Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It's amusing isn't it?
Conservatives picking and choosing when they like or don't like the globalists imposing their will on sovereign nations.
You do know what reality means, don't you?
Or...would you care to show anything unreal in my posts?
Do I detect a sense of "entitlement" on the behalf of the OP?Brutus murdered a friend....that is the context.
The theme of the OP is that a vote for Obama, among other inequities, gave progressives, as shown in the thread, the ability to superimpose internationalism for our nation's laws. Whatever the reasons, they have murdered the Constitution for UN regulations.
To continue with the Shakespearean motif, " The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
Here you go, PC:
Fact check: Romney's welfare claims wrong - CNN.com
I know you aren't stupid and I have to wonder why you rely on the stupid opinions of stupid people instead of exploring the truth for yourself.
Do I detect a sense of "entitlement" on the behalf of the OP?Brutus murdered a friend....that is the context.
The theme of the OP is that a vote for Obama, among other inequities, gave progressives, as shown in the thread, the ability to superimpose internationalism for our nation's laws. Whatever the reasons, they have murdered the Constitution for UN regulations.
To continue with the Shakespearean motif, " The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
The Republicans inherited economic surpluses in 2001 and proceeded to leave it in economic chaos by 2009 - and now the OP laments the fact that the American electorate didn't see fit to give her conservative friends a 2nd chance to finish the job!
You do know what reality means, don't you?
Or...would you care to show anything unreal in my posts?
Yes, I do know what reality means, thanks.
What I find "unreal" about your posts -- and I suspect you know this, but I'm not quite sure -- is the implied notion that your overall tactics (on a macro level) are somehow going to be a net positive for your "side" of any given debate. Your party just had its hat handed it to it by an incredibly vulnerable President with unemployment over 8%. Your party went into election night gleefully anticipating a big win, only to end the evening looking like some had shot your dog. And why? Because your party currently (and I say "currently" because I'm very hopeful that some adult leadership will return soon) has this bizarre habit of creating little fantasies and then running with them as if they were fact.
And when I see your "side" complaining about things Obama may do in his next administration, it seems clear to me that he may not have had the chance to DO so if your party were not so influenced by people like you, and had been able to attract more independent voters who are not so easily swayed by fantasy.
Worse, those little fantasies are usually created and pushed by the Limbaughs, Levins and Hannitys of the world, people who have somehow convinced you that they're perpetrating these frauds for love of country, when in fact their agenda is to keep Americans angry and ratings up. Yet people like you, in an attempt to parrot these dishonest pundits, buy into their propoganda like a 12-year old at a pro wrestling event and run with them as if they're "The Truth". So I won't try to talk you out of your little world any more than I would try to talk a 12-year old boy out of his.
Yes, I must admit it's amusing, but I would much rather have the GOP marginalize your kind and return to what I consider reality (and your definition is irrelevant to me, sorry), that absolutism and fantasy creation can not control the party. I want two strong parties, so that each can keep the other in check while working together in the best interests of the country.
Your standard, tedious and contrived narcissism, flamboyance and condescension notwithstanding, of course.
.
Do I detect a sense of "entitlement" on the behalf of the OP?Brutus murdered a friend....that is the context.
The theme of the OP is that a vote for Obama, among other inequities, gave progressives, as shown in the thread, the ability to superimpose internationalism for our nation's laws. Whatever the reasons, they have murdered the Constitution for UN regulations.
To continue with the Shakespearean motif, " The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
The Republicans inherited economic surpluses in 2001 and proceeded to leave it in economic chaos by 2009 - and now the OP laments the fact that the American electorate didn't see fit to give her conservative friends a 2nd chance to finish the job!
The ideas of a surplus is bogus....and it says a great deal about you that you believe it....
....it identifies you as the "reliable Democrat voter."
A Pod.
Clinton ran deficits throught all 8 years of his term, and one can go to the US Treasury Department and looking through the history of the total outstanding debt through Clintons term.
Every year Clinton was in office, the total national debt continued to climb.
Over his term, the national debt rose 41%.
Do you know what surplus means?
How Clinton managed to claim a surplus was that while the general operating budgets ran deficits but Clinton borrowed from numerous off budget funds to make the on budget fund a surplus.
For example, in 2000, Clinton claimed a $230B surplus, but Clinton borrowed
$152.3B from Social Security
$30.9B from Civil Service Retirement Fund
$18.5B from Federal Supplementary Medical insurance Trust Fund
$15.0B from Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund
$9.0B from the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund
$8.2B from Military Retirement Fund
$3.8B from Transportation Trust Funds
$1.8B from Employee Life Insurance & Retirement fund
$7.0B from others
Total borrowed from off budget funds $246.5B, meaning that his $230B surplus is actually a $16.5B deficit.
($246.5B borrowed - $230B claimed surplus = $16.5B actual deficit).
If there is ever a true surplus, then the national debt will go down.
.
Good post.
Although to be fair to her, PC isn't a bad kid. Just a bit misguided.
Reminds me of me about 20 years ago. Before I knew any better.
You do know what reality means, don't you?
Or...would you care to show anything unreal in my posts?
Yes, I do know what reality means, thanks.
What I find "unreal" about your posts -- and I suspect you know this, but I'm not quite sure -- is the implied notion that your overall tactics (on a macro level) are somehow going to be a net positive for your "side" of any given debate. Your party just had its hat handed it to it by an incredibly vulnerable President with unemployment over 8%. Your party went into election night gleefully anticipating a big win, only to end the evening looking like some had shot your dog. And why? Because your party currently (and I say "currently" because I'm very hopeful that some adult leadership will return soon) has this bizarre habit of creating little fantasies and then running with them as if they were fact.
And when I see your "side" complaining about things Obama may do in his next administration, it seems clear to me that he may not have had the chance to DO so if your party were not so influenced by people like you, and had been able to attract more independent voters who are not so easily swayed by fantasy.
Worse, those little fantasies are usually created and pushed by the Limbaughs, Levins and Hannitys of the world, people who have somehow convinced you that they're perpetrating these frauds for love of country, when in fact their agenda is to keep Americans angry and ratings up. Yet people like you, in an attempt to parrot these dishonest pundits, buy into their propoganda like a 12-year old at a pro wrestling event and run with them as if they're "The Truth". So I won't try to talk you out of your little world any more than I would try to talk a 12-year old boy out of his.
Yes, I must admit it's amusing, but I would much rather have the GOP marginalize your kind and return to what I consider reality (and your definition is irrelevant to me, sorry), that absolutism and fantasy creation can not control the party. I want two strong parties, so that each can keep the other in check while working together in the best interests of the country.
Your standard, tedious and contrived narcissism, flamboyance and condescension notwithstanding, of course.
.
"...your overall tactics (on a macro level) are somehow going to be a net positive for your "side" of any given debate."
My 'tactic' is simply: I provide truth.
In order to avoid same, folks like you will do anything but confront the facts. I haven't seen so many contortions since you gave birth to yourself.
"narcissism, flamboyance and condescension..."
Guilty as charged.
Do I detect a sense of "entitlement" on the behalf of the OP?
The Republicans inherited economic surpluses in 2001 and proceeded to leave it in economic chaos by 2009 - and now the OP laments the fact that the American electorate didn't see fit to give her conservative friends a 2nd chance to finish the job!
The ideas of a surplus is bogus....and it says a great deal about you that you believe it....
....it identifies you as the "reliable Democrat voter."
A Pod.
Clinton ran deficits throught all 8 years of his term, and one can go to the US Treasury Department and looking through the history of the total outstanding debt through Clintons term.
Every year Clinton was in office, the total national debt continued to climb.
Over his term, the national debt rose 41%.
Do you know what surplus means?
How Clinton managed to claim a surplus was that while the general operating budgets ran deficits but Clinton borrowed from numerous off budget funds to make the on budget fund a surplus.
For example, in 2000, Clinton claimed a $230B surplus, but Clinton borrowed
$152.3B from Social Security
$30.9B from Civil Service Retirement Fund
$18.5B from Federal Supplementary Medical insurance Trust Fund
$15.0B from Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund
$9.0B from the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund
$8.2B from Military Retirement Fund
$3.8B from Transportation Trust Funds
$1.8B from Employee Life Insurance & Retirement fund
$7.0B from others
Total borrowed from off budget funds $246.5B, meaning that his $230B surplus is actually a $16.5B deficit.
($246.5B borrowed - $230B claimed surplus = $16.5B actual deficit).
If there is ever a true surplus, then the national debt will go down.
.
Except that money wasn't "borrowed", it was converted to bonds. In short, those funds collected more funds than they paid out, so they were "surpluses".
Now, two issues. ONe is that these funds are paying out more than they collect now, because of lack of people paying into them. Second, we gave huge tax cuts to the rich on the promise they'd produce jobs, and those jobs never materialized.
Supply side doesn't work.
Good post.
Although to be fair to her, PC isn't a bad kid. Just a bit misguided.
Reminds me of me about 20 years ago. Before I knew any better.
Where is the old 'pit bull Joe'????
I simply cannot deal with this 'kindlier, gentler Joe."
I want the old Joe back!!!! NOW!!!!
"that money wasn't "borrowed", it was converted to bonds."
Just not there, huh?
Nice attempt at spin.
1. Would you like to see the actual national debt figures?
1993 4,351,044
1994 4,643,307
1995 4,920,586
1996 5,181,465
1997 5,369,206
1998 5,478,189
1999 5,605,523
2000 5,628,700
That means the debt increased 41% under Clinton.
And no wars or military build up to blame it on!
why is it when repubs lose elections the sky is falling?
There is the possibility that you aren't intelligent enough to understand what is at stake...and what has been lost.
[1. Would you like to see the actual national debt figures?
1993 4,351,044
1994 4,643,307
1995 4,920,586
1996 5,181,465
1997 5,369,206
1998 5,478,189
1999 5,605,523
2000 5,628,700
Historical Tables | The White House (table 7.1)
The table 7.1 will also show that he inherited a $4 trillion debt.
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999
That means the debt increased 41% under Clinton.
And no wars or military build up to blame it on!
Well, NYC, the guy has caught you clearly committing a lie of omission. By not mentioning Libya in your original comment, you played your hand. You really don't have a problem with the Obama administration's actions in Libya.....but if it were Bush doing it, you would.
Why fight it? The guy can read your mind.
Do I detect a sense of "entitlement" on the behalf of the OP?Brutus murdered a friend....that is the context.
The theme of the OP is that a vote for Obama, among other inequities, gave progressives, as shown in the thread, the ability to superimpose internationalism for our nation's laws. Whatever the reasons, they have murdered the Constitution for UN regulations.
To continue with the Shakespearean motif, " The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
The Republicans inherited economic surpluses in 2001 and proceeded to leave it in economic chaos by 2009 - and now the OP laments the fact that the American electorate didn't see fit to give her conservative friends a 2nd chance to finish the job!
The ideas of a surplus is bogus....and it says a great deal about you that you believe it....
....it identifies you as the "reliable Democrat voter."
A Pod.
Clinton ran deficits throught all 8 years of his term, and one can go to the US Treasury Department and looking through the history of the total outstanding debt through Clintons term.
Every year Clinton was in office, the total national debt continued to climb.
Over his term, the national debt rose 41%.
Do you know what surplus means?
How Clinton managed to claim a surplus was that while the general operating budgets ran deficits but Clinton borrowed from numerous off budget funds to make the on budget fund a surplus.
For example, in 2000, Clinton claimed a $230B surplus, but Clinton borrowed
$152.3B from Social Security
$30.9B from Civil Service Retirement Fund
$18.5B from Federal Supplementary Medical insurance Trust Fund
$15.0B from Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund
$9.0B from the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund
$8.2B from Military Retirement Fund
$3.8B from Transportation Trust Funds
$1.8B from Employee Life Insurance & Retirement fund
$7.0B from others
Total borrowed from off budget funds $246.5B, meaning that his $230B surplus is actually a $16.5B deficit.
($246.5B borrowed - $230B claimed surplus = $16.5B actual deficit).
If there is ever a true surplus, then the national debt will go down.
the national debt did not go down one year during the Clinton administration.
How much surplus did the US have when Clinton left office
Easily led dunce.
