FAT Lying SACK of Shit

This shameless lying that the wing-nuts of talk radio are engaging in, show how desperate they are. Obama is not even in office, and they are trying to hang on us the recession a.k.a. depression they manufactured in their support of the neo-con philosophy.

When this group came into office, we had a budget surplus... we were actually on the way to start paying down the debt.

In 8 short years, they have tripled the debt, and we are in the red from day one of the yearly budget.

Instead of going into a corner and shutting up, while we try and dig ourselves out of this mess, they are trying to hang it on Obama.

NOT THIS TIME YOU USELESS BAGS OF SKIN AND HOT AIR..not this time.

We keep reminding the general media of their duplicity.. one more yelp out of them and its time for the fairness doctrine....

Quote:

---

"The Obama recession is in full swing, ladies and gentlemen," Limbaugh told his radio audience of 15 million to 20 million on Thursday. "Stocks are dying, which is a precursor of things to come. This is an Obama recession. Might turn into a depression."

---

LA Times

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

This shameless lying that the wing-nuts of talk radio are engaging in, show how desperate they are. Obama is not even in office, and they are trying to hang on us the recession a.k.a. depression they manufactured in their support of the neo-con philosophy.

When this group came into office, we had a budget surplus... we were actually on the way to start paying down the debt.

In 8 short years, they have tripled the debt, and we are in the red from day one of the yearly budget.

Instead of going into a corner and shutting up, while we try and dig ourselves out of this mess, they are trying to hang it on Obama.

NOT THIS TIME YOU USELESS BAGS OF SKIN AND HOT AIR..not this time.

We keep reminding the general media of their duplicity.. one more yelp out of them and its time for the fairness doctrine....




LA Times

---

Meh, Bush got blamed for Clinton's recession. Hell, in this case it could be argued Obama's involvement with ACORN, in the 90's, and their relationship with the sub-prime fiasco, places the blame squarely on his shoulders.

Deal.

I'm sorry, I thought this was a Michael Moore thread.

who cares dan. america wants obama.......no matter what.

when oil is at $200 a barrel or we're still in a recession 4 years from now, Obama and the Dems will be out for maybe ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clambake

who cares dan. america wants obama.......no matter what.

---

America wanted "to throw the bums out" and Obama just happened to be the Democratic nominee. Make no mistake, America is rolling the dice on this guy. But when you factor in Bush fatigue, an election year financial crisis . . . then why not gamble on the "clean, articulate" black guy with almost no paper trail? After all, he has a "D" after his name, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clambake

who cares dan. america wants obama.......no matter what.

---

The latest forecast have us in a deep recession if not depression till the end of 2009. This is just the beginning from this lying sack of shit, he plans to dump all the blame for the last 8 years of GOP failure on Obama and the Demo congress..

so what dan. isn't it nice to have a smart guy for a change? who cares what that dipshit says.

america ain't buying their shit anymore. we sealed off the trailer parks stupidity on the 4th.

Most of our trouble started with Sept 11th, one could argue that many things have been done wrong since but Sept 11th was a major factor to where we are today. It had a spiraling effect, the decision to Invade Iraq was the icing on the cake.

I also don't see mainstream media blaming jack shit on Obama, they are basicly pointing out that he is inheriting a shit sandwich when he takes over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heath Ledger

I also don't see mainstream media blaming jack shit on Obama, they are basicly pointing out that he is inheriting a shit sandwich when he takes over.

---

Heath Ledger is wise.

The stage has been set for Obama to take credit for an economic recovery. But if the economy is still in the shitter 4 years from now, Bush will be blamed and the media will remind us to feel sorry for Obama.

I hate to be one of those "liberal media" right-wingers, but I have to admit the uneven treatment of Democrats and Republicans was particularly obvious this election.

Both sides are to blame for this mess, neither did shit in D.C.

How noble of you to care about the truth Dan, yet you were fellating Michael Moore on this board a couple of years ago when that fat sack of shit was throwing around lies about Bush.

Hypocrite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doobs

Heath Ledger is wise.

The stage has been set for Obama to take credit for an economic recovery. But if the economy is still in the shitter 4 years from now, Bush will be blamed and the media will remind us to feel sorry for Obama.

I hate to be one of those "liberal media" right-wingers, but I have to admit the uneven treatment of Democrats and Republicans was particularly obvious this election.

---

Obama gets a honey moon and a grace period since he's inheriting a terrible economic mess.

But it damn sure won't be 4 years. Or even 2.

Bush will long be forgotten in 4 years. Mercifully, his reign is over.

Mark my words. Liberal congress, Marxist president...

This nation will suffer in a few years.

Whannity has backed and openly pimped Santorum,Allen,McCain,Steele, to mention a few... how did his endorsement work out?:lmao

Wouldn't it beel cool if we had someone that told us the truth though? Damn, all Limpballs does is spread lies 24-7 and Clear Channel gives him $500 large....where is the corporate responsibility? This is clearly why we need the Fairness Doctrine...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doobs

I hate to be one of those "liberal media" right-wingers, but I have to admit the uneven treatment of Democrats and Republicans was particularly obvious this election.

---

Really? Did the treatment seem uneven to you, or was it merely that the McCain campaign was so spectacularly bad and Obama's was more or less better organized and executed? I get so much of my information from so many different sources. None of it (other than the clearly partisan sources on both sides) seemed particularly slanted.

McCain and Palin often snubbed the mainstream media, so the few appearances they made got lots and lots of attention and analysis. Early on the Democratic convention was completely overshadowed by the Palin pick and she was all the news there was for days after.

The polls showed a big Obama victory and a struggling McCain campaign and that's what played out. Could MSM have reported otherwise?

All the scandals on both sides got a lot of airplay.

I hear this said over and over. Can anyone please explain what the MSM should have done differently? Also, I should note that when I say MSM, I mean ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, etc. Not Drudge, FOX, Huffingtonpost, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

Wouldn't it beel cool if we had someone that told us the truth though? Damn, all Limpballs does is spread lies 24-7 and Clear Channel gives him $500 large....where is the corporate responsibility? This is clearly why we need the Fairness Doctrine...

---

You are no longer Propaganda Dan...

You are now Fascist Dan!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Meh, Bush got blamed for Clinton's recession.

---

I'm so fucking tired of this retarded "logic."

I'm of the opinion that Clinton was an excellent president, but I'll be the first to admit that there were many mistakes made during his presidency. However, it's not as if the Bush administration has only been running the show for a couple of months. It's been eight fucking years. Eight. Years.

If I move into an apartment and find a raw chicken left under the sink, the previous tenants are indeed assholes for leaving it there. But if I choose not to clean it up for eight years, the rotting carcass and resulting rat infestation are my fault.

The strength of this country's economy at the time the Bush administration took over is well documented. If anyone at the helm had seen these problems coming at that time, or at least within the next few years, they should have fixed them. Failure to do so has as much to do with the current economic clusterfuck as anything that may have occurred in the previous decade.

CODE PINK
CODE PINK
CODE PINK

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CuckingFunt

I'm so fucking tired of this retarded "logic."

I'm of the opinion that Clinton was an excellent president, but I'll be the first to admit that there were many mistakes made during his presidency. However, it's not as if the Bush administration has only been running the show for a couple of months. It's been eight fucking years. Eight. Years.

-----

The strength of this country's economy at the time the Bush administration took over is well documented. If anyone at the helm had seen these problems coming at that time, or at least within the next few years, they should have fixed them. Failure to do so has as much to do with the current economic clusterfuck as anything that may have occurred in the previous decade.

---

Remember, Clinton was riding on a wave of the Y2K, internet boom, and other factors he had no control of in the positive. The only way to show he has a surplus was to put Social Security revenues on budget. The recession started befor president Bush took office. 9/11 hurt us. Our economy was recovering, and all the numbers were getting better untill after the 2006 elections. The economy started falling again after the democrats took congress. All attempts by republicans and president Bush to reign in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae was defeated by democrats, and now we have major problems.

Believe what you want. I will acknowledge that president Bush has done many things wrong, just not the things you liberals blame him for. I blame him for approving huge spending bills, wanting amnesty for illegals, and the recent bail out that will never fix anything.

You know, I'll even say that president Clinton wasn't to blame for the recession president Bush inherited. It was just coincidence with the internet bubble burtsing and Y2K spending complete. I actually blame president Clinton for other things. That's a different subject and thread however, and in the past. It isn't important any more either.

Bush had two Republican congresses to fix Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. How could the Democrats have stopped them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

9/11 hurt us.

---

Emotionally, there is no doubt. But there's no consensus among economists that 9/11 significantly affected our economy one way or the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

Bush had two Republican congresses to fix Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. How could the Democrats have stopped them?

---

Republicans were never in lock step with president Bush. Democrats in congress made convincing arguments. The facts are that the problems were noted in 2003 and earlier. The facts are that president Bush and many republicans wanted to change the regulations before this happened, and they couldn't get it done.

Wow. You act as if the president is a dictator. Even with the same party congress, he does not have that type of power.

You're seriously trying to claim that Bush, Inc. wanted to change regulations in Patriot-Act passing, post-9/11 political climate? And the Democrats who couldn't even put forth a filibuster without the nuclear option being rubbed in their noses held him back? Links, please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaryAnnKilledGinger

Emotionally, there is no doubt. But there's no consensus among economists that 9/11 significantly affected our economy one way or the other.

---

OK. You are one that believe the rising national debt doesn't matter?

Now also remember, I just included that in a list. Don't make it out that I make that the major thing.

With 9/11, we had immediate market drops. We have how many billions in cleanup, recovery, and rebuilding? Then if we took no action, what of the fear of it happening again? Remember how many people wouldn't fly for a long time? Afraid to? It can be argued that the military action was not needed, or that at least in Iraq. I will disagree, but does that borrowing really hurt us? I would argue it has made more jobs rather than hurt the economy.

I don't know what the key factor for the economy would be. All I know is that we were moving in the right direction untill after the 2006 elections. We can all take situations and try to pin a value on them. I prefer not to. I just know better than to look at just who is the president. You liberals tend to only give credit or blame to the sitting president. Policies often take time to have effects. Congress makes the policies, not the president.

9/11 was one of several things. What about Katrina. How much did that cost us? What about the other global disasters we helped with? I think it's safe to say that president Bush has dealt with more disasters during his presidency than any other president.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaryAnnKilledGinger

You're seriously trying to claim that Bush, Inc. wanted to change regulations in Patriot-Act passing, post-9/11 political climate? And the Democrats who couldn't even put forth a filibuster without the nuclear option being rubbed in their noses held him back? Links, please.

---

Your are ignoring what I am saying. Please stop that. The republicans didn't have enough votes for many things even though they were the majority. You are acting as if congress is suppose to be partisan.

As for the threat of the nuclear option, that's a whole other story. I don't ewant to go much into that, I got tired of debating it then. The bottom line for me is that by constitution, the senate votes to approve or disapprove the presidents choices. A filibuster is a senate rule that is fine for senate operations until it interferes with joint operations. The nuclear option was to take it to court. President Bush I think would have won the case because requiring a filibuster to break with 60 votes violates the intent of the constitution for appointments.

LOLOLOLOL When I saw the title to this thread...somehow...someway...I just knew you were talking about that scatmunching disciple of satan Rush Limbaugh. rofl

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cant_Be_Faded

LOLOLOLOL When I saw the title to this thread...somehow...someway...I just knew you were talking about that scatmunching disciple of satan Rush Limbaugh. rofl

---

Shows where your bias is. My bias was thinking it was about Michael Moore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

OK. You are one that believe the rising national debt doesn't matter?

---

Ummm. No.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Now also remember, I just included that in a list. Don't make it out that I make that the major thing.

---

I simply pointed out it didn't belong in your list.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

With 9/11, we had immediate market drops.

---

And immediate market recoveries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

We have how many billions in cleanup, recovery, and rebuilding?

---

Government spending on rebuilding generally creates jobs and helps the economy. There is no consensus among economists that 9/11 was positive or negative for the economy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

All I know is that we were moving in the right direction untill after the 2006 elections.

---

...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

You liberals tend to only give credit or blame to the sitting president.

---

Freddie and Fannie *might* have been an issue no matter who was president. But if we hadn't been bleeding money in Iraq, we'd be in a hell of a better situation to address it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Policies often take time to have effects. Congress makes the policies, not the president.

---

Following 9/11 Bush/Cheney had pretty much carte blanche to do whatever they wanted. They chose Iraq over the US economy. Own that and stop trying to blame democrats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

What about Katrina

---

Natural disasters stimulate the economy. Temporary raise in gas prices vs overwhelming boom in construction and small business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I think it's safe to say that president Bush has dealt with more disasters during his presidency than any other president.

---

I don't know about that. But of the two biggest disasters we faced, he handled both as irresponsibly as one could imagine. And he invented one of his own by taking our country into an unnecessary war.

I agree that Bush cannot be blamed entirely for the economy. But he did nothing to prevent or help the problem and quite a bit to hurt it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Your are ignoring what I am saying. Please stop that. The republicans didn't have enough votes for many things even though they were the majority. You are acting as if congress is suppose to be partisan.

As for the threat of the nuclear option, that's a whole other story. I don't ewant to go much into that, I got tired of debating it then. The bottom line for me is that by constitution, the senate votes to approve or disapprove the presidents choices. A filibuster is a senate rule that is fine for senate operations until it interferes with joint operations. The nuclear option was to take it to court. President Bush I think would have won the case because requiring a filibuster to break with 60 votes violates the intent of the constitution for appointments.

---

Please link to the measures that the Republicans attempted to pass from 2001 - 2006 to help the economy that the democrats voted down.

I have to go soon, I'm only going to address two parts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaryAnnKilledGinger

But if we hadn't been bleeding money in Iraq, we'd be in a hell of a better situation to address it.

---

Thing is, until we started beconing a "Welfare Nation," the only times we carried a deficit was suring war time or recession. We have become a nation that bleeds itself annually because of the endless social programs. We used to pay down the debt between wars, until the war on poverty became the biggest cost of the federal governemt on a regular basis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaryAnnKilledGinger

I don't know about that. But of the two biggest disasters we faced, he handled both as irresponsibly as one could imagine. And he invented one of his own by taking our country into an unnecessary war.

I agree that Bush cannot be blamed entirely for the economy. But he did nothing to prevent or help the problem and quite a bit to hurt it.

---

I disagree with that. New Orleans for example was improperly handeld at the Mayor and Govorner levels. President Bush couldn't just come in without the govorners request. I assume you mean 9/11 for the other one. I'll agree things could have been done better there, but fault? I say no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I disagree with that. New Orleans for example was improperly handeld at the Mayor and Govorner levels. President Bush couldn't just come in without the govorners request.

---

You get no arguement from me that the local officials handled Katrina badly. But the federal government had every opportunity and responsibility to respond. When 9/11 went down, do you think the federal government waited for an invite from locals? And, Katrina was a multi-state disaster. New Orleans wasn't the only casualty. Survivors were begging, screaming, and crying for help while the federal government did nothing. FEMA had the data on Hurricane Pam, they had every reason to anticipate what was going to happen. I'll be happy to get into government response to national disaster and Katrina in another thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaryAnnKilledGinger

You get no arguement from me that the local officials handled Katrina badly. But the federal government had every opportunity and responsibility to respond. When 9/11 went down, do you think the federal government waited for an invite from locals? And, Katrina was a multi-state disaster. New Orleans wasn't the only casualty. Survivors were begging, screaming, and crying for help while the federal government did nothing. FEMA had the data on Hurricane Pam, they had every reason to anticipate what was going to happen. I'll be happy to get into government response to national disaster and Katrina in another thread.

---

I remember that shit like it was yesterday....5 freaking days to get bottled water to New Orleans....no excuses, FEMA fucked up royally...

I'd have to say that I agree about 9/11 having a negative impact. We mitigated it by dropping interest rates down below 2% instead of letting it play out cleanly. That....hasn't helped so much at this point. Though I like that we are dropping them back to 0 again.

Some day the trade deficit and National Debt are going to be too much for these shenanigans to work and, BAM, we are going to have Carter-style inflation.

The greatest part about Obama winning decisively is that I no longer feel ANY need to argue with conservatives anymore.

No more pointing out their flawed logic, no more pointing out their outright lies. I just don't care. Believe whatever the fuck you want Conservatives, your party's viability in future national elections will be diminished for a long time coming. I sincerely hope you nominate Palin in 2012, just to solidify how out of touch your party is. America is laughing at you right now, not with you.

Who cares what WildCobra has to say. His party is a minority now, he has no political voice or influence.

If he wants to believe outright lies let him. Let him rot in ignorance along with his party. The party that will no doubt be stupid enough to nominate Palin and lose miserably in 2012. The GOP will be out of political power for the next 10-15 years at a minimum.

I'm going to go ahead and agree with the libs in this thread. Nothing the previous administration did has any impact on the current administration. The minority party in either house cannot prevent the majority party from doing anything.

Everything that happens over the next four years is the democrats fault entirely. Sounds good to me.

So that's two threads in which Mild Cobra tries to depict a downturn in the economy after the 2006 elections without giving any specifics.

For the nth time, both parties put up "reform" bills for Frannie and Freddie, but they refused to compromise with the Dems blocking things when the GOP was the majority and the GOP blocking things when the Dems were the majority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

Wouldn't it beel cool if we had someone that told us the truth though? Damn, all Limpballs does is spread lies 24-7 and Clear Channel gives him $500 large....where is the corporate responsibility? This is clearly why we need the Fairness Doctrine...

---

stupid..just stupid dude. The Fairness Doctrine.. You retard. BOTH parties are to blame for this garbage - WHo is proposing all this bail out stuff you ignorant bastage ? The Pelosi -Reid led gang of libtards. Get a freaking clue. You give the President entirely too much power for the economy. ya big dummy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

This shameless lying that the wing-nuts of talk radio are engaging in, show how desperate they are. Obama is not even in office, and they are trying to hang on us the recession a.k.a. depression they manufactured in their support of the neo-con philosophy.

When this group came into office, we had a budget surplus... we were actually on the way to start paying down the debt.

In 8 short years, they have tripled the debt, and we are in the red from day one of the yearly budget.

Instead of going into a corner and shutting up, while we try and dig ourselves out of this mess, they are trying to hang it on Obama.

NOT THIS TIME YOU USELESS BAGS OF SKIN AND HOT AIR..not this time.

We keep reminding the general media of their duplicity.. one more yelp out of them and its time for the fairness doctrine....




LA Times

---

:lmao:lmao

It's just not fair.:cry:cry

Eh, this election has proved that right wing talk radio isn't all powerful. They overplayed their hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

So that's two threads in which Mild Cobra tries to depict a downturn in the economy after the 2006 elections without giving any specifics.

---

Who cares about specifics. I'm saying I predicted such a problem several months ago. Do you dispute that?

Like a good stock broker, I don't give my methodology!

Quote:

---

Who cares about specifics.

---

:lmao

Obviously not you.

You are full of shit and can't back anything up.

I thought this thread was about Charles Barkley

BTW, many posters were predicting an economic downturn for years now.

And gave specific reasons for it.

Now you are saying you predicted an economic downturn "several months ago" after you said it had already started two years ago.

Bold.

Speaking of liars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

:lmao

Obviously not you.

You are full of shit and can't back anything up.

---

Why should I back up my methodology, especially to a hack like you? I am only climing that I said we would have a bad economy regardless who was president, and the sitting president would get blamed. If I should feel compelled to back anything up, that is all.

Why didn't you ask me months ago? You know, after this time, I forget half the reasons I cane to such a conclusion.

The way I arrive at vmy conclusions are my own. I will disclose things as I see fit. Not because some crybaby like yourself cannot say I didn't make the past claim, so you have to attack me some other way.

Fucking internet bully. Get a life.

Isn't there a "Troll Forum" for asses like you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ~~~~~~

Speaking of liars.

---

:sleep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Why should I back up my methodology, especially to a hack like you?

---

Yeah Spurmie, why he should give to you for free what probably took him minutes to make up?

Edit: Chumpie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Why should I back up my methodology, especially to a hack like you? I am only climing that I said we would have a bad economy regardless who was president, and the sitting president would get blamed. If I should feel compelled to back anything up, that is all.

---

That is not waht you said.

Why do you lie about what you said?

Quote:

---

Why didn't you ask me months ago? You know, after this time, I forget half the reasons I cane to such a conclusion.

---

Why would I care about a prediction you made AFTER the event already took place?

Quote:

---

The way I arrive at vmy conclusions are my own.

---

Right. You see something happen, wait a few months, then predict it will have already happened. It's genius.

Quote:

---

I will disclose things as I see fit.

---

You will shut your fucking mouth because you know you fucked up.

Quote:

---

Not because some crybaby like yourself cannot say I didn't make the past claim, so you have to attack me some other way.

---

You made the past claim after the event. I'm going to go out on a limb and say Obama is going to be president in January.

Quote:

---

Fucking internet bully. Get a life.

---

Sounds like you want to fight, tough guy.

Quote:

---

Isn't there a "Troll Forum" for asses like you?

---

I asked Kori to make a Whiny Lying Bitch forum for you, but she said that's pretty much what this forum is anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

Wouldn't it beel cool if we had someone that told us the truth though? Damn, all Limpballs does is spread lies 24-7 and Clear Channel gives him $500 large....where is the corporate responsibility? This is clearly why we need the Fairness Doctrine...

---

cnn tells lies so I guess it balances out huh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ducks

cnn tells lies so I guess it balances out huh

---

http://www.transbuddha.com/mediaHolder.php?id=1305