Getting tired of all these Liberals bashing Bush-lite ...

[Bowfinger]

... so let's let a prominent Republican do it instead.

John McCain (Republican Senator, war hero, supporter of the Iraqi invasion) was on Meet the Press this morning. His overall posture was supportive of Bush-lite and our actions on Iraq. When asked specific questions, however, he admitted dissatisfaction with Bush several times. Among his comments

• McCain does not believe the Bush administration is adequately cooperating with Kean's 9/11 investigation commission
  
• He does not believe we have enough troops in Iraq today, and that talks of troop reductions in 2004 are premature. When asked specifically whether the proposed reduction was a military or a political suggestion, he said it was "not military" with an obvious touch of sarcasm.
  
• McCain feels Bush's level of deficit spending is "intolerable" and said he is "increasing the national debt to such a terrible degree" and it is a "burden we're laying on future generations of Americans."
  
• McCain said Bush needs to veto pork barrel spending
  
• Finally, he said the Bush administration is wrong about global warming and that he "does not believe this administration has acknowledged that climate change is real."

Something to think about next time Bush apologists are whining about partisan bashing. You don't have to be a Democrat to have solid concerns with GWBush and the ways he is harming America.

Anyway, it was an interesting show. McCain was featured for the first 25 minutes or so along with Senator Grahm. Worth watching if you get a chance.

 

[Lucky]

I saw portions of it, mostly dealing with iraq. Man i so wish he had won over bush in the primaries. i think his views mirror mine on 90% of things and he has the balls to not just be a party line yes man.

but hey, to be fair he agreed with the president on many things too. he was staunch in his support of the need to pass the 87B war bill and to not have any of it as a grant or loan.

and regarding troop size i dont think he said we dont have enough over there, just not enough of the right kind, which I interpreted differently I guess.

 

[Zebo]

You mean the "g@y" cadidate? Don't worry they have enough ammo to muddy the waters to discredit anything he says.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Lucky
I saw portions of it, mostly dealing with iraq. Man i so wish he had won over bush in the primaries. i think his views mirror mine on 90% of things and he has the balls to not just be a party line yes man.

but hey, to be fair he agreed with the president on many things too. he was staunch in his support of the need to pass the 87B war bill and to not have any of it as a grant or loan.

and regarding troop size i dont think he said we dont have enough over there, just not enough of the right kind, which I interpreted differently I guess.

McCain calls my favorite sport (UFC) human cock fighting and seeks it outlaw. No Thanks.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Lucky
[ ... ]and regarding troop size i dont think he said we dont have enough over there, just not enough of the right kind, which I interpreted differently I guess.

I still have it on TiVo, so I can double-check, but I remember him saying both. Yes, we need more troops in Iraq, and specifically, we need more of certain specialties which he listed.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Zebo
McCain calls my favorite sport (UFC) human cock fighting and seeks it outlaw. No Thanks.

Just as long as we have our priorities straight when we're selecting the most powerful person in the world.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Yes, Bowfinger, we all know Bush isn't perfect. Every one of us "YABA"s as you call us has issues with Bush and McCain does to...wow - go figure.

But here is the catch - If you asked McCain who he'd rather have in the Whitehouse - I'd bet my lifetime worth of salary that he'd choose Bush over any of the democrat contenders running and Gore too.

CkG

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

John McCain (Republican Senator, war hero, supporter of the Iraqi invasion) was on Meet the Press this morning. His overall posture was supportive of Bush-lite and our actions on Iraq. When asked specific questions, however, he admitted dissatisfaction with Bush several times.

This sums up his appearance quite well and it really bothers me. I'm baffled how he'd answer general questions about his support of Bush with generally positive answers, then would do a quick 180 when it came to getting specific. Just what is his support of Bush stemming from?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
... so let's let a prominent Republican do it instead.

John McCain (Republican Senator, war hero, supporter of the Iraqi invasion) was on Meet the Press this morning. His overall posture was supportive of Bush-lite and our actions on Iraq. When asked specific questions, however, he admitted dissatisfaction with Bush several times. Among his comments

• McCain does not believe the Bush administration is adequately cooperating with Kean's 9/11 investigation commission
  
• He does not believe we have enough troops in Iraq today, and that talks of troop reductions in 2004 are premature. When asked specifically whether the proposed reduction was a military or a political suggestion, he said it was "not military" with an obvious touch of sarcasm.
  
• McCain feels Bush's level of deficit spending is "intolerable" and said he is "increasing the national debt to such a terrible degree" and it is a "burden we're laying on future generations of Americans."
  
• McCain said Bush needs to veto pork barrel spending
  
• Finally, he said the Bush administration is wrong about global warming and that he "does not believe this administration has acknowledged that climate change is real."

Something to think about next time Bush apologists are whining about partisan bashing. You don't have to be a Democrat to have solid concerns with GWBush and the ways he is harming America.

Anyway, it was an interesting show. McCain was featured for the first 25 minutes or so along with Senator Grahm. Worth watching if you get a chance.

IMpressive, being critical without calling bush stupid, a drunk or liar. Maybe this will catch on.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

John McCain (Republican Senator, war hero, supporter of the Iraqi invasion) was on Meet the Press this morning. His overall posture was supportive of Bush-lite and our actions on Iraq. When asked specific questions, however, he admitted dissatisfaction with Bush several times.

This sums up his appearance quite well and it really bothers me. I'm baffled how he'd answer general questions about his support of Bush with generally positive answers, then would do a quick 180 when it came to getting specific. Just what is his support of Bush stemming from?

He is a loyal soldier and a pragmatic politician. As long as he is a Republican, he is going to support Republican candidates.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Zebo
McCain calls my favorite sport (UFC) human cock fighting and seeks it outlaw. No Thanks.

Just as long as we have our priorities straight when we're selecting the most powerful person in the world.

Sorry bow, bad attempt at humor...You know dirting the waters..I'llleave now

 

[ElFenix]

is mccain getting too old to run for president in 08?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Zebo
McCain calls my favorite sport (UFC) human cock fighting and seeks it outlaw. No Thanks.

Just as long as we have our priorities straight when we're selecting the most powerful person in the world.

Sorry bow, bad attempt at humor...You know dirting the waters..I'llleave now

I thought you might be but wasn't sure. My reply was intended to work either way.

 

[Dari]

I disagree with Bush on some of the financial instruments he's using to fight the deficit. Does that make me anti-Bush?

 

[PainTrain]

Does being anti-bush make one anti-american?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: PainTrain
Does being anti-bush make one anti-american?

no.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Something to think about next time Bush apologists are whining about partisan bashing. You don't have to be a Democrat to have solid concerns with GWBush and the ways he is harming America.

Of course you don't. I don't agree 100% with everything he does, but I respect many of the decisions he made. The problem I have with bush-bashers is that you have one thread where a liberal is complaining about one thing, then in another thread they are complaining about something else, which contradicts the first thing that was being complained about. An example:

McCain feels Bush's level of deficit spending is "intolerable" and said he is "increasing the national debt to such a terrible degree" and it is a "burden we're laying on future generations of Americans."
I realize McCain isn't exactly a liberal, but this is a big issue that liberals bring up all the time. Look at another thread and you will see them bashing Bush because the economy is not doing well and they think he should do more to help the economy. These two are contradictory. You can't have your cake and eat it too. THAT is why I don't like people like BOBDN when they bash bush. They don't have a firm understanding of what they are talking about. They don't want a deficit, yet they want a strong economy. PICK ONE!

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Something to think about next time Bush apologists are whining about partisan bashing. You don't have to be a Democrat to have solid concerns with GWBush and the ways he is harming America.

True that.

edit:

Originally posted by: Dari
I disagree with Bush on some of the financial instruments he's using to fight the deficit. Does that make me anti-Bush?

Uhh... GW isn't "fighting" the deficit, he's encouraging it.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Of course you don't. I don't agree 100% with everything he does, but I respect many of the decisions he made. The problem I have with bush-bashers is that you have one thread where a liberal is complaining about one thing, then in another thread they are complaining about something else, which contradicts the first thing that was being complained about. An example:

McCain feels Bush's level of deficit spending is "intolerable" and said he is "increasing the national debt to such a terrible degree" and it is a "burden we're laying on future generations of Americans."

I realize McCain isn't exactly a liberal, but this is a big issue that liberals bring up all the time. Look at another thread and you will see them bashing Bush because the economy is not doing well and they think he should do more to help the economy. These two are contradictory. You can't have your cake and eat it too. THAT is why I don't like people like BOBDN when they bash bush. They don't have a firm understanding of what they are talking about. They don't want a deficit, yet they want a strong economy. PICK ONE!

No, I pick both. You are repeating the Bush party line, and I don't accept it as truth.

The current, monstrous, Bush-created deficit has nothing to do with making the economy stronger. The bulk of his deficit went to tax cuts for the wealthy, tax cuts that even people like Warren Buffet agreed will do little to help the economy. If you want to put money back into the economy, you give it to lower-income and middle-class tax payers who will spend it. Claiming the wealthy will "invest" the money, allowing companies to expand, is pointless until those companies have more customers than they can handle -- not a big problem in a weak economy. In any case, lower interest rates have a much greater effect on the economy. Big deficits push up interest rates meaning Bush's tax cuts will hurt the economy.

Much of the remaining deficit is due to Bush's invasion of Iraq. This was also a waste of taxes, but that's a subject for a different thread. (Many, many, many different threads, in fact.)

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Of course you don't. I don't agree 100% with everything he does, but I respect many of the decisions he made. The problem I have with bush-bashers is that you have one thread where a liberal is complaining about one thing, then in another thread they are complaining about something else, which contradicts the first thing that was being complained about. An example:

McCain feels Bush's level of deficit spending is "intolerable" and said he is "increasing the national debt to such a terrible degree" and it is a "burden we're laying on future generations of Americans."

I realize McCain isn't exactly a liberal, but this is a big issue that liberals bring up all the time. Look at another thread and you will see them bashing Bush because the economy is not doing well and they think he should do more to help the economy. These two are contradictory. You can't have your cake and eat it too. THAT is why I don't like people like BOBDN when they bash bush. They don't have a firm understanding of what they are talking about. They don't want a deficit, yet they want a strong economy. PICK ONE!

No, I pick both. You are repeating the Bush party line, and I don't accept it as truth.

The current, monstrous, Bush-created deficit has nothing to do with making the economy stronger. The bulk of his deficit went to tax cuts for the wealthy, tax cuts that even people like Warren Buffet agreed will do little to help the economy. If you want to put money back into the economy, you give it to lower-income and middle-class tax payers who will spend it. Claiming the wealthy will "invest" the money, allowing companies to expand, is pointless until those companies have more customers than they can handle -- not a big problem in a weak economy. In any case, lower interest rates have a much greater effect on the economy. Big deficits push up interest rates meaning Bush's tax cuts will hurt the economy.

Much of the remaining deficit is due to Bush's invasion of Iraq. This was also a waste of taxes, but that's a subject for a different thread. (Many, many, many different threads, in fact.)

Talk about "party line"


Actually, you are a tad off. The deficit would still be there regardless of Bush's tax-cuts, same stands true if you add in the war costs. Nice try but it just isn't true Bow. I've shown the numbers before, I don't think we need to go over them again. The growth deficit was caused by the economic downturn and CONTINUED overspending.

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Talk about "party line"

Actually, you are a tad off. The deficit would still be there regardless of Bush's tax-cuts, same stands true if you add in the war costs. Nice try but it just isn't true Bow. I've shown the numbers before, I don't think we need to go over them again. The growth deficit was caused by the economic downturn and CONTINUED overspending.

CkG

Cad, you are being dishonest. In this case, the "continued overspending" is the tax cut loans and the Iraq quagmire. They are the two new spending initiatives introduced by this Republican Congress and this Republican President. Take them away and we are hundreds of billions of dollars ahead. Nice try, but it just isn't true Cad.

But please keep parroting the Bush list of talking points. He needs another mouthpiece while Rush is off the air. Talk about "party line".

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Something to think about next time Bush apologists are whining about partisan bashing. You don't have to be a Democrat to have solid concerns with GWBush and the ways he is harming America.

True that.

edit:

Originally posted by: Dari
I disagree with Bush on some of the financial instruments he's using to fight the deficit. Does that make me anti-Bush?

Uhh... GW isn't "fighting" the deficit, he's encouraging it.

LOL

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Talk about "party line"

Actually, you are a tad off. The deficit would still be there regardless of Bush's tax-cuts, same stands true if you add in the war costs. Nice try but it just isn't true Bow. I've shown the numbers before, I don't think we need to go over them again. The growth deficit was caused by the economic downturn and CONTINUED overspending.

CkG

Cad, you are being dishonest. In this case, the "continued overspending" is the tax cut loans and the Iraq quagmire. They are the two new spending initiatives introduced by this Republican Congress and this Republican President. Take them away and we are hundreds of billions of dollars ahead. Nice try, but it just isn't true Cad.

But please keep parroting the Bush list of talking points. He needs another mouthpiece while Rush is off the air. Talk about "party line".

Actually YOU are wrong. Add up the numbers for FY2003. Then lets look at the 2004 budget.

2003 budget(including the $75billion for Iraq in April)
-375B deficit
-75B - Iraq(april)
-------
300B deficit let to blame on War and Tax-cuts
-tax cut of 2001
-----
Equals?
How much was the taxcut for FY2003? Keep in mind that the Tax-cut that was passed this summer is for FY2004 and it was 350B over 10 years. So only about 125B is for the first year and about the same for the second - the rest is spread over the next ten years. PLUS - it actually only builds or hurries the tax-cuts Bush signed back in 2001. Like the rate drops will happen before the original 2006...etc Read and learn my freind.
So Bowfinger what "cost" of Bush's first tax-cut was against FY2003? You have about 300B to go to be able to blame it all on Bush.
Ready...
Set...
Go!

Yep Bow - you keep trying to blame it on Bush and I'll keep telling you - you are full of Sh!t, because you are. I find it laughable that you can even remotely think that if you took away Iraq and the tax-cuts we'd be "hundreds of billions of dollars ahead." Buahaha...I can't believe I even had to quote that - it's absurd. When you get informed, please come back and ammend your statement

CkG

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Of course you don't. I don't agree 100% with everything he does, but I respect many of the decisions he made. The problem I have with bush-bashers is that you have one thread where a liberal is complaining about one thing, then in another thread they are complaining about something else, which contradicts the first thing that was being complained about. An example:

McCain feels Bush's level of deficit spending is "intolerable" and said he is "increasing the national debt to such a terrible degree" and it is a "burden we're laying on future generations of Americans."

I realize McCain isn't exactly a liberal, but this is a big issue that liberals bring up all the time. Look at another thread and you will see them bashing Bush because the economy is not doing well and they think he should do more to help the economy. These two are contradictory. You can't have your cake and eat it too. THAT is why I don't like people like BOBDN when they bash bush. They don't have a firm understanding of what they are talking about. They don't want a deficit, yet they want a strong economy. PICK ONE!

No, I pick both. You are repeating the Bush party line, and I don't accept it as truth.

The current, monstrous, Bush-created deficit has nothing to do with making the economy stronger. The bulk of his deficit went to tax cuts for the wealthy, tax cuts that even people like Warren Buffet agreed will do little to help the economy. If you want to put money back into the economy, you give it to lower-income and middle-class tax payers who will spend it. Claiming the wealthy will "invest" the money, allowing companies to expand, is pointless until those companies have more customers than they can handle -- not a big problem in a weak economy. In any case, lower interest rates have a much greater effect on the economy. Big deficits push up interest rates meaning Bush's tax cuts will hurt the economy.

Much of the remaining deficit is due to Bush's invasion of Iraq. This was also a waste of taxes, but that's a subject for a different thread. (Many, many, many different threads, in fact.)

Actually, I came up with that on my own because I'm an educated person and I am able to form my own oppinions based on my education in economins. YOU are the one spouting party-lines. If you'd taken an economics class, you would see that what I am saying is correct. That's not to imply that you are not correct as well on some points, either.
In any case, lower interest rates have a much greater effect on the economy
I would like to know how you plan to lower interest rates more than they already are. The interest rate card has been played, and played aggressively. It did not work. More had to be done. Tax cuts was another option. Tell me, how can you lower income taxes on the lower class even more than they already are? FYI, it's currently at around 0%. It sounds to me like you don't know much about economics since you are just parroting what other people who don't know economics are saying. Granted, I'm not an expert, but this is fundamental stuff.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Actually YOU are wrong. Add up the numbers for FY2003. Then lets look at the 2004 budget.

2003 budget(including the $75billion for Iraq in April)
-375B deficit
-75B - Iraq(april)
-------
300B deficit let to blame on War and Tax-cuts
-tax cut of 2001
-----
Equals?
How much was the taxcut for FY2003? Keep in mind that the Tax-cut that was passed this summer is for FY2004 and it was 350B over 10 years. So only about 125B is for the first year and about the same for the second - the rest is spread over the next ten years. PLUS - it actually only builds or hurries the tax-cuts Bush signed back in 2001. Like the rate drops will happen before the original 2006...etc Read and learn my freind.
So Bowfinger what "cost" of Bush's first tax-cut was against FY2003? You have about 300B to go to be able to blame it all on Bush.
Ready...
Set...
Go!

Yep Bow - you keep trying to blame it on Bush and I'll keep telling you - you are full of Sh!t, because you are. I find it laughable that you can even remotely think that if you took away Iraq and the tax-cuts we'd be "hundreds of billions of dollars ahead." Buahaha...I can't believe I even had to quote that - it's absurd. When you get informed, please come back and ammend your statement

CkG

There you go again. "Maybe if I pretend the 2001 tax cuts weren't Bush's tax cuts I can distract everyone long enough to save face. Maybe if I pretend that 2003 is the only year with a deficit I can dismiss the even-bigger deficits that follow."

The 2003 federal deficit was $374 Billion. Over half of that, $205 Billion, is due to the two Bush tax cuts. Just like I said.

Bush's Iraq invasion cost us another $70 Billion to $92 Billion in 2003, depending on which expenses we count. That brings our total to somewhere between $275 Billion and $297 Billion, 74% to 79% of the total 2003 deficit. Hundreds of billions. Just like I said.

The numbers only get worse in 2004. The tax cuts alone are projected to add another $310 Billion to the deifict in 2004. Add in another $100 billion or more for Iraq in 2004 and that's about $410 Billion total. Hundreds of billions, just like I said. That's roughly $700 Billion in two years. Hundreds of billions, just like I said.

You didn't do very well in school, did you?

If we continue at this rate -- if -- that's over ONE TRILLION DOLLARS in three years just from Bush's tax cuts and Iraqi crusade. Perhaps the new Democratic leadership in 2004 can bring a little fiscal responsibility back to Washington.



CkG: "Yep Bow - you keep trying to blame it on Bush and I'll keep telling you - you are full of Sh!t, because you are. I find it laughable that you can even remotely think that if you took away Iraq and the tax-cuts we'd be "hundreds of billions of dollars ahead." Buahaha...I can't believe I even had to quote that - it's absurd. When you get informed, please come back and ammend your statement"

I think we can all see who is full of what. Thanks for playing.