It's about time for some taxes to pay for our wars.
In the past I might have actually looked past his last name and considered him as a potential candidate for POTUS. Now I wouldn't vote for him under ANY conditions. Not for POTUS or any other office.
In the past I might have actually looked past his last name and considered him as a potential candidate for POTUS. Now I wouldn't vote for him under ANY conditions. Not for POTUS or any other office.
Paul Ryan has no chances. Zero. Nada. Zilch. Bupkis. Never happen. No ****ing way. Pipe dream. Not a chance in hell.
Give it up, Ryan. You are waaaaaaaaaay too far from middle ground. You represent the outer edge. The outer edge of either ruling party is decidedly not what America wants. We need less nutters and effing crazies and more mainstream Americans running for public office. Ryan is a lightening rod for desperate sheeple.
LOL. Ryan's biggest problem is likely to be with the far-end CONSERVATIVES rather than the more moderates.
What's wrong with his last name, Tigger?
Tigger, Tigger, Tigger, what did he do wrong?:boohoo:
His last name related him to a LIBERAL-tarian quack doctor who I wouldn't vote for if he was the last person on earth.
Who the Hell are they going to run, the corpse of Grover Cleveland?
It's about time for some taxes to pay for our wars.
Who the Hell are they going to run, the corpse of Grover Cleveland?
There comes a time when you accept that a representative form of government sometimes requires politicians to vote for legislation they are opposed to rhetorically because no ideology actually aligns perfectly with the basic structure of reality.
I don't love Paul Ryan - far from it - but you're seriously going to condemn him as a liberal for a single procedural vote?
Right, as long as it is not you that is asked to pay more taxes. The hypocracy of the left is amazing. Since this was a spending bill, a big tax reduction for 98+% of the people, why was it "exempted", as is now usual, from any "pay as you go" rules/laws or logic?
In the name of defict reduction, we voted to increase the defict - to save "the economy", of course, we must borrow and spend rather than tax and spend. If borrowing only $1 trillion per year is good, then is borrowing $2 trillion per year even better?
Uh.... What in holy Hell are you talking about? 'Paul' is Paul Ryan's first name, and he is of no relation to Ron Paul.
Even if I was to agree with that concept, which I don't, but for the sake of the discussion, I will agree to..... Raising taxes on the people who actually put something into the system, while increasing spending on those who do nothing but take out of the system sounds like a pretty significant bit of ideology to be ignoring. At least in my mind.
LOL. Ryan's biggest problem is likely to be with the far-end CONSERVATIVES rather than the more moderates.
I don't mind paying more taxes. I am not greedy. I am patriotic.:2usflag:
Show us the last volunatry contribution to reduce the national debt that you made, then I will actually believe you. Everyone was waving the flag, and chanting USA, USA, USA..., but no taxes were raised to "pay for" the huge increase in federal spending/power used in response to 9/11/2001. Patriotism is not wanting ever more federal cost and power, but nice try.
Nobody gives the government money voluntarily. That would be silly.
I was talking about taxes.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?