R.I.H.

[theKSU]

Both parties contribute to the Debt--the one side likes spending, the other side likes tax cuts, in the end they just do both. 

The debt shouldn't become a big issue until unemployment drops below 5%, though.  At that point you can raise taxes, cut services and start reducing the deficit.

[kougar24]

Yet the level of debt and deficits accelerated at an unprecedented pace during Democratic Control of Congress . . . a Congress that included the current president.

It's called a "Stimulus Package."  Governments spend money in order to revitalize the economy and increase confidence in consumers. 

Educate yourself, Keynesian.
Make sure it sinks in.

[kougar24]

End the Fed

[Dave Wooderson]

Yet the level of debt and deficits accelerated at an unprecedented pace during Democratic Control of Congress . . . a Congress that included the current president.

It's called a "Stimulus Package."  Governments spend money in order to revitalize the economy and increase confidence in consumers. 

Educate yourself, Keynesian.
Make sure it sinks in.

I'm sure he's all for QE3 and QE4 as printing money is always going to work (like QE1 and QE2 did/doing) and never lead to inflation.  Way to go FED!  Fannie and Freddie are probably unknown entities to Beems as well and did not have anything to do with the drastic increase then fall of the real estate prices and didn't have anything to do with the eventual decline in available credit/cash within the banking system.  Of course these two entities didn't have anything to do with the eventual sale of these mortgage backed securities and packaging in wall-street in order to "pool the risk".  I'm pretty sure that Barney and Maxine had nothing to do with the "nothing to see here" crowd.  You know....Bush did it, is always the best answer in Beems mind.  However, it actually makes him look like an idiot.  Bush played his part, for sure, and was never conservative enough fiscally to make a positive impact on the economy.  But to place sole blame on Bush shows incompetence when it comes to critical thinking.

[OregonSmock]

Yet the level of debt and deficits accelerated at an unprecedented pace during Democratic Control of Congress . . . a Congress that included the current president.

It's called a "Stimulus Package."  Governments spend money in order to revitalize the economy and increase confidence in consumers. 

Educate yourself, Keynesian.
Make sure it sinks in.

What did you need help with?


 

[OregonSmock]

Yet the level of debt and deficits accelerated at an unprecedented pace during Democratic Control of Congress . . . a Congress that included the current president.

It's called a "Stimulus Package."  Governments spend money in order to revitalize the economy and increase confidence in consumers. 

Educate yourself, Keynesian.
Make sure it sinks in.

I'm sure he's all for QE3 and QE4 as printing money is always going to work (like QE1 and QE2 did/doing) and never lead to inflation.  Way to go FED!  Fannie and Freddie are probably unknown entities to Beems as well and did not have anything to do with the drastic increase then fall of the real estate prices and didn't have anything to do with the eventual decline in available credit/cash within the banking system.  Of course these two entities didn't have anything to do with the eventual sale of these mortgage backed securities and packaging in wall-street in order to "pool the risk".  I'm pretty sure that Barney and Maxine had nothing to do with the "nothing to see here" crowd.  You know....Bush did it, is always the best answer in Beems mind.  However, it actually makes him look like an idiot.  Bush played his part, for sure, and was never conservative enough fiscally to make a positive impact on the economy.  But to place sole blame on Bush shows incompetence when it comes to critical thinking.

All I said was that Bush's fiscal policy, along with two different wars, contributed to the recession.  That's simply a fact.  It's not up for debate.   

[EllToPay]

Yet the level of debt and deficits accelerated at an unprecedented pace during Democratic Control of Congress . . . a Congress that included the current president.

It's called a "Stimulus Package."  Governments spend money in order to revitalize the economy and increase confidence in consumers. 

Educate yourself, Keynesian.
Make sure it sinks in.

I'm sure he's all for QE3 and QE4 as printing money is always going to work (like QE1 and QE2 did/doing) and never lead to inflation.  Way to go FED!  Fannie and Freddie are probably unknown entities to Beems as well and did not have anything to do with the drastic increase then fall of the real estate prices and didn't have anything to do with the eventual decline in available credit/cash within the banking system.  Of course these two entities didn't have anything to do with the eventual sale of these mortgage backed securities and packaging in wall-street in order to "pool the risk".  I'm pretty sure that Barney and Maxine had nothing to do with the "nothing to see here" crowd.  You know....Bush did it, is always the best answer in Beems mind.  However, it actually makes him look like an idiot.  Bush played his part, for sure, and was never conservative enough fiscally to make a positive impact on the economy.  But to place sole blame on Bush shows incompetence when it comes to critical thinking.

All I said was that Bush's fiscal policy, along with two different wars, contributed to the recession.  That's simply a fact.  It's not up for debate.   

Yes, it is.

[OregonSmock]

Yet the level of debt and deficits accelerated at an unprecedented pace during Democratic Control of Congress . . . a Congress that included the current president.

It's called a "Stimulus Package."  Governments spend money in order to revitalize the economy and increase confidence in consumers. 

Educate yourself, Keynesian.
Make sure it sinks in.

I'm sure he's all for QE3 and QE4 as printing money is always going to work (like QE1 and QE2 did/doing) and never lead to inflation.  Way to go FED!  Fannie and Freddie are probably unknown entities to Beems as well and did not have anything to do with the drastic increase then fall of the real estate prices and didn't have anything to do with the eventual decline in available credit/cash within the banking system.  Of course these two entities didn't have anything to do with the eventual sale of these mortgage backed securities and packaging in wall-street in order to "pool the risk".  I'm pretty sure that Barney and Maxine had nothing to do with the "nothing to see here" crowd.  You know....Bush did it, is always the best answer in Beems mind.  However, it actually makes him look like an idiot.  Bush played his part, for sure, and was never conservative enough fiscally to make a positive impact on the economy.  But to place sole blame on Bush shows incompetence when it comes to critical thinking.

All I said was that Bush's fiscal policy, along with two different wars, contributed to the recession.  That's simply a fact.  It's not up for debate.   

Yes, it is.

No, it's not.  Ask any economist in the world, and they'll show you exactly why cutting taxes during a recession is a bad idea. 

[EllToPay]

Yet the level of debt and deficits accelerated at an unprecedented pace during Democratic Control of Congress . . . a Congress that included the current president.

It's called a "Stimulus Package."  Governments spend money in order to revitalize the economy and increase confidence in consumers. 

Educate yourself, Keynesian.
Make sure it sinks in.

I'm sure he's all for QE3 and QE4 as printing money is always going to work (like QE1 and QE2 did/doing) and never lead to inflation.  Way to go FED!  Fannie and Freddie are probably unknown entities to Beems as well and did not have anything to do with the drastic increase then fall of the real estate prices and didn't have anything to do with the eventual decline in available credit/cash within the banking system.  Of course these two entities didn't have anything to do with the eventual sale of these mortgage backed securities and packaging in wall-street in order to "pool the risk".  I'm pretty sure that Barney and Maxine had nothing to do with the "nothing to see here" crowd.  You know....Bush did it, is always the best answer in Beems mind.  However, it actually makes him look like an idiot.  Bush played his part, for sure, and was never conservative enough fiscally to make a positive impact on the economy.  But to place sole blame on Bush shows incompetence when it comes to critical thinking.

All I said was that Bush's fiscal policy, along with two different wars, contributed to the recession.  That's simply a fact.  It's not up for debate.   

Yes, it is.

No, it's not.  Ask any economist in the world, and they'll show you exactly why cutting taxes during a recession is a bad idea. 

I guess you're right. I wish our President had access to an economist in the White House. Too bad he doesn't have that luxury.

[Dirty Sanchez]

Yet the level of debt and deficits accelerated at an unprecedented pace during Democratic Control of Congress . . . a Congress that included the current president.

It's called a "Stimulus Package."  Governments spend money in order to revitalize the economy and increase confidence in consumers. 

Educate yourself, Keynesian.
Make sure it sinks in.

I'm sure he's all for QE3 and QE4 as printing money is always going to work (like QE1 and QE2 did/doing) and never lead to inflation.  Way to go FED!  Fannie and Freddie are probably unknown entities to Beems as well and did not have anything to do with the drastic increase then fall of the real estate prices and didn't have anything to do with the eventual decline in available credit/cash within the banking system.  Of course these two entities didn't have anything to do with the eventual sale of these mortgage backed securities and packaging in wall-street in order to "pool the risk".  I'm pretty sure that Barney and Maxine had nothing to do with the "nothing to see here" crowd.  You know....Bush did it, is always the best answer in Beems mind.  However, it actually makes him look like an idiot.  Bush played his part, for sure, and was never conservative enough fiscally to make a positive impact on the economy.  But to place sole blame on Bush shows incompetence when it comes to critical thinking.

All I said was that Bush's fiscal policy, along with two different wars, contributed to the recession.  That's simply a fact.  It's not up for debate.   

Yes, it is.

No, it's not.  Ask any economist in the world, and they'll show you exactly why cutting taxes during a recession is a bad idea. 

I guess you're right. I wish our President had access to an economist in the White House. Too bad he doesn't have that luxury.

economists, not idealogues posing as economists.

[OregonSmock]

Yet the level of debt and deficits accelerated at an unprecedented pace during Democratic Control of Congress . . . a Congress that included the current president.

It's called a "Stimulus Package."  Governments spend money in order to revitalize the economy and increase confidence in consumers. 

Educate yourself, Keynesian.
Make sure it sinks in.

I'm sure he's all for QE3 and QE4 as printing money is always going to work (like QE1 and QE2 did/doing) and never lead to inflation.  Way to go FED!  Fannie and Freddie are probably unknown entities to Beems as well and did not have anything to do with the drastic increase then fall of the real estate prices and didn't have anything to do with the eventual decline in available credit/cash within the banking system.  Of course these two entities didn't have anything to do with the eventual sale of these mortgage backed securities and packaging in wall-street in order to "pool the risk".  I'm pretty sure that Barney and Maxine had nothing to do with the "nothing to see here" crowd.  You know....Bush did it, is always the best answer in Beems mind.  However, it actually makes him look like an idiot.  Bush played his part, for sure, and was never conservative enough fiscally to make a positive impact on the economy.  But to place sole blame on Bush shows incompetence when it comes to critical thinking.

All I said was that Bush's fiscal policy, along with two different wars, contributed to the recession.  That's simply a fact.  It's not up for debate.   

Yes, it is.

No, it's not.  Ask any economist in the world, and they'll show you exactly why cutting taxes during a recession is a bad idea. 

I guess you're right. I wish our President had access to an economist in the White House. Too bad he doesn't have that luxury.

Do you understand the difference between fiscal policy and monetary policy?     

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Yet the level of debt and deficits accelerated at an unprecedented pace during Democratic Control of Congress . . . a Congress that included the current president.

It's called a "Stimulus Package."  Governments spend money in order to revitalize the economy and increase confidence in consumers. 

Educate yourself, Keynesian.
Make sure it sinks in.

I'm sure he's all for QE3 and QE4 as printing money is always going to work (like QE1 and QE2 did/doing) and never lead to inflation.  Way to go FED!  Fannie and Freddie are probably unknown entities to Beems as well and did not have anything to do with the drastic increase then fall of the real estate prices and didn't have anything to do with the eventual decline in available credit/cash within the banking system.  Of course these two entities didn't have anything to do with the eventual sale of these mortgage backed securities and packaging in wall-street in order to "pool the risk".  I'm pretty sure that Barney and Maxine had nothing to do with the "nothing to see here" crowd.  You know....Bush did it, is always the best answer in Beems mind.  However, it actually makes him look like an idiot.  Bush played his part, for sure, and was never conservative enough fiscally to make a positive impact on the economy.  But to place sole blame on Bush shows incompetence when it comes to critical thinking.

All I said was that Bush's fiscal policy, along with two different wars, contributed to the recession.  That's simply a fact.  It's not up for debate.   

Yes, it is.

No, it's not.  Ask any economist in the world, and they'll show you exactly why cutting taxes during a recession is a bad idea. 

Obama cut taxes in a recession

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

BMW, please stop.  I can't believe you are serious, because all you have done is post the exact opposite of what is actually a fact.

I have come to the following conclusion:  You are either a) playing your usual jedi mind tricks, or b) so uneducated on these matters that you actually don't know how ridiculous everything you're posting is.

Whichever it is, please stop.  You are severely damaging the perceived value of a ku education, for yourself and all other graduates.  You don't want to do that do you?

TIA, your pal,

Sugar Dick

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Yet the level of debt and deficits accelerated at an unprecedented pace during Democratic Control of Congress . . . a Congress that included the current president.

It's called a "Stimulus Package."  Governments spend money in order to revitalize the economy and increase confidence in consumers. 

Educate yourself, Keynesian.
Make sure it sinks in.

Wow, those are fabulous. 

[EllToPay]

Yet the level of debt and deficits accelerated at an unprecedented pace during Democratic Control of Congress . . . a Congress that included the current president.

It's called a "Stimulus Package."  Governments spend money in order to revitalize the economy and increase confidence in consumers. 

Educate yourself, Keynesian.
Make sure it sinks in.

I'm sure he's all for QE3 and QE4 as printing money is always going to work (like QE1 and QE2 did/doing) and never lead to inflation.  Way to go FED!  Fannie and Freddie are probably unknown entities to Beems as well and did not have anything to do with the drastic increase then fall of the real estate prices and didn't have anything to do with the eventual decline in available credit/cash within the banking system.  Of course these two entities didn't have anything to do with the eventual sale of these mortgage backed securities and packaging in wall-street in order to "pool the risk".  I'm pretty sure that Barney and Maxine had nothing to do with the "nothing to see here" crowd.  You know....Bush did it, is always the best answer in Beems mind.  However, it actually makes him look like an idiot.  Bush played his part, for sure, and was never conservative enough fiscally to make a positive impact on the economy.  But to place sole blame on Bush shows incompetence when it comes to critical thinking.

All I said was that Bush's fiscal policy, along with two different wars, contributed to the recession.  That's simply a fact.  It's not up for debate.   

Yes, it is.

No, it's not.  Ask any economist in the world, and they'll show you exactly why cutting taxes during a recession is a bad idea. 

I guess you're right. I wish our President had access to an economist in the White House. Too bad he doesn't have that luxury.

Do you understand the difference between fiscal policy and monetary policy?     

Don't be a dumbass.

[OregonSmock]

Yet the level of debt and deficits accelerated at an unprecedented pace during Democratic Control of Congress . . . a Congress that included the current president.

It's called a "Stimulus Package."  Governments spend money in order to revitalize the economy and increase confidence in consumers.  

Educate yourself, Keynesian.
Make sure it sinks in.

I'm sure he's all for QE3 and QE4 as printing money is always going to work (like QE1 and QE2 did/doing) and never lead to inflation.  Way to go FED!  Fannie and Freddie are probably unknown entities to Beems as well and did not have anything to do with the drastic increase then fall of the real estate prices and didn't have anything to do with the eventual decline in available credit/cash within the banking system.  Of course these two entities didn't have anything to do with the eventual sale of these mortgage backed securities and packaging in wall-street in order to "pool the risk".  I'm pretty sure that Barney and Maxine had nothing to do with the "nothing to see here" crowd.  You know....Bush did it, is always the best answer in Beems mind.  However, it actually makes him look like an idiot.  Bush played his part, for sure, and was never conservative enough fiscally to make a positive impact on the economy.  But to place sole blame on Bush shows incompetence when it comes to critical thinking.

All I said was that Bush's fiscal policy, along with two different wars, contributed to the recession.  That's simply a fact.  It's not up for debate.  

Yes, it is.

No, it's not.  Ask any economist in the world, and they'll show you exactly why cutting taxes during a recession is a bad idea.  

Obama cut taxes in a recession

We're no longer in the heart of the recession, and the main reason why President Obama extended the Bush tax cuts was to show that he's willing to compromise with the Republicans.

[OregonSmock]

Sugar Dick, I'll make it really simple for you, since you're the epitome of a mouth-breathing right wing dumbass. 


1.  Governments generate revenue through taxes.

2.  In order to decrease the national budget deficit, governments must bring in more revenue than what they're spending.

3.  When you add two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the government budget, and you decrease taxes (on the top 2%), spending starts to out-pace revenue exponentially. 

4.  That's the main reason why the United States' budget deficit went from $144.5 billion (1.4% of GDP) in 2001 to $962 billion (6.8% of GDP) in 2008. 


You can read more about this here:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration


There's your lesson for the day.  You can thank me later. 


 

[pike]

Sugar Dick, I'll make it really simple for you, since you're the epitome of a mouth-breathing right wing dumbass. 


1.  Governments generate revenue through taxes.

2.  In order to decrease the national budget deficit, governments must bring in more revenue than what they're spending.

3.  When you add two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the government budget, and you decrease taxes (on the top 2%), spending starts to out-pace revenue exponentially. 

4.  That's the main reason why the United States' budget deficit went from $144.5 billion (1.4% of GDP) in 2001 to $962 billion (6.8% of GDP) in 2008. 


You can read more about this here:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration


There's your lesson for the day.  You can thank me later. 


 

Ron Paul, 2012

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Yet the level of debt and deficits accelerated at an unprecedented pace during Democratic Control of Congress . . . a Congress that included the current president.

It's called a "Stimulus Package."  Governments spend money in order to revitalize the economy and increase confidence in consumers.  

Educate yourself, Keynesian.
Make sure it sinks in.

I'm sure he's all for QE3 and QE4 as printing money is always going to work (like QE1 and QE2 did/doing) and never lead to inflation.  Way to go FED!  Fannie and Freddie are probably unknown entities to Beems as well and did not have anything to do with the drastic increase then fall of the real estate prices and didn't have anything to do with the eventual decline in available credit/cash within the banking system.  Of course these two entities didn't have anything to do with the eventual sale of these mortgage backed securities and packaging in wall-street in order to "pool the risk".  I'm pretty sure that Barney and Maxine had nothing to do with the "nothing to see here" crowd.  You know....Bush did it, is always the best answer in Beems mind.  However, it actually makes him look like an idiot.  Bush played his part, for sure, and was never conservative enough fiscally to make a positive impact on the economy.  But to place sole blame on Bush shows incompetence when it comes to critical thinking.

All I said was that Bush's fiscal policy, along with two different wars, contributed to the recession.  That's simply a fact.  It's not up for debate.  

Yes, it is.

No, it's not.  Ask any economist in the world, and they'll show you exactly why cutting taxes during a recession is a bad idea.  

Obama cut taxes in a recession

We're no longer in the heart of the recession, and the main reason why President Obama extended the Bush tax cuts was to show that he's willing to compromise with the Republicans.

Oh no, he cut taxes AND extended Bush era tax cuts.  He's reminded us about 50,000 times that he cut taxes for the "middle class".  There's the "making work pay" credit, expanding the child tax credit, a savings credit, and on and on.  He did this all with a majorities in both houses and a supermajority in the Senate for a good part of the time.  It's as close to unilateral partisan action as this country has seen in a long time.  The repubs actually had no control over the policy implemented for a good period of time.  These are the facts you must deal with.

You have no excuse.  You know nothing of fiscal or monetary or economic policy.  You are a sophomoric parrotting lib.  You hear and you regurgitate.  You are probably this way because your 10th grade civics teacher told you that you were smart for agreeing with everything he said.  You are incapable of independent thought.  You are a democrat.

[Dirty Sanchez]

Sugar Dick, I'll make it really simple for you, since you're the epitome of a mouth-breathing right wing dumbass. 


1.  Governments generate revenue through taxes.

2.  In order to decrease the national budget deficit, governments must bring in more revenue than what they're spending.

3.  When you add two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the government budget, and you decrease taxes (on the top 2%), spending starts to out-pace revenue exponentially. 

4.  That's the main reason why the United States' budget deficit went from $144.5 billion (1.4% of GDP) in 2001 to $962 billion (6.8% of GDP) in 2008. 


You can read more about this here:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration


There's your lesson for the day.  You can thank me later. 


 

Ron Paul, 2012

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Sugar Dick, I'll make it really simple for you, since you're the epitome of a mouth-breathing right wing dumbass.  


1.  Governments generate revenue through taxes.

2.  In order to decrease the national budget deficit, governments must bring in more revenue than what they're spending.

3.  When you add two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the government budget, and you decrease taxes (on the top 2%), spending starts to out-pace revenue exponentially.  

4.  That's the main reason why the United States' budget deficit went from $144.5 billion (1.4% of GDP) in 2001 to $962 billion (6.8% of GDP) in 2008.  


You can read more about this here:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration


There's your lesson for the day.  You can thank me later.  


 

What's the deficit this year?  How about last year?  I thought you were a keynesian, shouldn't all this spending be driving the economy into a furious boom?  What percent of the budget is entitlement spending?  Who takes credit for all the entitlement spending?  Weren't you in favor of the war in Afganistan?

If cutting taxes reduces tax revenues, explain this graph



You probably can't, because you won't be able to understand it in the first place, and even if you could you won't be able to make sense of it because you know nothing of tax policy, so you won't know which dates to look at.  Regardless, your too stupid to understand anything other than the marginal rate.  Nevermind actual revenue.

/thread

[OregonSmock]

Yet the level of debt and deficits accelerated at an unprecedented pace during Democratic Control of Congress . . . a Congress that included the current president.

It's called a "Stimulus Package."  Governments spend money in order to revitalize the economy and increase confidence in consumers.  

Educate yourself, Keynesian.
Make sure it sinks in.

I'm sure he's all for QE3 and QE4 as printing money is always going to work (like QE1 and QE2 did/doing) and never lead to inflation.  Way to go FED!  Fannie and Freddie are probably unknown entities to Beems as well and did not have anything to do with the drastic increase then fall of the real estate prices and didn't have anything to do with the eventual decline in available credit/cash within the banking system.  Of course these two entities didn't have anything to do with the eventual sale of these mortgage backed securities and packaging in wall-street in order to "pool the risk".  I'm pretty sure that Barney and Maxine had nothing to do with the "nothing to see here" crowd.  You know....Bush did it, is always the best answer in Beems mind.  However, it actually makes him look like an idiot.  Bush played his part, for sure, and was never conservative enough fiscally to make a positive impact on the economy.  But to place sole blame on Bush shows incompetence when it comes to critical thinking.

All I said was that Bush's fiscal policy, along with two different wars, contributed to the recession.  That's simply a fact.  It's not up for debate.  

Yes, it is.

No, it's not.  Ask any economist in the world, and they'll show you exactly why cutting taxes during a recession is a bad idea.  

Obama cut taxes in a recession

We're no longer in the heart of the recession, and the main reason why President Obama extended the Bush tax cuts was to show that he's willing to compromise with the Republicans.

Oh no, he cut taxes AND extended Bush era tax cuts.  He's reminded us about 50,000 times that he cut taxes for the "middle class".  There's the "making work pay" credit, expanding the child tax credit, a savings credit, and on and on.  He did this all with a majorities in both houses and a supermajority in the Senate for a good part of the time.  It's as close to unilateral partisan action as this country has seen in a long time.  The repubs actually had no control over the policy implemented for a good period of time.  These are the facts you must deal with.

You have no excuse.  You know nothing of fiscal or monetary or economic policy.  You are a sophomoric parrotting lib.  You hear and you regurgitate.  You are probably this way because your 10th grade civics teacher told you that you were smart for agreeing with everything he said.  You are incapable of independent thought.  You are a democrat.

Middle class tax cuts created the largest budget surplus in United States history during the Clinton administration.  You are nothing more than a scum of the Earth, pig-faced c*nt, and if you need proof look no further than your username/signature.  95% of this board hates you, with the exception of fellow mouth-breathers jeffy and Dirty Sanchez.

[jtksu]

Sniff, sniff.  I smell an account deletion.

[OregonSmock]

Sniff, sniff.  I smell an account deletion.

Account deletion?  I just owned Sugar Dick like a $2 whore.  By the way, everyone on this board hates you as well.

[jtksu]

I think it's especially sad that you get some sort of feeling of self worth based on what internet people think of you.  The NW was probably not a great place to move for you as the suicide rate is especially high there.  Oh, and sugar dick has made you look like a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) for this entire thread.  So much so that you were forced to resort to personal insults.