OT Sold It!!!!!!!!!!!!

You didn't answer the question. No surprise there. I bet you haven't been laid in at least a decade.

Speaking of avoiding questions ... here's one you never answered, despite my posting it at least six times to you last time we had a discussion:

Explain why you consider Republicans the conservative/responsible party when 6+ trillion of the 9+ trillion dollar debt was run up under Republican presidents. Go ahead ... look it up. It's true.

I doubt you'll answer it this time too. You haven't got the ability to accept any responsibility for your BS political arguments. It's that liberal thinking.

Craig C.

LOL, please repost anything were I said that. You cannot do it because I never said that. I must say that I find it funny that you make the claim that I am confused by the meanings of average and median income but when you were asked twice to define them (to see if you have a clue), you as usual were unable to do it. We went over your median income bullshit months ago when you made the claim that because median income went up that people were making more money and doing better which is now an invalid assumption which turns it into complete bullshit. The median income that you reference was based on families of 4 and included the income of all members of the family including minors. I went over many examples of where the median income of a family went up while the expendable income of that same family went down which shows that even though the family was making more money, they are not doing better which indicates that median income is a poor indicator on the state of the economy. Average income OTOH, can be more easily influenced by a few overpaid very rich individules.

You Craig are certainly showing your age!

Oh geez. Our current Republican party is anything but conservative. Yet the current Democrat led congress has INCREASED the spending rate even further. Explain that.

I know, the Dems can't be held accountable because they don't claim to have any values.

You stated the following with which I know you'll spin what you meant:

Median income is not about the richest of the rich or the poorest of the poor. It tells what most are earning.

Your BS about it being wrong because its family income is well, BS. Thats quite easy to to dispel based on population and housing figures that don't match up to the increased median income.

Percentages are really nothing more than fuzzy math that can easily be distorted which is why you love them so much. It is still a 1% total volume increase and with the volume so low, 50% more of just about nothing is still just about nothing.

LOL, helium is boyant in our atmosphere at sea level so it really depends on what definition of weight you use. I understand that this is way above you but I never said that helium has no mass and some definitions of weight equate it to mass.

Damn Max, now this is the definiton of PKB.

And this means what???? Oh yea, not a damn thing.

Please explain how this figure is not influenced by either of these values.

Perhaps you should go back and look at how these figures are calculated. That's what I did, and on the site that you referenced back then.

LOL, perhaps because households that do not fit the requirements are not included. If they changed the computations, perhaps you would care to provide them. You and Max keep talking about the numbers, lets see either of you back them up for a change.

Hmm...now we're getting somewhere. You are confused as to what Median refers to. Median is the center of a distribution curve. Say we have 2 poor at $5,000/yr, 50 at $45,000/yr and 2 at $1,000,000/yr. Whats the median? Now say the rich 2 make $20,000,000/yr. Whats the median now? Understand median now? Doubt it.

In both cases the median is $45,000/yr.

Ken

You are showing that 1) you have no sense of humor and 2) you need a good lay.

Nope. I'm not a straight party voter, Miles. You are. I have nothing to explain. You do. You get out here and preach how Republicans are the party for America and everyone who doesn't agree is a liberal. Think about what your party has done to, not for, this country. You make excuse after excuse for your Republican butt buddy's and point finger at ANYONE else that disagrees. You're just as intolerant and deaf as those you vote for.

The government shouldn't give idiots like you voting rights.

Besides ... you still did not answer the question. All 6+ trillion doesn't belong to Dubya. A large part of it belongs to Daddy and Mr. Reagan himself. Explain that.

Craig C.

Not true.

Um nope! You sound like the typical Democrat blogger with that rhetoric. I've stated quite publicly here for years that I do not like Bush and the republican party is anything but conservative. The difference with me is that I do not see the Democrats as having any solution and their recent example in congress has proved just that. Honestly I'm disgusted with both parties.

BS, miles. You're the Republican poster boy. There are hundreds of posts proving it.

Here we go. I disagree, therefore I'm a democrat/liberal. Must be nice living in a world where you're right and everyone else is wrong.

Yet, you voted for them.

"Thanks"

Craig C.

I have worked for 3 companies in the past 2 years. All started the off-shore process to "control costs". Yet the executives receive HUGE bonuses, company cars, etc. It's happening all around. Open your eyes, get the Republican c*ck out of your mouth and face reality.

Oh, you mean like the current REPUBLICAN administration's policies which actually encourage off-shoring high-tech jobs?

I'm not a union supporter. Never been part of a union. I am, however, an American that is watching American middle class jobs being off-shored so executives can pad their pockets. Anyone with half a brain can see the tragedy and potential long-term effects of a dwindling middle class. I suppose then, that excludes die-hard Republicans.

Craig C.

LOL, I disagree with some of your views and I'm the Republican poster boy and preacher as well as a Bush lover. Dang hypocrite!

I've also voted for some Democrats. Once again, you sound like a Democrat/liberal blogger! You ashamed of what you are? I'm proud to be a conservative.

Craig C. wrote: \

No, I mean the corrupt greedy unions that force them there. But I also blame world economics even more so. These companies sell world wide. They don't go offshore just to export back to the USA.

Thats a belief thats far from reality but easy for the less informed to believe. Skyrocketing insurance costs, dramatically increased competition from foreign corporations etc. are far more to blame.

You stand accused by way of your own words. Perhaps you should google your own postings.

Sigh. Of course I'm not ashamed of what I am. Quite the opposite. You can't put a political label on me, miles. I am not "owned" by a party. I make the best decision for my family, myself and my country. The comical part about it is that someone, at some point, defined which issues were left and which issues were right. I happen to disagree with the placement of some of the issues. Namely, environmental issues. Would you agree, miles, that "conservative" is the root of "conservation"? If so, how then do you explain that "conserving" (ie. taking care of, caring for) the environment is a "left" issue?

Regardless of this glaring misplacement, I'd be willing to bet that you are further left than I on MOST, if not ALL issues.

I'd be happy to discuss it further, but you STILL have not explained to me how you can consider the the last 3 Republican presidents "conservative" since they are responsible for 6+ trillion of the 9+ trillion dollar debt. Please ... explain Republican-Boy.

Craig C.

Do just that and you'll find I haven't liked Bush JR. for years and didn't care for Sr. much as well. The problem you have is that anyone not agreeing with you must be a Bush lover and Republican party die hard. In reality I'm a conservative and proud of it. The current republican party is anything but conservative. But the Dems/Liberals seem to be even worse (look at what the current Dem empowered congress has done).

lol, you're attempting to define political conservatism your own way and doing a poor job of it. With regards to the environment most people from all parties want basically the same thing. We all want less smog for instance. The difference lies in how to achieve it and balance it with the costs and needs of the public.

Reagan was handed double digit inflation, unemployment and interest rates. Handed to him from a Democrat. The other two are anything but conservative and I have said that consistently all along. You're just on the bandwagon and view anyone not agreeing with your views as a bush loving ultra republican.

Once again ... I disagree with "the world according to miles" and I'm labeled a liberal democrat. Take the blinders off, boy.

Although Ron Paul had his warts, I respected his CONSERVATIVE stand on many issues.

Conservative compared to what/whom? Ron Paul? None. John McCain? Many.

There's the difference. I won't vote for any of them. I'll write in a name before I vote for any of these candidates. I refuse to play the "lesser of two evils" game any longer. If I can't think of a name to write in then my last option is grid-lock. Vote for opposing party's in congress and the white house. At least more legislation and bullshit spending will grind to a halt and prevent further damaging an already frail economy.

Unity would make it worse. Just imagine the ass raping we'd get if both party's united!

Thinning forests, although important, are merely child's play in regards to the current environmental nightmares that plague us.

Smog is worse now than ever, thanks to Mr. Bush. Lung cancer rates are up. Water quality is down. Once again, thanks to Mr. Bush's easing of water quality regulations. Now, miles, you can argue with me all day that Republicans are environmentally conscience, but the facts do not support your position. You profess to value "facts", so drop the argument. To put it simply, Republican's are more interested in the extra $$ generated from lax environmental policy. The current president has proved it time and time again.

I don't doubt that there are a *few* good Republicans (true conservatives). There are also a few good democrats. However, it's less about their party ideals and more about their personal values. That's why voting for or against a candidate based solely on party affiliation is my biggest issue with you.

Had money been put into R/D 7 years ago like some Dems tried to push, we'd be much further ahead. But no ... Mr. "Crude Oil' Bush felt that funding for alternative energy was a waste of tax payer dollars. You and I argued about this 3-4 years ago miles. You totally defended Bush cutting funding of alternative fuels. How ya feelin' about your argument now?

This is not a discussion about Democrats. It's about your innate need to defend a party that has failed you and I. If you were defending Dems like you are Republicans, we'd be having the same discussion. Only you'd be accusing me of being a right-winger.

You know how a third party candidate gains interest? Men of good conscience take a stand.

Craig C.

You're not labeled as anything. You're ranting about me being the republican or conservative or bush poster boy with disregard. That is exactly the echos of the rhetoric of the liberal left democrat. Just go with the flow. If the shoe fits!

You asked if I would vote for a conservative Democrat and I asked you to please tell me which candidate is conservative. There are none. There were conservative Republicans running. McCain is all thats left and he is not a conservative.

Thats saying you do not care who wins. I will vote for the one that agrees with more of my views than the other.

That I agree with. I feel things work better when the WH and Congress are not the same party.

It's just one example and its not childs play. Forest fires have wrecked havoc on the environment on a very large scale. You must be ONLY talking about air quality. I am all for taking steps to curb pollution, lower car emissions etc. However, I believe that can only happen through public demand rather than legislation. It costs money and the only ones to fund it is the public. High gas prices drive high demand for more efficient vehicles. Thats a start.

On Clintons last day in office he deliberately signed a bill to lower arsenic levels full aware it could not be achieved and would make the Reps look bad to over turn it as they did. If it was so important to Clinton to lower the levels then do tell me why he waited 8 years to the very last day in office? Concerned with water or a political move?

Public demand is the only way to get us to newer better technologies. Making a fuel efficient car nobody wants does nothing. The only reason its now becoming successful is because of public demand, not legislation. More companies are willing to put the money into R/D in amounts that dwarf anything that can be given by tax $ benefits.

Not so. Bush did not veto any alternative fuel bill 3 or 4 years ago. So tell me what Bush cut? There were some bills that failed in congress. While I was for the alternative fuel R/D part of the bills, they were loaded down with unrelated pork and is why they failed. It is the Dems that load them down and wonder why they fail. Education bills also failed for the same reason. Loaded with pork totally unrelated. The public cries foul because they see the title of the bill and not where the money goes, how its spent and who controls that spending.

Not any more. It takes millions to win the WH. It's all about power these days.