You can't say it didn't work before because unemployment was skyrocketing and then stopped when the stimulus kicked in.

Show me a US recession/depression in the 20th/21st century that didn't end after large doses of economic stimulus in the form of deficits. That's the part I just don't for the life of me understand how anyone can argue against a deficit when every previous recession in modern US history was ended after significant, sometimes massive, deficit spending. This recession wasn't caused by deficit spending during times of recession. It was partly caused by massive record deficit spending during boom times. Stop the idiotic labeling of stuff. You don't prove anybody or any idea wrong by attempting to use the label "prog-lib". I don't care if the idea is liberal, progressive, capitalist, or conservative. If it works, freakin' use it!

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Objection isn't to creating jobs. Objection is to raising taxes, which is all Obummer's 'job bill' really is.
1. He's already done this before. He did a 1 trillion dollar bill designed to create jobs for (get ready for it) construction workers, teachers, firemen, policemen, and so forth. What happened to that trillion dollars? Well, about half of it was given to the states, which they used to shore up thier own budget shortfalls. The other half-trillion? "What half-trillion?" says Obama. How about before we give him another half trillion, he accounts for every penny of the first trillion?
2. His previous efforts have not done jack squat - so why would we want to lather-rinse-repeat them?
3. How are a bunch of TEMPORARY 1-year construction jobs supposed to be a 'job bill' that puts America to work? No disrespect to teachers & temporary construction guys - but they aren't the jobs America needs. We need companies hiring scientists, computer programmers, MBAs, and other actual working professionals - not a bunch of temporary construction guys. Obama's bill is a joke because it hires a bunch of temps, and then a year later puts the burden of KEEPING them employed back on the states.
Obama's bill isn't designed to be passed. Even the Democrats rejected it in the Senate. Yeah - the Senate. Democrats. Rejected. Obama's STUPID bill. Not Republicans. DEMOCRATS. His bill isn't designed to pass. It is designed to get stupid idiots like Cunk a platform to say Republicans "hate teachers and jobs". That's all. And it also appears to be useful at getting stupid prog-libs to clap their hands like so many trained seals. Wake up.

Objection isn't to creating jobs. Objection is to raising taxes, which is all Obummer's 'job bill' really is.

1. He's already done this before. He did a 1 trillion dollar bill designed to create jobs for (get ready for it) construction workers, teachers, firemen, policemen, and so forth. What happened to that trillion dollars? Well, about half of it was given to the states, which they used to shore up thier own budget shortfalls. The other half-trillion? "What half-trillion?" says Obama. How about before we give him another half trillion, he accounts for every penny of the first trillion?

2. His previous efforts have not done jack squat - so why would we want to lather-rinse-repeat them?

3. How are a bunch of TEMPORARY 1-year construction jobs supposed to be a 'job bill' that puts America to work? No disrespect to teachers & temporary construction guys - but they aren't the jobs America needs. We need companies hiring scientists, computer programmers, MBAs, and other actual working professionals - not a bunch of temporary construction guys. Obama's bill is a joke because it hires a bunch of temps, and then a year later puts the burden of KEEPING them employed back on the states.

Obama's bill isn't designed to be passed. Even the Democrats rejected it in the Senate. Yeah - the Senate. Democrats. Rejected. Obama's STUPID bill. Not Republicans. DEMOCRATS. His bill isn't designed to pass. It is designed to get stupid idiots like Cunk a platform to say Republicans "hate teachers and jobs". That's all. And it also appears to be useful at getting stupid prog-libs to clap their hands like so many trained seals. Wake up.

Ah...in that case - I'm guessing it's the fact that his $2 bills are not a full copy of a real $2 bill...they look like a $2 bill, but there's nothing illegal with making something that looks like a $2 bill - as long as you're not copying a real bill.

>> ^AdrianBlack:

Two dollar bills are still in circulation and are still considered legal tender. Odd but true.

Two dollar bills are still in circulation and are still considered legal tender. Odd but true.
>> ^Tokoki:

Someone else can probably confirm - but since there are no legal $2 bills...it is not illegal to print your own $2 bill.

>> ^hpqp:

Great speaker, and great writer too.
Seriously, who needs more than 2mio$ a year? Geez!!


What are you talking about? With what am I supposed to paint my giraffes on the diamond yacht other than the wonderful green color of mashed dollar bills?
2mio a year do you have ANY idead how long their freaking necks are?

This is why shitty rappers flash rolls of one-dollar bills. They think they have more money that way.

Emma,

I'm just a humble, ordinary, 49-year-old who wipes his ass with 100-dollar bills.

LOVE WILL FIND A WAY LIKE THOSE DINOSAURS IN THE DINOSAUR MOVIE.

Ben Bernanke threatened by Rick Perry. I say "Great."

My personal opinion is that treason comes in many forms. Giving Haliburton billions at the people's expense, when it cannot be afforded--treason. Bernanke giving trillions with no oversight, in the name of economy, yet affecting only the big players--treason...

Nations of our size fall for many reasons. So there are many reasons to call it like it should be. I agree with Rick Perry here, if not anywhere else. I think the political correctness of our nation won't allow us to call a spade a spade... "Oh, threatening a man's life!" And? What else do you do with traitors besides life or death row?

Now, you could say, "Prove it Lawdeedaw." Fair enough. But the lack of oversight, and where our country is right now is more than circumstantial evidence, IMHO.

Also, if Perry wins, he will have a conservative Bernanke put in power anyways So don't get me wrong, Perry can suck my dollar bills!

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^conan:
his plan won't work as he's only charged with minor theft and not bank robbery. so he'll be out pretty quick.

If at first you don't succeed...


Yeah he could get a reputation as the Dollar Bill Bandit. Slowly increase his time in jail each time he robs a bank of a dollar while he sits on the chair waiting for the cops. Maybe he'll move on to hardcore bills because everyone knows dollar bills are just gateway bills to the harder stuff.

Not taxing drugs is like leaving 1000 dollar bills on the table. It's so generous of us to give away that money to violent international gangs.

she should've said there was a wad of hundred dollar bills in there, instead.

I'm implying that legality is not a perfect measure of harm. My point here is that the thing which is illegal in this situation is minimally harmful, and that the perfectly legal action taken in this situation (that is, the Westboro Baptist Church expressing their views) is quite harmful.
In response to your statement that illegal action implied harm, I stated other examples of instances in which the legality of an action did not reflect the harm it created. Sorry if that was not obvious to you.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^Faye2441:
Is J-walking with no cars in sight harmful? is drawing a smiley face on a dollar bill harmful? Was oral sex any more harmful prior to 2003 than it is now? If you think that legality is a perfect measure of harm, I wonder what exactly you are suggesting?
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Isn't illegal action implying harm? What exactly are you suggesting?

So you are saying you want to draw smiley faces on her then, or are you just creating a straw man to not answer the question?

>> ^Faye2441:

Is J-walking with no cars in sight harmful? is drawing a smiley face on a dollar bill harmful? Was oral sex any more harmful prior to 2003 than it is now? If you think that legality is a perfect measure of harm, I wonder what exactly you are suggesting?
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Isn't illegal action implying harm? What exactly are you suggesting?


So you are saying you want to draw smiley faces on her then, or are you just creating a straw man to not answer the question?

Is J-walking with no cars in sight harmful? is drawing a smiley face on a dollar bill harmful? Was oral sex any more harmful prior to 2003 than it is now? If you think that legality is a perfect measure of harm, I wonder what exactly you are suggesting?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Isn't illegal action implying harm? What exactly are you suggesting?

Note: I am not spell checking--I had surgery recently and am not in right mind. But here is input.

@ Netrunner and Jigga; this is not so much about one or two or five-hundred people. This is about societal rhetoric. Here is a post I placed elsewhere.

Sara Palin is just a woman on a path to wealth and power---not any different than most men and women out there. How she does it isn't even unique either. I am speaking of society here, of us all.

Many just lay blame at this guy's mental instability, but here is a truth, or barring that, here is a statement that is not incorrect. "You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink. However, if the horse does drink, then you are the one that led him to the water."

My wife and I were talking the old schoolyard days. She mentioned a girl who always treated everyone nice. I listened and asked "Why is she nice?" My wife responded, "Because she never made fun of anyone or hurt anyone." I replied, "That is not nice, that is indifferent because she also never helped anyone but herself. And who did she hang out with?" And I answered for my wife. "She hung out with the bullies, the preps, and the kind of guys who would violate the weak with hockey sticks. Although I was never bullied, I know they were merciless. Now,dear, how can they be merciless? Because its popular. Because without this girl's attention, and every other "nice" girl's attention, their attitudes would change. But she encourages it, facilitates it, and does that make her a nice girl? It is just the same reason there are no "nice" guys left, because they finish last."

The "nice" girl in this story never realized she actively, unconsciously supported the Tards in school---but personal responsibility says she did. So I blame her for the punches and kicks others received? Not directly, but she had a part.

This nut job could have easily been offended by Gifford's "conservative" side, and took Alan Grayson's argument, and other left's too, and decided Gifford must die.

The problem was/is, the mentally ill are very easily manipulated, even when one does not know they are manipulating them. All he hears is "truthful" banter. He cannot see rhetoric. He believes. It is like giving a 20 dollar bill to a blind man. And so his actions are based on our lies. Of course "we" can tell which statements are lies---but as the years progress, less and less are able to because the truth is told less and less. Then, even the sane (Like nowadays) start believing the hype.