The debate is OVER

[FJO]

Yes Iraq and Afghanistan were Clinton's fault. Not Bush or Reagan's. Not even a little bit.

At least Ronald Reagan did not call those "gentlemen" endearing names, such as "Uncle Joe", as the cripple FDR adoringly called the second biggest and bloodiest butcher in human history, Joseph Stalin.

And in addition, Ronald Reagan's politics and policies led to the end of the decades old Cold War that the cripple FDR started.

Bullshit.

Eisenhower planned to end the cold war in 1960, but the CIA sabotaged that plan when they sent up a U-2 to be shot down over Soviet air space.

READ Eisenhower's farewell address.

Kennedy and Khrushchev would have ended the cold war, but the CIA murdered Kennedy.

And if my auntie had a dick, she would be my uncle.

 

[Bfgrn]

At least Ronald Reagan did not call those "gentlemen" endearing names, such as "Uncle Joe", as the cripple FDR adoringly called the second biggest and bloodiest butcher in human history, Joseph Stalin.

And in addition, Ronald Reagan's politics and policies led to the end of the decades old Cold War that the cripple FDR started.

Bullshit.

Eisenhower planned to end the cold war in 1960, but the CIA sabotaged that plan when they sent up a U-2 to be shot down over Soviet air space.

READ Eisenhower's farewell address.

Kennedy and Khrushchev would have ended the cold war, but the CIA murdered Kennedy.

And if my auntie had a dick, she would be my uncle.

You are not smart enough to know the difference.

Educate yourself...


THE SABOTAGING OF THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY
by L. Fletcher Prouty

Col. Prouty spent 9 of his 23 year military career in the Pentagon (1955-1964): 2 years with the Secretary of Defense, 2 years with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and 5 years with Headquarters, U.S. Air Force. In 1955 he was appointed the first "Focal Point" officer between the CIA and the Air Force for Clandestine Operations per National Security Council Directive 5412. He was Briefing Officer for the Secretary of Defense (1960-1961), and for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

At times he would be called to meet with Allen Dulles and John Foster Dulles at their home on highly classified business. He was assigned to attend MKULTRA meetings. In this capacity Col. Prouty would be at the nerve center of the Military-Industrial Complex at a time unequalled in American History.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The debate is OVER as Rott and his buddies have been pwnd again.

 

[P@triot]

You only have one problem...FACTS.

The Carter years...

Another idiot who can't read a graph.

You REALLY have a cognitive issue when it comes to something as simple as a graph. The graph is clear...CRYSTAL. Defense spending INCREASED during the Carter years, not decreased. You are an idiot.

"People are not on unemployment for 2 years because there are no jobs. There are no jobs because people are on unemployment for 2 years."

The "Carter Years" ends starting at 1980 buffoon. Incidentally, so does the townward trend...

As Rabbi said, another idiot who can't read a graph....

 

[P@triot]

Yes Iraq and Afghanistan were Clinton's fault. Not Bush or Reagan's. Not even a little bit.

At least Ronald Reagan did not call those "gentlemen" endearing names, such as "Uncle Joe", as the cripple FDR adoringly called the second biggest and bloodiest butcher in human history, Joseph Stalin.

And in addition, Ronald Reagan's politics and policies led to the end of the decades old Cold War that the cripple FDR started.

Bullshit.

Eisenhower planned to end the cold war in 1960, but the CIA sabotaged that plan when they sent up a U-2 to be shot down over Soviet air space.

READ Eisenhower's farewell address.

Kennedy and Khrushchev would have ended the cold war, but the CIA murdered Kennedy.

That one word illustrates the difference between Republicans and Dumbocrats. Bf here is excited about what someone "planned" to do (this why Dumbocrats always deliver failure - because they never actually do anything - they only "plan" to do it).

Meanwhile, Ronald Reagan actually defeated the Soviets in the Cold War. He didn't "plan" on doing it, he actually did it.

Now provide us more comedy relief you blind partisan hack. The more you talk, the more you defeat yourself. Like when you provide a graph showing the military on a downward trend during the Carter years and then immediately changing course starting at 1980 - the year Reagan took command.

Dance monkey, dance!

 

[P@triot]

$7 trillion in deficit spending under Obama ...

Pure BULLSHIT!

Reagan, Bush I and Bush II ran up, including interest, $13 trillion in the GOP National Debt, and that is not counting the carryover from Bush's 2 wars.

The interest is already factored in your dumb-fuck. When they sell a government bond, they know what that will cost at the time of maturity. When they borrow from China, they know the interest and total debt. There is no "surprise" debt that piles on to a future present.

Obama has added $7 trillion to debt because he's a typical spread-the-wealth to buy power Dumbocrat marxist idiot. You know damn well that asshole has added $7 trillion to the debt. The fact that you feel the need to lie about it says it all junior.....

 

[P@triot]

$7 trillion in deficit spending under Obama ...

Pure BULLSHIT!

Reagan, Bush I and Bush II ran up, including interest, $13 trillion in the GOP National Debt, and that is not counting the carryover from Bush's 2 wars.

This chart is not from some 'leftist' website...

I’m a big fan of criticizing Obama’s profligacy, but it is inaccurate and/or dishonest to blame him for Bush’s mistakes. At the risk of repeating my earlier post, the 2009 fiscal year began on October 1, 2008, and the vast majority of the spending for that year was the result of Bush Administration policies. Yes, Obama did add to the waste with the so-called stimulus, the omnibus appropriation, the CHIP bill, and the cash-for-clunkers nonsense, but as the chart illustrates, these boondoggles only amounted to just a tiny percentage of the FY2009 total – about $140 billion out of a $3.5 trillion budget.

Defending Obama...Again | Cato @ Liberty

Funny thing is, junior here had never even heard of the Omnibus bill and had completely forgotten about the cash-for-clunkers until I pointed these out (and more) in another thread because he wanted to know what Obama was spending all of this money on.

Now that I brought them to his attention with links that prevents him from denying it, he's instead trying to minimize how much they cost. I'd love to know how he calculates that Obama was only responsible for $140 billion when the "Stimulus Package" alone was nearly $1 trillion....

Only a Dumbocrat could acknowledge that a president spent $800 billion for a bill and then claim that he was only responsible for spending "$140 billion". Fuck'n moron...

 

[Pogo]

$7 trillion in deficit spending under Obama ...

Pure BULLSHIT!

Reagan, Bush I and Bush II ran up, including interest, $13 trillion in the GOP National Debt, and that is not counting the carryover from Bush's 2 wars.

The interest is already factored in your dumb-fuck. When they sell a government bond, they know what that will cost at the time of maturity. When they borrow from China, they know the interest and total debt. There is no "surprise" debt that piles on to a future present.

Obama has added $7 trillion to debt because he's a typical spread-the-wealth to buy power Dumbocrat marxist idiot. You know damn well that asshole has added $7 trillion to the debt. The fact that you feel the need to lie about it says it all junior.....

--- this from the same fucknutz who tells us the state of Wisconsin has a one trillion dollar surplus.

 

[percysunshine]

The debate is OVER as Rott and his buddies have been pwnd again.

Jake, I was at Disney Worlds EPCOT theme park last week. I had never been there before, but it looked a lot like what Detroit was envisioned to be when the great Urban Planners were hard at work in the 1960s.

I guess things did not turn out the way the planners hoped they would.

.

 

[Bfgrn]

At least Ronald Reagan did not call those "gentlemen" endearing names, such as "Uncle Joe", as the cripple FDR adoringly called the second biggest and bloodiest butcher in human history, Joseph Stalin.

And in addition, Ronald Reagan's politics and policies led to the end of the decades old Cold War that the cripple FDR started.

Bullshit.

Eisenhower planned to end the cold war in 1960, but the CIA sabotaged that plan when they sent up a U-2 to be shot down over Soviet air space.

READ Eisenhower's farewell address.

Kennedy and Khrushchev would have ended the cold war, but the CIA murdered Kennedy.

That one word illustrates the difference between Republicans and Dumbocrats. Bf here is excited about what someone "planned" to do (this why Dumbocrats always deliver failure - because they never actually do anything - they only "plan" to do it).

Meanwhile, Ronald Reagan actually defeated the Soviets in the Cold War. He didn't "plan" on doing it, he actually did it.

Now provide us more comedy relief you blind partisan hack. The more you talk, the more you defeat yourself. Like when you provide a graph showing the military on a downward trend during the Carter years and then immediately changing course starting at 1980 - the year Reagan took command.

Dance monkey, dance!

Hey pea brain, FACTS continue to be your only problem. You parrot all the right wing talking points, but none of the FACTS back them up. But parrots can only mimic, not think.

1) Eisenhower was a Republican.

2) The graph proves Carter INCREASED military spending each year of his administration.

3) Each President's budget starts one year into their term, and ends one year after they leave office.

SO, the Carter budget years are 1978-1981

 

[P@triot]

Bullshit.

Eisenhower planned to end the cold war in 1960, but the CIA sabotaged that plan when they sent up a U-2 to be shot down over Soviet air space.

READ Eisenhower's farewell address.

Kennedy and Khrushchev would have ended the cold war, but the CIA murdered Kennedy.

That one word illustrates the difference between Republicans and Dumbocrats. Bf here is excited about what someone "planned" to do (this why Dumbocrats always deliver failure - because they never actually do anything - they only "plan" to do it).

Meanwhile, Ronald Reagan actually defeated the Soviets in the Cold War. He didn't "plan" on doing it, he actually did it.

Now provide us more comedy relief you blind partisan hack. The more you talk, the more you defeat yourself. Like when you provide a graph showing the military on a downward trend during the Carter years and then immediately changing course starting at 1980 - the year Reagan took command.

Dance monkey, dance!

Hey pea brain, FACTS continue to be your only problem. You parrot all the right wing talking points, but none of the FACTS back them up. But parrots can only mimic, not think.

1) Eisenhower was a Republican.

2) The graph proves Carter INCREASED military spending each year of his administration.

3) Each President's budget starts one year into their term, and ends one year after they leave office.

SO, the Carter budget years are 1978-1981

The trend in your own graph shows it going down until the Reagan years. A 1 time increase under Carter doesn't mean you disregard 3 years of cutting. Only a Dumbocrat would celebrate "success" 1/4 of the time...

 

[P@triot]

The debate is OVER as Rott and his buddies have been pwnd again.

Jake, I was at Disney Worlds EPCOT theme park last week. I had never been there before, but it looked a lot like what Detroit was envisioned to be when the great Urban Planners were hard at work in the 1960s.

I guess things did not turn out the way the planners hoped they would.

Starkey has no response for the failure of the Dumbocrats in Detroit or the success of the Republican administration in Wisconsin...

 

[Bfgrn]

Pure BULLSHIT!

Reagan, Bush I and Bush II ran up, including interest, $13 trillion in the GOP National Debt, and that is not counting the carryover from Bush's 2 wars.

This chart is not from some 'leftist' website...

I’m a big fan of criticizing Obama’s profligacy, but it is inaccurate and/or dishonest to blame him for Bush’s mistakes. At the risk of repeating my earlier post, the 2009 fiscal year began on October 1, 2008, and the vast majority of the spending for that year was the result of Bush Administration policies. Yes, Obama did add to the waste with the so-called stimulus, the omnibus appropriation, the CHIP bill, and the cash-for-clunkers nonsense, but as the chart illustrates, these boondoggles only amounted to just a tiny percentage of the FY2009 total – about $140 billion out of a $3.5 trillion budget.

Defending Obama...Again | Cato @ Liberty

Funny thing is, junior here had never even heard of the Omnibus bill and had completely forgotten about the cash-for-clunkers until I pointed these out (and more) in another thread because he wanted to know what Obama was spending all of this money on.

Now that I brought them to his attention with links that prevents him from denying it, he's instead trying to minimize how much they cost. I'd love to know how he calculates that Obama was only responsible for $140 billion when the "Stimulus Package" alone was nearly $1 trillion....

Only a Dumbocrat could acknowledge that a president spent $800 billion for a bill and then claim that he was only responsible for spending "$140 billion". Fuck'n moron...

Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke

The stimulus (ARRA) provided funding for a broad array of spending initiatives that, combined with tax cuts, were intended to provide economic stimulus. In February 2009, CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimated that enacting ARRA would increase federal deficits—through the combination of spending increases and revenue reductions—by a total of $787 billion over the 2009-2019 period.

WHOSE debt is it?

Adding to the deficit: Bush vs. Obama - The Washington Post

 

[Bfgrn]

That one word illustrates the difference between Republicans and Dumbocrats. Bf here is excited about what someone "planned" to do (this why Dumbocrats always deliver failure - because they never actually do anything - they only "plan" to do it).

Meanwhile, Ronald Reagan actually defeated the Soviets in the Cold War. He didn't "plan" on doing it, he actually did it.

Now provide us more comedy relief you blind partisan hack. The more you talk, the more you defeat yourself. Like when you provide a graph showing the military on a downward trend during the Carter years and then immediately changing course starting at 1980 - the year Reagan took command.

Dance monkey, dance!

Hey pea brain, FACTS continue to be your only problem. You parrot all the right wing talking points, but none of the FACTS back them up. But parrots can only mimic, not think.

1) Eisenhower was a Republican.

2) The graph proves Carter INCREASED military spending each year of his administration.

3) Each President's budget starts one year into their term, and ends one year after they leave office.

SO, the Carter budget years are 1978-1981

The trend in your own graph shows it going down until the Reagan years. A 1 time increase under Carter doesn't mean you disregard 3 years of cutting. Only a Dumbocrat would celebrate "success" 1/4 of the time...

There was NO, ZERO, ZILCH cutting of military SPENDING during the Carter years...NONE. It went UP every year.

WTF is wrong with the right wing brain? The blue is SPENDING in billions of dollars. The red is percentage of GDP.

 

[P@triot]

This chart is not from some 'leftist' website...

I’m a big fan of criticizing Obama’s profligacy, but it is inaccurate and/or dishonest to blame him for Bush’s mistakes. At the risk of repeating my earlier post, the 2009 fiscal year began on October 1, 2008, and the vast majority of the spending for that year was the result of Bush Administration policies. Yes, Obama did add to the waste with the so-called stimulus, the omnibus appropriation, the CHIP bill, and the cash-for-clunkers nonsense, but as the chart illustrates, these boondoggles only amounted to just a tiny percentage of the FY2009 total – about $140 billion out of a $3.5 trillion budget.

Defending Obama...Again | Cato @ Liberty

Funny thing is, junior here had never even heard of the Omnibus bill and had completely forgotten about the cash-for-clunkers until I pointed these out (and more) in another thread because he wanted to know what Obama was spending all of this money on.

Now that I brought them to his attention with links that prevents him from denying it, he's instead trying to minimize how much they cost. I'd love to know how he calculates that Obama was only responsible for $140 billion when the "Stimulus Package" alone was nearly $1 trillion....

Only a Dumbocrat could acknowledge that a president spent $800 billion for a bill and then claim that he was only responsible for spending "$140 billion". Fuck'n moron...

Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke

The stimulus (ARRA) provided funding for a broad array of spending initiatives that, combined with tax cuts, were intended to provide economic stimulus. In February 2009, CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimated that enacting ARRA would increase federal deficits—through the combination of spending increases and revenue reductions—by a total of $787 billion over the 2009-2019 period.

WHOSE debt is it?

Well considering that Bush was completely gone by 2009 and had nothing to do with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, it is clearly OBAMA's DEBT.

Thank you for proving my point.

The nations debt stood barely over $10 trillion when Obama took office. He has now pushed that to over $17 trillion and climbing. In the process, he has demanded (and received) that the debt ceiling be raised.

So for the third time now, what happened to "pay as you go"?

 

[P@triot]

There was NO, ZERO, ZILCH cutting of military SPENDING during the Carter years...NONE. It went UP every year.

WTF is wrong with the right wing brain? The blue is SPENDING in billions of dollars. The red is percentage of GDP.

During his first month in office, Carter cut the defense budget by $6 billion.

Presidency of Jimmy Carter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Now how does military spending "go up every year" when Carter cut the defense budget by $6 billion?!?

(Now here comes the part where the lying and desperate Dumbocrat tries to use semantics to say that "military" and "defense" are different )

Reagan had to rebuild what Carter tore down. The facts are really kicking your ass in this thread chief.

 

[Bfgrn]

There was NO, ZERO, ZILCH cutting of military SPENDING during the Carter years...NONE. It went UP every year.

WTF is wrong with the right wing brain? The blue is SPENDING in billions of dollars. The red is percentage of GDP.

During his first month in office, Carter cut the defense budget by $6 billion.

Presidency of Jimmy Carter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Now how does military spending "go up every year" when Carter cut the defense budget by $6 billion?!?

(Now here comes the part where the lying and desperate Dumbocrat tries to use semantics to say that "military" and "defense" are different )

Reagan had to rebuild what Carter tore down. The facts are really kicking your ass in this thread chief.

HELLO? Is there ANYTHING inside your tiny little head?

WHAT don't you understand about the FACT military spending DID "go up every year"?

AND...

The reversal in the post-Vietnam decline of American military spending began under Carter. Reagan just continued what Carter, NOT Reagan began. From a starting point of 4.7 percent of GDP, Carter called for raising defense spending to 5.2 percent of GDP in his final budget for fiscal year 1981. The Carter administration called for defense spending to rise even further by 1987 to 5.7 percent of GDP — only a little below the 6.2 percent where it peaked in 1986.

AGAIN, FACTS are your only downfall, but hey, you are able to parrot right wing propaganda flawlessly...

Poly want a cracker?

 

[Bfgrn]

Funny thing is, junior here had never even heard of the Omnibus bill and had completely forgotten about the cash-for-clunkers until I pointed these out (and more) in another thread because he wanted to know what Obama was spending all of this money on.

Now that I brought them to his attention with links that prevents him from denying it, he's instead trying to minimize how much they cost. I'd love to know how he calculates that Obama was only responsible for $140 billion when the "Stimulus Package" alone was nearly $1 trillion....

Only a Dumbocrat could acknowledge that a president spent $800 billion for a bill and then claim that he was only responsible for spending "$140 billion". Fuck'n moron...

Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke

The stimulus (ARRA) provided funding for a broad array of spending initiatives that, combined with tax cuts, were intended to provide economic stimulus. In February 2009, CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimated that enacting ARRA would increase federal deficits—through the combination of spending increases and revenue reductions—by a total of $787 billion over the 2009-2019 period.

WHOSE debt is it?

Well considering that Bush was completely gone by 2009 and had nothing to do with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, it is clearly OBAMA's DEBT.

Thank you for proving my point.

The nations debt stood barely over $10 trillion when Obama took office. He has now pushed that to over $17 trillion and climbing. In the process, he has demanded (and received) that the debt ceiling be raised.

So for the third time now, what happened to "pay as you go"?

This leaves us with only one question...

Are you THAT dishonest, or are you THAT obtuse?

Which one is it???

 

[Bfgrn]

More FACTS...

Carter Revisited

Popularly known as one of our weakest and unsuccessful Presidents- although the “perception” may be true- much of it is a result of myths- and incorrect information- whereas- Ronald Reagan’s overall great image in American politics- is also due to many myths.

Jimmy Carter did not entangle America in foreign conflicts- Jimmy Carter did not expand our debt significantly (1.6-2.7%)- Jimmy Carter reduced the poverty rate (1976-80 poverty rate fell several points), Jimmy Carter was not a big tax and spend President.

Another popular myth is what Jimmy Carter did to the military- i.e. created a hollow force, reduced spending, etc. – this is a myth. Carter did not engage in some massive reduction in military spending, the budget was on a rapid decline because of the end of the Vietnam War, but into his second year- he (Carter) began a military buildup in spending and to address the “hollow force” issues which was a result of the draw down related directly to the ending of the Vietnam War.

After Carter’s second year in office military spending was boosted by 5% on an upward trajectory- continued by Reagan. During the Carter years- defense spending increased from 4.7% of GDP to 5.2% of GDP- therefore- it was pure myth that during the Carter years the military was “hollowed out” or cut is simply not true. Indeed “some” cut were being made as a result of winding up the Vietnam War and it was Carter who initiated programs to rectify this situation by creating new platforms, commission new weapons, and a surge in building “LIFT” capability (in later years this gave our military global reach). Reagan continued and expanded upon Carter’s and Secretary of Defense Brown’s policies.

I am personally a great fan of Ronald Reagan and remember his Presidency well, but in the study of history- we use time and greater time as an analytical tool to be able to reflect on events more clearly, more objectively and with less emotion- and probably- with many more facts than when events occurred.

In this case, it’s time to revise history just a bit- to realize that Carter got a bad rap for many things which were simply not true about him- and Reagan gained a lot of adulation for things which were not true about him also- i.e. he created enormous deficits by cutting taxes and raising defense spending and the increased tax base did not yield as much revenue as predicted- hence large deficits.

For example, under Carter, the budget deficit as a percentage of GDP was 1.6%-2.7% yet under Reagan, our deficits expanded from 2.6% to 4.0% to 6.0% hovering for two years at 5.1% before reducing to 3.2% during his final year. From those numbers- clearly Carter is the fiscal conservative whereas Reagan is the one expanding government, spending, and debt levels.

In fact, despite Reagan’s huge “federal” tax cuts- after he approved and signed into law- other tax increases- his overall tax cut was only 1/10 of a percent- hardly aligns with what people think of Reagan since the media hyped his large federal income tax reductions- but in reality- he signed in a host of other taxes which in most part- neutralized his federal tax cuts- that’s the reality! Another anti-conservative policy of Reagan was the immigration Act of 1986 which gave AMNESTY to THREE MILLION (3 million) illegal aliens in America- and is probably the single biggest catalyst for massive illegal immigration thereafter- since illegals thought they could continue to enter America and just wait and hide until the next amnesty comes along- HARDLY a conservative policy for a Republican president.

 

[Politico]

Dems were in charge during the good times too. But I guess those don't count. Maybe the Republican governor will magically save Detroit by hatin the gays and ranting about Obamacare.

If a Governor ran a city some part of that might make sense.