ProgressiveUSA

Worst Modern US presidents: 1 - GWB: Stole an election, ignored many warnings pre-9/11, squandered the world's goodwill after 9/11, set up global torture network, borrow-and-spend, "not concerned" about Osama who's still at large, mocks the Constitution and the rule of law (habeas corpus, warrantless wiretapping, etc.), pre-emptive invasion, ignored war plans, occupation with no end in sight, promotes incompetent underlings (Rice, Wolfy, Bolto

In reply #282, im-moder-rant bluffed: you should apoligize to everyone that posted here. For what? For NOT endorsing the starvation of millions of our fellow Americans like you have? No chance. Repeat: Two wrongs don't make a right. You yourself said starvation is cruel & wrong.

In reply #284, drmiller said: I think you should be the one to apologize for being a mindless liberal. Naw. I busted im-moder-rant red handed talking out of both sides of his mouth. And both of you know it. Don't blame me if you & im-moder-rant have been twisted into such ideological p

In reply #280, im-moder-rant blustered: I have nothing to apoligize for. period. STARVE A LIBERAL FOR A BETTER AMERICA!! Why can't you take responsibility your own shameful words instead of lashing out at others for your own hypocrisy & hate? Face it, dude: Hate-filled, hypocrit

In reply #236, im-moder-rant seethed: ironic how the LIBERAL MIND WORKS ISN'T IT? blind to everything that they disagree with, so sure THEY know whats best for everyone. Um, it's the big government GOP trying to disrupt, usurp & dictate private family decisions here, dude. End-of-life decision

In Reply #224 by im-moder-rant spluttered: yeh right, you come in MY BLOG insult me, call me names, twist the facts, put words in my mouth {or fingers} and you want me to apoligize?? That's right: You should apologize for your own hypocritical & hate-filled words. No fact twisting or

can you possibly BELIEVE that I would starve anyone for real>>?? please.... It's not about me. It's about you taking responsibility for your own statements. Why not retract your statement then? You know, the one you made over & over again, where you EXPLICITLY state that STARVING

I cannot for the life of me understand your advocating the starvation of any person. Um, that's because I haven't advocated it -- you have. Over & over. Explicitly. In post after post. <TD class="mb-Bo

In Reply #195 to post #164 im-moder-rant suffered the following meltdown: dear analretentive ussr...... get a life idiot child find another blog to spew your hatred and filth... I am thru with trying to reason with terry schiavos mental INFERIOR. Translation: "I [im-moder-rant] am busted r

Reply #189 to post #164, im-moder-rant blustered: as I said twisting facts the poll only showed 60 to 70 percent of the people agreeing the gov SHOULD NOT BE INVOLVED. NOT THAT TERRY SHOULD STARVE As I said, work on that reading comprehension. The polls (plural) also showed that 60-70 percent s

does anything happen here that you do not somehow twist to bash bush?Good point, Modman. Rightwinger, I know we agree on this topic thanks to TerpFan's non-hate-filled blog. But George W signed the bill three days ago sending the case to federal court. Gov Jeb was back again

In Reply #129, Citizen Im-Moder-rant wrote - twisting facts one of the lefts favorite tricks Oh please. You're the only one twisting facts. I cited a poll showing that 60-70 percent of the public supports the judge's decision. Now why do you think that is? Because they want this woman sta

I never commented one way or the other if congress should get involved, I just said death by starvation is cruel Uh huh. And then you say "STARVE A LIBERAL" over & over. Advocating something you yourself deem cruel sounds pretty hateful to me. And not very moderate. <TABLE cellpadding=8 width="

On who? The only people dealing with it want to keep her alive. The person who wants to starve her to death is the one that has "moved on"... Wrong. Mr Schiavo is still her husband & obviously still very involved. Not like it's any of our business.

Hey im-moder-rant, looks like you want to starve 60-70 percent of America. They disagree with you. Poll: Most want Congress off Schiavo case WASHINGTON - About seven in 10 Americans say Congress inappropriately intervened in the ca

Flip... Reply #31 By: Citizen Moderateman - 3/19/2005 4:13:35 PM there is no excuse to starve someone to death. period. Flop... Reply #54 By: Citizen Modera

In post #10, I wrote: Third, the persistence of 15 years in a coma speaks for itself. The emotional toll, not to mention the medical bills, must be unbearable. In post #58, Gideon wrote: <TD class="mb

terp wrote: What helps you decide what should happen and how do you arrive at your conclusion? Are you deciding because you think it's the right thing for yourself if you were in a similar situation, or only for the case at hand? I have not followed this case very closely. I consider it a prime exam

Toughlove wrote: The French play the "We've always been friends with the Americans" on the naive American public who seem to actually believe it. A few Americans may vaguely have heard of Lafayette, the famous French soldier who came to the US to fight for American freedom. What they don't know is that he did this in vio

Naw, I can make a couple comments. 1 - First, thanks for citing a source. The "Flow of Funds" report is one that I have not looked at before & it's very interesting. 2 - That HH wealth number is driven by real estate markets, which at least some (such as "Irrational Exuberance" author Robert Schiller) believe are in something of a bubble. At the very least, real estate speculation has been on the rise out west. All of which brings int

Unlike our dear friend, self-anointed 'moderateman,' *real* GOP moderates want to roll back some of GWB's tax cuts -- just like Sen Kerry! That's right: Real GOP moderates are pushing back against the so-called 'conservatives' in the GOP who, in practice, implement reckless & radical fiscal policy -- borrow & spend to infinity. <TD cla

Drag wrote: You didn't demonstrate ANY real-world basis. You just regurgitated additional theoretical damage. Please feel free to re-post any real world harm that is actually occuring - right now - that is being missed. Talking about what MAY happen is theoretical. Incorrect. See post #34.

Did I say *anything about morale? How can a *machine* have morale? In case you couldn't figure it out I was talking sheer numbers. So, NO it';s not a non-sequitor! Nice try, now try AGAIN! OK, I'm listening. You don't need to get snippy. H

docmiller wrote: Where you in the military at that time? Maybe you should talk to someone who was. Our military was at an ALL time LOW during his admin as far as both men and machines were concerned. Doc, that's a non-sequitor. We're talking budget & taxes & fiscal responsibility, not military

But as to how Slick Willie got his surplus? He's dead on. He got it by cutting back and cutting back some more on the US military. The facts don't support that claim, doc. Federal receipts increased. That's what balanced the budget. In other words: growth, Clinton's 1993 tax increase, & proba