In article ,
says...

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

Still more bull****. The democrats have had majorities in the three
corners of washington for the last 40 years.... So, you are still full
of ****..

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

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

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.

Actually, we are continuing to follow the agreement to draw down those
stationed there. Of course, that's not good enough, since you don't
care what happens in Iraq now that Bush broke it.

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.

Cite? Doubt it.

On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 12:37:37 -0400, wf3h wrote:

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

Reality is too much for him.

On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 12:38:26 -0400, wf3h wrote:

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

Unemployment was higher in the 80s. And, we had stagflation. But, the
world is ending now... May 22... oh wait.

On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 14:00:09 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 12:38:26 -0400, wf3h wrote:

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

You can't compare debt to debt without comparing the growth of GDP and
productivity. Are you really trying to say the US is in as good a
competitive shape as it was in 1946?

In 1946 there was no industry in Germany, Japan, India or China.
Brazil was a jungle and SE Asia was still trying to get out of a grass
skirt and coconut based economy.

Another important thing is, in 1946 virtually all of that debt was
held by AMERICANS.

If this doesn't make sense to you I guess you have to go in the bozo
bin with plume.

According to Jack Welsh, a Republican, times were much worse in the
1980s.

Feel free to pretend to ignore my posts. You've shown yourself to be
rather thin skinned and refuse or are unable to defend your
nonsensical arguments.

On 6/12/2011 2:51 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 14:00:09 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 12:38:26 -0400, wrote:

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

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

You can't compare debt to debt without comparing the growth of GDP and
productivity. Are you really trying to say the US is in as good a
competitive shape as it was in 1946?

In 1946 there was no industry in Germany, Japan, India or China.
Brazil was a jungle and SE Asia was still trying to get out of a grass
skirt and coconut based economy.

Another important thing is, in 1946 virtually all of that debt was
held by AMERICANS.

If this doesn't make sense to you I guess you have to go in the bozo
bin with plume.

According to Jack Welsh, a Republican, times were much worse in the
1980s.

Feel free to pretend to ignore my posts. You've shown yourself to be
rather thin skinned and refuse or are unable to defend your
nonsensical arguments.

Greg in his infinite wisdom has learned that arguing with you is an
exercise in futility

In article , says...

On 6/12/2011 2:51 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 14:00:09 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 12:38:26 -0400, wrote:

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

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

You can't compare debt to debt without comparing the growth of GDP and
productivity. Are you really trying to say the US is in as good a
competitive shape as it was in 1946?

In 1946 there was no industry in Germany, Japan, India or China.
Brazil was a jungle and SE Asia was still trying to get out of a grass
skirt and coconut based economy.

Another important thing is, in 1946 virtually all of that debt was
held by AMERICANS.

If this doesn't make sense to you I guess you have to go in the bozo
bin with plume.

According to Jack Welsh, a Republican, times were much worse in the
1980s.

Feel free to pretend to ignore my posts. You've shown yourself to be
rather thin skinned and refuse or are unable to defend your
nonsensical arguments.

Greg in his infinite wisdom has learned that arguing with you is an
exercise in futility

How do you argue with a liar?

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

On 11/06/2011 6:23 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 11:14:52 -0600,
wrote:

On 11/06/2011 10:02 AM, I_am_Tosk wrote:
In ,
says...


a nobel prize winning economist

that's what the right is doing to the US

Trying to slow down Obama and Reid, good for them...

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...

Obama's nobel prize was a flipping joke.


HAHAHAHAAH he doesn't know the difference between the nobel for
ECONOMICS and PEACE!!!

Never questioned how Obama got one yet did nothing yet but promise and
bu11sh1t a lot?

--
Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem.

On 11/06/2011 6:24 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 12:15:04 -0400, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

In ,
says...

On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 18:30:30 -0600,
wrote:


Hey, all ths Obama debt spend has to be paid for somehow.

let's see...the largest components of the deficit are

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

obama had nothing to do with either

but, of course, the kluxer blames the black guy


Unless of course he is going to declare the USA bankrupt and eat the
heat that the USA is a failed world currency do to US-Euro banking
corruption. Euro is probably walking dead, we will see, Greece looks
like it is going to welsh big. Iceland is watching people trying to
emigrate after their welshing.

hell why not blame obama for them, too?

You keep deflecting with your red herring "race"... It's nothing to do
with Obama, it's Pelosi and Reid who refused to allow anything to happen
during Bush,

HAHAAHAHHA let's see..i notice you said NOTHING about points 1 and 2
above. you IGNORED them

and that's why you're a racist



and declared themselves "the do nothing Congress" when
Obama took over. They have lived up to their self made reputation by
doing nothing about jobs, economy, foreign relations, or anything else
concerning a budget since they took over congress during the Bush
admin.. Now the republicans have one house, barely, and you expect them
to fix it when the Obama admin has openly shut them out... stupid...


uh...which house passes the budget??

oh. the representatives

controlled by the GOP

how they doing? what cuts have they made?

oh. none.

Jury is on on this, are they going to expand the debt past $14.5 trillion?

If I were the GOP, I would let 75% of the government shut down for 3
months. And only expand it a bit forcing the issue, debt spend less now
or be off work every 3 months.
--
Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem.

On 11/06/2011 6:25 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 13:50:56 -0600,
wrote:

So you voted for Obama because he was black in the ruse that you wanted
to prove you were not racist. Ok, I can live with that. But prove your
not an idiot and in 2012 vote for anyone but Obama.


let's seee

bush's last budget was 1.2 TRILLION In debt

a 1 TRILLION war

HUGE Tax cuts for the rich

and he thinks we voted for obama 'cuz he's black!

Sure did for Hank Johnson, I can think of no other reason to vote for
that fool.

--
Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem.