Liberal Forum

golfboy » 08 Jan 2015 1:06 pm » wrote: I have a vagina..

No, sweetie. That's just an undeveloped micropenis. You can blow kisses all day long, but only girls looking for dick come in here and don't address the OP.

Keep flirting, fairy princess. Every post you make that doesn't address the OP is another admission you're just hoping for some Canon cock.

Come on, flirty - tell daddy you want it. Don't be ashamed. You can keep saying it in code.

Say, "You lose, Daddy" - or, "game, set match" (One of your little boarding school friends ran that one on me the other day - quite the charming young lady, she was).

Poor Cannon, can't deal with reality, so he exposes his stupidity by doing ^^ this.

Cannonpointer » 08 Jan 2015 9:18 am » wrote: Here's a chart from Heritage:

I was referring to publications being carried on the net, moonbat.

Are you really this stupid or are you intentionally dissembling?

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?

He transposes his emotional problems, delusions and psychosis into the external political world.

RichClem » 08 Jan 2015 3:44 pm » wrote: He transposes his emotional problems, delusions and psychosis into the external political world.

more troll crap from our forum psychologist
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

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?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krV2p6FJyYc

GeorgeWashington » 08 Jan 2015 7:46 pm » wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krV2p6FJyYc

That was an excellent story! It reminded me of a Petunia that I know.

Cannonpointer » 08 Jan 2015 8:12 pm » wrote:That was an excellent story! It reminded me of a Petunia that I know.

Here's your petunia, 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.

You have your psychotic opinion and a few fringe leftists.

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.

RichClem » 08 Jan 2015 8:48 pm » wrote:
Here's your petunia, 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.

You have your psychotic opinion and a few fringe leftists.

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.

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.

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.

golfboy » 08 Jan 2015 2:39 pm » wrote:Daddy, I need some special daddy attention. I flirt by not addressing the OP, just like you said. I'm here to talk about you.

Yes, little sally. I knew that you would. But I'm not that kind of daddy.

Cannonpointer » 08 Jan 2015 10:20 pm » wrote:
CARTER GREW THE ECONOMY MUCH BETTER THAN REAGAN

By the looks of Carter's 2nd term election, this Reagan guy must have really sucked.........assuming America appears to have been real unhappy with Carter's 1st (and last) term.

RichClem » 18 Feb 2014 6:27 pm » wrote:
Oh, so you have no idea what the conditions were. Thanks for admitting that.

Inflation that peaked at roughly 12%.

A recession Carter's last year in office.

A Prime Rate that exceeded 20%.

Plummeting incomes his last couple years in office.

A rising Misery Index, that fell under Reagan.

Those numbers are virtually meaningless. They tell us only what the change was in two arbitrarily selected metrics. Both metrics are quite important to the economy, granted. But neither separately, nor both together, are the last word on the economy. There is strong evidence that the economist who made up the measure was a gay, but I am withholding that evidence against the day that I am on a committee that puts that man on a train to a labor camp.

Carter's actual average was 16.26 and Reagan's average was 12.9. Reagan was able to finish absorbing the pain which Carter inherited from Johnson's and Nixon's currency decisions and the Johnson/Nixon debacle in Vietnam. Carter had already eaten half the pain when Reagan came on - and Reagan had a second term or his "misery index" would be worse than Carter's - and I can easily prove that.

That Reagan worked his "magic" by tripling the debt and growing the government and employing Keynesian stimulus is ALSO an economic issue. But you will just go blind on those issues. And you keep refusing to say who hired those hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats - Reagan, or Tip O'Neil?

Cedarswamp » 08 Jan 2015 10:42 pm » wrote:


By the looks of Carter's 2nd term election, this Reagan guy must have really sucked.........assuming America appears to have been real unhappy with Carter's 1st (and last) term.

One of the very best ways to measure the quality of a presidency is to look at how big the win was before he ever took office. Virtually ALL of my retarded fiends swear by that measure. Know what I mean, friend?

Cannonpointer » 08 Jan 2015 11:05 pm » wrote:
One of the very best ways to measure the quality of a presidency is to look at how big the win was before he ever took office. Virtually ALL of my retarded fiends swear by that measure. Know what I mean, friend?

I was doing the quality of Carter.......I'll always have to explain myself to my retarded friends. Know what I mean, friend?

Should I look up 1984?

Cedarswamp » 08 Jan 2015 10:42 pm » wrote:


By the looks of Carter's 2nd term election, this Reagan guy must have really sucked.........assuming America appears to have been real unhappy with Carter's 1st (and last) term.

I just have to say more. This post flabbered my entire gast.

The 1980 election map is suddenly evidence in a debate on the records and merits of the two presidents under discussion? That is **** astounding to me. Is that you "bringing it?"

Seriously, was that a solid effort at contributing to this thread? The Ayatollahs and Mullahs in charge of Iran held the American hostages until the day Reagan took the oath. Google, "Optics" at duckduckgo.com, kid. Reagan unfroze their assets, took no revenge, snd sold them military equipment and technology in violation of the law. Google, "Quid pro quo" at bing.com, son.

Now, then. You done googling? Okay, that explains the 1980 election. Perhaps YOU will explain how that election map in any way buttresses or undrmines one side of this argument or the other?

Seriously, I am genuinely curious to know in what way you see that election map as relevant evidence in the debate at hand. I'm on here a good bit, so I'll see your reply if there is one.

Cedarswamp » 08 Jan 2015 11:08 pm » wrote:
I was doing the quality of Carter.......I'll always have to explain myself to my retarded friends. Know what I mean, friend?

Should I look up 1984?

So, Carter's POPULARITY in some way makes the numbers we're debating different? We're looking at math. We're measuring objective criteria. And you're feeding a meme.

So, just to get this clear: You're contribution to the argument is that Carter was soundly beaten by Reagan in 1980? He only got one term, ya say - and was let go by a dissatisfied public? I see. And Reagan was seen as the cure for Carter's incompetence? Uh huh.

That is some very interesting and poignant stuff. I had not considered that.

Okay, thanks. Good job. We'll factor that in, buddy.

Cannonpointer » 08 Jan 2015 11:18 pm » wrote:
I just have to say more. This post flabbered my entire gast.

The 1980 election map is suddenly evidence in a debate on the records and merits of the two presidents under discussion? That is **** astounding to me. Is that you "bringing it?"

Seriously, was that a solid effort at contributing to this thread? The Ayatollahs and Mullahs in charge of Iran held the American hostages until the day Reagan took the oath. Google, "Optics" at duckduckgo.com, kid. Reagan unfroze their assets, took no revenge, snd sold them military equipment and technology in violation of the law. Google, "Quid pro quo" at bing.com, son.

Now, then. You done googling? Okay, that explains the 1980 election. Perhaps YOU will explain how that election map in any way buttresses or undrmines one side of this argument or the other?

Seriously, I am genuinely curious to know in what way you see that election map as relevant evidence in the debate at hand. I'm on here a good bit, so I'll see your reply if there is one.

That's the peoples perception of the quality....perception is everything, Pops. I've never seen Reagan on a list of the worst Presidents.

Cedarswamp » 08 Jan 2015 11:27 pm » wrote: That's the peoples perception of the quality....perception is everything, Pops. I've never seen Reagan on a list of the worst Presidents.

Got it. So you're good at parroting memes and I'm good at busting them wide open.

We're both good at stuff - just different stuff.

Cannonpointer » 08 Jan 2015 11:28 pm » wrote:
Got it. So you're good at parroting memes and I'm good at busting them wide open.

We're both good at stuff - just different stuff.

Cedarswamp » 08 Jan 2015 11:27 pm » wrote:
That's the peoples perception of the quality....perception is everything, Pops. I've never seen Reagan on a list of the worst Presidents.

That's why these morons are working so hard to change history. Their fear, as well as establishment GOP, is that Reagan will be the measuring stick in 2016.