Bush, record setting Homeless Initiative

jazzskins · Post by **jazzskins** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:55 pm

http://www.hud.gov/news/release.cfm?con ... 07-017.cfm

http://www.hud.gov/news/release.cfm?con ... 07-008.cfm

Look at what this filthy liar is doing now! Are we supposed to think that he actually cares about people!

ATV · Post by **ATV** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 11:09 pm

I actually saw a PBS Now program on this today that I had Tivo'd. This was a pleasant surprise. I think this is the Bush administration's 3rd or 4th policy decision (out of ten thousand, plus or minus a couple thousand) that I found myself agreeing with.

Cappster · Post by **Cappster** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:35 am

jazzskins wrote:http://www.hud.gov/news/release.cfm?content=pr07-017.cfm

http://www.hud.gov/news/release.cfm?con ... 07-008.cfm

Look at what this filthy liar is doing now! Are we supposed to think that he actually cares about people!

Why is it when he actually does something good, he gets chastized for it? Be happy he is doing something good for the poor. Atleast ATV can admit that he likes the idea.

JansenFan · Post by **JansenFan** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 11:08 am

I think DJ Jazzy Skins just forgot his emoticon at the end, as he is typically a Bush supporter, if I'm not mistaken.

ATV · Post by **ATV** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:36 pm

Why is it when he actually does something good, he gets chastized for it? Be happy he is doing something good for the poor.

Because he's George W Bush. I am happy to hear about this policy.

jazzskins · Post by **jazzskins** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 6:09 pm

JansenFan wrote:I think DJ Jazzy Skins just forgot his emoticon at the end, as he is typically a Bush supporter, if I'm not mistaken.

Give the man a prize!

ATV · Post by **ATV** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 6:22 pm

http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_articl ... ness+Today

"The board ruled the choice of words was irresponsible, but the association with Mr Bush did not cause serious or widespread offence."

jazzskins · Post by **jazzskins** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:01 pm

ATV wrote:http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=17394&cid=4&cname=Business+Today

"The board ruled the choice of words was irresponsible, but the association with Mr Bush did not cause serious or widespread offence."

Those wacky Euro's! They really hate Bush!

KazooSkinsFan · Post by **KazooSkinsFan** » Sat Feb 24, 2007 1:44 pm

jazzskins wrote:http://www.hud.gov/news/release.cfm?content=pr07-017.cfm

http://www.hud.gov/news/release.cfm?con ... 07-008.cfm

Look at what this filthy liar is doing now! Are we supposed to think that he actually cares about people!

So basically you are looking to government to solve societies ills. Have you ever noticed the government is incompetent and ineffective? Have you ever gone to the DMV? Have you ever noticed nothing they do works?

I hate Bush for wasting our money and then the liberals say it's insincere, only THEY care about the homeless, it's their talking point. Yeah.

Instead of demanding some useless politician (from either party) do something, why don't you take the lead? Start an effective charity and I'll chip in more then my share. Ask the government to waste my money in some ineffective program that helps liberals feel better about themselves while not really helping anyone I will oppose.

Which is what this program is proposed by either party, a feel good program to flush our money down the toilet.

KazooSkinsFan · Post by **KazooSkinsFan** » Sat Feb 24, 2007 1:45 pm

jazzskins wrote:
ATV wrote:http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=17394&cid=4&cname=Business+Today

"The board ruled the choice of words was irresponsible, but the association with Mr Bush did not cause serious or widespread offence."
Those wacky Euro's! They really hate Bush!

I do too, where your reasoning is failing you is in not hating Democrats.

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Sat Feb 24, 2007 1:53 pm

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
jazzskins wrote:
ATV wrote:http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=17394&cid=4&cname=Business+Today

"The board ruled the choice of words was irresponsible, but the association with Mr Bush did not cause serious or widespread offence."
Those wacky Euro's! They really hate Bush!

I do too, where your reasoning is failing you is in not hating Democrats.

I'm willing to bet jazzskin hate the Dems more than you ever will :wink:

KazooSkinsFan · Post by **KazooSkinsFan** » Sat Feb 24, 2007 2:06 pm

1niksder wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:
jazzskins wrote:
ATV wrote:http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=17394&cid=4&cname=Business+Today

"The board ruled the choice of words was irresponsible, but the association with Mr Bush did not cause serious or widespread offence."
Those wacky Euro's! They really hate Bush!

I do too, where your reasoning is failing you is in not hating Democrats.

I'm willing to bet jazzskin hate the Dems more than you ever will

Could be that he does hate them, but hating them more then me I'd need to see.

The issue I'm having now is that I don't see why anyone who hates both parties would selectively bash Bush for something both parties do when the Democrats are hysterical and the press is on an anti-Bush crusade.

If he does hate Democrats, I would be interested in hearing him addressing that. jazzskins, if you hate both parties why would you select Bush and not mention Democrats in a clearly liberal appeasing policy in an environment where the Democrats totally supported by the press are in a delusional hypocritical lather?

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Sat Feb 24, 2007 3:16 pm

KazooSkinsFan wrote:If he does hate Democrats, I would be interested in hearing him addressing that. jazzskins, if you hate both parties why would you select Bush and not mention Democrats in a clearly liberal appeasing policy in an environment where the Democrats totally supported by the press are in a delusional hypocritical lather?

jazzskins doesn't bash both parties, he only bashes one. Hasn't been on the site in a while and occasionally forgets to use the smileys when he bashes the Rep.

KazooSkinsFan · Post by **KazooSkinsFan** » Sat Feb 24, 2007 3:32 pm

1niksder wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:If he does hate Democrats, I would be interested in hearing him addressing that. jazzskins, if you hate both parties why would you select Bush and not mention Democrats in a clearly liberal appeasing policy in an environment where the Democrats totally supported by the press are in a delusional hypocritical lather?

jazzskins doesn't bash both parties, he only bashes one. Hasn't been on the site in a while and occasionally forgets to use the smileys when he bashes the Rep.

OK, I get it now then. So he's actually advocating Bush and saying sarcastically how he doesn't care about the homeless? I guess you have to know him then, what he said is EXACTLY what the Democrats say so I had no way to know. When Bush does something liberal they use those exact words.

So, jazzskins, I withdraw my prior point now that 1niksder's splained and ask why you think Republicans should be flushing taxpayer money on a pathetic and hopeless pursuit of votes?

If you want this, why don't you form an effective charity and raise the money instead of confiscating it from those who earned it and setting up a government program that will piss it away because government is inherently inept?

KazooSkinsFan · Post by **KazooSkinsFan** » Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:01 pm

1niksder wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:If he does hate Democrats, I would be interested in hearing him addressing that. jazzskins, if you hate both parties why would you select Bush and not mention Democrats in a clearly liberal appeasing policy in an environment where the Democrats totally supported by the press are in a delusional hypocritical lather?

jazzskins doesn't bash both parties, he only bashes one. Hasn't been on the site in a while and occasionally forgets to use the smileys when he bashes the Rep.

The more I think about this the funner it is. I've been arguing with the Democrats that the parties talk up like they are so fundamentally different yet in the end they DO almost EXACTLY the same thing.

With the libs, like the Republicans they want us all over the Middle East, invading Kuwait and Afghanistan, making our troops a target and providing artificially cheap oil to deepen our dependence on it because high gas prices scare them. They bombed Hussein's WMDs and demanded he dismantle them. Then Bush goes the microscopic addional step from their views and they screech about how totally different they are and how they only thought Hussein had WMDs for 12 years because Bush, who had been President for 2 (at the time of the invasion) had misled them.

Now we have a Rep, the party who talks about small government, crowing about a liberal government confiscation and giveaway program. In other words, we don't need liberals, Republicans can do the SAME THING! If I wanted the government loving liberals to be in charge I would have voted for them, not asked the Republicans to do it. Thanks, Republicans.

This is why I vote Libertarian most of the time. This just nails my point, the PARTIES ARE THE SAME!!!!! That I can't tell them apart without being told what color their uniform is totally makes sense.

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:31 pm

If a Far right Dem. looked in the mirror he might see a extreme left Rep. as been your point of contention all along.

I get it, but like you if you bash one without bashing the other it's assumed you are the other.

You guys crack me up, you being the odd man out on every debate is cool though.

KazooSkinsFan · Post by **KazooSkinsFan** » Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:52 pm

1niksder wrote:If a Far right Dem. looked in the mirror he might see a extreme left Rep. as been your point of contention all along.

I get it, but like you if you bash one without bashing the other it's assumed you are the other.

You guys crack me up, you being the odd man out on every debate is cool though.

It is cool, thanks. Just two comments.

- I'm not saying just right Dem and left Rep are the same. I'm saying if you strip away all the words, the real, end policies of the two parties are virtually identical.

- On bashing one w/o the other meaning you are supporting the other, I do think it depends on the issue. And in particular now with the left in rabid, hypocritical hysteria over Bush I think particularly criticizing Bush alone for things both parties do is particularly difficult to see as not being motivated by partisan Democratic politics. That is why with liberals I keep making the point they are criticizing him for what they do. And of course being an intelligence challenged ideology liberals keep taking that as support of Bush no matter how many times I fail to support Bush.

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Sat Feb 24, 2007 6:06 pm

Oh I get it, it's just fun watching you explain it over and over again. Even if you agree with a particular post you have to eventually have to explain your position. I claim no party and stay out of political discussions partly for the reason you spend half your time posting.

KazooSkinsFan · Post by **KazooSkinsFan** » Sat Feb 24, 2007 6:24 pm

1niksder wrote:Oh I get it, it's just fun watching you explain it over and over again. Even if you agree with a particular post you have to eventually have to explain your position. I claim no party and stay out of political discussions partly for the reason you spend half your time posting.

I've been testing different tactics on arguing with liberals. That's what's kept me entertained even when I have to keep repeating the same points to them because of how slowly they process new information.

Generally I find since they are such simpletons the more simple you keep your arguments the more effective you are. Anything beyond one simple concept in an argument and you completely lose them and accomplish nothing.

The funniest part is that no matter how many times I tell them I am a libertarian and how I've never defended any Bush policy they constantly revert to their anti-Republican talking points.

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Sat Feb 24, 2007 6:27 pm

libertarian - liberals you use a L word you get what you get even it's the wrong L word :wink:

UK Skins Fan · Post by **UK Skins Fan** » Sun Feb 25, 2007 7:23 am

jazzskins wrote:
ATV wrote:http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=17394&cid=4&cname=Business+Today

"The board ruled the choice of words was irresponsible, but the association with Mr Bush did not cause serious or widespread offence."
Those wacky Euro's! They really hate Bush!

I don't follow.

jazzskins · Post by **jazzskins** » Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:27 am

UK Skins Fan wrote:
jazzskins wrote:
ATV wrote:http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=17394&cid=4&cname=Business+Today

"The board ruled the choice of words was irresponsible, but the association with Mr Bush did not cause serious or widespread offence."
Those wacky Euro's! They really hate Bush!

I don't follow.

Well, perhaps not so much on your island, but on the mailland it seems that they can't get enough of Bush Bashing. Last summer I spent some time in Germany, and Austria. While there I spoke with several people from countries around Europe, watched alot of TV from other countries, shopped at the markets, etc. When I talked to people and they knew I was American they felt obliged to tell me just how much my President was ruining they're world. I felt it was strange that they felt so at ease telling me how much my country's leadership sucks. I don't even know who the leader of Austria is!

Chad

crazyhorse1 · Post by **crazyhorse1** » Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:32 am

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
1niksder wrote:Oh I get it, it's just fun watching you explain it over and over again. Even if you agree with a particular post you have to eventually have to explain your position. I claim no party and stay out of political discussions partly for the reason you spend half your time posting.

I've been testing different tactics on arguing with liberals. That's what's kept me entertained even when I have to keep repeating the same points to them because of how slowly they process new information.

Generally I find since they are such simpletons the more simple you keep your arguments the more effective you are. Anything beyond one simple concept in an argument and you completely lose them and accomplish nothing.

The funniest part is that no matter how many times I tell them I am a libertarian and how I've never defended any Bush policy they constantly revert to their anti-Republican talking points.

Simmer down now. You invite the assumption that you are a right winger, and possibly a Republican in Libertarian clothing. Your special scorn is heaped on liberals (who are usually Democrats) and your obvious hatred for spending funds on the poor is apparently not balanced by your nonexistent hatred or lack of knowledge of welfare/tax breaks/legislation/spin designed to enhance the power of the elite. You seem to be relatively blind to GOP catering to Corporations, contempt for the environment , and support of social and economic inequites, as well as its falsehood and manipulation of the press. Libertarians, generally, are not so keen sighted in relation to the left and then so blind or subdued in regard to the right. Until your worldview is more balanced, it will be difficult to accept you as a libertarian, no matter how many times you say you are.

jazzskins · Post by **jazzskins** » Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:40 am

1niksder wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:
jazzskins wrote:
ATV wrote:http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=17394&cid=4&cname=Business+Today

"The board ruled the choice of words was irresponsible, but the association with Mr Bush did not cause serious or widespread offence."
Those wacky Euro's! They really hate Bush!

I do too, where your reasoning is failing you is in not hating Democrats.

I'm willing to bet jazzskin hate the Dems more than you ever will

I don't hate the dems. I am a conservative christian. I don't make that a secret, but I don't hate the dems. There are several dems that I respect, and there are several Republican's that I don't like. I do agree with KazooSkins in one respect. While I don't think that the republican's and dem's policies are the same, neither one of them holds a consistent, or logically coherent philosophy. I mean, the republicans oppose Abortion rights, but have no problem with the death penalty? Dem's want peace....they want peace at any cost, even to the point of fighting you at one of their rallies for not agreeing with them. No, there is no consistency on either side of the isle.

My posts on here regarding the Dems are only to address what I think are logical inconsistencies, and of course my occasional pet issue.

crazyhorse1 · Post by **crazyhorse1** » Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:44 am

jazzskins wrote:
1niksder wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:
jazzskins wrote:
ATV wrote:http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=17394&cid=4&cname=Business+Today

"The board ruled the choice of words was irresponsible, but the association with Mr Bush did not cause serious or widespread offence."
Those wacky Euro's! They really hate Bush!

I do too, where your reasoning is failing you is in not hating Democrats.

I'm willing to bet jazzskin hate the Dems more than you ever will

I don't hate the dems. I am a conservative christian. I don't make that a secret, but I don't hate the dems. There are several dems that I respect, and there are several Republican's that I don't like. I do agree with KazooSkins in one respect. While I don't think that the republican's and dem's policies are the same, neither one of them holds a consistent, or logically coherent philosophy. I mean, the republicans oppose Abortion rights, but have no problem with the death penalty? Dem's want peace....they want peace at any cost, even to the point of fighting you at one of their rallies for not agreeing with them. No, there is no consistency on either side of the isle.

My posts on here regarding the Dems are only to address what I think are logical inconsistencies, and of course my occasional pet issue.

http://rawstory.com/news/afp/In_US_reco ... 42007.html

Whose fault is the above, primarily? The Dems? The Republicans? Bush?
The Poor?

The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Bush, record setting Homeless Initiative

Bush, record setting Homeless Initiative

Re: Bush, record setting Homeless Initiative

Re: Bush, record setting Homeless Initiative