Healthcare on way, sorry sociopathic Repubs

[EBSB52]

you obviously bought into the association and its practices since you live in one. you can only blame yourself.

No, if you read you would have seen that I wrote it's my GF's house and she's one of those lemmings. It is clear to me now that you just write what you feel and don't even look at other poster's assertions/questions, then call them stupid. Clem, seriously, get off your little sister and get a little bit of an education.

As for my fault for being subjected to living here, yes. It's a nice house in packed, nazi-ruled neighborhood. You can't even park your car in teh driveway, even for the few who have them. As for my GF buying this house, when she was a 20-YO whore, going up and down Cave Creek Rd bar hopping, she was in her glory days and, "the Pit" as I call it was the cream. Since then things changed and it is still the Pit, but it's not the cream any longer. Anyway, it was one of those things she had to do before she died, buy a house in the pit. I told her not to, her realtor tried to steer her away, she just had to do it and on occassion when she's not being a freak, she will admit it was a stupid buy.

I lost my house at foreclosure in 02 and this is all I had, she helped me, but it sucks. There are no cars allowed to be [arked in teh street at night, this is like one of those upper-scale neighborhoods by rule, but middle-class otherwise. This is what happens when you get corrupt Republican scum, and yes, all board members are that, they take hold and overenforce where they wish, ignore their buddies acts. I've gone round and round with them, but my powers are limited as I have no legal standing. The bitch is I really can't get out of here, I have a fair amount of stuff and I can't have a truck. It's a real trap and now that the economy is bad, I can't see getting out of here. Live in this BS oppression where you can't move, breath, ect and you'd understand. I would have more lattitude in an apartment.

[GT86]

Several friends, my dad and Ray Crone, a guy who spent 10 years in prison for starters.

Sounds like only a few people, and you can't count that high? Not surprising, but it does shed some light on how your thought process works.

Oh, the costs. Unlike the history of military spending. We spend 8 times what #2 spends and virtually match teh world dollar for dollar in military spending; more if you count Iraq funding for Bush's buddies. This isn't a cost issue, Obama is going to act on this and if some Maggotpublicans get in the way, bye-bye in 2 Novembers, Senators if they are up. Hmmmmm, the economyh is inthe shitter? Wonder how it got that way????? By spending 600b/yr + Iraq costs for several years now? Tax cuts and interest rates waaaaaaaaaay too low? Wonder who's responsible for that? Oh, it must have been the Dems since they took over the House for the last 2 years. I wouldn't speak for Obama if I were you, neo-con, your kind is done with politics, possibly forever. When the Repukes make a comeback, they'll have a new protocol in their pocket and it won't be neo-conesque.

Wait, you're blaming tax cuts and low interest rates (in part) for the current mess? You do realize Obama is pushing those two things as part of the solution, right? Perhaps you should learn about economics and history and you'd have a better understanding of how we got here. But that would require effort and thought, and it's easier for you to whine about the GOP and blame them for everything, right?

^th grade dropout, I've voted for both parties and even Independant Perot, both presidentially and congressionally; you also are a waste of fucking skin as with the rest of your neo-trash buddies. Now have I voted neo-trash? No way, you have and are proud; what an absolute idiot.

What happens in other countries with uni-care? Everyone has healthcare. Perhaps the upper class don't have care that is as good as it is here, but the middle and lower classes have access to it, unlike here. SO if you're an elitist, fascist peice of trash like you, you want the uppers to have better and the lowers to have none. I prefer everyone have it and so does the country, so sit with the other neo-trash and watch how politicians work.

Have evidence or is this an in-between bong hit revelation? Really, show your evidence. And the US, how is it working? We're so close to the brink of total bankruptcy that to point at pther countries and make GUESSES at their fiscal well-being is pathetic.

Unlikeyou, draft-dodging coward, I've been all ove rthe SOuth Pacific in the military. I've been all over the US as well. Shall we talk who has basic healthcare? China, Russian and the broken-off countries, all of Western Europe, all those shitty little islands in the South PAcific, etc. SOme real fucked up places have uni-care, we do not, we cater to the rich instead.

Ummm, China? http://chinachallenges.blogs.com/my_web ... lth_c.html
Russia? http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008 ... esdayfeb26
Western Europe? http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/HL711.cfm

The problem they're all facing is that expenses are rising far too quickly, and threaten to overwhelm the system. Which tends to happen with most socialist programs.

Just amazing that when the Dems sucked pre-Civil War, this PArty called the Republican Party came along and fixed shit. Then the R's started fucking things up, so after 4 years of Hoover trash, the people brought the Dems in for several terms to fix things. So this pendulum isn't some basic tiring of the color of the carpet as you would idiotically assert, it is the tiring of a given party acting in a corrupt fashion and fucking up badly. You as well haven't addressed Bush's and Clinton's data that I posted in the other thread; real shocker there. Instead you want to casually act as if it's just a normal changing of the season. Get ready, neo-trash, you won't likely have your party in power for possibly 2 decades.

You say this with 2 straight election cycles of Repugs getting absolutley hammered in congress. You have zero to support your assertion but the guys at the bathhouse saying how they hate these people, whereas the voters have done nothing but slam the Repukes out. Try supporting your guessertions with something tangible, clown. If Obama fixes shit, I think it's fair to say that the Dems will hold the White House and Congress for both of Obama's terms and 2 subsequent ones, AT A MINIMUM.

Not the existing problems fabricated by your party, but new problems that would be created by Obama, assuming there will be some. Not all people are as stupid as you, Clinton left with a 60%ish approval even after a ridiculous impeachment. Bush is considered the 37/38th president of 42, the problems we now have are primarily his fault, or so the people beleive which is what matters. Clinton didn't turn the corner until early into his second term, yet he was reelected. You, as the rest of tyeh neo-trash, have no basis for your wild guesses.

Good, then consider it a blessing that your party is done for 8 years, probably more like 2 decades+. Also, it was pretty easy when Clinton was in power and fixed things, so I don't see your point. Now being a Bush supporter like you, I'm sure it was painful. Fortunately for me, Obama is no Bush so it's easy for me now.

Do you really believe this is the start of a Dem dynasty? Even you're not that blind, are you? Not four years ago people were writing the Dem obits, after Kerry couldn't pull off a victory against an unpopular incumbent. Mainstays like Daschle had been voted out of Congress, and the GOP had made many gains at the state level. The Dem party was in disarray, power and influence were being lost, and it was all doom and gloom for the Dems. Now, they're on an upswing, but it won't last. Nothing in politics does. Remember, at one point Bush had a record high approval rating, 90%.

Yet they all voted for it along with 3 Repub Senators..... you make really good points.

I said voters, not legislators. Try and keep up.

Which promises? His approval is huge and he only won the populous vote by a 45 / 52% margin, so apparently not all neo-cons are as dumb as you. As for reelection, he's just being humble, he's focusing on the here and now; he doesn't care about the 2012 election now.

He's softened his rhetoric on Iraq, committed more troops to Afghanistan, has defended and intends to continue some of the Bush wiretapping policies, has proven himself to be a liar regarding pork, he has broken his own prohibition against lobbyists in his administration, has backtracked on missile defense funding, has left the UAW feeling screwed over, and has backtracked regarding some of the terrorist detainees in Gitmo, and hey, he's only been in office about a month.

As I said, he's a politician, and sooner or later the love affair will end.

That was a flaw of Clinton, Obama is too intelligent for that. That isn't his agenda anyway. Furthermore, to put the final nail in your guessertions, Clinton was huge in the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban during his first term, yet he was reelected after all that by a fair margin. You're the most brilliant SOB I know. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... tion,_1996 I apologize, I mean a fucking landslide, 379 EV to 159 EV for Dole.

Clinton himself has said the '94 AWB was the main reason the Dems lost control of Congress. And c'mon, Bob Dole? You're surprised Clinton beat Dole?

Oh God, a Libertarian nutjob; you coulda warned me. I loev this, 'fall out of favor.' You mean get run outta town in a huge way, I agree. Bush and the Repukes didn't fall out of favor, Hoover and the Repukes didn't fall out of favor, they were nailed up the ass for several consecutive terms. The Dems fucked shit up so bad in the 1840's-1850's that they got owned for most of teh next 50 years. Quit the rationalizations, Bush and beloved Repugs were and are owned. Oh that's right, you're a Libertarian, you always get owned with your 3% populous vote. That is considered < politically insignificant. Of course a Libertarian is just 10 degrees from a Republican anyway.

Who said I'm a Libertarian? I simply don't trust either major party anymore. I tend towards the conservative side, but that doesn't mean I'm a blind GOP supporter.

VOTES:

1980: Carter
1984: Mondale
1988: Duchakis
1992: Perot
1996: Dole
2000: Gore
2004: Kerry
2008: Obama

As well as the 1994 slaughter of the dems in congress, I voted R in that too. Actually 92 and 96 were congressional R votes as well. I plan on voting for Jan Brewer, Republican Gov of AZ who took over for nasty Napalitano. You're a clueless fucking turd.

Except for Perot and Dole, I see nothing but Dems. Carter, Mondale and Dukakis votes tend to paint you as naive, but Perot really shows that you're an idiot who falls for sound bites. Can't figure why you voted for Dole, since he didn't play into your socialist fantasy world. And you're planning on voting for Brewer based on what? She hasn't held the office for very long, so doesn't have much of a record. You don't even know who else may be a candidate at that point. Although I do agree that pretty much anyone would be better than Janet.

Envy whom? Yet another idiotic nothing from you. What propaganda; I post data and historicla fact? You live on the neo-trash rhetoric, I research data and fact. Funny being told I don't critically think when I'm virtually the only person posting data. You're a joke.

And before you start crying about the names, read your post and realize that you started it - I have no issue with it.

You don't post fact, you post rhetoric and hyperbole. You cherry pick stuff that you agree with from other websites, and post them like you're some sort of well-read and well-informed intellectual. But you're unwilling or unable to have a debate, since you simply fling insults at anyone who disagrees with you. And when you are presented with something that completely blows your opinion out of the water, you slap your hands over your ears and yell "la la la I can't hear you", and then proceed to step up the insults. When that doesn't work, you post ever-longer and even less relevant responses, and then claim victory when people tire of reading your bullshit and quit responding to you. In short, you're a loud, uninformed, abrasive idiot, and you're so insecure in your own opinions that you view any dissension as a threat.

I won't cry about your use of name calling. I understand that other than lengthy diatribes filled with gibberish, it's your only real debating tactic since your positions are so indefensible. Oh,sorry, you do have one more tactic: hypocrisy. Check the thread starter (that was you, in case you've forgotten), and see who started with the name-calling.

[EBSB52]

Lack of HOA has been one of the things I've been looking for in a house around here. HOA dues are money flushed down the toilet... not as bad as condo fees, but still pretty useless.

I'm moving out of the rental next week. This area has a HOA and the only thing I've ever gotten for the landlord's HOA dues are letters telling me to move my trashcan inside. It was tucked behind and overhang in front of the garage door and *almost* completely hidden from the street... certainly not sitting out in the middle of the driveway. I guess the HOA has to justify its existence somehow.

Yea, if people would buy away from them then an HOA would depreciate the value, but cowardly, lemming pathetic Americans just fall in line. To me the due are the least of the issue, the selective regulation is the problem. My previous house had an HOA that charged 70/mo to have Mexicans rip holes in my lawn with their rider mower, other than that they didn't fuck with me. This HOA is cheao but intusive as fuck. Anyone who buys this garbage about HOA's protecting their property values deserves an HOA.

The HOA here sent around a vote to require owners to get permission from the board to rent their houses out because renters are such bad people. It failed misserably. But still, to further empower the HOA is insane. Associations used to be able to unilatterally force a lien sale for unpaid fines. The state legislature recently require they get a judges signature to collect, if no coillection, then they can force the sale, but it has to go before a judge at least. What if an elderly person is unable to rake leaves, gets fined and then lien saled. This is why the AARP is against them. What a lovley country, I have to go buy a box of US flags, see ya guys later.

[GT86]

you obviously bought into the association and its practices since you live in one. you can only blame yourself.

No, if you read you would have seen that I wrote it's my GF's house and she's one of those lemmings. It is clear to me now that you just write what you feel and don't even look at other poster's assertions/questions, then call them stupid. Clem, seriously, get off your little sister and get a little bit of an education.

As for my fault for being subjected to living here, yes. It's a nice house in packed, nazi-ruled neighborhood. You can't even park your car in teh driveway, even for the few who have them. As for my GF buying this house, when she was a 20-YO whore, going up and down Cave Creek Rd bar hopping, she was in her glory days and, "the Pit" as I call it was the cream. Since then things changed and it is still the Pit, but it's not the cream any longer. Anyway, it was one of those things she had to do before she died, buy a house in the pit. I told her not to, her realtor tried to steer her away, she just had to do it and on occassion when she's not being a freak, she will admit it was a stupid buy.

I lost my house at foreclosure in 02 and this is all I had, she helped me, but it sucks. There are no cars allowed to be [arked in teh street at night, this is like one of those upper-scale neighborhoods by rule, but middle-class otherwise. This is what happens when you get corrupt Republican scum, and yes, all board members are that, they take hold and overenforce where they wish, ignore their buddies acts. I've gone round and round with them, but my powers are limited as I have no legal standing. The bitch is I really can't get out of here, I have a fair amount of stuff and I can't have a truck. It's a real trap and now that the economy is bad, I can't see getting out of here. Live in this BS oppression where you can't move, breath, ect and you'd understand. I would have more lattitude in an apartment.

So man up and move out. Find an apartment, or buy a house in a non-HOA neighborhood. Quit sponging off the GF and find a place of your own. Otherwise, quit bitching about the rules--rules that were likely in place before you moved there. Oh wait, you had a foreclosure? Did those bad Republicans come and take your house? Well, beggars can't be choosers (a lesson you don't seem to have learned. Could explain why you're such a propenent of having the govt take care of you).

Or move to one of your socialist wet dream countries. You seem to hate being told what to do, bet you'd love living in a central-planning society.

[GT86]

Lack of HOA has been one of the things I've been looking for in a house around here. HOA dues are money flushed down the toilet... not as bad as condo fees, but still pretty useless.

I'm moving out of the rental next week. This area has a HOA and the only thing I've ever gotten for the landlord's HOA dues are letters telling me to move my trashcan inside. It was tucked behind and overhang in front of the garage door and *almost* completely hidden from the street... certainly not sitting out in the middle of the driveway. I guess the HOA has to justify its existence somehow.

Yea, if people would buy away from them then an HOA would depreciate the value, but cowardly, lemming pathetic Americans just fall in line. To me the due are the least of the issue, the selective regulation is the problem. My previous house had an HOA that charged 70/mo to have Mexicans rip holes in my lawn with their rider mower, other than that they didn't fuck with me. This HOA is cheao but intusive as fuck. Anyone who buys this garbage about HOA's protecting their property values deserves an HOA.

The HOA here sent around a vote to require owners to get permission from the board to rent their houses out because renters are such bad people. It failed misserably. But still, to further empower the HOA is insane. Associations used to be able to unilatterally force a lien sale for unpaid fines. The state legislature recently require they get a judges signature to collect, if no coillection, then they can force the sale, but it has to go before a judge at least. What if an elderly person is unable to rake leaves, gets fined and then lien saled. This is why the AARP is against them. What a lovley country, I have to go buy a box of US flags, see ya guys later.

You support unions, and the idea that workers should be able to set terms and limits on their work, but you're bitching about homeowners forming what is essentially a union, and setting terms and limits on what can be done in the neighborhood?

Hypocrite. You're all for socialism as long as it doesn't interfere with what you want.

[Shaun41178(2)]

eb you live with your g/f?

[EBSB52]

.

ME: Several friends, my dad and Ray Crone, a guy who spent 10 years in prison for starters.

NEO-CON: Sounds like only a few people, and you can't count that high? Not surprising, but it does shed some light on how your thought process works.

The original point was that I know of people who were cowardly Repukes like you, had an event occur where they needed social svs, help, etc and then they became quit a bit less conservative. If you want to be the neo-con trash you are and get semantic, fine, but the point stands.

ME: Oh, the costs. Unlike the history of military spending. We spend 8 times what #2 spends and virtually match the world dollar for dollar in military spending; more if you count Iraq funding for Bush's buddies. This isn't a cost issue, Obama is going to act on this and if some Maggotpublicans get in the way, bye-bye in 2 Novembers, Senators if they are up. Hmmmmm, the economy is in the shitter? Wonder how it got that way????? By spending 600b/yr + Iraq costs for several years now? Tax cuts and interest rates waaaaaaaaaay too low? Wonder who's responsible for that? Oh, it must have been the Dems since they took over the House for the last 2 years. I wouldn't speak for Obama if I were you, neo-con, your kind is done with politics, possibly forever. When the Repukes make a comeback, they'll have a new protocol in their pocket and it won't be neo-conesque.


NEO-CON: Wait, you're blaming tax cuts and low interest rates for the current mess? You do realize Obama is pushing those two things as part of the solution, right? Perhaps you should learn about economics and history and you'd have a better understanding of how we got here. But that would require effort and thought, and it's easier for you to whine about the GOP and blame them for everything, right?

When times are good, you need to increase taxes, such as in 04-06, instead your brainchild and his punkass congress kept them low. When times are fucked you need to maintain or lower them so as not to stymie economic activity. See, this mess really started by lowering the interest rates so low and keeping them low. I can't count w/o researching them how many interest rate cuts there were. Even when we had a lot of economic activity they were kept low, which is against the generic protocol of economics; the interest rate is a tool to adjust economic activity and it is supposed to be raised to avoid an situation where you have runaway inflation. Well, guess what, we had it, house prices doubled, gas prices tripled+, food prices went crazy. This was all very predictable when you keep the interest rates so low. You're going to say it wasn't Bush, but Greenspan. True, but Bush could have ousted him if he had a clue as to what was going on. Furthermore, that was not Greenspan's style to be an idiot, I really wonder where the direction to lower and keep down interest rates came from.

So, shit for brains, now the interest rate and taxes have to be kept low to savor and all economic activity. With you attempt at making a point, you're using these times with those of 2-3 years ago when we were soaring and living off future money, we should have raised taxes to pay for some of the shit then, Iraq, etc and for some of the shit now, recession/depression.

Queer faggot, I'm sure I have more education than do you, in fact I did research on the outcome of GWB's and Clinton's presidency and all you neo-queers are too lame to answer it. Yet you want to claim some kind of victory? Victory for cowards, answer the data, explain it.

- Clinton

- UNEMPLOYMENT: Inherited 7%, left 4%
- DEFICIT: Inherited -290B, left a +236B surplus
- DEBT: Inherited 12 straight years of a 250B/yr increase, left a 33B increase his last year, every year the increase lowered
- STOCK MARKET: Inherited 3500, left 9800
- DOLLAR VALUE VS CANADA: Inherited 1.28, left 1.55
- WORLD PERCEPTION: The world started to like us again during Clinton's presidency


- Bush

- UNEMPLOYMENT: Inherited 4%, left 7.6%
- DEFICIT: Inherited a +236B surplus, left a 455B deficit
- DEBT: Inherited 33B increase, left probably what's going to amount to a trillion dollar debt, maybe more. Hard to figure with the 750B for the banks, the stimulus, all of the war funding, easily at least 1 trillion dollars.
- STOCK MARKET: Inherited 9800, left 7900
- DOLLAR VALUE VS CANADA: Inherited 1.55, left 1.22, but the USD was below the Canadian dollar a year ago, the stock market crash gave the USD a huge bump, as people pulled $$$ out of thr market and stuck it in bonds.
- WORLD PERCEPTION: The world hates us now

ME: ^th grade dropout, I've voted for both parties and even Independent Perot, both presidentially and congressionally; you also are a waste of fucking skin as with the rest of your neo-trash buddies. Now have I voted neo-trash? No way, you have and are proud; what an absolute idiot.

What happens in other countries with uni-care? Everyone has healthcare. Perhaps the upper class don't have care that is as good as it is here, but the middle and lower classes have access to it, unlike here. SO if you're an elitist, fascist piece of trash like you, you want the uppers to have better and the lowers to have none. I prefer everyone have it and so does the country, so sit with the other neo-trash and watch how politicians work.

Have evidence or is this an in-between bong hit revelation? Really, show your evidence. And the US, how is it working? We're so close to the brink of total bankruptcy that to point at other countries and make GUESSES at their fiscal well-being is pathetic.

Unlike you, draft-dodging coward, I've been all over the South Pacific in the military. I've been all over the US as well. Shall we talk who has basic healthcare? China, Russian and the broken-off countries, all of Western Europe, all those shitty little islands in the South Pacific, etc. Some real fucked up places have uni-care, we do not, we cater to the rich instead.



NEO-CON: Ummm, China? http://chinachallenges.blogs.com/my_web ... lth_c.html
Russia? http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008 ... esdayfeb26
Western Europe? http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/HL711.cfm

The problem they're all facing is that expenses are rising far too quickly, and threaten to overwhelm the system. Which tends to happen with most socialist programs.

OK, from your citations:

Mainland health-care reform has been a failure and has turned medical services into the exclusive privilege of the rich, according to a top-level think-tank advising the central government.

Sound like any place you know? (Psssst. Nazimerica) So if China's ailing system yields an exclusive healthcare system, which is what America's is, then the US is as oppressive as China. Are you looking for an argument?

Their death rates are not attributable to healthcare so much as to drinking and smoking: (from your citation)

The biggest reason Russia’s population plummets at a rate of more than700,000 people each year is not that its birthrate is so low, but that its death rate is so high. The average life expectancy for Russian men is 59. In the U.S. it’s 75; in Japan it’s 79.
Alcohol and smoking are major culprits. Both are linked to heart disease, and in Russia, the rate of men ages 30 to 59 dying from heart disease is five times that of the United States, according to researchers at Columbia University.

The first 2 sites seemed fairly objective, you referenced 2 of the worst countries in the world which makes your point less than objective, but the sites were objective. Now to try to establish a descent place like Western Europe into the mess you pick your homepage, a right wing maggot rag. Not real objective. You're Cleary a deceptive piece of shit, go back and find an objective source. This is it: http://www.heritage.org/ Their motto is: THE LEFT IS ON THE MARCH. HERITAGE HAS THE ANSWERS. Their poster queers are Hannity and Limbaugh, a Nazi and a Racist. http://www.askheritage.org/Default.aspx ... ioCampaign

I'll post something from Moveon.org and expect you to take it seriously....not. You would react in the same way, now find me a source where Western Europe as a majority has fucked up medical care or perhaps Canada, but no one is looking at China and Russia wanting to model their healthcare after them. Please, no more aberrations or agenda sites. I appreciate the pseudo research, but make it honest. Now go back and convince us that much of Asia is a piss-hole, we don't already have that opinion.

ME: Just amazing that when the Dems sucked pre-Civil War, this Party called the Republican Party came along and fixed shit. Then the R's started fucking things up, so after 4 years of Hoover trash, the people brought the Dems in for several terms to fix things. So this pendulum isn't some basic tiring of the color of the carpet as you would idiotically assert, it is the tiring of a given party acting in a corrupt fashion and fucking up badly. You as well haven't addressed Bush's and Clinton's data that I posted in the other thread; real shocker there. Instead you want to casually act as if it's just a normal changing of the season. Get ready, neo-trash, you won't likely have your party in power for possibly 2 decades.

You say this with 2 straight election cycles of Repugs getting absolutely hammered in congress. You have zero to support your assertion but the guys at the bathhouse saying how they hate these people, whereas the voters have done nothing but slam the Repukes out. Try supporting your guessertions with something tangible, clown. If Obama fixes shit, I think it's fair to say that the Dems will hold the White House and Congress for both of Obama's terms and 2 subsequent ones, AT A MINIMUM.

Not the existing problems fabricated by your party, but new problems that would be created by Obama, assuming there will be some. Not all people are as stupid as you, Clinton left with a 60%ish approval even after a ridiculous impeachment. Bush is considered the 37/38th president of 42, the problems we now have are primarily his fault, or so the people believe which is what matters. Clinton didn't turn the corner until early into his second term, yet he was reelected. You, as the rest of the neo-trash, have no basis for your wild guesses.

Good, then consider it a blessing that your party is done for 8 years, probably more like 2 decades+. Also, it was pretty easy when Clinton was in power and fixed things, so I don't see your point. Now being a Bush supporter like you, I'm sure it was painful. Fortunately for me, Obama is no Bush so it's easy for me now.

NEO-CON: Do you really believe this is the start of a Dem dynasty? Even you're not that blind, are you? Not four years ago people were writing the Dem obits, after Kerry couldn't pull off a victory against an unpopular incumbent. Mainstays like Daschle had been voted out of Congress, and the GOP had made many gains at the state level. The Dem party was in disarray, power and influence were being lost, and it was all doom and gloom for the Dems. Now, they're on an upswing, but it won't last. Nothing in politics does. Remember, at one point Bush had a record high approval rating, 90%.

Yea, 90% after 9/11 when we were all stunned. We also thought Giuliani was gem cause his city was devastated, now we know he's as pathetic as Bush and the rest of the neo-con trash. The 9/11 bump means zero. And you infer the Dem takeover is a fluke? The maggots took over in 94 in congress, lost the 96 general election but took over from there with garbage, so the Dems can maintain control if they can stay focused. Will it last forever? Of course not, just 4 terms I say. Look at the other depression, the Dems held for 5 terms and that was with a turd like Truman, no wonder Eisenhower beat him and it's good he did. The Nazi's held majority power from 1980 to 2008 with a really bad track record, if the Dems fix it and the people are 1/2 way smart, they should hold major office for 4 terms. This stinging of the debt and overall trashing of the country, Katrina, etc won't be forgotten soon. Remember, you just waived bye-bye to the 5th worst president, just as the Dems did pre-Civil War, get ready for a long Dem run. Truthfully it is purely a guess on both our parts, but you call BO's win a fluke, I call it a major change, when in reality it is just a reaction to 8 immediate years or 20 of 28 years of Republican corruption. Hell, I could have won the general election as a Dem, esp since the best the R's could offer is.... My friends.......My friends.....My friends Pretty sad representation.

ME: Yet they all voted for it along with 3 Repub Senators..... you make really good points.

NEO-CON: I said voters, not legislators. Try and keep up.

I'm following along well, perhaps you don't understand the representative form of government we have, the voters (electorate) don't matter other than to elect representatives as in House Reps, Senators, President, etc.

ME: Which promises? His approval is huge and he only won the populous vote by a 45 / 52% margin, so apparently not all neo-cons are as dumb as you. As for reelection, he's just being humble, he's focusing on the here and now; he doesn't care about the 2012 election now.

NEO-CON: He's softened his rhetoric on Iraq, committed more troops to Afghanistan, has defended and intends to continue some of the Bush wiretapping policies, has proven himself to be a liar regarding pork, he has broken his own prohibition against lobbyists in his administration, has backtracked on missile defense funding, has left the UAW feeling screwed over, and has backtracked regarding some of the terrorist detainees in Gitmo, and hey, he's only been in office about a month.

As I said, he's a politician, and sooner or later the love affair will end.

How, can you cite these? The UAW loves him, he just undid your turd's anti-labor policies, other than the Overtime Law, I'm sure you're proud of that one, but he may get to that, he has bigger unfucking to do now tho. He's closing GITMO, you are senseless and listen to your BS site you posted, you listen to Limbaugh and Hannity waaaaaaaay too much; your brain is shit. Post WTF you're talking about: citations, examples, etc.

ME: That was a flaw of Clinton, Obama is too intelligent for that. That isn't his agenda anyway. Furthermore, to put the final nail in your guessertions, Clinton was huge in the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban during his first term, yet he was reelected after all that by a fair margin. You're the most brilliant SOB I know. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... tion,_1996 I apologize, I mean a fucking landslide, 379 EV to 159 EV for Dole.

NEO-CON: Clinton himself has said the '94 AWB was the main reason the Dems lost control of Congress. And c'mon, Bob Dole? You're surprised Clinton beat Dole?

Yes but you cited this as a reason Obama would be voted out, not a statement as to congress. Try to follow along.

ME: Oh God, a Libertarian nutjob; you coulda warned me. I love this, 'fall out of favor.' You mean get run outta town in a huge way, I agree. Bush and the Repukes didn't fall out of favor, Hoover and the Repukes didn't fall out of favor, they were nailed up the ass for several consecutive terms. The Dems fucked shit up so bad in the 1840's-1850's that they got owned for most of the next 50 years. Quit the rationalizations, Bush and beloved Repugs were and are owned. Oh that's right, you're a Libertarian, you always get owned with your 3% populous vote. That is considered < politically insignificant. Of course a Libertarian is just 10 degrees from a Republican anyway.

NEO-CON: Who said I'm a Libertarian? I simply don't trust either major party anymore. I tend towards the conservative side, but that doesn't mean I'm a blind GOP supporter.

Love it when cowardly neo-cons, whether they be Republicans or disgruntled Republicans (Libertarians) never post their current party or their voting record, but promise they aren't neo-cons. Hey joke, post yopur politics and your lifetime voting record, it isn't a national secret. You won't.

ME: VOTES:

1980: Carter
1984: Mondale
1988: Duchakis
1992: Perot
1996: Dole
2000: Gore
2004: Kerry
2008: Obama

As well as the 1994 slaughter of the dems in congress, I voted R in that too. Actually 92 and 96 were congressional R votes as well. I plan on voting for Jan Brewer, Republican Gov of AZ who took over for nasty Napolitano. You're a clueless fucking turd.

NEO-CON: Except for Perot and Dole, I see nothing but Dems. Carter, Mondale and Dukakis votes tend to paint you as naive, but Perot really shows that you're an idiot who falls for sound bites. Can't figure why you voted for Dole, since he didn't play into your socialist fantasy world. And you're planning on voting for Brewer based on what? She hasn't held the office for very long, so doesn't have much of a record. You don't even know who else may be a candidate at that point. Although I do agree that pretty much anyone would be better than Janet.

OK, so I have voted for 75% Dems and 12% Republican, 12% Independent. Remember, my lost neo-con friend, your assertion that prompted me to answer this was that you claim I'm strictly partisan. Are you too pathetic to admit you're wrong? Not to mention all the Repubs I've voted for in congress. You ARE too pathetic to post your votes, as I'm guessing we would see a true partisan calling a non-partisan a partisan. Also, as I wrote, I will vote for Repub Gov Jan Brewer if I'm here when she comes up next. You are an idiot, a liar and a turd.

Carter, Mondale and Dukakis votes tend to paint you me as naive? And Reagan was a real gift, the only time we haven't been at war and hammer the debt that bad, as well as deprive millions of workers their right to organize and exercise their union collective bargaining / strike rights. You are a fucking fascist maggot. I cite Reagan as he was elected instead of these guys, I guess I could also include his whipping bitch, GHWB. The debt went from <1 trillion to 4 trillion in this period and we're talking 1980-1993 dollars. Nice comparison. Iran/Contra was his Lewinsky lie and Beirut and no reprisal, and yet you neo-cons whine about Clinton not avenging after the 93 WTC attack and the Cole attack? Tisk, tisk, my you guys are hypocrites.

I voted for Dole because I was foolishly disillusioned into thinking the Nazi Party was the right one. I actually blamed the left for the Recession. Remember, I was 30ish with no education, now I have ~ 200 college credits. So tell me, who did you vote for in 96? You're a major pussy if you don't post, unless you weren't of voting age then.

Perot? I'm an idiot? And you allegedly voted for Bush, probably twice. many people voted for Perot, 19% of the populous. I'm just glad it was a backdoor Clinton election maker. I would have voted Bush had I not voted for Perot, as virtually all the Perot voters were in that demographic, so maybe they all were idiots, voting for Bush but for Perot.

I'm voting for Brewer because she is against the freeway photocams and wants to raise taxes to meet the budget. State workers have to take off 1 day per pay period. She seems like a very moderate Repub, unlike the usual extremist nutjob; YOU.

ME: Envy whom? Yet another idiotic nothing from you. What propaganda; I post data and historical fact? You live on the neo-trash rhetoric, I research data and fact. Funny being told I don't critically think when I'm virtually the only person posting data. You're a joke.

And before you start crying about the names, read your post and realize that you started it - I have no issue with it.

NEO-CON: You don't post fact, you post rhetoric and hyperbole. You cherry pick stuff that you agree with from other websites, and post them like you're some sort of well-read and well-informed intellectual. But you're unwilling or unable to have a debate, since you simply fling insults at anyone who disagrees with you. And when you are presented with something that completely blows your opinion out of the water, you slap your hands over your ears and yell "la la la I can't hear you", and then proceed to step up the insults. When that doesn't work, you post ever-longer and even less relevant responses, and then claim victory when people tire of reading your bullshit and quit responding to you. In short, you're a loud, uninformed, abrasive idiot, and you're so insecure in your own opinions that you view any dissension as a threat.

I won't cry about your use of name calling. I understand that other than lengthy diatribes filled with gibberish, it's your only real debating tactic since your positions are so indefensible. Oh,sorry, you do have one more tactic: hypocrisy. Check the thread starter (that was you, in case you've forgotten), and see who started with the name-calling.

I don't post fact? Queer, read:

- Clinton

- UNEMPLOYMENT: Inherited 7%, left 4%
- DEFICIT: Inherited -290B, left a +236B surplus
- DEBT: Inherited 12 straight years of a 250B/yr increase, left a 33B increase his last year, every year the increase lowered
- STOCK MARKET: Inherited 3500, left 9800
- DOLLAR VALUE VS CANADA: Inherited 1.28, left 1.55
- WORLD PERCEPTION: The world started to like us again during Clinton's presidency


- Bush

- UNEMPLOYMENT: Inherited 4%, left 7.6%
- DEFICIT: Inherited a +236B surplus, left a 455B deficit
- DEBT: Inherited 33B increase, left probably what's going to amount to a trillion dollar debt, maybe more. Hard to figure with the 750B for the banks, the stimulus, all of the war funding, easily at least 1 trillion dollars.
- STOCK MARKET: Inherited 9800, left 7900
- DOLLAR VALUE VS CANADA: Inherited 1.55, left 1.22, but the USD was below the Canadian dollar a year ago, the stock market crash gave the USD a huge bump, as people pulled $$$ out of thr market and stuck it in bonds.
- WORLD PERCEPTION: The world hates us now


You and all of your neo-con buddies have had days to answer that, that is historical data-based fact. It beats other facts such as opinion, emotional religious-based idiocy, etc. That is hard fucking fact, now explain it w/o being abstract or using your, I'm a RW maggot.com website. I spend hours researching that data independently. I've offered before, I'll offer again, would you like me to post the source for that data to ensure it's correctness? If it will get neo-trash to answer it I will. Funny how you post your Limbaugh and Hannity site, then accuse me of doing that when I have not. Fucking lying waste of neo-trash.

As for the insults, sensitive pussy, I do that on 2 occasions:

1) If someone starts it with me
2) If someone is intentionally avoiding the issues and data I post, but insists on coming back again and again

You're a neo-con, you're supposed to be tough, toughen up cupcake.

What was posted that blows my opinion out of the water? Let's enumerate them and deal with them 1 by 1. Post what I wrote, then what you (or whomever) wrote that supposedly blew it out of the water. Come on, man up, bitch.

In short, you're a loud, uninformed, abrasive idiot, and you're so insecure in your own opinions that you view any dissension as a threat.

What you don't get, queer, is that I want people to beat my arguments, it males me a better arguer. Look at your best shot, the issue was about socialized meds and you posted 3 sites:

1) One from a write-up on China

2) One from a write-up on Russia

3) One from a Nazi site featuring Limbaugh and Hannity where some author talks down Western European soc healthcare. If I posted a site like Moveon.org I would never hear the end of it, yet you feel you can post that garbage. Then you feel victorious. You are a joke, go back and research data about W.E., Canada, etc and how fucked up their healthcare system is.

...it's your only real debating tactic since your positions are so indefensible.

Then go and answer the Clinton vs Bush data if it's so indefensible. I posted it twice in this post, probably 10 times in this thread.

...hypocrisy. Check the thread starter (that was you, in case you've forgotten), and see who started with the name-calling.

What a sissy little fag, I lile the name-calling as long as it accompanies data as I post. Nanny-nanny, boo-boo, you have data to avoid and misdirect because I hurt your feelings.

[EBSB52]

you obviously bought into the association and its practices since you live in one. you can only blame yourself.

No, if you read you would have seen that I wrote it's my GF's house and she's one of those lemmings. It is clear to me now that you just write what you feel and don't even look at other poster's assertions/questions, then call them stupid. Clem, seriously, get off your little sister and get a little bit of an education.

As for my fault for being subjected to living here, yes. It's a nice house in packed, nazi-ruled neighborhood. You can't even park your car in teh driveway, even for the few who have them. As for my GF buying this house, when she was a 20-YO whore, going up and down Cave Creek Rd bar hopping, she was in her glory days and, "the Pit" as I call it was the cream. Since then things changed and it is still the Pit, but it's not the cream any longer. Anyway, it was one of those things she had to do before she died, buy a house in the pit. I told her not to, her realtor tried to steer her away, she just had to do it and on occassion when she's not being a freak, she will admit it was a stupid buy.

I lost my house at foreclosure in 02 and this is all I had, she helped me, but it sucks. There are no cars allowed to be [arked in teh street at night, this is like one of those upper-scale neighborhoods by rule, but middle-class otherwise. This is what happens when you get corrupt Republican scum, and yes, all board members are that, they take hold and overenforce where they wish, ignore their buddies acts. I've gone round and round with them, but my powers are limited as I have no legal standing. The bitch is I really can't get out of here, I have a fair amount of stuff and I can't have a truck. It's a real trap and now that the economy is bad, I can't see getting out of here. Live in this BS oppression where you can't move, breath, ect and you'd understand. I would have more lattitude in an apartment.

So man up and move out. Find an apartment, or buy a house in a non-HOA neighborhood. Quit sponging off the GF and find a place of your own. Otherwise, quit bitching about the rules--rules that were likely in place before you moved there. Oh wait, you had a foreclosure? Did those bad Republicans come and take your house? Well, beggars can't be choosers (a lesson you don't seem to have learned. Could explain why you're such a propenent of having the govt take care of you).

Or move to one of your socialist wet dream countries. You seem to hate being told what to do, bet you'd love living in a central-planning society.

I need to get out of this state and I don't wanna do the apartment thing for 6 months or whatever. I'm picking my spot. Thx for caring. Actually they did, a fellow maggot Republican of yours robbed my house, then 1 of teh people involved, a pig, murdered a woman 8 days later but was exonerated in his trial. The neo-trash that robbed my house, a broker, lost his license, was sued by me and the AG and others and lost his ass. I collected paultry 4k about 6 months ago, the AG got a 1.2M against him. Funny how you think I want teh gov to take care of me, I bet your pussy ass didn't serve in the military. Typical big-mouthed trash to talk as tho they are a patriot, yet be scared of that venue.

Love to move. As I wroet before, I'm blood type O-, teh best shit out there, compatible with all others I believe or most others, I wouldn't consider giving blood unless the gov went to uni-care, then I would think it should be compulsory. I'm for a society that wants to pull together, you want a divided society where people at the top exploit the others down below.

[EBSB52]

Lack of HOA has been one of the things I've been looking for in a house around here. HOA dues are money flushed down the toilet... not as bad as condo fees, but still pretty useless.

I'm moving out of the rental next week. This area has a HOA and the only thing I've ever gotten for the landlord's HOA dues are letters telling me to move my trashcan inside. It was tucked behind and overhang in front of the garage door and *almost* completely hidden from the street... certainly not sitting out in the middle of the driveway. I guess the HOA has to justify its existence somehow.

Yea, if people would buy away from them then an HOA would depreciate the value, but cowardly, lemming pathetic Americans just fall in line. To me the due are the least of the issue, the selective regulation is the problem. My previous house had an HOA that charged 70/mo to have Mexicans rip holes in my lawn with their rider mower, other than that they didn't fuck with me. This HOA is cheao but intusive as fuck. Anyone who buys this garbage about HOA's protecting their property values deserves an HOA.

The HOA here sent around a vote to require owners to get permission from the board to rent their houses out because renters are such bad people. It failed misserably. But still, to further empower the HOA is insane. Associations used to be able to unilatterally force a lien sale for unpaid fines. The state legislature recently require they get a judges signature to collect, if no coillection, then they can force the sale, but it has to go before a judge at least. What if an elderly person is unable to rake leaves, gets fined and then lien saled. This is why the AARP is against them. What a lovley country, I have to go buy a box of US flags, see ya guys later.

You support unions, and the idea that workers should be able to set terms and limits on their work, but you're bitching about homeowners forming what is essentially a union, and setting terms and limits on what can be done in the neighborhood?

Hypocrite. You're all for socialism as long as it doesn't interfere with what you want.

Not set terms at work, but to negotiate for them.

As for the HOA idiocy you posted, I have never posted for the abolition of HOA's, in fact I told Will that people should avoid buying HOA houses so that an HOA home is devalued. So you stepped in it again. I don't advocate for union closed shop states, and I don't advocate HOA abolition, so your hypocrite assertion is deflated, moron. I can dislike HOA's, but that doesn't mean I think they shouldn't be allowed to form, that is the key, if I had stated that they shouldn't be allowed to exist or to be dismepowered such as Reagan and GHW did to labor unions, then you might have a point, but you don't, I absolutley didn't make that assertion, not here not anywhere.

[EBSB52]

eb you live with your g/f?

You're smoking quick.

[Shaun41178(2)]

so you do live with your g/f, in an HOA, and then complain about living in an HOA that you chose to live in. HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA you crack me up. God you're an idiot!

LOL

[EBSB52]

so you do live with your g/f, in an HOA, and then complain about living in an HOA that you chose to live in. HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA you crack me up. God you're an idiot!

LOL

We've gone over the whole, 'I live with my GF' issue for a while, I'm hoping you have it at this point.

I had 2 trucks when I moved in, now I have none becuase neither would fit in the garage. I want ot get the fuck outta this state and I will before long, but it exacerbates the process w/o a truck with the type of stuff I have, car parts, tools, etc. I really don't have a choice. Me being called an idiot by what appears to be a 15YO kid, or at least that mentality.... oh the humanity. Clem, go bang your sister again, there are adult issues going on here.

[GT86]

The original point was that I know of people who were cowardly Repukes like you, had an event occur where they needed social svs, help, etc and then they became quit a bit less conservative. If you want to be the neo-con trash you are and get semantic, fine, but the point stands.

You've never met me, please don't compare me to the folks you normally associate with

When times are good, you need to increase taxes, such as in 04-06, instead your brainchild and his punkass congress kept them low. When times are fucked you need to maintain or lower them so as not to stymie economic activity. See, this mess really started by lowering the interest rates so low and keeping them low. I can't count w/o researching them how many interest rate cuts there were. Even when we had a lot of economic activity they were kept low, which is against the generic protocol of economics; the interest rate is a tool to adjust economic activity and it is supposed to be raised to avoid an situation where you have runaway inflation. Well, guess what, we had it, house prices doubled, gas prices tripled+, food prices went crazy. This was all very predictable when you keep the interest rates so low. You're going to say it wasn't Bush, but Greenspan. True, but Bush could have ousted him if he had a clue as to what was going on. Furthermore, that was not Greenspan's style to be an idiot, I really wonder where the direction to lower and keep down interest rates came from.

So, shit for brains, now the interest rate and taxes have to be kept low to savor and all economic activity. With you attempt at making a point, you're using these times with those of 2-3 years ago when we were soaring and living off future money, we should have raised taxes to pay for some of the shit then, Iraq, etc and for some of the shit now, recession/depression.

Do you not realize that taxes are a drain on the economy, and that perhaps things were going so well because of the tax cuts and low interest rates? Raising taxes, even during good economic times, tends to curtail economic expansion. Lower the rewards of return on capital, and you tend to lower capital being pumped into the economy. Taxes are never a benefit to a healthy economy.

And no, this mess was not started with low interest rates. Most of the housing mess was due to liberal policies encouraging banks to loan money to those who couldn't repay it. I agree that living on borrowed money has caught up with us, and that the rates should probably have been raised sooner than they were. But it seems you haven't figured out that a country running on borrowed money is a bad thing. So, we've either got to raise taxes to an unsustainable level to pay for everything, or we have to give up on the idea of a socialist paradise. Since that paradise is a myth anyway, we need to stop throwing money at it.

Queer faggot, I'm sure I have more education than do you, in fact I did research on the outcome of GWB's and Clinton's presidency and all you neo-queers are too lame to answer it. Yet you want to claim some kind of victory? Victory for cowards, answer the data, explain it.

- Clinton

- UNEMPLOYMENT: Inherited 7%, left 4%
- DEFICIT: Inherited -290B, left a +236B surplus
- DEBT: Inherited 12 straight years of a 250B/yr increase, left a 33B increase his last year, every year the increase lowered
- STOCK MARKET: Inherited 3500, left 9800
- DOLLAR VALUE VS CANADA: Inherited 1.28, left 1.55
- WORLD PERCEPTION: The world started to like us again during Clinton's presidency


- Bush

- UNEMPLOYMENT: Inherited 4%, left 7.6%
- DEFICIT: Inherited a +236B surplus, left a 455B deficit
- DEBT: Inherited 33B increase, left probably what's going to amount to a trillion dollar debt, maybe more. Hard to figure with the 750B for the banks, the stimulus, all of the war funding, easily at least 1 trillion dollars.
- STOCK MARKET: Inherited 9800, left 7900
- DOLLAR VALUE VS CANADA: Inherited 1.55, left 1.22, but the USD was below the Canadian dollar a year ago, the stock market crash gave the USD a huge bump, as people pulled $$$ out of thr market and stuck it in bonds.
- WORLD PERCEPTION: The world hates us now

Stop spouting the Clinton budget lies. It doesn't take long to reveal that it was smoke and mirrors. http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16
The stock market saw drastic increases primarily due to the dot com bubble, a bubble that was already popping before Clinton left office. And we weren't exactly loved on the world stage, although our image was better under Clinton than Bush. But part of that is due to the fact Clinton bent over backwards to please everybody.

OK, from your citations:

Mainland health-care reform has been a failure and has turned medical services into the exclusive privilege of the rich, according to a top-level think-tank advising the central government.

Sound like any place you know? (Psssst. Nazimerica) So if China's ailing system yields an exclusive healthcare system, which is what America's is, then the US is as oppressive as China. Are you looking for an argument?

Their death rates are not attributable to healthcare so much as to drinking and smoking: (from your citation)

The biggest reason Russia’s population plummets at a rate of more than700,000 people each year is not that its birthrate is so low, but that its death rate is so high. The average life expectancy for Russian men is 59. In the U.S. it’s 75; in Japan it’s 79.
Alcohol and smoking are major culprits. Both are linked to heart disease, and in Russia, the rate of men ages 30 to 59 dying from heart disease is five times that of the United States, according to researchers at Columbia University.

The first 2 sites seemed fairly objective, you referenced 2 of the worst countries in the world which makes your point less than objective, but the sites were objective. Now to try to establish a descent place like Western Europe into the mess you pick your homepage, a right wing maggot rag. Not real objective. You're Cleary a deceptive peice of shit, go back and find an objective source. This is it: http://www.heritage.org/ Their motto is: THE LEFT IS ON THE MARCH. HERITAGE HAS THE ANSWERS. Their poster queers are Hannity and Limbaugh, a Nazi and a Racist. http://www.askheritage.org/Default.aspx ... ioCampaign

I'll post something from Moveon.org and expect you to take it seriously....not. You would react in the same way, now find me a source where Western Europe as a majority has fucked up medical care or perhaps Canada, but no one is looking at China and Russia wanting to model their healthcare after them. Please, no more aberrations or agenda sites. I appreciate the pseudo research, but make it honest. Now go back and convince us that much of Asia is a piss-hole, we don't already have that opinion.

You were the one who used China and Russia as examples. Don't get upset at me when they turn out to be poor examples. Western Europe is facing some tough times with the various health care programs they have, primarily due to an aging population and soaring costs, combined with a somewhat low birth rate. Expenses are rising faster than revenue, and that's a problem. But I guess you'll just dismiss anything that explains that as conservative propaganda.

Yea, 90% after 9/11 when we were all stunned. We also thought Giuliani was gem cause his city was devastated, now we know he's as pathetic as Bush and the rest of the neo-con trash. The 9/11 bump means zero. And you infer the Dem takeover is a fluke? The maggots took over in 94 in congress, lost the 96 general election but took over from there with garbage, so the Dems can maintain control if they can stay focused. Will it last forever? Of course not, just 4 terms I say. Look at the other depression, the Dems held for 5 terms and that was with a turd like Truman, no wonder Eisenhower beat him and it's good he did. The Nazi's held majority power from 1980 to 2008 with a really bad track record, if the Dems fix it and the people are 1/2 way smart, they should hold major office for 4 terms. This stinging of the debt and overall trashing of the country, Katrina, etc won't be forgotten soon. Remember, you just waived bye-bye to the 5th worst president, just as the Dems did pre-Civil War, get ready for a long Dem run. Truthfully it is purely a guess on both our parts, but you call BO's win a fluke, I call it a major change, when in reality it is just a reaction to 8 immediate years or 20 of 28 years of Republican corruption. Hell, I could have won the general election as a Dem, esp since the best the R's could offer is.... My friends.......My friends.....My friends Pretty sad representation.

Yep, politics is all about "what have you done for me lately?" Like it or not, Obama won't maintain the high ratings.

I'm following along well, perhaps you don't understand the representative form of government we have, the voters (electorate) don't matter other than to elect representatives as in House Reps, Senators, President, etc.

I had said that most opinion polls were showing a sharply divided response to the stimulus. I wasn't talking about the elected representatives. But thanks for taking the discussion on a tangent.

How, can you cite these? The UAW loves him, he just undid your turd's anti-labor policies, other than the Overtime Law, I'm sure you're proud of that one, but he may get to that, he has bigger unfucking to do now tho. He's closing GITMO, you are senseless and listen to your BS site you posted, you listen to Limbaugh and Hannity waaaaaaaay too much; your brain is shit. Post WTF you're talking about: citations, examples, etc.

And the bloom falls off the rose for some UAW workers: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/feb20 ... -f21.shtml

Yes but you cited this as a reason Obama would be voted out, not a statement as to congress. Try to follow along.

No, I believe I cited it as a reason the Dems would be voted out, not Obama specifically.

Love it when cowardly neo-cons, whether they be Republicans or disgruntled Republicans (Libertarians) never post their current party or their voting record, but promise they aren't neo-cons. Hey joke, post yopur politics and your lifetime voting record, it isn't a national secret. You won't.

I'm not affiliated with any party. My record in the elections isn't your concern, but with the exception of Clinton in '92 (I was young and dumb, and it was my first election), I've voted (R) as the lesser of two evils. I'm seeing now that this was the wrong course.

OK, so I have voted for 75% Dems and 12% Republican, 12% Independent. Remember, my lost neo-con friend, your assertion that prompted me to answer this was that you claim I'm strictly partisan. Are you too pathetic to admit you're wrong? Not to mention all the Repubs I've voted for in congress. You ARE too pathetic to post your votes, as I'm guessing we would see a true partisan calling a non-partisan a partisan. Also, as I wrote, I will vote for Repub Gov Jan Brewer if I'm here when she comes up next. You are an idiot, a liar and a turd.

OK, you're a 75% partisan hack who is moving towards 100% as time goes by.

Carter, Mondale and Dukakis votes tend to paint you me as naive?

yes

And Reagan was a real gift, the only time we haven't been at war and hammer the debt that bad, as well as deprive millions of workers their right to organize and exercise their union collective bargaining / strike rights. You are a fucking fascist maggot. I cite Reagan as he was elected instead of these guys, I guess I could also include his whipping bitch, GHWB. The debt went from <1 trillion to 4 trillion in this period and we're talking 1980-1993 dollars. Nice comparison. Iran/Contra was his Lewinsky lie and Beirut and no reprisal, and yet you neo-cons whine about Clinton not avenging after the 93 WTC attack and the Cole attack? Tisk, tisk, my you guys are hypocrites.

Reagan wasn't perfect, but he was the perfect answer to the disaster that was Carter.

I voted for Dole because I was foolishly disillusioned into thinking the Nazi Party was the right one. I actually blamed the left for the Recession. Remember, I was 30ish with no education, now I have ~ 200 college credits. So tell me, who did you vote for in 96? You're a major pussy if you don't post, unless you weren't of voting age then.

You can ask me a question without implying that I'm a pussy if I don't answer. Poor debating tactic. Perhaps you should add to those credits with some classes on debate. But I did vote for Dole in '96. As I said, lesser of two evils, a strategy that seems to have backfired badly.

Perot? I'm an idiot? And you allegedly voted for Bush, probably twice. many people voted for Perot, 19% of the populous. I'm just glad it was a backdoor Clinton election maker. I would have voted Bush had I not voted for Perot, as virtually all the Perot voters were in that demographic, so maybe they all were idiots, voting for Bush but for Perot.

You could be forgiven for voting for Perot back then, given the choices we had. But to still defend it years later shows how poor your reasoning ability is.

I'm voting for Brewer because she is against the freeway photocams and wants to raise taxes to meet the budget. State workers have to take off 1 day per pay period. She seems like a very moderate Repub, unlike the usual extremist nutjob; YOU.

Those damn cams aren't going anywhere unless there's a ballot initiative to get rid of them. Too much money for them to lose.

I don't post fact? Queer, read:

- Clinton

- UNEMPLOYMENT: Inherited 7%, left 4%
- DEFICIT: Inherited -290B, left a +236B surplus
- DEBT: Inherited 12 straight years of a 250B/yr increase, left a 33B increase his last year, every year the increase lowered
- STOCK MARKET: Inherited 3500, left 9800
- DOLLAR VALUE VS CANADA: Inherited 1.28, left 1.55
- WORLD PERCEPTION: The world started to like us again during Clinton's presidency


- Bush

- UNEMPLOYMENT: Inherited 4%, left 7.6%
- DEFICIT: Inherited a +236B surplus, left a 455B deficit
- DEBT: Inherited 33B increase, left probably what's going to amount to a trillion dollar debt, maybe more. Hard to figure with the 750B for the banks, the stimulus, all of the war funding, easily at least 1 trillion dollars.
- STOCK MARKET: Inherited 9800, left 7900
- DOLLAR VALUE VS CANADA: Inherited 1.55, left 1.22, but the USD was below the Canadian dollar a year ago, the stock market crash gave the USD a huge bump, as people pulled $$$ out of thr market and stuck it in bonds.
- WORLD PERCEPTION: The world hates us now

No, you post mostly myth that you desperately cling to.

You and all of your neo-con buddies have had days to answer that, that is historical data-based fact. It beats other facts such as opinion, emotional religious-based idiocy, etc. That is hard fucking fact, now explain it w/o being abstract or using your, I'm a RW maggot.com website. I spend hours researching that data independently. I've offered before, I'll offer again, would you like me to post the source for that data to ensure it's correctness? If it will get neo-trash to answer it I will. Funny how you post your Limbaugh and Hannity site, then accuse me of doing that when I have not. Fucking lying waste of neo-trash.

Sorry, I don't follow your every post waiting to respond. I don't get to this forum often, and haven't read your other thread.

As for the insults, sensitive pussy, I do that on 2 occasions:

1) If someone starts it with me
2) If someone is intentionally avoiding the issues and data I post, but insists on coming back again and again

You're a neo-con, you're supposed to be tough, toughen up cupcake.

Your childish insults don't bother me, it's actually pretty laughable considering how intelligent you consider yourself to be.

What was posted that blows my opinion out of the water? Let's enumerate them and deal with them 1 by 1. Post what I wrote, then what you (or whomever) wrote that supposedly blew it out of the water. Come on, man up, bitch.

Done

What you don't get, queer, is that I want people to beat my arguments, it males me a better arguer. Look at your best shot, the issue was about socialized meds and you posted 3 sites:

1) One from a write-up on China

2) One from a write-up on Russia

3) One from a Nazi site featuring Limbaugh and Hannity where some author talks down Western European soc healthcare. If I posted a site like Moveon.org I would never hear the end of it, yet you feel you can post that garbage. Then you feel victorious. You are a joke, go back and research data about W.E., Canada, etc and how fucked up their healthcare system is.

Again, you used China and Russia as examples, not me.

Then go and answer the Clinton vs Bush data if it's so indefensible. I posted it twice in this post, probably 10 times in this thread.

Done

Nanny-nanny, boo-boo, you have data to avoid and misdirect because I hurt your feelings.

[/quote][/quote]

Spoken by the master hypocrite.

[GT86]

Not set terms at work, but to negotiate for them.

As for the HOA idiocy you posted, I have never posted for the abolition of HOA's, in fact I told Will that people should avoid buying HOA houses so that an HOA home is devalued. So you stepped in it again. I don't advocate for union closed shop states, and I don't advocate HOA abolition, so your hypocrite assertion is deflated, moron. I can dislike HOA's, but that doesn't mean I think they shouldn't be allowed to form, that is the key, if I had stated that they shouldn't be allowed to exist or to be dismepowered such as Reagan and GHW did to labor unions, then you might have a point, but you don't, I absolutley didn't make that assertion, not here not anywhere.

It's a microcosm of socialism, and you bitch about being limited by the rules. Be careful what you wish for...

And no one has outlawed unions. There simply needs to be a balance, and for far too long the scales were massively tipped towards the unions, resulting in American business being uncompetitive. Unions at one point served a valid purpose, but these days they exist mainly to protect unproductive workers, and to line the pockets of union officials.

If you hate the circumstances of your life, change them. Quit blaming everyone else for your mistakes. Identify the problems, figure out where you screwed up, learn from that, and move on.

[EBSB52]

Me: The original point was that I know of people who were cowardly Repukes like you, had an event occur where they needed social svs, help, etc and then they became quit a bit less conservative. If you want to be the neo-con trash you are and get semantic, fine, but the point stands.


Cowardly 1-liner: You've never met me, please don't compare me to the folks you normally associate with

I don’t associate with neo-cons, at least not by election. Also, if you want your personality known, state it. Aren’t you proud of it? Are you like your cowardly hero, Bush and want to hide your military career, not that you have one, but hide your political position and employment career? I’m proud of my career, voting record, etc., sucks that you aren’t. Far be it from me to pull you out of your closet.

Me: When times are good, you need to increase taxes, such as in 04-06, instead your brainchild and his punkass congress kept them low. When times are fucked you need to maintain or lower them so as not to stymie economic activity. See, this mess really started by lowering the interest rates so low and keeping them low. I can't count w/o researching them how many interest rate cuts there were. Even when we had a lot of economic activity they were kept low, which is against the generic protocol of economics; the interest rate is a tool to adjust economic activity and it is supposed to be raised to avoid an situation where you have runaway inflation. Well, guess what, we had it, house prices doubled, gas prices tripled+, food prices went crazy. This was all very predictable when you keep the interest rates so low. You're going to say it wasn't Bush, but Greenspan. True, but Bush could have ousted him if he had a clue as to what was going on. Furthermore, that was not Greenspan's style to be an idiot, I really wonder where the direction to lower and keep down interest rates came from.

So, shit for brains, now the interest rate and taxes have to be kept low to savor and all economic activity. With you attempt at making a point, you're using these times with those of 2-3 years ago when we were soaring and living off future money, we should have raised taxes to pay for some of the shit then, Iraq, etc and for some of the shit now, recession/depression.


Cowardly 1-liner: Do you not realize that taxes are a drain on the economy, and that perhaps things were going so well because of the tax cuts and low interest rates? Raising taxes, even during good economic times, tends to curtail economic expansion. Lower the rewards of return on capital, and you tend to lower capital being pumped into the economy. Taxes are never a benefit to a healthy economy.

Ohhhhhhhh, so I guess Clinton’s robust data is all a figment. Or as you say, it was merely all due to the Dot.com boom. Hmmm, ok, so raising taxes is always bad.

GHWB raised taxes as a way to curb fascist Ronny’s massive debt increase. It was the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Bu ... ct_of_1990

So there, delusional, the reason was for debt reduction and remember, we were in the midst of a recession or a small set of recessions as it were, and GHWB wanted to reduce the debt….let’s see if it worked. http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_medi ... resent.gif

Oh, looky there, it did as well as it helped pull us out of the recession. And you and we punished him by not voting for him. In hindsight, that was a great move in bad times. But you say that tax increases are bad huh? Well, I guess I’ll have to agree with you then, you seem like a genius. You can see by the graph that right after 1990 the debt increase subsided.

Then comes Slick Willie, oh yea, he was a bad tax-raiser too. He went and immediately after taking office, raised taxes under the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. It has also been referred to as the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993. Part XIII, which dealt with taxes, is also called the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993. Hmmm, let’s go back and look at that graph and see how it worked….http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_medi ... resent.gif

Oh yes, and that was loooooong before the Dot.com boom, my foolish friend. Hmmm, looks like your theories have all kinds of holes in it. If I didn’t know better by talking to a fiscal genius like you, I would say that tax increases can be good at times, perhaps not all the time, but they are sometimes. Fortunately for me I have you as a fiscal advisor to keep me straight.

So then your hero, GWB came in and got rid of those pesky taxes and did the rebate program to get rid of that pesky surplus. Let’s look at his immediate tax reduction, shall we? It was called the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001.


The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (Pub.L. 107-16, 115 Stat. 38, June 7, 2001), was a sweeping piece of tax legislation in the United States with a price tag of $1.6 Trillion Dollars. It is commonly known by its abbreviation EGTRRA, often pronounced "egg-tra" or "egg-terra", and sometimes also known simply as the 2001 act (especially where the context of a discussion is clearly about taxes). The Act made significant changes in several areas of the US Internal Revenue Code, including income tax rates, estate and gift tax exclusions, and qualified and retirement plan rules. In general, the act lowered tax rates and simplified retirement and qualified plan rules such as for Individual retirement accounts, 401(k) plans, 403(b), and pension plans. The changes were so large and numerous that many books and analysis papers were published regarding the changes and how to best take advantage of them.
Many of the tax reductions in EGTRRA were designed to be phased in over a period of up to 9 years. Many of these slow phase-ins were accelerated by the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA), which removed the waiting periods for many of EGTRRA's changes.

It was passed over the summer of 2001, I wonder if there was something else ole pretzel boy could have been doing? Hmmm, think, think, think…..oh yea, I wonder if he could have been shoring up security at our ports? Everyone knows Clinton stripped us of everything that is security, put homosexuals in the military, the Pentagon, everywhere, even McDonald’s, so you would think that between the drunken hangovers that GWB could attend to this. I mean he had only 7 months, 3 weeks, but it was more importsant to save the economy so he enacted his lovely Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. Remembering this was a big tax cut, let’s see how that worked out for him and for us…..http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_medi ... resent.gif

OUCH!!!! And remember, that graph shows the sustained increase before 9/11. Let’s take a look at the big picture of the debt. http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_medi ... 0-2009.gif

See, it tried to slow down under Clinton, but your guy, your party thought it would be a fun experiment to see how high they could drive it. But Don’t blame the Republican Party itself, blame the ridiculous, retarded electorate, they are the true idiots for electing/reelecting such a loser.
So you see, moron, tax cuts are often a bad thing. You have to take each situation by itself, there are times to raise, lower and leave alone tax rates. Also raising them for certain activities, tariffs, or for certain classes can be done as well, but your party lives and dies on this concept of perpetually lowering taxes. This is there downfall, my friends.

Cowardly 1-liner: And no, this mess was not started with low interest rates. Most of the housing mess was due to liberal policies encouraging banks to loan money to those who couldn't repay it. I agree that living on borrowed money has caught up with us, and that the rates should probably have been raised sooner than they were. But it seems you haven't figured out that a country running on borrowed money is a bad thing. So, we've either got to raise taxes to an unsustainable level to pay for everything, or we have to give up on the idea of a socialist paradise. Since that paradise is a myth anyway, we need to stop throwing money at it.

Probably raised sooner? They should never have been lowered. Then you go all over the place with this insanity about living on borrowed money and then a social paradise. Really, I want to understand you, please rewrite that assertion so I can actually answer it. Your hero himself, GWB stated on TV that this mess was started at least in part with low interest rates, don’t you follow your hero that well?

And then Greenspan says GWB“: …is portrayed as irresponsible and incurious (who knew?). The former Chairman of the US Federal Reserve says that Mr Bush presided over intolerable increases in government spending. “My biggest frustration remained the President’s unwillingness to wield his veto against out-of-control spending.” “
Republicans who controlled Congress for most of the past ten years “lost their way” and “swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither.”

And here you go, my neo-con friend, this establishes the difference between the two major parties: By contrast, Mr Bush’s predecessor, Bill Clinton, was a “risk-taker”, who had shown a “preference for dealing in facts”, and something of a soulmate for the data-obsessed Mr Greenspan. See, you guys go on tradition and utter, (insert robot voice) “Tax cuts my friends, my friends tax cuts.” Liberals go on data and then more data until you’re sick of it, but that is the empirical approach and I’m proud of it and the economic history of the left as of the last 20 years, a fair amount of time to make it contemporarily statistically significant.

Now this is where I address you as stupid, or to be nice, Mr. Stupid. Read shithead:

They (critics of Greenspan) say he allowed a bubble to develop in the housing market between 2001 and 2006, his last five years at the Fed, when he cut interest rates too far and kept them low for too long. Mr Greenspan acknowledges that he did not see the scale of the problems in the sub-prime housing sector. “I didn’t really get it until very late in 2005 and 2006,” he said last night in an interview on CBS News timed to coincide with the book launch.

That is from Greenspan critics, I watched Bush utter it thru his sociopathic lips; GET IT STUPID, THE MESS WAS AS A RESULT OF TOO LOW INTEREST RATES, TOO LONG. This isn’t brain surgery, kid, this is economics 101. Now, it was Greenspan who did this, but if Bush had a clue he could have nicely advised Greenspan not to do this and then ousted him if he didn’t quickly cooperate. Bush was and is clueless, he didn’t know or care what would happen. It doesn’t take much intelligence to understand that a payment is comprised of PITI, the PI is all that really matters. As the I lowers, the buyers will qualify for a greater P, hence house prices will spiral out of control.

Of course Greenspan blames it on competition from Communist countries and all kinds of idiocy, I guess he learned to use the comnmie card from Reagan, they’re easy targets.


The Economist plugs in their 2 cents: http://economistsview.typepad.com/econo ... nspan.html

They basically say what I've said. Of course other factors like the expansion of too much currency and irresponsible lending play a part, but let's assume that all factors were there but the low interest rates. What would happen? Well, irresponsible lenders would lend to people, house price would stay the same, people would foreclose quickly and the house would be sold for about what it did initially. Houses would not blow up in price and overvalue, as buyers would qualify for fair market value with 6-7% interest and there would be no housing explosion, just a brief subprime mess that would be soon realized. Of course the subprimers wouldn't be catalyzed without the low interest rates, that's what spurred the whole mess, economists know this.

Another opinion with transcript: http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... e18411.htm

Greenspan doesn’t accept any blame for keeping interest rates at historic lows and inflating the credit and housing bubbles which are now crashing to earth. He was simply "doing his job" according to sound economic principles.

Baloney. What a grim performance by the world’s greatest serial bubble-maker.


Lesson over, you can pay me later.

[The Dark Side of Will]

Love to move. As I wroet before, I'm blood type O-, teh best shit out there, compatible with all others I believe or most others, I wouldn't consider giving blood unless the gov went to uni-care, then I would think it should be compulsory. I'm for a society that wants to pull together, you want a divided society where people at the top exploit the others down below.

How is compulsory blood donation "pulling together"? If it's compulsory, then people aren't "pulling together", they're being pushed together.

Why does giving blood have anything to do with "uni-care"?

[p8ntman442]

If you qualify for a loan, at a certain interest rate High or low, then you should be able to make the payments.

Its variable interest rates that cause the problem. Bottom line.

If interest rates were 3% permenantly why would the housing market burst?

I blame every greedy bastard in a $400K home with 2 new 40K vehicles in the driveway. You over extended yourself! Its your fault, and collectively you and your friends created this housing crisis.

I just bought my house, and I bought one that we could afford on my salary alone without my wife working, because, if she cant work wtf would I do? If I cant work, then were screwed, but we would be screwed renting as well so its just risky to my credit history to own.

You cant blame the government, they set numbers and regulations, its greedy people that ruin it.

[The Dark Side of Will]

If you qualify for a loan, at a certain interest rate High or low, then you should be able to make the payments.

Its variable interest rates that cause the problem. Bottom line.

If interest rates were 3% permenantly why would the housing market burst?

I blame every greedy bastard in a $400K home with 2 new 40K vehicles in the driveway. You over extended yourself! Its your fault, and collectively you and your friends created this housing crisis.

I just bought my house, and I bought one that we could afford on my salary alone without my wife working, because, if she cant work wtf would I do? If I cant work, then were screwed, but we would be screwed renting as well so its just risky to my credit history to own.

You cant blame the government, they set numbers and regulations, its greedy people that ruin it.

I agree with what you're saying in that people who took loans they couldnt afford are blameworthy.
However, I think that there's MORE than enough blame to go around.

-Banks gave such people loans, knowing that they were lying (and even telling them to lie) on their applications so that the underwriting looked ok on paper.
-The Fed made money too cheap for too long encouraging banks to make reckless loans
-The gov't pushed "dream house for everyone" on the financial sector which further encouraged these idiotic loans
-Credit underwriting agencies KNEW that the derivatives of these securities were poison, yet gave them high ratings anyway.
-The fractional reserve requirements allowed everyone to leverage themselves to the hilt and made the entire system extremely vulnerable to the slightest hiccup.

[AkursedX]

Not only that. During the housing boom, you couldn't get a fixed rate loan. A friend of mine struggled for 6 months to find a bank that would give him a 30-year fixed and he had good credit, a good job, and plenty of money for a down payment. Banks just kept on trying to shove ARMS and all other sorts of wacky loans down his throat for far more money than what he wanted to spend.

[p8ntman442]

But still, to further empower the HOA is insane.

do you honestly not see the correlation between HOA's and Unions that was drawn.

you say its idiotic to further allow an organization (HOA created and elected by the people) to make the rules and terms for the members, yet you go on to say you promote their right to form.

you really dont see the hypocracy implied by that contradiction?