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

On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 20:12:04 -0800 (PST), Milt <milt.shook@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Nov 2, 8:20 am, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 06:22:29 -0800 (PST), Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Nov 1, 5:03 am, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 12:12:58 -0400, 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.
>>
>> >> And Miltie consistently vanishes again..
>>
>> >Dishonest prick.
>>
>> Did you respond to the message above or any of those I pointed out in
>> the previous days?  I haven't been dishonest about a thing.
>
>Yes, you have.

I  pointed out a specific message you avoided and was called a
dishonest (childish swear-word)  by you.  Where was I dishonest in
what I said?
[ Auf dieses Posting antworten ]
Antworten

- (04.11.2009 11:59)