Lucky...

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. 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. 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. 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.

We've already done that, but evidently the Treasury is one of those RW rags that you don't give any credence to. 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.

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 . 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. 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. Watch the tea baggers lately? Now who's the victim, listening to their whining I don't get your assertion.

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.

You can't get poor working class people to vote Republican, that requires a mindset with a higher IQ. Gee, that's funny, 90% of the people I work with fit that and 90% of them vote R. BTW, in all my years of travels, all the many places I've worked, it's been the same, even in more liberal states.

We're doing nothing about Lori Berenson in Peru I think it is.

CNN has not been able to reach Saudi Arabia's Ministry of Justice for comment. Talk about an oxymoron. Ministry of injustice. What a fucking toilet and Sauid is supposed to be one of the better Muslim countries.

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.

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.

Seeing as how you called every conservative in SC a 'fascist pig' just upthread, you REALLY need to take a good, LONG look in your mirror, son. We all blush with praise at your quick rescue to you brother, but I called your main hero, Reagan a fascist pig. How can I make that more clear?

Sure, but its too much fun to mess with a troll. According to you I'm a troll, yet you see emboldened letters where there are none and and go on this confused list of wars when I clearly state: What I'm talking about are EXPENSIVE, long, sustained conflicts oe wars. Examples: - WWII - Korea - VN - Iraq/AFG Wars Yea, you must need sleep; quit looking confused and help yourself a bit.

There was no bold, you simply have no idea what you're talking about. The underlining was to demonstrate what was written in the post where I clearly stated my point, at least those with a 6th grade education or higher could sustain that. I figured you would try to escape under the guise of unintelligibility. Can't make it much more clear than: What I'm talking about are EXPENSIVE, long, sustained conflicts oe wars. Examples: - WWII - Korea - VN - Iraq/AFG Wars Sorry, that's about as simplistic as I can make it. What did I state incorrectly?

Well put. At least Tea Party members are doing something to take back the Government gone bad. It takes a lot of effort, block by block, town by town and I fully support them The same ideals, conservative, that supported fascist pig Ronnie and GWB; real consistency Ya, and you deem you know all And that has zero to do with the thread as usual. Look at that, you've just defined an ad hominem; 7 words with, "you" used twice. I know, you feel it's not about the issue but about the poster. No attack and the point is dead on You on the other hand do what you claim others do, daily with your sick and rediculas generalizations and attempted linking of a party to one idiot in a crowd Oh well, I guess we have them here too. Here's the point I made: The same ideals, conservative, that supported fascist pig Ronnie and GWB; real consistency Care to address it? I'm talking ideals, you're talking me; too confusing yet? Heres' the start of your 2nd ad hominem: You on the other hand do what you claim others do,... 11 words and, "you" in there twice agin. You should stop yourself, help yourself and understand that mostly what you do is argue in ad hoiminem. Why? You simply can't defend the derranged, incompassionate process of your party so you turn it away and into the poster themselves....or at least try.

Besides, your hero and the REAL RNC Chairman Limbaugh did it, why not follow suit?

Fixed it

Well put. At least Tea Party members are doing something to take back the Government gone bad. It takes a lot of effort, block by block, town by town and I fully support them The same ideals, conservative, that supported fascist pig Ronnie and GWB; real consistency Ya, and you deem you know all And that has zero to do with the thread as usual. Look at that, you've just defined an ad hominem; 7 words with, "you" used twice. I know, you feel it's not about the issue but about the poster.

You think anything outside of Moveon *is* a RW rag. I don't cite Moveon, never have and never will. Not sure I've been to their website. Here it is, in simplified format: - Mainstream basically objecctive: ABC CBS NBC - Lefty: CNN Moveon - RW Rags: Cato HF Fox Limbaugh/Hannity

we'll be giving you shit for that for the rest of your life, wiki boy. And you will be ignoring hwt for thinking cnnbc was a real major media outlet; which supports my point that the RW is so riduculous that they support their own regardless of anything. And I will be giving you the numbers as I do and you will be ignoring that. Hell, you might as well observe cnnbc, they're as credible as Fox, Hertitage Foundation, Cato Inst.

Well put. At least Tea Party members are doing something to take back the Government gone bad. It takes a lot of effort, block by block, town by town and I fully support them The same ideals, conservative, that supported fascist pig Ronnie and GWB; real consistency

http://pachydermcoalition.com/LegislativeReports2010/tabid/245/Default.aspx I love how they have Reagan, one of the 2 worst all-time spenders, as their front-page spokesman. A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs, which must not be compromised to political expediency or simply to swell it's numbers.... And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these conservative principals, then let them go their own way. And the last part basically translates to: With us or against us; how nauseating. And their ranking system: - Pro-Freedom Republican - Republican - Big Government Republican Yea, that makes Reagan a Big Government Republican +++, and GWB a Biggest Government possible Republican. Some people just aren't ggod at math.

And people give me shit for initially thinking the Onion was a RW rag? Don't worry, the double-standard here at DZ.COM won't hold you to it. It's CNNBC, not CNN or CNBC. Don't worry: This video and site are fictional and satirical. Here's our full privacy policy.

Right, the nature and the costs, as was my pioint that Aggie refuses to address, just a spinoff misdirection from the fact that low taxes and engagement in expensive wars = huge debt. Now he's relegated to worrying about letters in bold and underlining....sad situation.

Well gee, why didn't you just say that in the first place, since your first statement is obviously incorrect. Or are you simply too much of a troll to be able to admit it when you're wrong? I answerd that in post #6, a post I answered to you: I doubt under any presidency have we gone without any battle, bloodshed, fighting or whatever you want to call it. What I'm talking about are EXPENSIVE, long, sustained conflicts oe wars. Examples: - WWII - Korea - VN - Iraq/AFG Wars Apparently you aren't real good at that reading stuff.

Military spending was way down as compared to the 800B on Iraq/AFG alone. Is it hard for you to understand what long, protracted war means? Clinton cut spending and didn't jump into the ME after the Cole, 93 WTC attack, etc. Only a moron, like the guy you voted for, would do such a thing. Even Reagan was smart enough, or senile enough, not to engage in some fucking pathetic war. Does that mean there were no military actions during the Reagan years? Of course not, JUST NO LONG, PROTRACTED, EXPENSIVE WARS. Do I need to spell it out more clearly?

There is a BIG problem with that logic. If tax rates/laws were changed so that a person earning a billion a year was taxed at 90%, leaving just 100 mil, then the next year that same person would change their actions so that there just wouldn't be as much income to tax at 90%, so the tax revenue generated just wouldn't be there the second time around. Not only that, but all the economic activity generated by that super rich person's billion dollar salary would no longer be there. If you want less of something, then increase the taxes on that activity. If all you care for is to generate tax revenue for one year and to punish the rich, then your plan would be great. Besides that, it is not effective and would ruin the economy. Gee, it worked during and after WWII where the top brkts were 94% atthe peak of WWII and still 91% during the Eisenhower years where the debt actually fell a couple years. Those were crazy industrial years too, huge standard of living, etc. Looks like your argument just took a shit via real illustration.