Scariest six words uttered today

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: joepa99
Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House

And not because she is a Democrat, but because she is a bullet and a heart attack away from the Presidency.

I doubt that Cheney is going to shoot Bush anytime soon!

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Dont be foolish. They'll hand that money right back out to their constituents! YAY! More free housing, more free cheese! Hell, lets ALL quit work!

I will say it again: No Democratic administration in history, including a Democratic Congress and/or a Democratic President, has spent more than Bush and his Congress, so save your paranoia for a time when it's needed and justified.

The bottom line is that Bush himself has never met a piece of pork legislation or a corporate entitlement program he didn't like. If you want a fiscally responsible government, stop electing brain-dead Presidents.

Are you daft?! You have to be, your idea of fiscal responsibility is to "go in debt, but not as fast".
Again I'll say it. Dont increase my debt load by 1 million a year when the previous guy was doing it by 10 million a year and blow smoke up my ass and sunshine in my eyes about how your saving me money.

And for what its worth, yes I think Bush was a horrible spender. Conservative my ass, he most certainly was not. But if the new guy is going to still increase the debt regardless at what rate compared to the previous guy, I sure wouldnt say hes being "fiscally responsible".

You make little sense. Admitting to the worse situation, but mainly focussing criticism on the admitted better. One is better than the other, take the better, not the worse.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
The only good thing about the dems taking control of the house is the stop on Bush's spending. If the Dems take control of everything...you can count on twice the social spending Bush had and way more taxes.

Exactly. People think Bush ran up a tab.....Try having Dems get the whole schebang. 200,00,000 million illegals suddenly get voter ID cards, free healthcare, subsidized housing and free education.

Guess whos going to pay for it?

Exaggerate much . . .?

The basic theme by the Republicans was to call Democrats 'tax and spend.' But during their time, the GOP was 'tax cut and spend.' All you need is elementary school-level arithmetic to figure out which one lead to out of control budgets.

Nevermind, I just looked at your post again. Elementary school math may be too advanced.

I would remind you BOTH Parties have been running up the national debt every year for the past 20 years or more.
Since my country is getting sold to the highest bidder, I can at least take comfort in the fact I'm giving less of my money to the government selling me out cant I?

Sure but Democrats typically had the good sense to raise taxes as they raised spending. If you think paying less in taxes in the context of poor fiscal management makes sense then you deserve to be sold out. I'm GenX so me, my 2 kids (2yo, 7mo), and there kids will pay for the ridiculously inept GOP stewardship of the country.

And since the GOP has grown so fond of counting SS surpluses as regular revenue, Clinton ran a surplus in the late 90s. In fairness, it was the combination of GOP/Clinton that led to restrained taxes but also restrained spending. But it was unrestrainedGOP policies of the past six years that have produced nearly unprecedented budget deficits.

Get a grip! Ex-Republicans like myself have taken flight b/c the current iteration of the GOP sux. About the only things they are appear 'principled' about are things that are none of their GD business!

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Dont be foolish. They'll hand that money right back out to their constituents! YAY! More free housing, more free cheese! Hell, lets ALL quit work!

I will say it again: No Democratic administration in history, including a Democratic Congress and/or a Democratic President, has spent more than Bush and his Congress, so save your paranoia for a time when it's needed and justified.

The bottom line is that Bush himself has never met a piece of pork legislation or a corporate entitlement program he didn't like. If you want a fiscally responsible government, stop electing brain-dead Presidents.

Are you daft?! You have to be, your idea of fiscal responsibility is to "go in debt, but not as fast".
Again I'll say it. Dont increase my debt load by 1 million a year when the previous guy was doing it by 10 million a year and blow smoke up my ass and sunshine in my eyes about how your saving me money.

And for what its worth, yes I think Bush was a horrible spender. Conservative my ass, he most certainly was not. But if the new guy is going to still increase the debt regardless at what rate compared to the previous guy, I sure wouldnt say hes being "fiscally responsible".

I don't even understand the genesis of your personal attack. Where did I say that was my idea of fiscal responsibility? All I (correctly) pointed out was that your President and his Republican-led Congress have been the most profligate in history. Meanwhile, the dreaded President Clinton, with the help of a Republican Congress, slashed the national debt and actually had the country running at a surplus.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: joepa99
Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House

To borrow a line from Mickey D's "Im Lovin it"

Just to see the Republicans squirm. :laugh:

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc


Like most other people with gainful employment and a residence . . . you were probably up to no good if you were there.

I still wonder about this place every time I go past. whaa?

I haven't seen that in years. I haven't been to Cali in over a year . . . withdrawal is starting to set in. I hear real estate has started to moderate. It's only ridiculous instead of insanely ridiculous. Feinstein's pad is in Pac Heights but where does Pelosi live?

The irony is that Feinstein's passive-aggressive routine against Pelosi (for fear she would run for Senate) should get some acknowledgement as setting the stage for the first female Speaker of the House.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
The only good thing about the dems taking control of the house is the stop on Bush's spending. If the Dems take control of everything...you can count on twice the social spending Bush had and way more taxes.

Exactly. People think Bush ran up a tab.....Try having Dems get the whole schebang. 200,00,000 million illegals suddenly get voter ID cards, free healthcare, subsidized housing and free education.

Guess whos going to pay for it?

Wow, Specop007 has really been slurping the kool-aid lately I guess.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Dont be foolish. They'll hand that money right back out to their constituents! YAY! More free housing, more free cheese! Hell, lets ALL quit work!

I will say it again: No Democratic administration in history, including a Democratic Congress and/or a Democratic President, has spent more than Bush and his Congress, so save your paranoia for a time when it's needed and justified.

The bottom line is that Bush himself has never met a piece of pork legislation or a corporate entitlement program he didn't like. If you want a fiscally responsible government, stop electing brain-dead Presidents.

Are you daft?! You have to be, your idea of fiscal responsibility is to "go in debt, but not as fast".
Again I'll say it. Dont increase my debt load by 1 million a year when the previous guy was doing it by 10 million a year and blow smoke up my ass and sunshine in my eyes about how your saving me money.

And for what its worth, yes I think Bush was a horrible spender. Conservative my ass, he most certainly was not. But if the new guy is going to still increase the debt regardless at what rate compared to the previous guy, I sure wouldnt say hes being "fiscally responsible".

I don't even understand the genesis of your personal attack. Where did I say that was my idea of fiscal responsibility? All I (correctly) pointed out was that your President and his Republican-led Congress have been the most profligate in history. Meanwhile, the dreaded President Clinton, with the help of a Republican Congress, slashed the national debt and actually had the country running at a surplus.

Ah yes, this mythical surplus.
I suppose you'll tell me I can see unicorns at the zoo next?

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
The only good thing about the dems taking control of the house is the stop on Bush's spending. If the Dems take control of everything...you can count on twice the social spending Bush had and way more taxes.

Exactly. People think Bush ran up a tab.....Try having Dems get the whole schebang. 200,00,000 million illegals suddenly get voter ID cards, free healthcare, subsidized housing and free education.

Guess whos going to pay for it?

Wow, Specop007 has really been slurping the kool-aid lately I guess.

A very well formulated argument. So much so, I dont even know where to begin.

Now, were you going to actually try to come up with something remotely insightful, or were you just going to troll your day away?

 

[NeoV]

leave it to partisan hacks like Genx to roll out the spin - "I can't wait for Pelosi to F things up, it will put the Right back in power for the next election"

All you extremists on the left and the right should do yourself a favor - read everything that Rainsford posts, then ask yourself if your comments/opinions are as well thought out/stated as his, and if you are being anywhere near as objective as he is - if not, don't bother posting your drivel (yes, that is you Genx).

 

[palehorse]

ya, while I do not mind alot of the Dems, she is not on that short list. She has no business in a position with that much authority. In fact, I really think that it would be a mistake for the Dems to put her there. If the Dems choose a better Speaker, they may see even more indies and repubs heading their way in '08. But, with Pelosi at the helm, the Dems will be turning people away every time her mug appears on a TV screen, or worse, whenever she opens her mouth...

If she becomes the voice and face of the New and Improved Democrat Party, then that party will be screwed in '08.

just my opinion of course...

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
ya, while I do not mind alot of the Dems, she is not on that short list. She has no business in a position with that much authority. In fact, I really think that it would be a mistake for the Dems to put her there. If the Dems choose a better Speaker, they may see even more indies and repubs heading their way in '08. But, with Pelosi at the helm, the Dems will be turning people away every time her mug appears on a TV screen, or worse, whenever she opens her mouth...

Oh come on, admit it, you want to be an intern for her. :laugh:

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
The only good thing about the dems taking control of the house is the stop on Bush's spending. If the Dems take control of everything...you can count on twice the social spending Bush had and way more taxes.

Exactly. People think Bush ran up a tab.....Try having Dems get the whole schebang. 200,00,000 million illegals suddenly get voter ID cards, free healthcare, subsidized housing and free education.

Guess whos going to pay for it?

Wow, Specop007 has really been slurping the kool-aid lately I guess.

A very well formulated argument. So much so, I dont even know where to begin.

Now, were you going to actually try to come up with something remotely insightful, or were you just going to troll your day away?

Well, I chose the latter, as I wanted to put as much thought in my post as you did in yours.

 

[DealMonkey]

Wah! <- The GOP cry-babies who are sore losers.

Nancy Pelosi, a likely candidate for Speaker of the House, would be the first woman to ever hold the position. On that basis alone, I'm glad to see it. Let's see what else: Pro-abortion (nice), Pro-balanced budget (sweet), strong supporter of civil liberties and separation of church/state (awesome), strong on environmental issues, pro-embryonic stem cell research (nice). What's not to like? Well she is pro-gun control (bad) and seems to be in favor of giving illegal immigrants benefits (bah!). IMHO, the good definitely outweighs the bad.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: palehorse74
ya, while I do not mind alot of the Dems, she is not on that short list. She has no business in a position with that much authority. In fact, I really think that it would be a mistake for the Dems to put her there. If the Dems choose a better Speaker, they may see even more indies and repubs heading their way in '08. But, with Pelosi at the helm, the Dems will be turning people away every time her mug appears on a TV screen, or worse, whenever she opens her mouth...

Oh come on, admit it, you want to be an intern for her. :laugh:

I'd be afraid of waking up without a limb... she might get hungry in the middle of the night.

 

[d3n]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Wah! <- The GOP cry-babies who are sore losers.

Nancy Pelosi, a likely candidate for Speaker of the House, would be the first woman to ever hold the position. On that basis alone, I'm glad to see it. Let's see what else: Pro-abortion (nice), Pro-balanced budget (sweet), strong supporter of civil liberties and separation of church/state (awesome), strong on environmental issues, pro-embryonic stem cell research (nice). What's not to like? Well she is pro-gun control (bad) and seems to be in favor of giving illegal immigrants benefits (bah!). IMHO, the good definitely outweighs the bad.

Well, lets hope for the best. I agree with all of your pros but like anything moderation is key. I really can not stomach amnesty for illegals. I think that is asking for a huge problem later (Look at unassimilated immigrant problems in Europe) and is pretty contemptible of anyone involved in my mind, Bush, the House and Senate. As for gun control I see that when the government gave people the second amendment it knew that it could not protect everyone as needed. Look at the Katrina aftermath for that case. Family's getting accosted at rest areas because they were prepared and the takers were not, looters ect.. ect.. ect. I think people should expect to have to take care of themselves.

 

[thraashman]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
She voted against the Patriot act.

She will be the most liberal speaker in history.

The question becomes whether all the newly elected conservative Democrats keep her in check, or get steam rolled by her. Hard to tell.

I'm sorry sir, you are incorrect.
Voting record of the House for the Patriot Act.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: thraashman

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
She voted against the Patriot act.

She will be the most liberal speaker in history.

The question becomes whether all the newly elected conservative Democrats keep her in check, or get steam rolled by her. Hard to tell.

I'm sorry sir, you are incorrect.
Voting record of the House for the Patriot Act.

Anyone know why some are regular letters and others are italicized?

 

[nageov3t]

from the link:

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 398
(Republicans in roman; Democrats in italic; Independents underlined)

 

[GTKeeper]

Originally posted by: thraashman

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
She voted against the Patriot act.

She will be the most liberal speaker in history.

The question becomes whether all the newly elected conservative Democrats keep her in check, or get steam rolled by her. Hard to tell.

I'm sorry sir, you are incorrect.
Voting record of the House for the Patriot Act.

There are your 'facts' PJ.

 

[Matts0344]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: thraashman

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
She voted against the Patriot act.

She will be the most liberal speaker in history.

The question becomes whether all the newly elected conservative Democrats keep her in check, or get steam rolled by her. Hard to tell.

I'm sorry sir, you are incorrect.
Voting record of the House for the Patriot Act.

Anyone know why some are regular letters and others are italicized?

"Republicans in roman; Democrats in italic; Independents underlined"

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: joepa99
Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House

And not because she is a Democrat, but because she is a bullet and a heart attack away from the Presidency.

Nice, now all we need is two successive impeachments and we will be good to go.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: thraashman

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
She voted against the Patriot act.

She will be the most liberal speaker in history.

The question becomes whether all the newly elected conservative Democrats keep her in check, or get steam rolled by her. Hard to tell.

I'm sorry sir, you are incorrect.
Voting record of the House for the Patriot Act.

Owned.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: dennilfloss
How about reading those six words in tomorrow morning's newspaper?

President seizes power, declares martial law.

Now that would be a lot scarier.

VERY TRUE

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: joepa99
Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House

And not because she is a Democrat, but because she is a bullet and a heart attack away from the Presidency.

Nice, now all we need is two successive impeachments and we will be good to go.

Maybe Cheney can take Bush on a little hunting trip (kill two birds with one stone)

(uh oh, now PJ is going to come in and misconstrue this) :laugh: