So John, does that mean your not a Pulitzer prize wining retired astronaut living on your own private island?  The fantasy...it is ruined.

I do have my own private bathroom

Sorry...35% of your bathroom belongs to China. Hope they don't try to "collect".  

Jafo built his ....

Hmmm....I thought that was where the 35% went when I flushed!

i thot this was going to die

All your Bases is Us.

And comes back to you as "Milk Products", "Pet Food" and "Children's Toys". All can be found at Wal-Mart ... and just about everywhere else.

Noop. We're all trying to morph into something more ridiculous than it's predecessor. It's all part of "Continuous Quality Improvement".

Wow, what was this article about again? And how does a bathroom fit into all of this?

The Chinese are coming to take my bathroom I just remodeled. Little do they know, I installed a steel door and bars on the window because I knew they were coming. I need to stock up on bullets!

You have it backwards.  When liberals start walking the walk, you can claim the above.  Until such time, they are the me me me - with your money (if you are earning any).

I guess you missed the second part where I blew it outof thewater that AMericans had done it?  But you dont seem to read even what you quote.  "We the People" (if you are referring to the pre-amble) is not the historical people, but the current population of the US.  It is clear to all but Chicago democrats that dead people have no rights.

And you have empirical data to back up your fantasies?  Dont state your opinions as facts.

No, it is a tax increase period.  I have $1000 today.  Next year, I will not.  My disposable income went down by the amount my taxes went up.  That is a tax increase.

Your only delusion is that you appear (note not a statement of fact, just an opinion) to think that all monies are the governments and what they graciously allow us to keep is a gift.  That is patently wrong and so far absurd.

Yes, we can forget the Twin towers in 1993, Sudan, The African Embasies, the Cole, Sudan, Afghanistan, even Iraq and Kosovo!  And of course Bush created the dot com bust 2 years before he took office!  YOu sling slogans without thinking about what you are saying, and have no retort for when you are called upon them.

I assume nothing.  He is not even president yet, and already has his first to date.  His err and umms are an annoyance and one that most people will see as not of a smart man (perception, not reality is playing a role here) but of a very indecisive president that is a few quarts short of a bushell.  I dont have to assume, you just have to excuse.

YOur ignorance is again showing.  Your opinion is not fact.  Better re-read what she beleived and did, and stop trying to spin Obama Gaffs (already appologized for - you dont appologize unless you are WRONG).

Hey Genius!  Using Astrology is not holding seances.  Of is making a speech in the Greek Parthenon, having a toga party?  Your logic would dictate it was.

I think you assume too much there.  

On economics, there are certainly many different philosophies but a lot of what you say absolutely seems to me to show a very narrow view of economics.  And I don't say that meaning any disrespect but just that your views sound very much like the views of most people who don't have a lot of experience dealing with business economics.

I'll illustrate what I mean more below but I want to address a couple things you wrote first.

But none of what you say implies you have any understanding of economics. 

For example, let's say you're heavily involved in the entertainment industry where a given project involves the formation of lots of LLCs.  

When they make a Star Wars movie (for instance) they form numerous companies to produce it. Many of these companies are disolved after the project is completed.  Each of these companies, on paper, make many millions of dollars and employ lots of people.

And technically, they ARE companies. But they are one-project companies. 

Similarly, Hollywood actors and producers form companies all the time, companies worth many millions of dollars and employing lots of people in order to accomplish some specific objective.

Outside of Hollywood, there are companies formed that manage the investment portfolios of wealthy clients. These companies may employ many people and manage millions, if not billions, of dollars of capital.

Closer to home, many game companies will turn each project into its own corporation with the producer in charge of it. I know of some extremely well known game studios that are set up like this. But the general managers and such of these companies don't necessarily have familiarty with economics or business. 

But none of these examples imply that the people who run these organizations, projects, etc. have any serious understanding of economics. It is often that these companies are set up where the talent and/or project lead is also the "owner" of the business.  That doesn't make them qualified to speak on macro economics.

So when I use my experience as evidence that I know something on this. It's not just that I have run a successful business that makes N millions of dollars a year.  It is that my personal talent is not that heavily involved in what the company produces but rather my talent is my ability to run the business and it's a business I started from nothing and built by making products and services over a long period of time. The emphasis being that it's the same business over many years dealing with the production of a wide variety of products and services, managing budgets, etc.

In fact, you outright say the smallest company you've ever run is a 10 million dollar company with 60 employees. This outright implies that you've only been involved in the types of companies I mention above. And there's nothing wrong with that. It just doesn't serve as evidence that you're familiar with business economics.

Now, I'm not saying you don't know how to do any of that. It is only that the things you say don't jive with an understanding of business economics. (which again, I'll talk about below).

I am not sure how I'm being insecure. I don't think you're sounding egotistical because you say you have lots of money or whatever. I do think you sound egotistical because you strongly imply that those who disagree with your political views are somehow greedy, selfish "me me me me" types (and by imply, I really mean you outright say these things).

Now, you say you want to talk about issues, that's fine, but you keep ignoring them choosing to focus only only personal things so I'll bring up some of the things I mentioned that you ignored:

1. Regarding hiring you wrote "I don't dispute that, since more money in your hands is a good thing, if you indeed pass it down to your employeers.".  I responded pointing out that the money I earn isn't buried in the back yard. It gets spent on a variety of things.  I want you to explain why 435 people in congress are better qualified to spend that money than I, who earned it, am.  I obviously have a track record of creating wealth. Those 435 people in congress have a terrible record with managing money.
    
2. You have stated that we will get universal healthcare and it will only require our tax rate to go back to the way it was under Clinton.  What do you base this on? There's no evidence to support this.  In addition, our health insurance premiums have decreased over the last few years thanks to more competition in insurance companies and changes in government regulation (like health savings accounts). Our employees get world class health insurance.
    
3. I have stated flat out that if our taxes are increased, it will cost jobs here. 
    
4. You have stated that Bush "tanked" the economy but don't explain how.
    
5. You have said my beliefs and my deeds are contradictory because I give heavily to charity. You have never explained how they are contradictory. I believe that the people who earn money are more competent to decide how that money is spent than the 435 people in congress whose job security is based on getting 51% of their constituents to vote for them regardless of why.  I keep mentioning the 435 people issue (535 if you count the senate) because when you talk about "the government" you're realling talking about 435 people.  I think the collective wisdom of 300 million individuals trumps 435 politicians any day.
    
6. You have said that right-wingers are all about "me me me me" but you don't explain what you base this on other than right-wingers not thinking the federal government (the 435 people in the house of representatives) is better qualified to spend that money than they are. I should also mention that there are plenty of studies and books that show that conservatives good more to charity, volunteer more, give more blood, etc. than liberals.  It should be noted that Obama and Biden have given less to charity in the last 10 years than McCain has done in any single year for the past 10 years even when looking at it as a % of income.  In other words, there's no evidence at all to show that the left is more compassionate or "we" oriented at all.
   

I would think that the President Elect has much to learn.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashbol.htm