tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8774506.post111479666843043572..comments2023-11-03T07:31:49.573-04:00Comments on Liberal Citizen: Dumb and Dumberer. Fox Picks Paris, Shaves BushGeorgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09253150846911854844noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8774506.post-1114908128367630712005-04-30T20:42:00.000-04:002005-04-30T20:42:00.000-04:00Let me get this straight.. when Bush talks about S...Let me get this straight.. when Bush talks about Social Security, those "better off" are anyone who makes over $20,000 a year!<BR/><BR/>When he talked about tax breaks during the campaign, he classified those better off as the ones making over $100,000 (or, was it $300,000?). <BR/><BR/>That's pure bushwacking in my opinion.<BR/><BR/>GeeshusAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8774506.post-1114875121236070482005-04-30T11:32:00.000-04:002005-04-30T11:32:00.000-04:00I have to say that the press corps(e) stinks! Thos...I have to say that the press corps(e) stinks! Those were softball questions and no good follow-ups. It's embarrassing to see these reporters being so passive, especially when this White House has been one of the most secretive in decades.<BR/>I think Jeff Gannon/Guckert--you know the male prostitute--was right at home at the White House press room. Why, he should be the president of the corps(e).<BR/><BR/>BadassticAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8774506.post-1114812788729746022005-04-29T18:13:00.000-04:002005-04-29T18:13:00.000-04:00Yeah, most of us prefer Paris without a bush. Mayb...Yeah, most of us prefer Paris without a bush. Maybe because we're not into Bush! I should know, I'm an aborigine.<BR/>The Bushman, AUAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8774506.post-1114804516159630142005-04-29T15:55:00.000-04:002005-04-29T15:55:00.000-04:00I don't know if Shrub believes this, but last nigh...I don't know if Shrub believes this, but last night he distanced himself from those who argue that the Democrats oppose any judicial nominee because they former oppose the Xtian nature of the latter!<BR/><BR/>Shrub, at least on record, took a different position than his father... The then VP Bush senior gave an interview in 1987...<BR/>This from the blog Eschaton:<BR/>Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?<BR/><BR/>Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.<BR/><BR/>Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?<BR/><BR/>Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God!<BR/><BR/>WOWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8774506.post-1114803432875295572005-04-29T15:37:00.000-04:002005-04-29T15:37:00.000-04:00As Think Progress points out, Bush is now defining...As Think Progress points out, Bush is now defining people who are "better off" as anyone earning over $20,000/year. When selling his tax cuts, he defined people who were the "lowest income taxpayers" as anyone earning under $100,000.<BR/><BR/>Do you think life necessities got cheaper since? I don't think so. In America, outside the big cities, everyone needs to drive, so when Bush took over in 2001, the price of gas here in NJ was about $1/gallon. Now, it's $2.20! That makes a huge dent in my disposable income. My friends across the river are paying around $2.50-2.65/gallon.<BR/><BR/>I wonder whether Bush and his friends have any concept of what $20,000 are.... They're multi-millionairs, never had to struggle to pay rent, for food, health care, etc. So, he says now that if you earn more than that you're better off!! BEtter off compared to what???!!! <BR/><BR/>Kent, NJAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8774506.post-1114798107029005432005-04-29T14:08:00.000-04:002005-04-29T14:08:00.000-04:00Of course the Republicans want to establish one-pa...Of course the Republicans want to establish one-party rule in this country.<BR/>Take for example the changing of the fillibuster rule in the Senate. Some more reasonable conservatives have pointed out that changing the rules may come back to haunt their party because the Republicans won't be in the majority for ever!<BR/>Really? That's not the view of the current Rep. leadership!<BR/>Not to mention that some of them are rapturists who believe in the end of times (coming soon) so the new kingdom will come under their reign!<BR/>Justine, NYAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com