Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

...put down Obama's administration's tax and spend ways, YET, defend the Bush administration's same "spend at will" methods as it pertains to the war in Iraq? Think of ALL THAT MONEY that could have been used HERE ON THESE SHORES to better this nation and its citizens.

catamount man wrote:...put down Obama's administration's tax and spend ways, YET, defend the Bush administration's same "spend at will" methods as it pertains to the war in Iraq? Think of ALL THAT MONEY that could have been used HERE ON THESE SHORES to better this nation and its citizens.

Yup...
I asked a similar question on the other forum:
My question revolved around Republicans having the Majority of the House the Senate and the Judiciary for six years and spent RECORD amounts of money and put us in RECORD deficits...

I was told, in short:
Just because the Republicans spent like drunken sailors for two terms doesn't mean Obama should...


And the answer is: Sure, right I get that part... but how could a Republican have sh!t to say about it today and nothing to say about it for 6 years..? where was all the "outrage" when it was happening then..?


Fun times...

Been thinkin the same thing. At least Obama is spending money that will go into the American economy. Though I think this whole thing would have worked its self out anyway.

I think both were wrong, but wrong for completely different reasons. I wish I could find my response on the other site, but I can't get to the poly wing with the ban and all. I don't feel like typing this much tonight. Someone feel like just going and finding that thread again.

Cleets Part 2 wrote:

catamount man wrote:...put down Obama's administration's tax and spend ways, YET, defend the Bush administration's same "spend at will" methods as it pertains to the war in Iraq? Think of ALL THAT MONEY that could have been used HERE ON THESE SHORES to better this nation and its citizens.

Yup...
I asked a similar question on the other forum:
My question revolved around Republicans having the Majority of the House the Senate and the Judiciary for six years and spent RECORD amounts of money and put us in RECORD deficits...

I was told, in short:
Just because the Republicans spent like drunken sailors for two terms doesn't mean Obama should...


And the answer is: Sure, right I get that part... but how could a Republican have sh!t to say about it today and nothing to say about it for 6 years..? where was all the "outrage" when it was happening then..?


Fun times...

Anyone who says that is about as wrong as it is to compare the two.

Cleets Part 2 wrote:

catamount man wrote:...put down Obama's administration's tax and spend ways, YET, defend the Bush administration's same "spend at will" methods as it pertains to the war in Iraq? Think of ALL THAT MONEY that could have been used HERE ON THESE SHORES to better this nation and its citizens.

Yup...
I asked a similar question on the other forum:
My question revolved around Republicans having the Majority of the House the Senate and the Judiciary for six years and spent RECORD amounts of money and put us in RECORD deficits...

I was told, in short:
Just because the Republicans spent like drunken sailors for two terms doesn't mean Obama should...


And the answer is: Sure, right I get that part... but how could a Republican have sh!t to say about it today and nothing to say about it for 6 years..? where was all the "outrage" when it was happening then..?


Fun times...

First for accuracy, the Republicans did not have the majority in the Senate for 6 years of the Bush presidency.

And I won't defend Bush or the Republicans and their credit card spending. It was wrong then and it is wrong for Obama and the Democrats to be doing it now.

HI54UNI wrote:

Cleets Part 2 wrote:
Yup...
I asked a similar question on the other forum:
My question revolved around Republicans having the Majority of the House the Senate and the Judiciary for six years and spent RECORD amounts of money and put us in RECORD deficits...

I was told, in short:
Just because the Republicans spent like drunken sailors for two terms doesn't mean Obama should...


And the answer is: Sure, right I get that part... but how could a Republican have sh!t to say about it today and nothing to say about it for 6 years..? where was all the "outrage" when it was happening then..?


Fun times...

First for accuracy, the Republicans did not have the majority in the Senate for 6 years of the Bush presidency.

And I won't defend Bush or the Republicans and their credit card spending. It was wrong then and it is wrong for Obama and the Democrats to be doing it now.

How could it be wrong... when it feels so right baby..!!!

This is what our federal government has become - it matters not at all who's in charge - they spend and spend and spend and then point at the other party as the problem...

The only thing different about the two parties is the sh!t that comes out of their mouths...
otherwise they behave identically...

Cleets Part 2 wrote:

HI54UNI wrote:
First for accuracy, the Republicans did not have the majority in the Senate for 6 years of the Bush presidency.

And I won't defend Bush or the Republicans and their credit card spending. It was wrong then and it is wrong for Obama and the Democrats to be doing it now.

How could it be wrong... when it feels so right baby..!!!

It feels even better to be right!

Cleets Part 2 wrote: This is what our federal government has become - it matters not at all who's in charge - they spend and spend and spend and then point at the other party as the problem...

The only thing different about the two parties is the sh!t that comes out of their mouths...
otherwise they behave identically...

A wise man once said, "Politicians suck." That pretty well sums it up.

HI54UNI wrote:
First for accuracy, the Republicans did not have the majority in the Senate for 6 years of the Bush presidency.

You're the WRONGEST MAN IN WRONGTOWN.

the GOP had COMPLETE control for 5 years. The Dems took over (nominally) in the Senate for about one year in 2002 when Jim Jeffords switched parties... that's IT. The GOP had the House from Jan 1995 to Jan 2007. They had the Senate for that same time... minus the time after the Jeffords switch through election 02.

They had near total control for 6 years... any attempt to shift one modicum of blame off of them is a complete farce.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

HI54UNI wrote:
First for accuracy, the Republicans did not have the majority in the Senate for 6 years of the Bush presidency.

You're the WRONGEST MAN IN WRONGTOWN.

the GOP had COMPLETE control for 5 years. The Dems took over (nominally) in the Senate for about one year in 2002 when Jim Jeffords switched parties... that's IT. The GOP had the House from Jan 1995 to Jan 2007. They had the Senate for that same time... minus the time after the Jeffords switch through election 02.

They had near total control for 6 years... any attempt to shift one modicum of blame off of them is a complete farce.

Did you even read your own reply? Cleets said six years, I corrected him. You confirmed that I was right? How does that make me wrong?

HI54UNI wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
You're the WRONGEST MAN IN WRONGTOWN.

the GOP had COMPLETE control for 5 years. The Dems took over (nominally) in the Senate for about one year in 2002 when Jim Jeffords switched parties... that's IT. The GOP had the House from Jan 1995 to Jan 2007. They had the Senate for that same time... minus the time after the Jeffords switch through election 02.

They had near total control for 6 years... any attempt to shift one modicum of blame off of them is a complete farce.

Did you even read your own reply?

War with Iraq was authorized while the Democrats were in control of the Senate during that period so does that mean war spending is on their heads too?

Both parties suck and both are responsible for the problems our nation faces.

HI54UNI wrote:

HI54UNI wrote:
Did you even read your own reply?

War with Iraq was authorized while the Democrats were in control of the Senate during that period so does that mean war spending is on their heads too?

somewhat... but I would remind people that they controlled the Senate by ONE VOTE (and Joe Lieberman was one of the Dems) and the GOP used the war vote as an election wedge issue... attacked those who voted against it brutally and it worked for them. there were a lot of Dems voting "aye" for fear of losing their seats. that said... they still voted for it. however the 5 years of reckless nonsesne before and since by the "party of fiscal responsibility" doesn't exactly put a lot of blame at the Dems feet.

Moreover... ALL spending bills must start in the House... which the Dems never did control...

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

HI54UNI wrote:
War with Iraq was authorized while the Democrats were in control of the Senate during that period so does that mean war spending is on their heads too?

somewhat... but I would remind people that they controlled the Senate by ONE VOTE (and Joe Lieberman was one of the Dems) and the GOP used the war vote as an election wedge issue... attacked those who voted against it brutally and it worked for them. there were a lot of Dems voting "aye" for fear of losing their seats. that said... they still voted for it. however the 5 years of reckless nonsesne before and since by the "party of fiscal responsibility" doesn't exactly put a lot of blame at the Dems feet.

You just listed the problem with our elected officials. More worried about their jobs instead of worrying about doing what is right.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:Moreover... ALL spending bills must start in the House... which the Dems never did control...

I thought that requirement was only on tax bills.

HI54UNI wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
somewhat... but I would remind people that they controlled the Senate by ONE VOTE (and Joe Lieberman was one of the Dems) and the GOP used the war vote as an election wedge issue... attacked those who voted against it brutally and it worked for them. there were a lot of Dems voting "aye" for fear of losing their seats. that said... they still voted for it. however the 5 years of reckless nonsesne before and since by the "party of fiscal responsibility" doesn't exactly put a lot of blame at the Dems feet.

You just listed the problem with our elected officials. More worried about their jobs instead of worrying about doing what is right.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:Moreover... ALL spending bills must start in the House... which the Dems never did control...

I thought that requirement was only on tax bills.

no... all spending... power of the purse.

Quit trying to turn this into a partisan fight TTBF, you know the dems are fucking douchebags, and I know the Republican's are fucking douchebags.

Cleets Part 2 wrote:

catamount man wrote:...put down Obama's administration's tax and spend ways, YET, defend the Bush administration's same "spend at will" methods as it pertains to the war in Iraq? Think of ALL THAT MONEY that could have been used HERE ON THESE SHORES to better this nation and its citizens.

Yup...
I asked a similar question on the other forum:
My question revolved around Republicans having the Majority of the House the Senate and the Judiciary for six years and spent RECORD amounts of money and put us in RECORD deficits...

I was told, in short:
Just because the Republicans spent like drunken sailors for two terms doesn't mean Obama should...


And the answer is: Sure, right I get that part... but how could a Republican have sh!t to say about it today and nothing to say about it for 6 years..? where was all the "outrage" when it was happening then..?


Fun times...

I agree, that is why (after the creation of the DHS) I quit supporting the Republican party.

clenz wrote:Quit trying to turn this into a partisan fight TTBF, you know the dems are fucking douchebags, and I know the Republican's are fucking douchebags.

I believe the correct term is douchebag fcukers.

clenz wrote:Quit trying to turn this into a partisan fight TTBF, you know the dems are fucking douchebags, and I know the Republican's are fucking douchebags.

clenzian politics

clenz wrote:Quit trying to turn this into a partisan fight TTBF, you know the dems are f**k[*] douchebags, and I know the Republican's are f**k[*] douchebags.

rofl... I AM the Dems... various entities of the party or their candidates have paid my salary for years...

so no... not douchebags. i've never gone for the "a pox on both your houses" mentality.