windowdressing
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2013
- Messages
- 2,655
- Reaction score
- 509
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
cool story, but the answer to your question is "i don't see how it is."
How about this:
The government shuts down the White House tours and the White House entourage spends 100 million dollars to go to Africa.
A guy stopped at a local gas station &, after filling his tank, he paid the bill & bought a soft drink.
He stood by his car to drink his cola & watched a couple of men working along the roadside.
One man would dig a hole 2 to 3 feet deep & then move on.
The other man came along behind him & filled in the hole.
While one was digging a new hole, the other was 25’ behind filling in the hole.
The men worked right past the guy w/the soft drink & went on down the road.
"I can't stand this,"said the man tossing the can into a trash container,
& headed down the road toward the men.
"Hold it, hold it,"he said to the men.
"Can you tell me what's going on here w/all this digging & refilling?"
"Well, we work for the government & we're just doing our job,"one of the men said.
"But one of you is digging a hole & the other fills it up.
You're not accomplishing anything. Aren't you wasting the taxpayers' money?"
"You don't understand, mister,"one of the men said, leaning on his shovel & wiping his brow.
"Normally there's 3 of us … me, Elmer & Leroy.
I dig the hole, Elmer sticks in the tree, & Leroy here puts the dirt back.
You see, w/the government sequestering,
They’re not buying any more trees, so Elmer's job's been cut ...
so now it's just me & LeRoy."
Actually sequestration would be you are short on cash and you keep buying soda,toys, cable/satellite tv bill, internet bill, and new video games but you do not pay the car insurance,car payment and gas for the vehicle we need to get to work with and you are doing this to make it seem it seem you can't have any cuts in your spending.
I would have to say it fits politicians in general. One side claiming that they are for hard working man but are doing everything they can to undermine the hard working man's wages and job availability by trying to grant amnesty to illegals,support outsourcing and support giving away billions of dollars that the American people worked hard for to other countries.The other side claiming they are loyal patriotic Americans but they support amnesty,outsourcing, and giving away billions of dollars the American people worked hard for to other countries. Both sides claiming they support constitutional rights but do everything from spying on people to ****ting on their right to keep and bear arms.thanks for your thoughts ... btw, your Cicero quote fits the House GOP almost perfectly ... Was that your intent? ...
I would have to say it fits politicians in general. One side claiming that they are for hard working man but are doing everything they can to undermine the hard working man's wages and job availability by trying to grant amnesty to illegals,support outsourcing and support giving away billions of dollars that the American people worked hard for to other countries.The other side claiming they are loyal patriotic Americans but they support amnesty,outsourcing, and giving away billions of dollars the American people worked hard for to other countries. Both sides claiming they support constitutional rights but do everything from spying on people to ****ting on their right to keep and bear arms.
How about this:
The government shuts down the White House tours and the White House entourage spends 100 million dollars to go to Africa.
A guy stopped at a local gas station. After filling his gas tank, hepaid the bill and bought a soft drink. He stood by his car to drink his cola and watched a couple of men working along the roadside. One man would dig a hole two or three feet deep and then move on.
The other man came along behind him and filled in the hole. While one was digging a new hole, the other was 25 feet behind filling in the hole. The men worked right past the guy with the soft drink and went on down the road.
"I can't stand this," said the man tossing the soft drink can into a trash container and heading down the road toward the workmen. "Hold it, hold it,"he said to the men. "Can you tell me what's going on here with all this digging and refilling?"
"Well, we work for the government, and we're just doing our job," one of the men said.
"But one of you is digging a hole, and the other fills it up. You're not really accomplishing anything. Aren't you wasting the taxpayers' money?"
"You don't understand, mister," one of the men said, leaning on his shovel and wiping his brow. "Normally there are three of us: me, Elmer and Leroy. I dig the hole, Elmer sticks in the tree, and Leroy, here, puts the dirt back. Because of the budget, Elmer's job's been cut... so now it's just me and Leroy."
source: A Guy Stopped at a Local Gas Station... Joke
I don't understand all this outrage over cancelling White House tours, as if White House tours are some sort of critical service the government provides. I can't think of a better example of unnecessary government spending than that.
I'll remember posts like these, and when a Republican is president I'll criticize him for not traveling everywhere in a 1985 Honda Civic (without a security detail, of course).
I always laughed at people who criticized Bush's vacations and people who criticized Obama's vacations, but things are different now that the WH tours have been cancelled.I'll remember posts like these, and when a Republican is president I'll criticize him for not traveling everywhere in a 1985 Honda Civic (without a security detail, of course).
How about teaching IRS officials to line dance?
How about the that the Department of defense has an ecologist employed.
How about providing a private jet for Congressional Officials to fly about as they desire?
Regarding the White House tours, whether or not they are needed is not the question at all in this. Obviously, this and about half of the Federal government is not needed.
What is ridiculous is that they needed to cut 85 billion dollars and the 17 thousand it costs for the White House tours was at the top of the list. This was an obvious political move by the campaigner in chief and it backfired on him.
This was probably the first time that the veneer of integrity that covers this Chicago machine politician intimidator was scratched.
Sure.
Possibly, depends on what his/her purpose is.
Sure
Then why are you upset they canceled the white house tours?
What's at "top of the list" is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what gets cut and what doesn't. Bitching about the government spending too much and then bitching when the government cuts spending on unnecessary programs is hypocritical.
:roll:
I agree, but after watching the GOP after Obama was elected, it just seemed to fit them especially ... party over country ... even your examples tend toward that side a bit more ...
That's incorrect. Thus far spending has been reduced by roughly 100 billion dollars when compared to the previous fiscal year.If they had actually cut the amount spent, that would be a good thing. All they did was cut the rate of growth.
Elected officials in theory represent the constituents in their district who elected them to office, not people outside their district who did not vote for them.So if the republicans are opposing Obama its due to the fact that is what their constituents want. It is the same when Bush, Clinton and any other president was in office and the other party opposed them.
That's incorrect. Thus far spending has been reduced by roughly 100 billion dollars when compared to the previous fiscal year.
They're real, just not complete. By all indications though, we will in fact spend less than the previous fiscal year in nominal and real terms.Until the year is completed, no real numbers are actually available.
However, if we end up spending less, that will be a good thing. We were previously spending about $1.00 for every .60 we collected. What has that difference fallen to?
Is that the reason Republicans are opposing background checks on gun purchases?
Yes.Most 2nd amendment supporters oppose universal background checks because it will be used to pave a way for registrations. Those who are 2nd amendment supporters oppose registration of firearms.Most 2nd amendment supporters generally vote for conservative republicans and in some cases conservative democrats. Therefore the people 2nd amendment supporters elect will oppose any of Obama's anti-2nd amendment ideas.
Over 90% of people polled want background checks ...
Are you telling me that the majority of people in the districts of Congressmen/women who oppose it also oppose it?
Really?
BTW, these clowns don't represent their constituents first and foremost ... they represent the Johns that pay them to turn tricks for them ...
The only 90% who wanted it are not in pro-2nd amendment states.
Correct.
If 90% of their constituents emailed,faxed,wrote or called their elected representatives agreeing with Obama on the UBC then they would have voted UBC. 2nd amendment supporters are very vocal and do contact their elected officials.They know what happens when you don't stand up to anti-2nd amendment scum.
Save your thems thar e-vile corporations have bought our politicians nonsense for the conspiracy forum section.
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?