But thankfully close to 80% of the people in this nation disagree with Ace.

http://www.pollingreport.com/social.htm

 

He's right, though, about my needing to have my clit licked.

 

*poof* flying headlong between your legs.

 

Good quote. I'll file it away and use it myself.

 

Down boy! Heel! GOOD dog! Mmmmm....such a good BOY!!! Are you mommy's good boy?? *scratching you behind your ears*

 

lapping and whimpering like a happy little puppy

 

Thank you.

I will try to compose a few more like that.

 

The unemployment rate during GW was NOT 9% if obozo your hero would count the people that stopped looking for work then unemployment would be much higher but as a crack dealing street walker that obozo is he does not count that.

Just as he does not count energy or food for the inflation numbers. What kind of MORON does that?? obozo does that is who.

And get your dates correct it only makes you look worse then you really are.


I hate to dazzle you with facts (these did not come from the huffington cunt or a comedian or msnbc the commie station you listen to) this chart is from the Department of labor and NO where was unemployment 9% how stupid do you think people are.

LINK::: http://www.doleta.gov/performance/Charts/Unemployment_rate_jan03-Oct06.cfm

 

But you're just baffling yourself with your own bullshit here aren't you?

Because not one thing you say here has the slightest thing to do with what I said which was abysmal record of The Heritage Society when it comes to facts and predictions.

Which is because The Heritage Society is actually nothing more than a false PR front for the gullible and brainwashed.

 

When George W. Bush was inaugurated in January 2001 the unemployment rate was 4.2 percent. When he left office in January 2009 that had grown to 7.8 percent.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt

When George W. Bush was president, and average of 375,000 jobs were created per year. In the words of The Wall Street Journal article from which I got that figure, that was, "The worst track record on record."

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

According to The Atlantic: "On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush's two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country's condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton's two terms, often substantially."
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2009/09/closing-the-book-on-the-bush-legacy/26402/

 

Now since this whole thread is actually based on another flawed and debunked "study" done by the Heritage Society and others cannot deal with actual facts I'll answer my own questions.

Yes this is the same Heritage Society that back in 1992 and 1994 were recommending a mandatory health insurance law.

Mar. 5, 1992

Heritage Foundation The Heritage Consumer Choice Health Plan (10 MB) , by Stuart M. Butler "Step #2: Require all households to purchase at least a basic package of insurance, unless they are covered by Medicaid, Medicare, or other government health programs. All Heads of households would be required by law to obtain at least a basic health plan specified by Congress...
The private insurance market would be reformed to make a standard basic package available to all at an acceptable price...
Employers would be required to make a payroll deduction each pay period, at the direction of the employee, and send the amount to the plan of the employee's choice."
4. Jan. 1994

Health Affairs Personal Freedom, Responsibility, and Mandates (109 KB) , by Robert E. Moffitt "Absent a specific mandate for at least catastrophic health insurance coverage, some persons, even with the availability of tax credits to offset their costs, will deliberately take advantage of their fellow citizens by not protecting themselves or their families, with the full knowledge that if they do incur a catastrophic illness that financially devastates them, we will, after all is said and done, take care of them and pay all of the bills. They will be correct in this assessment... An individual mandate for insurance, then, is not simply to assure other people protection from the ravages of a serious illness, however socially desirable that may be; it is also to protect ourselves. Such selfprotection is justified within the context of individual freedom; the precedent for this view can be traced to none other than John Stuart Mill."
http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004182

And the same Heritage Society that in 2001 were saying the Bush Tax Cuts would lead to "job growth."

http://origin.heritage.org/research...mic-impact-of-president-bushs-tax-relief-plan

And we all know how that worked out don't we?

 

About BigTrobbing
Gender
Male
Biography
A conservitive that HATES (Yeas HATES) progressives, they can SUCK my ass
Location
MO In the woods, do not come knocking when the war starts.
Interests
Wood working and watching the grass grow. And ewverything that progressives hate doing.
https://forum.xnxx.com/member.php?u=446395

BigTrobbing, your profile reveals you to be someone who defines himself by his hatreds. Your character is further revealed by your vulgar attacks on stumbler and others here. I suspect that even most conservatives who know you view you as a disturbed and a disturbing individual.

 

Hey, hypocritical dipshit,,lets take a look at one of your posts towards me,,shall we;

 

Although I did attack you, my attack was not vulgar.

What is more, my attack demonstrated a facility with the written word that has never been demonstrated by the insults of BigThrobbing.

I rarely post insults. When I do they are so eloquent that those I insult should feel honored that I took notice of them.

 

I laughed at that,,,you stupid fucker:excited::excited:

 

"The unemployment rate during GW was NOT 9%..."

I am sure you believe this but your "facts" are saddly lacking. The link to the chart you included stops at October 2006. Unless there is a different calendar on the planet you are from then you have only told a portion of the story, since Obama didnt take office until January 2009.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics, the "official" unelmployment rate in January of 2008 was 5% but surged to 7.8%. Thats a more than 60% increase under the U-3 or "official" rate. The U-6 rate includes people who are under employed and people who otherwise unemployed. The U-6 rate in Jan. 2008 was 9.2% and surged to 14.2% in Jan. 2009. The shocking rise of unemployment in the U.S. was well under way befor George Bush vacated the office of president and it was existing economic problems that were inherited by the new administration that gave our current president the high unemployment numbers he got.

"...if obozo your hero would count the people that stopped looking for work then unemployment would be much higher but as a crack dealing street walker that obozo is he does not count that."

Numbe one, counting those numbers isnt up to him. Thats up to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Number two, it was Ronald Reagan who changed the numbers that are used for the "official" unemployment rate back in the 1980s in an effort to skew the numbers and make his administration look good. They never stopped counting the actual numbers, but uncle Ronnie didnt want to look bad for his staggering double digit unemplyment rates so they used different numbers. Thats why we have unemployment rates catagorized under a system that counts U-1 through U-6 unemployment rates.

"I hate to dazzle you with facts (these did not come from the huffington cunt or a comedian or msnbc the commie station you listen to) this chart is from the Department of labor and NO where was unemployment 9% how stupid do you think people are."

I hate to dazzel you with your own facts but you need to wander back to the U.S. Department of Labor Statistics web site and do some more research about unemployment numbers.

"Just as he does not count energy or food for the inflation numbers. What kind of MORON does that?? obozo does that is who."

Those numbers are commonly understated by politicians, including the great and powerful G.W. Bush who routinely mis-stated things like unemployment, job creation and cost of living. Thats nothing new. The running joke was that GW created a million new jobs and people were happy because they had to get two of them to survive.

Obama is no saint, but seriously...he isnt any worse than any other president, republican or democrat.

 

Yours is an example of a crude insult that indicates lack of intelligence. An insult from you is not an honor; it is an irritation. :-~

 

Anyone that disagrees with you, is an irritation for you.

 

How Much Do We Spend on the Nonworking Poor?

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/02/how-much-do-we-spend-nonworking-poor