RE: Can You Guess Without Googling?

RE: Can You Guess Without Googling? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Can You Guess Without Googling? (11/18/2011 6:52:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SternSkipper quote: So your entire reason for posting was to insult me for not believing she wrote this? Care to bet what a textual analysis comparing this piece to her earlier written works would show? a) Yeah... that's his basic intent b) It would reveal a METEORIC RISE IN HER COMMEND OF INTERMEDIATE ENGLISH. Hint: When you criticize someone's English, try to use it properly.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Can You Guess Without Googling? (11/18/2011 6:54:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather We can't play. A certain somebody has a mouth as big as her nose and recognized the editorial as soon as I read the first bit aloud. That's one of the problems with living with a political junkie with a good memory for words. But KenDoll and Sterny claim that their deep linguistic analysis proves she didnt write it! Wow, I wonder who is right.

BanthaSamantha -> RE: Can You Guess Without Googling? (11/18/2011 7:11:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: SternSkipper They did manage to cripple the legislature enough to get us a downgrade in our Credit Rating... which REALLY is a historic accomplishment! Bullshit. Youve got two years of Dem refusal to pass a budget to blame for that, even though it was meaningless. This is actually not true. Democratic budgets (or the lack thereof) were not cited anywhere as a reason for S&P's downgrade of our credit rating. Instead, the placed blame on Congress' inability to pass the debt ceiling extension in a timely manner and inability to pass a subsequent spending cuts/revenue hikes. Basically, they downgraded us because Congress' inability to come to a compromise created a tenuous situation. This is what the S&P had to say about their downgrade. "We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process." Here are two links where you can read about whom the S&P blamed and why. http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2011/aug/15/democratic-congressional-campaign-committee/democrats-say-republican-rep-bob-gibbs-caused-down/ http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2011/aug/12/kevin-dewine/ohio-gop-chairman-kevin-dewine-blames-democrats-dr/

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Can You Guess Without Googling? (11/18/2011 7:17:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BanthaSamantha quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: SternSkipper They did manage to cripple the legislature enough to get us a downgrade in our Credit Rating... which REALLY is a historic accomplishment! Bullshit. Youve got two years of Dem refusal to pass a budget to blame for that, even though it was meaningless. This is actually not true. Democratic budgets (or the lack thereof) were not cited anywhere as a reason for S&P's downgrade of our credit rating. Instead, the placed blame on Congress' inability to pass the debt ceiling extension in a timely manner and inability to pass a subsequent spending cuts/revenue hikes. Basically, they downgraded us because Congress' inability to come to a compromise created a tenuous situation. This is what the S&P had to say about their downgrade. "We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process." Here are two links where you can read about whom the S&P blamed and why. http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2011/aug/15/democratic-congressional-campaign-committee/democrats-say-republican-rep-bob-gibbs-caused-down/ http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2011/aug/12/kevin-dewine/ohio-gop-chairman-kevin-dewine-blames-democrats-dr/ I represent clients in front of S&P and Moody's at least once a month. The talk of downgrade long preceded the debt ceiling debate. Even your quotes refer to the prior problems in reining in spending. But again, the downgrade was meaningless, and any further downgrades will remain meaningless, as long as the US is a safer haven than EU...and that will be the case in all of our lifetimes.

BanthaSamantha -> RE: Can You Guess Without Googling? (11/18/2011 7:25:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: BanthaSamantha quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: SternSkipper They did manage to cripple the legislature enough to get us a downgrade in our Credit Rating... which REALLY is a historic accomplishment! Bullshit. Youve got two years of Dem refusal to pass a budget to blame for that, even though it was meaningless. This is actually not true. Democratic budgets (or the lack thereof) were not cited anywhere as a reason for S&P's downgrade of our credit rating. Instead, the placed blame on Congress' inability to pass the debt ceiling extension in a timely manner and inability to pass a subsequent spending cuts/revenue hikes. Basically, they downgraded us because Congress' inability to come to a compromise created a tenuous situation. This is what the S&P had to say about their downgrade. "We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process." "We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process." Here are two links where you can read about whom the S&P blamed and why. http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2011/aug/15/democratic-congressional-campaign-committee/democrats-say-republican-rep-bob-gibbs-caused-down/ http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2011/aug/12/kevin-dewine/ohio-gop-chairman-kevin-dewine-blames-democrats-dr/ I represent clients in front of S&P and Moody's at least once a month. The talk of downgrade long preceded the debt ceiling debate. Even your quotes refer to the prior problems in reining in spending. But again, the downgrade was meaningless, and any further downgrades will remain meaningless, as long as the US is a safer haven than EU...and that will be the case in all of our lifetimes. For one, I'd advise you reread the quote, as you might be missing key points. Just as there is no mention on whether or not the Democrats were able to pass previous budgets, there is no mention of fiscal policy issues outside of those relating to the debt ceiling debate. "We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process." It is cool that you have super-secret sources in the industry, but you'll pardon me if I assign them (as well as any other super-secret source someone else wants to bring up) absolutely no credibility in this discussion.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Can You Guess Without Googling? (11/18/2011 7:34:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BanthaSamantha quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: BanthaSamantha quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: SternSkipper They did manage to cripple the legislature enough to get us a downgrade in our Credit Rating... which REALLY is a historic accomplishment! Bullshit. Youve got two years of Dem refusal to pass a budget to blame for that, even though it was meaningless. This is actually not true. Democratic budgets (or the lack thereof) were not cited anywhere as a reason for S&P's downgrade of our credit rating. Instead, the placed blame on Congress' inability to pass the debt ceiling extension in a timely manner and inability to pass a subsequent spending cuts/revenue hikes. Basically, they downgraded us because Congress' inability to come to a compromise created a tenuous situation. This is what the S&P had to say about their downgrade. "We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process." "We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process." Here are two links where you can read about whom the S&P blamed and why. http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2011/aug/15/democratic-congressional-campaign-committee/democrats-say-republican-rep-bob-gibbs-caused-down/ http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2011/aug/12/kevin-dewine/ohio-gop-chairman-kevin-dewine-blames-democrats-dr/ I represent clients in front of S&P and Moody's at least once a month. The talk of downgrade long preceded the debt ceiling debate. Even your quotes refer to the prior problems in reining in spending. But again, the downgrade was meaningless, and any further downgrades will remain meaningless, as long as the US is a safer haven than EU...and that will be the case in all of our lifetimes. For one, I'd advise you reread the quote, as you might be missing key points. Just as there is no mention on whether or not the Democrats were able to pass previous budgets, there is no mention of fiscal policy issues outside of those relating to the debt ceiling debate. "We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process." It is cool that you have super-secret sources in the industry, but you'll pardon me if I assign them (as well as any other super-secret source someone else wants to bring up) absolutely no credibility in this discussion. I suggest you learn the meaning of "remain" then. S&P downgraded its outlook on the US months before the debt ceiling debate as well. And the credibility you assign is of no consequence to me. Youve shown a rigidity and inability to think beyond what google tells you since you started posting here.

kalikshama -> RE: Can You Guess Without Googling? (11/18/2011 7:36:26 PM)
Censored as it appears the cat isn't all the way out of the bag: "It's already been pointed out by several others that [X] has a new ghostwriter on staff and that [X] is clearly not the auteur of [X]'s most recent scribbles on Facebook and most certainly not the primary author of [X] op-ed yesterday in the Wall Street Journal. Yes, the latter continues [X] unyielding obsession with Barack Obama by trying to upstage his [snip] address to the nation today, but it's clearly the work of someone who can write cohesively and thinks in a linear fashion. The piece doesn't even sound like [X]. Trying to pass off [X] as a policy wonk on national [snip] issues is simply going a bit far. This dog simply will not hunt. How do we know? Because we've seen [X]'s raw writing on Twitter and Facebook and in [X] emails--the [X] writings that aren't ghost written. The examples are everywhere. Just take a look at some of [X]'s infamous "word salads"--as my friends in [snip] call [X]'s idiosyncratic manner of slinging phrases together--and it becomes all too clear. Recall [X]'s immortal answers to [snip] or [X]'s disjointed resignation speech from [X]'s backyard in [snip]. Or the delightfully diagrammed sentence from the interview with [snip]:"

SternSkipper -> RE: Can You Guess Without Googling? (11/18/2011 7:36:28 PM)
quote: Bullshit. Youve got two years of Dem refusal to pass a budget to blame for that, even though it was meaningless. That's not what was cited as the trigger. And you know it. S&P specifically pointed to the deadlock of this year caused by that 2010 success you were bragging about earlier. Not such a success when you look at it in respect to how they actually functioned once they were in office. Big deal so they won an election, then they got in and trainwrecked everything. Dude, you can sniff all the glue you want, it'll have no effect over the piss poor perfomance of this congress. But hang onto that hand you're holding and play it next November.Who fucking cares it's a losing hand. The fact that you won a temporary gain, did nothing to prevent the subsequent sticker shock the voters have already experienced.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Can You Guess Without Googling? (11/18/2011 7:40:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BanthaSamantha For one, I'd advise you reread the quote, as you might be missing key points. Just as there is no mention on whether or not the Democrats were able to pass previous budgets, there is no mention of fiscal policy issues outside of those relating to the debt ceiling debate. "We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process." It is cool that you have super-secret sources in the industry, but you'll pardon me if I assign them (as well as any other super-secret source someone else wants to bring up) absolutely no credibility in this discussion. And I think you are failing to read what is a more applicable point made in the quote you two are bandying back and forth: indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues You see the quote in the lens of your apparent belief that the Republicans attempt to reign in spending is the the problem. What I quoted above says that this wouldn't be an issue, if spending could be controled. The "raising revenues" part is the taxes issue. Some of us may believe that the attempt to reign in spending is kinda like the first step to detox for an alcoholic. Not a pretty picture, at first, but critically important for the long term health of the patient. Of course, Moody's is saying that what is needed is more liquidity: more cash or less expenses. I, like many on this side of the aisle, have heard enough "Give us more taxes now, and we'll cut spending later". This rarely seems to happen. Firm

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Can You Guess Without Googling? (11/18/2011 7:41:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SternSkipper quote: Bullshit. Youve got two years of Dem refusal to pass a budget to blame for that, even though it was meaningless. That's not what was cited as the trigger. And you know it. S&P specifically pointed to the deadlock of this year caused by that 2010 success you were bragging about earlier. Not such a success when you look at it in respect to how they actually functioned once they were in office. Big deal so they won an election, then they got in and trainwrecked everything. Dude, you can sniff all the glue you want, it'll have no effect over the piss poor perfomance of this congress. But hang onto that hand you're holding and play it next November.Who fucking cares it's a losing hand. The fact that you won a temporary gain, did nothing to prevent the subsequent sticker shock the voters have already experienced. Congress' performance will continue to be piss poor as long as the Dems hold the Senate. And you are wrong about the debt ceiling debate being the trigger. S&P knows full well that it is an artificial number that is totally irrelevant. The money was spent through the budget process and there is 0 chance of US default. Their statements go to budgets, not debt ceilings. But again, why are we even discussing something as meaningless as the S&P downgrade? US Treasuries...you know, those things that the S&P is rating...RALLIED after the downgrade.

BanthaSamantha -> RE: Can You Guess Without Googling? (11/18/2011 7:42:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy I suggest you learn the meaning of "remain" then. S&P downgraded its outlook on the US months before the debt ceiling debate as well. And the credibility you assign is of no consequence to me. Youve shown a rigidity and inability to think beyond what google tells you since you started posting here. I know what "remain" means, do you? They are refering to the drama from the debt ceiling debate, and how it would remain a fitful process. In other words, the process will continue to be fitful into the future. As much as you want the term "remain" to somehow reach into the past, it doesn't. Regarding my track record here, I really have that much of a reputation? My only meaningful contribution here had to do with the constitutionality of the individual mandate. Are you upset because I failed to let you get away with your tautologies and conclusory assertions? That and I fail to see what Google has to do with any of this. Everyone learns this basic constitutionality stuff in their first year of law school.

SternSkipper -> RE: Can You Guess Without Googling? (11/18/2011 7:44:17 PM)
quote: Save 2.50 and get better coffee at the gas station 3 blocks from my office. I'm not the one who needs the economics lesson... I've got the same Shreve, Crump and Low thermos bottle I've had for 20 years and good coffee at home. When the hobbies you love are all more than a mile from shore, you stop relying on styrofoam.

BanthaSamantha -> RE: Can You Guess Without Googling? (11/18/2011 7:44:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY You see the quote in the lens of your apparent belief that the Republicans attempt to reign in spending is the the problem. I have absolutely no idea as to what you're basing this on.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Can You Guess Without Googling? (11/18/2011 7:45:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BanthaSamantha quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy I suggest you learn the meaning of "remain" then. S&P downgraded its outlook on the US months before the debt ceiling debate as well. And the credibility you assign is of no consequence to me. Youve shown a rigidity and inability to think beyond what google tells you since you started posting here. I know what "remain" means, do you? They are refering to the drama from the debt ceiling debate, and how it would remain a fitful process. In other words, the process will continue to be fitful into the future. As much as you want the term "remain" to somehow reach into the past, it doesn't. No they werent. They were referring to ongoing problems in the budgeting process that they had been discussing for months before there was a debt ceiling debate. Regarding my track record here, I really have that much of a reputation? My only meaningful contribution here had to do with the constitutionality of the individual mandate. Are you upset because I failed to let you get away with your tautologies and conclusory assertions? That and I fail to see what Google has to do with any of this. Everyone learns this basic constitutionality stuff in their first year of law school. If you learned what you posted in law school then I suggest you find a new law school.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Can You Guess Without Googling? (11/18/2011 7:46:47 PM)
FR: Ok, for the few people who don't know who said what I quoted in the OP: How Congress Occupied Wall Street Politicians who arrive in Washington as men and women of modest means leave as millionaires. Why? As I said, I decided to do this based on Hill's TEA and OWS have a meeting thread. Both sides of the political spectrum could agree with what the author of the Wall Street piece is saying, but it doesn't appear that many of them can overcome their hatred and partisanship to work together to achieve those goals. Which leaves us with likely "death and destruction" between them. Both sides sniping and standing on fucking "principle" and feeding their own hatreds and reveling in their denunciations of each other while the damn country burns down around them. Have fun. Firm

BanthaSamantha -> RE: Can You Guess Without Googling? (11/18/2011 7:50:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy No they werent. They were referring to ongoing problems in the budgeting process that they had been discussing for months before there was a debt ceiling debate. You're really stretching the meaning of, "And the related fiscal policy debate," if you want it to mean "and the fiscal policy debate from many months ago."

FirmhandKY -> RE: Can You Guess Without Googling? (11/18/2011 7:55:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BanthaSamantha quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY You see the quote in the lens of your apparent belief that the Republicans attempt to reign in spending is the the problem. I have absolutely no idea as to what you're basing this on. Your argument was that the cause of the downgrade was the Republicans failure to "come to agreement" with the Dems in Congress. But I think the real problem could better be defined as the failure to either cut spending or increase revenue. The ability to actually have a budget and not continue to spend like a drunken sailor in a whorehouse in other words. If the Republicans had agreed with the Dems to raise revenues, would we have had the downgrade at this time? Probably not. If the Dems were willing to actually entertain cutting spending of any serious degree and agreed with the Republicans, would we have had the immediate downgrade? Probably not. But to you, it's the Republicans fault. That's your prism of belief that I am talking about. Firm

MusicalBoredom -> RE: Can You Guess Without Googling? (11/18/2011 7:55:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Which leaves us with likely "death and destruction" between them. Both sides sniping and standing on fucking "principle" and feeding their own hatreds and reveling in their denunciations of each other while the damn country burns down around them. Exactly what was (rather unsuccessfully) tying to say Firm.

BanthaSamantha -> RE: Can You Guess Without Googling? (11/18/2011 7:59:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Your argument was that the cause of the downgrade was the Republicans failure to "come to agreement" with the Dems in Congress. I did not say that. You're probably thinking of a different poster.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Can You Guess Without Googling? (11/18/2011 8:00:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BanthaSamantha quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Your argument was that the cause of the downgrade was the Republicans failure to "come to agreement" with the Dems in Congress. I did not say that. You're probably thinking of a different poster. So the "prolonged controversy" was not the Republicans fault? Firm

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875