E
evan d
Guest
Isn't the fact that a fifteen yearold actually cares about somethign in politics a good sign. Heck, I have 0 say in the government, yet I still care.
Social Security, or is it?
- Thread starter Killer Joe
- Start date
E
evan d
Guest
My family is republican(note the private jesuit school), but I have to laugh at the liberals. This is not becuase they are nessaceryily stupid, but rather all the ways they fail to use what is given to them. In a speech Bush said he had infinitismal respect for either the poor or the minorities. Infinitsimal means extremely small, like .000000001 . No one did anythign with this. Nearly everyone thinks bush is of near sub-par intelligence, yet these things go floating on by. Where are the democratic/liberal people who can feed this stuff to the media? Is it just me, or did the media get a bachelors degree in liberalism?
Sometimes I wonder if the fact that liberal has a slight negative connotation, has anything to do with the fact that this isn't picked up an ran with.
In 2008, all I truely want is for my first time to vote in a presidential election to be the decision be between 2+ good strong intelligent people, not the lesser of two evils.
Sometimes I wonder if the fact that liberal has a slight negative connotation, has anything to do with the fact that this isn't picked up an ran with.
In 2008, all I truely want is for my first time to vote in a presidential election to be the decision be between 2+ good strong intelligent people, not the lesser of two evils.
Dare to dream. As long as our current two party political system exists there won't be less than two evil running. Both will have agendas (agendae?), but neither will reveal what they are during their campaigns. They'll just say the nice things to get people to chant their names and say the nasty things against their oponents and in the end. One will get elected and their true plans will be unveiled and nothing will happen. This is how it's been working for the past 200 years and unless Americans actually stand up and do something about it it'll probably go on for another 200...evan d said:
-Ferret
"...and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom..."
The thing is they can't really do something about that. Bush is known for his "mis-speaks" such as this and while it provides fodder for a couple laughs, it's not really worth bringing up in the greater scheme of things. It's just a personal foible of his.evan_d said:
D
DarthFerret
Guest
Yes, you are correct. It is like the whole Dan Quaile thing where people said he could not spell because the word asked was Potatoes and the little girl spelling it stopped at "o" so he prompted her with "e......." and the papers blew it completely out of proportion. (bet you did not know that). Or, another thing, when Bush landed on the aircraft carrier and made his speech under a banner that said "Mission Accomplished" and was accused of saying the war was over. He never said that, and the banner was not for him, it was for the crew of the carrier because THIER particular mission was over. I think the press is tired of being embarassed for thier mis-conceptions and tired of being caught in them. Therefore, they seem to be a little more leinient towards the little things.
E
evan d
Guest
What I rarely hear people mention about Bushes speech on the carrier is that there was no possibility for protesters against him at a time when he was not the most popular.
Of course not. Usually he speaks in front of "supporters", not in front of dissenters.
It's the same with his Social Security barnstorming across the country - the audience is mostly, if not all, comprised of Republicans and/or people who are receptive to hearing about the changes in the first place.
It's the same with his Social Security barnstorming across the country - the audience is mostly, if not all, comprised of Republicans and/or people who are receptive to hearing about the changes in the first place.
E
evan d
Guest
Yes but, he didn't even allow for people to show thier dislike, which the are entitle to do under the law, but on us governemnt property, such things can be restricted.
People are allowed to protest all they want. This is true. However, it was HIS party and he can invite whomever he wants. If people want to protest, all they have to do is get together and grab their signs, practice their chants, prepare their flamable effigies and do their little "Everyone's wrong except us!" stuff. If they want media coverage, all they have to do is get someone to call a local Tv/Radio Station or Newspaper (or Michael Moore who will use anyone's opinion and make a doccumentary about it) and they'll get lots of attention.evan d said:
That's the way the system works. Politicians by nature will have people that disagree w/ them. However, every time one of them tries to let people know what their views are to the masses and they get constantly interrupted nothing will get done...
-Ferret
"The floor is now open to debate and discussion..."
D
DarthFerret
Guest
Another point to consider is this. At his speech on the carrier, how could there have been people to protest. It is a military craft, and therefore, very restrictive about who is actually aboard. I believe that most Presidential (and other political offices) speaches occur on government property, and therefore have limited access to the general public. Thus, a negative view would be hard to come by. I am not sure how intentional this fact is. I do not think I would go so far as to blame Pres. Bush directly for this. Also, remember, most if not all of his speaches are written by professional speach writers, and about the only time he adlibs anything, is when answering questions, which in and of themselves are generally asked by the media in an attempt to slander or misdirect the answer.
If you were to lift the restrictions on US Government Property, and who is invited to the speaches, then more times than not, chaos would rule, order would vanish, and possibly more assasination/terroristic attempts would occur.
If you were to lift the restrictions on US Government Property, and who is invited to the speaches, then more times than not, chaos would rule, order would vanish, and possibly more assasination/terroristic attempts would occur.
I believe for Bush's SS speeches, he makes them in the state's "town halls", which would make it more state government property than "US government property" (which implies federal). I believe technically anyone can come but as I stated, I believe he invites those who are already receptive to his views. I remember reading that in a couple of cases, people who have somehow indicated that they are Democrats or have differing views were escorted off the premises (I think they wore something that supported Kerry, but not sure).
Sounds like the same kind of crap that politicians use to make them seem popular as they surround themselves w/ yes-men/women and when it's shown on the news the average idiot will say "Well, he seems to be popular. I guess, he can't be that bad."
-Ferret
"Do sheep shrink when it rains?"
-Ferret
"Do sheep shrink when it rains?"
Yeah. Most of the administration seems that way...
Also read recently that a 3 star? general was demoted a rank and forced to retire, presumably because he said the Iraq invasion or occupation would require more troops than what Rumsfield said... I think the official charge was something "illegal" to do with the use of contractors, but in other cases that would cause a loss of rank like the Tailhook groping thing and other similiar case, the people in charge were just allowed to retire. This is the only recent case where a general was reduced in rank for a "lesser charge"...
Also read recently that a 3 star? general was demoted a rank and forced to retire, presumably because he said the Iraq invasion or occupation would require more troops than what Rumsfield said... I think the official charge was something "illegal" to do with the use of contractors, but in other cases that would cause a loss of rank like the Tailhook groping thing and other similiar case, the people in charge were just allowed to retire. This is the only recent case where a general was reduced in rank for a "lesser charge"...
E
evan d
Guest
Yes sir....
Is there any point in the exsitence of yes-peps, other than to boast self esteem.
Is there any point in the exsitence of yes-peps, other than to boast self esteem.
D
DarthFerret
Guest
not really. I am glad to see that this ideal is pretty much bi-partisan. I cannot stand it when people try to put political game playing on either one side or the other. They both do it...and they both know that they do it.
In fact, I might be a little disapointed if they didn't do it....but then, maybe I AM going crazy!?!
In fact, I might be a little disapointed if they didn't do it....but then, maybe I AM going crazy!?!
E
evan d
Guest
No, you have merely become accustomed to the occurance, a little bit like stohkholm syndrome.DarthFerret said:
T
train
Guest
So which is which with Hillary and Rice?!!!...evan d said:
As for the whole SS issue - Spidey, did you ever find your papers as to how the formula is determined?
And for us - we've grealty enjoyed the benefits we're seeing from a financial planner - I'd suggest it to all... unless you are one... then you should sell your services to CPA members online...
We just aren't going to depend on SS knowing that it may not be enough to leave a tip at a nice restaurant.
"a tip... don't invest in lunar cheese..."