Criticism of Republicans

[LaserLemon]

I read an article several days ago concerning alleged hypocrisy by some repubican governors and congressmen whom expressed input in the determination of how stimulus funds should be directed in their home states. Essentially, the argument was that these republicans should just shut up because any involvement by them in light of their opposition exposed them as hypocrites.

It is obvious that the liberal media and democrats don't think all the way through their critiques. For instance, I am a partner in a law firm and cash flow has been a problem over the last couple of months. The issue addressed was whether we should draw down on the firm's line of credit for an extra distribution in September to assist with payment of quarterly taxes. Several of us were opposed because we don't like debt. My group lost. The majority wanted the extra distribution so the line of credit will be utilized. According to liberals, I should refuse to take the extra distribution even though I will be responsible for my share of the debt.

Pretty stupid, huh?

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

In their defense, everyday we're being told the economy is rebounding...





(Maybe Lavy will get laid off...)

 

[unregistered]

 

[Le Jacquelope]

A partner in a law firm? Well hell's bells, then that makes me a damned Supreme Court justice.

I thought it was illegal to be as stupid as you.

 

[off2bed]

It's a bit like saying the Democrats inherited Afghanibodia, therefore they shouldn't have a say in how that war is waged.

Don't sweat it, liberals aren't worth it.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Here's a fucking clue you morons:

At least Bobby Jindal had the balls to back up his rhetoric by refusing the stimulus money.

But that took balls. Of which none of you wingtards possess.

 

[Comshaw]

I read an article several days ago concerning alleged hypocrisy by some repubican governors and congressmen whom expressed input in the determination of how stimulus funds should be directed in their home states. Essentially, the argument was that these republicans should just shut up because any involvement by them in light of their opposition exposed them as hypocrites.

It is obvious that the liberal media and democrats don't think all the way through their critiques. For instance, I am a partner in a law firm and cash flow has been a problem over the last couple of months. The issue addressed was whether we should draw down on the firm's line of credit for an extra distribution in September to assist with payment of quarterly taxes. Several of us were opposed because we don't like debt. My group lost. The majority wanted the extra distribution so the line of credit will be utilized. According to liberals, I should refuse to take the extra distribution even though I will be responsible for my share of the debt.

Pretty stupid, huh?

Is it really? What were your plans without utilizing the line of credit? Can you still do that even with the majority going the other way? And if you can, why don't you? So by caving in to the majority and taking the distribution, you aren't compromising your principles? Or are they that flexible?
Hmmmmmm..............................


Comshaw

 

[Liar]

Here's a fucking clue you morons:

At least Bobby Jindal had the balls to back up his rhetoric by refusing the stimulus money.

But that took balls. Of which none of you wingtards possess.

Last I heard, he was sucking the stimulus teat for a high speed rail.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/19/jindal-rail-recoveryact/

 

[The_Trouvere]

Very little the liberal does makes good sense, especially the Keynesian notion that it is okay to borrow money because we only owe to ourselves. I've yet to get my share of the interest on the National Debt.

That is because you do not own U.S. Savings Bonds.

George W. Bush doubled the national debt by cutting taxes while starting two unnecessary and unsuccessful wars. Republicans who did not complain about the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and who did not complain about those tax cuts do not have good credentials for complaining about current deficits.

 

[unregistered]

 

[The_Trouvere]

Trou, you've proved again to be totally incapable of understanding the point, so why comment?

You cannot answer my arguments, so you pretend that I am unable to understand the profundity of your comments. Anyone who can read obscene remarks written on the walls of public rest rooms should have no trouble comprehending the points you make.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Last I heard, he was sucking the stimulus teat for a high speed rail.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/19/jindal-rail-recoveryact/

You mean he got broken and yielded to Communism?

Say it isn't so!

 

[hogjack]

According to liberals, I should refuse to take the extra distribution even though I will be responsible for my share of the debt.

Another whiny little bitch. Grow a set you fucking pansy-ass.

Spend less time here and more time with your cuckolding hobby.

 

[unregistered]

 

[The_Trouvere]

You idiot, I'll give you a hint. Savings bonds don't address my point in the slightest...that would be paying for my "share of the interest" twice.

"The Keynesians loved to say in the past that we owe it to ourselves, since American citizens used to buy almost all the federal bonds, but now between 40-50% of the debt is owed to foreigners."

- Thomas Sowell
http://rightwingnews.com/mt331/2009/03/my_latest_pajamas_media_interv.php

--------

When Keynesians said we owe the debt to ourselves, by "we" they meant American bond holders. If you are not a bond holder, you are not entitled to interest, and Keynesians never said you were.

That was my first point. My second point was that George W. Bush doubled the national debt by starting two unnecessary, and unsuccessful wars while cutting taxes. Republicans who did not condemn the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and who did not condemn the tax cuts are in a poor position to say anything critical about current budget deficits, unless they admit first of all that Bush was wrong to start two wars while cutting taxes.

Your response to my first point was your characteristic and irrelevant sarcasm. You ignored my second point.