Pages: 1 2 3 4

 

2008-09-16 19:47:06
Mason4Assassin444
retired
+552|7081|USA

usmarine wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

usmarine wrote:


what is with you and this muslim stuff?  i have yet to meet one person that says they wont vote for him because he could be a muslim.  i have yet to see one person on this board who has said that.  is there some trailer trash out there that say that?  ofc.  but the same could be said for black people voting for obama because he is "black."

get off it already.  god damn.
I have spoken to a number of ignorant assholes that have said they will not vote for him because he is muslim. The pictures you posted are what they correlate with this idea.
No one dare say they won't vote for him because he is black. If I did hear that, I take a charge for knocking their ignorant smile off their face.
well, i have never heard that.  maybe you are around complete tards.
They voted for Bush. Twice. I an't blame you for the first time.

Considering his message at the time.



2nd time. Kurt Cobain.
2008-09-16 19:47:09
imortal
Member
+240|7084|Austin, TX

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

imortal wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:


VETO power is awesome eh?
Yup,  you can go ahead and lay the faults of Congress at the feet of the President you hate.  Are you faulting him for vetoing the bills that Congress whould have used to accomplish their goals, or for failing to veto the bills with the increased Democratic earmarks?

The democrats ran with the major issue being the number of earmarks the Republicans attached to bills for spending for their districts.  They used the "bridge to nowhere" as a great example.  The problem is, when the Dems took over, they just started attaching Democratic earmarks on the bills, managing to earmark even more than the Republicans did. 

Oh, and Nancy Pelosi wanted a bigger jet.

Yup, just blame Bush.
Bush didn't veto his buddies earmarks. Let's blame Bill Clinton.
That was a deflection; you gave a statement without answering the question.  So, now you are pissed at Bush for not vetoing the bills with earmarks that the Republicans proposed?

First, the President doesn't have a Line-Item Veto.  If we did, most of this crap would be solved.  Second, there is not bill that is titled "Earmarks." Bush did not veto much prior to '06 because the Republican Congress was more likely to propose bills he would agree with.  Once the Dems came in and started to push policies that Bush did not approve of, out came the Veto pen.  It is a rare event that a bill would be vetoed because of the earmarks attached to it.  Oh, and Dems know which bills Bush is likely to veto.  They attach most of their earmarks to bills likley to pass.

If you know a bill is going to be vetoed, why persue it?
-You have enough votes to override the veto.
-You really don't want the bill to pass, but want to be able to go back to your voters to show you put the bill forward.
-Publicity.
2008-09-16 19:50:34
God Save the Queen
Banned
+628|6762|tropical regions of london
I dont hate anyone except ron paul. 


I dont hate bush.  I might have some bad feelings towards rumsfeld.  cheney is cheney. I hate ron paul.
2008-09-16 19:52:56
Mason4Assassin444
retired
+552|7081|USA

imortal wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

imortal wrote:


Yup,  you can go ahead and lay the faults of Congress at the feet of the President you hate.  Are you faulting him for vetoing the bills that Congress whould have used to accomplish their goals, or for failing to veto the bills with the increased Democratic earmarks?

The democrats ran with the major issue being the number of earmarks the Republicans attached to bills for spending for their districts.  They used the "bridge to nowhere" as a great example.  The problem is, when the Dems took over, they just started attaching Democratic earmarks on the bills, managing to earmark even more than the Republicans did. 

Oh, and Nancy Pelosi wanted a bigger jet.

Yup, just blame Bush.
Bush didn't veto his buddies earmarks. Let's blame Bill Clinton.
That was a deflection; you gave a statement without answering the question.  So, now you are pissed at Bush for not vetoing the bills with earmarks that the Republicans proposed?

First, the President doesn't have a Line-Item Veto.  If we did, most of this crap would be solved.  Second, there is not bill that is titled "Earmarks." Bush did not veto much prior to '06 because the Republican Congress was more likely to propose bills he would agree with.  Once the Dems came in and started to push policies that Bush did not approve of, out came the Veto pen.  It is a rare event that a bill would be vetoed because of the earmarks attached to it.  Oh, and Dems know which bills Bush is likely to veto.  They attach most of their earmarks to bills likley to pass.

If you know a bill is going to be vetoed, why persue it?
-You have enough votes to override the veto.
-You really don't want the bill to pass, but want to be able to go back to your voters to show you put the bill forward.
-Publicity.
I'm only pissed at Bush for not saying NO to his buddies just once. Shitting on Dems for earmarks? The republicans have gotten their buddies rich. Fear mongered their bullshit through Congress. Late night votes on shit that never would have passed in normal hours. Invaded a country that had nothing to do with anything. And you all ate it up.

1 thing I hand to the republicans is right or wrong, they stick together. that is the only thing I can think that makes them appeal to conservative voters. That and the God factor.

Its either both Democrats and Republicans are responsible or the Democrats are responsible with alot of Republicans and Pundits. Somehow 12 years of Republican control over Congress never happened. Past erased. 1984 style.
2008-09-16 19:53:42
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7181

God Save the Queen wrote:

I dont hate anyone except ron paul. 


I dont hate bush.  I might have some bad feelings towards rumsfeld.  cheney is cheney. I hate ron paul.
rumsfuck can dies of aids that cock fuck
2008-09-16 19:53:49
God Save the Queen
Banned
+628|6762|tropical regions of london
Bottom Line:

Obama is going to lose and November 5 is going to be a sad day.
2008-09-16 19:55:19
Mason4Assassin444
retired
+552|7081|USA

usmarine wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

I was going to write in Ron Paul.
oh brother
I know. He is an old coot. Didn't get shot down in a plane and is a rascist. Wants things like less spending and a return to the gold standard. Doesn't want to invade countries that never attacked us.

Real douchebag that Ron Paul.
2008-09-16 19:59:16
God Save the Queen
Banned
+628|6762|tropical regions of london
wants to give cancer stricken children to free puppies too

Last edited by God Save the Queen (2008-09-16 19:59:35)

2008-09-16 19:59:44
Mason4Assassin444
retired
+552|7081|USA

God Save the Queen wrote:

Bottom Line:

Obama is going to lose and November 5 is going to be a sad day.
Possibly. I'm a much less than optimistic person. But I predict a landslide victory unlike anything we've ever seen.

I know the polls don't say so I know the pundits don't say so.

But if the polls and pundits were right, we'd be voting between Hildog and Rudy 9-11
2008-09-16 20:08:38
imortal
Member
+240|7084|Austin, TX

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

Its either both Democrats and Republicans are responsible or the Democrats are responsible with alot of Republicans and Pundits. Somehow 12 years of Republican control over Congress never happened. Past erased. 1984 style.
Yup, 12 years in the last 50. 

I will not disagree that the Republicans lost their way.  When they were first elected, in was for smaller government.  Yes, Bush changed things around.  I think that after 9/11, there was a fundamental shift is the Republican party, and not for the better.

I do not say that Bush is great, but he is not the anti-christ, and you should not drool in anger over him.  The most effective Democratic strategy is to try to link Bush and McCain, even though 2 years ago if someone had mentioned it we would have laughed.  Does no one remember that not so long ago, 35% of Democrats were willing to vote for McCain (according to some polls).  McCain was ostracized by Republicans precisely because Democrats liked him so much.  He was a RINO.  Now, if you would believe the Obama campain, if you elect McCain, it will just be another Bush presidency.
2008-09-16 20:14:00
Mason4Assassin444
retired
+552|7081|USA

imortal wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

Its either both Democrats and Republicans are responsible or the Democrats are responsible with alot of Republicans and Pundits. Somehow 12 years of Republican control over Congress never happened. Past erased. 1984 style.
Yup, 12 years in the last 50. 

I will not disagree that the Republicans lost their way.  When they were first elected, in was for smaller government.  Yes, Bush changed things around.  I think that after 9/11, there was a fundamental shift is the Republican party, and not for the better.

I do not say that Bush is great, but he is not the anti-christ, and you should not drool in anger over him.  The most effective Democratic strategy is to try to link Bush and McCain, even though 2 years ago if someone had mentioned it we would have laughed.  Does no one remember that not so long ago, 35% of Democrats were willing to vote for McCain (according to some polls).  McCain was ostracized by Republicans precisely because Democrats liked him so much.  He was a RINO.  Now, if you would believe the Obama campain, if you elect McCain, it will just be another Bush presidency.
McCain does agree with Bush more than less. Its not the same McCain as 2000. I even would have voted for McCain in 2000.
2008-09-16 20:16:36
Mason4Assassin444
retired
+552|7081|USA

imortal wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

Its either both Democrats and Republicans are responsible or the Democrats are responsible with alot of Republicans and Pundits. Somehow 12 years of Republican control over Congress never happened. Past erased. 1984 style.
Yup, 12 years in the last 50. 

I will not disagree that the Republicans lost their way.  When they were first elected, in was for smaller government.  Yes, Bush changed things around.  I think that after 9/11, there was a fundamental shift is the Republican party, and not for the better.

I do not say that Bush is great, but he is not the anti-christ, and you should not drool in anger over him.  The most effective Democratic strategy is to try to link Bush and McCain, even though 2 years ago if someone had mentioned it we would have laughed.  Does no one remember that not so long ago, 35% of Democrats were willing to vote for McCain (according to some polls).  McCain was ostracized by Republicans precisely because Democrats liked him so much.  He was a RINO.  Now, if you would believe the Obama campain, if you elect McCain, it will just be another Bush presidency.
8 of the 12 was the first time in 50 years you had a Republican Congress and a Republican President. 0 checks and balances.

On another note, Bush has set the final pin in the Supreme Court up with an All-star cast of Roe V Wade killers.

Bush and his Congress had an open bar for 8 years. Enough to fuck alot of shit up. Somehow though.....Pelosi did it all.
2008-09-16 20:24:09
imortal
Member
+240|7084|Austin, TX

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

[ 0 checks and balances.
Okay, yet another Democratic misinterpretation of the Consititution.  "Checks and Balances" does NOT refer to the political parties.  They refer to the power distribution between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches.  The goal is that no one branch would become too powerful, and that any move to consolodate power by one could be countered by the other two.  Political parties had nothing to do with it.

Unfortunately, the political landscape has changed since the days of the Founding Fathers.  The Judical branch has consolodated far more power that was envisioned, moving from simply striking down unconstitutional laws to interpreting them.  Ever since the Civil War ended, the Legislative Branch has been getting bloated on more and more federal power than was ever intended.  Look up the 10th Ammendment sometime.

Of course, the Democrats have the public thinking that "checks and balances" means that the parties should be equal in power. Let's wait to see if they still say this if they win the presidency and the congress again.

But even worse, the Democrats have the public thinking that the United States is a democracy, instead of a republic.  That is the distorted legacy of FDR.
2008-09-16 20:30:18
Mason4Assassin444
retired
+552|7081|USA

imortal wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

[ 0 checks and balances.
Okay, yet another Democratic misinterpretation of the Consititution.  "Checks and Balances" does NOT refer to the political parties.  They refer to the power distribution between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches.
NO shit? Really?

What happens when 1 party has majority in all of the branches? Who stops the bullshit?

As far as founding fathers.....Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Franklin would execute all of these fuckers if they were here.
2008-09-16 20:48:18
imortal
Member
+240|7084|Austin, TX

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

imortal wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

[ 0 checks and balances.
Okay, yet another Democratic misinterpretation of the Consititution.  "Checks and Balances" does NOT refer to the political parties.  They refer to the power distribution between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches.
NO shit? Really?

What happens when 1 party has majority in all of the branches? Who stops the bullshit?

As far as founding fathers.....Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Franklin would execute all of these fuckers if they were here.
What is to stop them? voting.  The most powerful thing you can do is vote.  Not for President, but for Congress.  They turn over every two years.  Supposedly, the people in power are the ones you want.  Congress is supposed to be most representative of the current will of the people. 

The real problem is that there is now a political aristocracy here in the United States.  Professional Politicians.  Ever since the federal government began consolodating power since the end of the Civil War, the US has been on a spiral down.

And where was your outrage of 'checks and balances' during the first part of the Clinton administration?  Granted, four years later, the Dems lost the Congress.  And looky here:  4 years into the Bush administration, the Republicans lost the Congress.
2008-09-16 20:52:17
Mason4Assassin444
retired
+552|7081|USA

imortal wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

imortal wrote:


Okay, yet another Democratic misinterpretation of the Consititution.  "Checks and Balances" does NOT refer to the political parties.  They refer to the power distribution between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches.
NO shit? Really?

What happens when 1 party has majority in all of the branches? Who stops the bullshit?

As far as founding fathers.....Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Franklin would execute all of these fuckers if they were here.
What is to stop them? voting.  The most powerful thing you can do is vote.  Not for President, but for Congress.  They turn over every two years.  Supposedly, the people in power are the ones you want.  Congress is supposed to be most representative of the current will of the people. 

The real problem is that there is now a political aristocracy here in the United States.  Professional Politicians.  Ever since the federal government began consolodating power since the end of the Civil War, the US has been on a spiral down.

And where was your outrage of 'checks and balances' during the first part of the Clinton administration?  Granted, four years later, the Dems lost the Congress.  And looky here:  4 years into the Bush administration, the Republicans lost the Congress.
What was wrong with Clinton's first 4 years? I hate having a budget surplus as much as the next guy.

Here is the current state of our government workings.

You have a Dem Congress /Rep Prez. Lame duck for four years. Nothing gets done.

You have a Rep Congress/ Dem Prez. Lame duck for 4 years. Nothing gets done.

You have both Rep Congress and Rep Prez. Republican Agenda gets pushed and is implemented. Oil Companies get rich weird.

You have a Dem Congress and Dem President. You end up with a budget surplus.
2008-09-16 20:56:04
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7020|132 and Bush

imortal wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

imortal wrote:

Okay, yet another Democratic misinterpretation of the Consititution.  "Checks and Balances" does NOT refer to the political parties.  They refer to the power distribution between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches.
NO shit? Really?

What happens when 1 party has majority in all of the branches? Who stops the bullshit?

As far as founding fathers.....Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Franklin would execute all of these fuckers if they were here.
What is to stop them? voting.  The most powerful thing you can do is vote.  Not for President, but for Congress.  They turn over every two years.  Supposedly, the people in power are the ones you want.  Congress is supposed to be most representative of the current will of the people. 

The real problem is that there is now a political aristocracy here in the United States.  Professional Politicians.  Ever since the federal government began consolodating power since the end of the Civil War, the US has been on a spiral down.

And where was your outrage of 'checks and balances' during the first part of the Clinton administration?  Granted, four years later, the Dems lost the Congress.  And looky here:  4 years into the Bush administration, the Republicans lost the Congress.
We were consolidating power way before the civil war. Alexander Hamilton was trying to strip the states of their rights from the get go.

Just a footnote .
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-09-16 20:57:26
Mason4Assassin444
retired
+552|7081|USA

Kmarion wrote:

imortal wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:


NO shit? Really?

What happens when 1 party has majority in all of the branches? Who stops the bullshit?

As far as founding fathers.....Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Franklin would execute all of these fuckers if they were here.
What is to stop them? voting.  The most powerful thing you can do is vote.  Not for President, but for Congress.  They turn over every two years.  Supposedly, the people in power are the ones you want.  Congress is supposed to be most representative of the current will of the people. 

The real problem is that there is now a political aristocracy here in the United States.  Professional Politicians.  Ever since the federal government began consolodating power since the end of the Civil War, the US has been on a spiral down.

And where was your outrage of 'checks and balances' during the first part of the Clinton administration?  Granted, four years later, the Dems lost the Congress.  And looky here:  4 years into the Bush administration, the Republicans lost the Congress.
We were consolidating power way before the civil war. Alexander Hamilton was trying to strip the states of their rights from the get go.

Just a footnote .
Yeah. Arron Burr shot him.
2008-09-16 20:59:06
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7020|132 and Bush

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

imortal wrote:


What is to stop them? voting.  The most powerful thing you can do is vote.  Not for President, but for Congress.  They turn over every two years.  Supposedly, the people in power are the ones you want.  Congress is supposed to be most representative of the current will of the people. 

The real problem is that there is now a political aristocracy here in the United States.  Professional Politicians.  Ever since the federal government began consolodating power since the end of the Civil War, the US has been on a spiral down.

And where was your outrage of 'checks and balances' during the first part of the Clinton administration?  Granted, four years later, the Dems lost the Congress.  And looky here:  4 years into the Bush administration, the Republicans lost the Congress.
We were consolidating power way before the civil war. Alexander Hamilton was trying to strip the states of their rights from the get go.

Just a footnote .
Yeah. Arron Burr shot him.
National Bank? I'd like to buy Mr.Burr a drink.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-09-17 03:53:18
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6830|'Murka

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

McCain does agree with Bush more than less. Its not the same McCain as 2000. I even would have voted for McCain in 2000.
Have you bothered to look at where they disagree? The actual issues? Or are you just repeating what you saw in an Obama commercial?

How much does Obama disagree with Dem leadership in the Senate? Probably less than McCain disagrees with Bush.

And where did the "McCain's already said he's only going to run for one term" come from?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-09-17 04:26:33
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7181

FEOS wrote:

Have you bothered to look at where they disagree? The actual issues? Or are you just repeating what you saw in an Obama commercial?
i would say the last one would go for most people here.  i wonder if they looked up the ones obama agreed on bush with.
2008-09-17 04:45:47
imortal
Member
+240|7084|Austin, TX

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

What was wrong with Clinton's first 4 years? I hate having a budget surplus as much as the next guy.
Yes, but that budget surplus was due in large part to placing so many budget cuts on the military that it was very nearly unable to maintain effectiveness. 

What was wrong with his first 4 years? #1 The "Assault Weapon" ban,  #2 Bosnia.
2008-09-17 04:50:26
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|7040|London, England
Maybe the Military were going through a rough patch, but that's what they should expect. It's the military, you're not supposed to have everything on your plate their for you, you have to understand that sometimes the US itself needs the money instead of the military. If you get upset about that, then maybe you're in the wrong job. You say you want to defend your country, yet you get pissed off when they take some of "your money" away and put it into the civilian world. Make your mind up, do you want your nation to be nice or not. Jeez. It's not like he cut your budget so you couldn't do fuck all. It's just that maybe you couldn't invest in some of the crazy things you're doing now that aren't even needed.

I always find it funny when I see "patriotic" Americans complain that money is being spent elsewhere in America than on the military. Give me a fucking break.

Last edited by Mek-Stizzle (2008-09-17 04:51:15)

2008-09-17 05:02:35
imortal
Member
+240|7084|Austin, TX

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

Maybe the Military were going through a rough patch, but that's what they should expect. It's the military, you're not supposed to have everything on your plate their for you, you have to understand that sometimes the US itself needs the money instead of the military. If you get upset about that, then maybe you're in the wrong job. You say you want to defend your country, yet you get pissed off when they take some of "your money" away and put it into the civilian world. Make your mind up, do you want your nation to be nice or not. Jeez. It's not like he cut your budget so you couldn't do fuck all. It's just that maybe you couldn't invest in some of the crazy things you're doing now that aren't even needed.

I always find it funny when I see "patriotic" Americans complain that money is being spent elsewhere in America than on the military. Give me a fucking break.
Having to watch your spending is one thing.  Your combat vehicle being deadlined for 6 weeks because you were not allowed to have a $50 part that you was about to break on hand is something else.  Being forced to order a $75 rebuild of a $300 part because it is less expensive, and end up getting 1/10th of the new parts run time out of it before it breaks (again).  Oh, and the lowest Cost-of-Living adjustments to soldiers' pay in recent memory.  Some military families were on food stamps.  I get pissed off because I lived it.  I know you have an opinion on the matter, but you are too far removed to have any idea how serious it was at the time.
2008-09-17 08:04:55
God Save the Queen
Banned
+628|6762|tropical regions of london
you realize the bush administration has implemented even lower annual pay increases than clinton?

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard