Lucky...

Yes. All that 'freedowm of the press' stuff is a bunch of bullshit! Zipp0 Freedom of the press is important, but not freedom to lie and send the public into mass hysteria. Should the New York Times be allowed to print that China has declared war on the US? No. Looking at past history, that is exactly how Hitler garnered support to invade Poland. He sent out a new bulletin saying Poland had attacked Germany when it wasn't the case. In the event, it was the government propagating the lies. Now, however it is the media, in an attempt to defame our government. We are in a time of war, and certain measures need to be taken to protect our nation. Have we had an attack since 9/11? No, and that is perfect evidence that this is working. If the public would just shut the hell up and let the government do its job, to govern, we'd be much better off. Yes, sometimes the government goes a bit overboard, but order is better than anarchy. There was a wise man, although I can't quite remember his name, who once said, "The best government is one who governs the most, as the people are unable to discipline themselves." But enough about the WMD claim....

Hey, soneone has to be part of the 20 something percent....

I agree, freedom of the press is far overrated and over used. There should be federal editors that work at every media outlet that must approve of any media before it goes to press. This way, the media wouldn;t be lying to us, the US Gov would be, and the gov has our best interests in mind. Beautiful Katz v US was a 60's case that established, "People have rights to privacy, not places." With that, are saying screw the US Sup Ct? That was a major decison having to do with bugging a phonebooth - very relevant - gov now says people don't have rights to privacy.

Any issue. Hippie? LOL Zipp0 OK lets discuss how the Left is destroying this country. Yes, the left left a surplus, while the right left a 5T debt and climbing.

And you, you Libertarian...... GD it!

What a liberal thing to post!!!

Only for the DZO / S&TA

Again, making the argument personal. The facts and data are what they are, regardless of what I know or don;t know. You continue to attack my knowledge, when that is meaningless. Why not attack the data I submit or the merits of my arguments rather than to attack and defame me?

Yes, compassion towards our fellow countrymen and women is a bad thing, then on with the patriotic rhetoric..... You have NEVER established how it was that Clinton was able to: A) Take a 45 degree climbing debt, B) horrible all-around economy and C) negative fiscal sentiment and: turn it into a balanced debt, 230B annual surplus and mnay more social programs than did either Reagan, Bush or Bush. Your argument deflates when you say that entitlments are the evil-all, then acknowledge that Clinton had more social progs than either of the 3 Republican presidents. Perhaps consumer-side economics work, as you give money to the poor, they spend it immediatley and it activates the economy. Perhaps your scenario worls on paper, but Clinton's works in application.....

I voted for Perot in 92, so I can vote for can candidates that have no chance of winning too. The Libertarian platform is as viable as Star Trek. Show me a country that utilizes Libertarian principles. You're saying we can't denounce Libertarianism because we can't establish that it doesn't work, OTOH we can't propose it's viable due to it never being applied anywhere. Libertarianism is like the Theory of Evolution: parts of it are believeable, bit the whole concept is yet unproven. Furthermore, a Libertarian is a person who believs in Republican fiscal measures and liberal social issues in regard to freedoms, so fiscally your beliefs are close to the Republicans. Here's an example: and.. Thank you.

I agree!!! My favorite way to pay down a debt is to spend less than what I'm taking in (something the US government isn't doing all that well with lately) and to take the difference and apply it towards my debts. Sure one can add to the government coffers by taxing their citizens more. But what ever happened to spending less? Agreed! Add to that more tax revenue by taxing people less and it works even faster! That's an idea, but can you historically establish that it has successfully worked? Exeamples of long-tern, sustained viability.

Half truths when it comes to tax revenues recieved! At least in the context of my post..... Right, there are amounts taken in in the way of taxes and expenditures that tally the annual budget, ultimately the national debt; it's all a series of these components. Point is, Clinton did well on all accounts, Reagan, Bush, Bush have failed miserably; can you differ?

True on both accounts, but the righties will attempt to transfer the former as being fault for the latter......

From the party that authored 25 years of runaway spending, I find that ironic.

OK, aside from rhetoric, using my data, explain how we got where we are. Again, using history to exemplify better times, worse times, what measures got us there, etc........ or just keep the rhetoric going w/o reference to any data and NOT surprise me.

www.lp.org Their site should have a majic wand that has the enscription, "Social Problems." Other thnan that I like many of their ideas...

This is an interesting but mis-leading statement. While the dept is big from a numbers perspective (and believe me I am not condoning US debt for mulitple reasons) but it is not even close to the worst it has been when compared to the US GNP. It is small and managable when looking at it from that direction. However, that is not an excuse for out of control spending. I think you mean the DEFICIT, not the DEBT. You do know the difference, right? The GDP / GNP has an indirect relationship to the debt, but annual budgets rely on GNP info so they know how much is going to or has come in, in the way of tax revenue. The debt is the worst is has ever been by a longshot. Clinton in Jan, 1993: approx 4T Clinton in Jan, 2001: approx 5.5T Now: Approx 8.4T Bush has doubled the increases under Clinton in just 5.5 years. Projected it will triple Clinton's increase in 8 years. Canada's dollar, which is highly tied to the US Dollar, is making huge grounds largely due to this phenominon. The debt skyrocketed under Reagan and Bush1 in teh 12 years, CLinton actually leveled this off and then Bush2 took office and it resumed its vertical ascent once again. http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm Clinton was the first president in 40 years to realize and leave a surplus, and not a small one. Like 230B as I recall. The annual surplus directly affects the national debt. If the conservatives who keep posting this assertion would take the time to understand the fiscal workings and the recent (25 years) who have done what to/for it, they might revert back to moral issues and leave this one alone. The debt isn't manageable, however it can be reduced, but only by taxx increases for the rich and a great GNP/GDP.

Yep, I like watching Kerry too -- 26% approval rating. Are you saying as a Senator he has a 26% approval? Show data....

Nah, going out to the DZ to video tandems and AFFs. We have two weeks of work backed up due to weather. That seems like a better use of my time. But I still stand by MY point. I voted for Bush. I can't stand what he has done in his handling of Iraq, but I'm not convinced Kerry would be any better. If I KNEW Kerry (heck, Hillary for that matter) would take us out of that quagmire, I would have voted for him. But I don't know that. I only know Bush pooched us. Prolly a better use of time - have fun!!! Just open your mind, I did and switched. If you can't find any data out there to support a given parties moves, acts, etc, then maybe that party isn;t good for the country. I'm waiting for anyone to provide evidence that teh Repubs haven't done a thing but trash the country....

You proved my point. Kerry would have most likely done the same things if 98 out of 99 senators were for it. Would he have been better? I can honestly say I don't know. BTW - your point that Clinton took a stand is kind of laughable. I liked him a little and I thought apart from so many personal flaws he was an okay president, but he was the king of popular poll politics. No, Kerry would not have gone to war (even tho we were in Iraq during the 2004 election), but he would have withdrawn if elected in 2004. Your boy, McCain has already said he would increase troop numbers, but most/all Republicans would. Uh, would Kerry have trashed this country as Bush has? Hard to think he would have and although he probably wouldn't straighten it up as Clinton did with his domestic fiscal policies, the burden is on the person asserting that Kerry would trash the US to the proportions that Bush has. He took a stand to get socialied medicine and lost. He fought the Rep COngress to get his 1993 Omnibus Spending Bill through and eventually won. This is credited for the economic recovery. Clinton also reduced troop numbers to cut gov costs. Clinton did boit waiver....if so, tell me how? Personal flaws? Like being a drunk driver? Like refusing to post your military record? Reagan was too, and he fiscally trashed this country - care to debate that? BTW, I can post this data from a recent thread if you care for me to.

It's almost like a game - watch the sinking Bush and see how low he goes. Many presidents dip low and then recover, but Bush has sustained this low approval rating for some time w/no end in sight. He might be touching the teens, especially if his job market, which is a short-term buble IMO, busts. Unfortunately he might go up if gas goes to $2 gal

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060512/pl_nm/bush_poll_dc_1 Bush job approval falls to 29 pct in new poll

But when he lies to Congress, even if by omission, that kills the deal. Mr. Mehlman, on Meet the Press, said: 1. Congress had the exact same intelligence that Bush had. 2 Congress had the exact same intelligence that Bush had. 3. Russert interjected about the Washington Post's independant review and they found that Bush had omitted untelligence. 4. Mehlman then said: Congress had the basically the same intelligence that Bush had. Anyone can figure out that Bush cherry-picked the intelligence to motivate Congress, which perverts the entire hearing.

Katz v US http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0389_0347_ZS.html

So if Kerry litterally did nothing, would that be worse than what Bush has done? We can speculate that Kerry wouldn't have initiated and pushed the Overtime Law (that was Bush's first term tho), amongst others, and he wouldn't have cut taxes for the rich. He would have gotten us out the war and worked on a real budget. Do you disagree with that? Isn;t that better than trashing the gov the way the Repubs have? Congress too. BTW, Clinton had a plan and stuck with it - he didn't waiver, so that point is crazy. As for flip/flop, most of Congress voted for the war if not all, and 98 of 99 Senators voted for teh Patriot Act, both due to Bush's suppression of intelligence. There's a kicker, Bush supressed intelligence.