Page 2 of 5
Re: question for Dawg
Posted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 7:09 pm
by Dawg
Hey, you'd never guess who sent me this
no, really, you'd
never guess in a million fucking years.
Hey, I was cruising the assy smell of CWoS this morning and read your thread with slick about why the stimulus failed. There is no way in hell I'm re-joining that turd infested forum, but Slick just handed you another gift by pointing out how dumb liberals are.
That bullshit he posted about Ike just proves once again how futile it is to talk with liberals because they choose to distort reality in order to keep pushing their kooky liberal/socialist agenda. He's got it right that Ike had a very high top marginal rate, but only an asswipe like Slick would try to compare what happened in an Ike economy to what is happening in an Obama economy. Ike had money and revenue pouring in from everywhere. The boom of the 50's didn't start because of Ike's tax policy, it happened before it and aided him in keeping the high tax rates. A better comparison would have been Hoover and Roosevelt. They tried massive deficit spending and they failed miserably because the depression just lingered under those dumbass tax and spend policies. Roosevelt's "first new deal" failed so badly to generate anything positive that he needed a "second new deal". It's just like dumbfucks like him to change reality to fit his needs.
I'm grateful for this PM, as I cant be assed to play here much longer.
and I'm not even sure if this belongs in this thread or another one.
Re: question for Dawg
Posted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 7:55 pm
by Reservoir_Dog
Dawg wrote:I'm not even sure if this belongs in this thread or another one.
You got that right. (there's a first time for everything, I guess)
Nice diversion, though. Perhaps you could borrow a few nonsensical , not very funny metaphors from Pud next time.
Re: question for Dawg
Posted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 8:00 pm
by Buzz
It's not Crash. He never used caps.
Re: question for Dawg
Posted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 8:38 pm
by Reservoir_Dog
Dawg as resorted to sending PM's to himself between forums.
Sad.
Re: question for Dawg
Posted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 11:50 pm
by Dawg
Reservoir_Dog wrote:Dawg as resorted to sending PM's to himself between forums.
Sad.
Almost as sad as when you stormed off vowing never to return, oh my GOD that hissy fit you had was HILARIOUS.
You never did get over that did you? You have always been my favorite little leg humper. I might just have to see what mayhem I can bring now that I've noticed you down there...again..
What is ruggs sig about, your ol'lady hasn't been satisfied? Not that we're shocked, but you must have posted it..tsk tsk, now move along, the grownups are talking.
Re: question for Dawg
Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 12:05 am
by Buzz
Ahhh... R-dog you used my quote for a sig.
I'm touched.
Re: question for Dawg
Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 1:02 am
by ruggbutt
Fact of the matter is that the gubmint does owe Buzz. He paid into the system with a promise of getting it back later in life and the gubmint is trying to reneg on the deal.
Re: question for Dawg
Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 8:42 am
by Dawg
agreed, for that matter it owes us ALL. It owes its very existence to we the people. I just wish it started acting more like buzz and less like slick
Re: question for Dawg
Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 9:34 am
by callmeslick
Res is correct, I put out something with the potential for serious debate. Not that I am thinking that minds are going to change radically, but that people will understand better where others come from and how they see things. What do I get in response, intellectually? Nothing, really. Pud demonstrates that he cannot grasp reality, and makes a bunch of unsubstantiated financial assumptions about the 1950s. Dawg posts a PM to himself that sort of sounds like someone who could contribute if they only had the courage of conviction to talk to those who disagree. Beyond that, Dawg has provided NOT ONE SHRED of evidence to back up his criticism of me. Nothing. Stunning, actually, in it's intellectual vaucousness. And now, if I read the above properly, Dawg is about to wave his cape and march off, unable to actually have an intelligent exchange of ideas. Well, dude, thanks for the funny pictures, and sad to see you've sunk to that level.
Re: question for Dawg
Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 10:04 am
by Dawg
callmeslick wrote:Dawg posts a PM to himself that sort of sounds like someone who could contribute if they only had the courage of conviction to talk to those who disagree. Beyond that, Dawg has provided NOT ONE SHRED of evidence to back up his criticism of me. Nothing. Stunning, actually, in it's intellectual vaucousness. And now, if I read the above properly, Dawg is about to wave his cape and march off, unable to actually have an intelligent exchange of ideas.
ok, for starts its "vacuousness"
past that: U = idiot