The Real Man of the Year
December 22nd, 2007 at 02:05pm Mark Noonan
Should be President George W. Bush, if the criteria is really that of person who has had the largest impact on world affairs - and Larry Kudlow writes it up just fine:
Against all odds, and despite the usual drumbeat of criticism, President George W. Bush has had a very good year. The troop surge in Iraq is succeeding. America remains safe from terrorist attacks. And the Goldilocks economy is outperforming all expectations.
At his year-end news conference, President Bush stated with optimism that the economy is fundamentally sound, despite the housing downturn and the sub-prime credit crunch. The very next day, that optimism was reinforced with news of the best consumer spending in two years. The prophets of recessionary doom, such as former Fed chair Alan Greenspan, Republican advisor Martin Feldstein, ex-Democratic Treasury secretary Lawrence Summers, and bond-maven Bill Gross have been proven wrong once again.
…He has stopped a lot of bad legislation on higher taxing and spending. He won on S-CHIP and the alternative minimum tax. He mostly prevailed on domestic spending. And he got much of what he wanted on war funding without any pullout dates.
And he’s not yet finished. In the most dramatic statement of his holiday news conference, Bush said he will not stand for the continuing congressional proliferation of pork-barrel earmarks.
“Another thing that’s not responsible is the number of earmarks the Congress included in the massive spending bill,” said Bush. “The bill they just passed includes about 9,800 earmarks. Together with the previously passed defense spending bill, that means Congress has approved about 11,900 earmarks this year. And so I am instructing budget director Jim Nussle to review options for dealing with wasteful spending in the omnibus bill.”
This is huge. The statute of limitations for Republican overspending, over-earmarking, and over-corrupting that caused huge congressional losses in last year’s campaign will not run out until the GOP shows taxpayers that it again can be trusted on the key issues of limited government and lower taxes.
The war goes well, the economy is great, and President Bush is leading the GOP back to its core economic principles of low taxes, low regulation, and responsible spending. All of this done in the face of a relentlessly hostile Democratic Congress and an MSM which acts as if it were an adjunct of the Democratic National Committee. President Bush’s approval ratings may be in the tank, but he has shown himself to be the master of the political, economic and foreign policy arenas of the United States of America. But more than those things - important as they are - President Bush has been winning the moral battle.
In spite of the incredibly dishonest and hate-filled attacks on him, he has refused absolutely to respond in kind. In spite of Democrats treating him and his Administration as if they were convicted criminals, he has still maintained the new tone he said he’d bring to Washington all those years ago. Morally, President Bush towers above his really rather pathetic critics - and those critics are on the right and the left (though his lefty critics don’t even make an attempt at a rational critique favoring, instead, just lies and insults). A key example of this was in the matter of embryonic stem cell research - lambasted by Democrats and assorted lefties who just bald-faced lied about what embryonic stem cell research was doing, disapproved by a majority of Americans who were bamboozled by dishonest sob stories (Reeves and Fox, eg), frequently abandoned by his fellow GOPers who were simply afraid to stand athwart and MSM juggernaught on the issue, President Bush stood firm - basing himself on firm moral principles (human life shall not be made to be destroyed) and solid science (there has not been any indication that embryonic stem cells are usable in medical therapies), President Bush confounded his critics, and reaped the reward when the news recently came out that there is a way to make stem cells without killing human life.
We, the people of the United States, owe President Bush a hearty vote of thanks, and his critics owe him a sincere apology. And while some of us will thank him, the more telling thing about President Bush is that he doesn’t need our thanks or his critics’ apology. Right from the start, all he’s done is his duty as he understands it - and the peace which comes from doing what you have to do as best you can is all that a man really needs out of this life.
Entry Filed under: President Bush
121 Comments
1. Eric T | December 22nd, 2007 at 2:34 pm
” Best president ever.”
2. Diana Powe | December 22nd, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Mark,
Everyone who’s paid any attention to you knows that you really, really, really approve of President George W. Bush, unlike the vast majority of your fellow Americans over a rather protracted period of time. However, whatever arguments you employ, the one claiming his vindication on blocking embryonic stem cell research is not one to use. Alan I. Leshner, chief executive of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and Professor James Thomson, the first researcher to successfully isolate embryonic stem cells and the senior author on the recent Science paper describing a method for reprogramming skin cells, had this to say in an op-ed in the Washington Post on December 3rd:
3. Diana Powe | December 22nd, 2007 at 3:36 pm
This fact, did not, of course, prevent President Bush acolytes, such as Charles Krauthammer, who as an MD should know better, from dishonestly making the same argument that the President was right all along in blocking embryonic stem cell research when, in fact, it wasn’t true.
4. Christian Wright | December 22nd, 2007 at 3:46 pm
I don’t know how you can continually claim that a man that history will determine was a war criminal is a great man.
Bush will be in the select group of people like: Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and Augusto Pinochet.
5. Mark Noonan | December 22nd, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Diana,
Your linked article is tremendously dishonest:
Which sentence makes it seem like there is great promise in embryonic stem cells when there is absolutely zero promise to date in any embryonic stem cell research. This is the level of falsehood we see all the time on the pro-embryonic stem cell side of the argument.
6. Mark Noonan | December 22nd, 2007 at 3:52 pm
CW,
That is because history will be written by men and women who will look at the facts, not DNC press releases and Daily Kos commentary…
7. Jeremiah | December 22nd, 2007 at 4:37 pm
God bless President George W. Bush The Great President in United States History.
May God bless and watch over our magnificent men and women in uniform who fight the freedoms we get to enjoy every single day. We should Not Only Mourn Those Who Die, We Should Thank God That Such People Lived. May they also have a blessed and Merry Christmas.
God Bless America!
~ Jeremiah
8. Jeremiah | December 22nd, 2007 at 4:39 pm
…who fight for the freedoms.
~ Jeremiah
9. Ricorun | December 22nd, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Mark: Which sentence makes it seem like there is great promise in embryonic stem cells when there is absolutely zero promise to date in any embryonic stem cell research.
That sentence is itself tremendously dishonest. What you really mean is that there is absolutely no therapies, to date, that are based on ESCs. And even THAT has to be qualified — to human ESCs (infrahuman stem cell therapies have been advancing rapidly, so if you’re, say, a rat you’re in good shape). And even with regard to human ESC therapies, the meme is likely to fall before long.
In general though, it’s important to keep in mind that human fetal stem cells were first isolated in 1998. That’s only 9 years ago. And from the very start the funding has been restricted. As a means of comparison, you need to ask yourself: how long does it take for something as simple as a new drug to come to market? And the potential for therapies deriving from ESCs are, by and large, nowhere near that simple.
I’m beginning to see a pattern emerging among the most conservative individuals: ESC therapy is a bunch of BS (or a big conspiracy), evolution is a bunch of BS (or a big conspiracy), global warming is a bunch of BS (or a big conspiracy)… maybe you just think SCIENCE is a bunch of BS (or a big conspiracy).
10. Mark Noonan | December 22nd, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Ricorun,
Oh, puhleese - spare us the second-rate dramatics!
There are zero indicators that any of the ongoing ESC research will result in a medical therapy - meawhile, Adult Stem Cells, Cord Stem Cells and, now, these re-worked Skin Stem Cells show great promise. To desperately hold to ESC isn’t science but the triumph of ideology over facts.
As for restricted funding - certainly it was restricted, until President Bush became the first US President to provide federal funding for stem cell research - including ESC research! The only thing we on our side are saying is that to deliberately create a human life for the purpose of destroying it is a negation of all that is good in medical research - it is just plain and simple immoral. Since we staked out that position at the start of the debate, we’ve held to it (and, of course, President Bush has held to it) and we’ve been proven 100% correct both on moral and practical terms.
It is only the desperation of the Culture of Death to perpetuate itself that keeps this debate alive - outside this fanatic desire on the part of some to kill innocent life, the debate would be over.
11. se7en | December 22nd, 2007 at 5:09 pm
WHOLEHEARTEDLY Agree.
He has kept me safe, taxes low, and proud to be living in this great land.
God Bless President Bush.
12. The Real Man of the Year &hellip | December 22nd, 2007 at 5:18 pm
[...] A key example of this was in the matter of embryonic stem cell research - lambasted by Democrats and assorted lefties who just bald-faced lied about what embryonic stem cell research was doing, disapproved by a majority of Americans who … Read More [...]
13. Christian Wright | December 22nd, 2007 at 5:22 pm
May God watch over and save our magnificent men and women in uniform from Bush & Co who used them to steal Iraq’s most valuable natural resource. We should Not Only Mourn Those 3000+ Soldiers who Died, but the 1.2 million Iraqi’s that have died during the illegal invasion and occupation.
May God bless the two million Iraqis that were driven from their home country and the poor wretches who continue to live under a brutal occupation.
14. Mark Noonan | December 22nd, 2007 at 5:30 pm
CW,
Its up to 1.2 million now? Wow! Our baby-killing mercenaries in Iraq must have had a banner year in 2007! Last I heard from the left, we’d only murdered about half a million innocent Iraqis so we could steal their oil…
15. kontraktor » The Re&hellip | December 22nd, 2007 at 5:50 pm
[...] Check it out! While looking through the blogosphere we stumbled on an interesting post today.Here’s a quick excerptShould be President George W. Bush, if the criteria is really that of person who has had the largest impact on world affairs - and Larry Kudlow writes it up just fine:. Against all odds, and despite the usual drumbeat of criticism, … [...]
16. bagni | December 22nd, 2007 at 5:53 pm
markapology;
ynow…there is no documentation or evidence to my statement
but why do i feel like
bush should be the one apologizing?
please feel free to attack…i expect it
or at least something clever in response?
17. neocon | December 22nd, 2007 at 6:02 pm
>>>>I’m beginning to see a pattern emerging among the most conservative individuals: ESC therapy is a bunch of BS (or a big conspiracy), evolution is a bunch of BS (or a big conspiracy), global warming is a bunch of BS (or a big conspiracy)… maybe you just think SCIENCE is a bunch of BS (or a big conspiracy). - Rico<<<<
Really. I guess through the liberal DailyKos prism, that is probably how it looks.
- Conservatives don;t believe ESC is a conspiracy. We question the hyped up potential and would rather exhaust adult stem cell research before making embryos available.
- Most conservatives acknowledge evolution so I am unsure where you grabbed that one from. Unless it is for our desire to have some balance in the classroom. Evolution does leave some questions, no?
- Again, most conservatives acknowledge GW, but we do question mans responsibility and the doom and gloom predictions.
Rather than marching in lockstep, conservatives prefer independent thought.
18. plainjane | December 22nd, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Latest Zogby poll 25%, latest Pew Poll 30%.
What an impact he is having; President Bush Man of the Year — LOL!!!!!!!!!!!
19. Mark Noonan | December 22nd, 2007 at 6:24 pm
plain,
So, it doesn’t matter what you do, only what people think of you? The worth of a person is determined by a public opinion poll?
20. Mark Noonan | December 22nd, 2007 at 6:28 pm
bagni,
I guess one could say that President Bush should apologise for starting an illegal war in Iraq - except he didn’t; for lying to get us into Iraq - except he didn’t; for outing Plame to punish Wilson for finding out the truth about Niger - except Wilson lied, and Bush didn’t out Plame…and on and on and on. Without exception, the criticisms of President Bush are lies or just divorced from reality. He’s really just miles ahead of his critics, and they in their muddy dreams can’t even begin to understand him.
21. Diana Powe | December 22nd, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Certainly, Mark. By all means I should see that you are plainly more capable of knowing the scientific lay of the land relative to embryonic stem cell research than a scientist who is on the absolute cutting edge of the research. What was I thinking?
22. Jeremiah | December 22nd, 2007 at 6:49 pm
The Great President in United States History.
Geez, I could swear up and down that I said the Greatest.
How do I keep missing letters or a word here, there, and yonder??
~ Jeremiah
23. semby | December 22nd, 2007 at 6:56 pm
President Bush is simply the best!
24. Diana Powe | December 22nd, 2007 at 7:02 pm
The George W. Bush Cult of Personality is in full, luxurious bloom!
25. neocon | December 22nd, 2007 at 7:18 pm
phil,
Could you please expound your above post? I am unable to properly discern your delusional allegiance.
It’s either DailyKos, the Michael Moore School of Half Truths or the Harry Reid School of Ineffective Leadership.
26. Ricorun | December 22nd, 2007 at 7:29 pm
neocon: Conservatives don;t believe ESC is a conspiracy. We question the hyped up potential and would rather exhaust adult stem cell research before making embryos available.
Okay, so you prefer the “BS” option on this one. And your response belies a certain ignorance about the subject area. If that were not the case you would likely appreciate the difficulties in trying to understand one without understanding the other. It’s like putting together a puzzle with a bunch of pieces missing.
Most conservatives acknowledge evolution so I am unsure where you grabbed that one from. Unless it is for our desire to have some balance in the classroom. Evolution does leave some questions, no?
Most certainly. But Intelligent Design, or Creationism, doesn’t address them. Rather, because you think evolution is BS, there’s room for more BS. But you don’t seem to be able to critically evaluate the BS in either case.
Again, most conservatives acknowledge GW, but we do question mans responsibility and the doom and gloom predictions.
And again, you think the preponderance of scientific evidence is largely BS. Notice I didn’t say “concensus”, I said “preponderance of evidence”. The former is certainly based on the latter, but it’s the evidence that is most important.
Rather than marching in lockstep, conservatives prefer independent thought.
Pardon me for saying so, but you have shown little inclination toward independent thought. You don’t seem to critically evaluate much of anything. Rather, you show a much stronger inclination to believe what you’re told to believe. I don’t mean you specifically (although you are included), but check out this thread, for example (or most any extended thread) — there is more than one indication that “we on our side”, or “conservatives” have a unitary viewpoint, as if it’s some kind of flock or something. How can “you” say stuff like that and then turn around and say “conservatives prefer independent thought”? What’s up with that?
Now, I’m certainly not saying that certain self-professed “liberals” are not guilty of the same thing. I’m just saying that if “you” (whoever “you” are) are inclined to say “we believe such and such”, and especially if you use that as a major justification for “your” viewpoint (and to diparage any other viewpoint), then I think it’s fair to suspect you are not thinking independently.
27. AAR | December 22nd, 2007 at 8:17 pm
The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously to extend the authorization for US-Led Forces in Iraq for another year!!!
AAR
28. Ricorun | December 22nd, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Mark: There are zero indicators that any of the ongoing ESC research will result in a medical therapy…
It would be helpful if I were able to post links in my comments. But for some reason I can’t. Anyway, in terms of hESC-derived therapies, you might want to look into such things as “killer cell” therapies for certain forms of cancer, spinal cord regeneration, amylotropic lateral sclerosis (Lou Gherig’s disease), mulitple sclerosis, and myocardial infarcts. Those are the ones I know about. There may be others. And there are certainly others if one broadens one’s consideration to infrahuman studies. I guess you could say there was never a better time to be a rat, lol!!
On a different note, despite your supposedly passionate opposition to “the culture of death” as you call it, I find it increasingly incredible that you have not offered ONE SINGLE TOPIC on the evils of invitro fertilization. You say, “The only thing we on our side are saying is that to deliberately create a human life for the purpose of destroying it is a negation of all that is good in medical research.” But that’s EXACTLY what invitro fertilization is all about. And yet you’re not saying a damned thing. Apparently it’s just fine to keep flushing embryos down the toilet (figuratively speaking) or put them in the freezer until they burn, but heaven forbid they should be used for a more productive purpose. If that were the case, I suspect the term, “snowflake baby” could be applied far more broadly in the relatively near term. In the mean time a (very) conservative estimate would be that there is one “snowflake baby” for every thousand examples of medical waste.
What a waste. It is true that “two wrongs don’t make a right”, but what is the second wrong? I mean seriously.
You claim that I am engaging in “second-rate dramatics”. Oh perhaps so. But I try to consider the audience. There are very many times when I throw in thinly veiled probative comments to various things on various levels, just to see who picks up on them. Every once in a while I get a rise out of someone, but nonetheless it appears that first-rate dramatics are largely wasted on this site, lol! And I have to assume you’ve concluded the same thing. I just have to.
Gee, there’s another one of those thinly veiled comments.
More to the point, you yourself Mark could equally be accused of engaging in second-rate science. Frankly, I often wonder whether you’ve taken a science course past the eighth grade — and if you did, whether you paid attention, or just relied on osmosis from your parents. Either way, mere appeals to authority — be they attributed to parents or anyone else — are lame in and of themselves. To that I say, “Oh puhleese”.
29. plainjane | December 22nd, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Authorization for the 160,000-strong multinational force was extended until the end of 2008 because “the threat in Iraq continues to constitute a threat to international peace and security,” according to the resolution.AAR | December 22nd, 2007 at 8:17 pm
What does the UN care? 154,000 are U.S forces, the 4000 dead Americans represent about 98% of the casulties and the U.S is spending several billion dollars each month to keep the country together.
30. AAR | December 22nd, 2007 at 9:44 pm
pj,
The war is authorized by the United Nations. It has been. The war is legal!
Oh, and have you checked those polls for your useless, do nothing Democrat Congress? They are lower than President Bush’s!!!
” USA Today/Gallup survey, released Monday: President Bush’s approval ratings have been poor for most of two years, but have been rising in recent months. Congressional approval, however, has been diminishing.”
AAR
31. Diana Powe | December 22nd, 2007 at 10:04 pm
Claiming President Bush as “Real Man of the Year” (interesting, and perhaps psychologically tellingly, changed from Time’s title of “Person of the Year”) is rather complicated by the fact that, as of today, he is the self-acknowledged author of an illegal program of warrantless wiretapping in the United States, the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program or TSP.
The law violates the plain text of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) which makes such wiretapping a felony. In addition, the only legal interpretation of the President’s actions outside of those that serve at his pleasure in the Executive Branch is that of U. S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in her order signed 08/17/06 in the case of American Civil Liberties Union, et al v. National Security Agency/Central Security Service, et al, to wit:
This permanent injunction, issued by a Federal judge, has never been appealed. However, this President believes, because his employees tell him so that he has the authority to direct others in his branch of the Federal Government to commit felonies in open defiance of the plain statutory law and the courts.
32. Diana Powe | December 22nd, 2007 at 10:18 pm
In an environment where so many of the Democrats didn’t work to actively assist the Administration in their activities, the President’s actions would certainly constitute grounds for a vote on Articles of Impeachment as happened after the decision by the Supreme Court in United States v. Richard Milhous Nixon in July 1974.
33. Diana Powe | December 22nd, 2007 at 10:37 pm
This doesn’t even mention the very open question of the White House’s knowledge of the destruction of the interrogation tapes by the CIA. Note the statement by the Republican co-chair of the 9-11 Commission and the mind-bogglingly lame “it depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is” excuse by the anonymous spokesman for the CIA:
34. AAR | December 22nd, 2007 at 10:40 pm
AAR
35. Diana Powe | December 22nd, 2007 at 10:47 pm
AAR,
Sorry, citing Powerline, in all their Bush-partisan glory,, is not citing law, just their opinions. If you’d like to find relevant case law justifying the President’s lawbreaking in regards to the TSP, feel free to link to it. Otherwise, I’ll stick with the opinions that have the force of law behind them.
36. Diana Powe | December 22nd, 2007 at 10:51 pm
If President Bush and his employees were so convinced of how sound their legal basis is, then why haven’t they sought a review of the entire TSP by the secret FISA court? Pretty easy to guess that they’re worried that the Court might not agree with their exotic theories of unlimited Executive power.
37. Kahn | December 22nd, 2007 at 10:53 pm
It’s hard to argue with Christian Wrights fantasy numbers and fabricated facts.
Diana - according to the left, Iran stopped it’s nuclear weapons program after we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and before sanctions were imposed.
Libya stopped after we invaded Iraq, while they didn’t after years of sanctions.
And North Korea agreed to stop after we masterfully worked with the regional powers to make a deal.
So yah, that’s pretty damn good. Actually getting three (according to you) enemies to drop their weapons programs IS a great presidency.
Here’s a challenge: Name Bill Clinton’s five top accomplishments. If thats easy, name Carters.
38. AAR | December 22nd, 2007 at 10:57 pm
Rule One: Never put anything in writing or on tape!
Rule Two: Never tell others the basis for your decisions!
Hopefully NSA has learned not to make tapes and not to commit anymore to writing than is absolutely necessary!
Better still, contract out any interrogations to another country.
Barring that, don’t take any prisoners in the first place if they can’t be interrogated to provide useful information!
Hopefully the White House fire took care of anything that Sandy Berger didn’t steal!!!
AAR
39. Diana Powe | December 22nd, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Which theories they are building up for the inevitable availability to the next Democratic President of the United States (regardless of whether its 2008 or any other year). You’d think that authoritarians could think ahead to how much they’ll complain about a Democratic who wants to be a unitary executive. However, what’s most important is the Cult of Personality around the current (less than 13 months to go) President of the United States.
Kahn,
The question at hand that Mark brought up is President Bush’s accomplishments. I’m citing his violence to the law and the Constitution to say that he is hardly “Person (or Man) of the Year” material. Bill Clinton stopped being President almost seven years ago. Try to let go, okay. You’ll probably feel better.
AAR,
I see by your post that you also can’t let go of Bill Clinton even with the passage of so many years. I also see that you don’t believe in the American Constitution or the rule of law. Fascinating.
40. AAR | December 22nd, 2007 at 11:08 pm
Diana,
Sorry, but I don’t care what you or your Liberal friends think!
Nor do I agree with the decision of a “judge-shopped” Liberal judge like Anna Diggs Taylor — with her own agenda. Her ruling should have been appealed and overturned!!!
The American “legal” system should be tossed out and reworked — along with every activist liberal judge!
AAR
41. Diana Powe | December 22nd, 2007 at 11:16 pm
AAR,
So, why wasn’t her order appealed? Come on! You’re willing for the President to order his employees to commit felonies. Why would the Administration leave standing case law that says they’re wrong? How afraid are they of judicial review?
Since you seem to be espousing a point of view that says only judicial opinions you already agree with are the ones that apply, are you willing to go on record as saying that anyone who disagrees with a court order is free to violate it?
42. AAR | December 22nd, 2007 at 11:17 pm
Diana,
Why would you want to let go of Ol’ Slick Willie — the idol of the looney Liberals?
We will never know what or how much classified information Slick Willie’s right hand man Sandy Berger stole and destroyed! We do have his word though!!!!!!
If judges had followed the U.S. Constitution — which does not give them the right or role to change the meaning or intent of the Constitution, or to change laws — we wouldn’t have the problems in America we have today!
Activist Liberals judges — who have exceeded their constitutional roles — are the base cause and at the root of most of the divisiveness in America today!
AAR
43. Diana Powe | December 22nd, 2007 at 11:18 pm
AAR,
So, in other words, you want to toss out the Constitution which is the source of our current legal system?
44. Diana Powe | December 22nd, 2007 at 11:26 pm
And how do we know they’re horrible, awful, no-good “activist Liberal judges”? Because you said so? Sorry, to paraphrase former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld again, “You go to citizenship with the Constitution you have, not the Constitution you’d like to have.” The Constitution provides for the appointment and removal of federal officials, including judges, and you don’t just get to decide which ones whose orders and rulings you want to follow.
45. AAR | December 22nd, 2007 at 11:26 pm
Diana,
If judges continue to violate and ignore the Constitution, who knows where that will finally end!
I’m sure you can speculate!!!
Maybe we could use another J. Edgar Hoover to end some of the traitorous actions we have seen from Liberals the past few years!
“WASHINGTON (AP) - Former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover had a plan to suspend the rules against illegal detention and arrest up to 12,000 Americans he suspected of being disloyal, according to a newly declassified document.”
“Hoover had wanted Truman to declare the mass arrests necessary to “protect the country against treason, espionage and sabotage,” The New York Times reported Saturday in a story posted on its Web site.”
You may also be aware that Congress has the power to limit the power and jurisdiction of judges — including the Supreme Court! Now we just need a good, conservative Congress to fix the problems with the Judiciary!
AAR
46. AAR | December 22nd, 2007 at 11:32 pm
Diana,
It’s people like you Liberals who do not believe in the Constitution.
Liberals like YOU actually think judges have the right, duty, and responsibility to change the meaning and intent of the Constitution — in effect, amending it de facto!
We’ve had that discussion too many times to repeat it here and now.
Hopefully, some day, enough people will get fed up and we can fix the problem!
There are many potential solutions!!!
AAR
47. Diana Powe | December 22nd, 2007 at 11:37 pm
AAR,
There is one, and only one lawful avenue for removing a sitting Federal judge and that’s in the Constitution. Anything else is anti-Constitutional and, ergo, anti-American. Is that what you’re in favor of?
48. Diana Powe | December 22nd, 2007 at 11:41 pm
And I take it by your failure to answer that you do, in fact, feel that you may live in the United States of America and pick and choose what court orders you must comply with. Please invite me to the first time you try, or induce someone else to try that novel legal idea out in the real world and not just in the comments section of a blog. It should be quite an interesting show.
49. AAR | December 22nd, 2007 at 11:47 pm
Diana,
You’re a typical Liberal, and it’s apparent you believe judges have the Constitutional right, role, and duty to change the meaning and intent of the Constitution and our laws — CONTRARY to the roles specified in the Constitution!
As I said, we have discussed the topic here many times before and there is nothing to be gained by wasting time on it again with you. My time is better spent talking to those who do know that our “legal” system is broken.
The Constitution clearly states the means — amendment process — whereby the meaning and intent of the Constitution is to be changed — and “it ain’t by no activist law-giver judges”!
AAR
50. Diana Powe | December 22nd, 2007 at 11:50 pm
AAR,
It is also quite revealing that you are a big fan of Blogs For Victo(r)y and yet reveal your ardent desire to use the unchecked power of the government to imprison those who are “disloyal” as determined by the judgment of one man. The authoritarian mindset could not have a more clearcut example here.
Sorry, but the Supreme Court will have the last word on Congress’ attempt to usurp the principle laid our in Marbury v. Madison in, for example, the Military Commissions Act.
51. AAR | December 22nd, 2007 at 11:54 pm
Diana,
You can take whatever you want, however you want.
You’ll likely be wrong — but that’s your prerogative and right!!!
AAR
52. Mark Noonan | December 22nd, 2007 at 11:55 pm
Ricorun,
I’m opposed to in-vitro fertilization - and I hope one day we’ll ban the practice. But first things first, you know?
A great many claims are made for ESC, none of which are true - looked at carefully, its a lot of “might” and “perhaps”….but ASC are “will” and “do”. I’ll go with the actual rather than the theoretical, especially as its in line with proper respect for human life.
53. Kahn | December 23rd, 2007 at 12:03 am
Diana couldn’t name one Clinton accomplishment. I chose Clinton because he was the last Democrat president. His no accomplishment presidency is his wifes major claim to experience.
I named THREE hostile nations where Bush stopped atomic bomb development.
Don’t even get me started on Carter.
54. AAR | December 23rd, 2007 at 12:05 am
Diana,
Perhaps you should do some more reading and research into the role of Congress, the courts, appellate authority, related areas, and actions Congress has the power to take.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if a good conservative Congress uses their powers — as stated in the Constitution. I can thinks of all sorts of scenarios!
What happens if, sometime in the future, people wake up and finally decide judges or a court doesn’t have the power or authority to issue a ruling and impose their will on the people? What happens if the people just say no?
It would be interesting!
AAR
55. Diana Powe | December 23rd, 2007 at 12:07 am
Kahn,
The question for your OCBCDS is the relevancy to Mark’s contention of President Bush being “Man of the Year”. The answer is none. Really, he’s been out of office for seven years! Do you have to hold on to him that tightly?
56. AAR | December 23rd, 2007 at 12:12 am
Kahn,
Clinton went around bombing and killing civilians, apartments, hospitals, buses, trains, bridges, fleeing civilians, and an embassy in Kosovo.
That should count as some sort of accomplishment.
AAR
57. Diana Powe | December 23rd, 2007 at 12:13 am
One thing it wouldn’t be is America. However, you only seem to care about the idea of America in your head, not the one made by the blood, sweat and tears of every American and not just the ones you judge to be worthy. I’d be embarrassed espousing such anti-American views. Really. It sounds like every other kind of revolutionary rhetoric including Marxist-Leninism.
58. Kahn | December 23rd, 2007 at 12:18 am
It’s just that Clinton was the last president and his wife is running now. That does make him relevant. But I guess you’re right - as you can’t name any accomplishments. My bad, he is irrelevant.
George Bush got North Korea to agree to dismantle their nuclear weapons program THIS year. We are still at war with them (if you didn’t know). I would say that getting an agreement with a nation you’re at war with and getting them to stop developing atomic bombs aimed at you is a pretty big damn accomplishment.
Note, not to beat a dead horse - but they got their reactor from Bill Clinton. So maybe he IS relevant after all, but as an idiot.
59. Ricorun | December 23rd, 2007 at 12:33 am
Kahn: Note, not to beat a dead horse - but they got their reactor from Bill Clinton.
I have no particular love for Bill Clinton, but that’s total BS.
60. Kahn | December 23rd, 2007 at 12:46 am
Rico - my bad, and agreed. I was wrong about that point. North Korea built their reactor with the aid of the now defunct USSR.
61. james allegro | December 23rd, 2007 at 12:59 am
God bless you President George W. Bush, the greatest president in american history.
62. AAR | December 23rd, 2007 at 1:01 am
Diana,
Yeah, yeah. It sounds like you like to hear yourself talk (write)!
The anti-Americans are your looney left-wing Liberals. Liberals don’t know what patriotic, pro-American views are. Have you checked their hate filled, anti-American blogs? Did you do that “hate Bush” search? People like you actually believe it’s okay to break our laws and release classified information to the press — to our enemies — the very ones trying to attack and kill Americans. Those who release our defense secrets should be in prison — or worse — but they believe themselves to be above the law! Many of whom you view as good upstanding Americans, I would call traitors!
As for those whose “blood, sweat and tears” made this nation, we have far too few of those type of people now. The Great American Dream is no longer one of hard work, accomplishment, and excellence; but rather one of welfare, entitlements, and subsidies. The Great American Dream these days is to hitch one’s wagon to the Liberal Welfare State and live off the backs and out of the pockets of those fewer and fewer Americans who still do shed their “blood, sweat, and tears”. Or better still, hope for the right lawsuit and strike it rich in America’s “legal lottery” system.
Why work hard to build and contribute to a greater America, when thieving Liberals take from those who have contributed their “blood, sweat, and tears” and give it to those who will vote for more welfare and socialism?
Yes, let’s return to the time when all able bodied Americans were expected to work and earn their own living — and speak English!
AAR
63. AAR | December 23rd, 2007 at 1:06 am
Kahn,
One of the key factors which emboldened Osama bin Laden and lead to 9/11 was Bill Clinton’s retreat in Somalia, which lead to the war in Afghanistan, which lead to the war in Iraq.
The fact is, we are still living with Bill Clinton’s legacy!!!
AAR
64. Kahn | December 23rd, 2007 at 1:39 am
AAR, the fact she couldn’t name any accomplishments says it well enough.
65. neocon | December 23rd, 2007 at 8:02 am
Rico,
So, the fact the many conservatives, including myself, see much promise in adult stem cell research and the new skin stem cell research, and in light of no guarantee of any imminent breakthrough in terms of ESC, that our desire to limit ESC is just BS???
How does your mind operate? Are you saying that ESC could bring medical break throughs that the other SC researches can’t?
Also, you’re accusing me of claiming “the preponderance of evidence to be bs” is just a lie, isn’t it? I never stated that, but as a typical liberal, you feel comfortable projecting assumptions. The “preponderance” of evidence that temperatures have risen slightly is factual, the conclusions are absurd.
And you know for a FACT, that ID can’t answer the questions left from evolutional theory? Really?
Please submit your evidence, moron.
66. js | December 23rd, 2007 at 8:06 am
Its pretty funny how many liberals post against this topic, yet not one of them champion the cause of women in Islam. Whats Justice?
When creative thinking becomes obsession, you get liberalism. Look at the recent track record, its true. Gore pushed Global warming, liberals blamed almost every anti global warming critic for years of being in league with big oil and politics. It turns out to be a lie. After we start processing Saddams documents, we find a ton of information supporting his intent to develope WMD, yet, liberals still cling to the claim that there were no WMD in Iraq. Isnt it funny that they have no choice to concede the fact that the equipment and materials Saddam needed existed, and have not been accounted for. Things dont just disappear, forensics can show us the trail, but funny, there is no trail. Nothing to prove the destruction of tones of material.
Now, on the issue of conservatives being sheep, or, essentially, not thinkers, its pretty clear to everyone who just looks at the facts that just the opposite is true. For example, when all of the liberals run amok screaming the sky is falling, why couldnt they document it as fact? Because they assumed GORE knew what he was talking about? Or, how about the age old accusation that President Bush is a liar. Why cant they document for us, one time, when President Bush Lied to us? I know we did factually document Billy Clintons lies for the lib’s just a few short years ago, so whats the problem?
67. AAR | December 23rd, 2007 at 8:53 am
There is no law or prohibition against embryonic stem cell research.
That’s a lie and misleading Democrat propaganda being foisted on Americans.
Companies, universities, laboratories, medical centers, researchers, and anyone else are free to do as much embryonic stem cell research they choose.
They are free to spend as many billions or trillions of dollars on their programs as they choose. They choose to spend THEIR money where it’s likely to do the most good and with the most potential for positive results and medical breakthroughs. The restrictions apply only to how taxpayer funding is used, and even then there is government funding for existing stem cell cultures.
Bill Clinton, George Soros, and all the Liberal billionaires, multi-millionaires, and Hollywood elite who believe they don’t pay enough in taxes are free to contribute as many of their millions and billions to any and every program they think will provide a real pay-off — not just feeding some college professor’s or graduate student’s desires, thesis, or latest research paper!
AAR
68. Rana Quijotesca | December 23rd, 2007 at 10:37 am
AAR-
I agree, let’s cut subsidies and welfare to corporations, they definitely don’t need it. Let’s stop subsidizing farms, and let’s stop subsidizing any scientific research of any kind.
But no… Republicans like giving kickbacks to corporations and agribusiness not because they actually need the money, but because their owners give really big campaign contributions.
The funny thing about scientific research is that, in the 1950s and ’60s, the US government did almost all of the scientific research through the Universities, the military, and contracted scientists. Now industry does most of the research, and we spend more money than is necessary on that research.
Bush supports Government handouts and welfare, just not to people who may actually need it.
69. FmrMarine | December 23rd, 2007 at 10:53 am
HMMMM….rq
The last time I looked it was the “terrible- greedy” corporations who EMPLOYED 90% of all Americans,
Imagine that, helping them stay healthy…..what a waste of money huh?
Oh yeah i forgot the neo libs all work for STATE run originations paid by TAX PAYER DOLLARS.
It seems the demoRATS are in love with any kind of killing, except war against our declared enemies.
70. Rana Quijotesca | December 23rd, 2007 at 11:06 am
Marine-
So… you’re OK with the government corrupting free markets, right? Forgive me for saying that companies in competitive markets should actually be able to, you know, compete on their own steam…
That’s the funny thing about free markets… companies have to compete…
71. AAR | December 23rd, 2007 at 11:22 am
Rana,
Yes, let’s put those “bad ol’ corporations” out of business! Who needs their jobs, products, and services? Who need the benefits they provide their employees, their share holders, and retirees? Who needs the trillions they contribute to America’s and the world’s economies, and the hundreds of billions in tax revenue the produce both directly and indirectly?
Yes, let’s put those corporations out of business — those corporations which drive the world’s economies, and produce the products and services upon which we depend!
And while we are at it, let’s do away with those bad oil companies which produce the oil and gas we need to produce and run America’s and the world’s economies!
We don’t need any of them! We can live off the land — except of course for those in the big cities!
Which corporations do you “claim” are receiving “welfare”? Do they receive a “welfare check”?
AAR
72. FmrMarine | December 23rd, 2007 at 11:27 am
rq
Funny thing…..You marxists = liberals want NO such thing.(free market)
Ps the last time I heard the pubbies are the one’s calling for LESS govt, and MORE free enterprise.
73. Rana Quijotesca | December 23rd, 2007 at 11:44 am
So what, you are either black or white, liberal or conservative? Wow… it truly takes a moron to see things in such absolutist terms…
74. Rana Quijotesca | December 23rd, 2007 at 11:47 am
Wow, AAR… you must have a really low opinion of capitalism if you think that all companies will fail if the government doesn’t help them out…
I don’t know about you, but I think that people are smart enough to make businesses that succeed without government hand-outs…
75. Rana Quijotesca | December 23rd, 2007 at 11:48 am
Let’s see… there are farm subsidies, subsidies to the oil industry, subsidies to the pharmaceutical industry, bla bla bla, etc…
76. Kahn | December 23rd, 2007 at 12:04 pm
What Rana, looks like he got to you. Chillax
77. Diana Powe | December 23rd, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Well, js, let’s jump into the Wayback Machine here and head back to 2000:
Oops. Or how about this from a Presidential press conference on 03/06/03:
As we now know, the troops did not have the best body armor, the most up-armored M998 HMMWVs and the plan was “we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators” (according to the Vice-President on 03/16/03). Hence, we are still in Iraq almost five years later. Later in the same press conference:
How many times has the mission changed since then? Or how about Valerie Plame-Wilson? First, he says that he will fire someone:
Then , he admits someone should have been fired:
No one was fired.
Finally, Kahn, since you can’t get President Clinton out of your head, why don’t you try comparing the Clinton budget surpluses and the Bush budget deficits:
Oh, that…budget surpluses…forgot about that, it’s been so long.
78. neocon | December 23rd, 2007 at 1:03 pm
It took Rana three posts to regurgitate the non-sensical verbal diarhea in response to AAR’s terrific rebuttal.
Whats’ a matter Rana? Not sure how to continue attacking Americas evil corporations that pay taxes, innovate new products and employ tha majoity of Americans?
If liberals love the free marketplace so much, why do they always disquise their true agenda?
79. Rana Quijotesca | December 23rd, 2007 at 1:14 pm
neocon-
Why do you always say that I’m a liberal? I’m liberal on social issues, yes, but I don’t agree with them on economic issues. If you don’t think that I’m a liberal, then why would you expect me to answer for them?
I’m also not attacking corporations… if anything, the people who say that they can’t survive without government help are. I’m just saying that they should be able to compete in the open market without handouts… If you think otherwise, then you obviously don’t like the free market system.
80. Diana Powe | December 23rd, 2007 at 1:45 pm
AAR,
Do you realize how silly this sounds? For starters, your hosts here, Mark and Matt, insist that the economy is just great! If that’s so, how can it be since, according to you, we no longer live in a “time when all able bodied Americans were expected to work and earn their own living”? If that’s so, how can it be, given that so many workers don’t speak English? Apparently, those facts are a terrible problem! Are you saying that the economy is actually not great?
Of course, the problem for you is that your first contention is just in your head. You can’t find anyone in politics, in either party, who has ever said something like, “Able bodied Americans are not expected to work and earn their own living.” It’s just something you imagined. Even the Bush Administration doesn’t agree with you. That’s why they keep pointing out the unemployment rate.
81. Jeremiah | December 23rd, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Able bodied Americans are not expected to work and earn their own living
LOL!!
Maybe you need to talk to your woman Hillary, then, Diana!!
With her BIG healthcare plan … Yeah, some plan to break the backs of hard-working, tax-paying AMERICAN families.
She’ll make a believer out of ya!!!
As for the truth?
2 Thessalonians 3:10
If a man will not work, he shall not eat.’
~ Jeremiah
82. Jeremiah | December 23rd, 2007 at 2:02 pm
I wonder what Hillary thinks about that verse?
~ Jeremiah
83. Diana Powe | December 23rd, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Jeremiah,
I don’t know. Please point us all to a link in which Senator Clinton ever said words to the effect of, “Able bodied Americans are not expected to work and earn their own living.” No rush. Do take your time. We’ll all wait. (cue sounds of crickets chirping)
84. Jeremiah | December 23rd, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Diana,
I don’t need to look up anything about what she’s said, it’s clearly evident through the completely absurd and asinine proposals she’s making that points to the fact that she doesn’t care how the poor-WORKING class suffers, just as long as she can get her VOTES from drug peddlers, and just plain out and out, lazy, good for nothing bums.
$5,000 to every child born????
Pleeasse!!!
Furthermore, she’s not going to tell you that is her plans, but that’s how the evil one works.
Well, I’ll just say this in closing, if she becomes our next President? They’ll start offing the elderly for money. Just as Planned Parenthood does the unborn.
WAKE UP AMERICA, DON’T LET DIANA FOOL YOU!!! THESE DEMOCORATS ARE DANGEROUS!!!
~ Jeremiah
85. AAR | December 23rd, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Rana,
I’m still waiting for you to tell me which and how many corporations are receiving “welfare checks” from the government! I didn’t say I support giving government welfare checks to corporations.
Isn’t the term “corporate welfare” really a misnomer and nothing more than a Liberal term used to mislead the American people? It doesn’t really mean “welfare” now, does it? It just means you believe they should be paying even more in taxes than they already do!!!
The same applies to the wealthy who are already paying the vast majority of taxes. Perhaps we should call it “wealthy welfare” because they aren’t paying even more and higher taxes than they already are?!!! I suppose if you took all of their money in taxes, you could then dole it back to them in “legitimate” welfare checks!
Do you oppose all subsidies to farmers, many of whom barely make ends meet, many of whom have gone bankrupt and lost their farms, but upon whom you and all Americans depend for your food, many other products, and your very lives?
Now, some of those big conglomerates who are paid not to plant crops — that’s a different issue. Perhaps that’s so they don’t flood the market with crops and put the smaller farms out of business so they can later raise the prices. If that’s the case, however, perhaps those subsidies should be paid to the smaller farms to increase their profits and keep them afloat!
It’s good to hear you admit that you are a “liberal on social issues”! That’s exactly where we have the problems that are tearing this nation apart!
AAR
86. AAR | December 23rd, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Diana,
Talk about a piece of rambling lib-speak which says absolutely nothing — you’ve succeeded once again! I understand YOUR silly Liberal propaganda techniques!
Let’s put the poor to work to earn their own living rather than having you steal from others to give it back as hand-outs and welfare to buy votes. If the average poor family worked more than 16 hours a week, they wouldn’t need your stealing from other people’s earnings to buy their votes. Who knows, they might even pay some taxes and contribute to our economy. They might even become successful members of society, enjoying the same benefits of those upon whom they now depend for welfare, hand-outs, and subsidies.
You are nothing more than an activist Liberal propagandist here to spread more of your smooth talkin’, misleading propaganda on a Conservative site! You also have your own personal agenda!!!
The economy is doing just great for those who choose to work. It’s even doing well enough to support those who choose to live off the backs and taxes of those who still do work!!!
AAR
87. Diana Powe | December 23rd, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Okay, Jeremiah has set a new record. Two sentences, all capitalized, with bolded text and three exclamation points each. I’m sorry you’re so simultaneously unable to defend your position and so filled with anger.
By the way, I’m not a supporter of Senator Clinton. She is as much a believer in the Beltway group-think that says that we can bomb people we don’t like as any of the Republican candidates, with the exception of Congressman Ron Paul. Unfortunately, the candidate I would have most preferred, Senator Russ Feingold, chose not to run for President in 2008. However, he may end up making a terrific Senate Majority Leader where he may be even more effective at restoring the Constitution and the rule of law than if he occupied the White House.
AAR,
I’m sorry if I upset (break out the exclamation points) you by pointing out the inconsistencies in your statements. By the way, I’m curious. What is my (cue theme from Jaws) “agenda”, in your mind?
88. Eric T | December 23rd, 2007 at 3:27 pm
G.W. Bush -
A admirable president. A guy that takes his marriage seriously and loves his wife and is faithful to her.
Consistant- a president that has not wavered on core values, or wavered on the war on terrorism because of poll numbers or popularity. He has not raised taxes. He has not tried to turn gun owners into criminals. He took an economy that nose-dived after the 911 attacks and turned it into 51 months of straight growth, and low unemployment.
I noticed he works well with the democrats and don’t try to embarass them when they put out some terrible bills, If people looked closely and seen some of the crap they try to float, they wouldn’t even get one vote.
Merry Christmas
89. Jeremiah | December 23rd, 2007 at 3:29 pm
I’m sorry you’re so simultaneously unable to defend your position and so filled with anger.
That’s YOUR problem, Diana.
I can’t help it if you can’t see the truth for what it is.
Common sense tells us that we should use what God has given us to contribute to society, not TAKE from it.
When you contribute to society be showing a little responsibility, then you show that you care for others, not just YOUR SELF!!!
~ Jeremiah
90. Brian Lemon | December 23rd, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Funny - I posted this this morning
GW Bush Greatest POTUS Ever
91. Diana Powe | December 23rd, 2007 at 5:45 pm
js,
By the way, I have posted an answer for you but it has been sitting “awaiting moderation” for some time now. Apparently, the bug in the site got it.
92. Max Power | December 23rd, 2007 at 6:48 pm
As I’ve said before-
Mr. Bush is undeniable proof that America is strong enough to survive even the most inept leadership imaginable.
93. NeoClown | December 23rd, 2007 at 7:12 pm
In a make-believe year where lies are the truth and the truth is a lie, in a make-believe year where the Iraq war was necessary, and is now a great success, and in a make-believe year where the economy is stronger than ever, George Bush is the make-believe man of the year.
94. AAR | December 23rd, 2007 at 8:00 pm
Diana,
Only in your mind have you pointed out anything! Your time would be better spent writing fiction novels!
You can’t find anyone in politics, in either party, who has ever said something like, “Able bodied Americans are not expected to work and earn their own living.” It’s just something you imagined.
Now you don’t really expect me to believe that a former police officer like yourself has not seen more that their share of “able bodied people” receiving welfare, hand-outs, subsidies, and entitlements? That’s truly amazing!!!
Did you ever check Google or one of the other search engines? Have you ever talked to people in the real world? Do you bother to watch the people, and what they are buying with food stamps, in the supermarket check-out line? Have you ever driven through the poorer areas as seen how many are loafing and lazily walking around during normal work hours?
Yahoo Answers pretty much summed it up when a person asked: “Should able-bodied welfare recipients be required to do odd jobs around the homes of hard-working taxpayers?”
The reply chosen as the “best answer” was…
“I think you are right on track. I would like to see all of the lazy sob’s out there that I am paying for get out and do something for our money. I would think that mowing and landscaping for the older people that cannot afford to have it done, or taking care of the trash along the roads. Also for the ones that have a kid just so they can get more money should get cut off and have their kids taken from them to break the cycle.”
“I worked in a supermarket in high school and it would always p___ me off to take food out for people that were driving new Cadillacs, Lincolns and other high end cars, but cashed their welfare checks and payed for their steaks with food stamps. These were people that were in better health than most and better dressed than almost anyone I knew.”
Oh, but you said “no one in politics”, didn’t you, not those in the real world who actually see and know what’s happening! Even if they don’t use those exact words, they are in effect saying the same thing when they vote for more welfare, hand-outs, entitlements, and subsidies for able bodied people!
Let them work overtime or a second job to pay for their own needs and living, and those of their family, rather that taking the money from those who do!!!
Are you really going to tell us that you believe there aren’t millions of “able bodied” people receiving welfare, hand-outs, subsidies, and entitlements?
Your comments are still awaiting moderation? Did you ever wonder if I might be the moderator and deleted your comments?
AAR
95. NeoClown | December 23rd, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Conservative politicians have a talent for telling memorable anecdotes that capture the essence of their beliefs on any particular issue. One of the most enduring of these came from Ronald Reagan on the subject of welfare. He cited a Chicago “Welfare Queen” who had ripped off $150,000 from the government, using 80 aliases, 30 addresses, a dozen social security cards, and four fictional dead husbands. The country was outraged; Reagan dutifully promised to roll back welfare; and ever since, the “Welfare Queen” driving her “Welfare Cadillac” has become permanently lodged in American political folklore.
Unfortunately, like most great conservative anecdotes, it wasn’t really true. The media searched for this welfare cheat in the hopes of interviewing her, and discovered that she didn’t even exist.
As a bit of class warfare, however, it was brilliant. It diverted public attention from insider traders in their limousines to Welfare Queens in their Cadillacs, even though the former were stealing thousands of times more from the American people than the latter. Just one example of the cost of white collar crime would become apparent a few years later, when President Bush bailed out the Savings & Loans industry with $500 billion of the taxpayer’s money — enough to fund 20 years of federal AFDC.
Questions of class warfare aside, there is no evidence that there is a significant problem with welfare cheating. In 1991 less than 5 percent of all welfare benefits went to persons who were not entitled to them, and this figure includes errors committed by the welfare agency. (1)
Nor are people getting rich off welfare. The two largest welfare programs are Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and food stamps. In 1992, the average yearly AFDC family payment was $4,572, and food stamps for a family of three averaged $2,469, for a total of $7,041. (2) In that year, the poverty level for a mother with two children was $11,186. (3) Thus, these two programs paid only 63 percent of the poverty level, and 74 percent of a minimum wage job. There are other welfare programs, of course, but they either pay a minuscule fraction of these two programs, or, if larger, are collected by only a small percentage of welfare recipients. The typical welfare recipient remains among the poorest members of society.
96. Diana Powe | December 23rd, 2007 at 8:58 pm
No, I hadn’t thought about it, but I would assume, that, if true, you just felt they were too threatening to your beliefs to let everyone read them.
Also, as I said earlier, the Administration doesn’t agree with your rage at all the supposed able-bodied Americans living off handouts. They keep touting the unemployment rate. However, if you use your eyes here you’ll see where the money really goes in the Federal budget.
97. AAR | December 23rd, 2007 at 9:03 pm
…there is no evidence that there is a significant problem with welfare cheating…
Provide a “finder’s fee” to anyone who “anonymously” identifies any able-bodied persons drawing some type of welfare or government hand-out!
…less than 5 percent of all welfare benefits went to persons who were not entitled to them…
That’s 50,000 illegal recipients for ever million people drawing some type of welfare or assistance. How many millions does that include? Get ‘em off and make them fend for themselves — and their families!
Nor are people getting rich off welfare…
Exactly! And they never will as long as they stay changed and addicted to welfare — some for generation after generation. They will never achieve their full potential or have what others have as long as they remain dependent on welfare. One way or another, force them off welfare — for their own good — and start them on their way to a better life!
…these two programs paid only 63 percent of the poverty level, and 74 percent of a minimum wage job.
They deserve better. The answer is not more and higher welfare and subsidies which will keep them enslaved and chained to welfare; the answer is to force them off welfare and make them work to achieve the real American dream, not the dream of a lazy life of leisure and mediocrity on welfare!
There are other welfare programs, of course…
End any and all programs except for those who are truly needy and deserving!
The typical welfare recipient remains among the poorest members of society.
Exactly. Just where Democrats want them. Enslaved by welfare. Indebted, beholding to, and voting for the Democrats upon which they depend for their doles and hand-outs — the very politicians keeping them chained to poverty by the welfare system and subsidies upon which they have grown to depend — neither knowing nor striving for another or better life!!!
Give the American poor a better life… vote to put Democrats out of office and onto their own welfare lines!
AAR
98. Diana Powe | December 23rd, 2007 at 9:06 pm
NeoClown,
Please don’t bring a lot of inconvenient numbers and facts to the discussion. Have some respect for the importance of believing things in your gut. It’s also important to lump all recipients into one homogeneous work-avoiding group that you can rage against them properly.
99. Diana Powe | December 23rd, 2007 at 9:21 pm
Oops. Somebody at the State Department didn’t get that memo.
100. AAR | December 23rd, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Diana,
Remember, never assume… you will likely be wrong!
Threatening? No.
Another dump of the same old repetitive Liberal misinformation, disinformation, lies, and misleading propaganda we have heard daily for the past seven years? Yes!!!
As I expected, you’re still in a state of denial (or is it an altered state) — oblivious to the real world around you which most of the Conservatives here know to be the case. But… your stories and “believable lies” do “sound” good and correct to the uninformed… or as one nutty liberal Democrat college kid once told me, the people who are too stupid to govern themselves — and he was absolutely serious!!!(3)
That’s the same link you (or one of your associates) provided before, but then you do repeat the same information, not only on this site, but others as well! I guess after you’ve spent the time and effort to work up a good “line”, you might as well make the best of it.
Cut the welfare portion. Force those people to earn their own living, and hopefully pay taxes. If they need training and must move out of their existing welfare slums, so their children will have better lives — I’ll vote to pay for their moves, but I will expect them to work after that — no more subsidies, hand-outs, or welfare.
With more people paying taxes, the rest of us can take a little break and maybe see more money in our paychecks!!!(3)
AAR
101. Diana Powe | December 23rd, 2007 at 9:33 pm
So, AAR, every single aid recipient is an able-bodied slacker subsisting off “subsidies, hand-outs, or welfare”? How do you know that or are you just assuming facts because you want to believe them to be true so you can justify your rage? As to the link, I previously used it in a different context. It isn’t a conspiracy.
102. AAR | December 23rd, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Yes, Nuevoclown, we’re getting dizzy from watching how many times and ways you and Diana can spin them!
Yes, Diana. The troop surge in Iraq is succeeding, or at least headed in the right direction at the moment.
General Petraeus has [almost] succeeded in preventing Pelosi, Reid, and the Democrat Party from declaring defeat and surrendering America to Al Qaeda! But we won’t declare victory just yet. Democrats are still determined to defeat America, and they can be very creative in their efforts!!!
AAR
103. AAR | December 23rd, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Diana,
I see you are having a little [intentional] trouble understanding the gist of my comments.
I didn’t say “every single aid recipient.” I even said “except for those who are truly needy and deserving.”
What we have to do is locate those truly deserving people and toss out the chaff!
(And having one child after another, while on welfare, does not qualify as a reason to stay home and not work full time to earn one’s own living — while paying for child care out of one’s own pocket.)
AAR
104. Mark Noonan | December 23rd, 2007 at 10:11 pm
NeoClown,
Actually, it is that lefty website you copy-and-pasted from which got it wrong - Ronald Reagan’s “welfare Queen” existed, and was legion. Have you never heard of welfare fraud? Do you presume that no one ever gamed the system?
Barbara Williams defrauded the LA County welfare system of $239,000; Esther Johnson managed to get $240,000 for 60 non-existent children; Arlens Otis took Cook County, IL for $150,000 - and that was in the 70’s. Adjusted for inflation, that works out to $865,000, $869,000 and $543,000 respectively in 2006 dollars. That’s a lot of scratch…
105. Diana Powe | December 23rd, 2007 at 10:16 pm
Tell that to Secretary Rice and her deputy, not me.
Then I suggest you go to work for a government agency so you can get to work identifying all those slackers. As we can see from the federal budget graphic I linked to that’s clearly the most pressing issue today.
106. NeoClown | December 23rd, 2007 at 10:54 pm
Mark,
What we’re talking about on this soon to be Christmas Eve is a lot a single mothers trying to feed their children and keep them warm tonight.
You and AAR have food in the fridge and a warm place to sleep tonight? Good, I’m happy for you guys. Everyone is not so lucky.
“Do you presume that no one ever gamed the system?”Yes Mark, criminals do exist and they prey upon the welfare system. Is your answer to the criminal problem to do away with the entire system?
You say that’s a lot of scratch…
Criminals that defraud the welfare system are piker’s when compared to George Bush cronies like Ken Lay of Enron.
Ken Lay cost 4,000 employees their jobs and many of them their life savings, and led to billions of dollars of losses for investors.
Would Your response be to do away with capitalism because there are criminals that might take advantage of the system.
107. Mark Noonan | December 23rd, 2007 at 11:29 pm
NeoClown,
It is true that we can all do more; certainly, I don’t do enough, and I thank you for the timely reminder that I must do more. On the other hand, when you come before the Judge in the fullness of time, He’s not going to ask you if you advocated higher welfare spending, or even urged the odd conservative to do more - He’s going to ask you what you did for the poor…the poor person you passed in the street this past afternoon. He was there. Didn’t you notice? What did you do for him, right then and there?
You might also be asked, in addition, what you did to ensure that justice was done - and justice also includes taking note of fraud, in all its forms, and taking concrete steps to prevent it.
108. bagni | December 23rd, 2007 at 11:43 pm
markherecomesdajudgealcious:
so…by asking neoclown what he did for a poor person this past afternoon?
your goethe’like boldness
in the way you asked him?
that must mean you did something for a needy person recently???
if so….. i just wanted to say nice work
your thoughts and actions are to be commended
you’re right…..we all need to do more…
merry xmas big boi
109. Mark Noonan | December 24th, 2007 at 12:14 am
bagni,
What came into my mind as I wrote that was actually something a friend of mine from RCIA recently did - after taking his wife out for a birthday dinner at Red Lobster, they ended up giving their boxed leftovers to a homeless man who was outsided the restraunt reading the Bible. That is the sort of service Our Lord really wants of us - no grand schemes to solve all problems, but just to notice those immediately around us who need help, and then to help them. A priest who says Mass at my church from time to time (who, by the way, needs our prayers as he was recently struck with some serious heart problems) also notes how there was a homeless man outside a church where he was pastor some years ago - for the longest time, he passed the man and did nothing; meanwhile, there was a family in the parish he though inconstant in their faith, but as it turns out, every Thanksgiving that family took the homeless man into their home for dinner. Once again, the sort of service Our Lord wants us to give.
For all I know, NeoClown is out there every day ministering to the needs of the poor, so it was, perhaps, unfair of me to use the exact words I used - but I think it important that before we remove the mote from our brother’s eye, that we remove the plank from our own - and I do wonder if NeoClown really takes that to heart as he passes out swift and sure judgement against me.
110. bagni | December 24th, 2007 at 6:59 am
markamote,
fyi
there’s probably too much swift and sure judgement tossed around from both sides on this site
we don’t always see eye to eye on issues
however….your story about your friend and pastor are good ones
my big wish?….i hope some of those virtuous stories you have can be told in the first person
yknow…the more the merrier
i’m taking today off…….
merry xmas you right wing super freak
111. FmrMarine | December 24th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
I OWN an Air conditioning company.
I get into a lot of peoples homes. Many are tenants, some section 8.
I can say this with authority the “poorer” the people appear to be (food stamps, subsidized rent etc) the more they appear to have alcohol, and nicotine addictions.
I can tell you this 99.9% of them smoke.
figure $4.00 a pack, 7 packs a week, per person = say 2 people, $224.00 per month.
Now take in potato chips, beer, etc.really makes one wonder how “poor” they really are.
How much of MY families money do they need to steal from me through taxes and redistribution.
112. Uncommon | December 25th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
I wish that I had seen this post and replied to it earlier. Now it is about to leave the front page and disapear into obscurity yet I will stil attempt to assert my views. I am a father of three and have been married going on 7 years. After serving five years Active Army I was injured while on tour in Kuwait. I was medically boarded and now receive veteran disability benefits. I work 40+ hours a week making roughly $11.50 an hour and I AM ON WELFARE. I receive $250 worth of food stamps and $120 worth of WIC support each month and my children are also on state sponsored health care. As a participant in our welfare state I can assure you that the people AAR is ranting about are far and few in between. YOU HAVE TO ACTIVELY SEEK A JOB AND OBTAIN ONE WITH IN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME TO RECEIVE BENEFITS. I’m not sure if that is strictly a Kansas thing but you can not remain on food stamps and medicare and stay at home unless you are disabled. As it was pointed out there are always going to be criminals who will try to cheat the system but this not purely a welfare recipient phenomena. People have to understand that there will always be poor in this country and that it is the poor that allow us to live the way we do. I am definitely for less “handouts” but the reality is that the money I get from welfare allows me to feed my family and without it we would be at a loss. So one, I would say STOP! generalizing about people you have no clue about and two, poor does not equal criminal. Merry Christmas.
113. Wall garden Lover&hellip | January 12th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Wall garden Lover
I hope i get true you’re spamfilter so i can tell you what a great blog you have and that i bookmarked it.
114. desert landscaping ideas&hellip | January 21st, 2008 at 8:06 am
desert landscaping ideas
I have never seen anything like this, don’t know if i like it though, either way thanks for posting it it.
115. Auto Loan&hellip | January 29th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Auto Loan
Atzel recently put in to get an auto loan and got welcomed right away , aside from there vile money problems !
116. Esther Baxter Pic&hellip | February 16th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Esther Baxter Pic
Man i love reading your blog, interesting posts !
117. Shop Md Skin Care Product&hellip | March 27th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Shop Md Skin Care Products
I have to say, that I could not agree with you in 100%, but it’s just my opinion, which could be wrong.
118. Carters Baby Wear&hellip | March 29th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Carters Baby Wear
It is a quite interesting post but quite difficult to understand for me -
119. New Hampshire Dui Attorne&hellip | March 30th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
New Hampshire Dui Attorney
Interesting - because that is the same thing I found out last Thursday.
120. Jessie&hellip | April 17th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Jessie
121. a real man s c&hellip | May 31st, 2008 at 11:02 pm
[...] 5:18 pm ….. that ESC could bring medical break throughs that the other SC researches can??t? …http://blogsforvictory.com/2007/12/22/the-real-man-of-the-year/I Need A Real Man for Prez… to work within the system and too early to shoot the [...]