Liberals: Are you getting worried yet?

[geauxtohell]

ps........figured I'd throw out a sample for shits and giggles.

[/IMG]


Some of my stuff will make you shit your shorts though..........

Considering the wealth of actually funny photoshop work (on both sides) on the internet, I think your opinion of your Microsoft Paint talents are slightly overstated.

But, credit to you. You are obviously a minimalist.

 

[bodecea]

They're shitting themselves ... When you run up $14,000,000,000,000 in debt

Did you just call Reagan and Bush Jr liberals?

Shhhhhh.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Oh. Ok. Cause, you do know that Bush Jr and Reagan ran up the lion's share of our national debt, right?

Obama just about quadruples Bush in per year spending, about 8 times what Reagan spent, ie - Dear Leader spends as much in a year as Reagan did in his entire term.

I guess you just couldn't help being stupid.......

Yeah, that's not in the slightest bit true.

 

[Salt Jones]

I'm not worried. I can't wait for "generic republican" to raise cash, give his/her's platform and debate Obama. Wait until the liberal media gets a hold of GPub.

 

[skookerasbil]

ps........figured I'd throw out a sample for shits and giggles.

[/IMG]


Some of my stuff will make you shit your shorts though..........

Considering the wealth of actually funny photoshop work (on both sides) on the internet, I think your opinion of your Microsoft Paint talents are slightly overstated.

But, credit to you. You are obviously a minimalist.

Ummm..........correction s0n. Not even a minimalist. More of a pseudo-minimalist.........which makes the whole salt in the wound stuff so much the sweeter. I'll most definately need some advil the next morning from my ribs hurting.

 

[Salt Jones]

Oh. Ok. Cause, you do know that Bush Jr and Reagan ran up the lion's share of our national debt, right?

Obama just about quadruples Bush in per year spending, about 8 times what Reagan spent, ie - Dear Leader spends as much in a year as Reagan did in his entire term.

I guess you just couldn't help being stupid.......

Wow!! Really?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Shhhhhh.

Why did that sound so much like "Duhhhhhh" from you?

(you might see to the drool on your chin....)

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yeah, that's not in the slightest bit true.

Yeah..

Um, total spending fiscal year 2002 - first 100% Bush budget, $547 in 2008 constant dollars. Your Messiah spent more than that in just porkulus funds.

Federal Spending, 2001-2008: Defense Is a Rapidly Growing Share of the Budget, While Domestic Appropriations Have Shrunk — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Obama had a budget of $3 trillion 818 billion.

US Budget Breakdown for FY12 - Charts

Sorry, he spent 7 times what Bush did.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Wow!! Really?

{So Bush's record on deficit spending was not good at all: During his presidency, the national debt rose by an average of $607 billion a year. How does that compare to Obama? During Obama's presidency to date, the national debt has risen by an average of $1.723 trillion a year -- or by a jaw-dropping $1.116 trillion more, per year, than it rose even under Bush.}

Obama vs. Bush: On Debt | The Weekly Standard

Fucking lefties - stupid as a bag of hammers....

 

[DontBeStupid]

Um, total spending fiscal year 2002 - first 100% Bush budget, $547 in 2008 constant dollars.

/sigh

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Yeah, that's not in the slightest bit true.

Yeah..

Um, total spending fiscal year 2002 - first 100% Bush budget, $547 in 2008 constant dollars. Your Messiah spent more than that in just porkulus funds.

Federal Spending, 2001-2008: Defense Is a Rapidly Growing Share of the Budget, While Domestic Appropriations Have Shrunk — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Obama had a budget of $3 trillion 818 billion.

US Budget Breakdown for FY12 - Charts

Sorry, he spent 7 times what Bush did.

First of all, the US federal government spent $2.2T in 2002, not $547B.

Second, you can't compare Bush's first budget to Obama, since Bush increased spending by an additional $1T by the end of his term. So, in reality, Obama's first full budget (2010) is actually only a few hundred billion dollars more than Bush's last budget (far from a "quadrupling").

 

[bripat9643]

They're shitting themselves... the Nanny state is crumbling under its own weight. When you run up $14,000,000,000,000 in debt, you can't make the payments on what has already been promised and all you have to offer is to promise more and borrow more... you're toast. The failed Progressive expirment is in full blown heart failure.

These people are really colossally stupid.

Class warfare politics work great during the growth phase of the nanny state. on the downhill skid to oblivion, however, the suckers are not so receptive to another con.

 

[bripat9643]

Oh. Ok. Cause, you do know that Bush Jr and Reagan ran up the lion's share of our national debt, right?

Yeah, right, along with the veto-proof Republican majority in Congress . . . . . .

oh yeah . . . . . . that's right. The Dims had control of Congress.

But when the Dims had control of all three branches of government the deficit plummeted!

That's not right either.

DOH!

 

[Salt Jones]

Wow!! Really?

{So Bush's record on deficit spending was not good at all: During his presidency, the national debt rose by an average of $607 billion a year. How does that compare to Obama? During Obama's presidency to date, the national debt has risen by an average of $1.723 trillion a year -- or by a jaw-dropping $1.116 trillion more, per year, than it rose even under Bush.}

Obama vs. Bush: On Debt | The Weekly Standard

Fucking lefties - stupid as a bag of hammers....

You are one dumb fuck. You proved it on the family leader pledge thread and you are proving it here. You will lie and twist to back your claims and you don't put stuff in context, but I guess you have to do what you have to do when your argument is so weak.

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah, that's not in the slightest bit true.

If it's not, your chart sure didn't prove it.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Yeah, that's not in the slightest bit true.

If it's not, your chart sure didn't prove it.

Wait... you mean $3.7T is "quadruple" $3.2T?

Really?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Um, total spending fiscal year 2002 - first 100% Bush budget, $547 in 2008 constant dollars.

/sigh

Yo stupid, how many times does 607 go into 1723?

 

[bripat9643]

If it's not, your chart sure didn't prove it.

Wait... you mean $3.7T is "quadruple" $3.2T?

Really?

What does $3.2 trillion have to do with anything?

You don't seem to comprehend what you're correspondent is trying to explain to you. Of course, inability to learn is a classic symptom of liberalism.

 

[Uncensored2008]

First of all, the US federal government spent $2.2T in 2002, not $547B.

Second, you can't compare Bush's first budget to Obama, since Bush increased spending by an additional $1T by the end of his term. So, in reality, Obama's first full budget (2010) is actually only a few hundred billion dollars more than Bush's last budget (far from a "quadrupling").

It seems that a year to year comparison is more accurate. I fully expect that by the time Obama leaves office on Jan. 20, 2013, he will tack several trillion more in spending on.

 

[bripat9643]

Um, total spending fiscal year 2002 - first 100% Bush budget, $547 in 2008 constant dollars.

/sigh

Yo stupid, how many times does 607 go into 1723?

Do you ever feel like you're trying to explain quantum mechanics to a sea urchin?