The State of the Union address..

[BoomerJack]

.. is gonna be this Tuesday evening.

What do you think the over/under is:

as to the number of standing ovations Pres. Bush gets during the address. Don't include the one he gets when he enters & leaves the chamber nor the ones given to guests in the gallery box that he acknowledges.

the number of uniformed military personnel in the gallery box

the number of times the camera pans to a seething Ted Kennedy

the total length of the address. This from the time he begins speaking to when he finishes.

the number of times the camera pans to Tom Delay, grinning like a Cheshire cat.

how many times the Pres. uses the term, "evil doers". This may not be as many as one would think. He hasn't been using it as much lately as he used to.

Whether or not the Pres. tries to exit through a locked door. Recall, if you will, what happened during one of his stops on his last visit to the Far East.



Add any others that you can think of. Try to have some fun with it.

[StoopTroup]

I'm pretty sure the camera will be on Hillary more than Ted.

[Octavian]

The # of times one side is standing and cheering while the other is collectively gazing in bewilderment

[jk the sooner fan]

how many times he says "nucular"

[lexsooner]

I would really like to see our government implement the Question and Answer sessions they have in the English parliment with the Prime Minister. I believe Canada and other former colonies do this. I watch it on CSPAN sometimes and it is really entertaining.

Could you imagine W taking questions from Senators and trying to answer them without a script, stumbling around, messing up words and facts? Now that would be funny.

[Okla-homey]

I would really like to see our government implement the Question and Answer sessions they have in the English parliment with the Prime Minister. I believe Canada and other former colonies do this. I watch it on CSPAN sometimes and it is really entertaining.

Could you imagine W taking questions from Senators and trying to answer them without a script, stumbling around, messing up words and facts? Now that would be funny.

The problem with that scheme is the MP's have all the time they need to do careful research, script their questions and follow-ups and have their facts close at hand on their clipboards -- all dutifully provided by their staff.

The poor guy taking the question has to pretty much wing it.

I'm not sure what's accomplished other than providing a bit of levity.

[soonerscuba]

I'm not sure what's accomplished other than providing a bit of levity.

Uh, watching Bush take unscripted questions about his policy is hours and hours of top notch entertainment for people like me.

You know, bitter people.

[lexsooner]

The problem with that scheme is the MP's have all the time they need to do careful research, script their questions and follow-ups and have their facts close at hand on their clipboards -- all dutifully provided by their staff.

The poor guy taking the question has to pretty much wing it.

I'm not sure what's accomplished other than providing a bit of levity.

I don't know, Thatcher and Blair handled themeselves remarkably well on their feet during the grillings. John Major not as well. It would show how much a President really knows facts and understands issues. I think if W had to undergo Q and A, he would be badly exposed.

One thing which is very apparent in watching English Parliment and the U.S. Congress is how little our political parties truly differ on issues over a grand scale, as opposed to the Brits, and what little class and cultural differences exist between our parties as compared to the Brits. When a Tory stands up, you know it is a Tory by his upper class dress and speech. When a Labor guy stands up, he often looks and talks like a Northern English coal miner with a crumpled blazer and no teeth. The Tory has teeth, albeit bad ones.

[OklahomaTuba]

I’m sure it will be Bush's usual litany of lies, and the right-wing controlled media will help him once again by waiting until AFTER his speech to air the Democrat rebuttal.

Might as well call it the disgrace of the union speech.

[SicEmBaylor]

Well, 99.9% of my life is politics so the State of the Union is both a great opportunity for work and play. It usually means a bit more work for me, but my little radically extreme right-wing organization usually holds a SOTU party featuring the Dubya drinking game...


I would really like to see our government implement the Question and Answer sessions they have in the English parliment with the Prime Minister. I believe Canada and other former colonies do this. I watch it on CSPAN sometimes and it is really entertaining.

Could you imagine W taking questions from Senators and trying to answer them without a script, stumbling around, messing up words and facts? Now that would be funny.

Anyway, the problem with this is that the Prime Minister and all the ministers with portfolio are members of the Parliament itself. That is what enables those bodies to directly question the PM within their own chamber, because he's a fellow member. The equivalent in this country would be Speaker Hastert answering questions from House members. In other words, in a similar system within this country the President wouldn't be the one to answer those questions.

[Okla-homey]

don't forget the obligatory shots of the Supremes, soon to be composed of a solid 7-2 conservative majority.;)

[JohnnyMack]

don't forget the obligatory shots of the Supremes, soon to be composed of a solid 7-2 conservative majority.;)

Oh well, I wasn't using my civil liberties anyway. ;)

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Uh, watching Bush take unscripted questions about his policy is hours and hours of top notch entertainment for people like me.

You know, bitter people.kudos for brazen honesty.

[IronSooner]

I'd drink to "justice" and "progress" rather than "evildoers". Guaranteed to floor you midway through.

[Octavian]

I'd drink to "justice" and "progress" rather than "evildoers". Guaranteed to floor you midway through.

I think I'll just drink either way. ;)

[Crimson_Balls]

Bush should give his State of the Union address after the "Stones" perform their halftime show. After all, Americans know a lot more about proffessional sports than domestic politics.

[VeeJay]

The partisan hatred existing today tells me he'll be booed when he enters the chamber.

Anyone remember last year's statement when he said "Certain provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire" and the entire Democratic side broke out in cheers and applause?

I expect cameras will be on Ted, Hillary, Pelosi, Harry Reid, and John Kerry. Too bad Al Gore won't be there to sigh and roll his eyes all night long.

For good entertainment, log on to the Air America boards Wednesday morning. Some of those people have taken the bullet train out of town.

[SicEmBaylor]

The partisan hatred existing today tells me he'll be booed when he enters the chamber.

Anyone remember last year's statement when he said "Certain provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire" and the entire Democratic side broke out in cheers and applause?

I expect cameras will be on Ted, Hillary, Pelosi, Harry Reid, and John Kerry. Too bad Al Gore won't be there to sigh and roll his eyes all night long.

For good entertainment, log on to the Air America boards Wednesday morning. Some of those people have taken the bullet train out of town.

It isn't just partisan hatred that might lead one to boo President Bush. Frankly, I'm not so sure I wouldn't boo him myself if given the opportunity. I'm first and foremost a strict constructionist and a conservative second. That means having a great enough respect for founding intent and federalism to pursuit a domestic agenda that is compatible with those values. Unfortunately, President Bush and a re-shaped Republican Party are as guilty of big government abuses as Democratic Presidents and the Democratic Party have been in the past. Should we look past those abuses because those abuses are made with conservative ends in mind rather than progressive ones? I think not.

President Bush is not representative of the values of Barry Goldwater, and he's nothing like what I would expect from a Reagan II style Presidency. Conservatives need to wake up and realize that the Republican Party especially under the Bush Administration is as guilty and even more guilty than Clinton, in some ways, of big governmentalism and federal abuse of power.

I support the President's War on Terror including the war in Iraq, but the misguided pipe dream of reshaping the middle east into a bastion of democracy at the expense of limited government at home is frankly scary and disturbing.

And no before I get bashed for saying that, NONE of it has to do with the Patriot Act or any other method of fighting the war. I'm referring purely to the President's domestic policies. Including but certainly not limited to his Thatcherite ownership society he peddled in the last election.

[okienole3]

From bodog.com

How many Standing Ovations will President W. Bush receive during his State of the Union Address?

* Preview

Any wagers placed after outcome becomes public knowledge will be graded as No Action. No Refunds. No Over limit Wagers. The standing ovation will need to be recorded and reported by news outlets. The speech will take place on January 31, 06.
0-15

6/5
16-30

2/1
31-40

5/2
41-50

3/1
51-60

7/2
61-70

12/1
70 or more standing ovations

20/1
In President George W Bush's 2006 State of the Union address, how many times will the President say the words: Space Terrorism?

* Preview

Any wagers placed after outcome becomes public knowledge will be graded as No Action. No Refunds. No Over limit Wagers. Max $100. The speech will take place on January 31, 06.
0 Times

1/3
1 Time

11/10
2 Times

7/5
3 Times

3/1
4 Times

5/2
5 Times

9/1
6 Times

11/1
7 Times

10/1
8 Times or more

15/1
In President George W Bush's 2006 State of the Union address, how many times will the President say the words: Patriot Act?

* Preview

Any wagers placed after outcome becomes public knowledge will be graded as No Action. No Refunds. No Over limit Wagers. Max $100. The speech will take place on January 31, 06.
0-2 times

2/1
3-5 times

3/2
6-9 times

5/2
10 or more times

6/1
In President George W Bush's 2006 State of the Union address, how many times will the President say the word: Nuclear?

* Preview

Any wagers placed after outcome becomes public knowledge will be graded as No Action. No Refunds. No Over limit Wagers. Max $100. The speech will take place on January 31, 06.
0-5 Times

1/1
6-10 Times

3/2
11-16 Times

4/1
17-22 Times

6/1
23-28 Times

8/1
29 or more Times

15/1
Will the US Patriot Act be renewed by February 3rd , 2006 ?

Any wagers placed after outcome becomes public knowledge will be graded as No Action. The Patriot Act must be publicly renewed by February 3rd; 2006 for Yes wagers to be graded a win. An extension to the act is NOT considered a renewal, and will result in Yes wagers being graded a loss.No Refunds. No Over limit Wagers. Max $100
Yes

-110
No

-130
How many years will lobbyist Jack Abramoff be sentenced to prison on federal charges ?

* In-progress

Any wagers placed after outcome becomes public knowledge will be graded as No Action. No Refunds. No Over limit Wagers. If there is a mistrial or case is dropped, all wagers will be graded as No Action. Wager will be settled once verdict is made public. No Parlays. Max $100 (ONLY)
Under 3 years

3/2
3 to under 5 years

5/2
5 to under 8 years

7/2
8 to under 15 years

5/2
15 years or more

13/1

[SicEmBaylor]

Are we talking total standing ovations or partial?

Two total standing ovations at most not including entrance/exit.

Seven partials if Alito is confirmed earlier that day; six if he isn't.

[GottaHavePride]

Anyway, the problem with this is that the Prime Minister and all the ministers with portfolio are members of the Parliament itself. That is what enables those bodies to directly question the PM within their own chamber, because he's a fellow member. The equivalent in this country would be Speaker Hastert answering questions from House members. In other words, in a similar system within this country the President wouldn't be the one to answer those questions.

By a similar comparison, if we were using England's system, Bush's only function would be to show up places and wave at people, while Congress took care of actually running the country.

[josh09]

i personally think bush is gonna get WHIPPED!

[n8v_ndn]

I timed Applause vs. Actual Speaking with 2 different watches once. That's how I came to understand why Coach Brown refers to the SOTU Address as his '2nd favorite hobby'.

[Ike]

I'm taking wagers today with my colleagues on what will be his next "chewbacca defense" announcement. you know, like the moon-mars bit, or the hydrogen cars thing. the one thing that comes completely out of left field, that gets a bunch of pundits talking about it for 2 months and then completely dies.

I'm putting my money on an impenetrable wall around 'merica. except that construction will start on the canadian border, and once that is finished, then we work on the mexican border.

[soonerscuba]

two words dude, space oil.

[85Sooner]

I would really like to see our government implement the Question and Answer sessions they have in the English parliment with the Prime Minister. I believe Canada and other former colonies do this. I watch it on CSPAN sometimes and it is really entertaining.

Could you imagine W taking questions from Senators and trying to answer them without a script, stumbling around, messing up words and facts? Now that would be funny.


Can you imagine your senators actually ANSWERING a question? Period.

[Ike]

two words dude, space oil.
the anti-matter economy!

[jdsooner]

I'll give bushy boy a standing "O" the day he leaves office and takes cheney (the dark lord) with him!

[soonerscuba]

I'll give bushy boy a standing "O" the day he leaves office and takes cheney (the dark lord) with him!

I do have one concern with Bush leaving office: pro-establishment music sucks ***, don't believe me? Listen to Toby Keith, Lee Greenwood, Michael McDonald (not sure, but I have a hunch), all country as a matter of fact (except good classic). While anti-establishment music kicks tons of ***, and with a Republican president bands like Green Day, etc. step up their game.

As an analysis, what are the worst 8 years in music history? That's right, 1992 through 2000 (with strong emphasis on 1999 be really, really bad).

Now that I think about it, Vote Frist '08.

[SicEmBaylor]

Now that I think about it, Vote Frist '08.

God, I hope you're kidding. Frist has the testicular fortitude of an 11 year old girl scout.

Purely from a party standpoint my preference for '08 is Mitt Romney and Lt. Gov Michael Steele (R-MD) as Veep. But Steele, unfortunately, is making a Senate bid.

In actuality though I do not intend to support any Republican Presidential candidate who has been a willing accomplice in the Party and Administration's role in abandoning limited government and fedearlism. Which means supporting someone such as Tancredo who isn't the least bit likely to win the nomination should he run. Therefore, I'm voting Constitution Party in '08.

[soonerscuba]

God, I hope you're kidding. Frist has the testicular fortitude of an 11 year old girl scout.

Purely from a party standpoint my preference for '08 is Mitt Romney and Lt. Gov Michael Steele (R-MD) as Veep. But Steele, unfortunately, is making a Senate bid.

Well, I firmly believe that the good, competent, doctor with the amazing ability to wrongly diagnose patients by video from hundreds of miles away for pro-life points will be making his run, and will probably announce during "Justice Sunday 53: The Reckoning".

As a Democrat, Romney scares the hell out of me. Anybody that has the positions that he has that wins in Mass. is either blessed by God or owes the devil.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

God, I hope you're kidding. Frist has the testicular fortitude of an 11 year old girl scout.

Purely from a party standpoint my preference for '08 is Mitt Romney and Lt. Gov Michael Steele (R-MD) as Veep. But Steele, unfortunately, is making a Senate bid.

In actuality though I do not intend to support any Republican Presidential candidate who has been a willing accomplice in the Party and Administration's role in abandoning limited government and fedearlism. Which means supporting someone such as Tancredo who isn't the least bit likely to win the nomination should he run. Therefore, I'm voting Constitution Party in '08. Voting for a third party candidate usually gets the guy elected who you least likey want in office. Ie. vote for Perot, you get Clinton. Vote for Nader, you get "W" Bush.

[SicEmBaylor]

Voting for a third party candidate usually gets the guy elected who you least likey want in office. Ie. vote for Perot, you get Clinton. Vote for Nader, you get "W" Bush.

This is precisely what I would like to see happen. First of all, if you look at Clinton's domestic policy post Republican congressional take over; it's actually fairly moderate. And there are a couple of good reasons for that beyond the obvious political need to moderate before the '96 general. First, Congress during that period drove America's domestic agenda and Clinton was a willing accomplice. Second, it's easier for a Republican controlled congress to tell a Democratic President no on non-defense related discritionary spending than they seem capable of doing for a Republican President.

The Republican Party is at its most conservative when in the opposition. If it means electing a Democratic President in order to shock the GOP back to the right and away from Big Government conservatism then the long term greater good is dependent upon democratic success at the ballot box. Greater electoral success for the GOP has resulted in a party far too comfortable with their power.

Now the only caveat for all of this is if the Democrats retake control of the House and a Democrat is elected President then it'll give them enough of an electoral mandate to pursuit an unthinkably progressive domestic agenda. Therefore while my intention is to vote Constitution Party; I will vote Republican if it appears the Democrats are poised for a Congressional takeover. But it's too early to tell now.

[Octavian]

Less than a terran rotation away...

http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/7497/debate4xy.th.gif (http://img61.imageshack.us/my.php?image=debate4xy.gif)

[BoomerJack]

Geez, I started this just to see if folks could come up with some funny over/under situations in the SOTU address. The ones about "space oil" and "chewbacca announcements" were pretty good.

What are the chances of the camera showing your Congressman?

For some of us, what are the chances of you knowing what your Congressman looks like?

[Ike]

Geez, I started this just to see if folks could come up with some funny over/under situations in the SOTU address. The ones about "space oil" and "chewbacca announcements" were pretty good.

What are the chances of the camera showing your Congressman?

For some of us, what are the chances of you knowing what your Congressman looks like?


well, I know I'll see mine since his ugly mug will be standing behind the Pres.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/indepth/features/img/20020215dennishastert2.jpg

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

This is precisely what I would like to see happen. First of all, if you look at Clinton's domestic policy post Republican congressional take over; it's actually fairly moderate. And there are a couple of good reasons for that beyond the obvious political need to moderate before the '96 general. First, Congress during that period drove America's domestic agenda and Clinton was a willing accomplice. Second, it's easier for a Republican controlled congress to tell a Democratic President no on non-defense related discritionary spending than they seem capable of doing for a Republican President.

The Republican Party is at its most conservative when in the opposition. If it means electing a Democratic President in order to shock the GOP back to the right and away from Big Government conservatism then the long term greater good is dependent upon democratic success at the ballot box. Greater electoral success for the GOP has resulted in a party far too comfortable with their power.

Now the only caveat for all of this is if the Democrats retake control of the House and a Democrat is elected President then it'll give them enough of an electoral mandate to pursuit an unthinkably progressive domestic agenda. Therefore while my intention is to vote Constitution Party; I will vote Republican if it appears the Democrats are poised for a Congressional takeover. But it's too early to tell now.So, I think you're saying something like "I'll kick it down the road 'til the fog clears, and I can make a more knowledgeable dec".???

[SicEmBaylor]

So, I think you're saying somethig like "I'll kick it down the road 'til the fog clears, and I can make a more knowledgeable dec".???

Not quite. My Presidential vote is dependent upon what the Democratic net gain is in the House. And there's absolutely no way to know how the truly competitive seats are going to turn out. We're not even through the primaries yet.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Not quite. My Presidential vote is dependent upon what the Democratic net gain is in the House. And there's absolutely no way to know how the truly competitive seats are going to turn out. We're not even through the primaries yet.So, that's a "yes"?

[SicEmBaylor]

So, that's a "yes"?

It's a "I'm voting Constitution Party unless it appears as if the House and Presidency could go Democratic in which case I'll vote Republican." :D

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

It's a "I'm voting Constitution Party unless it appears as if the House and Presidency could go Democratic in which case I'll vote Republican." :DDid you just make up the "constitution party"?:O

[SicEmBaylor]

::sigh::
http://www.constitutionparty.com/

CSPAN interview with Peroutka
http://www.c-span.org/search/basic.asp?ResultStart=1&ResultCount=10&BasicQueryText=Constitution&image1.x=0&image1.y=0&image1=Submit
Click on the first one, CSPAN doesn't let you direct link to video feeds.

[Mrs. Norm]

All I hear right now is "BLAH, BLAH, BLAH", Clapppppppp!!!!!!!!!!

"BLAH, BLAH, BLAH", Clappppppppppp!!!!!!

[Okieflyer]

Oh well, I wasn't using my civil liberties anyway. ;)

Alito, YEAH!!!!:D

[47straight]

Doubling physical science research, attracting engineers and scientists to teach science in the high schools, alternative energy, and no exploitation or sale of human life.

I've been sayin all this stuff for years.

[Ike]

Doubling physical science research, attracting engineers and scientists to teach science in the high schools, alternative energy, and no exploitation or sale of human life.

I've been sayin all this stuff for years.


yeah, so have alot of people....


one part I didn't see comming tho....banning mantelopes!


there goes my dissertation research.

[Mrs. Norm]

I don't remember such blatant bi-partisanship actions during a State of the Union. GW seemed a little taken aback when the democrats stood up when he said that they wouldn't vote for the social security tax law. I have a feeling they don't like GW very much.

[soonerscuba]

yeah, so have alot of people....

Namely people who give a damn about the environment. Welcome out of the fringe Mr. President, you're only 20 years late.

[SanDiegoSoonerGal]

played sotu drinky game (simpl vershion




)

tak drink ever tim bush liks lips

whoooo eeeyyy

lots dinks!!

see yas tmorra

:D

[BOOMERBRADLEY]

I don't remember such blatant bi-partisanship actions during a State of the Union. GW seemed a little taken aback when the democrats stood up when he said that they wouldn't vote for the social security tax law. I have a feeling they don't like GW very much.

I have never witnessed such a thing either :confused:

[picasso]

I don't remember such blatant bi-partisanship actions during a State of the Union. GW seemed a little taken aback when the democrats stood up when he said that they wouldn't vote for the social security tax law. I have a feeling they don't like GW very much.
I've seen it. It's been going on for quite a while actually.
It's all propaganda regardless of which party is giving the speech.

[Octavian]

played sotu drinky game (simpl vershion




)

tak drink ever tim bush liks lips

whoooo eeeyyy

lots dinks!!

see yas tmorra

:D


Right on...I played too. He said "nucular" twice...half the people drank while the other half shook their heads in amazement and then drank. I was w/ the latter.

Seems like you were drinking liquor though ;)

[Okla-homey]

I thought it was pretty cool that he said he opposed human-animal crossbreeding experiments...that will be very unpopular in texass.

[Hatfield]

i ain't seen that much standing up and sitting down even at a damn catholic wedding.

seriously cut that out and the whole speech lasts like 26 minutes.

[SicEmBaylor]

I thought it was pretty cool that he said he opposed human-animal crossbreeding experiments...that will be very unpopular in texass.

Or Stillwater.
Can we get a Federal ban on Peanut Butter square experiments?

[soonerscuba]

Overall, if he is serious about alternative energy then good on him. It will take a Republican to push the issue, because any Democrat who mentions the word alternative energy is asked to kindly go to back to San Fran with all the other hippies. I personally think it takes a man to realize that the thing that has made all of his wildest dreams come true (oil) is not the answer of the future, at least not in it's current form and start pushing the government in a better direction. I just hope it isn't lip service.

The primary issue that I split from Democrats is energy. Probably because I grew up in Oklahoma, but I really don't see the oil companies as inherently evil. Their lobby money is, but the institution is simply trying to make a buck like everybody else. And for God's sake we need nuclear energy.

[Czar Soonerov]

http://youtube.com/w/State-of-the-Union-2006----Bush-Impression?v=upTUbqc5Pso

[RacerX]

I had no idea anybody watched these things.

[C&CDean]

I actually sat and watched it. Well I did bounce back and forth a little between it and OU women's BB. Anyhow, I must honestly say that it was without question, the best "speech" GWB has ever given. He stumbled on his words maybe 2-3 times max, managed to say "nucular" very quickly so you couldn't tell he was butchering it, and didn't have that "deer in the headlights" goofy look like he has in speeches past. Well, not too many times anyhow.

As to content, I believe it's probably the best SOUA he's given - especially given the fact that the Kennedy/Hillary/HowardD/whackjob crowd has been attacking him like a pack of pit bulls on a poodle. No huge laundry list. Clear, concise points, and I believe he offered some hope for the future by continually stressing the evils of all the bipartisan bull**** that's dragging the country down.

I also must honestly say that they don't make enough money for me to be the prez during this period of our history. It's a no-win gig. You're constantly attacked from within and without. Nobody listens to what you're saying because their agenda is already set, the radical muslims are wringing their hands in glee watching us eat ourselves from the inside out, and even the dumps you take in the morning are suspect.

Overall, I give him a healthy B+.

[jk the sooner fan]

i thought it was well done also.....i especially liked his comment that "hindsight was not wisdom"

edit: here's the full quote -
Yet there is a difference between responsible criticism that aims for success, and defeatism that refuses to acknowledge anything but failure. Hindsight alone is not wisdom. And second-guessing is not a strategy.

[colleyvillesooner]

i thought it was well done also.....i especially liked his comment that "hindsight was not wisdom"
Yeah, but it lost it's luster when he followed it up with "It's 20/30, everyone knows that!" ;)

[Herr Scholz]

I must honestly say that it was without question, the best "speech" GWB has ever given.
It's the same speech he's been giving for 4 years, nothing new. I think he actually cut and pasted from previous speeches. Wrapped himself in the flag and talked about terrorism.


As to content, I believe it's probably the best SOUA he's given - especially given the fact that the Kennedy/Hillary/HowardD/whackjob crowd has been attacking him like a pack of pit bulls on a poodle.
It's an election year. Don't expect any working together this year. The Dems are going to try to take back the House and they're going to make the Repubs look as bad as possible.

As for his plees for bipartisanship, it's a little late in the game for that. The anger has already hardened. It's also a little bit disengenuous after the way the corrupt Republicans have acted, namely Karl Rove, Jack Abramoff and Tom Delay.

[picasso]

It's the same speech he's been giving for 4 years, nothing new. I think he actually cut and pasted from previous speeches. Wrapped himself in the flag and talked about terrorism.


It's an election year. Don't expect any working together this year. The Dems are going to try to take back the House and they're going to make the Repubs look as bad as possible.

As for his plees for bipartisanship, it's a little late in the game for that. The anger has already hardened. It's also a little bit disengenuous after the way the corrupt Republicans have acted, namely Karl Rove, Jack Abramoff and Tom Delay.
hahaha!

and just how disengenous was the Dem response? I mean I heard nothing about their constant whining and criticism without any real plan of their own. and I heard nothing about the real agenda of tax and spend and help let us help you.:D

[Herr Scholz]

and just how disengenous was the Dem response? I mean I heard nothing about their constant whining and criticism without any real plan of their own. and I heard nothing about the real agenda of tax and spend and help let us help you.:D
Guess you had your hands over your ears then.

Cheaper health care, better education, fix the entitlement programs, stop the illegal wire taps, stop the Republican corruption in general, and there was something else... Hmm, what was it...

Oh yeah, stop creating record deficits that our grandchildren will be paying off. If we're a 'nation at war' like Bush likes to repeat ad nauseum, shouldn't we be sacrificing? If our costs are going through the roof (something the Republican party is even bashing Bush about), shouldn't our revenue be going up too? Noooooo, let's make the tax cuts for the rich permanent. That's a great idea.

[C&CDean]

It's the same speech he's been giving for 4 years, nothing new. I think he actually cut and pasted from previous speeches. Wrapped himself in the flag and talked about terrorism.


It's an election year. Don't expect any working together this year. The Dems are going to try to take back the House and they're going to make the Repubs look as bad as possible.

As for his plees for bipartisanship, it's a little late in the game for that. The anger has already hardened. It's also a little bit disengenuous after the way the corrupt Republicans have acted, namely Karl Rove, Jack Abramoff and Tom Delay.

I don't keep up with all the "corrupt Republicans" like you do Herr, but whatever they did - were they doing it to attack your folks? Were they acting like ****ing idiots (Kennedy/Dean/Boxer/etc) and ignoring all the issues and only attacking the other side because they're the enemy?

Your party has become nothing more than a bunch of bitter, whiney, crybaby losers who have completely lost sight of everything that is important. All they care about is themselves. The "me" people. Many of them honestly want the USA to lose the war on terror - just so they can go "see, I told you so." And it's pathetic man. Admit it, you guys are in such a sad, miserable, deplorable state that normal people are beginning to not even listen anymore.

One last question. Why do you hate America?

[jk the sooner fan]

Herr - feel free, if you got a tax refund, to send it back to the IRS as a gift, you can have them put it back in the federal coffers.....

put your money where your mouth is

cheaper health care? thats a beaut....its a great catch line, but tell/show us how your'e going to accomplish it....as well as all your other great ideas


and by the way, if you think the wiretaps are illegal, then i'm damn glad people like you arent in a position to make decisions where the safety of this country are concerned

[picasso]

Guess you had your hands over your ears then.

Cheaper health care, better education, fix the entitlement programs, stop the illegal wire taps, stop the Republican corruption in general, and there was something else... Hmm, what was it...

Oh yeah, stop creating record deficits that our grandchildren will be paying off. If we're a 'nation at war' like Bush likes to repeat ad nauseum, shouldn't we be sacrificing? If our costs are going through the roof (something the Republican party is even bashing Bush about), shouldn't our revenue be going up too? Noooooo, let's make the tax cuts for the rich permanent. That's a great idea.
oh I heard every word of it, every disengenuous word.
Give me a break Scholz, you're just as full of it as Bush and any other Repub/Dem inside the Beltway.

you do know that war costs money right?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I don't keep up with all the "corrupt Republicans" like you do Herr, but whatever they did - were they doing it to attack your folks? Were they acting like ****ing idiots (Kennedy/Dean/Boxer/etc) and ignoring all the issues and only attacking the other side because they're the enemy?

Your party has become nothing more than a bunch of bitter, whiney, crybaby losers who have completely lost sight of everything that is important. All they care about is themselves. The "me" people. Many of them honestly want the USA to lose the war on terror - just so they can go "see, I told you so." And it's pathetic man. Admit it, you guys are in such a sad, miserable, deplorable state that normal people are beginning to not even listen anymore.

One last question. Why do you hate America?:D C&C, you RAWK. You need to save this quoted post, and just paste it every time one of our SF.com socialists goes on one of their many rug-chewing rants. It might save us all a lot of time.

[Herr Scholz]

I don't keep up with all the "corrupt Republicans" like you do Herr, but whatever they did - were they doing it to attack your folks?
No, the Repubs I named: Delay, Abramoff and Rove are all under investigation or indictment for felonies. They're not just partisan politicians, they're criminals. There is a Republican atmosphere of corruption that goes to the top of the party. You just can't get past your own partisan leanings to see it. Or you don't care. I'm talking about things like money laundering, voting fraud, outing a CIA agent, buying votes, etc. Crooks.


Were they acting like ****ing idiots (Kennedy/Dean/Boxer/etc) and ignoring all the issues and only attacking the other side because they're the enemy?
Maybe they're attacking the other side out of ideology? Ever think of that? Our country is not being run well in case you haven't noticed that either (in a number of areas). How's that GM plant in OKC BTW? You think the 30K laid off Ford workers are going to be partying it up at the Super Bowl in Detroit this weekend?

Your party is about big corporations and rich people, big oil and big pharmaceutical companies and giving tax breaks to them. And lining their own pockets. Oh, BTW, Bush is about to drastically slash benefits for veterans after these midterm elections, just like I predicted before the '04 campaign.

[Herr Scholz]

Herr - feel free, if you got a tax refund, to send it back to the IRS as a gift, you can have them put it back in the federal coffers.....
I can tell you understand macroeconomics. :rolleyes:

[jk the sooner fan]

Rove hasnt been indicted yet and you've labeled him a criminal........i thought the left was all about preaching tolerance, innocent before guilt....i guess thats all talk

[Herr Scholz]

you do know that war costs money right?
Yes, I do. Apparently the Republicans don't get it, thus the record deficit spending. We need to raise taxes to pay for it. It's not a hard concept.

[jk the sooner fan]

I can tell you understand macroeconomics. :rolleyes:

actually I made an A in macroeconomics.......but you're asking the President to ask all Americans (which I assume you are one) to make sacrifices.....pay higher taxes

so i'm just saying, it has to start somewhere....everybody has to do their part....are you saying you cant do your part alone? are you saying that you can and will only do it if forced via tax code?

wow, what a patriot you are.....your principles run deep

[Herr Scholz]

Rove hasnt been indicted yet and you've labeled him a criminal........i thought the left was all about preaching tolerance, innocent before guilt....i guess thats all talk
He's as crooked as the day is long. You know it. I know it.

BTW, what happened to Bush's promise to 'get rid of' anyone involved with the Plame leak? It was shown Rove was involved and then it was changed to criminally liable. Talk about empty promises.

Delay and Abramoff have been indicted. On felonies. Criminals.

[Fugue]

I'm betting the Abramoff sword will end up cutting both ways.

[Herr Scholz]

.......but you're asking the President to ask all Americans (which I assume you are one) to make sacrifices.....pay higher taxes
Of course I am. And I don't mind paying my fair share. Me paying higher taxes by myself is not going to do much. I don't make that much money.

[imjebus]

I hate republicans..... Of course I hate democrats also.... I hate all politicians in general.... They are going to try and turn everything around to fit their agenda no matter what party they are. None of us know what is true anymore. You just know what your party tells you.. IMO

[jk the sooner fan]

He's as crooked as the day is long. You know it. I know it.

BTW, what happened to Bush's promise to 'get rid of' anyone involved with the Plame leak? It was shown Rove was involved and then it was changed to criminally liable. Talk about empty promises.

Delay and Abramoff have been indicted. On felonies. Criminals.

no actually i DONT know it.....thats what we have a justice system for, if the facts bear out that he is indeed a criminal......then great....however i'll take the more responsible approach and wait for facts rather than speculate

i spent 15 years as a criminal investigator, and never went into an investigation assuming i knew the facts

you THINK you know that he is....you WANT to believe that he is because it makes your hatred so much easier

[Herr Scholz]

you THINK you know that he is....you WANT to believe that he is because it makes your hatred so much easier
He has a long history in Texas and Washington politics for outing enemies in the press. He's been doing this sort of thing with Novak for over a decade. Did a systematic MO and prior bad acts ever enter into your work as a prosecutor?

[1stTimeCaller]

I'm just glad that the Democratic party can't be linked to big money special intrest groups like the Republican party can. :rolleyes:

Glass houses Herr.

[C&CDean]

Is perjury a felony?

[Herr Scholz]

I'm just glad that the Democratic party can't be linked to big money special intrest groups like the Republican party can. :rolleyes:

Glass houses Herr.
There's a difference between political contributions and outright selling of votes. In the Abramoff Indian casino debaucle, that's exactly what happened. Lobbyist reform is probably the only thing that will be passed in Washington in '06. Democrats want it and Republicans look so bad right now they wouldn't dare oppose it.

[picasso]

I'm just glad that the Democratic party can't be linked to big money special intrest groups like the Republican party can. :rolleyes:

Glass houses Herr.
yep, what's that Soros fella up to these days? living outside of the continental US is one thing.

[Herr Scholz]

Is perjury a felony?
Always Clinton isn't it? If you can't see the difference between lying about infidelity and the political corruption that is going on under this Republican leadership, you just don't care about crime.

The Republican National Committee helped Tom Delay launder illegal corporate donations (fact) so that Delay could distribute them to politicians running for the Texas House. This enabled the Texas House to gerrymander the voting districts in Texas, enabling them to send more Texas Republicans to Washington and win the House there. That's the top of the Republican party and it's corrupt.

[Fugue]

Always Clinton isn't it? If you can't see the difference between lying about infidelity and the political corruption that is going on under this Republican leadership, you just don't care about crime.

it has nothing to do with the infidelity, it's the lying under oath that was the problem. Even more a problem for me in that he did it as an attorney.

[1stTimeCaller]

you sure sound angry there Herr.

[Harry Beanbag]

Herr has to be someone's troll. Good Lord. :rolleyes:

[Mjcpr]

it has nothing to do with the infidelity, it's the lying under oath that was the problem. Even more a problem for me in that he did it as an attorney.

Yeah, those attorneys have always been known for telling the truth. :D

[Fugue]

Yeah, those attorneys have always been known for telling the truth. :D

it depends on what your definition of troof is.

[Harry Beanbag]

It's an election year. Don't expect any working together this year. The Dems are going to try to take back the House and they're going to make the Repubs look as bad as possible.



Bull****. The dems have been behaving like spoiled children that weren't allowed to get any candy in the checkout line for the last four years. They've been in election year mode since Gore lost with only a brief respite immediately following 9/11.

[Herr Scholz]

you sure sound angry there Herr.
I am. I love this country and hate the way it's being run.

[Herr Scholz]

Beanbag, when you disagree with every single policy of the administration, and these policies are ramrodded down your throat from the administration and majorities in both the Senate and House, it becomes hard to work together.

I thought Bush was going to be the 'Great Uniter'? He couldn't be more the opposite.

[Harry Beanbag]

There's a difference between political contributions and outright selling of votes. In the Abramoff Indian casino debaucle, that's exactly what happened. Lobbyist reform is probably the only thing that will be passed in Washington in '06. Democrats want it and Republicans look so bad right now they wouldn't dare oppose it.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/02/AR2005060202158.html


But Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy (D-R.I.) ran second, with $128,000 in the same period. From 1999 to 2001, Kennedy chaired the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which solicited campaign donations for House candidates.

The Indians' largess flowed to higher-ranking Democrats as well. Senate Democratic leaders Reid and Daschle each received more than $40,000 from the tribes and from lobbyists on Abramoff's team during the period. Gephardt got $32,500.

Of the 18 largest recipients of tribe contributions directed by Abramoff's group, six, or one-third, were Democrats. These included Sen. Patty Murray (Wash.), who chaired the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee from 2001 to 2002, and Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (N.D.), a leader in Indian affairs legislation.

[JohnnyMack]

I don't KNOW that Karl Rove is a criminal.

I do THINK he's a scumbag. I wouldn't trust him with a sack of dead hamsters.

[Harry Beanbag]

Beanbag, when you disagree with every single policy of the administration, and these policies are ramrodded down your throat from the administration and majorities in both the Senate and House, it becomes hard to work together.

I thought Bush was going to be the 'Great Uniter'? He couldn't be more the opposite.


That's the whole problem. They disagree with everything just because they're coming from Bush. It's childish.

[JohnnyMack]

I like the way W talks about tax cuts this and affordable health care that all the while he wraps himself in the American flag and calls out our patriotism if we don't support him and the TRILLIONS of dollars (and thousands of lives) he is wasting in Iraq.

[Fugue]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/02/AR2005060202158.html

i'm shocked :texan:

[Big Red Ron]

I like the way W talks about tax cuts this and affordable health care that all the while he wraps himself in the American flag and calls out our patriotism if we don't support him and the TRILLIONS of dollars (and thousands of lives) he is wasting in Iraq.Wasting? Wow, just wow. History tells us otherwise.

[soonerscuba]

That's the whole problem. They disagree with everything just because they're coming from Bush. It's childish.

Have you ever thought for just one second that this isn't the case, and they actually just don't like his policies? To be fair, these are members of the greatest Representative government in the history of the world. Most of them are highly intelligent and charged with the task of managing policy that affects billions of people world-wide, and I guarantee you that they are mostly above childish games and have sound reasons for disagreeing with a policy beyond "it's Bush policy". The Democrats represent roughly 180,000,000 people, they cannot afford to simply capitulate to the administration, because if they did that they would be crushed in their districts.

[NormanPride]

That's the whole problem. They disagree with everything just because they're coming from Bush. It's childish.

Like the republicans did with Clinton? Seriously, guys. Both parties blow. Washington was right when he said partisan politics would be one of the worst things to happen to the U.S.

[Herr Scholz]

That's the whole problem. They disagree with everything just because they're coming from Bush. It's childish.
They disagree with his policies because they don't believe in them. Privatizing entitlement programs was utterly stupid. Tax cuts for the rich that cause record deficits is bad government. Making these tax cuts permanent is ludicrous. The Patriot Act has led to illegal wire taps (why does Bush want the Patriot Act passed again when he's going to ignore the laws on the books and do what he wants anyway?), cutting 114 social programs is heartless and myopic, health care costs are through the roof, education is terrible, etc...

I'm not even talking about this endless money pit of a war either.

As to Democrats selling their votes to Abramoff, they should be given the boot as well. Everyone knows Abramoff's a Republican lobbyist though.

[Herr Scholz]

Wasting? Wow, just wow. History tells us otherwise.
Are you from the future?

[Harry Beanbag]

Like the republicans did with Clinton? Seriously, guys. Both parties blow. Washington was right when he said partisan politics would be one of the worst things to happen to the U.S.


I don't disagree with this at all.

[soonerscuba]

Wasting? Wow, just wow. History tells us otherwise.

Actually history tells us we're doomed in the mid-east. To be fair only a handful of men have successfully invaded Afghanistan, and Bush finds him self in the company of Alexander and Genghis Khan, but the odds are against us in Iraq.

[Big Red Ron]

Are you from the future?Cute, History can teach many lessons. Especially when we're discussing the United States removing a despot and building a democratic form of government (see France, Germany Italy, etc...)

[JohnnyMack]

Wasting? Wow, just wow. History tells us otherwise.

True revolution comes from within.

It is my opinion that Iraq will not maintain a stable democracy once the last U.S. soldier is off Iraqi soil. Just my opinion mind you.

[JohnnyMack]

Cute, History can teach many lessons. Especially when we're discussing the United States removing a despot and building a democratic form of government (see France, Germany Italy, etc...)

You used the French revolution to try and support your point? Shouldn't have slept through that day in class.

[soonerscuba]

Everyone knows Abramoff's a Republican lobbyist though.

To be fair Herr, most lobbyist play for whoever pays them. Why be a Republican lobbyist when you can double your money and chances by working on both parties.

[Big Red Ron]

Actually history tells us we're doomed in the mid-east. To be fair only a handful of men have successfully invaded Afghanistan, and Bush finds him self in the company of Alexander and Genghis Khan, but the odds are against us in Iraq.Man you anti-war types are just too funny. The fact that Iraq has held elections and is moving towards a democracy is a good thing. Remember the formation of our little republic was a little messy and bloody. We'll be in Iraq for another decade, a least, regardless of who is elected President.

The worst thing we could do is leave the people of Iraq without our protection, thus allowing another Sadam type to take over.

[soonerscuba]

I'm calling it right now, the second a Democrat becomes CinC, this whole Iraq mess gets pinned squarely on her, the Republicans attack without mercy to save face for their mistake.

[Herr Scholz]

To be fair Herr, most lobbyist play for whoever pays them. Why be a Republican lobbyist when you can double your money and chances by working on both parties.
I didn't say he didn't hedge his bets. He's best friends with Delay though. This is why Delay finally stepped down from his leadership post when Abramoff was indicted. Their relationship runs deep.

[Big Red Ron]

You used the French revolution to try and support your point? Wow, no I wasn't. Keep thinking.

[Herr Scholz]

Cute, History can teach many lessons. Especially when we're discussing the United States removing a despot and building a democratic form of government (see France, Germany Italy, etc...)
Not in the Middle East. Look at the Israel/Palestine quagmire for instance.

[Harry Beanbag]

Tax cuts for the rich that cause record deficits is bad government.

Did your jump to conclusions mat tell you this?



Making these tax cuts permanent is ludicrous.

How so? Last I heard they weren't permanent anyway. Never fear though, some day another democrat will win the White House and raise all the evil rich people's (like you and me) taxes.

You do realize that one of the reasons "Clinton's" economy looked better than it actually was was because we were being overtaxed. What do you think the founding fathers would think about that?



cutting 114 social programs is heartless and myopic

It is? Just because they have the words "social programs" in them means they serve some utopic angelic service to this country, and really aren't a titanic waste of money. I don't even know what these 114 programs are (and doubt you know all the details either) so spare me.



health care costs are through the roof, education is terrible, etc...

These are not new problems. I'm sure socialized medicine would help tremendously though. :rolleyes:



As to Democrats selling their votes to Abramoff, they should be given the boot as well. Everyone knows Abramoff's a Republican lobbyist though.

I think giving military secrets to the enemy for campaign money is worse than whatever the Indian tribe b.s. is all about.

[Big Red Ron]

I'm calling it right now, the second a Democrat becomes CinC, this whole Iraq mess gets pinned squarely on her, the Republicans attack without mercy to save face for their mistake.If the next president is a woman, she will change nothing in Iraq. If she does or even campaigns on it she'll be seen as weak during a time of war. The Iran situation will get rammed up her wazzu.

[Herr Scholz]

True revolution comes from within.

It is my opinion that Iraq will not maintain a stable democracy once the last U.S. soldier is off Iraqi soil. Just my opinion mind you.
The Sunni still aren't involved with that government very much. The Interior Ministry of the Shiite majority government is still covertly dragging Sunnis from their beds at night and murdering them in the streets and no one is being held accountable. I just don't see a melting pot of Kurds, Shiites and Sunni working. I see us being there for generations to come.

Do I want us to fail? No. I want a do-over.

[SCOUT]

I didn't say he didn't hedge his bets. He's best friends with Delay though. This is why Delay finally stepped down from his leadership post when Abramoff was indicted. Their relationship runs deep.

Delay is a slimy politician to the highest degree IMO. However, he stepped down from his leadership position because the Republicans require than anyone indicted do that.

If that had not been the rule, his friendship with Abramoff might have caused him to step down, but today it is not the case.

[soonerscuba]

Man you anti-war types are just too funny.

What is also funny is your reading comprehension, especially considering the fact that I likened Bush to some of the greatest military leaders the world has ever known, yet I am anti-war.

My disagreement with Iraq is that we are no more safe now than before, find those WMDs yet? Didn't think so. I believe in American exceptionalism, we must act on the behalf of Americans first, rest of the world later. Bush engages in the far reaching foreign policy that many bitched ever so loudly about with Clinton. And since I don't put politicians on pedestals I can honestly say I didn't care for a lot of Clintonian policy as well.

[Big Red Ron]

Not in the Middle East. Look at the Israel/Palestine quagmire for instance.Apples and Oranges man. Seriously, just because they Arabic countries doesn't mean squat. How many Muslums/Suni/Jihadists are in Iran or Israel?

[Harry Beanbag]

Actually history tells us we're doomed in the mid-east. To be fair only a handful of men have successfully invaded Afghanistan, and Bush finds him self in the company of Alexander and Genghis Khan, but the odds are against us in Iraq.


This actually cracks me up.

http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/images/alexander1.jpghttp://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Biographies/MainBiographies/g/genghis/Image50.gifhttp://www.cnn.com/interactive/allpolitics/0011/election.quotes/content/george.w.bush.ap.jpg


:D

[JohnnyMack]

Wow, no I wasn't. Keep thinking.

I would REALLY love to hear (or see you type :D) you explain the similarities between the French revolution and the current state of affairs in Iraq.

[soonerscuba]

If the next president is a woman, she will change nothing in Iraq. If she does or even campaigns on it she'll be seen as weak during a time of war. The Iran situation will get rammed up her wazzu.

Both candidates will run heavily on fixing Iraq in '08. Why? Because most Americans don't like the war in Iraq, no candidate is stupid enough to say "stay the course!" when the other candidate kicks the holy **** out of them on an unpopular issue.

[JohnnyMack]

Man you anti-war types are just too funny. The fact that Iraq has held elections and is moving towards a democracy is a good thing. Remember the formation of our little republic was a little messy and bloody. We'll be in Iraq for another decade, a least, regardless of who is elected President.

The worst thing we could do is leave the people of Iraq without our protection, thus allowing another Sadam type to take over.

Why was it our problem?

Why was it our business?

Where do we draw the line?

Do we continue this crusade....errrr....it's not a crusade, I mean this democracy spreading around the globe? One country at a time?

[SCOUT]

What is also funny is your reading comprehension, especially considering the fact that I likened Bush to some of the greatest military leaders the world has ever known, yet I am anti-war.

My disagreement with Iraq is that we are no more safe now than before, find those WMDs yet? Didn't think so. I believe in American exceptionalism, we must act on the behalf of Americans first, rest of the world later. Bush engages in the far reaching foreign policy that many bitched ever so loudly about with Clinton. And since I don't put politicians on pedestals I can honestly say I didn't care for a lot of Clintonian policy as well.

If the claims of Georges Sada (in his book Saddam's Secrets) prove to be true are you going to reverse course? In his book, he claims that Saddam moved massive amounts of WMD to Syria during the build up to our invasion. I haven't read it yet but from reviews I have seen he gives names, dates and methods for the movement of these materials.

[Harry Beanbag]

If the claims of Georges Sada (in his book Saddam's Secrets) prove to be true are you going to reverse course? In his book, he claims that Saddam moved massive amounts of WMD to Syria during the build up to our invasion. I haven't read it yet but from reviews I have seen he gives names, dates and methods for the movement of these materials.


Hopefully somebody in the Pentagon is reading it. ;) Seriously, if that can be corroborated at all, Syria's next.

[Big Red Ron]

I would REALLY love to hear (or see you type :D) you explain the similarities between the French revolution and the current state of affairs in Iraq.Dude, I said I was NOT comparing them. I was refering to what when we had to remove the Germans from France and rebuild their infrastructure and government WHILE simultaniously doing the same in Germany and Italy. Damn near took us 50 years.

[Herr Scholz]

Did your jump to conclusions mat tell you this?
It's not hard. Spending hundreds of billions of dollars requires tax revenue, not tax cuts.


How so? Last I heard they weren't permanent anyway.
He wants to make them permanent. He said so in his speech last night.


You do realize that one of the reasons "Clinton's" economy looked better than it actually was was because we were being overtaxed. What do you think the founding fathers would think about that?
I think they would have thought having a balanced budget and manageable federal deficit (so we're not beholden to our lenders such as China and not saddling our children with the debt and not putting a drag on the economy) would have been agreeable to them.


It is? Just because they have the words "social programs" in them means they serve some utopic angelic service to this country, and really aren't a titanic waste of money. I don't even know what these 114 programs are (and doubt you know all the details either) so spare me.
For starters, how about actually paying for the 'No child left behind' program that was promised or not cutting student loan programs that middle class Americans rely upon? Are these things titanic wastes of money? You ever have a federally subsidized student loan? Most of these social programs are helpful and necessary.


These are not new problems. I'm sure socialized medicine would help tremendously though. :rolleyes:
We pay twice what any other industrialized country does in health care and we are FAR down the list in many health care lists (diseases and care).


I think giving military secrets to the enemy for campaign money is worse than whatever the Indian tribe b.s. is all about.
I think outing a CIA operative for political purposes should get you arrested for treason.

[Big Red Ron]

Both candidates will run heavily on fixing Iraq in '08. Why? Because most Americans don't like the war in Iraq, no candidate is stupid enough to say "stay the course!" when the other candidate kicks the holy **** out of them on an unpopular issue.Like Gore and Kerry?:rolleyes:

[Herr Scholz]

Delay is a slimy politician to the highest degree IMO. However, he stepped down from his leadership position because the Republicans require than anyone indicted do that.

If that had not been the rule, his friendship with Abramoff might have caused him to step down, but today it is not the case.
Not true. Delay's been indicted for months. The Abramoff indictment is what caused it.

[SCOUT]

Not true. Delay's been indicted for months. The Abramoff indictment is what caused it.

From September 28th 2005

"I have notified the speaker that I will temporarily step aside from my position as majority leader pursuant to rules of the House Republican Conference and the actions of the Travis County district attorney today," DeLay said in a statement.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/09/28/delay_resigns20050928.html

[soonerscuba]

Like Gore and Kerry?:rolleyes:

I, for one, am ****ed that we didn't allow Gore, who can apparently see two years into the future to become president. That skill would be invaluable to the country. And I can safely assume you forgot Bush's promise of "no nation building" from the election he lost in 2000.

[1stTimeCaller]

Herr is like his main man John Kerry:

KERRY CLAIMS: 53% OF CHILDREN DO NOT GRADUATE FROM HIGH SCHOOL
Wed Feb 01 2006 10:43:40 ET

Sen. John Kerry claimed this morning on NBC TODAY that 53% of America's children do not graduate from high school -- a claim that raised eyebrows in the NBC control room, sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

Kerry made the comments after host Katie Couric asked the former presidential candidate about Bush's State of the Union call to train 70,000 additional teachers in math and science.

COURIC: He wanted to train 70,000 additional teachers in math and science.

KERRY: That's terrific. But 53 percent of our children don't graduate from high school. Kids don't have after-school programs... He didn't ask America to sacrifice anything to achieve great goals and the biggest example is making the tax cut permanent for the wealthiest people in America. The average American struggles to find time to take carry of families, working two or three jobs... It's a disgrace. He did not tell the real state of the union.

Kerry's 53% claim conflicts with a recent press release from the U.S. Census Bureau: "High School Graduation Rates Reach All-Time High"

And the Census Bureau's own website states: 85.9 Percent Of Americans Aged 20-24 Are High School Graduates. (U.S. Census Bureau Website, www.census.gov , Accessed 2/1/06)

END


just make em up as you go.

[Herr Scholz]

Herr is like his main man John Kerry:


just make em up as you go.
What have I made up? Our public education system is not good. No Child Left Behind funds are being witheld (like so much empty Bush rhetoric), programs such as Head Start are gone. Teachers teach to standardized tests to avoid losing government money. Hey, but as long as these test scores appear good, doesn't matter that the kids aren't being taught well does it?

No child left behind. What a complete joke.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Man you anti-war types are just too funny. The fact that Iraq has held elections and is moving towards a democracy is a good thing. Remember the formation of our little republic was a little messy and bloody. We'll be in Iraq for another decade, a least, regardless of who is elected President.

The worst thing we could do is leave the people of Iraq without our protection, thus allowing another Sadam type to take over.:) Dimocrat policy and governing strategy: Hate ALL republicans(except those who cause trouble within their ranks), criticize them even when we are given what we want, accuse them of doing what we do, and oppose them as though they were our sworn national enemy.

[soonerscuba]

:) Dimocrat policy and governing strategy: Hate ALL republicans(except those who cause trouble within their ranks), criticize them even when we are given what we want, accuse them of doing what we do, and oppose them as though they were our sworn national enemy.

And without aggie-like misspellings, how is this different than the Republican relationship with Democrats?

Have you ever heard of the concept of unanimous consent?

[Big Red Ron]

And I can safely assume you forgot Bush's promise of "no nation building" from the election he lost in 2000.I haven't forgotten and applaud him for risking his presidency to deal with the world as it is rather than as he would like to have seen it(to keep a campaign promise).

Lost in 2000? You have so many years of pent up agression towards Bush that you've lost touch with reality and your ability to be rational.

BTW, the 2000 election was recounted ad nausium in the media. Gore never won a single recount in Florida.

He lost, move on.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

And without aggie-like misspellings, how is this different than the Republican relationship with Dimocrats?

Have you ever heard of the concept of unanimous consent?It seems very few repubs play the kind of hard ball, all-out war with the dims that the dims play with them. I sense it might be slowly changing, but I think a lot of repubs find it hard to believe the dims pull some of the stunts and say some of the things they do. Instead of joining the battle, they try to appease the dims.I don't expect you to agree with me, of course, but it's my belief.:)

[soonerscuba]

I haven't forgotten and applaud him for risking his presidency to deal with the world as it is rather than as he would like to have seen it(to keep a campaign promise).

Yet assail Clinton for the same thing, interesting. And the world as it is doesn't include Iraqi WMDs, the world he wanted did, interesting again.

The nation wanted Gore to be president by half a million votes, and FL was anything but clean, but I digress.

[soonerscuba]

It seems very few repubs play the kind of hard ball, all-out war with the dims that the dims play with them. I sense it might be slowly changing, but I think a lot of repubs find it hard to believe the dims pull some of the stunts and say some of the things they do. Instead of joining the battle, they try to appease the dims.I don't expect you to agree with me, of course, but it's my belief.:)

It is your belief, and it makes zero sense. Your party impeached a man for getting some head. But you're right the Republicans just started to play hardball. And "dims" is very aggy, just so you know.

[Big Red Ron]

"dims" appeal to emotions and Repubs appeal to your logic. Usually the circumstances in the news and media are what triggers which people will use when they vote.

[JohnnyMack]

Why was it our problem?

Why was it our business?

Where do we draw the line?

Do we continue this crusade....errrr....it's not a crusade, I mean this democracy spreading around the globe? One country at a time?

Nobody got an answer for this huh?

[soonerscuba]

bullllllllsshhhhhiiiiiitttttttt. Money appeals to everything, it is the mother's milk of politics. You think that Republican politics appeals to logic, half the country disagrees. You also feel that Democrats appeal to emotion, your pro-life base would also disagree.

[Big Red Ron]

The nation wanted Gore to be president by half a million votes, and FL was anything but clean, but I digress.Isn't the first and won't be the last time this has happened. Civics, you might want to look into them. You see live in a democratic republic with an electoral college to ensure that a handfull of states determine our president every four years.

Man, those founding father dudes were mad-smart.

[Ike]

off subject from what most of y'all are talking aboout:

I was really impressed with what Bush laid out as his 'science policy' in the speech. There was absolutely no flaw (from my view) in what he laid down, specifically with a drastic increase in physical sciences. these are important, and with our rush to cure every disease under Clinton, the NIH and other health science funding agencies shot up dramatically in spending, while funding for physical sciences stagnated (and in some cases even went down). Of course I AM BIASED here, because I work in physical sciences, and we always need more funding and more people. but its a great plan for us.

anyway, what I am leery of is whether or not Bush has a) the credibility to pull it off, and b) the political capital to pull it off. Bush's record with regard to science is wishy-washy at best. Because he sounded off in the ID/evolution debate, because he didn't appear to really understand the issue of stem cell research (although, to him, the stem cell issue was more an ethics question than a scientific question, which is understandable), because he has already floated a pointless moon-mars initiative, <edit: sorry, my mistake, OTA was abolished by the newly controlled republican congress in 1994, not the president.> (one govt office that was actually useful), and because he 'demoted' the Presidential Science Advisor's position from a cabinet level post to a sub-cabinet level post. These are the big parts of his record with science.

So while I am excited about the science policy he laid out, I'm a little skeptical that it will actually happen. However, I do have hope that it will, for the sole reason that the results and byproducts of physical science research often do have uses when it comes to homeland security. (Believe it or not, some of what I work with could have uses in homeland security too. I can think of one right off the bat, and as we speak, this little piece of technology is in development being re-tooled as a homeland security device....has to do with port security). So that aspect gives me a little hope, only because I know that Bush takes homeland security very seriously.


anyway, I just wanted to post my feelings on, what for me, was the most important part of his speech. feel free to comment or bash me or whatever....


oh, and did anybody else laugh out loud when he said those three magic words: "Line Item Veto"

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

It is your belief, and it makes zero sense. Your party impeached a man for lying to congress. But you're right the Republicans just started to play hardball. And "dims" behave very aggy, just so you know.Fixed

[Big Red Ron]

Nobody got an answer for this huh?

Why was it our problem? Oil, security

Why was it our business?Oil, security

Where do we draw the line?After we win their minds. Could be another fifty year occupation. I'm fine with that.

[Herr Scholz]

Where do we draw the line?After we win their minds. Could be another fifty year occupation. I'm fine with that.
And your fine with running up the tab for this on your grandchildren?

[Big Red Ron]

bullllllllsshhhhhiiiiiitttttttt. Money appeals to everything, it is the mother's milk of politics. You think that Republican politics appeals to logic, half the country disagrees. You also feel that Democrats appeal to emotion, your pro-life base would also disagree.Your kinda funny, like debating the snot nose 18 year old debate teamer my little sister brought to Thanksgiving. I thought the guy was going to cry.

I'm not going to go there with you but I've forgotten more about political history than you have ever been exposed to.

BTW, pro-choice is the emotional argument wrapped in women's rights. What about father's rights?

Pro-lifer's have proven scientifically that life begins very early. You are killing a human being but it's the Woman's right to choose.

I'm pro choice because I don't think it's the government's job to be involved in our private lives.

[OklahomaTuba]

It is your belief, and it makes zero sense. Your party impeached a man for getting some head.

No, he was impeached for breaking the law.

I believe perjury and sexual misconduct that nearly amounted to rape of paula jones.

The fact he got caught cheating was just a bonus, although it distracted Clinton enough to keep him from protecting the country, part of his oath by the way.

[OklahomaTuba]

And your fine with running up the tab for this on your grandchildren?And your fine with letting said grandchildren deal with the effects of terrorists with WMD?

Hmm, choices choices...

[Big Red Ron]

And your fine with running up the tab for this on your grandchildren?On the short term, yes. We'll have to move into Iran eventually. Besides, we finance like 95% of the UN's abilities to do some of this work yet we would probably end up with some fairly silly results. Look we're going to pay one way or another, this way we will be absolutely positive we get the results that benifit the US most.

[OklahomaTuba]

On the short term, yes. We'll have to move into Iran eventually. Besides, we finance like 95% of the UN's abilities to do some of this work yet we would probably end up with some fairly silly results. Look we're going to pay one way or another, this way we will be absolutely positive we get the results that benifit the US most.

Reminds me of the "peace in our time" garbage of the 1930's.

That worked out well. :rolleyes:

[SoonerScooter]

If you have never been elected to a public office you cannot comment on the State of the Union speech nor politics in general
:D

[soonerscuba]

Isn't the first and won't be the last time this has happened. Civics, you might want to look into them. You see live in a democratic republic with an electoral college to ensure that a handfull of states determine our president every four years.

Man, those founding father dudes were mad-smart.

Hmm, the founding fathers founded the electoral college on a system in which state legislatures, not voters selected the President, and the VP was the man who came in 2nd place, but nice try, political history, you might want to look into it. And you suggest a handful of states selecting the President is a good thing, which I would like to hear about.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

No, he was impeached for breaking the law.

I believe perjury and sexual misconduct that nearly amounted to rape of paula jones.

The fact he got caught cheating was just a bonus, although it distracted Clinton enough to keep him from protecting the country, part of his oath by the way.:) And the subject of Juanita Broderick is completely taboo for discussion by the leftists. Can you imagine how much attention would be given by the "mainstream" media if W was accused of rape? It would be front page in major newspapers for years. Paula Jones accused Clinton of exposure. How would that go down with a Repub. Pres. or candidate?

[Big Red Ron]

If you have never been elected to a public office you cannot comment on the State of the Union speech nor politics in general
:DWhat if we've written a State of the State speech?

[Big Red Ron]

:) And the subject of Juanita Broderick is completely taboo for discussion by the leftists. Can you imagine how much attention would be given by the "mainstream" media if W was accused of rape? It would be front page in major newspapers for years. Paula Jones accused Clinton of exposure. How would that go down with a Repub. Pres. or candidate?I always thought Michael Jackson was gulty of molesting that kid several years ago because Jacko paid him a ton of cash and the charges were dropped.

Clinton paid Paula jones like half a million dollars to settle (after he was convicted of perjury) that case. Clinton said she was just some liar until he got caught lying under oath.

[soonerscuba]

I also don't want to go into abortion.

But I think you underestimate exactly how much formal politcal training I actually have. I won't call you snot nosed. But I immediately question anybody who claims to have a working knowledge of government who denies the importance of money or tosses out bumpersticker rhetoric about Dems for emotion and Republicans for logic.

I go generally along the lines of Dems for equality, Republicans for freedom.

[OklahomaTuba]

I don't think molesting the help was one of Clintons crimes.

[Big Red Ron]

Hmm, the founding fathers founded the electoral college on a system in which state legislatures, not voters selected the President, and the VP was the man who came in 2nd place, but nice try, political history, you might want to look into it. And you suggest a handful of states selecting the President is a good thing, which I would like to hear about.Sorry I left a word out and I'll fix that but the Electoral College was created to ensure that a handfull of states DO NOT determine the presidency every four years.


Imagine a country where NY and California determined who was President every cycle?

[soonerscuba]

What if we've written a State of the State speech?

For who and when, peem me if you don't want it public and I promise to keep in private.

[Big Red Ron]

I also don't want to go into abortion.

But I think you underestimate exactly how much formal politcal training I actually have. I won't call you snot nosed. But I immediately question anybody who claims to have a working knowledge of government who denies the importance of money or tosses out bumpersticker rhetoric about Dems for emotion and Republicans for logic.

I go generally along the lines of Dems for equality, Republicans for freedom.Dem's more government and Republicans for less. I never even addressed the improtance of money in politics. It is the lifeblood of the system, sorta 101ish, didn't think I needed to reply to it as a given.

[soonerscuba]

Sorry I left a word out and I'll fix that but the Electoral College was created to ensure that a handfull of states DO NOT determine the presidency every four years.


Imagine a country where NY and California determined who was President every cycle?

But isn't that where we have found ourselves now? I understand the argument for the electoral college, but I also see OH, FL, and PA determining who wins and candidates sinking all of their money into 4 states as it is. I just feel that the EC is outdated, no one agrees on why it was started for sure, I personally believe that the framers simply didn't think the nation was smart enough to pick a leader.

[Big Red Ron]

For who and when, peem me if you don't want it public and I promise to keep in private.I worked on fact checking and policy initiatives for the Honerable Henry Belmon.

[Big Red Ron]

But isn't that where we have found ourselves now? I understand the argument for the electoral college, but I also see OH, FL, and PA determining who wins and candidates sinking all of their money into 4 states as it is. I just feel that the EC is outdated, no one agrees on why it was started for sure, I personally believe that the framers simply didn't think the nation was smart enough to pick a leader.I understand where they spend their money and why but Republicans can depend on X number of states since the south changed from Dem to R and all that a D needs to do is pull out Florida and R need to pull Ohio or Meechigan.

[JohnnyMack]

Imagine a country where...California determined who was President every cycle?

What's wrong wif dat?
http://www.billmon.org/archives/arnold.jpg

[Herr Scholz]

And your fine with letting said grandchildren deal with the effects of terrorists with WMD?

Hmm, choices choices...
There will be terrorism in my grandchildren's time regardless. Probably some of the terrorists that Bush has created will still be around.

Regardless of our opposing viewpoints of this war, I thought you would at least agree with me that we've got to pay for it, not just run it up on the national credit card. That used to be a conservative stance. You know, balanced budgets? No deficit spending?

[Big Red Ron]

There will be terrorism in my grandchildren's time regardless. Probably some of the terrorists that Bush has created will still be aroundnot if they are all dead or working on campaigns in their free society.

[soonerscuba]

I worked on fact checking and policy initiatives for the Honerable Henry Belmon.

still in the game at all?

[1stTimeCaller]

Herr, buddy, you have to like wimmins before you can have grandkids. You are fooling nobody. :D

[Big Red Ron]

still in the game at all?Oh, I dabble. ;)

[Harry Beanbag]

It's not hard. Spending hundreds of billions of dollars requires tax revenue, not tax cuts.

Last time I bothered to look, tax revenues were up. That was over a year ago though, maybe it's changed.

Edit: I guess not.

http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports/revenue%20growth.jpg



He wants to make them permanent. He said so in his speech last night.

Sounds good to me.



I think they would have thought having a balanced budget and manageable federal deficit (so we're not beholden to our lenders such as China and not saddling our children with the debt and not putting a drag on the economy) would have been agreeable to them.

You mean like the impending Social Security disaster?



For starters, how about actually paying for the 'No child left behind' program that was promised or not cutting student loan programs that middle class Americans rely upon? Are these things titanic wastes of money? You ever have a federally subsidized student loan? Most of these social programs are helpful and necessary.

No I've never had a federal student loan, and I don't know enough about the f'ed up education system to comment on other than it's been f'ed up since before I was in school. Any other examples, there are apparently well over 100 more of them.



We pay twice what any other industrialized country does in health care and we are FAR down the list in many health care lists (diseases and care).

And that's Bush's fault of course.



I think outing a CIA operative for political purposes should get you arrested for treason.

I think many democrat congressmen are also guilty of treason based on their recent behavior in a time of war.

[Herr Scholz]

Any other examples, there are apparently well over 100 more of them.
The list of to-cut programs is long and ominous, hitting the poorest of people -- Medicaid, food stamps, housing programs, welfare programs and block grants directed at low-income populations. BTW, there's fat to cut in Medicare, not so with Medicaid or Food Stamps.

But as long as there's no 'death tax' on the billionaires, I guess it's all good.

Other federal programs cut (many programs within each group): health research, education, housing, law enforcement, the State Department, environmental restoration and veterans programs, to name a few entities. Deep cuts in energy, agricultural and environmental programs.

The 'Education President':


Of Bush’s 154 targets, the Education Department would suffer the most losses: He would kill 48 of its programs worth $4.3 billion and cut two others.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7013465

[JohnnyMack]

Where do we draw the line?After we win their minds. Could be another fifty year occupation. I'm fine with that.

You'd have made a great knight.

The crusades could've used you.

[85Sooner]

Guess you had your hands over your ears then.

Cheaper health care, better education, fix the entitlement programs, stop the illegal wire taps, stop the Republican corruption in general, and there was something else... Hmm, what was it...

Oh yeah, stop creating record deficits that our grandchildren will be paying off. If we're a 'nation at war' like Bush likes to repeat ad nauseum, shouldn't we be sacrificing? If our costs are going through the roof (something the Republican party is even bashing Bush about), shouldn't our revenue be going up too? Noooooo, let's make the tax cuts for the rich permanent. That's a great idea.

Actully HERR every word in the response referred to governmant controlled programs that would be paid by uh hm WHO? All his speech was about was a littany of government spending decided by who? the government. Sorry but that is not a plan I can go with. Better come up with something new or the Sheehans of the world are gonna be your only political company.

[Harry Beanbag]

The list of to-cut programs is long and ominous, hitting the poorest of people -- Medicaid, food stamps, housing programs, welfare programs and block grants directed at low-income populations. BTW, there's fat to cut in Medicare, not so with Medicaid or Food Stamps.

But as long as there's no 'death tax' on the billionaires, I guess it's all good.

Other federal programs cut (many programs within each group): health research, education, housing, law enforcement, the State Department, environmental restoration and veterans programs, to name a few entities. Deep cuts in energy, agricultural and environmental programs.

The 'Education President':


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7013465



From your link:


“It ought to be expanded, not eliminated,” Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl says of aid to states with imprisoned criminal aliens, a $300 million program Bush wants to eliminate.

This hits on one of the biggest problems I have with Bush. Completely oblivious to the biggest security and economic risk to this country: a wide open Mexican border. This proposed cut just piles on top of the problem.

About 30% of violent crime (including but not limited to murders and drug offenses) in the Phoenix metro area is committed by illegal aliens.

[Stoop Dawg]

Actully HERR every word in the response referred to governmant controlled programs that would be paid by uh hm WHO? All his speech was about was a littany of government spending decided by who? the government. Sorry but that is not a plan I can go with. Better come up with something new or the Sheehans of the world are gonna be your only political company.

Indeed.

The Dem response was very, very exciting - if you're a moron. "There's a better way!" Better for who? Those who suck the teet of government, that's who. Certainly not for tax payers. How did the "commonwealth" of Virginia pay for all those great things he was talking about? That's right, they raised taxes. A lot.

The other thing that turned me off about the Dem response is that it was, in fact, a "response". Instead of slinging mud at the Reps, trying coming up with a plan of your own. Preferrably one that doesn't involve me giving my entire paycheck to the government and letting them spend it however they see fit. Thanks.

[Stoop Dawg]

The list of to-cut programs is long and ominous, hitting the poorest of people -- Medicaid, food stamps, housing programs, welfare programs and block grants directed at low-income populations. BTW, there's fat to cut in Medicare, not so with Medicaid or Food Stamps.

But as long as there's no 'death tax' on the billionaires, I guess it's all good.

Socialism is a horrible concept and a failed experiment.

[85Sooner]

It is your belief, and it makes zero sense. Your party impeached a man for getting some head. But you're right the Republicans just started to play hardball. And "dims" is very aggy, just so you know.


As I remember sex had nothing to do with perjury.

[Stoop Dawg]

Regardless of our opposing viewpoints of this war, I thought you would at least agree with me that we've got to pay for it, not just run it up on the national credit card. That used to be a conservative stance. You know, balanced budgets? No deficit spending?

Yes, I agree whole-heartedly. Why on Earth the Dem-led congress agreed to write a "blank check" for this war is a mystery to me.

[85Sooner]

I also don't want to go into abortion.



I go generally along the lines of Dems for equality of outcome, Republicans for freedom and equality of opportunity.


Fixed

[OklahomaTuba]

You'd have made a great knight.

The crusades could've used you.

Damn, and all this time I thought libz were for helping people, spreading human rights, freedom, liberty, etc.

Given this statement, I guess I was wrong.

[Big Red Ron]

You'd have made a great knight.

The crusades could've used you.Why thank you, I try.:texan:

You should see my swardsmanship and jousting skills.

[85Sooner]

The list of to-cut programs is long and ominous, hitting the poorest of people -- Medicaid, food stamps, housing programs, welfare programs and block grants directed at low-income populations. BTW, there's fat to cut in Medicare, not so with Medicaid or Food Stamps.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7013465

WOW now they may actually have to start figuring their lives out for themselves not unlike all the people who already have done so and been paying for them all these years.

[JohnnyMack]

Damn, and all this time I thought libz were for helping people, spreading human rights, freedom, liberty, etc.

Given this statement, I guess I was wrong.

That's because you use baseless assumptions and broad generalizations to form the crux of your arguments and don't often rely on finding out where an individual comes from or what he/she truly supports.

[Herr Scholz]

How did the "commonwealth" of Virginia pay for all those great things he was talking about? That's right, they raised taxes. A lot.

What a novel idea, paying for what you need. The Republican way is better? 'Tax and spend' is better than 'No tax and spend more'.

[OklahomaTuba]

That's because I use baseless assumptions and broad generalizations to form the crux of my arguments and don't often rely on finding out where an individual comes from or what he/she truly supports.

I agree. :D

[JohnnyMack]

I agree. :D

:P

[C&CDean]

Herr,

Just a friendly FYI: you'll never endear yourself to real Americans, or even be taken seriously, when you espouse raising taxes. You see, the government is gonna **** away every dollar they take in on bull**** programs anyhow. The national debt is just a fakey number that nobody ever plans on - or will - pay off.

You are a pretty smart guy. I think. However, if you trust your government to properly disperse even more of your own, personal, hard-earned cash on the programs that you, personally think they ought to be spending it on, then may I humbly suggest that you are a complete and total assclown. You seriously cannot be that gullible.

[SicEmBaylor]

This SOTU was arguably the weakest (and by weak I mean content not delivery)one he's given post 9/11 (he gave one before 9/11 and had a non-SOTU address to a joint session).

He started out well during the foreign policy segment delivering yet another plea to the American people and the weak kneed Democratic Party to stay the course in Iraq. Whether you believe or not that democratizing the Middle-East is even possible or has staying power is a debate for another thread, however the President as usual at least makes a good case for trying.

However, I found his attacks on isolationism to be somewhat bizzare. The sort of isolationism he was referring to in his speech isn't quite the same kind of isolationism that is beginning to permeate on the left, and continues to reside in some corners of the right. In fact the President himself understands the importance of targeted tarriffs and other, at least temporary, protectionist trade policies that give American industry a breather and opportunity to retool and readjust to a constantly changing global economy.

For example, in the domestic policy section he states:

Protectionists want to escape competition, pretending that we can keep our high standard of living while walling off our economy. Others say that the government needs to take a larger role in directing the economy, centralizing more power in Washington and increasing taxes.

A)Long term protectionist policies are detrimental to these United Staes, however we ought not look to free trade as an end all solution to the American economy. As I've said, the President himself knows the importance of targeted tarriffs and adjustments having used them for the steel industry.

B)The President is totally correct in his statement that larger government direction over the economy is NOT the answer. However, through words and actions he seems to believe that the only manifestation of that control is over the federal tax rate. It needs to be realized that this President is the biggest out of control spender since LBJ outpacing Clinton. Every dollar the President spends through the Federal government on education (which is not and should not be a Federal concern), prescription drugs, faith based initiatives, pork filled transportation bills, and massive energy programs is money OUT of the pockets of the US taxpayer and into the hands of the Federal government to be directed and redistributed.


Keeping America competitive begins with keeping our economy growing. And our economy grows when Americans have more of their own money to spend, save, and invest. In the last five years, the tax relief you passed has left $880 billion in the hands of American workers, investors, small businesses, and families -- and they have used it to help produce more than four years of uninterrupted economic growth.

I applaud the President's tax cuts, but tax cuts should almost ALWAYS be coupled (at least eventually) with comparable spending cuts. I am a firm believer that tax cuts eventually result in greater government profit, but at the cost of defecit hikes. At any rate, the President has GOT to stop spending like a drunken sailor on shore leave.


Keeping America competitive requires us to be good stewards of tax dollars. Every year of my presidency, we've reduced the growth of non-security discretionary spending, and last year you passed bills that cut this spending. This year my budget will cut it again, and reduce or eliminate more than 140 programs that are performing poorly or not fulfilling essential priorities. By passing these reforms, we will save the American taxpayer another $14 billion next year, and stay on track to cut the deficit in half by 2009.

This essentially doesn't amount to a hill of beans. An explanation of this was posted on The Corner by Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation

This is a meaningless phrase. All he is saying is that annual discretionary budget authority (not actual outlays) excluding: A) defense, B) homeland security, and C) any and all supplemental bills from defense to Katrina to agriculture to veterans, have grown by a little less than the 15% growth rate that occurred in the year 2000. Not a remarkable accomplishment

The reality is that discretionary outlays are up 48% since 2001. Even excluding defense, homeland security, and Katrina, they are up 33%.

By the end of the speech I had nothing more to be optomistic about. His lip service to reducing entitlements aren't credible especially considering his Administration's domestic program has been all about expanding and creating new entitlement programs. And that small amount of lip service was overshadowed by a call for the creation of new programs and the expansion of existing ones.

To that I say thanks but no thanks.

[OklahomaTuba]

Well, he did think that a rock concert would end world poverty...

[SicEmBaylor]

The list of to-cut programs is long and ominous, hitting the poorest of people -- Medicaid, food stamps, housing programs, welfare programs and block grants directed at low-income populations. BTW, there's fat to cut in Medicare, not so with Medicaid or Food Stamps.

But as long as there's no 'death tax' on the billionaires, I guess it's all good.

Other federal programs cut (many programs within each group): health research, education, housing, law enforcement, the State Department, environmental restoration and veterans programs, to name a few entities. Deep cuts in energy, agricultural and environmental programs.

The 'Education President':


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7013465

Herr, as you know all of those afformentioned cuts are trivial at best and probably not even realistic. If even half of that is actually cut then I'll travel down to Austin and buy you a celebratory dinner.

It isn't going to happen folks. It isn't going to happen.

[Rhino]

Stupid communist rock star libz.

[1stTimeCaller]

I'm just amazed that he memorized that speech. He rarely looked at his notes. A guy that can memorize all of those words is impressive.

[Stoop Dawg]

What a novel idea, paying for what you need. The Republican way is better? 'Tax and spend' is better than 'No tax and spend more'.

They are both bad, which is why I was confused when he kept saying "There's a better way" then talked about increasing govt programs and raising taxes to pay for it. The "better way" is to cut govt spending and leave taxes alone, or actually lower them.

I seem to recall you complaining about some of the proposed cuts to govt programs, and now you say Bush wants to "No tax and spend more". Which is it? Is he cutting programs or spending more? You can't complain about *both* at the same time!

[C&CDean]

A Baylor guy preaching gloom and doom. Heh. We're talking the STOU, not Baylor football dude.

[Herr Scholz]

Herr,

Just a friendly FYI: you'll never endear yourself to real Americans, or even be taken seriously, when you espouse raising taxes.
So you don't care that they're going to slash veteran's benefits?

I'm using this argument because it's something you care about, much like when you're not a huge fan of the ACLU until the prospect of someone taking away your 2nd amendment rights pops up.

[1stTimeCaller]

has the ACLU ever defended gun owner's rights?

That's news to me.

[C&CDean]

So you don't care that they're going to slash veteran's benefits?

I'm using this argument because it's something you care about, much like when you're not a huge fan of the ACLU until the prospect of someone taking away your 2nd amendment rights pops up.

Dude, I don't relyon Veteran's benefits to live.

Slash this, pad that. Whatever. Work hard, take care of yourself and your family, and all this stuff is just silliness.

[Rhino]

THEYZ GUNNA TAKE ARE GUNS AWAY!

[C&CDean]

THEYZ GUNNA TAKE ARE GUNS AWAY!

Like hell, mother****er. Like hell.

[Hatfield]

has the ACLU ever defended gun owner's rights?

That's news to me.


even a basic google search will show you that yes they have.

[C&CDean]

Sure they defended some 2nd Amendment stuff. When it was politically advantageous to do so. They don't go around doing it regularly though. More of a window-dressing dealio.

[JohnnyMack]

The national debt is just a fakey number that nobody ever plans on - or will - pay off.

But it isn't. It's a very real number. That debt is sold off to other countries, and as our dollar continues to go down like 1tc on you during a midnight screening of Brokeback, we're faced with the very real possibility of entering a period of either hyperinflation in which our dollar won't buy **** in the rest of the world because they've moved on to euros and/or yuan and they send all the greenbacks back here to us leaving us awash in seas of our own worthless cash, or depression. Maybe they'll make 50,000,000,000 bill and put :dean: on it.

[1stTimeCaller]

from the ACLU website:
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.


Why doesn't the ACLU support an individual's
unlimited right to keep and bear arms?"

BACKGROUND
The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times.

We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.


http://www.civilrightsunion.org/acluwatch/socalledgun.htm

not exactly out on the forefront of protecting gun owner's rights but I will concede your point.

[C&CDean]

JM,

I ain't worried about it. I got a couple year's worth of canned goods, water, and plenty of deer, turkey, and other game to shoot. Got me a good generator, lots of firewood, and a big-assed diesel tank. If you believe in the whole debt, then that's fine. To me it's pretty much like monopoly money.

[SicEmBaylor]

I wouldn't rely on the ACLU to be your best advocate for individual gun rights.

At any rate,
A lot of those so-called cuts to the VA really amount to nothing more than hospital realignment and administrative restructuring. To give you an example, the VA hospital system is fairly bloated with facilities that were built to care with the large number of World War II and Korean veterans around the country. As the WWII/Korean war generation passes on, the need for those facilities has decline. They're expensive to operate and they aren't the best way to provide the most amount of care to the greatest number of veterans possible. That is why the VA is undergoing a process of evaluating what hospitals no longer serve a great enough need to enough veterans to justify the cost. Some of those hospitals have been or are slated to be shut down (very few of them I might add and each one of them needs Congressional approval to close). Often in their place the VA is building smaller and new clinics and out-patient facilities to deal with the veterans within that area.

At any rate, all of this has been portrayed by Democrats and others at various times as "cutting benefits" or "closing down needed hospitals." I know this entirely all of the VA cuts Herr was referring to, but all of this business about cutting VA benefits got started with hospital realignment.

[IB4OU2]

JM,

I ain't worried about it. I got a couple year's worth of canned goods, water, and plenty of deer, turkey, and other game to shoot. Got me a good generator, lots of firewood, and a big-assed diesel tank. If you believe in the whole debt, then that's fine. To me it's pretty much like monopoly money.

Me too, plus lot's a viagra and lortabs...........

[Stoop Dawg]

Question: What is the saddest thing in this world?

Answer: Old liberals.

You see them sometimes at the trendy little coffee shops and sammich joints. Ordering their tofu and sprouts, sipping their decaffeinated latte frappe vagina juice blend, wearing their corduroy trousers, baggy sweaters, sandals with thick socks, and half-glass reading glasses. Their skin usually has that gray/translucent palor from avoiding the evil sun, and they're typically reading some rag like the Washington Post. Out front, they've got their hybrid fagmobile parked in 2 spots so no neocon can scratch it with their evil SUV or pickup truck.

In their minds they're "hip" and "accepted" by their liberal children. They think marching in a protest - hell, any protest - is a noble, righteous, groovy thing. They hate capitalism - although they peruse the financial page regularly. They believe killing a killer is a greater offense than killing a baby. They believe that guns are capable of pointing theirself at somebody and pulling their own trigger. They think that the government should make all decisions for all people. They think that if we love and coddle terrorists, they'll just love us back.

In reality, they're just pathetic losers who failed to grow up like normal people. They somehow failed to make the transition to adulthood.




I ain't worried about it. I got a couple year's worth of canned goods, water, and plenty of deer, turkey, and other game to shoot. Got me a good generator, lots of firewood, and a big-assed diesel tank. If you believe in the whole debt, then that's fine. To me it's pretty much like monopoly money.

Now that is entertainment!

[Herr Scholz]

They are both bad, which is why I was confused when he kept saying "There's a better way" then talked about increasing govt programs and raising taxes to pay for it. The "better way" is to cut govt spending and leave taxes alone, or actually lower them.

I seem to recall you complaining about some of the proposed cuts to govt programs, and now you say Bush wants to "No tax and spend more". Which is it? Is he cutting programs or spending more? You can't complain about *both* at the same time!
"No tax and spend more" refers to the hundreds of billions of dollars we're spending in Iraq coupled with the tax breaks for the richest people in the country (as well as the corporate welfare that's going on). I know these costs were foisted upon us but it makes no sense to cut taxes when our spending is going through the roof.

I personally prefer the weird idea of taking care of the poorest people in our own country and actually budgeting for it with tax revenue.

[Tear Down This Wall]

ACLU is just another way of saying "rump jousters."

[Hatfield]

Sure they defended some 2nd Amendment stuff. When it was politically advantageous to do so. They don't go around doing it regularly though. More of a window-dressing dealio.

actually that is because they really believe the 2nd amend. to be a collective right not an individual right so a lot of the time they protect gun rights under the 4th amend.

the fact is they protect lots of things across the board but that isn't what a lot of people want to believe so they just make stuff up and ignore the rest.

[Harry Beanbag]

"No tax and spend more" refers to the hundreds of billions of dollars we're spending in Iraq coupled with the tax breaks for the richest people in the country (as well as the corporate welfare that's going on). I know these costs were foisted upon us but it makes no sense to cut taxes when our spending is going through the roof.

I personally prefer the weird idea of taking care of the poorest people in our own country and actually budgeting for it with tax revenue.


The poor people don't pay any taxes so it stands to reason they wouldn't get any tax cuts, no?

[Harry Beanbag]

actually that is because they really believe the 2nd amend. to be a collective right not an individual right so a lot of the time they protect gun rights under the 4th amend.

the fact is they protect lots of things across the board but that isn't what a lot of people want to believe so they just make stuff up and ignore the rest.


They may defend more equally than it appears, but since the media only reports the defense of liberal causes or causes that fit their agenda it kind of skews the perception a bit.

I kind of halfway made that up by the way. ;)

[Herr Scholz]

The poor people don't pay any taxes so it stands to reason they wouldn't get any tax cuts, no?
Can't bleed a turnip. Do you not think we should take care of the poorest people in this country? No safety net? Regardless of that point, my main concern is our ballooning federal deficit. We're passing the buck to following generations and hurting our economy and national security and international bargaining power (vis a vis our lenders such as China) in the process.

If costs go up, revenue should go up to cover the costs. I doubt these Republicans would raise taxes if we had to fight a galactic war against Mars.

[Harry Beanbag]

Can't bleed a turnip. Do you not think we should take care of the poorest people in this country? No safety net? Regardless of that point, my main concern is our ballooning federal deficit. We're passing the buck to following generations and hurting our economy and national security and international bargaining power (vis a vis our lenders such as China) in the process.

If costs go up, revenue should go up to cover the costs. I doubt these Republicans would raise taxes if we had to fight a galactic war against Mars.


Revenue is going up. And we do have a safety net, it's called Unemployment Insurance. You get six months to find another job.

What do you think expanding the welfare program would do to the federal deficit, oh nevermind we'll just tax the **** out of the "rich".

[Herr Scholz]

Revenue is going up.
This is like saying the LA Clippers are improving. Our federal deficit has never been higher. Even Republicans are villifying this record deficit spending.

[Harry Beanbag]

This is like saying the LA Clippers are improving. Our federal deficit has never been higher. Even Republicans are villifying this record deficit spending.


I don't think you'll get an argument from many people saying spending isn't out of control, but liberals complaining about spending too much is laughable at best.

And I'm not going to pay 90% of my salary or whatever it would take to balance the budget. The fact remains that revenue has gone up since the tax cuts.

[Herr Scholz]

I don't think you'll get an argument from many people saying spending isn't out of control, but liberals complaining about spending too much is laughable at best.
You'd have some credibility here if Republicans haven't been just as big of spenders the past two decades (since Reagan - remember the Star Wars Initiative). The difference is they just want to spend it on different things and Democrats are at least fiscally responsible enough to budget tax revenue to cover their programs. The days of Republicans and small government are a thing of the distant past.


And I'm not going to pay 90% of my salary or whatever it would take to balance the budget. The fact remains that revenue has gone up since the tax cuts.
Clinton's government had budget surpluses. I don't remember everybody being destitute then.

[Harry Beanbag]

Clinton's government had budget surpluses. I don't remember everybody being destitute then.


Because people were overtaxed, but I guess that's okay?

By the way, I was close to destitute during Clinton's terms, I was in the military. Of course I was so poor that I didn't have to pay taxes though. :)

[Stoop Dawg]

If you're so concerned about the deficit spending, why are you so upset about spending cuts? You don't make any sense.

And "Tax Cuts for the Rich" is redundant. Any tax cut only affects the "rich" because the "rich" are the only ones paying.

Socialism is a failed concept. If you want to take care of the poor, do it with private non-profits. A lot more of the money will actually be used for its intended purpose.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

If you're so concerned about the deficit spending, why are you so upset about spending cuts? You don't make any sense.

And "Tax Cuts for the Rich" is redundant. Any tax cut only affects the "rich" because the "rich" are the only ones paying.

Socialism is a failed concept. If you want to take care of the poor, do it with private non-profits. A lot more of the money will actually be used for its intended purpose.BEAUTY, EH?..GOOD DAY!!!

[Herr Scholz]

If you're so concerned about the deficit spending, why are you so upset about spending cuts? You don't make any sense.
Clinton's government showed that domestic spending and a balanced budget are not mutually exclusive.


And "Tax Cuts for the Rich" is redundant. Any tax cut only affects the "rich" because the "rich" are the only ones paying.
Not true. I'm not rich at all and I've gotten a huge tax break.


Socialism is a failed concept. If you want to take care of the poor, do it with private non-profits. A lot more of the money will actually be used for its intended purpose.
It's a far cry from responsible government to socialism. That's just right wing rhetoric.

[Harry Beanbag]

Not true. I'm not rich at all and I've gotten a huge tax break.


Did you just admit that the tax cuts weren't just for the evil rich?

[SCOUT]

Did you just admit that the tax cuts weren't just for the evil rich?

heh. This response should be interesting

[Herr Scholz]

Did you just admit that the tax cuts weren't just for the evil rich?
Sure. If the tax cuts for the richest 1% in the country were repealed however, it would do a lot more good than my tax bracket. That's obvious. And hurt the rich people a lot less than me as well. Progressive taxes not regressive.

[Stoop Dawg]

Clinton's government showed that domestic spending and a balanced budget are not mutually exclusive.


Not true. I'm not rich at all and I've gotten a huge tax break.


It's a far cry from responsible government to socialism. That's just right wing rhetoric.

Sure. If the tax cuts for the richest 1% in the country were repealed however, it would do a lot more good than my tax bracket. That's obvious. And hurt the rich people a lot less than me as well. Progressive taxes not regressive.

Increased taxes <> responsible government.

Tax the rich and give to the poor = socialism.

Your "take from the rich corporations and give to the poor workers" unions have already proven that if you suck all the money from the people who actually run the company then everyone ends up without a job. And now you want this on a national scale? Why? It's been proven over and over and over NOT TO WORK! You build a strong economy on the backs of those who actually do a job, not those who sit in front of a TV every day. When you remove the motivation to actually do a job, everyone ends up in front of the TV. Why work harder? So I can pay more taxes and the lady with no job and 3 kids can drive a new car? No thanks.

[Stoop Dawg]

So I can pay more taxes and the lady with no job and 3 kids can drive a new car? No thanks.

And yes, I realize that not everyone on govt assistance drives a new car. But if a politician tries to reform welfare and eliminate or reduce benefits to those who abuse it, the headline reads "Bush to slash welfare, Leave millions homeless". Sound familiar?

[Big Red Ron]

Not true. I'm not rich at all and I've gotten a huge tax break.I'm NOT rich and pay through the freaking nose!:mad:

[SoonerBorn68]

If I wouldn't have gotten the child tax credit this year I would have owed taxes. When the accountant stated that this credit was the only thing that saved me from owing I exclaimed, "thank you, President Bush". I don't think she liked that. :D It made my day.

[SicEmBaylor]

Herr,
Socialism is the redistribution of wealth in order to create equity. Now, obviously we are going to have different definitions of what exactly constitutes responsible government. However, whatever you want to call it we're still talking socialism. This isn't a problem limited to the Democratic Party either; President Bush has done his fair share of redistrubting wealth in this country via Federal programs. However, the pathalogical determination to cut those who have down in order to better provide for those who have not is far more prevalent among liberals and the Democratic Party. In fact, it is central to your orthodoxy.

We also know Herr that repealing the tax cuts wouldn't just hurt the top 1% it would hurt mid-upper middle class small business owners whose business expenses are often entirely or at least party paid for straight from their personal income. Now, these individuals represent a major and vital part of the American economy and they are classified as "rich" under Democratic tax plans even though the business income and personal income of those individuals is virtually indistinguishable.

And let me once again point out there is no such thing as taxing a business. Those costs are either a)passed onto the consumer by increasing prices or b)offsent by reducing employee pay or downsizing or c)drastically slowling the rate of the businesses' growth reducing the number of newly created jobs.

Also, a large number of people have those tax cuts negated by state tax plans. Oklahoma is a great example of a state that had an opportunity to let its citizens fully benefit from the Bush tax cuts yet chose to do nothing.

Finally, those balanced budgets during the Clinton administration were due in large part to Republican Congressional reforms after the '94 takeover such as Welfare Reform and other cost saving reforms. Let me remind you of course that it is the Congress that sets the budget not the Administration. Credit should be given to the Republican Congress during the 90s; a good deal of that credit should also be given to President Clinton who signed those GOP reforms into law. However, he deserves a good bit of criticism for not cutting taxes deep enough to avoid the recession that occured at the end of his Presidency and the beginning of the President Bush's.

[soonerscuba]

Let me remind you of course that it is the Congress that sets the budget not the Administration. Credit should be given to the Republican Congress during the 90s; a good deal of that credit should also be given to President Clinton who signed those GOP reforms into law. However, he deserves a good bit of criticism for not cutting taxes deep enough to avoid the recession that occured at the end of his Presidency and the beginning of the President Bush's.

Ehh, come on man, you know this to not be entirely true. The OMB puts out a budget that is tinkered with by Congress, then sent back to the President who has veto power. I will give the Republicans their fair shake in the 1990s but to say that it was all them is a little false, lest we forget the government shutdown. Besides, the market has historically preferred a split legislature and executive.

[Big Red Ron]

Ehh, come on man, you know this to not be entirely true. The OMB puts out a budget that is tinkered with by Congress, then sent back to the President who has veto power. I will give the Republicans their fair shake in the 1990s but to say that it was all them is a little false, lest we forget the government shutdown. Besides, the market has historically prefer a split legislature and executive.Okay, if you mention both the process and remind us of the Government shut down. I feel compelled to point out that this event "the governmet shutdown" was actually Bill Clinton's responsibility because he vetoed the budget. Which makes it one of the biggest political tricks in history, since Republicans were blamed in the PR war.

While an interesting fact alone, it gets better.

During the gov't shut down, the Whitehouse staff wasn't working and all that was in the White house (other than security) were???

You got it, interns.

Guess when Bill didn't have sexual realtions with that woman?

History won't be kind to this man. He'll end up the Conservative's "Richard Nixon" by the time he's seventy.

[soonerscuba]

since Republicans were blamed in the PR war.

sigh, I remember when we could win PR wars, those were the days.

I know that it was Clinton's fault for the veto, but that was his right as President, he threw the dice and came out on top.

I disagree, he wasn't shamed out of office, he left due to term limits more popular than Reagan. Time will tell though, you may be right, but I doubt it.

[Big Red Ron]

I disagree, he wasn't shamed out of office, he left due to term limits more popular than Reagan. Time will tell though, you may be right, but I doubt it.He wasn't shamed out of office. He was impeached by the House of Representatives and barely escaped dismissal in the Senate.;)

You are a smart individual, so you know this already but the thing about public opinion polls are that they are "snap-shots" of time and not a reflection of long term sentiment.

For example, there was a time when "Ice Ice Baby" was number 1 in the charts but most of us cringe when we hear that "dun dun dun dun du du dun dunt," now.

;)

[SicEmBaylor]

Ehh, come on man, you know this to not be entirely true. The OMB puts out a budget that is tinkered with by Congress, then sent back to the President who has veto power. I will give the Republicans their fair shake in the 1990s but to say that it was all them is a little false, lest we forget the government shutdown. Besides, the market has historically preferred a split legislature and executive.

You're right the OMB does put out budget projects and reccomendations but as you know all budgets must originate in the House. And the Congress is always the final authority on the budget.

Now, since it was the intent of the framers of the constitution for all budget and appropriations bills to originate in the House then is it really the fault of the Congress for insisting on its version of a budget even at the cost of a temporary shut down?

The government shut down was the result of a budget battle between the Executive and Legislative branches. Only one of those branches has the constitutional authority to create the budget, so I'm not sure I'd point the blame to them for upholding their constitutional authority.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Herr,
Socialism is the redistribution of wealth in order to create equity. Now, obviously we are going to have different definitions of what exactly constitutes responsible government. However, whatever you want to call it we're still talking socialism. This isn't a problem limited to the Democratic Party either; President Bush has done his fair share of redistrubting wealth in this country via Federal programs. However, the pathalogical determination to cut those who have down in order to better provide for those who have not is far more prevalent among liberals and the Democratic Party. In fact, it is central to your orthodoxy.

We also know Herr that repealing the tax cuts wouldn't just hurt the top 1% it would hurt mid-upper middle class small business owners whose business expenses are often entirely or at least party paid for straight from their personal income. Now, these individuals represent a major and vital part of the American economy and they are classified as "rich" under Democratic tax plans even though the business income and personal income of those individuals is virtually indistinguishable.

And let me once again point out there is no such thing as taxing a business. Those costs are either a)passed onto the consumer by increasing prices or b)offsent by reducing employee pay or downsizing or c)drastically slowling the rate of the businesses' growth reducing the number of newly created jobs.

Also, a large number of people have those tax cuts negated by state tax plans. Oklahoma is a great example of a state that had an opportunity to let its citizens fully benefit from the Bush tax cuts yet chose to do nothing.

Finally, those balanced budgets during the Clinton administration were due in large part to Republican Congressional reforms after the '94 takeover such as Welfare Reform and other cost saving reforms. Let me remind you of course that it is the Congress that sets the budget not the Administration. Credit should be given to the Republican Congress during the 90s; a good deal of that credit should also be given to President Clinton who signed those GOP reforms into law. However, he deserves a good bit of criticism for not cutting taxes deep enough to avoid the recession that occured at the end of his Presidency and the beginning of the President Bush's.:) Excellent speech, mr. SicEm'. I don't think many on the left fully grasp the reality of uncertainty in economic matters. People going into business have no guarantees. Their courage is what makes the economy work. The government has no money of its own. Without the pursuits of the private sector due to the incentive of possible financial gain, there is no economy. There would only be govt. coercion.

[soonerscuba]

You're right the OMB does put out budget projects and reccomendations but as you know all budgets must originate in the House. And the Congress is always the final authority on the budget.

Now, since it was the intent of the framers of the constitution for all budget and appropriations bills to originate in the House then is it really the fault of the Congress for insisting on its version of a budget even at the cost of a temporary shut down?

The government shut down was the result of a budget battle between the Executive and Legislative branches. Only one of those branches has the constitutional authority to create the budget, so I'm not sure I'd point the blame to them for upholding their constitutional authority.

True, but I don't agree that the executive has zero to do with the formulation of a budget, they knew going in that it is next to impossible to override a veto. Like I said, the Congress did help us in the 90s, and I will give them credit where credit is due, and I should probably turn in my liberal card, but I don't hate Newt. We know that Congress holds the purse strings, but the executive that the framers wanted is a shell of it's former self, for better or worse. From an orginalist lens, I understand your beef with executive power, but at the same time we weren't the leaders of the free world when they wrote the Constitution. As it stands, the Congress must present a budget that the president will sign off on at the end of the day, they didn't, Clinton won.

Also, I am a firm believer that the President doesn't drive an economy, but rather the reverse. The internet was the source of our boom, not Clinton, but Clinton did deliver a government that would make the most of what was given to him.

[soonerscuba]

You are a smart individual, so you know this already but the thing about public opinion polls are that they are "snap-shots" of time and not a reflection of long term sentiment.

In all fairness, Ice Ice Baby is still an awesome song. ;)

It is true that there is no guarantee that Clinton will be remembered with fondness, plus history puts people in and out of favor. For example, Jefferson has been tarnished lately, while LBJ has quite a bit of credibility. History is certainly a fickle mistress.

[Harry Beanbag]

For example, there was a time when "Ice Ice Baby" was number 1 in the charts but most of us cringe when we hear that "dun dun dun dun du du dun dunt," now.

;)


Damn you, damn you to hell!!! That'll be stuck in my head all day now. :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Pricetag]

In all fairness, Ice Ice Baby is still an awesome song. ;)

It's good to hear someone else say that. Every time I hear someone who was of appropriate age at the time bash that song, I'm like, "Yeah, he/she definitely did plenty of "The Running Man" to it back in the day."

[JohnnyMack]

Rollin'!
In my 5.0 with my rag top down so my hair can blow!

[Big Red Ron]

In all fairness, Ice Ice Baby is still an awesome song. ;)Okay then insert any Kenny G or Meriah Kerry or Kid Rock song.;)