Who said this?

[TexasTiger 12,998]

"I think it's a nutty idea to fool around with the Social Security system and run the risk of [hurting] the people who've been saving all their lives.... It may be a new idea, but it's a dumb one."

[tiger88 934]

Michael Jackson?

[Auburn85 432]

"I think it's a nutty idea to fool around with the Social Security system and run the risk of [hurting] the people who've been saving all their lives.... It may be a new idea, but it's a dumb one."

151459[/snapback]

which republican said this and when?

[tiger88 934]

Do you really have to ask 85? I mean blind people in Asia see this one coming!

[TexasTiger 12,998]

Michael Jackson?

151460[/snapback]

Oooh, so close. La Toya!

[AURaptor 1,126]

Ok, I give. Who said it, how long ago, and in what context ?

[TexasTiger 12,998]

Ok, I give. Who said it, how long ago, and in what context ?

151499[/snapback]

So you're not buying La Toya?

GEORGE H.W. BUSH DISAVOWS PRIVATIZATION:

... back in 1987.

"I think it's a nutty idea to fool around with the Social Security system and run the risk of [hurting] the people who've been saving all their lives.... It may be a new idea, but it's a dumb one. "

For those keeping score, the comment came in response to a question from fellow presidential candidate Pete du Pont during a presidential debate. Du Pont was an advocate of partially privatizing the program.

http://tnr.com/etc.mhtml?pid=2599

So it was George Bush-- the smarter one.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Ok, I give. Who said it, how long ago, and in what context ?

151499[/snapback]

So you're not buying La Toya?

GEORGE H.W. BUSH DISAVOWS PRIVATIZATION:

... back in 1987.

"I think it's a nutty idea to fool around with the Social Security system and run the risk of [hurting] the people who've been saving all their lives.... It may be a new idea, but it's a dumb one. "

For those keeping score, the comment came in response to a question from fellow presidential candidate Pete du Pont during a presidential debate. Du Pont was an advocate of partially privatizing the program.

http://tnr.com/etc.mhtml?pid=2599

So it was George Bush-- the smarter one.

151501[/snapback]

Shows that, even that many years ago, W was a compassionate fellow. However, as he's grown wise w/ age and understanding of the issues, it's become clear to him that SS needs to be saved, and letting individuals have more say in what they do w/ their own $ is actually a good idea.

Kinda defeats the whole 'simpleton, frat boy ' label that the Left tosses at W.

[Tiger Al 0]

Ok, I give. Who said it, how long ago, and in what context ?

151499[/snapback]

So you're not buying La Toya?

GEORGE H.W. BUSH DISAVOWS PRIVATIZATION:

... back in 1987.

"I think it's a nutty idea to fool around with the Social Security system and run the risk of [hurting] the people who've been saving all their lives.... It may be a new idea, but it's a dumb one. "

For those keeping score, the comment came in response to a question from fellow presidential candidate Pete du Pont during a presidential debate. Du Pont was an advocate of partially privatizing the program.

http://tnr.com/etc.mhtml?pid=2599

So it was George Bush-- the smarter one.

151501[/snapback]

Shows that, even that many years ago, W was a compassionate fellow. However, as he's grown wise w/ age and understanding of the issues, it's become clear to him that SS needs to be saved, and letting individuals have more say in what they do w/ their own $ is actually a good idea.

Kinda defeats the whole 'simpleton, frat boy ' label that the Left tosses at W.

151506[/snapback]

Wrong "frat boy" Raptor. The simpleton's father said it.

[TexasTiger 12,998]

Ok, I give. Who said it, how long ago, and in what context ?

151499[/snapback]

So you're not buying La Toya?

GEORGE H.W. BUSH DISAVOWS PRIVATIZATION:

... back in 1987.

"I think it's a nutty idea to fool around with the Social Security system and run the risk of [hurting] the people who've been saving all their lives.... It may be a new idea, but it's a dumb one. "

For those keeping score, the comment came in response to a question from fellow presidential candidate Pete du Pont during a presidential debate. Du Pont was an advocate of partially privatizing the program.

http://tnr.com/etc.mhtml?pid=2599

So it was George Bush-- the smarter one.

151501[/snapback]

Shows that, even that many years ago, W was a compassionate fellow. However, as he's grown wise w/ age and understanding of the issues, it's become clear to him that SS needs to be saved, and letting individuals have more say in what they do w/ their own $ is actually a good idea.

Kinda defeats the whole 'simpleton, frat boy ' label that the Left tosses at W.

151506[/snapback]

Not really, but your post does support the whole uninformed Bush supporter label. George H.W. Bush debating in 1987. Did you know Bush's dad-- the smarter, more compassionate George-- was President once? Starting in 1988?

[Auburn85 432]

He disagreed with his dad......... so what?

[AURaptor 1,126]

Not really, but your post does support the whole uninformed Bush supporter label. George H.W. Bush debating in 1987. Did you know Bush's dad-- the smarter, more compassionate George-- was President once? Starting in 1988?

So, in your world, making an honest error by mistaking 'H.W.' for ' W' means that I'm uninformed ? :huh: But you're quick w/ the personal insults, there's no denying that. Yes, H.W. won once, W won twice. There's a reason for that, dontchya think? Sounds like a typical Left winger... .everyone who doesn't vote for their guy must be 'dumb', or 'uninformed'

[TexasTiger 12,998]

Not really, but your post does support the whole uninformed Bush supporter label. George H.W. Bush debating in 1987. Did you know Bush's dad-- the smarter, more compassionate George-- was President once? Starting in 1988?

So, in your world, making an honest error by mistaking 'H.W.' for ' W' means that I'm uninformed ? :huh: But you're quick w/ the personal insults, there's no denying that. Yes, H.W. won once, W won twice. There's a reason for that, dontchya think? Sounds like a typical Left winger... .everyone who doesn't vote for their guy must be 'dumb', or 'uninformed'

151518[/snapback]

What makes you think that is my only evidence that you're uninformed? But I didn't say "dumb." "Personal insults"? I think you've called me worse things that "uninformed," my friend.

But, no. An "H" might be overlooked by anyone. The fact that you missed all the clues really surprised me. First, from 1987, I doubt you can find many quotes by W on any substantive issue. Comparing scotches, maybe. Or sour mash. But this phrase that was also in the post you replied to should have tipped you off: "the comment came in response to a question from fellow presidential candidate Pete du Pont during a presidential debate." Dubya was still a wet drunk in 1987. He didn't decide to run for President until he had become a dry drunk. He was far more likely to be tapped to play Otis in a Mayberry remake than to run for dog catcher, so he certainly wasn't slapping Pete du Pont around in a Presidential debate. But you were so eager to somehow show how this quote made him look virtuous you just jumped right in. Chill out, brother.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Not really, but your post does support the whole uninformed Bush supporter label. George H.W. Bush debating in 1987. Did you know Bush's dad-- the smarter, more compassionate George-- was President once? Starting in 1988?

So, in your world, making an honest error by mistaking 'H.W.' for ' W' means that I'm uninformed ? :huh: But you're quick w/ the personal insults, there's no denying that. Yes, H.W. won once, W won twice. There's a reason for that, dontchya think? Sounds like a typical Left winger... .everyone who doesn't vote for their guy must be 'dumb', or 'uninformed'

151518[/snapback]

What makes you think that is my only evidence that you're uninformed? But I didn't say "dumb." "Personal insults"? I think you've called me worse things that "uninformed," my friend.

But, no. An "H" might be overlooked by anyone. The fact that you missed all the clues really surprised me. First, from 1987, I doubt you can find many quotes by W on any substantive issue. Comparing scotches, maybe. Or sour mash. But this phrase that was also in the post you replied to should have tipped you off: "the comment came in response to a question from fellow presidential candidate Pete du Pont during a presidential debate." Dubya was still a wet drunk in 1987. He didn't decide to run for President until he had become a dry drunk. He was far more likely to be tapped to play Otis in a Mayberry remake than to run for dog catcher, so he certainly wasn't slapping Pete du Pont around in a Presidential debate. But you were so eager to somehow show how this quote made him look virtuous you just jumped right in. Chill out, brother.

151625[/snapback]

As Auburn85 put it .. He disagreed with his dad......... so what?

[Tigermike 3,048]

As Auburn85 put it .. He disagreed with his dad......... so what?

151668[/snapback]

What you are missing Raptor, is that in the Demoncrats minds any slight disagreement (among Republicans) must mean that the Republican party is about to magically implode and the demoncrats would be somehow elevated to a level of respect heretofore unknown. Let's see now, a current Republican President (W) disagreed with a former Republican President (GHW) and the Republicans are not acting like the Dems did with Zell Miller and the dems can't comprehend why! Am I understanding this big problem correctly?

[TexasTiger 12,998]

As Auburn85 put it .. He disagreed with his dad......... so what?

151668[/snapback]

What you are missing Raptor, is that in the Demoncrats minds any slight disagreement (among Republicans) must mean that the Republican party is about to magically implode and the demoncrats would be somehow elevated to a level of respect heretofore unknown. Let's see now, a current Republican President (W) disagreed with a former Republican President (GHW) and the Republicans are not acting like the Dems did with Zell Miller and the dems can't comprehend why! Am I understanding this big problem correctly?

151673[/snapback]

Sorry, but you're not understanding my point at all. You're right that there is no problem with disagreement on complicated issues. I don't think disagreement indicates pending doom at all. In fact, the lack of disagreement is probably a greater danger because it often means groupthink has set in. But when a Democrat voices an opinion similar to GHWB's, he/she is slammed for not getting it. If a Dem disagrees with Bush on this issue, his head is in the sand, doesn't see the problem, doesn't have the guts to deal with it, etc. Why is a particular view okay when one man says it, and stupid when another says it? In fact, it is GHWB in this instance which called what his son now wants to do as "nutty." But that's okay, for him, wrong from a Dem?

[Tigermike 3,048]

I would say it's wrong for the dems in power to run off at the mouth about President Bush's plan when they have no plan whatsoever, not now and not in the recent past. Their only plan is to say SS will not be bankrupt until 20_ _, why bother with doing anything now? Their only real plan and objective is to be as disruptive and obstructive to W's administration as possible.

Actually the dems do have another agenda. Ted Kennedy recently said: "Kennedy said that Republicans have taken the Presidency and Congress, and then he told the crowd of supporters that he would not stand by and allow the Republicans to take the Judiciary as well."

It would seem they do have an agenda with their obstructionist blocking of most all federal judge appointments. Self preservation for the liberal democrat agenda.

[TexasTiger 12,998]

I would say it's wrong for the dems in power to run off at the mouth about President Bush's plan when they have no plan whatsoever, not now and not in the recent past.  Their only plan is to say SS will not be bankrupt until 20_ _, why bother with doing anything now?  Their only real plan and objective is to be as disruptive and obstructive to W's administration as possible.

Actually the dems do have another agenda.  Ted Kennedy recently said: "Kennedy said that Republicans have taken the Presidency and Congress, and then he told the crowd of supporters that he would not stand by and allow the Republicans to take the Judiciary as well."

It would seem they do have an agenda with their obstructionist blocking of most all federal judge appointments.  Self preservation for the liberal democrat agenda. 

151749[/snapback]

Did you feel the same way when the Republicans opposed Hillary's health care? Do they yet have a plan, more than 12 years later? Sure didn't stop them from talking.

Bush's plan still isn't detailed. And it seems to be changing. If I have a suggestion that I first claim will fix a problem, and you point out it clearly won't fix the problem, has the burden truly shifted to you to fix it now? Even Bush now admits private accounts don't address the shortfall. He still has no plan to address the shortfall he claims will result in the system going bankrupt.

[Auburn85 432]

Bush is trying to put an end to some of the frivilous lawsuits,which includes certain malpractice lawsuits