Say Anything Blog

I hope all of these health-nut ninnies choke on their granola and die. Who appointed them master of what people may or may not eat?

Good point. Want to get high/drop acid/overdose on sedatives and ‘die with dignity’/be 20-years-old and drink alcohol?

Good point. I just went to buy kool-aid the other day (with vitamin c!) because it’s cheap. Little did I know that someone complained because it has sugar in it. Well, I’m allergic to certain dyes, and you don’t see ME complaining about it. I just don’t drink the things that contain it.

So now I realize that kool aid has no sugar in it because someone had to complain.

Just like someone has to complain about spilling hot coffee on themselves, not knowing it was *that* hot.

People can just go elsewhere if they want healthy food- like...the SUPERMARKET!!!!

Ahhh...America! Where one of our problems is that it is really cheap to get fat!

Are they saying that McDonalds is forcing people to eat at their restaurant every meal?

No more than the webmasters of adult websites force people to look at pedophilia. But I have a feeling you don’t just ‘look the other way’ on that one, eh?

Dave, that’s interesting.  You seem to have a fixation on disgusting porn.

However the very fact that someone has child porn on their site, so I don’t have to blame the site for the viewer.  We can blame the owner of the site for creating that smut. 

Lik isn’t it nice that it’s not really cheap to starve to death in this country? 

 

It’s amazing that anyone is in business with the restrictions the government (county health departments) puts on foodservice retailers.

Maybe this is the closest I’ll ever come to agreeing with any of the regulars here and I feel kind of creepy about it.

There should be less government, which is what Bush was supposed to promote, but we got a government instead that is even tapping our private phone conversations without warrants. 

In the good old days, Clinton used to jog to stay healthy and then make a pit stop at McDonald’s for a double cheeseburger and a big milkshake with a side of fries.

 

We can blame the owner of the site for creating that smut. 

But the New York Times can’t blame McDonalds for creating theirs?!?!

diane said, There should be less government, which is what Bush was supposed to promote, but we got a government instead that is even tapping our private phone conversations without warrants.

In the good old days, Clinton used to jog to stay healthy and then make a pit stop at McDonald’s for a double cheeseburger and a big milkshake with a side of fries.

Meanwhile he was tapping everybody’s phone calls with project ECHELON. Awww...yes..."the good old days"...right diane?

Likwid: To say nothing of increasing everyone’s taxes.

And George W. Bush is only listening in on international phone calls when they KNOW one suspect has a relationship with a terrorist network. 

Now I don’t agree they should listen in on domestic phone calls which they haven’t been doing.  I never had the expectation that overseas calls weren’t listened to. 

Dave you may have a hard time understanding this, but there’s a difference between quarter pounder with cheese (El Grande du Fromage) and kiddie porn.  One of those is legal.

there’s a difference between quarter pounder with cheese (El Grande du Fromage) and kiddie porn.  One of those is legal.

Comfroting to know that Homeland Security has one window open hacking our emails and another window open watching kiddie porn at the same time.  I’ll bet they are even sending out for double double cheeseburgers.

It has been alleged that in 2002 the Bush Administration extended the ECHELON program to domestic surveillance.

 This controversy was the subject of the New York Times eavesdropping exposé of December, 2005. [4] [5] [6] [7].

 During the Clinton administration, testimony by then-CIA director George Tenet indicates that the use of ECHELON during the Clinton administration was authorized by the FISA Court, as required by law [8].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON

If only George would abide by the law.  I wonder what he’s doing right now to further take away our privacy and freedoms that we won’t know about until they catch another one of his administration for some violation of law and they spill the beans.

 

George Bush observed the law in his intercepts.

Which law would that be, Whistler?

All of them.

Dave you may have a hard time understanding this, but there’s a difference between quarter pounder with cheese (El Grande du Fromage) and kiddie porn.  One of those is legal.

And the reason kiddie porn is illegal is because a lot of people criticized it; if they hadn’t done so, it would still be legal. It’s almost as though society progresses when it engages in the free exchange of ideas. Amazing, isn’t it?

Fast food causes a lot more harm than under-age pornography. I don’t think we should criticize people who point out the harms in it; it might save lives. Legal/illegal has nothing to do with it: If you know something will harm another person, you should explain the harms of that product to the person. If he still chooses to eat a heart-attack burger, fine; at least he’ll know what he’s doing to himself.

I would have to say that it is a bit hypocritical when people are in favor of banning some products for being harmful (such as drugs) but not others (such as unhealthy food products and alcohol and tobacco).

For those who are unaware, the leading causes of death in America today are diseases and cancers that are mostly preventable through proper diet and exercise. Far more people die of heart disease, lung cancer and colon cancer each year than all the cocaine, crack and heroine overdoses combined. So I guess personal responsibility is only important when it favors a multinational corporation.

Basically, I do not see how you can support the banning of one thing because it is believed to be too harmful and completely ignore the rampant adverse health effects of another product in the name of “personal responsility.”

I believe at this point I should make it clear that I neither use nor condone the useage of illegal substances. I do however think that legalizing drugs has some benefits because: 1) it would subject them to the regulations and inspections of the government, thus preventing such ingredients as rat poison; 2) it would make it harder for young children to purchase them by setting an age limit and 3) it would greatly reduce the crime and deaths that are associated with the presence of drug dealers, gangs and organized crime.

So I guess people need to decide where they stand: regulate everything that is harmful or allow anything on the principle of personal responsibility. I am personally in favor of the former.

All of them.

LOL.  You said Bush observed the law in his intercepts, not laws.

Which law did he observe..though I doubt you’ll be able to point it out.  Still, I hope so.  I’d love to see it.  He seems to make them up as he goes along (versions of what the law really says).

Oh, please - ‘unhealthy’ food.  Leftists are the nuttiest and most joyless people on the face of the earth.  There is no such thing as ‘unhealthy food’ unless your talking about things like salmonella. 

The true issues with todays fat kids and adults is plain old gluttony.  Eating too much food and more importantly, not enough physical activity and excercise as compared to food intake.

If kids excercised and ran and played like they used to in this country, or worked at part time jobs which required physical activity like they used to as well, they could largely eat whatever they wanted and have no health consequences whatsoever.  The problem is you have a generation of kids that largely sits at home watching television and playing on the internet/video games rather than swimming, biking, running, working, etc.

It’s ridiculous to force food companies to only sell low calorie fruits and vegatables, because that is all our lazy and inactive kids can bear to eat without getting fat.  If we got them moving again, not only could they enjoy their food without worrying about it, they could also enjoy a life of physical activity.

Has anyone noticed that it’s the conservative hillbilly’s kids who look like real life versions of Porky, usually with a supersize soda dripping all over their "Bush/Cheney" T-shirts?  The liberals have beautiful, slim children who are usually involved in soccer leagues and dance class.  I suppose that has something to do with intelligence of the parents.

I think that’s a bit of an over-generalization, Diane, but I have noticed it as well. Just about every person who has bragged to me about how they just ate a quadruple whopper with extra bacon (and how I can’t eat them--believe me, this happens a lot) has been politically conservative.

In a certain respect, eating whatever you want whenever you want is a conservative position, in that it is based entirely out of self-interest (which is a genuinely moral position to hold, except that in this case the self-interest is not rational). Whereas a liberal might be concerned with the way his food choices affect others (e.g., world hunger, increased health insurance premiums, support of factory farms and exploitation of non-human animals), your typical conservative, in my experience at least is not.

If self-interest is only in secular commies, then explain to me why you vote for what YOU believe in. Also explain why Christians choose a religion that will save them, regardless of what others think.

Everyone has self-interest. Well, every healthy being out here does. 

I’ve yet to see that there is any health issues with eating a moderate amount of "fast food."

And it’s a proven fact that conservatives are happy and healthier than whiney socialists who are fretting that somewhere there’s someone not doing what they want.

 

 

Self-interest is strictly a human trait more predominant in secularists (self-indulgence) and naturalists (survival of the fitest) than Christians

I hope you’re not referring to Christians who follow Jesus’ teachings but rather to Neochristians who follow Bush.  Those are the fatties I’m referring to.  Paul, the most prolific of the New Testament authors, taught that self discipline for the body did profit, but profited little.  A little profit is better than none.  And, of course, any true Christian would also know that gluttony is definitely condemned.  But the way the after-church crowd hits the buffet line and the soft drink station over and over and over again speaks well to the fact that, like Jesus’ teachings on loving one’s enemies (or purported enemies), they just don’t care what he said.

 

 

 But the way the after-church crowd hits the buffet line and the soft drink station over and over and over again speaks well to the fact that, like Jesus’ teachings on loving one’s enemies (or purported enemies), they just don’t care what he said. 

Board Exhibit A:

I hope all of these health-nut ninnies choke on their granola and die

 

diane spews, Has anyone noticed that it’s the conservative hillbilly’s kids who look like real life versions of Porky, usually with a supersize soda dripping all over their "Bush/Cheney" T-shirts?

I don’t know any hillbillies, so I’ll have to take your word for it. Although, given your horrendous track record, I guess I can’t take your word for it.

The liberals have beautiful, slim children who are usually involved in soccer leagues and dance class.  I suppose that has something to do with intelligence of the parents.

Hahaha! You’re a joker and not to be taken seriously.

diane, Really! Who the hell are you to talk about anyones looks? Conservative or otherwise? Did your mother ever tell you pretty is as pretty does? You are the most judgemental, snippy little bitch! Get a proctologist to get that thorn out of your ass. Get your blood pressure checked. While you are there maybe hormone therapy or anti-depressants might help?

Must you children fight about everything, If your to stupid to take care of yourself you deserve to die, we dont need big brother to dictate to us what we should or should not eat.  If enough people die from eating Big Macs then maybe that will be a wakeup call (HELLO). Then theres Dave or maybe Chester is a more appropriate name for him because of his comparison, this place is full of characters. Iam glad I found my way back here, arent you

Self-interest is strictly a human trait more predominant in secularists (self-indulgence) and naturalists (survival of the fitest) than Christians.

In American politics, there is a strong correlation between conservatism and religiosity--the more religious a person is, the more politically conservative he will be (the more secular, the more liberal). Why, in your opinion, do "self-indulgent" secularists support liberal economic policies? Shouldn’t they want to abolish taxes so they can spend all their money on themselves? Perhaps to load up on fast food? Why would "survival of the fittest" naturalists want to redistribute their wealth to the masses?

Dave, in Jesus’ day, the only people he really got down on were the religious folks.  At one point, he even told them their father was the devil himself. I think we see that being played out today in the actions of the religious right.  He said people would be known by their fruit, not their words.  But they would be condemned by their words, or justified by them.

The fruits of the religious right and their support of this ‘President’ and this ‘war’ say all that’s needed to be said about their religion, don’t they?  The Lancet study shows us the fruits.  So does the new report today of more abuse of Iraqi prisoners found. 

Zsa scathingly remarks:

diane, Really! Who the hell are you to talk about anyones looks? Conservative or otherwise? Did your mother ever tell you pretty is as pretty does? You are the most judgemental, snippy little bitch! Get a proctologist to get that thorn out of your ass. Get your blood pressure checked. While you are there maybe hormone therapy or anti-depressants might help?

Who am I to talk abou anyone’s looks?  Well, if you mean my referring to the fatties in the conservative world, I guess who I am is someone with eyeballs who notices when someone weighs 350 lbs. and their 10-year-old is already waddling.  Has nothing to do with ‘pretty’ Zsa.  Has to do with ‘stop stuffing sugar and fat into your little pie-hole or you might develop Type II juvenile diabetes and die 20 years early."  My blood pressure is normal, my movements are regular, my hormones are a bit overactive when I see a good looking man, and actually, I rarely even take aspirin as I don’t have headaches, thank God.  Antidepressants?  Only time I’d need them is when I listen to someone like yourself ramble on, but I can deal with that by thinking about how wonderful it is to be on the right side of an issue.

 The Lancet study shows us the fruits.

A: That study produced an extreme total that has yet to be repeated in any other study. I’m not an expert by any means, but its methodology looked troublesome, to say the least.

B: Even if it is true, yes, 100,000 people were killed in the war. On the other hand, 26 million were fred. It’s not as clear-cut as you would have it appear.

The Whistler, when it comes down to it, I think everyone is whiney...and that’s why we have debate!

Even if it is true, yes, 100,000 people were killed in the war. On the other hand, 26 million were fred. It’s not as clear-cut as you would have it appear.

Dave?  I don’t make it clear cut at all.  How can it be clear when we were given excuses for killing them that have been proven to be patently false and/or exagerrated?  How can it be clear that we have ‘freed’ them when they can’t even leave their homes to buy a carton of milk without fearing for their lives?  How can it be clear that we have made their lives better when many have lost everything and can never make it up again if they are a certain age?  How can it be clear when it’s not clear if the ‘war’ will EVER end or if civil war is already in process??????

What IS clear is that we were misled on the reasons for this ‘war’.  That’s crystal clear.

 

If not through war, how did you propose freeing the Iraqi people from Hussein? Cross our fingers?

If not through war, how did you propose freeing the Iraqi people from Hussein? Cross our fingers?

Who the heck made us the ‘freer’ of the Iraqi people?  Are we also the ‘freer’ of the North Koreans, the Iranians, the Chinese, and every other regime we don’t agree with or that is oppressive in our view?

And, if you want us to free all of them, do us all a favor and make sure next time that’s what we are actually doing.  In this case, it certainly hasn’t ‘freed’ them, it’s made their lives a living hell. 

I’m sure there will be debate on that. 

In this case, it certainly hasn’t ‘freed’ them, it’s made their lives a living hell.

"Living hell".

diane’s universe is upside down. You can pretty much be sure that reality is the exact opposite of what she says.

In this case, it certainly hasn’t ‘freed’ them, it’s made their lives a living hell.

"Living hell".

diane’s universe is upside down. You can pretty much be sure that reality is the exact opposite of what she says.

Hmmm....if this sounds good to you, lik, there’s probably a recruiting station somewhere near you.  Have at it!!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12443056/

30 killed in weekend violence around Baghdad 27 Iraqis, 3 U.S. soldiers die in spate of roadside bombings, mortar attacks

 

Hmmm....if this sounds good to you, lik, there’s probably a recruiting station somewhere near you.  Have at it!!

Egh. Whatever.

30 killed in weekend violence around Baghdad 27 Iraqis, 3 U.S. soldiers die in spate of roadside bombings, mortar attacks

Yes. Any war where people die becomes a lost war.

Great logic!

Twenty-seven Iraqis also died in other violence Sunday, including seven killed when three mortars hit just outside the heavily guarded Green Zone in Baghdad, not far from Iraq’s Defense Ministry. Police Lt. Maitham Abdul-Razzaq said it was hard to identify the seven dead because the powerful blasts and shrapnel severed their limbs and destroyed their identification cards.

At least eight other mortars or rockets exploded at about the same time on the other side of the Tigris River in central Baghdad, without causing injuries, police said.

In the evening, another mortar hit a home in southern Baghdad, killing a man and wounding two of his relatives. Drive-by shootings in a nearby district gunned down a schoolteacher outside her home and a car mechanic in his shop.

*********

Shame on you, likwidshoe.  If this isn’t living hell to you, maybe you need a reality check.

btw - this post wasn’t about Bush nor was it about the Iraq war. Why do you feel the need to make every gawdamn post about Bush and the Iraq war? Stay on topic for a change.

diane spits out, Shame on you, likwidshoe.  If this isn’t living hell to you, maybe you need a reality check.

Yes. Any war where people die is a lost war.

Great logic Einstein!

I can’t believe that anyone is actually suggesting that life in Iraq in now better than before the illegal invasion. It’s a total fantasy in any case to suggest that the USA invaded Iraq out of concern for the Iraqis well being. It was the USA of course that killed 1.3 million of them by refusing to release the sanctions.

http://www.care2.com/c2c/share/detail/80267

The Iraqi women who toured the United States last month told us that they were amazed by how misinformed many Americans were about the lives of Iraqi women. Most Americans thought that before the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, Iraqi women were sitting at home oppressed, heavily veiled and secluded, and that thanks to the US invasion, they are now liberated. This is what the Bush administration would like us to believe, but after listening to our Iraqi friends many people now know better. To further shed light on the true status of Iraqi women, CODEPINK has released an in-depth report Iraqi Women Under Siege. We encourage you to download this report, read it and pass it on to others.

The report shows that from 1958 to the 1990s, Iraq provided more rights and freedoms for women and girls than most of its neighbors. Though Saddam Hussein’s dictatorial government and 12 years of severe sanctions reduced these opportunities, Iraqi women were active in all aspects of their society. After the occupation, with the exception of women in Iraqi Kurdistan, women’s daily lives have been reduced to a mere struggle for survival. Women walking on the streets face random violence, assault, kidnapping or death at the hands of suicide bombers, occupying forces, Iraqi police, radical religious groups, and local thugs.
Women trying to raise families in the midst of this chaos find themselves beset by a lack of electricity and clean water, and a dearth of social services like decent schools and health care.
Unemployment among women has skyrocketed. Of the 260,000 reconstruction contracts in Iraq, less than 1,000 have gone to female contractors. Before the occupation 70% of the public workforce, by far the largest employer in Iraq, were women.
The constant violence has trapped women and their children—particularly their daughters—inside the homes. Fewer girls go to school and illiteracy among girls is on the rise.
Though 25% of the seats in the National Assembly are reserved for women, the real power in Iraq is increasingly in the hands of Islamists determined to move Iraq from a secular society towards a theocracy. They are forcing women to wear veils and are trying to curtail women’s rights in areas such as marriage, divorce, and inheritance.

But as we learned from our amazing delegation, Iraqi women are not mere victims, passively watching the destruction of their lives and the fabric of their communities. As delegate Nadje Al-Ali writes in our report, "Despite the chaos and violence that restricts their activities and mobility, the women struggle on, meeting in each other’s houses, establishing refuges where women can learn skills to make a living, providing free health care, legal advice and literacy and computer classes. Iraqi women also organize conferences, sit-ins and demonstrations to get their voices heard and to influence the political process."
CODEPINK will continue to support the efforts of Iraqi women, and to push for the withdrawal of foreign troops so that the Iraqi people can determine their own future. Our next major CODEPINK action to end the occupation and support Iraqi women will be a 24-hour Mother’s Day vigil in front of the White House in Washington DC from May 13-14. Click here for details. Join actress Susan Sarandon, peace mom Cindy Sheehan, Nobel Prize winner Jody Williams, doctor/clown Patch Adams, as well as Iraqi and Iranian women, for an inspiring weekend that will include a performance of the historic antiwar play Lysistrata, an evening concert, antiwar films, activist trainings, an interfaith service, writing letters to Laura Bush, and a pink pajama party.Whether or not you can join us, please consider making a donation to help us bring Iraqi and Iranian women, as well as US military families against the war, to speak at the DC vigil and to travel to communities throughout the US. For the sake of our Iraqi sisters, let’s educate ourselves, spread the truth and redouble our efforts to build a more peaceful world.

diane spits out, Shame on you, likwidshoe. If this isn’t living hell to you, maybe you need a reality check.

Yes. Any war where people die is a lost war.

Great logic Einstein!

And she spits it out again.  Any war where people die is a lost war????

 

Let me beat them to it, Michael:
You’re a stupid European and that article is written by leftie commies. 

Michael, even though your poodle Blair followed the pit bull into ‘war’, please spread the word over there that America has been kidnapped by people with no compassion who can sit by and hear about innocent Iraqi civilians and their own military dying and suffering horrific lifelong injuries day after day after day and convince themselves they’re doing it for charitable reasons.  There’s no way to deal with people who seem to have no sense of reality but there you have it:  America has been kidnapped by these folks; a slim majority to be sure, but kidnapped.  And freedom and human rights and international law and all that is decent is at stake.

Michael said, I can’t believe that anyone is actually suggesting that life in Iraq in now better than before the illegal invasion.

Life is better because they now have a chance. The invasion wasn’t illegal. Only a fool or someone who is lying would claim otherwise.

This topic wasn’t about Bush nor about the war. Why is it now? Why are you posting Code Pink crap in this thread? Do you actually expect us to believe that a woman’s life was better under Saddam?

Good grief.

Michael and diane - you guys disrupt every thread and seem incapable of rational discussion. Your multiple postings about things unrelated to the subject matter is getting old.

Conscience starting to bother you, lik?  I see you jumped into the Bush topic way up near hte beginning of the thread and you continue to defend a vicious undeclared ‘war’ throughout it.

Life is better because they now have a chance. The invasion wasn’t illegal. Only a fool or someone who is lying would claim otherwise.

Said like an American living thousands of miles away from their daily life.  The invasion was pre-emptive and experts in international law believe it was illegal.  Of course, Bush now decides what is and isn’t legal on a whim.  Michael has posted what actual Iraqis say about it; I’ll listen to them, not you, lik.

This topic wasn’t about Bush nor about the war. Why is it now? Why are you posting Code Pink crap in this thread? Do you actually expect us to believe that a woman’s life was better under Saddam?

I believe what Iraqi women say.   You have no first-hand knowledge, they do.

I’m going to bed, like you, where we won’t hear bombs going off outside our window.  Tomorrow I’ll be happy to post links, if requested, to the opinions of experts in international law (as I’ve done elsewhere), stating that they believe Bush has broken it.  Of course, that won’t make a ‘lik’ of difference to you, I’m sure.

diane continues spewing, Michael, even though your poodle Blair followed the pit bull into ‘war’, please spread the word over there that America has been kidnapped by people with no compassion...

So now people who endorse the removal of dictators have "no compassion". As I said before, your universe is upside down.

There’s no way to deal with people who seem to have no sense of reality but there you have it:  America has been kidnapped by these folks; a slim majority to be sure, but kidnapped.

Well that’s nice. Chew on this: I’m an Ohio voter for Bush. Now stew like a little kid who is angry.

And freedom and human rights and international law and all that is decent is at stake.

Yes. We should have respected the freedom of Saddam and heralded his wonderful human rights record. We should have ignored that he was breaking that all-so-important "international law" while applying the corrupt as all hell "international law" to the U.S.

Nice double standards diane!

Conscience starting to bother you, lik?

My conscious is quite clear, thank you.

I see you jumped into the Bush topic way up near hte beginning of the thread and you continue to defend a vicious undeclared ‘war’ throughout it.

My mistake. I should have questioned why you brought up Bush and a topic in a thread that is not about him nor the topic.

And an AUMF is the same, for all intents and purposes, as a declaration of war. This has been told to you before from another poster.

I’m going to bed, like you, where we won’t hear bombs going off outside our window. 

Can we get more dramatic? I don’t think you’re trying hard enough.

Tomorrow I’ll be happy to post links, if requested, to the opinions of experts in international law (as I’ve done elsewhere), stating that they believe Bush has broken it.

Don’t bother. Bring it up in a thread that pertains to the subject. This blog has literally hundreds of posts that pertain to the Iraq war. Why you feel the need to make every gawdamn post about the Iraq war is beyond me. Just try sticking to the topic if you feel compelled to comment.

Of course, that won’t make a ‘lik’ of difference to you, I’m sure.

Well aren’t you just cute in a disgustingly immature way.

Diane wrote: 

The invasion was pre-emptive and experts in international law believe it was illegal.

That has nothing to do with the morality of the invasion. If by acting illegally Bush freed 25 million people from a Nazi-esque dictator, wouldn’t you believe he’d done a good thing?

"’The problem here is that you’re dealing with a segment where you have these huge obesity issues and you’re making eating Big Macs and double cheeseburgers look like it’s fun and exciting,’

Yeah.... that’s sorta how marketing works. You know, emphasize the good, de-emphasize the bad. McDonalds is also not showing what really happens on the factory farms--the incredible amount of suffering the cows are forced to endure. Why, O Mighty New York Times, dost thou express no outrage at that?

Dave...You have a point there. The cruelty to animals argument has more volatility. This argument is void of any real substance.

Of course, that won’t make a ‘lik’ of difference to you, I’m sure.

Well aren’t you just cute in a disgustingly immature way.

Thanks for noticing.

The fact is, you and you ilk continue to bring up the bad dictator as justification for your bad ‘war’.  The truth is you probably don’t give a crap about the plight of people living under dictatorships.  If you did, you would support pre-emptive invasions of a number of countries.

It’s just good psychobabble to soothe your conscience gnawing your guts out.  Or you have no conscience at all and you’re still covering.

Which is it?

The fact is, you and you ilk continue to bring up the bad dictator as justification for your bad ‘war’.  The truth is you probably don’t give a crap about the plight of people living under dictatorships.  If you did, you would support pre-emptive invasions of a number of countries.

ASSume what you will diane, as it seems to be your modus operandi. For your information, which you will no doubt ignore as you are wont to do when things don’t fit into your template, I do support "pre-emptive" invasions of a number of dictatorships.

It’s just good psychobabble to soothe your conscience gnawing your guts out.  Or you have no conscience at all and you’re still covering.

Which is it?

Neither. Continue ASSuming the worst about my intentions though. I know you won’t stop because otherwise, you’d have no argument.

 For your information, which you will no doubt ignore as you are wont to do when things don’t fit into your template, I do support "pre-emptive" invasions of a number of dictatorships.

Oh MY!  What a surprise!!!  Now that we’ve cornered you at last, which countries shall we invade next????  I hope all your Bushite friends here will climb on board as well and all of you can explain where we can get the money to invade all these countries while passing out tax cuts.  Are you and Dufus going to pull the money out of the magic hat?

 

Now that we’ve cornered you at last, which countries shall we invade next????

You’ve "cornered" me?

You’re a joke diane. A temporary diversion not to be taken too seriously.

I hope all your Bushite friends here will climb on board as well and all of you can explain where we can get the money to invade all these countries while passing out tax cuts.

"Bushite friends"? Heh. Whatever.

Oh, by the way, a cut in tax rates to the Laffer Curve doesn’t "cost" the government any revenue. They actually get more revenue.

Are you and Dufus going to pull the money out of the magic hat?

Dufus Bush. Idiot diane.

Now that we’ve cornered you at last, which countries shall we invade next????  I hope all your Bushite friends here will climb on board as well and all of you can explain where we can get the money to invade all these countries

I get it. So since we can’t free all people from dictatorships, we shouldn’t save any of them. Gotcha.

Since this thread appears to have went of course, I’ll join in its new topic.

It is extremely irrational to justify the Iraq War as a means to Liberate the Iraqi people from a ruthless dictator. This compassion propaganda which filled your bleeding hearts apparently has blinded your sence of Preadmission. The sanctions that where imposed on Iraq which tried to force them to cooperate with the communist corporation called the United Nations caused more deaths than that evil evil man Sadam. Where was this compassion then?

This is a war for the greater Israel, you can deny this and change the marketing motives as much as your conscience will allow you, Iraq’s enabling is equivalent to our own continual support for the terrorist state of Israel which occupies our government.

Diane: "Now that we’ve cornered you at last, which countries shall we invade next?"

For my bit, I say Iran.  This followed later by Mexico, purely for pragmatic reasons, but I suppose I do depart a bit from the conservative cohorts.

Diane: "explain where we can get the money to invade all these countries while passing out tax cuts."

 You mean tax rate cuts, and the deficit is shrinking, btw.  Everything holds course, we’ll be in surplus in 2008.  Not that I want my government to be in surplus, but it’ll appease the masses.

Oh, and I suggest also that we take Iran’s oil.  All of Iran’s oil. So many nations hate Iran anyway, so I doubt anyone will care. There’s some concrete war funds to make you happy, Diane.

Diane: "Are you and Dufus going to pull the money out of the magic hat?"

It is tricky how tax rate cuts stimulate the economy, huh.  Almost like magic, when you think about it.  I suggest, though, that you take a 12th grade econ course and really pay attention this time, honey.

Brilliant post WETBACK.  The same people who talk about bleeding heart liberals all of a sudden profess great compassion for the same people our military has been bombing for the last several years, and as you point out, the same people they made sure didn’t get even the basics for over a decade of sanctions.

Hey John, what did you do with your big tax refund Bush sent you out of love and compassion?  I bet you invested it and made a fortune, eh?  LOL

With a post like yours, suggesting anyone brush up on high school economics is hilarious!!!!

Now I see why these people are gungho for Bush.  They have the same ‘world comquerer’ mentality the guy has. 

This is one of the funniest (and scariest) groups of people going.  I honestly think you have got to be kidding about these things. 

Your thinking is just too skewed to be believable.

 You mean tax rate cuts, and the deficit is shrinking, btw.  Everything holds course, we’ll be in surplus in 2008. 

I’m not sure what in the world you mean by ‘Everything holds course’ but here’s a reality check:

Presidents and the Federal Debt    
White House Data Confirms: Reagan-Bush Administrations
Created Post-WWII Federal Debt
GRAPH OF DEBT HISTORY SHOWING PRESIDENTS

     For Your Web Site: the National-Debt    $ 8,356,677,739,541     Click image below to enlarge.Contributions of Presidents to the Gross Federal Debt    The Presidential contributions to the gross federal debt are computed from data available from the White House.gov in the Historical Tables, Table 7.1 (PDF), p. 118, for FY 2005. The graph and data are also available in this XLS source file.

For each term in office, the President is responsible for four fiscal year budgets starting Oct. 1 of the year they take office and ending Sept. 30, eight months after they leave office. Table 7.1 gives the gross federal debt as a % of GDP at the end of every fiscal year since 1940.  Each President’s federal debt contribution was computed by simply subtracting the value at the start of his first FY from the value at the end of his last FY.

All Presidents prior to Reagan contributed to paying off the huge WWII debt. The graph also credits the drop in federal debt as a percent of GDP under Clinton towards repayment of the remaining WWII debt and not towards paying off the Reagan-Bush debt. That would simply hide their impact by making it appear that more of the current federal debt was left over from WWII. Had Reagan-Bush simply managed to break even, the WWII debt would have been as low as it’s shown to be.

Debt held by the Federal Reserve System is purchased by printing money; the purpose of these "open market operations" is to put more currency into circulation. The most recent figures used for this part of the federal debt are available from the St. Louis Fed. This was divided by GDP figures provided by the Department of Commerce.  

Since all Presidents from Truman on have reduced the gross federal debt except Reagan and the Bushes, the part remaining from WWII is found by subtracting their debt contributions (and the FRS contribution) from the current federal debt total.

http://zfacts.com/p/480.html

Bergman: Hold the applause for shrinking federal deficit

By JEFFREY BERGMAN

Yes, you heard correctly, the federal deficit is shrinking - but don’t break out that bottle of bubbly just yet.

The White House has released new projections showing a decline in the government’s red ink, from $412 billion last year to $333 billion this year, fueled by higher tax revenues. Following the news, administration officials and members of Congress began patting themselves on the back for their "fiscal restraint." President Bush is said to be confident that his plan to cut the deficit in half before leaving office is on track.

Yet if lawmakers get the idea that our fiscal problems are behind us, and view these numbers as a green light for new tax cuts or spending initiatives, they may yet make what is still a bad situation even worse.

For anyone inclined to party, here are a few sobering facts. The new revenue fueling the improvement may be the result of temporary factors and, in any event, leaves us with a debt that is still growing faster than the economy - an ominous prospect, given the huge challenges of the baby-boomer retirement beginning in just three years.

There’s no pretending that $333 billion isn’t a staggering amount of new debt for one year. And interest payments on our loans have become the fastest-growing part of the budget, not exactly a sign of solid long-term planning.

Despite the claims of some economists, there is little evidence that the administration’s tax cuts have "paid for themselves" through stronger economic growth. While reducing taxes naturally frees up money for private investment, the effect has been more than outweighed in this case by heavy government borrowing.

When President Bush took office, federal tax revenues stood at 20.9 percent of gross domestic product. They fell to 16.3 percent in 2003, before rising to 17.4 this year. Meanwhile, spending has risen steadily from 18.4 percent of GDP in 2000 to 20.1 percent today. It’s that difference that has given us more than $1 trillion in new debt in the past five years.

Under the White House’s plan for the future, even assuming continued strong growth and tight spending restraint, revenues are not expected to rise above 18.1 percent of GDP, nor spending to fall below 19 percent. In other words, sustained budget deficits haven’t been eliminated - in fact, they’ve been assumed.

None of that is encouraging if we look at the big fiscal policy picture. Social Security, of course, is facing a funding gap running into the trillions of dollars, and no equitable reform plan yet enjoys widespread support. The outlook for Medicare, the health-care program for senior citizens, is even worse.

In addition, many of the administration’s previous initiatives, from tax cuts to continuing operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, will have fiscal effects stretching years into the future. Yet they’re not currently reflected in the projections.

Unfortunately, adapting to these realities may require a degree of flexibility that we just do not have. Let’s hope that Congress and the White House can see past the self-congratulation and grasp the full scale of the budgetary challenges facing us.

After all, if $333 billion in new debt qualifies as good news, I’d hate to see what counts as bad.

JEFFREY BERGMAN is Iowa coordinator for the Concord Coalition, a citizens’ group advocating fiscal responsibility in the federal government.

http://www.concordcoalition.org/news/article-storage/2005/desmoinesregister-050812.htm

 So, Bush caused this MASSIVE deficit and now you want to give him credit for shrinking it.  You people are hilarious...really.  It’s like someone almost killing someone and then getting credit when the person starts to recover a tiny bit for saving his life.