Mitt Romney feels sorry for DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz for having to defend Obama

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2012 10:04 PM GMT
    As harsh as the comments are, I suspect he's right. History will not be kind tot he Obama presidency and probably considerably less kind than it was to the Carter Administration.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/203559-romney-says-he-feels-sorry-for-wasserman-schultz-for-defending-obama

    Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said Wednesday morning that he feels “sorry” for Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz for having to defend President Obama’s economic record.

    “She’s got to stand up for the president’s record, and it’s pretty bad,” Romney said Wednesday morning on CNN. “You’ve got almost 2 million people that have lost their jobs under this president. You have median income that’s dropped by 10 percent over the last four years. You’ve got 24 million people out of work or [who] have stopped looking for work.

    “This is a failed presidency. People know that.”
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2012 10:05 PM GMT
    haters_gonna_hate_obama-14261.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2012 10:07 PM GMT
    LMAO..
    talk about dense.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2012 10:08 PM GMT
    TropicalMark saidLMAO..
    talk about dense.


    Lol yeah you run with that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2012 10:15 PM GMT
    I think we've found the winning ticket!

    romney_exxon_flag.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2012 10:24 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark saidLMAO..
    talk about dense.


    Lol yeah you run with that.
    I will........... and banks were bailed out when?

    The NBER usually waits several months before designating a recession. So if a recession were to begin in January 2008, the NBER might not announce it until the summer or fall.... The NBER officially announced the recession in DEC 2008 that begun officially in 2007)
    The most precise measure of change—the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) index comparing sales prices of the same houses over time—declined by 0.4 percent in the third quarter of 2007, the first quarterly decline in 13 years. Yet prices were still 1.8 percent higher than they were a year ago.
    Others, such as American Enterprise Institute resident fellow Desmond Lachman, a former strategist at Smith Barney, believe that the Fed did not go far enough. Lachman sees a much larger financial crisis in the making and reckons that the ongoing housing bust runs a risk of aggravating that turmoil. Like Harvard professor Martin Feldstein, he says the Fed needs to be more aggressive in responding to the credit crunch if a serious economic slump is to be averted.

    We clearly have had a major house price and credit market bubble between 2000 and 2006 that is now in the process of deflating at a time that oil prices are at $90 a barrel,” Lachman explains. “House prices have already started to decline and could very well decline by 5-10 percent a year over the next few years, which will erode the underlying collateral of bank mortgage lending.”

    Wanna know when this was written? Yep 2007 and WHO was in the drivers seat.. OMG, it was GEORGE BUSH! Imagine that!

    http://www.american.com/archive/2007/december-12-07/the-great-recession-of-2008
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2012 10:27 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark saidLMAO..
    talk about dense.


    Lol yeah you run with that.
    I will........... and banks were bailed out when?

    The NBER usually waits several months before designating a recession. So if a recession were to begin in January 2008, the NBER might not announce it until the summer or fall.... The NBER officially announced the recession in DEC 2008 that begun officially in 2007)
    The most precise measure of change—the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) index comparing sales prices of the same houses over time—declined by 0.4 percent in the third quarter of 2007, the first quarterly decline in 13 years. Yet prices were still 1.8 percent higher than they were a year ago.
    Others, such as American Enterprise Institute resident fellow Desmond Lachman, a former strategist at Smith Barney, believe that the Fed did not go far enough. Lachman sees a much larger financial crisis in the making and reckons that the ongoing housing bust runs a risk of aggravating that turmoil. Like Harvard professor Martin Feldstein, he says the Fed needs to be more aggressive in responding to the credit crunch if a serious economic slump is to be averted.

    We clearly have had a major house price and credit market bubble between 2000 and 2006 that is now in the process of deflating at a time that oil prices are at $90 a barrel,” Lachman explains. “House prices have already started to decline and could very well decline by 5-10 percent a year over the next few years, which will erode the underlying collateral of bank mortgage lending.”

    Wanna know when this was written? Yep 2007 and WHO was in the drivers seat.. OMG, it was GEORGE BUSH! Imagine that!

    http://www.american.com/archive/2007/december-12-07/the-great-recession-of-2008


    And 4 years later...? What you never seem to recognize is the double standard used for the Bush Administration given that he entered office at the height of the market and just as the tech bubble burst. The problem with this line is that things are worse today - and this is at least in part because of the Obama Administration's policies. I am certain you will be hearing more about this attack on Democrats in the coming months... and the Democrats are very much vulnerable.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2012 10:43 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark saidLMAO..
    talk about dense.


    Lol yeah you run with that.
    I will........... and banks were bailed out when?

    The NBER usually waits several months before designating a recession. So if a recession were to begin in January 2008, the NBER might not announce it until the summer or fall.... The NBER officially announced the recession in DEC 2008 that begun officially in 2007)
    The most precise measure of change—the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) index comparing sales prices of the same houses over time—declined by 0.4 percent in the third quarter of 2007, the first quarterly decline in 13 years. Yet prices were still 1.8 percent higher than they were a year ago.
    Others, such as American Enterprise Institute resident fellow Desmond Lachman, a former strategist at Smith Barney, believe that the Fed did not go far enough. Lachman sees a much larger financial crisis in the making and reckons that the ongoing housing bust runs a risk of aggravating that turmoil. Like Harvard professor Martin Feldstein, he says the Fed needs to be more aggressive in responding to the credit crunch if a serious economic slump is to be averted.

    We clearly have had a major house price and credit market bubble between 2000 and 2006 that is now in the process of deflating at a time that oil prices are at $90 a barrel,” Lachman explains. “House prices have already started to decline and could very well decline by 5-10 percent a year over the next few years, which will erode the underlying collateral of bank mortgage lending.”

    Wanna know when this was written? Yep 2007 and WHO was in the drivers seat.. OMG, it was GEORGE BUSH! Imagine that!

    http://www.american.com/archive/2007/december-12-07/the-great-recession-of-2008


    And 4 years later...? What you never seem to recognize is the double standard used for the Bush Administration given that he entered office at the height of the market and just as the tech bubble burst. The problem with this line is that things are worse today - and this is at least in part because of the Obama Administration's policies. I am certain you will be hearing more about this attack on Democrats in the coming months... and the Democrats are very much vulnerable.
    OMG you FINALLY uttered a truthful statement.. I'm gonna faint now.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2012 10:54 PM GMT
    How is this a revelation to you? Have you not bothered to read what my views are on this? The Republicans have also played a large role - going back to the Bush and Clinton Administrations and even beyond in terms of the housing bubble (e.g. interest deductibility on mortgages). Bush did little to contain domestic spending in order to advance his foreign agenda. In the meantime however Obama has considerably outspent Bush.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2012 11:24 PM GMT
    riddler78 saidHow is this a revelation to you? Have you not bothered to read what my views are on this? The Republicans have also played a large role - going back to the Bush and Clinton Administrations and even beyond in terms of the housing bubble (e.g. interest deductibility on mortgages). Bush did little to contain domestic spending in order to advance his foreign agenda. In the meantime however Obama has considerably outspent Bush.


    Yes, Obama has outspent Bush because it is very expensive to prop up an imploding economy, wind down two wars, and deal with the range of disastrous policies that Bush left in his wake.

    You apparently don't remember how the right-wing blamed Clinton for everything, including 9/11 that happened on Bush' watch. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2012 12:24 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 saidHow is this a revelation to you? Have you not bothered to read what my views are on this? The Republicans have also played a large role - going back to the Bush and Clinton Administrations and even beyond in terms of the housing bubble (e.g. interest deductibility on mortgages). Bush did little to contain domestic spending in order to advance his foreign agenda. In the meantime however Obama has considerably outspent Bush.


    Yes, Obama has outspent Bush because it is very expensive to prop up an imploding economy, wind down two wars, and deal with the range of disastrous policies that Bush left in his wake.

    You apparently don't remember how the right-wing blamed Clinton for everything, including 9/11 that happened on Bush' watch. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Oh I do. I've consistently noted that the Republicans are unreliable when it comes to containing spending and government reach.

    As for the rest of your supposed explanation for the radically increased spending including the bailouts? Bullshit. The data doesn't even come close to making that case and projected deficits and actual deficits have ballooned under Obama. And that's partially your problem you seem to think that government spending in some way can shape/bolster an economy that's changing. Too bad there's this little thing called reality - oh and that little thing called the Eurozone.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2012 12:25 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 saidHow is this a revelation to you? Have you not bothered to read what my views are on this? The Republicans have also played a large role - going back to the Bush and Clinton Administrations and even beyond in terms of the housing bubble (e.g. interest deductibility on mortgages). Bush did little to contain domestic spending in order to advance his foreign agenda. In the meantime however Obama has considerably outspent Bush.


    Yes, Obama has outspent Bush because it is very expensive to prop up an imploding economy, wind down two wars, and deal with the range of disastrous policies that Bush left in his wake.

    You apparently don't remember how the right-wing blamed Clinton for everything, including 9/11 that happened on Bush' watch. icon_rolleyes.gif

    Save it. You're getting to be just like that guy who constantly defends the Iranian government.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2012 1:05 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 saidHow is this a revelation to you? Have you not bothered to read what my views are on this? The Republicans have also played a large role - going back to the Bush and Clinton Administrations and even beyond in terms of the housing bubble (e.g. interest deductibility on mortgages). Bush did little to contain domestic spending in order to advance his foreign agenda. In the meantime however Obama has considerably outspent Bush.


    Yes, Obama has outspent Bush because it is very expensive to prop up an imploding economy, wind down two wars, and deal with the range of disastrous policies that Bush left in his wake.

    You apparently don't remember how the right-wing blamed Clinton for everything, including 9/11 that happened on Bush' watch. icon_rolleyes.gif

    Save it. You're getting to be just like that guy who constantly defends the Iranian government.


    Socal, why so shrill? Is it because you're stuck with Mitt Romney and know that all the money in the world won't get him elected? icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2012 1:07 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 saidHow is this a revelation to you? Have you not bothered to read what my views are on this? The Republicans have also played a large role - going back to the Bush and Clinton Administrations and even beyond in terms of the housing bubble (e.g. interest deductibility on mortgages). Bush did little to contain domestic spending in order to advance his foreign agenda. In the meantime however Obama has considerably outspent Bush.


    Yes, Obama has outspent Bush because it is very expensive to prop up an imploding economy, wind down two wars, and deal with the range of disastrous policies that Bush left in his wake.

    You apparently don't remember how the right-wing blamed Clinton for everything, including 9/11 that happened on Bush' watch. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Oh I do. I've consistently noted that the Republicans are unreliable when it comes to containing spending and government reach.

    As for the rest of your supposed explanation for the radically increased spending including the bailouts? Bullshit. The data doesn't even come close to making that case and projected deficits and actual deficits have ballooned under Obama. And that's partially your problem you seem to think that government spending in some way can shape/bolster an economy that's changing. Too bad there's this little thing called reality - oh and that little thing called the Eurozone.


    There are three primary drivers of the deficit: The Wars, Medicare Part D, and the lowered tax revenue caused by the Bush recession. Obama has already dealt with one of them, and partially dealt with the other two.

    We will continue to have deficits until taxes are increased on the wealthy and corporations. It's really that simple.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2012 1:09 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 saidHow is this a revelation to you? Have you not bothered to read what my views are on this? The Republicans have also played a large role - going back to the Bush and Clinton Administrations and even beyond in terms of the housing bubble (e.g. interest deductibility on mortgages). Bush did little to contain domestic spending in order to advance his foreign agenda. In the meantime however Obama has considerably outspent Bush.


    Yes, Obama has outspent Bush because it is very expensive to prop up an imploding economy, wind down two wars, and deal with the range of disastrous policies that Bush left in his wake.

    You apparently don't remember how the right-wing blamed Clinton for everything, including 9/11 that happened on Bush' watch. icon_rolleyes.gif

    Save it. You're getting to be just like that guy who constantly defends the Iranian government.

    Socal, why so shrill? Is it because you're stuck with Mitt Romney and know that all the money in the world won't get him elected? icon_lol.gif

    Not shrill at all, but I do believe he will be elected. You continue to make ridiculous statements. I wouldn't want to jinx things, but if Obama is defeated, I will propose an nation-wide get together of those of us motivated to rejoice.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2012 1:11 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 saidHow is this a revelation to you? Have you not bothered to read what my views are on this? The Republicans have also played a large role - going back to the Bush and Clinton Administrations and even beyond in terms of the housing bubble (e.g. interest deductibility on mortgages). Bush did little to contain domestic spending in order to advance his foreign agenda. In the meantime however Obama has considerably outspent Bush.


    Yes, Obama has outspent Bush because it is very expensive to prop up an imploding economy, wind down two wars, and deal with the range of disastrous policies that Bush left in his wake.

    You apparently don't remember how the right-wing blamed Clinton for everything, including 9/11 that happened on Bush' watch. icon_rolleyes.gif

    Save it. You're getting to be just like that guy who constantly defends the Iranian government.

    Socal, why so shrill? Is it because you're stuck with Mitt Romney and know that all the money in the world won't get him elected? icon_lol.gif

    Not shrill at all, but I do believe he will be elected. You continue to make ridiculous statements. I wouldn't want to jinx things, but if Obama is defeated, I will propose an nation-wide get together of those of us motivated to rejoice.


    Oh, John... You've been getting increasingly shrill and ill-tempered since it became apparent that Romney will be the nominee. It's been pretty funny to watch. I"m sure once Obama's reelected, you and the conservaposse will head down to Galt's Gulch in protest. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2012 1:16 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 saidHow is this a revelation to you? Have you not bothered to read what my views are on this? The Republicans have also played a large role - going back to the Bush and Clinton Administrations and even beyond in terms of the housing bubble (e.g. interest deductibility on mortgages). Bush did little to contain domestic spending in order to advance his foreign agenda. In the meantime however Obama has considerably outspent Bush.


    Yes, Obama has outspent Bush because it is very expensive to prop up an imploding economy, wind down two wars, and deal with the range of disastrous policies that Bush left in his wake.

    You apparently don't remember how the right-wing blamed Clinton for everything, including 9/11 that happened on Bush' watch. icon_rolleyes.gif

    Save it. You're getting to be just like that guy who constantly defends the Iranian government.

    Socal, why so shrill? Is it because you're stuck with Mitt Romney and know that all the money in the world won't get him elected? icon_lol.gif

    Not shrill at all, but I do believe he will be elected. You continue to make ridiculous statements. I wouldn't want to jinx things, but if Obama is defeated, I will propose an nation-wide get together of those of us motivated to rejoice.


    Oh, John... You've been getting increasingly shrill and ill-tempered since it became apparent that Romney will be the nominee. It's been pretty funny to watch. I"m sure once Obama's reelected, you and the conservaposse will head down to Galt's Gulch in protest. icon_lol.gif

    Hehe - sorry to burst your bubble, but Romney has been my favorite, but I would have supported others. If I were so upset about Romney would I have taken the trouble of describing private equity providing reference info to those who are interested in the facts, which doesn't include everyone here. As riddler's article pointed out, Romney is gathering support among conservatives, and the attacks from Gingrich have helped. He will appeal to the moderates as well, and I am excited about the election. Sending a check to the RNC tomorrow as a further reflection of my enthusiasm.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2012 2:10 AM GMT
    Christian73 saidThere are three primary drivers of the deficit: The Wars, Medicare Part D, and the lowered tax revenue caused by the Bush recession. Obama has already dealt with one of them, and partially dealt with the other two.

    We will continue to have deficits until taxes are increased on the wealthy and corporations. It's really that simple.


    Yeah - and the US government spends money efficiently everywhere else? To quote a movie - go sell your crazy somewhere else. It's a canard that military spending has grown considerably especially if you compare it to the cold war era.

    First there's this:
    defense-spending-and-gdp.gif

    The rise in deficits has to do with simply overspending and in programs that have been added over time including benefits for entitlements. The healthcare reform act will also substantially add to deficits. Obama has simply made a bad situation far far worse and you can spin the numbers however you like but the reality is that there will need to be significant cuts.

    Then there's this:
    spending_and_revenue.png

    And finally, to your last point on taxation - the rich have been paying more and more of the overall federal budget - and your solution is to have them pay even more? Yeah the solution is always to spend other people's money. icon_rolleyes.gif It's amazing you don't get embarrassed plugging the party line.

    taxes_by_income_group.png
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2012 2:41 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 saidHow is this a revelation to you? Have you not bothered to read what my views are on this? The Republicans have also played a large role - going back to the Bush and Clinton Administrations and even beyond in terms of the housing bubble (e.g. interest deductibility on mortgages). Bush did little to contain domestic spending in order to advance his foreign agenda. In the meantime however Obama has considerably outspent Bush.


    Yes, Obama has outspent Bush because it is very expensive to prop up an imploding economy, wind down two wars, and deal with the range of disastrous policies that Bush left in his wake.

    You apparently don't remember how the right-wing blamed Clinton for everything, including 9/11 that happened on Bush' watch. icon_rolleyes.gif

    Save it. You're getting to be just like that guy who constantly defends the Iranian government.

    Socal, why so shrill? Is it because you're stuck with Mitt Romney and know that all the money in the world won't get him elected? icon_lol.gif

    Not shrill at all, but I do believe he will be elected. You continue to make ridiculous statements. I wouldn't want to jinx things, but if Obama is defeated, I will propose an nation-wide get together of those of us motivated to rejoice.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lets all take notice of the desparate lengths to which these fanatically partison repub shills like SoCal will go to find some way for everything wrong in the US to be layed at the feet of the Dems. According to SoCal Obama alone added all this debt, since he took office and there is no correlation between Bush debt and the ever increasing debts now.

    Lets help him out !! LETS ADMIT TO THE DEMS BEING TOTALLY TO BLAME for any and all problems, The 911 event, the Wars of choice, the Bank and Wall street failures, those tax cuts for the wealthy and everything else. Following are some proposed explainations of why its all the dems fault, this should help SoCal so he doesn't have to labor so hard at the dem blame game.

    1. 911 happened because Clintons economic boom created such a high volume of joyous freedoms that the Islamists became very jealous, as a result they started "hating our freedoms" and planning the Airplane attacks under Clintons watch but couldn't get their attack plan completed until Bush was in Office. SoCal will this explaination suffice ?

    2. The wars with Iraq and afghanistan and all their attached expenses, were the Dems Idea because they set up these plans as Neo Cons in their War group "the Project for the New American Century"(PNAC) , then the Dems from this group infiltrated the Bush administration to the tune of 41 of their 54 member administration. These Dems were so sure of themselves that they were convinced that the war would only last several weeks because the Iraqi's would come out in droves carrying roses to greet our troops. Who would have ever thought that the Dems could have miscalculated and missed the length of the war by some 7 years or so.

    3. The Dems are totally at fault for dragging the Repubs into deregulating everything they could, kicking and screaming all the way to the congressional voting desks. Then the Dems added insult to injury and got all buddy buddy with what regulators were left to the point that the regulators didn't want to hurt their buddies feelings by regulating any of their friends. Kind of a Regulator good ole boy system.

    4. Dems have been working on cutting taxes for the most wealthy, because they know that the wealthy know better than the poor and middle classes how to handle their money, so Dems believe its best to give wealth to the already wealthy..

    Well SoCal, how are you with these admissions of Dem fault for our economic problems, Did I leave anything out ? This would help Debbie Schultz explain that all Obama's problems came about from his party's previous presidential policies.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2012 3:03 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidThere are three primary drivers of the deficit: The Wars, Medicare Part D, and the lowered tax revenue caused by the Bush recession. Obama has already dealt with one of them, and partially dealt with the other two.

    We will continue to have deficits until taxes are increased on the wealthy and corporations. It's really that simple.


    Yeah - and the US government spends money efficiently everywhere else? To quote a movie - go sell your crazy somewhere else. It's a canard that military spending has grown considerably especially if you compare it to the cold war era.

    First there's this:
    defense-spending-and-gdp.gif

    The rise in deficits has to do with simply overspending and in programs that have been added over time including benefits for entitlements. The healthcare reform act will also substantially add to deficits. Obama has simply made a bad situation far far worse and you can spin the numbers however you like but the reality is that there will need to be significant cuts.

    Then there's this:
    spending_and_revenue.png

    And finally, to your last point on taxation - the rich have been paying more and more of the overall federal budget - and your solution is to have them pay even more? Yeah the solution is always to spend other people's money. icon_rolleyes.gif It's amazing you don't get embarrassed plugging the party line.

    taxes_by_income_group.png


    A bunch of charts from hack conservative websites are not going to convince me of anything... icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2012 3:04 AM GMT
    socalfitness said Sending a check to the RNC tomorrow as a further reflection of my enthusiasm.
    Dare ya to make sure they know a fag sent it!icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2012 3:04 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidThere are three primary drivers of the deficit: The Wars, Medicare Part D, and the lowered tax revenue caused by the Bush recession. Obama has already dealt with one of them, and partially dealt with the other two.

    We will continue to have deficits until taxes are increased on the wealthy and corporations. It's really that simple.


    Yeah - and the US government spends money efficiently everywhere else? To quote a movie - go sell your crazy somewhere else. It's a canard that military spending has grown considerably especially if you compare it to the cold war era.

    First there's this:
    defense-spending-and-gdp.gif

    The rise in deficits has to do with simply overspending and in programs that have been added over time including benefits for entitlements. The healthcare reform act will also substantially add to deficits. Obama has simply made a bad situation far far worse and you can spin the numbers however you like but the reality is that there will need to be significant cuts.

    Then there's this:
    spending_and_revenue.png

    And finally, to your last point on taxation - the rich have been paying more and more of the overall federal budget - and your solution is to have them pay even more? Yeah the solution is always to spend other people's money. icon_rolleyes.gif It's amazing you don't get embarrassed plugging the party line.

    taxes_by_income_group.png


    A bunch of charts from hack conservative websites are not going to convince me of anything... icon_rolleyes.gif


    Yeah because facts don't matter to you - especially since they source directly from either the CBO, IRS or the White House. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2012 4:41 AM GMT
    riddler78 said


    Yeah because facts don't matter to you - especially since they source directly from either the CBO, IRS or the White House. icon_rolleyes.gif


    No. It's because they've proven themselves to not be trustworthy sources.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2012 7:10 AM GMT
    jpBITCHva said
    riddler78 saidAs harsh as the comments are, I suspect he's right. History will not be kind tot he Obama presidency and probably considerably less kind than it was to the Carter Administration./blockquote>

    You are, as ever, an idiot.
    Once the fog of right-wing Obama Derangement Syndrome passes, and it will, Obama's first term will be recognized for its many great achievements.

    There is no Republican administration in my lifetime that has ever achieved anything of lasting greatness. None.


    Thanks for your ever useful contributions you decrepit fool icon_rolleyes.gif You're probably one of the handful of people who think that the Carter Administration wasn't a failure.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2012 7:10 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said


    Yeah because facts don't matter to you - especially since they source directly from either the CBO, IRS or the White House. icon_rolleyes.gif


    No. It's because they've proven themselves to not be trustworthy sources.


    And yet they so easily debunk you with sources that can easily be referenced.