So Wayne, you are just going to ignore reality, not address the facts, and keep spouting on about "Da Base". No need to address the facts and actual numbers. It gets in the way of your self serving nonsense. As I said, it is embarrassing.
one for Da Base
- Thread starter DOGS THAT BARK
- Start date
So Wayne, you are just going to ignore reality, not address the facts, and keep spouting on about "Da Base". No need to address the facts and actual numbers. It gets in the way of your self serving nonsense. As I said, it is embarrassing.
As for the "hillbilly" crap, I apologize for my comments to you. Your calling our President "Gumby" really set me off and I am sorry for it. Lush and others here in now way represent where I am coming from and who I am.
No apologie necessary Jabbers--but thank you just the same.
I don't mind being called names--find some of them funny and even some appropriate.
I don't mind being called names--find some of them funny and even some appropriate.
There has been redistribution of wealth since before you were born. So unless you have been voting for radical third parties that suggest SERIOUS tax cuts (ie Libertarians etc.) then YOU are part of DA BASE too.
You think McCain or Bush didn't support the graduated income tax? Some welfare? Some Medicare? Those are all redistributions.
You are this "base" you speak of. Sorry, you can pretend you aren't, but you just favor a slightly different version of redistribution, and it doesn't make you much different. :sadwave:
You need to check the demographics of Da Base--Fek
Kinda like CA with thier greenie tech years ago--over 5000 gov employee frawing over 100K a year--mandated fuel-highest taxes--pandering to illegals etc
--you know same shit Gumby's pushing on national scale--where did it get you--begging for bail outs--
Texas on other hand has 8 bill surplus funds--when gov was asked how he did it--
He said cut spending and massive tort reform (you out there haskel)
So when you got the tax payor exodusing CA--illegals moving in --bankrupt
What would be your best quess which works best economically
Big gov-tax and spend-unions
or reduced taxes-cut spending-and right to work.
Try deductive reasoning
Kinda like CA with thier greenie tech years ago--over 5000 gov employee frawing over 100K a year--mandated fuel-highest taxes--pandering to illegals etc
--you know same shit Gumby's pushing on national scale--where did it get you--begging for bail outs--
Texas on other hand has 8 bill surplus funds--when gov was asked how he did it--
He said cut spending and massive tort reform (you out there haskel)
So when you got the tax payor exodusing CA--illegals moving in --bankrupt
What would be your best quess which works best economically
Big gov-tax and spend-unions
or reduced taxes-cut spending-and right to work.
Try deductive reasoning
What would be your best quess which works best economically
Big gov-tax and spend-unions
or reduced taxes-cut spending-and right to work.
Try deductive reasoning
Reduced taxes and limited government is what I favor. But I don't pretend that Obama invented big government, nor to I blindly contend he is the end of America because he is creating more government than I'd like.
FDR and LBJ came wayyy before Obama and created the large government we have today. Folks like Bush Jr. and a few others didn't do much to seriously shrink the government.
The "legacy" of the 20th century in America is essentially one of increasing role of government in most aspects of our lives. I am not in favor of much of it, but I can't lay blame on Obama for most of it.
At the same time I am not going to blindly blame Bush Jr. for the budget deficits going forward. Obama is making a choice to borrow and expand spending, and I find that to be an error.
My goal isn't about picking a side (my economic views are probably similar to yours), or having a red-state/blue-state pissing contest, rather, to bring a little perspective into the conversation. :SIB
Most politicians present various shades of, the same capitalist/socialist-mixed-economy, grey that we have experienced the past 75 years in the good 'ole USA.
It is not out of bounds to say "I support the Republicans version of capitalist-socialist mix" nor "I support Obama's version of capitalist-socialist-mix"... but it is a bit disingenuous (to me) to present either side as extreme or THAT different.
Trench
Never thought I'd hear you say that you agree--
"Reduced taxes and limited government is what I favor"
"Obama is making a choice to borrow and expand spending, and I find that to be an error"
There may be hope for you.
Never thought I'd hear you say that you agree--
"Reduced taxes and limited government is what I favor"
"Obama is making a choice to borrow and expand spending, and I find that to be an error"
There may be hope for you.
Trench
Never thought I'd hear you say that you agree--
"Reduced taxes and limited government is what I favor"
"Obama is making a choice to borrow and expand spending, and I find that to be an error"
There may be hope for you.
I guess that's what happens when someone brings a little perspective to the conversation.
Imagine what might be possible with a 3rd major political party in this country.
I guess that's what happens when someone brings a little perspective to the conversation.
Imagine what might be possible with a 3rd major political party in this country.
3rd party equals "more choices".
