Posted by bad_luck on 2/25/2019 12:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 2/25/2019 10:58:00 AM (view original):
I think we should INCREASE the Medicare age not decrease it.

Well, you’re an idiot, so it isn’t surprising that you think idiot thoughts.

Well at least I know basic math. If we cannot balance the budget now how would we with people qualifying for freebies earlier? And yes, I support Trump so by your operational definition I am an idiot. No need to keep repeating yourself, fatty.

Posted by cccp1014 on 2/25/2019 12:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/25/2019 12:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 2/25/2019 10:58:00 AM (view original):
I think we should INCREASE the Medicare age not decrease it.

Well, you’re an idiot, so it isn’t surprising that you think idiot thoughts.

Well at least I know basic math. If we cannot balance the budget now how would we with people qualifying for freebies earlier? And yes, I support Trump so by your operational definition I am an idiot. No need to keep repeating yourself, fatty.

We can balance the budget. Trump chose to cut taxes instead.

I’m glad you owned up to being an idiot.

Posted by bad_luck on 2/25/2019 12:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 2/25/2019 12:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/25/2019 12:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 2/25/2019 10:58:00 AM (view original):
I think we should INCREASE the Medicare age not decrease it.

Well, you’re an idiot, so it isn’t surprising that you think idiot thoughts.

Well at least I know basic math. If we cannot balance the budget now how would we with people qualifying for freebies earlier? And yes, I support Trump so by your operational definition I am an idiot. No need to keep repeating yourself, fatty.

We can balance the budget. Trump chose to cut taxes instead.

I’m glad you owned up to being an idiot.

I said by your operational definition. Doesn’t mean I agree with you. LOL. Yes at your 99% tax rate we could probably afford Medicare for all. Probably not feasible. Tang is actually making more sense than you. Interesting.

Posted by cccp1014 on 2/25/2019 12:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/25/2019 12:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 2/25/2019 12:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/25/2019 12:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 2/25/2019 10:58:00 AM (view original):
I think we should INCREASE the Medicare age not decrease it.

Well, you’re an idiot, so it isn’t surprising that you think idiot thoughts.

Well at least I know basic math. If we cannot balance the budget now how would we with people qualifying for freebies earlier? And yes, I support Trump so by your operational definition I am an idiot. No need to keep repeating yourself, fatty.

We can balance the budget. Trump chose to cut taxes instead.

I’m glad you owned up to being an idiot.

I said by your operational definition. Doesn’t mean I agree with you. LOL. Yes at your 99% tax rate we could probably afford Medicare for all. Probably not feasible. Tang is actually making more sense than you. Interesting.

It wouldn’t even have to go that far. A slight uptick in the existing (pre-Trump cut) upper tier rates and closing corporate loopholes would have done it.

We can balance the budget if we need to. We don’t have to, but we could. It won’t stop us from policy improvements.

We could. When was the last time it was balanced? You and I cannot even have a civil conversation but you want the parties to get along and balance the budget. Please explain how you see that as achievable. Thank you.

Posted by cccp1014 on 2/25/2019 1:01:00 PM (view original):
We could. When was the last time it was balanced? You and I cannot even have a civil conversation but you want the parties to get along and balance the budget. Please explain how you see that as achievable. Thank you.

Part of the reason it isn’t usually balanced is because we’ve figured out that it doesn’t have to be balanced. So the need isn’t there.

Bipartisanship won’t be required. Dems will take the Presidency and Senate in 2020. End the filibuster and away we go.

Posted by bad_luck on 2/25/2019 1:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 2/25/2019 1:01:00 PM (view original):
We could. When was the last time it was balanced? You and I cannot even have a civil conversation but you want the parties to get along and balance the budget. Please explain how you see that as achievable. Thank you.

Part of the reason it isn’t usually balanced is because we’ve figured out that it doesn’t have to be balanced. So the need isn’t there.

Bipartisanship won’t be required. Dems will take the Presidency and Senate in 2020. End the filibuster and away we go.

Yawn. You never answer questions. You live in a fantasy world. It I knew what company you worked for I would short the stock. So who is going to win? Bernie? Maybe your party should run a viable candidate first?

A) I work for a private company. You couldn’t short the stock if you wanted to. And, god, if you were able to, I would love to be on the other side of that bet because we make so much money it’s obscene.

B) You don’t need me to answer the question. You have google. The last balanced budget is a fact you can find easily.

C) I don’t know who will win. I’m rooting pretty hard for Warren but I’ll vote for whatever Dem gets the nomination.

Posted by bad_luck on 2/25/2019 3:25:00 PM (view original):
A) I work for a private company. You couldn’t short the stock if you wanted to. And, god, if you were able to, I would love to be on the other side of that bet because we make so much money it’s obscene.

B) You don’t need me to answer the question. You have google. The last balanced budget is a fact you can find easily.

C) I don’t know who will win. I’m rooting pretty hard for Warren but I’ll vote for whatever Dem gets the nomination.

As I've said before, I think Warren's chances of winning the nomination are almost 0%.

Harris is the same gender, checks a lot of the progressive boxes and, best of all, her DNA results actually prove that she is Jamaican/Indian.

BIDEN/BETO 20

Posted by bad_luck on 2/25/2019 3:25:00 PM (view original):
A) I work for a private company. You couldn’t short the stock if you wanted to. And, god, if you were able to, I would love to be on the other side of that bet because we make so much money it’s obscene.

B) You don’t need me to answer the question. You have google. The last balanced budget is a fact you can find easily.

C) I don’t know who will win. I’m rooting pretty hard for Warren but I’ll vote for whatever Dem gets the nomination.

1) So you by yourself would be smarter than the short sellers? LOL. Don’t get that post. So you work for a small business? Makes sense.

2) That was not the question I was referring to. MikeT was right about you.

3) You call me an idiot but root for Warren. You honestly cannot make this stuff up and that was not even my point.

Tangay is making more sense than you.

Posted by rsp777 on 2/25/2019 4:37:00 PM (view original):
BIDEN/BETO 20

Two white guys? LOL. Have you been following the Democrat party? They check none of their boxes unless one comes out as gay and the other identifies as a woman.

Posted by gomiami1972 on 2/25/2019 4:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/25/2019 3:25:00 PM (view original):
A) I work for a private company. You couldn’t short the stock if you wanted to. And, god, if you were able to, I would love to be on the other side of that bet because we make so much money it’s obscene.

B) You don’t need me to answer the question. You have google. The last balanced budget is a fact you can find easily.

C) I don’t know who will win. I’m rooting pretty hard for Warren but I’ll vote for whatever Dem gets the nomination.

As I've said before, I think Warren's chances of winning the nomination are almost 0%.

Harris is the same gender, checks a lot of the progressive boxes and, best of all, her DNA results actually prove that she is Jamaican/Indian.

I think Warren’s policy positions are much more popular within the party. A lot of people see Harris as disingenuous. She is not popular with the base.

That being said, I’ll happily vote for her or Booker or Brown or Butigieg (sp?) or whoever.

Posted by cccp1014 on 2/25/2019 4:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/25/2019 3:25:00 PM (view original):
A) I work for a private company. You couldn’t short the stock if you wanted to. And, god, if you were able to, I would love to be on the other side of that bet because we make so much money it’s obscene.

B) You don’t need me to answer the question. You have google. The last balanced budget is a fact you can find easily.

C) I don’t know who will win. I’m rooting pretty hard for Warren but I’ll vote for whatever Dem gets the nomination.

1) So you by yourself would be smarter than the short sellers? LOL. Don’t get that post. So you work for a small business? Makes sense.

2) That was not the question I was referring to. MikeT was right about you.

3) You call me an idiot but root for Warren. You honestly cannot make this stuff up and that was not even my point.

Tangay is making more sense than you.

1) 450 employees. 34 partners (actually llc members but partner is the term we use). Technically small I guess but we do $2B a year in sales.

2) I’m not a mind-reader, what question are you talking about?

3) Warren is one of the smartest, most capable people involved in government today.