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.
Look who's talking, Mizz Driveby. I deny history revisionism because I know better. Libs hate that Reagan proved them wrong so they lie.You see yourself too highly, that's the problem. I've researched and debated it for over 20 years and your shit is water weak.No one need to defend against gnat shit.
Now it's just a matter of pride with you people. You are so consumed with how people perceive you that you're willing to adhere to a belief system that has let you down in every regard.
Debate? You don't debate, you deny. You have no facts or figures to support your point of view. You just repeat whatever Trump's latest tweet said and call it fact.
Look who's talking, Mizz Driveby. I deny history revisionism because I know better. Libs hate that Reagan proved them wrong so they lie.You see yourself too highly, that's the problem. I've researched and debated it for over 20 years and your shit is water weak.No one need to defend against gnat shit.
Now it's just a matter of pride with you people. You are so consumed with how people perceive you that you're willing to adhere to a belief system that has let you down in every regard.
Debate? You don't debate, you deny. You have no facts or figures to support your point of view. You just repeat whatever Trump's latest tweet said and call it fact.
I've posted links to facts and figures proving Reagan's weak employment record, his record on raising taxes when he realized his tax cuts didn't work, and the increase and in poverty and food stamp useage under Reagan.
Do you read these links? No. You just denied everything that was in them.
LOL, now comes the bluff, like they all worked before.Look who's talking, Mizz Driveby. I deny history revisionism because I know better. Libs hate that Reagan proved them wrong so they lie.You see yourself too highly, that's the problem. I've researched and debated it for over 20 years and your shit is water weak.No one need to defend against gnat shit.
Now it's just a matter of pride with you people. You are so consumed with how people perceive you that you're willing to adhere to a belief system that has let you down in every regard.
Debate? You don't debate, you deny. You have no facts or figures to support your point of view. You just repeat whatever Trump's latest tweet said and call it fact.
I've posted links to facts and figures proving Reagan's weak employment record, his record on raising taxes when he realized his tax cuts didn't work, and the increase and in poverty and food stamp useage under Reagan.
Do you read these links? No. You just denied everything that was in them.
Where did this Trump and Mueller buddies come from. I did some searching and found only one point where two men met and that was when papers needed to be signed by Ashcroft when he was in hospital over 10 years ago. One of them complemented the other. Besides both being republicans and working for the justice dept, I don't see any indication that they were "buddies". Did they play goIf together on weekend, party together, or were seen together at luncheons. If you have a link that says more than they met once with Ashcroft one night at the hospital, I would be interested in reading it.Trump isn't frightened of any fair investigation. But this one won't be fair because of the fact that Mueller is buddies with Comey and he's hiring Hillary's lawyers to conduct the investigation.Mueller is there to do as much rotten shit as possible, making it look like Trump is being investigated for imaginary crimes, keeping a cloud over his administration, for the sole purpose of keeping him from legitimately going after the criminal acts of the previous administration..
The chief ethics lawyer from Dubya's administration is predicting impeachment proceedings if Big Orange bounces Mueller out.
According to attorney Richard Painter, there is a plot afoot among Big Orange and his cronies to find justification to end Mueller's stint as special council. If the plot ends in the firing of Mueller, this would be additional obstruction of justice by the gang of crooks now in the White House.
The evidence already piled up against Big Orange and his criminal team is adequate for impeachment. But, if Mueller is fired by Big Orange, House Republicans would be forced to act, if for no other reason than to keep the stink from Big Orange’s administration from rubbing off on them.
After the House impeaches Big Orange, the Senate trial that will follow will definitely put Pence in the White House.
However, the Pence presidency will be just as short as that of the Big Orange Head, because Pence is equally dirty.
So, if Mueller get fired by Big Orange, news for the next year or so will be dominated by Republicans kicking other Republicans out of office. And voters will be spectators, sitting on the sidelines throughout the entire ordeal.
Getting Big Orange, his henchmen, Pence, and the discreet staff assisting in his crimes out of the way in a timely fashion, might save the mid-term elections for the GOP. But only if they remove the foul odors left by the mobs installed in the White House earlier this year.
Pence Will Soon be President if Trump Fires Mueller, says Bush Lawyer
_______________________________________________________________________________________
____________________
View attachment 134179
.
America knows this is BS.
An honest media would cover it that way.
Mueller is there to get to the bottom of the Russian interference. If Trump and his people aren't guilty of wrongdoing, why is Trump so frightened of the investigation. Obama and Clinton basically sat back and let the Benghazi investigations go on and on and on because they had done nothing wrong.
If Obama was a "criminal", why didn't the Republicans go after him. They pilloried Bill Clinton for a blow job. I'm sure if they had ANYTHING on Obama, they would have gone after him tooth and claw. It's the Republican way.
You realize its not putting party over country to not impeach the legitimate president over nothing. Right?
In reality, the Reagan years included record job growth and labor participation rates.
In reality, the Reagan years included record job growth and labor participation rates.
Actually, Carter had a pretty decent jobs record:
Private Sector Jobs Created (000s)
Carter (1977 - 1981): 9,041
Reagan (1981 - 1985): 5,360
Reagan (1985 - 1989): 9,357
As for Labor Participation Rate, of course Reagan's would be higher...the two largest generations in American history were both in the workforce. The LPR is lower now because all those Boomers are retiring.
That nonsense has been debunked in other threads. The LFPR for older workers has increased. The problem is the drop in younger cohorts - due to the abyssymal economy damaged by Big Government.
That nonsense has been debunked in other threads. The LFPR for older workers has increased. The problem is the drop in younger cohorts - due to the abyssymal economy damaged by Big Government.
Well, Conservatives have controlled most state legislatures since 2010, and they've controlled the House since 2011, and the Senate since 2015. So if there's a lag in youth unemployment, it's because you guys have been running the show and doing a poor job of it.
Look who's talking, Mizz Driveby. I deny history revisionism because I know better. Libs hate that Reagan proved them wrong so they lie.You see yourself too highly, that's the problem. I've researched and debated it for over 20 years and your shit is water weak.Now it's just a matter of pride with you people. You are so consumed with how people perceive you that you're willing to adhere to a belief system that has let you down in every regard.
Debate? You don't debate, you deny. You have no facts or figures to support your point of view. You just repeat whatever Trump's latest tweet said and call it fact.
I've posted links to facts and figures proving Reagan's weak employment record, his record on raising taxes when he realized his tax cuts didn't work, and the increase and in poverty and food stamp useage under Reagan.
Do you read these links? No. You just denied everything that was in them.
You presented Fake Stuff.
Just sayin.
In reality, the Reagan years included record job growth and labor participation rates.
Look who's talking, Mizz Driveby. I deny history revisionism because I know better. Libs hate that Reagan proved them wrong so they lie.You see yourself too highly, that's the problem. I've researched and debated it for over 20 years and your shit is water weak.
Debate? You don't debate, you deny. You have no facts or figures to support your point of view. You just repeat whatever Trump's latest tweet said and call it fact.
I've posted links to facts and figures proving Reagan's weak employment record, his record on raising taxes when he realized his tax cuts didn't work, and the increase and in poverty and food stamp useage under Reagan.
Do you read these links? No. You just denied everything that was in them.
You presented Fake Stuff.
Just sayin.
In reality, the Reagan years included record job growth and labor participation rates.
I did not post "fake stuff". If you had bothered to read what I posted, you would know that I posted charts and graphs from government websites and respected think tanks.
I know the looney right wingers won't accept any left wing websites or studies so I take care to stick with sources which are unimpeachable.
It seems to me the lower high school dropout rate between 1994 and 2014 of about 25% and an increase in college attendance of about 10% goes a long way in explaining the lower participation rate among young people. In the 24 to 54 age group, there are a multitude of factors that probably would explain the lowered participation rate such as job loss in manufacturing, out sourcing overseas, and the increase demand for higher skilled workers and decreasing demand for lower skilled workers. The increase participation for older folks would seem to be directly related to the lower participation rate when they were younger resulting less money saved for retirement.In reality, the Reagan years included record job growth and labor participation rates.
Actually, Carter had a pretty decent jobs record:
Private Sector Jobs Created (000s)
Carter (1977 - 1981): 9,041
Reagan (1981 - 1985): 5,360
Reagan (1985 - 1989): 9,357
As for Labor Participation Rate, of course Reagan's would be higher...the two largest generations in American history were both in the workforce. The LPR is lower now because all those Boomers are retiring.
That nonsense has been debunked in other threads. The LFPR for older workers has increased. The problem is the drop in younger cohorts - due to the abyssymal economy damaged by Big Government.
View attachment 134348
Civilian labor force participation rate by age, gender, race, and ethnicity
Private Sector Jobs Created (000s)
Carter (1977 - 1981): 9,041
Reagan (1981 - 1985): 5,360
Reagan (1985 - 1989): 9,357
As for Labor Participation Rate, of course Reagan's would be higher...the two largest generations in American history were both in the workforce. The LPR is lower now because all those Boomers are retiring.
Buddy, I lived through Jimmy Carter's term. There was a good reason that guy got thrown out on his ass.
Your memory differs wildly from facts. Carter's administration was measure with the Misery Index. Double digit inflation, gas shortages. It sucked big time. His weak handling of the Iranian hostages was the last straw for many.Buddy, I lived through Jimmy Carter's term. There was a good reason that guy got thrown out on his ass.
I'm just giving you facts. The facts are they Carter's job growth was better than Reagan's first term, and pretty much equal with his second. Carter also added about 1.3 million government jobs in his four years, with Reagan losing 23,000 in his first four but adding 1.4 million in his second term.
Your memory differs wildly from facts. Carter's administration was measure with the Misery Index. Double digit inflation, gas shortages. It sucked big time. His weak handling of the Iranian hostages was the last straw for many.
Reagan's term added a lot to GDP so we could AFFORD to hire more government employees. That's how it's supposed to work. You are either off the charts stupid or very dishonest. Maybe both.
You farted and tried to cover it with yet another fart. GDP went way up. But we had record growth. The debt did increase but he also had a dem congress, it wasn't all his spending. You are making a fool out of yourself because many of us were alive then.Your memory differs wildly from facts. Carter's administration was measure with the Misery Index. Double digit inflation, gas shortages. It sucked big time. His weak handling of the Iranian hostages was the last straw for many.
Reagan's term added a lot to GDP so we could AFFORD to hire more government employees. That's how it's supposed to work. You are either off the charts stupid or very dishonest. Maybe both.
As I said, I was just relaying facts. The facts are that Carter's job growth was better than Reagan's first term and nearly equal to his second. Reagan didn't "add" to GDP, he added to the debt, tripling it in 8 years while doubling the deficit as well.
You farted and tried to cover it with yet another fart.
GDP went way up. But we had record growth. The debt did increase but he also had a dem congress, it wasn't all his spending. You are making a fool out of yourself because many of us were alive then.
Reagan had this pesky thing called communism to deal with. Clinton cut the military. His spending and democrat spending were one in the same? You idiot!You farted and tried to cover it with yet another fart.
Projection isn't going to help. And Reagan's GDP growth was beaten by Clinton's GDP growth. Also, for all Reagan's GDP growth, what of the debt that tripled? What of the deficit that doubled? What of the 1.4 million government jobs he created?
US Real GDP during Reagan grew from $6.5T on December 31st, 1980 to $8.61T on December 31st, 1988. Growth of 32%.
US Real GDP during Clinton grew from $9.41T on December 31st, 1992 to $12.68T on December 31st, 2000. Growth of 35%
So Clinton grew GDP more than Reagan. Clinton also produced surpluses whereas Reagan doubled the deficit and tripled the debt. Oh, and Clinton created more private-sector jobs. Nearly 21,000,000 during Clinton vs. 14,600,000 during Reagan.
GDP went way up. But we had record growth. The debt did increase but he also had a dem congress, it wasn't all his spending. You are making a fool out of yourself because many of us were alive then.
"His" spending and "Congress'" spending are one in the same. Reagan signed those budgets.
