President George W. Bush - President Bush added the most to the debt, more than $6 trillion. This more than doubled the debt, which was $5.8 trillion on September 30, 2001 -- the end of FY 2001, which was President Clinton's last budget. Bush responded to the 9/11 attacks by launching the War on Terror. This drove military spending to record levels, $600-$800 billion a year. This included the Iraq War, which cost $807.5 billion. President Bush also responded to the 2001 recession by passing EGTRRA and JGTRRA, otherwise known as the Bush tax cuts, which reduced revenue. He approved a $700 billion bailout package for banks to combat the 2008 global financial crisis. For more, see the Bush Administration.

thats from: http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebtanddeficit/p/US-Debt-by-President.htm

A 10-point list, which Russia uses “to spin a false and dangerous narrative to justify its illegal actions in Ukraine."

1. On Russia’s claim that its agents are not active in Ukraine – the State Department points out that the Ukrainian government has arrested more than a dozen suspected Russian intelligence agents and that those who have seized government building in eastern Ukraine were outfitted in bullet-proof vests, camouf**ge uniforms and were carrying weapons reminiscent of Russia’s “illegal military intervention in Crimea” in late February and its subsequent occupation.

2. On Russia’s claims that pro-Russia demonstrations are comprised exclusively of Ukrainian citizens acting of their own volition the list points out that this is not a “grassroots Ukrainian civic activism” as witnessed on Kyiv’s Maidan where a movement grew from a handful of student protesters to “hundreds of thousands from all parts of the country and all walks of life.” The State Department also underscores what its calls an open recruitment campaign on Russian internet sites for Russians to travel to Ukraine to incite unrest. It says there is evidence that “protesters” receive payment for such services.

3. On Russia’s claim that separatist leaders in eastern Ukraine enjoy broad popular support the list point that, according to opinion polls, the vast majority of people even in largely Russian-speaking parts of eastern Ukraine “want to live in a united Ukraine and reject unification with Russia.”

4. On Russia’s claim that the situation in eastern Ukraine risks spiraling into civil war, the State Department points out that there simply have not been large-scale protests in the region, and what is happening there now “would not be happening without Russian disinformation and provocateurs fostering unrest.”

5. On Russia’s claim that Ukrainians in Donetsk rejected the illegitimate authorities in Kyiv and established the independent “People’s Republic of Donetsk,” the list point out that a “broad and representative collection of civil society and non-governmental organizations in Donetsk categorically rejected the declaration.”

6. On Russia’s claim it ordered a “partial drawdown” of troops from the Ukrainian border, the State Department points out that there is no evidence of any significant movement, and that “an estimated 35,000-40,000 Russian troops remain massed along the border, in addition to approximately 25,000 troops currently in Crimea.”

7. On Russia’s claim that ethnic Russians in Ukraine are under threat, the list, citing polling data, says there is no credible evidence supporting the claim. Moreover, it points out that “the ethnic Russians most at risk are those who live in Russia and who oppose the authoritarian Putin regime.”

8. On Russia’ claim that Ukraine’s new government is led by radical nationalists and f*****ts, the State Department says that Ukraine’s parliament, elected by all Ukrainian, has not changed since the fall of the regime of president Viktor Yanukovych, and that its current government was overwhelmingly approved by the legislature, including by members of the party Yanukovych headed prior to being ousted.

9. On Russia’s claim that ethnic minorities face persecution in Ukraine from the “f*****t” government in Kyiv, the list points out that a number of ethnic and religious minorities have expressed a “sense of safety under the new authorities in Kyiv.”

10. On Russia’s claims that it is not using energy and trade as weapons against Ukraine, the State Department underscores that only in the past two weeks Russia raised its natural gas price for Ukraine by 80 percent and that it continues to restrict Ukrainian exports to Russia.

There has been no immediate reaction by Russia to the State Department’s latest list.

http://www.voanews.com/content/us-lists-10-more-false-russian-claims-on-ukraine/1892650.html

By Jefferson Smith

Today’s conservatives might concede – some of them grudgingly – that it’s good that democracy eventually won out over absolute monarchs and landed aristocracies. But that’s as far as we can go: There’s no need, and no justification, for further reforms aimed, for instance, at limiting the disproportionate power of a wealthy few. And yes, it’s good that laws against interracial marriage were eventually struck down; even most conservatives now agree that marriage between people of different races isn’t unnatural or un-biblical.

But there’s no extending that point to today’s arguments over same-sex marriage – that is unnatural and un-biblical, and it must be forbidden by law. The progressive project was essential, once, but now it’s over. In fact it’s even gone too far and now needs to be rolled back.

Conservatives are forever insisting that further reforms will cause chaos, even while (silently) conceding the wisdom of reforms already achieved.

Those who opposed desegregation would have agreed (one hopes) that outright s***ery was an evil that earlier reformers had been right to condemn. Thus far, OK, but no further, has been the essential conservative position. Then we go further, and conservatives of the next generation say, OK, yes, that was a good development too. But no further! And so on. Why, it’s fair to ask, should we believe that this time conservatives finally have it right – that the limits they’re always wrongly claiming we’ve reached have, at last, actually been reached?

In embracing existing hierarchies and disparaging most proposals for change, conservatives like to think they’ve accepted the fact that life isn’t fair. Some people have more advantages than others? Some people get lucky breaks that others don’t? So be it. Progressives’ insistence on making things “fairer” is mostly just utopian scheming, notwithstanding the many times in the past when they’ve actually succeeded.

But this self-image is a delusion. In t***h it’s conservatives who are assuming that life is fair. Their view isn’t just that some injustices can’t be fixed, it’s that many of those conditions aren’t injustices at all. Some people deserve greater privilege than others. They “earn” it, either through some kind of effort on their part or simply by virtue of their better character. And by the same token there are people of lesser industry, ingenuity or character who deserve to find themselves holding the short end of the stick. As long as that’s the reason it happens, it’s fine if the so-called “outcomes” that different people experience are different.

It wasn’t so long ago that phrases like “the best people” and “one’s betters” were in common use, as was language that marked a select few as people of “rank” or “quality.” What these terms referred to was frankly unearned privilege. Shakespeare, for example, like everyone in his day, often used them as synonyms for lords, ladies and other titled aristocrats, people whose “quality” was established the moment they were born into one of “the better families.” Even where formal titles were later abandoned, as in the U.S., terms like these continued to function as, basically, euphemisms for wealth.

Over time, reforms for which progressives can take credit (and which conservatives, as always, resisted) have weakened the links between birth, wealth and perceived “quality.” But progressive success at discrediting the old notion of social ranks has had the ironic effect of making the class barriers that do remain harder to see. It gave life to a new conservative myth – the “classless society” – in which those barriers have supposedly disappeared altogether, and those who are determined enough can now achieve wh**ever they want. Which means that if they don’t, then the fault lies with them, not the system.

The six pillars of conservative unwisdom we’ve just reviewed seem to be operating in every age. We find remarkably similar versions of them in periods which, because the world has changed and moved on to new issues, are otherwise very different. (Another set of six “canons,” not the same as but overlapping with these, is the very definition of conservatism, according to one of its own gurus, Russell Kirk.) Once the conservative ideas current in any given period are discredited and abandoned, conservatives of the next era simply build a new structure on the same old supports.

For centuries now they’ve been serving themselves and the rest of us poorly by spurning scientific evidence in favor of biblical revelation, insisting that certain social arrangements are natural or God-given and mustn’t be changed, putting their faith in the powers-that-be of the moment and assuming that these would and should continue in power, reacting with hostility to efforts to extend rights to groups that previously lacked them, and warning with utter confidence that reform efforts would wreck society instead of making it better. And yet, to paraphrase one of their heroes, Ronald Reagan: “Here they go again.” However badly these impulses have failed them as guides to the situations and controversies of the past, conservatives are always arguing anew that they’re just what’s needed to meet the challenges of the present

Once in a great while a conservative acknowledges that his side got some great issue wrong. Pope John Paul II apologized for several of his church’s most notorious mistakes, including the Galileo fiasco as well as much more serious crimes against Jews, women and many other groups. (He drew the line at gays and lesbians, leaving that inevitable apology for some future pope.) Newt Gingrich, when he took over the Speakership of the U.S. House in 1995, told his colleagues the following:

No Republican here should kid themselves about it. The greatest leaders in fighting for an integrated America in the 20th century were in the Democratic Party. The fact is, it was the liberal wing of the Democratic Party that ended segregation. The fact is that it was Franklin Delano Roosevelt who gave hope to a nation that was in distress and could have slid into dictatorship. Every Republican has much to learn from studying what the Democrats did right.

Because other examples are less well-remembered than Galileo’s, it’s easy to see his as an isolated case and to imagine that progress is usually widely applauded. In fact, though, virtually every development of the last few hundred years that increased knowledge, improved society or made people’s lives better was met in its time with furious conservative resistance.

Obama's Executive Order #13524 amended Executive Order # 12425. It grants the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) "rights" on American soil that place it BEYOND THE REACH of our own law enforcement agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). In other words, he signed the rights of our own law enforcement away for the sake of the UN police. Does this not upset some truly patriotic Americans that our so-called president would do such a thing?

Now why does anyone think Obummer would do this if he was, in actuality, the "GREAT" American, who also took the p**********l oath to uphold our Constitution to the letter, that some i***ts believe him to be?

I wonder how it feels to stagger through life in a stupid utopian trance as some seem to be in all the time?

YOU OPINED: “The witnesses to the resurrection were all in the story there were no independent witnesses outside the story. Therefore that information would not be admissible in a court of law.” [sic]

~~~~ Simply put, that is totally FALSE !

You and Thomas Paine may certainly hold to your opinions about what you have read in the Scriptures and how you responded to those saving words from the position and perspective of your own spiritual status at the time. This can change, so keep reading.

Let’s look at a quick sketch of what God has said concerning the workings of faith as there are many people out there with misconceptions.

1. Who provides faith?

1 Corinthians 12:3 No one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.

2. Can we determine how it will happen?

JOHN 3:8 [JESUS]: “The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

3. What methods does the Holy Spirit use?

ROMANS 10:17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

4. What does faith consist of; what does it profit ?

ROMANS 10:9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

2 Corinthians 4
But if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. In their case, the god of this age has blinded the minds of the unbelievers so they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ.

These are the conservatives. Thankfully, they eventually lose most of these arguments.
We see this in the crucifixion of Jesus, the American Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and Taliban Afghanistan. In these conflicts, guess who is the villain... yep, it's always the conservatives.
Conservatives have a "me" rather than "we" orientation.
==============================================================================
What a bull s**t rant of poppycock. Practically everything you say about conservatives is more true of liberals. But then that is the Alinsky method "accuse them of what you do". Everything you say is back ass word. You sound like a c*******t that doesn't realize that by and large America throughout history has been fulfilling its noble destiny of service to the world. You say that we lose most of the arguments. It's hard for us to even get you to debate with us and you're always using those political correctness tactics to avoid debate. "Just call them a r****t; that'll shut them up". And now the conservatives are the ones responsible for k*****g Jesus/ ?? ??? and what do you have against the Revolutionary war that was to stop the English from subjugating us. And where were the conservatives wrong in trying to hold the union together and free the s***es which was the reason for the Civil War. Did you know the KKK was started by the Democrats and was the enforcement arm for the Democratic Party and that Lincoln and MLK were both registered Republicans? You forgot to blame us for dropping the atom bomb which saved far more lives of many different nationalities than it took. And now you're comparing crazy Taliban Muslims to American conservatives? You are nuts! And what do you do - you partner up with Islam to go against the conservative and the Christians being when we are the ones that are trying to save you from Islam (and the thanks we get is to be called Islamaphobes) instead of learning about Islam from reliable sources. You believe the bull s**t the Muslims tell you when the fact of the matter is the reason Islam is called the "religion of peace" is because that's their agenda. To wipe out every other religion, political system and culture then and only then does the Koran tell them that there will be world peace; it is a s*********t ideology just like N**i-ism and every bit as evil. You know that no democracy has ever attacked another democracy? ?? NEVER and what's the record of the lefties? Well I'll tell you - 120,000,000 dead in the twentieth century. (mostly of their own, at that) And you say that the conservatives have a me rather than a we orientation. I guess that's why it is a statistical fact that conservatives give far more to charity than the liberals who expect the government to do it for them. I could take the rest of your diatribe apart piece by piece, but this is already a long enough post and I really don't have the time for it.

Let me clarify. Yes the old testament existed and was called the Torah the Hebrew Bible. Modern Scientific Archaeology and the absence of historic proof have revealed the first four books of the Old Testament to be complete fabrications. Ancient Egyptian history is written in hieroglyphics in and on the walls ceilings columns of the palaces tombs and Temples of Egypt and there is no record of 600,000 Jewish s***es living in Egypt or leaving or of the Red Sea opening up and swallowing an Egyptian army. Christianity in its early years was little more than a cult and existed in scattered areas around the Mediterranean,


until Emperor Constantine adopted It as the official religion of Rome, for political purposes (the battle of Milvian bridge) . and based on the myth of Mithra who was crucified between 600 and 400 BCE. Crucifixiations were popular in achient times. Some 16 mythical Crucifixiations of Godsh occured before Christ and most were born of a virgin, about half on Dec25th.

There were many religions in Rome in 325, too many in fact. A council was called to amalgate the many religionsoman Empire into one. Christianity plagerized older myths and legends and horistorized them to suit the Roman Catholic Currch while combining religions existing at the time (Krishna, Horus, Osorian. Ises, Baal, Ishtar and many others for unity and to stop all the conflicts between numerous religions. This all took place at the council of Nicaea in 325. At first siome claimed the new religion was fiction and Christ was a fiction but they did prevail.

Euesbius (bishop of Caeserea in Palistine) arranged for scribes to produce fifty copies of what was called the new testimonies. This was the first mention of the New Testament. Constintine then decreed that the New Testomonies thereafter would be called the word of the Roman Saviour and that any earlier manuscripts be burnt and the records of the council be burnt and that any man found concealing writtings be stricken off at the shoulders. (beheaded) This New Testament was the official book of the new united religion of Constitine not the Bible. All other bgooks were to be burned; that would include the Torah/ Old Testament.

In 391 Emporer Theodosius ordered the destruction of all pagan temples; Ultimately there Library of Alexandria was burned by Religious fanatics. The Church admits that the Gospels do not go back to the first century of the Christian era. What about Tacitus Roman Historian who wrote about the percecutions of early Christians? These writtings were discovered in the forest's of Germany following a reward for offered by Leo X for old writtings, and following a history of forgeries in Catholicism. Pope Leo X called Christ a fable I stand by my claim that the New Testament was hand written by Benedictine Monks for over a thousand years and the laity was forbiden to read the books and had to rely on the priest to tell them what it said untill the invention of the printing press by Johannes Gutenburg publishing the Gutenburg Bible in 1452.

The printing press became an indispensible tool of the reformers beginning in Germany with Luther's Sola Scripture in the 15 th century. Sparking the Reformation and the religious wars of the15 th and 16 th centuries. Secular interpertations of the Bible are based on the historical and archeological record as the facts and evidence indicate. Faith is based on hope's and dreams in the absdence of all evidence. And is a creation of the minds of men in an attempt to explain the wonders of nature and the natural world with supper natural myth's.

If we listen to h**e radio, conservative web sites and Faux News channel it soon becomes apparent that George Soros has been turned into a boogey man. The boogey man is worth 20 billion dollars and the Koch brothers are worth over 70 billion combined. Right away common sense should prevail upon a conservative afraid of Soros. He doesn't have the resources of the megalomaniac brothers. A visit to the aformentioned sites in the conservative media-sphere you will hear that Soros has spent $550 million since 1979 in the US on liberal causes. and fail to note that he has disclosed every dollar, because he believes in t***sparency and an open society.