the gop debate.....

Post by mianderson
I can't say I'm sad that the gop and republican candidates are so
clueless on this issue......

Now thats funny , you calling someone clueless!

Chief

--
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
Sir Winston Churchill
British politician (1874 - 1965)

stephenj

2007-05-04 22:19:29 UTC

Post by mianderson
high comedy last night!!!
I can't say I'm sad that the gop and republican candidates are so
clueless on this issue......

what i don't get is why the american people care so much about it. the
GOP lost 50 seats in congress last year and bush's approval rating has
been in the 30s for almost 2 years, and strictly because of iraq.
hillary freaking clinton will probably get elected president and appoint
3 SCOTUS justices who will do damage to the constitution to almost
mid-century thanks almost entirely to ... iraq.

thing is, even if all the critics are right and everything about iraq -
from the decision to go to war to how it has been implemented for 4
years - has been completely fucked up, it doesn't merit anything near
the dominance of our political life that it has had and continues to have.

concede that bush has fucked up iraq from day 1 and he still merits
about a 57% approval rating.

--
"when i visited Aden before collectivization,
all the markets were full of fish product. After
collectivization, the fish immediately disappeared."

- Aleksandr Vassiliev, Soviet KGB official

mianderson

2007-05-04 22:31:15 UTC

Post by mianderson
high comedy last night!!!
I can't say I'm sad that the gop and republican candidates are so
clueless on this issue......

what i don't get is why the american people care so much about it.

it's very expensive for one. It's 3000+ dead americans for another.
Yeah I guess 3000+ isn't a huge number, but it's less than the wtc
attacks, which americans also cared a lot about.

the

Post by stephenj
GOP lost 50 seats in congress last year and bush's approval rating has
been in the 30s for almost 2 years, and strictly because of iraq.

well it's not like his approval rating would be sky high
otherwise.....although the economy is doing good, facets of his
domestic agenda aren't popular(ie ss reform)

Post by stephenj
hillary freaking clinton will probably get elected president and appoint
3 SCOTUS justices who will do damage to the constitution to almost
mid-century thanks almost entirely to ... iraq.
thing is, even if all the critics are right and everything about iraq -
from the decision to go to war to how it has been implemented for 4
years - has been completely fucked up, it doesn't merit anything near
the dominance of our political life that it has had and continues to have.
concede that bush has fucked up iraq from day 1 and he still merits
about a 57% approval rating.

he merits a 57% approval rating if you're crazy about the things he
believes in aside from iraq- like ss reform and his tax cuts. A lot
of people don't.

Post by stephenj
--
"when i visited Aden before collectivization,
all the markets were full of fish product. After
collectivization, the fish immediately disappeared."
- Aleksandr Vassiliev, Soviet KGB official

stephenj

2007-05-05 00:10:15 UTC

Post by mianderson
high comedy last night!!!
I can't say I'm sad that the gop and republican candidates are so
clueless on this issue......

what i don't get is why the american people care so much about it.

it's very expensive for one. It's 3000+ dead americans for another.
Yeah I guess 3000+ isn't a huge number, but it's less than the wtc
attacks, which americans also cared a lot about.

the WTC attacks were attacks *against us on our soil* and they came all
at once in overwhelmingly dramatic fashion. if the iraq war was
pointless, then 3000 dead troops oover 4 years is tragically 3000 too
many. but many presidents have made decisions that have cost far more
than 3000 lives and not paid nearly the political price for it.

Post by stephenj
GOP lost 50 seats in congress last year and bush's approval rating has
been in the 30s for almost 2 years, and strictly because of iraq.

well it's not like his approval rating would be sky high
otherwise.....although the economy is doing good, facets of his
domestic agenda aren't popular(ie ss reform)

bush gave up on ss reform 3 years ago.

he merits a 57% approval rating if you're crazy about the things he
believes in aside from iraq- like ss reform and his tax cuts. A lot
of people don't.

he really should be at 67%. he's docked 10% for that awful medicare drug
plan.

--
"when i visited Aden before collectivization,
all the markets were full of fish product. After
collectivization, the fish immediately disappeared."

- Aleksandr Vassiliev, Soviet KGB official

mianderson

2007-05-05 00:34:25 UTC

Post by mianderson
well it's not like his approval rating would be sky high
otherwise.....although the economy is doing good, facets of his
domestic agenda aren't popular(ie ss reform)

bush gave up on ss reform 3 years ago.

yes but I think the stench of it is still there...and he gave up on it
for good more like 20 months ago....he was still giving speeches on it
9 or so months after his re-election.

he merits a 57% approval rating if you're crazy about the things he
believes in aside from iraq- like ss reform and his tax cuts. A lot
of people don't.

he really should be at 67%. he's docked 10% for that awful medicare drug
plan.

I think you overestimate the "popularity" of his achievements outside
of iraq:

1) his tax cuts aren't popular amongst people making 30-70k in general
2) yes the economy is good, but democrats have been doing an effective
job of muddying the waters on this issue thankfully

I think he'd be at 45-50% right now.....his baseline popularity just
isn't that high. Remember that before 9/11 his numbers weren't all
that strong.

Charles Beauchamp

2007-05-05 05:46:08 UTC

Post by mianderson
well it's not like his approval rating would be sky high
otherwise.....although the economy is doing good, facets of his
domestic agenda aren't popular(ie ss reform)

bush gave up on ss reform 3 years ago.

yes but I think the stench of it is still there...and he gave up on it
for good more like 20 months ago....he was still giving speeches on it
9 or so months after his re-election.

he merits a 57% approval rating if you're crazy about the things he
believes in aside from iraq- like ss reform and his tax cuts. A lot
of people don't.

he really should be at 67%. he's docked 10% for that awful medicare drug
plan.

I think you overestimate the "popularity" of his achievements outside
1) his tax cuts aren't popular amongst people making 30-70k in general

Must be why the middle class is clamoring to return the tax breaks they have
gotten....oh wait....

--
v/r Beau

God Bless Hokienation!!!

J. Hugh Sullivan

2007-05-05 13:26:46 UTC

Post by stephenj
thing is, even if all the critics are right and everything about iraq -
from the decision to go to war to how it has been implemented for 4
years - has been completely fucked up, it doesn't merit anything near
the dominance of our political life that it has had and continues to have.

I don't agree with the "even if". The situation in Iraq was not a
right wing decision unless Hillarious Clinton, et al., lost their
minds during the vote. The critics are the minority who can finally
say, "I told you so." If the troop withdrawal is scheduled by the libs
I gleefully anticipate using the same phrase in the near future.

I thought Leonard The Pitts sorta nailed it this AM - Iraq leaves us
with no good choice (to paraphrase my interpretation of his words).

Bush's problem with Iraq is that he has monocular vision - or I have.
IMO it ain't workin', boy. And I don't think a new general and a new
plan is going to work any better than the last general and plan -
unless he wants to Sodom and Gomorrah (S&G) the area and walk away.

I'm not certain what the best interests of the USA are but I say
exercise them and let the rest of the world go to Hell - or join us.
If you can't sleep where you wish, you ain't a 400# ape NO more.

Hugh

stephenj

2007-05-05 23:21:16 UTC

Post by mianderson
well it's not like his approval rating would be sky high
otherwise.....although the economy is doing good, facets of his
domestic agenda aren't popular(ie ss reform)

bush gave up on ss reform 3 years ago.

yes but I think the stench of it is still there...and he gave up on it
for good more like 20 months ago....he was still giving speeches on it
9 or so months after his re-election.

yes, but my gosh how many in the electorate even remember? there's no
'stench'.

i give bush credit for trying to do something on SS. sure he failed, but
so has everyone else. at least he did try. can't help it that the
democrats always demogogue the issue.

he merits a 57% approval rating if you're crazy about the things he
believes in aside from iraq- like ss reform and his tax cuts. A lot
of people don't.

he really should be at 67%. he's docked 10% for that awful medicare drug
plan.

I think you overestimate the "popularity" of his achievements outside
1) his tax cuts aren't popular amongst people making 30-70k in general

bush's tax cuts are quite popular across the board, which is why the
dems have no plans to try and repeal them.

Post by mianderson
2) yes the economy is good, but democrats have been doing an effective
job of muddying the waters on this issue thankfully

true.

Post by mianderson
I think he'd be at 45-50% right now.....his baseline popularity just
isn't that high. Remember that before 9/11 his numbers weren't all
that strong.

before 9/11 he was a guy who eeked in to office with less votes than his
opponent. 9/11 changed things so much we'll never know what things would
have been like.

but not iraq - it's baffling why iraq counts so much to the people.

--
"when i visited Aden before collectivization,
all the markets were full of fish product. After
collectivization, the fish immediately disappeared."

- Aleksandr Vassiliev, Soviet KGB official

m***@students.mcg.edu

2007-05-05 23:29:40 UTC

Post by mianderson
well it's not like his approval rating would be sky high
otherwise.....although the economy is doing good, facets of his
domestic agenda aren't popular(ie ss reform)

bush gave up on ss reform 3 years ago.

yes but I think the stench of it is still there...and he gave up on it
for good more like 20 months ago....he was still giving speeches on it
9 or so months after his re-election.

yes, but my gosh how many in the electorate even remember?

they don't remember the specifics of ss reform true. But they do
remember the overall vibe of how he was sponsoring solutions that they
were afraid of.

there's no

Post by stephenj
'stench'.
i give bush credit for trying to do something on SS. sure he failed, but
so has everyone else. at least he did try. can't help it that the
democrats always demogogue the issue.

true, but thats one of the things we demogouge well.

Post by mianderson
1) his tax cuts aren't popular amongst people making 30-70k in general

bush's tax cuts are quite popular across the board, which is why the
dems have no plans to try and repeal them.

we *do* have plans. Once we get the presidency you'll see us do so
for the top 2%. Every single one of the dem presidential candidates
plans to keep the tax cuts for people earning 40-90k in place but on
people earning > 140k the tax cuts will be repealed.

Post by mianderson
2) yes the economy is good, but democrats have been doing an effective
job of muddying the waters on this issue thankfully

true.

and likewise the gop did a *horrible* job of muddying the water on the
economy during 95-00.......the rule with the economy is that even if
it's doing good- try to find cracks in it even if they aren't there.
The public won't be able to break it down for the most part.....

Post by mianderson
I think he'd be at 45-50% right now.....his baseline popularity just
isn't that high. Remember that before 9/11 his numbers weren't all
that strong.

before 9/11 he was a guy who eeked in to office with less votes than his
opponent.

9/11 changed things so much we'll never know what things would

Post by stephenj
have been like.

we were starting to get a sense though- once people learned he wasn't
really a "different" kind of goper, his numbers were dropping in the 9
months prior to 9/11.

Post by stephenj
but not iraq - it's baffling why iraq counts so much to the people.

well a ****load of money is being spent, and dems can always tie that
back to the deficit. Yes the total number of lives lost isn't
massive, but you can't look at it just in those terms.

stephenj

2007-05-06 02:30:11 UTC

Post by mianderson
well it's not like his approval rating would be sky high
otherwise.....although the economy is doing good, facets of his
domestic agenda aren't popular(ie ss reform)

bush gave up on ss reform 3 years ago.

yes but I think the stench of it is still there...and he gave up on it
for good more like 20 months ago....he was still giving speeches on it
9 or so months after his re-election.

yes, but my gosh how many in the electorate even remember?

they don't remember the specifics of ss reform true. But they do
remember the overall vibe of how he was sponsoring solutions that they
were afraid of.

they were 'afraid' because the democrats demogogued it, and because
quite sadly SS has encouraged a welfare/dependency mentality amongst us,
and people with a welfare/dependency mentality greatly fear being weened
from the tit of government.

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu
there's no

true, but thats one of the things we demogouge well.

yes, it's your bloody shirt. even reagan had to back off when claude
pepper demogogued it in 1982. after getting burned in the 82 elections,
reagan went from wanting to dismantle SS to "saving it" with a massive
tax increase.

bush got off easy by comparison. usually those who touch that rail get
zapped more badly.

Post by mianderson
1) his tax cuts aren't popular amongst people making 30-70k in general

bush's tax cuts are quite popular across the board, which is why the
dems have no plans to try and repeal them.

so what? that's far from repealing the tax cuts.

the rubber hit the road in 1992. that year, clinton wound down his
campaign by promising to "repeal 12 years of republican giveaways to the
rich" in the form of tax cuts. Reagan had cut taxes on the wealthiest
income class from about 70% to 33%. That's a big cut.

So what did Clinton and the dems do when they had total control of the
white house and congress? He raised those taxes on the wealthy all the
way up to ...... 39%! Yep, that's what rolling back 12 years amounted
to. about 33% to 39%.

Regardless of what minor tinkering you dems do, you'll still be playing
in reagan's park. high taxes on anyone, including the wealthy, are a
dumb idea.

Post by mianderson
2) yes the economy is good, but democrats have been doing an effective
job of muddying the waters on this issue thankfully

true.

true. Bush Sr. got tossed out in 92, getting just 38% of the vote, and
the economy hadn't been in recession for over a year. terrible campaigning.

--
"when i visited Aden before collectivization,
all the markets were full of fish product. After
collectivization, the fish immediately disappeared."

- Aleksandr Vassiliev, Soviet KGB official

Matthew Hennig

2007-05-07 00:36:40 UTC

Post by mianderson
1) his tax cuts aren't popular amongst people making 30-70k in general

bush's tax cuts are quite popular across the board, which is why the
dems have no plans to try and repeal them.

What a terrible idea...

MH
--
Ten of Spades
Aggee Fedayeen Chief
Supreme Ruler of the Obvious
RSFC Rookie of the Year 2005
Time Magazine Person of the Year 2006

"We just got outplayed today. That's the bottom line. And we got
outcoached."
- OU Head Coach Bob Stoops following the Texas A&M game, Nov 9, 2002

m***@students.mcg.edu

2007-05-07 01:45:27 UTC

Post by mianderson
1) his tax cuts aren't popular amongst people making 30-70k in general

bush's tax cuts are quite popular across the board, which is why the
dems have no plans to try and repeal them.

What a terrible idea...

maybe maybe not. It's not something I think about a lot.

What is clear is that it's popular amongst voters. Tax cuts may be
popular with voters, but not tax cuts directed at the top 3 or so
percentile of the country.......

Post by Matthew Hennig
MH
--
Ten of Spades
Aggee Fedayeen Chief
Supreme Ruler of the Obvious
RSFC Rookie of the Year 2005
Time Magazine Person of the Year 2006
"We just got outplayed today. That's the bottom line. And we got
outcoached."
- OU Head Coach Bob Stoops following the Texas A&M game, Nov 9, 2002

Matthew Hennig

2007-05-07 02:29:51 UTC

Post by mianderson
1) his tax cuts aren't popular amongst people making 30-70k in general

bush's tax cuts are quite popular across the board, which is why
the dems have no plans to try and repeal them.

we *do* have plans. Once we get the presidency you'll see us do so
for the top 2%. Every single one of the dem presidential
candidates plans to keep the tax cuts for people earning 40-90k in
place but on people earning > 140k the tax cuts will be repealed.

What a terrible idea...

maybe maybe not. It's not something I think about a lot.
What is clear is that it's popular amongst voters. Tax cuts may be
popular with voters, but not tax cuts directed at the top 3 or so
percentile of the country.......

And when you stifle the top producers in our country with these tax
hikes, you stifle the economy as a result. These companies will hire
less, the middle class and lower class will suffer economically as a
result. Then you have decreased revenues in taxes, rising unemployment,
and slowing of the economy.

Thanks alot.

MH
--
Ten of Spades
Aggee Fedayeen Chief
Supreme Ruler of the Obvious
RSFC Rookie of the Year 2005
Time Magazine Person of the Year 2006

"We just got outplayed today. That's the bottom line. And we got
outcoached."
- OU Head Coach Bob Stoops following the Texas A&M game, Nov 9, 2002

m***@yahoo.com

2007-05-07 16:22:51 UTC

Post by mianderson
1) his tax cuts aren't popular amongst people making 30-70k in general

bush's tax cuts are quite popular across the board, which is why
the dems have no plans to try and repeal them.

we *do* have plans. Once we get the presidency you'll see us do so
for the top 2%. Every single one of the dem presidential
candidates plans to keep the tax cuts for people earning 40-90k in
place but on people earning > 140k the tax cuts will be repealed.

What a terrible idea...

maybe maybe not. It's not something I think about a lot.
What is clear is that it's popular amongst voters. Tax cuts may be
popular with voters, but not tax cuts directed at the top 3 or so
percentile of the country.......

I'm not going to argue the merits of it.....just the basics on where
the electorate stands on it.

Both the gop and democrats do some things that are perhaps "right" but
costly politically.....and they both also do some things that are "bad
policy" but is advantag. from a political standpoint.

Matthew Hennig

2007-05-07 18:10:12 UTC

Post by mianderson
1) his tax cuts aren't popular amongst people making 30-70k in general

bush's tax cuts are quite popular across the board, which is
why the dems have no plans to try and repeal them.

we *do* have plans. Once we get the presidency you'll see us do
so for the top 2%. Every single one of the dem presidential
candidates plans to keep the tax cuts for people earning 40-90k
in place but on people earning > 140k the tax cuts will be
repealed.

What a terrible idea...

maybe maybe not. It's not something I think about a lot.
What is clear is that it's popular amongst voters. Tax cuts may be
popular with voters, but not tax cuts directed at the top 3 or so
percentile of the country.......

I'm not going to argue the merits of it.....just the basics on where
the electorate stands on it.

And you presume to know that the people want tax hikes?

Post by m***@yahoo.com
Both the gop and democrats do some things that are perhaps "right" but
costly politically.....and they both also do some things that are "bad
policy" but is advantag. from a political standpoint.

And doing things that are bad policy for political gain, regardless of
party, is a bad way to do things. The Democrats seem to be engaging in
this alot lately as well.

MH
--
Ten of Spades
Aggee Fedayeen Chief
Supreme Ruler of the Obvious
RSFC Rookie of the Year 2005
Time Magazine Person of the Year 2006

"We just got outplayed today. That's the bottom line. And we got
outcoached."
- OU Head Coach Bob Stoops following the Texas A&M game, Nov 9, 2002

m***@students.mcg.edu

2007-05-07 21:14:19 UTC

Post by mianderson
1) his tax cuts aren't popular amongst people making 30-70k
in general

bush's tax cuts are quite popular across the board, which is
why the dems have no plans to try and repeal them.

we *do* have plans. Once we get the presidency you'll see us do
so for the top 2%. Every single one of the dem presidential
candidates plans to keep the tax cuts for people earning 40-90k
in place but on people earning > 140k the tax cuts will be
repealed.

What a terrible idea...

maybe maybe not. It's not something I think about a lot.
What is clear is that it's popular amongst voters. Tax cuts may be
popular with voters, but not tax cuts directed at the top 3 or so
percentile of the country.......

I'm not going to argue the merits of it.....just the basics on where
the electorate stands on it.

And you presume to know that the people want tax hikes?

ummm....sure. polls have consistently shown that vast majorities of
people favor repealing the tax cuts for the top 2% or so of earners.

And doing things that are bad policy for political gain, regardless of
party, is a bad way to do things. The Democrats seem to be engaging in
this alot lately as well.

like I said both parties do it.....you'll be a much happier guy wrt
politics if you just accept this. when the gop does something that I
believe is *wrong* or bad policy because it might make sense from an
electoral standpoint, I'm not bitter about it- I just accept it as
the way things are going to be.

Matthew Hennig

2007-05-07 21:40:42 UTC

Post by mianderson
1) his tax cuts aren't popular amongst people making
30-70k in general

bush's tax cuts are quite popular across the board, which is
why the dems have no plans to try and repeal them.

we *do* have plans. Once we get the presidency you'll see us
do so for the top 2%. Every single one of the dem
presidential candidates plans to keep the tax cuts for people
earning 40-90k in place but on people earning > 140k the tax
cuts will be repealed.

What a terrible idea...

maybe maybe not. It's not something I think about a lot.
What is clear is that it's popular amongst voters. Tax cuts may
be popular with voters, but not tax cuts directed at the top 3
or so percentile of the country.......

I'm not going to argue the merits of it.....just the basics on
where the electorate stands on it.

And you presume to know that the people want tax hikes?

ummm....sure. polls have consistently shown that vast majorities of
people favor repealing the tax cuts for the top 2% or so of earners.

Do you have any cites?

Post by m***@yahoo.com
Both the gop and democrats do some things that are perhaps "right"
but costly politically.....and they both also do some things that
are "bad policy" but is advantag. from a political standpoint.

And doing things that are bad policy for political gain, regardless
of party, is a bad way to do things. The Democrats seem to be
engaging in this alot lately as well.

There are sometimes when doing the right thing trumps politics. Calling
for defeat and retreat in Iraq is one such thing that is good for
Democratic politics but is bad policy for our nation. If the terrorists
see yet another capitulation of America, they'll have little to fear from
American retaliation. The Democrats would have emasculated America at
that point.

So I'll be a much happier guy if I just accept this course of action?
(Assuming the Democrats would get their way...)

MH
--
Ten of Spades
Aggee Fedayeen Chief
Supreme Ruler of the Obvious
RSFC Rookie of the Year 2005
Time Magazine Person of the Year 2006

"We just got outplayed today. That's the bottom line. And we got
outcoached."
- OU Head Coach Bob Stoops following the Texas A&M game, Nov 9, 2002

m***@students.mcg.edu

2007-05-07 21:49:14 UTC

Post by mianderson
1) his tax cuts aren't popular amongst people making
30-70k in general

bush's tax cuts are quite popular across the board, which is
why the dems have no plans to try and repeal them.

we *do* have plans. Once we get the presidency you'll see us
do so for the top 2%. Every single one of the dem
presidential candidates plans to keep the tax cuts for people
earning 40-90k in place but on people earning > 140k the tax
cuts will be repealed.

What a terrible idea...

maybe maybe not. It's not something I think about a lot.
What is clear is that it's popular amongst voters. Tax cuts may
be popular with voters, but not tax cuts directed at the top 3
or so percentile of the country.......

I'm not going to argue the merits of it.....just the basics on
where the electorate stands on it.

And you presume to know that the people want tax hikes?

ummm....sure. polls have consistently shown that vast majorities of
people favor repealing the tax cuts for the top 2% or so of earners.

Do you have any cites?

Post by m***@yahoo.com
Both the gop and democrats do some things that are perhaps "right"
but costly politically.....and they both also do some things that
are "bad policy" but is advantag. from a political standpoint.

And doing things that are bad policy for political gain, regardless
of party, is a bad way to do things. The Democrats seem to be
engaging in this alot lately as well.

There are sometimes when doing the right thing trumps politics. Calling
for defeat and retreat in Iraq is one such thing that is good for
Democratic politics but is bad policy for our nation.

the problem with this is that many well-intentioned people *don't*
think it's bad for our nation. So it's just a non-stop "it's good, no
it's bad, it's good, no it's bad, it's good, no it's bad" back and
forth.

Whereas on issues of what is smart politically and not smart
politically, it's easier to have discussions and engage the subject.
For example the gop here in georgia is pushing a law that would allow
people to be executed without a unanimous death penalty verdict. Well
I think this is *bad* policy, but I will congratulate the gop on a job
well done because that's a smart move politically here in georgia.

Charlie Board

2007-05-06 00:30:37 UTC

Post by stephenj
yes, but my gosh how many in the electorate even remember? there's no
'stench'.

Depends on how you define "stench". Bush's attempt to destroy
Social Security was the beginning of the end for him. He started
losing the average American then and it just snowballed afterwards
with Katrina, the dawning awareness of how badly he lost the war,
etc. Make no mistake though - trying to destroy SS was the first
major step on his road to these 28% approval ratings.

Post by stephenj
i give bush credit for trying to do something on SS. sure he failed, but
so has everyone else. at least he did try.

Rigggggght. You *are* aware that he never even actually got around to
making a proposal, right?

Charles Beauchamp

2007-05-06 01:17:02 UTC

Post by stephenj
yes, but my gosh how many in the electorate even remember? there's no
'stench'.

Post by stephenj
i give bush credit for trying to do something on SS. sure he failed, but
so has everyone else. at least he did try.

Rigggggght. You *are* aware that he never even actually got around to
making a proposal, right?

Hmmm....never an actual proposal...but he was attempting to destroy SS.
Interesting given that he never said a single word that would have suggested
destroying SS. You are truly insane.

--
v/r Beau

God Bless Hokienation!!!

stephenj

2007-05-06 02:31:01 UTC

Post by stephenj
yes, but my gosh how many in the electorate even remember? there's no
'stench'.

Post by stephenj
i give bush credit for trying to do something on SS. sure he failed, but
so has everyone else. at least he did try.

Rigggggght. You *are* aware that he never even actually got around to
making a proposal, right?

Hmmm....never an actual proposal...but he was attempting to destroy SS.
Interesting given that he never said a single word that would have suggested
destroying SS. You are truly insane.

Yes, board is so far out to lunch on this that he's broken his usual
standards for incompetence, which is really quite an achievement.

--
"when i visited Aden before collectivization,
all the markets were full of fish product. After
collectivization, the fish immediately disappeared."

- Aleksandr Vassiliev, Soviet KGB official

Charlie Board

2007-05-06 13:04:32 UTC

Post by stephenj
yes, but my gosh how many in the electorate even remember? there's no
'stench'.

Post by stephenj
i give bush credit for trying to do something on SS. sure he failed, but
so has everyone else. at least he did try.

Rigggggght. You *are* aware that he never even actually got around to
making a proposal, right?

Hmmm....never an actual proposal...but he was attempting to destroy SS.

No contradiction there. His speeches and trial balloons made it clear
that his idea of "reform" was to destroy the fundamental principles
underlying the Social Security system. It was pretty clear that if
he ever got around to making an actual proposal it would be aimed
in that direction. But ultimately he lacked the political courage
to ever actually make a specific proposal.

The real problem with the idea of "fixing" Social Security is that it
ain't broken. It's the only significant part of the federal budget
that not only pays for itself, but - even under cconservative scenarios -
*continues* to pay for itself for close to 40 more years.

Jeffrey Davis

2007-05-06 13:22:33 UTC

Post by stephenj
yes, but my gosh how many in the electorate even remember? there's no
'stench'.

Post by stephenj
i give bush credit for trying to do something on SS. sure he failed, but
so has everyone else. at least he did try.

Rigggggght. You *are* aware that he never even actually got around to
making a proposal, right?

Hmmm....never an actual proposal...but he was attempting to destroy SS.
Interesting given that he never said a single word that would have suggested
destroying SS. You are truly insane.

Don't be an ass. Destroying SS has been a touchstone of the right since
the moment it was enacted.

In fact, you're participating in the charade with statements like this.

Charles Beauchamp

2007-05-11 05:48:21 UTC

Post by stephenj
yes, but my gosh how many in the electorate even remember? there's no
'stench'.

Post by stephenj
i give bush credit for trying to do something on SS. sure he failed,
but so has everyone else. at least he did try.

Rigggggght. You *are* aware that he never even actually got around to
making a proposal, right?

Hmmm....never an actual proposal...but he was attempting to destroy SS.
Interesting given that he never said a single word that would have
suggested destroying SS. You are truly insane.

Don't be an ass. Destroying SS has been a touchstone of the right since
the moment it was enacted.
In fact, you're participating in the charade with statements like this.

You are an idiot. Raving about the safety net has been THE cornerstone of
liberalism in this country for 70 years. You people are as stupid about
this as yu are about national security.

--
v/r Beau

God Bless Hokienation!!!

Jeffrey Davis

2007-05-11 10:54:22 UTC

[...]

Post by Jeffrey Davis
Don't be an ass. Destroying SS has been a touchstone of the right since
the moment it was enacted.
In fact, you're participating in the charade with statements like this.

You are an idiot. Raving about the safety net has been THE cornerstone of
liberalism in this country for 70 years. You people are as stupid about
this as yu are about national security.

Your response has no relation to mine.

Charlie Board

2007-05-06 00:23:17 UTC

Post by stephenj
bush gave up on ss reform 3 years ago.

"3 years ago" would be May 2004. Bush barely even *mentioned*
SS reform until late November 2004 (*after* the election
it all of the sudden became his big legacy issue). It then
took a good 6 months for him to realize he'd gotten his ass
thoroughly kicked on the issue and let it go the way
of most of his other grand ideas (remember men on Mars?).

So you're off by a year.

Charles Beauchamp

2007-05-06 01:18:29 UTC

Post by stephenj
bush gave up on ss reform 3 years ago.

"3 years ago" would be May 2004. Bush barely even *mentioned*
SS reform until late November 2004 (*after* the election
it all of the sudden became his big legacy issue).

Again you are insane. He ran for President in 2000 on essentially two
issues. 1. tax cuts 2. Social Security Reform. We got the tax cut. Social
Security still needs reform because it absolutely cannot continue as is and
anyone who doesn't understand that should learn basic math.

--
v/r Beau

God Bless Hokienation!!!

Unclaimed Mysteries

2007-05-06 03:45:50 UTC

Post by stephenj
bush gave up on ss reform 3 years ago.

"3 years ago" would be May 2004. Bush barely even *mentioned*
SS reform until late November 2004 (*after* the election
it all of the sudden became his big legacy issue).

IAWTP. The "third rail" is still there, still electrified, still deadly.
I wish Democrats especially would do something more constructive than
blurt out a reflexive "Gotta protect Social Security from the evil
Republicans." Finally doing something about SS was, I thought, the one
redeeming aspect of W becoming President.

Let it be KNOW to all who cometh to this chatrum: I stood with the
President on the need for SS reform. I just didn't realize he was going
to try to re-form the SS.

HILTER!!!`!`11

--
It Came From Corry Lee Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net

stephenj

2007-05-06 02:21:57 UTC

Post by stephenj
bush gave up on ss reform 3 years ago.

ok, whatever. it's still not on anyone's radar right now, but of course
it should be since the democrats transferred $10 trillion from those
born after 1937 to those born before 1937, and we'll be paying that off
in perpetuity, probably.

--
"when i visited Aden before collectivization,
all the markets were full of fish product. After
collectivization, the fish immediately disappeared."

- Aleksandr Vassiliev, Soviet KGB official

rich hammett

2007-05-07 21:12:02 UTC

Minun olisi pitänyt tietää, olisi pitänyt tietää,

Post by mianderson
high comedy last night!!!
I can't say I'm sad that the gop and republican candidates are so
clueless on this issue......

what i don't get is why the american people care so much about it.

it's very expensive for one. It's 3000+ dead americans for another.
Yeah I guess 3000+ isn't a huge number, but it's less than the wtc
attacks, which americans also cared a lot about.

This decision has cost a helluva lot more than 3000 lives. That's
dishonest even for you.

rich

--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ --I am sick of the self-absorbed city of New York.

stephenj

2007-05-07 22:04:48 UTC

Post by rich hammett
Minun olisi pitänyt tietää, olisi pitänyt tietää,

Post by mianderson
high comedy last night!!!
I can't say I'm sad that the gop and republican candidates are so
clueless on this issue......

what i don't get is why the american people care so much about it.

it's very expensive for one. It's 3000+ dead americans for another.
Yeah I guess 3000+ isn't a huge number, but it's less than the wtc
attacks, which americans also cared a lot about.

This decision has cost a helluva lot more than 3000 lives. That's
dishonest even for you.

lol. like it or not, americans don't care about iraqi deaths. bush is
paying a political price for the 3000+ US deaths and the money spent.

i'd call you a dishonest schmuck for posting this when you already knew
that, but i can't be sure you knew it.

--
"when i visited Aden before collectivization,
all the markets were full of fish product. After
collectivization, the fish immediately disappeared."

- Aleksandr Vassiliev, Soviet KGB official

Charlie Board

2007-05-05 00:25:12 UTC

Post by stephenj
concede that bush has fucked up iraq from day 1 and he still merits
about a 57% approval rating.

Riggght. Because Presidents who lose *two* wars, don't respond to
the loss of an American city, preside over the most stagnant economy in
50 years, blow the federal budget all to hell and wink at rampant
corruption are *expected* to come in at 57%.

stephenj

2007-05-05 00:33:10 UTC

Post by stephenj
concede that bush has fucked up iraq from day 1 and he still merits
about a 57% approval rating.

Riggght. Because Presidents who lose *two* wars

two wars? he hasn't lost a single one. true, we should have pulled out
of iraq 2 years ago, but that's hardly an earth-shattering mistake.

bush did a nice job pulling us out of the clinton recession and the
economy has performed well since then. there haven't been any more major
terror attacks on US soil and america is as strong as it ever has been.
he's done a fantastic job with judicial appointments.

sheesh 60% is about right - i sold bush short. if it hadn't been for
medicare drug program he'd merit a 'great' designation.

--
"when i visited Aden before collectivization,
all the markets were full of fish product. After
collectivization, the fish immediately disappeared."

- Aleksandr Vassiliev, Soviet KGB official

Ralph Kennedy

2007-05-07 16:58:19 UTC

Post by stephenj
bush did a nice job pulling us out of the clinton recession

"Clinton recession?" What malarkey.

Post by stephenj
and the economy has performed well since then.

Like hell it has. The stock market is not "the
economy." In real terms, I used to be able to afford
to travel a lot. Now, airline tickets are way up,
and when you get where you're going, the dollar isn't
worth shit and you get raped on the exchange.

Normal domestic prices of goods and inflation
are way up too, I don't care what your phony reports say.
When Bush took office, lunch in Phx cost me $5-$7. Now,
you can't eat anywhere under $10. A lotion I get at
the drugstore has gone up from $9 to $12.79. Meanwhile,
salaries are about the same, if you're lucky enough
not to have been outsourced and forced into working
at Walmart for minimum wage.

You and w can shove the "good economy" right up
your keesters.

--Ralph Kennedy {ames,gatech,husc6,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!kennedy
{allegra,decvax,ihnp4,oddjob}--^
^---------------The Wrong Choice
internet: ***@asuvax.eas.asu.edu

"This is rsfc, not the Algonquin roundtable."
-xyzzy, 2/16/07

m***@yahoo.com

2007-05-07 17:23:20 UTC

Post by stephenj
bush did a nice job pulling us out of the clinton recession

"Clinton recession?" What malarkey.

Post by stephenj
and the economy has performed well since then.

whoa......you didn't get the rsfc memo about how anyone that spends
more than 3 bucks on lotion/moisterizer is either gay or a
metrosexual?

Meanwhile,

Post by Ralph Kennedy
salaries are about the same, if you're lucky enough
not to have been outsourced and forced into working
at Walmart for minimum wage.
You and w can shove the "good economy" right up
your keesters.
--Ralph Kennedy {ames,gatech,husc6,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!kennedy
{allegra,decvax,ihnp4,oddjob}--^
^---------------The Wrong Choice
"This is rsfc, not the Algonquin roundtable."
-xyzzy, 2/16/07

stephenj

2007-05-07 22:05:55 UTC

Post by stephenj
bush did a nice job pulling us out of the clinton recession

"Clinton recession?" What malarkey.

Post by stephenj
and the economy has performed well since then.

Like hell it has. The stock market is not "the
economy."

right. the "economy" is the economy. And it has performed well since the
mild recession ended. sorry if you haven't personally experienced that.

--
"when i visited Aden before collectivization,
all the markets were full of fish product. After
collectivization, the fish immediately disappeared."

- Aleksandr Vassiliev, Soviet KGB official

Matthew Hennig

2007-05-06 18:09:51 UTC

Post by mianderson
high comedy last night!!!
I can't say I'm sad that the gop and republican candidates are so
clueless on this issue......

Too bad for the Dems that Bush isn't running for a third term...

MH
--
Ten of Spades
Aggee Fedayeen Chief
Supreme Ruler of the Obvious
RSFC Rookie of the Year 2005
Time Magazine Person of the Year 2006

"We just got outplayed today. That's the bottom line. And we got
outcoached."
- OU Head Coach Bob Stoops following the Texas A&M game, Nov 9, 2002

m***@yahoo.com

2007-05-06 18:45:22 UTC

Post by mianderson
high comedy last night!!!
I can't say I'm sad that the gop and republican candidates are so
clueless on this issue......

Too bad for the Dems that Bush isn't running for a third term...

he wasn't running in 2006 either and he still managed to drag down the
gop.......the same will likely happen in 2008.

Matthew Hennig

2007-05-07 00:37:17 UTC

Post by mianderson
high comedy last night!!!
I can't say I'm sad that the gop and republican candidates are so
clueless on this issue......

Too bad for the Dems that Bush isn't running for a third term...

he wasn't running in 2006 either and he still managed to drag down the
gop.......the same will likely happen in 2008.

Not with FRED!

MH
--
Ten of Spades
Aggee Fedayeen Chief
Supreme Ruler of the Obvious
RSFC Rookie of the Year 2005
Time Magazine Person of the Year 2006

"We just got outplayed today. That's the bottom line. And we got
outcoached."
- OU Head Coach Bob Stoops following the Texas A&M game, Nov 9, 2002

Charlie Board

2007-05-07 00:51:24 UTC

Post by Matthew Hennig
Too bad for the Dems that Bush isn't running for a third term...

Yeah, the fact that all three of the top Dem contenders are
leading all three top GOP contenders head-to-head has
absolutely nothing to do with Bush, I'm sure.

Matthew Hennig

2007-05-07 02:32:21 UTC

Post by Matthew Hennig
Too bad for the Dems that Bush isn't running for a third term...

Yeah, the fact that all three of the top Dem contenders are
leading all three top GOP contenders head-to-head has
absolutely nothing to do with Bush, I'm sure.

Do you have a cite for this?

MH
--
Ten of Spades
Aggee Fedayeen Chief
Supreme Ruler of the Obvious
RSFC Rookie of the Year 2005
Time Magazine Person of the Year 2006

"We just got outplayed today. That's the bottom line. And we got
outcoached."
- OU Head Coach Bob Stoops following the Texas A&M game, Nov 9, 2002

rich hammett

2007-05-07 19:18:56 UTC

Minun olisi pitänyt tietää, olisi pitänyt tietää,

Post by mianderson
high comedy last night!!!
I can't say I'm sad that the gop and republican candidates are so
clueless on this issue......

what i don't get is why the american people care so much about it. the
GOP lost 50 seats in congress last year and bush's approval rating has
been in the 30s for almost 2 years, and strictly because of iraq.
hillary freaking clinton will probably get elected president and appoint
3 SCOTUS justices who will do damage to the constitution to almost
mid-century thanks almost entirely to ... iraq.
thing is, even if all the critics are right and everything about iraq -
from the decision to go to war to how it has been implemented for 4
years - has been completely fucked up, it doesn't merit anything near
the dominance of our political life that it has had and continues to have.
concede that bush has fucked up iraq from day 1 and he still merits
about a 57% approval rating.

I think he'd be lower than that just based on the number of deaths
he's caused.

rich

--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ --I am sick of the self-absorbed city of New York.

Emperor Wonko the Sane

2007-05-04 22:25:20 UTC

Post by mianderson
high comedy last night!!!

Hey MIA! Why is it that the GOP candidates are brave enough to go on
a PMSNBC sponsored debate moderated by a very left leaning journalist
and the dimmercraps are to chickenous to debate at a Fox sponsored
debate?

Doug

mianderson

2007-05-04 22:28:37 UTC

Post by mianderson
high comedy last night!!!

ummm...because msnbc isn't foxnews. Hell nbc/msnbc news employs
tools like Matthews and Russert....those are the last people
progressives admire.

Post by Emperor Wonko the Sane
Doug

Matthew Hennig

2007-05-06 23:15:46 UTC

Post by mianderson
high comedy last night!!!

ummm...because msnbc isn't foxnews. Hell nbc/msnbc news employs
tools like Matthews and Russert....those are the last people
progressives admire.

What about the left's hero Olbermann?

MH
--
Ten of Spades
Aggee Fedayeen Chief
Supreme Ruler of the Obvious
RSFC Rookie of the Year 2005
Time Magazine Person of the Year 2006

"We just got outplayed today. That's the bottom line. And we got
outcoached."
- OU Head Coach Bob Stoops following the Texas A&M game, Nov 9, 2002

m***@students.mcg.edu

2007-05-06 23:18:31 UTC

Post by mianderson
high comedy last night!!!

ummm...because msnbc isn't foxnews. Hell nbc/msnbc news employs
tools like Matthews and Russert....those are the last people
progressives admire.

What about the left's hero Olbermann?

yes, and he wasn't the host of the debate. Chris "I wish reagan could
come back to life so I could make out with him" mathews
was........it's hard to believe he used to work for tiponeal.

Tom Enright

2007-05-06 23:21:43 UTC

Post by mianderson
high comedy last night!!!

ummm...because msnbc isn't foxnews. Hell nbc/msnbc news employs
tools like Matthews and Russert....those are the last people
progressives admire.

What about the left's hero Olbermann?

yes, and he wasn't the host of the debate.

Just a commentator. The #1 most partisan dude on TV.

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu
Chris "I wish reagan could
come back to life so I could make out with him" mathews
was........it's hard to believe he used to work for tiponeal.

Ah...he's a die-hard liberal and a DNC supporter. Who would he work
for?

-Tom Enright

m***@students.mcg.edu

2007-05-06 23:25:09 UTC

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu
Chris "I wish reagan could
come back to life so I could make out with him" mathews
was........it's hard to believe he used to work for tiponeal.

Ah...he's a die-hard liberal and a DNC supporter.

maybe he used to be. Now almost on a weekly basis liberals blast away
at mathews for what we feel is his unfair treatment of liberals on his
show.

Who would he work

Post by Tom Enright
for?
-Tom Enright

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Jeffrey Davis

2007-05-06 23:26:36 UTC

Post by mianderson
high comedy last night!!!

ummm...because msnbc isn't foxnews. Hell nbc/msnbc news employs
tools like Matthews and Russert....those are the last people
progressives admire.

What about the left's hero Olbermann?

yes, and he wasn't the host of the debate.

Just a commentator. The #1 most partisan dude on TV.

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu
Chris "I wish reagan could
come back to life so I could make out with him" mathews
was........it's hard to believe he used to work for tiponeal.

Ah...he's a die-hard liberal and a DNC supporter. Who would he work
for?

I think you're either lying or stupid. Matthews worked for Tip O'Neil.
Currently, he carries water for conservatives.

See? Things change. Yunnerstan? It's useful to judge people by their
actions in order to calibrate such things. Carry water for Republicans
and conservatives? Yer a Republican and/or conservative.

Tom Enright

2007-05-06 23:50:59 UTC

Post by mianderson
high comedy last night!!!

ummm...because msnbc isn't foxnews. Hell nbc/msnbc news employs
tools like Matthews and Russert....those are the last people
progressives admire.

What about the left's hero Olbermann?

yes, and he wasn't the host of the debate.

Just a commentator. The #1 most partisan dude on TV.

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu
Chris "I wish reagan could
come back to life so I could make out with him" mathews
was........it's hard to believe he used to work for tiponeal.

Ah...he's a die-hard liberal and a DNC supporter. Who would he work
for?

I think you're either lying or stupid. Matthews worked for Tip O'Neil.
Currently, he carries water for conservatives.
See? Things change. Yunnerstan? It's useful to judge people by their
actions in order to calibrate such things. Carry water for Republicans
and conservatives? Yer a Republican and/or conservative.

Yea, I remember how Dan Rather, Helen Thomas, Tom Brokaw etc. weren't
liberals when they were broadcasting but after they left the "news"
they became champions for the Democrats. Because they "changed."

Mathews is now, and always has been, a liberal and a supporter of the
Democratic party. There is nothing that indicates any type of change.

-Tom Enright

m***@students.mcg.edu

2007-05-06 23:57:31 UTC

Post by mianderson
high comedy last night!!!

ummm...because msnbc isn't foxnews. Hell nbc/msnbc news employs
tools like Matthews and Russert....those are the last people
progressives admire.

What about the left's hero Olbermann?

yes, and he wasn't the host of the debate.

Just a commentator. The #1 most partisan dude on TV.

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu
Chris "I wish reagan could
come back to life so I could make out with him" mathews
was........it's hard to believe he used to work for tiponeal.

Ah...he's a die-hard liberal and a DNC supporter. Who would he work
for?

I think you're either lying or stupid. Matthews worked for Tip O'Neil.
Currently, he carries water for conservatives.
See? Things change. Yunnerstan? It's useful to judge people by their
actions in order to calibrate such things. Carry water for Republicans
and conservatives? Yer a Republican and/or conservative.

Yea, I remember how Dan Rather, Helen Thomas, Tom Brokaw etc. weren't
liberals when they were broadcasting but after they left the "news"
they became champions for the Democrats. Because they "changed."
Mathews is now, and always has been, a liberal and a supporter of the
Democratic party. There is nothing that indicates any type of change.

Im just curious- have you watched hardball lately? The last time I
watched he made fun of democrats for being "pansies"(or some simialr
phrase) on national security. He's recently called dems "whiners".
It's obvious to anyone who watches hardball that his two favorite
politicans in the world are mccain and rudy.....when either of them
comes on the show it's hard for mathews to hide his schoolgirl
crush.....

Post by Tom Enright
-Tom Enright- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Charlie Board

2007-05-07 00:52:45 UTC

Post by Tom Enright
Mathews is now, and always has been, a liberal and a supporter of the
Democratic party. There is nothing that indicates any type of change.

Nothing, that is, except pretty much every episode of his show for
the last bazillion years.

Jeffrey Davis

2007-05-07 00:53:47 UTC

Post by mianderson
high comedy last night!!!

ummm...because msnbc isn't foxnews. Hell nbc/msnbc news employs
tools like Matthews and Russert....those are the last people
progressives admire.

What about the left's hero Olbermann?

yes, and he wasn't the host of the debate.

Just a commentator. The #1 most partisan dude on TV.

Post by m***@students.mcg.edu
Chris "I wish reagan could
come back to life so I could make out with him" mathews
was........it's hard to believe he used to work for tiponeal.

Ah...he's a die-hard liberal and a DNC supporter. Who would he work
for?

I think you're either lying or stupid. Matthews worked for Tip O'Neil.
Currently, he carries water for conservatives.
See? Things change. Yunnerstan? It's useful to judge people by their
actions in order to calibrate such things. Carry water for Republicans
and conservatives? Yer a Republican and/or conservative.

Yea, I remember how Dan Rather, Helen Thomas, Tom Brokaw etc. weren't
liberals when they were broadcasting but after they left the "news"
they became champions for the Democrats. Because they "changed."
Mathews is now, and always has been, a liberal and a supporter of the
Democratic party. There is nothing that indicates any type of change.

By your own measure, you make my point.

" There is nothing that indicates any type of change." Except carrying
water for the Republicans. Shouldn't forget that.

Matthew Hennig

2007-05-07 00:41:48 UTC

On May 4, 6:25 pm, Emperor Wonko the Sane

Post by mianderson
high comedy last night!!!

Hey MIA! Why is it that the GOP candidates are brave enough to go
on a PMSNBC sponsored debate moderated by a very left leaning
journalist and the dimmercraps are to chickenous to debate at a
Fox sponsored debate?

ummm...because msnbc isn't foxnews. Hell nbc/msnbc news employs
tools like Matthews and Russert....those are the last people
progressives admire.

What about the left's hero Olbermann?

yes, and he wasn't the host of the debate. Chris "I wish reagan could
come back to life so I could make out with him" mathews
was........it's hard to believe he used to work for tiponeal.

No, but Olbie was the post-debate analysis guy. And it was in referral
to your remark about msnbc employing people that 'progressives' admire.
Olbie is admired by them, even if his show's ratings are in the toilet.

MH
--
Ten of Spades
Aggee Fedayeen Chief
Supreme Ruler of the Obvious
RSFC Rookie of the Year 2005
Time Magazine Person of the Year 2006

"We just got outplayed today. That's the bottom line. And we got
outcoached."
- OU Head Coach Bob Stoops following the Texas A&M game, Nov 9, 2002

m***@students.mcg.edu

2007-05-07 01:48:02 UTC

On May 4, 6:25 pm, Emperor Wonko the Sane

Post by mianderson
high comedy last night!!!

Hey MIA! Why is it that the GOP candidates are brave enough to go
on a PMSNBC sponsored debate moderated by a very left leaning
journalist and the dimmercraps are to chickenous to debate at a
Fox sponsored debate?

ummm...because msnbc isn't foxnews. Hell nbc/msnbc news employs
tools like Matthews and Russert....those are the last people
progressives admire.

What about the left's hero Olbermann?

yes, and he wasn't the host of the debate. Chris "I wish reagan could
come back to life so I could make out with him" mathews
was........it's hard to believe he used to work for tiponeal.

pretty much every network(except fox) has some guys both parties
like. CNN for example currently emplosy the very right wing glenn
beck. Just because they employ Beck doesn't mean I think cnn is a
right wng network. ABC employs george will.

Matthew Hennig

2007-05-07 02:32:07 UTC

On May 4, 6:25 pm, Emperor Wonko the Sane

Post by mianderson
high comedy last night!!!

Hey MIA! Why is it that the GOP candidates are brave enough to
go on a PMSNBC sponsored debate moderated by a very left
leaning journalist and the dimmercraps are to chickenous to
debate at a Fox sponsored debate?

ummm...because msnbc isn't foxnews. Hell nbc/msnbc news
employs tools like Matthews and Russert....those are the last
people progressives admire.

What about the left's hero Olbermann?

yes, and he wasn't the host of the debate. Chris "I wish reagan
could come back to life so I could make out with him" mathews
was........it's hard to believe he used to work for tiponeal.

MSNBC commentators on the whole are more left than any of the other news
networks (and that's saying alot...).

MH
--
Ten of Spades
Aggee Fedayeen Chief
Supreme Ruler of the Obvious
RSFC Rookie of the Year 2005
Time Magazine Person of the Year 2006

"We just got outplayed today. That's the bottom line. And we got
outcoached."
- OU Head Coach Bob Stoops following the Texas A&M game, Nov 9, 2002

m***@yahoo.com

2007-05-07 16:23:35 UTC

On May 4, 6:25 pm, Emperor Wonko the Sane

Post by mianderson
high comedy last night!!!

Hey MIA! Why is it that the GOP candidates are brave enough to
go on a PMSNBC sponsored debate moderated by a very left
leaning journalist and the dimmercraps are to chickenous to
debate at a Fox sponsored debate?

ummm...because msnbc isn't foxnews. Hell nbc/msnbc news
employs tools like Matthews and Russert....those are the last
people progressives admire.

What about the left's hero Olbermann?

yes, and he wasn't the host of the debate. Chris "I wish reagan
could come back to life so I could make out with him" mathews
was........it's hard to believe he used to work for tiponeal.

MSNBC commentators on the whole are more left than any of the other news
networks (and that's saying alot...).

the only msnbc commentator that liberals really like is
olberman.......

Matthew Hennig

2007-05-07 18:11:08 UTC

On May 4, 6:25 pm, Emperor Wonko the Sane

Post by mianderson
high comedy last night!!!

Hey MIA! Why is it that the GOP candidates are brave enough
to go on a PMSNBC sponsored debate moderated by a very left
leaning journalist and the dimmercraps are to chickenous to
debate at a Fox sponsored debate?

ummm...because msnbc isn't foxnews. Hell nbc/msnbc news
employs tools like Matthews and Russert....those are the last
people progressives admire.

What about the left's hero Olbermann?

yes, and he wasn't the host of the debate. Chris "I wish reagan
could come back to life so I could make out with him" mathews
was........it's hard to believe he used to work for tiponeal.

MSNBC commentators on the whole are more left than any of the other
news networks (and that's saying alot...).

the only msnbc commentator that liberals really like is
olberman.......

And he's a Truther too.

MH
--
Ten of Spades
Aggee Fedayeen Chief
Supreme Ruler of the Obvious
RSFC Rookie of the Year 2005
Time Magazine Person of the Year 2006

"We just got outplayed today. That's the bottom line. And we got
outcoached."
- OU Head Coach Bob Stoops following the Texas A&M game, Nov 9, 2002

Emperor Wonko the Sane

2007-05-07 17:30:26 UTC

Post by mianderson
high comedy last night!!!

ummm...because msnbc isn't foxnews. Hell nbc/msnbc news employs
tools like Matthews and Russert....those are the last people
progressives admire.

Um. Russert worked for Moynihan and Cuomof. Matthews ran for office as
a democrat and was Jimmy Carter's speech writer. The fact that you
consider these two not progressive enough says a lot.

Doug

m***@yahoo.com

2007-05-07 17:53:16 UTC

Post by mianderson
high comedy last night!!!

ummm...because msnbc isn't foxnews. Hell nbc/msnbc news employs
tools like Matthews and Russert....those are the last people
progressives admire.

Um. Russert worked for Moynihan and Cuomof. Matthews ran for office as
a democrat and was Jimmy Carter's speech writer.

dude, that was almost 30 years ago. And over 20 years since he has
worked for oneal.

I think the things he said on his show in the *last month* is more
relevant than what he did 30 years ago. Like when he calls democrats
"pansies", or when he says democrats are weak on national defense. Or
when he salivates over rudy. That's what he does *now*.

Hell twenty years ago zell miller actually had progressive
ideas.....is he left of center too?

The fact that you

Post by Emperor Wonko the Sane
consider these two not progressive enough says a lot.
Doug- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Emperor Wonko the Sane

2007-05-07 21:37:56 UTC

Post by mianderson
high comedy last night!!!

ummm...because msnbc isn't foxnews. Hell nbc/msnbc news employs
tools like Matthews and Russert....those are the last people
progressives admire.

Um. Russert worked for Moynihan and Cuomof. Matthews ran for office as
a democrat and was Jimmy Carter's speech writer.

dude, that was almost 30 years ago. And over 20 years since he has
worked for oneal.
I think the things he said on his show in the *last month* is more
relevant than what he did 30 years ago.

True enough.

Post by m***@yahoo.com
Like when he calls democrats
"pansies", or when he says democrats are weak on national defense.

That's just honest reporting.

Post by m***@yahoo.com
Or when he salivates over rudy. That's what he does *now*.

What Matthews did in the debate was bring up every democrat talking
point he could think of, and he was hard on Rudy.

Post by m***@yahoo.com
Hell twenty years ago zell miller actually had progressive
ideas

and then grew up

Post by m***@yahoo.com
.....is he left of center too?

No.

For every "unprogressive" thing Matthews says, he says twenty straight
in line with the Bush-bashing DNC talking points.

Post by Emperor Wonko the Sane
The fact that you consider these two not progressive enough says a lot.

Doug

m***@students.mcg.edu

2007-05-07 21:41:41 UTC

Post by mianderson
high comedy last night!!!

ummm...because msnbc isn't foxnews. Hell nbc/msnbc news employs
tools like Matthews and Russert....those are the last people
progressives admire.

Um. Russert worked for Moynihan and Cuomof. Matthews ran for office as
a democrat and was Jimmy Carter's speech writer.

dude, that was almost 30 years ago. And over 20 years since he has
worked for oneal.
I think the things he said on his show in the *last month* is more
relevant than what he did 30 years ago.

True enough.

Post by m***@yahoo.com
Like when he calls democrats
"pansies", or when he says democrats are weak on national defense.

That's just honest reporting.

Post by m***@yahoo.com
Or when he salivates over rudy. That's what he does *now*.

What Matthews did in the debate was bring up every democrat talking
point he could think of, and he was hard on Rudy.

Post by m***@yahoo.com
Hell twenty years ago zell miller actually had progressive
ideas

and then grew up

Post by m***@yahoo.com
.....is he left of center too?

No.
For every "unprogressive" thing Matthews says, he says twenty straight
in line with the Bush-bashing DNC talking points.

could you give an example of some of these recently on his show.....I
can gladly do the same for his right of center remarks.

Post by Emperor Wonko the Sane
The fact that you consider these two not progressive enough says a lot.

Doug- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Ralph Kennedy

2007-05-05 00:00:00 UTC

Post by mianderson
high comedy last night!!!

Hey MIA! Why is it that the GOP candidates are brave enough to go on
a PMSNBC sponsored debate moderated by a very left leaning journalist

He's not a very left leaning journalist.

Post by Emperor Wonko the Sane
and the dimmercraps are to chickenous to debate at a Fox sponsored
debate?

They're not too chickenous. HAND.

--Ralph Kennedy {ames,gatech,husc6,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!kennedy
{allegra,decvax,ihnp4,oddjob}--^
^---------------The Wrong Choice
internet: ***@asuvax.eas.asu.edu

"This is rsfc, not the Algonquin roundtable."
-xyzzy, 2/16/07

Matthew Hennig

2007-05-07 00:34:55 UTC

Post by mianderson
high comedy last night!!!

Hey MIA! Why is it that the GOP candidates are brave enough to go on
a PMSNBC sponsored debate moderated by a very left leaning journalist

He's not a very left leaning journalist.

Let's see, he worked for Jimmy Carter, Democratic Senators Frank Moss and
Edmund Muskie, and Speaker Tip O'Neill. He was the speechwriter for
Carter.

He was all over the Plame Kerfuffle and convinced the Karl Rove was to
blame.

All of his political donations from 1987 to today have been to Democrats
(Jim Moran and Anthony Coelho).

He is a left leaning journalist.

MH
--
Ten of Spades
Aggee Fedayeen Chief
Supreme Ruler of the Obvious
RSFC Rookie of the Year 2005
Time Magazine Person of the Year 2006

"We just got outplayed today. That's the bottom line. And we got
outcoached."
- OU Head Coach Bob Stoops following the Texas A&M game, Nov 9, 2002

m***@students.mcg.edu

2007-05-07 01:44:06 UTC

Post by mianderson
high comedy last night!!!

Hey MIA! Why is it that the GOP candidates are brave enough to go on
a PMSNBC sponsored debate moderated by a very left leaning journalist

He's not a very left leaning journalist.

then how come nobody "on the left" can stand him? You've seen how
people on the left in this newsgroup(me, davis, board) feel about
mathews. We think he is horrid. How come guys like rudy and mccain
love him?

Charlie Board

2007-05-05 00:26:36 UTC

Post by mianderson
high comedy last night!!!

Hey MIA! Why is it that the GOP candidates are brave enough to go on
a PMSNBC sponsored debate moderated by a very left leaning journalist

I didn't see it, but wasn't Chris Matthews the moderator? GOP shill
Chris Matthews.

a***@yahoo.com

2007-05-06 01:33:09 UTC

Post by mianderson
high comedy last night!!!

Hey MIA! Why is it that the GOP candidates are brave enough to go on
a PMSNBC sponsored debate moderated by a very left leaning journalist

I didn't see it, but wasn't Chris Matthews the moderator? GOP shill
Chris Matthews.

Now that is some stinky shit, chum.

-Tom Enright

Charles Beauchamp

2007-05-05 05:41:54 UTC