QFW?

Comments (16)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

1. Delaware Dem says:

   August 4, 2009 at 7:19 am

   First, what does “QFW” mean? I suppose Q is for Question. Question For Week? Poor grammar.

   Second, he is being paid nothing.

2. Delaware's Coolest Blogger says:

   August 4, 2009 at 7:21 am

   question for wednesday douche

   source that says he getting paid nothing?

3. Delaware Republican says:

   August 4, 2009 at 7:21 am

   Talk about a scary option. The North Koreans will release women to Bill Clinton, yikes.

   http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/25775.html

   Mike Protack

4. Delaware Dem says:

   August 4, 2009 at 7:28 am

   Donviti…. it is Tuesday.

5. Delaware Dem says:

   August 4, 2009 at 7:29 am

   Hahaha, Mike Protack, after many long years, finally made a funny joke that is actually joke and not just his policy positions.

6. donviti says:

   August 4, 2009 at 8:20 am

   dang!

   Question for Whoever douche!

7. Ombudsman RSmitty says:

   August 4, 2009 at 8:29 am

   I always considered it Question For Work.

   Hmm, so now Protack (Airline Captain, not Pilot) has corrected DD and made him laugh in genuine humor, all in less than 12 hours. DD is slipping and fast.

   Oh, and technically speaking, DV, they are right that it is unsustainable, at that level without raising taxes. The unspoken, inferred part of that line is to take it to a lower level via cuts. So, the drawn out equation is to keep it at this level and raise taxes, or cut it down to a lower level and don’t raise taxes.

8. mike w. says:

   August 4, 2009 at 9:46 am

   “We can’t sustain at this level without raising taxes”?

   That’s not a Republican meme, it’s basic common sense.

9. cassandra m says:

   August 4, 2009 at 9:48 am

   It’s a meme until the oh so worried repubs actually propose the new taxes they think we need.

10. Dorian Gray says:

    August 4, 2009 at 10:30 am

    BTW, I believe “Question for Whoever” is also grammatically incorrect. Someone will surely correct me but after the preposition ‘for’ I think you need to use the subjective “whomever”. Anybody? 🙂 🙂 🙂

11. Ombudsman RSmitty says:

    August 4, 2009 at 10:32 am

    Actually, DG, I think you are grammatically CORRECT!

12. Delaware Dem says:

    August 4, 2009 at 11:23 am

    Mike W endorses raising taxes. News at 11.

13. anon2 says:

    August 4, 2009 at 12:18 pm

    Maybe Obama should have sent the porn mustached one to get the women? Protack are you a good pilot? I ask this because your judgement on most any topic is so lame and uneducated it would be hard to imagine your logic in the air should go unquestioned.

14. Perry says:

    August 4, 2009 at 2:22 pm

    For whomever. The object of a preposition is put into the objective case of the pronoun. Thank you, Ms Mattera, for teaching sentence diagramming to me in 1949, and Ms Finney, for reinforcing it for four years in Latin. (I am ancient, back in time with the dinosaurs.)

15. mike w. says:

    August 4, 2009 at 3:59 pm

    “Mike W endorses raising taxes. News at 11”

    Oh hell no. I endorse cutting spending & the size of government. It simply amazes me that Obama would make a promise not to raise ANY taxes on anyone making under $250K and then proceed to go on a rampant spending spree that makes Bush look like a fiscal Conservative. (of course anyone with common sense should know that his promise was BS and totally at odds with all the shit he wanted to spend money on.)

    This unprecedented spending puts him in a position where we must either raise taxes or cut spending. We know he and the Dems aren’t going to cut spending, since they want MORE stimulus and seem to have a penchant for throwing around trillions without a care in the world.

16. Tom S says:

    August 4, 2009 at 9:47 pm

    We all know why Billy C went…without Hillary…