Bush's "conversation" w/troops staged

[TnKrBeLlA012]

Of course not

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/01/AR2005100101317.html

This is another Democratic ploy to put more negative media attention on the Bush administration. If they had put this much media on Clinton he would have been impeached without the Monica purgury.

 

[Laura]

This is another Democratic ploy to put more negative media attention on the Bush administration. If they had put this much media on Clinton he would have been impeached without the Monica purgury.

 

[sodaseller]

Your first sentence has no basis in fact.

Rates may well increase some as the economy has been improving over the last couple years and continues to do so.

There will never has been nor will there ever be "full" or 100% employment.

It has complete basis in fact. Read about Greenspan in 92 and Fred Barnes warnings in 03-04. There is whole world out there you don't hear about from the Conintern

Your remaining points are nonsensical. There may not be 100% employment, but that is not a logical rejoinder to the point that we prioritize limiting inflating over maximizing employment. Ome does not follow the other.

And if rates increase, and they likely will, overheating will likely be the least important source. First, you are confusing the Federal Funds rate, which is set arbitrarily, and bond yields, which reflect the real market rate of interest considering the market approximations of risk and anticipated inflation. Understand the basic distinctions before you weigh in on a subject. The real rate of interest responds to the federal funds rate which has an component of anticipated inflation, but the two are not the same

 

[DawnCt1]

Yes, and they even had water and electricity and women could walk the streets without covering their heads if they wanted to.

Something that is no longer the case a year and 1/2 later.

You are so seriously misinformed that I don't even know where to begin.

 

[sodaseller]

Oh what an idyllic place Iraq was under Saddam. You forgot to mention all the kite flying.

Logic alertLink

Definition:

A limited number of options (usually two) is given, while in reality there are more options. A false dilemma is an illegitimate use of the "or" operator.
Putting issues or opinions into "black or white" terms is a common instance of this fallacy.


Examples:
(i) Either you're for me or against me.

(ii) America: love it or leave it.

(iii) Either support Meech Lake or Quebec will separate.

(iv) Every person is either wholly good or wholly evil.


Proof:
Identify the options given and show (with an example) that
there is an additional option.

 

[sodaseller]

Are you serious? Iraq was better off with Saddam in power? Unless you lived in Iraq I think it best not to assume people lived better with Saddam.American troops are still in Iraq defending this country. I choose to give my support for these brave men and women. Freedom comes at a cost. One day Bush will be praised for what he has done in Iraq. Giving people their freedom is a great thing. We are just fortunate that we have it.

There is a solid argument that they were. Read Shadid's "Night Draws Near"

 

[transparant]

You are so seriously misinformed that I don't even know where to begin.

Ain't that the truth. However - I do know where to begin: http://www.goodnewsiraq.com/index2.htm

 

[MizBlu]

Oh goody, another Pet Goat, Michael Moore follower. Michael Moore wouldn't know the truth if it hit him in the stomach (or at least he wouldn't put the truth in his films as it might hurt his movie millions or popularity among his cult.)

Do you have any links re the exact locaton of our President's thumb? The teacher in the room at the time might disagree.

The few, the delusional, the 29%.

As to the position of Bush's thumb, I thought it was a "deer-in-the-headlights" look in his eye. Maybe it was something else.

 

[MizBlu]

This is another Democratic ploy to put more negative media attention on the Bush administration. If they had put this much media on Clinton he would have been impeached without the Monica purgury.

Oh good lord, they're out tonight.

 

[MizBlu]

You are so seriously misinformed that I don't even know where to begin.

Please, do inform us.

 

[DawnCt1]

Please, do inform us.

It would be an absolute waste of my time.

 

[MizBlu]

It would be an absolute waste of my time.

Nothing to back up the rhetoric.............I'm shocked, just shocked.

 

[TnKrBeLlA012]

Oh good lord, they're out tonight.

Oh good lord, when will they see the light.

 

[What the Heck]

Granted the Democrats get donations from corporations and the well-to-do as well - that's how both parties are able to stay in the game. It is unfortunate that the common man has zero chance in this country of ever rising to high levels of government without selling his soul. It's like with the last election, when the right kept painting John Kerry as a rich boy with a silver spoon in his mouth married to the ketchup tycoon. Well, who the heck did they think George Bush was??? It's not like he's some poor, farm boy and we all know it. They are both men of priviledge.

The difference I see in this administration , is that Bush's Republican Party has consistantly favored big business over the average American time and time again. History has shown us that at least the Democrats are generally passing legislation and policy that aid and give back to the people.

I agree with the 1st paragraph (they were both rich boys). However I didn't vote for Bush because of Kerry being spoiled rich, I voted against Kerry's foreign policy which would have been a disaster in my opinion.

I disagree that history has shown the Democrats passing legislation for "the people". I would point out that, especially in history, it has been the Republicans who have been more for the people than the Democrats, especially in the South. In the 1960's it was the Southern Democrats who did not want anything to do with the Civil Rights movement - they were sending troops to stop it from happening. The civil rights laws would not have been passed if it wasn't for the help of the Republican Party. Some Democrats did help, but so did many Republicans. And no Republicans attempted to go to war with the federal government over it. So much for history. Currently, it is the laws that come from the Democrats that tend to keep people on their back rather than giving them a hand up. At least that is how I view it - things like Medicaid, etc. Just my thoughts.

 

[punkin]

Currently, it is the laws that come from the Democrats that tend to keep people on their back rather than giving them a hand up. At least that is how I view it - things like Medicaid, etc. Just my thoughts.

How in G-d's name does Medicaid keep people on their back?

 

[What the Heck]

Yes, and they even had water and electricity and women could walk the streets without covering their heads if they wanted to.

Something that is no longer the case a year and 1/2 later.

Provided the women didn't catch the attention of someone who might want her - and if they were high enough could rape without any fear of retribution.

And they had water and electricity - provided they never said anything bad about Saddam or his regime - ever. Or they would lose everything, if someone anywhere near them was to say something - everything, their jobs, their homes, their ability to work, sometimes their tounges, their arms. Yep, they were definately better off.

 

[What the Heck]

How in G-d's name does Medicaid keep people on their back?

Medicaid is set up to keep people on it. If they attempt to get their life better, they lose it - automatically. I don't know if it is still the case, but if someone on Medicaid goes to school to improve their lot in life, they lose all help. If someone gets any kind of job, they lose it. In order to keep it, you have to do nothing to improve your life. And we are talking about (for the most part) the poorest of the poor. It is an institutional slavery.

 

[yeartolate]

It would be an absolute waste of my time.

Nawwww, let me start out your argument....."Bill Clinton......."

 

[MizBlu]

Oh good lord, when will they see the light.

So go ahead and enlighten us.

 

[MizBlu]

I agree with the 1st paragraph (they were both rich boys). However I didn't vote for Bush because of Kerry being spoiled rich, I voted against Kerry's foreign policy which would have been a disaster in my opinion.

I disagree that history has shown the Democrats passing legislation for "the people". I would point out that, especially in history, it has been the Republicans who have been more for the people than the Democrats, especially in the South. In the 1960's it was the Southern Democrats who did not want anything to do with the Civil Rights movement - they were sending troops to stop it from happening. The civil rights laws would not have been passed if it wasn't for the help of the Republican Party. Some Democrats did help, but so did many Republicans. And no Republicans attempted to go to war with the federal government over it. So much for history. Currently, it is the laws that come from the Democrats that tend to keep people on their back rather than giving them a hand up. At least that is how I view it - things like Medicaid, etc. Just my thoughts.

Is the source of this fantasy Pill-Popping-Daddy Limbaugh, The Loofah Lothario O'Reilly, Jim Beam, or Johnny Walker?

You better get your story straight about southern party affiliation after 1965, why the south went Republican and here's a hint, it isn't because of the passage of civil rights by the Republicans. It was in reaction to the Democratic support for civil rights. The old Democratic segregationists and states rights advocates didn't like the idea that someone told them what they had to do in their own backyard. So they turned to the Republicans who were very happy to have that bunch join them. Goodbye to bad rubbish.

The South didn't turn away from the Democrats because of defense issues or security issues. The South turned away from the Democrats because of civil rights.

As far as Medicaid, what's your solution? Or is your solution remove all health care from the poor so maybe they'll drop dead and you won't have to worry about them anymore or "waste" anymore money? Is that it?