[villalobos]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The problem is that you don't really understand what is going on.



The same laws in question that allowed all the lending institutions to do what they do where being questioned back in 2004, and Republicans where requesting more oversight and regulation over this stuff. Barney Frank, Maxine Waters and the rest of the Democrat Motley Crew insisted there was no problem and that the Republicans where just looking for trouble.

The same thing that killed F&F killed everything else - the notion that the government supported, encouraged and allowed lending institutions to give mortgages to people who were under-qualified and would help with their GSE's if there was trouble. The problem was, there was more "trouble" than the GSE's could handle. The Republicans tried to institute change, but the Democrats fought tooth and nail.

Big picture, boy, look at the big picture. You are blinded by your political bias.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Here's a pretty good breakdown of the final bill:

http://projects.nytimes.com/44th_president/stimulus

1 BILLLION for the Census, which is normally already funded via regular budget allocation?

What kind of funny business are they planning on doing here, really?

Originally Posted by subego 

What I'm confused about is your implication the analogy breaks down WRT the personal responsibility one can assign for being "albatrossed" to the respective presidents.

You state Obama hung this around his own neck, as opposed to Bush, who...?

Didn't fail, and did what he and plenty of other people thought was the right thing to do at the time they did it. I can't find many people willing to defend Obama's Porkulous bill, really. Not any experts anyways. I could find plenty of experts and pretty much bi-partisan support when the war started.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Here's a pretty good breakdown of the final bill:

http://projects.nytimes.com/44th_president/stimulus

I grant you, it's an okay balcony view. Good from afar, but far from good at the grassroots level. See post above yours.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by villalobos 

Big picture, boy, look at the big picture. You are blinded by your political bias.

That WAS the big picture, and you'd do well to follow your own advice.

[villalobos]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

That WAS the big picture, and you'd do well to follow your own advice.

No it is not. You are focusing on a minor side of the crisis, which feeds your political agenda. I, on the other side, am looking at the big picture. I am a scientist it's part of my education.

[villalobos]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Didn't fail, and did what he and plenty of other people thought was the right thing to do at the time they did it. I can't find many people willing to defend Obama's Porkulous bill, really. Not any experts anyways. I could find plenty of experts and pretty much bi-partisan support when the war started.

Did not fail?? There was a bipartisanship in France and the UK before WWII NOT to intervene to help Poland. I guess since it was bipartisan it was the right thing to do huh? Who cares if it's bipartisan, the bottom line is it was a complete blunder to go to Iraq, under erroneous (or worse knowingly false) presumptions. The fact that some political puppets agreed to it or not does NOT make it rught. Once again you are looking at history from your narrow-minded partisan point of view...

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

1 BILLLION for the Census, which is normally already funded via regular budget allocation?

What kind of funny business are they planning on doing here, really?

Before the bill, the 2010 census had a projected cost overrun of $3 billion.

As a once-in-ten-years undertaking, the census is actually a pretty quick way to put extra people to work. I'm surprised to see it criticized.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by villalobos 

No it is not. You are focusing on a minor side of the crisis, which feeds your political agenda. I, on the other side, am looking at the big picture. I am a scientist it's part of my education.

Maybe you need to go back to school? I'd first take a course in logic. You'd learn what a "appeal to authority" logical fallacy was. Do they not use logic in science?

I am focusing on what allowed the problem to happen, which is a major part of the crisis. You are apparently focusing on individual smaller aspects in order to shift blame. There's nothing scientific about that.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Before the bill, the 2010 census had a projected cost overrun of $3 billion.

Why? What has happened to cause the estimated cost to go up over 3 billion dollars? What specifically would account for such a HUGE overrun when we have been doing censuses from the get go and pretty much can fairly estimate costs since it's not a complicated process, unless of course the government is now planning on making it an unnecessarily (ie. wasteful) complex process.

As a once-in-ten-years undertaking, the census is actually a pretty quick way to put extra people to work. I'm surprised to see it criticized.

We had already planned for a census, so the "extra people" would have been put into place regardless of the 1 billion. It's not an "emergency" and the jobs that are created are short-term and not really high paying (since people don't quit jobs to become census employees).

Try again....

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by villalobos 

Did not fail?? There was a bipartisanship in France and the UK before WWII NOT to intervene to help Poland. I guess since it was bipartisan it was the right thing to do huh? Who cares if it's bipartisan, the bottom line is it was a complete blunder to go to Iraq, under erroneous (or worse knowingly false) presumptions.

Hindsight is 20/20. Bush and the Democrat and Republican members of Congress who voted had all the same information and there was bipartisan agreement to act and most experts agreed. That's not the case here.

While Iraq was rough going, they changed course and stabilized to the point where the new Democrat President has decided to keep most of the people in charge because they know what they are doing.

If you really want to try and compare this to the stimulus package which just about everyone but the far left and those in the Obama administration agrees is a total failed attempt out of the box, without any bipartisan support, then you can go ahead with that notion. The party who complained about the war as a majority voted as a majority in the opposite direction when it counted. That won't be the case when the chickens come home to roost in regards to the stimulus, and why I said that the Democrats have hung this around their own necks. They didn't have to try to fix things without bipartisan support - they choose to. What Bush choose DID have bipartisan support

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by villalobos 

Big picture, boy, look at the big picture. You are blinded by your political bias.

Right cuz the answer to bad economic policy, greedy bankers, and investors is HIGHER TAXES!!! (of course, none for those who actually create wealth and jobs.) I'm a scientist!!! Like I told you in my response on page 1, you might be more suited for the iPod forum; Dr...?

Still curious regarding your idea on page 1 of higher taxes for wealth distribution to the lower quintiles of the economy. Once you've paid February rent for the guy who's down on his luck, what do you do about the rent for March? Pass another $800 billion stimulus?

Blinded by political bias, big picture, scientist... it's all too much. Why is it always the one with excrement on his chin telling you your face is dirty?

[villalobos]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Hindsight is 20/20. Bush and the Democrat and Republican members of Congress who voted had all the same information and there was bipartisan agreement to act and most experts agreed. That's not the case here.

While Iraq was rough going, they changed course and stabilized to the point where the new Democrat President has decided to keep most of the people in charge because they know what they are doing.

If you really want to try and compare this to the stimulus package which just about everyone but the far left and those in the Obama administration agrees is a total failed attempt out of the box, without any bipartisan support, then you can go ahead with that notion. The party who complained about the war as a majority voted as a majority in the opposite direction when it counted. That won't be the case when the chickens come home to roost in regards to the stimulus, and why I said that the Democrats have hung this around their own necks. They didn't have to try to fix things without bipartisan support - they choose to. What Bush choose DID have bipartisan support

"most experts agreed." Except for those wqho actually WERE in Iraq. But then they were part of the UN mission, THEREFORE they had to be dismissed, and instead it was more convenient (for political reason again, i little bit like you right now) to believe one Iraqi dissident, who was all too happy to make up stories about WMD, in line with his own political agenda (a little bit like you, again. How odd?).
I will not have to condescension to tell you to go back to school, but I will advise you to take off your partisan glasses, because they are not helping you in your opinion making.
Once again, the FM & FM is more a collateral damage of the bigger crisis that America is facing, i.e. it has lived way beyond its means for the last two decades (see, I am blaming both Republican and Democrat administrations here?). Now it is time to rein down on the budget deficit (taxing the wealthier people like me is a good start), and to tell people that moderation and conservation is a good thing. That's why I would have like to see more investment in renewables and mass transit in this stimulus (long term), and less in tax cuts (short term, as well as short sighted).

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by villalobos 

"most experts agreed." Except for those wqho actually WERE in Iraq.

There were a whole bunch of people in Iraq, not simply UN personnel.

But then they were part of the UN mission, THEREFORE they had to be dismissed, and instead it was more convenient (for political reason again, i little bit like you right now) to believe one Iraqi dissident, who was all too happy to make up stories about WMD, in line with his own political agenda (a little bit like you, again. How odd?).

There were over 12 years and 13 failed UN Resolutions serving only to starve the Iraqi people to death to base this decision on. You heard only WMDs, but there were a wealth of reasons to invade and change the regime.

Once again, the FM & FM is more a collateral damage of the bigger crisis that America is facing, i.e. it has lived way beyond its means for the last two decades (see, I am blaming both Republican and Democrat administrations here?).

Yes, you are implicating both Democrats and Republicans, but in the most dubious way. What you're implicating is government for poor stewardship of resource through horrible policy. Your solution merely takes more of our resources and doles them out first to the government who has been poor stewards, then to those who cannot and do not traditionally create wealth and jobs.

Now it is time to rein down on the budget deficit (taxing the wealthier people like me is a good start), and to tell people that moderation and conservation is a good thing. That's why I would have like to see more investment in renewables and mass transit in this stimulus (long term), and less in tax cuts (short term, as well as short sighted).

You start off by railing on the budget deficit, the single largest bill that has ever been signed was signed within 2 days, no one having read it, and your biggest problem is the lack of tax increases and investment renewables and mass transit? What incredibly adept steward of finance is going to administer these lofty goals, the government? They can't even hand money out effectively.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Why? What has happened to cause the estimated cost to go up over 3 billion dollars? What specifically would account for such a HUGE overrun when we have been doing censuses from the get go and pretty much can fairly estimate costs since it's not a complicated process, unless of course the government is now planning on making it an unnecessarily (ie. wasteful) complex process.

We had already planned for a census, so the "extra people" would have been put into place regardless of the 1 billion. It's not an "emergency" and the jobs that are created are short-term and not really high paying (since people don't quit jobs to become census employees).

Try again....

You're surprised that the Congress doesn't properly fund or prepare for its mandates? I thought you were the one who was skeptical about government here. Clearly, no, we had not put everything into place to carry out the census. The cost didn't necessarily go up -- we just hadn't allocated the funding. Although we do them every 10 years, they have a habit of sneaking up on us. As for your other comment -- anything that is going to create jobs in the short term is likely not going to create high-paying, rewarding jobs. But if one of your concerns is to put people to work immediately, short-term projects are the way to do it.

[BadKosh]

Instead of trusting the mortgage companies to actually helping the home-owners, How about:

1. the mortgage companies should take your CURRENT county/city property value and apply IT instead of the amount you borrowed to your same loan agreement, and refigure your monthly loan payment.

Say you borrowed $350K for a house 5 years ago. NOW, it's worth $275K. A loss of $75K.

The $75K becomes the equity in the home, and the new loan amount reflects the TRUTH of your houses value. No money actually changes hands, just the numbers on paper.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by villalobos 

Big picture, boy, look at the big picture. You are blinded by your political bias.

You mean THIS??? :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr1M1T2Y314

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I could find plenty of experts and pretty much bi-partisan support when the war started.

Bush had bipartisan support and then lost it...

That's your contrast in personal responsibility?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Instead of trusting the mortgage companies to actually helping the home-owners, How about:

1. the mortgage companies should take your CURRENT county/city property value and apply IT instead of the amount you borrowed to your same loan agreement, and refigure your monthly loan payment.

Say you borrowed $350K for a house 5 years ago. NOW, it's worth $275K. A loss of $75K.

The $75K becomes the equity in the home, and the new loan amount reflects the TRUTH of your houses value. No money actually changes hands, just the numbers on paper.

Uh, that makes no sense whatsoever. The mortgage company lent you a specific amount of money. That is the amount of money you own them, plus the interest accumulated at whatever rate you agreed to. Just because you chose to invest that money poorly and have lost money doesn't mean that the amount you owe the mortgage holder is or should be lessened. It's reasonable for the terms of repayment, or the interest rate to be adjusted to help you make your payments (because they don't want you to default any more than you do), but to simply expect them to forgive your debt because you made poor decisions is ridiculous.

[Uncle Skeleton]

I think he's talking about forcing banks to change the LTV ratio used, not about debt forgiveness. It still wouldn't work, but not for the reason you said.

[BadKosh]

I wasn't responsible for the collapse of the mortgage industry or the banks and yet WE are all going to pay for it. Where are the thousands of appraisers, real estate agents and mortgage industry people? NOT IN JAIL. Why shouldn't a re-valuation take place? I would RATHER they end up in jail for 8-20 years each.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

I wasn't responsible for the collapse of the mortgage industry or the banks and yet WE are all going to pay for it. Where are the thousands of appraisers, real estate agents and mortgage industry people? NOT IN JAIL. Why shouldn't a re-valuation take place? I would RATHER they end up in jail for 8-20 years each.

Because it's not the fault of any of those people that property values are dropping...

[BadKosh]

Who is?

[SpaceMonkey]

There should be revaluations if only to revise property taxes (which would benefit the homeowner), but that wouldn't negate the value of the loan you actually took out. The only way I can think of that the scheme you describe would operate would be if the government stepped in to cover that $75K difference, which would only increase the burden on the taxpayer.

[CreepDogg]

So let's say I take out a car loan, say 15K on a 25K car, and the day after I drive it off the lot I smash it up. Insurance fixes it, but because it's 'damaged goods' it's now worth only 10K. Should the bank forgive my loan?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Who is?

News flash: prices sometimes go down. If you thought that housing prices could only go ever-higher, that's your own fault.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Who is?

Not everything is caused by an agent to which we can assign blame.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

So let's say I take out a car loan, say 15K on a 25K car, and the day after I drive it off the lot I smash it up. Insurance fixes it, but because it's 'damaged goods' it's now worth only 10K. Should the bank forgive my loan?

That person has a really crumby insurance company.

[SpaceMonkey]

Once again, the sandwich-heavy portfolio pays off for the hungry investor!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I think I'm still not making my point clear. Basically, a certain amount of wealth disappeared from the economy as a result of the Savings and Loan Crisis, and the government injected a substantial amount of money into the economy as a result. We're now talking about the disappearance of several times the amount of wealth as disappeared in the S&L crisis. All I am saying is that there is going to be another stimulus package, because the one that passed last week is not big enough relative to the crisis, not because it's not going to "work."

The problem is that this issue will continue to grow as that stimulus money is trickling into the economy. The concern is that the stimulus isn't expected to stimulate anything and IMO, almost impossible to measure. The real problem is no one really knows. This could be nothing more than sprinkling a pinch of sugar into a bucket of water. You've been clear to me SpaceMonkey, we might just be at an impasse philosophically.

Most economists are now worried more about deflation, rather than inflation.

They might be hedging their concern on the strength of securities which in a global economic decline might be missing the boat considering at least 19% of US securities are foreign owned. I'd question the notion that "most economists are now worried about deflation" because at the end of the day, there will be printing of money.

No, because that was a more specific problem. It's not really related to what's going on now.

The basic premise of the recent, multiple "spend to stimulate" failures are cause enough for much concern IMO. We likely disagree here. I hate to say, "wait and see", but there's not much else you and I can do. After all, I hope we come out intact regardless of the method.

In the meantime, I'll be learning Russian and Chinese.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

That person has a really crumby insurance company.

Probably. I was thinking of CarFax and whatnot - I would think the value of a car would go down considerably anyway if there was a record it had been seriously smacked up.

Let's try another one we can all relate to. Let's say I go out and buy a shiny new iMac on my credit card. The next day, Apple releases a newer, better version (and I didn't know about it because no one on MacNN told me!). My shiny new iMac's value is now down 10%. Should the credit card company forgive 10% of my balance?

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Here's a pretty good breakdown of the final bill:

http://projects.nytimes.com/44th_president/stimulus

Sometimes you just have to laugh at government logic. The 3rd-biggest item in here, classified as a 'tax cut' is another in a long series of short-term fixes to the Alternative Minimum Tax.

So we have a tax provision that was never intended to impact the range of the population it would impact if not checked, and was never intended to provide the revenue that is somehow being accounted for. Yet - when some faulty logic of the provision is temporarily fixed, that's considered a 'tax cut' that's going to provide 'stimulus'.

Well, at least it's not $70 billion of additional money that has to be printed - it was going to be printed anyway. So hey, by my reckoning, the stimulus bill is actually about 10% smaller!

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

Bush had bipartisan support and then lost it...

Fairweather friends are easy to find.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Fairweather friends are easy to find.

In politics, it's good to change your alligience when your representatives cease to represent you well.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

You're surprised that the Congress doesn't properly fund or prepare for its mandates?

I'm surprised that we are supposed to believe that all of a sudden they have no idea how much the census will cost, given that we have one every ten years and the methods required to take the census has not changed one iota. In fact, with new technology it really should be costing less and less to enumerate the populous. AND AGAIN, the Census will be taken in another 2 years. THIS Is an EMERGENCY bill to provide recession recovery over the short-term. Very soon, we'll be putting together another budget for the next fiscal year where non-emergency funding (ie. all the regular known budgetary needs are met) can be put into place.

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that the money won't be going to actual necessary census related expenditures and instead is another political slush fund intended to give the political hacks in the Commerce Department more ammunition to fudge with things to give Democrats a unfair advantage while Obama can use the regular budget to simply further increase the size of government. I wasn't born yesterday.

I thought you were the one who was skeptical about government here. Clearly, no, we had not put everything into place to carry out the census. The cost didn't necessarily go up -- we just hadn't allocated the funding.

...which is normally ALWAYS taken care of via the normal budgetary process, not ramrodding it into an EMERGENCY bill intended only to help get us through a short-term recession.

Although we do them every 10 years, they have a habit of sneaking up on us. As for your other comment -- anything that is going to create jobs in the short term is likely not going to create high-paying, rewarding jobs. But if one of your concerns is to put people to work immediately, short-term projects are the way to do it.

No, my concern isn't to put a band-aid on anything. Short-term taxpayer funded jobs will not do much of anything to aid in getting us over a recession. People don't buy houses, expensive cars or anything else that puts big dollars into the economy just because they got a job that will require them to go out and look for another job in a very short amount of time. People don't really do things that way. It's an interesting hope, but not a realistic one.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that the money won't be going to actual necessary census related expenditures and instead is another political slush fund intended to give the political hacks in the Commerce Department more ammunition to fudge with things to give Democrats a unfair advantage while Obama can use the regular budget to simply further increase the size of government. I wasn't born yesterday.

...oooooookay. Bye, crazy-person.

Edit: okay, one final parting shot -- your ideological coherence is breaking down. You are arguing out of both sides of your mouth. Either the stimulus bill is supposed to address nothing but short-term needs or it needs to acknowledge longer-term needs as well. You can't have it both ways.

Toodles.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Fairweather friends are easy to find.

Which makes it all the more curious you've determined the fact Bush had them to be a pertinent distinction.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

In politics, it's good to change your alligience when your representatives cease to represent you well.

The fact is he had bipartisan support...until things stopped going as they planned, and then the support didn't come back but the "fairweather friends" knew well enough to just shut the hell up while they were ahead.

When things get tough, people will bail because they look for the easy out, but I don't think they should get credit for wimping out when they can't take the pressure (political or otherwise). THAT is not leadership or representing "you well".

Obama had to end up admitting on national television that he was wrong about the surge and that Bush/McCain was right. I'm sure that was a tough nut to swallow, but he did it and now support the infrastructure Bush built after it was clear that some of those he had put into place had lost their way and weren't doing things right.

On the other hand Obama has no bipartisan support, most experts say his plan is nuts at worse, wasteful at best, and the Democrats will have NO ONE to share blame with when the economy doesn't start picking up in the next couple of months.

Winers who quit when the chips are down, versus people smart enough to know better at the get go. Big difference.

[Wiskedjak]

We keep on talking about this stimulus package. But, I get the impression that there are varying opinions on what needs to be stimulated.

What is the goal of a stimulus package?

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Why? What has happened to cause the estimated cost to go up over 3 billion dollars? What specifically would account for such a HUGE overrun when we have been doing censuses from the get go and pretty much can fairly estimate costs since it's not a complicated process, unless of course the government is now planning on making it an unnecessarily (ie. wasteful) complex process.



We had already planned for a census, so the "extra people" would have been put into place regardless of the 1 billion. It's not an "emergency" and the jobs that are created are short-term and not really high paying (since people don't quit jobs to become census employees).

Try again....

Counting and querying three hundred million people is not a complicated enterprise? You're making yourself look foolish. Step back, get perspective. These are all complicated issues and they take more than the simple partisan lens to appreciate.

We should all take off the blinders. Obama's neither saint nor devil. There are hard choices to be made and we should all be listening to each other about how to make them.

[MindFad]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

...oooooookay. Bye, crazy-person.

Edit: okay, one final parting shot -- your ideological coherence is breaking down. You are arguing out of both sides of your mouth. Either the stimulus bill is supposed to address nothing but short-term needs or it needs to acknowledge longer-term needs as well. You can't have it both ways.

Toodles.

You know, I was gonna say it makes the Pol/War Lolounge more bearable to put stupidassman (and a few others) on ignore to read/partake in actual discussion, but it really is pretty hard to find here. "Soylent Green is people" is the most apt response in most cases. It's become really easy to pick up on which threads will turn into knee-slappers off the bat. WAIT A MINUTE, SUP IN HERE, THREAD.

I'm secretly hoping for a hilarious PM from vmarks.

What is the goal of a stimulus package?

Really, who doesn't want their package stimulated?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Counting and querying three hundred million people is not a complicated enterprise? You're making yourself look foolish.

How many hundred years have we been doing it for now? And back then, we didn't even have computers. If we knew how to do it before there was electricity, then I think it's pretty well able to be done without a huge increase in expense and complexity from census to census unless the government is looking for ways simply to spend more money for some reason. There's no need to keep re-inventing the wheel, or to pay someone to do so.

[Big Mac]

Would a liberal care to explain to me how giving billions to ACORN doesn't represent corruption by the Obama administration?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

...oooooookay. Bye, crazy-person.

Edit: okay, one final parting shot -- your ideological coherence is breaking down. You are arguing out of both sides of your mouth. Either the stimulus bill is supposed to address nothing but short-term needs or it needs to acknowledge longer-term needs as well. You can't have it both ways.

Toodles.

"Toodles" indeed. I have no idea where you got that I was arguing that the "stimulus" should be used for any long-term need. I never argued that. Could you show where I did? I don't think that the Census, which is a normal, known budget item, should be in a package requiring emergency action. It can be accommodated via the normal budgetary channels.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by MindFad 

You know, I was gonna say it makes the Pol/War Lolounge more bearable to put stupidassman (and a few others) on ignore to read/partake in actual discussion, but it really is pretty hard to find here. "Soylent Green is people" is the most apt response in most cases.

Pure comedy. Ignore the people actually debating the points and exalt the guys posting nonsense. MAKES PERFECT SENSE!

Thanks for sharing!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Pure comedy. Ignore the people actually debating the points and exalt the guys posting nonsense. MAKES PERFECT SENSE!

Thanks for sharing!

If it weren't for those offering little more than bizarre absolutes, specious logic, mockery, strawmen, and the gallery of hand cymbal-clapping monkeys who encourage them; there would be precious little to debate around here I'm afraid. Lest we forget, they're Progressives™.

[MindFad]

Well, it almost worked. Still, pure comedy indeed! Does pointing out all of those traits lessen how perfectly they often apply to a lot of your own arguments?

I mean.

[MindFad]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Would a liberal care to explain to me how giving billions to ACORN doesn't represent corruption by the Obama administration?

OM NOM NOM KOOL AID. It's a shame it's against the rules to call people names on here, because some of you are just dumb as hell and surely deserve all the mockery and name-calling you get! Unless you're just some masterfully programmed forum bot and not a real person, then I take it back.

[olePigeon]

I thought the LHC was turned on prematurely, but it turned out it was just eBuddy supporting stupendousman while simultaneously accusing other people of bizarre absolutes, specious logic, mockery, strawmen, etc.

I don't think the universe is quite ready for that.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Would a liberal care to explain to me how giving billions to ACORN doesn't represent corruption by the Obama administration?

Did giving billions to Halliburton represent corruption in the Cheney administration?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Did giving billions to Halliburton represent corruption in the Cheney administration?

Yes, it did.

Next question?