Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
RyanH
New member
Too easy Warik. When Gephardt was speaker this country was running huge deficits. He had little choice. Further, there weren't pledges made at the time not to "touch social security."
Bush has taken a surplus that President Clinton has left us with, and squandered it by giving money away to the wealthy. Also, Bush promised not to touch social security.
These are huge distinctions between Speaker Gephardt's behavior and President Bush's.
Also, the source complaining about Speaker Gephardt, Dick Armey of Texas, is a radical discriminating Republican, with nothing ever good to say about anyone. see his prior references to Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts as a "fag." Thus, another source would be appropriate.
Bush has taken a surplus that President Clinton has left us with, and squandered it by giving money away to the wealthy. Also, Bush promised not to touch social security.
These are huge distinctions between Speaker Gephardt's behavior and President Bush's.
Also, the source complaining about Speaker Gephardt, Dick Armey of Texas, is a radical discriminating Republican, with nothing ever good to say about anyone. see his prior references to Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts as a "fag." Thus, another source would be appropriate.
W
Warik
Guest
RyanH said:
So, in other words, it is OK for a Democrat to touch Social Security, but it is not OK for a Republican to do so?
Understood.
RyanH said:
A surplus that Clinton left us? Tell me something, Ryan, if you owe me $100, but I reach into your wallet and take $200 or $300 instead, does that mean that I have a surplus of the money you owe me?
No, that means I'm a fucking thief.
We were given tax relief, but some money must be taken out of the faulty Social Security system in order to fund the government's absurd spending each year. Is $9 billion REALLY much more significant than over $200 billion for which Gephardt was partly responsible?
Of course, because Dubya is not a Democrat.
RyanH said:
... and Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are guilty of racism against white folks, does that make any of their arguments any less valid? (No... the fact that their arguments are absurd are what make them invalid).
Aren't you all about eliminating the prejudice in the world? That's a fine example you are showing by pre-judging Dick Armey on the basis of his alleged "radical discrimination" and stating that he must be incorrect in this accusation.
As for calling Barney Frank a "fag" - does that comment upset you because it's true? Would you be less offended if he said "homosexual" instead? Wait... we can't say "homosexual" anymore either because rumor has it that you can't call people "homosexuals" in England anymore because it "makes them sound like criminals."
Humanity is so amusing. Without you guys around, I don't think I'd have a reason to live.
-Warik
satanic goatslayer
New member
satanic goatslayer
New member
Sorry Warik, but I had to add an element of fun for the folks during this debate. Continue, please.
smallmovesal
New member
i want to marry sg 
nycdefender
New member
Warik, I think Ryan's point about touching the Social Security surplus is that both presidential candidates promised to not touch the Social Security surplus. George W promised not to touch the SS surplus "under any circumstances." But now, he cannot pay for his tax rebate, missle defense, and drug prescription programs without touching the surplus. So the SS surplus is going to be hit for much more than $9 billion. I think the NY Times, today, reported that it would be along the lines of $200 billion.
I don't know if I'd agree with you about Jesse Jackson making racist comments, but I do agree about Al Sharpton. Sorry, Ryan, but Sharpton is an ass! Live in NYC and you'll likely agree. Sharpton's heart is in the right place and he does do some good civil rights work, but he has some huge problems.
The word "fag" is on par with other epithets such as "nigger" and "spic." So "fag" is more offensive than "homosexual." But should an elected official attack another elected official based upon his sexual orientation? I doubt it.
I don't know if I'd agree with you about Jesse Jackson making racist comments, but I do agree about Al Sharpton. Sorry, Ryan, but Sharpton is an ass! Live in NYC and you'll likely agree. Sharpton's heart is in the right place and he does do some good civil rights work, but he has some huge problems.
The word "fag" is on par with other epithets such as "nigger" and "spic." So "fag" is more offensive than "homosexual." But should an elected official attack another elected official based upon his sexual orientation? I doubt it.
satanic goatslayer
New member
I get, on average, three marriage proposals a day, normally at gunpoint.
absolute hardgainer
New member
Now, newsmax.com is probably one of the most biased news websites around, but still I thought their pice on Dick Gephardt and spending the social security surplus was abpt as exciting as watching paint dry...
How about that story about Bill Clinton buying two skimpy bikinis?!?? I mean there we have a news story!!!
I reckon Bill Clinton didn't buy those for Chelsea (unless he has a new mistress with the same name as his daughter) I reckon he either A) bought them for his new GF, or B) is too embarrased to admit that HE is now wearing bikinis.
hardgainer (there you have it)
How about that story about Bill Clinton buying two skimpy bikinis?!?? I mean there we have a news story!!!
I reckon Bill Clinton didn't buy those for Chelsea (unless he has a new mistress with the same name as his daughter) I reckon he either A) bought them for his new GF, or B) is too embarrased to admit that HE is now wearing bikinis.
hardgainer (there you have it)
D
dballer
Guest
Barney Frank of Massachusetts is a "fag"... right?
