Lucky...

So you assert it was all the GOP Senate and not the Dem House or Clinton? Alllllrighty then. US all good / you all bad. Thanks for clearing that up. To entertain your assertion, not that I take it seriously, how much different is the Senate now as compared to the 90's? Not that much, so why the spending frenzy now and not then? OK, so they are still anti-social, but love military pork? What happened, are they too cowardly to stand up to Bush, according to your article. So this makes you, if correct, the big social spenders. Whatever the reason, it appears that having a balance in American politics is better than this totalitarian scheme we now have. Even your partisan righty page calls this a balanced budget that has the debt clock running wildly.... ouch! OK, so how is it that most other countries around the world extend lifetime medical coverage to all, and still have a better economhy than us, the richest country in the world, that doesn't extend real medical coverage to those who are not in special priv.? Also, what do you do with the 60-year olds that are dying? Do you just let them die in the streets? Do you act in a humane way? Do you invoke the GOP rule of personal responsibility? I think we won;t be having a lot of European immigration. Why do GOPers hate surpluses? It might make its way to some poor families? We can't have that.

Personal attack #2

OK, so it was coincidence that the debt leveled off by the end of his term? You don't need to call me psychotic either - just make your argument. So you're saying all the credit should go to whom? The Republican COngress? Please, we see what they are about now.... So who's fault is this current economic trainwreck? Congress? Bush? Clinton was blessed with great GNP / GDP and didn't lower taxes until things turned around from the economically horrid Reagan/Bush 12 years. Hook or crook, he did level off the debt and leave a surplus.

But who's to say which programs the money will be taken from, I promise you it won't be congresses retrirement budget which provides 1 term seat warmers with $15,000+ per month retirement income! Until people get over their entitlement mentality politicians are going to continue to bring home the pork. It's always someone else's program that ought to be cut. - How about just paying back the national debt crediot card we've been maxiing out? Forget entitlements, we have a debt to pay. Oh please tell us your plan to pay down the debt without reducing entitlements. - Let's take a page from teh book of CLinton, where he maintained entitlements and still leveled off the debt. http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

Is the Iraq War defense or offense?

Those illustrate aberrations. That's like saying the guy that wins lap #125 of a 345 lap race, wins the race. The debt is still soaring, so until we maintain tax receipts and can pay down the debt on a constant basis, we will continue to devalue the dollar.

A) They go to the wrong people B) We have been slamming the cards for decades, so isn't it responsible to pay them back? Oh, then Bush is your man! He took a 230B annual surplus and turned it into a 500+B deficit. As for debt, we have been a debtor nation for over 50 years. So I agree, let's pay down the debt and not carry a national surplus, but we need to have an annual surplus in order to pay down the monsterous national debt. W/o sarcasm, you do understand the difference between the debt and an annual budget, yes? It is a very commin misconception. Clinton was the first president in 40 years to leave an annual surplus, which is why the debt turned horizontal, meaning it quit rising for a while until Bush took office, then turned vertical. Here's what I'm refering to: http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm Oh contrare, we are holding their money. How can you say that they are holding our money when the national debt amount is astronomical? And this debt is fairly new, basically 30 years. To say they are holding our money is to say that maxing out your credit cards means the credit card companies are holding your money..... makes no sense. Downside to having a national debt is that we have to pay interest from our tax receipts and that it devalues the dollar, meaning foreign products cost more due to a poor exchange rate. Still think a ebt is good? That's a great recipe for an anti-social nation. You can't complain of there were a class war, becuase that's what happens when you advocate class supremacy.

But who's to say which programs the money will be taken from, I promise you it won't be congresses retrirement budget which provides 1 term seat warmers with $15,000+ per month retirement income! Until people get over their entitlement mentality politicians are going to continue to bring home the pork. It's always someone else's program that ought to be cut. - How about just paying back the national debt crediot card we've been maxiing out? Forget entitlements, we have a debt to pay.

More war, less social programs? I sense the majic wand of the Libertarian comming out! Seriously homegirl, more nukes / fewer souplines is what we need????? Would socialized medicine be unneccessary to you? Must be nice to have medical coverage and look down on the rest of us that don't. But either way with social programs, how about basic value of the dollar issues? Even if we raised taxes to pay for the debt, and the value of the dollar rose as the debt shrunk, wouldn't that be an investment back into our country? As for not giving our money to the government, don;t worry, we've (Republicans primarily) been maxing out that card for decades.....

And I think that's my point in the end, Jer. Even if it "does no good" to say no, say NO anyway...even if it's a republican controlled congress, if the democrats did anything, at least they could say "hey, we tried, instead of just letting it all go on without a fight." But apparently they're not quite capable of that. Ciels- Michele Here's an example right here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060509/pl_nm/congress_health_dc_2 The poor, poor billionaires club (GOP) wants to make it difficult for people to sue for medical malpractice. The bill needed a supermajority to pass and it hasn't. This is brand new - the Dems stood up to the Repubs. If you shut your eyes hard enough you won;t see a thing. Here's another example, the Overtime Bill. Bush spent his entire first term getting it passed, and then the geniuses reelected him as a reward for hurting American workers. The Dems fought it tooth and nail, but the 8th time, or something like that, with obvious strings being pulled, it passed. Guys like Kennedy stood hard against this bill ALL THE WAY THRU, but now he's vilified as a loser, yet you will call the Dems who fold, losers. Do you see the contradiction you build, making it impossible to establish a strong Democrat in Congress? See what I mean? DO you think the Overtime Law is a good thing? Or is it a bad joke to the workers of the US? So is kennedy not a gutless joke since he usually opposed Republican corruption they tend to spoon-feed thru Congress? Let's tabulate: Dems who fold are gutless jokes, Dems like Kennedy who fight are __________. I think you can fill in the blank and establish your argument that makes all roads lead to something defamatory for the Dems. See what I mean about your impossible argument? 1) Worrying about being invective is semantic, not that I agree with your assertion. If Bush were the first criminal elected president..... oh wait, he is, and he was a great president who has helped the country, which it would tale a lunatic to think he has, then who cares? I care about the end espult, I will leave the semantics to the pundits and commentators. I care that the debt will go from 5.5T to about twice that when Bush leaves office, I care that the Arsenic in the drinking water is higher due to Bush killing a bill, I care that so many things are going south, but I don't care that someone calls another a name. 2) What are they covering? 3) They are semi-unified. It took Bush his entire first term to push thru the Overtime Law. Whenever the Dems do something to show they have unification, the Repubs do things like threaten to pass new rules that disallow filibusters. "Jer." ???? They have said no many times. Look at the jokes who were attempted and confirmed to the courts. When you have a minority in ALL branches of gov, you are disempowered. Your assertion would call a 150lb guy a pussy for not being able to beat up a 350lb wrestler. The geniuses have disempowered the Dems in Congress and then turn around and call teh few that are thee, weak.

Who’s going to tell him no? He carries himself as a dictator, so who has the will or the power to say no? His Republican Congress? The US Sup Ct that daddy and Reagan packed for him (7-2)? He’s an out-of-control lunatic w/o a checks/balances system. I think they have 72 hours to then tell on themselves, but they seem to forget and the no-harm / no-foul rule applies, at least within their own minds. Again, where’s the jeopardy? This is why cops shoot people; no jeopardy. The US Sup Ct can hear cases right away and render a binding decision, so they’re not all like that. Remember how the US Sup Ct ignored the 2000 election in record time? They can do that or actually hear the matter immediately. Remember when they were going to filibuster a couple things in eth Senate? Then the Repubs were actually going to pass a law forbidding filibusters. The Repubs have hijacked the US. You, being right, may not want to view it that way, but it’s true on basically all levels. You could say that if they didn’t act before, but they did.

Or one that wouldn't post his military records at all, presumably? Meaning the average person? I wouldn't, but know 1 person who did. Is that what you're saying?

Hmmmmm, sounds like usurpation of power...... brings me back to the 1860's......

Case law is far more binding than legislated law. The 2 US Sup Ct justices who were appointed by Clinton vote for 4th rights, whereas the other 7 appointed by Reagan, Bush, Bush vote against them normally.

Oh yeah ... right...... You ULTRA RIGHT label ANYTHING to the left of your ridiculously FAR RIGHT position as Liberal.... Sorry but your total support for the administrations positions on nearly everything have gotten threadbare with the REST of us here in America. And your constant claims of Fascism, allusions to the KKK and all the rest of your thinly veiled PA's have gotten threadbare with those of us who *AREN'T* firmly in the Liberal camp... what's your point? No country has wholly 1 ideology, but it is fair to say that the US has a large component of Fascism, do ya think?

Right, we wouldn't want to elect a president in the middle of an election scandal, after just having the VP resign due to tax evasion. We wouldn't want to elect a president with a criminal record, if even for drunk driving. We wouldn't want to elect a president that fought and screamed about posting his military record, and the n when he did, it was full of omissions and blacked out areas. No way, to think we could elect or retain an immoral president is absurd.

You don't say... Then why did you answer it literally? I didn't write it; I reposted Lawrocket's words - so is he high school now? No need to apologize here, we're just having fun

Agreed. He came in slinging guns and the Dems said FO. Who'd think we'd ever elect an actor into a high office........? (please no one post that Reagan was elected actor - I wrote it as sarcasm...) He'll be back.

God, are you serious? It was a joke on the way Rocketlaw wrote it. He meant: Way more teachers molest kids than priests molest kids. Just a funny note as to his wording....

Teachers molest priests? Seriously, I totally agree with your logic...

And since we now cannot, and may never be able to "proove" where these things came from, we mist subscribe to the default theory where we simply default to a god if nature is yet unexplainable. Do you see how your theiry is as out there as those who guarantee Jesus, evolution, big bang, etc..?

Or is that, http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=roughshod? Furthermore, how about your governator? Wasn't the fix, was it?

I agree, Fox is trustworthy here: http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002715.htm FOX 'NEWS' POLL: Bush Approval at 33% http://www.bradblog.com/Images/BushApprovalRating_Fox33.jpg _______________________________________________________ Whereas that liberal CNN rated hIs approval at 32% http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/24/bush.poll/ "In the telephone poll of 1,012 adult Americans carried out Friday through Sunday by Opinion Research Corporation for CNN, 32 percent of respondents said they approve of Bush's performance,..." So CNN is wayyyyyyyyyyy off! BTW, the same article has Fox reporting 33% as well. I guess it's a courtesy bump for their homey.

It was about the perjury, but is a lie about a BJ the same as say, a lie about entering a war or fiscal appropriations? I think not - it's abusrd to compare them as the same. As fotr FACTS, do you mean proof?

It is true that the US cuts the nations with nuclear arms some slack. No arguement there. But you dont see the nations with nuclear arms threatening to use them. Iran WILL use them if they are allowed to get them. The president thinks he is on a mission from god to kill the infidels. W/o seeing if anyone posted this already, how about N. Korea?