Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Conservative or LiberalFollow

#1 May 14 2004 at 12:51 PM Rating: Decent
*
57 posts
i was just wondering who on the forums are conservative or liberal....


well more so i wanna see a huge argument come up
#2 May 14 2004 at 2:55 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
The two terms are a bit too broad IMO. Someone can be Conservative on some issues and Liberal on others.

If you want to stir up a debate, just pick a topic that's going to polarize the two sides, and see who argue's which side...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#3 May 14 2004 at 3:18 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,826 posts
Well,

I think Elvaan would be the most conservative, with there silly family values and glorious kingdom hopes.

I'm just playing around, but I found it funny.
#4 May 14 2004 at 3:26 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,426 posts
Gabji can't take a stand on absolutely anything at all, so he's certainly not going to ever classify himself in any way. You'd be lucky to get him to admit to being human.

I'm a liberal.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#5 May 14 2004 at 3:28 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm a communist.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#6 May 14 2004 at 3:51 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,122 posts
think I would probably rank as a communist too.
____________________________
Hamiltion FV server
Grolsh Xev server
Xaas FV server
Shylyne the Rathe server
Larks FV server
#7 May 14 2004 at 3:52 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Hail, Comrade Flishtaco!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#8 May 14 2004 at 3:52 PM Rating: Good
***
3,458 posts
Conservative.
#9 May 14 2004 at 4:01 PM Rating: Decent
****
5,310 posts
I used to think I was a liberal and progressive, but Smash's stands on issues make me look like Strom Thurmond sometimes!
____________________________
"God created man from a handful of dust, and he created woman from that man's rib. And these two together were so stupid that they weren't on the planet five minutes when they managed to get a curse put on all future generations. Nice work." Pat Condell
#10 May 14 2004 at 4:04 PM Rating: Decent
*
193 posts
Moderately liberal on most issues.
#11 May 14 2004 at 4:31 PM Rating: Good
****
8,747 posts
Socialist.
#12 May 14 2004 at 5:36 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,453 posts
Mostly liberal.
#13 May 14 2004 at 5:46 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Gabji can't take a stand on absolutely anything at all, so he's certainly not going to ever classify himself in any way. You'd be lucky to get him to admit to being human.


No. I just don't define myself by a broad definition. I certainly don't just toe a single party line.

Let's see:

I'm against religious instruction in schools
I'm pro choice
I'm pro-"right to bear arms"
I'm pro-legalization
I'm against big government and entitlement
I'm for supply side economic plans


The closest broad definition I can come up with is that I'm fiscally Conservative, and socially Liberal.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#14 May 14 2004 at 5:55 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,426 posts
Yes, of course. You are a special uniqe snowflake who will only ever vote presicely the way a conservative would. That's just cooincidence though.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#15 May 14 2004 at 5:57 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Yes, of course. You are a special uniqe snowflake who will only ever vote presicely the way a conservative would. That's just cooincidence though.


Nope. I voted against Simon in the last two California governor elections because he's a religious nutball...

I vote based on how well I think a candidate matches what *I* believe on various issues. Not based on what his party is. I've voted for Democrats on several occasions.

How many Republicans have you ever voted for Smash?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#16 May 14 2004 at 6:25 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,426 posts
I've never voted for a Republican. I'm not that much of a moron to think voting for the individual cnadidate instead of the party is ever a good idea. Lots of people are that stupid, however.

You are case in point. I assume you'll be voting for Kerry then, since Bush is clearly against the vast majority of what you claim to believe in and Kerry is for just about all of it.

Right?

I mean let's check the list:


I'm against religious instruction in schools

Kerry's with you, Bush's against you.

I'm pro choice

Kerry's with you, Bush's against you.

I'm pro-"right to bear arms"

Both candidates positions align with yours.

I'm pro-legalization

Neither candidates positions align with yours, but Kerry's is closer.

I'm against big government and entitlement

Clearly Bush is not your man. He's done more to create new entitlements and gaurantee old ones than any president since FDR.

I'm for supply side economic plans

You don't even know what that means, so it's meaningless to try to vote for someone who belives in the same thing. Both andidates are about the same economic plan wise with the exception of Kerry wanting to roll back some of the more ludicrous parts of the Bush tax cuts to pay for the War.



Edited, Fri May 14 19:28:48 2004 by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#17 May 14 2004 at 7:36 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
Um... not really.

Smasharoo wrote:
I'm against religious instruction in schools

Kerry's with you, Bush's against you.


Really? When did Bush say he wanted to start putting Prayer in public schools?

As much as the left will try to argue this point, when Bush says he wants funding for "religious based instruction", he's talking about school vouchers that can be used to allow students to go to private schools (even ones that are religious). That's a whole different ball of wax, and an initiative I agree with.


Quote:
I'm pro choice

Kerry's with you, Bush's against you.


Really? Where do you get that other then your automatic assumption that Republican==ReligiousRight?

I haven't heard of Bush talking about repealing Roe v Wade at all.

You're trying to push your method of picking candidates onto me. You assume that everyone in a party is all the same, so you vote according to the party line. I don't make that assumption. Just because you can't comprehend the difference doesn't mean that it's not there...

Quote:
I'm pro-"right to bear arms"

Both candidates positions align with yours.


Sure. You still have given me no reason to vote for Kerry instead of Bush here.

Quote:
I'm pro-legalization

Neither candidates positions align with yours, but Kerry's is closer.


Heh. Didn't Bush admit to smoking pot? At least he didn't try some BS about not inhaling...

Again. You can't just assume a position based on the party. If Kerry makes legalizing marijuana and other prohibited drugs a plank in his platform, then I might even vote for him. But until he does, this gives me no reason to switch.


Quote:
I'm against big government and entitlement

Clearly Bush is not your man. He's done more to create new entitlements and gaurantee old ones than any president since FDR.


Yeah. Right. How is it the left can't even be consistent with its own arguments?

How can you possibly justify constantly arguing that Bush is about reducing benefits to the poor, and giving tax breaks to the rich, and that his economic plans "only benefit you if you make over 200k a year", and now you are saying he's done more to create entitlements then any president since FDR?

Why don't you vote for Bush then Smash? Seems like he's right up your alley...

Can you at least keep your arguments consitent? He can't be both at the same time Smash? He's either better for the poor, or for the rich. Pick one reason to slam him. You lose total credibility when you pull something this dumb.

EDIT: Why on earth can we only make 5 quotes in a post? Someone fix this...

Quote by Smash
I'm for supply side economic plans

You don't even know what that means, so it's meaningless to try to vote for someone who belives in the same thing.
------------------------------

Ah. Which nicely explains the several dozen times I've argued economics with you and *you* have pointed to my argument, called it "Supply Side Economics", declared that it doesn't work, and then gone on with your argument.

If I don't know what it is, how is it that you label my economic position as Supply Side Smash? Your own words contradict eachother. This is just pathetic, even for you...


Quote by Smash
Both andidates are about the same economic plan wise with the exception of Kerry wanting to roll back some of the more ludicrous parts of the Bush tax cuts to pay for the War.
------------------------------

Whatever. We've discussed the differences between Republican economic plans and Democrat economic plans. They are different. The total approach is different. You know it. I know it. That's the main reason I will tend to vote Republican unless there's an overwhelming reason not to (especially at the federal level).

If Kerry's plan is so similar to Bush's, then why are you constantly saying Bush botched up the US economy? Again. You can't have it both ways. Either Bush is doing things very differently from Kerry, in which case I'm justified in choosing to vote for Bush based on those differences, or their economic plans are very similar, in which case you have no justification to slam Bush on the economy.

Pick one Smash. I just ask for consistency here...

Edited, Fri May 14 20:44:26 2004 by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#18 May 14 2004 at 8:19 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,426 posts
Quote:
Um... not really.


Really.


Really? When did Bush say he wanted to start putting Prayer in public schools?

As much as the left will try to argue this point, when Bush says he wants funding for "religious based instruction", he's talking about school vouchers that can be used to allow students to go to private schools (even ones that are religious). That's a whole different ball of wax, and an initiative I agree with.



Oh I don't know probably when he filed a breid in texas saying it was a great and legal idea:

And Texas Governor George W. Bush, who is seeking the Republican presidential nomination, has filed a brief supporting student-led prayer.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june00/prayerdecision.html


Really? Where do you get that other then your automatic assumption that Republican==ReligiousRight?

I haven't heard of Bush talking about repealing Roe v Wade at all.

You're trying to push your method of picking candidates onto me. You assume that everyone in a party is all the same, so you vote according to the party line. I don't make that assumption. Just because you can't comprehend the difference doesn't mean that it's not there...


Are you out of your mind?

I don't know who you're trying to convince, but if you think Bush's position on R v Wade isn't crystal clear you're a fool.

http://www.nationalreview.com/document/document012202.shtml

Consistent with the core principles about which Thomas Jefferson wrote, and to which the Founders subscribed, we should peacefully commit ourselves to seeking a society that values life — from its very beginnings to its natural end. Unborn children should be welcomed in life and protected in law.



Sure. You still have given me no reason to vote for Kerry instead of Bush here.

I gave you two.


Heh. Didn't Bush admit to smoking pot? At least he didn't try some BS about not inhaling...

Again. You can't just assume a position based on the party. If Kerry makes legalizing marijuana and other prohibited drugs a plank in his platform, then I might even vote for him. But until he does, this gives me no reason to switch.

No, Bush didn't. Kerry did. CLINTON, by the way, isn't running for president in '04. You can't vote for or against him.

Bush gave a ******** "It's a destructive question" answer. He also advocates Christ as a way for addicts to recover. Here's his drug policy:

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/search/index.html



Yeah. Right. How is it the left can't even be consistent with its own arguments?

How can you possibly justify constantly arguing that Bush is about reducing benefits to the poor, and giving tax breaks to the rich, and that his economic plans "only benefit you if you make over 200k a year", and now you are saying he's done more to create entitlements then any president since FDR?

Because his entitlements benefit DRUG COMPANIES as opposed to PEOPLE. That's a fairly large distinction in my mind.



Why don't you vote for Bush then Smash? Seems like he's right up your alley...

Can you at least keep your arguments consitent? He can't be both at the same time Smash? He's either better for the poor, or for the rich. Pick one reason to slam him. You lose total credibility when you pull something this dumb.

I'm being completely consistent. I'm also not the one who said I vote for the candidate who represents what I belive in. I'm the one who said I vote for the PARTY who represents what I beleive in. So, even if Bush suddently beame Karl Marx, i wouldn't vote for him.

I'm not the one attempting to take the ******** "independent" stance here, you are.



Ah. Which nicely explains the several dozen times I've argued economics with you and *you* have pointed to my argument, called it "Supply Side Economics", declared that it doesn't work, and then gone on with your argument.

If I don't know what it is, how is it that you label my economic position as Supply Side Smash? Your own words contradict eachother. This is just pathetic, even for you...

Because you aruge that Regean ran a great economy. I then say supply side economics was a failure, because Regan practiced them. You then get all confused and tell me that the TVA was supply side economics in practice or FDR was a supply side hero or whatever and I have to stop posting and laugh my *** off.

Refering to a concept doens't mean you understand it. Stephen Hawking studies quantum mechanics, I can say that without a deep understainding of quantum medchanics.



Whatever. We've discussed the differences between Republican economic plans and Democrat economic plans. They are different. The total approach is different. You know it. I know it. That's the main reason I will tend to vote Republican unless there's an overwhelming reason not to (especially at the federal level).

So you're voting for the party then and not the man?

Game, set, match me. Thank you very much for playing.


If Kerry's plan is so similar to Bush's, then why are you constantly saying Bush botched up the US economy? Again. You can't have it both ways. Either Bush is doing things very differently from Kerry, in which case I'm justified in choosing to vote for Bush based on those differences, or their economic plans are very similar, in which case you have no justification to slam Bush on the economy.

Pick one Smash. I just ask for consistency here...

The diffrence is the tax cuts. I pointed that out. That's the main problem I have with the Bush economy. Too much spending and not enough money coming in. It's a simple problem with a simple solution. Kerry's plan offers that solution.

If you're fiscally conservative you should be outraged at Bush's performance so far. Every other fiscal conservative in YOUR PARTY is...
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#19 May 27 2004 at 9:22 AM Rating: Decent
27 posts
I am radically liberal.

*Against Confuscian beliefs
*Against uniforms in schools
*Against allowing adults to boss children around
*Against letting the Invisible Hand do everything about economy
*Against United States of course!
____________________________
Nai hiruvalye Valimar. Anar caluva tieryanna!
-Helcahisie Romennore the foe of all the rulers
#20 May 27 2004 at 9:42 AM Rating: Good
*****
10,245 posts
HelcahisieRomen wrote:
I am radically liberal.
*Against United States of course!
Posting from Korea

And we'd be more than happy to leave your little hole of a country so that your peace loving friends in the north could show you how neighborly they can be. Enjoy that.

Of course, that will never happen. So for now, quit talking. It messes up the hummer your country is giving us for that big fat welfare check.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#21 May 27 2004 at 2:48 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
If you're fiscally conservative you should be outraged at Bush's performance so far. Every other fiscal conservative in YOUR PARTY is...


HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

How big is that paintbrush you have there Smashypoo?
#22 May 27 2004 at 5:42 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
184 posts
I dont like either candidate all that much, but Bush is by far the bigger evil. His cabinet and friends care only if it fills their pockets. What a coincidence that Haliburton gets the LARGEST GOVT. CONTRACT EVER for operations in Iraq. Plus, Bush is a nutball...most of the world hated us before, and I guess Bush's foriegn policy was to go ahead and get everyone else to as well except his F**k buddy Blair. Then the whole NAFTA thing is a total blow in the face of american workers. Its strange, bc I am a christian (never said I was a perfect one!) yet I see more in the ways of the Bible's teaching's in Kerry and the Democrats than in Bush. Im sorry to bring religion into all this, but I think it is an issue to be discussed bc like it or not this country was founded upon religious ideals. Bush is about the only person who has EVER sincerely made me wish I was NOT an american. In the words of that good old band from San Francisco, "Sad, but true."

(I really cant wait for M. Moore's Farenheit 9/11....though not a huge fan of Michael Moore on most issues, I almost totally agree with him on his opinions on Bush)

However, I am not saying that the right is dumb. Only Bush. He is a liar, a croney (sp) and quite frankly one of the worst Presidents imo...but we have to realize that society needs the right as much as the left. We need a balance. If the country was run by only the left we would be in as much **** as we are in now...so I am definitely a huge fan of how things work in america (for the most part) in respects to how our govt is constructed (thank you good old framers^^) bc it is HARD for things to get done and requires huge effort to effectively change things...this protects the country from brief popular ideal swings in the public. What the **** am I still talking about???? DOWN WITH BUSH!!!

P.S. Politics is nothing but compromises within a set structure of rules that we all agree to live under. So whether it are right, left, socialist, communist, whatever....you are entitled to your opinion and bc our country is set-up the way it is, I respect you for it and know that without yours, I could never have mine^^
____________________________
"When a drug comes in from Canada, I wanna make sure it cures ya, not kill ya... I've got an obligation to make sure our government does everything we can to protect you. And one — my worry is that it looks like it's from Canada, and it might be from a third world."
—George W. Bush, second presidential debate, St. Louis, Mo., Oct. 8, 2004
#23 May 27 2004 at 5:48 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,426 posts
Quote:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

How big is that paintbrush you have there Smashypoo?

It's a shame when the facts support my arguments isn't it? You should perhaps consider doing some research before assuming that Republican's are automatically more fiscally conservative than Democrats.

This president has spent more than any President in history, and has generated the largest national debt. Stunning, considering he started with a surplus.

But, don't let that sway your convincing factless argument.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#24 May 27 2004 at 6:05 PM Rating: Good
Sacrificial Lamb
*****
16,110 posts
I vote Mary Carey straight ticket. I guess that makes me the Heterosexual for **** Party.

Totem
____________________________
Born-on date: 2076

Zombo.com

Obama

Winner of Last(tm) VIII!

Winner of the 2008 Allakhazam March Madness tourny

"Totem is the personification of whiskey soaked evil" --Annabelle

"You're special, pumpkin, but not speshuler than the 'Bama Black Snake" --AtomicFlea
#25 May 27 2004 at 6:11 PM Rating: Decent
9 posts
so i am at the 7/11 getting a pop and this chick walks up to me and flashes her ******** We start doing it right there on the floor. The ****** behind the counter says stop, so I hit him in the nose. I'm outside and well at him this is so ***.

Smasharoo is ***.
#26 May 27 2004 at 6:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Sacrificial Lamb
*****
16,110 posts
"...getting a pop..."?!? What are you, some kind of Michigander or something goofy like that? Dork.

Totem
____________________________
Born-on date: 2076

Zombo.com

Obama

Winner of Last(tm) VIII!

Winner of the 2008 Allakhazam March Madness tourny

"Totem is the personification of whiskey soaked evil" --Annabelle

"You're special, pumpkin, but not speshuler than the 'Bama Black Snake" --AtomicFlea
#27 May 27 2004 at 7:39 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
184 posts
Hey!!! whats wrong with "pop"...
____________________________
"When a drug comes in from Canada, I wanna make sure it cures ya, not kill ya... I've got an obligation to make sure our government does everything we can to protect you. And one — my worry is that it looks like it's from Canada, and it might be from a third world."
—George W. Bush, second presidential debate, St. Louis, Mo., Oct. 8, 2004
#28 May 27 2004 at 8:04 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,426 posts
Quote:

Smasharoo is ***

While I'm flattered that you chose to name your cigar store indian's fist after me, I'm sorry to say that unlike that happy inert chunk of wood that you grease up daily before lowering yourself from the ceiling using a block and tackle onto it screaming "yea, Smasharoo!!! Harder!!!" I am not ***.

Please, call someone before you do something foolish upon hearing this news. I'd hate to be responsible for the suicide of a young confused special needs student.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#29 May 27 2004 at 8:28 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
If you're fiscally conservative

Fact: I consider myself a fiscal conservative.


Quote:
you should be outraged at Bush's performance so far.

Fact: I am NOT outraged at Bush's performance so far.


Quote:
Every other fiscal conservative in YOUR PARTY is...

Not to put words in Gbahi's mouth but he doesn't seem outraged at Bush's performance. Since (I'm assuming) he isn't, and I'm not....then the above quote is by logical definition a crock of sh*t.

Take a logic and critical thinking class, you'll see the flaw in your logic....Smashypoo.
#30 May 27 2004 at 8:28 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
This president has spent more than any President in history, and has generated the largest national debt. Stunning, considering he started with a surplus.

But, don't let that sway your convincing factless argument.


Ok dummy. Every president has "spent more then any President in history". Every single year's budget as far back as the online CBO figures go has been larger then the previous year's. That is the most completely meaningless statement you can possibly make.

"generated the largest national debt" is also misleading. It's a cumulative figure Smash. Since the "national debt" is the accumulation of every penny that every administration has every borrowed, even if he'd only added 1 dollar to that figure, your statement would be true. It's not as totally meaningless as the first one, but close.

A better statement would be that he generated a larger deficit then any other president. Which isn't true, doubly so if you use adjusted dollars (which you should) and tripply so if you relate deficit to GNP. But complex economic concepts like addition, subtraction and division are too confusing for you I guess...

Finally, I'm almost positive that a "surplus" doesn't carry over from year to year (I'd have to reload the numbers and look, but I don't remember seeing that when I looked last time). So Bush did not "start with a surplus". His deficit numbers are a direct comparion between the amount he taxed, and the amount he spent (there's that complex subtraction thing for ya!). Also, most of the deficit he did generate came as a result of huge tax cuts, not huge increases in spending (although he did increase spending, as every president has).

Clinton ran record high tax rates. Bush has run record *low* tax rates. That "surplus" that Clinton had was *our* money that he overtaxed in the first place. The "deficit" that Bush is runing is *our* money as well. If he taxes 600B less in 2003, and runs a 600B deficit, it's we who have 600B more dollars in our economy to generate jobs and new products as a result. Yes, we have to pay it back at some point, but borrowing money to invest in the economy when we're in a recession and interest rates are low is a pretty solid economic move.

I tend to agree that the deficit spending is a bit higher then it should be, but it's not the disaster you make it out to be.


One more thing. You can't just redefine the term entitlement to suit your needs on the fly. Take a freaking econ course, just once in your life! Entitlement is spending that goes into the consumption part of the equation. So when you give money to people so they can buy stuff (typically wellfare and assistance type programs), you are spending money on entitlement. Contracts to businessess goes in the investment side part of the equation. So giving money to a company so they can design a new widget is *not* entitlement spending. Arguing that they are the same thing is not only wrong, but shows you lack even the most vague understanding of economics.

I am fiscally conservative because I understand the difference between those two types of spending and how they effect the health of an economy down the line. I understand that entitlement spending increases the size of each individual's slice of the pie today. I also understand that investment spending increases the total size of the pie tomorrow. If you don't understand that fundamental difference, then I can understand how you might think that Republican economic plans are "bad". But that's your lack of understanding, not mine. It never ceases to amaze me that someone so blatantly ignorant of some of the most basic economic concepts will continue to argue the issue so vehemently. Maybe you seem really impressive to other ignorant people, but to me, you're like the backwood hick trying to discuss ballet. You just reinforce your ignorance everytime you argue this topic. Like I said: Amazing.

Edited, Thu May 27 21:33:11 2004 by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#31 May 27 2004 at 9:32 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,426 posts
Where to begin?

A better statement would be that he generated a larger deficit then any other president. Which isn't true, doubly so if you use adjusted dollars (which you should) and tripply so if you relate deficit to GNP. But complex economic concepts like addition, subtraction and division are too confusing for you I guess...

False. It is true. It would require possibly 15 or 16 seconds of research to discern that the 2003 defecit of over $375B is the highest in the hisrtory of the US. Higest ever.

Related to GDP it's not quite as bad as Regan's, but pretty close.



Finally, I'm almost positive that a "surplus" doesn't carry over from year to year (I'd have to reload the numbers and look, but I don't remember seeing that when I looked last time). So Bush did not "start with a surplus".


Of course it carries over. Even you can't possibly be that slow.

Your lack of understanding of the simplest concepts continues to amaze even after having years of experience witnessing it.


His deficit numbers are a direct comparion between the amount he taxed, and the amount he spent (there's that complex subtraction thing for ya!). Also, most of the deficit he did generate came as a result of huge tax cuts, not huge increases in spending (although he did increase spending, as every president has).

I'm struggling to see the relevance of how the defecit can be devided into portions magically somehow and part of it attributed to tax cuts and not spending. If you spend more than you bring in it generates a defecit. The methodlogy whereby you arrive at spending more than you bring isn't terribly relevant.



Clinton ran record high tax rates.

As ussual, wrong.

Ludicrously wrong. A child would realize that back when the marginal tax rate on income over $1m was 95 percent would make it rather difficult for Clinton to run record tax rates without making it 100 percent. The maginal tax rates for all income levels has been much, much higher at verious points in proir history than it was under Clinton, who CUT taxes.

Fool.



Bush has run record *low* tax rates. That "surplus" that Clinton had was *our* money that he overtaxed in the first place. The "deficit" that Bush is runing is *our* money as well. If he taxes 600B less in 2003, and runs a 600B deficit, it's we who have 600B more dollars in our economy to generate jobs and new products as a result. Yes, we have to pay it back at some point, but borrowing money to invest in the economy when we're in a recession and interest rates are low is a pretty solid economic move.

Again, false, on many counts. Firstly cutting taxes *without cutting spending* has never been shown to have any *long term* impact on the economy. At all. Ever.

Bush's spending, by the way ADJUSTED FOR GDP is two percent higher than the spending in 2000. Spending for '03 was ~20 percent of GDP and is projected to be the same or higher by the end of '04. As a percentage of GDP it generaly hovers around 20 percent, although when Republicans are in office it's consistently HIGHER.


I tend to agree that the deficit spending is a bit higher then it should be, but it's not the disaster you make it out to be.

Of course it is. You don't even understand the issue in question, you're the last person who could possibly judge the severity of it.


One more thing. You can't just redefine the term entitlement to suit your needs on the fly. Take a freaking econ course, just once in your life! Entitlement is spending that goes into the consumption part of the equation. So when you give money to people so they can buy stuff (typically wellfare and assistance type programs), you are spending money on entitlement. Contracts to businessess goes in the investment side part of the equation. So giving money to a company so they can design a new widget is *not* entitlement spending. Arguing that they are the same thing is not only wrong, but shows you lack even the most vague understanding of economics.


I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about at all. Pull my quote about entitlements that you have this imaginary issue with please.


I am fiscally conservative because I understand the difference between those two types of spending and how they effect the health of an economy down the line. I understand that entitlement spending increases the size of each individual's slice of the pie today. I also understand that investment spending increases the total size of the pie tomorrow. If you don't understand that fundamental difference, then I can understand how you might think that Republican economic plans are "bad".

I think Republican economic plans are "bad" because NEVER, NOT ONCE IN THE COURSE OF HISTORY, have they proven to be effective.

How silly of me.


But that's your lack of understanding, not mine.

Oh, indeed. I'm so terribly confused.



It never ceases to amaze me that someone so blatantly ignorant of some of the most basic economic concepts will continue to argue the issue so vehemently.

I couldn't agree more.



Maybe you seem really impressive to other ignorant people, but to me, you're like the backwood hick trying to discuss ballet. You just reinforce your ignorance everytime you argue this topic. Like I said: Amazing.


Nothings funnier then when you're self righetous and yet so easily and catagorically proven FACTUALLY DEAD WRONG

There goes another ten minutes of my life wasted futilely attempting to educate you to at least LOOK AT THE DATA before splooging ludicrous propaganda all over the place.

Here's a link with some simple easy to click on links to the actual data that proves, as ussual, are ******* in the wind.

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/deficit.html#deficit
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#32 May 27 2004 at 9:56 PM Rating: Good
Sacrificial Lamb
*****
16,110 posts
Soooo, what you're teling us is that you're not ***? Huh.

Totem
____________________________
Born-on date: 2076

Zombo.com

Obama

Winner of Last(tm) VIII!

Winner of the 2008 Allakhazam March Madness tourny

"Totem is the personification of whiskey soaked evil" --Annabelle

"You're special, pumpkin, but not speshuler than the 'Bama Black Snake" --AtomicFlea
#33 May 27 2004 at 10:24 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,122 posts
I think he is bisexual though or at least curious

I am a liberal

Edit cause I forgot to say my political leaning type thing

Edited, Thu May 27 23:34:28 2004 by flishtaco
____________________________
Hamiltion FV server
Grolsh Xev server
Xaas FV server
Shylyne the Rathe server
Larks FV server
#34 May 27 2004 at 10:33 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,426 posts
Quote:

Not to put words in Gbahi's mouth but he doesn't seem outraged at Bush's performance. Since (I'm assuming) he isn't, and I'm not....then the above quote is by logical definition a crock of sh*t.

Take a logic and critical thinking class, you'll see the flaw in your logic....Smashypoo.

Which one of you two is in the Republican party again?

Oops, I win again.

You poor thing. So overmatched.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#35 May 28 2004 at 6:34 AM Rating: Decent
**
684 posts
As much as I hate to admit it gbaji, smash is correct.

Goverment argued like **** about what to do with federal surplus as Bush was taking office.

Democrats wanting to invest in Welfare and Social security programs, Republicans wanted to give tax cuts.

So, the refund checks 32% of Americans got essentially wiped out the federal surplus. Then, add on an Iraqi War and we quickly leaped into the red, technically accumulating the largest federal deficit in history.

Of course, the numbers in the link provided by smash don't seem to be adjusted for inflation, though they do quote GNP percentages.


As we all know, smash is such a staunch democratic supporter I'm sure he mailed his refund check right back to the feds, demanding it be replaced in federal coffers.

____________________________
Noe - 55 Druid
Dustmite - 50 Mage
Orcen - 50 Warlock
Jonus - 39 Priest
All Retired


-----
Shop Smart. Shop S-Mart.

#36 May 28 2004 at 6:48 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,426 posts
Quote:

As we all know, smash is such a staunch democratic supporter I'm sure he mailed his refund check right back to the feds, demanding it be replaced in federal coffers.

I put it towards my $2,000 donation to Kerry.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#37 May 28 2004 at 8:09 AM Rating: Excellent
***
3,471 posts
Quote:
I put it towards my $2,000 donation to Kerry.


You really should give up gambling Smashie, you have been giving your money to nothing but losing causes all week.
#38 May 28 2004 at 9:14 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,426 posts
Quote:

You really should give up gambling Smashie, you have been giving your money to nothing but losing causes all week.

Nah, I got play poker with the best players in the world for a mere 10k (which I won in a $1000 ten seat satalite anyway).

On the other hand I did loose a few mortgage payments at the Bellagio. It's so pretty there, though, with the painted on sky and all. IT DISTRACTED ME!!

I keep carefull records of my poker play, and even factoring in hotel rooms and travel and whatnot, I'm still about +$15000 for my "career" since I started playing casino/online games about two years ago.

That's nothing to write home about, naturally, it works out to about $12 an hour, which is the going rate for McDonalds night shift workers in MA.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#39 May 28 2004 at 1:57 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
Ok. Quick reply since I'm busy atm:

Smasharoo wrote:
Quote:
How can you possibly justify constantly arguing that Bush is about reducing benefits to the poor, and giving tax breaks to the rich, and that his economic plans "only benefit you if you make over 200k a year", and now you are saying he's done more to create entitlements then any president since FDR?



Because his entitlements benefit DRUG COMPANIES as opposed to PEOPLE. That's a fairly large distinction in my mind.


Followed by:

gbjai wrote:
One more thing. You can't just redefine the term entitlement to suit your needs on the fly. Take a freaking econ course, just once in your life! Entitlement is spending that goes into the consumption part of the equation. So when you give money to people so they can buy stuff (typically wellfare and assistance type programs), you are spending money on entitlement. Contracts to businessess goes in the investment side part of the equation. So giving money to a company so they can design a new widget is *not* entitlement spending. Arguing that they are the same thing is not only wrong, but shows you lack even the most vague understanding of economics.


And the Smash backpedal/feigned ignorance (or real ignorance!)

Smasharoo wrote:
I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about at all. Pull my quote about entitlements that you have this imaginary issue with please.


Got it? It's obvious from these statements that you don't understand the difference between spending on consumption and spending on investment.

There's a reason one is represented by an "I" in economic equations, and the other by a "C". They do different things...

I understand that. You don't. It's the fundamental reason why you will never understand conservative economic policies. But I guess that as a rebid liberal, you have no need to actually understand the reasons why the other guys think the way they do. Just label them "evil" and move on I guess...

____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#40 May 28 2004 at 2:24 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,426 posts
I'll use small words so you can understand this.

The Medicare drug benefit ENTITLEMENT, also known as The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 was signed into law on December 8, 2003.

With me so far?

This ENTITLEMENT provides money to citizens to pay for perscription drugs. It is, by the way, far and away the largest entitlement package enacted in the last quarter century.

The ENTITLEMENT in question, rather than allowing the government agency to negoiate with drug companies to provide the most efficent use of the funds being spent over 500 BILLION in the next decade by the way expressly prohibits the government from paying anything but full retail price for any of the perscription medications in question.

Being that this ENTITLEMENT will be, easily, the largest puchaser of perscription medications in the nation, this lack of ability to negoiate for price is not only contrary to the free market economic theories espoused by the people who advocated for it, but it also essentially GUARANTEES LARGE PROFITS FOR DRUG COMPANIES WITHOUT ANY COMPETETIVE MARKET FORCES ON PRICE.

Therefore, when I say:

Quote:

Because his entitlements benefit DRUG COMPANIES as opposed to PEOPLE. That's a fairly large distinction in my mind.


It is the above captioned ENTITLEMENT I am refering to.

I foolishly operate under the assumption that readers of my posts are reasonably knowledgible about current events, particularly if they choose to discuss them with me, and therefore don't feel obligated to have to specify what
I'm refering to when I speak of an ENTITLEMENT that benefits drug companies.

I daresay you're the single person who read my post that wasn't up to speed enough to understand the clear and simple referance.

I say clear and simple for a few reasons.

1) It's the onle ENTITLEMENT passed by this administration, so were you pondering what I could be referring to there wouldn't be too many options to befudle your tiny little mind.

2) It's an ENTITLEMENT that deals expressly with DRUG COMPANIES. Now, one would think after reading my statement, the average person would ask themselves "Gee, what's happened in relation to Drug Companies during this administration? Golly, there was that massive half trillion ENTITLEMENT passed, could that be it?

3) Typing "entitlement drug companies" into Google yeilds the following:

http://www.google.com/search?q=entitlement+drug+companies&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Many, many links all refrencing...you guessed it!! That's right, The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003.

Forgive me for not specifying in my post that I was refering to The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, but again, I assume a certain level of competence you clearly do not posses.

In the future with my discussion with you I will endevour to fill in all the cracks in your swiss cheese like knowledge of this country. Pardon me, when I say "this country" I'm refering to the United States of America.

In case you were confused.

Idiot.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#41 May 28 2004 at 4:59 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
540 posts
Roo wins...again.
#42 May 28 2004 at 6:37 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
Roo wins...again.


Just because somebody is a better flamer doesn't mean he knows jack sh*t about anything outside of Neverland.
#43 May 28 2004 at 6:48 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
Sigh. Yet again just showing that you and I are talking about completely different things. You get so hung up on semantics that you miss the forest for the trees.

Let me put this in really simple terms. You cannot be opposed to both sides of an argument Smash. When we talk about fiscal Conservatives versus fiscal Liberals, one side thinks that government moneies should be spent one way, and the other thinks it should be spent another (I'm even going to avoid using specifics since they seem to just confuse you).

You slam Bush's policies *and* label yourself a Liberal. Yet you *also* argue that Conservatives shouldn't like Bush's policies becuase they include "entitlement" (I'll add that just because the word is used does not mean it's being used in the economic sense). Which is it Smash? Are his policies Conservative or Liberal? If they are Liberal, then why are you slaming them? The fact that you *are* slaming them is a pretty good indicator that despite the fact that the "word" entitlement is used, they are actually Conservative fiscal policies.

I've honestly done very little looking into that particular Medicare bill. Buth then, the only place I've even heard of it is from you, a few times, on this site. Odd, that the first I've heard of a bill that I should be opposed to is from an admitted rabid liberal. How much do you want to bet that if I start reading up on this bill, I'll find out that those restrictions about which prescription drugs must be purchased is only one small part of the bill, and is in fact just a saftey precaution to ensure that the government isn't just giving blank checks to people caliming illness to spend in whatever way they feel.

How much you want to bet that the reasoning behind that part of the bill was that if the government is going to have to spend money on medicine for its citizens, then maybe we should make sure that the money ends up going back to the companies and investors who spent billions of dollars developing the drugs, rather then some Canadian or Mexican pharmacist peddling cheap knockoffs of older drugs.

And need I add that if the goal is to put that money back into the hands of the pharmacutical companies that develop drugs, then that's yet again investment spending. Um... that's perfectly in keeping with the Consevative mentality. We spend a bit more money, but we spend it in a way that ensures we have more down the line. In this case the "more" is new drugs, and profits returned to investors in those drugs, which goes right back into the economy in the form of more jobs and increased industry.

You don't see it becuse you don't understand economics. Have you ever even taken an entry level college economics class Smash? I'm somehow betting you havent. But that would just be a guess...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#44 May 28 2004 at 6:48 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
81 posts
I knew without asking who the Libs (communists, socialists, etc) were just by the posts I have read the last month or so on all the boards, thanks for confirming it :).

By the way, mark me as another conservative not "totally enraged" by Mr. Bush. Actually, I thank God (!) every day that Algore is not my leader. No one could pull me out from under my bed if that was the case.............

#45 May 28 2004 at 7:03 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,426 posts
Quote:

How much do you want to bet that if I start reading up on this bill, I'll find out that those restrictions about which prescription drugs must be purchased is only one small part of the bill, and is in fact just a saftey precaution to ensure that the government isn't just giving blank checks to people caliming illness to spend in whatever way they feel.

$100,000 Alla can hold in trust in a paypal account. Let me know when you want to make the wager.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#46 May 28 2004 at 7:05 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
What's really funny is that deep down you know this Smash. Let me guess! Your reason for disliking the bill boes something like this:

********** those Republicans, even though they *say* it's an entitlement bill, it's really just a bill to put money into the hands of big phamacutical companies!".

Um... Duh! That's why it's not really an entitlemet bill. Deep down, you know this. But you'll argue on the semantics used instead. Odd. Seems to me that a bill that will provide more medical care to the people, while ensuring that the money ends up back in the Investment part of the economy is a good thing all the way around.

Are you oppposed to it because the Republicans have come up with a way to improve medical care *and* the economy at the same time? I suppose you'd prefer the liberal approach of just throwing money at the one end of the problem and hoping everything will just magically work out.

You've made the same mistake the flish made a few months ago. You've assumed that "Conservative" means "spending less money". . It's really not that simple. What matters the most is *how* that money is spent.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#47 May 28 2004 at 7:23 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
81 posts
gbaji wrote:


You've made the same mistake the flish made a few months ago. You've assumed that "Conservative" means "spending less money". . It's really not that simple. What matters the most is *how* that money is spent.


That is the one of the best plain-spoken explanations I have heard in a long while..........



#48 May 28 2004 at 7:27 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,426 posts

You slam Bush's policies *and* label yourself a Liberal.


Yes, how terribly inconsistent of me.


Yet you *also* argue that Conservatives shouldn't like Bush's policies becuase they include "entitlement"

Correct.


Which is it Smash?

It's both, you idiot. Let me spell this out for you s-l-o-w-l-y.

*I* disagree with Bush's economic policies because I believe there should be a higher tax rate, and more government servcies, and more importnatly less debt.

*You* should as fiscal conservative disagree with his economic policies BECAUSE HE'S RECKLESSLY OVERSPENDING.



Are his policies Conservative or Liberal? If they are Liberal, then why are you slaming them? The fact that you *are* slaming them is a pretty good indicator that despite the fact that the "word" entitlement is used, they are actually Conservative fiscal policies.

I realize you're a very simple man, and that you see the world through a very simple lens, but surely you can hold the notion in your mind that it's possible for a President to iniate policies disliked by BOTH liberals and conservatives? I hope? Let's go over it again.

*I* don't like the policies because the tax rate is far too low and I'd like to see more government services.

*You* shouldn't like them because the spending is too high and it mitigates the entire theory of providing tax cuts structured the way they are which is to generate the same level of revenue as before the tax cuts via overall growth of the whole economy.

The positions ARE NOT mutually exlusive. Taken to a metaphorical extreme, if Bush eliminated taxes entirely, but spend 900 Quadrillion on an annual budget can you comprehend how both the left and the right would consider it foolish?

CAN YOU COMPREHEND IT SKIPPY???

CAN
I
GET
AN
AMEN!!???

Anyone? Can anyone grasp this concept?



I've honestly done very little looking into that particular Medicare bill.


The **** you say! Why I would have bet $100,000 that you were well versed in it. Ok, maybe not, I did read your post.



Buth then, the only place I've even heard of it is from you, a few times, on this site. Odd, that the first I've heard of a bill that I should be opposed to is from an admitted rabid liberal.

Yeah, look, I know I post a lot on political issues, and I ABSOLUTELY posted a ton on that one. But, honestly. I simply can't be responsible for your ignorance. I'm sorry that you aren't aware of the most signifigant increase in federal spending in a decade or that you somehow avoided the massive fight on the hill over the bill and the fillabuster and the underhanded tactical ploy that got it to a vote.

Not my fault.

Untill you start paying me, I'm not your current events tutor, or your clipping service.

You should be thrilled with the free lessons in economics.




____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#49 May 28 2004 at 7:32 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
81 posts
ROFL I am really glad I usually skip Smashies posts, do you know Wolfie5 by any chance Smash?
#50 May 28 2004 at 7:32 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,426 posts
Quote:

What's really funny is that deep down you know this Smash. Let me guess! Your reason for disliking the bill boes something like this:

********** those Republicans, even though they *say* it's an entitlement bill, it's really just a bill to put money into the hands of big phamacutical companies!".

Um... Duh! That's why it's not really an entitlemet bill. Deep down, you know this. But you'll argue on the semantics used instead. Odd. Seems to me that a bill that will provide more medical care to the people, while ensuring that the money ends up back in the Investment part of the economy is a good thing all the way around.

Are you oppposed to it because the Republicans have come up with a way to improve medical care *and* the economy at the same time? I suppose you'd prefer the liberal approach of just throwing money at the one end of the problem and hoping everything will just magically work out.

You've made the same mistake the flish made a few months ago. You've assumed that "Conservative" means "spending less money". . It's really not that simple. What matters the most is *how* that money is

Ok, look. Let me know if this isn't your argumet.

Paying *more than the market rate* for products using taxpayer money is good becuase pharmacutical compaines will get the money in the end and the happy economic fairly will make that good for the economy or whatever your endpoint is.

So essentially, regardless of how much the government overpays for something it's irrelivant so long as that money goes to company profits.

Is that correct?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#51 May 28 2004 at 7:33 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,426 posts
Quote:

ROFL I am really glad I usually skip Smashies posts

To many confusing words?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 80 All times are in CDT
Bijou, Sandinmygum, Xsarus, Anonymous Guests (77)