Off-Topic :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
The President's Weekly Address
Posted by:
HIH
()
Date: July 19, 2010 04:24PM
http://www.whitehouse.gov/
Is it appropriate for the President to use the White House website to "blast" Republicans? I don't remember Presidents in the past doing this, but I could be wrong.
Also, from his address: "They’ve got no problem spending money on tax breaks for folks at the top who don’t need them and didn’t even ask for them; but they object to helping folks laid off in this recession who really do need help. And every day this goes on, another 50,000 Americans lose that badly needed lifeline."
I have no problem with his sentiment, but to tax breaks constitute "spending money?"
Is it appropriate for the President to use the White House website to "blast" Republicans? I don't remember Presidents in the past doing this, but I could be wrong.
Also, from his address: "They’ve got no problem spending money on tax breaks for folks at the top who don’t need them and didn’t even ask for them; but they object to helping folks laid off in this recession who really do need help. And every day this goes on, another 50,000 Americans lose that badly needed lifeline."
I have no problem with his sentiment, but to tax breaks constitute "spending money?"
Re: The President's Weekly Address
Posted by:
Johnny Walker
()
Date: July 19, 2010 04:27PM
Tax breaks without spending cuts can be argued to be "spending money."
Re: The President's Weekly Address
Posted by:
WashingTone-Locian
()
Date: July 19, 2010 04:27PM
Enough with the revisionist history...
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1641756120071117
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1641756120071117
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm
Re: The President's Weekly Address
Posted by:
HIH
()
Date: July 19, 2010 04:33PM
WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Enough with the revisionist history...
>
> http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN16417561200711
> 17
I asked a question, it wasn't revisionist history. You seem a bit sensitive about this. Do you run the message machine at the White House website? Also, I think it is ok to state you disagree with Congress and to criticize Congress on a variety of policy issues. That is normal for weekly radio addresses, in case you weren't aware. The point (which you seem to be missing) is that is it appropriate to use the term "blasts Republicans" on the White House website? To me, it looks less than presidential. You have the DNC and campaign sites to make those conclusions. Really, it comes down to the use of the term "blast." Any less juvenile word would have sufficed in this situation.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Enough with the revisionist history...
>
> http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN16417561200711
> 17
I asked a question, it wasn't revisionist history. You seem a bit sensitive about this. Do you run the message machine at the White House website? Also, I think it is ok to state you disagree with Congress and to criticize Congress on a variety of policy issues. That is normal for weekly radio addresses, in case you weren't aware. The point (which you seem to be missing) is that is it appropriate to use the term "blasts Republicans" on the White House website? To me, it looks less than presidential. You have the DNC and campaign sites to make those conclusions. Really, it comes down to the use of the term "blast." Any less juvenile word would have sufficed in this situation.
Re: The President's Weekly Address
Posted by:
HIH
()
Date: July 19, 2010 04:35PM
Johnny Walker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tax breaks without spending cuts can be argued to
> be "spending money."
True, but can you make that assertion when the whole point of the President's jab is that they are unwilling to spend money on unemployment benefits?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tax breaks without spending cuts can be argued to
> be "spending money."
True, but can you make that assertion when the whole point of the President's jab is that they are unwilling to spend money on unemployment benefits?
Re: The President's Weekly Address
Posted by:
WashingTone-Locian
()
Date: July 19, 2010 04:39PM
mcsmack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yep.... I know for a fact WTL runs the message
> machine at the white house
>
>
>
> I found this in the trunk of his car
You got me.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yep.... I know for a fact WTL runs the message
> machine at the white house
>
>
>
> I found this in the trunk of his car
You got me.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm
Re: The President's Weekly Address
Posted by:
HIH
()
Date: July 19, 2010 04:39PM
WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Enough with the revisionist history...
>
> http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN16417561200711
> 17
Here is the radio address announcement for the article you point to:
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2007/11/20071117.html
See, no inflamatory, less than presidential language.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Enough with the revisionist history...
>
> http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN16417561200711
> 17
Here is the radio address announcement for the article you point to:
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2007/11/20071117.html
See, no inflamatory, less than presidential language.
Re: The President's Weekly Address
Posted by:
Johnny Walker
()
Date: July 19, 2010 04:42PM
HIH Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Johnny Walker Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Tax breaks without spending cuts can be argued
> to
> > be "spending money."
>
> True, but can you make that assertion when the
> whole point of the President's jab is that they
> are unwilling to spend money on unemployment
> benefits?
That's what's happening. They are arguing against expanding unemployment benefits, and they are claiming to do so in the name of "bringing spending under control." He is pointing out the hypocrisy of such a move when they've always been perfectly willing to cut taxes for the wealthy without paying for them. It's a pretty cheap shot but it's accurate.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/19/2010 04:43PM by Johnny Walker.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Johnny Walker Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Tax breaks without spending cuts can be argued
> to
> > be "spending money."
>
> True, but can you make that assertion when the
> whole point of the President's jab is that they
> are unwilling to spend money on unemployment
> benefits?
That's what's happening. They are arguing against expanding unemployment benefits, and they are claiming to do so in the name of "bringing spending under control." He is pointing out the hypocrisy of such a move when they've always been perfectly willing to cut taxes for the wealthy without paying for them. It's a pretty cheap shot but it's accurate.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/19/2010 04:43PM by Johnny Walker.
Re: The President's Weekly Address
Posted by:
WashingTone-Locian
()
Date: July 19, 2010 04:42PM
HIH Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> See, no inflamatory, less than presidential
> language.
What. Like screaming out "Liar" when the President is addressing Congress?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> See, no inflamatory, less than presidential
> language.
What. Like screaming out "Liar" when the President is addressing Congress?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm
Re: The President's Weekly Address
Posted by:
HIH
()
Date: July 19, 2010 04:45PM
WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> HIH Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > See, no inflamatory, less than presidential
> > language.
>
>
> What. Like screaming out "Liar" when the President
> is addressing Congress?
Yes, exactly, I was looking for a good analogy and you hit the nail right on the head. Thanks. That BS headline is as ill conceived, asanine and juvenile as Joe Wilson's outburst. Thanks again.
-------------------------------------------------------
> HIH Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > See, no inflamatory, less than presidential
> > language.
>
>
> What. Like screaming out "Liar" when the President
> is addressing Congress?
Yes, exactly, I was looking for a good analogy and you hit the nail right on the head. Thanks. That BS headline is as ill conceived, asanine and juvenile as Joe Wilson's outburst. Thanks again.
Re: The President's Weekly Address
Posted by:
fairfaxdude
()
Date: July 19, 2010 06:16PM
HIH, is it too much to ask that you have a basic understanding of debits and credits?....Or revenue and expense?
Tax credits to the wealthy is the same "spending" (aka reduced revenue)as extending unemployment benefits (through actual spending).
Furthermore, studies have shown that tax reductions return $1.03 into the economy for each tax dollar cut, vs $1.30ish for each dollar of unemployment issued. I don't have the link for you (I'm too lazy to find it at the moment) but then again, you wouldn't read it anyway.
As to your other point about White House website headlines--well, you're a nitpicking ninny and nobody gives a shit about your "thoughts".
Now carry on.
______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.
Tax credits to the wealthy is the same "spending" (aka reduced revenue)as extending unemployment benefits (through actual spending).
Furthermore, studies have shown that tax reductions return $1.03 into the economy for each tax dollar cut, vs $1.30ish for each dollar of unemployment issued. I don't have the link for you (I'm too lazy to find it at the moment) but then again, you wouldn't read it anyway.
As to your other point about White House website headlines--well, you're a nitpicking ninny and nobody gives a shit about your "thoughts".
Now carry on.
______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.
Re: The President's Weekly Address
Posted by:
Mr. Misery
()
Date: July 19, 2010 06:21PM
no new taxes. That's what I always say. That's my motto. That's how I roll.
Re: The President's Weekly Address
Posted by:
HIH
()
Date: July 19, 2010 07:19PM
fairfaxdude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> HIH, is it too much to ask that you have a basic
> understanding of debits and credits?....Or revenue
> and expense?
Not at all, but apparantly it is too much to ask of you.
> Tax credits to the wealthy is the same "spending"
> (aka reduced revenue)as extending unemployment
> benefits (through actual spending).
Reduced revenue is not spending. It is exactly what you said it was "reduced revenue." If I run an apple stand and I make less money because I charged less one month for apples, I didn't spend more, I received less revenue. Hopefully that is simple enough for even you to understand.
> Furthermore, studies have shown that tax
> reductions return $1.03 into the economy for each
> tax dollar cut, vs $1.30ish for each dollar of
> unemployment issued. I don't have the link for you
> (I'm too lazy to find it at the moment) but then
> again, you wouldn't read it anyway.
Speaking of apples, apples and oranges. I never debated which was better. I simply pointed out that tax cuts aren't spending. You don't spend money when you cut taxes, you simply receive less.
> As to your other point about White House website
> headlines--well, you're a nitpicking ninny and
> nobody gives a shit about your "thoughts".
And I suppose you have hundreds of people with bated breath hanging on your every word? You really have a simplistic viewpoint where everything (R) is horrible and everything (D) is flawless don't you? Most simple minded people I have encountered seem to think (or not think) like you.
> Now carry on.
Fairy on, indeed.
-------------------------------------------------------
> HIH, is it too much to ask that you have a basic
> understanding of debits and credits?....Or revenue
> and expense?
Not at all, but apparantly it is too much to ask of you.
> Tax credits to the wealthy is the same "spending"
> (aka reduced revenue)as extending unemployment
> benefits (through actual spending).
Reduced revenue is not spending. It is exactly what you said it was "reduced revenue." If I run an apple stand and I make less money because I charged less one month for apples, I didn't spend more, I received less revenue. Hopefully that is simple enough for even you to understand.
> Furthermore, studies have shown that tax
> reductions return $1.03 into the economy for each
> tax dollar cut, vs $1.30ish for each dollar of
> unemployment issued. I don't have the link for you
> (I'm too lazy to find it at the moment) but then
> again, you wouldn't read it anyway.
Speaking of apples, apples and oranges. I never debated which was better. I simply pointed out that tax cuts aren't spending. You don't spend money when you cut taxes, you simply receive less.
> As to your other point about White House website
> headlines--well, you're a nitpicking ninny and
> nobody gives a shit about your "thoughts".
And I suppose you have hundreds of people with bated breath hanging on your every word? You really have a simplistic viewpoint where everything (R) is horrible and everything (D) is flawless don't you? Most simple minded people I have encountered seem to think (or not think) like you.
> Now carry on.
Fairy on, indeed.
Re: The President's Weekly Address
Posted by:
fairfaxdude
()
Date: July 19, 2010 11:11PM
HIH Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> fairfaxdude Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > HIH, is it too much to ask that you have a
> basic
> > understanding of debits and credits?....Or
> revenue
> > and expense?
>
> Not at all, but apparantly it is too much to ask
> of you.
>
>
> > Tax credits to the wealthy is the same
> "spending"
> > (aka reduced revenue)as extending unemployment
> > benefits (through actual spending).
>
> Reduced revenue is not spending. It is exactly
> what you said it was "reduced revenue." If I run
> an apple stand and I make less money because I
> charged less one month for apples, I didn't spend
> more, I received less revenue. Hopefully that is
> simple enough for even you to understand.
>
> > Furthermore, studies have shown that tax
> > reductions return $1.03 into the economy for
> each
> > tax dollar cut, vs $1.30ish for each dollar of
> > unemployment issued. I don't have the link for
> you
> > (I'm too lazy to find it at the moment) but
> then
> > again, you wouldn't read it anyway.
>
> Speaking of apples, apples and oranges. I never
> debated which was better. I simply pointed out
> that tax cuts aren't spending. You don't spend
> money when you cut taxes, you simply receive less.
Perhaps I can dumb it down for you even more. A dollar is just a dollar. Whether you take in one less dollar, or spend one more, you have the same effect on your bottom line, in this case the federal budget deficit. You can wrap yourself in flags and slather on the apple pie, but valuing one way over the other is simply politics. In the GOP's case, politics favor the >$250K crowd. For the Democrats, its the unemployed.
But a dollar is just a dollar. There isn't any inherently "better" way to have less dollars, via tax cuts or spending, despite what your favorite politician wants you to think. But there are inherently better ways for the dollar to get used.
______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.
-------------------------------------------------------
> fairfaxdude Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > HIH, is it too much to ask that you have a
> basic
> > understanding of debits and credits?....Or
> revenue
> > and expense?
>
> Not at all, but apparantly it is too much to ask
> of you.
>
>
> > Tax credits to the wealthy is the same
> "spending"
> > (aka reduced revenue)as extending unemployment
> > benefits (through actual spending).
>
> Reduced revenue is not spending. It is exactly
> what you said it was "reduced revenue." If I run
> an apple stand and I make less money because I
> charged less one month for apples, I didn't spend
> more, I received less revenue. Hopefully that is
> simple enough for even you to understand.
>
> > Furthermore, studies have shown that tax
> > reductions return $1.03 into the economy for
> each
> > tax dollar cut, vs $1.30ish for each dollar of
> > unemployment issued. I don't have the link for
> you
> > (I'm too lazy to find it at the moment) but
> then
> > again, you wouldn't read it anyway.
>
> Speaking of apples, apples and oranges. I never
> debated which was better. I simply pointed out
> that tax cuts aren't spending. You don't spend
> money when you cut taxes, you simply receive less.
Perhaps I can dumb it down for you even more. A dollar is just a dollar. Whether you take in one less dollar, or spend one more, you have the same effect on your bottom line, in this case the federal budget deficit. You can wrap yourself in flags and slather on the apple pie, but valuing one way over the other is simply politics. In the GOP's case, politics favor the >$250K crowd. For the Democrats, its the unemployed.
But a dollar is just a dollar. There isn't any inherently "better" way to have less dollars, via tax cuts or spending, despite what your favorite politician wants you to think. But there are inherently better ways for the dollar to get used.
______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.
Re: The President's Weekly Address
Posted by:
eesh
()
Date: July 19, 2010 11:14PM
HIH Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> fairfaxdude Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > Now carry on.
>
> Fairy on, indeed.
Yeah, it's not obvious who this is.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/19/2010 11:14PM by eesh.
-------------------------------------------------------
> fairfaxdude Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > Now carry on.
>
> Fairy on, indeed.
Yeah, it's not obvious who this is.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/19/2010 11:14PM by eesh.
Re: The President's Weekly Address
Posted by:
fairfaxdude
()
Date: July 19, 2010 11:17PM
eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> HIH Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > fairfaxdude Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>
> >
> > > Now carry on.
> >
> > Fairy on, indeed.
>
>
>
> Yeah, it's not obvious who this is.
Ya caught that too, huh eesh? ;)
______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.
-------------------------------------------------------
> HIH Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > fairfaxdude Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>
> >
> > > Now carry on.
> >
> > Fairy on, indeed.
>
>
>
> Yeah, it's not obvious who this is.
Ya caught that too, huh eesh? ;)
______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.
Re: The President's Weekly Address
Posted by:
HIH
()
Date: July 20, 2010 12:54AM
fairfaxdude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> HIH Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > fairfaxdude Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > HIH, is it too much to ask that you have a
> > basic
> > > understanding of debits and credits?....Or
> > revenue
> > > and expense?
> >
> > Not at all, but apparantly it is too much to
> ask
> > of you.
> >
> >
> > > Tax credits to the wealthy is the same
> > "spending"
> > > (aka reduced revenue)as extending
> unemployment
> > > benefits (through actual spending).
> >
> > Reduced revenue is not spending. It is exactly
> > what you said it was "reduced revenue." If I
> run
> > an apple stand and I make less money because I
> > charged less one month for apples, I didn't
> spend
> > more, I received less revenue. Hopefully that
> is
> > simple enough for even you to understand.
> >
> > > Furthermore, studies have shown that tax
> > > reductions return $1.03 into the economy for
> > each
> > > tax dollar cut, vs $1.30ish for each dollar
> of
> > > unemployment issued. I don't have the link
> for
> > you
> > > (I'm too lazy to find it at the moment) but
> > then
> > > again, you wouldn't read it anyway.
> >
> > Speaking of apples, apples and oranges. I
> never
> > debated which was better. I simply pointed out
> > that tax cuts aren't spending. You don't spend
> > money when you cut taxes, you simply receive
> less.
>
> Perhaps I can dumb it down for you even more. A
> dollar is just a dollar. Whether you take in one
> less dollar, or spend one more, you have the same
> effect on your bottom line, in this case the
> federal budget deficit.
So, you defend (incoherantly) your previous post. Not surprising. Stupid people tend to reiterate what they have been told. Simply put, lost income is NOT spending. You are talking about budget issues dollars in vs. dollars out. I thought the apple cart would suffice for you as most Melwood residents would get it. Apparantly, you do not get it.
> You can wrap yourself in
> flags and slather on the apple pie, but valuing
> one way over the other is simply politics. In the
> GOP's case, politics favor the >$250K crowd. For
> the Democrats, its the unemployed.
As smart as you are, I am certain you are on your way to being unemployed.
> But a dollar is just a dollar. There isn't any
> inherently "better" way to have less dollars, via
> tax cuts or spending, despite what your favorite
> politician wants you to think. But there are
> inherently better ways for the dollar to get used.
Again, you are a sheep with a sheep's mind. You have failed (repeatedly) to understand what point is being made. Good luck with that.
Here is some help for your future:
http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dfs/factsheets/applyingforbenefits.htm
-------------------------------------------------------
> HIH Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > fairfaxdude Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > HIH, is it too much to ask that you have a
> > basic
> > > understanding of debits and credits?....Or
> > revenue
> > > and expense?
> >
> > Not at all, but apparantly it is too much to
> ask
> > of you.
> >
> >
> > > Tax credits to the wealthy is the same
> > "spending"
> > > (aka reduced revenue)as extending
> unemployment
> > > benefits (through actual spending).
> >
> > Reduced revenue is not spending. It is exactly
> > what you said it was "reduced revenue." If I
> run
> > an apple stand and I make less money because I
> > charged less one month for apples, I didn't
> spend
> > more, I received less revenue. Hopefully that
> is
> > simple enough for even you to understand.
> >
> > > Furthermore, studies have shown that tax
> > > reductions return $1.03 into the economy for
> > each
> > > tax dollar cut, vs $1.30ish for each dollar
> of
> > > unemployment issued. I don't have the link
> for
> > you
> > > (I'm too lazy to find it at the moment) but
> > then
> > > again, you wouldn't read it anyway.
> >
> > Speaking of apples, apples and oranges. I
> never
> > debated which was better. I simply pointed out
> > that tax cuts aren't spending. You don't spend
> > money when you cut taxes, you simply receive
> less.
>
> Perhaps I can dumb it down for you even more. A
> dollar is just a dollar. Whether you take in one
> less dollar, or spend one more, you have the same
> effect on your bottom line, in this case the
> federal budget deficit.
So, you defend (incoherantly) your previous post. Not surprising. Stupid people tend to reiterate what they have been told. Simply put, lost income is NOT spending. You are talking about budget issues dollars in vs. dollars out. I thought the apple cart would suffice for you as most Melwood residents would get it. Apparantly, you do not get it.
> You can wrap yourself in
> flags and slather on the apple pie, but valuing
> one way over the other is simply politics. In the
> GOP's case, politics favor the >$250K crowd. For
> the Democrats, its the unemployed.
As smart as you are, I am certain you are on your way to being unemployed.
> But a dollar is just a dollar. There isn't any
> inherently "better" way to have less dollars, via
> tax cuts or spending, despite what your favorite
> politician wants you to think. But there are
> inherently better ways for the dollar to get used.
Again, you are a sheep with a sheep's mind. You have failed (repeatedly) to understand what point is being made. Good luck with that.
Here is some help for your future:
http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dfs/factsheets/applyingforbenefits.htm
Re: The President's Weekly Address
Posted by:
HIH
()
Date: July 20, 2010 12:55AM
eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> HIH Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > fairfaxdude Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>
> >
> > > Now carry on.
> >
> > Fairy on, indeed.
>
>
>
> Yeah, it's not obvious who this is.
So, who is it?
-------------------------------------------------------
> HIH Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > fairfaxdude Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>
> >
> > > Now carry on.
> >
> > Fairy on, indeed.
>
>
>
> Yeah, it's not obvious who this is.
So, who is it?
Re: The President's Weekly Address
Posted by:
Troll@AOL
()
Date: July 20, 2010 01:12AM
FYI:
A fairy is a silly faggot.
==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"
- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.
A fairy is a silly faggot.
==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"
- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.
Re: The President's Weekly Address
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: July 20, 2010 11:19AM
HIH Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> eesh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > HIH Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > fairfaxdude Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > Now carry on.
> > >
> > > Fairy on, indeed.
> >
> >
> >
> > Yeah, it's not obvious who this is.
>
> So, who is it?
Yeah, I am curious who you think it is also - since it isn't me. That leaves what? Inka? I didn't think he posted political stuff.
But keep living the dream that your detractors all come under one of two people here Fairy - I am sure that helps you get through the day, knowing how well loved you are here at FFXU. lol
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
-------------------------------------------------------
> eesh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > HIH Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > fairfaxdude Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > Now carry on.
> > >
> > > Fairy on, indeed.
> >
> >
> >
> > Yeah, it's not obvious who this is.
>
> So, who is it?
Yeah, I am curious who you think it is also - since it isn't me. That leaves what? Inka? I didn't think he posted political stuff.
But keep living the dream that your detractors all come under one of two people here Fairy - I am sure that helps you get through the day, knowing how well loved you are here at FFXU. lol
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University