How homeownership is turning into a nightmare for millions of Americans, including many ruined by being victims of the health care access crisis:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5052900972.html

Sooner or later Washington is going to have to take a more profound look at health care before the problem becomes deleterious

I find it interesting that TQ thinks that Tax Policies (being the only part of the economy that the President has direct control over.) Are what has caused problems with home ownership.

Apparently Cutting Taxes suddenly caused Real Estate prices to shoot up. What an amazing revelation.

I am horribly allergic to cats.
GO AHEAD!

That clears some things up.

I love doggies though.

That's a good one. Good sense of humor But get the picture out of my head!!!

I think your preconcieved views effect your ability to comprehend the meaning of the article. It says nothing about Bushanomics or economic policies of the Bush Administration. MARK

Bush is the man in charge. He has all the power.
THE BUCK STOPS WITH HIM.
He gets the CREDIT and the BLAME.

Did you equally condemn all previous presidents for not undoing Roosevelt's New Deal program, Fannie Mae? MARK

The New Deal created allot of jobs, my friend.

Your argument is irrelevant. The only way you Conservatives will stop -- I guess --is with George Washington!

Hahah that's so great TQ.

BUSH IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, THEREFORE HE GETS ALL BLAME FOR EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENS IN THE US! INCLUDING ECONOMIC POLICIES THAT HIS OFFICE HAS NO CONTROL OVER!!!

The President is simply the head of the executive branch of our country. One would think that you think the President is the "King of America" or something.

You might want to take a few minutes to read this page, Ben.

If he has nothing to do with the economy how come he has plans to strengthen it? Wont that have his (Bush) direct influence on the economy?


White House.gov

The President has the ability to affect Economics through Tax Policies.

Real Estate rates have nothing to do with the President, no matter who he is, but TQ claims they do.

Therein lies your answer! The President and Congress have everything in the world to do with the effects on our economy

Slashing taxes did not raise real estate rates.

Get a basic knowledge of economics, please. THEN come back here and behave in a condescending manner.

You are merely unable to understand its significance. MARK

Alright TQ, this is how I really think about your subject here.

*underlining by Grizzly*

*boldness by Grizzly*



I am making a reference as to what you or somebody else at this site has said before -- about the President not having any influence over the economy, Ben.

Has nothing to do with real estate taxes; thats not what I am referring to.

As usual TQ a day late and dollar short on a subject.


http://members.cox.net/mathmistakes/poly-econ.htm

Politics and Economics Don't Mix

How much influence does the President (any President) really have on the economy? The answer according to most experts is "very little". And yet, we voters seem to have this opinion that politics and the economy go hand in hand.

I point this out because of four widely circulated graphs being passed around the Internet. Here they are:



I am going to go on the assumption that these graphs are based on actual data and are accurate up to that point. I do not believe anyone would make up a graph that lies, especially, when the actual figures are so easy to be found.

The first obvious math mistake with this one is that it is a zoom graph in that it does not start at 0%, so the drastic changes shown here are not as drastic as displayed. The second misleading part of the graph, is the instantaneous growth of unemployment in Bush's first year. The two biggest factors in unemployment that year was the dot com bust (which started while Clinton was still in office) and the 9/11 disaster and other terrorist acts which Bush had to react to. The recent unemployment problem is more Clinton's legacy than Bush's.

That being said, the fact that unemployment has not gone down over the past 3 years since 9/11 is going to be a big issue in the Presidential campaign.



This one is a head scratcher. Why should each president start out at zero? Why isn't the fact that Clinton was in office for 8 years while the other two were in only four taken into account? Then of course the interpretation of this graph follows the interpretation of the first one.



What kind of influence does the President have over the economy? A President's influence comes in two forms: monetary policy and tax policy. Both of these can "push" the economy up or down, but economic momentum tends to go where it wants regardless of who is in office. A president's influence on most specific economic factors, such as the Dow Jones average, is practically non-existent.

If a President has near God like control of the economy as the candidates want us to believe, then why would a President ever want the economy to go bad? The Communists had near total control of the economy, and every communist country has ended up with a economic disaster on their hands.



Now here is a statistic that the President actually has some control over, although Congress ultimately has more control over the budget than the President does. Obviously the economy overall has more influence as well. Incomes have been going down the last four years, which means income taxes and consumer taxes collected has gone down. Almost every state in the country has had budget problems the last few years, and this includes states controlled by Republicans and Democrats both. Add to that the fact that spending continues to rise despite the complete lack of inflation, and the result is record setting deficits.

Of the four charts, this is the most useful one, even though it should be pointed out which years Democrats controlled congress (89 - 94) and which years Republicans did (95 to present).

What all four charts are guilty of is selective endpoint picking, and selective statistic picking. If you added the Carter and Reagan administrations to these charts, things would look a bit different. Also there is no doubt that the Republicans could make similar charts using completely different economic stats, that make Clinton look bad.

The economy was already starting to Falter even before the Bush vs. Gore election of 2000, and many of us knew that whoever took office was going to be facing a recession. Now there are signs that the economy is beginning to rebound, even though the job market continues to be a sore spot. Whoever wins this year (and it is going to be close again I can tell) is probably going to preside over a good economy regardless of what they actually do in office.

The bottom line is, we should not pick a President based on economic factors, even though that is most likely how most people will vote this year. Pick you candidate base on what economic programs they want to implement, or what social issues they support. The economy is going to do what it is going to do regardless of who is in office.


That is all!

Right wingers creed:

When a Democrat is President:
ALL of the blame
NONE of the credit

When a Rep is Pres:
NONE of the blame
ALL of the credit

You can't have it both ways, suckers!
This is why the bush right wing house of cards will eventually fall. The American people do indeed blame the party in power for their pain.
It is called POLITICAL REALITY.

Nice posting you made ustrader!

Not being a professor of mathematics, (I would also suspect that too many other members here are either!) I can't debate Paul Cox's proposals concerning his lecture that you brought into this thread, seeing that I do not have the correct credentials to do so.

However, I would like to take the time to point out that there is a possibility that there could be suspicions of bias here concerning that gentleman's politics.

Allow me to prove my point!

ALL MEMBERS: Click on ustraders link>>go to the bottom of the page and click "Back to Glossary">>go to the bottom of that page and click "The Xocxoc Pages">>go to the bottom of that page and click "Favorite Links"

The favorite links indicate some of his (Paul Cox) favorite political columnists that Paul enjoys reading on a regular basis.

In there you will notice two mainstream, conservative journalists. They are: Marianne Jennings and Thomas Sowell. (I believe that Mr. Sowell is read and enjoyed by John L.)

My suspicions are that Mr. Cox leans toward the right just a tad!

Are you deliberately quoting me out of context or are you just unfamiliar with what we are talking about Grizzly? I said that the President has control of the economy insomuch as he has control over Tax Policy. Beyond that he has little control.

The President of the United States influences economic tax policy. Are you actually trying to make the claim that the US President has control over Real Estate Rates? Or are you not? You don't even seem to be sure yourself.

Ben:

I believe that the President, and the House, and the Senate has a major influence over our (USA) economy.

Now, I do not know if they(aforementioned above) have any direct influence over real estate workings. But I would disagree with anyone that says the economy is not influenced by the people in charge in Washington DC.

Why does Wall Street keep an eye on the President and Congress before they make a move?

Somebody -- don't know who it was -- keeps on implying that the economy runs itself and the President has no influence on what it will do.

I say, "boulderdash!"

Hope that clears up any confusion.

TQ, it is a shame to waste a good education by not reading what is said.

Grizzy, my friend, though, you seem willing to see a tad beyond TQ’s blinded agenda.

The author, in the last 4 paragraphs, so states political bias exists clearly.

He does not say only the Republicans are Blameless and the Democrats are at blamed, as ranted by TQ in ignorance of what the Presidency can and can not do while in office.

He instead says and history and economics back him up , [B]Presidents, no matter their political persuasion, do little, while in office, to directly affect the economy, beyond, with the advice, consent and approval congress, the limited and delayed responsive impact of monetary policy and tax policy.'

He further advise us as any basic set of economic course woukd confirm, that market forces have, as he exampled, acted to override even these monetary and tax policy so objected when enacted by either party. Therefore, though we like to neatly package their impact , these Presidents, in election rhetoric, they are more subject to the forces of the free market than their own agenda and desired much of the time.



SHOW US THE BEEF, my belief reliant credible friend?

Look at Hoover and the Congress of his era. Look at Carter and the Congress of his era. Look at Clinton and the Republican Congress of his era and show us where policy over road market forces in meeting the road in a MAJOR cohesive influencing way that over road those market force they attempted to dissuade in policy at the time.

Read how most leading economist agree government policy is [U]rarely, if ever, a leading influential forces in markets. But is rather a following force of influence.

A fact this fellow pointed out and which history has shown that even then, when policies are enacted for a specific end or purpose, the forces of “the market” bend and twist these policies in ways never intend or contemplated when governments so enacted them to induce influence.

As the this fellow premised, the economy has a tendency, in history, to be the master of its own fate far more than government interactions and when they do influence it, they do so slowly, in a following influence sometimes well after these governments are gone from power.

Many of the influencing policies that Carter and his era of Congress did, did him no good at all and, in fact, ended up, in the end, benefiting eventually his Predecessor Reagan.


That is all!

From the Washington Post, no surprise.

The first few paragraphs of Tqs link..............................

A Bane Amid The Housing Boom: Rising Foreclosures

By Michael Powell
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, May 30, 2005; Page A01

PHILADELPHIA -- To walk Thayer Street in northeast Philadelphia is to count, door by door, the economic devastation afflicting a working-class neighborhood. On a single block, 18 of the 42 brick rowhouses have gone into foreclosure in the past three years.

There's Marciela Perez, who fell ill with cancer, lacked health insurance and stopped making mortgage payments. Barrel-chested Richard Hidalgo, who got divorced and could no longer make his monthly nut. And Mike O'Mara, a rawboned and crew-cut truck driver who took on too much debt, lost his job and fell behind on his mortgage.

"Mortgage companies convinced us to refinance, and each time our bill went up," O'Mara said as he surveyed his narrow street from his shaded front porch. "You fall behind and they swoop down on you."

All these people were victims of their own stupidity.

There are homestead and bankruptcy in place to prevent these type of things. If an honest effort is made to repay ones mortgage. I love the Mike O'Mara story. TOOK ON TOO MUCH DEBT! Well ###### you pay for the roof over your head before you buy the big screen. And "Mortgage companies convinced us to refinance, and each time our bill went up". You just fall off the turnip truck Mickey? I'll bet you 100 to 1 that on each refinace he got cash out and pissed it away. Bottom line is some people just can't manage money, it burns a hole in their pocket.

Perhaps money management should be part of the public school curriculum??

Naww. Never get past the NEA. It's more important to teach how to put a condom on a rubber dick instead of teaching personal fiscal responsibility.

Especially since I showed the rest of the story!



Remember. Mine is a belief -- you present yours as a fact.

No. I will tell you what my believe-in-Conservative-mathematical-professor friend: since you didn't introduce any links, I will allow you to present them so we can read them. Oh! try to mix some unbiased (or at least a mixture, of different politics, that concurs with you) points of view too! OK?

Links? I guess for some that is a substitute for common sense.

Is asking one to independently inquire as to the substances of their belief a statment of fact or is it just an act of giving them a road map to where they can change belief into fact or into fiction.

Do you see following a map laid before you as an inquiry where a point had been laid out prior such as a radical concept of intellectual challenge to grasp there grizz.

Do you need pictures draw when someone gives you direction from point A to point B. Or tells you how to do something you have not done before?

May I assume No retention or visonary aptitude to follow mear directions that would lead you from a belief to a sustantion or reputiation of that belief.

It is funny thing when one needs to use some one elses concepts and thinking to justify their abiliity of thought, as if they are incapable of dissecting a comment that is easily verifiable, as fact or fiction.

One would easily surmise it is motivated by either fearfulness of seeing the outcome, simple laziness or one being incapable of doing so independently ,without some one elses idea inspired link that would justifying a independent investigation of independent thought on a belief thay have.

My friend is faith and belief enough to show your substance? Then that is all you have unsubstanced belief and faith.

It is you lot who are always asking people like me to think for themselves.

I gave you a map with instruction, do I need to lay a path strun with toliet paper all the way for you to seek out whether a belief has substance or as I implied is ill reputed in substance.

That is all!

(Try the word drawn in your sentence next time; you will find that it fits better.)Pictures? No. The way that you write you would probably mess that up too!

For the love of Pete! Would you please be so kind as to explain this sentence? I have tried and tried to find the word sustantion! Can't find it on the internet! Can't find it using my unabridged dictionary that is beside me!
Is this supposed to be your variation of the word sustain? If not, just what is it?



When the point laid out prior, in a argument of a political nature, is found to having one side using witnesses or facts of a questionable nature, one would require more proof.
Seeing that you were the one to introduce Mr. Cox and even you admit a political bias, and seeing that you tried to lay that before our feet as fact, it seems to me that I had better not listen to your directions, or I will remain lost.


I am still waiting to read about all of these economists that you brought up in a previous posting, sir!

Why I wouldn't dare to do such a thing, trader! I wouldn't want to see you hurt yourself, or possibly others close to you!

For once, I agree with Grizzly. If anyone is quoting a source, it is simply good manners to provide the link to that subject. Plus it lends credence to one's argument, or provides for rebuttal.

I believe the American government has the capabilities to do great harm to our economy. Able to bring about another 30s type depression bringing tha American economy to pathetic crawl. And in this day and age of global economies, send ripples of economic stagnation through out the world.
I believe the American government has little ability to send the economy in the other direction except for their ability to undo previous policies detrimental to the economy and a slight stabalizing effect through monetary policy and government spending. MARK

<sarcasm>
Oh! I guess you're right Nomad. Why should someone supply information to something that they are trying to prove in a debate?

The person that is requesting more information should automatically stop and have an analogous common sense with his/her opponent.

But I would like to take the time to thank you for your one full sentence on this discussion.

BTW: Love the avatar! When placing yours and mine together I feel that both discharge an integral statement that corroborates the character!

2+2=4. Common sense. 2+2=22. All the links on the net will not prove 2+2=22. Ya follow?

John L.

Please look at Page 2 posting #21 on which I Provided the credible supportive link to the mathematical thesis postulated by Paul Cox that Presidents do necessarily have immediately or directly impact, in a real sense, on the economy and that it is rare if they do have immediate economic impact.

same link as I provided then is below:

http://members.cox.net/mathmistakes/poly-econ.htm

Which was the essences of my post in supported disagreement with Grizzly's BELIEF non-supported in any way.

Which, one, with but the slightest of effort, would have easily lead themselves to the articles source, which is a compilation in various forms in Cox's archives of all types of MATH Mistakes with but a few being political in nature.

http://members.cox.net/mathmistakes/archives.htm

Likewise the article, if read, clearly does not say one political party or another is more or less effected by his math based thesis of how little Presidential impact is on the Economy in the present and here and now. It is neither Right or Left in meaning except in Grizzly limited view and base of knowledgelessness.

I hope that clarifies that for you.

Likewise, though I agree, if you argue someone is incorrect, maybe support is needed. But I believe in this particular case, I did provided my opinion and some linked support against Grizzy’s thus far unsupported “Belief” in this thesis he agrues.

I, as well, wonder, if one postulates a belief or an opinion on something, in original thought, and not a regurgitation of someone else idea or views, is its credibility not as a equal to the premises and thesis they have so postulated.

As opposed to what they say or have said being only credible, if it has “ source" as to their original thought and opinion that evidence it in support" of that original thought of belief or opinion.

Can not what one says in and of itself have meaning and substance and as such stand on it own, right or wrong, with the burden of disproof equally or more so on one who would disagree or have a different belief or opinion.

It is this back and forth of supportive ideology we all use here, where the sources are naturally disagreeable in view to begin with, are they credible or are we We all quilty in some way or another of Cherry picking or sourcing?

Just a thought. I did not source it of course

That is all!

To the bordello of the mystical faith in Belief, Da Grizz!


Cox even writes, had anyone looked hint hint!

This forces the Mathematical community to question the very nature of proof itself.
Devlin Writes:

"So what is proof? There are two very different answers. One answer, which I will call the right-wing definition, is that proof is a logically correct argument that establishes the truth of a given statement. The other answer, the left-wing definition, is that a proof is an argument that convinces a typical mathematician.

"The right-wing concept of a proof is valid in the idealistic sense. The problem is that, except for trivial cases, it is not clear anyone has ever seen such a thing. ... The right-wing definition of a mathematical proof as an unrealistic ideal, unattainable in the real world. Actual mathematical proofs are all left wing. An argument becomes a proof when the mathematical community agrees it is such." - op. cit.


http://members.cox.net/mathmistakes/top5.htm

From there the DA Grizz gives a cherry picked retort that does not dispute the math of Cox thesis nor the premise at all.

But attempts to deflect us from his proof and support of his BELIEF in this discussion as the evidence is RIGHT WING when, the article does not address parties as if one was more liely to impact the Economy than another as Da Grizz would believe, but states mathematically President of either party do not have the immediate influence and impact on the economy as percieved by the uninformed like Da Grizz.

Grizz Chery Picks for us a link he states evidences Paul Cox’s works has a Right wing bias, but Da Grizz does not address the substances of his Political Nuetral thesis.




What Da Grizz does not do is repute the thesis that Presidents have little direct and immediate impact on the economy except thru his belief. BECAUSE HE CAN NOT!

He argues, that he can not understand the thesis and it foundation of mathematical mistakes but must be wrong because its not written in a friendly liberal fashion where it is not written in a friendly conservative fashion as well.

Had he or anyone looked further, Cox argues Math not politics and even he points in his archives to a range of math mistake subjects from Weapons of Mass Destruction to cell phones.

The Grizz leaves out the rest of the links in his laziness and inaptitude to even present his Belief with or without supporting links.


The truth in Coxes links:

Now, links like

Swift Kick - A column on cutting edge software.\

Personality Testing I'm an INTP! Type Descriptions,

Thinking Man's Minefield, ( SOMETHING GRIZZY NEEDS

The Skeptics History of Mathematics,

The British Museum from London,

Game Depot,

Roger Ebert,

Tucows,

The Xocxoc Page for more Art, Philosophy, and other cool stuff are most

definitely

http://members.cox.net/xocxoc/indexmenu.htm?links/index.htm

These really are some HARD CORE REAL RIGHT WING favorite sites for sure there my self imperiling Grizzly!

Here are some article sources links you left out my ham-fisted friend

http://members.cox.net/mathmistakes/links.htm




Yep! YOU DID, at the level of credence of say Dan Rather and Newsweek as equally incredulous my friend!



One problem by terrified friend, the article Cox presented, is neither Politically Right or Politically Left in dissection nor thesis.

It is about a subject that you said you belief but do not support. Show us where it is political that would make the left look any worst than the right as the President NOT impacting directly the Economy.



My fault, I always presumed someone who would have the intelligence to have a ECONOMIC BELIEF, had, likewise the Economic educational literacy to back up that belief. In your case Obviously not.


[B]The latest research suggests deficits do raise long-term interest rates. But the effect is "relatively small," says Francesco Caselli, an economist at Harvard University. He and two other economists looked at what happened after changes in budget deficits in 16 rich countries between 1960 and 2000. The authors' paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research indicates that the huge shift in the US deficit since 2000 suggests a rise in interest rates of 0.6 to 0.7 percentage points. So interest on a business loan may have risen from, say, 5 percent to 5.7 percent.

But, cautions Mr. Caselli, [U]economic evidence also indicates that businesses and consumers aren't very responsive to small movements in rates in making decisions on investment and spending. "You need big swings," he says.
The 1980s showed that deficits don't matter, Vice President Cheney is supposed to have told then Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill. Adds Caselli: "You can't say ... that Cheney is completely wrong."

Further, the Bush tax cuts may have stimulated business investments, offsetting in a degree the damage of higher interest rates. Economists, though, don't really know enough to calculate such effects accurately, says Caselli.
One caution: The US has a $600 billion trade deficit. If foreigners withdraw some of their resulting US assets, interest rates could really soar.

Another question: Did the Bush tax cuts stimulate job creation? The Bush administration repeatedly calls them a boon. size=4]Yet Federal Reserve economist Daniel Thornton says: "Government policies, monetary and fiscal policy, are relatively unimportant."[/size]

He and Thomas Garrett, a colleague at the Fed's St. Louis branch, found that the nation's payroll employment from 1946 to 2003 grew at an average 2.1 percent a year over all those 60 years. [That pace declined a bit during recessions, picked up afterward. size=3]But otherwise, the trend line in their chart looks steady regardless of whether the country was at war; whether a Republican or Democrat occupied the White House; whether there were changes in tax law, inflation, the minimum wage, workplace safety; or whatever.

"Politicians don't create jobs," says Mr. Thornton. "The economy creates jobs." Maybe unnecessary and unproductive regulation may discourage job creation, he suspects. But his chart offers no proof even of that view.

The chart still leaves some room for debate over whether government policies can slightly alter job creation in a recovery. Senator Kerry charges - accurately - that the decline in job numbers under Bush has not been experienced in any administration since that of Herbert Hoover during the Great Depression. But is that the president's fault?

Mr. Garrett looks to other factors, possibly the rapid shift in the US economy from manufacturing to services.

But Mark Zandi, chief economist of Economy.com, places partial blame on the poor design of the Bush tax cuts. These cuts, however, combined with aggressive easing of monetary policy by the Fed, probably prevented the short-lived recession from stretching into 2003, he adds.

The economy, he notes, "suffered a string of misfortunes from the bursting of the Y2K stock-market bubble and corporate accounting scandals to 9/11 and the war on terrorism." But the massive tax cuts provided "a very little bang for the buck," he says. The benefits went primarily to "high-income households" with little propensity to spend their tax savings. So businesses created relatively few jobs. And "any near-term benefits will be eventually overwhelmed by the impact of the persistently large federal budget deficits expected to result from these policies."

Then there's the $3 trillion shortage that the Social Security system faces over the next 75 years. Former President Clinton wanted to enlarge Social Security; Bush wants to privatize part of it to rescue it.

But as scary as $3 trillion sounds, it represents a mere 1.86 percent of total taxable payrolls anticipated over those 75 years, notes Dean Baker, an economist with the Canter for Economic Policy and Research in Washington. Payroll taxes were raised at least that much in each decade from the 1950s through the 1980s.

Put another way: That $3 trillion is just 0.73 percent of the more than $400 trillion the economy is expected to produce in those years. Add in more serious US liabilities, such as Medicare and the national debt, and they total about $50 trillion. But that's still only 7.5 percent of the nation's long-term output.

So don't panic.[/size]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1025/p17s01-cogn.html?s=hns


http://arts.bev.net/roperldavid/politics/scores.htm

http://arts.bev.net/roperldavid/politics/economy.htm


It's Presidents Day, so let's talk about presidents -- and the economy. Presidential elections are often decided by the nation's economic situation. But it's also an old axiom that presidents don't have much control over the economy. So are presidents just economic bystanders? Historian Richard Shenkman says not always. He says presidents can really screw up the economy -- by making bad decisions. (Photo: Getty Images)

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2...M200502212.html


The problem is, the president just doesn't have much to do with the economy


http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/004631.html


Presidents and prosperity

How people perception differ from reality

The key to Clinton's success, says Alice Rivlin, a Brookings Institution scholar who served as his director of management and budget, was adhering to the "pay/go" agreement first forged by President George H. W. Bush and a Democratic Congress, whereby tax cuts or entitlement increases had to be funded on a current basis.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5474580/

The facts about the above perceptions.

http://www.forbes.com/business/2004/07/20/...0target=_forbes

DEMOCRATS v. REPUBLICANS on the issue of the U.S. ECONOMY

http://www.eriposte.com/economy/other/demovsrep.htm


Grizz I know you will not grasp the relationship between Cox's Non-political Thesis on Presidents perception of having immediate real impact vs your unsubstantiated BEEFLESS belief otherwise!

Oh yes, I won’t again over estimate an educational literacy on a subject you profess to know something about again.

I will bottle feed you, as we obviously need to, with some good Gerber Reusable bottles if we discuss anything in the future. It a shame we need to do this so often here.



[B][U]Exactomundo! My incredulous one, why indeed would you dare to do such a thing.

The four D’s are your greatest asset as far as I have seen in your posts.

Derivation of innovation, Delusions of grandeur, Deflective reality and Demurred politesse.

You are right of course, meaninglessness has no need to lend substance and credibility to a baseless argument for which it is defenseless and diffident of cohesive substance.

Much better to cut and run than face a reality as effervescent as Howard Deans Fund raising efforts of late and the political misfortunes of an ideology you seem to embrace.

Nice chatting with you.

That is all!

First and foremost: I still see that you're on this Cox thing!



I do not need to! I believe that your links have a number of points that support my belief on how Washington DC has a bearing on our economy.



Sites that are irrelevant to my argument! But they are nice sites, nonetheless!


Well let me point out that if you were a news reporter, I believe that your boss would've thrown you out of the building while telling you that you have a future with the "National Enquirer!"


In a debate where someone proposes an element as fact, the proof is usually expected by the presenter; in other words: hunt your own Easter eggs! And yes, you're right, it sure was!



Man! I hate it when people do not take their time when writing a post -- especially when using bb code! Note to trader: Get bbcode help by clicking on the convenient link under the clickable smilies.

Me? Innovation?! (That coming from a person that wants me to go find a value to his argument?)

Delusions of grandeur?! (All anyone has to do is look at your writing to see what kind of chimerical world that you live in!)

(Read that and discover the world of punctuation!)

Demurred politesse?! (Its a forum, trader! You're just as guilty! Get over it!)

I just love these "Chicken Little" themes!

I believe support my belief

” I Believe” are irrelevant to my argument

You were a news reporter, I believe

And yes, ” I Believe” you're right, it sure was!

Me? Innovation?! Absolutely Grizz, this to you would be a novelty concept so absent from this unprejudiced Grizzly idiom of barren ” I Believe” judiciousness and literalism.

Delusions of grandeur?! (All anyone has to do is look at your writing to see what kind of chimerical world that you live in!)

I supposition, as in the Grizzly’s chimerically Visionary schemes, so substantiated and founded in the delusion of ” I Believe” so grizzly and exclusively expressed thus far no doubt.

Read that and discover the world of punctuation!

Hmmm! Why so, if ” I Believe” is good enough for you, why not me.

Demurred politesse?! (Its a forum, trader! You're just as guilty! Get over it!)

Indeed, Demurred politesse, the exact bracketing point of the down range fire, my friend.

Which has now solicited the most correct and honest thing expressed in your ” I Believe”, idioms thus far.

Delta Lima 23, Fire for effect executed, 3 salvos HE out bound delivered, Over and out!

That is all!

I BELIEVE!



He too, wishes for me to go prove him right!

But alas! I have failed him by being lazy! I even went to such interesting links such as Ebert.com; but that site only wished to discuss movies!

Tucows; yet that site couldn't find a URL for me to download!

British Museum of London; they could only show me a picture of Tony Blair and George Bush!

But belief shall continue; for it will never die; it will never starve, or thirst!

<Quiet! Whats that? I hear a bugle being played, and shots being fired! Soldiers carefully folding an American flag to hand to a woman dressed all in black; huddled beside her are three little children weeping into her bosom.

A man in a long black limousine pulls up with a barrage of Secret Service agents running beside the vehicle; he gets out and slowly walks over to her, and carefully pats her shoulder, and leans down to whisper>: "I did it because I believed!"