Lucky...

Bail, deportation and embargos have nothing mutually in common. Embargos have to do with commerce as in import/export of products, this 500k is ransome. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/embargo em·bar·go   /ɛmˈbɑrgoʊ/ Show Spelled [em-bahr-goh] Show IPA noun, plural -goes, verb, -goed, -go·ing. –noun 1. an order of a government prohibiting the movement of merchant ships into or out of its ports. 2. an injunction from a government commerce agency to refuse freight for shipment, as in case of congestion or insufficient facilities. 3. any restriction imposed upon commerce by edict. 4. a restraint or hindrance; prohibition. So if this woman is a freight shipment or a product then I guess so, but you have to be that abstract in order to make your point. Obviously we need to get the world to disassociate them as much as possible if they want to beahve as they have been.

Now, THIS....you have my full agreement on!! Neo-cons typically just surround others with liek opinions and feel there is safety and truth in numbers, no need to supply supporting data/ev. That is the main attribute if aneo-con. And once again, you post proving the point. How? I'm countering your point. In order to prove a point such as this, I would have to be backslapping another lib constantly. You mean like you do with rhys, or bill, or whoever agrees with you in a thread? You know nothing about me or mirage or any of the other posters - yet anyone who disagrees with you is automatically a neo-con. The funny thing is, you KEEP doing it, while you whine about people doing the same thing back to you. I've disagreed with Bill, Andy and other libs many times. Libs seek the truth, neo-cons look for safety in numbers. I know plenty about you, I've posted here for years as you have. I don't backslap, I even agreed with you about Mirage trying to argue that if a person isn't a skydiver, they must not know about economics.

Here ya go, you totally ducked and ran from this, go ahead and pick a point or two an answer, or put oin your cheerleading outfit and run behind someone: I can cite months, years ago where I used it in correct context. You need to take that shit to car forums; they're just that naive to be impressed. Now, as soon as the junior intellects stop changing the issue and trying to look bright and decide to address the issues I posted maybe we can actually get somewhere. Here, I'll post them again: Oh, so if they are mutually as important as each other, let's examine times when spending is high and taxes low and vice versa. Taxes low / spending high = Reagan, GWB resulted in high debt accrual. Taxes high / spending high = 1940's thru 1960's. Resulted in the debt falling several times and when it rose, it never ran away. To go to low spending we would have to go to the 1920's, an era where comparison to today's economy is irrelevant. Taxes were low and spending was low, the debt actually fell, but this led to an immediate era called the Great Depression, so that era was not a good model either. So it looks like high taxation periods were the best, yielded the best results as far as debt accrual and overall eonomic bliss. Spending will always be high from here on out and even if it isn't, there is no evidence that eevn low taxes would be beneficial other than RW supply side theory, which has gone unproven to be beneficial. Mine isn't theory, mine has been proven. Here is a chart of top tax brkts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MarginalIncomeTax.svg The best years were under high taxes, the worst under low taxes; so yours is unfounded theory, mine is statistically proven sound. Show me a major federal tax cut that has led to overall financial benefit. If you can dream one up, find 2, then 3, etc. Since, as you infer/claim, low taxes lead to prosperity, these examples should be plentiful.

Now, THIS....you have my full agreement on!! Neo-cons typically just surround others with liek opinions and feel there is safety and truth in numbers, no need to supply supporting data/ev. That is the main attribute if aneo-con. And once again, you post proving the point. How? I'm countering your point. In order to prove a point such as this, I would have to be backslapping another lib constantly.

Now, THIS....you have my full agreement on!! Neo-cons typically just surround others with liek opinions and feel there is safety and truth in numbers, no need to supply supporting data/ev. That is the main attribute if aneo-con.

Actually a BS in Justice from ASU, but at's all the same to you not in the know. As well, years as a process server drafting and filing docs, sitting in courtrooms observing trials, having lawyer friends, etc. Yea, go swell and draw that cherry rivet . I've seen phonies come in with impressive resumes saying less stupid things than that who get walked. But you, a person who has never worked in the industry, trying to trump my 25-30 years constant acft mech experience because you design and build trailers is truly laughable. When I threw, "swell and draw" at you, I did so because it's a practice in the field that isn't really spelled out in teh AC43.13 that I know of using that terminology, so I felt you couldn't look it up and i was right. I did recently find it here in Van's forum. BTW, Van's isn't a trailer site so it will be new to you: http://www.vansairforce.com/community/archive/index.php?t-53906.html I was also taught that where there is a risk of a gap between the skins and the rib when you start rivetting, to hit the rivet a couple of times to swell the rivet, then put a small nut between the bucking bar and the rib and give the rivit a light tap with the gun to draw the skins together, then remove the nut and a couple of more taps should see the rivit set. Altho I wouldn't use the nut process, it is the same thing. I use teh corner of a bar or some other flat area, totally depending upon the area in which you are working. The method above is entitled, in the field, as, "swell and draw." You swell the rivet so it holds the laminates that are gapping, place teh bar next to the rivit and abbut the rivet with the bar, then real lightly tap the head of teh rivet and the already swollen rivet will hold teh laminates long enough to shoot the rivet normally. In some case you have to repeat the process. This is swell and draw, not shooting a cherry (blind rivert) and as the shank draws up, the rivet shaft swells and pulls the laminates together. If anything that would be draw and swell, as I've said before. It's funny to watch a guy with exactly zero experience in the industry kick and shuffle around trying to bail out of his looking silly. Discussing politics and performing a medical function are world's apart in ration discourse. If you and I were discussing brain surgery and I cited several brain surgeon's positions on a procedure and cited that process and it's continued and predictable results that would be formidable. But I see you have to counter to the evidence I posted, including Reagan-appointed Greenspan, so you want to attack me and my knowledge. You just look silly, show us how the evidence/data and it's interpretation are flawed.

Visited The Onion News Network lately? Convict a president via impeachment lately? Yep! But Bill set me straight in one easy post. :) You, OTOH, still think ONN is a legit news source. Actually I did and have for some time. So let's summarize: - I wasn't aware of a silly satirical, extremely obscure website. - You weren't aware of how a very fundamental political process of discipline works, one that is taught in high school and goes back to at least the 14th century, not to mention Article 1 of the US Const: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution Hmmmm, so you try to make me look bad for not ever hearing of the Onion, yet you aren't aware of the US Const? Tell your girlfriends here that every time they bring up that lame Onion BS that I will remind us of your vast Constitutional knowledge. I did not realize that memorizing the entire US Constitution was a requirement. No, but the obvious provisions, esp when you preach as if you undestand it, are important. I have no problem not knowing about the Onion, an obscure satrical website, but I would be harshly embarrassed not understanding basic, general impeachment provisions that have been written into the US Const from the start. That's like professin to be a D lic skydiver and not knowing what simple things are like BOC, Hook turn, PLF, ets.

Well it is play money considering they are one the leading oil producers, so maybe it's just a token then. And you with the Nazi right would just engage in a protracted war, so what's your point? Perhaps a fisccal embargo, esp with oil. I'm not sue of the pathways of oil supply, it may be that it's a collective production from OPEC and that it isn't possible to not buy from Iran and to buy from other ME oil-producing nations, but at the same time it's not as tho we are strangers with Saudi. I dunno, if we could embargo their oil that would obviously be a great start, but that may also be impossible. Yea, perhaps. But we should attempt something, this is just BS. See, it bothers you that I introduce a measure that says anything other than what you've prediagnosed ALL liberals as having love for ME countries, Russia and ALL Socialist countries. You're so compartmentalized that me lashing out at Iran rather than supporting them throws you off-kilter and you then have to resort to sarcasm over substance. I guess it's ALL liberals fault for not adopting your, "glass parking lot" model of diplomacy.

It was only right - his jump record (or mine, or yours) is immaterial in this forum, and making an argument against that record was bullshit. Right, that is just lame to infer a person's point is less valid due to their jump numbers, licenses, ratings or dick size. I mean if they're gonna throw an ad hominem, at least make it more material to life. But for all who care, I am a D licensed Jumper, current, but don't live near a DZ so I don't jump as much as I need to, but I am current and own my own gear, a fair amount of it. I hope that makes my points more valid to those who based a person's credibility upon their jumping status.

You do give a fuck to have yoru 2 cents aired or you wouldn't be here. And Mike and anyone else is right, what you're trying to pose is an ad hominem: Lucky... doesn't even jump, so how is his position relevant? You should head back to the jumping part of the forum then. What you're also saying is: Hey Mike, we're neo-cons, we are supposed to support each other reagardless, right? Maybe Mike isn't as much of a neo-con after that. SO here's to you and your cheerleading: YAY TAX CUTS http://images.paraorkut.com/...heerleader-12791.jpg YAY!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100912/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_us_hikers TEHRAN, Iran – A senior Iranian prosecutor said Sunday that authorities will release a jailed American woman on $500,000 bail because of health problems, another sudden about-face by Iran in a case that has added to tension with the United States. So now they want ransome, as her bail allows her to leave Iran. Can't we embargo those MFers?

And this will only help the Repubs in the polls in Nov.... what a party

The jumping is irrelevant, but your (lack of) economics background is highly so, particularly given your tendency to try to simplify economics to single variables. Well, I asked you, show me a major fed tax cut that has led to overall economic benefit. In fact, youy look that much more beat as I know law, aviation mechanics and a couple other issues by way of education/experience, but economics is something I've learned by reading and arguing, if you're so superior it s/b a snap to show me up - yet you can't. You can't show me a maj fed tax cut that worked to improve the economy. I can show you tax increases that did that and have, would be glad to again. So you should bag the rhetoric about me not being degreed in economics as you can't hold up your end of teh argument. Tell me how Reagan-appointed Greenspan basically said Reagan was wrong when he said that tax cuts don't pay for themselves. Oh, you don't wanna.

I can cite months, years ago where I used it in correct context. You need to take that shit to car forums; they're just that naive to be impressed. Now, as soon as the junior intellects stop changing the issue and trying to look bright and decide to address the issues I posted maybe we can actually get somewhere. Here, I'll post them again: Oh, so if they are mutually as important as each other, let's examine times when spending is high and taxes low and vice versa. Taxes low / spending high = Reagan, GWB resulted in high debt accrual. Taxes high / spending high = 1940's thru 1960's. Resulted in the debt falling several times and when it rose, it never ran away. To go to low spending we would have to go to the 1920's, an era where comparison to today's economy is irrelevant. Taxes were low and spending was low, the debt actually fell, but this led to an immediate era called the Great Depression, so that era was not a good model either. So it looks like high taxation periods were the best, yielded the best results as far as debt accrual and overall eonomic bliss. Spending will always be high from here on out and even if it isn't, there is no evidence that eevn low taxes would be beneficial other than RW supply side theory, which has gone unproven to be beneficial. Mine isn't theory, mine has been proven. Here is a chart of top tax brkts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MarginalIncomeTax.svg The best years were under high taxes, the worst under low taxes; so yours is unfounded theory, mine is statistically proven sound. Show me a major federal tax cut that has led to overall financial benefit. If you can dream one up, find 2, then 3, etc. Since, as you infer/claim, low taxes lead to prosperity, these examples should be plentiful.

Foreigners resent the US because of our interference in their affairs. We prop up monarchs and brutal dictators like Pinochet and Hussein. We provide military hardware and financial support for Israel's intrusion into the Middle East. That's enough to make people fight. Since they can't fight a military that spends more than the rest of the world put together it's not surprising that they occasionally come after softer targets including civilians. If we didn't maintain a military presence in the Middle East, support Israel, and have ties to local royalty that would be a lot less likely. +1

I grasp the concept, I just don't understand the rage one fust feel because of just that. I have been angry . . . but to want to commit suicide just to take out some people because of what they believe? It makes no sense whatsoever. Then quit looking at beliefs and look at the acts, the acts where we invade, control, monitor, etc. You can't look at your rosey version, think of the little guys over there unable to defnd themselves against the likes of our weapons, us siding with Israel, esp post WWII when we, in their mind, stole part of Palestine from them and gave it to the Israelis. Again, not just your version, theirs.

I guess my main feeling is anger, I don't understand why someone would want to kill someone else just because of their beliefs and culture. We are as guilty of that as many. Perhaps out constant involvement in the ME contributes to theor anger, esp the Palestinian War. We are w/o clean hands.

Glad you can now count to 8, here's my defense of tax increases: RUSH WROTE: Considering it took the US 8 years longer than the rest of the world is great evidence to that which you support By the way, not working today? I wrote: Wonder why? http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch15wd3.htm Rememebr, the GD started here and was worse here than in Europe, so that little fact may have slipped your guess. - Sweden's industrial production fell no more than 10 percent from its peak in 1929. And its unemployment rose no higher than 12 percent. Nevertheless, the relatively hard times in Sweden resulted in a loss of power for the incumbent conservatives. In September 1932 the Social Democrats were elected to power. But Sweden would recover faster. This was the result of both a liberal monetary policy and public spending. A reduction in taxes for the average wage earner gave him more money to spend. A raised minimum wage increased the ability of low-income people to spend money. The government increased investments in public works. Federal money was pumped into unemployment insurance, medical care and old age pensions. The government willingly created a deficit, believing that it was emergency spending that would be paid back after the recovery. And with recovery being rapid and revenues increasing as a result of the rising economy, the deficits were quickly overcome. SEE, THE VERY THINGS OBAMA IS DOING AND LITTLE OLE YOU ARE PRAISING EUROPE FOR A FASTER RECOVERY; YOIU MUST THEN PRAISE OBAMA FOR DOING THE SAME OR BEING A HYPOCRITE. - Recovery in Britain slower than Sweden's The world's economic depression caught the Labour Party running the government, and some folks in Britain blamed Labour Party politicians for their economy's poor performance. Their vote helped to send more Conservatives to parliament, and a new government of national unity was formed -- a coalition of Labour and Conservatives. The overall result kept Britain's economy from falling as far as did the U.S. and German economies. Britain's economy hit bottom in 1932, and its recovery was slower than Sweden's. In 1935, Britain's industrial output returned to its 1929 level, and its unemployment returned to 10 percent -- twice as high as Sweden's. So Britain installed more conservatives and utilized those policies and the recovery as slower. Ya, you really make good arguments. So to summarize, the GD started here, hit us far worse than other countries, yet European nations who didn't realize teh mess we did recovered a little sooner as a rule. The more socialism and liberasl who were in charge meant sooner recovery. Yep, great arguments for me, thank you. Now give me your one-liner response and we'll be good. Uh, took us 8 years longer? When do you consider the start and stop for the US and for Europe? Me thinks you're not all here. Not working today? - http://www.bea.gov/...l/gdp/gdp_glance.htm Not fast enough? Not working? - http://data.bls.gov/...eries_id=LNS14000000 Not working? Not fast enough? What would be acceptable? Finish your arguments for once, IK'm tired of making u look silly. So the countries that elected liberals who raised taxes and/or spend stimulus recovered faster. 1) Explain how when Hoover did nothing for 2 1/2 years the thing got worse and worse and worse, until he and FDR raised taxes and started programs, then the thing flipped around. 2) Explain how when Reagan cut taxes the amount that Harding/Coolideg did, the debt went crazy as it never had before, ESP IN A TIME NOT OF WAR. 3) Explain how when GHWB and Clinton raised taxes the mess turned around and a surplus was left, budget balanced and debt virtually horizontal. 4) Explain how when GWB cut taxes the economy, a great economy, went to shit. 5) Explain how when Eisenhower and teh congress left taxes at 91% top brkt with massive cold war spending, Korea War spending, teh debt actually fell 3 of his 8 years and the years it rose it was minimal. See, there are the issues you have to address or, as usual, look silly.

YAY Snickers http://images.paraorkut.com/img/funnypics/images/g/gay_cheerleader-12791.jpg YAY snickers; I love snickers That's about right.

You're right - much better to raise taxes and have businesses downsize/close/move overseas to try to remain solvent.... all of which reduces gov't revenue in the triple whammy of lost business tax, lost income tax from the workers and reduced economic activity because the workers can't afford to buy shit anymore. Brilliant plan, that. BRAVO , but how did you formulate that reply without reference to post 59 ! Bravo http://images.paraorkut.com/img/funnypics/images/g/gay_cheerleader-12791.jpg Bravo

You're right - much better to raise taxes and have businesses downsize/close/move overseas to try to remain solvent.... all of which reduces gov't revenue in the triple whammy of lost business tax, lost income tax from the workers and reduced economic activity because the workers can't afford to buy shit anymore. Brilliant plan, that. Growth has been much higher under higher taxes than under lower taxes, I challenge you to illustrate differently on a large scale, not some trivial, 6-month period of time. Use 100 years as a large sample size.

Because it's more fiscally responsible than the right's habit of growing government and cutting taxes. Yes, which is why we have this mess, as with the 1920's, with the Reagan era. Actually they were automatic as they were passed via reconcilliation. Greenspan recently woke up and admitted that tax cuts don't pay for themselves and that they only s/b used when teh economy picks up. He was made successful under Clinton, a failure under GWB. He wishes he had resigned after Clinton. The GWb cuts forced him to keep lowering the int rate, which fueled the mortgage mess.

The last neo-con asked if I has an economics class, now you wonder if I jump. I can show you neo-ons like you who don't and post here, I do jump and am D licensed. Now, on to your neo-con brothers who don't jump, I guess you don't care about that, save your ad hominems for those you disagree with. Sad you can't formulate an argument. Spelling Nazis are lame, both sides get tired of them, esp when they are usually typos. If you have a point to make, make it, if not keeping trying to say, "You performed a typo, your entire point must be invalid. Lame. Neo = new Ad Hominem = attacking a person rather than the argument. For example morons who attack a person's spellling to try to argue that they are wrong on an issue, or attacking character then saying therefore the substance must be wrong as well. Oh, so if they are mutually as important as each other, let's examine times when spending is high and taxes low and vice versa. Taxes low / spending high = Reagan, GWB resulted in high debt accrual. Taxes high / spending high = 1940's thru 1960's. Resulted in the debt falling several times and when it rose, it never ran away. To go to low spending we would have to go to the 1920's, an era where comparison to today's economy is irrelevant. Taxes were low and spending was low, the debt actually fell, but this led to an immediate era called the Great Depression, so that era was not a good model either. So it looks like high taxation periods were the best, yielded the best results as far as debt accrual and overall eonomic bliss. Spending will always be high from here on out and even if it isn't, there is no evidence that eevn low taxes would be beneficial other than RW supply side theory, which has gone unproven to be beneficial. Mine isn't theory, mine has been proven. Here is a chart of top tax brkts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MarginalIncomeTax.svg The best years were under high taxes, the worst under low taxes; so yours is unfounded theory, mine is statistically proven sound. Are you that naive? Look at my profile. And that is the ad hominem. I'm sure there are economic geniuses in Zimbabwe. Instead of your lame spelling rants, from someone who can't capitalize or space correctly, or your lame attempt to trivialize someone from another country, why not actually address the data. Support your supply side theory with historical application that has worked?

Visited The Onion News Network lately? Convict a president via impeachment lately? Yep! But Bill set me straight in one easy post. :) You, OTOH, still think ONN is a legit news source. Actually I did and have for some time. So let's summarize: - I wasn't aware of a silly satirical, extremely obscure website. - You weren't aware of how a very fundamental political process of discipline works, one that is taught in high school and goes back to at least the 14th century, not to mention Article 1 of the US Const: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution Hmmmm, so you try to make me look bad for not ever hearing of the Onion, yet you aren't aware of the US Const? Tell your girlfriends here that every time they bring up that lame Onion BS that I will remind us of your vast Constitutional knowledge.

That is one of very many options and certainly not a guarantee. And completely unsupportable. We've had way more growth, way more stock market gains under D's than R's, way more economic disater under R's than D's. WIth that said, the 2 descent R's since FDR kept taxes high or raised them off teh floor and during this time things improved, so it isn't totally a partisan issue. Low taxes have completely refuted the theory of supply side economics, yet the drones continue to drag on about it and never supporting any of it.