toldailytopic: Prediction time: Which Republican candidate will be running against Ob
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
All I know is that it probably won't be the guy I'd like to see... :mmph:
we already know that
but
what we don't know is who you think might beat Obama
and
you would not like to see
he could be the devil you know
Barney Frank?
Cruciform
New member
Who cares? I couldn't in good conscience vote for any of them. They're all...well, idiots.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
elected4ever
New member
What you have there is the Unified Budget. This means that the dedicated funds in the SS trust fund are commingled with the general funds.
Each year an IOU is placed in the SSTF account and the money that is supposed to be there is used in the general budget. That is borrowing but those funds are counted in the general fund and the SSTF and we still say that a certain dollar amount remains in the SSTF. That is double accounting. No the budget was not balanced unless you use the accounting gimmick of Unified Budgeting.
Each year an IOU is placed in the SSTF account and the money that is supposed to be there is used in the general budget. That is borrowing but those funds are counted in the general fund and the SSTF and we still say that a certain dollar amount remains in the SSTF. That is double accounting. No the budget was not balanced unless you use the accounting gimmick of Unified Budgeting.
elected4ever
New member
Like you right :loser:
Jeez. What's your problem?
Newt shut down the government to prevent a balanced budget. Only after Clinton called his bluff did he concede and allow Clinton's budget to pass. And that did balance the budget. For one year. Hardly affected the debt, though. One good year over decades of bad ones.
Newt deserves no credit, though. Being dragged kicking and screaming into passing it, hardly qualifies as an accomplishment.
Newt deserves no credit, though. Being dragged kicking and screaming into passing it, hardly qualifies as an accomplishment.
elected4ever
New member
I just don't appreciate the disparaging remark. It was uncalled for.
drbrumley
Well-known member
That is absolutely right.
Hardly anyone on this board has the stomach for what needs to be done.
Well, catch some to the hard right in a restroom and there's not much separating them...
lain:
I think Romney could give him a good run, but I prefer what I've seen of Huntsman so far.
I wouldn't care to see any of the others, but suspect at this late date it will be Newt--unless scandal sees him join the ranks of the former front runners.
I think his life up to this point may have inoculated him against any possible scandal that could come out now.
drbrumley
Well-known member
Michelle Bushman Trots Out the Oldies
Posted by Christopher Manion on December 16, 2011 08:52 AM
I've met her and liked her. But like many evangelicals, she is clueless about foreign policy, and thus feels compelled — by politics at least, and perhaps religious conviction as well — to follow the neocon line. If you repeat their two or three mantras, they will leave you alone (but you are repeatedly warned). If you don't, you'd better have decades on the Foreign Affairs Committee like Ron Paul does, because they will be merciless.
So last night Michelle chimed in, vying to be the bellicose tigress among several paper tigers. Ahmadenijad is a "madman" avowed or wild, take your pick — so we have to drop the big one now. $300 oil? Hey, so what! We'll just make Obama open up that pipeline!
In 2004, Michelle was still working for the IRS, so she might have missed the original hit tune that she unconsciously hums — namely, George W. Bush's dynamic, persuasive, and foresightful wrap-up to his interview with Tim Russert on February 8, 2004:
"It's essential that I explain this properly to the parents of those who lost their lives. Saddam Hussein was dangerous, and I’m not gonna leave him in power and trust a madman. He's a dangerous man. He had the ability to make weapons at the very minimum."
Right on, Michelle! You know how well it worked last time around. In the GOP establishment's hot tub, it will always be Springtime for (another) Hitler.
Posted by Christopher Manion on December 16, 2011 08:52 AM
I've met her and liked her. But like many evangelicals, she is clueless about foreign policy, and thus feels compelled — by politics at least, and perhaps religious conviction as well — to follow the neocon line. If you repeat their two or three mantras, they will leave you alone (but you are repeatedly warned). If you don't, you'd better have decades on the Foreign Affairs Committee like Ron Paul does, because they will be merciless.
So last night Michelle chimed in, vying to be the bellicose tigress among several paper tigers. Ahmadenijad is a "madman" avowed or wild, take your pick — so we have to drop the big one now. $300 oil? Hey, so what! We'll just make Obama open up that pipeline!
In 2004, Michelle was still working for the IRS, so she might have missed the original hit tune that she unconsciously hums — namely, George W. Bush's dynamic, persuasive, and foresightful wrap-up to his interview with Tim Russert on February 8, 2004:
"It's essential that I explain this properly to the parents of those who lost their lives. Saddam Hussein was dangerous, and I’m not gonna leave him in power and trust a madman. He's a dangerous man. He had the ability to make weapons at the very minimum."
Right on, Michelle! You know how well it worked last time around. In the GOP establishment's hot tub, it will always be Springtime for (another) Hitler.
Cruciform
New member
No, like idiots other than the GOP candidates.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+