who was laughing when Bush was calling Iran a nuclear threat again?

[fletchisrhsm]

Fletcher your post #135 has nothing to do with mine. Furthermore, it turns history and logic completely on its ear and makes you appear to be a blabbering fool. Especially your nazi crap which has no relationship to present-day Israeli reality or intent. Never has someone used so many words to say so little, yet reveal so much about himself.

And try hitting the 'Enter' key every once in a while. At least then everything you haven't a clue about will be legible.

It obviously goes over you head. But hey, what do you expect from a gay DJ out of Philly? If your going to respond back to me at least have something of value to say rather then avoiding it with that nonsense above. Lets try this again. Ill give you another example. My Great Grandmother and Grandfather came from Germany in the late 1800's. Thus im German, like your Jewish. Am i "Pro-German"? Nope. Couldnt give a fuck about Germany to be honest. Why? Because i have NO CONTROL WHERE MY GRANDPARENTS FUCKED. Nor any control over whom they were. That is why a judge people on a people by people basis, not some pretentious anonymity like heritage or birth right.

 

[ScottL]

Yeah Fletch that explains it. Someone who can't differentiate between "you're" and "your" is just too intelligent for me to comprehend. And now I'm gay. I guess you win again. Cya in another month when you troll through again.

 

[Mistermj]

So, in essence what you have is a more aggressive spending whore in Obama then his predecessor Bush. But make no mistake about it, Bush like Jimmy Carter then Regan then Bush 1 before him... they just uped the ante. Only Clinton broke this trend and whether it was Congress or not, the ends were clearly stated. To say they are clearly different i naive if not moronic. They are cut from the same cloth. Ive always said Bush tax cuts were not enough, i wanted even more tax cuts because savings is what produces wealth not some fiat printing press. And with the inflation and devaluation the goes with it robbing hard working Americans of their wealth, the less money being wasted in Washington the better.

With that said, Bush doubled the national debt in his 8 years. And that was precisely because he spent more then he took in. And while its true a wealthy family can afford more debt, if you never pay on the principal and only pay the interest while adding more debt, thus making the interest payment expand even more, eventually is catches up to you, regardless how wealthy you are. In fact over the next decade, we are projected to be in the red an additional 9+ trillion. Out of the 9+ trillion more then half will be interest alone. Now that the national debt is over $12 trillion, the White House estimates that the government’s interest payment on the debt will exceed $700 billion a year in 2019, up from $202 billion this year, even if annual budget deficits shrink drastically. These numbers are very low because the interest rates are so low, but we cant keep rates at zero can we? Its obvious the fed rate cuts dont work anymore so the only choice is to deliberately raise the rate of inflation (print more money). That is where we are now.

Only Clinton broke this trend and whether it was Congress or not, the ends were clearly stated

That is not true that Clinton broke the deficit trend.

Clinton's "surplus" were based on budget "projections"...which turned out to be false.

In reality there was no Clinton surplus in real terms.

Fletch, think man. Quit being the biggest sheeple here. !~~~!

=============

While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it's curious to see Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.

Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury (see note about this link below) website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:

<center><table border="1"> <tbody><tr><td>Fiscal
Year</td><td>Year
Ending</td><td>National Debt</td><td>Deficit</td></tr> <tr><td>FY1993 </td><td>09/30/1993 </td><td>$4.411488 trillion</td><td> </td></tr> <tr><td>FY1994 </td><td>09/30/1994 </td><td>$4.692749 trillion </td><td>$281.26 billion</td></tr> <tr><td>FY1995 </td><td>09/29/1995 </td><td>$4.973982 trillion </td><td>$281.23 billion</td></tr> <tr><td>FY1996 </td><td>09/30/1996 </td><td>$5.224810 trillion </td><td>$250.83 billion</td></tr> <tr><td>FY1997 </td><td>09/30/1997 </td><td>$5.413146 trillion </td><td>$188.34 billion</td></tr> <tr><td>FY1998 </td><td>09/30/1998 </td><td>$5.526193 trillion </td><td>$113.05 billion</td></tr> <tr><td>FY1999 </td><td>09/30/1999 </td><td>$5.656270 trillion </td><td>$130.08 billion</td></tr> <tr><td>FY2000 </td><td>09/29/2000 </td><td>$5.674178 trillion </td><td>$17.91 billion</td></tr> <tr><td>FY2001 </td><td>09/28/2001 </td><td>$5.807463 trillion </td><td>$133.29 billion</td></tr> </tbody></table></center>

As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.

 

[fletchisrhsm]

Yeah Fletch that explains it. Someone who can't differentiate between "you're" and "your" is just too intelligent for me to comprehend. And now I'm gay. I guess you win again. Cya in another month when you troll through again.

Life goes on outside of the PC screen Scotty, you should try it sometime. :grandmais

 

[fletchisrhsm]

That is not true that Clinton broke the deficit trend.

Clinton's "surplus" were based on budget "projections"...which turned out to be false.

In reality there was no Clinton surplus in real terms.

Fletch, think man. Quit being the biggest sheeple here. !~~~!

=============

While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it's curious to see Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.

Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury (see note about this link below) website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:

<center><table border="1"> <tbody><tr><td>Fiscal
Year</td><td>Year
Ending</td><td>National Debt</td><td>Deficit</td></tr> <tr><td>FY1993 </td><td>09/30/1993 </td><td>$4.411488 trillion</td><td>
</td></tr> <tr><td>FY1994 </td><td>09/30/1994 </td><td>$4.692749 trillion </td><td>$281.26 billion</td></tr> <tr><td>FY1995 </td><td>09/29/1995 </td><td>$4.973982 trillion </td><td>$281.23 billion</td></tr> <tr><td>FY1996 </td><td>09/30/1996 </td><td>$5.224810 trillion </td><td>$250.83 billion</td></tr> <tr><td>FY1997 </td><td>09/30/1997 </td><td>$5.413146 trillion </td><td>$188.34 billion</td></tr> <tr><td>FY1998 </td><td>09/30/1998 </td><td>$5.526193 trillion </td><td>$113.05 billion</td></tr> <tr><td>FY1999 </td><td>09/30/1999 </td><td>$5.656270 trillion </td><td>$130.08 billion</td></tr> <tr><td>FY2000 </td><td>09/29/2000 </td><td>$5.674178 trillion </td><td>$17.91 billion</td></tr> <tr><td>FY2001 </td><td>09/28/2001 </td><td>$5.807463 trillion </td><td>$133.29 billion</td></tr> </tbody></table></center>

As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.

:lolBIG:

Those last fours years combined probably equal the last year W was if office, but carry on.

 

[JinnRikki]

Yeah Fletch that explains it. Someone who can't differentiate between "you're" and "your" is just too intelligent for me to comprehend. And now I'm gay. I guess you win again. Cya in another month when you troll through again.

Still using the spelling of you're to close as arguement? How un-progressive of you. :think2:

 

[fletchisrhsm]

Still using the spelling of you're to close as arguement? How un-progressive of you. :think2:

The Proverbial white flag is alive and well in Philly @)

 

[ScottL]

Argument JR. Maybe I should use Jew-baiting instead, like your pal here.

What white flag are you refering to fetchthejism? Are you saying I surrendered to you? You have quite a vivid imagination.

Would spending more time talking to you about anything be productive?

 

[ScottL]

Life goes on outside of the PC screen Scotty, you should try it sometime. :grandmais

That's ironic when it's typed by someone whose view of the world is so distorted from reality.

 

[Mistermj]

:lolBIG:

Those last fours years combined probably equal the last year W was if office, but carry on.

I hope you realize that Bush's last year is minuscule according to Obama's own deficit projections for the next 10 years...but as usual...the point is completely lost on you. What Clinton did or Bush did is gone...we can still have an impact on Obama's madness.

If you aren't railing against the projected Obama deficits...you don't have a dog in this hunt.

It's also pretty obvious you don't have a handle on the difference between billions and Trillions.

 

[fletchisrhsm]

I hope you realize that Bush's last year is minuscule according to Obama's own deficit projections for the next 10 years...but as usual...the point is completely lost on you. What Clinton did or Bush did is gone...we can still have an impact on Obama's madness.

If you aren't railing against the projected Obama deficits...you don't have a dog in this hunt.

It's also pretty obvious you don't have a handle on the difference between billions and Trillions.

Whats with all the dog hunting references anyway? You obviously are oblivious to the fact that me pointing out obvious deficit spending by Obama while clearly irresponsible its lost on def ears to the liberals who put him into power. They dont give a rats ass about debt. You and your ilk is the closest thing to the mainstream that can have any hope of getting things at least balanced (and that thought makes me sick) so it is what it is. My biggest hoot comes from giving a mirrior to faux republicans, because the irony keeps on rolling in. And i know alot obutthe difference between billions and trillions....why dont you bump some threads?

hno:

 

[superbeets]

[h=1][/h] Robert Levinson
[h=1]missing in Iran since 2007 he was working for the CIA[/h]An Associated Press investigation reveals that Levinson was working for the CIA. In an extraordinary breach of the most basic CIA rules, a team of analysts – with no authority to run spy operations – paid Levinson to gather intelligence from some of the world's darkest corners. He vanished while investigating the Iranian government for the US.


If Levinson remains alive at age 65, he has been held captive longer than any American, longer than the AP journalist Terry Anderson, who was held more than six years in Beirut. Unlike Anderson, Levinson's whereabouts and captors remain a mystery.

The US always suspected, but could never prove, that Levinson had been picked up by Iranian security forces.

What was not immediately clear, however, was whether Iran knew that Levinson was working for the CIA.


Now, nearly seven years later, investigators believe Iranian authorities must know. Levinson wasn't trained to resist interrogation. US officials could not imagine him withholding information from Iranian interrogators, who have been accused of the worst types of mental and physical abuses.

Iran executes hundreds of prisoners each year, human rights groups say. Many others disappear and are presumed dead. With Levinson's history of diabetes and high blood pressure, it was also possible he died under questioning.

• AP report reveals CIA scandal kept secret

 

[Willie99]

who was right and who was wrong?

 

[vitterd]

who was right and who was wrong?

Bush was right and punter at rx was wrong? Is that your bump here?

 

[Willie99]

Bush was right and punter at rx was wrong? Is that your bump here?

the entire left was wrong, and libtard nation mocked Bush when he said Iran was developing nuclear weapons

and I didn't bump either, get in the game already

 

[vitterd]

the entire left was wrong, and libtard nation mocked Bush when he said Iran was developing nuclear weapons

and I didn't bump either, get in the game already

Most of us mocked bush after he lied about iraq developing wmd's as his reason to go to war. Iran and iraq are not the same thing...speaking of getting in the game

 

[ScottL]

No WMD discovered in Iraq does not equate to "Bush lied."

 

[Willie99]

Most of us mocked bush after he lied about iraq developing wmd's as his reason to go to war. Iran and iraq are not the same thing...speaking of getting in the game

Iraq actually used WMD, the entire world believed he had WMD including libtard nation (so you're lying yet again), and Saddam was preventing inspectors from doing their jobs. If he allowed such, there's no war.

Rewriting history works in your world, not mine

and this thread was about "Iran", you don't even know what game is being played (no, it's not Candyland)

 

[vitterd]

No WMD discovered in Iraq does not equate to "Bush lied."

He used it as justification for war...lie in my book.

 

[vitterd]

Iraq actually used WMD, the entire world believed he had WMD including libtard nation (so you're lying yet again), and Saddam was preventing inspectors from doing their jobs. If he allowed such, there's no war.

Rewriting history works in your world, not mine

and this thread was about "Iran", you don't even know what game is being played (no, it's not Candyland)

You do know that most of the world beleived the wmd lie because it came from the war mongor bush admin right? I would have voted for war also based on the info. Unfortunately it was more bad info from the most destrcutive admin in us history.

Yeah, we all know it's about iran in this thread...but if you can follow anything past your partisan blinders...you would know what I'm talking about. But you only can see things from the far right and it is the reason you've earned the nickname wrong way willie.