Comments Posted By busboy33
Displaying 451 To 460 Of 657 Comments
"many on the left spent the last 6 years celebrating casualties"
Really? There were Americans that cheered when soldiers got killed? You got any links?
If that's just hyperbole, then it is pretty disgusting.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 2.03.2009 @ 22:36
Mr. M, what are you doing!?!
Watching the nutjobbers froth at the mouth when you don't say "what Rush said!!" is more than half the fun of coming here.
I hate it when you calm them down. I even brought popcorn for the next episode of the Great TeaBagging Scadal . . . and now this. What am I supposed to do with this popcorn now?*sigh*
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 1.03.2009 @ 08:58
CPAC AGENDA SHOWS CONSERVATIVES STILL IN DENIAL
"Low taxes is not a “conservative” principle. It is not a principle at all. It is a talking point (even though I support low taxes – the conservative principle that taxes should be as low as is consistent with meeting the obligations of the government), an issue on which you have taken an ideological stand. The “core belief” behind low taxes is what is important – a well ordered and free society should have a government that does not seize the property of its citizens in the form of taxes without good cause. Low taxes for the sake of having low taxes is meaningless drivel."
*Standing ovation*
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 18.02.2009 @ 03:11
OBAMA GLIDES THROUGH PRESSER UNCHALLENGED
@ Sara:
Thank you for your answer. I don't know if I agree with your conclusion necessarily (I'm trying to decide if I'm being overly cynical or overly optimistic), but I appreciate your answer and your comments.
If you're willing to put up with another question(s), do you think that the public questions are rigged is because we're talking about Obama (he's a lying weasel), or because wer're talking about a politician (they're all lying weasels)? And is there anything that Obama (or politicians, depending on how you feel about the prior question) could say or do that would convince you it wasn't staged?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 12.02.2009 @ 15:27
Let's accept for the moment that the press corps is 100% the tank for Obama for the moment . . .
How do the "the Obamamessiah just gets lobbed softballs" people here feel about his "town hall meetings" with non-screened citizens? Sure, there are some "You're the greatest" people, but I've also heard a few critics call him out (like the "how can we trust your Admin when your top picks can't pay their taxes" lady). Didn't dodge the question, defended the askers when the partisans in the crowd booed, and took the issues head-on.
Setting aside whether or not you liked the answers, how do you all feel about the process itself, and does it display any "leadership" qualities? Granted, a president willing to talk to citizens isn't/shouldn't be very impressive, but as was noted above the bar has been set pretty low.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 11.02.2009 @ 15:40
THE STIMULUS SHOULD GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD
I'll grant you that the stimulus bill is far from a good bill (although I probably dislike other aspects than most people here). If time were not of the essence, I'd rather not see it passed at all.
Unfortunately, I'm led to the impression that time is critical in the present circumstances. I'm about as far from an ecconomist as a person can get, but ecconomist after ecconomist, Leftie, Rightie, Centrist, Communist, Fascist, whatever . . . all different philosophical bents keep repeating, again and again, how the American (and Global)economy is perilously close to a "tipping point" that's going to lead to a period where no bill is going to fix it, no matter how well crafted. Maybe the spectre of food lines and "Brother, Can You Spare A Dime?" is far-fetched -- as I said, I have enough trouble balancing my checkbook and paying the electricity bill, let alone being able to voice an informed opinion on such a complex topic. But IF the situation is as dire as experts claim, then a perfect bill too late is worthless.
Let's see . . . it took (assuming all this bill-writing started at dead cold on Jan 1st, when it almost certainly started before that) 5 weeks to get to this current bill. If we scrap it and start over, why should anybody think it wouldn't take another 5 weeks? Especially given how flexible both sides have been in this debate. Maybe more? So now we're deep into March (maybe April, maybe May, June . . .). That's before the bill even gets finished, let alone starting to implement it. Can the economy wait for medicine that long? As I said, I don't know. And certainly there are "experts" claiming everything will take care of itself. As the voice advocating scrapping what's there and starting at step one Mr. M., how long do you feel comfortable working on the bill before we gotta go with what we got? I'm not trying to be partisan (that's below) or a smartass . . . I'm seriously interested in knowing how you see the situation. Life-or-death? Bad-but-it'll-hold-for-12-to-18-months? Economies correct themselves? Obviously you don't think it's Defcon 5, but if this debate is happening under a ticking clock, how much time (you see) left on the clock vastly impacts the depth and quality of any possible debate.
*partisan Leftie fluff following* I gotta say, In terms of trying to scare the public into stampedeing over a cliff the Administration wants to take us over, I'm suprised you came up with Cheney claiming we're gonna get attacked again unless the government keeps spying on American citizens. I'd have gone with "a smoking gun in the shape of a mushroom cloud"-so-we-need-to-overthtow-Saddam-trust-me-no-time-to-actually-justify-it-with-any-credible-evidence personally, but that's just me. Or you-have-to-pass-the-Patriot-Act-right-now-with-no-debate-or-we're-all-gonna-die-and-if-you-ask-questions-you're-a-MooslimLover. Like I said, that's just me.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 9.02.2009 @ 23:51
GINGRICH SEES THE PROBLEMS BUT WHERE ARE THE SOLUTIONS?
From Mark:
"Penalize every budget deficit with a 33% cut in pay for the President, the Congress and their staff, but pay a bonus to same for every budget surplus."
I'll vote for that right now.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 3.02.2009 @ 02:46
DAVID FRUM, THE BIG TENT, AND SPLENETIC CONSERVATIVES
@superdestroyer:
Thanks for the link. It raises some good points.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 27.01.2009 @ 02:49
@retire05:
Currently, I live in Los Angeles, CA. I have lived here for going on 2 years, although having moved here for a job and with that job ending, I am most likely moving in the near future (possibly/probably back toward the East Coast, NE Pennsylvania A.B.E. God willing). Here, as a Caucasian, I am clearly the minority ethnic group.
a) Where do you live?
b) Why does "how have hispanics affected me" matter to the issue? If I've been affected by hispanics then they ARE the negative drain on the GOP that Bet claims? We're talking about a nationwide political party -- what you're talking about sounds like a personal grudge.
(to answer the question, I don't know that that they have affected me, aside from making it difficult to pull into the Home Depot parking lot. They don't cut ahead of me in line, when I order a hamburger at McDonalds I get it, when I pay for gas I get correct change.)@Superdestroyer:
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 24.01.2009 @ 18:36
that may well be the count . . . in Texas. AS I said above, the 44% number was a nationwide count. I haven't seen any of the many debunkings -- can you refer me to one/some? I agree that statistics can say whatever you want them to (my brother-in-law is a profesor of statistics), so I like to see the actual reports if they're available.
"smaller government" -- you recognize that the last 8 years of Republican government (6 with a Congressional majority, 2 with impotent Dems) led to an increase in government and government spending? The Reoublican "ideal" is admirable, but the difference between the mythic party and the actual Reds in government is night and day.
Nobody wants to pay taxes. Everybody supports smaller taxes. Running two wars, increasing spending, AND cutting taxes is a poor fiscal policy.
I support the free market. I got to visit the Soviet Union before the dissolution, and know that Socialism does not work. By supporting the free market, do you think that the banking collapse is just the cost of doing buisness? That the government shouldn't try to impose/enforce some regulations to prohibit situations like this?
Do you support laws? Then you support the government telling you what to do, at least in some things. Do you want passable roads? working bridges? Then you want the government to handle at least some aspects of daily life. Would you rather have law enforcement paid by the government, the lowest bidder, or the highest bidder? Then some things should not be left to the tender mercies of the free market. If a company wanted to build a sewage treatment plant next to your house, would you say "well, that's the free market for you" or would you want your kids to not have to grow up smelling that every day? If you wouldn't want it there, then you support some level of regulation.
Does all this equal Soviet-style Socialism? The government telling you what to do? Big Government ruling your life? Nonsense. There are other gears on the car between Neutral and 6th.
@bet:
From 1988 to 2004, the Democratic majority in hispanic/latino voters eroded. In 2004 pres elections, Repubs got 44% of the hispanic latino vote.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/6/1/20361/56057
That trend reversed about 2006 -- hispanic/latinos started trending strongly toward the Dem ticket.
http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/83.pdf
What happened around 2006? Nimrods like you started screaming about building a gigantic wall across the Mexican border -- that Republicans didn't want their votes. Congrats: the largest growing voting bloc, one that was trending toward your party and could have given your professed party a game-changing new level of voters, were told the GOP didn't need them.
What's killling the GOP? You.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 23.01.2009 @ 17:56
