Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Hmmm - both Senators voted AGAINST Sandy aid, now asking for aid (and ass Coburn wants the aid, but offset by cuts to OTHER People).



This is highlighting the hypocricy of small government conservatism - only works in theory, for other people.

Link?

Even the ruggedest of individuals needs a hand in times like these.

dbackjon wrote:Hmmm - both Senators voted AGAINST Sandy aid, now asking for aid (and ass Coburn wants the aid, but offset by cuts to OTHER People).


This is highlighting the hypocricy of small government conservatism - only works in theory, for other people.

dbackjon wrote:Hmmm - both Senators voted AGAINST Sandy aid, now asking for aid (and ass Coburn wants the aid, but offset by cuts to OTHER People).



This is highlighting the hypocricy of small government conservatism - only works in theory, for other people.

Great point!!!

If only we had a leader like Bush.

He kicked Katrina's ass and the left knows it.....that's why they have to get the first shot in on this tornado. Its sickening how people use tragedy like this for political purposes....but look who they follow. Oklahoma has a few communities that need organizing.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:If only we had a leader like Bush.

He kicked Katrina's ass and the left knows it.....that's why they have to get the first shot in on this tornado. Its sickening how people use tragedy like this for political purposes....but look who they follow. Oklahoma has a few communities that need organizing.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

LMAO - you are great comedic relief

ASUG8 wrote:Link?

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/ ... dget-cuts/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



But of course, $100s of Billions for war and TARP is ok.

dbackjon wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:Link?

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/ ... dget-cuts/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



But of course, $100s of Billions for war and TARP is ok.

dbackjon wrote:Hmmm - both Senators voted AGAINST Sandy aid, now asking for aid (and ass Coburn wants the aid, but offset by cuts to OTHER People).



This is highlighting the hypocricy of small government conservatism - only works in theory, for other people.

Imagine that, partisan hacks are hypocritical. Where have you heard this before?

dbackjon wrote:Hmmm - both Senators voted AGAINST Sandy aid, now asking for aid (and ass Coburn wants the aid, but offset by cuts to OTHER People).



This is highlighting the hypocricy of small government conservatism - only works in theory, for other people.

Are you implying only one side of the isle changes tunes when it comes to courting their electorate?

dbackjon wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:Link?

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/ ... dget-cuts/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



But of course, $100s of Billions for war and TARP is ok.

But a horrible healthcare plan, continued war in Afghanistan, failure to close Gitmo, and impotent stimulus legislation are all cool under your guy's watch?

Baldy wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/ ... dget-cuts/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



But of course, $100s of Billions for war and TARP is ok.

Why is that funny?

dbackjon wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:Link?

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/ ... dget-cuts/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



But of course, $100s of Billions for war and TARP is ok.

How much as Obama spent on the wars and bailouts?

Howsabout we aid them in relocating to another part of the country that doesn't repeatedly get battered by tornados?

ASUG8 wrote:Link?

Well when he leaves off the link that means he got it from a far left rag.

AZGrizFan wrote:Howsabout we aid them in relocating to another part of the country that doesn't repeatedly get battered by tornados?

Should we do that with the eastern seaboard, too?

Grizalltheway wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:Howsabout we aid them in relocating to another part of the country that doesn't repeatedly get battered by tornados?

Should we do that with the eastern seaboard, too?

Ban mobile homes.

AZGrizFan wrote:Howsabout we aid them in relocating to another part of the country that doesn't repeatedly get battered by tornados?

After we aid everyone relocating off the east and gulf coasts that get repeatedly battered by hurricanes.

ASUG8 wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/ ... dget-cuts/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



But of course, $100s of Billions for war and TARP is ok.

But a horrible healthcare plan, continued war in Afghanistan, failure to close Gitmo, and impotent stimulus legislation are all cool under your guy's watch?

Irrelevant, Obama doesn't have an "R" beside his name.

Ibanez wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/ ... dget-cuts/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



But of course, $100s of Billions for war and TARP is ok.

How much as Obama spent on the wars and bailouts?

Irrelevant, Obama doesn't have an "R" beside his name.

Grizalltheway wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:Howsabout we aid them in relocating to another part of the country that doesn't repeatedly get battered by tornados?

Should we do that with the eastern seaboard, too?

Yes. Or just not continually provide them money to rebuild in that location....

Grizalltheway wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:Howsabout we aid them in relocating to another part of the country that doesn't repeatedly get battered by tornados?

Should we do that with the eastern seaboard, too?

ASUMountaineer wrote:

Ibanez wrote: How much as Obama spent on the wars and bailouts?

Irrelevant, Obama doesn't have an "R" beside his name.

Once again, your rush to portray yourself as "non-partisan" has left you missing the point - these self-proclaimed "budget hawks" turn into free-spenders when it suits there needs.

At least most Dems are honest enough to acknowledge they are big government people, not portray themselves as small-government warriors who still vote to expand the government when it benefits them.

dbackjon wrote:

ASUMountaineer wrote:
Irrelevant, Obama doesn't have an "R" beside his name.

Once again, your rush to portray yourself as "non-partisan" has left you missing the point - these self-proclaimed "budget hawks" turn into free-spenders when it suits there needs.

At least most Dems are honest enough to acknowledge they are big government people, not portray themselves as small-government warriors who still vote to expand the government when it benefits them.

They don't "turn into" free spenders, they've always been free spenders. They just want to spend the money on different things.