Welfare = Free ride for the rest of your life on the government... Woo hoo!

Abortion = Birth control... (And the government should pay for it.)

Moderate = Hillary Clinton...

Ken,... This is fun!

Jimmy Carter = Peace maker and Great President.

Social Security = A wonderful retirement plan.

Ken,... I am out of control!

LOL its easy Zsa Zsa, when they give you so much ammunition . . .

Isn't that the truth???...

Perjury = A good idea if you can get away with it...

Progressive=Anything but.

Hugo Chavez = ???

I was going to say something ... BUT I thought I might leave this one for anyone else who would like to take it!... I was thinking of something along the lines of Cindy Sheehan???

Stolen Election- any election won by a Republican

War on Terror = A permanent condition that allows the executive to ignore any law he feels is “quaint”.

Terrorist = Anyone Iraqi who fights the occupying army or is brown.

Freedom of Speech = promoting the bashing the brains out of liberals with baseball bats.

Hate Speech = Pointing out that the basis of the war was manipulated intelligence.

Racist = Anyone who says “Neocon”.

Intolerant = Liberals who don’t like Clarence Thomas.

Economic Justice = Tax cuts for the wealthy while bankrupting the government.

Spending Cuts = 7% increase in defense spending and just not including the war costs in the budget, because if it is not in the budget, then it looks like you are spending 150 billion less than you will be.

Tax Cuts = budget deficit.

Torture = forced sodomy with a glow stick and the sleeping bag/duct tape/chest compression routine.

Mainstream = assault rifles and theocracy.

Nazi = anyone who disagrees with James Dobson.

Liberal = Catch all phrase for democrat.

Hero = Augusto Pinochet .
Enemy = “Mainstream Media".

Bipartisan = Theocrats and Plutocrats.

Divisive = Questioning any action taken by the Bush Administration.

War on Terror = A useful tool to scare the bejesus out of voters, especially around election time.

Social Security = liberal socialist entitlement program that needs to be destroyed.

Whistleblower = Traitor and someone who should have their character assassinated.

Leaker = Dick Cheney.

Nice try Thomas, but as usual you completely miss the mark.

Try getting your own schtick - I won't always be around to provide you with ideas.

Given the volume of cutting and pasting thomas does, I wouldn't bet on it, Ken.

"Given the volume of cutting and pasting thomas does, I wouldn't bet on it, Ken."

What does this mean? That he will be around always to provide me with ideas? This makes no sense at all, as usual.

And Ken, Isn't the comments section to comment on your post? I mean if i was bringing up something totally irrelevant would that be, uh, irrelevant? And how did I miss the mark? Again I have shown your comments to be hypocritical and snarkish. you spend your time casting blame and throwing mud, when the ones you should be trying to reform are your own breed.

Hoodlumman's point, Thomas, is that you seem to be a little short in the originality department.

Comment away in any way you see fit - you are certainly welcome here as long as you are not profane, and I am glad actually that you come by.

You totally lost me on the 'irrelevancy' and 'hypocrisy' points however.

And I'll cop to 'snarkish' - its a great trait for a blogger to have, maybe even necessary.

Sorry to drag out the SCOREBOARD again, but why do I need to reform myself, when its our side that is winning elections, not yours?

Ahem, who needs the reform, Thomas?

Winning elections yes, loosing the soul of the party in the process? I will be the first to admit the Democratic party is in disarray. With out a person to lead the party, they have no voice and no message. They can not even vote as a unified block most of the time. However, the Republican party can not continue to bind it's coalition with fear terrorists and fear of homosexuals. People may be stupid to the fact that the terror alerts leading up to the election have all but vanished, but I doubt they will believe it again. Also, once a gay marriage ban is passed you can't pass it again. That on top of the fact that the Republicans will not have any credibility with blaming the huge budget deficits on anyone but themselves. I talk to moderates and they are getting sick of it. It is irresponsible.

And what about originality? I write my own material unless it is an obvious quote. I thought my point for point was pretty good. Saying Castro is the Democrat's hero? My lord, where do you get that nonsence? I took everyone of you "=" and threw it right back at you. What is unoriginal about it? What schtick would you prefer? You mention gun control and I comment on illegal immigration? Attack my ideas sure, I expect that, but discounting legitimate critisism by ignoring it is childish. Typical Republican thing to do though. Example of what you are doing in my opinion: Richard Clark, "The Bush administration would not let me meet with them to discuss the Al Queda threat" Bush Administration, " That Clark guy is really strange."

Thomas, I am truly touched by your concern for the soul of the Republican party.

Thomas, you and your party need to do a great deal more soul searching, because if you think the Republicans are winning elections because of terror alerts and homophobia, man, you are deeply, deeply in denial. If coming up with rationalizations that make you feel comfortable is more important than actually winning elections, all the more power to you.

And really, a Democrat calling budget deficits 'irresponsible' is quite rich. You guys frickin' INVENTED the concept of budget deficits.

And Thomas, you are way behind the times - the fed is starting to post budget surpluses now. Lets hope it continues.

Gee, could tax cuts have something to do with this?

And yeah, Castro is a hero to the left. Remember when Time magazine put that glowing portrait of him on their cover, calling him the 'Lion In Winter?' and then did a puff piece on him?

That was TIME magazine, not the Socialist Worker Daily.

Heh, and Thomas, saying that Republicans ignore 'legitimate' criticism (in who's eyes?) is probably the most off-base thing you have said yet.

Republicans love to argue facts. Why not? They are on our side. In fact I encourage it, because that is precisely what keeps us winning elections.

Freedom Fighter = Soldiers kicking down doors in Iraq and jailing women and children.

Terrorist = Husbands of these women and children being held

Freedom of Speech = putting up with republican talking head uttering nonsense.

Hate Speech = pointing out Bush's nonsense.

Racist = putting all white christians on the supreme court

Intolerant = Teaching that Gay's arn't really people.
Economic Justice = No-bid contracts for Chaney's company

Spending Cuts = food stamps and elderly health care

Tax Cuts = Rich shouldn't have to pay

Torture = any treatment that kills.

Mainstream = Standing in a mega-church with eyes closed and arms raised.

Nazi = this administration.

Moderate = Anyone not hanging off the right rim white knuckles
Hero = Chicken hawks.

Enemy = Tom Delay.

Bipartisan = having one Democratic.

Divisive = Two democrats.

War on Terror = a fake war that scares people into voting for more terrorism

Social Security = A popular democrat program the republicans don't like and want to "fix".

Update: Whistleblower = See "leaker"

Leaker = Anyone talking bad about Bush

Posted by Ken McCracken · 12 February 2006

And Thomas, you are way behind the times - the fed is starting to post budget surpluses now. Lets hope it continues.

Earth to Ken. Please prove this. They have spun you my friend.

obfucation is all you got.

Republicans love to argue facts. Why not? They are on our side. In fact I encourage it, because that is precisely what keeps us winning elections.

Missed this at first. this is brilliant. Show me those budget surpluses Fact Boy.

Oh, got one for you. One of those surplus thingys.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/

Just what have you been smoking. I can't believe you would type something so ignorant and easily refutable.

http://www.cbo.gov/budget/budproj.pdf

Oh geez Thomas, I guess you didn't read this.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11275286/

One reason for the surplus are the record revenues of $230 billion.

Due to tax cuts.

Heh, and Jacksbrat obviously thinks it was a Democrat who appointed the only non-white on the Supreme Court.

Just had to point out how ludicrous that particular claim is.

From article you linked to...

"The Bush administration on Monday estimated that the deficit for this year will hit a record in dollar terms of $423 billion, surpassing the old mark of $413 billion set in 2004. The administration blamed increased spending for hurricane relief and the costs of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for the increase."

So what are you going to do now? Break it down by the week? What a joke. Nice Rose colored glasses you have there ken. Wahahahahaha.

I am not even going to get into the tax cuts equal budget surpluses BS with you. You supply siders have been debunked at every turn and still can't face reality. There is no logic to that argument, NONE.

Hey, I am not saying we are living in a world of budget surpluses, we may very well finish the year with yet another big deficit.

I think the growth of spending and the deficits are a huge problem for the Republicans, they should correct it.

Is it a problem that will dethrone the Republicans and put the Dems back in office?

Heheheheh, you can forget winning that one.

The point I was making is that perhaps we are turning the corner on deficits, and even despite the War on Terror, Katrina etc. we may still be able to create surpluses.

What is indisputable is that tax revenues are up, way up, even after Bush's massive tax cuts.

Gee, could there possibly be some kind of relationship there?

Hardly sounds like the Laffer Curve and supply side economics has somehow been 'debunked' Thomas.

Ken,
You seem like a smart person. Blinded ideologue, perhaps, but a smart person. So answer me this. Unless you are in a recession the economy is going to be growing, I am sure you agree. If the economy is growing at a rate of say 3% a year and tax rates remain constant what happens to the revenue collected? You are correct! Tax revenue increases!!!

The fact remains, every, and I mean EVERY, spending cut measure that is enacted has been offset by tax cuts. The purpose of this, I hope you know, is to starve the beast, not balance the budget or eliminate deficit, but the exact opposite. Cause massive hemorrhaging.

No need to worry though, i am sure you will be able to afford to live in a gated community and take a toll road into work everyday. The crumbling infrastructure can be left for the "little" people to worry about.

Thomas, please, calling me a 'blinded ideologue', coming from you, brings to mind some pat phrase involving pots and kettles.

Tax cuts spur the economy, which results in growth, which in turn yields higher tax revenues.

Isn't that exactly what supply-side economics is?

I guess I don't understand how you can dispute tax cuts have helped this along. Do you think the economy would have done even better if we had tax increases?

And please enlighten me about all of these spending cut measures that have been passed, I must have missed that article in The Nation.

ken,
Tax cuts will have a nominal effect no doubt. Saks and your local Hummer dealerships will see an increase in business, but to state that the increase in economic activity, which is going to happen anyway unless you are in a recession, is going to increase tax revenue is just fantasy. Adjusted for inflation and accounting for economic growth it is simply an illusion. See the Reagan years as an example. The only reason the economy is not turning full speed ahead is worry about interest rates and a weak dollar, which is related to the national debt. More rosey glasses.

And please you can't really be serious about spending cuts.

Don't tell me, let me guess. You are one of those people who thinks that cuts in programs growth to compensate for inflation, increased population or increased number of retirees, does not count as a spending cut, right, is that it? yawn.

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do not happen to think that a reduction in the growth of government programs is in fact a 'spending cut'.

If you don't get a salary raise one year, and inflation reduces your spending power, do you tell people that you got a 'salary cut?'

You could say that, but it isn't really true is it.

I also have to quibble with your talk about a 'weak dollar' - that would come as news to the Japanese. The Yen has been hammered pretty badly since last September. Also, the Euro is down from 1.2300 as of a few weeks ago to 1.1870 as of today.

The dollar gained about 15% in 2005.

And Bernanke has been good for the dollar, thus far.