makeithappen40

Fantastic. I stuck in line with my own posting. The criterion was unnecessary spending. Excellent. I haven't been running the accusations of being off topic in terms of spending. You have.

Attachments: epic-fail.jpg (18.8 KB) Nice. Of course, posting a photo of a guy who is outside washing his car during a rainstorm doesn't prove you right. It just shows that you found a picture of a guy washing a car in a rainstorm. Well done. I'm not sure I could find a picture of a guy washing a car in a rainstorm that is as good as that one. Way to go.

>Obama's already taken us from a 400B deficit to almost 2T... how much more unnecessary spending do you want? I'm not saying you mentioned war or budgets. You said: How much more unnecessary spending do you want. I said: I want MORE because I want WAR! Who's up for some mothafuckin huntin baby? You know. We played around for so long with all these little wars, defending the country from "Socialism and the threat of all forms of Communism," but I think we aaaaall know that it isn't gonna be done until we go after big daddy. Yep. You know it. It's time for big daddy this time. Lets go hunt us some ruskies! Who's your daddy? Marx your daddy? Blood!

And you just mentioned funding issued by the government... a criterion i adhered to. Do you know what a straw-man is.... man?

Wrong thread, dude. You didn't say discretionary spending here. >Obama's already taken us from a 400B deficit to almost 2T... how much more unnecessary spending do you want? Mothafuckas gotta regognize that mothafuckas aint using that word.

Obama's already taken us from a 400B deficit to almost 2T... how much more unnecessary spending do you want? Unnecessary? Aren't you a conservative? War is always a justifiable means of spending money. Hell, under Bush we got to spend 500 billion dollars a year for 8 years on the national defense budget. That shit is totally ok when you can kill sand people! I bet Obama could easily make that 600 bil a year on Afghanistan alone. Whos with me?

Heres to the record, baby! Dude think about it. Yea, as IF you wouldn't totally have a hard on for Obama if he could start a third. C'mon! It's been a while since the voters got some good BLOOOOOOD.

Y'know, I think it was wrong wrong wrong for Bush to have involved us in two wars. I mean, think of the cost! We could easily be spending more money unnecessarily. Hell, what is the record for number of wars involved in within one term of presidency? Two? Maybe Obama can beat that record. Cmon nationalism, lets get this party started baby!

"Some folks were born. Made to wave the flag. Oh they're Red White and Blue. Some folks are born silver spoon in hand, Lord, dont they help themselves, oh. Some folks inherit star spangled eyes, Ooh, they send you down to war, lord," CCR

"This would be a whole heck of alot easier if it were a dictatorship, only i'm the dictator." President Bush

>I don't recall anyone here claiming that he inherited a perfect economy from Bush - did you have a point with that, or are you just setting up a strawman? Yes, I do have a point. That is-both sides are responsible, just like the "roll call" results below show: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll674.xml Also, I am not setting up a straw-man. (Do you even know what a straw-man is? Just kidding...) My point hasen't waivered in my posts, and I am still on topic. Thank you. Actually, part of my objection to your statements also involved pointing out situations where a person both blamed Bush for the 2001 recession and did not blame Obama for the 2008-09 recession. How are you doing with that search? Could it be that your waivering from making that point undoubtedly true and attacking a different argument is a straw-man? Maybe it is a red-herring. (Come over here and let's talk about what THAT is... Just kidding! Hah! This is fun) Great. It was a Democrat controlled congress from then on. Does that mean the democrats are entirely to blame? No. Does that mean the republicans are? No. Does that mean that the bailouts are a disaster created by both parties? Yes. Are you done yet?

Press conference? You must mean the town hall meeting he had in Arnlod, MO. (Which was linked by fallingosh in his response. Ahhh, I see now. Note, even that site gives Obama a context that hurts your argument. I don't see him quoting that the entire mess is Bush's fault instead of his own. "The months since January" may "lay on his soulders," but that most definitely does not say that it was his fault from January on. Again, he isn't responsible as president for the damage he inherited... he IS responsible for the damage he is now creating. (which, like you and billvon both agree, will be more evident as time goes on) Given the republican and democrat support for the bailout package at the end of Bush's term, and the irresponsibility that will be more evident after this congress and Obama have had time for their policies to fail, we will (and currently are) able to say that this mess is a bipartisan mistake. Person 2: (But wait, makeithappen40, isn't that what you were saying all along?) makeithappen40: Why, it most certainly is. Good day, sir! Person 2: Good day.

The ground is shaking here. Earth doesn't like logic. Shhhhhh... .quiet.... don't upset her... precious earth...

I'll just copy and paste a reply I had earlier. "What? Who here is saying anything but the fact that it is a bipartison mistake?" That should indicate that this recession is anything from just one presidents fault. >"The very valiant 'it wasn't me' argument is only being played by one side; the only side in control of Washington." Sorry. A piece of cereal almost went down the wrong pipe. Is this just another way of rationalizing your perception of the Obama administration, or do you really have something that indicates that side of the story is saying "it wasn't me?"

Oh ok. Just thought you were the one trying to make that point, not me.

Searching for "bush recession" doesn't quite do it man. You claimed that there are liberals here guilty of the inconsistency you stated. Find the examples.

Its got to be hilarious.

Mm hmm. Still think you've exercised all the reasons why someone would have just signed up? Maybe the guy has been reading it up until 2007. Maybe the guy got a username in 2007. Maybe the guy decided to change his username because he forgot the password to the other one, since he has had it on auto-log on for so long and decided to delete all his cookies and doesn't have the email address used for the other log-in anymore so he can't get the password for it. All possibilities, among others, that you haven't accounted for. (edit for horrible spelling)

>Odd, I thought that my post said 'liberals' - as in a general statement - rather than 'makeithappen40'. I guess my fingers typed something different than my brain told them to. I responded to your claim without attaching myself to the response. Also, you yesponded to me, so I responded in return. Also, the other "liberals" here had nothing to do with the "hypocrisy" your are speaking of. You are the one who entered the notion of "Liberals constantly accusing Bush of the 2001 financial crisis." I haven't seen billvon, or a liberal here say this. Billvon also said that presidents have "a minor impact on the economy at best," which would mean that president Bush's freshman year and the less-severe-than-2008 recession that occured in 2001 aren't Bush's doing. (I dont see where you are getting Billvon's negation of this to say that he is being inconsistent and therefore "hypocritical.") >Of course, it *COULD* just be that your post was in response to a post from a generally conservative poster, rather than a generally liberal poster. See above. >The bailout package being a disaster is something bill and I agree on - that, however, was not the subject of his and my sub-discussion, since you mention paying attention. Well, neither did it say that the 2001 recession was Bush's fault. That was something you mentioned and he didn't explicitly endorse. >Amazing how much of SC you've been able to cover in the two days you've been here - what was that you were saying about generalization, again? Well, that must mean that you have the key to such posts. Enlighten me. Also, who are you to say that I have only been here two days? Ahh right, my profile and number of posts indicate a lower attendance. Wait... my jump numbers and the amount of time I have been in the sport indicate otherwise. That must mean he has a new username!

>I also look forward to you calling the OTHER side out on it - you know, so as not to 'project' anything. Oooook. What is this quote about, then? "And that doesn't change the fact that you, FallingOsh, and Bush can't play the "it wasn't me" card either." The word "either" would mean that the same standard applies to the Obama-ites. That is, that Obama, his administration, and his supporters are now neck-deep in the problem as well. Remember, I said it is a bipartisan problem now. You haven't been reading. >The one that was LESS than the 2 year "grace period" that billvon advocates before Obama becomes responsible for anything, you mean? I'm not quite sure that he thinks that Obama isn't responsible for any of this, dude. I think he is just saying that we have a bit more time left before we can say that Obama failed with his economic policies. Also, billvon in the past has said that he thinks the bailout packages are becoming a disaster. You need to pay more attention here, too. >The fact that Obama gets a two year haitus from responsibility for any economic issues while Bush was simultaneously responsible for a recession starting 2 months after he took office isn't hypocrisy? Again, dude... I'm not holding Bush responsible for for the economic difficulties two months into his term. I am holding him responsible for the one that took place well into his second. >The fact that the liberals posting here don't see anything wrong with that isn't hypocrisy? This "hypocrisy" you say has been outlined by the liberals here hasn't been clearly quoted outside of your own interpretation. >So is your blanket excuse. Peddle your bullshit somewhere else - I'm not buying. Ok. Just make sure you actually know what I and others are saying before making your rediculous accusations. >I see your point. I dont agree with it, but I see it. "Peddle your bullshit somewhere else - I'm not buying" - mnealtx

Well you know our goal is to cut the power out, come straight down, cut off anyone in the traffic pattern, exit the runway, and then pick up the next load. I don't need an engine for any of that. I'm also willing to live with one of the not-so-healthy jumpers in the back passing out while everyone else in the back stops pedaling to help that person as opposed to providing drive. What the hell, its only a small chance that will happen. (And as skydivers, we are all willing to deal with small chances right?)

Really? Because I thought the issue wasn't President Bush's first recession (the one right after 9/11). The issue is the very deep recession that began during the end of his presidency. (The presidency that the people of the United States got to marinate in for 6-7 years before the economy really turned for the worst) Saying that it is a fact that liberals can't recognize hypocrisy/cognitive dissonance is projection, dude. How many Liberals do you mean? Do you mean Some liberals, which would indicate that there is at least one liberal as such? OR do you mean most liberals? which would indicate at least 51% of liberals? Do you mean ALL liberals, which would indicate each and every liberal, or 100% of liberals? Here, i'll help you with another vague blanket statement: Republicans can't recognize the hypocrisy inherent in funding the military (a form of socialism) with over 600 billion dollars in federal funding... yet they will readily be there to say that socialism is a disastrous political ideology. Republicans are equally at fault for inconsistencies, as are all humans. Each and every one of us at some point in time has thought two thoughts that negate each other. Your blanket statement is highly problematic. End.

Negative captain.

I think that is all great stuff. It's cool to see that there are women out there who do in fact both have a pulse and are independent. Well done. On the other hand, I absolutely despise it when a woman/group of women feels as if they have to rub in my face. (This would be similar to when a guy/group of guys feels as if they have to rub their independence or strength in a woman's face) Statements like "guys are intimidated by the fact that I jump" or "we skydiver women are here to prove a point, and that is that women are as capable as men are in high-adrenaline sports" are unnecessary, I think. (Yet I think it is great that there are women who like to skydive. I wish more did)

Fantastic. I admitted that and also read mnealtx's article on the fact. Thanks for making the point ever more explicit... It has been so long since I have seen them in person I can't recall what they are really like. However, as I said before, I have seen footage of them being noisy/destructive and other footage (which you can rightly say is distorted here) where they have been quiet. I don't see, however, how the "whooshing" sound will ever be eliminated.