Obama's Spending vs Obama's Spending Cuts

David Orange wrote: here's a summary by Salon of the results of extensive FOIA requests made by the Associated Press:

So Salon, a far-left magazine pieced together some reportage in a far-left anti-Bush fashion and that's what you're giving to me? Do you ever get embarrassed enough to wonder whether the side you're own is really the side of the higher moral ground, David?

Here's what I asked you for:

"Absent from much of his Air Guard service"? I'll bet you're fabricating that. Cite please.

So what I'm going to do is snip out the whole long Salon hit-job (documents they couldn't find are always "no such documentation exists")? Every time? Stoppit. Be man enough to be a little embarrassed.

OK, so now in answer to the direct question I made about the *assertion* you made about being absent from "much" of his Air (National) Guard service, we have:

Upon being accepted for pilot training, Bush promised to serve with his parent (Texas) Guard unit for five years once he completed his pilot training. But Bush served as a pilot with his parent unit for just two years.

and

But Bush failed to attend weekend drills in May, June, July, August and September. He also failed to request permission to make up those days at the time.

So out of all that whole long story we have that Bush missed weekend drills (once a month, IIRC) in 5 months. But you said that Bush was absent from "much" of his National Guard service. In other words, your statement was wrong. Again.

So again, I ask how it is that your facts, which include personal attacks on people, turn out to be consistently wrong when challenged. Who is the bad guy here? You or the people you're trying to destroy via their reputations? Maybe you don't see the point, David, but I still think that my suggestion to avoid personal attack and stick to facts is the better road to go. Obviously your opinion differs.

Regards,

Mike

Hmmmmmm.... I see I'm at risk of arrest by the Dept of Wildlife for shooting fish in a barrel, so I'll cease on that part of it.

Anyone else willing to justify the union stuff that is on the record so far? BTW, given how small a percentage of the US labor force is unionized, I take exception with the union people being lumped in with "American workers" the way Obama does it. It's deliberately misleading. Besides, one point which many people never stop to think about is that forcing the U.S. consumer to pay for more union work or products actually doesn't help the consumer, it penalizes them because of the higher cost of union labor, etc. If you help unions forcing people to support them, it certainly falls on the backs of the actual "poor" and statistically larger "American worker" force because they have to pay more for products.

FWIW

Mike

Mike Sigman wrote: So Salon, a far-left magazine pieced together some reportage in a far-left anti-Bush fashion and that's what you're giving to me?

It's not near as sorry as what Bush has given you, yet you defend him. The article summarized AP's FOIA findings.

Mike Sigman wrote: Do you ever get embarrassed enough to wonder whether the side you're own is really the side of the higher moral ground, David?

Sure. But then I just look around and remember the past eight years and I realize that you can't get lower than Bush/Cheney/Rove/Gonzalez. You can't be a worse judge of character than someone who would vote for George Bush because "Character counts."

Mike Sigman wrote: So out of all that whole long story we have that Bush missed weekend drills (once a month, IIRC) in 5 months. But you said that Bush was absent from "much" of his National Guard service. In other words, your statement was wrong. Again.

He was absent from much of his service, he refused to take his flight physical and he was declared unfit for service. Those are facts.

Mike Sigman wrote: So again, I ask how it is that your facts, which include personal attacks on people, turn out to be consistently wrong when challenged. Who is the bad guy here? You or the people you're trying to destroy via their reputations?

How can I destroy George Bush's reputation?

Did he get Osama Bin Laden? No.

Did Haliburton rake in giant winfalls from the war in Iraq? Yes.

Did Iraq have the WMDs we went to neutralize? NO.

The best you can say about Bush is that he was a party hound, drunk until he was forty and a big user of illicit drugs. You can deny that until the cows come home, but it's true. And the sorry state of the nation today results from eight years of his rule-for-the-rich, including starting a war to enrich himself and Cheney and their wealthy friends at the cost of thousands of fathers of families. He has no reputation to destroy. He's too well known for all this to be denied. The sorry state of the nation today is because people elected a bad character while telling us "character counts."

Mike Sigman wrote: ...given how small a percentage of the US labor force is unionized, I take exception with the union people being lumped in with "American workers" the way Obama does it. It's deliberately misleading.

Problem is, most of the big industries that are getting bailed out have two major things in common: the employees are all union workers; and the CEOs are overpaid by at leas a factor of 100. So yeah, we still have to consider the union workers representative of American workers, especially in the major industrial companies that have been getting the bail-outs and even in Chrysler, whose total demise would be bad, but which would be worse if all the workers took too big a hit.

Mike Sigman wrote: Besides, one point which many people never stop to think about is that forcing the U.S. consumer to pay for more union work or products actually doesn't help the consumer, it penalizes them because of the higher cost of union labor, etc. If you help unions forcing people to support them, it certainly falls on the backs of the actual "poor" and statistically larger "American worker" force because they have to pay more for products.

Odd, but most people would not mind paying the worker and would more likely find fault with a Board of Directors that focuses on paying the CEO as much as they possibly can and making products that are sure to drive them into eventual bankruptcy.

No question that the union complicates the business equation and that unions will sometimes strangle the company that they depend on. But that's irrelevant in this discussion because bad management over more than twenty years is what sunk them. I'm just glad the leisure class didn't just siphon off all the money and leave the workers with nothing of their actual earnings.

David

Mike Sigman wrote: I ask how it is that your facts, which include personal attacks on people, turn out to be consistently wrong when challenged.

You can nit-pick the details, but the overall picture remains. Bush/Cheney are war criminals as well as economic criminals but the system is set up such that they will never answer for their crimes.

Mike Sigman wrote: Who is the bad guy here? You or the people you're trying to destroy via their reputations? Maybe you don't see the point, David, but I still think that my suggestion to avoid personal attack and stick to facts is the better road to go.

Gee, pot. I feel that you've blackened me. Yours truly, kettle.

David Orange wrote: But if I point out that Bush gave the wealthy a tax cut while starting two wars that would benefit the very people who got the tax cut, that's suddenly villification?

I thought everyone got a tax cut under Bush. I wasn't in the top rate during the first round of tax cuts, but I remember everyone's rates falling, not just top income earners.

Also, given that the "rich" pay a majority of taxes anyways under our current system and therefore be the primary beneficary of any tax cut? It is hard to cut income taxes for those who do pay little or no income (not FICA) taxes.

Now with regards to wether it is the right choice to massively increase spending in a downward economy or if it was the right choice last time around to give tax cuts in the middle of a downwards economy, followed by later cuts around the time we went to war is certainly a matter of debate, but it is disingenious to only state that Bush only gave the wealthy a tax cut.

Hunter Lonsberry wrote: I thought everyone got a tax cut under Bush. I wasn't in the top rate during the first round of tax cuts, but I remember everyone's rates falling, not just top income earners.

Didn't work that way. You got a one-time check from the gummint; your rate didn't change if you weren't a heavy hitter.

Hunter Lonsberry wrote: I thought everyone got a tax cut under Bush. I wasn't in the top rate during the first round of tax cuts, but I remember everyone's rates falling, not just top income earners.

It is true, BUT as they say, the rich got enough difference to buy a Porsche while the average American got enough to pay for a muffler.

Hunter Lonsberry wrote: Also, given that the "rich" pay a majority of taxes anyways under our current system and therefore be the primary beneficary of any tax cut? It is hard to cut income taxes for those who do pay little or no income (not FICA) taxes.

True, but also with some misleading elements. The rate of the cut for the wealthy was a higher rate than the cut for the lowly. And the top 1% of US "earners" actually own something close to 60% of everything in America. So if we had only 100 people, one of them would own 60% of everything. So they have not only the money but the means of getting money...so why should their taxes have been cut at all? Sure, they pay more than I do but it's like saying "I have a diesel truck with a trailer and you have a Volkswagen, but you should carry as much coal as I do so that we'll be equal."

Sure, they pay "a lot" but if you cut off on arm of an ordinary man, it's not the same as cutting off one arm of a man who has eight arms.

And in the case of Bush's tax cuts, the people who got the most from it also saw Bush pump billions of dollars into the other industries they own. So they got a tax cut and a huge income boost, courtesy of George.

Hunter Lonsberry wrote: Now with regards to wether it is the right choice to massively increase spending in a downward economy or if it was the right choice last time around to give tax cuts in the middle of a downwards economy, followed by later cuts around the time we went to war is certainly a matter of debate, but it is disingenious to only state that Bush only gave the wealthy a tax cut.

No, I didn't say he gave "only" the wealthy a cut. Anyone who was around knows that "everybody" got a cut, but the rich got the REAL cut.

On the other hand, we have all these people talking about how Obama is "raising taxes" as if everyone were getting hit. The rich gained in windfalls and tax cuts under Bush. Now the piper is calling for his due and they don't like it.

David

"We inherited this mess." The debt was 41 per cent of GDP at the end of 1988, President Ronald Reagan's last year in office, the same as at the end of 2008, President George W. Bush's last year in office. If one thinks policies from Reagan to Bush were mistakes does it make any sense to double down on those mistakes, as with the 80 per cent debt-to-GDP level projected when Mr Obama leaves office?" (Bold print is mine. David)

This from an article written by John Taylor for The Financial Times.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/71520770-4...44feabdc0.html

The writer, a professor of economics at Stanford and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, is the author of Getting Off Track: How Government Actions and Interventions Caused, Prolonged, and Worsened the Financial Crisis

Mike Sigman wrote: Oh, I dunno.... the fact that it took 4 days should have clued you that Obama was not being decisive, David. Read this email I got:

Just fwiw, that e-mail made the rounds a lot and was also the subject of a lot of follow up discussion. There are serious inconsistencies in the account as put out in the e-mail. And there have been some fairly consistent denials as to the veracity of most of the claims.

Snopes has a page on it in case anyone is interested.

Mary Malmros wrote: Didn't work that way. You got a one-time check from the gummint; your rate didn't change if you weren't a heavy hitter.

There were rebates, but in 01, everyone's rates dropped.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLI...07/bush.taxes/

David Orange wrote: True, but also with some misleading elements. The rate of the cut for the wealthy was a higher rate than the cut for the lowly. And the top 1% of US "earners" actually own something close to 60% of everything in America. So if we had only 100 people, one of them would own 60% of everything. So they have not only the money but the means of getting money...so why should their taxes have been cut at all? Sure, they pay more than I do but it's like saying "I have a diesel truck with a trailer and you have a Volkswagen, but you should carry as much coal as I do so that we'll be equal." Sure, they pay "a lot" but if you cut off on arm of an ordinary man, it's not the same as cutting off one arm of a man who has eight arms.

I have no intent to mislead here, its just what it is (its more effective to tax those that have cash than those that don't). The truly wealthy, aka the investment class (as in those who can live off investments not income) pays mostly capital gains not regular income like high wage earners (see Warren Buffet's comments with regards to tax inequities). There are reasons as to why investment income is taxed differently, and Bush did cut those rates in 2003, but any discussion of upper level income tax rates is a distraction.

On the other hand, we have all these people talking about how Obama is "raising taxes" as if everyone were getting hit. The rich gained in windfalls and tax cuts under Bush. Now the piper is calling for his due and they don't like it. David

I'm worried regarding taxes being raised because I live in an area with a high cost of living. Fairfax Va is the #1or #2 richest county in the nation with an average income in excess of 100k, yet housing costs is significantly more than the national average. If I were somehow able to move elsewhere and keep the same salary I would be able to live a rather extravagant lifestyle, yet due to income level, I get lumped into what most consider the rich.

I certainly don't feel rich when housing is 35% of ones salary (I bought before the bubble so I am in better shape than many), and combined federal/state/property tax is another 35%. I could only imagine what it would be like if I had kids and a car payment.

David Skaggs wrote: "We inherited this mess." The debt was 41 per cent of GDP at the end of 1988, President Ronald Reagan's last year in office, the same as at the end of 2008, President George W. Bush's last year in office. If one thinks policies from Reagan to Bush were mistakes does it make any sense to double down on those mistakes, as with the 80 per cent debt-to-GDP level projected when Mr Obama leaves office?" (Bold print is mine. David)

The difference is that Reagan left a booming economy and Bush (like his father) left a dismal economy.

If you burn out the engine in your car, don't complain when the repair guy hands you the bill.

Our current economic disaster is all George.

Keith Larman wrote: Just fwiw, that e-mail made the rounds a lot and was also the subject of a lot of follow up discussion. There are serious inconsistencies in the account as put out in the e-mail. And there have been some fairly consistent denials as to the veracity of most of the claims. Snopes has a page on it in case anyone is interested.

Very interesting, indeed.

What do you say to that, Mike?

David

Hunter Lonsberry wrote: I have no intent to mislead here, its just what it is (its more effective to tax those that have cash than those that don't). The truly wealthy, aka the investment class (as in those who can live off investments not income) pays mostly capital gains not regular income like high wage earners (see Warren Buffet's comments with regards to tax inequities). There are reasons as to why investment income is taxed differently, and Bush did cut those rates in 2003, but any discussion of upper level income tax rates is a distraction.

I didn't mean you were misleading but that the whole situation had a number of deliberately misleading elements that generally minimized the appearance that the rich were benefitting inequitably, while actually giving them a serious advantage.

Hunter Lonsberry wrote: I'm worried regarding taxes being raised because I live in an area with a high cost of living. Fairfax Va is the #1or #2 richest county in the nation with an average income in excess of 100k, yet housing costs is significantly more than the national average. If I were somehow able to move elsewhere and keep the same salary I would be able to live a rather extravagant lifestyle, yet due to income level, I get lumped into what most consider the rich.

Well, Obama put the cut-off at $250,000. but I think it actually worked out to $230,000.

If you moved somewhere else, you could take a substantial pay cut and still live a better life than most.

Hunter Lonsberry wrote: II certainly don't feel rich when housing is 35% of ones salary (I bought before the bubble so I am in better shape than many), and combined federal/state/property tax is another 35%. I could only imagine what it would be like if I had kids and a car payment.

It'd be tough, but what kind of situation do you think most American workers are in right now? Kids, a car, a run-down house with a high payment and you get word that not only are you losing your job, but all the paycheck deductions you put into the retirement fund are also gone....

You work hard, put your body at risk, get to work on time and stay the full time, only to be booted by a CEO who decides over a long golfing weekend that he would get a bigger bonus if he lays off your entire division.

The entire trouble is that Bush wrecked the economy and now Obama has to fix it. The fix will be painful but that's the situation we're in now.

Best to you.

David

David Orange wrote: Our current economic disaster is all George.

And Obama is continuing to fuel that economic disaster.

David

David Skaggs wrote: And Obama is continuing to fuel that economic disaster.

Right. Like he forbade the SEALs to fire on the pirates.

Your reliance on Bush tactics should resonate with uselessness even for you.

David

"The Rich" fund all sorts of charitable institutions, even after they've paid half of their money to the government.
"The Rich" front the capital to start businesses.
"The Rich" invest in companies to help them grow.
"The Rich" hire us.

David Orange wrote: It is true, BUT as they say, the rich got enough difference to buy a Porsche while the average American got enough to pay for a muffler. David

So they should take that guys Porsche and my muffler away?

David Orange wrote: True, but also with some misleading elements. The rate of the cut for the wealthy was a higher rate than the cut for the lowly. And the top 1% of US "earners" actually own something close to 60% of everything in America. So if we had only 100 people, one of them would own 60% of everything. So they have not only the money but the means of getting money...so why should their taxes have been cut at all? Sure, they pay more than I do but it's like saying "I have a diesel truck with a trailer and you have a Volkswagen, but you should carry as much coal as I do so that we'll be equal."David

What about the people who carry no coal at all? As long as they vote in the people who force others to carry their share, my Volkswagen is in for some real strain and their Honda Civic is gonna get real tricked out with some nice rims and a sound system.

David Orange wrote: Sure, they pay "a lot" but if you cut off on arm of an ordinary man, it's not the same as cutting off one arm of a man who has eight arms.David

Yes, it's a different situation entirely. If I'm taxed too much, there's a chance that I could lose my house. If the eeeevil rich are taxed too much, they will fire me and three dozen other people to keep the doors of their business open, and we are virtually guaranteed to lose our houses.

David Orange wrote: And in the case of Bush's tax cuts, the people who got the most from it also saw Bush pump billions of dollars into the other industries they own. So they got a tax cut and a huge income boost, courtesy of George.David

Yes. Corporate welfare is complete horse puckey. Should only the strong survive?

David Orange wrote: No, I didn't say he gave "only" the wealthy a cut. Anyone who was around knows that "everybody" got a cut, but the rich got the REAL cut.David

Yes. They did.

David Orange wrote: On the other hand, we have all these people talking about how Obama is "raising taxes" as if everyone were getting hit. The rich gained in windfalls and tax cuts under Bush. Now the piper is calling for his due and they don't like it. David

Everyone is getting hit. Our children and grandchildren are getting hit. The piper will be calling for his due for generations to come. Socialism is great until you run out of other people's money.

David Orange wrote: Very interesting, indeed. What do you say to that, Mike? David

I just read the Snopes thing. Sounds like no one knows for sure, doesn't it? Obama certainly authorized lethal force, as the Snopes article indicates, but Snopes seems not to understand that there are degrees of authorization and the original e-mail indicates that the hardest-to-achieve authorization was the only one allowed. In fact, public news accounts support the idea that only in the direst circumstance (life threatening) could they use force. That much was reported. So Obama didn't take bold action after all, did he? Check the new accounts.

Mike

Huh, wait a minute...

The pirates were killed or arrested, the hostage was rescued and is home, but we are squabling over whether or not the president took bold action or not???

This strikes me as one of those useless arguements....
Best,
Ron

James Davis, Jr. wrote: "The Rich" fund all sorts of charitable institutions, even after they've paid half of their money to the government.

Sorry. They make those donations BEFORE they pay anything to the government. That reduces their taxable income and lets them pay less to the government than they ordinarily would. Let's keep that in perspective.

James Davis, Jr. wrote: "The Rich" front the capital to start businesses.

They also crush smaller businesses and eliminate competition with a lot of theat capital. Oh, and buy congressmen to keep their taxes low.

James Davis, Jr. wrote: "The Rich" invest in companies to help them grow.

Unless they decide to chop the company into pieces and lay off a bunch of workers to boost the stock price briefly and produce a bigger bonus for the CEO.

James Davis, Jr. wrote: "The Rich" hire us.

Or not, as they prefer. Or they hire us until they see some benefit of closing the operation we're in and outsourcing it to India or Viet Nam. And they also give us good retirement programs to contribute to, which will give us reliable incomes in our old ages, after working many years for the company. And sometimes they even let us collect those pension. If they don't decide to suddenly deny that obligation (like United Airlines and many other companies have done) and leave us with pennies on the dollar while the CEO gets yet another multi-million dollar bonus.

James Davis, Jr. wrote: So they should take that guys Porsche and my muffler away?

No, they should give you a Porsche and let the guy who makes $5 million a year buy his own Porsche.

James Davis, Jr. wrote: What about the people who carry no coal at all?

You know, I hear about those people, but I don't personally know anyone who just really lives off the government. Do you personally know any? Maybe we should give them jobs as torture dummies for the military contractors?

James Davis, Jr. wrote: Yes, it's a different situation entirely. If I'm taxed too much, there's a chance that I could lose my house. If the eeeevil rich are taxed too much, they will fire me and three dozen other people to keep the doors of their business open, and we are virtually guaranteed to lose our houses.

Do you know anyone who has lost his home because of high taxes? I don't.

And let's see...if we tax the rich too much, they'll close their businesses and we'll lose our jobs.

But didn't MILLIONS of people just lose their jobs after eight years of the lowest taxes EVER on the super-wealthy?

Yes, they did. So how does your argument work?

I'm afraid it doesn't.

James Davis, Jr. wrote: Yes. Corporate welfare is complete horse puckey. Should only the strong survive?

That's what the conservatives have always told us. The old granny whose mother was actually a slave is supposed to pay her own electric bill in the drafty house she can barely afford to rent, but the government will make sure that CEOs don't have to unfold their own napkins before they eat their caviar.

James Davis, Jr. wrote: Everyone is getting hit. Our children and grandchildren are getting hit. The piper will be calling for his due for generations to come. Socialism is great until you run out of other people's money.

Socialism? Everything you mentioned is a direct result of eight years of sharp tax reductions for the super rich. The economy was better off when the tax rate for the rich was 39% and it was even better when the tax rate for the rich was 90%.

But we slash their taxes for eight years and the economy goes in the tank and millions of people lose their jobs.

What you're describing is not Socialism as we know it, but Socialism for Rich People, as only they know it.

You're blaming the doctor for cutting off your arm because your heroin dealer sold you some rotten stuff.

Don't blame Obama for the mess Bush created.

David

Mike Sigman wrote: I just read the Snopes thing. Sounds like no one knows for sure, doesn't it?

No, it sounds like whoever wrote your e-mail just lied to smear Obama.

Mike Sigman wrote: Obama certainly authorized lethal force, as the Snopes article indicates, but Snopes seems not to understand that there are degrees of authorization and the original e-mail indicates that the hardest-to-achieve authorization was the only one allowed.

Well, we've established that that e-mail is full of lies, so why don't we just not use that as any kind of reference, shall we?

Mike Sigman wrote: In fact, public news accounts support the idea that only in the direst circumstance (life threatening) could they use force.

It was a touchy situation. And it came out good in the end.

Mike Sigman wrote: So Obama didn't take bold action after all, did he?

Bolder action than Bush took when he got the intelligence alert that Osama bin Laden was planning to attack us.

Obama's actions brought the Captain home alive.

Bush's negligence allowed 3000 to die in the twin towers and allowed the Pentagon to be hit.

I'd say Obama 1, Bush 0.

But how do you see your part in delivering that false e-mail to us, Mike?

Was that YOU slandering the President or the was it the guy who wrote it? And if it was him, what do you call it when someone passes along that kind of lie? Is that villification or a perjorative?

David

Ron Tisdale wrote: Huh, wait a minute... The pirates were killed or arrested, the hostage was rescued and is home, but we are squabling over whether or not the president took bold action or not??? This strikes me as one of those useless arguements....

I thought Obama did just what he should have done and I think it's a good omen for what he will do on out from here, both in war and in the economy. There's nowhere for America to go from here but up.

David

David Orange wrote: I thought Obama did just what he should have done and I think it's a good omen for what he will do on out from here, both in war and in the economy. There's nowhere for America to go from here but up.

And the further in debt Obama sinks us the further up we have to go.

One of the other Davids

David Orange wrote: Bolder action than Bush took when he got the intelligence alert that Osama bin Laden was planning to attack us.

Cite please? I say once again that you're simply making it up. There was an intelligence briefing that said one of the things al Qaida was planning to do (among many others) was to attack inside the US. We knew they'd been planning that for years. So there was no direct information. What information there was, it turns out, was not communicated between agencies because the Clinton admin had established a "wall" between the FBI and the CIA preventing them from sharing intelligence.

One of the truly amazing events in US history was when Clinton's National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, stole and destroyed Clinton commications prior to his testimony before the 9/11 Commission. He didn't destroy documents because they would help his testimony, did he? As usual, the Bush admin was criminally negligent by not pursuing the actions of Berger and Clinton himself, in an attempt to be "bipartisan" and let bygones be bygones. That's why I'm all for having a commission to investigate Bush, Cheney, and so on. If they broke the actual law, fry 'em.

But from now on, let's pursue crooked administrations like Clintons and others to come without the silly "let's be diplomatic" approach that Bush took. Let's fry everyone if we're going to fry anyone, right? At the rate Obama is trying to circumvent the law and democracy, I suspect there's going to be plenty to go after and I would like to feel certain that he is pursued with the same vigor that the Dems are pursuing Bush. Indict Bush!!!!

Mike

Mike Sigman wrote: Cite please? I say once again that you're simply making it up.

Right. And I made up the Viet Nam war, too. And we don't really have a constitution in the US. I made that up, too.

Come off it, Mike. It was widely reported, commented on and discussed throughout the print and broadcast media at the time. Bush had the intelligence briefing and he chose to ignore it. Clinton's people advised him that Osama Bin Laden was going to be the NUMBER ONE concern for the US from 2000 on. And Bush ignored all of that.

Mike Sigman wrote: One of the truly amazing events in US history was when Clinton's National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, stole and destroyed Clinton commications prior to his testimony before the 9/11 Commission. He didn't destroy documents because they would help his testimony, did he? As usual, the Bush admin was criminally negligent by not pursuing the actions of Berger and Clinton himself, in an attempt to be "bipartisan" and let bygones be bygones. That's why I'm all for having a commission to investigate Bush, Cheney, and so on. If they broke the actual law, fry 'em.

You've mentioned Berger many times now but you've never made it clear what he did or how it affected anyone. Next to Bush's crimes, Berger jaywalked. You're trying to distract us from a murderer by pointing to a jaywalker!

Mike Sigman wrote: But from now on, let's pursue crooked administrations like Clintons and others to come without the silly "let's be diplomatic" approach that Bush took.

There must have been something about Bush himself in those papers or he surely would have prosecuted Berger and anyone else he wanted to hit. He put 155 people to death as governor of Texas. Diplomacy and mercy have never been his calling cards. The "compassionate conservative" morphed into the Torturer of Earth but he still smirked and chuckled and still thought it was a big, funny joke.

Mike Sigman wrote: Let's fry everyone if we're going to fry anyone, right? At the rate Obama is trying to circumvent the law and democracy, I suspect there's going to be plenty to go after and I would like to feel certain that he is pursued with the same vigor that the Dems are pursuing Bush.

When I see them prosecute Bush and Cheney, I'll have concern about how vigorously the Dems are "pursuing" him. Otherwise, we might as well throw open all the prisons in America because only the worst murderers on Death Row match the crimes of GW Bush.

David