Watch out, I’ll tell some college kids you live on publicly-owned land and they’ll be in your lawn picketing in 20 minutes…

Gotta run…gotta go dust off the Ten Commandments statue in my front yard.

lol

I’m the first to admit that Moore is a self-promoting propagandist. But, so? There’s no crime in self-promotion- if there was, Arnold Schwarzenegger surely wouldn’t be Governor of California.

Perhaps you don’t like the mission of rabble-rousing? (Which, I’m pretty certain, wouldn’t include stealing final exams). I’ll admit that much student protest against school administration can be petty- but thank God for them. Don’t you want kids to have questioning minds? If the administration can’t defend their policies shouldn’t they be challenged?

Well, sorry if I’m being too literal…

George Bush, to his credit, got the inspectors back into Iraq in 2002.
George Bush, to his shame, essentially forced the inspectors to leave in 2003.

To the extent, that the weapons inpectors were successful- because there WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION- I would have let them stay indefinitely.

The war had the positive effect of removing Saddam, proving for certain that their were no WMDs, and allowing meaningful elections for the first time in some 30 years. But this came at a cost that we do not yet know the full extent of (that I’ve already listed elsewhere: dispersal of explosives, potiential for theocracy, alliance with Iran, yadda yadda).

You were doing so well until you had to throw out this misleading and erronious charge:

he lied about the cost, and the war in Iraq: where he declared that the resolution was ‘necessary for peace’ then proceeded to remove inspectors after a few months to begin the invasion.

You’re implying that ‘a few months’ before the war in Iraq (an Invasion? you think we’re the bad guys?) we sent some weapons inspectors over to Iraq, but then pulled them before they had time to do their job…

And that is absurd.

From the 105th Congress, 2nd Session — S. J. Res. 54, Joint Resolution, January 27, 1998:

Whereas Iraq has consistently fought to hide the full extent of its weapons programs, and has systematically made false declarations to the Security Council and to UNSCOM regarding those programs, and has systematically obstructed weapons inspections for seven years;

Whereas in June 1991, Iraqi forces fired on International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors and otherwise obstructed and misled UNSCOM inspectors…

Whereas in February of 1992, Iraq continued to obstruct the installation of monitoring equipment, and failed to comply with UNSCOM orders to allow destruction of missiles and other proscribed weapons…

Whereas on July 5, 1992, Iraq denied UNSCOM inspectors access to the Iraqi Ministry of Agriculture…

Whereas in December of 1992 and January of 1993, Iraq violated the southern no-fly zone, moved surface-to-air missiles into the no-fly zone, raided a weapons depot in internationally recognized Kuwaiti territory and denied landing rights to a plane carrying United Nations weapons inspectors….

1998? Who was President, again?

The truth is, Saddaam Hussein has been obstructing weapons inspectors since we left Iraq in 1991, up until the time that President Bush and Congress finally authorized the use of force two years ago. The weapons inspectors weren’t pulled ‘after a few months’ they were pulled after many years of being shot at, denied access, and stonewalling.

Since you imply that weapons inspectors should have been allowed to continue their ‘inspections’, how much longer do you propose we should have let them continue—beyond the 12 years that they were already at it?

That to me is a problem. But if it’s a ‘crisis’ then Medicare which blows up in 7 years must be in a league of its own.

So I agree something needs to be done but I support the Democrats in not trusting George Bush to do it. The President has shown himself not to be a bargainer in good faith at least 3 times: for No Child Left Behind- which he subsequently underfunded, for the Medicare Prescription Drug Supplement: of which he lied about the cost, and the war in Iraq: where he declared that the resolution was ‘necessary for peace’ then proceeded to remove inspectors after a few months to begin the invasion.

Furthermore- the proposal of the President does not solve the problem it identifies: instead of paying out more than it takes in in 2018 it would pay out more in 2006. WHAT?!? Already Americans have much of their retirements tied up in investments that are subject to the variations in the economy- typically their house and an IRA or pension. It just makes sense to provide a ‘third leg to the stool’ that isn’t subject to economic collapse just before retirement.

So- the best idea I’ve heard is to provide an _ADD ON_ investment fund for each American worker while _raising_ the age for collecting Social Security. The add-on investment account will be used just a few years- from retirement till 72 or whenever we allow people to collect Social Security. If their investments do well they can retire early- if not they might have to keep working for longer. Raising the age for Social Security will make it solvent indefinitely providing a safety net for _everyone_ regardless of how their investments did.

This would cost money- but I’m willing to give up my 300 dollar tax break.

Sorry if that’s confusing, I tried to keep it brief. I can elaborate or direct you to the places I stole the idea from.

Just as Bush is using the will of the majority as justification for what he does (even though he campaigned on very little of his domestic agenda) each Senator received the majority of their state’s vote. To ask them to bow down to the President in defiance of their states’ wishes is a perversion of the separation of powers. (and something I’m inclined to believe you didn’t aspouse when Clinton was President).

Sure, there were country club Republicans but there were Southern Democrats in the Senate under Reagan. Either Senators will voting on party or ideology- either way Reagan had a majority.

I have to guess you are an avid Rush or Hannity listener- I don’t think most Americans see Democrats as ‘obstructionist’. (I certainly wish they were more so.) It was preposterous that Rush was labeling Daschle as ‘el diablo’- I’m ecstatic that his kow-towing ass is gone.

The reason Democrats are 0-3 (or 0-2, I might contend) is 9-11.

If you don’t mind I’ll keep my age and location to myself for a while. I’d rather talk about the issues with you without the ability of you to dismiss me because I’m just some old man in Alabama or just some teenager in California. I’ve lived enough places that my current location doesn’t particularly mean anything anyway.

Do not completely agree with what Frist is proposing. However, in no way agree with what the Dems are doing by using the filibuster against a nominee vs. legislation. My personal strategy would be to hold the vote and have Dems blocks it. Dems would then be on record for having “obstructed” once again GWB. Do not think I would do the nuclear option as the Dems would have cut their own throat by be obstructionist’s. Just ask Tom Daschle what such acts of partisanship do?

Whether you voted for or against GWB, you must realize he did win. So did many Republicans in the Senate & House. If the Dem’s keep it up with their petty ankle biting, no nuclear option will be necessary in the future.

Preston, how old are you?
“Actually, Reagan had a Republican Senate (they confirm judges) from 1981 to 1987.”

You do realize that it was these Republican Senators that gave rise to Country Club Republicans, right? Ronald Reagan had to battle those idiots in his own Party as much as he did the Democratic ones. It was the first time Republicans were in power in Senate since 1954.

Something does need to be done with Judges, they are just 1 of 3 branches of Govt, they are not God, nor allowed to create law. The idea that members of the SCOTUS actually looked to International law to determine “death penalty” reversal for juveniles is chilling. There is a Constitution of the US, not the world.

The truth of the matter is that only thru the judiciary can Dem’s actually control anything these days. They certainly cannot win elections. There is a reason why they are 0-3 and have Dean as their party chair. They could not do the Republicans more favors. Dean, the face & mouth of the party until the Dems nominate someone, brilliant. Until Hillary, the most polarizing figure for the Dems, more brilliance.

I say let the Dems just keep blocking and obstructing, 2006 is right around the corner. One day this party will figure it out. Until they actually come up with ideas that benefit this country, no one will take them serious.

Preston, what you do not realize is that middle of the roads & Independents get turned off by a Party that panders to Michael Moore, MoveOn.org and Soros. It scares the living hell out of people that any of these entities would have a say or an ear to the Dem party.

Politics is perception.

OK- now we’re talking. Instead of presuming what ‘liberals’ want it makes sense to put up some proposals and see if they stick. In fact, I agree with much of what you’re offering.

To me, oil is a national security issue. If I were a Democrat in Congress I would have traded the rights to drill in the Artic Wildlife Refuge for increases in fuel efficiency- I think many other Democrats would have too but that wasn’t the offer. The Republican Senate (and the Democrats from car-producing states) agree to more efficient cars even though it would compell US automakers to build technologies that would make their cars more appealing exports to high-gas-price countries.

I also agree that the US should be encouraging alternative fuels. I believe John Kerry proposed a plan to research this.

I also agree with the idea of conservation. But (here’s the part you won’t like) I would put economic teeth in this goal and implement a tax on fuels: say, a 50 cent gas tax. I would make that revenue neutral- so if we taxed Americans, say 100 billion dollars, we could reduce income taxes by the same amount so it doesn’t cost Americans but it encourages people to maybe make one trip instead of two. (It may be an American ‘right’ to travel in their cars endlessly but is it worth giving our money to dictatorships in Saudi Arabia and Kazakhstan?)

I differ with your statements on refineries. Pollution is a tax we all bear while the producer collects the money. I am receptive to better ways of promoting clean refineries but it doesn’t make sense to allow them to pollute indiscriminately. In fact, there is speculation that the refineries have been gaming the system by ‘closing for maintenance’ allowing supply to be just under demand and pushing prices upward.

About the second part: we are the government. It is simply a tool to do things that we can’t do as individuals (like provide for the national defense).