Secret Service fiasco

Status
Not open for further replies.
Aug 9, 2013
69
0
0
:confused:Ok, this shouldn´t amuse anyone; Did she quit or was she fired? But the question is: Is Julia Pierson's fault at all, or the person who hired her for the post in the first place? Do agents need so much booze and so many bimbos', and so little training, pay and perks?...Don't comment unless you are a pundit on these matters, please!
 
montani3semper said:
:confused:Ok, this shouldn´t amuse anyone; Did she quit or was she fired? But the question is: Is Julia Pierson's fault at all, or the person who hired her for the post in the first place? Do agents need so much booze and so many bimbos', and so little training, pay and perks?...Don't comment unless you are a pundit on these matters, please!
POTUS says to her, "do you think you should stay? I have lost confidence in you"..means he's asking her to resign so he doesn't have to fire her.

Lonely at the top..it is her 'fault'...
 
Aug 9, 2013
69
0
0
Scapegoat

Regardless of the fact she may not have been the most competent, or may have been plain underqualified, think about the following conspiracy theory:
A latino (who else?) with post traumatic war disorder, swamped with fancy barbiturics, goes berserk; breaks into the WH; unnoticed by semper fi, dogs of war, and $$. The zombie's task was to attempt on #1 before getting TOS, but POTUS isn't home. The hit can't be performed. Who's MAD? Who is nuts? The ones who devised & covered up the whole job!
2nd. scenario: next gig (Ermitaño): The unknown soldier from Lone*Star was to burglarize the place instead; but heard voices; Paranoid and schizofrenic, has a change of heart: wants to tell the PREZ about the dangers awaiting him unless! (him and the fact he's jeopardized, a sitting duck, vulnerable like most; set up).
Doors of perception: Psycho entered , undisturbed, a bunker in D.C. SS oblivious, clueless. What's next?
 
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
montani3semper said:
Regardless of the fact she may not have been the most competent, or may have been plain underqualified, think about the following conspiracy theory:
A latino (who else?) with post traumatic war disorder, swamped with fancy barbiturics, goes berserk; breaks into the WH; unnoticed by semper fi, dogs of war, and $$. The zombie's task was to attempt on #1 before getting TOS, but POTUS isn't home. The hit can't be performed. Who's MAD? Who is nuts? The ones who devised & covered up the whole job!
2nd. scenario: next gig (Ermitaño): The unknown soldier from Lone*Star was to burglarize the place instead; but heard voices; Paranoid and schizofrenic, has a change of heart: wants to tell the PREZ about the dangers awaiting him unless! (him and the fact he's jeopardized, a sitting duck, vulnerable like most; set up).
Doors of perception: Psycho entered , undisturbed, a bunker in D.C. SS oblivious, clueless. What's next?
No no!!

He was looking for obamas "real" birth certificate...

Pundit enough for ya? ;)
 
mrhender said:
No no!!

He was looking for obamas "real" birth certificate...

Pundit enough for ya? ;)
he was looking for the proof the administration has that-
-shows Ted Cruz is a canadian
-Christie is in wit the mob
-Perry is addicted to pain killers
-Ron Paul is actually a socialist
-Jindal is a diabetic
-Rubio was born in Puerto Rico
-Jeb Bush knew about 9/11 before his bro did it
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
2
0
montani3semper said:
Regardless of the fact she may not have been the most competent, or may have been plain underqualified, think about the following conspiracy theory:
A latino (who else?) with post traumatic war disorder, swamped with fancy barbiturics, goes berserk; breaks into the WH; unnoticed by semper fi, dogs of war, and $$. The zombie's task was to attempt on #1 before getting TOS, but POTUS isn't home. The hit can't be performed. Who's MAD? Who is nuts? The ones who devised & covered up the whole job!
2nd. scenario: next gig (Ermitaño): The unknown soldier from Lone*Star was to burglarize the place instead; but heard voices; Paranoid and schizofrenic, has a change of heart: wants to tell the PREZ about the dangers awaiting him unless! (him and the fact he's jeopardized, a sitting duck, vulnerable like most; set up).
Doors of perception: Psycho entered , undisturbed, a bunker in D.C. SS oblivious, clueless. What's next?
:rolleyes:
 
broken chain said:
Seems like the FBI doesn't like obozo either.
Yeah, bush did a much better job...he's pretty silent(along with the other criminals in his administration, like cheny, rummy) on 'who' is the biggest causer of this mess in the middle east..

I'm sure the clowns from the other side of the isle will do better. Maybe the cannuck or the libertarian...or even better perry or romney, HS..



Vote early and vote often, then stew and think up cute names for Hillary..

OBTW-most say the secret service decline started immediately after it became part of Homeland Security Department..lessee..2003, who was president?...oh my..it was the idiot that lost his village.

http://www.secretservice.gov/join/who_history.shtml

People's memory isn't that short. the economy and the mess in the middle east is directly traced to the buffoons in the whitehouse until Jan 2008...
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
2
0
Bustedknuckle said:
Yeah, bush did a much better job...he's pretty silent(along with the other criminals in his administration, like cheny, rummy) on 'who' is the biggest causer of this mess in the middle east..

I'm sure the clowns from the other side of the isle will do better. Maybe the cannuck or the libertarian...or even better perry or romney, HS..



Vote early and vote often, then stew and think up cute names for Hillary..

OBTW-most say the secret service decline started immediately after it became part of Homeland Security Department..lessee..2003, who was president?...oh my..it was the idiot that lost his village.

http://www.secretservice.gov/join/who_history.shtml

People's memory isn't that short. the economy and the mess in the middle east is directly traced to the buffoons in the whitehouse until Jan 2008...
Well yeah sure it is W's fault. That is usual excuse for something that happens in 2014. You know if there is a decline then why not FIX that decline when you get into office. Nope just let it get worse because that is how everyone does their job. :rolleyes:

There has to be more to it than that. But obviously your mileage out of bush does vary.
 
Aug 9, 2013
69
0
0
Duty, Hard Choices, Worthy Rights.

:D After reading the memoirs of Robert Gates and Mrs. Clinton's, I won't waste my time reading Panetta. It seems to me that the State & Defense Departments are posts filled by political appointees whose main skill is that of fortune tellers; not geopolitical pundits with deep know how of the strategic needs of USA after the Berlin Wall collapsed'. \One would have thought that after the dismal performances of Rumsfeld and ****', et al; The National Security Advisors would have been more careful in choosing people with actual empirical knowledge of the tasks at hand, not merely geeks and nerds:eek:
 
Glenn_Wilson said:
Well yeah sure it is W's fault. That is usual excuse for something that happens in 2014. You know if there is a decline then why not FIX that decline when you get into office. Nope just let it get worse because that is how everyone does their job. :rolleyes:

There has to be more to it than that. But obviously your mileage out of bush does vary.
The economy emploding and the 2nd Iraq war and what we have now ISIS, IS his fault..no doubt. GOP response is to make up cute names for Obama. And make sure he is a one term President(ooops). It's only been 6 years since bush gooned it up so bad.

MY point is to NOT elect another knucklehead in the Bush mold. Where are the GOP leaders???

OBTW-'failed economy'..10% unemployment to 5.9%..deficit lowest since the early Clinton years.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
2
0
Bustedknuckle said:
The economy emploding and the 2nd Iraq war and what we have now ISIS, IS his fault..no doubt. GOP response is to make up cute names for Obama. And make sure he is a one term President(ooops). It's only been 6 years since bush gooned it up so bad.

MY point is to NOT elect another knucklehead in the Bush mold. Where are the GOP leaders???

OBTW-'failed economy'..10% unemployment to 5.9%..deficit lowest since the early Clinton years.
Nice deflection with the GOP who has made up names etc. Whats up with the failed economy remark? I read my post again and I do not read anywhere in it where I said anything about the economy???????

This has to be above your pay grade with the reply post. I said if something was broken when you took a job or took over a job would you just let the same broken system remain in place? Or as a good leader would you try to overhaul it and show some leadership?

Keep banging on ole W. I know it makes you feel better.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Bustedknuckle said:
The economy emploding and the 2nd Iraq war and what we have now ISIS, IS his fault..no doubt. GOP response is to make up cute names for Obama. And make sure he is a one term President(ooops). It's only been 6 years since bush gooned it up so bad.

MY point is to NOT elect another knucklehead in the Bush mold. Where are the GOP leaders???

OBTW-'failed economy'..10% unemployment to 5.9%..deficit lowest since the early Clinton years.

BO ignoring his military leaders time and time again has as much to do with ISIS as anything Bush did. As much as he screwed **** up Bush predicted EXACTLY what would happen if the U.S. did what we ended up doing. Plus there's Panetta. Truth hurts but then that's always true when dealing with incompetence.

As far as the economy.... Things are very slowly getting better. It's the slowest post recession recovery in our history. Why? Obamacare, EPA and a ding-**** regulatory agency structure and mandate. That's a top down problem. Again, you want to see incompetence personified? Just look at almost every aspect of this presidents administration.

Look at family income. Look at the U-6. Look at labor participation. Look at balooning federal dependency and federal debt.

The deficit now is coming down to the highest it ever was in the Bush years. That is some kind of accomplishment. You want to defend your guy - I get it. Truth is there's not very much there to defend.

Mods, IMO this thread should be rolled to the U.S. politics as the SS fiasco is just another government bureaucratic failure.
 
Scott SoCal said:
BO ignoring his military leaders time and time again has as much to do with ISIS as anything Bush did. As much as he screwed **** up Bush predicted EXACTLY what would happen if the U.S. did what we ended up doing. Plus there's Panetta. Truth hurts but then that's always true when dealing with incompetence.

As far as the economy.... Things are very slowly getting better. It's the slowest post recession recovery in our history. Why? Obamacare, EPA and a ding-**** regulatory agency structure and mandate. That's a top down problem. Again, you want to see incompetence personified? Just look at almost every aspect of this presidents administration.

Look at family income. Look at the U-6. Look at labor participation. Look at balooning federal dependency and federal debt.

The deficit now is coming down to the highest it ever was in the Bush years. That is some kind of accomplishment. You want to defend your guy - I get it. Truth is there's not very much there to defend.

Mods, IMO this thread should be rolled to the U.S. politics as the SS fiasco is just another government bureaucratic failure.
Poppycock..it was a depression, not great recession, and I am amazed it only took 6 years for the economy to get back to this footing.

Except for the non funded, paid for by printing money, second Iraq war.

Defend or not 'my guy', I say, lets' see who will run in November 2016..a rich white guy who hates..
-gays
-women
-latinos
-the young

I want a leader, not some knucklehead. I would have voted for McCain if it were not for palin..WTFook was he thinkin??

And as I mentioned, the start of the SS downfall was when "dubya' moved it to Homeland Security..another bureaucratic failure, but not by Obama.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Bustedknuckle said:
Poppycock..it was a depression, not great recession, and I am amazed it only took 6 years for the economy to get back to this footing.

Except for the non funded, paid for by printing money, second Iraq war.

Defend or not 'my guy', I say, lets' see who will run in November 2016..a rich white guy who hates..
-gays
-women
-latinos
-the young

I want a leader, not some knucklehead. I would have voted for McCain if it were not for palin..WTFook was he thinkin??

And as I mentioned, the start of the SS downfall was when "dubya' moved it to Homeland Security..another bureaucratic failure, but not by Obama.
Depression has a specific definition. As does recession and this one ended in June of 2009.

I'm only amazed this pres and his admin ignored his own campaign rhetoric while doing precious little in creating conditions conducive to economic growth. That we are five years post recession and are no further along can be laid at the feet of progressive policy making.

Whether SS is at DHS or somewhere else it's still going to succumb to the same issues that large bureaucracies always do.
 
Aug 9, 2013
69
0
0
Cartagena de Indias

The agents wanted to mingle with the colombian ****s, who happen to be very cheap by american standards; Nevertheless, they had the guts to stiff the tramps, regardless of the fact they got laid allright, a task they had not performed since highschool, if ever at all. :cool:
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Depression has a specific definition. As does recession and this one ended in June of 2009.
No they don't. In fact, the term "Depression" was used in an effort to less harshly describe a recession. That someone later attached certain economic criteria doesn't alter the fact that the neither term is particularly useful in assessing economic progress or regression. But simple terms are what rule those who give "information" to the public, so lets just go with it.

Scott SoCal said:
I'm only amazed this pres and his admin ignored his own campaign rhetoric while doing precious little in creating conditions conducive to economic growth. That we are five years post recession and are no further along can be laid at the feet of progressive policy making.
We are much further along, and when compared to Reagan, the economic trajectory is amazingly similar. It boggles the mind how one is a god and the other is the devil to conservatives, but that's the lay of the land.

As for the climate that created it, if you can't recognize the calculated propaganda campaign conducted by conservatives to foster a sense of unease and consumer paranoia, then you are not being fully honest. Sure Obama has responsibility, but the reality is that equally as destructive is your propaganda campaign. The fact is that things are much better. I know that depresses conservatives, who failed to make BO a one-term president, and failed to wreck everything he did (can link political ads advertising them "wrecking" his agenda"), and failed to keep us in the dire economic climate they proclaimed we would be in at this point. We are not in a socialist inferno, dragging ourselves to government cheese lines, but maybe you guys will get your wish if you take the Senate. Destroy the country because the disadvantaged get health care (sorry, "lazy scum" as they are known to the Republican base), seems like a good pursuit. I hear you guys are shutting down the government again because of it...great idea...

Scott SoCal said:
Whether SS is at DHS or somewhere else it's still going to succumb to the same issues that large bureaucracies always do.
Yea, bureaucracies have "issues." In other news, those corporations you so venerate are much uglier behind the curtains than you will ever admit. Been doing some more work related to large financial institutions. It is so much more frightening than having to wait an hour at the DMV, it isn't even really worth discussing, but most voters can't relate to that reality. Easier to hammer public servants and teachers. Gets the base in line faster.

Meanwhile, destructive avoidance of addressing flaws that allow crashes like the last one is the other white meat. Honestly, from what I've seen, massive financial collapse is only avoided by slick marketing, sweet deals and cozy relationships between regulators and banks. And no, removing all regulation would only make complete economic collapse even more likely.

Hey, I hear a guy that owned a massive amount of AIG stock is suing the government because he got a massive influx of wealth for a worthless insurance company that hadn't adequately reserved capital for the possibility that claims would be made for the sh!t his company was selling...you can't make that kind of sh!t up. But hey, he is a "job creator" so lets suck his **** and tell him we're all sorry...then maybe he'll trickle down some of that wealth...if it feels warm and looks gooey, just ignore it and thank him anyway.

In other news, moving to Cali on Monday.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
No they don't. In fact, the term "Depression" was used in an effort to less harshly describe a recession. That someone later attached certain economic criteria doesn't alter the fact that the neither term is particularly useful in assessing economic progress or regression. But simple terms are what rule those who give "information" to the public, so lets just go with it.



We are much further along, and when compared to Reagan, the economic trajectory is amazingly similar. It boggles the mind how one is a god and the other is the devil to conservatives, but that's the lay of the land.

As for the climate that created it, if you can't recognize the calculated propaganda campaign conducted by conservatives to foster a sense of unease and consumer paranoia, then you are not being fully honest. Sure Obama has responsibility, but the reality is that equally as destructive is your propaganda campaign. The fact is that things are much better. I know that depresses conservatives, who failed to make BO a one-term president, and failed to wreck everything he did (can link political ads advertising them "wrecking" his agenda"), and failed to keep us in the dire economic climate they proclaimed we would be in at this point. We are not in a socialist inferno, dragging ourselves to government cheese lines, but maybe you guys will get your wish if you take the Senate. Destroy the country because the disadvantaged get health care (sorry, "lazy scum" as they are known to the Republican base), seems like a good pursuit. I hear you guys are shutting down the government again because of it...great idea...



Yea, bureaucracies have "issues." In other news, those corporations you so venerate are much uglier behind the curtains than you will ever admit. Been doing some more work related to large financial institutions. It is so much more frightening than having to wait an hour at the DMV, it isn't even really worth discussing, but most voters can't relate to that reality. Easier to hammer public servants and teachers. Gets the base in line faster.

Meanwhile, destructive avoidance of addressing flaws that allow crashes like the last one is the other white meat. Honestly, from what I've seen, massive financial collapse is only avoided by slick marketing, sweet deals and cozy relationships between regulators and banks. And no, removing all regulation would only make complete economic collapse even more likely.

Hey, I hear a guy that owned a massive amount of AIG stock is suing the government because he got a massive influx of wealth for a worthless insurance company that hadn't adequately reserved capital for the possibility that claims would be made for the sh!t his company was selling...you can't make that kind of sh!t up. But hey, he is a "job creator" so lets suck his **** and tell him we're all sorry...then maybe he'll trickle down some of that wealth...if it feels warm and looks gooey, just ignore it and thank him anyway.

In other news, moving to Cali on Monday.
No they don't. In fact, the term "Depression" was used in an effort to less harshly describe a recession. That someone later attached certain economic criteria doesn't alter the fact that the neither term is particularly useful in assessing economic progress or regression. But simple terms are what rule those who give "information" to the public, so lets just go with it.
Well if we can't define terms then it's much tougher to pin down arguments. It's like arguing about "wealth" inequality. Or what "rich" is. Or "rich" people's "fair" share. Etcetera.

We are much further along, and when compared to Reagan, the economic trajectory is amazingly similar. It boggles the mind how one is a god and the other is the devil to conservatives, but that's the lay of the land.
Look around you and the world at large then re-compare the two.

As for the climate that created it, if you can't recognize the calculated propaganda campaign conducted by conservatives to foster a sense of unease and consumer paranoia, then you are not being fully honest.
Chewie, you know I love ya but real or imagined, the pressures placed upon small business via ACA and EPA and the layers and layers of regulatory nonsense have stifled what should have been a economic roar back to life. Yes, there is an opposition party... not too different than the opposition party attempting to mitigate the decent economic advances of the Bush years (before the melt-down). ACA should have been passed in good times, not on the heels of a near disaster. Tax rates should have been raised in good times not in an economy barely above recessionary activity. Energy spikes, de-facto cap and trade... all this stuff should be implemented when the economy can withstand hits, not when it's already beaten up.

But then that would require an administration with at least some practicality and more concern for workers and jobs than ideology.

Yea, bureaucracies have "issues." In other news, those corporations you so venerate are much uglier behind the curtains than you will ever admit. Been doing some more work related to large financial institutions. It is so much more frightening than having to wait an hour at the DMV, it isn't even really worth discussing, but most voters can't relate to that reality. Easier to hammer public servants and teachers. Gets the base in line faster.
Well, on this thread we are hammering the Secret Service.:)

Hey, I hear a guy that owned a massive amount of AIG stock is suing the government because he got a massive influx of wealth for a worthless insurance company that hadn't adequately reserved capital for the possibility that claims would be made for the sh!t his company was selling...you can't make that kind of sh!t up. But hey, he is a "job creator" so lets suck his **** and tell him we're all sorry...then maybe he'll trickle down some of that wealth...if it feels warm and looks gooey, just ignore it and thank him anyway.
Don't know anything about that one. Sounds slimy.

Good news is at least AIG was able to pay back their govt bailout. Tax payer made a nice profit (dirty word, I know). Compare that with GM.

In other news, moving to Cali on Monday.
Cowabunga. You'll love it here. Hotter than hell year 'round because of global warming.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Well if we can't define terms then it's much tougher to pin down arguments. It's like arguing about "wealth" inequality. Or what "rich" is. Or "rich" people's "fair" share. Etcetera.
You were using the terms for rhetorical effect. I was merely pointing that out.

Scott SoCal said:
Look around you and the world at large then re-compare the two.
That it is inconvenient to your point to note that the economic recovery is on an almost exact trajectory as Reagan's is evident. The point I was referencing was your point regarding our economy. Certainly the situation in our world is alarming in many ways, and I realize that in Clown Car Land, when a Spanish child coughs, it is Obama's fault, but there are some inconvenient truths from the Reagan era that laid the groundwork for what we have now. To wit:


Scott SoCal said:
Chewie, you know I love ya but real or imagined, the pressures placed upon small business via ACA and EPA and the layers and layers of regulatory nonsense have stifled what should have been a economic roar back to life. Yes, there is an opposition party... not too different than the opposition party attempting to mitigate the decent economic advances of the Bush years (before the melt-down). ACA should have been passed in good times, not on the heels of a near disaster. Tax rates should have been raised in good times not in an economy barely above recessionary activity. Energy spikes, de-facto cap and trade... all this stuff should be implemented when the economy can withstand hits, not when it's already beaten up.
The "imagined" part is precisely what I was talking about. As to the second part, I would suggest that we have seen steady, even if underwhelming, growth suggests that the economy actually did withstand the hits.

Scott SoCal said:
But then that would require an administration with at least some practicality and more concern for workers and jobs than ideology.
Because Republicans are more concerned with workers than ideology? Surely you didn't write that sentence with a straight face.

Scott SoCal said:
Well, on this thread we are hammering the Secret Service.:)
Which in Clown Car Land involves blaming Obama...:)

Scott SoCal said:
Don't know anything about that one. Sounds slimy.

Good news is at least AIG was able to pay back their govt bailout. Tax payer made a nice profit (dirty word, I know). Compare that with GM.
You win some, you lose some.

Scott SoCal said:
Cowabunga. You'll love it here. Hotter than hell year 'round because of global warming.
And dry. Our entire town was locked down for almost two weeks because of that fire that started near Sacramento and spread to almost Tahoe. Now there's one in Yosemite near the entrance to the valley, and my wife and I have a little swaray planned for there in a little over a week...Sounds like they're thinking rain might be on the horizon for you guys anyway. They say El Nino doesn't really affect Northern rain totals much, but it might bring you guys relief. Lets hope so.
 
Scott SoCal said:
Depression has a specific definition. As does recession and this one ended in June of 2009.

I'm only amazed this pres and his admin ignored his own campaign rhetoric while doing precious little in creating conditions conducive to economic growth. That we are five years post recession and are no further along can be laid at the feet of progressive policy making.

Whether SS is at DHS or somewhere else it's still going to succumb to the same issues that large bureaucracies always do.
Campaign rhetoric is just that. It's quite different to produce sound bites, then see what is what when sitting in the big chair.

No further along? I didn't know the unemployment rate was still 10%?
oh, it's not. I really doubt McCain would have done any better. We would still be spending trillion$ in Irag and Afghanistan if he were president. There would be permanent tax breaks for the very wealthy. There would be no universal health care, there would be no solution to immigration that involved children or any path to citizenship. We 'might' be in a proxy war with Iran or Russia..great choices. He's as much of a hawk as dubya. He just had real military service instead of flying for the texas country club.

Not what former members of the SS say.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Bustedknuckle said:
Campaign rhetoric is just that. It's quite different to produce sound bites, then see what is what when sitting in the big chair.

No further along? I didn't know the unemployment rate was still 10%?
oh, it's not. I really doubt McCain would have done any better. We would still be spending trillion$ in Irag and Afghanistan if he were president. There would be permanent tax breaks for the very wealthy. There would be no universal health care, there would be no solution to immigration that involved children or any path to citizenship. We 'might' be in a proxy war with Iran or Russia..great choices. He's as much of a hawk as dubya. He just had real military service instead of flying for the texas country club.

Not what former members of the SS say.
Long term unemployment is still at 12% and the labor participation rate is under 63%. Funny how we don't count people out of work so long they stop looking for a job. Then we get these down-ticks in the unemployment rates just prior to an election. I really like that. Trust it even.

There's no universal Heath care today. There's no solution to immigration today. Bombs are still being dropped today. At least dude has a D after his name, so there's that.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
You were using the terms for rhetorical effect. I was merely pointing that out.



That it is inconvenient to your point to note that the economic recovery is on an almost exact trajectory as Reagan's is evident. The point I was referencing was your point regarding our economy. Certainly the situation in our world is alarming in many ways, and I realize that in Clown Car Land, when a Spanish child coughs, it is Obama's fault, but there are some inconvenient truths from the Reagan era that laid the groundwork for what we have now. To wit:




The "imagined" part is precisely what I was talking about. As to the second part, I would suggest that we have seen steady, even if underwhelming, growth suggests that the economy actually did withstand the hits.



Because Republicans are more concerned with workers than ideology? Surely you didn't write that sentence with a straight face.



Which in Clown Car Land involves blaming Obama...:)



You win some, you lose some.



And dry. Our entire town was locked down for almost two weeks because of that fire that started near Sacramento and spread to almost Tahoe. Now there's one in Yosemite near the entrance to the valley, and my wife and I have a little swaray planned for there in a little over a week...Sounds like they're thinking rain might be on the horizon for you guys anyway. They say El Nino doesn't really affect Northern rain totals much, but it might bring you guys relief. Lets hope so.
ChewbaccaD said:
That it is inconvenient to your point to note that the economic recovery is on an almost exact trajectory as Reagan's is evident. The point I was referencing was your point regarding our economy.


The "imagined" part is precisely what I was talking about. As to the second part, I would suggest that we have seen steady, even if underwhelming, growth suggests that the economy actually did withstand the hits.



Because Republicans are more concerned with workers than ideology? Surely you didn't write that sentence with a straight face.


You win some, you lose some.



And dry. Our entire town was locked down for almost two weeks because of that fire that started near Sacramento and spread to almost Tahoe. Now there's one in Yosemite near the entrance to the valley, and my wife and I have a little swaray planned for there in a little over a week...Sounds like they're thinking rain might be on the horizon for you guys anyway. They say El Nino doesn't really affect Northern rain totals much, but it might bring you guys relief. Lets hope so.
It's not real comparable to Reagans recovery. Look no further than the labor participation trajectory. Look at quarterly GDP growth. It's not the same.

We aren't recessionary, so steady is clearly better than that. Funnily enough, take Texas and oil out of the equation and you don't even have steady.

I was referring to the practicality of the prior dem president compared to the current one.

With large govt bureauracracy you lose most of the time. Not too many W's in the win column.

Yeah, it's certainly dry here. Let's hope there's big snow pack this winter up where you are going. Otherwise I'm going to have a brown lawn.:D

Sorry for the hack job on your post. The brilliance that is Apple iOS 8 no longer allows me to cut and paste. Piece of crap? Absolutely.

Sorry for the hack job on your post. The brilliance that is Apple iOS 8 no longer allows me to cut and paste. Piece of crap? Absolutely.
Ha! Figured it out. Don't use Safari.
 
Aug 9, 2013
69
0
0
Enough said

Alpe d'Huez said:
This thread has gotten off topic. Im going to either close it, or merge it with the US Politics thread, unless someone has anything pertinent and specific to the Secret Service left to say.
.
We think we've gotten our point accross to the proper authorities, who are sort of naive when it comes to chauvinistic practices and self indulgence in hedonistic lifestyles. I must climb the Tourmalet now, so do as you'd like, Alpe D'Huez;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY