Skip to comments.Republicans ARE WAY WORSE Than The Democrats
Posted on 08/07/2009 3:28:37 PM PDT by Stephen Colbert
The enemy you know is way worse than the enemy that acts like your friend only to stab you in the back.
Once Republicans have the numbers again in the future they're not going to reduce the size of government in any meaningful way, ever. THAT'S A PROMISE. We're on a one way path to larger and larger government.
The way Republicans talk you'd think when they're in power they'd put half the federal government and spending on the chopping block. Surely that's what the republican constituents want, right? I think politicians of both parties forget that they are not our leaders, they are our elected representatives. The difference being that we're supposed to tell them what we want, not them tell us what we should want.
Democrats tax and spend, Republicans borrow and spend. Neither ever ever ever cuts spending.
Spending and our debt exploded under Reagen, and they exploded under Bush.
At the democrats advertize that they want to spend money. They get people that actually agree with their socialist agenda to vote for them. They are wrong, but atleast they advertize what they are going to do.
Republicans however campaign on cutting spending, cutting the size of the government. But once they get in power, do they slash the government at all, do they keep any of their promises? No, not even slightly. THEY LIE TO US CONSISTENTLY, TELL US EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT TO HEAR, THEN STAB US IN THE BACK AS SOON AS THEY GET OUR VOTE.
They are the real enemy here. The size of the government, and the debt exploded under Reagen, and it exploded even more under Bush. Bush gave us Medicare Part D, the trillion dollar bailout of Wallstreet, and the 1.3 trillion dollar debt when he left office. He didn't veto a single one of these, the republicans didn't oppose any of these. They are reason we are in this mess.
Stop letting this continue.
NEVER EVER VOTE FOR A CAREER POLITICIAN, NO MATTER WHAT THEY TELL YOU, NO MATTER WHAT THEY PROMISE, THEY ARE LYING.
The only way we are ever ever going to get our country back is to elect in regular ordinary people, like Sarah Palin.
Heck I would happily support the one and only exception that proves the rule, the one and only politician that has ever ever voted against Reagen's and Bush's bloated budgets, government expansions and spending sprees, Ron Paul.
But if the GOP doesn't nominate a real person, not a politician. If they nominate another RINO like Tim Pawlentiny, or Mitt Romney or anyone in the Senate or House, I urge you please, please, don't vote for them.
Demand that Sarah Palin run as a third party candidate and vote for her instead. Even if it costs us the election, it will atleast send the GOP a message and maybe next time, they will put a real person, not a politician on the ticket.
Yes, it sucks to lose. But if we did this back in 2008, if we refused to vote for McCain and instead voted for a none-Rino. If we asked Ron Paul to run as a third party candidate and voted for him, then maybe we wouldn't have wound up with another RINO/Career Politician like Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlentiny as our nominee in 2012.
The way Republicans talk you'd think when they're in power they'd put half the federal government and spending on the chopping block.
But once in power, they never, ever, ever, ever come remotely close to doing that. Not even close. They lie to us.
So please, I beg of you, just say no. No politicians. Either we get a real person on the ticket, or vote third party.
Well aren’t you just precious.
this jerk can’t even fake it as a Troll...why waste the Zot?
Well, hi there.
Okay...I’ll play. And how are things over at Comedy Central these days?
So do you have a link to whatever horse’s azz site you cribbed this from??
It's well documented that Reagan's budgets presented to congress would have produced a surplus. He inherited the Great Depression and left us with the greatest boom in US history. Hussein's first 100 days produced higher deficits than Bush's last 6 years in office.
Chump change compared to what Obama has done in six months and what he is planning to do to kill capitalism for generations in America.
His ‘writers’ penned it.
Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my Viking Kitty/ZOT ping list!. . . don't be shy.
Welcome to FR, Stephen. There are some FReepers who will accuse you of copying this stupefying drivel from somebody’s website, but I’m not one of those. I have faith in you Stephen. I believe you wrote this all by yourself.
Why bless your pointy little head.
You’re not Colbert. Colbert was never funny, couldn’t coherently construct a joke and is so overrated he needs his liberal lackey media to TELL US he’s funny.
Well, I can't say I disagree with you.
Third party means divide the conservative vote, giving your guy the victory again.
Beat it A hole, no one could be worse than Obama.
Dang, dude, looking at that chart just ruined my apetite.
If only you had joined before the last election!
Btw, love seeing you on Comedy Central, although now that I think of it, I haven't watched that channel in years.
It really is hard to believe...(those are estimates, the real deficits will be much worse).
When was the last time you bathed?
Like Socialist Party?
International Green Party?
Worker's World Party?
Socialist Worker's Party?
First, neither Reagan nor Bush the elder had a Republican congress. (Reagan had a Republican Senate for six years) Bush the Younger had a barely Republican Congress for about half of his two terms.
If the population and the economy are growing, if previous entitlement programs make certain expenditures completely impossible to control (e.g. government pension programs, veterans commitments, interest on the national debt), then yes, the spending may not go down in absolute numbers.
It has been said that Reagan was relatively indifferent to deficits, because his proposal of a $90 billion budget cut, in 1976 dollars, cost him the Florida primary and therefore the nomination. It didn’t help in 1980 when the military’s preparedness was completely sacrificed by J.E.C. Also, some thought that it would be better to expend political capital on tax cuts, rather than spending cuts, because the deficits themselves would ultimately prove a check on spending (until the current W.H. occupant decided that trillion dollar checks were worth writing.)
When did spending come under some control? Under Grahm-Rudman, under Newt Gingrich’s House. Under a Clinton that had lost his Congress due to his own performance and had to act more carefully.
While the spending never actually went down in absolute dollars, it really did go down as a portion of the GDP. SPENDING ORIGINATES IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
Unfortunately, Bush the Younger didn’t want to keep the brakes on, won on promises to spend (No Child Left Behind, Medicare Prescription benefits), and finally felt obliged to spend a lot on restructuring large chunks of the government after 9/11, and of course the wars, which requires spending if you are going to do it at all. Finally, the autumn financial crisis scared him again, and spending money and making financial commitments was the fastest and easiest (though not best) way to address that.
Up until Bush the Younger, who was given a couple of pretty tough challenges, you see LESS spending, and more responsibility from the Republican Congress, Reagan and even Bush the Elder (save the S&L debacle, which I believe was due to the ill conceived TEFRA act.)
Throw all career politicians out.
Ron Paul knew where the press and money was. He was an RINO. Libertarian running as a Republican.
Meanwhile the Libertarians ran Bob Barr as their candidate. How well did he do?
.....Do you feel better now?
Can’t spell Reagan. for one thing...
This guy is going to make Carter look like Barry Goldwater. In a race for worst president in half a century he’s starting to leave Jimmy Carter in his tail lights.
And to think we used to listen to this guy every night. Can’t abide him or his pal Jon Stewart. They’ll be stuck in the Comedy Central universe for the rest of their careers, hopefully.
While this piece of S#*t is obviously a troll,he does make a valid point about the Republicratic push towards State-ism.Some say its the lesser of two evils we must support,I say I`ll not support a Fascist jealous,Freedom hating, Dictator DemocRAT wanna be “RINO”.Either we re-take the party of Reagan or I`ll pick and choose who I vote for.
The GOP didn't select McCain as the top of the ticket. The Media and DNC did. Howard Dean's staffers were part of Democrats for McCain going back to 2006.
There were McCain staffers who left the McCain Campaign for Obama's campaign just days after they secured McCain the nomination. Mission accomplished.
What a waste of oxygen that this ZOT-bait breathes
It's true he had some points but he really lost me at running Ron Paul, among other things.
And just who do you think makes up third parties? Politicians, that's who!
Thank you. Well written. I was being glib in #21, you said what needed to be said.
Coming soon to a thread near you.
Steven Colbert signed on to Free Republic 7/31/2009
HOW WONDERFUL YOU GIVE US SUCH A VALUED PERSPECTIVE AS A NEWBIE!!
Any other literary creations on the horizon?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.