What happens when you raise taxes on the rich?

[Read what Frederic Bastiat wrote.]

http://i50.tinypic.com/23sgn0z.jpg

[mg]

On Nov 19, 10:44 am, "Read what Frederic Bastiat wrote."
<johnnaishwer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://i50.tinypic.com/23sgn0z.jpg

What happens when you start two wars and don't pay for them?

What happens when you cut taxes and don't pay for them?

What happens when you pass a new drug program and don't pay for it?

[Mulligan]

What happens when you don't turn a camera off GOD commanded you to?

[Hell Stomper]

On Nov 19, 10:18 pm, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 19, 10:44 am, "Read what Frederic Bastiat wrote."
>
> <johnnaishwer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >http://i50.tinypic.com/23sgn0z.jpg
>
> What happens when you start two wars and don't pay for them?

What happens if you don't? You idiots act like 9/11 didn't happen.

>
> What happens when you cut taxes and don't pay for them?

That makes no sense at all.

>
> What happens when you pass a new drug program and don't pay for it?

So now you're COMPLAINING about entitlement spending?

[sully]

On Nov 19, 9:25 pm, Hell Stomper <stardusth...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 19, 10:18 pm, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Nov 19, 10:44 am, "Read what Frederic Bastiat wrote."
>
> > <johnnaishwer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >http://i50.tinypic.com/23sgn0z.jpg
>
> > What happens when you start two wars and don't pay for them?
>
> What happens if you don't?  You idiots act like 9/11 didn't happen.

1. this moron thinks Iraq was responsible for 9-11 and had WMDs.
2. this moron, like most right wingers, can't read.
Why didn't you want to pay for those wars?

>
> > What happens when you pass a new drug program and don't pay for it?
>
> So now you're COMPLAINING about entitlement spending?

The right wing loves entitlement spending, they just don't
want to pay for it. No complaints from the moron wing
about Bush's entitlement spending.

[FirstPost]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 23:40:49 -0800 (PST), sully <suls...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Nov 19, 9:25 pm, Hell Stomper <stardusth...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 19, 10:18 pm, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Nov 19, 10:44 am, "Read what Frederic Bastiat wrote."
>>
>> > <johnnaishwer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > >http://i50.tinypic.com/23sgn0z.jpg
>>
>> > What happens when you start two wars and don't pay for them?
>>
>> What happens if you don't?  You idiots act like 9/11 didn't happen.
>
>1. this moron thinks Iraq was responsible for 9-11 and had WMDs.
>2. this moron, like most right wingers, can't read.
>Why didn't you want to pay for those wars?

They were paid for you fucking idiot.

Liberalism: To stupidly believe that taxes only pay for one thing at
a time.

>
>
>
>>
>> > What happens when you pass a new drug program and don't pay for it?
>>
>> So now you're COMPLAINING about entitlement spending?
>
>The right wing loves entitlement spending, they just don't
>want to pay for it. No complaints from the moron wing
>about Bush's entitlement spending.

That's not whaty they said liar.
It really must suck to be such a brain dead liberal sycophant that you
can't make any kind of argument without lying through your teeth.

What entitlement spending has Bush levied in the last four year
dumbfuck.
Apparently you're too stupid to even know who the president is.
People did complain about every liberal spending bill that Bush signed
in his efforts to be bipartisan.
Dumbassed morons like you were too busy bitching and whinning about
the "ridiculously high 5% unemployment rate" like a bunch of retarded
idiots to notice.

[John Manning]

On 11/20/2012 11:08 AM, FirstPost wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 23:40:49 -0800 (PST), sully <suls...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 19, 9:25 pm, Hell Stomper <stardusth...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 19, 10:18 pm, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Nov 19, 10:44 am, "Read what Frederic Bastiat wrote."
>>>
>>>> <johnnaishwer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> http://i50.tinypic.com/23sgn0z.jpg
>>>
>>>> What happens when you start two wars and don't pay for them?
>>>
>>> What happens if you don't? You idiots act like 9/11 didn't happen.
>>
>> 1. this moron thinks Iraq was responsible for 9-11 and had WMDs.
>> 2. this moron, like most right wingers, can't read.
>> Why didn't you want to pay for those wars?
>
> They were paid for you fucking idiot.

Get your head out of your ass you halfwit FOX ass-licker.


A brief history for the benefit of those who get their nooze from Faux.

Clinton handed over a surplus, which Gore vowed to continue
to use against inevitable emergencies. Bush said the money
belonged to the people and he was going to return it (mostly to
the very rich) in the form of huge tax cuts.

His reasoning was that if there were no surplus, then
government spending would have to be restrained.

Fine.

THEN, he proceeded to involve us in two wars and an expensive
handout to Big Pharma, all without raising taxes to pay for any of it.

His Republicans also banned bulk-rate discounts for Medicare,
meaning more in the pockets of Big Pharma.

They also banned discounts that drug companies freely give to
every country with single payer health care, and they get it for
ALL of their governmental purchases.

That is why drugs are so much cheaper in Canada than they are here.

And Obama was stuck with the procedures that Bush set in motion,
and by the time the tax cap was set to expire, we had
Republicans holding the House, and refusing to tax anybody and
blaming Obama for the results of the stalemate.

It sickens me to hear the results of the thorough of seemingly decent
people about the *REAL* causes of the deficit and the reluctance to do
anything to fix it besides cutting our social safety nets...

~~ Mary Jean Mayer Golden
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/letters/mountain-of-debt-656892/

[FirstPost]

On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:19:49 -0200, John Manning
<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:

>On 11/20/2012 11:08 AM, FirstPost wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 23:40:49 -0800 (PST), sully <suls...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 19, 9:25 pm, Hell Stomper <stardusth...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 19, 10:18 pm, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Nov 19, 10:44 am, "Read what Frederic Bastiat wrote."
>>>>
>>>>> <johnnaishwer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> http://i50.tinypic.com/23sgn0z.jpg
>>>>
>>>>> What happens when you start two wars and don't pay for them?
>>>>
>>>> What happens if you don't? You idiots act like 9/11 didn't happen.
>>>
>>> 1. this moron thinks Iraq was responsible for 9-11 and had WMDs.
>>> 2. this moron, like most right wingers, can't read.
>>> Why didn't you want to pay for those wars?
>>
>> They were paid for you fucking idiot.
>
>
>Get your head out of your ass you halfwit FOX ass-licker.
>
>

Go back to blowing your brother dumbfuck liberal retard.

You made a fucking assinine statement you can't back up so you go off
tangent on a rant about Clinton's surplus (even though the national
debt continued to climb during his entire presidency).
Name an individual who ever said they didn't want to pay for anything
you lying retard.
Not wanting to be gouged by ever rising taxes is not the same as not
wanting to pay for necessities.
But sine you have no real argument you have to lie about it.
Fucking stupid assed liberal dumbfuck.




><remaining conjecture and libertal garbage that doesn't address the "wars not paid for"
><statement snipped.>

[John Manning]

On 11/20/2012 11:08 AM, FirstPost wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 23:40:49 -0800 (PST), sully <suls...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 19, 9:25 pm, Hell Stomper <stardusth...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 19, 10:18 pm, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Nov 19, 10:44 am, "Read what Frederic Bastiat wrote."
>>>
>>>> <johnnaishwer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> http://i50.tinypic.com/23sgn0z.jpg
>>>
>>>> What happens when you start two wars and don't pay for them?
>>>
>>> What happens if you don't? You idiots act like 9/11 didn't happen.
>>
>> 1. this moron thinks Iraq was responsible for 9-11 and had WMDs.
>> 2. this moron, like most right wingers, can't read.
>> Why didn't you want to pay for those wars?
>
> They were paid for you fucking idiot.
>
> Liberalism: To stupidly believe that taxes only pay for one thing at
> a time.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> What happens when you pass a new drug program and don't pay for it?
>>>
>>> So now you're COMPLAINING about entitlement spending?
>>
>> The right wing loves entitlement spending, they just don't
>> want to pay for it. No complaints from the moron wing
>> about Bush's entitlement spending.
>
> That's not whaty they said liar.
> It really must suck to be such a brain dead liberal sycophant that you
> can't make any kind of argument without lying through your teeth.

You can now join with the other knuckle-dragger fringe losers,
freaks, deviants and wackos in my kill-file. Have a nice day.
Bye.

'plonk'

[Salty Stan]

On Nov 19, 10:18 pm, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Nov 19, 10:44 am, "Read what Frederic Bastiat wrote."
>
> <johnnaishwer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >http://i50.tinypic.com/23sgn0z.jpg
>
> What happens when you start two wars and don't pay for them?

Wars that Obama continued?

Didn't Obama's failed "stimulus" package cost MORE than the Iraqi war?

>
> What happens when you cut taxes and don't pay for them?

When the tax cuts stimulate the economy to the point that the
government brings in more revenue - then the tax cuts pay for
themselves.

>
> What happens when you pass a new drug program and don't pay for it?

You learn to stop heaping on new entitlement programs.

[wy]

On Nov 20, 2:20 pm, Salty Stan <wsjames...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 19, 10:18 pm, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 19, 10:44 am, "Read what Frederic Bastiat wrote."
>
> > <johnnaishwer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >http://i50.tinypic.com/23sgn0z.jpg
>
> > What happens when you start two wars and don't pay for them?
>
> Wars that Obama continued?

Which he ended one and has begun winding down the other.

>
> Didn't Obama's failed "stimulus" package cost MORE than the Iraqi war?

No. Upfront it cost $800 billion, $28 billion more than the stimulus,
but you'll still be paying for the war, and will be for another 40
years - up to $4 trillion.

http://articles.marketwatch.com/2011-12-15/general/30778140_1_iraq-war-iraq-and-afghanistan-veterans-budgetary-assessments

http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/default.aspx

Thank Bush for starting it all.

> > What happens when you cut taxes and don't pay for them?
>
> When the tax cuts stimulate the economy to the point that the
> government brings in more revenue - then the tax cuts pay for
> themselves.

Doesn't seem to have worked yet. How long have the Bush cuts been in
place now?

> > What happens when you pass a new drug program and don't pay for it?
>
> You learn to stop heaping on new entitlement programs.

But tax cuts for the rich aren't entitlements? Yeah, okay, I get it.

[jane]

On Nov 20, 3:36 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
> On Nov 20, 2:20 pm, Salty Stan <wsjames...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 19, 10:18 pm, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 19, 10:44 am, "Read what Frederic Bastiat wrote."
>
> > > <johnnaishwer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >http://i50.tinypic.com/23sgn0z.jpg
>
> > > What happens when you start two wars and don't pay for them?
>
> > Wars that Obama continued?
>
> Which he ended one and has begun winding down the other.
>
>
>
> > Didn't Obama's failed "stimulus" package cost MORE than the Iraqi war?
>
> No.  Upfront it cost $800 billion, $28 billion more than the stimulus,
> but you'll still be paying for the war, and will be for another 40
> years - up to $4 trillion.
>

> http://articles.marketwatch.com/2011-12-15/general/30778140_1_iraq-wa...

>
> http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/default.aspx
>
> Thank Bush for starting it all.
>
> > > What happens when you cut taxes and don't pay for them?
>
> > When the tax cuts stimulate the economy to the point that the
> > government brings in more revenue - then the tax cuts pay for
> > themselves.
>
> Doesn't seem to have worked yet.  How long have the Bush cuts been in
> place now?
>
> > > What happens when you pass a new drug program and don't pay for it?
>
> > You learn to stop heaping on new entitlement programs.
>
> But tax cuts for the rich aren't entitlements?  Yeah, okay, I get it.

An entitlement is something that you are actually entitled to, such as
insurance benefits from one of the government insurance programs
(Social Security, Medicare, Disability) or a government pension/
retirement plan.

[wy]

That's just stupid semantics only right wingnuts play. Rich people
getting Bush tax cuts is an entitlement. They're given it and they're
entitled to take what they're given, just as the 98% are given it and
are entitled to take what's given to them. What, you think they'd
actually refuse it?

Entitlement:

1
a : the state or condition of being entitled : right
b : a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract

2
government program providing benefits to members of a specified group;
also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program

3
belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges

Example of ENTITLEMENT

my entitlement to a refund (or, my entitlement to a Bush tax cut)

[Christopher Helms]

On Nov 19, 11:44 am, "Read what Frederic Bastiat wrote."
<johnnaishwer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://i50.tinypic.com/23sgn0z.jpg


How many people are employed by Rush Limbaugh's bank account? And how
many people will be laid off if his taxes go up? How many jobs will be
created in Nebraska and Maine if his taxes get cut or eliminated? Will
more Americans be able to afford new cars if Bush's tax cuts become
permanent? How about new homes? Will employers be more generous with
raises?

Of course not. You cannot grow the economy from the tippy-top down,
and you cannot create wealthy people while angrily assaulting anything
that even smells like middle class prosperity. Republicans refuse to
admit that widespread demand for goods and services, and the
widespread means to purchase those goods and services, is what drives
the economy. They continue to insist that it's the greedy whims of a
tiny fraction of the fabulously well heeled, who already have
everything they could possibly want anyway, that makes everything
work. It's not fifty million people wanting things like new houses,
cars and flat screen TV sets and having the financial means to buy
them that makes the economy work; No. It's cutting Dick Cheney's taxes
again which, by some mysterious, never explained osmosis, somehow
makes everybody richer, as though the next round of tax cuts will
result in the equivalent of Superdick standing at a high balcony
dressed like Santa Claus, tossing free money out to the teeming
masses. As silly as that sounds, in so many words that's exactly what
the GOP has been telling people for the last 40 years. And as the
results of the last presidential election prove, millions of them are
still buying it.

[Christopher Helms]

On Nov 20, 2:36 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
> On Nov 20, 2:20 pm, Salty Stan <wsjames...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 19, 10:18 pm, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 19, 10:44 am, "Read what Frederic Bastiat wrote."
>
> > > <johnnaishwer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >http://i50.tinypic.com/23sgn0z.jpg
>
> > > What happens when you start two wars and don't pay for them?
>
> > Wars that Obama continued?
>
> Which he ended one and has begun winding down the other.
>
>
>
> > Didn't Obama's failed "stimulus" package cost MORE than the Iraqi war?
>
> No.  Upfront it cost $800 billion, $28 billion more than the stimulus,
> but you'll still be paying for the war, and will be for another 40
> years - up to $4 trillion.
>

> http://articles.marketwatch.com/2011-12-15/general/30778140_1_iraq-wa...

>
> http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/default.aspx
>
> Thank Bush for starting it all.
>
> > > What happens when you cut taxes and don't pay for them?
>
> > When the tax cuts stimulate the economy to the point that the
> > government brings in more revenue - then the tax cuts pay for
> > themselves.
>
> Doesn't seem to have worked yet.  How long have the Bush cuts been in
> place now?
>
> > > What happens when you pass a new drug program and don't pay for it?
>
> > You learn to stop heaping on new entitlement programs.
>
> But tax cuts for the rich aren't entitlements?  Yeah, okay, I get it.

The rich have certainly come to view them as an entitlement.

[Salty Stan]

On Nov 20, 3:36 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
> On Nov 20, 2:20 pm, Salty Stan <wsjames...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 19, 10:18 pm, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 19, 10:44 am, "Read what Frederic Bastiat wrote."
>
> > > <johnnaishwer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >http://i50.tinypic.com/23sgn0z.jpg
>
> > > What happens when you start two wars and don't pay for them?
>
> > Wars that Obama continued?
>
> Which he ended one and has begun winding down the other.

He's been in office for 4 years...

>
>
>
> > Didn't Obama's failed "stimulus" package cost MORE than the Iraqi war?
>
> No.  Upfront it cost $800 billion, $28 billion more than the stimulus,
> but you'll still be paying for the war, and will be for another 40
> years - up to $4 trillion.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Iraq War cost $709
billion. When the Democrats also took over the White House, they
immediately passed an $814-billion "stimulus."

The sum of all the deficits from 2003 through 2010 is $4.73 trillion.
Subtract the entire Iraq War cost and you still have a sum of $4.02
trillion. The cost of the Iraqi war is comparatively minor in contrast
to Obama's $16 trillion debt.



>
> http://articles.marketwatch.com/2011-12-15/general/30778140_1_iraq-wa...

>
> http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/default.aspx
>
> Thank Bush for starting it all.
>
> > > What happens when you cut taxes and don't pay for them?
>
> > When the tax cuts stimulate the economy to the point that the
> > government brings in more revenue - then the tax cuts pay for
> > themselves.
>
> Doesn't seem to have worked yet.  How long have the Bush cuts been in
> place now?

Actually it did - government revenues went up (yes, up) after the tax
cuts, in fact government revenue hit a record high under Bush - just
before the Democrats took over Congress.

>
> > > What happens when you pass a new drug program and don't pay for it?
>
> > You learn to stop heaping on new entitlement programs.
>
> But tax cuts for the rich aren't entitlements?  Yeah, okay, I get it.

That's right - they aren't.


Well, sorry to trump you so badly in public - but I have an advantage.
I watch Fox news and listen to talk radio.

[wy]

On Nov 20, 5:03 pm, Salty Stan <wsjames...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 20, 3:36 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 20, 2:20 pm, Salty Stan <wsjames...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 19, 10:18 pm, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 19, 10:44 am, "Read what Frederic Bastiat wrote."
>
> > > > <johnnaishwer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >http://i50.tinypic.com/23sgn0z.jpg
>
> > > > What happens when you start two wars and don't pay for them?
>
> > > Wars that Obama continued?
>
> > Which he ended one and has begun winding down the other.
>
> He's been in office for 4 years...

Yeah, and after Bush's deal ran out in 2011, it was time for Obama to
pack it in on Iraq. Afghanistan is like Vietnam, a harder quagmire to
get out of for whatever reasons there are that either make sense or
don't.

> > > Didn't Obama's failed "stimulus" package cost MORE than the Iraqi war?
>
> > No.  Upfront it cost $800 billion, $28 billion more than the stimulus,
> > but you'll still be paying for the war, and will be for another 40
> > years - up to $4 trillion.
>
> According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Iraq War cost $709
> billion. When the Democrats also took over the White House, they
> immediately passed an $814-billion "stimulus."

I already gave the updated links. The CBO data is outdated.

>
> The sum of all the deficits from 2003 through 2010 is $4.73 trillion.
> Subtract the entire Iraq War cost and you still have a sum of $4.02
> trillion. The cost of the Iraqi war is comparatively minor in contrast
> to Obama's $16 trillion debt.

You're not factoring in all the external costs that will be ongoing
for the Iraq mess. I already gave you the link for that, I can't help
it if you insist on remaining stupid.

> >http://articles.marketwatch.com/2011-12-15/general/30778140_1_iraq-wa...
>
> >http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/default.aspx
>
> > Thank Bush for starting it all.
>
> > > > What happens when you cut taxes and don't pay for them?
>
> > > When the tax cuts stimulate the economy to the point that the
> > > government brings in more revenue - then the tax cuts pay for
> > > themselves.
>
> > Doesn't seem to have worked yet.  How long have the Bush cuts been in
> > place now?
>
> Actually it did - government revenues went up (yes, up) after the tax
> cuts, in fact government revenue hit a record high under Bush - just
> before the Democrats took over Congress.

It did nothing to prevent the deficits from going up too. So
obviously, revenues didn't go up high or fast enough.

>
> > > > What happens when you pass a new drug program and don't pay for it?
>
> > > You learn to stop heaping on new entitlement programs.
>
> > But tax cuts for the rich aren't entitlements?  Yeah, okay, I get it.
>
> That's right - they aren't.

You're not proving it.

>
> Well, sorry to trump you so badly in public - but I have an advantage.
> I watch Fox news and listen to talk radio.

Explains why you're still stupid. And boy, are you ever.

[Mulligan]

On Nov 20, 2:15 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:

> Explains why you're still stupid.  And boy, are you ever.- Hide quoted text -


That just has to be the wittiest usenet comeback ever written ....

[jane]

This is an example of when you should stick to Canadian politics
rather than expose your ignorance of our system.

There is a generic definition for the word, such as definition #3, and
there is the manner in which the GOVERNMENT uses the word. It is not
a word used by "only right wingnuts" as you said. You can go to .gov
websites and see how the GOVERNMENT uses the term entitlement.

I went to the recovery.gov site and see that they are now calling food
stamps an entitlement program. In the past, it was defined as "the
right to guaranteed benefits under a government program, as Social
Security or unemployment compensation." The actual truth is that even
Social Security is not guaranteed.

[Salty Stan]

On Nov 20, 5:16 pm, Mulligan <t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 20, 2:15 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>
> > Explains why you're still stupid.  And boy, are you ever.
>

> That just has to be the wittiest usenet comeback ever written ....

For sure - I'm still withering from it...

[wy]

You're too stupid to wither. Stupidity is a badge of honor for you.

[Mulligan]

Are you special ed?

[duke]

On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:19:49 -0200, John Manning <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:

>On 11/20/2012 11:08 AM, FirstPost wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 23:40:49 -0800 (PST), sully <suls...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 19, 9:25 pm, Hell Stomper <stardusth...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 19, 10:18 pm, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Nov 19, 10:44 am, "Read what Frederic Bastiat wrote."
>>>>
>>>>> <johnnaishwer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> http://i50.tinypic.com/23sgn0z.jpg
>>>>
>>>>> What happens when you start two wars and don't pay for them?
>>>>
>>>> What happens if you don't? You idiots act like 9/11 didn't happen.
>>>
>>> 1. this moron thinks Iraq was responsible for 9-11 and had WMDs.
>>> 2. this moron, like most right wingers, can't read.
>>> Why didn't you want to pay for those wars?
>>
>> They were paid for you fucking idiot.
>
>
>Get your head out of your ass you halfwit FOX ass-licker.
>
>
>A brief history for the benefit of those who get their nooze from Faux.

TRUTH!

The dukester, American - American
********************************************
You can't fix stupid.
********************************************

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <u9jna8t91tjv2e355...@4ax.com>,

The Bubble is strongin this one.

--
JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[Gary DW]

In article <022a4534-38db-42fc-887c-
c30adb...@r6g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, jane says...

Its actually just a term righties made up to vilify the
programs you mentioned.

If the rich don't feel ENTITLED to their tax cuts, what
is it then?

Other than supply side econmonics (which has never
worked even once in 30 years) what other reason IS there
to cut their taxes?



--
"[The] debt explosion has resulted not from big spending
by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's
embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious
doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from
tax cuts."
-Reagan budget chief David Stockman

[sully]

On Nov 20, 5:08 am, FirstPost <AIOE_posters_are_all_li...@AIOE.org>
wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 23:40:49 -0800 (PST), sully <sulsn...@yahoo.com>

> wrote:
>
> >On Nov 19, 9:25 pm, Hell Stomper <stardusth...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 19, 10:18 pm, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Nov 19, 10:44 am, "Read what Frederic Bastiat wrote."
>
> >> > <johnnaishwer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > >http://i50.tinypic.com/23sgn0z.jpg
>
> >> > What happens when you start two wars and don't pay for them?
>
> >> What happens if you don't? You idiots act like 9/11 didn't happen.
>
> >1.  this moron thinks Iraq was responsible for 9-11 and had WMDs.
> >2.  this moron, like most right wingers, can't read.
> >Why didn't you want to pay for those wars?
>
> They were paid for you fucking idiot.
>

This was the first war ever where taxes were cut
during war time. More fun and games from the GOT
party. (Grand ol Treason).

No, the war has not been paid for, it's been borrowed
and if you managed to find some single digit IQ
speed freak to whelp your litter for you, they'll
end up having to pay for it. (they won't, of course,
since they'll be dumbass right wingers too).

[SkyEyes]

On Nov 20, 8:19 am, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:

> And Obama was stuck with the procedures that Bush set in motion,
> and by the time the tax cap was set to expire, we had
> Republicans holding the House, and refusing to tax anybody and
> blaming Obama for the results of the stalemate.

And Republics are holding the house *only* because Republicans in
state governments have managed to gerrymander Democrat-proof districts
in most states, including mine. If they hadn't done that, the
Democrats would have taken the House of Representatives as well as
having kept the Senate and the White House.

Republicans typically figure that if they can't win fair-and-square,
they'll engineer a win by cheating.

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

[SkyEyes]

On Nov 20, 11:39 am, FirstPost <AIOE_posters_are_all_li...@AIOE.org>
wrote:

> On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:19:49 -0200, John Manning
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >On 11/20/2012 11:08 AM, FirstPost wrote:

> >> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 23:40:49 -0800 (PST), sully <sulsn...@yahoo.com>

> >> wrote:
>
> >>> On Nov 19, 9:25 pm, Hell Stomper <stardusth...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Nov 19, 10:18 pm, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Nov 19, 10:44 am, "Read what Frederic Bastiat wrote."
>
> >>>>> <johnnaishwer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>http://i50.tinypic.com/23sgn0z.jpg
>
> >>>>> What happens when you start two wars and don't pay for them?
>
> >>>> What happens if you don't?  You idiots act like 9/11 didn't happen.
>
> >>> 1.  this moron thinks Iraq was responsible for 9-11 and had WMDs.
> >>> 2.  this moron, like most right wingers, can't read.
> >>> Why didn't you want to pay for those wars?
>
> >> They were paid for you fucking idiot.
>
> >Get your head out of your ass you halfwit FOX ass-licker.
>
> Go back to blowing your brother dumbfuck liberal retard.
>
> You made a fucking assinine statement you can't back up so you go off
> tangent on a rant about Clinton's surplus (even though the national
> debt continued to climb during his entire presidency).
> Name an individual who ever said they didn't want to pay for anything
> you lying retard.
> Not wanting to be gouged by ever rising taxes is not the same as not
> wanting to pay for necessities.
> But sine you have no real argument you have to lie about it.
> Fucking stupid assed liberal dumbfuck.

And yet taxes are currently the lowest they've been since 1979:

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/tax-facts-lowest-rates-in-30-years/

[Don Kresch]

On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 22:24:02 -0700, Yoor...@Jurgis.net scrawled in
blood:

>On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 12:39:37 -0600, FirstPost
><AIOE_posters_...@AIOE.org> wrote:
>
>>Name an individual who ever said they didn't want to pay for anything
>>you lying retard.
>

>Pick any winger conservative.
>
>Don't wanna pay for roads, bridges, inspectors, teachers, firemen etc.

Kindly prove that those things can only be provided via
taxation.


Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.

[jane]

On Nov 20, 10:18 pm, Gary DW <Dw2spike3...@sio.midco.net> wrote:
> In article <022a4534-38db-42fc-887c-
> c30adb4a5...@r6g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, jane says...

Then why does Obama use the term?[1]
If it is "just a term righties made up" then why is there a legal
definition for it?[2]
If it is "just a term righties made up" then why is there a sub-clause
in an USDA document called "Subpart E - Entitlement"?[3]

An excellent article on entitlements can be found by Dr. Paul M.
Johnson,
DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE,
AUBURN UNIVERSITY
on:
http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/entitlement_program

>
> If the rich don't feel ENTITLED to their tax cuts, what
> is it then?
>

Wy stated, "That's just stupid semantics only right wingnuts play",
but YOU are the one using "stupid semantics".[4] An Entitlement
program is "A federal program that guarantees a certain level of
benefits to persons or other entities who meet requirements set by
law, such as Social Security, farm price supports or unemployment
benefits. It thus leaves no discretion with Congress on how much money
to appropriate, and some entitlements carry permanent
appropriations."[5]

NOW, if you want to talk about semantics, as I said before, food
stamps were not considered an entitlement in the past. Mandatory
Spending consists of "earned-benefit programs and Entitlements". SNAP
(Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program) is an "earned-benefit"
program, but is called an "entitlement program".




Citations:
1. http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/fundingoverview/Pages/entitlements.aspx
2. http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e081.htm
3. http://www.fns.usda.gov/apd/Clauses/7cfr3016.60.pdf
4. both Right hand wingnuts and Left hand wingnuts are fucking idiots.
5. http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e081.htm

[jane]

On Nov 21, 8:24 am, Don Kresch <spamca...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 22:24:02 -0700, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net scrawled in

If the roads, bridges, inspectors, teachers,firemen, etc are provided
by the government, then the money that is paid for them, by definition
is a tax. If you pay a toll, for crossing a government bridge, it is
called a user fee, BUT it is also called a tax.

For example, your FICA deduction is an Insurance Premium, BUT since it
is an insurance premium that you pay for a government owned, run, and
controlled insurance company, it is also called a tax.

Your question has merit if your question implies the possibility of
paying a private sector teacher to educate your kids or you pay to use
a privately owned bridge, or you buy a private sector "Old Age,
Survivors & Disability Insurance" (OASDI).

[wy]

And a tax cut is not a benefit? You're benefiting from a government
decision that's in your favor to which you're entitled to accept, and
normally you do accept. Boy, you're stupid.

>
> NOW, if you want to talk about semantics, as I said before, food
> stamps were not considered an entitlement in the past.  Mandatory
> Spending consists of "earned-benefit programs and Entitlements".  SNAP
> (Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program) is an "earned-benefit"
> program, but is called an "entitlement program".

Anything that is given to you by the government in your favor is first
and foremost an entitlement that people more than willingly accept
because they know they're entitled to accepting it. To call it
anything else is to merely specify what kind of entitlement it is,
i.e. tax cut, food stamps, etc., but essentially it's ALL
entitlement. Yeah, I know, it must suck to feel that you've been
accepting entitlements yourself - how socialist of you.


>
> Citations:
> 1.http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/fundingoverview/Pages/entitlemen...
> 2.http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e081.htm
> 3.http://www.fns.usda.gov/apd/Clauses/7cfr3016.60.pdf

> 4. both Right hand wingnuts and Left hand wingnuts are fucking idiots.

> 5.http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e081.htm

[wy]

On Nov 21, 8:51 am, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 21, 8:24 am, Don Kresch <spamca...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 22:24:02 -0700, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net scrawled in
> > blood:
>
> > >On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 12:39:37 -0600, FirstPost
> > ><AIOE_posters_are_all_li...@AIOE.org> wrote:
>
> > >>Name an individual who ever said they didn't want to pay for anything
> > >>you lying retard.
>
> > >Pick any winger conservative.
>
> > >Don't wanna pay for roads, bridges, inspectors, teachers, firemen etc.
>
> >         Kindly prove that those things can only be provided via
> > taxation.
>
> > Don
> > aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
> > Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
>
> If the roads, bridges, inspectors, teachers,firemen, etc are provided
> by the government, then the money that is paid for them, by definition
> is a tax. If you pay a toll, for crossing a government bridge, it is
> called a user fee, BUT it is also called a tax.

Sounds to me like semantics that add up to the same thing. Kind of
like tax cuts for the rich being an entitlement. Gee, I wonder how
that happens to work for one and not for the other in your universe.

[jane]

On Nov 21, 9:28 am, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
> On Nov 21, 8:51 am, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 21, 8:24 am, Don Kresch <spamca...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>
> > > On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 22:24:02 -0700, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net scrawled in
> > > blood:
>
> > > >On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 12:39:37 -0600, FirstPost
> > > ><AIOE_posters_are_all_li...@AIOE.org> wrote:
>
> > > >>Name an individual who ever said they didn't want to pay for anything
> > > >>you lying retard.
>
> > > >Pick any winger conservative.
>
> > > >Don't wanna pay for roads, bridges, inspectors, teachers, firemen etc.
>
> > >         Kindly prove that those things can only be provided via
> > > taxation.
>
> > > Don
> > > aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
> > > Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
>
> > If the roads, bridges, inspectors, teachers,firemen, etc are provided
> > by the government, then the money that is paid for them, by definition
> > is a tax. If you pay a toll, for crossing a government bridge, it is
> > called a user fee, BUT it is also called a tax.
>
> Sounds to me like semantics that add up to the same thing.  Kind of
> like tax cuts for the rich being an entitlement.

You are an idiot. There is a huge difference between paying a user fee
for a product or service and allowing a person to keep his own money.

It used to be fun watching you twist, squirm and redefine words to fit
your own bogus concepts, but you have become an extreme bore.

[jane]

I am astounded at your insistence and persistence at expressing your
ignorance and stupidity[1].
Look up the definition of "entitlement" as is used by the government
at a government sight.[2]

Yes, I have received payment from the government, but it was NOT and
entitlement, as defined by the government, because it was approved
through the allocation process.

Citations:
1. ignorance - a lack of knowledge;
Stupidity - an inability to learn;
2. I provided the citations for you, which means you go beyond the
definition of ignorant and move into the definition of stupid.

[Slackjaw]

That one is even better than his masterpiece - "Boy, are you stupid".

--
---
Truth is the cure for liberalism.
---

[wy]

Yeah, one is called a user fee (payer pays) and the other is called an
entitlement (recipient benefits). I get it. Do you?

[wy]

The definition that is paramount is the one found in the dictionary
which I've already provided. It's from there that all words are then
mangled, contorted and redefined by anyone to mean what they want them
to mean, but all those semantics still don't negate the actual root
definition of the word as found in the dictionary. It's so hilarious
to see someone like you, who has used the dictionary as a basis
numerous times before, to support your lame arguments with all sorts
of dictionary cites, but it's simply a practice that can't apply to
anyone else to use in your control freak universe, right? It's
something you entirely dismiss when it's thrown at you like mud in the
face.

>
> Yes, I have received payment from the government, but it was NOT and
> entitlement, as defined by the government, because it was approved
> through the allocation process.

Semantics - NOT ... "as defined by the government". Anything to
absolve yourself of guilt in having received benefits from the
government for which you were entitled to take. Nice. Only
Repugnants struggle this hard to disassociate themselves from being
viewed as a government leech. How's that for semantics? Leech =
willing recipient.

[duke]

On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 21:32:58 -0800 (PST), SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Nov 20, 8:19 am, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
>> And Obama was stuck with the procedures that Bush set in motion,
>> and by the time the tax cap was set to expire, we had
>> Republicans holding the House, and refusing to tax anybody and
>> blaming Obama for the results of the stalemate.
>
>And Republics are holding the house *only* because Republicans in
>state governments have managed to gerrymander Democrat-proof districts
>in most states, including mine.

Haahaahaa. If 'rats hadn't been gerrymandering, the House would be all
Republican.

If they hadn't done that, the
>Democrats would have taken the House of Representatives as well as
>having kept the Senate and the White House.
>
>Republicans typically figure that if they can't win fair-and-square,
>they'll engineer a win by cheating.
>
>Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
>BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
>EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
>skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
>skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

[jane]

I am opposed to gerrymandering, but it is almost impossible to stop.

The part you are missing is that in order to gerrymander, a particular
party FIRST has to be in power.

[Mike Painter]

On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 07:24:51 -0600, Don Kresch
<spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:

>On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 22:24:02 -0700, Yoor...@Jurgis.net scrawled in
>blood:
>
>>On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 12:39:37 -0600, FirstPost
>><AIOE_posters_...@AIOE.org> wrote:
>>
>>>Name an individual who ever said they didn't want to pay for anything
>>>you lying retard.
>>
>>Pick any winger conservative.
>>
>>Don't wanna pay for roads, bridges, inspectors, teachers, firemen etc.
>
> Kindly prove that those things can only be provided via
>taxation.

That can't be proved.
Kindly prove that in any culture, at any time in history, volunteer
contributions from an area the size of the USA - or any other country
have provided the funds for building such an infrastructure.
Remember that about 60% of the funding from your fire department comes
from state and federal funds. Local TAXES supply the rest.

Extra credit if you can show this cooperation came from an area where
anarchy was in place. (Silly me, I almost said, "law of the land.")
--
"When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion." ~ Robert Pirsig

[Slackjaw]

wy wrote:

> On Nov 20, 5:03嚙緘m, Salty Stan <wsjames...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 20, 3:36嚙緘m, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Nov 20, 2:20嚙緘m, Salty Stan <wsjames...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Nov 19, 10:18嚙緘m, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Nov 19, 10:44嚙窮m, "Read what Frederic Bastiat wrote."

> >
> > > > > <johnnaishwer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > http://i50.tinypic.com/23sgn0z.jpg
> >
> > > > > What happens when you start two wars and don't pay for them?
> >
> > > > Wars that Obama continued?
> >
> > > Which he ended one and has begun winding down the other.
> >

> > He's been in office for 4 years...
>
> Yeah, and after Bush's deal ran out in 2011, it was time for Obama to
> pack it in on Iraq.

The war in Iraq was already winding down before Obama came into office,
it was going to end no matter who was president.

<WHACK!>

> Afghanistan is like Vietnam, a harder quagmire to
> get out of for whatever reasons there are that either make sense or
> don't.

Basically, Obama is unable to figure out how to get us out, despite his
campaign promise.

<WHACK!>

>
>
> > > > Didn't Obama's failed "stimulus" package cost MORE than the
> > > > Iraqi war?
> >

> > > No. 嚙磊pfront it cost $800 billion, $28 billion more than the

> > > stimulus, but you'll still be paying for the war, and will be for
> > > another 40 years - up to $4 trillion.
> >

> > According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Iraq War cost $709
> > billion. When the Democrats also took over the White House, they
> > immediately passed an $814-billion "stimulus."
>
> I already gave the updated links. The CBO data is outdated.

No the CBO is the most accurate, your links are bogus.

<WHACK!>

>
> >
> > The sum of all the deficits from 2003 through 2010 is $4.73
> > trillion. Subtract the entire Iraq War cost and you still have a
> > sum of $4.02 trillion. The cost of the Iraqi war is comparatively
> > minor in contrast to Obama's $16 trillion debt.
>
> You're not factoring in all the external costs that will be ongoing
> for the Iraq mess. I already gave you the link for that, I can't help
> it if you insist on remaining stupid.


Much of those "external costs" we would pay anyway, whether there was a
war or not. And if you count the "external costs" of Obama's failed
stimulus package, it sky-rockets!

<WHACK!>
>
>
> > > http://articles.marketwatch.com/2011-12-15/general/30778140_1_iraq

> > > -wa...
> >
> > > http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/default.aspx
> >
> > > Thank Bush for starting it all.
> >
> > > > > What happens when you cut taxes and don't pay for them?
> >
> > > > When the tax cuts stimulate the economy to the point that the
> > > > government brings in more revenue - then the tax cuts pay for
> > > > themselves.
> >

> > > Doesn't seem to have worked yet. 嚙瘡ow long have the Bush cuts
> > > been in place now?
> >
> > Actually it did - government revenues went up (yes, up) after the
> > tax cuts, in fact government revenue hit a record high under Bush -
> > just before the Democrats took over Congress.
>
> It did nothing to prevent the deficits from going up too.

No, from 2001 onward, the deficit DECREASED every year - until the Dems
took over Congress.

<WHACK!>

> So
> obviously, revenues didn't go up high or fast enough.


So now you admit that the Bush tax cuts worked and increased revenue?
Good for you!

<WHACK!>

>
> >
> > > > > What happens when you pass a new drug program and don't pay
> > > > > for it?
> >
> > > > You learn to stop heaping on new entitlement programs.
> >

> > > But tax cuts for the rich aren't entitlements? 嚙磐eah, okay, I get
> > > it.
> >
> > That's right - they aren't.
>
> You're not proving it.

Prove that tax cuts aren't entitlements? Damn, you are so stupid.
>
> >
> > Well, sorry to trump you so badly in public - but I have an
> > advantage. I watch Fox news and listen to talk radio.

>
> Explains why you're still stupid. And boy, are you ever.

After so, so many <WHACK!> all I can say is

Oh, the irony.

[wy]

On Nov 22, 9:02 am, "Slackjaw" <Oklah...@spacealliance.com> wrote:
> wy wrote:

> > On Nov 20, 5:03 pm, Salty Stan <wsjames...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 20, 3:36 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 20, 2:20 pm, Salty Stan <wsjames...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 19, 10:18 pm, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Nov 19, 10:44 am, "Read what Frederic Bastiat wrote."

>
> > > > > > <johnnaishwer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >http://i50.tinypic.com/23sgn0z.jpg
>
> > > > > > What happens when you start two wars and don't pay for them?
>
> > > > > Wars that Obama continued?
>
> > > > Which he ended one and has begun winding down the other.
>
> > > He's been in office for 4 years...
>
> > Yeah, and after Bush's deal ran out in 2011, it was time for Obama to
> > pack it in on Iraq.
>
> The war in Iraq was already winding down before Obama came into office,
> it was going to end no matter who was president.
>
> <WHACK!>
>
> > Afghanistan is like Vietnam, a harder quagmire to
> > get out of for whatever reasons there are that either make sense or
> > don't.
>
> Basically, Obama is unable to figure out how to get us out, despite his
> campaign promise.
>
> <WHACK!>

It was still at the minimum 150,000 troop level when Bush left, where
it had been for over a year and a half prior. It only began dropping
below that shortly after Obama took over.

http://www.stripes.com/polopoly_fs/7.121624.1319235271!/image/2083396043.jpg_gen/derivatives/default/2083396043.jpg

<DOUBLE, TRIPLE AND QUADRUPLE WHACK!>

>
> > > > > Didn't Obama's failed "stimulus" package cost MORE than the
> > > > > Iraqi war?
>

> > > > No.  Upfront it cost $800 billion, $28 billion more than the

> > > > stimulus, but you'll still be paying for the war, and will be for
> > > > another 40 years - up to $4 trillion.
>
> > > According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Iraq War cost $709
> > > billion. When the Democrats also took over the White House, they
> > > immediately passed an $814-billion "stimulus."
>
> > I already gave the updated links.  The CBO data is outdated.
>
> No the CBO is the most accurate, your links are bogus.

Yeah, that's why they said in 2000 the debt would be entirely paid off
by 2010. And, of course, why it has to keep adjusting its
projections. After all, they're only projectionists. You either
accept their ever-fluctuating data or you don't.

>
> <WHACK!>

<DOUBLE, TRIPLE AND QUADRUPLE WHACK!>

>
>
>
> > > The sum of all the deficits from 2003 through 2010 is $4.73
> > > trillion.  Subtract the entire Iraq War cost and you still have a
> > > sum of $4.02 trillion. The cost of the Iraqi war is comparatively
> > > minor in contrast to Obama's $16 trillion debt.
>
> > You're not factoring in all the external costs that will be ongoing
> > for the Iraq mess.  I already gave you the link for that, I can't help
> > it if you insist on remaining stupid.
>
> Much of those "external costs" we would pay anyway, whether there was a
> war or not. And if you count the "external costs" of Obama's failed
> stimulus package, it sky-rockets!

Like what "external costs?"

<DOUBLE, TRIPLE AND QUADRUPLE WHACK!>

> > > >http://articles.marketwatch.com/2011-12-15/general/30778140_1_iraq
> > > > -wa...
>
> > > >http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/default.aspx
>
> > > > Thank Bush for starting it all.
>
> > > > > > What happens when you cut taxes and don't pay for them?
>
> > > > > When the tax cuts stimulate the economy to the point that the
> > > > > government brings in more revenue - then the tax cuts pay for
> > > > > themselves.
>

> > > > Doesn't seem to have worked yet.  How long have the Bush cuts

> > > > been in place now?
>
> > > Actually it did - government revenues went up (yes, up) after the
> > > tax cuts, in fact government revenue hit a record high under Bush -
> > > just before the Democrats took over Congress.
>
> > It did nothing to prevent the deficits from going up too.
>
> No, from 2001 onward, the deficit DECREASED every year - until the Dems
> took over Congress.
>
> <WHACK!>

5 out of 8 years it increased - Big Time.

http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/wapoobamabudget1.jpg

<DOUBLE, TRIPLE AND QUADRUPLE WHACK!>

>
> > So
> > obviously, revenues didn't go up high or fast enough.
>
> So now you admit that the Bush tax cuts worked and increased revenue?
> Good for you!
>
> <WHACK!>

No. If they didn't go up high or fast enough, then obviously they
didn't work. Boy, you're stupid.

<DOUBLE, TRIPLE AND QUADRUPLE WHACK!>

>
> > > > > > What happens when you pass a new drug program and don't pay
> > > > > > for it?
>
> > > > > You learn to stop heaping on new entitlement programs.
>

> > > > But tax cuts for the rich aren't entitlements?  Yeah, okay, I get

> > > > it.
>
> > > That's right - they aren't.
>
> > You're not proving it.
>
> Prove that tax cuts aren't entitlements?  Damn, you are so stupid.

I've always said they were. Talk to Jane about them not being
entitlements. Boy, you're stupider.

>
>
>
> > > Well, sorry to trump you so badly in public - but I have an
> > > advantage.  I watch Fox news and listen to talk radio.
>
> > Explains why you're still stupid.  And boy, are you ever.
>
> After  so, so many <WHACK!>  all I can say is
>
> Oh, the irony.

The irony is that boy, you're always so stupid.

[Slackjaw]

I think I whacked wy too hard - I broke his brain...

[wy]

That was your own brain you whacked. Boy, are you stupid.

[NoBody]

You *did* notice the chart is about troops in Iraq not Afghanistan
right?

>
><DOUBLE, TRIPLE AND QUADRUPLE WHACK!>

Insert picture of Daffy Duck whacking himself in the face with his own
beak...

[Slackjaw]

> You did notice the chart is about troops in Iraq not Afghanistan
> right?

Oops...

LOL!

>
> >
> > <DOUBLE, TRIPLE AND QUADRUPLE WHACK!>
>
> Insert picture of Daffy Duck whacking himself in the face with his own
> beak...

[Slackjaw]

> Darn it - quit embarressing me - you make me look like an idiot.

wy, after I defeat you in an argument, the best thing to do is admit
defeat and move on.

> Boy, am I stupid.

That's a start!

[NoBody]

And you notice Wy has fled the thread, just like he always does when
he's proven wrong. He is in the exact same category of Zippo,
Yorgort, and Mitchie Holman -- they're all typical lying libs.

[NoBody]

And Wy has fled the thread.

[jane]

I have noticed that Wy typically doesn't flee no matter how wrong he
is. I could never understand if he was a glutton for punishment or if
he was so ignorant that he didn't realize he was wrong[1]

I later realized his tactic is the same as a prize fighter. He keeps
taking the punches; he will dodge, dance and divert. Eventually, you
will bite on one of his off topic diversions and, like the prize
fighter, he will throw in one single last punch and claim victory.

end notes:
1. look up "Dunning Kruger effect" - "The Dunning-Kruger effect occurs
when incompetent people not only fail to realise their incompetence,
but consider themselves much more competent than everyone else.
Basically, they're too stupid to know that they're stupid."
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

[wy]

Bingo! And down for the count you go.

Stupid Nobody actually believes some right wingnut has proven me wrong
about anything here. Yeah, dream on. But hey, I'm more than willing
to take on any new vigorous heavyweight wannabe challengers - the old
ones are now beginning to lose even their featherweight status that
they've reduced themselves to.

[NoBody]

You've just proven Jane's point..

>
>Stupid Nobody actually believes some right wingnut has proven me wrong
>about anything here. Yeah, dream on. But hey, I'm more than willing
>to take on any new vigorous heavyweight wannabe challengers - the old
>ones are now beginning to lose even their featherweight status that
>they've reduced themselves to.
>

You haven't explained why you put up a troop chart claiming about was
about Afghanistan troop levels when it SAYS Iraq troop levels...IDIOT.

[Slackjaw]

So, wy, is it true that nobody had proven you wrong?

[Slackjaw]

> > You did notice the chart is about troops in Iraq not Afghanistan

> > right?
> >
> > >
> > > <DOUBLE, TRIPLE AND QUADRUPLE WHACK!>
> >
> > Insert picture of Daffy Duck whacking himself in the face with his
> > own beak...
>
> And Wy has fled the thread.

Now if you can only make flee all the threads.

[wy]

And disproven yours. Two for the price of one. Bam! Upside the head
and down you go.

> >Stupid Nobody actually believes some right wingnut has proven me wrong
> >about anything here.  Yeah, dream on.  But hey, I'm more than willing
> >to take on any new vigorous heavyweight wannabe challengers - the old
> >ones are now beginning to lose even their featherweight status that
> >they've reduced themselves to.
>
> You haven't explained why you put up a troop chart claiming about was
> about Afghanistan troop levels when it SAYS Iraq troop levels...IDIOT.

To confuse you. I see it worked.

[wy]

When it comes to things that matter, yes, it's true. When it comes to
things that don't matter, like typos, then I've been corrected and
I've noted their pettiness in lieu of proving that they make any sense
on larger issues, because they know they don't make any sense which is
why they resort to pettiness for their lame victories against me -
it's the only way they can feel good about themselves and their absent
IQs.

[NoBody]

So you providing troop info for the wrong war is just a "typo"?

[NoBody]

I see, I prove you're a liar with your own post but somehow "down I
go". Uh huh...

>
>> >Stupid Nobody actually believes some right wingnut has proven me wrong
>> >about anything here. �Yeah, dream on. �But hey, I'm more than willing
>> >to take on any new vigorous heavyweight wannabe challengers - the old
>> >ones are now beginning to lose even their featherweight status that
>> >they've reduced themselves to.
>>
>> You haven't explained why you put up a troop chart claiming about was
>> about Afghanistan troop levels when it SAYS Iraq troop levels...IDIOT.
>
>To confuse you. I see it worked.

I wasn't confused at all. I can clearly see you're a dishonest liar
as anyone who had a shred of honesty would admit he goofed.

[NoBody]

On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 12:07:40 -0700, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

>On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 06:36:23 -0500, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>You haven't explained why you put up a troop chart claiming about was
>>about Afghanistan troop levels when it SAYS Iraq troop levels...IDIOT.
>

>Mayhaps figured you were stupid enough to complain?

Translation: Wy was caught lying.

>
>Just testing you?

Translation: Wy was caught lying.

>
>After all, you aren't the paragon of intellect, NOWUSSY

Wy is in the same category as you: a lying lib.

[Salty Stan]

wy, if you're posting the wrong data, it seems more likely that it is
you who is confused.

[jane]

You have been wrong so many times it should be an embarasment to you.
You were wrong when you claimed:

"Money has no value until spent";

"Fiat money is not something commonly used, largely restricted to
governmental transactions,
and is therefore not relevant to the common use of money";

"A non-profit health insurance company ... qualifies, and you better
bet your nippy bippy
they take full advantage of [government grants to charities].";

"...how is birth control even related to religion in any way
whatsoever?";

"How would she have that liberty to take birth control if it's denied
her by those who believe they have a greater liberty to deny [paying
for] her birth control?";

You believe that the word "impoverished" applies to a person who has a
net worth of several million dollars.

The word entitlements is "just stupid semantics only right wingnuts
play."


In spite of being so wrong, you insist that no one has been able to
prove you wrong simply because you lack the depth of knowledge
necessary to recognize that you are wrong[1] .
Even when presented by several college text books regarding the value
of money, you stated that the college text books were wrong and you
remained steadfast that your contrary belief was the correct belief;
you suffer from illusory superiority.



Citations:
1. "... people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual
burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make
unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the
metacognitive ability to realize it." - David Dunning, Professor of
Psychology at Cornell University, co-author of "Unskilled and Unaware
of it"

[wy]

There's no posting of any wrong data on my part, just a lot of
confusion as to what the data means on your part. I can't help it if
you and other right wingnuts are boy, you're stupid.

[wy]

And you still haven't disproved it.

>
> "Fiat money is not something commonly used, largely restricted to
> governmental transactions,
> and is therefore not relevant to the common use of money";

Exactly, not relevant. We're only dealing with what's relevant - like
money that everyday people use, including rich fat cats. Keep your
invisible non-existent money to yourself.

>
> "A non-profit health insurance company ... qualifies, and you better
> bet your nippy bippy
> they take full advantage of [government grants to charities].";

You haven't disproved it.

>
> "...how is birth control even related to religion in any way
> whatsoever?";

You haven't disproved it.

>
> "How would she have that liberty to take birth control if it's denied
> her by those who believe they have a greater liberty to deny [paying
> for] her birth control?";

You haven't disproved it.

>
> You believe that the word "impoverished" applies to a person who has a
> net worth of several million dollars.

You haven't disproved it.

>
> The word entitlements is "just stupid semantics only right wingnuts
> play."

You haven't disproved it.

And don't try to disprove any of it, because you still won't be able
to disprove it, you're that stupid.

>
> In spite of being so wrong, you insist that no one has been able to
> prove you wrong simply because you lack the depth of knowledge
> necessary to recognize that you are wrong[1] .
> Even when presented by several college text books regarding the value
> of money, you stated that the college text books were wrong and you
> remained steadfast that your contrary belief was the correct belief;
> you suffer from  illusory superiority.

Blah-blah-blah-blah-and-more-right-wingut-blah.

[Salty Stan]

On Nov 26, 12:02 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 24, 11:45 am, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>

ss

>
> You have been wrong so many times it should be an embarasment to you.
> You were wrong when you claimed:
>
> "Money has no value until spent";
>
> "Fiat money is not something commonly used, largely restricted to
> governmental transactions,
> and is therefore not relevant to the common use of money";
>
> "A non-profit health insurance company ... qualifies, and you better
> bet your nippy bippy
> they take full advantage of [government grants to charities].";
>
> "...how is birth control even related to religion in any way
> whatsoever?";
>
> "How would she have that liberty to take birth control if it's denied
> her by those who believe they have a greater liberty to deny [paying
> for] her birth control?";
>
> You believe that the word "impoverished" applies to a person who has a
> net worth of several million dollars.
>
> The word entitlements is "just stupid semantics only right wingnuts
> play."
>
> In spite of being so wrong, you insist that no one has been able to
> prove you wrong

Actual, as I read through the NG, I saw that wy had said, in effect,
that "Nobody had proved me wrong." Now, there is a user names "NoBody"
in this thread, and he has corrected wy on multiple occasions. So, in
one sense, wy is being accurate.

[Salty Stan]

So, Iraq and Afghanistan are the same place?

[jane]

As I said, You have an illusory superiority and you lack the knowledge
to know when you are wrong;
according to you, all of the college text books are wrong and you are
right.

[jane]

Yes, one of the few times.

[wy]

I told you that you couldn't disprove anything, and you're still
proving that. College books - they out-date themselves every year.

[jane]

Then find one that states that the dollars in my pocket are not fiat
money.

[wy]

On Nov 26, 12:24 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 12:09 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:

>
> > And don't try to disprove any of it, because you still won't be able
> > to disprove it, you're that stupid.
>
> As I said, You have an illusory superiority and you lack the knowledge
> to know when you are wrong;
> according to you, all of the college text books are wrong and you are
> right.

I know this won't get through that titanium-built right wingnut
literal black-and-white yes or no skull of yours, but give it a shot,
will ya?

"The U.S. Government says that military spending amounts to 20% of the
budget, the Center for Defense Information (CDI) reports 51%, the
Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) reports 43%, and the
War Resisters League claims 54%. Why the variation?

Different groups have different purposes in how they present the
budget figures. WRL’s goal has been to show the percentage of money
that goes to the military (current and past) so that people paying —
or not paying — their federal taxes would know what portion of their
payments are military-oriented. Also, some of the numbers are for
different fiscal years.

There are at least five different factors to consider when analyzing
the U.S. budget:

discretionary spending vs. total spending
budget authority vs. outlays
function vs. agency/department
federal funds vs. unified budget
time period"

And now for the explanations, if you dare:

http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

[wy]

Go spend your fiat money at a store and tell them what it is and see
how far you'll get. No college book required.

[jane]

Every dollar printed since Nixon took us off of "representative money"
is "fiat money" AND the store is happy to take my fiat money when I
show them the statement (printed on the dollar) from the government
that the paper is "legal tender".

Try and demand gold or silver from the government in exchange for you
US Dollars.

Your  illusory superiority is preventing you from using your brain.

[wy]

But you just proved that for even that to have any value, you'd have
to give it to a store and not keep it in your fridge as cold useless
cash. Even the value of a dollar fluctuates year by year, day by day,
minute by minute. One dollar in 1975 could get you a bag of chips, a
large Coke, a couple of comic books, a TV Guide, bus fare home and
you'd still be left with at least a few pennies to maybe put in your
piggy bank. A dollar today would get you none of those things. Ergo,
money has no value unless you used it. If you used it in 1975, you
saw the value you got out of it in return; if you kept that same
dollar till today and tried to use it for the same purchases, you'd
get nothing. Bingo! I win.

[jane]

We were discussing whether or not a dollar is fiat money. Since you
are diverting to "value of money" are you admitting that you were
wrong about the dollar in my pocket being fiat money????

[wy]

I've always discussed it in terms of value - "money has no value until
it's spent". Its value is determined not by fiat, but by the amount,
and even the quality, of goods you purchase at the time of purchase.
Boy, you're stupid.

[jane]

You very specifically stated, ""Fiat money is not something commonly

used, largely restricted to governmental transactions,
and is therefore not relevant to the common use of money"

Please note the part "Fiat money is not something commonly used...

therefore not relevant to the common use of money"

I asked you to "find [a college text book} that states that the

dollars in my pocket are not fiat money.

You are now trying to divert way from whether or not the dollar in my
pocket is fiat money.

[jane]

Wy, I am anxiously awaiting your superior knowledge. Is the paper
dollar in my pocket fiat money or, as you claimed before, NOT fiat
money?

If it is not fiat money, as you claimed, what is it? It is obviously
not coinage, it isn't commodity money, it isn't representative money.
What is it?

OR is it an issue of you going away rather than admit that you have
been proven wrong... once again.

[wy]

Sorry if I've been living a life in the past hour and not totally
glued to my computer screen as you appear to be, but it doesn't matter
if your money is fiat money or not - its value is still contingent on
what money traders say it is once you actually spend it. A perfect
immediate example of that is simply by exchanging your money for Euros
or any other currency. They'll charge the rate of the value of both
your stupid fiat money and your stupid fiat Euro or any other currency
and voila, that's what your dollar will be worth at that moment. Show
up an hour later and it'll have a different value. But before you can
possibly know what the precise value would be at any given moment, you
have to "spend it" first. Until you do, that money in your pocket
unspent has no value. Period. Everything else you want to get into
about it is just stupid semantics and a right wingnut shell game.

[jane]

SO, are you finally stating that you were wrong when you stated that

"Fiat money is not something commonly used... therefore not relevant

to the common use of money" ?

Are you finally admitting that you have been proven wrong?

[wy]

On Nov 26, 3:41 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > > Wy, I am anxiously awaiting your superior knowledge.  Is the paper
> > > dollar in my pocket fiat money or, as you claimed before, NOT fiat
> > > money?
>
> > Sorry if I've been living a life in the past hour and not totally
> > glued to my computer screen as you appear to be, but it doesn't matter
> > if your money is fiat money or not
> > - its value is still contingent on
> > what money traders say it is once you actually spend it.  A perfect
> > immediate example of that is simply by exchanging your money for Euros
> > or any other currency.  They'll charge the rate of the value of both
> > your stupid fiat money and your stupid fiat Euro
>
> SO, are you finally stating that you were wrong when you stated that
> "Fiat money is not something commonly used...  therefore not relevant
> to the common use of money" ?

No such thing. But I see how desperate you are to make me want to
admit it because you're incapable of disproving that money has no
value until spent. Sorry, I'm not here to give you that right wingnut
orgasm.

[jane]

On Nov 26, 4:24 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 3:41 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > Wy, I am anxiously awaiting your superior knowledge.  Is the paper
> > > > dollar in my pocket fiat money or, as you claimed before, NOT fiat
> > > > money?
>
> > > Sorry if I've been living a life in the past hour and not totally
> > > glued to my computer screen as you appear to be, but it doesn't matter
> > > if your money is fiat money or not
> > > - its value is still contingent on
> > > what money traders say it is once you actually spend it.  A perfect
> > > immediate example of that is simply by exchanging your money for Euros
> > > or any other currency.  They'll charge the rate of the value of both
> > > your stupid fiat money and your stupid fiat Euro
>
> > SO, are you finally stating that you were wrong when you stated that
> > "Fiat money is not something commonly used...  therefore not relevant
> > to the common use of money" ?
>
> No such thing.  But I see how desperate you are to make me want to
> admit it because you're incapable of disproving that money has no
> value until spent.  Sorry, I'm not here to give you that right wingnut
> orgasm.
>
>

Excuse me, but go back through this thread; you are the one who
diverted to the value of money after failing to admit that you were
wrong about the US Dollar in my pocket being fiat money.

Your ego is so fragile that you would rather retain your bogus beliefs
than admit that you are wrong.

[wy]

On Nov 26, 4:39 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 4:24 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 26, 3:41 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Wy, I am anxiously awaiting your superior knowledge.  Is the paper
> > > > > dollar in my pocket fiat money or, as you claimed before, NOT fiat
> > > > > money?
>
> > > > Sorry if I've been living a life in the past hour and not totally
> > > > glued to my computer screen as you appear to be, but it doesn't matter
> > > > if your money is fiat money or not
> > > > - its value is still contingent on
> > > > what money traders say it is once you actually spend it.  A perfect
> > > > immediate example of that is simply by exchanging your money for Euros
> > > > or any other currency.  They'll charge the rate of the value of both
> > > > your stupid fiat money and your stupid fiat Euro
>
> > > SO, are you finally stating that you were wrong when you stated that
> > > "Fiat money is not something commonly used...  therefore not relevant
> > > to the common use of money" ?
>
> > No such thing.  But I see how desperate you are to make me want to
> > admit it because you're incapable of disproving that money has no
> > value until spent.  Sorry, I'm not here to give you that right wingnut
> > orgasm.
>
> Excuse me, but go back through this thread; you are the one who
> diverted to the value of money after failing to admit that you were
> wrong about  the US Dollar in my pocket being fiat money.

I've always said money has no value till spent. I don't give a fuck
about fiat, either the money or the car. That's your problem.

[Salty Stan]

On Nov 26, 4:42 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 4:39 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>

ss

>
> > Excuse me, but go back through this thread; you are the one who
> > diverted to the value of money after failing to admit that you were
> > wrong about  the US Dollar in my pocket being fiat money.
>
> I've always said money has no value till spent.

Can you send me all of yours, then?

Since it has no value...

[jane]

Am I creating too much pain to your fragile ego?

> about fiat,


My thread was about you being wrong and failing to admit it. I
brought up your bogus quote about fiat money[1] and you stated,

"Exactly, not relevant. We're only dealing with what's relevant -
like
money that everyday people use, including rich fat cats. Keep your
invisible non-existent money to yourself. "

Admit it, Wy; I proved you wrong







Citations:
1. "Fiat money is not something commonly used, largely restricted to
governmental transactions,
and is therefore not relevant to the common use of money"; - Wy

[wy]

Right, the control freak in YOU brought it up. I didn't bring it up
in this thread. Try to stay focused.

>
> "Exactly, not relevant.  We're only dealing with what's relevant -
> like
> money that everyday people use, including rich fat cats.  Keep your
> invisible non-existent money to yourself. "
>
> Admit it, Wy; I proved you wrong

Sorry, no right wingnut orgasm for you.

[NoBody]

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 09:05:21 -0800 (PST), wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:

>On Nov 26, 9:11�am, Salty Stan <wsjames...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 25, 2:03�pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 25, 6:36�am, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:

>>
>> > > On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 08:45:31 -0800 (PST), wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>> > > >On Nov 24, 9:33�am, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >> On Nov 24, 9:16�am, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>

>> > > >> > On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 21:19:44 +0000 (UTC), "Slackjaw"
>>
>> > > >> > <Oklah...@spacealliance.com> wrote:
>> > > >> > >NoBody wrote:
>>
>> > > >> > >> On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 06:45:04 -0800 (PST), wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > >> > >> >On Nov 22, 9:02�am, "Slackjaw" <Oklah...@spacealliance.com> wrote:
>> > > >> > >> >> wy wrote:
>> > > >> > >> >> > On Nov 20, 5:03�pm, Salty Stan <wsjames...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> > > You've just proven Jane's point..
>>
>> > And disproven yours. �Two for the price of one. �Bam! �Upside the head
>> > and down you go.
>>

>> > > >Stupid Nobody actually believes some right wingnut has proven me wrong
>> > > >about anything here. �Yeah, dream on. �But hey, I'm more than willing
>> > > >to take on any new vigorous heavyweight wannabe challengers - the old
>> > > >ones are now beginning to lose even their featherweight status that
>> > > >they've reduced themselves to.
>>

>> > > You haven't explained why you put up a troop chart claiming about was
>> > > about Afghanistan troop levels when it SAYS Iraq troop levels...IDIOT.
>>
>> > To confuse you. �I see it worked.
>>
>> wy, if you're posting the wrong data, it seems more likely that it is
>> you �who is confused.
>

>There's no posting of any wrong data on my part, just a lot of

>confusion as to what the data means on your part. I can't help it if
>you and other right wingnuts are boy, you're stupid.

Living proof that libs *never* admit when they have been proven wrong.
You were talking about troop levels in Afghanistan and provided a
troop level chart for *Iraq* as proof of levels in Afghanistan.

[NoBody]

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 05:49:10 -0500, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 11:08:22 -0800 (PST), wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:

>>> > Stupid Nobody actually believes some right wingnut has proven me wrong
>>> > about anything here.  Yeah, dream on.  But hey, I'm more than willing
>>> > to take on any new vigorous heavyweight wannabe challengers - the old
>>> > ones are now beginning to lose even their featherweight status that
>>> > they've reduced themselves to.
>>>

>>> > > end notes:
>>> > > 1. look up "Dunning Kruger effect" - "The Dunning-Kruger effect
>>> > > occurs when incompetent people not only fail to realise their
>>> > > incompetence, but consider themselves much more competent than
>>> > > everyone else.  Basically, they're too stupid to know that they're
>>> > > stupid."http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect
>>>

>>> So, wy, is it true that nobody had proven you wrong?
>>
>>When it comes to things that matter, yes, it's true. When it comes to
>>things that don't matter, like typos, then I've been corrected and
>>I've noted their pettiness in lieu of proving that they make any sense
>>on larger issues, because they know they don't make any sense which is
>>why they resort to pettiness for their lame victories against me -
>>it's the only way they can feel good about themselves and their absent
>>IQs.
>
>So you providing troop info for the wrong war is just a "typo"?

<crickets.wav>

[NoBody]

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 05:51:14 -0500, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 11:03:49 -0800 (PST), wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>
>>On Nov 25, 6:36�am, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:

>>> You've just proven Jane's point..
>>
>>And disproven yours. Two for the price of one. Bam! Upside the head
>>and down you go.
>>
>

>I see, I prove you're a liar with your own post but somehow "down I
>go". Uh huh...

>
>>
>>> >Stupid Nobody actually believes some right wingnut has proven me wrong
>>> >about anything here. �Yeah, dream on. �But hey, I'm more than willing
>>> >to take on any new vigorous heavyweight wannabe challengers - the old
>>> >ones are now beginning to lose even their featherweight status that
>>> >they've reduced themselves to.
>>>

>>> You haven't explained why you put up a troop chart claiming about was
>>> about Afghanistan troop levels when it SAYS Iraq troop levels...IDIOT.
>>
>>To confuse you. I see it worked.
>

>I wasn't confused at all. I can clearly see you're a dishonest liar
>as anyone who had a shred of honesty would admit he goofed.

<crickets.wav>

[NoBody]

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 05:52:12 -0500, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 12:07:40 -0700, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

>
>>On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 06:36:23 -0500, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>You haven't explained why you put up a troop chart claiming about was
>>>about Afghanistan troop levels when it SAYS Iraq troop levels...IDIOT.
>>

>>Mayhaps figured you were stupid enough to complain?
>
>Translation: Wy was caught lying.
>
>>
>>Just testing you?
>
>Translation: Wy was caught lying.
>
>>
>>After all, you aren't the paragon of intellect, NOWUSSY
>
>Wy is in the same category as you: a lying lib.

And the lying libs have fled.