Welcome to ECCIE, become a part of the fastest growing adult community. Take a minute & sign up!

Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!

Go Premium

Go Back   ECCIE Worldwide > General Interest > The Political Forum
test
The Political Forum Discuss anything related to politics in this forum. World politics, US Politics, State and Local.

Most Favorited Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Most Liked Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Top Reviewers
cockalatte 646
MoneyManMatt 490
Still Looking 399
samcruz 399
Jon Bon 396
Harley Diablo 377
honest_abe 362
DFW_Ladies_Man 313
Chung Tran 288
lupegarland 287
nicemusic 285
You&Me 281
Starscream66 278
George Spelvin 265
sharkman29 255
Top Posters
DallasRain70793
biomed163220
Yssup Rider60924
gman4453294
LexusLover51038
offshoredrilling48646
WTF48267
pyramider46370
bambino42569
CryptKicker37215
The_Waco_Kid36980
Mokoa36496
Chung Tran36100
Still Looking35944
Mojojo33117

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-12-2013, 03:26 PM   #16
CJ7
Valued Poster
 
CJ7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 9, 2010
Location: Here
Posts: 14,191
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by satexasguy View Post
Libterds can't find a thing wrong with uncontrolled spending, especially other people's money.

I'd post the spending record of the last administration vs this one, but you are to biased to read it, much less believe it ... but keep spouting off about shit you know nothing about.
CJ7 is offline   Quote
Old 08-12-2013, 04:58 PM   #17
satexasguy
Valued Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2, 2010
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 1,365
Encounters: 34
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CJ7 View Post
I'd post the spending record of the last administration vs this one, but you are to biased to read it, much less believe it ... but keep spouting off about shit you know nothing about.
I'm not as biased as you think. I rely on the overall picture more than you do with your blinders. It is true Obama has spent less. The difference is that Obama has spent more relative to income than Bush did or any other president since the 50's. This will have a far more damaging effect than the over spending Bush did.
satexasguy is offline   Quote
Old 08-12-2013, 05:10 PM   #18
WTF
Lifetime Premium Access
 
WTF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1, 2010
Location: houston
Posts: 48,267
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by satexasguy View Post
I'm not as biased as you think. I rely on the overall picture more than you do with your blinders. It is true Obama has spent less. The difference is that Obama has spent more relative to income than Bush did or any other president since the 50's. This will have a far more damaging effect than the over spending Bush did.
Jesus Christ, when the economy takes a downward spiral, every administration would spend more relative in income. That is like Retard 101.

What you and your dipshit Tea Party Wackado's do not understand is that it is when times are good that is when government spending should have been trimmed! Do you understand that concept. Good times = cut in government spending. Bad times = More government spending.

WTF is offline   Quote
Old 08-12-2013, 05:14 PM   #19
I B Hankering
Valued Poster
 
I B Hankering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: South of Chicago
Posts: 31,214
Encounters: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CJ7 View Post
I'd post the spending record of the last administration vs this one, but you are to biased to read it, much less believe it ... but keep spouting off about shit you know nothing about.
Looks like that "Republican Obstructionism" is paying dividends, because the Republicans certainly didn't cave and give into Odumbo's every whimsical, pie-in-the-sky demand.
I B Hankering is offline   Quote
Old 08-12-2013, 05:15 PM   #20
Guest032516
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Apr 1, 2009
Location: TBD
Posts: 7,435
Encounters: 33
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn View Post
No Timmie, no one said that the Osprey was ONLY for the dog. You said that and no one else. What I did say was that Bo did not make the trip with the first family. When you travel (which is on your dime) do you have your pet brought along later? You don't. No one does unless they are rich. Well Obama is paying for his dog with our money. Barnie traveled with Bush and that means no additional cost. Is this really that hard to see.

Since you brought up the support crew (warning Clinton slam ahead) The Clintons went to Wyoming on vacation one year because polling said that domestic vacation was needed (maybe Barack could poll the country) and they needed some lawn furniture. A C-130 was bringing the furniture and it crashed with the loss of the entire crew. No one from the White House attended the funerals. I remember this because the woman co-pilot was a Kansas City native. Fuck the heartless Clintons! No, this was not some big trap XNYKR.
You are utterly disingenuous.

Like Timpage said above, you are CLEARLY trying to imply that the Osprey was used just to transport the dog. Just like the Breitbart article was trying to imply.

But a bunch of people and equipment are getting off the Osprey, so clearly BO caught a ride on a plane that was making the trip anyway. So there was no cost to the taxpayers.

You are pathological in your hatred of Obama and it undermines your arguments on those very rare occasions when you post a legitimate criticism of Obama.
Guest032516 is offline   Quote
Old 08-12-2013, 06:01 PM   #21
CJ7
Valued Poster
 
CJ7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 9, 2010
Location: Here
Posts: 14,191
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by satexasguy View Post
I'm not as biased as you think. I rely on the overall picture more than you do with your blinders. It is true Obama has spent less. The difference is that Obama has spent more relative to income than Bush did or any other president since the 50's. This will have a far more damaging effect than the over spending Bush did.
relative to income after the Bush recession ...
CJ7 is offline   Quote
Old 08-12-2013, 07:36 PM   #22
satexasguy
Valued Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2, 2010
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 1,365
Encounters: 34
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WTF View Post
Jesus Christ, when the economy takes a downward spiral, every administration would spend more relative in income. That is like Retard 101.

What you and your dipshit Tea Party Wackado's do not understand is that it is when times are good that is when government spending should have been trimmed! Do you understand that concept. Good times = cut in government spending. Bad times = More government spending.


I guess you missed the part about he has spent more related to income than ANY OTHER PRESIDENT since the 50's. Keep looking at Odumbo through your koolaid glasses. Maybe some day he will invite you over to the White House to shake his balls.
satexasguy is offline   Quote
Old 08-12-2013, 10:09 PM   #23
LovingKayla
Upgraded Female Account
 
LovingKayla's Avatar
 
User ID: 50897
Join Date: Oct 22, 2010
Location: Dallas
Posts: 3,035
My ECCIE Reviews
Default

Say what you want but...... Obie's dog gets better air support than our guys in Benghazi.
LovingKayla is offline   Quote
Old 08-12-2013, 11:44 PM   #24
JD Barleycorn
Valued Poster
 
JD Barleycorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 12, 2011
Location: Olathe
Posts: 16,815
Encounters: 54
Default

Except for the dog handler. That cost extra. You lose Timmie and your little hemrrhoid CJ too.

I wonder how long Bo has before he becomes the guest at a BBQ. Barry loves his dog. Maybe they should have taken a tip from Romney and just put BO in a carrier on top.

I'm sure that our marines in Afghanistan could use another Osprey.
JD Barleycorn is offline   Quote
Old 08-13-2013, 12:42 AM   #25
Yssup Rider
Valued Poster
 
Yssup Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: Clarksville
Posts: 60,924
Encounters: 67
Default

And you'd prefer if POTUS didn't love his dog?

Or his wife?

Or his country?

You're a traitorous, anti-America. piece of shit, Swine!

PS -- SLUNT SIGHTING!
Yssup Rider is offline   Quote
Old 08-13-2013, 01:52 AM   #26
JD Barleycorn
Valued Poster
 
JD Barleycorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 12, 2011
Location: Olathe
Posts: 16,815
Encounters: 54
Default

Actually I posted last night after I did the research that Obama has, at this point in time, spent MORE money than George Bush by almost a quarter of a trillion dollars. I could also point out that the House spends the money but that only applied to the Bush years when we had a budget. There has been no budget for almost five years so it has been the executive branch who has figured out expenditures. So go ahead and squawk but Obama is the winner in raw numbers and he did not have to weather 9/11, recover from a popped bubble, or fight two wars at the same time. Bush also had the TARP passed under him and the bailout. Obama had the stimulus and Iraq had been won by the time that Obama came in.
JD Barleycorn is offline   Quote
Old 08-13-2013, 03:24 AM   #27
CJ7
Valued Poster
 
CJ7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 9, 2010
Location: Here
Posts: 14,191
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn View Post
Actually I posted last night after I did the research that Obama has, at this point in time, spent MORE money than George Bush by almost a quarter of a trillion dollars. I could also point out that the House spends the money but that only applied to the Bush years when we had a budget. There has been no budget for almost five years so it has been the executive branch who has figured out expenditures. So go ahead and squawk but Obama is the winner in raw numbers and he did not have to weather 9/11, recover from a popped bubble, or fight two wars at the same time. Bush also had the TARP passed under him and the bailout. Obama had the stimulus and Iraq had been won by the time that Obama came in.
research up a link for everyone
CJ7 is offline   Quote
Old 08-13-2013, 06:33 AM   #28
Jackie S
Valued Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 31, 2010
Location: Houston
Posts: 15,054
Encounters: 15
Default

If the plane was already going, then just tossing the dog in doesn't seem to be such a big deal. Even the most callous elected official would see that using a expensive aircraft for the sole purpose of transporting a dog would be stupid.

Pity the poor secret service agent that takes care of "Bo".
"Hey daddy, what did you do today at work"?........"I was on dog shit detail".
Jackie S is offline   Quote
Old 08-13-2013, 10:20 AM   #29
JD Barleycorn
Valued Poster
 
JD Barleycorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 12, 2011
Location: Olathe
Posts: 16,815
Encounters: 54
Default

Here you go CJ http://eccie.net/showthread.php?t=810747&page=7 post 101

Originally Posted by therock18 and amended by Big Louise and corrected by JDB
Lets look at DumbBama's accomplishment

Middle East is worse compared to when he took over
Worst spender in history and created worst deficit ever Nope that would be Bush by a wide margin. You can look it up Complete attempt to rewrite history. In 2001 (the first year that submitted a budget) the debt was $4.6172 trillion. In 2009 (the last year of the Bush budgets) the debt was $10.6269 trillion. Subtract 4.6172 from 10.6269 and you get $6.0097 trillion of Bush debt and that includes the TARP, the bailout from late 2008, early 2009, both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the fallout from 9/11. The current national debt is $16.8976 trillion. Subtract Bush (and the others) from Obama and you get $6.2707 of Obama debt. Obama debt (with only one war, no TARP, and only the stimulus package to deal with) is a quarter of a trillion dollars higher than Bush's.

Green Energy push has resulted in pay for play schemes and don't work
Refuses to sign off Keystone
Does not want fracking
Refuses to drill offshore, in fact reduced offshore drilling
Refuses to let us become energy independent so we are held hostage by the muslim countries The US is for all practical purposes energy independent We are using less imported energy than we did in 2009 but there is a lie hidden here. We are using less energy in general because of the economic down turn. Our energy usage is equal to the 1993 level. So we are using less energy because of bad times and not conservation or independence. In fact in 2008 the US consumed 19.498 million barrels of oil a day and in 2012 the US used 18.554 million barrels of oil daily. We are not more independent, we are just using less.
Try to rewrite history with his speeches
JD Barleycorn is offline   Quote
Old 08-13-2013, 01:45 PM   #30
CJ7
Valued Poster
 
CJ7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 9, 2010
Location: Here
Posts: 14,191
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn View Post
Here you go CJ http://eccie.net/showthread.php?t=810747&page=7 post 101

Originally Posted by therock18 and amended by Big Louise and corrected by JDB
Lets look at DumbBama's accomplishment

Middle East is worse compared to when he took over
Worst spender in history and created worst deficit ever Nope that would be Bush by a wide margin. You can look it up Complete attempt to rewrite history. In 2001 (the first year that submitted a budget) the debt was $4.6172 trillion. In 2009 (the last year of the Bush budgets) the debt was $10.6269 trillion. Subtract 4.6172 from 10.6269 and you get $6.0097 trillion of Bush debt and that includes the TARP, the bailout from late 2008, early 2009, both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the fallout from 9/11. The current national debt is $16.8976 trillion. Subtract Bush (and the others) from Obama and you get $6.2707 of Obama debt. Obama debt (with only one war, no TARP, and only the stimulus package to deal with) is a quarter of a trillion dollars higher than Bush's.
Green Energy push has resulted in pay for play schemes and don't work
Refuses to sign off Keystone
Does not want fracking
Refuses to drill offshore, in fact reduced offshore drilling
Refuses to let us become energy independent so we are held hostage by the muslim countries The US is for all practical purposes energy independent We are using less imported energy than we did in 2009 but there is a lie hidden here. We are using less energy in general because of the economic down turn. Our energy usage is equal to the 1993 level. So we are using less energy because of bad times and not conservation or independence. In fact in 2008 the US consumed 19.498 million barrels of oil a day and in 2012 the US used 18.554 million barrels of oil daily. We are not more independent, we are just using less.
Try to rewrite history with his speeches

the rockhead eh?
CJ7 is offline   Quote
Reply



AMPReviews.net
Find Ladies
Hot Women

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright © 2009 - 2016, ECCIE Worldwide, All Rights Reserved