.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/2012 12:54AM by Alias.

Funny. Seems to me the GOP has controlled the Congress and/or Presidency for most of the past 20 years. The downgrading is the result of the Tea Party's brinksmanship. If you don't believe me, look at the fact S&P didn't do this every other time the debt ceiling was raised.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/2012 12:49AM by Alias.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bull shit


You can yell bull shit all you want. It's the truth.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

According to S&P the reason for the downgrade was the cuts didnt go deep enough. You remember like the Republicans were asking for? As S&P put it the U S has failed to recognize their debt problems.

Obama thought once the ceiling was raised everything would be fine and he of course would take full credit. Instead the market tanked and the credit rating was lowered.
Obama of course today blamed congress for what happened.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Funny. Seems to me the GOP has controlled the
> Congress and/or Presidency for most of the past 20
> years. The downgrading is the result of the Tea
> Party's brinksmanship. If you don't believe me,
> look at the fact S&P didn't do this every other
> time the debt ceiling was raised.

Really, dude? You're really going to make a case that the Republicans have been in charge of the presidency for most of the last 20 years? Don't give me that and/or shit.

Funny but still sad, if you google "Obama blames" you get 6.950 million hits
Attachments:

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Funny. Seems to me the GOP has controlled the
> Congress and/or Presidency for most of the past 20
> years. The downgrading is the result of the Tea
> Party's brinksmanship. If you don't believe me,
> look at the fact S&P didn't do this every other
> time the debt ceiling was raised.

Amen! Facts - Every time the Republicans get involved with the US economy or have control the economy tanks!

you mean great financial minds like Jimmy Carter. You are probably too young to know about 17% home interest rates and gas lines. Read about it then get back to us

Repuke-icans Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Funny. Seems to me the GOP has controlled the
> > Congress and/or Presidency for most of the past
> 20
> > years. The downgrading is the result of the Tea
> > Party's brinksmanship. If you don't believe me,
> > look at the fact S&P didn't do this every other
> > time the debt ceiling was raised.
>
> Amen! Facts - Every time the Republicans get
> involved with the US economy or have control the
> economy tanks!

How do you figure? Give me some facts. You fuckers can't even count right. The last 20 years has been split 50/50 between Republicans and Democrats in the WH.

By the numbers.
Attachments:

really, dude? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Funny. Seems to me the GOP has controlled the
> > Congress and/or Presidency for most of the past
> 20
> > years. The downgrading is the result of the Tea
> > Party's brinksmanship. If you don't believe me,
> > look at the fact S&P didn't do this every other
> > time the debt ceiling was raised.
>
> Really, dude? You're really going to make a case
> that the Republicans have been in charge of the
> presidency for most of the last 20 years? Don't
> give me that and/or shit.


Read what I wrote, dipshit. I said "in control of the Presidency and/or Congress for most of the past 20 years.

20 years = 1991 to 2011.

From 1991 to 93, GOP controlled Presidency. From 1995 to 2007, GOP controlled Congress (with the Dems having a brief stint of a slight and ineffective majority in the Senate in the early 2000s). From 2001 to 2009, GOP controlled Presidency. Since the start of this year, the GOP has controlled the House.


That mean Dems have been "in control" a total of 4 years out of the past 20; 1993 to 1995 and 2009 to 2011. I don't consider the current majority in the Senate to be "control" because the Dems can't do shit without 60 votes and really control nothing there.

The truth is most of today's debt is due to Republican policies. The debt was mostly accumulated under Reagan, Bush I and Bush II.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

It took Pelosi, Reid, and this fucktard from 2006 to now to totally fuck this country up. Fuck all democrats, liberals, and progressives.

Obama...taking finger pointing and blame laying to a whole new level

Piggy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It took Pelosi, Reid, and this fucktard from 2006
> to now to totally fuck this country up. Fuck all
> democrats, liberals, and progressives.

Dems didn't have control of Congress until 2007. This chart shows what the National Debt was like in 2006 after years of Republican policies.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> really, dude? Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Funny. Seems to me the GOP has controlled the
> > > Congress and/or Presidency for most of the
> past
> > 20
> > > years. The downgrading is the result of the
> Tea
> > > Party's brinksmanship. If you don't believe
> me,
> > > look at the fact S&P didn't do this every
> other
> > > time the debt ceiling was raised.
> >
> > Really, dude? You're really going to make a
> case
> > that the Republicans have been in charge of the
> > presidency for most of the last 20 years? Don't
> > give me that and/or shit.
>
>
> Read what I wrote, dipshit. I said "in control of
> the Presidency and/or Congress for most of the
> past 20 years.
>
> 20 years = 1991 to 2011.
>
> From 1991 to 93, GOP controlled Presidency. From
> 1995 to 2007, GOP controlled Congress (with the
> Dems having a brief stint of a slight and
> ineffective majority in the Senate in the early
> 2000s). From 2001 to 2009, GOP controlled
> Presidency. Since the start of this year, the GOP
> has controlled the House.
>
>
> That mean Dems have been "in control" a total of 4
> years out of the past 20; 1993 to 1995 and 2009 to
> 2011. I don't consider the current majority in the
> Senate to be "control" because the Dems can't do
> shit without 60 votes and really control nothing
> there.
>
> The truth is most of today's debt is due to
> Republican policies. The debt was mostly
> accumulated under Reagan, Bush I and Bush II.

Do you know what my English professor used to call the fake conjunction "and/or"? Weasel words. Do you know why? Because you can't make the point you want to, you have to use the conjunctive and disjunctive. The facts don't back you up to the extent you'd like them to so you use both. Did you read what I wrote, retard? Don't give me that "and/or" shit. You can't make your fucking point so you puss out. Obama has doubled the debt. Look up you fact-challenged shit for brains.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Obama and Co. will go down as the worst
> administration this country has ever had.
>
> God damn you, Obama for your goddamn fucking
> change.
>
> God damn you, Obama and your anti-capitalist,
> pro-dictatorship cohorts.
>
> God damn you, Obama, for daring to tell me how
> much money I can make, you arrogant piece of
> shit.
>
> God damn you, Obama, for you are the enemy within!

Dillusional lies.

really, dude? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Do you know what my English professor used to call
> the fake conjunction "and/or"? Weasel words. Do
> you know why? Because you can't make the point you
> want to, you have to use the conjunctive and
> disjunctive. The facts don't back you up to the
> extent you'd like them to so you use both. Did you
> read what I wrote, retard? Don't give me that
> "and/or" shit. You can't make your fucking point
> so you puss out. Obama has doubled the debt. Look
> up you fact-challenged shit for brains.

Most of the debt accumulated under Obama is because of obligations from previous administrations, including two unfunded wars. YOU look it up.

As for and/or, there were years when the GOP controlled the Presidency AND Congress and years where the GOP controlled the Presidency OR Congress. Sorry you are too fucking stupid to understand that. You know how much your English professor probably made? $50K, with 7 or 8 years of education. Is that really the type of person you want to take advice from?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Maybe you folks heard of that little episode we had about 10 years ago? You know, the one where those silly airplanes took the wrong routes and flew into a couple of buildings and killed some people? Surely you remember that and also when we had to completely reorganize our security agencies and stand up Homeland Security and TSA. All those things probably cost the government a little money don't ya think...naaahhhh that just crazy talk. Oh yeah and that was on top of the dot com bubble burst and then came the housing bubble burst. I'm sure Obama would have just breezed through all that like tiptoeing through the tulips. Oh wait, instead of focusing on our econimic crisis, Obama and his henchmen just had to railroad obamacare down our nation's collective throat just to be sure we go bankrupt. Hey good call Bami.

tAKE NOTE OF THE LAST 2 SENTENCES


Reagan significantly increased public expenditure, primarily the Department of Defense, which rose (in constant 2000 dollars) from $267.1 billion in 1980 (4.9% of GDP and 22.7% of public expenditure) to $393.1 billion in 1988 (5.8% of GDP and 27.3% of public expenditure); most of those years military spending was about 6% of GDP, exceeding this number in 4 different years. All these numbers had not been seen since the end of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War in 1973.[19] In 1981, Reagan significantly reduced the maximum tax rate, which affected the highest income earners, and lowered the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 50%; in 1986 he further reduced the rate to 28%.[20] The federal deficit fell from 6% of GDP in 1983 to 3.2% of GDP in 1987. The Federal deficit in Reagan's final budget fell to 2.9% of GDP.[2] The rate of growth in Federal spending fell from 4% under Jimmy Carter to 2.5% under Ronald Reagan.[2] As a short-run strategy to reduce inflation and lower nominal interest rates, the U.S. borrowed both domestically and abroad to cover the Federal budget deficits, raising the national debt from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion.[22] This led to the U.S. moving from the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation.[23] Reagan described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency.[24]

The Democrats are not ruining America - they already have ruined America !!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> really, dude? Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > Do you know what my English professor used to
> call
> > the fake conjunction "and/or"? Weasel words. Do
> > you know why? Because you can't make the point
> you
> > want to, you have to use the conjunctive and
> > disjunctive. The facts don't back you up to the
> > extent you'd like them to so you use both. Did
> you
> > read what I wrote, retard? Don't give me that
> > "and/or" shit. You can't make your fucking
> point
> > so you puss out. Obama has doubled the debt.
> Look
> > up you fact-challenged shit for brains.
>
> Most of the debt accumulated under Obama is
> because of obligations from previous
> administrations, including two unfunded wars. YOU
> look it up.
>
> As for and/or, there were years when the GOP
> controlled the Presidency AND Congress and years
> where the GOP controlled the Presidency OR
> Congress. Sorry you are too fucking stupid to
> understand that. You know how much your English
> professor probably made? $50K, with 7 or 8 years
> of education. Is that really the type of person
> you want to take advice from?

Good to know that you're a snob as well as being not that smart. Fact - Obama doubled the national debt. Fact - he came into office with both houses of congress, so you can't pin the debt on the Republicans. Fact - you are retarded and/or a terrible writer for using and/or, re-fucking-tard. You don't make the statement that the Republicans have been in charge of Congress and/or the presidency for "most" of the last 20 years because it logically makes no sense. Most of the past 20 years we've had split government (know what that means?). If you use the weasel term "and/or," you could make the same statement about the Democrats. Don't believe me? Try this - the Democrats have been in charge of Congress and the Presidency, or Congress or the Presidency for most of the last 20 years. It's true because you're retarded logic and poor writing makes it true for both Dems and Republicans. "And/or" doesn't work, idiot!

Really, dude? Are you that bad at writing? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Good to know that you're a snob as well as being
> not that smart.

You are the one listening to the idiot professor making $50K a year.

> Fact - Obama doubled the national
> debt.

First, that hasn't happened (yet). Second, Bush DID double the national debt. Where was your outrage then?

> Fact - he came into office with both houses
> of congress, so you can't pin the debt on the
> Republicans.

Because Obama accumulated the entire national debt in two years? What's this about being a terrible writer and retarded logic?

> Fact - you are retarded and/or a
> terrible writer for using and/or, re-fucking-tard.
> You don't make the statement that the Republicans
> have been in charge of Congress and/or the
> presidency for "most" of the last 20 years because
> it logically makes no sense.

Not to a moron like yourself, no.

> Most of the past 20
> years we've had split government (know what that
> means?). If you use the weasel term "and/or," you
> could make the same statement about the Democrats.

No you can't.

> Don't believe me? Try this - the Democrats have
> been in charge of Congress and the Presidency, or
> Congress or the Presidency for most of the last 20
> years.

It's not true, but keep trying.

> It's true because you're retarded logic and
> poor writing makes it true for both Dems and
> Republicans. "And/or" doesn't work, idiot!

Your English professor probably doesn't work now, either. Did you go to a State college?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Really, dude? Are you that bad at writing? Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > Good to know that you're a snob as well as
> being
> > not that smart.
>
> You are the one listening to the idiot professor
> making $50K a year.
>
> > Fact - Obama doubled the national
> > debt.
>
> First, that hasn't happened (yet). Second, Bush
> DID double the national debt. Where was your
> outrage then?
>
> > Fact - he came into office with both houses
> > of congress, so you can't pin the debt on the
> > Republicans.
>
> Because Obama accumulated the entire national debt
> in two years? What's this about being a terrible
> writer and retarded logic?
>
> > Fact - you are retarded and/or a
> > terrible writer for using and/or,
> re-fucking-tard.
> > You don't make the statement that the
> Republicans
> > have been in charge of Congress and/or the
> > presidency for "most" of the last 20 years
> because
> > it logically makes no sense.
>
> Not to a moron like yourself, no.
>
> > Most of the past 20
> > years we've had split government (know what
> that
> > means?). If you use the weasel term "and/or,"
> you
> > could make the same statement about the
> Democrats.
>
> No you can't.
>
> > Don't believe me? Try this - the Democrats have
> > been in charge of Congress and the Presidency,
> or
> > Congress or the Presidency for most of the last
> 20
> > years.
>
> It's not true, but keep trying.
>
> > It's true because you're retarded logic and
> > poor writing makes it true for both Dems and
> > Republicans. "And/or" doesn't work, idiot!
>
> Your English professor probably doesn't work now,
> either. Did you go to a State college?


Seriously, I won't be a jerk right now. I want to ask you a question - do you not understand why your usage of "and/or" doesn't work right there for the point you're trying to make? By your own explanation of "and/or" you can't make the point you want to make using that idiotic term. I don't even care about your Obama trolling right now. I just want you to understand your logic failure.

Really, dude. Do you not see your logic fail? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Seriously, I won't be a jerk right now. I want to
> ask you a question - do you not understand why
> your usage of "and/or" doesn't work right there
> for the point you're trying to make? By your own
> explanation of "and/or" you can't make the point
> you want to make using that idiotic term. I don't
> even care about your Obama trolling right now. I
> just want you to understand your logic failure.


Did you go to a State school?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Really, dude. Do you not see your logic fail?
> Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > Seriously, I won't be a jerk right now. I want
> to
> > ask you a question - do you not understand why
> > your usage of "and/or" doesn't work right there
> > for the point you're trying to make? By your
> own
> > explanation of "and/or" you can't make the
> point
> > you want to make using that idiotic term. I
> don't
> > even care about your Obama trolling right now.
> I
> > just want you to understand your logic failure.
>
>
> Did you go to a State school?


Yes, but that's beside the point. You said that Republicans have been in charge of Congress and/or the presidency for "most" (i.e., more than 50%) of the last 20 years. By your own explanation, by "and/or" you mean that Republicans have been in charge of the presidency and Congress, or the presidency or congress for more than 10 of the last 20 years. Well, that also holds true for Democrats who have been in charge of both the presidency AND congress, or the Presidency or congress, for most of the last 10 years.

I can't help your private education didn't help your logic and writing.

Is that what liberals do when they can't make an argument? Retreat into snobbery?

Really, dude? You play the I'm wealthier card? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Yes, but that's beside the point.

No it's not. You got your education from one of those worthless public servants you folks like to bitch about. You are fucking hypocrites. All of you.


>
> I can't help your private education didn't help
> your logic and writing.
>

I didn't go to private school.

> Is that what liberals do when they can't make an
> argument? Retreat into snobbery?


No. It's pointing out your incredible hypocrisy. You got yours, now fuck everyone else, right?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Really, dude? You play the I'm wealthier card?
> Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > Yes, but that's beside the point.
>
> No it's not. You got your education from one of
> those worthless public servants you folks like to
> bitch about. You are fucking hypocrites. All of
> you.
>
>
> >
> > I can't help your private education didn't help
> > your logic and writing.
> >
>
> I didn't go to private school.
>
> > Is that what liberals do when they can't make
> an
> > argument? Retreat into snobbery?
>
>
> No. It's pointing out your incredible hypocrisy.
> You got yours, now fuck everyone else, right?

Again, a logic fail. Don't change the subject. You can't even address my point. Just admit you should not have used "and/or" because it makes no sense. You know you're wrong.

As for public eduction, I pay my taxes, my folks did too. I went to state school on a full scholarship. I didn't ask for it. They gave it to me. You were probably one of the kids I used to run circles around in class. Ideological chip on your shoulder. No brains to show for it. Too bad. Well, there's always the welfare state.

Really, dude? Change the subject much? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Again, a logic fail. Don't change the subject. You
> can't even address my point. Just admit you should
> not have used "and/or" because it makes no sense.
> You know you're wrong.

I addressed it. Sorry you are too stupid to understand.

>
> As for public eduction, I pay my taxes, my folks
> did too.

Apparently they didn't teach you how to spell education.

> I went to state school on a full
> scholarship. I didn't ask for it.

Actually, you did. You had to fill out some paperwork to apply for it, right? That, or your parents did. You low IQ is showing again.

> They gave it to
> me.

Hmmm. Sounds like Welfare.

> You were probably one of the kids I used to
> run circles around in class.

Somehow, I doubt that.

> Ideological chip on
> your shoulder.

True. I was a Republican in college. Would have voted for Reagan in 84 if I could have at the time.

> No brains to show for it.

Well, like I said, I WAS a Republican at the time.

> Too bad.
> Well, there's always the welfare state.

True. Look at what the Welfare state did for you!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Really, dude? Change the subject much? Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > Again, a logic fail. Don't change the subject.
> You
> > can't even address my point. Just admit you
> should
> > not have used "and/or" because it makes no
> sense.
> > You know you're wrong.
>
> I addressed it. Sorry you are too stupid to
> understand.
>
> >
> > As for public eduction, I pay my taxes, my
> folks
> > did too.
>
> Apparently they didn't teach you how to spell
> education.
>
> > I went to state school on a full
> > scholarship. I didn't ask for it.
>
> Actually, you did. You had to fill out some
> paperwork to apply for it, right? That, or your
> parents did. You low IQ is showing again.
>
> > They gave it to
> > me.
>
> Hmmm. Sounds like Welfare.
>
> > You were probably one of the kids I used to
> > run circles around in class.
>
> Somehow, I doubt that.
>
> > Ideological chip on
> > your shoulder.
>
> True. I was a Republican in college. Would have
> voted for Reagan in 84 if I could have at the
> time.
>
> > No brains to show for it.
>
> Well, like I said, I WAS a Republican at the
> time.
>
> > Too bad.
> > Well, there's always the welfare state.
>
> True. Look at what the Welfare state did for you!


You're a coward. Answer the question, coward. Tell me how your logic works instead of ducking and diving like a woman.

Really, dude. Answer the question! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
>
> You're a coward. Answer the question, coward. Tell
> me how your logic works instead of ducking and
> diving like a woman.


Go back and look. I answered it. I can't help it you are too stupid to comprehend.

As for "ducking and diving like a woman," sounds to me like you have a lot of experience beating women.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Really, dude. Answer the question! Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> >
> > You're a coward. Answer the question, coward.
> Tell
> > me how your logic works instead of ducking and
> > diving like a woman.
>
>
> Go back and look. I answered it. I can't help it
> you are too stupid to comprehend.
>
> As for "ducking and diving like a woman," sounds
> to me like you have a lot of experience beating
> women.

No you didn't. And/or doesn't work because logically it fails. It applies to both Dems and Republicans. Dude, don't be a pussy. Answer the question--how does you logic work? Or, be a man and admit you're wrong, you ladyboy!

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Obama and Co. will go down as the worst
> administration this country has ever had.
>
> God damn you, Obama for your goddamn fucking
> change.
>
> God damn you, Obama and your anti-capitalist,
> pro-dictatorship cohorts.
>
> God damn you, Obama, for daring to tell me how
> much money I can make, you arrogant piece of
> shit.
>
> God damn you, Obama, for you are the enemy within!


Bull shit.

Really? You answered jack squat. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> No you didn't. And/or doesn't work because
> logically it fails. It applies to both Dems and
> Republicans. Dude, don't be a pussy. Answer the
> question--how does you logic work? Or, be a man
> and admit you're wrong, you ladyboy!

I answered it. Just because you didn't like the answer doesn't mean you need to act like the typical Tea Bagger and throw a tantrum. Besides, don't you have a girlfriend/wife to punch in the face? I mean, if there are no public servants, you should have all the time in the world to hit women, right?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Really? You answered jack squat. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > No you didn't. And/or doesn't work because
> > logically it fails. It applies to both Dems and
> > Republicans. Dude, don't be a pussy. Answer the
> > question--how does you logic work? Or, be a man
> > and admit you're wrong, you ladyboy!
>
> I answered it. Just because you didn't like the
> answer doesn't mean you need to act like the
> typical Tea Bagger and throw a tantrum. Besides,
> don't you have a girlfriend/wife to punch in the
> face? I mean, if there are no public servants, you
> should have all the time in the world to hit
> women, right?


I'm not settling for that. You didn't answer my question. You had a logical and rhetorical failure. I showed it to you--demonstrated why your initial statements didn't work. You retreated to the position that you had already explained yourself, when all you did was dig yourself deeper into your logic fail. Then you proceeded to change the subject. As a friendly piece of advice, if you're going to be a bomb thrower with your political harangues, read through your rhetoric before you get called on your logic. Just a friendly tip. And by the way, I'm no tea bagger. Those guys are crazy. I just don't like your constant Obama propaganda and/or logic fails.

WTL wins, he answered your questions. GO away.

Really? You answered it? Quit being a baby. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


>
>
> I'm not settling for that. You didn't answer my
> question.

Yes, I did.

> You had a logical and rhetorical
> failure.

Okay, dummy. Whatever you say.

> I showed it to you--demonstrated why your
> initial statements didn't work. You retreated to
> the position that you had already explained
> yourself, when all you did was dig yourself deeper
> into your logic fail.

I explained it. You were too stupid to understand it.

> Then you proceeded to change
> the subject.

No. I concluded one subject and started another. You were too stupid to understand either.

> As a friendly piece of advice, if
> you're going to be a bomb thrower with your
> political harangues, read through your rhetoric
> before you get called on your logic.

I value your advice as much as I value the advice of some homeless guy yelling at me that Peeps are the fruit of Satan.

> Just a
> friendly tip. And by the way, I'm no tea bagger.
> Those guys are crazy.

Sure.

> I just don't like your
> constant Obama propaganda and/or logic fails.


Well, nobody told you to read what I write, did they?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=232151&R=R4

The Jeruslaem Post blames the Reps

Jews Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id
> =232151&R=R4
>
> The Jeruslaem Post blames the Reps


Interesting. I don't see Israel as a big Obama fan, so that's saying something.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

both liberals and conservatives are destroying this country.

We need Libertarians in Congress and White House NOW!

I have question for WTL what is the solution to the mess? This is your time to shine please enlighten us.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Really? You answered it? Quit being a baby.
> Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
>
> >
> >
> > I'm not settling for that. You didn't answer my
> > question.
>
> Yes, I did.
>
> > You had a logical and rhetorical
> > failure.
>
> Okay, dummy. Whatever you say.
>
> > I showed it to you--demonstrated why your
> > initial statements didn't work. You retreated
> to
> > the position that you had already explained
> > yourself, when all you did was dig yourself
> deeper
> > into your logic fail.
>
> I explained it. You were too stupid to understand
> it.
>
> > Then you proceeded to change
> > the subject.
>
> No. I concluded one subject and started another.
> You were too stupid to understand either.
>
> > As a friendly piece of advice, if
> > you're going to be a bomb thrower with your
> > political harangues, read through your rhetoric
> > before you get called on your logic.
>
> I value your advice as much as I value the advice
> of some homeless guy yelling at me that Peeps are
> the fruit of Satan.
>
> > Just a
> > friendly tip. And by the way, I'm no tea
> bagger.
> > Those guys are crazy.
>
> Sure.
>
> > I just don't like your
> > constant Obama propaganda and/or logic fails.
>
>
> Well, nobody told you to read what I write, did
> they?

Okay, let's try this again, retard. You tried to demonstrate that the Republicans were in charge of government for most of the last 20 years and therefore deserve most of the economic blame. To make your case, you said the "GOP has controlled the Congress and/or Presidency for most of the past 20 years." To explain what "and/or" meant, you further stated "[a]s for and/or, there were years when the GOP controlled the Presidency AND Congress and years where the GOP controlled the Presidency OR Congress."

So, if we're to take that at face value, you must say that over the last 20 or so years, many more than 10 of them (most of the last 20) have seen the Republicans control the presidency and congress, or the presidency and congress. BUT, you were laughably trying to make the point that somehow the Republicans, because they were in charge for "most" of the last 20 years shared a disproportionate part of the economic blame. Sadly, your logic fails because your rhetoric can just as easily lead to another outcome. Democrats have also been in charge of both the presidency and congress, or the presidency or congress for most of the last 20 years. Do you see that? So you see why your point fails utterly because you're a sloppy fucking writer and muddled thinker? Do you see why you're a woman for just not admitting that the point you were trying to make failed utterly because your sloppy writing?






And quit posting on your thread under a different name, doofus.

The part I always love in the liberals fucked up logic is the part where they conveniently forget that Clinton's surplus came on the back of reduced defense spending and the Y2K/dot com bubble where everyone was spending like mad coming into 2000 for technology and Y2K mitigation. All of that was falling apart as Clinton was leaving office, and Bush was calling for a stimulus to get us out of the recession left behind from Clinton. So revenues were already dropping, and we were well into a recession when 9/11 hit. So finally we got a stimulus, and then yes, we entered a war going into Afghanistan to clean out the Taliban. So ... we were not supposed to "take care of business" when attacked? And then what, raise taxes in a recession? As it turned out, we then started spending money in defense to fund going into Afghanistan which acted as stimulus spending as well. So really, not much more they could have done at that time based on the situation they faced.

Then we have Iraq - good or bad, it happened. We were still recovering from the recession, so it isn't like they wanted to raise taxes, plus revenues were up from the Bush tax cuts stimulating the economy plus defense spending. So yeah, Bush was running deficits, but in the grand scheme of things they were still manageable. Again, you can dislike the reasons (after the fact) for why we went in to Iraq, but the truth is, it was a bipartisan war, with many of the Democrats voting to support going in - not to mention the law passed under Clinton (by the Democrats) that stated the policy of the US was to bring about regime change in Iraq. So you can cry all you want for the reasons we went into Iraq - but primarily it falls on 9/11 and the attitude change it brought about for many Americans who believed it was time to deal with these jackass countries that supported terrorists against the US and our allies.

So sitting here and trying to say that Bush was unjustified at all for raising the deficits he did, and then trying to say that it is OK for Obama to not only double down on Bush's policies, but actually quadruple down on the deficit spending is patent BS. When the Democrats saw how bad the economy was going to be, they should have provided meaningful stimulus - instead they passed a pet project bill to line the pockets of all their friends. About the only good money they spent was funding to help the State and Local governments facing shortfalls. They screwed up TARP royally (remember, Geithner was involved in determining how the original payments went out, and they had to hold back half the TARP funds for Obama and Geithner to allocate).

So for the libtards, AT BEST you might be able to say Bush is partially to blame for where we are. Reality is that the Democrats are the ones that turned this debt episode into a crisis by lying through their teeth on "defaulting" and using fear mongering to make the situation far worse than it was. Harry Reid could have easily passed an amended Bill to send back to the House, but instead did nothing, while the Senate Democrats and Obama demagogued the situation to their political advantage. The only ones to blame for how this turned out is Obama and his failure on a massive scale to be a leader - instead of just a politician who put his re-election above the good of this country.

Period.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/08/2011 10:10PM by Registered Voter.

Correct, if Clinton had used the fake surplus to get Osama there wouldnt be a 911.

People panicked after bush and elected the libt@ard government of retards and look what happened. If anything hopefully everyone learned their lesson and won't vote in democrats to the majority for at least 20 years.

Until the teabaggers showed where we were was distancing ourselves from the edge of the worse depression since 1930. Now thanks to their generating a ficticious emergency and proving they were willing to destroy this country, people are scared, businesses are rattled.

The deficit could have been handled in an adult way. But not now. Teabgeers are children throwing a tantrum.

Where We Are Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Until the teabaggers showed where we were was
> distancing ourselves from the edge of the worse
> depression since 1930. Now thanks to their
> generating a ficticious emergency and proving they
> were willing to destroy this country, people are
> scared, businesses are rattled.
>
> The deficit could have been handled in an adult
> way. But not now. Teabgeers are children
> throwing a tantrum.

Fact - the Tea Party and the House of Representatives PASSED two bills and sent them to the Senate. Fact - the Senate did NOTHING. The way bills work, the House passes a bill, sends it to the Senate, and then the Senate votes on, amends the bill and sends it back, to either be modified by the House and passed, OR rectified in committee and then the final version put in front of both bodies to pass.

The failure here falls on the Democrats for 1 - not even attempting to move any sort of budget/funding bill in the Senate, and 2 - for taking what would have been a partial government shutdown and turning it into a "default" which never would have occurred. That and the EU issues are what scared investors. Fact - If not for the Tea Party pushing for cuts, we would have ended up passing a debt ceiling hike and the S&P still would have downgraded the US.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Maybe someone can explain this to me, as I'm honestly not up on all the facts, but as I understand it...

1. S&P lowered our credit rating based on the spending habits of the government. Too much spending, not enough income. Makes sense.

(How to solve that is another question.)

2. Raising the debt ceiling is basically giving the government a way to pay off the debts it has already incurred.

With the understanding that continually raising the debt ceiling is a slippery slope, like continually getting more and more credit cards.

Is it really even an option to NOT pay the debts we've already agreed to?

From what I understand, that's basically what those that do not want to approve raising the debt ceiling are proposing.

If I've got this right... and it's very likely I don't... then when did it become acceptable to not pay off your debts?

(BTW, if our government does have that opinion... Hurray!)

I'm all for getting spending under control, but why would this be the way to solve it?

I'm pretty sure if I'm short on money, the best way to straighten out my finances wouldn't be stop paying my credit card bills.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Where We Are Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Until the teabaggers showed where we were was
> > distancing ourselves from the edge of the worse
> > depression since 1930. Now thanks to their
> > generating a ficticious emergency and proving
> they
> > were willing to destroy this country, people
> are
> > scared, businesses are rattled.
> >
> > The deficit could have been handled in an adult
> > way. But not now. Teabgeers are children
> > throwing a tantrum.
>
> Fact - the Tea Party and the House of
> Representatives PASSED two bills and sent them to
> the Senate. Fact - the Senate did NOTHING. The way
> bills work, the House passes a bill, sends it to
> the Senate, and then the Senate votes on, amends
> the bill and sends it back, to either be modified
> by the House and passed, OR rectified in committee
> and then the final version put in front of both
> bodies to pass.
>
> The failure here falls on the Democrats for 1 -
> not even attempting to move any sort of
> budget/funding bill in the Senate, and 2 - for
> taking what would have been a partial government
> shutdown and turning it into a "default" which
> never would have occurred. That and the EU issues
> are what scared investors. Fact - If not for the
> Tea Party pushing for cuts, we would have ended up
> passing a debt ceiling hike and the S&P still
> would have downgraded the US.


Not true on virtually every count. Your House may liek the idea of "show" bills that have no chance of passing but the Senate isnt. The Senate did take one of those bill and amended it but failed the 60 vote rule. In the house a simple majority can pass any foolish bill they throw together.

It is doubtful the S&P would have ever downgraded the U.S. without the teabaggers efforts to sink the US economy. The fact is the debt show down showed nothing new about the US economy. There was no need to tie a debt reduction plan to it. Neither was it necessary to turn down the balanced approach that everyone but the teaparty knows it is going to take to reduce the deficit. In fact, the eventuality of S&P downgrading us is only tied to the teabaggers refusing to a balanced solution. And guess what, things will only get worse if teabaggers stick to this strategy. So what else is a teabag eventuality? The end of the wortd? Nothing is an "eventuality" when reasonable people will take less then 98% of what they want.

We need to get a few facts straight:

1. It was Ronald Raegan who turned this country from a financing country into a debtor country.

2 It was Bill Clinton who balanced the budget.

3. It was Bush II who never met an appropriations bill he didnt like, who started a war without finacing it, whose VP said deficits don't count.

Liberal programs did not set us toward being a debtor nation. Republican policies to underfund every program designed to provide opportunity or a safety net that made these programs unsustainable.

Idjut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not true on virtually every count. Your House may
> liek the idea of "show" bills that have no chance
> of passing but the Senate isnt. The Senate did
> take one of those bill and amended it but failed
> the 60 vote rule. In the house a simple majority
> can pass any foolish bill they throw together.
>
> It is doubtful the S&P would have ever downgraded
> the U.S. without the teabaggers efforts to sink
> the US economy. The fact is the debt show down
> showed nothing new about the US economy. There
> was no need to tie a debt reduction plan to it.
> Neither was it necessary to turn down the balanced
> approach that everyone but the teaparty knows it
> is going to take to reduce the deficit. In fact,
> the eventuality of S&P downgrading us is only tied
> to the teabaggers refusing to a balanced solution.
> And guess what, things will only get worse if
> teabaggers stick to this strategy. So what else
> is a teabag eventuality? The end of the wortd?
> Nothing is an "eventuality" when reasonable people
> will take less then 98% of what they want.

The only folks that made a show out of the debt ceiling issue was the Democrats. They were the ones constantly on TV calling the Tea Party radicals - for wanting to cut spending and attempt to put plans in place to balance the budget.

The problem is, the government overspends - PERIOD. We are in a recession - raising taxes right now in any form is about the dumbest thing I have ever heard. All they want to do at this point is redistribute wealth by taking it from folks who (in some cases) have money, and others who are living within their means, even though it is paycheck to paycheck - including many of the folks in the "middle class". The idea of a "balanced approach" is a pure fallacy put forth as a false narrative to continue to obfuscate the real issue - the government overspends. The Republicans are the ONLY ones that put forth ANY form of credible budget. The one Obama put forth was voted down 97-0 in the Senate - when Ryan put forth a plan it became a punching bag to show how evil the Republicans were. And yet - STILL there is NO Democrat budget in sight. Obama put forth a broad idea of cuts versus tax increases - and he couldn't get a tax increase passed when the Democrats controlled the entirety of the government. They only want to make the Republicans be the ones responsible for raising taxes so they can have another excuse to use the word hypocrite in a sentence. Realistically believing the Republicans were going to be easier to convince to raise taxes versus members of his own party is pretty laughable on the face of it (speaking of realistic ideas).

The largest problem facing the nation on the spending scale is trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities coming down the road out of the social welfare programs. This stuff we are talking about today - cutting defense, etc is small potatoes if we don't get social security, medicare and medicaid repaired in a realistic way. But of course, the Democrats are doing everything they can to make sure the Republicans are the only ones putting forth a plan so they can just sit back and fear monger to get their social programs passed. So yeah, we were already on the path to being a debtor nation LONG before these issues came up. The housing bubble just accelerated the problem - and all this "QE" BS from the Fed is just prolonging the issue. They have yet to address the problem with housing prices, and until that is stabilized nothing will be fixed. Right now the Tea Party folks are the only ones seriously talking about cutting spending - in the end they are going to be proven to be right.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Since when did you become the official mouthpiece for the U.S. economy. We are not in a recession!

I cant wait until the across the board cuts kick in (and they will). The DoD and the likes of you will be squealing like a pig! The only satisfaction out of seeing teabaggers desroying this country will be seeing DoD take their fare share. Now there is a balanced approach.

Dip Shit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Since when did you become the official mouthpiece
> for the U.S. economy. We are not in a recession!
>
>
> I cant wait until the across the board cuts kick
> in (and they will). The DoD and the likes of you
> will be squealing like a pig! The only
> satisfaction out of seeing teabaggers desroying
> this country will be seeing DoD take their fare
> share. Now there is a balanced approach.

You do realize the only reason we had any form of GDP growth was because of government spending - and that was barely a blip. We are in a recession - ask all the folks out of work and they will tell you what they believe. How many people have had salary increases that even come close to matching the increases in health care costs? I will bet it is less than 30% - most of the rest have gotten little to nothing.

The best part (or worst depending on your perspective) is that I would imagine no one representing the Tea Party view will be on the 12 person super committee - so that should take care of the "Tea Party" issue if they manage to come up with a bill. If you really think that massively cutting our spending on the military is in the best interests of our country, you really have no clue on how things work, and why it is important for the US to maintain a strong military.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

These guys pay off both parties,,,
Attachments:

It's threads like these that made me glad to have abandoned the Republican party. Today's GOP is full of loud-mouths who have neither logic nor the ability to mount a coherent argument.

It's a shame.

Eastsider Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's threads like these that made me glad to have
> abandoned the Republican party. Today's GOP is
> full of loud-mouths who have neither logic nor the
> ability to mount a coherent argument.
>
> It's a shame.

It's folks like WTL and such - the ones who parrot the latest Democratic TPM - that make me glad I was NEVER a Democrat. The level of crap flying from the left and their defenders makes it so you need a full body wetsuit to wade through their lies and exaggerations.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/09/2011 01:09AM by Registered Voter.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/2012 12:46AM by Alias.

Do any of you realize both sides are full of lies and misconceptions? The thing I hate most about these arguments is when I see line for line the same crap dribbled from the mouths of both Fox and MSNBC. Both sides just demonize the other and don't take the time to see that maybe the other side has a few good points. Instead we fight and bicker like 5 year olds and the country takes the brunt of it. All the name calling is a waste of time but yet that is all anyone really seems to care about. If we want any chance of getting out of this mess we need to fix the system and the American people. First end all 24 hour news networks. There is not 24 hours worth of news to report so you end up with filler partisan BS, again this is on both sides. Next limit congressional terms. Having the same narrow sighted individuals running our country for decades at a time is disheartening at best. Limit campaign contributions hopefully that will keep them honest to their constituents instead of some lobbyists.

I said it before in another post blaming Obama for this entire mess is wrong. The problem is congress. The system is broken and needs to be updated to fit the times. Yes Obama is supposed to be a leader but the point is Congress is the one that is responsible for making the budgets and developing comprehensive bills not Obama. Yes Obama wanted health care reform. God knows we needed it. Instead of congress working together like adults all we got was the right saying no reform or we will filibuster and the left forced to make up a piece of crap. Should Obama have signed it? Probably not but he wasn't left with much. Obama inherited a piece of crap and all congress is willing to give him is more crap. He is not to blame it is congress.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Funny. Seems to me the GOP has controlled the
> Congress and/or Presidency for most of the past 20
> years.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bull shit

Let's score it to see if it is bullshit or not, no sense in arguing if the answer is quantifiable.

1991 to 2011, let's assign one point each year Republicans held the White House and one point each year Democrats held the White House.

Repubs - 9, Dems - 11

Assign one point each year Republicans held the Senate and one point for Dems holding the Senate

Repubs - 10, Dems - 10

Assign one point each year Republicans held the House and one point for Dems holding the House

Repubs - 13, Dems - 7

Total: Republicans 32, Democrats 28.


The answer: though Republicans have a lead on Capitol Hill, they lose to the Democrats in the White House. Neither party can be described as "in charge" in the way that the quote suggests.

The blame rests with the administrations and Congressional members any year a dollar of deficit spending was spent by a congressional budget bill signed by a president, no matter what the party.

Now who is going to fix it? That is the question.

----------------------------------------

"She looks pretty good for 12, admit it." - WingNut, 04/24/2012

"I'm racist too. So what?" - Ellipsis 9/16/2011

"If you only knew who I was, and what I was working to do you would...have the decency to tell me I hated my nation and the way of life. I may not agree with...the government...I hate the "government"......" - Firrat 9/1/10

"there seems to be a queer...why? To try and further demean a defeated... dumb Tea party... I think we need more... far left folks on a regular basis - Louis Farakhan, Jesse Jackson...Al Sharpton" - Registered Voter, 8/19/2011

"If your computer is running slow, or you have any other problems, email me at with the problem and i am willing to fix it, for a price of course" - Taylor, spamming FFU on 04/12/2006. "N****rs as slaves again? I think so..." - Taylor, 09/20/2009

We have got to may of these in Washington. It time for a change vote out the old and in with the new. We hold the power we just need not be afraid. i don't care if you are a Republican vote in a new Democrat if you have to. We need new people that are not corrupt.
Attachments:

Neither Dems or Repubs are blameless. Both parties have contributed to this financial mess we have found ourselves.

All of the boring tit for tat argument about who is right, who used flawed logic, who can't write, who went to public schools, etc is meaningless. The issue is resolution of the problem. If you're house is burning, there isn't time to stop and start arguing whose fault it is, the task is to put of the fire. There's an old adage, if your find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging.

Obama sought out the presidency, he has been touted as the most brilliant president we have ever had, clearly he is smart enough to have understood what he was inheriting. If he didn't understand it, then he's not as smart as reported. So, the issue is what is he doing to resolve the problem, and what are the house and Senate doing to resolve it.

I expect politicians stop posturing and trying to score political points and start working on resolving the economic problems.

justsayin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Funny. Seems to me the GOP has controlled the
> > Congress and/or Presidency for most of the past
> 20
> > years.
>
> Alias Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Bull shit
>
> Let's score it to see if it is bullshit or not, no
> sense in arguing if the answer is quantifiable.
>
> 1991 to 2011, let's assign one point each year
> Republicans held the White House and one point
> each year Democrats held the White House.
>
> Repubs - 9, Dems - 11
>
> Assign one point each year Republicans held the
> Senate and one point for Dems holding the Senate
>
> Repubs - 10, Dems - 10
>
> Assign one point each year Republicans held the
> House and one point for Dems holding the House
>
> Repubs - 13, Dems - 7
>
> Total: Republicans 32, Democrats 28.
>
>
> The answer: though Republicans have a lead on
> Capitol Hill, they lose to the Democrats in the
> White House. Neither party can be described as
> "in charge" in the way that the quote suggests.
>
> The blame rests with the administrations and
> Congressional members any year a dollar of deficit
> spending was spent by a congressional budget bill
> signed by a president, no matter what the party.
>
> Now who is going to fix it? That is the question.


Your count is interesting, but I'd also like to point out that the 'really dude?' guy is correct. The way that WashingTonLocian posed the question proves nothing. Both Democrats and Republicans have been in charge of the presidency "AND/OR" congress for most (10 years + a day) of the last 20 years. The statement is silly because the way it was posed it would apply equally to both parties.

slubdawg

+1
You hit the nail on the head.

slubdawg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Neither Dems or Repubs are blameless. Both
> parties have contributed to this financial mess we
> have found ourselves.
>
> All of the boring tit for tat argument about who
> is right, who used flawed logic, who can't write,
> who went to public schools, etc is meaningless.
> The issue is resolution of the problem. If you're
> house is burning, there isn't time to stop and
> start arguing whose fault it is, the task is to
> put of the fire. There's an old adage, if your
> find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is
> stop digging.
>
> Obama sought out the presidency, he has been
> touted as the most brilliant president we have
> ever had, clearly he is smart enough to have
> understood what he was inheriting. If he didn't
> understand it, then he's not as smart as reported.
> So, the issue is what is he doing to resolve the
> problem, and what are the house and Senate doing
> to resolve it.
>
> I expect politicians stop posturing and trying to
> score political points and start working on
> resolving the economic problems.

I love it when someone gets to the point. Screw the political talking points. Screw the lobbyist checkbooks. Screw all of the 24 hour news networks. Screw the cowards in the house and senate. Compromise is lost we need to get it back.

THE TRUTH Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We have got to may of these in Washington. It time
> for a change vote out the old and in with the new.
> We hold the power we just need not be afraid. i
> don't care if you are a Republican vote in a new
> Democrat if you have to. We need new people that
> are not corrupt.


It's not the people that are corrupt. It's the system. The Tea Baggers will be just like the rest of these folks come election time. It's about money.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Funny. Seems to me the GOP has controlled the
> Congress and/or Presidency for most of the past 20
> years. The downgrading is the result of the Tea
> Party's brinksmanship. If you don't believe me,
> look at the fact S&P didn't do this every other
> time the debt ceiling was raised.


Idiots like the OP would say those sort of things about any democratic president in any situation. The OP is a zero and not worth responding to.

The only difference in the teabaggers is most are new to DC so not as corrupt as a life long politician with his pockets full of lobbist money. I actual had some hope for Obama in the begining until I found out about his past. His pockets are just as full as Reed and Boehner.