It's a fine balance, because if you take that far enough Congress can throttle the President's ability to do his job as Commander-in-Chief. Don't you think that it might be possible to say, "hey, Bush is doing a terrible job with this reconstruction thing. Let's give a bit more guidance?" I thi
I have no idea how someone with the opinions expressed above could fight a war against terrorists First, do you think it's true? Was his statement factually accurate? I think it's hard to deny that those things did happen, and that they are, in fact, violati
Another RNC exaggeration. Not going to watch the ad right now (this computer is on dialup, it would take me a week) but here's my comment on the $87 billion. The $87 billion was made of two parts. $67 billion for troops, and $20 billion for reconstruction. Everyone was in favor of the $67 billion. Everyone knew it would pass in some form. What was at issue were two things. One was the level of Congressional oversight of the $20 billio
Carpetbagger and hypocrite? "I deeply resent the destruction of federalism represented by Hillary Clinton's willingness go into a state she doesn't even live in and pretend to represent people there, so I certainly wouldn't imitate it." --Alan Keyes, March 2000 We'll see if he goes through with it.
If I recall correctly the US spends more on health care than any other country but is ranked only 16th in quality of the health care system. The US spends about 15% of GDP on heath care. Other industrialized nations spend roughly half that. Health care in the US is superb if you're rich, and subpar for
frustration at not getting his articles linked to by the "elite" blogging sites such as Instapundit Do you really think there's any blog on this site that compares in either quality or quantity to the "elite" bloggers? At least for the political stuff (which is all I read on JU), the very best articles-
This is exactly why I like to spend the first week or so agreeing with everything that is even half-way reasonable that somebody new says. Then they decide that I am insightful enough to be worth listening to.
None of the above. My big one would be economic policy, which include thinking about free trade, taxes, deficits, and major programs proposed by the candidates.
Are you taking issue with the specific example chosen? Or the general point that there are "lots" of partisan mouthpieces? I want to know if this is worth my time to debate.
I think you could argue that Bush shouldn't get credit (or perhaps partial credit) for the Department of Homeland Security. It was originally pushed by Democrats and opposed by the White House.
How does the NAACP still maintain a tax exempt status when it is clearly a partisan leftist mouth piece? I was under the impression that they had to be a politically neutral organization to qualify and it is painfully obvious they are NOT. Lots of partisan mouthpieces are. Jerry Falwell's organization i
I think the people in the NAACP really genuinely believe they are working for equality and justice for all. The policies they advocate may not (necessarily!)have that result, but I think Draginol and the NAACP really disagree over tactics and methods, not goals. For example, they believe in racial preferences in education as a way of redressing certain structural inequalities, not because they feel blacks have the right to a free ride, even though thei
Surely you would agree that his campaign rhetoric seemed to indicate a devotion to budget surpluses greater than his devotion to tax cuts or to spending. In other words, fiscal conservatism. If you don't buy that, then I have to ask, what kind of hypothetical quote would convince you? Surpluses don't just "materialize." They require fiscal responsibility. We have no surplus partly due to Bush's spending increases and tax cuts. And granted, par
Has anyone of Al Gore's prominence I don't recall Gore ever comparing Bush to Hitler or whatever you're referring to. The closest I could find is his (one-time?) reference to "digital brownshirts." Which is a poor choice of words to say the least--I don't want to defend it--but it doesn't rise to the l
"I want to take one-half of the surplus and dedicate it to Social Security, one-quarter of the surplus for important projects, and I want to send one-quarter of the surplus back to the people who pay the bills. I want everybody who pays taxes to have their tax rates cut." That was during the first debate. "dedicate it to Social Security" means keeping a surplus, paying down the national
Where is your 15k number coming from?
Clinton was accused of being a murderer. Not just over Vince Foster, but also over things in Arkansas. Google will tell you that. http://www.google.com/search?q=clinton+murder&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8
When did Bush claim to be a fiscal conservative During the 2000 campaign. according to the National Journal Kerry has the most liberal voting record in the Senate </T
I think Kerry's position could be summed up as "invading Iraq without a plan to win the peace was a mistake." I think you can't deny that Bush did not have a plan, or if he did, it was a really bad plan. So I think the presence of allies was not the key point. The presence of allies matters in that it would have helped us win the peace. But if we could have won the peace without them, then that wou
His senate career primarily emphasized investigative work, not legislation. It was a solid career. Not a stellar one, but a successful one. Which is not to say that he had no legislation, but it's not where his passion and energy went.
Most politicians are lawyers, who have been through law school... making them all highly educated, and all at exactly the same level of education. Well over half of presidents were lawyers. Kerry has a law degree. Bush has an MBA which is about equivalent, or maybe slightliy less educated, than a law degree. I think a couple more presidents had master's degrees.
Wait... the Heinz factories serve foreign markets, according to Snopes. What's the remaining problem here? I admit I overquoted, but I tend to try to err in that direction rather than underquoting.
Snopes knows everything http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/heinz.asp Relevant quotes: Although Senator Kerry has been critical of the Bush administration for rewarding "Benedict Arnold CEOs" who move "profits and jobs overseas," the above-quoted attempt to link Kerry (through his wife) with the very outsourcing he decries is flawed in two major ways. First of
I don't think they'd do anything radical with regard to gay marriage. Plenty of Democrats oppose it, especially black Democrats. I think the party really is genuinely divided on it. And a fair amount of the support for gay marriage comes from libertarian Republicans. Anyway, I can't imagine what ultralib action a hypothetical President Kerry could possibly take with regard to gay marriage, with Republicans sure to control at least one branch o
They were clearly presenting the moderate/conservative side of the Democratic party. But Kerry did touch on gay marriage, with his vow not to use the Constitution for political purposes. Everyone (everyone who cares about the proposed amendment, anyway) knew what he was really talking about. There were some other veiled references like that as well.
JoeUser Forums