Liberal Forum

Huey » 09 Jan 2015 4:27 am » wrote:
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.

That sounds mighty scurrilous, Suzie. That is just awful.

We're trying to sully an excellent record and pass off a worthless hack as a much better president than he was, ya say, Nancy Panties?

AND ALL YOU ARE COMPETENT TO DO IS WHINE ABOUT IT, YOU LITTLE BITCH - JUST LIKE YOUR SISTERS GOOEY AND CLEMJOB?

I would think ONE of you effeminate fappers would have the google fu of an adolescent and the analytical and presentation abilities of an adult. The numbers are are the numbers, little girl. I have countless posts exposing the numbers, making my case from carefully studied and presented evidence. But a lie is hard to argue, no matter how clever one is. The facts are the facts.

Who is it that might be lying? The man who lists source after source, presents graph after graph and chart after chart? Or the crybaby bitch who has 15 posts in the other thread on this subject, and not ONE source, not ONE link, not ONE argument other than a name call?

And here you come again, Nancy Panties, lisping in here with your effeminate pretense of posting, STEADFASTLY avoiding the TOPIC, and making your projection of my supposed motives the topic. You're not a poster at all. You're a coward and a bring nothing hack. In thread after thread you duck the OP and post rumors, gossip, and other chuck stuff, ya pansy.

I've busted you out all over this board - and I am exposing you for what you are in all of these reagan threads, sonny, along with your butt buddy, goofy. How sad for you two *** that clem has brought more to these threads than the two of you put together - and clem is a notoriously weak sister, sister.

Now, post sometyhng else about ME instead of taking on the subject, and prove that you're an eager cocksucker with the same craving for my dick that your mother displays when I visit the local whorehouse, boy.

No offense.

Cannonpointer » 08 Jan 2015 11:02 pm » wrote: Those numbers are virtually meaningless.

Once again raising the questions:

1) is CP lying?

2) Is CP psychotic?

3) Is CP both?

4) Is CP a complete an utter waste of time?

Cannonpointer » 08 Jan 2015 11:02 pm » wrote: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.

Given that Obama spent almost double what was spent under Reagan, where's the huge Obama Boom, psycho?

Go ahead, 1) go blind or B) babble mindlessly.

Cannonpointer » 09 Jan 2015 5:44 am » wrote: That sounds mighty scurrilous, Suzie. That is just awful.

We're trying to sully an excellent record and pass off a worthless hack as a much better president than he was, ya say, Nancy Panties?

AND ALL YOU ARE COMPETENT TO DO IS WHINE ABOUT IT, YOU LITTLE BITCH - JUST LIKE YOUR SISTERS GOOEY AND CLEMJOB?

I would think ONE of you effeminate fappers would have the google fu of an adolescent and the analytical and presentation abilities of an adult. The numbers are are the numbers, little girl. I have countless posts exposing the numbers, making my case from carefully studied and presented evidence. But a lie is hard to argue, no matter how clever one is. The facts are the facts.

Who is it that might be lying? The man who lists source after source, presents graph after graph and chart after chart? Or the crybaby bitch who has 15 posts in the other thread on this subject, and not ONE source, not ONE link, not ONE argument other than a name call?

And here you come again, Nancy Panties, lisping in here with your effeminate pretense of posting, STEADFASTLY avoiding the TOPIC, and making your projection of my supposed motives the topic. You're not a poster at all. You're a coward and a bring nothing hack. In thread after thread you duck the OP and post rumors, gossip, and other chuck stuff, ya pansy.

I've busted you out all over this board - and I am exposing you for what you are in all of these reagan threads, sonny, along with your butt buddy, goofy. How sad for you two *** that clem has brought more to these threads than the two of you put together - and clem is a notoriously weak sister, sister.

Now, post sometyhng else about ME instead of taking on the subject, and prove that you're an eager cocksucker with the same craving for my dick that your mother displays when I visit the local whorehouse, boy.

No offense.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Cannonpointer » 09 Jan 2015 5:44 am » wrote:
That sounds mighty scurrilous, Suzie. That is just awful.

We're trying to sully an excellent record and pass off a worthless hack as a much better president than he was, ya say, Nancy Panties?

AND ALL YOU ARE COMPETENT TO DO IS WHINE ABOUT IT, YOU LITTLE BITCH - JUST LIKE YOUR SISTERS GOOEY AND CLEMJOB?

I would think ONE of you effeminate fappers would have the google fu of an adolescent and the analytical and presentation abilities of an adult. The numbers are are the numbers, little girl. I have countless posts exposing the numbers, making my case from carefully studied and presented evidence. But a lie is hard to argue, no matter how clever one is. The facts are the facts.

Who is it that might be lying? The man who lists source after source, presents graph after graph and chart after chart? Or the crybaby bitch who has 15 posts in the other thread on this subject, and not ONE source, not ONE link, not ONE argument other than a name call?

And here you come again, Nancy Panties, lisping in here with your effeminate pretense of posting, STEADFASTLY avoiding the TOPIC, and making your projection of my supposed motives the topic. You're not a poster at all. You're a coward and a bring nothing hack. In thread after thread you duck the OP and post rumors, gossip, and other chuck stuff, ya pansy.

I've busted you out all over this board - and I am exposing you for what you are in all of these reagan threads, sonny, along with your butt buddy, goofy. How sad for you two *** that clem has brought more to these threads than the two of you put together - and clem is a notoriously weak sister, sister.

Now, post sometyhng else about ME instead of taking on the subject, and prove that you're an eager cocksucker with the same craving for my dick that your mother displays when I visit the local whorehouse, boy.

No offense.

Poor little Stupid ****. Now the idiot is whining that I am posting about him and not the subject.

What a little bitch hypocrite. You make me laugh.

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.

You sound like a highly educated fellow, clemmie. I find it odd that you've been literally UNABLE to absorb the fact that Carter created 25%more jobs per years than reagan - and that clinton outshone reagan by even more than that. Pointing that out to you, time after time, with the proof and a link to the nonpartisan source of that proof, and then watching you brag up Reagan's third place record out of four administrations (besting only his own VP, who had the excuse of following Reagan) and marvel that we don't cheer for the old crook with the boot-black in his hair.

Remarkable. All that reading material, and you cannot respond appropriately to evidence which confronts your prejudices. That's pathetic.

Tell ya what, clem. Prove me wrong. Here is an argument against Reagan's reputation as one who shrinks the bureaucracy. Will you join me in declaring the reputation unearned? Or will you salvage that reputation by shooting holes in my argument, reinterpreting my evidence or debunking it authoritatively?

OR WILL YOU CALL ME A MOONBAT AND REHEARSE YOUR OVER-HYPED BONA FIDES FOR A 20TH TIME?

Smart money's on option 3. Here we go:

TOTAL NUMBER OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, BY ADMINISTRATION

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
1989........3,064,000..........2,168,000......60,000...............................5,292,000.....................Reagan's last Budget

Carter's civilian bureaucracy shrank and his military grew

As a % of population, Reagan's military SHRANK. Civilian employees - federal bureaucrats- grew by leaps and bounds.

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 economy grew, the federal government's control of education grew, the federal labor force grew. The only thing that grew slower than the population was the military.

There it is, Clem. There is a meme that Reagan shrank government. MY PURPOSE is to destroy Reagan's rep. If you're here to save it, there are numbers, there are sources, there are arguments. Can you respond appropriately to each, and either make a cogent argument against my claims, or grant that they seem correct, as a MAN would do?

I will fall over if you manage ANY of those masculine outcomes. My read of you is that you are entirely effeminate and without masculine judgment - a thread fapper like your compadres. Prove me wrong, son.

RichClem » 09 Jan 2015 6:04 am » wrote:
Given that Obama spent almost double what was spent under Reagan, where's the huge Obama Boom, psycho?

Go ahead, 1) go blind or B) babble mindlessly.

What does a mincing fairy bring to a Carter vs Reagan fight?

*** rope.

Cannonpointer » 09 Jan 2015 6:17 am » wrote: You sound like a highly educated fellow, clemmie. I find it odd that you've been literally UNABLE to absorb....

.

No, I cannot comprehend your psychotic bungling of reality.

Cannonpointer » 09 Jan 2015 6:22 am » wrote: What does a mincing fairy bring to a Carter vs Reagan fight?

*** rope.

.

Oh wow, that's clever.

Here, try again, keeping in mind that Obama's mother was white.

Where's the huge Obama Boom?

Huey » 09 Jan 2015 6:10 am » wrote:
...Stupid ****. ...idiot... You...

Thanks, thread fapper. I already understood you to be a cocksucker, but I wanted you to verify your actual eagerness. You're such a complex, hard to read penis jockey - yet single-mindedly attracted to my cock.

Okay, I know you prefer code, so here are your instructions. If you wish to indicate that you want dick in your *** first and then your mouth, post about me rather than about the thread topic.

Ready, set, GO peter-rpuffer!

RichClem » 09 Jan 2015 6:25 am » wrote:
.

Oh wow, that's clever.

Here, try again, keeping in mind that Obama's mother was white.

Where's the huge Obama Boom?

ANYTHING BUT THE TOPIC, EH, FAPPER?

CARTER GREW THE ECONOMY MUCH BETTER THAN REAGAN

Oh, look. Clembot went blind.

Cannonpointer » 09 Jan 2015 6:17 am » wrote:
Tell ya what, clem. Prove me wrong. Here is an argument against Reagan's reputation as one who shrinks the bureaucracy. Will you join me in declaring the reputation unearned? Or will you salvage that reputation by shooting holes in my argument, reinterpreting my evidence or debunking it authoritatively?

OR WILL YOU CALL ME A MOONBAT AND REHEARSE YOUR OVER-HYPED BONA FIDES FOR A 20TH TIME?

Smart money's on option 3. Here we go:

TOTAL NUMBER OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, BY ADMINISTRATION

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
1989........3,064,000..........2,168,000......60,000...............................5,292,000.....................Reagan's last Budget

Carter's civilian bureaucracy shrank and his military grew

As a % of population, Reagan's military SHRANK. Civilian employees - federal bureaucrats- grew by leaps and bounds.

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 economy grew, the federal government's control of education grew, the federal labor force grew. The only thing that grew slower than the population was the military.

There it is, Clem. There is a meme that Reagan shrank government. MY PURPOSE is to destroy Reagan's rep. If you're here to save it, there are numbers, there are sources, there are arguments. Can you respond appropriately to each, and either make a cogent argument against my claims, or grant that they seem correct, as a MAN would do?

I will fall over if you manage ANY of those masculine outcomes. My read of you is that you are entirely effeminate and without masculine judgment - a thread fapper like your compadres. Prove me wrong, son.

Re: CARTER GREW THE ECONOMY MUCH BETTER THAN REAGAN

RichClem » 09 Jan 2015 6:04 am » wrote: Re: CARTER GREW THE ECONOMY MUCH BETTER THAN REAGAN
Given that Obama spent almost double what was spent under Reagan, where's the huge Obama Boom, psycho?
Re: CARTER GREW THE ECONOMY MUCH BETTER THAN REAGAN
Go ahead, 1) go blind or B) babble mindlessly.

Re: CARTER GREW THE ECONOMY MUCH BETTER THAN REAGAN

Cannonpointer » 09 Jan 2015 6:30 am » wrote: ANYTHING BUT THE TOPIC, EH, FAPPER?

It's called "logic," psycho.

If spending under Reagan created a boom, it should have created a stronger boom under Obama.

Where's the huge Obama Boom?

Cannonpointer » 09 Jan 2015 6:31 am » wrote:Oh, look. Clembot went blind.

.

I responded in detail to this, liar.

RichClem » 09 Jan 2015 6:47 am » wrote:
.

I responded in detail to this, liar.

No, you made a weak argument based on a claim you've been asked to source and refuse to source - while accusing me of lying because you're too lazy to check the sources I DID provide.

You showed what you've got. You were measured and it was shown that I've had your measure all along.

#614 Re: CARTER GREW THE ECONOMY MUCH BETTER THAN REAGAN

RichClem » 09 Jan 2015 6:45 am » wrote: #614 Re: CARTER GREW THE ECONOMY MUCH BETTER THAN REAGAN
It's called "logic," psycho.
#614 Re: CARTER GREW THE ECONOMY MUCH BETTER THAN REAGAN
If spending under Reagan created a boom, it should have created a stronger boom under Obama.
#614 Re: CARTER GREW THE ECONOMY MUCH BETTER THAN REAGAN
Where's the huge Obama Boom?

#614 Re: CARTER GREW THE ECONOMY MUCH BETTER THAN REAGAN

Cannonpointer » 09 Jan 2015 6:28 am » wrote:
Thanks, thread fapper. I already understood you to be a cocksucker, but I wanted you to verify your actual eagerness. You're such a complex, hard to read penis jockey - yet single-mindedly attracted to my cock.

Okay, I know you prefer code, so here are your instructions. If you wish to indicate that you want dick in your *** first and then your mouth, post about me rather than about the thread topic.

Ready, set, GO peter-rpuffer!

Nah, not attracted to men, cocks, or their asses. Now, if you are you might want to troll the strip. Or call Prattle. She could help you out.

Cannonpointer » 09 Jan 2015 6:49 am » wrote:#614 Re: CARTER GREW THE ECONOMY MUCH BETTER THAN REAGAN #614 Re: CARTER GREW THE ECONOMY MUCH BETTER THAN REAGAN

.

Look at this pathetic psychotic stonewall and dodge and babble.

It's called "logic," psycho.

If spending under Reagan created a boom, it should have created a stronger boom under Obama.

Where's the huge Obama Boom?

Huey » 09 Jan 2015 6:52 am » wrote: ... attracted to men, cocks, ... asses... if you are...

Tell your story walkin', funny boy.