Even if you were serious, your response is not germane, because the needed reform is not to improve efficiency, but to establish solvency.
Bush's plan wasn't about solving solvency; fixing the tax code and ceasing to loot the trust fund to cover the rest of the budget would have taken care of that. No, Bush's plan was about throwing billions at Wall Street.
Heh heh heh, yeah, that's a good one.
Glad you are easily am mused, Turdblossum. Now, go stare into your toilet and see how long you laugh.
You are correct sir, he was on the Small Business Committe. He was definitely stripped of his spot on the much higher ranking Ways and Means committee. Actually I'm hoping the Dems impeach his ass, as Republicans would surely jump at the chance to remove a Democratic politician from office. Then once the ball is rolling, impeach Gonzales, then Cheney, then Bush.
The only reason Bush is not at 50% is because of his stance on immigration and his budget.
Once again, reality's well known liberal biases raises it's head to smackdown neocon bs: the only time Bush's approval ratings have gone up was after 911 and the early parts of the Iraq war. Otherwise, it's been on a steady downward pace since he was elected.
Also, what exactly is "the Democrat position?" I assume that what you're trying to say is "the Democratic position," but like many Republicans you seem to be having trouble with the "i" and "c" keys on your keyboard. You might want to get that fixed.
Or he can watch this clip and drink a nice, warm cup of STFU.
Reagen in my opinion was particularly good at recognizing when his ideals didn't mesh with reality on the ground.
Please, Reagan was an incompetent tool. Inventing the trillion dollar national debt, ignoring AIDS, closing mental hospitals, throwing gasoline on civil wars around the world, pushing the War on Drugs, Iran Contra, etc etc etc. Reagan's ghost is planning on throwing a party for Bush when he dies for making Reagan look good in comparison.
The few things he HAS been right about, he hasn't gotten: social security reform
I'm sorry, did you include that by accident? Social Security is one of the most efficient programs out there. As opposed to wasting tons of money on administrative and brokerage fees through "reform".
There needs to be a 'political officer' in every department in the US.
No, there doesn't. The appointment process is political, yes, but after that appointees are supposed to serve their country, not their party.
You're one of those guys who thinks Marxism works great but hasn't ever been tried correctly, right?
Their successes and failures might be a little easier to judge if CIA backed coups didn't guarantee eventual failure.
You know, the USSR had an embassy in Australia. Since the US has an embassy in Australia as well, clearly the US is now a marxist dictatorship. Just calling a spade a spade.
Somewhere, in attempting to follow the parent's logic, the train derailed and all aboard died horrible, painful deaths.
This crap will never change as long as we have fools on both sides of politics that readily believe the only one party has been corrupted by money, special interest and the protection of elite, old money families. Neither party has a monopoly on the corruption of power.
Sure, both parties are too beholden to well financed lobbyists, but that doesn't make them remotely comparable. Democratic Rep Jefferson was found with loads of cash in his deep freezer - and was quickly stripped of his committee assignments by the Dem leadership in the House. Tom Delay, who actioned off committee chairmanships to the biggest fundraisers - faced indictment, so Republicans forced through new ethics rules to allow him to keep his leadership post.
Sure, a lot of Democratic politicians pander to Hollywood. But you'll have a hard time finding a Republican politician that doesn't jump at the chance to pander to big business - and Hollywood is most definitely big business. And for all the bashing of "Hollywood liberals", the GOP suuuure likes actors that give them the time of day - Schwarzenegger (before he moved away from the right wing so he could get elected), Fred Thompson, and of course, Ronald Reagan.
Which would you rather they do: make the GOP filibuster 500 different measures, or concentrate on a few issues that actually have a chance of going through Congress, and that our lazy, ADD media might actually pay attention to?
All these Republicans suddenly discovering, for instance, that the war in Iraq is a bungled disaster just sickens me. At what point did all these guys suddenly discover what just about everyone else in the US and abroad had been saying since the invasion?
When they realized that Bush was killing their electoral chances for the next few decades.
The problem with "compromise" is conservatives usually sacrifice their ideals in exchange for...nothing.
You have that exactly right, except backwards. The last time Republicans compromised on anything was when Herbert Walker Bush signed a tax increase. Other than that, on every issue from federal judges to the bankruptcy bill to the war in Iraq, "compromise" means "getting their own way".
In both instances, sworn Federal Law Enforcement Officers were serving what they in good faith believed to be lawful warrants issued by a Federal Court of the United States Government, and came under deadly attack in the course of fulfilling their duty.
They might have been "lawful" warrants in the Ruby Ridge case, but that's as far as it goes. An undercover law enforcement officer entrapped Randy Weaver by asking him to make some sawed-off shotguns, even supplying the guns to be cut down. The confrontation was started when the court sent him a summons with the wrong date and the judge issued a warrant anyway when he failed to appear.
No, a Democrat didn't do any of that...... yet. I'm sure if we give them the chance, it will happen though. Corruption and thirst for power are bipartisan affairs.
It's not likely to happen as long as Republicans and the press hold Democrats to vastly higher standards than Republicans.
Nice bs article. Too bad it's bs. Republicans in Congress and Ken Starr didn't investigate and re-investigate William Jefferson Clinton because they were sure there were hidden crimes to uncover, they did it to undo the 1992 and 1996 elections.
You do know that anything passed by the Democratic Congress still has to be signed by Bush, right? And that the Dems have a very narrow majority, right? And that Senate Republicans wont even make Bush dig out his veto pen because they filibuster just about every piece of legislation the Dems try to push, right? Right?
If you are a Republican and have a problem with that, maybe you should take some responsibility and do your part to clean up the cesspool that is your party.
I guess you never heard of Congressman William Jefferson, 2nd District of Louisana.
I guess you hadn't heard that he was stripped of his committee assignments and seniority as soon as he was indited. As opposed to when Republicans in the House forced through new ethics rules allowing Tom Delay to remain as majority leader when the Bugman was facing inditement. There isn't equal coverage of Democrat corruption because the is no equality between the parties on this issue. Absolutely non whatsoever. Delay. Gengrich. Hassert. Cunningham. The Steven family. Foley. Abramoff. Mcconnell. Just about the entire Bush administration. And that's just off the top of my head.
Forty years ago, Republicans were ready to impeach Nixon for his actions. George Bush and other Republicans have made the worst of Nixon's excesses look like Sunday School pranks, yet they are still defended after apologizing to a communist government for an air crash clearly caused by their pilot, after My Pet Goat, after the Iraq debacle, after Katrina, after NSA wiretapping, after Dubai Ports, etc etc etc etc etc etc. If you are a Republican and you aren't pissed off at the actions of your politicians, then you are a part of the corruption.
...one reason software is so crappy is because of customers like you. It's never the software companies problem, it's the user for not knowing the idiosyncrasies of the software and how to work around it's flaws. And just because the software company cornholed you the last time, is no reason to look skeptically at their new release.
You failed to account for any secondary economic benefits, such as a local drop in gasoline prices. You failed to account for the $3.8 billion BP will have to pay to build the expansion. You failed to account for BP's increased operating expenses (both the effects on the local economy and the increase in taxes paid).
Negligible difference, irrelevant, irrelevant, and he was already generous with the taxes.
Then - not because you have made any rational arguments, but because you cannot think of any - you came to the conclusion that someone was bribed.
Oh, DO blow it out your ass. This is a rotten, penny-wise pound-stupid decision. And I say that as a BP shareholder.
Slashdot Mirror
Standing up to the feds (or locals) has only ever brought more feds with more guns and an ever increasing desire to kill you. Just ask Randy Weaver.
Even if you were serious, your response is not germane, because the needed reform is not to improve efficiency, but to establish solvency.
Bush's plan wasn't about solving solvency; fixing the tax code and ceasing to loot the trust fund to cover the rest of the budget would have taken care of that. No, Bush's plan was about throwing billions at Wall Street.
Heh heh heh, yeah, that's a good one.
Glad you are easily am mused, Turdblossum. Now, go stare into your toilet and see how long you laugh.
You are correct sir, he was on the Small Business Committe. He was definitely stripped of his spot on the much higher ranking Ways and Means committee. Actually I'm hoping the Dems impeach his ass, as Republicans would surely jump at the chance to remove a Democratic politician from office. Then once the ball is rolling, impeach Gonzales, then Cheney, then Bush.
The only reason Bush is not at 50% is because of his stance on immigration and his budget.
Once again, reality's well known liberal biases raises it's head to smackdown neocon bs: the only time Bush's approval ratings have gone up was after 911 and the early parts of the Iraq war. Otherwise, it's been on a steady downward pace since he was elected.
I don't think that one counts. If you look at their site, all their stated concerns are for *safety* in nuclear energy, not preventing its use.
Nuclear power. The UCS is against it even though it is safer and cleaner than other sources. I just OWNED YOU BITCH!!. Go back to school, little boy.
Hardly. Go check out their site on nuclear power. They are concerned about safety, not "being against it". Looks more like YOU are the bitch.
Also, what exactly is "the Democrat position?" I assume that what you're trying to say is "the Democratic position," but like many Republicans you seem to be having trouble with the "i" and "c" keys on your keyboard. You might want to get that fixed.
Or he can watch this clip and drink a nice, warm cup of STFU.
Reagen in my opinion was particularly good at recognizing when his ideals didn't mesh with reality on the ground.
Please, Reagan was an incompetent tool. Inventing the trillion dollar national debt, ignoring AIDS, closing mental hospitals, throwing gasoline on civil wars around the world, pushing the War on Drugs, Iran Contra, etc etc etc. Reagan's ghost is planning on throwing a party for Bush when he dies for making Reagan look good in comparison.
The few things he HAS been right about, he hasn't gotten: social security reform
I'm sorry, did you include that by accident? Social Security is one of the most efficient programs out there. As opposed to wasting tons of money on administrative and brokerage fees through "reform".
There needs to be a 'political officer' in every department in the US.
No, there doesn't. The appointment process is political, yes, but after that appointees are supposed to serve their country, not their party.
You're one of those guys who thinks Marxism works great but hasn't ever been tried correctly, right?
Their successes and failures might be a little easier to judge if CIA backed coups didn't guarantee eventual failure.
You know, the USSR had an embassy in Australia. Since the US has an embassy in Australia as well, clearly the US is now a marxist dictatorship. Just calling a spade a spade.
Somewhere, in attempting to follow the parent's logic, the train derailed and all aboard died horrible, painful deaths.
Or, to quote Michael Moore, of all people ...
...
Why "of all people?"
You know we're in serious trouble wheh Michael Moore sounds (at least on this one occasion) like a beacon of reason
His hit to miss ratio is better than the mass market media's and VASTLY better than the right wing's.
This crap will never change as long as we have fools on both sides of politics that readily believe the only one party has been corrupted by money, special interest and the protection of elite, old money families. Neither party has a monopoly on the corruption of power.
Sure, both parties are too beholden to well financed lobbyists, but that doesn't make them remotely comparable. Democratic Rep Jefferson was found with loads of cash in his deep freezer - and was quickly stripped of his committee assignments by the Dem leadership in the House. Tom Delay, who actioned off committee chairmanships to the biggest fundraisers - faced indictment, so Republicans forced through new ethics rules to allow him to keep his leadership post.
Sure, a lot of Democratic politicians pander to Hollywood. But you'll have a hard time finding a Republican politician that doesn't jump at the chance to pander to big business - and Hollywood is most definitely big business. And for all the bashing of "Hollywood liberals", the GOP suuuure likes actors that give them the time of day - Schwarzenegger (before he moved away from the right wing so he could get elected), Fred Thompson, and of course, Ronald Reagan.
Except your link is obviously a bunch of biased bullshit put out by people with an agenda. Try again.
Where is that oft touted liberal element in the US university system?
In the minds of wingnut Republicans, that's where.
Which would you rather they do: make the GOP filibuster 500 different measures, or concentrate on a few issues that actually have a chance of going through Congress, and that our lazy, ADD media might actually pay attention to?
All these Republicans suddenly discovering, for instance, that the war in Iraq is a bungled disaster just sickens me. At what point did all these guys suddenly discover what just about everyone else in the US and abroad had been saying since the invasion?
When they realized that Bush was killing their electoral chances for the next few decades.
The problem with "compromise" is conservatives usually sacrifice their ideals in exchange for...nothing.
You have that exactly right, except backwards. The last time Republicans compromised on anything was when Herbert Walker Bush signed a tax increase. Other than that, on every issue from federal judges to the bankruptcy bill to the war in Iraq, "compromise" means "getting their own way".
In both instances, sworn Federal Law Enforcement Officers were serving what they in good faith believed to be lawful warrants issued by a Federal Court of the United States Government, and came under deadly attack in the course of fulfilling their duty.
They might have been "lawful" warrants in the Ruby Ridge case, but that's as far as it goes. An undercover law enforcement officer entrapped Randy Weaver by asking him to make some sawed-off shotguns, even supplying the guns to be cut down. The confrontation was started when the court sent him a summons with the wrong date and the judge issued a warrant anyway when he failed to appear.
No, a Democrat didn't do any of that... ... yet. I'm sure if we give them the chance, it will happen though. Corruption and thirst for power are bipartisan affairs.
It's not likely to happen as long as Republicans and the press hold Democrats to vastly higher standards than Republicans.
Nice bs article. Too bad it's bs. Republicans in Congress and Ken Starr didn't investigate and re-investigate William Jefferson Clinton because they were sure there were hidden crimes to uncover, they did it to undo the 1992 and 1996 elections.
You do know that anything passed by the Democratic Congress still has to be signed by Bush, right? And that the Dems have a very narrow majority, right? And that Senate Republicans wont even make Bush dig out his veto pen because they filibuster just about every piece of legislation the Dems try to push, right? Right?
If you are a Republican and have a problem with that, maybe you should take some responsibility and do your part to clean up the cesspool that is your party.
I guess you never heard of Congressman William Jefferson, 2nd District of Louisana.
I guess you hadn't heard that he was stripped of his committee assignments and seniority as soon as he was indited. As opposed to when Republicans in the House forced through new ethics rules allowing Tom Delay to remain as majority leader when the Bugman was facing inditement. There isn't equal coverage of Democrat corruption because the is no equality between the parties on this issue. Absolutely non whatsoever. Delay. Gengrich. Hassert. Cunningham. The Steven family. Foley. Abramoff. Mcconnell. Just about the entire Bush administration. And that's just off the top of my head.
Forty years ago, Republicans were ready to impeach Nixon for his actions. George Bush and other Republicans have made the worst of Nixon's excesses look like Sunday School pranks, yet they are still defended after apologizing to a communist government for an air crash clearly caused by their pilot, after My Pet Goat, after the Iraq debacle, after Katrina, after NSA wiretapping, after Dubai Ports, etc etc etc etc etc etc. If you are a Republican and you aren't pissed off at the actions of your politicians, then you are a part of the corruption.
...one reason software is so crappy is because of customers like you. It's never the software companies problem, it's the user for not knowing the idiosyncrasies of the software and how to work around it's flaws. And just because the software company cornholed you the last time, is no reason to look skeptically at their new release.
You failed to account for any secondary economic benefits, such as a local drop in gasoline prices. You failed to account for the $3.8 billion BP will have to pay to build the expansion. You failed to account for BP's increased operating expenses (both the effects on the local economy and the increase in taxes paid).
Negligible difference, irrelevant, irrelevant, and he was already generous with the taxes.
Then - not because you have made any rational arguments, but because you cannot think of any - you came to the conclusion that someone was bribed.
Oh, DO blow it out your ass. This is a rotten, penny-wise pound-stupid decision. And I say that as a BP shareholder.