Am I allowed to write that I would like to hunt down George W. Bush, the president of

[Matthewmongan]

i enjoyed this article. http://www.harpers.org/OnSimpleHuman...149635660.html

[SubaSteevo]

Only if you want him tapping your phones

[Electrophil]

I made it through 3 paragraphs. I can't stand people writing in Theatre English.

I was enjoying the train of thought he was on, and I'm sure the point would have been great. But by the 3rd paragraph, I was waiting for a "dost dow" or two.

Geez. He needs to give it a rest and write what he thinks and stop. Quit dressing it up. If he actually thinks in the sequence that he writes, he may need to consider therapy.

Speaking of rambling.......

No. A person does not have the right to verbally threaten a man's life. No yelling "I gotta bomb!" in airports, and no "I be gonna kill George!!" in public. Both are inciting a riot.

But....

Bush is still teh devil!!

[Electrophil]

Afterthought:

Except for Anne Coulter. Not only should open threats be perfectly OK, it should be encouraged. Free air time should be given to those threats as if they were a public service announcement.

Anne Coulter is teh Devil's ho'.

[Suby Fan]

that woman is something elce...

[Matthewmongan]

Normally, one doesn’t get prosecuted for a verbal threat, alone. A person has to display intent to cause harm. For example, if I were to say I wanted to wound Samuel L. Jackson with a trident I would have to buy a trident before I could be arrested for 2nd degree assault.

[lhopp77]

Originally Posted by Electrophil

Afterthought:

Except for Anne Coulter. Not only should open threats be perfectly OK, it should be encouraged. Free air time should be given to those threats as if they were a public service announcement.

Anne Coulter is teh Devil's ho'.

Now Anne has a pair. I don't agree with all she says, but she is sure a reality check for some far left liberals. Michael Moore got away with many more erroneous and ridiculous charges and information than Anne ever will. Like I have said before--I don't listen to Rush or Anne, but I did enjoy Anne's book about How to Talk to a Liberal if You Must. (She's better looking than Moore also)

Did she cross the line a bit on this current flap? Maybe--but she is also essentially correct. Would I have said it--no. If you have not read the entire chapter covered by the current flap--don't even bother to try to provide an objective rebuttal or comment.

Lee

[Electrophil]

I've read one of her books. Or tried to. Slander? Something like that. Her books are always kind of thin. Proof that you can only whine so much.

That book...almost certain the title was "Slander", started "sentence one" whining, and ended "Sentence last" whining. Whimpering and griping and insulting this so called "liberal agenda".

She taught me the sacred code of the neo-con though and I thank her for that. She taught me that anytime you disagree with her type, you are immediately.... A liberal... This is also suppose to be insulting in some odd way I haven't quite figured out yet.

I still have no idea what the true definition of a liberal is, with the exception that it is someone who disagrees with that moronic administration we have up there. I don't even think she has truly thought out the definition of a liberal herself, and she keeps writing waa!Books on them. But... reading her books, you see you really don't need a clear definition.

I've decided over time that she doesn't even believe the slime she pukes up. She just knows it sells, and that keeps her from having to drive a used car. And there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, I would respect her more if that's the case.

[Suby Fan]

Originally Posted by lhopp77

Now Anne has a pair. I don't agree with all she says, but she is sure a reality check for some far left liberals. Michael Moore got away with many more erroneous and ridiculous charges and information than Anne ever will. Like I have said before--I don't listen to Rush or Anne, but I did enjoy Anne's book about How to Talk to a Liberal if You Must. (She's better looking than Moore also)

Did she cross the line a bit on this current flap? Maybe--but she is also essentially correct. Would I have said it--no. If you have not read the entire chapter covered by the current flap--don't even bother to try to provide an objective rebuttal or comment.

Lee

hey sence your like the 32849239483892 conservitve to claim that Mike's books are filled with nothing but lies then i got a get rich quick scheme for ya SUE HIM! i mean if he as been lieing to the American people all his books would have been off the shelf by now.... you may not agree with the way he presents and bends the facts... but at least he presents the facts

Originally Posted by Matthewmongan

i enjoyed this article. http://www.harpers.org/OnSimpleHuman...149635660.html

In short answer, yes, you can do that, but expect a visit from the secret service. I had a little clash with them a few years ago, it was ... quite scary.

[lhopp77]

Just keeping the facts straight--Robert.

"Clinton and a budget surplus
The Republican takeover of Congress in 1994 led to a push for a balanced budget, President Clinton and congress reduced the deficit. Major economic growth and spending controls such as welfare reform, favored by both the President and republican congress allowed for a balanced budget (when the Social Security surplus was counted as revenue) by early in Clinton's second term - considerably earlier than what Clinton's own projections for this had indicated and, afterwards, a surplus which actually allowed the retirement of some government debt.

Momentarily, the deficit issue faded from view. Despite the nominal surplus, the national debt grew each year of the Clinton presidency since the surplus is not applied against spending in this calculation. [1]

Out of office, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich called for continued payments toward the debt with a view to paying it off entirely. Perot's less effective 1996 presidential bid was in part evidence of the declining significance of the deficit, and hence the Balanced Budget Amendment, as an issue. In his final State of the Union President Clinton said the USA should continue to balance its books and pay off the debt entirely, however a combination of tax cuts, an international economic downturn and increased military spending during the Bush Presidency have seen the debt grow to the largest in US history."

So, it was REALLY the Republican Congress that balanced the budget at the time--not Clinton even though he signed the legislation. I do admit that the Republicans have slipped somewhat in holding budgets down where possible, but a line item veto authority would help to keep pork out of bills totally unrelated to the pork project. BOTH parties are at fault in that area.

Lee

[Electrophil]

Originally Posted by lhopp77

I do admit that the Republicans have slipped somewhat in holding budgets down where possible, but a line item veto authority would help to keep pork out of bills totally unrelated to the pork project. BOTH parties are at fault in that area.

Lee

Slipped? Slipped???

What they have done is disprovened your entire argument that the "republican congress" is who balanced the budget. As soon as a republican took over the executive branch, they went hog wild with all their unchecked power.

There were huge battles between the Clinton administration and that republican congress.

I guess we now see who was trying to balance, and which side was trying to spend like crazy.

It feels like someone just shot me in the gut everytime I hear the Republicans being called "conservative". It's so untrue. They are like a bunch of drunk 16 year olds with dad's credit card.

I've said it a thousand times. The days of them playing with our toys is over. They need to get out.

[WGJ]

Rush Limbaugh walks into a bar with a frog on his head.
The bartender points and says, "What's that?"
The frog says, "It started out as an anal cyst."


WGJ

[Royal Tiger]

I think my jokes about the french were better. Maybe we can reach the middle ground here WGJ, and just bash the french. It's fun and easy.