get over it, Bush isn't coming
>> back to grow your 401k or raise the value of your real estate. He only
>> did that when he was in office. Your hatred for Bush keeps you from
>> believing your own eyes and the data I posted here for you to review, I
>> was right in my guess that you wouldn't know how to read the charts. I
>> guess you need to go back to school, maybe another 50 years.
>
> I watch the market every day. I know what it is doing all year round. I
> saw what happened then so I don't have to go back and look again. You just
> won't admit that the destruction caused by Bush extends past his last day
> in office. Sorry but it doesn't work that way. When you set in motion
> something that is going to have lasting effects either good or bad it's
> your responsibility. Your problem is that instead of Bush leaving a legacy
> of a strong economy and financial system for Obama he left a mess. That
> mess was like a roller coaster only half way down the slope. It was going
> to keep going down for a long time. That's what Bush did. You can't face
> it. That's all
>
I trust recorded data over the memory of a disfunctional lunatic. Facts are
facts, but all you can do is spew your Bush hate, sucks to be you.
Buddy Beavers
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:ibddo7$7il$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
>
>>> Because even people who are republicans and who support Bush all admit
>>> that it was the Bush policies that caused the problems, not Obama.
>>
>>
>> There are some. But there are also a ton of democrats who just
>> repudiated Obama in the last election. If you look hard enough you will
>> find people who still believe the moon is made of cheese. I'm not
>> telling you to take someone else word for it. I'm telling you to look at
>> the data for yourself and ask your eyes what they are looking at. You
>> won't believe your own eyes once you stop hating and open your mind.
>
> I'm more than familiar with the financial data, thanks. Except for you
> everyone in the world knows who made our financial mess.
>
>
I'm sure your familiarity is what keeps you from trying to disprove my data.
You are afraid of what you may see behind the door. Pussy. Go look.
Buddy Beavers
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:ibddo7$7il$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
>
>>>> Lots of people don't have to be employed.
>>>
>>> I mean by choice. Taking that into account, then no, lots of people do
>>> have to be employed. In fact most people can't afford to lose even a
>>> month's pay.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, by choice. Did you think you were the only one who had money? Lots
>> of people like to smoke crack. Lots of people like to shoot heroin. Most
>> people don't do drugs at all.
>
> What does that have to do with anything? I've known all kinds of people
> with drug and alcohol addictions that worked and made lots of money. You
> think only poor people have problems with drugs? Wrong.
That's correct. Even some people with drug addictions know that it is better
to be employed and to get off their ass and make some money. And there are
lots of people who don't have to go to work at all to take care of
themselves and family. You claimed to be one of them. There are many like
that, you are not the only one.
Buddy Beavers
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:ibddo7$7il$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
>>> Doing what exactly. You sure don't come across as any kind of
>>> humanitarian. You strike me as a self centered, cold hearted
>>> republican. Kindness isn't in your creed. Constantly getting more for
>>> yourself seems more your cup of tea.
>>
>>
>> Doing quite a bit actually. For example, I have a small company that
>> makes things like campaign buttons, pencils, bumper stickers. Whenever
>> Obama comes to town, my people go out and hawk this stuff. Granted
>> business was better for them when Obama lived here, but he gets into
>> town enough to draw some crowds. Much smaller than they used to be
>> though. Anyway, there's always some libtard who comes in from out of
>> town wanting a windy city souvenir. The fools act like they never saw an
>> Obama t-shirt before. A fool an his money are soon parted.
>
> That's your kind heartedness? Parting fools from their money? That is what
> I thought. All you care about is making a buck and if you rip off a
> foolish person that's fine with you. You are a republican.
>
You see, that's where you are wrong. These folks are just like you, they
don't think they are fools at all. They are proud to give their money away,
it's what Obama would want them to do. I'm just having my piece of the pie.
Buddy Beavers
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:ibddo7$7il$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
>> I also set them up with a portable toilet company for big events. They
>> set up, dump, and clean toilets at one of my companies. I set some up
>> with a cleaning service, others maintain my buildings, some I even give
>> very cheap rent to. It's all about helping the unfortunate pull up their
>> boots and get on their feet. Mostly they are really dumb, liberal
>> upbringing I guess, but some do get over it, and make it on their own.
>> Others will always be working for me.
>
> The dumb are not liberals. Liberals are the educated ones. The uneducated
> are usually part of your party. So now you have to make things up.
>
They do make good toilet cleaners. There are no better toilet cleaners that
liberals, I will admit hands down. Just try to find a conservative who
cleans toilets. You won't and cant. It takes a bit of capital up front
because of the increased training costs, but eventually they pick it up and
are quite content in the job as long as you don't make them think about
things, like how many rolls of toilet paper in a case, etc,
Buddy Beavers
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:ibddo7$7il$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
>> So actually I am quite benevolent to those who come to me for help and
>> remain loyal. Most do, the others are sent packing. Those people will
>> never learn, and I think that's kind of the category you would fit in.
>> You have shown that you would never be gracious or thankful for any help
>> you would receive from someone like me. Take as an example all of the
>> data I gave you to work with, a chance for you to learn something and
>> pull your head out of that cloud, but instead you come back with "I
>> don't need charts" Time for you to get packing as well.
>
> I need your charts like you need instructions of how to eat a
> cheeseburger. So far all I see of your kind nature is that you hire
> people, probably at slave wages, and use them to enrich yourself. That is
> what any republican in good standing would do.
>
>
Well we know about your voracious appetite. I'm surprised you can actually
lift the brger to your mouth with those limp liberal wrists.
http://tinyurl.com/hackburger
Buddy Beavers
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:ibddo7$7il$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
>>> Now that's more like it. No liberal there. Making negative comments,
>>> implying weakness, and being gay. Now that sounds like a right winger.
>>> I knew that kind, caring, decency, wasn't really you. You're a typical
>>> selfish right winger, who thinks only about himself and his own. The
>>> problem is you just couldn't be more wrong. Which is a habit you have.
>>> You keep acting like I'm some kind of wimp. I'd sure like to meet you
>>> in person some day. You would get a real surprise. I'd love to see the
>>> look on your face when you looked up at me and finally realized you
>>> were so wrong about your assumptions about me. To bad it'll never
>>> happen. Like I said I'd love to see the look on your goofy face when
>>> you see me in person.
>>
>> Meeting you would not benefit me in any way, as I explained above, I
>> would just have to send you away. So yeah, too bad. It makes me sad.
>> There, I'm over it.
>
> Meeting me would be a great benefit to you. It would be a learning
> experience for you, and you need one real bad. If you met me you would
> learn that all your assumptions you have made about me are wrong, and that
> you shouldn't do that. You would also learn to show some respect. Because
> it would be me that sent you away. Lucky for you.
>
Well you have heard of the internet right? Post your pictures. I'll take a
look. Where your workout clothes, no shirt.
Buddy Beavers
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:ibddo7$7il$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
>> Well that's nonsense. I think about a lot of stuff besides Obama. And
>> actually yes, I do see you posting about him each time you are here.
>> Remember when I asked you to post the lat metal related post that you
>> made here in the at 3 months? I asked you to post the link right
>> here---> <----- Hmm, you must be posting about something because I don't
>> see the links.
>
> How about your record. I think you have posted about a thousand posts
> about Obama and zero about metal. With a record like that only an asshole
> would say anything about anyone else.
>
You can add my metal related posts up and see that I have at least a dozen
more than you in any period you want to look at, quarterly, semi-annually,
etc. I was going to say I have 100 times more than you, but anything times
zero is...got math?
Buddy Beavers
"Hacke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:ibddo7$7il$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
>
nonsense snipped
> Hacke
Shall not be infringed
> On 11/5/2010 7:35 PM, Buddy Beavers wrote:
>
> > Keith Olbermann, the pre-eminent liberal voice on American television,
> > was suspended Friday after his employer, MSNBC, discovered that he made
> > campaign contributions to three Democrats last month.
>
> > The indefinite suspension was a stark display of the clash between
> > objectivity and opinion in television journalism. While Mr. Olbermann is
> > anchor of what is essentially the "Democratic Nightly News," the
> > decision affirmed that he was being held to the same standards as other
> > employees of MSNBC and its parent, NBC News, both of which answer to NBC
> > Universal. Most journalistic outfits discourage or outright prohibit
> > campaign contributions by employees.
>
> But not Fox. Over there they let their people shill for right wing
> politicians all the time. Hannity, Palin, and Huckabee, all donate to
> right wing candidates and do fund raisers for them too. So while some
> networks have standards that are meant to keep them from being biased
> Fox clearly does not. But since Fox is not a news outlet but is a
> political organization they don't have to go along with the standards a
> real news outlet has to follow. Olbermann knew the rules and he broke
> them. So he has to pay the price for it. He should have known better.
>
> Hawke
After al the talk of integrity at MSNBC, it seems that Olbermann is
back.
Hawke
>> Your view shows that you don't have much experience in academics.
>> Bush's grades were mainly Cs. That's pretty bad actually. An F means
>> you failed. So a C is only one rank above a D. Students that get Cs
>> and Ds have lousy grades. Maybe the fact that my grades were a lot
>> better than Cs is why I think they aren't good. In my book mediocre is
>> lousy. My standards are higher than yours.
>>
>
>
> Lies by obfuscation. You do know Bush had better grades than Kerry or
> Gore, don't you? Again you try to confuse Gore's grades with Bush. Gore
> is the one who scored D's and failed five of eight classes in his
> pursuit of a Divinity degree, and then later dropped out of Vanderbilt.
> But look at what your hatred of Bush made you post in the paragraph
> above, but, but, but...Bush! Once again you avoid the heart of the
> subject...why is Obama hiding his failing grades? Did he fail more
> classes than Gore?
I never said squat about Gore. I don't know about his grades or his
education. I know about Bush and about Kerry. Both went to Ivy League
schools and both had mediocre grades. However, Kerry then went on and
got a law degree and became a lawyer.
If you didn't hate Obama so much you wouldn't be bothering with any of
this trivia. Bush was dumb. We all know it. You're the only fool trying
to prove he's smart. I don't know why though. It's an impossible job.
Hawke
Hawke
Bill Ayers was a hero not a traitor. What he did back in the 70s was
patriotic. He was fighting against a tyrannical government. I admire
him. Obama did everything right. He's the president and came from
nothing. You can't even see that. Which proves you have the worst case
of Obama hate of anyone. You're sick. Obama had everything going against
him and overcame unreal odds. Bush was born with a silver spoon in his
mouth, had the presidency handed to him, ruined the country, and made
you an admirer. You're a nut.
Hawke
Frank
> Keith Olbermann, the pre-eminent liberal voice on American television,
> was suspended Friday after his employer, MSNBC, discovered that he made
> campaign contributions to three Democrats last month.
>
> The indefinite suspension was a stark display of the clash between
> objectivity and opinion in television journalism. While Mr. Olbermann is
> anchor of what is essentially the "Democratic Nightly News," the
> decision affirmed that he was being held to the same standards as other
> employees of MSNBC and its parent, NBC News, both of which answer to NBC
> Universal. Most journalistic outfits discourage or outright prohibit
> campaign contributions by employees.
>
> http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/05/olbermann-suspended-from-msnbc-for-campaign-donations/?hp
>
Wondered about her. From Wiki:
Maddow lives in Manhattan and western Massachusetts with her partner,
artist Susan Mikula.[37][38] The couple met in 1999, when Mikula hired
Maddow, who was then working on her doctoral dissertation, to do yard
work at her home.[37] Maddow does not own a television set, but does
sometimes watch streaming broadcast content on her
computer.[39][citation needed] However, she is reportedly committed to
getting one so that Mikula can watch her show.[31] Although
Massachusetts recognizes same-sex marriage, as of 2009 Maddow and Mikula
had no plans to marry.
Hawke
Why not? He's definitely a Democrat backer and advocate. He' not hiding
it like they do at Fox. I see nothing wrong with him contributing to who
he wants to contribute to. But it had to do with his contract. According
to that he wasn't supposed to without getting an okay first. It was
minor. He got a couple days suspension and now he's back. Nothing much
to it really.
Hawke
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
Yes, there was a lot to it. MSNBC underlined the integrity of their
network, a black/white contrast with "Fox News".
The distinction is important. No one in their right mind would want to
have their integrity linked to "Fox News".
Especially a journalist.
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
Committed relationships annoy you? Or are you showing pride in two
adults living together in peace for 11 years?
Shall not be infringed
> On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 16:46:43 -0800, Hawke <davesmith...@digitalpath.net>
You're all about people going back on their word. Olbermann, Saddam
Hussein, etc.
Breaking your word is never a problem with you libs.
> without getting an okay first. It was
> > minor. He got a couple days suspension and now he's back. Nothing much
> > to it really.
>
> > Hawke
>
> Yes, there was a lot to it. MSNBC underlined the integrity of their
> network, a black/white contrast with "Fox News".
You say underlined, I say undermined.
> The distinction is important. No one in their right mind would want to
> have their integrity linked to "Fox News".
>
> Especially a journalist.
What would you know of integrity? You're the one who said you slept
on duty in Vietnam after eating midnight chow.
BTW, thanks for your service.
ATP
>
>
> I never said squat about Gore. I don't know about his grades or his
> education. I know about Bush and about Kerry. Both went to Ivy League
> schools and both had mediocre grades. However, Kerry then went on and got
> a law degree and became a lawyer.
>
> If you didn't hate Obama so much you wouldn't be bothering with any of
> this trivia. Bush was dumb. We all know it. You're the only fool trying to
> prove he's smart. I don't know why though. It's an impossible job.
>
> Hawke
I don't think he was dumb, he had above average intelligence but was not
smart enough to lead the country. His lack of work ethic and obsessive
behaviour probably hurt his performance more than anything.
Shall not be infringed
> On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 19:45:32 -0500, Frank <frankperiodlogu...@comcast.net>
When you slept with the mother/daughter team, which one were you
committed to?
Were you related to either of them, by blood or by marriage?
> --
> Regards, Curly
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Republicans vs. Democrats : Heartless vs. Spineless
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hawke
Here are the two choices for what to blame the financial crisis in
America on. Here's mine; After several years of republican free trade,
free market, and market deregulation policies the outcome of said
policies was a financial meltdown.
Here's your explanation; Barack Obama accepted the presidential
nomination of the Democratic Party and this caused the financial
industry to start on a decline ending in financial meltdown.
Everyone is free to choose whichever explanation they like. However,
yours, which I've never heard before, is going to be real, real, hard to
prove because other than you thinking it's true there's not a shred of
evidence backing it up.
Hawke
Hawke
There's a problem with your childish assertion. The reason that the
economy started down was because it was entering a recession in the fall
of '07. After years of deregulation of the financial system, the
mortgage market was breaking down, and the real estate market had peaked
and was also headed down. But in your twisted mind the only thing
bringing the economy down was the nomination of Obama. That would be
funny if you were joking. The fact you believe it only says you're nuts.
Hawke
Hawke
Give us a fact that connects the nomination of Obama to the crash of the
economy. If you link the two events you have to show a connection
between them. Otherwise I could just say it was your birthday that
caused the recession.
Hawke
Rich Grise
>
> Committed relationships annoy you? Or are you showing pride in two
> adults living together in peace for 11 years?
>
single people. The gays just want the same tax breaks, special privileges,
and other handouts that the breeder class get.
And what's the government doing in the marriage racket anyway? Isn't that
a de facto establishment of religion?
Thanks,
Rich
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
Only if you believe marriage is godly. Many believe marriage is a
commitment made freely among adults and has nothing to do with either
religion or government.
Frankie is just scared of homosexuals.
Larry Jaques
<ri...@example.net.invalid> wrote:
>Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
>>
>> Committed relationships annoy you? Or are you showing pride in two
>> adults living together in peace for 11 years?
>>
>The solution to the gay marriage problem is to stop discriminating against
>single people. The gays just want the same tax breaks, special privileges,
>and other handouts that the breeder class get.
-----------------
I _love_ that description. Let's make it equal: no breaks,
privileges, or handouts to the breeder class, either.
>And what's the government doing in the marriage racket anyway? Isn't that
>a de facto establishment of religion?
What's it doing in 90% of the areas it engorges itself? It sure
wasn't specified in the Constitution.
--
To the well-organized mind, death is but the next great adventure.
-- J. K. Rowling
Buddy Beavers
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:ibifg4$b2k$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
There's evidence. I posted it. You admitted that you are too stupid to look
at it because you would rather depend on faulty memory than documented
facts.
Buddy Beavers
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:ibifnr$biq$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> There's a problem with your childish assertion. The reason that the
> economy started down was because it was entering a recession in the fall
> of '07. After years of deregulation of the financial system, the mortgage
> market was breaking down, and the real estate market had peaked and was
> also headed down. But in your twisted mind the only thing bringing the
> economy down was the nomination of Obama. That would be funny if you were
> joking. The fact you believe it only says you're nuts.
>
OK, glad you picked time period that *YOU* believe started the mess. So you
are willing to admit the newly elected Democrat party sent our nation into a
recession? That's good because everyone else agrees with you on that one,
including myself. Obama didn't accept his party's nomination until August
28, 2007 which triggered the near collapse of the DOW, the nail in the
coffin.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/18/2007/main3629842.shtml
Buddy Beavers
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:ibifrb$biq$2...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>> Nice imagination but the facts say otherwise. The facts say that it
>>> was the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the fall of real estate, and the
>>> financial crisis brought about by the irresponsible actions of banks,
>>> lenders, and of deregulation that ruined things. Once those things
>>> happened it was nothing but a guaranteed nosedive for the economy. But
>>> I have to hand it to you. You did find a way to blame Bush's problems
>>> on someone else. Way to go.
>>>
>>
>> It was Obama announcing the acceptance of his party's nomination. I gave
>> you the facts, you chose to ignore them in favor of your liberal
>> fantasy. You provided nothing. I'm done with you, even a child could
>> understand it.
>
>
> Give us a fact that connects the nomination of Obama to the crash of the
> economy. If you link the two events you have to show a connection between
> them. Otherwise I could just say it was your birthday that caused the
> recession.
>
Just the facts then....
Fact #1
Obama is a Marxist
Fact #2
August 18, 2008 Dow closes at 11,479.39
Dow is trending upwards.
Fact #3
August 28, 2008 Dow closes at 11,715.18
The Marxist Imposter Obama announces that he is accepting his party's
nomination
Fact #4
The next day the market drops close to 200 points
August 29, 2008 Dow drops to 11,543.55
Fact #5
Ten days later, market drops into the 10Ks
Sep 15, 2008 Dow closes at 10,849.85
Fact #6
Dow continues to spiral downward drops another
Oct 15, 2008 Dow closes at 8,577.91
Fact#7
The Marxist Obama gets elected in November, market panics some more enters
7Ks
November 20, 2008 Dow closes at 7,552.29
Fact#8
Imposter Obama the Marxist takes office market still in 7Ks
January 20, 2009 Dow closes at 7,949.09
Fact#9
One month later market more than 500 points lower
Feb 20 Dow closes at 7,365.67
etc.
Fact#10
Fast forward 2 years, the DOW has never regained the level it was at on the
day the Marxist Obama accepted his party's nomination
Nov 12, 2010 Dow closes at 11,192.58, still 500 points lower than when
Imposter Obama the Marxist Imposter took office.
*** Obama can't even get us back to the Golden days of Bush. But, but,
but...BUSH! ***
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=%5EDJI&a=07&b=20&c=2008&d=00&e=30&f=2009&g=w
Got Facts? Thought so...
Buddy Beavers
"Buddy Beavers" <Bu...@Beavers.invalid> wrote in message
news:ibknpa$mqa$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Make that August 28, 2008 for the Kenyan Imposter, not 2007
Buddy Beavers
"Buddy Beavers" <Bu...@Beavers.invalid> wrote in message
news:ibkrd9$d47$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
edit...when Imposter Obama the Marxist Imposter accepted his party's
nomination
>
Hawke
Check the facts. The recession officially started in the fall of 2007.
That was the finding of professional economists. By the way, economists
don't look at political elections and make pronouncements based on
things like that. They look at the economy and the numbers. What they
saw was that the economy had been gradually declining for some time and
it officially went into a recession late in 2007. But come off it,
you're not being funny. We all know it was the Bush administration's
policies that were enacted early in his first term that caused a short
term gain in the economy but soon it went bust. Blame it on the tax
cuts. All tax cuts are is like credit card spending. You get a boost at
first and then the bills come due and you have problems. That's what
Bush's policies did. They made a false increase in the economy which
then slid into a recession. Obama played no role in it at all. So stop
playing dumb.
Hawke
Hawke
You're like the cock that crows in the morning and thinks he's
responsible for the sun coming up. The two things may both happen every
day but one does not cause the other. Obama caused none of our economic
problems. They were all set in motion by Bush. He set the house on fire
all by himself. All Obama did was show up when the house was fully inflamed.
Hawke
Hawke
>> Give us a fact that connects the nomination of Obama to the crash of
>> the economy. If you link the two events you have to show a connection
>> between them. Otherwise I could just say it was your birthday that
>> caused the recession.
>>
>
> Just the facts then....
>
> Fact #1
> Obama is a Marxist
Your wrong so your "fact" is simply not a fact.
> Fact #2
> August 18, 2008 Dow closes at 11,479.39
> Dow is trending upwards.
That's true.
> Fact #3
> August 28, 2008 Dow closes at 11,715.18
> The Marxist Imposter Obama announces that he is accepting his party's
> nomination
Obama, not a Marxist, accepts his party's nomination. That's true.
> Fact #4
> The next day the market drops close to 200 points
> August 29, 2008 Dow drops to 11,543.55
>
> Fact #5
> Ten days later, market drops into the 10Ks
> Sep 15, 2008 Dow closes at 10,849.85
>
> Fact #6
> Dow continues to spiral downward drops another
> Oct 15, 2008 Dow closes at 8,577.91
>
4,5,and 6 are true
> Fact#7
> The Marxist Obama gets elected in November, market panics some more
> enters 7Ks
> November 20, 2008 Dow closes at 7,552.29
The Capitalist Obama gets elected; true.
Market keeps going down. True.
> Fact#8
> Imposter Obama the Marxist takes office market still in 7Ks
> January 20, 2009 Dow closes at 7,949.09
Legitimately elected president Obama with 53% of the vote takes office
and the market has been going down for quite a while. True.
> Fact#9
> One month later market more than 500 points lower
> Feb 20 Dow closes at 7,365.67
> etc.
>
That is true.
> Fact#10
> Fast forward 2 years, the DOW has never regained the level it was at on
> the day the Marxist Obama accepted his party's nomination
> Nov 12, 2010 Dow closes at 11,192.58, still 500 points lower than when
> Imposter Obama the Marxist Imposter took office.
>
> *** Obama can't even get us back to the Golden days of Bush. But, but,
> but...BUSH! ***
What you mean is that Obama has not brought us back to where Bush was at
his artificial market peak. But all you have to do is wait until next
year and that will change.
> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=%5EDJI&a=07&b=20&c=2008&d=00&e=30&f=2009&g=w
>
>
> Got Facts? Thought so...
You didn't have many facts. When you did I agreed. But most of the time
you gave your opinions and pretended they were facts.
Hawke
Strabo
The marriage license is unnecessary. It didn't exist before 120
year ago. People got married in church or simply lived together.
Why would anyone demand to get a license to do what is lawful?
Many in government believe that they should engineer society. The tax
structure and licenses are major tools used to control behavior.
Even if 'same-sex' marriage were accepted, the homosexual movement
would not stop.
>
> Thanks,
> Rich
>
>
>
>
Shall not be infringed
> On 11/12/2010 4:57 PM, Buddy Beavers wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >news:ibifnr$biq$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
> >> There's a problem with your childish assertion. The reason that the
> >> economy started down was because it was entering a recession in the
> >> fall of '07. After years of deregulation of the financial system, the
> >> mortgage market was breaking down, and the real estate market had
> >> peaked and was also headed down. But in your twisted mind the only
> >> thing bringing the economy down was the nomination of Obama. That
> >> would be funny if you were joking. The fact you believe it only says
> >> you're nuts.
>
> > OK, glad you picked time period that *YOU* believe started the mess. So
> > you are willing to admit the newly elected Democrat party sent our
> > nation into a recession? That's good because everyone else agrees with
> > you on that one, including myself. Obama didn't accept his party's
> > nomination until August 28, 2007 which triggered the near collapse of
> > the DOW, the nail in the coffin.
> >http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/18/2007/main3629842.shtml
>
> Check the facts. The recession officially started in the fall of 2007.
> That was the finding of professional economists.
So you leftists lied. You guys have called the entire Bush presidency
a recession.
Shall not be infringed
> Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
>
> > Committed relationships annoy you? Or are you showing pride in two
> > adults living together in peace for 11 years?
>
> The solution to the gay marriage problem is to stop discriminating against
> single people. The gays just want the same tax breaks, special privileges,
> and other handouts that the breeder class get.
Most people don't have a problem with that.
Just don't call it marriage because marriage is between a man and a
woman, and that is the sticking point.
Thanks.
> And what's the government doing in the marriage racket anyway? Isn't that
> a de facto establishment of religion?
You do realize that Congress opens with a prayer, don't you?
Buddy Beavers
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:iblhjc$292$2...@speranza.aioe.org...
Cock that crows, baseball player on the football field, etc. You're just
full of analogies, pinning all your *hope* on anything causing the economic
problems except for your messiahobama. But, but, but...BUSH!
Buddy Beavers
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:iblhep$292$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> On 11/12/2010 4:57 PM, Buddy Beavers wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
>> news:ibifnr$biq$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>
>>> There's a problem with your childish assertion. The reason that the
>>> economy started down was because it was entering a recession in the
>>> fall of '07. After years of deregulation of the financial system, the
>>> mortgage market was breaking down, and the real estate market had
>>> peaked and was also headed down. But in your twisted mind the only
>>> thing bringing the economy down was the nomination of Obama. That
>>> would be funny if you were joking. The fact you believe it only says
>>> you're nuts.
>>>
>>
>> OK, glad you picked time period that *YOU* believe started the mess. So
>> you are willing to admit the newly elected Democrat party sent our
>> nation into a recession? That's good because everyone else agrees with
>> you on that one, including myself. Obama didn't accept his party's
>> nomination until August 28, 2007 which triggered the near collapse of
>> the DOW, the nail in the coffin.
>> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/18/2007/main3629842.shtml
>
correction to typo above: "until August 28, 2008 which". I corrected this in
a follow-up post by the way
>
> Check the facts. The recession officially started in the fall of 2007.
> That was the finding of professional economists. By the way, economists
> don't look at political elections and make pronouncements based on things
> like that. They look at the economy and the numbers. What they saw was
> that the economy had been gradually declining for some time and it
> officially went into a recession late in 2007. But come off it, you're not
> being funny. We all know it was the Bush administration's policies that
> were enacted early in his first term that caused a short term gain in the
> economy but soon it went bust. Blame it on the tax cuts. All tax cuts are
> is like credit card spending. You get a boost at first and then the bills
> come due and you have problems. That's what Bush's policies did. They made
> a false increase in the economy which then slid into a recession. Obama
> played no role in it at all. So stop playing dumb.
Moving the football again, eh? So now the recession was started *before* the
newly elected Congress? But it didn't show up until the end of 2007?
I've got news for you Obamapologist, the same thing was happening with the
Dow when the Democrats looked like they would take the House away? Would you
like me to post chart data and facts for you to ignore as well?
You are such a limp-wristed liberal apologist. I'll bet you wear a pocket
protector and have green teeth too. I can't help but laugh at my mental
picture of you tapping at the keyboard with your wrist braces on.
Buddy Beavers
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:ibli1v$3f3$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
You're done, plink!
Curly Surmudgeon
> On 11/11/2010 11:38 PM, Rich Grise wrote:
>> Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
>>>
>>> Committed relationships annoy you? Or are you showing pride in two
>>> adults living together in peace for 11 years?
>>>
>> The solution to the gay marriage problem is to stop discriminating
>> against single people. The gays just want the same tax breaks, special
>> privileges, and other handouts that the breeder class get.
>>
>> And what's the government doing in the marriage racket anyway? Isn't
>> that a de facto establishment of religion?
>>
>>
> The marriage license is unnecessary. It didn't exist before 120 year
> ago. People got married in church or simply lived together. Why would
> anyone demand to get a license to do what is lawful?
Economic advantage. 'Government' offers breeders advantages to spur
reproduction and mating.
> Many in government believe that they should engineer society. The tax
> structure and licenses are major tools used to control behavior.
See above.
> Even if 'same-sex' marriage were accepted, the homosexual movement would
> not stop.
Doesn't make sense, why should any definable group 'stop' when it comes
to equal rights?
Rich Grise
>
Which god do they pray to? Yahweh? Allah? Shiva? Cthulhu?
Thanks,
Rich
Shall not be infringed
wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 06:36:55 -0500, Strabo <str...@flashlight.net> wrote:
> > On 11/11/2010 11:38 PM, Rich Grise wrote:
> >> Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
>
> >>> Committed relationships annoy you? Or are you showing pride in two
> >>> adults living together in peace for 11 years?
>
> >> The solution to the gay marriage problem is to stop discriminating
> >> against single people. The gays just want the same tax breaks, special
> >> privileges, and other handouts that the breeder class get.
>
> >> And what's the government doing in the marriage racket anyway? Isn't
> >> that a de facto establishment of religion?
>
> > The marriage license is unnecessary. It didn't exist before 120 year
> > ago. People got married in church or simply lived together. Why would
> > anyone demand to get a license to do what is lawful?
>
> Economic advantage. 'Government' offers breeders advantages to spur
> reproduction and mating.
Marriage is more of a hindrance to reproduction and mating. Ask any
welfare, medicaid, WIC and food stamp mother.
> > Many in government believe that they should engineer society. The tax
> > structure and licenses are major tools used to control behavior.
>
> See above.
>
> > Even if 'same-sex' marriage were accepted, the homosexual movement would
> > not stop.
>
> Doesn't make sense, why should any definable group 'stop' when it comes
> to equal rights?
Why wouldn't they stop once they've acheived their goals?
Rich Grise
>> to equal rights?
>
> Why wouldn't they stop once they've acheived their goals?
I don't understand this. What alleged "rights" do homos have that everybody
else doesn't have?
Thanks,
Rich
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> Shall not be infringed wrote:
Nor do I. That's why I Bozo Filtered the cockroach...
Shall not be infringed
They want to be loved and adored.