Rage on the Right

[DiveCon]

He had a DUI, don't you know whatever happens to you in your teenage years follows you the rest of your life?

His being AWOL is up to debate.

We are quite in a depression right now. Though it all depends on how you define depression.

Financial Industry in ruins? Check

American Auto Industry on it's last legs? Check

Unemployment skyrocketing, over 10% in some places including in my home state of RI? Check

Economics define a depression as a sustained (12+ months) long downtown in one or more economies. Do we have that? You betcha

Abnormal increases in Unemployment as listed above? Yes

Restriction of Credit? Yes, which is why all these companies are failing now including the auto industry. They have the money, it's the liquidation of credit to money is the problem.

Shrinking output and investment? Oh yeah

Numerous Bankruptcies? Lehman Brothers, DHL (cancelled all domestic US services), Bennigan's Restaurants, Metromedia Restaurant Group, Aloha Airlines, Media Outsourcing,etc. That's not counting the great number of companies declaring chapter 11.

Reduced amounts of trade and commerce? Have you seen the retail numbers lately for stores? If so, then you know the answer to this.

Highly volatile relative currency value fluctuations, mostly devaluations? Have you seen the stock market? The Dow Jones for example has never gone this up or down in a day in many many years.

What more do you need to see we are in a depression? People jumping off buildings or driving into the ocean killing themselves due to the huge amount of debt they have? Because if so, we already have that.

Once again, I say Denial ain't just a river in egypt.

I think it's best you take a economics class or two first and learn the definition of a depression before you go sprouting off whether you THINK we are in one or not. Your political leanings do not matter in business and whether this country has become a giant clusterfuck depression.

just more partisan BULLSHIT

 

[Modbert]

just more partisan BULLSHIT

Partsian bullshit? That's your response? Wow, thank you for adding to the conversation. You know what? I've seen blocks of wood add more to a conversation then you just did.

You call the economics definition of a depression partisan bullshit? I see shit has not changed in the month I've been gone, you still got those blinders glued to your face.

Though be more specific next time Divey, which part is partisan bullshit and prove me wrong. All my time on here I ask for you to prove me wrong but all you do is give me the run around crying partisan bullshit and how I'm wrong.

Well either step up or get out of the kitchen. I don't know how many people put up with your bullshit while I was gone, but I know I'm not.

 

[DiveCon]

Partsian bullshit? That's your response? Wow, thank you for adding to the conversation. You know what? I've seen blocks of wood add more to a conversation then you just did.

You call the economics definition of a depression partisan bullshit? I see shit has not changed in the month I've been gone, you still got those blinders glued to your face.

Though be more specific next time Divey, which part is partisan bullshit and prove me wrong. All my time on here I ask for you to prove me wrong but all you do is give me the run around crying partisan bullshit and how I'm wrong.

Well either step up or get out of the kitchen. I don't know how many people put up with your bullshit while I was gone, but I know I'm not.

yes, its all partisan bullshit

and its you that has the blinders on

 

[Modbert]

yes, its all partisan bullshit

and its you that has the blinders on

Again, no evidence offered up by divey.

Just the same old shit, like a parrot or a broken record player.

Does Blocky want a cracker?

Oh almost forgot, I'm going to start calling you blocky because your arguments remind me as being as good as a block of wood.

Again as I stated in the other thread. You going to offer up any credible evidence or just going the whole "I'm rubber your glue" route?

Gee, didn't think my first night back I already be embarassing your ass on two different threads. Figured you'd wait until the third night at least.

 

[DiveCon]

Again, no evidence offered up by divey.

Just the same old shit, like a parrot or a broken record player.

Does Blocky want a cracker?

Oh almost forgot, I'm going to start calling you blocky because your arguments remind me as being as good as a block of wood.

Again as I stated in the other thread. You going to offer up any credible evidence or just going the whole "I'm rubber your glue" route?

Gee, didn't think my first night back I already be embarassing your ass on two different threads. Figured you'd wait until the third night at least.

no, i didnt provide evidence
its up to YOU to prove it
you claim the page WAS his
prove it punk

 

[Modbert]

no, i didnt provide evidence
its up to YOU to prove it
you claim the page WAS his
prove it punk

Notice how you ignore all the financial stuff and focus on the tabloid bullshit.

Bravo at your attempt of spin!

Gee, how about the personal photos on the page?

What kind of evidence do you want? And can you even prove that it isn't his page?

Bristol Palin's pregnancy was an open secret back home

On his MySpace page, Johnston proudly declares: "I'm a f---in' redneck."

"I live to play hockey. I like to go camping and hang out with the boys, do some fishing," he says on the site.

He also warns that if anyone messes with him, "I'll kick ass."
The Web site, before it was removed, appeared not to have been accessed for a year.
On it, he admits to having a girlfriend.

On the part where it asks about children, he wrote, "I don't want kids."

Right, so the webpage that had not been accessed in more then a year was just a future conspiracy theory against Levi and the Palin Family?

 

[DiveCon]

Notice how you ignore all the financial stuff and focus on the tabloid bullshit.

Bravo at your attempt of spin!

Gee, how about the personal photos on the page?

What kind of evidence do you want? And can you even prove that it isn't his page?

Bristol Palin's pregnancy was an open secret back home

Right, so the webpage that had not been accessed in more then a year was just a future conspiracy theory against Levi and the Palin Family?

LEVI JOHNSTON DENIES HE'S BEING FORCED TO MARRY BRISTOL PALIN - New York Post


btw moron, they had been dating for THREE YEARS

 

[Modbert]

LEVI JOHNSTON DENIES HE'S BEING FORCED TO MARRY BRISTOL PALIN - New York Post


btw moron, they had been dating for THREE YEARS

So you're going to take the word of a guy who supposedly planned his getting girlfriend pregnant at 17?

Righttttttttt. It's called lying by him, I'm sure you've heard of the concept. It's what people do when the media spotlight is on them and trying to cover their own ass.

Still waiting for any such wedding by the way.

 

[editec]

do you know what WMD was called way back?
NBC
guess what that stands for

Nuclar chemical and biological...I was in service as a corpsman when that term was used and I was trained in countering the effects of all three.

Note that they are combined not because of the destructive potential but because in all three cases special equipment and techniques for dealing with it are necessary?

Sorry Charlie, but the fact is that the only truly WMD that anyone currently have is the nuclear option. (biologicals could be mass destruction weapons but as yet aren't)

Note that when Bush was attempting to stampede the herd, he didn't evoke the poison gas cloud over New York, but he did evoke the imagine of a MUSHROOM cloud.

There's a reason for his choice of imagry, you know.

 

[DiveCon]

Nuclar chemical and biological...I was in service as a corpsman when that term was used and I was trained in countering the effects of all three.

Note that they are combined not because of the destructive potential but because in all three cases special equipment and techniques for dealing with it are necessary?

Sorry Charlie, but the fact is that the only truly WMD that anyone currently have is the nuclear option. (biologicals could be mass destruction weapons but as yet aren't)

Note that when Bush was attempting to stampede the herd, he didn't evoke the poison gas cloud over New York, but he did evoke the imagine of a MUSHROOM cloud.

There's a reason for his choice of imagry, you know.

i disagree
you can kill a lot of people with chemicals

 

[DiveCon]

So you're going to take the word of a guy who supposedly planned his getting girlfriend pregnant at 17?

Righttttttttt. It's called lying by him, I'm sure you've heard of the concept. It's what people do when the media spotlight is on them and trying to cover their own ass.

Still waiting for any such wedding by the way.

well, last i heard, it was planned for june
so i guess you morons will keep this shit up till then, right?

hey moron, he didnt say they planned the pregnancy, he said they had planned on getting married for a long time

 

[Old Rocks]

just more partisan BULLSHIT

Damned right, Divecon! The economic fundemetals are strong. Just keep repeating that all the way down to bankruptcy court!

 

[garyd]

Modbert you might wished to consider what Democratic Icon You use. JFK ran and governed well to the right of G W Bush

 

[Modbert]

Modbert you might wished to consider what Democratic Icon You use. JFK ran and governed well to the right of G W Bush

Care to explain more throughly? JFK is nowhere near G W Bush.

 

[garyd]

As i said he was further right than GW Bush not that being further right than GW Buah is actually much of an accomplishment by the way.

JFK cut tax rates from Eisenhowers seventy percent top rate down to 48% in an across the board tax cut fo the same sort that you and yours called tax cuts for the rich when Bush did it. He largely defeated Nixon on the sole issue of a percieved missle gap in the favor of the Russians. He more than quintupled the number of troops we had in Viet Nam.

Ain't real history better than ideological B.S.? JFK couldn't be elected dog catcher in the Democratic party while espousing the principals by which he governed in the modern Democratic party.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

John Kenneth Gailbraith

Economist, educator, author, diplomat. Professor of Economics, Harvard University (1949-1975); Ambassador to India (1961-1963); author, The Affluent Society (1958), The Liberal Hour (1960), and other books on economics and government.

As i said he was further right than GW Bush not that being further right than GW Bush is actually much of an accomplishment by the way.

JFK cut tax rates from Eisenhowers seventy percent top rate down to 48% in an across the board tax cut fo the same sort that you and yours called tax cuts for the rich when Bush did it. He largely defeated Nixon on the sole issue of a percieved missle gap in the favor of the Russians. He more than quintupled the number of troops we had in Viet Nam.

Ain't real history better than ideological B.S.? JFK couldn't be elected dog catcher in the Democratic party while espousing the principals by which he governed in the modern Democratic party.

such idiocy! I guess you think Reagan is a Democrat?

JFK, was a liberal. He was a Democrat and he would still be a Democrat if he were alive. Liberals are not against tax cuts in good times.

JFK's economist was who? Who?

stop repeating silly myths. why? because you appear to be not too bright when you do:

So, was Kennedy really a forerunner to Reagan and Bush? Or are supply-siders just cynically appropriating his aura? The Republicans are right, up to a point. Kennedy did push tax cuts, and his plan, which passed in February 1964, three months after his death, did help spur economic growth. But they're wrong to see the tax reduction as a supply-side cut, like Reagan's and Bush's; it was a demand-side cut. "The Revenue Act of 1964 was aimed at the demand, rather than the supply, side of the economy," said Arthur Okun, one of Kennedy's economic advisers.

This distinction, taught in Economics 101, seldom makes it into the Washington sound-bite wars. A demand-side cut rests on the Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity. Government puts money in people's hands, as a temporary measure, so that they'll spend it. A supply-side cut sees business investment as the key to growth. Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans. Back in the early 1960s, tax cutting was as contentious as it is today, but it was liberal demand-siders who were calling for the cuts and generating the controversy.

link to this...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Care to explain more throughly? JFK is nowhere near G W Bush.

gary is blowing smoke out of his arse:

When Kennedy ran for president in 1960 amid a sluggish economy, he vowed to "get the country moving again." After his election, his advisers, led by chief economist Walter Heller, urged a classically Keynesian solution: running a deficit to stimulate growth. (The $10 billion deficit Heller recommended, bold at the time, seems laughably small by today's standards.) In Keynesian theory, a tax cut aimed at consumers would have a "multiplier" effect, since each dollar that a taxpayer spent would go to another taxpayer, who would in effect spend it again—meaning the deficit would be short-lived.

At first Kennedy balked at Heller's Keynesianism. He even proposed a balanced budget in his first State of the Union address. But Heller and his team won over the president. By mid-1962 Kennedy had seen the Keynesian light, and in January 1963 he declared that "the enactment this year of tax reduction and tax reform overshadows all other domestic issues in this Congress."

The plan Kennedy's team drafted had many elements, including the closing of loopholes (the "tax reform" Kennedy spoke of). Ultimately, in the form that Lyndon Johnson signed into law, it reduced tax withholding rates, initiated a new standard deduction, and boosted the top deduction for child care expenses, among other provisions. It did lower the top tax bracket significantly, although from a vastly higher starting point than anything we've seen in recent years: 91 percent on marginal income greater than $400,000. And he cut it only to 70 percent, hardly the mark of a future Club for Growth member.

 

[garyd]

Argue with laffer dim witt. And the a history books Hell I was there. I lived it. The economy was in the Doldrums when Kennedy took office in fact it had pretty much been that way throughout most of the 50's. And were it not for the GI bill and the fact that women had left the workforce in droves following the end of WWII, things would have looked a lot worse. And let's not forget your Union Bro's wouldn't let a black man anywhere near your local union hall which meant that most of us white boys didn't have to compete with black folks for the best jobs.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Argue with laffer dim witt. And the a history books Hell I was there. I lived it. The economy was in the Doldrums when Kennedy took office in fact it had pretty much been that way throughout most of the 50's. And were it not for the GI bill and the fact that women had left the workforce in droves following the end of WWII, things would have looked a lot worse. And let's not forget your Union Bro's wouldn't let a black man anywhere near your local union hall which meant that most of us white boys didn't have to compete with black folks for the best jobs.

I am embarrassed of this public display of your ignorance...embarrassed enough for both of us. Please read the links I posted and get back to us with your head out of the sand?

JFK, was not the equivalent of a supply sider.

please, stop scratching at the open sores in your mind?

 

[elvis]

I don't think France will take US anymore.

They'd prefer Germany.