Let's impeach the president.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by saden1

The majority of those who died in NO were old and sick people.

By the way, how can 6 bodies be of unknown sex?

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by jsarno

By the way, how can 6 bodies be of unknown sex?

It's Pat!YouTube - It's pat

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by angryssg

It's Pat!YouTube - It's pat

Ha! Classic.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by angryssg

It's Pat!YouTube - It's pat

LOL...that was seriously what I was thinking...that's scary and funny at the same time.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by dmek25

whatever happened to all for one and one for all?

Did this ever really exist?

I know I feel a responsibility to my community and country. I feel it is my job to give back. I just think that using our government as the middle to give back is foolish. Our government, and every other in the history of the world, has shown staggering inefficiency when it comes to distributing funds and services to help the less fortunate. It is an inate quality of government and ultimately I feel that I want to be the one to decide where my money goes to help people.

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Why impeach him now. His term is almost up.

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Did this ever really exist?

I know I feel a responsibility to my community and country. I feel it is my job to give back. I just think that using our government as the middle to give back is foolish. Our government, and every other in the history of the world, has shown staggering inefficiency when it comes to distributing funds and services to help the less fortunate. It is an inate quality of government and ultimately I feel that I want to be the one to decide where my money goes to help people.

i think this mentality always starts at the top. right now this administration is so hell bent on taking care of all the friends/ contributors of their party, they are forgetting about us small guys. in a round about way the government can help without really trying. the 2 biggest issues facing everyday america are health care, and energy(gas). but yet everyone looks the other way on these issues. they are both directly tied to the economy, and inflation

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by dmek25

i think this mentality always starts at the top. right now this administration is so hell bent on taking care of all the friends/ contributors of their party, they are forgetting about us small guys. in a round about way the government can help without really trying. the 2 biggest issues facing everyday america are health care, and energy(gas). but yet everyone looks the other way on these issues. they are both directly tied to the economy, and inflation

I guess they forgot about you when they gave you a tax break????

ps- being the president is not like waving a magic wand and poof things get better. It takes time. While I do feel they have dropped the ball on alternative fuels at this point, e85 has shown up on Bush's watch. Also, no other president in history has alloted more money to alternative fuels than Bush. FYI.
I am very curious as to how you think health care is the governments fault considering it's private business.

[dmek25]

and that tax break gave me enough to go out for dinner, ONE time. i agree it takes time, but Mr Bush is 6 years into it, and what exactly has his agenda accomplished? and i am all for national health care. there is no reason in the world that one doctor charges more then another for the same procedure. as far as the alternative fuel, the closest one to me is about 15 miles. how about taking the tax cuts that the big oil companies are getting, and invest it into the ethanol, solar, and wind powers? and another thing about the tax break. its a retread way to promote your agenda. doesn't do a whole lot to stimulate the economy, and was used by Regan in the late seventies, and did nothing then, either

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by dmek25

and that tax break gave me enough to go out for dinner, ONE time.

Wow...$600 is a one time dinner for you...where are you eating?

and i am all for national health care.

I am to that point as well, but this is going to be a huge effort to tackle. Something the current administration has never agreed to get after. Kerry promised it, but has no clue what it actually takes. In fact, I doubt any democratic candidate will run with that either.

there is no reason in the world that one doctor charges more then another for the same procedure.

Why is it when I bought my radar detector one sold it for $225, one sold it for $250 and one sold it for $325? There were several in the middle too. We live in a free country, and those doctors are free to charge what they want. Think of it as a retail store. While I agree it sucks, there is nothing that can be done about it, and to use that as an excuse to dislike the president...well every president in history has failed then cause it's been like this since we became a country.

as far as the alternative fuel, the closest one to me is about 15 miles.

At least there are some...it's heading in the right direction. (albeit slowly)

how about taking the tax cuts that the big oil companies are getting, and invest it into the ethanol, solar, and wind powers?

100% agree. I understand those companies helped Bush win the election, and you don't shun your friends, but we need a bigger effort on alternative fuels. That is the one area I wish I could change about the current administration.

and another thing about the tax break. its a retread way to promote your agenda. doesn't do a whole lot to stimulate the economy, and was used by Regan in the late seventies, and did nothing then, either

Umm, ok, I'm going to point out some issues here. 1- Reagan was the 80's, and his decade was widely regarded as the best economic decade in history. 2- Bush has been in charge as part of the best economy in decades, and best interest rates in history. 3- Bush went through the budget and found wasted money and gave it back to the people. There is no doubt that the next dem. president will raise taxes, and significantly.

[dmek25]

the best economic decade was definitely in the 90's, when Clinton was in power. i love how you say wasted money was given back to the people. do you realize this administration has the biggest national deficit of all time? the budget was balanced, and there was surplus money, when a democrat left office. thats why i don't understand how people believe the Dem's are the free spending party. Bush has spent more on this war alone. he seems willing to give money to any foreign country that asks. the spending in Washington is way out of control.

[dmek25]

and whomever takes the presidency next will have one hell of a financial mess to try and fix. taxes seem like the answer. for some reason govt keeps growing while old W. resides in power. probably trying to satisfy all his friends. i still remember how bill Clinton tried to establish the office of homeland security, only to be laughed at by a republican congress. saying there wasn't a need. who is the joke on now?

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by dmek25

the best economic decade was definitely in the 90's, when Clinton was in power.

How is that? Bush has had a better unemployment rate, the interest rates were at an all time low, and more people are making more money.

i love how you say wasted money was given back to the people. do you realize this administration has the biggest national deficit of all time?

Yes, but I beg you to tell me the significance of having a "national deficit". We've had it for an EXTREMELY long time, and it has yet to affect us.
Of course we know it's high, it's been high for a long time. It was at an all time high when Clinton was in office, Bush just doesn't care that it keeps getting higher, frankly why should he care? What is the significance? I have asked this SEVERAL times over the years, and not a single person can tell me how this is important other than to say Bush got it this way. Well, that's nice, now tell me how this affects us.

the budget was balanced, and there was surplus money, when a democrat left office.

Keep in mind the deficit was still there, Clinton budgeted for it to be gone after many, many years. In other words it would have never panned out because times change and things change.

thats why i don't understand how people believe the Dem's are the free spending party. Bush has spent more on this war alone. he seems willing to give money to any foreign country that asks. the spending in Washington is way out of control.

I don't think we are "overspending" when it comes to protection. You can't tell me that Al Queda was not a threat. Why do dems want to turn their heads to the threats in the world? Clinton turned his head towards these problems and left them to Bush, Bush has no choice but to spend on it. If Clinton did back in his day, we wouldn't be in as rough shape as we are. Clinton had a different priority and that priority was giving our hard earned money away to people who didn't deserve it, and no priority into national defense. I disagreed with it then, and I still disagree with it. There was no real way of Clinton knowing this all would happen, but he was in a position to protect us and he didn't. Bush is.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by dmek25

and whomever takes the presidency next will have one hell of a financial mess to try and fix. taxes seem like the answer.

Well, like it or not, we are in a war, and it needs to be completed. When that war is done, we still have many other threats that we need to be protected from. We are in the age of full blown terrorism people, there is only one way to deal with it and that's to try to eliminate it, and protect us from it. So whoever takes over will have bigger issues than the national deficit. If some dem takes over and thinks the deficit should be the #1 issue, we all better move out of the country.

[jsarno]

very classy. You make dems everywhere proud with those kinds of comments.
If he sucks so bad, what would you do better? Don't be a John Kerry and "say" you'd do something different, tell us how you would do it.

ps- relax dmek, I understand that not all of you are like that.