This congress has made a mess of America

[Acumen]

I agree that the fundamental differences have to do with the allocation of resources between military and human resources. I also agree as a liberal that one of the primary functions of government is to protect its citizens. I question whether we actually need to spend more money than the whole rest of the world in military appropriations to do that.

Neither of us knows what the White House does in terms of necessary military spending.  However, I can say this with strong conviction, military spending isn't the department we want to start trimming from in order to balance a budget.  We can trim from domestic programs or international handouts first.

Well, I admit I was thinking of leadership toward greater energy efficiency, reducing environmental destruction and dependence on foreign oil. I suppose they did provide "leadership" in maintaining ths status quo of oil dependence. What did you have in mind?

Right now, as I've already indicated, diversifying domestic oil production and increasing domestic supply will be our chief concern until their is another fuel source that can properly replace oil.  And right now there isn't.  The federal and state governments can do more than one thing at a time, and this includes drilling in regions promised to have abundant oil supply and investing in oil independence.  Our government should not forsake one in the pursuit of another.

[SquirleyWurley]

The economy has had issues in the last 8 years that cannot be blamed on Democrats.

Such as??

Here's my point.  You whine about gas prices and blame the Democrats. Why not Bush?  Why not Cheney?  Out of one side of your mouth you might say by the end of the 90's we were doing very well economically, and give credit to Gingrich and other Republicans, NOT to Clinton, then in 2008 when gas prices are insane you blame Democrats in congress (as if Bush couldn't veto, etc.)

[jacknky]

"Our government should not forsake one in the pursuit of another."

Agreed. We're simply talking about priorities.

[Faithfulee]

Jackny

As Acumen says, you are drinking kool aid.

The statics are working against you.

As to oil, the Republicans have been pushing for oil exploration, nuclear development and other oil  technologies for years.  These are in addition to  encouraging the development of  alternative  fuels.  We just feel that they should be  efficient and low cost and we trust the market to develop them.

The dims are holding back for ‘environmental” reasons and the American Public now realizes that there is a cost to this obstructionism.  More than 70% of Americans want to drill here, drill now and pay less4.

Mark my words the dims will come on board before November or they will lose big time.

You do make one good point however, it was the Republicans in Congress that squandered the surge in government revenues from the tax cuts.  However they were helped greatly by the Democrats who just love to spend money.

Your ref to Hasseck supports my point.   Let’s bring spending back to the Clinton level.

But who today is talking about spending even more?? “ It’s the dims stupid”

The past two years with the Dims in control are portents of what will come even worse if  we have an Obama president.

As a liberal, your comment about drilling on existing grants merely reflects the  dim thinking.

They don’t drill because there is no recoverable oil there, even at $125 BBL.  They would be fools  to waste their money.

ACUNEN  I read your post with interest and respect.  Good work

Do you think these liberals will ever learn??

[SquirleyWurley]

As to oil, the Republicans have been pushing for oil exploration, nuclear development and other oil  technologies for years.  These are in addition to  encouraging the development of  alternative  fuels.  We just feel that they should be  efficient and low cost and we trust the market to develop them.

You are making many good points, but it's easy to be distracted by the use of the term 'dims', I think we can be a bit more respectful and avoid pot shots, can't we?

[Faithfulee]

As to oil, the Republicans have been pushing for oil exploration, nuclear development and other oil  technologies for years.  These are in addition to  encouraging the development of  alternative  fuels.  We just feel that they should be  efficient and low cost and we trust the market to develop them.

You are making many good points, but it's easy to be distracted by the use of the term 'dims', I think we can be a bit more respectful and avoid pot shots, can't we?

In respect, I shall refrain from using "dims" in the future.

It is not descriptive anyway.  These Democrats are very clever and skilled at what they do.  The "dims" may really be those who do not appreciate that and actually believe their words.

[SquirleyWurley]

In respect, I shall refrain from using "dims" in the future.

It is not descriptive anyway.  These Democrats are very clever and skilled at what they do.  The "dims" may really be those who do not appreciate that and actually believe their words.

Thanks.

In the same way, an atheist may not be 'bright' and a Republican may not be a thug (Rethuglican), a gay person may not be part of some 'gay agenda', etc., so I avoid such terms.  I feel such an approach helps me to make my points better anyhow.

[Acumen]

I agree.  Using such tactics actually discredits the reliability of the post.

[Faithfulee]

I agree.  Using such tactics actually discredits the reliability of the post.

It does get attention however, and the rhetoric serves to satisfy the author.

[SquirleyWurley]

I've found it particularly necessary to avoid such things because of my idiosyncrasies.  If I don't watch myself, people will assume all sorts of things, because I tend express my views so differently than what is expected, it has lead to confusion.

When I had a room-mate who was extremely concerned about Bush being a fascist, extremely opposed to the Iraq War, and hating all conservatism/any implication of conservatism, for example, it was difficult for me to express sympathies with George Will or Christopher Hitchens, difficult for me to talk about what I thought ought to be considered re: the issues, without stepping on a hot-button.  It became an incredible strain, because this room-mate wasn't the ordinary Democrat or ordinary Liberal, but a very scared person who was reacting out of lots of fear of abuse of power -- I sympathized with the concern of abuse of power, but I had different assessments of what was going on.  I'd here her say how Bush was doing this or that, alleging this or that motive to him, how this or that would happen, etc., and I'd disagree and it was like I was an idiot or an enemy or something.  She used the terms 'repuke' and 'rethuglican' and if I didn't agree with every conspiratorial concern she had I was drinking the cool-aid.  I tried to express concern about abuse of power on a continuum, different factors and warning signs, but it seemed all-or-nothing.

The same sort of thing can happen in any religion, politics, or philosophy.  This roommate was an extreme example, but there have been others who I've had to be diplomatic with, re: disagreements, including not only some on the left but also some on the right and even some moderates.

[Acumen]

I agree.  Using such tactics actually discredits the reliability of the post.

It does get attention however, and the rhetoric serves to satisfy the author.

That's not the sort of attention anyone wants.

[Faithfulee]

I've found it particularly necessary to avoid such things because of my idiosyncrasies.  If I don't watch myself, people will assume all sorts of things, because I tend express my views so differently than what is expected, it has lead to confusion.

When I had a room-mate who was extremely concerned about Bush being a fascist, extremely opposed to the Iraq War, and hating all conservatism/any implication of conservatism, for example, it was difficult for me to express sympathies with George Will or Christopher Hitchens, difficult for me to talk about what I thought ought to be considered re: the issues, without stepping on a hot-button.  It became an incredible strain, because this room-mate wasn't the ordinary Democrat or ordinary Liberal, but a very scared person who was reacting out of lots of fear of abuse of power -- I sympathized with the concern of abuse of power, but I had different assessments of what was going on.  I'd here her say how Bush was doing this or that, alleging this or that motive to him, how this or that would happen, etc., and I'd disagree and it was like I was an idiot or an enemy or something.  She used the terms 'repuke' and 'rethuglican' and if I didn't agree with every conspiratorial concern she had I was drinking the cool-aid.  I tried to express concern about abuse of power on a continuum, different factors and warning signs, but it seemed all-or-nothing.

The same sort of thing can happen in any religion, politics, or philosophy.  This roommate was an extreme example, but there have been others who I've had to be diplomatic with, re: disagreements, including not only some on the left but also some on the right and even some moderates.

My room mate (and wife) is a flaming liberal, and it does help me understand the other side of issues.  We pride ourselves in the motto "If two people agree on everything, one of them is unnecessary"

[Acumen]

My wife's family is liberal to the core.  My wife is conservative, probably because of the influence of me and my family.  However, she is not a true conservative - but more of a neo-con.  She believes that some government programs are worth having.

[Faithfulee]

Pelosi's demonstration on the talk shows today, illustrates how this Congress has made a mess of America.

She still clings to the line that we shouldn't drill for Oil in America and tries to defend her tactics that shut out debate on this critical issue.  When faced with how she proposed an open congress when she took charge, she hems and haws and goes back to arguments that no intelligent American can believe.

She has not only messed up the countries energy program but she has messed up their heads.