Page 3 of 5

Re: question for Dawg

Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 10:11 am
by callmeslick
thanks for the edit, Dawg. Still, you add nothing to bolster one argument you have made on either the Constitution(the actual subject of this thread), nor the economy. It would be nice if you, or your anonymous pm buddy, would post the numbers to back up the 1950's claims. Frankly, incomes and revenues did not pick up in the early part of Ike's term. FWIW, the analysis made of the New Deal is accurate. Like the present,the magnitude of the problem wasn't addressed fully enough by timid politicians. Worth noting, FDR in the later package, had a lot more Federal employment for infrastructure projects. Not that they saw it coming, but some of that work contributed to the strength of the nation during WWII, and certainly helped the economy grow postwar. That is another issue for another thread: how we expect to progress as a nation after letting the infrastructure languish for 40 years.

Re: question for Dawg

Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 2:47 pm
by Reservoir_Dog
Buzz wrote:Ahhh... R-dog you used my quote for a sig.

I'm touched.
Hey, it's a good one.
Actually, I kind of like yours as well.

Re: question for Dawg

Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 3:09 pm
by Reservoir_Dog
Dawg wrote:Almost as sad as when you stormed off vowing never to return, oh my GOD that hissy fit you had was HILARIOUS.
Did you find it hilarious before or after you abandoned that thread and ran off to hide after I dissected your reply line for line and proved that you are a liar?
BTW...you can thank Chipz for me not going through with your total humiliation. She's a very wise woman and talked me out of it.
Dawg wrote:What is ruggs sig about
Yup, I wrote that.
But Rugg being Rugg, it's out of context. I wrote a gag line about CWoS and purposely misspelled the word come.
Rugg grabbed it for his sig but left out the other half of the sentence.
It's rather typical Rugg. But truth be told...it is kind of funny.

Re: question for Dawg

Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 4:20 pm
by ruggbutt
Reservoir_Dog wrote: Rugg grabbed it for his sig but left out the other half of the sentence.
It's rather typical Rugg.
That's what sig quotes are, retard. Out of context but funny.

Re: question for Dawg

Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 7:01 pm
by callmeslick
exactly, Ruggie!

Re: question for Dawg

Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:56 am
by Dawg
Reservoir_Dog wrote:.
awesome. I thought it was IMPOSSIBLE to make less sense than anything previously posted. Its like you set this impossible goal to outstupid a previous post. I'm not sure how...or why you set the bar so low, but BRAVO sir!!
You should thank me I lost interest in spanking you further. However, I'm growing tired of slick, so it might be your turn next

Re: question for Dawg

Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 6:20 pm
by callmeslick
Well, that was a pointless post, Dawg.....why don't you apply some grey matter to actually answering the serious questions in the thread? You must have been good at dodgeball as a kid.

Re: question for Dawg

Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 8:22 pm
by Reservoir_Dog
callmeslick wrote:Dawg.....why don't you apply some grey matter to actually answering the serious questions in the thread?
Perhaps he has no one left to copy and paste from. Lord knows he can't come up with an original thought of his own.

Re: question for Dawg

Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 8:24 pm
by callmeslick
apparently, Res has hit the nail on the head. One can only hope that someone bright sends Dawg a PM.....

Re: question for Dawg

Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:30 pm
by Pudfark
callmeslick wrote:You must have been good at dodgeball as a kid.
It's apparent that you took a lot of head shots, Slick....
callmeslick wrote:One can only hope that someone bright sends Dawg a PM.....
Done, what's your excuse? This time?

Old Pudfark sez: " The worst is over now, the morning sun is shining....like a red rubber ball.... "