posted
Well, see, the difference is that what I say is arrived at by independent thought, not to mention being true. Your information is copied and pasted straight off of web pages that don't give you all the facts. You don't think about it. I do.
As for Bush, what you said did not imply in any way relation to the 25th ammendment.
"Reagan's physician would tell news agencies that Reagan had been incapable of preforming the duties of his job, and powers should have been transfered - temporarily - to VP Bush"
Powers WERE temporarily transfered to Bush.
------------------ Francesca: He was born on the tundra, that's where he belongs. You'll kill him if you take him to Toronto. Thatcher: That's a bit drastic, don't you think? Francesca: Look, I've been to Toronto. Trust me, nothing can survive there. - "due South"
posted
Doctors are smart people, Omega. I'm sure Reagan's MD knew that powers were transfered to Bush ... so for him to say something about it OBVIOUSLY means that powers weren't transfered long enough, yes?
I doubt very much you arrive at anything by independent thought. Sounds like your parents spoon-feed you this "conservative" crap, IMHO.
I also think you're jealous that I've got web pages, newspapers, and magazines to quote from, and you've got ... well, nothing!
Although, I'm reminded of a quote once spoken by a great leader of his people, and it sort of sums up what I feel when I converse with you:
"It's like talking to a Klingon!"
Okay, maybe "great" is stretching things. But you're never open to new ideas, Omega, and that bothers me. Maybe college life will do that to you, I hope so, you're a smart kid, and I hope you'll realize the Republican party ... well, it has proven itself to be an enemy of homosexuals, a friend of big business, and just a bunch of hot air, who like to dish it out but can't take it.
"A mind is like a parachute -- it has to be open to work."
------------------ Gore/Lieberman 2000 *** "You still don't understand, do you MacLeod? I am the End of Time!" - Kronos
"You're history!" - MacLeod *** "I think anybody who doesn't think I'm smart enough to handle the job is underestimating." - George "Dubya" Bush
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited November 06, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited November 06, 2000).]
posted
Just for giggles I made this chart: This is by Congresses, starting from the 31st to the 106th. It is to show how often a party controls each area of the Government.
Who Controlled What????
Admin.
Senate
House
Occurances
DEM
DEM
DEM
21
REP
REP
REP
22
DEM
DEM
REP
2
DEM
REP
REP
6
DEM
REP
DEM
3
REP
REP
DEM
1
REP
DEM
DEM
10
REP
DEM
REP
9
WHIG
DEM
DEM
2
------------------ Yep
[This message has been edited by Ritten (edited November 06, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Ritten (edited November 06, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Ritten (edited November 07, 2000).]
posted
"Doctors are smart people, Omega. I'm sure Reagan's MD knew that powers were transfered to Bush"
There's a difference between being intelligent and being informed. Doctors may be smart, in general, but they're not omniscient.
"so for him to say something about it OBVIOUSLY means that powers weren't transfered long enough"
Not obviously. Considering that you don't have a direct quote, I can't really judge by context, but what you say he said could just as easily be interpreted as simply meaning that he agreed with the decision to transfer powers. You have a disturbing habit of being vague, then saying that there are obvious conclusions from your vaguries.
"Sounds like your parents spoon-feed you this "conservative" crap, IMHO."
Well, I don't really give a damn about your "humble opinion".
"I also think you're jealous that I've got web pages, newspapers, and magazines to quote from, and you've got ... well, nothing!"
Considering the very few webpages you've quoted only tell half a story, I'm certainly not jealous of your misinformation.
"But you're never open to new ideas, Omega, and that bothers me."
Never? Ziyal got me to question my position on capital punishment, didn't she? That would seem to mean that I DO have an open mind, that I DO weigh your arguments, and simply find them wanting, as would any rational being.
------------------ Francesca: He was born on the tundra, that's where he belongs. You'll kill him if you take him to Toronto. Thatcher: That's a bit drastic, don't you think? Francesca: Look, I've been to Toronto. Trust me, nothing can survive there. - "due South"
posted
You're right, Omega, the web pages *were* biased. I notice you left the newspapers and Newsweek alone.
Did Ziyal get you to change your opinion? I understood you were still for the death penalty.
For the doctor to speak out about the situation, it would imply that he either knew about it when it happened, or found out later.
"...this image got another boost when Reagan survived an assassination attempt on March 30, 1981, and the country reveled in press reports of how he joked with the emergency-room staff. It was only after George Bush's election that Reagan's onetime White House physician stated that the 25th Amendment should have been invoked to transfer presidential powers temporarily to Vice-President Bush while Reagan was under general anesthesia and recovering from emergency surgery."
-Kenneth C. Davis, "Don't Know Much About History"
(No jokes about the title, either, its my handiest little reference guide, although I can break out much bigger books if you want ... )
------------------ Gore/Lieberman 2000 *** "You still don't understand, do you MacLeod? I am the End of Time!" - Kronos
"You're history!" - MacLeod *** "I think anybody who doesn't think I'm smart enough to handle the job is underestimating." - George "Dubya" Bush
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited November 06, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited November 06, 2000).]
posted
"Did Ziyal get you to change your opinion? I understood you were still for the death penalty."
Your point being? Being open-minded doens't mean agreeing with YOU. It just means considering what you, and everyone else, says. I've done that. Therefore, I am open-minded.
As for your quote, now THAT's the way you should have done it to begin with. But still...
1) What makes you think the 25th ammendment WASN't invoked for the transfer of powers that took place?
2) Why should we care about this doctor's opinion? What difference would it have made for Bush to be in charge for more than the 24 hours that he was? It's not like we went to war during the period or something.
As for your reference book, I hope it's not the only one you were using. It's info on supply-side is WAY off. On page 412 (paperback), it talks about "a succession of Reagan budgets slash[ing] domestic spending..." Reagan couldn't get a budget passed. Therefore, there WERE no Reagan budgets, unless you want to call them that only because he was in office at the time. Secondly, it compares social programs to the military, in terms of money helping. Dumb. Third, it says that the chief culprit in the deficit was defence spending, which is just stupid.
There are other mistakes on that page alone, but I think I've made my point.
------------------ Francesca: He was born on the tundra, that's where he belongs. You'll kill him if you take him to Toronto. Thatcher: That's a bit drastic, don't you think? Francesca: Look, I've been to Toronto. Trust me, nothing can survive there. - "due South"
For what percentage of spending was military during the Reagan admin. You'll see that military spending went from around 22% of total budget to around 28% of total budget. With doubled revenues, where did the rest of the money (and the deficit spending) go? 'Cause we DIDN'T spend it on the military.
------------------ Francesca: He was born on the tundra, that's where he belongs. You'll kill him if you take him to Toronto. Thatcher: That's a bit drastic, don't you think? Francesca: Look, I've been to Toronto. Trust me, nothing can survive there. - "due South"
posted
Omega, not really. You have just shown us your prospective of view on it. Reagan did have budgets, although Congress didn't like them. I have seen people get the defense budgets higher by adding in the moneys spent on aiding other countries militarily, a guy in school also added in all non-humanitarian aid to it. Also, comparing military and social expenses is not "dumb", for it points out where our tax dollars are going.
Along the same lines, did anybody read the article in the papers yesterday about "pork-barrel" spending, as revealed by a Republican from AZ or AR? I like some of the "don't for for us" things tossed in their. It also had a good bit of information on the actions of the Republican controlled Congresses and how they said that they were going to cut spending on some things and have actually increased spending 13%. This article also askes why we still have a Dept. of Ed., when the Republicans promised to remove it back in 1994. If they would have Bush wouldn't have the tool to use now, for nationalization AND localization of education.
The article was written by Michele Malkin at Creators Syndicate 5777 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 email at Ms. Malkin or [email protected] (Paper has a coffee spill, so I am not sure about the hyphen.)
Points from the article.
$176,000 to the Reindeer Herders Association
$300,000 for manure management systems in Florence, SC.
$500,000 for the restoration of a carousel in Cleveland, OH.
$1,000,000 for the Animal Waste Management Consortium in MO.
$1,250,000 for Aleutian Pribilof church repairs.
$1,500,000 to refurbish the Vulcan Statue in AL.
$4,000,000 for the International Fertilizer Development Center.
$5,000,000 for an insect rearing facility in Stonewall, MS.
The Senater that identified these was John McCain, R-AZ.
These have been approved. $13,726,000 in bullshit.
Yep, vote to keep the Republicans in office with their pork-barrels.
In a year or two we can debate the abilities of Gore and the Democrats.
Then again, some people never learn.
------------------ I see a red door and I want it painted black
[This message has been edited by Ritten (edited November 07, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Ritten (edited November 07, 2000).]
posted
Without knowing exactly the reasons for funding the above, how can one condemn them? Remember, the opposition always puts things in the worst possible terms...
After all, we spent hundreds of millions, back in the 60's, to fire a number of large primates into outer space. Anybody here REALLY believe that that was a waste of money?
------------------ "Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master
posted
I don't think anybody said that in the '60s they wouldn't be spending money on sending chimps for a joy ride. Whereas the point of that article was to show how the Republicans said that once they are in control spending such as this wasn't going to happen. Or did the Republican Contract With America end after the first year? Or did all those programs that the GOP promise to eliminate, such as the Department of Education, get eliminated and restarted?
Of course, the paper I read it in The Times-Herald promotes Gore for President, Abraham (R) for US Senate, Bonior (D) for HofR, etc, damned open minded paper.
------------------ I see a red door and I want it painted black
"Also, comparing military and social expenses is not "dumb", for it points out where our tax dollars are going."
True, but I was pointing out that the argument against pouring money into failed social programs can't apply to the military, since the military actually does what it's intended to do.
As for the $13 mil, the government will never miss that. We're talking tens of BILLIONS with the democrats in the eighties.
------------------ Francesca: He was born on the tundra, that's where he belongs. You'll kill him if you take him to Toronto. Thatcher: That's a bit drastic, don't you think? Francesca: Look, I've been to Toronto. Trust me, nothing can survive there. - "due South"
posted
ok, how about the bill pending $114 Billion, of which $43 billion is for federal education, for the Department of Education, which Republicans were to eliminate.
Congress has approved discretionary spending over Clinton's by $30 billion.
Printer-friendly view of this topic