Lucky...

Yea, fiscal conservatism has worked well

Or you presume that those 'achievements' are solely the province of liberal thought. Yes, slavery abolition was liberal, gay marriage is liberal; the opposite are conservative ideals.

Something tells me you have no gay and transgendered friends.

OK, I can agree with most of that, but..... Yea, whatever.

I've responded volumes to you, posted all kinds of data and answered everything; gonna keep runnin?

Oh, the same average voter who elected GWB twice? Yea, good point, these Americans are sure dumb.

Well why not, the same RW maggots share media business with the Arabs they denounce: http://www.debbieschlussel.com/8331/rupert-murdoch-fox-news-parent-co-increase-ties-w-extremist-saudi-prince-seeking-share-of-arab-street/

You mean posting in caps due to ineptitude to post with correct format from Mr above your level. Wikipedia assembled the data from diffeent sources, they are not the source. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States http://www.siena.edu/uploadedfiles/home/parents_and_community/community_page/sri/independent_research/Presidents%20Release_2010_final.pdf Wall Street Journal rankings are on Wikipedia. It was your assertion: Obama is worse then Carter. Number one. I'm just using data to impeach it. I know you don't use data such as polls, BLS, BEA, etc. Yopu just go ask ur diddy and that trumps all those stupid PhD's. So tell me, if you don't use polls, what kind of data do you use, or, what kind of source or any other aid to you visit? The US Bereau of Labor Statistcis (BEA) compiles this data, you do trust them, right? http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS14000000 Feb 08 = 4.8% unemployment Feb 09 = 8.2% unemployment That's a 3.4% increase in one year. If you can't rely on the BLS, a government agency, then you're just lost. 5.6%, oh please tell me where that came from. Now, under Obama, 9 months into his term, he stopped the increase at 10.1% and now it's fallen to 9.5% and that's with millions of people still on the unemp roles that wouldn't be if they acted like Republiscum and quit extending unemp benefits. That number would be down to 7-8% tops. Yes, since your unemp compensation is extended, you are part of teh 9.5%, if he dropped you on your ass you would no longer be his problem, yet you insist on bagging on him and the Dems keeping you alive. You are part of the artifically inflated unemp situation. By that I mean that the methodology always used would have you off the unemp roles under R leadership. The Great Republican Recession started in late 07, unemp usually lags the start of the recession by 6+ months, which it did as unemp picked up mid 08 per the provided BLS chart. That is why people were laid off. He hasn't done anything to the tax code. It's done nothing and most scientists are in total agreement that EPA emmisions need to be controlled. I doubt you realize, (you'll deny) but you covered the environment above with Cap-n-Trade. So you say drilling regulations are too tight? Apparently not, read about the Gulf lately? Ironoc that you make this absurd assertion in the midst of the cleanup. Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize; it's obvious the world is in love wihh him. Again, the point I replied to, which you ducked, was this: RADIOAHOLE: a 1.56 trillion dollar deficit after 17 months of his policies LUCKY: After GWB's last year ran over a 1T deficit and that wasn't including his TARP money and the economy was in total shambles. Hey, the Great Depression must have been FDR's fault too, huh? Get it, R's fuck thinsg up, (Harding, Coolidge, Hoover) (Reagan) (GWB), then the D's fix them (FDR) (Clinton) now Obama. You didn't address the debt of GWB; why not? Oh, I guess you were owned. As for SS: http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/pr/trustee10-pr-alt.pdf The combined assets of the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) Trust Funds will be exhausted in 2037, the same as projected last year. So we have 27 years to fix it and you act as tho it will be broke in a year or already is. You have no idea for what you claim. This gem has irony written all over it. first, you can't pay for my HC, YOU DON'T HAVE A FUCKING JOB AND HAVEN'T FOR A YEAR AND A HALF . And no one is going to jail for not buying HC ins, they may assess you taxes as it's now written (which will probably be repealed via SCOTUS), but no on ewill be arrested, at most if it sticks the IRS will place a recording on the county recorder in which you live. You avoided several points I made, you didn't cite anything except illitterate rhetoric, no data or any support whatsoever and you say I don't know shit?

Reinstating the tax cuts and extending the tax cuts are quite different. That was one of a few issues raised on the poster's brilliant response, I see you've acquiesced on the rest too. As I said, all I've heard of is extending or making permanent the cuts for earners of < 250k, is there something different? Furthermore, the assertion was made that tax cuts benefit the economy, perhaps you can take over that assertion as you're cheerleading for the poster.

I have to go to work now, so I'll have to answer the rest tonight, but what are you trying to say here? Are you saying to continue the the GWB tax cuts? They never expired so they can't be reinstated. When you post incoherrent ramblings it's nice to also post an article that supports your mess so we can at least understand what you're *TRYING* to say. Now, tax cuts aren't necessarily a Dems vs R's thing, esp when considering history. It's true that the garbage twins of Harding and Coolidge cut the top brkt from 73% to 25% and fascist pig Ronnie cut them from 70% to 28%, both times leading to the worst economic times we've experienced, remember that Taxes were left at 91% top brkt under all 8 years of Eisenhower, left at 70%+ during Nixon/Ford and GHWB actually raised them a tiny 3%. Let's not forget Republican Hoover raising the top brkt from 24% to 63%, altho too late, he still did. Kennedy cut them as well, altho they were extremely high and he didn't drive them into the ground as the corrupt twins did or the fascist pig did. SO to say tax rates are an automatic Dems incr / R's cut illustrates your actual knowledge of tax history. Now, let's look at your other claim of tax cuts benefitting the economy. Show me where major federal tax cuts have helped the economy. I provided a graph of fed income tax, show me where fed tax cuts have benefitted the economyh. As for your claim that the Dems plan to *extend* the tax cuts, all I've heard is that Obama plans to extend or make permanent the tax cuts for those making < 250 / year, let expire the tax cuts for those making more. So show me your citation and start making sense. I'll get to the rest of your mess later.

I know you've never been to college/univ, but with higher education comes providing evidence with your claims, like I did several times in this thread alone. The cite must be objective and valid, so make a claim and back it........ just be Rush. College educations are overpriced and common sense is under appreciated. That explains volumes as to your ramblings. Hell, you can't even write a post into the correct format with replies and quotes and you say I'm not at your level . I guess Kallend the PhD is not at your level either.

I know you've never been to college/univ, but with higher education comes providing evidence with your claims, like I did several times in this thread alone. The cite must be objective and valid, so make a claim and back it........ just be Rush. Thank you for posting

I know you've never been to college/univ, but with higher education comes providing evidence with your claims, like I did several times in this thread alone. The cite must be objective and valid, so make a claim and back it........ just be Rush.

Obama can only tie for Number 2 with Jimmy Carter,(a good man but a bad Pres.) W will always be THE WORST. Still blaming bush, eh. Just like the lame duck in office. Obama will be the worst president ever. History will tell that tale, if he survives this presidency without being kicked out of office. I'm pretty sure he's done in 2012. You make your statement based off emotions. Try actually comparing the two's time in office and you'll have to eat your words. Get some intelligence and stop paying attention to the MSM. Apparently you weren't able to see the guy you replied to wasn't giving Obama a compliment. He's saying Obama could be tied for 2nd worst along with Carter. So, "Get some intelligence and stop paying attention to the MSM." Riiiight, that's why you read this: Obama can only tie for Number 2 with Jimmy Carter,(a good man but a bad Pres.) W will always be THE WORST. And answered this: Still blaming bush, eh. Just like the lame duck in office. Obama will be the worst president ever. History will tell that tale, if he survives this presidency without being kicked out of office. I'm pretty sure he's done in 2012. You make your statement based off emotions. Try actually comparing the two's time in office and you'll have to eat your words. Get some intelligence and stop paying attention to the MSM. You totally missed his point; he was agreeing with you. I know, keep trying and maybe you will get there. Not according to the political professionals, PhD's that grade them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States Even your maggotted WSJ has Carter at 34, humans in the poll have him at 25, 32. I think you know basically nothing abiout presidential polls/history. 9.5%, it rose 3.4% THE SINGLE YEAR BEFORE OBAMA TOOK OFFICE FROM YOUR PRESIDENTIAL GENIUS, BUT DON'T COMMENT ON THAT. Obama curbed the hammering unemp at 10.1, then it fell to 9.5 where it's at today. As far as who can claim it, unlike the Republican garbage, Obama and the Dems in congress have continued benefits longer than R's would think of, keeping more people on the unemp tally, henc eunemp is artificially higheer than it would be under Republican leadership. We won't talk about fascist Ronnie inheriting 7.5% unemp and driving it to 10.8% as he and Volkers contracted the money supply and gave tax breaks to the rich. After GWB's last year ran over a 1T deficit and that wasn't including his TARP money and the economy was in total shambles. Hey, the Great Depression must have been FDR's fault too, huh? Get it, R's fuck thinsg up, (Harding, Coolidge, Hoover) (Reagan) (GWB), then the D's fix them (FDR) (Clinton) now Obama. You don't know history, how can you know the future? So you are of the school that people w/o HC should go fuck themselves? Ah, let charity help them, I see, the dellusion goes on. ME: (Not on my level boy can't arrange a reply): As for Bush, he did everything wrong, cut taxes, boosted spending, took the most robust economy and turned it into the 2nd worst and yet you say he was a good one, huh? Ok, bring me up to your so-called level and show me a major federal tax cut that has benefitted the economy. Quit talking in microcosms and use major trends. Here. here's a chart of the top margina brackets, show me where low taxes were great: http://i750.photobucket.com/albums/xx141/Br549x123/TopMargTaxBrktanddetails.jpg I love the rhetoric, so don't stop, but in between it, show me the low taxes and good times. Yea, diff is that GWB inherited a 236B surplus which he turned into a >1T deficit in 8 years, Obama inherited a >1T deficit, 2 wars, the Great Republican Recession, banks on the brink of total collapse and unemp rising like gangbusters - 3.4% the year preceding Obama's term. I guess in a vacuum, that makes perfect sense. No, just 3.4% increase his last year. ME: As for 2012, don't be so sure, I was sure of your boy GWB too. Remember, the young vote is what got him there, they won't forget either in 2012 as to who got us here. You don't know history, how can you predict the future?

If he's really posting from zimbabwe(which I doubt), his point of view doesn't surprise me. You're probably the single least sharp poster on this board, so many things are obvious that fly right over just in 1 thread.

ANother neo-con not able to decipher simple ideas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

Sometimes dating is not about companionship. It's often about sex, and he's tired of being alone for that. I think we're on to something here....... he's totally normal as a guy Company; you can have that, I want a sexual partner and I think I speak for 99% of guys.

Not a fan of Ben Quayle, and I've heard the ad. It's ridiculous. It definitely lacks substance. I'd much rather hear what a candidate WILL do, then hear him slam his opponent. Although, It's tough to believe ANY politician. Right, which is what Obama and Edwards did, they were slim to none of the abuse. The squeeky kid is a POS behind a real legend. I don;t know if he's opposed and who it might be tho.

Obama can only tie for Number 2 with Jimmy Carter,(a good man but a bad Pres.) W will always be THE WORST. Still blaming bush, eh. Just like the lame duck in office. Obama will be the worst president ever. History will tell that tale, if he survives this presidency without being kicked out of office. I'm pretty sure he's done in 2012. You make your statement based off emotions. Try actually comparing the two's time in office and you'll have to eat your words. Get some intelligence and stop paying attention to the MSM. Apparently you weren't able to see the guy you replied to wasn't giving Obama a compliment. He's saying Obama could be tied for 2nd worst along with Carter. So, "Get some intelligence and stop paying attention to the MSM." As for Bush, he did everything wrong, cut taxes, boosted spending, took the most robust economy and turned it into the 2nd worst and yet you say he was a good one, huh? As for 2012, don't be so sure, I was sure of your boy GWB too. Remember, the young vote is what got him there, they won't forget either in 2012 as to who got us here.

Sure, but a squeeky kid trying to throw the hammer down on career politicians with all kinds of clout is seriously a joke, even to senior Republican presidents. Yes, but we still love you anyway. Right, but those in the know say otherwise.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20013391-503544.html See, he's trying to come off as tough when not even conservatives think he's tough; he's a little boy using his dad's shattered political carreer as a stepping stone. And the worst pres in hostory? Obama ranks 15th now, find someone who could qualify for the 30th spot to make that claim, 15th out of 43 comes off as idiotic, I realize it's an emotional plea. The whole commercial comes off as illiteration: - Obaam's the worst president... - Mexican drug cartels... - DC tax cartels.... - I love AZ - I was raised right... - Go to DC and kick the hell out of the place.. This commerial truely caters to the stupid, it has no substance, just emotional pleas.

Anabuse and I've seen a person drink on it. He was a huge guy so eh was probably underdosed.

Possibly. It sounds like you are wanting to include SS funds in an economic overview, when SS should not be considered. At the same time you are wanting to disallow the mention of the money borrowed from those funds as well. Nope. I just want in either included or excluded CONSISTENTLY from one administration to another. I'll go with that. Include the debt that is incurred from the borrowing the funds, but the surplus is it's own animal and cannot be counted. HUH? Surplus is negative debt / debt is negative surplus - you just want Clinton's legacy minimized. Your bank has money to lend you, do you claim it as income? Do you include it into your personal budget? Edit to add: By your way of thinking: Yearly income=100,000/yr Personal loans and mortgage = 500,000 Bank has 1,000,000 to loan out ACTUAL NET WORTH = 600,000 BUT . . . in reality, the numbers from the bank cannot be included. The gov will continue to operate in teh red as usual or in the black, so the net result is usually - but occassionally + as with Clinton and Eisenhower and actually in 1969 under a brief tax increase. There may have been other surpluses, but they only translated to debt reduction in the times I posted. Anyway, a suplus or a deficit is just a measure of that year's economic receipts vs outlays, so they are all relevant as a result of that year. So under Clinton with his last 3 years you would just have the surplus read a zero? Yea, that's reasonable .

Possibly. It sounds like you are wanting to include SS funds in an economic overview, when SS should not be considered. At the same time you are wanting to disallow the mention of the money borrowed from those funds as well. Nope. I just want in either included or excluded CONSISTENTLY from one administration to another. I'll go with that. Include the debt that is incurred from the borrowing the funds, but the surplus is it's own animal and cannot be counted. HUH? Surplus is negative debt / debt is negative surplus - you just want Clinton's legacy minimized.

______________________________________ this was ranked by Mort Zuckerman who has close ties to Obama . yep leave it to you to come up with a rank ranking. Had you bothered to click on it and read, as you disregarded my post 13 with all kinds of source, you would see Kallend was referring to Harding, not Coolidge. Harding is considered amongst the worst presidents of all times by most professional rankers, both liberal and conservative, corruption, started the tax rate onslaught; basically paved the way for the Great Depression. Even teh WSJ had him at 39 in 2005 and Harding was a Wall Street favorite, so *TRY* to understand what you're talking about.