A series of Questions for the GOP/TEA Party supporters in this forum...

[WTF]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

It is no lie, moronic buffoon, you typed it. Just like you admitted you were a racist.

I thought in a post a few weeks ago that you don't take this forum seriously.

Let me see if I can explain it for a simpleton like yourself to understand.

I posted an finding that showed we all have bias. Your Tea 'billy ass extrapolates that out into me admitting to being a racist and you are not? That you have no bias? Forget it, this is like me trying to convince a Klan member that all men are created equal. The article ended with people who never admitting their bias never being able to improve on discontinuing said bias.

You Tea'billy's are the perfect example.

Originally Posted by gnadfly

I thought in a post a few weeks ago that you don't take this forum seriously.

Just because I do not take a hooker board seriously in forming my political views does not mean I lie constantly in it like you and others do trying to defend diametrically opposing positions such as "Cut government spending!", "Don't cut my government Medicare!"

[WTF]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

The Tea Party philosophy is common sense. Making fun of it with your crude, tastless names says more about your stupidity than anything you can say about Tea Party.

http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.o...r_medicare.php


[P]olls by the New York Times and Bloomberg have found that although a vast majority of Tea Party supporters favor smaller government, they don't want cuts in their Medicare or Social Security, a contradiction perfectly captured in a sign at a Tea Party rally: "Keep the Guvmint out of my Medicare." Indeed, the Bloomberg poll discovered that even though Tea Partiers dislike ObamaCare, they want Medicare to offer more drug benefits and the government to force insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions. The upshot is that while the rhetoric on entitlements has become bolder during this election, the discussion about reform has become tamer.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by lustylad

So what? Looks like Ronnie got it right when he cut taxes, since revenues increased by 65% during his tenure! And Bushie Boy must have been on the right side of the curve too, since revenues surged by 44% in the four years after he cut taxes. Wow, those Republicans sure know how to tickle your "sweet spot", don't they fagboy?

(P.S. Van Gogh had one ear, cyclops have two.) Grover Norquist cut your other ear off which seems to be the reason why you only understand half of the Laffer Curve.






.

Bushie boy should have raised taxes when the economy was growing to pay down the debt. Maybe the economic meltdown would not have been so bad.

That is how it works to keep from having a huge deficit. You Tea'billy's do not understand the Laffer Curve nor Keynesian economics.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WTF

Bushie boy should have raised taxes when the economy was growing to pay down the debt. Maybe the economic meltdown would not have been so bad.

That is how it works to keep from having a huge deficit. You Tea'billy's do not understand the Laffer Curve nor Keynesian economics.

Wow, you really are clueless. Over and over again, you contradict yourself without even showing any awareness of it. First you bash supply side economics. Then you say nobody but you understands the Laffer Curve. Then you dribble out a specious two-sentence Laffer Curve "factoid". Then you act blithely unaware that your factoid endorses both the Reagan and Bush tax cuts. Then you flip-flop yet again and claim Bush should have raised taxes, not cut them.

Now you pretend to understand Keynesian economics. If you did, you would know that tax cuts are expansionary and tax increases are contractionary. So you are saying Bush should have contracted the economy to avoid a recession. Yeah, that makes sense, fagboy.

I'm done arguing with you. SOTF is right, you need to stop embarrassing yourself. Your posts contain neither logic nor consistency nor coherence nor depth nor detail nor any comprehension of economic theory or reality.

.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Wow, you really are clueless. Over and over again, you contradict yourself without even showing any awareness of it. First you bash supply side economics. Then you say nobody but you understands the Laffer Curve. Then you dribble out a specious two-sentence Laffer Curve "factoid". Then you act blithely unaware that your factoid endorses both the Reagan and Bush tax cuts. You dumbfuck. You can cut taxes and it be a good thing if they are to high(Reagan) or you are trying to stimulate the economy(Bush)....and then you can raise taxes back up and it be a good thing once the economy picks up. . Then you flip-flop yet again and claim Bush should have raised taxes, not cut them.

Now you pretend to understand Keynesian economics. If you did, you would know that tax cuts are expansionary and tax increases are contractionary. So you are saying Bush should have contracted the economy to avoid a recession. You are confused with when Bush should have raised taxes. It was not early on dipshit, I said when the econmy was rolling/growing. It was not rolling early on. Hot damn you and SOTF better never swap DNA, that baby would be one lying SOB. Yeah, that makes sense, fagboy. You are confusing when he should have raised them ladyboy. Did you take a extra long slong from your asshole to your hat rack and it fuck up your pea brain?


I'm done arguing with you. SOTF is right, you need to stop embarrassing yourself. Your posts contain neither logic nor consistency nor coherence nor depth nor detail nor any comprehension of economic theory or reality.

.

Don't forget to blow JD before you leave...

[WTF]

Originally Posted by WTF

http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.o...r_medicare.php


[P]olls by the New York Times and Bloomberg have found that although a vast majority of Tea Party supporters favor smaller government, they don't want cuts in their Medicare or Social Security, a contradiction perfectly captured in a sign at a Tea Party rally: "Keep the Guvmint out of my Medicare." Indeed, the Bloomberg poll discovered that even though Tea Partiers dislike ObamaCare, they want Medicare to offer more drug benefits and the government to force insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions. The upshot is that while the rhetoric on entitlements has become bolder during this election, the discussion about reform has become tamer.

This is why I make fun of you Tea Turnips....Cut government but expand Medicare.

Could that be because the majority of the Tea Party is old white folks gearing up for retirement? They do not want that portion of the government cut even though studies have shown that we have not paid enough into Medicare for it to be sustainable.


Is that the fiscal responsibility they cry about? Does not sound to responsible to me. Where is Whirly , maybe he can explain that quandary? JD , lustlady and SOTF have fallen woefully short in the explanation department.

[Jewish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by WTF

This is why I make fun of you Tea Turnips....Cut government but expand Medicare.

Could that be because the majority of the Tea Party is old white folks gearing up for retirement? They do not want that portion of the government cut even though studies have shown that we have not paid enough into Medicare for it to be sustainable.


Is that the fiscal responsibility they cry about? Does not sound to responsible to me. Where is Whirly , maybe he can explain that quandary? JD , lustlady and SOTF have fallen woefully short in the explanation department.

Pensions and old age health care are different from your basic handouts. Pensioners have paid into the system, no doubt some not enough,but almost all governments offer some form of old age pension and healthcare. Perhaps their protests are inelegantly worded, because they are essentially talking about different areas of government, which is so all encompassing these days, protesting against it requires differentiation and discernment.

FYI: I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the Tea Party.

[boardman]

Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

FYI: I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the Tea Party.

That doesn't matter to WTF

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

Pensions and old age health care are different from your basic handouts. Pensioners have paid into the system, no doubt some not enough,but almost all governments offer some form of old age pension and healthcare. Perhaps their protests are inelegantly worded, because they are essentially talking about different areas of government, which is so all encompassing these days, protesting against it requires differentiation and discernment.

FYI: I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the Tea Party.

Kinda like some here are called liberal when they are not. So any right of center is a tea party member.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Kinda like some here are called liberal when they are not. So any right of center is a tea party member.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

Pensions and old age health care are different from your basic handouts. Pensioners have paid into the system, no doubt some not enough,but almost all governments offer some form of old age pension and healthcare. Perhaps their protests are inelegantly worded, because they are essentially talking about different areas of government, which is so all encompassing these days, protesting against it requires differentiation and discernment.

.

Tell me the difference between somebody who is getting a basic handout and somebody who is getting a subsidy....which is wtf Medicare is if you are getting out more than you put in.

Were this a true market , you'd be paying a shit load more for your Medicare cost in your earlier life or receiving a shit load fewer services in your later years.

None of which the Tea folks want to do...

Originally Posted by boardman

That doesn't matter to WTF

I care about folks actions lining up with their words.

In this regard , the Tea Party is falling woefully short.

[boardman]

Originally Posted by WTF

I care about folks actions lining up with their words.

In this regard , the Tea Party is falling woefully short.

Wait, One minute you say you don't take this seriously because it's a hooker board then the next minute you say you care about folks actions lining up with their words.

Which is it?

[lustylad]

What happened to Wellendowed, the OP? Did he bail on his own thread?

I'm still waiting for him to supply the names of all those reputable economists he said in #27 were predicting 15%-25% unemployment when Odumbo took office...

[WTF]

Originally Posted by boardman

Wait, One minute you say you don't take this seriously because it's a hooker board then the next minute you say you care about folks actions lining up with their words.

Which is it?

You were the one said you take this shit seriously....I was pointing out your hypocrisy and why I do not take this forum seriously. For me to take someone seriously their actions need to line up with their rhetoric.


I'm not going to shoot you if you are a liar or an idiot on a hooker board. I just may shoot a SOB who were to break in my house and tell me he was fucking Santa Clause....but if you told me you were Santa Clause and were going to break into my house in this forum, I wouldn't take that very serious boardman.

One of those actions better damn well line up with reality....I do not care two flips if you or SOTF or lustylady understand you are talking out both sides of your ass with this 'Cut government' in one breath and "Keep your hands off my Medicare " with the next. Pretty fucking hard to take that bullshit seriously though.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by lustylad

What happened to Wellendowed, the OP? Did he bail on his own thread?

I'm still waiting for him to supply the names of all those reputable economists he said in #27 were predicting 15%-25% unemployment when Odumbo took office...

lustylad is waiting on a Wellendowed lad.

How cute....