John Adams

And there go the thoughfulness and dignity. Thanks Mike and JoeF for honest and thoughtful responses. It's hard when any of the wacko fringe of your heartfelt positions resort to extreme actions. The more enlightened opponents don't extrapolate the extremist's actions to you.

Hogboy was funny. This is just noise.

Thanks for proving me wrong.

Even Wacka self-censures when he considers quoting the G-man.

As a kid, you must have sore arms from all the people that couldnt' resist punching you.

Point of interest for the uber-economists, of which I am not one. I saw the Chief [guy who projects long term trends] for Vanguard speak a few months ago. He gave a good argument for why so much of the money being pumped into the banking system has not affected inflation much. His main tenet was that most of the bank-bailout funds went into the banks to make them solvent/bolster their balance sheets to offset paper losses in things like property, and that that money actually wasn't flowing out into the cash economy. (He used a series of "M"s to describe the money supply...which is probably some common macroeconomic terminology but it was easy enough to understand.) In any event, since that money wasn't actually making it out to the consumers or even businesses, the effect of the bailout on inflation is limited, for now. Moreover, he pointed out that even back in January, Bernake was buying back a lot of dollars to try to cool inflationary trends before they happen.

I'll quote the Great Gazoo again and maybe more appropriately in your case, "Hello dum-dum." I believe we're headed for inflation, and perhaps big inflation. But I'm also not shocked that we haven't seen it yet. The economy is EVERYTHING. Without a strong economy, the goofy libs can't tax us out of existence. The holy hawks can't wage war. And Libertarian sympathizers like me can't make a lot of money and spend it however we want. I read 4 daily economic blogs, the WSJ, Forbes, and the Economist. Of course, I also read the NYT and Philly Inquirer. I don't watch any TV news whatsoever so as usual, you live up to your name Stupid.

I am the guy swatting at the fly. If you keep being a pest and adding little to this place, you will be squashed. This has nothing whatsoever to do with your politics and everything to do with your posts, which detract from our Alley-Bar-mens-room-at-2am atmosphere.

If he was the best safety in the league, I'd still take the 9th best DE, QB, LT, RT, C, WR, CB, and RB over him every day of the week.

Come clean: Who were you before this incarnation? You smell like Rich in Ohio minus the big-balled squirrel avatar. Either way, posts like this will take you right to the top. See if you can get to the point where 20% of your posts are longer than a line. It's a tough mountain to climb, but maybe you can do it.

Tom talks to his cat. Just because he's talking to you is not proof positive that your post is substantial.

This is a community that communicates via a message board. People have come here and found support (and mockery at times) for every conceivable ail. At the moment, you're filling the role of village idiot but don't count on that lasting (Wacka wants his title back). In fairness, I have to say your attempt at insulting Tom above could buy you more time. Unintentional humor is often the most well-received type.

And you wonder why I questioned you about what you add to this community?

Rkfast and Wacka are not ringing endorsements.

You're one of Owens's ilk.

Do you think there's a way to do that more constructively? Your diarrheatic posting approach usually ends with a banning because it adds nothing in the way of dialog and insight. Since those can often be in short supply, it also adds no levity either. This isn't coming from a lefty--I criticized molson_golden, a notorious lefty--for the same reason.

I am not sure we have a single professor on this board, thankfully. Your tolerance has been on display here for a long time.

I would rather have the 9the best [insert all positions on a football team except Punter and FB] EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK than the 9th best S. [i agree with whatever Bill in NYC will now interject into this coversation.]

What is it that you hope to add to our PPP community with these posts?

I'm sure all your homosexual friends think you're quite the awesome fellow.

In my best Great Gazoo, "Hello Dum-dum." The "pot calling the kettle black" analogy would work if you posted your list of things you like about George W. Bush and linked to the posts where you defended him.

You're one of the kooks who refuses to use the word "marry," while granting them all the EXACT same rights. Have fun with those linguistic gymnastics.

It's a great law. Every California form will now have to be rewritten for single, married, civilly joined etc. (Should help the budget problems.) And yet everyone outside of a court (and a few kooks like you) will still call civilly-joined gay couple "married." People like you will invite over the civilly-joined gay couple next door for dinner. When meeting a gay guy for the first time, you will ask, "Are you civilly joined?" More likely, you can tell whisper to your kids about the specter of the "civilly joined gay guys" next door. It's a great linguistic victory. Bully for you!

Never post again and you might go out on a high note.

Think rationally for a moment. You know about the Dred Scott decision where the Supreme Court held that people imported into the US as slaves--and their descendants whether they were slaves or not--were not legal persons and could not be US citizens and thus could not sue in court? Don't you think that decision would be decided differently if black justices had been on the bench? Isn't it extremely likely that only a group of honkey judges with honkey biases would reach that conclusion? Judges endeavor to be blind and fair, and they all fail in some way in this attempt. The law may be immutable--some ideal immovable rock--but real-life fart-and-pick-their-nose folk interpret and apply it. The introduction of this human element means that all of our laws (including the Constitution) live, breathe, and change. Also, consider that for the majority of the cases before the Supreme Court, the law is not crystal clear with respect to the facts of the case. (If it was, the case wouldn't make it to the Supreme Court.) This forces the Court to interpret the (immutable) law to the best of its ability, and that's where a lot of bias comes into play. Strict constructionists have a nice rhetorical place they go where they say they only do what the constitution says. But that doesn't always work. The Constitution is short. It's words don't always cover the facts before it. That whole due process thing. Does it extends to suspected terrorists? Or not? These questions are clearly not black and white: Scalia and Thomas (both constructionists) split on this issue.