Who's Crazier: Charlie Sheen or the Left?

Gipper

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
6,106
Location
Somewhere Nice
Very good list of silly beliefs held by the Left.

Who's crazier: Charlie Sheen or the Left?

Charlie Sheen, at least, has an excuse. He's on a drug he calls "Charlie Sheen." But what powerful hallucinogen inhaled by the Left induces the mental fantasy that makes them believe:

>>Spending nearly a trillion dollars in "stimulus" money "created or saved" 3.5 million jobs?

>>A "tax cut" means giving checks to the nearly 40 percent of the work force that pays no federal income taxes?

>>The rich pay no taxes -- even though the top 1 percent of income earners pay nearly 40 percent of all federal income taxes?

>>Tax cuts only benefit the rich -- even though they disproportionately pay the income taxes (see above)?

>>Federal and state budget problems can be solved by simply raising taxes on "the rich" and making them pay "their fair share"?

>>Governors' attempts to rein in public-sector compensation -- because it vastly exceeds the private-sector counterparts -- constitute an "assault" on "all unions"?

>>Expensive, anti-competitive, job-killing "global warming" regulations imposed on U.S. businesses can significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions -- even though the No. 1 and No. 4 "polluters," China and India, respectively, say, "Go to hell, we're growing our economies"?

>>Obamacare adds 30 million uninsured to the insured; allows people to keep their doctor or health insurance; forces health insurance companies to "insure" applicants with pre-existing illnesses -- all while saving money, lowering costs and retaining the same quality?

>>President Obama presented a "fiscally responsible" 2012 budget -- even though it adds to the debt, continues high annual deficits and changes nothing about the three autopilot entitlement programs, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid?

>>"Greed" and lack of Wall Street regulation caused the housing meltdown -- even though the Community Reinvestment Act, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and the Federal Housing Administration distorted behavior; pressured lenders to give loans to the "underrepresented"; incentivized people who should have been renting to buy homes; and put taxpayers on the hook for the losses?

>>If millions of illegal aliens would likely vote Republican, liberals would still support putting them on a pathway to citizenship?

>>If convicted felons would likely vote Republican, liberals would still push to restore their full "voting rights"?

>>The Bush tax cuts for the rich "caused the deficit" -- even though Obama says maintaining the current rates for the top 2 percent of income earners "costs" $700 billion over 10 years, or for each year, less than 5 percent of the current annual deficit?

>>The war in Iraq caused the deficit -- even though the combined annual costs of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars represent about 10 percent of the current annual deficit?

>>President George W. Bush and his policies made America hated in the Middle East -- even though polls show the Egyptians have a lower opinion of America under Obama than they did under Bush?

>>Obama can convince Iran to halt its nuclear weapons programs -- by criticizing Israel for building "settlements," and by breaking missile defense promises made to the Czech Republic and Poland to get Russia's help in pressuring Iran?

>>Bush "admitted committing torture" by approving waterboarding and is, therefore, a confessed "war criminal"?

>>Questioning Obama's place of birth or religion is insanity -- but not believing that "Bush lied, people died"; Bush had prior knowledge of 9-11; Bush allowed America to be attacked on 9-11 to provide a pretext for war in Iraq; 9-11 was a government-involved inside job; and that World Trade Center Building 7 imploded from planted explosives?

>>Bush governed as an evil, civil liberty-crushing warmonger -- even though Obama continues the same war on terror programs and policies, including the use of the "state secrets" courtroom defense to prevent national-security-sensitive documents from being turned over to the defense; rendition; the terrorist surveillance program; the Patriot Act, including the despised library provision; drone attacks in Pakistan; and the continued use of Guantanamo Bay prison?

>>Obama fulfilled his campaign promise to reduce the influence of lobbyists -- while members of his administration hold meetings off White House premises to avoid the requirement of having to keep a record of the meetings?

So here's the question. As between Charlie Sheen and the nonsense-believing left-wingers, who should be drug tested?

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washington*************/opin...s-crazier-charlie-sheen-or-left#ixzz1GPTD521T

I wonder, if a poll of Dems/libs/Progs/etc were done on all these questions, what the response would be. How does one debate someone who is delusional?

My favorites are in bold type.

Are there any liberals here at the HOP who believe the points made above?
 
Werbung:
Very good list of silly beliefs held by the Left.



I wonder, if a poll of Dems/libs/Progs/etc were done on all these questions, what the response would be. How does one debate someone who is delusional?

My favorites are in bold type.

Are there any liberals here at the HOP who believe the points made above?

any more straw men to fight?
 
Come on Pockets. You can do better than that.

By your "strawman" comment you have indicated that the points made by the columnist are incorrect.

Let's be honest. You no doubt believe in several of the points. Can you tell me which ones?
 
539w.jpg


This guy is very Crazy
 
>>Spending nearly a trillion dollars in "stimulus" money "created or saved" 3.5 million jobs?

HOPoliticalfactcheck says - The claim is FALSE

The stimulus package is estimated to be 821 Billion. The CBO claims it and the White House accepts that number. That is nearly a trillion dollars so it is true both that that part of the claim was made and that it is what actually happened. - true

The money was called stimulus money - true.

"Created or saved" is a nonsense claim. Had jobs been either lost or saved one could always claim that more jobs would have theoretically been lost so starting with an imaginary greater loss one can claim that less were lost.

However, the White House put to rest any imaginary claims that more would have been lost without the stimulus when they claimed early on that the unemployment rate was going to improve and be less than 8%. The claim is that employment has decreased so we need not concern ourselves with hypothetical situations in which jobs were lost but less were lost. Clearly the claim is that net jobs were created.

The CBO claims and the white house accepts that between 1.3 and 3.5 million jobs were created. The White House also goes on to say that the CBO underestimates the number of jobs created because only part of the stimulus money was spent. (jobs measured by the CBO are all self reported from recipients of the stimulus)

However, a straightforward look at the numbers indicates that on traditional measures of unemployment the rate in 2009 when the claim was first made and the rate in 2011 when it was re-affirmed has gone up from 8.2 to 9.0. Additionally, since that number itself is political and not a very good measure the U-6 unemployment rate for the same times has increased from 15% to 16.1%.

In summary, a negative number of jobs were created, i.e. jobs were lost.

The claim has been made that 3.5 million jobs were created when in fact jobs were lost.

http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp

http://www.patriotradionews.com/201...age-of-228055-each-thursday-february-24-2011/
 
how about you tell me what ones you don't believe liberals all believe...

Okay Pockets I will do you a favor and list those fantasies you likely believe. I do this based on my wonderful interaction with you these past few months.

I suspect you believe the following fantasies:
>>The rich pay no taxes -- even though the top 1 percent of income earners pay nearly 40 percent of all federal income taxes?

>>Tax cuts only benefit the rich -- even though they disproportionately pay the income taxes (see above)?

>>Bush "admitted committing torture" by approving waterboarding and is, therefore, a confessed "war criminal"?

>>President George W. Bush and his policies made America hated in the Middle East -- even though polls show the Egyptians have a lower opinion of America under Obama than they did under Bush?

>>Governors' attempts to rein in public-sector compensation -- because it vastly exceeds the private-sector counterparts -- constitute an "assault" on "all unions"?

Please let me know if that works for you.
 
>>A "tax cut" means giving checks to the nearly 40 percent of the work force that pays no federal income taxes?

Definition of a tax cut:

"A tax cut is a reduction in the rate of tax charged by a government, for example on personal or corporate income. Whether a given tax cut will increase or decrease total tax revenues is much discussed by both economists and politicians. "

What President Obama said:

Obama said his stimulus program provides a tax cut for "95% of working households" and later said that a cut would go to 95% of "working families." That calls for some explanation. The key words are "working" and "cut."

He's referring to the "making work pay" refundable tax credit, which is only available to workers. There would be no credit for retirees or those who are unemployed; a more modest 75.5% of all households would benefit, whether their members are working or not.

It is also questionable whether all of the tax refunds can properly be called "tax cuts." The credit is refundable and, therefore, is going to many who earn so little that they pay no federal income taxes in the first place. The White House calls them tax cuts, but the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office officially scores the bill's refundable credits under "direct spending."

HOpoliticalfactcheck: It is true that the claim was made and is false.

Tax cut is correctly put in quotes because the term is being misused by our President.

Check are not technically always being given but deductions are. For any tax filer who gets a refund a check will be given.

Do 40% of the work force pay no income tax? Fact; It may be closer to 50%.

So yes, 40% or close will receive checks as a result of a deduction, not a tax cut, and that 40% were not even paying taxes to begin with.

In short the presidents plan is not much more than another way to redistribute wealth.
 
Okay Pockets I will do you a favor and list those fantasies you likely believe. I do this based on my wonderful interaction with you these past few months.

I suspect you believe the following fantasies:
>>The rich pay no taxes -- even though the top 1 percent of income earners pay nearly 40 percent of all federal income taxes?

>>Tax cuts only benefit the rich -- even though they disproportionately pay the income taxes (see above)?

>>Bush "admitted committing torture" by approving waterboarding and is, therefore, a confessed "war criminal"?

>>President George W. Bush and his policies made America hated in the Middle East -- even though polls show the Egyptians have a lower opinion of America under Obama than they did under Bush?

>>Governors' attempts to rein in public-sector compensation -- because it vastly exceeds the private-sector counterparts -- constitute an "assault" on "all unions"?

Please let me know if that works for you.

No
No
yes
No
I will guess you mean WI , and not counting other states..as its the only one I realy have details on..and Yes it was purly about attacking Unions overall unless of course they supported Walker...then they where saved.

you suck at this guessing thing
 
No
No
yes
No
I will guess you mean WI , and not counting other states..as its the only one I realy have details on..and Yes it was purly about attacking Unions overall unless of course they supported Walker...then they where saved.

you suck at this guessing thing


Well there's the proof that you believe in fantasies.

Do you believe in any of the other fantasies listed?
 
Werbung:
Back
Top