timesjoke

You two are still incredibly crazy. I understand why hugo refuses to admit I never wanted the guy to get anything for free, but joker are you also just too scared to admit that there can be some degrees of punishment for messing up? Let me say this again for you two idiots: I AGREE THE GUY ACTED STUPID AND HIS HOUSE BURNING DOWN WAS 100% HIS FAULT. The discussion I was trying to have is how we could still put out the fire and still hold him accountable for his mistake because the way I see the world, we should not be having people like firefighters and policemen watch bad things happen because someone did not pay $75. Someone else had a great point, what if someone was trapped in the burning home? Still just stand there and watch them burn alive? If you think this is good why not do the same thing for the police? It is the logical next step. Police cost money to support too. Should we have a yearly fee outside standard property taxes for police coverage and if we don't pay, we don't get any police services? I am sad that you two can't see that there should be more to being a firefighter or a police officer than how much money you can extract from the community.

he did pay a higher penalty. He lost his house. bet he pays up next time... True eddo, there was a huge penalty, and I am sure it was a glaring example to the rest of the County residents who don't want to pay up as well. I was trying to say that there could be some middle ground here, some place where we can say it was a bad decision not to pay the fee, and at the same time say that just watching a family home burn down is a tad harsh. Many Countries find it very successful to punish a thief by cutting of the hands. While this method is very successful at teaching a lesson that stealing is wrong, I find that sucess in sending a message is not the only standard we should be living our life by eddo. There is more than just standing on the legality of things. Sure, I admit the firefighters and the city was well within their right to just watch the home burn, but were they showing a true spirit of community and fairness by imposing the most harsh penalty imaginable with no steps between? I know without doubt that I could not watch a home burn and do nothing. I would help and lose my job if necessary but I would not just stand there and watch it burn down. How about you eddo? You are the firefighter standing there watching the home burn, do you keep your hands in your pockets and refuse to help?

The talk about things like Social Security and other programs being destined for massive cuts in recent years has been drivn by the hard reality that America is surviving on Credit. Right now America owes over 13 trillion dollars and it is getting worse every day as we spend money we do not have. Consider it more simply: You make $5,000 a month but you have monthly bills that amount to $6,000 a month. You are unwilling to make painful cuts and start filling the gap with credit cards. Each month you add $1,000 to a credit card and end up reaching your limit and getting a new card. Now you are adding that same $1,000 to the new cards but also making the minimum payments on the other cards with this card so it fills up faster, and each time you get a new card you have another card at maximum that needs a minimum payment. Eventually you need to get two new cards, one to add your monthly living expenses and the other just to make your monthly payments on the other cards and you are still losing ground because not only do you have the $1,000 monthly shortage, but now you have interest adding up on the many credit cards. This is what our Government is doing on a massive scale. We can't pay our bills so we are making it on credit but the hole we are in has no way out of it without massive cuts in spending by our Government or massive tax increses on an already severely taxed populace. Already services that used to be all inclusive on property taxes (like garbage and school taxes) are now being broke out of the base taxes and are their own seperate tax. In most casesd residents are taxed ten times more now than they ever were just 20 years ago but they hide the tax with different code words like "fee" or "permit", but no matter how they word it, the Government is still taking the money from you with hundreds of little charges that used to be all inclusive on just your property taxes. Democrats and liberal Republicans have spent a lot of time trying to milk the "rich" as much as possible but it has had the effect of running off jobs to other Countries and not only did we lose the tax revenue, we now have to help support those people who are out of work. So what should we do? My opinion: Our biggest need is to get everyone working. We need to bring jobs back to America and that will require us to eliminate the job killing Unions and massive Government regulations that make it impossible to turn a profit in certain businesses in America. This should include tax breaks for anyone who employ over 100 people in the private sector that does not take any Government funding. All Government jobs should be cut no less than 20% like the British are doing. All Government agencies should be severely reduced or eliminated completely. Take the IRS for example, we should enact the 'fair tax' proposal and this will save America hundreds of billions of dollars every year while at the same time provide more tax revenue to the Government to pay down our debts. I have other ideas as well but I would like to see if you guys have any ideas on how to cut Government spending. Remember, this is all in the knowledge that we are already out of money, we have to make big changes.

There is no direct example because up to now, there has not been a need for it. In my State we even have something called volunteer fire fighters. There is a volunteer fire fighter station about 8 miles from my main home. There is another one 16 miles from my river house. Imagine that, people working together to help community and not being motivated by greed to fight fires........I guess what is happeneing in that County is called progress to the radicals like hugo. Anyway, I gave you several examples of how emergency services are protected by the courts. One example I offered was how a person can be life flighted and later charged with the cost of the flight "even without a contract, verbal or written". You dodged that point because you know it proves you wrong. You debate exactly like Bender, you simply ignore what proves you wrong while I address every point anyone makes. Lots of States charge residents for fighting fires they caused such as wild fires, here is one example: http://www.fire.ca.gov/communications/downloads/fact_sheets/CostRecovery.pdf Hugo, Not one person here is claiming the homeowner shoudl get fire fighting services for free. You are spending a lot of time copy/pasting (as usual) other people's words on a point not one person here is supporting. What we have said it there should be a path that allows firefighters to remain firefighters and not buracrats. By allowing the home owner to pay a much increased fee you both fight the fire and tell the other residents that there is a huge cost for not paying the lower fee should they need fire fighting services. There are things the city can do to make the emergency contract more solid such as letters to the residents and information in the local news papers, but there is not one Judge who would not uphold an emergency services need to act quickly to fight a fire. Look at it this way hugo, you say the homeowner made an informed decision not to pay, so it stands to reason they would also be making an informed decision as to the greater cost for paying at the time services are needed. Most Courts take the "reasonable person" approach and paying a higer fee if you refused to pay the lower fee ahead of time is certainly reasonable. Again, let me say that I nor anyone else wants the homeowner to get fire fighting services for free, that is not at issue or discussion here. The homeowner should pay a much higher penalty for not paying ahead of time. What I am saying is that there should be a path that allows a firefighter to fight fires, not watch as homes burn to the ground just because the home is not on a list. If the only motivation to fight fires is for money, then something in this world is moving the wrong direction in my opinion.

Sure it is, the point the kid was making was that if they raise the retirement age two years, then people will stay in those jobs for an extra two years instead of retiring and so less jobs for them. The Government "fix" is to take people who could work out of the working pool so younger people can have their jobs. Why? Why do older people have to retire? Why should the Government pay anyone any money to retire and make way for younger workers? As medical advances continue to extend our lives, that also means a longer period of time collecting "free money" from the Government and a lower ratio of people paying into the system than taking out of the system. The only chance the Government has to keep the ponzi scheme going is to raise the retirement age much, much more to bring it more in line with medical advances that let people live longer. As far as the young not finding jobs, well again, that is not the fault of the Government and not their responsibility to fix. The problem is the Government has been stealing from the SS fund for many years. The Government is more irresponsible with money than the average individual is. I say there should be seperate accounts, but the Government should not have access to the money to spend it without being able to pay it back.

Happy late b-day, I hope you had a great day and lots of pampering.

Bullsh!t hugo, the person is dying and unconsious, there was no informed decision or authorization, there is an assumption by the courts that because this is the only option to save their life it is "assumed" they would agree to it and people are forced by the courts to pay those fees all the time. Sure, the city putting out a notice of the fee both ways would go a long way to proving peopel were informed of the higher charge to pay "as needed" but under the law, emergency services have always enjoyed the protection of knowing they are there to help society. Once again you show that maybe you are not as bright as I have been giving you credit for all this time. These things go before a judge, a judge will look at the guy trying to scam $10,000 out of the people and toss him out on his ear, while the same judge will look at the fire department acting in good faith as a community service and they being the only option available to respond to this kind of emergency and there is no way that judge will toss that out. Emergency services have long held the right to charge for services, consider that people have been charged for mountain rescues and fires that got out of a back yard and spread costing a lot of time and money to fight the fire so the person who lost control of their fire gets charged. So your belief that the peopel would get something for "free" is dead wrong hugo. Say it with me....F I R E F I G H T E R.....not buracrat. As a child many kids will see firefighters as their heros because they put their life on the line to help people. Now we want them to be nothing more than a money grubbing greedy group of people? Democrats spend most of their time screaming about how evil companies and business people are because they are only motivated by "GREED", but it is okay if our Government is only motivated by greed? When does human life and safety attain a greater value than a $75 fee? Um....you ever actually file a lien? It takes 5 minutes to file a lien, the Government workers who process these things are already sitting there, it would only cost the Government the price of the paper to make it official. Now you are pulling a hugo, nobody said anything about not charging the homeowner, he should be charged a higher fee because he failed to pay the fee in the proper time. The Government has been doing this for years for things like paying your taxes and such. Stop trying to lean on the crutch that the guy will get anything for free because that is not the case. Humans are not robots, we don't do everything perfect. Yes, he should pay a price for not paying, but as with all mistakes in life, the punishment should fit the mistake. We don't execute people for speeding because that would be considered too harsh. All I am trying to say is it seems a tad harsh to just sit there and watch his home burn down just to punish him for not paying his $75. If the fire fighters are there anyway, why not make some extra money in the process for the City? The homeowner has to pay a huge fee as punishment, the fire is put out ensuring the safety of even the whole community, the firefighters get to keep their image of being motivated to help people instead of just being motivated by greed........everyone wins. When your home is on fire, every second counts. If a buractatic mistake had the family not on the list but they did pay, their home burns down anyway even if they paid. As OS said, the receipt is in the burning house, and taking the time to get it, and bring it down to the fire station would not be very productive now would it?

The problem is it is a ponzi scheme. The payments work out well for the first people who draw payments because you have more people paying in then is taking out. After a long time people live long enough to be taking out more than they ever paid in and new people retiting and collecting starts to knock off the balance and sooner or later you start paying out more than you are taking in. Stop and think about all the pyramid scams you have ever heard of and the way those pyramid scams are designed, well that is exactly how these things are designed. Whatever happens in the job market that is also not the fault or the responsibility of the Government to "fix". The Government did not make all the babies, the parents did and if they can't find jobs then let the same parents who created them take care of them. Each person should be responsible for himself, not looking for an all powerful Government to step in and live his life for him.

I was talking to my gf and she reminded me of a party we went to one time when a couple had dressed up as candy bars, he was an almond joy, she was a mounds. He had on him, "I have nuts" and she had "I don't", lol. And yes it was an all adult party. I was a pirate and even had a very good looking parrot on my shoulder and she was a "serving wench" we had a great time. I like your idea for using your belly as a beer gut and such, do you think you can get the hubby to do the girl costume? I even did it before so if I can do it anyone can, lol.

Being politically correct is a dead end street. It will slowly expand until everyone stops talking completely. We need to do something about this, it has already gone too far.

You are a lovely mom Chi Costumes are tough sometimes but the easy and cheap costume idea for a couple is to each dress up as the other sex. It can be very impressive if the guy will go all out and even find some heels and do good makeup. Era costumes are pretty cheap most of the time too, you can find clothes at goodwill type stores pretty cheap. Going as the 'walking dead' can be pretty cheap, not my cup of tea but some like to do it.

I believe their religion also says God created life on many worlds. If they are right that could explain the UFOs.... I have a personal belief that most people of faith all worship the same God, our chosen religions are just a human expression that allows us to identify the concept of divinity in a way we can feel good about. Depending on where you grow up and what life you live can determine what frame of mind you must have to follow a religious belief system.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/10/21/france.strikes/index.html Paris, France (CNN) -- Some 200 demonstrators blocked France's Marseille-Provence airport for more than three hours Thursday as strikes and protests continued across the country, trade unions said. A large rally was scheduled for central Paris in the afternoon as demonstrators stepped up protests against a government proposal to raise the national retirement age from 60 to 62. Pop star Lady Gaga postponed two Paris shows this weekend because of "the logistical difficulties due to the strikes," her website said. "Unfortunately, as there is no certainty that the trucks can make it to the Bercy for this weekend's shows, the Lady Gaga performances are now postponed," the statement said. The French Senate is working its way through roughly 1,000 amendments to the pension reform bill, and a final vote on the bill could be as early as Thursday and as late as Sunday. The lower house of parliament has already passed it, by a vote of 329 to 233. If there are substantial differences between the Senate and National Assembly versions, a conference committee will have to iron them out before the final version goes to the president. France has been reeling from strikes. Police and protesters clashed Wednesday, and on Tuesday, 428 people were arrested in connection with the protests. About 1.1 million people have demonstrated across the country, French media quoted police as saying. Unions put the figure at 3.5 million nationwide as the rolling strike goes on for more than a week now. Students from high schools have been skipping classes to join the strikes. Some students told CNN in Paris that they are worried they won't be able to get jobs if the current generation hangs onto jobs for an extra two years. Later Wednesday, French authorities unblocked three fuel depots after the president ordered police to break blockades at the sites by strikers. "We did it because the west of France is threatened by a very severe shortage of fuel. The opening of these three depots was essential and will gradually allow normal activity to resume," Interior Minister Brice Hortefeux said. There are 219 fuel depots in France. In addition to the three, 21 fuel depots have been unblocked between Friday and Tuesday. The French government contends that the country cannot afford the earlier retirement payments. "I will implement the pension reform because my duty as head of state is to ensure that French people and their children can count on retirement and that the amount they receive will be maintained," Sarkozy said Wednesday. The strikers have crippled transportation, and affected schools and fuel supplies. Once you are giving away "free money" to the populace, it is extremely difficult to try and take it back. This is the biggest problem with the 'welfare' mindset; even those who are not collecting their "free money" yet see that "free money" as something to look forward to. Entitlements weaken society, it transforms people into wild animals kept at the zoo, content as long as they are kept fed and clean but if their handlers stop taking care of them, they react. These welfare recipients turned into caged wild animals retain their aggressive abilities, but lose their ability to survive on their own and forever need someone to take care of them. --So now the animals are rattling their cages..............

You know hugo, most of the time you are a hardazz but you still seem fairly smart most of the time if just a little misguided, but then sometimes you say something like this and I wonder if all that copy/pasting you do with other people's words is why you seem smarter than this drivel shows. Emergency situations were time is an element of the decision process is given complete legal status for verbal contracts. Even people who are unconsious and flown to a hospital to save their life are held accountable for the bill to fly them because it is assumed any reasonable person would agree to the flight for those emergency reasons. There is not one Judge in America who would not enforce an emergency contract in this situation. Other ways the fire department can help to cover their behinds is to send a information letter to the area homes and put it in the paper describing exactly how their policy and fees are set up and letting everyone know ahead of time. This kind of informed decision is how the fire fighters are now using to give them an excuse as to why they just stood there and watched the home burn. Well it is a good thing that nobody here is wanting anything done for free then right? There is no legal ground for the owner to refute the charges at a later date and the Government just leans the land and is paid before anyone can ever live on the property again so they will be paid for services rendered and the Government does not have to put firefighters in the possition of being uncaring buracrats who would just sit there and watch a family home burn to the ground just because their name is not on a list. Another thing to consider is what if the people did pay their fee but some lazy Government worker who took the fee forgot to put their name on this list? What kind of liability does the City now put itself in because of a mistake made by one person? The logical and reasonable action is to put out fires, that is what fire fighters are supposed to do. Let the buracrats be the buracts. You know, it was not that long ago that we never had professional fire fighters. Communities just put our fires because they just thought helping each other in a time like that was the right thing to do. Could we call this new development of people just watching someone's home burn down and not lifting a finger progress?

????? Did you miss the point? Maybe you don't know that non-Muslims are not allowed in Mecca....

Nobody is saying anything about not paying a fee, if we look at the example offered, we see that the fire department had to respond anyway to be sure the fire did not spread to one of the homes in the neighborhod that did pay the fee. While they were out there anyway, why not put out the fire and make an extra $500? As it was, they drove all the way out there and sat watching the fire burn down that house and the firefighters were on the clock anyway. Well as this example shows, there is a good possibility that they will be responding to the calls anyway because while one person may not make the payment, the next guy most likely did and they have to be sure the fire does not spread to the home that did pay as what happened in this case. As far as getting paid, most States place lean rights to property in cases like this, so the City could get their money, maybe not right away but after a fire if they want to put a new home up on the land it cannot pass for a certificate of occupancy unless the leans are taken care of.

Well my only real complaint in general is where a lot of complaints are made for people in Western society to be more accepting of religions like Islam but in Countries where Islam is practiced, they don't seem to be as accepting as they want us to be here. Try to go as a non-Muslim and visit Mecca.....

As he sits in the middle of a bunch of mirrors......

Free speach is free speach, either you have it or you do not. Being forced to pay for the right to say something is not free speach. As far as the gay Muslim thing, I wonder at the kind of acceptence he would get in a Muslim Country......

Well once again you demonstrate why it is futile to try and have a reasonable debate with you Wez, you are either completely happy being uninformed or you just make sh!t up as you go along just to say you got to argue about something. I stopped reading when you lied and said Bush started the "stimulus package" that was promised to us to keep unimployment below 8%. If you are incapable of admiting that Obama and almost every Progressive Democrat rammed this down our throats without even reading it under this promise and how that promise failed, then there really is nothing else you can say to further this duiscussion down a reasonable path. Obama and the Democrats made the promise, they even had a pretty graph to go with their threat that it needed to be passed as soon as possible to save jobs" [attach=full]3048[/attach] The red triangles show the actual numbers on top of the predicted numbers from Obama, both with and without the proposed "stimulus package". Did the "stimulus package"work as promised by the Progressives Wez? no. Did the Republicans ever get behind this mess and claim it would keep unimployment below 8%? No. So if only one easily defined group has told a massive lie and added a trillion dollars to the deficit as a result of that lie, why do you feel it is unreasonable to point this out? I see you posted a lot of garbage about Bush but I did not read that either, no point really because there was no lie from Bush and no way for you to prove there was because even Bill Clinton and the rest of the Progressive leadership said the same exact thing Bush said and they had their own sources of intelligence. What you fail to understand is Bush was only one man, he did not invent false intelligence or spoon feed information to Congress because Bush did not have that power and as much as you guys love to pain Bush an idiot, how can you at the same time try to paint him a brilliant man planting evidence in the CIA and even in other intelligence agencies around the world? "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." ~ letter written by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry and many others. 1998 "This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." ~ letter written by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos 2001 "Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." ~ Madeline Albright, 1998 "(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" ~ National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998 "Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." ~ Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002 "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." ~ Robert Byrd, October 2002 "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." ~ Bill Clinton in 1998 [/u] "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." ~ Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002 "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." ~ Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003 "Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." ~ Tom Daschle in 1998 "The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." ~ John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002 "I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." ~ Dick Gephardt in September of 2002 "Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." ~ Al Gore, 2002 "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." ~ Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002 "As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." ~ Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998 There was no lie by Bush or anyone else Wez, unless you are claiming the lie started 8 years before Bush ever took office? Bill Clinton, his wife, Pelosi, Reid, Barbra Boxer, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore....the list goes on forever showing that long before Bush ever took office, the Progressive leadership all confirmed the exact same intel as Bush showed, and that intel was there before he took office. Were all these Democrats in on the Bush lie? And if so, why would they lie for Bush?

How is he a freeloader if he is charged a large fee to respond to the fire Hugo? Not one person here has said the fire fighting service should be free, we are saying that if he did not pay the lower fee ahead of time, there should still be an option to get fire fighting services at a higher fee. Now we have fire fighters being buracratic pencil pushers and refusing to help families if their name is not on a list. You like names on lists Hugo? Interesting you mention Hitler, he liked to put names on lists too......

If being practical also means you have to be heartless I don't want to be practical. Humanity should be more than if you can pay a fee to a Government agency or not. I still don't see your point why an elevated fee would not work. If you pay ahead of time you get a discount, if not you pay a big fee. This happens all the time in the real world. Take this example, the fire fighters were out there anyway, they responded to the neighbors who did pay the fee to be sure the fire did not spread to their homes. There was no added cost to put out the fire but I do believe there should have been a higher fee for not paying ahead of time. I do not believe fire fighters should be put in the possition of watching a family home burn down. This is the wrong message, we are telling everyone that the only way they matter is if they pay a fee to the Government. Me too, I am sure it is a poor County but I would think the city nearby should consider that these County residents still go to their town to spend money and buy their groceries. I would think it just reasonable to work out some agreement at the County level to provide emergency services. Just because these people do not live inside the city limits, that does not mean they do not add to the economy and vitality of the city. According to the City, the only way the fire department will respond is if the address is on their list of people who paid their fee, so I am assuming a child trapped in a burning building would fall under that classification too. True, so what is next eddo? Pay a fee for the police? Where does it end? Fighting fires and crime should be considered basic servises for society, if we are going to make these things conditional to the ability to pay seperate fees, what does that say for how we have evolved as a society?

My problem with this is the people pay taxes on their land but the County does not provide any services to the residents paying their taxes. What do their property taxes go to if not for any services like fire and rescue? Yes, they should have paid the $75, but I don't think you refuse to put out a fire just because they did not pay the $75. What should happen is the city should charge an elevates fee to those who use services and did not pre-pay for them. At the end of the day I believe it is heartless to just sit there and watch a family home burn to the ground and not lift a finger just because they did not pay $75. What is more important? Humanity or a $75 fee? Is that all each of us are to the Government? If we don't give them money we are no longer entitled to be treated like a human being?

I am using the proper labels to help identify who has done what Wez. It is not meaningless to identify who made the promise to keep unimployment below 8% and if that promise was good or not. You want everyone to ignore the faile promised and failures by not identifying the people who are responsible. You dodged my direct question Wez. If the "stimulus package" had worked as promised, would you say that success was because of Bush? Of course not, if it had worked as promised the Progressives would be strutting around like proud roosters and all you would hear on the campaign trail is how smart they were. So if they would have taken the praise and credit for it's success, why do you feel it is unfair to give them the blame for it's failure? We should hold accountable those who created the failed promises and policies. They should be held accountable for their actual actions as proven by their own words to make promises that they broke. They should be taken to task for their failures and in this case taken out of power because of their mistakes. What lie Wez? Bush said exactly the same things Bill Clinton and the rest of the Progressives said before he ever took office. If there was a lie it was created by someone other than Bush and Company. For Bush to have spoken a lie he would have to have independent knowledge outside of the intelligence circles President Clinton and even people like Pelosi had. Congress is entitled to their own intelligence meetings away from the President and all of them agreed before Bush took office that there were weapons of mass destruction. Even Al Gore said we needed to take out Suddam so there was no lie Wez. I know you desperately want to believe there was a lie, but the facts are the facts. Are you trying to say Bill Clinton, Pelosi, Reid, Al Gore, all of these Progressives were puppets for Bush before Bush ever took office? You can't be saying that now can you? And stop with the "would they sacrifice themselves" bull sh!t, like Obama wouls give up his life or something. There is no way to appease the middle east, we are infidels and there is no degree of pacification that will ever elevate any of us above that unless we convert to Islam.