Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Why Americans are snapping...
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Cicero_Venatio
Apr 24, 2013, 9:50:23 AM4/24/13
to
A just released survey indicates that former middle class people are now
snapping in large numbers. It seems they have finally come to the
realization that they will never ever be offered a job in the Obama
economy. An Obamaphone and occasional McNuggets is a poor substitute
for a life. They voted for Obama and Democrats and what they have
received is an attempt by Democrats to confiscate their gun, the giving
of amnesty to 30 million more poor illegal aliens, and a rush to
legalize gay marriage. And then the daily outrage, the latest is the
Boston bombers lived on welfare while planning their attack on the
marathon. That's why they are snapping.
snapping in large numbers. It seems they have finally come to the
realization that they will never ever be offered a job in the Obama
economy. An Obamaphone and occasional McNuggets is a poor substitute
for a life. They voted for Obama and Democrats and what they have
received is an attempt by Democrats to confiscate their gun, the giving
of amnesty to 30 million more poor illegal aliens, and a rush to
legalize gay marriage. And then the daily outrage, the latest is the
Boston bombers lived on welfare while planning their attack on the
marathon. That's why they are snapping.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Cicero_Venatio
Apr 24, 2013, 2:54:47 PM4/24/13
to
> "Laughing" is not spelled "snapping"
>--------------
You snapped during the Reagan years, please explain.
Yer Pal Al
Apr 25, 2013, 1:17:05 AM4/25/13
to
to tell everyone how bad things are when everyone else is doing well?
wy
Apr 25, 2013, 1:31:00 AM4/25/13
to
from 10.8% to 6% till 1987 - 5 years after his recession ended.
Interest rates were at 18% in his first term, about 10% when he left
office - still too high. He racked up the first trillion dollar debt
of any president in history to add onto a nearly trillion dollar debt
he inherited from all previous presidents in history. Middle class
families saw no real increase in their take-home wages throughout the
decade for the first time in 40 years. About the only people who did
well were the filthy rich, of course. Thanks to that old trickle down
economics scam Reagan devised.
Yer Pal Al
Apr 25, 2013, 2:08:25 AM4/25/13
to
On Apr 24, 10:31 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
> On 25 Apr, 01:17, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 24, 11:54 am, Cicero_Venatio <jazzyb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "Laughing" is not spelled "snapping"
> > > >--------------
>
> > > You snapped during the Reagan years, please explain.
>
> > Can you imagine being a rabid liberal during the Reagan years? Trying
> > to tell everyone how bad things are when everyone else is doing well?
>
> Who was doing well in the Reagan years?
Those people who voted at a rate of 59% and gave him 49 states in 1984
> On 25 Apr, 01:17, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 24, 11:54 am, Cicero_Venatio <jazzyb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "Laughing" is not spelled "snapping"
> > > >--------------
>
> > > You snapped during the Reagan years, please explain.
>
> > Can you imagine being a rabid liberal during the Reagan years? Trying
> > to tell everyone how bad things are when everyone else is doing well?
>
> Who was doing well in the Reagan years?
and let Bush Sr. coast into the White House in 1988.
Sorry things really sucked for you.
1,950 murdered in Obama's organized communities
Apr 25, 2013, 3:25:17 AM4/25/13
to
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 10:00:15 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 06:50:23 -0700, Cicero_Venatio
><jazz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>And then the daily outrage, the latest is the
>>Boston bombers lived on welfare while planning their attack on the
>>marathon. That's why they are snapping.
>
>On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 06:50:23 -0700, Cicero_Venatio
><jazz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>And then the daily outrage, the latest is the
>>Boston bombers lived on welfare while planning their attack on the
>>marathon. That's why they are snapping.
>
>"Laughing" is not spelled "snapping"
Gary admits to laughing at the Boston bombing.
1,950 murdered in Obama's organized communities
Apr 25, 2013, 3:28:44 AM4/25/13
to
At being impotently jealous, anyway.
Same as today, under a president who has raised the bar on failure.
Moder@tor
Apr 28, 2013, 4:12:24 PM4/28/13
to
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 23:08:25 -0700 (PDT), Yer Pal Al <caddys...@gmail.com>
wrote:
So by your same logic, all of those people who voted Obama into office again are
also doing well? Thanks for admitting you are a phony, Al. Will save this one
for further 'rubbing of your nose in it.'
wrote:
also doing well? Thanks for admitting you are a phony, Al. Will save this one
for further 'rubbing of your nose in it.'
Moder@tor
Apr 28, 2013, 4:15:12 PM4/28/13
to
leave a big steaming pile of GunGr...@whitehouse.gov on Reagans grave. They
could ask Al to wipe their ass with his tongue afterward.
wy
Apr 28, 2013, 4:22:51 PM4/28/13
to
The election was a Democrat giveaway to Reagan.
Yer Pal Al
Apr 28, 2013, 8:33:44 PM4/28/13
to
On Apr 28, 1:12 pm, "Moder@tor" <Mo...@tor.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 23:08:25 -0700 (PDT), Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com>
doing well and the poor have their food stamps and Obamaphones.
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 23:08:25 -0700 (PDT), Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 24, 10:31 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
> >> On 25 Apr, 01:17, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Apr 24, 11:54 am, Cicero_Venatio <jazzyb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > > "Laughing" is not spelled "snapping"
> >> > > >--------------
>
> >> > > You snapped during the Reagan years, please explain.
>
> >> > Can you imagine being a rabid liberal during the Reagan years? Trying
> >> > to tell everyone how bad things are when everyone else is doing well?
>
> >> Who was doing well in the Reagan years?
>
> >Those people who voted at a rate of 59% and gave him 49 states in 1984
> >and let Bush Sr. coast into the White House in 1988.
>
> So by your same logic, all of those people who voted Obama into office again are
> also doing well?
The unions are doing well. The liberal elites that buy elections are
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 24, 10:31 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
> >> On 25 Apr, 01:17, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Apr 24, 11:54 am, Cicero_Venatio <jazzyb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > > "Laughing" is not spelled "snapping"
> >> > > >--------------
>
> >> > > You snapped during the Reagan years, please explain.
>
> >> > Can you imagine being a rabid liberal during the Reagan years? Trying
> >> > to tell everyone how bad things are when everyone else is doing well?
>
> >> Who was doing well in the Reagan years?
>
> >Those people who voted at a rate of 59% and gave him 49 states in 1984
> >and let Bush Sr. coast into the White House in 1988.
>
> So by your same logic, all of those people who voted Obama into office again are
> also doing well?
doing well and the poor have their food stamps and Obamaphones.
1,952 murdered in Obama's organized communities
Apr 29, 2013, 3:19:51 AM4/29/13
to
doing better after four years of his golfing.
1,952 murdered in Obama's organized communities
Apr 29, 2013, 3:22:07 AM4/29/13
to
ass.
Moder@tor
Apr 29, 2013, 3:57:04 AM4/29/13
to
On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 17:33:44 -0700 (PDT), Yer Pal Al <caddys...@gmail.com>
wrote:
A Righturd lying his ass off again. Yawn. It's too easy to prove you a liar, Al.
You need a new schtick:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2012/09/28/crazy-for-obama-phones-but-are-they-for-real/
As for the election buying, also false. Fact is that Republican lying and scare
tactics seem only to work in rural areas. Big city voters voted en masse
Democrat. Once you 'turds figure out that lying and scare tactics don't work
anymore, you might stand a snowballs chance in hell of winning a major election.
But I doubt it.
wrote:
You need a new schtick:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2012/09/28/crazy-for-obama-phones-but-are-they-for-real/
As for the election buying, also false. Fact is that Republican lying and scare
tactics seem only to work in rural areas. Big city voters voted en masse
Democrat. Once you 'turds figure out that lying and scare tactics don't work
anymore, you might stand a snowballs chance in hell of winning a major election.
But I doubt it.
Moder@tor
Apr 29, 2013, 4:13:33 AM4/29/13
to
president are better off. He's wrong as usual. That's why you Righturds are such
losers.
Moder@tor
Apr 29, 2013, 4:39:19 AM4/29/13
to
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 00:22:07 -0700, "1,952 murdered in Obama's organized
Admitting you are a steaming pile of shit. Priceless. A keeper.
Yer Pal Al
Apr 29, 2013, 4:50:22 AM4/29/13
to
On Apr 29, 12:57 am, "Moder@tor" <Mo...@tor.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 17:33:44 -0700 (PDT), Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com>
There is no lie there. There are programs and today they are commonly
called Obamaphones and food stamps are at record levels.
The truth of the matter is that in Reagan increased his popular vote
total in his second term 24%. Barry Hussein's went down over 5% in his
second term. Bush 43's popular vote total went up 23% his second term.
Even Clinton got 5% more his second term.
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 17:33:44 -0700 (PDT), Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 28, 1:12 pm, "Moder@tor" <Mo...@tor.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 23:08:25 -0700 (PDT), Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Apr 24, 10:31 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
> >> >> On 25 Apr, 01:17, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > On Apr 24, 11:54 am, Cicero_Venatio <jazzyb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > > > "Laughing" is not spelled "snapping"
> >> >> > > >--------------
>
> >> >> > > You snapped during the Reagan years, please explain.
>
> >> >> > Can you imagine being a rabid liberal during the Reagan years? Trying
> >> >> > to tell everyone how bad things are when everyone else is doing well?
>
> >> >> Who was doing well in the Reagan years?
>
> >> >Those people who voted at a rate of 59% and gave him 49 states in 1984
> >> >and let Bush Sr. coast into the White House in 1988.
>
> >> So by your same logic, all of those people who voted Obama into office again are
> >> also doing well?
>
> >The unions are doing well. The liberal elites that buy elections are
> >doing well and the poor have their food stamps and Obamaphones.
>
> A Righturd lying his ass off again. Yawn. It's too easy to prove you a liar, Al.
> You need a new schtick:http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2012/09/28/crazy-for-oba...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 28, 1:12 pm, "Moder@tor" <Mo...@tor.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 23:08:25 -0700 (PDT), Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Apr 24, 10:31 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
> >> >> On 25 Apr, 01:17, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > On Apr 24, 11:54 am, Cicero_Venatio <jazzyb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > > > "Laughing" is not spelled "snapping"
> >> >> > > >--------------
>
> >> >> > > You snapped during the Reagan years, please explain.
>
> >> >> > Can you imagine being a rabid liberal during the Reagan years? Trying
> >> >> > to tell everyone how bad things are when everyone else is doing well?
>
> >> >> Who was doing well in the Reagan years?
>
> >> >Those people who voted at a rate of 59% and gave him 49 states in 1984
> >> >and let Bush Sr. coast into the White House in 1988.
>
> >> So by your same logic, all of those people who voted Obama into office again are
> >> also doing well?
>
> >The unions are doing well. The liberal elites that buy elections are
> >doing well and the poor have their food stamps and Obamaphones.
>
> A Righturd lying his ass off again. Yawn. It's too easy to prove you a liar, Al.
There is no lie there. There are programs and today they are commonly
called Obamaphones and food stamps are at record levels.
The truth of the matter is that in Reagan increased his popular vote
total in his second term 24%. Barry Hussein's went down over 5% in his
second term. Bush 43's popular vote total went up 23% his second term.
Even Clinton got 5% more his second term.
Moder@tor
Apr 29, 2013, 5:23:38 AM4/29/13
to
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 01:50:22 -0700 (PDT), Yer Pal Al <caddys...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Apr 29, 12:57 am, "Moder@tor" <Mo...@tor.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 17:33:44 -0700 (PDT), Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Apr 28, 1:12 pm, "Moder@tor" <Mo...@tor.com> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 23:08:25 -0700 (PDT), Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On Apr 24, 10:31 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On 25 Apr, 01:17, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > On Apr 24, 11:54 am, Cicero_Venatio <jazzyb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > > > "Laughing" is not spelled "snapping"
>> >> >> > > >--------------
>>
>> >> >> > > You snapped during the Reagan years, please explain.
>>
>> >> >> > Can you imagine being a rabid liberal during the Reagan years? Trying
>> >> >> > to tell everyone how bad things are when everyone else is doing well?
>>
>> >> >> Who was doing well in the Reagan years?
>>
>> >> >Those people who voted at a rate of 59% and gave him 49 states in 1984
>> >> >and let Bush Sr. coast into the White House in 1988.
>>
>> >> So by your same logic, all of those people who voted Obama into office again are
>> >> also doing well?
>>
>> >The unions are doing well. The liberal elites that buy elections are
>> >doing well and the poor have their food stamps and Obamaphones.
>>
>> A Righturd lying his ass off again. Yawn. It's too easy to prove you a liar, Al.
>> You need a new schtick:http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2012/09/28/crazy-for-oba...
>
>There is no lie there.
Only Righturd spin. Same thing.
>There are programs and today they are commonly
>called Obamaphones
Only by Righturds who don't realize the program had been in place long before
Obama was even considered to be a presidential candidate. Read the article. The
truth might even cause a hemmorhage in your brownshirt brain.
>and food stamps are at record levels.
>
>The truth of the matter is that in Reagan increased his popular vote
>total in his second term 24%. Barry Hussein's went down over 5% in his
>second term. Bush 43's popular vote total went up 23% his second term.
>Even Clinton got 5% more his second term.
SO how does that have anything at all to do with your wild assed claim that
those who voted for Reagan were better off? Hint: It doesn't. Another 'Your Pal
Al' lie. Let's revisit what WY wrote, ok?
"Who was doing well in the Reagan years? Unemployment didn't get down
from 10.8% to 6% till 1987 - 5 years after his recession ended.
Interest rates were at 18% in his first term, about 10% when he left
office - still too high. He racked up the first trillion dollar debt
of any president in history to add onto a nearly trillion dollar debt
he inherited from all previous presidents in history. Middle class
families saw no real increase in their take-home wages throughout the
decade for the first time in 40 years. About the only people who did
well were the filthy rich, of course. Thanks to that old trickle down
economics scam Reagan devised."
So far all you have done to rebut this is lie your ass off. Care to try again?
wrote:
>On Apr 29, 12:57 am, "Moder@tor" <Mo...@tor.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 17:33:44 -0700 (PDT), Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Apr 28, 1:12 pm, "Moder@tor" <Mo...@tor.com> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 23:08:25 -0700 (PDT), Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On Apr 24, 10:31 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On 25 Apr, 01:17, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > On Apr 24, 11:54 am, Cicero_Venatio <jazzyb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > > > "Laughing" is not spelled "snapping"
>> >> >> > > >--------------
>>
>> >> >> > > You snapped during the Reagan years, please explain.
>>
>> >> >> > Can you imagine being a rabid liberal during the Reagan years? Trying
>> >> >> > to tell everyone how bad things are when everyone else is doing well?
>>
>> >> >> Who was doing well in the Reagan years?
>>
>> >> >Those people who voted at a rate of 59% and gave him 49 states in 1984
>> >> >and let Bush Sr. coast into the White House in 1988.
>>
>> >> So by your same logic, all of those people who voted Obama into office again are
>> >> also doing well?
>>
>> >The unions are doing well. The liberal elites that buy elections are
>> >doing well and the poor have their food stamps and Obamaphones.
>>
>> A Righturd lying his ass off again. Yawn. It's too easy to prove you a liar, Al.
>> You need a new schtick:http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2012/09/28/crazy-for-oba...
>
>There is no lie there.
>There are programs and today they are commonly
>called Obamaphones
Obama was even considered to be a presidential candidate. Read the article. The
truth might even cause a hemmorhage in your brownshirt brain.
>and food stamps are at record levels.
>
>The truth of the matter is that in Reagan increased his popular vote
>total in his second term 24%. Barry Hussein's went down over 5% in his
>second term. Bush 43's popular vote total went up 23% his second term.
>Even Clinton got 5% more his second term.
those who voted for Reagan were better off? Hint: It doesn't. Another 'Your Pal
Al' lie. Let's revisit what WY wrote, ok?
"Who was doing well in the Reagan years? Unemployment didn't get down
from 10.8% to 6% till 1987 - 5 years after his recession ended.
Interest rates were at 18% in his first term, about 10% when he left
office - still too high. He racked up the first trillion dollar debt
of any president in history to add onto a nearly trillion dollar debt
he inherited from all previous presidents in history. Middle class
families saw no real increase in their take-home wages throughout the
decade for the first time in 40 years. About the only people who did
well were the filthy rich, of course. Thanks to that old trickle down
economics scam Reagan devised."
Message has been deleted
Yer Pal Al
Apr 29, 2013, 12:25:26 PM4/29/13
to
On Apr 29, 2:23 am, "Moder@tor" <Mo...@tor.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 01:50:22 -0700 (PDT), Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com>
You could have posted a link that supported your notion instead of one
that didn't.
> >There are programs and today they are commonly
> >called Obamaphones
>
> Only by Righturds who don't realize the program had been in place long before
> Obama was even considered to be a presidential candidate. Read the article.
So you want us to call the Clintonphones? You want to throw Clinton
under the bus just so Obama's dick doesn't taste so bad?
> The
> truth might even cause a hemmorhage in your brownshirt brain.
>
> >and food stamps are at record levels.
>
> >The truth of the matter is that in Reagan increased his popular vote
> >total in his second term 24%. Barry Hussein's went down over 5% in his
> >second term. Bush 43's popular vote total went up 23% his second term.
> >Even Clinton got 5% more his second term.
>
> SO how does that have anything at all to do with your wild assed claim that
> those who voted for Reagan were better off? Hint: It doesn't. Another 'Your Pal
> Al' lie. Let's revisit what WY wrote, ok?
>
> "Who was doing well in the Reagan years? Unemployment didn't get down
> from 10.8% to 6% till 1987 - 5 years after his recession ended.
If you were alive at the time you'd remember that Reagan had some huge
Carter-era fish to fry. The first being double digit inflation. The
2nd being extremely high interest rates. Both of these affected all
Americans in the pocket book. Whether they were on unemployment or not
they saw a reversing trend in skyrocketing prices that Carter
administration said was now endemic to the American economy.
Americans saw the country going in the right direction, and it was.
The recovery began in November 1982 and we saw 92 months without a
recession - the previous peacetime record being only 58 months.
That is why a successful Reagan saw his popular vote numbers rise 24%
and Obama's failure gave him a 5% decline in their second term re-
election.
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 01:50:22 -0700 (PDT), Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com>
that didn't.
> >There are programs and today they are commonly
> >called Obamaphones
>
> Only by Righturds who don't realize the program had been in place long before
> Obama was even considered to be a presidential candidate. Read the article.
under the bus just so Obama's dick doesn't taste so bad?
> The
> truth might even cause a hemmorhage in your brownshirt brain.
>
> >and food stamps are at record levels.
>
> >The truth of the matter is that in Reagan increased his popular vote
> >total in his second term 24%. Barry Hussein's went down over 5% in his
> >second term. Bush 43's popular vote total went up 23% his second term.
> >Even Clinton got 5% more his second term.
>
> SO how does that have anything at all to do with your wild assed claim that
> those who voted for Reagan were better off? Hint: It doesn't. Another 'Your Pal
> Al' lie. Let's revisit what WY wrote, ok?
>
> "Who was doing well in the Reagan years? Unemployment didn't get down
> from 10.8% to 6% till 1987 - 5 years after his recession ended.
Carter-era fish to fry. The first being double digit inflation. The
2nd being extremely high interest rates. Both of these affected all
Americans in the pocket book. Whether they were on unemployment or not
they saw a reversing trend in skyrocketing prices that Carter
administration said was now endemic to the American economy.
Americans saw the country going in the right direction, and it was.
The recovery began in November 1982 and we saw 92 months without a
recession - the previous peacetime record being only 58 months.
That is why a successful Reagan saw his popular vote numbers rise 24%
and Obama's failure gave him a 5% decline in their second term re-
election.
Moder@tor
Apr 29, 2013, 1:21:02 PM4/29/13
to
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:25:26 -0700 (PDT), Yer Pal Al <caddys...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Did you bother to read the article? Can you even read at all? Here is an
excerpt:
"The “Obama phone” program she’s touting doesn’t give out free phones to
minorities. And it wasn’t started by President Obama. And this rumor isn’t new.
As I reported months ago, there is a law in place to help low-income customers
have access to basic telephone service. It’s divided into two programs: Link-Up
America and Lifeline.
Link-Up assists consumers with the installation costs of phone service. The
program pays up to $30 of the cost of installation and up to $200 in the form of
a one year, interest-free loan for additional installation costs.
Lifeline provides discounts on basic monthly service at a primary residence for
qualified telephone customers. These discounts can be up to $10.00 per month, or
more for certain Native Americans. Generally, to qualify, your income must be at
or below 135% of the federal poverty guidelines (these vary by location and size
of family but for comparison, rings in at $22,350 for a family of four in the
lower 48)."
You were saying, liar?
>> The
>> truth might even cause a hemmorhage in your brownshirt brain.
>>
>> >and food stamps are at record levels.
>>
>> >The truth of the matter is that in Reagan increased his popular vote
>> >total in his second term 24%. Barry Hussein's went down over 5% in his
>> >second term. Bush 43's popular vote total went up 23% his second term.
>> >Even Clinton got 5% more his second term.
>>
>> SO how does that have anything at all to do with your wild assed claim that
>> those who voted for Reagan were better off? Hint: It doesn't. Another 'Your Pal
>> Al' lie. Let's revisit what WY wrote, ok?
>>
>> "Who was doing well in the Reagan years? Unemployment didn't get down
>> from 10.8% to 6% till 1987 - 5 years after his recession ended.
>
>If you were alive at the time you'd remember that Reagan had some huge
>Carter-era fish to fry. The first being double digit inflation. The
>2nd being extremely high interest rates. Both of these affected all
>Americans in the pocket book. Whether they were on unemployment or not
>they saw a reversing trend in skyrocketing prices that Carter
>administration said was now endemic to the American economy.
So eight years of Reagan and it was all Carters' fault? Sounds exactly like a
rant you continually accuse the Leftists of. Pot, kettle....
>Americans saw the country going in the right direction, and it was.
>The recovery began in November 1982 and we saw 92 months without a
>recession - the previous peacetime record being only 58 months.
Nice exact copy from an article, Al. That's called plagiarism when you don't
include quotes and cite it. Can't think for yourself so you have to be fed the
Righturd pablum. Duly noted. Here, however, is the reality of your so called
'recovery.'
http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/135/reagan.html
>
>That is why a successful Reagan saw his popular vote numbers rise 24%
>and Obama's failure gave him a 5% decline in their second term re-
>election.
So if Obama was even half as bad as you continually try and paint him, why
didn't he lose the election? Because the Righturds ran the seven dwarfs against
him? Or because he was way better than anything the Right could even dream up?
Bingo. A winner, no more calls please.
And why did Reagan's numbers increase? Same reason. The Democrats had nobody.
Well, Mondale, worse than nobody. At least Romney tried to tell believable lies.
Enough to sway some, but not enough of the voters.
Reagan was pond scum of the worst variety. His legacy left a lasting negative
imprint on this beautiful country. No amount of Righturd spin can change that.
wrote:
excerpt:
"The “Obama phone” program she’s touting doesn’t give out free phones to
minorities. And it wasn’t started by President Obama. And this rumor isn’t new.
As I reported months ago, there is a law in place to help low-income customers
have access to basic telephone service. It’s divided into two programs: Link-Up
America and Lifeline.
Link-Up assists consumers with the installation costs of phone service. The
program pays up to $30 of the cost of installation and up to $200 in the form of
a one year, interest-free loan for additional installation costs.
Lifeline provides discounts on basic monthly service at a primary residence for
qualified telephone customers. These discounts can be up to $10.00 per month, or
more for certain Native Americans. Generally, to qualify, your income must be at
or below 135% of the federal poverty guidelines (these vary by location and size
of family but for comparison, rings in at $22,350 for a family of four in the
lower 48)."
You were saying, liar?
>
>> >There are programs and today they are commonly
>> >called Obamaphones
>>
>> Only by Righturds who don't realize the program had been in place long before
>> Obama was even considered to be a presidential candidate. Read the article.
>
>So you want us to call the Clintonphones? You want to throw Clinton
>under the bus just so Obama's dick doesn't taste so bad?
Are you sucking Clinton's dick? You should really get a life, Al.
>> >There are programs and today they are commonly
>> >called Obamaphones
>>
>> Only by Righturds who don't realize the program had been in place long before
>> Obama was even considered to be a presidential candidate. Read the article.
>
>So you want us to call the Clintonphones? You want to throw Clinton
>under the bus just so Obama's dick doesn't taste so bad?
>> The
>> truth might even cause a hemmorhage in your brownshirt brain.
>>
>> >and food stamps are at record levels.
>>
>> >The truth of the matter is that in Reagan increased his popular vote
>> >total in his second term 24%. Barry Hussein's went down over 5% in his
>> >second term. Bush 43's popular vote total went up 23% his second term.
>> >Even Clinton got 5% more his second term.
>>
>> SO how does that have anything at all to do with your wild assed claim that
>> those who voted for Reagan were better off? Hint: It doesn't. Another 'Your Pal
>> Al' lie. Let's revisit what WY wrote, ok?
>>
>> "Who was doing well in the Reagan years? Unemployment didn't get down
>> from 10.8% to 6% till 1987 - 5 years after his recession ended.
>
>If you were alive at the time you'd remember that Reagan had some huge
>Carter-era fish to fry. The first being double digit inflation. The
>2nd being extremely high interest rates. Both of these affected all
>Americans in the pocket book. Whether they were on unemployment or not
>they saw a reversing trend in skyrocketing prices that Carter
>administration said was now endemic to the American economy.
rant you continually accuse the Leftists of. Pot, kettle....
>Americans saw the country going in the right direction, and it was.
>The recovery began in November 1982 and we saw 92 months without a
>recession - the previous peacetime record being only 58 months.
include quotes and cite it. Can't think for yourself so you have to be fed the
Righturd pablum. Duly noted. Here, however, is the reality of your so called
'recovery.'
http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/135/reagan.html
>
>That is why a successful Reagan saw his popular vote numbers rise 24%
>and Obama's failure gave him a 5% decline in their second term re-
>election.
didn't he lose the election? Because the Righturds ran the seven dwarfs against
him? Or because he was way better than anything the Right could even dream up?
Bingo. A winner, no more calls please.
And why did Reagan's numbers increase? Same reason. The Democrats had nobody.
Well, Mondale, worse than nobody. At least Romney tried to tell believable lies.
Enough to sway some, but not enough of the voters.
Reagan was pond scum of the worst variety. His legacy left a lasting negative
imprint on this beautiful country. No amount of Righturd spin can change that.
Cicero_Venatio
Apr 29, 2013, 2:33:13 PM4/29/13
to
> Unions represent workers. Workers vote in (or out) Unions and the
> Union leaders.
---------
Unionized labor is the transition in between capitalism and communism.
Europe was destroyed by unionized labor and is now transitioning to
communism. In Cuba, labor receives $20/week, but they do get free
healthcare and don't have to pay taxes. This is where certainly Greece,
and some other European countries are headed.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Yer Pal Al
Apr 29, 2013, 10:04:15 PM4/29/13
to
On Apr 29, 10:21 am, "Moder@tor" <Mo...@tor.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:25:26 -0700 (PDT), Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com>
We call them Obamaphones now because of the enthusiastic recipients
who credit him for for that largess. I understand that you want to
call the "Clintonphones" because his Lewinsky Legacy has already been
written in stone but that would further confuse Democrat voters.
> So eight years of Reagan and it was all Carters' fault? Sounds exactly like a
> rant you continually accuse the Leftists of. Pot, kettle....
Reagan inherited a worse economy than Obama and 5 years later it's
still Bush's fault. But along those lines Reagan had far too much
class to blame Carter. The blame/victim game is a hallmark of liberals
so we will expect Obama to play childish for some time to come.
> >Americans saw the country going in the right direction, and it was.
> >The recovery began in November 1982 and we saw 92 months without a
> >recession - the previous peacetime record being only 58 months.
>
> Nice exact copy from an article, Al. That's called plagiarism when you don't
> include quotes and cite it.
Plagiarism is what Democrats like Joe Biden do:
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/18/us/biden-admits-plagiarism-in-school-but-says-it-was-not-malevolent.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
It's when you copy someone else's work and pretend that it's your own
which of course I didn't do. Of course I have to look up the
definition for you because you are stupid mother fucker:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plagiarize
> Can't think for yourself so you have to be fed the
> Righturd pablum. Duly noted. Here, however, is the reality of your so called
> 'recovery.'
>
> http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/135/reagan.html
You're really reaching to great lengths to marginalize yourself.
Reagan will be remembered for the longest peacetime growth of 92
months and tearing down the Berlin wall - not for having a poverty
rate 1/2 of Barry Hussein's.
> >That is why a successful Reagan saw his popular vote numbers rise 24%
> >and Obama's failure gave him a 5% decline in their second term re-
> >election.
>
> So if Obama was even half as bad as you continually try and paint him, why
> didn't he lose the election?
He lost ground in the election. If he would have run out of buying-
votes stimulus-money earlier he would have.
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:25:26 -0700 (PDT), Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com>
who credit him for for that largess. I understand that you want to
call the "Clintonphones" because his Lewinsky Legacy has already been
written in stone but that would further confuse Democrat voters.
> So eight years of Reagan and it was all Carters' fault? Sounds exactly like a
> rant you continually accuse the Leftists of. Pot, kettle....
still Bush's fault. But along those lines Reagan had far too much
class to blame Carter. The blame/victim game is a hallmark of liberals
so we will expect Obama to play childish for some time to come.
> >Americans saw the country going in the right direction, and it was.
> >The recovery began in November 1982 and we saw 92 months without a
> >recession - the previous peacetime record being only 58 months.
>
> Nice exact copy from an article, Al. That's called plagiarism when you don't
> include quotes and cite it.
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/18/us/biden-admits-plagiarism-in-school-but-says-it-was-not-malevolent.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
It's when you copy someone else's work and pretend that it's your own
which of course I didn't do. Of course I have to look up the
definition for you because you are stupid mother fucker:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plagiarize
> Can't think for yourself so you have to be fed the
> Righturd pablum. Duly noted. Here, however, is the reality of your so called
> 'recovery.'
>
> http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/135/reagan.html
Reagan will be remembered for the longest peacetime growth of 92
months and tearing down the Berlin wall - not for having a poverty
rate 1/2 of Barry Hussein's.
> >That is why a successful Reagan saw his popular vote numbers rise 24%
> >and Obama's failure gave him a 5% decline in their second term re-
> >election.
>
> So if Obama was even half as bad as you continually try and paint him, why
> didn't he lose the election?
votes stimulus-money earlier he would have.
1,953 murdered in Obama's organized communities
Apr 30, 2013, 1:15:16 AM4/30/13
to
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:57:04 +0200, "Moder@tor" <Mo...@tor.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 17:33:44 -0700 (PDT), Yer Pal Al <caddys...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Apr 28, 1:12 pm, "Moder@tor" <Mo...@tor.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 23:08:25 -0700 (PDT), Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >On Apr 24, 10:31 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>>> >> On 25 Apr, 01:17, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> > On Apr 24, 11:54 am, Cicero_Venatio <jazzyb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> > > > "Laughing" is not spelled "snapping"
>>> >> > > >--------------
>>>
>>> >> > > You snapped during the Reagan years, please explain.
>>>
>>> >> > Can you imagine being a rabid liberal during the Reagan years? Trying
>>> >> > to tell everyone how bad things are when everyone else is doing well?
>>>
>>> >> Who was doing well in the Reagan years?
>>>
>>> >Those people who voted at a rate of 59% and gave him 49 states in 1984
>>> >and let Bush Sr. coast into the White House in 1988.
>>>
>>> So by your same logic, all of those people who voted Obama into office again are
>>> also doing well?
>>
>>The unions are doing well. The liberal elites that buy elections are
>>doing well and the poor have their food stamps and Obamaphones.
>
>A Righturd lying his ass off again. Yawn. It's too easy to prove you a liar, Al.
>You need a new schtick:
>http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2012/09/28/crazy-for-obama-phones-but-are-they-for-real/
The crazy woman(?) in the video certainly believes Obama gave her the
>On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 17:33:44 -0700 (PDT), Yer Pal Al <caddys...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Apr 28, 1:12 pm, "Moder@tor" <Mo...@tor.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 23:08:25 -0700 (PDT), Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >On Apr 24, 10:31 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>>> >> On 25 Apr, 01:17, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> > On Apr 24, 11:54 am, Cicero_Venatio <jazzyb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> > > > "Laughing" is not spelled "snapping"
>>> >> > > >--------------
>>>
>>> >> > > You snapped during the Reagan years, please explain.
>>>
>>> >> > Can you imagine being a rabid liberal during the Reagan years? Trying
>>> >> > to tell everyone how bad things are when everyone else is doing well?
>>>
>>> >> Who was doing well in the Reagan years?
>>>
>>> >Those people who voted at a rate of 59% and gave him 49 states in 1984
>>> >and let Bush Sr. coast into the White House in 1988.
>>>
>>> So by your same logic, all of those people who voted Obama into office again are
>>> also doing well?
>>
>>The unions are doing well. The liberal elites that buy elections are
>>doing well and the poor have their food stamps and Obamaphones.
>
>A Righturd lying his ass off again. Yawn. It's too easy to prove you a liar, Al.
>You need a new schtick:
>http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2012/09/28/crazy-for-obama-phones-but-are-they-for-real/
phone. The rest is mere diversion.
1,953 murdered in Obama's organized communities
Apr 30, 2013, 1:21:25 AM4/30/13
to
>>There are programs and today they are commonly
>>called Obamaphones
>
>Only by Righturds who don't realize the program had been in place long before
>Obama was even considered to be a presidential candidate. Read the article. The
>truth might even cause a hemmorhage in your brownshirt brain.
>>and food stamps are at record levels.
>>
>>The truth of the matter is that in Reagan increased his popular vote
>>total in his second term 24%. Barry Hussein's went down over 5% in his
>>second term. Bush 43's popular vote total went up 23% his second term.
>>Even Clinton got 5% more his second term.
>
>SO how does that have anything at all to do with your wild assed claim that
>those who voted for Reagan were better off? Hint: It doesn't. Another 'Your Pal
>Al' lie. Let's revisit what WY wrote, ok?
after voting for Barky Hussein.
>"Who was doing well in the Reagan years? Unemployment didn't get down
>from 10.8% to 6% till 1987 - 5 years after his recession ended.
>Interest rates were at 18% in his first term, about 10% when he left
>office - still too high. He racked up the first trillion dollar debt
>of any president in history to add onto a nearly trillion dollar debt
>he inherited from all previous presidents in history.
>Middle class
>families saw no real increase in their take-home wages throughout the
>decade for the first time in 40 years. About the only people who did
>well were the filthy rich, of course. Thanks to that old trickle down
>economics scam Reagan devised."
>
>So far all you have done to rebut this is lie your ass off. Care to try again?
1,953 murdered in Obama's organized communities
Apr 30, 2013, 1:23:35 AM4/30/13
to
1,953 murdered in Obama's organized communities
Apr 30, 2013, 1:34:31 AM4/30/13
to
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 13:04:43 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:25:26 -0700 (PDT), Yer Pal Al
><caddys...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Only by Righturds who don't realize the program had been in place long before
>>> Obama was even considered to be a presidential candidate. Read the article.
>>
>>So you want us to call the Clintonphones?
>
>Only when you kneel and face Arkansas in veneration of best president
>since FDR.
That's right; almost forgot you were a devil worshipper.
Talk about damning with faint praise...
>On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:25:26 -0700 (PDT), Yer Pal Al
><caddys...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Only by Righturds who don't realize the program had been in place long before
>>> Obama was even considered to be a presidential candidate. Read the article.
>>
>>So you want us to call the Clintonphones?
>
>since FDR.
That's right; almost forgot you were a devil worshipper.
Talk about damning with faint praise...
1,953 murdered in Obama's organized communities
Apr 30, 2013, 1:37:30 AM4/30/13
to
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 08:07:39 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 17:33:44 -0700 (PDT), Yer Pal Al
><caddys...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> So by your same logic, all of those people who voted Obama into office again are
>>> also doing well?
>>
>>The unions are doing well.
>
>ability to defend themselves against republicans.
Because they union handlers were merely milking them for money. This
is why unions are disappearing everywhere but the government
strangleholds of mediocrity.
>THe middle class has lost over 50% of all their wealth due to
>Republican policies.
Obama is a Republican?
>The top 20% have gained over 37% in recent years, and now the top 10%
>commands over 76% of all yearly income/wealth in America.
Ain't yo' money, homey.
>On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 17:33:44 -0700 (PDT), Yer Pal Al
><caddys...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> So by your same logic, all of those people who voted Obama into office again are
>>> also doing well?
>>
>>The unions are doing well.
>
>Unions represent workers. Workers vote in (or out) Unions and the
>Union leaders.
>
>Since the 80's, Workers have lost wages, lost benefits, lost HC, lost
>Union leaders.
>
>ability to defend themselves against republicans.
Because they union handlers were merely milking them for money. This
is why unions are disappearing everywhere but the government
strangleholds of mediocrity.
>THe middle class has lost over 50% of all their wealth due to
>Republican policies.
Obama is a Republican?
>The top 20% have gained over 37% in recent years, and now the top 10%
>commands over 76% of all yearly income/wealth in America.
Ain't yo' money, homey.
1,953 murdered in Obama's organized communities
Apr 30, 2013, 1:40:07 AM4/30/13
to
'Rats and Republicans alike.
Moder@tor
Apr 30, 2013, 1:43:53 AM4/30/13
to
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:04:15 -0700 (PDT), Yer Pal Al <caddys...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Which purposely avoids your claim that they were given out to all of the poor. I
proved they aren't. Your move, slime.
Carter was high inflation. Sorry, you lose a point on that one for your
stupidity.
>and 5 years later it's
>still Bush's fault.
According to you.
>But along those lines Reagan had far too much
>class to blame Carter. The blame/victim game is a hallmark of liberals
>so we will expect Obama to play childish for some time to come.
He says as he blames liberals. So Al, are you a closet liberal? You seem to play
the blame game better than most liberals I know. Or are you simply lying your
ass off again. Probably the latter.
>> >Americans saw the country going in the right direction, and it was.
>> >The recovery began in November 1982 and we saw 92 months without a
>> >recession - the previous peacetime record being only 58 months.
>>
>> Nice exact copy from an article, Al. That's called plagiarism when you don't
>> include quotes and cite it.
>
>Plagiarism is what Democrats like Joe Biden do:
>http://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/18/us/biden-admits-plagiarism-in-school-but-says-it-was-not-malevolent.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
>
>It's when you copy someone else's work and pretend that it's your own
>which of course I didn't do.
You copied, word for word, a paragraph from an article without citing it. Shall
I embarass you with which one you copied it from? Or should you just admit you
are too stupid to have your own thoughts and must borrow them from others with
more intelligence than you?
>Of course I have to look up the
>definition for you because you are stupid mother fucker:
No, actually you had to look it up because you didn't know what it meant. Be
honest now.
>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plagiarize
>
>> Can't think for yourself so you have to be fed the
>> Righturd pablum. Duly noted. Here, however, is the reality of your so called
>> 'recovery.'
>>
>> http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/135/reagan.html
>
>You're really reaching to great lengths to marginalize yourself.
>Reagan will be remembered for the longest peacetime growth of 92
>months and tearing down the Berlin wall - not for having a poverty
>rate 1/2 of Barry Hussein's.
No, he will be remembered for conveniently forgetting that he illegally sold
arms to the Iranians and sent the money to Contra Rebels. He will be remembered
for illegally negotiating with Iran to keep the hostages until after the
election. He will be remembered for coming into office on the promise of
reducing government spending and doing just the opposite. He will be remembered
for extending the gap between rich and poor. The HUD scandal. Deregulation of
S&L's. Cutting low income housing subsidies for those down on their luck. The
sudden growth of homelessness under his administration. Those are just a few of
Reagan's large Wall Of Shame that you Righturds choose to ignore. He was pond
scum, a hack of an actor, and someone should leave a big pile of Yer Pal Al on
his grave as a reminder of his legacy.
>> >That is why a successful Reagan saw his popular vote numbers rise 24%
>> >and Obama's failure gave him a 5% decline in their second term re-
>> >election.
>>
>> So if Obama was even half as bad as you continually try and paint him, why
>> didn't he lose the election?
>
>He lost ground in the election. If he would have run out of buying-
>votes stimulus-money earlier he would have.
Not a chance. Look at the urban/rural demographics as they relate to votes.
Romney got the goober votes, Obama the city intellectual vote. Dominated Romney
there. Yeah, I suppose you would point to the Black, Hispanic and minority
voters who also overwhelmingly voted for Obama and say they are ones Obama
bought. But that would be a bit racist, wouldn't it, Al? Your guys
lost.....twice. I suggest you get a life and stop being such a whining, crying,
pee-pee pants baby about it.
wrote:
proved they aren't. Your move, slime.
>
>> So eight years of Reagan and it was all Carters' fault? Sounds exactly like a
>> rant you continually accuse the Leftists of. Pot, kettle....
>
>Reagan inherited a worse economy than Obama
Hahahaha. The banks had just collapsed when Obama was elected. All we had during
>> So eight years of Reagan and it was all Carters' fault? Sounds exactly like a
>> rant you continually accuse the Leftists of. Pot, kettle....
>
>Reagan inherited a worse economy than Obama
Carter was high inflation. Sorry, you lose a point on that one for your
stupidity.
>and 5 years later it's
>still Bush's fault.
>But along those lines Reagan had far too much
>class to blame Carter. The blame/victim game is a hallmark of liberals
>so we will expect Obama to play childish for some time to come.
the blame game better than most liberals I know. Or are you simply lying your
ass off again. Probably the latter.
>> >Americans saw the country going in the right direction, and it was.
>> >The recovery began in November 1982 and we saw 92 months without a
>> >recession - the previous peacetime record being only 58 months.
>>
>> Nice exact copy from an article, Al. That's called plagiarism when you don't
>> include quotes and cite it.
>
>Plagiarism is what Democrats like Joe Biden do:
>http://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/18/us/biden-admits-plagiarism-in-school-but-says-it-was-not-malevolent.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
>
>It's when you copy someone else's work and pretend that it's your own
>which of course I didn't do.
I embarass you with which one you copied it from? Or should you just admit you
are too stupid to have your own thoughts and must borrow them from others with
more intelligence than you?
>Of course I have to look up the
>definition for you because you are stupid mother fucker:
honest now.
>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plagiarize
>
>> Can't think for yourself so you have to be fed the
>> Righturd pablum. Duly noted. Here, however, is the reality of your so called
>> 'recovery.'
>>
>> http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/135/reagan.html
>
>You're really reaching to great lengths to marginalize yourself.
>Reagan will be remembered for the longest peacetime growth of 92
>months and tearing down the Berlin wall - not for having a poverty
>rate 1/2 of Barry Hussein's.
arms to the Iranians and sent the money to Contra Rebels. He will be remembered
for illegally negotiating with Iran to keep the hostages until after the
election. He will be remembered for coming into office on the promise of
reducing government spending and doing just the opposite. He will be remembered
for extending the gap between rich and poor. The HUD scandal. Deregulation of
S&L's. Cutting low income housing subsidies for those down on their luck. The
sudden growth of homelessness under his administration. Those are just a few of
Reagan's large Wall Of Shame that you Righturds choose to ignore. He was pond
scum, a hack of an actor, and someone should leave a big pile of Yer Pal Al on
his grave as a reminder of his legacy.
>> >That is why a successful Reagan saw his popular vote numbers rise 24%
>> >and Obama's failure gave him a 5% decline in their second term re-
>> >election.
>>
>> So if Obama was even half as bad as you continually try and paint him, why
>> didn't he lose the election?
>
>He lost ground in the election. If he would have run out of buying-
>votes stimulus-money earlier he would have.
Romney got the goober votes, Obama the city intellectual vote. Dominated Romney
there. Yeah, I suppose you would point to the Black, Hispanic and minority
voters who also overwhelmingly voted for Obama and say they are ones Obama
bought. But that would be a bit racist, wouldn't it, Al? Your guys
lost.....twice. I suggest you get a life and stop being such a whining, crying,
pee-pee pants baby about it.
Moder@tor
Apr 30, 2013, 2:56:41 AM4/30/13
to
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 22:40:07 -0700, "1,953 murdered in Obama's organized
Sour grapes. You Righturds had the last election handed to you on a silver
platter. Instead of running anyone with any semblance of a clue, you chose the
seven dwarfs, who, one by one, flamed out, leaving the great White Hope, Romney
the liar. No wonder you lost. And will continue to do so with such a stupid
plan. What the Righturds need desperately to do to win a presidential election,
is stop putting women off, that is about half of the vote, start including more
than token people of color into the party politics, and stop being such dufii.
There is still the issue of focusing on stupid things like abortion and guns
when the economy should be the focus, but hey, can't bring you into the 21st
century all at once, the shock would kill your anacronistic asses all at once.
platter. Instead of running anyone with any semblance of a clue, you chose the
seven dwarfs, who, one by one, flamed out, leaving the great White Hope, Romney
the liar. No wonder you lost. And will continue to do so with such a stupid
plan. What the Righturds need desperately to do to win a presidential election,
is stop putting women off, that is about half of the vote, start including more
than token people of color into the party politics, and stop being such dufii.
There is still the issue of focusing on stupid things like abortion and guns
when the economy should be the focus, but hey, can't bring you into the 21st
century all at once, the shock would kill your anacronistic asses all at once.
Message has been deleted
Yer Pal Al
Apr 30, 2013, 10:05:50 PM4/30/13
to
On Apr 29, 10:43 pm, "Moder@tor" <Mo...@tor.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:04:15 -0700 (PDT), Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com>
You are saying that wealthy and middle-class people qualified for
Obamaphones? Link-up is for "...eligible low-income consumers..."
http://www.fcc.gov/guides/lifeline-and-link-affordable-telephone-service-income-eligible-consumers
Lifeline is also a program for "Low-Income Consumers"
http://www.fcc.gov/lifeline
> >> So eight years of Reagan and it was all Carters' fault? Sounds exactly like a
> >> rant you continually accuse the Leftists of. Pot, kettle....
>
> >Reagan inherited a worse economy than Obama
>
> Hahahaha. The banks had just collapsed when Obama was elected. All we had during
> Carter was high inflation. Sorry, you lose a point on that one for your
> stupidity.
I know, it sucks to be you:
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11641881/1/reagan-handled-a-worse-economic-situation-much-better-opinion.html
> >and 5 years later it's
> >still Bush's fault.
>
> According to you.
The bad economy started in 2007 according to me. That corresponds with
an incoming Democrat House and Senate.
> >But along those lines Reagan had far too much
> >class to blame Carter. The blame/victim game is a hallmark of liberals
> >so we will expect Obama to play childish for some time to come.
>
> He says as he blames liberals. So Al, are you a closet liberal? You seem to play
> the blame game better than most liberals I know. Or are you simply lying your
> ass off again. Probably the latter.
>
> >> >Americans saw the country going in the right direction, and it was.
> >> >The recovery began in November 1982 and we saw 92 months without a
> >> >recession - the previous peacetime record being only 58 months.
>
> >> Nice exact copy from an article, Al. That's called plagiarism when you don't
> >> include quotes and cite it.
>
> >Plagiarism is what Democrats like Joe Biden do:
> >http://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/18/us/biden-admits-plagiarism-in-schoo...
intent.
> >http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plagiarize
>
> >> Can't think for yourself so you have to be fed the
> >> Righturd pablum. Duly noted. Here, however, is the reality of your so called
> >> 'recovery.'
>
> >>http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/135/reagan.html
>
> >You're really reaching to great lengths to marginalize yourself.
> >Reagan will be remembered for the longest peacetime growth of 92
> >months and tearing down the Berlin wall - not for having a poverty
> >rate 1/2 of Barry Hussein's.
>
> No, he will be remembered for conveniently forgetting that he illegally sold
> arms to the Iranians and sent the money to Contra Rebels. He will be remembered
> for illegally negotiating with Iran to keep the hostages until after the
> election. He will be remembered for coming into office on the promise of
> reducing government spending and doing just the opposite. He will be remembered
> for extending the gap between rich and poor. The HUD scandal. Deregulation of
> S&L's. Cutting low income housing subsidies for those down on their luck. The
> sudden growth of homelessness under his administration. Those are just a few of
> Reagan's large Wall Of Shame that you Righturds choose to ignore. He was pond
> scum, a hack of an actor, and someone should leave a big pile of Yer Pal Al on
> his grave as a reminder of his legacy.
That's what you and the marginalized few will remember.You'll end up
on the ash heap of history like those other bigots that wanted to
remember Lincoln as the one who suspended habeas corpus and MLK as an
adulterer.
> >> >That is why a successful Reagan saw his popular vote numbers rise 24%
> >> >and Obama's failure gave him a 5% decline in their second term re-
> >> >election.
>
> >> So if Obama was even half as bad as you continually try and paint him, why
> >> didn't he lose the election?
>
> >He lost ground in the election. If he would have run out of buying-
> >votes stimulus-money earlier he would have.
>
> Not a chance.
Democrats think we can just print more money of course that isn't the
reality.
> Look at the urban/rural demographics as they relate to votes.
Poor people live in urban squalor. Wealthy Democrats live in gated
urban communities. Republicans grow food.
> Romney got the goober votes, Obama the city intellectual vote.
Sorry but Obama's most faithful demographic was the high school drop
out. He won that demographic 64% to Romney's 35%. Romney's most
faithful demographic was the college graduate at 51%.
Sucks to be you. Too bad, so sad.
http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president#exit-polls
> Dominated Romney
> there. Yeah, I suppose you would point to the Black, Hispanic and minority
> voters who also overwhelmingly voted for Obama and say they are ones Obama
> bought.
Of course it's easy to buy poor votes and that's what he did. He also
bought green votes with failed energy entitlements/kickbacks like
Solyndra, Evergreen Solar, SpectraWatt and Mountain Plaza.
> But that would be a bit racist, wouldn't it, Al?
You are the one trying to inject race into the discussion. It's
because liberals are inherently racist.
> Your guys
> lost.....twice. I suggest you get a life and stop being such a whining, crying,
> pee-pee pants baby about it.
It depends on what your definition of "life" is and this is a clear
delineation between liberals and conservatives. My definition of life
is taking care of myself and my family - which I'm doing just fine.
For me to become a liberal I'd have to insist that the government take
care of me in exchange for my vote.
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:04:15 -0700 (PDT), Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com>
Obamaphones? Link-up is for "...eligible low-income consumers..."
http://www.fcc.gov/guides/lifeline-and-link-affordable-telephone-service-income-eligible-consumers
Lifeline is also a program for "Low-Income Consumers"
http://www.fcc.gov/lifeline
> >> So eight years of Reagan and it was all Carters' fault? Sounds exactly like a
> >> rant you continually accuse the Leftists of. Pot, kettle....
>
> >Reagan inherited a worse economy than Obama
>
> Hahahaha. The banks had just collapsed when Obama was elected. All we had during
> Carter was high inflation. Sorry, you lose a point on that one for your
> stupidity.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11641881/1/reagan-handled-a-worse-economic-situation-much-better-opinion.html
> >and 5 years later it's
> >still Bush's fault.
>
> According to you.
an incoming Democrat House and Senate.
> >But along those lines Reagan had far too much
> >class to blame Carter. The blame/victim game is a hallmark of liberals
> >so we will expect Obama to play childish for some time to come.
>
> He says as he blames liberals. So Al, are you a closet liberal? You seem to play
> the blame game better than most liberals I know. Or are you simply lying your
> ass off again. Probably the latter.
>
> >> >Americans saw the country going in the right direction, and it was.
> >> >The recovery began in November 1982 and we saw 92 months without a
> >> >recession - the previous peacetime record being only 58 months.
>
> >> Nice exact copy from an article, Al. That's called plagiarism when you don't
> >> include quotes and cite it.
>
> >Plagiarism is what Democrats like Joe Biden do:
>
> >It's when you copy someone else's work and pretend that it's your own
> >which of course I didn't do.
>
> You copied, word for word, a paragraph from an article without citing it. Shall
> I embarass you with which one you copied it from? Or should you just admit you
> are too stupid to have your own thoughts and must borrow them from others with
> more intelligence than you?
>
> >Of course I have to look up the
> >definition for you because you are stupid mother fucker:
>
> No, actually you had to look it up because you didn't know what it meant. Be
> honest now.
I ended that really silly argument with the definition which was my
> >It's when you copy someone else's work and pretend that it's your own
> >which of course I didn't do.
>
> You copied, word for word, a paragraph from an article without citing it. Shall
> I embarass you with which one you copied it from? Or should you just admit you
> are too stupid to have your own thoughts and must borrow them from others with
> more intelligence than you?
>
> >Of course I have to look up the
> >definition for you because you are stupid mother fucker:
>
> No, actually you had to look it up because you didn't know what it meant. Be
> honest now.
intent.
> >http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plagiarize
>
> >> Can't think for yourself so you have to be fed the
> >> Righturd pablum. Duly noted. Here, however, is the reality of your so called
> >> 'recovery.'
>
> >>http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/135/reagan.html
>
> >You're really reaching to great lengths to marginalize yourself.
> >Reagan will be remembered for the longest peacetime growth of 92
> >months and tearing down the Berlin wall - not for having a poverty
> >rate 1/2 of Barry Hussein's.
>
> No, he will be remembered for conveniently forgetting that he illegally sold
> arms to the Iranians and sent the money to Contra Rebels. He will be remembered
> for illegally negotiating with Iran to keep the hostages until after the
> election. He will be remembered for coming into office on the promise of
> reducing government spending and doing just the opposite. He will be remembered
> for extending the gap between rich and poor. The HUD scandal. Deregulation of
> S&L's. Cutting low income housing subsidies for those down on their luck. The
> sudden growth of homelessness under his administration. Those are just a few of
> Reagan's large Wall Of Shame that you Righturds choose to ignore. He was pond
> scum, a hack of an actor, and someone should leave a big pile of Yer Pal Al on
> his grave as a reminder of his legacy.
on the ash heap of history like those other bigots that wanted to
remember Lincoln as the one who suspended habeas corpus and MLK as an
adulterer.
> >> >That is why a successful Reagan saw his popular vote numbers rise 24%
> >> >and Obama's failure gave him a 5% decline in their second term re-
> >> >election.
>
> >> So if Obama was even half as bad as you continually try and paint him, why
> >> didn't he lose the election?
>
> >He lost ground in the election. If he would have run out of buying-
> >votes stimulus-money earlier he would have.
>
> Not a chance.
reality.
> Look at the urban/rural demographics as they relate to votes.
urban communities. Republicans grow food.
> Romney got the goober votes, Obama the city intellectual vote.
out. He won that demographic 64% to Romney's 35%. Romney's most
faithful demographic was the college graduate at 51%.
Sucks to be you. Too bad, so sad.
http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president#exit-polls
> Dominated Romney
> there. Yeah, I suppose you would point to the Black, Hispanic and minority
> voters who also overwhelmingly voted for Obama and say they are ones Obama
> bought.
bought green votes with failed energy entitlements/kickbacks like
Solyndra, Evergreen Solar, SpectraWatt and Mountain Plaza.
> But that would be a bit racist, wouldn't it, Al?
because liberals are inherently racist.
> Your guys
> lost.....twice. I suggest you get a life and stop being such a whining, crying,
> pee-pee pants baby about it.
delineation between liberals and conservatives. My definition of life
is taking care of myself and my family - which I'm doing just fine.
For me to become a liberal I'd have to insist that the government take
care of me in exchange for my vote.
Moder@tor
May 1, 2013, 5:04:08 AM5/1/13
to
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 19:05:50 -0700 (PDT), Yer Pal Al <caddys...@gmail.com>
They weren't and aren't giving away free 'Obamaphones' like you falsely claimed.
Strike one.
>> >> So eight years of Reagan and it was all Carters' fault? Sounds exactly like a
>> >> rant you continually accuse the Leftists of. Pot, kettle....
>>
>> >Reagan inherited a worse economy than Obama
>>
>> Hahahaha. The banks had just collapsed when Obama was elected. All we had during
>> Carter was high inflation. Sorry, you lose a point on that one for your
>> stupidity.
>
>I know, it sucks to be you:
>http://www.thestreet.com/story/11641881/1/reagan-handled-a-worse-economic-situation-much-better-opinion.html
So this blogger is as stupid as you are. Yawn. Comparing the domino collapse of
the banking system in the US to high inflation is pretty damned stupid, even for
your standards, Al.
>> >and 5 years later it's
>> >still Bush's fault.
>>
>> According to you.
>
>The bad economy started in 2007 according to me. That corresponds with
>an incoming Democrat House and Senate.
That's your explanation as to why it is Bush's fault? Again I find myself
debating with a complete moron.
>> >But along those lines Reagan had far too much
>> >class to blame Carter. The blame/victim game is a hallmark of liberals
>> >so we will expect Obama to play childish for some time to come.
>>
>> He says as he blames liberals. So Al, are you a closet liberal? You seem to play
>> the blame game better than most liberals I know. Or are you simply lying your
>> ass off again. Probably the latter.
Crickets.
>> >> >Americans saw the country going in the right direction, and it was.
>> >> >The recovery began in November 1982 and we saw 92 months without a
>> >> >recession - the previous peacetime record being only 58 months.
>>
>> >> Nice exact copy from an article, Al. That's called plagiarism when you don't
>> >> include quotes and cite it.
>>
>> >Plagiarism is what Democrats like Joe Biden do:
>> >http://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/18/us/biden-admits-plagiarism-in-schoo...
>>
>> >It's when you copy someone else's work and pretend that it's your own
>> >which of course I didn't do.
>>
>> You copied, word for word, a paragraph from an article without citing it. Shall
>> I embarass you with which one you copied it from? Or should you just admit you
>> are too stupid to have your own thoughts and must borrow them from others with
>> more intelligence than you?
>>
>> >Of course I have to look up the
>> >definition for you because you are stupid mother fucker:
>>
>> No, actually you had to look it up because you didn't know what it meant. Be
>> honest now.
>
>I ended that really silly argument with the definition which was my
>intent.
Which proved you were guilty of it. Duly noted.
>> >http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plagiarize
>>
>> >> Can't think for yourself so you have to be fed the
>> >> Righturd pablum. Duly noted. Here, however, is the reality of your so called
>> >> 'recovery.'
>>
>> >>http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/135/reagan.html
>>
>> >You're really reaching to great lengths to marginalize yourself.
>> >Reagan will be remembered for the longest peacetime growth of 92
>> >months and tearing down the Berlin wall - not for having a poverty
>> >rate 1/2 of Barry Hussein's.
>>
>> No, he will be remembered for conveniently forgetting that he illegally sold
>> arms to the Iranians and sent the money to Contra Rebels. He will be remembered
>> for illegally negotiating with Iran to keep the hostages until after the
>> election. He will be remembered for coming into office on the promise of
>> reducing government spending and doing just the opposite. He will be remembered
>> for extending the gap between rich and poor. The HUD scandal. Deregulation of
>> S&L's. Cutting low income housing subsidies for those down on their luck. The
>> sudden growth of homelessness under his administration. Those are just a few of
>> Reagan's large Wall Of Shame that you Righturds choose to ignore. He was pond
>> scum, a hack of an actor, and someone should leave a big pile of Yer Pal Al on
>> his grave as a reminder of his legacy.
>
>That's what you and the marginalized few will remember.You'll end up
>on the ash heap of history like those other bigots that wanted to
>remember Lincoln as the one who suspended habeas corpus and MLK as an
>adulterer.
That is his wall of shame. The paltry few things you Righturds *claim* he did
for America and the planet were just plain timing. The wall was ready to fall
before he said those famous words. Would have happened with or without him. Of
course the record (at the time) deficit, would not have happened without him.
Strike two.
>> >> >That is why a successful Reagan saw his popular vote numbers rise 24%
>> >> >and Obama's failure gave him a 5% decline in their second term re-
>> >> >election.
>>
>> >> So if Obama was even half as bad as you continually try and paint him, why
>> >> didn't he lose the election?
>>
>> >He lost ground in the election. If he would have run out of buying-
>> >votes stimulus-money earlier he would have.
>>
>> Not a chance.
>
>Democrats think we can just print more money of course that isn't the
>reality.
Not one Dem I know believes that. You lying again, boy? Your nick should be Your
Lying Pal Al. Fits you better.
>> Look at the urban/rural demographics as they relate to votes.
>
>Poor people live in urban squalor. Wealthy Democrats live in gated
>urban communities. Republicans grow food.
More lies. Blacks and Hispanics populate large areas of rural communities, but
they voted Dem. And all of the central business cities of the US voted Dem as
well. And which Rightards actually grow food? Your answer
here ->_________________________
>> Romney got the goober votes, Obama the city intellectual vote.
>
>Sorry but Obama's most faithful demographic was the high school drop
>out. He won that demographic 64% to Romney's 35%. Romney's most
>faithful demographic was the college graduate at 51%.
Been through that too many times. Less than 3% of the vote. Hardly influential
and less telling than the Women, Black and Hispanic voting. Sorry, strike three,
you're out.
>Sucks to be you. Too bad, so sad.
>http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president#exit-polls
>
>> Dominated Romney
>> there. Yeah, I suppose you would point to the Black, Hispanic and minority
>> voters who also overwhelmingly voted for Obama and say they are ones Obama
>> bought.
>
>Of course it's easy to buy poor votes and that's what he did. He also
>bought green votes with failed energy entitlements/kickbacks like
>Solyndra, Evergreen Solar, SpectraWatt and Mountain Plaza.
Programs that began under the previous admin. Strike four.
>> But that would be a bit racist, wouldn't it, Al?
>
>You are the one trying to inject race into the discussion. It's
>because liberals are inherently racist.
That you continue to think of me as Liberal is also pretty stupid, even for you.
Or is anyone left of David Duke a Liberal to you?
>> Your guys
>> lost.....twice. I suggest you get a life and stop being such a whining, crying,
>> pee-pee pants baby about it.
>
>It depends on what your definition of "life" is and this is a clear
>delineation between liberals and conservatives. My definition of life
>is taking care of myself and my family - which I'm doing just fine.
>For me to become a liberal I'd have to insist that the government take
>care of me in exchange for my vote.
No one is asking you to become a Liberal. And if simply taking care of your
family is life to you, I feel real sorry for you. That is, but one small part of
what it means to me. I'm out, your stupidity seems to grow with each answer you
post. Like the ever increasing weight at the tractor pulls. Eventually, you'll
become the black hole of knowledge, where it starts sucking the knowledge from
others. I don't want to be there when that happens.
Strike one.
>> >> So eight years of Reagan and it was all Carters' fault? Sounds exactly like a
>> >> rant you continually accuse the Leftists of. Pot, kettle....
>>
>> >Reagan inherited a worse economy than Obama
>>
>> Hahahaha. The banks had just collapsed when Obama was elected. All we had during
>> Carter was high inflation. Sorry, you lose a point on that one for your
>> stupidity.
>
>I know, it sucks to be you:
>http://www.thestreet.com/story/11641881/1/reagan-handled-a-worse-economic-situation-much-better-opinion.html
the banking system in the US to high inflation is pretty damned stupid, even for
your standards, Al.
>> >and 5 years later it's
>> >still Bush's fault.
>>
>> According to you.
>
>The bad economy started in 2007 according to me. That corresponds with
>an incoming Democrat House and Senate.
debating with a complete moron.
>> >But along those lines Reagan had far too much
>> >class to blame Carter. The blame/victim game is a hallmark of liberals
>> >so we will expect Obama to play childish for some time to come.
>>
>> He says as he blames liberals. So Al, are you a closet liberal? You seem to play
>> the blame game better than most liberals I know. Or are you simply lying your
>> ass off again. Probably the latter.
>> >> >Americans saw the country going in the right direction, and it was.
>> >> >The recovery began in November 1982 and we saw 92 months without a
>> >> >recession - the previous peacetime record being only 58 months.
>>
>> >> Nice exact copy from an article, Al. That's called plagiarism when you don't
>> >> include quotes and cite it.
>>
>> >Plagiarism is what Democrats like Joe Biden do:
>> >http://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/18/us/biden-admits-plagiarism-in-schoo...
>>
>> >It's when you copy someone else's work and pretend that it's your own
>> >which of course I didn't do.
>>
>> You copied, word for word, a paragraph from an article without citing it. Shall
>> I embarass you with which one you copied it from? Or should you just admit you
>> are too stupid to have your own thoughts and must borrow them from others with
>> more intelligence than you?
>>
>> >Of course I have to look up the
>> >definition for you because you are stupid mother fucker:
>>
>> No, actually you had to look it up because you didn't know what it meant. Be
>> honest now.
>
>I ended that really silly argument with the definition which was my
>intent.
>> >http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plagiarize
>>
>> >> Can't think for yourself so you have to be fed the
>> >> Righturd pablum. Duly noted. Here, however, is the reality of your so called
>> >> 'recovery.'
>>
>> >>http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/135/reagan.html
>>
>> >You're really reaching to great lengths to marginalize yourself.
>> >Reagan will be remembered for the longest peacetime growth of 92
>> >months and tearing down the Berlin wall - not for having a poverty
>> >rate 1/2 of Barry Hussein's.
>>
>> No, he will be remembered for conveniently forgetting that he illegally sold
>> arms to the Iranians and sent the money to Contra Rebels. He will be remembered
>> for illegally negotiating with Iran to keep the hostages until after the
>> election. He will be remembered for coming into office on the promise of
>> reducing government spending and doing just the opposite. He will be remembered
>> for extending the gap between rich and poor. The HUD scandal. Deregulation of
>> S&L's. Cutting low income housing subsidies for those down on their luck. The
>> sudden growth of homelessness under his administration. Those are just a few of
>> Reagan's large Wall Of Shame that you Righturds choose to ignore. He was pond
>> scum, a hack of an actor, and someone should leave a big pile of Yer Pal Al on
>> his grave as a reminder of his legacy.
>
>That's what you and the marginalized few will remember.You'll end up
>on the ash heap of history like those other bigots that wanted to
>remember Lincoln as the one who suspended habeas corpus and MLK as an
>adulterer.
for America and the planet were just plain timing. The wall was ready to fall
before he said those famous words. Would have happened with or without him. Of
course the record (at the time) deficit, would not have happened without him.
Strike two.
>> >> >That is why a successful Reagan saw his popular vote numbers rise 24%
>> >> >and Obama's failure gave him a 5% decline in their second term re-
>> >> >election.
>>
>> >> So if Obama was even half as bad as you continually try and paint him, why
>> >> didn't he lose the election?
>>
>> >He lost ground in the election. If he would have run out of buying-
>> >votes stimulus-money earlier he would have.
>>
>> Not a chance.
>
>Democrats think we can just print more money of course that isn't the
>reality.
Lying Pal Al. Fits you better.
>> Look at the urban/rural demographics as they relate to votes.
>
>Poor people live in urban squalor. Wealthy Democrats live in gated
>urban communities. Republicans grow food.
they voted Dem. And all of the central business cities of the US voted Dem as
well. And which Rightards actually grow food? Your answer
here ->_________________________
>> Romney got the goober votes, Obama the city intellectual vote.
>
>Sorry but Obama's most faithful demographic was the high school drop
>out. He won that demographic 64% to Romney's 35%. Romney's most
>faithful demographic was the college graduate at 51%.
and less telling than the Women, Black and Hispanic voting. Sorry, strike three,
you're out.
>Sucks to be you. Too bad, so sad.
>http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president#exit-polls
>
>> Dominated Romney
>> there. Yeah, I suppose you would point to the Black, Hispanic and minority
>> voters who also overwhelmingly voted for Obama and say they are ones Obama
>> bought.
>
>Of course it's easy to buy poor votes and that's what he did. He also
>bought green votes with failed energy entitlements/kickbacks like
>Solyndra, Evergreen Solar, SpectraWatt and Mountain Plaza.
>> But that would be a bit racist, wouldn't it, Al?
>
>You are the one trying to inject race into the discussion. It's
>because liberals are inherently racist.
Or is anyone left of David Duke a Liberal to you?
>> Your guys
>> lost.....twice. I suggest you get a life and stop being such a whining, crying,
>> pee-pee pants baby about it.
>
>It depends on what your definition of "life" is and this is a clear
>delineation between liberals and conservatives. My definition of life
>is taking care of myself and my family - which I'm doing just fine.
>For me to become a liberal I'd have to insist that the government take
>care of me in exchange for my vote.
family is life to you, I feel real sorry for you. That is, but one small part of
what it means to me. I'm out, your stupidity seems to grow with each answer you
post. Like the ever increasing weight at the tractor pulls. Eventually, you'll
become the black hole of knowledge, where it starts sucking the knowledge from
others. I don't want to be there when that happens.
1,954 murdered in Obama's organized communities
May 1, 2013, 5:48:57 AM5/1/13
to
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 08:57:21 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>Almost forgot---you're a wingnut propaganda slurper.
>
>Knowledge will cure that, AlLoon
I'm not Al. Try for comprehension, boy!
Sadly, you are still Gary the Obama slurper.
>
>Knowledge will cure that, AlLoon
I'm not Al. Try for comprehension, boy!
Sadly, you are still Gary the Obama slurper.
1,954 murdered in Obama's organized communities
May 1, 2013, 5:51:47 AM5/1/13
to
Moder@tor
May 1, 2013, 12:32:12 PM5/1/13
to
1,954 murdered in Obama's organized communities
May 1, 2013, 10:15:30 PM5/1/13
to
Yer Pal Al
May 1, 2013, 10:46:19 PM5/1/13
to
On May 1, 2:04 am, "Moder@tor" <Mo...@tor.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 19:05:50 -0700 (PDT), Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com>
> >http://www.fcc.gov/guides/lifeline-and-link-affordable-telephone-serv...
I didn't say they were "free". What a bald-faced liar you are.
> Strike one.
>
> >> >> So eight years of Reagan and it was all Carters' fault? Sounds exactly like a
> >> >> rant you continually accuse the Leftists of. Pot, kettle....
>
> >> >Reagan inherited a worse economy than Obama
>
> >> Hahahaha. The banks had just collapsed when Obama was elected. All we had during
> >> Carter was high inflation. Sorry, you lose a point on that one for your
> >> stupidity.
>
> >I know, it sucks to be you:
> >http://www.thestreet.com/story/11641881/1/reagan-handled-a-worse-econ...
McCain. Then Barry gave Wall Street a whole ton of money in return and
you are sucking on a "too big to fail" myth. Almost all of the time
liberals despise Wall Street but it's OK when their leader sells out
to them.
> >> >and 5 years later it's
> >> >still Bush's fault.
>
> >> According to you.
>
> >The bad economy started in 2007 according to me. That corresponds with
> >an incoming Democrat House and Senate.
>
> That's your explanation as to why it is Bush's fault? Again I find myself
> debating with a complete moron.
Your non-response is noted.
> >> >But along those lines Reagan had far too much
> >> >class to blame Carter. The blame/victim game is a hallmark of liberals
> >> >so we will expect Obama to play childish for some time to come.
>
> >> He says as he blames liberals. So Al, are you a closet liberal? You seem to play
> >> the blame game better than most liberals I know. Or are you simply lying your
> >> ass off again. Probably the latter.
>
> Crickets.
I can place the blame where it belongs. I don't have to be a uniter
like Reagan.
> >> >> >Americans saw the country going in the right direction, and it was.
> >> >> >The recovery began in November 1982 and we saw 92 months without a
> >> >> >recession - the previous peacetime record being only 58 months.
>
> >> >> Nice exact copy from an article, Al. That's called plagiarism when you don't
> >> >> include quotes and cite it.
>
> >> >Plagiarism is what Democrats like Joe Biden do:
> >> >http://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/18/us/biden-admits-plagiarism-in-schoo...
>
> >> >It's when you copy someone else's work and pretend that it's your own
> >> >which of course I didn't do.
>
> >> You copied, word for word, a paragraph from an article without citing it. Shall
> >> I embarass you with which one you copied it from? Or should you just admit you
> >> are too stupid to have your own thoughts and must borrow them from others with
> >> more intelligence than you?
>
> >> >Of course I have to look up the
> >> >definition for you because you are stupid mother fucker:
>
> >> No, actually you had to look it up because you didn't know what it meant. Be
> >> honest now.
>
> >I ended that really silly argument with the definition which was my
> >intent.
>
> Which proved you were guilty of it. Duly noted.
Guilty of what? Putting your silly argument away?
That's what he is remembered for. That is why he is one of the most
popular presidents ever.
> >> >> >That is why a successful Reagan saw his popular vote numbers rise 24%
> >> >> >and Obama's failure gave him a 5% decline in their second term re-
> >> >> >election.
>
> >> >> So if Obama was even half as bad as you continually try and paint him, why
> >> >> didn't he lose the election?
>
> >> >He lost ground in the election. If he would have run out of buying-
> >> >votes stimulus-money earlier he would have.
>
> >> Not a chance.
>
> >Democrats think we can just print more money of course that isn't the
> >reality.
>
> Not one Dem I know believes that.
Why don't you clue them in then:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/
> You lying again, boy? Your nick should be Your
> Lying Pal Al. Fits you better.
>
> >> Look at the urban/rural demographics as they relate to votes.
>
> >Poor people live in urban squalor. Wealthy Democrats live in gated
> >urban communities. Republicans grow food.
>
> More lies. Blacks and Hispanics populate large areas of rural communities, but
> they voted Dem. And all of the central business cities of the US voted Dem as
> well. And which Rightards actually grow food? Your answer
> here ->_________________________
>
> >> Romney got the goober votes, Obama the city intellectual vote.
>
> >Sorry but Obama's most faithful demographic was the high school drop
> >out. He won that demographic 64% to Romney's 35%. Romney's most
> >faithful demographic was the college graduate at 51%.
>
> Been through that too many times. Less than 3% of the vote.
It's very meaningful though. If you could say that Republicans owned
the KKK vote you wouldn't leave that alone even though they are a
small fraction of a percentage. If Romney would have got 2/3rds of the
HS drop out vote like Obama did he would of won Florida
HS drop outs are the high water mark for Democrats. As soon as they
graduate Barry's percentage of the vote goes from 64% to 51%. When
they get some college it goes down again to 49%. When they graduate
from college it goes down again to just 47%.
http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president#exit-polls
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 19:05:50 -0700 (PDT), Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com>
>
> >Lifeline is also a program for "Low-Income Consumers"
> >http://www.fcc.gov/lifeline
>
> They weren't and aren't giving away free 'Obamaphones' like you falsely claimed.
You can look above and in the text that you included in this post that
> >Lifeline is also a program for "Low-Income Consumers"
> >http://www.fcc.gov/lifeline
>
> They weren't and aren't giving away free 'Obamaphones' like you falsely claimed.
I didn't say they were "free". What a bald-faced liar you are.
> Strike one.
>
> >> >> So eight years of Reagan and it was all Carters' fault? Sounds exactly like a
> >> >> rant you continually accuse the Leftists of. Pot, kettle....
>
> >> >Reagan inherited a worse economy than Obama
>
> >> Hahahaha. The banks had just collapsed when Obama was elected. All we had during
> >> Carter was high inflation. Sorry, you lose a point on that one for your
> >> stupidity.
>
> >I know, it sucks to be you:
>
> So this blogger is as stupid as you are. Yawn. Comparing the domino collapse of
> the banking system in the US to high inflation is pretty damned stupid, even for
> your standards, Al.
Barry got more money from Wall Street for the 2008 election than
> So this blogger is as stupid as you are. Yawn. Comparing the domino collapse of
> the banking system in the US to high inflation is pretty damned stupid, even for
> your standards, Al.
McCain. Then Barry gave Wall Street a whole ton of money in return and
you are sucking on a "too big to fail" myth. Almost all of the time
liberals despise Wall Street but it's OK when their leader sells out
to them.
> >> >and 5 years later it's
> >> >still Bush's fault.
>
> >> According to you.
>
> >The bad economy started in 2007 according to me. That corresponds with
> >an incoming Democrat House and Senate.
>
> That's your explanation as to why it is Bush's fault? Again I find myself
> debating with a complete moron.
> >> >But along those lines Reagan had far too much
> >> >class to blame Carter. The blame/victim game is a hallmark of liberals
> >> >so we will expect Obama to play childish for some time to come.
>
> >> He says as he blames liberals. So Al, are you a closet liberal? You seem to play
> >> the blame game better than most liberals I know. Or are you simply lying your
> >> ass off again. Probably the latter.
>
> Crickets.
like Reagan.
> >> >> >Americans saw the country going in the right direction, and it was.
> >> >> >The recovery began in November 1982 and we saw 92 months without a
> >> >> >recession - the previous peacetime record being only 58 months.
>
> >> >> Nice exact copy from an article, Al. That's called plagiarism when you don't
> >> >> include quotes and cite it.
>
> >> >Plagiarism is what Democrats like Joe Biden do:
> >> >http://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/18/us/biden-admits-plagiarism-in-schoo...
>
> >> >It's when you copy someone else's work and pretend that it's your own
> >> >which of course I didn't do.
>
> >> You copied, word for word, a paragraph from an article without citing it. Shall
> >> I embarass you with which one you copied it from? Or should you just admit you
> >> are too stupid to have your own thoughts and must borrow them from others with
> >> more intelligence than you?
>
> >> >Of course I have to look up the
> >> >definition for you because you are stupid mother fucker:
>
> >> No, actually you had to look it up because you didn't know what it meant. Be
> >> honest now.
>
> >I ended that really silly argument with the definition which was my
> >intent.
>
> Which proved you were guilty of it. Duly noted.
popular presidents ever.
> >> >> >That is why a successful Reagan saw his popular vote numbers rise 24%
> >> >> >and Obama's failure gave him a 5% decline in their second term re-
> >> >> >election.
>
> >> >> So if Obama was even half as bad as you continually try and paint him, why
> >> >> didn't he lose the election?
>
> >> >He lost ground in the election. If he would have run out of buying-
> >> >votes stimulus-money earlier he would have.
>
> >> Not a chance.
>
> >Democrats think we can just print more money of course that isn't the
> >reality.
>
> Not one Dem I know believes that.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/
> You lying again, boy? Your nick should be Your
> Lying Pal Al. Fits you better.
>
> >> Look at the urban/rural demographics as they relate to votes.
>
> >Poor people live in urban squalor. Wealthy Democrats live in gated
> >urban communities. Republicans grow food.
>
> More lies. Blacks and Hispanics populate large areas of rural communities, but
> they voted Dem. And all of the central business cities of the US voted Dem as
> well. And which Rightards actually grow food? Your answer
> here ->_________________________
>
> >> Romney got the goober votes, Obama the city intellectual vote.
>
> >Sorry but Obama's most faithful demographic was the high school drop
> >out. He won that demographic 64% to Romney's 35%. Romney's most
> >faithful demographic was the college graduate at 51%.
>
> Been through that too many times. Less than 3% of the vote.
the KKK vote you wouldn't leave that alone even though they are a
small fraction of a percentage. If Romney would have got 2/3rds of the
HS drop out vote like Obama did he would of won Florida
HS drop outs are the high water mark for Democrats. As soon as they
graduate Barry's percentage of the vote goes from 64% to 51%. When
they get some college it goes down again to 49%. When they graduate
from college it goes down again to just 47%.
http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president#exit-polls
Moder@tor
May 2, 2013, 1:56:46 AM5/2/13
to
On Wed, 1 May 2013 19:46:19 -0700 (PDT), Yer Pal Al <caddys...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On May 1, 2:04锟絘m, "Moder@tor" <Mo...@tor.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 19:05:50 -0700 (PDT), Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Apr 29, 10:43锟絧m, "Moder@tor" <Mo...@tor.com> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:04:15 -0700 (PDT), Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >Lifeline is also a program 锟絝or "Low-Income Consumers"
stamps and Obamaphones. You're a liar, Al. I'm done with you.
anything against the stock market?
>Then Barry gave Wall Street a whole ton of money in return and
>you are sucking on a "too big to fail" myth.
Cite? Spewing the Rightard parrot points again, are we?
>Almost all of the time
>liberals despise Wall Street but it's OK when their leader sells out
>to them.
I can't speak for Liberals, but I certainly don't despise Wall Street. My
investments are doing rather well. Stock market almost at a record high. Are you
pissed about this?
>> >> >and 5 years later it's
>> >> >still Bush's fault.
>>
>> >> According to you.
>>
>> >The bad economy started in 2007 according to me. That corresponds with
>> >an incoming Democrat House and Senate.
>>
>> That's your explanation as to why it is Bush's fault? Again I find myself
>> debating with a complete moron.
>
>Your non-response is noted.
My non-response as to why you think it is Bush's fault? WTF? You are seriously
losing it Stimpy.
>> >> >But along those lines Reagan had far too much
>> >> >class to blame Carter. The blame/victim game is a hallmark of liberals
>> >> >so we will expect Obama to play childish for some time to come.
>>
>> >> He says as he blames liberals. So Al, are you a closet liberal? You seem to play
>> >> the blame game better than most liberals I know. Or are you simply lying your
>> >> ass off again. Probably the latter.
>>
>> Crickets.
>
>I can place the blame where it belongs. I don't have to be a uniter
>like Reagan.
I'll quote Your Lying Pal Al here: "The blame/victim game is a hallmark of
liberals." Congratulations on being a Liberal, Al.
>> >> >> >Americans saw the country going in the right direction, and it was.
>> >> >> >The recovery began in November 1982 and we saw 92 months without a
>> >> >> >recession - the previous peacetime record being only 58 months.
>>
>> >> >> Nice exact copy from an article, Al. That's called plagiarism when you don't
>> >> >> include quotes and cite it.
>>
>> >> >Plagiarism is what Democrats like Joe Biden do:
>> >> >http://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/18/us/biden-admits-plagiarism-in-schoo...
>>
>> >> >It's when you copy someone else's work and pretend that it's your own
>> >> >which of course I didn't do.
>>
>> >> You copied, word for word, a paragraph from an article without citing it. Shall
>> >> I embarass you with which one you copied it from? Or should you just admit you
>> >> are too stupid to have your own thoughts and must borrow them from others with
>> >> more intelligence than you?
>>
>> >> >Of course I have to look up the
>> >> >definition for you because you are stupid mother fucker:
>>
>> >> No, actually you had to look it up because you didn't know what it meant. Be
>> >> honest now.
>>
>> >I ended that really silly argument with the definition which was my
>> >intent.
>>
>> Which proved you were guilty of it. Duly noted.
>
>Guilty of what? Putting your silly argument away?
No, guilty of plagiarism. Since you can't seem to think for yourself, you have
to copy and paste ideas of others without citing them to try and make yourself
look like more than the simpleton you actually are.
The deficit, correct.
>That is why he is one of the most
>popular presidents ever.
According to polls I have seen on the topic, most specifically a C-Span poll,
there are at least three Republican presidents more popular than Reagan and sic
Democrat presidents. Lying again, Al?
to be debating with a complete moron. And now he wants me to try and convince
Democratic friends of mine to believe what he bogusly claims Dems believe.
Simply unbelievable that one person could be so stooooopid.
>> You lying again, boy? Your nick should be Your
>> Lying Pal Al. Fits you better.
>>
>> >> Look at the urban/rural demographics as they relate to votes.
>>
>> >Poor people live in urban squalor. Wealthy Democrats live in gated
>> >urban communities. Republicans grow food.
>>
>> More lies. Blacks and Hispanics populate large areas of rural communities, but
>> they voted Dem. And all of the central business cities of the US voted Dem as
>> well. And which Rightards actually grow food? Your answer
>> here ->_________________________
Crickets.
>> >> Romney got the goober votes, Obama the city intellectual vote.
>>
>> >Sorry but Obama's most faithful demographic was the high school drop
>> >out. He won that demographic 64% to Romney's 35%. Romney's most
>> >faithful demographic was the college graduate at 51%.
>>
>> Been through that too many times. Less than 3% of the vote.
>
>It's very meaningful though.
No, it is wrong. You admitted it yourself several times when we debated this
very subject. Here, I'll copy your statement from above again and show you:
Your Lying Pal Al said: "Obama's most faithful demographic was the high school
drop out."
In previous debates on this subject you furiously backpeddled when I handed your
butt to you and modified the claim to be "Obama's most faithful *education*
demographic point of view were some college. You really need to take a math and
statistics course as well (in addition to reading). Here are the actual Obama
vote percentages based on the CNN cite you provided for that election:
No HS 1.9%
HS 10.7%
Some college 14.2%
College grads 13.6%
Postgrads 9.9%
So, again, Your Lying Pal Al. Which is the educational demographic where Obama
receives the most votes?
>If you could say that Republicans owned
>the KKK vote you wouldn't leave that alone even though they are a
>small fraction of a percentage.
Hypothetical straw man, but I'll bite. I wouldn't say it was their most faithful
demographic. That would be patently false. Same as with your statement. Let's go
further. Let's say that there was only one person (again, hypothetical) who was
totally uneducated, no school whatsoever, but was registered to vote and always
voted Republican. 100% in that category every time. Would you say that was their
most faithful educational demographic? If so, why?
>If Romney would have got 2/3rds of the
>HS drop out vote like Obama did he would of won Florida
True, however Florida's educational demographics aren't so representative of the
nation. But then again, if ifs and buts were all candy and nuts we'd all have a
Merry Christmas. Romney didn't get the extra votes and lost. Wasn't the only
state, but a very pivotal one. And it doesn't work at all in proving
faithfulness of a demographic, does it?
Your lies are getting real stale. Until you can become a bit more educated in
your statements, I'm out. Life is simply way too short to spend it on morons
like you.
wrote:
>On May 1, 2:04锟絘m, "Moder@tor" <Mo...@tor.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 19:05:50 -0700 (PDT), Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Apr 29, 10:43锟絧m, "Moder@tor" <Mo...@tor.com> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:04:15 -0700 (PDT), Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.fcc.gov/lifeline
>>
>> They weren't and aren't giving away free 'Obamaphones' like you falsely claimed.
>
>You can look above and in the text that you included in this post that
>I didn't say they were "free". What a bald-faced liar you are.
Your statement implied that Obama voters were happy because they have their food
>>
>> They weren't and aren't giving away free 'Obamaphones' like you falsely claimed.
>
>You can look above and in the text that you included in this post that
>I didn't say they were "free". What a bald-faced liar you are.
stamps and Obamaphones. You're a liar, Al. I'm done with you.
>
>> Strike one.
>>
>> >> >> So eight years of Reagan and it was all Carters' fault? Sounds exactly like a
>> >> >> rant you continually accuse the Leftists of. Pot, kettle....
>>
>> >> >Reagan inherited a worse economy than Obama
>>
>> >> Hahahaha. The banks had just collapsed when Obama was elected. All we had during
>> >> Carter was high inflation. Sorry, you lose a point on that one for your
>> >> stupidity.
>>
>> >I know, it sucks to be you:
>> >http://www.thestreet.com/story/11641881/1/reagan-handled-a-worse-econ...
>>
>> So this blogger is as stupid as you are. Yawn. Comparing the domino collapse of
>> the banking system in the US to high inflation is pretty damned stupid, even for
>> your standards, Al.
>
>Barry got more money from Wall Street for the 2008 election than
>McCain.
Big deal. Wall Street backs the candidate that can do them the most good. Got
>> Strike one.
>>
>> >> >> So eight years of Reagan and it was all Carters' fault? Sounds exactly like a
>> >> >> rant you continually accuse the Leftists of. Pot, kettle....
>>
>> >> >Reagan inherited a worse economy than Obama
>>
>> >> Hahahaha. The banks had just collapsed when Obama was elected. All we had during
>> >> Carter was high inflation. Sorry, you lose a point on that one for your
>> >> stupidity.
>>
>> >I know, it sucks to be you:
>> >http://www.thestreet.com/story/11641881/1/reagan-handled-a-worse-econ...
>>
>> So this blogger is as stupid as you are. Yawn. Comparing the domino collapse of
>> the banking system in the US to high inflation is pretty damned stupid, even for
>> your standards, Al.
>
>Barry got more money from Wall Street for the 2008 election than
>McCain.
anything against the stock market?
>Then Barry gave Wall Street a whole ton of money in return and
>you are sucking on a "too big to fail" myth.
>Almost all of the time
>liberals despise Wall Street but it's OK when their leader sells out
>to them.
investments are doing rather well. Stock market almost at a record high. Are you
pissed about this?
>> >> >and 5 years later it's
>> >> >still Bush's fault.
>>
>> >> According to you.
>>
>> >The bad economy started in 2007 according to me. That corresponds with
>> >an incoming Democrat House and Senate.
>>
>> That's your explanation as to why it is Bush's fault? Again I find myself
>> debating with a complete moron.
>
>Your non-response is noted.
losing it Stimpy.
>> >> >But along those lines Reagan had far too much
>> >> >class to blame Carter. The blame/victim game is a hallmark of liberals
>> >> >so we will expect Obama to play childish for some time to come.
>>
>> >> He says as he blames liberals. So Al, are you a closet liberal? You seem to play
>> >> the blame game better than most liberals I know. Or are you simply lying your
>> >> ass off again. Probably the latter.
>>
>> Crickets.
>
>I can place the blame where it belongs. I don't have to be a uniter
>like Reagan.
liberals." Congratulations on being a Liberal, Al.
>> >> >> >Americans saw the country going in the right direction, and it was.
>> >> >> >The recovery began in November 1982 and we saw 92 months without a
>> >> >> >recession - the previous peacetime record being only 58 months.
>>
>> >> >> Nice exact copy from an article, Al. That's called plagiarism when you don't
>> >> >> include quotes and cite it.
>>
>> >> >Plagiarism is what Democrats like Joe Biden do:
>> >> >http://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/18/us/biden-admits-plagiarism-in-schoo...
>>
>> >> >It's when you copy someone else's work and pretend that it's your own
>> >> >which of course I didn't do.
>>
>> >> You copied, word for word, a paragraph from an article without citing it. Shall
>> >> I embarass you with which one you copied it from? Or should you just admit you
>> >> are too stupid to have your own thoughts and must borrow them from others with
>> >> more intelligence than you?
>>
>> >> >Of course I have to look up the
>> >> >definition for you because you are stupid mother fucker:
>>
>> >> No, actually you had to look it up because you didn't know what it meant. Be
>> >> honest now.
>>
>> >I ended that really silly argument with the definition which was my
>> >intent.
>>
>> Which proved you were guilty of it. Duly noted.
>
>Guilty of what? Putting your silly argument away?
to copy and paste ideas of others without citing them to try and make yourself
look like more than the simpleton you actually are.
>That is why he is one of the most
>popular presidents ever.
there are at least three Republican presidents more popular than Reagan and sic
Democrat presidents. Lying again, Al?
>
>> >> >> >That is why a successful Reagan saw his popular vote numbers rise 24%
>> >> >> >and Obama's failure gave him a 5% decline in their second term re-
>> >> >> >election.
>>
>> >> >> So if Obama was even half as bad as you continually try and paint him, why
>> >> >> didn't he lose the election?
>>
>> >> >He lost ground in the election. If he would have run out of buying-
>> >> >votes stimulus-money earlier he would have.
>>
>> >> Not a chance.
>>
>> >Democrats think we can just print more money of course that isn't the
>> >reality.
>>
>> Not one Dem I know believes that.
>
>Why don't you clue them in then:
>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/
Debt and the printing of money are two entirely different things. Again, I seem
>> >> >> >That is why a successful Reagan saw his popular vote numbers rise 24%
>> >> >> >and Obama's failure gave him a 5% decline in their second term re-
>> >> >> >election.
>>
>> >> >> So if Obama was even half as bad as you continually try and paint him, why
>> >> >> didn't he lose the election?
>>
>> >> >He lost ground in the election. If he would have run out of buying-
>> >> >votes stimulus-money earlier he would have.
>>
>> >> Not a chance.
>>
>> >Democrats think we can just print more money of course that isn't the
>> >reality.
>>
>> Not one Dem I know believes that.
>
>Why don't you clue them in then:
>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/
to be debating with a complete moron. And now he wants me to try and convince
Democratic friends of mine to believe what he bogusly claims Dems believe.
Simply unbelievable that one person could be so stooooopid.
>> You lying again, boy? Your nick should be Your
>> Lying Pal Al. Fits you better.
>>
>> >> Look at the urban/rural demographics as they relate to votes.
>>
>> >Poor people live in urban squalor. Wealthy Democrats live in gated
>> >urban communities. Republicans grow food.
>>
>> More lies. Blacks and Hispanics populate large areas of rural communities, but
>> they voted Dem. And all of the central business cities of the US voted Dem as
>> well. And which Rightards actually grow food? Your answer
>> here ->_________________________
>> >> Romney got the goober votes, Obama the city intellectual vote.
>>
>> >Sorry but Obama's most faithful demographic was the high school drop
>> >out. He won that demographic 64% to Romney's 35%. Romney's most
>> >faithful demographic was the college graduate at 51%.
>>
>> Been through that too many times. Less than 3% of the vote.
>
>It's very meaningful though.
very subject. Here, I'll copy your statement from above again and show you:
Your Lying Pal Al said: "Obama's most faithful demographic was the high school
drop out."
In previous debates on this subject you furiously backpeddled when I handed your
butt to you and modified the claim to be "Obama's most faithful *education*
demographic was the high school drop out."
Which is also false. The most votes Obama received from an educational
demographic point of view were some college. You really need to take a math and
statistics course as well (in addition to reading). Here are the actual Obama
vote percentages based on the CNN cite you provided for that election:
No HS 1.9%
HS 10.7%
Some college 14.2%
College grads 13.6%
Postgrads 9.9%
So, again, Your Lying Pal Al. Which is the educational demographic where Obama
receives the most votes?
>If you could say that Republicans owned
>the KKK vote you wouldn't leave that alone even though they are a
>small fraction of a percentage.
demographic. That would be patently false. Same as with your statement. Let's go
further. Let's say that there was only one person (again, hypothetical) who was
totally uneducated, no school whatsoever, but was registered to vote and always
voted Republican. 100% in that category every time. Would you say that was their
most faithful educational demographic? If so, why?
>If Romney would have got 2/3rds of the
>HS drop out vote like Obama did he would of won Florida
nation. But then again, if ifs and buts were all candy and nuts we'd all have a
Merry Christmas. Romney didn't get the extra votes and lost. Wasn't the only
state, but a very pivotal one. And it doesn't work at all in proving
faithfulness of a demographic, does it?
>
>HS drop outs are the high water mark for Democrats. As soon as they
>graduate Barry's percentage of the vote goes from 64% to 51%. When
>they get some college it goes down again to 49%. When they graduate
>from college it goes down again to just 47%.
Look at the % of voters in each category, do the math and get back to us, ok?
>HS drop outs are the high water mark for Democrats. As soon as they
>graduate Barry's percentage of the vote goes from 64% to 51%. When
>they get some college it goes down again to 49%. When they graduate
>from college it goes down again to just 47%.
Your lies are getting real stale. Until you can become a bit more educated in
your statements, I'm out. Life is simply way too short to spend it on morons
like you.
Yer Pal Al
May 2, 2013, 3:30:33 PM5/2/13
to
On May 1, 10:56 pm, "Moder@tor" <Mo...@tor.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 1 May 2013 19:46:19 -0700 (PDT), Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >Lifeline is also a program for "Low-Income Consumers"
obviously they are not - just like section 8 housing is just a
subsidy. If the economy is going to shit the natural thing is to vote
the president out because people are really feeling a pinch. However,
Obama borrowed in just 3+ years the same amount Bush did in 8 to buy
their votes with freebies so they didn't feel that pinch.
> I'm done with you.
And I'm supposed to be surprised that after kicking your ass yet again
that you show yourself to be a pussy and run?
> >> Strike one.
>
> >> >> >> So eight years of Reagan and it was all Carters' fault? Sounds exactly like a
> >> >> >> rant you continually accuse the Leftists of. Pot, kettle....
>
> >> >> >Reagan inherited a worse economy than Obama
>
> >> >> Hahahaha. The banks had just collapsed when Obama was elected. All we had during
> >> >> Carter was high inflation. Sorry, you lose a point on that one for your
> >> >> stupidity.
>
> >> >I know, it sucks to be you:
> >> >http://www.thestreet.com/story/11641881/1/reagan-handled-a-worse-econ...
>
> >> So this blogger is as stupid as you are. Yawn. Comparing the domino collapse of
> >> the banking system in the US to high inflation is pretty damned stupid, even for
> >> your standards, Al.
>
> >Barry got more money from Wall Street for the 2008 election than
> >McCain.
>
> Big deal. Wall Street backs the candidate that can do them the most good.
Oh, I see you are not "done with" me. That's because you are a fucking
liar. Surprise, surprise...
> Got
> anything against the stock market?
I have something against quid pro quo agreements that comes out of my
pocket.
> >Then Barry gave Wall Street a whole ton of money in return and
> >you are sucking on a "too big to fail" myth.
>
> Cite? Spewing the Rightard parrot points again, are we?
This where you can see Obama getting more money from Wall Street for
the 2008 election.
http://www.opensecrets.org/
Here's criticism of Obama's "Too Big To Fail":
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/25/sherrod-brown-big-banks_n_3156166.html
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/14/obamas-speech-too-big-to-fail-gets-bigger/
And after we get taken to the cleaners by Wall Street Obama can't do
anything about it without implicating himself:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/05/06/why-can-t-obama-bring-wall-street-to-justice.html
> >Almost all of the time
> >liberals despise Wall Street but it's OK when their leader sells out
> >to them.
>
> I can't speak for Liberals, but I certainly don't despise Wall Street. My
> investments are doing rather well. Stock market almost at a record high. Are you
> pissed about this?
I hope you make a lot a money. It doesn't hurt me at all. However,
those aren't conservatives at Occupy Wall Street. I would not believe
you if you said it would have been OK for Bush to take Wall Street
money for his election and then bail them out. You have no cred.
> >> >> >and 5 years later it's
> >> >> >still Bush's fault.
>
> >> >> According to you.
>
> >> >The bad economy started in 2007 according to me. That corresponds with
> >> >an incoming Democrat House and Senate.
>
> >> That's your explanation as to why it is Bush's fault? Again I find myself
> >> debating with a complete moron.
>
> >Your non-response is noted.
>
> My non-response as to why you think it is Bush's fault? WTF? You are seriously
> losing it Stimpy.
You didn't address the timing between a Democrat congress and the
decline of the economy. I don't blame you for wanting to avoid that.
However, you own your own cowardice.
> >> >> >But along those lines Reagan had far too much
> >> >> >class to blame Carter. The blame/victim game is a hallmark of liberals
> >> >> >so we will expect Obama to play childish for some time to come.
>
> >> >> He says as he blames liberals. So Al, are you a closet liberal? You seem to play
> >> >> the blame game better than most liberals I know. Or are you simply lying your
> >> >> ass off again. Probably the latter.
>
> >> Crickets.
>
> >I can place the blame where it belongs. I don't have to be a uniter
> >like Reagan.
>
> I'll quote Your Lying Pal Al here: "The blame/victim game is a hallmark of
> liberals." Congratulations on being a Liberal, Al.
Knock yourself out. See if that sticks.
> >> >> >> >Americans saw the country going in the right direction, and it was.
> >> >> >> >The recovery began in November 1982 and we saw 92 months without a
> >> >> >> >recession - the previous peacetime record being only 58 months.
>
> >> >> >> Nice exact copy from an article, Al. That's called plagiarism when you don't
> >> >> >> include quotes and cite it.
>
> >> >> >Plagiarism is what Democrats like Joe Biden do:
> >> >> >http://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/18/us/biden-admits-plagiarism-in-schoo...
>
> >> >> >It's when you copy someone else's work and pretend that it's your own
> >> >> >which of course I didn't do.
>
> >> >> You copied, word for word, a paragraph from an article without citing it. Shall
> >> >> I embarass you with which one you copied it from? Or should you just admit you
> >> >> are too stupid to have your own thoughts and must borrow them from others with
> >> >> more intelligence than you?
>
> >> >> >Of course I have to look up the
> >> >> >definition for you because you are stupid mother fucker:
>
> >> >> No, actually you had to look it up because you didn't know what it meant. Be
> >> >> honest now.
>
> >> >I ended that really silly argument with the definition which was my
> >> >intent.
>
> >> Which proved you were guilty of it. Duly noted.
>
> >Guilty of what? Putting your silly argument away?
>
> No, guilty of plagiarism.
You are guilty of being an idiot. I'd have a better chance of proving
that in court than you.
> Since you can't seem to think for yourself, you have
> to copy and paste ideas of others without citing them to try and make yourself
> look like more than the simpleton you actually are.
Where did I "cut and paste" it from and where did I claim that that
was my own research? 92 months of expansion is common knowledge and
has countless sources.
You Google,"What is Reagan remembered for" and this is what you get;
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/06/reagan.main/
When you have to search for Leftist websites that are only critical
you marginalize yourself and that is a good thing.
> >That is why he is one of the most
> >popular presidents ever.
>
> According to polls I have seen on the topic, most specifically a C-Span poll,
> there are at least three Republican presidents more popular than Reagan and sic
> Democrat presidents. Lying again, Al?
That 2009 poll (of historians) puts him in the top 10 and Clinton at
15.
> >> >> >> >That is why a successful Reagan saw his popular vote numbers rise 24%
> >> >> >> >and Obama's failure gave him a 5% decline in their second term re-
> >> >> >> >election.
>
> >> >> >> So if Obama was even half as bad as you continually try and paint him, why
> >> >> >> didn't he lose the election?
>
> >> >> >He lost ground in the election. If he would have run out of buying-
> >> >> >votes stimulus-money earlier he would have.
>
> >> >> Not a chance.
>
> >> >Democrats think we can just print more money of course that isn't the
> >> >reality.
>
> >> Not one Dem I know believes that.
>
> >Why don't you clue them in then:
> >http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-...
- like $6T over the last 4 years. I suppose your point is valid, given
the failure of our public school system, as there may be some
Democrats who promote actually printing more paper money and handing
it out.
> Again, I seem
> to be debating with a complete moron. And now he wants me to try and convince
> Democratic friends of mine to believe what he bogusly claims Dems believe.
I don't care to hear about your partisan circle jerk where everything
conservative is bad and Reagan's accomplishments are ignored.
> Simply unbelievable that one person could be so stooooopid.
And yet so successful. There's an incongruence in your perspective.
> >> You lying again, boy? Your nick should be Your
> >> Lying Pal Al. Fits you better.
>
> >> >> Look at the urban/rural demographics as they relate to votes.
>
> >> >Poor people live in urban squalor. Wealthy Democrats live in gated
> >> >urban communities. Republicans grow food.
>
> >> More lies. Blacks and Hispanics populate large areas of rural communities, but
> >> they voted Dem. And all of the central business cities of the US voted Dem as
> >> well. And which Rightards actually grow food? Your answer
> >> here ->_________________________
>
> Crickets.
You as a racist, have to inject race into everything. OK, prove that a
large percentage of Blacks and Hispanics populate rural communities.
It's an obvious falsehood.
Here is a map of the counties for the last election. The Heartland, as
always, votes Republican:
http://www.decodedscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Election-results-by-county.png
> >> >> Romney got the goober votes, Obama the city intellectual vote.
>
> >> >Sorry but Obama's most faithful demographic was the high school drop
> >> >out. He won that demographic 64% to Romney's 35%. Romney's most
> >> >faithful demographic was the college graduate at 51%.
>
> >> Been through that too many times. Less than 3% of the vote.
>
> >It's very meaningful though.
>
> No, it is wrong. You admitted it yourself several times when we debated this
> very subject. Here, I'll copy your statement from above again and show you:
>
> Your Lying Pal Al said: "Obama's most faithful demographic was the high school
> drop out."
This is true. Obama's most faithful educational demographic is the
> when I handed your
> butt to you and modified the claim to be "Obama's most faithful *education*
> demographic was the high school drop out."
>
> Which is also false. The most votes Obama received from an educational
> demographic point of view were some college. You really need to take a math and
> statistics course as well (in addition to reading). Here are the actual Obama
> vote percentages based on the CNN cite you provided for that election:
>
> No HS 1.92%
> HS 10.71%
> Some college 14.21%
> College grads 13.63%
> Postgrads 9.90%
saying which one is his most "faithful" as in reliable. When you
change the metric to those (your "most votes") terms *****YOU FUCKING
LOSE AGAIN!!!*****
Here's Romney's numbers:
No HS 1.05%
HS 10.08%
Some college 13.92%
College grads 14.79%
Postgrads 7.56%
Romney got the most votes from "College Grads" and Obama got the most
votes from "Some College".
Sucks to be you. Too bad, so sad.
on that. That is reliable. That is faithful.
With that faithful demographic would the Republicans be better off
making 10's of millions of voters just like him? 100% faithful?
Democrats benefit by the education being shit. If they can get twice
as many kids to drop out they will get more votes.
> >If Romney would have got 2/3rds of the
> >HS drop out vote like Obama did he would of won Florida
>
> True, however Florida's educational demographics aren't so representative of the
> nation. But then again, if ifs and buts were all candy and nuts we'd all have a
> Merry Christmas. Romney didn't get the extra votes and lost. Wasn't the only
> state, but a very pivotal one. And it doesn't work at all in proving
> faithfulness of a demographic, does it?
It shows that the HS demographic isn't as meaningless as you imply.
> >HS drop outs are the high water mark for Democrats. As soon as they
> >graduate Barry's percentage of the vote goes from 64% to 51%. When
> >they get some college it goes down again to 49%. When they graduate
> >from college it goes down again to just 47%.
>
> Look at the % of voters in each category, do the math and get back to us, ok?
> Your lies are getting real stale. Until you can become a bit more educated in
> your statements, I'm out. Life is simply way too short to spend it on morons
> like you.
The point is that Democrats have reason to keep everyone dumb. If they
can keep people from graduating from HS they will get more of that
demographic and more votes.
> On Wed, 1 May 2013 19:46:19 -0700 (PDT), Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On May 1, 2:04 am, "Moder@tor" <Mo...@tor.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 19:05:50 -0700 (PDT), Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >On May 1, 2:04 am, "Moder@tor" <Mo...@tor.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 19:05:50 -0700 (PDT), Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Apr 29, 10:43 pm, "Moder@tor" <Mo...@tor.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:04:15 -0700 (PDT), Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:04:15 -0700 (PDT), Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >http://www.fcc.gov/lifeline
>
> >> They weren't and aren't giving away free 'Obamaphones' like you falsely claimed.
>
> >You can look above and in the text that you included in this post that
> >I didn't say they were "free". What a bald-faced liar you are.
>
> Your statement implied that Obama voters were happy because they have their food
> stamps and Obamaphones. You're a liar, Al.
You're the bald-faced liar saying I claimed they were free when
>
> >> They weren't and aren't giving away free 'Obamaphones' like you falsely claimed.
>
> >You can look above and in the text that you included in this post that
> >I didn't say they were "free". What a bald-faced liar you are.
>
> Your statement implied that Obama voters were happy because they have their food
> stamps and Obamaphones. You're a liar, Al.
obviously they are not - just like section 8 housing is just a
subsidy. If the economy is going to shit the natural thing is to vote
the president out because people are really feeling a pinch. However,
Obama borrowed in just 3+ years the same amount Bush did in 8 to buy
their votes with freebies so they didn't feel that pinch.
> I'm done with you.
that you show yourself to be a pussy and run?
> >> Strike one.
>
> >> >> >> So eight years of Reagan and it was all Carters' fault? Sounds exactly like a
> >> >> >> rant you continually accuse the Leftists of. Pot, kettle....
>
> >> >> >Reagan inherited a worse economy than Obama
>
> >> >> Hahahaha. The banks had just collapsed when Obama was elected. All we had during
> >> >> Carter was high inflation. Sorry, you lose a point on that one for your
> >> >> stupidity.
>
> >> >I know, it sucks to be you:
> >> >http://www.thestreet.com/story/11641881/1/reagan-handled-a-worse-econ...
>
> >> So this blogger is as stupid as you are. Yawn. Comparing the domino collapse of
> >> the banking system in the US to high inflation is pretty damned stupid, even for
> >> your standards, Al.
>
> >Barry got more money from Wall Street for the 2008 election than
> >McCain.
>
> Big deal. Wall Street backs the candidate that can do them the most good.
liar. Surprise, surprise...
> Got
> anything against the stock market?
pocket.
> >Then Barry gave Wall Street a whole ton of money in return and
> >you are sucking on a "too big to fail" myth.
>
> Cite? Spewing the Rightard parrot points again, are we?
the 2008 election.
http://www.opensecrets.org/
Here's criticism of Obama's "Too Big To Fail":
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/25/sherrod-brown-big-banks_n_3156166.html
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/14/obamas-speech-too-big-to-fail-gets-bigger/
And after we get taken to the cleaners by Wall Street Obama can't do
anything about it without implicating himself:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/05/06/why-can-t-obama-bring-wall-street-to-justice.html
> >Almost all of the time
> >liberals despise Wall Street but it's OK when their leader sells out
> >to them.
>
> I can't speak for Liberals, but I certainly don't despise Wall Street. My
> investments are doing rather well. Stock market almost at a record high. Are you
> pissed about this?
those aren't conservatives at Occupy Wall Street. I would not believe
you if you said it would have been OK for Bush to take Wall Street
money for his election and then bail them out. You have no cred.
> >> >> >and 5 years later it's
> >> >> >still Bush's fault.
>
> >> >> According to you.
>
> >> >The bad economy started in 2007 according to me. That corresponds with
> >> >an incoming Democrat House and Senate.
>
> >> That's your explanation as to why it is Bush's fault? Again I find myself
> >> debating with a complete moron.
>
> >Your non-response is noted.
>
> My non-response as to why you think it is Bush's fault? WTF? You are seriously
> losing it Stimpy.
decline of the economy. I don't blame you for wanting to avoid that.
However, you own your own cowardice.
> >> >> >But along those lines Reagan had far too much
> >> >> >class to blame Carter. The blame/victim game is a hallmark of liberals
> >> >> >so we will expect Obama to play childish for some time to come.
>
> >> >> He says as he blames liberals. So Al, are you a closet liberal? You seem to play
> >> >> the blame game better than most liberals I know. Or are you simply lying your
> >> >> ass off again. Probably the latter.
>
> >> Crickets.
>
> >I can place the blame where it belongs. I don't have to be a uniter
> >like Reagan.
>
> I'll quote Your Lying Pal Al here: "The blame/victim game is a hallmark of
> liberals." Congratulations on being a Liberal, Al.
> >> >> >> >Americans saw the country going in the right direction, and it was.
> >> >> >> >The recovery began in November 1982 and we saw 92 months without a
> >> >> >> >recession - the previous peacetime record being only 58 months.
>
> >> >> >> Nice exact copy from an article, Al. That's called plagiarism when you don't
> >> >> >> include quotes and cite it.
>
> >> >> >Plagiarism is what Democrats like Joe Biden do:
> >> >> >http://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/18/us/biden-admits-plagiarism-in-schoo...
>
> >> >> >It's when you copy someone else's work and pretend that it's your own
> >> >> >which of course I didn't do.
>
> >> >> You copied, word for word, a paragraph from an article without citing it. Shall
> >> >> I embarass you with which one you copied it from? Or should you just admit you
> >> >> are too stupid to have your own thoughts and must borrow them from others with
> >> >> more intelligence than you?
>
> >> >> >Of course I have to look up the
> >> >> >definition for you because you are stupid mother fucker:
>
> >> >> No, actually you had to look it up because you didn't know what it meant. Be
> >> >> honest now.
>
> >> >I ended that really silly argument with the definition which was my
> >> >intent.
>
> >> Which proved you were guilty of it. Duly noted.
>
> >Guilty of what? Putting your silly argument away?
>
> No, guilty of plagiarism.
that in court than you.
> Since you can't seem to think for yourself, you have
> to copy and paste ideas of others without citing them to try and make yourself
> look like more than the simpleton you actually are.
was my own research? 92 months of expansion is common knowledge and
has countless sources.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/06/reagan.main/
When you have to search for Leftist websites that are only critical
you marginalize yourself and that is a good thing.
> >That is why he is one of the most
> >popular presidents ever.
>
> According to polls I have seen on the topic, most specifically a C-Span poll,
> there are at least three Republican presidents more popular than Reagan and sic
> Democrat presidents. Lying again, Al?
15.
> >> >> >> >That is why a successful Reagan saw his popular vote numbers rise 24%
> >> >> >> >and Obama's failure gave him a 5% decline in their second term re-
> >> >> >> >election.
>
> >> >> >> So if Obama was even half as bad as you continually try and paint him, why
> >> >> >> didn't he lose the election?
>
> >> >> >He lost ground in the election. If he would have run out of buying-
> >> >> >votes stimulus-money earlier he would have.
>
> >> >> Not a chance.
>
> >> >Democrats think we can just print more money of course that isn't the
> >> >reality.
>
> >> Not one Dem I know believes that.
>
> >Why don't you clue them in then:
>
> Debt and the printing of money are two entirely different things.
"Printing money" is a metaphor for flooding the economy with currency
> Debt and the printing of money are two entirely different things.
- like $6T over the last 4 years. I suppose your point is valid, given
the failure of our public school system, as there may be some
Democrats who promote actually printing more paper money and handing
it out.
> Again, I seem
> to be debating with a complete moron. And now he wants me to try and convince
> Democratic friends of mine to believe what he bogusly claims Dems believe.
conservative is bad and Reagan's accomplishments are ignored.
> Simply unbelievable that one person could be so stooooopid.
> >> You lying again, boy? Your nick should be Your
> >> Lying Pal Al. Fits you better.
>
> >> >> Look at the urban/rural demographics as they relate to votes.
>
> >> >Poor people live in urban squalor. Wealthy Democrats live in gated
> >> >urban communities. Republicans grow food.
>
> >> More lies. Blacks and Hispanics populate large areas of rural communities, but
> >> they voted Dem. And all of the central business cities of the US voted Dem as
> >> well. And which Rightards actually grow food? Your answer
> >> here ->_________________________
>
> Crickets.
large percentage of Blacks and Hispanics populate rural communities.
It's an obvious falsehood.
Here is a map of the counties for the last election. The Heartland, as
always, votes Republican:
http://www.decodedscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Election-results-by-county.png
> >> >> Romney got the goober votes, Obama the city intellectual vote.
>
> >> >Sorry but Obama's most faithful demographic was the high school drop
> >> >out. He won that demographic 64% to Romney's 35%. Romney's most
> >> >faithful demographic was the college graduate at 51%.
>
> >> Been through that too many times. Less than 3% of the vote.
>
> >It's very meaningful though.
>
> No, it is wrong. You admitted it yourself several times when we debated this
> very subject. Here, I'll copy your statement from above again and show you:
>
> Your Lying Pal Al said: "Obama's most faithful demographic was the high school
> drop out."
high school drop out.
> In previous debates on this subject you furiously backpeddled
Prove it... Oh, wait... You can't... Because you are bald-faced liar.
> In previous debates on this subject you furiously backpeddled
> when I handed your
> butt to you and modified the claim to be "Obama's most faithful *education*
> demographic was the high school drop out."
>
> Which is also false. The most votes Obama received from an educational
> demographic point of view were some college. You really need to take a math and
> statistics course as well (in addition to reading). Here are the actual Obama
> vote percentages based on the CNN cite you provided for that election:
>
> HS 10.71%
> Some college 14.21%
> College grads 13.63%
> Postgrads 9.90%
>
> So, again, Your Lying Pal Al. Which is the educational demographic where Obama
> receives the most votes?
I did not say in which demographic he he got the most votes. I'm
> So, again, Your Lying Pal Al. Which is the educational demographic where Obama
> receives the most votes?
saying which one is his most "faithful" as in reliable. When you
change the metric to those (your "most votes") terms *****YOU FUCKING
LOSE AGAIN!!!*****
Here's Romney's numbers:
No HS 1.05%
HS 10.08%
Some college 13.92%
College grads 14.79%
Postgrads 7.56%
Romney got the most votes from "College Grads" and Obama got the most
votes from "Some College".
Sucks to be you. Too bad, so sad.
> >If you could say that Republicans owned
> >the KKK vote you wouldn't leave that alone even though they are a
> >small fraction of a percentage.
>
> Hypothetical straw man, but I'll bite. I wouldn't say it was their most faithful
> demographic. That would be patently false. Same as with your statement. Let's go
> further. Let's say that there was only one person (again, hypothetical) who was
> totally uneducated, no school whatsoever, but was registered to vote and always
> voted Republican. 100% in that category every time. Would you say that was their
> most faithful educational demographic? If so, why?
Yes, of course if he votes Republican 100% of the time. You can count
> >the KKK vote you wouldn't leave that alone even though they are a
> >small fraction of a percentage.
>
> Hypothetical straw man, but I'll bite. I wouldn't say it was their most faithful
> demographic. That would be patently false. Same as with your statement. Let's go
> further. Let's say that there was only one person (again, hypothetical) who was
> totally uneducated, no school whatsoever, but was registered to vote and always
> voted Republican. 100% in that category every time. Would you say that was their
> most faithful educational demographic? If so, why?
on that. That is reliable. That is faithful.
With that faithful demographic would the Republicans be better off
making 10's of millions of voters just like him? 100% faithful?
Democrats benefit by the education being shit. If they can get twice
as many kids to drop out they will get more votes.
> >If Romney would have got 2/3rds of the
> >HS drop out vote like Obama did he would of won Florida
>
> True, however Florida's educational demographics aren't so representative of the
> nation. But then again, if ifs and buts were all candy and nuts we'd all have a
> Merry Christmas. Romney didn't get the extra votes and lost. Wasn't the only
> state, but a very pivotal one. And it doesn't work at all in proving
> faithfulness of a demographic, does it?
> >HS drop outs are the high water mark for Democrats. As soon as they
> >graduate Barry's percentage of the vote goes from 64% to 51%. When
> >they get some college it goes down again to 49%. When they graduate
> >from college it goes down again to just 47%.
>
> Look at the % of voters in each category, do the math and get back to us, ok?
> Your lies are getting real stale. Until you can become a bit more educated in
> your statements, I'm out. Life is simply way too short to spend it on morons
> like you.
can keep people from graduating from HS they will get more of that
demographic and more votes.
Message has been deleted
Yer Pal Al
May 3, 2013, 3:15:28 PM5/3/13
to
On May 2, 9:08 pm, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Thu, 2 May 2013 12:30:33 -0700 (PDT), Yer Pal Al
>
> NO nation has fared well if they did not address the problems caused
> by capitalism and the greed of Capitalism.
>
> Republicans have fucked the national economy---which hit the bottom
> 1/3 the hardest.
>
> Society suffers by not addressing those problems
>
> Since the days of your lying, perjuring, drooling asshole Raygun---the
> bottom 1/2 of Amerincans have lost wealth, wages, benefits, bargaining
> power, voting rights, civil rights and civil liberty because OF
> Republican policy.
>
> You supported them----and now you gotta pay for your BAD policy
You crack me up. Thanks for the laugh by latching onto "section 8" and
letting the durchfall fly. It's hilarious that you are reading all
this and finally found something you could relate to.
Seriously though, you are a pathetic loser and you're probably too old
to redeem yourself to society. I, nor anyone else, has any use for you
or what you say. I won't be scanning the Rapid City news for your
neighbors who complain about the smell next door only to have the
coroner tell them that someone was actually living there.
> On Thu, 2 May 2013 12:30:33 -0700 (PDT), Yer Pal Al
>
> <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Your statement implied that Obama voters were happy because they have their food
> >> stamps and Obamaphones. You're a liar, Al.
>
> >You're the bald-faced liar saying I claimed they were free when
> >obviously they are not - just like section 8 housing is just a
> >subsidy.
>
> It's called SOCIAL POLICY ya dumb fuck
> <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Your statement implied that Obama voters were happy because they have their food
> >> stamps and Obamaphones. You're a liar, Al.
>
> >You're the bald-faced liar saying I claimed they were free when
> >obviously they are not - just like section 8 housing is just a
> >subsidy.
>
>
> NO nation has fared well if they did not address the problems caused
> by capitalism and the greed of Capitalism.
>
> Republicans have fucked the national economy---which hit the bottom
> 1/3 the hardest.
>
> Society suffers by not addressing those problems
>
> Since the days of your lying, perjuring, drooling asshole Raygun---the
> bottom 1/2 of Amerincans have lost wealth, wages, benefits, bargaining
> power, voting rights, civil rights and civil liberty because OF
> Republican policy.
>
> You supported them----and now you gotta pay for your BAD policy
You crack me up. Thanks for the laugh by latching onto "section 8" and
letting the durchfall fly. It's hilarious that you are reading all
this and finally found something you could relate to.
Seriously though, you are a pathetic loser and you're probably too old
to redeem yourself to society. I, nor anyone else, has any use for you
or what you say. I won't be scanning the Rapid City news for your
neighbors who complain about the smell next door only to have the
coroner tell them that someone was actually living there.
1,959 murdered in Obama's organized communities
May 4, 2013, 3:40:22 AM5/4/13
to
alive.
0 new messages