i never did understand how the ruling junta sold all that compassionate conservative crap (though hats off to their marketing guys). compassionate conservative? in the current environment, i'd settle for a civil conservative!

[ February 26, 2003, 05:57 PM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

Transforming? Remember, I had to put up with him while he was governor of PA. He's always been a buffoon...though he didn't institute any snazzy color-code charts while he was governor!

:confused: Are you nuts! This happened after he was elected- what does this have to do with voting for McCain? We are very fortunate the Supreme Court put him in office or we would have had a real disaster on our hands that would make all of this look like Disney Land.

Unfortunately, good bad or indifferent, we need to support Bush and stick together as a country. Bin Laden is probably already gone, so I wouldn't worry about priority #1. What we need now is to be united and make sure we keep anything else from being blown up on our soil or any more lives lost at home. We need to "snuff" these bastards out now in the Mideast and we are very lucky to have such a strong friend in Blair and Great Britain. Look how lame our so called friends to the north and south of the US are- all they do is mooch. :mad:

Joshua

[ February 26, 2003, 05:57 PM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

Oh, puh-leeeeze. And what disaster would that be? A better economy? A balanced budget? Fairer tax cuts? A coherent foreign policy? What?

Unfortunately I think this is a commonly held belief. Since "Bush not being elected" and "someone else being worst" are both hypothetical situations one could argue them endlessly.

But having the Supreme Court, an appointed body, short-circuit a legal election process and "install" a president is anti-democratic. I don't think there is much arguement about that.

I believe the Court is a necessary, even critical part of our tripartite system, but they are too many layers away form the electoral process to make that type of decision about one of the other two branches. The "lack of time will harm the nation" arguement was IMO illegitimate and is unfortunately the same one being used by the current administration to wage an offensive war using a "Department of Defense".

Quite frankly, I would be happier with a leader who actually witnessed and experienced combat, even as a journalist (which I believe was Gore's role in Viet Nam) rather than someone who defended the skies of Alamaba against the Viet Cong. I have no doubt that any American President would have taken the actions that Bush did directly after 9/11 - the problem was clear and so was the response.

Since then, though, the administration, whatever the validity of their arguments against Hussein, have managed to squander an amazing amount of good will in the entire world. To have America go from having the respect and sympathy of all but a handful of fanatic states to being considered a reckless bully by many of those countries that stood by us in less than a year and a half is a breathtaking failure of diplomacy. Bush, Sr. handled a similar situation in a much better way.

Actually, Bush wasn't even defending those skies for long; he went missing for a good while, though as with everything regarding this man, the media refuse to look into it. They could parse through every account of Clinton's behavior at Oxford, and they couldn't get enough of mocking Gore's Vietnam service, but with Bush, it was hands off.

I can't see Gore, a known micromanager, as being any worse than Bush at this point. I do think the economy would be better, we wouldn't have such massive deficits, and we'd be able to fund a war against whomever. But we probably wouldn't be gearing up against Saddam. We'd be trying to nation-build in Afghanistan (which is sorely needed), and we'd be a bit further along towards a peace deal in the Middle East.

Finally, as someone noted yesterday, Clinton three times circumvented the U.N., in Bosnia, in the 1998 strikes against Iraq, and in Haiti. Bush probably would have done this too, except that he realizes the cost of this war--even under the rosiest projections--would require that we not try to fund it completely by ourselves, especially given his financial goals and track record, which simply don't leave enough money for the proper prosecution of a war of this magnitude.

The U.S. could send the troops, conquer Iraq, etc., but we would still need the funds of RICH nations, like France and Germany, along with our Arab client states, and the military assistance of Britain, to pull this off. Bulgaria, etc., can hop on board all they want, but they're basically paupers.

[ February 26, 2003, 10:07 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

The disaster would be a worst economy, no tax cuts, deeper defecits, and a wimpy foreign policy. Let's face it, to endure the times we are in now and to protect our freedom- there will be sacrifices at home. You can't tell me that to ensure our freedom Gore would have us in Disney Land at home.

Josh

[ February 26, 2003, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

When US homeland is under attack or a threat of attack the President is "secured" and intentionally "not seen". This makes good sense- why make him target practice by flaunting him in public.

We are fortunate the Administration and FAA grounded all planes as quickly as they did and the 4th plane went down in PA. The White House was the next target- whether Bush, Gore or Clinton- they needed to "disappear" for their own safety.

Josh

He was actually elected by the "electoral college" which is how it has been done for years- not popular vote. If it had not been for Floridian's not being able to conduct accurate polling, he would have been selected by the "college" on election night- close for sure, but still elected.

Josh

Josh you may want to look at the link provided by Fantomas before debating his point. The link discusses the validity of Bush serving in the National Guard in 1972, not his whereabouts on 9/11.

[ February 26, 2003, 10:49 AM: Message edited by: George_vikingfan ]

Before anyone brings up the supreme court putting bush into office... ask yourself how many times they recounted the votes in FL, post supreme court decision? Wasnt that the big talk of the dems, we'll get to the bottom of this... guess what? he lost. The supreme court stepped in and stopped a big mess down there. Bush didnt want a re-count and gore only wanted democratic counties re-counted. There was no way that it was going to come out fair. Gore ran a horrible campaign and he lost...

Please no one say that ANY Administration did anything to bring peace to the middle east, that is clearly not going to happen. Those arabs nations would never be happy until every person from Israel was dead.

The govt has been working in a deficit forever folks. Who would not expect a deficit in a recession? Does anyone wish to pay more taxes? I know that i don't. WE are all over taxed the way it is. So, what is left? Is it time to cut some of the social programs? No, people cry...

Bush, Gore, Clinton all grew up within the same time period. During their younger years, wouldnt you expect all of them to be a bit crazy? I know i'm not alone in having quite a few nights of drinking in college. That is called growing up. The difference is that bush never lied about it, he just didnt talk about it cause nothing you did in college has a baring on what you do now (parties).. unless you still get drunk every night. Bush didnt say, yeah i took a swig but spit it out... unlike others who would just lie to you. We all know that Clinton had quite the track record of lies to the public.

I could care less about what he did in 1972 or how the Texas Rangers did when he was their owner.

What concerns me now is that we have a leader and Admin. team that is going to keep this country safe. Look at Clinton, all everybody wanted was for the good times to keep rolling- despite all of his baggage.

This is not a good time for us and we need to stand behind this President. If you don't like him, then vote him out in two years. I don't think anybody else would do any better and Gore sure doesn't want to be President now in this environment and this statement is made by his not wanting to run against Bush. Quite Frankly, I don't blame him for not wanting to run at this time and against this President. Even if Bush is one term- let's get the job done once and for all in the Mideast.

Josh

[ February 26, 2003, 11:10 AM: Message edited by: Josh ]

If the ballots showed that he won that would be all the more reason for his supporters to want the to allow the election process to proceed without interference from the courts isn't it?

Without facetiousness: correct me if I'm wrong; but the US Supreme Court essentially ruled that patience was harmful to the nation.

Any tally short of a state-wide recount, restaging the election or nullifying the Florida electoral votes would seem to be questionable. Did any of these happen?

That Al Gore did not pursue a state-wide recount should be immaterial IMO. The process itself is what failed.

The ballots did show that he won- what the court did was to stop the counting and recounting that seemed to be going on indeffinitely. Of course the other reason was that the more the recounting was done and redone, the more apt there would be manipulation and fraud which the Court wanted to prevent.

With Florida electoral votes won, the electoral college (not the Supreme Court) was able to move forward certifying Bush as President.

Josh

Tarkus, moderator here. Josh, you do not need to quote yourself. We're all educated people here, we know who Sportinlife was responding to. EVERYBODY needs to back off on the excessive use of quotes. 99% of the time they're not needed, we know what you're replying to. ONLY use quotes when the thead you're replying to is far up the page. Thank you.

[ February 26, 2003, 06:22 PM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

In the end, the votes were re-counted.

The court stepped in because the debate was not ending. The only fair way to recount votes was to do it via machine. They are neither repub or dem... It got to the point where the counters were trying to determine WHO the voter was trying to vote for. To me, it's a way worse thought of some blue hair in palm beach trying to decide who so and so was trying to punch a hole for, rather than having a group of the highest ranking judges say... "whats the fair and reasonable" way to decide this. The blame should be on Gore.. not the supreme court.

Since this has devolved into another argument on the Florida vote, I think it's necessary to point out that a majority of Florida voters certainly BELIEVED that they voted for Gore, as reflected in the exit polls & the early call of the state for Gore by Voter News Service. That call was retracted when it became apparent that the tallies were not matching what the polling data & demographic data indicated that they should be. Beyond the "butterfly ballot" fiasco in Palm Beach County, there were the scandalously higher rate of ballot spoilage in minority precincts & numerous complaints of voters being erroneously stricken from the rolls & of voter intimidation, such as stationing police cars outside of polling places & notices telling people that there would be a check for arrest warrants if they went to vote.

It is obvious that there was massive fraud, both on the front end & the back end, in order to deliver the state to Bush. Polls leading up to election day showed Gore with a small lead, & the exit polling data showed that a plurality voted for Gore. JEB Bush was under great pressure to deliver the state for his brother, & used every means at his disposal to make it happen.

The bottom line is that George W. Bush did not win even a plurality of the vote. Maybe god so loved us Americans that he decided to save us from ourselves.

Exactly right. Had the recounting and interpretation of votes continued, manipulation and fraud would have emerged. I commend the Court for stopping the foolishness and I am disappointed in Gore and his Camp for facilitating this mess. In the end, it is the electoral college not the popular votes, good bad or indifferent, that selects the President and Bush won the College.

Josh

I think we were saved! Lol.

Josh

Sorry but the butterfly ballot was approved by the people incharge of that voting district.. which are usually dems if its highly democratic. If you go into vote, it's your responsibility to know what you are doing.

As far as the police being there i dont know, but really if you dont have warrants against you or someone is wanting to find you for something you have done, what do you have to worry about??? The only people who would leave are the people who have done something wrong.

Personally i have a few friends who like to complain but yet when i asked them who they voted for, they say... "oh i dont vote"... whats sad is that 60% of america voting is considered GREAT.

If Bill Clinton's lack of military service, and his aborted attempt at getting out of the draft (abandoned when his lottery number came up ridiculously high) were legitimate concerns in 1992, then Mr. Bush's failure to appear and fulfill his National Guard duty during a war that killed more than 50,000 Americans is certainly relevant. Particularly because Mr. Bush is so adamant about sending troops into combat. His failure to fulfill that duty, and his refusal to clear up the matter subsequently, are both windows into his character.

As for the Florida vote tally - when the recount the media did was finally released the result was:

1. Count the votes the way the Republicans wanted - Bush wins

2. Count the votes the way the Democrats wanted - Gore wins

3. Count the votes across the state, according to the rules neither side wanted - Gore wins.

The result is known as a statistical tie - that is, the margin of votes determining the winner (always less than 1,000 as I remember) is statistically smaller than the inherent margin of error of the counting techniques. Thus, you cannot consider any outcome to be an accurate reflection of the actual voting (because of ballot damage, etc.). In this case the Constitution has a clear remedy - you go to the House of Representatives - the Supreme Court's involvement was to determine if Florida could certify their vote count and give the resulting electoral college victory to Bush. According to a strict reading of the Constitution, the Supreme Court should never have gotten involved. Florida should have declared itself unable to declare a winner, no man would have received the minimum number of votes in the college, and the House would have decided.

One should also note that, on the issue of Mr. Bush's performance (the original topic thread), his continued fight for a war in Iraq is having a devastating effect on the stock market, which loathes uncertainty. Without the potential for war, we likely would have a stronger recovery (if we even are in one). There are already reports of large consumer goods and other materials purchases declining, because people and firms are hesitant to make financial commitments at times of great uncertainty.

WRONG. During the Clinton administration the huge Reagan/Bush I budget deficits were wiped out and we actually had a SURPLUS. Now Bush II wiped out the surplus and put us back into deficit--possibly worse than any Reagan/Bush I deficit.

Unfortunately the calamity and dowturn of the stock market rests in recession, which was beginning at least six months prior to Bush entering office and the accounting scandals and corporate fraud that occurred under the lax Clinton/Gore years. Quite frankly, Clinton's embarassing personal conduct in office was not only a contribution but I believe encouraged CEOs to commit their own brand of misconduct.

Josh

How do you think we are paying to protect the Homeland? Don't you think there is a higher cost of doing business for our government considering events since 9/11- which Clinton/Gore did not have to contend with or pay for. Do you think we should have let the Taliban continue to support and hide Al Queda after 9/11- there was a cost of dealing with that. You bet the surplus is gone- it's sad we had to use it to protect our homeland and interests abroad and prevent another 9/11. Keep in mind Bush is not doing this all on his own- one man does not spend this kind of money- last I looked we had a democracy.

Josh

[ February 26, 2003, 01:17 PM: Message edited by: Josh ]

That's the result that should have prevailed. The problem with what actually happened is that the USA public was not a plaintiff in the court appeals and we were the ones who suffered.

I do not regret the results - a people always get the leadership they deserve IMO - but I do hope that we will learn from our mistake. Unfortunately election reform will likely be one of many more important issues subsumed by a war in Iraq.

What ON EARTH are you talking about??? I'm referring to his two-year absence from the TEXAS AND ALABAMA National Guard!

I'm not referring to 9/11.

Also, you may shill for Bush, but he has made the economy worse. With regard to the costs of homeland security, which you claim are causing the deficit, this is incorrect. Bush in fact has repeated underspent for homeland security, and did not even appropriate the money he claimed he would to help out local firefighters and police units! Congress had to add that money in.

As for business scandals, these have been going on for years. During Bush's father's term, let's not forget, there were many SPECTACULAR business scandals, including the widespread collapse of many savings and loans. Neil Bush, the son of Bush I and brother of pRez, actually was behind one of these, yet never served any time for fraud or theft, or even had to pay back most of the money! Clinton's first SEC chief, Arthur Levitt, repeatedly tried to strengthen the rules but was rebuffed; Bush's pick, Harvey Pitt, is a central figure behind the current scandals. And, don't forget, under Bush I, Bush II was screwing up and cheating at Harken; under Clinton, Cheney and Halliburton were cooking the books. Is Clinton's sexcapade to blame for Bush II's and Cheney's financial shenanigans?

THANK YOU, CPT_DOOM! We have a Constitutional process that should have taken place and precedence.

The House at the time of the election was controlled by Republicans. Bush would have been elected, but it would have been constitutional. Let me say this again: BUSH WOULD HAVE BEEN ELECTED.

Rather than allow that to occur, however, we had unconstitutional, extralegal chicanery occur, and so the man was illegally installed. Recent elections in Brazil, in Mexico, in Kenya, in the Dominican Republic, and in India, just to name five nations with histories of voter fraud, went off more smoothly and more legally than we managed in 2000. The Republican Party's disruptive behavior during the recount--flying people, INCLUDING A SITTING NY STATE JUDGE, down to intimidate the people performing the recount--was particularly heinous. Yet even with all of that, we still had a constitutional process that was utterly thrown away. And why? Because Scalia and company have contempt for American voters and our democratic process, and have said so repeatedly. Scalia has openly expressed disgust for the sort of political system we live in. He should retire from the court and allow a conservative who respects our system (like Alberto Gonzales, for example) to take his place.

That so many conservatives, who simply could not get enough of trying to find criminal activity by the Clintons, and even many liberals, have just accepted what occurred still appalls me. I sincerely hope and pray that in 2004, we will get this man out of office and return to operating under the kinds of democratic, electoral rules on which we lecture the rest of the world.

[ February 26, 2003, 06:01 PM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

Yes, the stock market downturn began in summer 2000, with the busting of the dot-com bubble (and I might add, right when Bush was nominated, and the country realized he might actually be President). However, the economy and the stock market appeared to be rebounding, even in the aftermath of 9/11, until the fraud of the Enrons of the world happened. With the continuing accounting scandals and the potential for war on Iraq upsetting the global economy as potential risks, neither our economy or the stock market will rebound until they are settled.

As for the "President Clinton made me do it" argument - hogwash! The executives who knowingly cooked the books and committed fraud, who are overwhelmingly conservative Republicans, need to take personal responsibility for their actions, just as Clinton should have (and has yet to really do so). Remember, Clinton may have lied about a personal matter (and should have resigned immediately upon revealing he did so - I said it in 1998 and I still believe it), he did nothing illegal as far as finance, economics or his office was concerned, and this despite myriad investigations.

We should also all remember that Kenneth Lay, CEO of Enron, was "Kenny-boy" to Mr. Bush, at least until the scandal broke. It is Bush administration officials who have been linked to many of the corporations that have revealed their frauds to the world.

[ February 26, 2003, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

I agree- the war on terrorism will considered more important as a Federal issue than election reform at this point. It is unfortunate that "Floridians" have not learned from their mistakes as they have had several other "botched" elections since the Presidential one.

Josh

[ February 26, 2003, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

Josh:
[qb]Unfortunately the calamity and dowturn of the stock market rests in recession, which was beginning at least six months prior to Bush entering office and the accounting scandals and corporate fraud that occurred under the lax Clinton/Gore years. Quite frankly, Clinton's embarassing personal conduct in office was not only a contribution but I believe encouraged CEOs to commit their own brand of misconduct.

QUOTE]Originally posted by CPT_Doom[/QUOTE]Yes, the stock market downturn began in summer 2000, with the busting of the dot-com bubble (and I might add, right when Bush was nominated, and the country realized he might actually be President).

No one has said that Clinton made them "do it" obviously- Why, does he have a guilty concience? What he did do was set a tone of arrogant defiance of conduct fitting a president as these CEOs did themselves with inflating revenues and deferring expenses so profits were inflated. The "internet bubble" burst because it was not real- not because of a new President. At that time, most thought Gore was going to win anyway and as shown by the popular vote- but you can't blame him either- it was an unreal and unstainable "bubble".

Unfortunately the "frauds of Enron" which were committed during the time of Clinton's era, which none of us could have imagined, did not surface until before and after 9/11- whether Bush or Gore was in office was irrevelant, it happened. It would have surfaced had Clinton been in office a third term- so please don't blame the current President for Enron misdeads that occurred while Clinton was staining Monica's dress.

Josh

Tarkus here: While correcting Josh's excessive use of quote material--PLEASE EVERYONE, only quote the first sentence, we don't need the whole quote--I accidentally erased the first few words of the last reply so I typed in what I thought was there. Josh, please correct it if it messes up the meaning. This wasn't an attempt at censorship or evidence of liberal by the moderator just me being a shitty moderator! Thanks!

Thanks Tarkus- sorry to be long winded here, spirited discussion.

[ February 26, 2003, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: Josh ]

You are right- it is appalling to accept what occurred but now it is ancient history and only a small blemish on our Country's great history. Unfortunately we are living in a very hostile world and must now fear more attacks here at home by misguided suicidal people inspired by their religion.

I would much rather turn on the TV and hear about an impeachment trial than Homeland Security talking about terrorism and that another attack is imminent.

Joshua

[ February 26, 2003, 06:10 PM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

The current pResident and Vice pResident committed the same sorts of misdeeds (Harken, Halliburton). W. was actually brought up by the SEC and reprimanded DURING HIS FATHER'S TERM. Clinton was the governor of Arkansas then, so you can't blame him. Cheney has yet to be charged and won't be.

No one with a long view of American business was surprised by these scandals, only the unvarnished voraciousness of these greedy slobs and their utter disregard for corporate stockholders and their workers. Remember that during the Reagan-Bush years in addition to the S&L scandals (which involved Bush's brother Neil), there were all sorts of insider trading scandals, junk bond manipulations and fraud, and other financial misdeeds by corporate business people. This is a recurring aspect of capitalism, which is why SOME regulation is necessary.

Bush has taken a decided anti-regulatory stance, and it is under his watch that many of these spectacular failures exploded. While I do not blame him for Enron per se, its president, Ken Lay bankrolled Bush's campaign and was involved with the administration (esp. Cheney) in pushing through energy policies that would benefit Enron and other major energy corporations. Of course the spectacular lying and FRAUD at Enron doomed the company . California's energy consumers still had to pay for Enron's dirty dance with the administration and its profiteering and manipulation in the summer of 2001, though.

Say what you will, this administration's mismanagement of our economy, its diplomatic intransigence and bullying, its cozying up to certain special interest lobbies that do NOT have the U.S.'s best interests at heart, and its regressive tax and environmental policies ALL make us far more vulnerable than we need to be. Also, its cheap approach to national security also dooms us.

[ February 26, 2003, 06:14 PM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

I hardly call our approach to National Security "cheap"? It has cost us a fortune. I suppose you would want to have a surplus and still have the Taliban/Al Queda running around flying airplanes into our cities skyskrapers?

I haven't said anything about the current Administration mismanaging anything- the current repercussions from laxed, unethical, and immoral conduct of the Clinton-Gore year's promoted an environment for this type of stuff to happen. I am glad we have a President more interested in our securtity and safety than a President interested in receiving blow-jobs in the White House.

We need to support the Administration now as it moves to improve our security abroad and at home. If you hate this guy so much, vote against him in two years- in this environment I don't see any democrat or republican doing much better.

Josh

[ February 26, 2003, 06:18 PM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

[ February 26, 2003, 06:19 PM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

And they that can obtain essential personal gratification with white house interns instead of doing the job the people elected them to do deserve not liberty-- I think it is a little harsh to include the safety thing, even if it is Clinton. Lol.

Ben Franklin must be rolling in his grave right about now.

Josh wink

I'm sure you mean to say, "It's sad we threw so much of it away in those moronic tax cuts."

No this is what I said for clarification-
You bet the surplus is gone- it's sad we had to use it to protect our homeland and interests abroad and prevent another 9/11. Keep in mind Bush is not doing this all on his own- one man does not spend this kind of money- last I looked we had a democracy.

Unfortunately the tax cuts were a drop in the bucket-- we should have done more- drop the dividend tax, drop the marriage penalty, drop the estate tax, etc. The unprecedented spending on military and security to counter 9/11 is a huge drain and the sooner we eradicate the root cause of this terrorism, the better for our economy and the stock market.

Josh

Uhm, the surplus disappeared in a tax cut for the rich, Enron execs, Bush's buddies, etc... The tax cut was passed and enacted BEFORE 9/11. Why are the Repugs so reckless with our tax dollars?

The tax cut did not evaporate the surplus- it has been severely drained by our response to world events since 9/11 and military action abroad. Homeland Security has cost us allot of money as well. All expenses not incurred during the Clinton years. I believe everyone received a refund check?

It appears that many liberals are still in a 90's Clinton fog or perhaps still dreaming of bent and folded "chads" and seem either unaware or cognizant that 9/11 has changed life for us in many ways- for one, I believe our tax dollars are well spent protecting this country, our people and our interests in the world.

Although Enron executives are guilty of allot of fraud and hurting their employees, invesors and lendors, you can hardly blame Enron for the defecit disappearing, lol.

Josh

"Wisdom" from Josh:

Bin Laden is probably already gone, so I wouldn't worry about priority #1.

Hey Josh - Do you have information that the rest of us dont? There was a taped released 2 weeks ago that the administration acknowledged was in fact Bin Laden. Actually, they used this tape to try to connect Bin Laden with Iraq. Please give us the secret info that you have.

Also, in regards to the deficit - being from Texas you may remember how "successful" Dumbya was in that area. When he come to office the state of TX had a big surplus (after Ann Richards), when Bush left their were deficits. Its all he knows man!

Last first: I can think of at least 20 Republicans who'd be doing a far better job than Bush. As President Colin Powell, Chuck Hagel, Gordon Smith, Bill Weld, Frank Keating, Elaine Chao, Warren Rudman, Arlen Specter, and numerous other members of the GOP would be better equipped to deal both with domestic issues and our international situation. Bush is a moron; he was a terrible businessman and an unimpressive governor.

There are also numerous Democrats who'd be doing a better job. Almost any of the ones running for president other than Al Sharpton or Carol Moseley-Braun would be better in office right now. Sharpton is a buffoon, and Moseley-Braun is as ethically challenged as Bush.

You keep stating over and over again that homeland security costs have caused the deficit, not the tax cuts. Back up your assertion with statistics. I personally would be grateful for the enlightenment on this, as all I've seen has shown repeatedly that Bush has consistently and continually underspent on national security, and monies spent for longer-term security have come either from the Republican-led Congress trying to fill the inexplicable gaps left in Bush's budget, or as Bush's response to Democrats' efforts to shame him into funding security adequately. As of last fall, the renewed Hart-Rudman panel again was pointing out NUMEROUS areas in which we are still not secure in terms of our vital infrastructure. So rather than rhetoric, Josh, please show me some stats. I'd appreciate it.

I just have to say it's total nonsense to say that the surplus & all this deficit spending went to pay for "Homeland Security" - most of the money (promised to cities, states, police departments, fire departments, etc.) has not been realized. It's mostly unfunded mandates so far.

I'm not. I don't give a flying f**k if politicians are screwing hookers who are not their wives on their desks while shooting heroin, I want people who in their actions act in ways that I think are contributing to the good of the country and the world as a whole. Obviously, that's where there's big disagreements, what those things might be but unless someone is f**king hookers etc. while PUBLICLY professing to be a Family Values Born-Again Christian, I just do. not. care. If they are FVB-AC's and are f**king hookers etc. then they should be castrated, the f**king loathsome hyporcrites.

Obviously.

I don't hate Dumbya. In fact, he was probably great to do shots and snort coke with back in the late 70's/early 80's because you know he only got the best stuff, not that bunk shit that burns your nasal cavaities. But there's a line in Apocalypse Now where Kurtz (Brando) says to Willard (Sheen), who's been sent to kill him:

You're just an errand boy sent by grocery clerks to collect a bill

and that's how I think of Dumbya--he's just a errand boy for the REAL muscle in the Ruling Junta: Cheyney, Rove, Pappy etc., all the tired old Cold War relics who have been aching to invade Iraq and start an American Empire since at least since 1995. Rumor has it that Iraq is only the beginning: Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia are next in the "Neverending War" that's perfect cover to distract people from noticing that the Ruling Junta is gutting our civil rights, rolling back all the environmental gains of the last 30 years, gutting consumer protection laws, giving Big Business everything it wants (and enriching themselves in the process), levelling the wall of separation between church and state and on and on.

What creeps me out about the Ruling Junta more than anything is what a bunch of Bible-thumpers they are. I've read some articles about that aspect and these people are convinced that They Are On A Mission From God. Who do they think they are, Jake and Elwood from The Blues Brothers? When an administration offical was quoted as saying "Well, I think the Bible is good handbook for foreign relations"--the same work of fiction that has entire peoples being wiped out capriciously--I couldn't believe it.

No thanks, don't wanna live in a theocratic kleptocracy.

And Josh, fine, we have to wait 2 years to vote this jumped-up frat boy out. But is there even going to be a world in two years? Not an unreasonable question, in my view.

[ February 27, 2003, 02:00 PM: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

What is ridiculous is to say the "tax cuts" caused the defecit.

Less Revenue - higher expenses= defecit!

The tax cuts are a small part of it- theoretically they should help stimulate the economy and consumer spending. Unfortunately 9/11 put the brakes on allot of that.

Josh

[quote]Josh:
[qb] [I hardly call our approach to National Security \"cheap\"? It has cost us a fortune. I suppose you would want to have a surplus and still have the Taliban/Al Queda running around flying airplanes into our cities skyskrapers?
****
[QUOTE]Originally posted by fantomas
You keep stating over and over again that homeland security costs have caused the deficit, not the tax cuts. [/quote]Look at the budget and what is being spent. The cost of homeland security, military, increased security at ports and airports, etc. has put a dent in the surplus and are above and beyond the expenses that were incurred prior to 9/11. The other problem is reduced tax revenue due to recession- which the onset of occurred during the last year of Mr. Clinton.

Josh

[ February 27, 2003, 02:12 PM: Message edited by: Josh ]