Donald Regan, or Ronald Reagan? Either way, subby's only off by one letter.

It's about standards...subby apparently is lacking in that department.

ZOMG OBAMA IS TEH MESSIAH!!!!!

/right?

It's idolatry. St. Ronald of Reagan is the new golden calf.

Bufu: It's about standards...subby apparently is lacking in that department.

When you read that back to yourself, does it sound as stupid as it does to the rest of us?

I remember that halcyon day in the past, when the Family was King, God held sway at the dinner table, and a man's word was his bond. I think it was 1954. Oh, wait. Jim crow. OK, so it was, um, '69. OK, that was the year of the Cuyahoga river fire. Maybe it was, well, back in 1918. Yeah, that's it. That halcyon day.

/What, there's contract law in the Bible?

.

bulldg4life, grow the fark up, finally.

Well, according to some people, that would give people jobs. So sounds like it works.

Bufu: bulldg4life, grow the fark up, finally.

Grow up? Dude, I agree with him, I don't have a clue what the fark you're talking about. Just sounds like you're gobbling Reagan's knob. Please enlighten us if this is not the case.

tonesskin: Well, according to some people, that would give people jobs. So sounds like it works.

Hmm, that's true. Even better idea; let's spend two million to celebrate Obama's birthday! That'll create some jobs, too!

ragekage, I was talking about the farked up headline that spelled the 40th president's last name incorrectly.

You miss that??

Bloody hell.

lulz

Bufu: ragekage, I was talking about the farked up headline that spelled the 40th president's last name incorrectly.

You miss that??

Bloody hell.

Hell, yes, I "miss that". There wasn't any indication that's what you were talking about. Hell, I'm happy to make fun of subby for not hitting "Preview", carry on.

This is just a joke to them. They aren't even trying anymore.

1/10 Republicans. I don't know who you're an alt for, but you're just phoning it in at this point. I've seen AIM bots more responsive, intelligent, and creative.

Sorry, it was a Buffy reference...jeez...and it was hot on the heels of the initial posting which referenced he same farking thing.

Do you even read a thread before biatching at somebody??

But how else are we going to celebrate the Feast of St. Ronald? It costs quite a bit of money to elect the "Cadillac-Driving Welfare Queen" for the ritual stoning, and the deficit balloons aren't going to inflate themselves.

You guys are retards. Republicans, staying true to their form want tax decreases and spending increases. Everyone knows this. Who better to spend a million on than the guy that started the spending problems we have today?

Seriously people, get a grip.

I'm not suprised he's treated as a god, because compared to the GOP's more recent offerings, he IS a god. His presidency was not without its glaring flaws, but it had its good points as well, whereas Bush the Lesser was an unmitigated disaster it will take us decades to fully recover from.

Bufu: Sorry, it was a Buffy reference...jeez...and it was hot on the heels of the initial posting which referenced he same farking thing.

Do you even read a thread before biatching at somebody??

Try the "quote" button and we won't think you're talking to yourself. Deal?

Also rather amusing, Reagan can be seen as the second major Keynesian. He increased government spending so much he "got us out of stagflation." In fact, why aren't the democrats sainting ronnie as well?

Oh right, because interest rates would shoot up to like 18%. I'd like to be a fly on the wall when Volker and Bernanke meet.

SusanIvanova: I'm not suprised he's treated as a god, because compared to the GOP's more recent offerings, he IS a god. His presidency was not without its glaring flaws, but it had its good points as well, whereas Bush the Lesser was an unmitigated disaster it will take us decades to fully recover from.

If not ever. Hell, I don't see that we're going to continue to be able to afford American exceptionalism. Twelve carriers, billion-dollar jets, a military torn apart and stressed to the breaking point, tossing money into pits and lighting it on fire. We made sure Bin Laden won- and hell, he won in style! He was wildly successful, thanks to Dubya! Look where we are now!

Hope you guys like the thought of that, 'coz it's more likely than not.

ragekage: Hope you guys like the thought of that, 'coz it's more likely than not.

On a long enough timeline, it is certain. Eventually this thing is going to collapse. If this isn't the collapse, it is coming. Politicians want to re-inflate the situation back to where we were a year ago and that will just make the eventual collapse worse. The idea that the dollar will forever be the world currency is laughable, but no one every wants to think about what happens at that point. We just pass it down for a later generation to deal with.

This is bad news....for Obama.

/Someone had to say it.

*Cough*inauguration*cough*howmuchtheywanttofixthenationalmallagain?*cough*

OMG!!!~ 1 million dollars!!!!

I don't mind them engaging in hero worship, as long as they take the $1 million out of their own pockets.

At this point, though, with the budget out of whack as it is, I don't want government doing unnecessary landscaping, let alone planning a frivolous party.

sarcastrophe: Also rather amusing, Reagan can be seen as the second major Keynesian. He increased government spending so much he "got us out of stagflation." In fact, why aren't the democrats sainting ronnie as well?

Oh right, because interest rates would shoot up to like 18%. I'd like to be a fly on the wall when Volker and Bernanke meet.

I believe it's because many democrats object to Reaganesque military Keynesism. But it's just a rumor.

Bucky Katt: I believe it's because many democrats object to Reaganesque military Keynesism. But it's just a rumor.

Non-sense. Spending *IS* stimulus. Obama told me so.

At this point, though, with the budget out of whack as it is, I don't want government doing unnecessary landscaping, let alone planning a frivolous party.

Amen to that.

Although I'd add, or rather subtract, "At this point, though, with the budget out of whack as it is"

sarcastrophe: Bucky Katt: I believe it's because many democrats object to Reaganesque military Keynesism. But it's just a rumor.

Non-sense. Spending *IS* stimulus. Obama told me so.

True, but there is such a thing at ROI. Sure, you get some with military spending, but more can be had from investing elsewhere.

ragekage: True, but there is such a thing at ROI. Sure, you get some with military spending, but more can be had from investing elsewhere.

Well now we can talk seriously, can't we. Do you think ROI was a concern for the "stimulus" bill we just passed (that nobody read).

sarcastrophe: Bucky Katt: I believe it's because many democrats object to Reaganesque military Keynesism. But it's just a rumor.

Non-sense. Spending *IS* stimulus. Obama told me so.

Well, it is. Military spending does stimulate the economy. But "stimulating the economy" is not the only reason to like or dislike something.

DamnYankees: Well, it is. Military spending does stimulate the economy. But "stimulating the economy" is not the only reason to like or dislike something.

Non-sense. It's increasing the G value in the GDP formula for the sake of promoting an ideology. If you want return on investment, you get the Interstate system as an example. There is nothing even close to that in this.

But back to the point, Obama himself said "spending is stimulus" (or I may have that reversed). If that's the definition, then Reagan should be a sainted Democratic Party hero as well.

DamnYankees: Well, it is. Military spending does stimulate the economy. But "stimulating the economy" is not the only reason to like or dislike something.

I can't tell you how many times I've fallen for a woman who stimulates my economy.

sarcastrophe: Non-sense. Spending *IS* stimulus. Obama told me so.

no, he didn't.

But someone else did say something about military spending:
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

/Ike.

I like how stupid, pointless spending is good when a Republican does it in the name of Jesus Ronald Reagan.

Reagan:


Regan:


/ Common mistake.

SilentStrider: no, he didn't.

From Maddow's show even... yes he did (new window)

SilentStrider: But someone else did say something about military spending:
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

/Ike.

And Ike was correct, too.

sarcastrophe: But back to the point, Obama himself said "spending is stimulus" (or I may have that reversed). If that's the definition, then Reagan should be a sainted Democratic Party hero as well.

You're not this stupid. Don't play the idiot.

sarcastrophe: Non-sense. Spending *IS* stimulus. Obama told me so.

Also, Obama said the opposite. If I remember right, he said "What do you think stimulus is? It's spending." Which means that stimulus is spending, not necessarily vice versa.

DamnYankees: Also, Obama said the opposite. If I remember right, he said "What do you think stimulus is? It's spending." Which means that stimulus is spending, not necessarily vice versa.

Yes, that's why I added "I may have that reversed." Either way, I think the idea is retarded.

sarcastrophe: Yes, that's why I added "I may have that reversed." Either way, I think the idea is retarded.

That's fine. I know you think its retarded. But you're above playing stupid.

DamnYankees: That's fine. I know you think its retarded. But you're above playing stupid.

if A = B, then B = A

If A = stimulus and B = spending... then what?

Or are you arguing that I'm playing dumb, don't understand what he meant, and that I should read between the lines?

sarcastrophe: If A = stimulus and B = spending... then what?

Or are you arguing that I'm playing dumb, don't understand what he meant, and that I should read between the lines?

A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square.

bulldg4life: A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square.

So if stimulus is spending (as Obama maintains) and Reagan was the biggest spender in history, you must agree with both Obama and Reagan or neither.

Unless of course the type of spending is questionably economically stimulating, in which case you agree with the current crop of hypocritical republicans.

Do you really not see how you're being dishonest with yourself on this?

sarcastrophe: if A = B, then B = A

If A = stimulus and B = spending... then what?

Or are you arguing that I'm playing dumb, don't understand what he meant, and that I should read between the lines?


You know that A = B does not have to imply B = A. Come on.

sloppy shoes: You know that A = B does not have to imply B = A. Come on.

WTF? Yes it does. That's exactly what it means.

sarcastrophe: So if stimulus is spending (as Obama maintains) and Reagan was the biggest spender in history, you must agree with both Obama and Reagan or neither.

Unless of course the type of spending is questionably economically stimulating, in which case you agree with the current crop of hypocritical republicans.

Do you really not see how you're being dishonest with yourself on this?

Stop attributing a circular relation when there isn't necessarily one.

sloppy shoes: Stop attributing a circular relation when there isn't necessarily one.

Is all spending stimulating?

If the answer is no, then Obama is wrong or misleading.

sarcastrophe: bulldg4life: A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square.

So if stimulus is spending (as Obama maintains) and Reagan was the biggest spender in history, you must agree with both Obama and Reagan or neither.

Unless of course the type of spending is questionably economically stimulating, in which case you agree with the current crop of hypocritical republicans.

Do you really not see how you're being dishonest with yourself on this?

I think your ideology is incredibly stupid and simplistic, but you are not this stupid. Please don't act like it. You're not McCainDemocrat.

sarcastrophe: WTF? Yes it does. That's exactly what it means.

You have got to be kidding me. While 'equals' is certainly an equivolence relation for the most common number systems, in standard usage it does certainly not meet the three properties. There is no guarantee that a relation demonstrates symmetry. Link (new window)

As a computer programmer you should know that.

sarcastrophe: Is all spending stimulating?

On some level, every dollar spent stimulates the guy who recieves it. So yes.