[quote]Professor X wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
vroom wrote:
Flamer,
You are just mad because you’ve gotten spanked a few times.
Sure, that’s it. I’ve been spanked.
Whatever Vroomie.
It wouldn’t be a great thread without the prof’s pathetic little lapdog chiming in.
LOL, so are you Zeb’s lap dog or is he your’s?[/quote]
Neither, but we all know that you and vroom take turns.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Professor X wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
vroom wrote:
Flamer,
You are just mad because you’ve gotten spanked a few times.
Sure, that’s it. I’ve been spanked.
Whatever Vroomie.
It wouldn’t be a great thread without the prof’s pathetic little lapdog chiming in.
LOL, so are you Zeb’s lap dog or is he your’s?
Neither, but we all know that you and vroom take turns.
[/quote]
Gee, you’re right, you aren’t predictable at all.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Anyway Flameboy, I can’t be a lapdog, because I’ve been granted a superhero title by the holy crusader of righteousness himself.
Yes, Zeb has annointed me Ultra-Liberal, defender of the downtrodden and under represented, upbraider of the ignorant and bane of the bigot.
It’s a heavy responsibility, and I know I can’t live up to it, but I can’t just ignore it by not trying.
Duh duh DUH![/quote]
No, no, no you have that all wrong. You are an ultra liberal (as long as you brought it up) who does not defend anyone or in fact do anything.
You just sit…rub your chin, ponder and dash off some posts when the feeling hits you.
I can actually live with that…
By the way, is it possible that none of us have enough to do?
Just a thought.
My rules? You are the one that acts that way… it has nothing to do with me.
I didn’t see you chastising Flamer.
–
More on topic. This, this childish bickering, this is the state of the union. It really is.
Good job!
[quote]Vroomie wrote:
Careful flamer, Zeb might get upset with HOW you said that… [/quote]
Ahahahahaha,
I just got an image of you two palling around like the looney toones bulldog bully george and his yappy sidekick mugsy.
Ahahahahaha
“Yea george, let’s go get obnoxious on the forums and attack somebody with our moral superiority and arrogance, whadaya say george, huh wadaya say?”
[quote]Professor X wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
vroom wrote:
Flamer,
You are just mad because you’ve gotten spanked a few times.
Sure, that’s it. I’ve been spanked.
Whatever Vroomie.
It wouldn’t be a great thread without the prof’s pathetic little lapdog chiming in.
LOL, so are you Zeb’s lap dog or is he your’s?[/quote]
Hush boy, the adults are talking.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Professor X wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
vroom wrote:
Flamer,
You are just mad because you’ve gotten spanked a few times.
Sure, that’s it. I’ve been spanked.
Whatever Vroomie.
It wouldn’t be a great thread without the prof’s pathetic little lapdog chiming in.
LOL, so are you Zeb’s lap dog or is he your’s?
Hush boy, the adults are talking.
[/quote]
If I am the child here, you are what I grow up to be? Dear God, why?!!
[quote]Ahahahahaha,
I just got an image of you two palling around like the looney toones bulldog bully george and his yappy sidekick mugsy.
Ahahahahaha
“Yea george, let’s go get obnoxious on the forums and attack somebody with our moral superiority and arrogance, whadaya say george, huh wadaya say?”[/quote]
I don’t suppose you have a mirror in your home?
Hell, at least I’m able to poke fun at myself – though of course the master of morality, your dear pal, misses such things.
This is your country. This fighting and snotty moral bullshit. You help make it the way it is. Congratulations!
[quote]Magister Ludi wrote:
Vroom, Thanks for mentioning the Cindy Sheehan incident.
I’m appauled by the whole thing. If she were shouting and disrupting the proceedings then sure, eject her. But a T-shirt? Come on!
I don’t agree with her viewpoint, but I sure as hell agree with her right to express it. For Christ’s sake, we’ve got good men and women dying overseas right now in the name of such freedom.
The recurring theme throughout this thread has been that actions speak louder than words. And rightly so. How can we claim the moral highground after a stunt like that?
So the cameras and commentators spend more time on her than the speech. Big deal. That would have done more to show the world that we practice what we preach than any political retoric from the podium.
I’m embarrased.
[/quote]
This appears to have been a capitol police mistake. They also would not let a Congressman’s wife, who was wearing a “Support our troops” t-shirt, in to the rotunda. Apparently they were under the impression there was a ban on messaged t-shirts for the SOTU, though none existed.
We can discuss the appropriateness of t-shirts as attire for an SOTU later.
Lincoln also opened a whole lot of mail during that time too… [Not personally - I understand he had people to do that for him…]
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Magister Ludi wrote:
Vroom, Thanks for mentioning the Cindy Sheehan incident.
I’m appauled by the whole thing. If she were shouting and disrupting the proceedings then sure, eject her. But a T-shirt? Come on!
I don’t agree with her viewpoint, but I sure as hell agree with her right to express it. For Christ’s sake, we’ve got good men and women dying overseas right now in the name of such freedom.
The recurring theme throughout this thread has been that actions speak louder than words. And rightly so. How can we claim the moral highground after a stunt like that?
So the cameras and commentators spend more time on her than the speech. Big deal. That would have done more to show the world that we practice what we preach than any political retoric from the podium.
I’m embarrased.
If Bush had said anything different than what he has said for years, maybe someone would give a flying fuck about his speech.
Instead, we get more rhetoric, more 9/11 references (never mentions the two states that were most affected never, ever vote Republican and rejected him…twice), and more shit to keep us all trembling under our desks waiting for the next attack, praying to our George II idols in hopes that he can protect us.
As for ejecting Sheehan, I think today’s strong wordes are appropriate:
Free people, remember this maxim: we may acquire liberty, but it is never recovered if it is once lost. --Jean Jacques Rousseau
[/quote]
Tell me Irish, what would your candidate say in an address to the Nation?
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
A little more on entitlements.
It was so cute when Hillary stood up and gave a standing O when Bush referenced the fact that Congress hadn’t passed his Social Security reform plan.
But Bush pointed out immediately afterward that it still needs to be fixed, and boy is he correct. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are the biggest consumers of federal dollars - by a huge margin - and the Baby Boomers haven’t even retired yet.
[/quote]
The system does still need to be fixed, but the white house’s proposal was very deeply flawed, there needs to be a lot more congressional and public debate on the methods by which to reform the program.
Given the fact that this follows your previous statement on social security the context seems to implicate that this 84 percent of government spending is all committed to the welfare state, which it certainly is not. There are many multi-year programs for which federal dollars are earmarked, there is also the issue of national debt payments on interest (we’re too stupid to by paying off the principal yet), there are also programs such as the IRS, Education and others that have monies comitted to them before the budget is written in congress.
The programs themselves are not growing insofar as the constituent entitlements are concerned. It is through a combination of an increasing number of people qualifying for the programs, and the fact that Medicare and Medicade are very much programs that consume services and there are few efficiency gains to be found in services - which means that the cost of services increases at a much greater rate than the cost of living does.
The issue of the bridge to nowhere in Alaska is not an issue unto itself, but it is rather pointed to as a prime example of government pork.
My opinion is that congress will not deal with this issue, not for cause of the fact that they are looking forward to upcomming elections, but rather because the groups that have interests in the maintainence of these programs are too influential. The healthcare and related service industries have a lot of money in everybody’s campaigns - and make a great deal of money off of these programs, and there are large voting blocks that will react negatively if the generosity of these programs is reduced.
Yep.
[qoute]
I personally want out of this whole morass. Personal accounts are what I want for social security and health care. But they definitely need to do something on both fronts.
[/quote]
Personal accounts are one of the many solutions to the Social Security mess. The problem with the plan the White House set out, and failed in passing, last year was that the plan made no provision for the transition costs that would be involved in such a shift, and would by all acounts be quite significant. Transition costs are one issue that no proposal I have yet seen (be it from politicians, intellectuals, or think tanks) has afforded enough consideration, let alone provided funding for.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
However it is sad to watch the dems portray themselves on national tv as the obstructionist party when they were dumb enough to actually stand and applaud the fact that they “blocked” reforms to social security. Their great big accomplishment is that they were able stop reforms, not that they have a plan of their own, but that they stoped Bush. They have no direction and no vision and are a party on defense. Sad.
[/quote]
Blocking the White House’s social security plan was not a “dumb” move at all. That said, the Dems need to get off of their collective ass and at least take a position because at a bare minimum the social security program requires some adjustment in its wording so that, if it the present structure is left in place, there is no requirement that the government fund beneifts at a loss beyond 2042. We will have more than enough national debt by then.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
If we could aquire it in the first place how come we can’t recover it?
This makes no sense but it sounds good. This is why I do not like philosophers. Just because they have a fancy way with words doesn’t mean they are correct.
Remember when we gave up the liberty to drink alcohol? Boy I wish we had that back. I could use a cold beer tonight.
Interesting point, Zap - and on that note, I think we should let out all the civilian prisoners of the Civil War held without habeas relief.
[/quote]
If we don’t repeal the Clinton Gun ban or the federally mandated 55 MPH speed limit I will go postal.
I am sick of losing these rights and NEVER getting them back!!
[quote]vroom wrote:
No vroom according to your rules I am only allowed to be critical of a posters style if he has different views than I do.
My rules? You are the one that acts that way… it has nothing to do with me.
I didn’t see you chastising Flamer.
–
More on topic. This, this childish bickering, this is the state of the union. It really is.
Good job![/quote]
LOL…oh no we’re both partisan! Who’d a thunk it?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Hell, at least I’m able to poke fun at myself ![/quote]
Yea…but that’s not fair…you have plenty more material than the rest of us.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Magister Ludi wrote:
Vroom, Thanks for mentioning the Cindy Sheehan incident.
I’m appauled by the whole thing. If she were shouting and disrupting the proceedings then sure, eject her. But a T-shirt? Come on!
I don’t agree with her viewpoint, but I sure as hell agree with her right to express it. For Christ’s sake, we’ve got good men and women dying overseas right now in the name of such freedom.
The recurring theme throughout this thread has been that actions speak louder than words. And rightly so. How can we claim the moral highground after a stunt like that?
So the cameras and commentators spend more time on her than the speech. Big deal. That would have done more to show the world that we practice what we preach than any political retoric from the podium.
I’m embarrased.
If Bush had said anything different than what he has said for years, maybe someone would give a flying fuck about his speech.
Instead, we get more rhetoric, more 9/11 references (never mentions the two states that were most affected never, ever vote Republican and rejected him…twice), and more shit to keep us all trembling under our desks waiting for the next attack, praying to our George II idols in hopes that he can protect us.
As for ejecting Sheehan, I think today’s strong wordes are appropriate:
Free people, remember this maxim: we may acquire liberty, but it is never recovered if it is once lost. --Jean Jacques Rousseau
Tell me Irish, what would your candidate say in an address to the Nation?
[/quote]
I’ll bet he would say ‘fuck’ like 100 times or so. And real angry like.
[quote]BigPaul wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
However it is sad to watch the dems portray themselves on national tv as the obstructionist party when they were dumb enough to actually stand and applaud the fact that they “blocked” reforms to social security. Their great big accomplishment is that they were able stop reforms, not that they have a plan of their own, but that they stoped Bush. They have no direction and no vision and are a party on defense. Sad.
Blocking the White House’s social security plan was not a “dumb” move at all. That said, the Dems need to get off of their collective ass and at least take a position because at a bare minimum the social security program requires some adjustment in its wording so that, if it the present structure is left in place, there is no requirement that the government fund beneifts at a loss beyond 2042. We will have more than enough national debt by then.[/quote]
Just wanted to let you know I like your style. I agree with them not passing any type of plan. I did, however, think it was a tad classless for such a forum to give themselves a standin O.
[quote]BigPaul wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
However it is sad to watch the dems portray themselves on national tv as the obstructionist party when they were dumb enough to actually stand and applaud the fact that they “blocked” reforms to social security. Their great big accomplishment is that they were able stop reforms, not that they have a plan of their own, but that they stoped Bush. They have no direction and no vision and are a party on defense. Sad.
Blocking the White House’s social security plan was not a “dumb” move at all. That said, the Dems need to get off of their collective ass and at least take a position because at a bare minimum the social security program requires some adjustment in its wording so that, if it the present structure is left in place, there is no requirement that the government fund beneifts at a loss beyond 2042. We will have more than enough national debt by then.[/quote]
What else do they have to cheer about?