You want "change" -- try smaller - The Orange Mane

Bob · 08-31-2008, 12:34 AM

The government's place is to stay small and attempt to work itself out of a job. It is to be comfortable in its limited role, so that it is not threatened by the power it might loose, as it never stole it to begin with. The people's job is to ensure that government does not think that we are passive enough to stand by while individual freedoms are erased in the name of what the flavor of the month government condescendingly feels is "best for us" -- we the ignorant weak who are "not allowed" to eat trans-fats because Big Brother is now picking up the tab. We, who are not allowed to have talk radio because they are threatened by real diversity. We, who are not allowed to say anything about our boarders being overrun – because “they" want slaves and/or votes. We, who are not allowed to hold on to our traditions, and history (which Michelle Obama so eloquently argues against) because again -- those traditions remind us how far we have drifted away from the Democratic Republic we should be, and the Marxist government we are incrementally becoming.

defenseman · 08-31-2008, 05:10 AM

Well, growing a bigger government never helped, and that's exactly what obama wants to do...I'm dead set against him for this....dman

Spider · 08-31-2008, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by defenseman

Well, growing a bigger government never helped, and that's exactly what obama wants to do...I'm dead set against him for this....dman

how so ? seriously back your bull**** up ........Government grew by 60% under bush , so now you tell us how Obama makes it bigger ......

W*GS · 08-31-2008, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spider

how so ? seriously back your bull**** up ........Government grew by 60% under bush , so now you tell us how Obama makes it bigger ......

Where do you get this "60%" number?

"back your bull**** up".

jhat01 · 08-31-2008, 07:19 AM

Homeland D is probably a big chunk.

W*GS · 08-31-2008, 07:21 AM

DHS sucked into it a bunch of pre-existing agencies.

Spider · 08-31-2008, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W*GS

Where do you get this "60%" number?

"back your bull**** up".

your are right W*GS 60 % is bull**** ... it was 86 % **** wad .........
http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1071

Spider · 08-31-2008, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W*GS

DHS sucked into it a bunch of pre-existing agencies.

Back that up son ...............

W*GS · 08-31-2008, 07:28 AM

"Procurement spending" is not the same thing as "government", Spider.

jhat01 · 08-31-2008, 07:28 AM

Gov contracting? Is that what we're talking about?

Spider · 08-31-2008, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W*GS

"Procurement spending" is not the same thing as "government", Spider.

it is still spending our tax dollars on more Fed projects

W*GS · 08-31-2008, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spider

Back that up son ...............

The following 22 agencies were incorporated into the new department:[6]

U.S. Customs Service ( Treasury)
U.S. Coast Guard
U.S. Secret Service
Immigration and Naturalization Service (Justice)
United States Federal Protective Service (ICE)
Transportation Security Administration (Transportation)
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (Treasury)
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (Agriculture)
Office for Domestic Preparedness (Justice)
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
Strategic National Stockpile and the National Disaster Medical System (HHS)
Nuclear Incident Response Team (Energy)
Domestic Emergency Support Teams (Justice)
National Domestic Preparedness Office (FBI)
CBRN Countermeasures Programs (Energy)
Environmental Measurements Laboratory (Energy)
National BW Defense Analysis Center (Defense)
Plum Island Animal Disease Center (Agriculture)
Federal Computer Incident Response Center (GSA)
National Communications System (Defense)
National Infrastructure Protection Center (FBI)
Energy Security and Assurance Program (Energy)

W*GS · 08-31-2008, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spider

it is still spending our tax dollars on more Fed projects

"Government grew by 60% under bush"

is false.

Spider · 08-31-2008, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jhat01

Gov contracting? Is that what we're talking about?

Over all .......Basically I am talking spending , thats the main point of big government isnt it ? trying to spend money to fix all of the problems . you know tax and spend liberals etc ..........

Spider · 08-31-2008, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W*GS

"Government grew by 60% under bush"

is false.

I just admitted that dumb ass . it was 86%

W*GS · 08-31-2008, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spider

I just admitted that dumb ass . it was 86%

Well, no. Changing your statement:

"Government grew by 60% under bush"

to

"Government grew by 86% under bush"

is still wrong - even more so, actually.

Spider · 08-31-2008, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W*GS

Well, no. Changing your statement:

"Government grew by 60% under bush"

to

"Government grew by 86% under bush"

is still wrong - even more so, actually.

I didnt change **** J-O , I just admitted the 60% was wrong ,and that 86% was the real # but if you notice Iam not using the 115% number , I think that has more to do with iraq and Haliburton ......... so me where I changed .And no it isnt wrong , spending ballooned under Bush ......

L.A. BRONCOS FAN · 08-31-2008, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spider

I just admitted that dumb ass . it was 86%

And to think that these past eight years we've seldom heard W*GS the "libertarian" utter a word of protest about this particular Bush accomplishment.

I guess he was too busy living in the past and searching inside Clinton's zipper.

Spider · 08-31-2008, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

And to think that these past eight years we've seldom heard W*GS the "libertarian" utter a word of protest about this particular Bush accomplishment.

I guess he was too busy living in the past and searching inside Clinton's zipper.

yeah now W*GS is trying to spin his way out of this .....

defenseman · 08-31-2008, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spider

how so ? seriously back your bull**** up ........Government grew by 60% under bush , so now you tell us how Obama makes it bigger ......

I don't like Bush for it either, however, some expansion was needed, 9/11 was the justification for some of it...dman

defenseman · 08-31-2008, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jhat01

Homeland D is probably a big chunk.

Bingo...dman

Spider · 08-31-2008, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by defenseman

I don't like Bush for it either, however, some expansion was needed, 9/11 was the justification for some of it...dman

sure there was , I dont argue that , though I do argue that more of it had to be put in securing our boarders , ports etc ....I wouldnt have said a word if I had felt the expansion was used wisely . but the Patriot act , Home land security , Wire tapping , was the wrong approach

L.A. BRONCOS FAN · 08-31-2008, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by defenseman

I don't like Bush for it either, however, some expansion was needed, 9/11 was the justification for some of it...dman

That's debatable.

A case could be made that rather than expanding or creating a new government agency Bush should have reformed the existing intelligence and law enforcement apparatus.

W*GS · 08-31-2008, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spider

I didnt change **** J-O , I just admitted the 60% was wrong ,and that 86% was the real # but if you notice Iam not using the 115% number , I think that has more to do with iraq and Haliburton ......... so me where I changed .And no it isnt wrong , spending ballooned under Bush ......

Yes, spending ballooned. "Government grew by 60% under bush" isn't an accurate summary, however. It also doesn't matter if you pick 60, 80, or 115.

W*GS · 08-31-2008, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

That's debatable.

A case could be made that rather than expanding or creating a new government agency Bush should have reformed the existing intelligence and law enforcement apparatus.

Remember, Bush opposed the DHS, but caved and allowed this new bureaucratic monster.

08-31-2008, 12:34 AM	#1
Bob Ring of Famer Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 5,330	You want "change" -- try smaller The government's place is to stay small and attempt to work itself out of a job. It is to be comfortable in its limited role, so that it is not threatened by the power it might loose, as it never stole it to begin with. The people's job is to ensure that government does not think that we are passive enough to stand by while individual freedoms are erased in the name of what the flavor of the month government condescendingly feels is "best for us" -- we the ignorant weak who are "not allowed" to eat trans-fats because Big Brother is now picking up the tab. We, who are not allowed to have talk radio because they are threatened by real diversity. We, who are not allowed to say anything about our boarders being overrun – because “they" want slaves and/or votes. We, who are not allowed to hold on to our traditions, and history (which Michelle Obama so eloquently argues against) because again -- those traditions remind us how far we have drifted away from the Democratic Republic we should be, and the Marxist government we are incrementally becoming.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

08-31-2008, 05:10 AM	#2
defenseman Ring of Famer 2007 record pred. (7-9) Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 9,232	Well, growing a bigger government never helped, and that's exactly what obama wants to do...I'm dead set against him for this....dman

08-31-2008, 07:19 AM	#5
jhat01 Ring of Famer Knuckle Dragging Homer Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Langley, VA Posts: 1,799	Homeland D is probably a big chunk.

08-31-2008, 07:21 AM	#6
W*GS Ring of Famer Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Earth Posts: 19,503	DHS sucked into it a bunch of pre-existing agencies.

08-31-2008, 07:28 AM	#9
W*GS Ring of Famer Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Earth Posts: 19,503	"Procurement spending" is not the same thing as "government", Spider.