|
sooo
When the Republicans think about, and debate among themselves the media
drools. When the Democrats exhibit no concience or moral core and just flat vote the way they were told, that's good?? Doesn't make any sense... |
sooo
On 9/25/13 10:34 AM, skin a cat wrote:
When the Republicans think about, and debate among themselves the media drools. When the Democrats exhibit no concience or moral core and just flat vote the way they were told, that's good?? Doesn't make any sense... The only thing the GOP is debating this week is how big of an asshole is Ted Cruz. |
sooo
|
sooo
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... On 9/25/13 10:34 AM, skin a cat wrote: When the Republicans think about, and debate among themselves the media drools. When the Democrats exhibit no concience or moral core and just flat vote the way they were told, that's good?? Doesn't make any sense... The only thing the GOP is debating this week is how big of an asshole is Ted Cruz. -------------------------- I agree. That he is. |
sooo
On 9/25/2013 3:20 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... On 9/25/13 10:34 AM, skin a cat wrote: When the Republicans think about, and debate among themselves the media drools. When the Democrats exhibit no concience or moral core and just flat vote the way they were told, that's good?? Doesn't make any sense... The only thing the GOP is debating this week is how big of an asshole is Ted Cruz. -------------------------- I agree. That he is. He has a core, and he listens to his constituients, basically he does his job, each and every one of the dems votes party line, no moral core, no respect for the folks who pay them... |
sooo
On 9/25/13 3:37 PM, skin a cat wrote:
On 9/25/2013 3:20 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... On 9/25/13 10:34 AM, skin a cat wrote: When the Republicans think about, and debate among themselves the media drools. When the Democrats exhibit no concience or moral core and just flat vote the way they were told, that's good?? Doesn't make any sense... The only thing the GOP is debating this week is how big of an asshole is Ted Cruz. -------------------------- I agree. That he is. He has a core, and he listens to his constituients, basically he does his job, each and every one of the dems votes party line, no moral core, no respect for the folks who pay them... Cruz has a core, and he is rotten to it. Oh, and you have no idea what the job of a U.S. Senator is. |
sooo
|
sooo
On 9/25/2013 2:37 PM, skin a cat wrote:
On 9/25/2013 3:20 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... On 9/25/13 10:34 AM, skin a cat wrote: When the Republicans think about, and debate among themselves the media drools. When the Democrats exhibit no concience or moral core and just flat vote the way they were told, that's good?? Doesn't make any sense... The only thing the GOP is debating this week is how big of an asshole is Ted Cruz. -------------------------- I agree. That he is. He has a core, and he listens to his constituents, basically he does his job, each and every one of the dems votes party line, no moral core, no respect for the folks who pay them... Hey skin, do you notice most liberal rebuttal here consists of name calling? When the economy is faltering and you're $17,000,000,000,000 in debt, is that a good time to hastily push through a healthcare plan that is increasing healthcare costs? With unemployment high (true unemployment, not the number that excludes those that have gave up and got on some type of government assistance) why cause companies to go to part time employees and layoff employees to get under 50. If it's such a good idea, why does the president need to SELL it? If it's such a good idea, why do we need Navigators out SELLING it? If it's such a good idea, why do the unions want out? If it's such a good idea, why did the pres give so many exemptions? If it's such a good idea, why are the insurance companies unsure of what the hell is going on? And why are they telling their employees no vacations the next few months. If you want to lower healthcare cost, why would you place a tax on the very equipment used to provide healthcare? It's even going to raise the cost of veterinary care? Talk about unintended consequences. Mikek |
sooo
On Saturday, September 28, 2013 9:06:02 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
The American economy is strong, If you believe that....you are ****ed in the head, and a dreamer. |
sooo
|
sooo
On 9/29/2013 8:44 AM, John H wrote:
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 00:56:57 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 22:00:34 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: We can start by reducing military expenditures by 10% a year until they are half what they are now, and then consider additional reductions in military spending. I agree with the sentiment but this is the biggest single jobs program in the US. That is why they have so much trouble cutting the DoD. They are smart about spreading the spending around, hitting the district of every powerful congressman in the country. You certainly have plenty in your district I would have no problem with cuts in the military and like cuts in welfare (including unemployment compensation)...with the guarantee that the savings pay off the debt and/or go to infrastructure rebuilding - making jobs for those whose welfare checks are being reduced. Perhaps they'd be more inclined to look for a job. Some time ago there was much hype about a program called workfare. Whatever became of that? It probably wasn't too popular amongst O'Bama's base. |
sooo
|
sooo
In article ,
says... On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 00:56:57 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 22:00:34 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: We can start by reducing military expenditures by 10% a year until they are half what they are now, and then consider additional reductions in military spending. I agree with the sentiment but this is the biggest single jobs program in the US. That is why they have so much trouble cutting the DoD. They are smart about spreading the spending around, hitting the district of every powerful congressman in the country. You certainly have plenty in your district I would have no problem with cuts in the military and like cuts in welfare (including unemployment compensation)...with the guarantee that the savings pay off the debt and/or go to infrastructure rebuilding - making jobs for those whose welfare checks are being reduced. Perhaps they'd be more inclined to look for a job. What jobs? You conservatives claim there are none..... |
sooo
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 11:41:21 -0400, wrote:
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 09:32:43 -0400, Hank© wrote: On 9/29/2013 8:44 AM, John H wrote: On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 00:56:57 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 22:00:34 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: We can start by reducing military expenditures by 10% a year until they are half what they are now, and then consider additional reductions in military spending. I agree with the sentiment but this is the biggest single jobs program in the US. That is why they have so much trouble cutting the DoD. They are smart about spreading the spending around, hitting the district of every powerful congressman in the country. You certainly have plenty in your district I would have no problem with cuts in the military and like cuts in welfare (including unemployment compensation)...with the guarantee that the savings pay off the debt and/or go to infrastructure rebuilding - making jobs for those whose welfare checks are being reduced. Perhaps they'd be more inclined to look for a job. Some time ago there was much hype about a program called workfare. Whatever became of that? It probably wasn't too popular amongst O'Bama's base. That was part of that "cut food stamps" bill. Some of the savings (not really cuts) was that able bodied people needed to work for their food stamps. Holy ****! That's asking way too much of folks who can't afford to eat vegetables nor get an ID card. -- John H. Hope you're having a great day! |
sooo
On 9/29/2013 12:24 PM, John H wrote:
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 11:41:21 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 09:32:43 -0400, Hank© wrote: On 9/29/2013 8:44 AM, John H wrote: On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 00:56:57 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 22:00:34 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: We can start by reducing military expenditures by 10% a year until they are half what they are now, and then consider additional reductions in military spending. I agree with the sentiment but this is the biggest single jobs program in the US. That is why they have so much trouble cutting the DoD. They are smart about spreading the spending around, hitting the district of every powerful congressman in the country. You certainly have plenty in your district I would have no problem with cuts in the military and like cuts in welfare (including unemployment compensation)...with the guarantee that the savings pay off the debt and/or go to infrastructure rebuilding - making jobs for those whose welfare checks are being reduced. Perhaps they'd be more inclined to look for a job. Some time ago there was much hype about a program called workfare. Whatever became of that? It probably wasn't too popular amongst O'Bama's base. That was part of that "cut food stamps" bill. Some of the savings (not really cuts) was that able bodied people needed to work for their food stamps. Holy ****! That's asking way too much of folks who can't afford to eat vegetables nor get an ID card. Well, work IS a four letter word. No self respecting public assistance groupie is going to be tricked into earning his keep. |
sooo
On 9/29/13 1:12 PM, amdx wrote:
Which entitlements would you cut, and by how much? First we need to reduce the fraud in all the programs. The disability program needs changing, I personally know a hand full of people on disability that could work. Many of those do work, for cash. No argument from me, but not a big deal. If you get a welfare check, your time should be devoted to some type of work to help the country. You got 45 hrs every week that other workers (supplying your check) don't. Let's put them to work. Even forcing them to sit in a room 40 hrs a week would help their work incentive. You planning to provide quality child care to moms receiving welfare so they can do your make work stuff? A commitment to self-sufficiency is necessary before any potential recipient can begin to receive benefits. Heads of household must enter into an agreement they will become self-sufficient within a certain timeframe. And what if there are no jobs that pay enough to support the family. Should self-sufficiency include robbing convenience stores? All monetary resources must be divulged. This includes cash within the home, in checking or savings accounts and items of value in possession such as jewelry or electronics. Pretty much done already. |
sooo
On Sunday, 29 September 2013 14:16:26 UTC-3, Hank© wrote:
On 9/29/2013 12:24 PM, John H wrote: On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 11:41:21 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 09:32:43 -0400, Hank© wrote: On 9/29/2013 8:44 AM, John H wrote: On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 00:56:57 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 22:00:34 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: We can start by reducing military expenditures by 10% a year until they are half what they are now, and then consider additional reductions in military spending. I agree with the sentiment but this is the biggest single jobs program in the US. That is why they have so much trouble cutting the DoD. They are smart about spreading the spending around, hitting the district of every powerful congressman in the country. You certainly have plenty in your district I would have no problem with cuts in the military and like cuts in welfare (including unemployment compensation)...with the guarantee that the savings pay off the debt and/or go to infrastructure rebuilding - making jobs for those whose welfare checks are being reduced. Perhaps they'd be more inclined to look for a job. Some time ago there was much hype about a program called workfare. Whatever became of that? It probably wasn't too popular amongst O'Bama's base. That was part of that "cut food stamps" bill. Some of the savings (not really cuts) was that able bodied people needed to work for their food stamps. Holy ****! That's asking way too much of folks who can't afford to eat vegetables nor get an ID card. Well, work IS a four letter word. No self respecting public assistance groupie is going to be tricked into earning his keep. Quit picking on your little buddy from CT. If too many of us do it, he'll get his dander up and not be receptive to the message. |
sooo
|
sooo
|
sooo
On 9/29/2013 3:10 PM, True North wrote:
On Sunday, 29 September 2013 14:16:26 UTC-3, Hank© wrote: On 9/29/2013 12:24 PM, John H wrote: On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 11:41:21 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 09:32:43 -0400, Hank© wrote: On 9/29/2013 8:44 AM, John H wrote: On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 00:56:57 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 22:00:34 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: We can start by reducing military expenditures by 10% a year until they are half what they are now, and then consider additional reductions in military spending. I agree with the sentiment but this is the biggest single jobs program in the US. That is why they have so much trouble cutting the DoD. They are smart about spreading the spending around, hitting the district of every powerful congressman in the country. You certainly have plenty in your district I would have no problem with cuts in the military and like cuts in welfare (including unemployment compensation)...with the guarantee that the savings pay off the debt and/or go to infrastructure rebuilding - making jobs for those whose welfare checks are being reduced. Perhaps they'd be more inclined to look for a job. Some time ago there was much hype about a program called workfare. Whatever became of that? It probably wasn't too popular amongst O'Bama's base. That was part of that "cut food stamps" bill. Some of the savings (not really cuts) was that able bodied people needed to work for their food stamps. Holy ****! That's asking way too much of folks who can't afford to eat vegetables nor get an ID card. Well, work IS a four letter word. No self respecting public assistance groupie is going to be tricked into earning his keep. Quit picking on your little buddy from CT. If too many of us do it, he'll get his dander up and not be receptive to the message. Lucky you didn't show up coward.... I was going to pound you unconscious, then turn your kneecaps to pudding. The boys were there to make sure nobody pulled me off, and the other punk didn't show up with his 9mm courage.... LOL... Nothing you say here about anyone counts anymore, now that we know you are no better than harry at backing up your threats.... What a ****ing punk.... |
sooo
On Sunday, September 29, 2013 10:05:23 AM UTC-4, F.O.A.D. wrote:
Which entitlements would you cut, and by how much? Asshole Krause asking for a reply he can insult.... **** OFF KRAUSE. |
sooo
On Sunday, September 29, 2013 3:10:50 PM UTC-4, True North wrote:
Quit picking on your little buddy from CT. If too many of us do it, he'll get his dander up and not be receptive to the message. Then shut YOUR old wrinkled mouth..ASSWIPE !! |
sooo
On 9/29/13 10:55 PM, FirstOrLast wrote:
Lucky you didn't show up coward.... I was going to pound you unconscious, then turn your kneecaps to pudding. The boys were there to make sure nobody pulled me off, and the other punk didn't show up with his 9mm courage.... LOL... Nothing you say here about anyone counts anymore, now that we know you are no better than harry at backing up your threats.... What a ****ing punk.... Wow. Classic PsychoSnotty, aided and abetted by drugs and booze. |
sooo
On 9/30/2013 8:18 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 9/29/13 10:55 PM, FirstOrLast wrote: Lucky you didn't show up coward.... I was going to pound you unconscious, then turn your kneecaps to pudding. The boys were there to make sure nobody pulled me off, and the other punk didn't show up with his 9mm courage.... LOL... Nothing you say here about anyone counts anymore, now that we know you are no better than harry at backing up your threats.... What a ****ing punk.... Wow. Classic PsychoSnotty, aided and abetted by drugs and booze. Are you going to let him talk to your little buddy in that tone? |
sooo
In article , says...
On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:06:05 -0400, BAR wrote: In article , says... On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 16:49:04 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: Oh, and you have no idea what the job of a U.S. Senator is. I'm not even sure I know what the job of Senator is these days. It seems to be to run for president. Cruz is "Dancing with the ones who brung him" and pandering to that base. No shock there. That seems to be the pattern. I am not sure he is any more dangerous than the neocons who want to drag us into a war in the middle east and they are democrats as much as republican. . Repeal the 17th amendment and make the Senators responsive to their States legislatures. The Texas legislature probably approves of Cruz. Let the cards fall where they may, the Senators should be representatives of their States and not Representatives of national organizations. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:28 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com