MAGA & GOP Wins!

19,139 Views | 204 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by Florda_mike
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

Oldbear83 said:

Booray: "This site is full of fools."

Somewhat true, but the irony is there are so many more of them on the Left than on the Right.

"Free" college, "free" medicare for all, "gun free zones" which only disarm the victims, and on and on.


Who on this site is for Free College or Free Medicare for all? I bet not more than 5 posters.
If you vote for a Democrat next fall or in the coming primaries, you by default support the policies advocated by all of the people running under the 'D'
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Doc Holliday said:

Booray, do you understand the following concept?

I DON'T WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO HAVE MORE OF MY HARD EARNED MONEY WHERE THEY WILL RECKLESSLY SPEND IT ON BS THAT I WILL NEVER BENEFIT FROM.

Pretty simple concept.

I want to keep more of my money and I want D.C. to be frugal.

How does a grown ass man such as yourself grow up to be a patsy for careless politicians?

If it can't be this way...let it all burn down. It's not right.

Your boy is the one signing off on all this spending. Instead of shouting at booray why don't you answer his question about budget cuts, and then call your congressman.
1. I suggest a pragmatic solution, which is not tied to political loyalty

2. Instead of a pragmatic suggestion, quash launches unprovoked insults and throws spite at the President.

Noted for the record.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Waco1947
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Boo ray nails it and of course al he ad hom attacks
"Emblematic of the way "conservatives" have given up thinking in favor of dogma. The question discussed is the cause of the growing deficit. I say it is caused by tax and spending policy, the conservatives say it is only about spending.

Leads to a subsidiary question: what impact did the 2018 tax cuts have on the deficit? Conservatives say it reduced the deficit because revenues grew. I cite a Wall Street Journal article that says no--revenue fell during calendar 2018 and I cite a tax policy center piece that explains the obvious, that even year over year absolute increase in revenue growth is not proof that tax policy is reducing the deficit. Any real analysis must account for inflation, population growth and economic growth.

The conservatives cite fiscal year revenue for 2018 showing a 0.003% increase. There are multiple problems with that number. First, from an accounting perspective, the 2018 fiscal year includes significant tax receipts based on 2017 tax rates. (The 2018 US fiscal year ran from Oct. 1 2017 to Sept. 30-2018-that is why the WSJ calendar year measure is a more accurate test of the tax cut impact on revenue). Second, the number does not account for inflation or population growth. Third, it is is a minuscule increase. Fourth and most importantly, tax revenue received is just a measure of the economy and is only a very indirect measure of the effect of the tax rate changes. For instance-the same chart the conservatives rely on shows much larger tax revenue increases under Obama. If the question is which tax plan increases tax revenue and the chart is supposed to provide an answer, it is clear that the answer is "the Obama tax plan."

But you don't have to take my word or analysis as gospel. The very same article the conservatives rely on comes to the exact same conclusion: the Trump tax plan reduced federal government revenue. And the conservative's take on it all: "You got nothing."

WTH? Does it have to be engraved in stone by God for you to accept it? Your own source clearly and explicitly supports my argument.

The big issue is the deficit. It is undeniable that the GOP is increasing the deficit by reducing available revenue. That is all well and good if they are willing to reduce spending. But they aren't. They want to increase defense spending and entitlement spending for the affluent: see Medicare/Social Security/Farm subsidies. Trump himself tweets on news of the budget deal: we will worry about reductions a couple of years from now.

A real conservative says we need to reduce the deficit by greatly reducing safety net spending.

A moderate says our safety net is ok where it is, we need to reduce the deficit by taxing enough to pay for it.

A liberal says we need to expand the safety net and tax the wealthy greatly to pay for it.

A fool says we can reduce the deficit by reducing taxes and pretending we want to reduce the safety net.


This site is full of fools."

Waco1947
Florda_mike
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Waco1947 said:

Boo ray nails it and of course al he ad hom attacks
"Emblematic of the way "conservatives" have given up thinking in favor of dogma. The question discussed is the cause of the growing deficit. I say it is caused by tax and spending policy, the conservatives say it is only about spending.

Leads to a subsidiary question: what impact did the 2018 tax cuts have on the deficit? Conservatives say it reduced the deficit because revenues grew. I cite a Wall Street Journal article that says no--revenue fell during calendar 2018 and I cite a tax policy center piece that explains the obvious, that even year over year absolute increase in revenue growth is not proof that tax policy is reducing the deficit. Any real analysis must account for inflation, population growth and economic growth.

The conservatives cite fiscal year revenue for 2018 showing a 0.003% increase. There are multiple problems with that number. First, from an accounting perspective, the 2018 fiscal year includes significant tax receipts based on 2017 tax rates. (The 2018 US fiscal year ran from Oct. 1 2017 to Sept. 30-2018-that is why the WSJ calendar year measure is a more accurate test of the tax cut impact on revenue). Second, the number does not account for inflation or population growth. Third, it is is a minuscule increase. Fourth and most importantly, tax revenue received is just a measure of the economy and is only a very indirect measure of the effect of the tax rate changes. For instance-the same chart the conservatives rely on shows much larger tax revenue increases under Obama. If the question is which tax plan increases tax revenue and the chart is supposed to provide an answer, it is clear that the answer is "the Obama tax plan."

But you don't have to take my word or analysis as gospel. The very same article the conservatives rely on comes to the exact same conclusion: the Trump tax plan reduced federal government revenue. And the conservative's take on it all: "You got nothing."

WTH? Does it have to be engraved in stone by God for you to accept it? Your own source clearly and explicitly supports my argument.

The big issue is the deficit. It is undeniable that the GOP is increasing the deficit by reducing available revenue. That is all well and good if they are willing to reduce spending. But they aren't. They want to increase defense spending and entitlement spending for the affluent: see Medicare/Social Security/Farm subsidies. Trump himself tweets on news of the budget deal: we will worry about reductions a couple of years from now.

A real conservative says we need to reduce the deficit by greatly reducing safety net spending.

A moderate says our safety net is ok where it is, we need to reduce the deficit by taxing enough to pay for it.

A liberal says we need to expand the safety net and tax the wealthy greatly to pay for it.

A fool says we can reduce the deficit by reducing taxes and pretending we want to reduce the safety net.


This site is full of fools."




I'm entertaining bets on whether or not Waco wrote the above
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

quash said:

Doc Holliday said:

Booray, do you understand the following concept?

I DON'T WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO HAVE MORE OF MY HARD EARNED MONEY WHERE THEY WILL RECKLESSLY SPEND IT ON BS THAT I WILL NEVER BENEFIT FROM.

Pretty simple concept.

I want to keep more of my money and I want D.C. to be frugal.

How does a grown ass man such as yourself grow up to be a patsy for careless politicians?

If it can't be this way...let it all burn down. It's not right.

Your boy is the one signing off on all this spending. Instead of shouting at booray why don't you answer his question about budget cuts, and then call your congressman.
1. I suggest a pragmatic solution, which is not tied to political loyalty

2. Instead of a pragmatic suggestion, quash launches unprovoked insults and throws spite at the President.

Noted for the record.
1. There is no insult in that post.

2. Why do you spitefully ignore the pragmatic suggestion I made to him? Calling ones elected reps is one way to counter the vast sums of money in politics.
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

Booray said:

Oldbear83 said:

Booray: "This site is full of fools."

Somewhat true, but the irony is there are so many more of them on the Left than on the Right.

"Free" college, "free" medicare for all, "gun free zones" which only disarm the victims, and on and on.


Who on this site is for Free College or Free Medicare for all? I bet not more than 5 posters.
If you vote for a Democrat next fall or in the coming primaries, you by default support the policies advocated by all of the people running under the 'D'
Um, voting for one candidate is explicitly, plainly and fundamentally not supporting any other candidate. The exception would be ranked voting. Were you talking about the Maine primary?
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Oldbear83 said:

quash said:

Doc Holliday said:

Booray, do you understand the following concept?

I DON'T WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO HAVE MORE OF MY HARD EARNED MONEY WHERE THEY WILL RECKLESSLY SPEND IT ON BS THAT I WILL NEVER BENEFIT FROM.

Pretty simple concept.

I want to keep more of my money and I want D.C. to be frugal.

How does a grown ass man such as yourself grow up to be a patsy for careless politicians?

If it can't be this way...let it all burn down. It's not right.

Your boy is the one signing off on all this spending. Instead of shouting at booray why don't you answer his question about budget cuts, and then call your congressman.
1. I suggest a pragmatic solution, which is not tied to political loyalty

2. Instead of a pragmatic suggestion, quash launches unprovoked insults and throws spite at the President.

Noted for the record.
1. There is no insult in that post.

2. Why do you spitefully ignore the pragmatic suggestion I made to him? Calling ones elected reps is one way to counter the vast sums of money in politics.
1. "Your boy" to refer to the President is an insult

2. In the post I referenced, you ignored my apolitical suggestion just to take a pot shot

You need to read your posts from an objective POV before you post them.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Waco1947
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Florda_mike said:

Waco1947 said:

Boo ray nails it and of course al he ad hom attacks
"Emblematic of the way "conservatives" have given up thinking in favor of dogma. The question discussed is the cause of the growing deficit. I say it is caused by tax and spending policy, the conservatives say it is only about spending.

Leads to a subsidiary question: what impact did the 2018 tax cuts have on the deficit? Conservatives say it reduced the deficit because revenues grew. I cite a Wall Street Journal article that says no--revenue fell during calendar 2018 and I cite a tax policy center piece that explains the obvious, that even year over year absolute increase in revenue growth is not proof that tax policy is reducing the deficit. Any real analysis must account for inflation, population growth and economic growth.

The conservatives cite fiscal year revenue for 2018 showing a 0.003% increase. There are multiple problems with that number. First, from an accounting perspective, the 2018 fiscal year includes significant tax receipts based on 2017 tax rates. (The 2018 US fiscal year ran from Oct. 1 2017 to Sept. 30-2018-that is why the WSJ calendar year measure is a more accurate test of the tax cut impact on revenue). Second, the number does not account for inflation or population growth. Third, it is is a minuscule increase. Fourth and most importantly, tax revenue received is just a measure of the economy and is only a very indirect measure of the effect of the tax rate changes. For instance-the same chart the conservatives rely on shows much larger tax revenue increases under Obama. If the question is which tax plan increases tax revenue and the chart is supposed to provide an answer, it is clear that the answer is "the Obama tax plan."

But you don't have to take my word or analysis as gospel. The very same article the conservatives rely on comes to the exact same conclusion: the Trump tax plan reduced federal government revenue. And the conservative's take on it all: "You got nothing."

WTH? Does it have to be engraved in stone by God for you to accept it? Your own source clearly and explicitly supports my argument.

The big issue is the deficit. It is undeniable that the GOP is increasing the deficit by reducing available revenue. That is all well and good if they are willing to reduce spending. But they aren't. They want to increase defense spending and entitlement spending for the affluent: see Medicare/Social Security/Farm subsidies. Trump himself tweets on news of the budget deal: we will worry about reductions a couple of years from now.

A real conservative says we need to reduce the deficit by greatly reducing safety net spending.

A moderate says our safety net is ok where it is, we need to reduce the deficit by taxing enough to pay for it.

A liberal says we need to expand the safety net and tax the wealthy greatly to pay for it.

A fool says we can reduce the deficit by reducing taxes and pretending we want to reduce the safety net.


This site is full of fools."




I'm entertaining bets on whether or not Waco wrote the above
Its verbatim booray
Waco1947
Waco1947
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dt is "your boy" - emotionally and mentally.
Waco1947
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

quash said:

Oldbear83 said:

quash said:

Doc Holliday said:

Booray, do you understand the following concept?

I DON'T WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO HAVE MORE OF MY HARD EARNED MONEY WHERE THEY WILL RECKLESSLY SPEND IT ON BS THAT I WILL NEVER BENEFIT FROM.

Pretty simple concept.

I want to keep more of my money and I want D.C. to be frugal.

How does a grown ass man such as yourself grow up to be a patsy for careless politicians?

If it can't be this way...let it all burn down. It's not right.

Your boy is the one signing off on all this spending. Instead of shouting at booray why don't you answer his question about budget cuts, and then call your congressman.
1. I suggest a pragmatic solution, which is not tied to political loyalty

2. Instead of a pragmatic suggestion, quash launches unprovoked insults and throws spite at the President.

Noted for the record.
1. There is no insult in that post.

2. Why do you spitefully ignore the pragmatic suggestion I made to him? Calling ones elected reps is one way to counter the vast sums of money in politics.
1. "Your boy" to refer to the President is an insult

2. In the post I referenced, you ignored my apolitical suggestion just to take a pot shot

You need to read your posts from an objective POV before you post them.
Man, you are one melty snowflake to find that an insult. That phrase merely reminds readers of whose team Doc plays for.

And I didn't ignore your suggestion because... wait for it... it wasn't about you, I was replying to Doc.

Unlike your hypocritical hissy fit where you ignored just such a suggestion in the post you actually replied to. You must need wheels to lug around that timber in your eye.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Oldbear83 said:

quash said:

Oldbear83 said:

quash said:

Doc Holliday said:

Booray, do you understand the following concept?

I DON'T WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO HAVE MORE OF MY HARD EARNED MONEY WHERE THEY WILL RECKLESSLY SPEND IT ON BS THAT I WILL NEVER BENEFIT FROM.

Pretty simple concept.

I want to keep more of my money and I want D.C. to be frugal.

How does a grown ass man such as yourself grow up to be a patsy for careless politicians?

If it can't be this way...let it all burn down. It's not right.

Your boy is the one signing off on all this spending. Instead of shouting at booray why don't you answer his question about budget cuts, and then call your congressman.
1. I suggest a pragmatic solution, which is not tied to political loyalty

2. Instead of a pragmatic suggestion, quash launches unprovoked insults and throws spite at the President.

Noted for the record.
1. There is no insult in that post.

2. Why do you spitefully ignore the pragmatic suggestion I made to him? Calling ones elected reps is one way to counter the vast sums of money in politics.
1. "Your boy" to refer to the President is an insult

2. In the post I referenced, you ignored my apolitical suggestion just to take a pot shot

You need to read your posts from an objective POV before you post them.
Man, you are one melty snowflake to find that an insult. That phrase merely reminds readers of whose team Doc plays for.

And I didn't ignore your suggestion because... wait for it... it wasn't about you, I was replying to Doc.

Unlike your hypocritical hissy fit where you ignored just such a suggestion in the post you actually replied to. You must need wheels to lug around that timber in your eye.
So much whining from quash, and for no success.

'Mini Beto" is proving his nickname is well-earned!
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Waco1947
How long do you want to ignore this user?
contrario said:

Just so we are clear, this will just be a circle jerk thread.
Yep. You proved right
Waco1947
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

quash said:

Oldbear83 said:

quash said:

Oldbear83 said:

quash said:

Doc Holliday said:

Booray, do you understand the following concept?

I DON'T WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO HAVE MORE OF MY HARD EARNED MONEY WHERE THEY WILL RECKLESSLY SPEND IT ON BS THAT I WILL NEVER BENEFIT FROM.

Pretty simple concept.

I want to keep more of my money and I want D.C. to be frugal.

How does a grown ass man such as yourself grow up to be a patsy for careless politicians?

If it can't be this way...let it all burn down. It's not right.

Your boy is the one signing off on all this spending. Instead of shouting at booray why don't you answer his question about budget cuts, and then call your congressman.
1. I suggest a pragmatic solution, which is not tied to political loyalty

2. Instead of a pragmatic suggestion, quash launches unprovoked insults and throws spite at the President.

Noted for the record.
1. There is no insult in that post.

2. Why do you spitefully ignore the pragmatic suggestion I made to him? Calling ones elected reps is one way to counter the vast sums of money in politics.
1. "Your boy" to refer to the President is an insult

2. In the post I referenced, you ignored my apolitical suggestion just to take a pot shot

You need to read your posts from an objective POV before you post them.
Man, you are one melty snowflake to find that an insult. That phrase merely reminds readers of whose team Doc plays for.

And I didn't ignore your suggestion because... wait for it... it wasn't about you, I was replying to Doc.

Unlike your hypocritical hissy fit where you ignored just such a suggestion in the post you actually replied to. You must need wheels to lug around that timber in your eye.
So much whining from quash, and for no success.

'Mini Beto" is proving his nickname is well-earned!
Run.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Oldbear83 said:

quash said:

Oldbear83 said:

quash said:

Oldbear83 said:

quash said:

Doc Holliday said:

Booray, do you understand the following concept?

I DON'T WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO HAVE MORE OF MY HARD EARNED MONEY WHERE THEY WILL RECKLESSLY SPEND IT ON BS THAT I WILL NEVER BENEFIT FROM.

Pretty simple concept.

I want to keep more of my money and I want D.C. to be frugal.

How does a grown ass man such as yourself grow up to be a patsy for careless politicians?

If it can't be this way...let it all burn down. It's not right.

Your boy is the one signing off on all this spending. Instead of shouting at booray why don't you answer his question about budget cuts, and then call your congressman.
1. I suggest a pragmatic solution, which is not tied to political loyalty

2. Instead of a pragmatic suggestion, quash launches unprovoked insults and throws spite at the President.

Noted for the record.
1. There is no insult in that post.

2. Why do you spitefully ignore the pragmatic suggestion I made to him? Calling ones elected reps is one way to counter the vast sums of money in politics.
1. "Your boy" to refer to the President is an insult

2. In the post I referenced, you ignored my apolitical suggestion just to take a pot shot

You need to read your posts from an objective POV before you post them.
Man, you are one melty snowflake to find that an insult. That phrase merely reminds readers of whose team Doc plays for.

And I didn't ignore your suggestion because... wait for it... it wasn't about you, I was replying to Doc.

Unlike your hypocritical hissy fit where you ignored just such a suggestion in the post you actually replied to. You must need wheels to lug around that timber in your eye.
So much whining from quash, and for no success.

'Mini Beto" is proving his nickname is well-earned!
Run.
Why?
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

quash said:

Oldbear83 said:

quash said:

Oldbear83 said:

quash said:

Oldbear83 said:

quash said:

Doc Holliday said:

Booray, do you understand the following concept?

I DON'T WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO HAVE MORE OF MY HARD EARNED MONEY WHERE THEY WILL RECKLESSLY SPEND IT ON BS THAT I WILL NEVER BENEFIT FROM.

Pretty simple concept.

I want to keep more of my money and I want D.C. to be frugal.

How does a grown ass man such as yourself grow up to be a patsy for careless politicians?

If it can't be this way...let it all burn down. It's not right.

Your boy is the one signing off on all this spending. Instead of shouting at booray why don't you answer his question about budget cuts, and then call your congressman.
1. I suggest a pragmatic solution, which is not tied to political loyalty

2. Instead of a pragmatic suggestion, quash launches unprovoked insults and throws spite at the President.

Noted for the record.
1. There is no insult in that post.

2. Why do you spitefully ignore the pragmatic suggestion I made to him? Calling ones elected reps is one way to counter the vast sums of money in politics.
1. "Your boy" to refer to the President is an insult

2. In the post I referenced, you ignored my apolitical suggestion just to take a pot shot

You need to read your posts from an objective POV before you post them.
Man, you are one melty snowflake to find that an insult. That phrase merely reminds readers of whose team Doc plays for.

And I didn't ignore your suggestion because... wait for it... it wasn't about you, I was replying to Doc.

Unlike your hypocritical hissy fit where you ignored just such a suggestion in the post you actually replied to. You must need wheels to lug around that timber in your eye.
So much whining from quash, and for no success.

'Mini Beto" is proving his nickname is well-earned!
Run.
Why?
It's what you do. Duck. Dodge. Deflect. Dodge.

And run.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Oldbear83 said:

quash said:

Oldbear83 said:

quash said:

Oldbear83 said:

quash said:

Oldbear83 said:

quash said:

Doc Holliday said:

Booray, do you understand the following concept?

I DON'T WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO HAVE MORE OF MY HARD EARNED MONEY WHERE THEY WILL RECKLESSLY SPEND IT ON BS THAT I WILL NEVER BENEFIT FROM.

Pretty simple concept.

I want to keep more of my money and I want D.C. to be frugal.

How does a grown ass man such as yourself grow up to be a patsy for careless politicians?

If it can't be this way...let it all burn down. It's not right.

Your boy is the one signing off on all this spending. Instead of shouting at booray why don't you answer his question about budget cuts, and then call your congressman.
1. I suggest a pragmatic solution, which is not tied to political loyalty

2. Instead of a pragmatic suggestion, quash launches unprovoked insults and throws spite at the President.

Noted for the record.
1. There is no insult in that post.

2. Why do you spitefully ignore the pragmatic suggestion I made to him? Calling ones elected reps is one way to counter the vast sums of money in politics.
1. "Your boy" to refer to the President is an insult

2. In the post I referenced, you ignored my apolitical suggestion just to take a pot shot

You need to read your posts from an objective POV before you post them.
Man, you are one melty snowflake to find that an insult. That phrase merely reminds readers of whose team Doc plays for.

And I didn't ignore your suggestion because... wait for it... it wasn't about you, I was replying to Doc.

Unlike your hypocritical hissy fit where you ignored just such a suggestion in the post you actually replied to. You must need wheels to lug around that timber in your eye.
So much whining from quash, and for no success.

'Mini Beto" is proving his nickname is well-earned!
Run.
Why?
It's what you do. Duck. Dodge. Deflect. Dodge.

And run.
Ah.

So you're just doing you.

Sorry, for a minute I thought you were addressing the thread topic, rather then projecting.

Beto on, quash.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

quash said:

Oldbear83 said:

quash said:

Oldbear83 said:

quash said:

Oldbear83 said:

quash said:

Oldbear83 said:

quash said:

Doc Holliday said:

Booray, do you understand the following concept?

I DON'T WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO HAVE MORE OF MY HARD EARNED MONEY WHERE THEY WILL RECKLESSLY SPEND IT ON BS THAT I WILL NEVER BENEFIT FROM.

Pretty simple concept.

I want to keep more of my money and I want D.C. to be frugal.

How does a grown ass man such as yourself grow up to be a patsy for careless politicians?

If it can't be this way...let it all burn down. It's not right.

Your boy is the one signing off on all this spending. Instead of shouting at booray why don't you answer his question about budget cuts, and then call your congressman.
1. I suggest a pragmatic solution, which is not tied to political loyalty

2. Instead of a pragmatic suggestion, quash launches unprovoked insults and throws spite at the President.

Noted for the record.
1. There is no insult in that post.

2. Why do you spitefully ignore the pragmatic suggestion I made to him? Calling ones elected reps is one way to counter the vast sums of money in politics.
1. "Your boy" to refer to the President is an insult

2. In the post I referenced, you ignored my apolitical suggestion just to take a pot shot

You need to read your posts from an objective POV before you post them.
Man, you are one melty snowflake to find that an insult. That phrase merely reminds readers of whose team Doc plays for.

And I didn't ignore your suggestion because... wait for it... it wasn't about you, I was replying to Doc.

Unlike your hypocritical hissy fit where you ignored just such a suggestion in the post you actually replied to. You must need wheels to lug around that timber in your eye.
So much whining from quash, and for no success.

'Mini Beto" is proving his nickname is well-earned!
Run.
Why?
It's what you do. Duck. Dodge. Deflect. Dodge.

And run.
Ah.

So you're just doing you.

Sorry, for a minute I thought you were addressing the thread topic, rather then projecting.

Beto on, quash.
I was addressing the thread, until you jumped in with your in accuracies. Which I corrected by repeating what you missed. And yet you persisted with your charges, now lies.

Oldbear on.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Oldbear83 said:

quash said:

Oldbear83 said:

quash said:

Oldbear83 said:

quash said:

Oldbear83 said:

quash said:

Oldbear83 said:

quash said:

Doc Holliday said:

Booray, do you understand the following concept?

I DON'T WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO HAVE MORE OF MY HARD EARNED MONEY WHERE THEY WILL RECKLESSLY SPEND IT ON BS THAT I WILL NEVER BENEFIT FROM.

Pretty simple concept.

I want to keep more of my money and I want D.C. to be frugal.

How does a grown ass man such as yourself grow up to be a patsy for careless politicians?

If it can't be this way...let it all burn down. It's not right.

Your boy is the one signing off on all this spending. Instead of shouting at booray why don't you answer his question about budget cuts, and then call your congressman.
1. I suggest a pragmatic solution, which is not tied to political loyalty

2. Instead of a pragmatic suggestion, quash launches unprovoked insults and throws spite at the President.

Noted for the record.
1. There is no insult in that post.

2. Why do you spitefully ignore the pragmatic suggestion I made to him? Calling ones elected reps is one way to counter the vast sums of money in politics.
1. "Your boy" to refer to the President is an insult

2. In the post I referenced, you ignored my apolitical suggestion just to take a pot shot

You need to read your posts from an objective POV before you post them.
Man, you are one melty snowflake to find that an insult. That phrase merely reminds readers of whose team Doc plays for.

And I didn't ignore your suggestion because... wait for it... it wasn't about you, I was replying to Doc.

Unlike your hypocritical hissy fit where you ignored just such a suggestion in the post you actually replied to. You must need wheels to lug around that timber in your eye.
So much whining from quash, and for no success.

'Mini Beto" is proving his nickname is well-earned!
Run.
Why?
It's what you do. Duck. Dodge. Deflect. Dodge.

And run.
Ah.

So you're just doing you.

Sorry, for a minute I thought you were addressing the thread topic, rather then projecting.

Beto on, quash.
I was addressing the thread, until you jumped in with your in accuracies. Which I corrected by repeating what you missed. And yet you persisted with your charges, now lies.

Oldbear on.
- snerk -

Everyone has a hobby. Mine is statistics, my brother loves stamps. Quash? Apparently strident virtue signalling based on bad fiction.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Contact your Congressman; vote the whole ballot.
riflebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It's unfortunate the media won't report on big wins for America.

Pratt is creating 5,000 new jobs, helped in part by Trump's tax cuts which included lowering the corporate tax rate to 21 percent from 35 percent. Trump noted foreign companies invested $250 billion in the United States last year alone.

quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
riflebear said:

It's unfortunate the media won't report on big wins for America.

Pratt is creating 5,000 new jobs, helped in part by Trump's tax cuts which included lowering the corporate tax rate to 21 percent from 35 percent. Trump noted foreign companies invested $250 billion in the United States last year alone.


I'm sure local media will report on this, it's not really national news unless you really need a dose of good news related, tangentially, to POTUS.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
riflebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

riflebear said:

It's unfortunate the media won't report on big wins for America.

Pratt is creating 5,000 new jobs, helped in part by Trump's tax cuts which included lowering the corporate tax rate to 21 percent from 35 percent. Trump noted foreign companies invested $250 billion in the United States last year alone.


I'm sure local media will report on this, it's not really national news unless you really need a dose of good news related, tangentially, to POTUS.
$250B+ in foreign investments last year isn't national news worthy?
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
riflebear said:

quash said:

riflebear said:

It's unfortunate the media won't report on big wins for America.

Pratt is creating 5,000 new jobs, helped in part by Trump's tax cuts which included lowering the corporate tax rate to 21 percent from 35 percent. Trump noted foreign companies invested $250 billion in the United States last year alone.


I'm sure local media will report on this, it's not really national news unless you really need a dose of good news related, tangentially, to POTUS.
$250B+ in foreign investments last year isn't national news worthy?
Was it foreign investment or money held offshore by US corporations, brought back due to tax law changes? What story are you referring to?
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
riflebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

riflebear said:

quash said:

riflebear said:

It's unfortunate the media won't report on big wins for America.

Pratt is creating 5,000 new jobs, helped in part by Trump's tax cuts which included lowering the corporate tax rate to 21 percent from 35 percent. Trump noted foreign companies invested $250 billion in the United States last year alone.


I'm sure local media will report on this, it's not really national news unless you really need a dose of good news related, tangentially, to POTUS.
$250B+ in foreign investments last year isn't national news worthy?
Was it foreign investment or money held offshore by US corporations, brought back due to tax law changes? What story are you referring to?
Both are great news, thanks for admitting that
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
riflebear said:

quash said:

riflebear said:

quash said:

riflebear said:

It's unfortunate the media won't report on big wins for America.

Pratt is creating 5,000 new jobs, helped in part by Trump's tax cuts which included lowering the corporate tax rate to 21 percent from 35 percent. Trump noted foreign companies invested $250 billion in the United States last year alone.


I'm sure local media will report on this, it's not really national news unless you really need a dose of good news related, tangentially, to POTUS.
$250B+ in foreign investments last year isn't national news worthy?
Was it foreign investment or money held offshore by US corporations, brought back due to tax law changes? What story are you referring to?
Both are great news, thanks for admitting that
Could you link the $250b story please.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
riflebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

riflebear said:

quash said:

riflebear said:

quash said:

riflebear said:

It's unfortunate the media won't report on big wins for America.

Pratt is creating 5,000 new jobs, helped in part by Trump's tax cuts which included lowering the corporate tax rate to 21 percent from 35 percent. Trump noted foreign companies invested $250 billion in the United States last year alone.


I'm sure local media will report on this, it's not really national news unless you really need a dose of good news related, tangentially, to POTUS.
$250B+ in foreign investments last year isn't national news worthy?
Was it foreign investment or money held offshore by US corporations, brought back due to tax law changes? What story are you referring to?
Both are great news, thanks for admitting that
Could you link the $250b story please.

Florda_mike
How long do you want to ignore this user?
riflebear said:

quash said:

riflebear said:

quash said:

riflebear said:

quash said:

riflebear said:

It's unfortunate the media won't report on big wins for America.

Pratt is creating 5,000 new jobs, helped in part by Trump's tax cuts which included lowering the corporate tax rate to 21 percent from 35 percent. Trump noted foreign companies invested $250 billion in the United States last year alone.


I'm sure local media will report on this, it's not really national news unless you really need a dose of good news related, tangentially, to POTUS.
$250B+ in foreign investments last year isn't national news worthy?
Was it foreign investment or money held offshore by US corporations, brought back due to tax law changes? What story are you referring to?
Both are great news, thanks for admitting that
Could you link the $250b story please.




Frankly Quash doesn't comprehend economics just like any other democrat
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
riflebear said:

quash said:

riflebear said:

quash said:

riflebear said:

quash said:

riflebear said:

It's unfortunate the media won't report on big wins for America.

Pratt is creating 5,000 new jobs, helped in part by Trump's tax cuts which included lowering the corporate tax rate to 21 percent from 35 percent. Trump noted foreign companies invested $250 billion in the United States last year alone.


I'm sure local media will report on this, it's not really national news unless you really need a dose of good news related, tangentially, to POTUS.
$250B+ in foreign investments last year isn't national news worthy?
Was it foreign investment or money held offshore by US corporations, brought back due to tax law changes? What story are you referring to?
Both are great news, thanks for admitting that
Could you link the $250b story please.


8.7% growth, year to year. Nice, but not exactly national headlines.

I nev er give presidents that much credit for the economy. If you want to put this on Trump's shoulders just be ready to stand by this claim a year or so from now when the global economy slows a bit and these numbers change.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Florda_mike said:

riflebear said:

quash said:

riflebear said:

quash said:

riflebear said:

quash said:

riflebear said:

It's unfortunate the media won't report on big wins for America.

Pratt is creating 5,000 new jobs, helped in part by Trump's tax cuts which included lowering the corporate tax rate to 21 percent from 35 percent. Trump noted foreign companies invested $250 billion in the United States last year alone.


I'm sure local media will report on this, it's not really national news unless you really need a dose of good news related, tangentially, to POTUS.
$250B+ in foreign investments last year isn't national news worthy?
Was it foreign investment or money held offshore by US corporations, brought back due to tax law changes? What story are you referring to?
Both are great news, thanks for admitting that
Could you link the $250b story please.




Frankly Quash doesn't comprehend economics just like any other democrat
You know what I don't comprehend? Your claim that we have a mutual defense treaty with KSA. Did you ever find a source for your claim?
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Florda_mike
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Florda_mike said:

riflebear said:

quash said:

riflebear said:

quash said:

riflebear said:

quash said:

riflebear said:

It's unfortunate the media won't report on big wins for America.

Pratt is creating 5,000 new jobs, helped in part by Trump's tax cuts which included lowering the corporate tax rate to 21 percent from 35 percent. Trump noted foreign companies invested $250 billion in the United States last year alone.


I'm sure local media will report on this, it's not really national news unless you really need a dose of good news related, tangentially, to POTUS.
$250B+ in foreign investments last year isn't national news worthy?
Was it foreign investment or money held offshore by US corporations, brought back due to tax law changes? What story are you referring to?
Both are great news, thanks for admitting that
Could you link the $250b story please.




Frankly Quash doesn't comprehend economics just like any other democrat
You know what I don't comprehend? Your claim that we have a mutual defense treaty with KSA. Did you ever find a source for your claim?


Ahhh, the unemployed thinks he's on to something

You're a ****ing unemployable economically illiterate fool and you know it and constantly try to hide it

You're another wasted youth trust baby I bet smoking pot in mommy's basement
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Florda_mike said:

quash said:

Florda_mike said:

riflebear said:

quash said:

riflebear said:

quash said:

riflebear said:

quash said:

riflebear said:

It's unfortunate the media won't report on big wins for America.

Pratt is creating 5,000 new jobs, helped in part by Trump's tax cuts which included lowering the corporate tax rate to 21 percent from 35 percent. Trump noted foreign companies invested $250 billion in the United States last year alone.


I'm sure local media will report on this, it's not really national news unless you really need a dose of good news related, tangentially, to POTUS.
$250B+ in foreign investments last year isn't national news worthy?
Was it foreign investment or money held offshore by US corporations, brought back due to tax law changes? What story are you referring to?
Both are great news, thanks for admitting that
Could you link the $250b story please.




Frankly Quash doesn't comprehend economics just like any other democrat
You know what I don't comprehend? Your claim that we have a mutual defense treaty with KSA. Did you ever find a source for your claim?


Ahhh, the unemployed thinks he's on to something

You're a ****ing unemployable economically illiterate fool and you know it and constantly try to hide it

You're another wasted youth trust baby I bet smoking pot in mommy's basement
Man, the things you think you know that are wrong. Long list.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
contrario
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/23/apple-will-make-the-mac-pro-in-austin-avoiding-some-china-tariffs.html

Tim Cook thanked the administration in the press release.
riflebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If you ever wonder why the Dems continue corrupt investigations and focus all their attention on fighting Trump instead of working on bipartisan issues. This is one of the biggest reasons. They are scared to death of this economy and why many are on record hoping America gets hit w/ a recession which ultimately hurts millions of middle and lower class Americans. How pathetic is that?

Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
riflebear said:

If you ever wonder why the Dems continue corrupt investigations and focus all their attention on fighting Trump instead of working on bipartisan issues. This is one of the biggest reasons. They are scared to death of this economy and why many are on record hoping America gets hit w/ a recession which ultimately hurts millions of middle and lower class Americans. How pathetic is that?




50 year low....3.5% unemployment.

That mean Ol Trump sure is......' lucky '.
riflebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
While everyone wants to talk impeachment this administration continues to work hard and get things done.
Now will Pelosi do her job and work w/ the administration to sign the bipartisan US Mexico/Canada new trade agreement? So far she is stalling even though it would help Americans across the entire country (non partisan) but it would also give Trump a big win so naturally they can't have that.

 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.