President Bush are the best speaker ever.

How he speaks is not that important, it's just something for us to smile at. I'm more worried about what he says. He seems to be leaning more and more towards the right wing conservative Christian views. You know, the ones that want no rights for minorities, guns in every home, abortion forbidden unless the mothers life is at risk, more death penalty, prayer in school, want to spend millions on telling people to abstain from sex, stop funding of programs that give abortion advice (most safe sex organizations), and so on. The kind of views expressed by Attorney General John Ashcroft and loons like Bob Enyart (I listen to his radio show as comedy ).

Little

I prefer him over Clinton personaly (just to start more flamage, bwahahaha!).

Its funny how Kentucky *can* be considered "Southern" yet if you go a couple feet up more into Ohio you're imediately Northern. I think its all about the attitude of the state that makes it Southern. and thats pronounced KenTUCKie or Kentuka. And just to see if I can insult all 50 states...

"What did Ohio do when Kentucky threw grenades over the river?"

"Took the pins out and threw them back."



Oddly enough my grandpa was born and raised in Kentucky.

Fun Fact: "studies" show most babies born out of wedlock aren't so much born to teen mothers anymore and teen pregnancy is actualy on a down turn.

Fun Fact: Oz can't speel.

Too bad McCain didn't beat out Bush for the nomination. But, the Republicans wanted a president they could easily control.

Yes, Zana is correct. Those of us in Texas are neither Southerners or Westerners. We're Texans.

"I have said that Texas is a state of mind, but I think it is more than that. It is a mystique closely approximating a religion. And this is true to the extent that people either passionately love Texas or passionately hate it and, as in other religions, few people dare to inspect it for fear of losing their bearings in mystery or paradox. But I think there will be little quarrel with my feeling that Texas is one thing. For all its enormous range of space, climate, and physical appearance, and for all the internal squabbles, contentions, and strivings, Texas has a tight cohesiveness perhaps stronger than any other section of America. Rich, poor, Panhandle, Gulf, city, country, Texas is the obsession, the proper study and the passionate possession of all Texans."
- John Steinbeck, 1962

Hijacking aside, I agree with Zana.

I've been picking on you kinda Garoad and I should say I"m sorry . But I see what you're saying -- the press probably really does blow things out of proportion on his mis-speak and his, um, pretzel problems. But the press does this to every president nowadays -- all sides of the press -- liberal and conservative and everything in between. I don't really believe there is such as thing as journalistic objectivity. I guess it comes from deconstructionism, but in a post-modern world, who can honestly say there is such a thing as true objectivity? How do we remove the person writing the text from the text itself, bla bla blah. Yes I do believe that. But . . .

I guess for me I get so annoyed at his butchering of language not because he's Texan or because he's Republican. But because the press gives me leave to be annoyed, they help me hate him by focusing on things like that and honestly, I don't want to like him. Why? I guess because it feels a litle comupence -- Clinton was totally harranged. I don't know if Clinton's improprieties were any worse than Dubya's use of questionable intelligence to send us into Iraq or his connections with Enron (which go way back in his family) or even his frighteningly weird economic policies . . .it doesn't matter. But it seems to me, when I really look at the big picture, getting us into war for shady reasons or having interesting close connections with the people responsible for the biggest corporate scandal in recent U.S. history . . .that scares me more than a little *junkage* showing in a back hall of the white house. And considering the way the press attacked Clinton's every move, it seems like a balancing of the world for them to do the same thing to Dubya.

No it's not fair or objective and yeah, you can pick apart that stance all you want. It's fair game. It's just the most honest reason I can give for why his language gaffs really burn my hide .

Zana

You could have just left off the part after the word 'forbidden'.

Many conservative agendas won't grant the right to an abortion even if your life is in danger. They're afraid doctors who are still allowed to perform abortions in this special case will use it as a loophole, and the law will be moot.

To them, there's absolutely no room for compromise, and no chance for anything that might have a loophole. You don't have the right genes and your body can't handle giving birth? Too bad--you die. No choice. All in the name of some ancient fictional dogma.

Personally I'd rather have a President who lied about an affair over one who lied about WMD and sent our country to war for profit. But hey, that's just me.

Go to the head of the class, Devlin.

Personally, I think if McCain had got the nomination, he could have actually beat Gore fair and square. He's one of the few prominent Republicans I can respect. He's not a lap dog for the religious right. He's not perfect, but if I had to choose between McCain and Dubya, Dubya would lose.

Apparently, the Republican masses prefer illiterate, coke snorting, lying rich kids over more experienced candidates. Unlike Bush, he wore the uniform, fought, and suffered for years as a POW, as opposed to playing dress-up on a ridiculously costly photo-op. Its a mystery to me why he doesn't go independent like Jeffords.

Clinton did more than just that little "scandal", that was used as the press as a distraction tactic to other worse things he did.

I highly doubt there will ever be a president everyone loves and no one makes fun of or ridicules, if there was, I think we'd be in more trouble.

Mostly everyone in politics has their own agenda and will take any means nessicary to accomplish it. So we're always going to have presidents doing stuff for their own benefit.

Unless I was elected president. Boy would the world be in trouble then.

I found it interesting (though not surprising) to find out that boy genius Bill Clinton did not know how to use a computer. Chelsea tried to get him interested on at least one trip to the Whitehouse, but apparently it didn't take. The archives of his tenure in office will show that he sent a grand total of 2 e-mails during his 8 years, one of them a test message in preparation for the other.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/040126/11/ng1n.html

He also can't type worth a darn, preferring to use a legal pad to jot notes, or better yet, just TALK at the person writing his book (very late) for him. The ghost writer has said that it's hard to get Clinton to take the time and focus on material for the book, but once he gets to talking its hard to get him to stop. I guess revising history isn't as easy as it sounds.

You would think that Al Gore (Inventor of the Internet) would have been a larger influence on him, but he seems a bit bipolar on tech issues himself, dumping his Apple computer for a PC during his term of office, but switching back to MacIntosh after being appointed to the Apple board of directors.

Patrick Leahy, during his 15 minutes or so of being in charge of the Senate infrastructure hired someone who was not familiar, apparently, with standard password security concepts. He made many Democratic documents accessible to anyone on the network with no authentication. Its taken them almost THREE YEARS to figure this out! Now the Dems are accusing the Reps of "spying" on them.

http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/Cartoons/01-25-2004.gif

Back in October I heard the following sequence of events on the local (DC area) news:

# Today a Capitol building was closed for two hours due to an "alert".
# People were "evacuated" from the building, but many people didn't receive the alert.
# The alert was sent to building occupants via FAX!
# The alert included a lookout for a white man of average height carrying a gun.
# It turned out that 2 WOMEN on congressional staff entered the building with Halloween costumes which included a toy gun.

Much fun can be had doing spell checks on presidential speeches. There are lots and lots of screw-up happing in government EVERY DAY which is why some of us are in favor of a LOT LESS government. While I generally act on this by voting Republican, I've voted both Libertarian and Democrat a few times if the right things were said (and were believable).

John Kerry is reported to have said:

"I think we can reduce the size of Washington," Kerry said Jan. 6, 1996. "Get rid of the Energy Department. Get rid of the Agriculture Department, or at least render it three-quarters the size it is today; there are more agriculture bureaucrats than there are farmers in this country."

Having worked at both places I think this is an excellent idea. I wonder if Kerry will repeat such statements during the current election cycle. Dean has already dumped on him for these remarks. I would be interested in the (mostly liberal) frequent posters here to put away your spelling and grammar checkers and indicate what you would think about drastic cutbacks in the size of the Federal Government (we know you'd cut military spending to zero, so no need to comment on that).

I miss Ross Perot, he actually talked issues. I find little of that going on now. Makes me worry about the future of this country.

Zana, I don't think that finding a couple hundred errors out of thousands of speeches given is all that amazing, and don't believe it's in any way a sign of stupidity - though I am reminded of people I know with learning disorders - I'm certain a lot of it is a combination of pure intellectual laziness and reading his notes/teleprompter without glasses. I do a lot of public speaking and let me tell you, you can give the same speech ten times, but if you are the least bit tired or distracted or let your mind wander at all, you can come up with some amazing Freudian slips and malapropisms. At least he's not howling like a mad dog.

Says who? Its obvious you have in mind what us so called liberals think when you really don't know.

My whole family of origin is Republican and I'm the sole Democrat. Interesting thing is, when we all sit down and talk politics we aren't that far apart on the issues.

I believe in fiscal responsibility. Saying we'll pay for things and not raise taxes, or better yet, lower taxes, doesn't work. I don't spend myself into debt at home and I expect my government to do the same thing. You can't pay for any program with air.

Bush expects to add 520 billion deficit in 2004. Thats $150 billion more than 2003.

Military spending in of itself isnt the issue for me. I sure would like to know where it's going tho cause our guys arent properly equipped or supplied at the moment.

So what? George Bush Sr. didn't know what a grocery store upc scanner did. Obviously technological ignorance crosses party lines.

As for cutting military spending down to zero... I fully support a department of DEFENSE... which is not the same as a department of OFFENSE and PREEMPTION!

I imagine other liberals are enjoying saying "I told you so" just as much as I am about the war in Iraq these days

If anyone still thinks the war was about legitimate concerns of imminent danger to the US and not about the far right wing PNAC agenda... well denial ain't just a river in egypt.

Did anyone catch Condaleeza Rice doing the morning talk show rounds the other day? "Saddam was a dangerous man, in the most dangerous region of the world." Funny how the entire rationale for the war has changed now... after the fact!

Maybe Bush and company aren't liars... maybe they're just f'ing idiots. Either way, good riddance come November.

(edited to fix spelling and remove profanity )

Arg, here we go with that discussion again, but back to the original "topic" (if there really was one? )



Yes, I think I tried to make that point before this thread got 100 miles long. Oh, pssst...quiet about the Dean freakout speech, we're supposed to be forgetting that since he's acting nice now!

Actually, to be fair, I think the "Dean howl" is somewhat analogous to the "Bush pretzel"; both received more attention than they deserve. But--Dean's "questionable" state of mind (and past) doesn't stop at a "howl".

Actually I based it on what I have heard many many liberals actually say. I realize that not all Liberals think alike. Thats true of Conservatives as well. Which is why, it's probably better to debate issues than have name calling contests.

I think I may be the first Republican in my family. Although I don't cling to the concept of being a Republican. I TEND to vote Republican because Republicans TEND to favor smaller government. I'd love to see the Libertarian party grow to challenge the other two.

When we had the budget surpluses during the Clinton Administration both federal, state, and local governments found new ways to spend it. I think that is a crying shame. We could have come very close to paying off the debt rather than just paying it down a bit. (I don't blame Clinton particularly for this, lots of guilty "parties". I think my property taxes have tripled. I am far worse off as a result of the "boom" that we had.

We should ALL like to know more about where the money is going. I got to see a lot of it wasted first hand, and I still hear about it that way. I got lots o' stories I still haven't told about it.

I'm sorry that we always seem to be on opposite sides on these things because I think you (based on your posts) have at least done your homework on the subjects.

Here is something maybe we can all agree is a good thing:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A1723-2004Jan31?language=printer

Our intelligence gathering, like so many other things, is a mess. Now is as good a time to try and clean it up.

I'm pretty much the same way, Mac. I refuse to declare myself a memeber of any party. I used to lean Republican when they were still the party of fiscal responsibility and smaller government. Now that they've morphed into the christian right "we're on a mission from god" anti-civil rights party I wouldn't touch them with a ten foot pole. I was hoping for McCain last time around though. He seems to be one of the few old school Republicans left in the party. I also find a lot to like in the Libertarian party, but some of their positions I can't agree with... namely their stance on guns.

As for the link you posted... yes, that is most definitely a good thing... but I think they should be probing the executive branch.

I'd like to see the Natural Law party grow to challenge both the Greens and the Democrats. But maybe that's just me.

Yea who leaked that CIA operatives name? Another question swept under the rug.

The President of ANY administration should need to answer up to these types of questions. We went to war over this information. That a little beyond "oops".

To be fair, even though I used to be a constituent of his and typically voted against him - plus I positively hate his wife - John Kerry has long complained about the inneffiency and size of the federal government. I'm not certain that he's not the only candidate with that record, but I certainly hope he's in a position to act on it if he gets elected. I myself left my job with the federal government because I was getting frustrated every single day in just trying to get my staff to come in to work or if they did come in to do any work. Once you're in the bureaucracy, you're set for life.

Hummph, tell the government to hire me for software or web development, I'm bored anyway and I WANT the experience.

Won't come into work? That's so pathetic! Why can't they be fired??? It really pisses me off that some people working for "private" companies can't find work and then you have a@@hol3s like that who just take advantage of their "job". @#$%ers! Everyone knows government is inefficient (one reason why I like the traditional conservative small govt view), but if your experience is widespread, that's sad.

What is that? Republicans keep talking about small government and being conservative but honestly I dont understand.

Here is why I don't get it. As stated I'm from a family of Republicans but no one can really answer this so I'm looking to the Republicans here. I really want an answer, Im not trying to flame or be a smart alec. Explain as a Republican what "Conservative small government" means to you.

Just as a ferinstance, the Department of Agriculture has gotten MUCH larger over the last thirty years, even as the number of farms in the US has declined by about 85% and most basic office tasks have been simplified. They certainly don't have any more jobs to do than they did thirty years ago. There is no excuse for that kind of ineffiency.

I appreciate what you are saying. But the deficit, following party lines is inconsistant with the over spending Democrats are accused of.

I do agree with the point you made btw.

I'm particularly annoyed by Congress voting 50 MILLION to build a rain forest in North Dakota. Who the hell conceived of that pork laden disaster? They could send everyone in North Dakota to Costa Rica to see the real thing for a lot less than that.

OMG! I'm not "a Republican", don't insult me like that!

But that chart shows "deficit", not spending. There's a big difference. Although I'm not saying a chart like that showing annual spending would look different...

Also, although I believe we don't have any inflation now, I'm sure we have since the time that chart started. I'm not sure what kind of effect that would have on the chart, if any, though.

The Reps like to spend money on the military, and military programs cost exponentially more than social programs by nature, so that is partly why the Reps who are supposed to be conservative seem torn between more/less spending.

Edit: 50 million? That's pennies