Correcting the Laughable Self-Delusions of Left-Wingers

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[kaz]

Then why did Democrats cover it up? How'd that work out for Nixon?

Democrats did it by getting the GOP to admit the truth
GOP Intel Report Debunks Its Own Party's Nutty Benghazi ...
House Intel Investigation on Benghazi Clears Administration ...

You all have investigated it what fifty times and come up with nothing ...not a thing...nada zilch zero ....

LOL, who gives a shit what Republicans think? Take it up with one of them. I didn't support or vote for W and I opposed the Iraq invasion, so your attempted deflection is a complete miss. You're used to that, aren't you?

 

[kaz]

Wow, and such a genuinely asked question clearly devoid of motive, you do advance the debate so effectively

and with such soft core snark you have ignored the Information offered there in...

Benghazi yesterday Benghazi today Benghazi forever...........

Banghazi was a major scandal, Holmes. Your deflection doesn't change that. The issue was the cover up. Ask Nixon how covering up his actions worked for him

Benghazi was a major scandal is a figment of some wild imaginations. 50 hearings, 13 investigations, and nothing was found. No scandal, no coverup, nothing.

Then why did Obama cover it up? How'd that work out for Nixon?

Again, no evidence of a coverup, no evidence of incompetence, no evidence of wrongdoing.

Your brain is turned off. Partisanship is something I can't grasp, what difference does it make if a party wins? 25 years ago when I decided the Republicans suck and don't represent me, I left them. They still suck and don't represent me

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Then why did Democrats cover it up? How'd that work out for Nixon?

Democrats did it by getting the GOP to admit the truth
GOP Intel Report Debunks Its Own Party's Nutty Benghazi ...
House Intel Investigation on Benghazi Clears Administration ...

You all have investigated it what fifty times and come up with nothing ...not a thing...nada zilch zero ....

LOL, who gives a shit what Republicans think? Take it up with one of them. I didn't support or vote for W and I opposed the Iraq invasion, so your attempted deflection is a complete miss. You're used to that, aren't you?

oh you must be one of those really cool libertarian in others words an asshole

 

[kaz]

Swish, misses the entire point. Which of those involved a White House cover up like Benghazi?

You don't need a cover up if no one asks for an investigation.

13 investigations, 50 hearings, $15.5 million spent looking for problems, absolutely none found.

Because they won't give the information that they ask for and that includes the Dems on that committee.

The Benghazi Senate Committee cleared the administration of any wrongdoing. How many times do you have to hear it before you get a clue?

The issue was the cover up. How many times do you have to hear it before you get a clue?

 

[nuhuh]

Swish, misses the entire point. Which of those involved a White House cover up like Benghazi?

You don't need a cover up if no one asks for an investigation.

13 investigations, 50 hearings, $15.5 million spent looking for problems, absolutely none found.

Because they won't give the information that they ask for and that includes the Dems on that committee.

The Benghazi Senate Committee cleared the administration of any wrongdoing. How many times do you have to hear it before you get a clue?

The issue was the cover up. How many times do you have to hear it before you get a clue?

How many times does an investigation have to show no coverup before you believe it?

 

[kaz]

You don't need a cover up if no one asks for an investigation.

13 investigations, 50 hearings, $15.5 million spent looking for problems, absolutely none found.

Because they won't give the information that they ask for and that includes the Dems on that committee.

The Benghazi Senate Committee cleared the administration of any wrongdoing. How many times do you have to hear it before you get a clue?

It still open and on going.
How many times do you have to keep hearing that it is not about the White House?

It is open and on-going because your party is stupid and runs on conspiracy theory. It is also used to beat the bushes for political gain, there is always the hope they will find something they can use politically and if not, nothing lost. Witness Whitewater.

This from the idiot party that still insists Bush lied. He didn't, no one has ever found one. And it detracts from the real discussion. Iraq was bad policy. We should be questioning why we get involved in that. But when Democrats lie that you were lied to, you protect Bush by protecting him from the real discussion and just boil it down to your partisan hack bickering

 

[kaz]

You don't need a cover up if no one asks for an investigation.

13 investigations, 50 hearings, $15.5 million spent looking for problems, absolutely none found.

Because they won't give the information that they ask for and that includes the Dems on that committee.

The Benghazi Senate Committee cleared the administration of any wrongdoing. How many times do you have to hear it before you get a clue?

The issue was the cover up. How many times do you have to hear it before you get a clue?

How many times does an investigation have to show no coverup before you believe it?

Again, from the party that just states as fact that Bush lied. Such overt hypocrisy

 

[kaz]

Then why did Democrats cover it up? How'd that work out for Nixon?

Democrats did it by getting the GOP to admit the truth
GOP Intel Report Debunks Its Own Party's Nutty Benghazi ...
House Intel Investigation on Benghazi Clears Administration ...

You all have investigated it what fifty times and come up with nothing ...not a thing...nada zilch zero ....

LOL, who gives a shit what Republicans think? Take it up with one of them. I didn't support or vote for W and I opposed the Iraq invasion, so your attempted deflection is a complete miss. You're used to that, aren't you?

oh you must be one of those really cool libertarian in others words an asshole

The irony of your last post...

 

[nuhuh]

13 investigations, 50 hearings, $15.5 million spent looking for problems, absolutely none found.

Because they won't give the information that they ask for and that includes the Dems on that committee.

The Benghazi Senate Committee cleared the administration of any wrongdoing. How many times do you have to hear it before you get a clue?

It still open and on going.
How many times do you have to keep hearing that it is not about the White House?

It is open and on-going because your party is stupid and runs on conspiracy theory. It is also used to beat the bushes for political gain, there is always the hope they will find something they can use politically and if not, nothing lost. Witness Whitewater.

This from the idiot party that still insists Bush lied. He didn't, no one has ever found one. And it detracts from the real discussion. Iraq was bad policy. We should be questioning why we get involved in that. But when Democrats lie that you were lied to, you protect Bush by protecting him from the real discussion and just boil it down to your partisan hack bickering

You're simply a conspiracy theorist, you should see someone about that.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama killed a kid with a drone

look what Bush did to an innocent little boy

Obama killed a kid with a drone

look what Bush did to an innocent little boy

Obama killed an American teenager with a drone strike

Obama let his Jihadist brothers kill 4 Americans at Behghazi to cover up that Obama was forming and arming ISIS

Obama armed a Mexican drug gang and got Brian Terry killed. Not sure why the AZ AG hasn't charged Obama and Holder as Co-Conspirators in Brian Terry's murder

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The recent turmoil in Ferguson is a perfect example of how Obama, the entire Democrat Party (black and white), Eric Holder, the Dept. of Injustice, the mainstream media and race hustlers too numerous to mention; used an incident that occurs several times daily in the black community to advance a FALSE narrative that there is systemic, racially motivated white on black violence. If you have read the previous two pages on Black Victimization and the link to the Lynching of George Zimmerman you will realize the groups mentioned above are 24/7 liars. In fact that is their ONLY area of expertise. Everything they have done and touted as necessary and good is exactly the opposite and they know that. Their only goal, their only goal for the past 60 years has been to transform this country into a 3rd-world dictatorship and make as much of the population as possible dependent on them for survival to insure they permanently remain in power.

You want phony look at the adulation Kate Steinle got while Sandra Bland got nothing from Republicans.

Well both were killed by Democrats, an illegal on one hand and self inflicted on the other

Tell me, when you go to the mind reader do you pay half price? because illegals can't vote so the man who killed Steinle could just as easily be a Republican.

LOLz. Yeah, sure. He was in a Democrat sanctuary city and voted twice for Obama

Cite? or do you just want us to feel pity for you?

You're going to have to reorder your Obama Kneepads, Fluffer

"SANA, Yemen — I LEARNED that my 16-year-old grandson, Abdulrahman — a United States citizen — had been killed by an American drone strike from news reports the morning after he died.

The missile killed him, his teenage cousin and at least five other civilians on Oct. 14, 2011, while the boys were eating dinner at an open-air restaurant in southern Yemen."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/18/opinion/the-drone-that-killed-my-grandson.html?_r=0

 

[peach174]

You don't need a cover up if no one asks for an investigation.

13 investigations, 50 hearings, $15.5 million spent looking for problems, absolutely none found.

Because they won't give the information that they ask for and that includes the Dems on that committee.

The Benghazi Senate Committee cleared the administration of any wrongdoing. How many times do you have to hear it before you get a clue?

It still open and on going.
How many times do you have to keep hearing that it is not about the White House?

It is open and on-going because your party is stupid and runs on conspiracy theory. It is also used to beat the bushes for political gain, there is always the hope they will find something they can use politically and if not, nothing lost. Witness Whitewater.

It is because there are still unanswered questions about it.
If there was nothing to it then they should have been answered, instead they are still delaying those answers.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

unemployment the day Obama took office was 7.8%'

shot up to well over 10% under Obama
and didn't start dropping until democrats lost their stranglehold on all 3 parts of the governing process in 2010 when they lost the House


try again

Real unemployment is about 43%... Stockman wrote a great article on this. And that is disturbing.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

"Stockman cites the number of 210 million adult Americans, who if they worked 2,000 hours per year, or about 40 hours per week, would deliver 420 million labor hours per year. When compared to the 240 million labor hours per year reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the total workforce of the country is delivering 57.1 percent of those 420 million labor hours, and otherwise stated, 42.9 percent of those hours are not being delivered. Therefore, the calculation of unemployment by this measure is 42.9 percent."

Read more at David Stockman Says Unemployment Is Really 42.9 Percent

 

[kaz]

Because they won't give the information that they ask for and that includes the Dems on that committee.

The Benghazi Senate Committee cleared the administration of any wrongdoing. How many times do you have to hear it before you get a clue?

It still open and on going.
How many times do you have to keep hearing that it is not about the White House?

It is open and on-going because your party is stupid and runs on conspiracy theory. It is also used to beat the bushes for political gain, there is always the hope they will find something they can use politically and if not, nothing lost. Witness Whitewater.

This from the idiot party that still insists Bush lied. He didn't, no one has ever found one. And it detracts from the real discussion. Iraq was bad policy. We should be questioning why we get involved in that. But when Democrats lie that you were lied to, you protect Bush by protecting him from the real discussion and just boil it down to your partisan hack bickering

You're simply a conspiracy theorist, you should see someone about that.

So you chanting Bush lied is me being a "conspiracy theorist," got it. Truth is meaningless to you, you're just being the party hack you are. Of course we can believe yours, and theirs lied, no evidence required

 

[Londoner]

When you read the posts of Left-wingers it is unmistakable they dwell and wallow in self-delusions in almost very aspect of American affairs. It's so bad it is hard to even know where to begin correcting the record.

Maybe REAGAN is a place to start?

Libs on Reagan: he's the father of "trickle-down" economics and they still blame him for Obama's failures today
FACTS: SO MANY Democrats voted for Reagan's policies in congress the term Reagan Democrat was coined to describe them. Reagan's margin of popular-vote percentage of 9% and 18% dwarf Obama's 3% and 7% popular vote victory margins

Thank you oh grand enlightener for telling us about Reagan Democrats. (a category over which much ink has been spilled, most of it having to do with the shift of conservative democrats out of the
party because of its radical Leftward turn in the 60s). Next the OP is gonna tell us about all the conservatives who supported Eisenhower & Nixon, both of whom expanded the high-tax, big government, New Deal welfare state more than any Democrat to follow. [Is the OP a moron, because he doesn't seem to understand that the voting behavior of both parties has changed and evolved in all sorts of interesting and complicated ways, not least because of changes within the party's themselves.]

Let's assume the OP is just young, pre-college. Let's ignore his feminine hysterical bluster and address his question, which I take to be this:

How does the Democratic Party reconcile its support of Reagan in '84 with their never ending criticism of his presidency?

I think this is a good question, with many answers.

1. Reagan appealed to socially conservative democrats , especially northern catholic workers from the rust belt who were alienated by the Left's pivot from traditional working class issues to gender/race activism + secularism + anti-war + alternative lifestyles (see the 60s). Reagan was even more successful in the VERY CONSERVATIVE South, where he finally got the Dixiecrats to forgive the party of Lincoln.

2. Clinton practically completed the goals of Reaganomics with NAFTA and welfare reform - and the Left just let it happen. [this is where I agree with the OP. The Left should have castigated Clinton for this just as the Right should have rebelled against Eisenhower's tax rate, Nixon's EPA and Bush's Medicare Part D. Both parties have sacrificed core principles and then bitched about it]

3. Reaganomics, like postwar Keynesianism, overplayed its hand, and became a crusty special interest impediment to new ideas. When this happens, it's reasonable to criticize the continued implementation of the policies. Also, most Democrats who supported Reagan were willing to support the notion of tax incentives to producers, along with deregulation (which had started under Carter). But when the policies began to destroy the middle class (and replace high wages with credit cards), the Left was smart to say "we tried it your way, and we're not satisfied with the results." Your party reserved that right after witnessing the full consequences of Nixon's EPA.

 

[bedowin62]

When you read the posts of Left-wingers it is unmistakable they dwell and wallow in self-delusions in almost very aspect of American affairs. It's so bad it is hard to even know where to begin correcting the record.

Maybe REAGAN is a place to start?

Libs on Reagan: he's the father of "trickle-down" economics and they still blame him for Obama's failures today
FACTS: SO MANY Democrats voted for Reagan's policies in congress the term Reagan Democrat was coined to describe them. Reagan's margin of popular-vote percentage of 9% and 18% dwarf Obama's 3% and 7% popular vote victory margins

Thank you oh grand enlightener for telling us about Reagan Democrats. (a category over which much ink has been spilled, most of it having to do with the shift of conservative democrats out of the
party because of its radical Leftward turn in the 60s). Next the OP is gonna tell us about all the conservatives who supported Eisenhower & Nixon, both of whom expanded the high-tax, big government, New Deal welfare state more than any Democrat to follow. [Is the OP a moron, because he doesn't seem to understand that the voting behavior of both parties has changed and evolved in all sorts of interesting and complicated ways, not least because of changes within the party's themselves.]

Let's assume the OP is just young, pre-college. Let's ignore his feminine hysterical bluster and address his question, which I take to be this:

How does the Democratic Party reconcile its support of Reagan in '84 with their never ending criticism of his presidency?

I think this is a good question, with many answers.

1. Reagan appealed to socially conservative democrats , especially northern catholic workers from the rust belt who were alienated by the Left's pivot from traditional working class issues to gender/race activism + secularism + anti-war + alternative lifestyles (see the 60s). Reagan was even more successful in the VERY CONSERVATIVE South, where he finally got the Dixiecrats to forgive the party of Lincoln.

2. Clinton practically completed the goals of Reaganomics with NAFTA and welfare reform - and the Left just let it happen. [this is where I agree with the OP. The Left should have castigated Clinton for this just as the Right should have rebelled against Eisenhower's tax rate, Nixon's EPA and Bush's Medicare Part D. Both parties have sacrificed core principles and then bitched about it]

3. Reaganomics, like postwar Keynesianism, overplayed its hand, and became a crusty special interest impediment to new ideas. When this happens, it's reasonable to criticize the continued implementation of the policies. Also, most Democrats who supported Reagan were willing to support the notion of tax incentives to producers, along with deregulation (which had started under Carter). But when the policies began to destroy the middle class (and replace high wages with credit cards), the Left was smart to say "we tried it your way, and we're not satisfied with the results." Your party reserved that right after witnessing the full consequences of Nixon's EPA.

YAWN
THE OP thinks you're a moron; and a rambling incoherent one at that

 

[bedowin62]

When you read the posts of Left-wingers it is unmistakable they dwell and wallow in self-delusions in almost very aspect of American affairs. It's so bad it is hard to even know where to begin correcting the record.

Maybe REAGAN is a place to start?

Libs on Reagan: he's the father of "trickle-down" economics and they still blame him for Obama's failures today
FACTS: SO MANY Democrats voted for Reagan's policies in congress the term Reagan Democrat was coined to describe them. Reagan's margin of popular-vote percentage of 9% and 18% dwarf Obama's 3% and 7% popular vote victory margins

Thank you oh grand enlightener for telling us about Reagan Democrats. (a category over which much ink has been spilled, most of it having to do with the shift of conservative democrats out of the
party because of its radical Leftward turn in the 60s). Next the OP is gonna tell us about all the conservatives who supported Eisenhower & Nixon, both of whom expanded the high-tax, big government, New Deal welfare state more than any Democrat to follow. [Is the OP a moron, because he doesn't seem to understand that the voting behavior of both parties has changed and evolved in all sorts of interesting and complicated ways, not least because of changes within the party's themselves.]

Let's assume the OP is just young, pre-college. Let's ignore his feminine hysterical bluster and address his question, which I take to be this:

How does the Democratic Party reconcile its support of Reagan in '84 with their never ending criticism of his presidency?

I think this is a good question, with many answers.

1. Reagan appealed to socially conservative democrats , especially northern catholic workers from the rust belt who were alienated by the Left's pivot from traditional working class issues to gender/race activism + secularism + anti-war + alternative lifestyles (see the 60s). Reagan was even more successful in the VERY CONSERVATIVE South, where he finally got the Dixiecrats to forgive the party of Lincoln.

2. Clinton practically completed the goals of Reaganomics with NAFTA and welfare reform - and the Left just let it happen. [this is where I agree with the OP. The Left should have castigated Clinton for this just as the Right should have rebelled against Eisenhower's tax rate, Nixon's EPA and Bush's Medicare Part D. Both parties have sacrificed core principles and then bitched about it]

3. Reaganomics, like postwar Keynesianism, overplayed its hand, and became a crusty special interest impediment to new ideas. When this happens, it's reasonable to criticize the continued implementation of the policies. Also, most Democrats who supported Reagan were willing to support the notion of tax incentives to producers, along with deregulation (which had started under Carter). But when the policies began to destroy the middle class (and replace high wages with credit cards), the Left was smart to say "we tried it your way, and we're not satisfied with the results." Your party reserved that right after witnessing the full consequences of Nixon's EPA.

YAWN
THE OP thinks you're a moron; and a rambling incoherent one at that

in other words you have nothing of substance to differ with my OP, other than a somewhat mumbling lecture on stating the obvious; even as you did the same in your own rambling post?

anyway you missed the point; our left-wingers are all over these boards whining about things their Party voted FOR not just in the Reagan years, but in the W bush years, and even to this day. Collusion, ineptitude, or weakness; the Left's actual voting record, you know actual reality, doesn't jibe with a thousand crybaby rants on how bad the mean ol guys on the other side made things

 

[bedowin62]

Perhaps I should have made things clearer for left-wingers.
Given the litany of crybaby whines on how the Right destroyed life as we know it for Americans; the question that begs to be asked is what did the Left even TRY to do about it???
We already heard some whining that both parties switched ideologies at times. I'm willing to keep limit my scope to the current president and the last one. If you put a pile of things left-wing idiots whine so intensely about that they DIDNT actually vote FOR next to a pile of things from the Bush years the Left actually opposed with their votes in Congress and DIDNT continue, which pile would be larger?

libs are losers who lie to themselves