PDA

View Full Version : What the RW doesn't want to hear.



Qtec
11-19-2010, 06:24 AM
watch (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLmfCVVD7SI)

Q

LWW
11-19-2010, 06:37 AM
R's certainly were not fiscally responsible under Bush.

Anything new?

LWW

Gayle in MD
11-19-2010, 07:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> watch (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLmfCVVD7SI)

Q </div></div>

I, too, saw that program. Rachael nails it.

There is so much Proof, trickle down doesn't work, for example, and that Republicans have the worst job creation, the worst results from tax policy, and worse yet, they throw flames on dividing our country.

Proof that Republicans are the worst thing that can happen to the "FUNDAMENTALS OF THE ECONOMY" and particularly, the deficit.

Notice, when Republicans are spending, the RW mantra, is:

THE DEBTS (DEFICIT) DON'T MATTER....

as was stated by the famous economist, from North Carolina, /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

eg8r
11-19-2010, 08:58 AM
Wouldn't it be nice to get an actual Conservatie in the White House.

eg8r

Qtec
11-20-2010, 02:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wouldn't it be nice to get an actual Conservatie in the White House.

eg8r </div></div>

They don't exist. Its a scam.

Q

Gayle in MD
11-23-2010, 08:30 AM
Truer words were never spoken!

eg8r
11-23-2010, 09:25 AM
Why do you believe this? Is it because you honestly don't think there are people that believe in spending less than you take in? Is it because those people are like Buffet who know they make more money in the private sector than the government sector so they don't bother with politics? Is it because you believe power corrupts all, no matter what? Why do you think it is a scam?

eg8r

Qtec
11-24-2010, 05:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Why do you believe this?</div></div>

The scam artist tells you what you want to hear, whether he believes it himself or not. He promises you the moon and turns around and does the opposite.

The GOP run on fiscal conservatism and small Govt but when they are in power they spend like crazy and expand Govt. That is their purpose. They are there to pay off their masters and they use Govt money to do it.

Maddow explains it for you.

link (http://www.democraticunderground.org/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x526264)

Q

LWW
11-24-2010, 05:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Why do you believe this?</div></div>

The scam artist tells you what you want to hear, whether he believes it himself or not. He promises you the moon and turns around and does the opposite.

The GOP run on fiscal conservatism and small Govt but when they are in power they spend like crazy and expand Govt. That is their purpose. They are there to pay off their masters and they use Govt money to do it.

Maddow explains it for you.

link (http://www.democraticunderground.org/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x526264)

Q </div></div>

That is why they lost power.

If they haven't learned they will get the boot again.

The democrooks, OTOH, took the sins of the reps and exceeded them by several hundred percent.

El Dubb Dubb is here to explain it to you ... sadly, you refuse to learn.

KWW

Qtec
11-24-2010, 05:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If they haven't learned they will get the boot again.</div></div>

AGAIN. Yes, AGAIN. Even after they failed miserably under Bush you still think they will change!

You hate the other side so much you make excuses for the GOP behaviour.

Q

LWW
11-24-2010, 05:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If they haven't learned they will get the boot again.</div></div>

AGAIN. Yes, AGAIN. Even after they failed miserably under Bush you still think they will change!

You hate the other side so much you make excuses for the GOP behaviour.

Q

</div></div>

Your comprehension is failing you again.

LWW

pooltchr
11-24-2010, 09:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The GOP run on fiscal conservatism and small Govt but when they are in power they spend like crazy and expand Govt. That is their purpose. They are there to pay off their masters and they use Govt money to do it.



Q </div></div>

This is an accurate statement, as far as it goes.
Liberals don't pretend to be fiscally conservative. You know they are going to spend us into oblivian when you vote for them.

Now, lets look at the last two election cycles. Under Bush, we had excessive spending, contrary to the fiscally conservative ideals of the Rep party. When he didn't deliver, the voters rejected them and bought into the hope and change mantra, and the idea that Obama would change the way things were being done in Washington.

When Obama didn't deliver, voters overwhelmingly sent a message that they did not want the even bigger government and even more out of control spending that he gave us.

The party, whichever one it happens to be, who figures out that what the American people want is a smaller, less intrusive, government that actually understands that we can not continue to live off credit, will be the party that will win elections. As long as both parties continue to ignore these simple facts, voters will do the only thing they can do....vote out whoever is in power, but not doing what they want done.

Steve

hondo
11-24-2010, 09:25 AM
Who would you like to see in the Office?

eg8r
11-24-2010, 09:55 AM
Answer my question first.

eg8r

eg8r
11-24-2010, 09:57 AM
I did not ask you anything about scam artists. I asked you why you don't think there is someone who is truly a conservative.

eg8r

eg8r
11-24-2010, 10:03 AM
I think you misunderstood completely. He is saying the Reps missed the boat. They weren't conservative at all. They resembled the left too much so they were voted out. Now that the Reps are gaining some ground again, if they don't change from their previous position, under W, then they will get the boot again. This has nothing to do with the left whatsoever. He was blaming the Reps for not doing what they said they would do and if they do it again they will be voted out again.

eg8r

hondo
11-24-2010, 10:03 AM
No, you answer my question first.

Gayle in MD
11-24-2010, 10:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Who would you like to see in the Office? </div></div>

the man who has done such an excellent job at hauling us up, and back on the road to recovering from the Bush/Republican majority, debt hole, economic collapse, and dealing with removing us with honor, from two totally F-ed up wars.

He's my choice!

The right does not consider at all, the huge, historic accomplishments, of President Obama, and the Democratics.

But, what can we expect.

They approved every law Bush broke, including torture, and defended everything he did, including outing a covert CIA Agent, and one of them even wrote that the deficits didn't matter, /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gifwhile Bush and Republicans, were the ones running them up.

President Obama has done a great job, as did Nancy Pelosi. The Republicans only care about Political gains, getting richer, protecting the crooks, and destroying Democratics.

Now they're blocking serious Foreign Policy treaties...on finding loose lukes, and bringing countries toether, to commit to destroying them...how much more vicious can they get. This is unprecedented, and all should be outraged over it.

They have proven their unAMerican tactics.
G.

eg8r
11-24-2010, 10:24 AM
I am waiting to see what Rubio does. I like his message so now it is time to see if he will back up what he says.

eg8r

Qtec
11-24-2010, 05:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think you misunderstood completely. He is saying the Reps missed the boat. <span style="color: #990000"> They always do.</span> They weren't conservative at all. <span style="color: #990000">They NEVER are.</span> They resembled the left too much....
eg8r </div></div>

Where do you get this idea from? <u>Its the GOP</u> who spend like crazy every time they get in power. <u>Its the Dems</u> who always have to clean up the mess.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/TVNews/MSNBC%20TV/Maddow/Blog/2010/09/debt.jpg

Q

pooltchr
11-24-2010, 06:17 PM
Q, you are once again displaying your lack of understanding as to how our country works.

Take those same figures, but figure out which party had control of congress in those years.

Spending bills originate in the House of Representatives, not the White House.

Your chart says absolutely nothing regarding who was actually responsible for increasing debt.

However, if you want to play that game, let's look at the numbers. Yes, W increased debt over 8 years. Now look at what Obama has done in just two years. Almost as much as RR and BC combined, and they had 16 years in office. So Obama is on track, should he manage to hold his office for a second term, to easily take over the top spot.

Steve

LWW
11-25-2010, 03:47 AM
And he does that knowingly and willingly.<span style='font-size: 11pt'>[/size]

Methinks the left does this because they love tyranny by the state so much that they just assume we have a dictator.

To look at things accurately, when the R's took over the reigns of the budget for FY 1996 the national debt was $4,973,982,900,709.39 ... when the D's took over it had risen to [size:11pt]$9,007,653,372,262.48.</span> That was a total of <span style='font-size: 14pt'>$4,033,670,471,553.09.</span> Over 12 years that was an average of $336,139,205,962.76.

Today the national debt is <span style='font-size: 14pt'>S13,561,623,030,891.79.</span> It was <span style='font-size: 11pt'>$9,007,653,372,262.48</span> when the D's took over the budget ... or an increase of <span style='font-size: 17pt'>$4,553,969,658,629.22</span> in 3 short years. That averages out to an average yearly deficit of <span style='font-size: 20pt'>$1,517,989,886,209.74.</span>

The bottom line is that the R's were irresponsible ... and the democrooks increased that irresponsibility to a factor of 450%+ in comparison.

Those are the facts of the matter and no amount of spoon fed boiler plate catch phrase nonsense will change them. Oh, BTW, my source ... THE REGIME! (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm)

TRUTH VERSUS TRUTHINESS. (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm)

Facts, they are such stubborn things.

This is where Aitch declares the US Treasury to be a right wing virus infected blog ran by Karl Rove ... Gee declares that Snoopy handed me my hat ... and Snoopy declares he shot me down.

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a247/lww/ONLINE%20ARGUMENTS/Snoopy.jpg

LWW

Qtec
11-25-2010, 04:09 AM
Ok, lets say you are right. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>What did the Dems do between 2006 and 2008 to cause this massive rise in the debt</span>.
You have already admitted that in the 6 yrs that Bush controlled both houses, he doubled the nat debt.

Q

Qtec
11-25-2010, 04:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Today the national debt is S13,561,623,030,891.79. It was $9,007,653,372,262.48 when the D's took over the budget ... or an increase of $4,553,969,658,629.22 in 3 short years. That averages out to an average yearly deficit of $1,517,989,886,209.74. </div></div>

Imagine a relay race.

Clinton on the second lap is half a lap ahead of the rest of the field. he hands over the baton to GW Bush faultlessly. The USA can't loose.
George forgot to to tie his laces properly and falls flat on his face. By the time he gets to Obama, the USA is half a lap behind. Obama does what he can but can't make up the distance and the USA loses.

LLW..'Its all Obama's fault'.

Q

Gayle in MD
11-25-2010, 04:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ok, lets say you are right. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>What did the Dems do between 2006 and 2008 to cause this massive rise in the debt</span>.
You have already admitted that in the 6 yrs that Bush controlled both houses, he doubled the nat debt.

Q </div></div>

Actually, Democratics didn't take over until January, of 07. By then, there was nothing that could prevent the crash.

They inherited a huge deficit, crippling, actually. Bush didn't pay for anything, and never picked up his Veto Pen, a single time, under the Republican majority.

Once Dems took over, he used it plenty, but it was too late, there was already unprecedented debts, with interest, and two wars raging....

There is just no way arouund the fact that Bush F-ed up the country, economically, with historically ridiculous spending, ridiculous to cut taxes, and wage war....and the Dems., took over too late in the mess, to overrturn it...then Obama inherited a situation, where ONLY spending more, could help to pull us out.

The right, will never own up to the facts. Everything isn't totally cured, but we're far better off right now, than when this president took over...we're not teetering on a Bush Depression, as we were before he got out. Things have stabilized considerably, the auto industry, is paying us back, banks are paying us back, we've seen job increases in the private market, lower unemployment number applying each month, many signs of recovery.

We are much better off than we were when Bush's job losses were in the seven hundred thousand a month range, that's for sure.

G.

Stretch
11-25-2010, 05:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Today the national debt is S13,561,623,030,891.79. It was $9,007,653,372,262.48 when the D's took over the budget ... or an increase of $4,553,969,658,629.22 in 3 short years. That averages out to an average yearly deficit of $1,517,989,886,209.74. </div></div>

Imagine a relay race.

Clinton on the second lap is half a lap ahead of the rest of the field. he hands over the baton to GW Bush faultlessly. The USA can't loose.
George forgot to to tie his laces properly and falls flat on his face. By the time he gets to Obama, the USA is half a lap behind. Obama does what he can but can't make up the distance and the USA loses.

LLW..'Its all Obama's fault'.

Q </div></div>

Great analogy Q. St.

Gayle in MD
11-25-2010, 05:56 AM
Yep, I agree. Q is good.

G.

LWW
11-25-2010, 06:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ok, lets say you are right. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>What did the Dems do between 2006 and 2008 to cause this massive rise in the debt</span>.
You have already admitted that in the 6 yrs that Bush controlled both houses, he doubled the nat debt.

Q </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 26pt'><span style='font-family: Arial Black'><u>!!!!!!!!!!!!!!OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YOU ACTUALLY CAN GET IT!</u></span></span>

Well, almost anyway ... but at least it's progress.

First ... Bush never controlled either house of congress. He was POTUS and of the same party as those that controlled congress.

Second ... during 6 years of a Bush + republichicken congress the debt increased by $2,779,417,406,665.32, and that is not quite 45%.

Third ... an increase of 45% in 6 years is bad enough, but it's far less than the "DOUBLED" claim you regurgitate from the spoonage.

Fourth ... that average deficit for those 6 years was $463,236,234,444.22.

Fifth ... during the three years the democrooks have run congress the debt has increased by $4,553,969,658,629.22, which is 63% more in 3 years than the Bush + R's did in 6 years.

Sixth ... during the three years the democrooks have run congress the debt has increased by 50.5%, which is more in 3 years than the Bush + R's did in 6 years.

Seventh ... during the three years the democrooks have run congress the debt has increased by an average of $1,517,989,886,209.74, which is more in 1 year than the Bush + R's were averaging in 39 months.

Eighth ... you cannot look at the facts and deny that the R's were booted from congress for abandoning the fiscal responsibility of the late 1990's and becoming democrook lite with Bush in the White House.

Ninth ... you cannot look at the facts and deny that with a democrook congress things went from bad to worse.

Tenth ... you cannot look at the facts and deny that the US people see this and are close to beginning stringing up politicians from street lamps.

No amount of twisting can change the abomination that this congress has been.

And, lastly, <u><span style='font-family: Arial Black'><span style='font-size: 11pt'>NOBODY</span></span></u> here has to my knowledge ever given Bush and the last congress a pass on irresponsible spending. The comments have been pointing out that this congress and this POTUS have went from worse to worser.

Facts.

They are such stubborn things.

LWW

LWW
11-25-2010, 06:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Today the national debt is S13,561,623,030,891.79. It was $9,007,653,372,262.48 when the D's took over the budget ... or an increase of $4,553,969,658,629.22 in 3 short years. That averages out to an average yearly deficit of $1,517,989,886,209.74. </div></div>

Imagine a relay race.

Clinton on the second lap is half a lap ahead of the rest of the field. he hands over the baton to GW Bush faultlessly. The USA can't loose.
George forgot to to tie his laces properly and falls flat on his face. By the time he gets to Obama, the USA is half a lap behind. Obama does what he can but can't make up the distance and the USA loses.

LLW..'Its all Obama's fault'.

Q </div></div>

Totally ridiculous analogy as the POTUS doesn't run the race (BUDGET) ... but you insist upon grasping at whatever myth you can come up with to defend the indefensible.

Let's stay away from ridiculousness and stick to the facts shall we.

After all ... you, Aitch, Gee, and Stretchandfetchit all claim you love the facts, so why do you all cower in fear whenever they come to the table?

LWW

eg8r
11-25-2010, 09:18 AM
Again, the Reps looked too much like the Dems.

eg8r

eg8r
11-25-2010, 09:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Clinton on the second lap is half a lap ahead of the rest of the field. he hands over the baton to GW Bush faultlessly. The USA can't loose.
George forgot to to tie his laces properly and falls flat on his face. By the time he gets to Obama, the USA is half a lap behind. Obama does what he can but can't make up the distance and the USA loses.

LLW..'Its all Obama's fault'.
</div></div>Sorry but you did not really describe teh situation as it is happening. If W fell flat on his face (as a reference of over spending) then not only did Obama NOT make up the distance BUT HE ACTUALLY STARTED RUNNING THE IN THE WRONG FREAKING DIRECTION!!!

eg8r

LWW
11-26-2010, 05:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Today the national debt is S13,561,623,030,891.79. It was $9,007,653,372,262.48 when the D's took over the budget ... or an increase of $4,553,969,658,629.22 in 3 short years. That averages out to an average yearly deficit of $1,517,989,886,209.74. </div></div>

Imagine a relay race.

Clinton on the second lap is half a lap ahead of the rest of the field. he hands over the baton to GW Bush faultlessly. The USA can't loose.
George forgot to to tie his laces properly and falls flat on his face. By the time he gets to Obama, the USA is half a lap behind. Obama does what he can but can't make up the distance and the USA loses.

LLW..'Its all Obama's fault'.

Q </div></div>

Totally ridiculous analogy as the POTUS doesn't run the race (BUDGET) ... but you insist upon grasping at whatever myth you can come up with to defend the indefensible.

Let's stay away from ridiculousness and stick to the facts shall we.

After all ... you, Aitch, Gee, and Stretchandfetchit all claim you love the facts, so why do you all cower in fear whenever they come to the table?

LWW </div></div>

I'm beginning to think they don't really like the facts?

LWW

Qtec
11-26-2010, 06:46 AM
Its no surprise to me that my post went right over your head.

The economic disaster that Bush handed over to Obama?... who is paying for that,...yes..that would be... Obama.
The 2 wars not paid for started by Bush?.......who is paying for that,, yeah...Obama.
The Housing crisis, Wall St, Foreclosure etc etc etc ALL dumped on Obama by the last Admin and Pres Bush.


Something you obviously don't know.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Medicare Debacle

Bush's instincts for activist government were evident in his No Child Left Behind bill, his steel tariffs, and his vigorous spending increases. They may have culminated in his administration's pulling out all the stops to pass the prescription drug entitlement for Medicare recipients.

Just how serious the administration had been about passing that monstrosity became apparent after the bill was safely signed into law,<span style='font-size: 17pt'> when it became known that the administration had covered up internal estimates of <u>the true cost of the legislation,</u></span> which was limited to $400 billion by the congressional budget resolution. Any amount higher than that would have been subject to a point of order that at least would have delayed the legislation and more than likely derailed it altogether.

The Congressional Budget Office, under pressure from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, published a 10-year cost estimate of $400 billion, even though CMS chief actuary Richard Foster knew that the cost would be at least $534 billion. As the Wall Street Journal observed, <span style='font-size: 20pt'>"It is undeniable that the Medicare bill wouldn't have passed in its current form had $540 billion been the accepted cost fiction."</span> The CMS administrator threatened Foster's job, and the true cost of the program was not revealed until after the bill had passed.

But as is so often the case in Washington, the truth did eventually come out, disclosed by reporter Amy Goldstein in the Washington Post on January 31, 2004—almost six weeks after the drug benefit had been signed into law by President Bush. She reported that the $534 billion estimate, which eventually appeared in the president's budget, was widely known among those who negotiated the final provisions of the legislation.<span style='font-size: 20pt'> The CBO was eventually forced to admit that its original estimate was off and that the 10-year forecast should have been $557.7 billion.
</span>
<span style='font-size: 26pt'>The clearest indication of precisely how costly the drug bill will actually be came on March 23, 2004, when the Medicare trustees issued their annual report, as required by law. They showed that over the first 75 years of the drug program, now known as Medicare Part D, the cost would be <span style="color: #3333FF">$ 10.8 trillion in present value terms, with taxpayers footing the bill for $8.1 trillion of that</span></span>.

But even that massive figure is only part of the story. In the 2004 Medicare trustees' report, the actuaries presented for the first time cost estimates in perpetuity. <span style="color: #990000">The actuaries estimated this cost, again in present value terms, at $21.9 trillion, of which $16.6 trillion would come out of future income taxes to pay for the drug benefit. </span></div></div>

That's your GOP for you.



Q

LWW
11-26-2010, 06:49 AM
Can you read?

LWW

Qtec
11-26-2010, 07:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can you read?

LWW </div></div>

Brilliant... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

CALLING Deeman. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>Can you see the this.</span>

Your post is the intellectual equivalent of sticking one's tongue out.
Why don't you just say ,

"Nah, Nah, N,Nah Nah..............

Q.......pathetic.

Stretch
11-26-2010, 09:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can you read?

LWW </div></div>

Brilliant... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

CALLING Deeman. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>Can you see the this.</span>

Your post is the intellectual equivalent of sticking one's tongue out.
Why don't you just say ,

"Nah, Nah, N,Nah Nah..............

Q.......pathetic.
</div></div>

I agree. Not surprising given the source. St.

eg8r
11-26-2010, 11:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Its no surprise to me that my post went right over your head.

</div></div>It didn't go over my head. I was kindly pointing out that you were misrepresenting the facts so I corrected you. It is no surprise the correction went over your head.

eg8r

LWW
11-26-2010, 12:10 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can you read?

LWW </div></div>

Brilliant... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

CALLING Deeman. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>Can you see the this.</span>

Your post is the intellectual equivalent of sticking one's tongue out.
Why don't you just say ,

"Nah, Nah, N,Nah Nah..............

Q.......pathetic.
</div></div>

Obviously you can't, or at least you can't comprehend what you read.

You posted some boiler plate leftist mythology. I disproved it with the simple truth. You replied by resorting to even more ridiculous ... and horribly off topic ... leftist boiler plate mythology.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ok, lets say you are right. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>What did the Dems do between 2006 and 2008 to cause this massive rise in the debt</span>.
You have already admitted that in the 6 yrs that Bush controlled both houses, he doubled the nat debt.

Q </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 26pt'><span style='font-family: Arial Black'><u>!!!!!!!!!!!!!!OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YOU ACTUALLY CAN GET IT!</u></span></span>

Well, almost anyway ... but at least it's progress.

First ... Bush never controlled either house of congress. He was POTUS and of the same party as those that controlled congress.

Second ... during 6 years of a Bush + republichicken congress the debt increased by $2,779,417,406,665.32, and that is not quite 45%.

Third ... an increase of 45% in 6 years is bad enough, but it's far less than the "DOUBLED" claim you regurgitate from the spoonage.

Fourth ... that average deficit for those 6 years was $463,236,234,444.22.

Fifth ... during the three years the democrooks have run congress the debt has increased by $4,553,969,658,629.22, which is 63% more in 3 years than the Bush + R's did in 6 years.

Sixth ... during the three years the democrooks have run congress the debt has increased by 50.5%, which is more in 3 years than the Bush + R's did in 6 years.

Seventh ... during the three years the democrooks have run congress the debt has increased by an average of $1,517,989,886,209.74, which is more in 1 year than the Bush + R's were averaging in 39 months.

Eighth ... you cannot look at the facts and deny that the R's were booted from congress for abandoning the fiscal responsibility of the late 1990's and becoming democrook lite with Bush in the White House.

Ninth ... you cannot look at the facts and deny that with a democrook congress things went from bad to worse.

Tenth ... you cannot look at the facts and deny that the US people see this and are close to beginning stringing up politicians from street lamps.

No amount of twisting can change the abomination that this congress has been.

And, lastly, <u><span style='font-family: Arial Black'><span style='font-size: 11pt'>NOBODY</span></span></u> here has to my knowledge ever given Bush and the last congress a pass on irresponsible spending. The comments have been pointing out that this congress and this POTUS have went from worse to worser.

Facts.

They are such stubborn things.

LWW </div></div>

Have you no game at all Snoop?

LWW

Qtec
11-27-2010, 12:45 AM
Once again I ask you to back up your assertions and you just can't do it. I asked a VERY SIMPLE question.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What did the Dems do between 2006 and 2008 to cause this massive rise in the debt. </div></div>

You didn't answer and began with this total crap.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">First ... Bush never controlled either house of congress. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>He was POTUS and <span style="color: #990000"><span style='font-size: 17pt'>[ LEADER ]</span></span>of the same party as those that controlled congress.</span> </div></div>


LOL.

Q

LWW
11-27-2010, 03:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Once again I ask you to back up your assertions and you just can't do it. I asked a VERY SIMPLE question.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What did the Dems do between 2006 and 2008 to cause this massive rise in the debt. </div></div>

You didn't answer and began with this total crap.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">First ... Bush never controlled either house of congress. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>He was POTUS and <span style="color: #990000"><span style='font-size: 17pt'>[ LEADER ]</span></span>of the same party as those that controlled congress.</span> </div></div>


LOL.

Q </div></div>

What is "total crap" about that statement, or any other part of my post.

Please, in the name of all that is Holy, please stop this self flagellation in defense of dear leader ... you have nothing left.

LWW

hondo
11-27-2010, 07:41 AM
"Please, in the name of all that is Holy"


Holy crap?
Holy cow?
Holy monoley?

LOL! You kill me! What a card!