ProgressiveUSA

Thanks, doc. That just confirmed my point: He can't handle rebuttal. If he holds all these liberal positions, as he's claimed, why does he hate himself so much?

'moderateman' wrote: If you take some money and throw it in the bank at todays intrest rates {they will rise} you would have a safe..{fdic} way to save and a much lager yeild of you own money. Ha ha -- yeah, except we gotta BORROW that money & PAY interest on it before we see a dime of gain. <b

The entire way George W. Bush is approaching fiscal management of this country is an impending disaster. Borrowing for your day-to-day expenses is a recipe for disaster, I agree. Borrowing for long-term infrastructure items, like roads, bridges, hospitals & schools, is fine. Ronald Reagan got

How nice of you to live in such a pessimistic world. Hey, I'm not the one running around yelling 'crisis' about SS. <TD class="mb-Body-

If the government doesn't borrow money, it doesn't pay interest on those bonds, and if it doesn't pay interest on those "guaranteed obligations" there is no income for the millions of people that rely on it, right? So do you put your credit card bill on another credit card? Because that is basically wha

1- My blog, my rules 2- my views are not liberal they are "moderate" hence the name moderateman. 3- try to post a reply just once without useing ad hominem... it's getting old and overused by you. Hey, ModMan, why'd you delete my response? Ha ha! Can't stand the heat, so you pretend I didn't resp

Um, yes it is according the AUP. This may be a simple misunderstanding that appears to have TWO correct views. (How's that for open minded? ) FYI, I access ModMan's posts via www.politicalmachine.com. It's a video game site with a

Two points: 1 - Attacking 'liberals' is not a moderate activity. Consider a new screen name. 2 - By you own admission you hold numerous views that are considered 'liberal' (Pro-choice, gun control, etc). So does that mean you are criticizing yourself when you make these ad hominem attack posts?

And it's funny how people who misuse words and repeatedly misread other's statements, blame others for not understanding what's being discussed.

He also posted a snippet of the article, and if you actually read it, you'd notice that the issue is with "Thou shalt not kill," and you should know that people were killed in WW2 too. It was a press conference transcript from whitehouse.gov, not an article. Words mean things. Buy a dictionary. <br

You're serious? You honestly don't have a freaking clue as to what I just said? Juxta, this thread began with a link to a transcript -- not an article. If you're asking me to defend somebody else's comments in this 'article,' that's not my job. I will not scrounge around in 80 responses for some unspeci

So I take it you haven't read the article or the responses by its defenders? You know, where they say that there's no exception to "Thou shalt not kill" and criticize Bush for making some? Um, could you be more cryptic , please? You response makes no sense whatsoever. I stand by my post.

According to everybody here who believes that it is wrong to kill no matter the circumstances. Sorry dude, you've got it backwards. The Ten Commandments (old testament) specifically ruled out killing. Christ (new testament) is the one who specifically ruled out vengeance, and instead radically recommend

If no-fly was working , then why were American aircraft being shoot at? Um, you realize that 'no-fly zone' means 'no Iraqi aircraft can fly here', right? Right? No Iraqi aircraft flying in no-fly zone = success Bonus question: Do you even know WHY the UN made no-fly zones? I do. <b

Seems YOU don't the old testament to well. I want you to quote chapter AND verse where christ is mentioned in the *old* testament. Um, that's exactly *MY* point. Jesus was against the eye for an eye standard of justice fake so-called 'Christians' use over & over.

There you go again: Trolling with another ad hominem attack And nothing 'moderate' about it You can do better

thats just it, the democrats were crying foul and no way well before any proposal was put forth.. Uh huh. As they should be. As is the AARP and a group of GOP moderates. Repeat: Borrowing trillions now to avoid bankruptcy 35 years from now is not conservative. It's radical.

No,it is a new idea. As you admit you have not heard the whole plan yet, listen. If you still dont like it, then condemn it, Dont dismiss it out of hand. BTW, it was proposed by Daniel Moynihan. Not a Bush syncophant. If Sen Moynihan is really the author, it can't be that new. He has been dead a

No, but I did Follow Brads development. It is too much democrat vs republican, instead of what we really feel. Libertarian! Well, hats off to Brad. He did a nice job. You can make custom politicians & include PNG formatted photos for their profiles. In other words you can create a custom-made

So you agree with Bush's changes to SS? Creating a multi-trillion dollar hole in the SS fund to divert $$ to the stock market? No thanks. Not that GWB has issued his plan yet -- or explained how he'll cover that gap. And again: Borrowing trillions now to avoid bankruptcy 35 years fro

I stumbleds here by accident... love the sight, love the differance of opinions, love the brawls. love even more sane discourse and rational disagreements. I'll gladly avoid name calling if you will... BTW, the game is a lot fun. And it's only $10 at Best Buy. <a href="http://www.bestbuy.com/si

wow I can just sit here and watch my fellow republicans beat ya morons up.. fun to read and fun to laugh.. Naw. I think DrGuy can disagree without being disagreeable. And I respect that. Besides, we seem to agree on a lot of stuff. We just call it different things. <img src="../images/smiles/l

Not when they would deny us our freedom of choice. Progressives are pro-choice, pro-local control on all of these big govt GOP issues: no state pharma re-importation, ban on gay marriage, ban on abortion, taking away class action from states, No Child Left Behind, death with dignity. And I agr

I agree, and I dont condone it. It however does not negate my definition. Libertarians and Goldwater Republicans are the true conservatives. But that does not change what liberals are. But then it sounds like you think today's GOP is liberal in these respects...true? And those opposing those po

To clarify--they all work for the President. All branches of the administration view the President as their ultimate boss. So yes, if DOJ makes a huge mistake, it's going to reflect on the whole Administration--and that includes the President. Well said. Exactly right. Plus I'd note this administration'