Bloombergs gonna run folks. how does that change things

LOL

Yeah.

Uh, Cawacko mentioned it. He said Krugman was frightened by the free market. I’d like to know when Paul Krugman came out against free markets or globalization. But of course he never has, so that’s why no one can show me.
As for blindly following Krugman, what happened in this country and within the republican party economically, happened long before I ever heard of Krugman, and I already knew about it then. Maybe it’s because I’m a working girl. And under no illusions that I’m going to enter the top 1% in my lifetime.

As long as you can buy and sell Toppy next year I guess it doesn't matter.
 
LOL

Yeah.

Uh, Cawacko mentioned it. He said Krugman was frightened by the free market. I’d like to know when Paul Krugman came out against free markets or globalization. But of course he never has, so that’s why no one can show me.
As for blindly following Krugman, what happened in this country and within the republican party economically, happened long before I ever heard of Krugman, and I already knew about it then. Maybe it’s because I’m a working girl. And under no illusions that I’m going to enter the top 1% in my lifetime.


Well if he said it, then please keep your comments on that subject directed to him and not me. Because I have never said anything like that. Krugman is for a bigger government than I would like and he is very strongly of the opinion that things were better when more people were in unions. THAT is where I disagree with him.

What happened to this country economically has been occuring since before either of us were born. I completely agree that the Reps have gone apeshit or mad or some nonsense in the past seven years to make the three preceding decades seem to pale in comparison. But the problem has been around since Ike.
 
Well if he said it, then please keep your comments on that subject directed to him and not me. Because I have never said anything like that. Krugman is for a bigger government than I would like and he is very strongly of the opinion that things were better when more people were in unions. THAT is where I disagree with him.

What happened to this country economically has been occuring since before either of us were born. I completely agree that the Reps have gone apeshit or mad or some nonsense in the past seven years to make the three preceding decades seem to pale in comparison. But the problem has been around since Ike.

Yes, and I couldn’t agree more with him, and there was a time in this country when being strongly pro-union was not considered radical by any means.
 
LOL
How true.

Not going to happen. The master of all MBAs, teacher, married to an anorexic tennis player, fearful of being alone guru genius who cannot spell will make billions off us poor GED, single, spinster, grammatically correct individuals.
 
Well if he said it, then please keep your comments on that subject directed to him and not me. Because I have never said anything like that. Krugman is for a bigger government than I would like

You republicans operate under this illusion that your massive pentagon military spending buildup, and your war in iraq aren't "government spending".

It is. Its our tax dollars being spent, unneccessarily on an occupation in a country that wasn't a threat to us, and to a massive military buildup that has nothing to do with mitigating the root causes of terrorism.

I'm pretty sure Krugman would like to see less government in terms of war and the military industrial complex, and more spending on universal healthcare. That's sounds pretty much like a wash to me - not a massive increase in government spending.


and he is very strongly of the opinion that things were better when more people were in unions. THAT is where I disagree with him.

Unions were one of the most postive things that ever happened domestically in this country. You can thank Unions for the fact that you have saturdays off work, paid vacation, paid holidays, and healthcare.

What happened to this country economically has been occuring since before either of us were born. I completely agree that the Reps have gone apeshit or mad or some nonsense in the past seven years to make the three preceding decades seem to pale in comparison. But the problem has been around since Ike.

The stagnation of the middle class started approximately around 1980, when the era of reaganomics began. The statistics don't lie. You've been shown the trend for real wages, and real income since world war two. And the stagnation is not just limited to income.
 
Not going to happen. The master of all MBAs, teacher, married to an anorexic tennis player, fearful of being alone guru genius who cannot spell will make billions off us poor GED, single, spinster, grammatically correct individuals.

LOL. I think that as a man SF, you can safely stay unmarried until at least your early 40’s, before becoming a spinster, or, “spinzer”, as Top likes to spell it.
 
:shock: WAIT A MINUTE..... :eek:

Since when did liberals start thinking for themselves? I was under the impression you were not allowed to think anything not approved by moveon.org. When did this change?

:pke:

Moveon.org sent out a memo last week. We have until Jan. 17th.
 
Yes, and I couldn’t agree more with him, and there was a time in this country when being strongly pro-union was not considered radical by any means.

Note: I did NOT say radical. I said LEFT. There is a BIG difference in the two.

That said, while I think unions certainly served this country well in the past, I think many have morphed into the enemy of progress. Protecting workers against corrupt practices, fighting for a fair wage etc... are good. Making it damn near impossible to fire an unproductive worker is bad. For everyone. Having pay scales that are based on senority rather than performance is bad. For everyone. Using money for political contributions without the express approval of the individual members is bad.

Unions are not evil or anything, but they most certainly are not as necessary as Krugman seems to think.
 
only gay or fat people call models or tennis players anorexic. Superlardass

You know what I think, and I could be totally wrong about this, unlike you Top I don’t have preternatural powers on these matters…but I think that you are basically a shrimp and it really doesn’t matter how “in shape” you are. And I think SF is about 6 feet and judging by all of the bike riding and hiking and outdoors activities he engages in, is probably looking pretty fine.

But as long as you can continue to play a stud on the internet. It doesn’t matter to me, and I don’t think it matters to anyone else here. Just you.
 
You know what I think, and I could be totally wrong about this, unlike you Top I don’t have preternatural powers on these matters…but I think that you are basically a shrimp and it really doesn’t matter how “in shape” you are. And I think SF is about 6 feet and judging by all of the bike riding and hiking and outdoors activities he engages in, is probably looking pretty fine.

But as long as you can continue to play a stud on the internet. It doesn’t matter to me, and I don’t think it matters to anyone else here. Just you.

Nope.... 4'9" 423 pounds. The biking I talk about is really just me riding my big wheel around the driveway. The hiking is really just from the couch to refrigerator. The skiing is really just those bastards pushing me down a snow covered hill.
 
only gay or fat people call models or tennis players anorexic. Superlardass

that reminds me of an episode of "Rad girls". They had a "Rad girls" vs supermodel competition and there was a chicken wing eating contest the models looked terrified of the chicken wings and refused to eat just one of them.
 
Back
Top