PA primary thread

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland
And you would have us elect someone who would accelerate that trend? You think either Democratic candidate will spend LESS? Hello... NATIONAL HEALTH CARE?! I know.. we will take the money from Iraq... but that wont even be a drop in the bucket.

Point to one time in HISTORY when that has happened (a Democrat following a Republican that spent LESS), and I will eat my shoes. I stepped in some dog crap during lunch, so it should be especially satisfying should you actually find that information.

I hope it's tasty

eek! someone is going to eat shoe-poo!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Vic
And what's worse, I KNOW that spending will go down if a Democrat gets elected (or at least cease accelerating), even with all that socialist crap,

Buahahahaha.. Spending going down Extra cup of Grape today? Fuggin please, spending won't go down no matter which of the 3 gets elected. Sheesh. It will go up regardless.

 

[351Cleveland]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland
And you would have us elect someone who would accelerate that trend? You think either Democratic candidate will spend LESS? Hello... NATIONAL HEALTH CARE?! I know.. we will take the money from Iraq... but that wont even be a drop in the bucket.

Point to one time in HISTORY when that has happened (a Democrat following a Republican that spent LESS), and I will eat my shoes. I stepped in some dog crap during lunch, so it should be especially satisfying should you actually find that information.

I hope it's tasty

I look at the chart with adjusted spending levels. The only negative numbers in the WHOLE CHART for spending were 1987 and 1993. Obviously 1987 was Reagan. While Clinton was in office in 1993, the fiscal year ended in 1993 was Bush 41.

Unless I am missing something, I wont be ruining my dinner just yet.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
popcorn - check
lawnchair - check
beer - check

Great show!

I know! It's almost as good a show as your boy outright doubling the federal budget in 8 short years, and you still believing you belong to the small government party!

lol - try to pigeon hole all you want but the facts don't back you. I've set you straight(you and/or others) but hey believe what you wish. However, the diversion from the show won't work. Keep up the good work people

The only circus in town is the new Republican party, with the big-spending, nation-building, big-government, neo-cons as the ring leaders.

Don't forget anti-freedom, anti-rights, and steal-your-property too. They're gonna take your taxdollars, borrow some more for your great-great-great children to pay taxes on the interest on, and give it to the megacorporations to fight wars in the common good. And hey, if you don't like that, here's your "free speech zone" where you can complain...

One thing I've always wondered is if Bush was a democrat and did all these things, Republicans would be jumping on the wall over it. But they're so sedated. It seems to me that the ones that still support their party are more concerned with style over substance.

You said sedation and that is exactly what it is. Small govt republicans are not motivated to vote nor give money to a party who has abandoned its core principles to hold onto the power that was granted to them in 1994. But dont confuse sedation with approval. People are still pissed about what has happened over the last few years and the proof is in the pudding. Contributions are down and voter turnout is weak. The republican leadership is getting exactly what they deserve for the course they have set.

But it's been like this since Reagan. Why are you'll so sedated now?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland
And you would have us elect someone who would accelerate that trend? You think either Democratic candidate will spend LESS? Hello... NATIONAL HEALTH CARE?! I know.. we will take the money from Iraq... but that wont even be a drop in the bucket.

Point to one time in HISTORY when that has happened (a Democrat following a Republican that spent LESS), and I will eat my shoes. I stepped in some dog crap during lunch, so it should be especially satisfying should you actually find that information.

I hope it's tasty

I look at the chart with adjusted spending levels. The only negative numbers in the WHOLE CHART for spending were 1987 and 1993. Obviously 1987 was Reagan. While Clinton was in office in 1993, the fiscal year ended in 1993 was Bush 41.

Unless I am missing something, I wont be ruining my dinner just yet.

Sure, if you cherry-pick only those 2 rare instances, and ignore the rest of the chart. I could do the same thing and point out that the only 2 times the debt went down was under Carter and Clinton, but I'm not that intellectually dishonest.

How about you look at whole thing, eh? And then compare that with your "accelerate the trend" statement bolded above.

Bon appetit!

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: bamacre
Then jump ship and vote for the Libertarian candidate. They can't win, but the bigger their numbers, the bigger message it sends to the Republican party.

You can't change the Republican party by supporting it when it fucks up. And that's exactly what a McCain vote does.

Yeah, it's either that or sit on my hands.

But what's funny(or rather sad) is that Vic is doing the attacking for party over substance yet he is doing the exact same thing. He's trying to defeat a party instead of supporting the ideals he claims to have. No Libertarian in their right mind would support BHO.

When the other choices presented are McCain and Hillary, they damn sure would support Obama.

 

[Andyb23]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland
And you would have us elect someone who would accelerate that trend? You think either Democratic candidate will spend LESS? Hello... NATIONAL HEALTH CARE?! I know.. we will take the money from Iraq... but that wont even be a drop in the bucket.

Point to one time in HISTORY when that has happened (a Democrat following a Republican that spent LESS), and I will eat my shoes. I stepped in some dog crap during lunch, so it should be especially satisfying should you actually find that information.

I hope it's tasty

I look at the chart with adjusted spending levels. The only negative numbers in the WHOLE CHART for spending were 1987 and 1993. Obviously 1987 was Reagan. While Clinton was in office in 1993, the fiscal year ended in 1993 was Bush 41.

Unless I am missing something, I wont be ruining my dinner just yet.

Sure, if you cherry-pick only those 2 rare instances, and ignore the rest of the chart. I could do the same thing and point out that the only 2 times the debt went down was under Carter and Clinton, but I'm not that intellectually dishonest.

How about you look at whole thing, eh? And then compare that with your "accelerate the trend" statement bolded above.

Bon appetit!

If you look at the trends on that chart you would see Roosevelt, an amazing Democrat, a hero, had a huge decrease in our debt, a great man for sure.

But this defeats your own argument, mainly because Bill Clinton did an excellent job in reducing debt and has been beaten raw by the Obama campaign.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Vic
And what's worse, I KNOW that spending will go down if a Democrat gets elected (or at least cease accelerating), even with all that socialist crap,

Buahahahaha.. Spending going down Extra cup of Grape today? Fuggin please, spending won't go down no matter which of the 3 gets elected. Sheesh. It will go up regardless.

If I'm going to taxed to death, I'd at least like to get something for it. Democrats will tax us to death and spend it on social services. Republicans will tax us to death and spend it blowing up brown people. It's not difficult to determine which one benefits me.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Andyb23
If you look at the trends on that chart you would see Roosevelt, an amazing Democrat, a hero, had a huge decrease in our debt, a great man for sure.

But this defeats your own argument, mainly because Bill Clinton did an excellent job in reducing debt and has been beaten raw by the Obama campaign.

You're confused. Hillary is the one who has gone negative and stayed negative, while support for Obama is in no way an attack on Clinton's administration. It's just that not everybody loves the sequel.

And let's not be too rosy in our look-back at FDR, eh? A great man, for sure, but a ruthless one as well. What our country needed in that time and place, but had he been President in a time of peace and prosperity, he wouldn't have lasted a single term.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: bamacre
Then jump ship and vote for the Libertarian candidate. They can't win, but the bigger their numbers, the bigger message it sends to the Republican party.

You can't change the Republican party by supporting it when it fucks up. And that's exactly what a McCain vote does.

Yeah, it's either that or sit on my hands.

But what's funny(or rather sad) is that Vic is doing the attacking for party over substance yet he is doing the exact same thing. He's trying to defeat a party instead of supporting the ideals he claims to have. No Libertarian in their right mind would support BHO.

When the other choices presented are McCain and Hillary, they damn sure would support Obama.

But that's just falling for the whole two-party scam. There's always more choices than that. Sure, none of the non-Big 2 candidates has a prayer, but why should that fact compel me to vote for the Dem. if I doubt the true conservatism of the Repub.?

 

[Andyb23]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Andyb23
If you look at the trends on that chart you would see Roosevelt, an amazing Democrat, a hero, had a huge decrease in our debt, a great man for sure.

But this defeats your own argument, mainly because Bill Clinton did an excellent job in reducing debt and has been beaten raw by the Obama campaign.

You're confused. Hillary is the one who has gone negative and stayed negative, while support for Obama is in no way an attack on Clinton's administration. It's just that not everybody loves the sequel.

And let's not be too rosy in our look-back at FDR, eh? A great man, for sure, but a ruthless one as well. What our country needed in that time and place, but had he been President in a time of peace and prosperity, he wouldn't have lasted a single term.

Vic while for you support for Obama may not equal complete bashing on Bill or Hillary Clinton, for many of his fans it is the truth.

I respect your opinion though and you always bring interesting thoughts into the debate.

 

[351Cleveland]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland
I look at the chart with adjusted spending levels. The only negative numbers in the WHOLE CHART for spending were 1987 and 1993. Obviously 1987 was Reagan. While Clinton was in office in 1993, the fiscal year ended in 1993 was Bush 41.

Unless I am missing something, I wont be ruining my dinner just yet.

Sure, if you cherry-pick only those 2 rare instances, and ignore the rest of the chart. I could do the same thing and point out that the only 2 times the debt went down was under Carter and Clinton, but I'm not that intellectually dishonest.

How about you look at whole thing, eh? And then compare that with your "accelerate the trend" statement bolded above.

Bon appetit!

Ahhh... but you didnt read what I said. SPENDING didnt go down. I am not cherry picking. I didnt say things were not better managed under Democrats at certain points in history. I only said that spending has never gone down when a Democrat takes office.

An increase in spending is an acceleration of spending. It may not be an acceleration in the increase in debt (either as a total or as a percentage of GDP), but spending is spending and the growth of government. Revenues went up to cover it? I dont care. You shouldnt spend it JUST because you have the revenue. You should spend it because it is necessary. Any excess beyond that should be returned to the taxpayers who forked it over to begin with.

 

[351Cleveland]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Vic
And what's worse, I KNOW that spending will go down if a Democrat gets elected (or at least cease accelerating), even with all that socialist crap,

Buahahahaha.. Spending going down Extra cup of Grape today? Fuggin please, spending won't go down no matter which of the 3 gets elected. Sheesh. It will go up regardless.

If I'm going to taxed to death, I'd at least like to get something for it. Democrats will tax us to death and spend it on social services. Republicans will tax us to death and spend it blowing up brown people. It's not difficult to determine which one benefits me.

Neither? It was a trick question right?

 

[lopri]

Originally posted by: loki8481
in a rare moment of lucidity, MoDo actually made a decent point today...

"Her message is unapologetically emasculating: If he does not have the gumption to put me in my place, when superdelegates are deserting me, money is drying up, he?s outspending me 2-to-1 on TV ads, my husband?s going crackers and party leaders are sick of me, how can he be trusted to totally obliterate Iran and stop Osama?"

Who still reads hear columns? She's a masochistic Hillary-wannabe who is begrudged that she doesn't have a husband like Bill.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland
Ahhh... but you didnt read what I said. SPENDING didnt go down. I am not cherry picking. I didnt say things were not better managed under Democrats at certain points in history. I only said that spending has never gone down when a Democrat takes office.

Well this would be the worst form of cherry-picking then because spending has never gone down when a Republican took office either. Let's at least TRY to be objective, eh?
However, you did specifically refer to an "acceleration" of spending. I did read what you said.

An increase in spending is an acceleration of spending. It may not be an acceleration in the increase in debt (either as a total or as a percentage of GDP), but spending is spending and the growth of government. Revenues went up to cover it? I dont care. You shouldnt spend it JUST because you have the revenue. You should spend it because it is necessary. Any excess beyond that should be returned to the taxpayers who forked it over to begin with.

Not accounting at all for revenues or debt levels, since FY78, spending has accelerated at an average annual rate of 2.81% under Republican presidents vs. an average annual 2.38% rate under Democratic presidents.
And before you point to Reagan's burden of a Democratic congress, the worst offender of all by far was GW Bush with a Republican congress with a 4.34% rate from 02-06.

The numbers don't lie.

 

[jpeyton]

11 delegates down, 133 to go. I'm not worried.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: lopri

Originally posted by: loki8481
in a rare moment of lucidity, MoDo actually made a decent point today...

"Her message is unapologetically emasculating: If he does not have the gumption to put me in my place, when superdelegates are deserting me, money is drying up, he?s outspending me 2-to-1 on TV ads, my husband?s going crackers and party leaders are sick of me, how can he be trusted to totally obliterate Iran and stop Osama?"

Who still reads hear columns? She's a masochistic Hillary-wannabe who is begrudged that she doesn't have a husband like Bill.

I try not to, and by and large don't, but the blurb caught my attention today.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

I don't think anyone's arguing that the "suits" should "strong-arm" her out.

I don't know, that's just what I think of when I hear people talk about Gore and Carter trying to force her out.

No combined force of party elders holds anywhere near as much strong-arm power as that of Mr. and Mrs. Clinton.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: bamacre
Then jump ship and vote for the Libertarian candidate. They can't win, but the bigger their numbers, the bigger message it sends to the Republican party.

You can't change the Republican party by supporting it when it fucks up. And that's exactly what a McCain vote does.

Yeah, it's either that or sit on my hands.

But what's funny(or rather sad) is that Vic is doing the attacking for party over substance yet he is doing the exact same thing. He's trying to defeat a party instead of supporting the ideals he claims to have. No Libertarian in their right mind would support BHO.

When the other choices presented are McCain and Hillary, they damn sure would support Obama.

But that's just falling for the whole two-party scam. There's always more choices than that. Sure, none of the non-Big 2 candidates has a prayer, but why should that fact compel me to vote for the Dem. if I doubt the true conservatism of the Repub.?

Great but until the current system changes and the POTUS doesn't come from one of the Big 2 you're just 'throwing away your vote'.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: bamacre
Then jump ship and vote for the Libertarian candidate. They can't win, but the bigger their numbers, the bigger message it sends to the Republican party.

You can't change the Republican party by supporting it when it fucks up. And that's exactly what a McCain vote does.

Yeah, it's either that or sit on my hands.

But what's funny(or rather sad) is that Vic is doing the attacking for party over substance yet he is doing the exact same thing. He's trying to defeat a party instead of supporting the ideals he claims to have. No Libertarian in their right mind would support BHO.

When the other choices presented are McCain and Hillary, they damn sure would support Obama.

But that's just falling for the whole two-party scam. There's always more choices than that. Sure, none of the non-Big 2 candidates has a prayer, but why should that fact compel me to vote for the Dem. if I doubt the true conservatism of the Repub.?

Great but until the current system changes and the POTUS doesn't come from one of the Big 2 you're just 'throwing away your vote'.

Isn't this circular? You're throwing away your vote if you don't vote for the big 2, but it will only be worth not voting for the big 2 when enough people vote for a third?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: bamacre
Then jump ship and vote for the Libertarian candidate. They can't win, but the bigger their numbers, the bigger message it sends to the Republican party.

You can't change the Republican party by supporting it when it fucks up. And that's exactly what a McCain vote does.

Yeah, it's either that or sit on my hands.

But what's funny(or rather sad) is that Vic is doing the attacking for party over substance yet he is doing the exact same thing. He's trying to defeat a party instead of supporting the ideals he claims to have. No Libertarian in their right mind would support BHO.

When the other choices presented are McCain and Hillary, they damn sure would support Obama.

But that's just falling for the whole two-party scam. There's always more choices than that. Sure, none of the non-Big 2 candidates has a prayer, but why should that fact compel me to vote for the Dem. if I doubt the true conservatism of the Repub.?

Great but until the current system changes and the POTUS doesn't come from one of the Big 2 you're just 'throwing away your vote'.

Isn't this circular? You're throwing away your vote if you don't vote for the big 2, but it will only be worth not voting for the big 2 when enough people vote for a third?

Exactly.
And to Robor, so what if I'm "throwing away my vote"?!? I live in a state that usually is reliably red anyway, so it's not like my one little vote mattered all that much to begin with. More importantly, I'm not going to vote for a candidate I can't support on his/her own merits just because he/she stands a better chance than some longshot. I have almost nothing in common with most Democrats, so they're usually easily dismissed, and lately, the GOP candidate has been a dissappointment (like GWB turned out to be), so I'm finding a third-party vote is the only way to go. If nothing else, it's one more person thinking outside the 2-party box.

 

[b0mbrman]

Look who was first to report the winner:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJ2nVor0bSI

...and look who's a fan of that network

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Isn't this circular? You're throwing away your vote if you don't vote for the big 2, but it will only be worth not voting for the big 2 when enough people vote for a third?

Exactly.
And to Robor, so what if I'm "throwing away my vote"?!? I live in a state that usually is reliably red anyway, so it's not like my one little vote mattered all that much to begin with. More importantly, I'm not going to vote for a candidate I can't support on his/her own merits just because he/she stands a better chance than some longshot. I have almost nothing in common with most Democrats, so they're usually easily dismissed, and lately, the GOP candidate has been a dissappointment (like GWB turned out to be), so I'm finding a third-party vote is the only way to go. If nothing else, it's one more person thinking outside the 2-party box.

It may be circular and even pointless in some cases but the race was close in FL the past 2 elections so those 'thrown' votes could have made the difference and we may not have the disappointment that is GWB.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: bamacre
Then jump ship and vote for the Libertarian candidate. They can't win, but the bigger their numbers, the bigger message it sends to the Republican party.

You can't change the Republican party by supporting it when it fucks up. And that's exactly what a McCain vote does.

Yeah, it's either that or sit on my hands.

But what's funny(or rather sad) is that Vic is doing the attacking for party over substance yet he is doing the exact same thing. He's trying to defeat a party instead of supporting the ideals he claims to have. No Libertarian in their right mind would support BHO.

When the other choices presented are McCain and Hillary, they damn sure would support Obama.

But that's just falling for the whole two-party scam. There's always more choices than that. Sure, none of the non-Big 2 candidates has a prayer, but why should that fact compel me to vote for the Dem. if I doubt the true conservatism of the Repub.?

Don't get me wrong, I vote third party all the time. I haven't voted either R or D in the past three presidential elections. I just feel that with this election, the US needs to worry about it's image first and fiscal responsibility later. Obama is the only one of the three major candidates who can do anything to heal our international relationships. If we can get back to true conservative values (not bombing other countries indiscriminately, not spying on our own citizens, etc.) we can worry about our bad spending habits later.

If it's Obama vs McCain, I'll vote Obama just to keep McCain out of office.

If it's Hillary vs McCain, I'll write in Ron Paul, because it doesn't matter which one wins. They're both despicable.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Uh, I am backing Conservative causes and issues. But if you really are a Libertarian then maybe you should rethink your support of the Liberal BHO.
But thanks for the laugh, if you think that there is a Democrat in the race who will reign in "out-of-control spending" then I think you've drank a bit too much BHO kool-aid.

That being said - I've stated many times here that I haven't decided if I'm going to back McCain this year due to my unhappiness and I know plenty of Conservatives who are in the same boat as I am.

Heh. If you can't see that the Pubs under Bush have become so ANTI-libertarian that even that even a lib-er-al like Obama looks like a champion of liberty and small government in relative comparison, then the only laugh here is on you, and the only kool-aid being drunk is that which Bush gave you. Wake the hell up, swallow your pride, and do the right thing... for once.

We are talking about the same Obama who wants at least $400 billion in additional spending?

Bush has sucked as far as size of government goes, but you have got to be crazy to think the Democrats are going to do a better job and keeping the government small. I don't even see them trying to act like they want a small government. Anyone who votes Democrat solely because they are unhappy with the growth of the government under is an idiot.