Do Republicans Really mean what they say?

[ihopehefails]

Republicans want to champion the cause of less government and want to return to power in 2010 but if that was true why don't they mention one word about making the bush tax cuts perminant in 2010 when they are due to expire? Where were these same republicans who would not fully support them in 2002? I would think if they were damn serious they would make that a centerpiece for re-election but they are not.

What gives?

 

[Mr. Peepers]

um, obviously because they didn't "give" anything except for a handjob to the rich. Nothing came of that farce... no "booming economy", no jobs, nor a real reason for the invasion of Iraq for that matter...

Oh wait... the rich did get richer... my bad! MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!!

 

[The Rabbi]

um, obviously because they didn't "give" anything except for a handjob to the rich. Nothing came of that farce... no "booming economy", no jobs, nor a real reason for the invasion of Iraq for that matter...

Oh wait... the rich did get richer... my bad! MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!!

Are you really this stupid?
No booming economy? Growth was brisk from 2001 to 2007.
No jobs? How about record low unemployment levels during that time?
Invasion of Iraq? WTF are you smoking? What does that have to do with anything?

WHy not go PUT IT ON C-SPAN????

 

[ihopehefails]

um, obviously because they didn't "give" anything except for a handjob to the rich. Nothing came of that farce... no "booming economy", no jobs, nor a real reason for the invasion of Iraq for that matter...

Oh wait... the rich did get richer... my bad! MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!!

Are you really this stupid?
No booming economy? Growth was brisk from 2001 to 2007.
No jobs? How about record low unemployment levels during that time?
Invasion of Iraq? WTF are you smoking? What does that have to do with anything?

WHy not go PUT IT ON C-SPAN????

Don't get upset with him. CNN didn't properly program his mind with the truth so he doesn't know. I do no that between 2001 and 2007 that jobs were everywhere whether you want to attribute that to Bush tax cuts or not they were there. Its a complete fantasy land that they live in which is why I never discuss the outcome of any aspect of freedom such as free-enterprise. It becomes a debate about the negative affects of freedom and why it should be stopped.

This is why we never talk about the old school liberal concept of free-enterprise where it is for the individual and their prosperity but the conservative concept that individual ambition benefits the COLLECTIVE. The debate about how much freedom we should have has became about the positive or negative effects of that freedom and if they are negative then they should be stopped which is why 'liberals' always deny the positive affects of free-enterprise.

 

[Chris]

um, obviously because they didn't "give" anything except for a handjob to the rich. Nothing came of that farce... no "booming economy", no jobs, nor a real reason for the invasion of Iraq for that matter...

Oh wait... the rich did get richer... my bad! MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!!

 

[Chris]

um, obviously because they didn't "give" anything except for a handjob to the rich. Nothing came of that farce... no "booming economy", no jobs, nor a real reason for the invasion of Iraq for that matter...

Oh wait... the rich did get richer... my bad! MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!!

Are you really this stupid?
No booming economy? Growth was brisk from 2001 to 2007.
No jobs? How about record low unemployment levels during that time?
Invasion of Iraq? WTF are you smoking? What does that have to do with anything?

WHy not go PUT IT ON C-SPAN????

Don't get upset with him. CNN didn't properly program his mind with the truth so he doesn't know. I do no that between 2001 and 2007 that jobs were everywhere whether you want to attribute that to Bush tax cuts or not they were there. Its a complete fantasy land that they live in which is why I never discuss the outcome of any aspect of freedom such as free-enterprise. It becomes a debate about the negative affects of freedom and why it should be stopped.

This is why we never talk about the old school liberal concept of free-enterprise where it is for the individual and their prosperity but the conservative concept that individual ambition benefits the COLLECTIVE. The debate about how much freedom we should have has became about the positive or negative effects of that freedom.

Horseshit.

A $516 TRILLION DOLLAR derivative bubble is not "free enterprize."

It's theft, pure and simple.

Derivatives are the new ticking time bomb Paul B. Farrell - MarketWatch

 

[Oddball]

Do Republicans Really mean what they say?

No.

They had six years holding all the legilative marbles, with the Shubmeister as their rubber stamp, and they acted more like LBJ leftists than old school pre-Wilsonian republicans.

I wouldn't trust a neoconnie dirtbag like Newt Gingrich or Tim Pawlenty any farther than I could throw Barney Frank.

 

[Avatar4321]

Horseshit.

A $516 TRILLION DOLLAR derivative bubble is not "free enterprize."

It's theft, pure and simple.

Derivatives are the new ticking time bomb Paul B. Farrell - MarketWatch

So is so-called "Free healthcare"

 

[Oddball]

Republicans want to champion the cause of less government and want to return to power in 2010 but if that was true why don't they mention one word about making the bush tax cuts perminant in 2010 when they are due to expire? Where were these same republicans who would not fully support them in 2002? I would think if they were damn serious they would make that a centerpiece for re-election but they are not.

What gives?

You'd think that...But republicans lie out the ass.

As bad as Fabian socialist democratics suck out loud, at least they're a tad less insincere abound their end game.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Do Republicans Really mean what they say?

As a rule? No.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Republicans want to champion the cause of less government and want to return to power in 2010 but if that was true why don't they mention one word about making the bush tax cuts perminant in 2010 when they are due to expire? Where were these same republicans who would not fully support them in 2002? I would think if they were damn serious they would make that a centerpiece for re-election but they are not.

What gives?

Uh, because of the current size of our government, cutting taxes isn't fiscally prudent. You know one of the cornerstones of conservatism.

 

[ihopehefails]

um, obviously because they didn't "give" anything except for a handjob to the rich. Nothing came of that farce... no "booming economy", no jobs, nor a real reason for the invasion of Iraq for that matter...

Oh wait... the rich did get richer... my bad! MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!!

Once you determine the exact crime committed by the rich getting richer you may tell your local police and have them arrested for violating one of the local ordinances. Until then you they happen to be citizens acting freely within the scope of the law engaging in commere under their own legal free actions that they chose to engage in. Are you trying to say that a person's own free action is a crime?

 

[ihopehefails]

Republicans want to champion the cause of less government and want to return to power in 2010 but if that was true why don't they mention one word about making the bush tax cuts perminant in 2010 when they are due to expire? Where were these same republicans who would not fully support them in 2002? I would think if they were damn serious they would make that a centerpiece for re-election but they are not.

What gives?

Uh, because of the current size of our government, cutting taxes isn't fiscally prudent. You know one of the cornerstones of conservatism.

I guess that is why you guys wanted Bush out. The government just wasn't big enough.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Republicans want to champion the cause of less government and want to return to power in 2010 but if that was true why don't they mention one word about making the bush tax cuts perminant in 2010 when they are due to expire? Where were these same republicans who would not fully support them in 2002? I would think if they were damn serious they would make that a centerpiece for re-election but they are not.

What gives?

Uh, because of the current size of our government, cutting taxes isn't fiscally prudent. You know one of the cornerstones of conservatism.

I guess that is why you guys wanted Bush out. The government just wasn't big enough.

What do you mean you guys? I voted for the man twice, while he presided over the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon B. Johnson.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3750

I wish it wasn't so, but its hard to argue facts.

 

[ihopehefails]

Republicans want to champion the cause of less government and want to return to power in 2010 but if that was true why don't they mention one word about making the bush tax cuts perminant in 2010 when they are due to expire? Where were these same republicans who would not fully support them in 2002? I would think if they were damn serious they would make that a centerpiece for re-election but they are not.

What gives?

You'd think that...But republicans lie out the ass.

As bad as Fabian socialist democratics suck out loud, at least they're a tad less insincere abound their end game.

The big problem with most conservatives is that they are not true liberals. Ronald Reagen was a liberal but realized the democratic party was becoming unliberal. Most conservatives chant Ronald Reagen but don't hold liberal beliefs. They hold a kind of conservative progressivism which is why both parties seem to be the same at times.

 

[Oddball]

Reagan was a wannabe old school liberal, but was surrounded by Bushie neocons.

Ronnie got hijacked by his own party.

 

[Ravi]

Reagan was the worst president ever.

 

[pete]

Republicans want to champion the cause of less government and want to return to power in 2010 but if that was true why don't they mention one word about making the bush tax cuts perminant in 2010 when they are due to expire? Where were these same republicans who would not fully support them in 2002? I would think if they were damn serious they would make that a centerpiece for re-election but they are not.

What gives?

Not saying right or wong, but if I were running and in charge I dont think I would let the enemy know exactly where I stand until ... otherwise they (and this admin especially) would put a spin on it and use it.

 

[Avatar4321]

Reagan was the worst president ever.

Maybe to the Soviets.

 

[The Rabbi]

Reagan was the worst president ever.

Until Obama.