jimmy_from_north_buffalo Posted December 20, 2006 Posted December 20, 2006 From White House press conference: Q Tony, when does Secretary Gates go to Iraq, tomorrow? MR. SNOW: One thing you never do is announce when somebody is going to go to Iraq. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20061218-6.html
Alaska Darin Posted December 20, 2006 Posted December 20, 2006 What am I missing? 873048[/snapback] Another loudmouth liberal pretending that the Republican version of wasting taxpayer money is somehow different than their own.
erynthered Posted December 20, 2006 Posted December 20, 2006 Why did I just waste my time reading that link. !@#$ing Helen Thomas is an ass. DIE B word!!!!!! And I "mean" that in the nicest way.
jimmy_from_north_buffalo Posted December 20, 2006 Author Posted December 20, 2006 Another loudmouth liberal pretending that the Republican version of wasting taxpayer money is somehow different than their own. 873051[/snapback] Oh it is different. The liberal spending programs actually do some good. Iraq is a complete disaster all around. Well, unless you hold share in Halliburton I suppose
Alaska Darin Posted December 20, 2006 Posted December 20, 2006 Oh it is different. The liberal spending programs actually do some good. Iraq is a complete disaster all around. Well, unless you hold share in Halliburton I suppose 873062[/snapback] Thanks for the preprogrammed response.
RkFast Posted December 20, 2006 Posted December 20, 2006 Oh it is different. The liberal spending programs actually do some good. Iraq is a complete disaster all around. Well, unless you hold share in Halliburton I suppose 873062[/snapback] Wow. This who thread ranks up there with the other questions from the press corps over the last few days. That is, their "outrage" that the WH didnt announce Laura Bush's surgery beforehand and why shes now not doing an advocate to prevent skin cancer. In essence, the press corps now L-I-T-E-R-A-L-L-Y gets in a tizzy when someone get has an odd mole removed from their ass. What are these fools going to be "outraged" about next? The consistency of the dump Condoleeza Rice left back in Beiging after eating some kim chee?
jimmy_from_north_buffalo Posted December 20, 2006 Author Posted December 20, 2006 Thanks for the preprogrammed response. 873067[/snapback] Nothing programmed at all. Point is, people who don't believe government can be used as a positive force probably shouldn't be in charge of nation building. Would you put a communist in charge of a major private corporation?
jimmy_from_north_buffalo Posted December 20, 2006 Author Posted December 20, 2006 Wow. This who thread ranks up there with the other questions from the press corps over the last few days. That is, their "outrage" that the WH didnt announce Laura Bush's surgery beforehand and why shes now not doing an advocate to prevent skin cancer. In essence, the press corps now L-I-T-E-R-A-L-L-Y gets in a tizzy when someone get has an odd mole removed from their ass. What are these fools going to be "outraged" about next? The consistency of the dump Condoleeza Rice left back in Beiging after eating some kim chee? 873075[/snapback] I find it more amusing that everytime Iraq is held up to be what it is the far-right gets into a tizzy about the media.
RkFast Posted December 20, 2006 Posted December 20, 2006 Nothing programmed at all. Point is, people who don't believe government can be used as a positive force probably shouldn't be in charge of nation building. Would you put a communist in charge of a major private corporation? 873110[/snapback] Government as a positive force to be used for Nation building? Where have I heard this before? Oh yeah...from a certain rancher from Crawford.
Alaska Darin Posted December 20, 2006 Posted December 20, 2006 Nothing programmed at all. That's where you're wrong. You immediately played the "at least our crap helps some people," which is contrary to virtually all evidence. Now I know a couple of you lemmings are going to start throwing "Social Security" and other buzzwords around, but the reality is, statistically, despite the astronomical amount of money being tossed around, virtually the same percentage of people are still impoverished, unemployed, without healthcare, <insert other pet cause here>. There's no way to argue it. Does that mean there shouldn't be short term help available? No. But that's never what you people advocate. Point is, people who don't believe government can be used as a positive force probably shouldn't be in charge of nation building. 873110[/snapback] Nor should anyone else, short of the people of that particular society.
RkFast Posted December 20, 2006 Posted December 20, 2006 I find it more amusing that everytime Iraq is held up to be what it is the far-right gets into a tizzy about the media. 873112[/snapback] Iraq is being "held up for what it is" because the White house wont release classified information about the future whereabouts of the Secretary of Defense???!!?? Thats a bit of a stretch. Whats your encore? Calling Bush a 'chicken' because he always "hides behind" a security detail? Jeez.............
jimmy_from_north_buffalo Posted December 20, 2006 Author Posted December 20, 2006 That's where you're wrong. You immediately played the "at least our crap helps some people," which is contrary to virtually all evidence. Now I know a couple of you lemmings are going to start throwing "Social Security" and other buzzwords around, but the reality is, statistically, despite the astronomical amount of money being tossed around, virtually the same percentage of people are still impoverished, unemployed, without healthcare, <insert other pet cause here>. There's no way to argue it. Does that mean there shouldn't be short term help available? No. But that's never what you people advocate. Nor should anyone else, short of the people of that particular society. 873173[/snapback] Virtually the same as when? Poverty was much worse in the past. Liberal programs have spread prosperity over a much wider segment of society through the TVA, road projects and zillion other programs that put people to work. I'm also happy to say that redistribution of income works great. If you think other wise you have no idea how the economy works. Pork is a good thing overall. Everyone complains about it except for people who get jobs as forest ranger, cops, teachers, nurses and construction people. What Republicans do wrong is not to pay for it, it all goes on credit. Liberalism saved capitalism by redistributing income. When was the last great depression? Oh and Social Security has worked to help the eldery live more independent worry free lives. Sure there may be problems with it, but it can be fixed.
jimmy_from_north_buffalo Posted December 20, 2006 Author Posted December 20, 2006 Iraq is being "held up for what it is" because the White house wont release classified information about the future whereabouts of the Secretary of Defense???!!?? Thats a bit of a stretch. Whats your encore? Calling Bush a 'chicken' because he always "hides behind" a security detail? Jeez............. 873257[/snapback] lol, no, because the place is such a mess he can't announce when he, or anyone else, is going there.
RkFast Posted December 20, 2006 Posted December 20, 2006 Virtually the same as when? Poverty was much worse in the past. Liberal programs have spread prosperity over a much wider segment of society through the TVA, road projects and zillion other programs that put people to work. I'm also happy to say that redistribution of income works great. If you think other wise you have no idea how the economy works. Pork is a good thing overall. Everyone complains about it except for people who get jobs as forest ranger, cops, teachers, nurses and construction people. What Republicans do wrong is not to pay for it, it all goes on credit. Liberalism saved capitalism by redistributing income. When was the last great depression? Oh and Social Security has worked to help the eldery live more independent worry free lives. Sure there may be problems with it, but it can be fixed. 873274[/snapback] Okay......someone wanna hit this off? Im way too tired. "redistribution of income works great" Wow.....just.......WOW.
Bungee Jumper Posted December 20, 2006 Posted December 20, 2006 Virtually the same as when? Poverty was much worse in the past. Liberal programs have spread prosperity over a much wider segment of society through the TVA, road projects and zillion other programs that put people to work. I'm also happy to say that redistribution of income works great. If you think other wise you have no idea how the economy works. Pork is a good thing overall. Everyone complains about it except for people who get jobs as forest ranger, cops, teachers, nurses and construction people. What Republicans do wrong is not to pay for it, it all goes on credit. Liberalism saved capitalism by redistributing income. When was the last great depression? Oh and Social Security has worked to help the eldery live more independent worry free lives. Sure there may be problems with it, but it can be fixed. 873274[/snapback] Wow. Hearing this from a Western NY native, given Buffalo's economic situation, is both highly ironic and not the least bit ironic. Simultaneously. That's a real accomplishment.
N.Y. Orangeman Posted December 20, 2006 Posted December 20, 2006 That's where you're wrong. You immediately played the "at least our crap helps some people," which is contrary to virtually all evidence. Now I know a couple of you lemmings are going to start throwing "Social Security" and other buzzwords around, but the reality is, statistically, despite the astronomical amount of money being tossed around, virtually the same percentage of people are still impoverished, unemployed, without healthcare, <insert other pet cause here>. There's no way to argue it. Does that mean there shouldn't be short term help available? No. But that's never what you people advocate. Nor should anyone else, short of the people of that particular society. 873173[/snapback] It is kind of funny listening to the resident Alaskan argue against government programs. I'm sure you still cash your Permanent Fund check and drive on the roads others in the lower 48 pay for..
RkFast Posted December 20, 2006 Posted December 20, 2006 Im still trying to figure out how he managed to define paying salaries for basic social services as "pork." If I can figure that one out, the formula for cold fusion cant be far behind!
RkFast Posted December 20, 2006 Posted December 20, 2006 It is kind of funny listening to the resident Alaskan argue against government programs. I'm sure you still cash your Permanent Fund check and drive on the roads others in the lower 48 pay for.. 873328[/snapback] Only an !@#$ turns down free legal money, regardless of personal philosophies.
N.Y. Orangeman Posted December 20, 2006 Posted December 20, 2006 Only an !@#$ turns down free legal money, regardless of personal philosophies. 873341[/snapback] True, but they usually don't criticize programs like SS so loudly...
Recommended Posts