State of the Union reactions »
Posted By STONERS 8 months, 2 weeks ago in NewsSome quotes about President Bush's final State of the Union address Monday.
Read Full Story at news.yahoo.com »
Submitted By:
STONERS
I've started a ""STONERS Daily News Group"" Please stop by and have a look and join if you like it.. All welcome!!! ;~]
Add your ...
Also submitted:
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 310
-
0%
rimbaud8 months, 2 weeks ago
It's all just talk, and more of the same. No new taxes but fund programs with additional billions...
Reply-
0%
UnusualSuspect8 months, 2 weeks ago
yawn..............
Same mumbo gumbo...nothing new, but what did we really expect? Can't wait until Jan 2009...
Reply-
0%
DanmLiberals8 months, 2 weeks ago
You can't wait? Well hate to tell you but nothing is going to change. Just higher taxes if the Libs win.. What are they going to do, just leave Iraq? haha... thats a good one. We have the biggest base in the world in Iraq. YOu think the next president will stop wiretapping and then have to be impeached for not protecting our national security after a bomb goes off.
You think the Libs. are so much different than Bush but they aren't and that is why they are fighting each other now. The woman of change is changing to an evil person. I have never heard so many personal attacks as Clinton and Obama throw at each other. At least Bush knows who the real enemy is while Hillary creates her own axis of evil inside her own party.
Does anyone see OSama,ooops, Obama doing anything about illegal Immigrants. I know Bush put a law saying that we should punish employees only to have the lib court shut it down. I know Bush tried to privatize social security and have it invested only to have the lib
Reply-
0%
crespi8 months, 2 weeks ago
Torture. Illegal spying on American citizens. Wars of attrition and greed. Rewarding our veterans with horrors like Walter Reed. Suspension of habeus corpus. A gigantic, increasing national debt. Hatred by the rest of the world.
Economic malfeasance that protects the super wealthy at the expense of the average citizen. Lying hate pundits.
The Neocon legacy.
And don't say ANYTHING about taxes since that's how your war is being funded.
Reply-
0%
DanmLiberals8 months, 2 weeks ago
Torture of Terrorist? OMG dont do that to those sweet people laying IED's to kill American soldiers. Let's give them donuts and tee like you Libs. want to.
Name One person who was illegally spied on and prosecuted? Name One. Now tell me how many terrorist actions we have had in America since we started Wire tapping? 0 zero Cero.
War of attrition that all you ****** libs voted for in congress so take that off you list and stop hiding from your actions. Clinton, kerry, all those Lib idiots areed Saddam needed to be taken out. What would Obama do about Hussein? Send him a letter and tell him how mad he is? HAHAHA
The veteran thing is 50/50 for me. I have two veterans living in my condo and they are fine. Both have had two duty's in Iraq and they love this country more than any of you.
Who the ****** cares what the rest of the world thinks? We have Americans around the world helping in Africa, South America, Middle east but we dont get credit for that do we?
Reply-
0%
PapaWolf8 months, 2 weeks ago
>>Torture of Terrorist? OMG dont do that to those sweet people laying IED's to kill American soldiers
If you'd been paying attention all these years, it's been torture of EVERYONE in their custody.
To date, hundreds have been tortured. Only 1 has been convicted, or even TRIED, on terrorism charges. The rest have been let go or tried on lesser charges.
Also, many innocents have been tortured. 1 example is Mahir Arar. There are other examples, but you won't pay attention anyway.
And if you can't see that torturing only increases the hatred of the US and breeds more terrorists, then you are beyond reasoning with.
Reply-
0%
StarLord8 months, 2 weeks ago
REgarding the "convicted" terrorist (Hicks) - he 'confessed' after five YEARS in Gitmo, and then got a sentence of only 10 months imprisonment - but he was banned from speaking to the media.
After 5 years in that "Hell on Earth", you'd be willing to confess to trying to murder the President of the US, if it meant getting out of there.
Reply-
0%
PapaWolf8 months, 2 weeks ago
I didn't mention the torture because, according to many of the idiots here, we don't torture. Just a bit of sleep deprivation (they go w/out sleep sometimes), a little isolation (everyone likes to be alone every once in a while), complete dependence on your captors, and on.
I know he was tortured. I posted a link to an interview with a psychologist or psychiatrist (can't remember which) who spent MANY hours w/him. It was on demomocracynow.org, if you're interested in reading it.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
tkyrchncs8 months, 2 weeks ago
There is a difference betwen whining and legitimate outrage. I am 53, and I have been angered by our presidents before, but I cannot recall even once wishing any of the others were in jail, or in Tahiti, or on the Moon, or anywhere at all except in office, and that's what I think of our current administration. They make it difficult to hold up our heads in our own country and impossible to outside it. Bush fails us on all issues, domestic and foreign. When the Fundies say that God has cursed America, they are right, and not because of Katrina or 9/11, but because of Bush, Cheney, and the appointees.
Reply-
0%
protoham8 months, 2 weeks ago
If you are 53 you should remember John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson pulling kids right out of high school, sending them to Vietnam to kill or be killed. At the rate of 50,000 killed every year, and thousands wounded on top of that. And you complain about the president and Congress sending volunteers to Iraq and Afghanistan to back down and eliminate a tyrant.
You have forgotten how bad the good old days were.
Reply-
0%
bigG8 months, 2 weeks ago
"John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson pulling kids right out of high school, sending them to Vietnam to kill or be killed. At the rate of 50,000 killed every year, and thousands wounded on top of that."
Wrong pal. There were a total of 58,209 U.S. soldiers killed from 1959 until 1975 in the Viet Nam conflict. Their names are on a wall in Washington D.C.
Another 300,000 plus were wounded, with less than 2,000 MIA.
Where do you get your facts and figures?
By the way, Nixon was part and party to that as he continued the draft until 1973.
Reply-
0%
protoham8 months, 2 weeks ago
I guess that number stuck in my head.
* 58, 169 Americans killed (11, 465 were teenagers).
* 304,000 Americans wounded.
* 444, 000 North Vietnamese killed.
* 220, 557 South Vietnamese (this is not precise as the Vietnamese took away their dead.
* 587, 00 civilians killed.
* 2, 590, 000 Americans served
* 59, 520 Australians served
* 6,72,084 ton of bombs dropped (3x the amount of the WW1 and WW2 combined)
* 3,750 fixed wing aircraft and 4,865 helicopters were lost.
* Australia lost 2 fixed wing aircraft and 10 helicopters
* 3,500,000 acres of Vietnam were sprayed with defoliant, the effect lasts more than 100 years.
* Agent orange coursed cancer in the people affected and mutations in the third generation.
And to think it was Richard Nixon who ended that war. I would think the person to end that war would be considered a hero among the liberals. But as we all know Liberals are funny beings.
Reply-
0%
bigG8 months, 2 weeks ago
Richard Nixon didn't end the war. The American people did. It was an extremely unpopular war.
(Some politicians do pay attention to polls.)
By the way, one of the true conservative tenets is not to get involved in foreign conflicts, and conservatism in general is in favor of isolationism.
I am still not sure how that one got twisted around.
Reply -
0%
saintetienne8 months, 2 weeks ago
Thanks, protoham, for all the figures, and the excellent points, points which Libs always seem to conveniently FORGET.
It's not that I hate Liberals.... I do... but that isn't the point. It's just that they are so COLLOSSALLY misguided, aimlessly angry about EVERYTHING, then do NOTHING about it anyway, because ultimately, they're lazy, self-indulgent Baby Boomers, coddled since infancy by their witless parents, all of whom were instructed by Benjamin Spock's idiot book, "Baby and Child Care" to give in to their every whim and whine.
Result?
An entire generation of whining, complaining cry-babies who feel that they are owed something by society, by the government, and, worst of all, by the rest of us TAXPAYERS.
GOD, I can't wait for this sniveling, sanctimonious, self-indulgent, pretentiously-intellectual generation to DIE OUT. I've never been so happy to be a GEN-Xer.
Reply-
0%
splitrch8 months, 2 weeks ago
"GOD, I can't wait for this sniveling, sanctimonious, self-indulgent, pretentiously-intellectual generation to DIE OUT. I've never been so happy to be a GEN-Xer."
I'm sure your parents would be happy to know you want them to die. Very Christian of you I'm sure. Now crawl back under your rock and hang out with the other ignorant by choice idiots you prefer.
Reply -
baddad59Comment removed: User banned.
-
0%
ConquerorWyrm8 months, 2 weeks ago
My god! Talk about overdoing it on the stupid stereotypes! You just described Rush Limbaugh though...
Oh, and coming from an Gen-Xer (born the day St. Peppers was released), how the hell did you get so screwed up? I mean, come on...your assesments on the Boomers I'll agree with in principle...our generation pretty much got over shadowed...but to at that point turn your charactorization of Boomers and mix it with a generic term of 'Liberal'...? What?
Uh, by the way, Dumbya is a baby boomer. Limbaugh is a baby boomer. Rove is a boomer... You went simple and stupid there on your stereotypes...nothing more.
Reply -
0%
bluetexasvalley8 months, 2 weeks ago
Please include me in that group. I was born in 1943. :)
Reply -
0%
IcCaRus8 months, 2 weeks ago
how funny... you Gen X punks are the most coddled, spoiled, over indulged, self absorbed, uninformed, "everybody gets a trophy because we dont want to hurt little saints feewings", weak little pukes our country has ever produced.
as boomers we must take responsibility for giving you time outs instead of kicking your snotty little @sses.
sorry for the pre-school, braces, tv & computer in your room, the PS2 and XBox that cost more than every toy we ever owned combined. we apologize for soccer, karate lessons and gymnastics, not making you work so you could concentrate on school (ya sure screwed us there), the car we gave you, the insurance we paid for, and the cell phone.
personally, that was not my parenting style, but sadly, it was for way too many Boomers, and it led to Gen Xers like you.
Reply
-
-
0%
PapaWolf8 months, 2 weeks ago
>>And to think it was Richard Nixon who ended that war. I would think the person to end that war would be considered a hero among the liberals. But as we all know Liberals are funny beings
It's not that he ended the war. It's HOW he ended it.
And there was a lot more wrong w/Nixon than his ending our involvement with Viet Nam could ever ameliorate.
Reply-
0%
Endoscopy8 months, 2 weeks ago
The worst part of the war started after the US pulled out. Kennedy killed the bill to support money for weapons and ammunition for South Viet Nam. At that point the killing really began. We stood by as millions were killed and hundreds of thousands ended up in concentration camps. What a glorious way to leave. And the liberals want to do it again. They can't learn from history.
Nixon was no worse than Clinton. At least the Republicans told him to resign and he did. Democrats protected Clinton from something far worse than Nixon ever did. Nixon might have been part of a cover up about the Watergate break ins. Clinton absolutely lied under oath and conspired to lie under oath. He looked the American people in the eye and flat out lied about what he did. And you have the gall to call Bush a liar.
Reply-
0%
MonkeyBiz8 months, 2 weeks ago
"The worst part of the war started after the US pulled out."
That's a flat out lie.
There were thousands sent to "re-education" camps, but the killing in South Vietnam basically stopped after April 1975. Where in hades do you get "millions were killed?"
BTW - Both Nixon and Bush straight out lied to the American people waaay more than one lie about a BJ.
I suppose to you right wing nuts, a BJ is far worse than using CIA thugs to plant illegal wiretaps. And of course lying about a BJ is far worse than lying to get thousands of American soldiers killed.
Reply-
0%
PapaWolf8 months, 2 weeks ago
>>I suppose to you right wing nuts, a BJ is far worse than using CIA thugs to plant illegal wiretaps. And of course lying about a BJ is far worse than lying to get thousands of American soldiers killed.
And it's MUCH worse than the illegal bombings of Cambodia, too.
Reply
-
-
0%
ConquerorWyrm8 months, 2 weeks ago
"Democrats protected Clinton from something far worse than Nixon ever did."
Wow! Where did you pick up your morals? Let's see, Nixon authorized and help conceal THEFT. Clinton lied about sex.
Tell me one adult human EVER who has not lied about sex. Also, to get to the point where lying about sex was needed, one must put the FULL blame of that on the Republican witch-hunters who were trying to find something, anything to bring Clinton down at the expense of this nation. Had the Republicans had ANY MORALS, they would never had pursued that. It was NOT in the public interest. It was only in the interest of a pack of perverts, that's all. Place the blame where it belongs, the Repervertian Party.
And then let's take a look at the way the Dems exploited Pappy Bush's infidelity. THEY DIDN'T!
But of course, Republicans have no morals at all.
Reply -
0%
sinophil498 months, 2 weeks ago
endo - "The worst part of the war started after the US pulled out."
Historians now recognize that the killing worsened BECAUSE the US intervened in what should have been just a civil war. Back when the French ruled Vietnam, there was an increasingly nationalistic movement in Vietnam led by Ho Chi Minh. The French suffered a humiliating loss at Dien Bien Phu. An international agreement divided the country in half to allow the French safety while they withdrew and gave Vietnam its independence. The north was headed by Ho; the south by Ngo Dinh Diem
There was supposed to be a national election after to decide the president of a consolidated Vietnam. Ngo decided he enjoyed power too much and reneged on the election. He declared himself an anti-communist to win US support. In reality, Ho was primarily a nationalist, while Ngo was a a 2-bit despot. The US should have forced Ngo to proceed with the elections and consolidated the country.
That would have unified the ...
Reply-
0%
sinophil498 months, 2 weeks ago
country, created peace in the region, and won the US a new ally. Clearly Ho Chi Minh would have won, since he was revered at that time as a hero.
But, of course, in a knee-jerk reaction to the word "anti-communist," the US backed Ngo. The rest is history.
That was the genesis of the Vietnam War and its sorry aftermath.
The US response was simply a product of the times, the phobia about Communism. There clearly was no thought about long-term strategic planning in increasing the influence of the US and decreasing the attrractiveness of Communism.
Because of the war and the antagonism it created, North Vietnam looked on South Vietnam as its enemy, instead of its brethren.
That, endo my friend, is why the US made the entire situation worse and created the environment where the subsequent massacre resulted.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
saintetienne8 months, 2 weeks ago
"if he hadn't ended the war there would have been a lot more bloodshed on our streets than what there was."
So essentially what the Libs were saying was, "end this war or we'll KILL people!"
Brilliant. Another loony Liberal solution. And further proof of the kicking, screaming, gimme-my-way liberal Baby Boomer generation - - a generation that's done more harm to this nation (the '60's, hippies, drug use, welfare drains, rampant irresponsibility) than any group of people in its history. Now they're getting old and gray and STILL whining - - whining about rights for Arab terrorists, the size of their Social Security checks and "why can't the rich be taxed more?".
Reply-
0%
jordan118 months, 2 weeks ago
So essentially what the Libs were saying was, "end this war or we'll KILL people!">>>>>
Nope. Liberals were being killed in the streets, by their government. Not the other way around. But still, they had the courage to keep protesting. And those in power would have kept murdering them. THAT is what is meant by the killing in the streets would have been worse if the war hadn't ended. Now get yourself an education on the damn subject.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
quackpot8 months, 2 weeks ago
Nixon and Kissenger DID NOT END the war. they prolonged it for as long as possible.
These two EVIL EVIL EVIL people who were thrown out of the White House have NO credit for ending a war that was ended by the LOUD voice of the American public.
While these bozos spent over a year putzing about the shape of the negotiating table, thousands died so as to enrich a small handful of arms dealers.
Reply -
0%
ADAGUY8 months, 2 weeks ago
While you're doing all this bitching, are you aware that we were put there by IKE?
Reply -
0%
sinophil498 months, 2 weeks ago
Proto - Nixon did not end anything. The US lost. North Vietnam won. Nixon ordered the withdrawal. Remember those memorable photos of US helicopters landing on the embassy rooftop and the Vietnamese employees desperately climbing on board?
Vietnam was also a war started on very dubious claims of NV torpedo boats attacking US warships in the Gulf of Tonkin.
Reply -
0%
StarLord8 months, 2 weeks ago
I guess that to you Yanks, the list of Australians KIA is irrelevant.
I'll remember that the NEXT time you gutless lot ask us to help you fight another of your wars...
Reply
-
-
0%
splitrch8 months, 2 weeks ago
In 1959 Eisenhower was President. I wonder how he would have proceeded had he been President during the 60's? Just a whimsical question seeing as how Ike warned us about the Military Industrial Complex.
Reply -
-
-
-
0%
Endoscopy8 months, 2 weeks ago
Rewriting history again. After General Abrams replaced General Westmoreland he changed the strategy and we were winning. Later the Generals of North Viet Nam said they had lost and could not carry the fight on. They lost big time the Tet Offensive but the media here made it sound like we had lost. They put too much into it so their strength was sapped. Very much paralleling what is happening in Iraq. At least now there is coverage that we are winning.
We were shown the last helicopter out of Viet Nam and then the killings began in earnest. Liberals never want to hear about that part. Kennedy allowed that to happen.
Reply-
0%
sinophil498 months, 2 weeks ago
endo - You are the one revising history. US forces and the public were increasingly demoralized by the controversial war. Many of the allies were withdrawing their forces. There was a big recession due to the oil crisis. Nixon and Kissinger pushed the Paris Peace Accord in preparation for winding down the war.
Meanwhile, SV prez Nguyen Van Thieu proved to be extremely corrupt and thoroughly incompetent. His govt was economically hard hit by the oil crisis. The SV forces were weak, confused, and demoralized. NV took advantage of the situation by violating the Peace Accord and attacking. Nixon was so demoralized as well and did not support the SV forces as before. The SV forces rapidly fell in sequential battles. Thieu fled to Taiwan w/ 2 planeloads of his belongings and loot. Vice-prez Nguyen Cao Ky fled to LA.
NIXON allowed that to happen. Kennedy was assassinated back in 1963.
I know. I grew up in the Philippines and we had a much more intimate view of the war than here.
Reply -
0%
MonkeyBiz8 months, 2 weeks ago
You are full of it. There was no victory in sight for us there. We won every major battle, including TET '68, but it is a military FACT that an occupying force cannot win a conflict against an insurgency without the willing cooperation of the local populace. Notice the turn around in Anbar province in Iraq.
"Later the Generals of North Viet Nam said they had lost and could not carry the fight on."
That is another flat out lie. We even went into Cambodia to cut their supplies and disrupt the infiltration of the South. Hardly slowed them down.
I sure would be interested to know about this "change of stategy" that Abrams implemented. Funny that the whole time I was over there, I never noticed it.
Reply -
lovermanComment removed: User banned.
-
-
-
0%
bruhaha8 months, 2 weeks ago
And Kennedy may have been looking to end US involvement in Vietnam before he was killed
Reply
-
-
-
0%
libsRfunny8 months, 2 weeks ago
"Torture. Illegal spying on American citizens. Wars of attrition and greed. Rewarding our veterans with horrors like Walter Reed. Suspension of habeus corpus. A gigantic, increasing national debt. Hatred by the rest of the world."
Uh, Crespi, Roosevelt hasn't been president since 1945.
Reply
-
-
0%
wtagg8 months, 2 weeks ago
"You think the Libs. are so much different than Bush but they aren't"
We agree. The current administration is not conservative and is supporting the largest pork program of all time - the Iraq debacle.
If you agree with your statement, are you supporting the administration's actions and policies?
Reply-
-
-
0%
splitrch8 months, 2 weeks ago
Tongue in light socket one time too many? Bush is now a Lib? Wow. Your thought processes are really twisted up.
Reply -
baddad59Comment removed: User banned.
-
0%
ecotourusa8 months, 2 weeks ago
if mccain gets it the agenda is on...
if hillary or obama gets it, the agenda will be covered. even if rudy gets it, the agenda, the north american union will go on as planned behind closed doors:
Did anyone happen to catch the pres when he said that we would be hosting the north american summit in New Orleans?
that's the north american union which we will not be invited to the summit. this is where our leaders of mexico, canada and usa will meet behind closed doors. we will have no vote or ability to make decisions. and then our leadera will introduce the amero to a neighborhood country near you. and we will accept illegals from other countries so that they can hire cheap labor and keep our job wages low.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
sinophil498 months, 2 weeks ago
If the minimum wage over the past 25 years increased at the same rate as the increase in compensation of the average corporate CEO, the minimum wage would now be about $23-25. I forget the exact number. Add in the tax cuts that Reagan and Bush II have given the ultra-rich, that becomes really serious money they are getting.
It really doesn't pay to be poor.
Reply
-
0%
AnteUp8 months, 2 weeks ago
DamnLiberals ~
Oh come on! At least Bush knows the real enemy?
Are you kidding? McCain is not my candidate but are
you forgetting what the Bush campaign did to McCain
during the 2004 campaign? His time as a POW made him mentally unstable? Mrs. McCain was addicted to drugs? John had a black love-child?
Democrats would have to be working double-time to ruin as many lives as Bush has with his slash & burn politics. There have always been dirty tricks and arm-twisting in politics and that has been practiced in a very bi-partisan manner but the Bush team set an all-time low from the day he entered
politics....and that's a fact.
Let me reference, "Bush's Brain" by Slater & Moore
or "Worse Than Watergate", by John Dean
Reply-
-
0%
IcCaRus8 months, 2 weeks ago
are you serious? should i list the 4000 US service people whos lives bush has.......
ended?
you people are ridiculous.... in one thread, cons say "stop bashing Bush, hes not running"
then, in the next thread, cons are up to their favorite sport, bill bashing.... do you NOT realize how ridiculous that makes you all look?
you tell us not to bash the CURRENT occupant of the white house, then you turn around and bash an ex Pres who hasnt been in the white house since 2001.....
we are all really, really laughing at you....
all the time
really, we are
Reply
-
-
-
baddad59Comment removed: User banned.
-
0%
BuffaloJ8 months, 2 weeks ago
Privatizing Social Security would have been (another) huge mistake! Social Security(and many other services) CANNOT be in the private sector. The private sector is about making profit, not helping people. Social Security is about helping people. Putting SS in the hands of corporations would have allowed more money to be funneled to those companies in the form of profit and less money to those who need it.
Reply-
baddad59Comment removed: User banned.
-
0%
amazed8 months, 2 weeks ago
Maybe I'm just being obtuse here, but, if Social Security is supposed to help me with my retirement and the private sector is all about profit, how would putting my money in the private sector where it would be making a profit not be helping me? (and everyone else getting nailed for 12.3% of their pay)
Reply-
-
0%
BuffaloJ8 months, 2 weeks ago
You also have to wonder where the money would come from. It's not like if the private sector had control of SS that we would stop paying or it would become free. I would think we would still pay tax dollars for SS, it would just be managed by a private corporation. Without government regulation. We come out with the short end of the stick in those situations...
Reply
-
-
0%
AnteUp8 months, 2 weeks ago
amazed ~
Well, now I'm amazed! Would you like to sit in front of
your TV and watch the wild ride the stock market has been
experiencing lately (and for months if not years to come)
and know that your Social Security funds would be on the
trip?
The key word is SECURITY .......you and millions of others would have NONE! The ONLY secure thing would be the commission to the investment service. If the market goes bad, you have
nothing to count on - NO safety net at all.
Reply -
0%
cosmogenium8 months, 2 weeks ago
Have you been making a profit in the stock market recently? Don't forget to factor in inflation and the dropping value of the dollar, by the way.
The people who make the profit in the private sector investment business are the brokerage firms, where the fees keep coming in whether the market goes up or down. What are people supposed to do when the market crashes and their nest eggs go away? In case you've forgotten (or never learned in the first place), that's why Social Security was created in the first place.
Reply -
0%
IcCaRus8 months, 2 weeks ago
tell me anything where de-regulation and/or privatizatiion ever helped any1 BUT corporate america. unchecked and unregulated, business screws the worker and comsumer every time, all in the name of profits.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
Blackacereturn8 months, 2 weeks ago
DamLiberals, I Remember and i think you do too a balance budget. A surplus of 500 billion, an economy that we all had a stake in.
To me you just make noises because you can, the results of this administration is not one to hang your hat on. In a word bad, that's what they have been from start to finish.
You say nothing will change because you are hoping you will convince yourself that you were correct in voting for these idiots. I will bet you anything the DEMS will be better. How can you be worse than this? you would have to be down right mentally inept to do worse than this.
My 10 year old could do better, why he would listen!
Reply-
0%
UnusualSuspect8 months, 2 weeks ago
DamnLiberals...
You, like some others, seem to make fun of Obama's last name...trying to be cute by substituting an "s" in place of the "b".
Let's say in 15-20 years, a Republican with the first name of Adolph becomes a contender for the White House. Thank you'll make fun of his name, even if you align with him perfectly, issues-wise?
Reply -
0%
disraeli8 months, 2 weeks ago
DanmLiberals
Oh how I hate the line that goes "if the liberals (aka Democrats) win we will get higher taxes".
Under the fiscally prudent hand of Mr. Bush's administration the annual budget went from a surplus of 236 billion to an unbroken series of deficit budgets. The national debt went from 5.6 trillion to 9.2 trillion and counting.
All praise to Mr Bush for his tax cuts (whether those cuts helped only the rich or predominantly the rich is a separate debate), of course you have to ignore the fact that his administration spend way more money than it brought in and that sooner or later the debt collectors will come knocking.
When that day comes either taxes will go up or spending will go down massively or Willie Nelson will be doing a benefit while the auctioneer accepts bids on lot number 403, a fully equipped airborne division.
Regardless of who gets elected they couldn't do much worse than Mr. Bush.
Reply -
0%
MRCOFFEECAKE8 months, 2 weeks ago
Dusted off those old empty scare tactics did ya??
What happened, did your flip flopper speech get tired for even you??
Can you bring ANY actual information to the table, or can we just expect more of the same??
Don't bother to answer..We already know how the
American Moronic lobby presents themselves..
Just keep asking Rush and Sean for your marching orders..
oh, that's right..one of them supports Romney (and hates Huckabee and McCain)and the other Giuliani ..whatever will you do??
We know..You'll just vote against McCain..
Hmm..but what is the most effective way to do that, and whatever will you do if he gets nominated???
Reply
-
-
0%
engineer8 months, 2 weeks ago
-
0%
PapaWolf8 months, 2 weeks ago
>>I'm simply saying, if we get a Dem president, they will raise taxes on us in countless ways. The economy will die.
Can't you see that's what Bush's tax "CUTS" have gotten us? The only ones to see a real "cut" were the wealthiest 1% and the biggest corps, mostly the oil & energy sector - W's buddies.
All those tax cuts meant lower federal moneys to state & local gov'ts, which meant higher state & local taxes, and/or higher prices for just about everything. Not to mention cuts in services formerly available from the gov't that now costs money or more money than it used to.
Reply-
-
0%
flyonthewallzz8 months, 2 weeks ago
"The average worker in China makes about $1000 US dollars per year."
Yet somehow they are able to nurture their family.
If you where to make a pie chart of your Wallmart flat screen I would hazard to guess that the labor cost per unit would be a fatter wedge.
How long is the "cool stuff" going to last?
Singer sewing machine got smart and traded their indestructible machines for ones that offered fancy chain stitching.
They smashed the returned machines.
The concept of Planned obsolescence only speaks to those that lack the ability to come up with an original idea.
Reply
-
-
0%
GWHayduke8 months, 2 weeks ago
Thats right, keep on spending. Dont save a penny. Hell, get yourself TWO flat screens.
Now THATS sound fiscal policy brought to you by the Republican party!
McCain / Romney going to continue right along with that brilliant economic insight too?
Reply -
0%
-
-
-
-
