Page 198 of 249 FirstFirst ... 98148188196197198199200208248 ... LastLast
Results 1,971 to 1,980 of 2484

Thread: Why NOT to vote Republican

  1. #1971
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    5,543
    Quote Originally Posted by LDAHL View Post
    Don’t worry. The administrative state will still swell with $60 billion worth of new troops.
    That is what the republicans wanted... more military spending.

  2. #1972
    Simpleton Alan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    9,864
    Quote Originally Posted by frugal-one View Post
    That is what the republicans wanted... more military spending.
    He was talking about IRS troops, that's what the Democrats wanted.
    "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein

  3. #1973
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    8,872
    Quote Originally Posted by JaneV2.0 View Post
    So what is it Republicans don't like about VP Harris? That she once dated Willie Brown? Wears pantsuits? Is a pretty woman of color? As far as I can tell, she's just as unremarkable as most veeps.
    I first heard about her when as the California AG she tried forcing non-profits to provide their donor information. Fearing the information would be used by government and activists to harass or intimidate their donors, they fought back and ultimately won in the courts. Her presidential primary campaign was pretty unremarkable, except to trying to brand Joe Biden as a racist. Ever since taking office, we mainly hear about her being assigned grandiose tasks and making incoherent public statements.

    She seems to be a fairly untalented hack, which is not all that unusual.

  4. #1974
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    5,543
    Quote Originally Posted by LDAHL View Post
    Don’t worry. The administrative state will still swell with $60 billion worth of new troops.
    And much more gained by investigating tax evaders!

  5. #1975
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    5,543
    Quote Originally Posted by LDAHL View Post
    I first heard about her when as the California AG she tried forcing non-profits to provide their donor information. Fearing the information would be used by government and activists to harass or intimidate their donors, they fought back and ultimately won in the courts. Her presidential primary campaign was pretty unremarkable, except to trying to brand Joe Biden as a racist. Ever since taking office, we mainly hear about her being assigned grandiose tasks and making incoherent public statements.

    She seems to be a fairly untalented hack, which is not all that unusual.
    meaning?

  6. #1976
    Senior Member bae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Offshore
    Posts
    11,985
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    He was talking about IRS troops, that's what the Democrats wanted.
    “Troops”?

  7. #1977
    Senior Member JaneV2.0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    15,489
    By "troops" Republicans mean accountants.

  8. #1978
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    10,265
    Quote Originally Posted by LDAHL View Post
    Don’t worry. The administrative state will still swell with $60 billion worth of new troops.
    I’m not worried. I just find it odd that republicans are pro tax cheat. It also highlights how all their hand wringing about the deficit is just a bunch of performative BS. But performative BS is pretty much their whole agenda these days. I mean seriously, that stupid bitch Boehbert was so busy performing that she couldn’t even make it to the floor of the house in time to even vote on the debt ceiling bill try that she had been screeching endlessly about.

  9. #1979
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    10,265
    Quote Originally Posted by bae View Post
    “Troops”?
    Using troops to describe IRS employees is probably intended to denigrate the professionalism of IRS auditors while having plausible deniability that that was what was being done. Republicans are big on the whole plausible deniability thing.

  10. #1980
    Simpleton Alan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    9,864
    Quote Originally Posted by jp1 View Post
    Using troops to describe IRS employees is probably intended to denigrate the professionalism of IRS auditors while having plausible deniability that that was what was being done. Republicans are big on the whole plausible deniability thing.
    Or it could be that people with a military background are accustomed to referring to the mass of people within fixed organizations as troops. For that matter, I suppose those with a background in Scouting might do the same.
    "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •