|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 107 responses total. |
nharmon
|
|
response 23 of 107:
| 
Feb 1 19:12 UTC 2006 |
I agree with Rane on everything except his 2nd to the last paragraph. I
think the democrats and republicans are way too polarized for anything
to be "bipartisan". Its just not going to happen any time soon, by fault
of both sides.
|
tod
|
|
response 24 of 107:
|
Feb 1 19:20 UTC 2006 |
He said "hope" 20 times.
We can hope in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up
quicker, GW.
Seven of those 20 were specifically "hopeful society".
(I think that's a codeword for "schmuck"!)
Let's see:
Yet our greatness is not measured in power or luxuries, but by who we are
and how we treat one another. So we strive to be a compassionate, decent,
schmuck.
A schmuck depends on courts that deliver equal justice under law.
A schmuck has institutions of science and medicine that do not cut ethical
corners and that recognize the matchless value of every life.
A schmuck expects elected officials to uphold the public trust.
A schmuck gives special attention to children who lack direction and love.
Through the Helping America's Youth Initiative, we are encouraging caring
adults to get involved in the life of a child.
A schmuck comes to the aid of fellow citizens in times of suffering and
emergency and stays at it until they're back on their feet.
A schmuck acts boldly to fight diseases like HIV/AIDS, which can be
prevented and treated and defeated.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 25 of 107:
|
Feb 1 19:21 UTC 2006 |
Bipartisanship has to *start* with the party in power. Since they control
outcomes, it has to be apparent that they are adopting some outcomes favored
by the party not in power. Once they do that, it is more likely that the party
not in power will support more of the actions of the party in power.
It doesn't work in reverse. If the party not in power starts acting to support
more of the actions of the party in power, what does it gain them? Their
support wasn't *needed*, so they are not likely to have their agenda supported
too.
|
tod
|
|
response 26 of 107:
|
Feb 1 19:26 UTC 2006 |
My only burning question is:
What Christian name will we give the new Iraqi-Iranian country formed by our
crusaders? New Texas?
|
mcnally
|
|
response 27 of 107:
|
Feb 1 19:33 UTC 2006 |
Checheneya.
|
klg
|
|
response 28 of 107:
|
Feb 1 20:33 UTC 2006 |
Sorry, Charlie. In math and spelling homework there is just one
correct answer to each problem. In politics, opinions vary and there
is no emprirical means of determining which opinion is absolutely
correct. You can say, "In my opinion, your conclusion is incorrect
based upon these facts and assumptions," but you can't just tell
someone else, "I am right and you are wrong. Case closed."
Ah. Curl must be referring ("start") to the way the Republicans
supported Teddy's education legislation and campaign finance "reform."
But what comes after the "start," Einstein? (How short are their
memories!?!?)
|
mcnally
|
|
response 29 of 107:
|
Feb 1 20:54 UTC 2006 |
> but you can't just tell someone else, "I am right and
> you are wrong. Case closed."
klg, thy name is Irony.
|
tod
|
|
response 30 of 107:
|
Feb 1 20:55 UTC 2006 |
but you can't just tell
someone else, "I am right and you are wrong. Case closed."
The president has declined another meeting and has taken issue with Sheehan's
calls for a withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
"She expressed her opinion; I disagree with it," Bush said in August. "I think
immediate withdrawal from Iraq would be a mistake."
|
klg
|
|
response 31 of 107:
|
Feb 1 21:00 UTC 2006 |
MM, thy name is dishonesty.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 32 of 107:
|
Feb 1 22:59 UTC 2006 |
oooh...i wouldn't throw THAT stone, bootlicker.
|
jep
|
|
response 33 of 107:
|
Feb 2 00:11 UTC 2006 |
re resp:28: Dangit, I'm a bad parent. I hate it when that happens.
|
twenex
|
|
response 34 of 107:
|
Feb 2 00:13 UTC 2006 |
arf arf.
|
tod
|
|
response 35 of 107:
|
Feb 2 00:16 UTC 2006 |
Whooooooops!
|
gull
|
|
response 36 of 107:
|
Feb 2 01:09 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:8: You know, conservatives often complain about liberal
political correctness. But liberal political correctness mostly just
consists of attempts to shame people who violate it. Violating
*conservative* political correctness can get you led away in handcuffs.
|
gull
|
|
response 37 of 107:
|
Feb 2 01:32 UTC 2006 |
FactCheck.org has published their analysis of the State of the Union
address. They found nothing factually incorrect, but several instances
of statistics being used selectively. I'll copy the summary here; the
full text is at http://www.factcheck.org/article376.html
---
The President left out a few things when surveying the State of the
Nation:
* He proudly spoke of "writing a new chapter in the story of
self-government" in Iraq and Afghanistan and said the number of
democracies in the world is growing. He failed to mention that neither
Iraq nor Afghanistan yet qualify as democracies according to the very
group whose statistics he cited.
* Bush called for Congress to pass a line-item veto, failing to mention
that the Supreme Court struck down a line-item veto as unconstitutional
in 1998. Bills now in Congress would propose a Constitutional
amendment, but none have shown signs of life.
* The President said the economy gained 4.6 million jobs in the past
two-and-a-half years, failing to note that it had lost 2.6 million jobs
in his first two-and-a-half years in office. The net gain since Bush
took office is just a little more than 2 million.
* He talked of cutting spending, but only "non-security discretionary
spending." Actually, total federal spending has increased 42 percent
since Bush took office.
* He spoke of being "on track" to cut the federal deficit in half by
2009. But the deficit is increasing this year, and according to the
Congressional Budget Office it will decline by considerably less than
half even if Bush's tax cuts are allowed to lapse.
* Bush spoke of a "goal" of cutting dependence on Middle Eastern oil,
failing to mention that US dependence on imported oil and petroleum
products increased substantially during his first five years in office,
reaching 60 per cent of consumption last year.
|
klg
|
|
response 38 of 107:
|
Feb 2 01:36 UTC 2006 |
I don't know if JPJR is a good or bad parent. I just believe it's
rather inconsistent to tell a child to think for himself, then blast him
when he doesn't agree with you.
|
tod
|
|
response 39 of 107:
|
Feb 2 01:46 UTC 2006 |
Well, I respect enemies of freedom but I disagree with them and see no reason
to discuss it further. I don't know why they hate our country and our
freedomes. Freedom is on the March. We want to send the right kind of
message to our troops. That's why I'm asking Congress to summon Chtulu here
tonight as we carpetbomb the shit out of Iran. See, I'm a war przdunt.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 40 of 107:
|
Feb 2 02:42 UTC 2006 |
From Knight-Ridder:
"One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America's dependence on
Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, his
energy secretary and national economic adviser said Wednesday that the
president didn't mean it literally.
What the president meant, they said in a conference call with reporters,
was that alternative fuels *could* displace an amount of oil imports
*equivalent* to *most* of what America is *expected* to import from the
Middle East in 2025.
'This was purely an example,' Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said."
|
johnnie
|
|
response 41 of 107:
|
Feb 2 02:59 UTC 2006 |
>FactCheck.org has published their analysis of the State of the Union
>address. They found nothing factually incorrect,
Well, there's this: http://tinyurl.com/aydpa
Also, charges against Cindy Sheehan have been dropped because--Oops!--it
turns out that exercising one's 1stAmendment rights via t-shirt isn't
actually against the law. Who woulda guessed?
|
jep
|
|
response 42 of 107:
|
Feb 2 03:00 UTC 2006 |
Even conservatives get blasted by klg. Whew, I was thinking there was
something wrong with me!
re resp:37: Some of your citations used selective statistics which
convey inaccurate impressions.
Fastcheck.org:
He proudly spoke of "writing a new chapter in the story of self-
government" in Iraq and Afghanistan and said the number of democracies
in the world is growing. He failed to mention that neither Iraq nor
Afghanistan yet qualify as democracies according to the very group
whose statistics he cited.
Answer: The president didn't say they were democracies.
Fastcheck.org:
He talked of cutting spending, but only "non-security discretionary
spending." Actually, total federal spending has increased 42 percent
since Bush took office.
Answer: How did "non-security discretionary spending" change? Was
there more of it, or less? If you're going to dispute the president
onfacts, do so by disputing the facts that he said.
FactCheck.org didn't really seem to dispute some of the things the
president said, but rather stated it would have been nice if he'd said
different things, and then called it "misstatements" that he didn't say
what they wish he had said. I agreed with some of the things they said
but overall I don't regard these people as having any credibility.
They don't seem real committed to any reasonable definition of the
word, "fact".
|
rcurl
|
|
response 43 of 107:
|
Feb 2 04:14 UTC 2006 |
" * The President said the economy gained 4.6 million jobs in the past
two-and-a-half years, failing to note that it had lost 2.6 million jobs
in his first two-and-a-half years in office. The net gain since Bush
took office is just a little more than 2 million."
The *population* has increased by 15 million since Bush took office. About
64% of the population is in the labor force. That means that the required
employment growth needed to keep pace with population increase is 9.6
million. A net gain of 2 million is barely 21 % of that required to
maintain a steady employment percentage. This is a pretty miserable
performance of the economy.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 44 of 107:
|
Feb 2 04:16 UTC 2006 |
That 15 million is that over age 16, the employable age group. Same for the
64% in the labor force.
|
gull
|
|
response 45 of 107:
|
Feb 2 06:33 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:41: I don't think the goal was ever to charge her with anything.
The goal was to get her out of sight before anyone noticed her.
Re resp:42: FactCheck.org does routinely take on both sides, though.
(For example, here's a rather strong criticism of a recent DNC ad:
http://www.factcheck.org/article373.html) They also provide citations
for everything they say. I find them useful even if I don't agree with
all of their conclusions.
I don't think their State of the Union article was one of their better
ones, but I thought it might be of interest here. I think that, at very
least, they should have picked a different headline; the use of the word
"misstatement" isn't supported by the article text. This crops up
enough that I'm wondering if their headlines are written by an editor
instead of by the article authors -- a common practice in journalism.
Incidentally, I keyed in on the President's use of the term "non-defense
discretionary spending" as a bit of a dodge as soon as I heard it. That
category is a tiny portion of the budget, only 16%. Cutting spending
there is unlikely to make up for his goal of making his tax cuts permanent.
|
gull
|
|
response 46 of 107:
|
Feb 2 06:41 UTC 2006 |
This slid by me during the actual speech, but in hindsight, it's
striking and a little creepy:
"We see great changes in science and commerce that will influence all
our lives. Sometimes it can seem that history is turning in a wide arc,
toward an unknown shore. Yet the destination of history is determined by
human action, and every great movement of history comes to a point of
choosing.
Lincoln could have accepted peace at the cost of disunity and continued
slavery. Martin Luther King could have stopped at Birmingham or at
Selma, and achieved only half a victory over segregation. The United
States could have accepted the permanent division of Europe, and been
complicit in the oppression of others. Today, having come far in our own
historical journey, we must decide: Will we turn back, or finish well?"
Will we *finish* well? I figured our history as a nation would keep
going for a long time to come, but maybe he knows something we don't?
|
twenex
|
|
response 47 of 107:
|
Feb 2 09:50 UTC 2006 |
The State of the Union should be broadcast on the Comedy Channel.
|