Yes, you all know who he is. I will now respond to the two questions he's been howlingly repeating because, y'know...why not? And the rub of it is, he probably won't understand either answer.
Response number one: The fact that I have not disagreed with his assessment of my veracity is not an indicator that what he says has worth. Rather, it's an indicator of my belief that his opinion of me is, in fact, worthless.
Response number two: He has demanded to know how any of our individual lives are hurt or worsened because of the actions of George W. Bush...a man who needlessly launched a war that's resulted in the deaths of 1600+ Americans and thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqis. The answer is quite simple:
"No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of they friends or of thine own were; any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."
--John Donne
And thus am I Donne with the clod.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at June 7, 2005 09:19 PM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingIf I said you murdered your own mother or eat rocks for lunch every day, you'd give specifics that would prove me wrong. Since you chose instead to change the subject, I'll just say ... thank you for admitting you are a liar!
As for the rest of your post, you can site irrelevant quotations, but you STILL cannot name one single solitary SPECIFIC way that Bush has made your own life worse!
But rather than admit I am right, you obfuscate. Typical liberal.
Guess what, "PAD"? I am not going away! You're "Donne" with me? Funny -- for a pun, the lowest form of humor. But I'll be testing that claim in the months to come. I have no doubt it's another one of your lies.
So, my question about all of this is - are we going to see some classic villains in the new Spider-Man comic? I've been out of the game for a while, so I don't know if The Vulture is viable anymore, but I think it'd be cool to see him.
Of course, new characters are wholly welcome (and somewhat expected).
Wow, talk about someone who needs to get a life. Hey, X-Ray, it is summer, time to come out of the basement and enter life. Or do you specifically enjoy making an ass of yourself in this forum?
I will be happy to answer how the BushCo. War has changed my life: people I know have died in Iraq because of his rush to war, his inability to stabilize the country, and his simplistic approach to foreign policy. How’s that? An answer enough for you? Or how about this: he had to spend time reading your ranting posts, which has come about because of his view of Bush and your mindless rants. That would make anyones life worse.
I invite you to come visit our site, usually a Macintosh publication, but we do have writer’s blogs in which both the liberal and fanatic, I mean, conservative viewpoints are argued. We would love to have you, as our writers will be sure to spend the time to HAMMER your childish and naïve viewpoints into the ground.
"And thus am I Donne with the clod."
Well Donne, Peter! Try as he might, there's is no recovery from that.
Mark
Someone said, "People I know have died in Iraq because of his rush to war."
Were these people forced to join the military by Bush, or did they volunteer?
They volunteered.
Did they have any inkling that when they joined the military, they might one day go to war, no matter WHO was President?
Of course. Bush did not invent war.
Were they ashamed of their service in Iraq, or proud?
I'd imagine they were proud.
Finally .. what "rush" to war? It took well over a year to "rush" to war!
As for the rest of your post, you can site irrelevant quotations, but you STILL cannot name one single solitary SPECIFIC way that Bush has made your own life worse!
Well, I know this doesn't effect PAD but...
Bush pulled the law that made close captioning on ALL television shows mandatory. The only shows required to do CC now are news and educational programs. Most networks are still doing it volintarily (some with corporate sponsorship). This is one area where I must actually praise Fox for keeping captioning on The Simpson... (and in true Matt Groening style sometimes actually hiding new jokes. You're missing out! Ha-ha.)
Though, as a hearing impaired person the few networks/shows that decide not caption anymore... it effects me suverely. Not only that and when I'm in school it REALLY pisses off the woman in apartment above me and the guy next to me if I watch some shows after 8 pm.
And for me that's the tip of the iceberg.
I can see how that might be annoying, but I really don't think it's a basis on which to judge a President. Or to say BUSH SUCKS, as Mr. David is wont to do.
If it's REALLY the tip of the iceberg, then why not tell us your "big" beef with Bush?
"The fact that I have not disagreed with his assessment of my veracity is not an indicator that what he says has worth. Rather, it's an indicator of my belief that his opinion of me is, in fact, worthless."
An excellent strategy, President Dukakis!
NOTE FROM YOUR EVER-PATIENT HOST: Hi, folks. PAD here. Just so no one gets confused, I did a fast check and the posting herein is just the village idiot posting under another name. Typical troll strategy--create fake IDs to make it seem he has allies.
I'll be the first to admit that I do not follow politics. But I seem to recall A LOT of people talking about Clinton trying to cover up the Lewinski thing by sending troops where they didn't belong.
I've lost friends who went off to war in Iraq as well, and other military friends I have who have come back to the states since agree that the war was not necessary and that keeping the troops in Iraq for an indefinite amount of time only adds unease to the Iraqi people.
And how can we forget about those who returned home, thinking they had finished their call of duty only to be called back overseas a few days or weeks later because Bush went into Iraq without a feasible plan for getting out once he went in and therefore must keep most of the military in for as long as possible.
What PAD is trying to say, X-Ray, is that the death of the 1600+ Americans and countless Iraqis have made his life worse off because he is compassionate (You conservatives know what compassion is, right? It's that thing W. cliams to have but really doesn't) and cares about others.
"Keeping the troops in Iraq for an indefinite amount of time only adds unease to the Iraqi people."
Is that why the Iraq's new, democratically-elected government recently asked those same troops to STAY for another year?
By the way, thank you Mr. David for pointing out that I posted under the name Peter Porker. I did it just to get you to comment, which you did! You statement that you are "Donne with me" lasted about 45 minutes.
Another lie, from a liar who has yet to defend himself from the charge. Because he knows it's true!
"The death of the 1600+ Americans and countless Iraqis have made [David's] life worse off because he is compassionate."
Yet he doesn't seem to have any compassion for Bush.
Maybe it's what you'd call "selective compassion."
It's reserved for those who agree with Mr. David.
Hey Peter David!
I thought you were "Donne" with me!
So why did you make a comment under my "alias" post, then quickly REVISE that comment to make it even more nasty?
I thought you were "Donne" with me!
Guess it's just another lie to you.
"whom the bell tolls" is a pretty awesome song. X-Ray should just chill and listen to "Ride the Lightning". Much more productive use of time.
Peter, I advise you to just ignore "X-Ray" here. You should be all too familiar with how trolls work--they just want to get a rise out of their targets, in this case, you. Unfortunately, you've already played right into his/her plan by making a whole new post about him, and then pointing out the "Peter Porker" thing. There are a lot of idiots out there, but if you ignore them, they might lose interest and just go away on their own. Or, more to the point, ignore them because you shouldn't really care about what they say.
I hate that people like x-ray can make me change my whole way of thinking. But he/she/it is such an ass-hole, and goes about things all wrong, that there is NO WAY I can comment anymore because I would hate for people to think that I am anything like that.
My brother was so scared of going to Iraq he had a breakdown and killed himself. Bush killed my brother.
"I'll be the first to admit that I do not follow politics. But I seem to recall A LOT of people talking about Clinton trying to cover up the Lewinski thing by sending troops where they didn't belong."
Oh, yeah. The R's and their mouthpeices screamed to the heavens from every radio and TV show they could everytime Clinton did anything because it was to cover for Monica. And Clinton, to his discredit, backed down to the public opinion created by the conservative echo chamber. The funny thing is that now the same people who screamed about "no war for Monica" are the same ones who sit on their fat backsides on radio and TV, pop a few pills and say over and over that Clinton has to shoulder a huge chunk of blame for 9/11 because he didn't do anything/enough.
Clinton could get bad intel and bomb a building that was near a terrorist HQ rather then the HQ itself a block away and it was, "to cover Monicagate and get it off the front page of the papers and off the evening news."
Bush can start a war on fixed intel, call it bad intel and the same voices claim that it's all good because we went in for the right reasons, we're Americans, we have God on our side, our God is bigger and stronger then theirs and, hey, it's all Clintons fault anyhow because he screwed up the intel people so much while Prez that bush was just an inocent victim in this...
Please.
Found a picture of x-ray:
http://speedo.ca/albums/sweet/789603_1.thumb.jpg
-------------
Yet he doesn't seem to have any compassion for Bush.
With you as a supporter I guess bush needs all the compassion he can get.
Way to shake spear and rattle saber. Talk about "sound and fury" but you may have aimed just a little high and maybe should have instead quoted from "My Favorite Bathtime Gurgles"
Clinton bombed an aspirin factory to take attention off Monica. People died. But so what, it's OK because Clinton is a Democrat, right? BUSH SUCKS!
While I completely disagree with the slant PAD puts on the war and on Bush, I am disgusted with the posts that caused him to respond as he did. I find PAD's thoughts challenging and helpful, whether I agree or not. So for what it is worth coming from a Bush supporting conservative, hang in there PAD.
Iowa Jim
Again, to show how Bush messed stuff up...
A repost of my post from another thread. Also, my last to X-Ray. I'll argue with somebody who can give solid ideas and can maybe change my point of veiw on some things or have theirs changed by me. But at this point X has only shown that he can come up with name calling and saying over and over that Bush won, got lots of votes and anyone who doesn't like Bush, despite constant sourcing of acts done by bush, lies told by Bush, preplanning of this war to almost ten years ago now and many other facts, only says, "Bush sucks" and responds to that.
I won't spend anymore time on a 12 year old acting like he knows something either.
Bye bye, X-Ray
"Actually, we did tell you how it made our lives worse. It's because we care about our country. We care about what the people who are in the highest offices do to/with our country as a whole and to the heart of its values. We care about what people do to the image and soul of our country. I guess that concept is beyond you. From your comments above demanding that it must be in some we directly impacting our day to day lives or $$$ rather then the country as a whole I can understand why. You are the perfect example of the modern neo-con. You're too greedy and "me" focused to see something like that. So long as you think you're getting what you want you could care less about anything or anyone else. Including the country it seems. I got mine and screw everyone else.
Sorry, but some of us kept growing after the second grade and learned that being a good American sometimes means putting the greater good above your own greed or wants. Too bad you didn't seem to do so as well."
Terrific, no thoughts on the finales of LOST and ALIAS, but (soon to be) hundreds of posts about the latest political pissing contest. Joy.
In the meantime, if you want to see a comic book showing dinosaurs attacking Noah's ark ("This event is NOT a fable and NOT a "myth"... It is a verifiable scientific FACT!") go to http://www.livejournal.com/users/theferrett/519211.html
Oy...
"So, Jerry--you admit Clinton bombed the wrong building?"
Yeah, I thought I made that clear. We got intel that had the HQ on the wrong block. It wasn't like Clinton cherrypicked intel to bomb the wrong place, declare success and, a year plus later, lost 1,600 men just to point a few difs out. Plus, Clinton even admitted the mistake. When was the last time Bush did the same thing rather then say it was somebody elses fault or have a scapegoat to sacrifice?
Okay, we'll forget about the Iraq war, where I would imagine there are several thousand National Guard and reservists who certainly didn't volunteer to be there. Or former soldiers being called back in under the stop-loss program, who already did there time and are definitely not volunteering to go back.
Let's see, how about cutting off federal funding for stem cell research, a move that is not even sitting well with Bush's own party?
How about continuing to reject the Kyoto accord, which most of the world has signed on to, even though we as Americans are producing a disproportionate amount of the Earth's greenhouse gases?
How about promoting No Children Left Behind, and then cooking the books in Texas so that high school drop-outs are reclassified so as not to appear as drop-outs thus giving the mistaken impression that the figures are actually lower? That same system is being used in umemployment figures by the way, which only reflects people collecting unemployment, disregarding the people whose benefits ran out months, or even years ago.
How about supposedly supporting right to life and pontificating about how life is sacred, ignoring the number of people who were executed in Texas while Bush was governer?
While I'm happy to invite debate from other people on this site, I should also point out that every post, good bad or annoying that I've ever made here has been under my own name. While it would be awfully easy to retreat behind an assumed name (or maybe even two!) at least I have enough courage in my convictions to stand behind them as myself. Something to think about.
X-Ray, yo.
It’s not worth it. Seriously. It just isn't. What's the point? Bunch of random postings on a random msg board making yourself angrier and angrier? Where does it end? What happens?
Nothing. Zlich. Nadda. Zip. Eventually, you get IP banned from the site and you can't post anymore. Game over, man. Game over.
Now I'm not gonna say "Move out of the basement, blah blah blah" or anything. But, seriously, take a deep breath and just consider what you're doing and how ultimately pointless and futile it all is. Making all these posts is not going to change the world, its not going to change anybody's mind, PAD is going to suddenly say “Sweet Jesus! He’s right!” and apologize for everything he’s ever done, ever. And it’s not going to help.
What you’re engaging in is one big exercise in frustration that is about as helpful as banging your head against a wall repeatedly. What are you going to get out of this, anyway?
It’s just not worth it, trust me on this one.
Why can you not block this jackass? I'm with James Lynch: ban this idiot, stop devoting posts to him and giving him a forum for his willful ignorance, and get down to what's really important, like LOST and ALIAS.
"Terrific, no thoughts on the finales of LOST and ALIAS....."
Love lost but I wanted to kill the creators by the end of the season ender. No real answers to clear up stuff from the first season and, damn it, even more new questions!!!!!!!!!
I would have come back next season anyhow!!!!!! Couldn't they have thrown us a few more bones to chew on over the summer!?!
I am the most un-political person you will ever meet. But after reading these posts, I will now vote/agree/etc. with the opposite of whatever "X" thinks.
Love lost but I wanted to kill the creators by the end of the season ender.
Hey, show a little respect: the big twist they dropped at the end involved NAMBLA Pirates. That takes some talent to come up with an idea as bizarre as that.
I am not going away! You're "Donne" with me? Funny -- for a pun, the lowest form of humor.
Well, actually, sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.
That's all I have to say.
The power of rationalization is a wonderful thing eh, X-Ray?
So nothing is Bush's fault because he didn't invent the idea of being a bonehead? I get these rationalizations on why Bush isn't to blame for everything stupid he has ever done, but what I don't get is why ANYONE likes Bush enough to come up with these denials and half truth defenses. I mean besides making sure that stem cell research doesn't cure any termianlly ill people what do Republicans get out of Bush... I mean besides his picture being beside Jesus's. The blood money from the oil goes to the Saudis and Bush's friends... I mean what do you people get out of it?
"How about cutting off federal funding for stem cell research?"
How about it? Bush did not cut off Federal funding, just the opposite. Get your facts straight.
"How about continuing to reject the Kyoto accord?"
You mean the accord that couldn't pass the US Senate even under Clinton? The accord that blames the US for the world's problems, and would cripple our economy to "fix" them? THAT accord?
"How about promoting No Children Left Behind, and then cooking the books in Texas so that high school drop-outs are reclassified so as not to appear as drop-outs thus giving the mistaken impression that the figures are actually lower?"
What are you babbling about? Proof please.
How about supposedly supporting right to life and pontificating about how life is sacred, ignoring the number of people who were executed in Texas while Bush was governer?
You mean the people who broke the law, were found guilty, and got the punishment mandated by Texas law?
"Every post, good bad or annoying that I've ever made here has been under my own name."
Hooray for you. As for me, any personal info I give would only be used for an attack against me. You see, I have the facts. Others have "feelings," and their supposed "facts" are usually slanted or outright distorted to suit their point of view. When these two fronts clash, liberals tend to go ballistic and make unwarranted personal attacks.
Perfect example: Peter David lies about Bush's vs. Kerry's grades to prove a point. I pointed this out, and was called a clod etc. by David, although he did not DENY the charge. His reasons for doing so are supercilious.
For another multiple-man from what seems to be the same Madrox, I recommended whitening the text of the troll-posts. This seems to be worth reconsidering. You could allow people to post without feeling assaulted, but you wouldn't be censoring anyone.
"After reading these posts, I will now vote/ agree/ etc. with the opposite of whatever "X" thinks."
I think you are a mature and thoughtful person!
For another multiple-man from what seems to be the same Madrox, I recommended finding SOME way of getting RID of all those pesky people who do not agree with you! You could allow people to post without feeling heard, and you would also be censoring everyone.
We don't all know who "he" is. Some of this can be pretty confusing for PAD's non-North American readers :/
-Jools
I just read that if you sign up for a Medicare drug benefit, you have to sign a paper that gets your food stamps cut. The perfect Bush plan! ...making the old folks choose between their prescriptions and food.
You gotta think that anybody coming up with this stuff has got to be a closet Satan Worshipper. All his supporters thumping their Bibles are just like X-Ray here! Their hatred is the only thing that sustains thems. They never have an original thought that isn't somehow covered in filth.
For another multiple-man from what seems to be the same Madrox, I recommended finding SOME way of getting RID of all those pesky people who do not agree with you! You could allow people to post without feeling heard, and you would also be censoring everyone.
Not if only your posts are whitened. Your text will be available to anyone who wants to read them, simply by highlighting it.
You've demonstrated a bloodlust that isn't justifiable. There's no defense against your relentless, Lennie-like anonymous agenda. Why should anyone tolerate your predatory indulgences?
"Peter, I advise you to just ignore "X-Ray" here."
Oh, I plan to. Here's the thing: I didn't want to be one of those creators who just hides behind bullet-takers rather than address people directly...even the idiot people. So I figured, y'know what? I'll answer his stupidity exactly once, in a manner so firm and clear as to demand attention. That way my conscience is clear and I don't have to feel that others are doing my work for me.
The ONLY reason I outed his alternate identity ploy is that I wanted to forestall board regulars' concerns that more trolls are starting to show up. It's just the one village idiot, doing the usual troll thing.
PAD
Clinton bombed an aspirin factory to take attention off Monica?!?
Shall I quote X-Ray again? "Where's your facts?"
Man, arguing with X-Ray is like arguing with a drunk person. I don't think any argument will change X-Ray's opinion, and we've moved from having a rational discussion on politics to a shouting match. It's probably time to move on.
For the people who felt frustrated at the end of LOST...if they gave all the answers, what then? "Okay, we're clearly in limbo/an alien planet/a massive experiment. Huh." The mystery certainly has me ready for the next episode!
As for the NAMBLA pirates, it's worth noting that the French Woman was certain that they wanted "the boy," thinking it was the newborn baby; turned out to be Walt.
Then again, Walt (who seems to have some type of psychic and reality manipulation powers) told his father that they *need* to take the raft off the Island, so whatever he faces with the pirates is presumably better than what's inside the hatch.
"Peter, I advise you to just ignore "X-Ray" here."
"Oh, I plan to."
Wow -- you're doing a bang-up job of ignoring me so far! Since you said you were "Donne" with me, this is your THIRD POST about me!
"Clinton bombed an aspirin factory to take attention off Monica?!? Shall I quote X-Ray again? "Where's your facts?"
You act as if I made that up! It's common knowledge. Clinton was CIC. He ordered an airstrike in Afghanistan on a target of his choosing. It later was revealed the strike hit only an Aspirin factory, killing several innocent people. It just happened that this "vital" airstrike just HAD to be launched right as Clinton's impeachment hearings began. An amazing "coincidence," isn't it? Wag the dog.
Cool! Imagine my excitement: I go away for 2 months, come back, and we have an Official Village Idiot! I have to say, he's very disappointing (which I suppose explains the moniker).
It reminds me of how Godzilla movies are great because they're so bad. But this guy's more like those movies that are so drearily predictable and mediocre that they're not very interesting.
At least that annoyance we had last year could present a certain amount of insight.
Shifting gears: since I missed the thread, just gotta say, loved the last Fallen Angel! Looking forward to December, and hoping it isn't shown too definitively that Lee isn't Linda.
It never fails to amaze me how people can do the net equivalents of demanding entry into someone else's living room against their wishes and defecating on the floor, and then go on to crow about it as if it were an act of righteousness.
Just one way in which GW Bush has made my life worse or more difficult? All right, then. Just one.
George W Bush made a priority of, pushed for, and got, multiple tax cuts that have significantly destabilized the economy of the country he leads. For example, he got behind the elimination of tax on corporate dividends, despite the fact that nearly two thirds of all such dividends are paid out to the wealthiest 5% of the population, and the top 0.2 percent of tax filers receive nearly as much from that one tax cut as the bottom 90 percent of filers combined.
By altering public policy to further enrich rich people, who studies show, by the way, don't go out and spend the additional monies they receive from this benefit (so spare me the trickle-down, supply-side crapola), George W Bush has made a significant contribution to the debt problems of this country, decreased the nation's borrowing power, and in turn decreased the buying power of his citizenry. Oh, and anyone with kids and a conscience now gets to wake up every morning with the knowledge that his or her kids will be taking on this unsustainable debt burden in the future, but that's really just an added bonus to the just one way.
Go ahead and tell me how it's not his fault. Go ahead and say how GWB has the best interests of the entire country at heart with this sort of foray into fiscal planning. Go ahead and show everyone just one way that the Bush tax cuts are not hurting this country.
Long-time lurker; intermittent fan of PAD's work. (Haven't read it all, but what I've read I've liked.)
Hey, X-Ray.
I don't always agree with PAD's views. But you seem to be forgetting something. You're a GUEST here, as am I, as are all the other people posting here. A Web site, or a blog, is a person's "home" on the Web. When you log on, you are entering their "home." You are a guest, and PAD is your host. ANd when you're a guest in someone's home, you're supposed to behave yourself -- to act with some measure of decorum and politeness to your host. I wouldn't walk into your home and call you a liar -- often and repeatedly.
PAD, on behalf of your other guests, I apologize for X-Ray/Peter Porker and his/her lack of understanding of the basic rules of functioning in society. Rule number one being: There's never an excuse for rudeness.
Off-topic, though, this brings an idea to mind:
"Marvel Knights" Peter Porker.
Possibilities, no?
"George W Bush made a priority of, pushed for, and got, multiple tax cuts that have significantly destabilized the economy of the country he leads."
Oh yes, it's been absolute HELL living in an economy that has expanded steadily for 14 consecutive quarters, and has exceeded 3 percent growth for 8 straight quarters.
Next?
The economy has been expanding for 14 consecutive quarters? Now THAT'S something I want to see proof of. If by expanding you mean the billionaires of America getting richer while the poor stays poor, then I agree.
Dear LDW,
Where is your apology to ME, on behalf of Mr. David, for his calling me everything from a clod to an idiot and worse, and for his being a liar? If being insulting and telling lies is OK in your "house," I don't want to go there.
Chip Stark,
"You gotta think anybody coming up with this stuff has got to be a closet Satan Worshipper. All his supporters thumping their Bibles are just like X-Ray here."
And it's outrageous generalizations like this that have you being much closer to X-Ray in your thought processes than you think.
"Their hatred in the only thing that sustains them."
People like X-Ray? Maybe. Most conservatives? Believe it or not, most conservatives just have a different viewpoint than yours. If you cannot accept that these are reasonable people who have a different viewpoint on what is correct and can help people, then you are not quite as enlightened as you think.
Brian,
"You conservatives know what compassion is, right?"
See, that would be like me saying,'You liberals know what merit and hard work are right?'
But that would be bad form.
Just because you're mad at a specific poster doesn't mean you have to paint others who disagree with you with a broad brush.
"It's that thing W. claims to have but really doesn't."
Please. There is no way you can prove this conclusively one way or the other. Just because you don't like the man doesn't mean you know him.
Tim Robertson,
"we do have writer's blogs in which both the liberal and fanatic, I mean, conservative viewpoints are argued."
And you take this occasion to show your own intolerance and immaturity. Bush got over 57 million votes. They all made their viewpoints known last November. Kindly deal.
What "proof" would you like that the economy is as I said? Try opening your mind to actual news, not "feelings" and BUSH SUCKS myopia. Try Google. Try reading a newspaper. The facts are the facts. And the facts are thus:
The U.S. economy expanded for 14 consecutive quarters and has exceeded 3 percent growth for 8 straight quarters!
The info is from the US Commerce Dept. You can look it up for yourself. Sorry, I can't give you a free subscription to the Wall Street Journal.
http://www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html
GSF1 seems to be in operation here.
Just a thought....
I did what you said. Here's the info I found off of google when I looked at the American economy:
"In the 2005 State of the Union address, Bush said that more Americans are going back to work and that the economy is growing and healthy. The numbers don't necessarily support this assumption. Job growth over the last 18 months has fallen short of administration predictions by 1,703,000—more than one-third fewer jobs than the president's Council of Economic Advisers said would be created. Present employment levels show only 119,000 more individuals working than when Bush took office in 2001, which is effectively a decrease in employment rates, as the total civilian labor force grew by more than two million workers in 2004 alone, according to the Department of Labor. Additionally, the most recent data from the Census Bureau show that the average income for middle-class households has dropped by $1,525 since its peak in 2000. The labor force participation rate—the percentage of people either working or looking for work—fell in Jan. 2005 to a seasonally adjusted 65.8 percent, the lowest rate since 1988.
Sources: USA Today, "Fewer Americans participating in labor force or seeking jobs," Barbara Hagenbaugh, Feb. 6, 2005; Department of Labor, "Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age," Feb. 2005; Center for American Progress, "American Progress Report: Talking Points," Feb. 2, 2005; Center for American Progress, "On the January Employment Situation," Scott Lily, Feb. 4, 2005; "State of the Union," President Bush, Feb. 2, 2005; Economic Policy Institute, Feb. 4, 2005."
Keep your Wall Street Journal subscription.
You act as if I made that up! It's common knowledge
Kind of like the common knowledge that Saddam had WMD.
Oh, wait, he didn't! Well, shit, there goes all of my common knowledge for the day.
"Oh yes, it's been absolute HELL living in an economy that has expanded steadily for 14 consecutive quarters, and has exceeded 3 percent growth for 8 straight quarters.
Next?"
Brushing off a fact-based statement with out of context baloney isn't an answer. Spare me the obfuscation and show me how Bush cutting taxes has not hurt the me as a member of the general populace. No baloney statistics that are skewed by comparison to the post-9/11 downturn. No garbage blustering that conveniently neglects to mention how unemployment remains above 5% and payroll growth has slowed to almost nothing nationwide.
You asked for one way he has hurt me individually, and I am saying that the tax cuts he engineered is one way. Framing it in what you laughably attempt to offer as a rosy picture is not answering. I will say it again: George Bush has hurt the average taxpayer (and I am one of those, so that's me) by pushing through tax cuts that are primarily beneficial to people who already wealthy. He has contributed to more uneven distribution of wealth, and so contributed to decreased purchasing power of his citzienry. I am part of that citizenry, so I have decreased purchasing power. Address that.
I don't imagine you have a specific rebuttal, so feel free to go with more of that moronic spin you so adore.
"out of context baloney."
The issue at hand was tax cuts and the economy., so the current state of the economy is not only relevant, it is central, and quite IN context!
As for "baloney," all we have are the Commerce Dept. figures -- that's all we've ever had. One can call them baloney. But figures this good, for this long, MUST mean something.
Not necessarily that you personally are well off, though. That depends on YOU, does it not? And blaming Bush for your own shortcomings is absurd.
X-ray wrote "As for the rest of your post, you can site irrelevant quotations, but you STILL cannot name one single solitary SPECIFIC way that Bush has made your own life worse!"
Is that so? Go to any airport to board any flight nowadays.
Or how's about the Patriot Act which gives the government unlimited powers to throw your personal freedoms out the window without needing to give an explanation. Makes the McCarthy Era look positively idyllic.
Or how's about his stance on stem cell research when we're on the brink of major breakthroughs that could be stymied as a result?
And those are just three.
But I'd STILL like to go fishin' with him. Go figure.
"Kind of like the common knowledge that Saddam had WMD. Oh, wait, he didn't! Well, shit, there goes all of my common knowledge for the day."
So all common knowledge is now wrong? Wow, I guess BUSH SUCKS. Don't you people ever think of anything else?
"Go to any airport to board any flight nowadays."
Yes, that's Bush's fault, nothing to do with 9/11. Oh, but he caused that, right?
"Or how's about the Patriot Act which gives the government unlimited powers to throw your personal freedoms out the window without needing to give an explanation. Makes the McCarthy Era look positively idyllic."
Can you give me even ONE specific instance of any aspect of the Patriot Act being misused? Do you even have any idea what the law says?
"How's about his stance on stem cell research when we're on the brink of major breakthroughs that could be stymied as a result?"
What stance? You mean providing Federal Stem cell funding for the first time ever? Allowing private industry to do all the stem cell research they want to? Again, do you even know what the policy IS?
"And those are just three."
Yes, three totally false ones. Got any TRUE ones?
"Or how's about his stance on stem cell research when we're on the brink of major breakthroughs that could be stymied as a result?"
What stance? He hasn't outlawed the research. All he did was say it wouldn't be government funded. Private business would be the ones making the money off of any discoveries, so they are the ones that should be funding the research. Same with alternate energy fuel engines. Involving the government and it's money has never made things happen cheaper, in fact it's probably slowed research down.
The only thing that disappoints me more than these kinds of trollish figures are when respected individuals cave to their attention-craving. There's a reason there's the warning: "Don't feed the trolls."
PAD, you're better than this. You can't argue logic with someone who's devoid of it.
"The issue at hand was tax cuts and the economy., so the current state of the economy is not only relevant, it is central, and quite IN context!"
Incorrect. The issue at hand was NOT tax cuts and the overall economy. The issue I presented was tax cuts and their relation to the country's worsening debt problems. If you don't know the difference between debt in particular and the economy as a whole, we have no foundation for discussion. Which is no surprise.
And if you really think you have a point, your inherent supposition is that so long as the economy is growing, a debt problem that is worsening right along with it is not an issue.
Needless to say, you've not answered my original statement.
"As for "baloney," all we have are the Commerce Dept. figures -- that's all we've ever had. One can call them baloney. But figures this good, for this long, MUST mean something."
That's equally laughable, particularly coming from someone so dedicated to making people responsible for capital-T truth. I particularly like the disingenuous "this good, for this long" part. For how long? Why, since the post 9/11 crash, of course.
"Not necessarily that you personally are well off, though. That depends on YOU, does it not? And blaming Bush for your own shortcomings is absurd."
Yeah, that's what I did. Blamed Bush for my own shortcomings.
Sad that you can't even answer a direct statement in response to your own weak-ass challenge with anything but diversion and obfuscation.
But then again, maybe you don't know any better.
So I'll say it one last time and then ignore you if you don't address it specifically. Bush, by pushing through ill-advised tax cuts, has made a significant contribution to this country's worsening debt problem, a problem that has no end in sight and that directly hurts every taxpaying member of his citzenry.
The only thing that disappoints me more than these kinds of trollish figures are when respected individuals cave to their attention-craving. There's a reason there's the warning: "Don't feed the trolls."
PAD, you're better than this. You can't argue logic with someone who's devoid of it.
"Bush, by pushing through ill-advised tax cuts, has made a significant contribution to this country's worsening debt problem, a problem that has no end in sight and that directly hurts every taxpaying member of his citzenry."
Your tone is so obnoxious! I think I will ignore you too. Yes, I read what you said. Am I not allowed to discuss the present GREAT state of the economy in response? Does the present state of the economy have NO relation at all to the national debt? It has a direct connection. It IS relevant!
You liberals sang the same song about Reagan's tax cuts. Decades later, it became obvious that they were highly beneficial for this country's economy. We did, in fact, "grow" our way out of much of the debt. The budget was balanced under a Republican Congress and Clinton. It was whacked by 9/11 as never before. Now we are well on the road to recovery. Liberals, while offering NO alternatives of any kind, now simply exist to block whatever Bush wants. After all, BUSH SUCKS.
I agree that the debt is a problem, but I don't see it as an unmanagable or even long-term one. You disagree. And your solution to the problem as you see it is ... ... ??? I know. BUSH SUCKS.
OK, here we go.....
Bush limited stem cell research to the 21 (I believe that's the correct figure) lines currently available with no new lines being introduced.
Under Bush, important intelligence that could have stymied the 9/11 attacks was ignored. The results are what you live with today, including the (I hate to say it) possibility of Gestapo-like tactics on the part of the government or members thereof if they so choose to exercise that act.
As for the economy, wait until Thursday when Mr Greenspan speaks to the committee. You are headed for an inverted yield curve and the associated financial chaos it will bring. Oh yes, and let's not forget GM's announcement today. Looks like that record of consecutive expansions is just starting to contract......if ever so slightly.
Wow. This guy has got to be the biggest fucking loser ever. It's so sad I can't even get angry at the guy, when rightly I should be.
It's scary to have unhinged, obsessed stalkers like this guy, though. I do not envy PAD here.
"Gestapo-like tactics ... inverted yield curve ... associated financial chaos ... "
If you really believe all this nonsense, I'd consider moving!
Look, you're all supposed to be ignoring me. Stop making every single post about me!
Well.....it's been more than five minutes since my last posting and look: no pithy responses from X-Ray! Alas, as I leave to enter the land of sweet slumber I have only only the memory of the wind , a faint trilling echoing as it wafts rhythmically through the space between X-Ray's ears.
G'night y'all.
X-Ray wrote:
"So all common knowledge is now wrong? Wow, I guess BUSH SUCKS. Don't you people ever think of anything else?"
Um, but isn't that the same logic you used to determine that, because PAD had apparently lied once (and I stress apparently, since you're the only one who seems to think so), everything he says with regards to politics is a lie?
"Not necessarily that you personally are well off, though. That depends on YOU, does it not? And blaming Bush for your own shortcomings is absurd."
Isn't assuming that someone's difficulties are necessarily a result of their own shortcomings absurd as well?
Ma'am, just a suggestion: if your purpose is to show liberals the error of their ways, you might want to try and actually engage with what they say. From what I've seen, lurking around here, the regular posters who are more conservative or Republican tend to do just that.
If you're just trying to pick fights, why bother? What are you accomplishing?
Oh, for Pete's sake.
This guy isn't interesting enough to be a troll.
Why are you folks arguing with him? He completely ignores any rational arguments you make.
"So all common knowledge is now wrong?"
Seriously. What kind of an argument is that?
Geez. move on, already.
For the people who felt frustrated at the end of LOST...if they gave all the answers, what then? "Okay, we're clearly in limbo/an alien planet/a massive experiment. Huh." The mystery certainly has me ready for the next episode!"
Yeah, but I couldhave still done with a few answers. You can set up questions to get veiwers and then answer those while building on the answers to create new questions. All that season ender did was add to the, "what the hell!?!" list. I'm still going to watch next season becuse I like the show but I really was ticked with it for a day or so.
"Bush limited stem cell research to the 21 (I believe that's the correct figure) lines currently available with no new lines being introduced."
Actually, Joe, as www.factcheck.org, The National Academy of Sciences, medical pros and just about everyone else pointed out, the number was less then that. I believe the number of viable lines was around 11-15. Fun bit is, Bush kept claiming that it was closer to 50 or 60 something. He was told a number of times that that was wrong and still kept saying it. It was printed and broadcast damned near everywhere (but Bush himself states that he won't read a newspaper) and he just kept on going with false facts. Just another Bush lie to add to the list.
Here's an article that may prove of benefit here. If you take the time to read it, read all of it:
a couple quotes:
"President Bush said during the third election debate last October that most of the tax cuts went to low- and middle-income Americans. In fact, most - 53 percent - will go to people with incomes in the top 10 percent over the first 15 years of the cuts, which began in 2001 and would have to be reauthorized in 2010. And more than 15 percent will go just to the top 0.1 percent, those 145,000 taxpayers."
"The Bush administration says that the tax cuts have actually made the income tax system more progressive, shifting the burden slightly more to those with higher incomes. Still, an Internal Revenue Service study found that the only taxpayers whose share of taxes declined in 2001 and 2002 were those in the top 0.1 percent."
So what are you saying, that the tax cuts went mostly to the people who pay the most taxes? THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!
Make that FIVE. The delete counts as one!
What's your endpoint with all this? So PAD paid attention to you big deleting your posts and saying you're acting like an annoyance. Big deal.
Did you go off and read the whole article? I know, it won't matter if you do. But in the name of informed discussion...
"What's your endpoint with all this?"
Man, are you dense. It's so obvious!
There is something rather sad about petulantly referring to anyone who seems to disagree with you as stupid or idiotic.
Of course, the last time I tried to make a political point here- though why history is now a matter of political affiliation is beyond me- I was informed that soviet spies in the highest levels of government were unimportant, because Senator McCarthy allegedly hassled a leftist playwrite (the soviet spy specifically in question was Assistant Secretary of State Alger Hiss, but one oughtn't leave out Vice President Henry Wallace, Deputy Administrator of the Board of Economic Warfare Lauchlin Currie, Chief of Staff to the head of the Office of Strategic Services (the precursor to the CIA) Duncan Lee, etc.). Of course, the sting from PAD's rejoinder was lessened when he referred to Senator McCarthy as being part of a House committee, but let's not dwell. Petty name calling only exposed the weakness of your your rhetorical posture, such as the jibe that President Bush speaks the 'language of fear' from a individual who just before the election warned we'd all most likely be drafted if Bush won (also children would be starved, Social Security destroyed by a 0.3% voluntary personal account, old people pushed down stairs, as well as various other calamities utterly unrelated to fear... )
At any rate, childish taunting and mockery is the last resort of an undefensible position. Thusly, I feel confident that DNC Chairman Howard Dean is doing your cause more harm than good by calling all Republicans "evil," "brain dead," reminding us that he "hates" Republicans at least in part for having "never worked an honest day in their life," and unable to get attract minorities to show up "unless they're the cleaning staff," (by the way, 40% of Hispanics voted for Bush in 2004).
Also, you do know that our current president is the first in history to fund stem cell research, yes? And that despite former Senator Edwards despicable claims to the contrary, had Senator Kerry won the election, Christopher Reeve and those with physical spinal damage would not have "gotten up out of their chairs and walked." Certain degenerative nerve disorders may theoretically be reversed with future technology involving stem cells therapies (which are also found in the umbelical casing, among other places not necessitating the harvesting of a human infant), but gross trauma is gross trauma, regardless of how much 'blank slate' material is available.
And remind me again how cutting taxes so people had more money to spend (including the top few percentiles who own business and hire the rest of us) hurt the economy? Are you sure you're thinking this all the way through? And just what do you think would happen to the GNP if a rogue nation state deployed wave after wave of biological attacks against us? Who really thinks that after gassing the Iranians, Kurds and a goodish chunk of his own people with WMDs, Saddam just up and swore off the stuff forever? Or that Oday and Qusay were any better?
Just a thought...
Cal, sorry, but I don't read anything in the NY Times. They hate conservatives and their "news" is totally biased.
Did they mention that a whopping 80% of ALL Federal income taxes are paid by the TOP 20% of income earners?
You can't cut taxes for people who don't PAY taxes!
Posted by X-Ray at June 8, 2005 02:24 AM
So what are you saying, that the tax cuts went mostly to the people who pay the most taxes? THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!
Actually, mostly the people who pay the least taxes in terms of income, etc.
I trust you are going to be happy with the picture on your new Internal Passport, whose mandating if not actual issuance i see as a real possibility by the end of this Administration.
As to how this administration has harmed me personally -- its activities have resulted in attitudes abroad that make it anywhere from much less pleasant to downright dangerous for US citizens to travel abroad.
None of which, by the way, goes to show that PAD is liar. The childish name-calling remark is direted in both direction (in case I hadn't made that clear).
My name is Chris Daugherity, if anyone cares. 'sober voice of reason' is a personal joke.
I can cite how bush has made my life worse! First some back ground how my current health insurance works. For a certin amount during the year we have a small co-pay. Then the insurance cuts off for about 3000.00 which if we exceed the previous cap is our responsibility. After the 3000.00 the insrance picks up again. There is a second cap where it does this again, but I don't know the amounts for it. Now we finished paying for the birth of my son in march, last years responsibility. My wife had a sleep study done that required severl days of hospital stay in Feb. This study exceeded our cap for the year ans we ended up oweing the hospital 1800.00. Before we would have worked out a payment plan with the billing office as much as we could afford. currently we could afford between 200 and 250 a month. thus having the bill paid off in 7 to 9 months. Thanks to bush wanting to crack down on bankruptcy, and the change in the fileing of it suddenly none of the medical billing offices here will work out a billing plan. We were told we have 120 days to shit out 1800.00 of face collections. Thus we have now spent the last month and a half living like paulpers and have paid just over half of it. I don't remember the exact percentage but I believe it was in the 90's, but most bantruptcy's are the result of insurmountable medical debt. As the onion put it in one of thier opinion polls "Thay will teach people not to have medical emergencies!"
Jeff Coney
www.hedgehoggames.com
"Of course, the sting from PAD's rejoinder was lessened when he referred to Senator McCarthy as being part of a House committee, but let's not dwell."
Superb idea. You choose not to dwell on my accidentally referring to HUAC when I meant to refer to the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, and I won't dwell on the fact that you can't spell the simple word "playwright."
PAD
Man, are you dense. It's so obvious!
You know what, just indulge me. What's your point? What, cosmicially speaking and all, does this little tantrum of yours matter?
PAD: Keep putting the boot in, some of us love ya for it :)
Speaking as a european
Bush as made me a hell of a lot more afriad than i was before
Bush as shown nothing but comptent for the will of the united nations the moment it became clear he could not win a the second vote justifying the war he decided the UN was irelevant and tht he would invade anyway amusingly siting "upholing the will of the UN as one of his reasons" dispite 2 members of the security council threatening to veto it.
so why dose this make me scared well the UN for all extents and purpurses intended to say NO to the war just has most nations citazens if not there governments ... but hey none of those NO's mattered and that's what's scarey
when you lose the ability to say no that's when freedom ends
ask yourself this question is there any government in the world who can so NO to bush or the usa for that matter let alone the democratically ellected (stooges) of iraq
now i understand the benefits of been a superpower and always getting yourway i don't think for a second that france & great britain wern't as bad when they ruled the world but the point is 200 years down the line surly we should have evolved beyond the concept that might makes right and we should be applying some of the principles we all believe in such as freedom liberty & democriscy
I try to avoid any conversations in politics because, although conservative, I don't always agree with the Republican party. It's just I disagree with the Democrats more often.
As for the village idiot... I think it's safe to say that there are fanatics out there, and they aren't limited to one party. They do, however, diminish genuine arguments for a purpose as a whole, in my opinion, because everything becomes a priority response... and therefore nothing is less than highly important. Which isn't true. So the result is people don't listen to you anymore.
Hence why there are village idiots: they feel they're being ignored, so they just raise the level of their voice, and the stupidity of their claims... and just like that, a troll is born.
And of all things, I can't say much on politics, because anyone watching 10 minutes of CNN once a week can probably out-argue me on several issues.
But I can say this:
I've met a couple of "those Iraqis." The question was asked of them if things are as bleak as the news reports.. and they are not. Good things have happened to Iraqis, despite what media tells us.
The two people I spoke with were happy, and smiling ear to ear. Granted, they were visitors here in Hawaii, here on University of Hawaii business: I'd smile too if I were not in a country where bombs were going off everywhere for a change.
But there were genuine atrocities going on in Iraq. Was it right? Was it wrong? I don't know. There are a million sides to it. It's done. It seems to have been the right thing to do. Only history will tell us the truth, when we look back on this one day.
And Peter, you and I will forever disagree about Bush Jr. You're pretty convinced we've got an idiot in office. I can't say I've agreed with everything he's done, but I think it's also fair to say no president in recent memory has had to deal with the unique state of affairs that must now exist in this country.
Who's to say what other presidents would have done had they been currently serving when 9-11 occured. I personally could think of no job I'd rather not have at that particular moment.
So, yes, I think Bush Jr. is doing a fine job under extreme circumstances. No, he's not perfect. Yes, we can do better. (As long as it's not hypocrites like John Kerry, we can do much better.)
Now I've said too much. Or not enough. But I've said my peace. (Not that anyone will read it down here on the 100+ posting on a note to the village idiot, but it's late, I'm tired, and recently unemployed again, so why the heck not.)
And no, I don't blame Bush Jr. for my unemployment. I blame the new management that came in and wanted to hire all his buddies and friends, and relieved me of my duties based not on performance, but because - literally - he didn't like me. No. I blame management for that.
...Hm. I gotta stop my caffeine intake. It's getting me carried away.
That's my 2 cents.
There will be no refunds.
RLR
As a non-US citizen I can easily answer the question about whether Bush's actions have damaged individual lives. Yes. His actions have caused everyone outside your country to view you and every other American in a worse light.
You are seen as bullies telling other countries how to run their elections when your own are so blatently fixed, liars who started a war that had no factual basis. Your good will in other countries has dropped considerably. And if you think that does not affect every single person in your country then you are a fool.
What I want to know is, when are we going to see your final thoughts on the season finale of "Smallville" :-) [or have I missed that post?]
"Man, arguing with X-Ray is like arguing with a drunk person."
Boss had a sign on his wall for a while which fits nicely here:
- Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
"As for the village idiot... I think it's safe to say that there are fanatics out there, and they aren't limited to one party. They do, however, diminish genuine arguments for a purpose as a whole, in my opinion, because everything becomes a priority response... and therefore nothing is less than highly important. Which isn't true. So the result is people don't listen to you anymore."
Here Here!
Don't judge us all by some people's extrememe idiocy.
And as far as that guy:
Didn't he ever hear the old saying, "you catch more flies with sugar"? He's not going to win with his tactic. It just pushes people further into their beliefs, and makes his own beliefs look bad.
Am I not allowed to discuss the present GREAT state of the economy in response? Does the present state of the economy have NO relation at all to the national debt? It has a direct connection. It IS relevant!You liberals sang the same song about Reagan's tax cuts. Decades later, it became obvious that they were highly beneficial for this country's economy. We did, in fact, "grow" our way out of much of the debt.
There's no defense against your relentless misrepresentation of the truth.
After Reagan cut taxes he raised them again.
Yes, there's a recovery which -- thanks to the massive borrowing paying for tax cuts the wealthy benefitted disproportionately from -- is being funnelled almost exclusively to the rich.
The reason the wealthy should pay more is because they benefit most from the status quo. 9/10 of the court system is accessible only to corporation and the very wealthy. The reason Bruce Willis should pay disproportionatly more is because he benefits disproportionately from the little extra cash in the hands of the average consumer than the average laborer benefits -- flatten the f*cking beauracracy the rich benefit disproportionately from before you flatten the f*cking taxes.
Under Clinton we had prosperity and a budget surplus -- what is your f*cking problem with that?
When poor people vote for George Bush, yes, they are like a prostitute knifing a guy for stopping her pimp from beating her. They are voting for massive borrowing leveraged their own middle-class savings that benefits the wealthy -- they are voting against their own self-interest.
And why? All I saw was Bush campaigning on measuring strength by dominance. Dominance in the middle east, dominance over women, dominance to systematically flush black votes -- "Hey, we aren't helpless! We Are strong! We dominate things!"
There is no libertarian or conservative canon that justifies painting a fixed market as fair. X-Ray, your neediness is sickening.
Can you give me even ONE specific instance of any aspect of the Patriot Act being misused? Do you even have any idea what the law says?
Ashcroft using the Patriot act to investigate a brothel for laundering drug money, when the reason for the Patriot act is supposed to be to fight terrorism.
"Yet he doesn't seem to have any compassion for Bush."
Forgive me (and PAD) if we don't feel sorry for a rich kid who's had everything in life handed to him an a silver platter.
"Ashcroft using the Patriot act to investigate a brothel for laundering drug money, when the reason for the Patriot act is supposed to be to fight terrorism."
Wow, only *half* the truth... Huh, surprising from a liberal. The laundered money was suspected of being funneled for a bloody terrorist org, for heaven's sake! Hence, Ashcroft's correct use of the Patriot act.
"Forgive me (and PAD) if we don't feel sorry for a rich kid who's had everything in life handed to him an a silver platter."
And Kerry was a poor kid who struggled tooth and nail to become the rich adult he is? Please. It's funny how liberals use wealth as a disqualifier for whether or not someone deserves compassion (unless, of course, the wealth are liberal). Hopefully you'll never become rich and successful, or your poor children will be utterly without the compassion of others.
X-ray, your not alone. I just don't have the time, or the debating skills to contribute. Good show, though.
Later,
Chip
How has Bush changed my life? Well... his no child left behind laws have made it much harder for schools to recieve the funding they desperately need. This has lead to thousands of teacher lay offs including my wife. This comes directly because of a policy that bush put in place. It was the center of his domestic agenda for much of his first four years. His economic policies have lead to a jobless recovery which is bad news for me since I lost my job 2 years ago. Bush's policies directly and indirectly made an impact on that situation. Bush has cut funding for countless programs to fund his war with Iraq. This has also affected me and millions of other people.
The problem isn't just Bush either. It is the Republican controlled House, Senate, Governorships, state Legislatures fault too.
It seems to me that the big neo-con scam can be summarized as: painting need as strength.
Corporations benefit disproportionately from the loose change jangling in everyones' pockets -- but they'd just as soon leave it all to the consumer to maintain the stability they benefit disproportionately from.
It isn't that Bush sucks. Republicans are painting need as strength. How much domination does anyone need? Where does it all end?
1This is some funny stuff. I had to stop reading it several times since my giggles were bugging my office-mates. I don't really have any issues with Bush's actions as president. I had issues with the election in 00, sure... but more cause people didn't raise a bigger fuss. I just don't like him as a person. I find him to be an idiot. I find him to lack various social graces and worry about having a president who lacks diplomatic skills. Personally, I would love to know what would've been diff about 9/11 with Gore in office. Or how Kerry would've done. But, hell, I wonder the smae things about any of the other candidates. We are locked into this course of reality. Damn. I don't necessarily hate bush... except when he is making a speech about something I give a crap about cause I will listen to it and cringe. But I think the same about that Diane Reems (sp) on NPR... she has some GREAT guests but listening to her speak makes my head twitch. Gore could induce a coma into a kid with ADHD. Kerry I liked... but just for his presence. There are so many people involved in politics that to credit or blame just one person for major policy changes seems silly. I don't like politicians. I don't trust politicians. But, yay us, that is our system of government. As for the war, I blame the administration. Our government body as a WHOLE. I don't blame Bush for anything beyond sounding like a twit whenever he talks about it. And you know, he could be reading Hawking to the press and would still sound like a moron so maybe it's just his voice. Jeb doesn't SOUND stupid, certainly. Until you hear what he is saying. Oh, and yes... met them both (benefits of dating a teacher during election year). Was unimpressed with both. But you know... nothing made me more worried about Bush than to sit there with a group of teachers as he spoke about education and hearing all the ones around me mumbling. Especially my girlfriend... a nice, sweet elementary school, reading recovery teacher at a VERY "urban" school... and it's the perfect quote to close my bit on this:
"What a load of sh!t... stupid muther fu@#er"
Take care all... But keep this up. I'll have to check back tomorrow... this is some funny stuff.
So X-Ray went on to post and post without once addressing what I asked him. Must be nice to have so much time on your hand. Shout and derail all the concerns of the people... but never make an actual point.
The economy improved 14 quarters in a row? Let's take a look a little further back and see what it did then since Bush has been in for much more than 14 quarters. Oh yeah complete economic collapse... pretty hard to go up from the very bottom of the barrel. Way to go, Bush!
Well I'm done with this moron as well. You keep up the "good show" X-Ray. Watch your military president continue to run right over the soldiers and pay them enough so that they qualify for food stamps, never let them come home from Iraq, and then look there like a learning disabled monkey when suddenly recruitment into the army takes a nose dive.
Genius, pure genius,
Leader
"After Reagan cut taxes he raised them again."
Impossible. Only Congress can raise taxes!
"Under Clinton we had prosperity and a budget surplus -- what is your f*cking problem with that?"
You mean under a Republican congress, f*cker!
"When poor people vote for George Bush, yes, they are like a prostitute knifing a guy for stopping her pimp from beating her."
Yes, Republicans never "win,' they only trick idiots into voting for them. Keep thinking that.
"Kerry I liked... but just for his presence."
Oh God. You mean his "sad-tree"-like presence?
"Let's take a look a little further back and see what it did then since Bush has been in for much more than 14 quarters. Oh yeah complete economic collapse..."
Wow, THIS liberal has a crystal ball! He knows the future!
What is it?
What else?
BUSH SUCKS!
Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.
You liberals sang the same song about Reagan's tax cuts.
Impossible. Only Congress can raise taxes!
Your neediness is sickening.
I sincerely hope this entire post is deleted, and any further post by the troll ignored (as it was in the beginning).
But for a simple addendum to "how the Republican US Administration fucked up big time", my little experience: as non-US citizen, I now actively try not to buy anything that is US-produced, unless it's from "sane" industries I personally "whitelist" (like Ben&Jerry or Tor Books). Microsoft? Erased from my pc, now running an european Linux version. Nike? Sorry, only italian shoes here, much cheaper on this side of the pond. iPod? naah, this Nokia phone does it for me. Car? Renault does it for me. Gadgets? all taiwanese for me, thanks. TV and movies? British production can be the best... what was that??? oh, it's the U.S. foreign debt balance skyrocketing. God morning X-Ray, your ass is now 0wned by a chinese opium smuggler... and he wants your SUV.
To Giacomo: But you still POST MESSAGES in the evil USA don't you? This is supporting the evil tyrant Bush! You must move at once.
"It reminds me of how Godzilla movies are great because they're so bad."
Hey. Let's not let this acimony hurt the innocent. Godzilla rules. Someday, someone will make a movie that has both Godzilla AND flesh eating zombies and I, frankly, will have to commit ritual suicide once it's over, because what will I have left to look forward to?
Ummmmm .... "The RETURN of Godzilla and the Flesh Eating Zombies!"
All things considered, with the amount of scrutiny going on, maybe someone should be a lobbyist and then learn the truth behind politics, right?
"The transcript shows that Kerry's freshman-year average was 71."
You liberals sang the same song about Reagan's tax cuts....
Impossible. Only Congress can raise taxes!
Yes, keep posting here -- after trying to pressure people who disagree with you to abandon their casualness -- without addressing your own need, your dependence, on inconsistency.
Dude there's no libertarian or conservative canon that justifies painting a fixed market as fair. That's just neediness.
I gave up long ago trying to hold a discussion with those still on the kool-aid. Here's just an example...watch how the eventual response will come up with some way to differentiate this:
Sure, Clinton was president when we bombed a factory that turned out to produce aspirin. And according to X-ray, that makes Clinton personally responsible. Whether that's factually accurate or not is irrelevant.
Bush was CiC when he made the personal decision to instigate a war in Iraq. That makes him personally responsible for the entire war, and all it's consequences. The justification for going to war was because Iraq had WMDs, and was going to provide them to terrorists so they could use them against the US. Today, we know there were no WMDs, there was no capability to produce WMDs, and all the "evidence" the made Powell parade before the world turns out to be the Bush equivilent of...aspirin production. So all the vilification X-ray heaps on Clinton, by X-ray's own logic, should be heaped on Bush tenfold. Sure, Clinton's mistake cost innocent lives...but how many more innocent lives have been attached to Bush's mistake? How many more to come in the future?
Yes, there's a recovery which -- thanks to the massive borrowing paying for tax cuts the wealthy benefitted disproportionately from -- is being funnelled almost exclusively to the rich.
That's because the taxes are PAID dispropotionately by the rich. Look at the distribution of person income taxes: the bottom 50% of households only pay 5% of the personal income tax. Any tax cut HAS to be disproportionate because of the current design of the code. Simple math - even for Democrats :)
I'll give you an example. The median household income is about $42,000. Our household is about double that. We don't itemize our deductions, but use the standard ones. However, the tax code is so skewed towards the upper end, that my actual income tax rate last year was 8% of my income. If that's what happens to someone earning double the median income, then I think it's safe to say that a lot of people below me aren't paying much into the federal coffers/
Car? Renault does it for me.
Do even French drivers tout French cars? Needy-- Nice try x-ray.
Wow, only *half* the truth... Huh, surprising from a liberal. The laundered money was suspected of being funneled for a bloody terrorist org, for heaven's sake! Hence, Ashcroft's correct use of the Patriot act.
Well, at least they suspected the money of being funnelled.
That's better than those two girls in NYC got.
But then, the position of the Dept of Homeland Security these days is to make it sound like everything supports terrorism: money laundering, Islamic non-profit organizations, computer piracy.
The list is endless when you have an Administration that prefers to keep the list that way.
I just don't have the time, or the debating skills to contribute. Good show, though.
Maybe we should give him a cookie? A vegetable could present better (and more accurate) points than X-Ray.
That's because the taxes are PAID dispropotionately by the rich. Look at the distribution of person income taxes: the bottom 50% of households only pay 5% of the personal income tax. Any tax cut HAS to be disproportionate because of the current design of the code. Simple math - even for Democrats :)
Steve Forbes had a tax plan where for a family of 4, taxation didn't start until earnings reached $36,000. It's funny how your "simple math" is predatory and his wasn't.
As I said before:
The reason the wealthy should pay more is because they benefit most from the status quo. 9/10 of the court system is accessible only to corporation and the very wealthy. The reason Bruce Willis should pay disproportionatly more is because he benefits disproportionately from the little extra cash in the hands of the average consumer than the average laborer benefits...
To paint neediness as strength in this manner shelters predatory behavior. It's the systematic harvesting of middle-class savings. It's sickening.
To paint neediness as strength in this manner shelters predatory behavior. It's the systematic harvesting of middle-class savings. It's sickening.
I also don't see how you can call it an "harvesting of the middle class" when more and more of the burden is being pushed higher up the income charts. The rich are paying more of the burden than they ever have historically. My concern about this can be summed up by this classic quote:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."
As it is, with nearly 50% of the population paying not income taxes (and therefore no real stake other than what they can get out of the federal government), we are fast going down the path of fiscal collapse. The Baby Boom retirement - because of its huge demographic influence on Washington policy - will be the most significant fiscal event for the next quarter century. If we don't do a better job now, we won't have much of an economy for the next generation.
To The Other Blogger-
Stop trying to cloud the issue with facts!
BUSH SUCKS!
The rich are paying more of the burden than they ever have historically.
...but not in proportion to their skyrocketing salaries.
Consider CEO salaries quintupling in the last 20 years. Are CEO contributing 5 times more than they were 20 years ago, as compared to regular salaries?
To flatten the tax while the top 1% of earners salaries have broken away from the pack -- they're benefitting from a stability the middle-class is paying for. It's neediness painted as strength -- and it's sickening.
When I say middle-class taxes are being harvested, that's how the record-breaking debt will have to be paid off -- not out of Paris Hilton's obscene petty-cash reserves, but out of middle-class savings.
Shelter predatory behavior all you like, that doesn't mean we have to call it anything other than it really is.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."
Or, when translated to the American Democratic Republic, the top 1% will spend a good deal of their untaxed income on propaganda and related publicity supporting candidates that share their goal of further insulating that untaxed income (or better put, attacking those candidates that want to ennact a tax burden that bears some resemblance to fairness), thereby duping the voting majority into electing the "wrong" people.
Ignoring the topic, since feeding trolls is a no-no (I suppose I agree with some of it, but not the way it's presented) I would like to revisit a couple of the responses:
Closed Caption was required by law??? (I do love learning knew things...) Isn't that a violation of free speech to legislate this? Making someone speak is a violation of free speech as surely as denying someone speech. I can see how it would be nice for the deaf (and I'm deaf in one ear, so I can relate) but it shouldn't be manditory.
And why should the rich be punished? If you don't like the "status quo" being disadvanteous to you, get out of the status quo. Being poor is a voluntary condition. Educate yourself in finances and anyone can become wealthy (build up your asset column and reduce your liability column... it's a slow start, but a strong finish, believe me). This is America: ANYONE CAN BE RICH IF THEY WANT TO BE AND ARE WILLING TO EDUCATE THEMSELVES! I've changed just a few of the things I've been doing (reduce frivolous spending, pay off debt, build asset column) and I'm making three times what I made just a few years ago and I'm now debt free. Believe me, if I can do it, all of you, who seem far more intelligent than I, can do the same.
If you're struggling, you have no one to blame but yourself. It isn't the government's job to bail you out, nor should it be.
Oh wow, I just ranted. Sorry about that...
Rock on all, DNFTT (I hope I'm not one...)
"Closed Caption was required by law??? (I do love learning knew things...) Isn't that a violation of free speech to legislate this? "
I don't know the specifics, but I would guess that the CC requirement was in exchange for being able to broadcast over the Federally-licensed airwaves. If you wanted to make your own videotape/DVD, you didn't have to CC your program, but if you wanted to transmit it over the air, you had to.
Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong.
awww, but the trolls are so cute when you feed them...
Robbnn, I was about to dive headfirst back into the "being poor is a voluntary condition" discussion, but the whole prior argument came back to me. So I'll just sum-up, by saying basically I agree with you, that given enough patience and hard work, anyone *should* be able to rise out of poverty, *if* they are able to avoid some of the uncontrollable pitfalls that can lead to economic ruin (injury/illness and uninsured accident being the two biggest). Without those kinds of events, I agree that, if you're poor, it's probably your own fault. Or if not (say you're born into such a condition) then you're still there through your own lack of action to rise above it.
Which is all well and good, but still makes it really sucky, not to mention sorta unfair, for those that win the gene pool lotto and get born to parents with millions of annual disposable income.
Legislated closed captioning doesn't tread on free speech...so long as it doesn't state what the content of the captioning has to be. It's more a way to prevent discrimination of the deaf, I believe.
Good points, Bobb. Hadn't thought about the Federal Airwaves slant (wouldn't you have to CC what's being said out loud, though?). It may discriminate against the deaf, but the reverse discriminates against companies that can't afford to CC shows (presuming it's an expensive process). I prefer it voluntary, but your logic trumps mine.
And absolutely on the unavoidable pitfalls. I do agree with that (my son was born dead and in Intensive Care for weeks after he was revived. The bill was astronomical even with insurance. Took years to dig out from that, though most of my debt was stupid stuff).
And why should the rich be punished?
Taxes aren't punishment. They are the resource by which freedom is sheltered and stability is maintained.
The reason the wealthy should pay disproportionately more is because they benefit disproportionately from the status quo. More of the loose change in our pockets goes to Paris Hilton than to laborers.
That's why protecting middle-class savings is fair and harvesting it by making the middle-class pay to maintain the status quo -- disproportionate to the benefit they receive -- is predatory.
"I also don't see how you can call it an "harvesting of the middle class" when more and more of the burden is being pushed higher up the income charts."
I love this so much. It's so easy to shoot down. the R's argue that the middle class aren't taking a hit under Bush because the tax burden is being pushed up the charts onto the richest Americans. But, show them the hard numbers that say that Bush's tax breaks go far more towards the pockets of the richest Americans and you get told, often by the same person, that it's only fair that they get more breaks since they pay more.
So, the R take on the subject is that the tax burden on the rich is growing more and more every day while being reduced by Bush in the interest of a fair tax system. Up is down, black is white, greed is good and words no longer mean anything.
God, I don't want to do this. I so wanted to be done with Tweedle Dee the Wonder Dummy. But, this line of R argument has long been a fave of mine to shoot down and so many of them just mindlessly spew this one out. Maybe I can let this one slip by by addressing it to everyone who uses this and not just at Tweedle.
"You liberals sang the same song about Reagan's tax cuts."
""After Reagan cut taxes he raised them again."
Impossible. Only Congress can raise taxes!
"Under Clinton we had prosperity and a budget surplus -- what is your f*cking problem with that?"
You mean under a Republican congress, f*cker!"
Reagan wasn't a bad guy. I'll even admit to liking him a bit. But the R's seem to want to build a religion around him. Like God, Reagan can do no wrong. Like god, he needs a counterpart. In the new religion it is Clinton that can do no right and takes on the role of the Devil.
But, as with many religions, you can't look at it with the eye of logic. All credit for all good in the 80's must be Reagan's. The evil D's held congress in their satanic grip and used that power to inflict great pain upon the U.S. only to be stopped by Reagan the mighty.
But, when the 90's came-a-calling, we had the roles reversed. Clinton was the prez with a G.O.P. filled congress. And so the story goes that the evil Devil Clinton set out to destroy the U.S. but was thwarted at every turn by the warrior angels of the G.O.P. congress.
So, in the gospel of the R faithful we have the Prez being the power and source of all good(unless he's a D)and the congress is the source of evil (unless they're being run by the R's.)
Also, Reagan the prez was a tax cutter and spurred the economy upward (not counting the number of factories that closed, jobs that were lost and people who became homeless in the 80's) but Clinton gets no credit for the economy or tax breaks since only congress can cut taxes or do other good things like that (unless they're D's.)
Translation: Many, but not all, R's want to be able to change their stands on things based only on what letter goes before the name of the man or woman that they are discussing.
Homeland security is a great example. It was created and fought for by the D's. The R's were against it. Bush hated it. Then a bit of polling was done and, poof, it became something that the R's wanted and all their merry supporters did an about face and acted like it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Not only that, but the common myth then became that it was an R creation that had to be fought tooth and nail over with the D's to get it going. The continuation of that myth was helped along a great deal when Bush perverted it into something that most D's really were against.
See, it doesn't matter to so many of them anymore if the logic of the argument that they use butts heads with the logic they used in their other arguments. Just so long as Bush is right, Reagan is God and all D's are evil.
The truth is closer to this:
It's a very good thing to have the congress and the senate in the hands of one party and the Prez being of the other. It kept things from going too far to the left or right for years and the two forces pulled each other closer to the center.
The 70's saw the D's hold too much power and some things didn't go so well. I don't know what would happen right now if they were all controled by D's, but we can all see what has happened with all three branches being in the the contro of the R's. Pork spending is threw the roof to the point that the people in charge of the purse (R's) are bleeding it dry, the budget has ballooned, the debt has been blown up to new and greater heights then ever before and we've put the country in a weaker position.
How?
Well, for one thing we have the debt problem. We just went to the world bank and got even more of our debt covered by, of all countries, China. At this point, China owns our ass. If that country that so many R's paint as evil and a future superpower enemy ever wanted to call in all the debt load they have on us it would destroy our economy in a week. It took less the five years to go from paying down the debts we owed and making our country stronger to being even more in debt to the countries that our present leaders call evil.
We've stretched our military thin by allowing foolish actions to rule over good judgement.
we've abused our military. Not by sending them to Iraq for a questionable war(well, not just that.) Nooooo. The same people screaming, "support our troops" are the same ones cutting the troops benifits, cutting their danger pay, cutting Vet benifits, extending and extending and over extending tours of duty, giving our troops bad orders and then letting them be the fall guys, not getting the troops what they need to do their job right and sticking it to them if they come home injured. And you wonder why enlistment & re-enlistment is down? I love my country but even I would balk at signing up to work for bosses that would screw me over that many ways so bad.
So, on the whole, I would say that I have a much greater like for the two sides to be kicking each other towards the middle ground sooooo much better then having one power mad, power drunk and stupid group of people, as we have now, in charge of everything. And I can't even begin to understand how so many conservatives are supporting the R's and Bush right now when everything that they're doing, not what they're saying but what they're doing, is a slap in the face to everything that conservatives claim to stand for (thus the voting against your best interests concept.)
Being poor is a voluntary condition.
Yeah, all those bastards who are now poor and being turned out of their homes because of medical hardships...
Hell, to make it worse, we'll just make sure it's harder for them to file for bankruptcy, as the Republicans have done.
Those evil assholes.
"I can't even begin to understand how so many conservatives are supporting the R's and Bush ... what they're doing, is a slap in the face to everything that conservatives claim to stand for."
Let me explain it to you!
Step One: Stop pushing the idea that every Republican voter is either tricked, hypnotized or forced to vote Republican. Accept the fact that it is possible to vote for a Republican as a result of one's own free and informed choice. Realize that maybe -- just maybe -- conservatives know how to define their own interests better than you, a liberal, think you do.
I'd go on to the next step, but I doubt you could EVER get past step one! Certainly your party has not, as is proven by the many hysterical responses in this one thread alone.
"It reminds me of how Godzilla movies are great because they're so bad."
"Hey. Let's not let this acimony hurt the innocent. Godzilla rules. Someday, someone will make a movie that has both Godzilla AND flesh eating zombies and I, frankly, will have to commit ritual suicide once it's over, because what will I have left to look forward to?"
BUCKAROO BANZAI VS. GODZILLA AND THE FLESH EATING ZOMBIES? One of these days, I'm going to get really tired of waiting and just go ahead and make BAMBI II: THE REVENGE myself.
james lynch wrote :
Terrific, no thoughts on the finales of LOST and ALIAS, but (soon to be) hundreds of posts about the latest political pissing contest. Joy.
I so agree w/ you. lets all agree to disagree & be done w/ it.
Joe V.
Stop pushing the idea that every Republican voter is either tricked, hypnotized or forced to vote Republican. Accept the fact that it is possible to vote for a Republican as a result of one's own free and informed choice. Realize that maybe - - just maybe -- conservatives know how to define their own interests better than you, a liberal, think you do.
Bush's reelection campaigned can be summarized as "We will know America is strong from our dominance."
The poor who voted for Bush voted against their own self-interest -- like a prostitute knifing a guy for stopping her pimp from beating her.
So what's the big, f*cking mystery?
. And I can't even begin to understand how so many conservatives are supporting the R's and Bush right now when everything that they're doing, not what they're saying but what they're doing, is a slap in the face to everything that conservatives claim to stand for (thus the voting against your best interests concept.)
You're assuming that we like everything they are doing. I, for one, really couldn't stand the Medicare reform because every entitlement costs more than the so-called projections. Having said that, the Democrats in Congress have zero credibility on fiscal restraint. When they get some, I might consider voting for one.
I agree with Randall Kirby. This X-Ray guy isn't interesting enough to argue with for this long.
PAD said "exponentially" when it was not strictly true? So what? There's not a person here who hasn't used exaggeration.
Just ignore him.
regarding all the tax comments. lets ALL pay 15 % and be done w/ this whole fucking argument.
also , for those of you that want everyone to get free government health care for everyone remember you get what you pay for (unless it's on E-Bay)and well, free health care for 250 million americans equals more taxes. by the way, since canada has such a great system of health care, please notice that canada has a high tax system.
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tax/individuals/faq/taxrates-e.html
Federal tax rates for 2005 are:
16% on the first $35,595 of taxable income;
22% on the next $35,595 of taxable income;
26% on the next $44,549 of taxable income; and
29% of taxable income over $115,739.
this is just federal canadian tax.
ouch.
joe v.
I don't know the specifics, but I would guess that the CC requirement was in exchange for being able to broadcast over the Federally-licensed airwaves. If you wanted to make your own videotape/DVD, you didn't have to CC your program, but if you wanted to transmit it over the air, you had to.
Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong.
No, you're exactly right. Most FCC regulations historically have been premised on the idea that broadcasting frequencies are a limited resource that are doled out by the government, because that's the only way to have clear broadcasts instead of dozens of wildcat broadcasters jamming each other (inadvertently or not). Weirdly, although cable would seem to be completely out of this scheme-- cable networks are subscription-based and, for all practical purposes, infinite-- the courts have routinely upheld the FCC's authority over cable providers. Go figure.
joe v.,
I'd gladly pay more taxes if it meant national health coverage in the U.S. Part of this comes from the fact that I'm far too poor to aford to insure myself and I didn't hit the employment lottery and end up workiing for a large company that that can afford to cover its employees.
Also, I think that the current medical system in the U.S. is insane. The idea that making it a profit driven industry has not made it less costly, but simply created a system that emphasises procedures and drugs that cost zillions. If the medical industry were regulated, we wouldn't be paying much more than any developed nation in the world and getting worse medical results than any developed nation.
And that doesn't even address the societal savings that we'd glean from vastly reducing the single largesgt cause and bankruptcy in the U.S.: unpayable medical bills following a major medical problem. This cause is more prevalent than even job loss or divorce (reasons 2 & 3). And I'm not even going to touch the bilk of goods (pun intended) that the Credit Card companies sold to Congress when they got them to make it much more difficult to discharge credit card debt in bankruptcy.
Paying more in taxes or continuing to pay outrageous insurance premiums every month. Whats the difference? The only one I can think of is that at least everyone would be able to get care, not just the ones who can afford the insurance.
...or those of you that want everyone to get free government health care for everyone remember you get what you pay for (unless it's on E-Bay)and well, free health care for 250 million americans equals more taxes.
As opposed to Bush's medicare rewrites, where taxes are arbitrarily funneled to drug companies?
Consider this: The Republican Medicare prescription drug bill that Bush proudly signed prohibits the U.S. government from using the purchasing power of 41 million Medicare beneficiaries to negotiate with drug companies to lower the price of drugs, something the Veterans Administration is free to do.One difference: A month's supply of Pravachol, a popular cholesterol-regulating drug, costs the VA $19.80 -- and at the drug store, a customer would pay $116.75 for the same dosage.
Forbidding the public sector to negotiate with the pharmaceutical companies, it is estimated, will mean $139 billion in windfall profits for the drug industry.
--Mark Shields, 13 September 2004
and the hilarity doesn't stop there:
The White House released budget figures yesterday indicating that the new Medicare prescription drug benefit will cost more than $1.2 trillion in the coming decade, a much higher price tag than President Bush suggested when he narrowly won passage of the law in late 2003....Beginning with his January 2003 State of the Union address, Bush pledged to keep the total cost of the drug benefit to $400 billion over 10 years. An estimate by the Congressional Budget Office [$395 billion] was close to Bush's figure. But shortly after Bush signed the program into law in December 2003, the White House revised its projection to $534 billion, [and] it never offered a detailed breakdown of that estimate....
The most significant change, [Medicare chief Mark McClellan] said, is that the new budget projections tally the cost of drug benefits for 10 years. Projections made in 2003 included the two transition years before the drug coverage is fully implemented in 2006.
--Washington Post, 09 February 2005
In other words, even the deceptive cost estimate given to congress was for 2004-2013, not 2006-2015 -- when the new entitlement was scheduled to begin.
Again, the poor who voted for Bush voted against their own self-interest -- like a prostitute knifing a guy for stopping her pimp from beating her.
What is the mystery?
I know there's no point in this.. But...
Oh, the problems in your response.
1) "Stop pushing the idea that every Republican voter is either tricked, hypnotized or forced to vote Republican."
That's an odd tact to take since I have never posted anything like that at all. Never mentioned anything close to that. I have said some people, not all, who voted for Bush and defend him seem just plum stupid though.
2) "every Republican voter..."
I never said word one about Republican voters. I said conservatives. I find that many self described R's and many self described conservatives to be different animals all together. Many a self described R just follow the party line without question. Many self described conservatives vote what they believe and not by the letter after a pol's name.
3) "Realize that maybe -- just maybe -- conservatives know how to define their own interests better than you, a liberal, think you do.
I'd go on to the next step, but I doubt you could EVER get past step one! Certainly your party has not, as is proven by the many hysterical responses in this one thread alone."
Hmmmmm.... So, I'm a liberal. News to me. And, what party pray tell is my party? Did I vote for Kerry? Yes. But, as I stated here and elsewhere at the time, I didn't like Kerry. I said then and say now that the D's were stupid to choose him to run. He was too far left, I thought, for most the country. I was only a wee bit wrong though since he did pull 48% of the vote. A higher amount then I thought he would. I just liked Bush less. My stated reasons for voting Kerry was that the election run up had gotten so nasty that there was no way the he would allow the R's a policy victory and that there was no chance in Hell that the R's would let him have anything close to one either. The hoped for result? The two forces would only get things done by pulling each other towards the middle. If Dee were still around she could back that easy. We argued that point for months in emails back and forth. Anybody else might have to strain the brain to back me here.
And how does my voting go toward "my party?" Hmmmm. Can't figure that one out myself. I voted Bush in 88 and 92, Clinton in 96, Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. Two votes R and three votes D. In my home state of Virginia I went Wilder (D), skipped a vote, Gilmore (R), Warner (D) and will most likely go for Kilgore (R) this go round over Kaine (D). Yeah, I'm just such a far left Lib who votes in lock step with my party, huh. My "party" is this country and I vote for who I think will
