A Democratic House means a more frugal government

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Well, no, I can't do that. I am not, and never was, a moderator. But at least I don't encourage any of them. Like this one, for example.

I know you can't really do much about it. If I didn't know better, then I would say it is astonishing how some people + rep the paid trolls. I don't think you do it, but some actually brag about + repping these little cock suckers.

The rep system might be childish, seemingly inconsequential, or whatever; however, it is important to the trolls. I personally know they complained to the owner about being negged. If they see it as important, then these little bitches should be negged into oblivion.

[acptulsa]

Would you care to show where Demoncrats have ever put the brakes on anyone's spending? They may redirect it but they never cut it.

What do you know? Somebody else who didn't read anything in the OP except the title!

[CCTelander]

What do you know? Somebody else who didn't read anything in the OP except the title!

Imagine that. He must be too busy lobbying for his mouth-breathing rigidly partisan echo chamber/safe space to bother actually reading the stuff he replies to.

[Swordsmyth]

What do you know? Somebody else who didn't read anything in the OP except the title!

Imagine that. He must be too busy lobbying for his mouth-breathing rigidly partisan echo chamber/safe space to bother actually reading the stuff he replies to.

Demoncrats opposing tax cuts isn't the same things as cutting spending.

Please give me an example of Demoncrats cutting spending.

Hooray! No More Tax Cuts!

Maybe we can even get a tax hike if we are lucky.

[acptulsa]

Demoncrats opposing tax cuts isn't the same things as cutting spending.

Please give me an example of Demoncrats cutting spending.

Hooray! No More Tax Cuts!

Maybe we can even get a tax hike if we are lucky.

You know Democrats have at least paid lip service to cutting defense spending, and you know there's about as much of that to cut as everything else combined.

Now. What spending have Republicans cut this millennium?

[Swordsmyth]

You know Democrats have at least paid lip service to cutting defense spending, and you know there's about as much of that to cut as everything else combined.

Now. What spending has Republicans cut this millennium?

I notice you are trying to discount the Republican cuts under Clinton.

I'll take tax cuts from people who want to cut entitlements if they get a large enough majority to overcome the RINOs over tax hikes from people who want to expand entitlements to exceed the military budget if they get a large enough majority. (The RINOs will count towards the second group's majority so it is somewhat possible that they will succeed at turning us into a communist country where everything is an entitlement)

[CCTelander]

You know Democrats have at least paid lip service to cutting defense spending, and you know there's about as much of that to cut as everything else combined.

Now. What spending has Republicans cut this millennium?

No, he's going to have to do better than that. I don't know about you but in my own case I'm not in any way attempting to paint Dems as some kind of heroes when it comes to cutting spending. Any idiot can see that they aren't. My real objection is that Swordsmyth and his cohorts attempt to paint Republicans as heroes in this area, which is questionable at best.

The ONLY times Republicans do anything substantive wrt spending cuts are when they are the opposition party. When Republicans are in total control their spending habits are just as profligate as are those of Dems. From this one could justly conclude that Republicans are much less interested in actually cutting spending than they are in simply sticking it to the Dems.

So, show me any significant spending cuts accomplished by Republicans while THEY controlled the fedgov and I might just be impressed.

[acptulsa]

I notice you are trying to discount the Republican cuts under Clinton.

I'll take tax cuts from people who want to cut entitlements if they get a large enough majority to overcome the RINOs over tax hikes from people who want to expand entitlements to exceed the military budget if they get a large enough majority.

May I have incomprehensible run-on sentences for $1000 please, Alex?

[Swordsmyth]

No, he's going to have to do better than that. I don't know about you but in my own case I'm not in any way attempting to paint Dems as some kind of heroes when it comes to cutting spending. Any idiot can see that they aren't. My real objection is that Swordsmyth and his cohorts attempt to paint Republicans as heroes in this area, which is questionable at best.

The ONLY times Republicans do anything substantive wrt spending cuts are when they are the opposition party. When Republicans are in total control their spending habits are just as profligate as are those of Dems. From this one could justly conclude that Republicans are much less interested in actually cutting spending than they are in simply sticking it to the Dems.

So, show me any significant spending cuts accomplished by Republicans while THEY controlled the fedgov and I might just be impressed.

When have Republicans had a large enough majority to overcome the RINOs?

Even if we grant the idea that neither side is going to cut spending under any circumstances ever I still would rather have tax cuts instead of tax hikes.

Then of course there is the point that other issues are much more important than money and the Demoncrats are far worse on all of those issues, the few that they ever were on the right side of they have long since abandoned.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Zip's last reply was #8 on page one.

[Swordsmyth]

May I have incomprehensible run-on sentences for $1000 please, Alex?

You need remedial reading courses?

[Swordsmyth]

Zip's last reply was #8 on page one.

His accomplices are still here.

[acptulsa]

The ONLY times Republicans do anything substantive wrt spending cuts are when they are the opposition party. When Republicans are in total control their spending habits are just as profligate as are those of Dems. From this one could justly conclude that Republicans are much less interested in actually cutting spending than they are in simply sticking it to the Dems.

.

Which is exactly what the OP is about. Yet Swordshyll would still rather have Republicans failing to curb RINO spending than have them actively curbing Democrat spending...

When have Republicans had a large enough majority to overcome the RINOs?

Even if we grant the idea that neither side is going to cut spending under any circumstances ever I still would rather have tax cuts instead of tax hikes.

Then of course there is the point that other issues are much more important than money and the Demoncrats are far worse on all of those issues, the few that they ever were on the right side of they have long since abandoned.

After all, RINOs are better than Democrats because you can blame them for stuff Republicans do. Like locking Ron Paul delegates out of conventions.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

And I count myself among those flies. That scurvy little prick has sucked me in more than I like to admit. LOL

[Swordsmyth]

.

Which is exactly what the OP is about. Yet Swordshyll would still rather have Republicans failing to curb RINO spending than have them actively curbing Democrat spending...



After all, RINOs are better than Democrats because you can blame them for stuff Republicans do. Like locking Ron Paul delegates out of conventions.

I'd rather not have Demoncrats in control of most of the government and Republicans in control of just one house if that is the way to get spending cut because that puts all of our more important rights at serious risk.

I wish we could live in two parallel realities so that you could enjoy minimal spending cuts while the rest of your rights were shredded and I could let it happen to you and laugh.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Did anybody else notice that George Bailey keeps Potter's cigar when he leaves his office? He should have put it out on Potter's forehead. lol

And I count myself among those flies. That scurvy little prick has sucked me in more than I like to admit. LOL

[Swordsmyth]

Did anybody else notice that George Bailey keeps Potter's cigar when he leaves his office? He should have put it out on Potter's forehead. lol

Or at least burned his desk with it.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

To hell with that cock sucker's thread. Now I'm in a Christmas mood.

And the lost ending to It's a Wonderful Life. Dana Carvey does a funny Jimmy Stewart. ------------->


------> https://view.yahoo.com/show/saturday...fe-lost-ending

[acptulsa]

I wish we could live in two parallel realities so that you could enjoy minimal spending cuts while the rest of your rights were shredded and I could let it happen to you and laugh.

Well, you're out of luck. The Republicans spent two years in control, and you have to deal with the spiraling debt you wished for and got, and the FREEDOM Act you wished for and got, same as I do.

[Swordsmyth]

Well, you're out of luck. The Republicans spent two years in control, and you have to deal with the spiraling debt you wished for and got, and the FREEDOM Act you wished for and got, same as I do.

At least you are out of luck as well, Trump is still President.

In two years you can try for a Demoncrat President and leaving the Republicans in control of just one house but you will fail.

[Swordsmyth]

I don't agree with him either but you TDS victims should:
Peter Schiff Warns A Divided Congress Means Even Bigger Deficits

[acptulsa]

At least you are out of luck as well, Trump is still President.

In two years you can try for a Demoncrat President and leaving the Republicans in control of just one house but you will fail.

I will likely fail, yes. But I will be trying for a libertarian when I do. As you well know. And the main reason why is trolls like you telling people they have to vote for the less evil swamp creature because the third party candidate who would actually represent them can't be elected.

Do you have any idea how foolish and tiresome this $#@! you do is? Keep it up; you'll soon lose what unpaid allies you still have.

[Swordsmyth]

I will likely fail, yes. But I will be trying for a libertarian when I do. As you well know.

Do you have any idea how foolish and tiresome this $#@! you do is? Keep it up; you'll soon lose what unpaid allies you still have.

Tell us what other rights you want the government to ban besides political speech, Mr "Libertarian".

[acptulsa]

Tell us what other rights you want the government to ban besides political speech, Mr "Libertarian".

Well, since you're talking about a right your beloved Bush justices granted to politicians, there are quite a few. Like politicians' right to violate the Tenth Amendment. And politicians' right to order agencies to violate the Fourth (which will likely be expanded with your boy Kavanaugh on the court). And politicians' right to curtail our rights under the Second (just your boy Trump keeping his promises). And...

Why do you ask? Does this have something to do with the thread topic? Anything at all? Or are you just desperate to distract people from the fact that gridlock works a damned sight better than unimpeded Republicans do?

[Swordsmyth]

Well, since you're talking about a right your beloved Bush justices granted to politicians, there are quite a few. Like politicians' right to violate the Tenth Amendment. And politicians' right to order agencies to violate the Fourth (which will likely be expanded with your boy Kavanaugh on the court). And politicians' right to curtail our rights under the Second (just your boy Trump keeping his promises). And...

Drivel.

You don't get to call a minor reduction in government control of political speech (the most important kind of speech the 1stA was intended to protect) a case of government granting rights to politicians.

In your ideal world Thomas Paine wouldn't have been allowed to publish Common Sense.

[acptulsa]

Drivel.

You don't get to call a minor reduction in government control of political speech (the most important kind of speech the 1stA was intended to protect) a case of government granting rights to politicians.

In your ideal world Thomas Paine wouldn't have been allowed to publish Common Sense.

Thomas Payne printed Common Sense using contributions from Raytheon and Merck, Zippy?

Don't mind that you're an incorrigible threadjacker. Tell us more about all of those corporate donations to Thomas Payne!

[Swordsmyth]

Thomas Payne printed Common Sense using contributions from Raytheon and Merck, Zippy?

Don't mind that you're an incorrigible threadjacker. Tell us more about all of those corporate donations to Thomas Payne!

All political ads are funded by Raytheon and Merck?
A ban on all political ads wouldn't have outlawed Common Sense?

The NRA was one of the main opponents of your precious McCain-Feingold because it prevented ordinary citizens from banding together in groups to make their voices heard, but you are even satisfied with McCain-Feingold, you called for a ban on ALL political ads.

Then the liberal MSM and the corporations (like Raytheon and Merck) that own them or pay for their non-political ad revenue could have an absolute monopoly on political speech.

Please stop trying to pretend that you aren't the one on the side of our overlords.

[acptulsa]

...you called for a ban on ALL political ads.

That's a baldfaced lie.

I called for an end to campaign television ads. As in, ads by campaigns. And you can't come up with the quote that indicated otherwise because what you said is pure, unadulterated mendacity.

What's the matter? Can't win the argument, so you feel the need to hijack the thread with lies?

[Swordsmyth]

That's a baldfaced lie.

I called for an end to campaign television ads. As in, ads by campaigns. And you can't come up with the quote that indicated otherwise because what you said is pure, unadulterated mendacity.

Originally Posted by acptulsa

I'd rather take a page from the playbook of the War on Tobacco and outlaw political advertising.

LOL

[acptulsa]

You know people can just click on that little icon and see that quote in context, right?