Lucky...

I would like to preface this post by saying that you’re completely out of context. I wrote: You would vote for Bush again knowing he would .... . In case you haven't heard, Clinton was not in the running, it was Gore then Kerry. Remember, Rush wrote that he would have voted for Bush again if all things were identical? I retorted by saying that any assumption of what Kerry or Gore MIGHT have done were just that. Now you bring in comparisons to Clinton when he could not have made any of those decisions listed. Can you stick to a line of questioning? Shiny keys. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>I think that the people who fucked up handling Katrina most, and first and foremost, were the citizens, police and elected officials of New Orleans. FEMA, a federal organization headed by Brown, or, "Brownie" as called by Bush, had the duty to respond and they didn't for what, a week. I like how it's what you think. You need to understand the concept of duty and the federal government has a duty in certain matters and Katrina was one of those matters. The feds can trump local or state orders, that is the supremacy of the hierarchy of power, with that power comes a duty. The question was that of the reaction of Bush vs. Gore or Kerry. Remember the questioning, was Bush a good vote over Kerry or Gore? The original assertion was about voting for bush if posed with Bush/Gore or Bush/Kerry; look, shiny keys. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sorry he's not willing, like Clinton, to cook the books into showing a surplus that is as genuine as Clinton's angry insistence that he didn't get the blowjob. Can you stick to one point, or is it that when you are faced with a dead end that you pull out the BJ card? Let me see if I can handle one issue at a time. - Cook the books, show me to what you refer. I don't care what you think, I want to read substantive evidence, data, etc. - Clinton denied then admitted. Reagan denied then admitted Iran/Contra. Edwards denied then admitted. Bush denied then admitted. Starting to see a trend? And I don't recall him being angry about it. Now, my point was: create the largest deficit / debt in world history thru his tax / spend policies Bush can't cook any books, other than the taxpayers from the next century or two, which is how long it will take to pay back the >4 trillion dollar increase he will leave. There is no hiding from 500 billion dollar annual deficit increases, so your argument is void from the inception and it is dishonest in that it brings in a fiscally successful president and then segues to oral sex. Please address this one again, which you won't. Remember the questioning, was Bush a good vote over Kerry or Gore? The original assertion was about voting for bush if posed with Bush/Gore or Bush/Kerry; look, shiny keys. >>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, holy shit, you do NOT want to go into a right-versus-left comparison of the disgraceful presidential pardons! Clinton did a SLEW of them! Clinton and Reagan pardoned so many, about the same, so left versus right is less important than 1 president versus another. The Bush's are very stingy with their pardons, but we're not talking pardon here, perhaps you didn't read the statement where I write that at this point it is a commutation. The sleazy part is that the commutation is for a person close to him in his cabinet for doing something that was a partisan agenda. Plame's husband wrote negative things about Bush, so a group of Republican criminals (redundancy) revealed her name as a federal agent. Scooter Libby them lied under oath and obstructed justice, ironically the same things Clinton was impeached for in a political trial requiring a simple majority (>50%), whereas Libby's conviction was under criminal law (beyond a reasonable doubt) and a much higher standard with criminal implications. That's especially sleazy all the way around. What makes Republicans really pathetic is that they called for Clinton's head for doing the same things they want Libby to be commuted for and would likely support a full pardon. This, my friend, is one reason why you will be led by our next commander in chief, Obama. Remember the questioning, was Bush a good vote over Kerry or Gore? The original assertion was about voting for bush if posed with Bush/Gore or Bush/Kerry; look, shiny keys. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Clinton engaged in the bombing of an aspirin factory to take attention off himself when his popularity was waning. OK, that's your interpretation, who knows who fucked that up, military leaders, etc. Remember the questioning, was Bush a good vote over Kerry or Gore? The original assertion was about voting for bush if posed with Bush/Gore or Bush/Kerry; look, shiny keys. My original point was: engage in a war that has now become common knowledge that it was entered on false premise Care to address it, remembering that it would have been Gore in power during 911. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Presidents don't legislate. Try again. Oh really? Presidents submit a budget to congress, they tweak it and send it back. If the pres doesn’t like it, they veto it and send it back, unless it is a pocket veto then they ignore it. Presidents constantly tell congress they will veto a bill so don’t send it, or they tell congress they would sign it if it crossed their desk. The 3 branches of government cross over quite frequently. The judicial branch, esp the SCOTUS, overtly legislates. Don’t think so, then what power does case law have over legislated law? ABSOLUTE. The SCOTUS legislates, the president legislates, the legislative branch has executive power in overturning a veto, which they have done 4 of 12 of Bush's vetoes an incredibly high rate. Furthermore, inaction is still an action and Bush’s inaction and signing of that bill IS a part of the legislative process, unless he would have vetoed it and congress overrode him - you’re wrong again. So here we are again: legislate privatization of medical prescriptions, costing seniors money they don't have Considering that Bush didn’t veto a thing congress did for 5 1/2 years, a failure of our system, congress ran the country and they as well are responsible for the privatization of prescriptions. Let me guess which side of the isle they are on. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>If you're gonna keep putting your foot in your mouth, please do! Considering the question was whether Bush would have been better than Gore, or Bush better than Kerry and you answered with responses that acted as if Clinton could have made those decisions, I think you have both of legs in your mouth. Care to address how you would have guessed Gore or Kerry would have dealt with these issues? And your acquiescence on this question brings it home: kill stem cell research, a move that even the Nancy Reagan's despise ….. I assume no comment.

Hardly on a regular basis. Unless you're just talking about welfare checks. I never said I was for giving tax breaks to the rich, i.e. letting them get away with not paying a fair share of taxes. But I think it ought to be a flat tax. I don't believe that if you can manage to make more money, the penalty should increase as a percentage. There you go talking about fair again. Actually it is fair, as the same rules apply to everyone. BTW, rich people in other countries laugh at our tax rates for the rich.

I think you missed what Bill was saying, money, call it what you wish, given to corporations will be banked and stagnated, helping to create economic despair. The same money given to middle or lower class people will often be immediately spent, creating a stimulus effect. From me, I totally agree with that from Bill and have said the same thing for years. To go further, the federal reserve has a duty to effectively manipulate money flows and they do this several ways, largely thru interest rates. If we keep the faucet running by ensuring the money flows well, we can dissuade spending by raising interest rates. Now, let's look at the opposite, can we lower interest rates to the floor to encourage money flows? Obviously not as evidenced by this admin, and the byproduct of that lowering of interest rates is the artificial inflation of houses creating a sort of pyramid scheme, the last ones in are the losers as the roof caves in and new players are injected into the system. Of course there are many losers as the domino effect is humungous. So it's all about controlling the overall economic package or lowering the interest rates and hoping corporations act honorably. We need to spend gobs on social welfare not for the sake of the recipients, but for the sake of everyone. If you want a more global comparison, explain how socialized nations provide 100% (in most cases) medical care and have many more social programs and THEIR CURRENCY IS KICKING THE SHIT OUT OF OURS. Please provide counterarguments. BTW, watch out, the spelling Nazis are out in full force.

Oh, come on. It sounds like you are saying that when we tax the rich, the poor are given that money as spending cash. That is such a load of ridiculousness. Is that really how you think it works? And do you really think that if we increase the taxes the rich pay, the poor are going to get checks written from that pool of money, with which they can go buy big rims for their Escalades, or hair extensions, or the top-of-the-line Nike sneakers? As "intollerable" as spelling errors? >>>>>>>>>>>Oh, come on. It sounds like you are saying that when we tax the rich, the poor are given that money as spending cash. Yes, as Bill wrote, it's called stimulus. Think about it, corporate welfare, predominantly a current Republican brainchild, is given to entities that often don't need it (Military contractors, etc), so they bank it deciding when to spend it. Poor and middle class people tend to be more paycheck to paycheck, so they will spend it immediately for the most part. I can't see hop this is hard to grasp and getting hung up on a principal of fair is ridiculous. Furthermore, even corporations tend to do better when we have more social programs and they profit better. If you don't think so, contrast this admin versus the Clinton admin. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>That is such a load of ridiculousness. Is that really how you think it works? Yes, you draw it up as you wish, but look at the debt chart and tell me differently: That is such a load of ridiculousness. Is that really how you think it works? That is a fair sample size that is very contemporary and it shows a string trend of policy. We can armchair quarterback it all day along, but put the rubber to the road and the result is that corporate welfare is a great way to higher deficit/debt, conventional welfare to the poor, along with military cuts lead to long-term prosperity for all. Show me recent examples of the contrary. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And do you really think that if we increase the taxes the rich pay, the poor are going to get checks written from that pool of money,... Well, it isn't as simple as the rich paying into a fund that gets distributed to the poor, it's more like a trend of raising taxes for the rich, as Clinton did as he entered office, increasing social programs, especially education, and cutting areas that are wasteful like virtually matching the world dollar-for-dollar in military spending. We spend more than the collective world if you count these 100-150 billion dollar gifts to Halliburton and friends every 6 months. >>>>>>>>>>>>with which they can go buy big rims for their Escalades, or hair extensions, or the top-of-the-line Nike sneakers? That's an abstract, generally errant stereotype that the right uses so they can cut social welfare and continue to make military contractors rich, as we punish the debt. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>As "intollerable" as spelling errors? So your arguments are reduced to spell checking? Let me see where you are coming from, an extra, "l" is intolerable, yet Fascist Ronnie tripling the debt NOT IN A TIME OF WAR (which is unprecedented) is tolerable? I can understand why we have had the 3 stooges serve 20 of the last 27 1/2 years. And we wonder why bands coin terms and write songs about stupid Americans??? If I didn’t have an argument, I could go through your post and find sentence fragments, poor syntax and many other errors. Fortunately for me I’m not relegated to that desperation.

I listed the uneduated and the educated, can't remember which I wrote with you in mind . >>>>>>>>>>>>>>You nailed the Obama followers (who are joined by the, as billvon explained the term, ignorant) Bill didn't refer to Obama followers as ignorant, he referred to the exremes of both parties as such. Kinda funny to read a statement calling me ignorant by someone that voted for Bush twice. I did not say billvon called BHO ignorant nor did I call you that. Please refer to billvons definition for clarification. Oh, and using billvons definintion (or probably better stated, context of the word) given the choices and what he has done I would vote for him again, given the choices. (not saying that is good) You would vote for Bush again knowing he would - handle Katrina the way he did - create the largest deficit / debt in world history thru his tax / spend policies - commute Scooter Libby after criminal conviction for the same things Clinton was impeached in a political trial (full pardon comming) - engage in a war that has now become common knowledge that it was entered on false premise - legislate privatization of medical prescriptions, costing seniors money they don't have - kill stem cell research, a move that even the Nancy Reagan's despise - I could go on So you then INFER what Gore or Kerry MIGHT have done as they would be faced with these decisions and you further infer they would have fucked it up worse? You guys just can't make a case, just make baseless assertions / predictions.

More nothing to offer as you turn this into a grammar contest? Especially considering you claim I called someone something when it was just a generalization, an error in fact on your part. Counselor, not so good. You silly conservatives . In case you missed it: Congratulations, you have added zero, irony score: predictable. When you can't address the issue, check for spelling. Nice job, former counselor. BTW, who did I call uneducated? Truth is, I categorized Republican voters and addressed no one in pareticular, so I didn't, "call" anyone anything. Furthermore, it was a letter ommission, which occurrs with my POS computer just as it loads a page. All the time as I Google I find I have to either wait or go back and add letters, as the loading of the page I guess prioritizes the CPU and deprioritizes the keyboard. Again, thanks for adding nothing and being wrong, as I didn't, "call" anyone uneducated. No that you have all that time on your hands, go back and address some relevant issues pertaining to this thread. Or, perhaps, browse the other threads looking for errors.

First, you have to accept these things: - cops just live to send the wrong people to death for crimes they did not commit - the accused would not have legal counsel to guard against this "ramming through" - a jury would not have to be convinced, and the same with a judge, to get a conviction and a death sentence That's a lot to have to accept in order for your point to be valid. Not true, it isn't that absolute or orchestrated , as conservatives like to believe. - cops have their own agenda. They take care of their own and will kill/jail anyone to do so. - legal counsel? You can have counsel and not really have any. Many lawyers are completely incompetent. - juries operate from emotion in most cases, not to mention they are handcuffed to the judges instrautions, which they may or may not follow. Your sie dangles pictures of dead people to get them fired up and what little logic they entered with are gone. I've seen trials where a picture of the deceased is on the overhead projector for hours if not the entire prosecution's case. Let's not give juries a lot of credit. BTW, with hundreds of exonerations / commutations since the 1976 Gregg v Georgia reinstatement of DP how can you argue gross errors have been committed? In turn, we would have to believe that these exonerations were errant to follow your logic.

Do you not give children credit for being able to understand the difference? You don't hit a kid to show him that hitting is wrong, I agree. But that is not the same as executing someone who has killed, and holding him up to those you wish to teach that murder is wrong. Execution is not murder. They are both killing, but they are not equivalents. Skydiving and committing suicide off a building are both falling, but are they the same? Corporal punishment and capital punishment have core similarities; violence used to stop a given behavior. >>>>>>>>>>>>Execution is not murder. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/murder The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. So if it were later discovered that the exected was innocent, would it then be murder? If all the facts were in, the execution would not be committed and unlawful, therefore it would be murder. It's certainly homocide. To weigh whether it is murder or not while people are being killed by the state is ridiculous. >>>>>>>>>>>>>Skydiving and committing suicide off a building are both falling, but are they the same? Ridiculous example, these are both voluntary.

Billvon, you are pro-death penalty? Or rather, you are not opposed to it? I am surprised to learn that. Now, as for "whatever's cheaper," it seems to me that the only reason the death penalty is more expensive is all of the appeals granted to the condemned. In some states, there's AUTOMATIC appeal. How much sense does that make? It's like a tacit admission that the justice system hands down verdicts even as it admits there's a good chance it might be wrong. If we said, "Verdict's in; it's guilty; come with us" and put a bullet into the killer's skull, capital punishment would be mighty inexpensive. I guess that in the current situation, capital punishment is more expensive than just warehousing criminals for life because since it takes 20 years to get the criminal finally executed, he's been sucking up that $40k/year cost of being incarcerated! And then you add the court costs of all his appeals. Take away the appeals, and you take away the need to warehouse him for $40k/year, kill him expeditiously and promptly and you saved all that money. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It's like a tacit admission that the justice system hands down verdicts even as it admits there's a good chance it might be wrong. Just as the SCOTUS states the exclusionary rule is there to dissuade police misconduct. The courts know the system is fucked up. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>If we said, "Verdict's in; it's guilty; come with us" and put a bullet into the killer's skull, capital punishment would be mighty inexpensive. And sweeping, the innocent as well as the guilty would be executed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I guess that in the current situation, capital punishment is more expensive than just warehousing criminals for life because since it takes 20 years to get the criminal finally executed,... I think the average is more like 13-14 years. >>>>>>>>>>>>>Take away the appeals, and you take away the need to warehouse him for $40k/year, kill him expeditiously and promptly and you saved all that money. Do you proponents ever address wrongful convictions/executions? You can't logically address one side of an issue.

Sounds like he got all the motherfuckin' due process a piece of shit needs in a case like this. Thank you for reproducing the graphic details of this story so that the whiners can see just what the fuck they are defending. Thank you very much for that. No one is defending the individual in this case, please show where that is stated. We're defending the process, because if the process is flawed, errors will happen. I voted that he got what he deserved, but if the poll asked if it was a positive thing for US society I would have said no. Step back and don't make everythng a microcosm, look at the macrostructural picture.

Yep. That about sums it up for me. Great point, it's also cheaper to execute innocent people than to jail them forever. Pssst ...got enough to share? Yea, lots of logic to go around, help yourself. But remember, don't address the issue.

>>>>>>>>>>We just do all that a bit more intelligently. And react with more stupidity.

They're smarter?!!! I'm not qualified to answer that, so I won't guess. But look at genotype or more obviously, phenotype and there are stark similarities. What does that mean? I guess Jebus wanted to fool the naive, right? At the end of the day, this is one questio we'll have to die with contentment.

Internet 101: When you call someone "uneducated", don't misspell it! Recently, while my wife was driving the car, she was lecturing our newly-licensed kid for not being a more attentive driver. Just as she was in the middle of saying this, she drove over a curb. Irony score: +10. Congratulations, you have added zero, irony score: predictable. When you can't address the issue, check for spelling. Nice job, former counselor. BTW, who did I call uneducated? Truth is, I categorized Republican voters and addressed no one in pareticular, so I didn't, "call" anyone anything. Furthermore, it was a letter ommission, which occurrs with my POS computer just as it loads a page. All the time as I Google I find I have to either wait or go back and add letters, as the loading of the page I guess prioritizes the CPU and deprioritizes the keyboard. Again, thanks for adding nothing and being wrong, as I didn't, "call" anyone uneducated. No that you have all that time on your hands, go back and address some relevant issues pertaining to this thread. Or, perhaps, browse the other threads looking for errors.

That's an obscure example and one that we can all agree is BS. No one commented on my situation.....hmmmmm, doesn't fit the mold of frivality(sp)? American workers have fewer rights than most/all other industrialized nations and yet we want to revoke more? NIIIIIIIIIIICE. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Maybe this is why the founding fathers wanted us to own guns ? They also wanted us to own slaves, so let's keep it real in regard to those little criminals.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>There is hard evidence for having a common ancestor with chimpanzees in our cell's molecular clocks, our genome... Not to mention virtually identical phenotypes.

I agree with the last part, which is why science doesn't prove anything, it disproves things.

Come on, have a seat, relax and roll back on your tailbone.

Science begs you to disprove them, religion dares you to. Religion uses piss poor logic.

When you say, the other side, there are more than 2 sides, so they are all up for grabs. Anyone to claim absolute assurity to any of it is being foolish.

I listed the uneduated and the educated, can't remember which I wrote with you in mind . >>>>>>>>>>>>>>You nailed the Obama followers (who are joined by the, as billvon explained the term, ignorant) Bill didn't refer to Obama followers as ignorant, he referred to the exremes of both parties as such. Kinda funny to read a statement calling me ignorant by someone that voted for Bush twice.

Yep. That about sums it up for me. Great point, it's also cheaper to execute innocent people than to jail them forever.

And with prices going through the roof in pretty much every aspect of life these days, do you think raising taxes will do this country good? Not picking a fight, just asking a real question for you to consider. Fair question, regardless of how we got here, here we are. he best answer I can give is to look at history and tht tells me yes, it will help. At the same time, we need to increase social spending. SOund crazy? It's not. Look at Hoover giving sums to corps hoping they would industrialize us out of the mess. Look at FDR socializing us out of the mess. The GDP increased every year FDR was in office. WHat taxing does is to take from the rich and give to the poor, who immediatley spend it, stimulating the industries owned by whom? The rich. We can't get stuck in this game of fair, we need to worry about the greater picture. Is it utilitarian to take from the rich so the whole system works better? Yes, but so are a lot of conservative things like the death penalty, so let's do it. It's fun to draw up social mechanisms on the board, but when we put it to the test the "FAIR" way fails every time. BTW, Reagan called it supply side economics, or trickle down. The rest of the intelligent world called it voodoo economics as he trippled the debt, leaving a mess for GHW Bush, who ended up doing what? Read my lips - raising taxes to get out of it, which aided Clinton in recovering from the mess made by Reagan. History will reexamine Reagan's legacy in 10 or so years when the debt becomes so intollerable that nothing will help.

Yea, no doubt. I'm not a partisan dork, I can label the presidents and their accomplishments. But let's be real, Ford was a descent pres for the short time he was, but he pardoned Nixon which made a free ticket for the Dem nominee, so vicariously Carter was a product of the right. You must admit that the 3 stooges have fucked the country pretty bad.

How about some big cocksucker going into your workplace and turning most everyone against you? I never felt threatened, not a bit, but very outed. He used his size as fodder for intimidation, but never actualy made you think he would use it. He was a bully. Oh, I forgot to mention, he had been fired for intimidating an HR girl a few years prior, same coe of management, the company had changed name. So 2 firings in ~3 years for the same kind of shit, Bill, this is what the court is talking about. You don't have to thrteaten someone to create hostility. I'm really surprised that you can't see that, you're a pretty dynamic thinker. Perhaps you have never seen it. I am not a small or passive guy, so I would normally react with the same idiocy..... but then I've been THAT GUY before too, so maybe I've just grown up..... I hate to admit