Funny stuff...not for Noah

http://www.blackstarsblog.com/bushin41point2.htm

why not for me?

Just kidding

Incredible. Absolutely fantastic.

ROFLAMO. You can't bet I'm not going to be among the a**holes come next November.

That's some funny sh*t man........

yeah, Baller, it is.

Best thread yet!!!!

I just could not help myself....I am soooo ashamed

Jeez, what does that guy have against wet socks?

SGC

Baller

why do I remember my mom always saying if you don't have something nice to say about someone....

You are of course right or correct.....but it sure is funny

Washington

ya know what I didn't think the candidness was funny--I was pretty in complete agreement throughout. heh. now that's funny.

Weak. After W destroys the lame competition in 2004, how about...

JEB BUSH in 2008!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

then Jenna in 2016 (will she be 35 by then?)

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
Weak.

Oh boy -- another word-association thread!? Okay, I'll play...

Bush!

See my edit.

Jenna for 2016!

Was that the best someone could do? I expect verbiage like that from highschool freshmen.

Actually I'll vote for anyone who will implement a flat tax. :)

An Irish couple walked out of a bar........


It could happen

Originally posted by oosik
Was that the best someone could do? I expect verbiage like that from highschool freshmen. Indeed, all it has going for it is shock value (and the meme "don't be an asshole... vote Democrat").

Personally, I think most of the finalists at the original Bush in 30 seconds (http://www.bushin30seconds.org/) site are better. My favourite is "Bring It On" which won the "best youth ad" category.

My wife and I are donating part of our tax cut to George Bush 2004. :p

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
See my edit.

That's not fair! ;)

Jenna in 2016!

Yeah, Hillary will have reached the two-term limit by then and we'll need another woman in the WH.:D

Originally posted by RX_999
An Irish couple walked out of a bar........


It could happen

LOL

It doesn't surprise me! Leave to the democrats to come up with a not to bright/funny name calling website. They're desperate because we all know what the outcome will be.

PS: Hillary Clinton for president? Now that's funny and scary :D :eek:

Originally posted by whosjodaddy
It doesn't surprise me! Leave to the democrats to come up with a not to bright/funny name calling website. They're desperate because we all know what the outcome will be.

PS: Hillary Clinton for president? Now that's funny and scary :D :eek:

^^^ It did it again. It posted my comment under a different user.

Originally posted by Aratinga
That's not fair! ;)

I was editing at the same time you posted. :)

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
Actually I'll vote for anyone who will implement a flat tax. :)


Forget a flat tax, what we need is a national sales tax.

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
See my edit.

Jenna for 2016!

Her future Playboy spread will ruin her chances!

(See? That's the difference between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans can make fun of their own! Democrats just get all pissy :D)

I voted for G. Bush.............I sure am sorry

He look like a cowsboy

I'll tell you what's scary. Invisioning a Democrat being in office post 9-11. Lets not forget, Clinton had plenty of chances to nab Bin Laden and other terrorists in the 90's, and he didn't have the nuts to do it. Of course he had his own "personal problems" to deal with.

Multitasking as a President under these types of circumstances would be difficult for anyone, Republican or Democrat. Bush basically had to prioritize, as many of us would have done the same. He chose to put security first and everything else second, but how can you really blame him.

This country needed a Republican in that office on Septmeber 12th, 2001. And we were lucky enough to have one there.

What happened on September 11, disrupted this country's "equilibrium," for lack of better terms. Of course some things are gonna seem "out of wack." As we devote our attention to Homeland Security of course other things are going seem neglected. Like I said, it's all a part of prioritizing.

Originally posted by Baller
I voted for G. Bush.............I sure am sorry

You must have voted on a whim, then, because he is the President I expected him to be - a true leader, which is what this country really needed after 8 years of Clinton.

Flame away, all you clueless liberals :D

WMD! Quick find the WMD! Cheney!! Where did you put those sales receipts?! Shit.. daddy told me you knew where they were!

Originally posted by khoney
You must have voted on a whim, then, because he is the President I expected him to be - a true leader, which is what this country really needed after 8 years of Clinton.

Flame away, all you clueless liberals :D

Let's review a few of the benefits of true leadership over the past three years (if you like, khoney, we can call them "clues"):

A projected record trillion-dollar-plus debt. (At the moment, your share of it is somewhere around $29,000. But it's going to get bigger.)

A largely jobless "economic recovery."

Hundreds of American soldiers dead or wounded, all to make Iraq safe for crony capitalism (Bechtel, Halliburton, etc. Read into this a little - you might be surprised to find how many of the Bush White House's pals are turning some serious bucks in Iraq.)

An administration that has shamelessly milked 9-11 for political gain even as it stonewalls attempts to investigate how it could have happened on their watch.

Cuts in veteran's benefits (an odd way of showing support for our troops).

A "patriot act" that reduces our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms even as it claims to be preserving them.

And on and on. No flames, just facts.

Originally posted by ranger4277
WMD! Quick find the WMD! Cheney!! Where did you put those sales receipts?! Shit.. daddy told me you knew where they were!

Obviously the "ranger" in your handle has nothing to do with the military connotation. You must be unaware that the Saddam Hussein regime used chemical weapons against Kurdish Iraqis, killing thousands of their own people. It has been clearly documented. Whether there were more weapons was irrelevant. The fact that he had crossed this line previously made future transgressions more than likely and justified his removal.

Have you seen pictures of his torture chambers? With the ropes hanging from the ceilings from which prisoners were hung from their arms tied behind their backs until their shoulders dislocated (and then some). The shower stalls with batteries installed? Ever read Newsweek? That is a hard liberal publication, but it still documents many of the horrible things that occurred in Iraq.

You whiny Democrats can name-call all you want, but at least this president is DOING something about some of the evil in the world.
Funny how there aren't any "personal problems" we have to be distracted with, either. Hmmm.....Marc Rich, Monica Lewinsky, Whitewater, Jennifer Flowers, etc. What a gem Clinton was.

I think we are much better off now than we were 4 years ago.

Originally posted by I, Claudius
An administration that has shamelessly milked 9-11 for political gain even as it stonewalls attempts to investigate how it could have happened on their watch.

And on and on. No flames, just facts.

Hogwash! This administration responded in an exemplary fashion to this tragedy, and should be proud of that. They have made much less political gain from this than they deserve, and certainly much less than the Dems would try to squeeze out of it.

Look at all the things that happened on Clinton's watch, and his response... remember this was the SECOND WTC attack.

Whine, whine, whine.

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
Whether there were more weapons was irrelevant. The fact that he had crossed this line previously made future transgressions more than likely and justified his removal.


I think we are much better off now than we were 4 years ago.

As far as the invasion of Iraq - I don't know of anyone who doesn't believe that it is better without Saddam. The argument is that Bush and this administration lied about the reasons for invading (presence of WMD). Enough about that though.

You think we are much better off now than we were 4 years ago - that is a fair statement because it is an opinion of your own, and you framed it in language that doesn't proclaim it as truth. I have to disagree though. Many people are better off indeed - the privileged such as ourselves. However, the job loss that has occurred under this administration is unparalleled in over 50 years: well over 3 million jobs lost. Doctors such as yourself, and pre-professional students such as myself, are ok - the majority of Americans are not.

Originally posted by I, Claudius
Let's review a few of the benefits of true leadership over the past three years (if you like, khoney, we can call them "clues"):

A projected record trillion-dollar-plus debt. (At the moment, your share of it is somewhere around $29,000. But it's going to get bigger.)

A largely jobless "economic recovery."

Hundreds of American soldiers dead or wounded, all to make Iraq safe for crony capitalism (Bechtel, Halliburton, etc. Read into this a little - you might be surprised to find how many of the Bush White House's pals are turning some serious bucks in Iraq.)

An administration that has shamelessly milked 9-11 for political gain even as it stonewalls attempts to investigate how it could have happened on their watch.

Cuts in veteran's benefits (an odd way of showing support for our troops).

A "patriot act" that reduces our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms even as it claims to be preserving them.

And on and on. No flames, just facts.


hmm lets see here..

first i agree about the debt. Its never good to be running in the red But wars cost money so that some of it there. Otherwise I don't feel like I have enough background to argue on this point

A jobless recovery? ok here lets think about this one.. companies layoff workers when times are tough. do you think they are going to hire right when things turn around!??! come on! Job growth obviously is a lagging indicator.

about the soldiers.. yeah great argument there. please make a logical argument.

Milking 9-11!!! oh man! like other posters have said if this was taken care of under someone else's watch we all would be in trouble.

And the patriot act.. oh boy.. Do you realize that its just the tip of the iceberg? Ever read about the search and seizure laws that clinton passed? Heck most of your liberties were curtailed before this! Read up!

ok I have had enough.. no more with the political threads. I hate seeing nonsensical arguments from both sides

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
Hogwash! This administration responded in an exemplary fashion to this tragedy, and should be proud of that. They have made much less political gain from this than they deserve, and certainly much less than the Dems would try to squeeze out of it.

Look at all the things that happened on Clinton's watch, and his response... remember this was the SECOND WTC attack.

Whine, whine, whine.

I'm sorry. I was insufficiently clear. I shouldn't have said that the Bush administration was "milking" 9-11. What I meant to say was "shamelessly exploited a national tragedy for purposes of ramming through a pre-existing radical political agenda under the cloak of 'fighting terrorism' while dismissing dissent as treason or 'whining.'"

Thank you for pointing out my error.

Lets not forget, 9-11 took years to plan. So, in many ways it did take place on Clinton's watch. Don't forget the USS Cole either.

Originally posted by mdw33333

What happened on September 11, disrupted this country's "equilibrium," for lack of better terms. Of course some things are gonna seem "out of wack." As we devote our attention to Homeland Security of course other things are going seem neglected. Like I said, it's all a part of prioritizing.

So blowing up afghanistan and taking over Iraq under false pretenses, accruing a huge debt and quite poor economy, and futher engraining America's isolationist attitude because, frankly, no one *wants* to deal with America (needs to is different, and is what bullies rely upon when building a 'coalition'),
restored the country's "equilibrium"? Got it.

Hmm I don't remember the US stealing anyone's lunch money..

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
.... You must be unaware that the Saddam Hussein regime used chemical weapons against Kurdish Iraqis, killing thousands of their own people. It has been clearly documented. Whether there were more weapons was irrelevant. The fact that he had crossed this line previously made future transgressions more than likely and justified his removal.


You know what is more sad than that? WE sold those chemical weapons to Saddam back in the 80s. In addition, after Saddam used them in the Iraq/Iran war, I think either Cheney or Rumsfield was sent to Iraq to seek "better relations". You see, we backed Saddam in the 80s because Iran was a fundamentalist state and Saddam was a more moderate socialist. It seems to me that past administrations had no problem working with Saddam as long as he had some value, even tho they already knew he was a complete psycho. Wasn't Saddam a CIA recruit back in the 50s or 60s?

Yes, the world is a better place without Saddam, no one will ever deny that. But that is not the point. The world will be a better place without all the totalitarian, fundamentalist, oppressive governments.

Originally posted by DYT
You know what is more sad than that? WE sold those chemical weapons to Saddam back in the 80s. In addition, after Saddam used them in the Iraq/Iran war, I think either Cheney or Rumsfield was sent to Iraq to seek "better relations". You see, we backed Saddam in the 80s because Iran was a fundamentalist state and Saddam was a more moderate socialist. It seems to me that past administrations had no problem working with Saddam as long as he had some value, even tho they already knew he was a complete psycho. Wasn't Saddam a CIA recruit back in the 50s or 60s?

It was Rumsfeld. Those interested in finding out more about the United States' formerly chummy relationship with this totalitarian monster (and more info about the attached photo) might check out this link:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

There are 3 kinds of people,
1. Those that make things happen
2. Those that watch things happen
3. Those that wonder what happened!

Bush is #3

This is all true.....

> GW BUSH'S RESUME
>
> George W. Bush, The White House, USA
>
> EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE:
>
> LAW ENFORCEMENT: I was arrested in Kennebunkport, Maine, in 1976 for driving
> under the influence of alcohol. I pled guilty, paid a fine, and had my
> driver's license suspended for 30 days. My Texas driving record has been
> "lost" and is not available.
>
> MILITARY: I joined the Texas Air National Guard and went AWOL. I refused to
> take a drug test or answer any questions about my drug use.
> By joining the Texas Air National Guard, I was able to avoid combat duty in
> Vietnam.
>
> COLLEGE: I graduated from Yale University with a low C average. I was a
> cheerleader.
>
>
> PAST WORK EXPERIENCE:
>
> I ran for US Congress and lost.
>
> I began my career in the oil business in Midland, Texas, in 1975. I bought
> an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas. The company went
> bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.
>
> I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land
> using taxpayer money.
>
> With the help of my father and our right-wing friends in the oil industry
> (including Enron CEO Ken Lay), I was elected governor of Texas.
>
>
> ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS GOVERNOR:
>
> I changed Texas pollution laws to favor power and oil companies, making
> Texas the most polluted state in the Union.
>
> During my tenure, Houston replaced Los Angeles as the most smog-ridden city
> in America.
>
> I cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas treasury to the tune of billions in
> borrowed money.
>
> I set the record for the most executions by any governor in American
> history.
>
> With the help of my brother, the governor of Florida, and my father's
> appointments to the Supreme Court, I became President after losing by over
> 500,000 votes.
>
>
> ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT:
>
> I invaded and occupied two countries at a continuing cost of over one
> billion dollars per week.
>
> I spent the US surplus and effectively bankrupted the US Treasury.
>
> I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in US history.
>
> I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month
> period.
>
> I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the US
> stock market.
>
> I am the first President in US history to enter office with a criminal
> record.
>
> I set the all-time record for most days on vacation in any one-year period.
>
> After taking off the entire month of August, I presided over the worst
> security failure in US history.
>
> I am supporting development of a nuclear "Tactical Bunker Buster," a WMD
> (Weapons of Mass Destruction).
>
> In my State of the Union Address, I lied about our reasons for attacking
> Iraq, and then blamed the lies on our British friends.
>
> I set the record for most campaign fundraising trips by a US President.
>
> In my first year in office, over 2 million Americans lost their jobs and
> that trend continues every month.
>
> I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period.
>
> I appointed more convicted criminals to administration than any President in
> US history.
>
> I set the record for least number of press conferences of any President
> since the advent of television.
>
> I presided over the biggest energy crisis in US history and refused to
> intervene when corruption involving the oil industry was revealed.
>
> I presided over the highest gasoline prices in US history.
>
> I have cut health care benefits for war veterans and support a cut in duty
> benefits for active duty troops and their families -- in wartime.
>
> I have set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously
> protest me in public venues (15 million people), shattering the record for
> protest against any person in the history of mankind.
>
> I've broken more international treaties than any President in US history.
>
> I'm proud that the members of my cabinet are the richest of any
> administration in US history. My "poorest millionaire," Condoleeza Rice,
> has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.
>
> I am the first President in US history to order an unprovoked, preemptive
> attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation. I did so against
> the will of the United Nations, the majority of US citizens, and the world
> community.
>
> I created the Ministry of Homeland Security, the largest bureaucracy in the
> history of the United States government.
>
> I am the first President in US history to have the United Nations remove the
> US from the Human Rights Commission.
>
> I withdrew the US from the World Court of Law.
>
> I refused to allow inspector's access to US "prisoners of war" detainees and
> thereby have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention.
>
> I am the first President in history to refuse United Nations election
> inspectors (during the 2002 US election).
>
> I am the all-time US and world record-holder for receiving the most
> corporate campaign donations.
>
> My largest lifetime campaign contributor, and one of my best friends,
> Kenneth Lay, presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in US
> history. My political party used Enron private jets and corporate attorneys
> to assure my success with the US Supreme Court during my election decision.
> I have protected my friends at Enron and Halliburton against investigation
> or prosecution. More time and money was spent investigating the Monica
> Lewinsky affair than has been spent investigating one of the biggest
> corporate rip-offs in history.
>
> I garnered the most sympathy for the US after the World Trade Center attacks
> and less than a year later made the US the most hated country in the world,
> the largest failure of diplomacy in world history.
>
> I am the first President in history to have a majority of Europeans (71%)
> view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security.
>
> I changed the US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded
> government contracts.
>
> I have so far failed to fulfill my pledge to bring Osama Bin Laden and
> Saddam Hussein to justice.
>
>
> RECORDS AND REFERENCES:
>
> All records of my tenure as governor of Texas are now in my father's
> library, sealed and unavailable for public view.
>
> All records of SEC investigations into my insider trading and my bankrupt
> companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
>
> All records or minutes from meetings that I, or my Vice-president, attended
> regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for
> public review.
>
> Please consider my experience when voting in 2004.

Looks good to me! You're hired!

Easy decision when you consider what the liberals have done!

Originally posted by mdw33333
This country needed a Republican in that office on Septmeber 12th, 2001. And we were lucky enough to have one there.


Good thing we had a Republican to guide us through WW I. Oops, I'm sorry, a bit of mindslip there. that was a democrat.

But, it's a good thing we had a Republican to guide us through the Great Depression. Oops, I'm sorry, Coolidge and Hoover got us into the depression with their wild and business-friendly economic policies. The country was hopelss until we put a democrat in the office.

But it's a good thing we had a Repulican to guide us through WW II when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. Oops, I'm sorry, that was a Democrat that guided us through that rough era. As I recall, big business (remember Ford?) thought that the Nazis were the good guys. In fact, if the Republicans were in office, there's a good chance we might have entered the war ON THE OTHER SIDE!!!!

Hmmm, the Republicans were in office when we concluded the Korean war in half-baked fashion. They were in office when we bailed out of Viet Nam. They were in office when we failed to put Saddam away the first time, which is why we had to come back the second time - just a settling of old scores if the truth be known.

Good thing a Republican was in office to face down Khrushchev during the Cuban missile crisis. Oh my God! That was a New England Flaming Liberal Democrat. A Republican would have simply hired Halliburten in a secret, no-bid contract to build bomb shelters in Florida and through out the Gulf Coast.

For all the conservative talk show blabber on radio, Gore wouldn't have handled the initial rush to Afghanistan any differently than Bush. We would not have shed blood in Iraq. The intel on WMD might have been interpreted through a less political prism. Our boys wouldn't be dying over there. I don't know if that's balanced by getting rid of Saddam or not. The WMD issue is Bush's Gulf of Tonkin. The talk show blabbermouths are about to be surprised in a big way this November when another New England Flaming Liberal Democrat starts to talk common sense about economy, war, medicine, environment and ethics.

Amen.

I like your style bernieunger.

Damn... a bunch of tree hugging hippies seem to be RX-8 owners...

I wish I would have known that b4 I got mine....;) ;)

Originally posted by mdw33333
Looks good to me! You're hired!

Easy decision when you consider what the liberals have done!

Dude! I gotta tip my hat to you. Your grasp of the subtleties of debate and the nuances of political discussion is pretty impressive. Some folks might think you're just a parrot, one of those dim bulbs who just pops up and squawks "liberal! liberal!" or "tree-hugging hippie" every so often, as though that was an actual, substantive, content-based response to anything, but I'm not one of those people. I just figure you're a busy guy, and when you get the time you're going to follow up that parrot-squawk with some substantive criticism of "the liberals," maybe focusing on some specific liberals and some specific stuff that they've done.

Originally posted by Baller
I like your style bernieunger.

Ditto. Big time.

Originally posted by Baller
This is all true.....

I have so far failed to fulfill my pledge to bring Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein to justice.


Maybe you'd better update your cut and paste. Osama is likely dead, as there have been no credible sightings/new messages from him since the Afganistan bombings. Saddam is in custody.

I'm not going to go through each of your assertions one by one, except to say that this is a good example of misusing statistics.

Often statistics are used as a drunken man uses lamp posts... for support rather than illumination. (not my quote, origin unknown)

Sort of like this: my cat farted, and the next day, I had to have my appendix taken out. So what? (that one is mine) :D

Originally posted by OmegaBob
Damn... a bunch of tree hugging hippies seem to be RX-8 owners...

I wish I would have known that b4 I got mine....;) ;)

Yeah, seems like the Subaru forum. :D

Originally posted by Baller
There are 3 kinds of people,
1. Those that make things happen
2. Those that watch things happen
3. Those that wonder what happened!


1. Bush (s)
2. Clinton and colleagues
3. Dems in November (again!)

Originally posted by I, Claudius
I'm sorry. I was insufficiently clear. I shouldn't have said that the Bush administration was "milking" 9-11. What I meant to say was "shamelessly exploited a national tragedy for purposes of ramming through a pre-existing radical political agenda under the cloak of 'fighting terrorism' while dismissing dissent as treason or 'whining.'"

Thank you for pointing out my error.
You're welcome. And I appreciate your opinion while I disagree with the political leanings of it.

I agree, the Bush administration had a pre-existing political agenda to fight terrorism, because the previous administration had all but ignored it, allowing the buildup of terrorist groups to dangerously well-financed and organized levels. This is why the terrorists were able to complete such an incredibly detailed, almost completely successful (from their standpoint) mission with an effectiveness never before seen. Hopefully, never to be seen again.

Did the Bush administration use this tragedy to advance their agenda? Absolutely. The country DEMANDED as much. I don't recall hearing much liberal squawking against it back then. Was it "shameless exploitation" to do so? That is your opinion.

Most Americans have had enough of the Clintonesque method of fighting terrorism. The response to the numerous terroristic events under his watch was uninspiring. The first WTC attack, the Khobar Towers attack, the bombing of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the USS Cole attacks were met with nothing more than mutterings under the breath.

Certainly some of the repercussions of the dramatic Bush response can be debated as overzealous. But the results have been dramatically successful. The house has been cleaned, for now. Lets keep it that way.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
[B]Maybe you'd better update your cut and paste. QUOTE]

Niether have been "brought to justice"

Outlaw justice, baby, Texas style.

Goes along with the previous post about the number of executions in Texas....so what. Just because other states are too liberal-whipped to carry out the law, we should feel bad? Nope.

Is it better to be like Califlowernia and keep people on death row with no intention of carrying out the sentence? Nope.


CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Death Sentence Status
March 31, 2002

Total Received (1978 to Date) 717
Sentence overturned; resentenced or released 60
Suicide 13
Died 22
Executed 10

Only GOD has the right to who lives or dies......no country's in Europe have the death penalty.....Texas executed the most....there might just have been somone innocent ever think of that!!!

Arnold will "Terminate" them all......

Originally posted by RX_999
Only GOD has the right to who lives or dies......
The people ON death row felt otherwise, that's how they got there.no country's in Europe have the death penalty.....So what? Maybe they should. Texas executed the most....
Again, so what? See my previous post. Just makes me prouder to be a Texan.there might just have been somone innocent ever think of that!!!
Yeah, the victims.

PS I call BS on your credentials, "doc"

Be nice, I am not a MD but a Chiropractor, They call me Doc, you can call me what ever you want.

I think this has been a good thread just to get things out in the open.

Malcom

Speed-ER doc I updated my profile just for you.

I feels a lot a love in here.....harmony

Sorry, doc, see my PM

No harm meant, I just love a good discussion, and every now and then someone will hit one of my "hot topics" that I feel strongly about. Thanks for joining in. :) :) :)

and to think some on here thought doc was doug green. paranoia runs deep. into our lives it will creep. :)

Speed-ER doc,
No problem, just good fun.

Originally posted by RX-GR8
and to think some on here thought doc was doug green. paranoia runs deep. into our lives it will creep. :)

I know Doug (sort of)
He also has a house here in Aspen.

>Missin' Ol' Bill
>
>Just watched a show on Canadian TV. There was a black comedian who said
>he misses Bill Clinton. "Yep, that's right - I miss Bill Clinton!"
>"He was the closest thing we ever got to having a black man as
>President."
>
>Number 1 - He played the sax.
>
>Number 2 - He smoked weed. and
>
>Number 3 - He slept with ugly white women.
>
>
>"Even now - Look at him. His wife works and he don't. And, he gets a
>check
>from the government every month."

What car is your Avatar? Baller

Toy 2000

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
You're welcome. And I appreciate your opinion while I disagree with the political leanings of it.

I agree, the Bush administration had a pre-existing political agenda to fight terrorism, because the previous administration had all but ignored it, allowing the buildup of terrorist groups to dangerously well-financed and organized levels. This is why they were able to complete such an incredibly detailed, almost completely successful (from their standpoint) mission with an effectiveness never before seen. Hopefully, never to be seen again.

Did they use this tragedy to advance their agenda? Absolutely. The country DEMANDED as much. I don't recall hearing much liberal squawking against it back then. Was it "shameless exploitation" to do so? That is your opinion.

Most Americans have had enough of the Clintonesque method of fighting terrorism. The response to the numerous terroristic events under his watch was uninspiring. The first WTC attack, the Khobar Towers attack, the bombing of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the USS Cole attacks were met with nothing more than mutterings under the breath.

Certainly some of the repercussions of the dramatic Bush response can be debated as overzealous. But the results have been dramatically successful. The house has been cleaned, for now. Lets keep it that way.

I appreciate your reasoned response. I don't agree that the Bush administration had "a pre-existing agenda to fight terrorism," though - based on Paul O'Neill's revelations in his recent book and other evidence, it's clear that they had a "pre-existing agenda" to invade Iraq and dominate the Middle East, and 9-11 provided the pretext.

I don't quite see how you can term the invasion of Iraq (I assume that's what you're referring to) as "almost completely successful" in any sense of the phrase. We lost more soldiers this past month than last, and this sorry, bloody mess could drag on for years. (In Afghanistan, meanwhile, the warlords are again on the rise, the Taliban is still around, and the place is still volatile and dangerous. The Bush administration seems to have forgotten about it in the furor over Iraq.)

As to your contention in an earlier post that my accusation that the Bushies have been exploiting 9-11 is "hogwash," I'll just point out one thing (though there are many more examples): the upcoming Republican convention is being held later than any convention since the party's founding. As you may know, it's being held in NYC, just a few miles from ground zero, and was scheduled to coincide with the third anniversary of the WTC attack. Please explain how this is NOT exploitative. If Bush can wade through the protesters to get to the site, I'm sure it will provide some useful campaign photo opps (though his last attempt to do this, that star turn on the carrier deck in a flightsuit with a 'mission accomplished' banner in the background, probably won't be used, as the death toll in Iraq has doubled since we "finished" that mission).

Sorry I wasn't clear, too much 'them and they.' I'll edit the post. Guess you won't give me an A. :)

I was referring to 9-11. From the terrorists' perspective, it was an almost completely successful mission, on a scale never before seen, hopefully never to be seen again.

The ultimate success of the Iraq wars remains to be seen, after reconstruction.

I wasn't aware of the National Convention details, and I can see how that could be viewed as exploitative. However, to the victors belong the spoils, and I'm sure if all this had happened under Gore (thanks Floridians!), The DNC would be at Ground Zero.

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
Sorry I wasn't clear, too much 'them and they.'

I was referring to 9-11. From the terrorists' perspective, it was an almost completely successful mission, on a scale never before seen, hopefully never to be seen again.

The ultimate success of the Iraq wars remains to be seen, after reconstruction.

I'll edit. Guess you won't give me an A. :)

I wasn't aware of the National Convention details, and I can see how that could be viewed as exploitative. However, to the victors belong the spoils, and I'm sure if all this had happened under Gore (thanks Floridians!), The DNC would be at Ground Zero.

Whoops. Now that I read it again, your meaning is perfectly clear. I shouldn't reply to posts before I've had my morning coffee.

As to what the Dems might have done if the guy who got the most votes in 2000 had actually been allowed to assume the presidency, I dunno. All I know is this Ground Zero convention business looks pretty shameless, and I suspect it's going to backfire on them.

Originally posted by Baller
I voted for G. BushAh, so your name's Chad, then, is it? :P

Originally posted by eccles
Ah, so your name's Chad, then, is it? :P


????????????????

hint- "how's it hanging?"

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
hint- "how's it hanging?"

Down to my knees!!!!

Originally posted by Baller
???????????????? Dimpled Chad and his friends Hanging Chad and Dangling Chad were the voters who got Dubya into the White House.

http://www.bushin30seconds.org/view/06_small.shtml

Originally posted by eccles
Ah, so your name's Chad, then, is it? :P

I said I was sorry I did!!!!

http://www.bushin30seconds.org/view/2232_small.shtml

Originally posted by Baller
http://www.bushin30seconds.org/view/2232_small.shtml

you know I am quite glad they didn't show those commercials on the Super bowl..

Not only would they have alienated about 50% of their viewers(an probably pissed a lot of them off), but they also would have made fools of themselves by showing a unsubstantiated baseless attacks, instead of a simple well thought out argument. Like the saying goes, If you tell a lie long enough it becomes the truth!

Irrational hatred or admiration is truly not the way to base ones desicions. Clearly moveon.org needs to reexamine the ideals that it was originally founded for.

I know but it sure is funny!!!!
Bush is a joke!

Not only is Bush a joke,he is also a facist and a complete moron. Cheney too,can you remember Enron ,Haliburton? JFK in 2004!

Right on jimbo

I guess y'all will have to be bitter and frustrated for four more years.

You may be right Doc!!!!

doc, I'm surprised that someone with so much education can be so ignorant

Originally posted by Kaliken
you know I am quite glad they didn't show those commercials on the Super bowl..

Not only would they have alienated about 50% of their viewers(an probably pissed a lot of them off),...

Yeah, all they had to do was just show Janet's boob and they managed to piss off and alienate 90% of 'em (and give the other 10% a hard-on).

I happen to think the MoveOn ads are RightOn!

Originally posted by jimbo912
doc, I'm surprised that someone with so much education can be so ignorant
Me, ignorant? You're promoting a dead guy for prez (JFK)! I guess given the Democratic contenders, that probably is the best choice.
They are a bunch of stiffs too.

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
Me, ignorant? You're promoting a dead guy for prez (JFK)! I guess given the Democratic contenders, that probably is the best choice.
They are a bunch of stiffs too.

You realize that JFK are Kerry's initials right? I know you're probably being sarcastic...

We donated 50.00 to moveon.org and consider it an investment.

Vince and Renee

Originally posted by noahprtlnd
You realize that JFK are Kerry's initials right? I know you're probably being sarcastic...

Trying to be funny....:D
(or maybe I am ignorant, I'll never tell)

Let me remind everyone that doc went to Texas A&M. That's like taking a kindergarten grad and throwing him into med school.

Actually, MoveOn.org wanted to run a single spot. It was very simple and straightforward: the ad shows a bunch of children working at menial jobs - no voiceover, just tired, hardworking kids - and at the end a tagline reads "Guess who's going to pay off President Bush's $1 trillion deficit?" It's a fact, folks. You True Believers can squawk about "the liberals" all you want, but those liberals left Bush with a surplus (after years of Republican overspending - so much for 'conservatism'). He pissed it away and then some, and it ain't all because of 9-11. I don't know whether to be disgusted or amused that the FCC's Powell (or anyone else) thinks Janet Jackson's tit is a more important issue than CBS's rejection of MoveOn's ad. (Or Kid Rock's trashing of the American flag, for that matter, but that's a whole other issue.)

Janet Jackson got fake tits, and I think they look sick. If doc likes that, then the hell with him.

I mean, doc got a thing for Britney Spears. If you ask me, I'd go for Mandy Moore. I think she's cute, even though ideally I would stretch her nose out with a pair of pliers. Still, this would be much easier to do than stretching Britney Spears' legs out below her knees.

I would not be surprised at all if doc has been trained in Russia on the leg-stretching metal rod apparatus like they used on Ethan Hawke in Gattaca.

Originally posted by jimbo912
doc, I'm surprised that someone with so much education can be so ignorant

Hey, Doc

A very wise man once said "Forgive them, for they know not what they do".

You aren't alone in your opinions. Fortunately, ours are based on clear thinking, not on what the Hollywood celebs are spouting (they really do know how to make asses of themselves, don't they). Yeah, they live in the real world...

A mind is a terrible thing to waste. Fortunately our are being put to good use! :D

Originally posted by khoney
Hey, Doc

A very wise man once said "Forgive them, for they know not what they do".

You aren't alone in your opinions. Fortunately, ours are based on clear thinking, not on what the Hollywood celebs are spouting (they really do know how to make asses of themselves, don't they). Yeah, they live in the real world...

A mind is a terrible thing to waste. Fortunately our are being put to good use! :D

I've scanned this thread in vain for some sign of that 'conservative' clear thinking you're talking about. Please post examples.

Originally posted by Aratinga
Yeah, all they had to do was just show Janet's boob and they managed to piss off and alienate 90% of 'em (and give the other 10% a hard-on).

I happen to think the MoveOn ads are RightOn!


hmm obviously not.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/02/06/jackson.web.reut/index.html

or

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/ptech/02/03/television.tivo.reut/index.html


or to try and help your arguement

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=597&ncid=762&e=8&u=/nm/20040206/tv_nm/media_jackson_complaints_dc

but if you take the nielson ratings and figure your percentage

http://tv.yahoo.com/nielsen/

you get a lofty 0.4%

Originally posted by khoney
You aren't alone in your opinions. Fortunately, ours are based on clear thinking, not on what the Hollywood celebs are spouting (they really do know how to make asses of themselves, don't they). Yeah, they live in the real world...

Yeah, I'm glad I'm not taking my political guidance from Rosie O'Donnell and Bill Maher and Al Franken like these guys.

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
Yeah, I'm glad I'm not taking my political guidance from Rosie O'Donnell and Bill Maher and Al Franken like these guys.

I'll repeat my request to all you conservative geniuses and right-wing political experts: Impart your wisdom. Tell me why a $1 trillion deficit is good for the country. Explain to me how those irresponsible, free-spending liberals left Bush with a surplus and in less than four years he's managed to run us into a historic financial hole, yet he's a 'conservative.' Convince me the Bushies weren't flat-out lying about the whole WMD thing. Enlighten me as to how Halliburton, the VP's previous employer, got all those no-bid sweetheart contracts in Iraq (and how come it isn't totally sleazy and unethical). Look earlier in this thread at that photo of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein and explain it away. Fill me in on how cutting veteran's benefits supports our troops (and why Bush hasn't attended the funeral of a single soldier killed in Iraq, despite 500+ dead). Tell me something - anything - that might convince me you actually know what you're talking about.

One of Bush's campaign slogans was how he was going to do for the country education system, what he did for Texas'. Just take a look at the education system in this state. It went from bad while he was govenor to worse when he decided to run for president. There is a big scandle about how school administrators treated students who were not doing well. And further there are actual cases of students who dropped out or were failing highschool that were shown to have graduated with improved grades.

Now Bush Sr. may have been able to buy Jr.'s way through college but for the average american this won't work. Education is becoming incresingly important in social status and career building today. Explian how this has helped our country. And please don't take my word for it look it up all the infromation is out there.

You can't convince me of anything, and I can't convince you of anything. We aren't going to change each others' minds no matter WHAT we say. So why bother?

I could say that part of the deficit is likely from the stock market downturn, just as our rising insurance rates are. The cycles in the market affect all kinds of investments, and with losses in investments, all our deficits go up.

I could say that Cheney severed his ties with Halliburton before he took the VP job, or that maybe Halliburton was the best company for the job.

I could say that at the time of the picture, political handholding with Saddam may have seemed expedient - we all make mistakes (I won't bring up Clinton's mistakes in this post).

None of this matters to you, there aren't any arguments good enough to change the mind of someone whose mind is already made up. So let the cards fall where they may, and we'll see what happens in Nov. I can live with whatever happens, can you?

I don't know if our children can "live with it"

Originally posted by Baller
I don't know if our children can "live with it"
Two Democratic solutions: either keep cranking them out and increasing welfare to support them, or terminate more of them before delivery.

That's a little Harsh!!!!

You try to believe in something and then defend it..

But smart people you know keep bringing up points that you can't defend against..

And inside the feeling keeps growing that you have been wrong..

Point by point you start agreeing with your smart friends..

Then it seems like overnight you have become a non-Bush republican finding bad things in just about everything he does.

It's about time.

Vince

Originally posted by compaddict
You try to believe in something and then defend it..

But smart people you know keep bringing up points that you can't defend against..

And inside the feeling keeps growing that you have been wrong..

Point by point you start agreeing with your smart friends..

Then it seems like overnight you have become a non-Bush republican finding bad things in just about everything he does.

It's about time.

Vince

I like your style!!!!!

Yeah, I agree, it was harsh. I don't like knee-jerk responses either, and the issues involved require more than one sentence to discuss.

My views on welfare and abortion are complicated and are not as extreme as the above post would indicate. But simple attacks deserve simple responses.

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
You can't convince me of anything, and I can't convince you of anything. We aren't going to change each others' minds no matter WHAT we say. So why bother?

I could say that part of the deficit is likely from the stock market downturn, just as our rising insurance rates are. The cycles in the market affect all kinds of investments, and with losses in investments, all our deficits go up.

I could say that Cheney severed his ties with Halliburton before he took the VP job, or that maybe Halliburton was the best company for the job.

I could say that at the time of the picture, political handholding with Saddam may have seemed expedient - we all make mistakes (I won't bring up Clinton's mistakes in this post).

None of this matters to you, there aren't any arguments good enough to change the mind of someone whose mind is already made up. So let the cards fall where they may, and we'll see what happens in Nov. I can live with whatever happens, can you?

You haven't given me any arguments at all here. The national debt is created in large part by irresponsible government spending. It doesn't just "happen." Bush administration spending is up sharply from the Clinton years, and massive tax cuts and his medicare giveaway have contributed mightily as well.

Your Cheney comment doesn't even address my question, and you're mistaken in your belief that he no longer receives financial compensation from Halliburton. He does (in the form of 'deferred compensation'). And as to the question of Halliburton being "the best company for the job," recent reports indicating that they've been overcharging the government in the millions of dollars would seem to suggest otherwise.

I agree with you about the Hussein photo - though "political expediency" isn't an argument the Bushies would make.

Please do tell me about Clinton's mistakes - although that doesn't address any of my questions either, it might at least demonstrate to me that you've done some investigation into the issues.

Political discussion is what a democracy is all about. There's not much point in engaging people who agree with you in debate. But debate and discussion require some substance - knowledge of facts, statistics, events, etc. You may well convince me I'm wrong - but you're not going to do it by shrugging complacently and dismissing everything I say without addressing it in some meaningful way.

But hey, at least you replied. That's a start. Look - my intent isn't to offend here. I have no reason to think your opinions aren't grounded in fact, and if you can show me I'm wrong in any of my views, I'll admit it. (Really. I will.)

"Doc" maybe you should run for office!!!
You really do write well.

This has turned into a pretty good thread..........good ideas both ways!

I am giving valid arguments, but, as I said, you can't convince someone whose mind is made up. I will argue for the sake of a good argument however, because I enjoy it. I am not an expert on politics or economics, and I try to keep things as simple as possible.

A budget deficit has two parts: spending and income. If either spending goes up, or income goes down, the deficit goes up. The stock market downturn caused income from national investments to go down. Spending also went up, related to the war on terrorism and Iraq, which the majority of the country supported. I'm not going to research specific numbers, because I don't care that much, and it wouldn't convince you anyway.

Here is an example with which I am familiar, and you may be too:
Malpractice insurance premiums in Texas are at an all-time high. A recent law was passed in Texas limiting non-economic damages in malpractice lawsuits which supposedly would help lower premiums. I was actually AGAINST this proposal, because I realized that the real reason premiums went up was because the stock market downturn reduced income from investments from these insurance companies, not because of high-dollar verdicts against plaintiffs. Plaintiffs hardly ever win malpractice cases, and when they do, the judgments are usually justified. Real malpractice reform needs to be via limiting unjustified suits and the resulting quick settlements to "get rid of the suit," not by limiting payouts to deserving parties.

Regarding Cheney, deferred compensation is just that, deferred form when he was employed by them. He earned that money years ago, he agreed to have the income deferred. He owes them no favors from that. Do you think a football player shaves points against a team which is still paying him deferred money?

Clinton's mistakes are world-renowned, there is no need to repeat them here. He is done.

Thanks for the nice statement Baller, if you were serious, but I hate politics. I was put on this Earth to help people one on one. That is my gift. I use this forum to express my writing Jones though.

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc

Regarding Cheney, deferred compensation is just that, deferred form when he was employed by them. He earned that money years ago, he agreed to have the income deferred. He owes them no favors from that. Do you think a football player shaves points against a team which is still paying him deferred money?


Regarding this point, I would direct you to to a Washington Post story from September 26 of last year. I've provided a link to the full story below, but here's the first paragraph:

"A Congressional Research Service report released yesterday concluded that federal ethics laws treat Vice President Cheney's annual deferred compensation checks and unexercised stock options as continuing financial interests in the Halliburton Co."

http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/6866226.htm

Did you read the whole article?

"It was prepared at the request of Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J"

"In response, Cheney's office said he had purchased an insurance policy so he would be paid even if Halliburton failed. And his office also has announced he has agreed to donate the after-tax proceeds from his stock options to three charities."

hmmm you keep harping on this haliburton thing..

is there any other company that you know to do the type of work they do? Do you even know what Haliburton does? please enlighten us. It seems to me that you are pointing a finger at a small issue rather than the real issue.

Is Haliburton the right company to do the job?! Was there a competitor that could have done a better job? Or was Haliburton the only one to even bid?

Just looking for some facts from your side. other than an attack on Cheney.

Originally posted by compaddict
You try to believe in something and then defend it..

But smart people you know keep bringing up points that you can't defend against..

And inside the feeling keeps growing that you have been wrong..

Point by point you start agreeing with your smart friends..

Then it seems like overnight you have become a non-Bush republican finding bad things in just about everything he does.

It's about time.

Vince

These are points we can't defend against? :

"If the choice was G.W.B. or A.S... Without hesitation A.S. (AL Sharpton)" - <that's real good for your cred.>

"We donated 50.00 to moveon.org and consider it an investment."

"Tell me three good things that he has done for our nation since taking office"

"I hate GWB and most everything he stands for."

"blah, blah, blah.....
Vince
(A gun toting liberal Democrat)"

Your credibility is zero in this discussion. Provide some issues to discuss instead of inane attacks and you might get some of it back.

edited: I think I misunderstood your post. I thought you were talking about yourself as a reformed Republican. After re-reading, I think you were just being sarcastic.

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
Did you read the whole article?

"It was prepared at the request of Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J"

"In response, Cheney's office said he had purchased an insurance policy so he would be paid even if Halliburton failed. And his office also has announced he has agreed to donate the after-tax proceeds from his stock options to three charities."

I'm not sure I see your point. What would you have done in his place? Whatever backroom dealings led to Halliburton's no-bid contracts took place long before Cheney's sudden attack of charity.

And are you implying that this is all b.s. anyway, because a Democrat requested the report? Boy howdy, that's compelling. The Congressional Research Service is nonpartisan, as far as I can tell. They do research for members of Congress. The facts are the facts. And when confronted with these particular facts, Cheney did the only thing he could have done - divest. And I'll bet he was pretty pissed off about it.

I'll exerpt some more then....

"The report, from the law division of the congressional research arm of the Library of Congress, said deferred salary or compensation received from a private corporation -- as well as unexercised stock options -- MAY represent a continuing financial interest as defined by federal ethics laws."

"The report suggests no illegality."

Your opinions are noted. You can "boy, howdy" mine all you want, but mine are equally valid.

Originally posted by Kaliken
hmmm you keep harping on this haliburton thing..

is there any other company that you know to do the type of work they do? Do you even know what Haliburton does? please enlighten us. It seems to me that you are pointing a finger at a small issue rather than the real issue.

Is Haliburton the right company to do the job?! Was there a competitor that could have done a better job? Or was Haliburton the only one to even bid?

Just looking for some facts from your side. other than an attack on Cheney.

Dude, you can't even spell Halliburton. I'm supposed to take you seriously?

It was a no-bid contract. I'll type this slowly so you can understand. That means there were no other bids. No one else got the chance, so we'll never know if anyone could have done better. And from what I read, Halliburton's not doing such a hot job. Just the other day they got popped for a $16 million overcharge on meals in Kuwait.

Sorry, this is too funny to not mention. While searching for quotes from compaddict's reputed "reformed Republican" background, I found this from revhappy, in a poll:

"BTW...I accidentally voted for Dean in the poll, take one away from Dean and add one to Clark to get the real results"

OMG ROFLMAO. Just like Florida!!!!!! That doesn't work!!!
Won't you Dems ever learn how to vote? (I hope not!)

:D :D :D

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Originally posted by I, Claudius
Dude, you can't even spell Halliburton. I'm supposed to take you seriously?

It was a no-bid contract. I'll type this slowly so you can understand. That means there were no other bids. No one else got the chance, so we'll never know if anyone could have done better. And from what I read, Halliburton's not doing such a hot job. Just the other day they got popped for a $16 million overcharge on meals in Kuwait.


Ok. I am sick of all the personal attacks. I am not one to retaliate to them. But every time I see one I see some of the reasoning in Ann Coulter's book Slander. You cannot make a fact based argument and resort to name calling. As for myself, I normally try to take a straightforward look to all the issues. For example I try to read as much material as I can. Thus I agree with some things from Michael Moore Al Franken and yes even Ann Coulter. So to reiterate personal attacks are pointless and thats what I am seeing instead of a factually based argument.

So please answer my question. Is there another company that you know of that can do the same type of work that Halliburton does? I can name one. :)

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
I'll exerpt some more then....

"The report, from the law division of the congressional research arm of the Library of Congress, said deferred salary or compensation received from a private corporation -- as well as unexercised stock options -- MAY represent a continuing financial interest as defined by federal ethics laws."

"The report suggests no illegality."

Your opinions are noted. You can "boy, howdy" mine all you want, but mine are equally valid.

The report presents facts, which taken at face value, are pretty damning. OK - let me rephrase that. They seem pretty damning. I think Cheney's a crook. You think he's not. At this point, evidence would seem to tilt things toward my view; yours is more, shall we say, faith-based. Would you concede, though, that based on circumstantial evidence, Cheney's connections to Halliburton and its subsequent plum contractss have at least the appearance of unethicality? And would you also concede that the holder of the second-highest office in the land should avoid even the appearance of same? No, you probably wouldn't.

If Bush was part of this forum, I would ban his ass!!!!

Originally posted by Kaliken
Ok. I am sick of all the personal attacks. I am not one to retaliate to them. But every time I see one I see some of the reasoning in Ann Coulter's book Slander. You cannot make a fact based argument and resort to name calling. As for myself, I normally try to take a straightforward look to all the issues. For example I try to read as much material as I can. Thus I agree with some things from Michael Moore Al Franken and yes even Ann Coulter. So to reiterate personal attacks are pointless and thats what I am seeing instead of a factually based argument.

So please answer my question. Is there another company that you know of that can do the same type of work that Halliburton does? I can name one. :)

zzzzzzz.

I've already said that I think the presence of deferred compensation or UNEXERCISED stock options in this setting is not improper or unethical. The legal system has not determined there was any wrongdoing, and probably will not.

When the APPEARANCE of impropriety was suggested (by Democrats), Cheney divested himself of the devices. That was a reasonable and fair way to diffuse the situation.

There are two sides to every story.

Your arguments are getting stale. No one cares about circumstantial evidence, what seems to be damning, or appearances.

And would you also concede that the holder of the second-highest office in the land should avoid even the appearance of (unethicality)? No, you probably wouldn't.
How about the highest office?
Clinton appeared to be a good President, until his lying, stealing, pardoning of criminals for self gain, perjury, adultery, and inability to protect America came to light.

The truth will emerge, and history will decide these issues.

I think he had a girlfriend named "Cigar"

History has already decided on the whole Iraq situation.

Nice try, doc.

Originally posted by cumpressor4u2nv
So blowing up afghanistan and taking over Iraq under false pretenses, accruing a huge debt and quite poor economy, and futher engraining America's isolationist attitude because, frankly, no one *wants* to deal with America (needs to is different, and is what bullies rely upon when building a 'coalition'),
restored the country's "equilibrium"? Got it.

Blowing up Afghanistan? You mean removing al qeada terrorists and the oppressive taliban regime that supported them?

"isolationist"? You are truly delusional. Thank God that George W. Bush is in office.

Originally posted by DYT
You know what is more sad than that? WE sold those chemical weapons to Saddam back in the 80s. In addition, after Saddam used them in the Iraq/Iran war, I think either Cheney or Rumsfield was sent to Iraq to seek "better relations". You see, we backed Saddam in the 80s because Iran was a fundamentalist state and Saddam was a more moderate socialist. It seems to me that past administrations had no problem working with Saddam as long as he had some value, even tho they already knew he was a complete psycho. Wasn't Saddam a CIA recruit back in the 50s or 60s?

Yes, the world is a better place without Saddam, no one will ever deny that. But that is not the point. The world will be a better place without all the totalitarian, fundamentalist, oppressive governments.

Well lets see. I guess your liberal teachers forgot to mention that there was this little thing called the Cold War. Or are you intentionally omitting the communist threat at the time. Times change and so do allies. The United States needed to do what was in our best interest to prevent soviet domination because if we weren't allies with Iraq at the time the soviet union sure would 've been.

Originally posted by Raygun
Well lets see. I guess your liberal teachers forgot to mention that there was this little thing called the Cold War. Or are you intentionally omitting the communist threat at the time. Times change and so do allies. The United States needed to do what was in our best interest to prevent soviet domination because if we weren't allies with Iraq at the time the soviet union sure would 've been.

You make no sense. You're basically saying "yeah...but those liberal teachers didn't tell you WHY we sold the weapons to iraq..." or am i mis-reading this drivel.

Quit with the name calling, or everyone involved gets warnings and the thread is closed.

No president can come in knowing how everything works. Presidents have their cabinets and other advisors, who brief presidents on just about everything and help formulate strategies for just about everything. BUT the president is supposed to process the bits and pieces using his/her OWN MIND and make executive decisions based on INTELLIGENT PROCESSING of information.

I don't really give a damn who is President, a Democrat or Republican, this tax plan that tax plan, pro or anti-abortion, etc. I'm serious, I don't really care, I will go with WHATEVER an intelligent President decides with his/her OWN MIND.

Bush is dangerously low level. I gave my dad one of the BUSHISMS books for Christmas. It is absolutely hilarious the Bush quotes that are compiled but, at the same time, they tell us what a truly genuine idiot we have as the President. I'm not certain but I have a bad feeling that Cheney and others manipulate Bush like he's the retard of the century. The President is supposed to manipulate his/her advisors, not the other way around.

Bush HAS to go, whatever it takes, whoever it takes.

Just a few years ago, the Democrats thought a pot-smoking draft-dodger would make a splendid president. But now they are enflamed at the thought that Bush didn't fight in Vietnam! In other words, it's honorable to march in anti-American protests in Europe when America is at war, but not to be a fighter pilot in the Texas Air National Guard.

Democrats know they can't beat Bush, but they intend to enjoy being hysterical about him throughout the campaign. Calling Bush a draft-dodger, which he is not, will join the Democrats' list of other cogent, reasoned arguments, such as "You're stupid" and "Halliburton!"

- Ann Coulter

Sound familiar folks?

The Democrats have a chance. Even in your delirious DEVIANCE, you should be able to agree.

Hush uni-nut.

Actually, it will probably be uncomfortably close. Hopefully, Al Sharpton will prevail as the Dem nominee, and I'll sleep a little better.

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
Hush uni-nut.

Actually, it will probably be uncomfortably close. Hopefully, Al Sharpton will prevail as the Dem nominee, and I'll sleep a little better.

Sounds as though the level of discourse has dropped considerably since I last posted - name-calling, accusations of deceit, Ann Coulter references...

Speed-ER-doc, you've been right all along. I can't convince you of anything, and vice versa. But it really doesn't matter. After watching Bush's desperately sad, tongue-tied performance with Tim Russert this morning, it's pretty clear that his luck is running out. No more free ride from the media, no kid gloves. It's gonna be a rout.

Originally posted by I, Claudius
Sounds as though the level of discourse has dropped considerably since I last posted - name-calling, accusations of deceit, Ann Coulter references...



hmm you must have looked in a mirror recently.

Originally posted by I, Claudius

Dude, you can't even spell Halliburton. I'm supposed to take you seriously?

It was a no-bid contract. I'll type this slowly so you can understand. That means there were no other bids. No one else got the chance, so we'll never know if anyone could have done better. And from what I read, Halliburton's not doing such a hot job. Just the other day they got popped for a $16 million overcharge on meals in Kuwait.



just pointing out the obvious.

edit: format

Originally posted by Kaliken
hmm you must have looked in a mirror recently.



just pointing out the obvious.

edit: format

I love the "you must have looked in a mirror" line. It's kind of like "I know you are but what am I" or "I'm rubber, you're glue," but delivered with your own inimitable style.

Just to set the record straight, I haven't called anyone names on this board. Ever. I haven't accused anyone on this board of lying. And I certainly haven't been quoting Ann Coulter or praising her writing. I did kinda make fun of your spelling and your apparent ignorance that no one else was given the chance to bid on Iraq contracts, but you have to admit you left yourself open for that one.

By the way, I don't know who else could do Halliburton's job in Iraq. I'd appreciate it if you would tell me.

Somewhere in my youth, for reasons unremembered, an old-timer regaled me a tale of a snake-oil barker hawking athletic socks from a fold-up stand. "Socks, socks, a nickel a pair," he brayed, "a twentieth part of a dollar. The longer you wear 'em, the stronger they get. Ya put 'em in water, they never get wet. Socks, socks . . . "

George W. Bush is a little feistier than most carnival barkers ("Dead or alive," "Bring 'em on," etc.), but his promises are not much different—just catchy bait for the pigeons in the front rows.

Mostly, we've been watching the president's rhetoric spring leaks in Iraq and Afghanistan. So perhaps we haven't paid enough attention to how many holes have popped open in his domestic socks. Joblessness that was supposed to be stanched by the Bush tax cuts. Urban food kitchens overwhelmed by the demand from people who are working but underemployed and end up out of money three weeks into the month. A domestic Peace Corps program (AmeriCorps) that is praised publicly by the president as admirable volunteerism but is being starved of money by the White House and congressional Republicans.

But, still, you wouldn't think he would stiff children and their schooling. That's maybe the most disappointing thing this president has done here at home.

War has a way of taking the air out of national discussion, but we should try to remember that the president's catchiest slogan both during his campaign and since is "No Child Left Behind." It's a terrific sentiment—a noble end that has now been turned into a banality. He said it was his brightest accomplishment as governor of Texas. He said the Houston schools were the model. We wanted to believe him. We all know education is crucial to a healthy community and we all say we really care about it. So we were the pigeons in the front rows.

Over the past year or so, getting headlines in Texas but only modest coverage elsewhere, the "Texas Miracle" has been disrobed. It was a scam, a hoax. The governor had put the fear of Bush into the school bureaucracy. You will perform, the principals and superintendents were told. You will dramatically bring down the dropout rate and dramatically raise the reading and math scores. Bonuses were promised to those who succeeded, demotions and pay-docking to those who didn't.

Suddenly, as if in the Land of Oz, kids in low-income districts who had been dropping out of high school at rates of 30 and 40 percent and higher were apparently born again, burying their faces in their books into the wee hours. And then the truth came out. They were still dropping out at the same old percentages; they just weren't being counted as dropouts. They weren't even being listed as "whereabouts unknown"—as if they might have moved to another district and forgotten to leave a forwarding address. They had simply disappeared. They were los desaparecidos. Maybe General Pinochet had them kidnapped for interrogation and torture.

Anyway, if you want to read more about the "Texas Scandal," I recommend you get on the Web and look up a series of marvelous pieces that a fine reporter, Michael Winerip, has been doing in The New York Times. (My only quibble is that all the articles have been half buried on the education page at the back of the Metro Section, instead of starting on page one. After all, we do say we really care about kids and education.)

As a sample, here is some of what Winerip found on the scene in Houston, where he described Sharpstown High School: "[This] poor, mostly minority high school of 1,650 students had a freshman class of 1,000 that dwindled to fewer than 300 students by senior year. And yet—and this is the miracle—not one dropout to report. Nor was zero an unusual dropout rate in this school district that both President Bush and Secretary of Education Rod Paige have held up as the national showcase for accountability. . . . Westside High here had 2,308 students and no reported dropouts; Wheatley High 731 students, no dropouts. A dozen of the city's poorest schools reported dropout rates under 1 percent."

This was the district cited as the model for Bush's No Child Left Behind law enacted by Congress in the first months after his inauguration. Congress authorized $18 billion to launch the program nationwide. Oddly, the president has budgeted only $12 billion, lopping off one-third of the money. This is the disconnect that runs through nearly all of the president's cornerstone policies. He utters grand slogans and then slips behind his Wizard of Oz curtain and pretends that's all he has to do. Just wear a sincere tie or some military-style clothing and speak the appropriate stately catchwords while standing in front of a giant flag, and then say "God Bless America" at the close, and people will give him the second term his father was unable to achieve. "I did it for the family honor, Dad," is how this movie is scripted to end.

But in the real Wizard of Oz movie, with Judy Garland, the curtain is pulled back and there stands no wizard, just plain old Frank Morgan. Unlike Bush, Morgan is embarrassed.

Congress, which should have done its homework on Houston before it swallowed the president's hooey, has begun complaining about his underfunding of the program. Rod Paige, Bush's education secretary, says the funding is just fine. No surprise there—he was the superintendent of the "miracle" Houston school district before Bush tapped him for the cabinet. Interestingly, the Texas educational authorities are now beginning to impose penalties on those in the Houston system who falsely reported no dropouts. Do you suppose the president will dock Paige's pay?

The president's No Child Left Behind law requires every public school system to administer rigorous annual testing of students, starting in the third grade, in such subjects as English and math. If the test scores of any segment of a school's population—such as Latinos struggling with English or disabled students in special-ed classes—do not meet the proficiency levels set by the law, the entire school is listed as "failing" and students can choose to transfer to a school in the district that is doing well. In other words, averaging the test scores of the entire student body might produce a successful result, but the scores of the struggling segment will still, under the law, brand the school as "failing." In addition to placing new financial and space demands on successful schools, the law's requirements will also lay serious new money burdens on the ones with troubles, for such things as additional teacher training and additional classes. If the White House shortchanges the program, who is going to foot the bill?

Most of the 50 states are already suffering badly from Bush's Fast Deal foreign policy and also his New Federal Math. Here's how it works. The president slashes federal taxes, thus sending the national deficit over $500 billion (a record) only three years after we were showing a healthy surplus; he says this tax relief, the biggest chunk of which goes to the wealthiest Americans, will jump-start the economy by prompting the business community to create scads of new jobs. (Instead, since his inauguration in January 2001, the nation has lost nearly 3 million jobs.) Then, soon after 9-11, he orders our armed forces to be prepared to destroy all enemies, and more recently lays out $87 billion for just next year to subdue and reconstruct only two of these countries where terrorists and others who don't like us are trying to kill us. He describes as "allies" in that same region such nations as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan that do little or nothing to halt the flow of money and other assistance from sympathizers within their borders to those trying to kill us.

And, finally, he and his loyalists inform our 50 state governments that they will be losing substantial federal funds because "we are at war" and Washington has its hands full and every good American should appreciate this and not complain because that will only give aid and comfort to the enemy. The president mentioned the word "sacrifice" in his latest speech to the nation, but it was vague and unspecific, leaving one to wonder if it applies only to military personnel and the unwealthy.

The nation's schools are very much a part of this sorry larger picture. State budget crises have become the norm, not the exception. In Oklahoma City, lack of funds forced the closing of seven schools; 600 teachers were laid off. In Alabama, 38 of the state's school systems are said to be facing bankruptcy. Boston has closed five schools. Portland, Oregon, chopped several weeks off the school year. And so the list goes. Children are not only being left behind, they are being abandoned. How can the president tell Americans he's certain he's on the right track?

New York is one of the states in great pain—not only from Washington but from its own governor, George Pataki, who has been toadying up to the Bush coterie in pursuit of a cabinet post, largely to escape the mess he has made here. He'll take any cabinet post, please, Mr. President.

Last year, running for a third term, Pataki tried to hide the multibillion-dollar state budget debacle he had created by overspending. Pataki won the election, but then was compelled by cold facts to acknowledge a $10 billion state shortfall. However, echoing the president's mantra, he said it could be solved without raising taxes, which was of course impossible without a federal printing press. New York City took the hardest blow, a huge local property tax increase, partly because a profligate Rudy Giuliani had saddled his successor, Michael Bloomberg, with a budget gap comparable to the state's.

Bloomberg is committed viscerally to lifting the city's public school system, the nation's largest, out of its history of widespread failure. But he doesn't make foolish promises or offer slogans like No Child Left Behind. He doesn't speak in imperial tones. He doesn't even use harsh words against politicians who say or do harsh things meant to injure his mayoralty. He seems merely to be trying to do his best for the city. All of which is a welcome departure from the hollow stagecraft being beamed at us from Washington.

It's going to be a hard go in New York and all over this land. One big reason is that we have a president who, more than any other chief executive in our history, seems unhooked from reality. We have to face the distressing possibility that he may not be up to the tasks confronting the nation.

Damn, Baller, could you please find a happy medium between your one-liners and your 500 liners? You can't blame Bush for all that stuff btw, most of those dropouts are from your Democratic party "family units" not supporting their kids despite my heavy tax assistance. Oh well, they probably won't register to vote anyway.
Sounds as though the level of discourse has dropped considerably since I last posted - name-calling, accusations of deceit, Ann Coulter references...
I wasn't calling ArXate names, that was a humorous reference to his latest losing bet (that if mikeb didn't show up for a meeting, ArXate would give up his left nut). :p

Ann Coulter is one smart lady, a little extreme right perhaps, but smart, funny and attractive. And what a set of ideals she has! Maybe she should run in 2008?

I, Claudius, you may not have called names, but you belittle everyone else's arguments and references, accusing them of being "faith based," while not seeing the partisanism of your own posts and discussions.

I feel the love..........

You gotta admit, that was a loooong post. :)

In spite of satisfactory results in a few areas, taken as a whole, the Bush administration's efforts to protect the homeland have been surprisingly lax and inadequate, earning an average grade of "D." We find that the Bush administration has not brought the same energy and attention to homeland security that it has brought to overseas military efforts. The administration has failed to adequately fund a number of essential homeland security functions. In the absence of presenting a compelling vision of the changes necessary to protect the homeland, the Bush administration has failed to push back on the government bureaucracies that have resisted meaningful change. In short, President Bush has failed to fulfill his promise to make homeland security his top priority. Meeting the new challenge of homeland security requires strong leadership, creativity, and vision; President Bush has demonstrated few of these qualities on the home front.

Sorry "Doc" it was the java...........way too much.

Noah we need your input............

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
I, Claudius, you may not have called names, but you belittle everyone else's arguments and references, accusing them of being "faith based," while not seeing the partisanism of your own posts and discussions.

Fair enough. I retract the 'faith-based' comment. I freely admit I'm partisan, though I do think you've got to ignore a whole lot of stuff (no, I'm not gonna do another list) to love this administration.

As for the sarcasm and belittling my opponents, I'm just following the Ann Coulter/Rush Limbaugh ad hominem conservative debate playbook. It seems to work for them.

Originally posted by I, Claudius
As to what the Dems might have done if the guy who got the most votes in 2000 had actually been allowed to assume the presidency, I dunno...
This just came to me. You know what must be frustrating? Being a Democrat in Texas, knowing that the electoral college will nullify my vote once the presidential election occurs. To feel so strongly about something, and know that it just doesn't matter. That's gotta hurt almost as much as waiting for the congressional redistricting to take place here. Ouch again! Maybe you should move to Florida and teach hole-punching. :D

The other funny thing I just noticed is that most all of these other hard core liberals here I'm conversing with are from California, which is a guaranteed yellow-dog Democrat state. So they might as well not vote either. :D

Our two states are already decided folks. Unless Arnold can kick some sense into y'all over there! Terminate the weaklings!

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
This just came to me. You know what must be frustrating? Being a Democrat in Texas, knowing that the electoral college will nullify my vote once the presidential election occurs. To feel so strongly about something, and know that it just doesn't matter. That's gotta hurt almost as much as waiting for the congressional redistricting to take place here. Ouch again! Maybe you should move to Florida and teach hole-punching. :D

!

Doc, I want to party with you cowboy.
I bet the chicks dig you.

On Sunday, 18 more young Americans died in Iraq serving the vanity of an American President who woefully betrayed them and who has no idea where his policies are taking his country.

This is a President who, as is now amply clear, has systematically lied to the troops and the American people about the reasons for going to war, distorting evidence to claim that the United States was threatened by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and linking Iraq to the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Having led America and its allies by the nose into a clumsy, ill-advised Middle East power grab, President Bush is faced with a terrible quandary: what do we do now?

The first thing is to resist the logic of the self-fulfilling prophecy: Bush claimed Iraq was a centre of international terrorism - it wasn't - and now says that because terrorists are coming over Iraqi borders to take pot shots at Americans, the US needs to stay and fight them.

"We won't run," Bush said, cavalierly dismissing the lives of the young soldiers mired in his folly. This amounts to using America's young men and women as bait and assumes there are a finite number of fanatics who can be dispensed with once and for all.

In fact, the US occupation of the historic centre of the Arab world has provided al-Qaeda and other like-minded groups with their most effective recruiting poster yet, and America is fighting them on their terms and on their turf.

Meanwhile, attacks also are coming from various Iraqi quarters: those who enjoyed favours under Saddam and those who may have been glad to see the US overthrow the tyrant but have since become alienated by an occupation that inevitably inspires nationalist as well as religious opposition.

If he can back off, the American public might be conned into giving him another term.
Why can't America learn from its history in Vietnam and the experiences of the French in Algeria and the Israelis in the West Bank and Gaza that no occupation by an army of "the other" is ever welcome?

Only last week, Israel's army chief of staff issued a warning on the limits of an occupying power to achieve its goals through military force. "It increases hatred for Israel and strengthens the terror organisations," said Lieutenant-General Moshe Yaalon, adding: "In our tactical interests, we are operating contrary to our strategic interests."

Some pundits and politicians, even those who may have been sceptical about the war to begin with, now argue that the US must "finish the job", even if it means increasing its commitment of troops or ruling Iraq indefinitely. This is, however, exactly the kind of stubborn and mushy thinking that led the US into the hell of Vietnam and the deaths of 58,000 Americans and 2 million Vietnamese and Cambodians.

The occupation of Iraq is not working and will not work. For Iraqis, American culture is offensive and American tactics are heavy-handed. As none other than the American-sponsored Iraqi politician Ahmad Chalabi put it after the latest guerilla attacks: "The Americans, their methods, their operations and their procedures are singularly unsuited to deal with this kind of problem."

And US intentions in Iraq are far from clear. Though there may be an echo of "white man's burden" that seeks to export "civilisation", even that highly questionable goal is clouded and undermined by the fact that Washington inevitably will put a higher priority on having a new Iraq serve America's superpower needs - oil, commerce, military power - rather than meet the needs of regular Iraqis.

Unless America is willing to trade the lives of US troops and Iraqis for the obsessions of empire, America must end the occupation now.

The US can give Chalabi and his crowd the money they need to operate in the short-term and similarly aid the more established Shiite groups. It can beg the UN Security Council to take over this mess, with financial support from the US, and smooth the transfer of power enough to let Bush save face by declaring the mission a victory.

Such a wise reversal of course might even help Bush get re-elected - his poll numbers on Iraq are sinking. If he can back off from the edge of the cliff to which his hyper-aggressive foreign policy has taken the US, the American public might be conned into giving him another term.

Personally, I think the President should be impeached for his lies. But more important, he should redeem himself by coming to his senses and ending the carnage and instability he has wrought in Iraq and the world.

Boy howdy, to quote my friend claude, you must REALLY like that paragraph to post the same one in two threads right next to each other. How about deleting one before I get double vision. Or else, share the wealth and put one in EVERY thread. :)

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
This just came to me. You know what must be frustrating? Being a Democrat in Texas, knowing that the electoral college will nullify my vote once the presidential election occurs. To feel so strongly about something, and know that it just doesn't matter. That's gotta hurt almost as much as waiting for the congressional redistricting to take place here. Ouch again! Maybe you should move to Florida and teach hole-punching. :D


That's what I get for trying to be conciliatory.

You're absolutely right. It is a little frustrating to be surrounded by arrogant wingnuts with room-temperature IQ's who've been deluded into thinking that gibbering mediocrity in the White House is a statesman even after he ran Texas into the financial ground as governor.

Damn. That felt good. And I'll feel even better in November when Flightsuit Boy gets handed a defeat so big even the electoral college, his brother the governor, and the Supreme Court can't help him.

Speaking of delusions: Here's a Republican pinup.

Big hands!!!

I am drinking my java (heavy) now.....are you prepared for another long thread?

Now don't go getting Baller all excited!

Originally posted by cumpressor4u2nv
You make no sense. You're basically saying "yeah...but those liberal teachers didn't tell you WHY we sold the weapons to iraq..." or am i mis-reading this drivel.

Wrong. I make plenty of sense. Dealing with Iraq at the time was necessary to prevent soviet domination. You must be to young to remember the threat. Its as simple as that. I'm really leary of the information that they aquired chemical weapons from the U.S. anyhow.

Just because you don't know the history between the United States in that region doesn't mean its "drivel".

The fact is much of the finger pointing going on is political based and is very disingenious.

Originally posted by Raygun
".

The fact is much of the finger pointing going on is political based and is very disingenious.

Words seem to have become more puzzling than they once were, even to the purportedly educated. A list of confusions is easily compiled. “Partly” doesn’t mean “partially;” nor historic, historical; nor philosophic, philosophical; nor sensuous, sensual; nor religiosity, religiousness; nor belligerent, bellicose; nor feminine, effeminate; nor continuous, continual; nor effete, epicene; “It is important that you do not smoke” is not the same as “It is important that you not smoke.” “The new airplane is five times faster than the old” probably doesn’t mean anything at all; if it does, it means “The new airplane is six times as fast as the old.” The word “disingenious” doesn’t exist, though I hear it from the educated. (“Disingenuous” is meant.)

Originally posted by Baller
Big hands!!!

Man hands.

You mean disingenious?

disingenuous.

I wouldn't party with Speed-ER doc. That dude is gay. He will cut your balls off and eat them.

Man hands!

dude.. baller and RX_999

at least give credit to the guy who wrote it

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0338/schanberg.php

and

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/11/05/1068013255336.html?from=storyrhs

come on someone spent the time to write it. Unless your both are synticated writers, then major props as I cannot write that well.

Oh man, that's plaguarism. Claude would give you an F and expel your asses.

Now you know who I am.

Ryan Sanchez

Who are you?

Thought you were "Washington"

I find it disturbing that some of you said that your happy that a Democrat wasn't in office after 9-11. I suppose you don't know that Clinton issued his presidential directive to have Osama assassinated? After the attack on the USS Cole on October 12, 2000,Clinton had a plan to take out al Qaeda made up. He actually worked on a way to destroy them not supply them like Regan or ignore everything about them like the 1st Bush. This plan was finished a few weeks before "President" Bush was "elected" into office. The only reason the plan was not started was to keep our new "President" from having to start his term with the country at war. Clinton had his people briefed the Bush administration on the plan and warned them of the problems that they could have with Osama. But because Clinton was sooo evil and nothing his people worked on could ever be good our "President" and his followers ignored all this info and never took action. But it's hard to look at any information like that when your at Camp David or in Texas 42 percent of your first seven months in office. Before 9-11 Clinton did more against terrorism than any president before him. But thank God we don't have a Democrat in office now. And it's not that having an evil dictator out of power is a bad thing. It's just the fact that he totally lied about everything to do it that's wrong. If he had come to Congress and the American people and asked to go to war to just help Iraq then he never would have got permission. So he lied and used 9-11 to get what he wanted. Now 20 years down the road let's see how this all works out. I don't think it will ever work out in a good way. But then again it's all the Democrats fault anyway.

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
These are points we can't defend against? :

"If the choice was G.W.B. or A.S... Without hesitation A.S. (AL Sharpton)" - <that's real good for your cred.>

"We donated 50.00 to moveon.org and consider it an investment."

"Tell me three good things that he has done for our nation since taking office"

"I hate GWB and most everything he stands for."

"blah, blah, blah.....
Vince
(A gun toting liberal Democrat)"

Your credibility is zero in this discussion. Provide some issues to discuss instead of inane attacks and you might get some of it back.

edited: I think I misunderstood your post. I thought you were talking about yourself as a reformed Republican. After re-reading, I think you were just being sarcastic.

Is that the search you were doing..

So tell me three good things GWB has done for our country.

You seem to take some sort of high ground when you write but from what I read you take cheap shots (and love quote bites) and don't say anything of real substance.

These are the trademarks of the far right talking heads from what I observe.

I think if you took one tenth of you own medicine (grammar checks and quote bites) and applied it to GWB you would be forced to shut up or change sides.

Vince

I do go by Washington if you read me.
E-mail me through the "Village Voice" and I will answer through the Village Voice.

Kind regards,
Ryan

The scandal-tinged governorship of George Elmer Pataki is now caught in its biggest scandal of all—how he, apparently to ensure his election to a third term last year, kept from the voters the gravity of the state's financial situation and thus worsened the crisis by not taking early emergency measures to deal with it.

Some good-government watchdogs think this is a case of knowing malfeasance of office for personal gain, but in the real world, no one expects any prosecutor to seek accountability through the justice system. In any event, it is a story of how, to protect his political future, Pataki hustled the state of New York—through sleight-of-hand and a campaign trail of illusions, evasions, and the more than occasional prevarication—into the biggest budget shortfall in New York history. As all of us know from recent banner headlines, the Pataki team is now $11.5 billion short in a budget of $90 billion. That spells severe financial pain and sacrifice for millions of New Yorkers, especially those on the lower branches of the money tree.

George Pataki knew how serious the state's financial condition was nearly a year ago as he campaigned for a third term, yet he told the voters everything was hunky-dory. He gave them his vow there would be no new taxes and soothed them with assurances that the budget-gap projections they were hearing from others were wildly exaggerated.

Last September, two months before Election Day, the majority leader of the state senate, Joseph Bruno, like Pataki a Republican, said that his reading of the numbers put the budget gap already in the $10 billion range—and climbing. Pataki scoffed at Bruno's projection, telling Daily News reporter Joel Siegel: "I don't know where it came from. Joe is a wonderful leader. He doesn't always do thorough research before putting out an analysis."

Bruno's forecast was of course right on the money. And now Pataki and his spinners are scrambling mightily to distance themselves from the anger of voters who feel betrayed. These voters will be hit with huge state and local tax increases that they now know could have been significantly reduced if only the governor had acknowledged the crisis and taken early steps, such as a freeze on spending and hiring, to lessen the damage.

When reporters would ask Pataki during the campaign to explain the disparity between his rosy picture and the dire warnings of his political opponents and independent analysts, he would most often duck the questions. Even when he did respond, he would offer no details and merely say that his figures had come from his budget "professionals." He would also immediately say he was "proud" of his record.

In fact, this was Pataki's mantra throughout the campaign when asked about any scandal or controversy: He would state his pride in his accomplishments in that particular policy area and then say that all past decisions were made by the "professionals" in state agencies. It was almost as if he was setting up his own appointees and employees as possible scapegoats should he need a defense later on—say, if legislative hearings or even grand juries were convened. Poor man—he was only doing what the "professionals" told him to.

The most recent controversy, just this past week, has escalated to fever pitch—the charge by both the state and city comptrollers that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, a rarely scrutinized adjunct of the governor's office, had diddled with its books to force an increase in the bus and subway fare this year instead of waiting until next year, when the reserves would actually have been used up. The real mystery—still unexplained by MTA chairman Peter Kalikow, a privately wealthy, major contributor to Pataki campaigns—is how and why the agency declared itself to be in surplus before the gubernatorial election, and then, as soon as Pataki had coasted to victory, declared the surplus to have remarkably disappeared—thereby necessitating a fare hike. How magical.

As in most of this governor's unorthodox dealings, money is at the heart of it, usually money that goes into his campaign chest in return for lucrative state contracts and other favors. Of course, Pataki denies there is any connection. His wife, Libby, earns $200,000 or more a year from part-time consulting contracts given to her by companies that either receive state contracts or give major campaign money to the governor. She thus earns more than the governor, whose salary is $179,000.

The pattern of Pataki's conduct would seem to be tailored after that of his mentors, chief among them former U.S. senator Alfonse D'Amato and Charles Gargano. The latter is a master campaign fundraiser who performed this service for D'Amato, who then bequeathed him to Pataki, who soon made him the state's economic development czar, through whom all major infrastructure contracts are now funneled, including the billions of federal dollars for the rebuilding of ground zero. Through their long political careers, both D'Amato and Gargano have gained reputations as men who never came upon a conflict of interest that they couldn't turn into a windfall.

I mention all this only to show that the governor has some outstanding role models.

To return to the state budget, let us examine how the charade was carried out. In his first two terms, Pataki used the economy's boom years to build up reserves and serve his political career goals. Because of the boom and the resultant surge of tax revenues, he was able to lower tax rates yet increase spending to please a wide range of voter blocs. He balanced the budget each year, a requirement under the state constitution, using lots of gimmicks and fancy juggling and one-time, non-recurring funds. With all this good fortune and prestidigitation, he was also able to lay aside as much as $4.1 billion in reserve, "rainy day" funds.

But by the time the state's last fiscal year began, on April 1, 2002, the stock-market bubble had burst, the recession was on, and September 11, 2001, had sent New York City into shock. The rainy-day reserves were already down to $2.6 billion, and by Election Day, tax revenues were shrinking so fast that the nest egg was gone and a budget chasm was widening. With Pataki hiding the extremity of the situation from ordinary voters and taking no steps to curtail his lavish state spending, the mess was on its way to becoming the worst fiscal crisis in New York history, even more severe than the one in the mid 1970s. There was a governor in Albany then, Hugh Carey, who—whatever his flaws—did not hide or run from a problem.

Knowledgeable political operatives and scholars around the state were astounded by Pataki's strategy of denial. Two months before the November election, for example, Gerald Benjamin, a highly regarded author and political science professor at SUNY-New Paltz, and a Republican, told reporters: "There's going to be an extraordinary crisis. Nobody disagrees who pays attention and is not vested in one of these campaigns. It's going to be a very big deal. The localities are going to turn to the state, and the state is going to be in extremis. . . . This deficit should be the biggest issue in the election, but nobody wants to touch it. There is no credible plan for this."

Pataki's only plan was his vow that there would be no new taxes. "This is not going to happen," he said. "Absolutely not." This pledge was grossly misleading, because his proposed budget for fiscal 2003-2004 calls for $1.3 billion in new "assessment" hikes, which are taxes. It also includes $6 billion in one-shot revenues, a gimmick he had excoriated in earlier governors' budgets and said he would never use.

He has kept insisting that he easily handled a $5 billion gap when he first took office in 1995, so this one would not be any more daunting. This one, however, was strikingly different. Pataki had spent money like a tipsy sailor, handing out election-year goodies all over the state. He's been doing this for the last five years, as if the stock-market mania was never going to fizzle. Well, it fizzled and crashed in 2001 and remained in the tank through election-year 2002. It would have been hard for Pataki to miss the carnage.

After the election, Pataki's pretend-game collapsed quite suddenly, for the true budget numbers erupted into public view like a dam breaking. Now it was clear to everyone that the gap for the fiscal year that ended March 31 would be around $2 billion and the one for the year that began April 1 (fiscal 2003- 2004) would be at least $10 billion. Yet the governor has stuck with his "taxes are job-killers" platform and, with the crisis worsening, is still shouting it loudly every day now, with the vigorous help of his favorite newspaper, Rupert Murdoch's New York Post, always in the "right" column.

It's a bully campaign against the two legislative leaders, Bruno in the Republican-controlled senate and Sheldon Silver, speaker of the Democratic assembly. The goal is to build public pressure to get them to bend to Pataki's demands for shrinking the budget by making deep cuts in vital aid to localities—which would affect everything from public safety to schools to health care to garbage pickup to road repair. He says that if the legislative leaders pass any large increases in "broad-based" taxes, he will veto them. The leaders would then either have to override his vetoes—and thus accept any voter backlash from the new levies—or go along with some negotiated compromise.

Meanwhile, in Washington, President Bush not only wants no new federal taxes but demands big reductions in the present ones as well. Which raises an obvious question: Has Pataki—who has long thirsted for a senior post in the Bush administration, with some backers even talking about the vice presidency—been playing all these budget power games primarily to curry favor with conservative Republicans and the missionary good-versus-evil president? It's hard to know, but whatever his motives, the creature the governor has hatched walks and talks and froths like insanity.

Did Pataki really believe that he could get away with standing before the television cameras after September 11, looking caring and patriotic with a giant flag behind him, while at the same time lying baldly to the voters about a gut issue as serious as this one—and not face a justifiably enraged citizenry when they found him out? For if the president is cutting taxes and Pataki succeeds on his no-new-taxes tear, then local governments will have to come up with the money by raising their own taxes astronomically—property and school taxes among others.

In the short term, Pataki has gotten away with his flimflam. He is a sharp and cunning politician. His ploy of staying silent and giving vague responses on touchy subjects like the budget was noted and written about by reporters, but overall the press never did hard analysis on the numbers or explained what they meant for taxpayers. By Election Day, virtually every major paper in the state had endorsed the governor. Reporters—and editorial boards—are supposed to be able to add and subtract.

Ultimately, the fiscal calamity simply didn't strike a chord with the voters. Maybe they were too distracted by the terrorism of 9-11 and their own immediate pocketbook distress from an unstable economy that had made thousands jobless. And maybe they've lowered their expectations of elected officials to near zero.

Beyond all this, state government has always been a maze to the average citizen, with so many of its decisions made behind closed doors and rarely examined by independent overseers.

When I write that Pataki used illusion and denial to disguise the budget crisis, I am not suggesting that no governor or legislature ever juggled the figures before to balance the state budget or used gimmicks and one-shot revenues. I covered Albany for five years in the 1960s when Nelson Rockefeller was governor, and those tactics are as common in Albany as fleas on a junkyard dog.

I remember the scene one year, at the annual budget briefing for the press in the rare-art-filled governor's mansion on Eagle Street, when Rockefeller, during his presentation with charts and an easel next to one of Picasso's Guernica tapestries, said he had solved a particularly tricky fiscal problem with an infusion of $75 million. Where in the budget did you get the money from, reporters asked. Nelson smiled and said his budget director, T. Norman Hurd, had discovered the treasure in some obscure fiscal cranny. At which point Charlie Dumas, the AP bureau chief, a skilled reporter who was also incurably puckish, called out to the multimillionaire: "Come on, governor. Where did you find it? Did you send an old suit to the cleaners?"

But Pataki, with his illusionist games, has gone light-years beyond the usual Albany higgery-jiggery. He has created an honest-to-goodness crisis.

Oddly, one opposite of the word magic is tragic. Our alchemist governor has spun his magic with mirrors and doublespeak. The end product is a tragedy. And if any reckoning comes out of this mess, it could bring him down.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

cool website.. Baller.. you do good work.

http://www.ryansanchez.com/

please give credit to the writers... its not that hard to quote them

Originally posted by RX_999
Funny stuff...not for Noah

http://www.blackstarsblog.com/bushin41point2.htm

Actually the link is vulgar. Throwing together a bunch of vulgarities in a consecutive stream does not make something funny. If you want something that is funny try something that isn't 8th grade bathroom level.

If you want real anti-Bush humor to satisfy your hunger, try going to The Onion and typing in "Bush" in the Search window.

A particular funny one: http://www.theonion.com/onion3833/bush_wont_stop_asking.html

-Mr. Wigggles

Baller, do you write that stuff too? Your artwork is wonderful, but I can't find your literature. That village voice page has a lot of different areas.

The ultimate action figure...

http://homepage.mac.com/webmasterkai/kaicurry/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html

Even I'll admit, that's pretty cool. I think I saw a Clinton one like that too.....

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
Even I'll admit, that's pretty cool. I think I saw a Clinton one like that too.....



Here's a plan:

1) The US will apologize to the world for our "interference" in their affairs, past & present. You know, Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Marshal and the rest of them good old boys. We will never "interfere" again.

2) We will withdraw our troops from all over the world, starting with Germany, France, South Korea and the Philippines. They don't want us there. We would station troops at our borders. No more sneaking through holes in the fence.

3) All illegal aliens have 90 days to get their affairs together and leave. They can sneak back in where they come from. After 90 days the remainder will be gathered up and deported immediately, regardless of who or where they are. France would welcome them.

4) All future visitors will be thoroughly checked and limited to 90 days in America unless given a special permit. No one from a terrorist nation would be allowed in. If you don't like it there, change it yourself, don't hide here Asylum would not ever be available to anyone. We don't need any more cab drivers.

5) No "students" over age 21. The older ones are the terriosts If they don't attend classes, they get a "F" and it's back home.

6) The US will make a strong effort to become self sufficient energy wise. This will include developing non-polluting sources of energy but will require a temporary drilling for oil in the Alaskan wilderness. The caribou will have to cope for a while.

7) Offer Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries $10 a barrel for their oil. If they don't like it, we use our own and stop shipping it to "our friends" that have been receiving it, so they didn't have to pay the huge shipping costs like we do.

8) If there is a famine or other natural catastrophe in the world, we will not "interfere". They can pray to Allah or whomever, for seeds, rain, cement or whatever they need. Besides, most of what we give them is stolen or given to the army. The people who need it most get very little, if any, anyway.

9) Ship the UN Headquarters to an island some place. We don't need the spies and fair weather friends here. Besides, it would make a good homeles shelter or lockup for illegal aliens.

10) All Americans must go to charm and beauty school. That way, no one can call us "Ugly Americans" any longer.

Now, this is just an idea......... The Republicans, or for that matter the Democrats probably would not go for it----I know Bush and Cheney wouldn't, there would be no one to line their pockets, and keep feeding them at the trough, like people have been doing for them all of their life.

Many interesting thoughts here. ^^^

I would say that I have worked with several Middle Eastern physicians-in-training here (over 21 years old) who were superb, and our country benefits from their presence.

Our country also benefits from the cheap labor many illegal aliens provide, especially in construction and landscaping and other service jobs.

Originally posted by Baller
If Bush was part of this forum, I would ban his ass!!!!

Well then, it's good to know you'll never have that power.

Wow, that was almost religious! :D

GOD has spoken!!!!!!

Originally posted by compaddict
So tell me three good things GWB has done for our country.

Vince
Here's a hundred or so:
http://www.boycottliberalism.com/Bush.htm

The Medicare Reform Bill was after this was published, so add one more.....

edit: funny how much you can get done when you're not sidetracked by investigations into your criminal or sexual antics.

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
Here's a hundred or so:
http://www.boycottliberalism.com/Bush.htm

The Medicare Reform Bill was after this was published, so add one more.....

edit: funny how much you can get done when you're not sidetracked by investigations into your criminal or sexual antics.

Gee, he sure spends a lot of time proclaiming stuff...

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
Here's a hundred or so:
http://www.boycottliberalism.com/Bush.htm

The Medicare Reform Bill was after this was published, so add one more.....

edit: funny how much you can get done when you're not sidetracked by investigations into your criminal or sexual antics.

Please.. Medicare reform bill is a good thing?

You don't mean the bill that will make the US government the single largest buyer of prescription drugs in the US but doesn't allow the negotiation of price paid?

My bad! I should have asked you to name three good things that benefit people of the US (not rape the people for the benefit of large corporations).

Try again please.

Vince

The issue of when Bush was in Alabama, should not be the issue. The issue why he was there is what should be questioned. Why was a qualified fighter pilot, during a time of war,, being paid by the taxpayers of Texas and the United States allowed to go to another state to assist in the political campaign of Winston Blount's Senatorial bid, who was a family friend. Bush had never taken his turn at bat in Viet Nam. He knew if he missed his flight physical, he would be removed from flight status, and would not be required to go. We should ask who gave him permission to go to Alabama during a time of war. There was in the 1960's and 1970's a written directive, that active duty personnel would not participate in political activities. Right or wrong, that was the rule. I think one would find a conspiracy leading back to his Father George Bush Senior, to find the people responsible for this travesty. The overall scenario paints Bush's loyality, and attitude to his country, and his slovenly, shameful performance of his military duties while supposedly serving his State of Texas, and the United States of America. Bush was not bashful about drawing his pay and now presenting dental records, showing he was having the government pay for his dental work, while in Alabama, evading the war. President Bush has continually violated his oath as President, by refusing to enforce the written laws of the land, regarding immigration. Who told the border patrol and the INS to look the other way. Isn't it a bit unusual that none of George Bush Senior's family has had to serve their country in battle, but both of the Bush's have had no compunction about sending others to war, Both former President Bush and his Son the present President should have to answer to the Mothers and Fathers, Sons and Daughters, why. It is time for an impeachment inquiry.

I have wondered why Bush was trained only to fly a soon to be obsolete aircraft. So he wouldn't/couldn't be called to any action is my guess.

Originally posted by compaddict
Please.. Medicare reform bill is a good thing?

Vince
I guess you didn't read the link, probably the title scared you off. Oh well. Ignorance IS bliss.

The Medicare Reform Bill is a good effort. Here is a real life example of the need for prescription assistance:

Those over 65, unless they can afford supplemental health insurance, have to pay cash for their prescriptions. Many of these individuals are on a fixed (Social Security) income - not much.

If one of these elderly develop a deep vein thrombosis (blood clot in the leg), they have a problem, and so do the rest of us. The standard treatment of DVT, as it is called, is outpatient injections of a new type of blood thinner, to prevent the clot from going to their lungs and killing them. This is a relatively expensive drug, however, and they usually can't afford it. So they have to be admitted to the hospital for a week for even more expensive (and dangerous) IV blood thinners. Who pays for that? You got it --- Medicare (taxpayers).

Cheaper for the patient, more expensive for taxpayers.

There were many Air Guard units that were flying the f-102 interceptor that were transferred into f-105's and sent to Thailand.
Also, the f-102 was replaced by the f-106 an updated version of the 102 that flew into the mid 1980's.

I still haven’t quite figured out what motivates the intense personal hatred displayed for George Bush among people on the left. I strongly disagree with his policies, but have a hard time seeing him as uniquely evil among U.S. presidents.

For instance, British writer Brendan O’Neill reminds us that Bush’s foreign policy, however terrible, hardly represents a radical break:

“[Molly] Ivins says that where previous president Bill Clinton merely lied about 'a squalid affair that was none of anyone else's business anyway', Bush lied us into war by exaggerating the threat posed by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. She seems to have a short memory. President Clinton bombed Baghdad, in Operation Desert Fox in 1998, claiming that 'Saddam must not be allowed to threaten his neighbours with nuclear weapons, poison gas or biological weapons'. He and Blair also launched the Kosovo War in 1999 on dubious grounds - including the claim that the Serbs had killed 100,000 Kosovans. The total body count of civilians killed in Kosovo from 1997 to 1999, including by Clinton and Blair's air strikes, stands at 3,000.

“You could be forgiven for thinking that Bush was the first president ever to launch a war. What about Harry Truman, who nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing 180,000 civilians, even though US officials were aware that Japan was on the verge of surrendering? Or Lyndon Johnson, who told the Gulf of Tonkin lie in order to kickstart the Vietnam War, which killed two million Vietnamese? Or Richard Nixon, who expanded the Vietnam War to Cambodia, again on highly dubious grounds, killing thousands more civilians?”

I think the way many anti-war people have personalized their cause by focusing so much on Bush the man may turn out to be their undoing. Listening to some of the rhetoric might lead you to believe that if we just elected, say, Howard Dean, everything would be just peachy.

But in a column in the Washington Post the other day, Robert Kagan dispelled the notion that Dean is some kind of raving peacenik:

“Howard Dean is no George McGovern. He opposed the Iraq war, he says, because it was ‘the wrong war at the wrong time,’ not because it was emblematic of a fundamentally misguided American foreign policy….Dean does not call for a reduction in American military power but talks about using the "iron fist" of our "superb military."

Kagan Concludes:

“The bigger implication, which the rest of the world should note well, is that the general course of American foreign policy is fairly stable and won't be soon toppled -- not even by Howard Dean.”

And Dean is the antiwar candidate!

The point is that the U.S. policy of worldwide hegemony is a longstanding, deeply entrenched, bipartisan affair. A truly radical challenge to interventionism and warmongering will have to come from outside the system altogether

WASHINGTON Feb. 18 — The White House backed away Wednesday from its own prediction that the economy will add 2.6 million new jobs before the end of this year, saying the forecast was the work of number-crunchers and that President Bush was not a statistician.

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040218_1048.html

Poll Shows Democrats Beating Bush
VOA News: 19 Feb 2004
_
A new opinion poll says either of the two main Democratic presidential candidates would beat President Bush by at least 10 points if the election were held today.

The poll, published Wednesday by CNN and the USA Today newspaper, shows Democratic front-runner John Kerry beating Mr. Bush by 55 to 43 percent.

Mr. Kerry's main rival, Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, holds a 10 point advantage over the incumbent, 54 to 44 percent.

http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=962CC8A6-5A56-4E5F-9BCBDCAAE4E0329A

Originally posted by I, Claudius
Poll Shows Democrats Beating Bush
VOA News: 19 Feb 2004
_
A new opinion poll says either of the two main Democratic presidential candidates would beat President Bush by at least 10 points if the election were held today.

-[/url]

Music to my ears!!!!!

Good thing we have the electoral college!!!!! (and 8+ more months to sort things out).

Who cares. No matter what we're going to get more of the same crap. The two party system is broke-ass and discourages people from examing the issues.

I'm tired of voting for "the lesser of two evils." Democrat? Republican? Democan? Replublicrat? Same hands pulling all the strings....

Originally posted by CelticFan
I find it disturbing that some of you said that your happy that a Democrat wasn't in office after 9-11. I suppose you don't know that Clinton issued his presidential directive to have Osama assassinated? After the attack on the USS Cole on October 12, 2000,Clinton had a plan to take out al Qaeda made up. He actually worked on a way to destroy them not supply them like Regan or ignore everything about them like the 1st Bush. This plan was finished a few weeks before "President" Bush was "elected" into office. The only reason the plan was not started was to keep our new "President" from having to start his term with the country at war. Clinton had his people briefed the Bush administration on the plan and warned them of the problems that they could have with Osama. But because Clinton was sooo evil and nothing his people worked on could ever be good our "President" and his followers ignored all this info and never took action. But it's hard to look at any information like that when your at Camp David or in Texas 42 percent of your first seven months in office. Before 9-11 Clinton did more against terrorism than any president before him. But thank God we don't have a Democrat in office now. And it's not that having an evil dictator out of power is a bad thing. It's just the fact that he totally lied about everything to do it that's wrong. If he had come to Congress and the American people and asked to go to war to just help Iraq then he never would have got permission. So he lied and used 9-11 to get what he wanted. Now 20 years down the road let's see how this all works out. I don't think it will ever work out in a good way. But then again it's all the Democrats fault anyway.

I'd really like the source of your "facts".

Originally posted by Psylence
Who cares. No matter what we're going to get more of the same crap. The two party system is broke-ass and discourages people from examing the issues.

I'm tired of voting for "the lesser of two evils." Democrat? Republican? Democan? Replublicrat? Same hands pulling all the strings....
I'm with you, buddy. Hey, I heard Ralph Nader was maybe going to run again this year! More options are ALWAYS better, huh Baller, eh Claude, Georgiarat?? I got a perfect campaign slogan for him:

DILUTE THE KOOKS!




GO gwb!

yum.