I haven't heard anyone say "nigger" or "Colored" to describe a black person while living in either Arizona or Redneckville Nevada. But I sure as hell heard it used more than 20 times while on my Job interview in New York this weekend...
Printable View
I haven't heard anyone say "nigger" or "Colored" to describe a black person while living in either Arizona or Redneckville Nevada. But I sure as hell heard it used more than 20 times while on my Job interview in New York this weekend...
Yeah, that's the problem with melting pots. Not everything goes together so well.Quote:
Originally Posted by P_McPoser
Things might appear pretty backwards in Alabama or Mississippi, but it has been that way for a long long time. Both sides don't seem to have an issue with it. Outsiders looking in do.
Deficits have never affected interest rates. Structural deficits have been expanding since Reagan yet interest rates have been trending lower and are at or near 50 year lows. In fact, the fed has tried to raise long term rates but so far have been unsuccessful. Deflation is currently a much bigger long term risk than inflation. Reconciling entitlement programs (social security) and budget shortfalls are the single biggest long term risk the US economy faces. Japan is an example of what protracted deflation can do (zero interest rates, falling prices, unemployment)Quote:
Originally Posted by DisArray
Tax cuts for the sake of tax cuts have zero affect on the economy. A long sighted balance between taxes and spending is whats needed. And recall that after Bush 41 raised taxes we entered one of the most prosperous and expansive global economies in history.
Nice analysis. I still have to disagree with you on taxes. Your history is wrong. The basis of the 90's economic expansion were- the fall of communism, expansion of free trade, a strong dollar, lowering of the capital gains tax rate, a flight of capital to the U.S. from flailing Asian economies, a balanced budget, extremely low oil prices, and increased productivity due to the advance of information technology.Quote:
Originally Posted by 4matic
Bush 41 raising taxes had nothing but a negative impact. The economy never really got off the ground until the republicans took control of congress in '94 and forced Clinton to capitulate on many of the issues, like a capital gains tax cut, and lower spending, a balanced budget, which ended up helping the economy.
Tax cuts work every single time. Lowering taxes is good for the economy. There is plenty of empirical evidence to back this up. From Kennedy to Reagan to Bush42. Economies with lower tax rates always do better relative to their higher taxed counterparts. (Why do you think Hong Kong was such an economically prosperous area for most of the twentieth century?)
Deficits can affect interest rates or inflation when the governments try to pay down debt by printing more money.
You are absolutely right that reconciling entitlement programs (social security) and budget shortfalls are the single biggest long term risk the US economy faces. Nothing leads me to believe that Hillary Clinton would do anything but expand those entitlement programs, raise taxes, hurt the economy and make those problems even worse.
that is the real point...Hillary has the same problem that McCain had in 2000 and will have this time, the base will be pissed at Hillary about the War and the evangelicals will not trust McCain to stroke their bullshit agendaQuote:
And, oh yeah, voting for this fucking war.
therefore they both will get beatdown in the primaries allowing two dipshits we don't know much about right now to come to the front...
...unless I am talking out of my ass or subconsciously quoting some smart guy I heard on NPR, both of which are distinct possibilities...
Its not insider just straight up standard ESPNQuote:
Originally Posted by mr_gyptian
Oh nothing, as long as you love what's gone on in the last administration.:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_gyptian
Yeah, the economy sucked tit when Bill was President. What the fuck is it with the assumption that democrats can't manage the economy. The truth is dumbfucks can't run the economy. I don't give a rats ass which party a candidate is from if they are fiscally conservaitive and don't feed me a bunch of bullshit on a stick.Quote:
Originally Posted by DisArray
It pisses me off when I hear people say that democrats will tax us into a recession or they'll screw the economy by enacting too many environmental protections. It's a fucking scare tactic. The dems are almost as deeply in the pocket of the corporate lobbyists as the republicans.
The American public, generally speaking, is economically illiterate. For chissakes, 80% of us can't even figure out that we have to put something away for retirement before we turn 50 and then whine about the state of social security once we figure out that it leaves us on a Friskies diet. The truth is most people are fiscally uneducated and even those that aren't generally buy whatever economic arguement helps rationalize their current spending habits.
That didn't sound too negative did it?
The stock market has historically done better under Democrat administrations.Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteHunter
"Looking at the 72-year period between 1927 and 1999, the study shows that a broad stock index, similar to the S&P 500, returned approximately 11 percent more a year on average under a Democratic president versus safer, three-month Treasurys. By comparison, the index only returned 2 percent more a year versus the T-bills when Republicans were in office."
I agree. But I think you have to really emphazize the magnitude of the technological revolution that took place in the 90's. It was akin to the impact that the industrial revolution brought. The investment, growth, change in productivity and human lifestyle fueled one of the greatest single boom's in history. And that was happening no matter who was in office.Quote:
Originally Posted by DisArray
Read up on Ken Fischer, the money manager and forbes columnist about the stock mkt vs. deficits. Historically speaking, it has been in times of deficit spending that the stock market has outperformed. And when that changed in 2000, the bull mkt ended. However that is probably only one of many reasons, obviously.
i don't think it's racist...i just think everybody hates everybody. race has nothing to do with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by warthog
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tippster
IMHO, this is the most insightful post of the thread; it's right on target. Regarding Obama, he's 1/2 white (his mom is from Kansas). He was the president of the Harvard Law Review, and he is very polished. That said, he will not get elected; nor does he have my vote.
It will be an interesting campaign, that will, no doubt, be over-influenced by the media and smear tactics.
It is too bad because Dr. Condoleezza Rice would make a great President so would General Colin Powell. And thats coming from a New Englander.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush
Regarding all of the above posts re: racist/sexist/anti-adultery voters, won't those people vote for the GOP nominee regardless of who the Dems' candidate is? I mean, how many of these types of people out there are more likely to vote for John Edwards or Bill Richardson vs. McCain or Romney than they would for Hillary or Obama? I'm not convinced that this number is not exceeded by the number of first-time voters that would come out of the woodwork to vote for the First Woman President or the First African American President.
And I agree that the Northeast is full of racists. So is Utah, Wyoming and Montana. So is Marin County. So is Wisconsin, Minnesota, Hawaii and England.
Hillary,Obama,Condi,Powell,Nader,Colbert....I would gladly take any one of these as president so long as we get bush the fuck out of office. I wish someone would assassinate him.
Intern then later paid employee, small but important difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tippster
http://www.rolandvia.com/Monica%20Lewinsky.jpg
Nope. She blew him when she was an adult. Whether or not she was being paid to hang out in the White House or not is immaterial. She was not a child - she could have starred in an all-anal porno and nobody would have cared.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuckerman
You just comitted a felony, you fucking moron.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diz_MT
You are right
"Washington D.C. - Age of Consent Laws
The following information was taken from the Online Source for the District of Columbia at http://government.westlaw.com/linked...sp?SP=DCC-1000
Subchapter I. General Provisions. (Refs & Annos)
>>§ 22-3001. Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter:
(1) "Actor" means a person accused of any offense proscribed under this chapter.
(2) "Bodily injury" means injury involving loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty, or physical disfigurement, disease, sickness, or injury involving significant pain.
(3) "Child" means a person who has not yet attained the age of 16 years.
(4) "Consent" means words or overt actions indicating a freely given agreement to the sexual act or contact in question. Lack of verbal or physical resistance or submission by the victim, resulting from the use of force, threats, or coercion by the defendant shall not constitute consent.
(5) "Force" means the use or threatened use of a weapon; the use of such physical strength or violence as is sufficient to overcome, restrain, or injure a person; or the use of a threat of harm sufficient to coerce or compel submission by the victim.
(6) "Official custody" means:
(A) Detention following arrest for an offense; following surrender in lieu of arrest for an offense; following a charge or conviction of an offense, or an allegation or finding of juvenile delinquency; following commitment as a material witness; following or pending civil commitment proceedings, or pending extradition, deportation, or exclusion;
(B) Custody for purposes incident to any detention described in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, including transportation, medical diagnosis or treatment, court appearance, work, and recreation; or
(C) Probation or parole.
(7) "Serious bodily injury" means bodily injury that involves a substantial risk of death, unconsciousness, extreme physical pain, protracted and obvious disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty.
(8) "Sexual act" means:
(A) The penetration, however slight, of the anus or vulva of another by a penis;
(B) Contact between the mouth and the penis, the mouth and the vulva, or the mouth and the anus; or
(C) The penetration, however slight, of the anus or vulva by a hand or finger or by any object, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.
(D) The emission of semen is not required for the purposes of subparagraphs (A)-(C) of this paragraph.
(9) "Sexual contact" means the touching with any clothed or unclothed body part or any object, either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.
(10) "Significant relationship" includes:
(A) A parent, sibling, aunt, uncle, or grandparent, whether related by blood, marriage, or adoption;
(B) A legal or de facto guardian or any person, more than 4 years older than the victim, who resides intermittently or permanently in the same dwelling as the victim;
(C) The person or the spouse or paramour of the person who is charged with any duty or responsibility for the health, welfare, or supervision of the victim at the time of the act; and
(D) A teacher, scout master, coach, recreation center leader, or others in similar positions.
(11) "Victim" means a person who is alleged to have been subject to any offense set forth in subchapter II of this chapter."
She was 22 - an adult in every way.
The website you quoted even says she started having her affair witht he President in November - shortly after getting hired. She was NOT an intern when she played the skin flute - not that it matters, just for the sake of accuracy.
The 67% increase in uncertainty between Hillary and Obama speaks volume.
http://tetongravity.com/forums/attac...1&d=1169504472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush
jeebus, I must not be speaking ESPN-ese these days.
I guess my first question for Hillary and I's conversation would concern her stance on pardoning terrorists. Specifically if her husband's pardon of these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuerzas...Puerto_Rico%29 FALN terrorists helped her senate run in 2000. Secondly, if she supported her husband's final act of office regarding the pardon of weather underground terrorists? Thirdly, if she has taken any money from Denise Rich and her oil embargo skirting not so ex-husband Mark?
He attended a mostly Muslim school in the Muslim country that his mother and step father moved to for a couple of years at about 10 years of age.Quote:
Originally Posted by BlurredElevens
Hysterical reporting by the Bushite media over the weekend would make one believe he attended a terrorist training camp.
Marc Rich is a brilliant man. A pioneer in trading who did nothing that big oil companies weren't doing. He was a scapegoat that Rudolph Guliani used to climb the political ladder. If you want to read a great book I suggest:Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_gyptian
http://ec2.images-amazon.com/images/...CLZZZZZZZ_.jpg
http://www.amazon.com/Metal-Men-Defr.../dp/006097060X
That would be like asking Bush if he supports Saddam's regime because his former Secretary of Defense met with Saddam and supported him. And you think liberals have conspiracy theories. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_gyptian