Uh huh

He doesn't understand it anyway, Joe. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

your typical reply when you get facts based on emperical data shoved up your ass, sideways in fact.

CJ7, I would suggest that you go back and take another look at the stuff you copied & pasted into post #50. If you think about it for just a moment, you might notice a rather glaring omission.

At the top of the post, you said you were giving us the "facts" about FY 2009 spending, including who was responsible for what in the way of spending, and at what time. But if you're purporting to give us facts, don't you think it might be helpful to present all of the facts?

Not a word was mentioned about the portion of the politically-motivated $860 billion stimulus package attributable to that year. Nor was there mention of the bloated, pork-laden budget reconciliation Obama signed just a couple of months after taking office. Even the big-spending Bush did not want to sign it before leaving office.

It might also be mentioned that about one-third of the "stimulus package" consisted of supposedly temporary tax cuts. Even though they, of course, were not counted in the spending numbers, they expanded the deficit all the same.

your typical reply when you get facts based on emperical data shoved up your ass, sideways in fact. Originally Posted by CJ7

You can always tell when COG knows the debate is not going to his liking.

He'll claim you don't understand.

He'll call you an Obamaton who will defend Obama know matter what.

Or he'll just flip out and call you a fucking asshole (my favorite).

CJ7, I would suggest that you go back and take another look at the stuff you copied & pasted into post #50. If you think about it for just a moment, you might notice a rather glaring omission.

At the top of the post, you said you were giving us the "facts" about FY 2009 spending, including who was responsible for what in the way of spending, and at what time. But if you're purporting to give us facts, don't you think it might be helpful to present all of the facts?

Not a word was mentioned about the portion of the politically-motivated $860 billion stimulus package attributable to that year. Nor was there mention of the bloated, pork-laden budget reconciliation Obama signed just a couple of months after taking office. Even the big-spending Bush did not want to sign it before leaving office.

It might also be mentioned that about one-third of the "stimulus package" consisted of supposedly temporary tax cuts. Even though they, of course, were not counted in the spending numbers, they expanded the deficit all the same. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

I already posted 09 spending from both sides.

Im a blind partisan for doing so ... which makes perfect sense if you dont think about it.

No, I will call you an Obamaton who will defend Obama no matter what because that is what you do. It's simple, really.

And just to bring a smile to your face, you're a fucking asshole. Happy?

No, I will call you an Obamaton who will defend Obama no matter what because that is what you do. It's simple, really.

And just to bring a smile to your face, you're a fucking asshole. Happy? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I'm not sure i understand.

No, I will call you an Obamaton who will defend Obama no matter what because that is what you do. It's simple, really.

And just to bring a smile to your face, you're a fucking asshole. Happy? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

see?




I rest my case thanks COG, errr Cranky Old Gay

I already posted 09 spending from both sides. Originally Posted by CJ7

No you didn't.

Go back and read what I posted, and try actually thinking about it this time.

No you didn't.

Go back and read what I posted, and try actually thinking about it this time. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

sure I did, two days ago


19 & 20

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=520140

sure I did, two days ago Originally Posted by CJ7

Then why did you conveniently leave it out of post #50? In that post, you claimed to present the "facts" about FY 2009 spending, but ignored the big gorilla sitting right in the middle of the living room.

If you're going to try to be one of the forum's leading apologists for Obama's fiscal record, it would behoove you to at least try to be intellectually honest, don't you think?

Then why did you conveniently leave it out of post #50? In that post, you claimed to present the "facts" about FY 2009 spending, but ignored the big gorilla sitting right in the middle of the living room.

If you're going to try to be one of the forum's leading apologists for Obama's fiscal record, it would behoove you to at least try to be intellectually honest, don't you think? Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

did you mean 49?

me fucking with cof was relevant to an entirely different thread that you brought up


once again Im not apologizing for anyone, I posted the facts on record and gave neither credit for or damnation to anyone ... you said then I was a blind partisan, now Im the top Obama apologist?


apparently blind partisanship suits you well and with a hypocritical neck tie no less.

did you mean 49?

me fucking with cof was relevant to an entirely different thread that you brought up


once again Im not apologizing for anyone, I posted the facts on record and gave neither credit for or damnation to anyone ... you said then I was a blind partisan, now Im the top Obama apologist?


apparently blind partisanship suits you well and with a hypocritical neck tie no less. Originally Posted by CJ7

You're obviously the one who's the hypocritical blind partisan. Everyone can see that. You have no problem when your guys take us on a fiscal suicide march, only when the guys across the aisle do the same.

If that's not hypocrisy, why don't you try to tell us what it is?

whats to explain? the president submitted budget proposals, congress didnt pass a budget resolution

days of old exacty like when Gingrich stalled the clinton budget to the point of no return and it bit him in the ass ... spending increased because CONGRESS spent the money .... the country would have been pretty much shut down then idiots like you would have had something to really bitch about.. Originally Posted by CJ7

You are the idiot, CBJ7. The Dims were 100% in control of both houses of Congress and the White House in 2009 and 2010. Odumbo had Congress append Bush's 2009 budget just weeks after taking office; thus, he increased spending. And here your dumb ass is trying to say the Republican's blocked Odumbo's 2010 and 2011 budgets!?! Yeah, and the Republicans blocked Odumbo's budgets the same way they blocked Odumbo Care.


http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/

same as the other two

you couldnt figure it out?

anyway, feel free to dispute any of those numbers, Ive already tried Originally Posted by CJ7

Why can't you just provide the link like everyone else does? It's really easy.

You are the idiot, CBJ7. The Dims were 100% in control of both houses of Congress and the White House in 2009 and 2010. Odumbo had Congress append Bush's 2009 budget just weeks after taking office; thus, he increased spending. And here your dumb ass is trying to say the Republican's blocked Odumbo's 2010 and 2011 budgets!?! Yeah, and the Republicans blocked Odumbo's budgets the same way they blocked Odumbo Care.


http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

look at the chart dumbass, see 09 ... notice the color of the bar for 09? ... 95% of the bar is red .. doesnt red represent republican spending?

exactly what Ive been saying, thank you.


obviously since you posted facts from the same link I used for two days, youre an Obamanite and a left wing partisan hack

ask COF and CM, just they'll tell you