Republican version of small government

[The Overlord]

Behold the Republican version of "small government":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uac516cLoTE

 

[JLBats]

Did this need a thread of its own?

 

[lazur]

The national unemployment rate is at its lowest in three DECADES. Maybe you should start a thread on that? What am I thinking, Republicans don't do ANYTHING worth a damn .

 

[Mr Sparkle]

Lazur was lounging around on a lazy friday morning, when....suddenly someone somewhere said something bad about the current administration

"my republican sense is tingling!....to the hype!!!!"

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

hahaha

 

[jaguarr]

Lazur was lounging around on a lazy friday morning, when....suddenly someone somewhere said something bad about the current administration

"my republican sense is tingling!....to the hype!!!!"

LMAO! Post of the day!

jag

 

[cryptic name]

republicanism has lost its way. i find the idea of limited federal government to be wonderful. but the party doesn't seem to know what its name means.

 

[Spider-Bite]

the republican and the democrats are no different on the size of the government. they pick whatever size will help them with the rest of their party's goals.

If Big government helps you discriminate against people, then republicans like it.

If Big Government economic intervention like social programs to train workers, energy efficency helps the middle and lower class and hurts the rich, then republicans hate it.

so big helpful goverment is hated by the republicans, and big hurtful dangerous government is loved by them. plain and simple.

 

[Spider-Bite]

The national unemployment rate is at its lowest in three DECADES. Maybe you should start a thread on that? What am I thinking, Republicans don't do ANYTHING worth a damn .

It's the same as it was when Clinton was president. your supposed to keep the economy improving. it was already this good when Bush got it. He didn't make it that way. in fact for a while he ****ed us and ****ed us and ****ed us, and now temporarily borrowed some spending power for americans that we will have to pay back later after Bush is gone.

 

[Darthphere]

Lazur was lounging around on a lazy friday morning, when....suddenly someone somewhere said something bad about the current administration

"my republican sense is tingling!....to the hype!!!!"

Excellent.

 

[demento]

The national unemployment rate is at its lowest in three DECADES. Maybe you should start a thread on that? What am I thinking, Republicans don't do ANYTHING worth a damn .

Thank God for WAL-MART.

 

[lazur]

republicanism has lost its way. i find the idea of limited federal government to be wonderful. but the party doesn't seem to know what its name means.

I'm sorry, but who was the last Democrat in office to reduce the size of government again? Oh yeah, that didn't happen, either.

Quit trying to make the size of the government a fault of only one political party. They BOTH suck at it.

 

[lazur]

Lazur was lounging around on a lazy friday morning, when....suddenly someone somewhere said something bad about the current administration

"my republican sense is tingling!....to the hype!!!!"

I admit, I did LMAO at the post, but it's a little inaccurate. I didn't come here defending the "current administration". I came here defending "Republicans" in general.

 

[lazur]

It's the same as it was when Clinton was president. your supposed to keep the economy improving. it was already this good when Bush got it. He didn't make it that way. in fact for a while he ****ed us and ****ed us and ****ed us, and now temporarily borrowed some spending power for americans that we will have to pay back later after Bush is gone.

Sorry, three decades ago means back in the 70's, which means the unemployment rate is BETTER than when Clinton was Prez.

And my point in mentioning that is that when the unemployment rate was lower than it had been in like 10 years, it seemed like there were 10 threads on it. But now that it's better than it has been in 30 years, not a single thread on it. Just silence.

Just another illustration of how politically lop-sided this board is, is all. IMHO, of course .

 

[JLBats]

I'm sorry, but who was the last Democrat in office to reduce the size of government again? Oh yeah, that didn't happen, either.

Quit trying to make the size of the government a fault of only one political party. They BOTH suck at it.

I didn't see anything about Democrats in that post he made

 

[Future Prez]

Ever think, lazur, that the Republican's savior, GW actually made government bigger? If I am correct, it was he who created the Department of Homeland Security.

 

[lazur]

I didn't see anything about Democrats in that post he made

His reply was about how Republicans do not believe in limiting the size of government, which is also the main point of the thread.

My reply was to state that it's not a "republican" or "democrat" issue. It's a political issue and BOTH parties suck at limiting the size of government.

But nice try at being patronizing.

 

[lazur]

Ever think, lazur, that the Republican's savior, GW actually made government bigger? If I am correct, it was he who created the Department of Homeland Security.

So you're using the creation of the one department that people on both sides of the aisle think was NECESSARY for your argument against big government, and how Republicans are somehow single handedly repsonsible for making government bigger? You couldn't find any better examples than THAT?

Do we have a board for newbie political debaters? We need one.

And nowhere did I say that Bush has not made government bigger. I'm simply pointing out that ALL PRESIDENTS DO. It's not a partisan black/white issue, the way the original poster would like for people to believe anyway.

 

[JLBats]

His reply was about how Republicans do not believe in limiting the size of government, which is also the main point of the thread.

My reply was to state that it's not a "republican" or "democrat" issue. It's a political issue and BOTH parties suck at limiting the size of government.

But nice try at being patronizing.

Um, I think what he was saying was that Republicans are straying from the beliefs he LIKES them for, and he wasn't considering wider politics. He never said the Democrats were any better than the Republicans for it, and I would imagine he considers them inconsequential to how much he likes, or dislikes, the Republican's current record on the size of government.

And, Christ, lazur, if you thought THAT was an attempt to patronize you, I feel sorry for you. Have you become so accustomed to people on here attacking you that you see everything as an attempt at an insult? It was just a simple comment.

 

[maxwell's demon]

His reply was about how Republicans do not believe in limiting the size of government, which is also the main point of the thread.

My reply was to state that it's not a "republican" or "democrat" issue. It's a political issue and BOTH parties suck at limiting the size of government.

But nice try at being patronizing.

i dont think he was being patronizing. i think you were being presumptious, though.

you were laying a claim on both parties when only one has ever claimed it as something they excel at.
so yes, it is a republican party issue. and no, its not a democratic party issue.

If you want smaller government, then yes, you can claim the democrats suck at that. but that's your problem, not theirs.

don't be blinded by your own bias.

 

[The Overlord]

I'm sorry, but who was the last Democrat in office to reduce the size of government again? Oh yeah, that didn't happen, either.

Quit trying to make the size of the government a fault of only one political party. They BOTH suck at it.

But the thing is the GOP talk far more about reducing the size of government than the Dems do and they go around and increase the size of government. So the Republicans claim to be the party of small government, but isn't that claim false? Do the Democrats claim to be a small government party as much as the Republicans do?

 

[hippie_hunter]

Ever think, lazur, that the Republican's savior, GW actually made government bigger? If I am correct, it was he who created the Department of Homeland Security.

George Bush has betrayed the ideals of the Republican Party. The sad fact is that most blindly followed him

 

[Franklin Richards]

You do know that they measure the Unemployment rate by the number of people who claim it. They do not take into account the number of people out of a job.

 

[Hooligan32]

The national unemployment rate is at its lowest in three DECADES. Maybe you should start a thread on that? What am I thinking, Republicans don't do ANYTHING worth a damn .

Lol. That's easy to accomplish when you redefine "employment". Hey guess what? There are more acres of "wetlands" now too since bush decided that golf course water holes should be considered wetlands, what an enviromentalist.

 

[cryptic name]

I'm sorry, but who was the last Democrat in office to reduce the size of government again? Oh yeah, that didn't happen, either.

Quit trying to make the size of the government a fault of only one political party. They BOTH suck at it.

...did you even read my post? i was in no way, shape or form praising the democratic party. all i said was the republican party doesn't represent what it's name suggests. i don't believe in either party and i don't defend or praise either of them.

I didn't see anything about Democrats in that post he made

thank you.