President Obama has inherited the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and has frequently noted this fact publicly. “By any measure,” he said in March, “my administration has inherited a fiscal disaster.” “We are like a relief pitcher stepping into the ninth inning and we can’t just redo the whole game,” Budget Director Peter Orszag said. Indeed, 84 percent of Americans believe Obama inherited the crisis.
Yesterday, on Sean Hannity’s show, former Florida governor Jeb Bush implored Obama to stop criticizing his brother’s legacy. “If I had one humble criticism of President Obama, it would be to stop this notion of somehow framing everything in the context of, ‘Everything was bad before I got here,’” Jeb said. Today, Fox News’s Bill Hemmer hosted a discussion about the subject with Juan Williams. As Williams noted, the Bush administration like to blame President Clinton for 9/11:
WILLIAMS: And you saw the same thing from the Bush administration. When they were the crisis of 9/11, what’d they do? They pointed at Bill Clinton and said, “why didn’t he do more about catching Bin Laden when he had the chance? Why didn’t he take further steps to prevent this eventuality, this possibility?
Fox News’s Bill Hemmer objected, saying, “I don’t believe President Bush ever said that.” “Oh gosh, their administration was saying that all along,” Williams responded. Watch it:
Indeed, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice “claimed that Clinton did not leave them a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda,” ABC reported. But the 9/11 Commission report “described Rice receiving a ‘comprehensive paper in January 2001 called ‘Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from the Networks of al Qaeda.’”
It wasn’t just terrorism; the Bush administration loved to blame the Clinton administration for the 2001 recession. Bush did so up until his last days in office:
“When I took office, our economy was beginning a recession.” — Bush, 8/7/02
“The president inherited a Clinton recession and turned it into the early stages of Bush prosperity.” — Secretary of Commerce Don Evans, 9/2/04
“In terms of the economy, look, I inherited a recession, I am ending on a recession.” — Bush, 1/12/09
The National Bureau of Economic Research, which gives the government’s official dictum on recessions, said the “recession” began under President Bush: the economic “expansion that began in March 1991 ended in March 2001 and a recession began.” In fact, before it entered office, the Bush administration was blaming its predecessor for a recession that had not yet begun. “Do you think we’re on the front edge of a recession?” asked Tim Russert. “I think so,” said Dick Cheney in December 2000.
Jeb,
Would you like some cheese with that whine?
April 10th, 2009 at 8:16 pmI hate how both parties blame each other. It was the terrorist that kill those poor people on 9/11.
April 10th, 2009 at 8:20 pmjuan williams, exhibiting a glimmer of integrity??
w/up w/that?
April 10th, 2009 at 8:21 pmBushies have convenient memories.
Waah, waah, leave by big brother alone.
April 10th, 2009 at 8:22 pmAll we heard when terrorism or 9/11 was invoked was that it was Clinton’s fault.
And Hemmer, the Fox turd, is so quick to add to the re-write of history.
My big brother (not by big brother)
April 10th, 2009 at 8:23 pmMy fingers are slow today,
.
Because it’s not tanking the economy when a (R)ushpublickin does it.
Just like it’s not an illegal war when a (R)ushpublickin starts it…
Or, it’s not torture and illegal rendition when a (R)ushpublickin authorizes it…
And of course it’s not usurpation of, and a violation of, the Constitution of the U.S.A. when (R)ushpublickin’s warrantlessly wiretaps Americans…
But of course it’s about Patriotic duty to out a covert CIA agent when done by a (R)ushpublickin V.P.’s office, YES?
.
April 10th, 2009 at 8:23 pmBush’s screw ups hitting close to home, Jebby?
April 10th, 2009 at 8:23 pm.
Shorter Jeb Bush:
.
April 10th, 2009 at 8:25 pmSo, poor Jeb just wants President Obama to lie and let his thug brother off the hook. Well, guess what Jeb, the truth hurts, so live with it.
April 10th, 2009 at 8:27 pm#3 tombaker,
Juan collects a paycheck from FOXPRAVDA to play the token “Librul” on T.V.
.
April 10th, 2009 at 8:29 pmWe had the longest period of prosperity under Clinton, did we not?
Even if the recession officially begun under Clinton, we’re not so unrealistic as to say that recessions are entirely preventable, but it is realistic to keep the regulatory framework up-to-date and well enforced so that the downturn is as mild as possible for the shortest period of time. Neoconservatives running the economy has brought big booms for a few and a huge bust for the rest of us.
April 10th, 2009 at 8:29 pmOK then, Jeb, it’s all your fault.
April 10th, 2009 at 8:30 pmFor not pounding George to a pulp when you had the chance.
I just heard John Sifton on Countdown give a logical reason why Obama is holding back on prosecutions of torturers in our midst.
April 10th, 2009 at 8:30 pmThis is all going to come out in the trials that have been ordered for the two AlQaeda men being held in captivity, he says, therefore Obama can remain above it all and let the legal course continue.
Repugs have a very limited repertoire – they either whine, or point fingers – this is what they do when they are not obstructing progress.
April 10th, 2009 at 8:32 pmJeb, if the shoe fits…
I do believe those size tens would’ve fit your brother Dumbya right upside his stupid head.
Ownership of this economic mess is a hard pill to swallow for those Bushies but they will swallow it. No amount of whining will ever clean up the Bush Administration’s reputation.
April 10th, 2009 at 8:34 pmBUSH YOU “EFFED” UP – OWN IT!
All-around nepotism, one more way the Bush family doesn’t give a shit about humanity. As long as their delusions remain intact and their coffers remain full, the constituencies are forgotten.
Jebby, Clinton whipped daddy’s ass, and come to think of it, he whipped your brother’s ass w/o even running. Heck, he couldn’t even beat his veep without the courts.
April 10th, 2009 at 8:34 pmShuster is on MSNBC slamming Rove – aka turdblossom – tonight! Another blow from the left!
April 10th, 2009 at 8:35 pmMax – I know, which is what made his tenacious grip on the truth so amazing in that exchange – he even said “oh gosh” about it.
Saying that “it’s the same thing as…” on the other hand, is a pretty sneaky move, along the lines of “both parties are ________”, and I guess that’s where juan was ensuring his next paycheck would be signed.
April 10th, 2009 at 8:36 pmIt’s getting to the point where rethuglican script writers must be running out of ideas for stuff they can just make up! Since they’ve run out of facts a LONG time ago (although most of them refuse to admit facts/reality exists).
Jeb is just another cry baby in the Bush family and with hangers on like Perino, Gonzo, Turd Blossom and a few others this shouldn’t surprise anyone…
As soon as chimpy is put on the plane for his last ride to the Hague for his war crimes trial, this noise will stop…and all will be put to rest as the top layer of scum on the pond on chimpy’s pig farm….
April 10th, 2009 at 8:38 pmjeff2001 Says:
I hate how both parties blame each other. It was the terrorist that kill those poor people on 9/11.
Except the Bush administration was specifically warned about Bin Laden, and that he would attempt to hijack planes. Ashcroft stopped flying on commercial airlines shortly after taking office, because of the known threat. That’s hardly the same thing as Clinton and the Cole bombing, or the first attempted attack on the world trade center.
April 10th, 2009 at 8:38 pmPoor Jeb. If he would have won Florida in 94, he would be President in 2000. But the Fates came in and Georgie won Texas and the Bush’s dynasty has crumbled. Hopefully, the Americans will remember George,s failed Presidency, because you can bet Jeb and George Senior will sniff around the Presidency again.
April 10th, 2009 at 8:38 pmMarie Says: “…therefore Obama can remain above it all and let the legal course continue.”
I totally agree with you in this perception.
April 10th, 2009 at 8:40 pm“The wheels of the gods grind slow, yet exceedingly fine…”
tombaker,
April 10th, 2009 at 8:40 pmPrecisely…
… Juan got caught switch hitting.
What a great scripted Teleprompter moment, NO?
Funny how you Libs keep rewriting history? President Bush never played the blame game and all B.O. has done since taking office is run President Bush down every chance he can.
You know it but go ahead and drink you’re Starbucks while watching B.O. & Biden continue to lie and believe it.
But there will be a backlash in 2010 when Pee-Lice-Ie is removed from the Major Chair and put back in her place where she belongs.
April 10th, 2009 at 8:43 pmLove the song at the end of the Jodi Fosters movie ” The Brave One” which I think is from Sarah McLACHLAN. Great song.
April 10th, 2009 at 8:44 pmReality@25, Are you serious? Who is rewrittiing history? Bushes underlings have been rewritting history for months! Jesus!
April 10th, 2009 at 8:45 pmP.D. Says: “Jesus!”
R.I.P.
April 10th, 2009 at 8:48 pmSorry about the last post…Wrong site.
April 10th, 2009 at 8:48 pmBut there will be a backlash in 2010 when Pee-Lice-Ie is removed from the Major Chair and put back in her place where she belongs.
Don’t cry out loud, just keep it inside, and learn how to hide your feelings…
April 10th, 2009 at 8:51 pmReality with no sense of reality:
Bush blames Clinton administration for economic slowdown.(The Dallas Morning News)
Publication: Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service
Publication Date: 27-MAR-01
Egg on your face!
April 10th, 2009 at 8:52 pmWow, more than one site at a time?
April 10th, 2009 at 8:52 pmI must have a very shallow existence…
;)
Y’know, just because you say it, doesn’t make it true.
As the article above makes clear,
“When I took office, our economy was beginning a recession.” — Bush, 8/7/02
There’s plenty more evidence, but this one example is sufficient to demonstrate that your claim is bullshit.
April 10th, 2009 at 8:52 pmNicely done, Chicano2nd.
That’s even more compelling evidence than the link I reprised from TP.
April 10th, 2009 at 8:55 pmMust suck to be republiscum today, right RealityCheck?
April 10th, 2009 at 8:56 pmRealityCheck Says:
“..you’re Starbucks is removed from the Major Chair…”
your Starbucks, not mine.
check please…
April 10th, 2009 at 8:57 pmBy the way Reality, Starbucks too f’n expensive. I like my coffee a heluva lot better anyway!
April 10th, 2009 at 8:57 pmLet’s be clear about one thing the word bush = hundreds of thousands dead or wounded
April 10th, 2009 at 8:59 pmHey troll, President Obama has had to remind you of President Bush because he’s not going to let you Bush hawks get away with your mindless two-faced concerns. He was elected to clean up Bush’s mess, and that’s what he’s doing.
“President Bush never played the blame game”
Oh really, did you read the post?
“When I took office, our economy was beginning a recession.” — Bush, 8/7/02
“The president inherited a Clinton recession and turned it into the early stages of Bush prosperity.” — Secretary of Commerce Don Evans, 9/2/04
“In terms of the economy, look, I inherited a recession, I am ending on a recession.” — Bush, 1/12/09
1-2-3-FALSE!
April 10th, 2009 at 9:00 pmI think RealityCheck must be waiting on a lot of liberals when he goes to his job at Starbucks.
April 10th, 2009 at 9:01 pmDubbie had “his boys” do all the trash-talkin’ for him.
Actually, Bar wouldn’t allow otherwise, lest her special boy be held to a standard for something.
Obama’s got the stones to deliver his own message, a true one, and deal with the consequences on his own, like the man Dubbie has never been.
April 10th, 2009 at 9:01 pmWhat the bloody hell is the Major Chair, anyways?
I have nevar heard that term before.
Nowhere.
Are you high?
April 10th, 2009 at 9:02 pm“Whenever anybody calls you a name, you win.” – Bill O’Reilly
Reality, in reality, whenever there is turnover between the parties during a presidential election, there is always blame from both sides. They provided some evidence in the blog entry itself. It’s “spin”.
This is the big problem that I see with 24/7 news channels. With the huge influx of information, there is bound to be an incident where one comment clashes with another comment. Sadly, the rush of information forces news programs to usually proceed without apologies or corrections, as time will just not slow down for it.
And let’s crack down on the name-calling here, folks. It doesn’t get the point across.
April 10th, 2009 at 9:02 pmjeb please stay out of the public eye you phony, lying idiot.
your bro is the worse president eva!
your little bro and his spat with daddy cost more than you thinking that your nutzo bro is being picked on. Get real dumbass.
Believe me jeb we are trying to put your families f0uck ups to rest but we won’t tolerate you waving your lies around.
This is why your family and chimpy’s administration will go to jail.
we don’t want to hear from any of chimpy’s bloodline for eons.
April 10th, 2009 at 9:03 pm“…when he goes to his job at Starbucks.”
It really grinds his beans to have to serve people who can read newspapers, magazines, and have a laptop…
April 10th, 2009 at 9:04 pmI think the troll is high on Limbaugh’s Taco Town farts.
April 10th, 2009 at 9:05 pm.
Dear RealityCheck,
“Clinton did it…”
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10193.html
“9/11 is Clinton’s fault…”
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/01/abc-blame-clinton/
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/16/fox-bush-inherited-9-11/
.
April 10th, 2009 at 9:06 pmnext you’ll see jebbie on youtube like that hot tranny mess who cried for two minutes “leave brittany alone, just leave her alone:”
April 10th, 2009 at 9:07 pmDear RealityCheck,
April 10th, 2009 at 9:10 pmPWND!
It won’t be long, Bozo…
Some Jebby looka-like with a potted palm in the background…
April 10th, 2009 at 9:11 pmMcWars,
How do you spot a (R)ushpublickin?
.
.
.
.
Their high from the Oxy sweat from being teabagged by Limpballs.
.
April 10th, 2009 at 9:13 pmRealitycheck: Hi, I’m another rightwingnutfool that takes Beck’s word as gospel.
You ooze desperation just like the rest of the Grand Ole Pissants.
April 10th, 2009 at 9:16 pmRealityCheck has been pwned on other threads on TP but keeps coming back and spams the same exact nonsense. You gotta admire someone like RealityCheck in his unswerving allegiance to his party, even over the welfare of his own nation. Even in the face of facts that are in direct contradiction with his version of reality, he persists.
Such devotion has been seen before, in the Nazi party.
April 10th, 2009 at 9:18 pmUnreality you are a LIAR, you are a fool and you are a brainwashed ignorant punkass troll. Nothing you said was true and you can keep repeating your FANTASIES about 2010 till they run out of time. I keep telling you challenged morons that repeating things you WISH were true dont MAKE them true. My GOD you are insufferably ignorant
April 10th, 2009 at 9:22 pmironically enough, tonight on Countdown, david shuster kept referring to the repukies “tea parties” as tea bagging parties. i nearly peed myself when he did that
April 10th, 2009 at 9:23 pm“….You gotta admire someone like RealityCheck….”
…who checks in, albeit briefly, and then veers off into whatever alternate reality they find most comforting…
April 10th, 2009 at 9:24 pmI have no respect for unreality. He is a punk. He tunes into Rush to find out what he thinks then regurgitates it like the moron he is. He is so stupid he thinks it is clever when Rush makes up derogatory names for his political opponents, a tactic he learned in third grade and never grew out of, so unreality does the same. Far too stupid to see how utterly pathetic he is
April 10th, 2009 at 9:26 pm9/11: Distinguishing The Propaganda From The Smoking Guns
April 10th, 2009 at 9:26 pmI have been anticipating that Bozo… repukies sure know how to stick their —– in their mouth….
April 10th, 2009 at 9:27 pm;)
.
Shorter RealityCheck:
.
April 10th, 2009 at 9:27 pmjebby-bone, how can you blame President Clinton when he left office with a freakin surplus which your bro blew in record time? remember your bro wanted to find martians and pay back his cronies?
jebby jeb, you old hick you, how can President Clinton be blamed for terrorist attacks when your stupidass bro invaded a country that didn’t have terrist and didn’t attack us? Also your admin were brief on possible attacks.
Let me catch my breath on this one, your bro’s followers, gawd, this is fun-nee as hell…heheheheee, plastered President Obama’s name to our number one boogeyman. the person chimpy never pursued. A reminder to thinking folks how idiotic the repug logic is.
jebby-worm, where is your cousin bin Laden?
Come to think of it your bro ruin the repug party too. HAHAHA And then to find out that the repug club members are the idiots of the US. HAHAHAHAHA It must be tough being in the sludge.
April 10th, 2009 at 9:28 pmHere’s Republican “history”: Carter caused inflation, then nothing happened except tax cuts for 12 years, then Clinton ruined the economy by raising taxes, and caused 9/11. Then nothing for 8 years except more tax cuts, and now Obama has ruined the economy.
April 10th, 2009 at 9:38 pmOh yes, George Bush is not to blame AT ALL. *kicking the dog out of frustration*
April 10th, 2009 at 9:41 pmCome on Billo, is this all you have to do on your day off?
April 10th, 2009 at 9:46 pm_FOXNEWSBOYCOTT_ Says:
Try the bold, in italics and CAPS… then you might get our attention…
April 10th, 2009 at 9:46 pmjust sayin…
#65 _FOXNEWSBOYCOTT_
BLOGWHORING…
… A-G-A-I-N
FLAGGED
(you would think this spammer would have learned)
Dear _FOXNEWSBOYCOTT_,
Now we know you’re not sincere.
.
April 10th, 2009 at 9:46 pm.
Dear moderators,
I hope T.P. doesn’t become a site of BLOG WHORES.
.
April 10th, 2009 at 9:48 pmIs that you, MR. P?
April 10th, 2009 at 9:49 pm“Also, if you have ideas feel free to contact us.”
Ohhhhh…OOOhhhh have you got anything….
April 10th, 2009 at 9:51 pmFOX-NEWSBOY-COT
We can all see where this is going…
April 10th, 2009 at 9:57 pmWHAT IS IT WITH THE BUSH FAMILY, EVERY TIME ANY OF THEM ARE IN OFFICE THEY DESTROY AND ROB AMERICA THEY ARE ALL INEPT PEOPLE WHO GOT ELECTED TO OFFICE? GO FIGURE!!!!
Between 1981 and 1989, when George Bush finally announced that there was a Savings and Loan Crisis to the world, the Reagan/Bush administration worked to cover up Savings and Loan problems by reducing the number and depth of examinations required of S&Ls as well as attacking political opponents who were sounding early alarms about the S&L industry. Industry insiders were aware of significant S&L problems as early 1986 that they felt would require a bailout. This information was kept from the media until after Bush had won the 1988 elections.
Jeb Bush defaulted on a $4.56 million loan from Broward Federal Savings in Sunrise, Florida. After federal regulators closed the S&L, the office building that Jeb used the $4.56 million to finance was reappraised by the regulators at $500,000, which Bush and his partners paid. The taxpayers had to pay back the remaining 4 million plus dollars.
Neil Bush was the most widely targeted member of the Bush family by the press in the S&L scandal. Neil became director of Silverado Savings and Loan at the age of 30 in 1985. Three years later the institution was belly up at a cost of $1.6 billion to tax payers to bail out.
WERE STILL PAYING FOR THIS ONE NOW.
The S&L scandal is by no means the only incident of questionable, and actually illegal, financial activity that the Bush family has been involved in. The line of questionable, illegal, and unethical businesses practices goes back at least to Prescott Bush Sr., George Bush Sr.’s father. Prescott Bush was a Senator from 1952 – 1963. Previous to his time as a Senator Prescott was a banker and businessman. Prior to the American entry into WWII Prescott Bush was director of Union Banking Corporation. Union Banking Corporation helped to finance Hitler’s regime. The Concentration Camps of Nazi Germany were labor camps that the Nazis used to make products for their regime as well as for sale to raise money. Prescott profited directly from the Auschwitz labor camp.
In 1942, after Hitler declared war on America the United States government seized the Union Banking Corporation under the Trading with the Enemy Act as a front operation that was supporting the Nazis. Much of the profits from the operation were already pocketed by Prescott however, and $1.5 million was put in a trust fund for George Bush Sr.
April 10th, 2009 at 10:02 pm.
Hey Y’all,
FOXNEWSBOYCOTT just got banned over at C/L.
.
April 10th, 2009 at 10:09 pmThat is a lie. President Clinton did have a plan. And along with this he set up three meetings with the Bush team to talk about terrorism. He told them that it would be their highest problem. Cointon team showed up for all three meetings, but the Bush team did not show up for any. And the report that Clinton left, was shelved. That was all over the news after 9/11. People have short memories.
Jeb Bush prays for his brothers re-writing of history. Because he wants to run for President one day. And unless his brother can resurrect his legacy, he won’t get in. I guess he feels two Bush’s are not enough. We must have three.
And let’s not forget that Clinton left not only with a balanced budget, but a surplus of billions. And that surplus was gone within 6 months. Say what you want about Clinton, but he left things in fairly good shape. I didn’t like him much either. But he did not leave a mess for Bush.
I for one don’t want another Clinton or Bush as President. I don’t believe in dynasties of any kind.
April 10th, 2009 at 10:11 pmfoxnewsboycott says:
Stop blaming T.P. when you shoot yourself in the foot.
.
April 10th, 2009 at 10:17 pmHey Maximus.
It looked like to me that they got a warning.
April 10th, 2009 at 10:19 pmI dunno, blogwhoring ain’t to cool.
True, it’s a worthy cause.
But hey, wtf do i know.
Max Anax junius -1 Says:
Dont be taken in this is a false flag operation. He HATES the Foxboycott website. He is TRYING to annoy us. This ignorant pathetic thug is NOT from FB. He is trying to hurt it. Do you REALLY think anyone trying to help FB would do the spam trolling this subhuman moron is so commited to? I think I will go donate to FB just to show this ignoramus we are not as stupid as he is.
April 10th, 2009 at 10:21 pmGeeezzzzussssss,
April 10th, 2009 at 10:21 pmThis guy blogwhored the shit out of this place.
He must own Stock in Spam.
I can remember the Reagan’s, blaming Jimmy Carter for anything that went wrong for 8 years. I don’t think I heard him complain once. Bill Clinton was a little bit different. The Bushes’ did get too far with their finger pointing before they got called on it. The Clintons were a loyal bunch. Now the Bushes’ are getting a taste of their own medicine and they deserve it. The amount of problems and unfinished business left behind and the political climate. In my opinion Obama isn’t turning up the heat enough!
April 10th, 2009 at 10:25 pmEugene Debs,
Good point…
… Why would the Captain of the Titanic steer his ship into an iceberg?
Oh, he didn’t. He let one of his contributors do it, instead.
April 10th, 2009 at 10:27 pmHey Zooey. You around?
April 10th, 2009 at 10:31 pmWTF is up with this blogwhore?
It is impressive…
The way the mentally ill demand attention, no matter what.
April 10th, 2009 at 10:33 pmIn the past, the Bush crime family got away before proper blame could really be laid at their door, hence snot-nosed Bush was enabled to steal the Presidency in ‘00.
I think this time around they are truly shocked that most of America knows, KNOWS they are criminals and abject failures.
Of course, 28% continue on their merry-go-round of lies and self deception. One day, when they get off that merry-go-round, they’ll be dizzy as hell and in the same rut where they started.
April 10th, 2009 at 10:38 pm“Memo To Jeb Bush: Your Brother’s Administration Blamed Clinton For 9/11 And The Economic Crisis”
It must be the bag of weed that is clouding Jeb’s brain. Jeb still can’t face reality that his Poppy and brother both messed up this country and now it is the Clinton policies through the Obama Administration to clean up once again: Another Bush mess.
Let’s face it, Jeb. Your brother treated this country like a casino, bet on the wrong horse, and allow this country to collapse finanically… with your campaign help, remember? You gave your brother Florida, remember?
April 10th, 2009 at 10:39 pmMax Anax junius -1 Says:
Are you REALLY telling me you BELIEVE this guy wants to HELP FB? Would anyone in their right mind think this kind of depraved trollidiocy could POSSIBLY do that? It is false flag. Not even very convincing false flag. He is a punk and a moron and thinks we would fall for something this obvious. Would YOU do this to help a website you believed in? I didnt believe him after his third post it was too canned and too mindless. I KNOW there are some stupid people out there but THIS stupid?
April 10th, 2009 at 10:41 pm90, 92, 94, 96, 98
Flagged.
April 10th, 2009 at 10:42 pmMaximus Anax.
April 10th, 2009 at 10:45 pmagreed.
65, 66, 70, 74, 75, 76, 79, 80, 82, 84, 87
Flagged.
F’ck!
Lay off.
April 10th, 2009 at 10:45 pmEugene,
No, not at all. He says he’s a contributor. I don’t believe him what so ever. Why would he purposefully sink the ship if the captain trusted him to advertise? T.P. sells ad space. I pointed that out earlier today. Yet, here he is…
He’s worse than a TROLL.
April 10th, 2009 at 10:46 pmfoxnewsboycott Says:
LETS DO IT! JOIN THE CAUSE. YOUR CAUSE> THE PROGRESSIVE CAUSE> MAKE AMERICA…AMERICA AGAIN.
____________
Kinda fascinating… what you can find on the Intertubes… like this little nugget from the REAL “FoxNewsBoycott.com”…
http://foxnewsboycott.com/
Latest News
Blog Spam Not From F.N.B.
Today while going through stats and backlinks, I came across a thread on another site where someone had been spamming links to FoxNewsBoycott.com. I even just received an email accusing me of doing the same.
I want to assure you that I never have, nor will I ever, blatantly spam a forum or blog with links to this site as someonese appears to have done. I have contacted the other site and hope to have made this clear.
Please do not spam other sites on behalf of F.N.B. Thank you.
___________
Clearly, whoever is her tonight doing this is just out to be as obnoxious and destructive as possible. I would have to say Fox feels threatened by this, huh?
And the righties whine no one treats them fairly…
Saaaaay… is that you, Glen Beck?
April 10th, 2009 at 10:48 pmThe big givaway was yesterday…
April 10th, 2009 at 10:50 pm… He couldn’t even supply the link properly.
Owner of the foxnewsboycott site CLAIMS ignorance.
Also CLAIMED he contacted TP regarding it.
Either he is a liar, or someone is trying to get him banned everywhere.
Either way, TP moderators need to do something about it, whatever the cause.
April 10th, 2009 at 10:52 pmMemo to Jeb: Pi$$ off, you’re family has been a drag on this country for three generations.
April 10th, 2009 at 11:25 pmOk Anax I misunderstood you. I dont know what he thinks he is accomplishing. TP will scrub his idiocy and he wont even be a memory. I guess it must be an old troll trying to annoy us because he got slapped around when he tried to fly his BS. How pathetic can you possibly get?
April 10th, 2009 at 11:32 pmLooks like this repeat spammer has nothing to do with the website it appears to representing. Misguided at best.
April 10th, 2009 at 11:33 pmLooks like this repeat spammer has nothing to do with the website it appears to be representing. Misguided at best.
April 10th, 2009 at 11:34 pmOh great I got home early and can make you look foolish all the sooner…
April 10th, 2009 at 11:35 pmSorry for the double post, but things are not running smoothly and I hit the submit button a second time. Is this SPAMMER some kind of cyber attack?
April 10th, 2009 at 11:37 pmno they are just a pussy too afraid to actually engage. It is sort of sad…
April 10th, 2009 at 11:44 pmWhatever it is it’s enough to make you want to track down the IP.
April 10th, 2009 at 11:47 pmI went to the foxnewsboycott website and on the thread, “Blog Spam Not From F.N.B.” and the one comment/reply is from… FoxNewsBoycott saying that the spammer has been banned. It’s a bitblt sorta thing…
I’m not sure if the poster there is the same spammer here, but I can tell you, he’s not been banned here. I was going to leave a comment, but registration requires an e-mail address, and I’m not going to subject myself to unwanted spam if this jerk is a contributor.
p.s.
April 11th, 2009 at 12:02 amIs T.P. running particularly slow?
Could it be because of foxnewsboycott?
Can you imagine going through life so chicken shit to be afraid of others and to have to create some bullshit mental gymnastics routine to explain away that total lack of balls. I really feel for this loser… Sitting there thinking they are cool and getting the negative attention they seek in order to compensate for their inadaquacies and social isolation…
April 11th, 2009 at 12:02 amI don’t know if it can even think on that level dbadass…it seems more like a troll on steriods.
April 11th, 2009 at 12:11 amOh geez! Fatboy Jebby, lying through his teeth, trying to rewrite history. Just another neocon trying to polish the turd called George W. Bush.
April 11th, 2009 at 12:11 amSmith1,
April 11th, 2009 at 12:18 amTurd Polish
http://blatanttruth.org/turd-polish.gif
Does Jeb still suckle the teat of Barbara? Maybe he’s due for a diaper change.
April 11th, 2009 at 12:19 amhey max does that work on leather shoes too?
April 11th, 2009 at 12:21 amLooks a little like Dapper Dan from “OH BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU?”
April 11th, 2009 at 12:22 amYes the site was running very very slow while the blogwhore spammer was dropping its payload.
April 11th, 2009 at 12:31 amIf I were TP, I would consider it a cyber attack.
pastcaring,
April 11th, 2009 at 12:31 amOnly on sh!t kickers…
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3291/2687499339_2137f81798.jpg
RC,
April 11th, 2009 at 12:32 amDoesn’t that quaify as a DHS matter?
Max, and TP.
Impersonating an Entity to cause harm. FNB
Using a Computer (Including TP’s web server) to commit fraud.
Intentional traffic attack. (Multiple quick placed posts with large content in succession for prolonged period)
I can probably come up with more, but I think its worth reporting.
April 11th, 2009 at 1:04 amDoes anyone know why Jebbie didn’t run for the senate in Florida?
April 11th, 2009 at 1:39 amdropdeadcharisma:
The Nov. 2006 election Jeb could not run for Governor again because of term limits and democrat Bill Nelson was running for reelection. Maybe Jeb thought he couldn’t win or thought his brother would be more popular so he could run for pres. in ‘08. Martinez was elected in ‘04, so his term won’t be up until the next election, thus there was no Senate race this past election.
April 11th, 2009 at 2:17 amthe foxbot appears to be a hacker, not a spammer or ordinary troll
The ID changed from lower to uppercase with underscores.
This person wants to be ‘recognized’, but not revealed.
Used redundant padding characters in this thread instead of just the text as in the last thread. Definite slowdown.
April 11th, 2009 at 2:37 amwhile everyone is blaming everyone else no one or very few look at the system that has created this imperialistic nation and this economic decline for the middle class.
that system is a capitalistic system and by its very design it will create imperialism and a society of haves and have nots.
but americans worship at the altar of capitalism even in spite of the evidence. that is paradigm paralysis in action.
paradigms are powerful just look and see.
April 11th, 2009 at 4:09 amI remember the Bush Administration blaming Clinton for not doing enough about Binladen and AL Qaeda. Bush had 7 years to do something about Binladen, but what happened? Bush got Saddam instead. WOW so now it’s passed onto Obama? I guess we can do the waiting game, Binladen won’t live forever, but then again neither will we.
April 11th, 2009 at 4:10 amRove is all over the news these days, as is Ari Fleischer, attacking Biden and Obama, while praising Bush and complaining we’re in danger due to Obama.
Bush is having a reunion of White House staff next week, and he’s featured in today’s news, “What Bush Is Doing These Days”.
The revisionism of his administration continues, and with Jeb rearing his ugly head, I’ve no doubt that he’s planning on making a bid for the White House with his brother’s team around him in the next couple of election cycles.
If there is a breath left in my body, these bastids won’t get away with trying to whitewash what they’ve done to this country. They should be tried and shot and tossed in unmarked graves, they are that corrupt.
If Obama does change his mind and kick off investigations and prosecutions, he will and should go down in history as an accessory after the fact. The democracy cannot survive with what they did going unaddressed.
April 11th, 2009 at 4:34 amCorrection to 125: If Obama does not change his mind and kick off investigations and prosecutions, he will and should go down in history as an accessory after the fact.
April 11th, 2009 at 4:36 amAre you sure about that?
How do you know?
April 11th, 2009 at 4:37 am.
Bye-bye, Black Sites…
… Rachael Maddow.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#30145607
.
April 11th, 2009 at 5:05 am.
Rep. Woolsey blasts Obama’s war-funding request
Carolyn Lochhead
Friday, April 10, 2009
April 11th, 2009 at 5:10 am
What a real President did against terrorism:
President Clinton developed the nation’s first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator of anti-terrorist efforts.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold the Al Qaeda millennium hijacking and bombing plots.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to kill the Pope.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up Boston airport.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge.
· Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania.
· Bill Clinton tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through
preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).
· Bill Clinton brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.
· Bill Clinton did not blame the Bush I administration for first WTC bombing even though it
occurred 38 days after Bush left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively – and successfully
- to stop future terrorist attacks.
· Bill Clinton named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats
and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism.
· Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to tighten airport security. (Remember, this is before 911)
The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.
· Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to allow for better tracking of terrorist funding.
It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.
· Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for better tracking
of explosives used by terrorists. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA.
· Bill Clinton increased the military budget by an average of 14 per cent, reversing the trend under Bush I.
· Bill Clinton tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism and doubled overall funding for counterterrorism.
· Bill Clinton detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries.
· Bill Clinton created national stockpile of drugs and vaccines including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine.
· Of Clinton’s efforts says Robert Oakley, Reagan Ambassador for Counterterrorism:
“Overall, I give them very high marks” and “The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama”.
· Paul Bremer, current Civilian Administrator of Iraq disagrees slightly with Robert Oakley as
he believed the Bill Clinton Administration had “correctly focused on bin Laden.
· Barton Gellman in the Washington Post put it best, “By any measure available, Bill Clinton left office
having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him” and was the “first administration
to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort”.
http://www.bartcop.com/clinton-terror-stopped.htm
April 11th, 2009 at 5:27 amLet ne get this straight,
1) the credit/loan crisis is because too many people who shouldn’t have been given loans and lines of credit were indeed given so
2) types like Obama have spent their whole adult lives as “activists” clamoring for, among other things, exactly that: giving loans to people who are bad credit risks
3) Now Obama tries to spin it so that he is not to blame for the fact that banks are going under, small businesses can’t get the loans they need to keep themselves afloat, and people are losing their jobs?
If you shill for an ideology, then you are responsible for the consequences of that ideology. Obama and his fellow “God D**n America” types have brought this depression on through their political ideology, and they are therefore responsible. Now he is finishing the job of destroying the country with his prodigal deficit (not to mention suicidal foreign policy). I am disgusted with him and his fellow travelers.
April 11th, 2009 at 7:02 amAre you going to W’s renunion?
April 11th, 2009 at 7:17 amJuan Williams is showing flashes of occasional integrity, he should be careful, Fox News doesn’t tolerate that, he may be looking for a job.
April 11th, 2009 at 8:43 amcommon_sense101 Says:
Let ne get this straight,
1) the credit/loan crisis is because too many people who shouldn’t have been given loans and lines of credit were indeed given so
Actually, the surge in such loans was directly attributable to financial investors clamoring for high-return investment packages, and financial institutions bundling these mostly-very secure loans and selling them as investments. The profit on these investments for firms like Bear Stearns was considerable, and as investors howled for ever-more lending, to give them more-profitable investment vehicles, these firms lowered their lending qualification standards, to supply investors with these loan investment packages, to the point where even dead people were reportedly getting loans. So your point is off, in that it was high-end investors who pushed this into the danger zone, not low income people.
2) types like Obama have spent their whole adult lives as “activists” clamoring for, among other things, exactly that: giving loans to people who are bad credit risks
See: my first point.
3) Now Obama tries to spin it so that he is not to blame for the fact that banks are going under, small businesses can’t get the loans they need to keep themselves afloat, and people are losing their jobs?
Again, see my first point.
If you shill for an ideology, then you are responsible for the consequences of that ideology. Obama and his fellow “God D**n America” types have brought this depression on through their political ideology, and they are therefore responsible. Now he is finishing the job of destroying the country with his prodigal deficit (not to mention suicidal foreign policy). I am disgusted with him and his fellow travelers.
Same. Point 1. Investors are to blame.
April 11th, 2009 at 8:49 amcommon_sense101 Says:
——————————————————————————–
Let ne get this straight,
No, let me get this straight. For eight years, republicans controlled everything… WH, Congress, Supreme court and state Governorships… Their policies lead to the worst economic crisis since the depression… and it’s Obama’s ideology that put us here? I don’t think your name means what you think it means. Turn off Fox and pick up a book.
April 11th, 2009 at 9:01 amJeb Bush had his own Savings & Loan scandal down in Broward County Florida, so honestly, his opinions don’t matter and he should be in prison along with his other brothers/family/friends.
April 11th, 2009 at 9:11 amClinton surplus? Courtesy of a republican congress. Current economic mess courtesy of Bush? How about the community redevelopment act, which Barney Frank put into hyperspace. “Everyone in America deserves to own a house” quote by Bill Clinton. Now the new mantra is “Everyone in America deserves free healthcare.” Gee do you think we will end up with the same result? For all you whining liberals who only have one line, its Bushs fault. Do some reading and gather some facts before you spout out your usual one liner.
April 11th, 2009 at 9:26 amWho — besides those who actually used the phrase — will forget the years of “But, but, but Clinton . . . ”
Enough of the Republican whining. The truth hurts because the Bush Administration did such a lousy job.
April 11th, 2009 at 9:44 amcommon_sense101 Says:
Let ne get this straight,
1) the credit/loan crisis is because too many people who shouldn’t have been given loans and lines of credit were indeed given so
Wrong right out of the box. The credit/loan crisis is because the bush cabal pushed through a host of deregulation during his time in office that allowed banks to sell balloon mortgages based on an imaginary ever-rising housing market, which they used to target poor people with, but also sold to greedy rich people, and when the market inevitably crashed blamed it on the poor. Remember bush talking about the “ownership society” ?
Given that your initial assertion is refuted, the rest of your right wing whining is refuted as well. go play in the street.
April 11th, 2009 at 9:45 amNow the new mantra is “Everyone in America deserves free healthcare.” Gee do you think we will end up with the same result?
Not until another republican steals his way into power and screws it up…
April 11th, 2009 at 9:47 amWhere’d the nazi repubs run off to? Typical repubs, they create a mess and then run away and let the liberals clean it up…
April 11th, 2009 at 9:48 amThey are all in the same bed, Bush was just a different degree of idiot. Term limits or a strong 3rd party is what this country needs. It is nice to have someone we can all be proud of as President, but that liberal wing of the Democratic party serves little purpose whatsoever, the only thing more inept is the Conservative Right wingers. Can’t we cut those 25 per cent off each party and let the middle 50 percent run this country?
April 11th, 2009 at 9:50 amI thought those posts from Texasman5002 read a little funny. I wonder if our Boycott Boy was testing the waters this morning?
Keep up the good work insects.
April 11th, 2009 at 9:53 amDr. Moth Matt already dismantled this one, pretty efficiently.
But Matt could also have mentioned the Clinton tax hikes that Newtie and the rest of the Republicans predicted would end up in fiscal disaster. In reality… not so much.
Pwned AGAIN.
THe CRA? Signed in 1977 by Jimmy Carter? Seriously?
Jeez, these trolls can’t figure out whether this crisis took thirty years to brew, or if it all broke in the two months immediately following the Democrats’ taking control of Congress.
And how exactly did Barney Frank put the 1977 CRA “Into hyperspace”? WTF does that even mean?
It’s really entertaining when the trolls come here with absolute squat in their little bag of tricks and try to play anyway.
April 11th, 2009 at 9:56 amDragonflies should always have coffee before posting on wrong thread!
April 11th, 2009 at 9:59 amCommon sense with everything but common sense. Must be reality’s twin.
Since Reagan, whose ranting against government, and the subsequent Republcans types, started putting the foxes to guard the hen-houses, and they have gutted consumer friendly regulations while lining the pockets of their rich, fat-buddies.
Since 1980, those charging for the use of money (or given goods in a lease tranaction and charged the equivalent of usurious interest) have been able to exact rates that before would have been considered loan sharking. In other words, would have been criminal, under prior laws. This is the Reagan legacy that has brought this country to its knees. Why do you think there has been a dearth of pay day loan businesses. Its time to regulate the amount of interests theses crooks have been using. Maybe legitimate business people can step in with less greedy endeavors. But regulation is still necessary, human nature being what it is.
And,its time to start taking away the rights from corporations that are the province of actual, not legal and artificial persons. That way we can jail the persons who are leading the corporate ransacking of the national treasury.
People like common sense love to blame the victims when changing the rules no longer works for them. Their words should ring hollow for the rest of us who can think on our own.
April 11th, 2009 at 10:05 amWell, Matt, this is just a clear demonstration of the limitations of faith-based argumentation.
Of course, it’s also one of the strengths of it, if you wanna look at it that way. If a troll believes in something fervently enough — in this case, that Barney Frank caused the economic meltdown — then no amount of factual refutation can dissuade him. It must make them feel very secure., in a sadly deluded sort of way.
April 11th, 2009 at 10:08 ammatt@145,
April 11th, 2009 at 10:14 amnice to see mrs becky is participating in the teabagging events by showing up and inciting participants to burn books like a good little nazi
In the lead up to the 2000 election Bush was stumping around the country that “a warning light is flashing on the dashboard of our economy, and we just can’t drive on and hope for the best”. While the economy was not growing as fast as earlier due to the tech bubble bursting businesses took a lead from those comments and shut down spending. Consumer spending stayed strong throughout this period. Indeed, one could make the case that Bush talked the country into the business lead 2001 recession.
April 11th, 2009 at 10:16 amEven when we are visited by a troll who doesn’t seem to be a drooling idiot, or a ranting lunatic, they are still putting forth misinformation and mistaken logic and distorted history in their coherent remarks.
April 11th, 2009 at 10:21 amThanks to all the regular smart guys here who are able to counter this troll point for point with sense, reason and fact.
Matt, I can top your Beck link: Beck places Obama’s budget with Pearl Harbor and 9/11.
April 11th, 2009 at 10:35 amMatt, I think you went a little overboard on our troll with your “facts”. You know trolls don’t like facts, and yet you dumped a whole truckload on him and chased him away.
Now we have no one to play with.
April 11th, 2009 at 10:39 ammassp Says:
“Clinton surplus? Courtesy of a republican congress.”
if i recall correctly, that was the congress hell bent on wasting taxpayer’s time and money pursuing trumped up impeachment charges. hardly “evidence” you want to use to “support” your argument, sparky
April 11th, 2009 at 10:42 amMaybe the trolls are hung over from the tea parties, still in bed with tea bags on their eyes.
April 11th, 2009 at 10:43 amOnly 84% believe Obama inherited messes from Bush? Who could the 16% be who can not understand facts? Since at least 2007, surely earlier, the constant question was “Are we in a recession”? All the clues and facts were there, too. So, try to blame the 2009 guy for the 2007 problem. Iraq and Afghanistan were inherited from Bush since 2002.
April 11th, 2009 at 10:43 amSo has anyone heard that Fox News sucks and some sort of f ucking lunatic is spreading the word?
April 11th, 2009 at 10:52 amAnd, of course, Barney Frank.
Oh, and Nancy Pelosi. But you’re right, they all report to George Soros.
April 11th, 2009 at 10:57 amSeems to me that at the end of the Clinton Administration the the right wing attack squad were laser focused on any and all of Clinton’s actions. Any thing he did was attacked, anything he didn’t do was attacked. The vitriol, bile, and hatred they spewed forth caused untold harm to the USA. Once Bush took office a bunch of unqualified idealouges were put into power and it was politics as usual. Skip 8 years…. Now that Obama is President the attack squad is back in action. Only this time there’s something different. It’s not that the right has squandered nearly all it’s credibility. It’s not that the right’s assumed moral superiority is a hollow shell. It’s the fact that President Obama has put together an administration that far exceeds anything the right wing could hope to assemble. It’s the fact that his Presidential demeanor and intellect is perhaps the finest we have seen in generations.
April 11th, 2009 at 10:58 amFox news sucks? Damn, that IS news! ’bout time there was some news associated with Fox.
April 11th, 2009 at 11:07 amSo any self-proclaimed “progressives” on this site care to explain why Republicans are trolls? Insects? Who are the insects again? Where are the silverfish? How about the ostriches, or the largemouth bass? What the hell? If we’re going J.R. Tolkien with this shit, I’m a dwarf, I guess. Why talk about Fox newx, or any media? We all know the AP doesn’t stand for “associated press”. It’s all about the ANIMAL PLANET.
Is this really what passes for wit these days? Christ (whom I believe in, personally, but will invoke casually here to prove that I can be “progressive”) how bout we all get away from euphemisms and start real dialogue? Anyone?
April 11th, 2009 at 11:20 amHi westhetrucker
April 11th, 2009 at 11:27 amWanna have a sit over some black coffee and pie?
westhetrucker appears to be hopped on some kind of stimulant, dbadass.
Not sure black coffee is the best thing to offer him.
He’s probably just getting home after a long-haul run to Shakeytown, and catching up on his emails. Best let him get some rest.
April 11th, 2009 at 11:31 amIt’s always about Fox News. It sucks so bad nobody can possibly grasp how they get ratings…and more ratings…and then more.
Ah yes, it’s because….it’s because dumb middle (or majority) America can’t figure out they’re duped! Rupert Murdoch, curse him, he’s smarter than everyone else that’s how he gets his ratings. His huge corporation is mostly to blame. Most successful businesses are to blame for most problems. I’ve learned a lot here today.
Let me try to break it down to whatever animal/fantastical figment of imagination you guys wanna be today. BIG news flash. Most people think independently. Do you? Do you really?
April 11th, 2009 at 11:33 amThe whole lot lizard thing is just so nasty… Skanky animal planet indeed… Still I think the idea of trucker leks is sort of amusing…
April 11th, 2009 at 11:34 amLighten up westhetrucker, we are referring to an idiot that was already banned from here for being a Fox News lunatic. I think you came in too late to catch that part. Would you like to start a new topic?
April 11th, 2009 at 11:34 amOh yes here comes more “wit”….you haven’t even made the Joe the Plumber parallel yet…cmon..you can get there..
April 11th, 2009 at 11:34 amSh-sh-sh, wes… you’re home now. You can relax. Have a Hungry Man frozen dinner and chill in front of ESPN.
April 11th, 2009 at 11:35 amSamJoe the below average and not a plumber is also not a trucker?
April 11th, 2009 at 11:36 amMatt, I thought briefly about asking wes what he thought ratings success demonstrated, but then I decided that what wes really needs is to get some rest and come down off that high from the open road. So let’s allow him to blow off some steam, wear himself out and fall asleep in front of the TV. We’ll pull the shades down so he can sleep as long as he wants.
April 11th, 2009 at 11:38 amI doubt it, but it’s nice that you think so.
Get some rest. You’ve earned it.
April 11th, 2009 at 11:40 amA lot of people seem to care about certain information, how its delivered, and who delivers it. Yes, that’s a primary concern of anyone who is claiming to be informed or intelligent about anything. Context doesn’t matter? The media doesn’t matter? Maybe I’m assuming way too much. Let me get offline and watch ESPN.
April 11th, 2009 at 11:40 amHi ralph
April 11th, 2009 at 11:42 amHungry Man is good but I prefer those weird hotdog things that they inject with cheese processed food. Cheddarwursts?
Gas Station cuisine is quintessential americana. Stupid old europe just doesn’t get it. See ya at Applebee’s…
I brought up Fox for fun. You guys care a lot about it. Nearly everyone mentions it, or someone who appears on the network. I’m just reading the posts and noticed the pattern. I don’t know anything about progressivism, remember. I’m here to learn. I still haven’t, well, except that corporations are bad. What else do I need to know?
April 11th, 2009 at 11:43 am177
April 11th, 2009 at 11:43 amCan’t you please stay and explain what the hell you mean and how it relates to your arggressive arrival statements?
thanks and best either way…
What else do I need to know?
April 11th, 2009 at 11:44 am—
That Archie etal are idiots…
Please, please…..no more Bush’s. Two were enough for the next hundred years. If this is all the Republicans can come up with, Jeb & Newt for next election, we are in trouble…..again!
April 11th, 2009 at 11:45 amLet’s see, I smoked a clip earlier and I’m just typing at the only speed I know how to type. But trust me, I’ll try to…chillll..a lil more, I guess.
April 11th, 2009 at 11:46 amI think that’s a good idea, wes. Chill. Have some warm milk. Maybe some oatmeal. You’ll feel better.
April 11th, 2009 at 11:46 amAh yes, there it is again FAUX. Pity Stokley Carmichael, SADD, MLK…anyone responsible for any rhetoric of any protest movement. Thinkprogress.org needs to reorg as dabomb.com. Diss where da tru intellectuals at, peace. Chill. Milk. Cookies. Trees. Green. Love.
April 11th, 2009 at 11:50 amwes, buddy, it’s not the speed with which you type. It’s the manic style of composition you use; bouncing from one surface to the next to the next, explaining none of them, but bundling them all within a single paragraph as if they were all a single thought.
As dbadass pointed out, your introductory statements were rather aggressive and derisive — not at all in keeping with your professed ambition to “learn” about us.
So maybe smoke another fatty, have a cookie or two, and relax. Maybe you WILL learn something.
April 11th, 2009 at 11:51 amFor the locust. I like milk and cookies. Complete thought. Now, do you really think I’m that aggressive?
April 11th, 2009 at 11:53 amSee, wes, this is what I’m talking about.
I’m sure these thoughts all make perfect sense to you, but we’re not in your head. So to us, they just sound like a jumble of amphetamine-fueled prejudices sprayed out on a discussion forum.
It’s almost like you don’t care whether we understand what you’re trying to say.
April 11th, 2009 at 11:54 amSo westhetrucker:
April 11th, 2009 at 11:57 amWatcha hauling?
I didn’t say you were aggressive. I said your introductory statements were aggressive.
You sound rather unfocused and over-amped. And maybe like you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder.
April 11th, 2009 at 11:57 amI guess the Locust still wants to talk about amphetamines. Well, I told you I smoked earlier, yet I didn’t bring drugs into this forum either. I’m still behind, I know, I’m trying to fit in…damnit what do else do you WANT FROM ME? These “people”…they have hiiiii standards I guess?
April 11th, 2009 at 11:57 amHey ralph.
April 11th, 2009 at 12:00 pmYou win. Semi-boy talks to you. Seems I am too threatening again…
Repubs reduced to turd polishing on the Propaganda Network.
Sucks to be you.
April 11th, 2009 at 12:01 pmFrom my experiences with family members who do drugs, the people who have a problem with them usually are the first to talk to you about them, but not you ralph. Nor will I accuse you of making some kind of link between truck drivers and drugs. Cause you’re way above that.
April 11th, 2009 at 12:01 pmThat’s funny, wes, you don’t sound like you’re trying to fit in.
April 11th, 2009 at 12:01 pmWesthetricker,
April 11th, 2009 at 12:02 pmYour funny! In a pathetic sense of the term.
I didn’t say you were aggressive. I said your introductory statements were aggressive.
—
April 11th, 2009 at 12:04 pmJust a god damned minute, I thought I was the one that said that…
Wait a minute, I come to a “progressive” board, right, but I don’t self-identify, I ask a question about insects, I get a response…eventually, which is that I guess it has to do with O Reilly, or whatever you guys call wanna call him, and I also get a bunch of bullshit about pie, coffee, Americana, uppers, and on….and on….and on….
April 11th, 2009 at 12:05 pmSo any self-proclaimed “progressives” on this site care to explain why Republicans are trolls? Insects? Who are the insects again? Where are the silverfish?</em
Was that really that agressive? REALLY? Which part, the phrase self-proclaimed? Or the quotations around the word “progressive”?
I think some pirates off the coast of Africa are showing aggression. I’ll try not to type too much more cuz I think that kinda defines it. And I dont’ wanna hear any more about drugs today when I didn’t start it.
April 11th, 2009 at 12:09 pmGo read 164 then get back to me. See I have both wit and memory…
April 11th, 2009 at 12:09 pmHow do you know I’m “way above that”?
In fact, wes, I made the connection (as I’ve explained before) based primarily on the manic, disconnected ramblings you’ve posted.
you identified yourself as a trucker, and as two brothers-in-law have been truckers, I have a passing familiarity with the lifestyle.
It’s Saturday morning, you sound over-amped, you’re a trucker, how absurd is it to guess that perhaps you’ve just arrived home from a trip, you’re still amped, and you jump on your computer to check emails?
Your commenting style hasn’t done a thing to make that scenario seem less plausible.
April 11th, 2009 at 12:10 pmNow that you had a chance to reread your own words how about that dialogue? Let’s go good buddy…
April 11th, 2009 at 12:11 pmwes, you self-identified when you posted this:
westhetrucker Says:
So any self-proclaimed “progressives” on this site care to explain why Republicans are trolls? Insects? Who are the insects again?
self-proclaimed “progressives”
care to explain why Republicans are trolls?
You didn’t ask a question about insects, either.
(This from a guy who posted, “Context doesn’t matter?“)
April 11th, 2009 at 12:15 pmMy point? Homeboy answered my AGGRESSIVE question (but no blood was shed). You’re right, I guess I don’t have one, I had a question. Everyone is having so much fun entertaining themselves and finding it even MORE entertaining supporting others who post something equally entertaining. I told you I just wanted to join in the fun.
April 11th, 2009 at 12:16 pmRalph, you gotta think about “ralph the psychic” or some other name. You go pretty deep there on “plausability” and such…
“Who are the insects?”
Question? That’s not a question? Is this? How bout this? I guess this is too. ?
???
??????
?
April 11th, 2009 at 12:17 pmYou did, dbadass. But wes is ignoring you and dealing with me. So I call the shots, get it?
Seriously, I gave you credit.
April 11th, 2009 at 12:17 pmWho the hell is “homeboy”?
April 11th, 2009 at 12:17 pmOh, you’ve joined in the fun, wes. We’re having a good time entertaining ourselves with your comments. Thanks.
April 11th, 2009 at 12:18 pmReading through a few of these posts is enough to give me my laugh for the day. Which one of you brainiacs said Clinton increased the military budget an average of 14% a year? That is so laughable that I almost fell of my chair! He proposed huge cuts and would have had his way had it not been for the Republicans taking Congress in 95. For the poster who claimed Bush deregulated the banks, can you be specific as to what he did? Or did you mean Clinton signing two deregulation bills, one in 99 and one in 2000? Why don’t you bring up that Dodd threatened to filibuster Shelby’s proposed Senate legislation to regulate Fannie/Freddie? And that Obama backed Dodd’s threat up. Or how many times Frank stopped any attempt to regulate Fannie/Freddie? How many times did Bush try to more regulation for them? In 2008 alone, 17 times. How did Clinton balance the budget? He didn’t, and you know it. How many budgets did Clinton veto before he finally accepted one and THAT is what laid the groundwork for the budget surplus in the future. Clinton’s own proposed budgets showed a deficit into the 2000s, at which time the only way to balance the budget would be to cut back on SS and Medicare benefits. Bush made his share of mistakes, but the attempts to lay all this at his feet is phony.
April 11th, 2009 at 12:19 pmwesthetrucker Says:
Is this really what passes for wit these days? Christ (whom I believe in, personally, but will invoke casually here to prove that I can be “progressive”) how bout we all get away from euphemisms and start real dialogue? Anyone?
Then
westhetrucker Says:
My point? Homeboy answered my AGGRESSIVE question (but no blood was shed). You’re right, I guess I don’t have one, I had a question. Everyone is having so much fun entertaining themselves and finding it even MORE entertaining supporting others who post something equally entertaining. I told you I just wanted to join in the fun.
Which is it? HOMEBOY
April 11th, 2009 at 12:21 pmSomebody with the name “dbadass” asks me who the hell “homeboy” is..as if he can’t figure that word out. But he’s a badass.
Then, he also wonders why I don’t respond to him. Hell, at least Ralph the Clairvoyant “makes sense”. I like him better that’s why I’m talking to him.
April 11th, 2009 at 12:22 pmIs it just me or should someone who has read throught the comments be able to identify who made any specific comment…
April 11th, 2009 at 12:22 pmwesthetrucker:
April 11th, 2009 at 12:23 pmLet’s have that black coffeee and pie or am I too threatening to you?
WESTHEIDONTDODRUGSTRUCKER,
Which is it HOMEBOY? You want to seriously discuss/debate? Or continue to Entertain the rest of us with your drivel?
April 11th, 2009 at 12:27 pmNow I didn’t major in Chemistry, but caffeine has to be structurally similar to amphetamine so I don’t think Ralph would agree with that at all..I’m sorry badass, I’ll have to decline.
April 11th, 2009 at 12:27 pmFunny that a poster calls himself “just the facts” but then posts an almost entirely fact-free comment.
Like this right-wing urban myth:
How did Clinton balance the budget? He didn’t, and you know it.
The facts say differently:
In 1998, the Federal budget reported its first surplus ($69 billion) since 1969. In 1999, the surplus nearly doubled to $125 billion, and then again in 2000 to $236 billion. As a result of these surpluses, Federal debt held by the public has been reduced from $3.8 trillion at the end of 1997 to $3.4 trillion at the end of 2000 and to an estimated $3.2 trillion in 2001. With continued prudent fiscal policies, the budget can remain in surplus for many years.
or this gem:
the only way to balance the budget would be to cut back on SS and Medicare benefits
Social Security has nothing to do with the federal budget. It has a separate account, and separate formulae for income and outgo. The only thing that SS has to do with the federal budget is that presidents keep borrowing from the SS Trust Fund to keep their own programs funded.
Anyone else want to take a whack at his Barney Frank hysteria? I find it boring.
April 11th, 2009 at 12:30 pmMy bad, it doesn’t have to be similar..in fact, I’ve admitted I don’t know anything about chemistry, then made a statement pertinent to facts within that body of knowledge. CALL ME OUT! Well, I already did, but hey, nobody engaging in political discussion ever makes statements indicating they know something when they in fact, don’t. We all know that the source of all “facts” are contained on progressive message boards, like this one.
April 11th, 2009 at 12:30 pmI’m sorry badass, I’ll have to decline.
April 11th, 2009 at 12:31 pm—
No problem. A lot of the pretends find me way too difficult and submit without even trying. It is sort of that whole evolutionary bio thing at play. Really what intelligent big horn sheep with such little horns even attempts to ram them against another whose are larger? Still what are you hauling. Driving those pineapple straight through from Kona to Kansas might not be so advisable…
That’s what I thought. Seriously, we need to comeup with a cure for A$$HAT syndrome.
April 11th, 2009 at 12:33 pmwesthetrucker:
April 11th, 2009 at 12:38 pmI gotta take my big rig up to the plaza to score me some grub and a couple of dvd’s. Stick around good buddy and you can avoid me some more in about an hour. Till then keep your ears on and watch out for them thar smokeys ya hear… Round these parts we often get convoys of pussy wannabees too scared to engage…
Dbadass, are you progressive? Because if our president is also a “progressive” I don’t think he’d much agree with the whole arrogant, individualistic thing…
After all, its ONE FOR ALL AND ALL FOR ALL! No man (or creature, beast, unicorn, …man it keeps going..sheep…wow)
Love your brother. He is as smart as you. We’re in it TOGETHER!
April 11th, 2009 at 12:39 pmPachydiplax de St. Augustine Says:
The Nov. 2006 election Jeb could not run for Governor again because of term limits and democrat Bill Nelson was running for reelection. Maybe Jeb thought he couldn’t win or thought his brother would be more popular so he could run for pres. in ‘08. Martinez was elected in ‘04, so his term won’t be up until the next election, thus there was no Senate race this past election.
*****
On that note I guess he’s not done w/ politics. I have a creepy feeling he’s trying to keep a low profile and hoping his brother’s slate will be wiped clean by 2012 at which time he’ll reemerge as a presidential candidate w/ Rove ready to rig the election. Jebbie needs to finish wiping out the middle class and privatizing social security.
By-the-way, do dragonflies bite/sting?
April 11th, 2009 at 12:40 pmNow where’s the Locust when you need him cause I have another question and I like his insight.
April 11th, 2009 at 12:41 pmPussy. Now that’s a word best reserved for the guy who called me aggressive earlier.
April 11th, 2009 at 12:42 pmOT
Biden says Bush didn’t lead, Rove says VP lies
The tit-for-tat played out during media interviews this week
excerpt
Former Bush adviser Karl Rove says Biden’s version of that encounter is at best an exaggeration — at worst a lie — and part of a pattern.
“It’s a habit he ought to drop,” Rove said.
Rove then turned to Biden’s character.
“I hate to say it, but he’s a serial exaggerator. If I was being unkind, I’d say he`s a liar. … You’ll notice every one of these incidents has the same structure. Joe Biden courageously raises the impudent question. The president befuddledly answers, and Joe Biden drives home the dramatic response. And I mean, it just — it’s his imagination. It’s a made-up, fictional world. He ought to get out of it and get back to reality.”
The projection Master.
April 11th, 2009 at 12:42 pmAt least “westheidon’tdodrugstrucker”, with spacing, might articulate separate, distinct ideas (with a little work) whereas “randomchaos”…well, let’s see…
April 11th, 2009 at 12:44 pm<—thinks to himself about THE ORDERLY, PATTERNED, LOGICAL CHAOS over his pie
April 11th, 2009 at 12:48 pmLittle tidbit for you “wes”"the”"fake”"trucker”
April 11th, 2009 at 12:50 pmYour not worth my time A$$HAT.
wes, since you claim to not do drugs, perhaps your problem is simply that you talk out loud when you’re thinking, and then you post those thoughts before you package them so they make sense to others.
Or perhaps you simply enjoy seeing others befuddled at outward expressions of things that makes perfect sense within your own head?
April 11th, 2009 at 12:51 pmYou’re right, you’re too busy copying and pasting articles sorry to interrupt you…Now you fellas were all on a team earlier, it did seem to be on a “you’re not worth my time” type of team…I’m really not feeling very included in our NEW GREAT SOCIETY I gotta say…
April 11th, 2009 at 12:52 pmwesthetrucker is afraid of me it seems. Any thoughts?
April 11th, 2009 at 12:55 pmPussy. Now that’s a word best reserved for the guy who called me aggressive earlier.
—Seems first you would have to determine who it was? I don’t think it was ralph…
April 11th, 2009 at 12:56 pmYou’re weak @ss perfomance is a great example of the troll thing good buddy.
Please, don’t bother to reply…it’s all hot air.
April 11th, 2009 at 12:57 pmFather and 2 sons they all stink.
April 11th, 2009 at 12:57 pmAfter all, its ONE FOR ALL AND ALL FOR ALL! No man (or creature, beast, unicorn, …man it keeps going..sheep…wow)
April 11th, 2009 at 12:59 pm—
This part screams out for intervention…
For once, it would be really nice not to have trolls and blog whores.
Is it too much to ask?
April 11th, 2009 at 1:00 pmRalph, were you one of those “I’ll get him here – I’ll repost and reference ALL previous post(s)” guys or one of the meth, coffee, and trucker guys? Or both? I know you’ve got several insights into my rhetorical stylings – you’ve covered that ad nauseum. At any rate, I don’t claim to be the smartest guy here. But it is pretty hard to keep up when people come at you from so many angles…
April 11th, 2009 at 1:01 pmwes, you have to admit that you’re not trying very hard to be included in the group here, despite your protestations to the contrary.
Perhaps this is a subtle variation of the familiar right-wing theme of victimization?
By the way, to give you an answer to the very first question you posed here… not all Republicans are trolls. But most conservative posters here fall into that category. The hallmarks of a troll are inability to follow a train of logic to its conclusion, unwillingness to recognize a common reality, and first and foremost, an obvious desire to waste the time and energy of others for their own amusement.
You know what’s a coincidence? Often they’ll come here claiming they want to “learn”. Then they behave in a way counter to that stated aim. I’m not saying that’s you, of course. You’re way above that.
April 11th, 2009 at 1:01 pmparanoia’s a real bi+ch ain’t it?
April 11th, 2009 at 1:04 pmralph:
April 11th, 2009 at 1:06 pmWhy does he keep blending us into one? The coffee thing was me, the pie thing was me, the meth thing was you, the trucker thing was both of us. Reposting and review his actual words apparantly is off limits. I must confess this is an odd alagamation of behaviors. Might you wish to offer up the first clinical diagnosis?
I’m really not feeling very included in our NEW GREAT SOCIETY I gotta say…
Pull up a chair comrade, I’ll get you a bowl of borsht, and we can discuss how conservatism ushered socialism into mainstream America.
April 11th, 2009 at 1:06 pmUh, wes, the only reason I “repost and reference ALL previous posts” (bit of an exaggeration, don’t you think?) is because I try to make my meaning as clear to others as possible. I find that referencing previous posts helps that goal.
And the reason I’ve covered your rhetorical style , as you say, “ad nauseum” is because you seem to have no interest in adjusting it in order to make your thoughts clearer to us, your audience.
I suppose it’s possible that this works for you; if we can’t understand what the hell you’re saying, you can comfortably tell yourself that it’s all our fault. But it doesn’t really say much about your commitment to fit in here.
April 11th, 2009 at 1:06 pmdbadass, actually, the trucker thing was HIS. you and I both just took a cue from his screen name. I guess that’s off limits, too.
maybe wes is determined to make us conform this community to his expectations.
April 11th, 2009 at 1:07 pmOh, and dbadass, I’m not prepared at this time to offer a clinical opinion. wes is a little less scrutable than most of our friends that we study.
I suggest further engagement.
April 11th, 2009 at 1:10 pmWhat Jeb seems to highlight most with his comments is his brother’s failure in economic policymaking. Sure Obama branded the recession as being inherited, but inherited from whom, or what, making no specific reference to Bush, so Jeb’s comments are an example of the old saying, ” a hurt dog will ’sho holler.” His comments indicate an inclination to accept the recession as a failure of GWB’s taxcuts, otherwise, why wouldn’t he just continue to stay off of Fuchs Noose and keep his mouth shut? Methinks there’s been some “Bush Family Discussions Going on About This Obama Statement.” Boy, would I love to have a hidden videocam and catch she-cat ‘MomsBarbs’ comments. Priceless.
April 11th, 2009 at 1:13 pmRalph, what was the name of that troll who claimed to be a backcountry produce trucker?
April 11th, 2009 at 1:15 pmTo McNab:
Perhaps you don’t remember well. It started the night of the elections when the votes turned in favor of Bush and not Gore and upon learning this Katie Couric stood up from her desk muttered “this is horrible” and walked off the set. I had never seen anything like that before and thought that that behavior would have gotten her fired. It did not, she was eventually promoted. Then after Gore tried to sue his way into office (his lawyer said in an interview recently that he told Gore ‘if it’s close I can win it for you’ which is now the democrat mantra that and the sudden appearance of voting boxes out of nowhere) saying he wanted every vote counted then sued to stop the thousands of military votes that came in as always on a ship and a day late but Florida always counted them anyway because of the circumstances of the overseas military (which btw because of the Gore suit still have never been counted) the main stream press constantly berated President Bush as it is still doing. They told lie after lie. Like the way they applauded Micheal Moore’s movie but later after all the damage had been done and most people believed the movie and Moore won awards we get:
There have been more liberal lies about Bush’s administration than all the other Presidents combined and somehow people don’t research they just blindly believe. I have seen Jon Stewart use something out of context to smear Bush or Chaney or Rice, etc. and make a joke, he is on the comedy channel after all, then the next day the main stream media is playing it for news. And then I see it in comments on blogs like this. Amazing.
See this is something like I’ve been talking about. Could you make a more inane comment than that about Obama’s administration. Kathleen Sebeliu, Tom Daschle, two tax cheats who withdrew (little digression here, Daschle was worth a few hundred thousand when he lost re-election but in 5 years he is worth over 5 million working as a lobbyist for the democrats, interesting) Timothy Geithner, Ron Kirk, Hilda Solis, tax cheats who were confirmed and are now working in the Obama administration. This would not have been possible for a republican.
If I may give two examples:
1) Bob Packwood (R-OR) who introduced the National Abortion Act, resigned because of charges of sexual harassment. A few women testified that Packwood made sexual advances toward them and all of them were believed. However other women testified that all he did was hug everyone when he came to work and they thought nothing of it but none of them were believed. (I’m from Ca and that hugging thing is like shaking hands out here, we all hug, even men.) Barbara Boxer (D-CA) was relentless in Packwood’s destruction saying that sexual harassment of people who were your underlings and in the work place was intolerable.
Flash forward to Pres. Clinton. Several women testified that he harassed them (they had witnesses) they were not believed (except the Arkansas beauty queen who said he practically raped her in a limousine but that she actually thought it was fun and wouldn’t press charges, they thought that was funny) but one had DNA. Turns out Barbara Boxer believed then if it is someone who hasn’t introduced abortion bills and is a democrat then sexual harassment is really just a private matter and nothing at all. As you know even though caught with proof Clinton did not have the decency to resign.
2). Florida Senator Foley To Resign Over Sexually Explicit Messages to Minors: Remember this one. Well you may not know that he was found innocent and that there was no proof to the charges. Foley still resigned so as not to cause problems for the office and state. However the press never let up on reporting every little detail they could until election was over and democrats had taken the house and many senate seats.
On the other hand we have:
Well that was almost all that was ever said about the whole thing since it was a democrat and yet that wasn’t all the story. Let me just say it was reported minors were involved. And if Frank didn’t know that the late night activity for a year and a half in his house was a prostitution ring what could he have been doing. Did he resign (of course not). And is he responsible for heading the finance committee and letting Freddy Mac get away with all our money and does he have a boyfriend that works high up in Freddy Mac who benefits. Well yes, but he’s a democrat and the press leaves him alone after all this is all Bush’s fault.
April 11th, 2009 at 1:16 pmLet me just say it was reported minors were involved.
That’s a lie. It was never reported that minors were involved.
April 11th, 2009 at 1:18 pmWell yes, but he’s a democrat and the press leaves him alone after all this is all Bush’s fault.
If it’s anyone’s fault it’s high-end investors who were clamoring for high-return investments, and willing to pressure their agents to push the administration to loosen lending standards.
April 11th, 2009 at 1:23 pmwesthetrucker:
I like trucks. I started driving at 11, straight trucks by 13 and by 16 I was qualified to drive semis.
Do you want to play with me? I’m easy, but I am also handsome.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dixie_native/1090483796/
April 11th, 2009 at 1:24 pmGot any proof, Val, or just a bunch of complaints about things going back more than two decades? It would lend more credibility to your allegations. Thanks.
April 11th, 2009 at 1:27 pmDo you want to play with me? I’m easy, but I am also handsome.
Cute, but you’re not BJ and the Bear’s Greg Evigan cute. But you could give the chimp a good run for the banana.
April 11th, 2009 at 1:28 pmWayne, don’t press Val so hard for proof. Must be exhausted after all that typing and imagining.
April 11th, 2009 at 1:29 pmWayne and Ralph
As you can see from the cut and paste the first reference was from a Washington reporter the second reference on Frank was from Sam Donaldson. Anything else you need proof on?
April 11th, 2009 at 1:35 pmVal should get a blog. This is the place to post such a long-winded off topic diatribe along the lines of blame Clinton & the Dems.
April 11th, 2009 at 1:35 pmThis in *not the place.
April 11th, 2009 at 1:35 pmThe way of the liar is eternal. They squirm, they plead, they disavow, and when they have you under foot they press down hard with their dirty shoe. This is Hussein Obama. His war with America is on two fronts: on the first he bends low to enemies and adopts their propaganda as truth; his goal is to make America a dhimmi state. Second he takes food off of the table of American families to weaken us body and soul, to make us suffer and break our will. People will have enough soon enough. He will be impeached soon.
April 11th, 2009 at 1:39 pmralph,
It’s not so much that I’m disputing most of what Val said, it’s just that I don’t quite remember things the same way. Did Katie Couric really say “This is horrible…” and walk off the set? I never heard that before, and would like to see it confirmed, if true. As for the Al Gore conversation with his lawyer, that’s also new to me. (BTW, military ballots are required to be postmarked, by law, to remove the possibility that they were filled in the next day and “mailed” in. I understand many of the military absentee ballots that showed up after election day had no postmarks, making them automatically suspect.) Val’s defense of Bob Packwood and Mark Foley also fails to match my memory of events, so I’m interested in seeing the proof there. (And the connection to this thread, while we’re at it.)
There are other comments in there that don’t seem to match reality, but I am willing to be open-minded enough to ask for and await proof.
April 11th, 2009 at 1:40 pmBarfly
Regarding Frank and the minors this is transcript from a law suit regarding the prostitute Frank was involved with
April 11th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Val Says:
Wayne and Ralph
As you can see from the cut and paste the first reference was from a Washington reporter the second reference on Frank was from Sam Donaldson. Anything else you need proof on?
No, Val, I do not see any such thing. Got links to the sites from which you copied and pasted this stuff? That way we can make up our own minds. Thanks. (It’s not enough to just say you got them from a certain place, you have to provide the links to the same sites from which you got that stuff. Otherwise, we can just say you’re making it up. See how that works?)
April 11th, 2009 at 1:42 pmLinks, Val. Links. Don’t just post something like that and claim it’s factually accurate. Give us the links and let us decide for ourselves what is credible and what is not. Thank you.
April 11th, 2009 at 1:43 pmI do wanna hear more about conservatism and socialism…please OPINE…oh shit, I think somebody else says that, I swear I don’t watch him every day guys..I swear…please no more aggressive trucker jokes..
April 11th, 2009 at 1:43 pmBTW, I do take exception to anyone who wants to infer that because my name is “westhetrucker” that I am indeed, a long haul trucker. I know most of you guys with the jokes know that there COULD be a difference in truck drivers. I don’t really wanna blow your mind with all those possibilites though, I’d rather hear FACTS (not opinions..and certainly no OPINING) on that convervatism/socialism link…
April 11th, 2009 at 1:47 pmVal,a s Wayne noes, links are important.
For instance, your comment at 1:42 recreates an exchange that you say is included in a transcript of a lawsuit. But you provide no details, no citation of those involved in the lawsuit, and no link.
You could just as easily have made up the whole thing. See what we’re saying?
April 11th, 2009 at 1:49 pmWhy in God’s name would you “take exception” to that?
You call yourself “wes the trucker” and yet you object to anyone assuming that you are a long-haul trucker?
That makes no sense, wes.
April 11th, 2009 at 1:52 pmcommon_sense101: Did you look at your last paycheck for this month? Notice a little increase in your net takehome pay? Well, that’s how this administration is taking $ out of the mouths of families in America! And, BTW, do you know anything about the cultures of other countries or about American presidents holding Arab leaders’ hand as they stroll across the WH lawn? Furthermore, we prefer Barack Hussein Obama on this site. Barack=Blessed, Hussein=beautiful boy, and Obama=his father’s surname. Pretty impressive, isn’t it? And, oh about that impeachment thing, read Article II of the Constitution. A really good read, if I say so myself.
April 11th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Too bad “common sense” doesn’t have any.
A Glenn Beck fan, I’m guessing.
April 11th, 2009 at 1:53 pmRe: Barney Frank
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bonacci
Now you have to know who is who here – so think a little.
April 11th, 2009 at 1:55 pmCan anyone explain how “common_sense101″ failed to mention the teleprompter?
I mean, if you’re gonna bring some meaningless blather to the table, why not bring some REALLY meaningless blather?
April 11th, 2009 at 1:56 pmcommon_sense101 Says:
The way of the liar is eternal. They squirm, they plead, they disavow, and when they have you under foot they press down hard with their dirty shoe. This is Hussein Obama. His war with America is on two fronts: on the first he bends low to enemies and adopts their propaganda as truth; his goal is to make America a dhimmi state. Second he takes food off of the table of American families to weaken us body and soul, to make us suffer and break our will. People will have enough soon enough. He will be impeached soon.
When you finish reading this sci-fi story, can I borrow it? It sounds like an interesting work of “alternative reality” writing.
April 11th, 2009 at 1:57 pmRalphie, you’re not gonna be my favorite anymore if you don’t read the WHOLE POST…that one really is articulate, too, even by your HI (meth induced hi, high) standards…
April 11th, 2009 at 2:00 pmVal, I have seen people post links that had nothing to do with the point they were trying to make here, but never after posting as elaborate a screed as your first comment.
Congratulations.
April 11th, 2009 at 2:02 pmVal Says:
Re: Barney Frank
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bonacci
Now you have to know who is who here – so think a little.
Um, Val, I don’t know how to tell you this, but I read the article in your link, and Barney Frank’s name was never mentioned even once. And the allegations of child abuse were considered to be a hoax. What was your point about that again?
April 11th, 2009 at 2:04 pmI did read the whole post, wes. But what followed didn’t mitigate the nonsense of signing on as “westhetrucker” and then claiming to take exception when someone else infers that you’re a long-haul trucker.
That’s just narcissistic and disconnected. If that means I’m no longer your “favorite”, so be it.
April 11th, 2009 at 2:04 pmBy the way, wes, it’s also kind of ironic that you whine about drug abuse comments directed at your scattered rhetorical style, and then you turn around and include a line like this:
that one really is articulate, too, even by your HI (meth induced hi, high) standards…
April 11th, 2009 at 2:06 pmWanye, I’ve begun recording selected Great Moments in Trolling as a sort of Troll hall of Fame.
I’ve added Val’s performance in this thread to the honor roll.
April 11th, 2009 at 2:14 pmRalph, it most certainly did mitigate the claims to yours, or others, version of logic or maybe even
“the inability to follow a train of logic to its conclusion, unwillingness to recognize a common reality” you attribute to “trolls”.
I pointed out an alternate “inference”. Actually, I just pointed out an alternative “reality” that doesn’t fit with that “inference”. But you and your inferences. They can’t be stopped. You made that clear in your first post.
<—continues to reread his definition of a troll and wonders how charges of narcissism apply to anyone other than the person who wrote that definition
April 11th, 2009 at 2:14 pmI understand why Hussein Obama is acting so friendly to the Arabs, after all, blood is thicker than water, isn’t it? I mean, just because the Arabs have been scheming to destroy us and orchestrating attacks like 9/11 against Americans forever doesn’t mean he can’t try to change history and blame everything on us, does it? Just because the Muslims lie about everything and run racist fascist states doesn’t mean that we can’t be friends with them. Of course, this means giving up our liberty and our lives, but that’s “change”!
April 11th, 2009 at 2:15 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
Wayne, don’t press Val so hard for proof. Must be exhausted after all that typing and imagining.
I don’t think it was typing, I think it was cut & pasting. It doesn’t appear to have the intelligence to think up all that by itself.
April 11th, 2009 at 2:16 pmBonacci case
Paul A. Bonacci won a default judgment of $800,000 in compensatory damages and $200,000 in punitive damages in a civil action against Lawrence E. King in which the petition alleged kidnapping, mind control, satanic ritual abuse, and sexual abuse, and alleged various personal injuries, both physical and psychological. The judge did not rule on these allegations, but merely ruled on the motion for default judgment.
Where does it mention Frank, or offer proof of Val’s assertions?
I just don’t see it.
April 11th, 2009 at 2:16 pmRalph, your basic premise that I can’t articulate anything is MITIGATED (glad you introduced that concept) by several facts. There’s plenty of responses to my posts so far. Therefore, someone must be reading and responding to them, so it’s prolly really not as confusing as you keep making it out to be. After all, it did take, at minimum, 5 self-entertainment driven meth/trucker/literary incompetency driven posts before someone (you, thank God) tried to answer my first question about a troll. But now you’re straying, friend, you’re asking me about why I’m talking about drugs? YOU GUYS BROUGHT UP DRUGS. This and the whole narcissistic thing, I’m starting to have my doubts bout you Ralphie, I really am…
April 11th, 2009 at 2:24 pmwesthetrucker Says:
…I’d rather hear FACTS (not opinions..and certainly no OPINING) on that convervatism/socialism link…
April 11th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
There are no “FACTS” regarding “that convervatism(sic)/socialism link.”
April 11th, 2009 at 2:25 pmwes, explain how this:
I know most of you guys with the jokes know that there COULD be a difference in truck drivers. I don’t really wanna blow your mind with all those possibilites though, I’d rather hear FACTS (not opinions..and certainly no OPINING) on that convervatism/socialism link…
in anyway mitigates the nonsense of someone signing on as ‘westhetrucker” and then taking exception when someone draws the inference that you’re a long-haul trucker.
It’s a reasonable inference from the information provided, and to take exception to it is flat ridiculous. But, come to think of it, thus might be in keeping with the character of the post in general.
April 11th, 2009 at 2:28 pmZooey.
Well my GOOD BUDDY up there (hey just goin with the trucker thing why not) sure said somethin bout it, and I thought maybe he had some facts, but I guess he left the board, with the other guys who said I wasn’t worth their time. Yet I’m still here, and they aren’t, but they put up a good post about how tough they are in a debate, I can attest to that…
April 11th, 2009 at 2:30 pmThere are no “FACTS” regarding “that convervatism(sic)/socialism link.”
I think he was responding to my “comrade” post. There is the linear link between failed conservatism (actually, it’s failed every time America has tried it), and our current state of socialism-lite.
April 11th, 2009 at 2:30 pmwesthetrucker,
What good buddy?
April 11th, 2009 at 2:31 pmWow, what a thread. That laptop giveaway in Appalachia was not a good idea.
April 11th, 2009 at 2:32 pmcommon_sense101 Says:
I understand why Hussein Obama is acting so friendly to the Arabs, after all, blood is thicker than water, isn’t it? I mean, just because the Arabs have been scheming to destroy us and orchestrating attacks like 9/11 against Americans forever doesn’t mean he can’t try to change history and blame everything on us, does it? Just because the Muslims lie about everything and run racist fascist states doesn’t mean that we can’t be friends with them. Of course, this means giving up our liberty and our lives, but that’s “change”!
You have two sci-fi alternate reality stories? I’d like to read them both when you are done. Thanks.
April 11th, 2009 at 2:33 pmbarfly,
Ah, the old pendulum swing. Thanks. :)
April 11th, 2009 at 2:34 pmZooey,
I thought I asked you not to discuss my pendulum in public. ;)
April 11th, 2009 at 2:36 pmRalph,
It’s not that valid.
A simple question: Should I infer that you’re a locust based on the “information provided”?
And if you’re progressive, and this is really what you call “logic”, then I guess I really can’t ask any questions here that might get “logical” responses….
<—does his best Bret Michaels “gimme somethin to believe in…yeah”. I guess I didn’t find it here.
But I tried, and I’m still tryin..kind of.
April 11th, 2009 at 2:36 pmYou either wildly misread something I wrote about your rhetorical style, or you’re setting up a clumsy straw man.
The fact that several people have responded does not prove that your prose is not as confusing as I make it sound. In fact, several other posters have asked what your comments mean.
That’s because your question was thrown out as a sort of bait, along with other nonsense, and we occupied ourselves with your other crap first. I didn’t take your question seriously (and apparently, neither did you) but I figured it was worth answering because your behavior so closely aligned with the definition.
I didn’t ask why you brought up drugs.
I noted the irony of your earlier complaints about such comments juxtaposed against your later gratuitous mention in connection with me.
So your reading comprehension is called into question, for starters. Unless, again, you’re building another straw man.
I could explain the narcissistic comment, but I doubt if you’d appreciate it. And wes, hate to break it to you like this, but… your doubts? Not really a concern, dude. Your ability to analyze hasn’t really been shown to be the best so far.
April 11th, 2009 at 2:38 pmWayne Ant Schneider Says:
Zooey,
I thought I asked you not to discuss my pendulum in public. ;)
April 11th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
But it’s so mesmerizing….
April 11th, 2009 at 2:38 pmJust because the Muslims lie about everything and run racist fascist states doesn’t mean that we can’t be friends with them.
Someone’s crying in his Neo-Crispies.
Buck up lil’ soldier, let me sprinkle some no-bid contracts on that, to sweeten it up for you…
April 11th, 2009 at 2:39 pmRe Barney
I told you you had to think:
Well anyway:
http://huntersthompson.tribe.net/thread/e0cc8b8b-8295-4edb-b5bb-ad66e1fe24c0
But the real point here is that people don’t get the news equitably. Which is what I was talking to McNab about when he asserted
Which also points to relevancy to whomever was asking.
April 11th, 2009 at 2:40 pmIt would be a silly inference to settle on, but if you did, I certainly would have no call to take exception to it, given that I’ve labeled myself “ralph the wonder locust”.
That’s your judgment, fine. Your definition of “logic” must differ from mine.
If this is you tryin’… wow. I’m sorry. You must have a hard time of it.
April 11th, 2009 at 2:41 pmWow. Val is really doubling down on the lunacy, no?
let me see if I got this right, here, Val…
Paul Bonacci named Barney Frank as ‘having participated in parties” where sex was allegedly practiced between adults and minors.
Bonacci won a default judgment in a case in which in which the petition alleged kidnapping, mind control, satanic ritual abuse, and sexual abuse, and alleged various personal injuries, both physical and psychological. The judge did not rule on these allegations, but merely ruled on the motion for default judgment.
This was all connected to a case of alleged child sexual abuse in Nebraska, of which on July 23, 1990, after hearing many hours of testimony, the county grand jury threw out all of the allegations concerning sexual child abuse, labeling the charges a “carefully crafted hoax [...] scripted by a person or persons with considerable knowledge of the people and institutions of Omaha,”
Forgive me for finding this elaborate sleight-of-hand “proof” somewhat less than compelling.
April 11th, 2009 at 2:47 pmArchibald; Is that you? Still being an A$$HAT?
April 11th, 2009 at 2:48 pmWhere you been hiding snookums?
Come give us some LOVIN.
Ok ralph,
You said “I didn’t ask why you brought up drugs”.
Well that’s great, because I just got done saying that I didn’t bring up drugs. I haven’t whined about anything to do with drugs. We all take drugs, so what is there really to whine about?
I did take the question seriously and I thanked you for the eventual answer. Why would I do that if I didn’t take it seriously?
So I sounded like a “troll” did I? Ooooo that’s not naracisstic at all. You’re not quite as bad as your friends Ralph. But I still think you’re missing the big picture.
April 11th, 2009 at 2:48 pmFrom Val’s Wiki link:Bonacci case
Paul A. Bonacci won a default judgment of $800,000 in compensatory damages and $200,000 in punitive damages in a civil action against Lawrence E. King in which the petition alleged kidnapping, mind control, satanic ritual abuse, and sexual abuse, and alleged various personal injuries, both physical and psychological. The judge did not rule on these allegations, but merely ruled on the motion for default judgment.
Val’s latest link:
The evidence DeCamp presented was so credible and substantial that Urbom awarded Paul Bonacci $1 million for child abuse on February 19, 1999 regarding his lawsuit involving Larry King.
So, which is it, Val?
April 11th, 2009 at 2:49 pmVal Says:
Re Barney
I told you you had to think:
Best unintended humor of the thread.
April 11th, 2009 at 2:50 pmMore questions for Ralph:
You admit a “gratitousness” of sorts. You said it was in a mention of you, but in my very first post, and in the posts thereafter, all I really tried to do is get an answer to my question. But I’m glad you get the concept of gratituty. Then maybe you’ll see why this site is about the same as most others when it comes to original thought. You’re much more interested in diatrabe than discussion and the posts bear that out.
April 11th, 2009 at 2:51 pmwes, I don’t think you really know what “narcissistic” means.
The sense in which I’m using it is this: your comments seem to depend on an extensive understanding of what you are thinking at the time. If someone doesn’t know you or have access to your mind, much of what you write is confusing. You run two different subjects together as if they were the same thing. You refer off-handedly to things you have read, but you don’t cite them so that others will know what you’re referring to.
In short, you don’t consider anyone’s perspective but your own in composing your comments.
THAT is what I mean by narcissistic. Focused only on your own needs of expression, not on anyone else’s need for clarity or understanding.
Sure, some of what you have posted makes a minimum of sense. You are using English, after all, and you’re not, by all indications, schizophrenic. So you can console yourself that some of what you say gets understood, and therefore, anything that doesn’t is the fault of the people who don’t understand it.
If that satisfies your need for communication, then, yes, you sound like a troll, because that’s what trolls do.
April 11th, 2009 at 2:55 pmVal, in one coherent sentence, can you tell me what this has to do with Jeb Bush, the topic of the thread?
April 11th, 2009 at 2:55 pmAnd THE question:
If this type of thought is really leading to a progression of some kind (and away from trolls, dragons, and other mythical creatures that constitutes our current reality, as I’ve learned from the big time intellectuals here), then what exactly are we progressing towards?
What a wonderful turn this word “progressive” is on the word “liberal” though – kudos to the movement!
Ok no more gratiutiousness here more talk about pie, coffee, meth, drugs, etc. But nothing gratitutious.
April 11th, 2009 at 2:56 pmVal,
That’s quite a story in that link.
I would like to ask you a question about it. Setting aside the stuff about Barney Frank (I did not find the “testimony” credible, but that’s not the issue), why have you said nothing about the connections to the Republican-controlled White House that supposedly orchestrated all this?
April 11th, 2009 at 2:58 pmwesthetrucker Says:
Really? That “all you tried to do”?
Here’s your second post:
Here’s your third:
And your fourth:
I don’t see much dogged pursuit of the question about trolls in there. I think you’re giving yourself more credit than you deserve.
But thanks for this timely demonstration of the tangled nature of your prose style.
I think it really helps make my point.
April 11th, 2009 at 2:59 pmBusted troll!
Those are NOT the words of a curious trucker. That’s the type words we see around here from a lamea$$, troll, bastard faking up a storm to start up some sh|t!!
Phuck you westhemutherphucker!!
April 11th, 2009 at 3:02 pmRalph,
Not sure exactly at what point I’ve referred to anything I read other than the words “troll” and “progressive” which I both asked for clarification on? To ask a question, is that narcassitic? Intrinsically, does a question convey narcissism?
EGO AND SUPEREGO ALL OVER THIS POST (lots of questions aka narcicissm)
April 11th, 2009 at 3:03 pmThis thread has turned into something odd…
I keeping thinking “this is ground control to major tom”
Trolls thinking “we could be heroes”
Reading it all, I feel like I’ve gone through “changes”
Have a nice day….
:\
April 11th, 2009 at 3:06 pmWait a minute now. You can’t accuse me of not reading what’s been posted when I clearly read several posts about Fox News. Do you not agree that’s important? I’m trying to really understand what’s important to this progressive movement our country is taken. I’ve since learned Fox News is a huge problem. It’s not? I’m asking for definitions. I have been the whole time. And yes, that would be the tell tale mark of a “curious trucker”.
April 11th, 2009 at 3:06 pmDixie blood,
So you’re progressive too, right? All this nonsense about trolls and insects isn’t diatrabe? I gotta provide a link like the Locust so I will fit in. Hey, I’m learning :)
April 11th, 2009 at 3:08 pmWayne
The point was in regards to this article and how the news is reported differently: Re McNab above. It was simply to say that while Obama is blaming Bush for everything the news media is going along with it. So in an effort to show how different the media treats Rep. and Dem. I pointed out a few examples.
I remember when the stock market hit new highs during Clinton’s term I would get in the car and the radio would mention it. I don’t recall ever hearing that the market reached new highs when Bush was in office, although it did. And he climbed out of an inherited recession and the destruction caused by 9/11 (which was devastating on small businesses) and the billions sent to New Orleans and we still reached new market highs. Then the congress became Dem and well you know the rest.
April 11th, 2009 at 3:15 pmThere’s some big time talk about inclusiveness in this country, overall. Everyone should become a citizen, and illegal immigration is really only a natural process. We’re a HUGE MELTING POT, I think, but no trolls are allowed? Gee, what or who else should we exclude? See, that’s why I’m really not sure about the progressive thing. I wanna commit though. Someone give me a reason.
April 11th, 2009 at 3:15 pmThese trolls are way too clever for us, my friends.
We better just give up, check our brains and normal sex lives at the door, and become Republicans.
April 11th, 2009 at 3:15 pmI remember when the stock market hit new highs during Clinton’s term I would get in the car and the radio would mention it. I don’t recall ever hearing that the market reached new highs when Bush was in office, although it did.
And then reached new LOWS…
Did you forget that part? There is no such thing as the Clinton Recession.
April 11th, 2009 at 3:18 pmCh ch ch ch changes….turn and face the strange?
Don’t tell us to grow up and out of it….
No thanks.
:]
April 11th, 2009 at 3:19 pmI wanna commit though. Someone give me a reason.
Although I wish this was the “westhetrucker commitment thread,” that’s not the case. It’s about Bush’s comments. Care to comment on those?
April 11th, 2009 at 3:21 pmZooey:
I’ve been accused of being a troll on this site. What are you? Are you progressive? If you are progressive, then one of your contemporaries DID make a comment about the link between conservatism and socialism earlier. Now you deny that link?
Do any of you really talk about and try to define your movement? Or is it just a bunch of web postings and dare I say again, diatrabe?
A lot of cyncism and a lot of accusations. Hmm…
April 11th, 2009 at 3:21 pmwesthetrucker,
Why are you attacking Zooey about a comment someone else supposedly made?
April 11th, 2009 at 3:27 pmA lot of cyncism and a lot of accusations. Hmm…
And a lot of feigned concern. Hmm…
April 11th, 2009 at 3:27 pmWhy are you attacking Zooey about a comment someone else supposedly made?
And I’m sitting right here.
Does he deny there is a link between the two? Failure of conservatism leading to socialism-lite, I mean.
April 11th, 2009 at 3:30 pmwestthetrucker. Your words betray you! Are you that dumb? Maybe you, reality, and commonsense should get together and play patty cake because neither of you three have made any sense (and innately speaking, apparently, you never can so just give it up!) Talk about super egos. So convinced of your worth you don’t even know that you are gently being told you were out of you league the moment you were born, and much less by the time you arrived here.
April 11th, 2009 at 3:30 pmWayne, maybe he’s under pressure?
April 11th, 2009 at 3:31 pmWhere’s Val, and his explode-in-your-face links?
They’re hilarious.
April 11th, 2009 at 3:32 pmBarfly
Yes there was a Clinton recession you just have to look at the GDP growth chart. Besides a recession is normal. They happen every 4 to 8 years and usually last 18 months at max and you really don’t have to panic or do anything, they work themselves out. Business Investor’s Daily had a great article on it some years ago. Couldn’t find it on the net but I’m sure there are some good articles somewhere that you can read about recessions.
April 11th, 2009 at 3:32 pmralph the wonder locust-Sorry little ralphie, but it is not an urban myth that it was the Republican congress and not Clinton that balanced the budget. Oh, he had to sign it into law, but his proposals were far from being balanced. If you can prove he submitted a balanced budget proposal to Congress before it happened, I will be happy to read the link you give to the information.
I will also type really slow so you can understand this part. While the budget was “balanced” for three years during Clinton’s administration, it was done so by borrowing money from the SS “trust fund”. If you have some doubt about this, go to the Bureau of Public Debt website and look for intergovernmental agency debt for those years. You will see it increased, along with our total national debt. Now how do you increase your debt with a balanced budget?
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5656
April 11th, 2009 at 3:37 pmwayne ant:
Didn’t attack anyone? She said there was no link? Someone else said there was?
For the record, I’m a troll (or so I learned immediately upon posting) although I read this article and signed up here trying to understand “progressivism”. But what I’ve learned is that progressivism MUST NOT include any independent line of thought.
Barfly,
April 11th, 2009 at 3:37 pmI’ll comment on Bush’s comments. All administrations are obsessed with blaming the previous one for this or that. The economy is only a concern when it’s bad. Other than that, it’s far too complex to try to pin on a particular set of policies because neither party has shown a consistent committment to any set of underlying philosophies.
Hey, wesnotthetrucker:
Are you going to any teabagging parties?
How about a 2m4m? You interested? ;)
April 11th, 2009 at 3:38 pmWow, having read most of this thread, as amussing as it is, a question.
Who’s more entertaining,
Batshi* crazy Val or
Wes the Bobtail driver?
April 11th, 2009 at 3:39 pmBarfly
First I was chastised for not providing links and when I provide them I get sarcasm
April 11th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
wes, I’m sorry that Val made the Troll Hall of Fame this morning and you didn’t.
For what it’s worth, we do have a couple of reasonable conservatives on this forum, people who are willing to discuss things rationally, to make the effort to communicate with us in language we can understand, and how contribute greatly to the discussion when they do.
You’re not one of them. Maybe someday you can be, but I gotta say, you’re off to a slow start.
April 11th, 2009 at 3:40 pmAuggie, you’re incorrigible.
Later, dudes.
April 11th, 2009 at 3:41 pmRich
Ad hominems, really?
May I repeat a quote I heard somewhere?
April 11th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Perhaps we should have been more clear.
We were looking for links that supported your argument.
You provided links that had nothing to do with your argument. Hence the sarcasm. But to be fair, we didn’t specify that the links we were looking for should demonstrate the validity of what you were saying, so, in that sense, just providing any old link technically fulfilled our request.
April 11th, 2009 at 3:42 pmwesthetrucker:
April 11th, 2009 at 3:42 pmYou got your ears on good buddy?
St Augustine:
Not sure what any of that means? Break it down maybe you spend more time “chattin online” than I do.
April 11th, 2009 at 3:43 pmRalph,
To be fair I did not provide links for everything I said, I only choose the Barney Frank thing because I knew there was a law suit involved and more than enough evidence to prove my point. I am confused at your not comprehending the issue.
April 11th, 2009 at 3:46 pm“Must feed Vaal”
April 11th, 2009 at 3:47 pm“just the facts” (love the irony in that name, BTW) you really don’t understand how budget-balancing works, do you?
They don’t just say “here,w e have this much money, never mind where we got it”.
They balance receipts against expenses.
For the last three years of Clinton budgets, tax receipts outweighed government expenses. The national debt was being paid down.
That situation proved intolerable to the new administration. So taxes were cut, revenues dropped, expenses rose, and the national debt went from $3.2 trillion to $10.9 trillion — more than tripled, thus nearly matching the debt performance of the Reagan administration, when the national debt went from $900 billion to over $3 trillion.
April 11th, 2009 at 3:47 pmjust the facts Says:
__________
Fascinating dance this one is doing here.
On one hand, Clinton DOESN’T get credit for balancing the budget. It was the GOOP controlled Congress that did it.
On the other hand, the fact that it was done by borrowing from the SS trust IS Clinton’s fault.
Talk about yer triple axles w/ a perfect touch down…
April 11th, 2009 at 3:49 pm“Where are the silverfish? How about the ostriches, or the largemouth bass? What the hell? If we’re going J.R. Tolkien with this shit, I’m a dwarf”
WTF?
April 11th, 2009 at 3:49 pm“When they call you names you have won because they cannot back up their argument.”
Ad hominem. Val, if you said that, thanks. I’ve been called names from the beginning here so I guess there IS truth to that.
April 11th, 2009 at 3:50 pmPerhaps the confusion, Val, stems from your heading of “re: Barney Frank” above a link to a wikipedia page that did not mention Barney Frank, and told of a sex crime allegation that was determined to be a hoax.
Your idea of “more than enough evidence” is kind of weird, to tell you the truth.
April 11th, 2009 at 3:50 pmIn regards to the Dem. mantra thing. This was a quote from one of Gore’s lawyers at the time. He wrote a book about it and was bragging that the dem. party had taken it a part of their creed. Now this was some time ago and I didn’t buy the book nor do I remember the lawyer but I will endeavor to find it. It was a memorable quote and I heard it used again recently in the Franken race. “If it is close we can win.”
April 11th, 2009 at 3:51 pmYes, you have been called names by some. It happens to everyone. You have also had your arguments dealt with rationally. That often happens, but not always.
If you think that because you were called names, that means you “won”, it kind of demonstrates that you weren’t here for any serious reason in the first place.
April 11th, 2009 at 3:52 pmDbadass:
Why is that hard to understand? Ad hominem attacks are worthless. That’s the thrust of the comment, tinged with sarcasm, OF COURSE (everything else I’ve seen here is…I told everyone I’m fitting in damnit).
Look, I am making basic assumptions that the people here ARE as intelligent as I am, so I don’t see why I need to define all of that for you. I’ve been on this site several hours and no one has been able to tell me why I need to “think progress” or what that means. It’s very disappointing.
April 11th, 2009 at 3:55 pmVal and Wes,
I guess I hurt your feelings. Somewhere in your long lists of posts I didn’t see much mention of the original topic.
If you don’t like being called trolls, then don’t be one.
April 11th, 2009 at 4:00 pmwes, you have to admit that this statement is a crock of shit.
You had no intention of trying to understand “progressivism”. when you showed up here. At least, your posts show no true curiosity. They show a confrontational nature that we see in so many opposing voices here, many of whom prove to be trolls.
Your questions were posed not as inquiries but as challenges, which is fine, if that’s what you’re after. Just be honest about it, is all we ask.
I mean, really, is this the approach of someone who seeks to understand those he addresses thusly:
So any self-proclaimed “progressives” on this site care to explain why Republicans are trolls? Insects? Who are the insects again? Where are the silverfish? How about the ostriches, or the largemouth bass? What the hell? If we’re going J.R. Tolkien with this shit, I’m a dwarf, I guess. Why talk about Fox newx, or any media? We all know the AP doesn’t stand for “associated press”. It’s all about the ANIMAL PLANET.
Is this really what passes for wit these days? Christ (whom I believe in, personally, but will invoke casually here to prove that I can be “progressive”) how bout we all get away from euphemisms and start real dialogue? Anyone?
Seriously, wes, this was your introduction to the people here. Either you’re completely tone-deaf to the conventions of social discourse, or you were here simply to tweak self-proclaimed “progressives”.
If you were here to actually try to understand us, you bear some of the responsibility to present yourself as such, which you didn’t do.
April 11th, 2009 at 4:02 pmRalph:
It doesn’t mean I won. It just means words like “troll” are logically useless.
Even if I did win, there would be an appeal. I’ve read some good posts here with good points. Many different administrations have run deficits. I just think people here who post and self-identify as Democrat or Republican on all the issues are completely myopic and waste everyone’s time who may be interested in a truly “progressive” philosophy.
Unless you’re telling me that philosophy is, indeed, synonymous with the word “Democrat”. Of course, nobody wants to answer this when they’re too busy bashing Jeb Bush, I guess.
April 11th, 2009 at 4:02 pm/rich ignore
April 11th, 2009 at 4:03 pmOh good. It looks like Val has an “Ignore List™”.
I thought that one seemed familiar.
April 11th, 2009 at 4:05 pmI play WOW and we use /ignore and /lose a lot lol
Now we are into troll talk>
April 11th, 2009 at 4:07 pmRalph:
Perhaps the best point you’ve made. My comments could be interpreted as provacative I suppose. Again, though, does it not follow the theme? From my standpoint, most of the discourse here is provacative one way or another. To fault me there is hardly warranted.
I understand this is an article about Jeb Bush and I came here asking broader questions. I appreciate you engaging me for awhile as I’m always interested in learning more.
April 11th, 2009 at 4:11 pmwesthetrucker:
April 11th, 2009 at 4:11 pmit is spelled dbadass not Dbadass. When did you ask what think progress ment? I think I might have to call bullshit on your bullshit, Shall I? I have an idea why don’t we pick a topic and have that dialogue you pretended you were looking for?
comments could be interpreted as provacative
April 11th, 2009 at 4:13 pm–
Ahhh no they couldn’t…
Val,
I apologize for your amazing amount of interest in Barney Frank’s sex life. Maybe you could start a blog about it.
April 11th, 2009 at 4:13 pmNo, wes, they’re not “logically useless” if they convey sound information in a concise manner. “Troll” does that. It is overused, admittedly. But that doesn’t mean it’s useless. You see, trolls thrive on making arguments that seem on the surface to be about something, but since they have no interest in actual debate, they never stick to the logical consequences of their arguments. Thus a well-meaning poster looking for conversation can waste a lot of time and energy trying to discuss stuff with someone who follows different rules, or no rules at all. It’s therefore a great time-saver to be able to recognize the concept of a “troll” and label one as such with confidence.
I don’t know of anyone on the Left here who fits the description people here who post and self-identify as Democrat or Republican on all the issues. You seem to have been here for only a few hours. if you have come across anyone like this, I’d be very surprised, particularly since you haven’t discussed actual policy with more than a handful.
Again, your comments do not give the appearance of one who is interested in a truly “progressive” philosophy.
No one here would say anything even close to this. And no one has bashed Jeb Bush for hours, thanks to your energetic efforts at distraction (which is another favorite activity of a troll, btw).
But if you actually came here looking to understand progressive philosophy, and you figured this was the best way to open that dialogue:
So any self-proclaimed “progressives” on this site care to explain why Republicans are trolls? Insects? Who are the insects again? Where are the silverfish? How about the ostriches, or the largemouth bass? What the hell?
you’ve got some conceptual and strategic issues that really should be dealt with elsewhere.
April 11th, 2009 at 4:14 pmRich:
The post I initially read on this site didn’t have anything to do with the orginal topic, either, but there’s a hell of a lot of talk about trolls…so I guess there are progressive trolls? Damn, it really does get confusing doesn’t it…
April 11th, 2009 at 4:15 pmwesthetrucker Says:
Many different administrations have run deficits.
____________
This is a false equivalency. Something like SEVENTY PERCENT of the current Federal deficit was run up by the last three Republican presidents. Bush II ran up a biggest deficit of all.
April 11th, 2009 at 4:16 pmExcept that you claim to have come here seeking to understand progressivism. This claim is kind of farcical in the face of your “provocative” questioning.
C’mon, wes.”broader questions” like So any self-proclaimed “progressives” on this site care to explain why Republicans are trolls? Insects? Who are the insects again? Where are the silverfish? How about the ostriches, or the largemouth bass? What the hell?
Seriously?
April 11th, 2009 at 4:17 pmIf you want to say I’m a troll I’m o.k. with that, you can call me a truck driver too and I won’t waste time posting about assumptions.
I will however call bullshi* bullshi*.
April 11th, 2009 at 4:19 pmOf course there are “progressive” trolls. Even on TP.
Not many, and we generally tolerate them pretty well, since they mostly beat up on wingnut trolls, and the few reasonable conservatives know enough to ignore them.
April 11th, 2009 at 4:20 pmRe: “If it is close we can win”
Dem. use recounts to steal elections.
This first web site is from Sauter Communications who wrote the book for the democrats on how to steal elections using recounts. It is an advertisement for him but says what he does.
http://www.sautterfilms.com/SC-bioCS.html
He is associated with Tim Downs who you can find out more about on this web site as well as the method the democrats use to steal elections:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17718
Relevancy: This is in regards to a statement I made in replying to McNab (see above – way above) which it was pointed out to me I had referenced with a link.
April 11th, 2009 at 4:23 pmOh my, it seems my own are turning on me. I’ll have to take back all my reasoned posts I’ve contributed over the past year or so.
All I’m saying is we have one loon short of a flock.
April 11th, 2009 at 4:23 pmwesthe trucker:
April 11th, 2009 at 4:23 pmFor real, what exactly are you hauling? We can talk about it over pie. Let’s dialogue good buddy…
Ralphie:
I’m reading
A. The name of this site (think progress)
B. The stuff people are posting
C. A lot of stuff about trolls, and then, interchangably, Republican party slurs?
You’ve done a fair job here and there analyzing my discourse. That’s why you’ll know that post 367 contains as much horseshit as anything contained in my first post, especially in regards to the political parties, their underlying philosophies, and whom on this site may self identify with whom when it comes to those philosophies.
You’re the closest thing to logical I’ve read, and if you really feel that you are, deep down, able to see any point of view other than your own as having logical validity, then I don’t suppose there really would be a reason for the word “troll” in your vocabulary then?
But there it is, isn’t it? You’ve self-identified as Left, and then you go on to talk about LOGIC in all its grandeur, and then you speak of TROLLS? The only real INFERENCE here is that you DON’T self-identify as a troll, but you have done so as as someone on “the Left”. Therefore, anyone who is not on the Left does not follow LOGIC.
It’s not convenient term to anything. Neither is the word insect. It’s vindictive. It’s worthless. You still haven’t explained how it’s not the most narcissistic thing you or anyone else has said. See above paragraph for a wonderful precept to the idea of narcissism, not your Descartian type stab at my sense of being or how it relates to what I wrote.
April 11th, 2009 at 4:30 pmRich, I hope you didn’t think I was calling you a progressive troll. I’m sorry if I made it sound like that.
I always appreciate your contributions to the forum.
April 11th, 2009 at 4:31 pmThe Republic:
Or you could say the current Federal deficit was run up by the last three Democrat congresses and the only downturn it took was under a Republican Congress. The record to date was under the current Democrat congress and the Obama administration projects the deficit for the entire year will hit $1.75 trillion.
A deficit at that level would nearly quadruple the previous annual record of $454.8 billion set last year (under a democrat congress).
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090410/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/federal_budget
April 11th, 2009 at 4:37 pmMany different administrations have run deficits.
____________
This is a false equivalency. Something like SEVENTY PERCENT of the current Federal deficit was run up by the last three Republican presidents. Bush II ran up a biggest deficit of all.
So I wanna test Ralphie on this one? Troll, or not a troll? LOGIC here is the judge, remember.
April 11th, 2009 at 4:38 pmhttp://www.oldamericancentury.org/jeb_bush.htm
April 11th, 2009 at 4:39 pmwesthetrucker is as scared of me as Archie. Coincidence?
April 11th, 2009 at 4:39 pm“food for Vaal”…
April 11th, 2009 at 4:39 pmdbadass:
Oh, I’m pretty sure everyone is scared of “dbadass”. If they aren’t, they should be. You’re worried about who is scared of you, and you’re name’s “dbadass”. But we can’t dare link fear and insecurity here.
April 11th, 2009 at 4:43 pmwesthetrucker and ralph the wonder locust sittin’ in a tree….
(Sorry ralph, just trying to draw them out of their shell)
April 11th, 2009 at 4:43 pmHi Ralph, thanks I feel better.
Trolls are a fact of life here, we all know that. Val, after being called on his Frank obsession decided to post some link. If anyone cares to follow that feel free. It’s not widely disputed that throughout all of the 20c the US has prospered more under democratic presidents than republican.
As for the trucker to be named later. You’ve seen his first post (and I think re-posted it). If someone wants a reasoned debate they need to come in with reasons why they agree or disagree with the topic of the thread. Not just some sarcastic or nasty remarks.
Obviously both are trolls and if you want to play with them you should. I’m just in a piss poor mood today and I’m in no mood to play.
Oh, I have an idea for another screen name, Richtheironworker, but don’t assume I’m a steel worker because I could go on about that for hours.
April 11th, 2009 at 4:45 pmYou’re assuming that comments about trolls are all we do around here. In fact, trolls do occupy a lot of bandwidth, but that’s the nature of conflict, isn’t it? Besides, all we do is comment. We don’t do the reporting, we don’t do the editorial work of TP. We’re anonymous commenters, that’s all. Anyone can sign up and contribute whatever they want. This may shock you, but… sometimes people sign up, log on and then leave ugly comments, hoping they will reflect badly on the TP community. Imagine that!
Again, you’re the one who claimed to come here looking to understand “progressivism”. Most of us show up to chew the fat, share some insights or play Whack-A-Troll. If you want to get more out the discussion than what we’re doing, take some responsibility to elevate the discourse.
Approaching us with provocative entrances will almost guarantee that no one will take you seriously as partner in conversation. You set the tone.
Wrong. I think I have some modest ability to at least consider another’s point of view, and yet I recognize that some have the perspective of a troll. Their posts make this clear, usually within one or two comments.
The fact that I try to see another’s perspective doesn’t mean that everyone’s perspective needs to be valid for me. But I do find that it helps to communicate if I take the trouble to explain things at least a little bit from their perspective. Hence my use of links and earlier posts.
This is some tortured anti-logic here, wes. Maybe it’s your own projection, maybe you just don’t have any respect for my ability to see logic behind a position I disagree with. For instance, I see the logic behind those who are strongly anti-abortion. I understand why they reach the conclusion they do. I just reach a different conclusion, that’s all.
So if you think that..
The only real INFERENCE here is that you DON’T self-identify as a troll, but you have done so as as someone on “the Left”. Therefore, anyone who is not on the Left does not follow LOGIC
then you must have a different definition of “LOGIC” than I do.
I still don’t understand how you define “narcissism”, if you really think this paragraph above makes sense. Come to think of it, I’m not even sure that acogent explanation of “narcissism” would help me make heads or tails of this paragraph. If it’s important to you, maybe you’d better just go through it line-by-line and deconstruct it.
April 11th, 2009 at 4:47 pmCan someone translate 383? I just wanna have a chat over some black coffe and pie somewhere along an interstate. Why is this “trucker” so unwilling? Is it that he has nothing to say?
April 11th, 2009 at 4:49 pmExcept that the president submits the budget and Congress ratifies it. And in case you didn’t notice, during the period when we had both a Republican president AND a Republican Congress, the national debt exploded.
You realize, of course, that the current fiscal year is a Bush administration budget, right?
April 11th, 2009 at 4:51 pmI don’t want anymore Bushes in government. That goes for their descendants too.
April 11th, 2009 at 4:52 pmRich:
I’m new here and I don’t know about anyone’s obsessions. I know that there are some huge claims made like the one you just did about “prosperity” and how it relates to one party or another, and also (inferred here, the President’s pragmatic influence on said “prosperity”). Historically, neither the Democratic or the Republican parties are even the same philosophically as when they were formed.
Does that qualify as another of your “widely accepted” facts?
April 11th, 2009 at 4:54 pmEasy.
Not a troll.
The previous poster tried to present as fact the “both sides do it” false meme. TRoHS helpfully pointed out that the lion’s share of the national debt that we’ve accumulated has been built up under the last three Republican presidents.
That’s a pretty logical response, pointed and on topic.
What do you find illogical about it?
April 11th, 2009 at 4:54 pmhow bout we all get away from euphemisms and start real dialogue? Anyone?
—
And by anyone I sort of mean westhetrucker who I am starting to believe is not really a trucker. What could he/she be? Any thoughts?
April 11th, 2009 at 5:00 pmRich:
Not because it was mistakingly said I was a troll but:
I posted the link on Frank which was in regard to McNab(see above and read please) because I was asked to post links to verify what I was saying. I have done that on the Frank comment I made “it was reported there were minors involved” and if you read the links you will see not only testimony from the trial which states minors were involved but also you will see links showing how Barney was involved and also accused of having a relationship with a minor by the minor himself. Which proved my point.
The next links I posted were to back up another comment I made – the first link is the partner’s web site(makes sense when you read the second link.) The second link explains how the recount tactic was started by the dems.
And again I posted these because I was asked very politely to post links not because of name calling.
April 11th, 2009 at 5:03 pmRich, if truth be told, when I acknowledged the existence of “progressive” trolls I was thinking specifically of RHF. I didn’t even consider that wes was talking about you and it would look like I was calling you a troll.
Totally my bad. I got locked into exactly what I’ve been criticizing wes for all day — focusing on my own perspective. My apologies.
April 11th, 2009 at 5:03 pmDr. Moth Matt Says:
How about the community redevelopment act, which Barney Frank put into hyperspace. “Everyone in America deserves to own a house” Do some reading and gather some facts before you spout out your usual one liner.
Apparently you need to do some reading and gather some facts before you spout out your usual one line
——————————————–
You apparently don’t comprehend what CRA sole purpose was and just as I thought you twisted the facts.
The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), enacted by Congress in 1977 (12 U.S.C. 2901) and implemented by Regulations 12 CFR parts 25, 228, 345, and 563e, is intended to encourage depository institutions to help meet the credit needs of the communities in which they operate.
Neither the CRA nor its implementing regulation gives specific criteria for rating the performance of depository institutions. Rather, the law indicates that the evaluation process should accommodate an institution’s individual circumstances. Nor does the law require institutions to make high-risk loans that jeopardize their safety. To the contrary, the law makes it clear that an institution’s CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner.
CRA examinations are conducted by the federal agencies that are responsible for supervising depository institutions.
In other words, CRA was intended to halt redlining but the banks totally ignored their due diligence in lending practices and sent out the “sub-primers” to make money for the banks all awhile knowing the loans were “toxic.”
CRA was suppose to help those individuals that actually met the minimum requirements for a housing and not loan to just anyone.
April 11th, 2009 at 5:06 pmralph
Please post links proving you comments
1)Except that the president submits the budget and Congress ratifies it.
Because I thought congress wrote the budget
April 11th, 2009 at 5:12 pmhttp://harkin.senate.gov/pr/col.cfm?id=237366
Hey, when anyone wants to address the topic feel free.
Val, I just read your very first post and it had nothing to do with the topic whatsoever. Towards the end of your very first post you include your initial comments about Frank.
Personally, I found your post fairly delusional and to have posted it on a progressive website shows you are just here for what reason exactly?
April 11th, 2009 at 5:12 pmRalph:
It’s not a false equivalency. There is no such “both sides do it” false meme. I didn’t make any equivalency at all. There is no equivalency made.
Many different administrations have run deficits.
At least in this case, the word “administration” was used, which provides far more room for cogency when talking about the the responsbiliites of the Legislative and Excecutive branches and their impact on fiscal policy, and in turn, our world.
But aside from that, the statement still isn’t a false equivalency. Keep reading it again to understand it, if you have to.
An “equivalency”, if you will, is made in the response, which compares the two different parties (yet again). Of course, “something like 70 percent” is there…I don’t have to continue descontructing that.
I’ll work on the above paragraph, though, I guess. If you are willing to call someone a name “aka” troll, I assert that’s pretty narcissistic on its face. Your attempt to talk about abortion and the opposing viewpoint is a pretty terrible effort, I think, to try to explain your “I’m really balanced yet left” approach to issues.
Just don’t bother talking about logic anymore. Which, by the way, you did include in your original definition of “troll” and so on and so forth. I wanted to test your “logic” though, after all, it’s very important here, and your identification of it lacking. Maybe I’ll post again if I see anything else that doesn’t fall in the category of vitriol and has some value.
April 11th, 2009 at 5:21 pmval, how’s this:
- Each year in early February, the U.S. president sends to Congress The Budget of the United States Government. A 1921 federal law, the Budget and Accounting Act, mandates the president prepare and submit such a document “no earlier than the first Monday in January, and no later than the first Monday in February.”
April 11th, 2009 at 5:23 pmI am starting to think that the trucker didn’t really know what the word dialogue ment.
Hey ralphie, when did you become the lot lizard? Wes likes you long time…
April 11th, 2009 at 5:26 pmRich
I have said time and again I was commenting on McNabs comment and the treatment of the media in regards to statements such as he made. It is very clear. But unless you read 162 McNab and 256 Val you won’t understand. If you believe it was off topic then please read the article then what McNab said.
And again with the name calling? I’m delusional now? Even though I provided links proving what I was saying and continually said this had to do with McNabs original statement you think I’m delusional? I really don’t understand why you name call? What’s that about?
April 11th, 2009 at 5:26 pmRich:
I haven’t read Val’s comments, but if he’s pissed off because he was on Yahoo, which reaches people of ALL walks of life and persuasions, and then licked on the link out of curiosity, just as I have done, in order to get to a “progressive” website and read a biased article, then I suppose there just might be some kind of liberal media bias after all.
BTW I just made an equivalency, for those interested. Left=progressive=liberal. 2/3 of that one was provided by my intelligent friend the Locust.
April 11th, 2009 at 5:30 pmRalph
Again Please read about who writes the budget-
http://harkin.senate.gov/pr/col.cfm?id=237366
April 11th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Hey ralphie,
I can see you are having a hard time understanding reality, so I will try again real slow just for you. I have posted a link to Clinton’s budget proposal for 1998, which shows he did not propose a balanced budget. If you go to page 6 it shows where he proposed borrowing 7% of his proposed budget. Go to page 307 and it shows his budget includes Social Security. I will also post the link to the Bureau of Debt, and you can see by putting in the dates that even though there was a balanced budget, our national debt had increased, and the debt belonging to intragovernmental holdings increased, basically meaning that the Social Security “trust fund” was being raided to pay for the budget. I would agree with you that Bush 43 did not hold spending in check, but it was necessary to once again bolster defense which Clinton pared most years in his budget. As bad as he was, Obama is making him look like a miser. Now I have posted links backing up my argument, where are yours?
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy98/pdf/budget.pdf
April 11th, 2009 at 5:34 pmhttp://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
Dont’ worry about name calling. I’m an independent and joined the site and got called names immediately. I’m sure (taking big leaps logically here of course), like most political movements, the progressive movement would want to recruit as many people as possible to its’ cause thereby affecting change in some positive way. But, after reading a TIME article (not FOX NEWS gasp gasp) about the nature of the movement and the discourse of the people involved, I’ll go ahead and say now it’s pretty accurate assessment of their nature.
April 11th, 2009 at 5:38 pmwes, you obviously don’t understand the term “equivalency” the same way TRoHS and I do in this instance.
The false equivalency is that both Democratic presidents and Republican presidents have relatively equal records in terms of budget deficits; in essence, that there is no difference between the historical records of the two parties. This is implied but not specifically stated. TRoHS was clever enough to pick up on that implication and efficient enough to treat it as an obvious intent of the statement.
You still haven’t explained what you think “narcissistic” means. How is name-calling “narcissistic”?
I think we share the blame here. Obviously I didn’t explain my point well enough, but you seem to have actively ignored much of what I said. My point wasn’t “I’m really balanced yet left”. My point was that your accusation was wrong — the accusation that if I disagree with something, I must think it illogical. As a means of disproving that assumption, i simply gave yu an example of an issue on which I see the logic of another’s conclusion, but I disagree with the principle on which it was made. My point had nothing to do with how balanced I am. It was all about your false assumption.
I’ll always have a problem explaining my approach to logic when I’m discussing it with someone as prone to wild misreadings or bad assumptions as you seem to be.
But, if it will help, I’ll explain what I think of as “logic” — a fundamental set of abstract principles, from which can extrapolate defensible conclusions from a given sample of data, consistent with what is known and what can be determined.
You still haven’t explained if you find anything illogical in the response TRoHS gave you, or whether you judge him to be a troll.
April 11th, 2009 at 5:38 pmI still can’t fnd the place where anyone called em anything other than westhetrucker. Is westhetrucker totally full of shit? wes and I know but what about the others…
April 11th, 2009 at 5:40 pmcheck it out ralph. They are trying a piss poor fuji and tanaka type gambit. Hilarious. Still you have to give them a few points for silliness…
April 11th, 2009 at 5:41 pmdbadass,
I called westhetrucker, westhebobtaildriver since he seemd upset someone assumed he was a long haul trucker.
April 11th, 2009 at 5:43 pmwes, I’m beginning to think that it’s pointless trying to communicate with you.
First, I don’t understand WTF reading a “biased article” on TP would have to do with any alleged “liberal media bias”. You make these judgments seemingly fueled more by your prejudices than anything else.
Second, how do you attribute “2/3″ of “Left=progressive=liberal” to me? When did I ever say anything like that? To clear things up, in my mind progressive and liberal are not the same thing. They frequently have similar aims, but Liberal is ideologically motivated, and Progressive is pragmatically motivated.
April 11th, 2009 at 5:43 pmFirst, we don’t cut and paste or misquote our topics. They’re posted right on top with links for everyone to see. The real problem is Facts Have A Liberal Bias. For republicans, thats the problem with facts and that’s why they try to never use them.
April 11th, 2009 at 5:46 pm409
April 11th, 2009 at 5:48 pmFather Rivera says two hail marys and you are back on the streets…
“just the facts”
try going here and downloading Table 1.1
It’s an Excel document that will show that in FY 1998, the federal government collected revenues of 1.72 trillion and expenses of $1.65 trillion.
By FY 2000, revenues had grown to $2.03 trillion and expenses were $1.79 trillion.
The last four Clinton budgets all showed revenues greater than expenses. Accountancy professionals call this situation a “surplus”.
What about this do you not understand?
April 11th, 2009 at 5:53 pmSo, Val, you’re telling me that information from Tom Harkin’s website overrides the 1921 Budget and Accounting Act?
Of course Congress revises the budget, and must pass it in both houses, but the budget originates with the President and becomes law when the President signs it.
And for better or worse, the president sets the priorities and policy directions for the budget and gets the credit for the budget. Or the blame.
April 11th, 2009 at 5:56 pmI’m an independent and joined the site and got called names immediately. I’m sure
————-
Here’s you first post f uckface. Still wanna hid from me? I will f uck you everwhere you go not because I am a jerk. Just because you are a tool and I have a problem with tools…
westhetrucker Says:
——————————————————————————–
So any self-proclaimed “progressives” on this site care to explain why Republicans are trolls? Insects? Who are the insects again? Where are the silverfish? How about the ostriches, or the largemouth bass? What the hell? If we’re going J.R. Tolkien with this shit, I’m a dwarf, I guess. Why talk about Fox newx, or any media? We all know the AP doesn’t stand for “associated press”. It’s all about the ANIMAL PLANET.
Is this really what passes for wit these days? Christ (whom I believe in, personally, but will invoke casually here to prove that I can be “progressive”) how bout we all get away from euphemisms and start real dialogue? Anyone?
April 11th, 2009 at 5:56 pm—
Let’s go big boy. Get that dialogue of yours in gear before someone mistake you for a pussy…
Rich
Not true I have asked for links a couple of times and never got them. They were however demanded of me and when I provided them (testimony form a trail, how legit can you get) the articles were said not be be proof. And I admit we got way off topic here but only because I was asked to prove what I had said in rebuttal to McNab with links. Someone not reading all of the above would naturally be confused.
Et al. I am not “pissed off” just embarrassed for those who resort to name calling when they can’t refute the argument.
April 11th, 2009 at 5:57 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
“… or whether you judge him to be a troll…”
__________
Huh??? Moi??? A… TROLL???
Nooooooooooooooooo!!!
It CAIN’T be true!!!
What did I do???
(TRoHS breaks down in tears…)
Sob!!! Sob!!! It’s… Just… Not… FAIR!!!
April 11th, 2009 at 5:58 pmHi Ralph,
I’ve spent some time looking for a graph (I’ve seen it before) tracking the defecits and surplus according to the presidents of the 20c. I’ve found some from 1940 on, but not one that’s all inclusive. If you know where it is it would be greatly appreciated, I could certainly use it in the future.
Did you also know (please don’t make me look it up, I’m not a google master) that suicides rise under republican presidents? It has to do with a bleak outlook on life, lack of healthcare, job loss, less access to education, depression etc… and that suicides increase in both genders but that it’s higher among women.
April 11th, 2009 at 5:59 pmThe false equivalency is that both Democratic presidents and Republican presidents have relatively equal records in terms of budget deficits; in essence, that there is no difference between the historical records of the two parties. This is implied but not specifically stated.
Now, Ralph, you’re getting worse with your “inferences”. There is nothing implied there. Nobody said anything as to the “equality between the two parties”. I can tell you get confused easily by what you view as “implication” or an “inference”. Have you studied logic formally?
It’s still not an equivalency. There is no different way to understand “equivalency” in this instance. Equivalency IS a concept of formal logic. It has a definition. In order to bother to demonstrate it, I would have actually had to set forth two propositions? Oh wait a minute, you ended up doing that in your INFERENCE. But I didn’t. The fact is:
Many different administrations have run deficits is a proposition. That’s it.
You can’t extrapolate anything from that, my friend. Not sure about anti-logic (never heard of that, truthfully), but certainly not a valid of use of inductive, rather than deductive, logic.
Again, I asked questions about your definition of troll, how it relates to your definion of logic, and how all of them are interwined. That’s why I asked you the question. Not to give my own opinion. But I’ve already gathered all I need to know about what you know about logic, trolls, and the like. So, I fear this discussion has run its course. But I’m sure I’ll post again, when I find something else more compelling than the article that prompted this response. In the future, I’ll try to strictly remain “on point” though since most all of the other comments I read here are. Maybe one day, someone can better define what progressivism really means. I think it means liberal, or left. Just a proposition.
April 11th, 2009 at 6:01 pmRich, the link I provided for “just the facts” is an excel doc with that information going back to 1789, although the periods 1789-1849 and 1850-1900 are treated as two chunks.
I have found a good html site that info before, but I neglected to bookmark it and I couldn’t find it this time.
April 11th, 2009 at 6:02 pmFor those who think Bush’s tax cuts only helped the “wealthy”, here is a link to The Tax Foundations statistics comparing incomes and tax liability under Clinton and Bush. Kinda ruins your phony arguments, doesn’t it?
April 11th, 2009 at 6:05 pmRalph
Congress has the “power of the purse.” And under the Constitution, it is Congress’s job to actually write and pass the budget.
The president can only suggest. Like Clinton, he never got one of his own bills (one he started himself not one he borrowed from the Rep or Democrats) passed and this is common knowlege it is why there is so much talk of Clinton trying to find a legacy. Other than Monica.
April 11th, 2009 at 6:05 pmRelax, TRoHS… it’s just our new friend westhetrucker (but NOT the long-haul kind; don’t you DARE try to accuse him of that) trying to make a point about trolls, for some reason.
But now that you’re here… I could use a hand. My arm is starting to cramp up from all this mallet-wielding.
April 11th, 2009 at 6:05 pmwesthetrucker Says:
It’s always about Fox News. It sucks so bad nobody can possibly grasp how they get ratings…and more ratings…and then more.
___________
Compared to free television, Fox’s ratings are small. Seeing as Fox deliberately sets itself up as THE alternative to ALL OTHER news sources, their demographic is actually rather small compared to the total market.
___________
Ah yes, it’s because….it’s because dumb middle (or majority) America can’t figure out they’re duped!
___________
This is silly. “dumb middle (or majority) America”??? WTF??? You CAN’T be claiming Fox represents a MAJORITY of Americans. Or… can you?
__________
Rupert Murdoch, curse him, he’s smarter than everyone else that’s how he gets his ratings. His huge corporation is mostly to blame.
__________
Rupert… the pornographer king?
He’s in BIG trouble financially, BTW… just might go bankrupt later this year or early next. Sooooooo sad.
__________
Most successful businesses are to blame for most problems. I’ve learned a lot here today.
__________
Funny… on one hand, we, the posters here are irrelevant and powerless… but, the folks that do have the pwoer… aren’t responsible…
__________
Let me try to break it down to whatever animal/fantastical figment of imagination you guys wanna be today. BIG news flash. Most people think independently. Do you? Do you really?
__________
Most people think independently? Really?
Does that include those that listen to Fox, the only news outfit I’ve ever heard about that actually claimed in court they had the RIGHT to make up whatever SH!T they wanted to and call it news.
Do you, by any chance, get YOUR facts from Fox?
BTW, a comment like “Most people think independently…” is such a broad generalization, it’s meaningless. It can’t be proven or disproven.
April 11th, 2009 at 6:07 pmSo if I read you correctly, you’re saying that no president deserves blame OR credit for his budgetary behavior, because it’s all on Congress, huh?
Okay… so why did the Republican Congress pass budgets that resulted in surpluses when Bill Clinton was the one signing them, but as soon as George W. Bush took the helm, they started producing budgets that resulted in deficits? It’s kind of odd, don’t you think?
And we can also assume then that the “Bush Tax Cuts” are misnamed? Since it was Congress who passed them?
April 11th, 2009 at 6:07 pmralph I’d offer a tag but these lame asses are scared shitless of me it appears…
April 11th, 2009 at 6:07 pmI know, dbadass, I know. Your reputation precedes you. i guess they’re terrified of wholesome, home-cooked victuals. Must be too used to Cheetos and Gas Station cuisine.
April 11th, 2009 at 6:09 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
Relax, TRoHS… it’s just our new friend westhetrucker (but NOT the long-haul kind; don’t you DARE try to accuse him of that) trying to make a point about trolls, for some reason.
_________
Is wes prejudiced against long-haul truckers?
Sniff… sniff… it’s a problem when you haven’t been on a thread and come aboard just to find Such A Heinous Accusation made in yer absence.
_________
But now that you’re here… I could use a hand. My arm is starting to cramp up from all this mallet-wielding.
_________
Advil and ice, ralphie… and a little, or perhaps a LOT of Scotch, doesn’t hurt either. Or you just might be up all night while yer tendons sing “The Mallet Song”.
April 11th, 2009 at 6:13 pmRalph,
It seems much easier for me to comprehend this than you. Yes, there was a budget “surplus”. I have not denied this fact. What you are sidestepping is why was the surplus created. You claim it was Clinton’s budget. I linked you to Clinton’s proposed budget and it clearly was not a balanced budget proposal. You can stay in denial if you wish, that is your prerogative, but the simple truth is the budget was balanced because the Republican Congress did a half way decent job of attempting to hold back spending. Clinton was smart enough, after the first year there was a surplus, to jump on the bandwagon, knowing he could not fight the Republicans who held majorities in both houses and the public, who liked a surplus. Now to the question of if it was even really a surplus. Only if you include Social Security in the equation. Social Security brought in more money than was being paid out. The “surplus” was used to create a general budget surplus. This fact is shown when you go to the Bureau of Debt page, where you will see that intragovernmental debt holdings increased under Clinton. Yes, public debt declined, but not intragovernmental.
April 11th, 2009 at 6:13 pmThanks for the info Ralph. I’ll have to check it out. Since no one seems to be addressing the topic I think I’ll add this. Suicides in the military are at a 25 year high. Interesting, the last time they were so high Reagan was in office.
April 11th, 2009 at 6:14 pmAm I alone in suspecting that, had George W. Bush been blessed with the same economic results that Bill Clinton saw and Clinton had overseen a tripling of the national debt, instead of the reverse, that our friend Val would be arguing that the president is in fact responsible for the budget?
April 11th, 2009 at 6:15 pmVal is right, it is up to congress to pass the spending bills. The president can only recommend and threaten to veto. The president is not a legislator. Why did the budgets go downhill so bad with Bush as president? For one, the leadership in the House had changed. The Dems held the Senate during the first two years of his first term, making it harder to get both houses behind him. Bush also was trying to revive the military after big budget cuts under Clinton.
April 11th, 2009 at 6:20 pmRalph
Good question
If you remember Ted Kennedy wrote the education budget during Bush’s first days in office. And if you remember in an effort to have bipartisanship Bush invited Kennedy and other to the White House and said he would sign the most massive education budget ever so that they could all start this new bipartisanship thing. And if you remember Ted Kennedy bashed Bush relentlessly and would not cross the isle for anything. (I honestly think Bush was shocked.) But this started a trend with Bush much like Arnold Schwarzenegger. Once they found out that there was no bipartisanship they just signed bill after bill.
The point here is – please stop the spending – both sides. I don’t want to be burdened with a huge debt. And with those baby boomers all wanting wheelchairs soon – who is gonna pay for all this.
Although Tom Daschle’s Health care plan which says medicine and operations will be decided by a committee(read his book) based on the efficacy of the treatment and how long (read valuable here) the patient might live will probably be the answer. Obama has already signed the Health Care plan hasn’t he??? Anyways we’ll be able to just deny treatment to most of the boomers like they do in Canada and England which will save loads of money.
April 11th, 2009 at 6:25 pmI guess I must have misinterpreted when I read this
Strange, that certainly sounds like you denied it.
I linked YOU to the actual numbers of the federal budget, from the White House Office of Budget and Management. Please explain how a budget proposal carries more weight than the actual performance of the budget?
Interesting argument, seeing as…
Social Security is not part of the Federal Budget general fund. It is a separate account and has its own source of income. Social Security payments do not go into the general fund, they go in the Social Security trust fund, and should NOT be counted as general revenue.
[snip]
Currently, there is more being payed into the Social Security Trust Fund than is being paid out to beneficiaries. What’s left over is routinely being “borrowed” and used as if it were general budget revenue. Government agencies using that money promise to pay it back (IOUs).
The budget figures I provided you do not list where money is borrowed from. They list revenues and outlays. When revenues exceed outlays, the budget runs a surplus. This happened in the last four fiscal years under budgets signed by Bill Clinton. The government did not have to borrow from Social Security.
April 11th, 2009 at 6:27 pmOh. My. God.
I think this meant as a serious explanation.
Ted Kennedy made Bush mad, so Bush then signed everything.
Wow.
Just wow.
April 11th, 2009 at 6:28 pmralphie,
Once again, you are having trouble understanding the simplest facts. The budget proposal was Clinton’s, and Clinton’s alone. The budget that passed was not his. How hard is that to understand? The Republican Congress wrote the budget that created the surplus. It was not Clinton’s budget proposal. It is obvious you did not read the links I provided, which clearly showed that Social Security was included in the numbers of Clinton’s budget. Yes, the revenues exceeded the outlays WHEN Social Security was included, which is why many economists say there never really was a budget surplus.
April 11th, 2009 at 6:35 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
Ted Kennedy made Bush mad, so Bush then signed everything.
Wow.
Just wow.
_____________
AND…
He drastically cut taxes and invaded two countries, one of the preemptively, to boot, all because of Kennedy…
You see, Kennedy just didn’t make Bush mad, ralphie…
Kennedy made Bush very, very, very, very, very, very,very, very, very mad.
Just think what Bush would have done if Kennedy had said “Niagara Falls…”!
April 11th, 2009 at 6:38 pmNational Debt
5,943,438,563,436.13 as of 12/31/2000
according to the Treasury
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway
2,549,039,605,222.53 international debt as of 12/31/2000
2,549,039,605,222.53
April 11th, 2009 at 6:39 pmjust the facts Says:
The Republican Congress wrote the budget that created the surplus.
_____________
Funny… over the last 8 years, I have NEVER HEARD this claim, anywhere, once… EXCEPT here, today.
Not from any Republican, or Fox… ANYWHERE…
BUT, we do know that Bush and the GOOP pretty much had total control of the country from 2001 to 2007 and did indeed run up the biggest deficit in the history of the country, when measured by Presidential admins.
April 11th, 2009 at 6:41 pmwesthetrucker:
I sorry about the delay wes, I experienced a power surge and then short blackout. It took a while to reboot and run diagnostics on the system after power was restored.
Nicole Belle at C&L had a post about the 2m4m subject yesterday:
http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/open-letter-national-organization-mar
Then the website for 2m4m.
http://www.2m4m.org/
April 11th, 2009 at 6:43 pmRepublic:
That Kennedy made Bush disappointed would be a better way of saying this. Arnold has just flat out said he can’t get anything done. And Bush changed after Kennedy “stabbed him in the back” as some have said. That is a known truth.
I never said anything about the other things you are saying. I believe that is called putting words in someone’s mouth. This is a tactic Micheal Moore used in his films and one of the things Jon Stewart does to try to be funny. Were you trying to be funny?
April 11th, 2009 at 6:44 pmWow. You mean in FY 2007, with a budget passed by a Republican Congress and signed by a Republican President, with on-budget receipts of $1.7 trillion (total $2.4 trillion) and expenses of $2.8 trillion, the budget shortfall was EVEN WORSE than it appeared?
Yikes. Those Republicans were pret-ty bad at fiscal management.
Any chance we can blame this on Barney Frank?
April 11th, 2009 at 6:45 pmRalph
Frank was leaning over backwards to help at the time, I’m sure.
April 11th, 2009 at 6:49 pmralphie,
Since you are struggling so hard to read my links I will help you out. The numbers speak for themselves. They are for the years that the budget was balanced. This is from the Bureau of Debt.
Date 09/30/1998
Public Debt 3,733,864,472,163.53 Intragovernmental Debt 1,792,328,536,734.09
Total Debt 5,526,193,008,897.62
Date 09/28/2001
April 11th, 2009 at 6:52 pmPublic Debt 3,339,310,176,094.74 Intragovernmental Debt 2,468,153,236,105.32
Total Debt 5,807,463,412,200.06
TRoHS, does it seem to you that these guys have different meanings for words than we do?
I mean, I don’t think I would use a phrase “this is a known truth” for something as subjective and really unprovable as Bush changed after Kennedy “stabbed him in the back”.
I mean, call me crazy, but that sounds much more like a subjective judgment than a “known truth”. The fact that it’s also self-serving is irrelevant.
I mean, the Democrats had nominal control of the Senate from the time Jim Jeffords of Vermont declared as an independent on May 24, 2001 until January 2003. During that time Republicans controlled the House and the White House. From january 2003 until January 2007, Republicans controlled everything.
During this time the national debt went from $6.3 trillion to $8.7 trillion. That’s some serious influence Ted Kennedy exerted.
April 11th, 2009 at 6:54 pm“just the facts” you do realize, don’t you, that the debt figures you cite are accumulated debt, and not annual deficits?
In other words, all the debt that Ronald Reagan built up with his tax cuts — excuse me… that the Democratic Congress in the eighties built up with THEIR tax cuts — has been accumulating. It only goes away when we pay some of it off, as we were doing in the late nineties.
That’s what you’re citing. DEBT.
That’s not the same as a de