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.
LOLOLLOLOLAsk the Congress, they write all of the spending bills. Give credit to Obama for increased revenue since he raised taxes.The national debt will without a doubt go up in 2017... It has gone up over the term of every single president since 1789. It is a pointless criticism and critic of a president. Instead a president should be judged on the spending initiatives that they undertake and their effectiveness. You can look at what they add to or subtract from the deficit, that is fair to discuss... Also, which programs are funded/defunded, and the effects that spending/gov programs have on our economy and environment.
yeah, ok. I agree with all that. Now, Obama spent 9 trillion more than the government collected, what did we get for that money?
So, you hold the president responsible for nothing and congress responsible for everything? Interesting, since democrats have controlled congress for most of the last 80 years. But I agree, it was democrat/liberal policies that have put us in this massive debt situation. Said another way------------democrats trying to buy votes has put us in this situation. But to be fair, the establishment pukes in both parties are responsible..
DRAIN THE SWAMP !.
President Tinkles is filling the swamp, not draining it. And Republicans have controlled the Congress for most of the last 36 years since Reagan was first elected and the debt began ballooning out of control.
Trump is putting the most qualified people in cabinet positions. People who know how to get things done. That is good for America and you libs and dems are scared shitless that he is going to be successful. you fools would sacrifice the country for your party, pathetic assholes.
as to control of congress.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidents_of_the_United_States_and_control_of_Congress
LOLOLLOLOLAsk the Congress, they write all of the spending bills. Give credit to Obama for increased revenue since he raised taxes.yeah, ok. I agree with all that. Now, Obama spent 9 trillion more than the government collected, what did we get for that money?
So, you hold the president responsible for nothing and congress responsible for everything? Interesting, since democrats have controlled congress for most of the last 80 years. But I agree, it was democrat/liberal policies that have put us in this massive debt situation. Said another way------------democrats trying to buy votes has put us in this situation. But to be fair, the establishment pukes in both parties are responsible..
DRAIN THE SWAMP !.
President Tinkles is filling the swamp, not draining it. And Republicans have controlled the Congress for most of the last 36 years since Reagan was first elected and the debt began ballooning out of control.
Trump is putting the most qualified people in cabinet positions. People who know how to get things done. That is good for America and you libs and dems are scared shitless that he is going to be successful. you fools would sacrifice the country for your party, pathetic assholes.
as to control of congress.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidents_of_the_United_States_and_control_of_Congress
Ben Carson turned down a cabinet position because he admitted he's not qualified to run a federal agency. He's now the Director of Housing and Urban Development.
So how exactly is Carson qualified to run a federal agency like HUD?
And I don't need Wikipedia to know Republicans have been in control of the Congress more than Democrats over the last 36 years.
I can't believe you need to look at a chart. <smh>LOLOLLOLOLAsk the Congress, they write all of the spending bills. Give credit to Obama for increased revenue since he raised taxes.
So, you hold the president responsible for nothing and congress responsible for everything? Interesting, since democrats have controlled congress for most of the last 80 years. But I agree, it was democrat/liberal policies that have put us in this massive debt situation. Said another way------------democrats trying to buy votes has put us in this situation. But to be fair, the establishment pukes in both parties are responsible..
DRAIN THE SWAMP !.
President Tinkles is filling the swamp, not draining it. And Republicans have controlled the Congress for most of the last 36 years since Reagan was first elected and the debt began ballooning out of control.
Trump is putting the most qualified people in cabinet positions. People who know how to get things done. That is good for America and you libs and dems are scared shitless that he is going to be successful. you fools would sacrifice the country for your party, pathetic assholes.
as to control of congress.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidents_of_the_United_States_and_control_of_Congress
Ben Carson turned down a cabinet position because he admitted he's not qualified to run a federal agency. He's now the Director of Housing and Urban Development.
So how exactly is Carson qualified to run a federal agency like HUD?
And I don't need Wikipedia to know Republicans have been in control of the Congress more than Democrats over the last 36 years.
did you look at the chart, dingleberry? Blue means dem control, red means repub control. Does your partisan bias prohibit looking at anything that denies your rhetoric?
You denigrate Carson, but celebrate the first pamphleteer president. Obama's experience was passing out lies on street corners and you take issue with an accomplished brain surgeon? once more, WTF is wrong with you?
I can't believe you need to look at a chart. <smh>LOLOLLOLOLSo, you hold the president responsible for nothing and congress responsible for everything? Interesting, since democrats have controlled congress for most of the last 80 years. But I agree, it was democrat/liberal policies that have put us in this massive debt situation. Said another way------------democrats trying to buy votes has put us in this situation. But to be fair, the establishment pukes in both parties are responsible..
DRAIN THE SWAMP !.
President Tinkles is filling the swamp, not draining it. And Republicans have controlled the Congress for most of the last 36 years since Reagan was first elected and the debt began ballooning out of control.
Trump is putting the most qualified people in cabinet positions. People who know how to get things done. That is good for America and you libs and dems are scared shitless that he is going to be successful. you fools would sacrifice the country for your party, pathetic assholes.
as to control of congress.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidents_of_the_United_States_and_control_of_Congress
Ben Carson turned down a cabinet position because he admitted he's not qualified to run a federal agency. He's now the Director of Housing and Urban Development.
So how exactly is Carson qualified to run a federal agency like HUD?
And I don't need Wikipedia to know Republicans have been in control of the Congress more than Democrats over the last 36 years.
did you look at the chart, dingleberry? Blue means dem control, red means repub control. Does your partisan bias prohibit looking at anything that denies your rhetoric?
You denigrate Carson, but celebrate the first pamphleteer president. Obama's experience was passing out lies on street corners and you take issue with an accomplished brain surgeon? once more, WTF is wrong with you?
Since 1981, Republicans controlled the House from 1995-2007, 2011-2017 -- 18 of the 36 years. Republicans controlled the Senate from 1981-1987, 1995-[mid]-2001, 1003-2007, 2015-2017 -- 18.5 of the 36 years.
Republicans ... 36.5
Democrats ..... 35.5
Because debt wasn't a problem before Reagan came in and tripled it.I can't believe you need to look at a chart. <smh>LOLOLLOLOL
President Tinkles is filling the swamp, not draining it. And Republicans have controlled the Congress for most of the last 36 years since Reagan was first elected and the debt began ballooning out of control.
Trump is putting the most qualified people in cabinet positions. People who know how to get things done. That is good for America and you libs and dems are scared shitless that he is going to be successful. you fools would sacrifice the country for your party, pathetic assholes.
as to control of congress.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidents_of_the_United_States_and_control_of_Congress
Ben Carson turned down a cabinet position because he admitted he's not qualified to run a federal agency. He's now the Director of Housing and Urban Development.
So how exactly is Carson qualified to run a federal agency like HUD?
And I don't need Wikipedia to know Republicans have been in control of the Congress more than Democrats over the last 36 years.
did you look at the chart, dingleberry? Blue means dem control, red means repub control. Does your partisan bias prohibit looking at anything that denies your rhetoric?
You denigrate Carson, but celebrate the first pamphleteer president. Obama's experience was passing out lies on street corners and you take issue with an accomplished brain surgeon? once more, WTF is wrong with you?
Since 1981, Republicans controlled the House from 1995-2007, 2011-2017 -- 18 of the 36 years. Republicans controlled the Senate from 1981-1987, 1995-[mid]-2001, 1003-2007, 2015-2017 -- 18.5 of the 36 years.
Republicans ... 36.5
Democrats ..... 35.5
why did you start with 1981? The liberal mess in DC started long before that. Go back to FDR and run your numbers. But you wont do that, I understand. Like a good little libtardian, you take something out of context and try to make your case. I get it. You are fooling no one.
Because debt wasn't a problem before Reagan came in and tripled it.I can't believe you need to look at a chart. <smh>LOLOLTrump is putting the most qualified people in cabinet positions. People who know how to get things done. That is good for America and you libs and dems are scared shitless that he is going to be successful. you fools would sacrifice the country for your party, pathetic assholes.
as to control of congress.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidents_of_the_United_States_and_control_of_Congress
Ben Carson turned down a cabinet position because he admitted he's not qualified to run a federal agency. He's now the Director of Housing and Urban Development.
So how exactly is Carson qualified to run a federal agency like HUD?
And I don't need Wikipedia to know Republicans have been in control of the Congress more than Democrats over the last 36 years.
did you look at the chart, dingleberry? Blue means dem control, red means repub control. Does your partisan bias prohibit looking at anything that denies your rhetoric?
You denigrate Carson, but celebrate the first pamphleteer president. Obama's experience was passing out lies on street corners and you take issue with an accomplished brain surgeon? once more, WTF is wrong with you?
Since 1981, Republicans controlled the House from 1995-2007, 2011-2017 -- 18 of the 36 years. Republicans controlled the Senate from 1981-1987, 1995-[mid]-2001, 1003-2007, 2015-2017 -- 18.5 of the 36 years.
Republicans ... 36.5
Democrats ..... 35.5
why did you start with 1981? The liberal mess in DC started long before that. Go back to FDR and run your numbers. But you wont do that, I understand. Like a good little libtardian, you take something out of context and try to make your case. I get it. You are fooling no one.
You're a moron. Debt is not always a problem. Especially when debt as a percentage of GDP is relatively low. Like everything else you discuss, regardless of the topic, you have no fucking clue what you're yammering about.Because debt wasn't a problem before Reagan came in and tripled it.I can't believe you need to look at a chart. <smh>LOLOL
Ben Carson turned down a cabinet position because he admitted he's not qualified to run a federal agency. He's now the Director of Housing and Urban Development.
So how exactly is Carson qualified to run a federal agency like HUD?
And I don't need Wikipedia to know Republicans have been in control of the Congress more than Democrats over the last 36 years.
did you look at the chart, dingleberry? Blue means dem control, red means repub control. Does your partisan bias prohibit looking at anything that denies your rhetoric?
You denigrate Carson, but celebrate the first pamphleteer president. Obama's experience was passing out lies on street corners and you take issue with an accomplished brain surgeon? once more, WTF is wrong with you?
Since 1981, Republicans controlled the House from 1995-2007, 2011-2017 -- 18 of the 36 years. Republicans controlled the Senate from 1981-1987, 1995-[mid]-2001, 1003-2007, 2015-2017 -- 18.5 of the 36 years.
Republicans ... 36.5
Democrats ..... 35.5
why did you start with 1981? The liberal mess in DC started long before that. Go back to FDR and run your numbers. But you wont do that, I understand. Like a good little libtardian, you take something out of context and try to make your case. I get it. You are fooling no one.
debt has always been a problem, you just cherry picked the congressional control data to fit your agenda.
you are fooling no one but yourself. Liberalism is the cause of our debt increases, no matter who sits in the white house. The idea that the government OWES you a living is the cause.
You're a moron. Debt is not always a problem. Especially when debt as a percentage of GDP is relatively low. Like everything else you discuss, regardless of the topic, you have no fucking clue what you're yammering about.Because debt wasn't a problem before Reagan came in and tripled it.I can't believe you need to look at a chart. <smh>did you look at the chart, dingleberry? Blue means dem control, red means repub control. Does your partisan bias prohibit looking at anything that denies your rhetoric?
You denigrate Carson, but celebrate the first pamphleteer president. Obama's experience was passing out lies on street corners and you take issue with an accomplished brain surgeon? once more, WTF is wrong with you?
Since 1981, Republicans controlled the House from 1995-2007, 2011-2017 -- 18 of the 36 years. Republicans controlled the Senate from 1981-1987, 1995-[mid]-2001, 1003-2007, 2015-2017 -- 18.5 of the 36 years.
Republicans ... 36.5
Democrats ..... 35.5
why did you start with 1981? The liberal mess in DC started long before that. Go back to FDR and run your numbers. But you wont do that, I understand. Like a good little libtardian, you take something out of context and try to make your case. I get it. You are fooling no one.
debt has always been a problem, you just cherry picked the congressional control data to fit your agenda.
you are fooling no one but yourself. Liberalism is the cause of our debt increases, no matter who sits in the white house. The idea that the government OWES you a living is the cause.
Aww, look at how the forum liar tried to alter the debate. I didn't say too much debt is not a problem. I said debt is not always a problem. You have to measure it against something; and the standard for that something is GDP.when a country has so much debt that it can only afford to pay the interest, then that country has too much debt.You're a moron. Debt is not always a problem. Especially when debt as a percentage of GDP is relatively low. Like everything else you discuss, regardless of the topic, you have no fucking clue what you're yammering about.Because debt wasn't a problem before Reagan came in and tripled it.I can't believe you need to look at a chart. <smh>
Since 1981, Republicans controlled the House from 1995-2007, 2011-2017 -- 18 of the 36 years. Republicans controlled the Senate from 1981-1987, 1995-[mid]-2001, 1003-2007, 2015-2017 -- 18.5 of the 36 years.
Republicans ... 36.5
Democrats ..... 35.5
why did you start with 1981? The liberal mess in DC started long before that. Go back to FDR and run your numbers. But you wont do that, I understand. Like a good little libtardian, you take something out of context and try to make your case. I get it. You are fooling no one.
debt has always been a problem, you just cherry picked the congressional control data to fit your agenda.
you are fooling no one but yourself. Liberalism is the cause of our debt increases, no matter who sits in the white house. The idea that the government OWES you a living is the cause.
Thanks for showing the forum you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Not that more evidence of that was needed, but thanks just the same.The "% of GDP" bullshit is just a dodge to cover up the real issue, and if you had the brains of a slug, you would understand that.
Hisses the priss who speaks about debt while not comprehending the relationship between debt and GDPYou continue to make a fool of yourself in every thread that you enter. You amuse me with your stupidity, but you are a liberal so that's what we expect.
Conservatives love to blame Democrats for the debt, but so far the only one to pay off the debt was a Democrat. Has any Republican even tried to pay off the debt?
Aww, look at how the forum liar tried to alter the debate. I didn't say too much debt is not a problem. I said debt is not always a problem. You have to measure it against something; and the standard for that something is GDP.when a country has so much debt that it can only afford to pay the interest, then that country has too much debt.You're a moron. Debt is not always a problem. Especially when debt as a percentage of GDP is relatively low. Like everything else you discuss, regardless of the topic, you have no fucking clue what you're yammering about.Because debt wasn't a problem before Reagan came in and tripled it.why did you start with 1981? The liberal mess in DC started long before that. Go back to FDR and run your numbers. But you wont do that, I understand. Like a good little libtardian, you take something out of context and try to make your case. I get it. You are fooling no one.
debt has always been a problem, you just cherry picked the congressional control data to fit your agenda.
you are fooling no one but yourself. Liberalism is the cause of our debt increases, no matter who sits in the white house. The idea that the government OWES you a living is the cause.
Thanks for showing the forum you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Not that more evidence of that was needed, but thanks just the same.The "% of GDP" bullshit is just a dodge to cover up the real issue, and if you had the brains of a slug, you would understand that.
Hisses the priss who speaks about debt while not comprehending the relationship between debt and GDPYou continue to make a fool of yourself in every thread that you enter. You amuse me with your stupidity, but you are a liberal so that's what we expect.
^^^ Redfish doubling down on stupid ^^^Aww, look at how the forum liar tried to alter the debate. I didn't say too much debt is not a problem. I said debt is not always a problem. You have to measure it against something; and the standard for that something is GDP.when a country has so much debt that it can only afford to pay the interest, then that country has too much debt.You're a moron. Debt is not always a problem. Especially when debt as a percentage of GDP is relatively low. Like everything else you discuss, regardless of the topic, you have no fucking clue what you're yammering about.Because debt wasn't a problem before Reagan came in and tripled it.
debt has always been a problem, you just cherry picked the congressional control data to fit your agenda.
you are fooling no one but yourself. Liberalism is the cause of our debt increases, no matter who sits in the white house. The idea that the government OWES you a living is the cause.
Thanks for showing the forum you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Not that more evidence of that was needed, but thanks just the same.The "% of GDP" bullshit is just a dodge to cover up the real issue, and if you had the brains of a slug, you would understand that.
Hisses the priss who speaks about debt while not comprehending the relationship between debt and GDPYou continue to make a fool of yourself in every thread that you enter. You amuse me with your stupidity, but you are a liberal so that's what we expect.
the debt to GDP ratio is a creation of the spenders in congress to justify adding more debt. If you are too dumb to understand that, then I am wasting my time with you.
^^^ Redfish doubling down on stupid ^^^Aww, look at how the forum liar tried to alter the debate. I didn't say too much debt is not a problem. I said debt is not always a problem. You have to measure it against something; and the standard for that something is GDP.when a country has so much debt that it can only afford to pay the interest, then that country has too much debt.You're a moron. Debt is not always a problem. Especially when debt as a percentage of GDP is relatively low. Like everything else you discuss, regardless of the topic, you have no fucking clue what you're yammering about.debt has always been a problem, you just cherry picked the congressional control data to fit your agenda.
you are fooling no one but yourself. Liberalism is the cause of our debt increases, no matter who sits in the white house. The idea that the government OWES you a living is the cause.
Thanks for showing the forum you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Not that more evidence of that was needed, but thanks just the same.The "% of GDP" bullshit is just a dodge to cover up the real issue, and if you had the brains of a slug, you would understand that.
Hisses the priss who speaks about debt while not comprehending the relationship between debt and GDPYou continue to make a fool of yourself in every thread that you enter. You amuse me with your stupidity, but you are a liberal so that's what we expect.
the debt to GDP ratio is a creation of the spenders in congress to justify adding more debt. If you are too dumb to understand that, then I am wasting my time with you.
"A low debt-to-GDP ratio indicates an economy that produces and sells goods and services sufficient to pay back debts without incurring further debt."
Thanks for asking the question which proves what an imbecile you are.^^^ Redfish doubling down on stupid ^^^Aww, look at how the forum liar tried to alter the debate. I didn't say too much debt is not a problem. I said debt is not always a problem. You have to measure it against something; and the standard for that something is GDP.when a country has so much debt that it can only afford to pay the interest, then that country has too much debt.You're a moron. Debt is not always a problem. Especially when debt as a percentage of GDP is relatively low. Like everything else you discuss, regardless of the topic, you have no fucking clue what you're yammering about.
Thanks for showing the forum you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Not that more evidence of that was needed, but thanks just the same.The "% of GDP" bullshit is just a dodge to cover up the real issue, and if you had the brains of a slug, you would understand that.
Hisses the priss who speaks about debt while not comprehending the relationship between debt and GDPYou continue to make a fool of yourself in every thread that you enter. You amuse me with your stupidity, but you are a liberal so that's what we expect.
the debt to GDP ratio is a creation of the spenders in congress to justify adding more debt. If you are too dumb to understand that, then I am wasting my time with you.
"A low debt-to-GDP ratio indicates an economy that produces and sells goods and services sufficient to pay back debts without incurring further debt."
great quote. the best debt/GDP ratio is 0/X. Zero debt to whatever number you pick for GDP.
In your personal life are you better off with or without debt? This shit is not complicated. Its very simple unless your brain has been fried by liberal indoctrination.
Thanks for asking the question which proves what an imbecile you are.^^^ Redfish doubling down on stupid ^^^Aww, look at how the forum liar tried to alter the debate. I didn't say too much debt is not a problem. I said debt is not always a problem. You have to measure it against something; and the standard for that something is GDP.when a country has so much debt that it can only afford to pay the interest, then that country has too much debt.
Thanks for showing the forum you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Not that more evidence of that was needed, but thanks just the same.The "% of GDP" bullshit is just a dodge to cover up the real issue, and if you had the brains of a slug, you would understand that.
Hisses the priss who speaks about debt while not comprehending the relationship between debt and GDPYou continue to make a fool of yourself in every thread that you enter. You amuse me with your stupidity, but you are a liberal so that's what we expect.
the debt to GDP ratio is a creation of the spenders in congress to justify adding more debt. If you are too dumb to understand that, then I am wasting my time with you.
"A low debt-to-GDP ratio indicates an economy that produces and sells goods and services sufficient to pay back debts without incurring further debt."
great quote. the best debt/GDP ratio is 0/X. Zero debt to whatever number you pick for GDP.
In your personal life are you better off with or without debt? This shit is not complicated. Its very simple unless your brain has been fried by liberal indoctrination.
I have plenty of debt and yes, my life is better off because of it. I live in a nearly 4000 sqft lakeside home in a luxurious south Florida neighborhood. One pricey (and another not as pricey) car in my garage. I'm living the dream I could not have afforded had I not borrowed the money to pay for them.
Sorry, you don't get to change the question now that it blew up in your face.Thanks for asking the question which proves what an imbecile you are.^^^ Redfish doubling down on stupid ^^^Aww, look at how the forum liar tried to alter the debate. I didn't say too much debt is not a problem. I said debt is not always a problem. You have to measure it against something; and the standard for that something is GDP.
Thanks for showing the forum you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Not that more evidence of that was needed, but thanks just the same.
Hisses the priss who speaks about debt while not comprehending the relationship between debt and GDP
the debt to GDP ratio is a creation of the spenders in congress to justify adding more debt. If you are too dumb to understand that, then I am wasting my time with you.
"A low debt-to-GDP ratio indicates an economy that produces and sells goods and services sufficient to pay back debts without incurring further debt."
great quote. the best debt/GDP ratio is 0/X. Zero debt to whatever number you pick for GDP.
In your personal life are you better off with or without debt? This shit is not complicated. Its very simple unless your brain has been fried by liberal indoctrination.
I have plenty of debt and yes, my life is better off because of it. I live in a nearly 4000 sqft lakeside home in a luxurious south Florida neighborhood. One pricey (and another not as pricey) car in my garage. I'm living the dream I could not have afforded had I not borrowed the money to pay for them.
Ok, sounds like your lifestyle is similar to mine. Now, would you better off financially if all those things were paid for? Yes or no.
Sorry, you don't get to change the question now that it blew up in your face.Thanks for asking the question which proves what an imbecile you are.^^^ Redfish doubling down on stupid ^^^the debt to GDP ratio is a creation of the spenders in congress to justify adding more debt. If you are too dumb to understand that, then I am wasting my time with you.
"A low debt-to-GDP ratio indicates an economy that produces and sells goods and services sufficient to pay back debts without incurring further debt."
great quote. the best debt/GDP ratio is 0/X. Zero debt to whatever number you pick for GDP.
In your personal life are you better off with or without debt? This shit is not complicated. Its very simple unless your brain has been fried by liberal indoctrination.
I have plenty of debt and yes, my life is better off because of it. I live in a nearly 4000 sqft lakeside home in a luxurious south Florida neighborhood. One pricey (and another not as pricey) car in my garage. I'm living the dream I could not have afforded had I not borrowed the money to pay for them.
Ok, sounds like your lifestyle is similar to mine. Now, would you better off financially if all those things were paid for? Yes or no.
Like myself, debt allows folks to obtain things they couldn't otherwise afford. Debt is not always bad. It can be if you accumulate too much debt than you can afford to pay back; but "too much debt" isn't a number. It's a ratio based on how much money you either have or earn. You know, just like the ratio between GDP and the federal debt.
BOOM! Your own example blows up in your face again. Did you see it this time or was your head too busy exploding?
Sorry, you don't get to change the question now that it blew up in your face.Thanks for asking the question which proves what an imbecile you are.^^^ Redfish doubling down on stupid ^^^the debt to GDP ratio is a creation of the spenders in congress to justify adding more debt. If you are too dumb to understand that, then I am wasting my time with you.
"A low debt-to-GDP ratio indicates an economy that produces and sells goods and services sufficient to pay back debts without incurring further debt."
great quote. the best debt/GDP ratio is 0/X. Zero debt to whatever number you pick for GDP.
In your personal life are you better off with or without debt? This shit is not complicated. Its very simple unless your brain has been fried by liberal indoctrination.
I have plenty of debt and yes, my life is better off because of it. I live in a nearly 4000 sqft lakeside home in a luxurious south Florida neighborhood. One pricey (and another not as pricey) car in my garage. I'm living the dream I could not have afforded had I not borrowed the money to pay for them.
Ok, sounds like your lifestyle is similar to mine. Now, would you better off financially if all those things were paid for? Yes or no.
Like myself, debt allows folks to obtain things they couldn't otherwise afford. Debt is not always bad. It can be if you accumulate too much debt than you can afford to pay back; but "too much debt" isn't a number. It's a ratio based on how much money you either have or earn. You know, just like the ratio between GDP and the federal debt.
BOOM! Your own example blows up in your face again. Did you see it this time or was your head too busy exploding?
