We tried to tell you...

[z064life]

Originally Posted by Gearheaded

You can't bundle Paul supporters together, same with any candidate. You know that.

That's like saying all democrats are jobless leeches, and all republicans hate abortion and own slaves...

wait...we don't?!?!

[Gearheaded]

Originally Posted by z064life

wait...we don't?!?!

Nope, Hitler killed them during ww2

[headshake1]

You want to blame liberals for the entitlement-specific expenditures that contribute to the deficit? It's actually a myth that liberals or democrats are the party of entitlements. But that's just the kind of ignorant, media-feuled bi-partisanship that is destroying any concerted effort to fix any of our problems. Maybe you should read a little more instead of listening to the Shawn Hannitys and Rush Limbaughs of the world.

From the Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...931313542.html

From a purely statistical standpoint, the growth of entitlement spending over the past half-century has been distinctly greater under Republican administrations than Democratic ones. Between 1960 and 2010, the growth of entitlement spending was exponential, but in any given year, it was on the whole roughly 8% higher if the president happened to be a Republican rather than a Democrat.

[jakegto211]

Originally Posted by TheButcher

47% of America is made up of moochers and complete idiots, those idiots just happen to live in high electoral states. Hence the outcome of the election.

Agreed


Sent from my iPhone using Motorcycle.com App

[gsxcorey]

LOL one of my friends on FB posted that wednesday was the Democrats day to vote and Tuesday the Republicans and one Democrat actually tried to go vote today HAHAHHAHA omg...I'm shocked they admitted that they fell for it on FB. wow...

[bsgesch]

Election results:

[SPanega SS]

I'm surprised a person old enough to vote and is male admits to having a fb account.

[rexmitchell]

Originally Posted by SPanega SS

I'm surprised a person old enough to vote and is male admits to having a fb account.

Talk to Frank, he is all over that shit

[z064life]

Originally Posted by headshake1

You want to blame liberals for the entitlement-specific expenditures that contribute to the deficit? It's actually a myth that liberals or democrats are the party of entitlements. But that's just the kind of ignorant, media-feuled bi-partisanship that is destroying any concerted effort to fix any of our problems. Maybe you should read a little more instead of listening to the Shawn Hannitys and Rush Limbaughs of the world.

From the Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...931313542.html

From a purely statistical standpoint, the growth of entitlement spending over the past half-century has been distinctly greater under Republican administrations than Democratic ones. Between 1960 and 2010, the growth of entitlement spending was exponential, but in any given year, it was on the whole roughly 8% higher if the president happened to be a Republican rather than a Democrat.

so the dems didn't extend unemployment to 99 weeks....the Dems didn't give us Social Security....I'd continue but apparently facts don't mean much


As to your link...Clinton had to work with a conservative congress....Bush had to work with a liberal congress (well for 6 of the 8 years). How about we look at what happens when liberals control it all

[Fikays]

Originally Posted by rexmitchell

Talk to Frank, he is all over that shit

You're an idiot.

[Rex1585]

Originally Posted by Gearheaded

You can't bundle Paul supporters together, same with any candidate. You know that.

That's like saying all democrats are jobless leeches, and all republicans hate abortion and own slaves...

This is exactly correct, hasty generalizations are the EXACT problem we have in this country. Instead of trying to UNDERSTAND why a person is trying to do a certain thing, all we seem to do is want to point fingers on why it won't work, and then say that there way is better without the CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM that builds things up.

When I was younger, I thought that once you got out of Highschool, that the silly hasty generalizations would be put to the wayside. Since you know, we are supposed to be adults and able to talk out our differences.

Yet again I have been proven wrong.


Hope I am not proven wrong with my choice of profession and the oaths I have taken.

[cataclyzm123]

[Kangaroo]

The rich needs help with tax breaks, the poor needs help with entitlements, and in the end the middle class gets screwed. Why are people surprised by this?

[Quietstorm1911]

Originally Posted by z064life

so the dems didn't extend unemployment to 99 weeks....the Dems didn't give us Social Security....I'd continue but apparently facts don't mean much


As to your link...Clinton had to work with a conservative congress....Bush had to work with a liberal congress (well for 6 of the 8 years). How about we look at what happens when liberals control it all

Here are some of the facts:

Yes, they did extend unemployment to 99 weeks. There is not one person here that would not take the full 99 weeks of unemployment if they HAD TO. With today's job market it was even harder to find a job.

There is one question that NO FATHER want's to answer from their child.
"Daddy, why do we have to live in the car"....

It's not unreasonable for people who paid into a system for decades to expect to get their money's worth--that's not an "entitlement," that's honoring a deal. We as a society must also make an ironclad commitment to providing a safety net for those who can't make one for themselves.


On April 20, 1983, Reagan signed a bill to preserve Social Security. At that bill signing, the president said words every Republican should heed: "This bill demonstrates for all time our nation's ironclad commitment to Social Security. It assures the elderly that America will always keep the promises made in troubled times a half a century ago. It assures those who are still working that they, too, have a pact with the future. From this day forward, they have one pledge that they will get their fair share of benefits when they retire."

[Judah Ben-Hur]

Originally Posted by Gearheaded

Basically something like "The happening" but only to liberals?

I'm not up on it but will check it out.

Originally Posted by Para-327th

Damn the TSA is getting brutal.

I get your sentiment though.

No TSA involved. I was thinking more on the lines of some cat walking into a spinning prop but if the TSA wants to poke n' prod to them then it's a go.

Originally Posted by z064life

wait...we don't?!?!

Tillie, get me a sandwich!

Originally Posted by Kangaroo

The rich needs help with tax breaks, the poor needs help with entitlements, and in the end the middle class gets screwed. Why are people surprised by this?

All I ask them to do is to get their f&$#@! hands out of my wallet every time they want to play social engineer.

[z064life]

Originally Posted by Quietstorm1911

Here are some of the facts:

Yes, they did extend unemployment to 99 weeks. There is not one person here that would not take the full 99 weeks of unemployment if they HAD TO. With today's job market it was even harder to find a job.

There is one question that NO FATHER want's to answer from their child.
"Daddy, why do we have to live in the car"....

It's not unreasonable for people who paid into a system for decades to expect to get their money's worth--that's not an "entitlement," that's honoring a deal. We as a society must also make an ironclad commitment to providing a safety net for those who can't make one for themselves.


On April 20, 1983, Reagan signed a bill to preserve Social Security. At that bill signing, the president said words every Republican should heed: "This bill demonstrates for all time our nation's ironclad commitment to Social Security. It assures the elderly that America will always keep the promises made in troubled times a half a century ago. It assures those who are still working that they, too, have a pact with the future. From this day forward, they have one pledge that they will get their fair share of benefits when they retire."

99 weeks is excessive...look at how long people stay unemployed as it relates to benifits and get back with me

They don't take the work that is available because it is below them and less than they used to make. That sucks but that happens. Also you didn't pay into unemployement...your company does

As to SS...of course Republicans are going to try to preserve it now. I asked where did it come from

Dems are the party of entitlements....anything else is and spin

[rexmitchell]

Originally Posted by Fikays

You're an idiot.

You are on FB, no?

[KMac]

Who is the party of track days? That's all I'm interested in at this point. The rest is a cesspool, but there is still hope for trackdays. The Trackday Party........... who's with me?

[rexmitchell]

Originally Posted by KMac

Who is the party of track days? That's all I'm interested in at this point. The rest is a cesspool, but there is still hope for trackdays. The Trackday Party........... who's with me?

[z064life]

Originally Posted by Kangaroo

The rich needs help with tax breaks, the poor needs help with entitlements, and in the end the middle class gets screwed. Why are people surprised by this?

Tax breaks aren't handouts.....the "rich" and middle class just want to keep the money they earn. That's the difference.

Welfare is giving money to someone -> handout
Tax cut is not taking as much from someone -> Not a handout