TexasCHLforum.com

cheezit wrote:

Jim Beaux wrote:

cheezit wrote:

jmra wrote:

cheezit wrote:But I can also say insulting people is not going to win votes either.
please feel free to respond here or by PM If you so choose

You flatter yourself

IM not sure were your headed with this. but the comment itself shows a lot of caliber on your end. However noone here has responded with a valid reason to sway my views, I remeber Ronald all to well and I was just a kid. The gop has not won my favor. can anyone say Iran-contra or gitmo.
Reality is im very undecided and very open to anyone that can give me a valid reason, So far I have seen bashing becasue people have different views of the world.

Well, maybe we will be on the same side of the fence when Obama sends NHS to liberate our weapons. Maybe.

cheezit wrote:

Jim Beaux wrote:

cheezit wrote:

jmra wrote:

cheezit wrote:But I can also say insulting people is not going to win votes either.
please feel free to respond here or by PM If you so choose

You flatter yourself

IM not sure were your headed with this. but the comment itself shows a lot of caliber on your end. However noone here has responded with a valid reason to sway my views, I remeber Ronald all to well and I was just a kid. The gop has not won my favor. can anyone say Iran-contra or gitmo.
Reality is im very undecided and very open to anyone that can give me a valid reason, So far I have seen bashing becasue people have different views of the world.

Im not trying to insult you, but your views arent that important to many of us & your bashing of President Reagan doesnt lend much credibility. I interpret your remark "noone here has responded with a valid reason to sway my views" as you either wanting to argue for argument sake; or you having an entitlement mentality that impedes you from doing your own DD.... regardless, I respectfully dont care to engage you for whatever your motivation. Take care.

Hey Governmentcheezit, educate yourself please:

Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures

"The Reagan recovery started in official records in November 1982, and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 1990, when the tax increases of the 1990 budget deal killed it. This set a new record for the longest peacetime expansion ever, the previous high in peacetime being 58 months."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrar ... d-figures/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

a natural recovery from the tremendous recession of the previous decade. Probably the biggest factor in the problems with voodoo economics is the over-estimation of increased worker productivity. While cutting taxes may create new jobs, it cannot make people work more hours or longer weeks. The unintended consequence of voodoo economics was a large increase in the national debt, and the loss of vital social programs as government-funded programs had to be cut in response to the tax cuts.

cheezit wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

a natural recovery from the tremendous recession of the previous decade. Probably the biggest factor in the problems with voodoo economics is the over-estimation of increased worker productivity. While cutting taxes may create new jobs, it cannot make people work more hours or longer weeks. The unintended consequence of voodoo economics was a large increase in the national debt, and the loss of vital social programs as government-funded programs had to be cut in response to the tax cuts.

Like wikipedia is a reliable source.

cheezit wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

a natural recovery from the tremendous recession of the previous decade. Probably the biggest factor in the problems with voodoo economics is the over-estimation of increased worker productivity. While cutting taxes may create new jobs, it cannot make people work more hours or longer weeks. The unintended consequence of voodoo economics was a large increase in the national debt, and the loss of vital social programs as government-funded programs had to be cut in response to the tax cuts.

Please help me out. What were these "vital" social programs that were lost and what made them so "vital" in your opinion. Please discretely identify a few of the lost social programs.

Voting for Obama makes sense for people who don't pay income taxes.

Geaux Tigers wrote:Voting for Obama makes sense for people who don't pay income taxes.

...and support legal plunder (which is contrary to our founding documents).

cheezit wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

a natural recovery from the tremendous recession of the previous decade.

The natural progression would then lead us to ask the question of what happened to the "natural recovery" from the previous decade?

That's a rhetorical question, there's really no need to answer, I'm pretty sure I've already figured it out.

Larry

Slowplay wrote:

Geaux Tigers wrote:Voting for Obama makes sense for people who don't pay income taxes.

...and support legal plunder (which is contrary to our founding documents).

It's been downhill ever since they ratified the 16th amendment.

Geaux Tigers wrote:

Slowplay wrote:

Geaux Tigers wrote:Voting for Obama makes sense for people who don't pay income taxes.

...and support legal plunder (which is contrary to our founding documents).

It's been downhill ever since they ratified the 16th amendment.

Geaux Tigers wrote:

Slowplay wrote:

Geaux Tigers wrote:Voting for Obama makes sense for people who don't pay income taxes.

...and support legal plunder (which is contrary to our founding documents).

It's been downhill ever since they ratified the 16th amendment.

Sorry to disagree, but the downhill slide started with the "Commerce Clause", followed closely by the immediate abuse of the "necessary and proper" clause in the ensuing Federal power grab. SCOTUS upheld Federal abuse of Constitutional limits on the Federal goobernment waaaaaaayy before the 16th.

cheezit wrote:

Geaux Tigers wrote:

Slowplay wrote:

Geaux Tigers wrote:Voting for Obama makes sense for people who don't pay income taxes.

...and support legal plunder (which is contrary to our founding documents).

It's been downhill ever since they ratified the 16th amendment.

Care to explain the apparent dissonance in your posts...or are you just trolling?

Slowplay wrote:

cheezit wrote:

Geaux Tigers wrote:

Slowplay wrote:

Geaux Tigers wrote:Voting for Obama makes sense for people who don't pay income taxes.

...and support legal plunder (which is contrary to our founding documents).

It's been downhill ever since they ratified the 16th amendment.

Care to explain the apparent dissonance in your posts...or are you just trolling?

Words too big.

Anygunanywhere

I just can't believe that some people just can't see through our muslim president obummer.
Romney wasn't by any means my first choice, but it is now what choice we have, so I will be voting for him.