Impeachable Offenses -- Part The XVII

That's an awfully long way -- to say nothing of an awful lot of paranoid rambling -- to say "acquitted."

 

Yes, sort of like this guy........

 

Yes you are correct -- these ridiculous threads from the Bush-hating lunatic fringe are becoming like a broken record.

 

The lunatic fringe is the 29 percent that doesn't see anything wrong with what the President or his minions have done or continue to do.

 

I think you'd be hard pressed to find 29 percent of the population who are defending Bush to the death no matter what the issue. 29 percent is approval ratings, which would also cover people who think, in general, Bush is doing a good job.

For instance, I was watching CNN this afternoon and they were discussing the economy and for the most part, by all indicators and by a number of different comparitive numbers, the financial wizards and experts who were involved in the discussion all said the economy is in good shape and all said it is certainly improved from where it was in 2002.

Now I think giving Presidents credit for the economy -- good or bad -- is one of the more asinine things we do here in America, but if the economy is indeed at least perceived by some financial experts to be in good shape, one would likely be able to deduce that there are probably a few Americans who feel the same way and thus, even though they don't like what's going on in Iraq, they generally don't have much reason to be angry with the president.

And that's a far cry from the blind loyalty you are trying to pin it on or the blind loyalty that Fenian shows every time he logs in and posts.

 

I don't doubt that for a minute.

Because it pretty much sums up the GOP mentality:

"I got mine. Screw you."

Of course, using that logic, people who bought long-term treasury bonds during the Carter Administration were probably tickeled to death about the way things turned out.

Inflation eventually went down. But they were still making 15%.

 

Are you saying the Republicans are the only ones who vote their pocket book?

 

Here's two hypotheticals for Zag...
Knowing what you know now, would you have voted for Bush in 2004?
And
If Bush was running again, would he have your vote and support?

 

Your biggest problem --- among many --- is your insistence on posting in absolutes.

No, I don't believe Republicans are the ONLY ones who vote their pocket book.

But a great deal MORE do.

And there's really nothing wrong with that.

But at least be honest and say, "Well, those tax cuts saved me $20,000, and I'm grateful for that, but I can't in good conscience say I approve of the way this idiot as handled the presidency."

 

I'll do one better -- considering I didn't vote for Bush in 2004 or in 2000 nor did I vote for his father in 1996, well, I guess that pretty much answers your second question.

And except for the fact that I think the war in Iraq has been a total cluster fuck, that Bush has been one of the worst presidents in terms of stripping us of our civil rights and shredding the bill of rights and that his tax plans were nothing short of asinine, well I guess I am clearly unwavering in my support of him.

Sigh.

 

Um, let me ask you this -- when Democrats vote for tax increases, or increases on domestic spending for things like, cough, cough, Student Loans, welfare programs, enviromental measures and whatever other expensive goodies they always want the government to pay for, is that not voting for your pocketbooks, too?

 

Sometimes yes. Most times, no.

Tax increases mean you PAY for something. Yes, you may be getting something, but you PAID for it. So you aren't enriching your pocketbook; instead, you are paying to --- in theory --- benefit the general welfare of the population.

If taxes on the rich are slashed and we are running a deficit because of Iraq and other spending, the rich are getting a free ride: They get their extra money but don't pay anything back. No sacrifice at all asked. They are enriching their pocketbook at the expense of the general welfare of the population.

I don't see how paying higher taxes for "environmental measures" makes people's pocketbooks richer. To the contrary, the GOP claims that attacking global warming will "wreck the economy." Democrats are willing to risk the affect on their pocketbooks to --- in theory --- thwart a possible catastrophe.