Why can't Republicans explain their "Fiscal Policy"?

[Rshermr]

So oldstyle continues with the conservative dogma:

As usual, Rshermr...you spout off about things that you obviously don't know anything about other than the propaganda you've been fed by your favorite progressive web sites.

Not at all. No progessive site stuff. Just the report.

All four did NOT die within a "fairly short time" as you state. The initial attack started at 9:42 PM on Sept. 11...the attack that killed the two ex-Navy Seals at the Annex began at 5:15 AM on September 12th a full seven hours after the initial attack. So what you'd like us to believe is that the United States of America couldn't get ANY military assets...no drones...no fighter planes...no Special Forces on site in a space of 7 hours? That's bullshit and if you buy that excuse you're more naive than usual. Those ex-Seals were calling for air strikes...air strikes that couldn't be delivered because the assets that would have allowed that to take place were not sent.

So, you are blaming who?? The DOD could not get there in time, so the report says. So, where is your link, dipshit. You are quoting crap again. Without links. Which bat shit crazy con site says they were calling in air strikes??? Odd, oldstyle, you have no link again. Just accusations.

Fighter planes?? Drones?? Air strikes??? Where is your source, me poor ignorant con tool.

Clinton took "responsibility" after lying about how it happened in the first place but in doing so she also did her level best to point an accusing finger at someone else...as her testimony about budget cuts being to blame shows...even though one of her own State Department officials testified under oath that a lack of funding was never an issue in how security was assigned.

That would be, again, oldstyle, pure conservative propoganda. Read the report, you simple ignorant tool.

Did you hear Clinton explain why she repeatedly claimed that it was a spontaneous attack springing from protests of the You Tube video? I must have missed that. That was the part where she angrily asked why it mattered.

And you go on and on. Read the report. And stop trying to prove you are a conservative tool. And a congenital liar. We have it.

 

[Rshermr]

Ah, but they did. You silly conservative.

 

[Rshermr]

As for what Clinton supposedly meant?

Hillary Clinton on Benghazi Talking Points: ?What difference at this point does it make?? [VIDEO] | The Right Sphere

This is the video clip. She's being grilled over misleading the American people when she repeatedly stated that it was a spontaneous attack sprung from protests over an offensive video. Watch how she desperately tries to change the topic of conversation from WHY she went with a "story" that she knew was completely false to the importance of finding out who it was that did the crime.

That's a career politician at work...dodging the question in about as obvious a manner as I've ever seen as she hides behind her "anger" at being accused of doing EXACTLY what she did and having to explain her actions.

no, actually, that is a career conservative tool pushing his propaganda. And interpreting. You exist in your world, oldstyle. Happily, only a relatively small percentage of the population believes what they want to believe, regardless of the evidence. You are really pathetic.
But at least, we get to see one of your favorite sites. Right Sphere, Oldstyle. So, another lie unmasked. Your statement that you do not frequent right wing bat shit crazy web sites, up in smoke. Right Sphere. Nice, oldstyle. Always trying to get the non partisan truth.

Are you making the charge that Right Sphere doctored the video? That is was cut or edited in a misleading fashion? I simply Googled it and took the most complete clip of that part of her testimony that I could find after looking at others that were in fact edited. If you'd like to provide an alternate video that disproves what I just provided I'd love to see it.

i really do not know if they doctored it or not. Edited maybe, who knows. I am, my poor ignorant con, simply pointing out the obvious. You got a video from a far right bat shit crazy con site. Which means that I did not bother to watch it. Because I do not want to take the time to determine whether it was edited or not.
And it proves where you go to get your information.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ah, but they did. You silly conservative.

Why not run thru the steps that would support your claim?

Step 1) federal government reduces marginal tax rates.

Your turn.......

 

[Rshermr]

Ah, but they did. You silly conservative.

Why not run thru the steps that would support your claim?

Step 1) federal government reduces marginal tax rates.

Your turn.......

Federal Government realizes a decrease in tax revenues.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ah, but they did. You silly conservative.

Why not run thru the steps that would support your claim?

Step 1) federal government reduces marginal tax rates.

Your turn.......

Federal Government realizes a decrease in tax revenues.

Excellent! Why does that increase unemployment?
List all the rest of the steps needed to support your claim.

 

[Rshermr]

Why not run thru the steps that would support your claim?

Step 1) federal government reduces marginal tax rates.

Your turn.......

Federal Government realizes a decrease in tax revenues.

Excellent! Why does that increase unemployment?
List all the rest of the steps needed to support your claim.

No, I prefer to have you participate. It is more instructive.

Government must stop unpaid for programs, causing gov and private sector jobs to be lost.
UE rate starts up.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Federal Government realizes a decrease in tax revenues.

Excellent! Why does that increase unemployment?
List all the rest of the steps needed to support your claim.

No, I prefer to have you participate. It is more instructive.

Government must stop unpaid for programs, causing gov and private sector jobs to be lost.
UE rate starts up.

Which "unpaid for programs" were stopped under Reagan?

Your claim is getting weaker.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Poor ed. Still confused. Can not explain why with a bad economy, Reagan lowered taxes and drove the unemployment rate up over the next 18 months to 10.8%. Highest in the history of the US since the great republican depression.

the liberal is a grotesque congenital liar as always. He knows that Volker's record setting 20% interest rates drove unemployment up!!

 

[Rshermr]

Excellent! Why does that increase unemployment?
List all the rest of the steps needed to support your claim.

No, I prefer to have you participate. It is more instructive.

Government must stop unpaid for programs, causing gov and private sector jobs to be lost.
UE rate starts up.

Which "unpaid for programs" were stopped under Reagan?

Your claim is getting weaker.

I have no idea. But if you look at unemployment for both federal and overall workers, unemployment increased.
So, are you suggesting that projects went on while the funding for them was cut???

 

[Katzndogz]

The investigation proved that Hillary Clinton never saw the requests for aid and knew nothing about the dangers in Benghazi. Except there never was an investigation. It gives a whole new meaning to let's not and say we did. Statements were taken as to who knew what. The conclusion was everything went exactly as it was supposed to go.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Government must stop unpaid for programs, causing gov and private sector jobs to be lost.
UE rate starts up.

too stupid of course !! if governemnt fired 50% of its workers unemployment would be the same as they would have to find work in the private sector that would be newly enriched by the huge tax cuts!!

Every make work government job is just one less real job in the private sector. Got it now??

 

[Toronado3800]

Government must stop unpaid for programs, causing gov and private sector jobs to be lost.
UE rate starts up.

too stupid of course !! if governemnt fired 50% of its workers unemployment would be the same as they would have to find work in the private sector that would be newly enriched by the huge tax cuts!!

Every make work government job is just one less real job in the private sector. Got it now??

Think harder about the money trail.

 

[Oldstyle]

no, actually, that is a career conservative tool pushing his propaganda. And interpreting. You exist in your world, oldstyle. Happily, only a relatively small percentage of the population believes what they want to believe, regardless of the evidence. You are really pathetic.
But at least, we get to see one of your favorite sites. Right Sphere, Oldstyle. So, another lie unmasked. Your statement that you do not frequent right wing bat shit crazy web sites, up in smoke. Right Sphere. Nice, oldstyle. Always trying to get the non partisan truth.

Are you making the charge that Right Sphere doctored the video? That is was cut or edited in a misleading fashion? I simply Googled it and took the most complete clip of that part of her testimony that I could find after looking at others that were in fact edited. If you'd like to provide an alternate video that disproves what I just provided I'd love to see it.

i really do not know if they doctored it or not. Edited maybe, who knows. I am, my poor ignorant con, simply pointing out the obvious. You got a video from a far right bat shit crazy con site. Which means that I did not bother to watch it. Because I do not want to take the time to determine whether it was edited or not.
And it proves where you go to get your information.

It's one continuous video feed from start to finish, you buffoon...if you don't believe me then check it against the transcript from Clinton's testimony. You didn't even look at it? Typical, Rshermr behavior. If someone provides proof of something that doesn't jibe with what you THINK happened then it's either a "lie" or from a "bat shit con tool site".

 

[Oldstyle]

So oldstyle continues with the conservative dogma:

As usual, Rshermr...you spout off about things that you obviously don't know anything about other than the propaganda you've been fed by your favorite progressive web sites.

Not at all. No progessive site stuff. Just the report.

All four did NOT die within a "fairly short time" as you state. The initial attack started at 9:42 PM on Sept. 11...the attack that killed the two ex-Navy Seals at the Annex began at 5:15 AM on September 12th a full seven hours after the initial attack. So what you'd like us to believe is that the United States of America couldn't get ANY military assets...no drones...no fighter planes...no Special Forces on site in a space of 7 hours? That's bullshit and if you buy that excuse you're more naive than usual. Those ex-Seals were calling for air strikes...air strikes that couldn't be delivered because the assets that would have allowed that to take place were not sent.

So, you are blaming who?? The DOD could not get there in time, so the report says. So, where is your link, dipshit. You are quoting crap again. Without links. Which bat shit crazy con site says they were calling in air strikes??? Odd, oldstyle, you have no link again. Just accusations.

Fighter planes?? Drones?? Air strikes??? Where is your source, me poor ignorant con tool.

Clinton took "responsibility" after lying about how it happened in the first place but in doing so she also did her level best to point an accusing finger at someone else...as her testimony about budget cuts being to blame shows...even though one of her own State Department officials testified under oath that a lack of funding was never an issue in how security was assigned.

That would be, again, oldstyle, pure conservative propoganda. Read the report, you simple ignorant tool.

Did you hear Clinton explain why she repeatedly claimed that it was a spontaneous attack springing from protests of the You Tube video? I must have missed that. That was the part where she angrily asked why it mattered.

And you go on and on. Read the report. And stop trying to prove you are a conservative tool. And a congenital liar. We have it.

Do you honestly not know that we have the capablilty to fly air strikes anywhere in the Mediterranean from carriers in the Sixth Fleet in a matter of hours? A fully loaded F-16 can fly 500 miles...attack a surface target and fly home again. If you want to refuel them in flight with US Air Force Boeing KC-135s they have an almost unlimited range. An F-16 has a top speed of 1,500 mph. So you do the math, Sparky! You don't think there was a fighter plane ANYWHERE in the Mediterranean theatre that could have aided those people fighting for their lives in Benghazi at the Annex? If so then you are a world class idiot. Sigonella Air base is just 480 miles away! The Obama White House and the Department of Defense didn't act. THAT is why no military assets were on site to assist. The sad part is that one single air to ground smart missile from an F-16 would have probably sent those attackers running for their lives.

 

[Rshermr]

So oldstyle continues with the conservative dogma:

As usual, Rshermr...you spout off about things that you obviously don't know anything about other than the propaganda you've been fed by your favorite progressive web sites.

Not at all. No progessive site stuff. Just the report.



So, you are blaming who?? The DOD could not get there in time, so the report says. So, where is your link, dipshit. You are quoting crap again. Without links. Which bat shit crazy con site says they were calling in air strikes??? Odd, oldstyle, you have no link again. Just accusations.

Fighter planes?? Drones?? Air strikes??? Where is your source, me poor ignorant con tool.



That would be, again, oldstyle, pure conservative propoganda. Read the report, you simple ignorant tool.

Did you hear Clinton explain why she repeatedly claimed that it was a spontaneous attack springing from protests of the You Tube video? I must have missed that. That was the part where she angrily asked why it mattered.

And you go on and on. Read the report. And stop trying to prove you are a conservative tool. And a congenital liar. We have it.

Do you honestly not know that we have the capablilty to fly air strikes anywhere in the Mediterranean from carriers in the Sixth Fleet in a matter of hours? A fully loaded F-16 can fly 500 miles...attack a surface target and fly home again. If you want to refuel them in flight with US Air Force Boeing KC-135s they have an almost unlimited range. An F-16 has a top speed of 1,500 mph. So you do the math, Sparky! You don't think there was a fighter plane ANYWHERE in the Mediterranean theatre that could have aided those people fighting for their lives in Benghazi at the Annex? If so then you are a world class idiot. Sigonella Air base is just 480 miles away! The Obama White House and the Department of Defense didn't act. THAT is why no military assets were on site to assist. The sad part is that one single air to ground smart missile from an F-16 would have probably sent those attackers running for their lives.

That is really interesting, dipshit. Here is Oldstyle, telling us of the capabilities of an F16. Now, maybe you should let the DOD know that. because they flew in a special ops teams. You know, one of those secrative teams. Because they were not as smart as you. If only they had known about the F16. Jesus, Oldstyle, we all know that. Which, I guess, makes us all unpatriotic for not letting the head of military ops know that an F16 would have solved all of our problems. Either that, or you are a clown. I just do not know what to believe, Oldstyle. Maybe I should go out and read what to believe from your bat shit crazy con tool sites. Or I could have called FOX.

What is really interesting is that only you, and the bat shit crazy con web sites, and fox, say what you just said. All perfectly aligned. Only they believe that an air to ground missile would have solved their problem. Instead, military ops, being stupid as compared to you and the bat shit crazy con tool web sites, just did not want to do that. Now, next you are going to say that they were told to stand down. Which the report tells you they were not. In fact, they were never given any such order. But still, that is what the bat shit crazy con sites and Fox said. So, I am sure you believe so. Because, oldstyle, you believe what they tell you to believe.

Those lying DOD folks, and Hillary, for christ sake, are saying that the reports of what was happening were confused. No clear picture emerged. And the report agrees. But Oldstyle, well, he and Fox had a crystal clear picture as to exactly what was going on. No confused reports at all. They knew Everything. And the report must be wrong, because Fox is Never wrong. So, therefor, Oldstyle knows it all. Hell, Oldstyle has his own reporting arm to feed him a crystal clear picture of events in Libya. Yeah, I know it looks like it could, just possibly, be Oldstyle lying again. But he says he knows. Yes, I know Oldstyle is a proven liar. But still......

Keep at it Oldstyle. Keep posting the lies. Keep posting the lies that had no proof. Keep posting the lies that were put in the con sites before any investigation could happen. Keep posting lies that were talking points put in a hundred con sites, all the same. And keep posting the lies that have now been proven wrong. Because, Oldstyle, it proves who you are to anyone with a working mind. A sad little person who simply posts conservative propaganda. A person who lies over and over and over. A person who does not believe what the non partisan sites say. A person with no integrity.

 

[Rshermr]

Are you making the charge that Right Sphere doctored the video? That is was cut or edited in a misleading fashion? I simply Googled it and took the most complete clip of that part of her testimony that I could find after looking at others that were in fact edited. If you'd like to provide an alternate video that disproves what I just provided I'd love to see it.

i really do not know if they doctored it or not. Edited maybe, who knows. I am, my poor ignorant con, simply pointing out the obvious. You got a video from a far right bat shit crazy con site. Which means that I did not bother to watch it. Because I do not want to take the time to determine whether it was edited or not.
And it proves where you go to get your information.

It's one continuous video feed from start to finish, you buffoon...if you don't believe me then check it against the transcript from Clinton's testimony. You didn't even look at it? Typical, Rshermr behavior. If someone provides proof of something that doesn't jibe with what you THINK happened then it's either a "lie" or from a "bat shit con tool site".

No, oldstyle. You know what Red Sphere is. Go to their about us section. They tell you what they are. Look at all of their subject matter. It tells you what the site is. Only a congenital idiot could wonder what they are. Or Oldstyle. Which is redundant, I know.


then, Oldstyle, it is about you. Because you are giving the same interpretation that all sites like Red Sphere gave her statement, you buffoon. Which is different from what the rest of us heard. Because the rest of the population, outside of the small population of con tools, heard something quite different. And you are simply doing what you always do, buffoon (your word, not mine). You are simply parroting the conservative propaganda from the bat shit crazy con sites, and fox. Just, by coincidence, perfectly aligned.
And you ignore the other interpretations. those of the nonpartisan sites. Because their interpretation does not fit what you want to post. Because you ONLY post conservative dogma. Conservative propaganda. And you will be back, because, oldstyle, that is what you are paid to do.

 

[Rshermr]

Government must stop unpaid for programs, causing gov and private sector jobs to be lost.
UE rate starts up.

too stupid of course !! if governemnt fired 50% of its workers unemployment would be the same as they would have to find work in the private sector that would be newly enriched by the huge tax cuts!!

Every make work government job is just one less real job in the private sector. Got it now??

Think harder about the money trail.

But then, Ed IS part of the money trail. The very tail end.

 

[Oldstyle]

So oldstyle continues with the conservative dogma:

Not at all. No progessive site stuff. Just the report.



So, you are blaming who?? The DOD could not get there in time, so the report says. So, where is your link, dipshit. You are quoting crap again. Without links. Which bat shit crazy con site says they were calling in air strikes??? Odd, oldstyle, you have no link again. Just accusations.

Fighter planes?? Drones?? Air strikes??? Where is your source, me poor ignorant con tool.



That would be, again, oldstyle, pure conservative propoganda. Read the report, you simple ignorant tool.



And you go on and on. Read the report. And stop trying to prove you are a conservative tool. And a congenital liar. We have it.

Do you honestly not know that we have the capablilty to fly air strikes anywhere in the Mediterranean from carriers in the Sixth Fleet in a matter of hours? A fully loaded F-16 can fly 500 miles...attack a surface target and fly home again. If you want to refuel them in flight with US Air Force Boeing KC-135s they have an almost unlimited range. An F-16 has a top speed of 1,500 mph. So you do the math, Sparky! You don't think there was a fighter plane ANYWHERE in the Mediterranean theatre that could have aided those people fighting for their lives in Benghazi at the Annex? If so then you are a world class idiot. Sigonella Air base is just 480 miles away! The Obama White House and the Department of Defense didn't act. THAT is why no military assets were on site to assist. The sad part is that one single air to ground smart missile from an F-16 would have probably sent those attackers running for their lives.

That is really interesting, dipshit. Here is Oldstyle, telling us of the capabilities of an F16. Now, maybe you should let the DOD know that. because they flew in a special ops teams. You know, one of those secrative teams. Because they were not as smart as you. If only they had known about the F16. Jesus, Oldstyle, we all know that. Which, I guess, makes us all unpatriotic for not letting the head of military ops know that an F16 would have solved all of our problems. Either that, or you are a clown. I just do not know what to believe, Oldstyle. Maybe I should go out and read what to believe from your bat shit crazy con tool sites. Or I could have called FOX.

What is really interesting is that only you, and the bat shit crazy con web sites, and fox, say what you just said. All perfectly aligned. Only they believe that an air to ground missile would have solved their problem. Instead, military ops, being stupid as compared to you and the bat shit crazy con tool web sites, just did not want to do that. Now, next you are going to say that they were told to stand down. Which the report tells you they were not. In fact, they were never given any such order. But still, that is what the bat shit crazy con sites and Fox said. So, I am sure you believe so. Because, oldstyle, you believe what they tell you to believe.

Those lying DOD folks, and Hillary, for christ sake, are saying that the reports of what was happening were confused. No clear picture emerged. And the report agrees. But Oldstyle, well, he and Fox had a crystal clear picture as to exactly what was going on. No confused reports at all. They knew Everything. And the report must be wrong, because Fox is Never wrong. So, therefor, Oldstyle knows it all. Hell, Oldstyle has his own reporting arm to feed him a crystal clear picture of events in Libya. Yeah, I know it looks like it could, just possibly, be Oldstyle lying again. But he says he knows. Yes, I know Oldstyle is a proven liar. But still......

Keep at it Oldstyle. Keep posting the lies. Keep posting the lies that had no proof. Keep posting the lies that were put in the con sites before any investigation could happen. Keep posting lies that were talking points put in a hundred con sites, all the same. And keep posting the lies that have now been proven wrong. Because, Oldstyle, it proves who you are to anyone with a working mind. A sad little person who simply posts conservative propaganda. A person who lies over and over and over. A person who does not believe what the non partisan sites say. A person with no integrity.

When the DOD says they couldn't get assets to the Benghazi area in time to help? To be honest...it's such a laughable claim, given the time line of the attacks, that you HAVE to know that they are lying in order to cover their own asses. Only a liberal "drone" such as yourself is buying that excuse.

When Hilary Clinton and Leon Panetta make the excuse that the situation on the ground was too "confused" and "uncertain" to order a military response? They were watching what happened as it unfolded on live streaming video! They were receiving reports from the people on the ground as to what was happening. There were two drones overhead. The truth is they had more intel about what was happening in order to make a decision then probably any commanders in the history of warfare and yet they failed to act. The only way they could have had a better idea of what was going on at the Annex is if they were there in person! Once again...unless you a progressive "water carrier" for this Administration you KNOW the excuse that the situation was too uncertain is a total cop out.

 

[Oldstyle]

i really do not know if they doctored it or not. Edited maybe, who knows. I am, my poor ignorant con, simply pointing out the obvious. You got a video from a far right bat shit crazy con site. Which means that I did not bother to watch it. Because I do not want to take the time to determine whether it was edited or not.
And it proves where you go to get your information.

It's one continuous video feed from start to finish, you buffoon...if you don't believe me then check it against the transcript from Clinton's testimony. You didn't even look at it? Typical, Rshermr behavior. If someone provides proof of something that doesn't jibe with what you THINK happened then it's either a "lie" or from a "bat shit con tool site".

No, oldstyle. You know what Red Sphere is. Go to their about us section. They tell you what they are. Look at all of their subject matter. It tells you what the site is. Only a congenital idiot could wonder what they are. Or Oldstyle. Which is redundant, I know.


then, Oldstyle, it is about you. Because you are giving the same interpretation that all sites like Red Sphere gave her statement, you buffoon. Which is different from what the rest of us heard. Because the rest of the population, outside of the small population of con tools, heard something quite different. And you are simply doing what you always do, buffoon (your word, not mine). You are simply parroting the conservative propaganda from the bat shit crazy con sites, and fox. Just, by coincidence, perfectly aligned.
And you ignore the other interpretations. those of the nonpartisan sites. Because their interpretation does not fit what you want to post. Because you ONLY post conservative dogma. Conservative propaganda. And you will be back, because, oldstyle, that is what you are paid to do.

Are you making the claim that video was doctored in some way...selectively edited in some way? If so I'd love to know how. Show me what was left out or added that makes it unreliable!

The truth is...you can't refute what that video SHOWS and therefore you've fallen back on what you ALWAYS do when you're losing an argument...you accuse the person who's made a point you can't discount of either "lying" or of being a "bat shit crazy con".

I didn't USE any of what "Red Sphere" blogged. I didn't even read it to be honest. All I was doing was looking at all of the available video clips of Clinton speaking and her back and forth with the Senator from Utah. The video clip I chose was the only one that WASN'T edited or of ALL of Clinton's testimony which would have forced anyone who watched it to hear what she said before pounding on the table and angrily declaring what does it matter, to watch several HOURS of video. I wanted an uncut...unedited version of that testy exchange because I wanted to refute your claim that I was taking Clinton's comments out of context.