jps wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 19:27:06 -0400, "Scout"
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:08:07 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
wrote:

"Scout" wrote in
:


You mean the surplus that didn't exist, because the government
spent more than it got in revenue?


Ssshhhhhh, they can't handle the truth.

Yeah, that was the money Bush insisted was ours and proceeded to
give it to the wealthiest 1%.

China is financing that debt with our worthless dollars.

Who can't handle the truth?

Attempt to change the subject, and hence your surrender, is noted.

Your stupidity is duly noted.

Let's see if that's really the case, or rather if this is a comment on your
own stupidity.


I'm simply following up on your ill-conceived notion that Dems are bad
stewards of the federal budget.

Really? Care to cite where I stated such a notion?

Since you can not do so it's looking like the only stupidity speaking is
yours.


Have a look at the history of federal debt during presidencies and
you'll find the deficit has gone down during D administrations and up
during R administrations.

Agreed, the D's generally have less debt, though it's looking like Obama is
going to wipe that out during his first budget, but that's not really
relevent to the point you are attempting to make.

However, a lower debt, is still a debt, and an increasing deficit still
means the government spent more than they took in. The only difference is Ds
spend us into debt, generally, at a slower rate. Further, one has to
question how much of the debt incurred by future administrations is a result
of the costs of entitlement programs enacted during a D administration. If
you factor that in, it could have a significant impact on the numbers you
refer to because adding spending to future budgets isn't included (and it
should be) in the accounting of the administration that imposed the
expendature(s).....not just when it came due for payment, but again not
directly relevent to your point.


Doesn't matter who it is, if you spend more than you have, then the deficit
increases.

Unless you can't handle the truth, which I'm certain is the case.

Where as you seem to be utterly ignoring the small truth I presented to you
for your edification and enlightenment.

So who can't handle the truth? The one that confronts it as I do, or the one
that changes the subject rather than to accept the deficit increased under
Clinton because his adminstration did, in fact, spend more than it took in
and there was no real surplus beyond numbers on paper?


And don't tell me to cite it. Prove that you have half a brain and
can use google.

IOW, don't bother asking you to back up your claims.

I acknowledge your inability to handle the truth. I accept you want to
change the subject rather than to deal with that truth. I am disappointed
that you claim positions for me which I have not expressed. Finally, I am
sadden by your self admission of stupidity by expressing all of the above.

"RD (The Sandman)" wrote in message
...
"Clave" wrote in news:56edncvL3-
:

"RD (The Sandman)" wrote in message
...
"Clave" wrote in

...

What exactly are you denying? That Wilson and Akre v Fox never
existed, that Fox lost the initial case, or that Fox appealed and
won,
the court affirming that they had a right to lie?

I anxiously await your mother-of-all-retards reply.

And we anxiously await a cite to the case from you. I want to read
the
actual case, not a Daily Kos take on it.

DYOFH, retard.

IOW, you can only blow the same smoke as your blogs do and cannot produce
a case cite. Noted....

You have yet to tell me what you think still needs proving, retard.

Jim

jps wrote in news:8k2sd5p7vbrodu7r9v859k887upfpgd001@
4ax.com:

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:05:03 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
wrote:

jps wrote in
m:

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:46:07 -0700, "Clave"
wrote:

"RD (The Sandman)" wrote in message
.. .
"Clave" wrote in
news:RJGdnQXeVYHNCkbXnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@cablespeedmi .com:

"RD (The Sandman)" wrote in
message ...
"Clave" wrote in
news:nKudnW3sNKyq_kfXnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@cablespeedmi .com:

..

You can take your pick too, moron. Or are you still allergic to
facts?

http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...TF-8&rlz=1T4GW
YE_ en US316US317&q=court+rules+fox+can+lie

Those are opinion sites...

OK, you retards just go on believing it never happened. Your
collective need to deny recent history is even more well-documented
than the FOX case.

Then why do you have such a problem producing a cite for it?


I produced 83,000 of them.

I'm not interested in playing birther games with you or any of your
slurp buddies.

Jim

Birthers. Weren't they formerly known as "The Klan"?

They'll never believe anything if it goes against the grain of their
assumed/ratified/cemented ignorance. Cannot compute.


Ahhhhhh, Clave......you found a butt buddie......

That's your rebuttal? You're afraid of the truth so deflect.

It's not going to change the facts nor your fear of them.


And what exactly are the "facts"? All we saw was 83,000 opinion pieces.

If I get the gist some malcontents claimed they were told to lie by the
management of thier station. They refused, got fired and brought suit. The
suit failed suggesting that they did not present a convincing case.

What's your point? Are you now going to damn an entire network becuase at one
station some malcontents "claimed" that they were told to lie, though a court
apparently wasn't buyibng thier argument?

"Gray Ghost" wrote in message
. 97.142...

...

If I get the gist some malcontents claimed they were told to lie by the
management of thier station. They refused, got fired and brought suit. The
suit failed suggesting that they did not present a convincing case.

Hold onto that ignorance like grim death, retard. Without it you'd have
hardly any personality at all.

God forbid you inform yourself.

Jim

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:59:14 -0400, queenie
puked:

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:18:18 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
wrote:

queenie wrote in
m:


That mess was caused by both sides of the aisle, not just one.

Bush tax cuts among other things. Still, Obama is doing what he can
to fix things.

He's not. He has an agenda that runs counter to fixing things. You
don't spend billions upon billions on pointless bull**** when you
inherit a deficit and fix anything.
--
lab~rat :-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:12:25 -0700, jps wrote:


Yeah, that was the money Bush insisted was ours and proceeded to give it
to the wealthiest 1%.

That's a lie. 70% of people in the second-lowest quintile benefited from
the cuts. Even 16% of those in the *lowest* 20% benefited - and most of
them don't pay income tax.

The share of total federal taxes paid by the 80-99th percentile of
earners *increased* by half a percent (you're welcome).

Those in the top 1% had the greatest absolute benefit, yes - because they
pay more in taxes than anyone else.

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:34:39 -0700, jps wrote:

Have a look at the history of federal debt during presidencies and
you'll find the deficit has gone down during D administrations and up
during R administrations.

Stop being stupid, please. Congress has budgetary power, not the
president. The 104th Congress - during Clinton's administration - was
the last one with any semblance of fiscal responsibility, and they
opposed Clinton's proposed spending, so far as to cause a showdown over a
government shutdown.

"Clave" wrote in
news:qJOdncgTwPLFwkPXnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@cablespeedmi .com:

"RD (The Sandman)" wrote in message
...
"Clave" wrote in news:56edncvL3-
:

"RD (The Sandman)" wrote in
message ...
"Clave" wrote in

...

What exactly are you denying? That Wilson and Akre v Fox never
existed, that Fox lost the initial case, or that Fox appealed and
won,
the court affirming that they had a right to lie?

I anxiously await your mother-of-all-retards reply.

And we anxiously await a cite to the case from you. I want to read
the
actual case, not a Daily Kos take on it.

DYOFH, retard.

IOW, you can only blow the same smoke as your blogs do and cannot
produce a case cite. Noted....

You have yet to tell me what you think still needs proving, retard.

Jim




You said the Courts ruled that FOX can tell their people to lie. I asked
for a case cite.....you haven't provided one.

--
Sleep well tonight,

RD (The Sandman)

Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass
a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand
it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who
hasn't read it, with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn't
pay his taxes because he didn't understand TurboTax, overseen by an obese
Surgeon General and financed by a country that's nearly broke.
What could possibly go wrong?

jps wrote in news:8bisd5hsdoc1lq6u3chuq92j5316bsmnin@
4ax.com:

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:29:32 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
wrote:

jps wrote in
news:vvgsd5la3co9o1rvtctgf5lvilqs2er0fn@
4ax.com:

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:06:38 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
wrote:

jps wrote in
m:

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:44:16 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
wrote:

jps wrote in
news:8k2sd5p7vbrodu7r9v859k887upfpgd001@ 4ax.com:

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:05:03 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
wrote:

jps wrote in
news:248qd5hfmn9stmaia6a1rnpmuck0qbre03@4a x.com:

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:46:07 -0700, "Clave"
wrote:

"RD (The Sandman)" wrote in
message ...
"Clave" wrote in
news:RJGdnQXeVYHNCkbXnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@cablespeedmi .com:

"RD (The Sandman)" wrote
in
message ...
"Clave" wrote in
news:nKudnW3sNKyq_kfXnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@cablespeedmi .com:

..

You can take your pick too, moron. Or are you still
allergic
to facts?

http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...lient&ie=UTF-8
&rlz=
1T4GW
YE_ en US316US317&q=court+rules+fox+can+lie

Those are opinion sites...

OK, you retards just go on believing it never happened.
Your
collective need to deny recent history is even more well-
documented
than the FOX case.

Then why do you have such a problem producing a cite for it?


I produced 83,000 of them.

I'm not interested in playing birther games with you or any of
your slurp buddies.

Jim

Birthers. Weren't they formerly known as "The Klan"?

They'll never believe anything if it goes against the grain of
their assumed/ratified/cemented ignorance. Cannot compute.


Ahhhhhh, Clave......you found a butt buddie......

That's your rebuttal? You're afraid of the truth so deflect.

It's not going to change the facts nor your fear of them.


What truth or what facts? You haven't posted any.

It wouldn't matter if I did, you can't handle the truth.


Code words for I can't back up my mouth.

Code words for I couldn't stand to read it even if you did.


You won't produce anything. I really don't like to debate things with
folks that won't produce cites, so I if I don't see anything tomorrow,
consider yourself plonked.

Plonk me now you worthless ass.

OK....PLONK!!!

Your word games are a waste of time and you don't give a **** about
the truth. Little ego games.

**** off.




--
Sleep well tonight,

RD (The Sandman)

Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass
a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand
it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who
hasn't read it, with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn't
pay his taxes because he didn't understand TurboTax, overseen by an obese
Surgeon General and financed by a country that's nearly broke.
What could possibly go wrong?

"RD (The Sandman)" wrote in
:

"Clave" wrote in
news:qJOdncgTwPLFwkPXnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@cablespeedmi .com:

"RD (The Sandman)" wrote in message
...
"Clave" wrote in news:56edncvL3-
:

"RD (The Sandman)" wrote in
message ...
"Clave" wrote in

...

What exactly are you denying? That Wilson and Akre v Fox never
existed, that Fox lost the initial case, or that Fox appealed and
won, the court affirming that they had a right to lie?

I anxiously await your mother-of-all-retards reply.

And we anxiously await a cite to the case from you. I want to read
the actual case, not a Daily Kos take on it.

DYOFH, retard.

IOW, you can only blow the same smoke as your blogs do and cannot
produce a case cite. Noted....

You have yet to tell me what you think still needs proving, retard.

Jim




You said the Courts ruled that FOX can tell their people to lie. I asked
for a case cite.....you haven't provided one.


Given the little information provided one could surmise that the indiviudals
simply didn't make thier case.

Frank