#I can't believe it's not margarine...
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
This is interesting . . .
Margarine was originally manufactured to fatten turkeys When it killed
the turkeys, the people who had put all the money into the research
wanted a payback so they put their heads together to figure out what to
do with this product to get their money back.
It was a white substance with no food appeal so they added the yellow
colouring and sold it to people to use in place of butter. How do you
like it? They have come out with some clever new flavourings.
DO YOU KNOW.. The difference between margarine and butter?
Read on to the end...gets very interesting!
Both have the same amount of calories.
Butter is slightly higher in saturated fats at 8 grams; compared to 5
grams for margarine.
Eating margarine can increase heart disease in women by 53% over
eating the same amount of butter, according to a recent Harvard Medical
Study.
Eating butter increases the absorption of many other nutrients in other
foods.
Butter has many nutritional benefits where margarine has a few and only
because they are added!
Butter tastes much better than margarine and it can enhance the flavours
of other foods.
Butter has been around for centuries where margarine has been around for
less than 100 years.
And now, for Margarine. . .
Very High in Trans fatty acids.
Triples risk of coronary heart disease . . .
Increases total cholesterol and LDL (this is the bad cholesterol) and
lowers HDL cholesterol, (the good cholesterol).
Increases the risk of cancers up to five times. . .
Lowers quality of breast milk.
Decreases immune response.
Decreases insulin response.
And here's the most disturbing fact...... HERE IS THE PART THAT IS
VERY INTERESTING!
Margarine is but ONE MOLECULE away from being PLASTIC... and shares 27
ingredients with PAINT.
These facts alone were enough to have me avoiding margarine for life and
anything else that is hydrogenated (this means hydrogen is added,
changing the molecular structure of the substance).
You can try this yourself:
Purchase a tub of margarine and leave it open in your garage or shaded
area. Within a couple of days you will notice a couple of things:
* no flies, not even those pesky fruit flies will go near it (that
should tell you something).
* it does not rot or smell differently because it has no nutritional
value; nothing will grow on it. Even those teeny weeny microorganisms
will not a find a home to grow. Why? Because it is nearly plastic.
Would you melt your Tupperware and spread that on your toast?
--
Slavery: The belief that people can be property
Corporatism: The belief that property can be people.
Billary/2009
wrote:
> From my email:
Slow news day for the Messiah Zippy?
Milt
>
> This is interesting . . .
It's also been around for many years, and is mostly crap.
http://www.snopes.com/food/warnings/butter.asp
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
Beats posting about Tiger...
Billary/2009
wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 19:14:40 -0800, Billary/2009 wrote:
> > On Dec 9, 9:23 pm, "5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com> wrote:
> >> From my email:
>
> > Slow news day for the Messiah Zippy?
>
> Beats posting about Tiger...
Everyone should just leave the guy alone. Cheating is a fact of life
for both men and women. End of story.
Phlip
> area. Within a couple of days you will notice a couple of things:
>
> * no flies, not even those pesky fruit flies will go near it (that
> should tell you something).
>
> * it does not rot or smell differently because it has no nutritional
> value; nothing will grow on it. Even those teeny weeny microorganisms
> will not a find a home to grow. Why? Because it is nearly plastic.
> Would you melt your Tupperware and spread that on your toast?
Durr yu librul faggits are just tryna fuck up American induh-stry, caz
yu think dat all big companies are evil
bvallely
Phlip
> It's also been around for many years, and is mostly crap.
>
> http://www.snopes.com/food/warnings/butter.asp
snopes ain't punk-proof. Try them on Bush Sr's gaff when he saw a
supermarket checkout scanner for the first time.
And try Earth Balance Canola Spread. It says "Non-GMO" up at the top
(which is itself an impossible argument, but I can accept "Non" now
and then...).
My wife did not understand the labeling, but liked it, so she used to
ask me to add "GMO" to the shopping list. Ever the engineer, I would
have to correct her to "no, it's 'Non-' GMO, see?"
"Okay. Get 'Non-GMO', too please!"
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
Agreed, although I admit I would be more than human if I could resist the
occasional joke about the whole thing. "Put a tiger in your skank" "What
do you expect from a man who's paid millions to fill 18 holes a day?"
That sort of thing.
Milt
> On Dec 9, 7:25 pm, Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It's also been around for many years, and is mostly crap.
>
> >http://www.snopes.com/food/warnings/butter.asp
>
> snopes ain't punk-proof.
It's certainly more trustworthy than an anonymous e-mail with no
cites.
> Try them on Bush Sr's gaff when he saw a
> supermarket checkout scanner for the first time.
>
> And try Earth Balance Canola Spread. It says "Non-GMO" up at the top
> (which is itself an impossible argument, but I can accept "Non" now
> and then...).
>
> My wife did not understand the labeling, but liked it, so she used to
> ask me to add "GMO" to the shopping list. Ever the engineer, I would
> have to correct her to "no, it's 'Non-' GMO, see?"
>
> "Okay. Get 'Non-GMO', too please!"
Just buy butter. I do. But to claim margarine causes more heart
disease than butter is one of those claims that is just plain
bullshit, because there's no support for it. If you can find that
"harvard study" making that claim, good luck. I first saw this e-mail
about 4 years ago, and I never found it.
Milt
> Zepp will believe any nonsense he finds over the internet.
This is quite ironic coming from you, fake Bill Vallely, given all the
bullshit you post that's based on nothing. .
But he didn't say he believed it.
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
I quit using margarine years ago. Because some of the items in there ARE
true: it has no nutritional value, and there are no particular benefits
beyond price when compared to butter. I'm sure fake Bill didn't offer
anything in the way of a counter argument, because he's not capable of
it, but I know you can do better.
The comparisons to plastics is over the top and false, I agree. But much
of the rest isn't.
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
Now they are required to list the amount of trans fat in a serving, but
there is a caveat: they can claim zero grams if, in fact, it's less than
half a gram per serving. A stick is regarded as 8 servings, so it could
have 3.9 grams of transfats per stick and claim to have zero grams.
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
Oh, man, she's right. Get the GMO, gato! Zero to 60 in 3.2 seconds, 441
hemi...it's the bomb, dude!
bvallely
> > Zepp will believe any nonsense he finds over the internet.
.
> This is quite ironic coming from you, fake Bill Vallely, given all the
> bullshit you post that's based on nothing. .
.
> But he didn't say he believed it.>
So, he posts things that he knows are obvious lies?
Well, THAT'S a big piece of the puzzle.
bvallely
" I quit using margarine years ago. "
Steve
B-b-b-b-but in order to get butter, you have to have cows and cows
fart and OMG, that'll cause climate change and that will kill all the
polar bears and put New York City under water.. you lefters are
being so selfish..
Algore is going to fly his private jet right your front door and slap
your little pansies for encouraging cow farts...
Steve
wrote:
>
>" I quit using margarine years ago. �"
> Zepp Weasel.
>
Follow Zepp's eating plan and you too can weigh in at over 300 lbs and
wear depends....
Milt
wrote:
The point is, some of it is true, but it largely is not. It's fatty;
there's a shock. But it's mostly vegetable oil, water and salt. There
is no nutritional value in margarine, and I suppose if you start
eating sticks of it, yeah; you'd probably suffer some ill effects,
although little more than you would feel from eating a stick of
butter.
I don't use it often, either. I certainly don't use it on bread, and I
don't use it in cooking, because cooking oil is cheaper. I only use
butter where flavor is involved. That butter "flavoring" used at movie
theaters for popcorn is horrible. But it's not like it's fricking
dangerous, except for the person who sits there with a tub of Chiffon,
and eats it by the tablespoon sitting in front of the tv.
By the way, I also don't buy the whole "trans fat" panic, either. In
fact, most such panics are led by people who have as much to gain,
financially, as the people producing the offending products. Are trans
fats good for you? Of course not. But then, neither is smothering a
corn cob with melted butter or eating a porterhouse with a half inch
of fat. But life is short, and it's tasty, and I'm going to enjoy it.
If I live a year less, bummer; at least I didn't spend it worrying
about margarine, right?
Milt
> .> > Zepp will believe any nonsense he finds over the internet.
> .
> > This is quite ironic coming from you, fake Bill Vallely, given all the
> > bullshit you post that's based on nothing. .
> .
> > But he didn't say he believed it.>
>
> .
> So, he posts things that he knows are obvious lies?
You do that all the time, fake Bill Vallely. Hell, look at the name
you post under.
>
> Well, THAT'S a big piece of the puzzle.
So, I will expect everything you post from here on to be absolutely
true and error-free.
But I won't be holding my breath.
Phlip
> Just buy butter. I do.
It scorches, so you can't cook with it. (We are foodies.)
> But to claim margarine causes more heart
> disease than butter is one of those claims that is just plain
> bullshit,
Hydrogenated veggie oil is "good" for you??
> because there's no support for it. If you can find that
> "harvard study" making that claim, good luck. I first saw this e-mail
> about 4 years ago, and I never found it.
Luv those anonymous Harvard Studies!
Phlip
wrote:
> > "Okay. Get 'Non-GMO', too please!"
>
> Oh, man, she's right. Get the GMO, gato! Zero to 60 in 3.2 seconds, 441
> hemi...it's the bomb, dude!
Yet more reasons to go Non-GMO.
Milt
> On Dec 9, 8:54 pm, Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Just buy butter. I do.
>
> It scorches, so you can't cook with it. (We are foodies.)
I do fine with it, for the most part. Even when it scorches, the taste
is still better.
>
> > But to claim margarine causes more heart
> > disease than butter is one of those claims that is just plain
> > bullshit,
>
> Hydrogenated veggie oil is "good" for you??
Wow. I didn't say that. Are you taking on right wing "debate" tactics
by osmosis?
>
> > because there's no support for it. If you can find that
> > "harvard study" making that claim, good luck. I first saw this e-mail
> > about 4 years ago, and I never found it.
>
> Luv those anonymous Harvard Studies!
Just because something isn't good for you doesn't mean it kills you.
It's not like people are eating whole sticks of margarine.
Phlip
> > Hydrogenated veggie oil is "good" for you??
>
> Wow. I didn't say that. Are you taking on right wing "debate" tactics
> by osmosis?
No, far-left techniques: HVO is a huge industry supported by subsidies
& kickbacks. Anything bad about it will never get thru to the ears of
the people. And it's worse for you than lard.
Dr. Barry Worthington
wrote:
It reminds me of a review of a famous film starring Marlon Brando.
"C'est magnifique, mais il n'est-pas buerre!"
Toodle pip!
Dr. Barry Worthington
Milt
wrote:
I'm glad you said "famous" and not "great." That film was dreadful.
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
Toodle pip!
Dr. Barry Worthington
I'm guessing, from THAT, that we're talking about a 1968 film shot in
Paris.
Milt
Look, if you're looking for an industry or company that is unaffected
by subsidies and kickbacks, good luck. In this discussion, please
promise you're not trying to suggest that butter manufacturers receive
neither subsidies or kickbacks? I'd have to bop you over the head if
you did.
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
> On Dec 10, 9:21 am, Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 9, 8:54 pm, Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Just buy butter. I do.
>>
>> It scorches, so you can't cook with it. (We are foodies.)
Turn the flame down. There's no excuse for scorching butter.
Remember, Tony nearly had Chris whacked for scorching the butter.
>
> I do fine with it, for the most part. Even when it scorches, the taste
> is still better.
>>
>> > But to claim margarine causes more heart disease than butter is one
>> > of those claims that is just plain bullshit,
>>
>> Hydrogenated veggie oil is "good" for you??
>
> Wow. I didn't say that. Are you taking on right wing "debate" tactics by
> osmosis?
>
Ounce for ounce, margarine is worse for your heart. And a lot of the
chloresterol in butter is the good kind.
>
>> > because there's no support for it. If you can find that "harvard
>> > study" making that claim, good luck. I first saw this e-mail about 4
>> > years ago, and I never found it.
>>
>> Luv those anonymous Harvard Studies!
>
> Just because something isn't good for you doesn't mean it kills you.
> It's not like people are eating whole sticks of margarine.
People don't eat salt by the pound, either. What's your point?
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
Yeah, the diary industry isn't exactly pure when it comes to that. I've
never figured out what part of the cow eggs come from, but legislatively,
they are diary.
Phlip
> never figured out what part of the cow eggs come from, but legislatively,
> they are diary.
because they are harvested daily
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
...but cheese isn't.
Phlip
I'm applying "argumentum ad crumenum" (to money) to hydrogenated veggie oil.
Raw veggie oil is thin. When you run electricity through it, you render it down
to a thick paste, like lard. It's stiff, so you can make all kinds of creemy
cheezey crusty junk food with a long shelf life that's so profitable. And it is
super incredibly bad for you. Hence the money interests will keep its health
effects out of the news.
Dr. Barry Worthington
Yes....I'm also reminded of the time when a Thatcherite minister at
the Welsh Office stopped funding a rather worthy NGO. Using the
terminology of the day, it was known as "The Last Quango in Powys!*
It's the way I tell 'em......
Dr. Barry Worthington
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Milt
The filmmakers should have been shot in Paris.. :) Seriously, that
movie was BAD. But I think the film was made when McGovern lost, not
when Humphrey did.
bvallely
wrote:
Reminds me of a summation of most of Michael Moore's career - "belles
paroles, la pitié que c'est surtout faux"
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
>> It reminds me of a review of a famous film starring Marlon Brando.
>> "C'est magnifique, mais il n'est-pas buerre!"
>>
>> Toodle pip!
>>
>> Dr. Barry Worthington
>>
>> I'm guessing, from THAT, that we're talking about a 1968 film shot in
>> Paris.
>
> The filmmakers should have been shot in Paris.. Seriously, that movie
> was BAD. But I think the film was made when McGovern lost, not when
> Humphrey did.
"Last Tango"? It wasn't so bad. Most people didn't like the ending, and
of course the wowsers got all bent over the sex. And I just Googled it--
you're right. 1972.
bvallely
> On Dec 10, 3:21 am, bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > .> > Zepp will believe any nonsense he finds over the internet.
> > .
> > > This is quite ironic coming from you, fake Bill Vallely, given all the
> > > bullshit you post that's based on nothing. .
> > .
> > > But he didn't say he believed it.>
>
> > .
> > So, he posts things that he knows are obvious lies?
>
> You do that all the time, fake Bill Vallely. Hell, look at the name
> you post under.
So, this is how the left operates these days You make up a
(literally) insane charge, repeat it endlessly, and hope that people
believe it?
> > Well, THAT'S a big piece of the puzzle.
.
> So, I will expect everything you post from here on to be absolutely
> true and error-free.
.
Oh, I make honest mistakes all the time. Treating you like an adult
is a prime example.
Milt
wrote:
Well, they wouldn't let me in when it first came out; it was rated X,
you'll remember. I didn't get to see it until I was about 18. It was
just incomrehensible. Then, it was on the Z Channel (ah, back when
cable was worth the money) in the mid-80s, and I thought, I'm older
now maybe i just didn't get it. So I watched it again, and it's just
bad filmmaking. The story's insipid, and Brando, of course, was well
into his over-acting phase. it started with The Godfather, but the
overacting in that made him compelling. By the time he ruined
Superman, I was pretty much done with him, honestly. (Although I did
like him in The Freshman)
Milt
> On Dec 10, 5:04 am, Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Dec 10, 3:21 am, bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > .> > Zepp will believe any nonsense he finds over the internet.
> > > .
> > > > This is quite ironic coming from you, fake Bill Vallely, given all the
> > > > bullshit you post that's based on nothing. .
> > > .
> > > > But he didn't say he believed it.>
>
> > > .
> > > So, he posts things that he knows are obvious lies?
>
> > You do that all the time, fake Bill Vallely. Hell, look at the name
> > you post under.
>
> .
> So, this is how the left operates these days You make up a
> (literally) insane charge, repeat it endlessly, and hope that people
> believe it?
Insane? You're not "that" Bill Vallely. That's all I'm saying.
>
> > > Well, THAT'S a big piece of the puzzle.
> .
> > So, I will expect everything you post from here on to be absolutely
> > true and error-free.
>
> .
> Oh, I make honest mistakes all the time. Treating you like an adult
> is a prime example.
You might make honest mistakes occasionally. Mostly, you purposely
post things you know are untrue and insist they're true. Even when
people point out the lack of truth, you repeat them.
For example; why is it insane to not believe you are the somewhat
"famous" person you say you are. If I posted as someone slightly more
famous, like Gary Coleman or Pia Zadora, you'd question it, right?
What is insane is to think that someone with your namesake's
reputation would purposely post such drivel under his own name.
bvallely
> On Dec 10, 2:27 pm, bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 10, 5:04 am, Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Dec 10, 3:21 am, bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > .> > Zepp will believe any nonsense he finds over the internet.
> > > > .
> > > > > This is quite ironic coming from you, fake Bill Vallely, given all the
> > > > > bullshit you post that's based on nothing. .
> > > > .
> > > > > But he didn't say he believed it.>
>
> > > > .
> > > > So, he posts things that he knows are obvious lies?
>
> > > You do that all the time, fake Bill Vallely. Hell, look at the name
> > > you post under.
>
> > .
> > So, this is how the left operates these days You make up a
> > (literally) insane charge, repeat it endlessly, and hope that people
> > believe it?
> Insane?>
.
Yes, what you are writing is literally insane.
.
> You're not "that" Bill Vallely. That's all I'm saying.
Based on WHAT, exactly?
.
> > > > Well, THAT'S a big piece of the puzzle.
.
> > > So, I will expect everything you post from here on to be absolutely
> > > true and error-free.
.
> > Oh, I make honest mistakes all the time. Treating you like an adult
> > is a prime example.
.
> You might make honest mistakes occasionally. Mostly, you purposely
> post things you know are untrue and insist they're true. Even when
> people point out the lack of truth, you repeat them.
Ah, the arrogance of the modern leftist. To disagree with a liberal
is to be a liar.
Here's a piece of reality for you, "Milt" - I understand your
positions, and I disagree with them.
I was called a fool and a liar when I stated that the Stimulus Bill
wouldn't create the 3.5 millions jobs it promised. Not only did it
not deliver the pork chops, it actually DESTROYED 3.4 million jobs as
of this writing. I was called a liar when I stated that Rev. Wright
was a lunatic racist. I have since been proven correct. Ditto Bill
Ayers and his skank wife. I was called a brownshirt when I doubted
the research behind Global Warming. When I laughed at the idea of a
plague of heterosexual AIDS which would destroy one fifth of the
world's population. That we could win the Iraq War. That ACORN is a
criminal organization.
You are a fool who lack the ability to consider alternate ideas. This
is why you're an intellectual midget, and why you'll believe any
thought that pops into your head. Somewhere, you must understand that
you made up the charge that I'm posing as someone else out of whole
cloth, and yet you insist that it's the truth.
.
> For example; why is it insane to not believe you are the somewhat
> "famous" person you say you are. >
.
Please post where I ever claimed to be "famous". I go out of my way
NOT to say that, because it's not true. I'm a working grunt.who's had
some success. Again, I never claimed to be famous.
.
> If I posted as someone slightly more famous, like Gary Coleman or Pia Zadora, you'd question it, right?>
.
I never claimed to be a household name.
.
> What is insane is to think that someone with your namesake's
> reputation would purposely post such drivel under his own name.
.
You have a false assumption - I never claimed to be famous.
Milt
Let's just say your credibility is lacking. And other reasons but
that's the main one.
> .> > > > Well, THAT'S a big piece of the puzzle.
> .
> > > > So, I will expect everything you post from here on to be absolutely
> > > > true and error-free.
> .
> > > Oh, I make honest mistakes all the time. Treating you like an adult
> > > is a prime example.
> .
> > You might make honest mistakes occasionally. Mostly, you purposely
> > post things you know are untrue and insist they're true. Even when
> > people point out the lack of truth, you repeat them.
>
> .
> Ah, the arrogance of the modern leftist. To disagree with a liberal
> is to be a liar.
No. to disagree with me is only natural. It's that you lie that makes
you a liar.
>
> Here's a piece of reality for you, "Milt" - I understand your
> positions, and I disagree with them.
That's fine, as far as it goes. But you make up stuff to "support"
your point.
>
> I was called a fool and a liar when I stated that the Stimulus Bill
> wouldn't create the 3.5 millions jobs it promised.
You can't state that.
See, that's what I mean. You make "predictions" and treat them as
"statements of fact".
> Not only did it
> not deliver the pork chops, it actually DESTROYED 3.4 million jobs as
> of this writing.
And then you follow it up with a bald-faced lie like that one.
Besides the fact that what you claim is impossible, since more than
half the stimulus money is still unspent at the moment, it is simply
not possible that a bill that appropriates money to rebuild
infrastructure could result in a net negative number of jobs. A law
firm like my old one, laying off 200 people because companies are
cutting back on legal work and bills; please explain to all of us how
the government pumping more money into the economy could possible have
caused that?
See, I would never claim that the stimulus has created 3.5 million
jobs, in part because most of the money isn't even doled out yet. But
I'd love to see you prove that 3.6 million jobs were lost because of
the stimulus. And I mean actual sources, not the right wing fart
machine.
> I was called a liar when I stated that Rev. Wright
> was a lunatic racist. I have since been proven correct.
I wouldn't have called you that. I would have said. "who gives a
fuck?" though. When I was a little Catholic boy, one of our priests
stole tens of thousands from the church over a couple of years, yet
I'm not a thief. There's no point to be made with something like
that.
> Ditto Bill
> Ayers and his skank wife.
Bill Ayers isn't a lunatic racist. And Obama barely knows the guy, and
again; it doesn't matter.
> I was called a brownshirt when I doubted
> the research behind Global Warming.
Well, I'd have to see the posts, but i tend to shy away from Nazi
references altogether.
> When I laughed at the idea of a
> plague of heterosexual AIDS which would destroy one fifth of the
> world's population. That we could win the Iraq War. That ACORN is a
> criminal organization.
You do realize that AIDS is one of the worst epidemics in history, and
that most of the victims are hetersexual, right? We already won the
Iraq War, back in 2003. Bush has the banner to prove it. The
subsequent 5+ years were not about winning and/or losing. And ACORN is
NOT a criminal organization. The Gotti Crime Family is a criminal
organization. The complaints about ACORN are pure racism.
> You are a fool who lack the ability to consider alternate ideas.
See above. You're projecting now.
> This
> is why you're an intellectual midget, and why you'll believe any
> thought that pops into your head.
Wow. Perhaps you should check my posts in this thread and the one on
marijuana and addiction. I don't believe much of anything without
proof. You, on the other hand, consider ACORN to be a criminal
organization, based on what? A heavily edited video paid for by and
passed around the right wing fart machine?
> Somewhere, you must understand that
> you made up the charge that I'm posing as someone else out of whole
> cloth, and yet you insist that it's the truth.
I just don't believe you're the Bill Vallely that you claim to be.
> .> For example; why is it insane to not believe you are the somewhat
> > "famous" person you say you are. >
>
> .
> Please post where I ever claimed to be "famous". I go out of my way
> NOT to say that, because it's not true. I'm a working grunt.who's had
> some success. Again, I never claimed to be famous.
Oh, please. That's another bald-faced lie. You're always reminding us
of "who you are."
> .> If I posted as someone slightly more famous, like Gary Coleman or Pia Zadora, you'd question it, right?>
>
> .
> I never claimed to be a household name.
> .> What is insane is to think that someone with your namesake's
> > reputation would purposely post such drivel under his own name.
>
> .
> You have a false assumption - I never claimed to be famous.
Yeah, fake Bill. You have.
Steve
wrote:
IRONY ANYONE???
Slapping Milt and his sock puppets around is just so satisfying...
it's so damned easy, I should be ashamed...
But I have to wonder how Milty feels to have me out his sock puppet on
the very first day he trots it out...
bvallely
Did one fifth of the world die of AIDS between 1987 and 1990? That's
what I was told, over and over and over.
.
"AIDS has both sexes running scared. Research studies now project that
one in five - listen to me, hard to believe - one in five
heterosexuals could be dead from AIDS at the end of the next three
years. That's by 1990. One in five."
Oprah, 1987
> We already won the Iraq War, back in 2003. Bush has the banner to prove it. The
> subsequent 5+ years were not about winning and/or losing.>
.
The Hell it wasn't. Two years ago, the Democrats were making vile
personal attacks against General Petraeus because he said the war was
winable. The Daily Kos called him "General BetrayUs", and Hillary all
but called him a liar.
http://www.nysun.com/national/clinton-spars-with-petraeus-on-credibility/62426/
http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html
Want more? I can produce lots.
.
> And ACORN is NOT a criminal organization. The Gotti Crime Family is a criminal organization. >
.
I've never seen any evidence that the Gotti Crime Family ever stooped
as low as to kidnap 13 year old El Salvadorian girls, beat them,
smuggle them into the country illegally, and turn them into sex
slaves.
And why didn't they? Because, unlike ACORN, Eric Holder, and
Democrats like you, the Gotti's had some kind of a moral base. They
had limits. What do you think Harry Truman would say if he heard
about Democrats behaving in this manner? John Kennedy? FDR? I'll
tell you the FIRST thing those men would have done - get on the radio
and condemn ACORN. They then would have the heads of ACORN arrested
and charged.
But those were different Democrats back then. Today, the party is
filled with weasels who make stupid defense for an organization which
would stoop as low as to kidnap 13 year old El Salvadorian girls, beat
them, smuggle them into the country illegally, and turn them into sex
slaves.
.
> The complaints about ACORN are pure racism.>
.
Yeah, like that.
.
> > You are a fool who lack the ability to consider alternate ideas.
.
> See above. You're projecting now.
.
Fair enough - which show on FOX News do you find the most
enlightening? What quotes of Rush Limbaugh do you most agree with?
.
> > This
> > is why you're an intellectual midget, and why you'll believe any
> > thought that pops into your head.
.
> Wow. Perhaps you should check my posts in this thread and the one on
> marijuana and addiction.>
.
I have read them.
Yeah?
So?
.
I don't believe much of anything without
> proof. You, on the other hand, consider ACORN to be a criminal
> organization, based on what?
.
Unedited video.
.
> A heavily edited video >
.
Here is the unedited video.
.
http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2009/09/video-full-unedited-video-of-sting-on.html
.
>....paid for by and passed around the right wing fart machine?
.
Well, you said that you don't believe much of anything without
proof.
PROVE that the journalists were paid.
.
> > Somewhere, you must understand that
> > you made up the charge that I'm posing as someone else out of whole
> > cloth, and yet you insist that it's the truth.
.
> I just don't believe you're the Bill Vallely that you claim to be.
.
That's nice. Prove it.
.
> > .> For example; why is it insane to not believe you are the somewhat
> > > "famous" person you say you are. >
.
> > Please post where I ever claimed to be "famous". I go out of my way
> > NOT to say that, because it's not true. I'm a working grunt.who's had
> > some success. Again, I never claimed to be famous.
.
> Oh, please. That's another bald-faced lie. You're always reminding us
> of "who you are."
.
1. Saying who I am and what I do is a VERY different statement than
claiming that I'm famous.
2. "Always"? Almost without exception, the only ones who bring up
the subject are you, Zepp, and a couple of other lefties.
.
> > .> If I posted as someone slightly more famous, like Gary Coleman or Pia Zadora, you'd question it, right?>
.
> > I never claimed to be a household name.
.
(crickets)
.
> > .> What is insane is to think that someone with your namesake's
> > > reputation would purposely post such drivel under his own name.
.
> > You have a false assumption - I never claimed to be famous.
.
> Yeah, fake Bill. You have.
.
Thia should be an easy fix. Go to Google, and list the times I'm
claimed to be famous.
nobody
wrote:
>On Dec 10, 5:04�am, Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 10, 3:21�am, bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > .> > Zepp will believe any nonsense he finds over the internet.
>> > .
>> > > This is quite ironic coming from you, fake Bill Vallely, given all the
>> > > bullshit you post that's based on nothing. .
>> > .
>> > > But he didn't say he believed it.>
>>
>> > .
>> > So, he posts things that he knows are obvious lies?
>>
>> You do that all the time, fake Bill Vallely. Hell, look at the name
>> you post under.
>.
>So, this is how the left operates these days You make up a
>(literally) insane charge, repeat it endlessly, and hope that people
>believe it?
Yes.
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
Oh, yes, we know. You think fake Bill is a famous comic book writer who
just likes to make a complete fool of himself on Usenet, and you believe
Steve Canyon really does have three yachts and an apartment block and a
rich lawyer girlfriend and a wooden leg and a glass eye and all that.
You're kind of painful to watch, a desperate salesman who is pushing a
product he knows is crap.
Milt
wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 06:25:19 -0500, nobody wrote:
Seriously, have you ever seen anyone on here who ever chose a more
appropriate 'nym?
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
No-body....
bvallely
> > > > So, this is how the left operates these days You make up a
> > > > (literally) insane charge, repeat it endlessly, and hope that people
> > > > believe it?
.
> > > Insane?>
.
> > Yes, what you are writing is literally insane.>
.
.
> > .> You're not "that" Bill Vallely. That's all I'm saying.
.
> > Based on WHAT, exactly?
> Let's just say your credibility is lacking.>
That's no an answer. What do you base the insane premise that I'm not
Bill Vallely on?
.
> And other reasons but that's the main one.>
.
on? So far, all you've offered is variations of "because I said so".
.
>
> > .> > > > Well, THAT'S a big piece of the puzzle.
> > > > > So, I will expect everything you post from here on to be absolutely
> > > > > true and error-free.
.
> > > > Oh, I make honest mistakes all the time. Treating you like an adult
> > > > is a prime example.
.
> > > You might make honest mistakes occasionally. Mostly, you purposely
> > > post things you know are untrue and insist they're true. Even when
> > > people point out the lack of truth, you repeat them.
.
> > Ah, the arrogance of the modern leftist. To disagree with a liberal
> > is to be a liar.
.
> No. to disagree with me is only natural. It's that you lie that makes
> you a liar.
And why am I a liar? Again, all you offer are variations of "because
I said so."
.
> > Here's a piece of reality for you, "Milt" - I understand your
> > positions, and I disagree with them.
.
> That's fine, as far as it goes. But you make up stuff to "support"
> your point.
Said the man who insists that I'm pretending to be myself.
.
> > I was called a fool and a liar when I stated that the Stimulus Bill
> > wouldn't create the 3.5 millions jobs it promised.
.
> You can't state that.
Why? You're going to send thugs to my house to break my ankles for
stating an obvious truth?
.
> See, that's what I mean. You make "predictions" and treat them as
> "statements of fact".
I'm not talking about predictions. Since the Stimulus Bill has been
passed, America has lost 3.4 million jobs. Not "will lose", "has
lost". Turned unemployment from hovering into the 7 point range to
double digits. All for the low low price of three quarters of a
trillion dollars.
.
> > Not only did it not deliver the pork chops, it actually DESTROYED 3.4 million jobs as
> > of this writing.
.
> And then you follow it up with a bald-faced lie like that one.
What objective fact do you deny this time? Do you pretend that
unemployment ISN'T in the double digit range?
.
> Besides the fact that what you claim is impossible, since more than
> half the stimulus money is still unspent at the moment, it is simply
> not possible that a bill that appropriates money to rebuild
> infrastructure could result in a net negative number of jobs.>
Here's the problem - the whole point of a stimulus bill is to, well,
stimulate the economy. The theory is that vast sums of federal
spending will "jump start" job creation. The thinking is that the new
jobs will generate enough fresh revenue to justify the expense. I
happen to disagree with the theory, but at least on paper it makes
some kind of sense.
However, if all the money ISN'T spent at once, you no longer have a
"stimulus bill", but just a huge amount of pork shipped to favored
democrat golden boys. This is called "bait and switch" - promising
one sort of spending program, and delivering another.
.
< A law firm like my old one, laying off 200 people because companies
are cutting back on legal work and bills;>
.
Your "law firm" can't make it in THIS economy? We have a God Damned
lawyer for President, Vice President and Speaker of the House.
They've fought tooth and nail against tort reform.
> please explain to all of us how the government pumping more money into the economy could possible have caused that?>
.
It can't, but that didn't stop The Messiah from promising same.
On Jan. 9, 2009, the B.O administration issued a report called "The
Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan". You may
wish to look it up, it makes entertaining rainy day reading.
It was overseen by Christina Romer, chairwoman of the president's
Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, the vice
president's top economic adviser.
Their report projected that the stimulus plan proposed by Obama would
create between three and four million jobs by the end of 2010. The
report also includes a graphic predicting unemployment rates with and
without the stimulus. Without the stimulus (the baseline),
unemployment was projected to hit about 8.5 percent in 2009 and then
continue rising to a peak of about 9 percent in 2010. With the
stimulus, they predicted the unemployment rate would peak at under 8
percent in 2009.
.
> See, I would never claim that the stimulus has created 3.5 million
> jobs,<'
.
Because it actually LOST 3.4 million jobs?
.
>... in part because most of the money isn't even doled out yet.>
.
And why hasn't it been?
.
> But
> I'd love to see you prove that 3.6 million jobs were lost because of
> the stimulus. And I mean actual sources, not the right wing fart
> machine.
.
Once Obama spent three quarters of a trillion dollars on the Stimulus
Bill, all job loss is his fault. Generations of Americans will pay
heavily for these jobs - the very least he can do is produce them.
And he hasn't.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
.
http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2009/12/07/another-sobering-slice-of-the-jobs-data/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+timeblogs/curious_capitalist+%28TIME:+The+Curious+Capitalist%29
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/10/15/white-house-36-million-jobs-lost-is-quite-positive/
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/us/16stimulus.html
> > I was called a liar when I stated that Rev. Wright
> > was a lunatic racist. I have since been proven correct.
.
> I wouldn't have called you that. I would have said. "who gives a
> fuck?" though. >
.
At that point, I would have asked you "what if it had been discovered
that George W. Bush had, for the last twenty years, attended a church
in which the minister was a KKK member who preached white supremacy?
If Minister Cracker supported the assassination of abortion doctors?
What if Bush lied about Minister Cracker, claiming that he was
"mainstream"?
After tapes had been released, what if Bush claimed that, after twenty
years of attending the racist church, he never noticed the Minister's
insane rants?
Finally, what if Bush then tried to shift the blame to his
grandmother.
Would THAT also warrant a quick "who gives a fuck"?
.
> When I was a little Catholic boy, one of our priests stole tens of thousands from the church over a couple of years, yet I'm not a thief. There's no point to be made with something like
> that.
.
Not really the same as voluntarily attending a racist church for two
decades, is it?
.
> > Ditto Bill Ayers and his skank wife.
.
> Bill Ayers isn't a lunatic racist. >
.
No, he's a fucking MURDERER!!! He was involved in a assassination
attempt against the police.
.
> And Obama barely knows the guy,>
.
"In 1995, During Obama's First State Senate Campaign, William Ayers
And Wife Bernadine Dohrn Hosted A Meeting Of Chicago Liberals At Their
Home For Obama, Which One Attendee Said Was Aimed At "Launching Him."
"In 1995, State Senator Alice Palmer introduced her chosen successor,
Barack Obama, to a few of the district's influential liberals at the
home of two well known figures on the local left: William Ayers and
Bernardine Dohrn.
"While Ayers and Dohrn may be thought of in Hyde Park as local
activists, they're better known nationally as two of the most
notorious -- and unrepentant -- figures from the violent fringe of the
1960s anti-war movement. ...
'I can remember being one of a small group of people who came to Bill
Ayers' house to learn that Alice Palmer was stepping down from the
senate and running for Congress,' said Dr. Quentin Young, a prominent
Chicago physician and advocate for single-payer health care, of the
info rmal gathering at the home of Ayers and his wife, Dohrn.
'[Palmer] identified [Obama] as her successor.'
... Dr. Young and another guest, Maria Warren, described it similarly:
as an introduction to Hyde Park liberals of the handpicked successor
to Palmer, a well-regarded figure on the left. 'When I first met
Barack Obama, he was giving a standard, innocuous little talk in the
living room of those two legends-in-their-own-minds, Bill Ayers and
Bernardine Dohrn,' Warren wrote on her blog in 2005. 'They were
launching him -- introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the
best thing since sliced bread.'"
(Ben Smith, "Obama Once
Visited '60s Radicals," The Politico, 1/22/08)
And then there's that little matter of Obama and Ayers serving on two
boards together over a decade.
.
>.... and again; it doesn't matter.
.
If George W. Bush had gotten his political start from a guy who
continued to brag about burning down black churches, would THAT
matter?
.
bvallely
wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 06:25:19 -0500, nobody wrote:
> > wrote:
>
> >>On Dec 10, 5:04 am, Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Dec 10, 3:21 am, bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>> > .> > Zepp will believe any nonsense he finds over the internet. .
> >>> > > This is quite ironic coming from you, fake Bill Vallely, given all
> >>> > > the bullshit you post that's based on nothing. .
> >>> > .
> >>> > > But he didn't say he believed it.>
>
> >>> > .
> >>> > So, he posts things that he knows are obvious lies?
>
> >>> You do that all the time, fake Bill Vallely. Hell, look at the name
> >>> you post under.
> >>.
> >>So, this is how the left operates these days You make up a (literally)
> >>insane charge, repeat it endlessly, and hope that people believe it?
>
> > Yes.
.
.
So, after years of insulting my writing, suddenly I've been promoted
to "famous"? I'm flattered.
.
>...who just likes to make a complete fool of himself on Usenet, ...>
.
No, I like to expose complete fools.
Milt
> .> > > > So, this is how the left operates these days You make up a
> > > > > (literally) insane charge, repeat it endlessly, and hope that people
> > > > > believe it?
> .
> > > > Insane?>
> .
> > > Yes, what you are writing is literally insane.>
>
> .
> (crickets)
> .> > .> You're not "that" Bill Vallely. That's all I'm saying.
> .
> > > Based on WHAT, exactly?
> .
> > Let's just say your credibility is lacking.>
>
> .
> That's no an answer. What do you base the insane premise that I'm not
> Bill Vallely on?
Why do you care?
> .> And other reasons but that's the main one.>
>
> .
> Again, what do you base the insane premise that I'm not Bill Vallely
> on? So far, all you've offered is variations of "because I said so".
> .
Okay, besides the fact that I don't have to tell you...
All you ever offer as a basis for any of your proclamations is...
"because I said so." (See below)
>
>
> > > .> > > > Well, THAT'S a big piece of the puzzle.
> ..
> > > > > > So, I will expect everything you post from here on to be absolutely
> > > > > > true and error-free.
> .
> > > > > Oh, I make honest mistakes all the time. Treating you like an adult
> > > > > is a prime example.
> .
> > > > You might make honest mistakes occasionally. Mostly, you purposely
> > > > post things you know are untrue and insist they're true. Even when
> > > > people point out the lack of truth, you repeat them.
> .
> > > Ah, the arrogance of the modern leftist. To disagree with a liberal
> > > is to be a liar.
> .
> > No. to disagree with me is only natural. It's that you lie that makes
> > you a liar.
>
> .
> And why am I a liar? Again, all you offer are variations of "because
> I said so."
(continue reading...)
> .> > Here's a piece of reality for you, "Milt" - I understand your
> > > positions, and I disagree with them.
> .
> > That's fine, as far as it goes. But you make up stuff to "support"
> > your point.
>
> .
> Said the man who insists that I'm pretending to be myself.
No, I said you're pretending to be "the" Bill Vallely. I don't believe
you.
> .> > I was called a fool and a liar when I stated that the Stimulus Bill
> > > wouldn't create the 3.5 millions jobs it promised.
> .
> > You can't state that.
>
> .
> Why? You're going to send thugs to my house to break my ankles for
> stating an obvious truth?
Obvious truth? Ok, Bill, you swear it's an "obvious truth." Prove it.
Prove that it won't create 3.5 million new jobs.
By the way, I'm not saying it will. But the only time I could make
either statement and call it a "fact" or an obvious truth" is AFTER
all the money has been distributed and AFTER a sufficient period of
time has passed to determine that the money didn't create the
requisite number of jobs.
Don't look now, but you just made what you consider to be a "factual
statement" based on... sing it with me...
"because fake Bill Vallely said so."
See, if you had just stopped at, "I don't think the stimulus package
will create 3.5 million jobs," no problem. The lie is in your offering
it as a statement of "fact".
> .> See, that's what I mean. You make "predictions" and treat them as
> > "statements of fact".
>
> .
> I'm not talking about predictions. Since the Stimulus Bill has been
> passed, America has lost 3.4 million jobs. Not "will lose", "has
> lost". Turned unemployment from hovering into the 7 point range to
> double digits. All for the low low price of three quarters of a
> trillion dollars.
You fucking idiot. Your logical skills are seriously lacking. What you
just said is just as stupid as if I said, "The Bush tax cuts caused
the 9/11 terrorist attacks." I think we can both agree that such a
statement would be stupid.
The Stimulus package was passed in February. By the end of February,
the economy had lost 1.3 million jobs. Therefore, on its face, the
statement is wrong. But Congress doesn't pass a bill like that, and
simply dump the money into the economy. Most of the stimulus money
hasn't even been doled out yet. Not only that, but most of the money
that HAS gone out has gone to shovel-ready public works projects,
which I assume you would agree, need workers to complete.
But hey; you're the one making the statement; please show us how the
stimulus package itself caused all those jobs to go away. Please
explain how the stimulus package caused the Washington Times to cut
40% of their workforce. Show us how the stimulus package caused
specific groups of people to lose their jobs. Don't give me that
intellectually lazy and dishonest bullshit in which because two events
happen simultaneously, there's a direct cause and effect. Like I said;
the Bush tax cuts did not cause the terrorist attacks, did they?
> .> > Not only did it not deliver the pork chops, it actually DESTROYED 3.4 million jobs as
> > > of this writing.
> .
> > And then you follow it up with a bald-faced lie like that one.
>
> .
> What objective fact do you deny this time?
It's NOT AN OBJECTIVE FACT that jobs are lost BECAUSE of the stimulus
package. In fact, it's absolutely impossible. To say the above is the
opposite of an "objective fact."
> Do you pretend that
> unemployment ISN'T in the double digit range?
No. That is an objective fact.
What is NOT an "objective fact is the absurd statement that the
stimulus package "DESTROYED 3.8 million jobs."
It's also quite possible that, without the stimulus package,
unemployment might be even higher. But note that I said "possible." I
didn't state that as an "objective fact." See the different.
> .> Besides the fact that what you claim is impossible, since more than
> > half the stimulus money is still unspent at the moment, it is simply
> > not possible that a bill that appropriates money to rebuild
> > infrastructure could result in a net negative number of jobs.>
>
> .
> Here's the problem - the whole point of a stimulus bill is to, well,
> stimulate the economy.
Okay. Objective fact. That is the point.
> The theory is that vast sums of federal
> spending will "jump start" job creation.
It's not just a theory. It's proven. In fact, it's been proven many
times over. Even Ronald Reagan -- you know, your idol -- did it in
1983, when unemployment reached 10.8%, and actually stayed over 9% for
18 months, and over 10% for 10 straight months.
You know what's actually quite funny? You people hail Reagan as a god,
and treat Jimmy Carter as an economic basket case, but unemployment
was 7.4% when Reagan took office and 7.4% when he won his second term.
It didn't go under 7% to stay until Democrats took the Senate back in
1986 and instituted some fiscal responsibility back into the process.
> The thinking is that the new
> jobs will generate enough fresh revenue to justify the expense. I
> happen to disagree with the theory, but at least on paper it makes
> some kind of sense.
Excuse me, you fucking clown, but the most prosperous time in our
history -- from the end of WWII to about 1973, when the Arab Oil
Embargo happened -- was fueled almost entirely by stimulus packages.
The housing boom happened because the government created a heavily
controlled mortgage aftermarket, and because they guaranteed them to
some degree, with VA and FHA loans. WTF do you think the GI Bill was,
for Chrissakes! It was a fucking stimulus package. The Marshall Plan
was a stimulus package. The interstate highway program was a stimulus
package. Our economy didn't fuck up until the government stopped
stimulating it, and started depending on the "market" to work. What do
you think the fucking Defense budget is, anyway? We spend more than
EVERY OTHER COUNTRY ON THE PLANET COMBINED! You think that's all for
protection? We have more military bases (by land mass) than any other
country in the world, even tough we have missiles that could wipe out
every major city in the world in a matter of minutes. We spend $600
billion on "defense" (not counting the two wars, by the way) because
it stimulates the economy.
Get your head out of your ample ass and get a clue.
Name me one prosperous economy that doesn't have a strong government-
created infrastructure.
>
> However, if all the money ISN'T spent at once, you no longer have a
> "stimulus bill", but just a huge amount of pork shipped to favored
> democrat golden boys.
That's not true. And if you don't believe that, consider the fact that
Bush ordered the Fed to pump more than a half trillion dollars into
the banks BEFORE he asked Congress for bail-out money.
It's not how quickly you spend it; it's how you spend it. Throwing
good money after bad is not a stimulus. And throwing it all into the
economy at once pretty much assures that much of the effect will be
wasted. Think of it like a diver. A good stimulus will go into the
water cleanly and purposefully, and leave ripples that spread
throughout the pool. A cannonball just makes a big splash and causes
water to leave the pool. It's not worth anything. That's what was so
stupid about those $300 checks that went out a few times. That's not a
stimulus. A stimulus is using the same amount of money, finding a need
for it, like replacing a bridge, and hiring people to replace it. They
just did that here, by the way; they earmarked several million from
stimulus money to replace a section of a bridge around here. The
project went for three months, and workers got paid, a contractor got
paid, the people who supplied the materials got paid and every shop
each one of those people spent money with got paid.
> This is called "bait and switch" - promising
> one sort of spending program, and delivering another.
Go read the bill, and then come back and tell us which parts are not
as advertised.
In other words, you just lied again.
> .
> < A law firm like my old one, laying off 200 people because companies
> are cutting back on legal work and bills;>
> .
> Your "law firm" can't make it in THIS economy? We have a God Damned
> lawyer for President, Vice President and Speaker of the House.
> They've fought tooth and nail against tort reform.
I see. So in fake Bill Vallely's world, all lawyers handle are torts.
No companies are cutting back on legal expenses?
See, this is one reason I don't believe you. How do you get to be your
age and be this obtuse? You've never had contact with a lawyer who
wasn't chasing ambulances?
>
> > please explain to all of us how the government pumping more money into the economy could possible have caused that?>
>
> .
> It can't, but that didn't stop The Messiah from promising same.
So, you admit, it's another lie.
>
> On Jan. 9, 2009, the B.O administration issued a report called "The
> Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan". You may
> wish to look it up, it makes entertaining rainy day reading.
>
> It was overseen by Christina Romer, chairwoman of the president's
> Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, the vice
> president's top economic adviser.
>
> Their report projected that the stimulus plan proposed by Obama would
> create between three and four million jobs by the end of 2010. The
> report also includes a graphic predicting unemployment rates with and
> without the stimulus. Without the stimulus (the baseline),
> unemployment was projected to hit about 8.5 percent in 2009 and then
> continue rising to a peak of about 9 percent in 2010. With the
> stimulus, they predicted the unemployment rate would peak at under 8
> percent in 2009.
And this proves your lies true how, exactly?
They're claiming projections. The only way you could prove they "lied"
would be to prove that unemployment wouldn't be higher right now
without the stimulus.
You can't.
Liar.
> .> See, I would never claim that the stimulus has created 3.5 million
> > jobs,<'
>
> .
> Because it actually LOST 3.4 million jobs?
> .>... in part because most of the money isn't even doled out yet.>
>
> .
> And why hasn't it been?
Because it's not scheduled to be. Go read the bill. It was built to
last 18 months,
> .> But
> > I'd love to see you prove that 3.6 million jobs were lost because of
> > the stimulus. And I mean actual sources, not the right wing fart
> > machine.
>
> .
> Once Obama spent three quarters of a trillion dollars on the Stimulus
> Bill, all job loss is his fault.
But all that money hasn't been spent yet. Therefore, your basic
premise is faulty.
It's also faulty, because the stimulus was necessary due to Bush's
incompetence.
> Generations of Americans will pay
> heavily for these jobs - the very least he can do is produce them.\
Hey, fucktard, what planet are you living on? Do you know how much we
spent on INTEREST on the national debt in 2008? Try $454 billion! And
90% of that debt was heaped on us by Republicans. So stop your
bullshit crying and concern for the people's mounting debt, because
your heroes have caused most of it. Even when Clinton helped
Republicans right the ship, and stop adding so much debt, immediately,
your clownish heroes cut taxes, started two wars and exploded the
deficit again.
You assholes added upwards of $11 trillion to the national debt over
the last 28 years. To put it in perspective, in adjusted dollars, we
only amassed $10 trillion in debt to get out of the Great Depression,
and beat the Nazis and the Japanese. The whole time you idiots were
amassing the current level of debt, you were bragging about "longest
peacetime expansions" and "the fundamentals of the economy are strong"
and all that shit. What were they borrowing all that money for,
anyway?
>
> And he hasn't.
>
> http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
> .http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2009/12/07/another-sobering-s...
>
> http://blog.heritage.org/2009/10/15/white-house-36-million-jobs-lost-...
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/us/16stimulus.html
>
> > > I was called a liar when I stated that Rev. Wright
> > > was a lunatic racist. I have since been proven correct.
> .
> > I wouldn't have called you that. I would have said. "who gives a
> > fuck?" though. >
>
> .
> At that point, I would have asked you "what if it had been discovered
> that George W. Bush had, for the last twenty years, attended a church
> in which the minister was a KKK member who preached white supremacy?
> If Minister Cracker supported the assassination of abortion doctors?
What causes your immersion in hypothetical world? Why is that such a
mainstay of the right wing argument arsenal?
>
> What if Bush lied about Minister Cracker, claiming that he was
> "mainstream"?
What if Bush had been a serious cokehead, gone missing from a National
Guard base, had a serious drinking problem and never received
treatment, and had once been arrested for DUI and his daddy had the
record expunged?
Oh, wait...
>
> After tapes had been released, what if Bush claimed that, after twenty
> years of attending the racist church, he never noticed the Minister's
> insane rants?
What if George Bush's wife left him to go live in the Mayflower
Hotel?
>
> Finally, what if Bush then tried to shift the blame to his
> grandmother.
This one is just an insult. Obama never did that,
>
> Would THAT also warrant a quick "who gives a fuck"?
You tell me. Bush had bigger skeletons in his closet than a fucking
crazy preacher.
> .> When I was a little Catholic boy, one of our priests stole tens of thousands from the church over a couple of years, yet I'm not a thief. There's no point to be made with something like
> > that.
>
> .
> Not really the same as voluntarily attending a racist church for two
> decades, is it?
You mean like just about every Republican Congresscritter from the
"deep" South did, until they decided they might want to run for
office? Go read some histories of Republican politicians, fake Bill,
and get back to me. A whole bunch of them cut their teeth on racist
churches.
> .> > Ditto Bill Ayers and his skank wife.
> .
> > Bill Ayers isn't a lunatic racist. >
>
> .
> No, he's a fucking MURDERER!!! He was involved in a assassination
> attempt against the police.
... who barely had a connection to Obama, and who has been considered
forgiven and a model citizen during the time that he might have had
some acquaintance with Obama.
I once shook Abbie Hoffman's hand. Guess that makes me a criminal,
too. Oh -- and I dated the granddaughter of a famous mobster one time,
so I must be in the Mafia. Oh -- and a famous singer's sister is one
of my best friends, so I must be a musician, too. I mean, come on,
fake Bill... this is lame, even for you.
By the way, where do you think Bush got his coke when he was doing it?
You don't think he had any acquaintances that were a little shady?
> .> And Obama barely knows the guy,>
>
> .
> "In 1995, During Obama's First State Senate Campaign, William Ayers
> And Wife Bernadine Dohrn Hosted A Meeting Of Chicago Liberals At Their
> Home For Obama, Which One Attendee Said Was Aimed At "Launching Him."
>
> "In 1995, State Senator Alice Palmer introduced her chosen successor,
> Barack Obama, to a few of the district's influential liberals at the
> home of two well known figures on the local left: William Ayers and
> Bernardine Dohrn.
>
> "While Ayers and Dohrn may be thought of in Hyde Park as local
> activists, they're better known nationally as two of the most
> notorious -- and unrepentant -- figures from the violent fringe of the
> 1960s anti-war movement. ...
>
And that proves what, exactly? You've done a background check on the
owners of every house you've ever been invited to?
\
> 'I can remember being one of a small group of people who came to Bill
> Ayers' house to learn that Alice Palmer was stepping down from the
> senate and running for Congress,' said Dr. Quentin Young, a prominent
> Chicago physician and advocate for single-payer health care, of the
> info rmal gathering at the home of Ayers and his wife, Dohrn.
> '[Palmer] identified [Obama] as her successor.'
>
> ... Dr. Young and another guest, Maria Warren, described it similarly:
> as an introduction to Hyde Park liberals of the handpicked successor
> to Palmer, a well-regarded figure on the left. 'When I first met
> Barack Obama, he was giving a standard, innocuous little talk in the
> living room of those two legends-in-their-own-minds, Bill Ayers and
> Bernardine Dohrn,' Warren wrote on her blog in 2005. 'They were
> launching him -- introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the
> best thing since sliced bread.'"
> (Ben Smith, "Obama Once
> Visited '60s Radicals," The Politico, 1/22/08)
>
> And then there's that little matter of Obama and Ayers serving on two
> boards together over a decade.
> .>.... and again; it doesn't matter.
>
> .
> If George W. Bush had gotten his political start from a guy who
> continued to brag about burning down black churches, would THAT
> matter?
> .
George W Bush's grandfather worked with Nazis. Is that relevant?
Steve
I think both Shook and Jamieson are insanely jealous of people wo
really can write.. Both of them have their lives tryng unsuccesfully
to get people to publish them...
Steve
How about "dead?"
Steve
wrote:
>On Dec 11, 11:13�am, "5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com>
Milt once had a sock puppet named Lisa... see below:
Path:
g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 18:21:31 -0500
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 19:21:29 -0400
From: Lisa <lisaremovet...@usa.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.6 (Windows/20040502)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups:
alt.politics.liberalism,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Doonesbury spoof of Kerry?
References: <200406092018...@nym.alias.net>
<dcNxc.53447$_k3.13...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
<js7fc0dip8tko5elt...@4ax.com>
<ss6dnTSSDP9...@comcast.com>
<clqgc05rcm1d0lkh4...@4ax.com>
<49983a09.04061...@posting.google.com>
<6ekhc0dkllvk5a4f5...@4ax.com>
<69mdnQzM953...@comcast.com>
<k12jc0phlckkj01pu...@4ax.com>
<49983a09.04061...@posting.google.com>
<jvkjc0tgttm57nfef...@4ax.com>
In-Reply-To: <jvkjc0tgttm57nfef...@4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <P4WdnWhqnYD...@comcast.com>
Lines: 126
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.55.111.77
X-Trace:
sv3-P3MMBMwdq5uvUzzK12MbFfmNTdi2R5FF/cJaXDoiDtL4+YA9XVd+sJXs4Vi+uS56u0xoOPT4u8h111y!x2ez1vjNett8R+dYhCP2jeLNW65wnIfOLFz0PakHt+FIMLjaC86GqqisivWS
X-Complaints-To: ab...@comcast.net
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: d...@comcast.net
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your
complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.1
Steve Canyon wrote:
> On 11 Jun 2004 07:50:52 -0700, miltsh...@lyingsocialistweasels.com
> (Milt) wrote:
>
>
>>Steve Canyon <Stevencan...@yahoooooooooo.com> wrote in message news:<k12jc0phlckkj01pu...@4ax.com>...
>>
>>>On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 22:48:06 -0400, Milt <miltremovet...@usa.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Steve Canyon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On 10 Jun 2004 13:22:22 -0700, miltsh...@lyingsocialistweasels.com
>>>>>(Milt) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Steve Canyon <Stevencan...@yahoooooooooo.com> wrote in message news:<clqgc05rcm1d0lkh4...@4ax.com>...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 19:57:23 -0400, Milt <miltremovet...@usa.com>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Steve Canyon wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 23:38:49 GMT, "Scott Erb"
>>>>>>>>><scott...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"Eagle Eye" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>news:200406092018...@nym.alias.net...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>In 2001, you claimed that I was an anarchist. .
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>You described me as an "anti-government type"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>*yawn*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I've been described as a socialist, a liberal, a Marxist, a communist, and a
>>>>>>>>>>whole bunch of things on the net, most of which I'm not.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Erb likes to call himself a left-libertarian, which is another word
>>>>>>>>>for socialist. The socialists like Erg have been running away from
>>>>>>>>>that name for ages.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What in the hell does being a left-libertarian have to do with socialism?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>...and the funny thing is that Milt isn't kidding....
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, I'm not. Socialism is anything but "libertarian."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Left-libertarian" is just a name that socialists use because they
>>>>>know that the name "socialist" turns people off.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It seems your ignorance knows no bounds.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Irony anyone?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yep, there some in every post you make...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Milt Shook says, "Your right to free speech is protected from
>>>>>>>>>more than the government."
>>>>>>>>>http://www.google.com/groups?selm=4KCdnTvZZ-z35wDdRVn-sQ%40comcast.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The Supreme Court says, "the constitutional guarantee of free
>>>>>>>>>speech is a guarantee only against abridgment by government,
>>>>>>>>>federal or state."
>>>>>>>>>-U.S. Supreme Court HUDGENS v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507 (1976)
>>>>>>>>>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=424&invol=507
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>He still hasn't figured out that the above case actually proves me
>>>>>>>>RIGHT. And he's been posting it for a month now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><LOL> Milt apparently wants you to believe that "only government"
>>>>>>>means the same thing as "more than government."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What part of "only the government" owned the "privately owned shopping
>>>>>>center," Canyon?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Jesus, you're dense...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Milt apparently wants you to believe that "only government" means the
>>>>>same thing as "more than government."
>>>>
>>>>Watch Stevie spin. He can't even keep track of his own fucked up arguments.
>>>
>>>Can you tell us what might be both "only government" and "more than
>>>government?"
>>>
>>>I didn;t think so...
>>
>>Jesus. What part of "you've lost, now go play elsewhere" do you not
>>understand.
>
>
> It looks like Milt is getting ready to run away and hide his head....
>
>
>>You don't understand the simplest of arguments, and it's not fun
>>playing with you. You're pathetic.
>
>
> Of course I'm not any fun for you, Milt. It's because I show everyone
> what a moron you are....
>
The only thing worse than a halfwit is a halfwit who prides in his
ignorance.
bvallely
> > > > > Insane?>
.
> > > > Yes, what you are writing is literally insane.>
.
> > (crickets)
.
> > .> > .> You're not "that" Bill Vallely. That's all I'm saying.
.
> > > > Based on WHAT, exactly?
.
> > > Let's just say your credibility is lacking.>
.
> > That's no an answer. What do you base the insane premise that I'm not
> > Bill Vallely on?
> Why do you care?
.
nothing.
.
> > .> And other reasons but that's the main one.>
.
> > Again, what do you base the insane premise that I'm not Bill Vallely
> > on? So far, all you've offered is variations of "because I said so".
.
> Okay, besides the fact that I don't have to tell you...
An honest man WOULD have to tell. Whatever happened to the idea that
one doesn't have to be religious to be moral?
.
> > > > .> > > > Well, THAT'S a big piece of the puzzle.
.
> > > > > > > true and error-free.
.
> > > > > > Oh, I make honest mistakes all the time. Treating you like an adult
> > > > > > is a prime example.
.
> > > > > You might make honest mistakes occasionally. Mostly, you purposely
> > > > > post things you know are untrue and insist they're true. Even when
> > > > > people point out the lack of truth, you repeat them.
.
> > > > Ah, the arrogance of the modern leftist. To disagree with a liberal
> > > > is to be a liar.
.
> > > No. to disagree with me is only natural. It's that you lie that makes
> > > you a liar.
> > And why am I a liar? Again, all you offer are variations of "because
> > I said so."
(crickets)
.
> > .> > Here's a piece of reality for you, "Milt" - I understand your
> > > > positions, and I disagree with them.
.
> > > That's fine, as far as it goes. But you make up stuff to "support"
> > > your point.
.
> > Said the man who insists that I'm pretending to be myself.
.
> you.
.
And why do you believe this bit of literal insanity? You don't even
pretend to have a reason - it's all "because I said so."
> > .> > I was called a fool and a liar when I stated that the Stimulus Bill
> > > > wouldn't create the 3.5 millions jobs it promised.
.
> > > You can't state that.
.
> > Why? You're going to send thugs to my house to break my ankles for
> > stating an obvious truth?
.
> Obvious truth? Ok, Bill, you swear it's an "obvious truth." Prove it.
> Prove that it won't create 3.5 million new jobs.
.
Fair enough.
OBAMA IS CALLING FOR A SECOND STIMULUS BILL. WHY WOULD HE DO THAT IF
THE FIRST ONE WAS WORKING?
http://www.khabrein.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=30170&Itemid=57
> By the way, I'm not saying it will.>
.
Really? Because, last Feb. you sang a far different tune:
"...President Obama's and the Senate's work on the stimulus package,
which Americans need, in order to keep the economy from going
completely into the toilet, thanks to the less-than-honorable idiots
who dared question HIS ethics. "
Now, ten months later, you're hemming and hawing about the bill's
effectiveness. At the time, you also wrote at the time about how
opposing the Stimulus Bill would cause the Republicans to "taste their
won nuts." How many people who voted against the Stimulus Bill today
regret doing so? How many people who voted for it are happy they did
so?
Here's a clue - you're not going to enjoy 2010 - at all.
.
But the only time I could make
> either statement and call it a "fact" or an obvious truth" is AFTER
> all the money has been distributed and AFTER a sufficient period of
> time has passed to determine that the money didn't create the
> requisite number of jobs.
.
No, I can point to the FACTS that the bill hasn't performed anywhere
near as promised, and that Obama himself admitted it's a failure by
calling for yet another stimulus bill.
My, my. The standards you demand of me are quite strict. The
standards of truth you demand of yourself are non-existent.
.
> Don't look now, but you just made what you consider to be a "factual
> statement" based on... sing it with me...
.
> "because fake Bill Vallely said so."
.
No, because the bill hasn't performed anywhere near as promised, and
that Obama himself admitted it's a failure by calling for yet another
stimulus bill. It hasn't performed as promised, and nobody serious
has suggested it ever will.
.
> See, if you had just stopped at, "I don't think the stimulus package
> will create 3.5 million jobs," no problem. The lie is in your offering
> it as a statement of "fact".
.
Yes, and there's still a chance that US forces might stumble on a huge
WMD lab in Iraq. Did that caveat ever stop you from claiming there's
no WMD?
> > .> See, that's what I mean. You make "predictions" and treat them as
> > > "statements of fact".
.
> > I'm not talking about predictions. Since the Stimulus Bill has been
> > passed, America has lost 3.4 million jobs. Not "will lose", "has
> > lost". Turned unemployment from hovering into the 7 point range to
> > double digits. All for the low low price of three quarters of a
> > trillion dollars.
.
> You fucking idiot. Your logical skills are seriously lacking. What you
> just said is just as stupid as if I said, "The Bush tax cuts caused
> the 9/11 terrorist attacks."
.
That would be just as silly as saying "Until Bush invaded and failed
to secure the country, Iraq had successfully thwarted terrorists.
There were no terrorists in Iraq before the invasion; now there are.
Logically speaking... well... you figure it out..." What kind of a
shithead would say something like that?
Oh, wait, you DID say that.
Your statement is idiotic because it compares to things that have
nothing to do with each other.
My statement makes sense because the Stimulus bill was created to
create jobs. After it was put in action, it destroyed jobs.
Deal with it.
.
> The Stimulus package was passed in February. By the end of February,
> the economy had lost 1.3 million jobs. Therefore, on its face, the
> statement is wrong. But Congress doesn't pass a bill like that, and
> simply dump the money into the economy.>
.
Then it's not a Stimulus Bill,. it's a pork bill.
> Most of the stimulus money
> hasn't even been doled out yet.>
.
Yet Obama is calling for a second Stimulus Bill. Why not spend the
money he already has?
.
. Not only that, but most of the money
> that HAS gone out has gone to shovel-ready public works projects,
.
Prove it. Prove that "most" of the money went to shovel ready public
works projects, and not more bureaucracy.
.
> But hey; you're the one making the statement; please show us how the
> stimulus package itself caused all those jobs to go away.>
.
Very simple - it sucked money out of the economy that would otherwise
have gone to the private sector, where REAL jobs are created.
.
> > .> > Not only did it not deliver the pork chops, it actually DESTROYED 3.4 million jobs as
> > > > of this writing.
.
> > > And then you follow it up with a bald-faced lie like that one.
.
> > What objective fact do you deny this time?
.
> It's NOT AN OBJECTIVE FACT that jobs are lost BECAUSE of the stimulus
> package. In fact, it's absolutely impossible. To say the above is the
> opposite of an "objective fact."
.
Really? It's IMPOSSIBLE that taking three quarters of a trillion
dollars out of the economy will cause jobs to be destroyed? The
certainty that this boondoggle will cause higher taxes has no effect
whatsoever?
Just how far removed from reality are you, anyway?
> > Do you pretend that
> > unemployment ISN'T in the double digit range?
.
> No. That is an objective fact.
.
> What is NOT an "objective fact is the absurd statement that the
> stimulus package "DESTROYED 3.8 million jobs."
.
I can't help but notice that you have quietly been increasing the
number I quoted. I said "3.4", not "3.6" or "3.8"
.
> > .> Besides the fact that what you claim is impossible, since more than
> > > half the stimulus money is still unspent at the moment, it is simply
> > > not possible that a bill that appropriates money to rebuild
> > > infrastructure could result in a net negative number of jobs.>
.
> > Here's the problem - the whole point of a stimulus bill is to, well,
> > stimulate the economy.
.
> Okay. Objective fact. That is the point.
.
> > The theory is that vast sums of federal
> > spending will "jump start" job creation.
>.
> It's not just a theory. It's proven. In fact, it's been proven many
> times over. Even Ronald Reagan -- you know, your idol -- did it in
> 1983, when unemployment reached 10.8%, and actually stayed over 9% for
> 18 months, and over 10% for 10 straight months.
.
And then he fixed the economy.
> You know what's actually quite funny? You people hail Reagan as a god,...>
.
We do no such thing. Our one God is just fine, thank you. It's the
Democrats who have turned Obama into god.
.
> and treat Jimmy Carter as an economic basket case, but unemployment
> was 7.4% when Reagan took office and 7.4% when he won his second term.
.
The difference is that Reagan didn't PISS AWAY THREE QUARTERS OF A
TRILLION DOLLAR ON A PONZI SCHEME!!!
Milt
> .
>
> > > > > > Insane?>
> .
> > > > > Yes, what you are writing is literally insane.>
> .
> > > (crickets)
> .
> > > .> > .> You're not "that" Bill Vallely. That's all I'm saying.
> .
> > > > > Based on WHAT, exactly?
> .
> > > > Let's just say your credibility is lacking.>
> .
> > > That's no an answer. What do you base the insane premise that I'm not
> > > Bill Vallely on?
> .
> > Why do you care?
>
> .
> Because you're indulging in a vile personal attack based on literally
> nothing.
Vile personal attacks?
I'm also not Bill Vallely. Strange but I don't feel hurt about that.
> .> > .> And other reasons but that's the main one.>
> .
> > > Again, what do you base the insane premise that I'm not Bill Vallely
> > > on? So far, all you've offered is variations of "because I said so".
> .
> > Okay, besides the fact that I don't have to tell you...
>
> .
> An honest man WOULD have to tell. Whatever happened to the idea that
> one doesn't have to be religious to be moral?
I'm both honest and moral. Based on the shit you've posted here, you
have a lot of nerve even insinuating that someone else is either
dishonest or immoral.
Um, because it WORKED. Seriously, you can't be this stupid. The GDP is
about $16 trillion, and the economy lost $12 trillion since the
recession started. Did you really think $750 billion was going to turn
the economy around? Just about every economist out there was saying it
wasn't enough. But he couldn't very well propose $2 trillion all at
once, could he?
Here's a better question, imbecile; if it hadn't worked, would he be
asking for another? Why would he send good money after bad? I would
think such a thing would be politically treacherous, don't you?
>
> http://www.khabrein.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=30...
>
> > By the way, I'm not saying it will.>
>
> .
> Really? Because, last Feb. you sang a far different tune:
>
> "...President Obama's and the Senate's work on the stimulus package,
> which Americans need, in order to keep the economy from going
> completely into the toilet, thanks to the less-than-honorable idiots
> who dared question HIS ethics.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/browse_frm/thre...
So you read in the above that I declared it would create 3.5 million
jobs? The threshold I mentioned in the above is "keep the economy from
going completely into the toilet."
See what I mean? You lie. You just keep on lying. And then you get all
pissed off when people call you a liar.
But you get even more unhinged later, which is really amazing.
>
> Now, ten months later, you're hemming and hawing about the bill's
> effectiveness.
No I'm not. By the standard I set in the above quote, it succeeded.
Will it create 3,5 million jobs? I don't know. You do realize those
are two separate standards.
> At the time, you also wrote at the time about how
> opposing the Stimulus Bill would cause the Republicans to "taste their
> won nuts." How many people who voted against the Stimulus Bill today
> regret doing so? How many people who voted for it are happy they did
> so?
>
> Here's a clue - you're not going to enjoy 2010 - at all.
I'll take bets. The economy will be on the way back up by then, we'll
be almost completely out of Iraq, and the health insurance bill will
have passed. And you people seem to have no concept how UNpopular your
party is.
> .
> But the only time I could make> either statement and call it a "fact" or an obvious truth" is AFTER
> > all the money has been distributed and AFTER a sufficient period of
> > time has passed to determine that the money didn't create the
> > requisite number of jobs.
>
> .
> No, I can point to the FACTS that the bill hasn't performed anywhere
> near as promised, and that Obama himself admitted it's a failure by
> calling for yet another stimulus bill.
You could very well be the dumbest asshole in a very deep Usenet
bench.
Please explain to us why Obama would risk his political capital by
repeating a major mistake? It would also help if you could come up
with any information that indicated that Obama considered this
stimulus package to be all that would ever be necessary to get us out
of that hole.
If his call for another bill is indicative of anything, it's that the
first one is working like a charm.
>
> My, my. The standards you demand of me are quite strict. The
> standards of truth you demand of yourself are non-existent.
I'm not the one making "statements of fact" in this thread. You keep
on making statements and asserting them as "obvious truth" when there
is no sign that they're either obvious or truthful.
> .> Don't look now, but you just made what you consider to be a "factual
> > statement" based on... sing it with me...
> .
> > "because fake Bill Vallely said so."
>
> .
> No, because the bill hasn't performed anywhere near as promised, and
> that Obama himself admitted it's a failure by calling for yet another
> stimulus bill. It hasn't performed as promised, and nobody serious
> has suggested it ever will.
Tell you what; you go through and tell me what was promised and then
show me stats that demonstrate its failure.
Like I said; we're 9 months into an 18 month plan. If it really sucked
as bad as you say, then when he asks for the money, they won't give it
to him. But for you to leap up and say it failed because he wants to
beef it up is just ridiculous.
> .> See, if you had just stopped at, "I don't think the stimulus package
> > will create 3.5 million jobs," no problem. The lie is in your offering
> > it as a statement of "fact".
>
> .
> Yes, and there's still a chance that US forces might stumble on a huge
> WMD lab in Iraq. Did that caveat ever stop you from claiming there's
> no WMD?
Okay, you're a certified loon.
Are you telling me Bush ran that war for six years and no one thought
to search every single square foot of that country for WMD? He had no
desire at all to save face? You mean in seven years, none of the bad
guys have found them either, and threatened us with them?
You really can't be serious.
>
> > > .> See, that's what I mean. You make "predictions" and treat them as
> > > > "statements of fact".
> .
> > > I'm not talking about predictions. Since the Stimulus Bill has been
> > > passed, America has lost 3.4 million jobs. Not "will lose", "has
> > > lost". Turned unemployment from hovering into the 7 point range to
> > > double digits. All for the low low price of three quarters of a
> > > trillion dollars.
> .
> > You fucking idiot. Your logical skills are seriously lacking. What you
> > just said is just as stupid as if I said, "The Bush tax cuts caused
> > the 9/11 terrorist attacks."
>
> .
> That would be just as silly as saying "Until Bush invaded and failed
> to secure the country, Iraq had successfully thwarted terrorists.
> There were no terrorists in Iraq before the invasion; now there are.
> Logically speaking... well... you figure it out..." What kind of a
> shithead would say something like that?
>
> Oh, wait, you DID say that.
Yes I did.
Now, let's verify. You REALLY think the statement I made above is in
ANY WAY analogous to the statement "The Bush tax cuts caused the 9/11
terrorist attacks"??
REALLY?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.air-america/browse_frm/thread/...
> .
>
> Your statement is idiotic because it compares to things that have
> nothing to do with each other.
>
> My statement makes sense because the Stimulus bill was created to
> create jobs. After it was put in action, it destroyed jobs.
Then show me what jobs it destroyed. How many jobs, exactly, did Cash
for Clunkers kill? How many people lost jobs because of infrastructure
projects? I will admit that the mortgage program's not working out as
it should, but I'm not aware that it's cost any jobs. But hey; you're
the one making the outlandish statements, so you're the one with the
proof.
>
> Deal with it.
Deal with fiction?
> .> The Stimulus package was passed in February. By the end of February,
> > the economy had lost 1.3 million jobs. Therefore, on its face, the
> > statement is wrong. But Congress doesn't pass a bill like that, and
> > simply dump the money into the economy.>
>
> .
> Then it's not a Stimulus Bill,. it's a pork bill.
Depends on your definition of pork. I happen to think every "defense"
bill passed in the last 30 years has been largely a pork bill.
>
> > Most of the stimulus money
> > hasn't even been doled out yet.>
>
> .
> Yet Obama is calling for a second Stimulus Bill. Why not spend the
> money he already has?
The money is earmarked; it just hasn't gone out yet. Now, if he were
to take money away from programs designed to create jobs, and put that
money into, um, other programs to create jobs, that would be stupid./
> .
> . Not only that, but most of the money> that HAS gone out has gone to shovel-ready public works projects,
>
> .
> Prove it. Prove that "most" of the money went to shovel ready public
> works projects, and not more bureaucracy.
I'll make a deal with you, fake Bill. When you come up with proof of
ANY statement you've made in this thread, I'll show you where all the
stimulus money went. But I'll give you a nibble; more than half the
money in the plan is in the form of tax cuts for people who aren't
rich. 95% of people who receive a paycheck saw a reduction.
> .> But hey; you're the one making the statement; please show us how the
> > stimulus package itself caused all those jobs to go away.>
>
> .
> Very simple - it sucked money out of the economy that would otherwise
> have gone to the private sector, where REAL jobs are created.
No it didn't, you fucking idiot. The money was BORROWED. And the
private sector only creates jobs when people can afford to buy goods
and services.
> > > .> > Not only did it not deliver the pork chops, it actually DESTROYED 3.4 million jobs as
> > > > > of this writing.
> .
> > > > And then you follow it up with a bald-faced lie like that one.
> .
> > > What objective fact do you deny this time?
> .
> > It's NOT AN OBJECTIVE FACT that jobs are lost BECAUSE of the stimulus
> > package. In fact, it's absolutely impossible. To say the above is the
> > opposite of an "objective fact."
>
> .
> Really? It's IMPOSSIBLE that taking three quarters of a trillion
> dollars out of the economy will cause jobs to be destroyed? The
> certainty that this boondoggle will cause higher taxes has no effect
> whatsoever?
Actually, most of the stimulus is tax cuts, and the second largest
portion is subsidies to help state and local governments make ends
meet. And 100% of it is borrowed.
By the way, why were you not concerned when Bush's policies were
leading to $12 trillion being sucked out of the economy? Or when he
was quietly ordering the fed to funnel money into banks so they could
continue buying toxic assets?
>
> Just how far removed from reality are you, anyway?
Irony's not your strong suit, is it, Mr. Still-waiting-for-WMDs?
>
> > > Do you pretend that
> > > unemployment ISN'T in the double digit range?
> .
> > No. That is an objective fact.
> .
> > What is NOT an "objective fact is the absurd statement that the
> > stimulus package "DESTROYED 3.8 million jobs."
>
> .
> I can't help but notice that you have quietly been increasing the
> number I quoted. I said "3.4", not "3.6" or "3.8"
It doesn't matter. It's not possible that $750 billion pumped into the
economy, with half in the form of tax breaksm "destroyed" many jobs at
all. Please explain how Bush's tax cuts stimulated the economy (which
you believe) but Obama's tax cuts destroyed it.
> .
>
> > > .> Besides the fact that what you claim is impossible, since more than
> > > > half the stimulus money is still unspent at the moment, it is simply
> > > > not possible that a bill that appropriates money to rebuild
> > > > infrastructure could result in a net negative number of jobs.>
> .
> > > Here's the problem - the whole point of a stimulus bill is to, well,
> > > stimulate the economy.
> .
> > Okay. Objective fact. That is the point.
> .
> > > The theory is that vast sums of federal
> > > spending will "jump start" job creation.
> >.
> > It's not just a theory. It's proven. In fact, it's been proven many
> > times over. Even Ronald Reagan -- you know, your idol -- did it in
> > 1983, when unemployment reached 10.8%, and actually stayed over 9% for
> > 18 months, and over 10% for 10 straight months.
>
> .
> And then he fixed the economy.> You know what's actually quite funny? You people hail Reagan as a god,...>
>
> .
> We do no such thing. Our one God is just fine, thank you. It's the
> Democrats who have turned Obama into god.
No, not hardly. YOU PEOPLE are the ones infusing him with magical
powers to destroy the economy and turn us socialist/communist with the
wave of his hand.
I hadn't thought of it before, but right wingers are the ones turning
him into a god...
> .> and treat Jimmy Carter as an economic basket case, but unemployment
> > was 7.4% when Reagan took office and 7.4% when he won his second term.
>
> .
> The difference is that Reagan didn't PISS AWAY THREE QUARTERS OF A
> TRILLION DOLLAR ON A PONZI SCHEME!!!
No, actually, he pissed away at least three trillion.
bvallely
> > > > That's no an answer. What do you base the insane premise that I'm not
> > > > Bill Vallely on?
.
> > > Why do you care?
.
> > Because you're indulging in a vile personal attack based on literally
> > nothing.
> Vile personal attacks?
.
Yes, you're trying to steal my name and accomplishments. You're
pretty much in the same ballpark morally as Iago.
.
> I'm also not Bill Vallely. Strange but I don't feel hurt about that.
.
that I've sold my work, while you have to go the the vanity press
route.
.
> > .> > .> And other reasons but that's the main one.>
.
> > > > Again, what do you base the insane premise that I'm not Bill Vallely
> > > > on? So far, all you've offered is variations of "because I said so".
.
> > > Okay, besides the fact that I don't have to tell you...
.
> > An honest man WOULD have to tell. Whatever happened to the idea that
> > one doesn't have to be religious to be moral?
> I'm both honest and moral.>
Then prove it, liar. Answer the question - what do you base the
insane premise that I'm not Bill Vallely on? So far, all you've
offered is variations of "because I said so".
.
insinuating that someone else is either dishonest or immoral.
.
your side, bang on the law. When morality is on your side, bang on
morality. When nothing is on your side, bang on the table.
Less table banging, more question answering. What do you base the
insane premise that I'm not Bill Vallely on? So far, all you've
offered is variations of "because I said so".
> > OBAMA IS CALLING FOR A SECOND STIMULUS BILL. WHY WOULD HE DO THAT IF
> > THE FIRST ONE WAS WORKING?
.
> Um, because it WORKED.
.
This is your idea of "working"? Skyrocketing unemployment? The
Messiah MEANT for this to happen?
.
> Seriously, you can't be this stupid. The GDP is
> about $16 trillion, and the economy lost $12 trillion since the
> recession started. Did you really think $750 billion was going to turn
> the economy around? Just about every economist out there was saying it
> wasn't enough. But he couldn't very well propose $2 trillion all at
> once, could he?
.
So, Obama lied about how much money he needed? He lied when he
promised it would stablize unemployment in the seven percent range?
Are you saying that he knew the Stilmulus bill, as written, would
destroy millionis of jobs? The whole thing is one big Bait and
Switch?
The 2010 elections are going to be a blast.
> Here's a better question, imbecile; if it hadn't worked, ...>
.
It didn't work.
.
>...would he be asking for another?>
.
Yes, because that's what he's doing.
.
> Why would he send good money after bad?>
.
For the same reason he thinks it's a good idea to take over one sixth
of the US economy without letting anyone know what's in the Healthcare
bill. For the same reason he's decided to use mid level bureaucrats
to enforce a job killer like Cap and Trade against the wishes of the
American people. For the same reason he went to a church manned by a
racist anti-American for twenty years.
Because he's an arrogant fool
.
> I would think such a thing would be politically treacherous, don't you?
.
We're counting on it.
> >http://www.khabrein.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=30...
.
> > > By the way, I'm not saying it will.>
.
> > Really? Because, last Feb. you sang a far different tune:
.
> > "...President Obama's and the Senate's work on the stimulus package,
> > which Americans need, in order to keep the economy from going
> > completely into the toilet, thanks to the less-than-honorable idiots
> > who dared question HIS ethics.
.
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/browse_frm/thre...
.
> So you read in the above that I declared it would create 3.5 million
> jobs? The threshold I mentioned in the above is "keep the economy from
> going completely into the toilet."
.
Keep telling yourself that.
> > Now, ten months later, you're hemming and hawing about the bill's
> > effectiveness.
.
> No I'm not. By the standard I set in the above quote, it succeeded.
.
Prove it. Prove this mess saved the economy.
.
> Will it create 3,5 million jobs? I don't know. You do realize those
> are two separate standards.
.
No, they're the same.
You can continue to believe this nonsense for a while. But the truth
will bite the Democrats in the ass.
.
> > At the time, you also wrote at the time about how
> > opposing the Stimulus Bill would cause the Republicans to "taste their
> > won nuts." How many people who voted against the Stimulus Bill today
> > regret doing so? How many people who voted for it are happy they did
> > so?
.
> > Here's a clue - you're not going to enjoy 2010 - at all.
.
> I'll take bets. The economy will be on the way back up by then,...>
.
Even Obama's people don't make that claim.
.
> we'll be almost completely out of Iraq,>
.
A year later than Obama side he would withdraw.
.
> and the health insurance bill will have passed.
.
CNN finds 61 percent oppose Obamacare
By: Mark Tapscott
No wonder Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is desperate for a weekend
off from the health care reform debate. A new CNN survey finds that 61
percent of the respondents oppose the Senate version of Obamacare.
Yes, that's a CNN poll, not one from Fox News or Scott Rasmussen.
< And you people seem to have no concept how UNpopular your party is.
.
As of last week, in a generic poll, Americans favored Republicans over
Democrats by a six point margin.
.
> > But the only time I could make> either statement and call it a "fact" or an obvious truth" is AFTER
> > > all the money has been distributed and AFTER a sufficient period of
> > > time has passed to determine that the money didn't create the
> > > requisite number of jobs.
.
> > No, I can point to the FACTS that the bill hasn't performed anywhere
> > near as promised, and that Obama himself admitted it's a failure by
> > calling for yet another stimulus bill.
.
> You could very well be the dumbest asshole in a very deep Usenet
> bench.
.
> Please explain to us why Obama would risk his political capital by
> repeating a major mistake?
.
Because he's an arrogant fool who actually listens to Harvard
Professors discuss economic theory..
.
> It would also help if you could come up
> with any information that indicated that Obama considered this
> stimulus package to be all that would ever be necessary to get us out
> of that hole.
.
"In the weeks just before President Obama took office, his economic
advisers made a mistake. They got a little carried away with hope.
"To make the case for a big stimulus package, they released their
economic forecast for the next few years. Without the stimulus, they
saw the unemployment rate -- then 7.2 percent -- rising above 8
percent in 2009 and peaking at 9 percent next year. With the stimulus,
the advisers said, unemployment would probably peak at 8 percent late
this year. "
New York times
.
> If his call for another bill is indicative of anything, it's that the
> first one is working like a charm.
.
You can tell yourself that all you like. But the 2010 election season
starts in a few months, and so far, the only success Obama can point
to is Bush's Iraq War.
.
> > .> Don't look now, but you just made what you consider to be a "factual
> > > statement" based on... sing it with me...
.
> > > "because fake Bill Vallely said so."
.
> > No, because the bill hasn't performed anywhere near as promised, and
> > that Obama himself admitted it's a failure by calling for yet another
> > stimulus bill. It hasn't performed as promised, and nobody serious
> > has suggested it ever will.
.
> Tell you what; you go through and tell me what was promised and then
> show me stats that demonstrate its failure.
.
Already have.
.
> Like I said; we're 9 months into an 18 month plan. If it really sucked
> as bad as you say, then when he asks for the money, they won't give it
> to him.>
.
It's call Chicago hardball politics. Obama is very good at twisting
arms - not so good at thinking things through.
If Obama continues on the path he's taken, he will send the Democrats
to the wilderness for decades.
.
> But for you to leap up and say it failed because he wants to beef it up is just ridiculous.
.
Actually, that's much more YOUR position? Remember? He needed two
trillion, but he didn't think he could get that all at once?
.
> > .> See, if you had just stopped at, "I don't think the stimulus package
> > > will create 3.5 million jobs," no problem. The lie is in your offering
> > > it as a statement of "fact".
.
> > Yes, and there's still a chance that US forces might stumble on a huge
> > WMD lab in Iraq. Did that caveat ever stop you from claiming there's
> > no WMD?
.
> Okay, you're a certified loon.
.
> Are you telling me Bush ran that war for six years and no one thought
> to search every single square foot of that country for WMD? >
.
No, I'm saying that adults understand how idiotic your statement is.
Search "every square foot"? WMD can be as small as a carton of
cigarettes. It would be buried anywhere in the country - or the
world, for that matter. It took a year to stumble on a couple of
dozen buried fighter jets - what makes you think it's a snap to find
WMD, which could be hidden in any home, or buried twenty feet?
.
> He had no desire at all to save face? You mean in seven years, none of the bad guys have found them either, and threatened us with them?
.
The bad guys who knew where they were found themselves at the end of a
rope.
.
> You really can't be serious.
.
You keep saying that.
.
> > > > .> See, that's what I mean. You make "predictions" and treat them as
> > > > > "statements of fact".
.
> > > > I'm not talking about predictions. Since the Stimulus Bill has been
> > > > passed, America has lost 3.4 million jobs. Not "will lose", "has
> > > > lost". Turned unemployment from hovering into the 7 point range to
> > > > double digits. All for the low low price of three quarters of a
> > > > trillion dollars.
> > .
> > > You fucking idiot. Your logical skills are seriously lacking. What you
> > > just said is just as stupid as if I said, "The Bush tax cuts caused
> > > the 9/11 terrorist attacks."
>
> > .
> > That would be just as silly as saying "Until Bush invaded and failed
> > to secure the country, Iraq had successfully thwarted terrorists.
> > There were no terrorists in Iraq before the invasion; now there are.
> > Logically speaking... well... you figure it out..." What kind of a
> > shithead would say something like that?
>
> > Oh, wait, you DID say that.
>
> Yes I did.
>
> Now, let's verify. You REALLY think the statement I made above is in
> ANY WAY analogous to the statement "The Bush tax cuts caused the 9/11
> terrorist attacks"??
.
In the sense that they're both equally idiotic.
.
> The money is earmarked;
.
I though he promised to end earmarks.
.
>it just hasn't gone out yet.>
.
Then it's not a stimulus bill, it's a pork bill.
.
> Now, if he were
> to take money away from programs designed to create jobs, and put that
> money into, um, other programs to create jobs, that would be stupid./
.
Well, the whole thing is stupid. However, the only way a simulus bill
makes sense is to spend the money NOW.
.
> > . Not only that, but most of the money> that HAS gone out has gone to shovel-ready public works projects,
.
> > Prove it. Prove that "most" of the money went to shovel ready public
> > works projects, and not more bureaucracy.
>
> I'll make a deal with you, fake Bill. When you come up with proof of
> ANY statement you've made in this thread, I'll show you where all the
> stimulus money went.
.
I've done so several times - in this very post, Lying Milt. I've left
links, I'm shown charts. You simply choose to ignore them.
> > Very simple - it sucked money out of the economy that would otherwise
> > have gone to the private sector, where REAL jobs are created.
.
> No it didn't, you fucking idiot. The money was BORROWED.
.
After the money at hand was squandered. Also, Obama's printing money,
which means inflation.
.
And the
> private sector only creates jobs when people can afford to buy goods
> and services.
.
Companies have to generate profits before they can pay people.
.
> > > > .> > Not only did it not deliver the pork chops, it actually DESTROYED 3.4 million jobs as
> > > > > > of this writing.
> > .
> > > > > And then you follow it up with a bald-faced lie like that one.
> > .
> > > > What objective fact do you deny this time?
> > .
> > > It's NOT AN OBJECTIVE FACT that jobs are lost BECAUSE of the stimulus
> > > package. In fact, it's absolutely impossible. To say the above is the
> > > opposite of an "objective fact."
>
> > .
> > Really? It's IMPOSSIBLE that taking three quarters of a trillion
> > dollars out of the economy will cause jobs to be destroyed? The
> > certainty that this boondoggle will cause higher taxes has no effect
> > whatsoever?
.
> Actually, most of the stimulus is tax cuts,>
.
No, most of the "stimulus" hasn't been spent at all.
.
> and the second largest
> portion is subsidies to help state and local governments make ends
> meet. And 100% of it is borrowed.
.
I thought the money was supposed to be spent to create new jobs.
.
> By the way, why were you not concerned when Bush's policies were
> leading to $12 trillion being sucked out of the economy?
.
Because Bush's contribution to the deficit wasn't 12 billion, it was
4.9 trillion. Yes, yes, I know, you took pains to make it SOUND like
Bush spent 12 trillion without EXACTLY saying so. More Atheist weasel
tricks.
In his first four years, Bush's deficit is about the same as Obama's
first year 1.88 trillion.. In his fifth year, Bush had the deficit
down to $287 billon, and in his sixth year, 188 billion.
Then the Democrats took over both Houses, and burned through two
trillion in two years.
Bush's overspending is what won the Democrats both Houses in 2006 and
2008. In 2010, they have to explain why they spent far more than Bush
ever did. No wonder they don't want to go to Town Hall meetings.
Here, take a look for yourself.
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/08/wapo-repeats-inherited-deficit-fallacy/
.
> Or when he
> was quietly ordering the fed to funnel money into banks so they could
> continue buying toxic assets?
.
September 23, 2008 - 0:49 ET
For many years the President and his Administration have not only
warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing
government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful
plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would
encounter such difficulties. President Bush publicly called for GSE
reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately,
these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to
reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the
legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were
problems.
2001
April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because
"financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in
financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic
activity."
2002
May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance
principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility
to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO,
5/29/02)
2003
January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for
the previous three years.
February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO)
releases a report explaining that "although investors perceive an
implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations," "the government has
provided no explicit legal backing for them." As a consequence,
unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial
sectors beyond the housing market. ("Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae,
Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO," OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)
September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges
OFHEO's review found earnings manipulations.
September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House
Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact
"legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise
the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored
enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy
requirements.
October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.
November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw
explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower
the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce
systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the
regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and
minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind
down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At
The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And
Leadership, 11/6/03)
2004
February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed
by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required
capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator:
"The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness
regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to
meet their responsibilities, and therefore…should be replaced with a
new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg.
83)
February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the
financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the
Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing
GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-
Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times,
2/24/04)
June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk
posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying "We do not have a
world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored
enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing
financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision
to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the
Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory
supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and
the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House
Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Testimony, 6/16/04)
2005
April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform,
saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this
Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by
the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure
that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of
funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America… Half-
measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial
system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House
Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)
2007
July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities
collapse.
August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform
package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first
when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them
reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will
consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference,
The White House, 8/9/07)
September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in
August – up 115 percent from the year before.
September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent
from the previous month – the lowest level in nine years. Median sale
price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.
December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass
legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide
liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners,
and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've
called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent
regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important
housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this
year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United
States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George
W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07)
2008
January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.
January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in
value.
February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of
reforms, says "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is
essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public
mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE
Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs,
2/7/08)
March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.
March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move
forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to
continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies
to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their
mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club
Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)
April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed
legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are]
constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing
market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their
homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White
House, 4/14/08)
May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass
legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation
deteriorates further.
* "Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments
and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I
have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing
Administration that will help more families stay in their homes,
reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their
housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free
bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush,
Radio Address, 5/3/08)
* "[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay
in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making
progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That
reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President
George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White
House, 5/19/08)
* Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal
Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure
they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies
to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President
George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)
June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the
President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to
address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At
Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development,
Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)
July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform
of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the
institutions are failing.
> > Just how far removed from reality are you, anyway?
.
> Irony's not your strong suit, is it, Mr. Still-waiting-for-WMDs?
.
.
> > > What is NOT an "objective fact is the absurd statement that the
> > > stimulus package "DESTROYED 3.8 million jobs."
.
> > I can't help but notice that you have quietly been increasing the
> > number I quoted. I said "3.4", not "3.6" or "3.8"
.
> It doesn't matter.
.
Actually, it matters quite a bit. Up until this moment, it was
possible to forgive what you wrote as a possible mistake. Now, you're
a garden variety liar. Tell me, you've repeated insisted that
Atheists are moral creatures. When does that start with you?
.
>It's not possible that $750 billion pumped into the
> economy, with half in the form of tax breaksm "destroyed" many jobs at
> all.>
.
And yet, that;'s what happened.
.
> Please explain how Bush's tax cuts stimulated the economy (which
> you believe) but Obama's tax cuts destroyed it.
.
Because Bush's tax cuts were exactly that - across the board and
fair. They also EXISTED.
I have no idea whatsoever how much Obama has earmarked to tax cuts.
The Stimulus Bill has hardly been transparent. The 18 million dollar
web page which was supposed to report every penny is a joke.
Recovery.gov is nothing short of a fiasco - it reports job gains in
districts that don't exist.
You want an accurate tally of how Obama's squandering America's
future? Send your request to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. In the meantime,
I'm content to pay attentiion to what he's done, rather than how he
got us into this mess.
.
> > And then he fixed the economy.> You know what's actually quite funny? You people hail Reagan as a god,...>
.
> > We do no such thing. Our one God is just fine, thank you. It's the
> > Democrats who have turned Obama into god.
.
> No, not hardly. YOU PEOPLE are the ones infusing him with magical powers... to destroy the economy and turn us socialist/communist with the wave of his hand.>
.
Such actions do not require supernatural abilities. Power, arrogance
and stupidity will do the trick just fine.
.
> It's not I hadn't thought of it before, but right wingers are the ones turning him into a god...
.
"I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the
world, he’s sort of God."
Evan Thomas
Newsweek Editor
"Why Barack Obama represents American Catholics better than the pope
does." (BTW, note that the word "Pope" was spelled with a small "P".)
Kathleen Kennedy Townsend
Newsweek Editor
"Many even see in Obama a messiah-like figure, a great soul, and some
affectionately call him Mahatma Obama."
Dinesh Sharma
"We just like to say his name. We are considering taking it as a
mantra."
Chicago Sun-Times
""It's going to be before Obama, 'B.B.,' and after Obama—'A.B.'"
Spike Lee
“I cried all night. I’m going to be crying for the next four years,”
he said. “What Barack Obama has accomplished is the single most
extraordinary event that has occurred in the 232 years of the nation’s
political history. ... The event itself is so extraordinary that
another chapter could be added to the Bible to chronicle its
significance.”
Jesse Jackson, Jr.
"Does it not feel as if some special hand is guiding Obama on his
journey, I mean, as he has said, the utter improbability of it all?"
Daily Kos
"He communicates God-like energy..."
teve Davis (Charleston, SC)
"Not just an ordinary human being but indeed an Advanced Soul"
Commentator Chicago Sun Times
"I'll do whatever he says to do. I'll collect paper cups off the
ground to make his pathway clear."
Halle Berry
"Obama was working for a group of churches that were concerned about
their parishioners,... It was, dare I say it, the Lord’s work–the sort
of mission Jesus preached'
Joe Klien
Time Magazine
"Obama marks a change in human evolution."
Will Smith
"This marks the moment that the oceans stopped rising".
B. Obama.
"Jesus was a community activist, Pilot was a Governor."
Thousands of Democrats.
This is what happens when people shut God out of their lives - they
try to turn despots into God. Mao did it, so did Stalin and Hitler.
Oh, Bama
Hey, Bama.
BamaBama oh.
Bama Hey, Bama
Ho Bama.
Hey BO, BO
Where did all my money go?
Bama Ho
Bama Hey,
Supertard.
.
> > .> and treat Jimmy Carter as an economic basket case, but unemployment
> > > was 7.4% when Reagan took office and 7.4% when he won his second term.
.
> > The difference is that Reagan didn't PISS AWAY THREE QUARTERS OF A
> > TRILLION DOLLAR ON A PONZI SCHEME!!!
.
> No, actually, he pissed away at least three trillion.
.
Nope, Reagan increased the national debt by 1.7 trillion in his eight
years in office.
Obama has that much penciled in for his first year DEFICT. Not
National Debt - a one year deficit.. Estimates are about 11 trillion
for eight years. Unless he get's Cap and Trade and the Health Bill
passed - then you're going to see SERIOUS deficit spending. And Obama
has already said that if he doesn't get his way on Cap and Trade, he's
going do the exact same thing via mid-level bureaucrats.
Let me repeat - Obama has threatened to pull a Hail Mary play around a
filibusterer proof Democrat House and Senate to shove a wildly
unpopular, massive job killing bill, down the throats of the American
people during a Depression. And I have little doubt that he'll do
exactly that.
.
And you plan to defend this guy?
Heheheheheheheheheheheheh.
"Oh valorous Knight,
Go and fight for the right,
And battle all villains that be,
"But oh, when you do,
What will happen to you
Thank God I won't be there to see! "
Innkeeper to Don Quixote
"Man of La Mancha"
nobody
And when confronted with reality, the left just squirms away
attempting to attack the other side rather than face their own
issues...
nobody
wrote:
Yeah Zippy's is deaf to that irony bell apparently.
nobody
wrote:
>.
>> > > > > Insane?>
>.
>> > > > Yes, what you are writing is literally insane.>
>.
>> > (crickets)
>.
>> > .> > .> You're not "that" Bill Vallely. That's all I'm saying.
>.
>> > > > Based on WHAT, exactly?
>.
>> > > Let's just say your credibility is lacking.>
>.
>> > That's no an answer. �What do you base the insane premise that I'm not
>> > Bill Vallely on?
>.
>> Why do you care?
>.
>Because you're indulging in a vile personal attack based on literally
>nothing.
Miltie does have a lot of experience in that area...
>.
>> > .> And other reasons but that's the main one.>
>.
>> > Again, what do you base the insane premise that I'm not Bill Vallely
>> > on? �So far, all you've offered is variations of "because I said so".
>.
>> Okay, besides the fact that I don't have to tell you...
>.
>An honest man WOULD have to tell. Whatever happened to the idea that
>one doesn't have to be religious to be moral?
Miltie seems to have one set a rules for himself, another set for
others.
>.
>> > > > .> > > > Well, THAT'S a big piece of the puzzle.
>.
>> > > > > > > So, I will expect everything you post from here on to be absolutely
>> > > > > > > true and error-free.
>.
>> > > > > > Oh, I make honest mistakes all the time. �Treating you like an adult
>> > > > > > is a prime example.
>.
>> > > > > You might make honest mistakes occasionally. Mostly, you purposely
>> > > > > post things you know are untrue and insist they're true. Even when
>> > > > > people point out the lack of truth, you repeat them.
>.
>> > > > Ah, the arrogance of the modern leftist. �To disagree with a liberal
>> > > > is to be a liar.
>.
>> > > No. to disagree with me is only natural. It's that you lie that makes
>> > > you a liar.
>..
>> > And why am I a liar? �Again, all you offer are variations of "because
>> > I said so."
>.
>(crickets)
>.
Did you expect differently?
Miltie ignores that we have continued to bleed jobs since the
so-called stimulus bill. When would be a good time Miltie to judge
the success of the bill? It's nearly a year later.
Again, did you expect any differently?
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
I sometimes wonder if you'll ever understand the meaning of the term
"irony".
But then I quit caring again.
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
And this has WHAT to do with you, exactly?
Man_of_Mind
>
> 5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09 was laughing at:
>>
>> nobody <p...@phile.nut wrote:
>>
>>> Shrilly Vallely <bval...@aol.com> whined impotently:
>>>>
>>>> On Dec 10, 5:04 am, Milt commented:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 10, 3:21 am, Shrilly Vallely <bval...@aol.com> sniveled:
------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, he posts things that he knows are obvious lies?
>>>>>
>>>>> You do that all the time, fake Bill Vallely. Hell, look at the name
>>>>> you post under.
>>>>
>>>> insane charge, repeat it endlessly, and hope that people believe it?
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>
>> Oh, yes, we know. You think fake Bill is a famous comic book writer who
>> just likes to make a complete fool of himself on Usenet, and you believe
>> Steve Canyon really does have three yachts and an apartment block and a
>> rich lawyer girlfriend and a wooden leg and a glass eye and all that.
>
> And when confronted with reality, the left just squirms away
> attempting to attack the other side rather than face their own
> issues...
You're again projecting your own sociopathy, sex-offender..
--And the only person you're fooling is yourself..
Milt
> .> > > > That's no an answer. What do you base the insane premise that I'm not
> > > > > Bill Vallely on?
> .
> > > > Why do you care?
> .
> > > Because you're indulging in a vile personal attack based on literally
> > > nothing.
> .
> > Vile personal attacks?
>
> .
> Yes, you're trying to steal my name and accomplishments. You're
> pretty much in the same ballpark morally as Iago.
I am not trying to steal anything. But if your identity is so tied up
in your usenet posts that you feel that you're losing your identity, I
suggest you have a serious problem.
> .> I'm also not Bill Vallely. Strange but I don't feel hurt about that.
>
> .
> Oh, I disagree. I believe that you're pig biting mad over the fact
> that I've sold my work, while you have to go the the vanity press
> route.
No I'm not. I wouldn't write the shit you write, first of all. I mean,
I could copy John Grisham's style and sell millions of books and make
money that way, but I choose to write because I love it. Second of
all, I have sold a lot of my writing. In fact, I have regular gigs in
which I write and sell columns every week. I do make money from my
writing, and I don't have to sell my soul to do it.
The problem you have is that you believe the bullshit the Stalker
posts about me. Here's a clue, fake Bill; The fuckwit known as Steve
Canyon doesn't know me, has never met me, knows no one I know, and
knows nothing more about me than what I choose to reveal here. And
that's not much.
> .> > .> > .> And other reasons but that's the main one.>
> .
> > > > > Again, what do you base the insane premise that I'm not Bill Vallely
> > > > > on? So far, all you've offered is variations of "because I said so".
> .
> > > > Okay, besides the fact that I don't have to tell you...
> .
> > > An honest man WOULD have to tell. Whatever happened to the idea that
> > > one doesn't have to be religious to be moral?
> .
> > I'm both honest and moral.>
>
> .
> Then prove it, liar. Answer the question - what do you base the
> insane premise that I'm not Bill Vallely on? So far, all you've
> offered is variations of "because I said so".
No. That's not what I said. I said I don't believe you. Actually, if
it's anything, it's because YOU said so.
> .
> > Based on the shit you've posted here, you have a lot of nerve even
> insinuating that someone else is either dishonest or immoral.
> .
> Lawyers have an expression for this situation - when the law is on
> your side, bang on the law. When morality is on your side, bang on
> morality. When nothing is on your side, bang on the table.
>
> Less table banging, more question answering. What do you base the
> insane premise that I'm not Bill Vallely on? So far, all you've
> offered is variations of "because I said so".
You seem to think I am required to answer your questions. It's not a
matter of law or morality. It's about credibility.
>
> > > OBAMA IS CALLING FOR A SECOND STIMULUS BILL. WHY WOULD HE DO THAT IF
> > > THE FIRST ONE WAS WORKING?
> .
> > Um, because it WORKED.
>
> .
> This is your idea of "working"? Skyrocketing unemployment? The
> Messiah MEANT for this to happen?
So, let me get this straight;
January and February saw more than 600,000 jobs lost, and November saw
11,000 lost.
Unemployment went from 4.9% to 7.6% in the last year of the Bush
presidency, but the same basic level of increase in the FIRST year of
the Obama presidency constitutes "skyrocketing"?
Why do you call him the Messiah. I was a huge supporter and I would
never call him that. Of course, you also imbue him with special
superpowers, to instantly turn the economy around by his simple
presence in the Magic Castle - er, White House. I think we can all
agree that the first few months should be a pass, because it's really
not possible for a human to occupy the White House and instantly
transform the entire economy.
By the way, the unemployment rate rose from 6.6% to 8.9% in the seven
months leading up to April, when the stimulus first started, and since
then has risen to 10%, and in two different months, the unemployment
dropped from month to month. Sure does look like something other than
"skyrocketing" to me.
> .> Seriously, you can't be this stupid. The GDP is
> > about $16 trillion, and the economy lost $12 trillion since the
> > recession started. Did you really think $750 billion was going to turn
> > the economy around? Just about every economist out there was saying it
> > wasn't enough. But he couldn't very well propose $2 trillion all at
> > once, could he?
>
> .
> So, Obama lied about how much money he needed? He lied when he
> promised it would stablize unemployment in the seven percent range?
> Are you saying that he knew the Stilmulus bill, as written, would
> destroy millionis of jobs? The whole thing is one big Bait and
> Switch?
He didn't lie. He said it wouldn't be the only thing needed.
See what I mean? You're a liar.
>
> The 2010 elections are going to be a blast.
You're a Democrat now? I don't see Democrats gaining many seats, but
the Republicans have nothing in their arsenal to indicate they'll gain
a bunch of seats. You're going to gain 30 seats with Michael Steele in
charge?
>
> > Here's a better question, imbecile; if it hadn't worked, ...>
>
> .
> It didn't work.
Prove it. You said yourself that "because I say it is" doesn't serve
as proof.
> .>...would he be asking for another?>
>
> .
> Yes, because that's what he's doing.
He wouldn't ask to repeat another failure.
> .> Why would he send good money after bad?>
>
> .
> For the same reason he thinks it's a good idea to take over one sixth
> of the US economy without letting anyone know what's in the Healthcare
> bill.
You don't know what's in it? Have you been sleeping for a year? The
only thing no one's sure of is a public option.
The one thing I do know is that the government isn't taking over the
entire health insurance system, and they're not taking over the health
care system at all. Which makes your claim of "tak(ing) over one sixth
of the US economy" ignorant. I'd say it's a lie, but you just admitted
you haven't read it and have no idea what's in it, even though you're
trying to tell us what's in it.
Wait; you're telling us definitively what's in a bill that you admit
you haven't read. That's not just ignorant; that's a lie.
> For the same reason he's decided to use mid level bureaucrats
> to enforce a job killer like Cap and Trade against the wishes of the
> American people.
It won't kill any jobs. The next economic boom is green, you fucking
moron. Every other major industrialized nation on the planet has
embraced green technology and is starting to make lots of money with
it. The United States, led by right wing Republicans, insists on
keeping this country mired in 19th century technology, while the rest
of the world is moving on. Cap and Trade won't cost us a cent, if we
get serious about cutting fossil fuel use, and we have to do that, or
we're sunk. It's not about global warming; it's about this economy
going from being the "can-do" leaders of the world to being a "can't-
do" also-ran.
> For the same reason he went to a church manned by a
> racist anti-American for twenty years.
Repeating bullshit doesn't make it true.
If you have some video or text to demonstrate that he made the same
sorts of sermons for 20 years, you might have a point. But we know he
hardly ever went into that church in the last five years or so before
he became president. How do you know Wright didn't just transform into
that in recent years?
Oh, that's right; you don't know. "Because I said so" is not proof;
you said so yourself.
>
> Because he's an arrogant fool
> .> I would think such a thing would be politically treacherous, don't you?
>
> .
> We're counting on it.
>
> > >http://www.khabrein.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=30...
> .
> > > > By the way, I'm not saying it will.>
> .
> > > Really? Because, last Feb. you sang a far different tune:
> .
> > > "...President Obama's and the Senate's work on the stimulus package,
> > > which Americans need, in order to keep the economy from going
> > > completely into the toilet, thanks to the less-than-honorable idiots
> > > who dared question HIS ethics.
> .
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/browse_frm/thre...
> .
> > So you read in the above that I declared it would create 3.5 million
> > jobs? The threshold I mentioned in the above is "keep the economy from
> > going completely into the toilet."
>
> .
> Keep telling yourself that.
The numbers support me. You should check them out. Job losses have
slowed considerably since April, when the first of the stimulus was
rolled out. The results in the eight months since the stimulus was
passed are certainly better than the eight months before.
You're wrong, fake Bill.
>
> > > Now, ten months later, you're hemming and hawing about the bill's
> > > effectiveness.
> .
> > No I'm not. By the standard I set in the above quote, it succeeded.
>
> .
> Prove it. Prove this mess saved the economy.
I'm not the one making a declarative statement. For one thing, the
economy isn't "saved" yet. But I see no evidence that the stimulus
"DESTROYED 3.4 million jobs."
> .> Will it create 3,5 million jobs? I don't know. You do realize those
> > are two separate standards.
>
> .
> No, they're the same.
You would think so. You demonstrate no logical skills.
>
> You can continue to believe this nonsense for a while. But the truth
> will bite the Democrats in the ass.
I'll make bets about next November. The economy WILL be in better
shape, and people who have been denied health insurance previously
WILL be able to get it by then, and those with health insurance will
suddenly no longer have to fight with the insurance company to get
coverage. The war in Iraq will be just about over, and many returning
soldiers will suddenly be able to go to college and get a degree
without going into huge debt, so they won't have to get a job right
away. This economic downturn won't be over by next year, but there
will have been a boatload of changes, which is what people voted for.
And the "Party of NO" stamp is pretty well ingrained on the GOP. Your
party has no leadership, and if you think expulsion of RINOs is not
doing you any good. And as long as idiots like Palin, Limbaugh, Beck
and Hannity are seen as the face of the Republican Party, you guys are
fucked. It almost doesn't matter what Democrats do; until you get your
own party in order, you're not gaining shit. If you gain more than 5
seats in the House and 2 in the Senate next year, consider it a
miracle.
> .> > At the time, you also wrote at the time about how
> > > opposing the Stimulus Bill would cause the Republicans to "taste their
> > > won nuts." How many people who voted against the Stimulus Bill today
> > > regret doing so? How many people who voted for it are happy they did
> > > so?
> .
> > > Here's a clue - you're not going to enjoy 2010 - at all.
> .
> > I'll take bets. The economy will be on the way back up by then,...>
>
> .
> Even Obama's people don't make that claim.
I'm not Obama. It'll be a long recovery, but it'll happen. And the
green aspect of the stimulus is just starting to take hold. Green is
the next boom; remember that.
> .> we'll be almost completely out of Iraq,>
>
> .
> A year later than Obama side he would withdraw.
No it isn't. He's already starting to draw down troops, and he's moved
them out of cities.
> .> and the health insurance bill will have passed.
>
> .
> CNN finds 61 percent oppose Obamacare
Like I said; more people getting health insurance and people with
insurance no longer having to fight for treatment won't be unpopular.
> By: Mark Tapscott
>
> No wonder Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is desperate for a weekend
> off from the health care reform debate. A new CNN survey finds that 61
> percent of the respondents oppose the Senate version of Obamacare.
> Yes, that's a CNN poll, not one from Fox News or Scott Rasmussen.
>
> http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/...
By the way, even I oppose the Senate version of the plan. That doesn't
translate to being against health insurance reform.
> .
> < And you people seem to have no concept how UNpopular your party is.
> .
> As of last week, in a generic poll, Americans favored Republicans over
> Democrats by a six point margin.
Bullshit.
Steve
wrote:
>On Dec 12, 9:16�am, bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>> .> > > > That's no an answer. �What do you base the insane premise that I'm not
>> > > > > Bill Vallely on?
>> .
>> > > > Why do you care?
>> .
>> > > Because you're indulging in a vile personal attack based on literally
>> > > nothing.
>> .
>> > Vile personal attacks?
>>
>> .
>> Yes, you're trying to steal my name and accomplishments. �You're
>> pretty much in the same ballpark morally as Iago.
>
>I am not trying to steal anything. But if your identity is so tied up
>in your usenet posts that you feel that you're losing your identity, I
>suggest you have a serious problem.
>
>
>> .> I'm also not Bill Vallely. Strange but I don't feel hurt about that.
>>
>> .
>> Oh, I disagree. �I believe that you're pig biting mad over the fact
>> that I've sold my work, while you have to go the the vanity press
>> route.
>
>No I'm not. I wouldn't write the shit you write, first of all. I mean,
>I could copy John Grisham's style and sell millions of books and make
>money that way, but I choose to write because I love it. Second of
Oh good lord... Shook writes like third grader....
>all, I have sold a lot of my writing. In fact, I have regular gigs in
>which I write and sell columns every week. I do make money from my
>writing, and I don't have to sell my soul to do it.
>
>The problem you have is that you believe the bullshit the Stalker
>posts about me. Here's a clue, fake Bill; The fuckwit known as Steve
>Canyon doesn't know me, has never met me, knows no one I know, and
>knows nothing more about me than what I choose to reveal here. And
>that's not much.
--
"As for me, I'm tired of this BS. I'm going to
finish writing my book."
--Milt Shook 1996/07/28
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.discrimination/msg/753a9d0c7acb5d57?dmode=source
"Keep an eye on your bookstore next Christmas, and my name
will pop out at you."
--Milt Shook 1997/12/06
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=348A1B90.51A97B99%40hearthlink.net
"You mean the one that I'm rewriting for publication right now? Or the
one that two publishing houses are interested in?"
--Milt Shook 1998/06/14
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=35831dc6.12233272%40news.earthlink.net
"Sory I have to leave, but I have a novel to finish. Look in your bookstore
this Christmas; hopefully, no later than march, if Xmas doesn't work out."
--Milt Shook 1998/08/25
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=35e34aca.5878878%40news.earthlink.net
"The working Title is "Talent on Loan, and it's about a fat janitor who
makes a deal with the devil and becomes a blithering talk show host.
The legal complications keep coming from you-know-who. I'm working
around them, however."
--Milt Shook 1999/08/03
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=7o7erc%24v37%241%40nnrp1.deja.com
But make no mistake, Parker; two books with my name on them
will be out shortly.
--Milt Shook 2000-09-09
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=%25UDu5.266%24zC.11426%40newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net
"I am very close to publishing my first novel,"
--Milt Shook 2002-11-30
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Fq6cnX4oFuzowXSgXTWcqA%40comcast.com
"I'm rewriting that one for a major publisher as we speak."
--Milt Shook 2004-10-22
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=WpidnQe3YPTmA-TcRVn-vg%40comcast.com&oe=ISO-8859-1
Canyon: "Say, when is the new date for your book to be published?"
Milt Shook: June 14 2006 "If they can get the fucking cover right for a change, July 18."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/e773f8f44066cd9e?hl=en&
Canyon: "So when are those two books with your name on them going to be out?"
Milt Shook: Aug 19 2006 "I just finished editing the galleys on the first one, so a matter of weeks for that one. The second one, I'm still writing..."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/5ff8772a0127832a?hl=en&
"Unbelievable, isn't it? I mean, the fact that I hope to finish a few
more novels, and I will also be working on a non-fiction book
beginning next year, is considered a "fantasy" by people"
--Milt Shook Mar 16, 2008
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/b55584049dce6bf2
bvallely
> I wouldn't write the shit you write, first of all. I mean,
> I could copy John Grisham's style and sell millions of books and make
> money that way, but I choose to write because I love it.
To find delusion that intense one traditionally needs a 15 year old
daughter of a wealthy industrialist.
Do you actually believe that you could become a best seller by aping
John Grisham? Seriously? No kidding?
All you have to do is buzz through a few of John's chapters, lock
yourself in your mother's basement for the weekend, grind out a
bestseller, and then let the offers come rolling in? Because you are
just THAT talened?
Bwhwaahahahahahahahahhahahaha.
If nobody else has let you know, let me be the first - you're a hack.
I actually read a chapter of your book "Talent On Loan". There's not
an editor at Marvel Comics who would let that mess get off their
desk.
bvallely
> > Yes, you're trying to steal my name and accomplishments. You're
> > pretty much in the same ballpark morally as Iago.
>
> I am not trying to steal anything.>
Liar. You're trying to steal my ideanity.
.
> But if your identity is so tied up in your usenet posts that you feel that you're losing your identity, I suggest you have a serious problem.>
.
that I protest proves that I have a "serious problem." Is this the
Atheist Morality you speak so often about?
.
> > .> I'm also not Bill Vallely. Strange but I don't feel hurt about that.
.
> > Oh, I disagree. I believe that you're pig biting mad over the fact
> > that I've sold my work, while you have to go the the vanity press
> > route.
> No I'm not. I wouldn't write the shit you write,...>
.
No, you COULDN'T write what I produce - you don't have the talent to
churn out an Archie Comic.
.
> first of all. I mean,
> I could copy John Grisham's style and sell millions of books and make
> money that way, but I choose to write because I love it. >
Well, I'm glad you have a hobby. But you're not a writer.
.
> Second of
> all, I have sold a lot of my writing. In fact, I have regular gigs in
> which I write and sell columns every week. I do make money from my
> writing, and I don't have to sell my soul to do it.
Where?
.
> The problem you have is that you believe the bullshit the Stalker
> posts about me. Here's a clue, fake Bill; The fuckwit known as Steve
> Canyon doesn't know me, has never met me, knows no one I know, and
> knows nothing more about me than what I choose to reveal here. And
> that's not much.
.
after my exchanges with you, I'm inclide to take his side without
hearing him.
After months of spreading lies about me, you have the gall to demand I
take your side on, well, pretty much anything?
.
> > .> > .> > .> And other reasons but that's the main one.>
.
> > > > > > Again, what do you base the insane premise that I'm not Bill Vallely
> > > > > > on? So far, all you've offered is variations of "because I said so".
.
> > > > > Okay, besides the fact that I don't have to tell you...
> > .
> > > > An honest man WOULD have to tell. Whatever happened to the idea that
> > > > one doesn't have to be religious to be moral?
.
> > > I'm both honest and moral.>
.
> > Then prove it, liar. Answer the question - what do you base the
> > insane premise that I'm not Bill Vallely on? So far, all you've
> > offered is variations of "because I said so".
.
> No. That's not what I said. I said I don't believe you. Actually, if
> it's anything, it's because YOU said so.
.
You've degenerated into a blithering idiot.
.
> > > Based on the shit you've posted here, you have a lot of nerve even
> > insinuating that someone else is either dishonest or immoral.
.
> > Lawyers have an expression for this situation - when the law is on
> > your side, bang on the law. When morality is on your side, bang on
> > morality. When nothing is on your side, bang on the table.
.
> > Less table banging, more question answering. What do you base the
> > insane premise that I'm not Bill Vallely on? So far, all you've
> > offered is variations of "because I said so".
.
> You seem to think I am required to answer your questions. It's not a
> matter of law or morality. It's about credibility.
.
Agreed. You've destroyed your credibility.
.
> > > > OBAMA IS CALLING FOR A SECOND STIMULUS BILL. WHY WOULD HE DO THAT IF
> > > > THE FIRST ONE WAS WORKING?
.
> > > Um, because it WORKED.
.
> > This is your idea of "working"? Skyrocketing unemployment? The
> > Messiah MEANT for this to happen?
.
> So, let me get this straight;
.
> January and February saw more than 600,000 jobs lost, and November saw
> 11,000 lost.
> Unemployment went from 4.9% to 7.6% in the last year of the Bush
> presidency, but the same basic level of increase in the FIRST year of
> the Obama presidency constitutes "skyrocketing"?
.
Remember back when you insisted that it was the Democrat's taking both
houses in 1986 rescued the Reagan economy? Well, for almost three
years, the Democrats have controlled five of the six Executive/
Legislate branches. The last Republican budget (2007) saw a deficit
of 187 billion dollars. Since the Democrats ceased control of
spending, the Deficit has skrocked to ten times that number. If
HealthCare and Cap & Trade get passed, the sky's the limit.
.
> Why do you call him the Messiah. >
.
I'm ridiculing the Democrats worship of Obama.
.
.
"I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the
world, he’s sort of God."
Evan Thomas
Newsweek Editor
http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/
"Why Barack Obama represents American Catholics better than the pope
does." (BTW, note that the word "Pope" was spelled with a small "P".)
Kathleen Kennedy Townsend
Newsweek Editor
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_WkA8USJcfPw/SaOxU0BjbcI/AAAAAAAAAY0/7Rm6kFtJA0k/s1600-h/obamamessiah.jpg
AP Photo
"Many even see in Obama a messiah-like figure, a great soul, and some
affectionately call him Mahatma Obama."
Dinesh Sharma
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PDehlPWsdQ&feature=player_embedded#
"No one saw him coming, and Christians believe God comes at us from
strange angles and places we don't expect, like Jesus being born in a
manger."
Lawrence Carter
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Photostream-Business-and-Pleasure-in-August/
"This is bigger than Kennedy. . . . This is the New Testament." | "I
felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often.
No, seriously. It's a dramatic event."
-- Chris Matthews
"[Obama is ] creative imagination which coupled with brilliance equals
wisdom . . . [He is] the man for this time."
-- Toni Morrison
"Obama's finest speeches do not excite. They do not inform. They don't
even really inspire. They elevate. . . . He is not the Word made
flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh . . . Obama is, at his best,
able to call us back to our highest selves."
-- Ezra Klein
"Obama has the capacity to summon heroic forces from the spiritual
depths of ordinary citizens and to unleash therefrom a symphonic
chorus of unique creative acts whose common purpose is to tame the
soul and alleviate the great challenges facing mankind."
-- Gerald Campbell
"We're here to evolve to a higher plane . . . he is an evolved
leader . . . [he] has an ear for eloquence and a Tongue dipped in the
Unvarnished Truth."
-- Oprah Winfrey
“I would characterize the Senate race as being a race where Obama was,
let’s say, blessed and highly favored. That’s not routine. There’s
something else going on. I think that Obama, his election to the
Senate, was divinely ordered. . . . I know that that was God’s plan."
-- Bill Rush
"Obama marks a change in human evolution."
Will Smith
"This marks the moment that the oceans stopped rising".
B. Obama.
"Jesus was a community activist, Pilot was a Governor."
Thousands of Democrats.
Oh, Bama
Hey, Bama.
BamaBama oh.
Bama Hey, Bama
Ho Bama.
Hey BO, BO
Where did all my money go?
Bama Ho
Bama Hey,
Supertard.
> By the way, the unemployment rate rose from 6.6% to 8.9% in the seven
> months leading up to April, when the stimulus first started, and since
> then has risen to 10%, and in two different months, the unemployment
> dropped from month to month. Sure does look like something other than
> "skyrocketing" to me.
.
The problem is that the Democrats took over three years ago, not last
year. Back then, unemployment was 4.6%. Now it's more than twice
that. In a few months, the election season for 2010 will begin - the
question the Republicans will ask is "are you better off now than you
were four years ago?"
A few days ago, Rassmussen found that 44% of the population wished
Bush was still President. That number is only going to rise. I don't
believe the Democrats know how to campaign about anything other than
hating Bush.
2010 is going to be tons o fun.
> > .> Seriously, you can't be this stupid. The GDP is
> > > about $16 trillion, and the economy lost $12 trillion since the
> > > recession started. Did you really think $750 billion was going to turn
> > > the economy around? Just about every economist out there was saying it
> > > wasn't enough. But he couldn't very well propose $2 trillion all at
> > > once, could he?
.
> > So, Obama lied about how much money he needed? He lied when he
> > promised it would stabilize unemployment in the seven percent range?
> > Are you saying that he knew the Stilmulus bill, as written, would
> > destroy millionis of jobs? The whole thing is one big Bait and
> > Switch?
.
> He didn't lie. He said it wouldn't be the only thing needed.
.
No, I'm taling about when his people promised that the three quarter
of a trillion dollar stimulus bill would stabilize unemployment to the
7% range. Did he know it wasn't true when he said it? Wouldn't that
be considered a "lie"?
.
> See what I mean? You're a liar.
.
I didn't even make a statement - I asked questions. How can a
question be a lie?
> > The 2010 elections are going to be a blast.
.
> You're a Democrat now?>
.
Hell, no.
.
I don't see Democrats gaining many seats, but
> the Republicans have nothing in their arsenal to indicate they'll gain
> a bunch of seats. You're going to gain 30 seats with Michael Steele in
> charge?
.
What's the color of the clouds on your planet?
.
> > > Here's a better question, imbecile; if it hadn't worked, ...>
.
> > It didn't work.
.
> Prove it. You said yourself that "because I say it is" doesn't serve
> as proof.
.
Unemployment in U.S. to Average 10% Next Year, Survey Shows
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aDc9YYP0m09M
.
> > .>...would he be asking for another?>
.
> > Yes, because that's what he's doing.
.
> He wouldn't ask to repeat another failure.
.
Obviously he would, because he is.
.
> > .> Why would he send good money after bad?>
.
> > For the same reason he thinks it's a good idea to take over one sixth
> > of the US economy without letting anyone know what's in the Healthcare
> > bill.
.
> You don't know what's in it? >
.
Nobody does. It hasn't been written yet.
.
>Have you been sleeping for a year? The
> only thing no one's sure of is a public option.
.
Post it, right here ------------------------------------------------->
.
> The one thing I do know is that the government isn't taking over the
> entire health insurance system, and they're not taking over the health
> care system at all.
.
How do you know that?
.
> Which makes your claim of "tak(ing) over one sixth
> of the US economy" ignorant.>
.
Why, because you say so?
.
> I'd say it's a lie, but you just admitted
> you haven't read it ...>
.
Nobody does. It doesn't exist.
.
>....and have no idea what's in it, >
.
Nobody does. It doesn't exist.
.
>even though you're trying to tell us what's in it.>
.
I said no such thing.
.
> Wait; you're telling us definitively what's in a bill that you admit
> you haven't read. That's not just ignorant; that's a lie.
.
I'm sorry, I keep confusing you with an adult with (at least) a third
grade reading skill. What I ACTUALLY wrote was.."For the same reason
(The Messiah) thinks it's a good idea to take over one sixth of the
US economy without letting anyone know what's in the Healthcare
bill.."
Somehow, you twisted "without letting anyone know what's in the
Healthcare bill" into my claiming to know what's in the HealthCare
bill.
BTW, make no mistake about it, Obama very much wants to take over the
entire Healthcare industry. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXC
.
Remember last year when Obama promised to hold the HealthCare debate
on CPAN? No? Well, that's why Jesus made YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPg5WHfIHlk&feature=player_embedded
> > For the same reason he's decided to use mid level bureaucrats
> > to enforce a job killer like Cap and Trade against the wishes of the
> > American people.
.
> It won't kill any jobs.>
.
For the sake of the Democrats, it better not; you guys bet the
existance of your Party on it.
BTW, it absoulte will destroy jobs.
hehehehhehehehehehehehehhehehe
.
The next economic boom is green, you fucking
> moron.
.
I've been hearing that for the past 40 years. Where the hell is my
Mr. Fussion flying car?
As it happens, this came out just yesterday....
The company in charge of a California project to extract vast
amounts of renewable energy from deep, hot bedrock has removed its
drill rig and informed federal officials that the government project
will be abandoned.
The project by the company, AltaRock Energy, was the Obama
administration’s first major test of geothermal energy as a
significant alternative to fossil fuels and the project was being
financed with federal Department of Energy money at a site about 100
miles north of San Francisco called the Geysers.
But on Friday, the Energy Department said that AltaRock had given
notice this week that “it will not be continuing work at the Geysers”
as part of the agency’s geothermal development program.
It turns out that there are substantial difficulties involved with
this type of geothermal tech. And not just mechanical. Apparently it
can cause earthquakes.
Geothermal enthusiasts asserted that drilling miles into hard
rock, as required by the technique, could be done quickly and
economically with small improvements in existing methods, Professor
Schrag said. “What we’ve discovered is that it’s harder to make those
improvements than some people believed,” he added.
In fact, AltaRock immediately ran into snags with its drilling,
repeatedly snapping off bits in shallow formations called caprock. The
project’s safety was also under review at the Energy Department after
federal officials said the company had not been entirely forthcoming
about the earthquakes produced in Basel in making the case for the
Geysers project.
AltaRock was also given $25 million to develop another geothermal site
in Oregon. But nobody seems to know what's going on there:
Not even the power agency has been informed of AltaRock’s ultimate
intentions at the site, said Murray Grande, who is in charge of
geothermal facilities for the agency.
“They just probably gave up, but we don’t know,” Mr. Grande said.
“We have nothing official from them at all.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/12/science/earth/12quake.html?_r=1
> > For the same reason he went to a church manned by a
> > racist anti-American for twenty years.
.
> Repeating bullshit doesn't make it true.
.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/on-my-faith-and-my-church_b_91623.html
nobody
<de...@dead.com> wrote:
My point proven...
Steve
wrote:
>.
That must have been painful..
> There's not
>an editor at Marvel Comics who would let that mess get off their
>desk.
Milt lives in a world of his own creation where he's a highly
educated, talented genius who just hasn't been discovered yet. Once
that magic discovery moment hits, he'll be worshipped and desired by
thousands of women of his dreams and all his critics and defamers will
be made to eat crow... In the meantime, he get's by on his ability to
make change and stock shelves...
Milt
> .> I wouldn't write the shit you write, first of all. I mean,
> > I could copy John Grisham's style and sell millions of books and make
> > money that way, but I choose to write because I love it.
>
> Crazy Milt Shook
>
> To find delusion that intense one traditionally needs a 15 year old
> daughter of a wealthy industrialist.
>
> Do you actually believe that you could become a best seller by aping
> John Grisham? Seriously? No kidding?
A lot of people have. Have you been in a bookstore lately? Do you have
any idea how many best sellers are mimicking other authors? The entire
fiction best seller list is derivative, save for the Harry Potter
books. You apparently haven't actually read a novel or watched a movie
recently. If someone wants to guarantee a living as a novel or
screenwriter these days, they have to produce something that someone
in charge recognizes. Even much of the non-fiction reads much the same
these days.
Do you know anyone who writes romance novels? Do you know how it
works? They assign you a number of books to write and give you an
outline of elements that have to be in every one. That's the state of
the publishing industry today, and if you were actually "that" Bill
Vallely, you would know that, given your, um, "connections."
See, this is what i mean; you have to be a fake. No actual writer in
today's market, especially one with a foot in the entertainment
business could say this shit and think he wasn't sounding profoundly
stupid.
>
> All you have to do is buzz through a few of John's chapters, lock
> yourself in your mother's basement for the weekend, grind out a
> bestseller, and then let the offers come rolling in? Because you are
> just THAT talened?
>
> Bwhwaahahahahahahahahhahahaha.
You have no clue, fake Bill.
But I would also point out that a book doesn't have to be a best
seller to make money.
>
> If nobody else has let you know, let me be the first - you're a hack.
> I actually read a chapter of your book "Talent On Loan". There's not
> an editor at Marvel Comics who would let that mess get off their
> desk.
And Marvel Comics would never publish the Bible, either. Your point?
Talent on Loan was the re-write. I didn't even like it myself that
much. Do you have a point to make?
Steve
wrote:
>On Dec 13, 1:53�am, bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
Shook's writing is so poor that it stands out.. I've been picking
off his sock puppets like fish in a barrel....
Milt
> .> > Yes, you're trying to steal my name and accomplishments. You're
> > > pretty much in the same ballpark morally as Iago.
>
> > I am not trying to steal anything.>
>
> .
> Liar. You're trying to steal my ideanity.
No, I'm not. I'm not even suggesting your name isn't "Bill Vallely." I
just don't believe you're "that" one.
> .> But if your identity is so tied up in your usenet posts that you feel that you're losing your identity, I suggest you have a serious problem.>
>
> .
> Well, isn't that charming. You're telling lies about me, and the fact
> that I protest proves that I have a "serious problem." Is this the
> Atheist Morality you speak so often about?
I'm not telling lies about you. I know nothing about you. Which is the
point; you could be Arnold Schwarzenegger, for all I know. For all I
know, you could be someone pretending to be Bill Vallely in order to
embarrass the "real" Bill Vallely.
And I'm not an atheist.
> .> > .> I'm also not Bill Vallely. Strange but I don't feel hurt about that.
> .
> > > Oh, I disagree. I believe that you're pig biting mad over the fact
> > > that I've sold my work, while you have to go the the vanity press
> > > route.
> .
> > No I'm not. I wouldn't write the shit you write,...>
>
> .
> No, you COULDN'T write what I produce - you don't have the talent to
> churn out an Archie Comic.
You're right. my talents lie elsewhere. You just keep on producing
reasons to doubt your veracity as to your identity as a writer. All
writers know that everyone's talent is different. I can't write poetry
to save my ass, for instance. I also have no talent for sketching,
drawing or inking, which would make for a pretty shitty comic book.
> .> first of all. I mean,
> > I could copy John Grisham's style and sell millions of books and make
> > money that way, but I choose to write because I love it. >
>
> .
> Well, I'm glad you have a hobby. But you're not a writer.
I am a writer. I actually write for a living, you idiot. Do pay
attention.
> .> Second of
> > all, I have sold a lot of my writing. In fact, I have regular gigs in
> > which I write and sell columns every week. I do make money from my
> > writing, and I don't have to sell my soul to do it.
>
> .
> Where?
All sorts of places. What -- do you think the only writing to be done
is found in bookstores on the fiction shelves?
> .> The problem you have is that you believe the bullshit the Stalker
> > posts about me. Here's a clue, fake Bill; The fuckwit known as Steve
> > Canyon doesn't know me, has never met me, knows no one I know, and
> > knows nothing more about me than what I choose to reveal here. And
> > that's not much.
>
> .
> I've never read more than the occational post from Mr. Canyon - but
> after my exchanges with you, I'm inclide to take his side without
> hearing him.
Of course you are. Because you're backed into a corner and you know
it. That's the defense posture of the right wing. When you can't deal
with the facts, and you get your ass kicked, you turn to personal
attacks. You know, like telling me I'm not a liar, even though nearly
80% of my living is made writing.
>
> After months of spreading lies about me, you have the gall to demand I
> take your side on, well, pretty much anything?
I don't spread lies about you. I have simply told you I don't believe
you're THAT Bill Vallely. That's all. I don't spread lies about
anyone. Even with Canyon the stalker, you'll note that I stay away
from the accusations about his being a child molester or some such
nonsense. I don't spread lies about anyone, and I don't engage in
personal attacks. Whether you do or do not write Marvel comics for a
living is irrelevant to discussions in a political newsgroup. I just
don't believe you. It really doesn't matter, fake Bill. Stick to
issues, and it never even comes up, right?
> .
>
> > > .> > .> > .> And other reasons but that's the main one.>
> .
> > > > > > > Again, what do you base the insane premise that I'm not Bill Vallely
> > > > > > > on? So far, all you've offered is variations of "because I said so".
> .
> > > > > > Okay, besides the fact that I don't have to tell you...
> > > .
> > > > > An honest man WOULD have to tell. Whatever happened to the idea that
> > > > > one doesn't have to be religious to be moral?
> .
> > > > I'm both honest and moral.>
> .
> > > Then prove it, liar. Answer the question - what do you base the
> > > insane premise that I'm not Bill Vallely on? So far, all you've
> > > offered is variations of "because I said so".
> .
> > No. That's not what I said. I said I don't believe you. Actually, if
> > it's anything, it's because YOU said so.
>
> .
> You've degenerated into a blithering idiot.
Everything you say is based on "because I said so" and has no basis in
reality. You make declarative statements that you characterize as
"fact," even when they're not true.
You keep insisting the stimulus "destroyed 3.4 million jobs" even
though that is pretty much impossible. More than half the stimulus was
tax cuts on people making less than $250,000. The second largest
portion of the money went to state and local governments so they could
finish projects that were stalled because of a lack of money. About a
third of the money is just now going into the economy. Please explain
for us HOW it managed to "destroy 3.4 million jobs" when it didn't
even start being distributed until April, only about 1.5 million net
jobs have been lost since April? And where do you get off declaring
your beliefs as "statements of fact"?
Why would we believe an anonymous poster who brags about his exploits,
puts others down for their writing (something a real writer would
never do) and who seems to have no clue about the writing business? I
don't care who anyone here is, really. But you seem to use your status
as a "comic book writer" to give yourself some extra "credibility."
Who could DARE call a "comic book writer" a liar? (Ahem)
A liar is a liar.
> .> > > Based on the shit you've posted here, you have a lot of nerve even
> > > insinuating that someone else is either dishonest or immoral.
> .
> > > Lawyers have an expression for this situation - when the law is on
> > > your side, bang on the law. When morality is on your side, bang on
> > > morality. When nothing is on your side, bang on the table.
> .
> > > Less table banging, more question answering. What do you base the
> > > insane premise that I'm not Bill Vallely on? So far, all you've
> > > offered is variations of "because I said so".
> .
> > You seem to think I am required to answer your questions. It's not a
> > matter of law or morality. It's about credibility.
>
> .
> Agreed. You've destroyed your credibility.
No, I haven't. In this thread, you've made outrageous statements with
no semblance of fact, and I've simply demanded that you explain
yourself. You haven't done that. Instead, you revert to personal
attacks, and demonstrate your complete inability to understand even
the most basic logical constructs.
You're claiming the stimulus bill "destroyed 3.4 million jobs," even
though such a thing is impossible.
And you claim Obama's asking for another stimulus bill because the
first one failed. In other words, the craftiest, most wily politician
in the world, one whom you imbue with the power to single-handedly
turn the United States into a socialist state, would do something so
stupid as to repeat a mistake which supposedly "destroyed 3.4 million
jobs," and thus assure his political doom before he can finish the
transformation.
You make no sense.
> .> > > > OBAMA IS CALLING FOR A SECOND STIMULUS BILL. WHY WOULD HE DO THAT IF
> > > > > THE FIRST ONE WAS WORKING?
> .
> > > > Um, because it WORKED.
> .
> > > This is your idea of "working"? Skyrocketing unemployment? The
> > > Messiah MEANT for this to happen?
> .
> > So, let me get this straight;
> .
> > January and February saw more than 600,000 jobs lost, and November saw
> > 11,000 lost.
> > Unemployment went from 4.9% to 7.6% in the last year of the Bush
> > presidency, but the same basic level of increase in the FIRST year of
> > the Obama presidency constitutes "skyrocketing"?
>
> .
> Remember back when you insisted that it was the Democrat's taking both
> houses in 1986 rescued the Reagan economy? Well, for almost three
> years, the Democrats have controlled five of the six Executive/
> Legislate branches.
Five of the six what? WTF are you talking about?
Until January of this year, we had a Republican Executive Branch, a
bare Democratic majority in the House and Senate. And what about the
Judiciary? As of 2004, here are some figures for you to chew on: since
1969, Republican presidents had made 211 appointments, while
Democrats had appointed 122. On the District Courts, Republicans
appointed 813 and Democrats appointed 508. The Supreme Court has six
Republican-appointed Justices and three Democratic-appointed.
And the branches are co-equal. Unless you can point to a veto-proof
majority in Congress, the president can veto anything. Not only that,
but Republicans in the Senate filibustered a record number of bills
the last two years.
Everything that's happened in the economy is still Bush's doing. But
have heart; big changes are coming.
>The last Republican budget (2007) saw a deficit
> of 187 billion dollars.
You really have to be a fucktard. The budget doesn't come from the
House, you fucking idiot. It comes from the Executive Branch, and the
president has to sign the bill. The executive branch is responsible
for the budget; the House is responsible for appropriations. You do
understand the difference, right?
Bush's budgets just expired the end of October. Of this year.
> Since the Democrats ceased control of
> spending, the Deficit has skrocked to ten times that number. If
> HealthCare and Cap & Trade get passed, the sky's the limit.
We're in a recession/near depression, you fuckwit. Tax revenues are
down. Of COURSE deficits are higher. They're supposed to be higher
during a depression.
> .> Why do you call him the Messiah. >
>
> .
> I'm ridiculing the Democrats worship of Obama.
> .
Which is non-existent. Well, except in the minds of right wing
fucktards, who imbue in him the power to change the economy from
depression to boom in two short months, and the power to turn the
country into a socialist all by himself.
>
> > By the way, the unemployment rate rose from 6.6% to 8.9% in the seven
> > months leading up to April, when the stimulus first started, and since
> > then has risen to 10%, and in two different months, the unemployment
> > dropped from month to month. Sure does look like something other than
> > "skyrocketing" to me.
>
> .
> The problem is that the Democrats took over three years ago, not last
> year.
No, we didn't. See above.
> Back then, unemployment was 4.6%. Now it's more than twice
> that. In a few months, the election season for 2010 will begin - the
> question the Republicans will ask is "are you better off now than you
> were four years ago?"
And the answer will be "Hell to the YES!"
Four years ago, the executive branch was incompetent and corrupt, and
either Bush or Republicans in the Senate killed every bill that came
their way. Now, things are actually passing, and reforms are
happening.
What do you think people will remember most when they go to the polls
next year? That, under Bush, their 401(k) tanked and they damn near
lost their homes; that we lost an American city and became bogged down
in two pointless wars and that we lost an entire city? Will they
remember that every good thing Congress tried to do, Republicans tried
to kill? Will they remember that Obama reached out to the Party of No
repeatedly (too often, for my taste) and had his hand slapped and spit
on every single time? When the economy is in the middle of recovery
(and we both know it will be), will they remember the stimulus
packages that helped spur the economy had ZERO Republican votes? As
they're signing up for a health insurance plan that they had
previously been denied access to, and no longer receiving denial
letters from health insurance companies, will they remember that NOT
ONE Republican supported the bill, and in fact actively worked against
it?
Seriously, you'd better hope that every Democratic Congressperson was
found in bed with Tiger Woods, because your side is pretty well
fucked.
But hey; if you like to delude yourself, you go right ahead.
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
> Oh, so this is who Milt is. Now I know. He is a hack. He is delusional.
Oh, look. Fake Bill got himself a sockpuppet.
Milt
wrote:
Delusional is thinking that every book in a bookstore is entirely
original.
Milt
wrote:
Fake Bill is, by definition, a sock puppet.
Milt
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 11:06:17 -0600, "5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09"
>
>
>
>
>
> <d...@dead.com> wrote:
> >On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 11:41:39 -0500, nobody wrote:
>
> >> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:13:33 -0600, "5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09"
> >> <d...@dead.com> wrote:
>
> >>>On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 06:25:19 -0500, nobody wrote:
>
You've never had a point.
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
That you have no point?
Steve
wrote:
>I am a writer. I actually write for a living, you idiot. Do pay
>attention.
Milt can't support himself by writing.. he's deep into debt and
living with relatives.
bvallely
> On Dec 13, 8:15 am, "Knifefight Afterdance" <switchblade1...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > bvallely wrote:
> > > > I wouldn't write the shit you write, first of all. I mean,
> > > > I could copy John Grisham's style and sell millions of books and
> > > > make money that way, but I choose to write because I love it.
> > > Crazy Milt Shook
>
> > > To find delusion that intense one traditionally needs a 15 year old
> > > daughter of a wealthy industrialist.
>
> > > Do you actually believe that you could become a best seller by aping
> > > John Grisham? Seriously? No kidding?
>
> > > All you have to do is buzz through a few of John's chapters, lock
> > > yourself in your mother's basement for the weekend, grind out a
> > > bestseller, and then let the offers come rolling in? Because you are
> > > just THAT talened?
> > > Bwhwaahahahahahahahahhahahaha.
.
> > > If nobody else has let you know, let me be the first - you're a hack.
> > > I actually read a chapter of your book "Talent On Loan". There's not
> > > an editor at Marvel Comics who would let that mess get off their
> > > desk.
> Delusional is thinking that every book in a bookstore is entirely
> original.
Mediocrity borrows. Genius steals. You whine about your betters (AKA
nearly everybody.)
BTW, I apologize for calling you a hack - "hack" implies craft without
inspiration. You possess neither.
bvallely
Changing the topic to ACTUAL frauds, just where is it that you're
published weekly?
Milt
None of your business. For one thing, part of my job involves
ghostwriting. For another, you wouldn't be able to get your hands on
what I write, because it's too expensive, and isn't available via
Google. The last book I contributed to goes for about $200.
Tell you what, fake Bill; your bestest buddy The Stalker likes to
claim he can recognize my writing on site; get him to tell you where
it is.
Milt
Excuse me, but when have I ever called myself a great writer? You're
the one who seems to feel the need to put me down and pump yourself
up.
And genius doesn't steal. Hacks steal. Geniuses emulate. I don't
borrow or steal.
>
> BTW, I apologize for calling you a hack - "hack" implies craft without
> inspiration. You possess neither.
See what I mean?
Strange how people who actually read what I write think I'm damn good.
And if you're under the impression that I care what you think, you've
just confirmed your delusion.
Milt
> barrel.
>
> > BTW, I apologize for calling you a hack - "hack" implies craft without
> > inspiration. You possess neither.
>
And I should care about your opinion why, exactly?
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
<switchb...@aol.com> wrote:
>I thought so Steve. Milt is not very smart and lies a lot. He is a
>failure.
Ha. I was wondering if this one was just another goddam sock puppet.
Well, plonk.
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
wrote:
>On Dec 13, 3:11�pm, "Knifefight Afterdance" <switchblade1...@aol.com>
Milt, meet the latest Steve Canyon sock puppet.
Turns out he doesn't like you very much, either.
Steve
wrote:
>On Dec 13, 1:41�pm, bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
Both of 'em?
Steve
<ROTFLMAO> I've never, never used a sock puppet.. That would truly
spoil my fun... and this is fun... watching the loons check under
their beds to see if I'm there.... Priceless!
Steve
Zeppo is sort of plonk crazy... He see's me everywhere he looks...
Priceless....
Matt
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 13:54:13 -0800, "5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09"
>
>
>
>
>
> <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
ROFLMAO.
Sure "nevermore" You never did.
ROFLMAO.
Anything "Steve" says is a lie.
Matt
Milt
Neither have I.
Not only that, but I always post under my own name.
>
> ROFLMAO.
>
> Sure "nevermore" You never did.
You really have to marvel at his naivete.
>
> ROFLMAO.
>
> Anything "Steve" says is a lie.
Even the name he uses.
>
> Matt
Steve
Nice try, Dummy, but long ago when I used that name it was no sock
puppet..
Steve
wrote:
>On Dec 13, 6:08�pm, Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com> wrote:
...Soooo, who am I then, Shooky-boy?
Matt
Of COURSE it wasn't, "nevermore".
ROFLMAO. Lie, spin, Lie, spin. Go STOOOOPID go!
Nobody is stupid enough to believe a thing you say, "nevermore".
Matt
Milt
Just for shits and giggles, go into Google Groups and click on the
link next to his name that says "view profile."
Strangely, it only goes back to November.
The fact of the matter is, he's constantly changing his ID, so that no
one can trace his bullshit to any great degree.
He uses the name "Steve" and constantly makes subtle changes in the e-
mail address he uses to post, and he changes it every time someone
catches him spouting bullshit. Check it out.
Steve
wrote:
>On Dec 13, 6:52�pm, Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com> wrote:
<ROTFLMAO> Of course Shook would have trouble... anybody with room
temperature IQ wouldn't have any trouble...