Not One Member Of Congress

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]jre67t wrote:
Why is that liberals like 10meters and cocksukcing irish always respond with slander.
I bet Irish is nothing but a punk along with 100 meters.

Both from the most liberal states in the Nation, Maine and New York.

You know both of yall are pretty damn naive and retarded. Your response to me is always idiot or retard. Or moron. how intellectual is that.
But hey be glad your internet toughness does not make it into reality, tough guys.
[/quote]

Well, you’re an idiot. You couldn’t even spell “cocksucking” right.

142

[quote]dhickey wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
It’s kind of funny when shit like this comes up, because when the GOP had the power and packed all sorts of bullshit into bills, I never heard a single word about it here.

Politics in general is made up of this, it’s just who gets all that money. It’s great that you guys think it’s only the Democrats that do this.

This is complete bullshit. Nobody thinks the GOP is anywhere near where conservatives would like it to be. Plenty of people on this board railed against bush and republicans that supported the bailout. Show me one that defended them and I’ll show you 5 that railed them.

Dems are in power now and are making things worse. Why wouldn’t we rail them? I would be even more pissed if it were republicans doing this. I called and emailed every single republican in my state before and after the bailout. I didn’t vote for Coleman or McCain because of their vote on the bailout.

Quit with the bullshit. It adds nothing to this thread.[/quote]

I don’t agree with your stance on the stimulus package, but I don’t blame you for what you’re thinking.

However, I think that alot of GOP hardliners who voted for McCatin are just using this to take pot shots at Democrats for sins that every politician of every party commits.

If you want to argue issues, I’m down, but I don’t see the point in shelling Democrats for playing politics in the same fashion that the GOP does.

143

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

I am confused by this. It sounds like you’re off your meds. What exactly are you attacking him for? Having a government job that he doesn’t have?[/quote]

Thank god for T-Nation’s PWI. I wake up hung over and just about die laughing. This thread is absolutely classic. Hilarious.

144

[quote]100meters wrote:
jre67t wrote:
Why is that liberals like 10meters and cocksukcing irish always respond with slander.
I bet Irish is nothing but a punk along with 100 meters.

Both from the most liberal states in the Nation, Maine and New York.

You know both of yall are pretty damn naive and retarded. Your response to me is always idiot or retard. Or moron. how intellectual is that.
But hey be glad your internet toughness does not make it into reality, tough guys.

Correcting lies is not slander.
The irony is I correct a lie and was then accused of collecting welfare and/or being faggoty. That seems closer to slander right?

Also I’m from Mass. not NY. or Maine.

[/quote]

That’s funny, because I’m from NJ, not NY.

And I’ll slander the fuck out of a cunt, I don’t care, but it’s just pointless.

145

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
It’s kind of funny when shit like this comes up, because when the GOP had the power and packed all sorts of bullshit into bills, I never heard a single word about it here. [/quote]

For the record, I hold both parties equally accountable for pork, earmarks, and wasteful spending. The Republicans lost their way a long time ago.

146

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
It’s kind of funny when shit like this comes up, because when the GOP had the power and packed all sorts of bullshit into bills, I never heard a single word about it here.

For the record, I hold both parties equally accountable for pork, earmarks, and wasteful spending. The Republicans lost their way a long time ago.

[/quote]

I don’t think they ever had their way. It’s a myth that the GOP was ever “fiscally conservative.” Even the rock n’ roll jesus of the Republican party (Reagan) had no idea how to control spending, and left us with a deficit three times larger than the one he came in under.

147

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I am confused by this. It sounds like you’re off your meds. What exactly are you attacking him for? Having a government job that he doesn’t have?[/quote]

It’s like being attacked for listening to radio entertainers and news sources that you don’t listen to, isn’t it?

I still haven’t heard which news source(s) is unbiased. I mean if you’re going to attack FOX, and Drudge (who is just a news outlet), then at least tell us who is on the level.

Again, to reiterate the intention of this thread, the fact that few if any congress-critters actually read this whole abomination yet still voted on it is gross negligence to the people. My senator, Susan Collins, one of the few ‘Rs’ to vote for it even admitted that in the senate few actually read the bill. She read portions, her staff read portions, and between them read ‘most of it’-- which is standard M.O. in both Houses.

That alone says there’s too much in this bill-- why not phase it in smaller chunks.

If anyone here thinks that 100% of what is in this bill is designed to ‘stimulate the economy’ then you are blind. This legislation is as much pushing a social agenda and social programs as it is ‘stimulus’-- which is little.

Growing government and creating government jobs is not ‘creating jobs’-- it’s creating more inefficiency and taking away from what the private sector should be doing. When you boil all this down there’s not a whole lot of meat in it.

All this money out the door to immediately create government programs and bureaucracy with no thought of how to pay for it 3, 5, 7 years down the road. How do you fund all this shit later? These things aren’t “one off” projects. Similar to “No Child Left Behind”-- the Left (Kennedy et al) wrote that piece of crap thinking Gore would be the next president. Bush won and decided not to give it the money it needed, so he and the whole program were demonized. That’s where a large chunk of this bill is going.

For the record, perhaps more than anyone on this site, I DO benefit DIRECTLY from about a billion dollars in this bill that will go to ‘smart grid’ technology. The company I work for is the leading (certainly of the top 2) developer/implementers of this technology---- I still don’t support this bill.

148

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
It’s kind of funny when shit like this comes up, because when the GOP had the power and packed all sorts of bullshit into bills, I never heard a single word about it here.

For the record, I hold both parties equally accountable for pork, earmarks, and wasteful spending. The Republicans lost their way a long time ago.

I don’t think they ever had their way. It’s a myth that the GOP was ever “fiscally conservative.” Even the rock n’ roll jesus of the Republican party (Reagan) had no idea how to control spending, and left us with a deficit three times larger than the one he came in under.
[/quote]

But, what’s the alternative to Reagan’s deficit for fiscally conservative voters? Obama’s deficit?

149

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
It’s kind of funny when shit like this comes up, because when the GOP had the power and packed all sorts of bullshit into bills, I never heard a single word about it here.

For the record, I hold both parties equally accountable for pork, earmarks, and wasteful spending. The Republicans lost their way a long time ago.

I don’t think they ever had their way. It’s a myth that the GOP was ever “fiscally conservative.” Even the rock n’ roll jesus of the Republican party (Reagan) had no idea how to control spending, and left us with a deficit three times larger than the one he came in under.
[/quote]

I’m not going to argue with that in principal-- at least post WWII Republican PRESIDENTS. It’s congressional Republicans that are important, and they used to do ok. We could debate that that the money Reagan spent on the Cold War was essential. Nixon was certainly a ‘big government Republican President’.

I’m not a defender of Republicans if that hasn’t been made clear by now.

150

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
dhickey wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
It’s kind of funny when shit like this comes up, because when the GOP had the power and packed all sorts of bullshit into bills, I never heard a single word about it here.

Politics in general is made up of this, it’s just who gets all that money. It’s great that you guys think it’s only the Democrats that do this.

This is complete bullshit. Nobody thinks the GOP is anywhere near where conservatives would like it to be. Plenty of people on this board railed against bush and republicans that supported the bailout. Show me one that defended them and I’ll show you 5 that railed them.

Dems are in power now and are making things worse. Why wouldn’t we rail them? I would be even more pissed if it were republicans doing this. I called and emailed every single republican in my state before and after the bailout. I didn’t vote for Coleman or McCain because of their vote on the bailout.

Quit with the bullshit. It adds nothing to this thread.

I don’t agree with your stance on the stimulus package, but I don’t blame you for what you’re thinking.

However, I think that alot of GOP hardliners who voted for McCatin are just using this to take pot shots at Democrats for sins that every politician of every party commits.

If you want to argue issues, I’m down, but I don’t see the point in shelling Democrats for playing politics in the same fashion that the GOP does. [/quote]

The point is we have never seen politics like this. Ever. There has never been an increase in spending like this. We will see inflation like we have never seen before.

Say what you will about the stimulous bill. There is no denying that this and the bailout and what ever spending has yet to come, is going to cause inflation like we have never seen. I haven’t seen anyone argue against this. For some reason it is just ignored.

I am more than happy to discuss the issue at hand.

What do you think the stimulous bill will accomplish and how?

151

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
It’s kind of funny when shit like this comes up, because when the GOP had the power and packed all sorts of bullshit into bills, I never heard a single word about it here.

For the record, I hold both parties equally accountable for pork, earmarks, and wasteful spending. The Republicans lost their way a long time ago.

I don’t think they ever had their way. It’s a myth that the GOP was ever “fiscally conservative.” Even the rock n’ roll jesus of the Republican party (Reagan) had no idea how to control spending, and left us with a deficit three times larger than the one he came in under.

I’m not going to argue with that in principal-- at least post WWII Republican PRESIDENTS. It’s congressional Republicans that are important, and they used to do ok. We could debate that that the money Reagan spent on the Cold War was essential. Nixon was certainly a ‘big government Republican President’.

I’m not a defender of Republicans if that hasn’t been made clear by now. [/quote]

Before Bush, Nixon was the second worst Republican we had seen. The guy was an admitted Keynesian. My list of worst Republican presidents are Hoover, Bush, Nixon. Hoover started the trend. They were all pretty good before him.

152

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
It’s kind of funny when shit like this comes up, because when the GOP had the power and packed all sorts of bullshit into bills, I never heard a single word about it here.

For the record, I hold both parties equally accountable for pork, earmarks, and wasteful spending. The Republicans lost their way a long time ago.

I don’t think they ever had their way. It’s a myth that the GOP was ever “fiscally conservative.” Even the rock n’ roll jesus of the Republican party (Reagan) had no idea how to control spending, and left us with a deficit three times larger than the one he came in under.
[/quote]

Ever? If you are just going back to Hoover, then sure.

153

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
<<< I am confused by this. It sounds like you’re off your meds. What exactly are you attacking him for? Having a government job that he doesn’t have?[/quote]

Because the weak cowardly assholes who favor this kind of big government anti American ideology usually are putting somebody else’s money in their pockets through it’s mechanisms of legalized robbery and this guy is no exception or he would just say so.

154

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
<<< I am confused by this. It sounds like you’re off your meds. What exactly are you attacking him for? Having a government job that he doesn’t have?

Because the weak cowardly assholes who favor this kind of big government anti American ideology usually are putting somebody else’s money in their pockets through it’s mechanisms of legalized robbery and this guy is no exception or he would just say so.

[/quote]

He said he works for a private company. I’m not sure how the stimulus would directly benefit him, unless I’m missing something here.

155

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
I am confused by this. It sounds like you’re off your meds. What exactly are you attacking him for? Having a government job that he doesn’t have?

It’s like being attacked for listening to radio entertainers and news sources that you don’t listen to, isn’t it?

I still haven’t heard which news source(s) is unbiased. I mean if you’re going to attack FOX, and Drudge (who is just a news outlet), then at least tell us who is on the level.

Again, to reiterate the intention of this thread, the fact that few if any congress-critters actually read this whole abomination yet still voted on it is gross negligence to the people. My senator, Susan Collins, one of the few ‘Rs’ to vote for it even admitted that in the senate few actually read the bill. She read portions, her staff read portions, and between them read ‘most of it’-- which is standard M.O. in both Houses.

That alone says there’s too much in this bill-- why not phase it in smaller chunks.

If anyone here thinks that 100% of what is in this bill is designed to ‘stimulate the economy’ then you are blind. This legislation is as much pushing a social agenda and social programs as it is ‘stimulus’-- which is little.

Growing government and creating government jobs is not ‘creating jobs’-- it’s creating more inefficiency and taking away from what the private sector should be doing. When you boil all this down there’s not a whole lot of meat in it.

All this money out the door to immediately create government programs and bureaucracy with no thought of how to pay for it 3, 5, 7 years down the road. How do you fund all this shit later? These things aren’t “one off” projects. Similar to “No Child Left Behind”-- the Left (Kennedy et al) wrote that piece of crap thinking Gore would be the next president. Bush won and decided not to give it the money it needed, so he and the whole program were demonized. That’s where a large chunk of this bill is going.

For the record, perhaps more than anyone on this site, I DO benefit DIRECTLY from about a billion dollars in this bill that will go to ‘smart grid’ technology. The company I work for is the leading (certainly of the top 2) developer/implementers of this technology---- I still don’t support this bill.[/quote]

No senator/congressman/president reads a bill word for word. This whole premise is just silly. The bills are so full of legalese, and references to other legislation, asterisks, and footnotes, that it’d be darn near impossible for the dolts that rule us to go through them line by line.

156

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
<<< I am confused by this. It sounds like you’re off your meds. What exactly are you attacking him for? Having a government job that he doesn’t have?

Because the weak cowardly assholes who favor this kind of big government anti American ideology usually are putting somebody else’s money in their pockets through it’s mechanisms of legalized robbery and this guy is no exception or he would just say so.

[/quote]

How in the hell is saving the american economy anti-american? That doesn’t make any sense.

P.S. This dude is off his rocker.

157

[quote]jre67t wrote:
Why is that liberals like 10meters and cocksukcing irish always respond with slander.
I bet Irish is nothing but a punk along with 100 meters.

Both from the most liberal states in the Nation, Maine and New York.

You know both of yall are pretty damn naive and retarded. Your response to me is always idiot or retard. Or moron. how intellectual is that.
But hey be glad your internet toughness does not make it into reality, tough guys.
[/quote]

I feel so left out and neglected here. I think you’re an idiot retarded moron too. Where’s the love?

158

[quote]100meters wrote:
No senator/congressman/president reads a bill word for word. This whole premise is just silly. The bills are so full of legalese, and references to other legislation, asterisks, and footnotes, that it’d be darn near impossible for the dolts that rule us to go through them line by line.
[/quote]

That’s exactly the point.

If you accept this, then you’re a bigger fool than I originally expected. Any citizen should be outraged that their rights are so often signed away by congressional lemmings and hacks who have no idea of the impact of their votes.

Oh, how far we have fallen from the Founders-- who based their fortunes and their honor on.every.word.of.legislation.

I can’t believe how many people worship on the altar of big government and their party’s faithful.

159

[quote]100meters wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
<<< I am confused by this. It sounds like you’re off your meds. What exactly are you attacking him for? Having a government job that he doesn’t have?

Because the weak cowardly assholes who favor this kind of big government anti American ideology usually are putting somebody else’s money in their pockets through it’s mechanisms of legalized robbery and this guy is no exception or he would just say so.

How in the hell is saving the american economy anti-american? That doesn’t make any sense.

P.S. This dude is off his rocker.[/quote]

Eat shit punk, you’re a destroyer. Your politicians are destroyers. You leave a wake of social and economic wreckage everywhere you’ve been allowed to plague anybody with your presence. The high set of noble principles that made this nation the greatest in human history are entirely lost on worms like you.

You’re a pathetic half conscious pull string toy for the power grubbing scum you so gleefully surrender your will to. You’re sickening. Take your collectivist disease and wallow in it while you can. The last laugh will most assuredly be on you though you’ll likely stand there with a vacuous smirk on your face chanting “yes we can”.

161

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
100meters wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
<<< I am confused by this. It sounds like you’re off your meds. What exactly are you attacking him for? Having a government job that he doesn’t have?

Because the weak cowardly assholes who favor this kind of big government anti American ideology usually are putting somebody else’s money in their pockets through it’s mechanisms of legalized robbery and this guy is no exception or he would just say so.

How in the hell is saving the american economy anti-american? That doesn’t make any sense.

P.S. This dude is off his rocker.

Eat shit punk, you’re a destroyer. Your politicians are destroyers. You leave a wake of social and economic wreckage everywhere you’ve been allowed to plague anybody with your presence. The high set of noble principles that made this nation the greatest in human history are entirely lost on worms like you.

You’re a pathetic half conscious pull string toy for the power grubbing scum you so gleefully surrender your will to. You’re sickening. Take your collectivist disease and wallow in it while you can. The last laugh will most assuredly be on you though you’ll likely stand there with a vacuous smirk on your face chanting “yes we can”.

That’s way too complex amigo. You ain’t teaching him economics, you’re insulting him. So be short and simple and to the point… like saying, “You don’t know shit you half wit cuntass motherfucker.”
[/quote]

Absolutely not!

Why dumb down. This whole country dumbs everything down and I personally am sick of it. Good ole fashion high brow ass-kickin’…I like it!