BillsFan-4-Ever Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 Yes, but Clinton got a BJ in the Oval Office, so he's an !@#$. That's why W gave the surplus back to the "people". Clinton got a BJ in the Oral Office so you hate him? Jealous much. He's a man that had sexual relations with a woman and he lied about it. How many men do you know brag about having affairs? W created a HUGE deficit. You're supposed to cut taxes AND cut spending Duh-bya cut taxes and INCREASED SPENDING. YOU will be paying for Duh-bya debt for the next 10 years (well before you pay for Obama's deficit). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 Clinton got a BJ in the Oral Office so you hate him? Jealous much. He's a man that had sexual relations with a woman and he lied about it. How many men do you know brag about having affairs? W created a HUGE deficit. You're supposed to cut taxes AND cut spending Duh-bya cut taxes and INCREASED SPENDING. YOU will be paying for Duh-bya debt for the next 10 years (well before you pay for Obama's deficit). I thought my sarcasm was obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 I thought my sarcasm was obvious. Only to people with a brain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 I thought my sarcasm was obvious. I bet that's the first time you've ever been mistaken for a Republican shill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 Nixon was. I thought it was Ike. I just read a few weeks ago somewhere that Kennedy was the first President to introduce peacetime deficit spending. It sure as hell wasn't Lincoln...the country was heavily into the red for most of his presidency, paying for the Civil War. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 I bet that's the first time you've ever been mistaken for a Republican shill. I feel so dirty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 I feel so dirty. Join the club. We all feel dirty. It's from rolling around in all that money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 Join the club. We all feel dirty. It's from rolling around in all that money. Hey! Was that you I saw waving money at protesters from the fourth floor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 Hey! Was that you I saw waving money at protesters from the fourth floor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 What about the loss of jobs? The voters in the now-competative state of North Carolina can look forward to a fat federal agriculteral subsidary paying them variously to grow and then destroy tobacco or to grow nothing at all. (*) (*) See Stimulus Spending Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 The voters in the now-competative state of North Carolina can look forward to a fat federal agriculteral subsidary paying them variously to grow and then destroy tobacco or to grow nothing at all. (*) (*) See Stimulus Spending Ooooooooh, when they say 'stimulus' they are taking about voters for the next election!! I get it!!!! Sure glad the grown ups are in charge now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 The voters in the now-competative state of North Carolina can look forward to a fat federal agriculteral subsidary paying them variously to grow and then destroy tobacco or to grow nothing at all. (*) (*) See Stimulus Spending Bingo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Lieutenant Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 The voters in the now-competative state of North Carolina can look forward to a fat federal agriculteral subsidary paying them variously to grow and then destroy tobacco or to grow nothing at all. (*) (*) See Stimulus Spending Ooooooooh, when they say 'stimulus' they are taking about voters for the next election!! I get it!!!! Sure glad the grown ups are in charge now. Bingo. Reading these posts made me want to gouge my own eyes out. Apparently the misspellings of competitive and agricultural combined with the misuse of the word "subsidiary" wasn't enough to keep two other morons from pounding their keyboards in blind agreement to this fallacious argument. Hilarious! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 Reading these posts made me want to gouge my own eyes out. Apparently the misspellings of competitive and agricultural combined with the misuse of the word "subsidiary" wasn't enough to keep two other morons from pounding their keyboards in blind agreement to this fallacious argument. Hilarious! Yes, kiddies, it's time for your favorite Saturday morning cartoon! Captain Obvious!!! Able to point out obvious spelling errors while avoiding any level of contribution whatsoever. Flying to the left at amazing speeds, pointing out people's errors and calling them names while having no original thoughts of his own. Protecting reckless spending, sucking up to unions while firing CEOs, nationalizing health care, all while singing the songs off Code Pink's new CD!!! Yes, it's Captain Obvious!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 Reading these posts made me want to gouge my own eyes out. Go ahead. I dare you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 Reading these posts made me want to gouge my own eyes out. Apparently the misspellings of competitive and agricultural combined with the misuse of the word "subsidiary" wasn't enough to keep two other morons from pounding their keyboards in blind agreement to this fallacious argument. Hilarious! Your ability to focus on the minutia while ignoring reality is unparalleled here. Congratulations. I'm sorry you don't agree that there will eventually be subsidies for the "poor" tobacco farmers who're being taxed out of existence and that the "stimulus" isn't all about keeping the power while paying political debts. I guess that's because you're a hypocrite. Go ahead and gouge your eyes out. From your "wisdom", you're not using them for much anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Lieutenant Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 Your ability to focus on the minutia while ignoring reality is unparalleled here. Congratulations. I'm sorry you don't agree that there will eventually be subsidies for the "poor" tobacco farmers who're being taxed out of existence and that the "stimulus" isn't all about keeping the power while paying political debts. I guess that's because you're a hypocrite. Go ahead and gouge your eyes out. From your "wisdom", you're not using them for much anyway. Ignoring reality? If your definition of "reality" is some idiotic slippery slope argument with two degrees of separation from the original issue then it's you who has the reality problem. But I'll cut you some slack since you're obviously not smart enough to debate an issue without your precious strawmen and slippery slope fallacies to lean on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 Ignoring reality? If your definition of "reality" is some idiotic slippery slope argument with two degrees of separation from the original issue then it's you who has the reality problem. But I'll cut you some slack since you're obviously not smart enough to debate an issue without your precious strawmen and slippery slope fallacies to lean on. Oh thanks, I'm all too happy to get slack from someone who buys the argument that they're taxing tobacco to pay for health care - but I'm the one who isn't smart. You might as well change your moniker to "Bad Liberal Talking Point". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Lieutenant Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 Oh thanks, I'm all too happy to get slack from someone who buys the argument that they're taxing tobacco to pay for health care - but I'm the one who isn't smart. You might as well change your moniker to "Bad Liberal Talking Point". So what's the next step in your moronic tobacco tax alternate reality continuum? Since we all know that increasing the tobacco tax will invariably result in 100% of smokers quitting cold turkey, and this will invariably result in the government providing subsidies to tobacco farmers, what is going to follow the subsidies? Let me guess- more gun laws? Embryo farming? The Fairness Doctrine? Maybe if you consult your local corporate overlord he would be willing to include a detailed tobacco tax continuum spreadsheet along with your weekly global warming talking point mailing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 What will they do after say 50% of the current smokers quit. Raise the tobacco tax again? Increase taxes on beer and booze? Increase taxes on Cable and Internet? Increase taxes on Gas and Oil? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts