Now wasn't it just a few days ago you were trying to claim you didn't like Rush Limbaugh? I knew you was lyin"

 

When have I ever claimed to be a Rush Limbaugh fan? I liked his dinner speech, somewhat entertaining. The demoncrats have nothing to fear Stumbler, you do? I thought Kristen Powers got the best of Ann Coulter in their dissection of Rush. He listens to me

 

Want me to count the times so you can learn the difference between opinion and facts tenguy.

I'll show you another one right on this thread in a minute.

Absolutely not. Your senseless contradictions are quite obvious. Here, let me show you.

I said Ronald Reagan was a fraud and then ~Orpheus~ said

Then you said:

Which asks were they fooled by electing Ronald Reagan or are they being fooled now by electing Barack Obama. Which I thought was odd since you also voted for Obama and if we're being fooled you would be one of the fools.

And then you respond with:

See it does not follow that someone had to be fooled by voting for Barrack Obama or John McCain. Being fooled entails being lied to and there is no indication either of them was lying. But the contradiction is that you would vote for Obama and then see if he was going to fool you. If you feared that the logical choice would have been to vote for McCain.

No, not at all because chicken little was running around screaming about something that was not happening. I on the other hand have spent a lot of time documenting something that is happening which your obsessive/compulsive tendency to lie about other people and what other people say.

Tenguy its a lie when you say that I am incapable of laughing.

Well you're wrong as usual tenguy and a real slow learner because I've actually proved this to you once before. But here, from the Heritage Society no less, one of those really "conservative" think tanks.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/tradeandeconomicfreedom/EM371.cfm

http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics ...ourcing_america-job loss and unemployment.htm

Ready to admit you're wrong again.

Wish you'd quit lying about what I say. What I said was that Ronald Reagan was the one who started outsourcing out jobs overseas and proven above. And that Barack Obama was working to create jobs that cannot be outsourced to other countries. Like producing, and maintaining our own energy sources. Rebuilding our infrastructure and building things like new high speed rail systems. You can't outsource those jobs tenguy.

Don't you feel stupid about now.

Sure you do tenguy. I believe you.

 

Stockman, you twit.

 

I have no idea how you arrived at your commentary. Really. None. It is a mass of contradictions.

First, "change" does not mean "from bad to good" or "good to bad". We just went from poor to extremely bad. Sure, there's lots of howlers here like Stumbler, but he's about as ignorant as it's possible to be and still be able to find your head with your hands, but all the supposed "crimes" of Bush are mostly nonsense. Just emotional rhetoric completely void of reality. As a president, he had a number of shortcomings, but then, Bush is gone, and the current Chicago Thug Criminal is in office, one with no loyalty to the country, and a visceral hatred of all good.

Lots of people repeat this kind of stuff, and it's easy to figure out where they get it. First, they know absolutely NOTHING about business or economics, and they use emotion and hatred to try to make political decisions. A toxic and horrifying event, to be sure. I have no idea how you earn a living, but presumeably your daily bread stems from employment of some kind. How you can consider employment to be evil, I have no idea, then.

But let me explain... NOT taxing business is how you encourage it. BUSINESS is what creates jobs. Jobs are how you eat, own a home, and drive a car, ride a bus, get medical care. Now, could you explain why you would want to STIFLE or prevent jobs from being created?

Frankly, you have not the faintest idea what you're talking about. All this gibberish about feudalism, warlords, etc... is, well, complete nonsense. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with encouraging private enterprise.

Fascinating... You actually think that "science" supports the political fad known as "global warming". It doesn't. Anyone that says it does, is conducting a political campaign. Science is all over the map, as far as climate change goes, and there's nothing at all even faintly "sure" about global warming. Since the upward trend in global temperatures ended almost a decade ago, we've no idea, really, what's going on. Which is pretty much the same as when everyone was screaming about the oncoming ice age a few years before they started shouting global warming.

It's only the alarmists and those who desperately want taxpayer money, or have a political agenda, who are pretending there's certainty about any of this. The fact is, nobody knows what the heck is going on, and that the doomsday "sky is falling" bunch is mostly a bunch of fraudsters looking to huck fame and fortune out of manipulating others.

As for me, I prefer to wait for some serious and definitive science, rather than be a gulllible twit.

 

Well, rather than go back and just have you continually reassert your endless blizzard of stunning ignorance, I just thought I'd point out a couple of real gems here, the kind you spout which reveal the complete vacancy in your head... which appears to be filled with nothing more than the brainwashing of a political party.

So, Stumber, here goes. After this, I'll just consider you to be completely and utterly refuted, as the comments you make reveal complete ignorance on your part, and, to the rest of the readers, if you don't realize how what follows here completely discredits him, then you should really start educating yourself about subjects political and economic.

Stumbler screamed out the following in an orgasmic rage of party indoctrinated spew:

NO country in the EU has a better economy, real standard of living, or even anywhere near as good of health care as we do. Anyone telling you otherwise is either ignorant... or just lying for political indoctrination purposes. And don't get sucked into the trivia game. Trivia reveals nothing, but it is the ONLY "defense" of the above absurd idiocy.

Wanting "health insurance industry" to go broke is the domain of the crazy, the insane, and the malevolent twits who would gladly destroy YOUR job in order to satisfy their personal vendetta against other people, people they don't even know, in a fit of juvenile and intemperate rage.

Well, you're "sort of" right... but in a way that proves my point so well, you're better off keeping your trap shut.

First, the collapse in the value of mortgage backed securities - the stuff peddled in the TRILLIONS by Fannie and Freddie - is the direct and attributable cause for countless bank failures globally. The reason is the following: The vast majority of the owners of these toxic securities... Were European. Now, lest you attempt to lie some more, please note that the "majority" refers to those holders OUTSIDE the US. Why did Europe buy so much from the US? Because it was considered far more secure than domestc investments. Why would that be? Because the banks knew that the EU member nations have fragile and weak economies.

Now, you've ranted and raved and incoherently screamed that "deregulation" here is the cause of all this... Laughably, it's NOT true. The preponderance of subprime lending was done by Fannie and Freddie, who agressively pursued writing these loans, and accounted for a very large percentage of the total lending by F and F in the last 7 years. It was done by DEMOCRAT RUN GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTERPRISES who were trying to make a fast buck by hustling TRILLIONS of dollars worth of mortgages into the international markets. Fannie and Freddie had a 75 to 1 cash reserve - barely over a percent. Even the most 'deregulated' banks had MANY TIMES MORE than that, at around 3 times, and the most regulated were more like 7.

Now, here's the part that completley destroys every premise of all your stupid ranting... The banking system in the US holds debt equal to about 1.7 times our GDP. That is VERY high. It is not possible for us to keep the system afloat if things get really, REALLY bad. However, it is somewhat possible for us to limp through a serious recession or mild depression without total failure because of this. So, you think that's bad? Well, the various EU countries range from just over 2 to the UK's 4.4 TIMES their GDP in debt.

It is not possible for the EU to keep their banking sytem intect in the event of large scale loan defaults. Now, why would it be that the EU's banks are more deeply leveraged than the US? Aren't they supposed to be "better regulated" than ours? Fault: Because the government and banks are so close together in the EU, due to their socialist tendencies, the regulators have been perfectly happy to let this horrendous overextension of debt occur. This massive debt has been what's been keeping the EU's countries from total collapse economically.

We might hit hard times. They're faced with complete annihilation.

Of course, BRAIN DEAD MORON STUMBLER actually posts the words "they have a better economy" than we do. Facts do not lie. We're HUGELY more healthy than they are, and it is precisely because we lack the stupid "government provides everything" dogcrap mentality... or did, before this know nothing, do nothing, accomplish nothing, be nothing, from the criminal mob of Chicago became president.

Now, I asked the following question of Stumbler, and I knew it would reveal his astonishing depth of ignorance... and he didn't fail to provide it.

And so you think that piling on hundreds of billions of new government debt, to temporarily hire people to produce nothing is going fix this? Again, you are so utterly clueless, that it is absolutely stunning. Where do you think that this money comes from? ANSWER THE QUESTION YOU MORON!

And he answered:

If you're not laughing right now, you should be. I asked where the government gets the money to deficit spend, and he said "the government".

Failing to understand that the US treasury has only 2 sources of currency to spend, he reveals he knows precisely NOTHING AT ALL about all this ,and is just parrotting the party line. Those two sources are: 1. debt and 2. taxes.

Debt comes from the sale of bonds by the US Treasury. Since late last year, these bond sales have been bought by either foreigners, mostly asia, who are investing surplus cash in what at first looked like a far better and more secure place to park their savings, or from the sales of equity... That is, the sell off of wall street. Each time the treasury issues a new round of debt - actually it's faster than that - each time Congress votes to spend more money, the stock market sells off, and the owners and investors take their money OUT of industry and buy bonds.

Taxes, of course, come from you and me and everyone else. Obama is promising to shift the confiscation to even higher levels on the ONLY people who EVER create jobs. The wealthy. No poor person ever created a productive job for someone else. ONLY wealthy people do that. So, taking money from them stifles job creation. And no job created by government pork ever created a single permanently productive job. See, when I hire someone, they do stuff that earns money to pay their wages. When pork hires someone, they just do stuff. It doesn't pay their wages. They're paid to do nothing productive.

Now, Stumber, I really do expect you'll try to post a blizzard of nonsense, like you have to every one of my posts, backed with google searches for irrelevancies.

Just to point out a few minor points, to demonstrate how and why nobody should EVER listen to you...

Let's examine this...

no reality exists, just "perception" and of course, your spin is correct and mine wrong. That just invalidated you, of course, from having any intelligent opinions. If you deny that reality exists, you obviously have no ability to talk about it.

I'm a banker and am angry that I'm going to be "held accountable"? Um, it's the democrats in Congress who have not removed the head of a single institution that's been 'bailed out'. And no, I'm not a banker. I provide internet to about 1200 square miles of rural America. I am the epitome of the "new economy", fully technologically advanced and integrated, providing broadband to the economically disadvantaged. I built this business from nothing, the old fashioned way... by risking my life savings on it a few years back and by busting my butt at all ours of the day and night for years now.

I actually know what "risk capital" means, I actually know what it means to improve people's business and lives, by making their time and efforts more efficient. In other words, though I am in business, I improve people's lives more than I cost them. I actually understand why and how public ventures in this field have mostly been abject failures, and how and why private ones work so well.

I have first hand knowledge of how government harms me and my business to no benefit of anyone. Before I started this, I was an expert in the automotive service field. And, I am an expert, with the plaques on the wall to prove it, about emissions and the epa's nonsense and how useless and worthless the last two rounds of emissions mandates have been. And you... are a twit who says there is no reality.

Did you actually expect anyone to be swayed by this tripe? Or are you just shouting to cover up the complete deficit of truth, sense, and reality in everyting you post?

Now, here's the economics lesson of the day... Taken straight out of reality, and undeniable, even by the likes of you.

The current recession is driven by the lack of consumption here in the US. The jobs created by consumption have been steadily dropping. The 'stimulus' package is supposed to "fix" this by promoting spending and consumption. Why did consumption fall? Because credit dried up. This means that the spending that was driving our economic growth was borrowed money. In other words, collectively, more was being spent than was being earned to spend.

I'm not going to bore everyone with citing the numbers, because they're long and dreary, but this is not hard to understand, and if you start looking up the statistics yourself, you can easily find and understand them.

But, here's how it goes. We have a domestic GDP of a little over 14 trillion last year. The federal government consumed a little over 3 trillion of it last year. This left 11 trillion for state and local governments and for the people and businesses to spend.

This year, it's expected that we'll only have a little over 13 trillion, and so far, the government has voted to consume well over 4 trillion of it, leaving less than 9 trillion for state, local and people and industry to spend.

Obviously, that remaining 11 trillion wasn't enough left after government, to keep employment and consumption and investing going and it started shrinking.

What do you suppose will happen when we take hundreds of billions from employers and those who would seek to become employers to take the place of the failed? And if 11 wasn't enough left for the people, state, and local and business, then what's going to happen when we have only 8? It's not even slightly difficult to understand. Massive job loss.

How could we get the people and business to have enough left to restart our economy? Shrink government's share. Obama's "stimulus" spends about 300 billion on make work jobs this year, and about about 200 billion on on things that don't make wealth - like "green energy". "Green energy" spending is like hiring someone to cut your lawn with scissors, at an hourly rate. It costs massively, yet provides no economic benefits, except for the Obama cronies.

So, think about this for a while and start asking yourself how you can tax and spend enough to "fix" the economy. Math doesn't lie. Liberals and Democrats do.

 

1.) For the past 8 years we've had a Republican president, and until relitivly recently we've had a Republican majority in congress. That doesn't sound like "DEMOCRAT RUN GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTERPRISES" to me. But of course, you don't mean that it's run by a Democrat government, it's the non government side of the equasion that must have been Democrat run. So why didn't the Republican run government put a stop to these practices before we got to this state of affairs? Or would you have us just ignore their role in this? No one is innocent here.

2.) Do you actually want us to reward corporate misconduct with less regulation? Haven't we seen what these corporate fat cats do when no one is making sure that they use ethics in business? Regulation simply means a set of rules and guidelines. You preach No rules while the rest of us want the correct set of rules. Ones that dont stifle free economy, but don't say 'just do whatever you want' either. Yet republicans scream socialism to keep from being reigned in.

If the wealthy and big business are given a tax free environment, where is the government supposed to get funding for any of the things government is supposed to fund? The Middle and Poor classes? Do you want the people who have the least to spare from day to day expences to fund the entire government, while not letting government keep big business from ignoring their existance and making their lives more difficult? Hmm... logic dictates that this combonation would lead to a wealthy elite built on the backs of an ever growing underclass of poor, and the eventual elimination of the middle class. (which would put a damper on the idea of new business emerging from the middle class, btw.)

Yeah, because any attempt to back up statements with resources that demonstrate one's point is just stupid. Why would anyone do that? (Since you've demonstrated a lack of ability to recognize it, even though you use plenty of it... That's sarcasm.)

Started out with an actual valid point, but then followed it up with the typical corporate line that it's the consumers fault. So, you'd have us blame the consumer and ignore the corporate greed that not only promoted this behaviour, but did their best to accelorate it? It's everyone's fault, and playing the blame game while trying to avoid any responcibility is just stupid.

 

Well, I see I haven't missed much -- just the same old recitation of ultra-conservative talking points. You, of course, know better than the scientific community, which is all part of a planet-wide conspiracy to cook the climate data and nefariously melt the ice caps.

 

You should know better than to try to argue with the reincarnated spirit of Ayn Rand channeling Gordon Gecko.

 

They elected George Bush twice as well. I rest my case.

 

I thought the Supreme Court elected him the first time.

 

Good point, we should never fail to point that out.

 

Once again the cause of the liberal hatred is exposed.

What ever the reason Al Gore did not become President, thank the Lord.

No what was the topic again??

 

Yeah, what an unmitigated disaster THAT would have been.

 

Yep, see we're stubborn like that, you know, wanting to uphold that 'of the people, by the people, for the people' part of the Constitution when it comes to who our leaders should be.

 

Conveniently forgetting the role of the separate branches of government while you do it.

 

Man are you a blowhard phony. You spout off a half dozen things that I clearly and easily proved to be false bullshit and you think you can just ignore all those and come back ranting and blowing again just like my old hysterical grandmother.

You haven't provided source one for any of your bullshit.

Where's the documentation for all the oil reserves Mrdk?

What about all your false claims of who's been in charge of the government.

Did you count the places where all it took was 30 second google searches to prove you're talking out your ass?

Yeah right I prove you wrong and then call me ignorant and try to appeal to some imaginary audience with nothing to back it up but your own big mouth.

Now that's some kind of credibility there Mrdk.

You loud mouthed phony your saying so doesn't make it so. You're the one who really ought to educate yourself instead of just spouting senseless dogma and waving the flag.

Here fool, how many sources to you want?

http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-quality-of-life-map.html

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article3137506.ece

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081119133808AAqvw7E

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index#Complete_list_of_countries

How very dramatic grandma but here's the real deal.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18802

What a complete and total joke. Why are we putting billions more into AIG this very morning? What does the collapse of the auto industry have to do with Freddie and Fannie?

And once again the democrats have been in charge for the past eight years. I don't think so it was Bush and the Boys who relaxed the regulations that allowed the looting of our nation and economy.

You also want to just scream about nonsense to draw attention away from the $10 TRILLION NATIONAL DEBT, Bush racked up which originally devalued our dollar.

You've been so easily and so soundly proven wrong on most of what you said just saying a whole bunch more won't change that.

Now, I asked the following question of Stumbler, and I knew it would reveal his astonishing depth of ignorance... and he didn't fail to provide it.

You complete and total fraud. You make the stupid statement that temporarily hire people to produce nothing that actually we're providing jobs in very badly need infrastructure upgrades and you pretend like that didn't happen and then just launch into another insulting dissertation amounting once again to nothing more then you're own loud mouthed bullshit.

Yeah no shit there Sherlock as I said Bush and the Boys already racked up $10 Trillion dollars of that debt for their illegal war and more greed for the rich.

And you want to get all hysterical about a couple trillion more to try and straighten the country out and get the economy moving again.

You're a real joke Mrdk.

Like I said one mark of a stupid person is the way they contradict themselves and let me point that out right now. Here you're claiming that only wealthy people create jobs. But just below you're claiming what a great entrepreneur you are "starting from scratch." Your lies are so obvious.

But here's a little challenge for you show me any sources you can find that prove it is the wealthy that actually create jobs instead of small business.

But in the meantime because you've all ready shown all you can do is run your mouth without any facts here's a better explanation of what really happens when we cut taxes on the rich.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/12/13/72111/695

But let's look at this a little closer.

Prove it Captain Phony. Show us the sources that show that cutting taxes on the rich creates jobs and then while your at it explain how when Clinton RAISED TAXES on the rich the economy boomed.

Yeah sure facts are irrelevant compared to your blow hard rhetoric with nothing to back them up but your own mouth.

Do you think you're really going to win this popularity contest you keep trying to set up. I don't think so. You're the one that is so easily proven wrong so many times now you have no credibility.

No you simply and obviously contradicted yourself again. In one breath you admit that anyone's reality is a matter of perception and then in the next breath continue to contend that reality exists.

Well I do take that back you're no banker. You're just a loud mouthed phony bullshitter from way back.

And just to demonstrate congress has no authority to remove and heads of institutions. The only ones that can do that are the failed institutions themselves and instead they just hand out more bonuses.

Well as I pointed out above you sure contradict yourself a lot as well as making a lot of bullshit claims that are easily proven false. Are you the only employee you have or did you also manage to create some jobs in this process. If you did then you're obviously wrong again about 'the wealthy creating jobs.'

And yeah sure Mrdk you're the only one out there busting your butt and working for a living.

Is that right there Mrdk then let me ask you one simple question. Would you be in this business and doing all this "good" if the US Government and Congress had not helped CREATE THE INTERNET.

Another mark of stupidity and hysteria is not being able to stay on the subject there Mrdk. You just went from what a great entrepunaur you're supposed to me to what a great service manager you are.

But I can tell you that even though all your awards and a quater will buy a cup of coffee I can't see them. So instead why don't you put up some facts instead of just running your overbearing mouth.

Did you actually think that this dodge would cover your obvious contradiction where you scream hysterically about Obama adding to the budget and then screaming just as hysterically that where he's cutting the budget won't help.

And you're the only one screaming and shouting on this thread and have been since your first post. And the more you're proven to be wrong the louder you try to shout.

Wanna bet big mouth.

And why did credit dry up. Because of a drop in consumption? Only a fool would try to claim that lack of regulations on Wall Street and the Financial Industry and the greed fest that thrived in it didn't bankrupt credit in this country.

True and all the result of the bloated and under regulated financial industry and stock market. And you still try to blame it all of Freddie and Fannie. Let me ask you a question then was it Freddie and Fannie may that suddenly sent credit cards to everyone in the country even though most of the people who got them would not qualify under previous credit standards. That's where all this living on credit came from.

Yeah sure especially when you haven't been boring up to this point.

But if you did bother to put up the numbers that would be a refreshing change from your flapping obnoxious mouth with nothing more then that to back it up.

And what was that little over 3 trillion dollars consumed on? Job creation, infrastructure improvements, new technologies and the industries that will come from them? Shit no it went for two things war and greed.

Liar!! The three trillion consumed last year was a direct loss. At least part of the four trillion this year is putting money back into circulation where every dollar earned and every dollar spent will change hands about seven times before it is depleted.

None or at least hardly any of it other then the usless and wasteful "stimulus package" bus in the boys was spent for employment and consumption.

And the 11 trillion left over would have been plenty if unbridled greed and corrupt business practices hadn't sucked all the money out of it, causing those wealthy people you're so proud of to take their money and run with it.

What do you suppose will happen when we take hundreds of billions from employers and those who would seek to become employers to take the place of the failed? And if 11 wasn't enough left for the people, state, and local and business, then what's going to happen when we have only 8? It's not even slightly difficult to understand. Massive job loss.

Well here you go being just plain dumb again. I've already proven how badly the infrastructure projects are needed and pointed out that in order to do them they will also require the very goods and services you're screanming so hysterically about.

But what was that you said you did for a living. Providing broad band services? Where'd that opportunity come from if it was not the government creating the new technology and the opportunities that came with it.

Green technologies does exactly the same thing but in a much more needed area. You obviously don't know anything about oil but I do and its all but done and our only alternative in achieving energy independence.

Its a wide open opportunity for advancement, long term benefits and jobs that the Republicans and your wealthy friends won't be able to outsource to other countries for their greed.

You're the only delusional liar here Mrdk and that has been proven so many times and is just so obvious it makes me laugh.

 

Are you suggesting that it's actually the role of the Supreme Court under the Constitution to determine the outcome of a Florida election? You'll have to show me where it says that.

Even the Supreme Court itself tried to ensure that it wasn't setting a precedent by its actions. They knew what they were doing was impossible to defend...fortunately for them, there's no way to appeal.

 

We really don't need to do this again.

Who sued for a ruling?? The ruling came back against Gore, get over it.

It has been over eight years of peace and joy ever since.