Leaderboard

Probably has something to do with knowing your opening post was so stupid and full of shit.

Jeebus. You're a scumbag in real life too? Most people are worse online, but that kind of dangerous, deceptive behavior is truly deplorable. You can't even be bothered to respect people's wishes about their health and free association? It's fine to have differences of opinion, but regardless of what one believes, one can behave honorably. Shame on you.

Great, let the record show that you could not produce even a single example of a person in the administration supporting violence, despite claiming that *everyone* did, up to and including the president. I set you a VERY low bar and you couldn't even clear that. Why? Because lying snakes lack legs are are, consequently, notoriously poor jumpers. At least you're predictable.

Common sense always wins in the end. Building power on lies is doomed to be destructive and will fail. The proof is already evident.

You're the one who only used pictures, stupid. I attacked the very premise of your "culture wars" thread with words that you had no answer to. You dodged all day and then showed a picture of a chess board lol. You just have no shame, just like AOC. You guys could say "fwee pwus fwee eqwoes a twilyun" on live TV and then start trying to pontificate again the next day as if no one knew how stupid you were.

I wouldn't normally say that ignorance is an excuse but in your case, it's pretty solid compared to the alternatives.

He shoulda said: "Keep your mouth shut and make people guess how stupid you are."

I'm not your brother. At best you're the same species as I am. What I'm leaving behind...is a good dose of common sense, a chronicle of Libbie failings, and a pinch of "toxic masculinity". And if you review my claims, you will find that over some period of time, they have come to pass, at the expense of the Libbie claims. And why is that? Because you're all dedicated to this destructive ideology that tells you that it's OK to impose suffering on all of humanity... If it serves the purpose of power...at any cost. Your problem is...just as you grab for the gold...it all falls apart and slips right threw you sweaty palms. And it costs all of us!

You are a pathological liar. How about you produce links to ANYONE in the administration, let alone "everyone" voicing support for "thousands of assaults against police officers with fireworks, molotov cocktails, bricks, rocks, looting, arson, attacking federal buildings, overrunning a police station, and even killing people"? What a waste of time you are.

OMG you're stupid. Dummying you is so easy it makes pigeon chess look challenging and legitimate.

Nope, it’s true and as your name suggests you are rarely correct and incapable of educating. Yes I am great but only occasionally unwashed.

I find this...Tweenkie a hell. WCM is one of the best posters on this site. He presents sound logic and reasoning. Your emotional response is to make dumb-ass assertions and to try to belittle him. As I have found...Libbies are always the first to sling mud. But time always shows conservatives to be quite correct.

Most of the progress towards the ideals PROFESSED by the FOUNDERS in this nation, including freeing YOUR PEOPLE from slavery, was due to ACTIVISTS.

Speaking of education... there's precious little in the way of explanation of what this is online. Seems like parents must know what the education material is - which is fine. More charter schools, which seems like a Trojan Horse, is also included. Fascist ? I don't see how.

Wrong. Leftists just made that baseless accusation, so it's just something that has been floating around in their little minds for a while now. Are you honestly so retarded that you forgot about the 4-yr witch hunt to steal the 2016 election? When was the last time a Demmie admitted to anything? Not even a little bit. I just asked a question to see if I could get an honest answer. You'd feel embarrassed all the time if you hadn't already become numb to that sensation.

Uh, EXCUSE me for a moment. Is CBS News (the network that actually put forth FALSIFIED DOCUMENTS in order to influence a presidential election) suggesting that ALL girls in the fifth or fourth grade are ORPHANS and ALL live in orphanages? NONE of them have mothers? Seriously? (GEE! AUNTI EM. BACK IN THE DAY LITTLE GIRLS WERE INSTRUCTED ON MENSTRUATION BY THEIR MOTHERS, PRIVATELY AND PROPERLY.) This is why CBS news is tanking in ratings. it's just plain FULL OF SHIT.

You just keep doubling down on YOUR DELUSIONS. Not sure even FOX LIES is ^this delusional.

For many reasons, I disagree with the entire idea of the Olympics. a) Why do national teams compete? Why not continental teams? - Europe vs Asia b) Weird rules of competitions -Your dance appears better ===== I prefer: Several people - born wherever, whatever their passport - pass a baton and bring it faster to the finish line.

Disagree, Strongly. Left-handed people do not "feel" left-handed. They are left-handed. ==== The question of changing sex - trans-sexual - is different. In rich countries, these operations are possible. As I say, a person is a person.

that ain't gonna stop you from posting it. Gotcha. That is the leftist standard after all. I knew that before I clicked into this thread. I'll see the same thing if I open a thread started by Robo, Rebound, Aristedes, Beave, etc: a grand accusation in the thread title followed up by an OP which is a mish-mash of lies by omission, lies by exaggeration, baseless accusations against someone, outright fabrications and unsubstantiated opinions. Right? Death, taxes, leftist lies.

The bleeding Proud Boy himself said "I came here to help people, not to get the s*** beaten out of me."

I'm guessing you are not very much acquainted with the way native reserves are currently being run. Because overall, most of them are a shit show of nepotism, incompetence, and corruption. And if you question the chief or band council you quickly find you'll be punished.

Automation will take care of itself, there will still need to be customers for the crap they make, unless machines are going to sell each other crap. The magnetic pole moving closer to the geographic pole will make navigation in high latitudes easier. Human caused climate change is the biggie, the others are pretty normal occurrences in the earth's history.

Is this some kind of stupid trick to get people to watch leftist propaganda? I watched a bunch of videos there and never saw one punch. For all I know he got hit in the head by a pointy brazier. These leftard threads with misleading titles are getting a little old now. If the title doesn't jive with the body of the OP and the cites they should be taken down. All you are doing is dragging the level of discourse down to where the only new members here will be crawlers like CrakHo, Hodad, Robo, Rebound, etc.

There is plenty of evidence that says that in most developed nations.... the number of people who identify as regularly going to church and/or devoutly religious is declining. This is not a sign of moral decay IMO. I strongly disagree that there is any direct correlation between religiosity and morality.

Basically. I worked with a girl who shamed you for mentioning Canada day. "Its not your country. You stole their land" "Do you even know what you're responsible for? Do you even know the things Canada has done?" In the most condescending voice ever. "Some people are just more aware than others!" So spewing vitriol was her way of righting the past wrongs. It literally did nothing. It also was uneducated. IE you would be better off spewing at the countries actually responsible for the taking of that land. Like you're literally angry, on the behalf of others. That is the most liberal thing you could do. Like my white friends being triggered when I faced racism. "Did you see how she demanded to check your receipt, then double checked your bag?" Uh yeah... "Thats racism!" Yeah, I wouldn't sweat it. "No! OMG I am so angry! That is unfair! You need to ask for their manager! Dude. It's fine. I really.. "No. Racism is unacceptable!" "Just because you're black, doesn't mean you're a thief!" (And I make a bad black thief joke to diffuse the tension, that makes things worse) All the while I am standing there completely confused at who had just experienced the racism. Again, it did nothing. Shamed the employee sure, but they didn't look thrilled at their job anyway. Okay pat yourself on the back. You stood up for a racialized person.

I made an assumption that you married your sister. I'm not convinced I was wrong.

She is worse than that. She is a horrible monster. Mostly because she begat you but I'm sure there's other things.

Oh for F’s sake? Are you F-ing kidding? Yes, of course taking the Americans hostage was not Ronald Reagan’s doing, but holding them a full 444 days WAS Reagan’s doing. It NEVER made any sense that the Iranians released the hostages one hour after Reagan was sworn in as President… and then we learned, years later, that Reagan had been secretly selling weapons to Iran, via Japan, for years. Now we have an 85 year-old attorney admit that they cut a deal with Iran to hold the hostages, and it is backed up by four witnesses AND documentary evidence that he and John Connelly of Texas traveled to Jordan and Cairo to cut this deal. That is a viscious, evil crime — your superhero Ronald Reagan kept those poor people held in brutal captivity FOR A YEAR in order to get elected President. Sorry that your moral compass is so bent out of shape that you don’t see any difference between a month or two of captivity versus over a year of it. The Iranians didn’t treat the American hostages nicely at all.

It is quite evident that a lot of Canadians here are very ignorant of US history.

Those !diots DESERVE the high taxes, higher cost of living and lower standard of living they voted for.

This thread illustrates to me a truth I've realized a long time ago - men (in general) place little VALUE on the work women do. Until they stop doing it, of course. One of the least paid jobs is that of PCWs - Personal Care Workers. They look after the elderly at nursing homes. It's mostly women who do this type of work. It's low paid, low respect - which is a shame in a society. Men generally have no respect for this type of work, as shown by Eli's comments - it wouldn't be considered a valued "work" by him. Yet how many men would want to be shunted off to a nursing home in their golden years, ignored with no mental or emotional stimulation, no working with dexterity and physio, and left sitting in a wheelchair or laying in a bed wearing dirty diapers every day. Anyone can swing a hammer. Not everyone has the patience and compassion to care for our seniors, who deserve the best of our care.

This is the dinosaur attitude that makes people post such incredibly STUPID questions. It's 2023 not 1911 FFS.

If Canada can't control who comes across its borders then it has no sovereignty. If international agreements prevent you from enacting policies you want in order to protect your border then back out of the agreements. If you're a legit refugee then present yourself at an official border port of entry and make a refugee claim like everyone else. You'll be given a health card and a work visa. If you're not a legit refugee claimant you shouldn't be admitted into the country. If you're coming from a safe 3rd country you should not be admitted into Canada until your claim is processed and approved, which it won't be because the refugee laws say you're not allowed to "refugee shop" and keep bouncing from western country to western country every time your claims are rejected looking to get lucky and for someone to slip up and accept you because of your bogus claim.

The halfwit that thinks a 10 yr old can have a baby without risk of injury?

I wouldn't talk about Nazis if I was you, just look in any mirror. That's what real ones look like. You approve the torture a 10 year old because of what someone else did? You have no shame whatsoever. Like your idol hiding under the bed in his Florida mansion

Well that solves the girl's problem, once she's torn in half delivering a baby at 10 she can SUE... after all placing blame is far more important than solving a problem isn't it?

The failing left wing goose stepping New York Times? The sleazy rag that compaigned AGAINST Reagan. Bottom line, Reagan was the greatest president in history. Gave American the greatest economy, SLASHED gasoline prices, ENDED inflation and defeated America's deadliest enemy (Soviet Union) without firing a shot. History remembers Reagan as the best. https://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/the-real-reagan-economic-record-responsible-and-successful-fiscal-policy HOW DID THE REAGAN TAX CUTS AFFECT THE U.S. TREASURY? Many critics of reducing taxes claim that the Reagan tax cuts drained the U.S. Treasury. The reality is that federal revenues increased significantly between 1980 and 1990: Total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28 percent increase in revenue.3 As a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP), federal revenues declined only slightly from 18.9 percent in 1980 to 18 percent in 1990.4 Revenues from individual income taxes climbed from just over $244 billion in 1980 to nearly $467 billion in 1990.5 In inflation-adjusted dollars, this amounts to a 25 percent increase. HOW DID REAGAN'S POLICIES AFFECT FEDERAL SPENDING? Although critics continue to focus on President Reagan's budget "cuts," federal spending rose significantly during the 1980s: Federal spending more than doubled, growing from almost $591 billion in 1980 to $1.25 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was an increase of 35.8 percent.6 As a percentage of GDP, federal expenditures grew slightly from 21.6 percent in 1980 to 21.8 percent in 1990.7 Contrary to popular myth, while inflation-adjusted defense spending increased by 50 percent between 1980 and 1989, it was curtailed when the Cold War ended and fell by 15 percent between 1989 and 1993. However, means-tested entitlements, which do not include Social Security or Medicare, rose by over 102 percent between 1980 and 1993, and they have continued climbing ever since.8 Total spending on all national security programs never equaled domestic spending, even when Social Security, Medicare, and net interest are excluded from domestic totals. In addition, national security spending fell during the Administration of the senior President Bush, while domestic spending increased in both mandatory and discretionary accounts.9 (See Chart 1.) HOW DID REAGAN'S POLICIES AFFECT ECONOMIC GROWTH? Despite the steep recession in 1982--brought on by tight money policies that were instituted to squeeze out the historic inflation level of the late 1970s--by 1983, the Reagan policies of reducing taxes, spending, regulation, and inflation were in place. The result was unprecedented economic growth: This economic boom lasted 92 months without a recession, from November 1982 to July 1990, the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime and the second-longest period of sustained growth in U.S. history. The growth in the economy lasted more than twice as long as the average period of expansions since World War II.10 The American economy grew by about one-third in real inflation-adjusted terms. This was the equivalent of adding the entire economy of East and West Germany or two-thirds of Japan's economy to the U.S. economy.11 From 1950 to 1973, real economic growth in the U.S. economy averaged 3.6 percent per year. From 1973 to 1982, it averaged only 1.6 percent. The Reagan economic boom restored the more usual growth rate as the economy averaged 3.5 percent in real growth from the beginning of 1983 to the end of 1990.12 HOW DID REAGAN'S POLICIES AFFECT THE FEDERAL TAX BURDEN? Perhaps the greatest myth concerning the 1980s is that Ronald Reagan slashed taxes so dramatically for the rich that they no longer have paid their fair share. The flaw in this myth is that it mixes tax rates with taxes actually paid and ignores the real trend of taxation: In 1991, after the Reagan rate cuts were well in place, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in income paid 25 percent of all income taxes; the top 5 percent paid 43 percent; and the bottom 50 percent paid only 5 percent.13 To suggest that this distribution is unfair because it is too easy on upper-income groups is nothing less than absurd. The proportion of total income taxes paid by the top 1 percent rose sharply under President Reagan, from 18 percent in 1981 to 28 percent in 1988.14 Average effective income tax rates were cut even more for lower-income groups than for higher-income groups. While the average effective tax rate for the top 1 percent fell by 30 percent between 1980 and 1992, and by 35 percent for the top 20 percent of income earners, it fell by 44 percent for the second-highest quintile, 46 percent for the middle quintile, 64 percent for the second-lowest quintile, and 263 percent for the bottom quintile.15 These reductions for the lowest-income groups were so large because President Reagan doubled the personal exemption, increased the standard deduction, and tripled the earned income tax credit (EITC), which provides net cash for single-parent families with children at the lowest income levels. These changes eliminated income tax liability altogether for over 4 million lower-income families.16 Critics often add in the Social Security payroll tax and argue that the total federal tax burden shifted more to lower-income groups and away from upper-income groups; but President Reagan's changes were in the income tax, not in the Social Security payroll tax. The payroll tax was imposed by proponents of big government over the past 50 years, and it is they, not Ronald Reagan, who should be held accountable for its distributional effects. Nevertheless, even if one counts the Social Security payroll tax, the share of total federal taxes increased between 1980 and 1989 for the following groups: For the top 1 percent of taxpayers, from 12.9 percent in 1980 to 15.4 percent in 1989; For the top 5 percent of taxpayers, from 27.3 percent in 1980 to 30.4 percent in 1989; and For the top 20 percent of taxpayers, from 56.1 percent in 1980 to 58.6 percent in 1989. On the other hand, the share of total federal taxes, if one includes the Social Security payroll tax, declined for four groups: For the second-highest 20 percent of taxpayers, from 22.2 percent in 1980 to 20.8 percent in 1989; For the middle 20 percent of taxpayers, from 13.2 percent in 1980 to 12.5 percent in 1989; For the second-lowest 20 percent of taxpayers, from 6.9 percent in 1980 to 6.4 percent in 1989; and For the lowest 20 percent of taxpayers, from 1.6 percent in 1980 to 1.5 percent in 1989.17

The REAL Reagan Record. https://www.thebalancemoney.com/reaganomics-did-it-work-would-it-today-3305569 What was Reaganomics? Reaganomics was based on the Laffer Curve. Economist Arthur Laffer developed it in 1974. The curve showed how tax cuts could stimulate the economy to the point where the tax base expanded. Tax cuts reduce the level of federal taxation immediately. These same cuts have a multiplier effect on economic growth. Tax cuts put money in consumers' pockets, which they spend. That stimulates business growth and more hiring. The result? A larger tax base. Reaganomics was consistent with the theory of supply-side economics. It states that corporate tax cuts are the best way to grow the economy. When companies get more cash, they should hire new workers and expand their businesses. It also says that income tax cuts give workers more incentive to work, increasing the supply of labor. That's why it's sometimes called trickle-down economics. Tax Cuts Reagan cut tax rates enough to stimulate consumer demand. By Reagan's last year in office, the top income tax rate was 28% for single people making $18,550 or more. Anyone making less paid no taxes at all. That was much less than the 1980 top tax rate of 70% for individuals earning $108,300 or more. Reagan indexed the tax brackets for inflation.3 Reagan offset these tax cuts with tax increases elsewhere. He raised Social Security payroll taxes and some excise taxes. He also cut several deductions.45 Reagan cut the corporate tax rate from 46% to 40% in 1987.6 But the effect of this break was unclear. Reagan changed the tax treatment of many new investments. The complexity meant that the overall results of his corporate tax changes couldn't be measured. Slow Spending Growth Government spending still grew, just not as fast as under President Jimmy Carter. Reagan increased spending by 9% a year, from $678 billion at Carter's final budget in Fiscal Year 1981 to $1.1 trillion at Reagan's last budget for FY 1989. Carter increased spending by 16% a year, from $409 billion in FY 1977 to $678 billion in FY 1981. Reduce Regulations In 1981, Reagan eliminated the Nixon-era price controls on domestic oil and gas.8 They constrained the free-market equilibrium that would have prevented inflation. Reagan also deregulated cable TV, long-distance telephone service, interstate bus service, and ocean shipping. He eased bank regulations, but that helped create the Savings and Loan Crisis in 1989. Reagan increased, not decreased, import barriers. He doubled the number of items that were subject to trade restraint from 12% in 1980 to 23% in 1988.1 He did little to reduce other regulations affecting health, safety, and the environment. Carter had reduced regulations at a faster pace. Tame Inflation Reagan had campaigned on ending galloping inflation. That's when inflation rates reach 10% or more. In 1980 the inflation rate was 12.5%. These rates hurt the economy because money loses value too fast. Business and employee income can't keep up with rising costs and prices. Galloping inflation was already being addressed by Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker. He used contractionary monetary policy, despite the potential for a recession. In 1979, Volcker began raising the fed funds rate. By December 1980, it had reached 20%.9 These high rates choked off economic growth. Volcker's policy triggered the recession of 1981-1982. Unemployment rose to 10.1% and stayed above 10% for 10 months.10 This painful solution was necessary to stop galloping inflation. Had inflation not been tackled in this way, the economy would have fared far worse. Volcker's policies knocked inflation down to 3.8% by 1983.11

Unelected Joe IS a traitor. LEGALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT REAGAN was the greatest president in history.

Ah, a GORBASM from the early 90s. Rush Limbaugh had a ball with knuckleheads like you, trying feebly to give Gorbachev the credit. Reagan inherited an expanding Soviet Union, who had committed troops to Afghanistan, (mostly because JImmy Carter had proved to the world he was a weak, incompetent powderpuff. https://www.heritage.org/conservatism/commentary/how-ronald-reagan-won-the-cold-war He directed his top national security team to develop a plan to end the Cold War by winning it. The result was a series of top-secret national security decision directives that: Committed the U.S. to “neutralizing” Soviet control over Eastern Europe and authorized covert action and other means to support anti-Soviet groups in the region. Adopted a policy of attacking a “strategic triad” of critical resources –financial credits, high technology and natural gas – essential to Soviet economic survival. Author-economist Roger Robinson said the directive was tantamount to “a secret declaration of economic war on the Soviet Union.” Determined that, rather than coexist with the Soviet system, the U.S. would seek to change it fundamentally. The language, drafted by Harvard historian Richard Pipes, was unequivocal: America intended to “roll back” Soviet influence at every opportunity. Following these directives, the administration pursued a multifaceted foreign policy offensive that included covert support of the Solidarity movement in Poland, an increase in pro-freedom public diplomacy (through instruments like the National Endowment for Democracy), a global campaign to reduce Soviet access to Western high technology and a drive to hurt the Soviet economy by driving down the price of oil and limiting natural gas exports to the West. A key element of Reagan’s victory strategy was the support of anti-communist forces in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Angola and Cambodia. The “Reagan Doctrine” (a name coined by syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer) was the most cost-effective of all the cold war doctrines, costing the United States less than a billion dollars a year while forcing the cash-strapped Soviets to spend some $8 billion annually to deflect its impact. It was also one of the most politically successful doctrines in Cold War history, resulting in a Soviet pullout from Afghanistan, the election of a democratic government in Nicaragua and the removal of 40,000 Cuban troops from Angola and the holding of United Nations-monitored elections there. And then there was SDI—the Strategic Defense Initiative. Dismissed as “Star Wars” by U.S. skeptics, it put the Soviet military in a state of fear and shock. A decade later, a top Soviet strategist revealed what he had told the Politburo at the time: “Not only could we not defeat SDI, SDI defeated all our possible countermeasures.” The American president who effectively wrote finis to the Cold War was Ronald Reagan. He entered the Oval Office with a clear set of ideas he had developed over a lifetime of study. He forced the Soviet Union to abandon its goal of world communism by challenging its legitimacy, regaining superiority in the arms race and using human rights as a powerful psychological weapon. By the time Reagan left office in January 1989, the Reagan Doctrine had achieved its goal: Mikhail Gorbachev, the last leader of the Soviet system, publicly acknowledged the failures of Marxism-Leninism and the futility of Russian imperialism. In Margaret Thatcher’s words, Ronald Reagan had ended the Cold War without firing a shot. There has been NO president in history to achieve such a goal. Trump came close when he ended violence in the Middle East, but an illegally installed pedophile Unelected Joe reversed ALL that progress.

The FBI isn't supposed to commit crimes either, are they... The FBI and DOJ are also supposed to put criminals in jail, and they don't do that if the politics don't align with the criminal code. Burning down buildings is supposed to be a crime, and walking through an open door is not. Get it? Up is down, down is up when leftists run the show. So, as I was saying... if Biden mumbles something like: "In order to comfort, commm, commm... combat! the rising treat, breath, threat... THREAT of extreme maga terrororism, we need to postpone this nexnelsrent, next election until twenny twenny. 2024. 2028, my bad. 2028." How likely would you be to support him? Do you think it might be necessary to postpone the next election? I personally can't imagine you breaking ranks. If you had a secret ballot I'm pretty sure that you'd say "Flush democracy down the toilet. The Democrats will never do anything wrong if they stay in power forever."