Proof That Rick Perry is Not Very Bright. At All.
Sep 6, 2014 05:50:13 #
Alicia wrote:
*****************
Either you can't read or you're too lazy. Tdsmest told you what to Google two or three times already. If you want to prove or disprove a statement, you might just have to do a little work. If you're not willing to do that then, please cease making the same comment.
Either you can't read or you're too lazy. Tdsmest told you what to Google two or three times already. If you want to prove or disprove a statement, you might just have to do a little work. If you're not willing to do that then, please cease making the same comment.
Alicia, I heard a rumor you quit your full time job due to the hourly wage issues you had been having....personally, I find that if you had been charging 35 cents an hour that the only person whom should be complaining are those paying you all that much....a nickel an hour would have been even over pay. But you could always go to work at a bakery...why you may ask a bakery? Simple....to keep them from running out of yeast....
Sep 6, 2014 07:06:05 #
tdsrnest wrote:
You guys just can 't admit when the democrats are successful. When Dems succeed it's the republican TP when the Rupublicans fail which the last 3 have failed it's the democrats fault. I just can't believe how you think
There's a subtlety with Pres Carter's Balanced Budget... His Budget accounted for $79 Billion in Deficit Spending & the Deficit for the FY 1981 was only $40 Billion...
So, technically, yes, Pres Carter's last Budget came-in Balanced even though the US Debt increased by $40 Billion...
A better Dem Pres was Pres Clinton whose last FY came-in with only an $18 Billion increase of the US Debt...
And in my 64 Years on this Earth, the ONLY FY the US Debt was Lower at the End of the Year than at the Beginning - that I could find anyway - was Pres Eisenhower's FY 1955... Other than that 1 FY, NO PRES SINCE AT LEAST 1950 HAS DECREASED THE US DEBT IN ANY FY, let alone a Full Term...
Sep 6, 2014 09:33:50 #
LAPhil
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
tdsrnest wrote:
So you know more that Alan Dershowitz. Wow, you must be really educated! What a tool!He is going to jail and he will never be able to carry a gun.
Sep 6, 2014 11:45:52 #
EconomistDon wrote:
Whether the bill is good or is crap, it is on the ... (show quote)
They have a bi partisan bill now Obama has indicated the GOPTP agrees with 80% of the bill. So why does the House refuse to debate add or delete from it. But make a statement not to act on the bill this year. That's called obstruction. If immigration is such a serious problem why does the GOPTP refuse to act.
The amnesty issue is the main concern and most normal thinking conservative do believe that some should stay and others have to go. But unfortunately the normal thinking republicans are afraid of there jobs. Amnesty is the road to defeat for a GOPTP legislators
Sep 6, 2014 11:56:06 #
There is simply no evidence that 80% support the bill. In fact most polls show Americans want to secure the border before any amnesty.
tdsrnest wrote:
They have a bi partisan bill now Obama has indicat... (show quote)
Sep 6, 2014 12:48:46 #
LAPhil
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
tdsrnest wrote:
Is this possible? tdsrnest actually quite made a bit of sense here. Hell must have frozen over!They have a bi partisan bill now Obama has indicat... (show quote)
Sep 6, 2014 12:52:15 #
Democrats refuse to bring to the floor of Senate
WASHINGTON -- House Republicans addressed immigration on Wednesday -- sort of -- by passing a bill that would take aim at President Barack Obama's policy that allows young undocumented immigrants to stay in the United States.
The ENFORCE Act, which passed 233 to 181, isn't about immigration exclusively. Instead, it goes after Obama for alleged overreach on a variety of issues, including Obamacare, education and drug laws. The bill would allow Congress to sue the executive branch for allegedly failing to enforce the law, and it could lead to the dismantling of a key policy protecting some undocumented immigrants.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/12/house-immigration_n_4950425.html
WASHINGTON -- House Republicans addressed immigration on Wednesday -- sort of -- by passing a bill that would take aim at President Barack Obama's policy that allows young undocumented immigrants to stay in the United States.
The ENFORCE Act, which passed 233 to 181, isn't about immigration exclusively. Instead, it goes after Obama for alleged overreach on a variety of issues, including Obamacare, education and drug laws. The bill would allow Congress to sue the executive branch for allegedly failing to enforce the law, and it could lead to the dismantling of a key policy protecting some undocumented immigrants.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/12/house-immigration_n_4950425.html
tdsrnest wrote:
They have a bi partisan bill now Obama has indicat... (show quote)
Check out topic: No Justice in New York
Sep 6, 2014 13:28:22 #
LAPhil wrote:
Is this possible? tdsrnest actually quite made a bit of sense here. Hell must have frozen over!
Yep it did!
Sep 6, 2014 13:44:29 #
Alicia
Loc: NYC
LAPhil wrote:
I don't need you butting in, thank you. My post was addressed to him, not to you. Kindly mind your own business.
********************
Sorry. I was unaware that this was a PRIVATE conversation. :roll: :roll: :roll:
Sep 6, 2014 14:03:40 #
tdsrnest wrote:
They have a bi partisan bill now Obama has indicat... (show quote)
I take it that the House's OBSTRUCTION by not acting on an Amnesty Bill is in the same light as Senate Majority Reid's ensuring the Senate didn't Vote on a Budget for 3 Years was OBSTRUCTION - Passing Continuing Resolutions is all together different than Voting on & Passing a Budget...
Sep 6, 2014 18:21:02 #
Alicia
Loc: NYC
bmac32 wrote:
You make a statement it's your job to back it up, opinion, everyone has one!
*****************
Not necessary.
Check out topic: Trump Diapers
Sep 6, 2014 20:21:46 #
For a democrat your correct, throw it and see if it has traction and for other even when it's in black and white or video question every word and then it's he didn't mean that.
Alicia wrote:
*****************
Not necessary.
Not necessary.
Sep 6, 2014 21:21:51 #
Sep 7, 2014 00:23:02 #
Super Dave wrote:
Clinton was forced to sign Newts BB, if thats what you meant.
Super Dave, Do you really think tdsnest or whatever will understand that. Gonna have to splain it to him.
Sep 7, 2014 00:33:07 #
Superfluous post; the name and residency says it all. But don't forget his criminal charges.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.