Liberal logic

[Mr.Nick]

Only a dumb fucking progressive would ask another to prove common knowledge...

I suppose it's "no liberal fuck left behind."

Too bad no one took my bet I'd be getting a pos rep right now.

You are quite possibly the dumbest and least credible poster on this board. Every single "argument" you've ever made is based on one claim: that its common knowledge and anyone else who thinks otherwise is stupid. I highly doubt you will change your behavior. Your conversation is as worthless as your brain.

Good for you...

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Composition of Congress, by Political Party, 1855

Good times...

Do I need to prove that congress spends as well???

You need to prove:
"most of the spending under Bush was under a progressive super majority.""


Still waiting.

8 trillion was obviously spent between 2007 and 2009...

Democrats only had a super majority ....

I'm not your teacher either...

I'm not going to post common knowledge - I'm not your fucking slave bitch.

The link you provided indicates the Democrats held 49 seats in the Senate and the Republicans held 49 seats in the Senate from 2007-2009. That isn't a super-majority. Under any definition.


You have also failed to show that the spending the 6 years prior was greater or less than the spending in those 2 years. You will need TWO numbers to compare TWO numbers - this should be obvious. It would also help us if you sourced them.

But of course, even if you did - it wouldn't change the fact that the Democrats never held a super-majority in the Senate under Bush.


Please sue your state for failure to educate you.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Sorry I made an error 8 billion between 2007 and the present...

Of course when democrats spend money its logical and republicans spend money its tyranny..

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Sorry I made an error 8 billion between 2007 and the present...

Of course when democrats spend money its logical and republicans spend money its tyranny..

2007 and the PRESENT?

Your claim was:

"most of the spending under Bush was under a progressive super majority.""

YOU ARE OFFICIALLY - RETARDED

 

[Mr.Nick]

You need to prove:
"most of the spending under Bush was under a progressive super majority.""


Still waiting.

8 trillion was obviously spent between 2007 and 2009...

Democrats only had a super majority ....

I'm not your teacher either...

I'm not going to post common knowledge - I'm not your fucking slave bitch.

The link you provided indicates the Democrats held 49 seats in the Senate and the Republicans held 49 seats in the Senate from 2007-2009. That isn't a super-majority. Under any definition.


You have also failed to show that the spending the 6 years prior was greater or less than the spending in those 2 years. You will need TWO numbers to compare TWO numbers - this should be obvious. It would also help us if you sourced them.

But of course, even if you did - it wouldn't change the fact that the Democrats never held a super-majority in the Senate under Bush.


Please sue your state for failure to educate you.

What about the House??

Oh yeah.....

Then the 111th was a PROGRESSIVE SUPERMAJORITY...

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

8 trillion was obviously spent between 2007 and 2009...

Democrats only had a super majority ....

I'm not your teacher either...

I'm not going to post common knowledge - I'm not your fucking slave bitch.

The link you provided indicates the Democrats held 49 seats in the Senate and the Republicans held 49 seats in the Senate from 2007-2009. That isn't a super-majority. Under any definition.


You have also failed to show that the spending the 6 years prior was greater or less than the spending in those 2 years. You will need TWO numbers to compare TWO numbers - this should be obvious. It would also help us if you sourced them.

But of course, even if you did - it wouldn't change the fact that the Democrats never held a super-majority in the Senate under Bush.


Please sue your state for failure to educate you.

What about the House??

Oh yeah.....

Then the 111th was a PROGRESSIVE SUPERMAJORITY...

The 111th wasn't under Bush moron. Your claim was that most of the spending under BUSH was under a progressive super-majority.

Every time you open your mouth you reveal how stupid you are. Just cut your losses and shut the fuck up.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Sorry I made an error 8 billion between 2007 and the present...

Of course when democrats spend money its logical and republicans spend money its tyranny..

2007 and the PRESENT?

Your claim was:

"most of the spending under Bush was under a progressive super majority.""

YOU ARE OFFICIALLY - RETARDED

Are you a fucking retard or are you just being stupid because you think it will get you brownie points???

Do you know the fucking difference between the legislative and executive branches of government???

Or are you just like I said a fucking retard???

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You need to prove:
"most of the spending under Bush was under a progressive super majority.""


Still waiting.

8 trillion was obviously spent between 2007 and 2009...

Democrats only had a super majority ....

I'm not your teacher either...

I'm not going to post common knowledge - I'm not your fucking slave bitch.

The link you provided indicates the Democrats held 49 seats in the Senate and the Republicans held 49 seats in the Senate from 2007-2009. That isn't a super-majority. Under any definition.


You have also failed to show that the spending the 6 years prior was greater or less than the spending in those 2 years. You will need TWO numbers to compare TWO numbers - this should be obvious. It would also help us if you sourced them.

But of course, even if you did - it wouldn't change the fact that the Democrats never held a super-majority in the Senate under Bush.


Please sue your state for failure to educate you.

For almost 2 years before 2006 the Senate was controlled by the Dems. so 4 out of 8 years the dems had the control to stop the spending. They did no such thing, in fact from 2006 to 2008 they INCREASED spending.

I Also love when truthmatters claims that Bush had complete control of both Houses of Congress during all his time as President. He had 49 senators then 51 then I believe 54. If as the left claims the Dems aren't to blame for 2009 and 2010 cause they only had 59 then 58 Senators what does that tell you about all 8 years under Bush?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Sorry I made an error 8 billion between 2007 and the present...

Of course when democrats spend money its logical and republicans spend money its tyranny..

2007 and the PRESENT?

Your claim was:

"most of the spending under Bush was under a progressive super majority.""

YOU ARE OFFICIALLY - RETARDED

Are you a fucking retard or are you just being stupid because you think it will get you brownie points???

Do you know the fucking difference between the legislative and executive branches of government???

Or are you just like I said a fucking retard???

THESE are YOUR words:

"most of the spending under Bush was under a progressive super majority."

When you are ready to defend them, let us know.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

"Liberal logic"? That's an oxymoron.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

8 trillion was obviously spent between 2007 and 2009...

Democrats only had a super majority ....

I'm not your teacher either...

I'm not going to post common knowledge - I'm not your fucking slave bitch.

The link you provided indicates the Democrats held 49 seats in the Senate and the Republicans held 49 seats in the Senate from 2007-2009. That isn't a super-majority. Under any definition.


You have also failed to show that the spending the 6 years prior was greater or less than the spending in those 2 years. You will need TWO numbers to compare TWO numbers - this should be obvious. It would also help us if you sourced them.

But of course, even if you did - it wouldn't change the fact that the Democrats never held a super-majority in the Senate under Bush.


Please sue your state for failure to educate you.

For almost 2 years before 2006 the Senate was controlled by the Dems. so 4 out of 8 years the dems had the control to stop the spending. They did no such thing, in fact from 2006 to 2008 they INCREASED spending.

So now a "super-majority" means barely holding one house of the Congress.

REALLY?

How the fuck can you stretch an argument that thin with a straight face?

I Also love when truthmatters claims that Bush had complete control of both Houses of Congress during all his time as President. He had 49 senators then 51 then I believe 54. If as the left claims the Dems aren't to blame for 2009 and 2010 cause they only had 59 then 58 Senators what does that tell you about all 8 years under Bush?

I love how you're trying to distract us all from the fact you have yet to provide evidence that shows YOUR claim that "most of the spending under Bush was under a progressive super-majority" is anything close to true.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

2007 and the PRESENT?

Your claim was:

"most of the spending under Bush was under a progressive super majority.""

YOU ARE OFFICIALLY - RETARDED

Are you a fucking retard or are you just being stupid because you think it will get you brownie points???

Do you know the fucking difference between the legislative and executive branches of government???

Or are you just like I said a fucking retard???

THESE are YOUR words:

"most of the spending under Bush was under a progressive super majority."

When you are ready to defend them, let us know.

ALL of the spending under Bush was with a bare majority for 4 years in the Senate and a dem majority in the Senate for almost 4 years. The Dems even controlled the Senate when the vote to authorize force was brought up and passed by the Senate. So Bush did not spend all the money and he did not start both wars without support from the Dems.

 

[Mr.Nick]

The link you provided indicates the Democrats held 49 seats in the Senate and the Republicans held 49 seats in the Senate from 2007-2009. That isn't a super-majority. Under any definition.


You have also failed to show that the spending the 6 years prior was greater or less than the spending in those 2 years. You will need TWO numbers to compare TWO numbers - this should be obvious. It would also help us if you sourced them.

But of course, even if you did - it wouldn't change the fact that the Democrats never held a super-majority in the Senate under Bush.


Please sue your state for failure to educate you.

What about the House??

Oh yeah.....

Then the 111th was a PROGRESSIVE SUPERMAJORITY...

The Democrats held 53.5% of the House seats. By your own link (do I need to show you the math dumb face?) How the fuck is that a SUPER-majority?

Every time you open your mouth you reveal how stupid you are. Just cut your losses and shut the fuck up.

Like I said - democrats had control of one or the other since 2007...

In 2009 the had all three, The House, Senate and executive branch..

Progressives spent like little kids in a candy store from 2007 onward and blamed republicans while they were eating their candy..

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The link you provided indicates the Democrats held 49 seats in the Senate and the Republicans held 49 seats in the Senate from 2007-2009. That isn't a super-majority. Under any definition.


You have also failed to show that the spending the 6 years prior was greater or less than the spending in those 2 years. You will need TWO numbers to compare TWO numbers - this should be obvious. It would also help us if you sourced them.

But of course, even if you did - it wouldn't change the fact that the Democrats never held a super-majority in the Senate under Bush.


Please sue your state for failure to educate you.

For almost 2 years before 2006 the Senate was controlled by the Dems. so 4 out of 8 years the dems had the control to stop the spending. They did no such thing, in fact from 2006 to 2008 they INCREASED spending.

So now a "super-majority" means barely holding one house of the Congress.

REALLY?

How the fuck can you stretch an argument that thin with a straight face?

I Also love when truthmatters claims that Bush had complete control of both Houses of Congress during all his time as President. He had 49 senators then 51 then I believe 54. If as the left claims the Dems aren't to blame for 2009 and 2010 cause they only had 59 then 58 Senators what does that tell you about all 8 years under Bush?

I love how you're trying to distract us all from the fact you have yet to provide evidence that shows YOUR claim that "most of the spending under Bush was under a progressive super-majority" is anything close to true.

I never made that claim. Or are you punchy now?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

What about the House??

Oh yeah.....

Then the 111th was a PROGRESSIVE SUPERMAJORITY...

The Democrats held 53.5% of the House seats. By your own link (do I need to show you the math dumb face?) How the fuck is that a SUPER-majority?

Every time you open your mouth you reveal how stupid you are. Just cut your losses and shut the fuck up.

Like I said - democrats had control of one or the other since 2007...

In 2009 the had all three, The House, Senate and executive branch..

Progressives spent like little kids in a candy store from 2007 onward and blamed republicans while they were eating their candy..

What you said was that "most of the spending under Bush was under a progressive super-majority"


still waiting for the evidence....

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

For almost 2 years before 2006 the Senate was controlled by the Dems. so 4 out of 8 years the dems had the control to stop the spending. They did no such thing, in fact from 2006 to 2008 they INCREASED spending.

So now a "super-majority" means barely holding one house of the Congress.

REALLY?

How the fuck can you stretch an argument that thin with a straight face?

I Also love when truthmatters claims that Bush had complete control of both Houses of Congress during all his time as President. He had 49 senators then 51 then I believe 54. If as the left claims the Dems aren't to blame for 2009 and 2010 cause they only had 59 then 58 Senators what does that tell you about all 8 years under Bush?

I love how you're trying to distract us all from the fact you have yet to provide evidence that shows YOUR claim that "most of the spending under Bush was under a progressive super-majority" is anything close to true.

I never made that claim. Or are you punchy now?

Mr. Nick did. Follow along or butt out.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Sorry I made an error 8 billion between 2007 and the present...

Of course when democrats spend money its logical and republicans spend money its tyranny..

2007 and the PRESENT?

Your claim was:

"most of the spending under Bush was under a progressive super majority.""

YOU ARE OFFICIALLY - RETARDED

Presidents don't spend money retard, congress does!!!!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Are you a fucking retard or are you just being stupid because you think it will get you brownie points???

Do you know the fucking difference between the legislative and executive branches of government???

Or are you just like I said a fucking retard???

THESE are YOUR words:

"most of the spending under Bush was under a progressive super majority."

When you are ready to defend them, let us know.

ALL of the spending under Bush was with a bare majority for 4 years in the Senate and a dem majority in the Senate for almost 4 years. The Dems even controlled the Senate when the vote to authorize force was brought up and passed by the Senate. So Bush did not spend all the money and he did not start both wars without support from the Dems.

Maybe I wasn't obvious enough earlier, but the question I have for Mr. Nick is how can he justify the claim that most of the spending under Bush came under a progressive super-majority.


Given that - I fail to see what your point is, unless your point is that Mr. Nick's claim is wrong.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Sorry I made an error 8 billion between 2007 and the present...

Of course when democrats spend money its logical and republicans spend money its tyranny..

2007 and the PRESENT?

Your claim was:

"most of the spending under Bush was under a progressive super majority.""

YOU ARE OFFICIALLY - RETARDED

Presidents don't spend money retard, congress does!!!!

These are YOUR WORDS:

"most of the spending under Bush was under a progressive super majority.""

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So now a "super-majority" means barely holding one house of the Congress.

REALLY?

How the fuck can you stretch an argument that thin with a straight face?



I love how you're trying to distract us all from the fact you have yet to provide evidence that shows YOUR claim that "most of the spending under Bush was under a progressive super-majority" is anything close to true.

I never made that claim. Or are you punchy now?

Mr. Nick did. Follow along or butt out.

You don't get to tell me to do anything. You and I both know the claim that Bush some how was solely responsible for the 6 trillion deficit is a lie. The Dems controlled the Senate under Bush for almost 4 YEARS. He got nothing they did not AGREE to give him. Further the other 4 years saw less then 55 Republican Senators. You and your buddies have claimed that the dems with 59 Senators had NO CONTROL of the Senate, so I am throwing it back in your face. If it takes 60 Senators to have control of the Senate then Bush never had the Senate. Every dime spent under his Presidency goes back to the Dems as well.