Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse

Firehouse.com Forum Rules & Guidelines

Forum Rules & Guidelines

Not Permitted or Tolerated:
• Advertising and/or links of commercial, for-profit websites, products, and/or services is not permitted. If you have a need to advertise on Firehouse.com please contact sales@firehouse.com
• Fighting/arguing
• Cyber-bullying
• Swearing
• Name-calling and/or personal attacks
• Spamming
• Typing in all CAPS
• “l33t speak” - Substituting characters for letters in an effort to represent a word or phrase. (example: M*****ive)
• Distribution of another person’s personal information, regardless of whether or not said information is public knowledge and whether or not an individual has permission to post said personal information
• Piracy advocation of any kind
• Racist, sexual, hate type defamatory, religious, political, or sexual commentary.
• Multiple forum accounts

Forum Posting Guidelines:

Posts must be on-topic, non-disruptive and relevant to the firefighting community. Post only in a mature and responsible way that contributes to the discussion at hand. Posting relevant information, helpful suggestions and/or constructive criticism is a great way to contribute to the community.

Post in the correct forum and have clear titles for your threads.

Please post in English or provide a translation.

There are moderators and admins who handle these forums with care, do not resort to self-help, instead please utilize the reporting option. Be mature and responsible for yourself and your posts. If you are offended by another member utilize the reporting option. All reported posts will be addressed and dealt with as deemed appropriate by Firehouse.com staff.

Firehouse.com Moderation Process:
Effective immediately, the following moderation process will take effect. User(s) whose posts are determined by Firehouse.com staff to be in violation of any of the rules above will EARN the following reprimand(s) in the moderation process:
1. An initial warning will be issued.
2. A Final Warning will be issued if a user is found to be in violation a second time.
3. A 3-day suspension will be issued if the user continues to break the forum rules.
4. A 45-day suspension will be issued if the user is found to be a habitual rule breaker.
5. Habitual rule breakers that have exhausted all of the above will receive a permanent life-time ban that will be strictly enforced. Reinstatement will not be allowed – there is no appeal process.

Subsequent accounts created in an effort to side-step the rules and moderation process are subject to automatic removal without notice. Firehouse.com reserves the right to expedite the reprimand process for any users as it is deemed necessary. Any user in the moderation process may be required to review and agree to by email the terms and conditions listed above before their account is re-instated (except for those that are banned).

Firehouse.com reserves the right to edit and/or remove any post or member, at any time, for any reason without notice. Firehouse.com also reserves the right to warn, suspend, and/or ban, any member, at any time, for any reason.

Firehouse.com values the active participation we have in our forums. Please ensure your posts are tasteful and tactful. Thank you very much for your cooperation.
See more
See less

Is Pres. Obama Lying?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
    Regardless, actions like those would have gotten him kicked out of today's GOP.
    If one is to accept that your ridiculous premise is true, then must also accept that JFK would be kicked out of today's Democrat party, for wanting to lower taxes to balance the Federal budget, and for being anti-abortion.
    Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
    Out of curiousity, which GOP state legislators would have been willing to override his vetoes when he was Governor?
    Which ones would refuse? And it's spelled CURIOSITY. Care to make some condescending remarks about my academic credentials?
    Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
    Today's GOP wouldn't have allowed him to run for president because he had a record of raising taxes and loosening abortion laws as Governor.
    Says the person who thinks the 103rd Congress was run by Republicans. Says the person who thinks that trying to avert being killed by murder is insane, but claims to have spent his career trying to prevent a statistically less likely event. Says the person who marries into money, and then purports to be a capitalist virtuoso.
    Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
    Put forth two links that describe how the $3T+ figure is derived. Feel free to read any of them.
    Links that are no more accurate than your knowledge of definitions, fiscal years, political history, or your spelling.

    The entire piece was based on the writer's opinions of "opportunity costs." Based on opportunity costs, not playing the lottery cost me $500 million, because I missed the opportunity to win it.

    The fact that you think this is a legitimate form of accounting for costs tells us all just how deranged your mind really is.
    Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
    Since when have you cared about what Chris Matthews thinks?
    I don't, but he's a delirious Øbama fanboi, just like you. And if thinks Øbama had a crappy year, then only the most ideologically blind Marxists could possible conceive that Øbama had a good one.
    The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. --Norman Mattoon Thomas, 6 time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
      If one is to accept that your ridiculous premise is true, then must also accept that JFK would be kicked out of today's Democrat party, for wanting to lower taxes to balance the Federal budget, and for being anti-abortion.
      JFK lowered taxes to about double the current rate. By all means let's use him as an example.

      Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
      Which ones would refuse?
      You brought it up. You tell us.

      Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
      Says the person who marries into money, and then purports to be a capitalist virtuoso.Links that are no more accurate than your knowledge of definitions, fiscal years, political history, or your spelling.
      Ha ha ha. Sorry moonbat. My wife literally had a job where she asked people if they wanted fries with their order. I supported the family as she went to school. We started amassing our portfolio after we were married. There is a reason envy is a deadly sin. Sorry if marrying the lead checker at the Piggly Wiggly didn't work out for you. That is assuming you're married.

      Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
      The entire piece was based on the writer's opinions of "opportunity costs." Based on opportunity costs, not playing the lottery cost me $500 million, because I missed the opportunity to win it.
      Bad analogy. The costs you cite are already spent. Costs of the war will continue long after the conflict is deemed to be over. That was the point of the links I posted.

      Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
      The fact that you think this is a legitimate form of accounting for costs tells us all just how deranged your mind really is.
      Which only shows how little you understand about the costs of fighting wars.

      Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
      I don't, but he's a delirious Øbama fanboi, just like you. And if thinks Øbama had a crappy year, then only the most ideologically blind Marxists could possible conceive that Øbama had a good one.
      Obviously you do care since you cited him to prove your point.

      You should have read some of the things he wrote about Bush during that disastrous administration.
      They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

      I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
        JFK lowered taxes to about double the current rate. By all means let's use him as an example.
        JFK didn't lower taxes, LBJ did. Again you show how little you know about history.
        Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
        You brought it up. You tell us.
        The ones that wouldn't support the necessary budget cuts to balance the budget deficit left for Reagan by Governor Moonbeam's father.
        Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
        Ha ha ha. Sorry moonbat.
        Again, that word does not mean what you think it means.
        Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
        My wife literally had a job where she asked people if they wanted fries with their order. I supported the family as she went to school. We started amassing our portfolio after we were married. There is a reason envy is a deadly sin.
        Not surprising, the missed the point. Her salary in no way supports that idea that you possess any exceptional knowledge, skills, or abilities. But your incessant pattern of bragging about it does prove just how much of a narcissist you are. That's one more thing you have in common with Barry Soetoro. Pretending to be something you're not.

        Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
        Sorry if marrying the lead checker at the Piggly Wiggly didn't work out for you. That is assuming you're married.
        Describing you as sorry is a compliment.
        Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
        The costs you cite are already spent. Costs of the war will continue long after the conflict is deemed to be over. That was the point of the links I posted.
        You posted a link to imaginary costs and inflated estimates. Which is total BS.
        Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
        Which only shows how little you understand about the costs of fighting wars.
        Again, you belittling me about knowledge of anything except the trendiest places to have your personal assistance get you a cappuccino is quite silly.
        Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
        Obviously you do care since you cited him to prove your point.
        When Obama's most prolific cheerleader says he's a loser, then he's a loser. Even Barbara Walters is singing that tune. I think I hear a fat lady warming up.
        Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
        You should have read some of the things he wrote about Bush during that disastrous administration.
        If you consider 2001-2009 disastrous, then 2009-2017 is genocide.

        The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. --Norman Mattoon Thomas, 6 time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
          JFK didn't lower taxes, LBJ did. Again you show how little you know about history.
          There you go. LBJ lowered them to about double the current rate and then proceeded to pass an excise tax to help pay for the Vietnam War. The fiscally responsible thing to do. As opposed to Bush who went to war and then lowered taxes, and borrowed the money. In my defense it is well documented that JFK advocated lowering them to that level. Congress passed those changes shortly after he was assassinated.

          Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
          The ones that wouldn't support the necessary budget cuts to balance the budget deficit left for Reagan by Governor Moonbeam's father.
          So you have no idea. Bottom line. Thanks for admitting that Reagan raised taxes as Governor. That was the point. Reagan tax increases were indeed necessary. I've never disputed that claim.
          Those actions would have gotten Reagan kicked out of today's GOP. The group that pushes that narrative doesn't allow for exceptions. Grover Norquist (the originator of the No Tax Pledge) has stated that taxes should never be raised regardless of the circumstances.

          Tell you what Moonbat. If you can show me a GOP candidate that had a history of raising taxes, loosening abortion laws, and advocating for loosening immigration that was supported for higher office. I'll concede that you're correct Reagan would indeed be supported by today's GOP. Especially the Tea Bag wing of the party.

          Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
          Again, that word does not mean what you think it means.
          Keep telling yourself that.

          Moonbat:

          Moonbat (1) (n) Irrational and Mentally unstable persons of a decidedly liberal political affiliation;
          (2) (n) Someone on the extreme edge of whatever their -ism happens to be.

          Definition #2 describes you perfectly.

          Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
          Not surprising, the missed the point. Her salary in no way supports that idea that you possess any exceptional knowledge, skills, or abilities. But your incessant pattern of bragging about it does prove just how much of a narcissist you are.
          You're the one that keeps bringing her up. I never said her salary supports any idea that I have exceptional knowledge or skills. You did.

          I have no problem bragging about my wife. My marriage is a team effort. Its worked out well. Sorry to hear that yours hasn't.

          Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
          That's one more thing you have in common with Barry Soetoro. Pretending to be something you're not.
          He's president. What is he pretending to be that he is not?

          Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
          You posted a link to imaginary costs and inflated estimates. Which is total BS.
          What parts are inflated? The part about the ongoing expenses for veterans after the war? What is your source for those future costs? Regardless of the amount, those costs will be borne by future taxpayers for a conflict that was unnecessary.

          Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
          When Obama's most prolific cheerleader says he's a loser, then he's a loser. Even Barbara Walters is singing that tune. I think I hear a fat lady warming up. If you consider 2001-2009 disastrous, then 2009-2017 is genocide.
          Yeah. Keep thinking that Matthews and Walters are great prognosticators. Let us know how it works out. Obama will be president till Jan. 2017. Since you like Obama so much, you're going to love Hillary.....for eight years.
          Last edited by scfire86; 01-06-2014, 03:45 PM.
          They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

          I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
            As opposed to Bush who went to war and then lowered taxes, and borrowed the money.
            Oh the irony... of a delirious Øbama fanbio' whining about Bush's deficit spending. The English language lacks words to describe how precious, yet hypocritical, it is.
            Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
            In my defense it is well documented that JFK advocated lowering them to that level.
            THE LEVEL, is not the point. You didn't characterize Reagan's gubernatorial increases based on rates. You based your "kicked out of the GOP" lie on the fact the he INCREASED rates. And when presented with a similar example that shoes the utter silliness of your logic, you attempt to switch measuring sticks and base it on rates, rather than simple increases and decreases. You can't have it both ways.

            This is nothing new for you. When your partisan lies are exposed for their senselessness and lack of logic, you attempt to move the goal line so you won't lose face.
            Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
            JFK lowered taxes to about double the current rate. By all means let's use him as an example.
            If you mean to imply that I'm advocating JFK's rates, which I did not, then that means that you were advocating RWR's gubernatorial rates, where the top income rate reached 11%. It's nice to see that you're finally seeing the light, and we all appreciate your endorsement of a top income tax rate of 11%.

            Saying Ronald Reagan raised taxes is like saying Michael Jordan was a guy who struck out a lot. It’s factually correct, but misleading.

            As President, Reagan indexed the tax code to account for inflation. Because that hadn't been done for so long, a larger share of Americans had reached the upper tax levels. By re-indexing them, many people fell into a bracket of a lower rate.

            In 1982 Reagan raises taxes when he was promised spending cuts in exchange. So just accusing him of raising taxes without mentioning the undelivered promise of spending cuts, is again misleading. Facts matter, but everyone knows that won't stop you from using half-truths to smear his political resume.
            Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
            Congress passed those changes shortly after he was assassinated.
            If JFK were around today, they would denounce him as a right-wing extremist and revoke his membership card. Take this quote for example:
            It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now … Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.
            And this statement isn't anecdotal, he made plenty more like it. It proves that JFK was a supply-sider. Something President Downgrade, and 99% of registered democrats, know nothing about.

            And the biggest reason that JFK would get kicked out of today's communist, I mean democrat party....
            JFK HATED COMMUNISM

            June 26, 1963 in Berlin, West Germany, Kennedy said:
            There are many people in the world who really don't understand, or say they don't, what is the great issue between the free world and the Communist world.

            Let them come to Berlin.

            There are some who say that communism is the wave of the future.

            Let them come to Berlin.

            And there are some who say, in Europe and elsewhere, we can work with the Communists.

            Let them come to Berlin.

            And there are even a few who say that it is true that communism is an evil system, but it permits us to make economic progress.

            Lass' sie nach Berlin kommen.

            Let them come to Berlin.
            Kennedy was an anti-communist who believed in a muscular foreign policy. He was willing to go to the brink of nuclear war to prevent the Soviet Union from placing nuclear weapons in Cuba. His aggressive stand against communism is likely why the communist Lee Harvey Oswald killed him.
            Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
            So you have no idea. Bottom line.
            I most certainly do. It's the ones who who can vote. Only a partisan hack who lies to advance his false narrative would be so obtuse to believe that legislative voting always follows party lines.
            Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
            Thanks for admitting that Reagan raised taxes as Governor. That was the point.
            I never disputed that actual rates increased. It's a matter of fact, not opinion. But as I stated earlier, all tax increases are not created equal.
            Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
            Reagan tax increases were indeed necessary. I've never disputed that claim.
            But you use it to pretend that Reagan is something he wasn't.
            Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
            Those actions would have gotten Reagan kicked out of today's GOP.
            In your dreams.
            Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
            The group that pushes that narrative doesn't allow for exceptions. Grover Norquist (the originator of the No Tax Pledge) has stated that taxes should never be raised regardless of the circumstances.
            Grover Norquist heads Americans for Tax Reform, not the GOP. But don't let facts stop you from telling people that he works for the GOP. Oh, and Norquist is a HUGE open borders advocate, and he's married to a Palestinian Muslim. And if we follow your patten of lies and mischaracterization, his open borders policy would get him kicked out of the GOP. So which is it? Is Norquist in the GOP because of his tax idea, or out of the GOP because of his immigration ideas? You can't have it both ways.

            Norquist's marriage and borders policy alone would grant him Grand Puba status with the democrats.
            Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
            Tell you what Moonbat.
            It's still unclear why you continue to call me a liberal. But the pattern is clear of liberals hijacking words and using double speak to advance their agenda.

            In 1934 Fred Astaire starred in a movie titled the The Gay Divorcee. Originally, gay meant happy and exuberant. But the militant homosexuals hijacked the work to describe themselves, and 80 years later a movie with the same title would have a much difference meaning.

            Same thing was done with the word liberal. It used to mean one who places primary emphasis on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government. But the left-wingers hijacked that word to describe themselves. Now today liberal has a totally different meaning than it did in the past.

            Your manipulation of the word moonbat is no different.
            Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
            If you can show me a GOP candidate that had a history of raising taxes, loosening abortion laws, and advocating for loosening immigration that was supported for higher office. I'll concede that you're correct Reagan would indeed be supported by today's GOP. Especially the Tea Bag wing of the party.
            Olympia Snowe
            • Voted NO on $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years. (May 2003)
            • Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
            • Voted NO on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)
            • Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
            • Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
            • Voted YES on comprehensive immigration reform. (Jun 2007)
            • Voted YES on giving Guest Workers a path to citizenship.
            • Rated 25% by USBC, indicating an open-border stance. (Dec 2006)

            Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
            Keep telling yourself that.

            Moonbat:

            Moonbat (1) (n) Irrational and Mentally unstable persons of a decidedly liberal political affiliation;
            (2) (n) Someone on the extreme edge of whatever their -ism happens to be.

            Definition #2 describes you perfectly.
            The other 6 definitions on the link you provide describe you. The other 6 (SIX) definitions define the term as a leftist. Reading, it's FUNdamental.
            Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
            You're the one that keeps bringing her up.
            I don't bring her up specifically, only the fact that you're riding her coattails.
            Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
            I never said her salary supports any idea that I have exceptional knowledge or skills. You did.
            And that, is a blatant lie. You've bragged endlessly about your possessions, and you bloviate about how much better off you are than everyone else. The implication is crystal clear.
            Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
            I have no problem bragging about my wife. My marriage is a team effort. Its worked out well. Sorry to hear that yours hasn't.
            You have no problem bragging about your possessions that your wife allows you to purchase. The record is clear on that. And you know nothing about my marital status, you can only speculate, and attempt to make incorrect assumptions about it. But thanx for showing us all how desperate you are to spread lies about me.
            Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
            He's president. What is he pretending to be that he is not?
            He's a Marxist, pure and simple, masquerading as a promoter of freedom and liberty.
            Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
            Regardless of the amount, those costs will be borne by future taxpayers for a conflict that was unnecessary.
            No matter, that number isn't going to reach $3,000,000,000,000.00.
            Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
            Yeah. Keep thinking that Matthews and Walters are great prognosticators.
            They're great to most liberals. That's why they hold the high profile positions they do.
            Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
            Let us know how it works out.
            MSNBC ratings tell you all you need to know, meanwhile, Fox News has more people watching at 3 AM than MSNBC has in prime time.
            Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
            Obama will be president till Jan. 2017. Since you like Obama so much, you're going to love Hillary.....for eight years.
            Funny how liberals are ohhing and ahhhing over the idea of a woman president. In 2008 they hated the idea of a female VP, and threw everything butt the kitchen sink at her.

            When the group policy mandates from Obamacare hit in late 2014, the tsunami of rate hikes and cancellations will create a lot of backlash. Obama knows it, which is why he's postponed the mandates until after the 2014 elections. Clinton will have to overcome that, or separate herself from it. But she's got two good teachers on how to dodge responsibility, Obama and Bill are two of the best.
            The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. --Norman Mattoon Thomas, 6 time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
              Oh the irony... of a delirious Øbama fanbio' whining about Bush's deficit spending. The English language lacks words to describe how precious, yet hypocritical, it is. THE LEVEL, is not the point. You didn't characterize Reagan's gubernatorial increases based on rates. You based your "kicked out of the GOP" lie on the fact the he INCREASED rates. And when presented with a similar example that shoes the utter silliness of your logic, you attempt to switch measuring sticks and base it on rates, rather than simple increases and decreases. You can't have it both ways.
              None of which changes my original premise that Reagan would get kicked out of today's GOP with the record he had as governor and president. So yes, I get to have it both ways.

              Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
              Saying Ronald Reagan raised taxes is like saying Michael Jordan was a guy who struck out a lot. It’s factually correct, but misleading.
              None of which matters to the anti-tax zealots like Grover Norquist.

              Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
              Grover Norquist heads Americans for Tax Reform, not the GOP. But don't let facts stop you from telling people that he works for the GOP. Oh, and Norquist is a HUGE open borders advocate, and he's married to a Palestinian Muslim. And if we follow your patten of lies and mischaracterization, his open borders policy would get him kicked out of the GOP. So which is it? Is Norquist in the GOP because of his tax idea, or out of the GOP because of his immigration ideas? You can't have it both ways.
              Norquist's claim to controlling the GOP's agenda is well known and recognized by the politicos that have signed his silly pledge. Except to you....of course. So yes, I can have it both ways....again.

              Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
              Your manipulation of the word moonbat is no different.
              Posted a link that proved my point. No need to elaborate. Own it, it's you.

              Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
              Funny how liberals are ohhing and ahhhing over the idea of a woman president. In 2008 they hated the idea of a female VP, and threw everything butt the kitchen sink at her.
              Party politics. Part of the game. Repubs did the same to McCain in 2000 to get the disaster known as Bush elected. In 2008 they spoke about McCain like he was the greatest to ever run for president....except for St. Ronny Reagan of course.

              Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
              When the group policy mandates from Obamacare hit in late 2014, the tsunami of rate hikes and cancellations will create a lot of backlash. Obama knows it, which is why he's postponed the mandates until after the 2014 elections. Clinton will have to overcome that, or separate herself from it. But she's got two good teachers on how to dodge responsibility, Obama and Bill are two of the best.
              None of which changes the reality you'll be facing with Hillary as president.

              Moonbat, what I enjoy most about the outrage from conservatives like you is their lack of historical knowledge when it comes to the current president. From a policy perspective, this president hasn't done anything that hasn't been done or proposed by conservatives during the last 30 years. Yet folks like you only started eye twitching and frothing after Jan. 2009. Why is that? Were you asleep during the Bush Administration when he was doubling the national debt, invading privacy, and expanding social programs (Medicare Part D)? Who am I kidding? Of course you were. If conservatives like you had been as outraged as they claim, they would have run someone else that exemplified their ideals during the primary. Instead the GOP supported him unequivocally. Then there is the convenient patriotism exhibited by conservatives. Anyone that criticized Bush was viewed as Unamerican since there were troops in harms way. Conservatives routinely criticize the president with troops still in harms way. By their own standards they are Unamerican. You either believe criticizing the president is wrong or it isn't. You can't have it both ways.
              Last edited by scfire86; 01-08-2014, 02:24 AM.
              They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

              I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                Meanwhile Obama just keeps winning.
                The liberals at MSNBC disagree.
                The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. --Norman Mattoon Thomas, 6 time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
                  The liberals at MSNBC disagree.
                  Pretty much dispels the conservative myth that the MSM is in the tank for Obama if they are being critical.

                  Better yet is that you have pegged the needle on my ironometer with you citing them as a legit source.

                  Regardless, Obama is president and McCain and Romney are not.

                  To paraphrase one of my favorite lines from the 2012 presidential election:

                  "please proceed moonbat."
                  Last edited by scfire86; 01-11-2014, 04:35 PM.
                  They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

                  I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Is Obama lying? Of course, and so did Bush 2, Clinton, Bush 1, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, Roosevelt, and every other President. It is in the nature of the job at times to tell people what they want to hear instead of the truth or what they need to hear.
                    Crazy, but that's how it goes
                    Millions of people living as foes
                    Maybe it's not too late
                    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by fyredup View Post
                      is obama lying? Of course, and so did bush 2, clinton, bush 1, reagan, carter, ford, nixon, johnson, kennedy, eisenhower, truman, roosevelt, and every other president. It is in the nature of the job at times to tell people what they want to hear instead of the truth or what they need to hear.
                      bing--frackin'--ohh!!!

                      It's just a question of whose ox one wants gored.
                      Last edited by scfire86; 01-13-2014, 01:35 AM.
                      They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

                      I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                        All you have left is stupid pics hoping that people forget your crackpot claims.

                        Meanwhile Obama just keeps winning.
                        If by winning you mean he's stepping in a steaming pile of manure covering a landmine at every step, then yes, Øbama is winning.

                        The idea that you accuse me of being a crackpot whist you sit there and proclaim that Øbama is winning is the epitome of hypocrisy.

                        And now the Washington Post is saying that Øbama was "badly damaged last year by legislative failures."

                        And in addition to presiding over the Federal Government's credit rating downgrade, Øbamacare is responsible for the downgrade of the US's Health Insurance providers too. Now we have more than one reason to call Barry Soetoro "President Downgrade."

                        Won't be long and Øbama's name will be mud even on democratic underground and single-marxists.com.
                        Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                        To paraphrase one of my favorite lines from the 2012 Presidential debates.

                        "Please proceed moonbat."
                        The preponderance of evidence shows that society, and the entire internet, uses that word to describe looney leftists like you.

                        Why don't you write some more silly stuff like attacking my intelligence with misspelled words.
                        The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. --Norman Mattoon Thomas, 6 time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Hey moonbat, keep dreaming. The word describes you perfectly according the definition I linked. It obviously bothers you.

                          You citing the Washington Post as proof of anything is yet another needle pegging moment on the ironometer.

                          Your comparison of liberals and leftists to Marxism only proves your ignorance of Marx and his theories.

                          Once again:

                          "Please proceed moonbat."
                          They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

                          I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Deficits and gas prices are down.

                            Stock market indexes and ratings are up.

                            Pretty good for a person conservatives claimed would ruin the economy and install marxism.
                            They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

                            I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                              Deficits and gas prices are down.

                              Stock market indexes and ratings are up.

                              Pretty good for a person conservatives claimed would ruin the economy and install marxism.
                              but he went with the wrong call on the Cowboy/ Detroit game

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                                Deficits and gas prices are down.
                                The irony of claiming that deficits are down is like the satire of playing "Heat Wave" in the beginning of "Grump Old Men."

                                And gas prices are falling despite that "War on Energy" that liberals wage on a daily basis. If it weren't for advances in drilling technology and OPEC trying to punish other producers with low prices, gas would still near $4/gallon.

                                In the 2012 Presidential debates, Michelle Bachman asserted that we could see $2/gal gas again, and liberals attacked her mercilessly for the idea. Now when her prediction is a reality, all we hear is worshiping at the alter of Ø.

                                Gas was under $2/gallon when Obama and the Democrats took over in DC in 2008. I didn't read one line here where you or any other liberal blamed them for prices rising, now you want to give President ZerØ credit for them falling. You can't have it both ways. If he's to credit for them falling, then he's to blame for them rising so sharply, and 6 years of high fuel prices.

                                Clearly you've gotten your medical marijuana identification card.
                                Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                                Stock market indexes and ratings are up.
                                It's called inflation. Everything is going up. And with the amount of quantitative easing the Fed's been pumping out, those dollars have to go somewhere. The last time the dollars went into housing, it created a bubble, and the bubble popped. This time the excess dollars are going to different places.
                                Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                                Pretty good for a person conservatives claimed would ruin the economy and install Marxism.
                                He's installed his own brand of Marxism. It's called Øbamunism.
                                The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. --Norman Mattoon Thomas, 6 time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America

                                Comment

                                300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

                                Collapse

                                Upper 300x250

                                Collapse

                                Taboola

                                Collapse

                                Leader

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X