How many of you Libs want some Crow Pie?

SJJRSJJS

Verified User
I need to start my baking early, so be good Lib boys and girls and tell me ahead of time just how many pieces of Crow pie you want, because we all know that you are going to eat some crow on Wednesday after Mitt Romney wins, how sweet it is. The chickens will come home to roost on November 7th...LOL...O MYasss. What about you Zappy, I have a double oven, so you can eat as many pies as you want, no problema:):good4u::mad::good4u::whoa::good4u:?
 
broski I have no idea why you want to expose yourself like this. Just stay humble. If obama loses you can laugh, if romney loses you wont have posts like this that libs will be able to trot out and laugh their asses off at you. There is very little gain but potential for major annoyance in making posts like this
 
broski I have no idea why you want to expose yourself like this. Just stay humble. If obama loses you can laugh, if romney loses you wont have posts like this that libs will be able to trot out and laugh their asses off at you. There is very little gain but potential for major annoyance in making posts like this
If I thought Romney would lose, I sure wouldn't be so bold, butt I am betting my "Board career" on Mitt Romney winning. The Crow pie "Joke" goes way back, with many on this Board/Forum understanding where I'm coming from. As far as I'm concerned this is all about having some fun, as in teasing Libs. Actually I am a Fiscal Conservative but a Social Liberal, an Independent, so I see both sides of the story. My only beef is that the Main Stream media is cheating in that they are not reporting all the news fairly, AKA BengaziGate being the latest, and I faithfully watch Fox News and CNN.
 
broski I have no idea why you want to expose yourself like this. Just stay humble. If obama loses you can laugh, if romney loses you wont have posts like this that libs will be able to trot out and laugh their asses off at you. There is very little gain but potential for major annoyance in making posts like this

He has always been that way, he can't help it.
 
spending more in four years than Bush did in eight is not slowing........adding $6trillion is not a cut......sorry......

Another right winger who lives in a vacuum.

2012-10-10-chart_spending_growth.jpg


Repeat After Me: Obama Cut the Deficit and Slowed Spending to Lowest Level in 50 Years

The CBO reported in January, 2009 that the federal budget deficit for that fiscal year, which began on October 1, 2008, was already $1.2 trillion. President Obama's additional '09 spending added another $200 billion to the deficit, bringing the total to $1.412 trillion. Unprecedented and huge, but given the enormity of the financial crisis and the depth of the recession, there weren't many other options on the table. Add two wars into the mix and there you go.

But since then, deficit spending has dropped precipitously. Why? Chiefly because President Obama signed the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act in February, 2010, which mandates that new spending be offset with spending cuts or new revenue. Yes, a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress passed this legislation. Guess how many congressional Republicans voted for the law. Zero. Not one. Perhaps during this week's debate, Vice President Biden could ask Rep. Paul Ryan who voted against the bill.

Once again, Mitt Romney's website still contains the words: "Since President Obama assumed office three years ago, federal spending has accelerated at a pace without precedent in recent history." Pants on fire times a thousand.

Fact: the president's record is exactly the opposite of what Romney says. And how long ago was this statistic released by the Wall Street Journal and subsequently affirmed by fact checkers? Five months ago. On September 26, when asked about his record of mendacious claims, Mitt Romney told CNN's Jim Acosta, "We've been absolutely spot on. And any time there's been anything that's been amiss, we correct it or remove it." Oh yeah? Well, Mr. Romney, you missed a whopper.

Another whopper: during Romney's "winning" debate against the president last week, he claimed, "The president said he'd cut the deficit in half. Unfortunately, he doubled it." Another lie. Yes, the president said he'd cut the deficit in half -- but he absolutely did not double it. As I've outlined here, he's cut the deficit by 22 percent so far -- 35 percent by the end of 2013.

Furthermore, I can name two Democratic presidents who've cut the deficit through the duration of their presidencies: Clinton and Obama. And what about Republican presidents? Bush 43? He turned a $200 billion surplus into a $400 billion deficit by the end of his first term, and a $1.2 trillion deficit by the end of his second term. Bush 41? No. Reagan? No. Ford? No. Nixon? No. The last Republican president who cut the deficit was Eisenhower. By the way, I'm sick of hearing the farcical line about Congress "controlling the purse strings." Any six-year-old child who's watched a Schoolhouse Rock cartoon knows the president signs all legislation before it becomes law, including appropriations bills. The House can't magically spend money without a presidential signature. Besides, if the president is to be blamed for the size of the deficit -- and the Republicans have been merciless on the president in this area in spite of reality, and their own party's record -- it's only fair that he should get credit when the deficit is reduced.

Yet without objections, the Romney campaign and the Republicans continue to champion their status as "fiscal hawks" even though the facts prove that to correlate "fiscal responsibility" and "Republican Party" is absurd on its face. Even though Romney's plan for the deficit and the economy is as shifty, murky and ambiguous as he is, there appears to be nothing -- absolutely nothing -- about the Romney plan that's any different from every Republican presidential plan in recent history, but we're supposed to believe that Romney will cut the deficit anyway. In fact, as we all know by now, Romney is proposing $5 trillion in un-funded tax cuts, as well as massive increases in military spending, and, if Romney wins, you can bet the Republicans will jettison their deficit and debt hawkery into the next nearest memory hole to be forgotten until another Democrat enters the White House.

If the Obama campaign and the Democrats can talk about the deficit in these terms, it undercuts one of the leading Republican attacks and becomes a winning issue for the president. Plus it helps to cement the reality of Mitt Romney The Pathological Liar.

Consequently, the president is responsible for the lowest government spending growth in 60 years, according to the Wall Street Journal's Market Watch.
 
Another right winger who lives in a vacuum.

2012-10-10-chart_spending_growth.jpg


Repeat After Me: Obama Cut the Deficit and Slowed Spending to Lowest Level in 50 Years

The CBO reported in January, 2009 that the federal budget deficit for that fiscal year, which began on October 1, 2008, was already $1.2 trillion. President Obama's additional '09 spending added another $200 billion to the deficit, bringing the total to $1.412 trillion. Unprecedented and huge, but given the enormity of the financial crisis and the depth of the recession, there weren't many other options on the table. Add two wars into the mix and there you go.

But since then, deficit spending has dropped precipitously. Why? Chiefly because President Obama signed the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act in February, 2010, which mandates that new spending be offset with spending cuts or new revenue. Yes, a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress passed this legislation. Guess how many congressional Republicans voted for the law. Zero. Not one. Perhaps during this week's debate, Vice President Biden could ask Rep. Paul Ryan who voted against the bill.

Once again, Mitt Romney's website still contains the words: "Since President Obama assumed office three years ago, federal spending has accelerated at a pace without precedent in recent history." Pants on fire times a thousand.

Fact: the president's record is exactly the opposite of what Romney says. And how long ago was this statistic released by the Wall Street Journal and subsequently affirmed by fact checkers? Five months ago. On September 26, when asked about his record of mendacious claims, Mitt Romney told CNN's Jim Acosta, "We've been absolutely spot on. And any time there's been anything that's been amiss, we correct it or remove it." Oh yeah? Well, Mr. Romney, you missed a whopper.

Another whopper: during Romney's "winning" debate against the president last week, he claimed, "The president said he'd cut the deficit in half. Unfortunately, he doubled it." Another lie. Yes, the president said he'd cut the deficit in half -- but he absolutely did not double it. As I've outlined here, he's cut the deficit by 22 percent so far -- 35 percent by the end of 2013.

Furthermore, I can name two Democratic presidents who've cut the deficit through the duration of their presidencies: Clinton and Obama. And what about Republican presidents? Bush 43? He turned a $200 billion surplus into a $400 billion deficit by the end of his first term, and a $1.2 trillion deficit by the end of his second term. Bush 41? No. Reagan? No. Ford? No. Nixon? No. The last Republican president who cut the deficit was Eisenhower. By the way, I'm sick of hearing the farcical line about Congress "controlling the purse strings." Any six-year-old child who's watched a Schoolhouse Rock cartoon knows the president signs all legislation before it becomes law, including appropriations bills. The House can't magically spend money without a presidential signature. Besides, if the president is to be blamed for the size of the deficit -- and the Republicans have been merciless on the president in this area in spite of reality, and their own party's record -- it's only fair that he should get credit when the deficit is reduced.

Yet without objections, the Romney campaign and the Republicans continue to champion their status as "fiscal hawks" even though the facts prove that to correlate "fiscal responsibility" and "Republican Party" is absurd on its face. Even though Romney's plan for the deficit and the economy is as shifty, murky and ambiguous as he is, there appears to be nothing -- absolutely nothing -- about the Romney plan that's any different from every Republican presidential plan in recent history, but we're supposed to believe that Romney will cut the deficit anyway. In fact, as we all know by now, Romney is proposing $5 trillion in un-funded tax cuts, as well as massive increases in military spending, and, if Romney wins, you can bet the Republicans will jettison their deficit and debt hawkery into the next nearest memory hole to be forgotten until another Democrat enters the White House.

If the Obama campaign and the Democrats can talk about the deficit in these terms, it undercuts one of the leading Republican attacks and becomes a winning issue for the president. Plus it helps to cement the reality of Mitt Romney The Pathological Liar.

Consequently, the president is responsible for the lowest government spending growth in 60 years, according to the Wall Street Journal's Market Watch.

:rofl2:
 
REPEAT AFTER ME...

When Obama took over in 2008, the deficit was $10 trillion...today its over $16 trillion......SPIN THAT FACT :whoa:

Obama said he would cut it in half within 4 years or be a one term President...DID HE NOT SAY THAT? DID HE FOLLOW THRU? DOES THAT MAKE HIM A LIAR?
 
Another right winger who lives in a vacuum.

/grins.....so you try to counter my claim he spent more than Bush by displaying a chart that shows he spent 1.4% more than Bush....I suppose next you'll be showing me a chart that says the national debt is more than $16 trillion to prove its less than Bush's $10 trillion....
 
well Obama didnt realise how insane the republican party has become.


They became more insane as the days went on.

The tea party was created when?


The country knows the republicans did everything they could to keep the country and the economy down the entire time.

The country KNOWS what your republican congressional members did.


Your party will NEVER live that down and you will NOT be able to rewrite the history you created.


You placed party over country and harmed the American people in the process.


I wont offer you crow or pie after this election.


I will merely be glad meatsack Americans will have thier hate filled agenda smashed in a few days.



You will be welcome into reality at any point you are willing to accept it.


Maybe someday you will actually join the rest of us Americans who place fellow Americans over party and help us build this country for all Americans sake.


Until then the rest of us will fight you idiot agenda based in hate and greed.


Can I ask how many days after the elction you will switch to hating Robmoney as much as the left does?
 
Excuses, excuses, excuses....."Obama didnt know how crazy the Republicans are"


I call bullshit. He had 2 years with Dem control and did ZERO! He made a promise, and didnt follow thru. It may cost him, just like Geoge Bush's "read my lips, no new taxes" line cost him
 
No its history and its documented and you will NEVER be able to rewrite it.


You and your reps have shamed a once great party.

be proud of your stupidity
 
see how you are?

When you honor truth you dont rewrite history because you know full well you will just cause the same mistakes to be repeted yet again.


You world veiw on history is why your current views are so fucked up anda based on lies.


You dont honor facts and DONT even understand why the real history is of the greatest value to mankind.
 
Back
Top