Lucky...

We'll have to have a GOP representative stand in front of every hospital to use their superpowers of detecting true-blooded Americans. I suspect white people will get in the quickest. It'll be just like the 2000 general election in Florida.

Depends on what you mean by right wing. I know lots of people here have told me I'm right wing, and I don't think I'm doing that. On the other hand, do you find it hypocritical that folks who were anti-war back when Bush was in the white house are now suddenly pro-war when Obama is in charge? Libertarian ideals are fiscally right and civilly left, but they, in every case I've seen except 1, seem to strongly favor fiscally stingy political ideals over civil rights ideals. Ron Paul worked for Reagan before and many Libertarians have Republcian connections. I say that a Libertarian is a disgruntled Republcian and I think that fits in most Libertarians. Who is pro-war as a leftist? I think the real issues are in Afghanistan over Iraq, but I want out of all of the ME. Let's face it, after healthcare passes or fails, we're loking at harsh tax increases and and an exodus from the ME war. If Obama throws that out now healthcare will never have a shot. It's a political strategy, but if all goes well, healthcare will pass, the ME War will end soon and taxes will be raised. The deficit will start to shrink and the debt increase will fall, just as with Clinton. I think that's the obvious plan.

A year ago you would have called OBL an idiotic maniac with nothing important or valid to say, now you post his quotes and worship/idolize him. Time does change everything. Talk about flip-flopping. I maintain that OBL is an idiotic maniac with nothing valid to say; I did then and I do now. Yes, very sad that his politics are such that he uses the words of a terrorist who has killed 1000s of fellow citizens as an anti-Obama message. What is the next low will the right wingers will sink to? And the irony of flip-flopping, the right used to claim it was a leftist protocol.

You don't type very well late at night. Yea, I had battered wine at the State Fair last year, it was awsome with whiskey shooters.

Do you want a Mulligan on teh first one? I think that was bad enough and Bush's month vacation in Aug 01 showed his deep concern for US security. And before you blame Clinton, Bush had almost 8 months to secure America before 911. So much for this Ronald Reagan / Republican fear that is allegedly cast on the world so they won't attack the US with a Repub in office. The Beirut Barracks and 911 put an end this concept that the world was fearful of US Repubs. So, no, the US hasn't been attacked since that little 911 thing, of course we gave away 1 trillion dollars in the process of temporary security. Gee, I dunno, it seems to work for the players at the top of the chart with pretty good frequency: http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi/results/rankings/2009 Notice the US last year, we were a proud 97 of 140 - lower is less peaceful. Now we've moved to 83. Hmm, could that be our perception in the world is more peaceful with Obama. Those silly Europeans think they can avoid attack by not attacking other countries. Sheesh, they need to take a lesson from good ole America, silly Europeans. Yea, ya bomb em, bomb em more and then bomb em again, that way they fear and respect you and you are assured you will never get attacked. How's that worked out so far? Again, you want a Mulligan for the first one. I'm not ready to overlook that first one, it was kinda serious. You can't undo the lame security that led to 911 by throwing a trillion dollars and 4k American heroes at it. I think the blame can go back 20 or 30 years or more thinking we would never get atatcked, it was pure arrogance. I think the organization I posted agrees he has. Being militant assholes got us attacked several times, being peaceful will make us safer. The debt was 900B as Reagan took office, now it's 12T, the only Dem president inbetween was Clinton and he inherited a mess and left it fathoms better, then Bush took it and turned it worse than what Reagan did. Now Obama's taken this mess and had to bailout the banks and auto makers to avoid absolute disaster, he hasn't spent a dime outside those areas, he is proposing medical overhaul, but what has he spent outside of recession recovery for a recession he inherited by your party? Polls show different. Esp for a president in this mess who will usually show poll results of the recession over performance. IOW's, if things are going well in the US, the president gets credit whether his policies led to that or not.

A year ago you would have called OBL an idiotic maniac with nothing important or valid to say, now you post his quotes and worship/idolize him. Time does change everything. Talk about flip-flopping. I maintain that OBL is an idiotic maniac with nothing valid to say; I did then and I do now.

Kind of like our military is free? Does it cost you out of pocket? Nope, just tack it onto the rubber check, your side just wants to write rubber military checks, but not rubber healthcare checks, so let's refine the real argument.

And I just spoke with a Canadian working here, he said his wife had a burst apendix, they had US insurance but it cost them thousands. At home it would have cost them out of pocket nothing and their taxes aren't that much higher. He said MRI's and the sort take longer, but other care does not.

In who's mind? A two year old? To tough a read, sparky? To read it? no To believe it? If you have the mind of a two year old sparkless What's hard to believe, that a person could have a life-threatening illness and wanted coverage that didn't decimate his family? Happens all the time, he's lucky, if insurance companies have their way there will be limits on payments, they call it tort reform when it really is just liability limits like China has and other lovely places. So then an insurance co can make a business decision on your life; is it cheaper to pay the hospital or pay his estate? Talk about rationing.

I'm willing to look forward, but you're unwilling to look back. Care to discuss how we got here? Have a problem cutting the military, probably in half for starters? That is where the origin lies. Spent money on what? Let's not dissect Bush's work, let's get a better understanding of his term by looking at the totality of it since it's finished. - Received a very good economy - Cut taxes sharply right off the bat - Became engage in a war that has cost 1T to date and was entered on cherry-picked intelligence - Experienced some of the worst inflation in history - Ended up leaving a borderline depression - And finally, the debt grew 5 trillion, almost doubling the 5.5T he inherited Is that a fair assessment? If we pick and prod we can find microcosms with which we can excuse him, I choose to look atthe whole picture and I think I have detailed it. Yea, he inherited an 11.5T debt, we're done with billions. We were talking billions with Reagan, he fixed that. As for grandchildren, we've been on that system since the country was founded, how is that new? The use of that term is become cliche and patently false since the debt will never be paid back. Yep, so give him a chance. So what do you think, shall we cut the military in half so we can relieve the debt?

Kind of funny how you relegate yourself to 3rd person conversation with me. Did my facts and data make you that mad? Then this is your big time to jump out with your supported opinions, bring your own objective data and put mine to shame, or just continue to fall in my shadow, refusing to address me or my data. The data I provided was simplistic, when you draw generalizations you start with that, then you refine it to allow for exceptions. My data was and is basic: - Spending patterns and their outcomes - Taxing patterns and their outcomes Isn't that a good place to start? Let's address these and then become more finite. As I asked, show me a major federal tax cut and its positive outcome. Not a microcosm, but a long sustained betterment. Or show me a tax increase and its subsequent destruction of the system. A simple request, I've laid my cards, let's see yours.

Disagree. They are a bunch of hypocrites who just want to complain about Obama. Next Republican spendthrift in the White House and they will quiet down again. If you loathe Bush's spending and deficits but refuse to acknowledge the record shattering deficits by Obama, wouldn't that exactly fit your definition of hypocracy? The record-shattering deficits are as a result of the mess he inherited. Are you trying to say he is pissing money away? If so, which program and how much? Again, the healthcare deal is a proposal. As this side of teh issue has it, we just didn't hear this clammering when the previous admins were spending insane amounts of money on the elusive Commies waiting in the balance for a chance to pounce, which we now know was hysterical craziness. And when Bush wanted to enter that mess in the ME that has cost us 1T to date we again didn't hear the clammering; where were the tea partiers then???? The message and agenda is dilluted big time by their abscense, in fact, these were the same people poo-pooing Cindy Sheehan, so this message of save America is one of save America's credit cards for when we're back in power.

Disagree. They are a bunch of hypocrites who just want to complain about Obama. Next Republican spendthrift in the White House and they will quiet down again. Right, the tea partyers are a loudmouth version of the swift boat campaign.

I agree, but we have to look at the past in order to learn how to construct the future. I think Obama has done a great job not attacking the right. But aside from that, I do agree and you are right, we have to come together and understand neutral agendas. One agenda we need to establish is that everyone has to have access to health coverage, however we do it. We need to reduce our military, as we match the rest of teh world dollar for dollar and it just isn't neccessary. I still want the best military in the world, but not 8 times that of #2. We really do need to work together and the people pulling at polar agendas need to be sat down, these are critical times that call for level-headed resolve. But to learn how we have erred in the past we need to understand that when taxes were cut, things went to hell, not assigning blame to people or party, you're right, let's look at the process not the people or the party. Let's use history not as a blaming tool, but as a record by which we learn how to become better. Again, it is sociopathic for anyone, whoever, wherever, to think that all American people should not have access to medical care that is limited to asperin and bandaids and isn't cost prohibitive. We need to start putting our people before our corporations. Well, they want to avoid the dissemination of health coverage. I don't see these tea partyers talking about cutting the military and opening channels of health coverage, that's what makes me dissmiss the tea partiers. Their agenda isn't saving America, it's staying status quo; of course they would never admit that, but their message seems clear.

Surely you can't blame the expenditures Obama is making, not the proposals, but the current expenditures for recession recovery, you can't blame those on Obama. I do. http://www.whitehouse.gov/.../fy2008/pdf/hist.pdf Look at page 26. From 1981 to 1988 Regan's spending was from 678,000,000 to 1,064,000,000 Difference of 386,000,000 or a 57% increase. Under 4 years of GHWB spending was 1,143,000,000 to 1,381,000,000 Difference of 238,000,000 or a 21% increase (adjusted for 8 years it would be 42% increase). Under 8 years of Clinton spending went from 1,409,000,000 to 1,789,000,000 Difference of 380,000,000 or a 27% increase. Under 8 years of GWB spending went from 1,863,000,000 to 2,902,000,000 Difference of 1,039,000,000 or 56% increase. So spending increases were twice that with Reagan and GWB than with Clinton and GHWB was in the middle. Actually that was for the annual budget, if you add Iraq spending 800B that would throw GWB over Reagan. And taxation was higher with Dems, so that's why the debt picture looked so much better un der Dem leadership than with most Republican leadership, at least for last century.

Kid? Why thank you. You've failed to address objecctive data relating to the debt and spending habits of certain presidents, a very non-partisan approach, as I praise GHWB. I one thread you stormed off when the data got to evidentiary, said you were done in that thread and then came back. Quit the posturing and just address the data, I'd be glad to repost it. And for Tom, I would enjoy demonstrating my data for you, basic data that not obscure or old/irrelevant. Since you cannot successfully defend your point against my data you just get mad and run away, I ask that you address it.

Certainly not 100-0, but 80-20 wouldn't be unfair. In the last 100 years, Dems have mostly been positive for the economic shape of this nation. OTOH, Republiucans, especially Hoover, Reagan and GWB have been detrimental. 1. Iraq War spending - $800B at GWB's departure 2. Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Growth_and_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2001 3. Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_and_Growth_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2003 Do you really think Reagan or GWb wouldn't have found a way to louse up the great economic success the Dot.com era brought us? Besides, Clinton was on the right track with tax increases before the Dot.com boost hit. Certainly a bad act of that allowed consolidation and other things, but the ills of that bipartisan act wouldn't have been realized unless GWB and Greenspan didn't lower the interest rates so low - so long; that's what made the ills of this act felt - it was the catylist. This is where you're wrong, a recession is 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth, there were not 2 quarters of - GDP in or shortly after the Clinton presidency. http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/gdp.htm Yes and no. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. Basically the GHWB tx increase that cost Bush the election in 92 and paved the way for Clinton to have fiscal success. It was writen by all-Dem Congress and signed by GHWB. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Budget_Reconciliation_Act_of_1990 Oh, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 that was packed with major tax increase on the rich, writtena nd passed by an-Dem Congress and signed by Clinton. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Budget_Reconciliation_Act_of_1993 No, just their point carries no weight considering they are the party of big spending and tax cuts for the rich. It's like Dahmer crying about all of this homosexuality and all of these homicides are going to ruin society. By whom? The Dems for wanting health coverage? Or the economic mess we have that Obama inherited and the costs associated? The debt virtually wholy attributable to Reagan and GWB considering 2/3 of it has occurred undewr the last 3 Repub presidents and now if we look further we see that Clinton's fisccal numbers went toward recovery every year he was in office, so how is that debt increase attributable to him? Of course you do, you credit Clinton for nothing. And what's to say this mess wouldn't have been created without Gramm-Leach-Bliley, a bipartisan bill that had the numbers to easily survive a presidential veto? That measure was systemic, just as NAFTA was and other things. It seems taxation and military spending are the wildcards and they are very partisan attributes. This mess would still have happened without Gramm-Leach-Bliley, the enormous tax cuts neccessitated lowering the interest rates to stimulate the economy, then then kept lowering and stayed low for long periods which then sellers maintained their house prices, shifting the lower interest to higher principal prices and the ponzi scheme was off and running, would have occurred easily without Gramm-Leach-Bliley. Definately true, the war was at 800B when GWB left which is 16% of the total 5T he bumped the debt by. I agree that ad hominems are not constructive, but what he's saying is that the same people who were all over loving Bush are now crying about every dime the Dems appropriate. Again, Dahmer saying, 'These homicides are out of control.' As a generalization, the neo-Repubs are for big and wasteful military spending, social cuts and huge tax cuts for rich. There are bright spots like GHWB and others, but generally not. What disaster of his first 2 years? The 1993 Omnibus Bill that raised taxes? Not sure what you're talking about. As well, we had just come out of a recession, but still, all numbers were improving. More Clinton hate? I thought we weren't about ad hominem. Whatever meaningless operations Clinton had were nothing as compared to the Iraq War. Furthermore, your point makes no sense in that Clinton didn't cut taxes, remember the 1993 Omnibus Bill we talked about? From tax cuts and war to social benefits, esp for the elderly; tangent time? Applauding tax cuts that blow up the debt, ignoring the wasteful Iraq War and demonizing social benefits for largely the elderly are hardly on the same plane. Are you suggesting we throw the disabled and seniors out on their asses? So we can come up to par with the rest of civilized countries and everyone getting medical care. As well we should cut our military budget in half so that way we only spend 4 times that of #2. It's about becoming a more 'normal' country and quit pandering to our elite as Commnist countries do. Most of what Obama has spent so far is for the recovery of the mess he inherited. 1T over 10 years for uni-care is nothing considering we've spent that much in 5 years to kill 4k heroes. More ad hominem? Evidence that the Dems are fiscally concerned is found with the performance of Clinton, the only dem in 28 years of Republican president who hammered the debt. From ad hominem to PA. What these protestors want is uncivilized mutiny, similar to what we saw in the Civil War from the Confederate States. As a lawyer you must find their outbursts unconscionable, I'm sure you would never behave that way in court, nor would any civilized person.

Who, specifically, are the "both" sides? Why do you feel you must follow one of them? Do you really only have two choices? We can pretend that other parties, Green, Liberatrian, etc actaully have an impact on the country, but they really don't. As for me, I've voted for boh parties at president and congress, and I voted for Perot too, who received 19% of the popular vote and zero electoral votes. He was the most substantial 3rd party since the Republicans won in 1860. Speaking of which, the Dems and the Whigs were the 2-party system then, butthey sucked so bad the Republicans entered and knocked out the Whigs. Until a 3rd party doees this to either the D's or the R's it's a 2-party system. As for both sides not being gun friendly at times, let me be more clear to say Republicans and Democrats have doen things to harm private gun ownership, certainly the D's have been a little worse.

I'm very confused. I wasn't aware that the President actually exercised complete control over the budget. Can you point me at a reference I can read that explains the process? Thanks! As for complete control, I guess I don't work in absolutes and I didn't say that Reagan and GWB were completely and absolutley to blame, just mostly. As for the president and their general and major impact on the federal budget outlays: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget Each year, the President of the United States submits his budget request to Congress for the following fiscal year, as required by the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921. Current law (31 U.S.C. § 1105(a)) requires the president to submit a budget no earlier than the first Monday in January, and no later than the first Monday in February. Typically, presidents submit budgets on the first Monday in February. The budget submission has been delayed, however, in new president's first year when previous president belonged to a different party. So the president starts the bugetary process, telling congress what he will allow in the form of a comprehensive proposal so they don't waste time sending him budgets he will veto. From there the House writes the bill, they send it to the Senate and it goes to the president. If he vetoes it COngress, I believe both chambers, have to override his veto by a 2/3 vote in order to remove him from the process. So the president is the initial legislator and the final legislator with veto power, I can't think of a more influential person with controil over the annual budget. Taxation bills are different, but the president still has basically the same process, he urges his allies in congress to write these bills by way of phone calls or even open speeches. Aside from any given president, to make this less partisan, let's look at the act rather than the individual president. Show me where a major federal tax cut has saved us all, has made the economic indicators more pleasant.

Or we can cut spending and raise taxes, it worked for GHWB and Clinton to bring us the best, healthiest economy of all times. Or both What I think the hypocrisy remark was about was the support or at least non-demonization of Republican spending, yet the all of the sudden hatred for Democrat's proposals. Again, I've asked this a bunch, show me a major tax increase in history and a negative effect, or, show me a tax cut and a brilliant recovery due to that cut. Let's not try the 12-year delayed action tactic either. I sincerely would like to see a major federal tax cut and learn of a subsequent recovery, I can list a few and they all end in disaster.

But as the data I posted establishes, since 1981 Reagan and GWB have been the culprits and GHWB and Clinton have been the heroes. Reagan and GWB have cut taxes and increased spending, GHWB and Clinton have done the opposite. As well, most of congress can be dichotomized by their stance on taxes and spending and this dichotomy is generally the current Republicans sound like Reagan and GWB, the Dems sound like GHWB and CLinton. Again, not a strictly partisan issue, but the generalities are there. I think to water it down and say that it's all of them undermines the truth that it has largely been the Republicans creating this mess. They get a great president in GHWB, he raises taxes and cuts the military to try to control the debt and he is rewarded by being voted out. I guess we get the government we deserve; the voters need to understand history that everytime we increase taxes things get better, cut em they take a crap.

It worked for Hoover (too late), FDR, GHWB and altho we were out of a recession, Clinton's tax increases led to unep from 7% to 4% and the GDP soared. The problem is that your opinions are impeached by objective data. I recommend them to "fix" the economic indicators, such as unemployment and the GDP for starters, but also to bring more people out of poverty. These people you speak of that are punished for success are doing great, even while 1/6th of the people have zero health coverage, most others have such flimsy coverage that it requires substantial contribution, and class disparity seems to be widening constantly. At the end, taxes aren't personal, they are systemic in order to create and maintain a system that allows all to at least moderately prosper.

The problem is that the people affected there were largely women and children, not the military, and the target was selected as such to horrify the country into going from a conditional surrender to an unconditional surrender, a purely political action at that point. Show me deaths of military troops, that's sad but it's war, show me innocent civilians killed for political gain: Hiroshima and Nagasaki victims, 911 victims, etc and I feel really distrubed by that that people can be so harsh.

Remember in the early 90's when either Bush, who encouraged Colt to stop making firearms for teh public or Clinton did his Brady Bill / AWB the gun shelves cleared? Yea, and to think, all that paranoia came true

Source: http://www.kxmc.com/News/Nation/435266.asp Have you purchased a firearm this year? Anti-gun liberals, imagine this: One million new pro-gun voters, every month! The problem is I don't know who to follow if I love gun rights, and I do, since I can post arguments how both sides have done or promised to do things to limit gun ownership.