A huge difference between the Tea Party and the Dems today

let me guess, Clinton? If its obama, dumbest move on bennets part!

The Viking wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: They aren't "MY" numbers... They're the WSJ's numbers. (You know....That "bastion of liberal thought.") I was asked to provide a credible source for the numbers, and I did. I could care less about debating whether they're accurate--(they are)--or how they were arrived at, or the theory behind them, ad nauseum.

Why don't you drop a line to the WSJ and give them your thoughts on the matter? I'm SURE they would be interested in hearing your input on how they arrived at their numbers...

I, on the hand, don't give a rat's patoot....

OK, then you must agree that the Republicans who were in charge for the majority of Clintons terms and wrote all the spending bills and budgets, are the reason that our economy was so strong. Hey the WSJ confirms it right? :thumbsup:

No one is disagreeing? Good! I am glad we all finally agree on something. First off the President just signs the bills, he doesn't write them. Second, the economy was the strongest for the 12 years the Republicans were in charge of both houses of Congress. Third, the economy went downhill within 1 year of the Democrats taking over both houses of COngress and writing all the bills and policies and it isn't stopping. Now they are trying to claim they are spending us out of the recession that they put us in. LMAO!!! We nedd Republicans back in charge of both houses to fix this economy back to the way it was when they were in charge for those 12 years and jobs grew almost every month they were in charge even with the 9/11 attacks.

Michelle Obama. While I don't support Bennett, it's a savy move. She has the highest approval rating between the three of them (Clinton and Pres. Obama).

outdoor338 wrote: let me guess, Clinton? If its obama, dumbest move on bennets part!

Sharpton? Maxine Waters? Pelosi? Reid? There are so many great ones to choose from who lead that party that I don't have any idea who he would choose!

wayne, may be a good move, she seems to have some baggage with her trip to Europe, not sure how that will play out, we will see!

The Viking wrote: No one is disagreeing? Good! I am glad we all finally agree on something.

We agree on nothing... And it's tiresome to have you continually assuming that anyone else does.

If Bush didn't like the bill, he didn't have to sign it... End of story...

Wayne Harrison wrote: Michelle Obama. While I don't support Bennett, it's a savy move. She has the highest approval rating between the three of them (Clinton and Pres. Obama).

He chose Michelle Obama over all of the other great leaders with high approval ratings in the Democratic party? How will he afford to throw a Gala for her to come in? And can he afford the lobster and caviar to feed her? Hmmmm.......I guess he makes more than I thought to afford her expensive tastes. So he is bringing in someone who is totally out of touch with mainstram America and takes the most lavish vacations and trips and gets flown to broadway shows for a weekend, to relate to regular unemployed Coloradans? Great move!!! :thumbsup:

LadyJazzer wrote:

The Viking wrote: No one is disagreeing? Good! I am glad we all finally agree on something.

We agree on nothing... And it's tiresome to have you continually assuming that anyone else does.

Well the fact that you can't answer my question or dipute the facts speaks for itself. You said the economy was the strongest in certain years and those are the years when the Republicans were in control of all the policies. So you are saying that the best years are when the Republicans are in control of Congress. Simple logic. :thumbsup:

outdoor338 wrote: wayne, may be a good move, she seems to have some baggage with her trip to Europe, not sure how that will play out, we will see!

Do we have enough red carpet in Denver for her to walk on?

I don't have to "answer your question" or dispute your crap... And not doing so does not amount to tacit agreement.

You said the economy was the strongest in certain years

No, I posted a WSJ chart that showed that Clinton created 23.1 million jobs, and Bush created 3 million. The numbers don't lie.