Right Pundits

Banning automatic weapons cannot cure the mentally ill.
Unless you blow their brains out

Just wake me up when the Obama recession is finally over.

We had a partial assault weapons ban for 10 years and everything was fine.

Why did it have to be reversed, other than the fact then the NRA are very competent lobbyists?

I still like Chris Rock’s idea, with perhaps a twist.

Have all the guns you want, simply increase the cost of bullets to $5000 for certain applications.

That is, bullets for a single shot hunting rifle? Fine, no change.

Shooting at a target range? You get the bullets there and if you take 100 you return 100 spent cartridges.

You need 30 round magazines for an assault weapon? Save your money.

I suppose this means that we are at risk of Donald Trump and/or Warren Buffett shooting up a mall or school.

I will take my chances.

You need a six shooter to defend your home? Ok, the gun comes with six bullets.

I saw in an earlier thread about how people need 30 shots to defend their homes against some invading horde.

I don’t know many burglars that invade your house in waves. Perhaps if you are in the drug business, but otherwise I would suggest you move out of Fallujah.

At least Patrick McCain allowed for some wiggle room (albeit with the tired caveat that if you let liberals take an inch…), but it is clear that most on this site are simply intractable and if there are 20 incidents in the next week it would still not change anyone’s mind since it is obviously Hollywood’s fault.

As far as the budget?

If I were Obama I would not negotiate one bit. The public is holding the Republicans responsible (it doesn’t matter if that is true or not) and I would simply say this is the deal, take it or leave it. I would be on television every day repeating that stance.

To the winner go the spoils and it can be fleeting so just like in poker. If you have the “big stack” you leverage it to full value.

While I am at it the deal includes a provision that there will be no repeat of the debt ceiling foolishness again. I am guessing that if the Republicans try that again they will be committing long-term political suicide.

I never understand why people negotiate when it is not necessary.

“Paranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep”.

Andrew,

After reading your article I found it thoroughly un-constructive and unprofessional. I assume you are an educated person and I have no qualms about whether someone is on the “right” or the “left” or even somewhere in-between. However I do have a problem with commentary that fails to show intelligence when you have no problem with calling others’ idiots. Including the President and Vice-President of the United States.

Is it even possible for you to be professional enough to disagree with people’s policies without being disagreeable? You cheapen your message and make it impossible to take you seriously. Don’t waste people’s time with idiocy of your own.

Make your argument in a way that allows people to take you seriously and maybe even consider that your views have merit beyond being just another jack-ass.

Sincerely,
“Interested In All Views”

Do Obama supporters dress themselves? It’s painfully obvious they don’t think for themselves. America needs to find it’s greatest source of power is not the “government”… it’s we the people damn-it. We’re well within our rights, and our scope of duty to remove this parasitical administration from the face of the earth.

Hey Craig, I know in the past Canada has been the source of much ire for Conservatives but they have turned the corner. Corporate tax rates are only 15% and their banking laws are far more rational than ours. If you want to buy a house, you actually have to put up a down payment of at least 10%. Not a single Canadian bank has failed nor needed a bailout.

Cyteria,

No, I have no problem calling our Prez and Veep idiots because they are. Biden is so out of it that he does not even know where he is half the time and pretty much everything that exits Obama’s mouth is either a lie or absolute dribble.

I can only assume that you are among the ranks of the Low Information Voters, so little of anything I say would interest you anyway. That being said, Bless your heart and have a nice day!

Umm…, Ronald…,

“After taking a solid economy and crashing to the ground, voters ousted them in 2006, leaving them lost.”

The economy crashed in 2006??? If I recall, we had GDP growth rate still in the 3-4% range and unemployment rates were still below 6%. Maybe I’m just confused but it seems to me that things started going downhill fast AFTER Democrats took over the House, Senate and eventually the White House.

Buzz;
“Why did it have to be reversed, other than the fact then the NRA are very competent lobbyists?”

” if there are 20 incidents in the next week it would still not change anyone’s mind since it is obviously Hollywood’s fault.”

Hollywoods lobbyists donate millions more then the NRA.

But that still wont stop me from watching Kill Bill or Pulp Fiction with anyone over 17 in the room.
Idiot Tipper went after the music industry and failed. Christian zealots have proposed teaching Christianity in our schools, which would be an epic “fail” of our constitutions purpose.
Both sides have attacked Hollywood but for different interests.
No one of any significant influence has yet to hold the feet of Americas parents to the fire.

At 13 I used to steal my dads car to go joy riding. After being caught car keys were no longer left laying around.
At 16 I would steal their meds. Those were also no longer left laying around.
I still grew up to be a thief and a junkie only because parental complacency and deluded self assurance dictated that I was simply going thru a phase I’d grow out of.
Removing that which I abused did nothing to eliminate the urge for stimulation. My parents were not bad people, but they were defective parents when it came to re-channeling a kids drive.
This idiot b!tch “Nancy Lanza” knew damn well what her sons interests and character defects were and still left a small arsenal at her sons disposal.
Does anyone think maybe we should stop blaming everything and everyone for this carnage and maybe put some responsibility on the parents and their choices ?
I fail to see how banning one weapon or category out of thousands will eliminate sadistic psychopaths or chemically imbalanced individuals from fulfillment of their dreams.
Banning automatics does not solve the problem anymore than cutting the top off your blanket and sewing it to the bottom in order to make it longer.
But, thats okay, us parents need not worry.
If we cant raise our kids properly the government will.

“I’m not sure which is most torturous for the GOP, looking back at their admitted drunken spending spree …”

Wow ! you’re right for once. Many cons have agreed they spent too much.
But thats the only credence you get when we look at the lefts actions beginning with the CRA which til today they still deny is and was the largest contributing factor to todays economy.
Yup, both parties signed on to it. The difference is this.
Bush and McCain both went in front of the 111th congress to ask for action to be taken against what was clearly poor social policy.
The 111th dem majority continued to spend away.
The answer from the left i.e. Barney Frank, Dodd, etc was “there’s nothing wrong, nothing to worry about.
And still,today, your idiot leftist buddies are still applying the same regulations on banks that we will all pay for, for decades to come.
Its about time you morons took responsibility for the last four years of an intent to fix a fixable problem which instead ended up exasperating it ten fold.

Here are the ratios of deficit to GDP for the past five presidents…

{Source: Economic Report of the President, February 2012}

Ronald Reagan
1981-88 4.2 %
1982-89 4.2
Average 4.2

George H. W. Bush
1989-92 4.0
1990-93 4.3
Average 4.2

Bill Clinton
1993-2000 0.8
1994-2001 0.1
Average 0.5

George W. Bush
2001-08 2.0
2002-09 3.4
Average 2.7

Barack Obama
2009-12* 9.1
2010-12 8.7
Average 8.9
“As for spending itself, during the George W. Bush years (2001-08), federal outlays averaged 19.6 percent of GDP, a little less than during the Clinton years (1993-2000), at 19.8% and far below Reagan, whose outlays never dropped below 21 percent of GDP in any year and averaged 22.4%. Even factoring in the TARP year (2009), Bush’s average outlays as a proportion of the economy was 20.3 percent – far below Reagan and only a half-point below Clinton. As for Obama, even excluding 2009, his spending has averaged 24.1 percent of GDP – the highest level for any three years since World War II.”

Thats right Ronald, its only the rights fault.
I’m sure the last four years represents that bullsht only if you’re an ideological idiot.
You try so hard to sound so astute and academic when really you’re the dumbest poster boy I’ve ever read whos delusional enough to think anyone takes your word for anything.
You know nothing.

BTW, Buzz,

On a different thread you said that since the passage of the ‘assault weapons’ ban, everything was just fine between 1994 through 2004. Actually, there were 9 ‘mass shootings between 1994 and 2004, with the two more infamous ones, Jonesboro and Columbine among them.

http://www.nycrimecommission.org/initiative1-shootings.php

Most of these crimes were carried out with handguns, in most most cases legally purchased. Three involved semi-auto versions of the Soviet rifles such as the AK-47 and SKS, two were identified as Chinese-built, which slipped through loopholes since Sen. Feinstein’s husband was profiting from their importation.

At Columbine, the boys used mostly 12-gauge shotguns and 9mm pistols. One did have a Hi-Point 995 9mm rifle and it, as well as one of the pistols, were purchased illegally.

Andy, you again toss around your debunked fantasy that the Bush admin was some economic wizard masterfully salvaging the Clinton crises and then along came the destructive 06 Dems and promptly ruined it. That’s simply delusional on every front. Yes we have haggled the 08 crises several times and you’ve yet to respond with any rationale.

But I continue to ask precisely what legislation the 06 Dems push through, prevented, changed, or whatever that changed the Bush economic strategy which you say was such a success. It’s not like you haven’t had plenty of time to research and come up with something. You responded once that their mere presence (or something equally stupid) were the drivers to failure, exposing your tin foil talking points for what they are. Even from your own admission above, the GOP spending was out of control. And let me remind you that you and your Tea Party buddies sat quietly on your hands only to come out immediately after Obama’s took office furious about “spending”. And all of that spending went on the country’s credit card, including Bush’s wars. And these my friend, were the drivers to the economic collapse.

I’ve gone into detail about taxes paying for all other previous wars, which you’ve ignored. I’ve laid out a rationale of how tax free corporations are not as inclined to reinvest in order to stimulate economic growth, which you’ve ignored. I’ve brought up how major corporations have become welfare recipients of the working class and pay NEGATIVE taxes, which you’ve ignored. I’ve asked how much more negative should they pay (or how much more of a bigger check should taxpayers give them) and you’ve ignored that. I’ve brought up our taxation history with comparisons to growth which you also ignored. I’ve mentioned numerous times how after a decade of the bush tax cuts in place, they didn’t work. I’ve laid out argument after augment after argument and you come up blank, only regurgitating your reinvention of history.

Why should I take Micky’s #22 post seriously (or hell, any post with his name on it) when I’ve laid counter arguments with factual data? And if my numbers were off, why didn’t you call me out on them?

Sure, there are plenty of drivers that that played into the economic downturn but the unprecedented tax cuts at a time of starting 2 wars along with your admitted era of GOP reckless spending were huge factors.

And in your own little corner in you own little chair where you can be what ever you want to be,(Rodgers & Hammerstein’s Cinderilla), you blame Obama and Dems for “simply being there” while exonerating Bush who was indeed in charge and the man at the helm when the 08 economy crashed. And I think I’ve gone into lengthy detail on that which you chose to ignore.

It’s like I’ve said before Andy, how many ways can you explain that the dog ate your homework?

“but only with corresponding decreases in spending which he did not do. That would have been a conservative’s approach to governance.”

That only makes sense if you forget two wars that both parties voted for.
Bush and McCain also tried to alert congress to the housing burst.
Bush may not of been 100% conservative but he sure as hell was not a liberal.
Seeing how offended liberals are by his taxation policies one has to wonder why a flaming moonbat like you would say such a thing, other than to draw attention to your insignificance

Ronald,

First, the Bush Tax Cuts DID work! You keep forgetting that when Bush became president, we were in a recession. The Dot-com bubble bursting and the aftermath of the Asian Contagion were in play. The 9/11 attacks further harmed our economy to the tune of well over a trillion dollars. Once the Bush Tax Cuts were in place, we experienced some 50+ consecutive months of terrific job growth, averaging about 300,000+ jobs per month being created. Far more than the alleged recovery of Obama.

As for specific legislation passed by the Dem-controlled Congress, let us start with the federal budget. For two years prior to the Dems seizing power, our budget deficits were declining. But after the Democrats took over in 2007, they went up as Democrats began making up for lost time with their wild spending ways.

There is no argument that Bush let it happen, he caved on the spending. But at least we can say this about him, Bush, unlike Obama, was actually able to work with a hostile Congress and get a federal budget passed every year. Obama has yet to truly pass one, single federal budget after four years, which is simply astounding in terms of incompetence.

Ron, if you want people to believe you, you need sources.
Isnt that whatchusay ?

Get busy homeey.

If you’re trying to say that our economy has been better since dickhead took office, you gotcher work cut out for you.
(Not that you’ll succeed)

“It’s become a pattern on Rightpundits.com to find a distracting kibitzing sockpuppet playing the role of a rodeo clown so Andy can duck out of manning up to his ridiculous statements.”

Yeah, fck you too ass hole.
You’ve your ass kicked by me in lengthy debate so many times now you wont even talk directly to me.
Andy doesnt need any help and neither do I.
All one has to do is look at the last 3 years archives and they’ll who are the red hot ass kickers truely are.
You’re sure as hell are not one of them because you base everything on some presumed higher intellect as your ace in the hole when really you’re just very slow drive by bomb throwin moonbat troll.

Loser.

Okay, Ronald, I stand corrected…, sort of…:

Once all of the Bush Tax Cuts were in place, which did not happen until well into 2003, we had 52 consecutive months of positive job creation, producing 8 Million new jobs.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/12/06/why-america-is-going-to-miss-the-bush-tax-cuts/

So, the average during that period was about 148,000 per month. Although, if you look at the chart here:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/setting-the-tax-record-straight-clinton-hikes-slowed-growth-bush-cuts-promoted-recovery

You will see that during those 52 months, about 17 months DID have job creation of 300,000 or more. The net effect overall of the Bush Tax Cuts still is growth of the economy, jobs and the unemployment rate declining to 4.4%.

As for specific legislation passed by the 110th Congress, let us start with HR2206 and HR 2207, passed in May, 2007, which were supplemental spending bills adding $21 Billion in domestic discretionary spending. One of your favorites, the SCHIP program, got a boost in those bills.

In December, 2007, we then have one of those Omnibus spending bills, HR 2764, adding another $20 Billion dollars to domestic discretionary spending in just earmarks. The total price tag was about $550 Billion, though I’ll grant you that the Congress stuck all sorts of stuff, some 10,000 line items, including additional funding for the Iraqi Surge. All in all, in 2007, the Democrats blew past a 6.9% cap on spending increases.

BTW, I had to ‘un-spam’ my own comment. LOL!

“tsk, tsk, busted again.”

Is that the sound of me splitting your ass wide open ?
I was mounting an angel on my xmas tree the other day and thought about you when the only way to get her to stay was to shove the tip of the tree right up her ass.
Troll huh ?
Any day Ronald, you pick the topic and I’ll wipe every monitor screen on earth with your clueless ass.
Like the good ole days.

May the Great Elf of Winter Solstice cum knocking on your door holding the pole north in his hands.

Micky,

Maybe Ronald worships the Sacred Blobfish? Believe it or not, my old article about the blobfish has been getting some hits lately. Of course, that is nothing compared to my Humanzee article rising in the ranks at Google.

We had 52 consecutive months of growth tis true but there is no evidence we would have had a recession without the tax cuts. Regardless, Bush increased spending with foolish liberal boondoggles so he can’t really be forgiven for beginning this spiral of sucking the futures away from our kids, something Obama has been able to accelerate without opposition because we got use to it under Bush.

By the way, did you hear that Michelle Obama got a dildo in her Christmas stocking?

I’ll take a holiday cheers exception on my history or timing of GOP filibustering to assure the one term of Obama and Bush signing or veto legislation. It changes little in my agrument.

“And aside from conservatives and Tea Partiers sitting quietly on their hands while Bush implemented that “spiral of sucking the futures away…”

The TEA Party didnt exist till 2009 genius

#43 – Ronald you aren’t listening.

Micky,

That was a good anecdote about saying “Amen”. Though it does remind me that even Ayn Rand, an acknowledged atheist, would often say “God Bless You” when somebody sneezed, just out of courtesy. Plus, she thought it was a nice sentiment, too.

RJW;

“”Okay Micky, it’s Christmas so I’ll acknowledge you. You do at times present constructive arguments that are indeed worthy of rebuttal but then you just do some 360 and get all stupid.”

Just because you just you dont get it doesnt make one stupid.
Sht goes over your head constantly bro.
An example would be the point I made down below.
Everyone but you know what the Tea Party means when they aske for their country back.
You wrote a list of guesses that made you look, well…stupid

“But you refuse to lose even when you’ve lost and you’re determined to get in the last word regardless of anything. But I’ll digress.”

For me, “loosing” is when you can no longer answer questions in a debate because you know they’d self incriminate your position.
You have failed miserably since your arrival to answer any of my questions.

“It is indeed the spending stupid as you say but it was the GOP that spent like hell on every front, putting it all on credit, only to turn around and tell Dems we can’t afford to spend anymore.”

In order for that to be a honest argument you need to include past spending ratios and spending Obama introduced.
This administrations spending has far exceeded expectations based on normal inflation far beyond any previous admin.
This admin. has spent more in 4 1/2 years than all combined.
Its honest to say the GOP share guilt in wasteful, socialist(rinos) and self serving spending but you must realize that the rate of spending Obama introduced somebody had to grab the emergency brake and stop this out of control train. The cries for less spending were most prevalent on the heels of the promise for a trillion dollar socialized medical plan and simultaneously(or immediately after) taking the Bush 2008 stimulus and bolstering it more than tenfold.

“You see, there has historically always been an understanding that each party had priorities, ideological differences on how economics worked. The GOP cashed in all the chips only to turn ”

Oh please, we are subjected to legislation by both parties whos impact is not known til years later when its too late.
Such as the CRA “Community Reinvestment Act” I just mentioned, instituted by Carter”.

“and cry how the country was broke, actually giving them some credence in weakening spending on safety net programs while selling snake oil to continue to allow corporate welfare for their big donors.”

This means nothing to me as corporate welfare comes in many forms other than preferential taxation.
Solyndra got bookoo tax bucks…for what ?
And these so called “safety net” programs, a majority using them have enjoyed extensions and others make them a lifestyle.
Barry removed Clintons “look for work clause” for welfare recipients”

“Now about those Tea folks. Yes, they pretty much emerged around 2 weeks after Obama was inaugurated,”

So, yes, you were wrong when saying they sat on their hands as Bush did this n that”

” espousing some nonsense about being taxed enough already while enjoying the lowest taxes in 65 years”

It was the rise in taxes against our present economy. Taxes were being raised at a very disproportionate level to rest of the economy.
In light of Obamacare we were told out taxes would not go up to pay for it, but, the SCOTUS” ruled Obamacare was indeed a “tax”.

“something about “taking our country back”. Back from where? Back from Obama? Return to the Bush era that we had? Take it back from a black man? What? We never had an administration spend like Bush and we never heard this “take America back” when any other Dem won the WH. But then again, we never had the billionaires being in a negative tax bracket all of a sudden funding such a party. Interesting isn’t it?”

Wow, any simpleton knows the “take our country back” motto was a reference to “taking our country back from a bloated bureaucratic monster(The Federal Government)growing out of control.
Seriously, are so entrenched you couldnt hear that ?

And honestly, do really think the DNC doesnt enjoy donations from millionaires and billionaires in advantageous tax brackets ? And how do you know that these folks (Koch Bros.) are in a negative tax bracket ?
These billionaires break even, get tax returns ? REALLY ?

“You mean the waiver granted to the Republican Governors of Nevada and Utah at their request to help them more efficiently train people to get them off of welfare?”

That would hold water if it werent for the fact that..

A. The waivers were to be distributed by Sebelius who has no legal authority to do so.

B. Yes, republicans want incentivize those on welfare by offering “job training” in concert with welfare.

C.
As it stood, any shmo could file claims giving the appearance he was actively searching for employment by going to interviews supplied by unemployment services, barefoot, with his fly open,looking like Charles Manson.

These folks who cant see any fault in one side or another,or try to defend those obvious failures are the most frightening folks there are.
Is there that much comfort in being “owned” ?

We need an evolution, not a revolution.
A revolution would mean weve just gone full circle.
The insanities in office do this every day.
The RPM are way past red line.
But I lose faith in the peoples willingness to do anything about it as it seems the problem gets worse and they just get more complacent instead of motivated.
Eventually we’ll have no choice but to get back to basics where survival of the fittest will be the single major pillar like it is in any of natures chains.
At first I thought placing a wager on this event would be foolish because I wouldnt be here to collect.
The time frames odds are multiplying in my favor.

“The majority of that $3700 is Obama’s very own 2% SSI cut. But even the fact that’s this issue’s arising lies squarely on the GOP’s shoulders, as I’ve explained.”

SSI has never been cut.
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/ssir/SSI11/EcoDemoAssumptions.html#415320

“It’s become a rather dishonest tactic to claim “The Dems controlled the whole ball of wax for at least a full year”.”

No more dishonest than liberals blaming everything to date on Bush and conservatives.
Which you seem to be very good at.
Andy regularly confesses to the fiscal failures on the part of republicans and rinos.
If you could manage this level of honesty half the time you’d hold “some” credibility.

“Considering I’ve debunked that numerous times,”

No you haven’t.

“it’s reasonable to deduce you’re being dishonest, simply repeating a worn out lie.”
See above.

” The Dems had a filibuster proof majority (and that has been our subject) from September 24, 2009, until February 4, 2010 AND that was ONLY if every single Blue Dog Democrats and the 2 independents all voted accordingly. That is just an indisputable fact.”

Thats enough to screw things up. You do know this, dont you ?
Heres the stats …
>>> http://polipundit.com/?p=28927 <<<

"Obamacare is the product of a brief moment of total Democratic dominance in Washington. Key to that dominance was a 60-seat, filibuster-proof Senate majority. It wasn’t a sure bet for Democrats; despite victories in 2008, the party’s hopes for that majority depended on the outcome of a contested race in Minnesota. After a controversial recount, Al Franken became the 60th Democratic senator on July 7, 2009, giving Democrats an unassailable edge.

But that majority disappeared just 49 days later when, on August 25, 2009, Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy died. State law called for a special election to fill the empty seat. That would have taken months, and as public opposition to Obamacare grew, Democrats became increasingly anxious to pass the bill as quickly as possible. Luckily for them, Democrats in the Massachusetts legislature came to the rescue, changing the law to allow the immediate appointment of Democrat Paul Kirk. Kirk was sworn in on September 24, 2009, giving Democrats 60 votes once more."

Theres many who see advantages that do vary from nuances and stupid irrelenaces like 1 independent and Birds death but still the left held both houses for the last two years of Bushs term into Barrys first two years.

"And you’re running from your failure to produce something of substance that their takeover in 2006 crashed the economy in 2008."

Actually the left had a larger hand in as far back as the 70s.
A point I've presented repeatedly to you which you've never been able to touch.

" But even humoring you and pretending that argument never happened; you still come up short in providing anything relevant that points to them in their 4 months of filibuster proof power. The only thing they really legislated during that time was The Affordable Health Act, which was indeed a deficit reducing bill. "

You just saying that ?
Or do you believe it ?
Please tell.

"You produce nothing but partisan diatribe while childishly accusing me of mirroring your very own spew."

Seriously Ron, get of your high horse.
Most of your crap can be trashed by a simpleton like me.

“It’s become a rather dishonest tactic to claim “The Dems controlled the whole ball of wax for at least a full year”.”

No more dishonest than liberals blaming everything to date on Bush and conservatives.
Which you seem to be very good at.
Andy regularly confesses to the fiscal failures on the part of republicans and rinos.
If you could manage this level of honesty half the time you’d hold “some” credibility.

“Considering I’ve debunked that numerous times,”

No you haven’t.

“it’s reasonable to deduce you’re being dishonest, simply repeating a worn out lie.”

See above.

” The Dems had a filibuster proof majority (and that has been our subject) from September 24, 2009, until February 4, 2010 AND that was ONLY if every single Blue Dog Democrats and the 2 independents all voted accordingly. That is just an indisputable fact.”

Thats enough to screw things up. You do know this, dont you ?
Heres the stats …
>>> http://polipundit.com/?p=28927 <<<

"Obamacare is the product of a brief moment of total Democratic dominance in Washington. Key to that dominance was a 60-seat, filibuster-proof Senate majority. It wasn’t a sure bet for Democrats; despite victories in 2008, the party’s hopes for that majority depended on the outcome of a contested race in Minnesota. After a controversial recount, Al Franken became the 60th Democratic senator on July 7, 2009, giving Democrats an unassailable edge.

But that majority disappeared just 49 days later when, on August 25, 2009, Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy died. State law called for a special election to fill the empty seat. That would have taken months, and as public opposition to Obamacare grew, Democrats became increasingly anxious to pass the bill as quickly as possible. Luckily for them, Democrats in the Massachusetts legislature came to the rescue, changing the law to allow the immediate appointment of Democrat Paul Kirk. Kirk was sworn in on September 24, 2009, giving Democrats 60 votes once more."

Theres many who see advantages that do vary from nuances and stupid irrelevancies like 1 independent and Birds death but still the left held both houses for the last two years of Bushs term into Barrys first two years.

"And you’re running from your failure to produce something of substance that their takeover in 2006 crashed the economy in 2008."

Actually the left had a larger hand in the destruction as far back as the 70s.
A point I've presented repeatedly to you which you've never been able to touch.

" But even humoring you and pretending that argument never happened; you still come up short in providing anything relevant that points to them in their 4 months of filibuster proof power. The only thing they really legislated during that time was The Affordable Health Act, which was indeed a deficit reducing bill. "

You just saying that ?
Or do you believe it ?
Please tell.

"You produce nothing but partisan diatribe while childishly accusing me of mirroring your very own spew."

Seriously Ron, get of your high horse.
Most of your crap can be trashed by a simpleton like me.

“First off, I have NEVER said that the Democrats winning both wings of the Congress was the sole reason for the Crash of 2008! That is YOUR method of deflecting facts and reality, to draw and obscure with misleading arguments.”

Which is the exact reason why I treat him the way I have after my first debate with him.

Andy, like most of today’s conservatives(I most always say “today’s” conservatives as they’re certainly not Eisenhower or Reagan conservatives), your arguments ring hollow. Once aspects of your argument is debunked, you move the goal post, simply ignore relevant facts, or just reinvent another argument to distract from your previous nonsense. Take your #49 post for example. You poked at Dems amnesia of claiming “BTCs ONLY BENEFITED THE RICH!?!?” by saying the typical family saves $3700. Your very own link tells us that a large chunk of that is from Obama’s 2% Social Security payroll cuts.

I’ll agree that you may have never said the 06 Dem takeover was the SOLE and only reason for the failed economy but after coming up short, you still often use that imaginary crutch to support your allegiance to the GOP or your obvious intense hatred of Obama.

As to your #63, 2nd paragraph, refer back to my post #31, 4th paragraph which exposes how the wheels of the Bush economics start to fall off. My #21, 3rd paragraph comes into play as well. You can’t constructively dispute that so you come back with your “yeah buts” as if that never happened. I’m really not in a mood to research but you expose your own amnesia by forgetting how Bush pushed just enough stimulus, TARP, and bailouts to allow him to slide out of office, dumping an economy in free fall in Obama’s lap.

I, like a lot of Americans, am not all that impressed with Obama or Democrats and can find plenty of faults in them. But what you do is search out those faults to try to build some strawman argument to blame them for the GOP’s failures. You refuse to except the fact that Republicans have refused to offer a serious budget (the Ryan budget was soundly rejected if you recall) while running from the fact that they obstructed their very own policies when Dems presented them. And they still do today!

Your very own amnesia forgets that Obama’s very 1st day in office faced a global reputation in the gutter, the Great Recession, people losing their homes by epic proportions, 2 wars that were put on a credit card, jobs plummeting, a huge deficit, budget & debt disaster, a health care system draining the economy, both energy and immigration policies a mess, both auto and banking industries collapsing, 8 years of cronyism and abject incompetence, and a very divided country. But what you ignore even more is the GOP’s role after the election, which I laid out in post #51. The GOP completely changed the way they’ve always governed and unitedly obstructed important nominees and policies that they themselves approved of. And they did this and continue to do this with an admission that they can’t let Obama win, at anything. Ever! And the American people and our economy and our credit ratings can all be damned, as long as Obama or Dems don’t win anything. And your selective thought process forbids you to accept the fact that today’s GOP is corporately owned and that many vote accordingly to Grover Norquist demands or face having funds cut off-or in short, they’re bought out. They’ve even signed a vote-for-campaign-contributions contract.

And that is in fact the way today’s GOP has governed. You know this is true. And you call me partisan which I assume with a straight face.

And yeah, any pundit worth is salt knows it socialist, wealth redistribution and over regulation/taxation policies that share the burden of blame for our economic status.
And I will put the blame on the left because they are the hosts of these ideologies that throughout history have shown to be failed ideals.
Juxtapose to the conservatives, which gave birth to the Tea Party, the only movement I can remember that actually was meant to hold its elected officials to the conservative principles they campaigned on.
The left ?
We see no such thing comin outta these jerks!!
These morons keep electing the same schmucks to repeat or bolster the crap policies that keep killing us.
You can blame the left, you can blame the right, have fun.
But we’d all be much more productive b!tchers if we narrowed the field and narrative and went after socialists and their policies, Marxist, closet Communists and any other entity that has turned what was once a mostly free capitalist market into a mathematically challenged federal welfare program that even the USA cant afford.

I have no clue (or better yet, it’s obvious that you have no clue) as to what precisely you’re trying to argue. I’d suggest you read your own words in post #49;

What is most amusing is the collective amnesia, which I like to call Obamanesis, concerning the Bush Tax Cuts. For how many years did we hear nothing from Liberal Democrats about how the BTCs ONLY BENEFITED THE RICH!?!? Only in the past couple of years have they finally acknowledged that 98% of income earners got significant reductions in taxes. About $3,700 savings per year for a typical family.

I pointed out that a large chunk of that $3700 was from OBAMA and the Social Security payroll tax break.

And yes I well recall that era of McCain bobbing his head with Bush and telling us the economy was on “solid ground”. But even from your own admission Bush still had the keys. He was the man in charge. And however you want to construe his walkout statement, he brought us to where we were. Why don’t you just admit it and say you have nothing? Or to perhaps make yourself look less foolish, simply say nothing at all.

This is from the very link you provided in post 55. Read your own source.

If all of these kind words wear off behind closed doors and no deal occurs, it’s estimated that 80 percent of Americans would see some form of tax increase next year. The Tax Policy Center estimated that a typical U.S. household would face an average of a $3,700 jump in taxes.

The reason is that a bunch of tax cuts are set to expire, including:

– Bush-era tax cuts, which will bring the tax system back to 2001 levels

– President Obama’s 2 percent payroll tax cut holiday

And to even invoke AMT, a bill that should have been corrected years ago by both parties, only exposes your desperation more.

You lose dude, on every front. It’s one thing to spin your arguments, or to send in your resident troll to distract from them, or to manufacture new arguments to avoid facing your debunked talking points. But you’ve resorted to abject dishonesty, even with yourself.

And yeah, Hank Paulson, Bob Woodward’s book, Chicago thugs, Obama does it too so take that, hey look over there, and the dog ate your homework while the cat jumped over the moon! Maybe try a new style by tossing in a birther, mention Kenya, utilize a Mike Savage “Barack HUSSEIN Obama” voice inflection, and maybe you can give yourself accolades for your empty suited hate fest.

#73

Now THAT’S entertainment.