Whistlebritches
15 years ago

I didn't blame anyone for my statements. And the kkk comment I made was brought up and admitted by me here, I don't deny that. It is, however, tame in comparison to all that's been said about Obama and liberals regularly here. So don't get your panties in a bunch. You started the race bs on this thread with this gem:

"and if you're not a racist(Obama is half white and we know thats the only side of him the racist liberals of your party voted for).....VOTE HERMAN CAIN IN 2012 a real leader who can lead us out of the Obummer era."

It seems that you've got race on the mind. Funny how people get so upset about being perceived as racist always bring it up with stupid comments like that or say 'I have black friends'. The lady doth protest too much.

FuzzNJ wrote:




I have black,brown and white friends......a black step son.......a mulatto daughter-in-law.....a hispanic son-in-law.....and an Asian wife.....no room for racism in my life.Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

My comment about Mr Cain was intended to provoke thought.How are you and your liberal party going to smear an upstanding,intelligent,conservative black man from Georgia.....who BTW sounds black.That'll drive libs infugginsane.LMAO


Ron
ZRX1200
15 years ago
Oh yeah well I said that I guess but its not as bad as what you guys said...........
nice spin Fuzz.
Robert I was addressing what Frank had said then pretended he didn't. I don't give a rats azz about Maher myself but was in disagreement with his point that he was not a liberal. It was inaccurate. That was all.
FuzzNJ
  • FuzzNJ
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
15 years ago

My comment about Mr Cain was intended to provoke thought.How are you and your liberal party going to smear an upstanding,intelligent,conservative black man from Georgia.....who BTW sounds black.That'll drive libs infugginsane.LMAO


Ron

Whistlebritches wrote:



Intended to provoke thought? lmfao. There is no reason to smear the dude. No one's even talking about him at all. He's got no chance anyway. No one has even talked about him here at all, but you already assume when a liber does it's going to be racist? And he 'sounds black'? Oh good lord. I'm the racist? Dude you are one seriously f'd up person.
Whistlebritches
15 years ago

Intended to provoke thought? lmfao. There is no reason to smear the dude. No one's even talking about him at all. He's got no chance anyway. No one has even talked about him here at all, but you already assume when a liber does it's going to be racist? And he 'sounds black'? Oh good lord. I'm the racist? Dude you are one seriously f'd up person.

FuzzNJ wrote:




You're right........there's no reason to smear him....BUT .....if his campaign starts gaining traction,and I think it will,mark my words.."DEMS WILL SMEAR THIS MAN" and you'll be right there on the bandwagon.

My recommendation of 6 months rest in a rubber room still stands.


Ron
frankj1
15 years ago

Oh yeah well I said that I guess but its not as bad as what you guys said...........
nice spin Fuzz.
Robert I was addressing what Frank had said then pretended he didn't. I don't give a rats azz about Maher myself but was in disagreement with his point that he was not a liberal. It was inaccurate. That was all.

ZRX1200 wrote:


Z...I used to watch Maher alot, not so much the last few years but once in a while. The man used to call himself a Libertarian...he had no use for either major party. I'm sure neither of us really care how he votes. But when Ron Paul first showed up on the public radar Maher did publicly push people to consider some, if not all, of his visions for a better way of governing. And he did this as a reaction to what was happening with American leadership at the time...in his opinion it was bad. That didn't pass the lefty litmus test, wouldn't you agree?

Attacking republicans when they clearly stray from the ideals they claim are their identity does not make anyone a lib, it makes them accurate critics. And it is absolutely what they should do if their role is public commentary. And when the same person attacks democrats when they are idiotic or hypocritical, it makes him an accurate critic again.

I'm more worried about people that want to shut up opposition...seems like the ultimate anti-American position to me. Without the "great debate" we are no better than any one-party dominated society, far left or far right!
ZRX1200
15 years ago
Absolutely agreed bro!
I never heard him say any of that so I would agree with your initial assertion. I watched him when he had that politically incorrect show. And the group think got old to me. He seemed to put his humor on guests points and never seemed to really have many polar opposites on there.
I still thought he was humorous then but the show got old to me.
Now he really seems to be a male lefty version of Ann Coulter. Hope you get what I mean as well as I gotcha now bro.
Papachristou
15 years ago
there is so much effed up stuff in this thread from Fuzzy i dont have enough time in the day to go through each line to offer the commen sense and factual rebuttles.
HockeyDad
15 years ago

there is so much effed up stuff in this thread from Fuzzy i dont have enough time in the day to go through each line to offer the commen sense and factual rebuttles.

Papachristou wrote:





In all fairness, You have to spell it right to rip FuzzNJ!

"common" "rebuttals"

Stinkdyr
15 years ago
I would be anti-Somali pirates...............except that I am shaking in fear that the illiberal lefties will call me racist.


8-[
MikeyRavioli
15 years ago
There was never a surplus. Every year there has been national debt. Every year the debt has gone up. That means that every year the government spent more than it took in. If there was ever a surplus, especially one as large as Clinton supposedly left, then the national debt would have gone down or been eliminated.
jpotts
15 years ago

And another example. Another tough guy from the 101st keyboard brigade. Go ahead and show me where I start insulting people out of the box, before I'm insulted. Won't be able to.

FuzzNJ wrote:




I dunno. Most of your idiotic comments and beliefs insult the intelligent of most around here.

Maybe if you got a clue, you wouldn't be so despised.
FuzzNJ
  • FuzzNJ
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
15 years ago

I dunno. Most of your idiotic comments and beliefs insult the intelligent of most around here.

Maybe if you got a clue, you wouldn't be so despised.

jpotts wrote:



Ah, so I need to think just like everyone else here so you guys aren't FORCED to act like children and insult instead of discuss.

FuzzNJ
  • FuzzNJ
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
15 years ago

There was never a surplus. Every year there has been national debt. Every year the debt has gone up. That means that every year the government spent more than it took in. If there was ever a surplus, especially one as large as Clinton supposedly left, then the national debt would have gone down or been eliminated.

MikeyRavioli wrote:



It is the third year in a row the federal government has taken in more than it spent, and has paid down the debt. The last time the U.S. government had a third consecutive year of national debt reduction was 1949, said the official.

The federal budget surplus for fiscal year 1999 was $122.7 billion, and $69.2 billion for fiscal year 1998. Those back-to-back surpluses, the first since 1957, allowed the Treasury to pay down $138 billion in national debt.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/ 
FuzzNJ
  • FuzzNJ
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
15 years ago

I would be anti-Somali pirates...............except that I am shaking in fear that the illiberal lefties will call me racist.


8-[

Stinkdyr wrote:



Obama killed a few of those too.
FuzzNJ
  • FuzzNJ
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
15 years ago

there is so much effed up stuff in this thread from Fuzzy i dont have enough time in the day to go through each line to offer the commen sense and factual rebuttles.

Papachristou wrote:



Nor could you with anything that would resemble a logical argument, but that's ok. I probably couldn't racially profile someone renting a car. We all have our strengths and weaknesses.
jig+pig
15 years ago
IT'S THOSE/THESE DUMBASSED DEMOCRATS THAT JUST PASSED A BILL IN MARYLAND THAT WILL NOT ALLOW ME TO HAVE CIGARS SHIPPED TO MY HOUSE!

FU###NG DEMOCRATS, LIBERAL PUKES!
FuzzNJ
  • FuzzNJ
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
15 years ago

IT'S THOSE/THESE DUMBASSED DEMOCRATS THAT JUST PASSED A BILL IN MARYLAND THAT WILL NOT ALLOW ME TO HAVE CIGARS SHIPPED TO MY HOUSE!

FU###NG DEMOCRATS, LIBERAL PUKES!

jig+pig wrote:



lmao, all caps and everything. I don't like that law either. But you do know it's not just Democrats who support legislation like this, right? Laws like this have been proposed and are spreading all over the country. States are losing a lot of tax revenue to other states from sales over the internet. I used to buy cigarettes from Switzerland, but that was stopped years ago because no one was getting taxes from it. Same concept with the banning of internet poker, which was mostly heralded by the right and criticized by (gulp) Barney Frank. But go on your rant if it makes you feel better.
DrMaddVibe
15 years ago

Nor could you with anything that would resemble a logical argument, but that's ok. I probably couldn't racially profile someone renting a car. We all have our strengths and weaknesses.

FuzzNJ wrote:




You're bringing Logical back?
[frypan] [frypan] [frypan] [frypan] [frypan]




LOLZ!!!!!


MikeyRavioli
15 years ago

It is the third year in a row the federal government has taken in more than it spent, and has paid down the debt. The last time the U.S. government had a third consecutive year of national debt reduction was 1949, said the official.

The federal budget surplus for fiscal year 1999 was $122.7 billion, and $69.2 billion for fiscal year 1998. Those back-to-back surpluses, the first since 1957, allowed the Treasury to pay down $138 billion in national debt.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/ 

FuzzNJ wrote:




Maybe I am wrong, but I think Fuzz is a victim of fuzzy math.

http://www.ustreas.gov/ 

http://www.ustreas.gov/bureaus/ 

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/ 

Scroll down to the section "The U.S. Public Debt" and click on "See the U.S. Public Debt to the Penny."

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np 


Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury 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:


Fiscal
Year Year
Ending National Debt
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion



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.
DrafterX
15 years ago
wasn't it a projected surplus over the next 50 years or somethin......??? 😕
Users browsing this topic