Don Imus

[Scooter]

Well, its been all the talk around the coffee shop and lunch spots.

Consensus is he's an loud mouthed idiot (along with a few others) but has joined the ranks of Michael Vick, Jessee Jackson, Al Campanis, Rush Limbaugh and others who basically opened their mouth and said the wrong thing.

I actually thought it was funny in retrospect, but feel guilty about feeling that way. It is so politically incorrect, and might have been appropriate at a bar, but not on the public airwaves.

What say you?

[Sponsored Links]

[Morrgaine]

I think those girls are some of the best basketball players in the country and deserve quite a bit more respect than that! I'm glad to see him go.

Barbara

[bbcamp]

I believe in the right of free speech.

I believe that Imus exercised his right of free speech.

I believe that free speech includes responsibility. The common example is not yelling "fire" in a theater.

I also believe in common courtesy. Public name calling is not courteous.

I believe that Imus failed the last two measures.

Had Imus called the Rutgers basketball team anything he wanted in a private conversation, we would not be discussing this at all. However, he used his position on the public airwaves to call people unflattering names. This was not simply political incorrectness. He was acting irresponsibley and stupidly in the name of free speech.

[ddmoit]

I've never been a fan, and I couldn't care less if he stays or goes.

I would prefer that these kinds of decisions be made by the free market. In other words, if he can't draw an audience or sponsors after what he said, then he's out of business.

I think Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are as racist as anyone and have no moral high ground when it comes to the likes of Imus. If advertisers and listeners respond to their rhetoric, so be it. If the FCC responds, then I have a problem.

I think Imus is a jackass for saying what he said. But, no one will ever convince me that any real harm was done to those girls. Who cares what a jackass thinks about you?

In the end, we're probably all better off with a gainfully employed Imus than without him. He has likely done more good than harm - perhaps not on that particular day.

[Scooter]

Free Speech. Yes, but not when I'm paying the guy. He has all the right in the world to say whatever he wants but not on CBS's nickle.

Free Market. Same thing. This is CBS's Radio Show, they own it. They have a right to tell anyone what to say or not to say, and to fire those they disagree with. If Imus doesn't like it, he can start his own Radio Network.

What surprises me is that Imus was a "liberal" and berated Bush and the Bushies all day long. The fact that CBS, an accused "liberal media outlet" gonged him proves my point that media is often not what they appear to be, especially when the eat one of their own.

[ddmoit]

Free Speech. Yes, but not when I'm paying the guy. He has all the right in the world to say whatever he wants but not on CBS's nickle.

Free Market. Same thing. This is CBS's Radio Show, they own it. They have a right to tell anyone what to say or not to say, and to fire those they disagree with. If Imus doesn't like it, he can start his own Radio Network.

I can't disagree with any of that.

[muley]

I say who cares? His comment wasn't anything not heard on a daily basis in several radio markets across the country. Rap musicians use the same language and much worse routinely, so why the fake outrage? As with everything it's all about money. Personally, I could care less what the nut job left wing speech police have going on. American politics are a joke, constitution routinely stepped on and a populance to content and materialistic to spend one second of their precious time addressing any of it. Bonfire of the Vanities comes to mind. We have digressed into virtual patheticness as a society, I welcome radical change. BTW, can we get a freakin smiley face that is shooting at stuff? Assualt type smiley?

[MudMaker]

Double standard....
Jesse, Al, Harry B., Ray Nagin, Cynthia McKinney, Marrion Barry, Dave Chappell, Dick Greggory, Spike Lee, all Bad Ass Rappers... and the list goes on. If any one of these people say something racially motivated - they get a "Get out of Jail " free pass...
Let a Conservative say something, and the Media, Liberals, and the Black Community want blood. Resignation, firing squad....
The Black Political Community and Muslims are gaining power..

[Bugman]

What surprises me is that Imus was a "liberal" and berated Bush and the Bushies all day long. The fact that CBS, an accused "liberal media outlet" gonged him proves my point that media is often not what they appear to be, especially when the eat one of their own.


There was an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal this morning about Imus. Seems a liberal watchdog organization outed him. Here's a quote from the article.

The Wall Street Journal, 13 April 2007:
"At 6:14 a.m. on Wednesday, April 4, relatively few people were tuned into the "Imus in the Morning Show" when Don Imus referred to the Rutgers women's basketball team as "nappy-headed ho's."

Ryan Chiachiere was. A 26-year-old researcher in Washington, D.C., for liberal watchdog organization Media Matters for America, he was assigned to monitor Mr. Imus's program. Mr. Chiachiere clipped the video, alerted his bosses and started working on a blog post for the organization's Web site."

I'm not trying to defend Imus. What he said was just plain dumb.

[Mountain Tile]

You gotta ask yourself, What was he thinking ? He"s an idiot, he has to try so hard to be funny he"ll blurt out almost anything to get a laugh. I tried watching his show on msnbc a couple times, and he is really boring. Who cares if he got fired, he is just another big mouth on the tv and radio. Maybe he could go to satellite like that other big mouth Howard Stern.

[Jaz]

What Imus said was dumb, real dumb. But I'm sure he didn't mean it in a racist way. At the very same time he praised the looks of the Tenessee girls. It is just what he has done for all those years. They call everyone fat, dumb, and other names.

I haven't listened to him in 3-4 years, since the station he was on here switched to all sports. I am possitive he is no a racist though. However I can not say the same for those two thugs that show up whenever there is a hint of racial conflict, and a camera.

As for CBS and others, they are the Hos. They have know the contents of the show for many years. Imus makes fun of everyone including himself and family. They simply acted because they were going to loose $$$, they didn't do it because of the offense. IF...they had been trully offended, they would have fired him 2 minutes after those dumb words left his lips.

AND..... who is CBS anyway? Oh yes among other things they are the network that did little or nothing for months after that liar and forgerer Dan Rather forged documents to try to make "W" look as if he hadn't attended his National Guard meeting.

Jaz

[jjwq8]

Clearly, Imus put the BS in CBS.

[Shaughnn]

Jaz,
Dan Rather did not forge that damning document. It was forged by others and routed to Dan Rather through reputable channels. The forgers took great pains to craft a document which withstood basic journalistic scrutiny and ran with the story. Immediately after the document was "flashed" onto the screen, and while the broadcast was still underway, anonymous bloggers were already reporting it a fake and dropping breadcrumbs to create a path to the single detail which would discredit the document; that it had been typed on an obscure model typewritter which the presumed author did not have access to during the reported time of authorship. It took forensic scentists to uncover this gem which had been planted by the forger and quickly revealed in the neo-conservative blogosphere.
Absolutely no proof exist to support my opinion here, but I think the entire episode reeks of Karl Rove and it was a very effective blunt weapon attack to quiet the restless press who were beginning to question the president's administration leading up to the election. Dan Rather was and is the pinacle of journalistic integrity. Where is the outraged against any of the numerous patently false accusations spewed from FauxNews? And with all of the attention paid to Dan Rather's mea culpa, where is the public curiousity about President Bush's missing National Guard files or the unusual seal the one's which were uncovered as "top secret" in his father's Presidential library?
I agree that CBS is responding to "the market" and not it's own corporate sensibilities in the firing of Don Imus. It sees the threat of lost revenue and quickly plugs the breatched bulkhead with the bodies most conspicuous. I haven';t bothered to look at a photo of the players in question; do they look like "nappy-headed hos" or was he making some outrageous statement to spark controversial interest in his program? IF the later, can we please apply the same outrage to idiots like Michael Savage, Michelle Malkin and whatever "Lefty" equivelent is out there.
Shaughnn

[muley]

C'mon Shaughnn, enough of the "grassy knoll" rhetoric, Rather is a moron, and has always been a moron. Rather is the end of the line product of a media that long ago abandon the news for left wing propaganda. The media in general has zero credibilty and the Imus fiasco is a perfect example of the repeated double standard and nonsensicle jibberish thrust on the American people. When an idiot like Al Sharpton is the "go to" personality of the nations moral conciousness, we are all in big trouble, and that my friend, is the real story.

[Shaughnn]

Muley,
I absolutely disagree with your opinion about Dan Rather. I think that he represents the fading persona of the "responsible journalist". As a newsmans, he did not inject his own opinions into his stories, but rather followed his skepticism to uncover and report facts alone, inviting his audience to interpret his findings for themselves most often. Contrast that to the "double-plus speak" of current boradcasters and he may have looked like a "liberal". Even a road's painted yellow median stripe can look look skewed when one side's shoulder is out-of-proportion to the other.
Al Sharpton gets media because Al Sharpton is focused entirely on getting Al Sharpton media and too many broadcasters are too lazy to find real experts to discuss issues and instead go to the "usual suspects" who just happen to be hopping up and down outside their doors waiting to be called upon. Al Sharpton is a one-trick pony who has been extremely effective in defining himself. Just like Madonna, Rush Limbaugh, and Tom Cruise he's a salesman with a single product who is perpetually chasing the "Cadillac El Dorado" of public consupmtion.
Cheers :)
Shaughnn

[Steven Hauser]

Rather is a moron.

Imus is a moron.

Sharpton and my hometown native Jackson are morons as well.

Several guys at fox news are loud mouth morons as well.

Limbaugh is a moron.

Do y'all know any thing about the Duke Lacrosse team rape charges?

That DA is a moron.

Succinctly, I think most people who run their mouths on sound bites and don't research and think before speaking go under the moron category.

The southern way of saying it is like this MOE Ron when referring to people who have the capacity to think before speaking and don't.

Thanks that was fun.

:D

[Jaz]

Shaughnn,

You have got to be kidding? I hope! BTW, what flavor Kool-Aid are you drinking?

Jaz

[MudMaker]

AAAAAAaaaaaaaaaa, can't hep it... Have to go with Moron for Rather also...Just can't handle any of the Liberal Media anymore..... The thing is, they think they and HollyWood represent the American Folks and they don't...
and....... a talk show host is eventually gonna say something he wishes he didn't say... Just a matter of time.. Ya talk and talk and talk - till ya just say something.... :D

[muley]

Shaughnn, saying Rather has journalistic integrety is comical at best. He is a dye in the wool liberal who stuck by the forged documents even when it was blantanly obvious they were fakes. He even made statetments saying "Documents CBS is unable to authenticate" instead of calling them forgeries. He postrated that while the documents may not be able to be authenticated, the "thrust of the story is true". Yup, Rather set the bar way low for journalistic integrety.

[Shaughnn]

Jaz, Frank and Muley,
I completely disagree with you again. The fable about "liberal media" is a manufacturered attempt to discredit those who are critical. Can either of you describe what is actuall meant by "liberal media" and give real examples which do not include the fledgeling and floundering "Air America" (which was created in response to the perceived conservative dominance of the media). Can you actually point to real occasions where the "big three" networks have towed the lefty partyline? The accusation of a "liberal media" is a sham and a hoax meant to deflect attention and distract Americans from the real issues at hand. It's convenient to discount those who have opposing views because it makes the arguement "easy", allowing you to get back to your Nascar and Mother Jones. But it's still a lie which you are selling to yourself and until you are willing to engage opposing views instead of plugging your eyes, ears and mouth to them like the proverbial monkeys you'll always be stuck in that dead end conflict with yourself.
I happen to believe that there is enough fragmentary evidence of President Bush's National Guard career left after their whitewash house-cleaning to suggest that some very big lies have been sold to the American public and I think that a scandal about at forged letter does not in any way alter those other truths. Dan Rather was set up and knocked down to send a message to the White House's critics in the media that they better not start feeling their backbone now, after all of their cowwing of the previous 4 years. And it did buy them another 2 years in which to abuse and pervert their elected authority.
Shaughnn, who is honestly not a liberal or a conservative but is just plain annoyed as hell about this fairy tale about "liberal media" and "activist judges" and all the other word tricks used to derail honest discussion and perpetuate ignorance amoung the masses.

[ddmoit]

Without getting into the political directional leaning of the media, I can say that they are overwhelmingly statists. Whenever there's a problem of almost any nature, it doesn't take them long to utter the phrase, "What is the government doing about it?" The way I see things, that's an inappropriate question over 90% of the time. They are a mouthpiece for continued expansion of Leviathan - FOX News included.

[muley]

Shaugnn, I usually appreciate your intellect and posting, but this latest diatribe has me a little surprised. The statistics are everywhere and overwhelming. You want an example then so be it. Since 1962 there have been 11 major polls into the journalistic community, statistically they have been very consistant running 4-1 liberal to conservative. In 2006 positive reports on Democrats stood at 75%, while 60% of the coverage of Republicans was negative. (PEW research Center). For a concrete example lets take your boy, Dan Rather, and evaluate his coverage of the 2000 presidential race, this dicotomy says it all.

CBS-Dan Rather, July 25, 2000
"In the presidential campaign, the official announcement and first photo-op today of Republican George Bush and his running mate Richard Cheney. Democrats were quick to potray the ticket as quote 'two Texas oilmen' because Cheney was chief of a big Dallas-based oil supply conglomerate. They also blast Cheny's voting record in Congress as again, quote, 'outside American mainstream' because of Cheneys votes against the Equal Rights for Women Amendament, against a woman's right to chose abortion--against abortion as Cheney likes to put it differently--and Cheneys votes against gun control."

Compare to Gores official announcement:

CBS Dan Rather, August 8, 2000
"Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore officially introduced his historic making running mate toady, Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut. History-making because Lieberman is of Jewish heritage and faith. The two started running right away. In their first joint appearance they gave a preview of the Gore-Lieberman fight-back, come-back strategy. Their message:'They rerpresent the future, not the past, and they are the ticket of high moral standards most in tune with mainstream America."


There is no need to elaborate on those two paragraphs, they speak for themselves. Vast differences from your boy Rather and his CBS network in how they approached the announcment ceremonies in 2000. Frankly, these examples are endless and countless. You say your not a liberal Shaugnn, but denying the existence of left wing media bias is intellectually dishonest and nonsensicle. Your theory is that we are all being duped with this rhetoric implies that we are to pre-occupied and stupid to know the truth, as evidenced by your Nascar comment. I am well aware of the truth, and really am not intrested in the truth according to liberals. For too long liberals have believed in their own intellectual superiority, assuming the masses to be devoid of such compentancies, All the while, we "right wing, tobacco chewing, pickup driving, wife beating, gun toting, racist, bigot neanderthals are well aware of the inherant weaknesses of liberal ideology.

[Shaughnn]

Muley,
I also referanced "Mother Jones" in my criticism. In case you haven't read it, it's a crunchy-granola eating, sandal and tie-dye wearing, Harp Seal and Spotted Owl protecting publication of equally slanted perspective. :)
And your comparrisons aren't clear at all. Just because the report of thye Bush-Cheney ticket was critical and the report of the Gore-Lieberman ticket was not does not at all indicate bias. The report indicated some of the emerging and lasting controversy about Vice-President Cheney's business connections. And it also indicated that Joesph Leiberman was the first Jewish candidate in United States history. Both are topics which are controversial and which many Americans found important then and now. Would you have preferred that Cheney's self-nomination be characterized as "historic" also? Would you have preferred that Leiberman's nomination had been associated with a "vast Jewish conspiracy" and his unspoken alliegence called into question?
I think that you read bias into whatever you choose, but by your examples you haven't demonstrated anything deffinative,...yet. :)
Shaughnn

[flatfloor]

Consensus is he's an loud mouthed idiot (along with a few others) but has joined the ranks of Michael Vick, Jessee Jackson, Al Campanis, Rush Limbaugh and others who basically opened their mouth and said the wrong thing

Lest we forget the leader of the pack the beloved Rev Al Sharpton.

Barbara I don't care if those girls were hockey players, they should not be called hos.

Shaughnn, please. :uhh:

Muley, will this do? :)

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/waffen/violent-smiley-041.gif

[muley]

Shaughnn, I am so dissappointed you missed the obvious. Rather quoted the democrats when discussing the Republicans announcement, but afforded no such courtesy when discussing the Democrats announcement. This is a prime example of liberal bias and a perfect example of business as usual for the networks, it's an old trick that the trained eye can catch. I can't argue with somebody defending that which they believe is truth, no matter the evidence contrary. Examples can be found everywhere and the stats are well documented.

[Shaughnn]

Muley,
So let me get this correct, please? Your complaint is that, in this example, Dan Rather did not file his report in the form of a MadLib?
*Name of candidate* *verb*today. *Name of group* felt *emotion* about this and decided to *verb*.
If that's honestly your complaint, that he didn't hunt down a critical quip from a republican talking head, then I think you've been watching too much of that head-to-head garbage that they fill the airwaves with. Journalism isn't about tit-for-tat, it's about finding an interesting detail and following it to it's end. There was plenty of reservation about Dick Cheney's self-nomination, from both the democrats AND the republicans. His history and his *known* interests had plenty of people asking those questions. Dan Rather identified his source in your example, which is far and above what any of the current talking heads do anymore. The news was Dick Cheney's financial and historical ties to a huge manipulative force in American politics and Joe Leiberman's being the first Jewish candidate. Do you honestly think that Dan Rather could have PAID anyone in the RNC to allow him to quote them saying "Joe Leiberman's a Jew"???? Rather didn't offer to quote the RNC in the report because it would have been handing the Gore-Leiberman campaign a huge gift wrapped ad campaign about the RNC *still* being a bunch of bigots and WASPs (a common perception which would have been exploited but not my own belief).
Cummon, Muley, now I'm disappointed in you. That's fundemental campaign tactics, not media bias. :)
Shaughnn

[sdaniels7114]

I just don't understand why everyone thinks it was Sharpton and Jackson that got Imus shown the door. Perhaps they own CBS or NBC stock, but I'm sure it ain't much. I wonder if African Americans pay any attention to them at all? I am sure that the main reason they get face time on TV is for the same reason NBC kept Howard Stern around for as long as they did even though he was exactly NOT what they wanted on their radio air. The people who hated him listened to him more fervently than the people who loved him, and that's all NBC cared about. I think its the same situation with Sharpton and Jackson. Their primary audience isn't black people who support them. Its white people who dislike them intensely. Regardless, they draw eyeballs, and that means money.

Imus' ratings were steadily slipping for years and he was only getting older as his fat salary stayed the same. Now this bombshell hits, where actual sponsors were dropping out in droves. It was a simple financial transaction. I expect that even if the entire black community had united behind Imus in support for some weird reason, that it wouldn't have been enough to save him.

[dgunnels]

Well, to put in my .02 and bring this back around to Mr. Imus....The following also relates to my comment in the "I believe" thread. I don't listen to him because he is rude, crude and IMHO, socially unacceptable. Yes I think there is a double standard but he is still rude. Should he have lost his job? I can't comment on that; it should have been and was, up to his supervisors.

[Scooter]

I think Don Imus is a homophobic, sexist, racist. Always has been--always will be. The fact that he hates George Bush and our stupid war, doesn't indear me to him one bit. CBS did the right thing by firing him. Good ridance.

I think Rush Limbaugh is a homophobic, sexist, racist, and ABC did the right thing too.

There is no reason why we have to listen to that crap on public airwaves.

If Rush wants to join the KKK (probably already has) and deliver hate speeches until he is blue in the face, thats fine with me.

If Imus wants to do the same, thats great.

Lets just get these guys off public airwaves.

I don't see a double standard here. Both networks did the right thing.

Lest we digress to Dan Rather, my understanding is that he ran with a story which was inaccurate, was not properly vetted, and both he and his producer took the hit for this. Again, another correct result.

Now, if I could get rid of Howard Stern and Ann Coulter (two other hate mongers), my day would be complete.

[LGB]

Scotter, please do not comment on things you do not know about. Howard Stearn is in no way a hate monger. If you've ever spent any time listening you would know that ststement is not true. You may not like his show or what he does on it, that's fine...

[flatfloor]

Lets just get these guys off public airwaves.
Public? Scooter they are bought and paid for. PBC is public. :)

[Scooter]

The tranmitters do not own the airwaves. They are owned by you and I. The frequencies are licensed to the ABC's and CBS's of this world. We still own them.

[ddmoit]

The concept of public ownership is an example of government doublespeak that Orwell warned us against. It bears no resemblance to true private ownership.

Anyone who thinks they own the airwaves should try broadcasting on their part of it and see what happens. The airwaves are effectively owned by the government who took ownership by government decree.

[flatfloor]

Scooter you're right, I'm splitting hairs. :)

So Dan, anybody anywhere should be able to broadcast anytime on any frequency they wish?

Nobody needs a drivers license to go on a public road?

[ddmoit]

Flatfloor,

Imagine a communist country where all the land is owned by the government. A radical fellow says to a group of his comrades, "It doesn't have to be this way, comrades. All land can be privately owned." One of his comrades replies, "You mean anyone can live anywhere they want, anytime?"

Of course not. And the same holds for the airwaves. Upon the discovery of their usefulness, frequencies could have been homesteaded like land. The first person to mix his labor with a frequency for production becomes the owner of that frequency within the range of his transmission. Would there be disputes? Sure - just like there is with land. They are settled by courts or arbitration. What about broadcasting standards? They could also come about in a free market, much like the tile industry has standards without government.

The absence of government interference does not equate to chaos.

[flatfloor]

Well, please let me know how that works out with drivers. :shake:

How do you homestead a frequency? Can someone in NJ use the the same frequency as someone in NY? If not, who is going to tell him he can't? Which court has jurisdiction, NJ or NY? BTW both have 50,000 watt transmitters.

I think I'll open a hospital next week and staff it with anyone who claims to be a doctor.

[muley]

Ok, here we go with the public airways crap. Lets ban everybody that offends anybody, hows that? Air America tried to compete, but nobody was buying, so now lets go after Hannity, Limbaugh etc and ban them too. My God you liberals are pathetic. If you can't beat them, silence them. What America needs is a purging, starting in San Fransisco and heading across the country. :mad:

[ddmoit]

Flatfloor, I'm not following your driving comments at all.

Before the government decreed it's ownership of the airwaves, one could homestead a frequency by finding one that wasn't being used, and then broadcasting on it.

As for defending your property right to a frequency, how do you defend your right to occupy your own land? Trespassing is a property right violation, be it airwaves or land.

[Scooter]

I'm all in favor of purging. Can we start in Montana? :D

You need to switch to decaf Muley.

[muley]

C'mon Scooter, it's tax day, the worse day of the year for us anti-fed types, give the dawg a bone here. :noid:

[Scooter]

Muley, as I recall it, you are BIG supporter of the war.

So far, we've spent ONE TRILLION DOLLARS. You gotta pay for it--there's no free ride.

So support the war, support the troops, and write a check. You had a chance in 2000 and another in 2004, he's your guy, its your guy's Congress, so relax and enjoy the fruits of your vote(s). And don't get too worked up--hey'll be lots more checks. I figure we'll run this deficit for at least 10 years, more if we stay in that hell hole much beyond 2008.

[muley]

Scooter, if the fed would cut the pork, we could afford 10 wars, cut the welfare and entitlements, another ten wars. Why you libs only worry about spending when it's the military? I will give ZERO credence to any liberal yapping about the cost of the war. :blah:

[John K]

Here is one to chew on.

Had Don Imus said his remarks this week while all the Virgina Tech shooting was going on. He would still have his job. :nod:

[Scooter]

One Trillion Dollars.

We getting off the point here, but Muley, do you have any idea how much that is? Well, ole buddy, lemme tell ya--its a lot of cash. :yeah:

Seriously, if one wanted to "fix" social security by covering every man, woman and child for the next century, well, the USA would only use about 40% of that One Trillion Dollars.

If the USA wanted to provide free healthcare (ala Hillary Clinton) to every man, woman and child, the USA would only use about 100 billion, about 10% of that number.

If the US wanted to upgrade mass transportation and provide clean, green, subways in most cities, the cost would be about 100 billion too, again, about 10% of the war cost.

So don't give me that story about if only eliminate "pork" our budget problems will be solved. You voted for the war and the idiot that now runs it, so you should pay for it, and enjoy it.

Like you, I find it hysterical when conservatives who love that darn Iraq war, and indeed as you suggest, want ten more, don't want to volunteer to serve, and gripe about paying their fair share of the war costs.

For the record, I am not complaining about the war costs, I understand the practicalities of the situtation, and realize that there is no easy way to turn back, so pay we must. I'd like to see combat operations cease this year--maybe that would convince the Iraqis to reach a political deal. But mark my word, that whole deal will be proven to be a failed experiment, and a very costly one at that.

[LGB]

Scooter, how's 2/3rds of the budget for ss for one year going to cover every man woman and child for a hundred years? The budget for the social security administration is 654 billion...

[Scooter]

But to "fix" social security, e.g., to make the fund positive instead of negative, requires a cash influx. That 400 billion does it. So I was talking the amount to make the fund liquid, not the total budget. And that cash makes the fund self-sufficient for like 100 years.

The influx is necessary because we've borrowed against the SS fund to run other operations (Remember the 2000 campaign regarding putting it in a "lockbox"). It was teetering then, but with the current expenditures, its a disaster.

And the $600 billion can't be 2/3rds of the budget--in three years we've spent ONE TRILLION DOLLARS on the war. That is 1,000 billion. Divide by three and and thats 300. So that doesn't add up to the whole budget--that leaves out other stuff.

I don't have enough knowledge to tell what percentage SS is of the total budget now, but would suspect it is less than 30%. Dunno. Thats just a guess.

[muley]

Scooter your numbers are whack. Four hundred billion doesn't fix SS for a 100 years. :lol1: Another thing, don't be yackin about who has served and who hasn't. I did my time, so did both my parents, and our son is doing door to door in Iraq as we speak. You wanna go down that road, how about those whinning the loudest about Iraq, are the ones with the least at stake. I'm done with this discussion.

[MHI]

The war in Iraq?

Did you feel the same way about pearl harbor as you do about iraq? Remember the USA didn't start either of these wars.

What good is giving money to the homeless bums and providing national healthcare when there are bigger problems like what happened on 9/11.

Either you don't think it could happen again, or you are the forgive and forget type.

Hello welfare recipiant with your 60 inch plasma tv, and hummer H2 parked in the driveway. Please don't get up off your front porch, you work too hard as it is. I will try to make sure you get even more benefits from the government, if I could only get them to stop this war on terror thing.:)