Doonesbury

[hcap]

Deny it all you want but it is true.

http://wpcomics.washingtonpost.com/client/wpc/db/2007/09/02/

[o0xst!]

Well Rove is an Agnostic so....

[hcap]

Well Rove is an Agnostic so....
???

And the Pope is, well you know. SO?

[ljb]

Hcap,
If you dig deeper you will find this concurs with the neo-cons (former Republicans) goal of bankrupting America.

[o0xst!]

point is Rove engineered the whole "mobilize the christians" thing....


???

And the Pope is, well you know. SO?

[hcap]

ljb, nice to see you posting in bush brigade dominated off topic outer space :lol:

"Neo-cons (former Republicans) goal of bankrupting America."

Are you saying the repugs have actually succeeded in one of their plans.
How is that possible???? That's record!

.................................................. .................................................


o0xst! point is Rove engineered the whole "mobilize the christians" thing....Ok, but what does that have to do with 70% of 9 trillion bucks of national debt?

[PaceAdvantage]

ljb, nice to see you posting in bush brigade dominated off topic outer space :lol:

Why are you libeling the site like this? Off-topic is far from dominated by anything except left-wingers who constantly start threads to piss off the few rational folks remaining here.

Count the number of threads started by left-wingers and then count the number of threads started by right-wingers (threads of a political nature). Then tell me who wins.

[Tom]

If this place is so bad, why do you come here, little girl?

Please, continue your incesant whinning. Don't let me stop you.

[toetoe]

Surely the mention of Bush's name can't make something libelous. :confused:

[Overlay]

If you'd asked me prior to 2002 what would be needed to restore fiscal discipline to Washington, I would have said, "A Republican President and Republican majorities in both houses of Congress." So much for that idea.

[DanG]

Off-topic is far from dominated by anything except left-wingers who constantly start threads to piss off the few rational folks remaining here.

That is a very interesting sentence Mike.

Does it point out why dialogue is so hard to come by without impugning a mans motives? Isn’t it taught in debate class that each man considers his argument “rational” unless of course they are certifiable? :D

[Tom]

Well there ya go then. :bang:

[NoDayJob]

Seems like all the "good politicians" are dead. Perhaps what we need is more "good politicians"??? :rolleyes:

[NoDayJob]

Well there ya go then. :bang:

Tom,

Have you been listening to Hugh Fink lately?? ;)

[Tom]

Where do I know that name from?

[OTM Al]

I do like Doonesbury, but this is just like the Coulter article in the other thread. What did Lefty call it, obfuscation? There is truth in both but also not remotely the full story

[JustRalph]

I do like Doonesbury, but this is just like the Coulter article in the other thread. What did Lefty call it, obfuscation? There is truth in both but also not remotely the full story

stop it al, we can't keep finding common ground.............it's bad for my rep

[NoDayJob]

Where do I know that name from?

Indiana's finest standup comic... plays a mean violin too.

[Tom]

I remember!
Very funny guy! Saw in Evening at the Improv.:D

[Greyfox]

That is a very interesting sentence Mike.

Isn’t it taught in debate class that each man considers his argument “rational” unless of course they are certifiable? :D

We agree DanG. Just one minor change though.
Even the certifiable consider their arguments rational.

hcap raises a serious point though. The National Debt Clock is ticking.
It's at http://www.babylontoday.com/national_debt_clock.htm

That's one hell of a legacy to leave future generations to pay off.
I think the mistake hcap makes though is confusing the Administration with the Party. Once in office, the Party has little control over the reins.

[DanG]

Greyfox We agree DanG. Just one minor change though.
Even the certifiable consider their arguments rational.
Good point Grey, your right about that.

Greyfox - I think the mistake hcap makes though is confusing the Administration with the Party. Once in office, the Party has little control over the reins.
We do disagree here however; I think modern American administrations are driven more by party than majority than at any point since the turn of the century. Recently it’s not even the party in total as much as arguably a radical wing of the party.

Our system is not very complex on the political front at the moment. Both parties must appease their extremes because they currently dominate finance and are the leading zealots on Election Day.

Very disturbing trend that has lost many of our core principal’s imo.

[Greyfox]

Good point Grey, your right about that.


Recently it’s not even the party in total as much as arguably a radical wing of the party.

.
Yes. We agree again. A renegade in power though can be highly influential.
Lifting the recent Mexican Trucking regulations, is going against the stated views of many in the party.

[hcap]

I know, 911 changed everything blah, blah, blah........

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

"The chart below, Figure 1, shows the United States national debt (per Microsoft’s Encarta Encyclopedia[1] and US Government data[2]) with the various Presidents’ terms marked by vertical lines. Under President Clinton the growth in debt ceased, but note the radical change in direction since George W. Bush entered office. There is no question and a lot of mathematical proof that the steepest upward rises in debt since the end of World War II, started with President Reagan and continued with other so called Neo-Conservatives."

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/USDebt_files/image001.jpg

"Since 1938 the Democrats have held the White house for 35 years, the Republicans for 34. Over that time the national debt has increased at an average annual rate of 8.7%. In years Democrats were in the White House there was an average increase of 8.3%. In years the Republicans ran the White House the debt increased an average 9.7% per year. Those averages aren’t that far apart, but they do show a bias toward more borrowing by Republicans than Democrats even including World War II.

If you look at the 59-year record of debt since the end of WWII, starting with Truman’s term, the difference between the two parties’ contributions to our national debt level change considerably. Since 1946, Democratic presidents increased the national debt an average of only 3.2% per year. The Republican presidents stay at an average increase of 9.7% per year. Republican Presidents out borrowed and spent Democratic presidents by a three to one ratio. Putting that in very real terms; for every dollar a Democratic president has raised the national debt in the past 59 years Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.99"

[hcap]

Here is another. National Debt as % of GDP.

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP.gif

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html