tvashtarkatena

not that there's anything wrong with that

To do today: * Skip P.E. * Chug foady * Taunt 1,500 lb Siberian tiger

Who held the purse strings? All spending bills originate where? A bullshit argument in Reagan's case. Aside from the fact that presidential vetoes are very hard to override, the (defense) spending at that time was fully supported by Reagan. As for Carter, he's remembered for the oil embargo, economic stagnation, and a botched hostage rescue. The dismal economic situation was an inevitable byproduct of the out of control spending for the Vietnam war: any president would have suffered the same fate there. The oil embargo resulted in Carter pushing energy independence: had Reagan not dismantled his programs, we'd probably be much better off than we are now as a country (and a planet). And as for the hostage rescue; that was one small, failed mission, albeit embarrassing, not the two lost wars we currently face. What has been forgotten is that Carter was also the originator of a middle eastern rapid deployment force, which later allowed us to gain a quick Desert Storm victory.

do you really think it's that bad? i fail to see it as the most drastically and acutely horrendous period the US has ever suffered through because of a presidency. hell, things aren't even that "bad"! You're kidding, right? Even the Republican candidates are running from the Bush legacy. Let's see, where to start. Faking the intelligence and starting an unnecessary war, cutting taxes at the same time, allowing an average of 7% increase in domestic spending a year while the Repubs held sway, passing a Medicare bill that's a deficit hog and giveaway to the drug companies, making the US the torture leader of the free world, losing all the world good will we had after 911 and those strategic alliances, putting in political hacks instead of seasoned diplomats in charge of Iraq, dropping the ball on Afganinstan where the Taliban is on the rise, loosening the reins on financial institutions that lead to the sub-prime repackaging fiasco, illegal wire taps on US citizens, extrodinary rendition, Gitmo, generous tax breaks for corporations and the rich that have added to the deficit. The list is quite long. In short - it's been a while since we had someone so bad on all presidential fronts. Tell me what exactly has gone well under this idiot. It's going to take a long time to dig out of the mess we've made in Iraq and the finances at home. Our kids will be paying for this mess. And then there's the lost opportunities. Instead of spending $40 billion a month in the desert we could have been investing in infrastructure, education, and health care at home. If there were a true fiscal conservative and social progressive in the Republican race I'd take a serious look at them. But, for whatever reason, the Republican party has abandonded their true fiscal conservative roots with Reagan and haven't looked back since. Your kidding right, must you be refered back to ms Clinton speach on how the war was justified and Iraq was building weapons of mass destruction. Democrats were in on it too. I do agree with the Reagan abandonment. Republicans fiscal responsibility has been sucking. Hell Clinton did a better job of that. http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html Please read the speech over and over you liberals. This is who you are voting for. LOL Reagan blew as a president. He was a fucking joke. His fiscal responsibility? He had none. His approval rating was in the toilet when he left office. The GOP has convenientely rewritten his legacy for modern consumption to keep the Koolaid flowing. The bottom line is that, since Reagan took office, GOP supported policies have one long series of train wrecks.

I think this type of stimulus could be readily available and the right package could arise. However too generous an injection might end up being a drawback to a sleepy economy and also bring on an undesireable (and quite economic) response. The reduction in money supply might not be enough to offset rapid inflation.

do you really think it's that bad? i fail to see it as the most drastically and acutely horrendous period the US has ever suffered through because of a presidency. hell, things aren't even that "bad"! Jim's referring to the opportunity cost of the Bush presidency; how far down he took us from where we were when he took office (and how far down we are from where we could have been had he not). This is no where near the most horrendous period of our history, as compared with the Civil War, WWII, the Depression, etc, but I think he's right when the qualifier "because of a presidency" is added. Bush has certainly been one of, if not THE most, damaging presidents in our history. We are only now beginning to feel the serious long term effects of both his failed policies and unwillingness to enact much needed policies.

If anyone can go to Banks Sun-Mon, PM me.

Faux bisexuality: soooo post post modern.

There are a handful of people out of hundreds here who can't seem to make a distinction between the Spray section and the rest of the site. Visitors who want spray know where to find it. The vast majority of visitors on non-spray forums don't want to have to wade through the tired bullshit from these few. This only results in less interest in the site as a whole, which isn't good for any of us. Don't think this job pays enough? Fine. Post a link in Spray and rant away, start your own guiding company with and offer higher wages, or STFU. I fully expect those few I'm referring to will act true to form and feel the need to "comment" on this posting with a personal attack. Knock yourselves out: the point still stands.

We then chained sixteen Old World Monkeys to each other and observed an elevated frequency of philandery marked by robust non-term limited insertions, including non-standard morphologies, even post mortem relationships when subjects were taxaed beyond their alunext terms.

Moderators, please move this to the Goddamn Bush thread.

Not sure how you obtain your information, but it certainly isn't anywhere near the size of the telephone pole firmly lodged up your ass.

Clearly, exogenously added vascular endothelial growth factor in ex raided trials failed to increase free expression of rapa-2PAC (Dr. Dre, et al) inhibited proliferation of MC Ren, particularly when live G-units down regulate suppression of anthropogenic GW acceleration. UPMC transformed cells exhibit no imatinib-resistance when Master P cycloreductive effects are present. Dumbass.

There's exists neither a faith based nor science based cure for how badly you guys suk.

I can't let a thread with my name on it end on a disgusting note like this. Let's get back to JayB's treatise concerning the right to gloryhole.

I just had my first Deluxe in a few months and it feels like my entire alimentary canal has been spraycreted.

I would think a generous injection would stimulate this sleepy economy. It just requires the right package.

Ah, who cares about homeopathy, anyway. It's all a bunch of bullshit.

When navigating during aventure races I use a transparent map pouch on an elastic lanyard, preferably one that folds up enough to be stuffed in a pocket or waist belt pouch. Similarly, I keep my compass around my neck on an elastic lanyard.

Smoking is a different ballgame in several important ways. For starters, unacceptable consequences and self destruction (heart disease/cancer) don't come until very late life. Contrast this with a crack, meth, or heroine addiction, which can completely destroy or end a person's life within a couple of years. Second, while it's difficult to quit smoking, it's nothing compared to the life threatening physiological and psychological agony of getting off the harder drugs, or alcohol for that matter. No one dies or kills themselves from not having a cigarette. Addicts denied their drug do so all the time. This is, in part, because the harder drugs (including alcohol) rewire the addicts nervous system by creating new receptors and depleting neurotransmitter production in fundamental ways that nicotene does not. Remember, I'm talking about hard core addicts, here. People who drink a fifth of liquor or 15 beers A DAY, and black out EVERY NIGHT, for example.

Good question. The primary (but not only) medical symptom of alcohol addiction is an noticeably increased tolerance over time. People without a genetic predisposition for alcoholism don't exhibit an increase in tolerance. 3 beers get's em drunk at age 20, 3 beers get's em drunk at age 40. An increased frequency of drinking until blackout is another common medical symptom. A non-medical symptom of drug abuse in general is unacceptable consequences: the loss of well being, health, money, home, relationships, job, and, in the case of incarceration, freedom. If neither one of the above applies to you, i.e., you're living the life you want to live, then there's little incentive not to keep doing what you're doing.

Back to the original topic: Way to go Pitts and Co. for a happy outcome. And feel free to post a TR on the spanking.

You're practically sprinting backwards from your original statement, so I'll accept that as a retraction. I can work with that. Yes, addicts have a role in their recovery. And we can also agree that the sky is, occasionally, blue. Good on ya.

Lanyards are another very old and very useful invention.

This statement, which flies in the face of a generation of medical knowledge on the subject, is dead wrong. An addict does not have absolute control over addictive behaviors, any more than prey being chased by a predator has control over the flight response or a trauma victim has control over the pain of injury. This is why addicts inevitably self destruct. Most addicts at the latter stages of their disease progression desperately want to stop, but they cannot. For the lucky few who are able to actually recover, what starts that process is usually some serious consequence, such as incarceration (which often involves medical detox) that forceably separates them from the drug of choice, then puts them on a path of gradual behavior modification, self awareness training, and group support. Look, you're a smart guy, but you can't know everything. You don't know much about this subject; that's pretty obvious, and that's fine. But to continue to put forth atavistic opinions that were formulated in the 19th century is just ignorant.