Quote of the Decade

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by BigLouie

. And yet none of you will say a bad word against Bush.

But that's different! Just ask em!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by BigLouie

... under your beloved Bush the income of the US fell ....

That is because that statement is factually incorrect ...

http://www.google.com/publicdata/exp...tional+product

Through 2008 the gross national product increased.

It started falling in 2009.

Bush also announced in the summer of 2008 that the economy was slowing and announced that a crisis was looming in the financial sector before 2008.

As for Clinton, he was livid in December 2000 for Cheney suggesting on a televised interview that the economy was the first problem the new administration would have to address beginning in 2001. The unions were even pissed at Clinton/Gore for "cooking" the employment books into the fall of 2000 .... changing the reporting standards of BLS to reduce job losses on the books. The unions revised their numbers in December 2000 after the elections were over....jobless increased in the revised numbers.

As for "hating" ... I don't hate anyone. I cannot speak for others' "hate" because that requires me to speculate as to their motives for saying negative things about someone.

As far as I am concerned when some plays the "hate card" they are just playing the "race card," but renaming. It's sad that someone is so intellectually deficient that one must resort to accusing others of "hate" in a political discussion....or any discussion for that matter. It's not intimidating; it's disgusting.

The President of the United States should be race neutral, class neutral, and economic status neutral. He or she should "represent" all race and ethnic groups; the low, middle, and high classes; and the poor to the rich. The President of the United States ought not to engage in rhetoric that puts one group against the other, and to demonize one group over another.

But this President apparently was listening in Church all those years.

[Squirrel88]

Originally Posted by BigLouie

While all of you are hating on Obama let me remind you that under your beloved Bush the income of the US fell due to all his tax cuts and spending increased to the point where the federal deficit almost doubled from 5 Trillion to 9 trillion. And yet none of you will say a bad word against Bush.

Hmmmm.... 5 trillion to 9 trillion in 8 years (Bush) vs 9 trillion to 14 trillion in 2 1/2 years (Obama)... Hmmmmmmmmmmmm....

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Squirrel88

Hmmmm.... 5 trillion to 9 trillion in 8 years (Bush) vs 9 trillion to 14 trillion in 2 1/2 years (Obama)... Hmmmmmmmmmmmm....

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...cit_chart.html

The "lost point" is ...

If I net $500,000 a year and owe $10,000 on credit cards I am better off than if I net $50,000 a year and owe $10,000 on credit cards.

The GNP/deficit ratio was "better" during the two administrations of Bush than it has been the first two years of this administration. Period.

IMO the other issue is the policy on "job creation" ...

A government paid job lasts only as long as the position is budgeted, and it is taking tax dollars and re-depositing part of those tax dollars into the government bank account. A private position lasts as long as the business is productive and is taking public sector dollars and deposiitng part of those dollars into the government bank account.

Private businesses are reluctant to expand and create new positions or even fill existing vacant positions if there is uncertainty about what the "costs" will be to fill those positions, because the private businesses are theoretically designed around making a profit for the owner(s) and the onwer(s) have to budget themselves to assure that they can pay the employees AND the addiitional expenses of benefits and payroll contributions to the government ... which now includes mandatory health care requirements (which are "up in the air"), unless the business is on the "special exemption" list of the Secretary of "human" services" under the current administration.

Endless debates about "tax cuts" or "tax increases" stagnate that decision by the private sector, which should have been learned during the Reagan years, but apparently was not or was forgotten. Not to mention endless debates about mandatory health care forced on small businesses.

At a time when we need to be doing whatever we can to increase jobs through creating a stable environment for small businesses, we have a bunch of liberals cramming down their "agenda" on everyone but their friends, against the majority of the voters in this country. Thnk about it: the motivators are from Chicago, California, Massachusetts, and New York.

FYI: If you were unconscious, unborn, or still in diapers, there were endless discussions for it seemed like years about "closing loopholes" and eliminating deductions, one of which included the deduction of interest and taxes on 2nd home mortgages (which did not happen) and another on ending limited partnership real estate investment "companies" for low income multifamily apartment projects (sliding scale rent), which were eliminated and resulted in a glut of multifamily complexes going on the market in a 60-90 window at a time when real estate was already suffering from the mortgage deduction debate. Real estate values hit the floor and the S&L's holding the bags of declining collateral cratered.

Economics is physics: For every action there is a reaction.

[Squirrel88]

Originally Posted by Squirrel88

Matter of fact I think sometimes W had a hard time putting together a sentence.

W was spending like a drunken sailor

Originally Posted by BigLouie

And yet none of you will say a bad word against Bush.

Bush was almost 3 years ago, BigLouie, let go of your hate. This is now on Obama's shoulders.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Squirrel88

Bush was almost 3 years ago, BigLouie, let go of your hate.

Saying: "You are not as bad as my last girlfriend" is not a compliment.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by Squirrel88

Bush was almost 3 years ago, BigLouie, let go of your hate. This is now on Obama's shoulders.

Why change the rules now? Long ago you guys imposed your very own hate filled, 8 year standard for placing blame on a past Administration. Y'all, particularly LL, did not "let go of your hate" of Clinton for the entire time GW was in office. Yet you are now trying your best to absolve Dubya of any blame or responsibility, effective the very moment GW left office. For 8 very long years, when GW sneezed it was automatically Clinton's fault. If it was bad press, it was Bill's fault. And now it is Obama's fault. GW was sure as hell not to blame for any of the problems. Past, present or future! End of sentence!

During GW's 8 years in office we were reminded it was Clinton's fault, ad nauseum. You guys even blamed Bill for Katrina because he did not fix the dykes! It did not matter that GW did absolutely nothing during his first few years in office to fix those very same dykes. It was still Bill's fault.

I would not be at all surprised if LL still has his computer's memory filled with far right wing, RNC talking points against Clinton from his years in office.

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Hello! You guys can't have it both ways! Either the past Administration is to blame or it is not. The scorekeeper won't let you change the rules in the middle of the game!

Here it is folks, yet another hypocritical double standard being offered up by the Bush Apologist crowd! Do as I say, not as I do!!!!!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bigtex

You guys even blamed Bill for Katrina because he did not fix the dykes!

You have been spending waaaayyyy too much time in Austin.

It is spelled ... dikes.

A freudian slip of the keyboard no doubt.

Actually, the folks I blame for not fixing the DIKES and otherwise improving the mouth of the Mississippi are the folks in Louisiana that swallowed about $500 million .... "studying" the situation..... and they didn't even choke on it when they "swallowed."

So, BT, was your plan to vote for a no-nothing, professor, community organizer, who can't find his ass with both hands .. and blame his incompetence on Bush?

I repeat. In this thread you brought up Bush. Not me.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

It is spelled ... dikes.

A freudian slip of the keyboard no doubt.

Perhaps "dyke" is not recognized by the wayward Democrats affiliated with the Tea Party crowd but...........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyke

Originally Posted by LexusLover

So, BT, was your plan to vote for a no-nothing, professor, community organizer, who can't find his ass with both hands .

Shhhh, don't tell anybody..........

...........I can not confirm or deny whether Obama can "find his ass with both hands," but he did find OBL!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bigtex

... I can say with 99.99999% certainty that OBL was located, identified and killed within "the successor's" first 30 months in office. ...

Just like photos on BP are "100% real"!

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Just like photos on BP are "100% real"!

I do not buy all of my gasoline from "BP" but what I do use gets me from Point A to Point B. That's "100% real" enough for me!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bigtex

Perhaps "dyke" is not recognized by the wayward Democrats affiliated with the Tea Party crowd but...........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyke

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dyke

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dike

Personally, I like "Merriam-Webster" when available.

And if all else fails check with the "agency" tasked with the project:

http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/pao/jp...acketjuly3.pdf

When you seek "authority" from wickedpedia ....

... watch for key words like .... "may" ...

Now, if you think it would be appropriate to start our thread, just let me know.

[Wakeup]

Wikipedia? Blowpop? Paladin? Wha???

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Personally, I like "Merriam-Webster" when available.

Merriam-Webster might be your personal choice but they are not the only Webster's Online Dictionary site! How 'bout this one?

http://www.websters-online-dictionar...&sa=Search#922

Of course you might want to take a look at the Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary. They seem to be a comprehensive option for the more Advanced Learners!

http://www.oxfordadvancedlearnersdic...ictionary/dyke

If Oxford is not your cup of TEA ( I know how those of you affiliated with the National Academy of Condescending Democrats love your afternoon TEA) Shall we try Cambridge on for size?

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dict.../dyke_1?q=dyke

Is Cambridge not comprehensive enough? Then how about:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dyke

Then again, there are other choices:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dyke

http://www.wordsmyth.net/?ent=dyke

http://www.dictionary.net/dyke

http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/dyke

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/d.../american/dyke


Shall I go on? I suspect there are more where those came from! But I would not want to bore you!

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Now, if you think it would be appropriate to start our thread, just let me know.

Yeah right! I am supposed to seek LL's counsel about when it "would be appropriate to start our thread".

You need to look elsewhere, I have never been in the habit of getting cozy with one of the guys!

And now for a little unsolicited counsel from yours truly:

Don't hold your breath while waiting for me to make contact. The wait might be long. Very, very long!!!!!

[TheDaliLama]

Originally Posted by Wakeuр

Wikipedia? Blowpop? Paladin? Wha???

Didn't those get married and move to Wikipedia?

I think that's in Wisconsin.