NY City Council passes anti-war resolution

"We are saying to the president today, you can no longer use 9/11 as an excuse for war," said Councilman Charles Barron, a Brooklyn Democrat. "There was no linkage of Saddam Hussein to 9/11; there was no linkage of Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda."

 

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

The administration has spent many late nights playing 6 degrees of Bin Laden's bacon...

 

then, what do those taxi-driving surrender monkeys know about terrorism, anyway?

For you, a Boxer ass kissing, tax and spend, lunatic left, surrender monkey!

 

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003191

 

The problem with NYC goverment is that it is full of democrates. These fuccking guys are full of shiite. Everything they do and say is based on what is good for democrates, and for no other reason. They care about nothing except what they feel are democrate issues.

So what they think is good for democrates is having a democrate as governor and a democrate as President.

NYC democates make me sick, and I am one of them but just in name only.

It just so happens looney tune I am an expert on terrorism. I have been a terrorist most of my life. Even now I am capable of comming out of retirement to scare the crap out of someone if needed. I did it about 2 years ago during the so called million man march in Harlem. It was more like a few thousand people march. They drasticly over estimated in my estimatation

Someone over there was holding out the money they owed me. I like to call it "tribute". So I paid the guy a visit with some friends, and my walking stick which doubles as a cane sword. After that I realized that on occassion I still got it.''

Just don't use "It" much anymore.

 

> tax and spend

You are just upset that the Republicans have not been the party of fiscal responsability for half a century.

 

How true.

While the Republicans have done their best imitation of a teenage girl with a new credit card through their "borrow and spend" binges, it was a Democratic president who actualy built the surplus that the current Republican president is pissing away to go play "army guy".

The sad thing is that the Republicans' "borrow & spend" is even worse than "tax & spend" because it also saddles future generations with horrific debt.

 

I see the crack supply to NYC hasn't been affected by the war build-up.

 

This is actually funny. The NY City Council has been clamoring for attention ever since Rudy set right the wrongs upon wrongs Democratic mayors and councils gifted the city of NY for so long.

The NY City Council is a group of noisy 5 year olds in the back seat of the family sedan. Don't make the mayor stop the car, turn around, and bitch-slap you, again.

 

How exactly does a president go about "borrowing" or "spending"? I don't see that authority given to him in the US Constitution. I could be wrong, but please let me know.

 

Actually, they're much more in favor of Anaxagorus.

 

We have another smart guy here I see. The president does not spend for your information. The congress in charge does the spending. So Clinton did not save anything when he was in office. It was the congress in power during his time in office that did the saving a Reoublican congress.

You sound like one doing some crack. So here is some advice for you. Try pulling your nose out from between those cheecks, wash your face and see the real world.

 

Yeah, dittohead, and since the 60's, the president proposes a budget, and Congress works from that.

See, that's the thing about listening to Rush. People trust him, and he has no interest in light, only heat. He's a comedian, and so many of his listeners think he's a poor man's college professor.

I'll say it again...there's a reason the liberals here so often condescend to the conservatives. It's because the conservatives score so high in certitude and so low in knowledge.

 

Leaving aside for the moment Dan's point about who's been in charge of Congress during the past umpteen years, the President has a lot to say about the budget, especially if his party is also running Congress. After all, he either signs it or vetoes it. If he signs it, he must generally agree with it or he's guilty of deriliction of duty, n'est-ce pas?

Then why does the Right always try to blather on about how Reagan was so great for our economy and how Clinton is to blame for our economy being in the crapper now (even though they're wrong on that score)? Oh, I forgot, only Republican presidents can effect the economy and then only if the economy supposedly improves while they're in office.

Oh, btw, if you're looking for other factors that have a large impact on the U.S. economy, you may also be interested in this funny little bunch called the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. I think you can Google them if you're interested.

 

Ahh, the old "tax and spend" slap. Both the Reaganistas and all their conservative ilk who've used that little phrase to whack Dems since have forgotten both the origin and complete content of that phrase.

The full quote, originated by F.D.R. aide Harry Hopkins is, "Tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect," and it basically worked for the Democratic Party as it controlled both the presidency and congress from 1932 to 1968 with an eight year interruption for the Eisenhower presidency.

 

So what's your excuse for the Republicans in the House, where all spending bills must originate? Or did you forget that the Republicans controlled Congress too? You know Congress, which approved all that spending?

 

Richie- do you know how to check your private message box?

 

Thank you for falling into my trap. The Republicans were in charge of Congress during the surplus run. Oddly enough, we moved back to deficits when the Democrats started controlling the Senate again.

 

The same Republicans who controlled the House during the "Clinton" surplus?

 

Another famous quote from that wordsmith, Charles Barron:

"I want to go up to the closest white person and say, 'You can't understand this. It's a black thing,' and then slap him just for my mental health."

-- New York City Councilmember Charles Barron, August 17, 2002. This is another sad result of 30 years of liberal union control of the government schools. Students in government schools are constantly taught that the problems of black people are caused by white people. Meanwhile, the same students are short-changed on a real education, with real history lessons, that might help them get ahead in the world. The above statement occurred at the "Reparations" hate rally where digruntled jerks demanded that current-day non-slaveholders pay current-day non-slaves for damages from slavery that ended 140 years ago. If I were one of this idiot's white constituents, I might think twice before going up to shake his hand.

 

> The same Republicans who controlled the House
> during the "Clinton" surplus?

Hmmm.. If they stayed the same and the surplus became a deficit and the economy tanked, then the blame must be elsewhere. What else in the governemnt changed in 2000? I have to think about that one...

 

i'll say it again...there's a reason why liberals are losing elections & influence in the US. they are condescending to the avg. joe (ie. - regular taxpayer and voter, not Hollywood/NYC elitist) and they don't even realize it. just as you were in your post.