Discussion:
#Dow smashes 13,000 mark! Thank you, President Bush!!!!
(too old to reply)
3905 Dead
2008-01-05 07:52:45 UTC
Permalink
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/business/05markets.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Stocks & Bonds
Fears on Inflation and Jobs Give 2008 a Stumbling Start

By MICHAEL M. GRYNBAUM
Published: January 5, 2008

Fears that a recession is imminent — or perhaps has already begun —
rocked the major stock markets this week as anxiety-addled investors
staggered through the first days of 2008.
Skip to next paragraph
Daniel Barry/Bloomberg News

The floor of the New York Stock Exchange Friday. The Dow fell over 200
points.
Multimedia
Down Days, Down Year?Graphic
Down Days, Down Year?

The blows came from several directions. On Friday, the government
reported that employers added fewer jobs in December than in any month
since August 2003, weakening one of the last pillars propping up the
ailing economy.

The cracks in the job market came on the back of $100 oil and a weak
report on manufacturing. Investors now see a significant slowdown
ahead. “If jobs go away, we’ve got a recession,” said James W.
Paulsen, chief investment officer at Wells Capital Management. “Today
really ratcheted up fears.”

When the closing bell rang on Friday, the Dow Jones industrials had
fallen 256.54 points, nearly 2 percent, to 12,800.18. Just three days
into 2008, the Dow has already given up half of its gains from last
year.

The Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index, a broader measure of the
market, is off 3.9 percent since Wednesday, its third-worst start to a
year since the index began, though pale in comparison to a 7 percent
drop in the first three trading days of 1932.

The S. & P. lost 2.5 percent on Friday to close at 1,411.63, a
35.53-point loss. The technology-heavy Nasdaq composite index
plummeted 3.8 percent, or 98.03 points, to finish at 2,504.65. The
Nasdaq is down 5.5 percent since Wednesday.

Technology companies bore the brunt of the day’s pain, led by an 8.1
percent fall in shares of Intel, the chip maker, after an analyst
downgraded the company citing an expected slowdown in orders. Apple
shares fell 7.63 percent, and Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard and I.B.M.
also recorded big declines.

Retail companies and other consumer-dependent sectors fell as well.
Analysts said the weak employment numbers spurred fears that consumers
would be less eager to spend if their jobs were endangered. “The
resiliency of the consumer was called into question,” said Sam
Stovall, chief investment strategist at Standard & Poor’s.

Investors ran for cover, moving into havens like gold and Treasury
bonds. The benchmark 10-year Treasury note rose for the sixth straight
day, climbing 5/32, to 103 2/32, and the yield, which moves in the
opposite direction from the price, fell to 3.87 percent from 3.89
percent late Thursday. The dollar rose slightly against the euro, and
crude oil futures fell $1.27, to $97.91 a barrel.

Market watchers may also have been unnerved by comments from President
Bush, who said on Friday that the nation “can’t take economic growth
for granted.”

Mr. Stovall said, “If the head cheerleader admits the economy is
faltering, that’s not good.”

Still, it was the jobs report, possibly the most influential monthly
indicator about the economy, that clinched a painful finish to a
painful week. Wall Street had been on edge since Wednesday, when a
manufacturing report that is considered a bellwether for business
activity came in weaker than expected and crude oil futures leaped to
a record nominal high.

Still haunted by fallout from the subprime mortgage crisis, investors
were looking to Friday’s employment figures for a clearer picture of
the economy’s growth prospects in 2008.

They did not like what they saw. The economy added just 18,000 jobs in
December, far below analysts’ estimates of 60,000 additional jobs.
Annual job growth has fallen to its lowest level since 2004, and the
unemployment rate ticked up to 5 percent.

The weak report bolstered expectations that the Federal Reserve will
cut its benchmark interest rate when policy makers meet this month.
Futures markets now predict a half-point cut in the overnight lending
rate; on Thursday, investors betting on the Fed’s actions expected a
quarter-point cut.

Investors often react favorably when a rate cut appears more likely,
but on Friday they focused on the poor outlook for the economy. “What
they’re worried about is not whether or not the Fed is cutting rates,”
said William E. Rhodes, chief investment strategist at Rhodes
Analytics, a financial research firm. “What they’re concerned about is
growth.”

It was a marked change from previous months, when stock markets have
sometimes soared on poor economic data as investors hope central
bankers will lower rates, making it easier for banks to lend to
businesses, consumers, and each other.

But this week’s economic clouds had no silver lining. With oil
touching $100 a barrel on Wednesday and consumer prices on the rise,
inflation warnings are now commonplace. Creeping inflation could
constrain the Fed from cutting rates, though bankers have hinted that
they are more focused on downside risks to growth.

If inflation rises, “the economy loses one of its defense mechanisms
to prevent a recession,” said Russ Koesterich, head of investment
strategy at Barclay’s Global Investors.

Some analysts on Friday sounded grateful to be heading out for the
weekend after a raucous New Year’s week. “Three days?” Mr. Paulsen
asked, his voice grim. “Seems like it’s been 10 months.”
--
"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government
talking
about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order.
Nothing has
changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists,
we're
talking about getting a court order before we do so"
-George W. Bush, April 20, 2004

Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.

http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed, http://yahoogroups/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (please contribute!)
http:yahoogroups/subscribe/zepps_essays




--

What do you call a Republican with a conscience?

An ex-Republican.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)

"I simply can not believe this is what the Republican party has
become. I just can’t. It just makes me sick to think all those years
of supporting this party, and this is what it has become. Even if you
don’t like the S-Chip expansion, it is hard to deny what Republicans
are- a bunch of bitter, nasty, petty, snarling, sneering, vicious
thugs, peering through people’s windows so they can make fun of their
misfortune.

I’m registering Independent tomorrow."

Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001

Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News-***@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essays-***@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Foxtrot
2008-01-05 08:46:04 UTC
Permalink
Subject: #Dow smashes 13,000 mark! Thank you, President Bush!!!!
Despite the Clinton Recession, the DJIA is up 24% since Bush took
office. So he gets the blame when it goes down but no credit when
it goes up, right li'l partisan hack?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/business/05markets.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Stocks & Bonds
Fears on Inflation and Jobs Give 2008 a Stumbling Start
Fears that a recession is imminent — or perhaps has already begun —
rocked the major stock markets this week as anxiety-addled investors
staggered through the first days of 2008.
The blows came from several directions. On Friday, the government
reported that employers added fewer jobs in December than in any month
since August 2003, weakening one of the last pillars propping up the
ailing economy.
The cracks in the job market came on the back of $100 oil and a weak
report on manufacturing. Investors now see a significant slowdown
ahead. “If jobs go away, we’ve got a recession,” said James W.
Paulsen, chief investment officer at Wells Capital Management. “Today
really ratcheted up fears.”
These indicators should terrify voters away from voting for Dems.
They will certainly raise taxes, which will take money out of the
economy, worsening the economic outlook. Dems will also make it
more difficult to explore, drill and refine more oil, driving up the
cost of fuel even more. Thus hurting the economy even more.
Still, it was the jobs report, possibly the most influential monthly
indicator about the economy, that clinched a painful finish to a
painful week.
They did not like what they saw. The economy added just 18,000 jobs in
December, far below analysts’ estimates of 60,000 additional jobs.
Annual job growth has fallen to its lowest level since 2004, and the
unemployment rate ticked up to 5 percent.
Good reason to round up the illegal aliens and boot their asses
out of the country. There is a finite number of jobs. They will either
go to Americans or illegal alien job thieves. American workers,
you decide who gets those crucial jobs.
Kirk out...
2008-01-05 14:24:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Foxtrot
Subject: #Dow smashes 13,000 mark! Thank you, President Bush!!!!
Despite the Clinton Recession, the DJIA is up 24% since Bush took
office. So he gets the blame when it goes down but no credit when
it goes up, right li'l partisan hack?
Wahhhh, Clinton was good, wahhhhhhh......
3905 Dead
2008-01-05 15:58:18 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 06:24:24 -0800, "Kirk out..."
Post by Kirk out...
Post by Foxtrot
Subject: #Dow smashes 13,000 mark! Thank you, President Bush!!!!
Despite the Clinton Recession, the DJIA is up 24% since Bush took
office. So he gets the blame when it goes down but no credit when
it goes up, right li'l partisan hack?
Wahhhh, Clinton was good, wahhhhhhh......
The really hilarious thing is that this troll will whip around next
week and proclaim that he can't stand Putsch's policies...
--

What do you call a Republican with a conscience?

An ex-Republican.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)

"I simply can not believe this is what the Republican party has
become. I just can’t. It just makes me sick to think all those years
of supporting this party, and this is what it has become. Even if you
don’t like the S-Chip expansion, it is hard to deny what Republicans
are- a bunch of bitter, nasty, petty, snarling, sneering, vicious
thugs, peering through people’s windows so they can make fun of their
misfortune.

I’m registering Independent tomorrow."

Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001

Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News-***@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essays-***@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Foxtrot
2008-01-05 19:04:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Kirk out...
Post by Foxtrot
Despite the Clinton Recession, the DJIA is up 24% since Bush took
office. So he gets the blame when it goes down but no credit when
it goes up, right li'l partisan hack?
Wahhhh, Clinton was good, wahhhhhhh......
BJ will be nothing but a stain in the history books. Literally. For
those of you who think he's so beloved, take a look at the Iowa
caucus returns.
Post by 3905 Dead
The really hilarious thing is that this troll will whip around next
week and proclaim that he can't stand Putsch's policies...
Bush has done so few things right that they can be counted on
one hand.

* Cut taxes (thus the economic growth)
* Invade Afghanistan
* Initial Iraq attack, removal of Hussein
* Supreme court appointments

Pretty much everything else he has done SUCKED. His presidency
is justified by one main fact: He's better than what the Dems
offered.
3905 Dead
2008-01-05 20:50:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Foxtrot
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Kirk out...
Post by Foxtrot
Despite the Clinton Recession, the DJIA is up 24% since Bush took
office. So he gets the blame when it goes down but no credit when
it goes up, right li'l partisan hack?
Wahhhh, Clinton was good, wahhhhhhh......
BJ will be nothing but a stain in the history books. Literally. For
those of you who think he's so beloved, take a look at the Iowa
caucus returns.
Hmm. I see she got more votes than Huckleberry and Mittens combined.

Of course, so did Obama and Edwards....
Post by Foxtrot
Post by 3905 Dead
The really hilarious thing is that this troll will whip around next
week and proclaim that he can't stand Putsch's policies...
Bush has done so few things right that they can be counted on
one hand.
* Cut taxes (thus the economic growth)
You mean the Stock Market that, in it's most charitable light, has
lost one sixth of its value since he took office.
Post by Foxtrot
* Invade Afghanistan
of course, then he went and OCCUPIED it, which had the effect of
giving most of the country back to the Taliban...
Post by Foxtrot
* Initial Iraq attack, removal of Hussein
Based on lies and deceit, and what a clusterfuck it turned out to be!
Post by Foxtrot
* Supreme court appointments
Too early to tell.
Post by Foxtrot
Pretty much everything else he has done SUCKED. His presidency
is justified by one main fact: He's better than what the Dems
offered.
--

What do you call a Republican with a conscience?

An ex-Republican.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)

"I simply can not believe this is what the Republican party has
become. I just can’t. It just makes me sick to think all those years
of supporting this party, and this is what it has become. Even if you
don’t like the S-Chip expansion, it is hard to deny what Republicans
are- a bunch of bitter, nasty, petty, snarling, sneering, vicious
thugs, peering through people’s windows so they can make fun of their
misfortune.

I’m registering Independent tomorrow."

Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001

Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News-***@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essays-***@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Steve
2008-01-05 22:32:29 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 20:50:44 GMT, 3905 Dead
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Kirk out...
Post by Foxtrot
Despite the Clinton Recession, the DJIA is up 24% since Bush took
office. So he gets the blame when it goes down but no credit when
it goes up, right li'l partisan hack?
Wahhhh, Clinton was good, wahhhhhhh......
BJ will be nothing but a stain in the history books. Literally. For
those of you who think he's so beloved, take a look at the Iowa
caucus returns.
Hmm. I see she got more votes than Huckleberry and Mittens combined.
Of course, so did Obama and Edwards....
...and it's damned funny to see anybody think that the number of votes
in the Iowa caucus is significant.
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
Post by 3905 Dead
The really hilarious thing is that this troll will whip around next
week and proclaim that he can't stand Putsch's policies...
Bush has done so few things right that they can be counted on
one hand.
* Cut taxes (thus the economic growth)
You mean the Stock Market that, in it's most charitable light, has
lost one sixth of its value since he took office.
<ROFL>
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
* Invade Afghanistan
of course, then he went and OCCUPIED it, which had the effect of
giving most of the country back to the Taliban...
Post by Foxtrot
* Initial Iraq attack, removal of Hussein
Based on lies and deceit, and what a clusterfuck it turned out to be!
Post by Foxtrot
* Supreme court appointments
Too early to tell.
Post by Foxtrot
Pretty much everything else he has done SUCKED. His presidency
is justified by one main fact: He's better than what the Dems
offered.
"I was a Senate Page for two years when I went to HS in Maryland. Why is
that hard to believe?"
--Milt.Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics/msg/45a41b2be7278eed?&q=senate+page


"Actually, I did misspeak on that one. One year in the House and one
year in the Senate."
--MilT.Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/06a060ef017bf1a0

No one has ever been both a Senate and a House page and no one has ever been a page for five years.

NOTE: Cox was fired in 1973.. Gingrich was first elected in 1978...


Archibald Cox was as fair a man as there ever was; THAT IS WHY NIXON FIRED
HIS ASS!! Spark, I would think you'd do more reading during your month in
exile. I was a page for someone on the judiciary committee at the time,
and none other than Bob Dole said that Archie Cox was a "fine man"...
--Milt.Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics/msg/bb35672e77b8808a


"I was a page when Newt first
started, and I thought he was an asshole then, and I've been waiting for
soething to change my mind. Nothing yet.."
--Milt.Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/23e7664bf86121dc
Matt
2008-01-06 01:35:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 20:50:44 GMT, 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Kirk out...
Post by Foxtrot
Despite the Clinton Recession, the DJIA is up 24% since Bush took
office. So he gets the blame when it goes down but no credit when
it goes up, right li'l partisan hack?
Wahhhh, Clinton was good, wahhhhhhh......
BJ will be nothing but a stain in the history books. Literally. For
those of you who think he's so beloved, take a look at the Iowa
caucus returns.
Hmm.  I see she got more votes than Huckleberry and Mittens combined.
Of course, so did Obama and Edwards....
...and it's damned funny to see anybody think that the number of votes
in the Iowa caucus is significant.
Of course they aren't, except to weed out those that were never in the
race
to begin with. The Democratic race will go down to the convention, the
Republican
race is much more interesting. I would not have thought Rudy and Fred
would have
been effectively eliminated at this point.
Post by Steve
Post by Foxtrot
Post by 3905 Dead
The really hilarious thing is that this troll will whip around next
week and proclaim that he can't stand Putsch's policies...
Bush has done so few things right that they can be counted on
one hand.
* Cut taxes (thus the economic growth)
You mean the Stock Market that, in it's most charitable light, has
lost one sixth of its value since he took office.
<ROFL>
Um, that's a fact, Steve-o. You have a problem with it?

However, I'll give in to curiousity .. who do you think will be the
next President?

Matt
3905 Dead
2008-01-06 15:54:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt
Of course they aren't, except to weed out those that were never in the
race
to begin with. The Democratic race will go down to the convention, the
Republican
race is much more interesting. I would not have thought Rudy and Fred
would have
been effectively eliminated at this point.
I think Fred it pretty much finished, but Rudy's still in it. He blew
Iowa off completely, and Iowans, not surprisingly, didn't feel any
great need to vote for him.

Instead he concentrated on NH, where he thinks he can win and jump
back in the race.
--

What do you call a Republican with a conscience?

An ex-Republican.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)

"I simply can not believe this is what the Republican party has
become. I just can’t. It just makes me sick to think all those years
of supporting this party, and this is what it has become. Even if you
don’t like the S-Chip expansion, it is hard to deny what Republicans
are- a bunch of bitter, nasty, petty, snarling, sneering, vicious
thugs, peering through people’s windows so they can make fun of their
misfortune.

I’m registering Independent tomorrow."

Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001

Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News-***@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essays-***@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Foxtrot
2008-01-06 02:47:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
BJ will be nothing but a stain in the history books. Literally. For
those of you who think he's so beloved, take a look at the Iowa
caucus returns.
Hmm. I see she got more votes than Huckleberry and Mittens combined.
BJ has been stumping for Battleax constantly. If he's so loved
why didn't she win by 40 or 50%?

Guess Billy Jeff's legacy is quite weak eh? No surprise, Al Grrrr
wouldn't let BJ campaign for him in 2000 and Ketchup Boy
wasn't seen with him much in 2004 either.
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
Bush has done so few things right that they can be counted on
one hand.
* Cut taxes (thus the economic growth)
You mean the Stock Market that, in it's most charitable light, has
lost one sixth of its value since he took office.
Cite.
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
* Invade Afghanistan
of course, then he went and OCCUPIED it, which had the effect of
giving most of the country back to the Taliban...
Any al Qaeda attacks in the US since 9/11?
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
* Initial Iraq attack, removal of Hussein
Based on lies and deceit, and what a clusterfuck it turned out to be!
Yeah we know the routine. Bush was lying when he said Iraq was
a WMD threat but mysteriously BJ, Battleax, Ketchup Boy, Whiplash
Edwards (both of whom were on the Senate Intel Committee) and
Tony Blair were all somehow telling the truth when they said the
exact same thing! LOL

Let's go back to the first question. If BJ is so loved why didn't
Battleax win Iowa by 50+%?
Epileptic Gamer
2008-01-06 06:06:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Foxtrot
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
BJ will be nothing but a stain in the history books. Literally. For
those of you who think he's so beloved, take a look at the Iowa
caucus returns.
Hmm. I see she got more votes than Huckleberry and Mittens combined.
BJ has been stumping for Battleax constantly. If he's so loved
why didn't she win by 40 or 50%?
Guess Billy Jeff's legacy is quite weak eh? No surprise, Al Grrrr
wouldn't let BJ campaign for him in 2000 and Ketchup Boy
wasn't seen with him much in 2004 either.
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
Bush has done so few things right that they can be counted on
one hand.
* Cut taxes (thus the economic growth)
You mean the Stock Market that, in it's most charitable light, has
lost one sixth of its value since he took office.
Cite.
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
* Invade Afghanistan
of course, then he went and OCCUPIED it, which had the effect of
giving most of the country back to the Taliban...
Any al Qaeda attacks in the US since 9/11?
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
* Initial Iraq attack, removal of Hussein
Based on lies and deceit, and what a clusterfuck it turned out to be!
Yeah we know the routine. Bush was lying when he said Iraq was
a WMD threat but mysteriously BJ, Battleax, Ketchup Boy, Whiplash
Edwards (both of whom were on the Senate Intel Committee) and
Tony Blair were all somehow telling the truth when they said the
exact same thing! LOL
Let's go back to the first question. If BJ is so loved why didn't
Battleax win Iowa by 50+%?
Because she's been chowdered by the right who fears her.
Foxtrot
2008-01-06 08:47:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Epileptic Gamer
Post by Foxtrot
Yeah we know the routine. Bush was lying when he said Iraq was
a WMD threat but mysteriously BJ, Battleax, Ketchup Boy, Whiplash
Edwards (both of whom were on the Senate Intel Committee) and
Tony Blair were all somehow telling the truth when they said the
exact same thing! LOL
Let's go back to the first question. If BJ is so loved why didn't
Battleax win Iowa by 50+%?
Because she's been chowdered by the right who fears her.
Awwww the poor thing. Too frail and thin skinned to engage in
political hardball. Of course the Clinton war room has no problem
destroying their perceived opponents like Ken Starr, but when
she is under scrutiny, she's off limits.

FYI few people are buying the Clinton's bullshit anymore.
Mitchell Holman
2008-01-06 13:44:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Epileptic Gamer
Post by Foxtrot
Yeah we know the routine. Bush was lying when he said Iraq was
a WMD threat but mysteriously BJ, Battleax, Ketchup Boy, Whiplash
Edwards (both of whom were on the Senate Intel Committee) and
Tony Blair were all somehow telling the truth when they said the
exact same thing! LOL
Let's go back to the first question. If BJ is so loved why didn't
Battleax win Iowa by 50+%?
Because she's been chowdered by the right who fears her.
Awwww the poor thing. Too frail and thin skinned to engage in
political hardball. Of course the Clinton war room has no problem
destroying their perceived opponents like Ken Starr, but when
she is under scrutiny, she's off limits.
How did Ken Starr get "destroyed"?
3905 Dead
2008-01-06 15:25:29 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 07:44:40 -0600, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Epileptic Gamer
Post by Foxtrot
Yeah we know the routine. Bush was lying when he said Iraq was
a WMD threat but mysteriously BJ, Battleax, Ketchup Boy, Whiplash
Edwards (both of whom were on the Senate Intel Committee) and
Tony Blair were all somehow telling the truth when they said the
exact same thing! LOL
Let's go back to the first question. If BJ is so loved why didn't
Battleax win Iowa by 50+%?
Because she's been chowdered by the right who fears her.
Awwww the poor thing. Too frail and thin skinned to engage in
political hardball. Of course the Clinton war room has no problem
destroying their perceived opponents like Ken Starr, but when
she is under scrutiny, she's off limits.
How did Ken Starr get "destroyed"?
Clinton had the temerity to be innocent of the crimes Starr was trying
to pin on him.
--

What do you call a Republican with a conscience?

An ex-Republican.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)

"I simply can not believe this is what the Republican party has
become. I just can’t. It just makes me sick to think all those years
of supporting this party, and this is what it has become. Even if you
don’t like the S-Chip expansion, it is hard to deny what Republicans
are- a bunch of bitter, nasty, petty, snarling, sneering, vicious
thugs, peering through people’s windows so they can make fun of their
misfortune.

I’m registering Independent tomorrow."

Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001

Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News-***@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essays-***@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
3905 Dead
2008-01-06 16:46:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Foxtrot
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
BJ will be nothing but a stain in the history books. Literally. For
those of you who think he's so beloved, take a look at the Iowa
caucus returns.
Hmm. I see she got more votes than Huckleberry and Mittens combined.
BJ has been stumping for Battleax constantly. If he's so loved
why didn't she win by 40 or 50%?
How many candidates DID win with 40 or 50 percent, chuckles?
Post by Foxtrot
Guess Billy Jeff's legacy is quite weak eh? No surprise, Al Grrrr
wouldn't let BJ campaign for him in 2000 and Ketchup Boy
wasn't seen with him much in 2004 either.
Clinton's popularity is slightly more than DOUBLE that of Putsch's.
Post by Foxtrot
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
Bush has done so few things right that they can be counted on
one hand.
* Cut taxes (thus the economic growth)
You mean the Stock Market that, in it's most charitable light, has
lost one sixth of its value since he took office.
Cite.
We've already had this discussion. Quit weaseling.
Post by Foxtrot
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
* Invade Afghanistan
of course, then he went and OCCUPIED it, which had the effect of
giving most of the country back to the Taliban...
Any al Qaeda attacks in the US since 9/11?
Any TALIBAN attacks in the US since 1800?
Post by Foxtrot
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
* Initial Iraq attack, removal of Hussein
Based on lies and deceit, and what a clusterfuck it turned out to be!
Yeah we know the routine. Bush was lying when he said Iraq was
a WMD threat but mysteriously BJ, Battleax, Ketchup Boy, Whiplash
Edwards (both of whom were on the Senate Intel Committee) and
Tony Blair were all somehow telling the truth when they said the
exact same thing! LOL
And yet Putsch refused to divulge intel to congress, and what little
he did turned out to be complete Dick Cheney fabrications.
Post by Foxtrot
Let's go back to the first question. If BJ is so loved why didn't
Battleax win Iowa by 50+%?
--

What do you call a Republican with a conscience?

An ex-Republican.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)

"I simply can not believe this is what the Republican party has
become. I just can’t. It just makes me sick to think all those years
of supporting this party, and this is what it has become. Even if you
don’t like the S-Chip expansion, it is hard to deny what Republicans
are- a bunch of bitter, nasty, petty, snarling, sneering, vicious
thugs, peering through people’s windows so they can make fun of their
misfortune.

I’m registering Independent tomorrow."

Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001

Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News-***@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essays-***@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Foxtrot
2008-01-06 21:48:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
Post by 3905 Dead
Hmm. I see she got more votes than Huckleberry and Mittens combined.
BJ has been stumping for Battleax constantly. If he's so loved
why didn't she win by 40 or 50%?
How many candidates DID win with 40 or 50 percent, chuckles?
None of the other candidates were "co-president" with a president
that you claim brought us so much prosperity and happiness.

Looks like the Clinton legacy is pretty shaky eh?
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
Guess Billy Jeff's legacy is quite weak eh? No surprise, Al Grrrr
wouldn't let BJ campaign for him in 2000 and Ketchup Boy
wasn't seen with him much in 2004 either.
Clinton's popularity is slightly more than DOUBLE that of Putsch's.
If BJ was soo wonderful, why is Battleax struggling in third place?

Just answer the question fer chrissakes.
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
Post by 3905 Dead
You mean the Stock Market that, in it's most charitable light, has
lost one sixth of its value since he took office.
Cite.
We've already had this discussion. Quit weaseling.
The DJIA is up 21% since Bush43 became president. WTF is that
1/6 loss you claim?
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
Post by 3905 Dead
of course, then he went and OCCUPIED it, which had the effect of
giving most of the country back to the Taliban...
Any al Qaeda attacks in the US since 9/11?
Any TALIBAN attacks in the US since 1800?
The Taliban were knowingly harboring al Qaeda. But you would
like for them to continue it wouldn't you little America hater? If
more Americans died, Bush would look worse. That's what you
really want isn't it?
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
Yeah we know the routine. Bush was lying when he said Iraq was
a WMD threat but mysteriously BJ, Battleax, Ketchup Boy, Whiplash
Edwards (both of whom were on the Senate Intel Committee) and
Tony Blair were all somehow telling the truth when they said the
exact same thing! LOL
And yet Putsch refused to divulge intel to congress, and what little
he did turned out to be complete Dick Cheney fabrications.
Post by Foxtrot
Yeah we know the routine. Bush was lying when he said Iraq was
a WMD threat but mysteriously BJ, Battleax, Ketchup Boy, Whiplash
Edwards (both of whom were on the Senate Intel Committee) and
Tony Blair were all somehow telling the truth when they said the
exact same thing! LOL
3905 Dead
2008-01-06 23:38:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Foxtrot
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
Post by 3905 Dead
Hmm. I see she got more votes than Huckleberry and Mittens combined.
BJ has been stumping for Battleax constantly. If he's so loved
why didn't she win by 40 or 50%?
How many candidates DID win with 40 or 50 percent, chuckles?
None of the other candidates were "co-president" with a president
that you claim brought us so much prosperity and happiness.
Actually, I don't recall ANY first lady who came out of the WH with
the sort of clout Hillary has. Eleanor Roosevelt comes close, maybe,
and she became a successful newspaper columnist for the next 15 years.
Could you imagine Nancy Reagan running for office, explaining the
astrologers and the $2,000 dinner plates?
Post by Foxtrot
Looks like the Clinton legacy is pretty shaky eh?
As noted, Bill's popularity is DOUBLE that of Putsch's.

I came across a hilarious article the other day that mentioned some
Republican intoning in 1994 that when a President's approval ratings
drops into the 40s, he should start thinking about resigning from
office.
Post by Foxtrot
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
Guess Billy Jeff's legacy is quite weak eh? No surprise, Al Grrrr
wouldn't let BJ campaign for him in 2000 and Ketchup Boy
wasn't seen with him much in 2004 either.
Clinton's popularity is slightly more than DOUBLE that of Putsch's.
If BJ was soo wonderful, why is Battleax struggling in third place?
Because Hillary isn't Bill. They are two different people. They have
been seen in the same room together.
Post by Foxtrot
Just answer the question fer chrissakes.
What question?
Post by Foxtrot
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
Post by 3905 Dead
You mean the Stock Market that, in it's most charitable light, has
lost one sixth of its value since he took office.
Cite.
We've already had this discussion. Quit weaseling.
The DJIA is up 21% since Bush43 became president. WTF is that
1/6 loss you claim?
Now factor in inflation. I'll be kind and let you use the bullshit
government figures.
Post by Foxtrot
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
Post by 3905 Dead
of course, then he went and OCCUPIED it, which had the effect of
giving most of the country back to the Taliban...
Any al Qaeda attacks in the US since 9/11?
Any TALIBAN attacks in the US since 1800?
The Taliban were knowingly harboring al Qaeda. But you would
like for them to continue it wouldn't you little America hater? If
more Americans died, Bush would look worse. That's what you
really want isn't it?
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
Yeah we know the routine. Bush was lying when he said Iraq was
a WMD threat but mysteriously BJ, Battleax, Ketchup Boy, Whiplash
Edwards (both of whom were on the Senate Intel Committee) and
Tony Blair were all somehow telling the truth when they said the
exact same thing! LOL
And yet Putsch refused to divulge intel to congress, and what little
he did turned out to be complete Dick Cheney fabrications.
Post by Foxtrot
Yeah we know the routine. Bush was lying when he said Iraq was
a WMD threat but mysteriously BJ, Battleax, Ketchup Boy, Whiplash
Edwards (both of whom were on the Senate Intel Committee) and
Tony Blair were all somehow telling the truth when they said the
exact same thing! LOL
--

What do you call a Republican with a conscience?

An ex-Republican.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)

"I simply can not believe this is what the Republican party has
become. I just can’t. It just makes me sick to think all those years
of supporting this party, and this is what it has become. Even if you
don’t like the S-Chip expansion, it is hard to deny what Republicans
are- a bunch of bitter, nasty, petty, snarling, sneering, vicious
thugs, peering through people’s windows so they can make fun of their
misfortune.

I’m registering Independent tomorrow."

Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001

Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News-***@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essays-***@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
David Moffitt
2008-01-07 03:33:28 UTC
Permalink
"3905 Dead" <***@finestplanet.com> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
| On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 13:48:31 -0800, Foxtrot <***@null.com> wrote:
|
| >3905 Dead <***@finestplanet.com> wrote:
| >
| >>Foxtrot <***@null.com> wrote:
| >>>3905 Dead <***@finestplanet.com> wrote:
| >>>>Hmm. I see she got more votes than Huckleberry and Mittens combined.
| >>>
| >>>BJ has been stumping for Battleax constantly. If he's so loved
| >>>why didn't she win by 40 or 50%?
| >>
| >>How many candidates DID win with 40 or 50 percent, chuckles?
| >
| >None of the other candidates were "co-president" with a president
| >that you claim brought us so much prosperity and happiness.
|
| Actually, I don't recall ANY first lady who came out of the WH with
| the sort of clout Hillary has. Eleanor Roosevelt comes close, maybe,
| and she became a successful newspaper columnist for the next 15 years.
| Could you imagine Nancy Reagan running for office, explaining the
| astrologers and the $2,000 dinner plates?
| >
| >Looks like the Clinton legacy is pretty shaky eh?
|
| As noted, Bill's popularity is DOUBLE that of Putsch's.
|
| I came across a hilarious article the other day that mentioned some
| Republican intoning in 1994 that when a President's approval ratings
| drops into the 40s, he should start thinking about resigning from
| office.
|
|
| >
| >>>Guess Billy Jeff's legacy is quite weak eh? No surprise, Al Grrrr
| >>>wouldn't let BJ campaign for him in 2000 and Ketchup Boy
| >>>wasn't seen with him much in 2004 either.
| >>
| >>Clinton's popularity is slightly more than DOUBLE that of Putsch's.
| >
| >If BJ was soo wonderful, why is Battleax struggling in third place?
|
| Because Hillary isn't Bill. They are two different people. They have
| been seen in the same room together.
| >
| >Just answer the question fer chrissakes.
| >
| What question?
| >>>>You mean the Stock Market that, in it's most charitable light, has
| >>>>lost one sixth of its value since he took office.
| >>>
| >>>Cite.
| >>
| >>We've already had this discussion. Quit weaseling.
| >
| >The DJIA is up 21% since Bush43 became president. WTF is that
| >1/6 loss you claim?
| >
| Now factor in inflation. I'll be kind and let you use the bullshit
| government figures.
| >>>>of course, then he went and OCCUPIED it, which had the effect of
| >>>>giving most of the country back to the Taliban...
| >>>
| >>>Any al Qaeda attacks in the US since 9/11?
| >>
| >>Any TALIBAN attacks in the US since 1800?
| >
| >The Taliban were knowingly harboring al Qaeda. But you would
| >like for them to continue it wouldn't you little America hater? If
| >more Americans died, Bush would look worse. That's what you
| >really want isn't it?
| >
| >>>Yeah we know the routine. Bush was lying when he said Iraq was
| >>>a WMD threat but mysteriously BJ, Battleax, Ketchup Boy, Whiplash
| >>>Edwards (both of whom were on the Senate Intel Committee) and
| >>>Tony Blair were all somehow telling the truth when they said the
| >>>exact same thing! LOL
| >>>
| >>And yet Putsch refused to divulge intel to congress, and what little
| >>he did turned out to be complete Dick Cheney fabrications.
| >
| >Repeat:
| >
| > >>Yeah we know the routine. Bush was lying when he said Iraq was
| > >>a WMD threat but mysteriously BJ, Battleax, Ketchup Boy, Whiplash
| > >>Edwards (both of whom were on the Senate Intel Committee) and
| > >>Tony Blair were all somehow telling the truth when they said the
| > >>exact same thing! LOL
| --
|
| What do you call a Republican with a conscience?



%%%% A Republican. What do you call a Republican without a conscience? A
liberal!

I'd rather be a conservative nut job than a liberal with no nuts and no job.




|

| An ex-Republican.
|
| http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)
|
| "I simply can not believe this is what the Republican party has
| become. I just can't. It just makes me sick to think all those years
| of supporting this party, and this is what it has become. Even if you
| don't like the S-Chip expansion, it is hard to deny what Republicans
| are- a bunch of bitter, nasty, petty, snarling, sneering, vicious
| thugs, peering through people's windows so they can make fun of their
| misfortune.
|
| I'm registering Independent tomorrow."
|
| Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
|
| Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
| Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
| For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
| http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
| For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
| Zepps_News-***@yahoogroups.com
| For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
| Zepps_essays-***@yahoogroups.com
| a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Foxtrot
2008-01-07 07:50:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
BJ has been stumping for Battleax constantly. If he's so loved
why didn't she win by 40 or 50%?
How many candidates DID win with 40 or 50 percent, chuckles?
None of the other candidates were "co-president" with a president
that you claim brought us so much prosperity and happiness.
Actually, I don't recall ANY first lady who came out of the WH with
the sort of clout Hillary has. Eleanor Roosevelt comes close, maybe,
and she became a successful newspaper columnist for the next 15 years.
Could you imagine Nancy Reagan running for office, explaining the
astrologers and the $2,000 dinner plates?
WTF are you talking about? Eleanor Roosevelt (who Battleax
channeled with) nor Nancy Reagan ever ran for POTUS. If they
did, at least they didn't have about 50% negatives.
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
If BJ was soo wonderful, why is Battleax struggling in third place?
Because Hillary isn't Bill. They are two different people. They have
been seen in the same room together.
Battleax keeps repeating her "35 years of experience" shtick.
That experience came as BJ's sidekick. "Buy one get one free"
was the mantra for the so called Clinton co-presidency. They're
joined at the hips.

If Billy was in fact popular (among other than core Dems) then
she would be wildly popular herself. She is NOT.
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
Just answer the question fer chrissakes.
What question?
BJ and Battleax are a package. If he's so popular, why isn't
she?
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
The DJIA is up 21% since Bush43 became president. WTF is that
1/6 loss you claim?
Now factor in inflation. I'll be kind and let you use the bullshit
government figures.
I don't have inflation figures but last I heard it was under 3%.
3905 Dead
2008-01-07 13:48:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Foxtrot
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
BJ has been stumping for Battleax constantly. If he's so loved
why didn't she win by 40 or 50%?
How many candidates DID win with 40 or 50 percent, chuckles?
None of the other candidates were "co-president" with a president
that you claim brought us so much prosperity and happiness.
Actually, I don't recall ANY first lady who came out of the WH with
the sort of clout Hillary has. Eleanor Roosevelt comes close, maybe,
and she became a successful newspaper columnist for the next 15 years.
Could you imagine Nancy Reagan running for office, explaining the
astrologers and the $2,000 dinner plates?
WTF are you talking about? Eleanor Roosevelt (who Battleax
channeled with) nor Nancy Reagan ever ran for POTUS. If they
did, at least they didn't have about 50% negatives.
Wow. You really can't read. No wonder you're so fucking crazy.
Post by Foxtrot
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
If BJ was soo wonderful, why is Battleax struggling in third place?
Because Hillary isn't Bill. They are two different people. They have
been seen in the same room together.
Battleax keeps repeating her "35 years of experience" shtick.
That experience came as BJ's sidekick. "Buy one get one free"
was the mantra for the so called Clinton co-presidency. They're
joined at the hips.
That's nice. Any reason why I should care about your fascination with
Hillary's hips?
Post by Foxtrot
If Billy was in fact popular (among other than core Dems) then
she would be wildly popular herself. She is NOT.
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
Just answer the question fer chrissakes.
What question?
BJ and Battleax are a package. If he's so popular, why isn't
she?
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
The DJIA is up 21% since Bush43 became president. WTF is that
1/6 loss you claim?
Now factor in inflation. I'll be kind and let you use the bullshit
government figures.
I don't have inflation figures but last I heard it was under 3%.
--

What do you call a Republican with a conscience?

An ex-Republican.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)

"I simply can not believe this is what the Republican party has
become. I just can’t. It just makes me sick to think all those years
of supporting this party, and this is what it has become. Even if you
don’t like the S-Chip expansion, it is hard to deny what Republicans
are- a bunch of bitter, nasty, petty, snarling, sneering, vicious
thugs, peering through people’s windows so they can make fun of their
misfortune.

I’m registering Independent tomorrow."

Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001

Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News-***@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essays-***@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
David Moffitt
2008-01-07 15:01:22 UTC
Permalink
"3905 Dead" <***@finestplanet.com> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
| On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 23:50:43 -0800, Foxtrot <***@null.com> wrote:
|
| >3905 Dead <***@finestplanet.com> wrote:
| >
| >>Foxtrot <***@null.com> wrote:
| >>>3905 Dead <***@finestplanet.com> wrote:
| >>>>Foxtrot <***@null.com> wrote:
| >>>>>BJ has been stumping for Battleax constantly. If he's so loved
| >>>>>why didn't she win by 40 or 50%?
| >>>>
| >>>>How many candidates DID win with 40 or 50 percent, chuckles?
| >>>
| >>>None of the other candidates were "co-president" with a president
| >>>that you claim brought us so much prosperity and happiness.
| >>
| >>Actually, I don't recall ANY first lady who came out of the WH with
| >>the sort of clout Hillary has. Eleanor Roosevelt comes close, maybe,
| >>and she became a successful newspaper columnist for the next 15 years.
| >>Could you imagine Nancy Reagan running for office, explaining the
| >>astrologers and the $2,000 dinner plates?
| >
| >WTF are you talking about? Eleanor Roosevelt (who Battleax
| >channeled with) nor Nancy Reagan ever ran for POTUS. If they
| >did, at least they didn't have about 50% negatives.
|
| Wow. You really can't read. No wonder you're so fucking crazy.
| >
| >>>If BJ was soo wonderful, why is Battleax struggling in third place?
| >>
| >>Because Hillary isn't Bill. They are two different people. They have
| >>been seen in the same room together.
| >
| >Battleax keeps repeating her "35 years of experience" shtick.
| >That experience came as BJ's sidekick. "Buy one get one free"
| >was the mantra for the so called Clinton co-presidency. They're
| >joined at the hips.
|
| That's nice. Any reason why I should care about your fascination with
| Hillary's hips?
| >
| >If Billy was in fact popular (among other than core Dems) then
| >she would be wildly popular herself. She is NOT.
| >
| >>>Just answer the question fer chrissakes.
| >>>
| >>What question?
| >
| >BJ and Battleax are a package. If he's so popular, why isn't
| >she?
| >
| >>>The DJIA is up 21% since Bush43 became president. WTF is that
| >>>1/6 loss you claim?
| >>>
| >>Now factor in inflation. I'll be kind and let you use the bullshit
| >>government figures.
| >
| >I don't have inflation figures but last I heard it was under 3%.
| --
|
| What do you call a Republican with a conscience?

%%%% A Republican. What do you call a Republican without a conscience? A
liberal!

I'd rather be a conservative nut job than a liberal with no nuts and no job.


|
| An ex-Republican.
|
| http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)
|
| "I simply can not believe this is what the Republican party has
| become. I just can't. It just makes me sick to think all those years
| of supporting this party, and this is what it has become. Even if you
| don't like the S-Chip expansion, it is hard to deny what Republicans
| are- a bunch of bitter, nasty, petty, snarling, sneering, vicious
| thugs, peering through people's windows so they can make fun of their
| misfortune.
|
| I'm registering Independent tomorrow."
|
| Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
|
| Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
| Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
| For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
| http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
| For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
| Zepps_News-***@yahoogroups.com
| For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
| Zepps_essays-***@yahoogroups.com
| a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Foxtrot
2008-01-08 07:23:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
Post by 3905 Dead
Actually, I don't recall ANY first lady who came out of the WH with
the sort of clout Hillary has. Eleanor Roosevelt comes close, maybe,
and she became a successful newspaper columnist for the next 15 years.
Could you imagine Nancy Reagan running for office, explaining the
astrologers and the $2,000 dinner plates?
WTF are you talking about? Eleanor Roosevelt (who Battleax
channeled with) nor Nancy Reagan ever ran for POTUS. If they
did, at least they didn't have about 50% negatives.
Wow. You really can't read. No wonder you're so fucking crazy.
Sure I can. You're making a feeble attempt to leverage Battleax's
hamfisted power grabbing years as First Bitch into "clout". If she
has any real clout, her campaign wouldn't be crashing like the
Hindenberg.
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
Post by 3905 Dead
Because Hillary isn't Bill. They are two different people. They have
been seen in the same room together.
Battleax keeps repeating her "35 years of experience" shtick.
That experience came as BJ's sidekick. "Buy one get one free"
was the mantra for the so called Clinton co-presidency. They're
joined at the hips.
That's nice. Any reason why I should care about your fascination with
Hillary's hips?
I'm only one person. I couldn't possibly have THAT much fascination.
Mitchell Holman
2008-01-08 13:11:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Foxtrot
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
Post by 3905 Dead
Actually, I don't recall ANY first lady who came out of the WH with
the sort of clout Hillary has. Eleanor Roosevelt comes close, maybe,
and she became a successful newspaper columnist for the next 15 years.
Could you imagine Nancy Reagan running for office, explaining the
astrologers and the $2,000 dinner plates?
WTF are you talking about? Eleanor Roosevelt (who Battleax
channeled with) nor Nancy Reagan ever ran for POTUS. If they
did, at least they didn't have about 50% negatives.
Wow. You really can't read. No wonder you're so fucking crazy.
Sure I can. You're making a feeble attempt to leverage Battleax's
hamfisted power grabbing years as First Bitch into "clout". If she
has any real clout, her campaign wouldn't be crashing like the
Hindenberg.
"Battleax"?

"First Bitch"?

Could you be more childish if you tried?
3905 Dead
2008-01-08 14:06:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Foxtrot
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
Post by 3905 Dead
Actually, I don't recall ANY first lady who came out of the WH with
the sort of clout Hillary has. Eleanor Roosevelt comes close, maybe,
and she became a successful newspaper columnist for the next 15 years.
Could you imagine Nancy Reagan running for office, explaining the
astrologers and the $2,000 dinner plates?
WTF are you talking about? Eleanor Roosevelt (who Battleax
channeled with) nor Nancy Reagan ever ran for POTUS. If they
did, at least they didn't have about 50% negatives.
Wow. You really can't read. No wonder you're so fucking crazy.
Sure I can. You're making a feeble attempt to leverage Battleax's
hamfisted power grabbing years as First Bitch into "clout". If she
has any real clout, her campaign wouldn't be crashing like the
Hindenberg.
So Mittens has no clout either, and neither does Rush Limbaugh who
supports him. I see.
Post by Foxtrot
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
Post by 3905 Dead
Because Hillary isn't Bill. They are two different people. They have
been seen in the same room together.
Battleax keeps repeating her "35 years of experience" shtick.
That experience came as BJ's sidekick. "Buy one get one free"
was the mantra for the so called Clinton co-presidency. They're
joined at the hips.
That's nice. Any reason why I should care about your fascination with
Hillary's hips?
I'm only one person. I couldn't possibly have THAT much fascination.
Seems that you do.
--

What do you call a Republican with a conscience?

An ex-Republican.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)

"I simply can not believe this is what the Republican party has
become. I just can’t. It just makes me sick to think all those years
of supporting this party, and this is what it has become. Even if you
don’t like the S-Chip expansion, it is hard to deny what Republicans
are- a bunch of bitter, nasty, petty, snarling, sneering, vicious
thugs, peering through people’s windows so they can make fun of their
misfortune.

I’m registering Independent tomorrow."

Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001

Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News-***@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essays-***@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Mitchell Holman
2008-01-07 14:31:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Foxtrot
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
BJ has been stumping for Battleax constantly. If he's so loved
why didn't she win by 40 or 50%?
How many candidates DID win with 40 or 50 percent, chuckles?
None of the other candidates were "co-president" with a president
that you claim brought us so much prosperity and happiness.
Actually, I don't recall ANY first lady who came out of the WH with
the sort of clout Hillary has. Eleanor Roosevelt comes close, maybe,
and she became a successful newspaper columnist for the next 15 years.
Could you imagine Nancy Reagan running for office, explaining the
astrologers and the $2,000 dinner plates?
WTF are you talking about? Eleanor Roosevelt (who Battleax
channeled with) nor Nancy Reagan ever ran for POTUS. If they
did, at least they didn't have about 50% negatives.
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
If BJ was soo wonderful, why is Battleax struggling in third place?
Because Hillary isn't Bill. They are two different people. They have
been seen in the same room together.
Battleax keeps repeating her "35 years of experience" shtick.
Who is "battleax"?

Maybe if you used real names instead of childish
handles we might know what you are trying to say.
David Moffitt
2008-01-07 15:03:36 UTC
Permalink
"Mitchell Holman" <***@comcast.com> wrote in message news:***@216.196.97.131...
| Foxtrot <***@null.com> wrote in
news:3hl3o395jj7bsgs30ujqnr04f31707hij3
| @4ax.com:
|
| > 3905 Dead <***@finestplanet.com> wrote:
| >
| >>Foxtrot <***@null.com> wrote:
| >>>3905 Dead <***@finestplanet.com> wrote:
| >>>>Foxtrot <***@null.com> wrote:
| >>>>>BJ has been stumping for Battleax constantly. If he's so loved
| >>>>>why didn't she win by 40 or 50%?
| >>>>
| >>>>How many candidates DID win with 40 or 50 percent, chuckles?
| >>>
| >>>None of the other candidates were "co-president" with a president
| >>>that you claim brought us so much prosperity and happiness.
| >>
| >>Actually, I don't recall ANY first lady who came out of the WH with
| >>the sort of clout Hillary has. Eleanor Roosevelt comes close, maybe,
| >>and she became a successful newspaper columnist for the next 15 years.
| >>Could you imagine Nancy Reagan running for office, explaining the
| >>astrologers and the $2,000 dinner plates?
| >
| > WTF are you talking about? Eleanor Roosevelt (who Battleax
| > channeled with) nor Nancy Reagan ever ran for POTUS. If they
| > did, at least they didn't have about 50% negatives.
| >
| >>>If BJ was soo wonderful, why is Battleax struggling in third place?
| >>
| >>Because Hillary isn't Bill. They are two different people. They have
| >>been seen in the same room together.
| >
| > Battleax keeps repeating her "35 years of experience" shtick.
|
|
|
| Who is "battleax"?
|
| Maybe if you used real names instead of childish
| handles we might know what you are trying to say.

%%%% Who is Putsch?

What do you call a Republican without a conscience? A liberal!




|
|
|
|
|
3905 Dead
2008-01-05 15:51:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Foxtrot
Subject: #Dow smashes 13,000 mark! Thank you, President Bush!!!!
Despite the Clinton Recession, the DJIA is up 24% since Bush took
office. So he gets the blame when it goes down but no credit when
it goes up, right li'l partisan hack?
Well, let's see here.

On May 21st, 2001 (four and a half months after Clinton left office)
the DOW was at 11,337.92. Now it's at 12,800.18. That looks like
about HALF of a 24% gain. That would be 12%. Over nearly seven
years. And of course, it would only be eleven percent over where it
was Clinton's last year in office.

During that time, even if you just stick with the worthless Putsch
junta numbers for inflation, we've lost about 28% since May 2001,
which means that the market, using the most charitable estimations we
can, is worth 16% LESS than it was four months after Clinton left
office.

So tell us about this Clinton recession. You know recessions usually
last about 18-24 months, and it's been longer than that since Clinton
left office.

I'll leave it to you to explain how Putsch deserves credit for a
market that has lost over 1/6th of its value in seven years.

And, just for giggles, I'll ask you the same question that caused
Henny to blow sky high and scream viturpulations: what Clinton
policies caused this?
Post by Foxtrot
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/business/05markets.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Stocks & Bonds
Fears on Inflation and Jobs Give 2008 a Stumbling Start
Fears that a recession is imminent — or perhaps has already begun —
rocked the major stock markets this week as anxiety-addled investors
staggered through the first days of 2008.
The blows came from several directions. On Friday, the government
reported that employers added fewer jobs in December than in any month
since August 2003, weakening one of the last pillars propping up the
ailing economy.
The cracks in the job market came on the back of $100 oil and a weak
report on manufacturing. Investors now see a significant slowdown
ahead. “If jobs go away, we’ve got a recession,” said James W.
Paulsen, chief investment officer at Wells Capital Management. “Today
really ratcheted up fears.”
These indicators should terrify voters away from voting for Dems.
They will certainly raise taxes, which will take money out of the
economy, worsening the economic outlook. Dems will also make it
more difficult to explore, drill and refine more oil, driving up the
cost of fuel even more. Thus hurting the economy even more.
Putting a dent in the huge deficits Putsch is running will help the
economy. Every year just the cost of financing the debt rises another
$30 billion or so. That's one nasty hidden tax the Pubs have bestowed
upon up.

But you don't mind seeing your tax dollars go to brokerage houses and
Asia, do you?
Post by Foxtrot
Still, it was the jobs report, possibly the most influential monthly
indicator about the economy, that clinched a painful finish to a
painful week.
They did not like what they saw. The economy added just 18,000 jobs in
December, far below analysts’ estimates of 60,000 additional jobs.
Annual job growth has fallen to its lowest level since 2004, and the
unemployment rate ticked up to 5 percent.
Good reason to round up the illegal aliens and boot their asses
out of the country. There is a finite number of jobs. They will either
go to Americans or illegal alien job thieves. American workers,
you decide who gets those crucial jobs.
We had illegal aliens in 2000, and for the previous eight years job
growth AVERAGED 150,000 a month. And of course, these days you need a
much bigger number than that just to break even.

So how come you whine about aliens taking jobs you wouldn't do, but
you can't bring yourself to whine about all the good manufacturing
jobs that went overseas?
--

What do you call a Republican with a conscience?

An ex-Republican.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)

"I simply can not believe this is what the Republican party has
become. I just can’t. It just makes me sick to think all those years
of supporting this party, and this is what it has become. Even if you
don’t like the S-Chip expansion, it is hard to deny what Republicans
are- a bunch of bitter, nasty, petty, snarling, sneering, vicious
thugs, peering through people’s windows so they can make fun of their
misfortune.

I’m registering Independent tomorrow."

Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001

Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News-***@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essays-***@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Steve
2008-01-05 16:07:47 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 07:51:15 -0800, 3905 Dead
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
Subject: #Dow smashes 13,000 mark! Thank you, President Bush!!!!
Despite the Clinton Recession, the DJIA is up 24% since Bush took
office. So he gets the blame when it goes down but no credit when
it goes up, right li'l partisan hack?
Well, let's see here.
On May 21st, 2001 (four and a half months after Clinton left office)
the DOW was at 11,337.92. Now it's at 12,800.18. That looks like
about HALF of a 24% gain. That would be 12%. Over nearly seven
years. And of course, it would only be eleven percent over where it
was Clinton's last year in office.
During that time, even if you just stick with the worthless Putsch
junta numbers for inflation, we've lost about 28% since May 2001,
which means that the market, using the most charitable estimations we
can, is worth 16% LESS than it was four months after Clinton left
office.
So tell us about this Clinton recession. You know recessions usually
last about 18-24 months, and it's been longer than that since Clinton
left office.
I'll leave it to you to explain how Putsch deserves credit for a
market that has lost over 1/6th of its value in seven years.
And, just for giggles, I'll ask you the same question that caused
Henny to blow sky high and scream viturpulations: what Clinton
policies caused this?
Oh joy, I'm back to being Henny again......

Zepp's imagination knows no bounds either.. The poor fat slob is
desperate to try to justify his poor planning and the fact that he
never saved and invested a nickel in anything but fast food and
chocolate bars.... While many of us who regularly invested in the
stock market are happily living off the proceeds of that investments,
poor dumb Zepp's wife has booted him out because of his slothful, lazy
lifestyle and he is riding the bus to work because his muffler
dragging rustbucket of a car gave out on him.....

"Just like "Steve Canyon" did a couple of years ago when I called him
on his fantasy that he was a millionaire with yachts and apartment
complexes and who was an Indian married to a black woman and all these
other strange things. I even stumbled across his real identity, and
while I've never discussed it publically, you did mention it to him,
and he went berserk, remember?"
Zepp Jamieson 31 Mar 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.republican/msg/fe9c048c552ef851?hl=en&


"I've got the word back on you from
Zepp. Your real name is Henry Selvitella"
Alric Knoodles Sep 24 2004
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.bush/msg/1d12e417d7c6f999?hl=en&


"Parker is Steve Canyon, of course"
Zepp Jamieson Aug 7 2005
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/d12282dc011005ea?hl=en&
Kirk out...
2008-01-05 17:52:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 07:51:15 -0800, 3905 Dead
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
Subject: #Dow smashes 13,000 mark! Thank you, President Bush!!!!
Despite the Clinton Recession, the DJIA is up 24% since Bush took
office. So he gets the blame when it goes down but no credit when
it goes up, right li'l partisan hack?
Well, let's see here.
On May 21st, 2001 (four and a half months after Clinton left office)
the DOW was at 11,337.92. Now it's at 12,800.18. That looks like
about HALF of a 24% gain. That would be 12%. Over nearly seven
years. And of course, it would only be eleven percent over where it
was Clinton's last year in office.
During that time, even if you just stick with the worthless Putsch
junta numbers for inflation, we've lost about 28% since May 2001,
which means that the market, using the most charitable estimations we
can, is worth 16% LESS than it was four months after Clinton left
office.
So tell us about this Clinton recession. You know recessions usually
last about 18-24 months, and it's been longer than that since Clinton
left office.
I'll leave it to you to explain how Putsch deserves credit for a
market that has lost over 1/6th of its value in seven years.
And, just for giggles, I'll ask you the same question that caused
Henny to blow sky high and scream viturpulations: what Clinton
policies caused this?
Oh joy, I'm back to being Henny again......
Translation; I'm dumb and would rather stalk people than debate them.
Steve
2008-01-05 22:32:30 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 09:52:42 -0800, "Kirk out..."
Post by Kirk out...
Post by Steve
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 07:51:15 -0800, 3905 Dead
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
Subject: #Dow smashes 13,000 mark! Thank you, President Bush!!!!
Despite the Clinton Recession, the DJIA is up 24% since Bush took
office. So he gets the blame when it goes down but no credit when
it goes up, right li'l partisan hack?
Well, let's see here.
On May 21st, 2001 (four and a half months after Clinton left office)
the DOW was at 11,337.92. Now it's at 12,800.18. That looks like
about HALF of a 24% gain. That would be 12%. Over nearly seven
years. And of course, it would only be eleven percent over where it
was Clinton's last year in office.
During that time, even if you just stick with the worthless Putsch
junta numbers for inflation, we've lost about 28% since May 2001,
which means that the market, using the most charitable estimations we
can, is worth 16% LESS than it was four months after Clinton left
office.
So tell us about this Clinton recession. You know recessions usually
last about 18-24 months, and it's been longer than that since Clinton
left office.
I'll leave it to you to explain how Putsch deserves credit for a
market that has lost over 1/6th of its value in seven years.
And, just for giggles, I'll ask you the same question that caused
Henny to blow sky high and scream viturpulations: what Clinton
policies caused this?
Oh joy, I'm back to being Henny again......
Translation; I'm dumb and would rather stalk people than debate them.
You do? be careful, though Remember that some kinds of staking
could be illegal.. So who are you going to stalk?



"Me, I'm a half-ass empath, and if I ingest the right chemicals,
telepath too -- but I *hate* it. Folks don't *like* it when ye
look inside their heads. Lost me some friends that way, and it
sucks. I do psychometry sometimes -- pick up vibes off objects
or things. And that sucks, too. Ever hold a murder weapon in
yer hand, and flash on it? You don't want to. I was handed a
real Nazi dagger once, by an asshole pseudo-friend who thought
it'd be a real trip. When I got done pukin' I busted his nose
for him."
--Greywolf Jamieson AKA PJWOLF Sep 13 1997
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.horror.werewolves/msg/aa602f6537936ca5?hl=en&




"I was a Senate Page for two years when I went to HS in Maryland. Why is
that hard to believe?"
--Milt.Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics/msg/45a41b2be7278eed?&q=senate+page


"Actually, I did misspeak on that one. One year in the House and one
year in the Senate."
--MilT.Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/06a060ef017bf1a0

No one has ever been both a Senate and a House page and no one has ever been a page for five years.

NOTE: Cox was fired in 1973.. Gingrich was first elected in 1978...


Archibald Cox was as fair a man as there ever was; THAT IS WHY NIXON FIRED
HIS ASS!! Spark, I would think you'd do more reading during your month in
exile. I was a page for someone on the judiciary committee at the time,
and none other than Bob Dole said that Archie Cox was a "fine man"...
--Milt.Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics/msg/bb35672e77b8808a


"I was a page when Newt first
started, and I thought he was an asshole then, and I've been waiting for
soething to change my mind. Nothing yet.."
--Milt.Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/23e7664bf86121dc
3905 Dead
2008-01-07 00:38:50 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 09:52:42 -0800, "Kirk out..."
Post by Kirk out...
Post by Steve
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 07:51:15 -0800, 3905 Dead
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
Subject: #Dow smashes 13,000 mark! Thank you, President Bush!!!!
Despite the Clinton Recession, the DJIA is up 24% since Bush took
office. So he gets the blame when it goes down but no credit when
it goes up, right li'l partisan hack?
Well, let's see here.
On May 21st, 2001 (four and a half months after Clinton left office)
the DOW was at 11,337.92. Now it's at 12,800.18. That looks like
about HALF of a 24% gain. That would be 12%. Over nearly seven
years. And of course, it would only be eleven percent over where it
was Clinton's last year in office.
During that time, even if you just stick with the worthless Putsch
junta numbers for inflation, we've lost about 28% since May 2001,
which means that the market, using the most charitable estimations we
can, is worth 16% LESS than it was four months after Clinton left
office.
So tell us about this Clinton recession. You know recessions usually
last about 18-24 months, and it's been longer than that since Clinton
left office.
I'll leave it to you to explain how Putsch deserves credit for a
market that has lost over 1/6th of its value in seven years.
And, just for giggles, I'll ask you the same question that caused
Henny to blow sky high and scream viturpulations: what Clinton
policies caused this?
Oh joy, I'm back to being Henny again......
Translation; I'm dumb and would rather stalk people than debate them.
Well, he really did paint himself into a corner trying to defend
Putsch.

More fool he.
--

What do you call a Republican with a conscience?

An ex-Republican.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)

"I simply can not believe this is what the Republican party has
become. I just can’t. It just makes me sick to think all those years
of supporting this party, and this is what it has become. Even if you
don’t like the S-Chip expansion, it is hard to deny what Republicans
are- a bunch of bitter, nasty, petty, snarling, sneering, vicious
thugs, peering through people’s windows so they can make fun of their
misfortune.

I’m registering Independent tomorrow."

Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001

Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News-***@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essays-***@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Steve
2008-01-07 01:28:36 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 16:38:50 -0800, 3905 Dead
Post by Steve
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 09:52:42 -0800, "Kirk out..."
Post by Kirk out...
Post by Steve
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 07:51:15 -0800, 3905 Dead
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
Subject: #Dow smashes 13,000 mark! Thank you, President Bush!!!!
Despite the Clinton Recession, the DJIA is up 24% since Bush took
office. So he gets the blame when it goes down but no credit when
it goes up, right li'l partisan hack?
Well, let's see here.
On May 21st, 2001 (four and a half months after Clinton left office)
the DOW was at 11,337.92. Now it's at 12,800.18. That looks like
about HALF of a 24% gain. That would be 12%. Over nearly seven
years. And of course, it would only be eleven percent over where it
was Clinton's last year in office.
During that time, even if you just stick with the worthless Putsch
junta numbers for inflation, we've lost about 28% since May 2001,
which means that the market, using the most charitable estimations we
can, is worth 16% LESS than it was four months after Clinton left
office.
So tell us about this Clinton recession. You know recessions usually
last about 18-24 months, and it's been longer than that since Clinton
left office.
I'll leave it to you to explain how Putsch deserves credit for a
market that has lost over 1/6th of its value in seven years.
And, just for giggles, I'll ask you the same question that caused
Henny to blow sky high and scream viturpulations: what Clinton
policies caused this?
Oh joy, I'm back to being Henny again......
Translation; I'm dumb and would rather stalk people than debate them.
Well, he really did paint himself into a corner trying to defend
Putsch.
What corner is that?
Post by Steve
More fool he.
Irony anyone?



If Nevermore tries paying cap gains with a 1040, he'll
be in jail soon enough.
--Zepp Jamieson, Dec 3, 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/30fdaff423e2029b?hl=en&


See line 13 on the 1040 form, under income, as shown below, is
clearly where you report your capital gains.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040.pdf






"I was a Senate Page for two years when I went to HS in Maryland. Why is
that hard to believe?"
--Milt.Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics/msg/45a41b2be7278eed?&q=senate+page


"Actually, I did misspeak on that one. One year in the House and one
year in the Senate."
--MilT.Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/06a060ef017bf1a0

No one has ever been both a Senate and a House page and no one has ever been a page for five years.

NOTE: Cox was fired in 1973.. Gingrich was first elected in 1978...


Archibald Cox was as fair a man as there ever was; THAT IS WHY NIXON FIRED
HIS ASS!! Spark, I would think you'd do more reading during your month in
exile. I was a page for someone on the judiciary committee at the time,
and none other than Bob Dole said that Archie Cox was a "fine man"...
--Milt.Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics/msg/bb35672e77b8808a


"I was a page when Newt first
started, and I thought he was an asshole then, and I've been waiting for
soething to change my mind. Nothing yet.."
--Milt.Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/23e7664bf86121dc
Foxtrot
2008-01-05 19:34:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
Despite the Clinton Recession, the DJIA is up 24% since Bush took
office. So he gets the blame when it goes down but no credit when
it goes up, right li'l partisan hack?
Well, let's see here.
On May 21st, 2001 (four and a half months after Clinton left office)
the DOW was at 11,337.92. Now it's at 12,800.18. That looks like
about HALF of a 24% gain. That would be 12%.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=%5EDJI&a=00&b=20&c=2001&d=00&e=5&f=2008&g=d

DJIA

01/19/2001 close 10,587.56
01/04/2008 close 12,800.18

20.90% gain. Thanks to the tax cuts.

Not too bad, considering we had to recover from the Clinton
Recession and 9/11.
Post by 3905 Dead
Over nearly seven
years. And of course, it would only be eleven percent over where it
was Clinton's last year in office.
Billy's economic legacy:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38826-2004Jan22?language=printer

Economists Say Recession Started in 2000
Post by 3905 Dead
During that time, even if you just stick with the worthless Putsch
junta numbers for inflation, we've lost about 28% since May 2001,
What makes May 2001 so important? Obviously your handlers
(moveon.org?) pulled it out of the blue because they think it's
when they can make Bush look worst.
Post by 3905 Dead
So tell us about this Clinton recession. You know recessions usually
last about 18-24 months, and it's been longer than that since Clinton
left office.
"Usually" doesn't mean squat. The downturn began while BJ
was still polluting the Oval Office with McDonalds wrappers. The
economy had artificially expanded by the dot com hysteria, and
you're trying to give Billy credit for it.
Post by 3905 Dead
I'll leave it to you to explain how Putsch deserves credit for a
market that has lost over 1/6th of its value in seven years.
Cite. IIRC house prices have increased annually by double digits
in the last half dozen or so years. Prices were artificially high and
a correction was imminent.

An overly zealous credit market fed that hysteria, so a correction
in that market was imminent too.
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
These indicators should terrify voters away from voting for Dems.
They will certainly raise taxes, which will take money out of the
economy, worsening the economic outlook. Dems will also make it
more difficult to explore, drill and refine more oil, driving up the
cost of fuel even more. Thus hurting the economy even more.
Putting a dent in the huge deficits Putsch is running will help the
economy. Every year just the cost of financing the debt rises another
$30 billion or so. That's one nasty hidden tax the Pubs have bestowed
upon up.
Yeah his big spending sucks. Better than Al Grrrr and Ketchup Boy
though.
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
Good reason to round up the illegal aliens and boot their asses
out of the country. There is a finite number of jobs. They will either
go to Americans or illegal alien job thieves. American workers,
you decide who gets those crucial jobs.
We had illegal aliens in 2000, and for the previous eight years job
growth AVERAGED 150,000 a month. And of course, these days you need a
much bigger number than that just to break even.
Are you actually claiming that illegals help our economy? FYI it
costs about $10,000 to put each one of their brats through public
schools every year. And thousands more to give them medical
care.

Yeah paying them $10 an hour to sweep our floors has saved
the economy sooo fucking much from paying American teens
$12 an hour for doing the same work.
Post by 3905 Dead
So how come you whine about aliens taking jobs you wouldn't do, but
you can't bring yourself to whine about all the good manufacturing
jobs that went overseas?
Those good jobs went overseas because your allies in the labor
unions demanded that blue collar workers should make higher
wages than college graduates. So naturally other countries could
fill those jobs much cheaper.
Mitchell Holman
2008-01-05 20:28:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Foxtrot
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
Despite the Clinton Recession, the DJIA is up 24% since Bush took
office. So he gets the blame when it goes down but no credit when
it goes up, right li'l partisan hack?
Well, let's see here.
On May 21st, 2001 (four and a half months after Clinton left office)
the DOW was at 11,337.92. Now it's at 12,800.18. That looks like
about HALF of a 24% gain. That would be 12%.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=%5EDJI&a=00&b=20&c=2001&d=00&e=5&f=2008
&g=d
Post by Foxtrot
DJIA
01/19/2001 close 10,587.56
01/04/2008 close 12,800.18
20.90% gain. Thanks to the tax cuts.
1/19/1993 close 3,256
1/19/2001 close 10,587

322% gain, thanks to the tax raises.

Thanks, Clinton.
Foxtrot
2008-01-05 20:55:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by 3905 Dead
Well, let's see here.
On May 21st, 2001 (four and a half months after Clinton left office)
the DOW was at 11,337.92. Now it's at 12,800.18. That looks like
about HALF of a 24% gain. That would be 12%.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=%5EDJI&a=00&b=20&c=2001&d=00&e=5&f=2008&g=d
DJIA
01/19/2001 close 10,587.56
01/04/2008 close 12,800.18
20.90% gain. Thanks to the tax cuts.
1/19/1993 close 3,256
1/19/2001 close 10,587
Ah yes, thank you Mr Reagan for cutting taxes so much that you
gave us a generation of prosperity (except for the glitch caused
by dumbass Bush41's tax hike).

By cutting the top marginal rates from 70+% to 28%, he put huge
amounts of money into the economy where it belongs. Not in the
paws of corrupt politicians.
Post by Mitchell Holman
322% gain, thanks to the tax raises.
Tax HIKES improving the economy?!? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAA

Oh please share your theory with us Mitchy. Let me guess. By
confiscating all that money from those ignorant folks who earned it
and "investing" it in bureaucracies, BJ saved us from the effort
of having to manage our own money. Right?
Post by Mitchell Holman
Thanks, Clinton.
Say Mitchy. If BJ was so wonderful how come with all of his aura
Battleax was humiliated in THIRD PLACE in Iowa? Guess your own
party doesn't worship him like you eh? Heh
Mitchell Holman
2008-01-05 23:21:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by 3905 Dead
Well, let's see here.
On May 21st, 2001 (four and a half months after Clinton left office)
the DOW was at 11,337.92. Now it's at 12,800.18. That looks like
about HALF of a 24% gain. That would be 12%.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=%5EDJI&a=00&b=20&c=2001&d=00&e=5&f=2008
&g=d
DJIA
01/19/2001 close 10,587.56
01/04/2008 close 12,800.18
20.90% gain. Thanks to the tax cuts.
1/19/1993 close 3,256
1/19/2001 close 10,587
Ah yes, thank you Mr Reagan for cutting taxes so much that you
gave us a generation of prosperity (except for the glitch caused
by dumbass Bush41's tax hike).
By cutting the top marginal rates from 70+% to 28%, he put huge
amounts of money into the economy where it belongs. Not in the
paws of corrupt politicians.
Yep. Reagan cut taxes and the deficit zoomed so
high that even Bush 41 was forced to raise them again
to pay off the debts.
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
322% gain, thanks to the tax raises.
Got that?

Under Clinton, a *322%* rise in the stock market.

Under Bush, a paltry 22% rise.

Case closed.........;)
Foxtrot
2008-01-06 01:00:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
1/19/1993 close 3,256
1/19/2001 close 10,587
Ah yes, thank you Mr Reagan for cutting taxes so much that you
gave us a generation of prosperity (except for the glitch caused
by dumbass Bush41's tax hike).
By cutting the top marginal rates from 70+% to 28%, he put huge
amounts of money into the economy where it belongs. Not in the
paws of corrupt politicians.
Yep. Reagan cut taxes and the deficit zoomed so
high that even Bush 41 was forced to raise them again
to pay off the debts.
The modern economic boom began under Ronald Reagan Mitchy.
Under Jimmy's disastrous presidency the DJIA actually fell. Under
Reagan it rose 238%. It has been rising at a robust rate ever since.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
322% gain, thanks to the tax raises.
Got that?
Under Clinton, a *322%* rise in the stock market.
Under Bush, a paltry 22% rise.
Case closed.........;)
Still waiting for that explanation of exactly how raising taxes makes
the economy grow. I see you even snipped the question! LOL
Mitchell Holman
2008-01-06 01:27:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
1/19/1993 close 3,256
1/19/2001 close 10,587
Ah yes, thank you Mr Reagan for cutting taxes so much that you
gave us a generation of prosperity (except for the glitch caused
by dumbass Bush41's tax hike).
By cutting the top marginal rates from 70+% to 28%, he put huge
amounts of money into the economy where it belongs. Not in the
paws of corrupt politicians.
Yep. Reagan cut taxes and the deficit zoomed so
high that even Bush 41 was forced to raise them again
to pay off the debts.
The modern economic boom began under Ronald Reagan Mitchy.
And came crashing down in the 1990-91 Recession.

Or was that Clinton's fault too?
Post by Foxtrot
Under Jimmy's disastrous presidency the DJIA actually fell.
What does that have to do with anything?
Post by Foxtrot
Under Reagan it rose 238%.
Under Clinton it rose ---> 322% <---
Post by Foxtrot
It has been rising at a robust rate ever since.
Funny you are forgetting Black Monday, the biggest
stock market collapse in a generation.

In 1987.

At the end of Reagan's term.

Must be Clinton's fault too, eh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Monday_(1987)
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
322% gain, thanks to the tax raises.
Got that?
Under Clinton, a *322%* rise in the stock market.
Under Bush, a paltry 22% rise.
Case closed.........;)
Still waiting for that explanation of exactly how raising taxes makes
the economy grow. I see you even snipped the question! LOL
You don't think balanced federal budgets help the
economy? You think massive borrowing and a dollar so
weak that even Indians won't accept them is a good thing?

Economics wasn't included in your home schooling
materials, it seems..............
Foxtrot
2008-01-06 02:03:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
By cutting the top marginal rates from 70+% to 28%, he put huge
amounts of money into the economy where it belongs. Not in the
paws of corrupt politicians.
Yep. Reagan cut taxes and the deficit zoomed so
high that even Bush 41 was forced to raise them again
to pay off the debts.
The modern economic boom began under Ronald Reagan Mitchy.
And came crashing down in the 1990-91 Recession.
Or was that Clinton's fault too?
You *are* aware that the DJIA rose 39% during Bush41's term
aren't you?
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Under Jimmy's disastrous presidency the DJIA actually fell.
What does that have to do with anything?
It shows the trend PRIOR to Reagan.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Under Reagan it rose 238%.
The beginning of the Reagan boom!
Post by Mitchell Holman
Under Clinton it rose ---> 322% <---
The continuation of the Reagan boom!
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
It has been rising at a robust rate ever since.
Funny you are forgetting Black Monday, the biggest
stock market collapse in a generation.
In 1987.
At the end of Reagan's term.
Must be Clinton's fault too, eh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Monday_(1987)
You *are* aware that when Reagan left office in 1989 the DJIA
was 27% higher than its low that day aren't you Mitchy?
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Under Clinton, a *322%* rise in the stock market.
Under Bush, a paltry 22% rise.
Case closed.........;)
Still waiting for that explanation of exactly how raising taxes makes
the economy grow. I see you even snipped the question! LOL
You don't think balanced federal budgets help the
economy? You think massive borrowing and a dollar so
weak that even Indians won't accept them is a good thing?
Economics wasn't included in your home schooling
materials, it seems..............
See that folks? Mitchy made the following claim:

"322% gain, thanks to the tax raises."

But when asked for any plausible explanation, we get the sound
of crickets.

Let's examine his knee slapping laugh riot a few more times ...

"322% gain, thanks to the tax raises."
"322% gain, thanks to the tax raises."
"322% gain, thanks to the tax raises."
"322% gain, thanks to the tax raises."

ROFLMAO!!!
Mitchell Holman
2008-01-06 03:02:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
By cutting the top marginal rates from 70+% to 28%, he put huge
amounts of money into the economy where it belongs. Not in the
paws of corrupt politicians.
Yep. Reagan cut taxes and the deficit zoomed so
high that even Bush 41 was forced to raise them again
to pay off the debts.
The modern economic boom began under Ronald Reagan Mitchy.
And came crashing down in the 1990-91 Recession.
Or was that Clinton's fault too?
You *are* aware that the DJIA rose 39% during Bush41's term
aren't you?
Compared to Clintons's ---> 322% <---?

Yeah, sure. So?
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Under Jimmy's disastrous presidency the DJIA actually fell.
What does that have to do with anything?
It shows the trend PRIOR to Reagan.
If that is important to you.
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Under Reagan it rose 238%.
The beginning of the Reagan boom!
Post by Mitchell Holman
Under Clinton it rose ---> 322% <---
The continuation of the Reagan boom!
Didn't you just say that Bush 41 only
posted a measley 39%?

Darned that Reagan legacy.
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
It has been rising at a robust rate ever since.
Funny you are forgetting Black Monday, the biggest
stock market collapse in a generation.
In 1987.
At the end of Reagan's term.
Must be Clinton's fault too, eh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Monday_(1987)
You *are* aware that when Reagan left office in 1989 the DJIA
was 27% higher than its low that day aren't you Mitchy?
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Under Clinton, a *322%* rise in the stock market.
Under Bush, a paltry 22% rise.
Case closed.........;)
Still waiting for that explanation of exactly how raising taxes makes
the economy grow. I see you even snipped the question! LOL
You don't think balanced federal budgets help the
economy? You think massive borrowing and a dollar so
weak that even Indians won't accept them is a good thing?
Economics wasn't included in your home schooling
materials, it seems..............
"322% gain, thanks to the tax raises."
But when asked for any plausible explanation, we get the sound
of crickets.
Let's examine his knee slapping laugh riot a few more times ...
"322% gain, thanks to the tax raises."
"322% gain, thanks to the tax raises."
"322% gain, thanks to the tax raises."
"322% gain, thanks to the tax raises."
Reagan lowered taxes, stock market rose 238%

Clinton raised taxes, stock market rose 322%


Which is the bigger number, "Foxtrot"?
Foxtrot
2008-01-06 04:33:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
The modern economic boom began under Ronald Reagan Mitchy.
And came crashing down in the 1990-91 Recession.
Or was that Clinton's fault too?
You *are* aware that the DJIA rose 39% during Bush41's term
aren't you?
Compared to Clintons's ---> 322% <---?
Yeah, sure. So?
Reagan brought down the Berlin Wall but it actually fell *after*
he left office. A president's legacy remains after he leaves office.

The stock market continued to rise into the 90s after Reagan's
tax cuts pumped so much into the economy in the 80s.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Under Clinton it rose ---> 322% <---
The continuation of the Reagan boom!
Didn't you just say that Bush 41 only
posted a measley 39%?
Darned that Reagan legacy.
I explained this to you. Bush41 was duped by Dems in congress
to hike taxes. It temporarily but not permanently slowed the Reagan
boom.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
It has been rising at a robust rate ever since.
Funny you are forgetting Black Monday, the biggest
stock market collapse in a generation.
In 1987.
At the end of Reagan's term.
Must be Clinton's fault too, eh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Monday_(1987)
You *are* aware that when Reagan left office in 1989 the DJIA
was 27% higher than its low that day aren't you Mitchy?
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Under Clinton, a *322%* rise in the stock market.
Under Bush, a paltry 22% rise.
Case closed.........;)
Still waiting for that explanation of exactly how raising taxes makes
the economy grow. I see you even snipped the question! LOL
You don't think balanced federal budgets help the
economy? You think massive borrowing and a dollar so
weak that even Indians won't accept them is a good thing?
Economics wasn't included in your home schooling
materials, it seems..............
"322% gain, thanks to the tax raises."
But when asked for any plausible explanation, we get the sound
of crickets.
Let's examine his knee slapping laugh riot a few more times ...
"322% gain, thanks to the tax raises."
"322% gain, thanks to the tax raises."
"322% gain, thanks to the tax raises."
"322% gain, thanks to the tax raises."
Reagan lowered taxes, stock market rose 238%
Clinton raised taxes, stock market rose 322%
It's called post hoc ergo propter hoc Mitchy. It goes like this. I
took a big crap yesterday and I found a quarter today. Therefore
my dump caused me to find the quarter!

That's how lame your attempt to credit BJ for Reagan's economic
boom is.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Which is the bigger number, "Foxtrot"?
I've presented a perfectly viable explanation of how Reagan
brought us great prosperity. I'm still waiting for your theory about
how raising taxes leads to prosperity. <Snicker>
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
"322% gain, thanks to the tax raises."
"322% gain, thanks to the tax raises."
"322% gain, thanks to the tax raises."
HAR HAR HAW HEE HAR HAW HEEE HAAA!!!
Epileptic Gamer
2008-01-06 06:04:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
The modern economic boom began under Ronald Reagan Mitchy.
And came crashing down in the 1990-91 Recession.
Or was that Clinton's fault too?
You *are* aware that the DJIA rose 39% during Bush41's term
aren't you?
Compared to Clintons's ---> 322% <---?
Yeah, sure. So?
Reagan brought down the Berlin Wall but it actually fell *after*
he left office. A president's legacy remains after he leaves office.
Osama bin Ladin brought down Russia, the Wall and TardBush.
3905 Dead
2008-01-06 15:40:54 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 06:04:20 GMT, "Epileptic Gamer"
Post by Epileptic Gamer
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
The modern economic boom began under Ronald Reagan Mitchy.
And came crashing down in the 1990-91 Recession.
Or was that Clinton's fault too?
You *are* aware that the DJIA rose 39% during Bush41's term
aren't you?
Compared to Clintons's ---> 322% <---?
Yeah, sure. So?
Reagan brought down the Berlin Wall but it actually fell *after*
he left office. A president's legacy remains after he leaves office.
Osama bin Ladin brought down Russia, the Wall and TardBush.
Well, Afghanistan did. OBL was a bit player in those days, didn't
really rise to prominance until about 1995.

But the USSR bled itself dry in its little Afghanistan adventure. Land
wars in southwest Asia never seem to pan out for the superpowers
involved.
--

What do you call a Republican with a conscience?

An ex-Republican.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)

"I simply can not believe this is what the Republican party has
become. I just can’t. It just makes me sick to think all those years
of supporting this party, and this is what it has become. Even if you
don’t like the S-Chip expansion, it is hard to deny what Republicans
are- a bunch of bitter, nasty, petty, snarling, sneering, vicious
thugs, peering through people’s windows so they can make fun of their
misfortune.

I’m registering Independent tomorrow."

Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001

Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News-***@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essays-***@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Mitchell Holman
2008-01-06 07:33:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
The modern economic boom began under Ronald Reagan Mitchy.
And came crashing down in the 1990-91 Recession.
Or was that Clinton's fault too?
You *are* aware that the DJIA rose 39% during Bush41's term
aren't you?
Compared to Clintons's ---> 322% <---?
Yeah, sure. So?
Reagan brought down the Berlin Wall but it actually fell *after*
he left office. A president's legacy remains after he leaves office.
So Carter's policies are responsible for the
"Reagan boom", right?
Post by Foxtrot
The stock market continued to rise into the 90s after Reagan's
tax cuts pumped so much into the economy in the 80s.
Aren't you forgetting about Black Monday?
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Under Clinton it rose ---> 322% <---
The continuation of the Reagan boom!
Didn't you just say that Bush 41 only
posted a measley 39%?
Darned that Reagan legacy.
I explained this to you. Bush41 was duped by Dems in congress
to hike taxes. It temporarily but not permanently slowed the Reagan
boom.
Gads. Poor little Bush, lured from the TRUE PATH of
Reaganomics by those nasty democrats.

The poor dear. Maybe we should take up a collection
for him or something.
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
It has been rising at a robust rate ever since.
Funny you are forgetting Black Monday, the biggest
stock market collapse in a generation.
In 1987.
At the end of Reagan's term.
Must be Clinton's fault too, eh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Monday_(1987)
You *are* aware that when Reagan left office in 1989 the DJIA
was 27% higher than its low that day aren't you Mitchy?
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Under Clinton, a *322%* rise in the stock market.
Under Bush, a paltry 22% rise.
Case closed.........;)
Still waiting for that explanation of exactly how raising taxes makes
the economy grow. I see you even snipped the question! LOL
You don't think balanced federal budgets help the
economy? You think massive borrowing and a dollar so
weak that even Indians won't accept them is a good thing?
Economics wasn't included in your home schooling
materials, it seems..............
"322% gain, thanks to the tax raises."
But when asked for any plausible explanation, we get the sound
of crickets.
Let's examine his knee slapping laugh riot a few more times ...
"322% gain, thanks to the tax raises."
"322% gain, thanks to the tax raises."
"322% gain, thanks to the tax raises."
"322% gain, thanks to the tax raises."
Reagan lowered taxes, stock market rose 238%
Clinton raised taxes, stock market rose 322%
It's called post hoc ergo propter hoc Mitchy. It goes like this. I
took a big crap yesterday and I found a quarter today. Therefore
my dump caused me to find the quarter!
What you find in your diaper has no bearing on the
fact that Clinton's policies outperformed Reagans policies
and Bush's policies PUT TOGETHER.
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Which is the bigger number, "Foxtrot"?
I've presented a perfectly viable explanation of how Reagan
brought us great prosperity.
Reagan's policies produced the stock market crash of
1987 and the recession of 1990, a catastrophe so bad that
even his own VP had to raise taxes to fix it.
Foxtrot
2008-01-06 08:39:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
You *are* aware that the DJIA rose 39% during Bush41's term
aren't you?
Compared to Clintons's ---> 322% <---?
Yeah, sure. So?
Reagan brought down the Berlin Wall but it actually fell *after*
he left office. A president's legacy remains after he leaves office.
So Carter's policies are responsible for the
"Reagan boom", right?
Jimmy's trend was DOWNward Mitchy. Mr Reagan's trend was
sharply UPward. FYI they are not the same.

Carter = down = bad.
Reagan = beginning of longlasting upward trend = good.

Get it yet?
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
The stock market continued to rise into the 90s after Reagan's
tax cuts pumped so much into the economy in the 80s.
Aren't you forgetting about Black Monday?
A minor glitch. As I said, the DJIA was 27% higher on the day
that Reagan left office than it closed at on that day. Your beloved
"Black Monday" is absolutely meaningless.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Didn't you just say that Bush 41 only
posted a measley 39%?
Darned that Reagan legacy.
I explained this to you. Bush41 was duped by Dems in congress
to hike taxes. It temporarily but not permanently slowed the Reagan
boom.
Gads. Poor little Bush, lured from the TRUE PATH of
Reaganomics by those nasty democrats.
Ah yes, sad but true. Bush41 was a stupid patsy for the likes of
George Mitchell.
Post by Mitchell Holman
The poor dear. Maybe we should take up a collection
for him or something.
Nah screw him. He got what he deserved. Unlike you who are
a shill for the DNC, I happen to be objective and am quite
comfortable criticizing those on my side of the aisle. My
objectivity is one of many reasons why I'm a superior political
conversationalist than you are, my clueless liberal friend.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Under Clinton, a *322%* rise in the stock market.
Because of those tax hikes right? Teeheeeheeheehee
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
"322% gain, thanks to the tax raises."
But when asked for any plausible explanation, we get the sound
of crickets.
Let's examine his knee slapping laugh riot a few more times ...
"322% gain, thanks to the tax raises."
Still <crickets>.

Mitchy is the most well armed lib on usenet when it comes
to presenting links to back up his claims. But surprise! He has
*nothing* to back up his claims that BJ's tax hikes magically
brought us prosperity. IOW he knows perfectly well that I have
busted him for trying to bullshit us. Admit it Mitchy! Heheheh
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Reagan lowered taxes, stock market rose 238%
Clinton raised taxes, stock market rose 322%
It's called post hoc ergo propter hoc Mitchy. It goes like this. I
took a big crap yesterday and I found a quarter today. Therefore
my dump caused me to find the quarter!
What you find in your diaper has no bearing on the
fact that Clinton's policies outperformed Reagans policies
and Bush's policies PUT TOGETHER.
My bowel movements bear a striking resemblance to your
arguments Mitchy.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Which is the bigger number, "Foxtrot"?
I've presented a perfectly viable explanation of how Reagan
brought us great prosperity.
Reagan's policies produced the stock market crash of
1987 and the recession of 1990, a catastrophe so bad that
even his own VP had to raise taxes to fix it.
Um Mitchy, the DJIA on the day that Reagan left office was 238%
what it was when he assumed office. Ain't no amount of spin on
earth can turn that kind of a boom into a crash.

Still no explanation of BJ's tax hikes leading to what happened
on Wall Street. Why don't you show some dignity and admit that
you made it up?
Mitchell Holman
2008-01-06 13:40:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
You *are* aware that the DJIA rose 39% during Bush41's term
aren't you?
Compared to Clintons's ---> 322% <---?
Yeah, sure. So?
Reagan brought down the Berlin Wall but it actually fell *after*
he left office. A president's legacy remains after he leaves office.
So Carter's policies are responsible for the
"Reagan boom", right?
Jimmy's trend was DOWNward Mitchy. Mr Reagan's trend was
sharply UPward. FYI they are not the same.
Carter = down = bad.
Reagan = beginning of longlasting upward trend = good.
Get it yet?
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
The stock market continued to rise into the 90s after Reagan's
tax cuts pumped so much into the economy in the 80s.
Aren't you forgetting about Black Monday?
A minor glitch. As I said, the DJIA was 27% higher on the day
that Reagan left office than it closed at on that day. Your beloved
"Black Monday" is absolutely meaningless.
The largest stock market drop in decades wasn't
meaningless to the people who lost money in it.
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Didn't you just say that Bush 41 only
posted a measley 39%?
Darned that Reagan legacy.
I explained this to you. Bush41 was duped by Dems in congress
to hike taxes. It temporarily but not permanently slowed the Reagan
boom.
Gads. Poor little Bush, lured from the TRUE PATH of
Reaganomics by those nasty democrats.
Ah yes, sad but true. Bush41 was a stupid patsy for the likes of
George Mitchell.
I sse. A Republican president never does anything
wrong, and if he does it is all the fault of Democrats.
Has any Republican been at fault for anything, or are
they all Gods to you?
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
The poor dear. Maybe we should take up a collection
for him or something.
Nah screw him. He got what he deserved. Unlike you who are
a shill for the DNC, I happen to be objective and am quite
comfortable criticizing those on my side of the aisle. My
objectivity is one of many reasons why I'm a superior political
conversationalist than you are, my clueless liberal friend.
Your starry-adulation of all things Republican
preceds you. It is naive and childish, but cute.
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Under Clinton, a *322%* rise in the stock market.
Because of those tax hikes right? Teeheeeheeheehee
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
"322% gain, thanks to the tax raises."
But when asked for any plausible explanation, we get the sound
of crickets.
Let's examine his knee slapping laugh riot a few more times ...
"322% gain, thanks to the tax raises."
Still <crickets>.
Mitchy is the most well armed lib on usenet when it comes
to presenting links to back up his claims. But surprise! He has
*nothing* to back up his claims that BJ's tax hikes magically
brought us prosperity. IOW he knows perfectly well that I have
busted him for trying to bullshit us. Admit it Mitchy! Heheheh
Reagan lowered taxes, stock market rose 238%

Clinton raised taxes, stock market rose 322%


Pity poor "Foxtrot" can't deal with said FACTS
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Reagan lowered taxes, stock market rose 238%
Clinton raised taxes, stock market rose 322%
It's called post hoc ergo propter hoc Mitchy. It goes like this. I
took a big crap yesterday and I found a quarter today. Therefore
my dump caused me to find the quarter!
What you find in your diaper has no bearing on the
fact that Clinton's policies outperformed Reagans policies
and Bush's policies PUT TOGETHER.
My bowel movements bear a striking resemblance to your
arguments Mitchy.
Do you pick thru them daily to see what parts
you can post here? Maybe there is a 12-step program
that can help you with this anal fixation of yours.
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Which is the bigger number, "Foxtrot"?
Here they are agains, so you ignore them again.


Reagan, stock market rose 238%

Bush 41, stock market rose 39%

Clinton, stock market rose --> 322% <---
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
I've presented a perfectly viable explanation of how Reagan
brought us great prosperity.
Reagan's policies produced the stock market crash of
1987 and the recession of 1990, a catastrophe so bad that
even his own VP had to raise taxes to fix it.
Um Mitchy, the DJIA on the day that Reagan left office was 238%
what it was when he assumed office.
And Clinton did EVEN BETTER.

Why do you hate success?
Post by Foxtrot
Still no explanation of BJ's tax hikes leading to what happened
on Wall Street. Why don't you show some dignity and admit that
you made it up?
I already showed you how, you deleted it, like
the slimey coward you are. Why do you hate Clinton's
success at boosting the stock market, reducing the
unemployment rate and eliminating the deficit? Do
you all Americans, or just the successful ones?
Steve
2008-01-06 14:16:29 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 07:40:49 -0600, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
You *are* aware that the DJIA rose 39% during Bush41's term
aren't you?
Compared to Clintons's ---> 322% <---?
Yeah, sure. So?
Reagan brought down the Berlin Wall but it actually fell *after*
he left office. A president's legacy remains after he leaves office.
So Carter's policies are responsible for the
"Reagan boom", right?
Jimmy's trend was DOWNward Mitchy. Mr Reagan's trend was
sharply UPward. FYI they are not the same.
Carter = down = bad.
Reagan = beginning of longlasting upward trend = good.
Get it yet?
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
The stock market continued to rise into the 90s after Reagan's
tax cuts pumped so much into the economy in the 80s.
Aren't you forgetting about Black Monday?
A minor glitch. As I said, the DJIA was 27% higher on the day
that Reagan left office than it closed at on that day. Your beloved
"Black Monday" is absolutely meaningless.
The largest stock market drop in decades wasn't
meaningless to the people who lost money in it.
The only people who lose money in any recent overall stock market drop
are the chicken shits that bail, proving once again that stupidity
doesn't pay....




"I was a Senate Page for two years when I went to HS in Maryland. Why is
that hard to believe?"
--Milt.Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics/msg/45a41b2be7278eed?&q=senate+page


"Actually, I did misspeak on that one. One year in the House and one
year in the Senate."
--MilT.Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/06a060ef017bf1a0

No one has ever been both a Senate and a House page and no one has ever been a page for five years.

NOTE: Cox was fired in 1973.. Gingrich was first elected in 1978...


Archibald Cox was as fair a man as there ever was; THAT IS WHY NIXON FIRED
HIS ASS!! Spark, I would think you'd do more reading during your month in
exile. I was a page for someone on the judiciary committee at the time,
and none other than Bob Dole said that Archie Cox was a "fine man"...
--Milt.Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics/msg/bb35672e77b8808a


"I was a page when Newt first
started, and I thought he was an asshole then, and I've been waiting for
soething to change my mind. Nothing yet.."
--Milt.Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/23e7664bf86121dc
s***@gmail.com
2008-01-06 15:04:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 07:40:49 -0600, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
You *are* aware that the DJIA rose 39% during Bush41's term
aren't you?
Compared to Clintons's ---> 322% <---?
Yeah, sure. So?
Reagan brought down the Berlin Wall but it actually fell *after*
he left office. A president's legacy remains after he leaves office.
So Carter's policies are responsible for the
"Reagan boom", right?
Jimmy's trend was DOWNward Mitchy. Mr Reagan's trend was
sharply UPward. FYI they are not the same.
Carter = down = bad.
Reagan = beginning of longlasting upward trend = good.
Get it yet?
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
The stock market continued to rise into the 90s after Reagan's
tax cuts pumped so much into the economy in the 80s.
Aren't you forgetting about Black Monday?
A minor glitch. As I said, the DJIA was 27% higher on the day
that Reagan left office than it closed at on that day. Your beloved
"Black Monday" is absolutely meaningless.
The largest stock market drop in decades wasn't
meaningless to the people who lost money in it.
The only people who lose money in any recent overall stock market drop
are the chicken shits that bail, proving once again that stupidity
doesn't pay....
And once more, I prove that I know nothing about the market.
s***@yahoo.com
2008-01-07 00:17:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Steve
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 07:40:49 -0600, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
You *are* aware that the DJIA rose 39% during Bush41's term
aren't you?
Compared to Clintons's ---> 322% <---?
Yeah, sure. So?
Reagan brought down the Berlin Wall but it actually fell *after*
he left office. A president's legacy remains after he leaves office.
So Carter's policies are responsible for the
"Reagan boom", right?
Jimmy's trend was DOWNward Mitchy. Mr Reagan's trend was
sharply UPward. FYI they are not the same.
Carter = down = bad.
Reagan = beginning of longlasting upward trend = good.
Get it yet?
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
The stock market continued to rise into the 90s after Reagan's
tax cuts pumped so much into the economy in the 80s.
Aren't you forgetting about Black Monday?
A minor glitch. As I said, the DJIA was 27% higher on the day
that Reagan left office than it closed at on that day. Your beloved
"Black Monday" is absolutely meaningless.
The largest stock market drop in decades wasn't
meaningless to the people who lost money in it.
The only people who lose money in any recent overall stock market drop
are the chicken shits that bail, proving once again that stupidity
doesn't pay....
And once more, I prove that I know nothing about the market.
Why yes, Shook, we know you know nothing about the market.


"Yeah. If you bought the stock at $50 a share and it's now
worth $25, the shares have a negative equity of 50%. I mean,
DUH! You buy a share of stock in the hope that each share
will develop a positive equity, right? Well, a loss is
negative equity."
-- Milt.Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/cdf601a5bedc09d4?hl=en&
Foxtrot
2008-01-06 21:25:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Reagan brought down the Berlin Wall but it actually fell *after*
he left office. A president's legacy remains after he leaves office.
So Carter's policies are responsible for the
"Reagan boom", right?
Jimmy's trend was DOWNward Mitchy. Mr Reagan's trend was
sharply UPward. FYI they are not the same.
Carter = down = bad.
Reagan = beginning of longlasting upward trend = good.
Get it yet?
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
The stock market continued to rise into the 90s after Reagan's
tax cuts pumped so much into the economy in the 80s.
Aren't you forgetting about Black Monday?
A minor glitch. As I said, the DJIA was 27% higher on the day
that Reagan left office than it closed at on that day. Your beloved
"Black Monday" is absolutely meaningless.
The largest stock market drop in decades wasn't
meaningless to the people who lost money in it.
It was only a problem for the few if any investors who bought at
peak prices then sold shortly after the decline.

You're looking at one bad day during eight good years. You
are frantically searching for minor details about the Reagan
presidency to attack. Shows how desperate you are.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
I explained this to you. Bush41 was duped by Dems in congress
to hike taxes. It temporarily but not permanently slowed the Reagan
boom.
Gads. Poor little Bush, lured from the TRUE PATH of
Reaganomics by those nasty democrats.
Ah yes, sad but true. Bush41 was a stupid patsy for the likes of
George Mitchell.
I sse. A Republican president never does anything
wrong, and if he does it is all the fault of Democrats.
Has any Republican been at fault for anything, or are
they all Gods to you?
I said Bush41 was duped and a stupid patsy. I blast Bush43
regularly too. Does it sound like I believe Repubs never do
anything wrong?

Pay attention. Maybe you won't look so foolish.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
The poor dear. Maybe we should take up a collection
for him or something.
Nah screw him. He got what he deserved. Unlike you who are
a shill for the DNC, I happen to be objective and am quite
comfortable criticizing those on my side of the aisle. My
objectivity is one of many reasons why I'm a superior political
conversationalist than you are, my clueless liberal friend.
Your starry-adulation of all things Republican
preceds you. It is naive and childish, but cute.
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Bush41 was duped
Bush41 was a stupid patsy
Ah yes that "starry-adulation of all things Republican"!! LOL
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Foxtrot
"322% gain, thanks to the tax raises."
But when asked for any plausible explanation, we get the sound
of crickets.
Let's examine his knee slapping laugh riot a few more times ...
"322% gain, thanks to the tax raises."
Still <crickets>.
<Guffaw>
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Mitchy is the most well armed lib on usenet when it comes
to presenting links to back up his claims. But surprise! He has
*nothing* to back up his claims that BJ's tax hikes magically
brought us prosperity. IOW he knows perfectly well that I have
busted him for trying to bullshit us. Admit it Mitchy! Heheheh
Reagan lowered taxes, stock market rose 238%
Clinton raised taxes, stock market rose 322%
Pity poor "Foxtrot" can't deal with said FACTS
Still waiting to hear that cause and effect relationship Mitchy.

Here's the fallacy behind your claim that BJ's tax cuts magically
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
It's called post hoc ergo propter hoc Mitchy. It goes like this. I
took a big crap yesterday and I found a quarter today. Therefore
my dump caused me to find the quarter!
Here they are agains, so you ignore them again.
Reagan, stock market rose 238%
Because of the miracle of supply side economics!
Post by Mitchell Holman
Bush 41, stock market rose 39%
Residual of the Reagan boom (except for the 90-91 recession
caused in part by his idiotic tax hikes.)
Post by Mitchell Holman
Clinton, stock market rose --> 322% <---
Still caused by the low tax rates put in place by the wonderful
Ronald Wilson Reagan. Thank you Mr Reagan!
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
It's called post hoc ergo propter hoc Mitchy. It goes like this. I
took a big crap yesterday and I found a quarter today. Therefore
my dump caused me to find the quarter!
Um Mitchy, the DJIA on the day that Reagan left office was 238%
what it was when he assumed office.
And Clinton did EVEN BETTER.
Still waiting for you to explain exactly how tax hikes help the
economy? <Snicker>
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Still no explanation of BJ's tax hikes leading to what happened
on Wall Street. Why don't you show some dignity and admit that
you made it up?
I already showed you how, you deleted it, like
the slimey coward you are. Why do you hate Clinton's
success at boosting the stock market, reducing the
unemployment rate and eliminating the deficit? Do
you all Americans, or just the successful ones?
No you showed that one happened after the other. Not that
one could have possibly caused the other.
Mitchell Holman
2008-01-07 00:23:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Reagan brought down the Berlin Wall but it actually fell *after*
he left office. A president's legacy remains after he leaves office.
So Carter's policies are responsible for the
"Reagan boom", right?
Jimmy's trend was DOWNward Mitchy. Mr Reagan's trend was
sharply UPward. FYI they are not the same.
Carter = down = bad.
Reagan = beginning of longlasting upward trend = good.
Get it yet?
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
The stock market continued to rise into the 90s after Reagan's
tax cuts pumped so much into the economy in the 80s.
Aren't you forgetting about Black Monday?
A minor glitch. As I said, the DJIA was 27% higher on the day
that Reagan left office than it closed at on that day. Your beloved
"Black Monday" is absolutely meaningless.
The largest stock market drop in decades wasn't
meaningless to the people who lost money in it.
It was only a problem for the few if any investors who bought at
peak prices then sold shortly after the decline.
You're looking at one bad day during eight good years. You
are frantically searching for minor details about the Reagan
presidency to attack. Shows how desperate you are.
You claimed Reagan's stock market rise was unblemished.
Shows how ignorant of history you are.
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
I explained this to you. Bush41 was duped by Dems in congress
to hike taxes. It temporarily but not permanently slowed the Reagan
boom.
Gads. Poor little Bush, lured from the TRUE PATH of
Reaganomics by those nasty democrats.
Ah yes, sad but true. Bush41 was a stupid patsy for the likes of
George Mitchell.
I sse. A Republican president never does anything
wrong, and if he does it is all the fault of Democrats.
Has any Republican been at fault for anything, or are
they all Gods to you?
I said Bush41 was duped and a stupid patsy. I blast Bush43
regularly too. Does it sound like I believe Repubs never do
anything wrong?
You said Reagan in responsible for Clinton's
success and completely forgot the Recession of
1990-91. Do you know how stupid that makes you look?
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
The poor dear. Maybe we should take up a collection
for him or something.
Nah screw him. He got what he deserved. Unlike you who are
a shill for the DNC, I happen to be objective and am quite
comfortable criticizing those on my side of the aisle. My
objectivity is one of many reasons why I'm a superior political
conversationalist than you are, my clueless liberal friend.
Your starry-adulation of all things Republican
preceds you. It is naive and childish, but cute.
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Bush41 was duped
Bush41 was a stupid patsy
Ah yes that "starry-adulation of all things Republican"!! LOL
The facts speak for themselves. Too bad you are
so ignorant of them.
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Foxtrot
"322% gain, thanks to the tax raises."
But when asked for any plausible explanation, we get the sound
of crickets.
Let's examine his knee slapping laugh riot a few more times ...
"322% gain, thanks to the tax raises."
Still <crickets>.
<Guffaw>
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Mitchy is the most well armed lib on usenet when it comes
to presenting links to back up his claims. But surprise! He has
*nothing* to back up his claims that BJ's tax hikes magically
brought us prosperity. IOW he knows perfectly well that I have
busted him for trying to bullshit us. Admit it Mitchy! Heheheh
Reagan lowered taxes, stock market rose 238%
Clinton raised taxes, stock market rose 322%
Pity poor "Foxtrot" can't deal with said FACTS
Still waiting to hear that cause and effect relationship Mitchy.
Here's the fallacy behind your claim that BJ's tax cuts magically
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
It's called post hoc ergo propter hoc Mitchy. It goes like this. I
took a big crap yesterday and I found a quarter today. Therefore
my dump caused me to find the quarter!
Here they are agains, so you ignore them again.
Reagan, stock market rose 238%
Because of the miracle of supply side economics!
You mean the supply side economics that even Reagan's
own OMB director were admitted was sham just to fatten
the wallets of the rich?
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Bush 41, stock market rose 39%
Residual of the Reagan boom (except for the 90-91 recession
caused in part by his idiotic tax hikes.)
Post by Mitchell Holman
Clinton, stock market rose --> 322% <---
Still caused by the low tax rates put in place by the wonderful
Ronald Wilson Reagan. Thank you Mr Reagan!
Tax cuts are directly related to stock market
rallies but tax cuts are not? Is that what you
are saying?
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
It's called post hoc ergo propter hoc Mitchy. It goes like this. I
took a big crap yesterday and I found a quarter today. Therefore
my dump caused me to find the quarter!
Um Mitchy, the DJIA on the day that Reagan left office was 238%
what it was when he assumed office.
And Clinton did EVEN BETTER.
Still waiting for you to explain exactly how tax hikes help the
economy? <Snicker>
See above.
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Still no explanation of BJ's tax hikes leading to what happened
on Wall Street. Why don't you show some dignity and admit that
you made it up?
I already showed you how, you deleted it, like
the slimey coward you are. Why do you hate Clinton's
success at boosting the stock market, reducing the
unemployment rate and eliminating the deficit? Do
you all Americans, or just the successful ones?
No you showed that one happened after the other. Not that
one could have possibly caused the other.
Clinton brought the US out of the Reagan/Bush
recession, cleaned up Reagan's S&L bailout fiasco,
all while reducing unemployment, reducing poverty,
reducing crime, and tripling the stock market.

Why do you hate success?
3905 Dead
2008-01-07 00:37:16 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 18:23:55 -0600, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Reagan brought down the Berlin Wall but it actually fell *after*
he left office. A president's legacy remains after he leaves office.
So Carter's policies are responsible for the
"Reagan boom", right?
Jimmy's trend was DOWNward Mitchy. Mr Reagan's trend was
sharply UPward. FYI they are not the same.
Carter = down = bad.
Reagan = beginning of longlasting upward trend = good.
Get it yet?
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
The stock market continued to rise into the 90s after Reagan's
tax cuts pumped so much into the economy in the 80s.
Aren't you forgetting about Black Monday?
A minor glitch. As I said, the DJIA was 27% higher on the day
that Reagan left office than it closed at on that day. Your beloved
"Black Monday" is absolutely meaningless.
The largest stock market drop in decades wasn't
meaningless to the people who lost money in it.
It was only a problem for the few if any investors who bought at
peak prices then sold shortly after the decline.
You're looking at one bad day during eight good years. You
are frantically searching for minor details about the Reagan
presidency to attack. Shows how desperate you are.
"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?"
Post by Mitchell Holman
You claimed Reagan's stock market rise was unblemished.
Shows how ignorant of history you are.
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
I explained this to you. Bush41 was duped by Dems in congress
to hike taxes. It temporarily but not permanently slowed the Reagan
boom.
Gads. Poor little Bush, lured from the TRUE PATH of
Reaganomics by those nasty democrats.
Ah yes, sad but true. Bush41 was a stupid patsy for the likes of
George Mitchell.
I sse. A Republican president never does anything
wrong, and if he does it is all the fault of Democrats.
Has any Republican been at fault for anything, or are
they all Gods to you?
I said Bush41 was duped and a stupid patsy. I blast Bush43
regularly too. Does it sound like I believe Repubs never do
anything wrong?
You said Reagan in responsible for Clinton's
success and completely forgot the Recession of
1990-91. Do you know how stupid that makes you look?
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
The poor dear. Maybe we should take up a collection
for him or something.
Nah screw him. He got what he deserved. Unlike you who are
a shill for the DNC, I happen to be objective and am quite
comfortable criticizing those on my side of the aisle. My
objectivity is one of many reasons why I'm a superior political
conversationalist than you are, my clueless liberal friend.
Your starry-adulation of all things Republican
preceds you. It is naive and childish, but cute.
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Bush41 was duped
Bush41 was a stupid patsy
Ah yes that "starry-adulation of all things Republican"!! LOL
The facts speak for themselves. Too bad you are
so ignorant of them.
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Foxtrot
"322% gain, thanks to the tax raises."
But when asked for any plausible explanation, we get the sound
of crickets.
Let's examine his knee slapping laugh riot a few more times ...
"322% gain, thanks to the tax raises."
Still <crickets>.
<Guffaw>
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Mitchy is the most well armed lib on usenet when it comes
to presenting links to back up his claims. But surprise! He has
*nothing* to back up his claims that BJ's tax hikes magically
brought us prosperity. IOW he knows perfectly well that I have
busted him for trying to bullshit us. Admit it Mitchy! Heheheh
Reagan lowered taxes, stock market rose 238%
Clinton raised taxes, stock market rose 322%
Pity poor "Foxtrot" can't deal with said FACTS
Still waiting to hear that cause and effect relationship Mitchy.
Here's the fallacy behind your claim that BJ's tax cuts magically
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
It's called post hoc ergo propter hoc Mitchy. It goes like this. I
took a big crap yesterday and I found a quarter today. Therefore
my dump caused me to find the quarter!
Here they are agains, so you ignore them again.
Reagan, stock market rose 238%
Because of the miracle of supply side economics!
You mean the supply side economics that even Reagan's
own OMB director were admitted was sham just to fatten
the wallets of the rich?
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Bush 41, stock market rose 39%
Residual of the Reagan boom (except for the 90-91 recession
caused in part by his idiotic tax hikes.)
Post by Mitchell Holman
Clinton, stock market rose --> 322% <---
Still caused by the low tax rates put in place by the wonderful
Ronald Wilson Reagan. Thank you Mr Reagan!
Tax cuts are directly related to stock market
rallies but tax cuts are not? Is that what you
are saying?
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
It's called post hoc ergo propter hoc Mitchy. It goes like this. I
took a big crap yesterday and I found a quarter today. Therefore
my dump caused me to find the quarter!
Um Mitchy, the DJIA on the day that Reagan left office was 238%
what it was when he assumed office.
And Clinton did EVEN BETTER.
Still waiting for you to explain exactly how tax hikes help the
economy? <Snicker>
See above.
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Still no explanation of BJ's tax hikes leading to what happened
on Wall Street. Why don't you show some dignity and admit that
you made it up?
I already showed you how, you deleted it, like
the slimey coward you are. Why do you hate Clinton's
success at boosting the stock market, reducing the
unemployment rate and eliminating the deficit? Do
you all Americans, or just the successful ones?
No you showed that one happened after the other. Not that
one could have possibly caused the other.
Clinton brought the US out of the Reagan/Bush
recession, cleaned up Reagan's S&L bailout fiasco,
all while reducing unemployment, reducing poverty,
reducing crime, and tripling the stock market.
Why do you hate success?
--

What do you call a Republican with a conscience?

An ex-Republican.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)

"I simply can not believe this is what the Republican party has
become. I just can’t. It just makes me sick to think all those years
of supporting this party, and this is what it has become. Even if you
don’t like the S-Chip expansion, it is hard to deny what Republicans
are- a bunch of bitter, nasty, petty, snarling, sneering, vicious
thugs, peering through people’s windows so they can make fun of their
misfortune.

I’m registering Independent tomorrow."

Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001

Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News-***@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essays-***@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Foxtrot
2008-01-07 05:51:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Aren't you forgetting about Black Monday?
A minor glitch. As I said, the DJIA was 27% higher on the day
that Reagan left office than it closed at on that day. Your beloved
"Black Monday" is absolutely meaningless.
The largest stock market drop in decades wasn't
meaningless to the people who lost money in it.
It was only a problem for the few if any investors who bought at
peak prices then sold shortly after the decline.
You're looking at one bad day during eight good years. You
are frantically searching for minor details about the Reagan
presidency to attack. Shows how desperate you are.
You claimed Reagan's stock market rise was unblemished.
Shows how ignorant of history you are.
The DJIA increased 238% under Reagan. Of course there were
temporary decreases. There always are. As I said several times,
the economy was much higher when he left office than it was
after the temporary setback known as "Black Monday".
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
I explained this to you. Bush41 was duped by Dems in congress
to hike taxes. It temporarily but not permanently slowed the Reagan
boom.
Gads. Poor little Bush, lured from the TRUE PATH of
Reaganomics by those nasty democrats.
Ah yes, sad but true. Bush41 was a stupid patsy for the likes of
George Mitchell.
I sse. A Republican president never does anything
wrong, and if he does it is all the fault of Democrats.
Has any Republican been at fault for anything, or are
they all Gods to you?
I said Bush41 was duped and a stupid patsy. I blast Bush43
regularly too. Does it sound like I believe Repubs never do
anything wrong?
You said Reagan in responsible for Clinton's
success and completely forgot the Recession of
1990-91. Do you know how stupid that makes you look?
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
I explained this to you. Bush41 was duped by Dems in congress
to hike taxes. It temporarily but not permanently slowed the Reagan
boom.
Do you know how stupid you look for needing to have things
repeated multiple times to you?
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Pity poor "Foxtrot" can't deal with said FACTS
Still waiting to hear that cause and effect relationship Mitchy.
Here's the fallacy behind your claim that BJ's tax cuts magically
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
It's called post hoc ergo propter hoc Mitchy. It goes like this. I
took a big crap yesterday and I found a quarter today. Therefore
my dump caused me to find the quarter!
Here they are agains, so you ignore them again.
Reagan, stock market rose 238%
Because of the miracle of supply side economics!
You mean the supply side economics that even Reagan's
own OMB director were admitted was sham just to fatten
the wallets of the rich?
ALL quintiles prospered under Reagan Mitchy. Read it and weep:

Loading Image...
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Still caused by the low tax rates put in place by the wonderful
Ronald Wilson Reagan. Thank you Mr Reagan!
Tax cuts are directly related to stock market
rallies but tax cuts are not? Is that what you
are saying?
WTF are you trying to say?
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
It's called post hoc ergo propter hoc Mitchy. It goes like this. I
took a big crap yesterday and I found a quarter today. Therefore
my dump caused me to find the quarter!
Um Mitchy, the DJIA on the day that Reagan left office was 238%
what it was when he assumed office.
And Clinton did EVEN BETTER.
Still waiting for you to explain exactly how tax hikes help the
economy? <Snicker>
See above.
What?
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
No you showed that one happened after the other. Not that
one could have possibly caused the other.
Clinton brought the US out of the Reagan/Bush
recession, cleaned up Reagan's S&L bailout fiasco,
all while reducing unemployment, reducing poverty,
reducing crime, and tripling the stock market.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!!!!

The truth is that Billy's agenda went down in flames in 1993-1994.
Voters didn't trust him so they put Repubs in both houses of congress.
THAT is why we did well in the 1990s.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Why do you hate success?
Goodness Mitchy. If all that were true and BJ is as god-like as
you believe, how come with all the campaigning that he did,
Battleax finished third in Iowa? HMMMMMMM?
Mitchell Holman
2008-01-07 14:29:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Aren't you forgetting about Black Monday?
A minor glitch. As I said, the DJIA was 27% higher on the day
that Reagan left office than it closed at on that day. Your beloved
"Black Monday" is absolutely meaningless.
The largest stock market drop in decades wasn't
meaningless to the people who lost money in it.
It was only a problem for the few if any investors who bought at
peak prices then sold shortly after the decline.
You're looking at one bad day during eight good years. You
are frantically searching for minor details about the Reagan
presidency to attack. Shows how desperate you are.
You claimed Reagan's stock market rise was unblemished.
Shows how ignorant of history you are.
The DJIA increased 238% under Reagan.
And it went up even more under Clinton. So?
Post by Foxtrot
Of course there were
temporary decreases. There always are. As I said several times,
the economy was much higher when he left office than it was
after the temporary setback known as "Black Monday".
Clinton got the stock market to go even higher,
and WITHOUT any recessions or "Black Mondays" on
his watch.

Case closed.
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
I explained this to you. Bush41 was duped by Dems in congress
to hike taxes. It temporarily but not permanently slowed the
Reagan boom.
Gads. Poor little Bush, lured from the TRUE PATH of
Reaganomics by those nasty democrats.
Ah yes, sad but true. Bush41 was a stupid patsy for the likes of
George Mitchell.
I sse. A Republican president never does anything
wrong, and if he does it is all the fault of Democrats.
Has any Republican been at fault for anything, or are
they all Gods to you?
I said Bush41 was duped and a stupid patsy. I blast Bush43
regularly too. Does it sound like I believe Repubs never do
anything wrong?
You said Reagan in responsible for Clinton's
success and completely forgot the Recession of
1990-91. Do you know how stupid that makes you look?
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
I explained this to you. Bush41 was duped by Dems in congress
to hike taxes. It temporarily but not permanently slowed the
Reagan boom.
Do you know how stupid you look for needing to have things
repeated multiple times to you?
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Pity poor "Foxtrot" can't deal with said FACTS
Still waiting to hear that cause and effect relationship Mitchy.
Here's the fallacy behind your claim that BJ's tax cuts magically
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
It's called post hoc ergo propter hoc Mitchy. It goes like
this. I took a big crap yesterday and I found a quarter today.
Therefore my dump caused me to find the quarter!
Here they are agains, so you ignore them again.
Reagan, stock market rose 238%
Because of the miracle of supply side economics!
You mean the supply side economics that even Reagan's
own OMB director were admitted was sham just to fatten
the wallets of the rich?
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261/rrfig11.gif
Oh, you are referring to the massive borrowing
Reagan did that created the biggest deficits in history
(until Bush outdid him, that is)

You DO recall Reagan turning the US from the biggest
creditor nation in the world to biggest debtor nation, no?


"Reagan cut taxes, but failed to cut spending, and in the
course of his presidency America went from being the world's
leading creditor nation to its most prominent debtor, driving
up interest rates abroad and bequeathing a huge burden of debt
to the next generation of Americans."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,60-1136797,00.html


Fiscal conservatism, at work.
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Still caused by the low tax rates put in place by the wonderful
Ronald Wilson Reagan. Thank you Mr Reagan!
Tax cuts are directly related to stock market
rallies but tax cuts are not? Is that what you
are saying?
WTF are you trying to say?
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
It's called post hoc ergo propter hoc Mitchy. It goes like
this. I took a big crap yesterday and I found a quarter today.
Therefore my dump caused me to find the quarter!
Um Mitchy, the DJIA on the day that Reagan left office was 238%
what it was when he assumed office.
And Clinton did EVEN BETTER.
Still waiting for you to explain exactly how tax hikes help the
economy? <Snicker>
See above.
What?
Why do you credit tax cuts for raising the Dow Jones
average but not do the same when it comes to tax hikes
that balance the budget?
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
No you showed that one happened after the other. Not that
one could have possibly caused the other.
Clinton brought the US out of the Reagan/Bush
recession, cleaned up Reagan's S&L bailout fiasco,
all while reducing unemployment, reducing poverty,
reducing crime, and tripling the stock market.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!!!!
Truth hurts, don't it.........
Post by Foxtrot
The truth is that Billy's agenda went down in flames in 1993-1994.
Voters didn't trust him so they put Repubs in both houses of congress.
THAT is why we did well in the 1990s.
Name one Republican who voted for the 1993
Reduction Act that led to the first balanced
budgets in years.

Put his name right here:_____________________
3905 Dead
2008-01-07 14:39:39 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 08:29:12 -0600, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Aren't you forgetting about Black Monday?
A minor glitch. As I said, the DJIA was 27% higher on the day
that Reagan left office than it closed at on that day. Your beloved
"Black Monday" is absolutely meaningless.
The largest stock market drop in decades wasn't
meaningless to the people who lost money in it.
It was only a problem for the few if any investors who bought at
peak prices then sold shortly after the decline.
You're looking at one bad day during eight good years. You
are frantically searching for minor details about the Reagan
presidency to attack. Shows how desperate you are.
You claimed Reagan's stock market rise was unblemished.
Shows how ignorant of history you are.
The DJIA increased 238% under Reagan.
And it went up even more under Clinton. So?
Post by Foxtrot
Of course there were
temporary decreases. There always are. As I said several times,
the economy was much higher when he left office than it was
after the temporary setback known as "Black Monday".
Clinton got the stock market to go even higher,
and WITHOUT any recessions or "Black Mondays" on
his watch.
Case closed.
Well, the Tech Sector bubble burst, but he STILL finished with the
NASDAQ worth about double what it was when he took office.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
I explained this to you. Bush41 was duped by Dems in congress
to hike taxes. It temporarily but not permanently slowed the
Reagan boom.
Gads. Poor little Bush, lured from the TRUE PATH of
Reaganomics by those nasty democrats.
Ah yes, sad but true. Bush41 was a stupid patsy for the likes of
George Mitchell.
I sse. A Republican president never does anything
wrong, and if he does it is all the fault of Democrats.
Has any Republican been at fault for anything, or are
they all Gods to you?
I said Bush41 was duped and a stupid patsy. I blast Bush43
regularly too. Does it sound like I believe Repubs never do
anything wrong?
You said Reagan in responsible for Clinton's
success and completely forgot the Recession of
1990-91. Do you know how stupid that makes you look?
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
I explained this to you. Bush41 was duped by Dems in congress
to hike taxes. It temporarily but not permanently slowed the
Reagan boom.
Do you know how stupid you look for needing to have things
repeated multiple times to you?
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Pity poor "Foxtrot" can't deal with said FACTS
Still waiting to hear that cause and effect relationship Mitchy.
Here's the fallacy behind your claim that BJ's tax cuts magically
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
It's called post hoc ergo propter hoc Mitchy. It goes like
this. I took a big crap yesterday and I found a quarter today.
Therefore my dump caused me to find the quarter!
Here they are agains, so you ignore them again.
Reagan, stock market rose 238%
Because of the miracle of supply side economics!
You mean the supply side economics that even Reagan's
own OMB director were admitted was sham just to fatten
the wallets of the rich?
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261/rrfig11.gif
Oh, you are referring to the massive borrowing
Reagan did that created the biggest deficits in history
(until Bush outdid him, that is)
You DO recall Reagan turning the US from the biggest
creditor nation in the world to biggest debtor nation, no?
"Reagan cut taxes, but failed to cut spending, and in the
course of his presidency America went from being the world's
leading creditor nation to its most prominent debtor, driving
up interest rates abroad and bequeathing a huge burden of debt
to the next generation of Americans."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,60-1136797,00.html
Fiscal conservatism, at work.
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Still caused by the low tax rates put in place by the wonderful
Ronald Wilson Reagan. Thank you Mr Reagan!
Tax cuts are directly related to stock market
rallies but tax cuts are not? Is that what you
are saying?
WTF are you trying to say?
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
It's called post hoc ergo propter hoc Mitchy. It goes like
this. I took a big crap yesterday and I found a quarter today.
Therefore my dump caused me to find the quarter!
Um Mitchy, the DJIA on the day that Reagan left office was 238%
what it was when he assumed office.
And Clinton did EVEN BETTER.
Still waiting for you to explain exactly how tax hikes help the
economy? <Snicker>
See above.
What?
Why do you credit tax cuts for raising the Dow Jones
average but not do the same when it comes to tax hikes
that balance the budget?
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
No you showed that one happened after the other. Not that
one could have possibly caused the other.
Clinton brought the US out of the Reagan/Bush
recession, cleaned up Reagan's S&L bailout fiasco,
all while reducing unemployment, reducing poverty,
reducing crime, and tripling the stock market.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!!!!
Truth hurts, don't it.........
Post by Foxtrot
The truth is that Billy's agenda went down in flames in 1993-1994.
Voters didn't trust him so they put Repubs in both houses of congress.
THAT is why we did well in the 1990s.
Name one Republican who voted for the 1993
Reduction Act that led to the first balanced
budgets in years.
Put his name right here:_____________________
--

What do you call a Republican with a conscience?

An ex-Republican.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)

"I simply can not believe this is what the Republican party has
become. I just can’t. It just makes me sick to think all those years
of supporting this party, and this is what it has become. Even if you
don’t like the S-Chip expansion, it is hard to deny what Republicans
are- a bunch of bitter, nasty, petty, snarling, sneering, vicious
thugs, peering through people’s windows so they can make fun of their
misfortune.

I’m registering Independent tomorrow."

Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001

Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News-***@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essays-***@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Foxtrot
2008-01-08 07:02:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Of course there were
temporary decreases. There always are. As I said several times,
the economy was much higher when he left office than it was
after the temporary setback known as "Black Monday".
Clinton got the stock market to go even higher,
and WITHOUT any recessions or "Black Mondays" on
his watch.
Case closed.
The case ain't closed until you offer some semblance of an
explanation for this laugh riot Mitchy:

322% gain, thanks to the tax raises.
- Mitchy, attempting to credit BJ's tax hikes for the DJIA
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
You mean the supply side economics that even Reagan's
own OMB director were admitted was sham just to fatten
the wallets of the rich?
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261/rrfig11.gif
Oh, you are referring to the massive borrowing
Reagan did that created the biggest deficits in history
(until Bush outdid him, that is)
You DO recall Reagan turning the US from the biggest
creditor nation in the world to biggest debtor nation, no?
"Reagan cut taxes, but failed to cut spending, and in the
course of his presidency America went from being the world's
leading creditor nation to its most prominent debtor, driving
up interest rates abroad and bequeathing a huge burden of debt
to the next generation of Americans."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,60-1136797,00.html
Mr Reagan understood that by cutting taxes we would *grow* our
way out of debt. Along with the windfall we received by peacefully
winning the Cold War because of his brilliance, the economy
boomed. The Reagan boom along with Republican led welfare
reform eventually led to the declining deficits in the 90s.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Fiscal conservatism, at work.
Thank you Mr Reagan for decades of prosperity.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Why do you credit tax cuts for raising the Dow Jones
average but not do the same when it comes to tax hikes
that balance the budget?
Cutting taxes pours money into the economy, leading to growth
and prosperity. Now kindly explain your case--how raising taxes
somehow helps the economy.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
The truth is that Billy's agenda went down in flames in 1993-1994.
Voters didn't trust him so they put Repubs in both houses of congress.
THAT is why we did well in the 1990s.
Name one Republican who voted for the 1993
Reduction Act that led to the first balanced
budgets in years.
Put his name right here:_____________________
LOL calling a tax hike a deficit reduction is like putting lipstick
on a pig. If it was such a great idea, how come it lead to a Repub
congressional landslide in 1994?
Mitchell Holman
2008-01-08 13:10:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Of course there were
temporary decreases. There always are. As I said several times,
the economy was much higher when he left office than it was
after the temporary setback known as "Black Monday".
Clinton got the stock market to go even higher,
and WITHOUT any recessions or "Black Mondays" on
his watch.
Case closed.
The case ain't closed until you offer some semblance of an
322% gain, thanks to the tax raises.
- Mitchy, attempting to credit BJ's tax hikes for the DJIA
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
You mean the supply side economics that even Reagan's
own OMB director were admitted was sham just to fatten
the wallets of the rich?
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261/rrfig11.gif
Oh, you are referring to the massive borrowing
Reagan did that created the biggest deficits in history
(until Bush outdid him, that is)
You DO recall Reagan turning the US from the biggest
creditor nation in the world to biggest debtor nation, no?
"Reagan cut taxes, but failed to cut spending, and in the
course of his presidency America went from being the world's
leading creditor nation to its most prominent debtor, driving
up interest rates abroad and bequeathing a huge burden of debt
to the next generation of Americans."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,60-1136797,00.html
Mr Reagan understood that by cutting taxes we would *grow* our
way out of debt.
So show us where Reagan's tax cuts "grew our way
out of debt".

In fact the debt DOUBLED thanks to his tax cuts.

Must have been Clinton's fault, right?
Post by Foxtrot
Along with the windfall we received by peacefully
winning the Cold War because of his brilliance, the economy
boomed. The Reagan boom along with Republican led welfare
reform eventually led to the declining deficits in the 90s.
Show us how Reagan's tax cuts "grew" the US out of debt.
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Fiscal conservatism, at work.
Thank you Mr Reagan for decades of prosperity.
Biggest deficits in history.
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Why do you credit tax cuts for raising the Dow Jones
average but not do the same when it comes to tax hikes
that balance the budget?
Cutting taxes pours money into the economy, leading to growth
and prosperity. Now kindly explain your case--how raising taxes
somehow helps the economy.
"Last week Reagan moved toward a difficult decision: he would
not keep his pledge to balance the budget, but would hold firm
to his 1982 tax cuts and permit only limited tax hikes later."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,953168,00.html


Even Reagan realized his tax cuts would never
reduce the deficit.
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
The truth is that Billy's agenda went down in flames in 1993-1994.
Voters didn't trust him so they put Repubs in both houses of congress.
THAT is why we did well in the 1990s.
Name one Republican who voted for the 1993
Reduction Act that led to the first balanced
budgets in years.
Put his name right here:_____________________
LOL calling a tax hike a deficit reduction is like putting lipstick
on a pig.
Reagan cut taxes and the deficit doubled. Clinton
raised taxes and the deficit DISAPPEARED.

Why do you love deficits?
3905 Dead
2008-01-08 14:11:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Of course there were
temporary decreases. There always are. As I said several times,
the economy was much higher when he left office than it was
after the temporary setback known as "Black Monday".
Clinton got the stock market to go even higher,
and WITHOUT any recessions or "Black Mondays" on
his watch.
Case closed.
The case ain't closed until you offer some semblance of an
322% gain, thanks to the tax raises.
- Mitchy, attempting to credit BJ's tax hikes for the DJIA
Clinton rasied taxes. Bob Dole once called it the biggest tax
increase in human history. He really did.

The Dow went up 322%. Even though in 1993, conservatives were cawing
that Clinton's taxes would drive the Dow below 1,000.

I guess it didn't work out the way you thought.
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
You mean the supply side economics that even Reagan's
own OMB director were admitted was sham just to fatten
the wallets of the rich?
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261/rrfig11.gif
Oh, you are referring to the massive borrowing
Reagan did that created the biggest deficits in history
(until Bush outdid him, that is)
You DO recall Reagan turning the US from the biggest
creditor nation in the world to biggest debtor nation, no?
"Reagan cut taxes, but failed to cut spending, and in the
course of his presidency America went from being the world's
leading creditor nation to its most prominent debtor, driving
up interest rates abroad and bequeathing a huge burden of debt
to the next generation of Americans."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,60-1136797,00.html
Mr Reagan understood that by cutting taxes we would *grow* our
way out of debt. Along with the windfall we received by peacefully
winning the Cold War because of his brilliance, the economy
boomed. The Reagan boom along with Republican led welfare
reform eventually led to the declining deficits in the 90s.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Fiscal conservatism, at work.
Thank you Mr Reagan for decades of prosperity.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Why do you credit tax cuts for raising the Dow Jones
average but not do the same when it comes to tax hikes
that balance the budget?
Cutting taxes pours money into the economy, leading to growth
and prosperity. Now kindly explain your case--how raising taxes
somehow helps the economy.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
The truth is that Billy's agenda went down in flames in 1993-1994.
Voters didn't trust him so they put Repubs in both houses of congress.
THAT is why we did well in the 1990s.
Name one Republican who voted for the 1993
Reduction Act that led to the first balanced
budgets in years.
Put his name right here:_____________________
LOL calling a tax hike a deficit reduction is like putting lipstick
on a pig. If it was such a great idea, how come it lead to a Repub
congressional landslide in 1994?
--

What do you call a Republican with a conscience?

An ex-Republican.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)

"I simply can not believe this is what the Republican party has
become. I just can’t. It just makes me sick to think all those years
of supporting this party, and this is what it has become. Even if you
don’t like the S-Chip expansion, it is hard to deny what Republicans
are- a bunch of bitter, nasty, petty, snarling, sneering, vicious
thugs, peering through people’s windows so they can make fun of their
misfortune.

I’m registering Independent tomorrow."

Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001

Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News-***@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essays-***@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
3905 Dead
2008-01-06 15:20:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
You *are* aware that the DJIA rose 39% during Bush41's term
aren't you?
Compared to Clintons's ---> 322% <---?
Yeah, sure. So?
Reagan brought down the Berlin Wall but it actually fell *after*
he left office. A president's legacy remains after he leaves office.
So Carter's policies are responsible for the
"Reagan boom", right?
Jimmy's trend was DOWNward Mitchy. Mr Reagan's trend was
sharply UPward. FYI they are not the same.
Carter = down = bad.
Reagan = beginning of longlasting upward trend = good.
Get it yet?
You have to undestand Fauxinomics, Mitch. If the market or the
economy improve, it is the responsibility of the nearest available
Republican president, even if he hasn't been elected yet.

If the market or economy tank, it's the fault of whicher Democrat
Fauxy hates the most this week (usually Hillary).
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
The stock market continued to rise into the 90s after Reagan's
tax cuts pumped so much into the economy in the 80s.
Aren't you forgetting about Black Monday?
A minor glitch. As I said, the DJIA was 27% higher on the day
that Reagan left office than it closed at on that day. Your beloved
"Black Monday" is absolutely meaningless.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Didn't you just say that Bush 41 only
posted a measley 39%?
Darned that Reagan legacy.
I explained this to you. Bush41 was duped by Dems in congress
to hike taxes. It temporarily but not permanently slowed the Reagan
boom.
Gads. Poor little Bush, lured from the TRUE PATH of
Reaganomics by those nasty democrats.
Ah yes, sad but true. Bush41 was a stupid patsy for the likes of
George Mitchell.
Post by Mitchell Holman
The poor dear. Maybe we should take up a collection
for him or something.
Nah screw him. He got what he deserved. Unlike you who are
a shill for the DNC, I happen to be objective and am quite
comfortable criticizing those on my side of the aisle. My
objectivity is one of many reasons why I'm a superior political
conversationalist than you are, my clueless liberal friend.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Under Clinton, a *322%* rise in the stock market.
Because of those tax hikes right? Teeheeeheeheehee
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
"322% gain, thanks to the tax raises."
But when asked for any plausible explanation, we get the sound
of crickets.
Let's examine his knee slapping laugh riot a few more times ...
"322% gain, thanks to the tax raises."
Still <crickets>.
Mitchy is the most well armed lib on usenet when it comes
to presenting links to back up his claims. But surprise! He has
*nothing* to back up his claims that BJ's tax hikes magically
brought us prosperity. IOW he knows perfectly well that I have
busted him for trying to bullshit us. Admit it Mitchy! Heheheh
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Reagan lowered taxes, stock market rose 238%
Clinton raised taxes, stock market rose 322%
It's called post hoc ergo propter hoc Mitchy. It goes like this. I
took a big crap yesterday and I found a quarter today. Therefore
my dump caused me to find the quarter!
What you find in your diaper has no bearing on the
fact that Clinton's policies outperformed Reagans policies
and Bush's policies PUT TOGETHER.
My bowel movements bear a striking resemblance to your
arguments Mitchy.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Which is the bigger number, "Foxtrot"?
I've presented a perfectly viable explanation of how Reagan
brought us great prosperity.
Reagan's policies produced the stock market crash of
1987 and the recession of 1990, a catastrophe so bad that
even his own VP had to raise taxes to fix it.
Um Mitchy, the DJIA on the day that Reagan left office was 238%
what it was when he assumed office. Ain't no amount of spin on
earth can turn that kind of a boom into a crash.
Still no explanation of BJ's tax hikes leading to what happened
on Wall Street. Why don't you show some dignity and admit that
you made it up?
--

What do you call a Republican with a conscience?

An ex-Republican.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)

"I simply can not believe this is what the Republican party has
become. I just can’t. It just makes me sick to think all those years
of supporting this party, and this is what it has become. Even if you
don’t like the S-Chip expansion, it is hard to deny what Republicans
are- a bunch of bitter, nasty, petty, snarling, sneering, vicious
thugs, peering through people’s windows so they can make fun of their
misfortune.

I’m registering Independent tomorrow."

Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001

Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News-***@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essays-***@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
n***@nowhere.com
2008-01-07 11:26:59 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 07:20:57 -0800, 3905 Dead
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
You *are* aware that the DJIA rose 39% during Bush41's term
aren't you?
Compared to Clintons's ---> 322% <---?
Yeah, sure. So?
Reagan brought down the Berlin Wall but it actually fell *after*
he left office. A president's legacy remains after he leaves office.
So Carter's policies are responsible for the
"Reagan boom", right?
Jimmy's trend was DOWNward Mitchy. Mr Reagan's trend was
sharply UPward. FYI they are not the same.
Carter = down = bad.
Reagan = beginning of longlasting upward trend = good.
Get it yet?
You have to undestand Fauxinomics, Mitch. If the market or the
economy improve, it is the responsibility of the nearest available
Republican president, even if he hasn't been elected yet.
If the market or economy tank, it's the fault of whicher Democrat
Fauxy hates the most this week (usually Hillary).
And I'm just sure the reverse can't be true. Surely we can find a
post from you pointing out that the dot com bubble bursting was
Clinton's fault since Bush barely had time to create any effect on the
markets, right?
Mitchell Holman
2008-01-07 14:33:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by n***@nowhere.com
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 07:20:57 -0800, 3905 Dead
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
You *are* aware that the DJIA rose 39% during Bush41's term
aren't you?
Compared to Clintons's ---> 322% <---?
Yeah, sure. So?
Reagan brought down the Berlin Wall but it actually fell *after*
he left office. A president's legacy remains after he leaves office.
So Carter's policies are responsible for the
"Reagan boom", right?
Jimmy's trend was DOWNward Mitchy. Mr Reagan's trend was
sharply UPward. FYI they are not the same.
Carter = down = bad.
Reagan = beginning of longlasting upward trend = good.
Get it yet?
You have to undestand Fauxinomics, Mitch. If the market or the
economy improve, it is the responsibility of the nearest available
Republican president, even if he hasn't been elected yet.
If the market or economy tank, it's the fault of whicher Democrat
Fauxy hates the most this week (usually Hillary).
And I'm just sure the reverse can't be true. Surely we can find a
post from you pointing out that the dot com bubble bursting was
Clinton's fault since Bush barely had time to create any effect on the
markets, right?
Modern Conservative: Someone who can take time out
from demanding that business be freed from government
regulation to blame the "dot com bubble burst" on
Clinton because he didn't regulate business enough.
n***@nowhere.com
2008-01-08 01:57:31 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 08:33:23 -0600, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by n***@nowhere.com
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 07:20:57 -0800, 3905 Dead
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
You *are* aware that the DJIA rose 39% during Bush41's term
aren't you?
Compared to Clintons's ---> 322% <---?
Yeah, sure. So?
Reagan brought down the Berlin Wall but it actually fell *after*
he left office. A president's legacy remains after he leaves office.
So Carter's policies are responsible for the
"Reagan boom", right?
Jimmy's trend was DOWNward Mitchy. Mr Reagan's trend was
sharply UPward. FYI they are not the same.
Carter = down = bad.
Reagan = beginning of longlasting upward trend = good.
Get it yet?
You have to undestand Fauxinomics, Mitch. If the market or the
economy improve, it is the responsibility of the nearest available
Republican president, even if he hasn't been elected yet.
If the market or economy tank, it's the fault of whicher Democrat
Fauxy hates the most this week (usually Hillary).
And I'm just sure the reverse can't be true. Surely we can find a
post from you pointing out that the dot com bubble bursting was
Clinton's fault since Bush barely had time to create any effect on the
markets, right?
Modern Conservative: Someone who can take time out
from demanding that business be freed from government
regulation to blame the "dot com bubble burst" on
Clinton because he didn't regulate business enough.
Of course Mitchie was too busy posting his made up, inaccurate "modern
conservative" bs to notice that I was pointing out the hypocrisy
demonstrated by the left in this very thread.
3905 Dead
2008-01-06 15:43:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
1/19/1993 close 3,256
1/19/2001 close 10,587
Ah yes, thank you Mr Reagan for cutting taxes so much that you
gave us a generation of prosperity (except for the glitch caused
by dumbass Bush41's tax hike).
By cutting the top marginal rates from 70+% to 28%, he put huge
amounts of money into the economy where it belongs. Not in the
paws of corrupt politicians.
Yep. Reagan cut taxes and the deficit zoomed so
high that even Bush 41 was forced to raise them again
to pay off the debts.
The modern economic boom began under Ronald Reagan Mitchy.
Under Jimmy's disastrous presidency the DJIA actually fell. Under
Reagan it rose 238%. It has been rising at a robust rate ever since.
Over the past seven years, it hasn't even kept pace with inflation.
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Mitchell Holman
322% gain, thanks to the tax raises.
Got that?
Under Clinton, a *322%* rise in the stock market.
Under Bush, a paltry 22% rise.
Case closed.........;)
Still waiting for that explanation of exactly how raising taxes makes
the economy grow. I see you even snipped the question! LOL
It helps if you think of money as the blood of the economy, the free
market as gravity, and government as the heart.

Without something to force that blood to move around, it all
congregates in one spot and is useless.
--

What do you call a Republican with a conscience?

An ex-Republican.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)

"I simply can not believe this is what the Republican party has
become. I just can’t. It just makes me sick to think all those years
of supporting this party, and this is what it has become. Even if you
don’t like the S-Chip expansion, it is hard to deny what Republicans
are- a bunch of bitter, nasty, petty, snarling, sneering, vicious
thugs, peering through people’s windows so they can make fun of their
misfortune.

I’m registering Independent tomorrow."

Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001

Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News-***@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essays-***@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Foxtrot
2008-01-07 03:41:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
Still waiting for that explanation of exactly how raising taxes makes
the economy grow. I see you even snipped the question! LOL
It helps if you think of money as the blood of the economy, the free
market as gravity, and government as the heart.
Without something to force that blood to move around, it all
congregates in one spot and is useless.
Government--the heart that pumps the economy?!? Sheesh you
libs have a warped view of things.

The free market is the heart. The government is the fat that
encumbers the system and contributes nothing. Politicians are
tapeworms.
3905 Dead
2008-01-07 05:46:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Foxtrot
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
Still waiting for that explanation of exactly how raising taxes makes
the economy grow. I see you even snipped the question! LOL
It helps if you think of money as the blood of the economy, the free
market as gravity, and government as the heart.
Without something to force that blood to move around, it all
congregates in one spot and is useless.
Government--the heart that pumps the economy?!? Sheesh you
libs have a warped view of things.
The free market is the heart. The government is the fat that
encumbers the system and contributes nothing. Politicians are
tapeworms.
How can something that concentrates wealth and defeats competition and
innovation be a heart?
--

What do you call a Republican with a conscience?

An ex-Republican.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)

"I simply can not believe this is what the Republican party has
become. I just can’t. It just makes me sick to think all those years
of supporting this party, and this is what it has become. Even if you
don’t like the S-Chip expansion, it is hard to deny what Republicans
are- a bunch of bitter, nasty, petty, snarling, sneering, vicious
thugs, peering through people’s windows so they can make fun of their
misfortune.

I’m registering Independent tomorrow."

Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001

Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News-***@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essays-***@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Foxtrot
2008-01-07 06:11:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
Post by 3905 Dead
It helps if you think of money as the blood of the economy, the free
market as gravity, and government as the heart.
Without something to force that blood to move around, it all
congregates in one spot and is useless.
Government--the heart that pumps the economy?!? Sheesh you
libs have a warped view of things.
The free market is the heart. The government is the fat that
encumbers the system and contributes nothing. Politicians are
tapeworms.
How can something that concentrates wealth and defeats competition and
innovation be a heart?
You have the naive lib belief that everything must be uniformly
distributed within a system or there's something wrong. There's
more blood in the chest cavity than in the earlobes! How can this
be, it's not fair!! The earlobes do just fine *because* there's more
blood in the chest cavity not despite it.

Millions of people can afford homes for their families because a
few highly successful people like Bill Gates (that concentrated
wealth that you libs despise) stimulated entire technologies.
3905 Dead
2008-01-07 13:47:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Foxtrot
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
Post by 3905 Dead
It helps if you think of money as the blood of the economy, the free
market as gravity, and government as the heart.
Without something to force that blood to move around, it all
congregates in one spot and is useless.
Government--the heart that pumps the economy?!? Sheesh you
libs have a warped view of things.
The free market is the heart. The government is the fat that
encumbers the system and contributes nothing. Politicians are
tapeworms.
How can something that concentrates wealth and defeats competition and
innovation be a heart?
You have the naive lib belief that everything must be uniformly
distributed within a system or there's something wrong. There's
more blood in the chest cavity than in the earlobes! How can this
be, it's not fair!! The earlobes do just fine *because* there's more
blood in the chest cavity not despite it.
Odd. I don't see the word "uniformly" anywhere in my post. Could you
point it out to me, Fauxy, so you can give us a legitimate reason for
teeing off on it?

Or are you just lying again?
Post by Foxtrot
Millions of people can afford homes for their families because a
few highly successful people like Bill Gates (that concentrated
wealth that you libs despise) stimulated entire technologies.
Really? How many homes did Bill Gates buy? Where they sub-prime
loans?
--

What do you call a Republican with a conscience?

An ex-Republican.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)

"I simply can not believe this is what the Republican party has
become. I just can’t. It just makes me sick to think all those years
of supporting this party, and this is what it has become. Even if you
don’t like the S-Chip expansion, it is hard to deny what Republicans
are- a bunch of bitter, nasty, petty, snarling, sneering, vicious
thugs, peering through people’s windows so they can make fun of their
misfortune.

I’m registering Independent tomorrow."

Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001

Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News-***@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essays-***@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
David Moffitt
2008-01-07 15:00:56 UTC
Permalink
"3905 Dead" <***@finestplanet.com> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
| On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 22:11:52 -0800, Foxtrot <***@null.com> wrote:
|
| >3905 Dead <***@finestplanet.com> wrote:
| >
| >>Foxtrot <***@null.com> wrote:
| >>>3905 Dead <***@finestplanet.com> wrote:
| >>>>It helps if you think of money as the blood of the economy, the free
| >>>>market as gravity, and government as the heart.
| >>>>
| >>>>Without something to force that blood to move around, it all
| >>>>congregates in one spot and is useless.
| >>>
| >>>Government--the heart that pumps the economy?!? Sheesh you
| >>>libs have a warped view of things.
| >>>
| >>>The free market is the heart. The government is the fat that
| >>>encumbers the system and contributes nothing. Politicians are
| >>>tapeworms.
| >>
| >>How can something that concentrates wealth and defeats competition and
| >>innovation be a heart?
| >
| >You have the naive lib belief that everything must be uniformly
| >distributed within a system or there's something wrong. There's
| >more blood in the chest cavity than in the earlobes! How can this
| >be, it's not fair!! The earlobes do just fine *because* there's more
| >blood in the chest cavity not despite it.
|
| Odd. I don't see the word "uniformly" anywhere in my post. Could you
| point it out to me, Fauxy, so you can give us a legitimate reason for
| teeing off on it?
|
| Or are you just lying again?
| >
| >Millions of people can afford homes for their families because a
| >few highly successful people like Bill Gates (that concentrated
| >wealth that you libs despise) stimulated entire technologies.
|
| Really? How many homes did Bill Gates buy? Where they sub-prime
| loans?
| --
|
| What do you call a Republican with a conscience?

%%%% A Republican. What do you call a Republican without a conscience? A
liberal!

I'd rather be a conservative nut job than a liberal with no nuts and no job.


|
| An ex-Republican.
|
| http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)
|
| "I simply can not believe this is what the Republican party has
| become. I just can't. It just makes me sick to think all those years
| of supporting this party, and this is what it has become. Even if you
| don't like the S-Chip expansion, it is hard to deny what Republicans
| are- a bunch of bitter, nasty, petty, snarling, sneering, vicious
| thugs, peering through people's windows so they can make fun of their
| misfortune.
|
| I'm registering Independent tomorrow."
|
| Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
|
| Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
| Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
| For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
| http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
| For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
| Zepps_News-***@yahoogroups.com
| For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
| Zepps_essays-***@yahoogroups.com
| a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Foxtrot
2008-01-08 06:36:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
The free market is the heart. The government is the fat that
encumbers the system and contributes nothing. Politicians are
tapeworms.
How can something that concentrates wealth and defeats competition and
innovation be a heart?
You have the naive lib belief that everything must be uniformly
distributed within a system or there's something wrong. There's
more blood in the chest cavity than in the earlobes! How can this
be, it's not fair!! The earlobes do just fine *because* there's more
blood in the chest cavity not despite it.
Odd. I don't see the word "uniformly" anywhere in my post. Could you
point it out to me, Fauxy, so you can give us a legitimate reason for
teeing off on it?
You complained about how wealth is concentrated. The opposite
of concentration is uniformity. You don't even understand your own
drivel you dullard.
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
Millions of people can afford homes for their families because a
few highly successful people like Bill Gates (that concentrated
wealth that you libs despise) stimulated entire technologies.
Really? How many homes did Bill Gates buy? Where they sub-prime
loans?
Zzzzzzz. Instead of addressing my cogent point about how the
wealth of some brings prosperity to many others, you make a lame
jab.
3905 Dead
2008-01-08 14:02:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Foxtrot
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
The free market is the heart. The government is the fat that
encumbers the system and contributes nothing. Politicians are
tapeworms.
How can something that concentrates wealth and defeats competition and
innovation be a heart?
You have the naive lib belief that everything must be uniformly
distributed within a system or there's something wrong. There's
more blood in the chest cavity than in the earlobes! How can this
be, it's not fair!! The earlobes do just fine *because* there's more
blood in the chest cavity not despite it.
Odd. I don't see the word "uniformly" anywhere in my post. Could you
point it out to me, Fauxy, so you can give us a legitimate reason for
teeing off on it?
You complained about how wealth is concentrated. The opposite
of concentration is uniformity. You don't even understand your own
drivel you dullard.
The opposite of black is white. Does that mean grey is impossible?
Post by Foxtrot
Post by 3905 Dead
Post by Foxtrot
Millions of people can afford homes for their families because a
few highly successful people like Bill Gates (that concentrated
wealth that you libs despise) stimulated entire technologies.
Really? How many homes did Bill Gates buy? Where they sub-prime
loans?
Zzzzzzz. Instead of addressing my cogent point about how the
wealth of some brings prosperity to many others, you make a lame
jab.
You made a lame point. Don't blame me if you lead with your jaw.
--

What do you call a Republican with a conscience?

An ex-Republican.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)

"I simply can not believe this is what the Republican party has
become. I just can’t. It just makes me sick to think all those years
of supporting this party, and this is what it has become. Even if you
don’t like the S-Chip expansion, it is hard to deny what Republicans
are- a bunch of bitter, nasty, petty, snarling, sneering, vicious
thugs, peering through people’s windows so they can make fun of their
misfortune.

I’m registering Independent tomorrow."

Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001

Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News-***@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essays-***@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
m***@yahoo.com
2008-01-22 15:52:31 UTC
Permalink
this guy below has been warning of this for over five years.....

Worse than ENRON......as bad as crash of 1929.???....

"The Adrian Report" on BLACK MONDAY, January 21, 2008, Martin Luther
King Jr. Day ... Wall Street sleeps....

http://www.angelfire.com/planet/blacklisting_central/FANNIE_MAE_REPORT.html

culled from the notes of Andrew Meyer, CUNY professor, NYC

ARM mortgage loans -- Analysts fear that a wave of defaults could
create a vicious cycle of foreclosures and fire-sale liquidations that
would bleed U.S. real estate markets of massive equity.

While this situation is well reported, little has been said about its
link to Chinese fiscal policy and U.S.-China trade relations. A
disasterous Chinese-U.S. trade imbalance is married to the growing
crisis of sub-prime mortgages meltdowns. China's foreign currency
reserves have grown to 1.2 trillion dollars U.S. The reasons for this
mounting pile of cash are well-understood: China has kept the value of
the Renminbi (RMB) relative to the dollar artificially low so as to
keep prices in China low and spur employment and economic growth.

What relation may be drawn between Chinese fiscal policy and the sub-
prime mortgage market? $350 billion of China's foreign currency
reserve is held in U.S. T-bills. A further $230 billion of this cash,
however, is held in bonds issued by U.S.-backed agencies such as
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. These latter instruments are bonds that
consolidate the debt of homeowners toward the purchase of their
houses, much of which was generated by the issuance of risky sub-prime
mortgages.

When one parses out the motives for Chinese fiscal policy, the link
between it and the sub-prime mortgage crisis becomes clear. The PRC
can only keep the value of the RMB against the US dollar artificially
low by parking the profits from its massive trade surplus in U.S.-
denominated assets. This has created a constant fund of cheap cash
available to lenders in US housing markets. Bankers do not need to
stringently calculate the risks associated with sub-prime loans
because they know that they can always sell off that debt to an eager
Chinese treasury in the form of a US-backed T-bill bond. The chronic
need of the Chinese fisc to hypercirculate RMB has thus created a
number of economic aberrations, including a Shanghai Stock-market
bubble at home and a US real-estate market bubble abroad.

What the long term effects of this situation will be is anyone's
guess, but most economists would agree that when there is a bubble it
is bound to burst. The effects will not be good, the only open
question is their ultimate severity. One lesson from the situation is
clear: US complacency about the domestic political situation in China
is self-defeating. US leaders express frequent frustration over
Chinese fiscal policy and the distorting effect it has on CHINA-US
trade, but this ignores the deeper structural motives that perpetuate
the anomaly.

Chinese leaders continue to prime the economic pump that is causing
securities and real estate bubbles for fear of the political
consequences of any degree of economic slowdown. They hope that they
will not be held to account for failing to deliver fundamental
political reform as long as the Chinese economy continues to enjoy
robust growth. How long this inherently unstable situation can be
sustained is an open question. The political consequences of acute
economic collapse are likely to be far more grave than the instability
that might be engendered by proactive and preemptive reform, but this
contingency does not seem to have registered upon China's nor
America's Wall Street nor Goldman Sachs leadership. An acute
collapse is certain to occur.

January 21, 2008 -- ``The monolines are dead, their business model is
dead,'' said David Roche
The tipping point came last year when the three major rating companies
downgraded thousands of CDOs. Ratings on more than 2,000 CDOs were cut
in November alone, according to a Dec. 13 UBS AG research report.
Maryland Insurance Administration held off filing delinquency
proceedings last month while ACA sought capital. ACA was required
under its credit-default swap contracts to post collateral if its
rating fell below A-.

ACA gained 2 cents, or 4 percent, to 48 cents in over-the- counter
trading on Jan. 18 in New York. ``The monolines are dead, their
business model is dead,'' said David Roche, head of investment
consultancy Independent Strategy in London. ``The government is going
to have to recapitalize this industry or there will be communities in
the U.S. where they can't even flush their toilets'' because they
can't afford the services. The Federal Reserve may need to organize a
bailout, Nangle at Barings said. ``More generalised monoline meltdown
would be a situation that would require intervention by the New York
Fed,'' said Nangle. The regulator should ``get all the banks into a
room, have them open their books, and then lean on them to inject
capital.'' -- reporting by John Glover in London. Editors: Emma Moody,
Gavin Serkin

The vast majority of Fannie Mae's mortgages are loans to borrowers
with good credit, but over the past five years the government
sponsored enterprise became exposed to mortgages that were made to
people with poor credit - subprime mortgages - and to mortgages that
were made with incomplete documentation of borrowers' income, called
Alt-A mortgages in industry parlance.

One way that Fannie increased its exposure to subprime and Alt-A
mortgages was to buy bonds backed with these types of loans. While
these subprime and Alt-A mortgage-backed bonds are only a small
proportion of Fannie's overall mortgage holdings, their combined value
of $76 billion is almost double Fannie's $40 billion of capital, which
is the net worth of a company and the last cushion against losses.

http://mickey.rorgk.tripod.com/XmasTbilisi.html
http://www.geocities.com/matthew_lulu_bryza/Georgian-Parliament.html
http://www.angelfire.com/planet/blacklisting_central/ducksunlimited.html
True Blue American
2008-01-07 14:02:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Foxtrot
Subject: #Dow smashes 13,000 mark!  Thank you, President Bush!!!!
Despite the Clinton Recession, the DJIA is up 24% since Bush took
office. So he gets the blame when it goes down but no credit when
it goes up, right li'l partisan hack?
The Dow being up means nothing to the people who are living through
the worst economy they can remember. I am 42 and have never seen it
this bad.
k***@hotmail.com
2008-01-05 17:29:00 UTC
Permalink
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/business/05markets.html?_r=1&oref=s...
Stocks & Bonds
Fears on Inflation and Jobs Give 2008 a Stumbling Start
By MICHAEL M. GRYNBAUM
Published: January 5, 2008
Fears that a recession is imminent -- or perhaps has already begun --
rocked the major stock markets this week as anxiety-addled investors
staggered through the first days of 2008.
Skip to next paragraph
Daniel Barry/Bloomberg News
The floor of the New York Stock Exchange Friday. The Dow fell over 200
points.
Multimedia
Down Days, Down Year?Graphic
Down Days, Down Year?
The blows came from several directions. On Friday, the government
reported that employers added fewer jobs in December than in any month
since August 2003, weakening one of the last pillars propping up the
ailing economy.
The cracks in the job market came on the back of $100 oil and a weak
report on manufacturing. Investors now see a significant slowdown
ahead. "If jobs go away, we've got a recession," said James W.
Paulsen, chief investment officer at Wells Capital Management. "Today
really ratcheted up fears."
When the closing bell rang on Friday, the Dow Jones industrials had
fallen 256.54 points, nearly 2 percent, to 12,800.18. Just three days
into 2008, the Dow has already given up half of its gains from last
year.
The Standard & Poor's 500-stock index, a broader measure of the
market, is off 3.9 percent since Wednesday, its third-worst start to a
year since the index began, though pale in comparison to a 7 percent
drop in the first three trading days of 1932.
The S. & P. lost 2.5 percent on Friday to close at 1,411.63, a
35.53-point loss. The technology-heavy Nasdaq composite index
plummeted 3.8 percent, or 98.03 points, to finish at 2,504.65. The
Nasdaq is down 5.5 percent since Wednesday.
Technology companies bore the brunt of the day's pain, led by an 8.1
percent fall in shares of Intel, the chip maker, after an analyst
downgraded the company citing an expected slowdown in orders. Apple
shares fell 7.63 percent, and Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard and I.B.M.
also recorded big declines.
Retail companies and other consumer-dependent sectors fell as well.
Analysts said the weak employment numbers spurred fears that consumers
would be less eager to spend if their jobs were endangered. "The
resiliency of the consumer was called into question," said Sam
Stovall, chief investment strategist at Standard & Poor's.
Investors ran for cover, moving into havens like gold and Treasury
bonds. The benchmark 10-year Treasury note rose for the sixth straight
day, climbing 5/32, to 103 2/32, and the yield, which moves in the
opposite direction from the price, fell to 3.87 percent from 3.89
percent late Thursday. The dollar rose slightly against the euro, and
crude oil futures fell $1.27, to $97.91 a barrel.
Market watchers may also have been unnerved by comments from President
Bush, who said on Friday that the nation "can't take economic growth
for granted."
Mr. Stovall said, "If the head cheerleader admits the economy is
faltering, that's not good."
Still, it was the jobs report, possibly the most influential monthly
indicator about the economy, that clinched a painful finish to a
painful week. Wall Street had been on edge since Wednesday, when a
manufacturing report that is considered a bellwether for business
activity came in weaker than expected and crude oil futures leaped to
a record nominal high.
Still haunted by fallout from the subprime mortgage crisis, investors
were looking to Friday's employment figures for a clearer picture of
the economy's growth prospects in 2008.
They did not like what they saw. The economy added just 18,000 jobs in
December, far below analysts' estimates of 60,000 additional jobs.
Annual job growth has fallen to its lowest level since 2004, and the
unemployment rate ticked up to 5 percent.
The weak report bolstered expectations that the Federal Reserve will
cut its benchmark interest rate when policy makers meet this month.
Futures markets now predict a half-point cut in the overnight lending
rate; on Thursday, investors betting on the Fed's actions expected a
quarter-point cut.
Investors often react favorably when a rate cut appears more likely,
but on Friday they focused on the poor outlook for the economy. "What
they're worried about is not whether or not the Fed is cutting rates,"
said William E. Rhodes, chief investment strategist at Rhodes
Analytics, a financial research firm. "What they're concerned about is
growth."
It was a marked change from previous months, when stock markets have
sometimes soared on poor economic data as investors hope central
bankers will lower rates, making it easier for banks to lend to
businesses, consumers, and each other.
But this week's economic clouds had no silver lining. With oil
touching $100 a barrel on Wednesday and consumer prices on the rise,
inflation warnings are now commonplace. Creeping inflation could
constrain the Fed from cutting rates, though bankers have hinted that
they are more focused on downside risks to growth.
If inflation rises, "the economy loses one of its defense mechanisms
to prevent a recession," said Russ Koesterich, head of investment
strategy at Barclay's Global Investors.
Some analysts on Friday sounded grateful to be heading out for the
weekend after a raucous New Year's week. "Three days?" Mr. Paulsen
asked, his voice grim. "Seems like it's been 10 months."
--
"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government
talking
about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order.
Nothing has
changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists,
we're
talking about getting a court order before we do so"
-George W. Bush, April 20, 2004
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed,http://yahoogroups/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (please contribute!)
http:yahoogroups/subscribe/zepps_essays
--
What do you call a Republican with a conscience?
An ex-Republican.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827(From Yang, AthD (h.c)
"I simply can not believe this is what the Republican party has
become. I just can't. It just makes me sick to think all those years
of supporting this party, and this is what it has become. Even if you
don't like the S-Chip expansion, it is hard to deny what Republicans
are- a bunch of bitter, nasty, petty, snarling, sneering, vicious
thugs, peering through people's windows so they can make fun of their
misfortune.
I'm registering Independent tomorrow."
Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
<TIME WARP>


Thank you president bush for bringing the dow to 13,000. Another
victory blah blah blah blah blah


remember when 13,000 was good news? Now bugs are celebrating it again
Loading...