Have some stupid for dinner!

[Synthaholic]

Doesn't have a plan to cut spending? Doesn't have a plan to cut unemployment?

He had a plan to reduce the debt. Boehner wouldn't even bring it up for a vote.

Unemployment is now at 4.9% - his plan has been a stunning success.

Thank you President Obama (praise be unto Him!)

 

[Oldstyle]

Doesn't have a plan to cut spending? Doesn't have a plan to cut unemployment?

He had a plan to reduce the debt. Boehner wouldn't even bring it up for a vote.

Unemployment is now at 4.9% - his plan has been a stunning success.

Thank you President Obama (praise be unto Him!)

Heck, Synth...if he REALLY had a plan to cut spending then why didn't he pass that when Democrats controlled the House, the Senate and the White House?

Do you REALLY believe the bullshit you spout here? I don't think anyone else does...just saying...

 

[Synthaholic]

You claim the increase in the debt came from interest accrued.

I didn't claim it was only from that. Republicans have exploded defense spending, also.

Bullshit.
PolitiFact Sheet: Military spending under Obama and Congress

You're just not very good at facts are you?

Then where did the Republican House spend the trillions?

On programs mostly passed by Democrats.

You understand you have a big problem, right? If you claim that the deficit decreased under Obama, that's true. But it's true because of what you also claim: that Congress passes spending bills. And when the deficit was decreasing it was under a GOP Congress. When it was increasing it was under a Democrat Congress,both with Bush and with Obama as president.
So, does Congress control spending or the President? Which is it, Assoholic?

For the deficit reduction it was both Obama and the Republican House, due to the sequester.

And, as usual, you are lying when you blame the rise in the deficit on a Democratic House. Bush blew up the deficit way before 2007.

 

[Oldstyle]

What "plan" has Barry ever had to cut unemployment? Come on...his second "stimulus" was such a joke that Harry Reid wouldn't bring it to a vote because he didn't want Democrats to be on record voting for it!

 

[Synthaholic]

You've already obviously lost this argument because you first argued that Obama has spent trillions, doubling our debt. When you couldn't show ANY evidence of that bullshit you change your argument to how Obama hasn't cut the debt.

Nice job. I have asked the same question and got the same response; crickets.

You would think that the Obama haters would have a list right at hand listing EXACtLY every single thing that Obama has proposed, had passed and spent money on. But they dont. Weird.

So I came across a number that Obama spends every single day.

It is the cost of the wars we are in; 8.36 million dollars PER HOUR. Each and every day. No return on the money. No benefit except to those making war materials.

And we have been spending that money for years now. Since 2001.

But really, why didnt Obama do exactly like Bush did and keep the cost of the wars off book? His numbers on the deficit would look much better. And the Repubs woudnt have minded. It would have been nothing more than Bush did.

But no. Obama wanted to give an honest accounting of the wars expense. And he has had it used against him for years now.

Weird that they cant list all the things Obama spent all that money on.

Now these asses want to know what Obama did to reduce the debt/deficit.

Funny shit.

You, sir, are a welcome addition to this forum. The average IQ just went up a notch, to around 75. If more conservatives leave we'll get out of retard territory!

 

[Synthaholic]

No, I'm a scientist and I understand when propaganda is being promulgated.

Ah good. A scientist who can answer my very easy question about burning oil and coal.


there is no point in history where man has removed billions of tons of oil and coal from the ground and then burnt that oil and coal.

So what will be the result of this grand experiment? And is the initial findings positive or of no consequence? And when we continue doing this into the forseeable future, should changes be expected and will they be positive changes.

I await your most learned scientific response about an experiment that has never been conducted before.

He doesn't give a shit: Jesus is coming soon, so it doesn't matter what we do to his earthly dominion.

 

[Synthaholic]

No, I'm a scientist and I understand when propaganda is being promulgated.

Ah good. A scientist who can answer my very easy question about burning oil and coal.


there is no point in history where man has removed billions of tons of oil and coal from the ground and then burnt that oil and coal.

So what will be the result of this grand experiment? And is the initial findings positive or of no consequence? And when we continue doing this into the forseeable future, should changes be expected and will they be positive changes.

I await your most learned scientific response about an experiment that has never been conducted before.

To date there is zero empirical data that shows CO2 to have the slightest effect on global temperatures. Yes, CO2 is a GHG, however, it is only a trace gas in Earths atmosphere (water vapor is THE dominant GHG and operates in the same wavelengths as CO2 thus overpowering whatever effect CO2 could have had), unlike Venus (a common faulty analog that warmists love to point to) which enjoys an atmosphere made up of over 90% CO2. Yes, billions of tons. That were created at some time before so that we can use them today, and which are a drop in the bucket compared to the quadrillions of tons that the atmosphere weighs.

Also you do know I am sure that mankind only contributes approximately 5% of the overall global budget of CO2....you did KNOW that, did you not?

Way to avoid the direct questions you were asked!

 

[Synthaholic]

Venus (a common faulty analog that warmists love to point to) which enjoys an atmosphere made up of over 90% CO2. Yes, billions of tons.

Are you saying you think man can live on Venus? wtf? With 90% co2.

What kind of science did you study?

Science fiction.

 

[peach174]

You've already obviously lost this argument because you first argued that Obama has spent trillions, doubling our debt. When you couldn't show ANY evidence of that bullshit you change your argument to how Obama hasn't cut the debt.

Nice job. I have asked the same question and got the same response; crickets.

You would think that the Obama haters would have a list right at hand listing EXACtLY every single thing that Obama has proposed, had passed and spent money on. But they dont. Weird.

So I came across a number that Obama spends every single day.

It is the cost of the wars we are in; 8.36 million dollars PER HOUR. Each and every day. No return on the money. No benefit except to those making war materials.

And we have been spending that money for years now. Since 2001.

But really, why didnt Obama do exactly like Bush did and keep the cost of the wars off book? His numbers on the deficit would look much better. And the Repubs woudnt have minded. It would have been nothing more than Bush did.

But no. Obama wanted to give an honest accounting of the wars expense. And he has had it used against him for years now.

Weird that they cant list all the things Obama spent all that money on.

Now these asses want to know what Obama did to reduce the debt/deficit.

Funny shit.

You, sir, are a welcome addition to this forum. The average IQ just went up a notch, to around 75. If more conservatives leave we'll get out of retard territory!

Spoken like a true blue Lib.
Take over everything so that only the left can speak.
The left are still sore at Fox breaking up their dominant news field twenty years ago.

 

[peach174]

No, I'm a scientist and I understand when propaganda is being promulgated.

Ah good. A scientist who can answer my very easy question about burning oil and coal.


there is no point in history where man has removed billions of tons of oil and coal from the ground and then burnt that oil and coal.

So what will be the result of this grand experiment? And is the initial findings positive or of no consequence? And when we continue doing this into the forseeable future, should changes be expected and will they be positive changes.

I await your most learned scientific response about an experiment that has never been conducted before.

To date there is zero empirical data that shows CO2 to have the slightest effect on global temperatures. Yes, CO2 is a GHG, however, it is only a trace gas in Earths atmosphere (water vapor is THE dominant GHG and operates in the same wavelengths as CO2 thus overpowering whatever effect CO2 could have had), unlike Venus (a common faulty analog that warmists love to point to) which enjoys an atmosphere made up of over 90% CO2. Yes, billions of tons. That were created at some time before so that we can use them today, and which are a drop in the bucket compared to the quadrillions of tons that the atmosphere weighs.

Also you do know I am sure that mankind only contributes approximately 5% of the overall global budget of CO2....you did KNOW that, did you not?

Way to avoid the direct questions you were asked!

He did answer your questions.
You just did not like the answer.

 

[Synthaholic]

unfunded Medicare Prescription Benefit that Bush pushed through

Forgot about that! Damn, Bush ran up the debt left and right!

 

[Synthaholic]

Doesn't have a plan to cut spending? Doesn't have a plan to cut unemployment?

He had a plan to reduce the debt. Boehner wouldn't even bring it up for a vote.

Unemployment is now at 4.9% - his plan has been a stunning success.

Thank you President Obama (praise be unto Him!)

Heck, Synth...if he REALLY had a plan to cut spending then why didn't he pass that when Democrats controlled the House, the Senate and the White House?

Do you REALLY believe the bullshit you spout here? I don't think anyone else does...just saying...

Because legislation takes time and he was passing Obamacare and a ton of other things. Despite a wingnut opposition that filibustered everything they could.

 

[Synthaholic]

What "plan" has Barry ever had to cut unemployment?

His Jobs Bill that Boehner wouldn't even bring up for a vote.

What was he afraid of?

 

[ChrisL]

BOTH of your parties suck the big one!

 

[ChrisL]

Oy boy. All of you are wearing two different versions of the tin foil hat.

 

[westwall]

No, I'm a scientist and I understand when propaganda is being promulgated.

Ah good. A scientist who can answer my very easy question about burning oil and coal.


there is no point in history where man has removed billions of tons of oil and coal from the ground and then burnt that oil and coal.

So what will be the result of this grand experiment? And is the initial findings positive or of no consequence? And when we continue doing this into the forseeable future, should changes be expected and will they be positive changes.

I await your most learned scientific response about an experiment that has never been conducted before.

To date there is zero empirical data that shows CO2 to have the slightest effect on global temperatures. Yes, CO2 is a GHG, however, it is only a trace gas in Earths atmosphere (water vapor is THE dominant GHG and operates in the same wavelengths as CO2 thus overpowering whatever effect CO2 could have had), unlike Venus (a common faulty analog that warmists love to point to) which enjoys an atmosphere made up of over 90% CO2. Yes, billions of tons. That were created at some time before so that we can use them today, and which are a drop in the bucket compared to the quadrillions of tons that the atmosphere weighs.

Also you do know I am sure that mankind only contributes approximately 5% of the overall global budget of CO2....you did KNOW that, did you not?

Way to avoid the direct questions you were asked!

Only if you either don't understand the English language, are powerfully stupid, or you are being intentionally dishonest. I'll let you choose which one you are.

 

[Wilbur Right]

d, or you are being intentionally dishonest. I'll let you choose which one you are.

Lets try this honest approach again.
I read where you support Bernie Sanders?
Bernie believes man made global warming is real and a problem.

Doesnt that give you concern about how smart Bernie IS? Or does Bernies belief give you pause about what you believe about GW?

Either way, wouldnt a global warming denier be a better fit for your beliefs?

 

[Wilbur Right]

And if Obama WASN'T cutting the debt...then he was obviously part of raising it! Your "chew toy" is still waiting to hear from you an Obama policy that was designed to cut spending. The truth is...he WANTED to spend a heck of a lot more than he has.

Still pissed Bush screwed the pooch and the black guy fixes it eh?

Do you know what a continuing resolution is? I suggest you look it up. thats is the method COngress had chosen to use to fund government for the past several years.

Continuing resolution. Where you keep spending whatever was aproved to be spent prior to a request for a new budget. that never happened.

And where was the Republicans budget for years.

And when the Repub finally did propose a budget, guess what it does. It blows up the deficit spending.

And that lazer focus on jobs that was promised by republicans? Where is it? HOw many jobs have Republicans created? Just curious on that.

Obama, acording to Republicans the most powerful President EVER. Able to stop all those good ideas Republicans are always bringing forth with just a single withering look. Oh the power of Obama.

LMAO.

 

[The Rabbi]

You claim the increase in the debt came from interest accrued.

I didn't claim it was only from that. Republicans have exploded defense spending, also.

Bullshit.
PolitiFact Sheet: Military spending under Obama and Congress

You're just not very good at facts are you?

Then where did the Republican House spend the trillions?

On programs mostly passed by Democrats.

You understand you have a big problem, right? If you claim that the deficit decreased under Obama, that's true. But it's true because of what you also claim: that Congress passes spending bills. And when the deficit was decreasing it was under a GOP Congress. When it was increasing it was under a Democrat Congress,both with Bush and with Obama as president.
So, does Congress control spending or the President? Which is it, Assoholic?

For the deficit reduction it was both Obama and the Republican House, due to the sequester.

And, as usual, you are lying when you blame the rise in the deficit on a Democratic House. Bush blew up the deficit way before 2007.

The Democrats ran on fiscal prudence in 2006. How'd they do on that?
Obama blamed the sequester on the GOP.

The facts aer pretty easy to understand, even for you: When Obama and the Dems had a filibuster proof majority they spent like drunken sailors, blowing up the deficit way over 1T on useless shit.
When the GOP took the House they spent like hungover sailors and the deficit declined.

 

[Wilbur Right]

ty they spent like drunken sailors, blowing up th

Now we are getting somewhere.
What did Obama and the Dems spend all that money on?

Easy question for a person with your intimate knowledge on the spending habits of Democrats.

But why didnt Obama keep the cost of the wars off books? It would have made his numbers look much better and the Repubs wouldnt have minded. Its just what they did as well.

SO why didnt Obama do that? Any guesses?