Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Debate #1... GO!Follow

#252 Oct 04 2012 at 1:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
2,532 posts
crazylegz1975 wrote:
And yes if you can't name the 4 most powerful people in the US govn you shouldn't be allowed to vote.


So if you can't name the four most powerful people, and are not allowed to vote, would you still tax them?

"Taxation without representation" much?
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#253 Oct 04 2012 at 1:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,625 posts
crazylegz1975 wrote:
You should grab a dictionary it's clear you don't know what freedom is.


Just another word for nothing left to lose. Smiley: waycool
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#254 Oct 04 2012 at 2:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
crazylegz1975 wrote:
if you cant name the 4 most powerful people in the US govn you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Obama, Bill Clinton, Oprah and Big Bird.

Can I vote now?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#256 Oct 04 2012 at 2:03 PM Rating: Good
******
43,460 posts
crazylegz1975 wrote:
Don't pretend to give a sh*t about rights
Yeah! Pretending to give a shit about rights is Republican territory!
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#257 Oct 04 2012 at 2:28 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,229 posts
crazylegz1975 wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
crazylegz1975 wrote:
The number of voters should be thinned out as to avert disasters like obama in the future.
You're for freedom except when you disagree with it. Not particularly interesting, as your gimmick made that easy to see. Could you at least try to be less predictable, my little liberal buddy in disguise?


You should grab a dictionary it's clear you don't know what freedom is. People are required to pass a test to obtain a dl this would be no different.

And yes if you cant name the 4 most powerful people in the US govn you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

If it were up to me I would make you name the prez vp speaker of the house your state senators and not be on food stamps. Of course we all know if this happened the Democratics would instantly lose most of their base.


I think people ought to be able to pass a basic English, math, civics, and science test before they're allowed to run for office.

Who cares about the people voting for them? They can be geniuses or morons and still vote for the "wrong" guy by someone's standards. But if we can weed out the idiots before they even get on the ballot, everybody wins!
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#258 Oct 04 2012 at 2:33 PM Rating: Good
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,625 posts
Many of these people do have advanced degrees. Scary thought...

Of course they're also plenty good at ignoring that knowledge when it's convenient, and we have no way to force them to use it for our benefit either.

Edit: I English fail.

Edited, Oct 4th 2012 1:51pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#259 Oct 04 2012 at 4:59 PM Rating: Good
someproteinguy wrote:

Edit: I English fail.
No vote for you, then!
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
My own extraordinary nature has nothing to do with the validity of what I'm talking about..
#260 Oct 04 2012 at 5:15 PM Rating: Good
@#%^ing DRK
*****
13,137 posts
Just got back from the Obama rally in Madison. He was all "Vote for me. Hope. Change. Etc." Good times.
#261 Oct 04 2012 at 5:26 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,944 posts
Is there any benefit of being there rather than just looking at it on TV or on the net?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#262 Oct 04 2012 at 5:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Same reason you see live music.

If you have to ask why anyone would make an effort to see live music then, no, there is no benefit for you versus television or the internet.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#263 Oct 04 2012 at 5:36 PM Rating: Good
@#%^ing DRK
*****
13,137 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Is there any benefit of being there rather than just looking at it on TV or on the net?


Sure. The fact that I have now seen Clinton, Bush 2, and Obama speak live in person (also Kerry and Gore). Also, I shook Hilldogs hand during the primaries when she was in town four years ago. They're called valuable, fulfilling life experiences. You should try them sometime.
#264 Oct 04 2012 at 5:49 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
First off, the challenger always has an advantage in the first debate (well, all of them, but a big one in the first). The incumbent has a record he has to defend and is a known quantity (which can be good and bad). The challenger is more or less only known to the majority of the public based on political ads and some sound bites. Debates like this are the first time most voters have had to actually hear the challenger speak in his own voice. All he has to do is come off like a person and not some evil goblin like his opponent has been painting him, and he wins.

This was more than that level of win though. Much more. Obama simply was not prepared for the debate while Romney had a response for every single thing Obama said. About half way through it looked like Obama came into this just thinking he could regurgitate the same talking points he uses in his speeches and TV ads and everyone would fall over themselves agreeing with him. I suspect he's gotten too used to being the only person in the room with a microphone and/or fielding softballs from a friendly media and forgot what an actual debate requires. So when he did toss out those talking points and Romney was ready with a strong response, he basically didn't have anything. Near the end, when Romney stomped him on the energy deductions/subsidies thing, Obama was looking at the floor with a half grin on his face just kinda shaking his head. That body language alone spoke volumes. It screamed "Yeah. You caught me fibbing". And that's not what you want in a debate.

There was no knock out punch, but Obama still took a pretty good beating. He did way way worse than I expected. What I found really encouraging (from my perspective at least) was that when Obama was talking I was making mental notes about how Romney should respond, and with a couple exceptions he answered with about the same counter argument I was hoping for. From the sounds of some of the posts here, most liberals spent the evening screaming at the TV saying "Why didn't he counter with this, or say that?". So at least from a "getting his position across", Romney certainly did better. I honestly think that this was lack of preparation. He just wasn't ready for Romney to have answers to his points. I suspect that's also why he didn't bring up the 47% thing. If he wasn't ready with a counter response, he would just be giving Romney a platform to clarify his statement and thus nullify its value in the campaign. It's much more useful in political ads than in a debate.


Dunno. Obama just came across as a guy with a bunch of talking points he couldn't defend. Whether you agreed with Romney's answers or not isn't the point. He had them and that made him look like he knew what he was talking about. Also, as Smash pointed out earlier, it's Obama's job in the debate to counter statements Romney made that he thought were inaccurate. A group of people who are already going to vote for Obama jumping up and down and posting on their blogs about how Romney was wrong because of X, Y, or Z doesn't undo the fact that when Obama had the opportunity to say that in front of voters who don't visit political blogs he failed pretty much completely to do so.


Oh. And for the record, I'm also looking forward to the Ryan/Biden debate. That should be "interesting" to say the least.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#265 Oct 04 2012 at 5:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Sniping Sweetpea
*****
18,459 posts
Ya llego el que faltaba, pinche mendigo gbaji.
____________________________
That's the kind of dude
I was lookin' for
And yes you'll get slapped
if you're lookin', ho

#266 Oct 04 2012 at 5:53 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,944 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Same reason you see live music.

If you have to ask why anyone would make an effort to see live music then, no, there is no benefit for you versus television or the internet.


Yea, not a fan of concerts. Ok, I was just wondering if there were anything else.

Paskil wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Is there any benefit of being there rather than just looking at it on TV or on the net?


Sure. The fact that I have now seen Clinton, Bush 2, and Obama speak live in person (also Kerry and Gore). Also, I shook Hilldogs hand during the primaries when she was in town four years ago. They're called valuable, fulfilling life experiences. You should try them sometime.


I've been to the Wall of China, Jesus The Redeemer in Rio, Niagara Falls and Iguazu Falls. In the last 3 months, I've been to Kuwait, Philippines, Thailand, Singapore, South Korea, Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Malaysia, Indonesia and minimal time outside the airport in Sri Lanka. Forgive me for having a different in opinion of "valuable fulfilling life experiences". But hey, have fun, knock yourself out..
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#267 Oct 04 2012 at 5:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I've traveled abroad and seen Obama speak live following his election. Both were amazing experiences. Do I win this contest?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#268 Oct 04 2012 at 6:01 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,944 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I've traveled abroad and seen Obama speak live following his election. Both were amazing experiences. Do I win this contest?


I was in Korea when President Obama came through to Seoul, yet I wasn't there. I later some pictures of former co-workers seeing him live in korea again.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#269 Oct 04 2012 at 6:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I've traveled abroad and seen Obama speak live following his election. Both were amazing experiences. Do I win this contest?
I was in Korea when President Obama came through to Seoul, yet I wasn't there.

So I won. Awesome!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#270 Oct 04 2012 at 6:36 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,944 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I've traveled abroad and seen Obama speak live following his election. Both were amazing experiences. Do I win this contest?
I was in Korea when President Obama came through to Seoul, yet I wasn't there.

So I won. Awesome!


It Wasn't a competition. Just pointing out that you can't claim that others aren't "living life" because they choose to spend their time differently than you.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#271 Oct 04 2012 at 6:57 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
*ahem* I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Victory for me! Smiley: grin
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#272 Oct 04 2012 at 7:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
It Wasn't a competition.

Sounds like loser talk to me.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#273 Oct 04 2012 at 7:02 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,678 posts
gbaji wrote:
*ahem* I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Victory for me! Smiley: grin
I own multiple Holiday Inn Expresses. Check mate.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#274 Oct 04 2012 at 7:02 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,944 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
It Wasn't a competition.

Sounds like loser talk to me.


Insert witty remark..
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#275 Oct 04 2012 at 7:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I own multiple Holiday Inn Expresses.

Do you sleep in them?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#276 Oct 04 2012 at 7:11 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,678 posts
More often than the lot of you I'd wager.

Proof of false advertising?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#278 Oct 04 2012 at 7:42 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,944 posts
SwaziSpring wrote:
Romney destroyed Obama in the debate last night, I hope to see more of that in the future.

I suppose it's not Obama's fault though, he was clearly had his mind on other things.


"Other things"... Of course... I was thinking more along the lines of "tagging his wife".. Anniversaries are one of the guaranteed nights. I would be **** to be there on my 20th(?) anniversary.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#279 Oct 04 2012 at 7:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
"A source says a site might run a story that people might have used pre-paid cards that might be a violation of FEC laws?"

No wonder he did poorly if he heard that. You get a headache just trying to puzzle a story out of it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#280 Oct 04 2012 at 8:12 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
Oh. There were a couple comments I wanted to respond to as well:

Atomicflea wrote:
The idea that he wouldn't know that you get a tax break when you move jobs overseas is ridiculously disingenous.


Except he's right. There is no specific tax deduction for moving jobs overseas. Obama has been trotting this line out for so long that he apparently forgot that it's made up rhetoric. This, and many other mistakes Obama made last night, are the direct result of far too long without having to actually defend anything he says when there's another person in the room with a microphone and equal time.

trickybeck wrote:
I could only stand about 25 minutes of the debate before I got terminally bored. One thing that **** me off was Romney kept saying "I promise no tax cuts that will raise the deficit." And never explained what the fuck kind of tax cut he was going to implement that wouldn't raise the deficit. And furthermore, if his tax cuts are going to be so subtle that they won't increase the deficit, then he's hardly delivering on the low-tax utopia he's promised to his base.


You should have paid more attention to the latter parts of the debate then. While he only touched on it during the tax portion, he expounded on it during the deficit section. He said there are three ways to deal with deficits: Cut spending, raise tax rates, or grow the economy. The first is pretty obvious (and Romney said clearly that this is a priority for him). The second and third are both methods of increasing revenue, one by increasing the amount of each dollar of economic activity that the government taxes, and the other by increasing the total amount of economic activity itself (thus more dollars in the tax base). Romney's argument is that by promising to keep taxes low, and removing regulations which make it harder to hire people (like say Obamacare), more of the profits left in the hands of businesses will be invested in jobs. With more jobs comes more growth, which means you both get to tax that increased growth *and* you get to tax the incomes of the people contributing to it.

He argued that trying to do this by raising tax rates (which is what Obama wants to do), you create a negative feedback effect. You're taking from the profits which might be used to hire more people, thus losing out on that increased economic growth and employment and the increased revenues you could have gotten by just taxing at the current (or even lower) rate. He was very clear about this, so if you missed it, you just weren't paying attention. Of course, I loved that portion because it's the exact same point I've made many times on this thread. Just a few weeks ago I showed the math of how this works and that, everything else staying the same, tax rates are inversely proportional to job creation rate. The higher the taxes, the lower the job creation from whatever segment you're taxing. If you additionally acknowledge that we'll have greater total economic growth if we're at 5% unemployment than at 8%, then this will also increase that. End result is a lot of additional tax revenue without having to raise tax rates. Basically, he's arguing for the opposite of what happened in 2008/2009. Revenues didn't drop because tax rates dropped during that time period, but because economic activity decreased and unemployment increased. Reverse those things and you can increase revenue without touching tax rates at all. But if you raise tax rates while you're in that condition, you make it harder to do this. Hence why he twice did the little twirl with his hands showing how Obama's plan would just consume the benefit it was trying to get in terms of deficit reduction. Again, not sure how you missed this.


That's how Romney intends to cut the deficit without raising taxes. And he actually did a pretty good job dumbing down the argument so that the typical voter at home could understand.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#283 Oct 04 2012 at 8:40 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,929 posts
More words please.
____________________________
"India black magic anal sex zionist blow job terrorism child rape bicycle"
Just as Planned.
#284 Oct 04 2012 at 8:42 PM Rating: Good
******
43,460 posts
gbaji wrote:
He said there are three ways to deal with deficits: Cut spending, raise tax rates, or grow the economy.
It's always amusing how you think that's such a wonderful explanation.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#285 Oct 04 2012 at 10:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Romney went on Hannity tonight and said his 47% remarks were "completely wrong".

According to the New York Times, Obama intentionally did not invoke the 47% remarks because they knew Romney would have a ready mea culpa for the 67 million viewers and wanted to deny him the chance to use it. I don't know how many people watch Hannity, but I'm guessing it's less than 67 million.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#286 Oct 04 2012 at 10:39 PM Rating: Decent
@#%^ing DRK
*****
13,137 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Same reason you see live music.

If you have to ask why anyone would make an effort to see live music then, no, there is no benefit for you versus television or the internet.


Yea, not a fan of concerts. Ok, I was just wondering if there were anything else.

Paskil wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Is there any benefit of being there rather than just looking at it on TV or on the net?


Sure. The fact that I have now seen Clinton, Bush 2, and Obama speak live in person (also Kerry and Gore). Also, I shook Hilldogs hand during the primaries when she was in town four years ago. They're called valuable, fulfilling life experiences. You should try them sometime.


I've been to the Wall of China, Jesus The Redeemer in Rio, Niagara Falls and Iguazu Falls. In the last 3 months, I've been to Kuwait, Philippines, Thailand, Singapore, South Korea, Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Malaysia, Indonesia and minimal time outside the airport in Sri Lanka. Forgive me for having a different in opinion of "valuable fulfilling life experiences". But hey, have fun, knock yourself out..


Relax brah, yer harshing my chill. I was aware you were in the military and assumed you had spent a deal of time, traveling abroad. My intention was to sarcastically rib you (like the guys think about doing when they shower with you). I wasn't intending to get into a **** measuring contest. I did let a guy named Jesús put his thumb in my **** one time though. I bet that cancels out the advantage of some of your experiences.
#287 Oct 04 2012 at 10:44 PM Rating: Decent
@#%^ing DRK
*****
13,137 posts
crazylegz1975 wrote:
Paskil wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Is there any benefit of being there rather than just looking at it on TV or on the net?


Sure. The fact that I have now seen Clinton, Bush 2, and Obama speak live in person (also Kerry and Gore). Also, I shook Hilldogs hand during the primaries when she was in town four years ago. They're called valuable, fulfilling life experiences. You should try them sometime.


I'm so sorry you think watching w slick willy and Barry live is some kind of life affirming event.


I made sure to drink plenty of delicious Kool-Aid, just for you.
#288 Oct 05 2012 at 5:18 AM Rating: Default
Lunatic
******
29,257 posts

End result is a lot of additional tax revenue without having to raise tax rates.


Minor caveat: This has never occurred in the history of time and is mathematically and economically unsound. To the point where it's openly laughed at by CONSERVATIVE economists as what you tell the idiots.

Which is all fine, I mean people on our side thought we were going to close Gitmo, har har, that was a good one! I just wanted to clarify that you don't actually believe that infantile drivel right? In the same way that I don't believe that simply paying teachers more makes them more effective?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#289 Oct 05 2012 at 5:27 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,257 posts

Except he's right. There is no specific tax deduction for moving jobs overseas.


Except he's wrong, every company that moves jobs overseas writes off the majority of the expense under various parts of the tax code. The idea that because line 75 of the tax code doesn't read "Deduction for outsourcing American jobs like an economic vampire" that there is no tax break is staggeringly ignorant. I mean no one is that fucking obtuse, right? Surely they'd be long dead from a flaming car crash caused by staring at youngsters after reading a "Watch Children" sign.

It'd be easy to prevent deductions related to outsourcing, you could just pass a law. I mean you could, unless it was such a precious loophole that the political party owned by outsourcing businesses filibustered it.

http://democrats.senate.gov/2012/07/19/reid-as-millions-of-americans-look-for-work-republicans-filibuster-legislation-to-stop-outsourcing/

Go back do dancing in the town square for sheckles or whatever it is you do, the grown ups were discussing a debate.

Edited, Oct 5th 2012 7:28am by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#290 Oct 05 2012 at 5:51 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,944 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Romney went on Hannity tonight and said his 47% remarks were "completely wrong".

According to the New York Times, Obama intentionally did not invoke the 47% remarks because they knew Romney would have a ready mea culpa for the 67 million viewers and wanted to deny him the chance to use it. I don't know how many people watch Hannity, but I'm guessing it's less than 67 million.


Hannity is one guy that I can truly not stand. I seriously don't see how he can have his own show. That guy is so biased, its ridiculous. How does someone with access to so much be so stupid?

Paskil wrote:
Relax brah, yer harshing my chill. I was aware you were in the military and assumed you had spent a deal of time, traveling abroad. My intention was to sarcastically rib you (like the guys think about doing when they shower with you). I wasn't intending to get into a **** measuring contest. I did let a guy named Jesús put his thumb in my **** one time though. I bet that cancels out the advantage of some of your experiences.


You're letting the length of the list of jaunts confuse the tone of my post. If I had simply said, "I've been to Argentina", you wouldn't have responded as such. I just listed the places that I just went to, because it's fresh on my mind as I'm just now posting pictures (some of which were actually years ago). I rarely post photos and people started complaining about it...
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#293 Oct 05 2012 at 6:05 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,187 posts
Quote:
And cutting taxes ALWAYS increases revenue for the govn


No, really. Whose sock are you?

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#294 Oct 05 2012 at 6:32 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,944 posts
This sucks.. I want to overcome my political ignorance by reading these posts, but given the views and posts on topics that I do know very well, I'm afraid that it might be just as twisted. Smiley: frown Then again, I guess I can start somewhere. I did start off further left then I am now.Smiley: smile
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#295 Oct 05 2012 at 6:43 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
If I had simply said, "I've been to Argentina", you wouldn't have responded as such.

Are you a South Carolina governor?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#296 Oct 05 2012 at 6:43 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,678 posts
First off, you don't know any topic well (at least not that you've ever demonstrated here). Second, no matter where you go to view posts on American politics, it's going to be very skewed to one side. You find this one very liberal, go find a very conservative one to counter it with.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#297 Oct 05 2012 at 6:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Free Republic!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#298 Oct 05 2012 at 6:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Labor Department reports 114, 000 jobs added last month, unemployment falls to 7.8%

Get ready for the Republicans to howl about how the numbers are fake. Maybe they oversampled Democrats!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#299 Oct 05 2012 at 6:58 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,257 posts

Labor Department reports 114, 000 jobs added last month, unemployment falls to 7.8%


Man they must have doctored the **** out of that one. Wait for that to be revised to 8.3 in December. Election's over, though. Romney has literally no chance with Unemployment below 8%. Wasn't that debate fun though?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#300 Oct 05 2012 at 7:02 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,944 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
First off, you don't know any topic well (at least not that you've ever demonstrated here).


Ugly wrote:
I completely understand Alma


Mitt Romney much?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#301 Oct 05 2012 at 7:37 AM Rating: Good
******
43,460 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Free Republic!
With purchase of one of less or equal value.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 45 All times are in CDT