Resource Page

Started by Cannonpointer

This political chat room is for serious debate, where there will be ZERO tolerance for trolling. A ghost thread will be created in NHB that is open for all to participate in. To post in this forum, request to join the Profundum group in the User Control Panel.

Next
31 replies to this topic Sticky this thread

User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
  14,479 25 Feb 2014, 4:05 pm

Cannonpointer Sacred Cow Tipper
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man

Posts: 68,760
Location: St. Pete, Baby!
Insurrectionist Insurrectionist political affiliation
Politics: Insurrectionist
Money: 14,479.02



Log in or register to remove this ad..
Carter took over on Jan 20, 1977 - a year which Ford budgeted and owns. That year, the GDP was 2 trillion 86 billion.

The last year Carter budgeted was 1981. The GDP was 3 trillion, 211 billion. That a growth in 4 years of more than 50%.

Reagan came IN on 3 trrill, 211 billion. EIGHT (not four) years later, his last budget year (1989) was 5 trillion, 658 billion. That's 75% again - IN EIGHT YEARS, you stupid ape.

Even most conservatvie pundits agree that reagan sucked on the economy. Only in progressive la la land do people thnk that reagan was good on the economy.

CATO CAUGHT COOKING THE BOOKS: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=13851

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Refor ... _tax_rates

The top tax rate for individuals was lowered from 50% to 28% while the bottom rate was raised from 11% to 15%.[
4]
Many lower level tax brackets were consolidated, and the upper income level of the bottom rate (married filing jointly) was increased from $5,720/year to $29,750/year. This package ultimately consolidated tax brackets from fifteen levels of income to four levels of income.[
5]
This would be the only time in the history of the U.S. income tax (which dates back to the passage of the Revenue Act of 1862) that the top rate was reduced and the bottom rate increased concomitantly. In addition, capital gains faced the same tax rate as ordinary income.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/ec ... /index.htm

Image

Image

Source: http://blogs-images.forbes.com/adamhart ... c-1500wi15

Image
Source: http://b-i.forbesimg.com/rickungar/file ... 2_ME11.jpg

Image

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001

Image


Image
0
Log in or register to remove this ad..

User avatar
Posted by onlyaladd
  5,524 25 Feb 2014, 4:43 pm

onlyaladd User avatar
      
      

Posts: 22,420
Anarchist Anarchist political affiliation
Politics: Anarchist
Gender: Male
Money: 5,524.36



tech guy » 01 Jul 2015 1:34 pm wrote:

:rofl:

Another ReichPhlegm election prediction. Here's some of your predictions, little toadie...

Image
0

User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
  14,479 26 Feb 2014, 7:43 am

Cannonpointer Sacred Cow Tipper
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man

Posts: 68,760
Location: St. Pete, Baby!
Insurrectionist Insurrectionist political affiliation
Politics: Insurrectionist
Money: 14,479.02



TOTAL NUMBER OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, BY ADMINISTRATION

http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversigh ... ince-1962/

FORD'S final year, followed by CARTER'S final year, followed by REAGAN's final year:

Year...Exec Civilians...Military...Judicial, legislative....Ttl Fed Employees

1977......2,840,000 ......2,112,000.........53,000............5,005,000 .......Ford's last Budget
1981......2,806,000 ......2,122,000.........54,000............4,982,000 .......Carter's last Budget
1989......3,064,000 ......2,168,000.........60,000............5,292,000 .......Reagan's last Budget

As a % of population, military SHRANK under Reagan. Civilian employees - federal bureaucrats- grew by leaps and bounds. Carter shrank the bureaucracy in straight numbers, leave alone proportionately.

CARTER cut civilian bureaucracy a half a percent while the economy grew by 4.2. That is an effective shrinkage of 4.7%. Reagan GREW the civilian bureaucracy by over 9% - more than population growth. He also tripled the national debt.

https://www.google.com/fusiontables/Dat ... #rows:id=1

Ford's last year was 220,239,425 people in '77. Carter's last year was 229,465,714 - a population growth of 4.189% during his presidency. Reagan ended 1989 with 246,819,230 people - a population growth of 7.57%. Reagan's military forces (see above) grew by an anemic 2.2% (Carter's only grew by half a point, but Carter was CUTTING civilians, not padding the government employment roster with bureaucrats).

While Reagan was growing the population by 7.57% and the debt by 300% and the military by 2.2%, he was growing the CIVILIAN side of government - the part that focuses on we the people - by a whopping 9.2%. The man who promised to shrink government - who told Americans that government was the problem and that he was going to get government out of their way - grew that government faster than the population it served grew. The debt grew, the economy grew, the federal government's control of education grew, the federal labor force grew. The only thing that grew slower than the population was the military.

Who rules America: http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
0

User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
  14,479 26 Feb 2014, 7:47 am

Cannonpointer Sacred Cow Tipper
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man

Posts: 68,760
Location: St. Pete, Baby!
Insurrectionist Insurrectionist political affiliation
Politics: Insurrectionist
Money: 14,479.02



http://blogs-images.forbes.com/mikepatt ... Jobs-1.png

Image

Same Link:

Image

From the same link. demonstrating Reagan's cannibalization of one job to make two:

Image

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/ ... -creation/

Image

US GDP by year: http://useconomy.about.com/od/GDP-by-Ye ... istory.htm
0

User avatar
Posted by greatnpowerfuloz
  22,817 15 Nov 2014, 9:54 am

greatnpowerfuloz Uncharitable Bitch
User avatar
Moderator
Moderator

Posts: 14,240
Liberal Liberal political affiliation
Politics: Liberal
Gender: Female
Money: 22,816.99




Compliments of Fuelman

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-a ... ations-us/Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States

When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role.

Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society. Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:

Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight control of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.

States also limited corporate charters to a set number of years. Unless a legislature renewed an expiring charter, the corporation was dissolved and its assets were divided among shareholders. Citizen authority clauses limited capitalization, debts, land holdings, and sometimes, even profits.

They required a company’s accounting books to be turned over to a legislature upon request.
The power of large shareholders was limited by scaled voting, so that large and small investors had equal voting rights.
Interlocking directorates were outlawed.
Shareholders had the right to remove directors at will.

In Europe, charters protected directors and stockholders from liability for debts and harms caused by their corporations. American legislators explicitly rejected this corporate shield. The penalty for abuse or misuse of the charter was not a plea bargain and a fine, but dissolution of the corporation.In 1819 the U.S. Supreme Court tried to strip states of this sovereign right by overruling a lower court’s decision that allowed New Hampshire to revoke a charter granted to Dartmouth College by King George III. The Court claimed that since the charter contained no revocation clause, it could not be withdrawn. The Supreme Court’s attack on state sovereignty outraged citizens. Laws were written or re-written and new state constitutional amendments passed to circumvent the (Dartmouth College v Woodward) ruling.

Over several decades starting in 1844, nineteen states amended their constitutions to make corporate charters subject to alteration or revocation by their legislatures. As late as 1855 it seemed that the Supreme Court had gotten the people’s message when inDodge v. Woolsey it reaffirmed state’s powers over “artificial bodies.”But the men running corporations pressed on. Contests over charter were battles to control labor, resources, community rights, and political sovereignty. More and more frequently, corporations were abusing their charters to become conglomerates and trusts. They converted the nation’s resources and treasures into private fortunes, creating factory systems and company towns. Political power began flowing to absentee owners, rather than community-rooted enterprises.

The industrial age forced a nation of farmers to become wage earners, and they became fearful of unemployment–a new fear that corporations quickly learned to exploit. Company towns arose. and blacklists of labor organizers and workers who spoke up for their rights became common. When workers began to organize, industrialists and bankers hired private armies to keep them in line. They bought newspapers to paint businessmen as heroes and shape public opinion. Corporations bought state legislators, then announced legislators were corrupt and said that they used too much of the public’s resources to scrutinize every charter application and corporate operation.

Government spending during the Civil War brought these corporations fantastic wealth. Corporate executives paid “borers” to infest Congress and state capitals, bribing elected and appointed officials alike. They pried loose an avalanche of government financial largesse. During this time, legislators were persuaded to give corporations limited liability, decreased citizen authority over them, and extended durations of charters.Attempts were made to keep strong charter laws in place, but with the courts applying legal doctrines that made protection of corporations and corporate property the center of constitutional law, citizen sovereignty was undermined. As corporations grew stronger, government and the courts became easier prey. They freely reinterpreted the U.S. Constitution and transformed common law doctrines.One of the most severe blows to citizen authority arose out of the 1886 Supreme Court case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad.

Though the court did not make a ruling on the question of “corporate personhood,” thanks to misleading notes of a clerk, the decision subsequently was used as precedent to hold that a corporation was a “natural person.” This story was detailed in “The Theft of Human Rights,” a chapter in Thom Hartmann’s recommended book Unequal Protection.From that point on, the 14th Amendment, enacted to protect rights of freed slaves, was used routinely to grant corporations constitutional “personhood.” Justices have since struck down hundreds of local, state and federal laws enacted to protect people from corporate harm based on this illegitimate premise. Armed with these “rights,” corporations increased control over resources, jobs, commerce, politicians, even judges and the law.A United States Congressional committee concluded in 1941, “The principal instrument of the concentration of economic power and wealth has been the corporate charter with unlimited power….”Many U.S.-based corporations are now transnational, but the corrupted charter remains the legal basis for their existence. At Reclaim Democracy!, we believe citizens can reassert the convictions of our nation’s founders who struggled successfully to free us from corporate rule in the past. These changes must occur at the most fundamental level — the U.S. Constitution.
1

User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
  14,479 23 Nov 2014, 6:45 am

Cannonpointer Sacred Cow Tipper
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man

Posts: 68,760
Location: St. Pete, Baby!
Insurrectionist Insurrectionist political affiliation
Politics: Insurrectionist
Money: 14,479.02



http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/some_truths_abo/

Guest Post by Lawrence Wilkerson: Some Truths About Guantanamo Bay
Ben Katcher - March 17, 2009
95 Comments [url=mailto:type%20email%20address%20here?subject=I%20wanted%20to%20share%20this%20post%20with%20you%20from%20The%20Washington%20Note&body=Guest%20Post%20by%20Lawrence%20Wilkerson:%20Some%20Truths%20About%20Guantanamo%20Bay%20%20%2D%20%20%28%20http://washingtonnote.com/some_truths_abo/%20%29]Email[/url] Share

Image

Lawrence B. Wilkerson was chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell and is chairman of the New America Foundation/U.S.-Cuba 21st Century Policy Initiative.
There are several dimensions to the debate over the U.S. prison facilities at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba that the media have largely missed and, thus, of which the American people are almost completely unaware. For that matter, few within the government who were not directly involved are aware either.
The first of these is the utter incompetence of the battlefield vetting in Afghanistan during the early stages of the U.S. operations there. Simply stated, no meaningful attempt at discrimination was made in-country by competent officials, civilian or military, as to who we were transporting to Cuba for detention and interrogation.
This was a factor of having too few troops in the combat zone, of the troops and civilians who were there having too few people trained and skilled in such vetting, and of the incredible pressure coming down from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and others to “just get the bastards to the interrogators”.
It did not help that poor U.S. policies such as bounty-hunting, a weak understanding of cultural tendencies, and an utter disregard for the fundamentals of jurisprudence prevailed as well (no blame in the latter realm should accrue to combat soldiers as this it not their bailiwick anyway).
The second dimension that is largely unreported is that several in the U.S. leadership became aware of this lack of proper vetting very early on and, thus, of the reality that many of the detainees were innocent of any substantial wrongdoing, had little intelligence value, and should be immediately released.
But to have admitted this reality would have been a black mark on their leadership from virtually day one of the so-called Global War on Terror and these leaders already had black marks enough: the dead in a field in Pennsylvania, in the ashes of the Pentagon, and in the ruins of the World Trade Towers. They were not about to admit to their further errors at Guantanamo Bay. Better to claim that everyone there was a hardcore terrorist, was of enduring intelligence value, and would return to jihad if released. I am very sorry to say that I believe there were uniformed military who aided and abetted these falsehoods, even at the highest levels of our armed forces.
The third basically unknown dimension is how hard Secretary of State Colin Powell and his deputy Richard Armitage labored to ameliorate the GITMO situation from almost day one.
For example, Ambassador Pierre Prosper, the U.S. envoy for war crimes issues, was under a barrage of questions and directions almost daily from Powell or Armitage to repatriate every detainee who could be repatriated.
This was quite a few of them, including Uighurs from China and, incredulously, citizens of the United Kingdom (“incredulously” because few doubted the capacity of the UK to detain and manage terrorists). Standing resolutely in Ambassador Prosper’s path was Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld who would have none of it. Rumsfeld was staunchly backed by the Vice President of the United States, Richard Cheney. Moreover, the fact that among the detainees was a 13 year-old boy and a man over 90, did not seem to faze either man, initially at least.
The fourth unknown is the ad hoc intelligence philosophy that was developed to justify keeping many of these people, called the mosaic philosophy. Simply stated, this philosophy held that it did not matter if a detainee were innocent. Indeed, because he lived in Afghanistan and was captured on or near the battle area, he must know something of importance (this general philosophy, in an even cruder form, prevailed in Iraq as well, helping to produce the nightmare at Abu Ghraib). All that was necessary was to extract everything possible from him and others like him, assemble it all in a computer program, and then look for cross-connections and serendipitous incidentals–in short, to have sufficient information about a village, a region, or a group of individuals, that dots could be connected and terrorists or their plots could be identified.


Thus, as many people as possible had to be kept in detention for as long as possible to allow this philosophy of intelligence gathering to work. The detainees’ innocence was inconsequential. After all, they were ignorant peasants for the most part and mostly Muslim to boot.
Another unknown, a part of the fabric of the foregoing four, was the sheer incompetence involved in cataloging and maintaining the pertinent factors surrounding the detainees that might be relevant in any eventual legal proceedings, whether in an established court system or even in a kangaroo court that pretended to at least a few of the essentials, such as evidence.
Simply stated, even for those two dozen or so of the detainees who might well be hardcore terrorists, there was virtually no chain of custody, no disciplined handling of evidence, and no attention to the details that almost any court system would demand. Falling back on “sources and methods” and “intelligence secrets” became the Bush administration’s modus operandi to camouflage this grievous failing.
But their ultimate cover was that the struggle in which they were involved was war and in war those detained could be kept for the duration. And this war, by their own pronouncements, had no end. For political purposes, they knew it certainly had no end within their allotted four to eight years. Moreover, its not having an end, properly exploited, would help ensure their eight rather than four years in office.
In addition, it has never come to my attention in any persuasive way–from classified information or otherwise–that any intelligence of significance was gained from any of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay other than from the handful of undisputed ring leaders and their companions, clearly no more than a dozen or two of the detainees, and even their alleged contribution of hard, actionable intelligence is intensely disputed in the relevant communities such as intelligence and law enforcement.
This is perhaps the most astounding truth of all, carefully masked by men such as Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Cheney in their loud rhetoric–continuing even now in the case of Cheney–about future attacks thwarted, resurgent terrorists, the indisputable need for torture and harsh interrogation and for secret prisons and places such as GITMO.
Lastly, there is the now prevalent supposition, recently reinforced by the new team in the White House, that closing down our prison facilities at Guantanamo Bay would take some time and development of a highly complex plan. Because of the unfortunate political realities now involved–Cheney’s recent strident and almost unparalleled remarks about the dangers of pampering terrorists, and the vulnerability of the Democrats in general on any national security issue–this may have some truth to it.
But in terms of the physical and safe shutdown of the prison facilities it is nonsense. As early as 2004 and certainly in 2005, administration leaders such as Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England, and John Bellinger, Legal Advisor to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and, later, to that same individual as Secretary of State, and others were calling for the facilities to be shut down. No one will ever convince me that as astute a man as Gordon England would have made such a call if he did not have a plan for answering it. And if there is not such a plan, is not its absence simply another reason to condemn this most incompetent of administrations? After all, President Bush himself said he would like to close GITMO.
Recently, in an attempt to mask some of these failings and to exacerbate and make even more difficult the challenge to the new Obama administration, former Vice President Cheney gave an interview from his home in McLean, Virginia. The interview was almost mystifying in its twisted logic and terrifying in its fear-mongering.
As to twisted logic: “Cheney said at least 61 of the inmates who were released from Guantanamo (sic) during the Bush administration…have gone back into the business of being terrorists.” So, the fact that the Bush administration was so incompetent that it released 61 terrorists, is a valid criticism of the Obama administration? Or was this supposed to be an indication of what percentage of the still-detained men would likely turn to terrorism if released in future? Or was this a revelation that men kept in detention such as those at GITMO–even innocent men–would become terrorists if released because of the harsh treatment meted out to them at GITMO? Seven years in jail as an innocent man might do that for me. Hard to tell.
As for the fear-mongering: “When we get people who are more interested in reading the rights to an Al Qaeda (sic) terrorist than they are with protecting the United States against people who are absolutely committed to do anything they can to kill Americans, then I worry,” Cheney said. Who in the Obama administration has insisted on reading any al-Qa’ida terrorist his rights? More to the point, who in that administration is not interested in protecting the United States–a clear implication of Cheney’s remarks.
But far worse is the unmistakable stoking of the 20 million listeners of Rush Limbaugh, half of whom we could label, judiciously, as half-baked nuts. Such remarks as those of the former vice president’s are like waving a red flag in front of an incensed bull. And Cheney of course knows that.
Cheney went on to say in his McLean interview that “Protecting the country’s security is a tough, mean, dirty, nasty business. These are evil people and we are not going to win this fight by turning the other cheek.” I have to agree but the other way around. Cheney and his like are the evil people and we certainly are not going to prevail in the struggle with radical religion if we listen to people such as he.
When–and if–the truths about the detainees at Guantanamo Bay will be revealed in the way they should be, or Congress will step up and shoulder some of the blame, or the new Obama administration will have the courage to follow through substantially on its campaign promises with respect to GITMO, torture and the like, remains indeed to be seen.
On that revelation and those actions rests much of the credibility of our nation’s return to sobriety and our truest values. In fact, on such positive developments may ultimately rest our entire future as a free people. For there shall inevitably be future terrorist attacks. Al-Qa’ida has been hurt, badly, largely by our military actions in Afghanistan and our careful and devastating moves to stymie its financial support networks.
But al-Qa’ida will be back. Iraq, GITMO, Abu Ghraib, heavily-biased U.S. support for Israel, and a host of other strategic errors have insured al-Qa’ida’s resilience, staying power and motivation. How we deal with the future attacks of this organization and its cohorts could well seal our fate, for good or bad. Osama bin Laden and his brain trust, Aman al-Zawahiri, are counting on us to produce the bad. With people such as Cheney assisting them, they are far more likely to succeed.
– Lawrence Wilkerson
0

User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
  14,479 31 Dec 2014, 5:10 am

Cannonpointer Sacred Cow Tipper
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man

Posts: 68,760
Location: St. Pete, Baby!
Insurrectionist Insurrectionist political affiliation
Politics: Insurrectionist
Money: 14,479.02



Redrock » 05 Jan 2016 10:48 am wrote:
I'm assuming you aren't a fan of Hillary. :blink:
Cannonpointer » 05 Jan 2016 11:47 am wrote:
Fox will side with her soon - you're gonna endorse her yourself. You'll honestly believe that you've always been a supporter.


Kobia2 » 22 Nov 2015 10:40 pm wrote:

They think Hillary is the skilled, charismatic politician her husband or Barry is, and they re mistaken...


When she's potus, you'll be sucking off in her ass, because fox will tell you to, and you're a little brainwashed monkey.

Str8tEdge » 28 Dec 2014 12:09 pm wrote:

I'm not religious.


Str8tEdge » 29 Dec 2014 2:37 pm wrote:
I accept Jesus Christ as my lord and savior. I've devoted my life to serving him. Becoming a nurse was a calling for me. It's what God means for me to do with my life at this point.

I know what my purpose is. I know where I came from and I know where I'm going= true happiness you can't find in a bowl of pot or a bottle of alcohol tucked in a brown bag. :LOL:


Str8tEdge » 14 Feb 2015 8:01 pm wrote:
NO and even if I did I bet Jesus is capable of putting his big boy pants on.


Huey » 05 May 2015 7:21 am wrote:

:rofl: :rofl:

Seems to me that business owners will shortly be telling the people of Seatle how it is going to be. Starting with the subject of the thread. And guess what Stupid Fuck, THAT'S HOW IT IS GOING TO BE.
0

User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
  14,479 29 Jul 2015, 1:54 am

Cannonpointer Sacred Cow Tipper
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man

Posts: 68,760
Location: St. Pete, Baby!
Insurrectionist Insurrectionist political affiliation
Politics: Insurrectionist
Money: 14,479.02



Warmer shit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc

http://s21.postimg.org/fpkmj1atj/Chart_Go.jpg
Image

Image

Image

Are you suggesting that the earth is a really big system with lots of really massive things going on, and that warmers are puffed up, self-important smidgins of blow fish shit? :huh:
0

User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
  14,479 21 Sep 2015, 5:33 am

Cannonpointer Sacred Cow Tipper
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man

Posts: 68,760
Location: St. Pete, Baby!
Insurrectionist Insurrectionist political affiliation
Politics: Insurrectionist
Money: 14,479.02



Carbon at 11,300ppm You want carbon? HERE'S your carbon!
Working group one Scientists call Bullshit on AGW claims, IPCC ignores their own scientists

ACLU Fights For Christian Denied TN Scholarship For Attending Worship Sevice During Mandatory Meeting

ACLU Wins Right Of Christian to Read Bible in TN Public School

ACLU of Colorado Supports Students Wearing Christian Symbols in the Colorado Springs School District

ACLU-NJ Defends Christian Student's Anti-Abortion Speech

ACLU of Tennessee Defends Christian Students' Right to Preach in Public Park

ACLU of Virginia Defends Christian Students' Right to Protest Against ACLU at Public School

ACLU Defends Christian Students Wearing Anti-Islam Shirts to Florida Public School

ACLU Fights For Christian Inmate's Right to Preach

ACLU of Northern California Fights Law that Got Quakers Fired Over Loyalty Oath

ACLU Defends Christian Librarian Disciplined for Refusing to Promote Harry Potter

ACLU Defends Right of Individual Christian to Display Nativity Scene on Public Property

ACLU Defends Christians Protesting Gay Rights in Florida

ACLU Champions Religious Freedom Of Mormon College Student

ACLU Fights for Christian Church's Mission to Feed the Poor

ACLU Fights for Christmas Tree

ACLU Files Suit to Protect Free Speech Rights of Christian Protesting Wal-Mart's Policy on Gays

ACLU of Georgia and Baptist Church File Religious Discrimination Lawsuit

ACLU of Rhode Island Files Appeal on Behalf of Christian Prisoner Barred from Preaching at Religious Services

ACLU of Michigan Defends Catholic Man Coerced to Convert to Pentecostal Faith in Drug Rehab Program

ACLU of New Jersey Joins Lawsuit Supporting Second-Grader's Right to Sing "Awesome God" at Talent Show

After ACLU Intervention on Behalf of Christian Valedictorian, Michigan High School Agrees to Stop Censoring Religious Yearbook Entries

ACLU Helps Free New Mexico Street Preacher From Prison

ACLU of WA Wins Right of Christian Minister to Preach in Spokane Plaza

ACLU Fights for Baptist Preacher in Illinois

ACLU Defends Rights of Christian Group to Make Religious Protest at Funerals

ACLU Backs Christian Abortion Protester in Ohio

ACLU of Oregon Defends Religious Liberty Of Adventist School Boys Basketball Players

ACLU Backs Missouri Nurse Penalized for Wearing Cross-Shaped Lapel Pin

ACLU Defends Christian Street Preacher in Las Vegas

ACLU Argues for Legal Recognition of Small Christian Church

ACLU of MA Defends Students Punished for Distributing Candy Canes with Religious Messages

ACLU of Nebraska Defends Church Facing Eviction by the City of Lincoln

ACLU Defends Church's Right to Run "Anti-Santa" Ads in Boston Subways

ACLU Defends Inmate's Access to Material from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

Following Threat of ACLU of Virginia Lawsuit, Officials to Agree Not to Ban Baptisms in Public Parks

ACLU Defends Families Fighting Removal Of Religious Symbols from Florida Cemetery

ACLU Supports Right of Iowa Students to Distribute Christian Literature at School

ACLU Argument In Support of the Display of a Christian Cross in a Public Forum

ACLU Defends Christian Worker Required to Remove Bible from Desk at Government Job

ACLU Defends Free Speech Rights of Christians And Others On Main Street Plaza

ACLU Defends Prisoner's Rosary Beads

ACLU Defends Christian Group's Anti-Abortion Ads On Phoenix Buses

ACLU Pledges to Back Church in a Zoning Battle

ACLU of PA Files Discrimination Lawsuit Over Denial of Zoning Permit for African American Baptist Church

ACLU Offers To Represent Private Prayer on Public Property and

ACLU Joins Falwell To Fight For Church Incorporation Rights


RichClem » 26 Jul 2014 1:48 pm wrote:
He toppled a Communist would-be dictator who was grossly violating Chile's Constitution in an attempt to establish a Cuban style dictatorship, even allowing Cuban troops to enter the country to fight against Chile's military. So what Allende was elected? He was attempting to establish a Communist dictatorship.

Would you want your country to become a Communist dictatorship?

Pinochet also allowed executions and torture to be committed.

He later began the policies that made Chile the envy of South America and Central America, then allowed democracy to begin again.

Civil wars are generally very ugly, and I wish no one had been tortured or killed. However on balance, had Pinochet not prevented a Communist dictator, likely 100 times that number would have been killed.

I think that's an objective appraisal of his record.


When your "sources" look like this:

RichClem » 06 Aug 2015 6:33 pm wrote:
Not even liberal pundits are so stupid as to claim
RichClem » 15 Oct 2015 3:50 pm wrote:
I'm recalling from memory, wackjob, and given that it was decades ago ...I'm likely correct.
RichClem » 15 Jun 2015 9:16 am wrote:
I've for many, many, many years cited sources to back up my claims.
RichClem » 15 Oct 2015 4:46 pm wrote:
Reality isn't determined by a link, Dim.
RichClem » 04 Jun 2015 2:39 pm wrote:
Anyone with the slightest knowledge of history knows
RichClem » 23 Sep 2015 8:45 am wrote:
Anyone with eyes knows
RichClem » 12 May 2015 6:50 pm wrote:
Gosh, who should we believe, the babbling, lying psychotic?
Or the best minds on Economics and history?
RichClem » 07 May 2015 10:54 am wrote:
Only a psychotic would deny
RichClem » 21 Oct 2015 9:06 am wrote:
No honest person would claim
RichClem » 13 Oct 2015 8:57 pm wrote:
I bring more sources to the board than perhaps anyone. I have proved almost every claim I've made.
RichClem » 10 Oct 2015 5:34 pm wrote:
Anyone who's followed politics knows that.
RichClem » 07 May 2015 10:07 am wrote:
No one except a fringe leftist/and or psychotic would claim
RichClem » 05 Jan 2015 8:58 am wrote:
That's widely acknowledged by mainstream sources.
RichClem » 03 Sep 2015 2:03 pm wrote:
I'll bet blind
RichClem » 18 Jul 2015 5:59 am wrote:
...the moonbat who denies the widely accepted fact
RichClem » 18 Oct 2015 1:10 pm wrote:
from what I understand. Babbling psychotic imbecile.
RichClem » 25 Sep 2014 10:52 am wrote:
...admit obvious, widely accepted reality.


Then your "thinking" will look like this:

Image
0

User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
  14,479 04 May 2016, 11:58 pm

Cannonpointer Sacred Cow Tipper
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man

Posts: 68,760
Location: St. Pete, Baby!
Insurrectionist Insurrectionist political affiliation
Politics: Insurrectionist
Money: 14,479.02



Flat earth

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBg3mqbq81Y

 
golfboy » 06 May 2016 7:42 am wrote:
:rofl: I didn't say anything about per capita.
I said California had the highest number of abortions.
Was I right, or was I wrong?

Go ahead and admit it.
Cannonpointer » 07 May 2016 12:20 am wrote:
You were right.

You said that cali leads the nation in abortions, and cali does in fact lead the nation in abortions.

I jumped the gun, imputed an intention which your printed words do not convey, and then misread my own source which debunked me and proved you correct.

Savor the flavor. :) :thumbup:

bigsky » 11 Nov 2016 4:39 am wrote:
No...only libs are responsible for their elected officials bitch...cons hold their elected officials accountable..you guys ran Hillary for fucks sake...a known traitor...had she won would ladd not have been responsible for her actions?


Gross federal debt

edit]

This table lists the U.S. federal debt as a percentage of gross domestic product, or GDP, each year since World War II.[54] The gross federal debt shown below reached 102.7% of GDP at the end of 2012, the most recent figure available; it was the highest percentage since 1945 and the first yearly percentage figure to go over 100% since then. (The gross federal debt in the table includes intra-government debt – that is, money owed by one branch of the federal government to another. When this latter amount is subtracted, the remaining quantity is known as the public debt.)

Congressional sessionYearsPresidentPresident's partyDebt-to-GDP ratio at start of periodDebt-to-GDP ratio at end of periodChange in debt (in billions of dollars)Change in debt-to-GDP ratio
(in percentage points)

7778 1941–1945 Roosevelt Democratic
50.4% 117.5% +203 +67.1

79801945–1949 Roosevelt, Truman Democratic
117.5% 93.1% -8 -24.4

8182 1949–1953 Truman Democratic
93.1% 71.4% +13 -21.7

8384
1953–1957 Eisenhower Republican
71.4% 60.4% +6 -11.0

8586 1957–1961 Eisenhower Republican
60.4% 55.2% +20 -5.2

8788 1961–1965 Kennedy, Johnson Democratic
55.2% 46.9% +30 -8.3

8990 1965–1969 Johnson Democratic
46.9% 38.6% +43 -8.3

9192 1969–1973 Nixon Republican
38.6% 35.6% +101 -3.0

9394 1973–1977 Nixon, Ford Republican
35.6% 35.8% +177 +0.2

9596 1977–1981 Carter Democratic
35.8% 32.5% +288 -3.3

9798 1981–1985
Reagan Republican
32.5% 43.8% +823 +11.3

99100 1985–1989 Reagan Republican
43.8% 53.1% +1,050 +9.3

101102
1989–1993 Bush Sr. Republican
53.1% 66.1% +1,483 +13.0

103104
1993–1997 Clinton Democratic
66.1% 65.4% +1,018 -0.7

105106 1997–2001 Clinton Democratic
65.4% 56.4% +401 -9.0

107108 2001–2005 Bush Republican
56.4% 63.5% +2,135 +7.1

109110 2005–2009 Bush Republican
63.5% 84.2% +3,971 +20.7

111112
2009–2013 Obama Democratic
84.2% 102.7% +6,061 +18.5

(Source: CBO Historical Budget Page and Whitehouse FY 2012 Budget – Table 7.1 Federal Debt at the End of Year PDF, Excel, Senate.gov)
0

User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
  14,479 07 May 2016, 12:22 am

Cannonpointer Sacred Cow Tipper
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man

Posts: 68,760
Location: St. Pete, Baby!
Insurrectionist Insurrectionist political affiliation
Politics: Insurrectionist
Money: 14,479.02



golfboy » 06 May 2016 7:42 am wrote:
:rofl: I didn't say anything about per capita.
I said California had the highest number of abortions.
Was I right, or was I wrong?

Go ahead and admit it.
Cannonpointer » 07 May 2016 12:20 am wrote:
You were right.

You said that cali leads the nation in abortions, and cali does in fact lead the nation in abortions.

I jumped the gun, imputed an intention which your printed words do not convey, and then misread my own source which debunked me and proved you correct.

Savor the flavor. :) :thumbup:
0

User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
  14,479 07 May 2016, 12:22 am

Cannonpointer Sacred Cow Tipper
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man

Posts: 68,760
Location: St. Pete, Baby!
Insurrectionist Insurrectionist political affiliation
Politics: Insurrectionist
Money: 14,479.02



golfboy » 06 May 2016 7:42 am wrote:
:rofl: I didn't say anything about per capita.
I said California had the highest number of abortions.
Was I right, or was I wrong?

Go ahead and admit it.
Cannonpointer » 07 May 2016 12:20 am wrote:
You were right.

You said that cali leads the nation in abortions, and cali does in fact lead the nation in abortions.

I jumped the gun, imputed an intention which your printed words do not convey, and then misread my own source which debunked me and proved you correct.

Savor the flavor. :) :thumbup:
0

User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
  14,479 07 May 2016, 12:23 am

Cannonpointer Sacred Cow Tipper
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man

Posts: 68,760
Location: St. Pete, Baby!
Insurrectionist Insurrectionist political affiliation
Politics: Insurrectionist
Money: 14,479.02



golfboy » 06 May 2016 7:42 am wrote:
:rofl: I didn't say anything about per capita.
I said California had the highest number of abortions.
Was I right, or was I wrong?

Go ahead and admit it.
Cannonpointer » 07 May 2016 12:20 am wrote:
You were right.

You said that cali leads the nation in abortions, and cali does in fact lead the nation in abortions.

I jumped the gun, imputed an intention which your printed words do not convey, and then misread my own source which debunked me and proved you correct.

Savor the flavor. :) :thumbup:
0

User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
  14,479 07 May 2016, 12:23 am

Cannonpointer Sacred Cow Tipper
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man

Posts: 68,760
Location: St. Pete, Baby!
Insurrectionist Insurrectionist political affiliation
Politics: Insurrectionist
Money: 14,479.02



golfboy » 06 May 2016 7:42 am wrote:
:rofl: I didn't say anything about per capita.
I said California had the highest number of abortions.
Was I right, or was I wrong?

Go ahead and admit it.
Cannonpointer » 07 May 2016 12:20 am wrote:
You were right.

You said that cali leads the nation in abortions, and cali does in fact lead the nation in abortions.

I jumped the gun, imputed an intention which your printed words do not convey, and then misread my own source which debunked me and proved you correct.

Savor the flavor. :) :thumbup:
0

User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
  14,479 11 Nov 2016, 10:12 pm

Cannonpointer Sacred Cow Tipper
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man

Posts: 68,760
Location: St. Pete, Baby!
Insurrectionist Insurrectionist political affiliation
Politics: Insurrectionist
Money: 14,479.02



bigsky » 11 Nov 2016 4:39 am wrote:
No...only libs are responsible for their elected officials bitch...cons hold their elected officials accountable..you guys ran Hillary for fucks sake...a known traitor...had she won would ladd not have been responsible for her actions?
0

User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
  14,479 11 Nov 2016, 10:12 pm

Cannonpointer Sacred Cow Tipper
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man

Posts: 68,760
Location: St. Pete, Baby!
Insurrectionist Insurrectionist political affiliation
Politics: Insurrectionist
Money: 14,479.02



bigsky » 11 Nov 2016 4:39 am wrote:
No...only libs are responsible for their elected officials bitch...cons hold their elected officials accountable..you guys ran Hillary for fucks sake...a known traitor...had she won would ladd not have been responsible for her actions?
0

User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
  14,479 11 Nov 2016, 10:14 pm

Cannonpointer Sacred Cow Tipper
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man

Posts: 68,760
Location: St. Pete, Baby!
Insurrectionist Insurrectionist political affiliation
Politics: Insurrectionist
Money: 14,479.02



bigsky » 11 Nov 2016 4:39 am wrote:
No...only libs are responsible for their elected officials bitch...cons hold their elected officials accountable..you guys ran Hillary for fucks sake...a known traitor...had she won would ladd not have been responsible for her actions?
0

User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
  14,479 11 Nov 2016, 10:15 pm

Cannonpointer Sacred Cow Tipper
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man

Posts: 68,760
Location: St. Pete, Baby!
Insurrectionist Insurrectionist political affiliation
Politics: Insurrectionist
Money: 14,479.02



bigsky » 11 Nov 2016 4:39 am wrote:
No...only libs are responsible for their elected officials bitch...cons hold their elected officials accountable..you guys ran Hillary for fucks sake...a known traitor...had she won would ladd not have been responsible for her actions?
0

User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
  14,479 11 Jan 2017, 9:57 pm

Cannonpointer Sacred Cow Tipper
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man

Posts: 68,760
Location: St. Pete, Baby!
Insurrectionist Insurrectionist political affiliation
Politics: Insurrectionist
Money: 14,479.02




User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
  14,479 11 Jan 2017, 9:58 pm

Cannonpointer Sacred Cow Tipper
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man

Posts: 68,760
Location: St. Pete, Baby!
Insurrectionist Insurrectionist political affiliation
Politics: Insurrectionist
Money: 14,479.02





Next

Return to Profundum Disputatio

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest

Who has visited this topic