Paco Posted November 16, 2004 Posted November 16, 2004 So she is Powell's replacement? Christ have we went to stevestojan that bad? 119430[/snapback] You know, I see an awful lot of dialogue here, but got to the end of the thread and realized that absolutely, positively none of it is from the person who started the thread. I don't understand. You can just pop in...make a nebulous comment like "we've gone to s-hit" because he replaced Powell with Rice, and THEN LEAVE???? Hey Ice...who the fug are you? Petrino? Why don't you take a moment away from running the Bills organization to explain exactly WHAT YOU THINK IS WRONG with Bush replacing Powell with Rice. Really. Honestly. Any explanation will do. Any explanation at all. Or are we just supposed to believe that we've gone to s-hit simply because you said so.
GG Posted November 16, 2004 Posted November 16, 2004 Or are we just supposed to believe that we've gone to s-hit simply because you said so. 120678[/snapback] Even Mexicans should know the answer to this question.
Mickey Posted November 16, 2004 Posted November 16, 2004 How about virtually the same number of people not being covered by health insurance despite a program that costs more than the Department of Defense? How about virtually the same poverty rates? How about worsening education results despite ever increasing funding over the years? 120330[/snapback] I am not sure what you mean by "poverty rates" and why that means that this or that program failed. Many such programs enable people to survive poverty. Besides, the measure of success of a program is not, for example, if the percentage of uninsured has remained the same despite the presence of the program, it is whether there would have been more uninsured if there were no such program. We are not counting widgets here. Its like drug abuse. Increased use of drugs lead to an increase in abuse which leads to an increase in funding for treatment centers. Drug abuse would be expected to continue to rise for the same reason it rose to start with. The additional treatment would just slow down the increase. You don't judge the value of the added treatment based on some stat as to the absolute number of drug users, you look at the treatment centers and see if they are helping more people than they did before. The median income for the lowest 5th, in terms of income, of Americans has risen from $10,662 in 1947 to $24,000 in 2001 in inflation adjusted dollars. Of course, during the same period the median income of the wealthiest 5th grew from $54,333 to $164,104. High School Graduation Rates moved from 6% in 1900 to 31% in 1930 to 72.5% in 2001. They actually peaked in the late 1960's and early 1970's which is before cocaine hit the streets big time. The college graduate rate (number per 100 HS grads) has gone from 23% in the 1930's to a high of 49% in 1999. It has dropped for two years in a row and is now 47%. Infant mortality has dropped from 14.7% in the 1920's to only 2.8% in 2001. There are plenty of stats that show some good news regarding the quality of people's lives and the blunting of the effects of poverty. In some cases you could give at least some credit to a government program, in others the applause goes to a vibrant economy. It is not a black and white issue. Not every government program has been an abject failure nor an unqualified success.
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 16, 2004 Posted November 16, 2004 At least 59 million people (or near 53% of voters) don't think his policies are extremist. 119713[/snapback] I stand corrected. 59 million people are extremists. Just because one is an extremist, doesn't mean they have to be in the minority. We live in a whacked out country. Stress and adversity will lead you down that path???
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 16, 2004 Posted November 16, 2004 Absolutely. Just goes to show what a pathetic election it was. 120574[/snapback] Yah... Would have been greater, everybody voting for their own private KRC's? One guy would have won by 100 votes... Can you say faction-nation? That's a lot better...
Alaska Darin Posted November 16, 2004 Posted November 16, 2004 I stand corrected. 59 million people are extremists. Just because one is an extremist, doesn't mean they have to be in the minority. We live in a whacked out country. Stress and adversity will lead you down that path??? 120787[/snapback] Step right up and witness "better posting thru pharmacology."
DC Tom Posted November 16, 2004 Posted November 16, 2004 Yah... Would have been greater, everybody voting for their own private KRC's? One guy would have won by 100 votes... Can you say faction-nation? That's a lot better... 120791[/snapback] What's wrong with you these days? Going from my observation that neither party could provide an even remotely decent candidate to "everyone should write in the nearest independent" is a hell of a stretch. Your posts are usually better than that.
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 16, 2004 Posted November 16, 2004 What's wrong with you these days? Going from my observation that neither party could provide an even remotely decent candidate to "everyone should write in the nearest independent" is a hell of a stretch. Your posts are usually better than that. 120831[/snapback] I guess I am posting on emotion today? The guy I work with asked if I am in a "complaing mood"... Actually, I feel good with a lot of energy. Sometimes, I wonder how anything will change... I know you will disagree but, the american people showed again how they make mistakes and can't leave their problems behind them... They keep on fitting into the same mold. Karl Rove is 100% correct, the american people are deeply conservative. I think my sig line summs it up. And don't get me wrong, in ways, I am deeply conservative... yet, not afraid to take a chance. Have "we" taken a chance at prez... Ever... The biggest one I can think of is Andrew Jackson... ???
DC Tom Posted November 17, 2004 Posted November 17, 2004 I guess I am posting on emotion today? The guy I work with asked if I am in a "complaing mood"... Actually, I feel good with a lot of energy. Sometimes, I wonder how anything will change... I know you will disagree but, the american people showed again how they make mistakes and can't leave their problems behind them... They keep on fitting into the same mold. Karl Rove is 100% correct, the american people are deeply conservative. I think my sig line summs it up. And don't get me wrong, in ways, I am deeply conservative... yet, not afraid to take a chance. Have "we" taken a chance at prez... Ever... The biggest one I can think of is Andrew Jackson... ??? 120847[/snapback] I don't know...I suppose one could argue that electing JFK was taking a chance, young as he was. Other than that...the electorate took a chance electing Taft that we'd have a president that wouldn't fit through the White House's front door, I guess... And Karl Rove is never 100% correct. In this case...the American people aren't deeply conservative, they were forced to choose between deeply conservative and deeply liberal. Moderate America was forced to choose between extremes...and as we keep saying with respect to Islam, extremist elements do not represent the masses...that's why they're called extremists. I don't think the public's deeply conservative...I think they're just conservative enough to not accept a loon like Kerry.
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 17, 2004 Posted November 17, 2004 I don't know...I suppose one could argue that electing JFK was taking a chance, young as he was. Other than that...the electorate took a chance electing Taft that we'd have a president that wouldn't fit through the White House's front door, I guess... And Karl Rove is never 100% correct. In this case...the American people aren't deeply conservative, they were forced to choose between deeply conservative and deeply liberal. Moderate America was forced to choose between extremes...and as we keep saying with respect to Islam, extremist elements do not represent the masses...that's why they're called extremists. I don't think the public's deeply conservative...I think they're just conservative enough to not accept a loon like Kerry. 121013[/snapback] Thank you. On behalf of all America... You just gave reason why America will never change and keep making the same mistakes. All too rational I might add.
DC Tom Posted November 17, 2004 Posted November 17, 2004 Thank you. On behalf of all America... You just gave reason why America will never change and keep making the same mistakes. All too rational I might add. 121037[/snapback] If the question was "How do you effect change in America", I'm willing to accept that the answer was "John Kerry". But change for change's sake isn't necessarily a rational policy. If, on the other hand, the question was "How do you effect sane change in America"...the answer's a little less clear-cut. Frankly, neither party's likely for the forseeable future to be the party of "Change for the better", particularly if they keep catering to the extremes on shallow and stupid issues (stem cell research, gay marriage, etc.)
Recommended Posts