Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Rubbish! See post # 77 and the OP.
Also, his low very tax policies ushered in a recession, and Clinton's 8 years top Reagan easily, even in his better earlier years. As for foreign policy, Reagan was a joke. See Post # 111.
You are living proof you can't fix stupid.
Post #77 has nothing to do with the post you cited.
Clinton clearly benefited from the administrations of Reagan and Bush.
OBTW: I did say that Reagan did allow bad habits to continue and even started a few of his own. So please stop with the crap about hero-worship.
Sure it does. The post I cited said Reagan "still outshines the past and present morons we've have since." And Post # 77 shows the descending GDP growth right after Reagan's 2nd term. Right down into a nasty recession. And this somehow benefitted Clinton ? Yeah, maybe. By making him look really good, by comparison.
But you're wrong. Obama asked for and received THREE rounds of stimulus packages and each time he said "we just didn't spend enough". That's literally as stupid as a person standing in a bucket and saying that they just didn't pull hard enough to pull themselves up
Corporate profits are high right now because Dumbocrats drove jobs overseas and countries such as China and India are benefiting from those American jobs. Had Dumbocrats not drive those jobs overseas, American's would be benefitting from those jobs and we would be out of this mess.
I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say in the first paragraph. Source? The stimulus created or saved 2.5 million jobs. The CBO, Moody, and JP Morgan all confirm this fact.
I am so sick of this blame democrats crap. Why don't you explain HOW democrats have anything to do with jobs going overseas? What the fuck are you talking about? Are corporate profits not the entire point? What is stopping them from setting up jobs here?
I'm absolutely stupefied by the fact that you have to ask this question. How have Dumbocrats forced jobs overseas? What is stopping corporations from setting up jobs here?
Ignorant left-wing Dumbocrat communism is the answer. We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. That is an undeniable, indisputable fact.
Then we have bullshit like Obamacare which makes the cost of hiring employees skyrocket due to taxes, certain mandatory regulations, etc.
Then we have bullshit like unions which extort businesses and demand that a fuck'n grease monkey turning a wrench on an assembly line make $25 per hour, plus a cadillac health care plan, plus an exorbitant retirement pension (gee, I wonder why GM needed many billions of unconstitutional government dollars to keep from closing their doors).
And of course, Dumbocrats are doing all of this while screaming "fuck the 1%, lets punish those mother-fuckers". Cause, you know, that sends a great message to job creators.
So to recap, you crush job creators with taxes, you crush them with regulations, you crush them with unions, and then you slam them publicly and try to turn public opinion against them. And you guys stand around scratching your heads trying to figure out why there are never any jobs wherever liberal policy is in effect
Meanwhile, nations like China and India welcome them with open arms and provide them with extremely low taxes, no regulations, no unions, and no attempts to turn the public against them.
You are living proof you can't fix stupid.
Post #77 has nothing to do with the post you cited.
Clinton clearly benefited from the administrations of Reagan and Bush.
OBTW: I did say that Reagan did allow bad habits to continue and even started a few of his own. So please stop with the crap about hero-worship.
Sure it does. The post I cited said Reagan "still outshines the past and present morons we've have since." And Post # 77 shows the descending GDP growth right after Reagan's 2nd term. Right down into a nasty recession. And this somehow benefitted Clinton ? Yeah, maybe. By making him look really good, by comparison.
A really nasty recession ? ROTFLMAO
This is incredible and it shows your desperation as well as your ignorance. You're actually blaming both Bushes and Clinton's failure on Reagan's success. Fucking amazing!Rubbish! See post # 77 and the OP.
Also, his low very tax policies ushered in a recession, and Clinton's 8 years top Reagan easily, even in his better earlier years. As for foreign policy, Reagan was a joke. See Post # 111.
You are living proof you can't fix stupid.
Post #77 has nothing to do with the post you cited.
Clinton clearly benefited from the administrations of Reagan and Bush.
OBTW: I did say that Reagan did allow bad habits to continue and even started a few of his own. So please stop with the crap about hero-worship.
Sure it does. The post I cited said Reagan "still outshines the past and present morons we've have since." And Post # 77 shows the descending GDP growth right after Reagan's 2nd term. Right down into a nasty recession. And this somehow benefitted Clinton ? Yeah, maybe. By making him look really good, by comparison.
This is incredible and it shows your desperation as well as your ignorance. You're actually blaming both Bushes and Clinton's failure on Reagan's success. Fucking amazing!You are living proof you can't fix stupid.
Post #77 has nothing to do with the post you cited.
Clinton clearly benefited from the administrations of Reagan and Bush.
OBTW: I did say that Reagan did allow bad habits to continue and even started a few of his own. So please stop with the crap about hero-worship.
Sure it does. The post I cited said Reagan "still outshines the past and present morons we've have since." And Post # 77 shows the descending GDP growth right after Reagan's 2nd term. Right down into a nasty recession. And this somehow benefitted Clinton ? Yeah, maybe. By making him look really good, by comparison.
My God, you are dumb. You said "descending GDP growth right AFTER his 2nd term". That means GDP growth was good WHILE he was President but not after. That doesn't make Reagan a failure, it makes his successors failures. You are a complete moron.This is incredible and it shows your desperation as well as your ignorance. You're actually blaming both Bushes and Clinton's failure on Reagan's success. Fucking amazing!Sure it does. The post I cited said Reagan "still outshines the past and present morons we've have since." And Post # 77 shows the descending GDP growth right after Reagan's 2nd term. Right down into a nasty recession. And this somehow benefitted Clinton ? Yeah, maybe. By making him look really good, by comparison.
What is amazing is what you just said, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
1. Reagan wasn't successful. He was a flunk. In a number of ways.
2. I never said Clinton was a failure. You said that.
3. I didn't even mention Bush 43 AT ALL. You did.
I could go on but we've got strike 1, strike 2, strike 3. That's enough. This is making me sick.
My God, you are dumb. You said "descending GDP growth right AFTER his 2nd term". That means GDP growth was good WHILE he was President but not after. That doesn't make Reagan a failure, it makes his successors failures. You are a complete moron.This is incredible and it shows your desperation as well as your ignorance. You're actually blaming both Bushes and Clinton's failure on Reagan's success. Fucking amazing!
What is amazing is what you just said, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
1. Reagan wasn't successful. He was a flunk. In a number of ways.
2. I never said Clinton was a failure. You said that.
3. I didn't even mention Bush 43 AT ALL. You did.
I could go on but we've got strike 1, strike 2, strike 3. That's enough. This is making me sick.
My God, you are dumb. You said "descending GDP growth right AFTER his 2nd term". That means GDP growth was good WHILE he was President but not after. That doesn't make Reagan a failure, it makes his successors failures. You are a complete moron.This is incredible and it shows your desperation as well as your ignorance. You're actually blaming both Bushes and Clinton's failure on Reagan's success. Fucking amazing!
What is amazing is what you just said, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
1. Reagan wasn't successful. He was a flunk. In a number of ways.
2. I never said Clinton was a failure. You said that.
3. I didn't even mention Bush 43 AT ALL. You did.
I could go on but we've got strike 1, strike 2, strike 3. That's enough. This is making me sick.
My God, you are dumb. You said "descending GDP growth right AFTER his 2nd term". That means GDP growth was good WHILE he was President but not after. That doesn't make Reagan a failure, it makes his successors failures. You are a complete moron.What is amazing is what you just said, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
1. Reagan wasn't successful. He was a flunk. In a number of ways.
2. I never said Clinton was a failure. You said that.
3. I didn't even mention Bush 43 AT ALL. You did.
I could go on but we've got strike 1, strike 2, strike 3. That's enough. This is making me sick.
Very few people die from cancer the second they are diagnosed.
Reagan's policies, which would destroy our economy in the long run, did not begin to rear their ugly consequences until Senior Bush was in office.
What are you talking about ? What leads you to say I'm not thinking for myself ????
I suppose you mean other than the fact that you parrot ignorant left-wing propaganda in support of ignorant left-wing socialism????
What leads you to say that I parrot ignorant left-wing propaganda in support of ignorant left-wing socialism???? >> when my facts are from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, the US Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Tax Policy Center, and White House Council of Economic Advisors, all from the Reagan and Bush administrations, as well as other presidential administrations,
So, Clinton was responsible for George W. Bush's recession?My God, you are dumb. You said "descending GDP growth right AFTER his 2nd term". That means GDP growth was good WHILE he was President but not after. That doesn't make Reagan a failure, it makes his successors failures. You are a complete moron.What is amazing is what you just said, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
1. Reagan wasn't successful. He was a flunk. In a number of ways.
2. I never said Clinton was a failure. You said that.
3. I didn't even mention Bush 43 AT ALL. You did.
I could go on but we've got strike 1, strike 2, strike 3. That's enough. This is making me sick.
Very few people die from cancer the second they are diagnosed.
Reagan's policies, which would destroy our economy in the long run, did not begin to rear their ugly consequences until Senior Bush was in office.
My God, you are dumb. You said "descending GDP growth right AFTER his 2nd term". That means GDP growth was good WHILE he was President but not after. That doesn't make Reagan a failure, it makes his successors failures. You are a complete moron.What is amazing is what you just said, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
1. Reagan wasn't successful. He was a flunk. In a number of ways.
2. I never said Clinton was a failure. You said that.
3. I didn't even mention Bush 43 AT ALL. You did.
I could go on but we've got strike 1, strike 2, strike 3. That's enough. This is making me sick.
Very few people die from cancer the second they are diagnosed.
Reagan's policies, which would destroy our economy in the long run, did not begin to rear their ugly consequences until Senior Bush was in office.
Protectionist is what Josef Stalin called a "useful idiot".I suppose you mean other than the fact that you parrot ignorant left-wing propaganda in support of ignorant left-wing socialism????
What leads you to say that I parrot ignorant left-wing propaganda in support of ignorant left-wing socialism???? >> when my facts are from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, the US Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Tax Policy Center, and White House Council of Economic Advisors, all from the Reagan and Bush administrations, as well as other presidential administrations,
You called "Reaganomics" a "failure" when the facts prove otherwise. You're a radical liberal who (like most liberal loonies) pretends to be a Republican while parroting libtard talking points.
I don't have to pretend, you prove it with each post.My God, you are dumb. You said "descending GDP growth right AFTER his 2nd term". That means GDP growth was good WHILE he was President but not after. That doesn't make Reagan a failure, it makes his successors failures. You are a complete moron.What is amazing is what you just said, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
1. Reagan wasn't successful. He was a flunk. In a number of ways.
2. I never said Clinton was a failure. You said that.
3. I didn't even mention Bush 43 AT ALL. You did.
I could go on but we've got strike 1, strike 2, strike 3. That's enough. This is making me sick.
First of all, it doesn't help you one iota to pretend that you think I'm dumb, and then post the dumbest stuff in the thread.
Secondly, since you appear to be incapable of following a thread from post to post, I guess I'll have to lay it out for you. The comment >> descending GDP growth right AFTER his 2nd term, came from Post # 77 when I said >> "Here's what Reaganomics did for "George the First" >> http://www.tradingeconomics.com/cha...growth.png?s=gdp+cqoq&d1=19900101&d2=19911231
Which was a response to GreenBean who said >> "Reagonomics took time to have its effects felt , Reagan Policies are responsible for the unprecedented prosperity sustained through much of the 80s - the administration of George the First and Slick WIlly the Cigar Peddler benefited from Reagonomics..."
So now you can go fight it out with GreenBean, and learn how to follow a thread, you baboon.
I don't have to pretend, you prove it with each post.My God, you are dumb. You said "descending GDP growth right AFTER his 2nd term". That means GDP growth was good WHILE he was President but not after. That doesn't make Reagan a failure, it makes his successors failures. You are a complete moron.
First of all, it doesn't help you one iota to pretend that you think I'm dumb, and then post the dumbest stuff in the thread.
Secondly, since you appear to be incapable of following a thread from post to post, I guess I'll have to lay it out for you. The comment >> descending GDP growth right AFTER his 2nd term, came from Post # 77 when I said >> "Here's what Reaganomics did for "George the First" >> http://www.tradingeconomics.com/cha...growth.png?s=gdp+cqoq&d1=19900101&d2=19911231
Which was a response to GreenBean who said >> "Reagonomics took time to have its effects felt , Reagan Policies are responsible for the unprecedented prosperity sustained through much of the 80s - the administration of George the First and Slick WIlly the Cigar Peddler benefited from Reagonomics..."
So now you can go fight it out with GreenBean, and learn how to follow a thread, you baboon.
Dude, I've lost count of how many times you've put your foot in your mouth. You're really not cut out for this debating stuff. Maybe you should take up knitting.I don't have to pretend, you prove it with each post.First of all, it doesn't help you one iota to pretend that you think I'm dumb, and then post the dumbest stuff in the thread.
Secondly, since you appear to be incapable of following a thread from post to post, I guess I'll have to lay it out for you. The comment >> descending GDP growth right AFTER his 2nd term, came from Post # 77 when I said >> "Here's what Reaganomics did for "George the First" >> http://www.tradingeconomics.com/cha...growth.png?s=gdp+cqoq&d1=19900101&d2=19911231
Which was a response to GreenBean who said >> "Reagonomics took time to have its effects felt , Reagan Policies are responsible for the unprecedented prosperity sustained through much of the 80s - the administration of George the First and Slick WIlly the Cigar Peddler benefited from Reagonomics..."
So now you can go fight it out with GreenBean, and learn how to follow a thread, you baboon.
You're not only dumb, you're nuts, as you've been consistently showing in the motorcyclist thread, as well as this one. Oh look, you got a thanks from Rottweiller. HA HA HA. As if you weren't bad off enough already.
Dude, I've lost count of how many times you've put your foot in your mouth. You're really not cut out for this debating stuff. Maybe you should take up knitting.I don't have to pretend, you prove it with each post.
You're not only dumb, you're nuts, as you've been consistently showing in the motorcyclist thread, as well as this one. Oh look, you got a thanks from Rottweiller. HA HA HA. As if you weren't bad off enough already.
Dude, I've lost count of how many times you've put your foot in your mouth. You're really not cut out for this debating stuff. Maybe you should take up knitting.You're not only dumb, you're nuts, as you've been consistently showing in the motorcyclist thread, as well as this one. Oh look, you got a thanks from Rottweiller. HA HA HA. As if you weren't bad off enough already.
Dude , I have HANDED YOU YOUR ASS, HANDS DOWN, in this thread, even if you're too much of a fuckin idiot to know it.
Now, here's my suggestion for what to do with Reagan in 2014. I say we build a big statue of him, and put it on the White House front lawn (dressed in a circus clown outfit)
