WHAT IS THE OBAMA AGENDA FOR THE 2ND TERM ??????

Actually, Whirly posted some interesting and factual data. The libs, of course, unable to respond with truth, started in with their playground taunts. And Whirly is a pathetic loser? I think not. The pathetic losers on here identify themselves regularly, with posts of no substance and grade school epithets.

AThe pathetic losers on here identify themselves regularly, with posts of no substance and grade school epithets. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I B Crying is going to be pissed off at you for calling him a "pathetic loser." You had better edit your post while you still have time.

IB simply responds in kind because you assholes do not understand anything else.

IB simply responds in kind because you assholes do not understand anything else. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

StupidOldFart, you're trying to read way to much into I B Crying's posts. Don't try to over think the situation. That is a concept that does not come natural to you.

I B Crying's posts are his unique way to deflect attention from the fact that he picked the wrong candidate when he jumped on Romney's bandwagon. It's nothing more than a little sleight of hand on I B Crying's part! Just accept it for what it is!

I personally think I B is funny in much the same way that Larry the Cable Guy is funny! Dippy as hell but funny nonetheless!

As I said previously, if I B Crying is incapable of dazzling us with his brilliance, he might as well baffle us with bullshit! In that regard I B Crying is like you! Lots of bullshit and very little, if any, brilliance!

Actually, Whirly posted some interesting and factual data. The libs, of course, unable to respond with truth, started in with their playground taunts. And Whirly is a pathetic loser? I think not. The pathetic losers on here identify themselves regularly, with posts of no substance and grade school epithets. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Haven't seen the link support for Whirly's "interesting and factual data." Once I have it, I'll respond.

My initial response, is...my goodness, yes, how horrible that the government might do what it can do to try to provide food to eat for those who can't afford to buy it for themselves. I know...awful. I hate the idea that kids might get enough food to eat and that the government might provide it for them.

So...you're against kids getting enough food to eat COG? Nice.

Let me guess.........

More foodstamp for us.

More unemployment benefits for us.

More disability SS for us.

More regulations for us.

More debt for us.

More government workers/bureaucrats for us.

More taxes on us. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

More taxes???

You haven't ever paid any.

You'll say anything to get joe blows to blow you.

On a side note.

I was hoping you would be more bitter than this. I haven't seen a good dire warning out of you in days.
Come on....just a small world is ending for us?
Be a big brave whirly for us?

Pwease?

Haven't seen the link support for Whirly's "interesting and factual data." Once I have it, I'll respond.

My initial response, is...my goodness, yes, how horrible that the government might do what it can do to try to provide food to eat for those who can't afford to buy it for themselves. I know...awful. I hate the idea that kids might get enough food to eat and that the government might provide it for them.

So...you're against kids getting enough food to eat COG? Nice. Originally Posted by timpage

This is the typical statist, big government response to everything. If something is good to do, then government must do it. Not everyone is as selfish as you are, Timmy. There are plenty of charities, churches, and just plain decent people out there who are more than willing to as much, or more than is necessary to relieve the problem. Government charity costs too much, voluntary charity is more efficient and cost effective. Consider NYC, where Mayor Bloomberg has forbidden private contributions of food to the homeless, because the government can't monitor the nutritional value of the food donated. Do you really think the homeless would rather go without food than eat something the government hasn't evaluated?

That's how government handles it. Let people help people, and it will be much better for all concerned.

IB simply responds in kind because you assholes do not understand anything else. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

IB responds because his head in imbedded in his ass,as far as whirrlys thread who really knows what his agenda is but him?There can be some speculation and that is all except the right who will paint him black,,,,

This is the typical statist, big government response to everything. If something is good to do, then government must do it. Not everyone is as selfish as you are, Timmy. There are plenty of charities, churches, and just plain decent people out there who are more than willing to as much, or more than is necessary to relieve the problem. Government charity costs too much, voluntary charity is more efficient and cost effective. Consider NYC, where Mayor Bloomberg has forbidden private contributions of food to the homeless, because the government can't monitor the nutritional value of the food donated. Do you really think the homeless would rather go without food than eat something the government hasn't evaluated?

That's how government handles it. Let people help people, and it will be much better for all concerned. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Yeah, unless those people are republicans. If it's not the role of government to feed hungry children, then government has no worthy role. Fuck you.

We spent over two billion on this election and nothing has changed. Everything that Obama claims to have accomplished has an asterick by it and can be debated. The bigest thing he did was take a polarized government and make it worse through bad leadership along with driving up the deficit. I get it that he's black and talks very eloquently, but I don't get America letting this dude delude them.

If there is to be a financial recovery in this country, it is going to be in spite of Obama. I put him in the political false prophet catagory. It's just too bad Americans bought into it.

Another bogus and nonsubstantive, unintelligent post that is so typical of BigKoTex's response to facts. Originally Posted by bigtex

.



Ekim the Inbred remains an ignorant fuck who cannot discern the kernel thought in a simple sentence.

Yeah, unless those people are republicans. If it's not the role of government to feed hungry children, then government has no worthy role. Fuck you. Originally Posted by timpage

Actually, there is no FEDERAL role in providing charity. It's not in the Constitution. However, if the states feel the need to tax their citizens for charitable purposes, it is completely within their jurisdiction to do so.

State run, or private run is preferable to federal control. When the federal government provides charity, more money goes to the bureaucracy than the beneficiaries. It's not only unconstitutional for the Federal government to be involved, it's stupid economically.

If you think the only worthy role of government is to provide "free stuff" for it's people, you are an idiot, and a big part of the problem we face in this country.

.



Ekim the Inbred remains an ignorant fuck who cannot discern the kernel thought in a simple sentence. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Poor IB you got nothing....

Ekim the Inbred remains an ignorant fuck who cannot discern the kernel thought in a simple sentence.

It is obvious that Obama wants to continue the road to serfdom. At a blistering pace I will add. By the way, does anybody have a few food stamps I can borrow? This country is a freakin joke.