Alaska Darin

The rule doesn't apply to everyone, obviously.

Then you've got plenty of growing up to do.

Yeah, because the two things are even remotely the same.

The funny part is you think you're strengthening your argument.

Way to continue to miss the point.

If you're a dude, not getting married is likely the wisest financial decision you'll ever make.

Just remember karma can be a B word.

If I was looking for the definition of inept, I'd just use you cherry picking a small portion of a much larger point.

She's the only parent of a Down's child who was parodied on that particular episode of Family Guy ("My mom is the former governor of Alaska"). I'm not sure when it became OK to make fun of the children of politicians but I'm not a fan of it.

Buy a Thesaurus.

too

I don't have to "claim" anything. To the rational, it's pretty damn obvious. You mean because the points I've made aren't valid? Nope, that's not it. No. Pathetic is something you're actually versed in, so it's kinda surprising you'd be so far off on its usage.

You'll have to excuse him - he's a bit emotional this morning. I guess Rkfast got under his skin and it's just been downhill from there.

Do you really not know when to use a question mark? Hide? I'm right in front of you. You don't have a single tool in the box to refute anything that I've posted, so instead you vainly try to attack the messenger. It's nothing more than overt desperation from someone who knows they're getting their ass kicked.

You're in no position to make demands. And thanks for not spending even a second on the meat of that post and instead whining like a little B word about whether someone is "qualified" to make what are obviously cogent observations of the situation as it is. Shows exactly what you bring to the table - as if there was a question.

The implication is whether I care what you think. I don't.

Shy? I didn't say low unemployment was a charade. I said the "surplus" was a charade. Jesus, even Al Gore let the cat out of the bag so many times Saturday Night Live wouldn't leave it alone. "Lockbox"? The time to shore up your fiscal house is when things are going well, not when massive corrections are all hitting at the same time. That said, there isn't much Washington can do until they fix/eliminate entitlements and seriously pare down the DoD. There are SERIOUS short term consequences to each of those things, which is why NEITHER party is willing to even discuss them. Yeah, the 1990s were rosy - on paper. There was unprecedented stock market growth, which led to unprecedented capital gains and the tax revenue that goes with it. There was a new investor class based on Roth/IRA/401k/SEP/etc. and they couldn't pour enough money into the market because the returns were off the charts (Tech Spec/Internet Age). There was the global flattening of energy prices (Oil spent most of its time hovering at $18/BBl), which led to growth all around the world because when people aren't spending a lot of money on gasoline and heating oil, they have a lot more money to waste on durable goods - which has a great downstream effect. There was cheap money - as much as the Fed could print. Banks were lending because EVERYONE was borrowing (my home loan rate when from 8 to 5 in a two year period). It didn't even matter if they were a risk. Lend, lend, lend. It was pretty much all based on flawed economic principles but it ended up being the perfect storm for quite a while. Then the bottom dropped out, which is what happens when you build a house without a foundation. So the market inevitably corrected and the government was the last to realize it. The choice of President didn't change anything, other than who ended up with a larger percentage of taxpayer money. The same likely holds true right now, unless this administration actually passes Health Care and/or Cap and Trade. Then you're going to see a collapse of epic proportions in the not too distant future. To those of you who understand what's been going on, this is overly simple. There are obviously many more factors. But frankly I'm tired of the ridiculous "There was a surplus and now there isn't!" lie that continues to be told and the audience that regurgitates it isn't sophisticated enough for me to waste time going into minutia. There was never a surplus. There was STILL money being stolen from Social Security to pay for government. The rest of the largess was virtually all based on serious fundamental economic flaws and book cooking that makes Enron look positively innocent. You get exactly the response you've earned. Friggin' hypocrite.

Is your house in crappy shape? Because the "Move that Bus" people would love the story, especially if there were more skull surgery required (too obvious?).

Yep, you're really that stupid. Maybe at some point you'll realize that the economy of the 1990s was a total charade and that's the reason why the 2000s ended up the way they did or you'll continue to be the lemming that you are right now and keep being part of the problem. Guess which one the smart people will bet on? Bad (cheap) money policy + stealing from social security + artificially inflating the housing market + the dawn of the information age + 7.5 years of flat energy prices + unprecedented stock speculation WERE NOT the results of sound fiscal policy.

Nine? Newsflash, Sparky: The problems in America started long before George W. Bush took office. You can go back to before WWII to watch the beginning of the slide

Bet they regret dropping the drachma for the Euro. Whoops.

And just like Jerry, he doesn't realize it and comes back to get a little more.

Setting the hook.

But the liberals are the self-appointed intellectuals and Carlson's the dork in the bow tie.

How exactly? Be specific.