How many 100W Incandescent light bulbs do you have stocked up?

[Robert Green]

It's hard to refute a one-line lie claiming other people are liars.

Bad guess. The right is again "re-righting" (sic) history, painting the guys that *helped* run up the deficit as watchdogs and stalwart guardians of the treasury. With the Great War Fairy covering the AfRaq expenses, they try persuading people that their hands are clean and every dime they spend is carefully considered. They're all for tax cuts - unless Obama is for them. The party of "whatever you're for, we're against."

They are like brave Paul Revere, raising the alarm!

Fortune plays a mournful tune For those whose campaign peaks too soon

Most interest in the flat tax seems to have followed Herman into oblivion.

Unfortunately, for the Party of Opposites, the "Iran problem" is going to ramp up very soon and stimulate the economy just before the election - perhaps even providing a decisive October victory. American Presidential elections are often all about the crisis of the preceding month and the state of the economy the day before voting.

-- Bobby G.

[trader4]

Last time I checked, there was a lot more than one gjuy responsible for 911. The Taliban, giving safe haven to Al Qaeda for their terrorist training camps being one example. What would you libs have done if not go to war to remove them from power? Send them a cake? Send the FBI with a search warrant? Or just send a cake?

Which of course is a bold face lie.

[Han]

" [e-mail]" wrote in news:147440b1- [e-mail]:

Going to war in Afghanistan was right. If you stop halfway, that's not good. If you then go to war in Iraq, that doesn't help.

[trader4]

[e-mail]:

Once again, the total cost for both wars as of right now is about $1.3tril. That's for 10 years of war. Average it out and it's $130bil a year. Revenue in 2008 alone was $530bil higher than it was in 2001. If you add up all the increased reveue from 2001 until 2008 it actually just equals the cost of the two wars.

=A0As you could see, during the Clinton years there

While it's true both contributed to tax receipts, it's not true that they were anywhere close to the same proportions. For one thing, during the dotcom period we had a very strong economy. The overall economy during the Bush years grew substantially slower than it did in the Clinton years. Just look at a chart of GDP. As for tax revenues, most real estate transactions don't pay federal taxes, particularly the over heated home market. By comparison stock sales are taxed, so the dotcom had an inherent advantage in generating govt revenue.

What same assumptions? Why would you want to start class warfare when what we have is a SPENDING problem? Spending has gone up 40% in just 4 short years, from 2007 to 2011. Show me where taxes have been cut

40% during that period and then we can talk about taxes.

[Dan Espen]

Pay attention.

GWB didn't have any trouble getting both parties to vote for the Afghanistan invasion. And Obama has killed a lot more terrorists than GWB ever dreamed of in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and a lot more places.

Yeah he's sent them a cake. A rather deadly one that's blown up in their faces.

Again quick to call me a liar but unable to cite any facts. Here's GWB truly not concerned about Bin Laden:

and as far as miscellaneous countries, find any WMD yet?

[krw]

[Han]

" [e-mail]" wrote in news: [e-mail]:

I don't have the figires ready for the war expoenses, but I really think it was several times higher than that.

Traditionally whether economically sound or not (I think it is) spending goes up during a recession while revenues go down. There, I said it. However, there was absolutely no slack or cushion set up during Bush's wars, just a recipe for more expenses, then, now and for a whole lot longer. Or do you think all those returning vets will improve the economy? Going back to other periods after a war had ended shows expense upon expense until the vets were retrained. This latest set of wars has produced more recovering wounded than any before and you want to cut spending? How patriotic!

[trader4]

You seem to think that I'm implying Obama sent Al Qaeda a cake. The comment about sending them a cake, was addressed to the resident lib loon. He's been bitching that after 911 the whole thing should have been handled as a simple criminal matter. He disagrees with most of what Obama has done in fighting Al Qaeda. Had the loon been running things, we'd be working out the details of a search warrant with Pakistan and Bin Laden would long be gone.

The problem is that last time I checked, there is a lot more to Al Qaeda than just Bin Laden. You apparently think 911 begins and ends with Bin Laden. Bush knew it did not. And Obama would not have gotten Bin Laden if it were not for many years of intelligence work in the hunt for him that started with Bush. Had there been no enhanced interrogation, which is what you libs would have done, Bin Laden would still be alive today.

[trader4]

[e-mail]:

That's the problem with libs, isn't it? It's always emotion and don't confuse me with the facts.

Uh huh. But the troubling part here is that we're no longer in recession and the deficit is still $1.6tril. And Obama's last budget forecasts deficits of $1tril a year for the next decade. He planning on putting us back in recession?

[Han]

" [e-mail]" wrote in news: [e-mail]:

OK, the NY Times said a year and a half ago (July 24, 2010): "The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost Americans a staggering $1 trillion to date"

So if we hadn't wasted that $1Trillion on the war, or at least had done it a more economically (focus on Afghanistan, for instance), the deficit would have been far, far less, and we wouldn't have had the thousands of dead and even more wounded, in body and soul, whom we do need to care for for the rest of their lives. Perhaps we could have paid attention to our situation at home.

I may not be able to answer any more since I will have to pay attention to my kids and grandkids etc for our upcoming New Year's celebration. Sorry, it is only for immediate family, but if you want to come along later in the week, we might still have some leftovers ...

[Dan Espen]

So you've been calling me stupid and a liar because of someone else?

Umm, no. Obama has killed the leader and is methodically working his way down the hierarchy. And he's doing a damned fine job of it too.

But we still have Bush's statement that he didn't care about Osama and went on to attack a country that everyone knows had nothing to do with 9/11.

You never hesitate to throw out "you libs". According to you, we all think alike, we're all stupid and a danger to the country.

I have plenty of conservative friends and I don't talk like that to them.

Humans are imperfect. Neither side has a monopoly on being right.

[The Daring Dufas]

Obambo, the mulatto Rambo, jumping out of a helicopter with a machine gun to take out all those nasty terrorists. ROTFLMAO

TDD

[Robert Green]

Why do you think the attack on Afghanistan was justified? The 9/11 bombers did their aircraft training right here in the US. It's doubtful their plan would have succeeded if they hadn't been able to take flying (yet not landing) lessons here.

-- Bobby G.

[Robert Green]

Just as funny as GWB appearing in a flight suit telling us "Mission accomplished" in 2003. One has to wonder why the war then went on for 8 more years if we had accomplished the mission that early on. I'd be LMAO for sure if so many Americans hadn't been killed after that false declaration of success.

At least Obama's capture of Bin Laden won a serious intelligence victory that stayed in the mind of the American public, if only for a little while, and wasn't just a publicity stunt (and an outright lie) like Bush's flight suit strut on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln. Obama also exposed our Pakistani "allies" as friends in name only, and only as long as we kept sending billions in "love the US" bribe money. That's a *real* accomplishment, not a "look at the macho man" PR stunt. Meanwhile Obama is relentlessly attacking the Al-Qaeda leadership and not the people of a country who had nothing to do with 9/11.

One thing in Bush's favor is that he eventually realized what a bone-headed moment that speech turned into:

Once again, as I did in my salad days as a reporter, I'm hearing someone say, essentially: "That's what I said, but it's not what I meant!" I wonder how many American soldiers died or were wounded from that point forward? The article goes on to say:

[The Daring Dufas]

I believe the difference is Obama, who is the President of my country, says, "I did it" and Bush, the former President of my country said "Our men and women in the military did it." The P.L.L.C.F. hysterically claim that President Obama killed OSBL. The military and intelligence agencies never stopped looking for OSBL and just happened to find him during President Obama's term. Our military delivered the goods, I'm glad President Obama didn't stop them. ^_^

TDD

[George]

What do you do with them? I see no point in stocking up on them.

I used to have some in use in the basement but replaced them with 27w CFLs which work great and use a lot less energy.

[Dan Espen]

Good evening. Tonight, I can report to the American people and to the world, the United States has conducted an operation that killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of al Qaeda, and a terrorist who's responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent men, women, and children.

[Bernie Ward]

Exactly! I've not heard one *good* reason to continue using incandescent.

[The Daring Dufas]

The teleprompter told him to say that. ^_^

TDD

[Dan Espen]

Recklessly speeding downhill with no brakes.

There's one reason above all others that President Obama uses a teleprompter in delivering most of his speeches: he's good at it.

Ronald Reagan was the same way. He was more at ease in reading his speech off the dual screens of a teleprompter than looking up and down at a speech text on his lectern

Not so, George W. Bush. He often got that nervous, deer-in-the-headlights look when giving an address from a teleprompter. He would seem stiff and ill-at-ease. He did not convey a sense of understanding.

"He preferred using large index cards," said his one-time White House Press Secretary Ari Fleisher, "plus I think he was just more comfortable with the cards."

It's definitely a finely honed skill to deliver a speech from a teleprompter (seen in the top right corner of the above picture from Mr. Obama's speech today in Columbus, Ohio). It takes as much if not more focus or concentration than reading a paper copy.