I just made it through 30 minutes and can't stop laughing!

Who thought that putting GWB on TV and letting him talk would be a good idea?

Vince

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

Originally posted by compaddict
I just made it through 30 minutes and can't stop laughing!

Who thought that putting GWB on TV and letting him talk would be a good idea?

Vince

The democrats surely put him up to it, I smell conspiracy! :p I found it rather funny he wouldn't say weapons of mass destruction once in the time that I was listening, and he kept skirting the topic. Even if you're a staunch Bush supporter I just don't know how one could feel he enstills confidence when he speaks.

Ike

Originally posted by IkeWRX
I found it rather funny he wouldn't weapons of mass destruction once in the time that I was listening and kept skirting that topic.
Ike

You're TYPING, have time to think about what you are going to say and correct your mistakes, and this still doesn't make sense.

Y'all crack me up. It ain't easy public speaking, especially answering questions from people out to get you. That was about the only thing Bill Clinton did well.

He had a girlfriend named "Cigar" Doc.

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.

Amen brother!!! I have nothing to add, which is rare for me.....

Except one thing..WE ALL MUST VOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is that, or armed revolution..

I will vote.

Originally posted by RX_999
... 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....

...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.

RX_999, would you please submit everything you've written above to the Op-Ed editors of every major US newspaper? Klegg said it best... AMEN BROTHER!

he didn't write it...... he copied it

Are all teachers Democrats? And all physicians Republican?
Bet there are more Democratic docs than Republican teachers percentage wise......

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
Y'all crack me up. It ain't easy public speaking, especially answering questions from people out to get you. That was about the only thing Bill Clinton did well.

I would have to say that going from deficits to surpluses was something done well that Clinton had a hand in. Since dubya applied his financial "strategery" goverment spending has bloated in all areas and we are running massive deficits.

How do you know he copied it?
Better do your home-work.

Bush will go down in flames and you know it......

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
he didn't write it...... he copied it

Are all teachers Democrats? And all physicians Republican?
Bet there are more Democratic docs than Republican teachers percentage wise......

I have a good friend who is a highschool teacher, and his wife happens to be a doctor (well, she's doing her residency at Rush).
He's about as republican as it gets, she could care less about politics for the most part, but certainly seems to lean towards the democrats. Another close friend of mine is a second grade teacher and she is republican. Very small sample I realize... but it would be interesting to see the division in political beliefs based on profession.

Ike

I think that is income not profession!

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
he didn't write it...... he copied it

Are all teachers Democrats? And all physicians Republican?
Bet there are more Democratic docs than Republican teachers percentage wise......

I'm a family doc in Minnesota.

I never considered myself either a democrat or republican (I hate our 2 party system). I actually fall in the middle of the scale.

BUT, with all the stuff going on in the last few years, I am becoming more ANTI-repbulican by the second.

Originally posted by Aesculapius
I'm a family doc in Minnesota.

I never considered myself either a democrat or republican (I hate our 2 party system). I actually fall in the middle of the scale.

BUT, with all the stuff going on in the last few years, I am becoming more ANTI-repbulican by the second.

I'm right there with you! Bush seems to be dividing the nation more so than it's ever been. I've never drawn a line and said I was a democrat or a republican until the last couple years.

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
he didn't write it...... he copied it

Are all teachers Democrats? And all physicians Republican?
Bet there are more Democratic docs than Republican teachers percentage wise......


yep as pointed out in another thread.

originally in the LA times. I actually read the article at its publication and when I saw it here it reminded me of it.

picked up another link on a progressive website
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1104-05.htm

I just read that transcript, and GWB shows how much of a blubbering buffoon he is. He can't form a coherent sentence when he's not reading something his speech writers wrote from a teleprompter. He's just barely treading water.

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
Are all teachers Democrats? And all physicians Republican?
Bet there are more Democratic docs than Republican teachers percentage wise......

Two factors come into play here: Union membership and income. Both have well-recognized political correlations.

Teachers: high union membership + low(er) income = DEM
Docs: low union membership + high(er) income = GOP

We each just vote for the party that best represents our respective interests. The major exception to this would be teachers with a conservative religious affiliation. They listen more to their pastor than their union president and will vote Republican, just as docs more interested in preserving their environments than their investments will vote Democratic.

See y'all at the polling place come November!

I voted for Bush and will not do so again. Hello President Kerry. I am still conservative and fed up and yes I benefitted from the tax cut (at what cost?). The republicans are spending like democrats nationally and locally. We need to go to mars and the moon like we need a hole in the head. How about a plan to be free of mideast oil and tell our dear friends over there to drink thier oil and eat thier sand. We have an embargo against Cuba for 43 years yet communist china gets MFN and sells us everything from mandarin oranges to cell phones to US flags.!!! We come up with 87 billion for Iraq out of thin air and no high speed rail system. p.s. "We are not in the business of nation building"--GW Bush 2000

If you're not liberal at 20 you have no heart, if you're not conservative at 40 you have no head.

Originally posted by Mark
If you're not liberal at 20 you have no heart, if you're not conservative at 40 you have no head.

What if you were conservative at 20 and liberal at 40? I'm using the Newt Gingrinch/Rush Limbaugh/GW definition of liberal.

Not to change the subject but..

Are there no Mystery Science 3000 fans here?


Vince

Originally posted by jtimbck2
I just read that transcript, and GWB comes across as a blubbering buffoon.
Comes across as? He is a blubbering buffoon!

Originally posted by Aratinga
Two factors come into play here: Union membership and income. Both have well-recognized political correlations.

Teachers: high union membership + low(er) income = DEM
Docs: low union membership + high(er) income = GOP

We each just vote for the party that best represents our respective interests. The major exception to this would be teachers with a conservative religious affiliation. They listen more to their pastor than their union president and will vote Republican, just as docs more interested in preserving their environments than their investments will vote Democratic.

See y'all at the polling place come November!

That is exactly right. Now, I have done ok in my profession, and my wife really does ok at hers....republicans are better for us, income wise. The problem is that I have a very refined sense of what is fair, moral and right....and the modern republican party is lacking in all catagories. The crap during the election should have clued us all in, but now we see what the GOP brings to the table..lies, deciet, neopotism and murder. I do not use the term lightly, or gov't is killing american men and women in our armed services for no just cause! They did not join the service to be used as a tool of ruthless millionares hell bent on increasing thier net worth...they joined with the knowledge that they would be called on to DEFEND and PROTECT us from clear and present dangers..Iraq was neither...all the while squandering the surplus we had built up. Lets not forget the GOP spent what, 50 million going after clinton for a BJ! You know that our justice department has spent close to 500 thousand to go after a guy in claifornia who makes adult films that they say are obscene..because they use GROWN women dressed like school girls....all the while social security slowly runs out of cash, and children here in THE US go hungry!!!!!

We are losing solders every day, and in the state of the union speech he insults us by talking about steriods anjd same sex marrage? My head is going to explode......breath in....exhale...breath in....exhale...

Originally posted by jonalan
Comes across as? He is a blubbering buffoon!

You're right, of course, and I've edited my post to reflect that.

Well written RX_999, except I don't think the course of events in Iraq will allow the Bush administration to do enough to redeem themselves. We should be alert, though, for some kind of October surprise.

I also think that GW Bush is impeachable, but I expect he'll be out of office before the whole process can get rolling.

If he is elected (not re-elected), I hope articles of impeachment will be written.

We had all better hope he's gone a year from now. So, yes, VOTE. Regime change begins at home.

Originally posted by zoomalot
If he is elected (not re-elected), I hope articles of impeachment will be written.

You're dreaming about the impeachment, but it was funny. Thanks for the laugh. The other part was funnier though, does that mean he gets TWO more terms, since he wasn't "elected."

Despite all the whining about the 2000 election results, it's funny I haven't heard anyone propose getting rid of the electoral college.

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
You're dreaming about the impeachment, but it was funny. Thanks for the laugh. The other part was funnier though, does that mean he gets TWO more terms, since he wasn't "elected."

Despite all the whining about the 2000 election results, it's funny I haven't heard anyone propose getting rid of the electoral college.

Unless we can swing a group impeachment - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, the whole gang of pirates - I wouldn't be much interested. It's not as though Shrub is the mastermind, after all. You may be right about the two terms, since he was appointed the first time. Not that he's gonna get a chance to find out, of course. Unelectable then, even more unelectable now.

People have been talking for years about getting rid of the electoral college. There are pretty good arguments pro and con, but 2000 was pretty much a freak occurrence. (Thanks, Ralph Nader.)

No MST 3000 fans...

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
Oricinally posted by IkeWRX
I found it rather funny he wouldn't weapons of mass destruction once in the time that I was listening and kept skirting that topic.
Ike

You're TYPING, have time to think about what you are going to say and correct your mistakes, and this still doesn't make sense.

Y'all crack me up. It ain't easy public speaking, especially answering questions from people out to get you. That was about the only thing Bill Clinton did well.

President Bush was not surprised by this interview, nor by the questions. His handlers has plenty of time to prepare him.

Let me now attempt an Ike -> Doc translation:
"I listened to the interview for at least 30 minutes. During that entire time, he avoided the phrase 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' despite numerous questions and references to this topic. It seems to me that he was specifically attempting to avoid the topic in the hopes that everybody would forget how much I insisted Iraq had them less than one year ago."

Dude, I got the underlying message. Didn't anyone notice that Ike forgot the verb in his sentence? Sheesh.

Steven Hawking can't speak well either, do you think he's an idiot?

Yea, I like MST 3000.

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
Dude, I got the underlying message. Didn't anyone notice that Ike forgot the verb in his sentence? Sheesh.

Steven Hawking can't speak well either, do you think he's an idiot?

Doc, you're really scaring me now. I came this close to posting the exact same Steven Hawking comment last night, but didn't feel like getting flamed for being insensitive. I know we think alike politically, but that was just too strange to read my 'almost-post' from you! Can you email me a picture of your biological mother? :)

Better yet, who's your daddy? :D

Hawking is amazing, he is so far ahead of everyone else mentally it's not fair. He tries to explain things to us mortals, but I still don't get it.

Get back to me when Hawkings is president ,or even running for president and you'll have a valid point. I think being a good public speaker should be pretty high up on the list of qualities you want in a president.

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
Dude, I got the underlying message. Didn't anyone notice that Ike forgot the verb in his sentence? Sheesh.

Steven Hawking can't speak well either, do you think he's an idiot?

I never said Bush was an idiot, though he sounds like one, I don't think he is one. On the contrary, Steven Hawking, ALS and all still manages to come across as brilliant even though he sounds like a robot from a bad 70s cartoon.

Originally posted by IkeWRX
Get back to me when Hawkings is president ,or even running for president and you'll have a valid point. I think being a good public speaker should be pretty high up on the list of qualities you want in a president.

I'd vote for him!

I agree, communication skills are important, but I think intelligence, integrity, and backbone are more important. Along with sharing my views on things, of course.

I think my point is valid even without Hawking's candidacy.

Originally posted by IkeWRX
I never said Bush was an idiot, though he sounds like one, I don't think he is one.
No I agree Ike, your posts are always well thought out, and I appreciate that. I wasn't referring to your post, someone else called him an idiot in bold type, and jonalon called him a blubbering buffoon. I was trying to respond to two things at once.

I was just teasing about your typing error.

Originally posted by compaddict
Not to change the subject but..

Are there no Mystery Science 3000 fans here?


Vince

I watched a lot of MST3000 in late '95 and in '96 but something changed about it somewhere in that time and it seemed to lose its edge or something...

I haven't seen it anywhere (on tv) for quite some time...

I think an MST3000 news-channel type show would be quite entertaining... my main source of current and political affairs at the moment is the Daily Show which I find to be quite insightful...

Simon.

"We receive our dead in silence, far from public view, honoring their
sacrifice the only way we can,"
There are no reporters on the tarmac at Dover Air Force Base. The public is
not allowed to witness the military tradition of "receiving the remains."
Instead, there are soldiers, roused at dark hours to stand in the confines
of what seems like a secret as the dead are brought home.
I am one of the soldiers. Nearly every day we learn of another death in
Iraq. In our collective consciousness, we tally the statistics of dead and
wounded. The number is over 500 now. But none of our conjuring are as real
and tangible as the Stars and Stripes folded perfectly over a coffin
cradling one of those statistics on his or her way home.
It does not matter where somebody stands politically on the war, but I
believe that all who have an opinion should know the cost of that opinion.
When a soldier dies in a foreign land, his or her remains are returned to
the United States for their final rest. The remains arrive in Dover, Del.
without fanfare. No family member is present. There are no young children
to feel sad or confused. Just a small group of soldiers waiting to do their
duty and honor the fallen.
"Dover flights" are met by soldiers from the US Army's 3rd Infantry
Regiment, the storied Old Guard. They are true soldiers, assigned to an
esteemed regiment, but it is a unit defined by polish, not mud. It seems
that they quietly long to be tested with their comrades "over there," But
it is dear to me as I watch them that they find immense pride in honoring
their country this way.
Silence. I am a helicopter pilot in the US Army, and it is my job to have
the honor guard at Dover at whatever hour a flight arrives. In
military-speak, the plane's grim contents are referred to as "HRs"-"human
remains." Once the plane arrives, conversation ends. The soldiers form a
squad of two even ranks and march out to the tarmac. A general follows,
flanked by a chaplain and the ranking representative from the service in
which the fallen soldier served.
The plane's cargo door opens slowly revealing a cavernous space. The honor
guard steps onto a mobile platform that is raised to the cargo bay. The
soldiers enter in lockstep formation and place themselves on both sides of
the casket. The squad lifts, the soldiers buckling slightly under the
weight. The remains have been packed on ice into metal containers that can
easily exceed 500 pounds. The squad moves slowly back onto the elevated
platform and deposits the casket with a care that evokes an image of
fraternal empathy. It is the only emotion they betray, but their gentleness
is unmistakable and compelling. The process continues until the last casket
is removed from the plane. On bad nights, this can take over an hour. The
few of us observing say nothing, the silence absolute, underscored by
something sacred. There is no rule or order that dictates it, but the
silence is maintained with a discipline that needs no command
The caskets are lowered together to the earth, here the soldiers lift them
into a van, one by one. The doors close, and the squad moves out. Just
before the van rounds the corner, someone speaks in a voice just above a
whisper. We snap to and extend a sharp salute.
There are those who would politicize this scene, making it the device of an
argument over the freedom of the press. But if this scene were ever to be
exploited by the lights and cameras of our "infotainment" industry, it
would be offensive. Still, the story must be told. A democracy's lifeblood,
after all, is an informed citizenry, and this image is nowhere in the
public mind. The men and women arriving in flag-draped caskets do not
deserve the disrespect of arriving in the dark confines of secrecy. But it
is a soldier's story, and it must be told through a soldier's eyes. In the
military, we seldom discuss whether we are for or against the war. Instead,
we know intimately its cost. For those of us standing on the tarmac at
Dover in those still and inky nights, our feelings have nothing to do with
politics. They are feelings of sadness, of empathy. And there is nothing
abstract about them.
Soldiers don't discuss the politics of war, but they know its cost better
than anyone else. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jonathan Evans is a Chief Warrant Officer 2 in the US Army stationed at
Fort Belvoir in Virginia, as a pilot-in-command of a UH-60 BlackHawk for
the 12th Aviation Battalion. The views expressed here are his own.

Remember body bags? in Bush-speak, they're now called "transfer tubes."

Someone said Starr's investigation cost $50 million, actually the bill came to $74 million.

Bush says he didn't lie, he was just repeating what he told the CIA to say. Critical dissention from the intelligence agencies was omitted from Bush's war-mongering.

Before the war started, I was against it because the invasion went against the AMERICAN philosophy of being innocent until PROVEN guilty. Turns out the proof isn't as important as a lot of Americans thought (and still think). Saudi Arabia was/is a bigger threat to us than Iraq ever was. Right after we "secured" Iraq, the US abandoned our base there permanently. The invasion made this possible, to leave the base and not lose our military presence. Now we have a much bigger base next door, and guess what, the Middle East hates us more than ever.

This recent war was, IMO, personal for the Bush family and all the people involved in the '91 conflict. They would not be denied.

Not being physically able to speak and not being mentally able to speak are two different things.

I must admit, the name calling, of which I am guilty of, is rather childish. Bad habits are hard to break. I will do my best to get past that. It's usually when the topic of George Bush comes up, I quickly revert to a seventh grade mentality. Please forgive me.

Originally posted by jonalan
Not being physically able to speak and not being mentally able to speak are two different things.

I must admit, the name calling, of which I am guilty of, is rather childish. Bad habits are hard to break. I will do my best to get past that. It's usually when the topic of George Bush comes up, I quickly revert to a seventh grade mentality. Please forgive me.

I also tend to lose it over this topic......and you are a stand up guy in my book!

Originally posted by IkeWRX
I'm right there with you! Bush seems to be dividing the nation more so than it's ever been. I've never drawn a line and said I was a democrat or a republican until the last couple years.

I'm totally with you guys. I was an independent until the last few years as the republican party has increasingly moved to the right and become more radical.

Originally posted by jonalan
Not being physically able to speak and not being mentally able to speak are two different things.
Excellent point. There is some overlap, however, and there is a certain art to public speaking. My point was that a deficit in speaking ability does not necessarily indicate a deficit in mental ability (problem-solving, decision-making, judgment).

The best speakers are often the least trustworthy (you don't need me to mention you-know-who again do you?)

I'm beginning to question my earlier assertion that voters - even folks who lean Republican - aren't stupid. Just saw an ad on TV this morning for some Republican candidate for Congress - he got all the buzzwords in ("liberal," "war on terror," etc.) and informed the central Texas electorate with a straight face that he supports President Bush, and he's against those "free-spending liberals" who want to blow our tax dollars and "weaken immigration laws."

Hmm. Which party is responsible for the highest deficit in U.S. history? And which party's president recently announced a plan that will, in effect, seriously weaken U.S. immigration laws?

So either this guy is a complete moron, or he thinks the voters are complete morons. I'm leaning toward the former, but who knows? Either way, the ad doesn't make much sense. I guess we'll have to wait and see if he's elected.

BTW, here's a link from the Moonie Times about Bush's immigration plan and how it's losing him some conservative contributions:

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040115-112519-2334r.htm

!

The immigration plan oughtta be good for some Hispanic votes, and he won't lose many conservative votes over it because we know any (Democratic) alternative to Bush would be horribly awful.

Smart move.

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
The immigration plan oughtta be good for some Hispanic votes, and he won't lose many conservative votes over it because we know any (Democratic) alternative to Bush would be horribly awful.

Smart move.

So you think it's a smart move because it'll "be good for some Hispanic votes." I guess that's really what matters. Who cares if it's actually the best thing for the country, right?

I already said that the country benefits from illegal aliens. Keeps construction costs and landscaping/personal services costs down. They aren't competing for any of our jobs on this forum.

There are drawbacks too, such as health care costs, but if Bush can get enough votes from this type of initiative to get re-elected and shut all you liberals up for a while, I will consider it an investment well spent. It isn't like the illegals are going anywhere anyway.

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
I already said that the country benefits from illegal aliens. Keeps construction costs and landscaping/personal services costs down. They aren't competing for any of our jobs on this forum.

There are drawbacks too, such as health care costs, but if Bush can get enough votes from this type of initiative to get re-elected and shut all you liberals up for a while, I will consider it an investment well spent. It isn't like the illegals are going anywhere anyway.

Oh. I see. The point is to create a legal, virtual slave class and pay them rock-bottom wages to do the scut work that regular Americans don't want to sully their hands with. Yeah, I'd say healthcare costs will be a "drawback" - you're going to be seeing a lot more folks who can't pay piling into your emergency room - and it's going to put an enormous burden on the educational systems of Texas, California, etc., a burden that I'll bet the Bush administration isn't planning to help us out with.

But as long as it shuts the liberals up, it's worth it. You really are a piece of work, man.

It's not slavery, brainless one. Look at it from their standpoint. Higher paying jobs, better health care, incomparable quality of life here compared to Mexico. NONE of the drawbacks of slavery (that is an asinine comparison). They are free to do whatever they want. More power to them. If I was a Mexican, I would be right here with them. That is my viewpoint. What is yours? Shut them out of an opportunity to make a better life. Put guards on the border? Let's hear from you, oh brilliant educator.

Well, it's easy to defend someone if ya dont know how it is. I'm mexican, and while I've never done the wetback thing, I know lots who do. You know why lots do? because one guy living in miserable standards (by US standards that is) can feed his whole family after working for 6 months and saving up by living on the fields. Or you can get 7 people living in a house helping out and being a thousand times better off fdoing that, illegally in the US, than living in Mexico.

Next, it IS better for the country. Why? Because it keeps some jobs in the range where people can make profits. The way most american workers whine and moan about everything under the sun makes me sad a lot of times. I find it endlessly amusing to hear some moron claiming how the damn immigrants came and took his job, when a: It's usually some person who has the IQ of a carrot, or b: Even better, it's someone who wouldnt TAKE the jobs most immigrants have.

I know there are people that do lose their jobs to immigrants, but the fact of the matter is, if people in the US worked as hard as they bitched, that would be different.

Just a different opinion for thought. Not saying anybody is right or wrong. there's just a lot more to it than people think about (as usual).

You guys need to have some fun and drink some good Scotch!!!!!

These are the most fascist times in USA since the McCarthy era, when the president's state of the Union address touts things such as the newspeak "patriot act", and constitutional amendments to prohibit gay marriages and most of congress applauds with blank expressions or sick smiles while American Men and Women are dying in a war which was started under false pretenses and lies to the American People. I'm proud to live in an area where someone has the balls to send a big F*-You! to our mental midget of a president:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/02/15/MNGMN51F8Q1.DTL

Oooooooh. I'm sure President Bush is losing sleep because of that. Who would have thought that San Francisco, of all places, would try to legalize gay "marriage?"

What a shocker. Next they'll want to hold hands in public.

Too bad, I don't think they'll let you legalize heroin.....

Edit: that was sarcasm btw.

Glad you brought this issue up, since the "gay union" issue is one of the things that will triumphantly carry Bush back to office this year. Most Americans are firmly against legitimizing gay unions. But not Kerry...

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
Too bad, I don't think they'll let you legalize heroin.....

What's the point of legalizing heroin? It's not like dubya cared if cocaine was legal when he was using it.

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
Most Americans are firmly against legitimizing gay unions. But not Kerry...

Do you have statistical facts to back this up or are you just talking out of the pooper? I can not think of a single friend of mine that is opposed to gays getting married. I know this isn't scientific but my little sample leads me to believe that there is not a majority against gay marriages.

Changement

Strategery

Misunderestimate

Resignate

All brand spanking new words dubya has invented. Amongst many others.

How can anyone doubt dubya's genius? How many of us have invented so many things.

Now quit picking on him!

Originally posted by babylou
Do you have statistical facts to back this up or are you just talking out of the pooper?
Of course I do. (Pooper - LOL)
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Relationships/same_sex_marriage_poll_040121.html

Seems silly for an election to be decided over something silly like this, but this issue will be a big factor.

I actually support making gay unions legitimized, but I would rather see our country defended and I know that the Democrats cannot or will not do that. They have other more "important" SOCIAL issues to care about, with all their special interest groups they must cater to.

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
Oooooooh. I'm sure President Bush is losing sleep because of that. Who would have thought that San Francisco, of all places, would try to legalize gay "marriage?"

What a shocker. Next they'll want to hold hands in public.

Too bad, I don't think they'll let you legalize heroin.....

Edit: that was sarcasm btw.

Glad you brought this issue up, since the "gay union" issue is one of the things that will triumphantly carry Bush back to office this year. Most Americans are firmly against legitimizing gay unions. But not Kerry...

Of course, S.F. was the natural place for it to start but doesn't make it any less a turning point. And no less dramatic that an elected official chose open defiance in an age of conformism. And no, george w. probably won't lose any sleep. He'll probably just shake his head with a mixture of pseudo-tolerant sadness and compassionate bemusement towards these weird people that for some reason have some misguided notions that they should have equal rights.

A generation hence, when the right of marriage is guaranteed in all 50 states and people stop putting quotes around the word, History will remember where it started. And in a very real way, it was all thanks to george w. bush.

"If you wonder how he eats and breathes...
... and other science facts
--la la la--
... remember that it's just a show
... and you should just relax
... and watch Mystery Science Presidency 3THOUSaaaand...."

I love your avatar, btw. Calvin and Hobbes was one of my favorites!

You Dems sure do stick together, I'll give you that. Nubo was upset when I put gay "marriage" in quotes, but didn't even seem to notice when babylou mentioned <derogatory term for gays> twice.

I thought that was a derogatory term, but maybe I'm wrong.

(Sorry, edited my post for offensiveness)

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
You Dems sure do stick together, I'll give you that. Nubo was upset when I put gay "marriage" in quotes, but didn't even seem to notice when babylou mentioned "homos" twice.

I thought that was a derogatory term, but maybe I'm wrong.

I thought I'd noticed the quotes in someone else's post, actually. It was more of a general statement anyway. Last week one of my colleagues got married and we'd had some internal emails referring to it and putting marriage in quotes. Not necessarily derogatory because I know the person who wrote it and he's a good guy. On the other hand we'll know we've accepted this thing as a society when the quotes go away.

Anyone who likes C & H is cool in my book.

Doc, Libs don't corner the market for "special interests", they just have different ones. Energy companies such as Enron, defense contractors such as Halliburton, Anti-Union Big Business; they all can be considered GOP special interests.

One has to decide which special interests most serve their situations.

GOP'ers like to say Dems (and their special interests) obsess about regaining their political power, but Republicans and their special interests will fight tooth and nail to not lose their place.

As close as 2000 was, if Nadar can stay out, this one will be just as close, but swinging the other way. Gore was a horrible candidate and look how far he took the race. A Kerry/Edwards or Kerry/Clark ticket will serve a repeat of Dubya's Daddy's demise. One and Done.

TOP GEORGE BUSH SLOGANS


I'll turn capital punishment into a new game show!


I promise to get cocaine off our streets: 1 kilo at a time.


I'll finish what Bill started -- the interns.


Like father, like son. You liked my dad, right?


Vote for the GOP, Not OPP.


I promise no sex scandal: just look at me.


New penal plan: I won't use mine!


Read my lips: Al Gore Sucks.


George W. Bush: No hang-ups. Just hangovers


Vote for Bush and against Common Sense.

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
You Dems sure do stick together, I'll give you that. Nubo was upset when I put gay "marriage" in quotes, but didn't even seem to notice when babylou mentioned "homos" twice.

I thought that was a derogatory term, but maybe I'm wrong.

"Homos" is short for homosexuals. Kinda like "Ags" is short for Aggies. How ya gonna have a hater come back on that one...Doc?

Gig 'em

"Homo" is NOT an acceptable form of homosexual- just ask someone who's gay how they feel about it. I promise you, they don't find it a compliment. Babylou, since you weren't trying to be insulting, as far as I can tell, I just edited your post to say "gay" instead of "homo."


And to the rest of you, instead of using it as ammo in your disagreement, why didn't you say something to me since you apparently didn't like the use of the word?

I too once hoped for vengeful impeachment, seeming so justified and all. I even sort of nodded dumbly when I read a letter to the local editor explaining why the writer would vote for GWB entirely in hope that he would remain in office long enough to be duly tried and jailed for his obvious crimes.

But (much like in Iraq) it ain't the man, it's the ideology. Look, GWB is merely a symbol, thinly and haphazardly propped. He's the current default pivot man in an oil interest circle-jerk, and that's about it. If his name were George W. Smith, he couldn't have been elected dogcatcher of Shithead County, Texas.

Unless we can impeach Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Wolfowitz, et al., the ghoulish machine that envisioned the "Project for a New American Century" will remain intact, and continue to follow it's bloody charter as long as we continue to hand them power.

As much as I'd love to blame the folks mentioned above for this awful mess, I must realize that it was we, the American people who in our blood lust following 9/11 empowered these bastards to do our dirty work, and then watched as even the Dems in Congress meekly complied.

Re same sex marriage:
I'm old enough -- hell, my Son is old enough, to remember when many states outlawed mixed race marriages. This is a social realm for which government is particularly ill suited. I tend to support those rare politicians who realize that it's none of their damn business.

Re the Supper Bowl wardrobe malfunction:
I'd like to live in a society where sex is considered patriotic, and war obscene. Maybe that's France. If you let your kid watch the raw violence of football, then what’s a stray tit gonna hurt? Anyway, I wasn't paying attention because I thought it was Michael.

{{{{

Good post, except the "oil connection." That is a ridiculous theory, can you explain it more?

I used to live in Shithead County (we pronounced it Shy-thud btw) and I would have voted for Bush then too. But what do I know? I'm just a dumb ole Texan. :)

a word to the wise...

Originally posted by Elara
"Homo" is NOT an acceptable form of homosexual- just ask someone who's gay how they feel about it. I promise you, they don't find it a compliment. Babylou, since you weren't trying to be insulting, as far as I can tell, I just edited your post to say "gay" instead of "homo."

Elara,

You are correct that I was not trying to insult anyone. Also, as you requested, I did go two houses down my street and asked my male "gay" neighbors if "homo(s)" is insulting and they said no. If I knew any more "gay" peeps I would ask them too. I then did some searching on the net and there are many "gay" or homosexual sites that used the words "homo(s)" and "hetero(s)" in the course of their normal language. So where is this "insulting" stuff coming from?

Originally posted by babylou
Elara,

You are correct that I was not trying to insult anyone. Also, as you requested, I did go two houses down my street and asked my male "gay" neighbors if "homo(s)" is insulting and they said no. If I knew any more "gay" peeps I would ask them too. I then did some searching on the net and there are many "gay" or homosexual sites that used the words "homo(s)" and "hetero(s)" in the course of their normal language. So where is this "insulting" stuff coming from?


Maybe you're friends are different, but I don't know a single gay person that likes to be called a "homo." It's generally used as a derogatory form of homosexual. It's hurt people on here before, and I get reported posts almost every time it's happened. So, please don't use it.

Originally posted by Elara
Maybe you're friends are different, but I don't know a single gay person that likes to be called a "homo." It's generally used as a derogatory form of homosexual. It's hurt people on here before, and I get reported posts almost every time it's happened. So, please don't use it.

Fine. I will refrain from using the dreaded "h-word".

Originally posted by JaxFL_RX8
Doc, Libs don't corner the market for "special interests", they just have different ones.
Republicans' special interests: "keeping what's ours"
Democrats' special interests: "getting what's theirs"

Of course, as far as the current crop of republicans is concerned, "what's ours" = everything.

Originally posted by Amygdalar
county: Shithead (Shy-thud)

dumb ole Texan: shithead (shit-head)

speed, speed, speed, speed....


Just to cue everyone in, the amygdala is a neuro structure involved with the endocrine and autonomic systems and the body's response to non-verbal signs of emotion, specifically anger and fear. My point? Amygdalar is not a girl named Amy, and is almost without a doubt Shift_zoom.

Originally posted by Amygdalar
county: Shithead (Shy-thud)

dumb ole Texan: shithead (shit-head)

speed, speed, speed, speed....
I was just kidding, there isn't really a Shythud county. I meant to say Phukyu (indian phrase meaning, "that was an improper comment")

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
I was just kidding, there isn't really a Shythud county. I meant to say Phukyu (indian phrase meaning, "that was an improper comment")

Classy!

http://www.mazdacar.ru/service/spec.gif

Now I understand.

Now that IS funny. Are you left-handed by the way? I can't help but notice that many Democrats like to post pictorial references to this election (Baller, too). You know, right-brain = left-hand-dominant, more visually oriented, left brain = more logically oriented. Here's a link:

http://brain.web-us.com/brain/LRBrain.html

Or it may be that most of the media and internet info is liberal, and Kerry is too dry to make fun of at this point. Bush is a great target, and a lot of the cartoons, etc. are hilarious. Can't wait for the gigolo ones though.....

Like this:

This thread has derailed into a few too many topics so all I can say is I, personally, will never put a Demo in office if I can help it. They've put too many of my constitutional rights on the chopping block over the years.

Originally posted by oosik
This thread has derailed into a few too many topics so all I can say is I, personally, will never put a Demo in office if I can help it. They've put too many of my constitutional rights on the chopping block over the years.

Fortunately, oosik, it's not entirely up to you. As far as those constitutional rights go (and believe me, they're going), you must not have heard of that thing they got in Washington called the Patriot Act. Remember the Fourth Amendment? I recall it fondly. It's pretty much gone. Maybe you'll never need it. But it was nice to know it was there.

Originally posted by klegg
The crap during the election should have clued us all in, but now we see what the GOP brings to the table..lies, deciet, neopotism and murder.

As an external observer, I'd like to point out that the crap during the election seemed to be coming equally from both sides.

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
You're dreaming about the impeachment, but it was funny. Thanks for the laugh. The other part was funnier though, does that mean he gets TWO more terms, since he wasn't "elected."

Despite all the whining about the 2000 election results, it's funny I haven't heard anyone propose getting rid of the electoral college.

As for Bush not winning the election / being appointed - give me a break! It's YOUR electoral system, people, learn how it works - no where has the US ever required a President to be elected by majority vote. Endless analysis since the Florida results were declared (by all sides involved) shows that GWB did indeed collect more votes than Gore in Florida, and Florida gave GWB enough states to take the electoral college. The fact that the Supreme Court was involved in the Florida decisions didn't affect and doesn't change the actual Florida results. He won and was duly elected, fair and square. As Speed-ER doc points out, if you don't like the results of your electoral system, then work to change it, don't just whine and complain - it worked exactly as intended.

Regards,
Gordon

Originally posted by I, Claudius
Fortunately, oosik, it's not entirely up to you. As far as those constitutional rights go (and believe me, they're going), you must not have heard of that thing they got in Washington called the Patriot Act. Remember the Fourth Amendment? I recall it fondly. It's pretty much gone. Maybe you'll never need it. But it was nice to know it was there.

I'm with you, Claudius... but I think oosik was referring to his constitutional rights to force pregnant women to stay that way, and to keep as many armor-piercing-bullet-firing semiautomatic weapons as he wants. Right, oosik? ;)

And you gotta love that "P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act" acronym: United and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism. Shoulda been the PYHBYLAKYCRG* Act. I won't hog bandwidth here by posting the entire article, but go here to see what I mean:
article (http://www.dailyfreepress.com/news/2002/11/01/Opinion/Not-That.You.Asked.Nice.Acronym.But.Fire.The.Writers.O f.The.Usa.Patriot.Act-313030.shtml)

*Put Your Head Between Your Legs And Kiss Your Civil Rights Goodbye

Originally posted by I, Claudius
Fortunately, oosik, it's not entirely up to you. As far as those constitutional rights go (and believe me, they're going), you must not have heard of that thing they got in Washington called the Patriot Act. Remember the Fourth Amendment? I recall it fondly. It's pretty much gone. Maybe you'll never need it. But it was nice to know it was there.

The 4th was trampled on long before the Patriot Act, As the bleeding-heart's Savior Clinton allowed the the warrantless searches of low-income housing under the premise of looking for firearms and drugs.

Originally posted by Aratinga
I'm with you, Claudius... but I think oosik was referring to his constitutional rights to force pregnant women to stay that way, and to keep as many armor-piercing-bullet-firing semiautomatic weapons as he wants. Right, oosik? ;)

[/SIZE]

Not sure whate the referral to women was all about, but yes, any law-abiding citizen should own any firearm and as much ammo as they desire. the criminals are allowed to do so, why shouldn't we.

Say what you can now, no thanks to McCain and his ilk and trodding all over the 1st with the so called Campaign finance Reform, just another "chip" from "The Bill".

So far The Demos and leftist have led the pack on anti-constitutionality, not to say that other facets, GOP and whatnot have not had a hand. Demos,by far are dying for that control.

RX_999,
Who are you to judge the actions of this president? As you are probably one of those liberals who like nothing more than running your hole, thinking you're so intelligent, having all the answers, and most importantly - sitting on the sidelines not doing a dammed thing to help our country - who, by the way, is in a war, fighting those who would rather see you and every other American dead! - Because we have something in this country called freedom. We didn't start this war - remember! But unlike the last administration, this president has the nerve to take on the hard issues, and fix what is wrong in the world!
I know the deal, living in your fat - Aspen home, the world seems so at peace! But you really haven't look outside lately. There are others in our country, who choose not to stand by and judge - they are over there - fighting for your pathetic existance, because they believe in America - regardless of their political party. And people who bad-mouth the president are also bad-mouthing our soldiers. At least that's how they feel - And how do I know that? Because I was one of those soldiers over there fighting in Iraq! I saw first-hand, the people of Iraq. I saw their living conditions, I saw the relief on their faces as we moved up to Baghdad - they knew we were there to help them. Saddam needed to go. The Iraqi people deserve to live freely without the fear of this dictator. What's happening right now in Iraq is what could be happening in the US, but it's not! Because the President acted! So think about what you said - you're not helping any!
And concerning WMD... What would you rather do if you weren't 100% sure...wait? As for me, I stand by the President, because I'm an American who understands how costly our freedom is!
And one more thing - don't get me started on Politics!!!

v

whew!

For some reason, I keep thinking of this scene, from "The Meaning of Life...."

Grim Reaper: Silence!!! I have come for you.


[Pause as this sinks in. Sidelong glance. A stifled

fart.]


Angela: ... You mean to...


Grim Reaper: ... Take you away. That is my purpose. I am Death.


Geoffrey: Well that's cast rather a gloom over the evening hasn't
it?



Katzenberg: I don't see it that way, Geoff. Let me tell you what I
think we're dealing with here, a potentially positive learning
experience...


Grim Reaper: Shut up! Shut up you American. You always talk, you
Americans, you talk and you talk and say 'Let me tell you
something' and 'I just wanna say this', Well you're dead now,
so shut up.


Katzenberg: Dead?


Grim Reaper: Dead.


Angela: All of us??


Grim Reaper: All of you.


Geoffrey: Now look here. You barge in here, quite uninvited, break
glasses and then announce quite casually that we're all dead.
Well I would remind you that you are a guest in this house
and...


[The Grim Reaper pokes him in the eye.]


Jeremy: Shall we take our cars?


Geoffrey: Why not?


[Slightly to the Grim Reaper's surprise, they follow him

up to heaven in a Porsche, a Jensen and a Volvo.]

Thought this would be a good article for everyone to read.

http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Hacks%20Target.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=49&rnd=997.4561688051291

While I'm in the military, I'm not in a combat unit so I'll let others who knows more than I do the talking.

Another one.....

http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Hacks%20Target.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=39&rnd=25.066042153451818

Originally posted by Viper501
RX_999,
Who are you to judge the actions of this president? As you are probably one of those liberals who like nothing more than running your hole, thinking you're so intelligent, having all the answers, and most importantly - sitting on the sidelines not doing a dammed thing to help our country - who, by the way, is in a war, fighting those who would rather see you and every other American dead! - Because we have something in this country called freedom. We didn't start this war - remember! But unlike the last administration, this president has the nerve to take on the hard issues, and fix what is wrong in the world!
I know the deal, living in your fat - Aspen home, the world seems so at peace! But you really haven't look outside lately. There are others in our country, who choose not to stand by and judge - they are over there - fighting for your pathetic existance, because they believe in America - regardless of their political party. And people who bad-mouth the president are also bad-mouthing our soldiers. At least that's how they feel - And how do I know that? Because I was one of those soldiers over there fighting in Iraq! I saw first-hand, the people of Iraq. I saw their living conditions, I saw the relief on their faces as we moved up to Baghdad - they knew we were there to help them. Saddam needed to go. The Iraqi people deserve to live freely without the fear of this dictator. What's happening right now in Iraq is what could be happening in the US, but it's not! Because the President acted! So think about what you said - you're not helping any!
And concerning WMD... What would you rather do if you weren't 100% sure...wait? As for me, I stand by the President, because I'm an American who understands how costly our freedom is!
And one more thing - don't get me started on Politics!!!

Originally posted by RX_999
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.



RIGHT ON 999

Originally posted by Viper501
RX_999,
As for me, I stand by the President, because I'm an American who understands how costly our freedom is!
And one more thing - don't get me started on Politics!!!

First, I think I stand for everyone here when I say "thank you" for what you did....No one is questioning you guys, it is the reason you were sent there in the first place that gets peoples goats..

Second, have you heard of the "good german" theory? It came up after WWII to explian why good german people turned a blind eye to concentration camps..Replace the word "president" with "furher" and "american" with "german" and you have an exact quote from thousands of germans questioned after the war..

The ENDS can never support the "MEANS".

Anyway, as a military man, don't you think Yeman should have been first? then the saudis?

I'm not a military man, but it seems to me that attacking Yemen or Saudi Arabia, given the information we have now, would be like attacking New York City or Scotland. Just because an attack occurred in a country (Yemen) or many terrorists were born in another (Saudi Arabia) doesn't make those countries necessarily responsible for the acts.

That would be like hating all Muslims because that is the religon of the terrorists in many of these attacks. Wrong.

Actually, yemen is in worse political shape then afganestan, and is a know hot bed for al queda...it is were they all went to hide..

The saudis are knee deep in corruption, most of the 911 guys were saudis, and the royal family has been funneling support to al queda.

In contrast, there has yet to have been ANY proof that IRaq had anything to do with them, or that Iraq was a "clear and present" danger to the US...

I just got back from a Dove hunting trip in Mexico that I do twice a year and the mood is indeed changing towards liberals.

In just three short months the mood went from medium boisterous Bush support to most people quietly leaning away from GWB.

My cousin (who is a staunch republican) said publicly that he thinks that GWB is evil and is considering becoming an Independent.

Smart people are seeing GWB for what he is and nothing can stop that.

Vince

DOVE hunting? Cute little white birds? (shudder in mock horror)

I love mock horror!

I had the "cat birds seat" one afternoon...

Vince

Nice pic; there aren't many liberal hunters I bet, especially around these parts.

My cousin, who is also a staunch Republican, said that Kerry sucked, and has pics to prove it. And my auntie said he's ugly.
Those are powerful arguments aren't they, Vinnie?

You forget that this is still predawn, the Republicans haven't woke up yet. The Democrats are spewing all this blather, firing into the air, scaring off the birds, while the President is still keeping our country safe, waiting for the Dems to decide who gets to try to oppose him. Dawn is coming, and Bush has $150 million worth of ammo. And the real hunt isn't till sunset.

Better load up, Vinnie, it's going to be a long campaign.

Again you write like the Republicans are asleep at the wheel when in fact they are (and have been) very busy.

You are right in that one-hundred and fifty million dollars is a very large war chest..

But all the money in the world doesn't make what GWB has done to this country and others right.

Anything can happen in November 2004 but I see GWB for what he is and many smart republicans that I know are starting to do the same.

Vince

If we happen to capture bin Laden, if he is still alive that is, all the name-calling in the world won't propel a Democrat into office. You are right, anything can happen, and probably will. Should be a fun trip, regardless.

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
Nice pic; there aren't many liberal hunters I bet, especially around these parts.

My cousin, who is also a staunch Republican, said that Kerry sucked, and has pics to prove it. And my auntie said he's ugly.
Those are powerful arguments aren't they, Vinnie?

You forget that this is still predawn, the Republicans haven't woke up yet. The Democrats are spewing all this blather, firing into the air, scaring off the birds, while the President is still keeping our country safe, waiting for the Dems to decide who gets to try to oppose him. Dawn is coming, and Bush has $150 million worth of ammo. And the real hunt isn't till sunset.

Better load up, Vinnie, it's going to be a long campaign.

A lot of those republicans are waking up to the reality that the guys currently in power aren't really republicans or conservatives at all, at least in the traditional sense of those labels. The United States has been hijacked by a scary mix of ideologues, True Believers, and crony capitalists, they don't have anyone's interests but their own at heart, and they're willing to do pretty much anything to stay in power.

Doc, you wrote awhile ago that we aren't going to change each other's minds, and I reckon you're right. I suspect the only mind-changing that's going to happen will be as a result of all the shit that's gonna hit the Bush administration's fan over the next several months - nothing this sleazy and shameless (not to mention incompetent) can stay under wraps for long. They will fall of their own corrupt, bloated weight.

As they say in Alabama (and maybe in Texas too), there's not much point in wrestling with a pig - you both get pretty dirty, and the pig enjoys it. So I'm going to retire from the RX-8 Club political scene for awhile and stick to show 'n' shine tips. I may lob a grenade in whenever things get especially juicy (and I suspect things will), but life's too short for pig-wrestling.

Seems to me, and I suspect to most Americans, the "scary mix of ideologues" are on the liberal side. The "bloated weight" of normalcy will crush the fragile malnourished freakshow that is the liberal special interest mix, and conservatism will reign once again.

I'll be listening for a firecracker from you and yours, but the grenades belong to the right.