Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

New Hampshire shows cracks in it's Libertarian ways

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • New Hampshire shows cracks in it's Libertarian ways

    New Hampshire Legislator: We Need to 'Restrict Freedoms' of Conservatives

    Must be the idiots who moved there because it was better financially now they want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

    Conservatives are becoming a hunted species.

    A New Hampshire legislator wants her constituents to know that she feels conservatives are the "single biggest threat" her state faces today, and she wants to use her powers to legislate to "pass measures that will restrict" the freedoms of Granite State conservatives.

  • #2
    Re: New Hampshire shows cracks in it's Libertarian ways

    Libs are all about diversity as long as you agree with them.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #3
      Re: New Hampshire shows cracks in it's Libertarian ways

      Originally posted by Wlessard View Post
      New Hampshire Legislator: We Need to 'Restrict Freedoms' of Conservatives

      Must be the idiots who moved there because it was better financially now they want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

      Conservatives are becoming a hunted species.
      What she actually said was "One way is to pass measures that will restrict the 'freedoms' that they think they will find here." That's a bit different than "We Need to 'Restrict Freedoms' of Conservatives."

      That said, she sounds like a devisive asshole. Another item from her blog post:
      Here in Keene we had a couple show up on Central Square to take part in our weekly Saturday morning peace demonstration. In the course of the conversation they allowed that they were Free Staters considering moving to Keene. The folks on the Square told them in no uncertain terms not to do that because Free Staters are not welcome here. Cheshire County is a welcoming community but not to those whose stated goal is to move in enough ideologues to steal our state, and our way of life.
      New Hampshire Dems apparently feel threatened by these "Free Staters", but that's too bad, isn't it? I mean, could they be any less welcoming to folks who want to move to the fine state of New Hampshire?

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #4
        Re: New Hampshire shows cracks in it's Libertarian ways

        Originally posted by Wlessard View Post
        New Hampshire Legislator: We Need to 'Restrict Freedoms' of Conservatives

        Must be the idiots who moved there because it was better financially now they want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

        Conservatives are becoming a hunted species.
        Haven't you been watching the national political scene? It's open season on conservatives, especially the ideological and fiscal ones. Surprised that there hasn't been an executive order on this.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #5
          Re: New Hampshire shows cracks in it's Libertarian ways

          Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
          Haven't you been watching the national political scene? It's open season on conservatives, especially the ideological and fiscal ones. Surprised that there hasn't been an executive order on this.
          Wait for it...

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #6
            Re: New Hampshire shows cracks in it's Libertarian ways

            Originally posted by Jefe View Post
            What she actually said was "One way is to pass measures that will restrict the 'freedoms' that they think they will find here." That's a bit different than "We Need to 'Restrict Freedoms' of Conservatives."

            That said, she sounds like a devisive asshole. Another item from her blog post:


            New Hampshire Dems apparently feel threatened by these "Free Staters", but that's too bad, isn't it? I mean, could they be any less welcoming to folks who want to move to the fine state of New Hampshire?
            See post # 2

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #7
              Re: New Hampshire shows cracks in it's Libertarian ways

              Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
              See post # 2
              I saw it, thanks.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #8
                Re: New Hampshire shows cracks in it's Libertarian ways

                Originally posted by Jefe View Post
                What she actually said was "One way is to pass measures that will restrict the 'freedoms' that they think they will find here." That's a bit different than "We Need to 'Restrict Freedoms' of Conservatives."

                ...
                Conservatives need to make stuff up, if they stick to reality, their beliefs make no sense.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #9
                  Re: New Hampshire shows cracks in it's Libertarian ways

                  Originally posted by goober View Post
                  Conservatives need to make stuff up, if they stick to reality, their beliefs make no sense.
                  Goober, a needless ad hominem attack, based purely on your opinion. One could easily say the same thing liberals, and guess what, it would be just as accurate.

                  The bottom line here is that both are humans and have human foibles. Your constant baseless and pointless slamming of conservatives in this snide fashion of yours, just because they believe something other than what you do, is not representing the best of you.

                  I believe that you are better than that, and keep wondering why you stoop to such things, rather than constructive and interesting points of discussion.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #10
                    Re: New Hampshire shows cracks in it's Libertarian ways

                    Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
                    Goober, a needless ad hominem attack, based purely on your opinion. One could easily say the same thing liberals, and guess what, it would be just as accurate.

                    The bottom line here is that both are humans and have human foibles. Your constant baseless and pointless slamming of conservatives in this snide fashion of yours, just because they believe something other than what you do, is not representing the best of you.

                    I believe that you are better than that, and keep wondering why you stoop to such things, rather than constructive and interesting points of discussion.
                    The OP was a made up quote, Conservatives "believe" a whole bunch of things that are objectively false.
                    In these forums you have "Conservatives" who believe that there was no Clinton Surplus, that don't accept the factually accurate statement that on the day George W. Bush left office there were fewer private sector jobs than the day he took office 8 years before.

                    Whether tax increases or tax cuts are better for the economy is opinion, and you can legitimately make a case for either side.
                    But there was a surplus for the last 4 years of the Clinton administration, that's a fact.
                    Whether tax cuts create or destroy jobs is a matter of opinion, but there were fewer private sector jobs at the end of the Bush Administration than at the beginning of the Bush administration, that's a fact. And there are more private sector jobs today, than the day Obama took office, that is another fact.

                    I respect opinions, but base your argument on fact. Not misquotes, or denial of reality.
                    Maybe you don't join the conservatives who deny the Clinton surplus, but they identify themselves as conservatives, and the conservatives in this forum at least seldom take them to task for their denial of reality.

                    Think about it, the Treasury says there was a surplus, and I'm supposed to respect the opinion of people who take an unrelated number and make up some formula, and claim it proves otherwise.....

                    OK, people talk about the great job growth when Bush was president, and how terrible it is under Obama, Bush was the only president since Hoover to preside over a net loss of private sector jobs.
                    I'll respect your opinion if it account for the facts, but I have no respect for people who change the facts to fit their opinion.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #11
                      Re: New Hampshire shows cracks in it's Libertarian ways

                      Originally posted by goober View Post
                      The OP was a made up quote, Conservatives "believe" a whole bunch of things that are objectively false.
                      In these forums you have "Conservatives" who believe that there was no Clinton Surplus, that don't accept the factually accurate statement that on the day George W. Bush left office there were fewer private sector jobs than the day he took office 8 years before.

                      Whether tax increases or tax cuts are better for the economy is opinion, and you can legitimately make a case for either side.
                      But there was a surplus for the last 4 years of the Clinton administration, that's a fact.
                      Whether tax cuts create or destroy jobs is a matter of opinion, but there were fewer private sector jobs at the end of the Bush Administration than at the beginning of the Bush administration, that's a fact. And there are more private sector jobs today, than the day Obama took office, that is another fact.

                      I respect opinions, but base your argument on fact. Not misquotes, or denial of reality.
                      Maybe you don't join the conservatives who deny the Clinton surplus, but they identify themselves as conservatives, and the conservatives in this forum at least seldom take them to task for their denial of reality.

                      Think about it, the Treasury says there was a surplus, and I'm supposed to respect the opinion of people who take an unrelated number and make up some formula, and claim it proves otherwise.....

                      OK, people talk about the great job growth when Bush was president, and how terrible it is under Obama, Bush was the only president since Hoover to preside over a net loss of private sector jobs.
                      I'll respect your opinion if it account for the facts, but I have no respect for people who change the facts to fit their opinion.
                      Oh, the irony.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #12
                        Re: New Hampshire shows cracks in it's Libertarian ways

                        Originally posted by goober View Post
                        The OP was a made up quote, Conservatives "believe" a whole bunch of things that are objectively false.
                        In these forums you have "Conservatives" who believe that there was no Clinton Surplus, that don't accept the factually accurate statement that on the day George W. Bush left office there were fewer private sector jobs than the day he took office 8 years before.

                        Whether tax increases or tax cuts are better for the economy is opinion, and you can legitimately make a case for either side.
                        But there was a surplus for the last 4 years of the Clinton administration, that's a fact.
                        Whether tax cuts create or destroy jobs is a matter of opinion, but there were fewer private sector jobs at the end of the Bush Administration than at the beginning of the Bush administration, that's a fact. And there are more private sector jobs today, than the day Obama took office, that is another fact.

                        I respect opinions, but base your argument on fact. Not misquotes, or denial of reality.
                        Maybe you don't join the conservatives who deny the Clinton surplus, but they identify themselves as conservatives, and the conservatives in this forum at least seldom take them to task for their denial of reality.

                        Think about it, the Treasury says there was a surplus, and I'm supposed to respect the opinion of people who take an unrelated number and make up some formula, and claim it proves otherwise.....

                        OK, people talk about the great job growth when Bush was president, and how terrible it is under Obama, Bush was the only president since Hoover to preside over a net loss of private sector jobs.
                        I'll respect your opinion if it account for the facts, but I have no respect for people who change the facts to fit their opinion.
                        Please what year under Clinton did the debt NOT go up?

                        There wasn't one. EVERY year under Clinton the debt got bigger. You cannot say that it didn't because it did. Therefore there was no Surplus. If there was then the debt would have gone down.

                        What other way is there to look at it?

                        Back to the OP.

                        "In the opinion of this Democrat, Free Staters are the single biggest threat the state is facing today. There is, legally, nothing we can do to prevent them from moving here to take over the state, which is their openly stated goal. In this country you can move anywhere you choose and they have that same right. What we can do is to make the environment here so unwelcoming that some will choose not to come, and some may actually leave. One way is to pass measures that will restrict the 'freedoms' that they think they will find here. Another is to shine the bright light of publicity on who they are and why they are coming."
                        Direct from her own blog. HER OWN WORDS. You can play semantics all day long if you want but she wants to restrict the freedoms of conservatives.

                        New Hampshire is based on FREE STATE ideals. Libertarian Ideal and this idiot wants to change that under the guise of making Conservatives not want to go there.
                        Last edited by Wlessard; 01-07-2013, 08:37 AM. Reason: more thoughts

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #13
                          Re: New Hampshire shows cracks in it's Libertarian ways

                          Originally posted by Wlessard View Post
                          Please what year under Clinton did the debt NOT go up?

                          There wasn't one. EVERY year under Clinton the debt got bigger. You cannot say that it didn't because it did. Therefore there was no Surplus. If there was then the debt would have gone down.

                          What other way is there to look at it?

                          Back to the OP.



                          Direct from her own blog. HER OWN WORDS. You can play semantics all day long if you want but she wants to restrict the freedoms of conservatives.

                          New Hampshire is based on FREE STATE ideals. Libertarian Ideal and this idiot wants to change that under the guise of making Conservatives not want to go there.
                          I repeat "Think about it, the Treasury says there was a surplus, and I'm supposed to respect the opinion of people who take an unrelated number and make up some formula, and claim it proves otherwise....."

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #14
                            Re: New Hampshire shows cracks in it's Libertarian ways

                            Not this again...

                            Still... there was a surplus during the fiscal years 1998 to 2001. I may not like how it happened but the facts are for the years mentioned revenues were higher than outlays, and in terms of accounting and law there was a surplus.

                            Yes, Total Debt still went up even though Debt held by the Public fell. It is knowing the difference between the two and the applicable laws around Social Security surpluses that explains it. Yes, the only real reasons Clinton really had a surplus was he raised taxes, there happened to be an economic boom allowing for unexpected tax revenues and Social Security surpluses to help him, and he had to work with a Republican Congress. To be real honest no one really got what they wanted at the time probably telling us all something that it coincides with a time we happened to have budget surpluses. No, the fact that Total Debt went up those same years does not negate what the accounting terms revenues, outlays, deficits and surpluses mean. Nor does it negate what the Treasury, the Congressional Budget Office, various Fact Check groups, etc. has all reported for those years.

                            There was a surplus, it was not pretty, nor was the tone on the hill during those years, but for the fuck of sake it did happen. Even those of you out there that want to debate accrual basis vs. cash basis accounting will find that for 3 of those 4 years (1998 - 2000) there was... wait for it... *STILL* a surplus.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #15
                              Re: New Hampshire shows cracks in it's Libertarian ways

                              Originally posted by Sluggo View Post
                              Not this again...

                              Still... there was a surplus during the fiscal years 1998 to 2001. I may not like how it happened but the facts are for the years mentioned revenues were higher than outlays, and in terms of accounting and law there was a surplus.
                              Sure sluggo, there was a surplus, the CBO said there was

                              The just didn't count all the new debt to come with that surplus. They just came up with a term, the "unified budget" which counted all the trust fund revenues in the general treasury without taking into consideration the T-Notes issue to the trust funds, but sure sluggo, there as surplus, the CBO said there was

                              Heck, who cares that to use the new definition of "surplus" doesn't mean that the total debt doesn't have to go down. Who cares if the actual total national public debt goes up, who cares if we put off budget revenues in the general treasury to pay down the "public debt" while the "debt owed to intragovernmental agencies" goes up, heck who cares, we can use what ever voodoo accounting convention we want and still claim we have a surplus.

                              The people who say that heck what we owe the trust funds can be forgotten. We just won't pay that back. Who cares? Right? Who cares?
                              Last edited by CharlesD; 01-07-2013, 04:50 PM.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?

                              Working...
                              X