Previous 11 - 20 Next
Hey - Obama wanted to keep the precious Bush tax cut for 99% of the people...so it must have been a great idea... AND - Obama didn't want to modify any part of the Bush tax cuts until his 3rd year in office, so he and the Democrat Congress felt that they must have been helpful.
But it took Zero-bama to issue a 'no-bid' contract to build the ObamaCare web site to a Canadian firm...(a senior person in the firm was a friend of Michelle)...and they botched the job, but got more money from US taxpayers than Romney is worth. So you f'ng idiot Democrats worry about what Romney did with a small portion of his own wealth, while ignoring the waste/fraud and abuse of taxpayer money by the fraud in the White House.
Extremely stupid and possibly off-topic. It is the Democrats who always are apocalyptic - claiming that with Republicans in office, children will die, granny eats cat food, no one has health insurance and everyone dies. So why do you stupidly bring in Mein Kampf - except to show your familiarity with it??
Moe - your 'Republican friend' is as realistic as Joe Biden's 'friend. They are jerks - if real. But Is suspect it is someone playing with them self. Conservatives did not like many things that Geo. Bush did...but the empty suited in the White House is FAR FAR FAR worse!! So - if you wish to attack Republicans for not being conservative - go for it. But if you are suggesting Republicans bad and Democrats are the answer - then it was an extremely stupid question.
Moe - your 'Republican friend' is as realistic as Joe Biden's 'friend. They are jerks - if real. But Is suspect it is someone playing with them self. Conservatives did not like many things that Geo. Bush did...but the empty suited in the White House is FAR FAR FAR worse!! So - if you wish to attack Republicans for not being conservative - go for it. But if you are suggesting Republicans bad and Democrats are the answer - then it was an extremely stupid question.
In response to:

Budget Baloney

Michael2944 Wrote: Mar 05, 2014 9:59 AM
Correct information - and I have said the same. The US Treasury has a web site listing the official debt as of any date. In mid-May 2013 - the US had hit its borrowing limit, so it did 'under-the-table' borrowing. On Oct 17 or 18 - after Congress raised the debt ceiling, the Treasury suddenly borrowed about $330 billion - to pay back all the under the table loans. So if someone claims the 2013 debt was around $660 Billion - they are ignorant or lying.
How about a vote-lock that prohibits stupid laws from being voted on unless they conform to the Constitution and have a means of being paid for in a responsible way.
No decent person would want Hitler or Stalin to succeed - absolutely correct. But - like Iraq and Afghanistan - we have wasted precious blood on people who don't appreciate freedom. tjohnson is merely remarking that it might have been better to not squader time, money and blood to bail out the continent - if the people there are willing to be voluntarily enslaved by a big government.
The right challeged Cleland and Duckworth on their political positions - not on their physical disabilities. But liberals believe that liberals with disabilities can't be touched...regardless of outrageous stupid liberal voting record....while being quite willing to descend into the muck and mire and challege handicapped conservatives - not on their record - but on disabilities. It takes someone with more than a room-temperature IQ to understand the difference - which is why you made the remarks.
In response to:

Fact-Free Liberals: Part III

Michael2944 Wrote: Jan 22, 2014 10:10 AM
"War on Poverty" - the most expensive (and loosing) war than all the other wars - COMBINED. Liberals claim that Bush 'lied us into the war in Iraq - and wasted a Trillion Dollars. Well - the Democrats lied us into the war on poverty, and wasted $16 Trillion - about the total amount of the national debt....with little to show for it, except more poverty, more dependency, bigger government that is burdening the working people.
I suspect that he is looking at stock cost (Price)...vs. the potential growth in Earnings (the PE ratio that is an indicator of REAL stock value...). Some companies (like Twitter) - have essentially no earning (income subtract costs leaving no profit, maybe even a slight loss)...so earnings per share is dividing by ZERO....Not a good thing! A typically good Price to Earnings ratio might be somewhere between 8 to 15....and the higher it is, the more risky it is.
Previous 11 - 20 Next