Anyone who thinks Reagan was a great, or even good, president needs serious help. If taxes were cut, how did revenue skyrocket? The fact is, he tripled the deficit, claiming that deficits don’t matter. We are paying for that now, while at the same time the current moron in the White House is creating even greater deficits. He is doing this while practicing the Reagan voodoo trickle up economics, sending jobs to communist China, ignoring the terrorists who attacked us, encouraging companies to kill off pensions and healthcare, telling companies to hire only immigrants for below minimum wage, forcing his so called religious beliefs on us, and destroying the Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights.
But his supporters say we must give up our rights now because Bush, as president, has the authority to order it. Read the Constitution sometime and show me where it says that.

I’m really happy for you Bukko, that you so love your socialist society. You are absolutely right that most Americans have a deep-seated aversion to socialism, but you are completely wrong (as usual) as to why Americans hate socialism, and the effects of that aversion. Please allow me to educate you.
Most Americans (being at least slightly conservative) resent the hell out of the government confiscating their hard earned money and redistributing it to others as the government sees fit. It just isn’t right for the government to do that. Our Founding Fathers agreed, which is why they didn’t create a socialistic system in the first place. Does that mean that conservatives are stingy old misers who care nothing for their fellow man? No! According to The Generosity Index, put together by the Catalogue for Philanthropy, the top 25 states in the country in charitable generosity were red states that voted for Bush. Go to http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/db/generos ity.php?year=2004 for more info on the data. Nine of the 10 least generous states were liberal states. There isn’t a clearer illustration of the difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives believe that charity is a personal responsibility, and should be carried out individually according to your own free will, and corporately by churches, service organizations, etc. Liberals don’t believe in charity. Judging from Griggsy’s blather about George Soros and charity, liberals don’t even have a firm understanding of what charity is. Liberals believe in Mommy and Daddy government punishing hard working Americans by confiscating large portions of their hard earned wages, and redistributing the bounty among those who have less. That’s socialism, and it’s evil.
Now I know that my use of the word “evil” made you chuckle, because liberals don’t believe in the concept of good and evil (unless they are talking about Pres. Bush, in which case they will make an exception). So let’s forget for a moment that I even said that. Let’s just look at the concept of socialism from the “is it smart policy?” point of view. Liberals like to view themselves as smarter than us wooden-headed conservatives, so socialism must be smarter social policy, right? Well, no. Look at the links I included in my Comment #14993. During the 1970’s, the U.S. came as close as we have ever come to being a socialist country, and the economy was a wreck. Ronald Wilson Reagan, the greatest American President of the 20th Century and one of the greatest leaders in the history of the world, was elected in 1980 and changed everything. Tax rates were slashed, government revenue skyrocketed, jobs were created, Americans in every tax bracket had more money in their pockets, and the blessings of liberty that our Forefathers talked about were secure again. How much intelligence does it take to see which system works best? As I look at all of the facts, I can’t help but wonder why it is that liberals are so intent on subverting all of the foundational principles of our great nation. Are liberals so focused on power that they are willing to sacrifice our national heritage to gain that power? Or are liberals just stupid? Maybe the truth is that liberalism is a cancer of the brain, the heart, and the soul that renders a person unable to comprehend or appreciate reality.

Thanks for the comment, Griggsy. If Hondo doesn’t like you, you must be all right!

Speaking of all that is right, I’ve often wondered at why rightists have this visceral horror of “socialism.” When I look at their blogs, they go all vehement about anything they think is part of the S word. They’ve never lived under a socialist government, but the mere idea of it makes them launch tirades.

Australia is much more socialist than the U.S. And it works! Socialism takes me to work every day. The tram and train system in Melbourne only gets 1/3 of its costs paid by ticket-buyers like me. I like that—keeps the cost of my ride to $26.70 a week. The rest of the cost is paid by those high Australian taxes. People who don’t ride public transit are taxed to pay for something they don’t use! And they don’t have any choice about it—how socialist. Of course, there’s less pollution; the inner-city streets with lots of tram lines have less traffic than the outer-suburb streets with fewer, and poor people can get around town. Viva socialism.

Same with the hospital where I work. Like Europe, Australia has government health care for all, paid for by taxes. The system’s fairly good, comparable to the hospitals I worked at in the American South. Young people who don’t get sick have to pay mandatory taxes for health care they don’t use—how socialistic!—but everybody knows they’ll be cared for if something bad happens. Unfortunately, the Howard government is pushing for private health insurance and hospitals, but that’s another topic.

Since this socialism works here (and in the U.S. too—Medicare is socialised medicine, and I never had any right-wing patients who chose to pay their own hospital bills) I wonder why it’s feared by American fascists. I think it boils down to heritage. And selfishness.

What’s an American archetype? Pioneers like Daniel Boone, who would move further west if he could see his neighbour’s chimney smoke. Americans are raised to think they should want to grab all they can, and bugger thy fellow man. They’re like 4-year-olds who get all snotty if they’re forced to share some of their cake. Not everybody thinks that way, of course, but it’s a part of the American persona that right-wingers hold onto.

In Australia, “mateship” is the mythos. People had to stick together here in a crap land filled with desert and frequent disasters like bush fires. Plus it’s freaking lonely, so distant from the rest of the world. That’s why Aussies like to talk to each other and help out. They tend to be more honest than Americans, too. Socialism works better if everyone isn’t looking for a handout or a ripoff.

I’m not saying Australia is perfect, and it’s a long way from true socialism. But I think it’s only in America, and certain retrograde South American countries, that you find this knee-jerk “I HATE socialism” emotion.

Bukko, I do understand your Aussie custom of “taking the piss.” It means that when I refute your idiotic liberal commentary with facts, logic and reason, you change the subject by saying something completely outrageous and stupid. Your piss is so brilliant!
Griggsy--you should be a fiction writer. It is obviously your strength. Let’s tackle each of your lies one by one.
“Soros is trying to help build democracy.” No he’s not! He is using his money to help get socialist, secular progressive politicians elected to office who will put socialist, secular progressive judges in the federal judiciary. Those judges will, in turn, impose by judicial fiat their socialist, secular progressive agenda upon America. That’s not democracy. That is judicial activism overruling the will of the people.
“That is charity.” No, it isn’t. Charity is defined as something given to help the needy; almsgiving; benevolence or generosity towards others or toward humanity. I see nothing in that definition about political contributions. Understand, Soros has every right to give as much money as he wants to further the political agenda he favors. Just don’t lie and call it charity.
“That is Americanism. What the unwashed call socialism is Americanism--free schools, social security, medicare, medicaid and such.” That particular statement is so unbelievably ignorant, it’s painful! Ms Griggsy, socialism is most certainly not Americanism! Our Founding Fathers created a republic based on a written constitution. That written constitution was intended to limit the federal government’s powers. The Founding Fathers set it up so that the national government could only have those powers delegated to it by the Constitution. All other powers were to be retained by the people and the States. There was no mention in the Constitution AT ALL of free schools or taxpayer-supported entitlement programs! All of that garbage amounts to socialism/income redistribution/modern liberalism. And anybody who doesn’t buy into your socialist worldview is part of the great unwashed? That condescending, liberal arrogance is exactly the reason why liberal Democrats are finding it next to impossible to win big elections. Think about it!
You go on to say that the rich should get screwed on their taxes because it benefits everybody, including them. History says you are wrong! You should read a fascinating article I came across concerning the ideas of Robert Mundell, the Nobel Prize winning economist from Columbia. His ideas formed the basis of “Reagan-omics” during the 1980’s. The article compares the U.S. economy of the 1970’s with the economy of the 80’s and beyond, and how important tax cuts were to the change. Go to http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/99/10/mundell.html. Of course I don’t expect anything in that article, or anything I have said, to make any difference in your thinking. Liberals don’t care one bit about the economy, they just want to take money and property from hard working Americans and redistribute that money and property to Americans who don’t work so hard. The most striking historical example of what I’m talking about comes from the “Peanut Farmer Administration” of the late 70’s. Carter’s “malaise speech” communicated very effectively to America that we would all just have to get used to a terrible economy, stagflation, gas shortages and the like. Hard working Americans who earned more than others would just have to get used to having almost half their earnings confiscated by the government. Link to http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/peopleevents/e_mal aise.html for a very interesting look at that part of the Carter administration.
I have no illusions about changing the fractured perceptions of Griggsy or Bukko. They are too far gone to recognize reality ever again. I do think, however, that other people reading these posts will be able to see for themselves the vast intellectual difference between conservative truth and liberal lies. Here ends today’s lesson.

Soros is trying to help build democracy . That is charity.That is Americanism. What the unwashed call socialism is Americanism- free schools,social security , medicare,medicade and such.The increase revenue comes anyway and is not as much as other post-recessions .Real median income is down .Trickle down is silly.Yes, the rich pay more in taxes and should.They derive enormous benefits from a more prosperous middle and lower class .People who get better minimum wages buy more .And others’ wages rise ,too. There is no fascism in regulation of business and no government owned businessess for the most part. And no black helicopters are taking over ! One looks to the right for humour and one gets it! Now one can absorb conservative views when they can be transformed for liberal ends. Government is our protector ,but one must ever scrutinize it. In the sense of excess spending ,government can be too big.Under Clinton -Gore government was in that sense cut ; under Cheney -Bush , government grows. Bush likes big government and never would veto a big spending bill , but has vetoed a life-affirming one ! By the way , is Sean Hannity ,Bill O’Reilly’s love child with Phyllis Schafly?  Bukko, you are so right about the right!

In Australia, they have a custom called “taking the piss.” It means satirising someone who’s being ridiculous by being even more ridiculous, frequently using their own ridiculousness. Sharp people get it. But there’s no point in fighting a battle of wits with an unarmed man. Hondo, it’s a shame you’re irony-impaired. But then, that’s why you believe what you believe. Your IQ is every bit as high as George Bush’s. That’s why there’s no sense trying for any teachable moments with you, mate.

Bukko, do everybody a favor and crawl back in your hole. You are embarassing yourself and everybody who reads these posts when you talk about Bush being the Antichrist. Consult your physician and see about a change in meds!
Griggsy-Lamberth---- Your most recent post is so completely full of lies and liberal ignorance, it’s painful. Here are the facts:
You say that Bush gives money to the super rich and they do nothing for the economy. Completely wrong. Government revenue was $45 billion higher than forecast from 2003-2005, and the 2006 revenue is already $27 billion higher than forecast. Where is that money going? Anti-poverty (Medicaid, EITC, housing/food/nutrition, etc.) spending has increased by 42% during the Bush administration. Anyone who says that Bush’s tax cuts benefit the rich and not the poor is blind, deaf, and dumb.
You say Bush has ignored the 4th Amendment with FISA. U.S. vs Brown and U.S. vs Butenko say you are wrong. Pres. Bush has done absolutely nothing illegal or unconstitutional while president. He has safeguarded our national security, a fact which persuaded 63 million Americans to give him 4 more years in 2004.
You say that the Bush administration is for “forced pregnancies.” I was truly and sincerely embarrassed for you when I read that. I have 3 kids, so I know how a woman gets pregnant. BELIEVE ME-- GEORGE BUSH HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! If you can supply me with the name of any women he forced to get pregnant, I would love to hear it.
You said that George Soros gives mucho money to charity. That is a lie. George Soros gives virtually nothing to charity. He does contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to radical left wing political organizations in an attempt to force his secular progressive world view upon America and to combat the Bush administration. If you call that charity, you are being dishonest. Besides, all statistics show that liberals give far less to charity than conservatives. In fact, 10 out of the worst 11 states in charitable giving are all liberal states. No surprises there. Liberals don’t believe in charity. They believe in Mommy and Daddy government confiscating money from hard working Americans and giving it to people who don’t work so hard.
You say that liberals are for Americanism. Of all of the ignorant statements I have read from the mental midgets on this site, that one takes the cake. Liberalism is completely dedicated to destroying the America created by our Founding Fathers and replacing it with a Marxist society under the control of secular progressives. Want examples? Here they are:
1. America was founded on the belief that God creates all people equal, and that He gives us certain natural rights (life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness) that government can’t take away from us. Liberalism doesn’t believe in God. Liberalism believes that our rights come from government.
2. America was founded on the belief that a written constitution that said what it meant and meant what it said was the best way to protect those God-given rights. Liberals believe in a “Living Constitution” that means whatever liberals say it means.
3. America was founded on the belief that “because religion, morality and knowledge are necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged.” (Northwest Ordinance). Liberals successfully banished all mention of religion and morality in the public schools.
4. America was founded on the belief that the majority should rule, but that the rights of the minority should also be protected. This would be accomplished by creating a republican form of government that would feature separation of powers and checks and balances between the branches of government. The least powerful of the 3 branches would be the judicial branch, because judges weren’t subject to elections. Liberals believe that secular progressive, activist judges should overide the executive and legislative branches, so that the minority rules the majority. 
We have reached a teachable moment here. Does everyone see how I have used facts to counteract the delusional fantasies of the mentally challenged liberals on this site? Democrats will never win another major election until they divorce themselves from the lunatics that are so plentiful on these left wing blogs.

Bush talks about our money .What he means is that the super rich need money from the government to do what Robert Reich says that they do with - nothing for the economy. They already have yachts and mansions here and there,so they do not need to help the economy.What little rebate is given others is hardly anything whereas child credits help the people who get them a lot .And again , the results under W. are nothing to brag about ! Not the average results from a recovery. Arthur Laffer is no Paul Krugman, who cares for the middle class and the poor with sound advice on the economy , not wishful thinking.W. promised twice as many jobs as have come about.Also with the rise of government at all levels doing more for the common welfare, there is a rise in civil rights.When conservatives talk about snall government , they do not mean one that protects liberties but anarchic capitalism[ although some libertarian conservatives might be for some civil rights ].And so many conservatives fight for government usurpation of liberties . They want W. ‘s disregard of the Fourth Amendment in the case of FISA and they are for forced pregnancies.They favor flag amendment to curtail freedom of expression and marriage amendment to curtail freedom of marriage for all. We liberals are for the common welfare and civil rights- sound government . That is Americanism! We honor sound businessmen such as Warren Buffett, William Gates,jr. and George Soros [ all non - theists] who love paying their taxes and still want to give more to charity!  Liberalism can be sound doctrine . Liberals support Americanism, not selfishness of Spencer -Randism for the middle class and government largesse for the super rich . Anarchic capitalism is what W. favors. H e looks to the history books , not to the polls, he says. His disregard of the second assures historians disregard of him.

Why Hondo, I’m sorry you’re skeptical about the truth. My Democratic cadre, who approves everything I say, thought you were ready for it. You have shown your astounding ability to Prove Facts simply by Repeating Them Over and Over! Some people would think that you were pulling them out of your arse because you don’t cite a single source for anything. Others on this thread might say they stopped responding to you because you are a close-minded gadfly who merely buzzes the Fox News talking points. But we on the liberal side realise what a superior intellect you have.

The question is, are you ready for the truth, son? Do you dare to type “George Bush is the Antichrist” into a search engine and read what comes up? We in the vast leftwing conspiracy know you are a good Christian. We’d hate to see you remain in service to the Great Deceiver. On the other hand, Satan needs an army of willing dupes to carry out his evil plans on Earth. Do as you will mate. We were just trying to save your immortal soul…

Well, there you have it, sports fans. Bukko has revealed himself to be completely insane. George Bush is the AntiChrist? Someone please put Bukko in a nice room with soft walls and keep him away from all sharp objects!
On to Griggsy. Open your eyes to the economic numbers from 2001 to today and you will see your proof that Keynesian policy doesn’t work.
The 2001 tax bill was based largely on Keynesian principles, in that it was built on the premise that government should give tax credits and rebates to increase “purchasing power.” Let’s look one by one at the Keynesian credits in the 2001 legislation.
1. Death tax repeal---if the death tax had been completely and immediately eliminated by the 2001, the positive effect on the economy would have been profound. That’s not what happened. The death tax rate was lowered from 55% to 50%, and it will never go below 45% until 2010, when it drops to zero for one year. We won’t see any real economic benefit until 2011, and that will occur only if the 0% remains permanent.
2. The tax rebate--taxpayers received checks from $300 to $600, with little noticable effect on the economy. Why? One reason is because the rebate wasn’t tied to any economic activity. The other reason is the massive cost of the rebate. Congress approved $116 million in funding for postage, paper, and other costs related to the rebate. Any positive effects of the rebate were sucked up by the government on the other end.
3. Child tax credits--no economic growth, for the same reasons the tax rebate didn’t work.
4. Income tax rate reduction--the reduction was for a whopping 1% in the years 2001-2003, so the initial positive effects didn’t happen until after larger cuts in 2004.
As I’m sure you will recall, the standard economic indicators were pretty anemic during those years.
Fast forward to the 2003 legislation. That bill included such supply side features as a tax reduction on new business investment, a reduction in the double taxation of dividends and capital gains, and a more rapid acceleration of tax rate cuts than had been present in the 2001 legislation. The effect on the economy has been dramatic. All economic indicators are positive and becoming more so. Unemployment is way down, government revenue is way up, the number of jobs created since 2003 is way up, and people have more money in their pockets. My own personal opinion is that it is the tax cuts which are taking some of the sting away from the high gas prices. What I mean by that is that a vast majority of Americans don’t like the high prices, but they are still buying big vehicles, and driving, and not conserving, and are, in general, just pretty accepting of the gas prices.
No clear headed look at the facts concerning Keynesian policy and supply side policy will yield any other opinion than that supply side is a sounder policy that does much more to promote economic growth than does Keynesian policy. I understand, though, why liberals like Keynesian policy so much. It puts the government in charge of our money and it allows the government to reward and to punish all manner of consumer behavior through the doling out of credits and rebates. For liberals, it’s all about the power of Mommy and Daddy government!

Well Hondo, I’ll tell you the fact that liberals don’t usually let rightists know, because the truth would blow their minds. But you have provoked me no end!

I know I’ll get kicked out of the liberal media elite for this, and my ISDN rego will be put the blacklist that liberals use to control the MSM and all Internet traffic. Damn, I’m going to get banned just for revealing that!

But here it goes. You asked for it. One last chance to duck, Mr. Christian Conservative. Don’t scroll down, because I am about to prove to you, with FACTS! what no conservative should know:

George Bush is the Antichrist.

OK. There. I said it. The proof is that he has been sent to Earth by the Devil to align the forces that will cause the Biblical War of Armageddon prophesied in the Book of Revelations. Go read the Bible and you will see. Now I have confirmed my point, using the most independent non-partisan source of all, the Scriptures. I’m sorry that I had to do this to you Hondo, but you left me no choice.

No one has refuted our showing supply-side economics to be a loser. JFK’s Keynsianism is responsible for his good economy, not tax cuts.We for responsible govenment just laugh at the poor apologetics and strawmen of the right wing bunko artists. On Kudlow and CO., Reich and Moore sometimes agree and that is good .Reich knows economics and the folly of supply -side economics.Paul Krugman knows economic folly also and the right cannot stand his sound opinions .One expects more drivel from the right here on supply-side economics!  Supply -side is just more rationalization for Spencer-Randism[mislabeled Social Darwinism]. I no longer respond direcly to right wing kooks and special creationists . I respond so others will know better than accept their drivel!

Bukko, you poor, misinformed soul. Bush’s IQ is between 125 and 130, not 95. Get on Al Gore’s Internet (do you get that in the Outback?) and check the non-partisan, independent sources that confirm that. Why do you keep throwing such demonstrably false nonsense at me? I swear, talking to liberals is so much like talking to my 4 yr old daughter! The only difference is that my daughter will eventually grow up! And don’t give me that blarney about having a “ripper riposte” all ready for me, but “the dog ate your homework” and I’m not worth the effort, and blah, blah, blah. The fact is that I’m a conservative, so I deal in educated facts. You are an uneducated liberal who deals in fantasy. Your fantasy will never hold up against my facts. Here endeth the lesson.

Wow Hondo, you are SO wrong about everything. I had put together a ripper riposte to what you wrote previously, but the computer ate when I posted. I won’t re-write it, because you’re not worth the trouble. However, keep raving on. It’s quite amusing.

P.S. George Bush’s IQ is 95. That is different to the 95th percentile.

OK, everybody, now that I have refuted all of your liberal lies, let’s get back to the premise of Robert Scheer in his column that started this whole thread. He says that Pres. Bush is “incurious”, knows nothing about the outside world, and has no desire to learn. He says that Pres. Bush is a dummy. He says that all of the previous presidents he met were different in that regard. He believes that liberals are infinitely smarter than those neanderthal conservatives. Those are all liberal lies, and here are the hard, cold facts showing why.
First--Pres. Bush has a BA from Yale and an MBA from Harvard Business School. His IQ is in the 95th percentile. How smart does a guy have to be?
Second--Pres. Bush is the first president in recent memory who didn’t completely “clean house” after becoming president in terms of political appointments. He left a bunch of Clinton appointees (too many, for my taste) in their positions so that he would “benefit” from diverse opinions. A lot of good that did him!
Third--he made his own political appointments and included people as diverse as Colin Powell, Tommy Thompson, Donald Rumsfeld, and Christie Whitman. According to USA Today, Pres. Bush matched Clinton in appointing women and people of color to the Cabinet, and surpassed Clinton in putting together a diverse “inner circle” at the White House. Bush wanted both sides of the issue presented to him. This was so different from Clinton, who surrounded himself with people like Janet Reno, Robert Reich, Madeleine Albright, Donna Shalala, Jocelyn Elders, George Stephanopolis, and wife Hillary. That represents about as much diversity as the Kremlin!
How smart are liberals? Intellectual Jimmy Carter almost single-handedly destroyed the U.S. as we know it. Intellectual Al Gore keeps chirping about bogus global warming predictions that most reputable scientists dismiss as a myth. John Kerry is so smart that he told lies about his service record that were contradicted by public military records. Bill Clinton was so smart, he signed a sexual harrassment bill into law, and then promptly violated it by doing an intern who was half his age right there in the Oval Office. Then he lied about it and thought nobody would catch his lie. What a moron!
How smart is Ted Kennedy? He drowned a girl, and initiated a coverup that wouldn’t have lasted 30 seconds on CSI or Law and Order. His son, Patrick? How smart does a guy have to be to come up with a better excuse for his drunk driving accident?
How about the tremendous brain power that went into putting together the liberal platform:
1. Higher taxes won’t hurt the economy.
2. Racial quotas will help racial harmony.
3. Cutting the funding for military and intelligence programs will keep America safer.
4. If we cut-and-run in Iraq, the Islamofacists will love us so much they will never bother us again.
5. Murdering babies, 35% of which are black babies, is a good thing.
Please help me understand. Where is there any evidence of one, single intelligent thought in any liberal alive on the planet today? And, why shouldn’t we thank God for a President as smart and resolute as George Bush?

I have refuted each and every lie you have spoken with cold, hard facts to back them up. You have said there were no WMD. I proved that to be a lie. You said that the economy was in the toilet. I proved that to be a lie. Then you changed the subject (a time honored liberal tradition) and said, well, it was better under Clinton. That’s true, but not because of anything Clinton did. The Republican Revolution spearheaded by Newt Gingrich brought fiscal sanity to the Congress by controlling the run away spending that had been so common in a Democrat Congress. Clinton did everything he could to derail the Republican budget, but, thank God, was unsuccessful. The Republican controls on spending brought the budget under control and helped the economy. The economy today, as good as it is, would be even better if there weren’t so many liberals in the GOP ranks. And this is after the devastating effects of 9/11, Katrina, the massive increases in the defense budget, and the Clinton recession inherited by Bush. For the economy to be so robust today is nothing short of a miracle, and it is a direct result of the Bush tax cuts.
You have stated that conservatives are dumber than liberals, and I have shown you that, in fact, conservatives are better educated than liberals and that George Bush is demonstrably smarter than John Kerry.
Griggsy waxed poetic about The Great Society, but the numbers show that this massive, wrongheaded liberal program was a complete failure and a total waste of taxpayer money. Educational results worsened, the number of people on welfare increased, the number of families who passed welfare dependence down from generation to generation increased, all while taxes were going up and the economy went into the toilet. Griggsy says that conservatives don’t care about poor people. It was due to conservative leadership that the welfare roles were reduced so dramatically during the 90’s, even as the Sex Offender-In-Chief fought against it. Besides, how compassionate is it for a bunch of bureaucrats to confiscate other people’s money and give it to the poor? That’s what liberals do--it’s called “socialism”. Conservatives prefer to voluntarily dig into their own pockets to help the poor, a concept completely foreign to liberals. Check the statistics on charitable giving, state-by-state. Liberal states aren’t even on the same page as the conservative states, so don’t hand me that pile of manure about liberals being so “caring” and “compassionate”. It’s another liberal lie.
How in the world can liberals be so blind to the truth? Are you truly that ignorant, or are you intentionally trying to subvert the founding principles of this nation?

Hondo is still selective and has not answered our points .Clinton had more impressive numbers. Fewer are buying Bush’s cheap rhetoric. The money is ours for roads , social security, etc,, not just in our pockets. Our money is individual and collective . Bushies favor the former at the expense of the latter, our expense.Spencer -Randism is nuts.

Right you are, VietVet, about ignoring the ignoramuses. I flip-flop between wanting to let them flap their gums fruitlessly and challenging them. Trouble with doing nothing is that then they think they’ve won; that no one can stand up to them. So I like to debate once, then try to get under their skin with taunts if they come back with the SSDD. I keep hoping to find a righty who makes sense, but aside from some servicemen who have intelligent things to say about military matters, I haven’t found any who could teach me anything.

Bukko--You raised some important questions, so I’ll address them. First, as to liberals being smarter than conservatives. That’s a statement that has been proven false. Look at the SAT scores state by state. Of the top 25 states, only 6 are blue states that voted for Kerry. Six of the 10 worst scores belong to Kerry states. Also, although Robert Scheer’s column suggests that Pres. Bush isn’t very smart, the facts say otherwise. Bush’s college grades were the same as John Kerry’s, and Bush has a slightly higher IQ. As I have stated before, hard, cold facts trump liberal lies every time.
All of you harp about how bad the economy is. The hard, cold facts say you’re wrong. Black ownership of business is up, unemployment is down, the average American has more money in their pockets, and it is due to the Bush tax cuts. The deficit is down as well, although it would be even lower if the GOP didn’t have so many liberals in their ranks who so love to spend other people’s money. The Laffer Curve proved true again. Of course you don’t want to hear that; you’re liberals and facts/logic/reason make you angry.
Do I think any of this will change any of your minds? No, I don’t. I’m a conservative, and the cold, hard facts show me that committed liberals never change their tune, no matter how many times they’re proven wrong. I will continue to speak the truth, however, because I’m tired of my fellow conservatives being too bashful to stand up against liberal lies. Ignore me or respond to me, I don’t care.

Vietnam Vet, will do ! @ another place I finally gave up .The other person was just nuts.

Any follow up on supply-side failures? While H e supports supply-side , Bruce Bartlett insists that Cheney- Bush is a big spending maladministration and he is certainly right.Clinton had spending cuts . Remember that .Go Hillary Diane, go!

Bukko, your statement about faith is right and certainly applies to the errantists/evolutionist creationists also.  As far as intellignce ,on the fill in the blank IQ tests I rate 150 verbal [120]overall,but on other tests just average .  A compassionalte conservative is someone finding a famlily eating grass in a poor pasture and letting then eat grass in a nice pasture! We have government help ,because private does not suffice .In tandem , liberty has grown with the federal and state governments taking on their responsibilities .Indeed, social conservatives decry both . Liberals have indeed built a New Deal with our Great Society of freedom and prosperity .  And furthermore, contrary to conservatives , social affairs have bettered themselves - no slavery ,women have more rights, workers , too and the list goes on . Crime is down from record highs . People have alway lamented social affairs as deteriorating . What Gilderdash [ George Gilder] !  Onward rationalism and liberalism !

Reference: Hondo and his posts

Folks, the best thing do do with this nut is just to ignore her/him/it, whichever the case be. All that happens is when that person posts comments with all kinds of BS and is shot down, it is followed by a similar post with just more BS. Never addressing the issues shot down on, just conveniently ignoring them! You cannot reason with folks like that, so I suggest no one even responds to him again, then he/she/it will troll off to another site.

Hondo,you must have missed where above I showed that the tax cuts had no effect on new jobs and matters are not half as good as were under Dr.Clinton.Tax revenues are what one expects without a tax decrease . While jobs as a whole are 4+% , they are half as much as were created under Clinton and not enough to keep up with matters.The defcit was artificially stated to be higher than expected and will rise substancially . The debt has risen by trillions .If we were a third world economy ,the IMF would hold us irresponsible and put us under a strict regimen . One uses selective statistics to uphold the Laffer curve .Do not forget the huge tax increase under Reagan-Dole and Reagan’s subsequent tax increases .Government grew under Press. Reagan , Bush I and Bush II and decreased under Clinton. The record is clear : the curve is a failure . It was Keynsian economics that was responsible for the financial success under Pres. Kennedy, not the tax cuts. And others can address the effects of 9/11 on the deficit. I miss the competent stewardship of Benson ,Rubin , Summers and Sperling! It looks as though we Democrats will retake the House and thus better to fight fiscal irresponsibility .

Interesting, a troll who comes back. Usually they just toss some mud and leave.

What I find fascinating is what sorts of misinformation people believe. “Hondo” apparently thinks that the federal budget deficit is down. The latest news story I read was that the federal budget deficit was projected to be $296 billion this fiscal year. And that’s if you believe the figures, which can lie if they’re calculated by liars with political interests.

That DEFICIT is bigger than the entire GDP of many countries. Even if the deficit figure is true, it comes on top of other staggering deficits from the past five Bush years. His short reign has run up more debt than the total of every president in the 230 years of American history. That’s more than Reagan PLUS the other 41 presidents combined!

Yet people like Hondo believe that Bush is REDUCING the deficit. That’s completely false, yet they cling to the notion. Just like they think there was a Clinton “recession.” I do recall some bad business times at the start of Clinton’s term, a hangover from Bush the First. When Clinton left office and Bush the Second stole the election, the federal budget had a SURPLUS. The economy was good. Yet rightists believe it was terrible under Clinton.

There’s really no point in arguing with such people. Have you ever tried? They keep changing the topic when you back them into a factual corner, or repeat nostrums ("the Laughable Curve is 100% proven") or do the equivalent of putting their fingers into their ears and going “La-la-la-la I can’t HEAR you.” Their personal identity is tied up with thinking that everything Bush does is right.

I think it comes from being a Christian. When you’re really religious, your entire world is based on FAITH, not evidence. No insult meant to religious people who are also part of the reality-based community. But the hard-cores don’t care what the facts are. They live in the world of miracles. If their leader said a talking snake gave an apple to a couple of naked people in a garden, well there was actually a flesh ‘n’ blood reptile that could SPEAK! You coulda heard it with your own ears if you were there!

What I’m really curious about, Hondo, is why it’s so important for you to drop in on liberal sites? You advise other people to stay away from them. Do you think you’ll convert someone? You’d need to be a lot smarter, because liberals are more intelligent than conservatives. That’s why college professors are liberal. Do you get a thrill from coming to the forbidden zone of those wicked liberals? Does it get you excited to know you’re in the company of people you scorn?

I used to live in San Francisco, and it was a well-known phenomenon there for gay-bashers to come to the Castro to taunt homosexuals. They were secretly attracted to gays, but the only way they could allow themselves to be around them was in adversarial ways. They wanted so badly to touch a gay person, but the only way they could do that was with a fist.

I think something like that is going on with Hondo. Better watch out, son. Some of that liberal mindset might start to infect you if you read too much on liberal sites. Better pay no attention to what liberals are saying about the incompetence and corruption of your leaders. Your mind might open, and you’d find out that at heart, you’re a liberal too…

The “Laugh-er”, as you call it Griggsy, is not hogwash. It has been proven time and again to be completely accurate. Perhaps you don’t completely understand what the Laffer Curve says. Most liberals don’t. The Laffer Curve states very simply that if the tax rates are too high, lowering them will raise revenue. This is a very simple theory that has proven 100% accurate every time it has been put to the test. Look at the numbers, if you dare. Government revenue has increased dramatically since the Bush tax cuts went into effect, despite the dire predictions of liberals. Of course, like all dire liberal predictions, these particular liberal predictions never came true. Revenue has increased and the deficit has decreased. Jobs are being created, unemployment is down, and the Clinton recession is but a dim memory. Griggsy--don’t take my word for it. Go online and look for the unbiased reports on the state of the economy (that means to stay away from the liberal blogs!). Liberals may lie, but the numbers don’t.

Poor Hondo, she cannot answer my criticism of the Laffer curve. What faulty diagnosis she makes. She reports that the patient is doing well with her figures,but not as well as it did under Dr. Clinton . Time to change doctors!

Is Bush Criminally Insane? Well, if so that would let him off the hook. A criminally insane person cannot be punished for crimes he commited because, well because the guy is nuts..

I do not believe that Bush is Criminally Insane, but I do think he is a true ass hole (likely mentally retarded) who thinks he can just do what the hell ever he wants to do...just like when he was a young kid & put lit firecrackers up the butts of helpless little frogs because he thought it was fun to see them explode…

And by the way why is everyone so soft on Laura?

Hondo, did you forget to take your medication??  Have you OD’ed on Fox News?  Because you are not living in the real world.  Before you spout off about stuff you know absolutely nothing about, open your eyes. The world is spinning out-of-control, thanks to your president and you still have your blinders on.  Get Real.  By the way, should we survive this episode of Dubya, I suggest that only the stupid people who have supported him should pay for the Iraq war, the deficit, etc.

First of all, WE did not elect this so-called President. He sneaked in under our noses. Dumb old us. And we STILL haven’t learned to never, ever trust “free elections” when the shit hits the fan. We still do it. So what do we have to show for it?

How many now dead in Iraq? I mean US soldiers, but let’s also count Iraqi citizens...no, sorry. I can’t count that high. But I guess that’s the price of “Liberation”. right?

This administration is the worst, the very worst, that we have ever seen. GW talks to God on a daily basis & apparently God has gone quite wacky, too. Between the two of them we’ll be lucky to have a planet left when this nightmare is over.

Reference: Comment #13628 by Hondo on 7/12 at 7:38 pm

This is an add on comment: the link for the Economic Policy Institute was left out during editing. There appears to be a problem with pasting the link, so you can Google for Economic Policy Institute and select the July 7 report for the June information.

The link that is shown, provides additional information on the jobs situation and is also useful.

Sorry about that!

Comment #13628 by Hondo on 7/12 at 7:38 pm

So, there you go again, pulling statistics from a source that is hardly going to show anything negative, since it is under Mr. Bush’s control! Thus, the stats can be easily analyzed and placed in perspective. Let me have you read a summary from the Economic Policy Institute, as of June 2006:

“Summarizing, June’s employment report added yet another month to a trend toward slower job growth that began earlier this year.  The slowdown appears rooted in the same growth-dampening forces found in the overall economy, and in that sense, this cooling is likely to persist.  While wages have accelerated of late, they are only now catching up to recent inflation rates, meaning workers’ purchasing power is up only slightly (and still well below productivity growth).  Moreover, the inherent lags in the employment/wage relationship suggest that, if the current slowdown in job growth continues, wage growth will also slow in coming months.”

The entire report either explains, qualifies, or debunks most of your points from the the Department of Labor source. You can read the entire report here, and I see no point in my addressing each of your points since the article does it quite nicely:
http://www.povertyinamerica.psu.edu/2006/06/

Here are some more points in fact, since you seem to like that term:

· One in four U.S. jobs pays less than a poverty-level income.
· Since 2000, the number of Americans living below the poverty line at any one time has risen steadily. Now, 13 percent—37 million Americans—are officially poor.
· Bush’s tax cuts (extended until 2010) save those earning between $20,000 and $30,000 an average of $10 a year, while those making $1 million are saved $42,700.
· Bush has diverted $750 million to “healthy marriages” by shifting funds from social services, mostly childcare.
· Bush has proposed cutting housing programs for low-income people with disabilities by 50 percent.
· A series of related stats—starting with the news that two out of three new jobs are in the suburbs—shows how the poor are further disadvantaged in the job hunt by lack of public or private transportation

Those points are available from various sites, but you can Google Mother Jones for a discussion.

As for those alleged WMDs you are spewing about, you still refuse to recognize what the authorities are saying: I repeat, the DoD, the weapons inspectors, as well as other authorities have stated that those things you mention were NOT the WMDs they claimed Saddam had. Apparently, you have a problem in reading comprehension, or simply do not want to accept the facts. For your own self respect, you should stop spewing out that claim, is lessens your credibility.

And your long, rambling comment about us not being attacked recently does not prove anything. That is a lame “framing the issue” scare tactic of this administration, without any solid evidence that this administration has actually stopped ANY attacks.

As for being a fine “christian conservative?” Well, I was raised in a place where almost everyone was a christian. I do not believe a one of them, that I knew, would support invading another nation based on trumped up rationale, supported the killing, maiming, and/or crippling of thousands upon thousands, including many of our own, destruction of a country’s infrastructure and it goes on and on. No christians I knew, or know now, would even toy with the idea of supporting those points.

Now you take care, and happy trolling along with the rest of that 30+ percent that STILL believe your man is headed in the right direction. Apparently no amount of evidence is going to change your view, so adios!

I find myself frustrated by the inability to reply directly to a post. Is this not possible, or do I just not understand how it is done here?

Ah, Hondo-person… Isn’t that the name of a character from some old Western movie? Do you see yourself as that, a Christian avenger riding into the liberal paddock (Aussie slang for “pasture") to bring us law and order?

Well it’s worked! The sheer intellectual brilliance of your arguments has gotten me to renounce all the carefully thought-out liberal positions I’ve taken over the years. I SO regret that my wife and I sold our San Francisco house with a 180-degree view of the Pacific Ocean and moved everything we had literally halfway around the world (except for the gold in our Swiss bank box...) I am so despondent that I am going to get a likeness of George Bush tattooed on my bum, and then I’ll kill myself. Yeah, that would be enough to make me commit suicide.

Really, Hondo, do you think that you’re going to get anyone to change their mind? I learned a long time ago that you can’t argue anyone into changing their politics. Just like you can’t convince someone to change their religion. (I believe religious zeal is a form of mental illness, but that’s another thread...) And you can’t harangue anyone into altering their sexual preference, as much as you Xians (snarky neologism I picked up from a Muslim site) might think so.

I could go on about how these alleged 1.85 million jobs are in low-paying categories such as casino workers and restaurant staff, instead of the high-paying manufacturing jobs that Pres. Cheney is letting go overseas. I think those figures are lies, just like the “unemployment rate,” which measures the number of people collecting dole payments. When a person runs out of unemployment bennies and is kicked off the rolls, presto! the unemployment rate has just dropped a bit more. And poor people DO pay taxes. Social Security, income tax deductions from their paychecks, sales taxes, property taxes, petrol taxes…

And what would you call all those men and women in uniform who have been blown up by IEDs? Are they not victims of terrorists? Who was president on Sept. 11, 2001? Was that Bill Clinton? Or was it some other guy who ignored the Aug. 6 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the United States”?

You can save me the usual right-wing rhetoric of “9/11 was Clinton’s fault.” I’ve heard it before. You’re wrong, but you’ll never admit it. And you’re really not worth the time it takes to write this. But I’m at work, and here in the socialist, unionised land of Oz, we get looooong, relaxing lunch breaks. Not like the pressurised hospitals in the U.S. So this is my amusement.

My question again: is your life better or worse since these incompetents took over? Do you have health insurance? Are you paying $3 a gallon? Worried about your job going overseas? Do you feel safe, knowing that half the world hates the U.S. and wants to kill everyone who lives there, and the other half wouldn’t lose much sleep if that was to happen?

Well, I’ve certainly seemed to anger several of you with the facts I shared. From your comments, I can see that most of you are very confused concerning the issues we have been discussing. Please allow me to clear up some of that confusion.
First, several of you criticized the Bush tax cuts, and you pooh-poohed the effect of said tax cuts on the economy. Please look at these numbers from the Dept. of Labor:
--During the last 12 months the economy has created 1.85 million new jobs; over 5 million since the tax cuts went into effect in 2003.
--Unemployment is only 4.6%, far below the averages of the 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s. Also, the average amount of time a person stays unemployed while looking for a new job has decreased in the last year from 9.1 weeks to 7.5 weeks, meaning it’s easier for the unemployed to find work.
--Wages have increased by 3.9% during the last year.
By the way, please get over that old, tired “tax cuts for the rich” baloney. Poor people don’t pay taxes, so it’s impossible to give them a tax cut. The top 1% of wage earners in the U.S. pay 34% of the taxes. The top 50% pay 96%. Unless you just refuse to look at the above numbers, it is impossible to refute the fact that Bush’s tax cuts have benefitted all Americans. Just admit it--liberals want socialistic income redistribution.
Next, several of you got all heated up over my statement that WMD have been found. Let me count the ways:
--1500 gallons of chemicals found in Mosul
--500 tons of yellow cake uranium found at Al Tuwaitha nuclear weapons development facility
--1.8 tons of partially enriched uranium at same facility
--300 tons of radioisotopes, ideal for dirty bombs, found at same facility
--Recent declassified report from the National Ground Intelligence Center shows we have recovered 500 weapons munitions containing degraded mustard and sarin nerve agent. This proves that Saddam lied about having no WMD. It also proves that he had the capability of releasing cancer-causing agents anywhere in the world that he wanted to.
Some of you talked about terror attacks being greatly increased around the world. That’s a fact, but guess what? None of those attacks have been against Americans or U.S. targets. If the rest of the world would unite strongly with us against the Islamofacists, worldwide attacks would decrease. During the 1990’s (that’s Clinton, for those of you scoring at home) 265 Americans died in terrorist attacks around the world, and there were 6 separate attacks on U.S. soil which killed over 200 more people. Our inability to “connect the dots” prior to 9-11 was the direct result of the “virtual wall” erected by the Clinton administration between the CIA and the FBI. Because of the 2000 election, there’s a “new sheriff in town” and there have been zero attacks against us.
A couple of you expressed bewilderment as to why a Christian conservative would invade your liberal domain, so I’ll explain that, too. I am sick and tired of liberals telling lies, damaging our culture, undermining our national security, and providing aid and comfort to our enemies. I have had all I can take of secular progressives trying to subvert the foundational principles of our great republic and force feed your socialist agenda on the rest of us. Al Gore’s Internet (that’s a joke, for those of you who are humor-impaired) gives me the ability to be “in your face” and on the attack against the cockamamie ideas and the horrible deceit that continually flow from the left.

Face it Hondo ,” the Laugh-er “ never will work! It is just hogwash. Tax cuts put more jobs in the private sector and tax increase more in the public sector. Under Clinton a big tax increase did not hinder job creation as you would state - many more jobs under him than under Cheney -Bush . Revenus are less than what one would want and the debt is trillions more thanks to the Laffer curve.  While corporate profits are up [ as a shareholder I am glad] ,wages and salaries just have not grown as well and are under all other recovery periods since WW2. The deficit will again go up soon.And income inequality rests large.  Remember under Pres. Reagan, the Reagan - Dole tax increas in 83is the highest tax increase ever[ allowing for inflation] and Reagan approved of other tax increases .  Hondo , face it Pres. Bush is no Truman . Historians will jump to classifying him as below average !  And even some Republicans are taking to question him on constitutional violations.

Dear Mr. Scheer,

Please don’t waste your time to prepare interview such a man like no-brainer Bush. The better way for you is to send him some “booze” so he can enjoy some times left during his “wonderful” term as of U.S. President. The prestige and value of America are so cheap under his dysnasty.

Dear Hondo

I read your 2nd post and considered the possibility that the first post you alluded to would contain something worthwhile of discussion. so, I scrolled down and read it. I’m sorry, but you are living in a Rush-Hannity-Snow dreamworld where up down is up, where dead is “Saved” and lies are truth. There is nothing more to say to you as you obviously reject reality-based thought in favor of Rove-speak nonsense. Good day to you sir, and best of luck with developing the ability to reason.

Robert, thanks for calling Pres. William Jefferson Clinton a great president! Joe Klein just called him a good president ,but that is good .Klein and John F. Harris do a fine job of showing his strengths and weaknessess in the “The Natural” and “The Survivor ,” respectively .  Robert , you and I disagree about Hillary Diane ,but you are fair and you must be crtical of everyone anyway . If Pres. Clinton is to the right, does that mean that your are far left? Sock it to William O’Reilly of Fox News ! And when possible ,please flail the “ Laugh-er” curve.  We liberals must not destroy each other, but must rightly and justly criticize each other. Klein, Peter Beinart, Elanor Clift and you speak for liberalism . In Britain there is the great Polly Toynbee.  Thanks for Truth Dig.  Thanks for Sam Harris’s Manifesto . I hope you agree with him and me about religion .

Hondo, perhaps no one has bothered to challenge you is, you’ve obviously been drinking the Kool Aid. And Hondo? Where are those WMDs you claim we’ve found? Buried in your backyard perhaps? It must be a secret Mr. Bush has shared only with you.Perhaps, in mentioning their ‘discovery,’ you’ve breached some major security code, because no one else knows about ‘em except you.You ought to be more careful.
And we’ve eliminated a dictator making the world ‘safer,’contrary to what the experts are saying, and we’ve ‘liberated’ a country? A country that has 5 hours (on a good day), of electricity, barely any water, women’s rights no longer exist and, citizens are terrified to go outside after dusk? Sounds good to me too.
What have you been reading? The White House Daily Press Briefing? There are dozens of dictators far worse than Saddam Hussein. Why aren’t we ‘getting rid of them’ while we’re on a campaign of liberation? And if Iraq is so ‘liberated,’as you cliam, I would love for you to book a trip, with your family in tow, and let us know first hand how lovely it is there.
As for the tax issue: Either you’re making over a $1,000,000 a year or, the full impact of the tax cuts haven’t impacted you as yet. I’d also like to know your definition of ‘plunging?’ Heck, if China, from whom Mr. Bush has borrowed heavily to make our deficit look better than it really is, decided to call in its loans to us, we’d be in worse shape than we already are.

Comment #13426 by Hondo on 7/10 at 8:19 pm

Good grief! You wacky liberals need to get over yourselves! Fact--Pres. Bush was smart enough to defy modern liberalism and push through tax cuts which have sent government revenue soaring and the deficit plunging. Fact--Pres. Bush was smart enough to defy the cut-and-run liberals as he stayed the course in Iraq. The result? We have found WMD, we are making sure that they will never be used against us, we have made the world safer by eliminating a murderous dictator and we have liberated a country. Almost without exception, Pres. Bush has been right and you supposedly “smart” liberals have been wrong at every turn. You don’t sound too smart to me!
------------------------------------------------
I don’t know what planet you are living on nor what “public record” you are reading, as you mentioned in your second comment. While it may be true that government revenue is on the rise and there has been some reduction projected in the budget deficit, the deficit was created by Mr. Bush himself! He was handed a budget surplus when he took over from Clinton. You also fail to mention the increase in the national debt to epic proportions under this man. The debt is now approaching 9 trillion, yes with a T, and this man has attributed more than any other president in history. A debt that our grandchildren, great grand children, and even maybe our great, great, grandchildren will be saddled with. An this “smart enough” man you refer to has stayed the course? You damned right, a course that has left over 2500 of our best dead, thousands more wounded or maimed, and killed untold thousands of Iraqis, the majority of who were innocent victims. And, a course that has devastated the country, near wipe out of entire villages, less electricity than under Saddam, no water, no sewage, etc., etc. Yes, that is truly an admirable course. And your asinine comment that we have found those alleged WMDs, you need to wake up and read the news. Even the DoD has denied that, as have many other experts, such as those that were looking for them before the invasion. How you can continue to make such a statement and present it as in the “public record” is astounding. And eliminating a dictator? What a lame assed statement to support your position. Sure he is gone, but what about all those OTHER dictators that DO present more of a threat than Saddam ever did? The US does not have some sort of world mandate to in