Jerry - Here's some proven numbers
susan
January 2009
Today
% chg
Source
Avg. retail price/gallon gas in U.S.
$1.83
$3.104
69.6%
1
Crude oil, European Brent (barrel)
$43.48
$99.02
127.7%
2
Crude oil, West TX Inter. (barrel)
$38.74
$91.38
135.9%
2
Gold: London (per troy oz.)
$853.25
$1,369.50
60.5%
2
Corn, No.2 yellow, Central IL
$3.56
$6.33
78.1%
2
Soybeans, No. 1 yellow, IL
$9.66
$13.75
42.3%
2
Sugar, cane, raw, world, lb. fob
$13.37
$35.39
164.7%
2
Unemployment rate, non-farm, overall
7.6%
9.4%
23.7%
3
Unemployment rate, blacks
12.6%
15.8%
25.4%
3
Number of unemployed
11,616,000
14,485,000
24.7%
3
Number of fed. employees, ex. military (curr = 12/10 prelim)
2,779,000
2,840,000
2.2%
3
Real median household income (2008 v 2009)
$50,112
$49,777
-0.7%
4
Number of food stamp recipients (curr = 10/10)
31,983,716
43,200,878
35.1%
5
Number of unemployment benefit recipients (curr = 12/10)
7,526,598
9,193,838
22.2%
6
Number of long-term unemployed
2,600,000
6,400,000
146.2%
3
Poverty rate, individuals (2008 v 2009)
13.2%
14.3%
8.3%
4
People in poverty in U.S. (2008 v 2009)
39,800,000
43,600,000
9.5%
4
U.S. rank in Economic Freedom World Rankings
5
9
n/a
10
Present Situation Index (curr = 12/10)
29.9
23.5
-21.4%
11
Failed banks (curr = 2010 + 2011 to date)
140
164
17.1%
12
U.S. dollar versus Japanese yen exchange rate
89.76
82.03
-8.6%
2
U.S. money supply, M1, in billions (curr = 12/10 prelim)
1,575.1
1,865.7
18.4%
13
U.S. money supply, M2, in billions (curr = 12/10 prelim)
8,310.9
8,852.3
6.5%
13
National debt, in trillions
$10.627
$14.052
32.2%
14
Just take this last item: In the last two years we have accumulated national
debt at a rate more than 27 times as fast as during the rest of our entire
nation's history. Over 27 times as fast! Metaphorically, speaking, if you
are driving in the right lane doing 65 MPH and a car rockets past you in the
left lane 27 times faster . . . it would be doing 1,755 MPH!
Sources:
(1) U.S. Energy Information Administration; (2) Wall Street Journal; (3)
Bureau of Labor Statistics; (4) Census Bureau; (5) USDA; (6) U.S. Dept. of
Labor; (7) FHFA; (8) Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller; (9) RealtyTrac; (10)
Heritage Foundation and WSJ; (11) The Conference Board; (12) FDIC; (13)
Federal Reserve; (14) U.S. Treasury
John the Savage
>
> Sources:
> (1) U.S. Energy Information Administration; (2) Wall Street Journal; (3)
> Bureau of Labor Statistics; (4) Census Bureau; (5) USDA; (6) U.S. Dept.
> of Labor; (7) FHFA; (8) Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller; (9) RealtyTrac;
> (10) Heritage Foundation and WSJ; (11) The Conference Board; (12) FDIC;
> (13) Federal Reserve; (14) U.S. Treasury
I think you forgot the most important source of all, susan, which is
where you copied and pasted the list from. In fact, your ENTIRE POST,
even the COMMENTS that appear to be from you, are ripped, at least from
here, or maybe you saw it somewhere else:
http://www.survivalmonkey.com/forum/general-discussion/27897-hows-change-working-out-you.html
But susan, THAT is a pretty important thing to source. Stop
plagiarizing, please, you are setting a very poor example for the rest
of RGP.
DDawgster
>
> Just take this last item: In the last two years we have accumulated national
> debt at a rate more than 27 times as fast as during the rest of our entire
> nation's history. Over 27 times as fast! Metaphorically, speaking, if you
> are driving in the right lane doing 65 MPH and a car rockets past you in the
> left lane 27 times faster . . . it would be doing 1,755 MPH!
>
> Sources:
> (1) U.S. Energy Information Administration; (2) Wall Street Journal; (3)
> Bureau of Labor Statistics; (4) Census Bureau; (5) USDA; (6) U.S. Dept. of
> Labor; (7) FHFA; (8) Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller; (9) RealtyTrac; (10)
> Heritage Foundation and WSJ; (11) The Conference Board; (12) FDIC; (13)
> Federal Reserve; (14) U.S. Treasury
and without Bush's and Obama's bailouts and propping up of GM and others
fledgling a couple of years ago , we might be at 20-30% unemployment and
we would be standing guard at barbed wire fences around our neighborhoods
at night /day
Give us a quick scenario , in your opinion , of what would have happened
if the banks and businesses were all allowed to fail
Do you think your shop would still be open ?
"If you can find *one* post where I call someone
illiterate, I'll leave RGP for a month. If you can't, I would expect an
apology, but I know who I'm dealing with so my expectations aren't exactly
high."
*jason pawloski... in the pawloski/loughner thread
--------
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
susan
"John the Savage"
Johnny -
If I had, at the beginning, mentioned it was from dickmorris.com, would you
even have looked at it? Of course not.
except for the one paragraph everything is data. If I had mentioned the
name Dick Morris no one would have bothered with the FACTS. Instead it
would be who the fuck would ever believe Dick Morris. I was going to
mention him later.
susan
"DDawgster"
>Give us a quick scenario , in your opinion , of what would have happened
>if the banks and businesses were all allowed to fail
>Do you think your shop would still be open ?
I don't know doggy = I have OFTEN stated I don't understand economics. I
posted numbers, verifiable facts. Now you do the same.
John the Savage
You know what, susan, I believe you. Hell, you do this all the time,
and I'm sure you didn't intend to make us believe you had written and
researched all of that, nor did you expect us to believe that, and
nobody will actually believe that.
But that doesn't matter; as a point of principle, and etiquette, if you
are going to simply copy and paste the work of others, you need to
attribute it. That's just the way honest debate works. It's respectful
of your audience, it would enhance your credibility, and it would allow
people to take your posts seriously.
And for the record, I didn't bother looking at it, *because* it was
clear from the first skim that you had plagiarized the entire thing.
It's just not the way to start an honest discussion of anything.
susan
"John the Savage" wrote in message
news:R_Odnevq18clcMLQ...@giganews.com...
On 2/19/11 11:12 AM, susan wrote:
> "John the Savage"
>
> Johnny -
>
> If I had, at the beginning, mentioned it was from dickmorris.com, would
> you even have looked at it? Of course not.
>
> except for the one paragraph everything is data. If I had mentioned the
> name Dick Morris no one would have bothered with the FACTS. Instead it
> would be who the fuck would ever believe Dick Morris. I was going to
> mention him later.
You know what, susan, I believe you. Hell, you do this all the time,
and I'm sure you didn't intend to make us believe you had written and
researched all of that, nor did you expect us to believe that, and
nobody will actually believe that.
-----------------------------------------------------------
99.9 percent of the time I attribute the source.
Now I am starting a new thread - maybe now you will read it an comment on
the numbers rather than on Susan?
Tad Perry
news:r56dnS0mk-HudcLQ...@giganews.com...
Setting aside the comments for a moment, what is this about "plagiarizing"
statistics?
I thought that was called "citing" statistics.
Was she supposed to go out and repeat all that work herself?
And even without giving the source, is anyone out there really dumb enough
to think she did all that work herself or that she was trying to make that
representation?
Any rational adult would realize she got it from somewhere.
Do you need full annotations and footnotes or something?
In this day and age, tracking something like this down is not that hard, as
you yourself have proven.
So what's yer real beef?
You just don't like these facts being pointed out?
You don't like it that Susan is the one that did it?
What?
Here, I'll give you an example of what might be a better way of handling
this:
"Thanks, susan. That was rather enlightening. Where'd you get these
figures?"
tvp
DDawgster
> "John the Savage"
>
>
> Johnny -
>
> If I had, at the beginning, mentioned it was from dickmorris.com, would you
> even have looked at it? Of course not.
who would ?
>
> except for the one paragraph everything is data. If I had mentioned the
> name Dick Morris no one would have bothered with the FACTS. Instead it
> would be who the fuck would ever believe Dick Morris. I was going to
> mention him later.
"If you can find *one* post where I call someone
illiterate, I'll leave RGP for a month. If you can't, I would expect an
apology, but I know who I'm dealing with so my expectations aren't exactly
high."
*jason pawloski... in the pawloski/loughner thread
________________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
DDawgster
you know enough to have an opinion as to what would have happened if we
let a shit load of our cornerstone businesses and banks fail.. i would
never ask anyone for anything other than their opinion
"If you can find *one* post where I call someone
illiterate, I'll leave RGP for a month. If you can't, I would expect an
apology, but I know who I'm dealing with so my expectations aren't exactly
high."
*jason pawloski... in the pawloski/loughner thread
-------
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
susan
"DDawgster" wrote in message news:noi538x...@recgroups.com...
On Feb 19 2011 10:12 AM, susan wrote:
> "John the Savage"
>
>
> Johnny -
>
>> If I had, at the beginning, mentioned it was from dickmorris.com, would
>> you
>> even have looked at it? Of course not.
>who would ?
exactly - but numbers are numbers.
susan
"DDawgster" wrote in message news:0li538x...@recgroups.com...
On Feb 19 2011 10:16 AM, susan wrote:
> "DDawgster"
>
> >Give us a quick scenario , in your opinion , of what would have happened
> >if the banks and businesses were all allowed to fail
>
> >Do you think your shop would still be open ?
>
> I don't know doggy = I have OFTEN stated I don't understand economics. I
> posted numbers, verifiable facts. Now you do the same.
you know enough to have an opinion as to what would have happened if we
let a shit load of our cornerstone businesses and banks fail.. i would
never ask anyone for anything other than their opinion
OK In my opinion "our cornerstone businessess" should have been allowed
to go the way they were. When/if they failed, there would be another bankor
whatever to take their place.
As for whether my shop would still be open? Guess what, we are, but only
because we care about our employees - no other reason. We, both of us
together, take less money out monthly than our lowest paid employees. But
being the greedy conservative that I am, I will fight as long as I can to
keep our emloyees healthy. The banks businesses being fed have had no
positive impact on me.
Pepe Papon
wrote:
And even numbers can be fabricated.
Pepe Papon
wrote:
Then what's your point in posting these numbers?
susan
"Pepe Papon"
>>exactly - but numbers are numbers.
>And even numbers can be fabricated.
so you are now saying I can't believe numbers from U.S. Energy Information
Administration; Wall Street Journal;
Bureau of Labor Statistics; Census Bureau; USDA; U.S. Dept. of Labor;
FHFA; Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller; RealtyTrac;
Heritage Foundation and WSJ; The Conference Board; FDIC; Federal Reserve;
U.S. Treasury ?
I think the only peeps in the whole wide world I can trust are you and
billb, right?
susan
"Pepe Papon" wrote in message
news:3vc0m6593hilgmfcs...@4ax.com...
gee whiz - maybe because they all seem very detrimental to the USofA? Maybe
because it would give you something to pounce on rather than adressing the
numbers listed in the chart? I guess you don't find them unsettling like I
do.
gtech1
------
Jerry Sturdivant
"susan" <hotd...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:RHW7p.47303$w57....@newsfe13.iad...
Yet, in the end, the economy is recovering. Bush lost 9 million jobs; the
Democrats have picked up a million so far. The Republicans said to let the
American auto industry, and all their jobs die. The Democrats not only saved
those industries, but they're employing and paying us back. The Stock Market
has almost doubled since the Democrats rescued it. The GDP is up; retails
sales up; they're building new houses here in Summerlin; strip malls are
filling out; hotel room occupancy us up; manufacturing is up; Wall Street is
hiring again; company profits at the largest companies in the country
increasing to record highs, the cost of the U.S. debt declining, inflation
is down, the value of the U.S. dollar is up, U.S. companies are sitting on
record stores of cash, interest rates are at all time lows, U.S. treasuries
are selling at record levels, interest on those instruments are the lowest
rates in history, Americans paying less in taxes than when Reagan was in
office, banks saved and paying us back with interest, auto industry saved
and paying back with interest, AIG saved and paying us back with interest,
healthcare for thousands saved and will pay us back, troops being withdrawn
from war.
Now stuff those "proven" numbers because you wing nuts refuse to even admit
a recover is underway.
Jerry 'n Vegas
susan
"Jerry Sturdivant"
I give - obviously you didn't read the figures that the government put out
posted above. Just take a quick peek at the unemployment figures.
You will never admit that you maybe don't know everything, so you win. All
I do is read and absorb.
Jerry Sturdivant
"susan" <hotd...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:l%Y7p.51395$7a4....@newsfe01.iad...
>
>
> "Jerry Sturdivant"
>
> I give - obviously you didn't read the figures that the government put out
> posted above. Just take a quick peek at the unemployment figures.
Thanks for making my point. As any economist will tell you (you he'll have
to say it a number of times), employment is the last to pick up after a
recession. That's proven true here. (Try applying it to your own business).
Yet you scrounge some worthless right-wing numbers and claim some sort of
victory? Reread the portions of my post you felt you had to delete.
> You will never admit that you maybe don't know everything, so you win.
Oh, so now it's about the messenger. Go back and read the message. We're in
a recovery. We're in a recovery. Learn to lose.
> All I do is read and absorb.
All evidence to the contrary.
susan
"gtech1" wrote in message news:cu1638x...@recgroups.com...
He seems to have overlooked this one: stock market up 40%
>Tell me how this is relevant to "Main St" America. Do you really think my
>town which has 18% unemployment (figuring it out Obamas way) it is really
>about 27% give a fuck about the stock market?
John the Savage
> "John the Savage" <savag...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:r56dnS0mk-HudcLQ...@giganews.com...
>> On 2/19/11 9:05 AM, susan wrote:
>>>
>>> Sources:
>>> (1) U.S. Energy Information Administration; (2) Wall Street Journal; (3)
>>> Bureau of Labor Statistics; (4) Census Bureau; (5) USDA; (6) U.S. Dept.
>>> of Labor; (7) FHFA; (8) Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller; (9) RealtyTrac;
>>> (10) Heritage Foundation and WSJ; (11) The Conference Board; (12) FDIC;
>>> (13) Federal Reserve; (14) U.S. Treasury
>>
>> I think you forgot the most important source of all, susan, which is
>> where you copied and pasted the list from. In fact, your ENTIRE POST,
>> even the COMMENTS that appear to be from you, are ripped, at least
>> from here, or maybe you saw it somewhere else:
>>
>> http://www.survivalmonkey.com/forum/general-discussion/27897-hows-change-working-out-you.html
>>
>>
>> But susan, THAT is a pretty important thing to source. Stop
>> plagiarizing, please, you are setting a very poor example for the rest
>> of RGP.
>
> Setting aside the comments for a moment, what is this about
> "plagiarizing" statistics?
When did I say she plagiarized statistics? She copied an pasted an
entire post, including not only statistics, but also comments made about
those statistics, which are copied verbatim, with no attribution.
> I thought that was called "citing" statistics.
> Was she supposed to go out and repeat all that work herself?
YES. You do the work yourself, or you tell us whose work WE are
supposed to trust. All of it is presented as her own. Of course it is
plagiarism.
> And even without giving the source, is anyone out there really dumb
> enough to think she did all that work herself or that she was trying to
> make that representation?
> Any rational adult would realize she got it from somewhere.
> Do you need full annotations and footnotes or something?
> In this day and age, tracking something like this down is not that hard,
> as you yourself have proven.
> So what's yer real beef?
> You just don't like these facts being pointed out?
> You don't like it that Susan is the one that did it?
> What?
I have not even looked at the statistics. I've really got better things
to do then go chasing around after things that susan has posted. Are
you familiar with the dishonest posts susan makes here constantly? And
you are still paying attention? Read a book or something.
>
> Here, I'll give you an example of what might be a better way of handling
> this:
>
> "Thanks, susan. That was rather enlightening. Where'd you get these
> figures?"
I'll "handle this" in my own way, thank you. I hope you've found it
enlightening.
susan
"Jerry Sturdivant"
LOL Learn to lose - only a total idiot would say something like that. I
can't wait for the whole country to fall to pieces. I can't wait for my
grandkids to starve to death or get shot trying to fight for food out of a
dumpster.
Read this - and tell me just what you don't understand.
At the heart of the unemployment rate deception are the nearly three million
Americans counted as "marginally attached" to the labor force. Those folks
would take a job if offered, but actually aren't actively looking and thus
not counted in the government's official statistics. There are a million
more of them than there were in January 2008, thanks to the lousy job market
that seems to be improving only at the margins.
So when you see a "drop" in the unemployment rate, like we did when the
January nonfarm payrolls number came out, it's best to measure carefully the
grains of salt with which one takes the official government numbers.
"This is a significant number of people waiting on the sidelines," Paul
Ashworth, chief U.S. economist at Capital Economics in Toronto, wrote in a
must-read analysis of the labor force's participation rate.
"Considering that there are about 7 million more unemployed now than three
years ago, it suggests the pool of available labor could be 15% bigger than
the unemployment figures suggest," he concluded.
That puts the headline unemployment rate well north of 10 percent, even as
the so-called "real" unemployment number -- which takes into account an even
broader swath of the working-age population -- remains above 16 percent but
in a modest decline. In fact, Ashworth attributes the drop from the cycle
high of 10.1 percent unemployment to the current level "as much due to a
contraction in the labor force" as any illusory improvement in the real jobs
picture.
susan
"John the Savage"
>I have not even looked at the statistics.
I wouldn't expect you to - they don't glorify the current administration
> I've really got better things to do then go chasing around after things
> that susan has posted.
LOLOLOL you spend hours answering my posts - now go find something better
to do.
misanthropic whackjob
I'm very glad to be employed by a better than average company. Although
the recession cost me my house and has frozen salaries for a couple years,
we are doing ok. We are even hiring. Within the last year I have
recommended two friends for employment, and both got hired. The second
one was just this week, and he is an rgper. Sadly for him, he will be
reporting to me, hahahahhaha.....
I don't care what regime is in power as long as the people are doing well.
Things were great under Clinton, and went to hell under Bush. Whether
either of them had anything to do with it, I dunno.
Beldin the Sorcerer
There are times when you're a shithead, and other times when you're REALLY a
shithead.
This is usenet.
NOBODY is assumed to have authored the content of political posts,
particularly those with stats, simply because they posted it.
Nobody would be dumb enough to think it wasn't found somewhere in an
article, or a collection of them, except, perhaps an extremist left wing
idiot.
>
>> And even without giving the source, is anyone out there really dumb
>> enough to think she did all that work herself or that she was trying to
>> make that representation?
>> Any rational adult would realize she got it from somewhere.
>> Do you need full annotations and footnotes or something?
>> In this day and age, tracking something like this down is not that hard,
>> as you yourself have proven.
>> So what's yer real beef?
>> You just don't like these facts being pointed out?
>> You don't like it that Susan is the one that did it?
>> What?
>
> I have not even looked at the statistics. I've really got better things
> to do then go chasing around after things that susan has posted. Are you
> familiar with the dishonest posts susan makes here constantly? And you
> are still paying attention? Read a book or something.
What I've seen is you being an idiot.
And you just did it again.
Obama, whom I voted for, has had bad economic policies.
This is not to say that McCain would have done any better, but rather that
Jerry the idiot's mindless mantra of how great he's doing is, well, as full
of shit as your idiotic argument that Susan claimed sole authorship of her
post
>
>>
>> Here, I'll give you an example of what might be a better way of handling
>> this:
>>
>> "Thanks, susan. That was rather enlightening. Where'd you get these
>> figures?"
>
> I'll "handle this" in my own way, thank you. I hope you've found it
> enlightening.
Looks like you're handling it in a public forum.
There are laws about that, son
Beldin the Sorcerer
"Jerry Sturdivant" <jer...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:47CdnYSGjfXB_P3Q...@giganews.com...
>
>
> "susan" <hotd...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:l%Y7p.51395$7a4....@newsfe01.iad...
>>
>>
>> "Jerry Sturdivant"
>>
>> I give - obviously you didn't read the figures that the government put
>> out posted above. Just take a quick peek at the unemployment figures.
>
> Thanks for making my point. As any economist will tell you (you he'll have
> to say it a number of times), employment is the last to pick up after a
> recession. That's proven true here. (Try applying it to your own
> business). Yet you scrounge some worthless right-wing numbers and claim
> some sort of victory? Reread the portions of my post you felt you had to
> delete.
Obama's economic policies have failed.
>
>
>> You will never admit that you maybe don't know everything, so you win.
>
> Oh, so now it's about the messenger. Go back and read the message. We're
> in a recovery. We're in a recovery. Learn to lose.
The economy expanded slightly. Not from any of Obama's policies
>
>
>> All I do is read and absorb.
>
> All evidence to the contrary.
Like you could tell
Beldin the Sorcerer
"Pepe Papon" <hitme...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:fqc0m69u6t14s2sae...@4ax.com...
Jerry Sturdivant
"Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ijpuq8$32m$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "Jerry Sturdivant" <jer...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:47CdnYSGjfXB_P3Q...@giganews.com...
>>
>>
>> "susan" <hotd...@charter.net> wrote in message
>> news:l%Y7p.51395$7a4....@newsfe01.iad...
>>>
>>>
>>> "Jerry Sturdivant"
>>>
>>> I give - obviously you didn't read the figures that the government put
>>> out posted above. Just take a quick peek at the unemployment figures.
>>
>> Thanks for making my point. As any economist will tell you (you he'll
>> have to say it a number of times), employment is the last to pick up
>> after a recession. That's proven true here. (Try applying it to your own
>> business). Yet you scrounge some worthless right-wing numbers and claim
>> some sort of victory? Reread the portions of my post you felt you had to
>> delete.
> Jerry, why are you such a pathetic shitbag?
Why do you respond like an immature 12-year-old?
> Obama's economic policies have failed.
Yet here we are in a recovery and all major economic indicators show it.
Even the Republicans are complaining that we're not recovering fast enough.
Yet leave it to you and you're stupidity to repeat what some right wing
pundit has fed you. It's why so much is writing about your gullibility and
stupidity.
Jerry 'n Vegas
Jerry Sturdivant
"susan" <hotd...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:TuZ7p.47308$w57....@newsfe13.iad...
>
>
> "Jerry Sturdivant"
>
> LOL Learn to lose - only a total idiot would say something like that.
Yet you're wrong and refuse to admit it. We are in a recovery.
> I can't wait for the whole country to fall to pieces.
Your desire for our country's economic collapse is noted. Is it just so you
can say the bad information you used was right? Are you that desperate to be
right? The economy is fragile, but slowly recovering. The Republicans are
doing whatever they can to slow it or stop it because they want back in
office. The healthcare bill will save money, but the Republicans need it to
fail so the insurance companies will keep donating to them. The Republican
Tea Baggers cried about the national debt, but the first thing they did was
make sure their rich donators got their wish by keeping the Tax Cuts for the
Rich.
The Democrats took over, saved us from a depression and are pulling us out
of the recession. Cut and past whatever you like; it won't change fact.
Jerry 'n Vegas
Beldin the Sorcerer
>
>
> "Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:ijpuq8$32m$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> "Jerry Sturdivant" <jer...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:47CdnYSGjfXB_P3Q...@giganews.com...
>>>
>>>
>>> "susan" <hotd...@charter.net> wrote in message
>>> news:l%Y7p.51395$7a4....@newsfe01.iad...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Jerry Sturdivant"
>>>>
>>>> I give - obviously you didn't read the figures that the government put
>>>> out posted above. Just take a quick peek at the unemployment figures.
>>>
>>> Thanks for making my point. As any economist will tell you (you he'll
>>> have to say it a number of times), employment is the last to pick up
>>> after a recession. That's proven true here. (Try applying it to your own
>>> business). Yet you scrounge some worthless right-wing numbers and claim
>>> some sort of victory? Reread the portions of my post you felt you had to
>>> delete.
>
>> Jerry, why are you such a pathetic shitbag?
>
> Why do you respond like an immature 12-year-old?
>
>
>> Obama's economic policies have failed.
>
> Yet here we are in a recovery and all major economic indicators show it.
Jerry, you pathetic shitbag, no we are not.
The unemployment numbers are still horrid.
The only way we are in recovery is "two quarters of growth" and that's only
by very slim margins.
I realize you likely never took an economics class, and are a drooling
retard besides, but his jobs creations plans didn't, his stimulus was
largely inefficient, and what recover we have had has laregly been
completely unrelated to his policies.
The housing market is still deep in the shitter, likely for several more
years.
> Even the Republicans are complaining that we're not recovering fast
> enough. Yet leave it to you and you're stupidity to repeat what some right
> wing pundit has fed you. It's why so much is writing about your
> gullibility and stupidity.
Hey, assjammer, I've never repeated any pundit.
You're the mindless cut and paste robot. I'm all over the map politically,
you're the flaming democrat
Beldin the Sorcerer
>
>
> "susan" <hotd...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:TuZ7p.47308$w57....@newsfe13.iad...
>>
>>
>> "Jerry Sturdivant"
>>
>> LOL Learn to lose - only a total idiot would say something like that.
>
> Yet you're wrong and refuse to admit it. We are in a recovery.
What's the definition of "a recovery", fucknut?
>
>
>> I can't wait for the whole country to fall to pieces.
>
> Your desire for our country's economic collapse is noted. Is it just so
> you can say the bad information you used was right? Are you that desperate
> to be right? The economy is fragile, but slowly recovering. The
> Republicans are doing whatever they can to slow it or stop it because they
> want back in office. The healthcare bill will save money, but the
> Republicans need it to fail so the insurance companies will keep donating
> to them. The Republican Tea Baggers cried about the national debt, but the
> first thing they did was make sure their rich donators got their wish by
> keeping the Tax Cuts for the Rich.
>
> The Democrats took over, saved us from a depression and are pulling us out
> of the recession. Cut and past whatever you like; it won't change fact.
>
Jerry the shithead,ladies and gentlemen!
Nothing Congress did had any effect on the recovery, except preventing the
banks and the automakers from going under
susan
"Beldin the Sorcerer"
Leave poor little Johnny alone - he is far to busy to read and worry about
little old me.
susan
"Jerry Sturdivant" wrote in message
news:NNydnecATtsZhfzQ...@giganews.com...
Jerry, answer one question and I will forever revel in you genius and never
accuse you of going offtrack again.
Who has controlled the government of the USofA for the last 47 days?
John the Savage
>
>
> "John the Savage"
>
>> I have not even looked at the statistics.
>
> I wouldn't expect you to - they don't glorify the current administration
Is that supposed to make sense? Do you have any evidence for your claim
that I only pay attention to information that "glorifies" the current
administration? How ridiculous.
Your dishonesty is well known now on the newsgroup, thanks in part to my
efforts. THAT is the reason why I am not paying attention to your
"statistics", susan. Why should I, or anyone else, pay attention to the
claims of liars and plagiarists, like Irish Mike and yourself?
>> I've really got better things to do then go chasing around after
>> things that susan has posted.
>
> LOLOLOL you spend hours answering my posts - now go find something
> better to do.
Sure I do, susan. I really slave over this stuff. What can I say,
you're worth it, and I know how much you like attention.
John the Savage
>>>
>>> Here, I'll give you an example of what might be a better way of handling
>>> this:
>>>
>>> "Thanks, susan. That was rather enlightening. Where'd you get these
>>> figures?"
>>
>> I'll "handle this" in my own way, thank you. I hope you've found it
>> enlightening.
> Looks like you're handling it in a public forum.
> There are laws about that, son
>
Laws?! LOL! Please tell me what laws apply to my work in this thread,
Beldin. Should I head for Mexico ASAP??
susan
"John the Savage" wrote in message
news:G4mdnQ5Z8coUoPzQ...@giganews.com...
On 2/19/2011 8:00 PM, susan wrote:
>
>
> "John the Savage"
>
>> I have not even looked at the statistics.
>
>> I wouldn't expect you to - they don't glorify the current administration
>Is that supposed to make sense? Do you have any evidence for your claim
>that I only pay attention to information that "glorifies" the current
>administration? How ridiculous.
This whole conversation is getting silly. Are you afraid to look at the
stats? Or are you too dumb (oops, I didn't say that) to understand them.
>Your dishonesty is well known now on the newsgroup, thanks in part to my
>efforts. THAT is the reason why I am not paying attention to your
>"statistics", susan. Why should I, or anyone else, pay attention to the
>claims of liars and plagiarists, like Irish Mike and yourself?
I'm sorry - tell me where my dishonesty comes in. Especially where you have
had any part in it. Remember now, dishonesty is different than asking a
question or not knowing an answer. Or voicing an opinion. If you want to
talk dishonesty, I could call you out everytime your opinion is different
than mine. You are truly stretching with the plagiarist comment - one time,
one paragraph, and you even excepted my explanation for why I did it. My
dishonesty? Because I post as Susan Johnson when my real name isn't Susan
Johnson (or Jan Lyons, but don't tell Peg Hegglestad) The RPGers that I
care about know my real name. Or because I copied Mike on one post- that
Billb said that only whites are bigots. (which, whether he said it or not,
he certainly leads us to believe it is true.) Wow - shall we search for
more dishonesty?
>>> I've really got better things to do then go chasing around after
>>> things that susan has posted.
>
>> LOLOLOL you spend hours answering my posts - now go find something
>> better to do.
>Sure I do, susan. I really slave over this stuff. What can I say, you're
>worth it, and I know how much you like attention.
LOL I love the attention from you big boys that are so much smarter and
important than PDS and yet can't stop stalking her and telling her how
stupid she is.
Guess what I did last night? I came home from work about 8, took a long
bath while reading a totally brainless detective novel, went to bed and
turned on the Real Housewives on BRAVO. And today, I'm going to take the
grandkids to the park and come home and watch in Daytona 500. How much more
stupid brain activities can you get. I'm sure you totally disapprove, but
oh well.
fffurken
> I'm sorry - tell me where my dishonesty comes in.
>...
>Or because I copied Mike on one post- that
>Billb said that only whites are bigots. (which, whether he said it or not,
>he certainly leads us to believe it is true.)
LOL! I've never used the expression beep, beep, beep on RGP before but
it seems appropriate now. You didn't realise it was a lie, did you?
And now you're just making excuses.
Poor, dumb, bigoted susan.
Btw, did you get help writing that post? It just seems like you did.
And if you did, here's a tip for you when you get help, write the post
in your normal, same, dumb fashion. Don't capatalise the start of
every sentence for example.
Pepe Papon
wrote:
I said no scuh thing, of course. We were talking about cites. Without
a cite, who knows where the numbers came from? And with a cite of an
unreliable source, the number could be made up.
The numbers you posted came from Dick Morris. Different readers may
have differing opinions on his reliablitly. I personally haven't
read enough of him to know whether he's capable of fudging numbers.
Since I have no specific reason to doubt hime, I'll proably have to
take his word for it. Had the numbers came from, say, Rush Limbaugh,
I'd see no reason to assume they were valid.
Alim Nassor 1
>
> - Show quoted text -
If you think that is going to continue, be my guest, but it is being
driven by the flood of cash being dumped into the economy and not by
any solid economic factors.
Pepe Papon
wrote:
You were addressing Jerry, apparently in response to something he said
in another thread. One usually doesn't simply post numbers unless
they're using the numbers to try and make some kind of point.
Pepe Papon
wrote:
The stock market is generally considered to be a leading economic
indicator.
John the Savage
> "John the Savage" wrote in message
> news:G4mdnQ5Z8coUoPzQ...@giganews.com...
>
>> my efforts. THAT is the reason why I am not paying attention to your
>> "statistics", susan. Why should I, or anyone else, pay attention to
>> the claims of liars and plagiarists, like Irish Mike and yourself?
>
> I'm sorry - tell me where my dishonesty comes in. Especially where you
> have had any part in it. Remember now, dishonesty is different than
> asking a question or not knowing an answer. Or voicing an opinion. If
> you want to talk dishonesty, I could call you out everytime your opinion
> is different than mine. You are truly stretching with the plagiarist
> comment - one time, one paragraph, and you even excepted my explanation
> for why I did it. My dishonesty? Because I post as Susan Johnson when my
> real name isn't Susan Johnson (or Jan Lyons, but don't tell Peg
> Hegglestad) The RPGers that I care about know my real name. Or because I
> copied Mike on one post- that Billb said that only whites are bigots.
> (which, whether he said it or not, he certainly leads us to believe it
> is true.) Wow - shall we search for more dishonesty?
Well, susan, the sort of dishonesty I am referring to is intellectual
dishonesty (and hiding your sources certainly applies!), so let me stop
you before you confess to anything else. And yes, I think it is
generally the subject when you and I exchange posts on RGP.
>
>> Sure I do, susan. I really slave over this stuff. What can I say,
>> you're worth it, and I know how much you like attention.
>
> LOL I love the attention from you big boys that are so much smarter and
> important than PDS and yet can't stop stalking her and telling her how
> stupid she is.
Hey susan, I didn't call you stupid. You are being dishonest again.
And yes, I do believe you are here primarily for attention, and you
don't seem very particular about where it comes from (Beldin, Skillz, etc).
BillB
> I'm sorry - tell me where my dishonesty comes in.
Or because I copied Mike on one post- that
> Billb said that only whites are bigots. (which, whether he said it or
> not, he certainly leads us to believe it is true.)
Perfect example of your dishonesty and/or stupidity. I have never lead you
to believe any such thing. In fact, I have said the opposite many, many
times. You can't attack what I DO say, so you make up ridiculous positions
and attribute them to me. That is DISHONEST.
So is it clear now where your dishonesty comes in?
susan
>"John the Savage"
>And yes, I do believe you are here primarily for attention, and you don't
>seem very particular about where it comes from (Beldin, Skillz, etc).
Lets see, who would I rather be friends with. Arrogant snobs like you a
Billb? Or regular people like beldin kevin newhavenwill willgamble doggy.
This is almost as hard as the who do you admire most - people who work for a
living or people who live off the taxes that people who work for a living
pay.
Iceman
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 18:38:29 -0600, "susan" <hotda...@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >"gtech1" wrote in messagenews:cu1638x...@recgroups.com...
>
> >He seems to have overlooked this one: stock market up 40%
>
> >>Tell me how this is relevant to "Main St" America. Do you really think my
> >>town which has 18% unemployment (figuring it out Obamas way) it is really
> >>about 27% give a fuck about the stock market?
>
> The stock market is generally considered to be a leading economic
> indicator.
There is what is called a "jobless recovery". In an increasingly
globalized and automated economy, many corporations seeing increased
demand for their products and services don't necessarily need many
more American workers. They increase production abroad, or run the
machines faster or longer. Eventually a lot of those profits will
come back into the economy but it takes time. So at least in the
short term, you can see an increase in corporate profits and stock
prices without a real decrease in unemployment.
John the Savage
>
>> "John the Savage"
>
>> And yes, I do believe you are here primarily for attention, and you
>> don't seem very particular about where it comes from (Beldin, Skillz,
>> etc).
>
> Lets see, who would I rather be friends with. Arrogant snobs like you a
> Billb?
Can we get through just one exchange without you misrepresenting my
words? I didn't say anything about who you are friends with. I said
that I think you enjoy the *attention*, and that you don't care where it
comes from, and thus I think you actually do enjoy being "stalked" by
the "arrogant snobs" of RGP.
But what do I know? Not much.
> Or regular people like beldin kevin
What..?
susan
"John the Savage" wrote in message
news:H7SdnQPjKrRwM__Q...@giganews.com...
On 2/21/11 1:17 PM, susan wrote:
>
> I said that I think you enjoy the *attention*, and that you don't care
> where it comes from, and thus I think you actually do enjoy being
> "stalked" by the "arrogant snobs" of RGP.
Wake up - tell me why I killfile the arrogant snobs of RGP then? Tell me
why you and the majority of RGPers don't know my real name if I want
attention? Even Peggy Hegglestadt doesn't know my real name, but I am so
starved to attention?
>But what do I know? Not much.
You might know about economics etc, but you know NOTHING about people.
>> Or regular people like beldin kevin
>What..?
that’s right anonymous John - I allow people into my world who aren't
perfect - who aren't afraid to share different opinions.
William Coleman
> Wake up - tell me why I killfile the arrogant snobs of RGP then? Tell me
> why you and the majority of RGPers don't know my real name if I want
> attention? Even Peggy Hegglestadt doesn't know my real name, but I am so
> starved to attention?
Let me guess. Your real name is Deb Alexander.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
susan
"BillB" wrote in message news:dYx8p.15553$7P3...@newsfe21.iad...
This is ridiculous - why do so many call you out on your racisim? It isn't
just me sweetie.
>So is it clear now where your dishonesty comes in?
No billb - YOUR dishonesty comes from never acknowledging that you are the
biggest bigot ever to grace RGP. You find racism in every picture that
doesn't have an equal number of blacks. You are totally dishonest in your
feelings. I don't make up ridiculous positions - you do just fine on your
own.
John the Savage
> "John the Savage" wrote in message
> news:H7SdnQPjKrRwM__Q...@giganews.com...
>
> On 2/21/11 1:17 PM, susan wrote:
>>
>
>> I said that I think you enjoy the *attention*, and that you don't care
>> where it comes from, and thus I think you actually do enjoy being
>> "stalked" by the "arrogant snobs" of RGP.
>
> Wake up - tell me why I killfile the arrogant snobs of RGP then? Tell me
> why you and the majority of RGPers don't know my real name if I want
> attention? Even Peggy Hegglestadt doesn't know my real name, but I am so
> starved to attention?
>
>> But what do I know? Not much.
>
> You might know about economics etc, but you know NOTHING about people.
Well, I can say for sure that I don't know shit about economics. And I
know what it looks like when a person gets (predictably) defensive. So
I'll take the blame for the logical shutdown that follows. (You know I
have a psych degree from one of the top 5-10 undergrad programs in the
country? Thus I submit my work here as a predictable failure of
socialized education.)
>
>>> Or regular people like beldin kevin
>
>> What..?
>
> that’s right anonymous John - I allow people into my world who aren't
> perfect - who aren't afraid to share different opinions.
>
Funny that you call me "anonymous John" in the same post in which you
brag about how most of RGP does not know your real name. I've posted
under my real name before, susan, and make no secret of it. Can you say
the same?
susan
advance if I don't see, respond to, and care about anything else you have to
say.
susan
"John the Savage"
>Funny that you call me "anonymous John" in the same post in which you
brag about how most of RGP does not know your real name. I've posted
>under my real name before, susan, and make no secret of it. Can you say
the same?
so just who is seeking attention? Ruy Lopez (or whatever it was) or
anonymous Susan/Jan? If you don't know me, splain how I am seeking
attention?
BillB
> This is ridiculous - why do so many call you out on your racisim? It
> isn't just me sweetie.
Who has done that? What do those people have in common?
Ad hominem and strawman attacks are what unintelligent people do when faced
with facts and arguments they don't like and have no logical repsonse to.
You think I am surprised by that?
> No billb - YOUR dishonesty comes from never acknowledging that you are the
> biggest bigot ever to grace RGP.
Let's see....I am almost famatically in favor of 100% equal rights and equal
participation in economic prosperity for women, minorities, homsexuals, all
religions, all cultures....who exactly am I supposedly bigoted against,
except bigots?
>You find racism in every picture that doesn't have an equal number of
>blacks.
More fundamental dishonesty from susan.
>You are totally dishonest in your feelings.
Huh?
>I don't make up ridiculous positions - you do just fine on your own.
Of course you make up ridiculous positions. This is another blatant lie on
it's own. Two *sentences* you said I find racism in any picture that does
not contain an equal number of blacks. How is that NOT a ridiculous
position? You simply made it up. You are a compulsive liar. You can''t go
three sentences without lying about me.
How about addressing the points I DO make, instead of making up silly ones
for me? Do you think you are intellectually capable of that? Call me crazy,
but I think you are. It just takes a little more effort. You are lazy.
BillB
> BTW - I think I may have this killfile thing figured out - so excuse me in
> advance if I don't see, respond to, and care about anything else you have
> to say.
More evidence of your fundamental dishonesty, on a couple of levels.
susan
>"William Coleman"
>Let me guess. Your real name is Deb Alexander.
>William Coleman (ramashiva)
It is fairly well know what handle I play under on Stars.
William Coleman
> >"William Coleman"
> >Let me guess. Your real name is Deb Alexander.
> It is fairly well know what handle I play under on Stars.
It is not fairly well known to me. What is your PokerStars handle?
And are you saying your PokerStars handle is your real name?
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Jerry Sturdivant
"Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ijr5uq$asu$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "Jerry Sturdivant" <jer...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:NNydnecATtsZhfzQ...@giganews.com...
>>
>>
>> "susan" <hotd...@charter.net> wrote in message
>> news:TuZ7p.47308$w57....@newsfe13.iad...
>>>
>>>
>>> "Jerry Sturdivant"
>>>
>>> LOL Learn to lose - only a total idiot would say something like that.
>>
>> Yet you're wrong and refuse to admit it. We are in a recovery.
>
> What's the definition of "a recovery", fucknut?
>>
>>
>>> I can't wait for the whole country to fall to pieces.
>>
>> Your desire for our country's economic collapse is noted. Is it just so
>> you can say the bad information you used was right? Are you that
>> desperate to be right? The economy is fragile, but slowly recovering. The
>> Republicans are doing whatever they can to slow it or stop it because
>> they want back in office. The healthcare bill will save money, but the
>> Republicans need it to fail so the insurance companies will keep donating
>> to them. The Republican Tea Baggers cried about the national debt, but
>> the first thing they did was make sure their rich donators got their wish
>> by keeping the Tax Cuts for the Rich.
>>
>> The Democrats took over, saved us from a depression and are pulling us
>> out of the recession. Cut and past whatever you like; it won't change
>> fact.
>>
> Jerry the shithead,ladies and gentlemen!
> Nothing Congress did had any effect on the recovery, except preventing the
> banks and the automakers from going under
And stimulus spending, you stupid fuck. Learn to lose.
Jerry Sturdivant
"Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ijr5du$4ol$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "Jerry Sturdivant" <jer...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:trednQETUPvci_zQ...@giganews.com...
>>
>>
>> "Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:ijpuq8$32m$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>> "Jerry Sturdivant" <jer...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>> news:47CdnYSGjfXB_P3Q...@giganews.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "susan" <hotd...@charter.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:l%Y7p.51395$7a4....@newsfe01.iad...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Jerry Sturdivant"
>>>>>
>>>>> I give - obviously you didn't read the figures that the government put
>>>>> out posted above. Just take a quick peek at the unemployment figures.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for making my point. As any economist will tell you (you he'll
>>>> have to say it a number of times), employment is the last to pick up
>>>> after a recession. That's proven true here. (Try applying it to your
>>>> own business). Yet you scrounge some worthless right-wing numbers and
>>>> claim some sort of victory? Reread the portions of my post you felt you
>>>> had to delete.
>>
>>> Jerry, why are you such a pathetic shitbag?
>> Why do you respond like an immature 12-year-old?
> I want you to have a snowball's chance in hell of grasping my point
You don't have a point. That's the point. We've kicked your ass again.
>>> Obama's economic policies have failed.
>>
>> Yet here we are in a recovery and all major economic indicators show it.
> Jerry, you pathetic shitbag, no we are not.
See? See how fucking stupid you are. Even the Republicans admit we're in a
recovery, you you're so afraid to admit you're wrong, you keep the same lie
going.
> The unemployment numbers are still horrid.
But we're still recovering. Bush lost 9 million, so far the Democrats have
picked up 1 million. We're in a recovery; learn to admit it when you're
wrong.
> The only way we are in recovery is "two quarters of growth" and that's
> only by very slim margins.
HELLO? RECOVERY? It's nice to see you're finally admitting you're wrong. But
you still remain a loser.
Jerry 'n Vegas
susan
"William Coleman"
>It is not fairly well known to me. What is your PokerStars handle?
>And are you saying your PokerStars handle is your real name?
>William Coleman (ramashiva)
I'm not saying because I will be accused of striving for attention. Sorry.
susan
"Jerry Sturdivant" wrote in message
news:j6mdnY_10OqYIP_Q...@giganews.com...
Jerry - I guess you missed the question I asked a couple days ago?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry, answer one question and I will forever revel in you genius and never
accuse you of going offtrack again.
Who has controlled the government of the USofA for the last 47 days?
William Coleman
> "William Coleman"
> >It is not fairly well known to me. What is your PokerStars handle?
> >And are you saying your PokerStars handle is your real name?
> I'm not saying because I will be accused of striving for attention. Sorry.
That excuse makes no sense.
First of all, John the Savage is already accusing you of striving for
attention.
Second of all, are you saying you care what John says about you?
William Coleman (ramashiva)
susan
"William Coleman" wrote in message
news:df61ea30-72a9-46dd...@8g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 21, 11:44 am, "susan" <hotda...@charter.net> wrote:
> "William Coleman"
Because the people I want to know, whom I care about, know. When I tested
the water a couple years ago and got betrayed on several levels I learned to
trust no one new anymore.
You have posted Beldins address etc. I don't want mine out there.
William Coleman
> Because the people I want to know, whom I care about, know. When I tested
> the water a couple years ago and got betrayed on several levels I learned to
> trust no one new anymore.
Jesus, Susan. Just how paranoid are you? You started out claiming
that Susan Johnson was your real name. Then you were outted as Jan
Lyons, which you acknowledged was your real name. Now you are saying
that Jan Lyons is not your real name either?
> You have posted Beldins address etc. I don't want mine out there.
Well, of course I never made any promise of confidentiality to Maggot
the Faggot about anything.
I just want an answer to this question --
Is Deb Alexander your real name?
If you don't want to answer here, you can email me with my assurance
of complete confidentiality.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
bub
wrote:
>Jerry, answer one question and I will forever revel in you genius and never
>accuse you of going offtrack again.
>
>Who has controlled the government of the USofA for the last 47 days?
tee hee
Beldin the Sorcerer
Well sure.
Willie is a proven scumbag
>
Beldin the Sorcerer
>
>
> "Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:ijr5du$4ol$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> "Jerry Sturdivant" <jer...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:trednQETUPvci_zQ...@giganews.com...
>>>
>>>
>>> "Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>> news:ijpuq8$32m$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>
>>>> "Jerry Sturdivant" <jer...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:47CdnYSGjfXB_P3Q...@giganews.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "susan" <hotd...@charter.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:l%Y7p.51395$7a4....@newsfe01.iad...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Jerry Sturdivant"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I give - obviously you didn't read the figures that the government
>>>>>> put out posted above. Just take a quick peek at the unemployment
>>>>>> figures.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for making my point. As any economist will tell you (you he'll
>>>>> have to say it a number of times), employment is the last to pick up
>>>>> after a recession. That's proven true here. (Try applying it to your
>>>>> own business). Yet you scrounge some worthless right-wing numbers and
>>>>> claim some sort of victory? Reread the portions of my post you felt
>>>>> you had to delete.
>>>
>>>> Jerry, why are you such a pathetic shitbag?
>
>>> Why do you respond like an immature 12-year-old?
>> I want you to have a snowball's chance in hell of grasping my point
>
> You don't have a point. That's the point. We've kicked your ass again.
>
>
>>>> Obama's economic policies have failed.
>>>
>>> Yet here we are in a recovery and all major economic indicators show it.
>
>> Jerry, you pathetic shitbag, no we are not.
>
> See? See how fucking stupid you are. Even the Republicans admit we're in a
> recovery, you you're so afraid to admit you're wrong, you keep the same
> lie going.
>
No, Jerry, we are not.
>
>
>
>
>> The unemployment numbers are still horrid.
>
> But we're still recovering. Bush lost 9 million, so far the Democrats have
> picked up 1 million. We're in a recovery; learn to admit it when you're
> wrong.
No, shithead, we have not
I realize you live to lie, but the job count is still DOWN
>
>
>
>> The only way we are in recovery is "two quarters of growth" and that's
>> only by very slim margins.
>
> HELLO? RECOVERY? It's nice to see you're finally admitting you're wrong.
> But you still remain a loser.
Jerry, do you enjoy ramming your head up your ass?
Jerry Sturdivant
"Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ijvi56$jct$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Gee, another reference to a male ass. Coleman is as right about you as the
rest of us are. You really should come out. Think of how much more attention
you'd get and had many more homoerotic posts last posts you could make. Your
reply to this one will make my point (and you're hooked and there's nothing
you can do about it). What a tool you are.
Jerry (lol) 'n Vegas
Beldin the Sorcerer
>>> Jerry, do you enjoy ramming your head up your ass?
>
> Gee, another reference to a male ass.
Are we sure you're male?
You act like a eunich
Coleman is as right about you as the
> rest of us are. You really should come out. Think of how much more
> attention you'd get and had many more homoerotic posts last posts you
> could make. Your reply to this one will make my point (and you're hooked
> and there's nothing you can do about it). What a tool you are.
And your tool doesn't work
Like your brain, it failed
Jerry Sturdivant
"Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ik0ku8$uvb$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Like I said, another homoerotic reference. That was so easy......
Beldin the Sorcerer
No homoerotic statement at all, and he sees one.... looks like he LIKES
thinking about homoerotica
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Pepe Papon
wrote:
>On Feb 20, 6:57 pm, Pepe Papon <hitmeis...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 18:38:29 -0600, "susan" <hotda...@charter.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >"gtech1" wrote in messagenews:cu1638x...@recgroups.com...
>>
>> >He seems to have overlooked this one: stock market up 40%
>>
>> >>Tell me how this is relevant to "Main St" America. Do you really think my
>> >>town which has 18% unemployment (figuring it out Obamas way) it is really
>> >>about 27% give a fuck about the stock market?
>>
>> The stock market is generally considered to be a leading economic
>> indicator.
>
>
>There is what is called a "jobless recovery". In an increasingly
>globalized and automated economy, many corporations seeing increased
>demand for their products and services don't necessarily need many
>more American workers. They increase production abroad, or run the
>machines faster or longer. Eventually a lot of those profits will
>come back into the economy but it takes time. So at least in the
>short term, you can see an increase in corporate profits and stock
>prices without a real decrease in unemployment.
Remember Ross Perot's prediction of the "giant sucking sound"? He
was correct, of course, and his prediction applies to GATT as well as
NAFTA.
Paul Popinjay
>
> Lets see, who would I rather be friends with. Arrogant snobs like you a
> Billb? Or regular people like beldin kevin newhavenwill willgamble
> doggy.
>
Ha! I'm just now reading this thread. That was a good one, "regular
people like kevin". ha ha ha my eyes are watering, my side hurts. That
was a good one, washerwoman.
Iceman
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 10:18:41 -0800 (PST), Iceman <oneofc...@yahoo.com>
At the time he seemed like an idiot. I mean, you've had Economics
101, you know free trade is supposed to benefit everyone.
These trade pacts have undermined US manufacturing. They have
destroyed millions of jobs, and the profits have gone mostly to the
richest 1% and not the rest of society. The rest of us get some cheap
crap at Wal-Mart, that's it.
popinjay999
> On Feb 23, 3:46 am, Pepe Papon <hitmeis...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Remember Ross Perot's prediction of the "giant sucking sound"? He
> > was correct, of course, and his prediction applies to GATT as well as
> > NAFTA.
>
> At the time he seemed like an idiot. I mean, you've had Economics
> 101, you know free trade is supposed to benefit everyone.
>
Didn't seem idiotic to me. I was staunchly against NAFTA, BACK THEN!
I wanted REAL free trade. It doesn't take a thousand pages of
regulations to have free trade. NAFTA was NEVER about free trade, it
was about regulated trade. Of course, I never took Economic 101, I
didn't get past 8th grade. duuuuuuh!
Yes, Iceman, and Pepe, there were some nutcase right-wingers back then
who could read the writing on the wall, and it wasn't just Ross
Perot. It's us nutcases who see the writing on the wall about the New
World Order too, and we're right about THAT too.
Iceman
> On Feb 24, 8:11 pm, Iceman <oneofc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 23, 3:46 am, Pepe Papon <hitmeis...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > > Remember Ross Perot's prediction of the "giant sucking sound"? He
> > > was correct, of course, and his prediction applies to GATT as well as
> > > NAFTA.
>
> > At the time he seemed like an idiot. I mean, you've had Economics
> > 101, you know free trade is supposed to benefit everyone.
>
> Didn't seem idiotic to me. I was staunchly against NAFTA, BACK THEN!
> I wanted REAL free trade. It doesn't take a thousand pages of
> regulations to have free trade. NAFTA was NEVER about free trade, it
> was about regulated trade. Of course, I never took Economic 101, I
> didn't get past 8th grade. duuuuuuh!
I agree that it isn't real free trade. A lot of the thousands of
pages of NAFTA, GATT, WTO, etc. were keeping protections for specific
industries, or allowing the US and Europe to do things that we don't
let other countries do. One of the most destructive is that the US
massively subsidizes agriculture, and then sells those artificially
cheap crops in poor countries tariff-free, while keeping our own
agricultural tariffs high to keep out crops from those same poor
countries. So Third World farmers can't compete, and they are driven
off their farms into huge urban slums.
> Yes, Iceman, and Pepe, there were some nutcase right-wingers back then
> who could read the writing on the wall, and it wasn't just Ross Perot.
Pat Buchanan, Jesse Jackson, Ralph Nader, and Ross Perot were all
warning about it. The media called them the "Halloween Coalition".
> It's us nutcases who see the writing on the wall about the New
> World Order too, and we're right about THAT too.
Well, here's what I think about that. I see an unelected elite having
more and more political and economic power in our democracy, and the
same thing being true over a lot of the world. And there are real
linkages between both the Democrats and the Republicans with Wall
Street, the corporate elite, the military-industrial complex, and the
mainstream media. But I don't buy into any idea of a world-ruling
conspiracy.
popinjay999
>
> Well, here's what I think about that. I see an unelected elite having
> more and more political and economic power in our democracy, and the
> same thing being true over a lot of the world. And there are real
> linkages between both the Democrats and the Republicans with Wall
> Street, the corporate elite, the military-industrial complex, and the
> mainstream media. But I don't buy into any idea of a world-ruling
> conspiracy.
Yet you just described a world-ruling conspiracy.
Iceman
No. There's no one single source of power. There are multiple groups
of elites, whose interests often coincide, but which sometimes
conflict with one another. And the power of the general public is
reduced, but it isn't non-existent.
popinjay999
> On Feb 24, 11:28 pm, popinjay999 <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
> > Yet you just described a world-ruling conspiracy.
>
> No. There's no one single source of power.
On the contrary, there has to be. Have you ever noticed how a huge
cloud of birds is flying in the sky and they suddenly all turn on a
dime?
Clave
"popinjay999" <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:b71723a8-6feb-4fc4...@o21g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 24, 9:46 pm, Iceman <oneofc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 24, 11:28 pm, popinjay999 <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> > Yet you just described a world-ruling conspiracy.
>>
>> No. There's no one single source of power.
>
>
> On the contrary, there has to be. Have you ever noticed how a huge
> cloud
Flock, but whatever...
> of birds is flying in the sky and they suddenly all turn on a
> dime?
You think they're secretly fish?
Jim
--
Well, shit, you confused me. More than normal
-- Beldin
popinjay999
By the way, still no sign of Clave lately, anyone? I hope he's ok.
Maybe he joined the mercenaries in Libya.
Clave
It must be hell for you.
popinjay999
Maybe he's on a mission to kill Gaddafi with thousands of stupid one-
liners.
Jerry Sturdivant
Employment and good jobs will not return to what it was for a long time.
For eight years, the Bush administration borrowed about $5 trillion dollars
and spent it. Kind of like a huge stimulus. Of course you'll have nearly
full employment. You let me borrow $5 trillion and spend it. I'll have this
country in full employment in no time. But like an individual family that
runs out their credit card; they live large and put people to work; but when
the bill is due, it's another matter.
Our country has borrowed and spent. The bill is due. It will take a long
time to get back to normal, wherever that is.
Jerry (who doesn't owe a dime) 'n Vegas
Pepe Papon
wrote:
>> Remember Ross Perot's prediction of the "giant sucking sound"? He
>> was correct, of course, and his prediction applies to GATT as well as
>> NAFTA.
>
>
>At the time he seemed like an idiot. I mean, you've had Economics
>101, you know free trade is supposed to benefit everyone.
He didn't seem like an idiot at all when talking about NAFTA. I
agreed with him 100% at the time.
>These trade pacts have undermined US manufacturing. They have
>destroyed millions of jobs, and the profits have gone mostly to the
>richest 1% and not the rest of society. The rest of us get some cheap
>crap at Wal-Mart, that's it.
I'm baffled at how people didn't see that coming.
Pepe Papon
<paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>On Feb 24, 8:11 pm, Iceman <oneofc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 23, 3:46 am, Pepe Papon <hitmeis...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> > Remember Ross Perot's prediction of the "giant sucking sound"? He
>> > was correct, of course, and his prediction applies to GATT as well as
>> > NAFTA.
>>
>> At the time he seemed like an idiot. I mean, you've had Economics
>> 101, you know free trade is supposed to benefit everyone.
>>
>
>
>Didn't seem idiotic to me. I was staunchly against NAFTA, BACK THEN!
>I wanted REAL free trade. It doesn't take a thousand pages of
>regulations to have free trade. NAFTA was NEVER about free trade, it
>was about regulated trade. Of course, I never took Economic 101, I
>didn't get past 8th grade. duuuuuuh!
>
>Yes, Iceman, and Pepe, there were some nutcase right-wingers back then
>who could read the writing on the wall, and it wasn't just Ross
>Perot.
That's interesting, because not so long ago, you flamed me for
criticizing the trade agreements.
Pepe Papon
wrote:
>> Didn't seem idiotic to me. I was staunchly against NAFTA, BACK THEN!
>> I wanted REAL free trade. It doesn't take a thousand pages of
>> regulations to have free trade. NAFTA was NEVER about free trade, it
>> was about regulated trade. Of course, I never took Economic 101, I
>> didn't get past 8th grade. duuuuuuh!
>
>
>I agree that it isn't real free trade. A lot of the thousands of
>pages of NAFTA, GATT, WTO, etc. were keeping protections for specific
>industries, or allowing the US and Europe to do things that we don't
>let other countries do. One of the most destructive is that the US
>massively subsidizes agriculture, and then sells those artificially
>cheap crops in poor countries tariff-free, while keeping our own
>agricultural tariffs high to keep out crops from those same poor
>countries. So Third World farmers can't compete, and they are driven
>off their farms into huge urban slums.
The trade agreements allow businesses to circumvent US labor laws and
environmental regulations, among other things.
popinjay999
>
> That's interesting, because not so long ago, you flamed me for
> criticizing the trade agreements.
Prove it, shithead, because I have always been against NAFTA.
Iceman
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 20:11:21 -0800 (PST), Iceman <oneofc...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> Remember Ross Perot's prediction of the "giant sucking sound"? He
> >> was correct, of course, and his prediction applies to GATT as well as
> >> NAFTA.
>
> >At the time he seemed like an idiot. I mean, you've had Economics
> >101, you know free trade is supposed to benefit everyone.
>
> He didn't seem like an idiot at all when talking about NAFTA. I
> agreed with him 100% at the time.
Well, he seemed really out of his depth in the presidential campaign,
so that's one reason why people didn't take his anti-NAFTA campaign
seriously. And the other main opponents of it were Pat Buchanan,
Jesse Jackson, and Ralph Nader. While far more popular and respected
people like Bill Clinton supported it.
And the corporate media was 100% pro-NAFTA and GATT and was dismissive
towards opposition arguments.
> >These trade pacts have undermined US manufacturing. They have
> >destroyed millions of jobs, and the profits have gone mostly to the
> >richest 1% and not the rest of society. The rest of us get some cheap
> >crap at Wal-Mart, that's it.
>
> I'm baffled at how people didn't see that coming.
NAFTA supporters made it sound like only low-wage jobs would be lost,
and we'd get this massive new market as Mexico became middle-class.
Iceman
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 21:05:56 -0800 (PST), Iceman <oneofc...@yahoo.com>
Or just a company's threat of being able to easily relocate to Mexico
or China is enough to force concessions from its American workers.
When a significant number of jobs are lost in that way, you better not
demand too much, or your plant will be next. And now with outsourcing
to India, etc., they are increasingly targeting service-sector jobs as
well.
popinjay999
What were they supposed to say? The truth? Get the fuck oudda here.
Pepe Papon
And yet, you flamed me. Shithead.
Beldin the Sorcerer
"Pepe Papon" <hitme...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:93trm6913gl1f2mmn...@4ax.com...
Your memory skills are far less than perfect
Pepe Papon
Ya think?
Beldin the Sorcerer
In this case, either you're trolling the troll, or you're sure he's right
but you don't wanna admit it.
Pepe Papon
<Beld...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>"Pepe Papon" <hitme...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:3674n615hq3k2clvr...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 02:52:04 -0500, "Beldin the Sorcerer"
>> <Beld...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Pepe Papon" <hitme...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>news:93trm6913gl1f2mmn...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 04:57:18 -0800 (PST), popinjay999
>>>> <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Feb 27, 1:41 am, Pepe Papon <hitmeis...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's interesting, because not so long ago, you flamed me for
>>>>>> criticizing the trade agreements.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Prove it, shithead, because I have always been against NAFTA.
>>>>
>>>> And yet, you flamed me. Shithead.
>>>I believe Peepee is asking you to cite it.
>>
>> Ya think?
>Regularly
>
>In this case, either you're trolling the troll, or you're sure he's right
>but you don't wanna admit it.
Those seem like two reasonable possibilities.
Beldin the Sorcerer
You wanna tip me off which one it is, and I'll bet with someone and split it
with you?
Pepe Papon
Nope.