Lucky...

OK, that's a reasonable question. And here's the serious answer: 4 to 8 more years of the same, or worse, horrors as the past 8 years. You frame the this as all is bad. I dont agree. Besides, it is a sound bite mean nothing political type bull shit statement not worry of posting. Yet you did it anyway OK, post all the good in the last almost 8 years.

That's not what he said, and no, he won't drop out to let Hillary in. And, considering what his actual comment was in response to, I'd say he was just being careful not to say anything negative about Clinton because they need to keep as many of her supporters as possible. That's what I wrote b4 I read this.

Right, it's just strategy to keep Hillary supporters on the left and not to Palin.

No, he wanted to give Clinton supporters all the credit to Hillary to ensure they stay there and not fall to the strategy by McSame to bring in Palin and pull them over. It' strategy and counter-strategy.

I dont know. But this scenario scares the hell out of me Meaning that you fear the Dems will win.

I don't think he used those words, and if he did, he was posturing. Are you not able to figure out that he was trying to regain any female voters wooed by Palin to the right?

I agree! Which plans do you plan on cutting? I have about 20 off the top of my head that I would love to see get flushed. Cut the pork would be a great start. Let's see, Clinton cut the military, raised taxes and all did well, esp the rich. Your party of boobs has done the opposite and it's led to 2 recessions..... figure it out.

Yep and as much as they advocate military action, they don't mean it for them and theirs, they mean it for the people they forbid welfare from; the poor, non-Republican types.

Really? I put most with Congress. They are the ones who slip in spending bills and funnel money to their own litle projects. Seems pretty simple to me. If I dont have extra cash I dont go out and buy a $10,000 entertaiment system. Dont spend what you dont have. Congress acts like a college students with 10 credit cards in the back pocket. I will pay for this later. Makes me sick to think about it! The little checks/balances thing from the pres failed, he didn't veto in 5.5 years and even then it was BS about stem cell research, so until the Dems gained controll of congress, that lame congress ran the country unabaded.

Social programs helped bring us out of the Reagan/Bush recession, hell, the helped us out of the Great Depression.

Doesn't matter, if spending is tripple, tax revenue must be 10 fold to pay for that. It's the bottem line after all indicators, GDP, tax rev, spending etc.... the government is a mess; disagree?

Throw blame at Congress also! They are the ones who have to fund all the BS pork projects. I thought the Democrats said they were going to get the spending under control. I guess it was all lip service once again. New faces, same old shit! The new congress has overridden 4 Bush vetoes, so they are tring. Whereas the Repub congress ran the country for the 1st 5.5 years of Bush. So your same old shit is your own, don't bring us into it.

Clinton counted imaginary money in his so-called "budget surplus." It was smoke-and-fuckin'-mirrors. It was chicanery. It was bullshit. It was not a surplus. When you figure out your household budget this month, be sure to add in the + column the $15,000 you'd sell your 3-year-old SUV for, even though you won't be selling it and you won't be getting that money to put into your accounts. That's the kind of thing that Clinton did with NY's Governor's Island. Acted as though the government were in possession of the proceeds of the sale of it, even though there was no buyer and no sale on the horizon. How many other such examples were used to pad his "surplus" I don't know, but I imagine the answer is probably "many." So then the surplus that Buhs gave back really wasn't a surplus and he gave us money from the gov that really wasn't theirs either? Also, if Clintn didn't create a surplus, how was it that the debt went from 250b/yr to 33B/yr and shrinking every year of the 8 years he was in office?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Proven disaster? By that Bill meant the Republican Party; can you argue that teh debt increase and overall economic health of the US since Reagan has been generally horrible and that the Republicans are to blame? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Odd. John McCain has been a long time advocate for spending restraint. Just sucks that his mouth and his actions are strangers. He votes 95% With your president. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>With regard to earmarks, perhaps you should read up a bit on John McCain's running mate: Why She has no decision-making powers. The, "decider" has all that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And on Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama as well WRT earmark spending...though I'll grant you Sen. Obama's is a bit skewed due to his very, very, very limited time in the Senate. IOW's, you can't make an argument against Obama, but you feel the need to pipe in, so you give us nothing. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>But that makes Sen. McCain's record oh so much more impressive given his vast experience in comparison to his opponent. They're both senators, what's your point? That's like saying a guy with 500 jumps is so much more inferior to that of a guy with 1,000 jumps; it's still jumping.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>At some point you have to go with the chance of something better instead of sticking with the proven disaster. INSANITY: trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. ....of course there were people that followed Hitler to the grave feeling as though he was just misunderstood.....it all starts with nationalism.........

Sounds like what Clinton did and the result was: - unemp 7% to 4% - DJI from 3500 to 9800 - Annual deficit from -290B to +236B - Debt from an annual increase of 250B o an increase of 33B Not sure what you consider success; GWB who will preside of a debt increase of 4.5 trillion $ in 8 years, 1 1/2 times that of 12 years of Reagan/Bush.

Is it because you: 1) Think Bush is doing a great job and McSame is the same as Bush? 2) Like large debts? 3) Think medical care should contimue to be exclusive? 4) Think the world hating us is a good idea? 5) Some other reasons....

Perhaps not. But i can tell you without a doubt that the opposite is absolutely true. for those who have trouble with reading, i mean that poor grammar and punctuation make an argument LESS persuasive. Sure, if it's a mess all the time, every time, it tends to pursuade us that a person is probably uneducated on the issue at hand. OTOH, it is a major ad hominem to say, "Guy X is so f'ing stupid he can't even put a sentence together, his point in this argument must be as believable." I know Einstein was an idiot-savant, I understand he would leave the house without his pants at times and his social skills were weak, as well as his writing skills. I'm not an Einstein historian, but I tend to believe the essence of that. So intelect can be ugly or some people may have great social skills and be great writers, but have little base knowledge, essentially a car salesman, so I say fuck the writing skills, give me content.

I'll take a tangent... Without doing any serious research, my understanding was that they were amongst a list of four or five cities on the list, and they were chosen for being industrial, relatively untouched by other bombing campaigns, psychologically their destruction would be "understood"...where would you have decided differently? Fact is, most of the important military or industrial targets HAD already been hit by LeMay's bombing campaign. So having an undamaged city as primary criterion (which it was) ensured a target of limited military or industrial importance. IOW, the targets were chosen so as to make research subjects of their civilian populations. What would I have done differently? Chosen the two most important MILITARY targets regardless of their previous damage. Yep, giant petri dish. And after they chose the 5 cities, the intentionally didn't bomb them, didn't want to scatter the civilian population.

I'll take a tangent... Without doing any serious research, my understanding was that they were amongst a list of four or five cities on the list, and they were chosen for being industrial, relatively untouched by other bombing campaigns, psychologically their destruction would be "understood"...where would you have decided differently? 5 cities Totally unmollested Large civilian count Meaningless military targets, admin, assembly areas, etc >>>>>>>>>>>>>>psychologically their destruction would be "understood"...where would you have decided differently? What?

Agreed. But you also have to acknowledge that it was 1945...not 2005. You know what I'm saying. That's true, if we call the founding fathers great as they were slave owners, we must call the US civilized in 1945 even tho we interned 110,000 US citizens and killed 300,000 women and children to stop the war. What was then herosim is now defined as terrorism. I guess it's all in the context...kinda like Barry Bonds' baseball. Should we have painted a big asterisk on teh 2 bombs?

Dude, that's just ignorant. Have you ever read any of the history behind that decision? The only way we were going to stop the Japanese was an invasion of the Japanese mainland. Even the most conservative estimates showed that it would have resulted in more civilian deaths than resulted from those bombs. AND of course, we'd have lost Americans. You people live in a fucking dream world. This is NOT a totally black/white issue. I think the decision to use the atomic bombs was quite justified, HOWEVER I have VERY serious reservations about the criteria used for target selection. BINGO - you could not have nailed it better. I have no issue with the use, just the target - women and children = terrorism.

You know I could, but why build an ad hominem for you? I didn't see war, but I would have gone. I served 1 term, that's all you need to know, in reality, far more than you need to know.

Dude, that's just ignorant. Have you ever read any of the history behind that decision? The only way we were going to stop the Japanese was an invasion of the Japanese mainland. Even the most conservative estimates showed that it would have resulted in more civilian deaths than resulted from those bombs. AND of course, we'd have lost Americans. You people live in a fucking dream world. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Dude, that's just ignorant. Have you ever read any of the history behind that decision? No, yours is ignorant. Gee, the Manhattan Project Selction Committee in May 45....don't know anything about it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.The only way we were going to stop the Japanese was an invasion of the Japanese mainland. And Russia was planning one. Could we let Russia save the world? They just got thru defeating Germany, we couldn't let them have that glory too. Also, speculation on your part, Hiro Hito had alreadt conditionally surrendered, we anted unconditional, so conventional bombing might have doen that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.Even the most conservative estimates showed that it would have resulted in more civilian deaths than resulted from those bombs. We bombed with bomb sites, couldn't even accurately bomb thru clouds, so that is a pure guess. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>AND of course, we'd have lost Americans. You people live in a fucking dream world. You people, you mean military vets? Are you one? Or are you saying, you white people. I dunno, guess I'm not sure which ad hominem you are chosing. The Manhattan Project Selectiuon Committee yielded that we wanted large civilian casualties and thgerefore we bombed unmolested cities. If there were military targets there, why hadn't we bombed them earlier in the war?

You asked a question I had already answered. No, not really, quit talking her and compare Obama to McSame TODAY, not hypothyetically 4 years away. Agreed, so why do we insist on bypassing McSame and moving to Palin? Is it that it doesn't bode well for the Repubs?