akuma587 said:
This. All of the debatees may have been using a script, but Palin forgot that you didn't have to read your script in the order you memorized it! @ Jackson: sounds like halogamer is trying to filibuster you! |
Haha, I may have to invoke the dreaded "nuclear option."
OT: Aside from Newt, the only other viable candidate that is known by the nation is Huckabee.
I've only read the first couple posts, but considering that Obama was lambasted by the conservative base for his lack of experience for almost the entire election, the choices of Jindal and Palin seem a little strange. Maybe I'm missing something.
| MontanaHatchet said: I've only read the first couple posts, but considering that Obama was lambasted by the conservative base for his lack of experience for almost the entire election, the choices of Jindal and Palin seem a little strange. Maybe I'm missing something. |
The only difference is that Jindal has both executive and legislative experience. If Palin's limited executive experience qualified her in the eyes of the Republicans, then they will have no qualms about nominating Jindal. I am not saying it makes sense, but "executive experience" apparently revs their motors.
Jackson50 said:
The only difference is that Jindal has both executive and legislative experience. If Palin's limited executive experience qualified her in the eyes of the Republicans, then they will have no qualms about nominating Jindal. I am not saying it makes sense, but "executive experience" apparently revs their motors. |
Not as much as "tax cuts" does though. Or "moose hunting".
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls. The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke
It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...." Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson
| damkira said: I'm confident that aftrer the economic recovery and the end of the Iraq War, nobody will stand a chance against Obama but I'd really like to see Sarah Palin run for president. That would be hilarious. Huckabee would be another one who would be great. Basically, anybody who is very far right and illustrates how far out of touch the Republican party has become.
|
Ha. Yeah right. (read: Carter)
Welcome to the United Socialist States of America!
akuma587 said:
Not as much as "tax cuts" does though. Or "moose hunting".
|
Yeah, the GOP does not need to nominate "Moosalini."
Snesboy said:
Ha. Yeah right. (read: Carter) Welcome to the United Socialist States of America! |
Your post made no sense. We're no longer in the election. There's no reason to spout cliches stolen from conservative talk show hosts. It's not a form of argument. Hopefully these short, precise sentences help get my point across.
Kasz216 said:
If you aren't getting a big piece of the pie your constitutiants are wondering why the blue disctricts are getting so much more of the national taxpayer money. Republicans and Democrats fight over the budget... and aren't willing to compromise. If the democrats are going to get so much money for their plans, the republicans want at least as much money for their plans or it looks bad on them. Etc. That's the problem. For one party to be fiscally conservative they both do in the modern times. |
I don't think the evidence supports this argument.
The last time Democrats controlled the White House and both sides of Congress was 1993-1994. They raised taxes and cut spending, enabling the balanced budgets and budget surpluses of the 1990s. (Republicans hammered on the "raised taxes" part hard enough to win historic amounts of Congressional seats.)
The last time the Republicans controlled the White House and both sides of Congress was 2001 and 2003-2007. Um, do I have to say it?
On a side note, I would guess that the blue districts get more money anyway because big cities trend Democratic.
Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: 
; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for 
, let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia. Thanks WordsofWisdom!
Final-Fan said:
I don't think the evidence supports this argument. |
Exactly, Republicans are essentially obsessed with tax cuts because they think it is the issue that brings home the bacon (and rightfully so). But at the same time they maintain this attitude that they are fiscally conservative, which is patently untrue. Sure they love to complain about government, but they sure as hell don't mind spending money on it and letting it balloon up in size.
And even if Kasz argument is true, doesn't that mean that the Republicans are simply lying to the American people that they are fiscally conservative?
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls. The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke
It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...." Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson
Final-Fan said:
I don't think the evidence supports this argument. |
I'm pretty sure the Balanced budget was around in the early Clinton Years. When the republicans were in control.
I'm pretty sure in fact it was balanced then because I remember the White House almost getting shut down during the whole fiasco.
And I said a bigger percentage of the money. Not bigger amount.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
