Dick Cheney Serves Wolf Blitzer A Cup of STFU
Things got testy between Wolf Blitzer and Dick Cheney. Video link here for the Iraq exchange. Ian has the video for the Mary Cheney questioning.  Bring up Cheney’s daughter and you get what you deserve:
BLITZER: You know, we’re out of time, but a couple of issues I want to raise with you: your
daughter, Mary. She’s pregnant. All of us are happy she’s going to have a baby. You’re going to
have another grandchild. Some of the — some critics are suggesting — for example, a statement
from someone representing Focus on the Family, “Mary Cheney’s pregnancy raises the question
of what’s best for children. Just because it’s possible to conceive a child outside of the
relationship of a married mother and father doesn’t mean that it’s best for the child.” Do you want
to respond to that?
CHENEY: No.
BLITZER: She’s, obviously, a good daughter –
CHENEY: I’m delighted I’m about to have a sixth grandchild, Wolf.
And obviously I think the world of both my daughters and all of my grandchildren. And I think,
frankly, you’re out of line with that question.
BLITZER: I think all of us appreciate –
CHENEY: I think you’re out of line.
BLITZER: We like your daughters. Believe me, I’m very sympathetic to Liz and to Mary. I
like them both. That was a question that’s come up, and it’s a responsible, fair question.
CHENEY: I just fundamentally disagree with you.
BLITZER: I want to congratulate you on having another grandchild.
This is the 04′ debates all over again. He wasn’t going to drag his daughter into the mud then, and he has even less reason to do so now. I know this will come as a total shock to all of you, but our elected officials don’t actually agree with everything their voting base does. Cheney was elected in 2000, and it was no secret to the country at that time, that the man had two daughters, one a hetrosexual and the other a homosexual
 And try to get a reaction from him on McCain and you may as well be talking to a wall:
BLITZER: He’s been very critical of you, John McCain.
CHENEY: Well, John’s a good man. He and I have known each other a long time and we
agree on many things and disagree on others.
BLITZER: He said, the other day — he said, “The president listens too much to the vice
president. Of course, the president bears the ultimate responsibility, but he’s been very badly
served by both the vice president and, most of all, the secretary of Defense.” That was John
McCain.
CHENEY: So?
BLITZER: No reaction?
CHENEY: I just disagree with him.
BLITZER: He said, about the former Defense secretary, “Rumsfeld will go down in history,
along with NcNamara, as one of the worst secretaries of Defense –”
CHENEY: I just fundamentally disagree. You heard my speech, when Don retired. I think
he’s done a superb job.
Allah has coverage of McCain’s comments. He does make a valid point:
It was just two years ago McCain had these kind words for Cheney:
“One of the most capable, experienced, intelligent and steady vice president’s this country has ever had….”~Senator John McCain (R) Arizona Source: Washington Post July 2004
January 24, 2007 - 10:35 PM on January 24th, 2007
Hmm BIG BAD WOLF BLITZER gets scalded and the 3 little pigs get WOLF SOUP:razz:
January 25, 2007 - 05:14 AM on January 25th, 2007
[...] –Right Voices: “Bring up Cheney’s daughter and you get what you deserve..” –The Agonist: What really bothers me is that Blitzer was so apologetic about asking a question about Cheney’s gay daughter. Cheney supports Bush who opposes gay marriage and gays having children. So, Wolf’s question is completely in line. Cheney’s a hypocrite, period. But here’s what is going to happen: Cheney and the usual suspects will use this interview as another cudgel to beat up on all them libruls and the librul media and then go do the rest of his interviews with Faux News. I wish Blitzer had just stayed away from the question because it’s a loser. Period. [...]
January 25, 2007 - 08:59 AM on January 25th, 2007
Yes how dare Wuffie quesion Mr Cheney about his daughter and Focus on the Famillies reaction to her pregnancy, I mean it’s not as if FotF has ever supported the GOP based n no small part on the issue of Gay families is it?
January 25, 2007 - 09:35 AM on January 25th, 2007
Cheney should’ve said “Dobson’s out of line”, not Wolf.
I kinda hope they keep pestering Cheney about this… Maybe he doesn’t denounce gay relationships, but he’s chummy with people who do, and never denounces them. I’d like to see Cheney actually stand up for his belief that gays should be able to have relationships…but alas, his heart is dead.
January 25, 2007 - 09:46 AM on January 25th, 2007
“but our elected officials don’t actually agree with everything their voting base does.”
Well then why don’t the speak out against the hateful rhetoric or is dick aware that other than catering to peoples hatred he has nothing to offer.
Also why can’t dick say anything about homosexuals raising children in america…is he incapable of holding his own opinion…admit it dick is a wimp and a coward and a disgrace to his family and this country.
January 25, 2007 - 10:16 AM on January 25th, 2007
This points out what a hypocirtical a*hole His Dickness really is–he will even sacrifice his daughter and grand-baby to the right-wing religious freaks, and it’s not ok for anyone to ask him about it–a complete and total political monster.
So, in a nutshell, it’s perfectly OK for Dobson to smear his daughter and her pregnancy as amoral and sinful, but it’s not ok for Blitzer to ask his opinion on that?
You guys need to lay off the medicinal marijuana.
A little bit behind the 8-ball? Check it out…..
EDITED by peejz- follow proper linking procedures
January 25, 2007 - 10:52 AM on January 25th, 2007
Where is Mary Chene’s stance on FOF? Has she come out and condemned them? It is no one’s business how the Cheney’s feel about it, nor was it necessary for Wolf to try to bring Mary into..had he done it properly, the question could have and would have been answered.
January 25, 2007 - 10:55 AM on January 25th, 2007
5- Cheney is no more hateful than a Rosie O’Donnell…or you for that matter.
January 25, 2007 - 11:01 AM on January 25th, 2007
Mary Cheney was out of the closet way before 2004. She used to work for Coors in the office o gay/lesbian relations. In 2004, Alan Keyes — a religious crackpot running for the Senate — called her “amoral” and “hedonistic”. Neither Momma Cheney nor Poppa Cheney said anything. Of course, they blew their top when Kerry mentioned that she was a lesbian. This time, the same hypocrisy shows its ugly mug. Dobson, the harpies of CWO, and Tony Perkins, all criticized Mary Cheney for her pregnancy. Again, no word from Lynne or Dick. But Blitzer mentions the pregnancy, and he is “out of line”? What a load of crap!
And by the way, Cheney was apoplectic on the interview with Blitzer. He was even more aggressive and hostile than usual. He is like a cornered rabid hyena. He looked like what he is: a dangerous psychopath who lost the upper hand. May he have a heart attack!
January 25, 2007 - 11:18 AM on January 25th, 2007
“May he have a heart attack!”
You’re a real class act, aren’t you?
For the record, Wolfie Blitzer is a known hate-America propagandist pos. So it is no surprise that he would stoop to creating a situation in this interview that was off topic and did not need to come up.
January 25, 2007 - 12:47 PM on January 25th, 2007
I say good for Cheney. Why on earth should he be forced to discuss personal family business on national tv. He is not and never has been one to do that in spite of both Kerry’s and Edwards despicable behavior in the debates of 2004. He’s made statements that in effect say he loves his daughter and stands beside her. That doesn’t mean he has to approve of her lifestyle. But whether or not he approves or disapproves it’s his daughter and he loves her and we have no business going any deeper than that. He’s happy he’s going to be a grandparent again and this means he loves the child his daughter is having regardless of the circumstances.
I’ve always said it and I’ll say it again. There is a misconception among liberals that conservatives never have personal issues (like this) they deal with and that their lives are perfect any deviation from their beliefs is somehow seen as hypocritical. I come from a family of conservatives and found myself pregnant at 16. No one judged me and no one approved of it but we dealt with it. That’s what conservatives do.
January 25, 2007 - 01:45 PM on January 25th, 2007
Cheney should have been handed a loaded shotgun during the Blitzer interview. Then watch Wolfie “squeal like a pig”.
(I know you Libs are wetting your pants right now because of the reference to your favorite movie)
January 25, 2007 - 01:52 PM on January 25th, 2007
“You’re a real class act, aren’t you?”
“Cheney should have been handed a loaded shotgun during the Blitzer interview. Then watch Wolfie “squeal like a pigâ€.”
Ha, ha. Wow.
“For the record, Wolfie Blitzer is a known hate-America propagandist pos”
Ok, Mr. McCarthy.
“He wasn’t going to drag his daughter into the mud then, and he has even less reason to do so now. ”
Leave that to Focus on the Family!
January 25, 2007 - 02:02 PM on January 25th, 2007
How Cheney feels about FoTF is as irrelevant as his views on the Iraq War.
This db hasn’t been right about anything.
But his Halliburton options keep growing, so good for him (bad for America).
BTW, of course Blitzer hates America. He makes his living there. What kind of guy would like a country where he makes a better living than 98% of his fellow citizens. (sarcasm)
January 25, 2007 - 02:46 PM on January 25th, 2007
Ah, I see I have an imitator (post #13). It figures the Left would now stoop to hijacking screennames.
The degeneracy of the Left knows no bounds.
Liberalism is a form of mental illness.
January 25, 2007 - 02:53 PM on January 25th, 2007
You can’t have it both ways, Dick Cheney should have denounced Dobson and nipped it.
If John Gibson can question whether Barak Obama was raised Muslim in his early years, Wolf can question Cheney about the Far Right’s not-so-happy opinion of his dughter’s pregnancy. What does O’Reilly call it – ambush journalism??
January 25, 2007 - 02:56 PM on January 25th, 2007
Robert, after listening to Gibson’s assault on Obama and Mark levin’s crazy rant about “beating up” Keith Olberman, I could say the same about Conservatism, or what you guys think is Conservatism.
You all always need to “kick a Lib” to the curb to feel your oats, it’s so silly, and so emasulating – for you that is.
January 25, 2007 - 03:44 PM on January 25th, 2007
“If John Gibson can question whether Barak Obama was raised Muslim in his early years, Wolf can question Cheney about the Far Right’s not-so-happy opinion of his dughter’s pregnancy.”
The first has to do with Obama himself. The second has to do with someone else, who is not an officeholder. There is no equivalence.
January 25, 2007 - 04:03 PM on January 25th, 2007
“For the record, Wolfie Blitzer is a known hate-America propagandist pos. So it is no surprise that he would stoop to creating a situation in this interview that was off topic and did not need to come up.”
For the record, Wolf Blitzer got his start on Pat Robertson’s CBN as Middle East correspondant. So he’s hardly a hate-America propagandist. Let’s just say he’s one of the spineless MSM talking heads that have allowed this country to be trashed by the likes of Cheney. What I find amusing is that he is piling on Cheney with everyone else now that it’s clear to almost everyone what a disaster Bush/Cheney been for this country. And he still backs off when Cheney snarls at him. Blitzer looks pathetic to both the left and now, finally, the right. What I don’t get is why Cheney thinks it’s a good idea to show his face outside of the Fox News bunker.
January 25, 2007 - 04:03 PM on January 25th, 2007
It is no one’s business how the Cheney’s feel about it
But it is the Republican’s business to legislate against it. That makes perfect sense. I think it’s fine that Mary’s having a kid, it IS her business, but why, then, does her and her father’s party want to make such things illegal? Shouldn’t the VP, as someone with a stake in the matter and a public office holder, have an opinion about this? Or does Republican leadership mean it’s OK to cower behind your daughter’s skirt and whine at the messenger?
This is good too:
The first has to do with Obama himself. And he openly denied it, resented the implication that he went to a radical Islamic madrassas and CNN did a report that debunks the charges — yet Gibson says Obama, everyone in the report, CNN and even Insight and Fox (which blame Clinton for their lack of fact checking, and don’t back their report) are lying. Meanwhile, Cheney, as a Republican Vice President won’t even answer a simple question about his lesbian daughter’s pregency when other prominent Republicans are criticizing her for it?
Now that’s a man.
I love the fact too that Robert thinks his handle is so obscure and odd that someone else could possibly use the name in good faith.
January 25, 2007 - 04:10 PM on January 25th, 2007
“For the record, Wolfie Blitzer is a known hate-America propagandist pos”
Who says, you? LOL
Excellent analysis Jay & Fiasco – Bravo. I bet all of our comments are deleted soon….
January 25, 2007 - 04:51 PM on January 25th, 2007
#20; dat be so
January 25, 2007 - 04:57 PM on January 25th, 2007
#18 I don’t care if Wolf Blitzer started out as Pat Robertson’s cabin boy. What matters is what Wolfie has done in the last few years, and that is a reoctd of shame for all to see. A blame-America, hate-America, hate the military, total pos.
I’ll bet Jay P., Fiasco, and Maria are all the same poster. Another visiotr from DU.
January 25, 2007 - 05:14 PM on January 25th, 2007
Ah, worng again, ask whomever maintains this site, I am neither of them, he/she can check the isps. I like up in hell – NYC – as you’all like to call it. i’m in big bad Lib Jungle – far far from the dysfunction in Right Wing Junction.
And you are agreeing that we should be censored, very Right Wing of you my dear sir. At lrast you are consistant.
January 25, 2007 - 05:21 PM on January 25th, 2007
How ridiculuos you neo-con! They all seem to be posters of the highest intelligence and intellect, very worthy of the designation “liberal”! As Maria so correctly pointed out, Jay and Fiasco’s analysis was brilliant, cutting, and so thorough that notice how there is no neocon response? hah!
Jay, Maria, and Fiasco, you are doing well. You are well on your way to establishing impeccable liberal credentials. And don’t you just love being liberals? Isn’t it a woinderful feeling knowing that in addition to being vastly intellectually superior, that you also care more? Care about the environment, about the poor, about defending the helpless? About stopping state-sponsored murder, about promoting the U.N., about furthering cooperation with the European Union, about all things warm and fuzzy and wonderful?
I gotta go now and play some of my Joan Baez records. Maybe a little Peter, Paul, and Mary!
Ciao!
ps: Keep those neocons on the run!
January 25, 2007 - 05:23 PM on January 25th, 2007
And you are agreeing that we should be censored, very Right Wing of you my dear sir. At lrast you are consistant.”
Huh? When are you going to type something that makes sense?
January 25, 2007 - 05:33 PM on January 25th, 2007
“#20; dat be so”
Is what you wrote.
Super Lib is obviously having a bad reaction to his/her meds…let’s all say a prayer for Super Lib, she/he needs guidance. Let’s see, what biblical quote comes to mind, oh yes,
Judge not lest ye be Drudged…
January 25, 2007 - 05:48 PM on January 25th, 2007
to clarify: “dat be so” referred to:
“”For the record, Wolfie Blitzer is a known hate-America propagandist posâ€
Who says, you? LOL”
I say it, many other say it, and I’ll say it again: Wolf is a known America-hating, blame-America-first, hate-the-military, pos.
January 25, 2007 - 05:51 PM on January 25th, 2007
Obviously these are not educated people Robert…
source
January 25, 2007 - 10:06 PM on January 25th, 2007
Heh Robert or faux robert – whatever you are, I was quoting someone else and I said –
Who says, you? LOL
Excellent analysis Jay & Fiasco – Bravo. I bet all of our comments are deleted soon:.
What I thought you were commenting on. I didn’t realize you were agreeing with the same tired remark repeated on the Right Wing group think group crowd….
January 25, 2007 - 11:04 PM on January 25th, 2007
Re Maria 15:
“You can’t have it both ways, Dick Cheney should have denounced Dobson and nipped it.”
I am wondering if you are a parent, becasue if you were you would realize that in this case Cheney can have it “both ways”.c He can disagree with his daughter’s choice of lifestyle, but that doesn’t mean he would stop living her.
Re Jay B. 19:
But it is the Republican’s business to legislate against it. That makes perfect sense.
Yes, it does.
The rest of your statement is misrepresentative of their position. Please show me where the Republicans want to make mary Cheney having a baby illegal.
Re 23 (Maria):
“And you are agreeing that we should be censored, very Right Wing of you my dear sir. At lrast you are consistant.”
I have two words for you:
Democrat Underground.
Physician, heal thyself.
January 25, 2007 - 11:05 PM on January 25th, 2007
Wow Maria yer way kewl. I luv how you just slay these neocons! I bet yer a babe 2! 420 friendly, no doubt!
January 26, 2007 - 12:38 AM on January 26th, 2007
Re 30, not only am I the parent of a 29 year old daughter and 30 year old son-in-law, i have a four year old granddaughter.
If my daughter were gay and I were in the public spotlight, i.e., political, regardless of whether I was Dem, Repub or Libertarian, or otherwise well known and noted, I would speak out against any Right Wing – Left Wing group that uses their bully pulpit and the Bible to take issue regardless of whether I was Dem, Repub or Libertarian.
Human Rights are human rights, period. The Fred Phelps of the world with his crazy fugly daughters can/could kiss my chops.
But unfortunately our political figures cannot think or speak for themselves anymore, that bully pulpit has won.
January 26, 2007 - 12:44 AM on January 26th, 2007
“I have two words for you:
Democrat Underground.
Physician, heal thyself.”
Hon, I am far to old and far too moderate for DU. But you might want to visit that cestpool called Freeperville. LOL
I hear they love to send out envelopes filled with white powder to public officials and not only expect to get away with it, believe it was necessary to get their point across. Don’t remember anyone on DU doing that. And no one over at DU fancies blowing up Federal Buildings in memory of a child molester running a cult or Women’s Centers,
so maybe you
should heal thyself, thank you.
January 26, 2007 - 12:46 AM on January 26th, 2007
“Wow Maria yer way kewl. I luv how you just slay these neocons! I bet yer a babe 2! 420 friendly, no doubt!”
I already know what you are, don’t feel the need to commit the sin of gambling….LOL
January 26, 2007 - 12:51 AM on January 26th, 2007
And I am hardly 420 friendly, I have been sober since 1994. I hate pot, it is not allowed in my presence or my house.
Actually, I’m target friendly, I am a Democrat who supports the 2nd Amendment. Small government and the 2nd Admendment is the only thing you fools are right about….LOL.
January 26, 2007 - 09:25 AM on January 26th, 2007
32- That is your right to speak out and your choice. In the case of the Cheney’s they have spoken out and don’t feel the need to keep repeating themselves. They too have rights. Did it ever occur to you that when they think of their daughters, they don’t think of 1 as hetro and 1 as homo? They might just think of them as the daughters they love unconditionally?
January 26, 2007 - 09:50 AM on January 26th, 2007
In Cheney’s case he is keeping quiet not to upset the apple cart with Dr. Dobson and crew, nothing more, nothing less. Stop being so PC about it, no matter how you all spin it, it is what it is.
Dick Cheney’s daughter’s respect carries more water than the political pandering of the Far Right Fringe of the GOP, IMHO.
But Mr. Cheney cannot speak his mind about how he and his daughter may have felt about how she was judged on the pages of Focus on the Family and and editorial in Town Hall mainly because the GOP needs “Dr. Popinjay” and crew to win elections.
January 26, 2007 - 11:24 AM on January 26th, 2007
37- Really, and you know this how? Because you assume it? You are the perfect example of an ass assuming. You obviously aren’t smart enough to comprehend the comments he has made on the subject. He and his family have addressed the subject. It is not necessary to address every person that comments on it and he most definitely doesn’t need to answer to the likes of you..Think before you speak, it would serve you well.
January 26, 2007 - 11:35 AM on January 26th, 2007
Stop the politically correct balderdash, he never has addressed it with the far Right Fringe and I think he should. You give those people an inch and they want to take a mile. I am not talking about regular Christian eVangelicals, i am talking about the far Right fire and brimstone types who are the equivalent of Islamists. the type who want to use the bible to govern like the wacks in Saudi Arabia want to use the Koran.
Those types want to be appeased, they want things their way, it is their way or no way and Dick Cheney should set them straight. When what’s her name wrote the editorial on Town Hall he should have answered with a rebuttal immediately. It is none of their business what Mary Cheney says, does, eats, drinks, sleeps with, period. And her father should have the gumption to rail up against this, but politically he can not.
Bottomline the GOP need these people to win.
January 26, 2007 - 11:36 AM on January 26th, 2007
Sorry for my lack of caps, my keyboard is on the fritz….
January 26, 2007 - 02:01 PM on January 26th, 2007
39- Those types want to be appeased, they want things their way, it is their way or no way
And how is that any different from you? What part of not addressing every group did you not understand?
It is none of their business what Mary Cheney says, does, eats, drinks, sleeps with, period.
But somehow it is your business?
And her father should have the gumption to rail up against this, but politically he can not.
Asked and answered on 04′.
January 26, 2007 - 02:09 PM on January 26th, 2007
Should have answered the recent editorial from the female wingnut on Town Hall. Nipped her in the bud, showed her who was boss and that the Grand Old party will not be usurped by Fringe elements, period.
Maybe some of the former members would come back and not vote Libertarian and Dem.
January 26, 2007 - 02:14 PM on January 26th, 2007
42- You really are just blissfully ignorant..
January 26, 2007 - 04:09 PM on January 26th, 2007
Blitzer should have kicked Cheney’s fat white ass off the show. Cheney talks tough for an obese old creep with a bum ticker. Cheney had an opportunity in his life to actually be a tough guy and stand up for what he believed in – but he had other priorities – keeping that fat white ass in one piece – and he ran like the cowardly bully he is.
January 26, 2007 - 04:34 PM on January 26th, 2007
Re 32 (Maria):
“Hon, I am far to old and far too moderate for DU. But you might want to visit that cestpool called Freeperville. “
I agree with you- I do not like the Freepers. The are extremist IMO. However, let’s re-examine your statement I based my comment on:
“And you are agreeing that we should be censored, very Right Wing of you my dear sir. At lrast you are consistant.â€
You were stating that censorship is strictly a right wing trait. I say balderdash and I gave a very real example to the contrary, and can give more. (Al Franken, anyone?).
I am saying, dear woman, the censorship is not a right wing trait but a uman trait. Both the extreme left and the right do this when they hear something they disagree with.
The difference here between you and I is that I do not equate said trait with a particular position.
That sated, I beleive I am the moderate here, and will stick with my advice:
Physician, heal thyself.
“Human Rights are human rights, period.”
I also agree, but must ask what human rights are you refering to? The right to make the life style decision to be gay? I see no one being denied that.
Please clarify.
January 26, 2007 - 05:27 PM on January 26th, 2007
I am saying, dear woman, the censorship is not a right wing trait but a uman trait. Both the extreme left and the right do this when they hear something they disagree with.
Gay people should be acknowledged and have equal right under the laws, but I also believe divorce should not be that easy, hetero-sexual people should not be able to trample the sanctity of marriage in this country, it’s disgusting.
Regarding Mary Cheney and gays, in respect to my human rights analogy, I believe that some people on the Far Right of the spectrum have nothing but hate and disdain for those who are different than them, such as homosexuals. I live in NYC, came here to go to college and stayed, (wish I didn’t, but that’s another story, I hate this place) but I come from a tiny town in Middle America and am still in contact and very friendly with high school friends who are very Far Right.
I completely agree with you, the Far Left is wacko too. Just to clarify my position, I am 15% left of Center Dem, do not subscribe to the Far Left or Right, believe this country is noble, but with this administration was have made serious mistakes. Do not have a problem with guns rights, if by law I could own a gun I would. I believe in less government, am pro-choice, anti death penalty and extremely anti-euthanasia. I sided with Terri Schiavo’s parents, was deeply upset by her story and thought Michael Schiavo was a prick for his disrespect of her parents. I was also extremely suspisious of what really happened that last night. I believe we should defend ourselves but don’t believe we should be in Iraq. I live 30 blocks from Ground Zero, was here, lived through it. Like most Nyers I would have perferred going after Bin Laden, then took out the prick in Bagdad. I believe everyone who lives here should speak the King’s English, the fact that they don’t is my worst pet peeve. I deal with it daily and it is absolutely sickening.
I guess my problem with Dick Cheney’s handling of this situation with Blitzer is that generally Dick Cheney is ready, willing and able to set people straight who disagee with him or this administration. But he handles the Far Right Fringe with kid gloves.
I am thankful that the Democratic party has become so diversified, many of our new people, like Jim Webb and John Tester, I am thankful they were elected. I think we showed the Far Left that they do not run the party, we are not all Che’ Leftists and I wish the GOP would do the same.
Too much Tim Mcveigh and Ted Kaczynski is just not go for our democracy.
January 26, 2007 - 05:29 PM on January 26th, 2007
meant to say –
Too much Tim Mcveigh and Ted Kaczynski is just not good for our democracy.
January 26, 2007 - 05:38 PM on January 26th, 2007
How did Cheney’s daughter get pregnant if she’s not married? This is puzzling…
January 26, 2007 - 05:48 PM on January 26th, 2007
Probably a sperm donor.
January 26, 2007 - 05:49 PM on January 26th, 2007
She certainly has the money to pay for it.
January 26, 2007 - 07:37 PM on January 26th, 2007
the thing is, all of this doesn;t matter. we should be focussing on the fact that the so called “Dick Cheney” is not even a human. I am telling you, he is some kind of android who has death rays for eyes, or something. we must get to the bottom of this- who or what is dick cheney??? AND WHO MADE HIM?
January 26, 2007 - 07:51 PM on January 26th, 2007
I don’t know about that, I just think he is guilty of political pandering to the Far Right Fringe of the GOP. Maybe if more Republicans stood up to them more mainstream Americans would vote Republican. The elections were proof positive that this is a moderate country, that we do not sit well with idealogues pushing their agendas and that we want a strong separation between Church & State.
And we already know that Dick and Lynn Cheney are hardly overly religious, they are your everyday run of the mill country club Republicans. Dick Cheney, in his real life and real skin is hardly going to allow the Right Wing Fringe to attack his daughter, if he wasn’t in political office both he and Lynn Cheney would tell Dr. Dobson to shove it.
I am really surprised that Lynn Cheney did not rebut that crazy editorial on Townhall. If she used the same deameanor with the female fringe wacko from Townhall that she did with John Kerry I would be impressed.
January 26, 2007 - 07:57 PM on January 26th, 2007
So Kennedy, Kerry and Pelosi are mainstream?
People shouldn’t have to give up their beliefs, and they won’t.
The elections were nothing more than a rebuke of the Iraq war, nothing more, nothing less.
January 26, 2007 - 09:04 PM on January 26th, 2007
I disagree. The country has never been so divided as it is and has been with this brand of Far Right brand of Republicans. They are hateful, unaccepting of others – the most UnChristian behavior this side of the 10th gate of hell.
America is just plain sick of it, the hate, and the double standard with Cunningham, Foley and Haggard. The constant provocative speech of Coulter and some on talk radio is just not what this country wants to hear or chooses to listen too. Even Fox news’ ratings have dropped 17-20% in some demographics.
It behooves Dick Cheney to not look like he is pandering to these people and their ilk. America and Americans do not do well with idealogues, period.
The Republican Party has allowed the Far Right to paint them into a corner. The threats from Dobson and Falwell are loud and piercing, “you need us to win and we will not be used by The Republican Party, they better know who put them in power”.
I say cut out the fringe and embrace America. Most of the country is moderate, they are not the Western version of the wackos we are fighting.
January 26, 2007 - 09:15 PM on January 26th, 2007
“Gay people should be acknowledged and have equal right under the laws…”
I agree…but don’t they already?
I am of the opinion that the problem is within the current system. “Marriage” is an institution where secularism has failed miserably. The institution needs to be seperated in it’s entirety: 1) “marriage”, the religious institution and 2) “civil unions”- the state institution. only when this happens will gay couples be afforded the same legal rights as heteros. As long as the two remian intermangled (yes, I meant that) gays this will not happen.
On the flip side, I also agree that a society has a right to pass laws to protect itself cfrom whatever it deems fit as long as it does not infringe upon one’s civil rights. I have yet to see the argument that marriage is a civli right, or the benfits there of. Like driving, it is a state licensed activity. Like driving, marriage is not a right and can be revoked or denied for whatever the state deems to be reasonable cause.
Seems conflicting? It isn’t. To summerize: Once the state institution is secularized, I believe civil unions should be granted to gays. However, it is not a right.
If you wish, I will clarify my general beliefs for you like you were kind enough to do.
January 26, 2007 - 09:18 PM on January 26th, 2007
“The elections were nothing more than a rebuke of the Iraq war, nothing more, nothing less.”
AND Republican corruption.
Abramoff, DeLay et al hurt your team big time, along with Iraq.
January 26, 2007 - 09:22 PM on January 26th, 2007
I believe they should be granted the rights of civil unions and I feel they should be protected from violence and hate crimes.
Why are the Republicans also so opposed to the hate crime thing?
January 26, 2007 - 09:23 PM on January 26th, 2007
“I agree:but don’t they already?”
No. Gay couples do not have the same rights that straight couples have…you’ve heard it before…1000 some “rights” that married couples recieve such as hospital visitation, end of life arrangements, joint tax filings, etc…the list goes on and on.
Gay adoption bans is another big one…
Gay and lesbian employees are often unable to have their “partners” covered under group health insurance plans or other employee benefits that married couples take for granted…
Do you want more?
January 26, 2007 - 09:24 PM on January 26th, 2007
Seriously, there is a major civil rights movement going on in our nation in regards to homosexual rights, and your team is fighting it.
That’s bad.
January 26, 2007 - 09:26 PM on January 26th, 2007
“The country has never been so divided as it is and has been with this brand of Far Right brand of Republicans. They are hateful, unaccepting of others – the most UnChristian behavior this side of the 10th gate of hell.”
I disagree.
First off, Bushco isn’t the only devisive force. Algore and his merry band of lawyers have a lot to do with it also.
Secondly, Lincoln, LBJ and the Hoover Admins are just three cases off the top of my head that were more divisive.
Second of all…do we really want to bring up politicians and Christian behaviour? None of them do it. You know…adultry in the oval office isn’t exactly Christain, not to mention lying (which every national level politician excels at).
January 26, 2007 - 09:27 PM on January 26th, 2007
Several months back there was a Columbia student – white, who was attacked, beaten and killed up on 125th Street in Harlem. Several of the bloggers on the Right reported on the case like Michelle Malkin and wanted it classed as a hate crime.
When I heard the story, like most Manhattanites, I was skeptical about the white issue. I knew it wasn’t because he was white, it was probably because he was gay, or they thought he was. When that part of the story came out the Right wing bloggers dropped the story.
January 26, 2007 - 09:29 PM on January 26th, 2007
“Gay couples do not have the same rights that straight couples have:you’ve heard it before:1000 some “rights”that married couples recieve such as hospital visitation, end of life arrangements, joint tax filings, etc:the list goes on and on.”
I agree that I’d like to see gay couples aforded those, but they aren’t rights.
January 26, 2007 - 09:33 PM on January 26th, 2007
“Why are the Republicans also so opposed to the hate crime thing?”.
I don’t know- I’m not a Republican. Perhaps you should ask one of them.
January 26, 2007 - 10:16 PM on January 26th, 2007
If not rights, what are they? What do you call them?
January 26, 2007 - 10:24 PM on January 26th, 2007
“If not rights, what are they? What do you call them?”
I call them privledges, which is a thing to which one has a just claim. These are granted by laws and can also be taken away by said laws. In this example, our society could completely do away with marriage, and it would be legal as marriage is a privledge, and not a right.
Right are inherent and are granted due to one’s very existance.
January 26, 2007 - 11:04 PM on January 26th, 2007
Well then they should be just as privledged as the next guy IMHO, including Mary Cheney.
January 26, 2007 - 11:06 PM on January 26th, 2007
In defense of Cheney, he was in opposition to that ridiculous marriage admendment cooked up as a diversion and nothing more.
January 26, 2007 - 11:25 PM on January 26th, 2007
“Well then they should be just as privledged as the next guy IMHO, including Mary Cheney.”
But you re missing a fundamental difference in the two.
A privledge can be rightfully dictated by a society, where a right can not as it is inherent to every person.
If society wants to define marriage as a privledge between a man and a woman, that is society’s perogative. You and I may disagree but that is still society’s perogative. It is up to those who believe so to sway enough folks to have Congress vote it into law. It is NOT “civil rights” issue like portrayed by San Francisco Liberal.
January 26, 2007 - 11:38 PM on January 26th, 2007
Second of all
o we really want to bring up politicians and Christian behaviour? None of them do it. You know:adultry in the oval office isn’t exactly Christain, not to mention lying (which every national level politician excels at).
Yes, because when the Right believes there should be no clear separation of Church and State it becomes a part of the dialouge. And what about Sam brownbeck, Rick Santorum?
On the Left side of the aisle we do not purport to be religious idealogues, we see ourselves and our politicians as sinners to be judged by the deity only.
Judge not lest ye be judged.
January 26, 2007 - 11:59 PM on January 26th, 2007
I have a better idea Tedintheshed, how about the Right Fringe not construing the Bible about people they are opposed to.
You know I have to bring up another issue that is so wacky. I am listening to WABC 77 on my computer and it is Laura Ingraham’s show from earlier today. She is asking people/callers what the worst sound in the world is, and of course it’s all about bashing Pelosi, Barbara Wawa’s dog, Rosie O’Donell, Susan Estrich, Charlie Rangel.
I mean this lawyer who btw – was dumped after her fiancee decided not to marry her because she was diagnosed with breat cancer (nice Conservative guy, sounds like a Newt Gingrich tale we will not mention)- where does she get the balls? I mean isn’t she embarrassed by the very childishness of her shtick? I have never listened to her show although I did see her once on C-Span and all she could muster was making fun of Marilu Angelou and only stopped after the host shamed her into stopping. Not intentionally, but like me, he questioned the “high school – jr high” direction of her conversation and she felt uncomfortable ad apologized trying to elucidate her behavior.
So silly, and Conservatives had problems with Howard Stern…the very airlessness of her routine is shamimg me, I am embarrassed listening to her. I feel like ai am being Hilton-ed or Lohan-ed or Britney-ed against my will. yuck.
There is just something not very appealing about a perimenopausal woman acting like an 8th grader. So very unstimulating, double yuck.
January 27, 2007 - 12:01 AM on January 27th, 2007
I guess her show cancels out that old adage that Liberals can only resort to making fun of people or name calling when they feel they are loosing the arguement…LOL
January 27, 2007 - 01:13 AM on January 27th, 2007
“Yes, because when the Right believes there should be no clear separation of Church and State it becomes a part of the dialouge. And what about Sam brownbeck, Rick Santorum?”
What do you mean by “the right”? From my dealings with both sides of the isle, as much of the right believes in secularism as the left. While some of the tight lauds religiousism, so does the left whern it suits them. John Kerry is a great example of this.
Not familiar with Brownbeck, but I know Santorum. He’s a hypocrite.
“On the Left side of the aisle we do not purport to be religious idealogues”
Can’t disagree with that. While the right have their religious idealouges, the left have their anti-thiests idealouges.
Same idea, just different extremes.
“I guess her show cancels out that old adage that Liberals can only resort to making fun of people or name calling when they feel they are loosing the arguement:LOL “
Both sides have their abundance of idiots. The Rosie’s, The Ingrams, The Frankens, the Coulters. both side have opinions I can also respect.
This isn’t a “right v. left” thing for me. My job is to rise above the din and sort the 99% of bullshit from the meaningful commentary and ideas. both sides have them. I refuse to sit here and give strictly left or right examples of “what abot this?”. That’s a fool’s game. I will give point/counterpoint examples, like I have with you here. It seems yours are a bit weighted to the right side.
January 27, 2007 - 01:45 AM on January 27th, 2007
you people are ignoring cheney’s inhumanness at your peril. he is somekind of android that must be stopped, for the good of humankind. his lack of humanity is underscored by his lack of empathetic ability. HE IS A MACHINE! the real cheney died in 1995.
January 27, 2007 - 01:50 AM on January 27th, 2007
I think he had his brain implanted into an android.
January 27, 2007 - 02:50 AM on January 27th, 2007
I will agree that the Far Right pisses me off much more than the Far Left. it pisses me off that Dick Cheney cannot and will not take them to task.
As for the whole Rose Trump thing I agreed with Rush Limbaugh for probably the first time in my life – that is – his analysis of the feud. He duly noted that Rosie really took the Conservative road or side of the arguement by not agreeing with giving Tara whats-her-name a second chance. As he said, Conservatives usually don’t do that. He found it odd that she stirred up the ire of the Right. Trump very much took a Liberal position of the girl and now we find out he has been allegedly negoitating a deal for her to model in Playboy. That’s OK, but you would believe that maybe posing in a girly magazine, albeit tasteful as Playboy tends to be, it would somehow be in her contract as a definite no no. So really what was the whole 2nd chance really about?
Like Dick Cheney, Trump deserved to be called on the carpet for his behavior. The fact that Rosie’s professional job is as a comedian, I didn’t take issue with the hair comments. Don Rickles did it for years, he made fun of everyone, comedians do that, she is no different.
The whole flag thing in Palm Beach is just another way for Trump to stay in the spotlight, as they claim his show is tanking. According to Forbes he draws a large part of his wealth from production.
Furthermore, Trump went even further uses Iraq and this administration to boister his argument of why he went after her, you know, it’s about time we hold people accountable for what they say and do…blah blah blah, and that’s why we are in Iraq, blah blah blah. Plus he confused the whole Danny DeVito drunk story. When on with Sean Hannity he accused Rosie of assaulting DeVito, but of course Hannity didn’t have the balls to correct him and inform him that Danny DeVito actually climbed on Rosie’s lap.
Then when Rosie elaborated about the fools on American Idol,immediately the right was polarized against her and went in for the attack. But in actuality Elizabeth, the Conservative voice on the show, was the one that brought up the issue of the young man in the red shirt being attacked and called a bush baby, i guess he meant a lemur, by Simon Cowell. Elizabeth thought it was cruel and inhumane and was television at the lowest common denominator.
Not one voice on the Right, and they all talked about it on their Radio Shows and on cable news – not one credited Elizabeth, the Conservative with the initial attack on Rupert Murdoch’s coveted show. Not Sean hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Laura Ingraham, they all blamed Rosie, who was merely adding to Elizabeth’s analysis of the show’s rude and ridiculous behavior.
This only reassures me and my point of the Right’s endless nasty diatribe, propagandizing, lying for the red meat that keeps the savages turning in for even more. It’s disgusting. I see blood thirty Zombies with no direction, just the desire to rip any opponent to shreads and feast on their entrails. All for the sake of winning, all for the sake of feeling complete, smearing whoever, whatever. They cannot stop talking up a negative storm about Hollyweird but yet support and embrace a show like Idol? Now what an damn oxymoron that is. And this is the group we are supposed to relinquish the reins of our country to? I think not.
They are the biggest sham of our existence in the 21st Century and I just will not stop pointing out their double standards.
January 27, 2007 - 08:39 AM on January 27th, 2007
What pisses you off Maria is that you can not get your way. You want everyone to see things exactly as you do, but thank god they don’t. Please explain how a group of black people beating up a lone white person is not a hate crime? You have to be a white gay beaten up in order for it to be a hate crime?
If you took the time to actually study something for yourself rather than repeat lies, you would see that Michelle Malkin and many others on the right, support gay rights, they don’t believe in marriage, but they do believe in civil unions. They don’t believe courts should decide it, but the states, as it is a states rights issue that should be decided by the people.
You keep talking about the far right and the religious right and how awful they are, but guess what, they have just as much right to their opinions and their, prejudice and close mindedness as you have to yours. You are just like them.
January 27, 2007 - 09:47 AM on January 27th, 2007
“They are the biggest sham of our existence in the 21st Century and I just will not stop pointing out their double standards.”
They are no bigger a sham than the far left, Maria. What perturbs me is the fact that folks just concentrate on “their side” winning, just like you are now. Unless I bring up something irrevutable and out it “in your face”, you are of the ilk that whistles past the grave yard. You may be 15% to the left, but you are so polarized you may as well be Jane Fonda or Michael Moore. THAT is what explains such a statement from you that I quoted above.
January 27, 2007 - 10:12 AM on January 27th, 2007
What pisses you off Maria is that you can not get your way. You want everyone to see things exactly as you do, but thank god they don’t. Please explain how a group of black people beating up a lone white person is not a hate crime? You have to be a white gay beaten up in order for it to be a hate crime?
Let me clarify, I believed it should be a hate crime either way. My point was that The Right blogs felt it should only be a hate crime if he was a white boy being attacked by blacks.
Michelle Malkin does not support civil unions. She does not support hate crimes for gays, I am one of her readers, both her blog and hotair.
January 27, 2007 - 10:19 AM on January 27th, 2007
What pisses you off Maria is that you can not get your way. You want everyone to see things exactly as you do, but thank god they don’t.
No I do not, I would like the Right side of the aisle to tell the truth, stop lying and give us the whole story. They are entitled to their beliefs, i am just opposed to how they try to push and sell those beliefs
on the rest of us.
They are no bigger a sham than the far left, Maria. What perturbs me is the fact that folks just concentrate on “their side”winning, just like you are now. Unless I bring up something irrevutable and out it “in your faceâ€, you are of the ilk that whistles past the grave yard.
I was interested in them not winning because they are ruining this country and have sherked their responsibilities to America. They have and continue to hoodwink the good people of this country and it is a sham. I am hardly like Michael Moore, I thought Fahrenhaie 911 was a sham. I even wrote in a review that Moore and Coulter should team up and remake a Laurel and Hardy film, they are both ridiculous. As for Jane Fonda, she has apologized, let it go. Don’t fall into the Far Right’s trap of being unbending and never forgiving people for something they did 30 years ago…
January 27, 2007 - 10:27 AM on January 27th, 2007
You keep talking about the far right and the religious right and how awful they are, but guess what, they have just as much right to their opinions and their, prejudice and close mindedness as you have to yours. You are just like them.
Again, you misunderstood me. Yes they have rights to their opinions, never said they didn’t. But when they use those rights and those opinions to advance an agenda that is unhealthy or encroachs on others who disagree, well that is unexceptable.
January 27, 2007 - 10:49 AM on January 27th, 2007
“I was interested in them not winning because they are ruining this country and have sherked their responsibilities to America. They have and continue to hoodwink the good people of this country and it is a sham.”
How is that any different from what the left does Maria? Are you actually foolish enough to believe that if Bushco is replaced by a Dem administration, that they would do any less damage? Do you actually think Bil CLinton was any better than Bush? To you really foresee any improvement?
Look, I’m all for talking about the problems of this country, but if you stick to just one party then your arguement misses a great deal of the problem. It’s like blaming lack of air for a flat tire. Well yeah, that’s true but you are ignoring the nail in the tire. L
January 27, 2007 - 10:51 AM on January 27th, 2007
“But when they use those rights and those opinions to advance an agenda that is unhealthy or encroachs on others who disagree, well that is unexceptable.”
Again Maria, you are only looking at one small part of what is wrong with this country. You are saving the acuusatory tone for Bush only.
January 27, 2007 - 11:11 AM on January 27th, 2007
I am not a clinton syccophant, but , in fact, he was much better than Bush. At least he could put two sentences together and not make our country look ridiculous to everyone else in the world. call me crazy, but i think that makes a difference.
why does it matter what the international communtiy thinks? bczo we need their help to fight the so-called global war on terror, but when bush goes around pissing everyone off, other countries don;t want to help, especially since the politicians in other countries can’t seel haelping the US to their citizens. that is the small problem with democarcy, the system of government which BushCo claims to be so interested in advancing.
Secondly, there is an international trading system, of which we are very much a part. with the emergence of other economic super powers, such as china, we are no longer the only game in town. if people can deal with other countries economically, and we go around aggressively acting like assholes, we will not be able to maintiain our economic dominance, bcoz no one will want to deal with us. this shoulod be obvious to everyone, and bush is making this situation worse with virtually every decision and statement he makes.
bottom line: the real problem is that Bush’s puppet master, dick “donkey knog” cheney, is not actually a human. his lack of empathy and fully functional human logic capacitotr has got us to where we are today. you right wing conservatives can congratulate yourselves for electing this android and ruining a once great nation- do you really want to bow down to a non-human race of androids, hell bent on our destruction because of a programming error in their central algorithms? impeach cheneyBot now to save the human race from certain destruction!
p.s. i stand by my serious points, and i think there is at least a 50% chance that cheney is an android or robot.
January 27, 2007 - 02:08 PM on January 27th, 2007
I am not a clinton syccophant, but , in fact, he was much better than Bush. At least he could put two sentences together and not make our country look ridiculous to everyone else in the world. call me crazy, but i think that makes a difference.
Agree also Clinton didn’t act like an idiot in the dimplomacy dept. This admin is almost like very alcoholic-like, it’s their road or the high road, everyone else can just f-off. They are doing things their way or no way….
Conservatives naturally tend not to question those in power, they except what they are told. Couple that with my latter obervation and you have a recipe for disaster.
January 27, 2007 - 02:15 PM on January 27th, 2007
my next prediction – Hillary was caught singing the National Athem and her mic picked it up. Like many others – she is tone deaf. Let’s see what kind of legs this story will grow on Talk Radio this coming weeks…LOL Instead of attacking her on her positions, these fools will comment on her inability to be worthy of American Idol status.
They will be making fun of her like nobody’s beeswax. Now if she didn’t sing, well that would sprout even longer legs as well…LOL oh well….
The good news America – isn’t listening to them anymore. They are done with the jr high nastiness.
January 27, 2007 - 02:25 PM on January 27th, 2007
Again, you misunderstood me. Yes they have rights to their opinions, never said they didn’t. But when they use those rights and those opinions to advance an agenda that is unhealthy or encroachs on others who disagree, well that is unexceptable.
And the agenda of the left is healthy? More government is not healthy. We are not a socialist country yet the democrats want us to become one.
As for Rosie…Rosie is the one that started both situations..Rosie shoots her mouth off and expects people to agree with her…had she just said what she had to say about Tara and not attacked Trump personally, then it would have been a non-issue. Had she not made a derogatory remark about Paula being drunk, that too would have been a non issue..See, she wants tolerance for herself and other homosexuals, but she has no tolerance for anyone that is not lockstep with her ideology…I don’t dislike her because she is gay, I dislike her because she is one of the most ignorant people I have ever listened too, and there is no excuse for it because she has the money to educate herself.. I also have no respect for a person that slams Paula for being drunk but when a Monday show opens, she announced that she spent the weekend drinking, because she was depressed..She made her bed..
January 27, 2007 - 02:28 PM on January 27th, 2007
Again Maria, you are only looking at one small part of what is wrong with this country. You are saving the acuusatory tone for Bush only.
Well, he’s is the one who has been in charge for the last 6 years and is responsible for one’s currently happening in iraq.
I believe in accountability, I do not buy into the Right Wing talking points about attacking Iraq, sorry. And those talking points, like we would be seen as liberators, I am just not buying their bunk anymore.
Who else should I be holding accountable?
The Right Wing doesn’t want him held accountable becuase that brings up too many questions. Their attitude is, oh well we are there now so what are you going to do, or let the Dems fix it if they think they can or even more brazenly – they think they are better than us, we dare them to have a better answer…nah nah nah nah nah.
Their inability to accept responsibility for the messes they create is staggering and unacceptable.
I am sorry they are in charge and they blew it, period.
You are obviously sympathic to these fools by your postings.
January 27, 2007 - 02:51 PM on January 27th, 2007
And the agenda of the left is healthy? More government is not healthy. We are not a socialist country yet the democrats want us to become one.
Please stop while you are ahead, the government has never been so big as it is and has grown under this admin…please stop.
As for Rosie:Rosie is the one that started both situations..Rosie shoots her mouth off and expects people to agree with her:had she just said what she had to say about Tara and not attacked Trump personally, then it would have been a non-issue. Had she not made a derogatory remark about Paula being drunk, that too would have been a non issue..See, she wants tolerance for herself and other homosexuals, but she has no tolerance for anyone that is not lockstep with her ideology:I don’t dislike her because she is gay, I dislike her because she is one of the most ignorant people I have ever listened too, and there is no excuse for it because she has the money to educate herself.. I also have no respect for a person that slams Paula for being drunk but when a Monday show opens, she announced that she spent the weekend drinking, because she was depressed..She made her bed..
Oh pleae again – as I said Rosie is a stand up comic, I said this earlier. As for eduacting herself she was able to transfer from Dickinson to BU so she is not stupid. And the personal smears that came out of Trump’s mouth? Not to mention the hard facts that across this country more women look like Rosie than his wife. Futhermore, Trump has succeeded in alienating the large women across America – not unlike what Cruise did with the pp depression thing with Brooke Shields. And Trump is now reaping the havoc, his show has steadily declined in ratings. He’ll learn his lesson the ahrd way like mr. Cruise did. On the other hand Rosie’s rtings are up, they are steadily moving upwards. ABC is considering buying out Barbara’a contract and giving Rosie free reign.
Let me ask you, why would you take issue with what a stand up comic says about a famous person, when Talk Radio hosts – Right Wing smear merchants that they are – do it daily like Laura Ingrham, Rush and Shannity? They smear people the same way. What is the difference?
You think it is ok for someone to be called a bush baby because they were considered somewhat odd looking, but not ok to acknowledge that one of the perps who initiated the inappropiate comments might have been intoxicated when doing so? Years ago people would have not only commented on her state, thay would have condemned their behavior.
You are obviously a part of the problem.
But thanks for making my point – your post is exactly the double standards I am talking about.
January 27, 2007 - 02:53 PM on January 27th, 2007
Conservatives naturally tend not to question those in power, they except what they are told. Couple that with my latter obervation and you have a recipe for disaster.
Oh please..most of us that post here have the ability to understand what is being said the first time it is said..
How is emboldening North Korea with nukes a good diplomatic move on Clinton’s part? How is not responding to the terrorist attacks during his administration a good diplomatic move? Answer..it’s not. Nor is appeasement…
January 27, 2007 - 03:01 PM on January 27th, 2007
How is that any different from what the left does Maria? Are you actually foolish enough to believe that if Bushco is replaced by a Dem administration, that they would do any less damage? Do you actually think Bil CLinton was any better than Bush? To you really foresee any improvement?
But I have faith in my country and this government. I believe we are a noble country, tainted by bad human mistakes. If we do not think there may be something better or we do not believe we can improve – what is the alternative, to just throw up our hands in disgust and give up?
I feel sorry for any American who cannot forsee any improvements.
January 27, 2007 - 03:01 PM on January 27th, 2007
1) who gives a shit about rosie, trump and the rest of the celebrity idiotocracy? enough already.
2) please get some new material. the democrats do not want to turn the USA into a socialist country. this is the purest amount of bullshit, and the fact that you people repeat this time and time again doesn’t make it true. have you learned nothing from bush’s failed propaganda campaigns? no one, other than the remaing 28% or 10% of his supporters believe his bullshit any more.
3) i now understand why cons and repubs hate government and think it can never do anything right- it’s because when they are in charge, this is true. the govt can solve problems for people and can do things that are positive and supported by citizens, when those in power want to do this. when the people in the government state over and over again that govt is the problem, it is not surprising that they do nothing right. i am not arguing that everything the dems do is good or not politically oriented. but, the idea that govt can be a force for good goes a long way towards good govt. if govt is so bad, why do cons bother trying to control the political process- to destroy the thing which gives them power? that sounds dumb, and now look what’s happening- they have fucked everything up, and have begun to lose elctions. great plan, guys.
January 27, 2007 - 03:02 PM on January 27th, 2007
p.s. cheney is an android. androids don;t care about the needs of people, and destructive, bad government flows from this. if my friends on the right would try to find some human candidates, they might see that govt can be, though not always is, a positive force.
January 27, 2007 - 03:06 PM on January 27th, 2007
88- Spending doesn’t equal big government Maria..
Rosie never graduated college and only attended briefly. Her job on The View is just to be a comic? Why is she going beyond that? No, her job is discuss hot topics and people react to them.
According to Rosie, she is not fairing that well in the polls, in fact it has her in a funk..most people are siding with Donald..they don’t like him, but like her even less for her behavior.
There was a spike in The View’s ratings and now they are down again..hence she went after Oprah…
Barbara co-owns the show with Bill Gedde, but I too read that in the Globe as I waited in line at the grocery store.
So, you are now comparing Rosie to Ingram and Hannity, who happen to be political pundits and get paid to discuss politics?
As Pickler told Rosie the day she made the comment..”we know what we are getting into when we sign up”..Rosie can chose not to watch..
January 27, 2007 - 03:08 PM on January 27th, 2007
1) who gives a shit about rosie, trump and the rest of the celebrity idiotocracy? enough already.
Sorry notHuman, i was just trying to continue my point on the doyble standards of The Right Wing, i.e., their smear tactics thereof.
when the people in the government state over and over again that govt is the problem, it is not surprising that they do nothing right.
Very true, and the message got out to the masses this last election.
I hold BushCo responsible becuase they have done enomous damage to this country.
if govt is so bad, why do cons bother trying to control the political process- to destroy the thing which gives them power?
Now that is the million dollar question I would love to hear their answers to…starting with Grover Norqueist…LOL
January 27, 2007 - 04:53 PM on January 27th, 2007
So, you are now comparing Rosie to Ingram and Hannity, who happen to be political pundits and get paid to discuss politics?
OK, let me repeat what I actually asked you again –
Let me ask you, why would you take issue with what a stand up comic says about a famous person, when Talk Radio hosts – Right Wing smear merchants that they are – do it daily like Laura Ingrham, Rush and Shannity? They smear people the same way. What is the difference?
My point was that they are not stand-up comics but, as you just admitted, Political Pundits. But they still act like Rosie, smearing and making fun of people. I am hardly comparing them, just asking why a political pundit on The Right would lavishly emulate a stand-up comic and expected to be taken seriously? Now we know Coulter does this also.
They are full of crap and have obviously nothing of substance or of substanstial dialouge to add to the political debate. They would rather be like Rosie, the very thing they are critical of. Kind of like the excellent point notHuman made –
if govt is so bad, why do cons bother trying to control the political process- to destroy the thing which gives them power?
One could easily ask –
if ROSIE is so bad, why do cons bother trying to EMULATE HER BRAND OF STAND UP IN THEIR DAILY PUNDITRY – DISCUSSING THE ISSUES WHILE PERSONALLY ATTACKING AND SMEARING THEIR ADVERSARIES BEYOND REASONABLE,(FOR AN EDUCATED PUNDIT YOU WOULD HOPE & PRAY REASON WOULD BE AN ADJECTIVE IN THEIR DESCRIPTION) DISCOURSE AND DEBATE?
Scary to think that part of the country is indoctrinated with this Right Wing crap and actually tunes into the Echo Chamber everyday to buy into it, huh?
But it just yet again proves my arguement about The Right – if it comes from a Right leaning pundit, then it’s provocative, it’s comedy, it’s ok, blah, blah, blah. But if it comes from a Left leaning person who is identifible as a stand up comic, it’s unacceptable.
Can’t you see what they are doing? The sheer lunacy of the Right is just that – misguided excuses stacking double standards on top of double standards. They are appalling, their brand of discourse is destroying America, period.
January 27, 2007 - 07:00 PM on January 27th, 2007
They are full of crap and have obviously nothing of substance or of substanstial dialouge to add to the political debate.
Considering they are ranked in the top 5% of the ratings..consistently…I know you are quite wrong. Who is it that they are smearing?
When are you going to make a point? I have yet to see one..All I see is the left is great and if the right doesn’t think like them, then they are evil blah blah blah.. You have yet to make a valid point on anything…
January 27, 2007 - 07:36 PM on January 27th, 2007
And the agenda of the left is healthy? More government is not healthy. We are not a socialist country yet the democrats want us to become one.
I wasn’t gonna post, I wasn’t, but then I saw this…
I’m SO tired of hearing this meme. Because if you look at the growth of government in the last few years, under Bushco, it’s appalling, and most of it has been in secret. But for a public example, we have our wonderfully effective Department of Homeland security, which took FEMA – which was brilliantly functional as it was, the Coast Guard – which was, again, perfectly functional – and the Border Patrol, which was… oh, SO not functional and combined them into one massively dysfunctional agency with appointed idiots like Chertoff and Brown with the end result of crippling the functional sections and as a result… Katrina.
Whatever you may think of the Democratic party it is not a Socialist movement. Period. It is what it is, and that ain’t what it is. It’s mostly a Liberal movement – and the distinction is both meaningful and important.
Now, if it were Socialist, I woldn’t actually have a problem, per se; there are socialists and then there are socialists – and in the end, it’s very difficult (not to mention utterly irresponsible) to intelligently discuss a social problem without hearing from a Socialist how they would approach it. Often, it’s a good idea – once it’s applied with some respect for individual liberties and dignities. Communists and National Socialists also have good ideas. You may not want them running things, but never ignore intelligent critique from any angle. You might want to file off the serial numbers….
Hell, that’s what put Bill Clinton into office, folks. He swiped about half of Barry Goldwater’s platform. Oh, and one other thing. He respected the obligations (if pernaps not the dignities) of the office. As one example, he put FEMA at cabenet level, recognizing that aside from the very serious threat of terriorism, we have weather that would terrify the crap out of most terrorist sponsoring nations. Hell, we regularly have entire towns erased from the map – and a major city, such as New Orleans was simply a matter of time. So he put it where it belonged.
Then Bush Happened.
BEFORE DHS, we could have responded effectively to the aftermath of a terrorist event. In fact, we have done so, subsequent to 9/11. That was an effective, if not exactly perfect operation. But when there were issues, the people on the ground solved them.
In Katrana… the exercise was to keep people from GETTING there without proper authorization. Just like any socialist state, except for the Kommisar taking credit for all the things published in Pravda that didn’t actually happen.
Oh wait. We have Faux.
BTW, I’m a Libertarian. But I put truth, my personal honor and self-respect ahead of any political agenda. I won’t lie to further my agenda, and I won’t let a lie slip by in support of something I agree with.
I happen to be opposed to any form of centrally directed authority, whether it be Socialism, or whatever the hell you call what we currently have.
But every time I object to lies and stupidities, incompetence and misrule, I’m accused of being a “liberal.”
That pisses me off on two fronts – along with a lot of OTHER people, I should add. First, because it’s just not true. I’m primarily an anti authoritarian minarchist with Progressive leanings. I’m in NO sense a small or large L Liberal.
But, there have been Liberal Administrations here and in other nations that have been validated in the most important way possible – re-election with a strong economy. So as much as I oppose the philosophy, I do not oppose those things about it that factually work in practice – not until I can point to something that works BETTER in practice.
The second thing that pisses me off is the use of “liberal” as an insult. As much as I am NOT a liberal, a great many honorable people are, and it is by NO means a single-valued, black and white philosophy. Even though it’s one that I disagree with fundamentally, it’s as intellectually respectable as the Very Arch Conservatism of one of my greatest personal heroes, William F. Buckley, Jr, a man of socially conservative WASP credentials so profound that no freeper is worthy to meet the gaze of his patrician nostrils.
I disagree with him almost entirely – but with care, as he’s a startling tendency to be correct on matters of fact.
The reason I post this rant is this; I’m deeply concerned that the past nine years have the potential for utterly discrediting any legitimate Conservative views because of their association with incompetence, lies, and sheer xenophobic idiocy, none of which are by any stretch Conservative or conservative values. “Time tested and well proven” is the antithesis of fairly much everything Bush. But the argument that Bush is really a Radical Authoritarian Big Government Liberal = and very possibly thinks himself to be the Antichrist – is an essay for another day, should I bother. Others have made the point better and google is your friend.
Unlike many who espouse one viewpoint these days, I value and consider critical the existence of a vibrant and competent counterpoint to the majoritarian chorus, whatever it may be. The fact is that the majoritarian viewpoint WILL be Democratic very soon, because the fact is that most people’s politics are as fickle as their fashion sense and no more deeply founded. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of active voices worthy of calling the question and being taken seriously.
So if you seriously consider yourself a Conservative – and you honestly believe what you believe, I suggest that first you write down the things that to you are the very most important things, the things you would take up arms to defend and protect. I remind you of the full import of both the first and second Amendments, and your duty to “Uphold and Defend the Constitution of the United States of America,” that traditionally the “Militia” was composed of every free citizen between the ages of 14 and 45, and that it’s as much your duty to speak against things you sincerely disagree with as it is to take up arms against inssurection.
But first, DEAR GOD, PLEASE arm yourselves! That includes founding your opinion in the Constitution, in history, in an understanding of the Law and the Federalist papers, in something more profound than a personal “disgust” at the behaviors of others!
It’s a hell of a lot more persuasive to stand for something, and prove it by example than to stand against something someone ELSE is proving by example.
January 27, 2007 - 09:01 PM on January 27th, 2007
Considering they are ranked in the top 5% of the ratings..consistently:I know you are quite wrong. Who is it that they are smearing?
How about anyone and everyone who doesn’t support their agenda, or BushCo, or the hideous illegal war, or anyone they think is a Lib, which they think is suddenly a bad thing??
When are you going to make a point? I have yet to see one..All I see is the left is great and if the right doesn’t think like them, then they are evil blah blah blah.. You have yet to make a valid point on anything:
You need to save yourself and stop drinking from that kool-aid fountian over in Right Wing Junction…how about answering my question?
Like Bob King said…
But first, DEAR GOD, PLEASE arm yourselves! That includes founding your opinion in the Constitution, in history, in an understanding of the Law and the Federalist papers, in something more profound than a personal “disgust”at the behaviors of others!
Please I dare you, I double dare you. The only thing the Right is capable of is using that bully pulpit on Talk Radio and Faux to threaten, smear, divide and malign our country and this democracy. You/they should be ashamed.
January 27, 2007 - 11:45 PM on January 27th, 2007
Re 87 (Maria):
“Well, he’s is the one who has been in charge for the last 6 years and is responsible for one’s currently happening in iraq.”
Yes, he’s in charge. Yes, his post invasion strategy for Iraq has been tragic. But he’s not the only one responsible. Congress is the purse strings, and it was Congress who approved the resolution to invade Iraq.
“I believe in accountability, I do not buy into the Right Wing talking points about attacking Iraq, sorry. And those talking points, like we would be seen as liberators, I am just not buying their bunk anymore.
Who else should I be holding accountable?”
Balderdash. If you beleived in accountability, you wouldn’t be a Democrat. Yes- hold the Preident accountable, but since you “believe in accountability” you should also hold the Dems accountable. I just don’t see you doing that, and not just for the war but for the last 100 years of “business as usual” politics.
Personally, I believe the invasion of Iraq was justified, but not for some of the reasons given by the President. I knew we would be there at least a generation, and I have no problem with that.
“I am sorry they are in charge and they blew it, period.”
Blew what, exactly? I hate speaking in generalities. If you wish to talk specifics, then we can.
The invasion of Iraq was a sucess.
The post war occupancy is thus far a failure.
The dealing with borders are a failure.
Expanding government: failure.
They are overly pro-business/anti-worker, so that’s a failure.
Economy: sucess.
Medicare prescription drug: sucess
You are obviously sympathic to these fools by your postings.
You obviously haven’t been paying attention to my postings. I am not “sympathetic” nor am I overly accusatory on my stances. I assess each topic invidually, and then get as much unbiased facts as possible with taking a precoursed stance. Because I do this, I’ve been called “commie” by the right and “nazi” by the left. My political leaning are pretty much 5% right of center.
I will call a spade a spade.
January 27, 2007 - 11:51 PM on January 27th, 2007
Re 90 (Maria):
But I have faith in my country and this government. I believe we are a noble country, tainted by bad human mistakes. If we do not think there may be something better or we do not believe we can improve – what is the alternative, to just throw up our hands in disgust and give up?
I beieve we were once a noble country, but I do not have faith at all. The Dems and the Reps are concreted in power. The people are too apethic to do anyting about. I relize the real source of our problems are not the george Bush’s and Bill CLinton’s but the American people. Unless they wake up and do so soon, we are doomed and the two party system will be our down fall. The more time passes, the less likely this will occur, until eventually the real power the citizenry has is wrested from our control.
I feel sorry for any American who cannot forsee any improvements.
I guess you should pity me.
But FWIW, I pity folks that don’t realize how much troiuble we are really in.
January 27, 2007 - 11:52 PM on January 27th, 2007
“hideous illegal war”
What illegal war?
Please, give proof of this assertion.
January 28, 2007 - 12:28 AM on January 28th, 2007
Yes, he’s in charge. Yes, his post invasion strategy for Iraq has been tragic. But he’s not the only one responsible. Congress is the purse strings, and it was Congress who approved the resolution to invade Iraq.
Oh stop the Right Wing talking points PLEASE!! Congress approved based on the lies and garbage of this Admin and him!!!!
Balderdash. If you beleived in accountability, you wouldn’t be a Democrat. Yes- hold the Preident accountable, but since you “believe in accountability”you should also hold the Dems accountable. I just don’t see you doing that, and not just for the war but for the last 100 years of “business as usual”politics.
Again more of the same, attack the Dems and the so called Libs for lack of a better punching bag. I am holding the Rethugs accountable because they are the ones or recent that have lied, cheated, attempted to conquer and divide, cruised young pages, beat up their mistresses, doubled talked us into a frenzy, maligned the nation, robbed and invaded a soverign nation based on lies and garbage to name a few, after vowing not to do it.
Sir you are merely spewing Far Right talking points, you need to pull the kool-aid IV from your vains and wake up….
Your ilk is what is demolishing our country, love it or leave it, but don’t partner with those who wish to destroy it.
January 28, 2007 - 12:46 AM on January 28th, 2007
“Oh stop the Right Wing talking points PLEASE!! Congress approved based on the lies and garbage of this Admin and him!!!!”
I will now ask that you provide proof of your assertion that he lied to Congress to go to war. I have asked this of dozens of your ilk and no one has been able to provide said proof.
Your talking points are as predictable as the right’s. I acknowledge both sides faults in this situation. You ignore one sides faults, and wish to only focus on a “they did it” mentality.
“Again more of the same, attack the Dems and the so called Libs for lack of a better punching bag. I am holding the Rethugs accountable because they are the ones or recent that have lied, cheated, attempted to conquer and divide, cruised young pages, beat up their mistresses, doubled talked us into a frenzy, maligned the nation, robbed and invaded a soverign nation based on lies and garbage to name a few, after vowing not to do it.”
Au contraire.
I have regularly attacked the Republicans. They are to blame for much of this countries woes. I have no issue with that. What I am illuminating is your inability to acknowledge the fault of your party, the Democrats. The little tirade of yours only provides proof of your kool-aid drinking ways. myself, I refuse to do so.
See, I have no party Maria. I would not and could not get involved with them. If I did, I would have to take a series of very hot showers, and still would never feel clean.
“Your ilk is what is demolishing our country, love it or leave it, but don’t partner with those who wish to destroy it.”
I love my country. I don’t partner with either party- I am not such a fool to do so. I realize that both parties are highly corrupt, one no less so than the other. Both are targeted punching bags to me, but I will confront both sides when what they say is inaccurate, just like I have you today.
January 28, 2007 - 01:38 AM on January 28th, 2007
I will now ask that you provide proof of your assertion that he lied to Congress to go to war. I have asked this of dozens of your ilk and no one has been able to provide said proof.
Congress only voted on the information BushCo presented. They have all said many times over if they knew then what we know now they would have never stood behind him. Let’s just say he padded the evidence for war, what better accolade than to go down in history as the president who democratized the Middle East.
But God obviously has other plans….
You are entitles to your opinion on both parties, but you seem to favor the Republicans by your posts.
January 28, 2007 - 02:23 AM on January 28th, 2007
I guess that no one is going to respond to 97. Big surprise.
January 28, 2007 - 03:13 AM on January 28th, 2007
I guess that no one is going to respond to 97. Big surprise.
Of course not, no one woud answer my question either…
January 28, 2007 - 09:54 AM on January 28th, 2007
Re 104 (Maria):
In post 102 you said “Congress approved based on the lies and garbage of this Admin and him!!!!”. I responded with “I will now ask that you provide proof of your assertion that he lied to Congress to go to war. I have asked this of dozens of your ilk and no one has been able to provide said proof.”.
This is your reply?
“Congress only voted on the information BushCo presented. They have all said many times over if they knew then what we know now they would have never stood behind him. Let’s just say he padded the evidence for war…”
So, suddenly he went from “lying” to “padding evidence”? Where did he get the evidence he presented to Congress?
I still await proof your your assertion that he lied.
“You are entitles to your opinion on both parties, but you seem to favor the Republicans by your posts.”
I favor the truth, not Democrat or Republican talkinbg points.
January 28, 2007 - 09:58 AM on January 28th, 2007
97- Bob- you wrote a wonderful piece, but you have yet to show how the democratic agenda is not socialistic.
You have talked about the government growing so much under Bush, and used the example of putting 3 agencies under the control of 1 department…Is the CG a part of that because I am almost positive it is the 5th brach of the armed services.. If you are referring to spending, that is not government growth, unless it is spending for programs that were not a part of the administration before. If a POTUS increased spending to education, it does not mean that government grew it means that spending grew.
Your whole FEMA arguement makes no sense..could yould please write it coherantly? Are you talking about Katrina? Where is the fact that Blanco would not grant the feds the authority to take control? You must have overlooked a key part of that. You forgot some biggies in the entire arguement.
January 28, 2007 - 10:45 AM on January 28th, 2007
“I guess that no one is going to respond to 97. Big surprise.”
I’ll answer it. I want to stick with my discussion with maria however, so any response to this post will likely not be reponded to by me.
Re: DHS. Except for the part about FEMA being wonderfully functional b efore Bush. I agree. It is spot on.
Re The Dems being “socialist. America is a socialist country. While I agree the Dems are NOT a socialist party there ARE socialists within it. The Dems are liberal and socialism is a liberal concept so they tend to flock to said institution (big tent party, remember?). There are some socialists with the Rep party, just not to the degree of Dems.
Re “He (Bill Clinton) respected the obligations (if pernaps not the dignities) of the office.”
That’s a joke, right? The dignities are an obligation of the office. His stance on terrorism was horrid. His ONE sucess diplomatically (Stopping Pakistan and India from going to war) is the one bright spot of his tenure.
But, there have been Liberal Administrations here and in other nations that have been validated in the most important way possible – re-election with a strong economy.
When did that happen here? How about abroad? Support the assetion, please. Just like Bush, Clinton was re-elected with deception. Clinton has been the only liberal re-elected since LBJ so the assertion is hardly concrete. Great Society? War of Poverty? He only did what a Libertarian hates most: centralized power. So who is before that? ahhh yes…FDR. The argument can be made for sure. But his failures have also proven to be many (like the Social Security Tax).
“The second thing that pisses me off is the use of “liberal”as an insult. As much as I am NOT a liberal, a great many honorable people are, and it is by NO means a single-valued, black and white philosophy. Even though it’s one that I disagree with fundamentally, it’s as intellectually respectable as the Very Arch Conservatism of one of my greatest personal heroes, William F. Buckley, Jr, a man of socially conservative WASP credentials so profound that no freeper is worthy to meet the gaze of his patrician nostrils.”
This is spot on Bob. I agree with you 100% here. Many liberals are honorable folks, just as many conservatives are. The Dems and Reps BOTH demonize both those repsective philospies which is why I always assert the Dem is NOT the same as a liberal nor Reps are NOT the same as Reps. Most folks don’t seem to understand that it takes ideas from both of these philoshies to steer this great nation.
The reason I post this rant is this; I’m deeply concerned that the past nine years have the potential for utterly discrediting any legitimate Conservative views because of their association with incompetence, lies, and sheer xenophobic idiocy, none of which are by any stretch Conservative or conservative values. “Time tested and well proven”is the antithesis of fairly much everything Bush. But the argument that Bush is really a Radical Authoritarian Big Government Liberal = and very possibly thinks himself to be the Antichrist – is an essay for another day, should I bother. Others have made the point better and google is your friend.
And this is where you lost. me. I am for quatitative analytical empircal evidence of any sitution. When I think you are the same, you pull out the typical rhetoric filled emotionally charge substantively void accusations such as “incompetence, lies, and sheer xenophobic idiocy” and “and very possibly thinks himself to be the Antichrist”.
I agree with you- Bush is pro big government and I absolutely detest that. Radical? Then you’d have to say the same about other pro big government presidents such as LBJ, FDR and the Clintons. Bush has been no less incompetent than most any other administration of thr past 100 years though.
“The fact is that the majoritarian viewpoint WILL be Democratic very soon, because the fact is that most people’s politics are as fickle as their fashion sense and no more deeply founded. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of active voices worthy of calling the question and being taken seriously”
This is true. The reason though that we are in such a jam are the people, not the politicians. Most are complacent, and thery continue to put in the power the sme two choices presented to them Both are a loosing choice- none any better than the next. Clinton leave and Bush is placed into power. Bush leaves and you get a choice of Shillary, Obama, Guiliani, McCain, Edwards or Romney. Yeah…that will be an improvement. I see all kinds of ptential there! (That was sarcasm, BTW). Just more of the same. Hell do you actually think the 2006 Congressional elections changed anything?
“So if you seriously consider yourself a Conservative”
Well, I don’t consider myself a Conservative. I am a moderate because I am already well armed.
January 28, 2007 - 07:47 PM on January 28th, 2007
Ted where is the big government that you are talking about? What programs have been added that weren’t there before? Spending increases does not equate to bigger government..
January 28, 2007 - 10:47 PM on January 28th, 2007
The Iraq war aside Peejz, yes it does.
Spending increases means more active governemnt which translates into more governement inteference in our lives. Governement is not measured by how many programs it has, but by how much it taxes it’s citizenship, in addition to the governement debt created.
So, governemnet spending + governement debt=bigger governement.
January 29, 2007 - 07:21 AM on January 29th, 2007
111- No Ted, all spending means is more checks cut. Bigger government means more legislation and more government programs. A government is grown by the amount of programs it adds or laws that infinge on a state law that may not have been in place.
Spending is way up but we have not added new programs.
January 29, 2007 - 09:19 AM on January 29th, 2007
112 peejz:
I completely disagree. A basic fact of economics is that the degree between pure capitalism and pure communisim is known as socialism. Another basic fact of economics is that you can measure the degree of how socialist a country it by how much its citizens are taxed.
The more folks are taxed, the more socialist a country is. The more socialist a country is the bigger the government. Never in the history of the world has governement size been measured by how many programs there are.
For example if we combined SS, medicare, welfare and FEMA under one program does that actually reduce the governement size? By your measurement it would because 4 programs have been combined into one. However to support that program people are taxed the same.
January 29, 2007 - 10:14 AM on January 29th, 2007
if we combined SS, medicare, welfare and FEMA under one program does that actually reduce the governement size? By your measurement it would
No, because we have not eliminated any program…combining has nothing to do with it. We are being taxed less than under Clinton, so therefore how do you see a bigger government?
Measuring the difference between capitalism and socialism has no bearing on what we are talking about..You can have a big capitalistic government just as you can have a big socialistic government.
If we currently have 4 programs being funded by the government and add 2 brand new programs, we have increased the government.
January 29, 2007 - 10:35 AM on January 29th, 2007
I see Maria is spewing her Democrite talking points. But she’s a moderate, a centrist….sure…
If it walks like a duck…
January 29, 2007 - 11:02 AM on January 29th, 2007
114
Measuring the difference between capitalism and socialism has no bearing on what we are talking about..You can have a big capitalistic government just as you can have a big socialistic government.
It makes all the difference in what we are talking about. We are talking about governments and how various economies effect it.
You can not have a “capitalistic government”. You have a government that runs a country with a capitalistic modeled economy though. If that the case, the money made is made by the private sector and not the government. The government is smaller.
You can not have a “communist government” either. You have a government that runs a country with a capitalistic modeled economy though. It is a type of economy that the government owns all production of the citizens. The government is much larger, because they own everything.
There is no such thing as a pure “communist” or pure “capitalist” economy.
The degree of measure between communism and capitalism is called socialism. The more that the people are taxed, the more toward the communism end of the scale the country remains, and thus a larger government. The less people are taxed, the more towards capitalism a country is and the smaller the government.
January 29, 2007 - 11:05 AM on January 29th, 2007
“If we currently have 4 programs being funded by the government and add 2 brand new programs, we have increased the government. “
Of course, becasue you’ve increased governemet spending and the need for taxation. That is the standard. If you add programs using funds already available, then you have not increased government and the need for more tax.
If you have a program (lets say, the Vetern Administration) and cut the funding needed because there are just not as many veterns anymore then you decreased the governement size and the need for taxes.
January 29, 2007 - 11:45 AM on January 29th, 2007
Of course, becasue you’ve increased governemet spending and the need for taxation. That is the standard. If you add programs using funds already available, then you have not increased government and the need for more tax.
You have increased spending for new programs.
Let’s break down SS payments. In roughtly 5 years, the government will be paying at least double per month than what it does today. More people will be collecting in 5 years than they are today..The government will not increase because the payments are more. The government increased at the inception of the program.
The government increased when we added SS beneficiaries(illegals) that were not included in the orginal program.
If I use your formula, I don’t see government having grown under GWB. We are being taxed less, and keeping more in our pockets.
January 29, 2007 - 06:34 PM on January 29th, 2007
“You have increased spending for new programs.”.
It doesn’t matter if it is new or not. If you increase spending in real dollars for existing governement programs
“Let’s break down SS payments. In roughtly 5 years, the government will be paying at least double per month than what it does today. More people will be collecting in 5 years than they are today..The government will not increase because the payments are more. The government increased at the inception of the program.
The government increased when we added SS beneficiaries(illegals) that were not included in the orginal program.
If I use your formula, I don’t see government having grown under GWB. We are being taxed less, and keeping more in our pockets.
Ahh Peejz, and what you aren’t including is the national debt. How do you think it is paid? Yes…by taxes. But it is growing, not shrinking. It is a very basic formula when you boil it down. We spend more money than you have you must pay for it eventually.
Bush’s tax cut stimulated the economy, and I agree it was a good move. usually, the debt is measure as part of the GDP and cutting taxes increases that. But he has also increased government size, which is a bad move. Bush has increased real discretiuonary outlays by %35.8 thus far. But, I agree with the GWOT so just looking at non-dfefense discretionary outlays by 27.9%. I am a fiscal conservative. I think that non-defense discretionary outlays should be CCUT, like Reagan did (by 11%, FWIW). Reagan paid for his budget, as he only increased total outlays by 12%. Remember, this includes MASSIVE cold war spending and increased spending on the arm forces by 35%!
And it is paid for all eventually by us.