O' For H.G. Wells Time Machine

You mean the gloom and doom scenarios that you and the left keep trying to convince people is happening, but isn't.  Once again, if we listened to people like you, we all be expecting bread lines and rationing to start. 

But as usual, it's just more complaining about Bush.

"You mean the gloom and doom scenarios that you and the left keep trying to convince people is happening, but isn't."

No I mean things like the threatened Bush Veto on this bill!

'O' For George Orwell's Time Machine'
'The Time Machine' was H G Wells, not George Orwell.

i would still vote for him over al gore and the other guy

“I would still vote for him over al gore and the other guy.”


That says VOLUMES about you. It is one thing to not be sure how a perspective President will perform but for ANYONE to say they would have voted for Bush if they had known what kind of President he would be shows you are a TOTAL IDIOT!

lets see AL gore invented the INTERNET when he was 16 or younger. AL gore was against smoking at the sometime he was selling tobacco. AL gore didn't break the law because he only collected 9 dollars.


now the truth the INTERNET was invented by the military to make sure they could talk to each other no matter what happened. they did this in the W's.

AL gore was growing tobacco as his sister died from cancer coursed by smoking.

AL gore was so stupid to actually admit that one he broke the law. and two that as he did so he only collected 9 dollars doing it.


the other guy forgotten his name. one throw his medals over the white house fence. then he says he throw his friends medals over the fence. then he says he throw his over the fence. i think the last i heard he throw his friends over.

he stated he was never at a anti-war rally against Vietnam war. but then they show him in a picture with Barbara protesting the war.

then he voted for the war. then he didn't vote for the war, then he voted for the war but didn't want to go to war. then i think the last one was he didn't vote for the war.

in other words he is just to wishy washy. if you are going to lead the country you have to stand behind what you say. 300 million people are relying on you knowing what your doing.


bush may not know what he is doing but he doesn't let idiots push him around. of course that is why you don't like him

"Bush may not know what he is doing but he doesn't let idiots push him around. of course that is why you don't like him"

Bush is the IDIOT:

He started a war that have made us less safe, killed 3600 troops, wounded 26,000 more and will spent 1 Trillion dollars on the unneeded war.

He has not protected our borders or ports even after we were attacked on 9/11.

The Person and organization that caused 9/11 are still planning attacks and are as strong as six years ago despite the War on Terror.

We are MORE dependent on foreign oil then when Bush took office.

We have lost millions of good paying jobs to foreign companies and have a trade deficit out sight.

He added 4 Trillion to the national debt with no end in sight.

He was to be the education president and our students are doing about the same as when he took office.

His suggested change for Social Security that was no solution and we have moved 6 years closer to a crisis in paying the benefits.

He passed and the GOP passed the largest increase in Medicare Benefits and has driven Medicare to the tipping point this year.

Middle-income and low income Americans are worse off then in 2001 and only the top 10% have benefited from his tax cuts.


Now which of the above that are a direct result of Bush and the way he has managed our government do you support?

Hey Klink....do you know how to be anything but a one trick pony?

''The Time Machine' was H G Wells, not George Orwell.'
First of all, thanks for the acknowledgement - not. Instead, you change your title without so much as a word, presumably hoping that nobody else notices.

Secondly, thanks for all the CAPITALS and bold case. Without them, I'm sure we poor mortals wouldn't have a hope of understanding the complexities and subtleties of your argument.

Col Gene, has it ever occurred to you that you might get more people (me, for one) to subscribe to your point of view, or at least aspects of it, if you didn't assume to begin with that we are all imbeciles who need to be shouted at in order to get the message?

Or perhaps you don't actually want people to agree with you, but are here merely to shake your fist at the world because it makes you feel better?

he is mad at the world because he served in the military and isn't as rich as drigonal who worked just as hard and is rich.

Drmiler


"Hey Klink....do you know how to be anything but a one trick pony?"

DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING BUT AVOID ANSWERING THE QUESTIOINS. WHICH of these Bush results do you support?


He started a war that have made us less safe, killed 3600 troops, wounded 26,000 more and will spent 1 Trillion dollars on the unneeded war.He has not protected our borders or ports even after we were attacked on 9/11.The Person and organization that caused 9/11 are still planning attacks and are as strong as six years ago despite the War on Terror.We are MORE dependent on foreign oil then when Bush took office.We have lost millions of good paying jobs to foreign companies and have a trade deficit out sight.He added 4 Trillion to the national debt with no end in sight.He was to be the education president and our students are doing about the same as when he took office.His suggested change for Social Security that was no solution and we have moved 6 years closer to a crisis in paying the benefits.He passed and the GOP passed the largest increase in Medicare Benefits and has driven Medicare to the tipping point this year.Middle-income and low income Americans are worse off then in 2001 and only the top 10% have benefited from his tax cuts.

This always gets me.  Bush doesn't make people "worse off" financially, they do that on their own.  But as usual you will respond with some nonsense about tax cuts, and the usual DNC talking points.

actually gene the ones in poverty don't pay taxes. the ones above them get all or most of their taxes back. the middle class all depends on how much they make. and the rich pay all of the taxes that the fed. government keeps.


so now who should get the tax cut. those who pay the taxes or those who don't

oh and if you don't taxes and have kids you get money back anyways

“This always gets me. Bush doesn't make people "worse off" financially, they do that on their own.”

That is not true. For example the trade policy Bush expanded resulted in Millions of good paying jobs to leave the country which has harmed everyone that no longer has those jobs. His fiscal policy that has added $4 Trillion in debt and increased the interest taxpayers must pay on the increased National Debt Harms everyone that pays federal Income Taxes. The addition of Part D under Medicare without funding the added cost has resulted in Medicare reaching the tipping point ten years before it was projected to reach that point which adversely impacts anyone 65 or over.

you mean those 5 dollar phone jobs that the companies can't afford to pay employee taxes for.

People lose jobs all the time for a variety of reasons.  You have lost this jobs arguement many times over and I'm sure you don't want to go there again.  We have very low unemployment in this country, but people like you want to tell everyone how bad it is and how bad off people are....it's pure nonsense.

you mean those 5 dollar phone jobs that the companies can't afford to pay employee taxes for.

No the manufacturing and high tec jobs that paid $50-70,000 per year with good benefits like health insurance and retirement.

the main reason these companies have gone over seas is because of the high taxes here. they can't afford the taxes. so taxes need to be lowered.

People lose jobs all the time for a variety of reasons. You have lost this jobs argument many times over and I'm sure you don't want to go there again. We have very low unemployment in this country, but people like you want to tell everyone how bad it is and how bad off people are....its pure nonsense.

First, the unemployment rate has NOTHING to do with the rate of pay. We have created a lot of LOW Paying jobs in the service areas and lost a lot of higher paying jobs in manufacturing and now High Tec. I documented the study that clearly showed that the average pay of the new jobs is 25% lower then the jobs that were lost. If we loose 100,000 high paying jobs and create 100,000 low paying jobs the unemployment rate would be the same. That is not the issue- How about you give up your job and take another job making 25% less pay with fewer benefits!

you mean those jobs only the illegals are working.

lets see if i can explain it to you again.

below 5% everybody who wants to work is working. those not working are looking for better paying jobs.

at 3% everybody is working who wants to work. those in the 3% are taking a vacation.

i believe unemployment right now is 3 to 5%.

Oh Yes , they will.and will do it in the same way they did before: by deceit, confusion and playing on the greed of the simple tax payers who get all excited about few hundreds of Dollars.

I am a smoker, and hate to pay more for my bad habit and (deep down) wish that bill doesnt pass because there are many other ways to pay for that cause.Just eliminating few ear-marks' projects could pay for it. However, i wont have the guts to say that this bill is bad. I will pay the extra tax, reluctantly but convinced it is for a good cause.

Sometimes you have to be pushed to do a good thing. Those who wont support this bill dont even want to be pushed to do anything good.

you may have to be pushed to do a good thing. but you really aren't doing good if you have to be pushed to do it.

And I have documented how that was accurate, as usual.

Col, if I lose my job, I won't sit around and complain about Bush or the federal government.  I will pick up and move on with my life.

Well this is new to me and since I am still a bit ignorant to the facts of this topic I can only say that I have no opinion on it yet. Both sides seem to make a good point as to why to either expand it or stop it.

On one hand the Democrats and a few Republicans wish to expand this programs which expires on Sept 30 so that more money can be put into this programs which benefits about 6 million children from families that are of low-income but still make too much to qualify for Medicaid. I would be considered one of these people. I, however, have insurance for me and my 2 kids from my job which I got about a month ago.

Then there is Bush's reasons for not expanding this, he feels that the Democrats are using this program to create a system of Gov't run medicine (universal healthcare and so they call it now). The problem is the programs has already been altered to include adults and is to be expanded to include middle-income workers as well thus creating a Gov't run healthcare system, which is the Democrats goal. Bush feels this expansion could lead people to drop their private insurances or allow businesses to eliminate healthcare benefits since there is an alternative for them.

Now, to me both sides make a decent defense on the issue. I will need to study this up more in order to make a better decision. I welcome any information from anyone here (besides Col gene) who is well informed on this issue.

But if it is as Bush claims than I am not for this idea. The program was created to help children not adults or middle-income people. Adults can work to get what they need and middle-income people can stop buying their kids the latest in video games and computer stuff and they can spend that money of some decent healthcare.