Re: #Shook: Why Do We Have to Listen to this Crap? Republicans Should Sit Down and Shut Up!

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:33:30 -0500, nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 18:57:37 -0800 (PST), Milt <milt.shook@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Oct 31, 9:12 am, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:54:41 -0700 (PDT), Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >On Oct 30, 3:05 am, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> >> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:28:39 -0700 (PDT), Milt
<milt.sh...@gmail.com>
>>> >> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> >On Oct 29, 3:36 am, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com>
wrote:
>>> >> >> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:58:52 -0400, nobody
<nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> >> >> >On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 05:49:07 -0700 (PDT), Milt
<milt.sh...@gmail.com>
>>> >> >> >wrote:
>>>
>>> >> >> >>On Oct 27, 3:01 am, nobody
<nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> >> >> >>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 06:20:47 -0700 (PDT),
Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com>
>>> >> >> >>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> >> >>> >On Oct 26, 3:10 am, nobody
<nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> >> >> >>> >> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:04:38 -0700
(PDT), Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com>
>>> >> >> >>> >> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> >> >>> >> >On Oct 23, 2:59 am, nobody
<nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009
09:40:20 -0500, GaryDeWaay
>>>
>>> >> >> >>> >> >>
<dewaay2spike...@sio.midco.net> wrote:
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >In article
<9ic0e511rtij9hlunqidutup2qhjk0k...@4ax.com>,
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >nob...@nowhere.com
nobody  says...
>>>
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> On Wed, 21 Oct
2009 09:43:45 -0500, GaryDeWaay
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>
<dewaay2spike...@sio.midco.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >In article
<e6otd519jj9luimsbfilt26ee4bskv0...@4ax.com>,
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>
>nob...@nowhere.com nobody  says...
>>>
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> On Tue,
20 Oct 2009 22:21:55 -0500, GaryDeWaay
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>
<dewaay2spike...@sio.midco.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >In
article <0ghgd5ht0nq930f9n215bbidetkn4mq...@4ax.com>,
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>
>nob...@nowhere.com nobody  says...
>>>
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>
>Perhaps you'll have to read the article. It's there.
>>>
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>
Didn't see it -- perhaps you'd care to repost it.
>>>
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>
>Hey... I have two seconds!
>>>
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>
>heartland.org/publicat...
>>>
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >Or
here:
>>>
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>
>http://www.arguewitheveryone.com/current-events/42290-red-state-retards-
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>
>drain-all-taxes.html
>>>
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >Ever
hear of "Google"?   Did your buddies always do your homework for
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >you
while growing up?
>>>
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> I
believe that Miltie's claim (and forgive me if it I don't get it
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> quite
right because of his avoiding and childish swearing for days)
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> was that
California was in trouble largely because of the money they
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> don't
get back from the feds.  *That* is the cite that has not been
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>
provided.
>>>
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >Uhh... his
point is very simple... if the personal tax money they are
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >coughing up
to help out the red states federally simply went into their
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >OWN states
budget, they would be fine.  Hell they would have a surplus.
>>>
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >How come you
missed that?
>>>
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> Didn't miss it
all.  I can clearly see how much goes out.  The claim
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> that this single
factor is the reason for California's budget disaster
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> remains
unsupported.
>>>
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >Its his opinion... how
do you cite an opinion?
>>>
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> You mean you don't base
your opinons on fact?  That explains a lot
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> about the folks around
here.
>>>
>>> >> >> >>> >> >What do you base your opinions
on? Sure as shit isn't fact.
>>>
>>> >> >> >>> >> I at least try (unlike some folks
around here apparently).
>>>
>>> >> >> >>> >No you don't. You, like all right
wingers, base your opinions on your
>>> >> >> >>> >closely held "beliefs" about
what should be. There is no factual basis
>>> >> >> >>> >for most of them. Like your irritating
and constant insistence that
>>> >> >> >>> >everyone else cite everything, when you
yourself make statements of
>>> >> >> >>> >"fact," sans evidence of any
kind. Strangely, they're usually wrong.
>>>
>>> >> >> >>> Irony anyone?
>>>
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> > My question
for him is how come the states that get even
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> less
money back (percentage-wise) aren't in bigger financial trouble
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> than
California?  
>>>
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >I live in a
red state that sucks on the federal tit (SD) and we are
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >teetering on
the edge (especially in the rural areas)... but there was
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >an article
yesterday in the Argus Leader pointing out that the federal
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >stimulus
monies either created or saved 1400 jobs.
>>>
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> "Created or
saved" = Let me pull this number out of my butt...
>>>
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >It came from the State
Budget Director of SD, Jason Dilges, take it up
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >with him then.
>>>
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >You must lie a lot
yourself to think that everyone else is a liar.
>>>
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> "Created or
saved" never seems to be actually based on anything and
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> also seems to be buzzword
to make people feel better about having been
>>> >> >> >>> >> >> spent into oblivion.
 How does one prove a job has been "saved"?
>>>
>>> >> >> >>> >> >That's actually quite easy.
States usually know about what are called
>>> >> >> >>> >> >"mass layoffs" (which
can actually be as few as 15 people) before
>>> >> >> >>> >> >employees receive pink slips.
If they get a mass layoff notice, and
>>> >> >> >>> >> >that notice is rescinded, they
know that way. Plus, when they get word
>>> >> >> >>> >> >that a company is in financial
trouble, often state and local
>>> >> >> >>> >> >authorities will go in and try
to intercede, offering tax abatement or
>>> >> >> >>> >> >other incentives to keep the
jobs.
>>>
>>> >> >> >>> >> And your proof that this is what
actually happened is where again???
>>>
>>> >> >> >>> >See? I've known this for years. In fact,
the BLS puts out a survey of
>>> >> >> >>> >"mass layoff" numbers once per
month.
>>>
>>> >> >> >>> As they relate to "created or
saved"?  Not that you've demonstrated
>>> >> >> >>> here.
>>>
>>> >> >> >>> >Here's the difference between you and
me. When someone here says
>>> >> >> >>> >something that sounds plausible, I look
it up to find the details.
>>>
>>> >> >> >>> Oddly you haven't provided them.  Maybe
it's more of those facts that
>>> >> >> >>> exist only in Miltie-land...
>>>
>>> >> >> >>> BTW, here's a link to a WSJ editorial that
says pretty much what I've
>>> >> >> >>> been saying about the issue.
>>>
>>> >> >>
>>>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124451592762396883.html
>>>
>>> >> >> >>An editorial?
>>>
>>> >> >> >>Irony anyone?
>>>
>>> >> >> >It's more than you've provided to support your
ranting here.  If you
>>> >> >> >can't address the article, then just say so.
>>>
>>> >> >> And Miltie flees again...
>>>
>>> >> >You're so dishonest, it's not even funny...
>>>
>>> >> >I told you that i wasn't going to be around much after
Tuesday. And I
>>> >> >know you saw it, because you responded to it BEFORE you wrote
this
>>> >> >one.
>>>
>>> >> Nice try.  The message you ran away from was posted on the
same day as
>>> >> the other messages you responded to.  No dishonesty on *my*
part.
>>>
>>> >> Here's the message and time stamp from the message you avoided:
>>>
>>>
>>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/53cb5f792839...
>>>
>>> >> And here's one your message where you said you weren't going to be
>>> >> around:
>>>
>>>
>>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/d82bbdc9b535...
>>>
>>> >> This was posted well after the message you avoided.  Now if
you want
>>> >> to blame your news provider for being slow fine, but don't call me
>>> >> dishonest for it.
>>>
>>> >Nice try, fucktard. I was talking about the message you wrote
>>> >yesterday, you idiot, where you claimed I had not responded to your
>>> >message. You wrote that AFTER you responded to the message saying I
>>> >wasn't going to be around much.
>>>
>>> >You're either dishonest, or incredibly stupid. If you would rather
>>> >admit to being incredibly stupid, that's fine with me.
>>>
>>> Oh and while we're at it, here's another one you avoided.
>>>
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/854362ffe883...
>>>
>>> At least Miltie is consistent.
>>
>>I avoided a post that shows me as the author? That's quite the
>>trick...
>>
>
>Oh look Miltie's lying again (fancy that).  The post I cited was
>authored by me.  Here it is again:
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/854362ffe883cebb?dmode=sour
ce
>
>>Fucking moron.
>
>Major irony anyone?

Apparently Miltie is incapable of admitting when he is in error.  Some
more childish swear words perhaps?
[ Auf dieses Posting antworten ]