Dannie-poo sweety...what was the Civil War period like??

Very noisey.
Blue and gray were the "in vogue" colors for new wardrobes????????

!OOOOOOOOOO!

[quote=Pillow Pants]Couldn't agree more.
PP...you and I scoffed at each other's comments weeks ago about similar topics, but this is too hard to pass up again. Bush is now too liberal? Bush is the classic neo-con..you guys always can't fall back on Reagan you know. Bush is still pro guns, pro oil, pro war, pro religion, anti choice, anti gay rights, anti education, anti arts....etc....


I'm sure you abhor all that I support ( well..except beer and horseracing), but don't ever call Bush too "Liberal" because of immigration and a 3 TRillion dollar budget excess...that is an insult to all Liberals

Wow, where to begin. First, you say Al Qaeda is our enemy. Then answer this: Why did we invade Iraq? Saddam, as evil as he was, had very few connections to Al Queda, if any at all. Think about this. Why in the world would SH ever want to deal with AQ?? It was all about power of his country with his guy, he would never allow AQ to run things. And if you want to say it was WMD's, LOL, I don't even need to respond to that. Next, it is funny in a way how f'ed up this war has been handled yet you still want to bring dems into this. Who was in power for all those years? Or do you think it has been handled appropriatly?

And if some of you want to get into a quote battle, I've got plenty to share from the bush administration (you know, the one's who are actually running this cluster) that many in this country have simply covered their ears over. "Mission Accomplished" ring a bell???? There are plenty more, all you have to do is ask.

When people realize who is responsible for this war and how it has/is been handled and stand up and start asking quesions instead of pawning it off on dems, America will be much better off.

So you think the gun issue, religious issue, gay issue, and the art issue is more important than the fiscal and immigration issues? If so, I won't waste time explaining my opinion.

[quote=GBBob]Bush is liberal

So are you voting for Hillary Rodham or Barak Hussein Obama?

I read the Washington Post article, which I think does a pretty decent job putting the quote in context- as usual, the full story is more complicated than a sound-bite (like Danzig, I didn't want to listen to the full speech- I get bored, too. :) ). Here's the link to the print article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...001380_pf.html

From what I can tell, the "problem" Clayburn was referring to was that progress will make it more difficult for Democratic leaders to pass legislation setting a timetable for bringing the troops home, because there would be more moderate-to-conservative Dems in Congress who would then favor keeping the soldiers there longer. I don't think he was referring to the elections; I think he was referring to the direction of the US strategy in Iraq and passing legislation on it- as few Americans seem to grasp, you really need 60 votes to get anything done in Congress.

It was unfortunately worded, in that the right-wing media is always tickled pink by the opportunity to take something utterly out of context and now all sorts of conservative sites are yelling that Clayburn hates America but yes, positive progress in the war will continue to complicate legislative progress in bringing the troops home.

And yes, taking quotes out of context goes both ways; the right-wingers are just better at it- remember "I was for the troops before I was against them?" or whatever the Kerry flap was- also taken utterly out of context as the original quote addressed paying for the war by repealing Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy.

I think there is irony when Bush fails fiscally by running over budget by funding ( over funding) a war that they chose, that that is a liberal act. I don't think the right can have it both ways....If you believe the war is justified, then fund it, but don't call Bush a Liberal when your cause causes the huge defecit.

LOL, thought you'd dodge it... You really think the war has been handled appropriately? Appropriately meaning: with the troops safety in mind, with a clear objective, with a clear exit strategy, hell, how about just a clear thought.

But they sure try!!!!

by the same token, the dems can't cry about his spending--and then they turn around and present a budget that's 20 billion more than he asked for.

But it wouldn't be if the troops weren't there and they certainly need to be funded. As do domestic programs...so...what ends up getting cut? Education, environment, infrastructure repairs, domestic terrorism support for cities, etc

Once again, the truth is considerably more complicated than a one-sentence attack on the Dems (or the Repubs, for that matter):

I'll post a link to "The Fight Over Appropriations: Myths and Reality," but here's the pertinent part about the $20 billion:

<<Despite the Administration’s sharp criticism of
the planned congressional appropriations
levels, the overwhelming bulk of the $53.1
billion increase in appropriations that Congress
plans for 2008 — 81 percent of it — consists of
increases the Administration itself has
requested in military and homeland security
programs.
•
The main dispute between the Administration
and Congress is over a $21 billion difference in
domestic appropriations.
•
The Administration proposes to cut these
programs $16 billion below the 2007 levels
(after adjusting for inflation) and threatens to
veto bills that do not contain these cuts.
Congress would reject these cuts and instead
provide a modest increase for these programs
of $5 billion, or 1.4 percent. The main dispute
between Congress and the Administration is
thus whether to cut programs funded in
domestic appropriations bills, not whether to
make large increases in them.
•
Under the funding levels that Congress plans,
domestic discretionary programs would grow
more slowly than revenues, and thus would not
create pressure for tax increases.>>

That $20 billion is actually found by Bush's request to cut $16 billion from domestic programs, while the Dems want to raise it $5 billion from current levels. They're adding the cut and the proposed actual raise together. Pretty misleading, and doesn't at all address the big increases in defense and Homeland Security Bush does want, none of which are going to the soldiers overseas, as that is considered emergency spending.

And more:

<In other words, the bulk of the allegedly irresponsible increase in funding for appropriated programs reflects the President’s own request for additional military and security funding. The increase that congressional leaders plan for domestic discretionary programs is quite small.
The notion that this modest domestic increase of $5 billion, which follows several years of cuts in these programs, could have a noticeable effect on the $14 trillion U.S. economy is not credible. Nor is the claim that funding for domestic discretionary programs would put significant pressure on the
deficit and force a tax increase, since these programs would grow less rapidly than either the economy or tax revenues. >

Once again, a few extra minutes spent researching something can yield a much more complicated picture.

Here's the link to the whole article:
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache...ient=firefox-a

Holy smokes..How can I follow up that info:)
You can be my ghost poster from now on

Dannie......what are you wearing right now?

Now you all know what I did in high school instead of date. :( Me big nerd. Now me big nerd who can Google fast.

What about you,,, MenuInWisk?

Yeah I don't like to use Google to get my point across. I think it's a little condescending towards others to do so. If I can't recall what i've read and can't articulate what I believe without using a search engine, then i've become nothing more than a parrot.