http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/R...al-help-as-he-
championed-cuts-3941766.php

On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 08:42:03 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/R...al-help-as-he-
championed-cuts-3941766.php



If the government's going to waste money, why not waste it in his direction? Get your head out of
your butt, Kevin, or Harry, whoever you are.

On Sunday, October 14, 2012 2:14:51 PM UTC-4, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 08:42:03 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:


http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/R...al-help-as-he-
championed-cuts-3941766.php


If the government's going to waste money, why not waste it in his direction?

He can vote against it, but once the money is appropriated, it's his JOB to help his constituents apply for it and get it. To not do so would be wrong.

On 10/15/2012 9:03 AM, wrote:
On Sunday, October 14, 2012 2:14:51 PM UTC-4, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 08:42:03 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:


http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/R...al-help-as-he-
championed-cuts-3941766.php


If the government's going to waste money, why not waste it in his direction?

He can vote against it, but once the money is appropriated, it's his JOB to help his constituents apply for it and get it. To not do so would be wrong.


Everybody knows that... the dims here are just dishonest.

In article , says...

On 10/15/2012 9:03 AM, wrote:
On Sunday, October 14, 2012 2:14:51 PM UTC-4, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 08:42:03 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:


http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/R...al-help-as-he-
championed-cuts-3941766.php


If the government's going to waste money, why not waste it in his direction?

He can vote against it, but once the money is appropriated, it's his JOB to help his constituents apply for it and get it. To not do so would be wrong.


Everybody knows that... the dims here are just dishonest.

The democrats are dishonest because Ryan wrote FOUR letters begging for
stimulus money and he is STILL against it?

On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 12:21:27 -0700, jps wrote:


You're as dense as ever. The argument in Washington was that the
stimulus wouldn't create jobs, which was the basis of Ryan's voting
against it.

I guess these dumb ****s would have given back the $288 billion in tax
cuts the stimulus bill contained.

But when the money was made available, Ryan was among those who argued
that giving it to his constituents would create jobs.

But I'm sure you're too ****ing stupid to notice the difference between
No Child and this, where states are dependent on Federal funding to
deliver mandated education.

**** for brains, you are.

On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 22:23:54 +0000 (UTC), thunder
wrote:

On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 12:21:27 -0700, jps wrote:


You're as dense as ever. The argument in Washington was that the
stimulus wouldn't create jobs, which was the basis of Ryan's voting
against it.

I guess these dumb ****s would have given back the $288 billion in tax
cuts the stimulus bill contained. ''

Did you say "tax cut?" Republicans only like tax cuts they shower on
rich folk. Democratic passed tax cuts for the rest of the
socio-economic strata don't mean ****.

Yikes!! Seems like a scary future for all of us.

On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 11:18:44 -0700, jps wrote:

On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 22:23:54 +0000 (UTC), thunder
wrote:

On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 12:21:27 -0700, jps wrote:


You're as dense as ever. The argument in Washington was that the
stimulus wouldn't create jobs, which was the basis of Ryan's voting
against it.

I guess these dumb ****s would have given back the $288 billion in tax
cuts the stimulus bill contained. ''

Did you say "tax cut?" Republicans only like tax cuts they shower on
rich folk. Democratic passed tax cuts for the rest of the
socio-economic strata don't mean ****.

I'll bet it's really dark up there, huh?