Are you a liberal?
- Thread starter hedgehog
- Start date
I don't "like like" him. His politics offend me, in a fundamental kinda way. But I do have a man crush on you, Saul. My wife would be horrified.
I said it, and I feel better.
I said it, and I feel better.
How come it's only dudes or fat chicks that seem to get crushes on me? It's the cross that I must bear I suppose. It's called Murphy's Law for a reason.
Jabber, you might want to consider Kosar. We are basically the same except he's way more snuggly...
Jabber, you might want to consider Kosar. We are basically the same except he's way more snuggly...
Cue up 'Pink'....'where I can run just as fast as I can. To the middle of nowhere. To the middle of my frustrated fears and I swear.'
kurby
kurby
How come it's only dudes or fat chicks that seem to get crushes on me? It's the cross that I must bear I suppose. It's called Murphy's Law for a reason.
Jabber, you might want to consider Kosar. We are basically the same except he's way more snuggly...
jw...
don't let murphy tell you otherwise...he is just as snuggly as kosar...& i consider myself lucky whenever i'm with the both of them at the same time....
How come it's only dudes or fat chicks that seem to get crushes on me? It's the cross that I must bear I suppose. It's called Murphy's Law for a reason.
Jabber, you might want to consider Kosar. We are basically the same except he's way more snuggly...
A SMURPH......
A SMURF.....
How come it's only dudes or fat chicks that seem to get crushes on me? It's the cross that I must bear I suppose. It's called Murphy's Law for a reason.
Jabber, you might want to consider Kosar. We are basically the same except he's way more snuggly...
A SMURPH......
A SMURF
(those are some fly gangsta pants)
Last edited:
LMAO,:mj07: not at all just a matter of convincing each and every one of you liberals that the conservative value system is the best way to go.
To be honest, the posts you've made have actually made that hope more difficult to achieve. Why is it so important to you to get people to come over to your belief system, anyway? A true right-winger, to be sure...my way is the only way, and anyone else is wrong.
I'm glad there are colors in my world, personally. And I'm glad I can learn from others, and don't think everything I think is right all the time.
I have to admit, I made myself sound pretty cool in that last post. Very uncomfortable with how cool I have become...
:jerkit:
:jerkit:
the right is always right, personal responsibility, lower taxes, less government is what I am all about. Have any of you lefties listened to Barack HUSSEIN Obama or Hitlary Rodham Clinton, they are nothing but socialists.
You believe in smaller government, and think that GW Jr is one the best presidents we've ever had?
Ummm, you might want to do some research rather than just calling everybody a socialist.
Bush spending up to 5 times more than Clinton
Reagan Revolution architect calls it 'era of obese government'
? 2008 WorldNetDaily.com
WASHINGTON ? Federal spending under the Bush administration has grown five times larger than that during the second term of the Clinton administration, charges a conservative Republican activist in a new book that paints the president as a traitor to his party.
In "Conservatives Betrayed," Richard Viguerie, credited with being one of the architects of the Reagan Revolution, says George W. Bush has set the stage for the punishment of his party by voters.
Viguerie compares spending by the federal government, adjusted for inflation, during the Clinton years vs. the Bush years. In Clinton's first term, federal expenditures rose 4.7 percent. In his second term, they rose 3.7 percent. In the first term of the Bush administration, however, spending rose 19.2 percent.
"If ever there was a case for divided government, here it is," writes Viguerie. "The lesson for many Americans is that today's Republicans cannot be trusted with the keys to both the executive and legislative branches of the federal government."
No matter how you slice it, Viguerie says, Bush makes Clinton look like a spending piker by comparison. For instance, the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University in New York keeps records that show how much the federal government spends on average each year for each person in the country. When this standard of measurement is used, the comparison between the two administrations is even more pronounced.
Cumulative growth in federal expenditures, adjusted for inflation, during the Clinton years actually shrunk by 1.1 percent. Yet, in the Bush first term, it rose 15 percent.
"During President Bush's first five years in office, the federal government increased by $616 billion," Viguerie writes. "That's a mammoth 33 percent jump in the size of the federal government in just his first five years! To put this in perspective, this increase of $616 billion is more than the entire federal budget in Jimmy Carter's last years in office. And conservatives were complaining about Big Government back then! How can Bush, (Dennis) Hastert, (Bill) Frist and company look us in the eye and tell us they are fiscal conservatives when in five short years they increased the already-bloated government by more than the budget for the entire federal government when Ronald Reagan was assuming office?"
Richard Viguerie
Another standard of comparison offered by Viguerie is discretionary domestic spending, adjusted for inflation.
"When we strip away defense, homeland security and entitlements and adjust for inflation, leaving only discretionary domestic spending, George W. Bush has grown the federal government at a faster pace than Lyndon Baines Johnson," Viguerie writes. "His record for profligate spending is outmatched (for the time being) only by another Big Government Republican, Richard Nixon. And when Bush's second term is over, there's every reason to expect that Bush will hold the record as the president who's grown the federal government at its fastest pace in modern times."
The numbers?
Johnson: 4.1 percent
Nixon/Ford: 5 percent
Carter: 1.6 percent
Reagan: 1.4 percent
Bush I: 3.8 percent
Clinton: 2.1 percent
Bush II: 4.8 percent
Viguerie compares the modern presidents on the use of the veto, too. While Johnson used the veto power 30 times, Nixon 43, Ford 66, Carter 31, Reagan 78, Bush I 44 and Clinton 36, Bush didn't use it at all in his first term and has used it just once ? for a non-spending issue ? in his second term.
"Bush apologists give the excuse that it's harder to veto bills that are passed by your own party," Viguerie writes. "Yet LBJ and Carter each cast 30 or more vetoes while their own party controlled Congress. In fact, the all-time master of the veto was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He used the veto power an incredible 636 times during his four terms ? despite having a Democratic Congress with majorities as lopsided as 75-17 in the Senate and 333-89 in the House! Congress overrode his vetoes a mere nine times."
Yet another formula for measuring presidential fiscal responsibility, according to Viguerie, is rescissions. Reagan used rescission power to rescind funds authorized by Congress. Ford rescinded $7.9 billion in spending. Carter rescinded $4.6 billion, Reagan $43.4 billion, Bush I $13.1 billion, Clinton $6.6 billion.
But George W. Bush has not rescinded even $1 in congressional spending.
"The best illustration of the corrupting influence of power on the Republicans is the explosion of pork-barrel spending projects since 2000," says Viguerie.
Viguerie points to a 121 percent increase in pork-barrel earmarks in the first five years of the Bush administration.
"The size of the federal government is the single most important barometer of the health of the American republic," writes Viguerie. "When domestic federal spending goes up, it's a surefire indicator that something is wrong. And the way spending has been increasing under the Bush administration and the Republican Congress shows that things are seriously wrong."
Ummm, you might want to do some research rather than just calling everybody a socialist.
Bush spending up to 5 times more than Clinton
Reagan Revolution architect calls it 'era of obese government'
? 2008 WorldNetDaily.com
WASHINGTON ? Federal spending under the Bush administration has grown five times larger than that during the second term of the Clinton administration, charges a conservative Republican activist in a new book that paints the president as a traitor to his party.
In "Conservatives Betrayed," Richard Viguerie, credited with being one of the architects of the Reagan Revolution, says George W. Bush has set the stage for the punishment of his party by voters.
Viguerie compares spending by the federal government, adjusted for inflation, during the Clinton years vs. the Bush years. In Clinton's first term, federal expenditures rose 4.7 percent. In his second term, they rose 3.7 percent. In the first term of the Bush administration, however, spending rose 19.2 percent.
"If ever there was a case for divided government, here it is," writes Viguerie. "The lesson for many Americans is that today's Republicans cannot be trusted with the keys to both the executive and legislative branches of the federal government."
No matter how you slice it, Viguerie says, Bush makes Clinton look like a spending piker by comparison. For instance, the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University in New York keeps records that show how much the federal government spends on average each year for each person in the country. When this standard of measurement is used, the comparison between the two administrations is even more pronounced.
Cumulative growth in federal expenditures, adjusted for inflation, during the Clinton years actually shrunk by 1.1 percent. Yet, in the Bush first term, it rose 15 percent.
"During President Bush's first five years in office, the federal government increased by $616 billion," Viguerie writes. "That's a mammoth 33 percent jump in the size of the federal government in just his first five years! To put this in perspective, this increase of $616 billion is more than the entire federal budget in Jimmy Carter's last years in office. And conservatives were complaining about Big Government back then! How can Bush, (Dennis) Hastert, (Bill) Frist and company look us in the eye and tell us they are fiscal conservatives when in five short years they increased the already-bloated government by more than the budget for the entire federal government when Ronald Reagan was assuming office?"
Richard Viguerie
Another standard of comparison offered by Viguerie is discretionary domestic spending, adjusted for inflation.
"When we strip away defense, homeland security and entitlements and adjust for inflation, leaving only discretionary domestic spending, George W. Bush has grown the federal government at a faster pace than Lyndon Baines Johnson," Viguerie writes. "His record for profligate spending is outmatched (for the time being) only by another Big Government Republican, Richard Nixon. And when Bush's second term is over, there's every reason to expect that Bush will hold the record as the president who's grown the federal government at its fastest pace in modern times."
The numbers?
Johnson: 4.1 percent
Nixon/Ford: 5 percent
Carter: 1.6 percent
Reagan: 1.4 percent
Bush I: 3.8 percent
Clinton: 2.1 percent
Bush II: 4.8 percent
Viguerie compares the modern presidents on the use of the veto, too. While Johnson used the veto power 30 times, Nixon 43, Ford 66, Carter 31, Reagan 78, Bush I 44 and Clinton 36, Bush didn't use it at all in his first term and has used it just once ? for a non-spending issue ? in his second term.
"Bush apologists give the excuse that it's harder to veto bills that are passed by your own party," Viguerie writes. "Yet LBJ and Carter each cast 30 or more vetoes while their own party controlled Congress. In fact, the all-time master of the veto was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He used the veto power an incredible 636 times during his four terms ? despite having a Democratic Congress with majorities as lopsided as 75-17 in the Senate and 333-89 in the House! Congress overrode his vetoes a mere nine times."
Yet another formula for measuring presidential fiscal responsibility, according to Viguerie, is rescissions. Reagan used rescission power to rescind funds authorized by Congress. Ford rescinded $7.9 billion in spending. Carter rescinded $4.6 billion, Reagan $43.4 billion, Bush I $13.1 billion, Clinton $6.6 billion.
But George W. Bush has not rescinded even $1 in congressional spending.
"The best illustration of the corrupting influence of power on the Republicans is the explosion of pork-barrel spending projects since 2000," says Viguerie.
Viguerie points to a 121 percent increase in pork-barrel earmarks in the first five years of the Bush administration.
"The size of the federal government is the single most important barometer of the health of the American republic," writes Viguerie. "When domestic federal spending goes up, it's a surefire indicator that something is wrong. And the way spending has been increasing under the Bush administration and the Republican Congress shows that things are seriously wrong."
Most politicians are theives and put their own pet projects in bills, plus a war against the terrorists is expensive. Be glad we are not fighting this war on our land here in the 48 states. You liberals win and we will be fighting on our soil and living one day to another wondering when they will strike. This country is in big trouble if either one of the socialists win, both on our pocketbooks and on our safety.
