Why can't Republicans explain their "Fiscal Policy"?

[rdean]

The fact is they have, however, those dependent upon pandering for their political existence refuse to listen or simply lack the financial and economic background to comprehend the gravity of the situation.

Its hard to talk intelligently with a liberal because they fail to understand the difference between social theory and financial and economic reality.

This is the very reason liberal scream and jump up and down like spoiled little children that they are.

That post must have made sense to someone. Looks like just a piece calling liberals names. Profound.

dear, 95% of your posts are pure name calling. Do you really not know that and it how indicates you were defeated long ago when you claimed Reagan proved liberalism was correct!!??

What exactly is "liberalism"?

I'm always so entertained when those of your ilk explain "liberalism". It's like a Republican explaining evolution or trickle down. They may believe in one and not the other, but both explanations are "fraught with humor".

 

[Rshermr]

The fact is they have, however, those dependent upon pandering for their political existence refuse to listen or simply lack the financial and economic background to comprehend the gravity of the situation.

Its hard to talk intelligently with a liberal because they fail to understand the difference between social theory and financial and economic reality.

This is the very reason liberal scream and jump up and down like spoiled little children that they are.

That post must have made sense to someone. Looks like just a piece calling liberals names. Profound.

dear, 95% of your posts are pure name calling. Do you really not know that and it how indicates you were defeated long ago when you claimed Reagan proved liberalism was correct!!??

You certainly lie a lot. If you can prove I ever said "Reagan proved liberalism was correct" I will pay you $50. If not, you pay me. Deal, ed? I am sure you are running from this one. You are a lying shithead, ed. No honor at all. Just a little dipshit.
And the rest of your post is nonsense.
Not sure how you live with yourself. Absolutely NO integrity of any kind. Jesus.

 

[Oldstyle]

LOL...let me get this straight...someone accuses you of name calling and your response is "You are a lying shithead, ed. No honor at all. Just a little dipshit." Nah, you never use personal attacks, Rshermr! That's what other people do.

Gee, only a $50 bet? That's way down from your $10,000 wager with me, Tommy! Falling on hard times? Or has it finally dawned on you how stupid you looked when you tried to make THAT bet?

Soooo...what we seem to have established is that Rshermr never lies...while anyone who doesn't agree with him lies continuously. You're a very strange little man...seriously...

 

[Oldstyle]

"Because i know I am not smart enough to keep from getting caught if I did lie."

That's the most insightful thing you've said on here in quite some time, Rshermr!

 

[Rshermr]

LOL...let me get this straight...someone accuses you of name calling and your response is "You are a lying shithead, ed. No honor at all. Just a little dipshit." Nah, you never use personal attacks, Rshermr! That's what other people do.

Gee, only a $50 bet? That's way down from your $10,000 wager with me, Tommy! Falling on hard times? Or has it finally dawned on you how stupid you looked when you tried to make THAT bet?

Soooo...what we seem to have established is that Rshermr never lies...while anyone who doesn't agree with him lies continuously. You're a very strange little man...seriously...

Well, Oldstyle, you are at it again. Posting crap.
But I have never said that people who do not agree with me are liars. I am very carefull about that. Give a person lots of time to defend when they are wrong. But you, me boy, are a liar. And you have no compunction about it. And, you know it. And you really do not care. See, I know you well at this point.

Relative to ed, he is actually a worse liar than you, but he just throws thing out there. If he wants to make it $10K, no problem. Simple one, all he has to do is find the statement he said I posted. Which, of course, he can not. You may have noticed his absence.

 

[Rshermr]

"Because i know I am not smart enough to keep from getting caught if I did lie."

That's the most insightful thing you've said on here in quite some time, Rshermr!

Yup. A true statement. I stopped lying many decades ago, when i found it was way to hard to keep track of lies. Did not bother me, because I did not lie often at all.

Now you seem to not have noticed that problem. Because you lie, and get caught. Over and over and over.

Anything else, or are you done? You are done, you know. Or maybe you do not. However, you should really stop wasting others time. I know you do not care about me. But others have to wade through your drivel, and that is not a nice thing to do to them.

 

[Oldstyle]

"Because i know I am not smart enough to keep from getting caught if I did lie."

That's the most insightful thing you've said on here in quite some time, Rshermr!

Yup. A true statement. I stopped lying many decades ago, when i found it was way to hard to keep track of lies. Did not bother me, because I did not lie often at all.

Now you seem to not have noticed that problem. Because you lie, and get caught. Over and over and over.

Anything else, or are you done? You are done, you know. Or maybe you do not. However, you should really stop wasting others time. I know you do not care about me. But others have to wade through your drivel, and that is not a nice thing to do to them.

I hate to break this to you, Tommy but you're STILL having a hard time keeping track of the lies.

Why do you even bother, Dude? Do you really think anyone with half a brain buys the fairy tale about you teaching college level courses as an undergrad or the tall tale about the reason you can't spell or use correct grammar is that you're a big shot business executive and your "secretary" always proofed all of your writing? Watching you on this board concoct your little fantasy world is farce at it's best.

 

[ReallyMeow]

What economic school or schools are Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi following when they demand tax increases in a bad economy?

Your appeal to orthodoxy inclines me to dismiss the point altogether, but I feel so very, very clever in my response: here is a libertarian making a very persuasive argument for the position that tax increases on the rich are not correlated with improvements to the economy, stop reading here, watch it, enjoy it, digest it.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7FnUowZKfg]Should We Tax the Rich More? - YouTube[/ame]

Now, does that also mean the converse, that raising taxes on the rich wont hurt the economy? Yes. Guy is simply wrong at the end there, just because there are more than the two variables he presents in the system doesnt mean that basic mathematics stops working. I mean if the rich were paying the same amount of money whether the tax rate were 28% or 94%, then we wouldnt hear a peep about how "unfair" it was. You cant hold the position that tax hikes on the rich will simultaneously punish the rich and not raise revenue. It will, they owe it and we need it; thats what being fiscally responsible is all about.

the whole tax the rich at 94% thing?...it's not going to fix the deficit. You could tax them at 100% and you STILL wouldn't fix the deficit because the problem isn't that we're not taking in enough revenue but that we are spending WAY too much.

It doesnt need to fix the whole thing, just apply the teensiest smidgeon of household finances to govt finances; if you cant pay all of your bills, you damn well pay what you can.

our levels of revenue being collected are currently back at nearly the same level they were before the economic collapse

no they arnt. 15% sounds alot like 18% to your squishy meat brain, but that is alot less revenue.
Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

leading them to do what you've labeled "tax evasion" which is simply putting their money into perfectly legal tax shelters

I thought republicans were running on the platform that they wanted to close those loopholes, of course when its time for the rubber to meet the road, house republicans are the only thing standing in the way of this reform. You gonna cry about it all day or do something about the thing which you say is bad? I will rub your nose in it all day, your politicians are not competent enough to produce reform.

Unless you're going to change the laws and FORCE people to invest their capital so that you can steal it to finance your progressive "vision" then what you're proposing isn't going to work.

I could say to you- Unless you're going to change the laws and FORCE people to invest their capital- they WONT. Also, you clearly arnt familiar with history.
Executive Order 6102 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"laffer" the last 30 years have concisely shown that his speculation is bunk. it never trickled down, we have been running deficit upon deficit, its time to return to fiscal responsibility.

And what do you use for the basis of your expectation that raising taxes to 94% will work? The tax rate was that following WWII? Well, I hate to burst your progressive thought bubble but the world was COMPLETELY different at the close of WWII than it is now. We were the only major industrial power that was left relatively unscathed by war. Essentially, we were the only game in town. Now contrast THAT with the world we live in today! Today we compete with places like China and India...countries that don't have capital gains taxes. If we were to raise our tax rate to what YOU think is advisable there would literally be a stampede of capital out of the US. But you're so blinded by your progressive ideology that you can't see that...can you?

Yes, we have to compete, we dont have the resources to support dingleberries with delusions of grandeur in their vain attempt to live like royalty while the countries infrastructure crumbles around us. Not spending what needs to be spent is a man made disaster whether we are talking about I35W or benghazi.

And your analogy of someone ringing items on a cash register is as flawed at the rest of your so called "thinking". We aren't letting the rich "steal" a pack of cigarettes that they don't own...what you're espousing is putting a gun to their heads and stealing the money that they legally earned because you think that you are "entitled" to it more than they are, rather than fix a government that is so bloated and inefficient that it's bleeding us out.

They want the services we provide? They are obligated to fund them by paying their taxes.

 

[rdean]

What economic school or schools are Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi following when they demand tax increases in a bad economy?

Your appeal to orthodoxy inclines me to dismiss the point altogether, but I feel so very, very clever in my response: here is a libertarian making a very persuasive argument for the position that tax increases on the rich are not correlated with improvements to the economy, stop reading here, watch it, enjoy it, digest it.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7FnUowZKfg]Should We Tax the Rich More? - YouTube[/ame]

Now, does that also mean the converse, that raising taxes on the rich wont hurt the economy? Yes. Guy is simply wrong at the end there, just because there are more than the two variables he presents in the system doesnt mean that basic mathematics stops working. I mean if the rich were paying the same amount of money whether the tax rate were 28% or 94%, then we wouldnt hear a peep about how "unfair" it was. You cant hold the position that tax hikes on the rich will simultaneously punish the rich and not raise revenue. It will, they owe it and we need it; thats what being fiscally responsible is all about.

the whole tax the rich at 94% thing?...it's not going to fix the deficit. You could tax them at 100% and you STILL wouldn't fix the deficit because the problem isn't that we're not taking in enough revenue but that we are spending WAY too much.

It doesnt need to fix the whole thing, just apply the teensiest smidgeon of household finances to govt finances; if you cant pay all of your bills, you damn well pay what you can.

no they arnt. 15% sounds alot like 18% to your squishy meat brain, but that is alot less revenue.
Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

I thought republicans were running on the platform that they wanted to close those loopholes, of course when its time for the rubber to meet the road, house republicans are the only thing standing in the way of this reform. You gonna cry about it all day or do something about the thing which you say is bad? I will rub your nose in it all day, your politicians are not competent enough to produce reform.

I could say to you- Unless you're going to change the laws and FORCE people to invest their capital- they WONT. Also, you clearly arnt familiar with history.
Executive Order 6102 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"laffer" the last 30 years have concisely shown that his speculation is bunk. it never trickled down, we have been running deficit upon deficit, its time to return to fiscal responsibility.

And what do you use for the basis of your expectation that raising taxes to 94% will work? The tax rate was that following WWII? Well, I hate to burst your progressive thought bubble but the world was COMPLETELY different at the close of WWII than it is now. We were the only major industrial power that was left relatively unscathed by war. Essentially, we were the only game in town. Now contrast THAT with the world we live in today! Today we compete with places like China and India...countries that don't have capital gains taxes. If we were to raise our tax rate to what YOU think is advisable there would literally be a stampede of capital out of the US. But you're so blinded by your progressive ideology that you can't see that...can you?

Yes, we have to compete, we dont have the resources to support dingleberries with delusions of grandeur in their vain attempt to live like royalty while the countries infrastructure crumbles around us. Not spending what needs to be spent is a man made disaster whether we are talking about I35W or benghazi.

And your analogy of someone ringing items on a cash register is as flawed at the rest of your so called "thinking". We aren't letting the rich "steal" a pack of cigarettes that they don't own...what you're espousing is putting a gun to their heads and stealing the money that they legally earned because you think that you are "entitled" to it more than they are, rather than fix a government that is so bloated and inefficient that it's bleeding us out.

They want the services we provide? They are obligated to fund them by paying their taxes.

The right wing doesn't seem to understand that paying a few bucks doesn't mean you paid "enough". Very few of the wealthy serve in the military. And the ones that do tend to belong to the "champagne" unit, like George Bush did or daddy pulls strings to get them into the Naval Academy, like John McCain. Both had embarrassing careers. John McCain not only graduated 5th from the bottom out of 899 cadets, but crashed 5 jets and became a "hero" by disobeying orders.

But they get a "pass" because they are the "job creators". Only they haven't created the jobs. Republicans moved the wealth of the nation to the top 1% and now they say it wasn't enough. They want to deregulate air and water. If the money wasn't enough, being able to piss all over everything won't be either.

 

[Oldstyle]

What economic school or schools are Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi following when they demand tax increases in a bad economy?

Your appeal to orthodoxy inclines me to dismiss the point altogether, but I feel so very, very clever in my response: here is a libertarian making a very persuasive argument for the position that tax increases on the rich are not correlated with improvements to the economy, stop reading here, watch it, enjoy it, digest it.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7FnUowZKfg]Should We Tax the Rich More? - YouTube[/ame]

Now, does that also mean the converse, that raising taxes on the rich wont hurt the economy? Yes. Guy is simply wrong at the end there, just because there are more than the two variables he presents in the system doesnt mean that basic mathematics stops working. I mean if the rich were paying the same amount of money whether the tax rate were 28% or 94%, then we wouldnt hear a peep about how "unfair" it was. You cant hold the position that tax hikes on the rich will simultaneously punish the rich and not raise revenue. It will, they owe it and we need it; thats what being fiscally responsible is all about.

the whole tax the rich at 94% thing?...it's not going to fix the deficit. You could tax them at 100% and you STILL wouldn't fix the deficit because the problem isn't that we're not taking in enough revenue but that we are spending WAY too much.

It doesnt need to fix the whole thing, just apply the teensiest smidgeon of household finances to govt finances; if you cant pay all of your bills, you damn well pay what you can.

no they arnt. 15% sounds alot like 18% to your squishy meat brain, but that is alot less revenue.
Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

I thought republicans were running on the platform that they wanted to close those loopholes, of course when its time for the rubber to meet the road, house republicans are the only thing standing in the way of this reform. You gonna cry about it all day or do something about the thing which you say is bad? I will rub your nose in it all day, your politicians are not competent enough to produce reform.

I could say to you- Unless you're going to change the laws and FORCE people to invest their capital- they WONT. Also, you clearly arnt familiar with history.
Executive Order 6102 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"laffer" the last 30 years have concisely shown that his speculation is bunk. it never trickled down, we have been running deficit upon deficit, its time to return to fiscal responsibility.

And what do you use for the basis of your expectation that raising taxes to 94% will work? The tax rate was that following WWII? Well, I hate to burst your progressive thought bubble but the world was COMPLETELY different at the close of WWII than it is now. We were the only major industrial power that was left relatively unscathed by war. Essentially, we were the only game in town. Now contrast THAT with the world we live in today! Today we compete with places like China and India...countries that don't have capital gains taxes. If we were to raise our tax rate to what YOU think is advisable there would literally be a stampede of capital out of the US. But you're so blinded by your progressive ideology that you can't see that...can you?

Yes, we have to compete, we dont have the resources to support dingleberries with delusions of grandeur in their vain attempt to live like royalty while the countries infrastructure crumbles around us. Not spending what needs to be spent is a man made disaster whether we are talking about I35W or benghazi.

And your analogy of someone ringing items on a cash register is as flawed at the rest of your so called "thinking". We aren't letting the rich "steal" a pack of cigarettes that they don't own...what you're espousing is putting a gun to their heads and stealing the money that they legally earned because you think that you are "entitled" to it more than they are, rather than fix a government that is so bloated and inefficient that it's bleeding us out.

They want the services we provide? They are obligated to fund them by paying their taxes.

I can't hold the position that draconian tax hikes on the wealthy won't hurt the economy AND not raise revenues? Actually I can and I'll use the example of New Jersey raising taxes on millionaires with the expectation of generating revenue.

Millionaire taxes hurt the masses, from Newark to Paris - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet

What happens in States is simply a microcosm of what happens in nations as the example of Great Britain & France...the US & Canada illustrate in that piece. That's REALITY but people like you don't deal in that...you prefer to stick to vague concepts of "fairness". I'm amused by your clarion call for fiscal responsibility by the wealthy to bail out a government that is anything BUT fiscally responsible.

Do you not grasp the concept that tax shelters are not tax loopholes? No one is breaking the law when they choose not to invest their capital. They have paid taxes on that money when it was earned or inherited. What they choose to do with it at that point is totally up to them. You have the progressives usual outlook on anyone with wealth...which is give it to us because we've spent all of our money and now we want yours. That progressive "zeal" to take what isn't yours in the name of "fairness" totally ignores the real world consequences of what attempting that invariably brings about. That capital that you want to seize is the engine that drives a free market economy and the people who control it are not financial neophytes like yourself. The wise investment and preservation of capital is what they DO. You for some unknown reason think that those wealthy people will sit still and LET you steal their money and as Chris Christie pointed out with all the millions that New Jersey has lost with THEIR tax increase on millionaires, that seldom is the case. New Jersey millionaires moved their primary residences to States with better tax rates. When you impose huge tax increases on US millionaires and billionaires many of them will move THEIR primary residences to countries with better tax rates. That's the nature of the beast. You SHOULD know that simply from watching the actions of even uber-liberals like John Kerry registering his yacht in Delaware instead of Massachusetts. Why? Because it gave him a better tax rate.

The Laffer Curve simply points out the correlation between taxes and revenue. When you raise taxes past a certain point revenues start to shrink. It's a rather simple concept and one that has never been disproved.

So you admit that we DO have to compete with countries like China and India that don't have a capital gains tax but you think the way to attract businesses here is to raise our already highest in the world capital gains tax? How does that work? Why would any rational business person choose to build a new plant HERE when someone like you is planning to jack their tax rates up? I'm sorry, ReallyMeow...but you're living in a fiscal fantasy world where business people can't do simple math. Trust me, they crunch the numbers and when they do...you're going to lose your "competition".

As for what businesses are "obligated" to pay in taxes for the "services" they receive? Once again businesses have every right to shop around to see who will give them the most services for the lowest price. If you happen to be running a country that's government is bloated and inefficient and you expect to make up for that fact with higher taxes on the private sector then you shouldn't be surprised when that very same private sector chooses to do business with your competition who offers them a much better deal. Companies are now leaving States for other States and countries for other countries. What you propose to do with your tax the rich agenda is to accelerate that migration. What you propose to do with your tax rates will cost us jobs and tax revenue in the long run. It's looking at the world through an agenda based prism that has you blind to what the real world effects of your policies will be and the sad thing is that it will cost Americans millions of jobs if you get your way.

 

[Rshermr]

Pardon my intrusion, RDEAN. I tend to keep an eye on Oldstyle. Because, as a conservative tool, he is highly dishonest. I see him making the same old arguments that he has lost in discussions with me before. And using similar methods. You may want to be aware the Oldstyle posts a lot of opinion, all coincidentally aligning perfectly with conservative bat shit crazy sites statements. Always.
And, when he actually uses a link, you need to watch it. Very often, he will use a nice impartial looking source. Like he did in this post, where the link goes to CNN. What you would not notice, he hopes, is that it is an opinion piece by a FOX PERSONALITY. Here, it is Nina Easton, whom Fox is fairly proud of. Their biography headline says:
Read the biography of Fox News Channel personality Nina Easton on FoxNews.com.
Nina Easton | Biography | Fox News

Now Oldstyle will, and has, objected strenuously, when I used a NY Times link to government data. But here he posts a fox personality that has absolutly no credentials. Funny.
With that, I will let you have at it. I suspect, RDEAN, that I just said nothing that you did not know.

 

[Oldstyle]

Pardon my intrusion, RDEAN. I tend to keep an eye on Oldstyle. Because, as a conservative tool, he is highly dishonest. I see him making the same old arguments that he has lost in discussions with me before. And using similar methods. You may want to be aware the Oldstyle posts a lot of opinion, all coincidentally aligning perfectly with conservative bat shit crazy sites statements. Always.
And, when he actually uses a link, you need to watch it. Very often, he will use a nice impartial looking source. Like he did in this post, where the link goes to CNN. What you would not notice, he hopes, is that it is an opinion piece by a FOX PERSONALITY. Here, it is Nina Easton, whom Fox is fairly proud of. Their biography headline says:
Read the biography of Fox News Channel personality Nina Easton on FoxNews.com.
Nina Easton | Biography | Fox News

Now Oldstyle will, and has, objected strenuously, when I used a NY Times link to government data. But here he posts a fox personality that has absolutly no credentials. Funny.
With that, I will let you have at it. I suspect, RDEAN, that I just said nothing that you did not know.

LOL...Easton worked for the Boston Globe as Washington Bureau Chief as well, you dolt! You'd be hard pressed to find a more liberal paper. When someone is referred to as a news channel "personality" all it means is they do guest spots on Fox to talk about issues. Why you've suddenly decided that Ms. Easton has absolutely no credentials I'll let you explain. She's a Senior Editor at Fortune Magazine which is affiliated WITH CNN. She was also named a 2012 fellow at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. Funny how THEY seem to think her "credentials" are credible. But you know best...right, Tommy?
Oh, that's right...I keep forgetting that if someone disagrees with Rshermr they're automatically labeled in a negative way. I'm a liar and Ms. Easton has no credentials.

 

[Rshermr]

Funny. Oldstyle, you are such a tool. You would lite up like a Christmas tree if someone used an msnbc personality to write an article. Dipshit. And you go nuts if I used the NY Times. dipshit. And now you want to say a well known water carrier for the conservitive world and a fox PERSONALITY is a impartial source. Got any more jokes, dipshit.

Using personalities of any sort to make economic arguments is questionable. This agenda monkey has absolutely no credentials. But a FOX personality??? Fox, Oldstyle?? Hell, fox does not even do NEWS, as they have stated in court. They are an entertainment network, as they have stated in court. And now a Fox personality is your source. Nice. Try again, Oldstyle. You loose again.

 

[Oldstyle]

Nina Easton also appears on Meet The Press...now what network is that again? You don't get made a Fellow at the Kennedy School of Government for being an "agenda monkey"...you get honors like that for having a credible point of view.

And it's lose...not loose. You're about as dumb as a rock at times...seriously...

 

[Oldstyle]

Easton is the type of person that progressives hate...a Berkeley educated far left liberal who got out in the real world and gradually changed her thinking because she realized that what her professors told her about the world wasn't how it really WAS.

 

[Rshermr]

Easton is the type of person that progressives hate...a Berkeley educated far left liberal who got out in the real world and gradually changed her thinking because she realized that what her professors told her about the world wasn't how it really WAS.

Right, Oldstyle, and a Fox regular. Not as you would have us believe, a person who occasionally appears on fox. Really, Oldstyle. And graduating years ago from Cal Berkley does not make one a liberal, except if you are a con. Lets see what she does on FOX.

She is a panelist on "Fox News Sunday" and "Special Report," among other shows and provided prime-time commentary throughout the 2008 election.

Read more: Nina Easton | Biography | Fox News

In addition, she is married to Russell Schriefer, a Republican political strategist and a senior adviser to the presidential campaign of Mitt Romney. Sounds like a good, impartial source to me.

We could go further, but the point is, she is a Fox regular. Many, many appearances. So, Oldstyle, you are apparently trying to say that Fox has her on regularly for her impartial views. But that, me boy, does not pass the giggle test. Fox never, ever has anyone on its entertainment network who does not assist in its continual attack on anything progressive. Nice try.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

This agenda monkey has absolutely no credentials.

Aristotle and Jefferson had agendas?? Is that bad to a liberal? Can you say whats mistaken in the Aristotle Jefferson Easton agenda or must you once again admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so????

 

[Rshermr]

This agenda monkey has absolutely no credentials.

Aristotle and Jefferson had agendas?? Is that bad to a liberal? Can you say whats mistaken in the Aristotle Jefferson Easton agenda or must you once again admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so????

Yes, ed, and you have an agenda. And we all know what it is.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

This agenda monkey has absolutely no credentials.

Aristotle and Jefferson had agendas?? Is that bad to a liberal? Can you say whats mistaken in the Aristotle Jefferson Easton agenda or must you once again admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so????

Yes, ed, and you have an agenda. And we all know what it is.

You once again must admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to say what is wrong with the conservative /libertarian agenda??

See why we are 1000% sure a liberal is slow, so very very slow.

 

[Toronado3800]

Aristotle and Jefferson had agendas?? Is that bad to a liberal? Can you say whats mistaken in the Aristotle Jefferson Easton agenda or must you once again admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so????

Yes, ed, and you have an agenda. And we all know what it is.

You once again must admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to say what is wrong with the conservative /libertarian agenda??

See why we are 1000% sure a liberal is slow, so very very slow.

What was your favorite most conservative year Ed?