blank'/> Liberally Lean From The Land Of Dairy Queen: Question From The Republican Debate Tonight

1.24.2008

Question From The Republican Debate Tonight


"The unemployment rate in 2001 was 4.2% it is now 5.0%. The [national] debt was $5.7 trillion, it's now $9.2 trillion. There was $261 billion dollar surplus [in the annual budget], there's now a $250 dollar deficit. Gas was $1.47 a gallon, it's now $3.02. Why should the American people continue a Republican in the White House with that kind of record?"

Good question.

90 comments:

Anonymous said...

9/11? Dumb Ass

AnObiter said...

Uhhhh........huh?

Signed,

Too Incredibly Right-Brained to Digest All of Those Damned Numbers

Anonymous said...

This tax rebate idea is so dumb. When I get mine, it will feel kind of like when one of my kids uses my cash to buy me a gift card. Where's the upside? Instead, we put more money in the hands of tens of millions who have proven to be so irresponsible as to have huge credit bills and houses they could never afford in the first place. Gee thanks.

Crud Bonemeal said...

I don't even know where to start with all of that. Why in the world are you dumping all of this on the shoulders of the President? Does he have the dictatorial power to decree that gasoline can only be sold for so much money? Of course not. Gas is selling for that much because consumers, apparently, are willing to pay that much for the gas. Have any of you dumped your 10mpg trucks and SUV's. Of course not.
As for deficits and so forth. From what I understand, this country is exporting infrastructure material to China and other countries at an alarming rate. Do you wonder why the price of lumber, concrete, gasoline, brick, and steel are up? The manufacturers are sending half of what they make out of the country. Why? Because foreign interests will pay more for it than we want to. Plus, only so much of that can be processed or manufactured, so the economic principle of scarcity kicks in to drive prices up more.
Don't forget that President Bush has had to deal with a Democratically controlled House. The House of Representatives holds the purse strings for the government, not the President. The House of Representatives, lead by the hypocrical Nancy Pelosi, approves the budgets. hmmmm.
Unemployment? Blame the labor unions for for constantly driving up the cost of American labor forcing employers to look for other ways to get work done, i.e., technology or cheap foreign labor, such as illegal aliens, which the liberal contingent in this country seem to favor (eg. loose border security).
What about the costs of anything, including, government, materials, gas and whatever else you can think of.
The Environmental Protection Agency makes everything more expensive.
The Democratic House of Representatives passed a new minimum wage bill that makes it more expensive for employers to hire people. (Well, except for Del Monte in San Francisco which is Nancy Pelosi's district).
Thank Sleepy Slimy Billy Clinton for depleting our intelligence community so that 9/11 could occur. I can't believe you put this on President Bush's shoulders after he has spent these last years trying to protect your sorry liberal rear end from an entire race and religion who want nothing more than to destroy this country. They want to do it from the outside while liberals America haters do it from the inside.
How can you make statements like that? You really should hire a lawyer to sue your old school district for the education that you apparently never received because you have no idea about how our government works or how private business works. Why don't you just write a letter to the Islamic bastards who want to kill us and let them know that it's all okay. I really thought you were smarter than this.

Anonymous said...

Crud, You are fairly accurate in your take on things but have committed the cardinal sin of discounting the name of the country in which you live.


THE UNITED STATES OF HYSTERIA

Grab a chair. Watch some TV. Wanna buy some toothpaste?

You are all up shit creek if you all believe you are up shit creek and if you sit on your porcine behinds watching TV long enough you will actually be up shit creek. The poison is right in front of your face and you still can't see it.

Crud Bonemeal said...

Pardon the spelling errors in my last comment. Needless to say, I was a tad unhappy with the tone of your post.

weenie liberal yankee said...

9/11? Crud? You people are NUTS! Of course you think the government's faults are due to the market (ehem, Iraq) when republicans have the reigns, and the country's problems are the government's fault when democrats are in charge of even a small portion by a small margin.

BTW Crud, way to steal Liberally Lean's link AND words about the Knicker Picker. Not even a nod?

rex the wonder dog said...

BINGO! Crud, you have hit all the buttons on the truth. Nice dissertation.

That question was a loaded torpedo stuffed with things the anchor knew a president cannot fix. I wish they would ask the dem candidates the same and we could hear them lie all over hell about what they would do as president. That won't happen.

On unemployment: A rate of 4% is rock bottom, made up of jobless people who cannot or will not work. Nothing a president can do to fix that, even if he put all of them on the federal payroll doing nothing. Sometimes I think that is what the dems really want. Unemployment always goes up a point or two in the winter because of seasonal layoffs. I don't remember the critics wanting to kick Bill Clinton's ass when his unemployment numbers ranged between 7% and 10% for 8 years!

The mechanism that has brought unemployment numbers down is rolling back taxes and allowing small and large businesses to use the money to grow and employ people. The dems have fought that strategy from day one and still do, every step of the way. They want to raise taxes to pay for socialism and always have.

If the tree-hugging liberal dems had not blocked drilling of vast oil deposits on the north slope of Alaska, we would have our own oil pumping now and would be less dependent on OPEC. Blame the president? BS!!!

Remember, it was Bill Clinton and a dem Congress who pushed up and signed the WTO agreement that shipped millions of our jobs overseas. Then he signed NAFTA for the benefit of Mexico. Remember the "sucking sound" when businesses jumped south of the border? His magical talents killed our steel industry and gutted our finished goods manufacturing.

So now we get ready for another Clinton administration?

House of R & R said...

All these problems didn't happen overnight. Blaming the current President is crazy. It's very clear it will take a woman to clean up all this mess you men have made.

Anonymous said...

I understand that the "sheeple" who only believe what they see on the tv news will believe the anchor and this question. But does anyone understand that a president inherits the mess or corrections and turnaround of the president before him? I mean it's not like you can do something today that effects the economy tomorrow. Some of these decisions whether good or bad take years to make an impact that we all notice.

Anonymous said...

R%R - Yeah...we need a woman for house cleaning? How about a female lawyer who can't even handle a divorce case?

Anonymous said...

Thank GOD you Republicans have 911 to blame.

Jesus you could have used the Bird Flu .. Global Warming (You dont believe in that never mind) or you could have blamed .. AIDS for the nations Economy (Wait .. once again you claim that is a curse for being gay ...

Well it looks like you have to find some thing and Bird Flu is kind of lame ... Yep lets use 911 and slimy Bill Clinton. He got a freakin Blow Job that is why our country is in such bad shape.

You spin doctors here in Wise County and such Mental GIANTS !!!

mzchief said...

I believe that 3.5 trillion dollars is a bargain price to pay to keep the terrorists busy somewhere OTHER than the United States.

The government having a SURPLUS means nothing more than the government CONFISCATED more money from the public than was required to run the country. In light of 9/11 it would seem that SOME of that surplus would have been better spent DURING the Clinton Administration fighting/preventing terrorism in the United States thus PREVENTING the deaths of 2819 AMERICANS on U.S. soil.

If ANYONE is daft enough to believe the United States has ANY control over the price of crude they need to pay closer attention and learn a wee bit about OPEC.

Before any of you go off on the U.S. supporting terrorism with oil consumption just know that CANADA exports more oil to the U.S. than any other country.

Incidentally, if there is not security WITHIN the boarders of the United States the economy will be a moot point because a lack of security WITHIN a nation makes it IMPOSSIBLE for such a nation to maintain a STABLE economy. The NECESSITY of national security and an in depth understanding of WAR makes John McCain the MOST qualified candidate to be President at THIS time.

Crud Bonemeal said...

For Weenie Liberal:
You are correct; I did not mean to steal Liberally Lean's thunder. I will edit my post to give credit now.

Anonymous said...

You guys are in denial. Dems controlled Congress? Only recently. For most of Bush's years he had control of both houses AND a philosophy of not being bound by laws and the constitution......and he still produced these numbers.

Even REAL conservatives are ashamed of Bush!

Anonymous said...

House of RnR, I bet Clinton wishes he had tipped Monica 20 bucks to take that dress to the cleaners to get rid of the mess that he made. So in a way you are right about it taking a woman to clean up the mess.

Anonymous said...

I want a Republican back in the White House to increase the debt, raise price on gasoline, give tax breaks to the rich and bail-out the banks for bad home loans and pay for all of this with our grandchildren's tax dollars.

I want a Republican president to keep taking $$$$1 billion dollars a day from China so people can keep buying the cheap goods shipped in from China.

I want a Republican president to start another war in Iran, increase the debt to over $$$2 trillion, a tax increase for our grandchildren.

I want Republicans to continue to only think about a blue dress and not give credit for a good economy, peace and paying our bills as we go.

And I want a Republican in the White house to make sure more Americans go without health care and workers who can't afford health care do without, while undocumented workers get free health care.

And keep a Republican in office who doesn't think we should make anything in the US! Who needs manufacturing jobs?

Let's keep on going like we are going and for heaven's sake, don't let a woman in office.

And why should I care anymore since I think I can pay my bills!

Voters get what they deserve!

Anonymous said...

I want Obama in the white house to make all of you yearn for Bill Clinton. He is appealing to all sides since he is a male Oprah Winfrey.

And I want all of you to watch while he brings his relatives from Kenya for a visit in the White House.

Something to think about, since it seems Obama may be the candidate and may be the next president.

If I were you, I would move over in the primary to vote for John Edwards or Hillary Clinton.

Perhaps you need to Google some and think about what may be.

sick of politicians said...

8:57 - priceless.

Your last comment says absolutely all of it.

And 8:36 is REALLY correct.

I'm leaning toward John McCain, because he hisses like a snake. At least he will keep us all awake.

Anonymous said...

The war in Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11. The war in Iraq was just a way for W to get us back in the same situation that his dad put us in. You cant blame the 2,819American deaths on Clinton. Point the finger at the Bush family.

Anonymous said...

personally i think if the US Government went bankrupt it would be good. Get them out of the economy and let it work the way it should.

Anonymous said...

If a Democrat had been in office these past 8 years, we would all probably have been beheaded or blown to pieces by now and not even able to whine about those evil Republicans!

Anonymous said...

come on barry. read what you write before you post it. if all there was was a 250 dollar per year deficit would we really be that bad off.....

wordkyle said...

All good, valid questions that candidates for the most powerful position in the world should answer.

Next time the Republicans should ask the media if they can use planted questions like the Democrats do.

Anonymous said...

Why must right wing apologists manipulate history attempting to excuse one of the most inept administrations of all time. To Crud and others - Bush had a Republican majority in both houses for 6 years (except for a few months in 2002). It was that Republican congress you might want to question. As for Clinton, the record is just reversed. He had a Republican majority in the House from 1994 thru 2000. It was those Republican congresses who wrote the budgets you claim stripped the Intelligence budget. Go back and check. Then come back with other false interpretations.

Anonymous said...

Sending the pig in a pants suit back to the White House study just off of the oval office to clean up Hillbilly's mess is just wrong, I don't care who you are.

rex the wonder dog said...

10:45 - You are right about presidents because they are not really the ones who have thrown us to the dogs. It is the sell-out US Congress! They have always been in the paws of lobbyists who write their legislation and special interests who keep them oiled up with paid "speaking" trips to magnificent castles in Europe and lavish country clubs on paradise islands. You think they care what we think or what happens to our country? Think again! We should throw them all out ... democrat and republican!

Anonymous said...

HOUSE OF R&R - BITE ME.

Anonymous said...

Name calling aside, facts are for six years GOP controlled both houses and the Presidency and they did NOT repeal Roe or ammend constitution to protect marriage. Any why not? Do those two and you can't jerk the religious right's chain every few years to stay in power so you can continue to enrich yourself and friends ie Halliburton, Blackwater etc.

Anonymous said...

One additional point about the current annual deficit ($250 BILLION), it does NOT include the "supplemental spending" for the Iraq war. This adds another $250 Billion a year (over a TRILLION dollars so far) - that will have to be repaid by future generations - our children and grandchildren. Let's cut some more taxes so we can feel better while our country's future goes down the drain.

wordkyle said...

"anon" 10:45 - “One of the most inept administrations of all time.” a typical piece of vapid overstatement based on Clinton idol worship and ignorance of, or ignoring, history.

* Thank LBJ for the “war on poverty” which forty years and $7 trillion of wealth redistribution later can only be called futile.

* Thank Jimmy Carter for the rise of the Islamic extremists who now control Iran and who threaten the world with terrorism.

* Thank Bill Clinton and Madeline Albright for the nuclear arms “deal” that caused the U.S. to pay North Korea to not develop nukes – which payments continued even after it was discovered NK was going ahead with nuke development.

* Thank Bill and current Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton for the attempt to nationalize healthcare in secret. Recently uncovered documents show that they knew it wouldn’t work and pursued it anyway. Additionally, their methodology was to attack the character of the plan’s critics using their willing accomplices in the press.

* Thank Bill Clinton for the 2000 recession which Bush inherited. Clinton rode the economic crest of the technology bubble and got out just as it burst.

* Thank Bill Clinton for neglecting the rising terrorist threat in the 90’s while he was busy with other duties involving interns.

Finally, thank Liberal drones like yourself for continually voting Democrat in spite of their proven record of failure and ineptitude.

gern blansten said...

I do believe Wordkyle has thrown down the gauntlet! LOL
Now watch the liberal attack dogs come out and plaaaaayyyyyy!

Anonymous said...

Hey Wordkyle @ 12:30 you forgot one.

Thanks Bush since your administration lied 935 times about Iraq before the invasion and thanks for all of the thousands of dead American soldiers that you lied to.

Anonymous said...

wordpile dismisses the "most inept" comment and goes on to a laundry list of "opinion" positions. Hey, there are many more competent observers than dear wordpile who consistently evaluate the performance of Bush near the bottom of all administrations. I know this is subjective, but so is his list of "failures".

Unfortunately we're suck with Bush for another 360 days. Then wordpile's fears of Democratic control of the presidency and congress will become reality. I don't see any way the result can be any worse than what we have now.

Macbeth said...

wordbyle, just when I thought you had something intelligent to say (regarding your comment that people running for President should be able to handle tough questions), you go back to your standard silliness.

Your history interpretation is mindless. On one hand, you refuse to blame Bush for anything that happens during his presidency b/c it was all Clinton's fault. Working under the assumption that the actions of the previous administration take a while to sort themselves out.

While that is how you defend Bush, you refuse to apply the same logic to any Democratic administration. Under your view, terrorists were active during Carter & Clinton, but were kept completely under control during Reagan & the Bushes. You maintain this even though Carter was in office only 4 years (between Republican administrations) and Clinton did not have control of Congress for most of his administration.

You also lump in an argument about something that Clinton proposed, but never came close to passing. Objection...relevancy. Since it didn't pass, we didn't spend much of anything on it. The original discussion concerned things that actually happend in the real world...not about what might have happened in some alternate universe.

The fact that you start with the answer that you want, rather than with facts and that you refuse to apply the same logic to both sides, make your arguments just a pile of words. A tale told by wordpyle signifying nothing.

Anonymous said...

Platform questions for wimp liberal democratss running for president:

Why do you want open borders and oppose sending illegals back to their origins?

Why do you oppose English as the official language of the USA?

How can you think that Sadddam Hussein would now be a real nice guy if we hadn't taken him out?

Why do you want socialized medicine when it has been such a disaster in England and Canada?

Why do you want to dump higher taxes on all of us?

Why can't you refuse campaign money from corrupt unions who steal it from their members?

Do you park your brains in a glass of water before you go to sleep at night?

Anonymous said...

12:50, The number 935 lies that you refer to is a number thrown out by a liberal weenie think tank(there's an oxymoron for ya) that was funded by George Soros and we all know where his loyalty belongs to. So quit drinkin the kool aid and get a grip on reality. Soros is more far left than Cindy Sheehan, Dennis Kucinech, Nancy Pelosi, and the Clinton Mafia.

debate victor said...

1:45 I don't object to the Dems having to answer tough questions, but a few of those make no sense.

No democratic candidate supports "open borders". Several do think it doesn't make sense to support any procedure that sends 12 million people to Mexico. Not only would that cause severe problems with our economy, but we do not have the manpower to administer that procedure.

Odd that the Republicans want the Feds to step in here when most of the time they claim "States Rights". Moreover, the term "official language" doesn't change any of the legal precedent that requires government/legal materials to be provided in the various languages that are prominent in a geographic area.

No Democratic candidate has ever made any such statement regarding Sadaam.

The people of Canada and England do not consider their medical systems failures. On the contrary, I have seen publications showing widespread support for them. The real issue is how to maintain the quality and research provided in the U.S. while making medical treatment (especially preventative treatment) more widespread. Perhaps you should talk to someone fighting the Medicare/Medicaid battle before you tout U.S. superiority.

Unless you consider "all of us" to be all of you earning over $500K/year, you have misstated the Democratic position.

If we are going to address campaign finance reform, we must address all sources of funding. Union support for a candidate is one of the lesser and more settled issues. Democrats will be happy to stack up their campaign finance problems against the Republicans.

No. But apparently, you do.

Anonymous said...

For the first poster who can only speak in four or three letter words or numbers: 9/11 happened on the watch of a Republican President who urged that we make war, not on the people who attacked the tower, but on the people who his father could not subjugate. And have you even looked at a world map - Afganistan is not even next to Iraq. It's not like Bush was really looking for Obana in Iraq or like he might have just popped across the border.You might watch who you call a dumb ass - Barry at least knows some five letter words.

wordkyle said...

DebV – You make excuses for the Democrats’ stance very easily. You say they don’t support open borders, but how would they act if they did? Make it easier for illegals to get drivers licenses? Allow them to vote? Oppose securing the borders better? Waht are they doing now?

There’s a difference between deporting twelve million current illegals and trying to keep that number from increasing. The Democrats oppose both.

The enthusiasm for English as an “official” language stems from the American immigrant tradition known as assimilation. Illegals disregard any attempt at assimilation, wanting (for the most part) to obtain the rights of citizenship without worrying about the corresponding responsibilities.

How would the Democrats have acted any differently if they DID consider Saddam a nice guy? More ineffective UN resolutions? That would fit the Dem mold of doing something that feels good, regardless of its effectiveness. Kerry expressed the Dem philosophy best, “I would have done the same thing, only better.”

Healthcare in England? They even have a term for Brits leaving the country for medical treatment: “health tourism.” Socialized medicine puts the question of your treatment in the hands of government bureaucrats. They’ve done a great job at the VA, Medicare and Social Security offices, haven’t they?

Anonymous said...

Denzel Washington says, "Don't be a hater."

Anonymous said...

2:03 - The Center for Public Integrity is non-partisan. Go to their site:
http://www.publicintegrity.org/about/about.aspx

Its contributors list is also available and it does not include George Soros (as if that matters)
http://www.publicintegrity.org/about/about.aspx?act=funders

The fact remains that their research found 935 lies about Iraq after 9/11. The truth hurts, huh?

debate victor said...

wordpyle, if a Democrat were holding a gun at your head, you'd swear it was a toothbrush. If you're unable and/or unwilling to notice differences between what the Democrats say and the words you put in their mouth, you are beyond blind and deaf.

Rational discourse begins with the attempt to understand the perspective of another opinion. You paint with a broad brush & refuse to comprehend anything that doesn't fit your prejudged notions.

Listening to you is like listening to only the husband in a divorce proceeding in that in his opinion absolutely everything is the wife's fault. I assume you'll just keep spareing us with your blind slant.

Anonymous said...

I realize the world is a simple place for wordbile. He has the answer for everything (usually whatever the Democrats/Liberals don't want). Why haven't the Repubs signed him up to write their platform?

On illegals: NO ONE has a single answer that's workable. NO Democrat has advocated open borders. No sensible person has suggested moving all 12 million illegals out. The Republicans have been in charge of border security for the last 7 years. What have THEY done? How can you declare that all illegals don't want to or try to learn English? My (legal) grandfather spoke Swedish for the 72 years he lived here as a productive citizen and no one tried to send him back.

Please acknowledge that many American also engage in "Health Tourism" due to excessive costs here. They also get good ole American made drugs in Canada due to the much reduced cost there.

Your broad brush declarations greatly reduce the impact of you occasional valid point.

pure gold said...

To Be a Good Democrat

1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.

2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and Korean communists.

4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.

5. You have to believe that global temperatures are more affected by soccer moms driving SUV's than cyclical, documented changes in the earth's climate.

6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual is natural.

7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.

8. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach fourth graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature but loony activists who have never been outside of San Francisco, do.

10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make 'The Passion of the Christ' for financial gain.

12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.

13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.

14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Edison, and A.G. Bell.

15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist but racial quotas and set-asides are not.

16. You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and is a very nice person.

17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it has ever been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.

18. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and sex offender belongs in the White House.

19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites, and bestiality should be constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.

20. You have to believe that illegal, Democrat Party funding by the Chinese Government is somehow in the best interest to the United States .

21. You have to believe that these ideas are a part of a vast, right wing conspiracy.

22. You have to believe that it's okay to give Federal workers Christmas Day off but it's offensive to say 'Merry Christmas'.

gern blansten said...

Debate victor:

I think that wordkyle is just dug in on his side of the issues and vehemently argues those points, much to the dismay of the liberals who are just as equally dug in on the other side. In fact, he makes valid ponts without calling specific people names, UNLIKE those who spew forth "wordbile" or wordpile" ad nauseum. I remember him saying something a long time ago that still makes sense today: If liberals can't out-argue you, they resort to calling you names and shouting you down, or at least trying.
You liberals just prove his point all the time...
rock on, conservatives!

wordkyle said...

2:03 - As you can see here on the CPI's own website, George Soros funded them after filtering it through the Open Society Institute.

You're now wrong twice.

wordkyle said...

sorry, my mistake. I meant 4:02 PM

wordkyle said...

4:19 - You're defending the Democrats by attacking me. Tactics used by the Clintons to combat anyone who defied them, learned from Hillary's mentor Saul Alinsky.

How's that "war on poverty" going after $7 trillion? Part of the Democrat success story?

wordkyle said...

4:22 - If illegals wanted to assimilate, they might start by obeying the law. Was your Swedish grandfather illegal? If so, why did he never become a citizen?

Part of assimilation is becoming part of the culture. This includes obeying the laws. When the first decision is to break the law and jump ahead of those who are following the legal immigration process, what does that say about the potential immigrant?

Americans do indeed go other places for medical reasons. Canadians often come to the US for treatment. With whatever problems the American healthcare system has, socialized medicine has no track record of being an improvement PLUS it goes through bureaucratic hands.

Kingfish said...

1.The arguments on both sides regarding immigration are moot. Neither party whilst in power has significantly enforced the current immigration laws or properly enforced the borders of United States soveriegn territory.

2. Neither party whilst in power has significantly addressed healthcare, but instead has been corrupted by medical insurance companies via their lobbyists.

Problems? I would think that the people in power are simply enjoying the fruits of deviciveness within the electorate. Kyle, for the most part seems to be a sensible bearer of his cause and there is nothing wrong with having an opinion. However, simply pandering and regurgitating the idioms of talk radio and other less credible interests seems boring.

On the other hand, the finger pointing of obvious liberals is fun to read, but guilty of the same crime.

A better question to ask might be to yourselves. Do you as citizens really think that you have a real voice in politics? Personally, I'd turn off the television and go find a good pint of Guinness. Because ultimately no matter the outcome, you will render to Ceasar what is Caesar's.

Please enjoy your checks, I'm quite sure they will want it all back plus some come next April.

Anonymous said...

What a lot of gibberish (in my opinion). 5:00 makes up his/her own definitions as fact even tho they're idiotic exaggerations or outright falsehoods. All tripe (only my opinion).

As for wordkyle, my grandfather was a legal immigrant, became a citizen, worked, paid taxes, and conducted his business in Swedish and spoke Swedish at home his entire life (93 yrs). And he was certainly not alone in this lifestyle.

I'm unable to find the referenced Open Society Institute on the donors list. I don't know what all organizations George Soros might be affiliated with. Are you suggesting that his or anyone else from that long list controls the work of this organization? The list of individuals and organizations is quite broad and extensive. I guess the collective wisdom of all those involved just don't measure up to Mr. wordkyle.

Ya’ll give me tired head.

Anonymous said...

pure gold, I usually try to find some common ground with my Republican friends, but you are so pig-headed and deluded. I wonder why I even responded. You have no idea of what a democrat is, but just enjoy showing your ignorance.

wordkyle said...

6:48, here's your reading lesson.

* Full disclosure: The Open Society Institute, which was founded by George Soros, is a funder of the Center for Public Integrity.

From my link. Bottom of the page. They operate with George Soros money. Soros, who spent millions trying to defeat Bush in the last election. Is that campaign finance reform?

Kingfish, I don't "regurgitate" anything without having given it thought. I research positions and politicians as much as possible. Sorry if I bore you; I look beyond any "talk radio idioms" that you appear to have problems with. Would that the Bush bashers could look beyond the simple caricature of the president that the media has created.

I agree that politicians become "Washingtonized" after they become elected. I'm a proponent of term limits for that very reason. However, there is a vocal segment of the Republican party that wishes for principled, responsible, limited government. The Democrats have no such voice. They wish for all power to go through Washington first, which, as we mentioned, is fruitless. That's why I support the Republican party.

Anonymous said...

Hey Vic, you might want to read The Constitution. It clearly states that the governments only purpose is to print money and protect it's borders. It says nothing about it being a states right. George Soros funds all things left. He made his billions on betting against the British pound and American dollar. Now tell me, does this sound like someone that wants the U.S. to succeed and prosper? Lenin would be proud of you for following the Manifesto.

Anonymous said...

Judicial Watch released new documents last week from the Clinton Presidential Library regarding Hillary’s botched attempt to stage a government takeover of our nation’s healthcare system in 1993. Our investigators found them during a trip to the Clinton Library in Little Rock last year.

Here are a few highlights from what we found:

A June 18, 1993, internal Memorandum entitled, “A Critique of Our Plan,” authored by P.S., which makes the startling admission that critics of Hillary’s health care reform plan were correct: “I can think of parallels in wartime, but I have trouble coming up with a precedent in our peacetime history for such broad and centralized control over a sector of the economy…Is the public really ready for this?... none of us knows whether we can make it work well or at all…” (Click here to read.)
A “Confidential” May 26, 1993, Memorandum from Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WVA) to Hillary Clinton entitled, “Health Care Reform Communications,” which criticizes the Task Force as a “secret cabal of Washington policy ‘wonks’” that has engaged in “choking off information” from the public regarding health care reform. The memorandum suggests that Hillary Clinton “use classic opposition research” to attack those who were excluded by the Clinton Administration from Task Force deliberations and to “expose lifestyles, tactics and motives of lobbyists” in order to deflect criticism. Senator Rockefeller also suggested news organizations “are anxious and willing to receive guidance [from the Clinton Administration] on how to time and shape their [news] coverage.” (Click here to read.)
A February 5, 1993, Draft Memorandum from Alexis Herman and Mike Lux detailing the Office of Public Liaison’s plan for the health care reform campaign. The memorandum suggests building an “interest group data base” detailing whether or not organizations “support(ed) us in the election.” The database would also track personal information about interest group leaders, such as their home phone numbers, addresses, “biographies, analysis of credibility in the media, and known relationships with Congresspeople.” (Click here to read.)
We found these records amongst the approximately 13,000 made publicly available by the Clinton Library, specifically from the White House Health Care Interdepartmental Working Group. The National Archives admits there are an additional 3,022,030 additional textual records, 2,884 pages of electronic records, 1,021 photographs, 3 videotapes and 3 audiotapes related to the Task Force that are currently being withheld indefinitely from the public. Given what we found thus far, can you imagine what else is down there in Little Rock? (On November 2, 2007, we filed a lawsuit to obtain the Task Force records.)

Unsurprisingly, rather than engaging the American people on the issue of health care reform honestly, the Clintons and their allies attempted to track citizens’ private and political information, smear administration critics, shroud their plan in secrecy, and manipulate news coverage. Some of this was dirty politics; some of it may have run afoul of the law.


Will anyone ask Hillary about it?

rpm said...

To be a "Good Republican" all you have to do is make stuff up and present it as truth.

Anonymous said...

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/01/10-years-young-another-clinton-speech.html

Kingfish said...

Kyle said "principled, responsible, and limited governement."

The Patriot Act is un-patriotic, eliminates responsibility, and increases government influence. Hey, the Dem's went right along with it.

Things like suspending the great Writ, and now printing money to "boost" the economy is just plain ignorant.

You must quit smoking hash in the mornings, dude.

Perhaps you do believe all that you state, but the reality is that you are duped along with the rest of us. Republicans can state that they are for limited government, and I could state I play middle linebacker for the Steelers, but we both know that neither are true.

wordkyle said...

kf, go back and read my post. I said that a vocal segment of the Republican party wants principled, responsible, limited government. The desire of prominent Republican politicians to act more like Democrats offends that segment, thus the schism you may have read about. Again, the Dems have no such segment.

To say the Patriot Act is "unpatriotic" is empty bloviation. I'm not crazy about a new bloated bureaucracy, either; however, I do agree with the sentiment of a higher priority given to fighting terrorism, if not the government's execution of that sentiment.

"Suspending the great Writ"? Again, empty without specifics or evidence of anything. Repeating the great Left agitprop.

I agree with you about stupid "stimulus packages." Blame the election year and the willingness of the electorate to be bought.

Attackimg me personally doesn't do anything to advance your argument.

Anonymous said...

If Hannity did not say it, a lot would just be plain tongue tied.

Anonymous said...

WordDyke is the smartest Conservative Republican alive. Or even Dead. Let his political wisdom speak for itself, and everyone just follow his lead to make this country great and strong. He has all the answers if only everyone would just listen. Him and George W. Bush have been cut from the same cloth. Gun Powder grains from the same batch. Classic Coke from the same vat. Corn from the same stalk. Bull Shit from the same party, er, patty. Peas from the same pod. Cocaine from the same rail. Bananas from the same stalk. Etc., Etc., on and on...

Kingfish said...

I am not attacking you, I was just stating the obvious.

Did you read the Patriot Act? Or were you just lockstepping with the "vocal part" of the Republican Party. I truely feel that most reasonable people would agree, having read the legislation passed over the last 7 years, that civil rights are being curtailed.

Further, there is nothing to be done about it. So we can type on here til Tech wins a football championship, but it isn't going to get better. The government is broken and the people are disenfranchised. Not much else to say.

You asked about the Great Writ.

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

pure gold said...

8:21 - BINGO! I flushed out another ashamed, pissed off democrat who can make no intelligent defense. Name calling was the real give-away. Thanks for the amplification.

wordkyle said...

kf - Reread my view of the Patriot Act and tell me what part you disagree with. Most reasonable people would agree with my point.

Regarding giving habeas corpus rights to enemy combatants:


"The United States Constitution does not require that the writ of habeas corpus be extended to alien enemy combatants. The writ of habeas corpus can trace its origins back to the Magna Carta of the 13th Century, and, in the nearly 800 years of the writ's existence, no English or American court has ever granted habeas relief to alien enemy soldiers captured during wartime.

"Indeed, over half a century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court in Johnson v. Eisentrager rejected the notion that the Constitution extends habeas rights to enemy war prisoners. As the Court held, `No decision of this Court supports such a view. None of the learned commentators on our Constitution has ever hinted at it. The practice of every modern government is opposed to it."

So extending "the Great Writ" to alien enemy combatants violates legal precedent. Most reasonable people would agree that that is wrong.

Giving alien enemy combatants access to US courts allows them 1) to clog the already overburdened court system; 2) to legally force the government to turn over information on Iraqis who helped the US. This information could then be turned over to the defendants' lawyers and uncaptured comrades, who would know who to target for retribution; 3) to subpoena officials in the highest levels of government in each and every case for every hearing, thus disrupting the government.

Any of these would be sufficient reason to adhere to the aforementioned established law, as any reasonable person would agree.

Anonymous said...

BINGO! That is the word one little old lady can say to make another little old lady say F*ck.

Anonymous said...

Hannity speaks, Parrots repeat!
Kylie want a cracker?

jimmy crack corn said...

Kingfish - Did you read the PATRIOT ACT? Have you read the Geneva Convention Agreement relating to prisoners of war? (Aadopted in 1949, based on parts of the 1907 Hague Convention IV)

The Patriot Act was passed by a democrat majority in Congress. It DOES NOT infringe on our First or Fourth Amendment rights and many federal courts have dismissed challenges to the statute on that basis.

Habeas corpus rights do not extend to prisoners of war. That applies to US citizens under common law and not to enemy combatants. The Geneva Convention (endorsed by the USA), UCMJ and specific Rules Of Engagement (determined by the military and not the federal judiciary) express how prisoners will be treated.

"BIG BROTHER" has not taken away your civil rights by way of the Patriot Act so stop sniveling and whining about it! You are the victim of ignorant, slimy propaganda and should be ashamed of yourself!

Wordkyle - You have done a superb, eloquent job of setting the record staight.

Anonymous said...

You can tell that 6:33 is WordKyle commenting as Anonymous. Only WordKyle would be that willing to kiss his own ass.

Anonymous said...

1:15 - Wrong again GENIUS! You must be a democrat ... mouthing around in complete ignorance. That was me doing the honors at 6:33 and not Wordkyle.

Anonymous said...

Enemy combatant. Who is that? The administration defines anyone they like to be an enemy and declares them to be combatants. Whose army are these terrorists? We tried to blame Afghanistan and bombed and invaded them. Anyone we choose to label combatant gets the Patriot Act treatment - regardless of where they are found. Recall that many have been arrested in the US under this term and almost none have been convicted (or even tried). Gee, what if Hillary gets elected and decides wordkyle is an enemy combatant? Or maybe you. Wonder if you'll be so enthusiastic about it then?

monkey said...

5:26 There is a greater possibility of that happening than you realize. In a fed up, distorted kinda way...I hope that the libs get what they want. Evedentley...9/11 was not a big enough ASS KICKING to get there attention. I hope the "enemy combatants" start with San Fran.

wordkyle said...

"anon" 5:26 PM - Hmmm...Patriot Act or let the terrorists run free to murder our children?

I'll take my chances with the Patriot Act.

Anonymous said...

Not convincing at all 4:32. However, to give benefit of a doubt, you were doing the Honors of kissing Wordkyle's ass.

Anonymous said...

wordkyle again demonstrates his superficial illogic: he says it's either the Patriot Act or have terrorists murder our grandchildren. If it were only that simple. While the Patriot Act cannot guarantee your safety, it can eliminate your rights. Believe what you like, wordkyle, but these laws and precedents set by this administration may be used by the next administrations – against you.

wordkyle said...

What you misinterpreted as superficial was meant to clarify the consequences. Apparently I over-finessed the point. I apologize to you for confusing you. I'll be more explicit:

President Bush and his administration never passed a single law. Congress passes law. A Constitutionally-established deliberative process by several hundred of our elected representatives resulted in the Patriot Act.

So let's get the correct frame on this point: the Patriot Act is a law enacted by the body of the government the US constitution designed to do so. It is not the Presidential martial law that you and other Bush-haters try to make it out to be.

Essentially, the Patriot Act is designed to catch the bad guys who want to kill us.

The bad guys are really, really motivated. They don't care if they die in the process of killing Americans; therefore, the judicial process -- which is designed only to punish after the fact -- is ineffective.

So the Patriot Act is designed to prevent the bad guys from killing us. To most of us that is a good thing.

Am I overstating the threat? I've got some great photos and video from 9/11 on my blog if you need a reminder.

Although some people have a September 10 mentality, the real world accepts that 9/11 happened, and is trying to prevent it from happening again. Deliberately overstating the "possibilities" purposely undermines the safety of everyone from a very real threat.

Anonymous said...

11:43 - Logic seems to escape your fear that a present or future administration may use the Patriot Act to violate our civil rights. It is negative and baseless speculation that completely overlooks the third estate of government (Judiciary) and the Constitution. Wake up! We do not live in a dicatatorship.

Once again, I am not Wordkyle.

Anonymous said...

10:25 PM - Haaaa! Everytime someone takes the time to post facts here that exceed your intellectual level, you resort to name calling. LOL....!! That covers 99.9% of the posts!

Anonymous said...

wordkyle and his echo, of course congress passes the laws, the courts evaluate them and the executive (is supposed to) enforces them. Now are you actually suggesting the administration has no effect on creating these laws? Geeeze. Bush and his radical staff have clearly manipulated the Republican congress into fear and reactions to fear. The courts have also evolved thru Bush appointments into another executive branch echo. You also overlook the administration's failure to even persue many key issues in the courts and continues to use "signing statements" to describe what part of laws they will or will not observe. Very dangerous.

We're all quite well aware of the tragedy of 9/11. It demonstrates what dedicated radicals can do. We need to do everything reasonable to prevent these events. But please acknowledge that there have been more US soldiers killed in Iraq than Americans killed in the 9/11 attack and some 500,000 mostly innocent Iraqis have died. Terrorists are certainly a threat but we lose many more folks every year in car or even swimming pool accidents. We needn't subscribe to your atmosphere of fear to take appropriate actions to defend ourselves. But if you insist in living in a bomb shelter and jumping at shadows, go ahead. I find the real world, with all its hazards, worth living in and enjoying.

Anonymous said...

Sometimes WordKyle might have a few good points but who the hell can tell? Am I the only one who can't stomach getting thru more than 3 lines of WordKyle's annoying bullsh*t before I get bored and tune out all of his crap? He's a bigger pain in the ass then MzChief.

WordKyle, you need to drop the echo or at least do a better job of faking the echo. You're not fooling anyone, dude.

Anonymous said...

9:15, Quit taking your facts from Rosie O'Donnell about 500 thousand innocent Iraqi civilians.

wordkyle said...

"anon" 9:15 - I’m glad that you admit that Congress and not the Bush administration passed the laws. However, the arguments from the Left swing wildly from “the most inept administration in history” to Bush’s superhuman ability to control Congress and the courts; the argument depending, of course, on what aspect of Bush they want to hate at any given moment. I realize that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a little mind, but geez.

Let’s compare the number of American deaths in Iraq to that in other wars. (You don’t really think that comparing deaths of soldiers at war to the deaths of innocent women and children in a non-war zone is valid, do you?)

On June 6, 1944, about the same number of Allied forces were killed as have died in Iraq in five years. In the five years from 1940–1945, there were over 400,000 U.S. military deaths. THAT is a valid comparison.

By the way, the “500,000” Iraqi deaths you quote is about 350,000 off, according to the most recent study done by the World Health Organization.

If you want to stop the deaths of innocent Iraqis, tell the militant Islamists. They’re the ones killing people. I’m sure the terrorists will be open to your reasoned arguments. There’s that whole beheading thing, of course.

If you think I’m blowing the terrorist threat way out of proportion, then explain what that memorial is all about in New York City. Then tell us why you think it won’t happen again.

"anon" 10:28 - The solution is for you to stop reading my posts. (Wait, you probably didn't make it this far. Oh well.)

Anonymous said...

10:28 - LOL!! Everyone smarter than you is Wordkyle!! Haaaaa...!! That means we are all Wordkyle! ROTF!!!

Anonymous said...

WordKyle didn't even wait 10 minutes before using his echo to comment at 11:24

pure gold said...

11:28 - I think you could send a private note to Barry referencing post times here to verify that I am not the "echo" of Wordkyle. But that would prove your stupidity and you would never go for that, right?

You would learn that I am 1:45PM, Jimmy Crack Corn, Pure Gold, 4:32PM, 7:49AM and one of your worst nightmares. Boo! Haaaaa...haaa!

Wordkyle - The rationale you use in expressing things here has made this jerk raving PARANOID! You are straining his grey matter and he is becoming an irrational, muttering goon hearing echoes of Wordkyle and messages from Rosie O'Donnell. Maybe he had a troubled childhood and needs time to get back on his meds. Shall we give him a break?

I will try to post a few things for him in the future at a 3rd grade reading level. Mybe a nursery rhyme or two to calm him down.

Anonymous said...

Pure Gold - Before you decide to call someone else an idiot you really should make sure you get your facts straight. Who is 11:28? Dumbass looks natural on you. I can tell you've been eaten up by it for a long time.

wordkyle said...

A break???

Why on earth would I give him a break? The greatest happiness is to crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women.

If anyone wants to know if two posters are in fact the same person, they can use Sitemeter.

Anonymous said...

It was Bill Clinton's insistence on UN-backed economic sanctions in contrast to just military embargos, against Iraq, during his term in office. These sanctions on civilians, a task force of leading American physicians estimated, took a half a million Iraqi childrens lives. OOPS. A slightly higher number of lives than the 130 thousand lives estimated by the World Health Orginization to be lost during the entire Iraqi war.

gern blansten said...

hey wordkyle:

I love it! You need to, just once, let someone win an argument so they won't babble on incessantly thinking you're the internet boogeyman...lol

but on the point, let me ask this question of all you Bush haters:
WHAT DO WE DO?

You don't seem to like ANY of bush's solutions, EVERYTHING he does is wrong. WHAT WOULD YOU DO if you were in his shoes? Give the terrorists a Coke and a smile?

Someone give me an answer WITH MEAT and not just name-calling. That is, if you can...

Oh, by the way, I'm not wordkyle either!

not gern said...

Well Gern, what about all you Liberty Haters? What do you propose to do? Stay the "course" and continue on to infinity? Let use hear from your infalible ideas.