Comments on: Dumbest Wingnut Comment of the Month

By: Stram

Stram — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 20:51:03 +0000

To answer your question Hanque, yes, I do think there is something good that generally comes from a divided government. I think history show that.

As far as the insults, you can easily check to see who began the ‘butt licker’ and ‘moron’ insults and since that time I have used them in quotations.

By: Hanque

Hanque — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 20:23:34 +0000

Stram, you never ponied up a response re: whether or not the executive and legislative branches work more effectively when they are controlled by different political parties. I guess you got a little blowhardy and spineless yourself when you started your little rant on tarot cards. Luckily, you kindly noted that a democratic Congress reigned Reagan’s “ass in”, so I’m assuming that the republican Congress in the 90’s reigned in Clinton (not sure if that included his ass though) and that may explain a lot about the decent unemployment figures seen in that timeframe.

On your topic of recessions, we were in a recession at the end of the Clinton administration, and you note two recessions in the Reagan administration. Who’s at fault for those? Congress? The President? Whoever you don’t fancy? Please tell us all, oh oracle of political wisdom and name calling.

Lastly, did you and Dagny study the insulting arts at the same institute?

By: Stram

Stram — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 16:00:13 +0000

I told you Hank Dagny wouldn’t be back, Mr. Filius. He’s a spineless blowhard who when faced with the facts and exposed for being nothing but a lying Bush ‘butt licker’ and a ‘moron’, runs and hides.

Some things never change.

By: Stram

Stram — Sun, 14 Jan 2007 23:54:31 +0000

‘Sparring’? That should be an awfully easy knockout with that ‘moron’.

Hank Dagny has to be the dumbest person in the blogosphere. Today he wrote about Nancy Pelosi’s alleged exemption for Starkist Tuna with the new minimum wage legislation. Here’s a direct quote from him;

“But Queen Nancy excused a large employer of below minimum wage earners right in her own district”.

Now, Dagny is either a liar, an idiot or just sadly misinformed. “Wage earners right in her own district”? Someone needs to tell idiot boy that the island of American Somoa is not in California since the exemption pertains to Starkist workers in American Somoa only.

In ‘Nancy Pelosi’s district’, the minimum wage is $7.50 per hour, 25 cents more than what she and Democrats have now passed for the nation. And, American Somoa is “the only U.S. territory not covered by basic federal minimum-wage laws”.

‘Sparring’ with people like Dagny is easy. He’s obviously a fucking clueless George W. Bush asskissing wimp that doesn’t ’spar’ with facts, but with a bunch of name calling (communist/socialist) when faced with those facts.

I’ll be back Mr Filius. But, I’m not sure Hank will.

By: dumpendebat

dumpendebat — Sun, 14 Jan 2007 23:19:43 +0000

I don’t think you’ve chased Hank Dagny away. I’ve been sparring with him for a couple of years now, and I know he never gives up.

You are welcome to comment here any time, though, and I hope you’ll be back.

By: Stram

Stram — Sun, 14 Jan 2007 15:07:50 +0000

Mr Filius,

I apologize for humiliating MR. Dagny and chasing him away from your blog, but useless idiotic Republicans who think they can make up their own statistics and pass them on as if they’re ‘facts’, need to be exposed for the pathetic little ‘morons’ they truly are. Thanks for the opportunity to bitch slap another Bush asskisser.

Stram

By: Stram

Stram — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 15:07:26 +0000

“Reagan had a democratic Congress and the unemployment numbers were pretty good”

Unemployment reached double-digits for quite a few months under Ronald Reagan who also presided over two major recessions. Notice what effect his policies had on 1982 and 1983 until the Democrats in Congress reigned his ass in? Reagan is the most over-rated president in the history of this country. But, he and his old lady were very good a tarot card reading.

1981 7.6
1982 9.7
1983 9.6
1984 7.5
1985 7.2
1986 7.0
1987 6.2
1988 5.5
1989 5.3
http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm

By: Hanque

Hanque — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 06:22:52 +0000

On unemployment figures: Are these figures from the BOL or somewhere else?

Also, what impact does the Congress have on unemployment? I believe that the legislative branch has considerably more power to effect economic change than the executive. Their authority to regulate commerce has considerably more impact that the President’s.

Second, could it be argued that when the executive and legislative branches (majority controlled) share the same political party unemployment figures suffer? The Republicans controlled Congress during the Clinton administration and the performance figures look OK. But during a Republican presidency and controlled Congress, the numbers went down. The same was true under the Carter administration except both powers were controlled by democrats. Reagan had a democratic Congress and the unemployment numbers were pretty good. Comments?

By: Stram

Stram — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 13:51:45 +0000

Those are not ‘my’ unemployment
facts Dagny, they’re from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and I will share them with you since you are obviously way too stupid to find them on your own.
Now go get someone to help explain them to you.
1992-12-01 7.4
1993-01-01 7.3
1993-02-01 7.1
1993-03-01 7.0
1993-04-01 7.1
1993-05-01 7.1
1993-06-01 7.0
1993-07-01 6.9
1993-08-01 6.8
1993-09-01 6.7
1993-10-01 6.8
1993-11-01 6.6
1993-12-01 6.5
1994-01-01 6.6
1994-02-01 6.6
1994-03-01 6.5
1994-04-01 6.4
1994-05-01 6.1
1994-06-01 6.1
1994-07-01 6.1
1994-08-01 6.0
1994-09-01 5.9
1994-10-01 5.8
1994-11-01 5.6
1994-12-01 5.5
1995-01-01 5.6
1995-02-01 5.4
1995-03-01 5.4
1995-04-01 5.8
1995-05-01 5.6
1995-06-01 5.6
1995-07-01 5.7
1995-08-01 5.7
1995-09-01 5.6
1995-10-01 5.5
1995-11-01 5.6
1995-12-01 5.6
1996-01-01 5.6
1996-02-01 5.5
1996-03-01 5.5
1996-04-01 5.6
1996-05-01 5.6
1996-06-01 5.3
1996-07-01 5.5
1996-08-01 5.1
1996-09-01 5.2
1996-10-01 5.2
1996-11-01 5.4
1996-12-01 5.4
1997-01-01 5.3
1997-02-01 5.2
1997-03-01 5.2
1997-04-01 5.1
1997-05-01 4.9
1997-06-01 5.0
1997-07-01 4.9
1997-08-01 4.8
1997-09-01 4.9
1997-10-01 4.7
1997-11-01 4.6
1997-12-01 4.7
1998-01-01 4.6
1998-02-01 4.6
1998-03-01 4.7
1998-04-01 4.3
1998-05-01 4.4
1998-06-01 4.5
1998-07-01 4.5
1998-08-01 4.5
1998-09-01 4.6
1998-10-01 4.5
1998-11-01 4.4
1998-12-01 4.4
1999-01-01 4.3
1999-02-01 4.4
1999-03-01 4.2
1999-04-01 4.3
1999-05-01 4.2
1999-06-01 4.3
1999-07-01 4.3
1999-08-01 4.2
1999-09-01 4.2
1999-10-01 4.1
1999-11-01 4.1
1999-12-01 4.0
2000-01-01 4.0
2000-02-01 4.1
2000-03-01 4.0
2000-04-01 3.8
2000-05-01 4.0
2000-06-01 4.0
2000-07-01 4.0
2000-08-01 4.1
2000-09-01 3.9
2000-10-01 3.9
2000-11-01 3.9
2000-12-01 3.9
2001-01-01 4.2
2001-02-01 4.2
2001-03-01 4.3
2001-04-01 4.4
2001-05-01 4.3
2001-06-01 4.5
2001-07-01 4.6
2001-08-01 4.9
2001-09-01 5.0
2001-10-01 5.3
2001-11-01 5.5
2001-12-01 5.7
2002-01-01 5.7
2002-02-01 5.7
2002-03-01 5.7
2002-04-01 5.9
2002-05-01 5.8
2002-06-01 5.8
2002-07-01 5.8
2002-08-01 5.7
2002-09-01 5.7
2002-10-01 5.7
2002-11-01 5.9
2002-12-01 6.0
2003-01-01 5.8
2003-02-01 5.9
2003-03-01 5.9
2003-04-01 6.0
2003-05-01 6.1
2003-06-01 6.3
2003-07-01 6.2
2003-08-01 6.1
2003-09-01 6.1
2003-10-01 6.0
2003-11-01 5.8
2003-12-01 5.7
2004-01-01 5.7
2004-02-01 5.6
2004-03-01 5.8
2004-04-01 5.6
2004-05-01 5.6
2004-06-01 5.6
2004-07-01 5.5
2004-08-01 5.4
2004-09-01 5.4
2004-10-01 5.4
2004-11-01 5.4
2004-12-01 5.4
2005-01-01 5.2
2005-02-01 5.4
2005-03-01 5.2
2005-04-01 5.1
2005-05-01 5.1
2005-06-01 5.0
2005-07-01 5.0
2005-08-01 4.9
2005-09-01 5.1
2005-10-01 5.0
2005-11-01 5.0
2005-12-01 4.9
2006-01-01 4.7
2006-02-01 4.8
2006-03-01 4.7
2006-04-01 4.7
2006-05-01 4.6
2006-06-01 4.6
2006-07-01 4.8
2006-08-01 4.7
2006-09-01 4.6
2006-10-01 4.4
2006-11-01 4.5
2006-12-01 4.5

And, so you would invade both Iran and Syria with a mere 50,000 troops only after ‘air strikes’? Sort of like the 3 week ‘Shock and Awe’ campaign in Iraq where we have now had 130,000 troops involved for 4 years in a country only half the size of Iran?

Face it Dagny, you’re just plain and simply ignorant and don’t know what you’re talking about. I provided you the facts on unemployment which proves that. If you have facts from Fox News or something that dispute them, than let’s see them or shut-up and face the fact that you’ve been made a fool of. Which was a very easy task, I must say.

By: Hank Dagny

Hank Dagny — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 11:08:25 +0000

Stram, your unemployment facts are wrong you Clinton butt sucker. The economy has been better due to the tax cuts, not because of who is in office.

I don’t give credit to the politician. I give credit to American capitalism.

You left wing Clinton prostitutes keep saying it waw Clinton when he did nothing for eight years.
Give Americans back their money and we will all prosper.

Pelosi is some champion of the poor all right. Let this stupid arrogant bitch speak and the American public will see the Democratic Party for what it is.

As for my war plan, some of the 50,000 would invade AFTER the air strikes you moron. They would be walking thru rubble.

What is your policy for fighting the War on Terror? My guess is holding a Koran while mutilating your own vagina (which fits for you no matter which sex you are pretending to be).

As usual, I see left wing criticism and surrender, I don’t see solutions.