READER COMMENTS ON
"Lessons from Madrid"
(17 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
the other Paul
said on 3/16/2004 @ 10:38 pm PT...
It seems to me that two groups Bush needs to worry about come election time are conservatives and pepole of faith.
I can't think of one president in my lifetime who was more pro-Big Government than Bush. I guess Clinton was premature when he declared the era of Big Government over. Bush seems to believe that every aspect of our lives should be scrutinized and approved (or not) by the Federal government - he really meant it when he said, there ought to be limits on freedom.
Spending more, Much More, than you take in is very ANTI-conservative. And Bush loves to spend our money.
I can't recall another president who opposed the consitutional separation of church and state. His faith based initiatives can make religious groups financially dependent on the Federal government.
As our Founding Fathers knew, whenever the line between church and state is erased, the state controls the church, not the other way around. Churches in this country should be very concerned about Bush's smiling threat to their autonomy.
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 3/17/2004 @ 8:20 am PT...
> Spending more, Much More, than you take in is very ANTI-conservative. And Bush loves to spend our money
I agree. However, we are spending so much money on education yet Democrats say it is not enough. Democrats complain about the defecit but they still want to spend more on everything.
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 3/17/2004 @ 10:12 am PT...
Uh, Paul, clearly you're not familiar with how the Budget actually works or is actually appropriately.
I'd recommend you take a look at this. It's a cartoon, so you should be able to make some sense of it.
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 3/17/2004 @ 11:17 am PT...
The liberal Ben of "Ben and Jerry's" cartoon fails to mention the troops in Turkey, Japan, Germany, etc. We have troops in Bosnia and numerous other countries. And yet some liberals are now complaining that we are not giving enough money to the troops.
I do not think it is the US's sole responsibility to wipe out poverty across the world. Evil and communist governments create poverty.
The amount of money spent on schools would be sufficient if it was managed properly. We also have an illegal alien problem. Throwing money at something is not always the fix.
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 3/17/2004 @ 11:24 am PT...
I guess FACTS don't interest you. Oh, well. Keep marching, soldier! It's only your country you're hurting.
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 3/18/2004 @ 7:08 am PT...
Ben is no authority on Federal Spending.
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 3/18/2004 @ 9:11 am PT...
Right. Then perhaps you'll just have to use this information instead. Directly from the US Budget Office.
You'll quickly note the Defense Expenditures is that huge 18.8% slice in light blue. It may take a bit more time to find the tiny purple 3.8% slice that groups "Education, Employment and Social Services" all together. I guess if they had tried to show "Education" by itself, they wouldn't have gotten it to even register on the graph!
Yes. Facts. Learn 'em every now and again. They are useful, and help keep you from looking like a fool.
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
said on 3/19/2004 @ 1:01 pm PT...
Boy, that Social Security is a racket. Just over 100 million taxpayers and 50 million now have 401Ks. We should privatize it.
We have spent 5 trillion on the "War on Poverty" and the poorest kids in America are in the top 10% richest in the world.
The Defense budget needs to be large because the #1 goal of the government is to protect us from other countries/enemies. We "are" in a war right now.
The liberals always want to cut defense to fund social programs. They hate war and the military. I have many friends that work for business that supply bombs to the military. Cut that spending, and you have job lose. Then the liberals would complain about job lose.
We should all be thankful that George W. Bush is our president. The right man at the right time, just like Churchill, and he was thrown out of office by his own people.
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
said on 3/19/2004 @ 2:09 pm PT...
Paul, I wrote a long and heated response to your finger-pointing, but I can't even bring myself to post it.
You are a sad, blind man. I'm sure somewhere in there are thoughts beyond yourself, to the betterment of us all, but I am remiss to find them. I search for what exactly may be your point of view, as I respect our value systems are obviously different, but I see nothing that is helpful or enlightening.
This is the great divide, it's you and me Paul. I agree that we disagree, and am okay that we do, but there must be some common ground or this country is lost. And it is lost Paul. I know your heart bleeds for all us sacrilegious liberals, but surely you must understand that besides your fundamental status quo, there is little better about this country now than there was four years ago.
And I don't care if it was Clinton, or Bush, or Bush the first, I really don't care. What I do care for are those around me, and that includes you too Paul. I am not short-sighted, and I am aware that there are many people living on this earth that don't look like me, behave like me or value the things I value. I am also proud of that, and proud that I now have the means to connect with those people, for the common greatness of us all, and to learn from them.
However, I see nothing in your posts that offers anything of communion with those around you, or the betterment of our world, our country, our states or our citizens. There are many people that do without, and for us to hold onto such a large portion of the rock, simply because 'might makes right,' well, I guess that's where we begin our line in the sand, eh?
I think there is plenty for everyone. I believe in the innate goodness of people, and societies, and I believe that overturning an entire government and its democratic ideals because a few rogue states or zealous factions have temporarily smacked our faces to be inappropriately small of us. It makes sense that the weaker/younger will attack the elder, but when the parent smacks the child who steps out of line, berates him, beats him, makes him feel smaller, lesser, then we are perpetuating the worst of what humanity can offer, the lowest form of ourselves, and the most fearful.
I pray for you, and hope that those who think like you begin to understand that there will be a world when we are gone, and drawing lines and borders doesn't secure our safety, it merely stamps labels and judgments that our children will fight to remove, with their time and wasted energies. In the meantime, I will search for ways to improve not only my inner circles based on my beliefs, but look for ways to respect and value what other people believe and find peaceful and equal ways for us all to coexist.
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
said on 3/30/2004 @ 4:48 pm PT...
Not sure what you are talking about. You gave no details as to what is wrong with our country or the world for that matter. You and Bradley rant but you give no answers or you don't like the answers of others. I am still waiting for Brad to tell me what he would do on the War on Terror.
My replies are just to be the lone conservative on this barely read webpage.
And what is wrong with my comments like privatizing Social Security? What is wrong with our president defending this country? Why should we turn our foreign policy over to the UN? Why should Germany and France dictate what we do? Should the constitution be the rule of law?
My wife was in Saudi Arabia in 1980 and there was so much hate for us then, she was surprised more terrorism had not hit our shores before 911. I am not sure that liberals take terrorism seriously.
You need to list what are you major complaints and how to fix them. Then we can decide what we have in common or if I have any "thoughts beyond myself."
I also want to ask you a personal question. Were you raised Catholic? I am a Pro-Catholic Baptist. I just have this feeling...
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
said on 3/31/2004 @ 10:03 am PT...
Since you're "not sure that liberals take terrorism seriously", I'd wonder where you get that impression? Especially since the #1 Counter-Terrorism Advisor for the last - oh, 15 or so years in America has said that Bill Clinton was far and away the most aggressive of all the Presidents he's worked with (a total of the last 4) at facing the threat of Terrorism.
Unless you have a better inside source than he, I'm not sure where you get your opinions (that, obviously are simply "hopes" as opposed to opinions).
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
said on 3/31/2004 @ 10:06 am PT...
I suppose I should also add that Terrorist Attacks in the 30 months *since* 9/11 (when Bush woke up) have FAR outnumbered the Terrorist Attacks in the 30 months prior.
I should also add that a total of 35 Americans were killed by Terrorists during the entire 8 years of Bill Clinton. You can do the math on the American death toll since Dubya has ridden into to town.
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
said on 4/1/2004 @ 6:43 am PT...
911 was planned during the Clinton years.
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
said on 4/1/2004 @ 7:56 am PT...
Yup. And had the Bush Administration done what the Clinton Administration did when they saw the same signs (as they did prior to the Millenium), perhaps Bush could have stopped 9/11 the way Clinton stopped the Millenium Attacks.
But they were too obsessed with Iraq, Missile Defense and China. See today's WaPo story on the major Foreign Policy speech that Condi had planned to give on Sept 11th. Those guys just missed the mark in every way. A complete failure.
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
said on 4/13/2004 @ 12:53 pm PT...
> And had the Bush Administration done what the Clinton Administration did when they saw the same signs (as they did prior to the Millenium)
I always thought this was a strange comment because it was a border patrol lady who figured it out. Everyone worried about terrorism, the end of the world, Y2k, etc. Hysteria abounded! I know, I helped fix the Y2K bug and had to work at 6 AM on that day due to one little Y2K bug that I fixed in an hour. Janet Reno confirmed the border incident along with Dr. Rice.
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
said on 4/13/2004 @ 1:08 pm PT...
When the "chatter" was as high then as it was prior to 9/11 the NSA - responsibly - lead a daily principles meeting wherein all agencies were present and cooperating.
Had Bush done same, the two known hijackers may have been tracked down before the 9/11 plot got off the ground.
The Clinton administration stopped numerous attacks as you've conveniently forgotten aside from the guy at the Canadian border. They also stopped concurrent attacks on the Holland and Lincoln tunnel's and several other plots which I don't have the inclination to looking for right now to describe to you, because you'll just fall back to Rush polemics anyway no matter the evidence to the contrary.
COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
said on 4/20/2004 @ 7:36 pm PT...
Rice and Reno said "we got lucky" that one lady thought something was wrong. That had nothing to do with any NSA meeting. I know how rediculous, slow, and inept the government can be. I went up to the FAA and DOT in Kansas in 1995 and every cardreader on every door was broken. At my work, I have to go through 3 cardreaders and one is a finger scanner.