For all of you consertives?

George Bush must not do away with social security because it is for the good of the workers.

Ovetime pay must be properly compensated as it is extra work and not eliminated.

Products must be of utmost quality and violating corporations must be subject to lawsuits.

Wire tapping must only be limited to suspected terrorists and not the general public or political opposition.

He does not want to eliminate social security, it is a failing program that if left alone will disolve, the government payout on your money is 1.5%, why not have it put elswhere and get 3 to 5% or more return.

Overtime pay, it was not an across the board proposal and it was not a repuiblican proposal, get yoou facts staight.

We need to make it harder to bring frivolous lawsuits, everytime someone burns themself drinking coffee while driving or sues because they are fat, we all pay that settlement one way or another. there was never any intention to allow dangerous practices or products to influx our society, again get your cnn facts straight.

All phones and mail are NOT subject to taps, if and only if you are suspect iin international terrorsit activity, were your calls tapped, again part of the story, the part that supports your thoughtless acusations is all you cite. And you call us sheep, everything you have stated are partail truths that have been made to be the facts b y the media, and here you are, without a thought of your own spewing the garbage as facts from your hard research. Its like when there is a cut in the increase of a program, you liberals turn that into an all out elimination of services. BAAAA BAAAAA

President Bush does not have the power to do the things you listed. Some can be done with the majority of the House and Senate. But before you continue to bash him learn how to spell.OK??

Individual freedom is the dream of our age. It's what our leaders promise to give us, it defines how we think of ourselves and, repeatedly, we have gone to war to impose freedom around the world. But if you step back and look at what freedom actually means for us today, it's a strange and limited kind of freedom.

Politicians promised to liberate us from the old dead hand of bureaucracy, but they have created an evermore controlling system of social management, driven by targets and numbers. Governments committed to freedom of choice have presided over a rise in inequality and a dramatic collapse in social mobility. And abroad, in Iraq and Afghanistan, the attempt to enforce freedom has led to bloody mayhem and the rise of an authoritarian anti-democratic Islamism. This, in turn, has helped inspire terrorist attacks in Britain. In response, the Government has dismantled long-standing laws designed to protect our freedom.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctwo/noise/?id=trap

I understand your description of the Bush proposed ‘retirement accounts’, it is the standard democrat talking point. Fortunately, the talking point has little to do with the proposal made by President Bush. It is understood and accepted that unless there are some drastic changes; social security will become insolvent in the very near future- depending on your age, our lifetime. Now lets look at what the president actually proposed; if you were a working individual 55 and over, you could participate in social security as it is, rendering what amounts to roughly a 1 to 1.5 percent return on your investment. If you are under 55, you could choose to receive a percentage of what you had invested into soc., to invest elsewhere ( stocks, mutual funds ) or whatever other means of investing you so chose ( by the way, mutual funds avg. 3 to 5 percent return ). It doesn’t really take a genius to realize the tremendous difference in the return. An additional positive end to this proposal, the money ( fund ) belongs to you, not the government. Unlike the current policy, if you were to die under the proposed policy, the money in your retirement fund can be willed to family survivors. As far as you second claim, I am not familiar with any stated limitation of work week. If you could specify any tangible source it would be interesting to read. Having said that, it would be hard to believe a president with what is perceived to be a decent understanding of economic principle would make a suggestion as such. As far as tort reform goes, here again we have a subject which most feel needs reform. The problem here is that the pockets of trial attorneys are large and deep. It is almost a given that they ( trial attorneys ) can buy the votes needed to bypass any objectionable laws which could limit their practice. However, lets look at this with reason. If the defendant ( business entity ) were involved in an act showing blatant disregard to the safety of the consumer, and the plaintiff ( consumer ) were injured in some way due to this blatant disregard for the consumers’ safety, then by all means, the defendant should be liable and face steep judgments. If however, the plaintiff being of ‘reasonable’ mind, is shown to have been injured/ maimed/ killed, due to ‘unreasonable’ judgment on the part of the plaintiff, should any court judgment find the defendant liable? To put this into context; lets’ say that after many years of saving, you are able to open a flower shop, your life long dream. The first month of business, a customer, John Q. Freeloader, sees that you are doing a good business and decides that he deserves a better life, after all, he’s worked hard. So John Q. comes in and buys a dozen of your most beautiful roses. Upon taking possession of the roses, John inexplicably grabs one of the roses puncturing his delicate hand. This of course would startle poor John, causing him to lose grip of the beautiful vase in which the roses had been placed. Well obviously John is more preoccupied with his throbbing hand to realize that the vase has now shattered on the floor leaving a mess of water and glass, not to mention the roses, which causes John to slip and fall. In this scenario, are you at fault being the store owner, or is John at fault for not using reasonable judgment? This is where the heart of tort reform lies, abolishing frivolous lawsuits. I did not research any numbers so won’t state any, but this type of scenario plays out daily in our court systems. At some point, individuals must take responsibility for their own decisions. A bit of anecdotal evidence, I had an acquaintance involved in a car accident after being at the bar all night. He sued the bar, which I think is reasonable given his state, but he also sued the auto manufacturer because when he hit the telephone pole, it sheared his foot off. Although it was shown in the trial that he impacted the pole in excess of 50mph, he still prevailed in his court case.( a correction is needed here- he did not prevail, the lawsuit was settled before trial, giving him an undisclosed amount of money) Explain to me how the auto manufacturer was liable for his actions. As far as the wiretapping reference is concerned; I would hope that the government is monitoring conversations between people in the US and known terrorists abroad. Having lived abroad for roughly 12 years of my life, I have seen first hand what these fanatics are capable of. If you haven’t been ‘blessed’ enough to see fanaticism first hand, I suggest you research it. There are many reputable resources out there to give you a better understanding. The world is full of sick individuals capable of doing monstrous acts against their fellow humans, and if preventing them from bringing their sickness to my house requires that the government set up programs that monitor data streams searching for specific key words, then I am all for it….

"Sheep"? That's funny considering the only think Liberals only spew is useless rhetoric they hear in the media. Half truths and lies.

Conservatives may be sheep, but don't forget, Libs are too. You blindly follow a politician simply because he's got a little (D) behind his name. Try thinking for yourself for once.

Not a Repub. here....independant.

I am a conservative, I don't see Bush as representing my views, I can't stand him, I didn't vote for him the second time. but as much as I don't like Bush , I would never vote democrat, I feel the same about McCain, it is sad for us conservatives, I only hope some one can come out of the wings that can represent us for President.

Mi LOVE Geoge Bush. He let mi familia into the USA and we git free doctor clinic for 9 babies an mi wife an mi mother.

I see...and your solution to this is no doubt wild-eyed, fanatical, liberal radical Hillary Clinton?

America needs a hero and I don't see anyone on a white horse riding in from the far left that can take over the reins of President.

Huh?

The legislative body which is controlled by the Democrats would have to write a bill and enact legislation in order for that to come true.

Please, please, please, take a political science class so that you can learn how our government works.