"wf3h" wrote in message
...
On Sep 23, 12:00 pm, "SaPeIsMa" wrote:
"wf3h" wrote in message

So why don't you give us the list of items you used to claim your
"objective
measures"...

#
# the fact that under bush, the middle class had no increase in the
# standard of living while the richest 1% saw their income triple, for
# example...that the kind of data you need...and, will, of couse, ignore

1) that's not a list, dummy
2) Nor is it an objective measure, since you can NOT demonstrate
causality
#
# now let me see...it's 'causality' that obama is a 'socialist' and
# therefore everything he does is wrong

Apparently true in your universe of ignorance, prejudice and bigotry
Not true in my world of reasoned thought.

#
# but it's NOT causality when the policies that bush followed destroyed
# our economy and trashed the middle class
#
# uh...OK....


See above
Start by learning the meaning of the word "causality" and it's difference
from "corelation"
They are not the same words, nor do they have the same meaning.





The one thing I'll agree on is that Clinton was far too in love with
globalism. He hastened our demise buying into the Republican wet
dream of global corporatism.

It's "global corporatism", that is US corporations selling their
products,
goods, and services, all over the planet that made the US so rich

#
# the US isn't rich. we're a debtor nation primarily because global
# corporatism has exported jobs in a race to the bottom.
#

1) The US is rich compared to the majority of the countries in the world
That's why we have so many people who want to migrate here, legally
#
# uh...no. over 100,000 indians and chinese are headed back to their
# respective countries due to our collapsing economy. in fact, americans
# are headed to china to find jobs, as the washington post reported the
# other day.

And ?
Recessions occur
Apparently, in your world a recession is a sign of abject poverty
Why don't you go in the meantime and look up the figures for legal and
illegal immigrants to the US
Compare them to the rates of immigration occurring in other countries.



or not
2) The reason that jobs are being exported is because
"liberal/progressive" laws, such as minimum wage, welfare, which increases
the cost of labor to the point where it's cheaper to move it elsewhere
where
the costs are lower
#
# uh...no. the reason jobs are being exported is that america is owned
# by folks like bush who believe that capital gains are the most
# important measure of humanity.

Do you specialise in stupid projections
Or did you learn how to do it in school ?


# none of the policies you
# cite...minimum wage (which hadnt gone up in 20 years), or welfare, has
# ANY effect on our economy at all. what DOES have an effect is the
# policies that allow america's companies to find places where there are
# no unions, no worker protection, no minimum wage, nothing to protect
# people at all

Which once again goes to show that you're an ignorant parrot
If you think that welfare, which has been expanding has NO Effect on the
economy, then you are a bigger idiot than you've shown yourself to be so far
Only an idiot would believe that an economy where an ever-growing number of
people are sucking on the public tit, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME, an
ever-DECREASING number of people are paying for it.

#
# and that is, in fact, the right view view of america: destroy the
# middle class and make us like a 3rd world country.

Too bad that history shows that it's socialism in all it's various forms
that effectively destroys the middle class
But then, since you're an ignorant idiot just spouting cant that you
have memorized with no comprenhension, it's no surprise that you don't know
what you're spouting



Most of those policies are things the Democrat/liberal/progressive
like to brag about as their greatest achievements.
3) And most of the debt has been achieved with
Democratliberal/progressive policies of Wealth redistribution
#
# fairy tales are the staple of the right wing. there hasnt been a
# 'liberal' govt in the US since the mid 60's and johnson's 'great
# society'. right wingers fail to note that the middle class suffered
# the most under reagan, and the 2 bushes.

The slsow destruction of the middle class started long before the Great
Society
Go back all the way to FDR.

The middle class is the productive and innovative part of any society
When you tax them to the bone, to pay for "social services" you effectively
destroy their ability to produce and enrich themselves and the rest of
society
And it's socialism and the creation of an indigent lower class through
welfare programs that is the primary cause of the destruction of the middle
class.

#
# so tell us again how allowing wall street to continue its greed will
# save the middle class...that seems to be all you right wingers have to
# offer.

Wall street is where the middle-class invest their savings to grow the
economy
By destroying wall street, the socialist also destroy the means for the
middle class to make their savings grow.
Which effectively destroys the middle class.

But hey, don't let me stop you from projecting your ignorant cant

"wf3h" wrote in message
...
On Sep 23, 12:24 pm, Wilson Woods wrote:
wf3h wrote:

now let me see...it's 'causality' that obama is a 'socialist' and
therefore everything he does is wrong

No, no one has said that's "causality".
#
# except you, of course, with your delusions of a 'socialist'
# president...just because he's black

More delusional projection
This idiot is on a loop
It always comes back to the same stupid nonsense about racism




but it's NOT causality when the policies that bush followed destroyed
our economy and trashed the middle class

You can't show that any of his policies did any of that. *THAT'S* the
lack of causality, dumb ****.
#
# really? cutting capital gains and causing the wall street debacle did
# nothing to our economy?

The 2 are not related, dummy
But hey, don't let us get in the way of your ignorance about corelation and
causality

#
# i guess i was right all along: right wingers don't follow the news.
# first this idiot thinks obama was president for 8 years and now he's
# saying wall street had no role in destroying our economy

The only thing you got right was that part that you were "guessing"
Everyting else is wrong
At least you're consistent



The one thing I'll agree on is that Clinton was far too in love with
globalism. He hastened our demise buying into the Republican wet
dream of global corporatism.
It's "global corporatism", that is US corporations selling their
products,
goods, and services, all over the planet that made the US so rich
#
# the US isn't rich. we're a debtor nation

Being in debt doesn't mean one isn't rich.

ROFLMAO!!! so to you the richest guy in the world is one who's
bankrupt??!!!

no wonder you right wingers don't think we have an economic crisis!


# primarily because global corporatism

"global corporatism" = meaningless leftist swearing

uh...YOU used the term 'global corporatism'...

oh. you don't read what you write....


# has exported jobs in a race to the bottom.

1) The US is rich compared to the majority of the countries in the
world
That's why we have so many people who want to migrate here, legally

uh...no. over 100,000 indians and chinese are headed back to their
respective countries due to our collapsing economy.

That's probably false. I'm certainly not going to tend to believe it
without some documentation of it. I think you made that up.

really? you idiot right wingers really just believe the bull**** fairy
tales you tell yourselves, don't you:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...ain-drain.html

"What was a trickle has become a flood," says Duke University's Vivek
Wadhwa, who studies reverse immigration. Wadhwa projects that in the
next five years, 100,000 immigrants will go back to India and 100,000
to China, countries that have had rapid economic growth. "For the
first time in American history, we are experiencing the brain drain
that other countries experienced," he says.

yeah. go ahead and tell me about how you wonderful right wingers, with
your free market fundamentalism, have created so many opportunities...


Most of those policies are things the Democrat/liberal/progressive
like to brag about as their greatest achievements.

That's *exactly* right. Leftists/"liberals"/progress-killing
"progressives" absolutely *brag* about the things they enact that kill
jobs. They're just too stupid to realize that they *DO* destroy jobs.

meaningless rush limbaugh boilerplate.

On Sep 23, 9:18*pm, "SaPeIsMa" wrote:
"wf3h" wrote in message


#
# says the rightie who obsesses about a black president
#

Feel free to prove where I have "obsessed" about anything at all.\\

says the guy who stays awake at night terrified that obama is
president


#
# you're paranoid about obama. you hate him and accuse him of doing
# things that his predecessor had actually done. the only logical
# conclusion is that you're doing it on the basis of race

There you go again, projecting ignorant nonsense
At least you're consistently stupid you loopy idiot

ah. projecting. yes, they teach you that in psych 101;. but since
you're struggling through grade school, i assume someone mentioned
that term to you. probably rush, after his rehab from drug use.


I'll remind you that most members of the KKK were Democrats
Just like the late Senator Byrd...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd

#
# first, byrd's not dead. 2nd, if you actually KNEW history, you'd know
# about the role johnson's signing of the civil rights act played in
# changing the racists of the south from democrats into the good ol'
# boys of the GOP

So they were Democrats

and now they're republicans.

Thank you for proving me right

really? democrats are republicans? gee. you right wingers have a
problem even knowing which party is which

And maybe SOME of the GOP IN THE SOUTH were converted KKK Democrats
But what about ALL THE OTHER Republicans across the country ?
Are you claiming that they were also converted KKK Democrats ?
* * Are you REALLY this STUPID ?

ah. you dont know what LBJ said when he signed the voting rights act,
do you? he was prophetic about little racist kluxers like you.

wf3h wrote:
On Sep 23, 1:34 pm, Wilson Woods wrote:
wf3h wrote:
On Sep 23, 12:24 pm, Wilson Woods wrote:
wf3h wrote:
now let me see...it's 'causality' that obama is a 'socialist' and
therefore everything he does is wrong
No, no one has said that's "causality".
except you, of course,
Except no one.

says the guy who thinks obama has moved the US capital to havana.

but it's NOT causality when the policies that bush followed destroyed
our economy and trashed the middle class
You can't show that any of his policies did any of that. *THAT'S* the
lack of causality, dumb ****.
really? cutting capital gains and causing the wall street
Cutting capital gains tax caused no debacle

sure did. it increased the deficit.


# the US isn't rich. we're a debtor nation
Being in debt doesn't mean one isn't rich.
ROFLMAO!!! so to you the richest guy in the world is one who's
bankrupt??!!!
Being in debt does not mean bankruptcy.

fine. you go tell me how we're going to pay the bills we racked up.
guess what the definition of bankruptcy is?


That's why we have so many people who want to migrate here, legally

uh...no. over 100,000 indians and chinese are headed back to their
respective countries due to our collapsing economy.
That's probably false. I'm certainly not going to tend to believe it
without some documentation of it. I think you made that up.
really?
Until you posted something, yes.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...09/09/americas...
"What was a trickle has become a flood," says Duke University's Vivek
Wadhwa, who studies reverse immigration. Wadhwa projects that in the
next five years, 100,000 immigrants will go back to India and 100,000
to China, countries that have had rapid economic growth.
That is a *projection*, you cocksucker, and it's over five years

ah. so now you admit i was right

No, you're wrong. You stated it as if it had already happened. You
also lied about the reasons for it happening.


It may or may not come to pass. In any event, those workers returning
to their home countries is not necessarily an indication that there's
anything "wrong" with the US economy

i know.

You don't know. You think it *is* because of some defect in our
economy. You're full of **** - it isn't.

wf3h wrote:
On Sep 23, 8:31 pm, Wilson Woods wrote:
wf3h wrote:
On Sep 23, 1:37 pm, Wilson Woods wrote:
wf3h wrote:
says the guy who cuts and pastes because he can't read or understand
an argument that rush hasn't dissected for him
1 you clip out what i said
It's almost entirely bull****. I leave in just the bull**** I want to
identify as bull**** and refute.
as i said,
You said bull**** - again.

glad to see

You spouted bull****. No one is glad to see it.


you guys trashed the economy.
No. First, I wasn't in government. Second, I didn't vote for Bush.
Third, Bush didn't trash the economy.\\
i know you think obama did.
No, I don't think that, either. The economy has not been "trashed". It
is in a major recession caused by bad federal policy, mainly around
mortgage lending.

uh...no. mortgage lending had little to do with it. colllateralized
debt obligantions, which ballooned from $920B to SIXTY TWO TRILLION
dollars under free market fundamentalism was responsible

Your figures are meaningless without some time frame to them.

A huge part of those collateralized debt obligations were *mortgages*,
you stupid ****.


CRA under Carter, and the destruction of mortgage
lending standards begun under Clinton and continued by Bush, are what
put us into a recession.

hey genius...the largest mortgage lender to go bankrupt was
countrywide. and it wasn't covered under the CRA.

You are *COMPLETELY* full of ****. There were myriad ways that
Countrywide was "covered" under CRA

http://www.businessinsider.com/three...andards-2009-6
http://mises.org/story/2963
http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/news...ew_head_of.htm
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...QyYmUwMTg3NzQ=

"WaMu bank, which is now defunct, once boasted of having made $375
billion in CRA loans; the Fed gave Countrywide Bank an award after it
made $600 billion in such loans. It, too, was bankrupted by the loans."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo177.html

CRA was just the beginning of a politicized loosening of lending
standards. A mortgage lender didn't have to be "covered" by CRA in
order to be affected by it. Once Clinton's reinforcement of CRA and his
administration's intense pressure on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to
reduce their underwriting standards for the loans they would guarantee,
the flood was on.

CRA didn't do it all by itself, but it was the *first* step in a 30 year
deterioration of lending standards that goddamned ****ing "liberals"
demanded.


Boy, you sure do get a lot of things wrong.-

really?

Yes.


then how is it that you didn't even know that your whole
argument about the CRA was wrong?

It isn't wrong.

On Sep 23, 11:40*pm, Wilson Woods wrote:
wf3h wrote:

glad to see

You spouted bull****. *No one is glad to see it.

the right wing ALWAYS calls facts 'bull****'. they have no choice, as
you demonstrated. you didn't come back with any info.

uh...no. mortgage lending had little to do with it. colllateralized
debt obligantions, which ballooned from $920B to SIXTY TWO TRILLION
dollars under free market fundamentalism was responsible

Your figures are meaningless without some time frame to them.

1997 to 2007 when your free market fundamentalist buddies, after
putting their cocks in your mouth to have you hum their songs, raped
the economy and had useful idiots like you tell us how wonderful it
was.




* CRA under Carter, and the destruction of mortgage
lending standards begun under Clinton and continued by Bush, are what
put us into a recession.

hey genius...the largest mortgage lender to go bankrupt was
countrywide. and it wasn't covered under the CRA.

You are *COMPLETELY* full of ****. *There were myriad ways that
Countrywide was "covered" under CRA

uh...no. again you keep making statements. where's your data? the
amount of mortgages that were placed by companies covered by CRA was a
small fraction of all mortgages. it didn't even cover the nation's
LARGEST mortgage provider.

but you go ahead...keep sucking the dicks of the right. i'm sure
they're laughin their asses off

http://www.businessinsider.com/three...UyYmUyYjM5N2Qy...

* * "WaMu bank, which is now defunct, once boasted of having made $375
* * billion in CRA loans; the Fed gave Countrywide Bank an award after it
* * made $600 billion in such loans. It, too, was bankrupted by the loans."http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo177.html


hey moron. these were VOLUNTARY. they were not OBLIGATED, as smaller
banks WERE, to lend under these conditions.

they just decided that assholes like YOU would think this was a
wonderful example of the free market at work


CRA was just the beginning of a politicized loosening of lending
standards. *A mortgage lender didn't have to be "covered" by CRA in
order to be affected by it. *Once Clinton's reinforcement of CRA and his
administration's intense pressure on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to
reduce their underwriting standards for the loans they would guarantee,
the flood was on.

CRA didn't do it all by itself, but it was the *first* step in a 30 year
deterioration of lending standards that goddamned ****ing "liberals"
demanded.

says the bobble headed right wing sock puppet, ignoring the REAL
problem...the massive expansion in CDO's which, in 2007, were
larger than the entire GDP of the planet earth, at 62 TRILLION dollars



Boy, you sure do get a lot of things wrong.-

really?

Yes.

then how is it that you didn't even know that your whole
argument about the CRA was wrong?

It isn't wrong.

you mean other than the fact the CRA didn't cover the nation's largest
lenders AND you ignored the 2 order of magnitude increase in
CDO's?

i see. it appears that, if you can't count it on the 6 fingers of your
hands, you think it has no meaning.

to the RATIONAL person, 62 TRILLION is ALOT of money. to the right
wing, NO amount of money is TOO MUCH for the RICH

On Sep 23, 11:16*pm, Wilson Woods wrote:
wf3h wrote:

No, you're wrong. *You stated it as if it had already happened. *You
also lied about the reasons for it happening.

It may or may not come to pass. *In any event, those workers returning
to their home countries is not necessarily an indication that there's
anything "wrong" with the US economy

i know.

You don't know. *You think it *is* because of some defect in our
economy

IOW when the data shows indians and chinese are LEAVING this
country....

you right wingers think that actually means they're COMING to this
country.

christ you can't even tell east from west

"wf3h" wrote in message
...
On Sep 23, 1:34 pm, Wilson Woods wrote:
wf3h wrote:
On Sep 23, 12:24 pm, Wilson Woods wrote:
wf3h wrote:
now let me see...it's 'causality' that obama is a 'socialist' and
therefore everything he does is wrong
No, no one has said that's "causality".

except you, of course,

Except no one.
#
# says the guy who thinks obama has moved the US capital to havana.
#

One has to wonder why you imagine to making stupid fantasy accusations about
the person who disagrees with you, will support you claims in any way
Why is it that you are so stupid as to make far-fetched claims about other
peoplem, instead of arguing the issue ?





but it's NOT causality when the policies that bush followed destroyed
our economy and trashed the middle class
You can't show that any of his policies did any of that. *THAT'S* the
lack of causality, dumb ****.

really? cutting capital gains and causing the wall street

Cutting capital gains tax caused no debacle
#
# sure did. it increased the deficit.
#

NO it did NOT !

# the US isn't rich. we're a debtor nation
Being in debt doesn't mean one isn't rich.

ROFLMAO!!! so to you the richest guy in the world is one who's
bankrupt??!!!

Being in debt does not mean bankruptcy.
#
# fine. you go tell me how we're going to pay the bills we racked up.
# guess what the definition of bankruptcy is?

Well let's see, used an equity loan to make some upgrades to my house, even
though I have the same amount of money available in my investments
So I have debt, but I'm not bankrupt
See how that works....

I think your problem is that you are functionning in a black-white, on-off,
all-or-nothing, kind of thinking mode
You seem incapable of imagining that there is something between those
extreme states...'



That's why we have so many people who want to migrate here, legally

uh...no. over 100,000 indians and chinese are headed back to their
respective countries due to our collapsing economy.
That's probably false. I'm certainly not going to tend to believe it
without some documentation of it. I think you made that up.

really?

Until you posted something, yes.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...09/09/americas...

"What was a trickle has become a flood," says Duke University's Vivek
Wadhwa, who studies reverse immigration. Wadhwa projects that in the
next five years, 100,000 immigrants will go back to India and 100,000
to China, countries that have had rapid economic growth.

That is a *projection*, you cocksucker, and it's over five years
#
# ah. so now you admit i was right and you're backpedaling after having
# said it wasn't true.
#
# figures...that's what right wingers do

Obviously you don't even ken the difference between a "projection" and
actual fact...
Apparently, that's what stupid lefties like you do

. It
may or may not come to pass. In any event, those workers returning to
their home countries is not necessarily an indication that there's
anything "wrong" with the US economy
#
# i know.

Clearly you don't know dick
All you have is some bigoted prejudices on which you base the most
hairy-assed presumptions you have been spoon-fed..

You're a waste of time

"wf3h" wrote in message
...
On Sep 23, 11:16 pm, Wilson Woods wrote:
wf3h wrote:

No, you're wrong. You stated it as if it had already happened. You
also lied about the reasons for it happening.

It may or may not come to pass. In any event, those workers returning
to their home countries is not necessarily an indication that there's
anything "wrong" with the US economy

i know.

You don't know. You think it *is* because of some defect in our
economy
#
# IOW when the data shows indians and chinese are LEAVING this
# country....

And how many are still coming into this country ?

#
# you right wingers think that actually means they're COMING to this
# country.

No we don't
But you're the idiot who PRESUMES, that it's a one-way flow.


#
# christ you can't even tell east from west

More stupid projection that only demonstrates you're an idiot

On Sep 24, 9:39*am, "SaPeIsMa" wrote:
"wf3h" wrote in message
#
# says the guy who thinks obama has moved the US capital to havana.
#

One has to wonder why you imagine to making stupid fantasy accusations about
the person who disagrees with you, will support you claims in any way
Why is it that you are so stupid as to make far-fetched claims about other
peoplem, instead of *arguing the issue ?

now let's see...we have the right wing which, in its haze, calls obama
a kenyan indonesian muslim enemy alien socialist communist

THEN complains that its delusions are called delusions.





but it's NOT causality when the policies that bush followed destroyed
our economy and trashed the middle class
You can't show that any of his policies did any of that. *THAT'S* the
lack of causality, dumb ****.

really? cutting capital gains and causing the wall street

Cutting capital gains tax caused no debacle

#
# sure did. it increased the deficit.
#

NO it did NOT !

cutting taxes with no revenue increase and no decrease in spending
NECESSARILY causes an increase in the deficit. i realize you right
wingers can't count, but have a 4th grader explain it to you.


# the US isn't rich. we're a debtor nation
Being in debt doesn't mean one isn't rich.

ROFLMAO!!! so to you the richest guy in the world is one who's
bankrupt??!!!

Being in debt does not mean bankruptcy.

#
# fine. you go tell me how we're going to pay the bills we racked up.
# guess what the definition of bankruptcy is?

Well let's see, used an equity loan to make some upgrades to my house, even
though I have the same amount of money available in my investments
So I have debt, but I'm not bankrupt
* * See how that works....

and wall street sold 62 TRILLION in CDO's without the reserves to
cover them...so they created a debt obligation...

then when the debt came due and they couldn't pay it, they decided to
socialize their risk and have the middle class pay for it.

so no, that's not how debt works unless you're a right winger who
believes in the tooth fairy


I think your problem is that you are functionning in a black-white, on-off,
all-or-nothing, *kind of thinking mode
* * You seem incapable of imagining that there is something between those
extreme states...'

and you seem to want to ignore the entire history of the united states
in the last year.