Jack Snow (vs. Greenspan)

bungrider · May 12, 2003

Quote from TM_Direct:

Your now on Reagan????? Everytime I call you on the carpet to defend an argument, you leave........You make statements, somebody tells you your wrong and you move on.....this is true liberalism at its best....and the reaosn bush in 04 is looking stronger every day...keep up the good work!

You just fucked your entire argument AGAIN.

You pulled Clinton's Blowjob out of a hat when you got cornered, and now you accuse me of doing the same thing with Reagan. (And let's face it, Reagan was ten times the criminal Clinton could ever be on his worst day).

For pulling out the blowjob, you've reduced your argument to tabloid-style sensationalist rhetoric.

Come on, TM, you're a little weak today.

Pulling out Clinton's blowjob is CLASSIC republican blame-shifting -- it's a real joy for me to watch it play out at any level, so thanks for that!!

swtrader · May 12, 2003

Quote from TM_Direct:

My mistake...I watched Joe kennedy berate the SUV on Hanity and Colmes and then almsot walk off the set in anger when it was pointed out that he flew on a private jet from mass. to NYC and then hopped into a limo from the airport....." Do as I say...not as i do"

fair enough, i readily conceed that MOST pols are total hypicrites (like Bill Bennet's critisism of Clinton, think of all the casino time he lost having to set things straight)

by the way, im neither a republican or dem (although im still registered as a repub from working on a campaign)

i think the whole thing is a duopoly, a false choice, and i blame them EQUALLY for the buget mess, one side for spending, and the other for reckless tax cuts

TM_Direct · May 12, 2003

I didn't;t bring up the clinton bj.....You brought up Clinton...i said that neither Clinton, nor Bush have any policy to improve the economy....You blamed Bush sr. for OBL...I mentioned Clinton's chance at him...You said he admits when he's wrong which even you have to admit is ridiculous...where is the miscommunication coming from?

bungrider · May 12, 2003

Quote from TM_Direct:

Do as I say...not as i do"

Hmm...Kennedy aside (I'm not going to defend that prick!), the whole blowing coke and driving drunk routine does come to mind with the hypocrisy issue here...

Frankly, TM, both of us are having a pretty tough time defending ANY politicians -- so why waste our time??

I need to trade today to pay the bills -- this is far more fun and interesting, and it's costing me money!

I'm laying off for the rest of the afternoon -- but I do want to know about Jack Snow -- so let's (please) get back to him otherwise this thread will be banned to chit-chat where it will fester and die.............

Peace,
bung

bungrider · May 12, 2003

Quote from TM_Direct:

I didn't;t bring up the clinton bj.....You brought up Clinton...i said that neither Clinton, nor Bush have any policy to improve the economy....You blamed Bush sr. for OBL...I mentioned Clinton's chance at him...You said he admits when he's wrong which even you have to admit is ridiculous...where is the miscommunication coming from?

Fair enough.

Back to Snow!

swtrader · May 12, 2003

Quote from bungrider:

2) I am against anything that has already cost $60+ billion dollars while engineers claimed that one, it would never work, and two, even if it did work it would not be effective enough to stop ALL incoming missles -- and all you need is just one ICBM impact to cause total economic devastation.

.

star wars is total stupidity

bush has spent his term convincing us that all anyone has to do is smuggle nukes into cities, then set them off later

why watch the sky when the nuke is coming in on a logging truck from canada

AAAintheBeltway · May 12, 2003

Quote from swtrader:

im more for reducing spending than i am against cutting taxes, my interest is in a ballanced budget, i would eagerly support a program of cutting spending

but i feel you must cut spending before you cut taxes

This makes a lot of common sense, which is perhaps why it does not work in our world of politics. The fact is congress has shown itself over time to spend something like 105% of all available revenues. If you want an alcoholic to quit, you cut off the booze, end of story. Same with congress. Give them revenues and they will spend it. Plus more. Funny that we never hear these concerns about the deficit from Dem's when big spending programs are being considered, only tax cuts.

There is one law of modern politics: Democrats will oppose any and all economically sensible tax cuts. The rationales will change, but they will always be against cutting taxes.

taodr · May 12, 2003

I have a question for you before this gets buried in chit chat. Sometimes a good mental stretch helps trading.

Now that DEms want Hillary to be president: Will she be GIVING blowjobs in the whitehouse. ????????????

TM_Direct · May 12, 2003

Quote from bungrider:

1) I am for the legalization of any victimless crime for two reasons -- one, I don't want to pay to enforce them nor do I want to pay to feed the convicted offenders, and two I am tired of laws that reflect religious beliefs.

2) I am against anything that has already cost $60+ billion dollars while engineers claimed that one, it would never work, and two, even if it did work it would not be effective enough to stop ALL incoming missiles -- and all you need is just one ICBM impact to cause total economic devastation.

It may not stop ALL of them... but what if 1 or 2 nukes come flying out of N. Korea? I would be for that....they all laughed when JFK challenged us to put a man on the moon....yet we did it ( why I don;t know, but we did it).....We already have the patriot system which has saved lives....I think we can and will do star wars defense someday.

Just remember this on your Legalization of drugs......Do you know how much it costs to take care of and rehab all these addicts? probably more on a yearly basis then the war ....now if you make it accessible to everyone, your overall costs will triple...but hey, i m game , I prefer beer anyway

swtrader · May 12, 2003

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

This makes a lot of common sense, which is perhaps why it does not work in our world of politics. The fact is congress has shown itself over time to spend something like 105% of all available revenues. If you want an alcoholic to quit, you cut off the booze, end of story. Same with congress. Give them revenues and they will spend it. Plus more. Funny that we never hear these concerns about the deficit from Dem's when big spending programs are being considered, only tax cuts.

There is one law of modern politics: Democrats will oppose any and all economically sensible tax cuts. The rationales will change, but they will always be against cutting taxes.

although im still a registered republican, i consider myself an independent

i am against big spending even more than tax cuts

problem with our spend-a-holics is that they still have a credit card

thats the issue