Bobert:

"you claim that you can't understand the numbers that CBO has on annual deficits and supluses???"

First of all I had to correct the link you posted. Budget is not spelled bedget and there are no commas in URLs. I never made any such claim. That is your projection like when you falsely say somebody wants to kill somebody else.

So after making up for that part of your lack of knowledge I see several pages of numbers.

After courteously asking you to identify the specific numbers that you claim proves your point, like I did, you sarcastically claim I already know in an effort to cover the fact that you do not know.

As usual you cannot provide the specific information to support your claims. Rather, you bully and blame your inabilities and lack of knowledge on someone else. Then in a further attempt to cover up for your lack of knowledge, you assign your moral responsibility to someone else. I am supposed to consult with an economist.

By the way I gave a specific website too. It was the US Treasury department. Does the CBO have more credibility that the Treasury? Does the Treasury post "Republican bogus stats" Why would Tim Geithner's department do that?

If you make a claim and can't point out the specific facts to support it, you are a blowhard. Making an inaccurate link to many pages and not being able to point to some specific numbers does not consitute pointing out specific facts.

If you put your moral and ethical responsibility to provide something specific to back up your claims on others, you are a blowhard.

It you claim you are a victim in order to avoid backing up your claims, you are a blow hard.

Most importantly, anyone that never admits when they are wrong is a blowhard.

For example, I am still waiting for the evidence to support your claim that: "That's what Obama did... He bought a "beater", refurbrished it the best he could and over a hundred people been flyin' on that sumabich ever since" or your admission that you were wrong.

I hate to use the word blowhard, it is against my policy of not making harsh accusations like calling people a liar, but it is the only way I can get any meaningful response.

As for stalking, I responded to Amos's "history lesson" about the "Clinton surpluses" without making any personal attacks and you jumped in telling everybody my stats are bogus, making an ad hominem personal attack and claiming I am the "Bogus-Stats King of Mudburg"

Typically, you rhetorically characterize facts issued by the US Treasury department as "stats", Republican bogus stats from a "loonie rightwingnut site" Really? Tim Geithner's loonie rightwingnutsite?

You specifically target my posts and try to discredit me as a person. Is that stalking or bullying or both?