As I said before, when you see a politician's mouth moving, the noise that comes out is called rhetoric. That was as perfect a delivery of political rhetoric as I have seen in some time. He moved his mouth for 3 minutes and yet, the only substantive information that I got from it was that he was forming a presidential exploratory committee.
The 1st two minutes was nothing more than the same old tired short-list (and I do mean short) of perceived political problems with no solutions attached.
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
As I said before, when you see a politician's mouth moving, the noise that comes out is called rhetoric. That was as perfect a delivery of political rhetoric as I have seen in some time. He moved his mouth for 3 minutes and yet, the only substantive information that I got from it was that he was forming a presidential exploratory committee.
The 1st two minutes was nothing more than the same old tired short-list (and I do mean short) of perceived political problems with no solutions attached.
You are so right . And unfortunately, that's what it takes to get elected. Tell the people what they want to hear.
You bet Hawk. Now, watch the video again and watch his eyes--he is continuously reading from either a script or teleprompter. Spellbound, do you like the speechwriter or the talking head that read the speech and did this {moves hands a certain way a la FedEx commercial}?
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
lonewolf wrote:You bet Hawk. Now, watch the video again and watch his eyes--he is continuously reading from either a script or teleprompter. Spellbound, do you like the speechwriter or the talking head that read the speech and did this {moves hands a certain way a la FedEx commercial}?
But you have to agree, it comes from all political persuasions who want to get elected. They HAVE to play the game. That doesn't make them bad, only harder to weed out.
well, im not voting anyway, so i guess it doesnt really matter. Whoever they get in there is just a pawn anyway. Half the country will like him, half wont....nothing will change...just a different pawn @ the desk.
lonewolf wrote:You bet Hawk. Now, watch the video again and watch his eyes--he is continuously reading from either a script or teleprompter. Spellbound, do you like the speechwriter or the talking head that read the speech and did this {moves hands a certain way a la FedEx commercial}?
But you have to agree, it comes from all political persuasions who want to get elected. They HAVE to play the game. That doesn't make them bad, only harder to weed out.
It doesn't make them bad...it makes them clueless.
Actually, I see it a lot more from the democrats. Republicans will generally tell you what they are planning to do. This is why you will often hear that you have a choice between greedy, bad ideas and no ideas at all.
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
lonewolf wrote:You bet Hawk. Now, watch the video again and watch his eyes--he is continuously reading from either a script or teleprompter. Spellbound, do you like the speechwriter or the talking head that read the speech and did this {moves hands a certain way a la FedEx commercial}?
But you have to agree, it comes from all political persuasions who want to get elected. They HAVE to play the game. That doesn't make them bad, only harder to weed out.
It doesn't make them bad...it makes them clueless.
Actually, I see it a lot more from the democrats. Republicans will generally tell you what they are planning to do. This is why you will often hear that you have a choice between greedy, bad ideas and no ideas at all.
Not necessarily clueless. They can't always say the things they'd like to say if the want to be elected.
And I would say the Democrats and the Republicans are equal in this. Bush held off announcing decisions based on the elections that were coming up. He let Americans die while he held up the (too late) idea of sending more troops, strictly for political reasons.
Personally, now that we are entrenched in Iraq, I think we should have a draft and send 50,000 more troops, what ever it takes get the job done, and get out. But that's off the thread track.
I've heard democrats say "No tax cuts" and that is a dangerous thing to say in politics.
Both sides play the game. They HAVE to because 80% to 90% of the public get their info in 5 to 15 second sound bites.
Bush is on record stating "We have increased funding to Cancer research as I said I would do. We are committed to this for the American people."
That was in an old speech. He recently CUT funding to cancer research. It seems the funding amount was set by the Clinton administration. As soon as the Clinton policy time limit was up.........Bush cut the funding !
Hawk wrote:Bush is on record stating "We have increased funding to Cancer research as I said I would do. We are committed to this for the American people."
That was in an old speech. He recently CUT funding to cancer research. It seems the funding amount was set by the Clinton administration. As soon as the Clinton policy time limit was up.........Bush cut the funding !
What an ass !
Good for him! Personally, I would eliminate federally funded cancer research. This is just more unconstitutional spending and I can't think of a faster way to burn tax revenues than to allow the federal buffoons to practice medicine.
There are dozens of companies engaged in "for profit" cure for cancer research without the government's help. Same with AIDS. This is because the profits from such cures would be tremendous. All we will get from federal funding in this area is the smell of burning dollars. This is the kind of bullshit that creates massive federal budgets and massive federal deficits.
The best that government can do about cancer is to keep organizations like the American Cancer Society tax-free.
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
Whooooa! This is the kind of bullshit that really pisses me off and the media are willing accomplices. Here is the "lie"
"First, I’m pleased that we’re funding cancer research. We’re up about 25 percent or 26 percent since 2001; it’s a commitment that I made when I first came to Washington, it’s a commitment we’re keeping. And the reason why it makes sense to spend taxpayers’ money on cancer research is that we can make some good progress, and have."
Everything else I've read says: "The total budget for the National Cancer Institute has increased $1.2 billion since 2001."
Please tell me where there is a lie in his statement, because I can't find one. The fact that this year's budget cut this spending by $40 million is irrelevant--spending is still up since 2001 and they are still funding it.
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
lonewolf wrote:Whooooa! This is the kind of bullshit that really pisses me off and the media are willing accomplices. Here is the "lie"
"First, I’m pleased that we’re funding cancer research. We’re up about 25 percent or 26 percent since 2001; it’s a commitment that I made when I first came to Washington, it’s a commitment we’re keeping. And the reason why it makes sense to spend taxpayers’ money on cancer research is that we can make some good progress, and have."
Everything else I've read says: "The total budget for the National Cancer Institute has increased $1.2 billion since 2001."
Please tell me where there is a lie in his statement, because I can't find one. The fact that this year's budget cut this spending by $40 million is irrelevant--spending is still up since 2001 and they are still funding it.
He's bragging about the commitment and increase, making it sound like it comes from himself while the increase had nothing to do with him. It was preset. All the while he was complimenting himself for public gratitude, he knew he would , without ceremony, cut the funding ASAP.
Kudos to you for finding the exact speech, always impressive.
lonewolf wrote:Whooooa! This is the kind of bullshit that really pisses me off and the media are willing accomplices. Here is the "lie"
"First, I’m pleased that we’re funding cancer research. We’re up about 25 percent or 26 percent since 2001; it’s a commitment that I made when I first came to Washington, it’s a commitment we’re keeping. And the reason why it makes sense to spend taxpayers’ money on cancer research is that we can make some good progress, and have."
Everything else I've read says: "The total budget for the National Cancer Institute has increased $1.2 billion since 2001."
Please tell me where there is a lie in his statement, because I can't find one. The fact that this year's budget cut this spending by $40 million is irrelevant--spending is still up since 2001 and they are still funding it.
I believe you are on record stating you were laid off after some government cuts. I don't find anything wrong with the private sector making money off the government. We just need some oversight, something the republicans don't believe in. Can you say "Halliburton".
Hawk wrote:Bush is on record stating "We have increased funding to Cancer research as I said I would do. We are committed to this for the American people."
That was in an old speech. He recently CUT funding to cancer research. It seems the funding amount was set by the Clinton administration. As soon as the Clinton policy time limit was up.........Bush cut the funding !
What an ass !
Good for him! Personally, I would eliminate federally funded cancer research. This is just more unconstitutional spending and I can't think of a faster way to burn tax revenues than to allow the federal buffoons to practice medicine.
There are dozens of companies engaged in "for profit" cure for cancer research without the government's help. Same with AIDS. This is because the profits from such cures would be tremendous. All we will get from federal funding in this area is the smell of burning dollars. This is the kind of bullshit that creates massive federal budgets and massive federal deficits.
The best that government can do about cancer is to keep organizations like the American Cancer Society tax-free.
lonewolf wrote:Whooooa! This is the kind of bullshit that really pisses me off and the media are willing accomplices. Here is the "lie"
"First, I’m pleased that we’re funding cancer research. We’re up about 25 percent or 26 percent since 2001; it’s a commitment that I made when I first came to Washington, it’s a commitment we’re keeping. And the reason why it makes sense to spend taxpayers’ money on cancer research is that we can make some good progress, and have."
Everything else I've read says: "The total budget for the National Cancer Institute has increased $1.2 billion since 2001."
Please tell me where there is a lie in his statement, because I can't find one. The fact that this year's budget cut this spending by $40 million is irrelevant--spending is still up since 2001 and they are still funding it.
I believe you are on record stating you were laid off after some government cuts. I don't find anything wrong with the private sector making money off the government. We just need some oversight, something the republicans don't believe in. Can you say "Halliburton".
You betcha. I was working in the defense sector--one of the few constitutional activities of the federal government. You forgot to mention that I was layed off from cuts imposed by Bush I. It was also my choice. They had previously offered me a supervisory position at the NSA in Ft. Meade, but I turned them down because I didn't want to move there.
You would think that Halliburton was the only company that ever made money from the feds. Its the only one I ever hear about.
If Halliburton is the only profiteer out of the thousands of companies doing business with the US government, I would be led to believe that the feds were doing something right for a change. Doubtful.
Last edited by lonewolf on Saturday Jan 20, 2007, edited 1 time in total.
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
lonewolf wrote:Whooooa! This is the kind of bullshit that really pisses me off and the media are willing accomplices. Here is the "lie"
"First, I’m pleased that we’re funding cancer research. We’re up about 25 percent or 26 percent since 2001; it’s a commitment that I made when I first came to Washington, it’s a commitment we’re keeping. And the reason why it makes sense to spend taxpayers’ money on cancer research is that we can make some good progress, and have."
Everything else I've read says: "The total budget for the National Cancer Institute has increased $1.2 billion since 2001."
Please tell me where there is a lie in his statement, because I can't find one. The fact that this year's budget cut this spending by $40 million is irrelevant--spending is still up since 2001 and they are still funding it.
He's bragging about the commitment and increase, making it sound like it comes from himself while the increase had nothing to do with him. It was preset. All the while he was complimenting himself for public gratitude, he knew he would , without ceremony, cut the funding ASAP.
Kudos to you for finding the exact speech, always impressive.
My point is that the only lie regarding this matter is that Bush lied. He did not lie and I challenge anyone to show me a bonafide lie in his statement.
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
lonewolf wrote:Whooooa! This is the kind of bullshit that really pisses me off and the media are willing accomplices. Here is the "lie"
"First, I’m pleased that we’re funding cancer research. We’re up about 25 percent or 26 percent since 2001; it’s a commitment that I made when I first came to Washington, it’s a commitment we’re keeping. And the reason why it makes sense to spend taxpayers’ money on cancer research is that we can make some good progress, and have."
Everything else I've read says: "The total budget for the National Cancer Institute has increased $1.2 billion since 2001."
Please tell me where there is a lie in his statement, because I can't find one. The fact that this year's budget cut this spending by $40 million is irrelevant--spending is still up since 2001 and they are still funding it.
I believe you are on record stating you were laid off after some government cuts. I don't find anything wrong with the private sector making money off the government. We just need some oversight, something the republicans don't believe in. Can you say "Halliburton".
You betcha. I was working in the defense sector--one of the few constitutional activities of the federal government. You forgot to mention that I was layed off from cuts imposed by Bush I.
You would think that Halliburton was the only company that ever made money from the feds. Its the only one I ever hear about.
If Halliburton is the only profiteer out of the thousands of companies doing business with the US government, I would be led to believe that the feds were doing something right for a change. Doubtful.
Come on. You know I brought up Halliburton (NOT because they are making money, I have no problem with that) but because they got caught with their hands in our pockets because there was no oversight from Bush or either house leaders.
I didn't remember (selective memory I guess) that your lay off was related to defence. But the fact remains the same. Federal cuts mean job losses and increased pressure on County and City governments.
lonewolf wrote:Whooooa! This is the kind of bullshit that really pisses me off and the media are willing accomplices. Here is the "lie"
"First, I’m pleased that we’re funding cancer research. We’re up about 25 percent or 26 percent since 2001; it’s a commitment that I made when I first came to Washington, it’s a commitment we’re keeping. And the reason why it makes sense to spend taxpayers’ money on cancer research is that we can make some good progress, and have."
Everything else I've read says: "The total budget for the National Cancer Institute has increased $1.2 billion since 2001."
Please tell me where there is a lie in his statement, because I can't find one. The fact that this year's budget cut this spending by $40 million is irrelevant--spending is still up since 2001 and they are still funding it.
He's bragging about the commitment and increase, making it sound like it comes from himself while the increase had nothing to do with him. It was preset. All the while he was complimenting himself for public gratitude, he knew he would , without ceremony, cut the funding ASAP.
Kudos to you for finding the exact speech, always impressive.
My point is that the only lie regarding this matter is that Bush lied. He did not lie and I challenge anyone to show me a bonafide lie in his statement.
Give It To Me Good wrote:I'd vote for who ever supported the reunion of Trixter! there has to be some politicians who support a bill reuniting Trixter.
If they admitted it........they wouldn't get elected.
Hawk wrote:Muhammad Ali was 65 years old yesterday.
He was quoted as saying (I think in 1965) , "The children of the rich go to college, the children of the poor go to war." .
Yeah, there was a draft back then , but
Some things never change.
The average education level in the military is higher than the average for non-military people of the same age group. And no one if being forced into the military, but Charlie Rengold wants to bring back the draft.
Hawk wrote:Muhammad Ali was 65 years old yesterday.
He was quoted as saying (I think in 1965) , "The children of the rich go to college, the children of the poor go to war." .
Yeah, there was a draft back then , but
Some things never change.
The average education level in the military is higher than the average for non-military people of the same age group. And no one if being forced into the military, but Charlie Rengold wants to bring back the draft.
Find the statistic and answer this question : How many people volunteered in order to pay college tuition ? ! ! ?
