What happens when the far left wants to stop "ONE NATION UNDER GOD"
[/qoute]
Republicans want to ignore the seperation between church and state.
Both sides have actually argued in favor of stem cell reasearch.
The dividing line is embrionic stem cell research and plenty of "conversatives" have also supported that.
The taxation system has been in place for many years now and wasn't invented by Democrats.
The "liberals" simply get sick of seeing tax cuts by a president that claims they're for everyone when they in fact are largely for the rich and large corporations. A president that tries to make the last tax cut sound "good" by telling everyone the average tax cut per person was $1,500 when those on the lower side of the income scale received under $500 and more of those in the range of $100 - $200. While those on the top range of the cuts received $30,000 to $40,000.
How about a flat tax system?
Many "liberals" and even a decent amount of the "conservatives" have argued in favor of that.
The rich. on the other had, would be mostly against that because many of them would actually end up paying more in taxes. All of their loopholes and illegal tax shelters would be removed.
I've not heard of any major advocation of a free health care system. Especially with so many knowing how poorly it works for countries like Canada.
Yeah, I bet 100% of those on welfare are Democrats.
Since you want all "liberals' to not accept their assigned share of the tax cuts and since you claim all "conservatives" are against welfare lets also ask all "conversatives" to refrain from using the welfare system.
Uh, right.
No, the "liberals" want to stop the war in Iraq that was foisted on our country by lies from our president and his cronies.
The war on Iraq that has routed resources AWAY from the war on terror. GWB and his PNAC sidekicks have been advocating an invasion of Iraq since at least the late 1990s the 9/11 attacks simply gave them an (unfounded) excuse to actually make that invasion.
Isn't it ironic that only a couple of months after claiming he would do whatever it takes to get bin Laden dead or alive that GWB totally forgot about him while he told lies to link Saddam to the 9/11 attack and lies about Iraqs WMD capabilities, and lies about knowing exactly where Iraqs WMDs were and were being bult?
The more ironic thing is that what was done by GWB, Rummy, Dicky, and Wolfy was the almost exactly the same thing the latter did in the 1970s when they didn't want the cold war to end.
Rummy circa 1976: "The Soviet Union has been busy," Defense Secretary Rumsfeld explained to America in 1976. "They’ve been busy in terms of their level of effort; they’ve been busy in terms of the actual weapons they’ve been producing; they’ve been busy in terms of expanding production rates; they’ve been busy in terms of expanding their institutional capability to produce additional weapons at additional rates; they’ve been busy in terms of expanding their capability to increasingly improve the sophistication of those weapons. Year after year after year, they’ve been demonstrating that they have steadiness of purpose. They’re purposeful about what they’re doing."
The CIA completely disagreed, even calling Rummy's statements "complete fiction". Rummy, Wolfy, and Dicky were still somehow able to convince president Ford that Russia had created "terrifying new weapons of mass destruction".
Billions of dollars later spent on escalated defense and military spending and a special commission (headed by Wolfy) to prove that Russia was creating such weapons all of the claims were proven to be untrue.
Doesn't that sound very familiar to their claims against Iraq that have also been proven to be untrue?
The war on Iraq that has lead to INCREASE in terrorism around the world. Increasing the level of terrorism doesn't sound like a very effective "war on terror".
The stoppages I've heard of are primarly those to prevent those that have no consideration for others while on their ATVs and snowmobiles from flying through and damaging private property.
So your ability to "play" is more important than preserving nature?
Seems rather selfish to me.
Actually, they more want to take away those guns that are considered to be assault weapons or can easily be modified into assault weapons.
Though frankly the 2nd amendmant doesn't actually give anyone the right to bear arms in general.
Read it sometime, it actually says the right to bear arms in relation to being part of a malitia.
How many people do you know that have guns would take the time to participate in training for being part of a malitia to protect their neighborhoods should anything happen that would need people defending the areas in which they live?
If guns are to be licensed don't you think there ought to be some level of training and testing done in a similar manner to at least what is done with automobiles?
Even that level isn't overly onerous on those that get licensed since we still have plenty of poor drivers on the roads.
Huh?
A public vote on Roe vs. Wade.
A total ban on same sex marriage.
A free ticket to destroy whatever property they want so they can play on their ATVs.
A total removal of the separation of church and state and rights for only those that are supposedly Christian and who claim to have "moral values".
A totally bankrupt US economy by removing alll taxation on themselves by using deficit level spending at such a high level causing the national debt to soar to levels that will never be able to be paid off.
GWB claims he's going to cut the budget deficit in half during his next 4 years in office. Of course he's starting from his $520 billion estimated deficit of early last year rather than the $420 billion actual deficit.
So even if he cut it in half today he'd still be at a $260 billion deficit (nearly $500 billion difference what he took over from Clinton) but he'd also have the costs of the interest on this now $7 trillion national dept and whatever costs he ends up spinning on Iraq for the year. The interest on the national debt will be at least $350 billion per year so he's still going to be adding in excess of $600 billion per year to the national debt - or $2.4 trillion bringing it to nearly $10 trillion by the time his successor starts in office.
It would currently take at least a $350 billion budgetary surplus to simply break even with the interest on the national debt (ie, to just simply keep the national debt at its current level) and it will continue to get worse at the debt continues to grow at a dramatic pace and interest rates continue to climb.
During GWBs tenure in office the national debt has grown to be 70% of the GDP. At the rate it happens to be going now it will potentially reach the %80 percent level (or higher) by the time he's out of office.
