Related to the thread topic. Rick should not be allowed to abort his campaign after 20 weeks, it should be carried out in full.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Who was the last republican president who didn’t spend too much?[/quote]
Thanks I got a chuckle out of that considering that Obama has spent more than the previous three republican Presidents combined. And it only took him just a little over three years.
You should post more you’re easy.[/quote]
So your answer is, as long as Obama spends more, republicans are doing a good job even if they still overspend.[/quote]
I dont get that.
If I was stabbed I wanted it done quickly, no slowly, inch by inch.
The end result is just about the same, but with far less drama. [/quote]
Well if you could pass the stabbing to a future generation I could see the logic in that, but no moral person would admit that.[/quote]
Unless you are, like, 70+ or so I dont see any way to pass this on to anyone.
^ha!
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Related to the thread topic. Rick should not be allowed to abort his campaign after 20 weeks, it should be carried out in full.[/quote]
I think he should be allowed to pull out.
Think about where the US would be had his dad done the same.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Related to the thread topic. Rick should not be allowed to abort his campaign after 20 weeks, it should be carried out in full.[/quote]
Like he and his wife did for his very sick daughter?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I think he should be allowed to pull out.
Think about where the US would be had his dad done the same.[/quote]
Classy. It’s a good thing there’s genitalia and bodily orifices, otherwise you wouldn’t have much left to think about. Or, much to say.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
It’s a good thing there’s genitalia and bodily orifices, otherwise you wouldn’t have much left to think about. [/quote]
Of course I think about sex all the time, I’m a virile man in my 20’s. Wait was this intended to be an insult?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[
Classy. It’s a good thing there’s genitalia and bodily orifices, otherwise you wouldn’t have much left to think about. Or, much to say.[/quote]
Nor would Bible authors have much to write about.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
… I’m a virile man in my 20’s…
[/quote]
Then act like an adult.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
… I’m a virile man in my 20’s…
[/quote]
Then act like an adult.
[/quote]
Well, I’m just happy Santorum is no longer in the running for the most powerful position in the world. I have found his views on morality quite disturbing.
I’m sure you love’em, but he repulses non-Christians for the most part.
[quote]optheta wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Almost 30% of the right wing of the republican party (most evangelicals) think that Obama is a Muslim. They’ll turn out in large numbers not FOR Romney but AGAINST Obama.
Bet?[/quote]
is that a party you want to be apart of?[/quote]
Optheta, as you know I am not an extremist. But when I look at both parties and ask myself which one represents my views best there is no question that it is the republican party. I am a free market low taxes sort of guy. And on the social end I am very much against abortion. And while I agree there are some very nutty far right people in the republican party, there are also far left nuts on the left. Any party that includes millions of people is going to have it’s share of nut jobs.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Who was the last republican president who didn’t spend too much?[/quote]
Thanks I got a chuckle out of that considering that Obama has spent more than the previous three republican Presidents combined. And it only took him just a little over three years.
You should post more you’re easy.[/quote]
So your answer is, as long as Obama spends more, republicans are doing a good job even if they still overspend.[/quote]
The next time I throw one at you try to jump up real high to catch it. You are either purposely evading my point, or you’re a dumb guy. Because I mention that Obama has spent more than other Presidents combined doesn’t mean that I gave any other President carte blanche to spend what they will. What it does mean is that the biggest spender of them all is currently in office and for some reason YOU chose to pick on republicans for this issue. So, the better quesion would be, why do you not place blame with Obama for this latest catastrophe?
One more time, Obama spent more than the last three republican Presidents combined! And he did it in a little over 3 years. Now what does that mean to you? If it means that I am implying that it’s okay for republican Presidents to over spend then you get an “F”. However, if after you’ve had a chance to mull it over it means that I am pointing out Obama’s spending because it is head and shoulders above them all then you get an “A”.
Last chance…
come back with something smart or stop playing.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Who was the last republican president who didn’t spend too much?[/quote]
Thanks I got a chuckle out of that considering that Obama has spent more than the previous three republican Presidents combined. And it only took him just a little over three years.
You should post more you’re easy.[/quote]
So your answer is, as long as Obama spends more, republicans are doing a good job even if they still overspend.[/quote]
The next time I throw one at you try to jump up real high to catch it. You are either purposely evading my point, or you’re a dumb guy. Because I mention that Obama has spent more than other Presidents combined doesn’t mean that I gave any other President carte blanche to spend what they will. What it does mean is that the biggest spender of them all is currently in office and for some reason YOU chose to pick on republicans for this issue. So, the better quesion would be, why do you not place blame with Obama for this latest catastrophe?
One more time, Obama spent more than the last three republican Presidents combined! And he did it in a little over 3 years. Now what does that mean to you? If it means that I am implying that it’s okay for republican Presidents to over spend then you get an “F”. However, if after you’ve had a chance to mull it over it means that I am pointing out Obama’s spending because it is head and shoulders above them all then you get an “A”.
Last chance…
come back with something smart or stop playing.[/quote]
Your making this difficult. Back to the original question.
Who was the last REPUBLICAN president who didn’t spend too much?
The only president’s name I saw in your response was “Obama” who is not a Republican, yet your calling me dumb. I will give you a hint, pretend it is still 2008. Since we have had no Republican presidents since then what happened between 2009 and now is irrelevant to the answer.
I am not a big fan of Romney…I think he is only SLIGHTLY right of center.
But I will vote for him for the simple fact that this president will have a HUGE impact with judicial appointments both at the district level and the Supreme Court.
This is the real lasting impact of a president…and Obama would do his damnedest to swing the court as far left as he could.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Who was the last republican president who didn’t spend too much?[/quote]
Thanks I got a chuckle out of that considering that Obama has spent more than the previous three republican Presidents combined. And it only took him just a little over three years.
You should post more you’re easy.[/quote]
So your answer is, as long as Obama spends more, republicans are doing a good job even if they still overspend.[/quote]
The next time I throw one at you try to jump up real high to catch it. You are either purposely evading my point, or you’re a dumb guy. Because I mention that Obama has spent more than other Presidents combined doesn’t mean that I gave any other President carte blanche to spend what they will. What it does mean is that the biggest spender of them all is currently in office and for some reason YOU chose to pick on republicans for this issue. So, the better quesion would be, why do you not place blame with Obama for this latest catastrophe?
One more time, Obama spent more than the last three republican Presidents combined! And he did it in a little over 3 years. Now what does that mean to you? If it means that I am implying that it’s okay for republican Presidents to over spend then you get an “F”. However, if after you’ve had a chance to mull it over it means that I am pointing out Obama’s spending because it is head and shoulders above them all then you get an “A”.
Last chance…
come back with something smart or stop playing.[/quote]
Your making this difficult. Back to the original question.
Who was the last REPUBLICAN president who didn’t spend too much?
The only president’s name I saw in your response was “Obama” who is not a Republican, yet your calling me dumb. I will give you a hint, pretend it is still 2008. Since we have had no Republican presidents since then what happened between 2009 and now is irrelevant to the answer.[/quote]
You’re not getting it - I’m not playing your game. I made a factual statement about Obama. I accused Obama of spending too much as he has spent more than the past three republican Presidents COMBINED. I’m not talking about the last republican President who didn’t spend too much.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
I am not a big fan of Romney…I think he is only SLIGHTLY right of center.
But I will vote for him for the simple fact that this president will have a HUGE impact with judicial appointments both at the district level and the Supreme Court.
This is the real lasting impact of a president…and Obama would do his damnedest to swing the court as far left as he could.[/quote]
If Sonia Sotomayor is any indication of the type of Judge that he’d appoint in his second term you’ve made a very wise decision my friend!
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Who was the last republican president who didn’t spend too much?[/quote]
Thanks I got a chuckle out of that considering that Obama has spent more than the previous three republican Presidents combined. And it only took him just a little over three years.
You should post more you’re easy.[/quote]
So your answer is, as long as Obama spends more, republicans are doing a good job even if they still overspend.[/quote]
The next time I throw one at you try to jump up real high to catch it. You are either purposely evading my point, or you’re a dumb guy. Because I mention that Obama has spent more than other Presidents combined doesn’t mean that I gave any other President carte blanche to spend what they will. What it does mean is that the biggest spender of them all is currently in office and for some reason YOU chose to pick on republicans for this issue. So, the better quesion would be, why do you not place blame with Obama for this latest catastrophe?
One more time, Obama spent more than the last three republican Presidents combined! And he did it in a little over 3 years. Now what does that mean to you? If it means that I am implying that it’s okay for republican Presidents to over spend then you get an “F”. However, if after you’ve had a chance to mull it over it means that I am pointing out Obama’s spending because it is head and shoulders above them all then you get an “A”.
Last chance…
come back with something smart or stop playing.[/quote]
Your making this difficult. Back to the original question.
Who was the last REPUBLICAN president who didn’t spend too much?
The only president’s name I saw in your response was “Obama” who is not a Republican, yet your calling me dumb. I will give you a hint, pretend it is still 2008. Since we have had no Republican presidents since then what happened between 2009 and now is irrelevant to the answer.[/quote]
You’re not getting it - I’m not playing your game. I made a factual statement about Obama. I accused Obama of spending too much as he has spent more than the past three republican Presidents COMBINED. I’m not talking about the last republican President who didn’t spend too much.
[/quote]
Gee, don’t you think he HAD to spend so much because otherwise we’d be in the Second Great Depression brought on by, wait for it, the overspending and tax cutting for the rich REPUBLICAN President G.W. Bush? He went through a surplus in less than a year, thanx to his tax cuts and two wars (only one of which was justified). Would you have wanted Obama, or anyone who was president to just sit back and do nothing?
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
Gee, don’t you think he HAD to spend so much because otherwise we’d be in the Second Great Depression brought on by, wait for it, the overspending and tax cutting for the rich REPUBLICAN President G.W. Bush? He went through a surplus in less than a year, thanx to his tax cuts and two wars (only one of which was justified). [/quote]
Bush was an out of control spender, but (1) he didn’t blow through the surplus, and (2) the so-called Second Great Depression wasn’t caused by overspending and tax cutting.
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
the Second Great Depression brought on by, wait for it, the overspending and tax cutting for the rich REPUBLICAN President G.W. Bush?[/quote]
Well that makes sense everyone knows that the more money you take from job growers the more they will have to invest in creating those jobs.
HUH?
You are not even on the same planet with logic. By the way the “Bush tax Cuts” cut taxes 5% for every American who pays taxes. Duh…did ya know that one? No, I guess you just listened to the morons who kept saying that Bush cut taxes for only the rich.
We would have been better off if Obama did nothing. This is longest sustained high unemployment in the history of the US.
Isn’t Obama wonderful? Geee…how come he isn’t talking about “hope and change” anymore? WAIT FOR IT…WAIT FOR IT— Because he thinks pitting one class of Americans against another is a better idea to reelected and he knows even though liberals are stupid that the “hope and change” crap isn’t going to work again.
But, if he were a good President he would have given tax breaks to small business where almost 65% of all jobs are created. Instead he’s scared the hell out of them by threatening to raise taxes about four times per year.
And while I’m at it I’ll make a prediction. Should Obama win a second term and enact all of the bad ideas that he’s threatened, like raising taxes 5% on every single working American we will fall back into a recession…QUICKLY!
Honestly, if Obama gets reelected the people deserve him!
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Honestly, if Obama gets reelected the people deserve him![/quote]
Agree
‘I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.’ - Benjamin Franklin, Constitutional Convention(read by James Wilson.)