molson_golden2002

Was that just Social Security or all programs? I think it was just during Bush's attempt to privative the system that they made that claim, not about medicare and medicade.

This post really makes me angry. I just don't know what to say about something like this

You forgot to mention that the MSM has had a major hand in causing numermous injuries to the Buffalo Sabres here down the stretch. These people have got to be stopped!

Drive down costs with more people retiring, getting older and sicker? Gees, that would be a trick, government or not

You have to read something into my post that isn't there to try and make me look bad. Why? Who does that say more about, you or me?

1) Yes, if you are going to fight a war it probably is best not to have media around because war is just so f--ked up. Americans generally think its like an action film and when they are shown reality, they react in a most unwar like manner. This goes for ignorant leaders who think the same thing. And really, war by its very nature is a sensational story. It's pure violence. As to media never showing the military achiveing its goals I would say they have shown that, and shown it often. I don't watch much TV news but have seen stories of schools getting painted factories opened and such but the real story is the failure. That's just obvious. There are many journalists who have died in Iraq getting stories and that in and by itself is a story, a story of failure. Remember this was suppose to be a free and open society by now. It isn't. No where close. 2) Agreed, the legislature shouldn't have a direct say in the operation of the war, but in the overall decision of if the war/occupation is worth it, they should, though admittadly their options are limited. The Great White Fleet is an excellent example. But there are other example. The Committee on the Conduct of the War during the Civil War very much stuck their noses up Lincoln's butt about all sorts of issues and pushed him in a direction most people would agree with today. The election of November really put Congress into the decison by committee function. Bush wasn't reacting to much of anything and now he has reacted by upping the anty with the Surge. Something most Americans didn't want.

This will have to be paid for somehow http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070221/ts_nm/spending_dc WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. spending on prescription drugs, hospital care and other health services is expected to double to $4.1 trillion over the next decade, up from $2.1 trillion in 2006, a government report released on Wednesday found. Despite relative stability in recent years, nearly 20 cents of every dollar spent in 10 years will go toward health care, National Health Statistics Group economists said in their projections looking at 2006 to 2016. Last year's health spending should make up about 16 cents for every dollar spent, they wrote in the journal Health Affairs. Lead author John Poisal told reporters a major factor was an aging population as the "leading edge of the baby boom generation becomes eligible for Medicare," the nation's insurance program for those age 65 and older. Greater spending for prescription medications is expected to fuel much of the increase, Poisal and his team said, especially amid more aggressive treatment of diabetes, heart issues and conditions affecting the central nervous system. Use of cheaper generic alternatives is also seen leveling off, the group found. Some drugs will be introduced in pill and other forms more easily available at pharmacies rather than injectable versions used only at doctor offices. New therapies to treat cancer and other diseases could also increase prescription drug use, they added.

Huh?

I was being genuine about the grub comment. I know what you meant and thought it was interesting, actually. Just a conversation starter, nothing melicious at all. Sorry to set you off. As to the other points, I do not appologize. I am who I am on here.

Why? Because Iran is so many times weaker and less significant than the Soviet Union was so we can't use diplomacy with them? Both are revolutionary movements fraying from within and living basically off of oil. There are similarities.

HA HA, what does 'Conservative' have to do with Reagan? How were they different on the main points of Conservative ideology? Spending, tax cuts, immigration, military spending, etc....

Its a good analogy. Reagan used the 'Evil Empire' rhetoric, Bush used 'Axis of Evil.' RR used diplomacy and Bush won't.

Sure, what 'Conservative' would want to model his presidency after a 'Conservative' Icon?

You mean, figernails on chalkboard? And are the farmers happy that the grubs froze? Or something

What's wrong with using RR? I know I chose to use RR because W models his presidency after him. So what?

You know, are they saying that? Were not the Russians going to convert the world to Communism too? The Iranians have ties to the rest of the world and can have them with us, too.

Like I said, local people, local hate, not US manufactured at all. Just like in Iraq. Sunnis and Shiites have hated each other for hundreds of years, we didn't create that and I do not see us making the Lion lay down with the lamb and be nice, either.

Because Reagan called the Soviet's the Evil Empire, yet he negotiated with them anyway. There is a place for diplomacy. Like I have said before, the world is getting smaller, technology--destructive technology--is spreading as wealth spreads and we all have to learn to get along or kill each other. I'd rather get along. And you are really smart

Actually me, the majority of the American people, most Democrats and a growing number of Republicans think leaving Iraq sooner rather than later is a good idea. Does that make it a "good" choice? I dunno. I just think it is, as do many others. I see staying as a really stupid idea

Flustered? By that? No Darin, I just answered your stupid post with something silly. And that's all it was worth

How about asking Ronald Reagan? And I like the Lloyd George reference. Too bad I like it because it shows only how totally ignorant you are.

I can read just fine bungee creep. You are putting forward utter nonesense. It wasn't a natural thing at all that Bush pushed the Saddam 9-11 link, it was manufactured by Bush. That was the whole point but you are too stupid and dishonest with yourself to even see that. You may have seen it at natural, but not the majority of the American people who had to be sold this line of bull to accept it.

1) Obviously 2) Yes Mr. let's abolish the Food and Drug Administration, I see your point

As opposed to shoe poop?

I'm so terribly sorry that you can't understand that many groups, movements and classes of people are defined by what they are against. I'm not surprised though. And if you think there is but one ignorant person on this board, me or someone else, then you are the complete moron I have sized you up to be. This board is littered with right wing half-wits, screamers and other other conservative crazies, but they are not liberals, so your partisan blinders hide them from you, I guess.