 Combat ChuckToo Many CannibalsPremium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA | purely across party lines? Is that a typo? don't you mean purely along party lines? Cause there are 178 republicans in the house and 177 of them voted against it. I don't mean to break out the calculus but I mean 1/178 is pretty damn close to zero so it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to say that the republicans really didn't vote for it.
I know there is this push and all to make it sound like the world is united as one under the reign of his most gracious lord Obama but, across party lines is stretching it a tad much dontcha think?
--
Come let us reason together. |
|
 h7
@charter.com | said by Combat Chuck:Is that a typo? don't you mean purely along party lines? Cause there are 178 republicans in the house and 177 of them voted against it. I don't mean to break out the calculus but I mean 1/178 is pretty damn close to zero so it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to say that the republicans really didn't vote for it. I know there is this push and all to make it sound like the world is united as one under the reign of his most gracious lord Obama but, across party lines is stretching it a tad much dontcha think? Hear, hear. How many flushes of billions (now close to $2 Trillion since the first flush) does it take before we entirely become a socialist nation? Whether it's a Nationalist Socialist government or a Communist Socialist government, it makes no difference to me; truth is the two extremes are obviously too extreme and at what point that our economy means absolutely zippo and neither do our industries, it is getting closer. And hmmmm, like it has been said already here, whether taxing the bottom or the top increases, it still effects us all; whether it means prices skyrocketing from the tinkle-down-theory (pun intended) and more people losing their jobs as they are outsourced and businesses and industries sold out to overseas, and/or from the flip-side, it also means that those who are poor don't get their tax rebates on their houses from taxes paid two years ago and it goes straight to the top in the name of the government and corporates that want so bad to get paid at our expense. Oh yeah and government's answer to that is always put more cops on the streets and more laws (not rights or freedoms) on the books and more jails and prisons built for poor people to "keep them in line" so it becomes that much closer to a police state. Representatives? Yeah right. They sold their souls long ago to the almighty dollar so unless you got lots of that dinero, they don't represent you, nor me. All it is now is form letters going out paid by us, and a postal address straight to a trash can going in. When they get elected the first thing they do is set up their trust fund to the "re-elect-the-man-corp" or whatever, so from then on they are covered, but not us. Personally I still will and do vote independent (third) parties until the end of time no matter how many numbskkkulls say it is wasted, because if you ask me now is the time the wasted votes are on the duo of hypocrisy which is democrats and republicans. Either way we stand to lose our personal and public freedoms and watch the bill of rights and constitution get scrapped and shredded oh so slowly, like a confettimaker that's gotten ahold of it, but only just does it while we sleep. Net neutrality for who? Privacy for whom? Well, for the government and money that serves them, of course. As for the rest of us, don't keep your fingers crossed because what is broadcast over the airwaves and what is swept beneath the rug are two entirely different things altogether, now aren't they?
h#7 |
|
|
|
 ahedgePremium
join:2002-05-14
Shepherd, TX | said by h7 :said by Combat Chuck:Is that a typo? don't you mean purely along party lines? Cause there are 178 republicans in the house and 177 of them voted against it. I don't mean to break out the calculus but I mean 1/178 is pretty damn close to zero so it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to say that the republicans really didn't vote for it. I know there is this push and all to make it sound like the world is united as one under the reign of his most gracious lord Obama but, across party lines is stretching it a tad much dontcha think? Hear, hear. How many flushes of billions (now close to $2 Trillion since the first flush) does it take before we entirely become a socialist nation? Snip Either way we stand to lose our personal and public freedoms snip2 Boy oh boy and we were so happy under King Bush. Now the future is all sorrow and despair...
Get lost troll! |
|
 R4M0NBrazilian Soccer Ownz Joo
join:2000-10-04
Glen Allen, VA | reply to Combat Chuck
said by Combat Chuck:Is that a typo? don't you mean purely along party lines?... It was across party lines. The votes against the bill, that is.
So, in a way, the title is correct. But not in the way Karl intended. |
|
Combat ChuckToo Many CannibalsPremium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA | said by R4M0N:It was across party lines. The votes against the bill, that is. So, in a way, the title is correct. But not in the way Karl intended. 10 democrats really doesn't meet that qualification either.
--
Come let us reason together. |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to Combat Chuck
Obama certainly is a unifier... so far all of the opposition to his pork bill has been bipartisan!
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! |
|
h7
@charter.com | reply to ahedge
said by ahedge:said by h7 :said by Combat Chuck:Is that a typo? don't you mean purely along party lines? Cause there are 178 republicans in the house and 177 of them voted against it. I don't mean to break out the calculus but I mean 1/178 is pretty damn close to zero so it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to say that the republicans really didn't vote for it. I know there is this push and all to make it sound like the world is united as one under the reign of his most gracious lord Obama but, across party lines is stretching it a tad much dontcha think? Hear, hear. How many flushes of billions (now close to $2 Trillion since the first flush) does it take before we entirely become a socialist nation? Snip Either way we stand to lose our personal and public freedoms snip2 Boy oh boy and we were so happy under King Bush. Now the future is all sorrow and despair... Get lost troll! How about getting this double flip? Since when did I say I liked Bush dickweed? If you snipped the bottom you would see I voted for independents since I ever could first vote and how many people can actually say that? Obviously, If you didn't like Obama so much you wouldn't have just clipped the stuff that tries to make yourself look good. I know one thing though, and that is when you are broke, whether it is under "King Bush" or "King Obama" it still means you are broke, no matter if you figured out how to use cut and paste or not.
h#7 |
|
