PDA

View Full Version : Should we raise the debt ceiling?



pooltchr
04-11-2011, 08:09 PM
Harry Reid, back in 2006
http://taxingtennessee.blogspot.com/2011/02/harry-reid-in-06-raising-debt-limit.html


And what did Obama think about the idea?

In 2006, Mr. Obama struck a high moral tone in opposing legislation to raise the debt ceiling. “Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that `the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better,” he said on the Senate floor.


So how will they justify fighting now to raise the ceiling? And how will the dembots spin this to make it work?

Someone pass the popcorn. This is going to be good.

Steve

cushioncrawler
04-12-2011, 02:01 AM
Waite a mo. He sayd on the senate floor -- thats it -- thats the answer -- we kan make everyone happy if we leev the ceiling alone -- why dont we just lower the floor.
mac.

Qtec
04-12-2011, 04:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Subject: Re: Should we raise the debt ceiling? </div></div>

In almost all countries its automatic.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> In 2006, Mr. Obama struck a high moral tone in opposing legislation to raise the debt ceiling</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When reminded that the Senate vote to raise the debt ceiling was a close 52-48, with Mr. Obama voting no, Mr. Gibbs said, “Well, we’ve had closer.” The vote was completely along party lines, with Republicans all voting yes and Democrats voting no. </div></div>

Geez! It passed with 52 votes! How strange.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When Republicans were in charge, they borrowed money to cut taxes, add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare and prosecute two wars, moves most Democrats opposed and spending that, in their view, was unworthy of additional borrowing. </div></div>

After 6 years of Bush, the country was in a mess and engaged in a massive spending spree, doubling the Nat deficit......and where were the outraged Republicans?????????????????????

Not a squeak from the deficit chickenhawks we hear squawking today.

Q

LWW
04-12-2011, 04:21 AM
Why do you persist in clinging to such provable lies?

Here are the facts:

- From 1995 to 2007, the years the R's held congress, the debt rose from $4,973,982,900,709.39 to $9,007,653,372,262.48.

- That was an abysmal performance which amounted to a total of $4,033,670,471,553.09 and an average of $336,139,205,962.76 per year.

- The far left, including dear leader, had their collectivist knickers in a wad over it. Every conservative I know also condemned it.

- In the three years that the democrooks have held congress the debt has increased by an additional $4,553,969,658,629.22, which averages out to $1,517,989,886,209.74 per year.

- Conservatives still denounce it.

- The far left closes their collectivist eyes to the truth and can mount nothing more that <span style='font-size: 14pt'>B-B-B-BUT B-B-B-BOOOOSH!!!!</span> in response.

TRUTH (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm)

Qtec
04-12-2011, 04:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Conservatives still denounce it. </div></div>

Sure they did,...... privately.... at the Country club.... during cocktails.

Q

Qtec
04-12-2011, 05:05 AM
Remember those tax cuts in 2001?
You know, the tax cuts that Bush borrowed to pay for and gave a third of it to the rich.....what were they called again????????

Im 2003, another guy said,

"lets have more tax cuts because my sponsors, [ the elite !] want more? "

...and then borrowed some more money from China to pay for it. Boy, I can remember the TownHalls really getting violent about that little give away!....NOT!


Q

LWW
04-12-2011, 06:01 AM
And yet another lie that you cling to.

The tax cuts flooded the treasury with income.

During the last year of the pre tax cut era federal revenue was $1.991T. By the end of the last Bush/republican budget revenue had surged to $2.568T. That happens to be a net increase of $577B. Spending increased by $865.8B. Hence, in spite of all the wailing and gnashing of teeth on the left ... the deficit grew not because of a lack of revenue but because of spending the additional revenue ... plus some.

Then what happened you ask?

Let's review.

In the 4 years that the democrooks have ran tax/budget policy we have seen revenue shrink by $394.3B per year to $2,173.7T ... or roughly 2005 levels.

At the same time spending has increased by $1.0901T per year to $3.818.8T.

Now, we have taken the problem of increasing spending too fast and added in the devastation to federal revenues that this regime's stupidonomic policies have wrought.

If revenue the last 4 years had grown as much as it had the prior 4 we would be at $3.3537T in revenue. If spending had increased likewise it would be at $3.2975T. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>VOILA! SURPLUS!</span>

You can howl <span style='font-size: 26pt'>B0000SH DID IT!!!!</span> till the end of days.

That won't change the facts that:

- We were on a glide slope to a true surplus ... while fighting 2 wars.

- The old skool media and democrooks in America are seditious criminals.

- You will believe whatever lie dear leader provides you with ... and cling to it like a drowning man to a piece of driftwood.

Federal spending in 2011 will be more than it was in 2000 and 2001 combined ... while revenue is roughly unchanged from 2000 after the disaster that is stupidonomics.

<span style='font-size: 26pt'>OH DEAR! (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200)</span>

Sev
04-12-2011, 06:28 PM
<span style='font-size: 26pt'>NO!</span>

Qtec
04-12-2011, 07:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">According to the CBO historical tables:[1]

Federal individual income taxes averaged 8.4% of GDP (a measure of the size of the economy) from 1970 to 2000.
Since the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, federal individual income taxes have remained below the 8.4% GDP level (the average from 1970-2000) with the exception of 2007.
Federal individual income tax dollars did not again reach their 2000 peak of $1.0 trillion until 2006, then dropped back below this level as the economy entered recession in 2009.
2009 federal individual income taxes of 6.4% of GDP were the lowest level since at least 1968.
</div></div>

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/ce/Federal_individual_income_tax_receipts_2000-2009.png/800px-Federal_individual_income_tax_receipts_2000-2009.png

Q

Sid_Vicious
04-12-2011, 10:00 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">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Subject: Re: Should we raise the debt ceiling? </div></div>

In almost all countries its automatic.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> In 2006, Mr. Obama struck a high moral tone in opposing legislation to raise the debt ceiling</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When reminded that the Senate vote to raise the debt ceiling was a close 52-48, with Mr. Obama voting no, Mr. Gibbs said, “Well, we’ve had closer.” The vote was completely along party lines, with Republicans all voting yes and Democrats voting no. </div></div>

Geez! It passed with 52 votes! How strange.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When Republicans were in charge, they borrowed money to cut taxes, add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare and prosecute two wars, moves most Democrats opposed and spending that, in their view, was unworthy of additional borrowing. </div></div>

After 6 years of Bush, the country was in a mess and engaged in a massive spending spree, doubling the Nat deficit......and where were the outraged Republicans?????????????????????

Not a squeak from the deficit chickenhawks we hear squawking today.

Q

</div></div>

Exactly. Had that bozo not bungled us into Iraq, and done his dam job keeping up with the thieves in the lending and banking industry...we'd not have this mess today. What did he do? Basically fired his whole financial team of advisers...well they left cuz Bush didn't want to listen to what they knew.

Bush caused most all of this we are going through, and I'll say again, Bush ignored the Bin Laden warnings from day one. He should be tried for treason in the first degree.

Oh, the debt ceiling must be raised. It would be a catastrophe let the card fall with not raising it. Damn George Bush! sid

LWW
04-13-2011, 02:09 AM
So you have nothing to dispute what I posted ... other than throwing up a chart you don't even understand?

You would have done yourself a favor to just remain silent and let the thread die.

Sev
04-13-2011, 08:26 AM
I chuckled when I saw the chart.

@Sid. True Iraq and Afghanistan have cost far to much and still continue to do so.

However the housing bubble would still have occurred as well as other economic problems.

The only difference may have been less borrowing from China and Japan. Maybe.

LWW
04-13-2011, 12:31 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I chuckled when I saw the chart. </div></div>

That's why I said he didn't understand it.

His chart showed federal revenue falling before the tax cuts and then rising after them and then falling off the cliff after the new democrook congress and dear leader ... which is exactly what I said happened.

pooltchr
04-13-2011, 01:40 PM
Sure....but charts and graphs <u>look </u>impressive!

Steve

LWW
04-13-2011, 02:45 PM
Ross Perot would have been his hero.

Qtec
04-13-2011, 06:40 PM
<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: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I chuckled when I saw the chart. </div></div>

That's why I said he didn't understand it.

His chart <u>showed federal revenue falling before the tax cuts </u>and then rising after them and then falling off the cliff after the new democrook congress and dear leader ... which is exactly what I said happened. </div></div>

BS.


1990 1,032.0
1991 1,055.0
1992 1,091.2
1993 1,154.3
1994 1,258.6
1995 1,351.8
1996 1,453.1
1997 1,579.2
1998 1,721.7
1999 1,827.5
2000 2,025.2 ...here come the Bush tax cuts.
2001 1,991.1 Revenue falls
2002 1,853.1 ..and falls
2003 1,782.3 ..and falls
2004 1,880.1
2005 2,153.6
2006 2,406.9
2007 2,568.0
2008 2,524.0
2009 2,105.0

After 8 years of Bush, revenue was only 80 B more than when Clinton handed GW the keys to the WH.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/ce/Federal_individual_income_tax_receipts_2000-2009.png/800px-Federal_individual_income_tax_receipts_2000-2009.png

As the graph shows, 2009 federal individual income taxes of 6.4% of GDP <span style='font-size: 14pt'>were the lowest level since at least 1968.</span>

Q

pooltchr
04-13-2011, 08:10 PM
So tax revenues went up steadily from 2004 to 2008 before they dropped drastically. In fact, your graph shows the highest revenues during Bush's second term, before they dropped significantly in Obama's first year in office.

So what exactly are you trying to say?

Steve

Qtec
04-14-2011, 01:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So tax revenues went up steadily from 2004 to 2008 before they dropped drastically. </div></div>

Read the chart. In 2008 it went <u>down</u>.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And yet another lie that you cling to.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>LWW....'The tax cuts flooded the treasury with income.'</span> </div></div>

Flooded??????? Eh.......No they didn't.




What am I trying to say?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">After 6 years of Bush, the country was in a mess and engaged in a massive spending spree, doubling the Nat deficit......and <u>where were the outraged Republicans?????????????????????</u>

Not a squeak from the deficit chickenhawks we hear squawking today.

</div></div>

Q

Between 2007 and the inauguration, 4 million jobs were lost. 4 million not paying any taxes! That might account for the revenue loss.

Qtec
04-14-2011, 05:16 AM
Geez. LWW has made about 10 posts now and is obviously trying to bury this thread.

Pathetic.

Q

LWW
04-14-2011, 05:28 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"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I chuckled when I saw the chart. </div></div>

That's why I said he didn't understand it.

His chart <u>showed federal revenue falling before the tax cuts </u>and then rising after them and then falling off the cliff after the new democrook congress and dear leader ... which is exactly what I said happened. </div></div>

BS.


1990 1,032.0
1991 1,055.0
1992 1,091.2
1993 1,154.3
1994 1,258.6
1995 1,351.8
1996 1,453.1
1997 1,579.2
1998 1,721.7
1999 1,827.5
2000 2,025.2 ...here come the Bush tax cuts. <span style="color: #3366FF">Sorry, Bush was a candidate then.</span>
2001 1,991.1 Revenue falls <span style="color: #3366FF">Very good.</span>
2002 1,853.1 ..and falls <span style="color: #3366FF">First round of tax cuts.</span>
2003 1,782.3 ..and falls <span style="color: #3366FF">SSecond round</span>
2004 1,880.1 <span style="color: #3366FF">Revenue takes off.</span>
2005 2,153.6 <span style="color: #3366FF">Revenue hits a new record.</span>
2006 2,406.9 <span style="color: #3366FF">And another new record.</span>
2007 2,568.0 <span style="color: #3366FF">And another new record ... as the last of the R congress budgets ends.</span>
2008 2,524.0 <span style="color: #3366FF">And the fall in revenue begins ....</span>
2009 2,105.0 <span style="color: #3366FF">... and continues.</span>

After 8 years of Bush, revenue was only 80 B more than when Clinton handed GW the keys to the WH. <span style="color: #3366FF">I can't believe you are that gullible, not even you Revenue fell nearly 20% in 2 short years under the new congress ... revenue rose over 20% following the tax cuts institution.</span>



Q

</div></div>

Anything else I can help you with?

LWW
04-14-2011, 05:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So tax revenues went up steadily from 2004 to 2008 before they dropped drastically. In fact, your graph shows the highest revenues during Bush's second term, before they dropped significantly in Obama's first year in office.

So what exactly are you trying to say?

Steve </div></div>

What he's trying to say is that since all presented evidence shows he was wrong doesn't mean that he was wrong since dear leader tells him he's right.

LWW
04-14-2011, 05:31 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">So tax revenues went up steadily from 2004 to 2008 before they dropped drastically. </div></div>

Read the chart. In 2008 it went <u>down</u>.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And yet another lie that you cling to.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>LWW....'The tax cuts flooded the treasury with income.'</span> </div></div>

Flooded??????? Eh.......No they didn't.. </div></div>

Your source says they did.

LWW
04-14-2011, 05:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Between 2007 and the inauguration, 4 million jobs were lost. 4 million not paying any taxes! That might account for the revenue loss.

</div></div>

Very good, and thanks for agreeing with me.

Think real hard Q ... I have faith in you dude ... which party took control of congress in January 2007?

You may use google if you wish.

LWW
04-14-2011, 05:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Geez. LWW has made about 10 posts now and is obviously trying to bury this thread.

Pathetic.

Q </div></div>

He is?

Actually ... I want this to stay at/near the top.

Exposing stupidonomic theory is a hobby of mine.

BTW ... dear leader started a new stupidonomic theory yesterday, that of reducing spending by increasing taxes.

pooltchr
04-14-2011, 06:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
What he's trying to say is that since all presented evidence shows he was wrong doesn't mean that he was wrong since dear leader tells him he's right. </div></div>

I find it amazing that he could post a chart that shows he is wrong, and yet not know that the chart he posted shows he was wrong!

Steve

Qtec
04-14-2011, 06:20 AM
lets stay on topic shall we?

Your statement,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">His chart showed federal revenue falling before the tax cuts and then rising after them </div></div>
, is total BS, yes?


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Revenue fell nearly 20% in 2 short years under the new congress </div></div>

I have asked you this a 100 times and you NEVER have an answer.

Again.

"If the Dems are responsible, what legislation did they pass in 2007/2008 that caused this disaster?

Q

Qtec
04-14-2011, 06:37 AM
This shows how far the Fox method has taken hold of the believers. Deny facts and repeat obvious lies until the lies are the truth.

Incredible!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> As the graph shows, 2009 federal individual income taxes of<span style='font-size: 26pt'> 6.4%</span> of GDP <span style='font-size: 26pt'>were the lowest level since at least 1968.</span></div></div>

If you can read a graph, you would see that even while GDP grew, revenue still fell!

Q

pooltchr
04-14-2011, 09:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This shows how far the Fox method has taken hold of the believers. Deny facts and repeat obvious lies until the lies are the truth.

Incredible!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> As the graph shows, 2009 federal individual income taxes of<span style='font-size: 26pt'> 6.4%</span> of GDP <span style='font-size: 26pt'>were the lowest level since at least 1968.</span></div></div>

If you can read a graph, you would see that even while GDP grew, revenue still fell!

Q

</div></div>

So tell us who was the President in 2009 and which party had control of both houses of congress at that time?

Steve

LWW
04-14-2011, 10:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
What he's trying to say is that since all presented evidence shows he was wrong doesn't mean that he was wrong since dear leader tells him he's right. </div></div>

I find it amazing that he could post a chart that shows he is wrong, and yet not know that the chart he posted shows he was wrong!

Steve </div></div>

I honestly suspect that Q is a wild eyed radical conservative doing a spoof.

LWW
04-14-2011, 10:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This shows how far the Fox method has taken hold of the believers. Deny facts and repeat obvious lies until the lies are the truth.

Incredible!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> As the graph shows, 2009 federal individual income taxes of<span style='font-size: 26pt'> 6.4%</span> of GDP <span style='font-size: 26pt'>were the lowest level since at least 1968.</span></div></div>

If you can read a graph, you would see that even while GDP grew, revenue still fell!

Q

</div></div>

There you go again ... you are "PROVING" that federal revenue didn't tank after the democrooks took over congress in 2007 by proving that federal revenue tanked after the democrooks took over congress in 2007.

Do some more for us ... this stuff is gold.

wolfdancer
04-14-2011, 10:11 AM
Q, I've avoided this thread after seeing the two Wharton School grad. economists (sic) who, as I have previously noted....think that when you mention M1, you must be talking about a carbine, and
M2, must be about a machine gun

pooltchr
04-14-2011, 10:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Q, I've avoided this thread after seeing the two Wharton School grad. economists (sic) who, as I have previously noted....think that when you mention M1, you must be talking about a carbine, and
M2, must be about a machine gun </div></div>

If that is the case, you were smart to avoid a discussion about which you are showing little if any actual knowledge.

I admire someone who knows their limitations.


Steve

LWW
04-14-2011, 10:32 AM
Woofie is trying to troll the thread off course to save his fellow sock puppet from being seen as truly clueless.

Please do not allow him to succeed.

Now, Snoopy, isn't it about time to claim this was really all about the Austrian tax on tea?

wolfdancer
04-14-2011, 10:44 AM
Written by the person that trolls several boards.
Hows it going nowadays in the trenches, on the front lines of the Canadian Border, Mr. "I also serve"? Any serious incidents to report, Rambo?
I thought the entire discussion was on the British tax on tea?

Qtec
04-15-2011, 03:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So tell us who was the President in 2009 </div></div>

Yes, lets forget Bush and concentrate on Obama!

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>By 2007 the damage was already done</span>. Bush had borrowed everything that he spent and <u>left it for the next POTUS to fix, it just happened to be Obama.</u>

In the month before Obama was inaugurated, the USA lost 800,000 jobs!
Where did the money come from for the BUSH bank bailout???????????....it was borrowed.
Tax cuts?....borrowed.
Iraq war?......borrowed.
How about the big give away to big Pharma?....borrowed.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bush Plan a Boon to Drug Companies
Medicare Prescription Proposal Would Also Benefit Insurers, Analysts Say
by Mike Allen


Health care economists said the drug benefit President Bush proposed for Medicare yesterday would be a bonanza for the pharmaceutical and managed-care industries, both of which are huge donors to Republicans.

Bush went before the friendly audience of the American Medical Association at the Washington Hilton to ask Congress to pass incentives for millions of senior citizens to switch from Medicare, the federally funded health insurance program for the elderly, to private health insurance in return for drug coverage. Those who stayed in Medicare would receive more modest benefits, including a discount of 10 percent to 25 percent at the drugstore checkout. </div></div>


Can't remember GOP outrage about increasing the deficit then.

Now a Dem is POTUS, its all,

"we are spending money we don't have..etc..etc".

Pathetic. If you believe that $hit that the TP/Con/GOP mob are spouting now then you must be stupid.

Q

LWW
04-15-2011, 03:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Can't remember GOP outrage about increasing the deficit then.

Now a Dem is POTUS, its all,

"we are spending money we don't have..etc..etc".

Pathetic. If you believe that $hit that the TP/Con/GOP mob are spouting now then you must be stupid.

Q </div></div>

Actually, that part is largely true.

As I have said, the R's met their Waterloo because they became democrook-lite and spent far too much.

The difference between us however remains that you see a $400B deficit under an R congress as the end of civilization and a $1.600B deficit under a D congress as a blessing from Heaven.

OTOH, I see both as bad with one being 4 times worse than the other.

Now, until you have something to contribute which isn't spoon fed hyperpartisan pap, you would be doing yourself a favor to educate yourself on reality.

Qtec
04-15-2011, 04:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As I have said, the R's met their Waterloo <u>because they became democrook-lite</u> </div></div>

Another utterly BS statement.

The GOP <u>say one thing and do another.</u>
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Spending is what they are good at. Leaving the mess for the Dems to mop up is another.</span>

BTW...the reason Obama is so bad is because he more like a Republican than a Democrat...?

Q

LWW
04-15-2011, 04:51 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">As I have said, the R's met their Waterloo <u>because they became democrook-lite</u> </div></div>

Another utterly BS statement.

The GOP <u>say one thing and do another.</u>
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Spending is what they are good at. Leaving the mess for the Dems to mop up is another.</span>


Q </div></div>

And again, you "PROVE" me wrong by proving me correct.

I understand that English isn't your first language ... but I suspect that you are more fluent in Swahili at this point.

Stretch
04-15-2011, 05:20 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">As I have said, the R's met their Waterloo <u>because they became democrook-lite</u> </div></div>

Another utterly BS statement.

The GOP <u>say one thing and do another.</u>
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Spending is what they are good at. Leaving the mess for the Dems to mop up is another.</span>


Q </div></div>

And again, you "PROVE" me wrong by proving me correct.

I understand that English isn't your first language ... but I suspect that you are more fluent in Swahili at this point. </div></div>

True Doublethink in action. St.

LWW
04-15-2011, 05:20 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">Geez. LWW has made about 10 posts now and is obviously trying to bury this thread.

Pathetic.

Q </div></div>

He is?

Actually ... I want this to stay at/near the top.

Exposing stupidonomic theory is a hobby of mine.

BTW ... dear leader started a new stupidonomic theory yesterday, that of reducing spending by increasing taxes. </div></div>

I want to keep this near the top for a bit longer.

Tell me some more funnies Q ... you crack me up.

Qtec
04-15-2011, 05:31 AM
LWW thinks 2+2=3. ...when a Dem is POTUS.

The Clinton success was all down to the Republicans?

The Bush dismal failure was all down to the Dems?

If his fantasy is true, then he should really be rooting for a Dem POTUS!!!

Q.

LWW
04-15-2011, 05:15 PM
Quote me all you like ... but at least have some integrity and quote me honestly, is that too much to ask.

LWW
04-19-2011, 06:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Geez. LWW has made about 10 posts now and is obviously trying to bury this thread.

Pathetic.

Q </div></div>

Bumped again because Snoopy gave me a giggle with this one.

DickLeonard
04-19-2011, 11:24 AM
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTRRRRRRRRR RRRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEETTTTTTTTTTT TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTCHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.

Nice to see your still posting. Dick

DickLeonard
04-19-2011, 11:30 AM
Wolfie nicwe to see your out of Jail. Gayle seems to escape the Punishment of the Right Wing Whackos.

Who are the Wharton Grads? I find that amusing.Dick

wolfdancer
04-19-2011, 11:37 AM
That would have to be lww and steve, of course.
Gayle is allowed to post now, but as the personal threats to her have increased.....two people discussed "scoping" her....she has opted to enjoy the summer and sailing season instead of fueling their anger even further.

LWW
04-19-2011, 05:03 PM
They don't even male wide angle scopes.

Stretch
04-20-2011, 01:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DickLeonard</div><div class="ubbcode-body">SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTRRRRRRRRR RRRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEETTTTTTTTTTT TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTCHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.

Nice to see your still posting. Dick </div></div>

Hey Dick! Great to see you my friend. Yes still posting some but mostly read. Safer that way lol St.