|
SeenItBefore
Grand Rapids, MI
|
to be announced wrote: <quoted text>Again this passed and was co sponsered by mostly democrats and passed the house and senate. Too bad if our political process is not good enough for you.
I admiit Hoekstra voted for it, It did not pass on his vote!
Talk about hyperbole! Geez
St stephen You also said Hoekstra voted for Barbies bridge, where is that proof. and as far as raising the debt limit, thats laughable. They have all done that Including Stabenow. That has been going on for decades. Didn't our credit rating get downgraded over that very topic, and doesn't that topic come up again real soon?.....so mute point on raising debt ceiling. They have to continue to raise it with this Joker. It doesn't matter that it didn't pass on Hoekstra's vote. This is about Hoekstra calling Stabinow Spenditall to gain emotional political leverage running against Stabinow. Looking at Hoekstras voting record he voted NAY on "big spending" only when it came to domestic beneficial programs. A BIG one on his voting NAY on HR 4154 - Estate Tax Law Amendments and Reinstatement of PAYGO, http://www.votesmart.org/bill/10636/28281/269... The point being Hoekstra is simply disingenuous in his attacking Stabinow as the big spender with asserting himself not being one. He just votes for the big spending that doesn't benefit the People of the United States...unless it's a corporation and/or the big money in this country.
|
|
SeenItBefore
Grand Rapids, MI
|
Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote: <quoted text>So you are for smaller govt and decreased spending....... If you are so in favor of small government and decreased spending, why are you so Republican bent? Under virtually EVERY Republican president for the past 40 years the U.S. government has grown size and government spending. That is also true of every Republican controlled Congress. Only Bill Clinton was able to reduce the size of government and leave office with a surplus. Of which George W. Bush used Miracle Grow on the government size and Raid on the surplus. Go ahead, deny it.
|
|
Batch 37 Pain Is Good
United States
|
SeenItBefore wrote: <quoted text>
If you are so in favor of small government and decreased spending, why are you so Republican bent? Under virtually EVERY Republican president for the past 40 years the U.S. government has grown size and government spending. That is also true of every Republican controlled Congress. Only Bill Clinton was able to reduce the size of government and leave office with a surplus. Of which George W. Bush used Miracle Grow on the government size and Raid on the surplus.
Go ahead, deny it. I happen to be an American Conservative Republican.......
|
|
SeenItBefore
Grand Rapids, MI
|
Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote: <quoted text>I happen to be an American Conservative Republican....... So again the question, why are you so in favor of the Republicans when it's them that has done everything you are so against?
|
|
Batch 37 Pain Is Good
United States
|
SeenItBefore wrote: <quoted text>
So again the question, why are you so in favor of the Republicans when it's them that has done everything you are so against? I am not for just any Republican, just the most Conservative one. When you look at the entire field, all you will see is Progressives........ I am going to look at the least Progressive one. If the Dems had a Conservative then I would look at that Candidate.......
|
|
Hypocrates
Hudsonville, MI
|
Go Blue wrote: <quoted text> Do you have a source?...i have been to China, and she had a definate western accent..... I've been to China myself and this gal was either Chinese or a very clever imposter. She may have been Scandinavian but had eye surgury and a breast reduction. As they say in China, Go Blue, you an ahh sooo!
|
|
to be announced
Grand Rapids, MI
|
SeenItBefore wrote: <quoted text> It doesn't matter that it didn't pass on Hoekstra's vote. This is about Hoekstra calling Stabinow Spenditall to gain emotional political leverage running against Stabinow. Looking at Hoekstras voting record he voted NAY on "big spending" only when it came to domestic beneficial programs. A BIG one on his voting NAY on HR 4154 - Estate Tax Law Amendments and Reinstatement of PAYGO, http://www.votesmart.org/bill/10636/28281/269... The point being Hoekstra is simply disingenuous in his attacking Stabinow as the big spender with asserting himself not being one. He just votes for the big spending that doesn't benefit the People of the United States...unless it's a corporation and/or the big money in this country. So you are saying all other political ads are genuine in their attacks?. Now thats funny too. Like paying for the new bridge, yep everyone who drives across it will pay for it, so technically the ad is correct. However if you never drive across it, it will not cost you a dime. You complaining about lack if honesty in a campaign add is hysterical. The fact that you only care That Hoekstra voted for hr1424 but completely dismiss the fact that it was passed by mainly Democrats. As a lefty Zombie you should be happy he followed your party lines. I could care Less about the spend it now spin. The actual message about our jobs going to China was spot on.
|
|
SeenItBefore
Grand Rapids, MI
|
to be announced wrote: <quoted text>So you are saying all other political ads are genuine in their attacks?. Now thats funny too.
Like paying for the new bridge, yep everyone who drives across it will pay for it, so technically the ad is correct. However if you never drive across it, it will not cost you a dime.
You complaining about lack if honesty in a campaign add is hysterical.
The fact that you only care That Hoekstra voted for hr1424 but completely dismiss the fact that it was passed by mainly Democrats.
As a lefty Zombie you should be happy he followed your party lines.
I could care Less about the spend it now spin. The actual message about our jobs going to China was spot on. So what you believe is the government in some way FORCED private companies to offshore the jobs. Am I getting that right?
|
|
|
“Ride On!!!”
Since: Feb 09
Dorr MI
|
Please wait...
Judged:
1
1
SeenItBefore wrote: <quoted text>
So what you believe is the government in some way FORCED private companies to offshore the jobs. Am I getting that right? I believe the word you were looking for is rewarded not forced, and they still are being rewarded.
|
|
to be announced
Grand Rapids, MI
|
SeenItBefore wrote: <quoted text>
So what you believe is the government in some way FORCED private companies to offshore the jobs. Am I getting that right? ever heard of nafta? Nobody forced anyone, just made it easy, and business moved to the profits. simple realy SIB. I have no idea how you got that from that?? Lets be totaly honest here, ever since Clinton signed Nafta this was inevitable (Pero warned us and he was right) and no side is going to fix this until Nafta is revoked. Or it cost more to get it done over seas. You can argue left, Right all you want but, that is the truth.
|
|
Go Blue
Lake Worth, FL
|
Living Large2 wrote: <quoted text>I believe the word you were looking for is rewarded not forced, and they still are being rewarded. ...Lower labor and production costs, plus higher shipping costs and profit margins......any more rewards, you can think of? I still say the, greed factor was a major imperative here......
|
|
to be announced
Grand Rapids, MI
|
Of course, Higher profits is all about greed. I think everyone knows that. If Higher profits could be Made in the US, they would still be here. Thanks for pointing out the obvious.
|
|
Tell me when this thread is updated:
(Registration is not required)
Add to my Tracker
Send me an email
|
Pisces