The Drive-a-Toyota Act

Sure thing.

"Wingnuts", short for right wing nut cases who can't spell and like a
good circle jerk.

 

You've got that activity cornered.

"Wingnuts", short for right wing nut cases who can't spell and like a
good circle jerk.

 

Thank you for gracing us with your eloquence.

Now care to explain exactly how you arrived at mentioning "faux news" [sic], and especially how mentioning this
supports your position claiming that George W Bush was arrested for "cocaine posession?"

ps. Before pontificating with your silly linguistics critiques, you may first wish to learn how to spell "wing
nuts."

;-)

 

wingnut (politics), n., a mildly derogatory term for a person who holds
strongly right-wing political beliefs.

as opposed to your wingnut tunnel vision assumption... wing nut, n., a
nut with winglike projections for thumb and forefinger leverage.

Faux News, n., a derogatory pun for FOX News, the 24 hour cable network
which ushered in the age of shouting head pseudo-journalism, a 24-hour
neocon propaganda channel, home of O'Really, Havenotty, Limpdick and
partial to hate speech of the Bee-atch Coulter.

....

You like to pontificate, so with that as background, let's illustrate
with the original thread:

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Al Gore's son busted in drug-filled Prius, doing 100 mph
Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 11:05:43 -0400
From: News <>
Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.chrysler

Limpdick, or Ann Bee-atch Coulter define the

exactly? Can you please explain?



Rely on Faux News to refute, perhaps?

 

No, the only one introducing "Faux News" into the discussion is YOU. Talk about tunnel vision! You haven't even
bothered to explain how you got to "Faux News," but you still haven't bothered to support any of your claims about
cocaine.

I ask again, how does mentioning this (or any of your other straw man comments) support your bizarre position
claiming that George W Bush was arrested for "cocaine possession?" Do tell! Fascinating how when I request you
backup YOUR assertions that you fall back on your irrelevant weird name calling. ;-)

 

Dude, you're delusional. Cite please about the tax cuts making any positive
difference for the average American and not just Bush's "Base",or shut your
flying monkey, right wing piehole.

Thanks. ;-)

 

LOL, not on just the tax reality, the *slightest* investigation of what
Jefferson believed would show that the Bush administration and today's
government by corporation, faith based initiative etc., is precisely
what he feared. Talking about the deficit going down is like speaking
warmly about the doctor who nursed his wife back to health after he beat
the crap out of her.

When Bush came into office, he inherited a surplus of $284 Billion. At
that time, the Bush administration predicted a $516 billion surplus for
2006. Looks like he missed by about 800 billion.

As of the end of 2006 here are the top five deficits in US history:

1. 2004 (George W. Bush) $413 billion
2. 2003 (George W. Bush) $378 billion
3. 2005 (George W. Bush) $318 billion
4. 2006 (George W. Bush) $296 billion
5. 1992 (George H. W. Bush) $290 billion

Prior to the Neo-Conservative takeover of the Republican Party there was
not much difference between the two parties’ debt philosophy. They both
worked together to minimize it. However the debt has been on a steady
incline ever since the Reagan presidency. The only exception to the
steep increase over the last 25 years was during the Clinton presidency,
when he brought spending under control and the debt growth down to
almost zero.

Comparing the borrowing habits of the two parties since 1981, when the
Neo-Conservative movement really took hold and government spending raced
out of control, it is extremely obvious that the big spenders in
Washington are Republicans and their party’s presidents.

The only Democratic president since then, Mr. Clinton raised the
national debt an average of 4.3% per year. The Republican presidents
(Reagan, Bush, and Bush II) raised the debt an average of 10.8% per
year. That is, for every dollar a Democratic President has raised the
national debt in the past 25 years, Republican presidents have raised
the debt by $2.53[6]. Any way you look at it Neo-Conservative
Republican presidents cannot or will not control government spending.

 

And you just joined the Loonie Liberal Leftist hall of shame. The day I
beleve your Loonie Liberal Leftist BullShit is the day monkeys fly out of my
butt.

Charles of Schaumburg

 

Had clinton done his job, he would have spent more money on national
security as GWB had to do and we wouldn't have had 3000 + innocent
citizens die on 9/11.

You are a bumbling idiot for even mentioning this.

 

Riddle us this, oh smiley faced one. Point to the defamation and libel
suits that resulted from the publishing of that material, opinion and
book. Oh. None? What does that suggest? Can't stand the truth?

 

I wouldn't say what you pose here makes you an idiot but it certainly
does not make you informed. Why is it I wonder that the misinformed are
so quick to go to name calling? Have you any idea how many warnings of
the intentions to attack were ignored by Bush? Do at least a *little*
homework before embarrassing yourself.

 

I wouldn't say what you pose here makes you an idiot but it certainly
does not make you informed. Why is it I wonder that the misinformed are
so quick to go to name calling? Have you any idea how many warnings of
the intentions to attack were ignored by Bush? Do at least a *little*
homework before embarrassing yourself.[/QUOTE]

Bush was president for less than a year, less than eight months.
Clinton on the other hand was president for 8 years, big difference, not
to mention all the dispicable road blocks clintons gang put up after
Bush won.

 

Bush was president for less than a year, less than eight months.
Clinton on the other hand was president for 8 years, big difference, not
to mention all the dispicable road blocks clintons gang put up after
Bush won.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, right. So..., how many (not counting the "Bin Laden determined to
strike inside U.S." that Condi tried desperately to skirt at the Senate
hearings did the Bushie's miss?

Transcript: (note mention of the 1998 strikes by the Clinton administration)

"FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious
activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or
other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal
buildings in New York."

Some people make a good case that is was worse than simple negligence.
"Pearl Harbor" indeed.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/

 

911 911 911!

Look over here...Don't look at those confusing numbers! Ahab is gonna get
youuuuuuu.....

Go back to sleep, sheep.

 

Well goddamn....

Who knew monkeys were that color? Now, at least, we know where they're
coming from. ;-)

 

If you knew how the government worked, you would know that The Congress passes
budgets. The Democratically controlled Congress (particularly the House)
outspent Reagan's proposed spending budgets 7 out of 8 years. As the Reagan tax
cuts kicked in, tax REVENUES rose, and roughly doubled. A country nearly on life
support in 1981 with sky high interest rates, staggering inflation, high
unemployment, and general malaise / stagflation of the Carter era becamse a
thundering economy by the middle-late 1980s. Similarly, the tax REVENUES have
been rising sharply since 2002.

 

Uh huh.

Ever been to the racetrack? Been around knowledgeable, serious players?
Everyone reads the same information (Racing Form, past performances)
and come to all kinds of different conclusions on how a race will be run
and what the past predicts for the future. The debates are pretty
intense but when the race is over those who were wrong shrug it off and
go right back at it. Just like economists. Figures don't speak but
pundits do and being right is *all* important (even for wannabe
economists on Usenet). And when wrong? Well..., that never happens,
does it? Its all a matter of personal perspective.

Seems the starting point for proving anything is up for grabs. Everyone
has favorites. I see you like to ridicule Carter but don't mention the
oil problems (Arab oil embargo). Those to the left like to credit FDR
with creating the middle class and Reagan policies with eroding it. It
*does* seem to be eroding.

And when the economy is booming the criteria for giving credit depends
on who's giving it. Like Reagan being responsible for the good Clinton
economy. Sure.

Since we're currently in the process of killing for oil (and eroding the
Constitution in the process) while friends of Bush and the military
industrial complex get rich (Bush finally admitted it was all about oil)
it might be interesting to note what Carter had to say about oil back in 77.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/filmmore/ps_energy.html

 

The oil embargo began before Carter. I don't ridicule him for that, I merely point out
that his policies (actually lack of of thereof) caused a lot of people pain and
fortunately the USA has not seen anything like that 1970s extremely high unemployment
and inflation anytime since.

If you consider greatly extending a depression for over a decade while people suffered
in Keysnian policies to be "creating the middle class," than so be it. FDR did do one
important thing, he gave Americans pride and hope however.

Since middle class incomes nearly doubled during the Reagan years and unemployment was
much less than the Carter years, imagine if those policies *hadn't* been "eroding."
Reagan inherited an economy that was by far the worst since the Depression, with
unemployment 7.4% and rising. Prime rates were around 21% (!). Poverty rates were
high and still rising. The next years would see a remarkable turn around,
unemployment plummeted and pooverty rates dropped. High taxes prevent people from
doing better and the lower taxes that followed helped middle, upper, and lower
classes. 82% of the job creation during the Reagan economy years were in high skill,
high paying occupations.

Don't be so quick to dismiss what happened. Reagan ran on a theme of cutting marginal
tax rates, and he did succeed getting the Democratic Congress to (begrudgingly) pass
those reductions in the early years. (Unfortunately, the same Congress's spending
would not be reigned in). Reducing tax rates means more money is available in the
economy for investing in technology, investing in workers, investing in materials,
etc. That provides a powerful economic multiplier effect over time. If taxes in the
1980s or 1990s were still at 1970s levels, the expansions could never have happened.
(The 1980s expansion was the greatest in history, followed by the 1990s). Yes there
were still cyclical downturns, yet these have been relatively very minor compared to
those in prior history.

That is a very loaded statement. If we were "killing for oil," oil prices would have
decreased. Also, there dooesn't appear to be too much oil in Afghanistan either, nor
has the US been stealing oil out of Iraq, despite overturning the dictator regime
there.

I recall Carter's approach to the failing economy was to wear a cardigan.

 

So, by your reasoning, if you toss up absurd accusations and there is not immediately a libel suit, that means your
accusation is true? That's your last straw to grab? Even the publisher of the book admits he doesn't know if the
absurd claims are true either.

Again, please explain how you came (bizzarely) to introduce "Fox News" into the discussion, as you were unable to
point to anything said there that was relevant to your comments. Thanks.

Now if you are obsessed about cocaine use, why not talk about *actual* cocaine use by a Presidential candidate, such as
Barack "I did some Blow" Obama? No need to find some no-name author's B fantasy rambling accusations, you can just
turn to the man's own book.

 

The sale was required at the time. It would have been extremely unethical not
to sell the stock. It was not hidden.

Fourteen (14) convictions were made during the Whitewater investigation,
*including a sitting governor*, three business partners of the Clintons, and the
#3 man at the Justice Dept. If you want to know why it hadn't reached the
Clintoons, you would need to ask Susan McDougal, Webb Hubbell, and the late
James McDougal, not to mention Vince Foster who for years put up roadblock
after roadblock to the truth. And Don't forget Hillary Clinton, who "lost" the
billing records that were under subpoena and who also coordinated in cleaning
out Foster's office after his untimely death. But that's ok, why should they
follow the law?