Liberal Forum

RichClem » 06 Jan 2015 12:46 pm » wrote:
1) you claimed Reagan raised taxes seven "times;" meaning seven different bills, seven different occasions. That's a lie.

2) "Reagan" didn't raise taxes; the blame falls on Tip O'Neil and liberal Democrats who lied to Reagan that they'd cut spending if he went along with a payroll and other tax hikes. They are to blame far, far, far more than Reagan.


They lied, and so are you.

No, jackwad, I said ELEVEN times. The seven was SEVEN OUT OF EIGHT YEARS.

Have fun with that - do babble, won't you?

I listed the eleven tax raises - laid them out, one by one. And you went blind, sissy-chatter.

RichClem » 06 Jan 2015 12:48 pm » wrote:
You're the one stupidly claiming that a collapsing economy made Carter better on economics than Reagan, psycho.

And a booming economy made Reagan worse.

What would queers like you do without the repetition strategy?

Math is against you, but you girls have memes. The think tanks pump out the slogans and the boy touchers parrot them.

I have used math. I have used legitimate, nonpartisan sources. I have named the 11 taxes Reagan raised, by name - and i have shown one of the many manipulations he used to collect more taxes, as well.

And you?

"Reagan goodie-good, double plus, Carter double plus bad."

You want a cracker, shoulder pet?

Cannonpointer » 06 Jan 2015 12:49 pm » wrote:

No, jackwad, I said ELEVEN times. The seven was SEVEN OUT OF EIGHT YEARS.

Eleven "times" means eleven bills, psycho.

And your claim is false, anyway, because the 1986 tax bill was a wash, cutting some rates and raising others. You dishonestly included only the hikes.
Tell your usual lies.

I listed the eleven tax raises - laid them out, one by one. And you went blind, sissy-chatter.

Yeah, the clear historical record and common sense are "sissy-chatter."

"Reagan" didn't raise taxes; the blame falls on Tip O'Neil and liberal Democrats who lied to Reagan that they'd cut spending if he went along with a payroll and other tax hikes. They are to blame far, far, far more than Reagan.


They lied, and so did you.

Babble away, psycho.

Cannonpointer » 06 Jan 2015 12:53 pm » wrote: What would queers like you do without the repetition strategy?

2 plus 2 equals 4, psycho. Sure, I'll repeat that.

You claim it equals 17.

I have almost all history books, mostly written by liberals, liberal Time, liberal Newsweek, every old MSM network, IBD, Forbes, WSJ, National Review, Weekly Standard, American Spectator, ad infinitum.

You have your psychotic opinion and a few fringe leftists.

Babble away some psuedo-logic about no strength in numbers as you ignore reality.

RichClem » 06 Jan 2015 2:06 pm » wrote: I have almost all history books, mostly written by liberals, liberal Time, liberal Newsweek, every old MSM network, IBD, Forbes, WSJ, National Review, Weekly Standard, American Spectator, ad infinitum.

You have your psychotic opinion and a few fringe leftists.

Babble away some psuedo-logic about no strength in numbers as you ignore reality.

Oh, I forgot. The then-liberal Flagship New Republic also devoted an entire issue to admitting they'd been wrong; that Reagan's policies were a huge success that turned the US into the manufacturing giant of the world.

Babble way, psycho.

RichClem » 06 Jan 2015 2:04 pm » wrote: And your claim is false, anyway, because the 1986 tax bill was a wash, cutting some rates and raising others. You dishonestly included only the hikes.

Sigh. Time to fact check old dot borg again. We see the sissy chatter.^^^ Let's look at myactual post:

Cannonpointer » 06 Jan 2015 12:39 pm » wrote: The above increases represent, all by themselves WITHOUT other manipulations and gouges, just over half of his cumulative tax cuts. So for every buck he cut, he took back a half a buck from a different pocket. And again, these increases don't include the fact that Reagan stalled the start of tax indexing, which was part of the 1981 tax bill, until 1985 so as to capture a lot of anticipated bracket-creep for the Treasury.

RichClem » 06 Jan 2015 2:04 pm » wrote: Yeah, the clear historical record and common sense are "sissy-chatter."

Oh, you SOURCED something? My bad.

Oh, wait - you're just running more sissy chatter. You're mad because I called your meme repetition what it is, instead of pretending, My Little Pony style, that your unsourced OPINION = "the clearly hysterical broken record." Got it.

RichClem » 06 Jan 2015 2:04 pm » wrote: "Reagan" didn't raise taxes; the blame falls on Tip O'Neil and liberal Democrats who lied to Reagan that they'd cut spending if he went along with a payroll and other tax hikes. They are to blame far, far, far more than Reagan.

I also said this, but you conveniently went blind:

Cannonpointer » 06 Jan 2015 12:39 pm » wrote: Even EXCLUDING defense department civilians, Reagan increased the size of government by 300k over Carter's government. CARTER HAD CUT fed eral employment 500K from Nixon-Ford. Bush Senior maintained Reagan's bloated federal bureaucracy. Clinton cut government back down to size, reducing by 200,000.

These inconvenient truths which you girls love to step over in your defense of bloated government aren't going to go away by themselves - and a lightweight, panty-waist like you CERTAINLY isn't going to challenge them.

Now, brag again how Reagan raised, "REVENUES," you ignorant purveyor of sissy chatter. Revenues is what the government takes OFF THE TOP from the GDP, child.

Did Tip O'Neil hire all those extra workers, you hack?

...and the circus clown goes blind...

Cannonpointer » 06 Jan 2015 12:53 pm » wrote:I have used math. I have used legitimate, nonpartisan sources.

And you've put every ounce of your psychosis to bungling it all, too.

Cannonpointer » 06 Jan 2015 2:20 pm » wrote:Oh, you SOURCED something? My bad.

Oh gosh, it's not your fault you go blind every time I cite one.

I also said this, but you conveniently went blind:

Hey look, a squirrel!

I won't even waste my time counting employees to refute your snark hunt. Spending fell by approx. 2% of GDP over Reagan's presidency, despite the steep Carter-caused rise at the beginning.


Great, great job at ignoring those posts.

Cannonpointer » 06 Jan 2015 2:20 pm » wrote: Oh, you SOURCED something? My bad.

I have almost all history books, mostly written by liberals, liberal Time, liberal Newsweek, every old MSM network, IBD, Forbes, WSJ, National Review, Weekly Standard, American Spectator, ad infinitum.

And the liberal Flagship the New Republic which devoted an entire issue to admitting they'd been wrong; that Reagan's policies were a huge success that turned the US into the manufacturing giant of the world.

Hit the library and check, psycho.

RichClem » 06 Jan 2015 2:27 pm » wrote:
I have almost all history books, mostly written by liberals, liberal Time, liberal Newsweek, every old MSM network, IBD, Forbes, WSJ, National Review, Weekly Standard, American Spectator, ad infinitum.

And the liberal Flagship the New Republic which devoted an entire issue to admitting they'd been wrong; that Reagan's policies were a huge success that turned the US into the manufacturing giant of the world.

Hit the library and check, psycho.

No doubt you keep them on a shelf.

Tell me, you fapping hack: Is the shelf any smarter, for it's proximity to the books? The wall behind the shelf - any smarter?

If your mere possession of instruments of learning should impress us all, shouldn't Obama's law degree from Yale - the very imprimatur of the learned man - put us all into a veritable swoon, instead of merely inspiring you and your kind to brandish the *** rope no matter WHICH way he goes?

Given your fit over Benghazi, I think it's fair to say that if you had any proportionality to your reactions, you klansman, Bush's 3,000 dead on 9-11 would've caused a lynching, instead of servile worship, you sycophantic, shirt stuffing back-patter.

Cannonpointer » 08 Jan 2015 6:43 am » wrote: No doubt you keep them on a shelf.

Tell me, you fapping hack: Is the shelf any smarter, for it's proximity to the books? The wall behind the shelf - any smarter?

If your mere possession of instruments of learning should impress us all, shouldn't Obama's law degree from Yale - the very imprimatur of the learned man - put us all into a veritable swoon, instead of merely inspiring you and your kind to brandish the *** rope no matter WHICH way he goes?

Given your fit over Benghazi, I think it's fair to say that if you had any proportionality to your reactions, you klansman, Bush's 3,000 dead on 9-11 would've caused a lynching, instead of servile worship, you sycophantic, shirt stuffing back-patter.

.

I again express my condolences about your psychosis.

RichClem » 08 Jan 2015 7:42 am » wrote: I again express my condolences about your psychosis.

Sure - why not?

Name calling doesn't require a link after all.

Cannonpointer » 08 Jan 2015 7:45 am » wrote: Sure - why not?

Name calling doesn't require a link after all.

The issues I cited are pre-internet, psycho.


Go hit the library so you'll finally have a clue.

RichClem » 19 Feb 2014 2:38 pm » wrote:
Looks like a strong downward trend, especially if you include 1982 which saw the worst recession since the Great Depression.
CP claimed that Carter left Reagan a strong economy.
That's very well established.

Funny thing about that chart. '76 ad '75 were both 5% LOSER years. When 2 out of 3 years before Carter took the reins are losers, and the one year that DID have growth DID NOT EVEN BRING THE ECONOMY BACK TO THE YEAR 1974 - that's okay. Those years were republican years. The stats don't count.

But Carter's last year - fiscal year 1981 which runs from Sept 80 to Sept 81, gained 2.6% after the only flat year of Carter's presidency. And yes, I will join every competent statistician in calling minus 2/10ths of one percent "flat" - just as YOU would call that year "flat" if the growth were PLUS 2/10ths of one percent, hack.

Now, cry me a river, bitch.

Cannonpointer » 08 Jan 2015 8:27 am » wrote: Funny thing about that chart. '76 ad '75 were both 5% LOSER years. When 2 out of 3 years before Carter took the reins are losers, and the one year that DID have growth DID NOT EVEN BRING THE ECONOMY BACK TO THE YEAR 1974 - that's okay. Those years were republican years. The stats don't count.

But Carter's last year - fiscal year 1981 which runs from Sept 80 to Sept 81, gained 2.6% after the only flat year of Carter's presidency. And yes, I will join every competent statistician in calling minus 2/10ths of one percent "flat" - just as YOU would call that year "flat" if the growth were PLUS 2/10ths of one percent, hack.

Now, cry me a river, bitch.

Failure and success extend into the next presidency, psycho.

I have almost all history books, mostly written by liberals, liberal Time, liberal Newsweek, every old MSM network, IBD, Forbes, WSJ, National Review, Weekly Standard, American Spectator, ad infinitum.

And the liberal Flagship the New Republic which devoted an entire issue to admitting they'd been wrong; that Reagan's policies were a huge success that turned the US into the manufacturing giant of the world.

Hit the library and check, psycho.

Babble away, you imbecile.

RichClem » 06 Jan 2015 2:25 pm » wrote: Oh gosh, it's not your fault you go blind every time I cite one.

Cannonpointer » 06 Jan 2015 2:20 pm » wrote: I also said this, but you conveniently went blind:

Did Tip O'Neil hire all those extra workers, you hack?

...and the circus clown goes blind...

So I ask AGAIN, Running Bare:

Did Tip O'Neil hire all those extra workers, you hack?

...and the circus clown goes blind...

RichClem » 06 Jan 2015 2:25 pm » wrote:Hey look, a squirrel!
I won't even waste my time counting employees to refute your snark hunt.

That's not a problem, you blind-going little rat. I ALREADY SOURCED IT AND YOU WENT BLIND!

It's okay, you little rat - I LIKE you blind, bitch - so I will source it AGAIN and make you go blind AGAIN!

Watch and learn, you flapjacking whamshammer. This is called "sourcing your claim," you **** hack:

http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversigh ... ince-1962/

Year........Exec Civilians..........Military..........Judicial and legislative..........Total Federal Employees

1977........2,840,000 ..........2,112,000......53,000...............................5,005,000 .....................Ford's last Budget
1981........2,806,000 ..........2,122,000......54,000...............................4,982,000 .....................Carter's last Budget Civ. shrank, military grew
1989........3,064,000 ..........2,168,000......60,000...............................5,292,000 .....................Reagan's last Budget As % of population, military SHRANK. Civilian employees - federal bureaucrats- grew by leaps and bounds.

But perhaps I cheat? Perhaps Carter's population dropped while Reagan's grew? There must be SOME trick, if the great Ron Reagan is continually sucking hind teat to that old flub-up Jimma Cawduh, right clemmie? It's not POSSIBLE that you're just a rube who fell for marketing - right?

Let's look at population. https://www.google.com/fusiontables/Dat ... #rows:id=1 Ford's last year was 220,239,425 people in '77. Carter's last year was 229,465,714 - a population growth of 4.189% during his presidency. Reagan ended 1989 with 246,819,230 people - a population growth of 7.57%. Reagan's military forces (see above) grew by an anemic 2.2% (Carter's only grew by half a point, but Carter was CUTTING civilians, not padding the government employment roster with bureaucrats).

While Reagan was growing the population by 7.57% and the debt by 300% and the military by 2.2%, he was growing the CIVILIAN side of government - the part that focuses on we the people - by a whopping 9.2%. The man who promised to shrink government - who told Americans that government was the problem and that he was going to get government out of their way - grew that government faster than the population it served grew. The debt grew, the federal government's control of education grew, The only thing that grew slower than the population was the military.

Enjoy that meal, you little weasel. Choose what condiments you will, I assure you that I served it up with relish, bitch.

RichClem » 06 Jan 2015 2:25 pm » wrote: Spending fell by approx. 2% of GDP over Reagan's presidency, despite the steep Carter-caused rise at the beginning.

Great, great job at ignoring those posts.

"Ignoring," you skirt lifting, high-heel wearing, back-stepping little fan-dancer? I prefer to debunk it.

BUT YOU HAVE REFUSED TO CITE A SOURCE, AND YOU REFUSE TO SAY FROM WHAT YEAR THE ALLEGED 2% DROP OCCURRED, SO I HAVE TO TREAT IT AS JUST ANOTHER UNSOURCED CLEM WHOPPER. YOU MIGHT AS WELL SAY 10%, YOU FEM-FABULOUS LITTLE FEM-FAPPER, SINCE YOU REFUSE TO BACK IT UP WITH A SOURCE OR EVEN EXPLAIN IT SO THAT I HAVE A CHANCE TO DEBUNK IT.

So go ahead and make some more unsourced false claims, you queer little weasel. I enjoy watching you expose your incompetence to back up you claims, while I keep bitch-slapping you with objectively verified and sourced reality, you delusional little trollop.

Did Tip O'Neil hire all those extra workers, you hack?

...and the circus clown goes blind...

RichClem » 08 Jan 2015 8:08 am » wrote:
The issues I cited are pre-internet, psycho.

Go hit the library so you'll finally have a clue.

Here's a chart from Heritage:



You see where they started, psych? 1962?

That was pre-internet.

I don't know HOW they do t, Andy.

Is Cannon still trying to overcome the fact that Carter was so bad, they invented the term "Misery Index" to describe the results of his economic policies?

golfboy » 08 Jan 2015 12:10 pm » wrote:Is Cannon still trying to overcome the fact that Carter was so bad, they invented the term "Misery Index" to describe the results of his economic policies?

Is the homosexual princess still visiting the thread just to flirt with me?

She MUST be looking for love in all the wrong places again, because she certainly never addresses the OP. She just talks about ME - and she does it in a stage whisper, so that I'll hear it. "Have you heard the latest rumor," she'll ask, feigning shock, "that Cannon is pointing the big gun at ME?" Meanwhile,she's the one STARTING the rumor, hoping it will build and then she and I will have something to talk about.

This must be one of the tricks she learned at her English boarding school. There are no boys there - just a bunch of rather silly young girls. It sets them back in their social skills.

Ah, well - the poor kid. It' a shame she doesn't have more confidence. If she did, she'd address the OP instead of trying to flirt.

Cannonpointer » 08 Jan 2015 1:05 pm » wrote: Is the homosexual princess still visiting the thread just to flirt with me?

She MUST be looking for love in all the wrong places again, because she certainly never addresses the OP. She just talks about ME - and she does it in a stage whisper, so that I'll hear it. "Have you heard the latest rumor," she'll ask, feigning shock, "that Cannon is pointing the big gun at ME?" Meanwhile,she's the one STARTING the rumor, hoping it will build and then she and I will have something to talk about.

This must be one of the tricks she learned at her English boarding school. There are no boys there - just a bunch of rather silly young girls. It sets them back in their social skills.

Ah, well - the poor kid. It' a shame she doesn't have more confidence. If she did, she'd address the OP instead of trying to flirt.

You lose.
Again.

*******.