I was following Shaws lead (see congreeshores) and was channeling Themercenary. I believe even he thought it was funny.

Both parties passed the initial TARP. Virtually EVERYONE was on board at that time.
But you just go ahead an keep posting your unnecessary and unrelated partisan, extremist attacks. Its so new and refreshing. :scream:

Regarding humor or tongue-in-cheek: never follow my lead. It's not worked for me so far.

But the republicans are blaming Obama for "the deficit caused by bailouts" in many political ads.

Especially when you post your snarky bullshit comments to a humorous reply to one of your own posts.
Perhaps a "we were just kidding" tw would have been a better alternative than being a bitch. Just sayin'. <no smilie>

Then they should grow a friggin pair and call the R's out on it.
However, I think they R's are referring to subsequent bailouts. Whatever works better for them - some things never change.

This explains it fairly well....

http://www.economist.com/node/170434...TOKEN=35979115

Yup. And wealthy fucks will always support their right to pay an insignificant drop from their ocean of wealth as taxes. As long as the rest of us are prepared to pay substantial chunks of our meagre earnings to keep the country running why would they care?

The slate article 'reinforces' wealth envy, but that envy is alreayd there to begin with, and frankly, I think that envy is justified. The obscene extremes of wealth and privelege that provoke that envy in the first place: that's unjustifiable.


___________________

When did DanaC become daviddwilson? (See post 15.)

:lol:

Why do people keep doing that? They sign up just to repeat a Dwellar's post? It's been happening off and on...very strange!

What that is --

The spammers are upping their game... tremendously. They have now reached the point where they attempt to resemble real people.

This one is from Vietnam.

Luckily, Miss Dana can never be duplicated: she's one of a kind, and she doesn't spam us. :)

The tax on a proprietorship or partnership is calculated after expenses are deducted. Is she lying, stupid, or both?

That's the result of being coached in rhetoric, without understanding the reasoning. It's easy to be wrong, but she can do it with a straight face.

Not to mention that even if that was all taxable income, they would only be paying the pre-Bush rate on $50,000 of it.

Both. There is no doubt. I don't think she even cares if she wins. She gonna make a mint off the notoriety. Heck she'll probably be a Faux analyst by Christmas.

That is the purpose and point. Many will believe her only due to presentation. Many will simply ignore that facts and numbers. She looks honest. Therefore she must be telling the truth.

Christian Colleges require courses that teach how to 'present'. How to move facial features makes some people 'appear' to be honest. Presentation rather than facts are only important to those most easily manipulated by lies.

Why was George Jr so successful? He entered a town, remembered everyone's name, and appeared to be so honest. He was a master of 'presentation'. And was a mental midget. George Jr was the perfect front man. So is Palin. And so is O'Donnell. Many only see the presentation – then believe what they are told to believe.

So many only 'feel' what is true rather than 'learn' what is true. 'Presentation' rather than 'knowledge or honesty' is important. Even explains why 4,400 Americans were killed in Iraq for no purpose.

Huh? You mean like a public speaking class?

More than public speaking classes. Students are video taped to learn facial expressions; how to move eyebrows and how to manipulate the music of a voice. To learn how to raise, lower, and present words. It is not about content and logic. It is all about presentation. How to spin a feeling.

A listener can judge based upon two criteria. The first is to ignore the presentation; instead listen for facts. Second is to listens only for a feeling. O'Donnell (as did George Jr) is completely about the presentation. She is superb. Simply memorize canned expressions and illogical soundbytes. Her soothing presentation means those 'second listeners' know she must be honest. They 'feel' the presentation; ignore the facts. And it works.

It was, for example, how so many knew you smoke cigarettes to be healthier. Or knew cough drops cure a common cold. Or bought GM cars even though doing so put Americans out of work and cost more money after the purchase. Image. Presentation. Facts be damned.

Some of the best presentations were caustic, crude, annoying, and right on the money. Some people knew it was wrong only because they 'felt'. Others saw reality by ignoring 'feelings' and other irrelevant emotions. It says why some so love O'Donnell and why others see her as a facade. When it comes to presentation, she is a master. As was George Jr.

Anyone who discounts O'Donnell because her appeal is superficial is ignoring why so many judge and vote as they do.

What "Christian Colleges"?

Superb at what? Shes an idiot and she sounds and looks like one when speaking.

Which Christian college did you attend?

I am rather sure that most colleges, christian or otherwise teach classes like that as well.

Cite.

Dream.

TW used to call himself a professor. I'm just asking him for the minimum due diligence for his frothy whipped bullshit, as any good academic would.

60 Minutes (I believe it was) reported on what is taught in these colleges about 10 years ago. They showed students being videotaped. Then analyzed for how their facial muscles must move to make themselves appear to be more honest. I believe the concept was called kinesis.

O'Donnell demonstrates characteristics of one carefully trained in same. Do not know if she receieved such training. But what she does well is presentation. How to appear honest. As I believe classicman notes, the words and concepts behind her presentation are empty. She is all about image. And that, unfortunately is enough for many to believe her. Image alone was sufficient for O'Donnell to defeat a long time, popular, and highly regarded Republican Congressman from Delaware.


I never called myself professor. Would not even consider such a title. And have no idea where that idea even came from.

A ten year old 60 minute show about some college, does not warrant the blanket statement, "Christian Colleges".

Agreed. Besides didn't she go to Hogwarts?

I think I do. One of the default user titles is "Professor" 365-399 posts. If you were using the default title in that period...

... but he played one on the web.









And stayed at Holliday Inn Express.;)

I believe you are referring to a piece that was about schools for those who wished to become televangelists such as Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, Jerry Falwell, Oral Roberts and the famous Joel Osteen. Thats a big difference than just a Christian College.

She's cute and "perky" (like a mini-Palin.) but thats about it. Not to many. Her presentation sounds immature, uninformed and shallow. She has ZERO substance.
A change from what we got in 2008. Interesting how "hope & change" has morphed into something as ridiculous as this.

Not as popular as one would have believed, apparently. Then again, perhaps complacency took over. Perhaps that apathy led to this situation.

I listenend to her debate Coons this am on the radio.
OMFG - First off, she doesn't know which amendments are which and then she asked where in the constitution was the part about separation of church and state. I had to turn it off.
I strongly dislike Coons opinions, but I'd put yard signs up for him at this point - just to ensure she doesn't win. This woman is beyond pathetic. Its truly sad that the choices to elect our representatives have come to this.

Ah. I did not know that. It fit so well with TW's tone that I assumed it was his choice.

Did tw really have less than 400 posts in February 2003?

By looking at his join date and total posts, I see that tw has about a half a post per day average. So, yeah that seems likely.