Lefturd faux argument
Steve Thomas
Bush administration screaming that the budget for this or that pet
liberal cause had been, or was about to be, "slashed." They also
whined constantly that No Child Left Behind (a policy I adamantly
opposed, BTW) was "underfunded." So while they endlessly complain that
Republicans don't spend enough money, liberals then blame Republicans
for deficits. Sic semper hoc.
Read the whole thing http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2009/02/faux-argument.html
lorad
Those deficits occured under a republicon president.. and mostly with
a republicon congress.
Don't try to pretend otherwise.
§tarkiller©
wrote:
He didn't.
He's simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the left.
JoeTheBlogger
THANKS FOR POINTING IT OUT FOR THEM.
sid9
> §tarkiller© wrote:
>
>
Republicans own the deficit and the national debt because of the mal
administration of Reagan, HW Bush, and his incompetent son, bush,jr.
No wishfull thinking will remove that blot from Republicans.
Americans know it
Harold Burton
JoeTheBlogger <j...@blog.ger> wrote:
Yep, and what's fun is watching them pretend that the Republicans are
still in charge. "It's still the Repbulicans fault" is their mantra.
Watta bunch of losers
Snicker.
JoeTheBlogger
> On Feb 14, 9:09 pm, JoeTheBlogger <j...@blog.ger> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 17:13:22 -0800 (PST), lorad <lorad...@cs.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Feb 14, 3:29 pm, Steve Thomas <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> "The Bush deficit" -- Liberals spent the entire eight years of the
>>>>> Bush administration screaming that the budget for this or that pet
>>>>> liberal cause had been, or was about to be, "slashed." They also
>>>>> whined constantly that No Child Left Behind (a policy I adamantly
>>>>> opposed, BTW) was "underfunded." So while they endlessly complain that
>>>>> Republicans don't spend enough money, liberals then blame Republicans
>>>>> for deficits. Sic semper hoc.
>>>>> Read the whole thinghttp://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2009/02/faux-argument.html
>>>> Those deficits occured under a republicon president.. and mostly with
>>>> a republicon congress.
>>>> Don't try to pretend otherwise.
>>> He didn't.
>>> He's simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the left.
>> THOSE OBAMORONS CAN'T EVEN READ SOMETHING AND GET THE POINT.
>>
>> THANKS FOR POINTING IT OUT FOR THEM.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>
>
> Republicans own the deficit and the national debt because of the mal
> administration of Reagan, HW Bush, and his incompetent son, bush,jr.
>
NO THEY DON'T. IT WILL BE OBAAMMIES BEFORE THE YEAR IS OUT. POOR SLOB
DIDN'T KNOW WHAT HE WAS GETTING INTO.
JoeTheBlogger
> In article <uJKll.3963$v8....@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
> JoeTheBlogger <j...@blog.ger> wrote:
>
Harold Burton
<cd3be6f0-de48-45fe...@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
sid9 <si...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Feb 14, 9:09 pm, JoeTheBlogger <j...@blog.ger> wrote:
> > §tarkiller© wrote:
> > > On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 17:13:22 -0800 (PST), lorad <lorad...@cs.com>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >> On Feb 14, 3:29 pm, Steve Thomas <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >>> "The Bush deficit" -- Liberals spent the entire eight years of the
> > >>> Bush administration screaming that the budget for this or that pet
> > >>> liberal cause had been, or was about to be, "slashed." They also
> > >>> whined constantly that No Child Left Behind (a policy I adamantly
> > >>> opposed, BTW) was "underfunded." So while they endlessly complain that
> > >>> Republicans don't spend enough money, liberals then blame Republicans
> > >>> for deficits. Sic semper hoc.
> >
> > >>> Read the whole
> > >>> thinghttp://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2009/02/faux-argument.html
> > >> Those deficits occured under a republicon president.. and mostly with
> > >> a republicon congress.
> > >> Don't try to pretend otherwise.
> >
> > > He didn't.
> > > He's simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the left.
> >
> > THOSE OBAMORONS CAN'T EVEN READ SOMETHING AND GET THE POINT.
> >
> > THANKS FOR POINTING IT OUT FOR THEM.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> >
>
> Republicans own the deficit and the national debt because...
...Democrats have controlled Congress and fiscal policy for the last two
years.
Gotta love how leftards try to pass the blame.
Snicker.
fan of HCL, Jr
> In article
> <cd3be6f0-de48-45fe-8d86-c9e1c8bae...@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
It seems that the veto stopped any action from the Dems from getting
though.
Liberal...@xemaps.com
> for deficits. Sic semper hoc.
We complain that you were idiots to spend three TRILLION of our US
taxdollars in a bogus war in Iraq.
Had you spent it on Americans, in America, we wouldn't be in the mess
we are today.
For someone who just finished SCREWING AMERICA, you conservatives
still sure are bombastic.
JoeTheBlogger
GOT YOUR WISH.
boo-radley
Yeeehah, got ass smacked again!
maxw...@my-deja.com
> On Feb 14, 3:29 pm, Steve Thomas <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Republicans don't spend enough money, liberals then blame Republicans
> > for deficits. Sic semper hoc.
>
> We complain that you were idiots to spend three TRILLION of our US
> taxdollars in a bogus war in Iraq.
>
> Had you spent it on Americans, in America, we wouldn't be in the mess
> we are today.
That's right, they don't understand how different spending can
help make or break the economy. These same people think
that a factory opening in China benefits the US economy
the same as if it opened in the US.
§tarkiller©
wrote:
>On Feb 14, 3:29 pm, Steve Thomas <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Republicans don't spend enough money, liberals then blame Republicans
>> for deficits. Sic semper hoc.
>
>We complain that you were idiots to spend three TRILLION of our US
>taxdollars in a bogus war in Iraq.
According to your own side it's still less than a trillion.
Try to keep up with your own propaganda.
http://usliberals.about.com/od/homelandsecurit1/a/IraqNumbers.htm
>
>Had you spent it on Americans, in America, we wouldn't be in the mess
>we are today.
What, by giving out even more loans and credit to those that can't
afford it?
>
>For someone who just finished SCREWING AMERICA, you conservatives
>still sure are bombastic.
$800 billion in 5 years is screwing someone while dishing out around 2
trillion in 6 months isn't?
Care to tell us how that first 800 billion that congress passed out
has helped the economy one iota?
§tarkiller©
Yet you dolts seem convinced that a a few million illegal immigrants
crossing the borders each year is good for the economy.
Remember? "They do the jobs that no American wants."
You should also remember:
December 8, 1993
NAFTA signed into law
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is signed into law by
President Bill Clinton. Clinton said he hoped the agreement would
encourage other nations to work toward a broader world-trade pact.
NAFTA, a trade pact between the United States, Canada, and Mexico,
eliminated virtually all tariffs and trade restrictions between the
three nations. The passage of NAFTA was one of Clinton's first major
victories as the first Democratic president in 12 years--though the
movement for free trade in North America had begun as a Republican
initiative.
During its planning stages, NAFTA was heavily criticized by Reform
Party presidential candidate Ross Perot, who argued that if NAFTA was
passed, Americans would hear a "giant sucking sound" of American
companies fleeing the United States for Mexico, where employees would
work for less pay and without benefits. The pact, which took effect on
January 1, 1994, created the world's largest free-trade zone.
http://tinyurl.com/d44sbg
Who's in support of free trade with China?
Free trade with China is supported by the Clinton Administration,
corporate America and agricultural interests. They feel free trade
will open up a huge new market for American goods, result in improved
conditions for Chinese workers and encourage the Beijing government to
enact human rights reform.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/news/aa052300b.htm
Harold Burton
<e8f555ce-8209-45ca...@q30g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
Yeah, according to DemoCRAPS it's always someone else's fault.
Snicker.
Steve Thomas
By "any action from the Dems" you mean more spending and bigger
deficits.
Liberal...@xemaps.com
> That's right, they don't understand how different spending can
> help make or break the economy. These same people think
> that a factory opening in China benefits the US economy
> the same as if it opened in the US.
Good point.
Isn't that the damdest thing about conservatives?
They scream and shout that Obama is a "commie" but then they gleefully
moved America's manufacturing base to a communist country!
Thank you conservatives! -- Because of the US conservatives, the
Chinese commies own much of our economy.
What the hell?
Steve Thomas
If by "Republicans" you mean Bill Clinton you are right LOL. Fucking
leftards have very short memories.
maxw...@my-deja.com
> On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 07:21:20 -0800 (PST), maxwel...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >On Feb 15, 1:00 am, LiberalPatr...@xemaps.com wrote:
> >> On Feb 14, 3:29 pm, Steve Thomas <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Republicans don't spend enough money, liberals then blame Republicans
> >> > for deficits. Sic semper hoc.
>
> >> We complain that you were idiots to spend three TRILLION of our US
> >> taxdollars in a bogus war in Iraq.
>
> >> Had you spent it on Americans, in America, we wouldn't be in the mess
> >> we are today.
>
> >That's right, they don't understand how different spending can
> >help make or break the economy. These same people think
> >that a factory opening in China benefits the US economy
> >the same as if it opened in the US.
>
> Yet you dolts seem convinced that a a few million illegal immigrants
> crossing the borders each year is good for the economy.
> Remember? "They do the jobs that no American wants."
That was the line that Bush Jr. used LOL.
You seemed to have forgotten that illegal
immigration swelled under Bush and the republican
congress. All this after 9-11, there is no excuse.
It was the meat packing plants and corporate
farms, construction firms etc. that worked so
hard to allow it to continue. Bush gutted ICE
to where they couldn't actively enforce immigration.
When Bush said he wanted compassionate
conservatism this is what he was talking about.
It obviously wasn't anything else. Bush even
told Vincente Fox that he would "see what he
could do" in regards to allowing Mexican
illegals stay in the US.
> December 8, 1993
> NAFTA signed into law
>
> The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is signed into law by
> President Bill Clinton. Clinton said he hoped the agreement would
> encourage other nations to work toward a broader world-trade pact.
>
> NAFTA, a trade pact between the United States, Canada, and Mexico,
> eliminated virtually all tariffs and trade restrictions between the
> three nations. The passage of NAFTA was one of Clinton's first major
> victories as the first Democratic president in 12 years--though the
> movement for free trade in North America had begun as a Republican
> initiative.
>
> During its planning stages, NAFTA was heavily criticized by Reform
> Party presidential candidate Ross Perot, who argued that if NAFTA was
> passed, Americans would hear a "giant sucking sound" of American
> companies fleeing the United States for Mexico, where employees would
> work for less pay and without benefits. The pact, which took effect on
> January 1, 1994, created the world's largest free-trade zone.http://tinyurl.com/d44sbg
You should go back and review what was behind this agenda.
NAFTA was originally tossed around during Bush Srs. admin.
But he didn't win a second term. Nobody thinks NAFTA was
an idea dreamed up by the democrats.
Go back to school or learn to read.
Harold Burton
<23564492-b0ca-49e7...@r28g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
maxw...@my-deja.com wrote:
> On Feb 15, 10:58 am, §tarkiller© <NoSpamSKS_SK...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 07:21:20 -0800 (PST), maxwel...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >On Feb 15, 1:00 am, LiberalPatr...@xemaps.com wrote:
> > >> On Feb 14, 3:29 pm, Steve Thomas <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> > Republicans don't spend enough money, liberals then blame Republicans
> > >> > for deficits. Sic semper hoc.
> >
> > >> We complain that you were idiots to spend three TRILLION of our US
> > >> taxdollars in a bogus war in Iraq.
> >
> > >> Had you spent it on Americans, in America, we wouldn't be in the mess
> > >> we are today.
> >
> > >That's right, they don't understand how different spending can
> > >help make or break the economy. These same people think
> > >that a factory opening in China benefits the US economy
> > >the same as if it opened in the US.
> >
> > Yet you dolts seem convinced that a a few million illegal immigrants
> > crossing the borders each year is good for the economy.
> > Remember? "They do the jobs that no American wants."
>
> That was the line that Bush Jr. used LOL.
> You seemed to have forgotten that illegal
> immigration swelled under Bush and the republican...
...and DemoCRAP...
> ...congress.
Snicker.
Just a constitution loving American
> §tarkiller© wrote:
And reich wingers can't understand basic math: 8 years of Republican
administration of which 6 years was a Republican congress = a
Republican majority AND responsibility, nitwits
JoeTheBlogger
.the_pc_jellybean!!..
"JoeTheIdiot" <j...@blog.ger> wrote in message
news:WW3ml.4507$b9....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> Just a constitution loving American wrote:
>> On Feb 14, 8:09 pm, JoeTheBlogger <j...@blog.ger> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 17:13:22 -0800 (PST), lorad <lorad...@cs.com>
>> And reich wingers can't understand basic math: 8 years of Republican
>> administration of which 6 years was a Republican congress = a
>> Republican majority AND responsibility, nitwits
> EXCEPT FOR THE LAST 2 YEARS WHEN EVERYTHING WENT TO HELL IN A BASKET.
LOL!
Man its gonna be a long 8-12 years for you crybabys.
ROFLOL!
JoeTheBlogger
.the_pc_jellybean!!..
"JoeTheBlogger" <j...@blog.ger> wrote in message
news:nf4ml.4523$b9....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
No shit sherlock?
Clave
news:2j78dh....@news.alt.net...
>
> "JoeTheIdiot" <j...@blog.ger> wrote in message
> news:WW3ml.4507$b9....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>> Just a constitution loving American wrote:
>>> On Feb 14, 8:09 pm, JoeTheBlogger <j...@blog.ger> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 17:13:22 -0800 (PST), lorad <lorad...@cs.com>
>
>>> And reich wingers can't understand basic math: 8 years of Republican
>>> administration of which 6 years was a Republican congress = a
>>> Republican majority AND responsibility, nitwits
>> EXCEPT FOR THE LAST 2 YEARS WHEN EVERYTHING WENT TO HELL IN A BASKET.
>
> LOL!
>
>
> Man its gonna be a long 8-12 years for you crybabys.
Yes, the once-proud Party of Ideas, champions of personal responsibility,
have almost overnight become the idea-free Party of Whiny-Ass Titty-Babies.
Jim
Useless meandering crap, as usual
> On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 17:13:22 -0800 (PST), lorad <lorad...@cs.com>
>
> >On Feb 14, 3:29 pm, Steve Thomas <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> "The Bush deficit" -- Liberals spent the entire eight years of the
> >> Bush administration screaming that the budget for this or that pet
> >> liberal cause had been, or was about to be, "slashed." They also
> >> whined constantly that No Child Left Behind (a policy I adamantly
> >> opposed, BTW) was "underfunded." So while they endlessly complain that
> >> Republicans don't spend enough money, liberals then blame Republicans
> >> for deficits. Sic semper hoc.
>
> >> Read the whole thinghttp://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2009/02/faux-argument.html
>
> >Those deficits occured under a republicon president.. and mostly with
> >a republicon congress.
> >Don't try to pretend otherwise.
>
> He didn't.
> He's simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the left.
There being no hypocrisy on the right, of course.
Perhaps the Republicans could have taxed the rich more to pay for the
war and other money giveaways that they were doing instead of
borrowing from China and Saudi Arabia and the Social Security fund.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
This is Hell is one of the best political talk shows on the air. The
host, Chuck Mertz, asks intelligent, probing questions and gives the
guests as much time as needed to answer. Past guests have included
Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Chalmers Johnson, Greg Palast, and many
more luminaries of political thought.
http://www.thisishell.net/
Harold Burton
<cb16bd75-dc22-420d...@w1g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
"Useless meandering crap, as usual" <goof...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 14, 6:00 pm, §tarkiller© <NoSpamSKS_SK...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 17:13:22 -0800 (PST), lorad <lorad...@cs.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >On Feb 14, 3:29 pm, Steve Thomas <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >> "The Bush deficit" -- Liberals spent the entire eight years of the
> > >> Bush administration screaming that the budget for this or that pet
> > >> liberal cause had been, or was about to be, "slashed." They also
> > >> whined constantly that No Child Left Behind (a policy I adamantly
> > >> opposed, BTW) was "underfunded." So while they endlessly complain that
> > >> Republicans don't spend enough money, liberals then blame Republicans
> > >> for deficits. Sic semper hoc.
> >
> > >> Read the whole
> > >> thinghttp://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2009/02/faux-argument.html
> >
> > >Those deficits occured under a republicon president.. and mostly with
> > >a republicon congress.
> > >Don't try to pretend otherwise.
> >
> > He didn't.
> > He's simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the left.
> There being no hypocrisy on the right, of course.
who said there wasn't?
Poetic Justice
> On Feb 14, 6:00 pm, §tarkiller© <NoSpamSKS_SK...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 17:13:22 -0800 (PST), lorad <lorad...@cs.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 14, 3:29 pm, Steve Thomas <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> "The Bush deficit" -- Liberals spent the entire eight years of the
>>>> Bush administration screaming that the budget for this or that pet
>>>> liberal cause had been, or was about to be, "slashed." They also
>>>> whined constantly that No Child Left Behind (a policy I adamantly
>>>> opposed, BTW) was "underfunded." So while they endlessly complain that
>>>> Republicans don't spend enough money, liberals then blame Republicans
>>>> for deficits. Sic semper hoc.
>>>> Read the whole thinghttp://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2009/02/faux-argument.html
>>> Those deficits occured under a republicon president.. and mostly with
>>> a republicon congress.
>>> Don't try to pretend otherwise.
>> He didn't.
>> He's simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the left.
>
> There being no hypocrisy on the right, of course.
It's just not as prolific as it is on the Democrat side.
Clave
news:RZ4ml.4548$b9....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
That must be why they keep losing elections.
Jim
Just a constitution loving American
Still have a comprehension problem, eh?
Harold Burton
<1c746b71-eaa2-420b...@l39g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
You seem to. Care to tell us when you think things went south?
Snicker.
Harold Burton
"Clave" <ClaviusNo...@cablespeed.com> wrote:
Ya mean like in 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004?
Snicker.
Poetic Justice
Liberals are batting around a 98% rating on their being hypocrites. I
suppose when you take both sides on nearly every issue, there must be
some people just not smart enough to see it, so with each issue you
increase your popularity. That's great, and it's also dishonest, but
that's Liberalism for ya.
Governor Swill
>Yeah, according to DemoCRAPS it's always someone else's fault.
As the irony gets knee deep.
Swill
--
"It's going to take more than three weeks to unfuck eight years of
George Bush's bungling." -- Christopher Helms
Governor Swill
>EXCEPT FOR THE LAST 2 YEARS WHEN EVERYTHING WENT TO HELL IN A BASKET.
The subprime mortgage slide started before the Dems were sworn in in
2007.
Clave
news:pj0ip4domlr1779id...@4ax.com...
> JoeTheBlogger <j...@blog.ger> wrote:
>
>>EXCEPT FOR THE LAST 2 YEARS WHEN EVERYTHING WENT TO HELL IN A BASKET.
>
> The subprime mortgage slide started before the Dems were sworn in in
> 2007.
It's only bad when the swindle is uncovered, which did happen after the Dems
were sworn in.
Jim
Governor Swill
>You seem to. Care to tell us when you think things went south?
There were three critical points. The 2001 recession which Bush chose
to fix with lots of spending of cheap money supplied by a compliant
Fed. 2003 when the falling dollar became both an inflation and
consumer spending threat which Bush chose again to combat with
spending of cheap Fed money and 2005 when mortgage security
derivatives were the hot commodity but which the SEC chose not to
regulate.
Bush decided to combat the 2001 recession with extravagant spending
financed by a compliant Fed that kept interest rates artificially low
for too long. It softened the recession and ended it quickly.
2003 teaches us the importance of what other countries think of us.
Most of the planet didn't like us going into Iraq. It was bullshit
and they knew it. This disapproval of / loss of confidence in the US
started driving the dollar down. The most noticeable effect for
consumers was rising gas prices. The government saw a slowdown in
consumer spending and inflation based on imports rising including
gasoline. It also saw deflationary pressure since so much money was
leaving the country. Bush again chose to stimulate the economy with
massive government spending and again a compliant Greenspan provided
cheap money.
At the same time, Bush was taking full political advantage of the
changes in Fannie and Freddie made in the nineties and the change in
finance rules as well. He started pushing hard to get minorities
(read: poor people) into their own homes. Politically sound, such a
plan if it had worked would guarantee future GOP voters. Cheap money
from the Fed increased mortgage money supply and held credit card
rates down. By increasing demand, home prices went up. Rising home
values and cheap credit cards gave consumers more credit to spend. The
result was consumer spending propping up an economy
ever more based on debt.
Worries about and criticisms of his deficits caused Bush to reign in
spending. He reduced his deficit in 2006 and again in 2007. This
resulted in lowered entitlement and worker incomes and began
destabilizing employment rates. (because the government is too big a
part of the economy) In turn, some workers lost their homes. The
subprime collapse that began early in 2007 accelerated along with
unemployment and slowed consumer spending until by winter 2008 the
economy was weak enough that Bush asked for and got a massive stimulus
spending bill. (still trying to control the economy by spending) It
didn't do much because it wasn't enough money and politically Bush had
maxed out the government's credit card. It may have delayed the
inevitable, but the economy was doomed by 2005 when mortgage security
derivative markets were booming without restriction or oversight.
We're now at an ironic point in the process. Instead of having
inflation as a result of all this spending as one would expect, we
have deflation. What this means is that government spending is
actually a good thing. Increase the money supply to prop up prices.
Fed debt is an illusion. It's a printing press and anybody with a
brain knows it. Money hasn't had any intrinsic worth in a century.
It's become a point system. Right now, we need more points to spread
around. We also need to find ways to deal with the real problems,
consumer debt, foreign debt and employment.
Remember, humans can produce more than they can consume.
Governor Swill
>> There being no hypocrisy on the right, of course.
>
>It's just not as prolific as it is on the Democrat side.
*laughs and points*
There's more daylight between fucking teenagers than there is between
a libtard and a rightard.
Governor Swill
>Liberals are batting around a 98% rating on their being hypocrites.
So are Republicans. The GOP Congress and GOP President George Bush
spent us into 5T in new national debt and still counting. Bush's last
deficit including his stimulus package paid out in June, his loans to
the automakers and his bank bailout added to his normal budget deficit
gave us our first trillion dollar deficit almost doubling the previous
record, also held by Bush of 564B in deficit spending in 2005. And
now they're criticizing Democrats for spending money?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
maxw...@my-deja.com
>
>
>
> maxwel...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > On Feb 15, 10:58 am, §tarkiller© <NoSpamSKS_SK...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 07:21:20 -0800 (PST), maxwel...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > >On Feb 15, 1:00 am, LiberalPatr...@xemaps.com wrote:
> > > >> On Feb 14, 3:29 pm, Steve Thomas <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> > Republicans don't spend enough money, liberals then blame Republicans
> > > >> > for deficits. Sic semper hoc.
>
> > > >> We complain that you were idiots to spend three TRILLION of our US
> > > >> taxdollars in a bogus war in Iraq.
>
> > > >> Had you spent it on Americans, in America, we wouldn't be in the mess
> > > >> we are today.
>
> > > >That's right, they don't understand how different spending can
> > > >help make or break the economy. These same people think
> > > >that a factory opening in China benefits the US economy
> > > >the same as if it opened in the US.
>
> > > Yet you dolts seem convinced that a a few million illegal immigrants
> > > crossing the borders each year is good for the economy.
> > > Remember? "They do the jobs that no American wants."
>
> > That was the line that Bush Jr. used LOL.
> > You seemed to have forgotten that illegal
> > immigration swelled under Bush and the republican...
>
> ...and DemoCRAP...
>
> > ...congress.
Wrong. Bush had a congress controlled by
his party for 6 years. He had virtual autonomy
to do what he wanted and we see what he did
with it.
JoeTheBlogger
> On Feb 15, 8:13 pm, JoeTheBlogger <j...@blog.ger> wrote:
>> Just a constitution loving American wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 14, 8:09 pm, JoeTheBlogger <j...@blog.ger> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 17:13:22 -0800 (PST), lorad <lorad...@cs.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Feb 14, 3:29 pm, Steve Thomas <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> "The Bush deficit" -- Liberals spent the entire eight years of the
>>>>>>> Bush administration screaming that the budget for this or that pet
>>>>>>> liberal cause had been, or was about to be, "slashed." They also
>>>>>>> whined constantly that No Child Left Behind (a policy I adamantly
>>>>>>> opposed, BTW) was "underfunded." So while they endlessly complain that
>>>>>>> Republicans don't spend enough money, liberals then blame Republicans
>>>>>>> for deficits. Sic semper hoc.
>>>>>>> Read the whole thinghttp://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2009/02/faux-argument.html
>>>>>> Those deficits occured under a republicon president.. and mostly with
>>>>>> a republicon congress.
>>>>>> Don't try to pretend otherwise.
>>>>> He didn't.
>>>>> He's simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the left.
>>>> THOSE OBAMORONS CAN'T EVEN READ SOMETHING AND GET THE POINT.
>>>> THANKS FOR POINTING IT OUT FOR THEM.
>>> And reich wingers can't understand basic math: 8 years of Republican
>>> administration of which 6 years was a Republican congress = a
>>> Republican majority AND responsibility, nitwits
>> EXCEPT FOR THE LAST 2 YEARS WHEN EVERYTHING WENT TO HELL IN A BASKET.
>
> Still have a comprehension problem, eh?
§tarkiller©
And the economy and jobs were not a problem until the dems took
control of congress.
Unemployment was low until the dems got their majority.
Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac went to shit thanks to the dems blocking any
and all attempts at regulation.
The dems have dirrty hands but are keeping them in their pockets while
they blame everyone else for their fuck ups.
§tarkiller©
<governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>JoeTheBlogger <j...@blog.ger> wrote:
>
>>EXCEPT FOR THE LAST 2 YEARS WHEN EVERYTHING WENT TO HELL IN A BASKET.
>
>The subprime mortgage slide started before the Dems were sworn in in
>2007.
>
>Swill
Yet they were there before pushing it into the shitter as fast as they
could.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4A0RuXhnQA
maxw...@my-deja.com
Hopefully, one day you will be able to understand the
roots of these problems. You can comment like anyone
else but until you are old enough to vote I don't think
anyone here is going to take you seriously.
JoeTheBlogger
> Hopefully, one day you will be able to understand the
> roots of these problems. You can comment like anyone
> else but until you are old enough to vote I don't think
> anyone here is going to take you seriously.
YOU NEED TO READ SOME MORE. NOBODY TAKES U SERIOUS FO SHO.
Poetic Justice
Yes, he let Ted Kennedy write the education bill, and signed a drug bill
for the elderly.
He left the Democrats mortgage policies in place.
He didn't say "we won so live with it" did he?
Steve Thomas
Not true asshole. When did the Republicans have 60 votes in the
Senate? Never heard of a filibuster eh lefturd?
sid9
>
> - Show quoted text -
The drug bill?
A boondoggle for Insurance companies and pharmaceutical firms?
The "education' bill? Unfunded.
Deficit and debt MUCH larger than Reagan's or his father's.
Incompetent foreign policy.
Two wars not won.
maxw...@my-deja.com
They do if they are not fools. Look at my posts from
4 years ago. It's chilling.
From Mar 2005:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/browse_frm/thread/8c1e56da4964bb6a?hl=en&q=#db1bf4ebab4ab1dd
"Some get sold on the idea that supply side economics is a
cure all. There is a false assumption that cutting taxes
means more investment in THIS system. If the system is ripe
for investment then it will work on the other hand if there
is no shortage of investment capital and the system
simply isn't ripe for investment then the plan will fail,
budget defecits will grow and demand will slow further.
This is why Bush's economists have been wrong as many times
as I have been right.
This situation is different than when Reagan came into office.
Reagan came into office under high inflation rates, and a
weak dollar. Bush came into office when there was
no inflation and the dollar was strong.
There was no wage inflation in 1999 and 2000 when Greenspan
deviated from the federal reserve trust act and raised
rates. Bush is using the same tactics as Reagan and
even mimicking his behavior as if it will work magic.
Supply side economics is not improving our economy. The
last breath of it has been bouyed mostly due to historical
low interest rates.
Bush did not inherit a supply side problem he inherited a
low demand problem. In contrast with the late 70's wage
inflation has been nil and demand weak hince the brief
touch with actual deflation 2 years ago.
Bush is using the wrong solution for the problem.
Banks and creditors have been loaning money for next
to nothing and companies have plenty of cash. We have
seen the housing sector benefit while other sectors
continue to contract. If a company with a fall off in
demand for its products or services gets a tax break that
doesn't make them go out and hire more workers or buy more
equipment. When the DEMAND comes back they will, until then
there is only a maintenance effect. This is
one thing especially if you are in business you should
understand. Part of this problem is health care has
become a drain on money and demand. Bush had a chance
to do something to control it but picked the wrong
solution.
Then also consider that in this day the hot investment
is China and India. Tax breaks going into corporate
expansion into other nations is great for them. They
like Reaganomics and I am sure they like Bush but it
doesn't do much for us here in the US. When you
consider that our wages are not growing and layoffs
continue it is going to be hard to raise tax revenue.
It is important to remember that the
market climate changes with global changes and the same
methods don't always work the same. Instead a system
that addresses the correct balance needs to be tried.
Changes must be considered. When Reagan came into office
our imports of oil were dropping and that helped a lot.
MidEast tensions have increased and oil prices have
doubled under Bush and when you add the secret low
dollar scheme it makes energy even more expensive and
exacerbates the damage to the economy.
Another thing he has done wrong is cut domestic spending which
is going to further drive down demand. Most of the spending
increases are overseas which does nothing to help matters here.
The 911 commission recommended 10 times the border control
agents the the Bush budget hires. It seems to me that if
terrorists can't get to us they can't hurt us. It would also
seem fewer illegals would mean more tax revenue.
This list goes on and on but it seems on nearly everything
Bush has taken the wrong approach.
I really do hate to be a naysayer but I don't see things
getting better until he addresses our trade issues the same
way Europe did with us. If he would at least try to do
something it would be nice but there is all this
wasted time forcing the SS matter when we have so many
other more immediate problems."
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.boats/browse_frm/thread/bd1fca3295...
Back in June I was talking about $50 oil and everybody
thought I was nuts.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.misc/browse_frm/thread/e...
And yes I made a lot of money beating them at their own game.
maxw...@my-deja.com
LOL. You obviously have confused the filibuster delay
with some of measure of control in the Senate.
This is not the same as writing and introducing
the legislation that is voted upon. LOL
FYI I am not on the right or the left. I am only
on the side that makes good sense.
Thanks for the name calling, It makes it clear where I
stand, and I hope you feel better.
Harold Burton
<0d5e9cc5-40d9-43f7...@s36g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
maxw...@my-deja.com wrote:
> to do what he wanted...
OH, was the filibuster only invented when Obama became president?
Snicker.
Harold Burton
<3253a9c8-0909-44b8...@r36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Steve Thomas <misled...@aol.com> wrote:
There you go, confusing lefturds with inconvenient truths.
Harold Burton
<5ef62bb7-2f31-4450...@n30g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
maxw...@my-deja.com wrote:
It sure prevents the majority party from having "virtual autonomy to do
what it wanted".
Snicker.
Harold Burton
<2011558d-a59d-4300...@k9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
maxw...@my-deja.com wrote:
> roots of these problems....
...a year or so before you do, obviously.
Snicker.
Clave
news:sioip41qod94q5cvu...@4ax.com...
What an utterly childish view of history.
Jim
JoeTheBlogger
> On Feb 16, 8:47 am, JoeTheBlogger <j...@blog.ger> wrote:
>> maxwel...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>> Hopefully, one day you will be able to understand the
>>> roots of these problems. You can comment like anyone
>>> else but until you are old enough to vote I don't think
>>> anyone here is going to take you seriously.
>> YOU NEED TO READ SOME MORE. NOBODY TAKES U SERIOUS FO SHO.
>
> They do if they are not fools. Look at my posts from
> 4 years ago. It's chilling.
> From Mar 2005:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/browse_frm/thread/8c1e56da4964bb6a?hl=en&q=#db1bf4ebab4ab1dd
even a blind hog finds an acorn once in a while.
JoeTheBlogger
funny how children can sometimes see reality through untainted eyes.
§tarkiller©
And your opinion is supposed to matter to me because?
Hopefuylly one day you'll grow up enough and learn enough that you
might be able to have a logical discussion instead of peddling the
bullshit you repeat with out any cite or reference to anything
truthful.
§tarkiller©
wrote:
Funny how a little 20 nothing year old punk like Clave thinks of
themself as an adult.
Clave
You guys just go right ahead and keep proving me right.
Jim
maxw...@my-deja.com
> maxwel...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > On Feb 16, 8:47 am, JoeTheBlogger <j...@blog.ger> wrote:
> >> maxwel...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >>> Hopefully, one day you will be able to understand the
> >>> roots of these problems. You can comment like anyone
> >>> else but until you are old enough to vote I don't think
> >>> anyone here is going to take you seriously.
> >> YOU NEED TO READ SOME MORE. NOBODY TAKES U SERIOUS FO SHO.
>
> > They do if they are not fools. Look at my posts from
> > 4 years ago. It's chilling.
> > From Mar 2005:
>
> even a blind hog finds an acorn once in a while.
That doesn't even make any sense because I am
consistent and my record shows it and my account
shows it.
Harold Burton
"Clave" <ClaviusNo...@cablespeed.com> wrote:
> You guys just go right ahead and keep proving me right.
Like when you petulantly insisted again and again that:
"Gore *did* get a majority of the votes cast. Live with it or choke on
it, I don't care. It's still a fact."
According to http://www.uselectionatlas.org/ Gore got only 48.4% of the
votes cast.
Have you signed up for remedial math yet?
Snicker.
Wes Penn
> Just a constitution loving American wrote:
>
> > On Feb 15, 8:13 pm, JoeTheBlogger <j...@blog.ger> wrote:
> >> Just a constitution loving American wrote:
>
> >>> On Feb 14, 8:09 pm, JoeTheBlogger <j...@blog.ger> wrote:
Well, since you seem to think the "decider in chief" was right, your
opinion is as moot as you attempts at intelligence
JoeTheBlogger
> On Feb 16, 6:04 am, JoeTheBlogger <j...@blog.ger> wrote:
>> Just a constitution loving American wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 15, 8:13 pm, JoeTheBlogger <j...@blog.ger> wrote:
>>>> Just a constitution loving American wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 14, 8:09 pm, JoeTheBlogger <j...@blog.ger> wrote:
JoeTheBlogger
Wes Penn
> Wes Penn wrote:
> > On Feb 16, 6:04 am, JoeTheBlogger <j...@blog.ger> wrote:
> >> Just a constitution loving American wrote:
>
> >>> On Feb 15, 8:13 pm, JoeTheBlogger <j...@blog.ger> wrote:
> >>>> Just a constitution loving American wrote:
> >>>>> On Feb 14, 8:09 pm, JoeTheBlogger <j...@blog.ger> wrote:
Tsk, tsk still having trouble with basic comprehension skills, eh?
maxw...@my-deja.com
Because most people are stupid.
Steve Thomas
BZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz WRONG!
and proof that you're a lefturd
Steve Thomas
> In article <X9OdnQAgLoQEcgTUnZ2dnUVZ_orin...@cablespeedmi.com>,
>
> "Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDam...@cablespeed.com> wrote:
> > You guys just go right ahead and keep proving me right.
>
> Like when you petulantly insisted again and again that:
>
> "Gore *did* get a majority of the votes cast.
Post the proof
Live with it or choke on
> it, I don't care. It's still a fact."
>
> According tohttp://www.uselectionatlas.org/Gore got only 48.4% of the
JoeTheBlogger
JoeTheBlogger
§tarkiller©
<misled...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Feb 16, 5:43 pm, Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> In article <X9OdnQAgLoQEcgTUnZ2dnUVZ_orin...@cablespeedmi.com>,
>>
>> "Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDam...@cablespeed.com> wrote:
>> > You guys just go right ahead and keep proving me right.
>>
>> Like when you petulantly insisted again and again that:
>>
>> "Gore *did* get a majority of the votes cast.
>
>
> Post the proof
Harold was simply quoting Clave.
Thanks to Nader no candidate in 2000 got a majority of the popular
vote.
Gore received more of the popular vote than Bush but not a majority.
As stated below by HB, Gore received a little more than 48% of the
popular vote.
And Bush did get a majority of the electoral vote which is what counts
in the current system.
Wes Penn
So, English is a 2nd language for you? Got your green card, fool?
Clave
> On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 18:49:31 -0800 (PST), Steve Thomas
> <misled...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>On Feb 16, 5:43 pm, Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> In article <X9OdnQAgLoQEcgTUnZ2dnUVZ_orin...@cablespeedmi.com>,
>>>
>>> "Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDam...@cablespeed.com> wrote:
>>> > You guys just go right ahead and keep proving me right.
>>>
>>> Like when you petulantly insisted again and again that:
>>>
>>> "Gore *did* get a majority of the votes cast.
>>
>>
>> Post the proof
>
> Harold was simply quoting Clave.
Dink just thinks he's being clever pointing out that I didn't say
"plurality".
He's rather dim that way.
Jim
Governor Swill
>"Governor Swill" <governo...@gmail.com> wrote
>> JoeTheBlogger <j...@blog.ger> wrote:
>>>EXCEPT FOR THE LAST 2 YEARS WHEN EVERYTHING WENT TO HELL IN A BASKET.
>> 2007.
>It's only bad when the swindle is uncovered, which did happen after the Dems
>were sworn in.
Ah, yes. The bank didn't get robbed by burglars Friday night. It
happened Monday morning when they opened the vault and found it empty.
Swill
--
"It's going to take more than three weeks to unfuck eight years of
George Bush's bungling." -- Christopher Helms
Governor Swill
>>The subprime mortgage slide started before the Dems were sworn in in
>>2007.
>Yet they were there before pushing it into the shitter as fast as they
>could.
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4A0RuXhnQA
That's exactly what the Republicans were doing. Or are you charging
that the Dems set this up as a trap for the Grand Old Party to get
caught in?
I guess that makes Democrats smarter than Republicans.
You can't win trying to make the Dems out to be the villain because it
makes your party looks like fools.
dr. zachary smith
> §tarkiller© <NoSpamS...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> The subprime mortgage slide started before the Dems were sworn in in
>>> 2007.
>
>> Yet they were there before pushing it into the shitter as fast as they
>> could.
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4A0RuXhnQA
>
> That's exactly what the Republicans were doing. Or are you charging
> that the Dems set this up as a trap for the Grand Old Party to get
> caught in?
>
> I guess that makes Democrats smarter than Republicans.
>
> You can't win trying to make the Dems out to be the villain because it
> makes your party looks like fools.
>
> Swill
Why are you still playing petty partisan politics while this nation falters?
You're not a "centrist" you're an absurd hypocritical blame gamer.
§tarkiller©
<governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>§tarkiller© <NoSpamS...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>The subprime mortgage slide started before the Dems were sworn in in
>>>2007.
>
>>Yet they were there before pushing it into the shitter as fast as they
>>could.
>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4A0RuXhnQA
>
>That's exactly what the Republicans were doing. Or are you charging
>that the Dems set this up as a trap for the Grand Old Party to get
>caught in?
>
>I guess that makes Democrats smarter than Republicans.
>
>You can't win trying to make the Dems out to be the villain because it
>makes your party looks like fools.
>
>Swill
Damn Swill you've definitely gone off of the deep end. You watch
those clips and then come back claiming the Republicans were the ones
fighting regulation?
Guess all those democrats claiming that "you can't fix what isn't
broke" were simply special video effects yes?
When the Republicans were saying that letting FM/FM go on unregulated
would take us into the shitter what the fuck do you think they were
referring to?
You're the one making yourself look like a complete fool by flat out
lying.
There is no "claim" being made here. The tale is in the tape.
Extrapolate all the ridiculous bullshit you want but the fact remains
of what the dems did as shown in their own statements and actions.
I'm not the one coming up with ridiculous conspiracy claims, that was
your idea. The dems weren't setting any stupid assed trap as you
moronically imply. They were simply protecting one of their favorite
honeybuckets. Those with their fingers in FM/FM made out like
bandits, some reaping millions off of it.
No political conspiracy. Just another democratic money scam.
Try to grow up and stop acting like a partisan asswipe.
dr. zachary smith
Lose a few too many arguments?
You insufferable, insolent little mollusk, bah!
Harold Burton
"Clave" <ClaviusNo...@cablespeed.com> wrote:
Just pointing out that you have a propensity to spout off without
knowing what you're talking about.
Remember, you're the one with the delusion that people "keep proving
[you] right" whereas it's a lot easier to prove you wrong.
Snicker.
Harold Burton
Poor Clave has the capacity to lose arguments with himself.
maxw...@my-deja.com
>
>
>
> maxwel...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > On Feb 16, 10:20 am, Steve Thomas <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 16, 5:49 am, maxwel...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > > > > maxwel...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Feb 15, 10:58 am, §tarkiller© <NoSpamSKS_SK...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 07:21:20 -0800 (PST), maxwel...@my-deja.com
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> On Feb 14, 3:29 pm, Steve Thomas <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > >> > Republicans don't spend enough money, liberals then blame
> > > > > > > >> > Republicans
> > > > > > > >> > for deficits. Sic semper hoc.
>
> what it wanted".
They simply didn't get in their way, they let them do
what they wanted to do. They didn't want to spoil their party
so they gave them all the rope they wanted.
Governor Swill
>And the economy and jobs were not a problem until the dems took
>control of congress.
Yes, actually, they were. Not that I expect you to give up the lies
you believe. The conditions that created the mess were in the making
for a number of years. I don't expect you to admit it, but it would
be nice if you'd stop lying about it.
>Unemployment was low until the dems got their majority.
>Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac went to shit thanks to the dems blocking any
>and all attempts at regulation.
>The dems have dirrty hands but are keeping them in their pockets while
>they blame everyone else for their fuck ups.
Yeah, it's all their fault. And the poor, poor GOP got screwed
because they were too stupid to see it coming. A party that stupid, a
party that incompetent, a party that couldn't see it coming isn't fit
to rule. Either way, you lose.
See, FOOL, that's the difference between you and the voters. They saw
this all coming down the pike in 2006. I know I did. I watched
housing go sky high, I saw Bush shoveling money into an apparently
healthy economy as fast as he could, and like any good fiscal
conservative, I knew it would lead us to trouble and it did. Do you
really think the voters ignored his deficits? They were bad enough
during his first term. After the 2004 election, all hell broke loose.
In just three years 2004, 2005 and 2006 he put over a trillion and a
half in the debt books. The voters reacted in 2006 to these things
too.
We knew what you know now. That Bush and the GOP were destroying the
country.
You can either admit your party screwed up and got what it deserved or
you can admit your party is stupider than Democrats. You choose.
Harold Burton
Governor Swill <governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> §tarkiller© <NoSpamS...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >And the economy and jobs were not a problem until the dems took
> >control of congress.
>
> Yes, actually, they were.
No, actually they weren't but feel free to provide PROOF to the contrary
rather than mere assertions
Snicker.
Governor Swill
>
>even a blind hog finds an acorn once in a while.
Lot of acorns in that post and he wasn't the only one saying so.
Rising unemployment, falling income, increasing public and private
debt, massive deficits, reduced investment in real goods and
production, all this and so much more under Bush. The collapse has
been happening for several years. Now we're looking at the end result
of years of bad policy.
Governor Swill
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/browse_frm/thre...
>>> even a blind hog finds an acorn once in a while.
>> That doesn't even make any sense because I am
>> consistent and my record shows it and my account
>> shows it.
>then why didn't anyone listen to u?
They did. The GOP was thrown out of Congress in the very next
elections. It was the Republicans who didn't listen and they're still
not listening.
Governor Swill
>And your opinion is supposed to matter to me because?
>Hopefuylly one day you'll grow up enough and learn enough that you
>might be able to have a logical discussion instead of peddling the
>bullshit you repeat with out any cite or reference to anything
>truthful.
He did not state opinions. He stated facts.
Governor Swill
>funny how children can sometimes see reality through untainted eyes.
Shame it hasn't worked for you.
Governor Swill
>Funny how a little 20 nothing year old punk like Clave thinks of
>themself as an adult.
He's certainly more mature than you are. Your continued denial of
your party's and your President's systemic destruction of America is
now evident to all. Even those who couldn't make themselves vote for
Obama or any Democrat last fall approve of the way he's doing his job.
George Bush pulled the lowest approval rating for any President since
polling began.
There were many good reasons for this.
Governor Swill
> Steve Thomas <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Not true asshole. When did the Republicans have 60 votes in the
>> Senate? Never heard of a filibuster eh lefturd?
>
>LOL. You obviously have confused the filibuster delay
>with some of measure of control in the Senate.
>the legislation that is voted upon. LOL
>FYI I am not on the right or the left. I am only
>on the side that makes good sense.
>Thanks for the name calling, It makes it clear where I
>stand, and I hope you feel better.
Like any rightist he substitutes insult and vulgarity for logic and
reason. For six years Republicans screamed their fool heads off
whenever the Dems would threaten a filibuster. Now they're
complaining they didn't do it often enough.
§tarkiller©
Indeed. Proof such as numbers.
Such as from 2001 through 2007 unemployment rate averaged 4.47% The
peak of 5.99% was reached in 2003. Unemployment was on a steady
decline until late 2007 after the democrats had their majority for
nearly a year, unemployment jumped from 4.61% back up to 5.76%
http://www.miseryindex.us/urbyyear.asp
The dow rose steadily after 2003 and hit it's highest point in history
in 2007 at 14164 and then proceeded to fall after the democrats had
their majority for nearly a year.
http://www.the-privateer.com/chart/dow-long.html
It closed today at 7552.60
Those with the majority in congress are who control the nation.
Looking at the data posted, even with the recession that was brought
on partially by 911from 2001 thru 2003, the economy recovered and was
on a steady upswing until the democrats assumed the majority.
Now with a majority in congress and a rubber stamp president we shall
see if the trend continues.
Clave
<...>
> Those with the majority in congress are who control the nation.
You must have learned civics from a bumper sticker.
Fucking moron...
Jim
Harold Burton
Governor Swill <governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Like any rightist he substitutes insult and vulgarity for logic and
> reason.
Which makes him different from lefturds, how?
Snicker.
Harold Burton
Governor Swill <governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Even those who couldn't make themselves vote for
> Obama or any Democrat last fall approve of the way he's doing his job.
Except there are less of those every day.
Snicker
Governor Swill
>>> could.
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4A0RuXhnQA
>> That's exactly what the Republicans were doing. Or are you charging
>> that the Dems set this up as a trap for the Grand Old Party to get
>> caught in?
>> I guess that makes Democrats smarter than Republicans.
>> You can't win trying to make the Dems out to be the villain because it
>> makes your party looks like fools.
>> Swill
>Why are you still playing petty partisan politics while this nation falters?
>You're not a "centrist" you're an absurd hypocritical blame gamer.
I was responding to a partisan post in kind. A rightists who is
attempting to lay all the blame of the mistakes of the last eight
years entirely on his opposition. He is wrong, I pointed that out.
If you don't like my posts, don't read or reply to them. If you don't
know how to not read or reply to a post, respond to this one and I'll
show you how it's done.
Harold Burton
Governor Swill <governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "dr. zachary smith" <j...@piter.too> wrote:
> >>> Yet they were there before pushing it into the shitter as fast as they
> >>> could.
> >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4A0RuXhnQA
> >> That's exactly what the Republicans were doing. Or are you charging
> >> that the Dems set this up as a trap for the Grand Old Party to get
> >> caught in?
> >> I guess that makes Democrats smarter than Republicans.
> >> You can't win trying to make the Dems out to be the villain because it
> >> makes your party looks like fools.
> >> Swill
>
> >Why are you still playing petty partisan politics while this nation falters?
> >You're not a "centrist" you're an absurd hypocritical blame gamer.
>
> I was responding to a partisan post in kind. A rightists who is
> attempting to lay all the blame of the mistakes of the last eight
> years entirely on his opposition.
as opposed to a leftist who is attempting to lay all the blame for the
mistakes of the last eight years entirely on his opposition.
Snicker.
Governor Swill
> Governor Swill wrote:
>>§tarkiller© wrote:
>>>>The subprime mortgage slide started before the Dems were sworn in in
>>>>2007.
>>>Yet they were there before pushing it into the shitter as fast as they
>>>could.
>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4A0RuXhnQA
>>That's exactly what the Republicans were doing. Or are you charging
>>that the Dems set this up as a trap for the Grand Old Party to get
>>caught in?
>>I guess that makes Democrats smarter than Republicans.
>>You can't win trying to make the Dems out to be the villain because it
>>makes your party looks like fools.
>>Swill
>Damn Swill you've definitely gone off of the deep end. You watch
>those clips and then come back claiming the Republicans were the ones
>fighting regulation?
Deregulation has been a Republican Mantra for at least a century. More
especially over the last thirty years after regulation had made the
markets less risky. It's also a bad habit the Dems picked up from the
GOP after watching deregulation, among other faulty GOP policies, win
votes election after election.
Have I ever denied that the Dems have plenty of blame to take?
>Guess all those democrats claiming that "you can't fix what isn't
>broke" were simply special video effects yes?
Partisan politics and the reason I don't care for partisan politics.
It's like Republicans complaining about spending after their party in
only six years of absolute power added more than three trillion to the
national debt.
Congress=Spending. Either party accusing the other of spending is a
joke but it must be said that over the past half century at least,
Democratic Presidents if not Democratic Congresses have consistently
striven to hold down debt and in many cases spending as well.
Republicans gloat about how they've cut taxes, but the VAST majority
of that tax cutting has been done with Democrats controlling the House
and usually the Senate as well.
Obama included a 2000/1000 family/individual tax rebate. He promised
this during his primary and general election campaigns. He put those
rebate figures into his bill. The House Republicans seemed generally
content with that bill until it went to the House whereupon Pelosi
Inc. dropped a couple billion in useless social spending into it. Not
that it was much money, not in an 800B bill, but it got attention,
insulted Republicans and tore the delicate tissue of Obama's attempts
at bipartisanship. That it was an understandable reaction to the way
the Dems felt they'd been treated by the GOP when they had their
majority makes no difference to the final effect.
>When the Republicans were saying that letting FM/FM go on unregulated
>would take us into the shitter what the fuck do you think they were
>referring to?
What *exactly* was in the bill? If you don't understand why Democrats
would be outraged that the GOP would even *consider* regulating F&F,
then you have little understanding of the issue.
Bear in mind, that within 90 days of being sworn into the majority,
Frank and his committee did in fact send F&F regulation to the House
where it was quickly passed. But when it reached the split Senate, it
stalled and when finally passed, was gutted and too late. Unlike the
House Dems, the Senate Dems still have to consider the opposition.
>You're the one making yourself look like a complete fool by flat out
>lying.
I've not lied about any of it. I've said over and over again that the
Dems have to take some of the blame too. They chose to play partisan
politics when they were the minority just as the GOP does now.
That you continually assume I hold the GOP fully responsible for
everything bad is your own partisan politics at play. You ignore when
I attribute problems to Dem action and when you try to blame it all on
them and I point out that they were out of power at the time, you
accuse me of partisanship. It's nothing of the kind and you know
this. A spade is a spade. I call partisans when I see them and I
have called libtards as well as rightards when they're wrong.
>There is no "claim" being made here. The tale is in the tape.
>Extrapolate all the ridiculous bullshit you want but the fact remains
>of what the dems did as shown in their own statements and actions.
And the facts of what the Republicans did is shown in the current
state of the union.
>I'm not the one coming up with ridiculous conspiracy claims, that was
>your idea.
Who do you think you're talking to? What conspiracy claims have I
made? You're unlikely to answer because there aren't any. You've
simply moved to a partisan rant mode and throwing wild charges about
hoping something will stick. Too bad for you, it won't. Why not?
Because YOUR party lost. The majority of the voters and the majority
of the States decided they'd had enough of Republican government. Be
a man and deal with it. Be an American and look to the good of your
country rather than only the good of your party.
> The dems weren't setting any stupid assed trap as you
>moronically imply. They were simply protecting one of their favorite
>honeybuckets.
And yet you state plainly that your party, while holding a majority in
both Houses and the Presidency were powerless to stop them. It is
your implication that your party was victimized by a minority you have
historically labeled as incompetent and that would be one of the
kinder adjectives you have used to describe them.
> Those with their fingers in FM/FM made out like
>bandits, some reaping millions off of it.
You almost sound jealous that you didn't get your slice.
>No political conspiracy. Just another democratic money scam.
>Try to grow up and stop acting like a partisan asswipe.
A very democratic money scam. Six trillion dollars pissed away by a
very democratically elected Republican majority and their very
democratically elected Republican President.
Your party was in control when the shit went down. Trying to blame it
all on a marginalized minority proves your desperation to escape
responsibility.
And thereby hangs the tale, as they say. When partisans can take
responsibility for their own errors, when they can work out good
government by applying ideas and ideals instead of partisan smearing,
America will reach a new level of maturity.