1. Initial Post
2. Comment
3. Response

That is complete and utter BS. You’ve bought in to the “us against them” “defend W at all cost” mind control BS that this administration has been selling you wrapped up in words like “Patriotic”, “Country”, and “God”. I have never given you any evidence to make the claim that I would’ve gone along with this if Kerry was at the wheel – because the honest to God truth is that I wouldn’t have. Just because you drink from the “us vs. them” kool-aid doesn’t mean you can infer that we all do. It’s bad logic borne out of the idea that you’ve got to “defend” because “they” are “attacking” and trying to “take away” what you hold dear. Its crap and it’s devoid of logic. If George F’in Washington was trying to sell me $hit I’d still know it was $hit and I wouldn’t need anybody to tell me it was or wasn’t.

Just because you don’t agree with W. you have decided to blame all of the country’s problems on him. Not even willing to consider that some of these problems were in place before he got into office and now he is doing the best he can with the hand he was dealt.

I’m not blaming all of the country’s problems on him – again that’s a huge unfounded generalization. I have very specific issues with his foreign policy, but I’m certainly not blaming everything that I think is wrong with the world on him. That would be irrational partisan rhetoric which I am wholly unable to produce because I don’t have a party.

He didn’t inherit tax cuts he created them. We can argue about whether he inherited Iraq or not, but the tax cuts are all his. Read what I’ve said, I’m not trying to blame W for anything. I’m just pointing out how we’re all getting played and I get a kick out of the fact that half of the country not only takes it but defends it. I don’t get it, but hey whatever floats your boat.

Family! Country! God!

Go Team!

I dont agree with more government, in fact I would prefer less government, however, if you removed politicians from the mix and we try to address these issues as citizens then this whole country would disolve or implode. One because A PERSON is smart, but PEOPLE are stupid. You get a crowd of people together and they will follow whichever mofo is yelling the loudest.

Sometimes politicians are the only ones that bring rational thought to the table. Although you are right they are out for themselves for the most part. But so are most people in general. Why do you go to work in the morning…to pay for neccessities in your life. Why did you go to college…to facilatate getting a better job, thus being able to better provide for you and your family. You are out for your own general well being and that of your family.

It is a game but I wouldnt dare call us the apathetics pawns. As citizens, we have a voice. Are you telling me that the citizens of Buford Georgia are better equipted, both mentally and socially to make a decision on the future of America, or perhaps the bikers at bike week in Daytona Florida. No they arent. There are, however, some people in America who are well suited to make those decision, and I suspect you would want those people in charge. So you would elect them to be in charge, just like America has done with W.

My point is, if Kerry had gotten elected or whomever you voted for and he read the exact same speech W. did last night, your post would have been full of “Hail to the Cheif.” Just becuase you dont agree with W. you have decided to blame all of the country’s problems on him. Not even willing to consider that some of these problems were in place before he got into office and now he is doing the best he can with the hand he was delt. I may be getting screwed by W., but i got screwed by Clinton, and would have gotten screwed by Kerry. So what is the answer…you take the lesser of the evils and hope for the best. There is nothing else you can do. I could elect you to office and someone somewhere would get screwed by you.

And for the record…look at my first paragraph I never said I agreed with W. last night. And I wasnt defending him, I just wanted to make the point…that in history past administrations have done the same or similar things but no one cared until W. got into office. But now that its W. second term we are all going to hell in a handbasket and our tax dollars are paving the road along the way. So as mindless pawns, I guess we should just hang on and thank god we dont speak french.

But as far as the war expenditures and the tax cuts….EVERY administration is going to do something monetarily that not every one will agree with and will always be subject to scrutiny.

I don’t disagree with tax cuts and I don’t disagree with trying to revive social security. My point is that tax cuts were a decision and not an unexpected expenditure. And making the health of the social security system a priority is also a decision.

I agree with you that every administration spends money on something that some part of the country doesn’t care about and/or believe in. But how do you claim poverty and prosperity at the same time. Which is it? Do we need to save social programs because the government can no longer afford to fund them or is the government operating with a surplus of revenue that should be returned to the tax payers?

I think the answer is both and neither. It’s politics.

Terrorist, terrorist, terrorist. Taxes, taxes, taxes. Social security, social security, social security.

I think that if we (the citizens) removed politicians from the equation we could address / solve these problems, but you throw a politician into the mix and all of the sudden rational thought has no place at the table. Now it’s all about what can I say to convince the masses that what I’m selling is something they want to buy?

It’s a game and we are the willing, apathetic, blind pawns. I’m just trying to illustrate my point with an example.

But as far as the war expenditures and the tax cuts….EVERY administration is going to do something monetarily that not every one will agree with and will always be subject to scrutiny. In June of 2000, Congress had a $268 billion dollar surplus. What did they do with that money? Help fund social security? I mean you said it yourself, “I think people my age have always known we couldn’t rely on social security to be there for us.” So we knew back then that Social Security needed help. And think of the interest that money would have earned up until now, WOW! Instead Clinton decided that spending was more important than saving, and threatened Congress to veto several of the appropriations bills unless Congress increased funding for his pet projects. Im mean sure none of that money was spent on something as meaningless as supporting our troops in a war, or reducing the tax burden on working American families or reducing the debt.. No no, it is much better to line the pockets of government contractors with taxpayer-funded “frequent flyer miles”.

But hey…that was way back then, this is 2005. “Why you bringin’ up old stuff, Mark?”