Favorite part of tonights address... - Freeze-Frame Radio

Jeremy Riggs · 2011 Super Bowl Champions!

RE: Favorite part of tonights address...

jstdve · CEO - The KOTO Co.

I think I can say with some degree of certainty that G.W. has had enough of the damicrats playing Monday morning quarterback and doing nothing but crying just to hear themselves cry.

PS The next time GW brings up whining and crying , don't look for him to be quite so polite and formal.

JD The Jazz Doctor · Grand Poobah

fuzzy was not america for once in a long long time not in a position of federal deficit & in fact had a surplus that was intended to save the social security program?

Jeremy Riggs · 2011 Super Bowl Champions!

JD,

The surplus was never earmarked for Social Security.

Don't get me wrong, a surplus is obviously better than a deficit. But Bill Clinton would have had to spend the money just as Bush has. I'm just grateful we weren't in a huge deficit BEFORE the war, because we still would have had to go deeper.

But the basis of a budget surplus just says the government TOOK more of our money than they spent. And beleive me, the Democrats would just find ways to spend it rather than give it back.

-- Edited by Jeremy Riggs at 22:25, 2006-02-01

CP · Lord of the Lair

oooh thems fighten words, so I will by pass this thread and simply say W

JD The Jazz Doctor · Grand Poobah

the main reason there was a surplus was the immediate taxation of the brand spankin new roth iras. that idea was brilliant!!! what a brilliant idea to get more tax money without raising taxes!!

How I miss the Clinton era. Sure he's a slimeball, I readily admit that. But a brillaint slimeball. The 90's totally rocked.

I am thankful that there was a surplus too before the Bush era.

hey did you see that our wonderful Republican overrun house voted on today??

----

WASHINGTON - The House on Wednesday narrowly approved Congress’ first attempt in eight years to slow the growth of benefit programs like Medicaid and student loan subsidies, sending the measure to President Bush.

The bill passed by a vote of 216-214, largely along party lines. Republicans hailed the five-year, $39 billion budget-cutting bill as an important first step to restoring discipline on spending. Democrats attacked the measure as an assault on college students and Medicaid patients.

----

Ok great, you just voted to mortgage the future for how many college students now who will no longer be able to get loans for school, and tightened the noose around the necks of the elderly once again.

"Restoring discipline on spending". Is that some sort of joke?!!?!?!! how many trillions are being pissed away in Iraq because of his war?!?!?!

CP · Lord of the Lair

W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W

JD The Jazz Doctor · Grand Poobah

someone sent me this, and I'd like to share it

http://www.thefrown.com/frowners/becomerepublican.swf

Jeremy Riggs · 2011 Super Bowl Champions!

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

This is how the system works. If you want to change it you have to regain control of the senate.

Poster children like Sheehan and Dean aren't gonna do it for you.

I admit though that Clinton did some good things on domestic policy. I truly beleive it's important that we have the two parties like we do, I think they keep each other in check.

If we had all republican rule all the time we'd definately always have a deficit (although I'd also have more of my own money in my pocket).

If we had a democratic leadership all the time we'd be speaking Chinese or Russian by now.

Molly · The Mediator

And if we had no party system, you may even get to have the best of both worlds.

Jeremy Riggs · 2011 Super Bowl Champions!

That's the type of idealistic thinking that life will eventually beat out of you Molly. Enjoy the thoughts while you can still entertain them

Molly · The Mediator

I know, it'll never happen, but being neither Democrat nor Republican, and I at least dream...

Jeremy Riggs · 2011 Super Bowl Champions!

Both sides like to talk about it.

"Let's put aside partisan politics and work together to do what's right".

But in the end they both have been bought and paid for by various special interest groups, and when the chips are down they end up voting along party lines (usually).

Molly · The Mediator

Jeremy Riggs wrote:

But in the end they both have been bought and paid for by various special interest groups, and when the chips are down they end up voting along party lines (usually).

Exactly, so what's the point? You can argue all you like, but the hardcore democrats will vote what they are told to, and the same for the hardcore republicans. It's the centrists votes that really make the difference.

Jeremy Riggs · 2011 Super Bowl Champions!

Well, those are generally considered to be the MODERATE Republicans or the moderate Democrats.

I think those are the ones that are truly the most concerned with whats best for the country, yet at the same time have the basic beleifs of the party.

I'm a republican. In many ways I may seem like a hardcore Republican, but that's only because I beleive STRONGLY in what the Republican party stands for about 80% of the time.

I agree with about 20% of the Democrats agenda.

The debate is important. We wouldn't want a senate of 100 people that just agreed and then went for coffee every morning.

I'm a hard core republican not because I'm bought and paid for, but because I DO beleive they stand for the things that I value. But I'm not so full of myself as to suggest that I can't be wrong. I enjoy debates with JD and anyone else that disagrees with me because it's an opportunity to flesh out my own views and just possibly gain new knowledge on an issue that I may not have had.

In fact, I find it 100 times more interesting and useful to talk with someone like JD than I do to talk to someone who just agrees with me on everything.

JD The Jazz Doctor · Grand Poobah

Riggs will never believe me, but I am not a hard core liberal. I am a moderate.

Jeremy Riggs · 2011 Super Bowl Champions!

JD,

I beleive you honestly feel your views are whats best, and I respect you for that.

I also honestly beleive you WANT to think of yourself as a moderate or centrist, not attached to any party. But if youo look at your stances on all the major policies you have to be honest with yourself and face the fact you are a flat out Democrat.

There's no doubt that a lot of the stuff we're talking about as far as "politics as usual" bother you and make you want to disassociate yourself from the party (or any party), BUT, without a doubt you're views on the issues always fall in line with the Democrats.

-- Edited by Jeremy Riggs at 10:45, 2006-02-02

JD The Jazz Doctor · Grand Poobah

I guess I should have clarified that as moderate Democrat. That would be true.

Mad Mema · Bad Biker Granny

There have been various points in history where Social Security did have a surplus, but that is the favorite "borrowing" pot for everyone in government. The money gets reallocated, but never repaid. Clearly something needs to be done with this system. In the mean time, I think I'll keep investing for my future... I'd hate to think the only thing I had to count on is Social Security.

Thus far I've resisted, but I'm going to climb up on my Cindy Sheehan soapbox for a moment. I truly respect her son's service and sacrifice for this country. I respect her feelings as a mother who lost a child. On that count I feel for her. What I don't get is her present point. When she started protesting outside of Bush's ranch in Crawford, TX she had a clear goal: As an aggrieved parent and citizen, she wanted to meet with the president and express her concerns. That was perfectly understandable, logical, and reasonable. I could be wrong, but it seems at some point I heard that Bush did speak with her, after the whole scene in Crawford. Now it seems she has gotten a taste of celebrity and wants to go back for more.

The more information that comes out about her and her son, the less it looks as though she is really trying to honor his memory. Casey re-enlisted after the war had already started. It was no mystery to him what this action meant. It should not have been stunning to her. Casey made his choice, and for that ended up making the ultimate sacrifice. I wonder how he would feel about his mother going to meet with the corrupt president of Venezuela and disparaging our country and our president? I have to say, she finally lost me there. I whole heartedly support any citizen's right to disagree with our government and express their views. I just don't think they ought to be doing this in a foreign land in the company of a corupt dictator. What made her even think she would get inside for the State of the Union address with that tee-shirt and banner? Now she wants to run for Congress? Please, Cindy... cut me an oversized wedge.

Jeremy Riggs · 2011 Super Bowl Champions!

Cindy had actually met with the president BEFORE she went all batty.

At the time she met with him it was in a group setting, and she told the press he seemed to be sorry for her loss and had nothing but good things to say about him.

A few months later she decided he was dismissive and unfeeling.

I've always had to wonder what exactly happened in the interim that changed her view so much.

Jeremy Riggs · 2011 Super Bowl Champions!

In fairness I should clarify a point.

Since the first night I have not heard anything about a banner. That appears to not have been true. But she came in wearing a shirt that had the number of dead Americans in Iraq and said "How many more?".

She took off her jacket to expose the shirt and that's when they grabbed her. They also grabbed a Republican congressmans wife for wearing a t-shirt that simply said SUPPORT THE TROOPS.

That congressman was very upset his wife was treated this way for a message he saw nothing wrong with.

But it's not about the message, it's about when and where you display it. This is the state of the union address, not an opportunity for anyone other than the president to share their ideology.