The Death of Direct Sales

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

Disagree, Jeff.

It was a neck-and-neck race before the economic crisis started influencing things. Obama had pulled ahead with his DNC bounce, McCain erased Obama's lead with his RNC bounce, and things had begun to even out again - as everyone expected - when Lehman tanked. Absent any economic crisis, I think the election would have focused on Iraq, Palin, and taxes. Obama still would have outspent McCain 3-1 in battleground states, he still would have had a much more robust ground game, and he still would have had a message that appeals to a greater percentage of Americans.

And if McCain had decided to make Jeremiah Wright an issue, Obama would have done the same with Rod Parsley.

I'm not saying he would have amassed 340 electoral votes, but 270 was, at the time, very realistic.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

That is a pretty ignorant statement. Obama targeted all these states because of the changing demographic makeup of them. After being toss ups for most of the election, they are all moving to Obama. Statistics show that if the white/black/hispanic makeup of the voting electorate was the same as 2004 that McCain would be ahead.

Despite this, until the recent crash in the market these states were all toss-ups as was the general election. The plunge in the market and the deteriorating global credit crisis has hurt McCain significantly and will make Obama thge winner. Also contributing to this of course is the mainstream media who is going after Palin and McCain with a vengeance.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Atkatz

Deal with it.

(You, too, Jim. You racist.)

[Archive]

Posted By: David Atkatz

Surprised the economy has melted down? You shouldn't be.

This is a country that produces nothing, absolutely nothing, of value. No manufacturing to speak of.

The only things we produce are "financial products."

And the last "product," mortgages to people who were guaranteed to default, repackaged as "securities,"
seems to have had a little problem.

I'm sorry that decent, hardworking people are suffering.

But you, Jim?

You reap what you sow.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

Heerrreeee we go. Now it's going to be on. I needed something to do while I sit here in FedAdmin class. lol

Joann

(Although, I actually do like this class.)

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

David, the thought that you actually have exposure to young, impressionable people is a scary one. Jealousy, anger and hatred are three qualities I wouldn't want near my children.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

David,

You will be sorry to hear that I am doing well.

Other than that. I am not engaging in a debate with someone who is happy over anothers misfortune.

Good luck and God bless.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

"This is a country that produces nothing, absolutely nothing, of value. No manufacturing to speak of."

reverend wright is that you?

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim Sanders

I keep checking back to see if a new thread will pop up on cards (that would be a novelty), and I have been reading this trainwreck since yesterday. Mostly I let my blood boil but DAVID think before you spew!!!!

"This is a country that produces nothing, absolutely nothing, of value. No manufacturing to speak of."

If this is true how do you explain the decent harworking people??

As a matter of fact America does produce a lot. We are one of the leading exporters in the world. Financial products are just a part of what is made here. GE,GM,Coca-Cola ring a bell?



-For full disclosure I am a hardcore republican but I refuse to pick a candidate to vote for until they actually answer one question they are asked during the debates.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

"....but I refuse to pick a candidate to vote for until they actually answer one question they are asked during the debates."

Um, you may be waiting until at least 2012 to vote. What a disappointing process, huh?

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Jeff,

That guy has exposure to young, impressionable people??

Please don't tell me he is a teacher.

[Archive]

Posted By: sagard

Mocking a person as forthright as Jim about his misfortune doesn't help. Knowing how that could happen to Jim, tells me it could happen to anyone. Mock his views and demonstrate how wildly inaccurate they are all you want.

The USA is still the greatest country to live in and there is no other place I would even consider wanting my son to grow up.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

Perhaps we could save the personal attacts.
----------------------------------------------

Regarding the statements about Truman. If Truman had run for office today I believe he'd been treated exactly like Palin.

Truman never attended college. He didn't attend formal schooling until he was 8 years old (attended a religious scholl prior to that). He worked for 11 years on a farm. He was an artillery commander in WWI. Truman was then a failed small business owner (though admirably continued to pay off his debt over many years - but less admirably let a political supporter pay of the final part of the debt.)

Truman once gave a friend money for KKK membership though he never actively attended nor participated in the group. He was the equivalent of a county commissioner and held other administrative positions in Missouri. He was then elected to the Senate basically through back room decisions and the support of the largest Dem political "boss" (Democrats controlled Missouri at that point in time). He won a close re-election after the Missouri political boss was thrown in jail. He had a pretty non-descript time in the Senate before becoming the VP nominee. He was known for his "plain spokenness".

So if you looked at Truman's record through the media lense today.... he'd be an uneducated, military grunt, failed business man, with ties to the most extreme and corrupt parts of society.

Now I'm a huge Truman fan, but when one looks at Sarah Palin today, and Harry Truman prior to becoming President......well there are a lot of similarities. In no way am I stating she is of his quality, but the nonsense in the media has been way over the top IMO. I'd much prefer an in depth analysis of her record as governor to date and her record as mayor. Just because someone has been a politician longer doesn't make them more effective IMO. And if the focus was on her positions, actions, etc I'd bet we might actually get to know whether or not she is up to the task of being president.

[Archive]

Posted By: sagard

If you are at all fiscally conservative you won't like Palin's stewardship as mayor or governer. She acted like a typical republican as mayor, forcing Wasilla into mountainous debt. I don't share her socially conservative views, but I respect them. They are probably the most consistant attribute possessed by any of the group of four.

[Archive]

Posted By: LetsGoBucs

Surprised the economy has melted down? You shouldn't be.

This is a country that produces nothing, absolutely nothing, of value. No manufacturing to speak of.

The only things we produce are "financial products."

And the last "product," mortgages to people who were guaranteed to default, repackaged as "securities,"
seems to have had a little problem.

I'm sorry that decent, hardworking people are suffering.

But you, Jim?

You reap what you sow.
-----------------------------

1. Financial products are an important part of a free market economy. I'd prefer to be producing them here rather than in London or Singapore or Tokyo.

2. We manufacture quite a lot still....but admittedly we could/should be making more in the USA. There have been corporations putting themselves before the country and their workers.

3. Why bask in other's misfortune? Since you have absolutely no evidence that the person you attack did anything other than work hard, it just makes you seem small.

4. There is plenty of blame to go around on the mortgage situation. The banks and investment firms deserve a big chunk of blame for knowingly ignoring the fundamentals. The government regulations proved to be a joke and deserve some blame. The people that signed up for something "too good to be true" deserve blame. And the Congress deserves a little blame for trying to engineer social outcomes through our mortgage providers.

5. We have a lot of work to do to correct our messes (mortgages, Social Security, Medicare, Deficit)....and the sooner we get to it, the sooner we will return to a sound and vibrant economic situation.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim VB

David,

The seeming pleasure you get from someone else's financial misfortune is very ugly. Jim didn't cause the crisis. He could not have prevented it. And he could not avoid it. How does that give you joy?

Disagreeing about who to vote for is one thing. This is something far different.

There are many of us on this board who are far poorer today, through stocks and options, than we were a year ago.

[Archive]

Posted By: James Feagin

Jim,

As a person who studies demographics as a hobby (I'm still a nerd), you are flat-out incorrect about Nevada and Colorado. I also know this from first hand experience because I lived in Nevada. The reason both Nevada and Colorado have changing demographics is 1.) tax break advantages for small and medium-sized business and 2.) in Colorado's case cheap real estate. Las Vegas, Nevada at one point was increasing in population to the tune of 7,000 per week. Most of those people were folks from the Northern U.S. and those from democrat California who wanted cheaper real estate. In the case of Colorado it was low business taxes--also attractive people from red states. As far as Jeff, I believe Al answered him very effectively and was spot on. In any regards, to blame failure on some sort of multi-layered media conspiracy is a crutch for not conveying your ideas effectively. Finally, while I do not agree with Jim most of the time, to cheer his huge financial loss is flat-out classless.

James

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

First of all, it's not fair - or cool - to celebrate the misfortune of others, and I want to make sure everyone understands I'm putting distance between myself and anyone who might do that in this thread. I'm really sorry that things broke the way they did, particularly with Lehman, and I'm glad to know that anyone on this board who may have worked for that company is talented enough - and secure enough financially - to quickly land on their feet. I'm really sorry that we're all taking a beating financially, and feel that nobody who's talented at what they do deserves to lose their job as a result of someone else's mistakes.

Second of all...

Jim, you can call my statement ignorant all you want, but that doesn't make you right.

Obama targeted those states because his goal was to keep all the Kerry states and swing enough Bush battleground states to get to 270.

You can say that it's the dramatic increase in Latino population in North Carolina that has swung the state blue over the last three weeks, but that doesn't make you right. I just spent about a half hour on the US Census website - which I encourage you to do - and their figures would actually indicate that you're entirely wrong and that my statement is not ignorant at all.

Using the national average and looking at Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina, only two of those states - Nevada and Florida - have experienced growth in the Latino population that's higher than the rest of the country with any statistically significant margin between 2000 and today. Those same two states have also experienced growth in the black population that are higher than the national average.

All the rest of the states are either right on track with the national average, or they're growing more SLOWLY among the black and Latino population in the rest of the country.

Conversely, all three of the states you mentioned - Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada - have experienced growth among the population that would characterize itself as "white" that is significantly greater than the national average of 5%. In Nevada, there are 6.5% more white people than there were in 2000. In Colorado, that number is 7.3%. In New Mexico, it's an astounding 17.8%.

So if people were voting purely along racial lines, McCain would be blowing Obama's doors off in all three of those states. Looks like white people like Obama too, I'm sorry to say.

So maybe it's the declining Samoan population that's working in Obama's favor. Either that, or that rascally liberal media has gotten its claws into the Census bureau.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: James Feagin

A lot of democrat Northerners have also flocked, and I mean flocked to North Carolina for dirt cheap real estate in cities like Charlotte, and also on the coast.

James

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

"In any regards, to blame failure on some sort of multi-layered media conspiracy is a crutch for not conveying your ideas effectively."

Hilarious. I'm guessing you're the same guy who's been claiming for years
that the Republicans "stole" the last two elections through some right-wing conspiracy.

To suggest that the liberal media is part of a 'conspiracy' suggests that the publishers of all the various newspapers, networks, etc. had some meeting of the minds on how to best screw McCain. No one is suggesting that. And no one is suggesting that the media alone is responsible for McCain's failures. But to turn a blind eye to the mainstream media's unfair treatment of Palin compared to how they have gone after Obama and other liberals is just disingenuous. If I recall, the mainstream media wanted nothing to do with the John Edwards girlfriend story despite constantly being provided strong evidence supporting the story -- it took the freaking National Enquirer to break the story for crying out loud. But the same mainstream media has no problem suggesting all sorts of repulsive and unsubstantiated innuendo about Sarah Palin and her child.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

This thread has really gotten ugly....this will be my last post as nobody wants to answer my questions concerning the MSM and instead they want to pontificate on "THE ONE" or offer up nothing as a defense except more blathering about the NYT's without offering any proof.

The media doesn't care if you have an "R" or a "D" next to your name, if they smell blood in the water they will attack. There is no such thing as an investigative journalist anymore, journalism is all reactionary now. It took a supermarket rag to investigate Jon Edwards, it took prodding from internet blogs to investigate a frigging CIA leak from top government officials. Where was the financial press while this economic crisis was brewing? The Fourth Estate has been out to lunch (or rather Washington cocktail parties) for a long time now and we all suffer because of it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Dan, I'm not sure what proof you expect me to show you that the New York Times has a vast liberal slant. Perhaps if you read the paper one time -- shudder -- you'd understand better. That they hired Kristol was greeted as sort of a joke in these (and most other) parts. It was done basically to say to the Republicans, "see? we're fair and balanced, too." Of course he is just the only conservative columnist pretty much in a newspaper that has dozens of wildly liberal columnists. With all respect, and I know you mean well, but it is widely accepted that the Times is a liberal newspaper. Remember, they were the ones that published the McCain girlfiend story? Without any attribution to named sources? That's like one of 1000 different examples of their bias.

[Archive]

Posted By: steve yawitz

"This is a very SICK-SICK crowd....and, they will eventually bring down the Democrat's party......if the moderate
thinking Democrats do not rid themselves of these extremists."


I'm not going to tag you as a right-wing nut, Ted, but I do think you're misreading the current climate. No doubt the left has some shrill voices that grate on even this arugula-eating elitist, but I think it's the GOP that's going to need to do the soul-searching in the wake of this election. Barack Obama's ideals, proposals and, yes, even his associations are fair game in this, or any, campaign. But the timbre of the McCain-Palin rallies over the last week has been absolutely appalling.

"Fear vs. Hope" is probably an oversimplification of the dynamic of this election, but there's certainly a nugget of truth in it. Three and a half weeks is indeed a political lifetime, but this election is shaping up to be not just a big victory for Obama, but a repudiation of what the GOP now represents.

http://imageevent.com/yawie99

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

Jeff, I think the media have piled on with Palin.

I also think it's justified.

The Republican party has shielded Palin from questions from Day 1. She has done three interviews. Each one has been a disaster. She has not given a single press conference. She has not answered a single question from any journalist other than the three softball journalists that were hand-picked by the McCain campaign - and when she couldn't answer the questions from Katie Couric and Charles Gibson, they accused both journalists of practicing "gotcha journalism." For asking such inciting questions as "What's your opinion on the Bush Doctrine?" or "What is involved with this bailout?"

You're a member of the media. Tell me, in all honesty - let's say that Obama chose as his running mate a democratic Senator from Hawaii (I removed his name to make this more understandable).

So the Democrats choose their candidate, then immediately tuck him away so that he can begin preparing to campaign in the mainland US. They're giving him crash courses in the Obama platform, while the media is desperately Googling away, trying to find out whatever they can about him so that they can tell the American people about the candidate. Let's say they find out a few things about his personal life, but not much else.

So they start sniffing around, and find he's being investigated for possible ethics violations. And they find he's had some prior religious and political affiliations that might be questionable.

And they want to ask about these things, but the Democrats are not granting access to the media. So they fester.

Then, the Democrats finally give him an interview. For argument's sake, let's say it's an interview with Dan Rather. And he gives a few answers that are tough to understand, like he's talking around in circles. And then he gives another interview, with a left-wing journalist like Keith Olbermann. And Keith serves up a bunch of meatball questions that are easy to answer.

Then he gives another interview with another softball journalist - say it's with Katie Couric. And his answers are just gibberish. And then that's it. Every other public appearance is a carefully crafted, scripted photo opp with virtually no opportunity for ad-libbing, no questions & answer, nothing.

As a member of the media, Jeff, are you going to just let that go? You're going to just sit back and let the Democrats spoon-feed you a candidate, and never give you a chance to vet him?

No. No, you're not. Not if you're a responsible journalist that takes seriously his job of serving the public trust. Or at least his job of selling newspapers.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: James Feagin

Jeff,

I've been called a right-wing wacko at times, and also a liberal. The fact is, I'm fascinated with how people think and how the various medias act as opinion shapers. And yes Jeff, if you go to some of the boards I do...people honestly feel there is a large-scale conspiracy. Reactionery media gives the consumer what sells. IMHO, if Palin would have never gone through this whole "bulldog with lipstick" sctick, none of this would have ever happened.

[Archive]

Posted By: James Feagin

This question is for Dan Bretta. Do you think given their foreign policy positions that Barack Obama could in fact, be more fiscally conservative than McCain?

James

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard Simon

"Statistics show that if the white/black/hispanic makeup of the voting electorate was the same as 2004 that McCain would be ahead."
That is a quote higher up in this thread from the racist, demographics expert.
Please back that up with some proof.
=


I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
Unknown author
--
We made a promise. We swore we'd always remember.
No retreat baby, no surrender.
The Boss

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Al, where on earth did you get the idea that I am a member of the media? I have to tell you, seeing me described as a member of the media is freaking jarring to say the least. I'm a criminal defense attorney who was asked to do talk radio and I do it on occasion because it's fun to spew my insights to a bunch of people other than baseball card nerds. I do it a few times a month on average. And I would have to say that I'm guessing the reason listeners enjoy listening to me is precisely because I am not a member of the media, make relatively no income from media sources, and am not beholden to any media outlet -- even the ones I do radio for.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

No--you are wrong about the demographics.

New Mexico--Latinos will make up 37% of the vote this year--they will go over 3:1 Obama according to polls.
That means for McCain to win he has to carry two-thirds of the remainder of thge state--certainly a daunting challenge given the black vote in the state will probably be over 95% Obama. Sorry but as a percentage of the vote hispanics rise every year--this has caused Obama campaign to target the state as did Kerry.

Nevada now 20% Hispanic going 3:1 Obama. He needs almost 60% of the non-Hispanic vote to win--more than last election which was more than the election before that.

Colorado is similar--a poll last week showed Colorado Hispanics favoring Obama 68-26 percent.

These states ate becoming like the Deep South where because the Black vote is now 30-40 percent of the vote, the Republicans have to carry over 75% of the White vote.

Some may say this is racist but they are facts. The Democrats have targeted states with a growing Hispanic population as a core part of their stategy.

Unless Republicans can figure out a way to appeal to Hispanics other than just opening the borders and letting everyone in, they face a more difficult task every year. Its a party that is primarily made up of white people and the percentage of whites in this country is declining every year and the Democrats are capitalizing on this trend.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

I know I said I wasn't going to post again, but I want to tie some loose ends up here...I believe the NYT's leans left...I do not believe the MSM as a whole leans left. For every example you name of a media outlet leaning left I can counter with one leaning right. It is pretty balanced overall. Where I live there is no such thing as a left leaning media. There is no liberal talk radio..not a single station...there are no liberal newspapers. My local paper endorses Republicans only in elections. However I know liberal outlets exist...I may not if the internet had never come about, but the myth of a liberal media is pervasive, but it is one of those lies that if you say it enough then it has to be true. Has Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity ever done a single show without blaming something on the "Liberal media"? A lot of people in this country will buy anything hook, line and sinker...how do you explain a woman getting up at a townhall meeting and telling McCain she won't vote for Obama because he's an arab????

And with that goodbye to this thread...way too many good college football games on TV today.

If you're a betting man (unlike me) take the over on the Nebraska v Texas Tech game today. Tech may try to lay 100 on us.

edited to add a response to James' question: I do not think Obama is more fiscally conservative than McCain, however the people McCain has surrounded himself with are far from fiscal conservatives...they are the same Rovian trash that surrounds GWB who is perhaps the biggest socialist this country has seen since FDR...actually no perhaps about it.

[Archive]

Posted By: sagard

"Do you think given their foreign policy positions that Barack Obama could in fact, be more fiscally conservative than McCain?"

I realize I'm not Dan, but this really is what the election boils down to for me.

At this point Obama has admitted his spending ideals are going to have to be delayed. McCain has not made such a statement about his spending ideals. Basically he has mentioned a freeze with three obscenely large open ended exceptions.

There is little doubt in my mind that our annual deficit will be smaller under an Obama admin vs. a McCain admin.

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard Simon

Jim - I would be curious where those statistics have come from regarding the % of voters. Sounds like racist rant to me. And two people here have called you a racist, Jim, and no denial has come forth. Guess you are at least honest about that.
=

I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
Unknown author
--
We made a promise. We swore we'd always remember.
No retreat baby, no surrender.
The Boss

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Richard Simon--I am not a racist and how dare you suggest I am! I do not feel I need to respond to the lowest common denominator on this board meaning you!

[Archive]

Posted By: James Feagin

I am out of this thread as well. Good college games to be had.

James

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

This is degenerating into personal attacks, and everyone has had his say. Maybe it is time to lock it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard Simon

Jim - considering that David Atkatz and myself had called you a racist and you had not denied it I took the statement as fact.
Since you are willing to deny being a racist, I am sorry I called you one.
=

I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
Unknown author
--
We made a promise. We swore we'd always remember.
No retreat baby, no surrender.
The Boss

[Archive]

Posted By: 1880nonsports

retracted my post because it had nothing to do with vintage baseball cards..............

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

Jeff:

Although I've never heard you (no offense - it's not you; commercial radio just does nothing for me), the impression I'm under is that you occasionaly host a talk radio show on the largest talk radio station in the country. Which means that you talk to more people over the radio than almost everyone else who sits behind a microphone. Whether or not that's your primary occupation, or whether or not you consider it to be more than something you just do for fun, I'd call you a member of the media.

Jim, those numbers are interesting. I'm curious as to where you got them. Your stats say that the population of New Mexico is 37%. The US Census would indicate that the number is actually higher - it's 44%.

But your statement wasn't about the overall Hispanic population in those states - it was about the CHANGE in Hispanic population in those states. In the 2000 Census, the population of New Mexico was 42.1% - a 1.9% percentage point increase. The increase in Hispanic population across the country on average - again, according to the US Census - was 2.3 percentage points.

Your point, as I understood it, was not that the Latino population of the battleground states was high. It was that the population had somehow materially changed since the last election. The numbers do not bear that out.

I do agree that any political candidate, in order to win, needs to address the needs of the population in general, including all its ethnicities. To me, that's kind of the point.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

My point at the risk of being accused of being racist was that the Hispanic population is growing as a percentage of the electorate in key battleground states. Ehough so that just based on these shifts alone that it is tilting what were Republican states into the toss-up category.

My second point is that because of the Demographic changes in the country as a whole that it is bevoming increasingly difficult for a Republican to get elected as Hispanics and Blacks are overwhelmingly Democrat.

As far as the stats to back this up part of it rests with higher turnout. Because of Acorn and other get out the vote organikzations, Hispanics are forecast to make up a greater percentage of the electorate in New Mexico, Nevada and Colorado. I am sure many have seen the articles about all the people registered by Acorn and that in some places it exceeds the population of the whole city or surrounding area.

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

Just to be clear, Jim, I'm not calling you racist.

I agree with your second point and disagree with your first. The numbers indicate that, in the three states you mentioned, the percentage of people who call themselves "white" is growing at a rate faster than the country in general, and the percentage of people who call themselves "Hispanic" is in line with or less than the national average in two of the three states.

In general, however, the Latino community is growing and skews heavily Democrat.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: David Atkatz

Don't worry, Jeff. I doubt very much your kids will be studying physics at the professional level.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Atkatz

<<"This is a country that produces nothing, absolutely nothing, of value. No manufacturing to speak of."

If this is true how do you explain the decent harworking people??>>

You think people in the service industries (just about all we have left here) don't work hard?

Try it sometime.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Atkatz

Ya know, I don't give a good XXX damn how many rich right-wingers I piss off.

And I don't care how hard ol' Jimbo worked at Lehman. He and his ilk produced nothing of value, and were (and continue to be) nothing but leeches living off those who do and make what is necessary.

(Remember Enron? Literally disappeared overnight. Any of your lights dim? Any brownouts? Any power shortages? I thought not. All that lovely group of people did was skim off the top of every cent paid for energy, while adding or producing absolutely nothing. And when they disappeared, there wasn't even a power blip.)

Jim and his ilk certainly did cause this crises.

And if their stock options have become worthless as a result, it couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of fellas.

And, BTW, I'm quite a bit poorer, too, these days. My academic retirement plan is invested in the market.

But, first of all, it will come back. And if this is the price I have to pay to get the damn Republicans out, it's well worth it. Jeff and I agree on one thing: the meltdown is the Democrats 9/11. Now it's our turn to ride the wave of fear.

That, and the fact that under a Democratic administration, the budget will be balanced again, ought to keep us in power for quite some time.

Better get used to it.


edited a little profanity....(one word)

[Archive]

Posted By: David Atkatz

And Jim, anyone who calls (as you did above) a Down's Syndrome child a "Mongoloid," is a racist.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

David, everything that comes out of your mouth is anger, hatred, bitterness and jealousy. You are the face of the loony left -- and it ain't pretty. You keep taking up for the poor, disenfranchised working class but you can't seem to conceal your snobbish elitism. You actually come off almost as crazy as a Ward Churchill; I suspect if we endeavored to learn your views on who really was responsible for 9/11 we'd all be in for a laugh. What is sad to me is that some insitution of higher learning would actually make such an angry, hateful little man a tenured professor (assuming this is actually true).

[Archive]

Posted By: David Atkatz

I'm actually a pretty big man, Jeff.

And you don't know the first fuc*ing thing about me. So don't flatter yourself that you do.

[Archive]

Posted By: TFerg

"And, BTW, I'm quite a bit poorer, too, these days. My academic retirement plan is invested in the market.

But, first of all, it will come back. And if this is the price I have to pay to get the damn Republicans out, it's well worth it. Jeff and I agree on one thing: the meltdown is the Democrats 9/11. Now it's our turn to ride the wave of fear."

Looks like David finally tells why he's so bitter. He was probably looking for his retirement plan to carry him to an early exit from "working". And since it was tied to what he so detests and it's stumbling he's got his panties in a bunch. I'm sure when the market was rolling he loved Jim and his "ilk".

Don't worry David a few of us still manufacture here in the U.S., the numbers are shrinking, but we'll push forward.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Atkatz

Wrong, Turd. An academic's retirement plan isn't enough to retire on, even in good times. Received my quarterly statement just a few days ago--down $22,000.

I laughed and said "keep it up."

I am enjoying this, and whatever I lose is worth it to me, as I said, if it gets the Republicans the "one way ticket to Palookaville" they so deserve.

My working-class grandparents and parents instilled in me some fundamental values; one of which was "don't forget where you came from."

I haven't, and I won't.

(And what I told Jeff just above applies to you, too.)

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim

"I am enjoying this"

That's sad that you could be so blinded by your own ideology that you would want to see the nation and the world suffer on the whole for the benfit of your party.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Atkatz

Please.

They won't be suffering long.

And the result of this will be, among many other good things, health care and educational opportunities for those suffering who don't have either today.

(And I know you guys are really suffering.)