kallend 2,184
billvon 3,133
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>Because you write in gobbledegook, your words are very difficult to decipher.
Maybe, maybe not. Add some punctuation:
"Because you don't speak of the truth, your words have little to think about."
That could literally mean "since you have chosen topics other than those discussing truth, the words you are using cannot think independently." Knowing past posting habits, though, the sentiment is probably closer to "liberals suck."
Maybe, maybe not. Add some punctuation:
"Because you don't speak of the truth, your words have little to think about."
That could literally mean "since you have chosen topics other than those discussing truth, the words you are using cannot think independently." Knowing past posting habits, though, the sentiment is probably closer to "liberals suck."
sundevil777 102
No, liberals don't suck, their policies suck.
People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am
Lucky... 0
QuoteNo, liberals don't suck, their policies suck.
Oh, tax increases that lead to deficit reduction, vs tax cuts that lead to disaster? Yea, fucking brilliant point.
Spending cuts that lead to deficit reduction? Another fucking brilliant point.
BTW, when responding, try to be current and comment on the last 2 or 3 decades to make it relevant. Tell us about the fascist pig (Reagan) and his policies that succeeded and how. Tell us about GWB and his policies and their great success. The one caveat you have is GHWB, but that's 1 term of the last 5 R terms; more an aberration.
You have to go to 50-58 years to Eisenhower to find the next R that was fiscally responsible. Unless you're talking other policies, but since you're so vague, I can only assume you mean that (fiscal policy). Me thinks you're just repeating the RW dribble w/o actually doing the math.
rushmc 23
Another post devoid of any truth or, at least twisted facts
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
kallend 2,184
QuoteAnother post devoid of any truth or, at least twisted facts
Twisted language is your specialty.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Lucky... 0
QuoteAnother post devoid of any truth or, at least twisted facts
Intelligent posts include a reason and some support. Aren't you able to see how people view your posts as an empty rant? Tell me how the fiscal policies of the right vs those of the left have been successful. I won't wait up all night.
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteAnother post devoid of any truth or, at least twisted facts
Intelligent posts include a reason and some support. Aren't you able to see how people view your posts as an empty rant? Tell me how the fiscal policies of the right vs those of the left have been successful. I won't wait up all night.
It is a waste of anyone's time to re-post that which you chose to ignore but, I will try it again
Fact, Reagan's policies doubled the income to the fed treasury
Fact, between 10 and 20 million people (depends on your source) became employed because of Reagan policy
Fact, spending caused that deficit you like to spew about and you have yet to answer my question regarding Tip O'Neals famous comment regarding a Reagan budget. How about answering it now?
Fact, more households gained middle class status because of Reagan's policies than ever before
Fact, the US saw the largest and longest peace time growth than ever before because of his polices
I don't care if you don't like people being self sustaining as much as you like people being dependent on government. That is your prerogative and we can debate that. Your twisting of history to support your view is however, unforgivable and shows a level of, well, I will let others fill in the blank
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteAnother post devoid of any truth or, at least twisted facts
Twisted language is your specialty.
Better than your twisted logic
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
mnealtx 0
QuoteBTW, when responding, try to be current and comment on the last 2 or 3 decades to make it relevant.
We've already done that, but evidently the Treasury is one of those RW rags that you don't give any credence to.
Quoterepeating the RW dribble w/o actually doing the math.
Speaking of dribbling and not doing math (your specialty), let's do some calcs on the debt, shall we?
Looking at the public debt figures from treasury direct, the Republicans under Bush increased the debt by 2.95T between Jan 2001 and Jan 2007, when they were ousted by the Democrats.
Since then, the Democrats have increased the debt by 3.96T, a 134% increase in 54% of the time.
Comparing the spending of the two Presidents, Obama's current increase in the debt was done in 28% of the time it took Bush to make the same increase.
Obama is already at 40% of the total increase in debt of GW's 8 years.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
sundevil777 102
QuoteQuoteNo, liberals don't suck, their policies suck.
Oh, tax increases that lead to deficit reduction, vs tax cuts that lead to disaster? Yea, fucking brilliant point.
Spending cuts that lead to deficit reduction? Another fucking brilliant point.
BTW, when responding, try to be current and comment on the last 2 or 3 decades to make it relevant. Tell us about the fascist pig (Reagan) and his policies that succeeded and how. Tell us about GWB and his policies and their great success. The one caveat you have is GHWB, but that's 1 term of the last 5 R terms; more an aberration.
You have to go to 50-58 years to Eisenhower to find the next R that was fiscally responsible. Unless you're talking other policies, but since you're so vague, I can only assume you mean that (fiscal policy). Me thinks you're just repeating the RW dribble w/o actually doing the math.
So much anger, is that the fault of conservatives also?
People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am
skymiles 3
QuoteThere are assholes everywhere you look and that include tea party or coffee party Republican or Democrat. Do not judge everyone by the actions of a few.
The goals of the Tea Party are laudable. But I’m sure you’re right – there are assholes in every party. The problem is that the Tea Party is being hijacked by the same old right wing assholes like Beck, Bachmann and Limbaugh (fear/hate mongers), Tancredo (racist), Palin (empty head) and Fox (propagandist).
funjumper101 15
QuoteQuoteBTW, when responding, try to be current and comment on the last 2 or 3 decades to make it relevant.
We've already done that, but evidently the Treasury is one of those RW rags that you don't give any credence to.Quoterepeating the RW dribble w/o actually doing the math.
Speaking of dribbling and not doing math (your specialty), let's do some calcs on the debt, shall we?
Looking at the public debt figures from treasury direct, the Republicans under Bush increased the debt by 2.95T between Jan 2001 and Jan 2007, when they were ousted by the Democrats.
Since then, the Democrats have increased the debt by 3.96T, a 134% increase in 54% of the time.
Comparing the spending of the two Presidents, Obama's current increase in the debt was done in 28% of the time it took Bush to make the same increase.
Obama is already at 40% of the total increase in debt of GW's 8 years.
2007?
We had an election in 2006 and Obama was sworn in in 2007?
Another stellar example of right wings "facts", as in. made up bullshit. Faux news is always looking for liars, I mean, content readers. Looking for a job?
chutem 0
110th congress sworn in in Jan 2007, elected to office Nov 2006.
James
James
Lucky... 0
Quote110th congress sworn in in Jan 2007, elected to office Nov 2006.
James
Shhhh, don't tell Mike that the Dems had a small lead in the House and a 49-49-2 tie in the senate. He thinks the Dems had a lead in the senate as he's calling both indeps Dems, even tho:
- Lieberman's home state wouldn't pass him thru on the primary
- 2/3 of the voters who elected Lieberman in the general election as an indep were registered Repibs
- Lieberman campaigned for McCain
So you see, Mike isn't a bad guy, just real bad at math saying the Dems had control of both chambers of congress. Oh, do I have to mention that the VP breaks ties on some issues in the Senate? I guess the Dems owned Cheney too. Mike keeps coming back to this issue, looking silly every time.
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteBTW, when responding, try to be current and comment on the last 2 or 3 decades to make it relevant.
We've already done that, but evidently the Treasury is one of those RW rags that you don't give any credence to.Quoterepeating the RW dribble w/o actually doing the math.
Speaking of dribbling and not doing math (your specialty), let's do some calcs on the debt, shall we?
Looking at the public debt figures from treasury direct, the Republicans under Bush increased the debt by 2.95T between Jan 2001 and Jan 2007, when they were ousted by the Democrats.
Since then, the Democrats have increased the debt by 3.96T, a 134% increase in 54% of the time.
Comparing the spending of the two Presidents, Obama's current increase in the debt was done in 28% of the time it took Bush to make the same increase.
Obama is already at 40% of the total increase in debt of GW's 8 years.
2007?
We had an election in 2006 and Obama was sworn in in 2007?
Another stellar example of right wings "facts", as in. made up bullshit. Faux news is always looking for liars, I mean, content readers. Looking for a job?
And evidently another stellar example of left-wing 'intelligence'.
Let me know what part of "the Republicans under Bush" and "ousted by the Democrats" you couldn't understand and I'll figure out a way to dumb it down further so it's clear for you.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
mnealtx 0
QuoteShhhh, don't tell Mike that the Dems had a small lead in the House and a 49-49-2 tie in the senate.
Shhhh, don't tell Lucky that the Dems have control of both the House and Senate.
QuoteSo you see, Mike isn't a bad guy, just real bad at math saying the Dems had control of both chambers of congress.
Shhhh, don't tell Lucky that the Dems have control of the House and Senate.
QuoteOh, do I have to mention that the VP breaks ties on some issues in the Senate? I guess the Dems owned Cheney too.
Cheney, with his STAGGERING total of EIGHT tie-breaking votes in eight years? What a menace!!
QuoteMike keeps coming back to this issue, looking silly every time.
Lucky keeps trying to portray the Dems as innocent victims of the evil Repubs, looking silly every time.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
...Besides, your hero and the REAL RNC Chairman Limbaugh did it, why not follow suit?...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Wait a minute. I haven't seen any evidence that anyone made fun of the guy's alleged parkinsons situation. All I see are accusations that someone heckled a guy who HAPPENS to maybe suffer from the disease.
This is what happened with Rush. He was criticizing 1) M. J. Fox's ignorant statements regarding embryonic stem cell research, and 2) Democrats' use of a sympathetic public figure to appeal to emotion rather than reason. Thus, anyone who called Fox out on his failure to understand basic facts was portrayed as making fun of his personal situation.
Cheers,
Jon S.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Wait a minute. I haven't seen any evidence that anyone made fun of the guy's alleged parkinsons situation. All I see are accusations that someone heckled a guy who HAPPENS to maybe suffer from the disease.
This is what happened with Rush. He was criticizing 1) M. J. Fox's ignorant statements regarding embryonic stem cell research, and 2) Democrats' use of a sympathetic public figure to appeal to emotion rather than reason. Thus, anyone who called Fox out on his failure to understand basic facts was portrayed as making fun of his personal situation.
Cheers,
Jon S.
Lucky... 0
QuoteShhhh, don't tell Lucky that the Dems have control of both the House and Senate.
Have, yes, had on 07-09; no. That was your point that I was referring to. Now if you want to take current performance and act as if Obama inherited a stable economy, then you're just Mike being Mike. Just like the mess your hero fascist Ronnie left, GWB's was worse, yet you want to act like it's just a normal economy; never let your blinders slip - I know you won't. Now, care to address your point of the Dems having control of both chambers from 07-09? Didn't think so, so now the strawman comes about the current congressional control. Oh, BTW, you are right about that and due to that we should see a HC bill coming
.
QuoteShhhh, don't tell Lucky that the Dems have control of the House and Senate.
Read above, same answer. I wrote and you responded to: So you see, Mike isn't a bad guy, just real bad at math saying the Dems had control of both chambers of congress.
See the underlined, "had?" We were referring to 07-09, not currently, but don't let that get in the way of your strawman. BTW, your double plagiarism is taken as a compliment.
QuoteCheney, with his STAGGERING total of EIGHT tie-breaking votes in eight years? What a menace!!
8 is huge considering Bush didn't veto anything for the first 5.5 years (probably unprecedented) meaning congress ran the country with a boob at the wheel. I'll be the unmike and post them.
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/four_column_table/Tie_Votes.htm
We've had a president/VP since 1789. for round numbers sake, let's take the end of disaster, the GWB era at 2009. That's 220 years or 55 each 4-year terms. According to the site I posted, 244 VP tie breakers have been cast, that's 4.44 per 4-year term, so Cheney's, "STAGGERING total of EIGHT" is barely under the average of 4.44 per 4-year term. If we factored in the median and mode we would find Cheney cast on the high side considering Adams cast 29 votes as VP to Washington, skewing the mean from 4.44 to the median and mode somewhere near a likely 3-3.5, putting Cheney's 8 votes over 2 terms above the median and mode.
QuoteLucky keeps trying to portray the Dems as innocent victims of the evil Repubs, looking silly every time.
Watch the tea baggers lately? Now who's the victim, listening to their whining I don't get your assertion.
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteBTW, when responding, try to be current and comment on the last 2 or 3 decades to make it relevant.
We've already done that, but evidently the Treasury is one of those RW rags that you don't give any credence to.Quoterepeating the RW dribble w/o actually doing the math.
Speaking of dribbling and not doing math (your specialty), let's do some calcs on the debt, shall we?
Looking at the public debt figures from treasury direct, the Republicans under Bush increased the debt by 2.95T between Jan 2001 and Jan 2007, when they were ousted by the Democrats.
Since then, the Democrats have increased the debt by 3.96T, a 134% increase in 54% of the time.
Comparing the spending of the two Presidents, Obama's current increase in the debt was done in 28% of the time it took Bush to make the same increase.
Obama is already at 40% of the total increase in debt of GW's 8 years.
2007?
We had an election in 2006 and Obama was sworn in in 2007?
Another stellar example of right wings "facts", as in. made up bullshit. Faux news is always looking for liars, I mean, content readers. Looking for a job?
And evidently another stellar example of left-wing 'intelligence'.
Let me know what part of "the Republicans under Bush" and "ousted by the Democrats" you couldn't understand and I'll figure out a way to dumb it down further so it's clear for you.
He was unsure of your often perpetuated lie that the Dems had control of congress from 07-09. I think he thought you were referring to the real time that the Dems had control of congress, 09 to present. So he wasn't wrong, just couldn't understand how someone could be so foolish as to think the Dems had control of congress since 07.
Lucky... 0
QuoteWait a minute. I haven't seen any evidence that anyone made fun of the guy's alleged parkinsons situation. All I see are accusations that someone heckled a guy who HAPPENS to maybe suffer from the disease.
The jurry is still out on this one, I guess. Altho heckling him should have been replaced with silence since he had such a bad disease.
QuoteThis is what happened with Rush. He was criticizing 1) M. J. Fox's ignorant statements regarding embryonic stem cell research, and ...
What you've done here is to justify Lush Rimjob for his unforgiveable actions. BTW, maybe you haven't seen the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpFC9uziVhE&feature=related
Exadgerating the effects of the disease. Really shameless of MJ Fox? Let's see, in order to weigh your brilliant interpretation of your pig hero Limbaugh, we need to assume that MJ Fox really isn't that ill and that he threw away a 20M per movie career to make a stance for Parkinson's research. That just doesn't have the ring of truth to it no matter how abstract we get, so Airman, I guess you ought to head back the base and stick with the rest of the conservatives who think it's fun to laugh at people with Parkinson's under the guise of tax cuts and overspending on the military; the Republican moniker.
Quote...2) Democrats' use of a sympathetic public figure to appeal to emotion rather than reason.
I know, I prefer sympathy for people like Cheney who likes to cut programs to poor people and give tax cuts to the rich. At least I know the military hasn't changed. BTW, what reason are you referring to? What reason tells us that MJ Fox threw away a brilliant movie career to petition for Parkinson's and is now, "hamming it up" for the cause? Are they teaching that form of reasoning in basic training now? Hell, if this were a ploy, MJ Fox could have just kept making movies and gave all teh proceeds to Parkinson's research, doesn't that make more sense? Now if MJ Fox kept making movies looking unaffeccted by the disease, yet was, "wiggling around" per Lush Rimjob during interviews, you might have a point, but since MJ quit making movies, what, 15 years ago and missed all that money and fame inbetween, your logic is defined as illogic.
QuoteThus, anyone who called Fox out on his failure to understand basic facts was portrayed as making fun of his personal situation.
Basic facts? What is needed to understand that Fox has to be under constant medication and even then can't stop, "wiggling around?" Show us your basic facts or just be deemed another Rimjob ditto-head.
mnealtx 0
It's your fantasy, Lucky - dream it however you want.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
rushmc 23
QuoteIt's your fantasy, Lucky - dream it however you want.
more like a freakin nightmare
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Lucky... 0
QuoteIt's your fantasy, Lucky - dream it however you want.
Talk about the king of non-response; it doesn't get any bolder that Mikey. At least have the cookies to admit you were wrong. I guess the best we will ever get is you not stepping into the pile of shit about the Dems controlling congress from 07-09.
Here it is again in case you get the counrage to substantively reply:
QuoteShhhh, don't tell Lucky that the Dems have control of both the House and Senate.
Have, yes, had on 07-09; no. That was your point that I was referring to. Now if you want to take current performance and act as if Obama inherited a stable economy, then you're just Mike being Mike. Just like the mess your hero fascist Ronnie left, GWB's was worse, yet you want to act like it's just a normal economy; never let your blinders slip - I know you won't. Now, care to address your point of the Dems having control of both chambers from 07-09? Didn't think so, so now the strawman comes about the current congressional control. Oh, BTW, you are right about that and due to that we should see a HC bill coming
.
QuoteShhhh, don't tell Lucky that the Dems have control of the House and Senate.
Read above, same answer. I wrote and you responded to: So you see, Mike isn't a bad guy, just real bad at math saying the Dems had control of both chambers of congress.
See the underlined, "had?" We were referring to 07-09, not currently, but don't let that get in the way of your strawman. BTW, your double plagiarism is taken as a compliment.
QuoteCheney, with his STAGGERING total of EIGHT tie-breaking votes in eight years? What a menace!!
8 is huge considering Bush didn't veto anything for the first 5.5 years (probably unprecedented) meaning congress ran the country with a boob at the wheel. I'll be the unmike and post them.
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/four_column_table/Tie_Votes.htm
We've had a president/VP since 1789. for round numbers sake, let's take the end of disaster, the GWB era at 2009. That's 220 years or 55 each 4-year terms. According to the site I posted, 244 VP tie breakers have been cast, that's 4.44 per 4-year term, so Cheney's, "STAGGERING total of EIGHT" is barely under the average of 4.44 per 4-year term. If we factored in the median and mode we would find Cheney cast on the high side considering Adams cast 29 votes as VP to Washington, skewing the mean from 4.44 to the median and mode somewhere near a likely 3-3.5, putting Cheney's 8 votes over 2 terms above the median and mode.
QuoteLucky keeps trying to portray the Dems as innocent victims of the evil Repubs, looking silly every time.
Watch the tea baggers lately? Now who's the victim, listening to their whining I don't get your assertion.
Because you don't speak of the truth your words have little to think about
Because you write in gobbledegook, your words are very difficult to decipher.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.