its official. obamas first budget less than bushes last budget.

Quote from Gabfly1:

It is to the extent that more is spent than required to have a capable, sufficient and efficient military for necessary actions. Anything beyond that is arguably a social program, either corporate or otherwise.
More...

"Quote from Trader666:

The military's not a social program, moron. "


i have this trader6 guy on ignore but what do you think? i am guessing about 19 years old. at least mentally.
 
Quote from Free Thinker:

...i have this trader6 guy on ignore but what do you think? i am guessing about 19 years old. at least mentally.
More...
I wasn't even convinced he was a teenager yet. Perhaps Tsing Tao had targeted 666's head once too often during his corporeal disciplinary sessions.
 
Quote from Gabfly1:

I wasn't even convinced he was a teenager yet. Perhaps Tsing Tao had targeted 666's head once too often during his corporeal disciplinary sessions.
More...

humor is certainly not your strong point, gabfly. you really should try to avoid using it.
 
Quote from Tsing Tao:

humor is certainly not your strong point, gabfly. you really should try to avoid using it.
More...
In a similar vein, you may wish to avoid embarrassing attempts at intelligent discourse.
 
Quote from Gabfly1:

In a similar vein, you may wish to avoid embarrassing attempts at intelligent discourse.
More...

really? because all evidence is to the contrary. you and "free" thinker have avoided questions, tried to redirect topics, overstated/manipulated/taken out of context every point i've tried to make regarding the spanking thread - all the hallmark methods of liberal debate strategy - dont focus on the issue because you can't win on the issue.

with the exception that i am forced to concede that you present yourself intelligently and you certainly are good at word "smithing", the rest of your cohorts are hilariously ill-informed, rarely research anything they say, certainly have no common sense and are, on many occasions, downright morons.

and i'm not making those comments because they offer points i do not agree with. they truly dont think about what they say and the possible responses that can come out of it. now whether thats because they're in a rush or they simply lack the abilities is subjective on my part.

as for my "intelligent discourse", i am happy to go head to head with you any day of the week and twice on sunday. you name the topic and the time, and i'll show up.

however, you suck at your attempts at comedy. they're just not funny and you should avoid them when you can :)
 
Quote from Free Thinker:

The 2009 Bush-approved budget was $1.416 trillion and the 2010 Obama-approved budget was $122 billion less.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/the-republican-swindle-ab_b_770692.html
More...

Vehn, that is False. Bush only approved the budget for the first half of 2009. The democrat congress waited until Obama was in office before sending him the appropriations bill for the second half of 2009. The increase in the second half of 2009 was much larger than the Bush approved first half.
 
ROTFLMAO!!!! What the hell do you know about what kind of military the United States needs, you libtarded Canadian ignoramus?

You're a special kind of loser to be so obsessed with our business.
Quote from Gayfly:

It is to the extent that more is spent than required to have a capable, sufficient and efficient military for necessary actions. Anything beyond that is arguably a social program, either corporate or otherwise.
More...
 
Quote from Tom B:

Vehn, that is False. Bush only approved the budget for the first half of 2009. The democrat congress waited until Obama was in office before sending him the appropriations bill for the second half of 2009. The increase in the second half of 2009 was much larger than the Bush approved first half.
More...

shhh...dont bring up that it is congress that approves budgets. you'll ruin the whole premise of the thread.
 
It's official: Republicans have no manners anymore either. Not that this is news.

The -Ic Factor:

In the conservative media, the phenomenon feeds more voraciously the closer you get to the mucky, sludgy bottom. “Democrat Party” is standard jargon on right-wing talk radio and common on winger Web sites like NewsMax.com, which blue-pencils Associated Press dispatches to de-“ic” references to the Party of F.D.R. and J.F.K. (The resulting impression that “Democrat Party” is O.K. with the A.P. is as phony as a North Korean travel brochure.) The respectable conservative journals of opinion sprinkle the phrase around their Web sites but go light on it in their print editions. William F. Buckley, Jr., the Miss Manners cum Dr. Johnson of modern conservatism, dealt with the question in a 2000 column in National Review, the magazine he had founded forty-five years before. “I have an aversion to ‘Democrat’ as an adjective,” Buckley began.


Dear Joe McCarthy used to do that, and received a rebuke from this at-the-time 24-year-old. It has the effect of injecting politics into language, and that should be avoided. Granted there are difficulties, as when one desires to describe a “democratic” politician, and is jolted by possible ambiguity.

But English does that to us all the time, and it’s our job to get the correct meaning transmitted without contorting the language.


The job of politicians, however, is different, and among those of the Republican persuasion “Democrat Party” is now nearly universal. This is partly the work of Newt Gingrich, the nominal author of the notorious 1990 memo “Language: A Key Mechanism of Control,” and his Contract with America pollster, Frank Luntz, the Johnny Appleseed of such linguistic innovations as “death tax” for estate tax and “personal accounts” for Social Security privatization. Luntz, who road-tested the adjectival use of “Democrat” with a focus group in 2001, has concluded that the only people who really dislike it are highly partisan adherents of the—how you say?—Democratic Party. “Those two letters actually do matter,” Luntz said the other day. He added that he recently finished writing a book—it’s entitled “Words That Work”—and has been diligently going through the galley proofs taking out the hundreds of “ic”s that his copy editor, one of those partisan Dems, had stuck in.

In days gone by, the anti-“ic” tic tended to be reined in at the Presidential level. Ronald Reagan never used it in polite company, and George Bush père was too well brought up to use the truncated version of the out party’s name more than sparingly. Not so Bush fils—and not just in e-mails sent to the Party faithful, which he obviously never reads, let alone writes. “It’s time for the leadership in the Democrat Party to start laying out ideas,” he said a few weeks ago, using his own personal mouth. “The Democrat Party showed its true colors during the tax debate,” he said a few months before that. “Nobody from the Democrat Party has actually stood up and called for actually getting rid of the terrorist surveillance program,” he said a week before that. What he meant is anybody’s guess, but his bad manners were impossible to miss. Hard as it is to believe from this distance in time, George W. Bush came to office promising to “change the tone.” That he has certainly done. But, as with so much else, it hasn’t worked out quite the way he promised. ♦
More...

They profess to hate Bush, but somehow they follow all his (t)ics.

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/08/07/060807ta_talk_hertzberg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top