Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Mandate. You take the whole package.

Isn't that a comment for the FB?

Or am I reading it wrong?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Let me repeat: I voted almost exclusively on foreign policy grounds.

Y'know, this has had me thinking.

You've repeatedly crowed in favor of the Bush tax cuts.

Despite promising us your deficit-cutting package, you have yet to identify a single spending initiative with which you disagree.

You have advocated for privatizing Social Security, which would immediately increase the (reported) deficit by several hundred billion dollars, I believe, because excess revenues from Social Security would no longer be available for off-the-books borrowing. The privatization plans would also likely boost the deficit by another few trillion over the next ten years because of the need to fund retirees' benefits now without the revenues from Social Security taxes.

That's a pretty big "almost." And I question whether you are really so hostile to the drunken sailors as you'd like to believe.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Isn't that a comment for the FB?

Or am I reading it wrong?

We were talking about drunken sailors, weren't we?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
We were talking about drunken sailors, weren't we?

If that's the package you want.

I didn't realize you were so interested in seamen.






ba-dum-bum.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Y'know, this has had me thinking.

You've repeatedly crowed in favor of the Bush tax cuts.

Despite promising us your deficit-cutting package, you have yet to identify a single spending initiative with which you disagree.

You have advocated for privatizing Social Security, which would immediately increase the (reported) deficit by several hundred billion dollars, I believe, because excess revenues from Social Security would no longer be available for off-the-books borrowing. The privatization plans would also likely boost the deficit by another few trillion over the next ten years because of the need to fund retirees' benefits now without the revenues from Social Security taxes.

That's a pretty big "almost." And I question whether you are really so hostile to the drunken sailors as you'd like to believe.

Well, it's a lesser of two evils, isn't it? I mean Bush at his worst didn't spend as much as what Kerry promised to spend.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Well, it's a lesser of two evils, isn't it? I mean Bush at his worst didn't spend as much as what Kerry promised to spend.

Psst -- Ty, take him double or nothing on this one.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
If that's the package you want.

I didn't realize you were so interested in seamen.






ba-dum-bum.

That's the problem. I didn't vote for them, but I'm still getting fucked. Fucking drunken sailors.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
That's the problem. I didn't vote for them, but I'm still getting fucked. Fucking drunken sailors.

Problem. We're against fucking unless you're married, and we're against guys like you getting married. So we certainly don't want you getting fucked.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm still trying to understand what's racist about calling her a parrot. Slave apparently didn't want to explain, but maybe you can explain. There is a fair perception that, as the National Security Coordinator, Rice did little coordinating between -- say -- Defense and State and the CIA, which spent quite a lot of the last four years warring with each other, but had a very tight personal relationship with Bush, such that daylight seldom shines between their respective positions.

It is not calling her a parrot that's racist, though I think that is factually wrong. But at least one of the cartoons I saw was racist (depiction of big lips, etc.). What I am more concerned with is the uncle tom/double standard that seems to accompany nearly every black republican or conservative. In a way, I think the treatment of Condi is a good thing (i.e., focus on past performance, not race/gender), but I don't thing it would have been the same if Bush was a DEM. I also don't think Bush gets credit for the appointments he's made BECAUSE he is a GOP and it doesn't fit the story line.

I heard a good line by my girl Ann last night. While the closest black/female to Bush is Condi, the closest black/female to Clinton was Betty Curry.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Well, it's a lesser of two evils, isn't it? I mean Bush at his worst didn't spend as much as what Kerry promised to spend.

Kerry wanted to restore some of the taxes that Bush cut. He certainly would not have pushed for an overhaul of the tax code as Bush is pushing for. (Quick show of hands -- does anyone believe that this will be 'revenue-neutral'? This is another example of Bush clashing with basic math -- you cannot make the tax code flatter, reward saving more, not increase taxes on the poor and middle class, and still keep it revenue neutral.)

And Kerry's plans for spending would not have gotten anywhere with a Repub Congress. Yes, gridlock is a sad substitute for fiscal responsibility. But given the options, and given the fiscal results of the past four years of complete Repub control....

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I heard a good line by my girl Ann last night. While the closest black/female to Bush is Condi, the closest black/female to Clinton was Betty Curry.

So the Reigning Diva of the Hysterical Right (or was that the other way around?) thinks we should apply quotas to the Cabinet?

[Hank Chinaski]

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Y'know, this has had me thinking.

You've repeatedly crowed in favor of the Bush tax cuts.

Despite promising us your deficit-cutting package, you have yet to identify a single spending initiative with which you disagree.

You have advocated for privatizing Social Security, which would immediately increase the (reported) deficit by several hundred billion dollars, I believe, because excess revenues from Social Security would no longer be available for off-the-books borrowing. The privatization plans would also likely boost the deficit by another few trillion over the next ten years because of the need to fund retirees' benefits now without the revenues from Social Security taxes.

That's a pretty big "almost." And I question whether you are really so hostile to the drunken sailors as you'd like to believe.

I disagreed with every increase in spending that was made during the last 4 years, other than military/WOT spending. That includes all yearly increases. I can't fathom why, in a time of basically no inflation, spending needs to increase year over year.

From what I've read on SS, your numbers are accurate, but you leave out that the cost of not doing anything is 5 times higher. I think the specifics are worth debating, but that SOMETHING has to be done.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Well, it's a lesser of two evils, isn't it? I mean Bush at his worst didn't spend as much as what Kerry promised to spend.

No and no. Bush promised more spending, and in any event a Kerry Administration would have been constrained by a GOP Congress in a way that Bush has not been. Or something like that. Whether Republican obstructionism would have been a cover for budget discipline, or vice versa, those of us who like checks and balances would have been happier with divided government.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
So the Reigning Diva of the Hysterical Right (or was that the other way around?) thinks we should apply quotas to the Cabinet?

No, it was more a rant about the DEMs being hypocrits, the fallacy of the "GOP = Racist" stigma that the DEMs are happy to fan, and the GOP, or at least Bush, not getting credit where its due.