Okay, lets see what is wrong with what is said in this article:
Mitt Romney argues she would turn the United States into a "big government, big taxation, welfare state."
Okay, that is 100% correct about Democrats...Everywhere Dems have the power, record tax increases are taking place. Dems are for more and more govt programs because people are not able to take care of themselves....Oh, and unlike the emotional rants of our liberals...here are FACTS to back up what I am saying...
Doyle seeks tax, fee boosts
Here ya go...Dem governor...looking for the biggest tax increase in the history of United States...
Last two Dem Presidents raised taxes:
President Clinton insisted on and the Congress enacted a second major tax increase in 1993 in which the top tax rate was raised to 36 percent and a 10 percent surcharge was added, leaving the effective top tax rate at 39.6 percent.
Suffice it to say, the Carter years were very bad for our nation. 16 percent inflation, 22 percent interest rates, and 70 percent marginal tax rates did little to endear Jimmy to the hard working people he claims to now protect against George W. Bush. Today, under Bush, we have 2.7 percent core inflation rates, historically low interest rates and 35 percent marginal tax rates
Okay, next comment:
John McCain calls the New York senator an irresponsible guardian of taxpayer dollars.
Okay, we proved that is a statement based in fact already.
Next...
"The leading Democratic candidate for president of the United States has said that the unfettered free market is the most disastrous thing in modern America," the former New York mayor said.
Ya, she said that.
See, liberals who can't control their emotions, who don't have actual arguments simply say we lie, and are right wing crazies who do whatever Bush, Limbaugh and Hannity say.
Once again, I have shown how these are facts....
Lets wait to see what emotional personal attacks are to follow...
Friday, July 06, 2007
GOP Candidates Put Hillary in the Crosshairs
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
30 comments:
Well, yes. We have to raise taxes to cover the massive deficits Republicans have racked up.
If you spend it, you have to pay for it. Funny how that works, I know.
Let's try that one again, Chet. When Doyle entered office, that structural deficit was just over $1 billion. Now, it's $3 billion.
As for the tax increase, while Doyle proposed the largest tax increase as a percentage of the economy in recent history, it was the Dimms in the Senate that pushed it to the largest percentage increase to support CubaCare.
game--
On another note, I hate it when the liberal media refers to Hillary as a New Yorker. Hillary, like me, is from the Chicago suburbs. She carpetbagged the Senate seat in NY, as Republicans have said forever, not out of a love for New York, but to fulfill her ambition for the Presidency.
Let's try that one again, Chet.
One more time, Steve. Spending is a legislative agenda, not executive; the State Assembly is 52% Republican. (There's slightly more Democrats in the Senate.)
But I was actually talking about the Federal government - you know, the one Hillary Clinton works for. But just keep pretending like Wisconsin is the entire United States. (I've been there; it's not that great, trust me.)
Considering Bush took over a recession in progress (admitted to by Clinton in the debates), it seems Bush's policy hasn't been too bad - all things considered.
BTW Chet,
Speaking of Mrs. Bill Hilariously Clinton, exactly what has she done for the economy?
And if not that disaster on pugey legs for president, who do you support at this point?
Just curious.
Let's see if you'll put it out or just remain in pit bull mode.
In addition, Chet, in case you missed it after we've said it over and over and over and over and over again, conservatives are pissed at the way money has been spent by the Bush admin and GOP members of Congress. It was a major reason why the GOP lost their majority.
Considering Bush took over a recession in progress
Well, that's nonsense. Bush inherited a surplus and turned it into a deficit. That's just a matter of record.
Speaking of Mrs. Bill Hilariously Clinton, exactly what has she done for the economy?
I guess you'll have to explain to me what power the junior Senator from New York has over the economy as a member of the minority party in Congress.
And if not that disaster on pugey legs for president, who do you support at this point?
I'm not really any kind of Hillary supporter, but it's instructive to note that even Hillary polls the pants off your top three guys - "Maverick" McCain, Flip-Flop Romney, and even Rudy, the Man who Would Be Queen.
Edwards has the policy chops and experience, and Obama's displayed an incredible power to bring people together. He's got some real leadership. I'd be a big fan of some kind of Edwards-Obama ticket.
In addition, Chet, in case you missed it after we've said it over and over and over and over and over again, conservatives are pissed at the way money has been spent by the Bush admin and GOP members of Congress.
Yet, all I hear you complaining about are "tax and spend liberals."
Can you point to one post on this blog where Game has criticized congressional Republicans for rubber-stamping Bush's huge budgets? Otherwise your protestation here is a little hollow. For all your supposed grousing, it hasn't seemed to diminish your rabid partisanship.
Where to begin...
First, this was said:
Considering Bush took over a recession in progress
Then Chet said...
Well, that's nonsense. Bush inherited a surplus and turned it into a deficit. That's just a matter of record.
OMG!!!! The first comment is about the state of the economy...a recession that begun before Bush took office (you know, EVERYONE was too big a coward to admit that had already started...Bush or Gore could have said we should be ready for a recession, but they didn't)
Chets comment then talks about something totally unrelated to the first...What else can I say about that...I guess wow.
Then Chet did what emotional liberals do...they throw personal attacks at people...
Can you point to one post on this blog where Game has criticized congressional Republicans for rubber-stamping Bush's huge budgets? Otherwise your protestation here is a little hollow. For all your supposed grousing, it hasn't seemed to diminish your rabid partisanship.
Here is is doing what liberals love to do...simply say things with no facts...just say it and then it is true...and page 66 of the liberal handbook where you say conservatives are mindless followers of everything Bush or any conservative says...
Here is what I said on May 11th of this year:
The govt is collecting the most money ever...
and spending the most money ever...
Not a good thing...
More and more people who rely on the govt to live...
This is the fault of BOTH sides...but it will NEVER change
So there ya go...Chet, your next post sould say "I'm sorry" in it...if you have the balls to admit when you are wrong...
OMG!!!! The first comment is about the state of the economy...a recession that begun before Bush took office
But that's just not true, Game. The recession was stimulated by 9/11.
I mean, everybody knows that. Every major economic marker was still overperforming until the economy tanked after 9/11.
Chets comment then talks about something totally unrelated to the first..
If you think the economy and tax policy are unrelated, then can I expect you to stop repeating conservative nonsense about low taxes being good for the economy?
This is the fault of BOTH sides...but it will NEVER change
Hoo yeah, you really got me there, Game! If that's not a resounding criticism of congressional Republicans and the Bush administration, I don't know what is!
Please. That's exactly the sort of tepid pseudo-criticism that I was talking about, Game. You just can't bring yourself to speak out against Bush except in the weakest, most circumspect terms possible.
..if you have the balls to admit when you are wrong...
That kind of sounds like one of those emotionally-uncontrolled personal attacks you claim only liberals use.
Chester,
So... It's your contention that the only reason this country was lifted from ressesion was becasue of 911?!? I can only imagine how well off we'd have been under Dem' leadership.
Seems how 911 was shoved down the throats of the bourgeois, and we all fell for it; seems how us commoners steeped in jingoism couldn't tell what was really happening, please enlighten, I can hardly await your illuminism!
And -
An "Edwards-Obama ticket"? You're kidding right? You wish to totally ignore their record and concentrate on the.., what.. exactly do you want to concentrate on? Edwards?!?
Yes, that's exactly what America needs to project at this point in history! A Ken doll, with a token (let's get real, with his record, he's a token) Muslim, just to prove we're not bigoted don't ya know!
How exactly do you forsee this country of ours 5, 10, 50, years from now?
blamin, Obama was raised Christian and remains so. If you can't even get basic facts right, how can we trust youon the bigger issues?
@ chet: Recession begane in the end of Q1-2000. It's quite obvious for anyone who was following the economy and stock market.
9/11 didn't start the recession. But it certainly made it worse and tanked our economy.
@ blamin: Your comments on 'token muslim' - simply shows unbelievable level of your ignorance!! Doesn't really surprise me!
@game: It's interesting to see your 'fault from BOTH sides' comment. I thought it was only dems who make mistakes. ;)
Chet, you have been wrong too many times in this thread to keep up...
Its amazing, you keep saying that it is the conservatives here who are blind sheep, but you stick to the liberal playbook at every turn.
Every single indicator shows what "american" said...the recession started at the start of 2000...thats a fact, but it doesn't fit in your Bush bashing template...
Then you say that I never comment on the spending of Republicans, I gave you one of many examples, and that is not good enough for you...
Don't expect anyone to take you seriously when you can't even get simple, easy concepts correct...
So... It's your contention that the only reason this country was lifted from ressesion was becasue of 911?!?
Uh... what? No, I think you need to go back and read what I wrote.
Everybody knows that the recession was stimulated - as in, caused - by 9/11. We had a roaring economy previous to that by nearly every economic metric.
You wish to totally ignore their record and concentrate on the..,
I don't want to ignore their record. The fact that they both have a liberal record is why I support them. Hillary's record is less liberal, so she's a distant third in my book.
A Ken doll,
Well, wait now. I don't think the party where the top presidential contender is currently the guy whose sole qualification is acting tough on a TV show is in any position to talk about fake masculinity. Edwards may be more handsome than every single GOP candidate - it's like you guys can't help but nominate guys that look like the Cryptkeeper - but he's also got extensive policy qualifications for the office, and experience.
How exactly do you forsee this country of ours 5, 10, 50, years from now?
With any luck - caught up to the rest of the industrial world in terms of emissions, public transportation, health care; and returned to our former place of respect and credibility in international affairs.
Every single indicator shows what "american" said...the recession started at the start of 2000...
Well, show me some of them, then.
Then you say that I never comment on the spending of Republicans, I gave you one of many examples, and that is not good enough for you...
Yes, it's not good enough. That you thought that constituted "criticism" is just more evidence of your rabid partisanship. You can't help but bash Democrats even when you think you're being "fair and balanced" on Republicans. It's hilarious.
Did recession begin in 2000?
The committee of economists that sets the dates of U.S. recessions and expansions is considering moving the starting point of the latest recession to as early as November 2000
payroll started going down in March 2001
http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~mchinn/Peak_Payroll_Employment.pdf
On November 26, 2001, the committee determined that the peak of economic activity had occurred in March of that year
So at the LATEST..the recession started in March...and if you are stupid enough to think Bush could start a recession in 3 months you should probably not respond
The committee of economists that sets the dates of U.S. recessions and expansions is considering moving the starting point of the latest recession to as early as November 2000
Wait, who? C'mon, Game. You must really think I'm some kind of moron. LOL!
Here's the point that you ignore. Do we measure the recession starting at the peak of growth (which doesn't make much sense) or do we measure it starting when the economy drops below a certain baseline level?
If the economy hits a peak and begins to back off from it, that's hardly indicative of a recession. Bush didn't "inherit" a recession. He inherited an economy that was very nearly at its peak, as your information proves.
Look, you can see it in wage growth:
http://tinyurl.com/2c4gnh
Do you see that precipitous drop, right there around... the 9th month in 2001? Or here's the Dow Jones average:
http://tinyurl.com/26reeb
You can see that the Dow had hit a stable plateu right through 2000 and 2001 - and then there's a precipitous decline right around 9/11. Here's another such graph:
http://tinyurl.com/7brgt
It shows the same thing. Here's yet another that shows an economy in a stable state falling precipitously on 9/11:
http://tinyurl.com/2x6jrk
So take a look at the data before you levy accusations of stupidity and ignorance. I found all that stuff on Google in about 5 minutes. What the hell kept you from doing so?
In addition, Chet, in case you missed it after we've said it over and over and over and over and over again, conservatives are pissed at the way money has been spent by the Bush admin and GOP members of Congress. It was a major reason why the GOP lost their majority.
--=---------------
Bull shit, don't try to bail and say you knew all along now Marshall. They lost their majority because more dems and independants turned out, mostly because of the war. Few republicans voted for anything but status quo including I would bet, you and damn near every righty on this blog. Are you going to tell me you were a part of the change?
If you have an awakening and change your mind fine. That is what I have hoped for but don't go saying you were upset all along. You guys have defended every move these guys made up until this year.
Game, your emotional attacks bumper sticker is getting old. You are the ones fear mongering and telling us if we don't do what you say we will ALL DIE! And I have seen it put in almost exactly those terms at least 100 times. Especially from Jason, who will read this and decide it is necessary to repeat it again.You know, how we don't get it and don't have a plan. More falsehoods. You guys are the ones promoting fear-the basest of emotions-on almost every level, from terrorism to what happens if Hillary wins. I know you think you are making great arguments on this stuff but you,apparently unaware to you, have been left behind as the past. You keep repeating things that have been debunked some time ago to the satisfaction of 70 or 80 some percent of America. To keep saying it will not suddenly make it right or better. Get a new game Game.
Chet, if you are new here let me let you in on a secret. There is no way you will ever find a way to help these people understand. They are the fringe radicals that will hold on to their positions with authoritarian might. You will completely debunk what they say to the satisfaction of any normal person and they will be back tomorrow repeating the same thing. Just like you had never had a conversation.
I use to come here a lot and I can tell you from experience. I quit because it was an exercise in futility and because most of the rest of the world has moved on and doing this all the time was keeping me stuck in the past. I like the people on this blog and I am sure they think they are doing the right thing and don't want to harm America. It is the authoritarian mindset that was brainwashed into them from talk radio etc that has done them harm. There is just one person that comes here that is scary bad(as in harmful,destructive). He and most people that post here know who he is. Chet, I invite you to my blog. My friends and I would love to have your comments. Just click on my name.
jay
`just 'cause you claim something, don't make it so
Chet, so was Clinton lying (again) when he claimed a looming recession that only Gore could overcome?
ron
You're analysis of the election is hillarious! I guess, whatever you have to tell yourself and all that jazz.
So - you want the Chester to join your little circle jerk? (nice fit BTW) Have at it! Just do us a little consideration and clean up after yourselves.
american
Please expound.
Laugh all you want blamin. You are laughing amongst yourselves. You are vastly in the minority and so is your viewpoint. Yes, I can be wrong but so can you my friend.
yes we clean up well>cavg
There is no way you will ever find a way to help these people understand. They are the fringe radicals that will hold on to their positions with authoritarian might.
I'm aware of that, actually.
But I find it gratifying to present competent arguments supported by evidence and watch them spin and sputter.
But thanks for your concern.
Chet, I invite you to my blog.
Invitation accepted.
Chet, so was Clinton lying (again) when he claimed a looming recession that only Gore could overcome?
Probably, but am I just supposed to take your word that he actually said that? Sorry, Blame, but you don't have a lot of credibility with me.
blamin, screw you, too. Have a pleasant day! (I'm off to Summerfest now.)
Jay,
Hmmm, no less than the ap or should I say AP!!!. Ooouuh, I'm impressed! That bastion of non-biased reporting.
You have to ask yourself considering all else Obama Hussein Barack (did you say Barack? wasn't he that guy from Space Ghost?), was willing to do for a vote, you'd think he'd change his name, so as to not confuse himself with "radicals".
Oh, and he just inherited that name from his radical father, and has yet to distence himself from that freakyretarndenes. point of view.
Yaahh, that's what we need for Prez. Mr. President Obama, kind of rolls off the lips doesn't it?
Your response? (insert lame insult here)
ron
"your vastly in the minority"
your kidding right?
And I'll have you know that lauging was the farthest from my agenda! Smirking maybe, laughing no. "vastly in the minority", what a f'ing joke!
Oh god, my side is hurting to bad, damn Ron, please don't ever stop posting!!! We (I) need your comic relief!
"Ahab did not name himself." There's not a lot that can be gleaned from a name. Barack Obama is actually named after his father, incidentally.
Oh, and he just inherited that name from his radical father, and has yet to distence himself from that freakyretarndenes. point of view.
Well, except for attending Trinity United Church of Christ for about ten years. Aside from that - oh, and repeatedly saying he's not a Muslim - yeah, I guess you're right about "distancing himself."
Seriously, blame. Keep lobbing these ridiculous softballs. Do you ever bother to look things up before you open your mouth?
Ron,
Your comments to me show that you don't really give a serious listen to conservative talk radio, where you would've heard callers, as well as the hosts, complain about plenty of Bush policies and Congressional Republicans acting less than conservative. There were constant calls from people who claimed they weren't going to vote as a result of said unconservative actions. And if you take a stroll through the archives, you'll find similar sentiments here as well as at other conservative blogs and websites. In fact, everytime one of you lefties accuse one of us of being chumps who'll support anything Bush does, we list the things over which we are not please. To pretend it doesn't happen is just plain goofy and you should be ashamed to try and leave that pile just lying there.
blamin, whom would you believe about Obama's being Christian?
If the word of the man isn't enough, if his record of attending a Christian church isn't enough, if his childhood in mostly Catholic schools isn't enough, if reports from sources like AP to CNN to NBC isn't enough, what will it take?
Does Obama himself need to come to your house and chug a mug of Holy Water with you? Does God need to write across the sky that Obama's okay? Does Jesus need to appear on your grilled cheese to say that Obama's one of his? Does the Virgin Mary need to whisper in your ear her phone number and a pass for Obama?
What? What do you want?
Let's see, he's attended the "Trinity United Church of Christ for about ten years."
Hmmmm, I wonder how the last 10 years have figured into his aspiration to higher office.
And then of course, he "says he's not Muslim".
Hmmm, A politician seeking higher office "says he's not what his name suggest he is". Well that's good enough for me, damn, I can't imagine why anybody would have the 'nads to question his "word".
BTW don't fucking make fun of my grilled cheese sam'ich.
Seriously Jay, at this point, even if he did turn his back on his Muslim roots and change his name, I doubt it'd change my mind, he is a politician running for a higher office after all, and then there is that little thing called his voting record that stands in the way.
Post a Comment