On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 21:01:12 -0400, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...

yeah. by eliminating nobel prize winners on the fed

good move.

never let it be said the GOP ever tried to do what's right for the
country

You keep bringing up the Nobel prize, is that supposed to impress me?
About as much as the crown on the head of the king of the Jr. Prom back
in '75...

let's see....which university has the most nobels in economics?

oh....the right wing u. of chicago.

milton friedman

the chicago school

but you're right wing so dont even know your own histor
ry

So, are you suggesting that because it was a great honor years ago, that
it couldn't have changed to something else lately? That's either short
sighted, or dishonest.. Oh wait, don't tell me....

'years ago'

means when the right controlled the bull****. now that it's shown the
right is bankrupt you guys complain about the prize

go figure

On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 21:05:45 -0400, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 16:10:33 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 11/06/2011 3:46 PM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...


hell why not blame obama for them, too?

Obama's policies would continues the destructive behavior.

But Obama out spent Bush in about a year. Almost 8 times faster.

proof?

oh. none.

another right wing lie

Just because you refuse to look at the figures, well, except the ones
the Huffignton Hoax posts, is not our fault...


let's see...

your proof that obama outspent bush is....nothing

then you spin this into proof that he's bankrupting the US

uh huh

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 21:01:12 -0400, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...

yeah. by eliminating nobel prize winners on the fed

good move.

never let it be said the GOP ever tried to do what's right for the
country

You keep bringing up the Nobel prize, is that supposed to impress me?
About as much as the crown on the head of the king of the Jr. Prom back
in '75...

let's see....which university has the most nobels in economics?

oh....the right wing u. of chicago.

milton friedman

the chicago school

but you're right wing so dont even know your own histor
ry

So, are you suggesting that because it was a great honor years ago, that
it couldn't have changed to something else lately? That's either short
sighted, or dishonest.. Oh wait, don't tell me....

'years ago'

means when the right controlled the bull****. now that it's shown the
right is bankrupt you guys complain about the prize

go figure

You are delusional...

--
Team Rowdy Mouse, Banned from the Mall for life!

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 21:05:45 -0400, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 16:10:33 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 11/06/2011 3:46 PM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...


hell why not blame obama for them, too?

Obama's policies would continues the destructive behavior.

But Obama out spent Bush in about a year. Almost 8 times faster.

proof?

oh. none.

another right wing lie

Just because you refuse to look at the figures, well, except the ones
the Huffignton Hoax posts, is not our fault...


let's see...

your proof that obama outspent bush is....nothing

then you spin this into proof that he's bankrupting the US

uh huh

Now you are just making up stuff as you go along.. Bye, bye...

--
Team Rowdy Mouse, Banned from the Mall for life!

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 20:27:31 -0400, wf3h wrote:

1. the bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003
2. the trillion dollar iraq war

obama had nothing to do with either

Obama continued both.

let's see...number of troops in iraq under bush

150,000

under obama: zero in december.

that's some continuance.

Actually it will be about 50,000. The quibble about whether they are
"combat" soldiers is ridiculous when most are killed by road side
bombs, not combat.

Oh, is that what she was dribbling about with the "zero"? Is that kind
of like the "not war" we are fighting in Libya?

and the tax cuts? oh. you forgot obama wanted to continue them for the
productive middle class and eliminate them for the leeches.

83% of the cost of the Bush tax cut was the people who made less than
$250k. The amount of money that would be recovered if they raised the
taxes of the $250k and up people was doubled by the 14% payroll tax
cut.
The total cost of the Obama tax cut is over a half trillion dollars a
year. That alone is close to half or our deficit.

In two years and she claims Obama isn't a big spender.. The woman is
just dishonest, period...



--
Team Rowdy Mouse, Banned from the Mall for life!

On 6/12/2011 8:38 AM, I_am_Tosk wrote:
In ,
says...

On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 20:27:31 -0400, wrote:

1. the bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003
2. the trillion dollar iraq war

obama had nothing to do with either

Obama continued both.

let's see...number of troops in iraq under bush

150,000

under obama: zero in december.

that's some continuance.

Actually it will be about 50,000. The quibble about whether they are
"combat" soldiers is ridiculous when most are killed by road side
bombs, not combat.

Oh, is that what she was dribbling about with the "zero"? Is that kind
of like the "not war" we are fighting in Libya?

and the tax cuts? oh. you forgot obama wanted to continue them for the
productive middle class and eliminate them for the leeches.

83% of the cost of the Bush tax cut was the people who made less than
$250k. The amount of money that would be recovered if they raised the
taxes of the $250k and up people was doubled by the 14% payroll tax
cut.
The total cost of the Obama tax cut is over a half trillion dollars a
year. That alone is close to half or our deficit.

In two years and she claims Obama isn't a big spender.. The woman is
just dishonest, period...



I assume it's plume you're talking about. We've hasd some decent woman
contributors over the years. Peggy brought sanitation systems expertise.
Delores brought knowledge from her power squadron. Karen held her own
with the best of them when discussing outboard design and engineering.
They all upstaged Harry and it ****ed him off. Plume is a different
story. She brings zip zero nothing to Rec.boats except for a bad
attitude. She, like Harry, Jps, Bob, and Don are as useless to rec.boats
as tits on a bull. Out of that group, Bob is the only one who
occasionally will ask for help or discuss boating adventures.

On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 21:40:01 -0400, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 21:02:02 -0400, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 11:14:52 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:


Ha, hahahahahaha, who ****ing cares.. You still have a joke prize given
to a joke president...

the right doesnt care because it shows you guys are a lost cause

What, because we don't care about a popularity contest? Pfffftt. You
obviously don't have any real argument...

let's see...you guys run the country

no wonder you dont care about 'popularity' contests

On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 01:14:07 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 20:27:31 -0400, wf3h wrote:

1. the bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003
2. the trillion dollar iraq war

obama had nothing to do with either


and the tax cuts? oh. you forgot obama wanted to continue them for the
productive middle class and eliminate them for the leeches.

83% of the cost of the Bush tax cut was the people who made less than
$250k. The amount of money that would be recovered if they raised the
taxes of the $250k and up people was doubled by the 14% payroll tax
cut.
The total cost of the Obama tax cut is over a half trillion dollars a
year. That alone is close to half or our deficit.

and the richest 1% have had a 500% increase in wages in the past 30
years while middle class wages were stagnant.

so you're saying the middle class should have a tax increase even
though the richest 1% have had the biggest wage increases?

interesting. more pro-rape of the middel class by the right

On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 01:15:39 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 20:33:22 -0400, wf3h wrote:

HAHAHAHAH american taxes are teh lowest they've been in FOURTY YEARS!!


Yet you support a half trillion dollar Obama tax cut.

Is it just because he isn't white?

yep. because the middle class hasnt had a pay increase in 30 years

while the richest 1% have had their wages go up by 500%

want to know why we're in a depression?

read those numbers

On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 01:18:20 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 20:37:22 -0400, wf3h wrote:

No nation or individual before has succeeded with more debt. Not a one.
What makes you fleabaggers think your exempt from reality?

wrong. the US debt at the end of WW2 was higher, as a percentage of
GDP, than it is now

Apples and oranges. If we could bomb the rest of the world back to the
stone age like we did in WWII while remaining the biggest industrial
power on the planet it would be significant.

wrong, as usual.

we're comparing debt to debt. i realize that you, being right wing,
arent a logical thinker, but DO try to stay on track