[Lerkfish]

this CNN story advances what is to be expected, among other things:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush on Tuesday evening is to deliver an election-year State of the Union speech that aides say is designed to rebut attacks from the Democratic candidates for president while defending his decision to invade Iraq.

Aides said he will lay out his presidential legislative priorities and his international priorities. And the president will also tackle the controversial issue of gay marriage, declaring -- as he has before -- that marriage should be between one man and one woman.

White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card said Bush will say that "if necessary, he'd be glad to support a constitutional change" to support that idea. (WH considers constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage)

The president has been under pressure to come out in favor of such a constitutional change from conservatives alarmed by a Massachusetts court decision in November that opened the door to a recognition of gay marriage.

Budget priorities drive content

With a $500 billion budget deficit that angers Democrats and alarms a number of fiscal conservatives in his own party, Bush will be limited in how much he can offer in new, election-year initiatives.

The contents of the speech have been decided, in large part, by the administration's budget priorities, because the president faces a February 1 deadline to propose a spending blueprint for the fiscal year that begins in October.

[macvillage.net]

It's just a repeat of a press release from a few months ago when the topic of State of the Union first appeared.

The Whitehouse layed it out then.

Trying to generate some buzz and remind people it's on so they get ratings tonight.

[eklipse]

Have they announced the satellite coordinates and Quicktime webcast yet?

I so hope George announces the discovery of WMD this month! - but I'm probably setting myself up for a disappointment - it's more likely to be some gimicky, multi-colored, tactical-mini-nukes or summin...

Perhaps Osama Bin Laden will join the show via live video link to shock the crowds with the announcement that he is investing $150 million in the reconstruction of Iraq?

[saab95]

Tonight's State of the Union speech..

Bush will reveal to the world why he is the biggest pragmatist on two feet.

• Why it is he decided to invade Iraq instead of iran
• Why he passed the controversial, and utterly inexplicable "No Child left Behind"
• Why he continues to lobby the UN to ban human cloning
• Why he has managed to create more government than any previous President

Yeah, he may not even touch upon those things. All the Republican lemmings will applaud.

I'll just catch an early night's sleep rather than listen to this bullshit.

[Buck_Naked]

Originally posted by saab95:


Yeah, he may not even touch upon those things. All the Republican lemmings will applaud.

I'll just catch an early night's sleep rather than listen to this bullshit.

Well said. It will not be a State of the Union Address it will be his first campaign apperance.

[bewebste]

The State of the Union Address Drinking Game

http://www.drinkinggame.us/

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by saab95:
he has managed to create more government than any previous President

Are you including the numbers for reinstating a horribly depleted military? That's a very misleading statement.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Are you including the numbers for reinstating a horribly depleted military? That's a very misleading statement.

Gee, what are those numbers, MacNStein?

BG

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Are you including the numbers for reinstating a horribly depleted military? That's a very misleading statement.

Hasn't Rumsfeld downsized the military? Isn't he still preaching that 300,000+ military jobs should be privatized? Aren't we more reliant on reservists and mercenaries than ever before?

The Bush administration goosed the procurement budget (which Gore would have arguably done as well). Beyond that, I'm not sure what kind of "reinstating" you think has happened.

[Logic]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Have they announced the satellite coordinates and Quicktime webcast yet?

whitehouse.gov


wonder if I should stay up to play the game "find 16 words that are a lie"

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Logic:
whitehouse.gov


wonder if I should stay up to play the game "find 16 words that are a lie"

Do you suppose it will be just 16 words this time? Seeing as how he got off scott free with those 16 words last time, I'd think he'd go for at least 32 this time.

BlackGriffen

[Logic]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Do you suppose it will be just 16 words this time? Seeing as how he got off scott free with those 16 words last time, I'd think he'd go for at least 32 this time.

BlackGriffen

hmmm, you sir have a point!

But the real question is, is that a better reason or worse to stay up and watch it?

Especially having +39°C temperature........(fever that is, damn flu)

[macvillage.net]

Well... it's official. Already he's made more of a campaign out of this, than a presidential obligation (which it is).

Sad that Sept 11, falls before the election. Is he seriously going to campaign at the WTC site?


Extremely inappropriate for any politician IMHO.

Campaigns are on YOUR time. Not while your supposed to be fufilling your duties.

Even more ironic... Employees in companies have been fired for making a personal phone call, or checking their personal email during work.

On another note, that little girl who sent Bush an email, of which he read, named her, and her city... Did Bush follow COPPA? That sounded an alarm in my head.. and I'm sure for at least from anyone who has worked with a website, has a child, or believes in child safety online.

[rm on request]

Anyway.... how long was the State of the Union... and how much should be charged to his campaign? I think it's only fair and legal that he not use tax dollars for his campaign (isn't that illegal now?)

[vmarks]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Well... it's official. Already he's made more of a campaign out of this, than a presidential obligation (which it is).

It is? It started with FDR. It certainly wasn't a duty before that time. I think it's more tradition than duty.

Campaigns are on YOUR time. Not while your supposed to be fufilling your duties.

Better tell John Edwards that. He's been busy campaigning for the past three years, missing important votes in the Senate, and failing to respond to constituent requests.

On another note, that little girl who sent Bush an email, of which he read, named her, and her city... Did Bush follow COPPA? That sounded an alarm in my head.. and I'm sure for at least from anyone who has worked with a website, has a child, or believes in child safety online.

He said letter, not email.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by vmarks:
It is? It started with FDR. It certainly wasn't a duty before that time. I think it's more tradition than duty.



Better tell John Edwards that. He's been busy campaigning for the past three years, missing important votes in the Senate, and failing to respond to constituent requests.

That's actually bugged me about most of the viable candidates from Congress - their absenteeism was through the roof. Even on issues they purported to lead the fight on. The only viable exception, AFAIK, was Bob Graham. Too bad his funding dried up so soon, because I think he'd be a hell of a lot better option than just about anyone. I would even seriously have considered voting for him and not Dean.

Those chips have already fallen and come to rest, though.

BlackGriffen

[Scotttheking]

Bush is proof that the education system needs help. He can't read or speak.
That said, that 2 year old must be smart to write a letter!

/sarcasm

[Kitschy]

I liked what the President had to say for the most part.

[Kitschy]

Originally posted by Scotttheking:
Bush is proof that the education system needs help. He can't read or speak.
That said, that 2 year old must be smart to write a letter!

/sarcasm

He actually does a lot better at public speaking. It's been interesting to see him shed his self-consciousness over the years.

If you watched "The Democratic Response" following the State of the Union Address you might have noticed Pelosi and Daschle had several noticeable narrative errors.

Hey, Republican or Democrat...they're all human.

[kindbud]

Don't fret.

Dubya will have 4 years and 364 more days to improve his public speaking skills.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by vmarks:


Better tell John Edwards that. He's been busy campaigning for the past three years, missing important votes in the Senate, and failing to respond to constituent requests.

I agree 100%.


I was under the understanding that it's now (finally) illegal to use tax dollars for political campaigns.

They use it... why can't they be charged for it?


I don't like campaigning (as if I didn't say that a million times prior). Never did. It pisses me off when they use inappropriate times/methods to advertise. This is a prime example. A legally required speach, that's a PRIMARY DUTY of the presidency, as outlined in the job requirements. This is really the only true solid requirement. Everything else is rather blurry "uphold", "serve". But he's required "by law and by custom" to perform this task.

This isn't his own speach, or his own event. This is a government sanctioned event. The only event other than his inaguration that he's required to appear at. The only one he's required to speak at.

It's rather inappropriate for him or any other president.



Sadly, I have a feeling Bush will turn 9/11 into a political commercial. As sick as that will be. It would only seem to match his campaigning ethics thus far.


It's sick and in appropriate. There's nothing wrong with him doing it after, back at the whitehouse, or even outside. Or setting up another event.

But during the one required event... it's a mockery of US law, the presidential office, and of the US citizens to do so.


This would be as bad as Bob Dole advertising Viagra on the floor in the middle of a debate. It's just inappropriate and unneeded.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Well... it's official. Already he's made more of a campaign out of this, than a presidential obligation (which it is).

What parts of the speech are you referring to? I listened to it live, and later read it, and I didn't see much, if any, campaigning.

[dgs212]

Did anybody notice Bush spill Dick Cheney's water all over Cheney's desk when he went to shake his hand at the address's conclusion?

Just thought it was funny...

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by dgs212:
Did anybody notice Bush spill Dick Cheney's water all over Cheney's desk when he went to shake his hand at the address's conclusion?

Just thought it was funny...

I thought I saw the exact same thing.

Did it really happen, or were my/our eyes playing tricks?

It's hard to see with quick moving camera's, and odd angles.

[Face Ache]

America is a nation with a mission - and that mission comes from our most basic beliefs. We have no desire to dominate, no ambitions of empire. Our aim is a democratic peace - a peace founded upon the dignity and rights of every man and woman. America acts in this cause with friends and allies at our side, yet we understand our special calling: This great Republic will lead the cause of freedom.

Hello?

[The Mick]

I thought it was tripe. He spent half the damn speech giving himself props for turning the USA into the New World Order Police Department.

We are seeking all the facts -- already the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations.

What the hell happened to the thousands of liters of Anthrax and other agents? He didn't tell us he was looking for "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities", he said they had real weapons. I was literally laughing out loud at that line.

And yet again, Bush and Co. are proving to be the new Democratic party by spending money like it was going out of style.

So tonight I propose a series of measures called Jobs for the 21st Century._ This program will provide extra help to middle and high school students who fall behind in reading and math, expand Advanced Placement programs in low-income schools, invite math and science professionals from the private sector to teach part-time in our high schools._ I propose larger Pell Grants for students who prepare for college with demanding courses in high school._ I propose increasing our support for America's fine community colleges, I do so, so they can train workers for the industries that are creating the most new jobs

Where's the money coming from George? Oh, and your idea of using private sector workers to replace trained teachers is horsecrap. I guess my good friend who has been going to college at nights for the last 5 years to be a math teacher just doesn't cut it huh?

How about some more?

So tonight I propose an additional 23 million for schools that want to use drug testing as a tool to save children's lives.

We will double Federal funding for abstinence programs, so schools can teach this fact of life: Abstinence for young people is the only certain way to avoid sexually transmitted diseases.

I propose a four-year, 300 million dollar Prisoner Re-Entry Initiative to expand job training and placement services, to provide transitional housing, and to help newly released prisoners get mentoring, including from faith-based groups.

Where the hell is he going to get the money for all these new initiatives? Wait! I think I know!

In two weeks, I will send you a budget that funds the war, protects the homeland, and meets important domestic needs, while limiting the growth in discretionary spending to less than four percent._ This will require that Congress focus on priorities, cut wasteful spending, and be wise with the people's money._ By doing so, we can cut the deficit in half over the next five years.

Less than four percent huh? Why not shrink the size of the government to keep pace with your declining revenues? Cut the deficit in half over 5 years? Let's see, this year it was $455 billion. So next year it would be $410 billion, then 365, 320, 275, then finally about 225 roughly. Add that all up and you get and additional $1.6 trillion added to the federal debt over the remainder of Bush's term in office (assuming he's reelected). Thanks, but no thanks.

[Face Ache]

Last month a girl in Lincoln, Rhode Island, sent me a letter. It began, "Dear George W Bush: If there is anything you know, I, Ashley Pearson, age 10, can do to help anyone, please send me a letter and tell me what I can do to save our country." She added this P.S.: "If you can send a letter to the troops - please put, 'Ashley Pearson believes in you'."

Awwww....

Hey let's invade Syria!

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by saab95:
Bush will reveal to the world why he is the biggest pragmatist on two feet.

• Why it is he decided to invade Iraq instead of iran
• Why he passed the controversial, and utterly inexplicable "No Child left Behind"
• Why he continues to lobby the UN to ban human cloning
• Why he has managed to create more government than any previous President

Yeah, he may not even touch upon those things. All the Republican lemmings will applaud.

I'll just catch an early night's sleep rather than listen to this bullshit.

You forgot the budget deficit.
I really don't get it, why don't the real conservatives have some sort of an uprise against Dubya?
Aren't conservative budget policies one of the Republican's cornerstones? Lowering taxes to a level where it simply hurts (because the next generations will have to pay for it, thus increasing the tax burden for them).

Can anyone tell me, where is the resistance within the Republicans opposing Bush?

[Ayelbourne]

From SOTUA:
"...(use of performance-enhancing drugs like steroids in baseball, football, and other sports) sends the wrong message -- that there are shortcuts to accomplishment, and that performance is more important than character."

Let's see now... I wonder who might have given friendly American folks that idea?

[theolein]

I just listened to excerpts from Bush's speech on the Radio. I think his "style" probably appeals to the more patriotic/nationalistic American. His points on foreign policy are the same lies that they always were but I don't think that those Americans who like him, the more xenophobic nationalistic crowd, really care. His points on domestic policy will probably appeal to the already converted i.e. his voting base who is tradtionally religious and conservative, and he is surely right about the fact that the US economy is now growing strongly again, even if the jobs have not caught up with that.

I think you Americans should probably prepare for another four years of Bush government.

On foreign policy, his claim that America will not seek permission to defend itself, is clearly aimed at those Americans who fear and hate the UN and countries such as France. This is pure popularism and is aimed at pleasing, once again, the nationalistic xenophobic crowd (And I mean xenophobic, the racist comments directed at that Margeret Cho women show that there is a large streak of white Americans who fear and hate non-whites and non-Americans). His statement, in the same sentence, that America is not trying to dominate the world but has a "Mission" to bring freedom and democracy to the world and especially the middle east (I'm sure the Iraqis would like to see some freedom and democracy too) is a contradiction in terms. America is obviously trying to dominate the world, in order to secure trade dominance by way of military and economic threat and control over oil supplies. He is also, obviously, trying to whip up internal nationalistic fervour in order to create favourable domestic support for his policies which will obviously be reliant on a large and powerful military.

His point that the invasion of Iraq prompted Libya and Iran to give up their WMD programmes is probably true, and gives credibility to his foreign policy, but, and this is a very big but, recent articles about Pakistani involvement in almost all the nuclear programmes in Libya, North Korea and Iran, as well as the revelation that this has been known for years and nothing was ever done about it in order to to avoid antagonising Pakistan, does point to the lack of any real morality in international politics.

Domestically, his appeal for sexual abstinence, a traditional fundamentalist Christian position, is also likely to go down well amongst the already converted. I don't see it happening yet, but perhaps his internal policies might very well instigate a wave of religious conservatism amongst Americans, bringing a regression of American values back to 50's mores. However, the world and society have changed and I don't think that this will work as well as he wants it to. Probably it will only forment even more polarisation in American society. Bush's traditional voting base, however with mayn notable exceptions, is that large percentage of americans who have no real idea of what the rest of the world is like and who studiously believe that the whole world should be like America.

I think that continued growth in the American economy will probably be enough to help Bush into a second term, but the issue of jobs and the huge budget defecit might be the issues that could be weak points. His stance on drastic internal security policies will probably be seen by most Americans as good.

It will not be good for international tensions I think, because the fact that countries like Brazil are retaliating in the fingerprinting of all Americans entering that country shows that America will not be able to bulldoze foreign countries without any resistance whatsoever.

In short I think Bush will win the election in 2004. I couldn't blame most Americans for picking him instead of the current crop of Democratic candidates, as they seem to be a pretty useless bunch on the face of things.

[Powerbook]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
What parts of the speech are you referring to? I listened to it live, and later read it, and I didn't see much, if any, campaigning.

Don't be hard to yourself! We didn't see much, if any, WeaponsOfMassDestruction.


PB.

[Powerbook]

PB.

[sideus]

Wow, why bother posting guys? You all seem to agree with each other that Bush sucks with no one rebutting it. Like one big anti-Bush sleepover.

[dgs212]

Originally posted by sideus:
Wow, why bother posting guys? You all seem to agree with each other that Bush sucks with no one rebutting it. Like one big anti-Bush sleepover.

It's hard to rebut the truth

[Millennium]

Originally posted by vmarks:
It is? It started with FDR. It certainly wasn't a duty before that time. I think it's more tradition than duty.

Actually, the State of the Union address is a Presidential duty. Check Article 2, Section 3 of the US Constitution: "[The President] shall from time to time give the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient..."

FDR wasn't the first to give such an address; that honor would go to George Washington. FDR may have been the first one to broadcast the address over radio, though. Past speeches would have only been made public through the Congressional record (also Constitutionally-mandated) and whatever newspapers might have printed it. You can, however, still find archives going back to the first one.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Actually, the State of the Union address is a Presidential duty. Check Article 2, Section 3 of the US Constitution: "[The President] shall from time to time give the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient..."

*embarrassed* -

However, the SOU address doesn't have to be it's regularly scheduled form to comply with the Constitution. It could be any old time the President feels like showing up during session.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Actually, the State of the Union address is a Presidential duty. Check Article 2, Section 3 of the US Constitution: "[The President] shall from time to time give the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient..."

FDR wasn't the first to give such an address; that honor would go to George Washington. FDR may have been the first one to broadcast the address over radio, though. Past speeches would have only been made public through the Congressional record (also Constitutionally-mandated) and whatever newspapers might have printed it. You can, however, still find archives going back to the first one.

The president has to report to Congress from time to time as you say. But the Constitution doesn't require that the president deliver his report personally, and not all have chosen to do so. I believe that in the 19th and early 20th centuries the presidents simply sent in a written report. AFAIK, FDR resurrected the speech tradition. He really understood the power of the bully pulpit.

[saab95]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Are you including the numbers for reinstating a horribly depleted military? That's a very misleading statement.

What in hell are you talking about? Our military is stronger than it ever was.

How about the costs of the Patriot Act and Homeland Security? The costs we taxpayers have to bear for the reconstruction of Iraq, which is not our responsibility?

On the domestic front, Bush's Medicare program will cost far more than it ever did.

Finally, check the budget. Higher than ever.

We never had so much government. Middle income taxpayers can't catch a break with these clowns.

[saab95]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Can anyone tell me, where is the resistance within the Republicans opposing Bush?

If you listen to, or read, Rush Limbaugh, you will find out that the Republican strategy is to take social issues away from the Democratic platform.

The Republicans figure it is a sure shot way of defeating the Democrats. I'm inclined to agree with Limbaugh on that particular opinion.

That explains in great part the Republican unity behind Bush, hence my "lemming" reference.

[bimmerphile]

"DAMN YOU BROKAW!"

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by saab95:


What in hell are you talking about? Our military is stronger than it ever was.

No, that's not really true. The Army is 8 divisions smaller than it was during the first Gulf War. That's a reduction of almost 50%. The other services are similarly reduced. The armed forces were reduced at the end of the Cold War (by both parties, lest this become partisan), but it was obvious to many that they were reduced too much. The strains were showing even during the Clinton Bosnia and Kosovo operations. We need to add at least two active duty divisions, imho.

Besides, you are forgetting the World War II military.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by saab95:
... Middle income taxpayers can't catch a break with these clowns.

What the hell are you talking about? If you pay income taxes, Bush has given you a tax cut.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by vmarks:
*embarrassed* -

However, the SOU address doesn't have to be it's regularly scheduled form to comply with the Constitution. It could be any old time the President feels like showing up during session.

That's true; the fact that they make a big production of it is more tradition than anything else, and there are traditions associated with it (for example, the President is always considered to be an uninvited guest, no matter the political parties involved). But the basic concept of the speech is still a duty, not a tradition.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Are you including the numbers for reinstating a horribly depleted military? That's a very misleading statement.

from www.andrewsullivan.com (Sullivan is a prominent Republican commentator)

If you take defense and entitlement spending out of the picture altogether (and they have, of course, gone through the roof), Bush and the Republican Congress have upped domestic spending by a whopping 21 percent in three years. That compares with an actual decrease in such spending of 0.7 percent in the first three years of Bill Clinton. Spending on education is up 61 percent; on energy 22 percent; on health and human services 22 percent; on the Labor Department a massive 56 percent. There really is no spinning of this. Bill Clinton was a fiscal conservative. George W. Bush is a fiscal liberal of a kind we haven't seen since LBJ. Maybe the Democrats would be worse. But nationally, the GOP is outspending Democrats wherever they get the chance._ A USA Today study found that GOP-controlled state legislatures increased spending an average of 6.54 percent a year from 1997 to 2002, compared with 6.17 percent for legislatures run by Democrats. Fiscal conservatives really have no place to go any more. But if you had to pick, you'd have to support the Democrats.

On Bush's watch, the White House says non-military, non-homeland security discretionary spending has fallen from 15 percent to as low as 3 percent. But the conservative Heritage Foundation disputed those estimates calculating that discretionary outlays rose 13 percent in 2002, 12 percent in 2003 and will rise 10 percent in 2004.

The bottom line is truly shocking. Passage of the omnibus bill would raise total discretionary spending to more than $900 billion in 2004. By contrast, the eight Clinton-era budgets produced discretionary spending growth from $541 billion 1994 to $649 billion in 2001. Nor can recent increases be blamed on the war. At 18.6%, the increase in non-defense discretionary spending under the 107th Congress (2002-2003) is far and away the biggest in decades. In 2003, total federal spending topped an inflation-adjusted $20,000 per household for the first time since World War II.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by zigzag:
from www.andrewsullivan.com There really is no spinning of this. Bill Clinton was a fiscal conservative. George W. Bush is a fiscal liberal of a kind we haven't seen since LBJ. Maybe the Democrats would be worse. But nationally, the GOP is outspending Democrats wherever they get the chance._ A USA Today study found that GOP-controlled state legislatures increased spending an average of 6.54 percent a year from 1997 to 2002, compared with 6.17 percent for legislatures run by Democrats. Fiscal conservatives really have no place to go any more. But if you had to pick, you'd have to support the Democrats

Just goes to show how principles go out the window once your side holds the reins of power. Makes me wonder if the GOP's long-standing fiscal prudence was never more than simple obstructionism against Democratic domination of Congress.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
Just goes to show how principles go out the window once your side holds the reins of power. Makes me wonder if the GOP's long-standing fiscal prudence was never more than simple obstructionism against Democratic domination of Congress.

apparently so, since whenever republicans hold the reigns spending goes through the roof. It's all lip service and spin to wheedle votes out of the easily controlled.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
Just goes to show how principles go out the window once your side holds the reins of power. Makes me wonder if the GOP's long-standing fiscal prudence was never more than simple obstructionism against Democratic domination of Congress.

It's true that ther really is no place for someone who wants fiscal conservatism. The War on Terror being one excuse to spend money, but the Bush Administration has seen fit to spend money on many other things that have nothing to do with that.

I think it's all just a big joke and a race to see which party can give away the most stuff to the gullible people who don't understand that taxes pay for all of this. I guess the real difference is that Democrats raise taxes and pay for things, Republicans build deficits.

Problem being - there is no choice for those of us who want smaller spending. And I think the reason for that is that it is SO easy to get elected saying "Free health care! Free this! Free that!" People don't think about who has to pay for it.

Democracy only works until 51% of the people realize they can vote their way into the wallets of the other 49%.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
apparently so, since whenever republicans hold the reigns spending goes through the roof. It's all lip service and spin to wheedle votes out of the easily controlled.

Of course, Democrat voters are not "easily controlled" right, Lerk?



Lerk Logic:

Agree with me = brilliant person who thinks for themselves

Disagree with me = damn lemming "easily controlled" idiot monkey

How about the possibility that thinking people can disagree on things? I don't think you are an idiot because you are way off to the left. I just think you have different experience and ideas.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Of course, Democrat voters are not "easily controlled" right, Lerk?



Lerk Logic:

Agree with me = brilliant person who thinks for themselves

Disagree with me = damn lemming "easily controlled" idiot monkey

How about the possibility that thinking people can disagree on things? I don't think you are an idiot because you are way off to the left. I just think you have different experience and ideas.

put your knee jerk back in its pocket. Context is everything....the point I was responding to was why those conservatives who are for fiscal conservativism support those who say they are but act in 180 degree opposition to that claim.
For those who fit that criteria, they are obviously easily controlled by rhetoric and lies, since actions are contrary to the rhetoric. That means they are dazzled by the rhetoric and ignore the reality.
Surely you're not one of those people, right? Surely you can discern when you're being lied to by republicans.

[Nonsuch]

Thanks for the reply, david. There are indeed things we can all agree on.

[The Mick]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
I think it's all just a big joke and a race to see which party can give away the most stuff to the gullible people who don't understand that taxes pay for all of this. I guess the real difference is that Democrats raise taxes and pay for things, Republicans build deficits.

Problem being - there is no choice for those of us who want smaller spending. And I think the reason for that is that it is SO easy to get elected saying "Free health care! Free this! Free that!" People don't think about who has to pay for it.

Let's all be like Montgomery Brewster and vote for "None of the Above"!