Nancy Pelosi wishes her Democrat Congress Approval rating was as high as Bush's. This is the first time in history that Congressional approval has ever gone down to single digits.
We've done a great job in Afghanistan. OBL is impotent. There hasn't been an attack on our soil, since when? AQ is losing and is being driven out of Iraq. Iraq has elections. Libya gave up their WMDs. Bush's Democracy is working better than I expected.
Perhaps you think we should have sent a big army in like the Russians did to Afghanistan? That didn't work so well for them. Now, *that* was a quagmire and we were smart enough to learn from that mistake.
Yes, there are millions of poor Mexican peasants in the USA working at a half or third of standard American pay. This is because NAFTA allowed American agri-business like Cargil with huge US government subsidies to flood the Mexican agricultural economy with corn so cheap that the Mexicans couldn't afford to live by growing it. And because NAFTA allowed American bio-industries like Monsanto to replace traditional Mexican corn with patented bio-engineered varieties that the Mexican farmers couldn't afford to buy. People aren't coming here from Mexico because they want to. They come because they have to, or starve.
This doesn't make sense. How can a market be flooded with cheap corn and also be too expensive for the people to buy?
I'm not confused, but I concede your point. You would also have to use biofuel for all the transportation, farming and processing energy requirements, too, in order to be completely free of using non active carbon sources. It's a start.
And, hopefully, we're not using food supplies to create the biofuel. A lot of people will be dying because the price of corn is going up from ethanol production, etc., and we don't want to make that worse.
I'm a conservative that's been recycling for 10 years, and I get about 32MPG based on the typical usage of my gas guzzling SUV and my motorcycles.
I'm all for saving energy and reducing pollution, but I'm not for damaging our economy or letting people in the 3rd world die from starvation because some Liberals are hysterical about global warming. We need to look at the whole picture. People are going to die due to global warming no matter what happens (or does not happen), and someone has to decide who it will be.
Biofuels will help us reduce our dependency on foreign oil, but it still will contribute CO2.
The Liberals are in a tough spot right now and this will become a major campaign issue. They have no plans for reducing the price of gas in the short term and their policies of the past will prevent anything from happening soon enough to make a difference in the long term.
We need to go to more alternative energy sources that are carbon-free. Like nuclear, water and air. Unfortunately, the Liberals have been against building nuclear power plants, hydroelectric dams and wind power (if it is in their back yards).
So, again, the Liberals have no solutions but will just whine and complain.
Are you sure you want one party to control everything? It's obvious they are in it for their own power; they aren't doing what they were elected to do.
I feel the same way about having Republicans in control. They spent our treasure like Democrats. You can't trust any of them.
Legislative gridlock is the best thing for this country. I've always said they should revoke two laws for every law that they pass...
The 2nd Amendment talks about guns. Where is it in the Constitution that gives people the right to kill babies?
In any case, I don't understand why abortion is a Federal issue. That is another instance of the Federal government violating the 10th Amendment.
Marriages are too much of a conflict between church and state. The state should only be involved in civil unions, for gays and straights. Let the churches deal with the gay issue in marriages since they are the ones concerned about it.
We *have* declared war and it is because we were attacked on our own soil. Enemy combatants are Prisoners Of War. Prisoners of War are not released until after the war, or if there is an exchange.
Making such a big deal about waterboarding is ridiculous. Making someone think they are drowning is nothing like cutting of limbs or heads like they do to our soldiers. There's no permanent damage to waterboarding, except that their feelings were hurt. Waterboarding is a non-issue anyway, they all know now that they will survive.
In WW2, captured soldiers out of uniform were shot as spies. "Enemy combatants" deserve no less treatment. There would be far less civilians killed if they followed the "rules" like we do, wore uniforms and didn't hack off the heads of people while they are still alive.
That's right, the Feds need court approval to monitor my phone.
They need to get approval for every domestic line that calls any wiretaps being used to fight suspected organized crime (RICO). And every domestic line that calls any suspected terrorists in another country. That's what you guys want, right?
Then I know that I will be completely safe from any invasion of privacy.
I don't live in a big city, so I'm safe from terrorist nukes and organized crime. Let the big-city people worry about their safety, I have my guns to ensure mine.
We better do something quick because the temperature hasn't increased on Earth in 10 years. Maybe we are now going into an ice age and need to increase our CO2 production!
And then there is that inconvenient global warming occurring on Mars...
You are way off. All the anger and hatred is coming from the Left these days. I can't believe you people modded this +5 Insightful...
What's amazing, is that you actually think things will change if the President is a Democrat. Is your Democratic Congress achieving your ideals? No. Do you really think one party should control all of Congress? I used to think so, but when a party has too much power it loses it's focus on their ideals and instead concentrate on garnering more power. This happened with "small government" Republicans, imagine the government abuses if "big goverment" Democrats control everything.
Hillary and Obama are both already lying through their teeth to get in power. McCain is too much of a liberal for me, but he clearly is more honest than Hillary or Obama.
I firmly believe that the best government for us would be one where no party is in control and the power is shared. Then, only the most important of legislation that is approved by both sides would be passed.
Another example of the Left propagating Lies for their own Power Play. Capitol Hill Blue is the only source for this story and cannot be corroborated.
There has been no evidence of any kind that Bush lied. If there was any evidence at all of wrong-doing, you can bet the lame Democratic Congress would have pursued it. They have nothing better to do, apparently.
People here don't like it when the government listens in on their conversations with terrorists. Our laws are structured so our police are only good for cleaning up after the crime. Since they can't protect us and since they are constrained from preventing crimes, this means our laws are only effective against dumb and stoopid criminals/terrorists.
Meanwhile, the public wants to feel safe; they want to think they are being protected. Hence the ridiculous and ineffective searches that occur before boarding airplanes, radioactive sensors that trigger on cats, and building a wall on the southern border while leaving thousands of miles of the northern border unprotected.
And, to think these programs were started under a Republican administration; worthless Big Government programs are usually the Democrats' domain.
This is such bullshit. Getting the endorsement of wackjobs does not reflect on a candidate's character, they have no control over that. I don't disparage Ron Paul because he was endorsed by David Duke, for example.
But it is completely different to bring your children to church in order to listen to racist sermons for 20 years. The fact that he has not specifically denounced the victimization attitude of the reverend, means that he buys into it. All he has said is that he doesn't believe the reverend's more controversial views; he needs to specifically denounce the black victimization attitude that is prevalent in the black community; without denouncing it, then he is fostering this racism. Imagine the controversy if McCain went to a White church, that espoused White values where his pastor railed against black people for causing all the troubles in the world. Look how much the liberal press hassled Romney, just because he was a Mormon, and there wasn't any evidence of racial prejudice nor that he was controlled by his church. The fact that you try to cover up Obama's racism is very troubling and hypocritical.
I'm surprised that he is buying into the Clinton playbook of telling both sides what they want to hear and thought he was above that. He denounces some of the reverend's sermons but does not specifically state how his beliefs diverge the reverend. Thus, he is able to convince the black people that he is still on their side against Whitey, and the white people think he is denouncing the white racism. But it just shows that he is just another liberal politician, playing the same old game.
Do you really want a President that believes that Whitey is the cause of all their problems or that won't speak the truth to the Black people?
The Democrats really have no choice but to nominate Obama. If they select Hillary over Obama, then they just propagate the black belief that politics is just run by a bunch of rich white people. And blacks may actually consider the party that not only freed them as slaves, but also gave them significant power (like Colin and Condoleeza), instead of just token positions. All the racism and hate-mongering is coming from the Left; conservatives believe everybody is equally capable and don't need to be thought of as victims that need special rules to allow them to compete fairly.
How convenient for you to forget that OBL ran the US out of Mogadishu, was behind the bombings of US Embassies and the USS Cole and Clinton did nothing? Hmmm?
You can thank Bush that you don't have to be skeered of no terrorists.
Political posturing just to further your own power at the expense of our safety is irresponsible. Clinton policies brought us 9/11. Bush policies have prevented a recurrence. But, it wouldn't matter to you; the fact that he is a Republican means he gets blamed whether or not we get attacked.
The Democrats are so far out of reality to push their scare tactics of Global Warming being worse than Islamofascism.
Point out one lie, just one, that Bush made. This means you have evidence he deliberately told a falsehood. Monday morning quarterbacking doesn't count.
Repeating lies over and over in order to further your political power does not make them true. Repeating bad information from a trusted source does not make you a liar.
I know that we are used to the Clinton's lying all the time (as Hillary has shown, she even got caught lying in order to pander to both sides during a debate). But Bush has always been up front with his views and never tried to bullshit his audience in order to pander to them. Which really pisses off Democrats that are used to wishy-washy lying politicians.
But it's ok, people can hate Bush because he isn't a Democrat. Democrats are more interested in feeling good than facts.
Mark my words, history will show Bush to even be a better President than Jimmy Carter. (Although, maybe that isn't saying much.)
It does matter. If the Democrats prevail and control everything, then the first thing they will do is try to pass another ban on scary looking assault-style rifles. It doesn't matter that they are essentially no different from a hunting rifle and are used in crimes less than a drunk uses a car, but the important fact is hat they look scary and are a gun.
Period.
And once Congress passes the bill, then Obama will sign it.
This is the core of the Democratic hypocrisy. They feel that we are responsible enough to kill babies, but are not responsible enough to defend ourselves with a gun.
Expect attacks on law-abiding gun-owners by eliminating Gun shows, requiring ineffective micro-stamping in handguns, limiting purchases on lead and gunpowder, banning.50 caliber rifles, and on and on...
It is already apparent that Obama will continue the partisanship and not work with the other side. His reaction in the State of the Union Address when health care came up was revealing. He has no interest in a health care program that works with businesses. His reaction clearly showed that he is only interested in a government run program. That also clearly shows that he will continue the ineffective Democratic partisanship that has resulted in accomplishing so little the last two years that has resulted in Congress having an even lower approval rating than Bush!
Slashdot Mirror
Nancy Pelosi wishes her Democrat Congress Approval rating was as high as Bush's. This is the first time in history that Congressional approval has ever gone down to single digits.
Hmmm, maybe the people *are* paying attention?
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_performance/congressional_performance
We've done a great job in Afghanistan. OBL is impotent. There hasn't been an attack on our soil, since when? AQ is losing and is being driven out of Iraq. Iraq has elections. Libya gave up their WMDs. Bush's Democracy is working better than I expected.
Perhaps you think we should have sent a big army in like the Russians did to Afghanistan? That didn't work so well for them. Now, *that* was a quagmire and we were smart enough to learn from that mistake.
We shouldn't be subsidizing corn. Market economics should be the driver. Their government should have done more to protect their farmers.
Most of their people reap the benefits, though. Corn is a staple in their diet and low corn prices help their budgets.
But I wouldn't hold it against the Democrats for negotiating NAFTA. NAFTA has helped the mexican people more than it has hurt.
Yes, there are millions of poor Mexican peasants in the USA working at a half or third of standard American pay. This is because NAFTA allowed American agri-business like Cargil with huge US government subsidies to flood the Mexican agricultural economy with corn so cheap that the Mexicans couldn't afford to live by growing it. And because NAFTA allowed American bio-industries like Monsanto to replace traditional Mexican corn with patented bio-engineered varieties that the Mexican farmers couldn't afford to buy. People aren't coming here from Mexico because they want to. They come because they have to, or starve.
This doesn't make sense. How can a market be flooded with cheap corn and also be too expensive for the people to buy?
I'm not confused, but I concede your point. You would also have to use biofuel for all the transportation, farming and processing energy requirements, too, in order to be completely free of using non active carbon sources. It's a start.
And, hopefully, we're not using food supplies to create the biofuel. A lot of people will be dying because the price of corn is going up from ethanol production, etc., and we don't want to make that worse.
I'm a conservative that's been recycling for 10 years, and I get about 32MPG based on the typical usage of my gas guzzling SUV and my motorcycles.
I'm all for saving energy and reducing pollution, but I'm not for damaging our economy or letting people in the 3rd world die from starvation because some Liberals are hysterical about global warming. We need to look at the whole picture. People are going to die due to global warming no matter what happens (or does not happen), and someone has to decide who it will be.
There are no easy or simple solutions.
And people accuse the Republicans of fear-mongering.
There's a big difference between theoretical climate change impacts vs. people hijacking jets and crashing them into buildings.
Biofuels will help us reduce our dependency on foreign oil, but it still will contribute CO2.
The Liberals are in a tough spot right now and this will become a major campaign issue. They have no plans for reducing the price of gas in the short term and their policies of the past will prevent anything from happening soon enough to make a difference in the long term.
We need to go to more alternative energy sources that are carbon-free. Like nuclear, water and air. Unfortunately, the Liberals have been against building nuclear power plants, hydroelectric dams and wind power (if it is in their back yards).
So, again, the Liberals have no solutions but will just whine and complain.
Then please, please tell me why anyone thinks Al Gore is remotely relevant on the issue of climate change!!!
Because he invented the Internet, silly.
Are you sure you want one party to control everything? It's obvious they are in it for their own power; they aren't doing what they were elected to do.
I feel the same way about having Republicans in control. They spent our treasure like Democrats. You can't trust any of them.
Legislative gridlock is the best thing for this country. I've always said they should revoke two laws for every law that they pass ...
The 2nd Amendment talks about guns. Where is it in the Constitution that gives people the right to kill babies?
In any case, I don't understand why abortion is a Federal issue. That is another instance of the Federal government violating the 10th Amendment.
Marriages are too much of a conflict between church and state. The state should only be involved in civil unions, for gays and straights. Let the churches deal with the gay issue in marriages since they are the ones concerned about it.
Actually, the SC is well-balanced now, 4 libs, 4 cons and a swing vote. The constant 5-4 splits have not always gone Bush's way.
We *have* declared war and it is because we were attacked on our own soil. Enemy combatants are Prisoners Of War. Prisoners of War are not released until after the war, or if there is an exchange.
Making such a big deal about waterboarding is ridiculous. Making someone think they are drowning is nothing like cutting of limbs or heads like they do to our soldiers. There's no permanent damage to waterboarding, except that their feelings were hurt. Waterboarding is a non-issue anyway, they all know now that they will survive.
In WW2, captured soldiers out of uniform were shot as spies. "Enemy combatants" deserve no less treatment. There would be far less civilians killed if they followed the "rules" like we do, wore uniforms and didn't hack off the heads of people while they are still alive.
That's right, the Feds need court approval to monitor my phone.
They need to get approval for every domestic line that calls any wiretaps being used to fight suspected organized crime (RICO). And every domestic line that calls any suspected terrorists in another country. That's what you guys want, right?
Then I know that I will be completely safe from any invasion of privacy.
I don't live in a big city, so I'm safe from terrorist nukes and organized crime. Let the big-city people worry about their safety, I have my guns to ensure mine.
We better do something quick because the temperature hasn't increased on Earth in 10 years. Maybe we are now going into an ice age and need to increase our CO2 production!
...
And then there is that inconvenient global warming occurring on Mars
I wonder where your *real* world is? In the US, the poor get more from the government than they pay in taxes. And everyone got a tax cut.
(BTW, the top 20% pay 63% of the taxes. http://www.factcheck.org/article280.html)
You are way off. All the anger and hatred is coming from the Left these days. I can't believe you people modded this +5 Insightful ...
What's amazing, is that you actually think things will change if the President is a Democrat. Is your Democratic Congress achieving your ideals? No. Do you really think one party should control all of Congress? I used to think so, but when a party has too much power it loses it's focus on their ideals and instead concentrate on garnering more power. This happened with "small government" Republicans, imagine the government abuses if "big goverment" Democrats control everything.
Hillary and Obama are both already lying through their teeth to get in power. McCain is too much of a liberal for me, but he clearly is more honest than Hillary or Obama.
I firmly believe that the best government for us would be one where no party is in control and the power is shared. Then, only the most important of legislation that is approved by both sides would be passed.
Another example of the Left propagating Lies for their own Power Play. Capitol Hill Blue is the only source for this story and cannot be corroborated.
There has been no evidence of any kind that Bush lied. If there was any evidence at all of wrong-doing, you can bet the lame Democratic Congress would have pursued it. They have nothing better to do, apparently.
Bullshit. The references you quoted from do not contain any of that .. except in someone's comment to the article.
Mod the parent a Troll.
People here don't like it when the government listens in on their conversations with terrorists. Our laws are structured so our police are only good for cleaning up after the crime. Since they can't protect us and since they are constrained from preventing crimes, this means our laws are only effective against dumb and stoopid criminals/terrorists.
Meanwhile, the public wants to feel safe; they want to think they are being protected. Hence the ridiculous and ineffective searches that occur before boarding airplanes, radioactive sensors that trigger on cats, and building a wall on the southern border while leaving thousands of miles of the northern border unprotected.
And, to think these programs were started under a Republican administration; worthless Big Government programs are usually the Democrats' domain.
This is such bullshit. Getting the endorsement of wackjobs does not reflect on a candidate's character, they have no control over that. I don't disparage Ron Paul because he was endorsed by David Duke, for example.
But it is completely different to bring your children to church in order to listen to racist sermons for 20 years. The fact that he has not specifically denounced the victimization attitude of the reverend, means that he buys into it. All he has said is that he doesn't believe the reverend's more controversial views; he needs to specifically denounce the black victimization attitude that is prevalent in the black community; without denouncing it, then he is fostering this racism. Imagine the controversy if McCain went to a White church, that espoused White values where his pastor railed against black people for causing all the troubles in the world. Look how much the liberal press hassled Romney, just because he was a Mormon, and there wasn't any evidence of racial prejudice nor that he was controlled by his church. The fact that you try to cover up Obama's racism is very troubling and hypocritical.
I'm surprised that he is buying into the Clinton playbook of telling both sides what they want to hear and thought he was above that. He denounces some of the reverend's sermons but does not specifically state how his beliefs diverge the reverend. Thus, he is able to convince the black people that he is still on their side against Whitey, and the white people think he is denouncing the white racism. But it just shows that he is just another liberal politician, playing the same old game.
Do you really want a President that believes that Whitey is the cause of all their problems or that won't speak the truth to the Black people?
The Democrats really have no choice but to nominate Obama. If they select Hillary over Obama, then they just propagate the black belief that politics is just run by a bunch of rich white people. And blacks may actually consider the party that not only freed them as slaves, but also gave them significant power (like Colin and Condoleeza), instead of just token positions. All the racism and hate-mongering is coming from the Left; conservatives believe everybody is equally capable and don't need to be thought of as victims that need special rules to allow them to compete fairly.
Let us get back to the Democrat Global-Warming Fear-Mongering ...
How convenient for you to forget that OBL ran the US out of Mogadishu, was behind the bombings of US Embassies and the USS Cole and Clinton did nothing? Hmmm?
You can thank Bush that you don't have to be skeered of no terrorists.
Political posturing just to further your own power at the expense of our safety is irresponsible. Clinton policies brought us 9/11. Bush policies have prevented a recurrence. But, it wouldn't matter to you; the fact that he is a Republican means he gets blamed whether or not we get attacked.
The Democrats are so far out of reality to push their scare tactics of Global Warming being worse than Islamofascism.
Point out one lie, just one, that Bush made. This means you have evidence he deliberately told a falsehood. Monday morning quarterbacking doesn't count.
Repeating lies over and over in order to further your political power does not make them true. Repeating bad information from a trusted source does not make you a liar.
I know that we are used to the Clinton's lying all the time (as Hillary has shown, she even got caught lying in order to pander to both sides during a debate). But Bush has always been up front with his views and never tried to bullshit his audience in order to pander to them. Which really pisses off Democrats that are used to wishy-washy lying politicians.
But it's ok, people can hate Bush because he isn't a Democrat. Democrats are more interested in feeling good than facts.
Mark my words, history will show Bush to even be a better President than Jimmy Carter. (Although, maybe that isn't saying much.)
It does matter. If the Democrats prevail and control everything, then the first thing they will do is try to pass another ban on scary looking assault-style rifles. It doesn't matter that they are essentially no different from a hunting rifle and are used in crimes less than a drunk uses a car, but the important fact is hat they look scary and are a gun.
.50 caliber rifles, and on and on ...
Period.
And once Congress passes the bill, then Obama will sign it.
This is the core of the Democratic hypocrisy. They feel that we are responsible enough to kill babies, but are not responsible enough to defend ourselves with a gun.
Expect attacks on law-abiding gun-owners by eliminating Gun shows, requiring ineffective micro-stamping in handguns, limiting purchases on lead and gunpowder, banning
It is already apparent that Obama will continue the partisanship and not work with the other side. His reaction in the State of the Union Address when health care came up was revealing. He has no interest in a health care program that works with businesses. His reaction clearly showed that he is only interested in a government run program. That also clearly shows that he will continue the ineffective Democratic partisanship that has resulted in accomplishing so little the last two years that has resulted in Congress having an even lower approval rating than Bush!