If Republicans are going to call you a liar, shouldn't they at least have to prove it?

[Dad2three]

If idiots and LIPs like RDEAN can't admit the REALITIES of what happened all at NO FAULT of Bush then how do they exist?

Except for the compassion of people who feed these idiots, taxes that pay his phone bill,etc.!

"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.




Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them.

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[healthmyths]

And just think...if that asshole that you call "president" had worked with US corporations (rather than demonize them) perhaps these Vets would have JOBS to come home to - without the need for food stamps (your answer to everything).

Geeezzzz....what a thought.

Hmm...

AND NOTHING has happened during Obama's 6 years EQUAL to these EVENTS!! NOTHING!!!!

Recession
1) Are you aware that a recession started under Clinton and became official 3/01 ended 11/01?
Source: USATODAY.com - It s official 2001 recession only lasted eight months

A Major $5 trillion market loss
2) Are you aware that the dot.com bust occurred and cost $5 trillion in losses?
According to the Los Angeles Times, when the dot-com bubble burst, it wiped out $5 trillion dollars in market value for tech companies. More than half of the Internet companies created since 1995 were gone by 2004 - and hundreds of thousands of skilled technology workers were out of jobs.
Source: The dot-com bubble How to lose 5 trillion Anderson Cooper 360 - CNN.com Blogs

The worst attacks on the USA in History.. 3,000 deaths!!!
3)Obviously most of you are UNAWARE 9/11 cost 3,000 lives, $2 trillion in lost businesses,market values assets.
Jobs lost in New York owing to the attacks: 146,100 JUST in New York.
Year 2001: September 11 Terrorist Attacks
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were the events that helped shape other financial events of the decade. After that terrible day in September 2001, our economic climate was never to be the same again. It was only the third time in history that the New York Stock Exchange was shut down for a period of time. In this case, it was closed from September 10 - 17. Besides the tragic human loss of that day, the economic loss cannot even be estimated. Some estimate that there was over $60 billion in insurance losses alone. Airlines didn't fly for 3 days!
Approximately 18,000 small businesses were either displaced or destroyed in Lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers fell. There was a buildup in homeland security on all levels. 9/11 caused a catastrophic financial loss for the U.S.
Source: The Top 10 Financial Events of the Decade
Anthrax Attacks...
The 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, also known as Amerithrax from its Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) case name, occurred over the course of several weeks beginning on Tuesday, September 18, 2001, one week after the September 11 attacks. Letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to several news media offices and two DemocraticU.S. Senators, killing five people and infecting 17 others.

4) $1 trillion in losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history.
The worst, Katrina made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005. It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages. It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.

Rank Disaster Year Deaths Damage* $250 Billion in damages in the 8 disasters of the top 15 disasters in history!
1. Hurricane Katrina (LA/MS/AL/FL) 2005 1833 $133,800,000,000
6. Hurricane Ike (TX/LA/MS) 2008 112 $27,000,000,000
7. Hurricane Wilma (FL) 2005 35 $17,100,000,000
8. Hurricane Rita (TX/LA) 2005 119 $17,100,000,000
9. Hurricane Charley (FL) 2004 35 $16,500,000,000
12. Midwest Floods 2008 24 $15,000,000,000
13. Hurricane Ivan (FL/AL) 2004 57 $13,000,000,000
14. 30-State Drought 2002 0 $11,400,000,000
Costliest U.S. Weather Disasters Weather Underground

THESE events OCCURRED!
YET in SPITE of
a) 400,000 jobs due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita ,
b) 2,800,000 jobs in alone due to 9/11,
c) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts...
In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property.. IN SPITE of that:

AFTER the tax cuts Federal Tax REVENUES Increased an average of 9.78% per year!!!
Government Revenue Details Federal State Local for 2008 - Charts

And as far as spending like a drunken sailor....???

2000 $236.2 billion surplus
2001 $128.2 billion surplus
2002 $157.8 billion deficit.. also 9/11 occurred and tax revenues lowered for years later
2003 $377.6 billion deficit.. BRAND new cabinet Homeland Security, plus loans made to businesses.. again tax revenues down..affect of 9/11
2004 $412.7 billion deficit.. Revenues up by 5.5% spending increased and economy getting back.
2005 $318.3 billion deficit.. revenues up by 14.5% deficit decreasing at rate of 22%
2006 $248.2 billion deficit.. revenues up by 11.7% deficit decrease 22%
2007 $160.7 billion deficit.. revenues up by 6.7% deficit decrease 35%
2008 $458.6 billion deficit.. revenues down and deficit INCREASED TARP loan mostly...
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

And for what you really ignorant LIPs totally seem to be unaware of TARP turning a profit???

Bailout Scorecard Eye on the Bailout ProPublica
TARP made a $55.1 Billion profit!
View attachment 40915

Not sure what your rant is for or what you're trying to say within the context of my response. If you read what I responded to, my point was simple.

You are defending Obama. That's the simple point.
And I'm with a lot of supporting documents have proven Obama even without the events Bush had to contend with is destroying our economy.
NO PRESIDENT EVER EVER SAID THESE Words except OBAMA!

-- "I prefer destroying 1,400 companies,putting 400,000 people out of work and reducing tax revenue by $100 billion a year. " which is what he means when he says he prefers a single payer health system.

-- "I prefer higher gas prices".

-- "If a utility wants to build coal burning it bankrupt them!"

-- "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket"

My president would NEVER attack the military by accusing them of "air-raiding villages, killing civilians".

I also want a president who doesn't tell people...
“I think I could probably do every job on the campaign better than the people I’ll hire to do it,”
“It’s hard to give up control when that’s all I’ve known.”
“I think I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters,”
I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m gonna think I’m a better political director than my political director.”

My president is not a wanna-be Messiah who pronounces:
""This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."

Finally my president will not depend on the "stupidity of American voter" to get elected by:
"It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned.
People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves.
They were more than satisfied. They were revealed. Such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered
young black man who didn't seem angry all the time."

He fooled the people that make up what Gruber called "Stupidity of American Voter" Americans!

Ok. Now I'll go back to my post.
Corporate profits have nearly tripled under this president while taxes have dropped. The market is at an all-time high. Where is the evidence of his hostility toward business?

NONE OF THIS IS DUE TO OBAMA'S EFFORTS!
This President has done the following:
Obama IS LEADING the country with more rules and regulations then any other President in history and
this adds up to an annual total waste of $1,863,000,000,000! That's 1.8 Trillion dollars WASTED!

Data collected by researchers at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center shows that the Code of Federal Regulations, where all rules and regulations are detailed, has ballooned from 71,224 pages in 1975 to 174,545 pages last year.
More “major rules,” those with an annual economic impact exceeding $100 million, were enacted in 2010 than in any year dating back to at least 1997, according to the CRS.


And over Obama’s first three years in office, the Code of Federal Regulations increased by 7.4 percent, according to data compiled by the Chamber of Commerce.
In comparison, the regulatory code grew by 4.4 percent during Bush’s first term. 


So out of complete business ignorance Obama rules and regulations growing 7% versus Bush 4%
WHICH do you think is more conducive to business growth???

1)told Brazil to develop oil and that the USA will be their best customer?
2) Encourage foreign drilling OFF Florida by Cuba
3) Encourage Canada to sell almost 1 million barrels per day to China?
4) In 3 years new leases under Obama 5,568 new leases..
Under Bush.. from 2006 to 2008 15,095 new leases!
NEARLY 3 times the new Federal Leases under Bush then Obama !
Number of New Oil Wells and New Leases Have Decreased Under Obama Data from BLM Show


In summary in case you can't read clearly:
Obama has stifled growth by having 7% more rules and regulations.
Obama stifled growth by signing 1/3 of the Federal oil leases which would added to production.
Obama has promoted the destruction of 1,400 companies that pay $100 billion/yr taxes employing 400,000!
Obama WANTs higher gas prices and favors utilities going bankrupt.
Obama has destroyed the coal industry...
“It isn’t coming back. It’s permanent,” Murray said at a coal marketing conference in Pittsburgh, repeatedly using the word “destroyed” to describe the state of the industry, according to SNL Energy. “That’s what we see and that’s what we do our planning on. And remember, I have to make a payroll based on what we project.”

What Murray projects is an eventual decrease in U.S. coal generation from its current rate of 39 percent to between 30 and 34 percent, according to SNL’s report. That means 230 million tons of coal-fired generation lost by 2020, Murray said, and anyone who believes the industry will bounce back is either bad at business or “smoking dope.”
Murray CEO Says EPA Has Permanently Destroyed Coal Grandma Is Going To Be Cold ThinkProgress

As a result GDP growth for 2015:
The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the United States expanded at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 0.2 percent in the first quarter of 2015 over the previous quarter, according to the advance estimate.
GDP Growth Rate in the United States averaged 3.27 Percent from 1947 until 2014,
United States GDP Growth Rate 1947-2015 Data Chart Calendar

Obama has been president in a declining GDP. Reality!

 

[healthmyths]

AND YET IDIOTS like RDEAN seem to think NONE of these EVENTS OCCURRED!!!

FACTS on Dubya's great recession


Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Who caused the housing bubble?

Obama was part of the lawsuit. Fact.
Acorn was going to make massive protests if the suit had not been settled out of court which included Obama!
Unqualified loans backed by Fannie/Freddie were supported by investors buying these loans KNOWING that this is what would happen:
Oct. 23,2008 (Bloomberg) --
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have an ``effective'' federal guarantee, not the "full faith and credit'' of the U.S. government, Federal Housing Finance Agency Director James Lockhart said after the hearing. That does give them effectively a guarantee of the U.S. government.''
Lockhart s Fannie Freddie Guarantee Remarks Stir Up Confusion - Bloomberg

So we had linkage between "flipping-homes-bad-loans" backed by Fannie/Freddie and coupled with the effort Bush tried to get the Democrat Congress to rein in Fannie/Freddie... Bush was laughed at and admonished by Franks/Dodd... facts:

Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.
* House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized the President's warning saying:
"these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis .
The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms
of affordable housing."...
(Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," New York Times, 9/11/03)

* Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also ignored the President's warnings and called
on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position.
Eric Dash,"Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," NYT, 8/11/07)
Barney Frank s Fannie and Freddie Muddle - US News

So over the years these subprime loans came to a head on 9/18/2008 again NOT mentioned widely by the biased MSM and I'm sure YOU've NEVER heard about this!

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Hmm...

AND NOTHING has happened during Obama's 6 years EQUAL to these EVENTS!! NOTHING!!!!

Recession
1) Are you aware that a recession started under Clinton and became official 3/01 ended 11/01?
Source: USATODAY.com - It s official 2001 recession only lasted eight months

A Major $5 trillion market loss
2) Are you aware that the dot.com bust occurred and cost $5 trillion in losses?
According to the Los Angeles Times, when the dot-com bubble burst, it wiped out $5 trillion dollars in market value for tech companies. More than half of the Internet companies created since 1995 were gone by 2004 - and hundreds of thousands of skilled technology workers were out of jobs.
Source: The dot-com bubble How to lose 5 trillion Anderson Cooper 360 - CNN.com Blogs

The worst attacks on the USA in History.. 3,000 deaths!!!
3)Obviously most of you are UNAWARE 9/11 cost 3,000 lives, $2 trillion in lost businesses,market values assets.
Jobs lost in New York owing to the attacks: 146,100 JUST in New York.
Year 2001: September 11 Terrorist Attacks
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were the events that helped shape other financial events of the decade. After that terrible day in September 2001, our economic climate was never to be the same again. It was only the third time in history that the New York Stock Exchange was shut down for a period of time. In this case, it was closed from September 10 - 17. Besides the tragic human loss of that day, the economic loss cannot even be estimated. Some estimate that there was over $60 billion in insurance losses alone. Airlines didn't fly for 3 days!
Approximately 18,000 small businesses were either displaced or destroyed in Lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers fell. There was a buildup in homeland security on all levels. 9/11 caused a catastrophic financial loss for the U.S.
Source: The Top 10 Financial Events of the Decade
Anthrax Attacks...
The 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, also known as Amerithrax from its Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) case name, occurred over the course of several weeks beginning on Tuesday, September 18, 2001, one week after the September 11 attacks. Letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to several news media offices and two DemocraticU.S. Senators, killing five people and infecting 17 others.

4) $1 trillion in losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history.
The worst, Katrina made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005. It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages. It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.

Rank Disaster Year Deaths Damage* $250 Billion in damages in the 8 disasters of the top 15 disasters in history!
1. Hurricane Katrina (LA/MS/AL/FL) 2005 1833 $133,800,000,000
6. Hurricane Ike (TX/LA/MS) 2008 112 $27,000,000,000
7. Hurricane Wilma (FL) 2005 35 $17,100,000,000
8. Hurricane Rita (TX/LA) 2005 119 $17,100,000,000
9. Hurricane Charley (FL) 2004 35 $16,500,000,000
12. Midwest Floods 2008 24 $15,000,000,000
13. Hurricane Ivan (FL/AL) 2004 57 $13,000,000,000
14. 30-State Drought 2002 0 $11,400,000,000
Costliest U.S. Weather Disasters Weather Underground

THESE events OCCURRED!
YET in SPITE of
a) 400,000 jobs due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita ,
b) 2,800,000 jobs in alone due to 9/11,
c) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts...
In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property.. IN SPITE of that:

AFTER the tax cuts Federal Tax REVENUES Increased an average of 9.78% per year!!!
Government Revenue Details Federal State Local for 2008 - Charts

And as far as spending like a drunken sailor....???

2000 $236.2 billion surplus
2001 $128.2 billion surplus
2002 $157.8 billion deficit.. also 9/11 occurred and tax revenues lowered for years later
2003 $377.6 billion deficit.. BRAND new cabinet Homeland Security, plus loans made to businesses.. again tax revenues down..affect of 9/11
2004 $412.7 billion deficit.. Revenues up by 5.5% spending increased and economy getting back.
2005 $318.3 billion deficit.. revenues up by 14.5% deficit decreasing at rate of 22%
2006 $248.2 billion deficit.. revenues up by 11.7% deficit decrease 22%
2007 $160.7 billion deficit.. revenues up by 6.7% deficit decrease 35%
2008 $458.6 billion deficit.. revenues down and deficit INCREASED TARP loan mostly...
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

And for what you really ignorant LIPs totally seem to be unaware of TARP turning a profit???

Bailout Scorecard Eye on the Bailout ProPublica
TARP made a $55.1 Billion profit!
View attachment 40915

Not sure what your rant is for or what you're trying to say within the context of my response. If you read what I responded to, my point was simple.

You are defending Obama. That's the simple point.
And I'm with a lot of supporting documents have proven Obama even without the events Bush had to contend with is destroying our economy.
NO PRESIDENT EVER EVER SAID THESE Words except OBAMA!

-- "I prefer destroying 1,400 companies,putting 400,000 people out of work and reducing tax revenue by $100 billion a year. " which is what he means when he says he prefers a single payer health system.

-- "I prefer higher gas prices".

-- "If a utility wants to build coal burning it bankrupt them!"

-- "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket"

My president would NEVER attack the military by accusing them of "air-raiding villages, killing civilians".

I also want a president who doesn't tell people...
“I think I could probably do every job on the campaign better than the people I’ll hire to do it,”
“It’s hard to give up control when that’s all I’ve known.”
“I think I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters,”
I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m gonna think I’m a better political director than my political director.”

My president is not a wanna-be Messiah who pronounces:
""This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."

Finally my president will not depend on the "stupidity of American voter" to get elected by:
"It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned.
People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves.
They were more than satisfied. They were revealed. Such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered
young black man who didn't seem angry all the time."

He fooled the people that make up what Gruber called "Stupidity of American Voter" Americans!

Ok. Now I'll go back to my post.
Corporate profits have nearly tripled under this president while taxes have dropped. The market is at an all-time high. Where is the evidence of his hostility toward business?

NONE OF THIS IS DUE TO OBAMA'S EFFORTS!
This President has done the following:
Obama IS LEADING the country with more rules and regulations then any other President in history and
this adds up to an annual total waste of $1,863,000,000,000! That's 1.8 Trillion dollars WASTED!

Data collected by researchers at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center shows that the Code of Federal Regulations, where all rules and regulations are detailed, has ballooned from 71,224 pages in 1975 to 174,545 pages last year.
More “major rules,” those with an annual economic impact exceeding $100 million, were enacted in 2010 than in any year dating back to at least 1997, according to the CRS.


And over Obama’s first three years in office, the Code of Federal Regulations increased by 7.4 percent, according to data compiled by the Chamber of Commerce.
In comparison, the regulatory code grew by 4.4 percent during Bush’s first term. 


So out of complete business ignorance Obama rules and regulations growing 7% versus Bush 4%
WHICH do you think is more conducive to business growth???

1)told Brazil to develop oil and that the USA will be their best customer?
2) Encourage foreign drilling OFF Florida by Cuba
3) Encourage Canada to sell almost 1 million barrels per day to China?
4) In 3 years new leases under Obama 5,568 new leases..
Under Bush.. from 2006 to 2008 15,095 new leases!
NEARLY 3 times the new Federal Leases under Bush then Obama !
Number of New Oil Wells and New Leases Have Decreased Under Obama Data from BLM Show


In summary in case you can't read clearly:
Obama has stifled growth by having 7% more rules and regulations.
Obama stifled growth by signing 1/3 of the Federal oil leases which would added to production.
Obama has promoted the destruction of 1,400 companies that pay $100 billion/yr taxes employing 400,000!
Obama WANTs higher gas prices and favors utilities going bankrupt.
Obama has destroyed the coal industry...
“It isn’t coming back. It’s permanent,” Murray said at a coal marketing conference in Pittsburgh, repeatedly using the word “destroyed” to describe the state of the industry, according to SNL Energy. “That’s what we see and that’s what we do our planning on. And remember, I have to make a payroll based on what we project.”

What Murray projects is an eventual decrease in U.S. coal generation from its current rate of 39 percent to between 30 and 34 percent, according to SNL’s report. That means 230 million tons of coal-fired generation lost by 2020, Murray said, and anyone who believes the industry will bounce back is either bad at business or “smoking dope.”
Murray CEO Says EPA Has Permanently Destroyed Coal Grandma Is Going To Be Cold ThinkProgress

As a result GDP growth for 2015:
The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the United States expanded at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 0.2 percent in the first quarter of 2015 over the previous quarter, according to the advance estimate.
GDP Growth Rate in the United States averaged 3.27 Percent from 1947 until 2014,
United States GDP Growth Rate 1947-2015 Data Chart Calendar

Obama has been president in a declining GDP. Reality!

You haven't shown anything refuting my evidence. American business is booming more than ever before. If Obama is anti business he is failing.
As far as GDP falling in the last decades, what is 70% of GDP?
Consumer spending.
What's happened to wages over the same period?
Who is attempting to address wages and income gaps?

 

[kaz]

This is where you take the hit.

You see, it isn't about whether he admitted lying (he never did from what I can tell), because he didn't have to.

Most of my liberal friends wish Harry would have a heart attack. He's been a boat anchor on the image of the senate.

This what you say and there is how you say it.

Just to be clear....there are other senate dems who are the same in my estimation and a host of republicans.

While I don't agree with Bernie Sanders for the most part....I like the way he conducts himself.

I really do miss Sam Nunn.

Take the hit? For showing Harry DIDN'T admit he lied as the right winger posited? Sorry. Fail


Harry has done a great job of keeping the far right extremists from rolling over the more moderate (than Harry) Obama. I'm not surprised you don't get it though

Yes, I miss honest conservatives like Goldwater too, unfortunately we have Reagan as being a "moderate" today in the GOP that's how far right the GOP has gone the past 20+ years!

Don't disagree with you on how far things have gone to the right in the past 20 years.

Harry has done a great job of giving the left (and liberalism) a bad name. I know you get it, but your are just a stormtrooper.

Harry a liberal??? lol

Oh I guess if we go by Rushblo's or crazy people like the ones supporting the Tea Baggers, sure. Most normal Americans see him as a moderate conservative from Nevada, not a liberal known area!

Next you'll tell me Obama is a Marxist, lol

Obama is a Marxist

Lower avg tax rate than Reagan. Weird, record Corp profits, lowest tax burden on Corps in 40+ years. He's a bad Marxist Bubs

You're assuming a lot, but even if true, none of those have anything to do with Obama personally or the Democratic party in general

 

[kaz]

So no, you'll stick to the right wing talking point!

Stopped reading here. If you ever want to talk to a libertarian let me know. I've never been interested in your sick obsession with W, but whatever. It's a problem for your shrink

Sure Bubba, sure. YOU will NEVER get honest, on ANY subject. I'm shocked. Go runaway Klown boy!

Gotcha Darlene. You should be able to give me an example then, an issue I'm right on that isn't libertarian

You mean that Ayn Randian fetish that has NEVER been used ANYWHERE, EVER? What would I care about people who "believe" in nonsense anymore than I believe in my Spaghetti God in the Sky?

No, Ayn Rand was an anarchist, moron.

And yes, it has been used. The Constitution of the United States. And for the most part it held up for a century and a half until the greedy leeches like you bred yourself control of the vote

 

[kaz]

Next you'll tell me Obama is a Marxist, lol

Obama is a Marxist

Or, on what do you base your claim ?

The definition of communism, the Communist Manifesto. What does Obama or his party believe that contradicts the Communist Manifesto? In fact it's a template for their views. And they justify it with the same anti wealth, anti capitalist rhetoric on a constant bases. Start by reading the planks of the Manifesto and you will be shocked to recognize it as their platform

lol, Says Klown boy. To funny Bubs

Does that sound good to you, Spanky? Seriously? What are you, eight?

 

[kaz]

Obama is a Marxist

Or, on what do you base your claim ?

The definition of communism, the Communist Manifesto. What does Obama or his party believe that contradicts the Communist Manifesto? In fact it's a template for their views. And they justify it with the same anti wealth, anti capitalist rhetoric on a constant bases. Start by reading the planks of the Manifesto and you will be shocked to recognize it as their platform

O.K., but I am trying to stay within the spirit of the thread.

Do you have a paper or something you can point me to that takes those planks and makes the comparison ?

All you've done (and I am asking you to consider the spirit of the request) is say....go look at this. Isn't it up to you to do that work ?

You made the claim....again...in the spirit of the thread, I am looking for your feedback.

Well, in the spirit of the thread, since I'm not a Republican, I don't have to prove it....

But seriously,

1) This is a romper room thread. The Democrats call everyone who isn't left a racist, xenophobic sexist poor hating homophobe who worships corporations and the rich and can't prove any of it because it's ridiculous. I used to be a Republican, I left the party because they suck, but that isn't why.

2) I consider the planks of the Communist Manifesto to be pretty well known and clear, I'm not referring to some esoteric document. And the hurdle is pretty low, I said the Communist manifesto is the template for their platform and rhetoric. If Democrats are really not Marxists, just off the top of your head, couldn't you say wow, but here's a couple things that just don't fit that, Kaz?

Easy, they support capitalism dummy!

When did they do that? Their policies are all to end it

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Why do you make stuff up ?

I didn't say Harry was a liberal. He is left of center.

If you can put down your arrogant pre-conceptions and try to digest these simple statements it might be helpful.

I don't think Harry is a liberal. I think Harry is an opportunist.

I said, Harry is giving the left (and liberalism....associated with being left...even though that is incorrect) a bad name.

Harry is not popular. Many in his party wish he'd go away.

If I wanted to see him go away, it is not because of his politics (I don't think Harry has any other that what takes care of Harry)...it is because our federal government is loaded with rancor and he has been a prime promoter of it.

The right is no better...but there is no one person as visible (in the media) as Harry.

It's not about Harry...it's about the institution.

Weird you posit shit like "make stuff up" as ALL I've done is rspond to what's written. YOUR posit was Harry was "Harry has done a great job of giving the left (and liberalism) a bad name."

Sorry, Harry ISN'T left or liberal. He's a moderate Dem from Nevada!

Weird how the right wingers elect guys who "don't believe in" Gov't or the purpose of Gov't then are shocked when they get into power and destroy US from within (see Ronnie's S&L crisis and Dubya's subprime bubble as 2 prime examples, not even talking about both gutting revenues as they ramped up UNFUNDED spending)

The #1 problem in DC (and at all 50 states) is money in politics. Money isn't speech. Corps aren't people

Yes you did make stuff up....or....

Didn't you read what I wrote ? I said "I don't think Harry is a liberal". But that does not mean that Harry hasn't given liberals a bad name. For the very reasons being discussed on another thread....liberals are tied to the left (and yes Harry is left of center....can't help that) by virtue of the media B.S. that is out there. It's unfortunate that he and you don't understand that.

Weird about what the right wing does. It only does what the left wing does. Send people to D.C. who don't give a flying fig about truth or America. Ronnie had help from a democratic congress....Georgie and his republican congress will go down as one of the biggest mistakes this country ever made.

Political power is economic power and vice versa. If and when Americans wake up, that is when they will throw out the morons on both sides who are there now and get a group that will really represent We The People.

More right wing nonsense. Shocking. "Left" huh? lol

Name the things the "left" has done? Single payer or took Romneycare that the GOP created and Heritage supported and made it GOP light?


Conservative policy NEVER works. The "left", liberal and PROGRESSIVE created the worlds largest middle class, fought for union rights, labor, environment, min wage, SS, Medicare, etc, ALL the things that created the modern US

"Never works"...gotta love it.

Just like Obamacare...nobody builds the report card metrics ahead of the fact. They all just argue over what is good and bad after the fact.

Define "works".

As far as "liberal"...that does not equate with the left.

Union rights had their place.

Other things have been both good and bad.

The modern U.S. isn't so great. BTW: Are your taking credit for that ?

Lol.....you can keep your list.

BTW: I am not right wing. I am unaffilated so you can save your little barbs for someone who cares.

Social Security was needed when it was formed. It is not such a good idea in the long run. Like it or not...it's not all it is cracked up to be. That isn't right wing talking points. They have no idea why it was formed...they just use it to poke their finger in the eye of the left.

I laugh at right wingers who claim Reagan had this huge expansion (which he did technically...until you did below the surface and find out what a mess he created).

I laugh at you too.

Sure Bubba, surte YOU aren't a conservative *shaking head*

Just ONE policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on in the US?


Since the rights war on the working class, coinciding with Powell's memo of 71 that created Heritage Foundation, CATO, etc and ramped upped under Reaganomics, sure the US has suffered (except he top 1% of course!)


SS is just a safety net that keeps half of seniors out of poverty. Nothing wrong with that. It's worked well in Germany for over 120+ years, and does quite well in the US too, IF the right wingers would stop attacking it and just try to fix it!


BTW, SS was ALWAYS meant to be pay-go, weird how Ronnie "saved it" by creating the nearly $3 trillion in excess payments since Ronnie increased taxes that he (and Dubya) used to hide the real costs of tax cuts for the rich!

I consider myself more liberal (but not left) than anything.

Thanks for showing that you can't have an intelligent conversation about anything.

S.S. is needed to keep seniors out of poverty. Because it's is one of the things that got them so close to being there to begin with.

It WAS needed in it's day is needed today because seniors put into it expecting to get it.

I watched this board for a while and resolved never to post in this forum.

It was a mistake to come over here.

I noticed you've changed a lot of people's minds.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Wtf does that have to do with my post idiot? Nothing. Go play in the street.

I thought we were talking about myths the right is perpetrating?? Next

You might have been, you stupid shit, but read the posts you respond to, I wasn't. Dumbass.

MORE right wing nonsense. Shocking. There was a posit that the right DIDN'T try to gut Vets benefits. I clearly showed they did. You then went on to attack R Dean, WITHOUT backing it up. I thought we were talking GOP and right wing mythology again Bubba, like the great Ronnie Reagan who funded then cut and ran from terrorists???

I didn't say anything about vets, nor did I say anything about the GOP, or Reagan. What the **** is your problem dumbass? Can you not read? Progressives are pretty ******* stupid by definition, but you are the dumbest of them all.

Go play in the street.

Got it, as usual your dumb ass can't follow a thread posting you are replying to. Shocking

Making up more stuff.

You are a real piece of work.

 

[Eaglewings]

 

[BlindBoo]

My president would NEVER attack the military by accusing them of "air-raiding villages, killing civilians".

See not only do they not have to defend their lies, like the one above, they'll repeat them indefinitely. It was a statement of fact by then candidate Obama......"We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there,"

But what exactly is wrong with decrying military tactics that cause needless civilian casualties and undermine our own counterinsurgency efforts? What's wrong with denouncing the stupid strategic decisions that forced the adoption of those tragic and counterproductive tactics in the first place?

That's what Obama was doing in New Hampshire in August 2007, when he made the comments the McCain-Palin team has so enthusiastically ripped out of context. He was arguing that the diversion of U.S. troops to Iraq has had devastating consequences for our efforts in Afghanistan. We need more troops in Afghanistan, Obama asserted, so that U.S. forces won't need to rely so much on airstrikes as an anti-insurgency tool. "We've got to get the job done there," he said. "And that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there."

Not exactly eloquent, but Obama's fundamental point is unassailable. With so many U.S. troops bogged down in Iraq, our troops in Afghanistan are spread dangerously thin. As the Afghan insurgency picks up steam, overwhelmed U.S. ground troops increasingly call in close-air-support bomb attacks. These airstrikes are, in turn, far more deadly for Afghan civilians than U.S. ground attacks, for the simple reason that while a soldier can usually tell the difference between an unarmed child and an insurgent, a bomb dropped from thousands of feet can't. So far this year, at least 395 Afghan civilians have been killed in NATO airstrikes, and the civilian death toll from NATO airstrikes is up by 21% over last year.

Three wrongs don t make a right - latimes

 

[Harry Dresden]

why dont you show me a post in here where i have ever said the GOP is who i support ..i have 40,000 of them,so it should be easy....after about a thousand of them and still cant find one, then you will know what i know about you......you are one of them people with your head so far up your parties collective ass, who think if someone does not agree with them,they must be from the other tribe.....what else can they be.....

Right, a guy who I'm POSITIVE supported Romney, Bush, Reagan, etc, doesn't support the GOP, lol

you are positive?....you do realize i am on record here bad mouthing all 3 of those jerks,right?.....you are just digging a deeper hole for yourself....dumbass...

Tea baggers are notorious for "bad mouthing" the GOP then stepping up and voting for them. You saying you didn't vote for them? lol

now im a teabagger.....well thats a first time for that....lol....

So for the 4th time, DID you support (VOTE) for Romney, Bush or Ronnie? OOPS

no...and im still waiting for you to back up what you said about me.....having a hard time are we?....

 

[PredFan]

Wtf does that have to do with my post idiot? Nothing. Go play in the street.

I thought we were talking about myths the right is perpetrating?? Next

You might have been, you stupid shit, but read the posts you respond to, I wasn't. Dumbass.

MORE right wing nonsense. Shocking. There was a posit that the right DIDN'T try to gut Vets benefits. I clearly showed they did. You then went on to attack R Dean, WITHOUT backing it up. I thought we were talking GOP and right wing mythology again Bubba, like the great Ronnie Reagan who funded then cut and ran from terrorists???

I didn't say anything about vets, nor did I say anything about the GOP, or Reagan. What the **** is your problem dumbass? Can you not read? Progressives are pretty ******* stupid by definition, but you are the dumbest of them all.

Go play in the street.

Got it, as usual your dumb ass can't follow a thread posting you are replying to. Shocking

I told you to go play in the street moron. If you cannot understand that someone was replying to the OP's question, then you are too stupid to be talking. Take a hike nit wit.

 

[healthmyths]

My president would NEVER attack the military by accusing them of "air-raiding villages, killing civilians".

See not only do they not have to defend their lies, like the one above, they'll repeat them indefinitely. It was a statement of fact by then candidate Obama......"We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there,"

But what exactly is wrong with decrying military tactics that cause needless civilian casualties and undermine our own counterinsurgency efforts? What's wrong with denouncing the stupid strategic decisions that forced the adoption of those tragic and counterproductive tactics in the first place?

That's what Obama was doing in New Hampshire in August 2007, when he made the comments the McCain-Palin team has so enthusiastically ripped out of context. He was arguing that the diversion of U.S. troops to Iraq has had devastating consequences for our efforts in Afghanistan. We need more troops in Afghanistan, Obama asserted, so that U.S. forces won't need to rely so much on airstrikes as an anti-insurgency tool. "We've got to get the job done there," he said. "And that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there."

Not exactly eloquent, but Obama's fundamental point is unassailable. With so many U.S. troops bogged down in Iraq, our troops in Afghanistan are spread dangerously thin. As the Afghan insurgency picks up steam, overwhelmed U.S. ground troops increasingly call in close-air-support bomb attacks. These airstrikes are, in turn, far more deadly for Afghan civilians than U.S. ground attacks, for the simple reason that while a soldier can usually tell the difference between an unarmed child and an insurgent, a bomb dropped from thousands of feet can't. So far this year, at least 395 Afghan civilians have been killed in NATO airstrikes, and the civilian death toll from NATO airstrikes is up by 21% over last year.

Three wrongs don t make a right - latimes

Because these are the same IDIOTS like you that blamed Benghazi on a video!
You can't have it both ways!
The words "air-raiding villages killing civilians" Was all that the terrorists needed to encourage more terrorists!
YOU idiots kept bringing up Abu Ghraib! Those images were totally helpful to the terrorists and did NOTHING positive for the troops in Iraq!
See if you , the MSM and Obama weren't such political animals FIRST but were Americans first then you would totally understand what those words, those images did!
Ask ANY person who is in the military if telling the enemy how bad the American soldiers were, i.e. "air raiding villages, killing civilians" Abu Ghrib... was HELPFUL??? They'd LAUGH at you and say all those words did was enflame the
barbarians that used kids as suicide bombers and YOU liked that evidently!
YOU are very very happy to have our troops denigrated as Obama and these there traitor assholes did:

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D)"Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
NOTE: Do you not believe the terrorists LOVED to hear our troops were cold blooded killers???

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

then Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "

Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."
NOTE: You are not that naive to think the terrorists didn't find Kerry calling OUR TROOPS terrorists absolutely EMBOLDENING???

Remember Kerry EARLIER wanted Bush to: "Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ....
to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ....
"Kerry , JanS. 23. 2003

 

[BlindBoo]

Because these are the same IDIOTS like you that blamed Benghazi on a video!

There you go, right off the bat, lying like a rug.

 

[BlindBoo]

The words "air-raiding villages killing civilians" Was all that the terrorists needed to encourage more terrorists!

It wasn't that those bombs killed half their families that made them hate us, it was candidate Obama talking about them.

It wasn't that we tortured and abused mostly innocent Iraqis, it was the pictures that were published.

 

[rdean]

My president would NEVER attack the military by accusing them of "air-raiding villages, killing civilians".

See not only do they not have to defend their lies, like the one above, they'll repeat them indefinitely. It was a statement of fact by then candidate Obama......"We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there,"

But what exactly is wrong with decrying military tactics that cause needless civilian casualties and undermine our own counterinsurgency efforts? What's wrong with denouncing the stupid strategic decisions that forced the adoption of those tragic and counterproductive tactics in the first place?

That's what Obama was doing in New Hampshire in August 2007, when he made the comments the McCain-Palin team has so enthusiastically ripped out of context. He was arguing that the diversion of U.S. troops to Iraq has had devastating consequences for our efforts in Afghanistan. We need more troops in Afghanistan, Obama asserted, so that U.S. forces won't need to rely so much on airstrikes as an anti-insurgency tool. "We've got to get the job done there," he said. "And that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there."

Not exactly eloquent, but Obama's fundamental point is unassailable. With so many U.S. troops bogged down in Iraq, our troops in Afghanistan are spread dangerously thin. As the Afghan insurgency picks up steam, overwhelmed U.S. ground troops increasingly call in close-air-support bomb attacks. These airstrikes are, in turn, far more deadly for Afghan civilians than U.S. ground attacks, for the simple reason that while a soldier can usually tell the difference between an unarmed child and an insurgent, a bomb dropped from thousands of feet can't. So far this year, at least 395 Afghan civilians have been killed in NATO airstrikes, and the civilian death toll from NATO airstrikes is up by 21% over last year.

Three wrongs don t make a right - latimes

Because these are the same IDIOTS like you that blamed Benghazi on a video!
You can't have it both ways!
The words "air-raiding villages killing civilians" Was all that the terrorists needed to encourage more terrorists!
YOU idiots kept bringing up Abu Ghraib! Those images were totally helpful to the terrorists and did NOTHING positive for the troops in Iraq!
See if you , the MSM and Obama weren't such political animals FIRST but were Americans first then you would totally understand what those words, those images did!
Ask ANY person who is in the military if telling the enemy how bad the American soldiers were, i.e. "air raiding villages, killing civilians" Abu Ghrib... was HELPFUL??? They'd LAUGH at you and say all those words did was enflame the
barbarians that used kids as suicide bombers and YOU liked that evidently!
YOU are very very happy to have our troops denigrated as Obama and these there traitor assholes did:

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D)"Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
NOTE: Do you not believe the terrorists LOVED to hear our troops were cold blooded killers???

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

then Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "

Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."
NOTE: You are not that naive to think the terrorists didn't find Kerry calling OUR TROOPS terrorists absolutely EMBOLDENING???

Remember Kerry EARLIER wanted Bush to: "Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ....
to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ....
"Kerry , JanS. 23. 2003

Here you can find an interactive map of the locations of all the riots you are saying never happened:

Reactions to Innocence of Muslims - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And here you can find pictures from the riots you say never happened caused by that video:

video causes deadly riots across the middle east - Google Search

And here you can find like 20,000 links that report on the riots you said never happened over a video it seems you don't believe exists:

video causes deadly riots across the middle east - Google Search

This is the problem with you kind. You believe the opposite of the evidence.

 

[OKTexas]

He admitted it in multiple interviews, and he was proud of it and seemed to think that it helped to defeat Romney. Truly. It was disgusting.

Liar

Harry Reid is proud he lied about Mitt Romney s taxes WashingtonExaminer.com

Washington Post to Harry Reid Yeah You Lied About Romney s Taxes - Katie Pavlich

Reid Admits He Lied About Romney s Taxes Is Proud He Cost Him The Election

So NO, besides right wing spin, you can't back up your statement and are just a liar. Shocking

“I don’t regret that at all,” Reid said, claiming that he felt compelled to criticize GOP politicians funded by the Koch brothers. When asked about being called a “McCarthyite” for lying about Romney’s taxes, he replied: “Well, they can call it whatever they want. Romney didn’t win, did he?”

Politifact ruled prince harry's statement pants on fire, so you can keep telling your lies just like reid or you can learn to face facts. Like all the commies on this board I'm very sure you will remain in your typical delusional state.

Harry Reid says anonymous source told him Mitt Romney didn t pay taxes for 10 years PolitiFact

From the link and the reason it was pants on fire:

On Aug. 6, a Reid spokesman confirmed to PolitiFact that the majority leader still maintains the information came from the anonymous Bain investor. Our Truth-O-Meter guidelines say we hold officials accountable to back up their words. By those standards, Reid has not proven his allegation.

I've seen this story so many times on this board and never clicked the link or thread.

First, thanks for the links, its so hard to get those out of republicans. Second, not one link did it say Reid admitted to lying and thats the claim made by republicans.

Yet you're quite willing to call a republican a liar if they don't provide evidence of an allegation and you let good ole harry slide. Hypocrisy much?

 

[Dragonlady]

I'm a liberal and I saw Harry Reid interviewed on MSNBC saying he lied and he was glad Romney didn't get elected. I was disgusted by it.