I've read liberal's posts on this forum refer to tea party people as teabaggers..whatever that means. From the context of everything those libs wrote I acertained that the term was used in a very derogatory sense.

The fact is, the tea party consists of people with actual common sense. They are people with courage and great love for their country. They face the truth and want our children and grandchildren to have a good life.

Liberals are self centered cowards who couldn't care less about anybody but themselves. For themselves they want it all, yet vote to destroy their own chances of reaching out and grabbing on to the american dream

The libs have bought into the propoganda machine called the mainstream media hook, line, and sinker which may now even include fox news . They are not at fault, because liberalism is a disease which causes psychosis.

If an idiot tells you that america has pulled out of the recession just because he/she has recently listened to propoganda from Obama and/or the mainstream media, you can tell that idiot the truth and he/she will listen and realize that they were lied to by the mainstream media and/or Obama.

If you tell a liberal the truth, such as $451,000,000,000 has been tacked on to our national debt since the election, they will deny it by not acknowledging that fact, and change the subject to accuseing evil republicans of trying to kill the elderly with medicare cuts. They will even try to convince you that $451,000,000,000 is like adding nothing to the debt in four months if you can get in a word edgewise and really press them.

Their total lack of ability to get a handle on reality is proof that they are psychotic. They really believe any feel good lie the media feeds them.

What is scary is that conservatives are grossly outnumbered by these basket cases and this is a permanent problem because liberalism is in cureable.

Last word should have been incureable

In 2008, when the national debt was just over $9 trillion, Obama said it was “irresponsible” and “unpatriotic” to saddle future generations with that amount of red ink.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kuTG19Cu_Q

Now almost $17 trillion and rising is totally sustainable?

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/transcript-president-obamas-interview-with-george-stephanopoulos/

MLK republican Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've read liberal's posts on this forum refer to
> tea party people as teabaggers..whatever that
> means. From the context of everything those libs
> wrote I acertained that the term was used in a
> very derogatory sense.
>
> The fact is, the tea party consists of people with
> actual common sense. They are people with courage
> and great love for their country. They face the
> truth and want our children and grandchildren to
> have a good life.
>
> Liberals are self centered cowards who couldn't
> care less about anybody but themselves. For
> themselves they want it all, yet vote to destroy
> their own chances of reaching out and grabbing on
> to the american dream
>
> The libs have bought into the propoganda machine
> called the mainstream media hook, line, and sinker
> which may now even include fox news . They are not
> at fault, because liberalism is a disease which
> causes psychosis.
>
> If an idiot tells you that america has pulled out
> of the recession just because he/she has recently
> listened to propoganda from Obama and/or the
> mainstream media, you can tell that idiot the
> truth and he/she will listen and realize that they
> were lied to by the mainstream media and/or
> Obama.
>
> If you tell a liberal the truth, such as
> $451,000,000,000 has been tacked on to our
> national debt since the election, they will deny
> it by not acknowledging that fact, and change the
> subject to accuseing evil republicans of trying to
> kill the elderly with medicare cuts. They will
> even try to convince you that $451,000,000,000 is
> like adding nothing to the debt in four months if
> you can get in a word edgewise and really press
> them.
>
> Their total lack of ability to get a handle on
> reality is proof that they are psychotic. They
> really believe any feel good lie the media feeds
> them.
>
> What is scary is that conservatives are grossly
> outnumbered by these basket cases and this is a
> permanent problem because liberalism is in
> cureable.


LOL WHUT?!?!?!?!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/02/25/the-sequester-a-tea-party-victory/

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/06/its_almost_like_the_tea_party_won/

^^^ Typical Obama-Zombie response by dumbass GordonB

yeah, cK67N - I can see how REMEMBERING 2010 and tea party platforms would see diffcult and strange to you LoLz



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/15/2013 02:46PM by Gordon Blvd.
Attachments:

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MLK republican Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I've read liberal's posts on this forum refer
> to
> > tea party people as teabaggers..whatever that
> > means. From the context of everything those
> libs
> > wrote I acertained that the term was used in a
> > very derogatory sense.
> >
> > The fact is, the tea party consists of people
> with
> > actual common sense. They are people with
> courage
> > and great love for their country. They face the
> > truth and want our children and grandchildren
> to
> > have a good life.
> >
> > Liberals are self centered cowards who couldn't
> > care less about anybody but themselves. For
> > themselves they want it all, yet vote to
> destroy
> > their own chances of reaching out and grabbing
> on
> > to the american dream
> >
> > The libs have bought into the propoganda
> machine
> > called the mainstream media hook, line, and
> sinker
> > which may now even include fox news . They are
> not
> > at fault, because liberalism is a disease which
> > causes psychosis.
> >
> > If an idiot tells you that america has pulled
> out
> > of the recession just because he/she has
> recently
> > listened to propoganda from Obama and/or the
> > mainstream media, you can tell that idiot the
> > truth and he/she will listen and realize that
> they
> > were lied to by the mainstream media and/or
> > Obama.
> >
> > If you tell a liberal the truth, such as
> > $451,000,000,000 has been tacked on to our
> > national debt since the election, they will
> deny
> > it by not acknowledging that fact, and change
> the
> > subject to accuseing evil republicans of trying
> to
> > kill the elderly with medicare cuts. They will
> > even try to convince you that $451,000,000,000
> is
> > like adding nothing to the debt in four months
> if
> > you can get in a word edgewise and really press
> > them.
> >
> > Their total lack of ability to get a handle on
> > reality is proof that they are psychotic. They
> > really believe any feel good lie the media
> feeds
> > them.
> >
> > What is scary is that conservatives are grossly
> > outnumbered by these basket cases and this is a
> > permanent problem because liberalism is in
> > cureable.
>
>
> LOL WHUT?!?!?!?!
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/
> wp/2013/02/25/the-sequester-a-tea-party-victory/
>
> http://www.salon.com/2013/03/06/its_almost_like_th
> e_tea_party_won/


LOL WHUT?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)

Race Traitor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've read liberal's posts on this forum refer to
> tea party people as teabaggers..whatever that
> means.

When the (bowel) movement that calls itself the ‘teaparty’ first emerged from the primordial political ooze, many of its adherents self-identified as ‘teabaggers’ and often festooned themselves and their clothing with unused teabags.

> I acertained that the term was used in a very derogatory sense.

That’s what made the whole episode so dang FUNNY!

> The fact is, the tea party consists of people with
> actual common sense. They are people with courage
> and great love for their country. They face the
> truth and want our children and grandchildren to
> have a good life.

That describes liberals, too. Your screed about liberals being selfish cowards is complete bullshit.

> The libs have bought into the propoganda machine
> called the mainstream media hook, line, and sinker
> which may now even include fox news . They are not
> at fault, because liberalism is a disease which causes psychosis.

There's plenty of propaganda on the right, too, Cuz. I see you’ve had your fill.

> If an idiot tells you that america has pulled out
> of the recession just because he/she has recently
> listened to propoganda from Obama and/or the
> mainstream media, you can tell that idiot the
> truth and he/she will listen and realize that they
> were lied to by the mainstream media and/or
> Obama.

Are you claiming that the US economy is still in recession? The truth is that it is not.

> If you tell a liberal the truth, such as
> $451,000,000,000 has been tacked on to our
> national debt since the election, they will deny
> it by not acknowledging that fact, and change the
> subject to accuseing evil republicans of trying to
> kill the elderly with medicare cuts.

Not true. I don’t dispute the National Debt has increased by $451,000,000,000 since November 6, 2013 (What a GLORIOUS day that was!). I simply don’t care.

> They really believe any feel good lie the media feeds them.

It’s ironic that people like you revel in negative economic news in hope that it will be blamed on President Obama. You are anti-American and a race traitor, and that is disgraceful.

MLK Republican,

FFU liberals are no different than liberals anywhere. It's true that there are more liberals here than conservatives. Liberals tend to more blindly support a person rather than an ideology but blind support for anything is dangerous, whether on the left or right. But, in general I agree that liberals come off as partisan and sheeple. This is mostly due to liberals making judgements and decisions based on emotion.

Libertarian is the way to go. Personal freedom and liberty. Rand Paul 2016!!!

.
Attachments:

I wanted to vote for Romney but

Cut taxes for everyone
Double Defense Budget

= even more debt than Obama

Freeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Blind support for anything is dangerous,
> whether on the left or right.

Says the Libertarian idealogue.

When was it, do you think, that American voters began voting in their personal best interest?

It really doesn't matter what liberals do because conservatives are proving they are bunch nut jobs.
Attachments:

yep, non sequitur ...............I can see how it could be illogical to you to connect the reducing down of the Govt to the SAME PPL WHOSE PLATFORM WAS TO REDUCE GOVT!

http://www.teaparty-platform.com/

Christ, it's been less than 3 years - if Faux News leaking all you guise brains out yr head so fast that you cant even remember this shit? o_0

Trumped Up Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It really doesn't matter what liberals do because
> conservatives are proving they are bunch nut jobs.

Sure is fun watchin' 'em spin around like tops, isn't it?

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> yep, non sequitur ...............I can see how it
> could be illogical to you to connect the reducing
> down of the Govt to the SAME PPL WHOSE PLATFORM
> WAS TO REDUCE GOVT!

The sequester had nothing to do with her post. That is why it is a non sequitur, ya big dummy. Your post, much like you, is irrelevant.

> http://www.teaparty-platform.com/
>
> Christ, it's been less than 3 years - if Faux News
> leaking all you guise brains out yr head so fast
> that you cant even remember this shit? o_0

Ahh, the stale Faux News bit. Hilarious coming from the nimrod that links to Salon for unbiased news. Stupidity oozes from your pores.

Republicans have the right ideas. Keep women, bare foot, pregnant and in binders.
Attachments:

Lefty Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Republicans have the right ideas. Keep women,
> bare foot, pregnant and in binders.


You're right, we should do more for women like, I dunno, beat them, ya know kinda like Jim Moran does. Oh, and his son too.

Gordon Blv, the answer to a question that nobody asked.

Gordon Blvd is a flaming liberal.... You want to piss gordo off? make a true comment about the human locust illegal spicks.

Tea bagging is a gay term for testicles laying on another males face(one fag sitting on another fags head).
The Boston tea party was a shame. Dressing as native Americans to throw a couple boxes of tea into port. Real balls and quite appropriate for this group.

LN6Yu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Sure is fun watchin' 'em spin around like tops,
> isn't it?
Attachments:

just focus the thread on Gordon Blvd - then everybody will forget 2010 and the Tea Party's OWN PLATFORM

pic unrelated
Attachments:

Samuel Adams Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gordon Blvd is a flaming liberal.... You want to
> piss gordo off? make a true comment about the
> human locust illegal spicks.
Attachments:

MLK republican Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've read liberal's posts on this forum refer to
> tea party people as teabaggers..whatever that
> means.

A) You know what it means OR
B) You're an idiot that doesn't know what it means.

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> just focus the thread on Gordon Blvd - then
> everybody will forget 2010 and the Tea Party's OWN
> PLATFORM

C'mon, dummy, it is obvious you lack the ability to focus on anything. If you could, you'd probably be a little bit more successful and not have to have a commute that you get all butthurt about.

The libs are proving my point big-time today.

focus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gordon Blvd Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > just focus the thread on Gordon Blvd - then
> > everybody will forget 2010 and the Tea Party's
> OWN
> > PLATFORM
>
> C'mon, dummy, it is obvious you lack the ability
> to focus on anything. If you could, you'd
> probably be a little bit more successful and not
> have to have a commute that you get all butthurt
> about.


+1

non sequitur Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gordon Blvd Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > yep, non sequitur ...............I can see how
> it
> > could be illogical to you to connect the
> reducing
> > down of the Govt to the SAME PPL WHOSE PLATFORM
> > WAS TO REDUCE GOVT!
>
> The sequester had nothing to do with her post.
> That is why it is a non sequitur, ya big dummy.
> Your post, much like you, is irrelevant.
>
> > http://www.teaparty-platform.com/
> >
> > Christ, it's been less than 3 years - if Faux
> News
> > leaking all you guise brains out yr head so
> fast
> > that you cant even remember this shit? o_0
>
> Ahh, the stale Faux News bit. Hilarious coming
> from the nimrod that links to Salon for unbiased
> news. Stupidity oozes from your pores.

yep, Sequester has not a thing to do with U.S. politix these days........gotcha o_0

she? you know OP?

and yeah, Faux is kinda stale, isnt it?

pic unrelated
Attachments:

notice all the ppl saying I'm full of it are just namecalling?

no links to prove a point?

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> yep, Sequester has not a thing to do with U.S.
> politix these days........gotcha o_0

It doesn't have anything to do with her post. The isn't a free association exercise, dummy.

> she? you know OP?

Nope. Just using the PC pronoun so you'd understand.

> and yeah, Faux is kinda stale, isnt it?

You'd know best.

focus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gordon Blvd Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > just focus the thread on Gordon Blvd - then
> > everybody will forget 2010 and the Tea Party's
> OWN
> > PLATFORM
>
> C'mon, dummy, it is obvious you lack the ability
> to focus on anything. If you could, you'd
> probably be a little bit more successful and not
> have to have a commute that you get all butthurt
> about.
Attachments:

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> notice all the ppl saying I'm full of it are just
> namecalling?

Shocking that this is happening on an internet forum. What's the matter, baby, you can dish it out, just can't take it. Have mommy get you a bottle.

> no links to prove a point?

Links don't prove a point. All they do is prove you can copy and paste. You are all the proof anyone needs to proove OP's point.

6HpDF Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> focus Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Gordon Blvd Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > just focus the thread on Gordon Blvd - then
> > > everybody will forget 2010 and the Tea
> Party's
> > OWN
> > > PLATFORM
> >
> > C'mon, dummy, it is obvious you lack the
> ability
> > to focus on anything. If you could, you'd
> > probably be a little bit more successful and
> not
> > have to have a commute that you get all
> butthurt
> > about.

You, you're right about GB. His therapy for his own butthurt life is calling others butthurt. Think it works for him?

Gordo love's uranus.

MLk republican Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The libs are proving my point big-time today.

You're friend are proving mien, too.
Attachments:

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Samuel Adams Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Gordon Blvd is a flaming liberal.... You want
> to
> > piss gordo off? make a true comment about the
> > human locust illegal spicks.


I didn't vote for Romney, but it's pretty much universally acknowledged that GB is a flaming homo troll who pretends to be a women to love-starved dickwads on FFU. LoLzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


.
Attachments:

FVTtm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MLk republican Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The libs are proving my point big-time today.
>
> You're friend are proving mien, too.


Grammar and spelling are not your stong suits. It makes your point incomprehensible. just sayin...... o_O

MLK republican Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> The fact is, the tea party consists of people with
> actual common sense. They are people with courage
> and great love for their country.

Take a look at the speaker list for this week's CPAC event if you're wondering why "average conservativism" is viewed as a big joke. It's a bunch of red state loonies, losers like Allen West and Mitt Romney, quitters like Palin, and Donald Trump. LOL

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!
yes, OP - we can now see the STRENGTH of GOP!

Sequester? oh, no that's not important! GORDON BLVD! NOW THAT'S IMPORTANT!!
Attachments:

10 consecutive days of Dow Jones setting record highs.

Whatever socialist premier Barack Obama is selling, I am buying....all the way to the bank.

You repubthugs can go such a lemon, while I slice lemons for my martini, stirred not shaken.

Comments about how the Pres has nothing to do with the economy from the EXACT SAME PEOPLE who would be nailing him to a cross if the Dow was in the toilet in 3....................2.............1....................

Liberals are in hopeless denial???

Don't you mean conservatives that are still pushing the same ideas are in denial . Republicans just got their ass whooped with in the last election and they revving up the same ideas again.

By all means republicans, keep presenting the same old ideas and keep watching democratic presidents getting elected.

Millionaire Liberal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 10 consecutive days of Dow Jones setting record
> highs.

I heard on Fox News that Obama is blaming the stock market surge on "capitalist infiltrators".

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Millionaire Liberal Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 10 consecutive days of Dow Jones setting record
> > highs.
>
> I heard on Fox News that Obama is blaming the
> stock market surge on "capitalist infiltrators".
Attachments:

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Millionaire Liberal Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 10 consecutive days of Dow Jones setting record
> > highs.
>
> I heard on Fox News that Obama is blaming the
> stock market surge on "capitalist infiltrators".

I heard the POTUS blame it on a YouTube video no one has seen.....

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sequester? oh, no that's not important! GORDON
> BLVD! NOW THAT'S IMPORTANT!!


Who said it wasn't important, dummy? It just isn't relevant to the current conversation. Not surprised a big dummy like you can't see the difference. You must have the vocabulary of a third grader if you mix up words like important and relevant.

MLk republican Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The libs are proving my point big-time today.


actually, your posts are just the latest examples of why liberals think the tea-party = the idiot party. bring back william buckley types, please.

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Comments about how the Pres has nothing to do with
> the economy from the EXACT SAME PEOPLE who would
> be nailing him to a cross if the Dow was in the
> toilet in
> 3....................2.............1..............
> ......


Go save some Illegal hispanics, dummy.

MLk republican Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The libs are proving my point big-time today.

The only point you seemed to be making was that you weren't down with Liberals.

Vocabulary Workshop Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gordon Blvd Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Sequester? oh, no that's not important!
> GORDON
> > BLVD! NOW THAT'S IMPORTANT!!
>
>
> Who said it wasn't important, dummy? It just
> isn't relevant to the current conversation. Not
> surprised a big dummy like you can't see the
> difference. You must have the vocabulary of a
> third grader if you mix up words like important
> and relevant.

ha ah ah ha ha hah aha ha ha ha

ROFLMAO@U and anyone else who considers Gordon Blvd "relevant" OR "important

pic unrelated
Attachments:

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vocabulary Workshop Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Gordon Blvd Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Sequester? oh, no that's not important!
> > GORDON
> > > BLVD! NOW THAT'S IMPORTANT!!
> >
> >
> > Who said it wasn't important, dummy? It just
> > isn't relevant to the current conversation.
> Not
> > surprised a big dummy like you can't see the
> > difference. You must have the vocabulary of a
> > third grader if you mix up words like important
> > and relevant.
>
> ha ah ah ha ha hah aha ha ha ha
>
> ROFLMAO@U and anyone else who considers Gordon
> Blvd "relevant" OR "important
>
> pic unrelated

Believe me, nobody does, nor was it ever implied. Speaking of cling, I see you are still clinging to your stupidity and your compulsion to post.

Took you a while to get home tonight. Traffic bad? Butthurt after that commute?

Gordon for someone who seems sharp, quick, and intelligent you aren't.

Gordo is a fierce defender of the illegal spic.

OP's original thread is dumb and uninformed. The so called "Tea Party's" original name was TeaBaggers. The TeaBaggers were nothing more then dumb white racists that were disillusioned and confused about the election of an Black president. They came to rally's supported and promoted for months at a time by Fox News and other corporate sponsors. They would wear hats with tea bags hanging from them to protest taxation. Thus they were coined as being TeaBaggers and they accepted the term and enjoyed the reference. At that point people like Dick Army decided there was a way to profit off exploitation through an organized party or movement of the racial backlash that was occurring and being propagated.

The term TeaBagger was common until it was realized that in urban lingo, a "tea bagging" refers one taking his testicles and gently dipping them in the mouth of a willing participate for a thorough sucking. Thus executing a physical act that mimics when someone dips a bag of tea into a cup of hot water.

Once it was understood that there was such a sexual act that was directly correlated with the name "Teabagger." It was decided to start referring to them as Tea Partier's instead.

No one named you the TeaBaggers, You adopted that name yourselves because you were old mean dumb dorks with no sex lives. And because you were sheep being herded into demonstrations that were corporate funded and promoted. Just to attempt to convey public opposition the first term of what seemed like a potentially very intimidating president to the status quo in times of economic crisis.

We have a black President and the Catholics have a hispanic pope.
And a conservative republican Senator has outed his son.
But whitey ain't walkin' on the moon.


"All is lost"

"The Tea Party" is not an original movement by any means. History shows groups in the 1940s (The Dixiecrats) demanding very similar things.

By the way, the saying of "'The Truth' is whatever people will believe." is from Joesph Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda minister. Not the head of Fox News.

Fact: Clintion balanced the books, he had to work 8 years to dig us out of the hole left by Regan and Bush 1.

Fact: We would not be in this mess with the debt if George W Bush hadn't cut taxes then started two unprovoked wars that had nothing to do with 9/11.


Fact: Under George W Bush, the only reason the deficit was less than $1T is becsuse he did not account for war spending in Afghanistan and Iraq and had these as "off budget" expenditures. As soon as Obama actually accounted for these, that's why the deficit went over $1T

Fact: After WW2 the debt was a much larger share of GDP than it is today.


Fact: The Non-partisan CBO said ObamaCare saves money.

Fact: ObamaCare is basically the same plan that was proposed by the Republicans as an alternative to Hillarycare 20 years ago. It is a private sector Market Based approach that gives more profit to the insurance companies. The individual mandate was the brainchild of the consevative Heritage Foundation as the only viable way to force private companies to insure those with pre-existing conditions.

Fact: Nixon was more liberal than Obama. Nixon tried to establish universal childcare, established the EPA, Established OSHA, supported Organized Labor.


Continue to beleive your tea party lies...

joe blo 9 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fact: Clintion balanced the books, he had to work
> 8 years to dig us out of the hole left by Regan
> and Bush 1.
>
> Fact: We would not be in this mess with the debt
> if George W Bush hadn't cut taxes then started two
> unprovoked wars that had nothing to do with 9/11.
>
>
> Fact: Under George W Bush, the only reason the
> deficit was less than $1T is becsuse he did not
> account for war spending in Afghanistan and Iraq
> and had these as "off budget" expenditures. As
> soon as Obama actually accounted for these, that's
> why the deficit went over $1T
>
> Fact: After WW2 the debt was a much larger share
> of GDP than it is today.
>
>
> Fact: The Non-partisan CBO said ObamaCare saves
> money.
>
> Fact: ObamaCare is basically the same plan that
> was proposed by the Republicans as an alternative
> to Hillarycare 20 years ago. It is a private
> sector Market Based approach that gives more
> profit to the insurance companies. The individual
> mandate was the brainchild of the consevative
> Heritage Foundation as the only viable way to
> force private companies to insure those with
> pre-existing conditions.
>
> Fact: Nixon was more liberal than Obama. Nixon
> tried to establish universal childcare,
> established the EPA, Established OSHA, supported
> Organized Labor.
>
>
> Continue to beleive your tea party lies...

pics or stfu

MLK republican Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've read liberal's posts on this forum refer to
> tea party people as teabaggers..whatever that
> means. From the context of everything those libs
> wrote I acertained that the term was used in a
> very derogatory sense.
>
> The fact is, the tea party consists of people with
> actual common sense. They are people with courage
> and great love for their country. They face the
> truth and want our children and grandchildren to
> have a good life.
>
> Liberals are self centered cowards who couldn't
> care less about anybody but themselves. For
> themselves they want it all, yet vote to destroy
> their own chances of reaching out and grabbing on
> to the american dream
>
> The libs have bought into the propoganda machine
> called the mainstream media hook, line, and sinker
> which may now even include fox news . They are not
> at fault, because liberalism is a disease which
> causes psychosis.
>
> If an idiot tells you that america has pulled out
> of the recession just because he/she has recently
> listened to propoganda from Obama and/or the
> mainstream media, you can tell that idiot the
> truth and he/she will listen and realize that they
> were lied to by the mainstream media and/or
> Obama.
>
> If you tell a liberal the truth, such as
> $451,000,000,000 has been tacked on to our
> national debt since the election, they will deny
> it by not acknowledging that fact, and change the
> subject to accuseing evil republicans of trying to
> kill the elderly with medicare cuts. They will
> even try to convince you that $451,000,000,000 is
> like adding nothing to the debt in four months if
> you can get in a word edgewise and really press
> them.
>
> Their total lack of ability to get a handle on
> reality is proof that they are psychotic. They
> really believe any feel good lie the media feeds
> them.
>
> What is scary is that conservatives are grossly
> outnumbered by these basket cases and this is a
> permanent problem because liberalism is in
> cureable.


obvious troll is obvious.

@joe, young, tebagger - stop with the history, facts and reality already - you'll just confuse them more LoLz
@keep - nope, just trying to teach idiots like you not ALL Hispanics are illegal - too bad you dont have any brains to learn with though LoLz
@confussed - ROFLMAO@U for even having the THOUGHT of putting the words sharp, quick, intelligent, Gordon and Blvd together ha ha ha ha h ha ha
@more like - Posts about Gordon and NOT about the topic at hand kinda betray yr bullshit. But whateves. Yep, GOP most CERTAINLY has earned my vote! Thanks for yr intelligent discussion showing yr points of view on yr party's platform. Good stuff! o_0

edit: it's fucking hilarious as hell to re-read this strip

Liberals talking politix

GOP bitching that Gordon Blvd is a fag

cant even IMAGINE how you guise could have lost the election ROFLMAO!!!

pic unrelated



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/16/2013 07:49AM by Gordon Blvd.
Attachments:

Teabaggers are nothing but racist dipshits. We went through eight years of a war based on a lie, the Patriot Act, National Security Letters, warrantless wiretaps, loyalty oaths, the outing of a CIA agent, warrantless search an seizure, treating the Constitution like "just a goddamned piece of paper," indefinite detentions, illegal search and seizure, the TSA fondling us at the airport, and an enormous increase in the size of the federal government (thanks, DHS), and there wasn't a single peep out of these tea bagging retards. Then the next day after some less-than-totally-white guy gets elected president and says wouldn't it be cool if everyone had health care, all of a sudden clueless honkeys are massing outside the gates, howling and shaking poorly spelled signs saying "GUMMINT HANDS OFF MAH MEDIKARE" from their government-paid-for Hoveround scooters, and crying about socialism and oppression and other stuff they don't know anything about. Make no mistake, these are just racist white people mad that the new president "is near."

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> @more like - Posts about Gordon and NOT about the
> topic at hand kinda betray yr bullshit. But
> whateves. Yep, GOP most CERTAINLY has earned my
> vote! Thanks for yr intelligent discussion
> showing yr points of view on yr party's platform.
> Good stuff! o_0

Are you still pretending that your vote is up for grabs? So cute that you think ppl are buying that?

Posters have attempted to engage you with facts, statistics and common courtesy. Your response has been to ignore them or dismiss them. So, yeah, sorry if nobody is buying your bullshit.

Who is the only body to have their budget done on time over the past two years as required by law? So, who is taking it seriously and who is in constant campaign mode? Yeah, the POTUS.

Mmmmkay?

stale tactic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gordon Blvd Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > @more like - Posts about Gordon and NOT about
> the
> > topic at hand kinda betray yr bullshit. But
> > whateves. Yep, GOP most CERTAINLY has earned
> my
> > vote! Thanks for yr intelligent discussion
> > showing yr points of view on yr party's
> platform.
> > Good stuff! o_0
>
> Are you still pretending that your vote is up for
> grabs? So cute that you think ppl are buying
> that?
>
> Posters have attempted to engage you with facts,
> statistics and common courtesy. Your response has
> been to ignore them or dismiss them. So, yeah,
> sorry if nobody is buying your bullshit.
>
> Who is the only body to have their budget done on
> time over the past two years as required by law?
> So, who is taking it seriously and who is in
> constant campaign mode? Yeah, the POTUS.
>
> Mmmmkay?


Don't bother. Gordon only engages with himself on this board, either directly or through his anon's. It's a sickness really. LoLzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


.
Attachments:

@stale- yr so full of it the shit's leaking out yr ears.
Anyone who's REALLY been paying attention knows that posters from FFXU who have engageed me with facts, statistics, and common courtesy have schooled me and changed my mind on:
open carry in parks
CCW's in general
speed of 4G networks
that not ALL pitbull owners are asswipes

but hey, continue to THINK that you know me better than I know me :) that's really cute. In REALITY, no, I have no idea who I'm voting for in 2016. If GOP wants my vote, now's a good time to start telling me why cause I didnt hear anything new last go-round.

GOP response to me saying "hey my votes up for grabs" is "ah, you aint serious" ROFLMAO@them not understanding why they lost in Nov! ha ha ha ha ha hah ah ahaahaa

p.s. on time? http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20110206/DEPARTMENTS01/102060304/2011-budget-delay-causes-issues-Defense-Department

ROFLMAO@those so butthurt by my opinions, they cant fathom that others may actually agree from time to time with what I'm saying

pic unrelated
Attachments:

The magnetic poles have Reversed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We have a black President and the Catholics have a
> hispanic pope.
> And a conservative republican Senator has outed
> his son.
> But whitey ain't walkin' on the moon.
>
>
Whitey to fat and lazy to walk anywhere except to toilet.
Whitey has butthurt.

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @stale- yr so full of it the shit's leaking out yr
> ears.
> Anyone who's REALLY been paying attention knows
> that posters from FFXU who have engageed me with
> facts, statistics, and common courtesy have
> schooled me and changed my mind on:
> open carry in parks
> CCW's in general
> speed of 4G networks
> that not ALL pitbull owners are asswipes
>
> but hey, continue to THINK that you know me better
> than I know me :) that's really cute. In
> REALITY, no, I have no idea who I'm voting for in
> 2016. If GOP wants my vote, now's a good time to
> start telling me why cause I didnt hear anything
> new last go-round.

Cause you only heard what you wanted to hear. Any serious dialogue is rebuffed by you. Your willful ignorance takes over and you ignore those posters that present facts to you and choose to focus on the name callers. I suppose it is because you have more in common with the name callers.

> GOP response to me saying "hey my votes up for
> grabs" is "ah, you aint serious" ROFLMAO@them not
> understanding why they lost in Nov! ha ha ha ha
> ha hah ah ahaahaa

Because your vote isn't up for grabs.

> p.s. on time?
> http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20110206/DEPAR
> TMENTS01/102060304/2011-budget-delay-causes-issues
> -Defense-Department

A budget resolution is not an appropriations bill. You (and the reporter) should learn the difference.

Agter the google schools you on the difference, tell me who is the only body that produced their budget done on time as required by law over the past two years? Why has the White House failed to produce its FY 14 budget this year? It was due over a month ago?

So, who is taking budget problems seriously, and who has been stuck in in campaign mode?

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ROFLMAO@those so butthurt by my opinions, they
> cant fathom that others may actually agree from
> time to time with what I'm saying
>
> pic unrelated


Poor, pitful Gordon the troll. What a pussy LoLzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


.
Attachments:

gordo the illegal spic champion!! Run for office. you will get the vote. Maybe you're not such a big dummy.

stale tactic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Cause you only heard what you wanted to hear. Any
> serious dialogue is rebuffed by you. Your willful
> ignorance takes over and you ignore those posters
> that present facts to you and choose to focus on
> the name callers. I suppose it is because you
> have more in common with the name callers.
>
>
> Because your vote isn't up for grabs.
>

yep, that's the WINNING attitude to have there, son. "He disagrees with me currently - so I should not even bother to create dialogue as he might make fun of me" - yeah, you guise are GREAT LoLz



> > p.s. on time?
> >
> http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20110206/DEPAR
>
> >
> TMENTS01/102060304/2011-budget-delay-causes-issues
>
> > -Defense-Department
>
> A budget resolution is not an appropriations bill.
> You (and the reporter) should learn the
> difference.
>
> Agter the google schools you on the difference,
> tell me who is the only body that produced their
> budget done on time as required by law over the
> past two years?

funny you should mention this LoLz http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/01/fiscal-cliff-deal-passed-_n_2394022.html

Why has the White House failed to
> produce its FY 14 budget this year? It was due
> over a month ago?

funny you should mention this LoLz
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/287919-hoyer-having-obama-budget-would-be-helpful-but-not-possible



>
> So, who is taking budget problems seriously, and
> who has been stuck in in campaign mode?

and gee............I wonder who will win in 2016 since they are actually CAPABLE OF DOING TWO THINGS AT ONCE unlike apparently, GOP? (i.e. why's it always gotta be either/or with y'all-dontcha know how to multi-task already?)

Gordo for mayor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> gordo the illegal spic champion!! Run for office.
> you will get the vote. Maybe you're not such a big
> dummy.


nah, I am a big dummy - I paid $5 for yr moms last night the rest of the crew got her for only 50 cents LoLz
Attachments:

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> yep, that's the WINNING attitude to have there,
> son. "He disagrees with me currently - so I
> should not even bother to create dialogue as he
> might make fun of me" - yeah, you guise are
> GREAT LoLz

It isn't winning or losing. It is the fact. An attempt to create dialogue has clearly been made. You have deflected and resorted to personal insults. I ask you simple questions and refuse to answer.


> funny you should mention this LoLz
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/01/fiscal-cl
> iff-deal-passed-_n_2394022.html

Is this your attempt at a response? Is this what qualifies as dialogue with you? How does this link answer the question I posed to you? It doesn't.


> Why has the White House failed to
> > produce its FY 14 budget this year? It was due
> > over a month ago?
>
> funny you should mention this LoLz
> http://thehill.com/homenews/house/287919-hoyer-hav
> ing-obama-budget-would-be-helpful-but-not-possible

So, a Democrat made a lame excuse for the White House's inability to do its job? Refresh my memory, when did the sequester become law?

Here is an easy one for you to answer. When was the last time the Obama Administration submitted a Budget on time? If they were ever late what was their excuse then? The sequester lolz, indeed.


> and gee............I wonder who will win in 2016
> since they are actually CAPABLE OF DOING TWO
> THINGS AT ONCE unlike apparently, GOP? (i.e.
> why's it always gotta be either/or with
> y'all-dontcha know how to multi-task already?)

You have yet to Demonstrate the Democrats have actually taken their job ov governing seriously. The Senate is required by law to pass a budget every year. When was the last time they did that? Answer the question or take your trollin' somewhere else.

joe blo 9 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fact: Clintion balanced the books, he had to work
> 8 years to dig us out of the hole left by Regan
> and Bush 1.

Not a fact, it was nothing more than fancy book keeping. Thats "surplus" was gone on Day 1 of Bush but Im sure you think he destroyed everything the 2nd he took over.

> Fact: We would not be in this mess with the debt
> if George W Bush hadn't cut taxes then started two
> unprovoked wars that had nothing to do with 9/11.

Really Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11 very interesting. You are a special kind of stupid arent you.

> Fact: Under George W Bush, the only reason the
> deficit was less than $1T is becsuse he did not
> account for war spending in Afghanistan and Iraq
> and had these as "off budget" expenditures. As
> soon as Obama actually accounted for these, that's
> why the deficit went over $1T

Or the fact that he has upped spending and already spend more in 4 years than Bush did in 8 including several trillion dollar stimulus bills, but hey why let facts get in the way.

> Fact: After WW2 the debt was a much larger share
> of GDP than it is today.
>
>
> Fact: The Non-partisan CBO said ObamaCare saves
> money.

Hahahaha or they actually said it would increase the deficit by trillions

> Fact: ObamaCare is basically the same plan that
> was proposed by the Republicans as an alternative
> to Hillarycare 20 years ago. It is a private
> sector Market Based approach that gives more
> profit to the insurance companies. The individual
> mandate was the brainchild of the consevative
> Heritage Foundation as the only viable way to
> force private companies to insure those with
> pre-existing conditions.

And it was a bad idea then and its a bad idea now. Unlike partisan hacks like you I dont support something just because my party came up with the idea.

> Fact: Nixon was more liberal than Obama. Nixon
> tried to establish universal childcare,
> established the EPA, Established OSHA, supported
> Organized Labor.

No he wasnt. He was also a shitty president showing how bad Obamas been that so far your best defense is hes not Nixon.

> Continue to beleive your tea party lies...

Fact: Nothing you just said was actually the truth

Liberals cannot help themselves they lack one very important thing in life and that is common sense. They believe the government can provide you with everything in life and its the Republicans who block their life of leisure which is why they hate them so much. If it was so easy to give everyone a free home, free health care, free food and free obamaphones it would have been done long ago. They are just too stupid to realize the government doesnt have the money to give away all that stuff.

They are very much like spoiled teenage girls, they want everything they see and have no earthly idea how it will be paid for. As long as the credit card keeps working they keep spending.

^ Another Tea Party genius - you folks are fucking funny - in a very pathetic way.
Attachments:

Imagine for a moment. Being and calling yourself a Republican. Imagine for a moment, accepting all that entails. The politicians, the banks, the corporations, the opposition to innovation for energy. The wars, the racism, the rejection of societal evolution. Imagine for a moment having to deflect all the damage that your party affiliation has done to your nation.

If Republican were smart enough to have such a conscience, I would pity them for that burden. I pity them for other things instead.

A message for the CPAC crowd...
Attachments:

i have to admit that conservatives have a big advantage on the internet. it's really hard for the rest of us to tell if you're trolling or just stupid.

Shouldn't you be at the CPAC pity party exploiting that huge internet advantage?
Attachments:

The homo=love for Obama by you sheep-moes is not unexpected. The liberal males complete lack of testosterone has been proven over and over. Fags loving fags.



.
Attachments:

Liberal logic oxymoron Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The homo=love for Obama by you sheep-moes is not
> unexpected. The liberal males complete lack of
> testosterone has been proven over and over. Fags
> loving fags.

What's wrong whitey? Nobody give you recognition for your minor accomplishments?
What have you done? MoH? Astronaut? Cure cancer? Save a couple of lives?
Tell us. I bet you have guns and deep down you want to shoot someone

Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i have to admit that conservatives have a big
> advantage on the internet. it's really hard for
> the rest of us to tell if you're trolling or just
> stupid.


I take that as a compliment, that fact that liberals on here feel that way just proves that the conservatives do in fact have intelligence.

The typical ffu liberal is essentially an overgrown 6 year old. Both believe what ever their parents tell them (in this case Obama/talking points), neither can provide for themselves, both lack the ability to think for themselves, both just say whatever they feel like regardless of facts, both resort to name calling when proven wrong, neither have any idea how things or the world actually works...ect. The list can go on forever but you get the point

Its great that we have Obama in the white house but we still have to deal with the republicans that are still hell bent on the destruction of this country.
Attachments:

When will they take any responsibility. How many elections will they have to lose.
Attachments:

Liberal Logic 102 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not a fact, it was nothing more than fancy book
> keeping. That "surplus" was gone on Day 1 of
> Bush but I'm sure you think he destroyed everything
> the 2nd he took over.

You could argue that it was a decrease in the rate of growth of the debt. Otherwise, I'm not getting involved in that argument; it's not worth the time. For what it's worth, the CBO reported that there was a surplus. The CBO is run by the Congress, however.

> Really Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11
> very interesting. You are a special kind of
> stupid arent you.

The two wars probably had the least effect on the budget of anything that Bush did. You have to understand two basic things: first, we cut taxes. When you cut taxes you automatically reduce the amount of revenue. Second, we passed Medicare Part D, which we still haven't paid for. Medicare Part D is more responsible for the debt than Afghanistan. Iraq, on the other hand, is a slightly different case. I think all the liberal reasoning for our invasion of Iraq is overly simplistic. I think much of the "let's bring freedom" reasoning is also wrong. It's a complex mixture of factors that caused the invasion of Iraq.

> Or the fact that he has upped spending and already
> spend more in 4 years than Bush did in 8 including
> several trillion dollar stimulus bills, but hey
> why let facts get in the way.

Yes, he has spent more in four years than Bush did in eight. You have to understand something: when he came into office, the economy was deeply entrenched in the crapper. The Dow was around 6,000. Now it's around 14,000. There are a lot of reasons for that. Also, basic Keynesian economics state that the government needs to be a driving force for escaping from a recession/depression. However, he goes on to state that the government should save during booms and spend during busts-we've done neither. Moreover, the stimulus was a good idea. I think it was implemented very poorly.

> Hahahaha or they actually said it would increase
> the deficit by trillions.

Actually, not so much. The CBO stated that repealing Obamacare would cost $110 billion this year alone. The issue with the whole debt/deficit debate is that the American people don't realize what has to be done. Everyone wants to pay down the debt and reduce the deficit. Nobody wants to have his/her services reduced. Everyone wants low taxes and lots of services. Nobody wants low taxes and few services. The solutions are not politically popular.

> And it was a bad idea then and its a bad idea now.
> Unlike partisan hacks like you I don't support
> something just because my party came up with the
> idea.

It's a bad idea if we do it improperly. Obamacare covers it in a very heavy-handed way. The bill needs multiple amendments before it becomes halfway decent.

> No he wasn't. He was also a shitty president
> showing how bad Obama been that so far your best
> defense is hes not Nixon.

Nixon was not a bad president. He was morally corrupt. Obama doesn't have half of Nixon's foreign policy skill. Nixon wanted to evade inflation; Obama is setting us up for it.

This whitey ain't been to moon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Liberal logic oxymoron Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The homo=love for Obama by you sheep-moes is
> not
> > unexpected. The liberal males complete lack of
> > testosterone has been proven over and over.
> Fags
> > loving fags.
>
> What's wrong whitey? Nobody give you recognition
> for your minor accomplishments?
> What have you done? MoH? Astronaut? Cure cancer?
> Save a couple of lives?
> Tell us. I bet you have guns and deep down you
> want to shoot someone


Yup, the illegal human locust spic.

Gerrymanderer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When will they take any responsibility. How many
> elections will they have to lose.


Yeah, they should just become democrats, then it'll be utopia. That worked so well in the USSR. Idiot....


.
Attachments:

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> You could argue that it was a decrease in the rate
> of growth of the debt. Otherwise, I'm not getting
> involved in that argument; it's not worth the
> time. For what it's worth, the CBO reported that
> there was a surplus. The CBO is run by the
> Congress, however.

A real surplus would have still been there till the next budget not just magically disappeared into the night for no known reason. At best there was a surplus a year before but the final budget he signed eroded all of that.


> The two wars probably had the least effect on the
> budget of anything that Bush did. You have to
> understand two basic things: first, we cut taxes.
> When you cut taxes you automatically reduce the
> amount of revenue. Second, we passed Medicare Part
> D, which we still haven't paid for. Medicare Part
> D is more responsible for the debt than
> Afghanistan. Iraq, on the other hand, is a
> slightly different case. I think all the liberal
> reasoning for our invasion of Iraq is overly
> simplistic. I think much of the "let's bring
> freedom" reasoning is also wrong. It's a complex
> mixture of factors that caused the invasion of
> Iraq.


He said it was a fact Bush started two wars that had nothing to do with 9-11, theres really not much you can say to someone so stupid they thought Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9-11. Medicare Part D wasnt a great idea, good intentions but financially not great. I still want to know who the genius is that says we should pay Iraq for their oil we used freeing them. If they want to send us a bill we should just respond with a letter that says "Freedom, youre welcome".


> Yes, he has spent more in four years than Bush did
> in eight. You have to understand something: when
> he came into office, the economy was deeply
> entrenched in the crapper. The Dow was around
> 6,000. Now it's around 14,000. There are a lot of
> reasons for that. Also, basic Keynesian economics
> state that the government needs to be a driving
> force for escaping from a recession/depression.
> However, he goes on to state that the government
> should save during booms and spend during
> busts-we've done neither. Moreover, the stimulus
> was a good idea. I think it was implemented very
> poorly.

Keynesian economics have never worked. Like communism it may sound okay on paper but it doesnt work. The Dow doesnt represent much either other than the fact that we have no interest rates so money has been pouring into the stock market which overall looks well, but is largely being carried by a small percentage of companies that are doing very well. The majority of companies are even sniffing their trading prices from the last time the dow was at these levels.

The Dow was also over 8k when Obama took office, It didnt get down into the 6s until April as investors moved their money to different companies. It will rebound on its own if the government just stays out of the way. Theres always going to be some companies that are making money even if most arent.

But yes the stimulus was a giant waste of money. Who knows what it was actually spent on since unemployment didnt go down, the bridges didnt get fixed, and 1 out of 5 working age people under the age of 30 are still unemployed. Unemployment numbers just look better than they are because people stopped getting counted after being out of work for so long. Probably would have done more good to just divide that money up and send everyone a check for their share of it.


> Actually, not so much. The CBO stated that
> repealing Obamacare would cost $110 billion this
> year alone. The issue with the whole debt/deficit
> debate is that the American people don't realize
> what has to be done. Everyone wants to pay down
> the debt and reduce the deficit. Nobody wants to
> have his/her services reduced. Everyone wants low
> taxes and lots of services. Nobody wants low taxes
> and few services. The solutions are not
> politically popular.

100 billion is a lot less than the two trillion it will cost in the next few years.

Cost really isnt even the major concerns for it though. Because of that law many doctors have stopped accepting insurance because its no longer worth it to them, leaving fewer doctors and longer waits for people that cant afford to pay. You can see that in this area a lot for the better primary care doctors. Not to mention all of the companies dropping health care or reducing work hours so they dont have to provide healthcare or the medical manufactures moving overseas because of the new taxes on their devices.

Any bill that stacks over 7 feet tall is a pile of garbage with a bunch of hidden stuff in it that we will keep finding out as we go. No one even read it before it was passed. The only people who won with Obamacare are the large insurance companies.

There are a lot of people that would be willing to pay more or take a reduction in services, but not until spending gets under control. If the government can prove its responsible with money people would make sacrifices. But no one should be expected or is willing to give more just so it can be wasted. Its like giving a drug addict drugs and expecting them to change their ways.

Countless dollars are wasted by the federal government on lavish conferences, michelle getting a separate flight to hawaii because she doesnt want to wait 4 hours for the president, solyndra ect. Saying that we have to increase taxes to bring in more money implies that every single penny of tax dollars is spent on critical things and theres no waste, which just simply isnt true. Take care of the waste before you start taking more from people

> It's a bad idea if we do it improperly. Obamacare
> covers it in a very heavy-handed way. The bill
> needs multiple amendments before it becomes
> halfway decent.

Its a bad idea anyway. It would literally be cheaper to just send people a check for private plans if they dont have healthcare.


> Nixon was not a bad president. He was morally
> corrupt. Obama doesn't have half of Nixon's
> foreign policy skill. Nixon wanted to evade
> inflation; Obama is setting us up for it.

Fair enough, Nixon wasnt clueless maybe power hungry would have been a better term. He could have been effective in a different position but really wasnt the guy you wanted at the top holding a lot of the power,

Liberal Logic 102 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A real surplus would have still been there till
> the next budget not just magically disappeared
> into the night for no known reason. At best there
> was a surplus a year before but the final budget
> he signed eroded all of that.

Again, not worth getting into. Too many sides, mostly rhetoric, and not enough fact.


> He said it was a fact Bush started two wars that
> had nothing to do with 9-11, theres really not
> much you can say to someone so stupid they thought
> Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9-11. Medicare
> Part D wasnt a great idea, good intentions but
> financially not great. I still want to know who
> the genius is that says we should pay Iraq for
> their oil we used freeing them. If they want to
> send us a bill we should just respond with a
> letter that says "Freedom, youre welcome".

The Taliban were protecting Bin Laden; they had nothing to do with 9/11. Therefore, you could make a case (albeit a poor one) that both wars had nothing to do with 9/11. However, I agree that we had to invade Afghanistan, despite the knowledge that no army has ever done so successfully. Medicare part D did not have good intentions. In many ways, it's just a shill for pharmaceutical companies. It bans the importation of drugs made in Canada BY US COMPANIES UNDER THE SAME STANDARDS. Not yelling, just pissed off. Iraq can go to hell. As soon as we leave, things are going to devolve into Malaki becoming Saddam II. We overthrew a dictator, but we put an Iran-friendly one in his place. Saddam may have been the lesser of the evils.

> Keynesian economics have never worked. Like
> communism it may sound okay on paper but it doesnt
> work. The Dow doesnt represent much either other
> than the fact that we have no interest rates so
> money has been pouring into the stock market which
> overall looks well, but is largely being carried
> by a small percentage of companies that are doing
> very well. The majority of companies are even
> sniffing their trading prices from the last time
> the dow was at these levels.

I disagree with the idea that Keynesian economics do not work. The Great Depression was greatly ameliorated by the basic principles. Getting people back to work was a huge reason the Depression ended. There are other factors, but I firmly believe that Keynesian economics did more to end the Depression than most people would give credit for. People are going to point at World War II and say that World War II ended it. Keynesian economics allowed for the kind of economic growth we saw during World War II and the 1950s. If the infrastructure had not been in place, nothing would've happened.

> But yes the stimulus was a giant waste of money.
> Who knows what it was actually spent on since
> unemployment didnt go down, the bridges didnt get
> fixed, and 1 out of 5 working age people under the
> age of 30 are still unemployed. Unemployment
> numbers just look better than they are because
> people stopped getting counted after being out of
> work for so long. Probably would have done more
> good to just divide that money up and send
> everyone a check for their share of it.

The stimulus was spent improperly. I'm not sure how much of it has been spent, to be honest. I'd imagine that most of it went to things like Solyndra, green energy, and the like. We need to repair our infrastructure. It's incontestable. We cannot continue to neglect it the way we are. If we invest 2 trillion over 10 years in it, we'll fix it. This is what the stimulus should've dealt with. Not some dumb pet projects.

> Cost really isnt even the major concerns for it
> though. Because of that law many doctors have
> stopped accepting insurance because its no longer
> worth it to them, leaving fewer doctors and longer
> waits for people that cant afford to pay. You can
> see that in this area a lot for the better primary
> care doctors. Not to mention all of the companies
> dropping health care or reducing work hours so
> they dont have to provide healthcare or the
> medical manufactures moving overseas because of
> the new taxes on their devices.

That's the way it is in most countries with universal healthcare; it never was mentioned during the passage of the bill.

> There are a lot of people that would be willing to
> pay more or take a reduction in services, but not
> until spending gets under control. If the
> government can prove its responsible with money
> people would make sacrifices. But no one should
> be expected or is willing to give more just so it
> can be wasted. Its like giving a drug addict
> drugs and expecting them to change their ways.

I disagree. Most polls show the opposite. Nobody wants to pay taxes, but everyone wants services. The main issue with the federal government is that it's so worried about re-election that it doesn't deal with the issues. Waste is an issue, but there are other things we need to cut or eliminate.

> Countless dollars are wasted by the federal
> government on lavish conferences, michelle getting
> a separate flight to hawaii because she doesnt
> want to wait 4 hours for the president, solyndra
> ect. Saying that we have to increase taxes to
> bring in more money implies that every single
> penny of tax dollars is spent on critical things
> and theres no waste, which just simply isnt true.
> Take care of the waste before you start taking
> more from people.

There's waste in every part of the government. If we crack down on Medicare fraud, allow Medicare to bargain, stop the "green energy" subsidies, eliminate these conferences, and prevent Marie Antoinette (aka Michelle Obama) from taking $40 million vacations, then we'll fix a lot of the issues. Romney made a very good point during the election. Liberals love to scream about corporate welfare. Obama gave more welfare to Solyndra than Exxon-Mobil has received since 1960.

> Its a bad idea anyway. It would literally be
> cheaper to just send people a check for private
> plans if they dont have healthcare.

There are good elements in the bill. Eliminating preexisting conditions and lifetime spending caps is tremendous. Forcing insurance companies to pay 80% of all revenue as benefits is even better.

Hey you fuckin loser ass fringe wack job social darwinistic dirt bag animalistic in-compassionate inhuman backwards Republican fucks.

You can go fuck yourselves. Thank you.

Hollywood liberals are the worst. They bitch about the need to raise taxes and punish the rich yet park their money offshore and take advantage of all tax breaks. They complain we need to protect the environment yet they get carted around in limos, ride on private jets and live in mansions.

Gerrymanderer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey you fuckin loser ass fringe wack job social
> darwinistic dirt bag animalistic in-compassionate
> inhuman backwards Republican fucks.
>
> You can go fuck yourselves. Thank you.

I'm not a Republican, but this is why the country is going to shit.

RydellRoad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In 2008, when the national debt was just over $9
> trillion, Obama said it was “irresponsible”
> and “unpatriotic” to saddle future generations
> with that amount of red ink.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kuTG19Cu_Q
>
> Now almost $17 trillion and rising is totally
> sustainable?
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/trans
> cript-president-obamas-interview-with-george-steph
> anopoulos/


The Republicans refused to count the debt accumulated by the Iraq and Afghan wars as part of the national debt, as if the wars magically paid for themselves. This in turn allowed them to blame Obama for all those unpaid war bills leftover from the Bush years. Slam Obama all you want for his debt contributions, but a good chunk of that debt was the inevitable coming to terms with the accounting gimmicks the GOP had no problem with when they ran the show.

Gerrymanderer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey you fuckin loser ass fringe wack job social
> darwinistic dirt bag animalistic in-compassionate
> inhuman backwards Republican fucks.
>
> You can go fuck yourselves. Thank you.


Your arguement is compelling LOL

.
Attachments:

alec baldwin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hollywood liberals are the worst. They bitch about
> the need to raise taxes and punish the rich yet
> park their money offshore and take advantage of
> all tax breaks. They complain we need to protect
> the environment yet they get carted around in
> limos, ride on private jets and live in mansions.


Liberals are led by their emotions. They are all 16 y.o. girls, even the 50 y.o. men.


.
Attachments:

Cheney Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RydellRoad Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > In 2008, when the national debt was just over
> $9
> > trillion, Obama said it was “irresponsible”
> > and “unpatriotic” to saddle future
> generations
> > with that amount of red ink.
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kuTG19Cu_Q
> >
> > Now almost $17 trillion and rising is totally
> > sustainable?
> >
> >
> http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/trans
>
> >
> cript-president-obamas-interview-with-george-steph
>
> > anopoulos/
>
>
> The Republicans refused to count the debt
> accumulated by the Iraq and Afghan wars as part of
> the national debt, as if the wars magically paid
> for themselves. This in turn allowed them to
> blame Obama for all those unpaid war bills
> leftover from the Bush years. Slam Obama all you
> want for his debt contributions, but a good chunk
> of that debt was the inevitable coming to terms
> with the accounting gimmicks the GOP had no
> problem with when they ran the show.


It doesn't matter what republicans refused to count, the debt is the debt and it includes the costs of the wars under Bush. The spending under Obama wasn't money Bush never counted and you're just spreading nonsense and lies. Bush sucked. Obama sucks. But Obama in 2008 at a campaign event in ND called Bush's deficit spending irresponsible and unpatriotic. Obama has $1 Trillion plus deficits for every year that he's been president. That is about 3 times the yearly deficit that Bush had. And in 2006, freshmen senator Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling, stating that Bush's spending was endangering our future because of massive debt.

Obama has increased the debt in 4 years as much or more than Bush did in 8 years. But now, because he's a democrat, it's all good. Right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUPZJDBJI84

http://www.politisite.com/2011/12/28/flashback-obama-bush-adding-4-trillion-debt-unpatriotic-fargo-july-3-2008/#.UUYAta5E-F8

Cheney Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> The Republicans refused to count the debt
> accumulated by the Iraq and Afghan wars as part of
> the national debt, as if the wars magically paid
> for themselves. This in turn allowed them to
> blame Obama for all those unpaid war bills
> leftover from the Bush years. Slam Obama all you
> want for his debt contributions, but a good chunk
> of that debt was the inevitable coming to terms
> with the accounting gimmicks the GOP had no
> problem with when they ran the show.


Bullshit. At one point you may have been able to say that it was a significant percentage but other spending under Obama's administration has blown away the costs of Iraq and Afganistan. +90% of the deficit now is NOT related to the wars and even more so going forward.

Hey dipshit, a budget deficit is a combination of spending and decreased revenue. You're blaming Bush's cratering of the economy on the way out on Obama. Why aren't you showing after 2010 as well when he stabilized the situation and actually brought about more deficit reduction in the shortest period of time ever in the history of this country?

You dirty douche bags have no shame.

Gerrymanderer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey dipshit, a budget deficit is a combination of
> spending and decreased revenue. You're blaming
> Bush's cratering of the economy on the way out on
> Obama. Why aren't you showing after 2010 as well
> when he stabilized the situation and actually
> brought about more deficit reduction in the
> shortest period of time ever in the history of
> this country?
>
> You dirty douche bags have no shame.


Yeah Bush was responsible for the housing market bubble finally popping after 30+ years of pure greed on the part of everyone involved from bankers, to the government pushing shaky ownership and enabling it by buying crap loans, to real estate agencies pumping prices, to individuals flipping and dipping thinking that prices would forever increase.

lulz

Gerrymanderer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey dipshit, a budget deficit is a combination of
> spending and decreased revenue. You're blaming
> Bush's cratering of the economy on the way out on
> Obama. Why aren't you showing after 2010 as well
> when he stabilized the situation and actually
> brought about more deficit reduction in the
> shortest period of time ever in the history of
> this country?
>
> You dirty douche bags have no shame.


Stablized when? lol!

Once he launched the wars in an economic downturn and also decreased taxes and increased deficits. Much of this was paid for by increased money supply. Artificially low rates were set to solidify the economy. The interests rates along with the increased money supply caused the housing market to absorb the inflation that was occurring. This created a housing bubble that when burst caused an economic calamity.

There's also the issue of the repealing of the Glass–Steagall Act which divided local from Wall Street banks and home mortgage loans. This was also another corrupt Republican banker buddy initiative that many say assisted in the eventual crisis.

Stabull Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gerrymanderer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Hey dipshit, a budget deficit is a combination
> of
> > spending and decreased revenue. You're blaming
> > Bush's cratering of the economy on the way out
> on
> > Obama. Why aren't you showing after 2010 as
> well
> > when he stabilized the situation and actually
> > brought about more deficit reduction in the
> > shortest period of time ever in the history of
> > this country?
> >
> > You dirty douche bags have no shame.
>
>
> Stablized when? lol!
>
>
> src="http://reason.com/assets/mc/_ATTIC/ngillespie
> 2/deficits.jpg">

Umm, it's 2013 right? That graph looks like the deficit is stabilizing to me. CBO future projections based on Washington dead lock aren't relevant.

Gerrymanderer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Once he launched the wars in an economic downturn
> and also decreased taxes and increased deficits.
> Much of this was paid for by increased money
> supply. Artificially low rates were set to
> solidify the economy. The interests rates along
> with the increased money supply caused the housing
> market to absorb the inflation that was occurring.
> This created a housing bubble that when burst
> caused an economic calamity.
>
> There's also the issue of the repealing of the
> Glass–Steagall Act which divided local from Wall
> Street banks and home mortgage loans. This was
> also another corrupt Republican banker buddy
> initiative that many say assisted in the eventual
> crisis.


More bullshit. Revenues continually increased under Bush. And in fact they are higher now, not lower. The deficits and debt under Obama absolutely dwarf those under Bush. Neither of which much relate to either of them in particular and are due more to other outside circumstances, but if you're going to try to play that bullshit game then I'll shove it right back up your ass where you pulled if from. lol

Glass-Steagall was repealed under Clinton. And don't even try to say that it wasn't pushed by the Dems or I'll just make you look even more ridiculous.

Gerrymanderer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Stabull Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Gerrymanderer Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Hey dipshit, a budget deficit is a
> combination
> > of
> > > spending and decreased revenue. You're
> blaming
> > > Bush's cratering of the economy on the way
> out
> > on
> > > Obama. Why aren't you showing after 2010 as
> > well
> > > when he stabilized the situation and actually
> > > brought about more deficit reduction in the
> > > shortest period of time ever in the history
> of
> > > this country?
> > >
> > > You dirty douche bags have no shame.
> >
> >
> > Stablized when? lol!
> >
> >
> > >
> src="http://reason.com/assets/mc/_ATTIC/ngillespie
>
> > 2/deficits.jpg">
>
> Umm, it's 2013 right? That graph looks like the
> deficit is stabilizing to me. CBO future
> projections based on Washington dead lock aren't
> relevant.


Ummmm, continuing to grow at an increasing rate isn't "stablizing." lol

The only reason that it even looks somewhat reasonable is due to the huge spending from TARP and the stimulus which blew out the curve 2009 - 2011. Take that out and the trend line STILL increases substantially vs any historical basis. The "deadlock" as you call it actually makes it look better dumbass. Even using Obama's own budget projections it's still a bad joke.

Oh, you mean the same stimulus that caused us to stop losing 700,000 jobs a month and reestablished revenue?

Gerrymanderer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh, you mean the same stimulus that caused us to
> stop losing 700,000 jobs a month and reestablished
> revenue?


Which, as typical for dumbfucks like you who attempt to go off on some other tangent after getting called on their bullshit, has little to nothing to do with the subject at hand.

The stimulus did essentially squat beyond a brief blip. Most of it hadn't even been spent by the time that you idiots started claiming that it was working. lol The vast majority of the recovery has been in spite of Obama's economic policy (or lack there of). Even that butt licker Chris Matthews called Obama out for playing political games by continually dragging out teachers and firemen all the time and not having any real economic growth strategy.

Gerrymanderer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh, you mean the same stimulus that caused us to
> stop losing 700,000 jobs a month and reestablished
> revenue?


"blah, blah, blah and reestablished revenue?" What the heck are you talking about? Have you looked at the record of the stimulus? Have you looked at how much each green job costs (hint: almost a million $$$$ per job)? Bernanke is keeping this economy afloat. He's doing it by driving any investment $$$$ into the stock market by keeping interest rates at zero. Obama's policies are just like any other politician: paying off large campaign donors, then paying off his special interest groups and finally, giving token goodies to his base. He's no different than Bush or Clinton, he just spends more faster.

You are blinded by partisanship fool.

.
Attachments:

You lose Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gerrymanderer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Oh, you mean the same stimulus that caused us
> to
> > stop losing 700,000 jobs a month and
> reestablished
> > revenue?
>
>
> Which, as typical for dumbfucks like you who
> attempt to go off on some other tangent after
> getting called on their bullshit, has little to
> nothing to do with the subject at hand.
>
> The stimulus did essentially squat beyond a brief
> blip. Most of it hadn't even been spent by the
> time that you idiots started claiming that it was
> working. lol The vast majority of the recovery
> has been in spite of Obama's economic policy (or
> lack there of). Even that butt licker Chris
> Matthews called Obama out for playing political
> games by continually dragging out teachers and
> firemen all the time and not having any real
> economic growth strategy.

You can suggest that the stimulus didn't help stop the economic recession but we have examples of your policies around the world to reference because it was a global downturn.

Great Britain enacted Republican type austerity measures and has just entered a triple dip recession.

Greece and Spain are other examples. The fact is if Republicans had stayed in power. There would be no medicare, no social security, and no economy right now. Instead we'd have a few rich people, continued job losses and poverty stricken elderly without medical coverage.

Not only that, John Mccain would of appointed Joseph Lieberman as the Secretary of Defense and we may have engaged in a hot war with Iran during an economic downturn which may have increased the price of a barrel of oil at above $200 dollars a barrel. This would have exacerbated negative economic conditions and the country you see today may have looked like the Soviet Union after it's collapse by now.

Instead we have removed Iran's oil production completely from the global market minimizes market forces and placed extensive sanctions weakening the state. We have put in conditions that will allow for an allied military option with minimal economic consequences.

Minimizing economic consequences from potential war. A concept that also seems to allude you trigger happy Republicans.

Gerrymanderer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You lose Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Gerrymanderer Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Oh, you mean the same stimulus that caused us
> > to
> > > stop losing 700,000 jobs a month and
> > reestablished
> > > revenue?
> >
> >
> > Which, as typical for dumbfucks like you who
> > attempt to go off on some other tangent after
> > getting called on their bullshit, has little to
> > nothing to do with the subject at hand.
> >
> > The stimulus did essentially squat beyond a
> brief
> > blip. Most of it hadn't even been spent by the
> > time that you idiots started claiming that it
> was
> > working. lol The vast majority of the recovery
> > has been in spite of Obama's economic policy
> (or
> > lack there of). Even that butt licker Chris
> > Matthews called Obama out for playing political
> > games by continually dragging out teachers and
> > firemen all the time and not having any real
> > economic growth strategy.
>
> You can suggest that the stimulus didn't help stop
> the economic recession but we have examples of
> your policies around the world to reference
> because it was a global downturn.
>
> Great Britain enacted Republican type austerity
> measures and has just entered a triple dip
> recession.
>
> Greece and Spain are other examples. The fact is
> if Republicans had stayed in power. There would
> be no medicare, no social security, and no economy
> right now. Instead we'd have a few rich people,
> continued job losses and poverty stricken elderly
> without medical coverage.


Got to hand it to you, what you lack in common sense and honesty, you make up for in hyperbole and hate. LOL


.
Attachments:

Gerrymanderer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not only that, John Mccain would of appointed
> Joseph Lieberman as the Secretary of Defense and
> we may have engaged in a hot war with Iran during
> an economic downturn which may have increased the
> price of a barrel of oil at above $200 dollars a
> barrel. This would have exacerbated negative
> economic conditions and the country you see today
> may have looked like the Soviet Union after it's
> collapse by now.
>
> Instead we have removed Iran's oil production
> completely from the global market minimizes market
> forces and placed extensive sanctions weakening
> the state. We have put in conditions that will
> allow for an allied military option with minimal
> economic consequences.
>
> Minimizing economic consequences from potential
> war. A concept that also seems to allude you
> trigger happy Republicans.


"Maybe"? LOL, what a moron. Maybe McLoser would have supported the Green revolution and the current regime would have fallen to student led democracy - remember when hundreds of thousands of Iranians marched to demand free and fair elections before they were gunned down in the street. Instead, we got Obama ignoring them as they begged for our help. Instead, he brings down Mubarak, who was aligned with US interests in the region and keep Israel's southern border secure. Instead, we have Iran on the verge of nuclear weapons while purchasing short range delivery systems such as subs and launchers.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/obama-iran-a-year-away-from-nuclear-weapon/

I wonder what you use to predict the "maybe" future. I think I have an idea...


o_0
Attachments:

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Again, not worth getting into. Too many sides,
> mostly rhetoric, and not enough fact.

You can argue about what what created it or made the appearance of it, but the fact is it just simply wasnt there as it faded into the night as soon as he left office.

> The Taliban were protecting Bin Laden; they had
> nothing to do with 9/11. Therefore, you could make
> a case (albeit a poor one) that both wars had
> nothing to do with 9/11. However, I agree that we
> had to invade Afghanistan, despite the knowledge
> that no army has ever done so successfully.

If they knew his location but didnt want to reveal it you could make that case. The fact that he was physically there running operations out of there really shreds that to pieces. I agree that it takes a special kind of nut job to try and argue that, really the type of person that would refer to the hijackers as freedom fighters.

The real mistake was trying to westernize them overnight. 2000+ years of war wont be undone overnight, 90 percent of them cant even read and just thought we were invading not knowing about 9-11. We should have let them live their culture, eradicated the terrorists and kept a security presence. Also announcing a pull out just enables the enemy and the media seemed to be their cheerleaders as well. Our losses really have not been substantial considering its a war, they are tragic but compared to other wars are minimal and I come from a military family. If WWII happened today Europe would be speaking German.

> Medicare part D did not have good intentions. In
> many ways, it's just a shill for pharmaceutical
> companies. It bans the importation of drugs made
> in Canada BY US COMPANIES UNDER THE SAME
> STANDARDS. Not yelling, just pissed off. Iraq can
> go to hell. As soon as we leave, things are going
> to devolve into Malaki becoming Saddam II. We
> overthrew a dictator, but we put an Iran-friendly
> one in his place. Saddam may have been the lesser
> of the evils.

Im a big believer that insurance should stop paying for drugs all together. If no company paid for them and they had to be paid out of pocket you would see prices plummet. Theyre basically insanely expensive without insurance because they can be. They can just charge whatever knowing that insurance companies pick up the bill which Im sure they get some kick backs from.

I get they were trying to help American companies banning Canadian drugs but it makes no sense cus you can still get Indian drugs. You either have to say no to all of them not US or allow them all. Id much rather have Canadian drugs than Indian personally.


> I disagree with the idea that Keynesian economics
> do not work. The Great Depression was greatly
> ameliorated by the basic principles. Getting
> people back to work was a huge reason the
> Depression ended. There are other factors, but I
> firmly believe that Keynesian economics did more
> to end the Depression than most people would give
> credit for. People are going to point at World War
> II and say that World War II ended it. Keynesian
> economics allowed for the kind of economic growth
> we saw during World War II and the 1950s. If the
> infrastructure had not been in place, nothing
> would've happened.

Its arguable what impact they really had. They helped out some people giving them work, but it was a decade of them were it really took WWII to completely turn everything around. The War effort would have provided the growth regardless as the building had to be done. Countless plants ect were converted for the war effort, the dams from the Depression built may have provided some power but they werent building things that directly correlated to the war effort.

Its also unclear whether or not the recovery we saw was just a natural bounce back considering it was in place for a decade or if it did help how much it did. If that theory was as good as touted the depression would have been much shorter. Not to mention that it started setting the stage of big government that can solve everyones problem which is the worse thing that has ever happened to the country.

> The stimulus was spent improperly. I'm not sure
> how much of it has been spent, to be honest. I'd
> imagine that most of it went to things like
> Solyndra, green energy, and the like. We need to
> repair our infrastructure. It's incontestable. We
> cannot continue to neglect it the way we are. If
> we invest 2 trillion over 10 years in it, we'll
> fix it. This is what the stimulus should've dealt
> with. Not some dumb pet projects.

I can agree with that. If were going to spend that kind of money we should spend it on meaningful things. The problem is that its just another example that shows how improperly money is being handled by the government right now and that does start at the top with leadership. At least on the left no one is advocating tightening up how money is spent, its all just we need to take more from people. People who believe that cant be trusted with extra money or well get more of the same.


> That's the way it is in most countries with
> universal healthcare; it never was mentioned
> during the passage of the bill.

Which is why universal healthcare is something that may sound good in theory but is terrible in practice. The idea should be to get people into the current system, not lower the system down so theyll take anyone. At some point personal responsibility should come into it as well.



> I disagree. Most polls show the opposite. Nobody
> wants to pay taxes, but everyone wants services.
> The main issue with the federal government is that
> it's so worried about re-election that it doesn't
> deal with the issues. Waste is an issue, but there
> are other things we need to cut or eliminate.

Nobody wants to do it, but people would do it IF they felt it actually would be used properly. Almost no one right now believes the government uses the money it has properly so why give them more. The money is there is we start trimming the fat and get back to the idea that the government is supposed to provide essential services and not run everyones life. But yes it is a big issue that people have figured out they can just vote themselves free stuff.


> There's waste in every part of the government. If
> we crack down on Medicare fraud, allow Medicare to
> bargain, stop the "green energy" subsidies,
> eliminate these conferences, and prevent Marie
> Antoinette (aka Michelle Obama) from taking $40
> million vacations, then we'll fix a lot of the
> issues. Romney made a very good point during the
> election. Liberals love to scream about corporate
> welfare. Obama gave more welfare to Solyndra than
> Exxon-Mobil has received since 1960.

I couldnt agree more. Its the double standard where if a liberal does it its okay but if a GOP member does the same thing theyre a reincarnation of Hitler. The current liberal leadership is willing to waste billions and billions just to advance their agenda. If green energy was so great or viable it would have been done already.

We physically cannot provide enough energy from green sources for the country to run. Those donations have been more kickbacks to supporters than anything.


> There are good elements in the bill. Eliminating
> preexisting conditions and lifetime spending caps
> is tremendous. Forcing insurance companies to pay
> 80% of all revenue as benefits is even better.

Preexisting conditions was a myth. If you didnt have insurance they were excluded for a period of 10 months to prevent people from just getting healthcare when they need it. If you already had insurance you were free to upgrade your plan at anytime without having anything excluded, I just went through that a year ago and it was a very painless easy process. The lifetime caps depended on the plan. If you had a yearly plan your lifetime max reset every year and was set at millions of dollars, if you reached it you probably arent going to be around much longer anyway.

Forcing them to pay 80% just insures that the small companies will go out of business and create less competition. It also sets them up to collapse like the banks did if a mass health crisis happens because they arent allowed to sit on cash as a rainy day fund. Its basically insures they wont be fiscally responsible.

There were some things in the bill that werent bad, but there is WAY to much garbage in there. It was doing something for the sake of doing something and got rammed through with pork and barrel spending to buy votes even though he had a super majority at the time. Nothing should ever be passed that hasnt been read through

Liberal Logic 102 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Again, not worth getting into. Too many sides,
> > mostly rhetoric, and not enough fact.
>
> You can argue about what what created it or made
> the appearance of it, but the fact is it just
> simply wasnt there as it faded into the night as
> soon as he left office.
>
> > The Taliban were protecting Bin Laden; they had
> > nothing to do with 9/11. Therefore, you could
> make
> > a case (albeit a poor one) that both wars had
> > nothing to do with 9/11. However, I agree that
> we
> > had to invade Afghanistan, despite the
> knowledge
> > that no army has ever done so successfully.
>
> If they knew his location but didnt want to reveal
> it you could make that case. The fact that he was
> physically there running operations out of there
> really shreds that to pieces. I agree that it
> takes a special kind of nut job to try and argue
> that, really the type of person that would refer
> to the hijackers as freedom fighters.
>
> The real mistake was trying to westernize them
> overnight. 2000+ years of war wont be undone
> overnight, 90 percent of them cant even read and
> just thought we were invading not knowing about
> 9-11. We should have let them live their culture,
> eradicated the terrorists and kept a security
> presence. Also announcing a pull out just enables
> the enemy and the media seemed to be their
> cheerleaders as well. Our losses really have not
> been substantial considering its a war, they are
> tragic but compared to other wars are minimal and
> I come from a military family. If WWII happened
> today Europe would be speaking German.
>
> > Medicare part D did not have good intentions.
> In
> > many ways, it's just a shill for pharmaceutical
> > companies. It bans the importation of drugs
> made
> > in Canada BY US COMPANIES UNDER THE SAME
> > STANDARDS. Not yelling, just pissed off. Iraq
> can
> > go to hell. As soon as we leave, things are
> going
> > to devolve into Malaki becoming Saddam II. We
> > overthrew a dictator, but we put an
> Iran-friendly
> > one in his place. Saddam may have been the
> lesser
> > of the evils.
>
> Im a big believer that insurance should stop
> paying for drugs all together. If no company paid
> for them and they had to be paid out of pocket you
> would see prices plummet. Theyre basically
> insanely expensive without insurance because they
> can be. They can just charge whatever knowing
> that insurance companies pick up the bill which Im
> sure they get some kick backs from.
>
> I get they were trying to help American companies
> banning Canadian drugs but it makes no sense cus
> you can still get Indian drugs. You either have
> to say no to all of them not US or allow them all.
> Id much rather have Canadian drugs than Indian
> personally.
>
>
> > I disagree with the idea that Keynesian
> economics
> > do not work. The Great Depression was greatly
> > ameliorated by the basic principles. Getting
> > people back to work was a huge reason the
> > Depression ended. There are other factors, but
> I
> > firmly believe that Keynesian economics did
> more
> > to end the Depression than most people would
> give
> > credit for. People are going to point at World
> War
> > II and say that World War II ended it.
> Keynesian
> > economics allowed for the kind of economic
> growth
> > we saw during World War II and the 1950s. If
> the
> > infrastructure had not been in place, nothing
> > would've happened.
>
> Its arguable what impact they really had. They
> helped out some people giving them work, but it
> was a decade of them were it really took WWII to
> completely turn everything around. The War effort
> would have provided the growth regardless as the
> building had to be done. Countless plants ect
> were converted for the war effort, the dams from
> the Depression built may have provided some power
> but they werent building things that directly
> correlated to the war effort.
>
> Its also unclear whether or not the recovery we
> saw was just a natural bounce back considering it
> was in place for a decade or if it did help how
> much it did. If that theory was as good as touted
> the depression would have been much shorter. Not
> to mention that it started setting the stage of
> big government that can solve everyones problem
> which is the worse thing that has ever happened to
> the country.
>
> > The stimulus was spent improperly. I'm not sure
> > how much of it has been spent, to be honest.
> I'd
> > imagine that most of it went to things like
> > Solyndra, green energy, and the like. We need
> to
> > repair our infrastructure. It's incontestable.
> We
> > cannot continue to neglect it the way we are.
> If
> > we invest 2 trillion over 10 years in it, we'll
> > fix it. This is what the stimulus should've
> dealt
> > with. Not some dumb pet projects.
>
> I can agree with that. If were going to spend
> that kind of money we should spend it on
> meaningful things. The problem is that its just
> another example that shows how improperly money is
> being handled by the government right now and that
> does start at the top with leadership. At least
> on the left no one is advocating tightening up how
> money is spent, its all just we need to take more
> from people. People who believe that cant be
> trusted with extra money or well get more of the
> same.
>
>
> > That's the way it is in most countries with
> > universal healthcare; it never was mentioned
> > during the passage of the bill.
>
> Which is why universal healthcare is something
> that may sound good in theory but is terrible in
> practice. The idea should be to get people into
> the current system, not lower the system down so
> theyll take anyone. At some point personal
> responsibility should come into it as well.
>
>
>
> > I disagree. Most polls show the opposite.
> Nobody
> > wants to pay taxes, but everyone wants
> services.
> > The main issue with the federal government is
> that
> > it's so worried about re-election that it
> doesn't
> > deal with the issues. Waste is an issue, but
> there
> > are other things we need to cut or eliminate.
>
> Nobody wants to do it, but people would do it IF
> they felt it actually would be used properly.
> Almost no one right now believes the government
> uses the money it has properly so why give them
> more. The money is there is we start trimming the
> fat and get back to the idea that the government
> is supposed to provide essential services and not
> run everyones life. But yes it is a big issue
> that people have figured out they can just vote
> themselves free stuff.
>
>
> > There's waste in every part of the government.
> If
> > we crack down on Medicare fraud, allow Medicare
> to
> > bargain, stop the "green energy" subsidies,
> > eliminate these conferences, and prevent Marie
> > Antoinette (aka Michelle Obama) from taking $40
> > million vacations, then we'll fix a lot of the
> > issues. Romney made a very good point during
> the
> > election. Liberals love to scream about
> corporate
> > welfare. Obama gave more welfare to Solyndra
> than
> > Exxon-Mobil has received since 1960.
>
> I couldnt agree more. Its the double standard
> where if a liberal does it its okay but if a GOP
> member does the same thing theyre a reincarnation
> of Hitler. The current liberal leadership is
> willing to waste billions and billions just to
> advance their agenda. If green energy was so
> great or viable it would have been done already.
>
>
> We physically cannot provide enough energy from
> green sources for the country to run. Those
> donations have been more kickbacks to supporters
> than anything.
>
>
> > There are good elements in the bill.
> Eliminating
> > preexisting conditions and lifetime spending
> caps
> > is tremendous. Forcing insurance companies to
> pay
> > 80% of all revenue as benefits is even better.
>
> Preexisting conditions was a myth. If you didnt
> have insurance they were excluded for a period of
> 10 months to prevent people from just getting
> healthcare when they need it. If you already had
> insurance you were free to upgrade your plan at
> anytime without having anything excluded, I just
> went through that a year ago and it was a very
> painless easy process. The lifetime caps depended
> on the plan. If you had a yearly plan your
> lifetime max reset every year and was set at
> millions of dollars, if you reached it you
> probably arent going to be around much longer
> anyway.
>
> Forcing them to pay 80% just insures that the
> small companies will go out of business and create
> less competition. It also sets them up to
> collapse like the banks did if a mass health
> crisis happens because they arent allowed to sit
> on cash as a rainy day fund. Its basically
> insures they wont be fiscally responsible.
>
> There were some things in the bill that werent
> bad, but there is WAY to much garbage in there.
> It was doing something for the sake of doing
> something and got rammed through with pork and
> barrel spending to buy votes even though he had a
> super majority at the time. Nothing should ever
> be passed that hasnt been read through


Most people have lives, LL102. Try it sometime.

Basements are moldy. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Most people have lives, LL102. Try it sometime.

He's willing to provide thoughtful responses to my statements. You're not, so move on.

Gerrymanderer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You can suggest that the stimulus didn't help stop
> the economic recession but we have examples of
> your policies around the world to reference
> because it was a global downturn.

See, the issue with the stimulus is that most of the money was either spent very poorly or not spent at all. I remember reading something along the lines of over 80% of stimulus money had not been spent almost a year after its passage.

> Great Britain enacted Republican type austerity
> measures and has just entered a triple dip
> recession.

Great Britain has a lot of other issues as well. However, yes, the British have seen all economic growth effectively stop.

> Greece and Spain are other examples. The fact is
> if Republicans had stayed in power. There would
> be no medicare, no social security, and no economy
> right now. Instead we'd have a few rich people,
> continued job losses and poverty stricken elderly
> without medical coverage.

Romney constantly said "We're on the road to Greece." He was very wrong. As a percentage of our GDP, the debt is actually not that large, relative to other countries. Japan's debt is 200% of its GDP. I think that Medicare would've been fundamentally altered had McCain won, and that the economy would've been in worse shape than it is. I don't see any regulation like Dodd-Frank coming along to protect consumer interests.

Seems to me people worship God or government. Worst possible case for someone who values liberty and private property is a church full of god-squad bureaucrats who worship both.

Rev. Doe might be a blowhard or a Tuesday afternoon womanizer (behind the little woman's back). But he doesn't have the power to loot half of what I've earned. Or break my door down at 3 a.m. and murder my dogs. Then the courthouse types brush it off with, "they followed procedure. Sucks to be you."

Where can someone go to find folk who think for themselves?

The problem is theists who think they have the right to run our lives. If you believe X, live by it. Fine. Just don't try to ram it down our throats. For example, when the pope walks on water Ill think he is any holier than you are.

On the public front, the problem is statists. aka collectivists. Same thing. Those who worship government authority and think we are here to serve it. There is no political party that isn't statist first. Social welfare or warfare welfare both amount to big government.

Almost everyone I"ve met in the last several years is on the public payroll one way or another. Including govt contractors, journalists, trainers and lobbyists.
Is there no private sector in northern virginia?

So where can one go to find people who think for themselves?

stale tactic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gordon Blvd Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > yep, that's the WINNING attitude to have there,
> > son. "He disagrees with me currently - so I
> > should not even bother to create dialogue as he
> > might make fun of me" - yeah, you guise are
> > GREAT LoLz
>
> It isn't winning or losing. It is the fact. An
> attempt to create dialogue has clearly been made.
> You have deflected and resorted to personal
> insults. I ask you simple questions and refuse to
> answer.
>

protip: instead of wasting time complaining about your perception of the past, try to focus on the present task at hand. ;)




> > funny you should mention this LoLz
> >
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/01/fiscal-cl
>
> > iff-deal-passed-_n_2394022.html
>
> Is this your attempt at a response? Is this what
> qualifies as dialogue with you? How does this link
> answer the question I posed to you? It doesn't.
>


sayz it was yr boys holding up the deal

>
> > Why has the White House failed to
> > > produce its FY 14 budget this year? It was
> due
> > > over a month ago?
> >
> > funny you should mention this LoLz
> >
> http://thehill.com/homenews/house/287919-hoyer-hav
>
> >
> ing-obama-budget-would-be-helpful-but-not-possible
>
>
> So, a Democrat made a lame excuse for the White
> House's inability to do its job? Refresh my
> memory, when did the sequester become law?
>

here's a general timeline for ya - http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/02/sequester-timeline-when-will-the-cuts-be-felt/ - hope that helps ;)


> Here is an easy one for you to answer. When was
> the last time the Obama Administration submitted a
> Budget on time? If they were ever late what was
> their excuse then? The sequester lolz, indeed.
>
>
> > and gee............I wonder who will win in
> 2016
> > since they are actually CAPABLE OF DOING TWO
> > THINGS AT ONCE unlike apparently, GOP? (i.e.
> > why's it always gotta be either/or with
> > y'all-dontcha know how to multi-task already?)
>
> You have yet to Demonstrate the Democrats have
> actually taken their job ov governing seriously.
> The Senate is required by law to pass a budget
> every year. When was the last time they did that?
> Answer the question or take your trollin'
> somewhere else.

LoLz I dont really have to demonstrate a damn thing, son. I'm not a democrat and I'm not trying to earn anybody's vote!! ROFLMAO@U thinking you know who I am ha ha ah ah ha aha!

pic unrelated



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/18/2013 08:46AM by Gordon Blvd.
Attachments:

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> protip: instead of wasting time complaining about
> your perception of the past, try to focus on the
> present task at hand. ;)

Says the whiner who cried about conservatives calling him names during the election season. Get over it, son. It was over four months ago. You still seem butthurt about it.

> > > funny you should mention this LoLz
> > >
> >
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/01/fiscal-cl
>
> >
> > > iff-deal-passed-_n_2394022.html
> >
> > Is this your attempt at a response? Is this
> what
> > qualifies as dialogue with you? How does this
> link
> > answer the question I posed to you? It doesn't.
>
> >
>
>
> sayz it was yr boys holding up the deal

But it has nothing to do with passing a budget. This is like if I asked you what day of the week it is and you responded with the fact that grass is green. You aren't wrong, but you're still stupid.

Again, go figure out what budget resolution is.

> > > Why has the White House failed to
> > > > produce its FY 14 budget this year? It was
> > due
> > > > over a month ago?
> > >
> > > funny you should mention this LoLz
> > >
> >
> http://thehill.com/homenews/house/287919-hoyer-hav
>
> >
> > >
> >
> ing-obama-budget-would-be-helpful-but-not-possible
>
> >
> >
> > So, a Democrat made a lame excuse for the White
> > House's inability to do its job? Refresh my
> > memory, when did the sequester become law?
> >
>
> here's a general timeline for ya -
> http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/02/seque
> ster-timeline-when-will-the-cuts-be-felt/ - hope
> that helps ;)

Actually, it doesn't help at all. Show me in that article where it tells you which date the sequester became law. It doesn't. Again, you think you are being smart and it ends up exposing your stupidity. I asked a pretty simple question and you completely whiffed.

Here is the answer: August 2, 2011: The President signed the Budget Control Act of 2011. This act provided that, if the Joint Select Committee did not produce bipartisan legislation, across-the-board spending cuts would take effect on January 2, 2013

So, the White House knew the sequester existed for 18 months before the FY 2014 Budget was due to Congress yet couldn't get a budget submitted on time?

> > Here is an easy one for you to answer. When
> was
> > the last time the Obama Administration submitted
> a
> > Budget on time? If they were ever late what
> was
> > their excuse then? The sequester lolz, indeed.
> >
> >
> > > and gee............I wonder who will win in
> > 2016
> > > since they are actually CAPABLE OF DOING TWO
> > > THINGS AT ONCE unlike apparently, GOP? (i.e.
> > > why's it always gotta be either/or with
> > > y'all-dontcha know how to multi-task
> already?)
> >
> > You have yet to Demonstrate the Democrats have
> > actually taken their job ov governing seriously.
>
> > The Senate is required by law to pass a budget
> > every year. When was the last time they did
> that?
> > Answer the question or take your trollin'
> > somewhere else.
>
> LoLz I dont really have to demonstrate a damn
> thing, son.

Oh, but you have clearly demonstrated plenty here. There is enough evidence to see how moronic you are.

> I'm not a democrat and I'm not trying
> to earn anybody's vote!!

What is your point?

> ROFLMAO@U thinking you
> know who I am ha ha ah ah ha aha!

Oh, I know who you are. I accurately pegged you as a troll

> pic unrelated

ROFLMAO@anyone who doesnt know I'm stupid by now

you can call me troll all you want but I still remember two summers ago no matter how you wanna whitewash the reality of the 174 Republican Congresspeople who also signed off on that dealie.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/renee-parsons/budget-sequestration_b_2806906.html

y'all remember summer 2011? Everyone was afraid of the EXACT SAME THING was gonna happen back then and they pulled that thing out their ass at the last minute?

But whateves, it's only one person's fault, not ALL of them. I gotcha, stale. GOP is angels and sweet roses, innocent of ANY wrongdoing. No prob.

All I know is that yr more into attacking me personally than showing me GOP is worthy of my vote which is what I asked originally. Which is kinda a funny thing to me since theres NOT A SOUL ON THIS SITE who doesnt know I'm also ugly and my mommy dresses me funny LoLz

pic unrelated
Attachments:

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ROFLMAO@anyone who doesnt know I'm stupid by now
>
> you can call me troll all you want

If the shoe fits.

> but I still
> remember two summers ago no matter how you wanna
> whitewash the reality of the 174 Republican
> Congresspeople who also signed off on that
> dealie.


protip: instead of wasting time complaining about your perception of the past, try to focus on the present task at hand. ;)

> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/renee-parsons/budget
> -sequestration_b_2806906.html
>
> y'all remember summer 2011? Everyone was afraid
> of the EXACT SAME THING was gonna happen back then
> and they pulled that thing out their ass at the
> last minute?
>
> But whateves, it's only one person's fault, not
> ALL of them. I gotcha, stale. GOP is angels and
> sweet roses, innocent of ANY wrongdoing. No
> prob.

I said this where? You are straying on a tangent here. I asked who is the only body to put their budget forward on time as required by the law. You started making up some sequester excuses. I simply pointed out that the sequester had been law since 2011 and that it was a shitty excuse to not have a budget.

This lead to your current irrelevant and illogical rant. You are welcome for the recap.

> All I know is that yr more into attacking me
> personally than showing me GOP is worthy of my
> vote which is what I asked originally.

I am attacking you now? LoLz.

Again, facts have been presented to you. Again, you ignore them or don't understand them. Again, you really aren't interested in being convinced to vote for the GOP.

You are just a troll.

@state

1) was responding to yr point about the Budget Control Act of 201. I'm sorry I confunsed you by making you think I was bringing up a past event. You had just mentioned in yr earlier post that "The President signed the Budget Control Act of 2011. This act provided that, if the Joint Select Committee did not produce bipartisan legislation, across-the-board spending cuts would take effect on January 2, 2013" - something you had posted in present time, about 10-20 minutes before I responded. Sorry you misunderstood that ;)

2) no, if I misunderstood you, my bad :)

3)dunno if yr attacking or not. If so, that's cool. If not, I apologize for thinking you are.

still intersted in what you have to say if yr serious. You can call me a troll all you want if it'll make ya feel better though..........eitherway LoLz

Troll.

We gotta vote these fuckers out of the house and state government and the damn Governorship this election. I really don't believe this state can swoop as low as other states have and elect someone like Cuccinelli. Boy is it gonna get ugly after that.

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @state
>
> 1) was responding to yr point about the Budget
> Control Act of 201. I'm sorry I confunsed you by
> making you think I was bringing up a past event.
> You had just mentioned in yr earlier post that
> "The President signed the Budget Control Act of
> 2011. This act provided that, if the Joint Select
> Committee did not produce bipartisan legislation,
> across-the-board spending cuts would take effect
> on January 2, 2013" - something you had posted in
> present time, about 10-20 minutes before I
> responded. Sorry you misunderstood that ;)

It was pointed out to show that Hoyers nonsensical defense is horse crap. If the Administration knew for 18 months, that sequestration was the law, why can't they submit a budget on time? Why hasn't the Senate passed a budget in years? You have yet to explain those.


> still intersted in what you have to say if yr
> serious.

No your not and you never have been. You haven't answered a single question and you have ignored what has been presented to you. You respond with irrelevant links.

> You can call me a troll all you want

I call it like I see it.

> ifit'll make ya feel better
> though..........eitherway LoLz

It doesn't make me feel anything. A fact is a fact and I just state them.

@stale

1) I understand why you point out the Budget Control Act of 2011. But then when I engaged you on that with the fact that BOTH White House and GOP Congress made that deal, you stated that instead of wasting time complaining about my perception of the past, that I should try and to focus on the present task at hand. That is why I stated that I'm sorry I confunsed you by making you think I was bringing up a past event, as I was only referencing back to you mentioning in yr earlier post that "The President signed the Budget Control Act of 2011. This act provided that, if the Joint Select Committee did not produce bipartisan legislation, across-the-board spending cuts would take effect on January 2, 2013" - something you had posted in present time. Again, sorry you misunderstood that.

2)Um, I'm not having to answer anything cause I'm not trying to sway anyone's opinion - you dont seem to understand how elections work, my friend. Aint gonna earn any new votes by yelling "TROLL" and getting butthurt by ppl who dont always agree with ya 100% ;)

3) Fact is, if you aint capable of even convincing and OBVIOUS idiot like me to vote GOP when they're going "hey, I'm willing to vote for you - tell me why" then I'm not too sure how yr gonna be able to get other ppl smarter than me to vote for ya LoLz

pic unrelated
Attachments:

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> 3) Fact is, if you aint capable of even
> convincing and OBVIOUS idiot like me to vote GOP
> when they're going "hey, I'm willing to vote for
> you - tell me why" then I'm not too sure how yr
> gonna be able to get other ppl smarter than me to
> vote for ya LoLz


You can lead an idiot to water but you cant make it drink. For your sake I honestly hope you are trolling at this point, otherwise you are too stupid for your own good aka the perfect liberal

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @stale
>
> 1) I understand why you point out the Budget
> Control Act of 2011.

Saying you understand it doesn't mean you actually understand it.

> But then when I engaged you
> on that with the fact that BOTH White House and
> GOP Congress made that deal,

Which is irrelevant. The point is that the law was on the books for 18 months. You can't use it as an excuse not to have a budget ready, which is what the Democrats are attempting to do. You fell for it.


> 2)Um, I'm not having to answer anything cause I'm
> not trying to sway anyone's opinion -

And whose opinion am I trying to sway. You seem to think I am interested in swaying your opinion.

> you dont
> seem to understand how elections work, my friend.

Understand them perfectly.

> Aint gonna earn any new votes by yelling "TROLL"
> and getting butthurt by ppl who dont always agree
> with ya 100% ;)

1. You ARE a troll.
2. Defintely not butthurt.
3. I am not really interested in your vote as it isn't up for grabs no matter how much you claim that it is.

> 3) Fact is, if you aint capable of even
> convincing and OBVIOUS idiot like me to vote GOP
> when they're going "hey, I'm willing to vote for
> you - tell me why" then I'm not too sure how yr
> gonna be able to get other ppl smarter than me to
> vote for ya LoLz

You aren't capable or willing of holding an intelligent conversation about it. You respond with links that are not relevant. You don't bother to educate yourself about the issues.

stale tactic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > 2)Um, I'm not having to answer anything cause
> I'm
> > not trying to sway anyone's opinion -

Look up the Socratic method. I am asking you questions in order to get you to think for yourself and arrive at the factual conclusion.

what;s really funny is that someone else had to point out to me what's happening on this thread - good job, stale - you got me LoLz
Attachments:

stale tactic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> stale tactic Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > > 2)Um, I'm not having to answer anything cause
> > I'm
> > > not trying to sway anyone's opinion -
>
> Look up the Socratic method. I am asking you
> questions in order to get you to think for
> yourself and arrive at the factual conclusion.


in other words, you got nothin... ......................

MLK republican Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've read liberal's posts on this forum refer to
> tea party people as teabaggers..whatever that
> means. From the context of everything those libs
> wrote I acertained that the term was used in a
> very derogatory sense.
>
> The fact is, the tea party consists of people with
> actual common sense. They are people with courage
> and great love for their country. They face the
> truth and want our children and grandchildren to
> have a good life.

Gerrymanderer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Once he launched the wars in an economic downturn
> and also decreased taxes and increased deficits.
> Much of this was paid for by increased money
> supply. Artificially low rates were set to
> solidify the economy. The interests rates along
> with the increased money supply caused the housing
> market to absorb the inflation that was occurring.
> This created a housing bubble that when burst
> caused an economic calamity.
>
> There's also the issue of the repealing of the
> Glass–Steagall Act which divided local from Wall
> Street banks and home mortgage loans. This was
> also another corrupt Republican banker buddy
> initiative that many say assisted in the eventual
> crisis.