State of the Union Address

[license2ill]

Originally Posted by poulsen

Yeah, he's from California. That should explain it.

You're 19 and from Houston...stfu Skippy.

[license2ill]

Originally Posted by timd99

If some people were as childish as "some" liberals,they could have elected to wear a T-shirt that said "keep your dick in your pants Clinton" at his State of the Union Adress.
Anyone who is intelllectually honest, would be outraged at such an action, but then, that would make them conservative.

What?

[eye speed]

Originally Posted by BusaDave

You left out the idea of holding their feet to the fire for having squandered the trust fund to begin with.

Or how about once and for all either paying taxes to cover expenditures and pay off the national debt or make them stop spending.

What is the annual interest on the national debt in comparison to the payout of Social Security? Perhaps I will do a little research on that.

Meanwhile, "too f'ing bad" is not an acceptable solution,and yes, I do vote. You want to avoid paying me the promised benefit? Then come up with a fair compensation plan that refunds my money now so I can manage it as part of my retirement. If you presume I'm going to live long enough to cash out more than I paid in, then it's a net gain.

Dave, interest on the debt for FY05 was 352 billion. SSI was a little over 500billion. For FY06, $432 and $520, respectively.

[jim schmidt]

I find it facinating how some will claim "it's my money" with regard to taxes and consider this an alien idea when it comes to Social Security. It's an annuity program. The insurer (using the business analogy) is required to maintain significant reserves to cover obligations. It doesn't have the option of reneging.

The issue here is really whether the government would have to cough up some cash to cover a temporary shortfall in revenues. But its our money right? So why is sucking it up such a crazy idea? Could it be that the expenditure threatens to reduce spending on corporate welfare? Or could it be that Republicans don't believe in anything that permits the workforce to sit back on the porch. Perhaps the idea is to keep the inventory item "workers" large and hungry? Hmmm....

[BusaDave]

Originally Posted by eye speed

Dave, interest on the debt for FY05 was 352 billion. SSI was a little over 500billion. For FY06, $432 and $520, respectively.

Thanks! Not quite enough to cover the entire cost, but I think worth mentioning.

So, where's all the outrage about the debt?

[DCMETRO1]

Originally Posted by Keith_J

[nelson]Ha-ha[/nelson] Cindy Sheehan had an invite from her Congresscritter...Cindy knew the rules and decorum of the Chamber, yet she was compelled to display a banner and a politically motivated shirt. She was promptly arrested for this misdimeanor.

Just when I think she has hit rock bottom, she whips out a pick-axe and starts digging.

what an idiot....

[Redstar11]

Originally Posted by poulsen

Yeah, he's from California. That should explain it.

It certainly explains alot.

[bush]

Originally Posted by DCMETRO1

what an idiot....

Of course, instead of addressing the issue, you attack the most whackjob leftist on the face of the planet and associate her with anybody else who's not screaming "Praise Jesus and pass the ammunition!"

Why do you even post?

The whole address seemed like more spending promises to keep everybody happy, when the money obviously doesn't exist. I didn't catch the entire thing, but I know that what I did hear didn't really change my opinion of the direction we are heading.

Like when my girlfriend's parents used to tell her she was getting a horse for christmas, but it was still in the mail. Don't expect any of it anytime soon.

[delta425]

Well, here are some truths about the infamous Ms. Sheehan.

We all thought Cindy Sheehan (whose son was killed in Iraq) was a very
distraught mother who had loved and nurtured her son all threw life and
then lost him in the war,when actually she basically deserted him when
he was a child. It's funny, I had been wondering where her husband (#2)
was while all of this was going on. I guess now we know, he's busy getting a divorce from her. What is most interesting is that the press gives coverage about Cindy
Sheehan and a bunch of people who are protesting with Cindy so much air time without discussing Cindy's background. This is a case of more press bias.
It has been pointed out on just a couple of media outlets that Cindy
divorced her first husband and left her son with him to be raised while
she became a political activist for the Democratic Party. She had very
little to do with her son in his growing years. She remarried. The 1st husband remarried The original father raised the son with his new wife. They miss their son and mourn the loss of his life. They have stated that they are very proud of their son and that they agree with the stance of America in Iraq and on terror. They
said that their son was eager to serve and to go fight the terrorists in
Iraq. He volunteered. How many news stations carried their interview? Not many.
So the son dies in Iraq and then Cindy shows up to make a stink.
She gets an audience with Bush. That was not enough. She goes to
Crawford and demands another audience.How many news stations carry the ongoing saga of Cindy? Practically all of them. Cindy didn't care about her son. She let
another woman raise him. Cindy doesn't care about the other soldiers and Marines in
Iraq. Cindy cares about her liberal, feminist agenda and about using
the death of her son to lobby against Republicans and Bush.
And the press is helping her. Why?
Then a few days ago, Cindy's 2nd husband filed for a divorce from
Cindy. She sounds like a feminist opportunist who did not have the sense of
responsibility to even raise her own son. It looks like her 2nd husband
is fed up with her. We middle Americans should be fed up with Cindy also. We should be fed up with the press. They try to manipulate us into their "group think"
and into the responses that they want on their polls.
We are free because our brave and honorable military keeps us free. Semper Fi!

[DCMETRO1]

Originally Posted by bush

Why do you even post?
.

to piss you off

[bush]

Originally Posted by DCMETRO1

to piss you off

Wouldn't that constitute trolling?

We all thought Cindy Sheehan (whose son was killed in Iraq) was a very
distraught mother who had loved and nurtured her son all threw life and
then lost him in the war,when actually she basically deserted him when
he was a child. It's funny, I had been wondering where her husband (#2)
was while all of this was going on. I guess now we know, he's busy getting a divorce from her. What is most interesting is that the press gives coverage about Cindy
Sheehan and a bunch of people who are protesting with Cindy so much air time without discussing Cindy's background. This is a case of more press bias.
It has been pointed out on just a couple of media outlets that Cindy
divorced her first husband and left her son with him to be raised while
she became a political activist for the Democratic Party. She had very
little to do with her son in his growing years. She remarried. The 1st husband remarried The original father raised the son with his new wife. They miss their son and mourn the loss of his life. They have stated that they are very proud of their son and that they agree with the stance of America in Iraq and on terror. They
said that their son was eager to serve and to go fight the terrorists in
Iraq. He volunteered. How many news stations carried their interview? Not many.
So the son dies in Iraq and then Cindy shows up to make a stink.
She gets an audience with Bush. That was not enough. She goes to
Crawford and demands another audience.How many news stations carry the ongoing saga of Cindy? Practically all of them. Cindy didn't care about her son. She let
another woman raise him. Cindy doesn't care about the other soldiers and Marines in
Iraq. Cindy cares about her liberal, feminist agenda and about using
the death of her son to lobby against Republicans and Bush.
And the press is helping her. Why?
Then a few days ago, Cindy's 2nd husband filed for a divorce from
Cindy. She sounds like a feminist opportunist who did not have the sense of
responsibility to even raise her own son. It looks like her 2nd husband
is fed up with her. We middle Americans should be fed up with Cindy also. We should be fed up with the press. They try to manipulate us into their "group think"
and into the responses that they want on their polls.
We are free because our brave and honorable military keeps us free. Semper Fi!

I'll ignore the press comments, because that's another issue entirely. There's right AND left, so both sides are trying to manipulate the public.

Regardless of her background, Sheehan taking a stand for her beliefs. She may be going about it in a slightly crazy manner, but she's succeeding in her goal of letting the public know that not everybody agrees with the war.

Personally, I don't care about her prior divorces or what the other half of the family thinks about the war. I don't see any difference in who raised the son. That's irrelevant. What matters to me is that she's speaking out instead of falling into line like so many so-called "Americans". The whole argument trying to discredit her seems grounded in manipulation, just like your press example.

But let's make one thing clear - she's not speaking on my behalf. I have my own way of disagreeing with authority, and crashing the state of the union address isn't it.

[BusaDave]

Originally Posted by bush

The whole argument trying to discredit her seems grounded in manipulation, just like your press example.

I was thinking the same thing but ultimately decided not to belabor the point.

But let's make one thing clear - she's not speaking on my behalf. I have my own way of disagreeing with authority, and crashing the state of the union address isn't it.

Likewise!

[Geowitz]

Originally Posted by bush

Wouldn't that constitute trolling?



I'll ignore the press comments, because that's another issue entirely. There's right AND left, so both sides are trying to manipulate the public.

Regardless of her background, Sheehan taking a stand for her beliefs. She may be going about it in a slightly crazy manner, but she's succeeding in her goal of letting the public know that not everybody agrees with the war.

Personally, I don't care about her prior divorces or what the other half of the family thinks about the war. I don't see any difference in who raised the son. That's irrelevant. What matters to me is that she's speaking out instead of falling into line like so many so-called "Americans". The whole argument trying to discredit her seems grounded in manipulation, just like your press example.

But let's make one thing clear - she's not speaking on my behalf. I have my own way of disagreeing with authority, and crashing the state of the union address isn't it.

So because I believe that the Iraq war was the right thing to do I am simply falling in line behind manipulation? I can't think this way because I actually do think it's the right thing to do? You seem to think that anyone behind this war is simply "falling into line" and you are so noble and patriotic for opposing it. Sounds to me like you are willing to oppose ANYTHING just because you don't want to "fall in line" whether it be right or not. More of the same liberal faux intellectual superiority.

[BusaDave]

Originally Posted by Geowitz

Sounds to me like you are willing to oppose ANYTHING just because you don't want to "fall in line" whether it be right or not. More of the same liberal faux intellectual superiority.

I'm not sure where you drew this conclusion, except that it facilitated a shot at "liberal faux intellectual superiority". Did you happen to read the preceding post where the "group think" issue was originally mentioned? Any comments on that beyond the fact that you agree with it?