With another strong showing from Rick Santorum, is it time for Newt Gingrich to bow out of the primary battle? If so, will he?
Wow! I heard he was insulted with the $25. million the Titans offered...'cause some other pea- brained numskull his size and weight got $38. million.
Now, like Fat Al Haynesworthless, he scores $50. million.
Peyton Manning, who's more crippled than my grandmother, will probably get another $100. million just to show up and cheer on the sidelines.
Ben - Now on that, I agree with you. IMO the Titans made a mistake not keeping Finnegan. He kept a lot of points away from the opponents and could cover more area than anyone on the team.
Uh, Ben, you did not capitalize Bible in "bible study"...you did capitalize "Obama in the same sentence....are you a closet Muslim?
And thank you Dargent7...for putting me in the top 3 of "smart"....Girlie Girl was thrown in for comic relief, no?
Now, Ben Dover is a smart fellow...he felt smart...an un-mellow smart fellow, smarting from the blows he felt...smarting from the blows I've dealt....he's a smart fellow....whoever dealt it felt it....he's one smart fellow.
Dover is my favorite foil.....other than the aluminum stuff.
Loner, the usual southern mash-up / hodgepodge of that phrase down south is Smart Feller -> Fart Smeller.
And, yes, I too have greatly enjoyed our discussions and debates over the years old friend.
Are the Titans the "Tight Ones"? Tight with a buck....stingy....titanic tightwads, trying to go big, on the cheap? The Lone One puts the question to the locals....
Like Romney, I understand y'all like grits...Mitt reassured us...he re-ass-ured us that he is indeed asinine.
They should put out a Romney Brand bologna and market it like the BIilly Beer of yesteryear...or the purple band-aids....the "freedom fries" etc.
Whoops...that should have been "Billy Beer" of yesteryear....I'd market the Romney Balogna using a Rhinoceros as the logo...for the RINO-lover in all of us...Romney's RINO Balogna....slice mine real thin, thank you.
Ben, here are a few of the misrepresentations that teeter on outright lies...
1. Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa for a "reconstituted" nuclear weapons program. Documents purporting to show that Iraq tried to import uranium from Niger in west Africa were forged, and that the claim should never have been in President Bush's State of the Union address.
2. Saddam Hussein had the wherewithal to develop smallpox
. This was alleged in Powell's UN address, which the UN stated the following month that there was no evidence to support this assertion.
3. Iraq has nuclear weapons. This was a specific statement by VP Cheney on 3/16/03 on Meet the Press. The IAEA had found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq, and said so in a report to the UN Security Council about a week earlier.
4. Hussein didn't allow UN Inspectors in to search for WMD's. Specifically asserted by Bush in a press conference on 7/14/03. UN Inspectors were allowed in Iraq to search from 12/02 well into 3/03.
Now, these are facts. If not outright lies, wouldn't you say they stretched the truth?
Being wrong and lying are two different things gd. There was intel to back up each of these points as the numerous investigations into the matter have reported.
As for #4, Hussein didn't allow unfettered access required by the security council resolutions. (cat and mouse as I said earlier) That was the point.
Again, Bush's mistake was trying to get consensus on the matter rather than just doing an Obama / Clinton and just pull the trigger. As soon as he got the congressional approval in '02 he just have just launched then and all of this agonizing hair splitting by those who wish to re-write the history would be moot.
That last sentence was addressed to the 'BUSH LIED!' hysteria movement gd, not at you.
So, how do we all feel about being thought of as "muppets"?
Goldman Sachs executive quits over firm's 'toxic' culture in extraordinary resignation letter
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2114829/Greg-Smith-resignation-letter-Goldman-Sachs-exec-quits-firms-toxic-culture.html#ixzz1p7Xl7jFW
Hey... Goldman Sachs is BFF with Obama not the conservatives. I never have liked the crew. I don't consider moving money around and making your margin on cronyism to be real work.
brrrrk - Reading the article, wonder if being bald is a requirement for being a high paid bank executive? Reminds me of traffic going to the steeplechase, it made be believe that only bald men drive convertibles. LOL
BenD: You are exactly why the USA is $16.5 trillion in debt, and the country is in the dumper...
"Bush got bad "intel"..? Really? "It was confirmed by ...whom?
You are not that stupid. But over 50% of America IS that stupid.
Cheney COERCED the CIA to furnish the "intel" to warrant, and then authorize, the invasion of Iraq. They wanted the OIL fields. 2nd largest in the world.
They, rich, white people from Texas, don't give a shit about, "the Iraqis".
Now, re-read that again. 10x if need be.
"Hey... Goldman Sachs is BFF with Obama not the conservatives. I never have liked the crew. I don't consider moving money around and making your margin on cronyism to be real work."
I'd agree that this was true in 2008.... Goldman Sachs was looking at two unknowns and as is the case with a lot of businesses in that situation, they played both sides of the fence. It is not the case now, financial institutions are heavily backing the right.....
Check out opensecrets.org
Two years before the September 11 attacks, presidential candidate George W. Bush was already talking privately about the political benefits of attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer, who held many conversations with then-Texas Governor Bush in preparation for a planned autobiography.
"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said to me: 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He said, 'If I have a chance to invade�.if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency.
d'arge $1.3 Trillion in mostly one time costs over 8 years vs. that much every single year under Obama with the bulk of the deficit going to fund on-going, never-ending, inflation-affected entitlements and a vast expansion of the bureaucracy.
I read somewhere that it's in our psyche as humans that numbers higher than a certain amount all look the same. Dude... I'm here to tell you there's a difference in a one time cost over 10 years v. that same cost repeated EVERY YEAR with only the promise of inflation to make it higher. Economic recovery? forgetaboutit... anything we've see in the past 4 years is despite the policies of this administration and not because of them. Germany's unemployment went back to normal after the '08 economic collapse but across the pond $4+ trillion in added deficit later and we're still over 8% (not factoring all of the jobs that just don't exist anymore and people who have given up finding work which puts the real number around 15%). DC is a boom-town though. They're borrowing on the future production of the private sector to create jobs that were unnecessary yesterday in the public sector. Ridiculous.
I bet you'd score 100 on the RWA scale.
Ben, what is ridiculous is thinking that a manufacturing economy (Germany) is comparable to a service economy (United States). There's also that pesky population versus jobs available thing.
Very bad comparison.
Here's the chart again. Which country would you like to compare to?
"Ben, what is ridiculous is thinking that a manufacturing economy (Germany) is comparable to a service economy (United States). There's also that pesky population versus jobs available thing.
Very bad comparison."
The purpose of an economy should be to employ as many citizens as possible. And this is what Germany does. They recognize that not everyone is suited to sit at a desk tapping away at a keyboard and so they design their economy to employ people based on their skills. They also support training that would supply companies with the employees they need as well.
Ben, ole pal, did you look at the chart? The biggest increase was before Obama took office. Good god man...lol
We should outlaw bulldozers then I guess. That would create a lot of jobs.
Ok...recommended reading is from an economist that wrote from the perspective of Conservatives and Libertarians...how could that possibly be biased...lol
Here's a lite version of Hayek's Road to Serfdom for the central planning inclined as well.
I would suggest "A Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith and Alexander Hamilton's Report on Manufacturers.
Isn't it interesting that both authors were from the Enlightenment? Is it appropriate to call the current era the exact opposite?
I've read Hayek, Ben. As well as Friedman. Yes, even Rand...
s/h/b Rynd...But I have read a book of maps on occassion too...lol
Well gotta go, hope we can continue this tomorrow Ben.
You should read from both perspectives gd. I've read Keynes... actually in all of my college economics classes that's all they taught beyond basic supply and demand. I've read Thomas Friedman, Paul Krugman, Malthus, Marx, Engels. They are mostly social theorist not economists. They don't hold up to mental purity of Hayek or Mises and the Austrian school or to Milton Friedman's communication skills at the Chicago school though.
We crossed posts gd. I did plow through Wealth of Nations once. Yuck. It was as dry as Shrugged is melodramatic; but Smith's points hold very true to this day.
Have a good night all.
"I've read Thomas Friedman, Paul Krugman, Malthus, Marx, Engels. They are mostly social theorist not economists. They don't hold up to mental purity of Hayek or Mises and the Austrian school or to Milton Friedman's communication skills at the Chicago school though."
Subtle way of dismissing those who don't align with your views, Ben. But I got it.......