For those who like Bush...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I don't think he should send people to war, war is wrong in my opinion. Simple as that.

I love this.

Yeah, I thought that was kind of simple thinking, too.

 

However, the big divisive issue from Bush IS war. Bush is a divider on whether you think we should go to war on the basis that the President simply wants to, or on the basis that there's clear and present evidence that there's no alternative.

 

I gotta say I don't have a lot of love for Neoconservatives and the "let's just battle whoever we want to battle because we have a big and advanced military and nobody's going to try and stop us" thinking. When used with good intentions (which is what I believe Bush is trying to do) it further brings us into the role of "the world's policeman," something that angers Americans and foreigners alike. If used for evil intentions, it basically opens the doors for a militaristic idealogue interested in domination.

 

And, pardon me if for painting a lot of people with a wide brush, but I think a large amount of today's Right would have difficulties identifying the latter if one actually appeared.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Medicare isn't for the poor. It's for the elderly --- and it needs to be slashed DESPERATELY as we can't afford it. Medicaid is for the poor.

 

And what a great job Bush did in "cutting" Medicare...

[Mole 0]

I don't think he should send people to war, war is wrong in my opinion. Simple as that.

Bush is for the death penalty, and I am not. One of the reasons I don't like him, simple as that.

He is against gay marriages and I am for it, simple as that.

It is the point that they CAN go look at it, but now they can't. Simple as that.

I don't think people should have guns in the household, simple as that.

I love this.

 

"Simple as that! You're gonna hear this giant sucking sound, see? Simple as that! It's just that simple!"

 

Looks like our brave little molestomp is going to grow up to be Ross Perot without the money. Or the charisma, the intelligence, the good looks, and fashion sense...

Gotcha.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

How do you know wiretaps, and library searches haven't prevented a terrorist attacks? I don't know that they have, but remember alot of the War on Terror we know nothing about.

 

Actually.. the wiretaps are more likely to help, but some people can be suspicious since there's less regulations for that sort of phonetapping.

 

As for library searches.. how would knowing the books that somebody got from a library help you figure out if he's going to commit a terrorist action

 

Depends on the kind of attack. Something fairly large. The Patriot Act II might be passed.

 

Actually, from what I understand. Patriot II was passed and signed this month.

 

Don't really know. Cool sounding name?

 

Congressmen, hopefully, don't write legislation and pass it because it has a cool sounding name.

 

Better to get all possibilities, out in the open. Instead of finding memos from agents telling the higher ups, that either Almanacs with notes, and markings around landmarks were or could be used by terrorists.

 

All possibilities, no matter how absurd. Well, great.

 

What has Bush done that is so divisive? He doesn't insult Democrats, nor does he say that they wish to starve people or destroy the environment.

 

Bush doesn't need to say anything. Except for the fact that political talk has grown more divisive and polarized than ever.

 

Clinton did NOTHING for the economy.

 

Except presiding over one of the best stretches in the economy and not screwing it up. Not to mention some of the bigger gains on Wall Street. (Sure, it turned out there was some number games going on during his watch and in 2001)

 

His 1993 budget did NOTHING for interest rates --- long-term rates had been dropping since March 1992 and short-term rates went UP until the GOP took over the House.

 

First off.. I think it's a big feat I found one of the charts for this. It does confirm that ST Interest rates went up in 1994 (from 3.2 to 4.7). But, looking at the chart, 4.7 was lower than anything under Reagan and it was the third lowest from 1983 to 1994.

 

I found this too

 

http://www.bestmortgage.com/interest.html

 

"The "Fed" was largely responsible for the big jump in mortgage interest rates in 1994 when it raised short-term interest rates seven times during that year in an effort to head-off rising inflation. Then, in 1995, mortgage rates dropped almost two full percentage points from the high point of December 1994. Ironically, the Fed had virtually nothing to do with the rate drop because it did not reduce its short-term interest rates during that period at all. Interest rates bottomed out again in February of this year, then jumped up sharply in March due to renewed inflation fears."

 

He did nothing to balance the budget.

 

Except actually signing the budgets that balanced it.

 

The S & L bailout finally ended under his watch, adding a lot of revenue. Economic growth (underway since early 1992) was healthy before Clinton took office.

 

and it stayed healthy too for awhile.

 

Heck, give Clinton his stimulus package in 1993 and his health care plan in 1994 and the economy is in shambles.

 

Just like the Republicans predicted back then too!

 

You know, just because you keep on saying it doesn't make it true.

 

I could actually say the same too. It's quite the phrase.

 

On 6/10/98, the U.S Army lab confirmed pieces of an Iraqi scud warhead contained VX gas.

 

and that was 5 years ago. Does that mean we found something?

 

Bush was left a foreign policy nightmare dictated by Clinton's inept foreign policy team.

 

It was all Clinton Clinton Clinton. I guess they're to blame for exaggerating Iraqi weapons and the such. If only it weren't for Clinton.

 

The FBI could do that before the Patriot Act.

 

and we needed the Patriot Act because.. why?

 

"There's not a plausible reason why a book list would help determine if somebody is planning a terroristic action."

 

It actually IS a logical reason.

 

It's just that if you break it down, it's saying that Terrorists are using information for attacks. Which is a god damn obvious statement. What else would they use? Guesses? But, still.. watch out for people with almanacs and any markings they may put in them. (Note: hopefully terrorists with almanacs have not heard this and ditched their almanacs)

 

He's done more than Clinton did. I will give him that.

 

this wasn't contrast and compare Mike.. this was just about Bush.

[Zorin Industries 0]

Bush i don't really mind, it is some of the people around him I dislike, Rumsfeld being the prime example.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Shockingly, I don't particularly dislike him.

[Zorin Industries 0]

Shockingly, I don't particularly dislike him.

Bush or Rumsfeld?

[CanadianChris 0]

Medicare isn't for the poor. It's for the elderly --- and it needs to be slashed DESPERATELY as we can't afford it. Medicaid is for the poor.

You're right, medicare isn't for the poor, my bad. However, elderly people do need medicare beause RX prices are so high. It doesn't need to be cut, but raised if anything.

Bingo. Given that the population is aging, and that the elderly are living longer than ever before, funding for Medicare has to be increased if the system is to remain sustainable.

[Mole 0]

Medicare isn't for the poor. It's for the elderly --- and it needs to be slashed DESPERATELY as we can't afford it. Medicaid is for the poor.

You're right, medicare isn't for the poor, my bad. However, elderly people do need medicare beause RX prices are so high. It doesn't need to be cut, but raised if anything.

Bingo. Given that the population is aging, and that the elderly are living longer than ever before, funding for Medicare has to be increased if the system is to remain sustainable.

Oh the gov't could control RX prices, but that won't happen.

[BX 0]

 

Actually, from what I understand. Patriot II was passed and signed this month.

 

Is this a joke, or are you being serious? If they passed the proposed Patriot Act II that I saw a few months back, it'd be all over the networks, and the net. Elaborate.

 

Also, another question. When did the term "Neoconservative" come into the vernacular? It has just sorta popped out of nowhere in the last month or so.

[CanadianChris 0]

Medicare isn't for the poor. It's for the elderly --- and it needs to be slashed DESPERATELY as we can't afford it. Medicaid is for the poor.

You're right, medicare isn't for the poor, my bad. However, elderly people do need medicare beause RX prices are so high. It doesn't need to be cut, but raised if anything.

Bingo. Given that the population is aging, and that the elderly are living longer than ever before, funding for Medicare has to be increased if the system is to remain sustainable.

Oh the gov't could control RX prices, but that won't happen.

Heavens, no. That would anger a special-interest group friendly with the government, and we can't have that.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

I've heard conflicting reports.. so it's possible that the bill signed back on Saturday the 13th wasn't Patriot II but it was something.

 

If anybody has a clue what was signed. Feel free to bring it up.

[Guest netslob]

(*reads title of thread*)

 

oh...i thought you meant something else...sorry...

[Guest Olympic Slam]

Also, another question. When did the term "Neoconservative" come into the vernacular? It has just sorta popped out of nowhere in the last month or so.

I started hearing it about a year ago and I have no clue what it means or who exactly it describes. I have yet to hear a conservative refer to themselves as a Neo-Con as its a tag I've only heard from liberals. Heh, they prolly want us to sound like Neo-Nazis. The correct term for today's Bush-like conservative is actually Neo-Liberal.

[BX 0]

....

 

Now that just doesn't make any sense.

[Guest Olympic Slam]

....

 

Now that just doesn't make any sense.

Sure it does. Bush is hardly a strong conservative. He's mostly a liberal with some conservative values. The media has been using the term Neo-Con to refer to those in Bush's cabinet that were very much for the Iraq war. Classic conservatism wouldn't have waged a pre-emptive war such as this. Vietnam and Iraq are Liberal wars in their spirit. However, liberalism has changed dramatically (as well as conservatism) since Thomas Jefferson.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Another term would be big government conservative.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Congressmen, hopefully, don't write legislation and pass it because it has a cool sounding name.

Obviously not. Why did Congress pass the legislation in the first place?

[Red Baron 0]

I just don't think he's a strong leader, but he's got a lot of strong people behind him, which is pretty fortunate.

 

He's gonna win the election, there's no doubt, but he's only gonna win the election because he's captured Saddam, (or a major victory)

[Guest JMA]

Put me in the camp that hates those around Bush (Ashcroft, for example). Although I disagree with Bush on a number of issues (sex ed, gay rights, abortion ect al)I can't really hate the guy. Even though I believe Saddam didn't have any WMDs, I supported going into Iraq. I feel it was the right thing to do. Most of the problems I have with Bush are issues on the social front.

 

Still, he's a lot more moderate than other conservatives.

[Guest MikeSC]

Medicare isn't for the poor. It's for the elderly --- and it needs to be slashed DESPERATELY as we can't afford it. Medicaid is for the poor.

You're right, medicare isn't for the poor, my bad. However, elderly people do need medicare beause RX prices are so high. It doesn't need to be cut, but raised if anything.

Do you have any clue as to which age group is actually the wealthiest in America?

 

Do you have any clue as to how Medicare is ACTUALLY financed?

We did the right thing. We MADE the U.N live up to its word.

This is all a matter of opinion right here. I don't think he should send people to war, war is wrong in my opinion. Simple as that.

Well, looking at your avatar, you are a hippie burnout.

 

News flash time: The Holocaust would have NEVER ended without a war. Slavery? Would've lasted for many years longer without a war.

 

But war is all bad, right?

Oh sweet God, you can't be serious about this bitching, can you?

Yeah, I am serious about this. The EPA is for the enviornment, not Bush's campaign.

I'm almost getting a headache here. You really don't have a clue what you're talking about.

If you do even a tiny bit of research, you learn that the Texas Governor has NO power over executions whatsoever. And the federal gov't has no control over state policies in regards to the death penalty.

The Govenor does have the last call if a person should be put to death or not.

In Texas, no he/she does not. Read the damned state Constitution. I am in no mood to sit here and give you a friggin' civics lesson. I've been busy enough cleaning out my late grandmother's house here for the past few days. If I want a headache, I'll return to that.

And Bush is for the death penalty, and I am not. One of the reasons I don't like him, simple as that.

Fair enough.

News flash: The PRESIDENT HAS NO POWER TO DEAL WITH THE MONEY. He's called for a raise from the get-go.

I might be wrong, but isn't the President Commander and Chief? Wouldn't he have the say about pay for the soliders? Doesn't he have to sign bills about cutting things? I think so.

Did you pay attention for even a second in ANY government classes you may have had in your entire academic life?

 

I'll make it REAL simple for you:

 

CONGRESS CONTROLS THE MONEY. The President has NO control over the money.

He actually did so? News to me. Can somebody with a clue verify this?

Troops in Iraq face pay cuts

See above.

Because, God knows, when Tommy is ready to nail Tammy, he's going to first go to the HHC website to figure out if condoms will work.

No, they might not, but they might have the option to do so. But can they if it isn't there? Nope. It is the point that they CAN go look at it, but now they can't. Simple as that.

I'm not even going to waste my time checking out the HHC website to see if you're wrong. I wouldn't be shocked if you were, however.

Damn him, you know, following the Second Amendment and all.

You are loosing the point again. Bush is for guns in the household, while I am against it. I don't think people should have guns in the household, simple as that.

Then drop the bong, stop listening to Pink Floyd and discussing how damned deep "The Wall" is and go stump for a Constitutional Amendment.

You know, I will say it right now --- I firmly believe you are full of crap. Prove something.

I wish I could make stuff up like this.

You have done a bank-up job thus far.

If you want to read all of the stuff Bush has done Click Here. They back every statement with an article.

wage-slave.org?

 

OK, kids, anybody wish to explain to our young friend the problem with referencing blatantly partisan sites?

 

If you're looking for a less credible site, I suppose buzzflash would fit the bill.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Medicare isn't for the poor. It's for the elderly --- and it needs to be slashed DESPERATELY as we can't afford it. Medicaid is for the poor.

You're right, medicare isn't for the poor, my bad. However, elderly people do need medicare beause RX prices are so high. It doesn't need to be cut, but raised if anything.

Bingo. Given that the population is aging, and that the elderly are living longer than ever before, funding for Medicare has to be increased if the system is to remain sustainable.

Oh the gov't could control RX prices, but that won't happen.

Let's run with that logic.

 

Under Clinton, the gov't decided that vaccinations should be real cheap (I'd say free, but I don't think THAT cheap).

 

And, lo and behold, we go from 22 firms making vaccines in this country to, well, FIVE. You see, they had no PROFIT margin for making them --- but they had all of the legal liabilities of selling them --- so most of them opted to not make them.

 

So, when you're waiting for that flu vaccine, remember this story.

 

Price controls don't tend to work too well, gang.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I started hearing it about a year ago

I've been hearing it since the mid-90s.

 

I have yet to hear a conservative refer to themselves as a Neo-Con as its a tag I've only heard from liberals.

 

I've heard it fron other Conservatives about each other, but can't remember anyone using it to describe themselves.

 

The correct term for today's Bush-like conservative is actually Neo-Liberal.

 

No. Nobody who revives Reaganomics should be called a liberal of any sort.

[Guest MikeSC]

How do you know wiretaps, and library searches haven't prevented a terrorist attacks? I don't know that they have, but remember alot of the War on Terror we know nothing about.

 

Actually.. the wiretaps are more likely to help, but some people can be suspicious since there's less regulations for that sort of phonetapping.

You are aware, I am sure, that EVERYTHING still requires a judge's approval, right? Heck, we've done the roving wiretaps on mob bosses for years.

As for library searches.. how would knowing the books that somebody got from a library help you figure out if he's going to commit a terrorist action

The FBI employs these people called profilers who do a rather decent job of giving people an idea of who to look for in terms of possible criminal activity. They make their judgments and all based on A LOT of criteria --- including reading material.

What has Bush done that is so divisive? He doesn't insult Democrats, nor does he say that they wish to starve people or destroy the environment.

 

Bush doesn't need to say anything. Except for the fact that political talk has grown more divisive and polarized than ever.

And that's HIS fault?

 

He's vetoed nothing. He hasn't done any recess appointments. He hasn't said anything about the Democrats negatively.

 

The negativity, quite frankly, is eminating from one side. Bush is IGNORING it and it simply pisses them off more.

Clinton did NOTHING for the economy.

 

Except presiding over one of the best stretches in the economy and not screwing it up.

ACTUALLY, it was a continuation of the growth of the 1980's. The growth numbers for the two decades are shockingly similar.

Not to mention some of the bigger gains on Wall Street. (Sure, it turned out there was some number games going on during his watch and in 2001)

It's called a speculative bubble. It burst. And the "rising market" only increased the desire of firms to fudge the numbers.

His 1993 budget did NOTHING for interest rates --- long-term rates had been dropping since March 1992 and short-term rates went UP until the GOP took over the House.

 

First off.. I think it's a big feat I found one of the charts for this. It does confirm that ST Interest rates went up in 1994 (from 3.2 to 4.7). But, looking at the chart, 4.7 was lower than anything under Reagan and it was the third lowest from 1983 to 1994.

Or, in other words, interest rates were LOWER before CLINTON DID ANYTHING. Rates were dropping before he got in office.

 

So, again, Clinton did what, exactly?

I found this too

 

http://www.bestmortgage.com/interest.html

 

"The "Fed" was largely responsible for the big jump in mortgage interest rates in 1994 when it raised short-term interest rates seven times during that year in an effort to head-off rising inflation. Then, in 1995, mortgage rates dropped almost two full percentage points from the high point of December 1994. Ironically, the Fed had virtually nothing to do with the rate drop because it did not reduce its short-term interest rates during that period at all. Interest rates bottomed out again in February of this year, then jumped up sharply in March due to renewed inflation fears."

But...but...Clinton's budget LOWERED rates, right? I mean, that's what he said, right?

He did nothing to balance the budget.

 

Except actually signing the budgets that balanced it.

You know what happened to CLINTON'S proposed budget in 1995. Shot down in the Senate by a vote of 99-0.

 

But, hey, don't believe me. I'll give you a quote from Clinton Commerce Secretary Mickey Kantor: "No one should claim that what we did, what President Clinton did, created the eight most productive years in the history of the U.S. No one should say it."

The S & L bailout finally ended under his watch, adding a lot of revenue. Economic growth (underway since early 1992) was healthy before Clinton took office.

 

and it stayed healthy too for awhile.

It was fundamentally healthy before he got there.

Heck, give Clinton his stimulus package in 1993 and his health care plan in 1994 and the economy is in shambles.

 

Just like the Republicans predicted back then too!

They definitely missed it on the 1993 budget. But, tack on Medicare and you have a major economic drain.

On 6/10/98, the U.S Army lab confirmed pieces of an Iraqi scud warhead contained VX gas.

 

and that was 5 years ago. Does that mean we found something?

That means that he was definitely in violation. Thus, we were justified.

Bush was left a foreign policy nightmare dictated by Clinton's inept foreign policy team.

 

It was all Clinton Clinton Clinton. I guess they're to blame for exaggerating Iraqi weapons and the such. If only it weren't for Clinton.

Clinton ignored the WTC bombing on 1993. He ignored the bombing of the USS Cole. He ignored the embassy bombings. This emboldened terrorists.

The FBI could do that before the Patriot Act.

 

and we needed the Patriot Act because.. why?

Because there were a lot of problems in regards to co-ordination of info between agencies, for starters.

"There's not a plausible reason why a book list would help determine if somebody is planning a terroristic action."

 

It actually IS a logical reason.

 

It's just that if you break it down, it's saying that Terrorists are using information for attacks. Which is a god damn obvious statement. What else would they use? Guesses? But, still.. watch out for people with almanacs and any markings they may put in them. (Note: hopefully terrorists with almanacs have not heard this and ditched their almanacs)

It is called a piece of evidence with which to make an educated assumption.

He's done more than Clinton did. I will give him that.

 

this wasn't contrast and compare Mike.. this was just about Bush.

Can't ignore the problems left to him, either.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Under Clinton, the gov't decided that vaccinations should be real cheap (I'd say free, but I don't think THAT cheap).

 

And, lo and behold, we go from 22 firms making vaccines in this country to, well, FIVE. You see, they had no PROFIT margin for making them --- but they had all of the legal liabilities of selling them --- so most of them opted to not make them.

Man, Mike. You're on a roll. Usually you keep the Clinton accusations light enough where I have to actually weigh the possibilities of it being fact, but tonight. Man. So much stuff is being dumped on him that it's clear you're playing Six Degrees Of Bill Clinton.

 

Anyhow, about that vaccine thing, Clinton ALSO created a large stockpile of vaccines during that time. If you remember a few years ago when the media was playing up a scare of smallpox vaccine and whether there was enough, it would have been worse if Clinton hadn't done that.

[CanadianChris 0]

OK, kids, anybody wish to explain to our young friend the problem with referencing blatantly partisan sites?

Gee, I don't know, Mike...said person ought to be able to explain it to you as well:

 

But, hey, don't believe me. I'll give you a quote from Clinton Commerce Secretary Mickey Kantor: "No one should claim that what we did, what President Clinton did, created the eight most productive years in the history of the U.S. No one should say it."

 

SOURCE: http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry2...00310140832.asp

 

I'd love to see the full transcript of that "interview."

[Guest Cerebus]

OMG FAUX NATIONAL REVIEW~!!!

 

National Review may be blatantly biased, but its got a reputation as one of the premier political magazines in the country, so I seriously doubt they would have plucked that quote out of thin air.

[CanadianChris 0]

National Review may be blatantly biased, but its got a reputation as one of the premier political magazines in the country, so I seriously doubt they would have plucked that quote out of thin air.

Certainly not, but context IS everything.

[Guest MikeSC]

Anyhow, about that vaccine thing, Clinton ALSO created a large stockpile of vaccines during that time. If you remember a few years ago when the media was playing up a scare of smallpox vaccine and whether there was enough, it would have been worse if Clinton hadn't done that.

Guess what --- large stockpiles don't mean squat when nobody is willing to make more for later.

 

What they wanted to do was noble --- but they did it in about as horrificly asinine a manner as humanly possible.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

OK, kids, anybody wish to explain to our young friend the problem with referencing blatantly partisan sites?

Gee, I don't know, Mike...said person ought to be able to explain it to you as well:

 

But, hey, don't believe me. I'll give you a quote from Clinton Commerce Secretary Mickey Kantor: "No one should claim that what we did, what President Clinton did, created the eight most productive years in the history of the U.S. No one should say it."

 

SOURCE: http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry2...00310140832.asp

 

I'd love to see the full transcript of that "interview."

ACTUALLY, it was an interview Kantor had with Lowry for his book on Clinton. The quote has been out there for a while now and, lo and behold, Kantor hasn't said a word distancing himself from it. It's not like a refutation of the quote would have slipped under the radar of a left-wing site.

 

National Review is about as intelligent a political periodical as is out there right now. wage-slave.org it is not.

-=Mike