Dozens of pro-Dorner protesters rally at LAPD HQ

[The Shadow]

'Dozens of pro-Dorner protesters rally at LAPD HQ'

"Dorner must be some kind of hero."-Mom49of4

A Leftist Psychopathic Obama Loving, Clinton Loving, MSNBC Loving, Anti-NRA, Liberal Killer who murders a young woman engaged to be married, in Cold Blood, and then calls her grieving father to taunt him over her death, equals the status of "Black Rambo" by a Liberal poster here.

Liberals Rush to Defend Murderer Christopher Dorner; "A True Patriot Hero"

The Main Stream Media has been deafeningly silent on madman Christopher Dorner's liberal leanings. Dorner supports gun control. Dorner loves President Obama. Dorner said of Piers Morgan, "I agree with you 100%."

Much of the reason is clear: the MSM desperately wants to paint conservatives as violent lunatics. They did so after Representative Giffords was shot. They said that James Holmes was a Tea Party member despite zero evidence whatsoever. But for some, there is another reason: they support what Dorner has done.

On Occupy Wall Street's website, a headline blares, "Christopher Jordan Dorner Is A True Patriot Hero: LAPD Getting Everything It Deserves." While the post notes, "This content is user submitted and not an official statement," the sentiments of the liberals on that site are laid bare by their statements.

Why Liberals Love Chris Dorner

Do liberals love accused assassin Chris Dorner? An analysis at the PJ Tatler estimates that comments on the Huffington Post are running nine-to-one in favor of the alleged cop killer. Why are so many on the left endorsing Dorner’s manifesto and murderous spree? Find out as PJTV’s Trifecta discusses the rampage of this disgraced ex-cop.

[NCBirdfan]

Which means he's on course to raise it by 136%.

Reagan is still a winner at 168.2%.

[veritas]

And what bearing do you think taking over a trillion dollar deficit and the worst economy in 4 generations has on those numbers?

We're talking about debt that has been added since Obama, not what he inherited. If Obama reverses course over the next four years then we'll have a different discussion. It'll take either a huge upturn in the economy or considerably less spending for that to happen. Once the full impact of Obamacare hits, I expect the numbers will get worse.

[gonzoliberal]

"Dozens..."

[veritas]

If you want to change the topic, start a thread.

I'd like to say I'm surprised at the lengths you go to to defend your buddy's lie, but I'm not.

Who's my buddy and what lie? What the hell are you talking about?

[Eastside Terp]

Say what?

I've said everything I want to, loudly and directly.

What exactly are you curious about?

lol ......

why didn't the teaparty start up when reagan was president .......

why did they wait for the first black president ......

but I'm not saying the teaparty is racist ........

come on, grow a pair ......

[veritas]

Reagan is still a winner at 168.2%.

Look at the column that says "Gross Domestic Product-- Debt as % of"

Reagan nowhere exceeds 52.6%. Obama's four years are 86.4%, 95.1%, 98.7% and 103.9%.

It's no contest.

[Cameron]

Look at the column that says INTEREST.

[veritas]

Look at the column that says INTEREST.

Yea, interest rates are lower now than in the 80's. Alert the media.

[Cameron]

Yea, interest rates are lower now than in the 80's. Alert the media.

Pssst!

The interest expense on the Reagan/Bush debt.

Looks like Obama is carrying about a half trillion a year in interest.

Before Reagan, there wasn't any interest expense.

[NCBirdfan]

Look at the column that says "Gross Domestic Product-- Debt as % of"

Reagan nowhere exceeds 52.6%. Obama's four years are 86.4%, 95.1%, 98.7% and 103.9%.

It's no contest.

Can a president really influence GDP?

[veritas]

Pssst!

The interest expense on the Reagan/Bush debt.

Looks like Obama is carrying about a half trillion a year in interest.

Before Reagan, there was zero interest expense.

So, Obama's 2011 debt to GDP goes all the way down to 95.7%.

[veritas]

Can a president really influence GDP?

Yea, I think they can. The bigger point, though, is that they can tailor their spending to make it more commensurate with revenues. Obama must either cut spending or get a helluva lot more revenue from somewhere.

[SalisburySage]

How's it feel to be on the wrong side of history?

It feels spectacular not to be with those who would evelevate and attempt to turn a murdering psychopath into some kind of hero. Feels very spectacular.

[Cameron]

Reagan tripled our debt and Bush doubled down on that.

Listening to the Republicans whine about the debt is like listening to Dorner whine that he's out of bullets.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Debt_Trend.svg

[NCBirdfan]

Yea, I think they can. The bigger point, though, is that they can tailor their spending to make it more commensurate with revenues. Obama must either cut spending or get a helluva lot more revenue from somewhere.

https://carohlfs.mysite.syr.edu/presidency_021012.pdf
According to Chris Rohlfs, Center for Policy Research, Syracuse University, the answer is no. If you have time read this:

This is the abstract:

Presidential elections are often seen as referendums on the health of the economy; however, little evidence exists on the president’s ability to influence GDP. This study examines the effect of the incentive to be reelected and the resulting increase in presidential effort on GDP growth. Growth is found to rise in reelection years for first-term presidents after 1932 and to fall in election years before 1932, when reelection was uncommon, and for second-term presidents generally. This effect is largest for high quality presidents –who probably have the highest return to effort –and is spread across multiple sectors of the economy.

I agree that Obama with Congress needs to cut spending and add revenue to tackle the national debt. Those are two areas the president and Congress can control. GDP - not so much.

[Monte]

I'm not sure what part of "damn near doubling our debt in the last four years" you are failing to comprehend, Monte.

I'm here to help.

What do you need me to explain to you?

You need help. That's more like it.

According to Office of Management and Budget's Fiscal Year 2013 Mid-Session Review; Table S14, published prior to August 23, 2012, Obama's budget is forecasted to Add 4.4 Trillion to the national debt by 2016, giving us a trajectory to hit $20.3 Trillion.

There is government expansion that has been institutionalized by this president, including the Affordability Care Act.

So sorry, Cameron, sorry Pickles, in 4 years, Obama has doubled our national debt or at the very least he has set the table to double the debt within his first 4 years. OmahaBeach-Monte=1 Cameron/Pickles=0

[Cameron]

You need help. That's more like it.

According to Office of Management and Budget's Fiscal Year 2013 Mid-Session Review; Table S14, published prior to August 23, 2012, Obama's budget is forecasted to Add 4.4 Trillion to the national debt by 2016, giving us a trajectory to hit $20.3 Trillion.

There is government expansion that has been institutionalized by this president, including the Affordability Care Act.

So sorry, Cameron, sorry Pickles, in 4 years, Obama has doubled our national debt or at the very least he has set the table to double the debt within his first 4 years. OmahaBeach-Monte=1 Cameron/Pickles=0

LOL!

Well, here's the debt.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...ebt_histo5.htm

Still here for ya if ya need more help.

[Grindelwald]

So sorry, Cameron, sorry Pickles, in 4 years, Obama has doubled our national debt or at the very least he has set the table to double the debt within his first 4 years. OmahaBeach-Monte=1 Cameron/Pickles=0

It's so funny when right wingers think they have it all figured out but in reality have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.

[Monte]

Reagan tripled our debt and Bush doubled down on that.

Listening to the Republicans whine about the debt is like listening to Dorner whine that he's out of bullets.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Debt_Trend.svg

Hint, Cameron: When you're really striving to drive that big nail into the other side, don't use the wiki, everyone knows you can write anything in the wiki. When you use the wiki to try to make an important point, you just look weak.

Under modern republican administrations, we did not have sustained 8% and higher unemployment figures. Under modern republican administrations, U.S. financial instruments have carried a AAA rating, under Obama, they were downgraded. Since Obama took office, our nation has for the first time both had our credit downgraded and for the first time in history, the national debt has now exceeded the nation's Gross Domestic Product. SNAP, the food stamp program has seen its numbers skyrocket from 17 million before Obama to 46 million now.

Why don't you make some more silly claims to make even sillier metaphors? I can use the entertainment.