PDA

View Full Version : PAWPAW RUNNING ON TRUTH? BWA HA HA HA



Gayle in MD
05-24-2011, 07:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Factcheck.org, a nonpartisan outfit that vets the statements of politicians, reports that in recent months "we have found [Pawlenty] straying from the facts." The group provided several examples:

In January, Pawlenty told Fox News that he "never did sign a bill relating to cap and trade" climate action when he was governor. But he did sign legislation in 2007 to set up a task force that would produce recommendations for how his state could implement a cap-and-trade regimen. He also signed a multi-state compact to "develop a market-based and multi-sector cap-and-trade mechanism." As Mother Jones reported, at a Republican presidential debate earlier this month, Pawlenty claimed—falsely—that while governor he merely backed the "study" of cap and trade. He went on to apologize to Republican voters for his support of this policy.
Earlier this year, Pawlenty said, "I don't think the government should bail out Wall Street or the mortgage industry or for that matter any other industry." But in 2008, he asserted that he did endorse these sort of interventions when necessary: "If you allow those entities to fail, the consequences are so severe for innocent bystanders, namely average Americans who rely on the markets, rely on those mortgages, you know, the consequences are too severe...[T]hey are too big, the consequences are too severe for innocent bystanders to allow them to fail."
In blasting Obama's economic policy, Pawlenty, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed in December, declared that "local, state and federal governments added 590,000" jobs in the previous two years, while private sector employment had dropped by millions. Pawlenty was wrong: Government employment had actually fallen by 118,000 jobs. (PolitiFact.com, another fact-checking shop, dubbed this statement a "pants on fire" lie.)
PolitiFact.com also slapped Pawlenty with a "barely true" verdict for declaring in his book, Courage To Stand: An American Story, that in 2009 he cut government spending in Minnesota "in real terms for the first time in 150 years." It turns out the state only keeps fiscal data dating back to 1960, so it's not possible to compare Pawlenty's action to the previous 150 years. Also, spending had dropped in years prior to 2009, including 1986 and 1983. And here's the kicker: State spending in 2009 dropped partly because Pawlenty used money from Obama's stimulus to put off some of the state's own spending that year.

In an announcement speech in Iowa on Monday, Pawlenty repeated this first-time-in-150-years claim. (The staffers on his time-for-truth campaign obviously didn't check with PolitiFact.com.) That speech also included another familiar GOP whopper; Pawlenty maintained that Obama "promised that spending $800 billion dollars" on the stimulus bill "would keep unemployment under 8 percent." PolitiFact.com has charitably called this accusation "barely true." (As PolitiFact points out, the Obama administration's early use of the 8-percent figure "was a projection, not a promise. And it was a projection that came with heavy disclaimers.") The prepared text for Pawlenty's speech mentioned the word "truth" 16 times; the word "economy" just six times.

Pawlenty's "A Time for Truth" video looks and sounds great. His speech was full of sharp lines: "Politicians are often afraid that if they're honest, they might lose an election." But do Pawlenty and his campaign handlers believe he can run from his own record of non-straight talk on such grand matters as bank bailouts and cap and trade? It's far too early to handicap the GOP race, but Pawlenty's use of such hollow spin suggests his campaign team is not strong on strategic creativity—even though it is indeed creative to claim Pawlenty is more honest than the competition.

David Corn is Mother Jones' Washington bureau chief.


</div></div>

READ WHOLE ARTICLE HERE:

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/05/tim-pawlenty-time-for-truth-2012
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

pooltchr
05-24-2011, 09:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> another familiar GOP whopper; Pawlenty maintained that Obama "promised that spending $800 billion dollars" on the stimulus bill "would keep unemployment under 8 percent." /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif </div></div>

Wow, I wonder where Barney Frank got the idea that the administration made such a promise. It seems even your own team can't keep all the lies straight!

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-r...-8-unemployment (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/114753-frank-obama-admin-dumb-to-predict-no-higher-than-8-unemployment)

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>It was "dumb" for President Obama and his aides to promise that unemployment would not surpass 8 percent if the stimulus act passed</span>, a top House Democrat said Tuesday.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, called into question the wisdom of projections issued by the Obama administration during the congressional fight over the stimulus bill that argued it would prevent higher levels of joblessness.

"President Obama, whom I greatly admire ... when the economic recovery bill — we're supposed to call it the 'recovery bill,' not the 'stimulus' bill; that's what the focus groups tell us — <span style='font-size: 17pt'>he predicted or his aides predicted at the time that if it passed, unemployment would get under 8 percent," Frank said Tuesday evening </span>

Steve

LWW
05-25-2011, 02:54 AM
You didn't actually suspect the cabal to be aware of the truth did you?

LWW
05-25-2011, 03:10 AM
READ IT AND WEEP SWEETHEART ... (http://otrans.3cdn.net/ee40602f9a7d8172b8_ozm6bt5oi.pdf) and, FWIW, we all know that you lake the courage to do so.

To those who do, the report linked was released from the office of Vice Messiah Elect Joseph Robinette Biden.

It promised that with the stimulus plan UE would top out at 8% and by now we would be down to 6.75% ... while without the stimulus, UE would rise to 9% and would now still be at 8%.

Broken down for the logic challenged ... by the regime's own words, the stimulus has left us in far worse shape than what they told us would happen if we did nothing.

This is the point where the cabal trolls the thread away from the truth and into the gutter in yet another lame attempt to embrace the lie while trying to kill the truth.

Gayle in MD
05-25-2011, 10:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Factcheck.org, a nonpartisan outfit that vets the statements of politicians, reports that in recent months "we have found [Pawlenty] straying from the facts." The group provided several examples:

In January, Pawlenty told Fox News that he "never did sign a bill relating to cap and trade" climate action when he was governor. But he did sign legislation in 2007 to set up a task force that would produce recommendations for how his state could implement a cap-and-trade regimen. He also signed a multi-state compact to "develop a market-based and multi-sector cap-and-trade mechanism." As Mother Jones reported, at a Republican presidential debate earlier this month, Pawlenty claimed—falsely—that while governor he merely backed the "study" of cap and trade. He went on to apologize to Republican voters for his support of this policy.
Earlier this year, Pawlenty said, "I don't think the government should bail out Wall Street or the mortgage industry or for that matter any other industry." But in 2008, he asserted that he did endorse these sort of interventions when necessary: "If you allow those entities to fail, the consequences are so severe for innocent bystanders, namely average Americans who rely on the markets, rely on those mortgages, you know, the consequences are too severe...[T]hey are too big, the consequences are too severe for innocent bystanders to allow them to fail."
In blasting Obama's economic policy, Pawlenty, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed in December, declared that "local, state and federal governments added 590,000" jobs in the previous two years, while private sector employment had dropped by millions. Pawlenty was wrong: Government employment had actually fallen by 118,000 jobs. (PolitiFact.com, another fact-checking shop, dubbed this statement a "pants on fire" lie.)
PolitiFact.com also slapped Pawlenty with a "barely true" verdict for declaring in his book, Courage To Stand: An American Story, that in 2009 he cut government spending in Minnesota "in real terms for the first time in 150 years." It turns out the state only keeps fiscal data dating back to 1960, so it's not possible to compare Pawlenty's action to the previous 150 years. Also, spending had dropped in years prior to 2009, including 1986 and 1983. And here's the kicker: State spending in 2009 dropped partly because Pawlenty used money from Obama's stimulus to put off some of the state's own spending that year.

In an announcement speech in Iowa on Monday, Pawlenty repeated this first-time-in-150-years claim. (The staffers on his time-for-truth campaign obviously didn't check with PolitiFact.com.) That speech also included another familiar GOP whopper; Pawlenty maintained that Obama "promised that spending $800 billion dollars" on the stimulus bill "would keep unemployment under 8 percent." PolitiFact.com has charitably called this accusation "barely true." (As PolitiFact points out, the Obama administration's early use of the 8-percent figure "was a projection, not a promise. And it was a projection that came with heavy disclaimers.") The prepared text for Pawlenty's speech mentioned the word "truth" 16 times; the word "economy" just six times.

Pawlenty's "A Time for Truth" video looks and sounds great. His speech was full of sharp lines: "Politicians are often afraid that if they're honest, they might lose an election." But do Pawlenty and his campaign handlers believe he can run from his own record of non-straight talk on such grand matters as bank bailouts and cap and trade? It's far too early to handicap the GOP race, but Pawlenty's use of such hollow spin suggests his campaign team is not strong on strategic creativity—even though it is indeed creative to claim Pawlenty is more honest than the competition.

David Corn is Mother Jones' Washington bureau chief.


</div></div>

READ WHOLE ARTICLE HERE:

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/05/tim-pawlenty-time-for-truth-2012
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif </div></div>


Additionally, the American Automobile Industry, is making a huge comeback. Another time that the Republicans were bashing him, yet he had the courage to do what he knew was best for the country.

Literally, millions of American jobs, were saved, and Crysler, is paying back their loan, early.

Another courageous decision, like getting bin Lindustry aden, but not made with a knee jerk ideology, made by listening, communicating with those automobile CEO's about providing energy efficient automobiles, in their lines, which, seem to be selling like hot cakes!

Another brilliant decision by the president, made in the face of the usual bashing by the narrow minded, short sighted, Repiglican, social engineering, Without Conscience PIGS.

G.

Soflasnapper
05-25-2011, 11:25 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: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> another familiar GOP whopper; Pawlenty maintained that Obama "promised that spending $800 billion dollars" on the stimulus bill "would keep unemployment under 8 percent." /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif </div></div>

Wow, I wonder where Barney Frank got the idea that the administration made such a promise. It seems even your own team can't keep all the lies straight!

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-r...-8-unemployment (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/114753-frank-obama-admin-dumb-to-predict-no-higher-than-8-unemployment)

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>It was "dumb" for President Obama and his aides to promise that unemployment would not surpass 8 percent if the stimulus act passed</span>, a top House Democrat said Tuesday.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, called into question the wisdom of projections issued by the Obama administration during the congressional fight over the stimulus bill that argued it would prevent higher levels of joblessness.

"President Obama, whom I greatly admire ... when the economic recovery bill — we're supposed to call it the 'recovery bill,' not the 'stimulus' bill; that's what the focus groups tell us — <span style='font-size: 17pt'>he predicted or his aides predicted at the time that if it passed, unemployment would get under 8 percent," Frank said Tuesday evening </span>

Steve </div></div>

The proper description of what Roehmer and Co. did was 'project.' It wasn't a promise, nor did it come out of O's mouth.

Why was the projection so far off?

BECAUSE THE 4TH QUARTER GDP DECLINE WAS UNDERESTIMATED BY FULLY 50%+.

Not just by the newly started O administration, but by everyone, including all the blue chip private economic prognosticators. No one knew how far off the cliff the economy had fallen in the 4th quarter, until the numbers were in.

The consensus projection across the board for GDP decline in the 4th quarter was a horrible -4% (annualized) range. It came in at instead an unthinkable number, at over a -6% decline, which no one saw coming.

Hence, so early in the O administration, prior to when the 4th quarter GDP figure was reported, they went with the consensus projection of what the worst anyone was saying it would be, and projected unemployment rates on that basis.

Rather than try to understand what really happened, it is said their projection was wrong (and then it is lyingly portrayed as a promise, which it wasn't). Really what was wrong was the starting assumption of just how bad that 4th quarter had been, which was hardly anyones fault. It was literally unforeseeable, and no one saw or predicted it could possibly be that bad.

Gayle in MD
05-25-2011, 11:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><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: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> another familiar GOP whopper; Pawlenty maintained that Obama "promised that spending $800 billion dollars" on the stimulus bill "would keep unemployment under 8 percent." /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif </div></div>

Wow, I wonder where Barney Frank got the idea that the administration made such a promise. It seems even your own team can't keep all the lies straight!

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-r...-8-unemployment (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/114753-frank-obama-admin-dumb-to-predict-no-higher-than-8-unemployment)

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>It was "dumb" for President Obama and his aides to promise that unemployment would not surpass 8 percent if the stimulus act passed</span>, a top House Democrat said Tuesday.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, called into question the wisdom of projections issued by the Obama administration during the congressional fight over the stimulus bill that argued it would prevent higher levels of joblessness.

"President Obama, whom I greatly admire ... when the economic recovery bill — we're supposed to call it the 'recovery bill,' not the 'stimulus' bill; that's what the focus groups tell us — <span style='font-size: 17pt'>he predicted or his aides predicted at the time that if it passed, unemployment would get under 8 percent," Frank said Tuesday evening </span>

Steve </div></div>

The proper description of what Roehmer and Co. did was 'project.' It wasn't a promise, nor did it come out of O's mouth.

Why was the projection so far off?

BECAUSE THE 4TH QUARTER GDP DECLINE WAS UNDERESTIMATED BY FULLY 50%+.

Not just by the newly started O administration, but by everyone, including all the blue chip private economic prognosticators. No one knew how far off the cliff the economy had fallen in the 4th quarter, until the numbers were in.

The consensus projection across the board for GDP decline in the 4th quarter was a horrible -4% (annualized) range. It came in at instead an unthinkable number, at over a -6% decline, which no one saw coming.

Hence, so early in the O administration, prior to when the 4th quarter GDP figure was reported, they went with the consensus projection of what the worst anyone was saying it would be, and projected unemployment rates on that basis.

Rather than try to understand what really happened, it is said their projection was wrong (and then it is lyingly portrayed as a promise, which it wasn't). Really what was wrong was the starting assumption of just how bad that 4th quarter had been, which was hardly anyones fault. It was literally unforeseeable, and no one saw or predicted it could possibly be that bad.


</div></div>

Excellent post, and I would add, no one expected the job recovery to be swift.

Good to see that the good numbers continue to rise, and that the American Automobile Industry, has apparently, be saved, by President Obama, who was grossly criticized and bashed, by the Repubs, and the right, for that courageous decision, one of many, as we see even Crysler, paying back their loan, early, and millions of American Jobs, saved, and the annoucement by one automobile manufacturer made this week, that thousands of new jobs, will be added in Detroit.

G.

eg8r
05-25-2011, 12:05 PM
Considering the Obama adminstration failed so miserably in this projection why do you give them so much leeway on their projections for the HC bill?

Could you please provide us with one or two examples where projections from the Obama adminstration hit their mark?

eg8r

eg8r
05-25-2011, 12:09 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Excellent post, and I would add, no one expected the job recovery to be swift.

</div></div>If the Obama adminstration was projecting no more than 8% would you think that was a less than swift recovery and reality turned out to be even LESS swift even though $800 billion was spent to "speed" it up?

You are giving credit to Obama for saving the automobile industry, and maybe he did play a part, but I think things are doing well IN SPITE of government intervention which you have never admitted to. I don't remember ever seeing a post from you where you credited progress outside of government help.

eg8r

pooltchr
05-25-2011, 12:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> It was literally unforeseeable, and no one saw or predicted it could possibly be that bad.


</div></div>

So you're admitting that Obama and his people failed terribly in their initial evaluation of the state of the economy.

They guessed, and they guessed wrong.

Just as they guess about how many jobs have been created, how many people are actually unemployed, or what spending a trillion dollars we didn't have would do to the economy, and to unemployment, how much HCR is going to cost us....I'm doubtful they even know how much in debt the country is in....they do have a history of less than accurate guessing!

Steve

Gayle in MD
05-25-2011, 12:54 PM
<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: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> It was literally unforeseeable, and no one saw or predicted it could possibly be that bad.


</div></div>

So you're admitting that Obama and his people failed terribly in their initial evaluation of the state of the economy.

They guessed, and they guessed wrong.

Just as they guess about how many jobs have been created, how many people are actually unemployed, or what spending a trillion dollars we didn't have would do to the economy, and to unemployment, how much HCR is going to cost us....I'm doubtful they even know how much in debt the country is in....they do have a history of less than accurate guessing!

Steve </div></div>


<span style="color: #660000"> You have a history of moving your line around, to avoid taking responsibility for your votes for the party of disaster.

You were the one on here syaing the huge Bush Deficits, didn't matter!!!

No one knew anything, when the crash hit. Do you ever read anything???

Bush and Paulson, didn't know a damn thing about how bad things were. No one did.

Even Greenspan, said he couldn't get to the bottom of what the banks were doing, or how bad the risks they had taken could be, and how tenuous our circumstances were.

But we do know one thing, Republicans blocked every single attempt, to tighten regulations on the banks, AFTER we all saw, just how corrupt and greedy and incompetent they had been.

Wake UP! Read a few books once in a while.... </span>

pooltchr
05-25-2011, 01:05 PM
Actually, Gayle, the Reps were trying to get more regulations in place. It was the Dems, who kept stopping them, saying that Fannie and Freddy were just fine.

Steve

Gayle in MD
05-25-2011, 01:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Actually, Gayle, the Reps were trying to get more regulations in place. It was the Dems, who kept stopping them, saying that Fannie and Freddy were just fine.

Steve </div></div>

Fannie and Freddie got out of the sub prime market, in 2003.

It was AFTER they got out, that the crash built into what it became.

And as usual, you are wrong.

Tthe Bush Administration, AND Greenspan, blocked regulations, since the late nineties, and Fannie and Freddie, had nothing to do with the Wall Street, CRASH!

This was explained, and stated by none other than Sheila Bair:

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Sheila C. Bair, Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation </span>


"Anyone who thinks that the Community Reinvestment Act, or Fannie and Freddie, were the cause of this economic crises, doesn't know what they're talking about."

One whistle blower from the NY FEC:

"We didn't crack down because it would have been against the President's policies"

The one man who did crack down, or was trying to do so, was being stalked, and watched, by those who were determined to prevent exposure, and was caught, with prostitutes, and ruined, Elliot Spitzer.

What you're talking about, had absolutely nothing at all, to do with the Wall Street crash. NOTHING!


It had everything to do with the greed and corruption on Wall Street, and hundreds of fly by night, mortgage corporations, buying up bad loans and passing them off to unsuspecting others, all of which popped up AFTER FREDDIE AND FANNIE GOT OUT OF INSURING ANY SUB PRIME MORTGAGES!!!!

AND, to do with Bush's "Ownership Society" which set the pace for everything else that happened.

Numerous economists, have stated, that the meat and workings of the crash were in play, from 2003 through 2006! The Democratics took office in January of 2007. The crash was well on it's way, a done deal, BEFORE THEY EVER WON THE MAJORITY!

READ A BOOK ONCE IN A WHILE!
G.

pooltchr
05-25-2011, 01:30 PM
blah blah blah

Gayle in MD
05-25-2011, 01:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">blah blah blah </div></div>

You were the one on here syaing the huge Bush Deficits, didn't matter!!!

pooltchr
05-25-2011, 01:50 PM
And you have taken that one sentence out of context and repeated it for years.

You're such a tool. Your endless blathering is about as boring as pesky's little cartoons.

Wake up and see what is going on in the world around you.

Steve

Gayle in MD
05-25-2011, 01:56 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And you have taken that one sentence out of context and repeated it for years.

You're such a tool. Your endless blathering is about as boring as pesky's little cartoons.

Wake up and see what is going on in the world around you.

Steve </div></div>

LMAO!
Oh really? How is it taken out of context, Steve? You said it while Bush was running them up. "The deficits don't matter!"

So, was it ONLY Bush's deficits, that didn't matter to you, but any other presiden'ts deficits, do matter?

Reagan ran up deficits, too.

Bush one, also ran them up.

All three, grew the size of the Federal Government.

AND, the Middle Class, lost ground, under all three.

AND, only the Wealthy, moved up.

AND they had the worst jobs creations, of the recent decades.

Obama, has created more jobs, than Bush did during his entire tenure.

Clinton created more jobs than all three of them put together.

So stop with all of the "There is no difference between the party's...there is a huge difference. The Middle Class suffers under Republican Presidents, the governemnt grows, the deficits grow, and the warring and selling of arms around the world, grows, as well.



YOU SHOULD READ A BOOK ONCE IN A WHILE!

G.

pooltchr
05-25-2011, 02:00 PM
And Obama has out done them all....and your only response is we have to spend our way out of a recession.

You should just learn to read, period!


Steve

Gayle in MD
05-25-2011, 02:09 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And Obama has out done them all....and your only response is we have to spend our way out of a recession.

You should just learn to read, period!


Steve </div></div>


Obama hasn't out done them all in terms of success, and dealing with all of Bush's disastrous situations, which he dumped into Obama's lap.

You righties continue to put Bush's debts, under this President.

TARP, was signed by Bush, not Obama.

Iraq dets, were Bush's debts, not Obama's.




WE are recovering from the Bush Recession, which was nearly a BUSH DEPRESSION.

Unemployment numbers continue to go down.



The American Automobile Industry, is back up and making money and paying off their debts to us, early. Thousands of new jobs will be filled in DETROIT!

President Obama, got bin Laden.

President Obama, has drawn down troops from Iraq.


He will soon begin to draw down troops from Afghanistan.

Looks to me like given the colossal MESS he inherited, which historians in huge numbers, said was the worst legacy inherited since the Great Depression, that he done a GREAT JOB!

You just don't like facing it.

Hence, you bash him non stop, even when he gets the man that people all over the world, celebrated, when he was finally gone, and could no longer plan attacks on our country.

Bush couldn't do it, I guess, because he eliminated the unit that had the sole focus, of getting bin Laden, just did away with it, and forgot all about bin Laden.

"I don't know where he is. He's hiding. I don't think about him."

Now, we know, he was hiding, AND planning more attacks, and continuing to LEAD al Qaeda.

Kills ya, doesn't it? Obama has achieved so much, where Bush failed miserably???

G.

pooltchr
05-25-2011, 02:26 PM
blah blah blah...

Are you old enough to know what a broken record sounds like?


Steve

Gayle in MD
05-25-2011, 02:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">blah blah blah...

Are you old enough to know what a broken record sounds like?


Steve </div></div>

Are you old enough to grasp the fact that I don't care what you think, about me, or about anything????

Stop the cyberstalking. I am not interested in you, or your opinions....

Hence....
Off they go!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpcTkV1tKDs&feature=related

pooltchr
05-25-2011, 03:26 PM
And yet, once again, you find yourself reading my posts, and responding to them.

Steve

LWW
05-26-2011, 01:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And Obama has out done them all....and your only response is we have to spend our way out of a recession.

You should just learn to read, period!


Steve </div></div>

She reads only what she is told to read, "TRUTH" is a malleable concept to the far left.

In early 2009 the party "TRUTH" was that the stimulus would keep UE at no more than 8% and not doing the stimulus would send it to 9%.

Once the UE rate went to 10%, that "TRUTH" was sent down the memory hole by the party.