Hillary Clinton..."The People's Champion"!

[Oldstyle]

You bring up "racism" every time you start losing an argument, Joey. Deal with THAT!

At the end of the day, your racism against Obama is the core of all your arguments.

Now the dry cleaner called, they got those soot stains from the cross burning out of your white sheets.

At the end of the day, Joey...you have to fall back on racism to defend a President who doesn't have a clue what he's doing. It's all you have left to defend the indefensible.

 

[Esmeralda]

One of the bigger comedy routines we're going to be treated to is Hillary Clinton campaigning as the champion of the poor when she and her hubby have become millionaires by accepting payola from wealthy donors in return for political favors. The same people who brought us the "Marc Rich" pardon in the waning hours of the Clinton administration now want you to believe that they're going to fight for you against the rich.

It'll be the same song and dance that we've heard for many decades by those running for office, no difference. We'll hear the same worn out campaign rhetoric and "Dr. Feelgood" speeches that we've all heard from candidates many times over. But, the sad part is that stupid voters are going to vote for those candidates knowing that what they say is nothing more than lies, and promises that they know they can't keep.

C'mon, Sonny.......do you think polititians put on cowboy hats and gobble hotdogs at road side diners because they've always wanted to? Its because many folks don't give a shit about issues. But how they feel about the person. When you're dealing with feeling based voters, you speak to them in their idiom. Which might involve a little line dancing or a pseudo-southern accent.

Or.....

 

[Esmeralda]

Contriving and propagating lies about democratic politicians is all conservatives have, given the fact conservative dogma is devoid of merit. Seeking to demonize Clinton is consistent with that; the problem is attacking Clinton will do nothing to defeat her.

IMO the more they try to 'demonize' her and attack her, especially gender based attacks, the more they will alienate voters. The GOP does not have the sense to treat her with respect and honesty: that will be their downfall.

 

[Sonny Clark]

One of the bigger comedy routines we're going to be treated to is Hillary Clinton campaigning as the champion of the poor when she and her hubby have become millionaires by accepting payola from wealthy donors in return for political favors. The same people who brought us the "Marc Rich" pardon in the waning hours of the Clinton administration now want you to believe that they're going to fight for you against the rich.

It'll be the same song and dance that we've heard for many decades by those running for office, no difference. We'll hear the same worn out campaign rhetoric and "Dr. Feelgood" speeches that we've all heard from candidates many times over. But, the sad part is that stupid voters are going to vote for those candidates knowing that what they say is nothing more than lies, and promises that they know they can't keep.

C'mon, Sonny.......do you think polititians put on cowboy hats and gobble hotdogs at road side diners because they've always wanted to? Its because many folks don't give a shit about issues. But how they feel about the person. When you're dealing with feeling based voters, you speak to them in their idiom. Which might involve a little line dancing or a pseudo-southern accent.

Or.....

What? ... Please re-read what I said. I said basically the exact same things that you've just said. What did I say differently? Was my meaning not clear? What did I say differently from what you just said?

 

[Oldstyle]

Contriving and propagating lies about democratic politicians is all conservatives have, given the fact conservative dogma is devoid of merit. Seeking to demonize Clinton is consistent with that; the problem is attacking Clinton will do nothing to defeat her.

IMO the more they try to 'demonize' her and attack her, especially gender based attacks, the more they will alienate voters. The GOP does not have the sense to treat her with respect and honesty: that will be their downfall.

Why would you treat someone with "respect and honesty" who repeatedly lies to you?

 

[Esmeralda]

One of the bigger comedy routines we're going to be treated to is Hillary Clinton campaigning as the champion of the poor when she and her hubby have become millionaires by accepting payola from wealthy donors in return for political favors. The same people who brought us the "Marc Rich" pardon in the waning hours of the Clinton administration now want you to believe that they're going to fight for you against the rich.

It'll be the same song and dance that we've heard for many decades by those running for office, no difference. We'll hear the same worn out campaign rhetoric and "Dr. Feelgood" speeches that we've all heard from candidates many times over. But, the sad part is that stupid voters are going to vote for those candidates knowing that what they say is nothing more than lies, and promises that they know they can't keep.

C'mon, Sonny.......do you think polititians put on cowboy hats and gobble hotdogs at road side diners because they've always wanted to? Its because many folks don't give a shit about issues. But how they feel about the person. When you're dealing with feeling based voters, you speak to them in their idiom. Which might involve a little line dancing or a pseudo-southern accent.

Or.....

What? ... Please re-read what I said. I said basically the exact same things that you've just said. What did I say differently? Was my meaning not clear? What did I say differently from what you just said?

Am I disagreeing with you?

 

[Esmeralda]

Contriving and propagating lies about democratic politicians is all conservatives have, given the fact conservative dogma is devoid of merit. Seeking to demonize Clinton is consistent with that; the problem is attacking Clinton will do nothing to defeat her.

IMO the more they try to 'demonize' her and attack her, especially gender based attacks, the more they will alienate voters. The GOP does not have the sense to treat her with respect and honesty: that will be their downfall.

Why would you treat someone with "respect and honesty" who repeatedly lies to you?

She doesn't repeatedly lie. That's a myth you choose to believe. The reality is that she is no more a liar, dishonest, deceptive, etc. than any other politician, including the ones you want in office. You are all partisanship; you don't care about the truth or reality. You hate her and decide to believe lies about her because she is a Democrat. Pure and simple.

 

[The Rabbi]

The treaty wasn't SIGNED yet, you blathering idiot! Until a treaty is signed...it doesn't exist and nobody is bound to the terms. Bill Clinton signed the NAFTA treaty because Bill Clinton thought NAFTA was a good idea. I know you don't want to admit that...but it happens to be true.

Uh, no. The point was, Clinton couldn't go back to Mexico and Canada and say, "Well, I don't like these provisions, let's start from scratch!" That's not negotiating in good faith. I'm sorry you don't understand how these things work, but it's very hard to renegotiate a treaty AFTER it's been agreed to.

As for your claim that Supply Side "failed"? Kindly explain why it created the longest period of sustained economic growth in our nation's history if it didn't work?

It did nothing of the sort. Let's review, shall we. Reagan cut taxes on Rich people in 1981. The deficit ballooned from 900 billion to 1 TRILLION by the end of his first term. Mondale said, "Hey, we got to raise taxes!" and lost 49 state. The last time a politician was honest with us.

Then Ronnie Raygun passed Grahmn Rudman and tax reform and the social security reform act, all of which raised taxes. And unlike today's canonization of Raygun, Conservatives were damned pissed off at him. That's why Bush gave the READ MY LIPS promise in 1988.

And then we found out we didn't have enough money to cover the collapse of the S&L system caused by Reagan's lax regulation of the banking industry. So Bush had to raise taxes. Conservatives had a hissy and started looking at supporting Nazis in the primaries. (thankfully Pat Buchanan ran so David Duke wasn't the alternative. Better a Crypto-Nazi than a Outright Nazi.) Bush lost when he sucked up to the crazies too much, and Clinton finally did what should have been done, RAISE TAXES ON THE RICH.

And that's when we had economic prosperity, we had budget surpluses, we had rising wages. things were good, and the Bush Crime Family couldnt' wait to **** that up, even if they had to steal an election to get there.

Dude, I know you live in your own little fantasy world but the truth has always been and always will be that overall Reagan cut taxes and he cut them for everyone. You so desperately want to believe the opposite and it's simply not true. Reagan cut taxes and amazingly the amount of revenue that we took in only went down slightly. Why? Because the Laffler Curve works that's why!

This is wrong.
In 1980 the fed.gov took in $364B in tax revenue.
In 1988 the fed gov took in $607B in tax revenue
It is almost twice as much. And yes, the Laffer Curve works. Supply side worked. Lower tax rates created incentives for people to work more and earn more, and that produced more tax revenue while letting people keep more of what they earned. A win-win. But Dems arent interested in win-win. They are interested in win-destroy. They will even go lose-destroy. As long as they destroy their opposition they really dont care what happens.

 

[The Rabbi]

Contriving and propagating lies about democratic politicians is all conservatives have, given the fact conservative dogma is devoid of merit. Seeking to demonize Clinton is consistent with that; the problem is attacking Clinton will do nothing to defeat her.

IMO the more they try to 'demonize' her and attack her, especially gender based attacks, the more they will alienate voters. The GOP does not have the sense to treat her with respect and honesty: that will be their downfall.

Why would you treat someone with "respect and honesty" who repeatedly lies to you?

She doesn't repeatedly lie. That's a myth you choose to believe. The reality is that she is no more a liar, dishonest, deceptive, etc. than any other politician, including the ones you want in office. You are all partisanship; you don't care about the truth or reality. You hate her and decide to believe lies about her because she is a Democrat. Pure and simple.

They all do it.
Last refuge of brain dead.
No, no other politician has so consistently lied about things and so blatantly. No politician has said she had one email account because she didnt want to carry two devices. And then we found out she carried two devices. No politiican has erased virtually the entire email history of her tenure as a public servant. None.
Yo lie. Because you are a Democrat.

 

[Skylar]

This is wrong.
In 1980 the fed.gov took in $364B in tax revenue.
In 1988 the fed gov took in $607B in tax revenue

In constant dollars, it was 1.308 trillion in 1980 and 1.558 trillion in 1988. And dipped and recovered from 1980 to 1985....dropping to 1.211 trillion in 1983 and slowly recovering by 1985

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Remember, there was double digit inflation at the opening of the 1980s.

Historical Inflation Rates 1914-2015 US Inflation Calculator

Revenue dropped off a cliff when taxes were cut. Revenue rose in adjusted dollars when Reagan started closing tax loopholes and raising taxes. Which he did 11 times.

 

[JoeB131]

Dude, I know you live in your own little fantasy world but the truth has always been and always will be that overall Reagan cut taxes and he cut them for everyone. You so desperately want to believe the opposite and it's simply not true. Reagan cut taxes and amazingly the amount of revenue that we took in only went down slightly. Why? Because the Laffler Curve works that's why!

Uh, no, guy Reagan did nothing of the sort. Salon had a very good article about this today.

The ludicrous myth of Republican fiscal responsibility A history lesson for the modern GOP - Salon.com

When Reagan took office, he advocated fiscal responsibility, as his disciples do today. But his presidency was anything but responsible when it came to fiscal policies. The size of America’s debt when he entered office was $1 trillion, and by the end of his two terms, it had grown by 190 percent, to $2.9 trillion, nearly tripling under his leadership. By the the end of twelve years of Reagan-Bush administration, the debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion. Reagan’s policies were ideological in the beginning, and pragmatic towards the end. In his first year in office, he signed major tax cuts into law that were supposed to reduce revenue by $749 billion over five years. This was the “starve the beast” tactic, which the Reagan administration quickly realized was impractical, and the following year signed into law the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, which was the largest tax increase in American history. For the remaining of his presidency, Reagan backtracked from that initial tax cut, increasing income taxes as well as gasoline and social security taxes, which he would use to fund his runaway spending.

I realize this goes back to the problem you guys have with Reagan. You need Reagan to be this mythical creature, as he was the only GOP President in modern times who didn't get voted out of office, forced to resign, or left the country in complete shambles. But the real Ronald Reagan wasn't what you paint him as.

 

[JoeB131]

That's because Reagan inherited Stagflation from Jimmy Carter. He had to deal with rampant inflation along with high unemployment numbers. Of course you don't remember THAT, Joey because in your little fantasy world, Jimmy Carter was great for the economy! Reagan's first priority was to attack inflation and he did so by tightening up the money supply which in turn increased unemployment. Once he had inflation under control...then and only then did he attack unemployment. You see the reason that Reagan won a second term by the huge margin that he did was that the electorate understood what his plan was to fix the economy and could see that it was working.

So Ronald Reagan decided it was more important to save the bank accounts of the rich than to help working folks. He deliberately used unemployment to fight inflation, and **** those working people.

Why Republicans are all manner of fucked up.

 

[JoeB131]

At the end of the day, Joey...you have to fall back on racism to defend a President who doesn't have a clue what he's doing. It's all you have left to defend the indefensible.

No, guy. I've defended the "indefensible'. I defended Bush on Iraq and I defended him on Katrina, and frankly, didn't turn on him until his gross ******* incompetence started impacting my life.

If I were a better person, I'd have turned on that ********** the minute we realized he LIED about WMDs.

 

[Oldstyle]

Dude, I know you live in your own little fantasy world but the truth has always been and always will be that overall Reagan cut taxes and he cut them for everyone. You so desperately want to believe the opposite and it's simply not true. Reagan cut taxes and amazingly the amount of revenue that we took in only went down slightly. Why? Because the Laffler Curve works that's why!

Uh, no, guy Reagan did nothing of the sort. Salon had a very good article about this today.

The ludicrous myth of Republican fiscal responsibility A history lesson for the modern GOP - Salon.com

When Reagan took office, he advocated fiscal responsibility, as his disciples do today. But his presidency was anything but responsible when it came to fiscal policies. The size of America’s debt when he entered office was $1 trillion, and by the end of his two terms, it had grown by 190 percent, to $2.9 trillion, nearly tripling under his leadership. By the the end of twelve years of Reagan-Bush administration, the debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion. Reagan’s policies were ideological in the beginning, and pragmatic towards the end. In his first year in office, he signed major tax cuts into law that were supposed to reduce revenue by $749 billion over five years. This was the “starve the beast” tactic, which the Reagan administration quickly realized was impractical, and the following year signed into law the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, which was the largest tax increase in American history. For the remaining of his presidency, Reagan backtracked from that initial tax cut, increasing income taxes as well as gasoline and social security taxes, which he would use to fund his runaway spending.

I realize this goes back to the problem you guys have with Reagan. You need Reagan to be this mythical creature, as he was the only GOP President in modern times who didn't get voted out of office, forced to resign, or left the country in complete shambles. But the real Ronald Reagan wasn't what you paint him as.

That Salon article laughably misrepresents what took place during Reagan's two terms, Joey! It's simply parroting the narrative that the Left now wants to put out about Reagan...that he was REALLY a tax and spend conservative who increased taxes! The truth of the matter is that while Reagan DID pass some new taxes overall he lowered taxes substantially and he did so for not just the rich but for the middle class as well!

 

[Oldstyle]

That's because Reagan inherited Stagflation from Jimmy Carter. He had to deal with rampant inflation along with high unemployment numbers. Of course you don't remember THAT, Joey because in your little fantasy world, Jimmy Carter was great for the economy! Reagan's first priority was to attack inflation and he did so by tightening up the money supply which in turn increased unemployment. Once he had inflation under control...then and only then did he attack unemployment. You see the reason that Reagan won a second term by the huge margin that he did was that the electorate understood what his plan was to fix the economy and could see that it was working.

So Ronald Reagan decided it was more important to save the bank accounts of the rich than to help working folks. He deliberately used unemployment to fight inflation, and **** those working people.

Why Republicans are all manner of fucked up.

You really are clueless about economics...aren't you, Joey! Reagan's plan to fix the economy was two-fold. He needed to tighten up the money supply to address inflation. He did so and in the process increased unemployment. He then cut taxes to stimulate economic growth and the US economy went on a historic run of prosperity which brought unemployment rates down once again.

You see...that's what you do when you grasp how economics works! You have a plan to fix things and you implement that plan. Reagan did that.

Now would you like to take this opportunity to tells us all what Barry's plan to fix the economy has been? Does he even HAVE one?

 

[JoeB131]

That Salon article laughably misrepresents what took place during Reagan's two terms, Joey! It's simply parroting the narrative that the Left now wants to put out about Reagan...that he was REALLY a tax and spend conservative who increased taxes! The truth of the matter is that while Reagan DID pass some new taxes overall he lowered taxes substantially and he did so for not just the rich but for the middle class as well!

Well, yeah, he lowered taxes mostly for the rich and raised them on the working class. That's the point. Of course, it wasn't just that he raised taxes on the working class after cutting them for rich assholes who didn't pay their fair share, but then he got the government into the bad habit of borrowing.

And that's the real disaster. Back in WWII, we spent a lot of money on the war, but we sold war bonds, we raised taxes on the rich to 93% and they stayed that way until the 1960's. When JFK proposed cutting them down to 70% for the super rich, REPUBLICANS called that irresponsible.

You really are clueless about economics...aren't you, Joey! Reagan's plan to fix the economy was two-fold. He needed to tighten up the money supply to address inflation. He did so and in the process increased unemployment. He then cut taxes to stimulate economic growth and the US economy went on a historic run of prosperity which brought unemployment rates down once again.

Yeah, guy, here's the thing. You fools have given us the last Four Recessions. You really, really don't get to lecture us on economics. Supply side doesn't work. never did, never will. Even Reagan had to concede that when he raised taxes after cutting them. Now you guys don't even pretend Laffer Curves and Supply Side work. Your argument is basically the rich DESERVE tax cuts because they are so virtuous, as opposed to those poor people, who should just ******* starve. This is why Conservatism has become a sick idealogy that needs to be expunged with extreme prejudice.

You see...that's what you do when you grasp how economics works! You have a plan to fix things and you implement that plan. Reagan did that.

Except he made things worse. He set us on a course of runaway deficit spending, where running huge deficits in PEACETIME became acceptable, he gutted the middle class by endorsing union busting, and he pissed away billions on weapons we didn't need.

But again, compared to the disasters every other Republican President has been, I guess he stands out.

 

[Oldstyle]

Your total disregard for what actually took place back then continues to amuse, Joey!

Reagan cut taxes substantially across the board for ALL Americans. The "largest tax increase in American history" that you constantly refer to was the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982...a deal that he worked out with Tip O'Neal and the Democrats that in return for raising taxes Reagan would get a 3-1 cut in spending...a deal that the Democrats never lived up to after getting the tax increase they wanted. To then turn around and blame Reagan because "HE" spent too much is laughable! If the Democrats had lived up to their end of the bargain Reagan wouldn't have HAD those deficits!

 

[Wildman]

Otherwise, these are just bridesmaids in ugly dresses making the bride look better.

perfect scenario for Hitlery

 

[JoeB131]

Your total disregard for what actually took place back then continues to amuse, Joey!

Reagan cut taxes substantially across the board for ALL Americans. The "largest tax increase in American history" that you constantly refer to was the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982...a deal that he worked out with Tip O'Neal and the Democrats that in return for raising taxes Reagan would get a 3-1 cut in spending...a deal that the Democrats never lived up to after getting the tax increase they wanted. To then turn around and blame Reagan because "HE" spent too much is laughable! If the Democrats had lived up to their end of the bargain Reagan wouldn't have HAD those deficits!

Yes, yes, but the thing was, Reagan could have vetoed those spending increases and didn't. In fact, he spent like a drunken sailor increasing the Navy to 600 ships and spending wildly on bullshit like SDI (A project the scientists said would never work.)

Reagan was a big spender. He spent like a Keynesian...which is how we got out of the 1981 recession.

 

[Oldstyle]

Your total disregard for what actually took place back then continues to amuse, Joey!

Reagan cut taxes substantially across the board for ALL Americans. The "largest tax increase in American history" that you constantly refer to was the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982...a deal that he worked out with Tip O'Neal and the Democrats that in return for raising taxes Reagan would get a 3-1 cut in spending...a deal that the Democrats never lived up to after getting the tax increase they wanted. To then turn around and blame Reagan because "HE" spent too much is laughable! If the Democrats had lived up to their end of the bargain Reagan wouldn't have HAD those deficits!

Yes, yes, but the thing was, Reagan could have vetoed those spending increases and didn't. In fact, he spent like a drunken sailor increasing the Navy to 600 ships and spending wildly on bullshit like SDI (A project the scientists said would never work.)

Reagan was a big spender. He spent like a Keynesian...which is how we got out of the 1981 recession.

So Democrats agree to a 3 to 1...spending cuts to tax increases...deal. Reagan lives up to his end of the bargain by signing the tax increases that Democrats wanted...and Tip O'Neal and the Democrats renege on their part of the deal...but you STILL want to blame Reagan for what was spent? Reagan's mistake was trusting House liberals to do what they said they would do.