Aphgan Elections
 

Seem to have come off without a huge hitch, relatively speaking,though I understand the opposition party is claiming that there were problems with the voting machinery (sound familar). However, most importantly, millions voted witout any major incident. This is heart-warming news.

I'm Pleased
 

Because the Republican controlled and hostile congress was so eager to raise taxes?

The "we're just too powerful now to control ourselves" argument fails to account for the other Repub presidencies, when the Repubs didn't control congress, and yet the deficits were at -- well, at Repub-presidency levels.

I'm Pleased
 

Because ultimately I think that the president -- at least a strong president -- has more power than you seem to think. Reagan managed to push through spending cuts when he wanted to, and tax increases when he needed to. It wasn't the dem-controlled congress that prevented him from balancing the budget; it was his tax-cutting (until even he -- unlike Bush 2 -- realized that you gotta pay for at least some stuff you want to buy) and his military spending. Those who disagree, please identify all years in which Reagan submitted a balanced budget to congress for approval.

Dems controlled congress, and we had deficits. Repubs control congress, and we have deficits. Repubs control the white house, and we have deficits, regardless of whether it's a dem congress or a repub congress, regardless of whether it's a recession or economically flush times. Dems control the white house..... and there's no more deficit. Draw your own conclusions (mine is that Clinton actually meant the fiscal prudence he preached -- and knew that he had to perform, because otherwise Ross Perot would run again on a platform that was largely about dealing with the deficit).

I don't dispute that "tax-and-spend" is a label that can be applied to Dems, if you are using an extremely broad and general brush. But, as I've said before, that's a hell of a lot better for the country than "borrow-and-spend."

The Last Temptation of a Golddigger
 

It'll be interesting to see what will happen when the GOP is able to find a candidate capable of struggling with insoluable national controversies --- insoluable meaning where the electorate demands one thing and principle demands another. The current best available technology on the GOP side is to have Bush say one thing, and Cheney/Powell/Rumsfeld/Rice say the other, and then assure the base that that they were taken out of context by the liberal media. That this gambit works so effectively on certain people after four years is testament to its flexibility. I think it was target marketed to the hayseed crowd, but it seems to work with equal effectiveness here, which is nice.

The Last Temptation of a Golddigger
 

This strikes me like a John Kerry vote. I think i know what it means- but relying on that is a sucker's game. I'm going to sit back and wait; later you'll explain what you meant.

The Last Temptation of a Golddigger
 

We Dems always go for the hand-wringers and self-reflective types. The only D who regrets nothing about their role in how Iraq went down is Barbara Lee. Meanwhile, Reps nominated a guy who's so stuck on the Decisiveness Factor that he'd probably have to say he was proud to have had the opportunity to execute so many retards whilst governor of the great state of Texas.

What W is indecisive about is revisiting anything that might be seen as a mistake or a close call. So he calls revisiting things a new kind of leadership sin. Whatever. Anyone who votes for W merely because he's "decisive" (and not because of underlying policy agreement with him --- hi, Slave!) is not thinking. "I'm voting for W because he won't turn back from building a base on the moon!"

The Last Temptation of a Golddigger
 

I would hope, and I think the bulk of reps would agree, that Bush's main regret with regard to killing retards in Texas should go to a lack of efficiency. no offense.

Lessons
 

If one is going to run the kids down the mile or two to see the President of The United States (because, really, how often do kids get to see something like that?), and one of one's Lesser Children is currently walking with crutches - nice, shiny, tubular-aluminum crutches - one should warn said Lesser Child ahead of time that pointing out where the President is sitting in his limo is a task best done with something other than said crutch, especially when Secret Service types are nearby.

Interesting times . . . .

I'm Pleased
 

Wrong. Reagan was a pragmatist, far more so than W. He wanted a tax cut but had to get it through the DEM controlled congress, so he struck a deal with Tip. This has been documented everywhere.

I, and I bet every R on this board, would agree, however, that W has no excuse for the size of the budget defs he's run up. It would be understandable to have run up a def for the military spending necessary to fight the war and protect the country, but everything above that is not excusable.

I think Clinton was a convert. Surely you are not suggesting that, absent the 94 takeover and the contract with amercia, that Clinton would have been the def hawk that he was? This notwithstanding, he should get his fair share of credit for not standing in the way. But to say that this was solely a Clinton driven endeavor is just a joke.

InternetS
 

When I heard that, all I could think of was:

"Not 'internet.' InternetS. Plural. President Man bleed on the inside. But you wouldn't know nothing 'bout that because youse a big ketchup-eatin' motherfucker."

Thurgreed(love workin' instead of watchin' football)Marshall

I'm Pleased
 

Bullshit. Clinton's deficit reduction package of his first days in office -- with a Dem majority in both houses -- barely passed, and did so without any Republican support. In fact, the Republicans were pounding him on how his plan would destroy the economy.

Re-read Bob Woodward's "The Agenda."

I'm Pleased
 

It sounds like you've been drinking Cheney's kool-ade again, Bilmore. You can't seriously believe that the US will be taken over by radical islamisicsts, do you? If not (and I think this is the case) then you are laying down the same line of demagogeury that you argued was so absurd it couldn't possibly be what Cheny meant a few weeks back when he said something along the lines of vote for Bush or we're all gonna die.

The Constitution provided that Negroes were less than human; that sentiment is what supported the fact that they could be chattel. Taney's opinion was based essentially on the Fifth Amendment right of a person not to be deprived of his property.

So, yeah. Pretty much.

The Last Temptation of a Golddigger
 

Back in the day, before your judgment got clouded, you too understood nuance. I miss those days.

.... Meanwhile, the books burn.
 

Um, whiff.

I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that my posts like these are the ones that lead you to drop me in the "liberal Democratic whiner just like that dumbass Pete on the street corner in St. Paul" poster category, and it colors your responses accordingly. Ah, well. Live and learn.