Re: Steelers are in a fix now
Rudy Gay
news:SCZGn.1956$Ak3....@newsfe16.iad:
> Do they keep Ben Roethlisberger after his suspension or do that let
> him go and go on a decade long search for a decent quarterback?
Throw his criminal ass out the door.
> Ain't too many quarterbacks out there who have won multiple Super
> Bowls without ever losing one. As a matter of fact, there ain't none.
You shitkicker NASCAR types never could read or count. Tom Brady
recently got his ass kicked in a super bowl by the Giants. Than again
you could be right about the multiple winning part because Brady didn't
win the games, Adam Vinatieri did.
> Roethlisberger may be a little bit ignorant and crude around women but
> he sure can play. And he ain't no criminal or drug user either.
He's a thug rapist and he should be in jail.
Gaby
http://www.swizwatch.com/ are perfect, cheap and high quality.
Ballon Bleu de Cartier Watches Collection:
http://www.swizwatch.com/ballon-bleu-de-cartier-replica-watches.html
Replica Cartier Ballon Bleu de Cartier Two-Tone Ladies Watch W69007Z3
http://www.swizwatch.com/Cartier-Ballon-Bleu-de-Cartier-Two-Tone-Ladies-Watch-W69007Z3-.html
Replica Cartier Ballon Bleu de Cartier 18K Yellow Gold Leather Strap Mens
Watch W6900551
http://www.swizwatch.com/Cartier-Ballon-Bleu-de-Cartier-18K-Yellow-Gold-Leather-Strap-Mens-Watch-W6900551.html
Replica Cartier Ballon Bleu de Cartier Two-Tone Mens Watch W69009Z3
http://www.swizwatch.com/Cartier-Ballon-Bleu-de-Cartier-Two-Tone-Mens-Watch-W69009Z3.html
Replica Cartier Ballon Bleu de Cartier 18K Rose Gold Mens Watch W69006Z2
http://www.swizwatch.com/Cartier-Ballon-Bleu-de-Cartier-18K-Rose-Gold-Mens-Watch-W69006Z2.html
Replica Cartier Ballon Bleu de Cartier Mens Gold Watch W69013Z2
http://www.swizwatch.com/Cartier-Ballon-Bleu-de-Cartier-Mens-Gold-Watch-W69013Z2.html
Buy more Cartier replica watches at low price by click:
http://www.swizwatch.com/cartier-replica-watches.html
"Rudy Gay" <mda...@kyoradio.net> д����Ϣ����:Xns9D7A7D4...@94.75.214.90...
Gaby
http://www.swizwatch.com/ are perfect, cheap and high quality.
Ballon Bleu de Cartier Watches Collection:
http://www.swizwatch.com/ballon-bleu-de-cartier-replica-watches.html
Replica Cartier Ballon Bleu de Cartier Two-Tone Ladies Watch W69007Z3
http://www.swizwatch.com/Cartier-Ballon-Bleu-de-Cartier-Two-Tone-Ladies-Watch-W69007Z3-.html
Replica Cartier Ballon Bleu de Cartier 18K Yellow Gold Leather Strap Mens
Watch W6900551
http://www.swizwatch.com/Cartier-Ballon-Bleu-de-Cartier-18K-Yellow-Gold-Leather-Strap-Mens-Watch-W6900551.html
Replica Cartier Ballon Bleu de Cartier Two-Tone Mens Watch W69009Z3
http://www.swizwatch.com/Cartier-Ballon-Bleu-de-Cartier-Two-Tone-Mens-Watch-W69009Z3.html
Replica Cartier Ballon Bleu de Cartier 18K Rose Gold Mens Watch W69006Z2
http://www.swizwatch.com/Cartier-Ballon-Bleu-de-Cartier-18K-Rose-Gold-Mens-Watch-W69006Z2.html
Replica Cartier Ballon Bleu de Cartier Mens Gold Watch W69013Z2
http://www.swizwatch.com/Cartier-Ballon-Bleu-de-Cartier-Mens-Gold-Watch-W69013Z2.html
Buy more Cartier replica watches at low price by click:
http://www.swizwatch.com/cartier-replica-watches.html
"Rudy Gay" <mda...@kyoradio.net> д����Ϣ����:Xns9D7A7D4...@94.75.214.90...
RickyBobby
"Rudy Gay" <mda...@kyoradio.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9D7A7D4...@94.75.214.90...
If he was, he would be.
Cleatarrior
06/09/2010 01:50 PM
alt.sports.football.pro.denver-broncos
70.170.107.110
newsfe13.iad 1276117100 70.170.107.110 (Wed, 09 Jun 2010 20:58:20 UTC)
newsm...@cox.net
"So where do you find piracy outside of Africa? Where do you find
slavery outside of Africa?
I think that their minds are sort of hardwired more towards immediate
gratification and less towards long term benefits.
But bear with me a minute here.
There are no rules. There really are no rules chiseled into stone
anywhere. People do what they want to do for as long as they live and
then they die.
Perhaps the "white people" in Europe have a stable and safe society
because that is what they want and the "black people" in Africa have
unstable and unsafe societies because they would rather live in the moment.
There is no "rule" that I know of that says that the one thing is more
right than the other thing.
Perhaps the African practices of adolescent female genital mutilation
and the killing and eating of Albinos is really a good thing.
Black people or African people do seem to really be into violence
towards anyone weaker than themselves.
In a traditional African society adult men do not work. Only women and
children work while adult men stand around and talk about important
matters with other men. Fine by me. That is how their society works
and it has been working that way for 5,000 years and it can continue to
work that way for 5,000 more years.
This is my order for the goodness of people...
Best: Buddhists, Shinto, Hindu they are the least violent
Second best: Jewish and Christian
Worst: Islams and blacks
Your opinion may vary. But you can have a billion Hindus in India and
another two billion Buddhists in Asia and they are not all set to
killing each other all of the time.
The Christians and Jewish people are always on hair trigger to kill
somebody who threatens them.
The blacks and Islams are always killing somebody full time.
Sort of a thumbnail sketch but you get the idea.
There is no right and wrong. There is only what you do."
RickyBobby
And I still stand by every word of it. I may be all wrong but at least I am
confident about it.
I really do not care how big a person is on average of what their complexion
may be or what faith system they have or what government they have. Those
are all details.
What is not a detail is how people act.
The Chinese (and others) have been a big success everywhere that they go.
The niggers have been a huge failure in niggerland and everywhere else they
go. I am not making this up.
Jimmy Joe Johnson
There is no bigger failure than the kenyan fraud named Soetoro,
Obama, whatever you want to call the jerk. He's so dumb that a
white college boy has to tell him what to say using a
teleprompter.
RickyBobby
"Jimmy Joe Johnson" <jimm...@johnson.com> wrote in message
news:543bd728fffad850...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
The President does give a nice speech. I give him high marks for that. And
he still has three years to go to accomplish something. If he can get our
troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan he will have done a good job. And then
we can elect him again.
* US *
wrote:
Another satisfied Obammy welfare recipient chimes in.
Salad
>> There is no bigger failure than the kenyan fraud named Soetoro,
>> Obama, whatever you want to call the jerk. He's so dumb that a
>> white college boy has to tell him what to say using a
>> teleprompter.
>>
It took a black man to show Republicans that a teleprompter can be an
effective tool in politics. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO46ii3W07U.
* US *
wrote:
Damn shame that he's not qualified to manage anything, let alone a
superpower.
Salad
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOuZpwQb_Pg
Well said. Then again, he hopes the US succeeds. Not like the enemies
that infest the US...Republicans, the "party of NO, yes we can't".
* US *
wrote:
Actually, he hopes that the socialist model he is installing succeeds.
Salad
What model was used the previous 8 years?
And with the banks gambling 605 TRILLION now and the politicians willing
to sell the US for a few bucks in their pockets I'm sure we'll all be
suffering more soon.
Brian Allen
> Obama, whatever you want to call the jerk. He's so dumb that a
> white college boy has to tell him what to say using a
> teleprompter.
Bad troll is bad.
Brian Allen
Do you really believe that, or are you just parroting Fox News?
* US *
wrote:
>> Actually, he hopes that the socialist model he is installing succeeds.
>
>Do you really believe that, or are you just parroting Fox News?
>
>
Yeah, moonbat, I really believe that, as evidenced by Govt. Motors,
Govt. banks, share-the-wealth ObamaCare, soon tobe coming cap-and
-trade, and worst of all, your new tax bill to pay for it.
* US *
wrote:
>> There is no bigger failure than the kenyan fraud named Soetoro,
Kool-Aid ObamaPhiles are worse.
KKK Founded By Democrats
news:4c2d47b5$0$11821$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net:
I'll take a bad troll over a pair of racist nigger politicians any day
of the week.
None4U
"Salad" <sa...@oilandvinegar.com> wrote in message
news:ksqdnb092PHQYrHR...@earthlink.com...
For an ineffective idiot ., Unfortunately for him and you. Rhetoric is a
politicians demise in educated America.
Salad
I was simply pointing out the difference between one that can use a
teleprompter and one that wings it. The argument that Obama uses a
teleprompter simply demonstrates the verbal diffence between Obama and bush.
Brian Allen
> Govt. banks, share-the-wealth ObamaCare, soon tobe coming cap-and
> -trade, and worst of all, your new tax bill to pay for it.
Republicans voted for the bailout also. Don't pin that on Obama. The first
bailout occurred before he was even in office, in fact.
* US *
wrote:
>> Yeah, moonbat, I really believe that, as evidenced by Govt. Motors,
Absolutely, but it was bipartisan. Odumbo and Piglosi were all for
it.
Now look at what's coming your way:
Time to you to pay for Obama's deficit build up. All of this economic
destruction is by design. It is on purpose. Barack Obama is using
all of this deficit spending, creating all of this debt -- built up
with slush funds, by the way, which he can use to further his own
party and his own personal ambitions. All of this is to force us into
higher taxes, which will break the back of the private sector,
capitalist economy. It's no more complicated than that. It's really
the same theory that Reagan used to break the Soviet Union. Just keep
spending on Star Wars, strategic defense, essentially the Soviets
couldn't keep up and it was, "No mas! No mas!" The only way they
could keep up with us was militarily. They were a Third World country
with a First World military. If they couldn't keep up in that one
area, they were finished. So this is what Obama is doing.
________________
Six Months to Go Until
The Largest Tax Hikes in History
From Ryan Ellis on Thursday, July 1, 2010 4:15 PM
BREAKING: Wounded Warriors Face New Tax This Independence Day
In just six months, the largest tax hikes in the history of America
will take effect. They will hit families and small businesses in
three great waves on January 1, 2011:
First Wave: Expiration of 2001 and 2003 Tax Relief
In 2001 and 2003, the GOP Congress enacted several tax cuts for
investors, small business owners, and families. These will all expire
on January 1, 2011:
Personal income tax rates will rise. The top income tax rate will
rise from 35 to 39.6 percent (this is also the rate at which
two-thirds of small business profits are taxed). The lowest rate will
rise from 10 to 15 percent. All the rates in between will also rise.
Itemized deductions and personal exemptions will again phase out,
which has the same mathematical effect as higher marginal tax rates.
The full list of marginal rate hikes is below:
- The 10% bracket rises to an expanded 15%
- The 25% bracket rises to 28%
- The 28% bracket rises to 31%
- The 33% bracket rises to 36%
- The 35% bracket rises to 39.6%
Higher taxes on marriage and family. The “marriage penalty” (narrower
tax brackets for married couples) will return from the first dollar of
income. The child tax credit will be cut in half from $1000 to $500
per child. The standard deduction will no longer be doubled for
married couples relative to the single level. The dependent care and
adoption tax credits will be cut.
The return of the Death Tax. This year, there is no death tax. For
those dying on or after January 1 2011, there is a 55 percent top
death tax rate on estates over $1 million. A person leaving behind
two homes and a retirement account could easily pass along a death tax
bill to their loved ones.
Higher tax rates on savers and investors. The capital gains tax will
rise from 15 percent this year to 20 percent in 2011. The dividends
tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 39.6 percent in 2011.
These rates will rise another 3.8 percent in 2013.
Second Wave: Obamacare
There are over twenty new or higher taxes in Obamacare. Several will
first go into effect on January 1, 2011. They include:
The “Medicine Cabinet Tax” Thanks to Obamacare, Americans will no
longer be able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending
account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to
purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except
insulin).
The “Special Needs Kids Tax” This provision of Obamacare imposes a
cap on flexible spending accounts (FSAs) of $2500 (Currently, there is
no federal government limit). There is one group of FSA owners for
whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of
special needs children. There are thousands of families with special
needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay
for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that
teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child
Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules,
FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs
education.
The HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike. This provision of Obamacare increases
the additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from
10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other
tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.
Third Wave: The Alternative Minimum Tax and Employer Tax Hikes
When Americans prepare to file their tax returns in January of 2011,
they’ll be in for a nasty surprise—the AMT won’t be held harmless, and
many tax relief provisions will have expired. The major items
include:
The AMT will ensnare over 28 million families, up from 4 million last
year. According to the left-leaning Tax Policy Center, Congress’
failure to index the AMT will lead to an explosion of AMT taxpaying
families—rising from 4 million last year to 28.5 million. These
families will have to calculate their tax burdens twice, and pay taxes
at the higher level. The AMT was created in 1969 to ensnare a handful
of taxpayers.
Small business expensing will be slashed and 50% expensing will
disappear. Small businesses can normally expense (rather than
slowly-deduct, or “depreciate”) equipment purchases up to $250,000.
This will be cut all the way down to $25,000. Larger businesses can
expense half of their purchases of equipment. In January of 2011, all
of it will have to be “depreciated.”
Taxes will be raised on all types of businesses. There are literally
scores of tax hikes on business that will take place. The biggest is
the loss of the “research and experimentation tax credit,” but there
are many, many others. Combining high marginal tax rates with the
loss of this tax relief will cost jobs.
Tax Benefits for Education and Teaching Reduced. The deduction for
tuition and fees will not be available. Tax credits for education
will be limited. Teachers will no longer be able to deduct classroom
expenses. Coverdell Education Savings Accounts will be cut.
Employer-provided educational assistance is curtailed. The student
loan interest deduction will be disallowed for hundreds of thousands
of families.
Charitable Contributions from IRAs no longer allowed. Under current
law, a retired person with an IRA can contribute up to $100,000 per
year directly to a charity from their IRA. This contribution also
counts toward an annual “required minimum distribution.” This ability
will no longer be there.
Read more:
http://www.atr.org/sixmonths.html?content=5171#ixzz0sZ9kFhKm
Brian Allen
Um... yeah. So it makes perfect sense to blame one person for it! Weak
thinking.
> Time to you to pay for Obama's deficit build up.
Right, because the country was humming right along until a year and a half
ago when he took office. Shit man, we were walking down streets paved with
gold!
* US *
wrote:
>> Absolutely, but it was bipartisan.
>
>Um... yeah. So it makes perfect sense to blame one person for it! Weak
>thinking.
Uh uh, BOTH sides fucked up that one, but Obama's side is responsible
for the failed stimulus and all other runaway spending that has not
helped one iota.
>> Time to you to pay for Obama's deficit build up.
>
>Right, because the country was humming right along until a year and a half
>ago when he took office. Shit man, we were walking down streets paved with
>gold!
>
>
Well, let's see, in Oct. 2008 before the election, enemployment was
6.8% and Obama promised us that with his stimulus pkg., it wouldn't go
above 8%. Uh uh.
Obama inherited a fire cause in part by his own side, but he threw
gasoline on it. The real problem is that he wants it this way in
order to realize his dream of a socialist Utopia where govt. controls
nearly every aspect of our lives.
Brian Allen
> for the failed stimulus and all other runaway spending that has not
> helped one iota.
How so? He wasn't in office for the first stimulus. Why should he take the
blame for it?
> Well, let's see, in Oct. 2008 before the election, enemployment was
> 6.8% and Obama promised us that with his stimulus pkg., it wouldn't go
> above 8%. Uh uh.
Nice use of timing there. You selected the last month before the recession
started. You do realize that by the time he took office in February, the
bubble had already burst, right?
* US *
wrote:
>> Uh uh, BOTH sides fucked up that one, but Obama's side is responsible
>> for the failed stimulus and all other runaway spending that has not
>> helped one iota.
>
>How so? He wasn't in office for the first stimulus. Why should he take the
>blame for it?
He was a senator who supported it.
>
>> Well, let's see, in Oct. 2008 before the election, enemployment was
>> 6.8% and Obama promised us that with his stimulus pkg., it wouldn't go
>> above 8%. Uh uh.
>
>Nice use of timing there. You selected the last month before the recession
>started. You do realize that by the time he took office in February, the
>bubble had already burst, right?
We were in a recession. We have been in recessions before. Far worse
than the one Obama inherited. That's the nature of free mkt.
capitalism. Business cycles. You don't use massive govt. spending to
escape a recession. Duh. You let the mkt. forces take over. You
don't use Keynesian policies. You don't spend and then increase taxes
on a recessed citizenry whose funds are already limited. Even the
fawning Obama media: NYTimes, CNN, Time Magazine economists now say
that the stimulus bombed. Shucks, we told them all along it would.
Salad
> On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 09:10:36 -0400, "Brian Allen" <bl...@blah.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>Uh uh, BOTH sides fucked up that one, but Obama's side is responsible
>>>for the failed stimulus and all other runaway spending that has not
>>>helped one iota.
>>
>>How so? He wasn't in office for the first stimulus. Why should he take the
>>blame for it?
>
>
> He was a senator who supported it.
>
>>>Well, let's see, in Oct. 2008 before the election, enemployment was
>>>6.8% and Obama promised us that with his stimulus pkg., it wouldn't go
>>>above 8%. Uh uh.
>>
>>Nice use of timing there. You selected the last month before the recession
>>started. You do realize that by the time he took office in February, the
>>bubble had already burst, right?
>
>
> We were in a recession. We have been in recessions before. Far worse
> than the one Obama inherited.
When? I was born in the '50s. Do we need to go back to the '30s?
That's the nature of free mkt.
> capitalism. Business cycles. You don't use massive govt. spending to
> escape a recession. Duh. You let the mkt. forces take over. You
> don't use Keynesian policies. You don't spend and then increase taxes
> on a recessed citizenry whose funds are already limited. Even the
> fawning Obama media: NYTimes, CNN, Time Magazine economists now say
> that the stimulus bombed. Shucks, we told them all along it would.
Thank God for BP! That's some work stimulus.
* US *
wrote:
>* US * wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 09:10:36 -0400, "Brian Allen" <bl...@blah.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Uh uh, BOTH sides fucked up that one, but Obama's side is responsible
>>>>for the failed stimulus and all other runaway spending that has not
>>>>helped one iota.
>>>
>>>How so? He wasn't in office for the first stimulus. Why should he take the
>>>blame for it?
>>
>>
>> He was a senator who supported it.
>>
>>>>Well, let's see, in Oct. 2008 before the election, enemployment was
>>>>6.8% and Obama promised us that with his stimulus pkg., it wouldn't go
>>>>above 8%. Uh uh.
>>>
>>>Nice use of timing there. You selected the last month before the recession
>>>started. You do realize that by the time he took office in February, the
>>>bubble had already burst, right?
>>
>>
>> We were in a recession. We have been in recessions before. Far worse
>> than the one Obama inherited.
>
>When? I was born in the '50s. Do we need to go back to the '30s?
Well, for one, early Reagan as I recall, after monstrous inflation
during Carter.
Cycles.
> That's the nature of free mkt.
>> capitalism. Business cycles. You don't use massive govt. spending to
>> escape a recession. Duh. You let the mkt. forces take over. You
>> don't use Keynesian policies. You don't spend and then increase taxes
>> on a recessed citizenry whose funds are already limited. Even the
>> fawning Obama media: NYTimes, CNN, Time Magazine economists now say
>> that the stimulus bombed. Shucks, we told them all along it would.
>
>Thank God for BP! That's some work stimulus.
Can you imagine a President refusing help from 30 Nations and 6
international organizations?
Oh wait, that's what happened here.
Can you imagine a country caving-in to enviro-nazis who insisted that
there can be no dry land or shallow water drilling, even though oil
leaks coule more easily be stopped at those locations?
Oh wait, that's what happened here.
Salad
> On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 07:54:25 -0700, Salad <sa...@oilandvinegar.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>* US * wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 09:10:36 -0400, "Brian Allen" <bl...@blah.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Uh uh, BOTH sides fucked up that one, but Obama's side is responsible
>>>>>for the failed stimulus and all other runaway spending that has not
>>>>>helped one iota.
>>>>
>>>>How so? He wasn't in office for the first stimulus. Why should he take the
>>>>blame for it?
>>>
>>>
>>>He was a senator who supported it.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Well, let's see, in Oct. 2008 before the election, enemployment was
>>>>>6.8% and Obama promised us that with his stimulus pkg., it wouldn't go
>>>>>above 8%. Uh uh.
>>>>
>>>>Nice use of timing there. You selected the last month before the recession
>>>>started. You do realize that by the time he took office in February, the
>>>>bubble had already burst, right?
>>>
>>>
>>>We were in a recession. We have been in recessions before. Far worse
>>>than the one Obama inherited.
>>
>>When? I was born in the '50s. Do we need to go back to the '30s?
>
>
> Well, for one, early Reagan as I recall, after monstrous inflation
> during Carter.
>
That was worse?
Carter's term was also when the bill finally was settled for the Vietnam
War. I can't imagine what howling and gnashing of teeth will occur
when the bush wars end and the bill comes due in the US.
> Cycles.
>
>
>> That's the nature of free mkt.
>>
>>>capitalism. Business cycles. You don't use massive govt. spending to
>>>escape a recession. Duh. You let the mkt. forces take over. You
>>>don't use Keynesian policies. You don't spend and then increase taxes
>>>on a recessed citizenry whose funds are already limited. Even the
>>>fawning Obama media: NYTimes, CNN, Time Magazine economists now say
>>>that the stimulus bombed. Shucks, we told them all along it would.
>>
>>Thank God for BP! That's some work stimulus.
>
> Can you imagine a President refusing help from 30 Nations and 6
> international organizations?
Refusing help? Anyway, do keep up, 44 nations have offered help. I'm
not in the loop but I have to admit I don't know what help was offered.
Do you? Anyway, the following is from an article dated May 27.
"Though the State Department receives the offers, it is BP and the
Unified Area Command, led by the Coast Guard, that are the entities
that decide which offers to accept. So far, the UAC has accepted
skimmers and booms offered by Mexico and Norway. He deferred questions
as to why only those offers had been accepted so far to the UAC in
Louisiana.
Crowley did not have much information on what each country was
specifically offering besides saying, �technical things, skimmers,
booms, you know in some cases expertise.� He said most of the offers
came in the weeks after the spill. Despite an offer to assist by an
Iranian state oil company, Crowley said there have been no official
offers of assistance from Iran, and he added that Cuba has not offered
assistance either.
He said the State Department�s role "is to accept offers by countries
and international organizations and then pass those offers of assistance
through channels to this United Area Command. The UAC is actually the
entity that makes the decisions based on evaluating what's being offered
and what the immediate needs are. As I understand it, some of the early
acceptance involved booms to try to contain the spread of oil away from
the rig. But beyond that, these decisions are being made down in Louisiana."
>
> Oh wait, that's what happened here.
>
> Can you imagine a country caving-in to enviro-nazis who insisted that
> there can be no dry land or shallow water drilling, even though oil
> leaks coule more easily be stopped at those locations?
>
Ban was lifted.
> Oh wait, that's what happened here.
>
BTW, IMO, the 20 billion BP is putting up will be chump change to fix
the disaster. It's a start, that's about all.
Genesis 1:26
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And
let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of
the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every
creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
Sure doing a good job in the dominion department.
Jack From Waaayyy Back
wrote:
Not as bad as the current rates under Obama, but as I recall higher
than Bush's.
>Carter's term was also when the bill finally was settled for the Vietnam
> War. I can't imagine what howling and gnashing of teeth will occur
>when the bush wars end and the bill comes due in the US.
Oh, you mean the war that JFK and LBJ started.
Yeah, that was a clusterfuck all right.
>> Cycles.
>>
>>
>>> That's the nature of free mkt.
>>>
>>>>capitalism. Business cycles. You don't use massive govt. spending to
>>>>escape a recession. Duh. You let the mkt. forces take over. You
>>>>don't use Keynesian policies. You don't spend and then increase taxes
>>>>on a recessed citizenry whose funds are already limited. Even the
>>>>fawning Obama media: NYTimes, CNN, Time Magazine economists now say
>>>>that the stimulus bombed. Shucks, we told them all along it would.
>>>
>>>Thank God for BP! That's some work stimulus.
>>
>> Can you imagine a President refusing help from 30 Nations and 6
>> international organizations?
>
>Refusing help? Anyway, do keep up, 44 nations have offered help. I'm
>not in the loop but I have to admit I don't know what help was offered.
> Do you? Anyway, the following is from an article dated May 27.
44? Hell, that's even worse.
>"Though the State Department receives the offers, it is BP and the
>Unified Area Command, led by the Coast Guard, that are the entities
>that decide which offers to accept. So far, the UAC has accepted
>skimmers and booms offered by Mexico and Norway. He deferred questions
>as to why only those offers had been accepted so far to the UAC in
>Louisiana.
>
>Crowley did not have much information on what each country was
>specifically offering besides saying, “technical things, skimmers,
>booms, you know in some cases expertise.” He said most of the offers
>came in the weeks after the spill. Despite an offer to assist by an
>Iranian state oil company, Crowley said there have been no official
>offers of assistance from Iran, and he added that Cuba has not offered
>assistance either.
>
>He said the State Department’s role "is to accept offers by countries
>and international organizations and then pass those offers of assistance
>through channels to this United Area Command. The UAC is actually the
>entity that makes the decisions based on evaluating what's being offered
>and what the immediate needs are. As I understand it, some of the early
>acceptance involved booms to try to contain the spread of oil away from
>the rig. But beyond that, these decisions are being made down in Louisiana."
It is long past time for Obama to take charge and show that he's da
man. I do know that he refused to suspend the Jones Act which he can
do by declaring emergency and accept what is offered regardless of BP
sentiments.
>>
>> Oh wait, that's what happened here.
>>
>> Can you imagine a country caving-in to enviro-nazis who insisted that
>> there can be no dry land or shallow water drilling, even though oil
>> leaks coule more easily be stopped at those locations?
>>
>Ban was lifted.
If there were no ban, oil cos. would have been drilling in the more
appropriate places. But no, that would stop the flow of $$$$$ from
greenies into the political coffers.
Salad
>>Carter's term was also when the bill finally was settled for the Vietnam
>> War. I can't imagine what howling and gnashing of teeth will occur
>>when the bush wars end and the bill comes due in the US.
>
> Oh, you mean the war that JFK and LBJ started.
Both Democrats and Republicans creamed their jeans for the dominoes game
in Vietnam. It took the young people that were fighting that silly war
to demonstrate and fight back against the "US, right or wrong" crowd and
change sentiment.
> Yeah, that was a clusterfuck all right.
The Vietnam War was a clusterfuck. Got that right.
>>>Can you imagine a country caving-in to enviro-nazis who insisted that
>>>there can be no dry land or shallow water drilling, even though oil
>>>leaks coule more easily be stopped at those locations?
>>>
>>
>>Ban was lifted.
>
> If there were no ban, oil cos. would have been drilling in the more
> appropriate places. But no, that would stop the flow of $$$$$ from
> greenies into the political coffers.
What? Could you talk sense instead of nonsense?
Chitown Ghettos
"Brian Allen" <bl...@blah.com> wrote:
>
> > Absolutely, but it was bipartisan.
>
> Um... yeah. So it makes perfect sense to blame one person for it! Weak
> thinking.
Elect a nigger to public office, get a ghetto in return.
> > Time to you to pay for Obama's deficit build up.
>
> Right, because the country was humming right along until a year and a half
> ago when he took office. Shit man, we were walking down streets paved with
> gold!
You were walking along to the voting polls with your head up
your ass.
Nobody is going to spend money while an incompetent pinhead is
in office.
Jack From Waaayyy Back
wrote:
>Jack From Waaayyy Back wrote:
>
>>>Carter's term was also when the bill finally was settled for the Vietnam
>>> War. I can't imagine what howling and gnashing of teeth will occur
>>>when the bush wars end and the bill comes due in the US.
>>
>> Oh, you mean the war that JFK and LBJ started.
>
>Both Democrats and Republicans creamed their jeans for the dominoes game
>in Vietnam. It took the young people that were fighting that silly war
>to demonstrate and fight back against the "US, right or wrong" crowd and
>change sentiment.
Moonbats like to revise history and say that it was the war-mongering
Repubs who were solely responsible.
>> Yeah, that was a clusterfuck all right.
>
>The Vietnam War was a clusterfuck. Got that right.
>
>>>>Can you imagine a country caving-in to enviro-nazis who insisted that
>>>>there can be no dry land or shallow water drilling, even though oil
>>>>leaks coule more easily be stopped at those locations?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Ban was lifted.
>>
>> If there were no ban, oil cos. would have been drilling in the more
>> appropriate places. But no, that would stop the flow of $$$$$ from
>> greenies into the political coffers.
>
>What? Could you talk sense instead of nonsense?
>
>
Tell me which words you fail to grasp.
Salad
> On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 08:53:08 -0700, Salad <sa...@oilandvinegar.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Jack From Waaayyy Back wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Carter's term was also when the bill finally was settled for the Vietnam
>>>> War. I can't imagine what howling and gnashing of teeth will occur
>>>>when the bush wars end and the bill comes due in the US.
>>>
>>>Oh, you mean the war that JFK and LBJ started.
>>
>>Both Democrats and Republicans creamed their jeans for the dominoes game
>>in Vietnam. It took the young people that were fighting that silly war
>>to demonstrate and fight back against the "US, right or wrong" crowd and
>>change sentiment.
>
>
> Moonbats like to revise history and say that it was the war-mongering
> Repubs who were solely responsible.
I never said Republicans were the sole supporters of the Vietnam. Both
parties supported the Vietnam War and the deaths of Americans and
footing a large war bill.
Nor are Republicans the sole supporters of the current wars. At one
point 90% of the US was ecstatic about invading Iraq. The purpose of
the Afghan was was lost when the Iraq invasion took place. The upside
is that we made the defense industry and investors very rich, the
downside a bunch of dead soldiers for 2 wars we won't win and a huge
borrowed war tab.
Jack From Waaayyy Back
wrote:
>Jack From Waaayyy Back wrote:
>> On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 08:53:08 -0700, Salad <sa...@oilandvinegar.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Jack From Waaayyy Back wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Carter's term was also when the bill finally was settled for the Vietnam
>>>>> War. I can't imagine what howling and gnashing of teeth will occur
>>>>>when the bush wars end and the bill comes due in the US.
>>>>
>>>>Oh, you mean the war that JFK and LBJ started.
>>>
>>>Both Democrats and Republicans creamed their jeans for the dominoes game
>>>in Vietnam. It took the young people that were fighting that silly war
>>>to demonstrate and fight back against the "US, right or wrong" crowd and
>>>change sentiment.
>>
>>
>> Moonbats like to revise history and say that it was the war-mongering
>> Repubs who were solely responsible.
>
>I never said Republicans were the sole supporters of the Vietnam. Both
>parties supported the Vietnam War and the deaths of Americans and
>footing a large war bill.
Most moonbats disagree with you, especially those from your generation
who weren't alive or were very young during 'Nam.
>Nor are Republicans the sole supporters of the current wars. At one
>point 90% of the US was ecstatic about invading Iraq. The purpose of
>the Afghan was was lost when the Iraq invasion took place. The upside
>is that we made the defense industry and investors very rich, the
>downside a bunch of dead soldiers for 2 wars we won't win and a huge
>borrowed war tab.
>
Yep.
I still think that Bush had a hair up his ass for his father's failure
to take out Hussein and he was bound-and-determined to rectify it
regardless of the consequences.
It's all just a fucking tragedy.
Salad
> On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 10:05:05 -0700, Salad <sa...@oilandvinegar.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Most moonbats disagree with you, especially those from your generation
> who weren't alive or were very young during 'Nam.
>
You're right. The ending of the Vietnam War was 40 years ago. Probably
have to be 50 to have even a memory of it.
Brian Allen
Along with about 200 others. It took a 2/3rd's vote to pass it, remember?
Pretty lame to pin it all on one person.
Brian Allen
> during Carter.
So wait, it made sense to blame Carter for Reagan's early-office problems,
but it's blasphemy to blame Bush (who was in office for 8 years) for Obama's
early-office problems? I smell a hypocrite.
> Can you imagine a President refusing help from 30 Nations and 6
> international organizations?
Probably because all their "help" is being bankrolled by oil companies and
lobbyists.
> Can you imagine a country caving-in to enviro-nazis who insisted that
> there can be no dry land or shallow water drilling, even though oil
> leaks coule more easily be stopped at those locations?
That hasn't happened. There was a stoppage placed on the drilling of new
deep-water drill sites. Gee, I wonder why. BP is the poster child for why
Ayn Rand was wrong.
Brian Allen
> disaster. It's a start, that's about all.
You're right, of course, but can you believe some doofus apologized to BP
for being forced to fork this money over? That would be like me ramming my
car into somebody's house and then expecting an apology when I was forced to
pay for the damage! Buy a fuckin' clue. And personally, I don't think
Obama has gotten near enough credit for pushing this through. How much
money do you think BP would have voluntarily ponied up? Obama made that 20
billion happen, and people need to be talking about that.
Brian Allen
Actually, you need to go back to Eisenhower. He sent supplies to aid the
French occupation and also helped trained the faux South army. Funny story:
VP Nixon wanted to send troops in as far back as 1954. Vietnam was a
bi-partisan failure, folks. The truth of the matter is that Nixon was
probably right. We were going to send in troops anyway, so why not send
them in to help prop up the French occupation effort? We ended up sending
them in on their own. Not sure how much help the French would've been,
however.
> Yeah, that was a clusterfuck all right.
No question! Iraq is a similar war.
> It is long past time for Obama to take charge and show that he's da
> man. I do know that he refused to suspend the Jones Act which he can
> do by declaring emergency and accept what is offered regardless of BP
> sentiments.
It's BP's problem. My question is why should we accept "help" from special
interest groups? It's BP's job to clean it up. Make the bastards fix their
own problem. If they go bankrupt, fuck 'em.
> If there were no ban, oil cos. would have been drilling in the more
> appropriate places. But no, that would stop the flow of $$$$$ from
> greenies into the political coffers.
Yeah, it's a damn shame that they can't drill more and spill some more oil.
Domestic drilling is a drop in the bucket. Always has been, always will be.
Brian Allen
> Repubs who were solely responsible.
I've never seen a single argument that totally implicated the Republicans
but not the Democrats. How could it? Kennedy and Johnson were in office
for the bulk of the war!
Brian Allen
So how's the weather back in 1835?
Jack From Way The Fuck Back
wrote:
>> Moonbats like to revise history and say that it was the war-mongering
I'm talking about the dipshit liberals who inhabit Usenet.
Jack From Way The Fuck Back
wrote:
>> Oh, you mean the war that JFK and LBJ started.
>
>Actually, you need to go back to Eisenhower. He sent supplies to aid the
>French occupation and also helped trained the faux South army. Funny story:
>VP Nixon wanted to send troops in as far back as 1954. Vietnam was a
>bi-partisan failure, folks. The truth of the matter is that Nixon was
>probably right. We were going to send in troops anyway, so why not send
>them in to help prop up the French occupation effort? We ended up sending
>them in on their own. Not sure how much help the French would've been,
>however.
Nope.
Hostilities actually began under LBJ altho JFK laid out the framework
for said hostilities.
>> Yeah, that was a clusterfuck all right.
>
>No question! Iraq is a similar war.
in which 90% of American politicians endorsed at first, after 9/11.
And a similar % of American citizens.
>> It is long past time for Obama to take charge and show that he's da
>> man. I do know that he refused to suspend the Jones Act which he can
>> do by declaring emergency and accept what is offered regardless of BP
>> sentiments.
>
>It's BP's problem. My question is why should we accept "help" from special
>interest groups? It's BP's job to clean it up. Make the bastards fix their
>own problem. If they go bankrupt, fuck 'em.
BZZT: Wrong answer. It's the govt. jobs to manage and oversee cleanup
efforts.
And BTW, It's human interest groups and dozens of nations.
What the fuck do we have 17,000 EPA employees for, eh?
>> If there were no ban, oil cos. would have been drilling in the more
>> appropriate places. But no, that would stop the flow of $$$$$ from
>> greenies into the political coffers.
>
>Yeah, it's a damn shame that they can't drill more and spill some more oil.
>Domestic drilling is a drop in the bucket. Always has been, always will be.
>
>
That's because we won't drill .... baby .... drill.
Jack From Way The Fuck Back
wrote:
>> Well, for one, early Reagan as I recall, after monstrous inflation
>> during Carter.
>
>So wait, it made sense to blame Carter for Reagan's early-office problems,
>but it's blasphemy to blame Bush (who was in office for 8 years) for Obama's
>early-office problems? I smell a hypocrite.
It's like this, moonbat, I did well during Bush.
Sorry you didn't.
And if you're doing better under Obammy, you must be a federal
employee, member of certain unions, or welfare recipient.
>> Can you imagine a President refusing help from 30 Nations and 6
>> international organizations?
>
>Probably because all their "help" is being bankrolled by oil companies and
>lobbyists.
So let the oil spill ... baby ... spill.
Yeah, that makes sense.
>> Can you imagine a country caving-in to enviro-nazis who insisted that
>> there can be no dry land or shallow water drilling, even though oil
>> leaks coule more easily be stopped at those locations?
>
>That hasn't happened. There was a stoppage placed on the drilling of new
>deep-water drill sites. Gee, I wonder why. BP is the poster child for why
>Ayn Rand was wrong.
>
>
Uh, no moonbat, the drilling / exploration on dryland and at shallow
sites was stopped a long time ago.
Jack From Way The Fuck Back
wrote:
>> He was a senator who supported it.
>
>Along with about 200 others. It took a 2/3rd's vote to pass it, remember?
>Pretty lame to pin it all on one person.
>
>
So don't put the blame solely on the other side.
Jack From Way The Fuck Back
wrote:
>> Elect a nigger to public office, get a ghetto in return.
>
>So how's the weather back in 1835?
>
>
Well shux, you whiggers are always dredging up the past and trying to
impute what happened in 1835 to today's black population.
Salad
>>BTW, IMO, the 20 billion BP is putting up will be chump change to fix the
>>disaster. It's a start, that's about all.
>
>
> You're right, of course, but can you believe some doofus apologized to BP
> for being forced to fork this money over?
Well, if they are purchased by the oil interests, and any other
corporatation that buys them, it doesn't surprise me. Barton's gotten
1.4 million from the oil industry since 1990. Politicians like him work
at the bidding of corporations, not the people of his state or district.
I remember when Ross Perot, at a computer convention keynote address in
DC, mentioned some guy who was the trade rep for the US between Japan.
Then the guy quit and became the trade rep for Japan and the TV
industry in the US disappeared. Ross called the man a traitor. Same
thing. Barton is a traitor. Or perhaps I should say a Judas that would
sell the country out for 30 pieces of silver.
That would be like me ramming my
> car into somebody's house and then expecting an apology when I was forced to
> pay for the damage! Buy a fuckin' clue. And personally, I don't think
> Obama has gotten near enough credit for pushing this through. How much
> money do you think BP would have voluntarily ponied up?
Republicans believe the market would make things right.
Obama made that 20
> billion happen, and people need to be talking about that.
>
Party trumps country.
Brian Allen
>
> Hostilities actually began under LBJ altho JFK laid out the framework
> for said hostilities.
I just gave you the whole groundwork that was laid for the war. Eisenhower
sent supplies and training to the South cause while Nixon wanted to send
troops. JFK sent advisors and the first ground troops, then LBK escelated.
Nixon was on the fence when he finally became president. He wanted to end
the war because it was a political nightmare, but he didn't want to lose the
war because it was a political nightmare. Obama is in a similar situation
to Nixon with regards to Iraq.
> in which 90% of American politicians endorsed at first, after 9/11.
>
> And a similar % of American citizens.
I don't believe either stat. I'd need to see some proof of those claims.
> BZZT: Wrong answer. It's the govt. jobs to manage and oversee cleanup
> efforts.
>
> And BTW, It's human interest groups and dozens of nations.
>
>
> What the fuck do we have 17,000 EPA employees for, eh?
Listen, you want this both ways. You want the govenment to stay the hell
out of the way and let private corporations manage their businesses, right?
But then when a private corporation fucks something up royally, you want the
government to step in and fix the problem. Two problems: 1. What kind of
message does it send to the oil companies if half the world spends their own
time and money to fix this? 2. What makes you think that the government has
ANY expertise to fix this problem?
BP made their bed. Let them sleep in it to the tune of 20 billion dollars.
> That's because we won't drill .... baby .... drill.
So you're still advocating that? You're in the minority. Lord knows Palin
ain't saying it anymore after this disaster. Olberman: this woman is an
idiot.
Brian Allen
> corporatation that buys them, it doesn't surprise me. Barton's gotten 1.4
> million from the oil industry since 1990. Politicians like him work at
> the bidding of corporations, not the people of his state or district.
Pretty brazen, though. I mean he could at least act like he isn't a
figurehead!
> Republicans believe the market would make things right.
Again, BP is the poster child for big government. They've proven that you
can't let industry run un-regulated. They passed on a safety device that
would've cost them next to nothing (relatively speaking) and would've
prevented this whole disaster.
Brian Allen
>
> Sorry you didn't.
I was a college student, and when I graduated under Bush, gas prices had
tripled and there were no jobs. Yeah, it was fun. So were you a Texas oil
exec under Bush, or did you work for Haliburtan? I heard those two groups
did well during that time period.
> And if you're doing better under Obammy, you must be a federal
> employee, member of certain unions, or welfare recipient.
I'm a teacher. We don't do particularly well under any presidency. I don't
feel sorry for Wall Streeters.
> So let the oil spill ... baby ... spill.
Because it makes a lot of sense to accept help from special interest groups
rather than force the company that fucked up to clean up their own mess?
Wait, aren't you in a favor of a total free market system? Only when
mistakes don't happen, I guess.... BP is the poster child for big
government. You can't let these thieves run their industry un-regulated.
You just saw what happens when that occurs!
> Uh, no moonbat, the drilling / exploration on dryland and at shallow
> sites was stopped a long time ago.
A long time ago, as in before Obama took office?
Brian Allen
I recall saying that the bailouts were extremely bipartisan. You then
attempted to blame it all on Obama. Try to keep up. It was your argument!
Brian Allen
> impute what happened in 1835 to today's black population.
Actually, I was making fun of his blatently racist comment by trying to
associate that behavior with a typical 1835 redneck. Funny how the more
things change, the more they stay the same.
Way Back Jack
wrote:
>> Well, if they are purchased by the oil interests, and any other
In 2009, Obama gave 'em an awd. for their safety prevention setup.
Way Back Jack
wrote:
>> Nope.
>>
>> Hostilities actually began under LBJ altho JFK laid out the framework
>> for said hostilities.
>
>I just gave you the whole groundwork that was laid for the war. Eisenhower
>sent supplies and training to the South cause while Nixon wanted to send
>troops. JFK sent advisors and the first ground troops, then LBK escelated.
>Nixon was on the fence when he finally became president. He wanted to end
>the war because it was a political nightmare, but he didn't want to lose the
>war because it was a political nightmare. Obama is in a similar situation
>to Nixon with regards to Iraq.
Hostilities began with Tonkin altho JFK laid the framework.
I was there, sonny; I recall it well.
>> in which 90% of American politicians endorsed at first, after 9/11.
>>
>> And a similar % of American citizens.
>
>I don't believe either stat. I'd need to see some proof of those claims.
Oh OK, then you'll just have to wallow in ignorance.
>> BZZT: Wrong answer. It's the govt. jobs to manage and oversee cleanup
>> efforts.
>>
>> And BTW, It's human interest groups and dozens of nations.
>>
>>
>> What the fuck do we have 17,000 EPA employees for, eh?
>
>Listen, you want this both ways. You want the govenment to stay the hell
>out of the way and let private corporations manage their businesses, right?
>But then when a private corporation fucks something up royally, you want the
>government to step in and fix the problem. Two problems: 1. What kind of
>message does it send to the oil companies if half the world spends their own
>time and money to fix this? 2. What makes you think that the government has
>ANY expertise to fix this problem?
>
>BP made their bed. Let them sleep in it to the tune of 20 billion dollars.
I want this Administration to show some leadership in getting this
mess cleaned up.
Even the ObamaSuckup media is getting antsy:
MSM Wall Protecting Obama Gulf Oil Spill Response Cracks With Latest
AP Report
By P.J. Gladnick (Bio | Archive)
Sat, 07/03/2010 - 15:49 ET
Perhaps it is frustration, as expressed by Anderson Cooper, with the
new White House rules inhibiting reports about the Gulf of Mexico oil
spill that is now causing a big crack in the Mainstream Media wall
which until recently mostly avoided direct criticism of the Obama
administration response. However that crack has now turned into a
flood of surprising criticism coming from formerly friendly outlets
such as the Associated Press. Read this amazing AP report and keep in
mind that it is no longer just conservative sources that are harsh in
their criticisms of the Obama Gulf oil containment efforts:
NEW ORLEANS — BP and the Obama administration face mounting complaints
that they are ignoring foreign offers of equipment and making little
use of the fishing boats and volunteers available to help clean up
what may now be the biggest spill ever in the Gulf of Mexico.
The Coast Guard said there have been 107 offers of help from 44
nations, ranging from technical advice to skimmer boats and booms. But
many of those offers are weeks old, and only a small number have been
accepted. The vast majority are still under review, according to a
list kept by the State Department.
Ouch! But the criticism of the poor reponse of the Obama
administration response to this crises becomes even more heated:
A report prepared by investigators with the House Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform for Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif.,
detailed one case in which the Dutch government offered April 30 to
provide four oil skimmers that collectively could process more than 6
million gallons of oily water a day. It took seven weeks for the U.S.
to approve the offer.
Even the credibility of the Coast Guard is being called into question:
Billy Nungesser, president of Louisiana's hard-hit Plaquemines Parish,
said BP and the Coast Guard provided a map of the exact locations of
140 skimmers that were supposedly cleaning up the oil. But he said
that after he repeatedly asked to be flown over the area so he could
see them at work, officials told him only 31 skimmers were on the job.
Something seems to have shifted dramatically in the past few days in
MSM coverage of this crises. And was this the reason for the
"transparent" Obama administration attempting to inhibit coverage of
the Gulf oil spill?
>> That's because we won't drill .... baby .... drill.
>
>So you're still advocating that? You're in the minority. Lord knows Palin
>ain't saying it anymore after this disaster. Olberman: this woman is an
>idiot.
Perhaps you and Keith and the other moonbats can get to work by
spinning the propellers on your beanies and cut down trees to warm
your houses.
Way Back Jack
Teacher? Ah yes, a member of a "preferred" union that will thrive
under Obammy. Another leftist to indoctrinate the youth and to focus
on inclusivity and self-esteem at the expense of educational basics.
Bet you're a fan of Kevin Jennings, eh.
What's all this "special interest" spiel? Talking about 44 nations
offering their help.
Yeah, the proscriptions against drilling were in place long before
Obama, not that he would do anything to remove them.
On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 08:27:39 -0400, "Brian Allen" <bl...@blah.com>
wrote:
>> It's like this, moonbat, I did well during Bush.
Way Back Jack
wrote:
>> So don't put the blame solely on the other side.
>
>I recall saying that the bailouts were extremely bipartisan. You then
>attempted to blame it all on Obama. Try to keep up. It was your argument!
>
>
Nope.
The subsequent "bailouts" were all-Obama though.
Way Back Jack
wrote:
>> Well shux, you whiggers are always dredging up the past and trying to
And I frequently mock the "guilty" whigger set for exusing black
criminality, STD, and out of wedlocks on "400 years of slavery."
Brian Allen
My point was that both parties laid the framework. And I would say that
"official" hostilities began with Tonkin.
> Oh OK, then you'll just have to wallow in ignorance.
Or you could post a link that validates the stat. I'm not being a jerk. I
sincerely don't believe the stats!
> I want this Administration to show some leadership in getting this
> mess cleaned up.
No you don't. You want them to get the hell out of the way so that a total
free market system can take over, right? Down with big government!
> Perhaps you and Keith and the other moonbats can get to work by
> spinning the propellers on your beanies and cut down trees to warm
> your houses.
Or we could use the vast resources of the country to shift our energy usage
from overseas groups to domestic alternative energy. Nah, why would we want
American industry?
Brian Allen
> under Obammy.
Yeah, I have a yaught and a motorhome out back in my 6 story garage. When
have teachers ever "thrived"?
> Another leftist to indoctrinate the youth and to focus
> on inclusivity and self-esteem at the expense of educational basics.
Why can't we teach all three? I mean is self-esteem and inclusivity a bad
thing? lol
> Bet you're a fan of Kevin Jennings, eh.
I had never heard of him until I looked his name up on Google. Looks like
another government figurehead to me. We should definately cut out all of
the flunkies from big government. But then who would clean up the oil
spill???!!!
> Yeah, the proscriptions against drilling were in place long before
> Obama, not that he would do anything to remove them.
So wait, he's in the wrong not because he created the measures, but because
he didn't lift them after a massive oil spill? I'M SHOCKED!
Brian Allen
>
> The subsequent "bailouts" were all-Obama though.
He introduced one of the two. So he's even with Bush, I guess? Personally,
I hated both of them. Let the banks and auto industries that can't run
their businesses effectively go under. Let better-organized companies buy
them up. THAT is a free market system, not propping up shit companies with
taxpayer dollars. Which is exactly why BP needs to clean up their own mess,
not beg the government to do it for them. And it's also why GM should've
been allowed to die and be purchased by Ford.
Brian Allen
> criminality, STD, and out of wedlocks on "400 years of slavery."
Because only blacks have those problems. This is sarcasm, by the way.
Rednecks have the same problems.
Way Back Jack
wrote:
>> Hostilities began with Tonkin altho JFK laid the framework.
>
>My point was that both parties laid the framework. And I would say that
>"official" hostilities began with Tonkin.
You would be right about the 2nd part.
>> Oh OK, then you'll just have to wallow in ignorance.
>
>Or you could post a link that validates the stat. I'm not being a jerk. I
>sincerely don't believe the stats!
I'm talking off the top of my head. The Congress and people waved
their flags when we hit Iraq, except for Obama and a few others.
>> I want this Administration to show some leadership in getting this
>> mess cleaned up.
>
>No you don't. You want them to get the hell out of the way so that a total
>free market system can take over, right? Down with big government!
I don't want zero guvmint, am not a libertarian, and, surprise, made a
good living as a Fed. bureaucrat. But you're right: down with big
government.
>> Perhaps you and Keith and the other moonbats can get to work by
>> spinning the propellers on your beanies and cut down trees to warm
>> your houses.
>
>Or we could use the vast resources of the country to shift our energy usage
>from overseas groups to domestic alternative energy. Nah, why would we want
>American industry?
But what? You sound like Obama with his generalities. As I
understand it, wind and solar are not feasible on any large scale.
Steam from the earth? What?????
Yeah, we do have vast resources, viz., gas, oil, sweet Utah coal that
Clinton put off limits to help his Malaysian buddy ....
Way Back Jack
wrote:
>> And I frequently mock the "guilty" whigger set for exusing black
You're saying that the incidence of redneck white crimes, STDs, and
OOWs is comparable?
Please cite.
Brian Allen
I'm right about both. Eisenhower sent aid to the French in the 50's while
his VP Nixon openly discussed sending troops over.
> I don't want zero guvmint, am not a libertarian, and, surprise, made a
> good living as a Fed. bureaucrat. But you're right: down with big
> government.
But without big government, who will clean up the oil spill? You can't have
it both ways!
> But what? You sound like Obama with his generalities. As I
> understand it, wind and solar are not feasible on any large scale.
> Steam from the earth? What?????
Solar could be huge.
Brian Allen
> OOWs is comparable?
They're comparable to all races. Stupid doesn't pick a color.
Way Back Jack
wrote:
>> Teacher? Ah yes, a member of a "preferred" union that will thrive
>> under Obammy.
>
>Yeah, I have a yaught and a motorhome out back in my 6 story garage. When
>have teachers ever "thrived"?
They're doing well under Obama vis-a-vis most other disciplines.
>> Another leftist to indoctrinate the youth and to focus
>> on inclusivity and self-esteem at the expense of educational basics.
>
>Why can't we teach all three? I mean is self-esteem and inclusivity a bad
>thing? lol
They're bad when they trump the basics and, regarding inclusivity,
discriminate.
>> Bet you're a fan of Kevin Jennings, eh.
>
>I had never heard of him until I looked his name up on Google. Looks like
>another government figurehead to me. We should definately cut out all of
>the flunkies from big government. But then who would clean up the oil
>spill???!!!
The non-flunkies.
>> Yeah, the proscriptions against drilling were in place long before
>> Obama, not that he would do anything to remove them.
>
>So wait, he's in the wrong not because he created the measures, but because
>he didn't lift them after a massive oil spill? I'M SHOCKED!
The pols who caved-in to the environazis are in the wrong.
But Obama has indeed cancelled drilling at the expense of the economy.
Way Back Jack
wrote:
>> Nope.
The porkulus law, mini-porkuluses subsequently. Spend, spend, spend,
he makes Bush look like a piker. And now the taxman cometh to people,
many of whom are already underemployed and hurting.
Brian Allen
No we're not. We're treading water, at best. My pay-scale hasn't changed
one iota, and the student workload is increasing because districts are
cutting back on jobs.
> They're bad when they trump the basics and, regarding inclusivity,
> discriminate.
It's pretty tough to discriminate in my area. lol And nothing trumps the
basics for me.
> The non-flunkies.
Or the people that created the mess. I vote for them to clean it up.
> The pols who caved-in to the environazis are in the wrong.
>
> But Obama has indeed cancelled drilling at the expense of the economy.
Or he cancelled drilling in favor of figuring out how to regulate it
correctly before BP spills another million gallons. Poster child for
govenment regulation = BP.
Way Back Jack
wrote:
>> You would be right about the 2nd part.
>
>I'm right about both. Eisenhower sent aid to the French in the 50's while
>his VP Nixon openly discussed sending troops over.
Sending aid is not the same as having troops on the ground. Seem to
recall that JFK sent special forces first as "advisors."
>> I don't want zero guvmint, am not a libertarian, and, surprise, made a
>> good living as a Fed. bureaucrat. But you're right: down with big
>> government.
>
>But without big government, who will clean up the oil spill? You can't have
>it both ways!
Govt. need not be big to be efficient. And it's not the sole
responsibility of govt. to clean up. But when you sit back and dawdle
while nations offer their help, that's brain dead.
"Oh we were on this from the get go." -- Obama
Yeah, right.
>> But what? You sound like Obama with his generalities. As I
>> understand it, wind and solar are not feasible on any large scale.
>> Steam from the earth? What?????
>
>Solar could be huge.
Details, por favor.
Way Back Jack
wrote:
>> You're saying that the incidence of redneck white crimes, STDs, and
>> OOWs is comparable?
>
>They're comparable to all races. Stupid doesn't pick a color.
>
>
Oh, I thought that you were talking about a specific segment of
whites, i.e., rednecks. I've never seen their data isolated.
But if you're talking about race in general, you're wrong. Black
folks commit a disproportionate share of street crime that cannot be
explained by socioeconomic gaps.
Way Back Jack
wrote:
>> They're doing well under Obama vis-a-vis most other disciplines.
>
>No we're not. We're treading water, at best. My pay-scale hasn't changed
>one iota, and the student workload is increasing because districts are
>cutting back on jobs.
>
>> They're bad when they trump the basics and, regarding inclusivity,
>> discriminate.
>
>It's pretty tough to discriminate in my area. lol And nothing trumps the
>basics for me.
>
>> The non-flunkies.
>
>Or the people that created the mess. I vote for them to clean it up.
I don't trust big oil any farther than I can throw Rosie O'Donnell and
BP should bear the total cost, but govt. has to be more active here.
I mean, you dissed the previous guy during Katrina; this guy's
performance in the spill is worse. He set up a roadblock for Jindal.
Why? He ignored help from other countries. Why?
>> The pols who caved-in to the environazis are in the wrong.
>>
>> But Obama has indeed cancelled drilling at the expense of the economy.
>
>Or he cancelled drilling in favor of figuring out how to regulate it
>correctly before BP spills another million gallons. Poster child for
>govenment regulation = BP.
>
>
Given Obama's dawdling, gasoline will be $15 gallon before he "figures
out how to regulate."
* US *
wrote:
>> They're doing well under Obama vis-a-vis most other disciplines.
>
>No we're not. We're treading water, at best. My pay-scale hasn't changed
>one iota, and the student workload is increasing because districts are
>cutting back on jobs.
Here's a crude but humorous take on today's teaching profession:
You might remember a few months back the series of TV ads Bank of
America had with this kid dressed in white walking around, with
everything coming to stop as soon as he said, "Shhhhhhh." Well, the
ad that had him touring a museum and saying how much he wanted to be a
teacher and "change the world" had me both laughing and shaking my
head in disgust. OK, sonny, become a teacher, I thought. Wait until
you've gotten your BA, start substitute teaching while working on your
Graduate degree, and typical nigger behavior whops you upside the
head the second you enter that classroom. Go ahead and get your
teaching certification and find out that while there are lots of jobs,
they're nearly all in inner-city shithole nigger warehouses. We'll
see how long you last after your life has been threatened daily, your
car rountinely vandalized, and the "curricula" consist of feel-good,
pro-faggot, anti-White, afrocentric nonsense that you KNOW is 100%
pure bullshit and you cannot do a damn thing about it. What'cha gonna
do NOW, boy? They didn't tell you about this in your PC-obsessed
"collich." Sure, you'd like to walk away from it, but now you have a
whopping student loan to pay off, not to mention all the maxxed-out
credit cards you acquired prior to graduation. You wouldn't happen to
know a blue-collar trade, now, would you?
RickyBobby
>>>
>>
>>The President does give a nice speech. I give him high marks for that.
>>And
>>he still has three years to go to accomplish something. If he can get our
>>troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan he will have done a good job. And then
>>we can elect him again.
>>
> Another satisfied Obammy welfare recipient chimes in.
Welfare recipient! That is funny.
I am just sort of an optimist and hope for the best. President Obama still
has three years for the economy to turn around and give up on fighting wars
over in Iraq and Afghanistan. On the surface I do not see why we fight wars
against countries that do not have a military. Do we expect them to attack
America with their Navies and Air Forces that do not exist? Would that be
anything like those weapons of mass destruction that we never could find in
Iraq in the first place?
RickyBobby
"* US *" <DumpObama@America.> wrote in message
news:4c2d01c5....@news.eternal-september.org...
> On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 13:49:15 -0700, Salad <sa...@oilandvinegar.com>
> wrote:
>
>>RickyBobby wrote:
>>
>>>> There is no bigger failure than the kenyan fraud named Soetoro,
>>>> Obama, whatever you want to call the jerk. He's so dumb that a
>>>> white college boy has to tell him what to say using a
>>>> teleprompter.
>>>>
>>
>>It took a black man to show Republicans that a teleprompter can be an
>>effective tool in politics. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO46ii3W07U.
>
> Damn shame that he's not qualified to manage anything, let alone a
> superpower.
A Senator is qualified to run for President.
ObamaNation=Abomination
If President George W. Bush had been the first President that always
needed TelePrompters installed to be able to get through a Press
Conference, would you have laughed and said this is proof of how
inarticulate he is speaking on his own and is really controlled by
smarter men behind the scenes?
If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take
Laura Bush on a 'Date' in NYC, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had devalued your retirement plan's investment in GM
stock by 90% and given the UAW unions a Majority Stake in GM and
Chrysler, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special
Olympics kids, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown a
set of cheap incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given
him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have
approved?
If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England a little iPod
containing videos of his political speeches, would you have thought
this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?
If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, the Emperor
of Japan and the Premier of Communist China would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the
non-existent "Austrian Language," would you have brushed it off as a
minor slipup?
If George W. Bush had filled his Cabinet and circle of advisers with
people who cheat on their Income Taxes, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco
de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican Ambassador when it was the 5th of
May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again,
would you have winced in embarrassment?
If George W. Bush had misspelled the word "advice" would you have
hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and "potatoe" as proof
of what a dunce he is?
If George W. Bush had burned over 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go
plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a
hypocrite?
If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One buzzing
low over millions of people followed by jet fighters in downtown
Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether
they actually understand what happened on 9-11?
If George W. Bush had failed to send Relief Aid to flood victims
throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than
in New Orleans after Katrina, would you want it made into a major
ongoing political issue with claims of Racism and incompetence?
If George W. Bush had created high paid positions for dozens of
"Czars" who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate and
controlling much of what is happening to America, would you have
approved?
If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major
corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so,
would you have approved?
If George W Bush had proposed to DOUBLE the National Debt, which had
taken more than two Centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you
have approved?
If George W. Bush had then proposed to DOUBLE the National Debt AGAIN
within 10 years, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had spent more than All the Presidents combined
since George Washington, would you have approved?
So, tell me again, what is it about Barack Hussein Obama that makes
him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything?
On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 10:16:13 -0700, "RickyBobby" <nasc...@cox.net>
wrote:
ObamaNation=Abomination
wrote:
Yup.
Even an incompetent one ... as we have seen.
Brian Allen
> needed TelePrompters installed to be able to get through a Press
> Conference, would you have laughed and said this is proof of how
> inarticulate he is speaking on his own and is really controlled by
> smarter men behind the scenes?
If Bush had an earphone in with somebody speaking the words to him, he
couldn't have articulated himself. He had zero communication skills.
> If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take
> Laura Bush on a 'Date' in NYC, would you have approved?
As opposed to spending 9 of his first 12 months in office playing golf?
Please.
> If George W. Bush had devalued your retirement plan's investment in GM
> stock by 90% and given the UAW unions a Majority Stake in GM and
> Chrysler, would you have approved?
Anybody that had retirement plans hinging on Detroit needed a better
investment agent.
> If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special
> Olympics kids, would you have approved?
I know, because who wants to come across as an actual human being on a
late-night talk show? Only people trying to bash the guy even noticed it.
It was a typical comment that any one of us have made 1000 times in our
lives.
> If George W. Bush had given Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown a
> set of cheap incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given
> him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have
> approved?
You're reaching. You're really bashing the guy for being a poor gift-giver?
Seriously?
> If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England a little iPod
> containing videos of his political speeches, would you have thought
> this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?
Again with the gift-giving bashing. Next you'll be pissed because he gave
Aunt Sally a set of fridge magnets for Chrismas when he was five.
> If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, the Emperor
> of Japan and the Premier of Communist China would you have approved?
Right, because who wants to treat foreign leaders with respect? We're
Americans, damn it! They should be shining our shoes!
> If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the
> non-existent "Austrian Language," would you have brushed it off as a
> minor slipup?
Yup. Now if one of them had thrown a shoe at him, then...
Brian Allen
> recall that JFK sent special forces first as "advisors."
But it does show that the administration was invested in the country. And
yes, JFK sent the first American advisors in-country.
ObamaNation=Abomination
Why Obamanomics Has Failed: Uncertainty about future taxes and
regulations is enemy No. 1 of economic growth.
The administration’s stimulus program has failed. Growth is slow and
unemployment remains high. The president, his friends and advisers
talk endlessly about the circumstances they inherited as a way of
avoiding responsibility for the 18 months for which they are
responsible.
But they want new stimulus measures—which is convincing evidence that
they too recognize that the earlier measures failed. And so the U.S.
was odd-man out at the G-20 meeting over the weekend, continuing to
call for more government spending in the face of European resistance.
The contrast with President Reagan’s antirecession and pro-growth
measures in 1981 is striking. Reagan reduced marginal and corporate
tax rates and slowed the growth of nondefense spending. Recovery began
about a year later. After 18 months, the economy grew more than 9% and
it continued to expand above trend rates.
Two overarching reasons explain the failure of Obamanomics. First,
administration economists and their outside supporters neglected the
longer-term costs and consequences of their actions. Second, the
administration and Congress have through their deeds and words
heightened uncertainty about the economic future. High uncertainty is
the enemy of investment and growth.
Most of the earlier spending was a very short-term response to
long-term problems. One piece financed temporary tax cuts. This was a
mistake, and ignores the role of expectations in the economy. Economic
theory predicts that temporary tax cuts have little effect on
spending. Unless tax cuts are expected to last, consumers save the
proceeds and pay down debt. Experience with past temporary tax
reductions, as in the Carter and first Bush presidencies, confirms
this outcome.
Another large part of the stimulus went to relieve state and local
governments of their budget deficits. Transferring a deficit from the
state to the federal government changes very little. Some teachers and
police got an additional year of employment, but their gain is
temporary. Any benefits to them must be balanced against the negative
effect of the increased public debt and the temporary nature of the
transfer.
The Obama economic team ignored past history. The two most successful
fiscal stimulus programs since World War II—under Kennedy-Johnson and
Reagan—took the form of permanent reductions in corporate and marginal
tax rates. Economist Arthur Okun, who had a major role in developing
the Kennedy-Johnson program, later analyzed the effect of individual
items. He concluded that corporate tax reduction was most effective.
Another defect of Obamanomics was that part of the increased spending
authorized by the 2009 stimulus bill was held back. Remember the
oft-repeated claim that the spending would go for “shovel ready”
projects? That didn’t happen, though spending will flow more rapidly
now in an effort to lower unemployment and claim economic success
during the fall election campaign.
In his January 2010 State of the Union address, President Obama
recognized that the United States must increase exports. He was right,
but he has done little to help, either by encouraging investment to
increase productivity, or by supporting trade agreements, despite his
promise to the Koreans that he repeated in Toronto. Export earnings
are the only way to service our massive foreign borrowing. This should
be a high priority. Isn’t anyone in the government thinking about the
future?
Mr. Obama has denied the cost burden on business from his health-care
program, but business is aware that it is likely to be large. How
large? That’s part of the uncertainty that employers face if they hire
additional labor.
The president asks for cap and trade. That’s more cost and more
uncertainty. Who will be forced to pay? What will it do to costs here
compared to foreign producers? We should not expect businesses to
invest in new, export-led growth when uncertainty about future costs
is so large.
Then there is Medicaid, the medical program for those with lower
incomes. In the past, states paid about half of the cost, and they are
responsible for 20% of the additional cost imposed by the program’s
expansion. But almost all the states must balance their budgets, and
the new Medicaid spending mandated by ObamaCare comes at a time when
states face large deficits and even larger unfunded liabilities for
pensions. All this only adds to uncertainty about taxes and spending.
Other aspects of the Obama economic program are equally problematic.
The auto bailouts ran roughshod over the rule of law. Chrysler
bondholders were given short shrift in order to benefit the auto
workers union. By weakening the rule of law, the president opened the
way to great mischief and increased investors’ and producers’
uncertainty. That’s not the way to get more investment and employment.
Almost daily, Mr. Obama uses his rhetorical skill to castigate
businessmen who have the audacity to hope for profitable
opportunities. No president since Franklin Roosevelt has taken that
route. President Roosevelt slowed recovery in 1938-40 until the war by
creating uncertainty about his objectives. It was harmful then, and
it’s harmful now.
In 1980, I had the privilege of advising Prime Minister Margaret
Thatcher to ignore the demands of 360 British economists who made the
outrageous claim that Britain would never (yes, never) recover from
her decision to reduce government spending during a severe recession.
They wanted more spending. She responded with a speech promising to
stay with her tight budget. She kept a sustained focus on long-term
problems. Expectations about the economy’s future improved, and the
recovery soon began.
That’s what the U.S. needs now. Not major cuts in current spending,
but a credible plan showing that authorities will not wait for a
fiscal crisis but begin to act prudently and continue until deficits
disappear, and the debt is below 60% of GDP. Rep. Paul Ryan (R.,
Wisc.) offered a plan, but the administration and Congress ignored it.
The country does not need more of the same. Successful leaders give
the public reason to believe that they have a long-term program to
bring a better tomorrow. Let’s plan our way out of our explosive
deficits and our hesitant and jobless recovery by reducing uncertainty
and encouraging growth.
On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 18:21:20 -0400, "Brian Allen" <bl...@blah.com>
wrote:
>> If President George W. Bush had been the first President that always
Brian Allen
There are a lot of truths in that. The other teachers at my school couldn't
understand why I paid off all my debt within five years of my career
beginning. Options, people, options. I can pack up and leave whenever I
damn well please, and I make sure to let anybody that tries to railroad me
know it.
ObamaNation=Abomination
wrote:
>> Sending aid is not the same as having troops on the ground. Seem to
JFK's side began the aggression.
Brian Allen
> proceeds and pay down debt.
What a bitch that is! You mean I don't HAVE to owe Chase My Tail a fortune?
Fuck me I guess.
Brian Allen
By sending advisors or with the initial ground troops? VP Nixon was calling
for ground troops in 1954. It was a bi-partisan failure.
Brian Allen
> whites, i.e., rednecks. I've never seen their data isolated.
Sure you have. Check out red state data. ;-)
ObamaNation=Abomination
wrote:
>> JFK's side began the aggression.
>
>By sending advisors or with the initial ground troops? VP Nixon was calling
>for ground troops in 1954. It was a bi-partisan failure.
>
>
Biden says all kinds of dumb things too.
Means nuthin'.
Way Back Jack
wrote:
>> Oh, I thought that you were talking about a specific segment of
>> whites, i.e., rednecks. I've never seen their data isolated.
>
>Sure you have. Check out red state data. ;-)
>
>
Hillbilly States down South are quite black.
Crime rates in N. Dak, Nebraska, Idaho that have large white
populations pale (by comparison no pun intended) to blue State crime
rates.
Brian Allen
>
> Means nuthin'.
So let me ask you a question, and I want an honest answer: has a Republican
ever made a mistake, and has a Democrat ever been successful? It's just not
as cut and dry as you seem to think it is!
Brian Allen
> populations pale (by comparison no pun intended) to blue State crime
> rates.
Explain Huntington, West Virginia. Total white slum town in a red state.
Unhealthiest city in the country, as well.
ObamaNation=Abomination
wrote:
>> Biden says all kinds of dumb things too.
All politicians are assholes; it's a job requirement.
By the way, I've been a registered dem since 1965, but not bragging
about it.
Switch? Hell, no, the other side is a pack of wimps.
Brian Allen
Exactly. We're picking the lesser of two evils.
Way Back Jack
wrote:
>> Crime rates in N. Dak, Nebraska, Idaho that have large white
City-data shows it 89% white which is pretty white but do you really
wanna compare the town's crime rates with: St. Lou, Detroit, Motown,
Chicago, Baltimore, DC, Philly, most of the NJ cities ....?
I
Brian Allen
> wanna compare the town's crime rates with: St. Lou, Detroit, Motown,
> Chicago, Baltimore, DC, Philly, most of the NJ cities ....?
It's gonna be comparable per capita.
Way Back Jack
wrote:
>> City-data shows it 89% white which is pretty white but do you really
Well, every year they post the safest / most dangerous cities with
populations that exceed 75,000. So one yr. I researched the
demographics and found that the safest cities had black populations in
the single digits, while the most dangerous had black populations that
exceeded 50%. Sorry, but I looked in my archives and couldn't find
it.
At any rate, on the national level:
Black/White Street Crime Ratios, adjusted for demographics:
Murder/neg. msltr.: 5.39/1
Forcible Rape: 2.89/1
Robbery: 6.55/1
Aggravated assault: 2.88/1
Burglary: 2.45/1
The white crime data include Hispanic crime. If Hispanic crime were
removed from white data, the black/white ratio would be even more
extreme.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_00/00crime4.pdf
______
And for you to blame crime on socioeconomics, please note that the
poverty rate in a recent year does not correlate well with the robbery
rates. The black/white poverty ratio (2001) was 2.3/1 (Hispanics not
included) based on the following poverty rates:
white: 9.9%
black: 22.7%
Hispanic: 21.7%
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html
2005:
Impoverished blacks 9,168,000
Impoverished total 36,950,000
Secondly, while you may argue that a hungry group would naturally
commit more robberies, what's your excuse for rape, murder, assault?
("Dat whyte guy makes more money then me,so I think I'll rape my
neighbor.") Huh!!!??!
Thirdly, the muscular thugs who are committing this savagery look
anything but hungry.
Finally, in a recent study of NFL players, it was found that their
crime rates were only slightly less than those of their respective
demographic groups in the general population. ("Pros And Cons: The
Criminals Who Play In The NFL" by Jeff yaeger and Jeff Benedict,
Time-Life Books)
Even Je$$e Jack$on was left speechless.
It ain't fiscal bankruptcy, but moral bankruptcy, aided-and-abetted by
the guilty white liberal girly men who continue to make excuses and
keep them on a victim plantation of self-pity, anger, and hatred.
Brian Allen
Nunya Bidnits
DickheadBobbleBigot <nascar...@cox.net> wrote:
Nascar, my ass. You're a fraud.
Ricky Bobby's favorite Nascar phrase:
"Bigoty bigoty bigoty!!!!!!"
Nunya Bidnits
KKK Founded By ASSHOLES and
CRIMINALS<demo...@Use-Author-Supplied-Address.invalid> wrote:
> I'll take a bad troll over a pair of racist nigger politicians any day
> of the week.
Alrighty then. No racism here. Uh-uh. Nope.
Now get your ass out of the United States. Your kind is the only kind that
shouldn't be welcome here.
Fucking frauds waving flags...
Nunya Bidnits
* PUS * <infection@America.> wrote:
> Actually, he hopes that the socialist model he is installing succeeds.
From an idiot who probably can't even state the primary condition which
defines socialism, much less accurately describe any socialist model, yet
who throws the term around as if he knows what it means, with only one
purpose... to scare people with things neither he nor they understand.
Go back to North Korea, land of brainwashed douches, which is where you
belong. You don't believe in what makes America great, so get the fuck out.
And take your manlove crush Dicky Bobby with you.
RickyBobby
"ObamaNation=Abomination" <DumpObama@America.> wrote in message
news:4c30c958...@news.eternal-september.org...
We voted for him.
Hope and change you can believe in.
I am not going to say one bad word about the President. He is the one we
elected and he is the one we got.