• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

CNNredd, Republican in name only...

RightatNYU said:
Or prevented him from vetoing a single spending bill?
Click to expand...

Wow you are smart. A conservative congress proposes conservative spending bills. If bush says hes going to veto something and the dems know they can't get 66 2/3, they don't propose it.

Aren't you supposed to be in college or something?
 
FreeThinker said:
Wow you are smart. A conservative congress proposes conservative spending bills. If bush says hes going to veto something and the dems know they can't get 66 2/3, they don't propose it.

Aren't you supposed to be in college or something?
Click to expand...

If you didn't understand what he was saying, you could have just said so. See, Bush is supposed to be a fiscal conservative, meaning he doesn't like to spend much. But, and this is what NYU was talking about, he hasn't stopped a single spending bill. That would be because he's a crappy fiscal conservative.
 
Kelzie said:
If you didn't understand what he was saying, you could have just said so. See, Bush is supposed to be a fiscal conservative, meaning he doesn't like to spend much. But, and this is what NYU was talking about, he hasn't stopped a single spending bill. That would be because he's a crappy fiscal conservative.
Click to expand...

Eat something. Seriously. You are going to die if you don't have a steak.

And I understood perfectly well EXACTLY what he said. He said bush has yet to veto a spending bill. If he wanted to sound smart he should have said "bush has yet to refuse to back a spending bill".

Saying that he refused to veto something that was never going to reach his desk in the first place is ignorant. What do they teach those kids up there in New York?
 
FreeThinker said:
Eat something. Seriously. You are going to die if you don't have a steak.

And I understood perfectly well EXACTLY what he said. He said bush has yet to veto a spending bill. If he wanted to sound smart he should have said "bush has yet to refuse to back a spending bill".

Saying that he refused to veto something that was never going to reach his desk in the first place is ignorant. What do they teach those kids up there in New York?
Click to expand...

Seriously. I'm touched that you are so concerned for my health. Really. Don't worry, I'm very healthy and will live longer than you. :2wave:
 
Kelzie said:
Seriously. I'm touched that you are so concerned for my health. Really. Don't worry, I'm very healthy and will live longer than you. :2wave:
Click to expand...

I don't care about your health. I just don't want to have to pay for your mutant babies on wellfare.
 
FreeThinker said:
I don't care about your health. I just don't want to have to pay for your mutant babies on wellfare.
Click to expand...

Concerned with my health, concerned with my children, and concerned with my financial situation? Very flattering. Now go bug someone else.
 
RightatNYU said:
Remind me please, which one of those things required Bush to increase social spending year after year? Or prevented him from vetoing a single spending bill?

If there had been increased spending in military and reconstruction alone, your argument would have merit. But the increases have been across the board.
Click to expand...


Well if you think GWB is bad just think what it would have been like if the biggest liberal in the senate was elected......
 
Navy Pride said:
Well if you think GWB is bad just think what it would have been like if the biggest liberal in the senate was elected......
Click to expand...

Much better? :confused:
 
FreeThinker said:
You know it is my favorite thing in the world to run around and call all of our government leaders idiots, because it makes me look smarter than them.

And if you hate the conservative government so much why do you have them in your avatar?
Click to expand...

Who said this is a "conservative" government? We're a big tent party, not everyone is homogenous in their beliefs, as much as a simplistic thinker like you might hope.
 
FreeThinker said:
Wow you are smart. A conservative congress proposes conservative spending bills. If bush says hes going to veto something and the dems know they can't get 66 2/3, they don't propose it.

Aren't you supposed to be in college or something?
Click to expand...

Conservative spending bills?:shock:

Are you serious? How on earth can you call the spending over the past 5 years conservative?

In EIGHT years of Clinton and a conservative congress, Federal Outlays went from 1.41 trillion to 1.79 trillion.

In FOUR years of Bush and a conservative congress, Federal Outlays went from 1.79 trillion to 2.29 trillion.

If Bush had kept the spending growth pace the same as Clintons, we would have cumulatively spent 645,000,000,000 less over the first 4 years of his term. That's ****ing absurd.

Simultaneously in those 4 years, revenues decreased from 2.02 trillion to 1.88 trillion. That's good, because that means tax cuts. Now if we could only get spending to do the same....
 
Last edited:
FreeThinker said:
Eat something. Seriously. You are going to die if you don't have a steak.

And I understood perfectly well EXACTLY what he said. He said bush has yet to veto a spending bill. If he wanted to sound smart he should have said "bush has yet to refuse to back a spending bill".

Saying that he refused to veto something that was never going to reach his desk in the first place is ignorant. What do they teach those kids up there in New York?
Click to expand...

That would imply that this conservative congress is passing conservative spending bills. Which it's not. At all. Thus, the fact that Bush is not vetoing them makes him lacking in the fiscal conservative department.
 
Navy Pride said:
Well if you think GWB is bad just think what it would have been like if the biggest liberal in the senate was elected......
Click to expand...

It would have been worse. I agree. But just because he's the lesser of two bad choices (fiscally speaking) doesn't mean that we should all line up to suck his dick (although you'd probably have to fight off freethinker to be first in line).
 
RightatNYU said:
No, he's a social retard and a fiscal liberal.

How sad is it that he was still so much better than Kerry?
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree. I just hope Hillary doesn't get the nomination, because I don't think she'll have a shot and I would like a democrat in office.
 
alphieb said:
Yes, I agree. I just hope Hillary doesn't get the nomination, because I don't think she'll have a shot and I would like a democrat in office.
Click to expand...

I hope she runs so we can win the election by the biggest landslide in history and get another president with the balls to be proud of his country, not walk around apologizing for it.
 
Originally posted by FreeThinker:
I hope she runs so we can win the election by the biggest landslide in history and get another president with the balls to be proud of his country, not walk around apologizing for it.
Click to expand...
I know she is going to run. And I know the election will be won in the biggest landslide in history. But it will be won by her.
 
FreeThinker said:
I hope she runs so we can win the election by the biggest landslide in history and get another president with the balls to be proud of his country, not walk around apologizing for it.
Click to expand...
You know what the funniest thing about you and ptsdkid is? The fact that you both strut around like Klan members at a David Duke campaign rally thinking our President represents you. Fact is, he more closely represents me than you two dunderheads. And when I call you "dunderheads" in the same paragraph as our president, that is saying quite a lot.
 
Originally Posted by mixedmedia
You know what the funniest thing about you and ptsdkid is? The fact that you both strut around like Klan members at a David Duke campaign rally thinking our President represents you. Fact is, he more closely represents me than you two dunderheads. And when I call you "dunderheads" in the same paragraph as our president, that is saying quite a lot.
Click to expand...
He's going to go nuts when he starts refering to the next Commander-in-Chief
as "Madam President!"
 
Billo_Really said:
He's going to go nuts when he starts refering to the next Commander-in-Chief
as "Madam President!"
Click to expand...

****You are too blind and mentally deficient to see and to grasp onto the idea that Bush has kept your liberal pansy ass safe from the real threat of terrorism since 9/11. Looks like you've had a similar operation to that of my poor cat where he got neutered and is now left without balls and that pleasurable desire to even lick his asshole anymore.
 
Originally posted by pstdkid:
****You are too blind and mentally deficient to see and to grasp onto the idea that Bush has kept your liberal pansy ass safe from the real threat of terrorism since 9/11. Looks like you've had a similar operation to that of my poor cat where he got neutered and is now left without balls and that pleasurable desire to even lick his asshole anymore.
Click to expand...
Since your FOS I wouldn't be surprized if you didn't notice that terrorism is on the increase. You seem to know a lot about licking assholes.
 
Billo_Really said:
Since your FOS I wouldn't be surprized if you didn't notice that terrorism is on the increase. You seem to know a lot about licking assholes.
Click to expand...

****Terrorism on the increase? Oh yeah, where here in America is it on the increase...your neighborhood? Elephants eat balls for lunch, donkey's lick other donkey assholes to get a sense of direction in life.
 
ptsdkid said:
****You are too blind and mentally deficient to see and to grasp onto the idea that Bush has kept your liberal pansy ass safe from the real threat of terrorism since 9/11. Looks like you've had a similar operation to that of my poor cat where he got neutered and is now left without balls and that pleasurable desire to even lick his asshole anymore.
Click to expand...

Do you ever have anything normal to say? OH, I forgot, your not normal.
 
ptsdkid said:
****You are too blind and mentally deficient to see and to grasp onto the idea that Bush has kept your liberal pansy ass safe from the real threat of terrorism since 9/11. Looks like you've had a similar operation to that of my poor cat where he got neutered and is now left without balls and that pleasurable desire to even lick his asshole anymore.
Click to expand...

Can you prove it? Can you prove that we would have had more terrorist attacks had someone else been in office? How freaking often is our country attacked, anyway?

Not very.

Nice try, but no cigar.
 
Stace said:
Can you prove it? Can you prove that we would have had more terrorist attacks had someone else been in office? How freaking often is our country attacked, anyway?

Not very.

Nice try, but no cigar.
Click to expand...


****It isn't my job to prove a negative. I'll just rely on my strong belief in and assurance that the chances of further terrorist attacks on American soil will be nil or next to nil so long as we have a Republican president at the helm. I doubt you could be that confident under a Democrat presidency, seeing how Clinton did everything in his power to allow terrorism here to go unchecked and unresolved, as with the 1993 bombing of the twin towers.
 
alphieb said:
Do you ever have anything normal to say? OH, I forgot, your not normal.
Click to expand...

****Sorry, but I took my abnormal sayings cue from Billo Really. I'm sure you could find a lot more normal writings from Billo Really. HeHeHe!

I would be honored if you were to take time out from your busy schedule to read my one of my latest postings in the 'Conspiracy Theory' section or in the Political forum up above. You do consider yourself worthy enough to rise from this basement staleness to the forums above by taking in some of my fresh air right-thinking postulates....don't you? Good on you siss.
 
ptsdkid said:
****It isn't my job to prove a negative. I'll just rely on my strong belief in and assurance that the chances of further terrorist attacks on American soil will be nil or next to nil so long as we have a Republican president at the helm. I doubt you could be that confident under a Democrat presidency, seeing how Clinton did everything in his power to allow terrorism here to go unchecked and unresolved, as with the 1993 bombing of the twin towers.
Click to expand...

You do realize that it was the Dems that strongly pushed for the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, right?

Your blind allegiance never ceases to amaze me.

Hmmm....1993 bombing - killed six people and injured a little over 1,000 people. Six persons were convicted for the crime. Not a whole lot of damage to the tower itself. Bill Clinton assumed office on January 20, 1993. The bombing occured on February 26, 1993, meaning Clinton only had a month to work with any intelligence available.

2001 attack - Four planes were hijacked. One plane was crashed into each tower. Both towers collapsed. Total, 25 buildings in Manhattan were destroyed. One plane crashed into the Pentagon, and one crashed into a field in Pennsylvania. The offical death toll is 2,986, which includes the nineteen hijackers. Bush assumed office on January 20, 2001. The attack occured on Spetember 11, 2001, meaning that Bush had nearly 9 months to work with the intelligence available.

Yeah, sorry, can't compare the two.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom