Obama Gets Last Laugh..."The Chinese and Russians"...have nothing to worry about.

[The Rabbi]

The only thing Putin has succeeded at with his efforts to become somewhere near equal in global authority and renewing the cold war status of Russia has been the success his propaganda machine has had in recruiting right-wing Obama obsessed hater dupes to rally to his causes. In reality, his efforts to restrict NATO, limit western influence in Ukraine, impress the world with Russian military power in Syria and promote Russia as a military superpower has failed.

What reality are you living in? Putin's forces control the entire Crimean peninsula (you'll need Mapquest to tell you where that is). They control significant portions of the Ukraine itlsef. He has eliminated dissent domestically. He has forged a strong alliance with Syria and Iran.
You cannot tell failure from success. This is why you think Obama is successful and Putin a failure.

I don't need a map to know where Crimea is. While I have never been on the peninsula, I got pretty close to it a few times while road tripping from the southeastern areas to Odesa.

There is less violence between the Ukraine government forces and volunteer battalions fighting the Russian-supported rebels than what can be expected between street gangs in an American city

wow dimwit!! says alot about American cities who are virtually all run by liberals!

I was disputing and refuting Rabbi's claims which were all false. You have not come close to giving a valid critique of my refutations of Rabbi's nonsense. A handful of countries, giving symbolic recognition does not equal international recognition or resolve the difficulties of international business restrictions, travel and legal authority in international courts regarding international laws.
The comment comparing violence in American cities was to show the foolishness of Rabbi's contention about Russia controlling significant areas of Ukraine. The answer being that they don't, and the warfare is reduced to occasional gun fights is an indication of who has won or is winning in Ukraine.
You Putin lovers have to make shit up or stay misinformed to keep supporting the Putin propaganda being fed to you. Heck, the Ukraine propaganda you are stuck on is old and outdated. You jerks are just ignorant and poorly informed.
Look in the mirror to see who the dimwit is.

How stupid are you, again?

You have refuted nothing. You have made false unsupported assertions because you are losing this exchange very badly.

First, your map is over a year old. Second, the light brown section indicates Ukraine control. Only the gold section indicated rebel control and that has changed drastically. Do you know how to read a map? Even this obsolete and poorly drawn map shows only a sliver of land on the Russian border.

www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/death-of-novorossia-why-kremlin-abandoned-ukraine-separatist-project/522320.html

He said "sliver" <snort>

Note the icnrease and consolidation in a year.

 

[Camp]

The only thing Putin has succeeded at with his efforts to become somewhere near equal in global authority and renewing the cold war status of Russia has been the success his propaganda machine has had in recruiting right-wing Obama obsessed hater dupes to rally to his causes. In reality, his efforts to restrict NATO, limit western influence in Ukraine, impress the world with Russian military power in Syria and promote Russia as a military superpower has failed.

What reality are you living in? Putin's forces control the entire Crimean peninsula (you'll need Mapquest to tell you where that is). They control significant portions of the Ukraine itlsef. He has eliminated dissent domestically. He has forged a strong alliance with Syria and Iran.
You cannot tell failure from success. This is why you think Obama is successful and Putin a failure.

I don't need a map to know where Crimea is. While I have never been on the peninsula, I got pretty close to it a few times while road tripping from the southeastern areas to Odesa.

There is less violence between the Ukraine government forces and volunteer battalions fighting the Russian-supported rebels than what can be expected between street gangs in an American city

wow dimwit!! says alot about American cities who are virtually all run by liberals!

I was disputing and refuting Rabbi's claims which were all false. You have not come close to giving a valid critique of my refutations of Rabbi's nonsense. A handful of countries, giving symbolic recognition does not equal international recognition or resolve the difficulties of international business restrictions, travel and legal authority in international courts regarding international laws.
The comment comparing violence in American cities was to show the foolishness of Rabbi's contention about Russia controlling significant areas of Ukraine. The answer being that they don't, and the warfare is reduced to occasional gun fights is an indication of who has won or is winning in Ukraine.
You Putin lovers have to make shit up or stay misinformed to keep supporting the Putin propaganda being fed to you. Heck, the Ukraine propaganda you are stuck on is old and outdated. You jerks are just ignorant and poorly informed.
Look in the mirror to see who the dimwit is.

How stupid are you, again?

You have refuted nothing. You have made false unsupported assertions because you are losing this exchange very badly.

First, your map is over a year old. Second, the light brown section indicates Ukraine control. Only the gold section indicated rebel control and that has changed drastically. Do you know how to read a map? Even this obsolete and poorly drawn map shows only a sliver of land on the Russian border.

www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/death-of-novorossia-why-kremlin-abandoned-ukraine-separatist-project/522320.html

you think you're convincing anybody obama isnt a weak and inept clown???

that obama did anything that makes Putin think twice??

You provide misinformed opinions to present your view. Your evidence is non-existent or like the kind just presented. Old, obsolete and with no identification. I just provided a recognized Russian source to support my comments and views. I will also provide a British one.

bbc.com/news/world-europe-34184945

The west is has beaten Putin over Ukraine. Even the Moscow Times openly writes about it. The only people still stuck on insisting Putin has bested the west in Ukraine are silly right wing American Obama hater dupes. Even the rebels in Donetsk and Luhansk have ceded to the Minsk agreement and Kiev rule.

 

[The Rabbi]

What reality are you living in? Putin's forces control the entire Crimean peninsula (you'll need Mapquest to tell you where that is). They control significant portions of the Ukraine itlsef. He has eliminated dissent domestically. He has forged a strong alliance with Syria and Iran.
You cannot tell failure from success. This is why you think Obama is successful and Putin a failure.

I don't need a map to know where Crimea is. While I have never been on the peninsula, I got pretty close to it a few times while road tripping from the southeastern areas to Odesa.

wow dimwit!! says alot about American cities who are virtually all run by liberals!

I was disputing and refuting Rabbi's claims which were all false. You have not come close to giving a valid critique of my refutations of Rabbi's nonsense. A handful of countries, giving symbolic recognition does not equal international recognition or resolve the difficulties of international business restrictions, travel and legal authority in international courts regarding international laws.
The comment comparing violence in American cities was to show the foolishness of Rabbi's contention about Russia controlling significant areas of Ukraine. The answer being that they don't, and the warfare is reduced to occasional gun fights is an indication of who has won or is winning in Ukraine.
You Putin lovers have to make shit up or stay misinformed to keep supporting the Putin propaganda being fed to you. Heck, the Ukraine propaganda you are stuck on is old and outdated. You jerks are just ignorant and poorly informed.
Look in the mirror to see who the dimwit is.

How stupid are you, again?

You have refuted nothing. You have made false unsupported assertions because you are losing this exchange very badly.

First, your map is over a year old. Second, the light brown section indicates Ukraine control. Only the gold section indicated rebel control and that has changed drastically. Do you know how to read a map? Even this obsolete and poorly drawn map shows only a sliver of land on the Russian border.

www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/death-of-novorossia-why-kremlin-abandoned-ukraine-separatist-project/522320.html

you think you're convincing anybody obama isnt a weak and inept clown???

that obama did anything that makes Putin think twice??

You provide misinformed opinions to present your view. Your evidence is non-existent or like the kind just presented. Old, obsolete and with no identification. I just provided a recognized Russian source to support my comments and views. I will also provide a British one.

bbc.com/news/world-europe-34184945

The west is has beaten Putin over Ukraine. Even the Moscow Times openly writes about it. The only people still stuck on insisting Putin has bested the west in Ukraine are silly right wing American Obama hater dupes. Even the rebels in Donetsk and Luhansk have ceded to the Minsk agreement and Kiev rule.

I provided two maps that showed increasing Russian control over the area. These are significant amounts of land, not insignificant cities as you ludicrously claim.
In all I have made my case. You have flapped your gums and farted a lot. That's how almost all these exchanges go.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

kaz 12772896

So you're admitting there is no social security "trust fund?"

I've said nothing about the existence of a SS trust fund. Whether it exists or not does not change the fact that the surpluses that Bush inherited from Clinton were real and you denied that reality, but you cannot deny that reality any more.

The SS trust fund has nothing to do with your ignorance about the annual budget surpluses that Bill Clinton produced after raising taxes on the rich.

Public annual debt and surpluses have been calculated the same way for decades. And besides the gross debt chart tells the same story that federal revenues during Clinton's term switched from deficits to surpluses as a result of his presidency. But of course payouts to SS recipients increase more rapidly as the workforce ages and retire and live longer in significantly greater numbers.

During the 1990s SS was 55 to 66 years old. Do you see why payouts to retirees would have gone up no matter how great the economy was improving?

Perhaps it is a concept that goes beyond your ability to ascertain data in a contextual and realistic matter.

 

[kaz]

So you're admitting there is no social security "trust fund?"

I've said nothing about the existence of a SS trust fund

Actually, that is the crux of your argument. You just proved you repeated that argument, you don't understand it

 

[NotfooledbyW]

kaz 12788835

Actually, that is the crux of your argument.

How so? Explain what the SS lock box has to do with the reality that President Clinton produced budget surpluses that Bush inherited and turned into deficits.

Bush inherited a nearly $200bn budget surplus and within eight years turned it into a one trillion dollar deficit. That is a disaster of fiscal irresponsibility totaling $1.2 trillion over eight years in office. Tax cuts during wartime had a lot to do with it.

What does the lockbox have to do with that argument based on facts? The lockbox does not change the numbers I have provided to you. You cannot refute the numbers so you drifted into lockbox la la land.

 

[kaz]

Actually, that is the crux of your argument.

How so?

When I pointed out the national debt went up every year he was President, you repeated the argument you read and didn't understand that what matters is the debt to the public, not the debt.

So let's see if we can solve this case and what it means, Holmes. What is the difference between the debt and the debt to the public?

Your argument acknowledges that we aren't actually saving a dime for social security, which means there is no "trust fund." I realize that's about three levels above your understanding, but your argument is that there is no trust fund. If there is, the debt comes back and you admitted Clinton ran deficits.

So which is it, slick? Did Clinton run deficits? Or is there no trust fun? you can't have it both ways, you'd be double counting the same money.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

. ...your argument is that there is no trust fund.

No. You can't read. My argument to your point was and still is that the lock box point you bring up has no bearing on the fact that Clinton left annual budget surpluses for Bush to deal with.

Perhaps the debt cieling will help you understand how goofy your point is.

First the definition.

.
Debt Limit - Department of the Treasury
www.treasury.gov › Home › Initiatives
Oct 31, 2015 - The debt limit is the total amount of money that the United States government is authorized to borrow to meet its existing legal obligations,

When the government takes in more money than it spends during the year there is no reason to raise the debt limit. Repeat that twenty times in your head. That is called a surplus.


When the government takes in kess money than it spends during the year it is absolutely necessary to raise the debt limit. Repeat that twenty times in your head. That is called a deficit.


Now look at this chart and bullet one:

• from FY 1998 through FY 2001, the federal government ran surpluses and GDP was growing rapidly, which reduced debt held by the public;
• when large deficits returned and GDP growth slowed in the early 2000s, public debt increased again.

Thirty-Two Years of Bipartisan Debt-Ceiling Raises | Mercatus


Now look at this chart:


SEPTEMBER 27, 2013
Chart of the Week: The bipartisan federal debt limit
BY DREW DESILVER3 COMMENTS



Chart of the Week: The bipartisan federal debt limit

Do you see that longest flat period tagged debt cieling? That's when Clinton ran surpluses and the debt cieling did not need to be raised.

If what you claimed to be true that there were no surpluses or balanced budgets under Clinton then the government did not pay its bills because the debt cieling was not raised during those surplus years.

It was the result of Clinton raising taxes only on the rich and yet the 'job creators' still managed to create 18 million jobs. Business likes seeing Federal surpluses too. Then Bush cut taxes during war and triggered the worst recession since the Great One. Once again the debt cieling had to be raised due to list revenue and paying the cost of fighting a dumb and unecessary war.