Big Numbers
-
RichardM1 wrote:
I just pointed out, in a sarcastic manner, that they are both dem controlled.
right, it's a big conspiracy. CBO helicopters aren't black though, they're a deep gray.
RichardM1 wrote:
I said your statement blaming the size of Obama's deficit on the Iraq and Afghan wars is a flat lie
it is part of the increase. i never said it was the whole increase.
RichardM1 wrote:
No, I have not defended any reps in this thread.
OMFG :laugh: when you stand in front of the goal, trying to block shots, nobody wonders what team you're playing for.
Chris Losinger wrote:
RichardM1 wrote: I just pointed out, in a sarcastic manner, that they are both dem controlled. right, it's a big conspiracy.
No, neither side is good enough to run a big conspiracy. But I guess you are right. Last year proved that the dems, even with the presidency, a super majority in the senate and majority in the house, can't control much of anything. The reps didn't get anything productive done when they had full control, either, so don't feel too bad.
Chris Losinger wrote:
it is part of the increase. i never said it was the whole increase.
No, you did not say the whole increase, you said:
Chris Losinger wrote:
a lot of the Obama deficit projection is due to the fact that Obama is not hiding the cost of Bush's two wars in off-budget "emergency" spending
'A lot' is an adverb meaning a good deal, a great deal, much, very much[^] That translates to 'Wah! Wah!, It's Bush's fault'. So don't be a wimp, stickup for what you said. Make your party be responsible for their own decisions! What am I saying? This is politics, it's always the other guys fault.
Chris Losinger wrote:
when you stand in front of the goal, trying to block shots, nobody wonders what team you're playing for.
I'm not standing in the goal, blocking shots. I'm standing in front of you, kicking groin shots. :wtf: When I see misrepresented facts, I call it, either side. Even if I was standing in your goal, do you see the reps even being able to make any shots for me to block? It would have been easier for me to block rep shoots if I was standing in their goal. Self-GOOOOOAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLL!!!!! If I said I thought Bush had spent like a drunken sailor and kicked the crap out of the bill of rights (which I do), do you think this would have been interesting at all? Shoot, you probably would not even have commented.:cool:
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
RichardM1 wrote: I just pointed out, in a sarcastic manner, that they are both dem controlled. right, it's a big conspiracy.
No, neither side is good enough to run a big conspiracy. But I guess you are right. Last year proved that the dems, even with the presidency, a super majority in the senate and majority in the house, can't control much of anything. The reps didn't get anything productive done when they had full control, either, so don't feel too bad.
Chris Losinger wrote:
it is part of the increase. i never said it was the whole increase.
No, you did not say the whole increase, you said:
Chris Losinger wrote:
a lot of the Obama deficit projection is due to the fact that Obama is not hiding the cost of Bush's two wars in off-budget "emergency" spending
'A lot' is an adverb meaning a good deal, a great deal, much, very much[^] That translates to 'Wah! Wah!, It's Bush's fault'. So don't be a wimp, stickup for what you said. Make your party be responsible for their own decisions! What am I saying? This is politics, it's always the other guys fault.
Chris Losinger wrote:
when you stand in front of the goal, trying to block shots, nobody wonders what team you're playing for.
I'm not standing in the goal, blocking shots. I'm standing in front of you, kicking groin shots. :wtf: When I see misrepresented facts, I call it, either side. Even if I was standing in your goal, do you see the reps even being able to make any shots for me to block? It would have been easier for me to block rep shoots if I was standing in their goal. Self-GOOOOOAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLL!!!!! If I said I thought Bush had spent like a drunken sailor and kicked the crap out of the bill of rights (which I do), do you think this would have been interesting at all? Shoot, you probably would not even have commented.:cool:
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Last year proved that the dems, even with the presidency, a super majority in the senate and majority in the house, can't control much of anything.
no fault of anyone else, of course. three years of record-setting use of the filibuster? pshaw - never happened! the Senate Dems are feckless, no doubt. but t would take a real fool to blame them for the laughably hypocritical abuse of procedure that the GOP has been up to.
RichardM1 wrote:
That translates to 'Wah! Wah!, It's Bush's fault'.
only in your mind.
RichardM1 wrote:
When I see misrepresented facts, I call it, either side.
sorry, i don't believe it. not even a little. it's one thing to play the argument game, it's quite another to recite "conservative" talking points.
RichardM1 wrote:
So don't be a wimp, stickup for what you said.
i have been. that it isn't what you want me to have said isn't my fault.
RichardM1 wrote:
Make your party be responsible for their own decisions!
i'm not ? how could you possibly know either way ?
RichardM1 wrote:
Even if I was standing in your goal, do you see the reps even being able to make any shots for me to block?
why, yes.
RichardM1 wrote:
If I said I thought Bush had spent like a drunken sailor and kicked the crap out of the bill of rights (which I do), do you think this would have been interesting at all?
i do love this new truth that Bush wasn't a real "conservative". wash your hands! don't worry. nobody noticed the eight years of hero-worship!
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Last year proved that the dems, even with the presidency, a super majority in the senate and majority in the house, can't control much of anything.
no fault of anyone else, of course. three years of record-setting use of the filibuster? pshaw - never happened! the Senate Dems are feckless, no doubt. but t would take a real fool to blame them for the laughably hypocritical abuse of procedure that the GOP has been up to.
RichardM1 wrote:
That translates to 'Wah! Wah!, It's Bush's fault'.
only in your mind.
RichardM1 wrote:
When I see misrepresented facts, I call it, either side.
sorry, i don't believe it. not even a little. it's one thing to play the argument game, it's quite another to recite "conservative" talking points.
RichardM1 wrote:
So don't be a wimp, stickup for what you said.
i have been. that it isn't what you want me to have said isn't my fault.
RichardM1 wrote:
Make your party be responsible for their own decisions!
i'm not ? how could you possibly know either way ?
RichardM1 wrote:
Even if I was standing in your goal, do you see the reps even being able to make any shots for me to block?
why, yes.
RichardM1 wrote:
If I said I thought Bush had spent like a drunken sailor and kicked the crap out of the bill of rights (which I do), do you think this would have been interesting at all?
i do love this new truth that Bush wasn't a real "conservative". wash your hands! don't worry. nobody noticed the eight years of hero-worship!
Chris Losinger wrote:
no fault of anyone else, of course. three years of record-setting use of the filibuster? pshaw - never happened!
That's right, three years of filibustering blocked obamacare. Against a dem supermajority. How does that work again? :doh: But for the argument: Check the stats[^], Last time the dems became a minority, they had a record number of filibusters, too. Goes around,comes around. :shrug:
Chris Losinger wrote:
sorry, i don't believe it.
I can't help you there. I know my opinions. :suss: If I disbelieve that you're stupid, does it change your intelligence?
Chris Losinger wrote:
recite "conservative" talking points
What I did was provide facts that were inconsistent with your conjectures. Since I don't know them, which conservative talking points correlated with the facts I gave? So I don't use them again, which facts did I give that were wrong?
Chris Losinger wrote:
RichardM1 wrote: So don't be a wimp, stickup for what you said. i have been. that it isn't what you want me to have said isn't my fault.
First you say the WH/CBO deficit numbers are BS, then when I agree with you, you say I'm calling it a big conspiracy. I don't see how that is sticking up for what you said.
Chris Losinger wrote:
RichardM1 wrote: Make your party be responsible for their own decisions! i'm not ?
That's right, you're not. You're blaming reps for dems' decisions Talk about reciting talking points! :rolleyes: Next you'll be calling me a racist!
Chris Losinger wrote:
RichardM1 wrote: do you see the reps even being able to make any shots for me to block? why, yes.
OK, they have some power since Mass wouldn't elect a dem, but even that happened because of dem decisions. Same way the dems came into power based on incompetent rep decisions.
Chris Losinger wrote:
i do love this new truth that Bush
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
no fault of anyone else, of course. three years of record-setting use of the filibuster? pshaw - never happened!
That's right, three years of filibustering blocked obamacare. Against a dem supermajority. How does that work again? :doh: But for the argument: Check the stats[^], Last time the dems became a minority, they had a record number of filibusters, too. Goes around,comes around. :shrug:
Chris Losinger wrote:
sorry, i don't believe it.
I can't help you there. I know my opinions. :suss: If I disbelieve that you're stupid, does it change your intelligence?
Chris Losinger wrote:
recite "conservative" talking points
What I did was provide facts that were inconsistent with your conjectures. Since I don't know them, which conservative talking points correlated with the facts I gave? So I don't use them again, which facts did I give that were wrong?
Chris Losinger wrote:
RichardM1 wrote: So don't be a wimp, stickup for what you said. i have been. that it isn't what you want me to have said isn't my fault.
First you say the WH/CBO deficit numbers are BS, then when I agree with you, you say I'm calling it a big conspiracy. I don't see how that is sticking up for what you said.
Chris Losinger wrote:
RichardM1 wrote: Make your party be responsible for their own decisions! i'm not ?
That's right, you're not. You're blaming reps for dems' decisions Talk about reciting talking points! :rolleyes: Next you'll be calling me a racist!
Chris Losinger wrote:
RichardM1 wrote: do you see the reps even being able to make any shots for me to block? why, yes.
OK, they have some power since Mass wouldn't elect a dem, but even that happened because of dem decisions. Same way the dems came into power based on incompetent rep decisions.
Chris Losinger wrote:
i do love this new truth that Bush
RichardM1 wrote:
That's right, three years of filibustering blocked obamacare.
i suppose it wouldn't do any good to point out that Obama has only been President for 1 year, that your team's love of the filibuster started in 2006, and that all the bills in Congress were written by Congressmen and not Obama. facts, schmacts !
RichardM1 wrote:
Last time the dems became a minority, they had a record number of filibusters, too.
and the GOP is currently set to double that record. as for the rest of your rant... whatever. maybe you're ashamed to admit you're a Republican. it's OK, i understand. i would be too. but, you're not fooling anyone.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
That's right, three years of filibustering blocked obamacare.
i suppose it wouldn't do any good to point out that Obama has only been President for 1 year, that your team's love of the filibuster started in 2006, and that all the bills in Congress were written by Congressmen and not Obama. facts, schmacts !
RichardM1 wrote:
Last time the dems became a minority, they had a record number of filibusters, too.
and the GOP is currently set to double that record. as for the rest of your rant... whatever. maybe you're ashamed to admit you're a Republican. it's OK, i understand. i would be too. but, you're not fooling anyone.
Chris Losinger wrote:
whatever. maybe you're ashamed to admit you're a Republican. it's OK, i understand. i would be too. but, you're not fooling anyone.
So all you got was "blah blah blah - disagrees with me - must be a rep"? "No. Really. If you don't agree with me, you are a rep." "Guy says he isn't a rep. That makes him a liar. That makes him a rep." "Facts to back up position? Clearly isn't a dem. That makes him a rep." "Did I mention? reps are bad, so anything dems do is OK." :beer::beer::beer::beer::beer::beer: :beer::beer::beer::beer::beer::beer: :beer::beer::beer::beer::beer::beer: :beer::beer::beer::beer::beer::beer: Here, have a case. Your gonna need these to get through life.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
whatever. maybe you're ashamed to admit you're a Republican. it's OK, i understand. i would be too. but, you're not fooling anyone.
So all you got was "blah blah blah - disagrees with me - must be a rep"? "No. Really. If you don't agree with me, you are a rep." "Guy says he isn't a rep. That makes him a liar. That makes him a rep." "Facts to back up position? Clearly isn't a dem. That makes him a rep." "Did I mention? reps are bad, so anything dems do is OK." :beer::beer::beer::beer::beer::beer: :beer::beer::beer::beer::beer::beer: :beer::beer::beer::beer::beer::beer: :beer::beer::beer::beer::beer::beer: Here, have a case. Your gonna need these to get through life.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
So all you got was "blah blah blah - disagrees with me - must be a rep"?
actually no. it was the fact that all of your arguments are boilerplate GOP talking points. as i've said before.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
So all you got was "blah blah blah - disagrees with me - must be a rep"?
actually no. it was the fact that all of your arguments are boilerplate GOP talking points. as i've said before.
Chris Losinger wrote:
it was the fact that all of your arguments are boilerplate GOP talking points.
I responded to your comments with facts that I got from googling (googleing ?). I provided citations to the facts I presented. One link was to the Heritage Foundation, showing WH and CBO numbers, the others were to either neutral or antiwar sights. What fact did I give that was incorrect, or taken out of context, to support what I said? Seriously, the argument aside, are you just yanking my chain? If you can't point out the errors with my arguments, and can't accept them, you are not looking at the reality of the situation. If you are just yanking my chain, I'll go on debating it. If you really can't see that it is possible to come to the conclusions I have, without being in the GOP, or starting from their talking points, you need to step back and rethink ... something. Do you really think that the dems can't be wrong, facts be damned? Sometimes, when the dems say the reps are f'd up, they are right. And sometimes, when the reps say the dems are f'd up, they are right. Most of the time, when either side says they are right, they are wrong.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
it was the fact that all of your arguments are boilerplate GOP talking points.
I responded to your comments with facts that I got from googling (googleing ?). I provided citations to the facts I presented. One link was to the Heritage Foundation, showing WH and CBO numbers, the others were to either neutral or antiwar sights. What fact did I give that was incorrect, or taken out of context, to support what I said? Seriously, the argument aside, are you just yanking my chain? If you can't point out the errors with my arguments, and can't accept them, you are not looking at the reality of the situation. If you are just yanking my chain, I'll go on debating it. If you really can't see that it is possible to come to the conclusions I have, without being in the GOP, or starting from their talking points, you need to step back and rethink ... something. Do you really think that the dems can't be wrong, facts be damned? Sometimes, when the dems say the reps are f'd up, they are right. And sometimes, when the reps say the dems are f'd up, they are right. Most of the time, when either side says they are right, they are wrong.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
If you can't point out the errors with my arguments, and can't accept them, you are not looking at the reality of the situation.
honestly, i'm not sure what you're arguing any more. is your point that the deficit is bigger under Obama? well, yes, of course it is: all the things that go into making a deficit are worse for Obama than they were for Bush. and many of those things are not Obama's fault. he inherited Bush's un-payed-for wars (and has failed to stop them). he inherited Bush's budding recession (and has failed to stop it, but is at least trying). he inherited Bush's irresponsible tax cuts (and added some more of his own, though the GOP has made sure that nobody knows that he cut taxes on 95% of working class Americans). he inherited structural spending increases which are outside the control of any president. he has spent a lot of money trying to keep our economy from going tits-up, but it's a ridiculous fantasy to think things these would've been much different under McCain. especially giver that the biggest budget items are all essentially immune from spending reduction (military, Medicare, SS). so, yes, while i think Obama has made a lot of mistakes, the deficit isn't one of them. as i said above: a lot of it is structural, a lot of it is due to the economy, and a lot of it is due to spending that no president would touch.
RichardM1 wrote:
Do you really think that the dems can't be wrong, facts be damned?
got any evidence to support the idea that i think such a thing ? my basic point is that the modern GOP has absolutely no claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility - at least at the national level. they have no record of deficit reduction; quite the opposite, in fact - every GOP president from Reagan onward has increased the deficit. the GOP's reputation for being fiscally conservative is a myth - an enduring one, sure. but it's a myth nonetheless. only Dems have reduced the deficit. i don't think that makes the Dems the party of fiscal responsibility, though. it just means that a reduced deficit is possible, but the GOP is not actually interested in doing it - at least not when they're in power. yes, they love to scream about responsibility when they're in the minority - oh how they love to scream - but it's just talk. it's a way to sell the GOP to people who can't be bothered to look at a chart or two. a.k.a. rubes. the Dems
-
RichardM1 wrote:
If you can't point out the errors with my arguments, and can't accept them, you are not looking at the reality of the situation.
honestly, i'm not sure what you're arguing any more. is your point that the deficit is bigger under Obama? well, yes, of course it is: all the things that go into making a deficit are worse for Obama than they were for Bush. and many of those things are not Obama's fault. he inherited Bush's un-payed-for wars (and has failed to stop them). he inherited Bush's budding recession (and has failed to stop it, but is at least trying). he inherited Bush's irresponsible tax cuts (and added some more of his own, though the GOP has made sure that nobody knows that he cut taxes on 95% of working class Americans). he inherited structural spending increases which are outside the control of any president. he has spent a lot of money trying to keep our economy from going tits-up, but it's a ridiculous fantasy to think things these would've been much different under McCain. especially giver that the biggest budget items are all essentially immune from spending reduction (military, Medicare, SS). so, yes, while i think Obama has made a lot of mistakes, the deficit isn't one of them. as i said above: a lot of it is structural, a lot of it is due to the economy, and a lot of it is due to spending that no president would touch.
RichardM1 wrote:
Do you really think that the dems can't be wrong, facts be damned?
got any evidence to support the idea that i think such a thing ? my basic point is that the modern GOP has absolutely no claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility - at least at the national level. they have no record of deficit reduction; quite the opposite, in fact - every GOP president from Reagan onward has increased the deficit. the GOP's reputation for being fiscally conservative is a myth - an enduring one, sure. but it's a myth nonetheless. only Dems have reduced the deficit. i don't think that makes the Dems the party of fiscal responsibility, though. it just means that a reduced deficit is possible, but the GOP is not actually interested in doing it - at least not when they're in power. yes, they love to scream about responsibility when they're in the minority - oh how they love to scream - but it's just talk. it's a way to sell the GOP to people who can't be bothered to look at a chart or two. a.k.a. rubes. the Dems
Chris Losinger wrote:
my basic point is that the modern GOP has absolutely no claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility
You can keep arguing about how messed up the reps are all you want, but don't expect me to pick up the other side. I have been arguing with you against the dems, not for the reps, you belief otherwise not withstanding.
Chris Losinger wrote:
. but being fiscally irresponsible is objectively not one of them.
WTF? Digging deeper in my pocket to do what they want to do does not make then fiscally responsible! But the only thing worse that 'tax and spend' is 'borrow and spend':
Wikipedia said:
[Since FY1960, the federal government has run on-budget deficits except for FY1999 and FY2000]
LOL Looks like Clinton is the only president to get a nod since 1960! :omg: But reps certainly don't have a lock on deficits (Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, even Clinton). :-D Do dems have a lock on non-deficit spending? :confused: Lets look further: Since 1960, Congress, who actually determines taxes and spending, has been entirely controlled (both houses) by dems every year except 81-86, and 95-06, and entirely controlled by the reps in 95-01 and 03-06. :omg: :wtf: :~ The only non-deficit budgets were passed by reps (but signed by a dem). See, this goes back to me saying don't cry about dems getting nothing done last year, the reps didn't get anything done when they were in total control. The only time either of these groups can get anything meaningful done is when they have to negotiate with each other. Otherwise they just fight amongst themselves. So you can talk all the trash you want about 'dem fiscal responsibility', but I live in California, and we were hosed long before the Governator got here. Fiscal irresponsibility is objectively a problem for both parties. But I can say the tea bag party has never passed a deficit budget, either as congress or president. Neither has Ross Perot!
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
my basic point is that the modern GOP has absolutely no claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility
You can keep arguing about how messed up the reps are all you want, but don't expect me to pick up the other side. I have been arguing with you against the dems, not for the reps, you belief otherwise not withstanding.
Chris Losinger wrote:
. but being fiscally irresponsible is objectively not one of them.
WTF? Digging deeper in my pocket to do what they want to do does not make then fiscally responsible! But the only thing worse that 'tax and spend' is 'borrow and spend':
Wikipedia said:
[Since FY1960, the federal government has run on-budget deficits except for FY1999 and FY2000]
LOL Looks like Clinton is the only president to get a nod since 1960! :omg: But reps certainly don't have a lock on deficits (Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, even Clinton). :-D Do dems have a lock on non-deficit spending? :confused: Lets look further: Since 1960, Congress, who actually determines taxes and spending, has been entirely controlled (both houses) by dems every year except 81-86, and 95-06, and entirely controlled by the reps in 95-01 and 03-06. :omg: :wtf: :~ The only non-deficit budgets were passed by reps (but signed by a dem). See, this goes back to me saying don't cry about dems getting nothing done last year, the reps didn't get anything done when they were in total control. The only time either of these groups can get anything meaningful done is when they have to negotiate with each other. Otherwise they just fight amongst themselves. So you can talk all the trash you want about 'dem fiscal responsibility', but I live in California, and we were hosed long before the Governator got here. Fiscal irresponsibility is objectively a problem for both parties. But I can say the tea bag party has never passed a deficit budget, either as congress or president. Neither has Ross Perot!
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
I have been arguing with you against the dems, not for the reps, you belief otherwise not withstanding.
you've been arguing against the Dems using the Reps' preferred talking points. yes, we've been over this. i haven't been arguing against the Dems. i'm perfectly willing to admit that i'm less than happy with Obama. but, again, not over the topic at hand: the budget/deficit. over things like civil liberties, his failure to push health care reform, his failure to punish the Bush torturers, his failure to convincingly end torture, his failure to play hardball while the GOP abuses Senate procedure - yes.
RichardM1 wrote:
LOL Looks like Clinton is the only president to get a nod since 1960!
this[^] graph tells the story. basically balanced under Johnson and Nixon. shoots up under Nixon/Ford. no net increase under Carter - starts and ends @ -71B. Reagan finishes @ -151B. Bush @ -255B. Clinton +233B. Bush -400B-ish. the numbers don't lie. Republicans are not fiscally responsible. nor are "conservatives", since they are the Republican base. it is an outright untruth to assert otherwise. the GOP is the party of Spend More Than You Make. period. that's what the numbers say. that's the reality. suck it up. quit lying to yourself. if you really are concerned about the deficit and are realistic enough to understand that we have a very durable two party system, then you can be for the party that has absolutely no record of fiscal responsibility but claims it does, or you can be for the party that does not claim to have one, but actually does. there is no third party in American politics. pretending to be for one up until the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, every four years, is bullshit. nobody is buying it.
RichardM1 wrote:
The only non-deficit budgets were passed by reps (but signed by a dem).
again, because the GOP is great at whining when they are out of power. and they are willing and eager to pull whatever parliamentary tricks they can to get maximum attention so long as they don't have to take responsibility. but when they have the power, they show their true colors. they are unwill
-
RichardM1 wrote:
I have been arguing with you against the dems, not for the reps, you belief otherwise not withstanding.
you've been arguing against the Dems using the Reps' preferred talking points. yes, we've been over this. i haven't been arguing against the Dems. i'm perfectly willing to admit that i'm less than happy with Obama. but, again, not over the topic at hand: the budget/deficit. over things like civil liberties, his failure to push health care reform, his failure to punish the Bush torturers, his failure to convincingly end torture, his failure to play hardball while the GOP abuses Senate procedure - yes.
RichardM1 wrote:
LOL Looks like Clinton is the only president to get a nod since 1960!
this[^] graph tells the story. basically balanced under Johnson and Nixon. shoots up under Nixon/Ford. no net increase under Carter - starts and ends @ -71B. Reagan finishes @ -151B. Bush @ -255B. Clinton +233B. Bush -400B-ish. the numbers don't lie. Republicans are not fiscally responsible. nor are "conservatives", since they are the Republican base. it is an outright untruth to assert otherwise. the GOP is the party of Spend More Than You Make. period. that's what the numbers say. that's the reality. suck it up. quit lying to yourself. if you really are concerned about the deficit and are realistic enough to understand that we have a very durable two party system, then you can be for the party that has absolutely no record of fiscal responsibility but claims it does, or you can be for the party that does not claim to have one, but actually does. there is no third party in American politics. pretending to be for one up until the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, every four years, is bullshit. nobody is buying it.
RichardM1 wrote:
The only non-deficit budgets were passed by reps (but signed by a dem).
again, because the GOP is great at whining when they are out of power. and they are willing and eager to pull whatever parliamentary tricks they can to get maximum attention so long as they don't have to take responsibility. but when they have the power, they show their true colors. they are unwill
Chris Losinger wrote:
arguing against the Dems using the Reps' preferred talking points.
Since the GOP and I both came up with the same ideas, independently, you might take the time to run them to ground. They might be valid.
Chris Losinger wrote:
the numbers don't lie
Fully dem controlled congresses passed deficits from 60-68, from 70-81, from 86-95, and from 06-present. Like you said, the number don't lie.
Chris Losinger wrote:
there is no third party in American politics. pretending to be for one up until the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, every four years, is bullsh*t. nobody is buying it.
There are two men who want to rob you. One just wants your money and stuff. The other wants that, and will tie you up so your enemies can kill you. I don't want to be robbed, but it's better than robbed and killed. With the reps, their fiscal policy sucks, but foreign policy is in line with mine.
Chris Losinger wrote:
tea baggers? oy. just like i said: a Republican who won't admit it
Chris, I would like you to meet Jamal Jihadist, he goes by JJ, in the US. JJ, say hi to Chris. JJ, just like the kalif, Chris's country has main groups, and some splinter groups, spread around the main groups. I understand that you are shi'a, and sometimes don't see eye to eye with the sunni , right? Eye for eye? Good one JJ. Don't give up your day job. Well, do give it up. When you start killing each other, do you try and kill all the splinter groups, too? No? Wahabists have nothing to do with sunnis, so no reason? JJ, Chris here is going to teach you how to really throw the baby out with the bath water. Chris, explain to JJ how everyone who doesn't think like you is infidel, and how you get Nancy Pelosi AND Barbara Boxer if you die killing reps and claiming dems are fiscally responsible. JJ, this is what real fanaticism looks like: Communist is socialist is tea party is republican. You should be ashamed for not lumping together everyone who disagrees with you. ------------------ I show you 2+2 is 4, you keep saying it's 8, and I'm hosed since reps say 10. You keep saying purple is yellow, even when I show you the wavelengths are different. The reps aren't saying that. Shot, most dems I talk to don't say that. Who gives a crap if the reps say 10 or 92? 8
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
arguing against the Dems using the Reps' preferred talking points.
Since the GOP and I both came up with the same ideas, independently, you might take the time to run them to ground. They might be valid.
Chris Losinger wrote:
the numbers don't lie
Fully dem controlled congresses passed deficits from 60-68, from 70-81, from 86-95, and from 06-present. Like you said, the number don't lie.
Chris Losinger wrote:
there is no third party in American politics. pretending to be for one up until the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, every four years, is bullsh*t. nobody is buying it.
There are two men who want to rob you. One just wants your money and stuff. The other wants that, and will tie you up so your enemies can kill you. I don't want to be robbed, but it's better than robbed and killed. With the reps, their fiscal policy sucks, but foreign policy is in line with mine.
Chris Losinger wrote:
tea baggers? oy. just like i said: a Republican who won't admit it
Chris, I would like you to meet Jamal Jihadist, he goes by JJ, in the US. JJ, say hi to Chris. JJ, just like the kalif, Chris's country has main groups, and some splinter groups, spread around the main groups. I understand that you are shi'a, and sometimes don't see eye to eye with the sunni , right? Eye for eye? Good one JJ. Don't give up your day job. Well, do give it up. When you start killing each other, do you try and kill all the splinter groups, too? No? Wahabists have nothing to do with sunnis, so no reason? JJ, Chris here is going to teach you how to really throw the baby out with the bath water. Chris, explain to JJ how everyone who doesn't think like you is infidel, and how you get Nancy Pelosi AND Barbara Boxer if you die killing reps and claiming dems are fiscally responsible. JJ, this is what real fanaticism looks like: Communist is socialist is tea party is republican. You should be ashamed for not lumping together everyone who disagrees with you. ------------------ I show you 2+2 is 4, you keep saying it's 8, and I'm hosed since reps say 10. You keep saying purple is yellow, even when I show you the wavelengths are different. The reps aren't saying that. Shot, most dems I talk to don't say that. Who gives a crap if the reps say 10 or 92? 8
i've made my point. not interested in taking this any farther.
-
i've made my point. not interested in taking this any farther.
-
Rodger that. Fact shields up, sir. Blinders on full power.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
there are plenty of people in the Soapbox who would probably love to argue with you over whatever you want. give it a try!
-
there are plenty of people in the Soapbox who would probably love to argue with you over whatever you want. give it a try!
-
Won't look at the fact. Has to have the last word. :laugh: OK,your turn. :rolleyes:
Opacity, the new Transparency.
without a hint of irony,
RichardM1 wrote:
Has to have the last word.
-
without a hint of irony,
RichardM1 wrote:
Has to have the last word.
Chris Losinger wrote:
without a hint of irony, RichardM1 wrote: Has to have the last word.
:rolleyes: Much like facts,you don't see sarcasm or irony either. Since you DO seem to want to keep talking, How do the dem congresses passing deficit budgets for around 40 out of the last 50 years make them fiscally responsible? I'm sure there is a reason. Oh yeah. Bush's fault. But that isn't a dem talking point.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
without a hint of irony, RichardM1 wrote: Has to have the last word.
:rolleyes: Much like facts,you don't see sarcasm or irony either. Since you DO seem to want to keep talking, How do the dem congresses passing deficit budgets for around 40 out of the last 50 years make them fiscally responsible? I'm sure there is a reason. Oh yeah. Bush's fault. But that isn't a dem talking point.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
dude, give it a rest. really. just let this go.
-
dude, give it a rest. really. just let this go.
Chris Losinger wrote:
just let this go.
Just admit the dems are fiscally irresponsible. I think you won't say it in public, but I hope you admit it to yourself. Knowing there's a problem is the first step in getting help. 2
Opacity, the new Transparency.
