That is not what most Americans want and it is not what CHRIST taught.

Actually, Christ taught of the moral obligation of the INDIVIDUAL to help the poor and needy; he did not travel to Rome and beseech the Senate to do so. There's the rub.

It IS the duty of Christians to help the poor, yes, but as for the state, they are a secular government.

You know something CG....only you and your sore loser liberal clones could turn something so nice and so innocuous as our president wanting to honor a great man like the Pope into a petty, self-serving political rant. Go crawl back in your holes, libs, and trouble us when you have something real to bitch about.

Terptan 1980

Most Americans:

Want to keep Social Sceurity the way it is and provide the needed funding
Want our borders protected
Want trade policies that do not outsource their jobs
Want to protect Medicare
Do not agree with the deficit
Would agree to help solve our fiscal problens by rescinding the tax cuts for wealthy and closing corporate tax loopholes.

Why is our president on the other side of all these issues?

I am a moderate Republican- One that believes in balanced budgets, protecting base social progrems like SS and Medicare and limited nation building. Like the old GOP!

This is just ridiculous. If Bush wasn't going I'm sure you would complain about that also. Do you just look for things just to complain about them.

You really represent no one aside from your self, please stop making claims for the rest of us. This non-Catholic democrat feels embarassed to share the title "liberal" with you and your kind.

And for that, Zoomba, I give you all my insightfuls for the day.

As do I.


Slightly thread hi-jacking, and completely ignoring COL Gene's resposne to me above (which I'll get to, probably get inflamed at, and want to tear the COL a new one for in a bit, but oh well).

COL Gene - read these words carefully. I'd say I'm typing them slowly for you, but it wouldn't matter.

Read Zoomba's words. Read those of little_whip and others. Read them and pay attention to them carefully.

Your message, as important, or non-important as it may be, is lost because you can not keep yourself from tearing down Pres. Bush in the most hostile and antagonistic ways possible.

You purposefully choose the most antagonistic headlines and rants, and use them trying to gin up ever dwindling support for the ideas of those that lost in this last election and the one prior.

Even when you bring up very valid points -- such as President Bush's immigration policies -- you can't seem to keep from doing it in the most hostile away, leaving everyone to miss your message and instead see nothing but the pile of ash and manure you have made.

If you want people to really consider your points, then slow down more. You've done well in exercising the spell checkers and grammatical checkers, now do a little more checking of the facts and policies, and tone down your message a bit so that you appear to be a reasonable individual and not a loose nut job.

You can at times make very valid points on very valid issues, where -- believe it or not -- you may be correct in saying that Pres. Bush is failing to show leadership, or is going in the wrong direction. But your message is gone after the first two sentences of just about any post you type because by then everyone is groaning and realizing it's just another Bush bash, no matter the underlying subject matter.

Try less hostility in your messages. Lower the tone of your rhetoric in your subject lines, and try getting your point out there without it looking like yet another attempt to fling pooh at the President.

You might find more people agree with you, or can at least see the valid points in your arguments. You might find they are less likely to be hostile to you, and maybe even occassionally supportive. Of course that all depends on you, as what you get back will most likely (as usual) be a reflection of what you are putting forth.

I see Island Dog's response above, and would be safe (I think) in adding Island Dog to the list that I posed above suggesting all of the above. Add another Insightful rating to the give away pile.

You will not find that I said Kerry was MY choice. What I said is the policies needed to move toward the center because that is what the majority of Americans want. The only way to move toward the center is to have a split in the power. With EITHER party in control of the Congress and Whire House we get policies that meet the needs of only one faction and ignore the others. the majority of Americans are not conservative nor are they liberals. At the present time we are enacting legislation and following policies that appeal to the conservative right and ignore a moderate and liberal points of view.

You will not find that I said Kerry was MY choice.

Oh, so you were the Larouche voter.

No, I voted for Kerry to split the power so our policies would move toward the center. If the Republican party held an outlook like the old GOP, I would have voted Republican as I did most of my life.I do not agree with the social, tax or economic agenda of the conservative right or the liberal left. Both do not represent policy that is best for the majority of Americans in the long run.

I do not agree with the social, tax or economic agenda of the conservative right or the liberal left.

Your calls in prior blog entries to raise taxes seem to show you do agree with the liberal left in the tax agenda area. You might say your own words betray you.

Meanwhile, when you say this:

Both do not represent policy that is best for the majority of Americans in the long run.

you seem to have done a very poor job (as evidenced by multiple comments above, and in prior responses) of showing the balance you claim to have. You can argue that is because our government is too one sided currently, but the sides aren't that unevenly split. There is a large enough minority in the Senate to filibuster bad policy. The same in the House. Neither side can run roughshod over the other, and I too am most pleased when we have government that works in that manner, typically governing from the center, where neither extreme is able to dominate.

Again, your articles and blog entries have portrayed you as someone that is far too willing to bash the right, most especially ready to bash President Bush (at every possible opportunity. You might find the irony in noting that the subject line/headline for this article is perhaps your least objectionable article in memory).

If you perhaps displayed some of that same disdain for people like Nancy Pelosi (articles in sources such as the Washington Times noted today that she's been caught doing politcal favors for contributors to her favored PAC), Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd and others, then others might be able to see you as a moderate, rather than a shrill liberal crying for higher taxes without demanding cuts in spending and waste.

It's your blog, and you're welcome to do as you please, but you will most likely find your audience getting smaller and smaller until you consider the advise you've been getting lately. Just my $.02

"and that makes you insanely jealous since you are just as incompetent (if not more so) as W., and you've never been successful, right?

More blather from you."
Now that was the most insane ridiculous argument rebuttal I've come by. It's almost as if you are speaking about two men who are the president of the most powerful nation in the world. You use Bush's obvious-to-you-incompetence as an argument? Saying someone is just as incompetent acknowledges their incompetence in your mind. And how can anyone defend that?

The reason I focus on Bush and the conservatives is because they are in power. It is their policies that are pushing this county into debt watching as we lose our industries and jobs. I believe that the tax cuts to the middle income Americans were a good thing because it helps stimulate demand. My opposition is to the tax cuts for the ultra wealthy is because we cannot afford them and have far more important needs than granting tax cuts to people that do not need more money. When George Bush began his tax cut business in 2001, the two richest men in the world Bill Gates and Warren Buffett wrote letters to the president explaining to him the wealthy did not need additional money from tax cuts and there were far are more important things our nation needed then to give the wealthy more money. These two people understood the broader perspective not of the greed of the the wealthy who support Bush. Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill as well as Alan Greenspan advised the president to link the tax cuts to the available surplus to pay for them. Both these men warned Bush of getting into another spiral of deficit spending. Bush did not listen and we now are in an ever increasing spiral of debt. We have created a structural deficit where the revenue generated from the current tax structure will not pay for our spending and the difference is so great that no combinations of spending cuts and loop hole plugging can balance the budget. Without tax increases there is no chance to balance the budget!.

Without a split in the power between the liberals and conservatives we are moving in a very dangerous direction. No respectable conservative would have that kind debt that the United States policy is producing. A true conservative would have a balanced budget and reserve to deal with with unforeseen needs. Today a CNN poll shows 0nly a 41 % approval of his handling of the economy and Social Security. Only 34% approved of his handling of the Shiavo issue.

Hey, I know let's have no US dignitaries attend the funeral and let the world see as complete uncaring asses!!

Get over yourself, come on please, if a Foreign diplomat high up the chain of command like the Pope dies than it is only logical, proper, and a part of diplomatic protocol to send someone from your country as diplomatic representative to attend the funeral, right?

Seriously, quit making mountains out of mole hills.

It would be downright rude and hurt the public image if the United States did not attend regardless of whether the nation likes the Pope or not because it is called...what is the word I am searching when you act nice with proper etiquette to other dignitaries...could it be...

DIPOLMACY!!!

- Grim X

At the present time we are enacting legislation and following policies that appeal to the conservative right and ignore a moderate and liberal points of view

Liberal points of view are ignored because Americans don't want them. When will you guys figure that out?

Island Dog.

The truth is that the majority do not want policies that are to the right or left. They want policies that are more in the center. That is my basic problem with the current power balance- There is no balance. It is all what the conservatives want and the hell with anyone that does not share their ideas!

Island Dog. The truth is that the majority do not want policies that are to the right or left. They want policies that are more in the center. That is my basic problem with the current power balance- There is no balance. It is all what the conservatives want and the hell with anyone that does not share their ideas!

And liberal policies fall where on that left-right scale? And if the majority do not want left or right policies then "why" did you claim that liberal policies are being ignored? Which BTW is what prompted Island Dogs responce.

drmiler:

Stop Job Loss, Balance budget, Fund Social Security WITHOUT changing the structure, Health care, border security, lack of support for Iraq War, greater funding for education, opposition to many of the Bush tax cuts and an energy policy the reduces our dependence of foreign oil ( which is a lot more then drilling in Alaska i.e. higher mileage for cars, SUV's etc).

All these are centrest. There are NO NEW social programs just fully funding existing ONES that most people want continued.

drmiler: Stop Job Loss, Balance budget, Fund Social Security WITHOUT changing the structure, Health care, border security, lack of support for Iraq War, greater funding for education, opposition to many of the Bush tax cuts and an energy policy the reduces our dependence of foreign oil ( which is a lot more then drilling in Alaska i.e. higher mileage for cars, SUV's etc). All these are centrest. There are NO NEW social programs just fully funding existing ONES that most people want continued.

This is NOT what I asked! Is it? Shall I reiterate?

And liberal policies fall where on that left-right scale? And if the majority do not want left or right policies then "why" did you claim that liberal policies are being ignored? Which BTW is what prompted Island Dogs responce.

WHERE do you see me asking about centrist policies? Now can you answer the question? Or is that too much to ask?

First, all of the issues I listed are supported by the liberals which are being ignored by Bush. The liberals also want universal health as the BIG new entitlement to cover 46 Million that do not have health coverage. It is not true that many of the liberal policies are not wanted by Americans. What is true is that no conservatives want them and since they control Congress and The WhiteHouse, what liberals and moderates want are ignored. The proof of what I am saying shows up is polls about specific programs like , healtrh care, deficit, border security, Social Security etc.

It is not true that many of the liberal policies are not wanted by Americans

This is where your wrong! There are "different" versions of these policies out there. Most Americans do NOT want the liberal version! They would however fall all over the moderate version of the same plan.

It is all what the conservatives want and the hell with anyone that does not share their ideas!

That is just too funny. Because liberals are so open minded about their ideas right?

First, all of the issues I listed are supported by the liberals which are being ignored by Bush. The liberals also want universal health as the BIG new entitlement to cover 46 Million that do not have health coverage. It is not true that many of the liberal policies are not wanted by Americans. What is true is that no conservatives want them and since they control Congress and The WhiteHouse, what liberals and moderates want are ignored. The proof of what I am saying shows up is polls about specific programs like , healtrh care, deficit, border security, Social Security etc.

Americans do not want a socialist healthcare system that liberals so much want. You still don't get it do you. Why do you think Kerry lost? Because he's a liberal that supports liberal ideas. You guys still don't understand that your politics and ideas are not appealling to Americans anymore. Remember, you guys lost.

I never said Americans wnat a socialist health care system. They do want health care coverage which 46 Million do not have. it is also true that a liberal will support policies that are more extreem then a moderate, however the conservatives want none of the social issues even those that are more moderate. That is why we need a split in the control. That will produce policies that are more moderate because both sides must give a bit to get anything done. At the present time it is all one way and that is not good for this country!

When Bush was in Wisconsin, a woman told him she has 3 jobs. Bush said, "That's fantastic." He's such an out-of-touch idiot he didn't even understand that she wasn't bragging. She was complaining that she has to have 3 jobs to make ends meet.

Yes, Bush does not get it. He believes in the one sided policies he supports. I doubt Bush ever had to wonder how to pay his bills or make the rent or mortgage payment. He has rode on the success of his father (and his father's contacts) . Bush 41 is everything George W. is not!

Haha, gotta love GIANT misspelled words like that.

Yeah and right now I am beating the heck out of my computer for not keeping MS Word Spell-checker in line.

Or...

I could blame it on the mis-spelling germlins who invaded my computer...

Or...

I can say hukt on fonics wurkd fur me!!

- Grim X

I don't care much for Dubya and didn't vote for him either, but I am glad he is attending...He is representing us, afterall, and paying respects on our behalf...well, that's how I see it anyway...