The Femi-Nazis are at it Again!
Once again operating on the assumption that the definition of women's politics revolve around how quickly one can have an abortion, Sen. Feinstein has threatened to filibuster if Judge Alito gives the appearance of threatening the Holy Grail of liberal politics: Roe vs Wade.
It's enough to make your head explode.
Dianne Feinstein Urges Alito Filibuster
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said Sunday that she will support a Democratic filibuster of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito if it becomes clear he'll vote to overturn Roe vs Wade.
Asked if she would consider it "filibuster material" if she finds out that Alito intends to vote against Roe, Feinstein told "Fox News Sunday": "If I believe that he was going to go in there and overthrow Roe, the question is, most likely, yes."
The California Democrat, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said that any High Court nominee who thought Roe had been "improperly decided" was outside the judicial mainstream.
"Precedent has been established," Feinstein insisted. "Women all over America have come to depend on it. Because of the lapse of time, more than 30 years, because of the precedential values attached to it, I think it would be, for many of us, a very difficult thing to see somebody who you knew was going to overthrow Roe [added to the Court]."
Asked if opposition to Roe qualified as an "extraordinary circumstance" that would warrant a filibuster, the Judiciary Committee Democrat said tersely, "Yes."
Appearing on the same program, Sen. Lindsey Graham blasted Feinstein for her comments.
"That's a very dangerous thing to say," Graham complained. "If you have to come to the [Judiciary] Committee and say that under no circumstances will I entertain to look at Roe v Wade anew, I think that's very unfair."
Speaking as a member of the gang of 14, which was formed last year in a bid to avert judicial filibusters, Graham said he would vote in invoke to so-called nuclear option.
"I would consider [opposition to Roe] not only not an extraordinary circumstance, [it's] a threat to the independence of the judiciary," he told Fox. "And I would stop it in its tracks with my vote."
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/8/111038.shtml
It's enough to make your head explode.
Dianne Feinstein Urges Alito Filibuster
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said Sunday that she will support a Democratic filibuster of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito if it becomes clear he'll vote to overturn Roe vs Wade.
Asked if she would consider it "filibuster material" if she finds out that Alito intends to vote against Roe, Feinstein told "Fox News Sunday": "If I believe that he was going to go in there and overthrow Roe, the question is, most likely, yes."
The California Democrat, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said that any High Court nominee who thought Roe had been "improperly decided" was outside the judicial mainstream.
"Precedent has been established," Feinstein insisted. "Women all over America have come to depend on it. Because of the lapse of time, more than 30 years, because of the precedential values attached to it, I think it would be, for many of us, a very difficult thing to see somebody who you knew was going to overthrow Roe [added to the Court]."
Asked if opposition to Roe qualified as an "extraordinary circumstance" that would warrant a filibuster, the Judiciary Committee Democrat said tersely, "Yes."
Appearing on the same program, Sen. Lindsey Graham blasted Feinstein for her comments.
"That's a very dangerous thing to say," Graham complained. "If you have to come to the [Judiciary] Committee and say that under no circumstances will I entertain to look at Roe v Wade anew, I think that's very unfair."
Speaking as a member of the gang of 14, which was formed last year in a bid to avert judicial filibusters, Graham said he would vote in invoke to so-called nuclear option.
"I would consider [opposition to Roe] not only not an extraordinary circumstance, [it's] a threat to the independence of the judiciary," he told Fox. "And I would stop it in its tracks with my vote."
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/8/111038.shtml
I guess she hasn't spoken to Ginsberg or Tripe (sp?). They both agree the decision was based out of whole cloth, and it has no constitutional merit.
I guess if you're a Leftist, though, the only life that matters is when you are about to lose you own for murder. It is a shameful position to hold. Shameful.
Comment by Simple One— 2006/01/23 @ 12:35 AM — (Reply)
Get a grip!
Comment by Jess— 2006/02/23 @ 07:33 PM — (Reply)
Comment by fuck bush and all conservatiive......— 2006/01/26 @ 07:06 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/01/26 @ 08:56 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/05/05 @ 07:42 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/01/26 @ 08:56 AM — (Reply)
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/01/27 @ 06:58 AM — (Reply)
How ironic!
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/01/27 @ 07:00 AM — (Reply)
This country is being destroyed by the concertives, religious nuts,
and as long as they control the House, Senate and the WH this country is going to go down the tubes. Republicans are selfish bastards, I'm sick of all of you and I hope that you all are voted out of office this year.
Comment by Louise— 2006/01/27 @ 07:23 AM — (Reply)
This country is being destroyed by the concertives, religious nuts,
and as long as they control the House, Senate and the WH this country is going to go down the tubes. Republicans are selfish bastards, I'm sick of all of you and I hope that you all are voted out of office this year.
Comment by Louise— 2006/01/27 @ 07:25 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2006/01/27 @ 07:25 AM — (Reply)
The ISSUE is, GEORGE W. BUSH is a complete idiot, an embarrasment. If you have any brains at all, you and the rest of the conservative right, you should be ashamed. If you really thought about Bush, you'd recognize just how stupid he really is.
Comment by Louise— 2006/01/27 @ 07:33 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Anyone can point out problems, it takes a person of intelligence to come up with a solution.— 2006/01/27 @ 08:04 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2006/01/27 @ 08:06 AM — (Reply)
Don't bother responding, I'm 61 years old and I've lived long enough to know what's important, and ABORTION JUST AIN'T IT!!!!!!!!!
Comment by Louise — 2006/01/27 @ 12:36 PM — (Reply)
Louise your spelling is embarrassing.
AND WHAT'S MORE IMPORTANT THAN AN INNOCENT CHILD!
So what is more important, your social security, your medicare benefits? School lunches? all those senior citizen entitlements? (you mentioned your age because somehow you think that makes you wiser?)
What you liberal gutless wonders don't understand is all this is bigger than George Bush, Bill Clinton and the whole lot of politicians. This is about our way of life, the radical Islamists want to destroy you or make you somebody's third wife. So either you get in the fight or you get fitted for a hijab.
What size do you wear?
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/01/27 @ 02:37 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2006/01/27 @ 03:11 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2006/01/27 @ 03:32 PM — (Reply)
Firstly, Cat, do NOT call me “honey,” I am not your “honey,” and it is presumptuous for you to refer to me by that term.
Now, I was not going to respond anymore, but I can’t help it, you people make me so “darn” (is that word okay with you?) angy!!!
You don’t like my language … well I’m sure you’ve used some choice words on occasion yourself. And to say you never do, baloney
Now, as for Mr. Bush, your president; I think that his administration is leading our country away from our core values of honesty, compassion, community and patriotism.
I think this country needs a president who heals conflicts with diplomacy and cooperation, not by bullying.
Your president is gambling away our savings on tax cuts for the wealthy, spending our tax money on an unjustified war which I am afraid is going to saddle my children and grandchildren with an enormous deficit. If you have children is that what you want???? I’d like a president who manages a budget that leaves no child, hungry, uneducated and impoverished.
We need a president who believes all Americans deserve equal access to quality healthcare.
T
I do not believe this president cares one iota about the environment. His devotion is the Almighty Dollar and oil. I will not protect our natural resources so that my children and grandchildren will inherit a healthy planet. Do you not care, you look like a young person, what kind of world do you want to live in? Hey, both I, and Mr. Bush will be dead when the affects of his policies comes home to roost.
And yes I WANT A PRESENT WHO RESPECTS MY CIVIL RIGHTS , AND EVERY AMERMICAN (EVEN YOU) AND TO ALLOW INDIVIDUALS MAKE THEIR OWN PERSONAL CHOICES AS TO GOD, AND MARRIAGE AND, YES, A WOMEN’S RIGHT TO CHOOSE.
Am I liberal, you bet I am, and proud of it. I believe I’m my brother’s keeper, are you, does the “Right” believe that, hmm?
One more thing, this president will not get away with the “crap” his presently getting away with, he’s going to get caught, and he will go down as the worst president in history.
Comment by Louise (the mean old lady)— 2006/01/27 @ 05:15 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2006/08/24 @ 09:33 PM — (Reply)
You are right, my use of sarcasm and condescension is reprehensible! You have shown by your ability to address the issues, head on, your age and your expressive ability that you deserve oh so much more respect than that.
You entered this post hate mongering, reread what you have written.
You assume you know my politics and my morality. I have only addressed two issues on this post - litmus tests and hate mongering.
Clairvoyance run in the family, there Louise?
If you know anything it is from linking to my blog. Even then you don't know much about me because I don't tow a party line or fall easily into any category, political or otherwise but I'll tell you this - I have not yet begun to wield my keyboard.
Also notice that I don't hit and run - my thoughts, url amd picture are there for all to see. No hiding behind MY computer screen. Where's your blog? You email?
So again I ask you, Louise, do you or do you not believe that it is proper for senators to maintain an ideological litmus test for political appointments? That is THE ISSUE OF THIS PAGE!
Comment by Cate— 2006/01/27 @ 05:52 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2006/01/27 @ 05:57 PM — (Reply)
I've had enough of youu, think what you want of me, I really don't give hoot.
Oh, by the way, I don't need to have my photo pasted here I'm not so full of myself, that I need people to see my image. Oh, and I am a size 6, if you want to buy me some Iraqi clothing.
Comment by Granny— 2006/01/27 @ 06:02 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2006/01/27 @ 06:20 PM — (Reply)
Sorry to get so caught up with Louise. I didn't mean to derail your post. It is infuriating when people post and don't address the issue at hand.
FYI, I think litmus tests are wrong no matter which side of the aisle uses them. It just doesn't seem to fit with Article II. and the executive appointment power. I think that the Senate has taken it's responsibility to "advice and consent" (that is the spelling in the actual document) way too far. Appointment is one of the few executive powers that is enumerated and to infringe on it for ideological and partisan reasons is wrong. Only fitness for the job matters. Has the candidate the neccessary skills, experience abilities, etc. for the job. Just me and my honest opinion.
Comment by Cate— 2006/01/27 @ 06:29 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/01/27 @ 07:45 PM — (Reply)
Cate, you are a gem! Say whatever you want on this blog, trolls be damned!
Oh, and Louise, or Granny, or whatever you like to call yourself(reference to that first funky post), Cate did not ask your burqa size, EB did.
I would think that if you did not care about what we 'evil' conservatives thought, you would not get so hot under the collar!I would think that a woman of your years and wisdom would support a woman's right to choose responsibility for her actions, not the drive-through 'fix it' of abortion.Also, in reference to the thread, the Holy Grail end all and be all of left wing politics these days in lieu of the judiciary seems to be Roe V Wade. The dems in Senate are so worried about filibustering that they do not see how frantic and desperate over an issue that isn't going to change the moment Judge Alito assumes the bench of the Supreme Court.(Although if it did, I wouldn't lose any sleep!)
The fact is that there is a warm wind blowing in from the DNC, and it would do them more service to offer real opinions and solutions than the usual blame and defame, cut and run politics that have become their modus operandi.The democratic party is no longer the party of FDR or even that of Pres.Kennedy. Indeed, the republicans of today ARE that party of the past! Today the dems are socialists wolves in sheeps clothing, more worried about the next election cycle than keeping the American people safe.
Well, at the risk of sounding too much like AlwaysLastWordMillard,End Rant.
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/01/27 @ 07:50 PM — (Reply)
I see you are not very well educated on our enemy.
We can get you your hijab (a muslim form of dress, not just Iraqi) in two very lovely non revealing colors:
Red - every liberal/progressives favorite color, from Kruschev on up
and
Code Pink - an even less revealing color guaranteed to send your favorite Jihadi into an all out tizzy
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/01/27 @ 10:35 PM — (Reply)
I am not posing, or pretending to be anything that I am not. I am truly a 61 year old grandmother, with 4 grandchildren and another on the way, married 39 years to a great guy.
No, for me, life is good, I don't want for anything. I own my own home, don't worry when I have to buy prescription medicine, was able to put two sons through college, etc., God has been good to me and my whole family.
It's other Americans in this country who have not had so easy. So, if I sound grumpy, or mean, that's too bad, I happen to feel this country and the Bush administration just doesn't get it, doesn't understand the struggles the average American has to deal with.
Look, I support my country, I support our troops in Iraq, they are doing a great job, but that's what they are there to do. I tip my hat off to them. So, I support them, but can't stand behind Bush.
I stood tall behind Bush (which is hard for me, I'm only 5 feet) after 9/11. I stood behind him to go after the people who attackied us. I do not stand behind him in this war, especially from a man who never put his life out there, likes these young soldiers. Sure, send everyone else, but he never had to go, nor did his children. So, that's where I stand.
I love my country, I love the troops who are fighting, but sorry, I have a great hate and distaste for a man who does not realize he is single-handedly ruining this country.
Comment by Louise— 2006/01/28 @ 07:29 AM — (Reply)
thanks for supporting the troops, Louise I canonly speak for myself but now we must win. navel gazing might mean the end of us.
I care about those less fortunate. However I chose to give through charities rather through taxes. Besides have you ever seen government funded housing?
If you'd like I can provide you with some organizations that help the troops?
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/01/28 @ 07:56 AM — (Reply)
Thank you, elmer's brother, I have already given to various organization to help the troops, as well as donated 75 thousand frequent-flyer miles to the troops. I appreciate your offer.
Comment by louise— 2006/01/28 @ 08:06 AM — (Reply)
I don't have everything. I grew up wanting for a lot in my life. I have been without health care (as a young adult) and my kids will go to college, probably the same way I did. Working for minimum wage after classes and eating a while lot of 10 cent pasta (Ramen). I watched my parents work 3 and 4 jobs between and still never somehow get any taxes back.
I have been inside government housing (not just military) and seen how people who are being fed by my tax dollars somehow have enough to own a satellite t.v. I've seen how they can manage money well enough to by heroin and sports cars but not pay for medicine.
I know there are people out there with real needs and we have yet to turn in anything but itemized tax forms because our charitable giving is so much more than the "allowable" amount.
I find caring for others and helping the poor a truly noble venture - but I also find it a moral one. You can't legislate heart. I have lived in third world nations and ingested water that I would urinate in this country. But the simple truth is that when a person becomes a slave to a government - either because he is forced to support it (as working class and rich Americans are) or because he doesn't know how to make a way without it (as so many underpriveleged people in this country don't) there is a problem.
I'd like to see people getting a hand up not a hand out and I'd love to see a return of the culture where people felt a little embarrassed about not being employed (because that is a great motivater to work) rather than just furious that their EFT cards aren't working fast enough. I'd like to see young people who are responsible adults and don't expect life to be easy - who know that the choices we make come with real and lasting consequences, instead of quick fixes. I'd like to see criminals prosecuted and their victims helped , not the other way around.
I'd like to see people engage in civil discourse - not hateful rhetoric. Thank you for posting this morning - now I can really appreciate who you are and why you may feel the way you do.
Now that we have identified some of the problems - how about laying some solutions on the table. What have you got for welfare reform? Pushing an energy conscious agenda? Tax reform? The health care crisis?
Comment by Cate— 2006/01/28 @ 08:09 AM — (Reply)
Louise like Cate said now that the dialogue can be civil we might actually come to a better understanding of each other. One thing I have learned since I started blogging is that it's not always about trying to "win" an argument, some of us will just have to respectfully disagree, but our understanding of each other is better.
Now back on topic. If Roe v. Wade were overturned I don't believe abortions would stop. I think then it would be up to individual states, which is right where it should be. Let the people decide by voting. When the Supreme court legislated from the bench they took our right to either
1. hold anyone accountable for a decision such as this
2. allow for the changing mores and values of the American people
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/01/28 @ 08:32 AM — (Reply)
And the real disgrace in Feinstein's comment (accidentally called her Pelosi yesterday) is that they find the mere possibility of a man disagreeing with them on this issue worth shutting down the whole process. Even if he launched a personal crusade, it would still require the majority of the sitting justices siding with him.
Comment by Cate— 2006/01/28 @ 08:57 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/01/28 @ 09:18 AM — (Reply)
Speaking of welfare reform, ect., during my second pregnancy, my husband was laid off.Our insurance was through him. Although I was employed at the time, I was far enough along to be considered a 'pre-existing' condition by my insurance. He found work very quickly, but wouldn't be eligable for health care for 90 days; in time for the baby to be covered once he was born, but not to cover any of the pregnancy.There was no way we could've afforded COBRA, so not knowing what else to do, I went to Job and Family Services, hoping that I could have temporary help with prenatal care and the delivery.
I was told that because I was part-time and my pregnancy was uncoverable with my company's insurance, that I qualified for help. Phew!
In situations like that, I don't mind helping others out. Crap happens, and sometimes people just can't help it. The professional moochers are what sucks, and here's how they are born.
During the process of setting up the prenatal care, I was informed that because the time of my husband's last day of work to first paycheck was three and a half weeks, that we 'qualified' for one month of food benefits. I was so embarassed! I told the worker no, that I wasn't here for all of that, that I was only worried about the health care, and only that because I was pregnant. She told me that it was automatic, I qualified, and the card would be issued, period. I could use it or throw it away. She seemed really surprised that I was embarrassed and didn't want it!
Then, when our son was born, he was a NICU baby for one week. I was happy he was getting all the right care, but really worried about how big of a copay bill we would be getting. Guess what? We NEVER got a bill. Not one. My third baby is six months old and we've payed about half of what wasn't covered.
Then, when we went to the pediatrician's office for all those vaccinations, we were told that the state insurance covered the baby for a year. I gave them our new (through work) insurance, and they wouldn't use it.REFUSED TO. They said the state would pay them more and not argue about it.
It is no wonder that we can't get spongeres off the system. I wanted out ASAP and had a hard time. (I had to threaten to leave the ped's practice if they didn't use what insurance I dictated.) I'm sure it doesn't take much convincing for someone who'd rather not work anyway to keep soaking up free tax dollars. The B.S. about people slipping through the cracks is just that. It should be up to us to use charity, because the system doesn't work.
Sorry for being off topic, but I just can't stand when I hear, "what about the poor people?"
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/01/28 @ 10:28 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/01/28 @ 10:31 AM — (Reply)
Okay - off on C-Mom's tangent, I go...
I have a plan for welfare reform.
For people who are "practically unemployable", (I mean those who can't subsist or support their families without some sort of government aid - the working poor) guaranteed student LOANS to a university or trade school and assistance while in school full-time
For temporary assistance - 6 months or less we'll lend you credit with a rock bottom interest rate (again you repay it slowly when on your feet)
For those who hit month 6 and are still unemployed, government aid is conditional - you must first show cancellation statements for your cable, satellite, internet, long distance phone services, etc. I say this because if you want long term aid, we should be supporting your life, not your lifestyle! You ought to be doing everything humanly possible not to be a leach. And that means doing what middle class working people do when they hit hard times: cutting back on the extras.
For the disabled, those who are truly unable to care for themselves, we simply take care of them. They are our responsibility as a "Christian" (or for any secularists out there, an "Enlightened") Nation.
My plan needs some work, I'm sure, but I really believe that people need to feel the empowerment of self-reliance. They need to know how good it feels and how liberating, to go to sleep at night knowing you have earned an honest wage.
What do you think?
Comment by Cate— 2006/01/28 @ 05:06 PM — (Reply)
QUESTION:
Why don't terrorists go after other free-thinking countries, but go after us, and why, because of Bush's foreign policy and HIS war in Iraq.
So, far no one has explained to me why we're really in Iraq, why we really went after Sadam ... other than Sadam once threaten Bush's daddy.
But, what does it matter what I think, people who believe and back Bush, will never find that he's run this country into the ground, that he and his administration, if you were really admit it, would realize it was Bush who caused 911, either on purpose, or because he was too stupid to read and understand the warnings.
Enjoy your listen to president tonight, because he will only speak another pack of lies ... ahem, if you want to call what he does, speaking.
Comment by lzeitlin— 2006/01/31 @ 12:00 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2006/08/24 @ 09:50 PM — (Reply)
Saying that we caused 9/11 is like saying a rape victim was raped because of the way she dressed... it just doesn't work, and it shows just how cold-hearted you are.
Terrorists DO go after other free thinking countries...just ask Spain and England.
The war in Iraq is being fought for a multitude of reasons. Saddam was a major human rights violator. If you doubt it, just look at the reports of mass graves or ask the Kurdish people.
Yes, he did try to have Pres. Bush 41 assasinated. THAT alone is enogh to go to war over.
Saddam was a destabilizing factor.
Saddam did have chemical weapons, as evidenced by the footage of him testing them out on dogs. Again, you can ask the Kurds about that.
Saddam was paying a stipend to families of Palestinian homicide bombers, yet another way he was causing chaos.
Spreading democracy in Iraq.
I'm sure there are probably more reasons; this was just off the cuff. You could always try using your computer for things like research; I suggest starting at the White House.
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/01/31 @ 12:38 PM — (Reply)
Enough about whether I can spell or not ... that's not the issue.
I do have one interesting statistic. Bush's approval rating is down just below 40 per cent as I sit here. What's that all about? Could it be the public is FINALLY getting smart to the fact that Bush is a lousy president.
He is arrogant, he's hated around the world, and I don't see how his policies make us safe. And are you aware that even his father is not happy his son took us into Iraq. Yes, there WERE WMDs, but that was long ago. I give you that. Sadam is no better than Hitler, but he did not pose a threat to us. Osama poses a threat. What happened with him, has the president forgot about him?
The numbers are rising that most Amercans do not like this war, he dosn't know how to get us out. I have four grandson, and it scares the hell out of me that one day, thanks to this president's foreign policies, when they grow up there will be a drafted, and they will go to war one day.
You know it's easy to be for a war, when war doesn't touch us personally. I wonder how most of the families who lost sons and daughters in this useless war feel.
We are not any safer now, thanks to the Iraq war. Don't you guys get it. Are you like lemmings who migrate to a president or a policy that makes no sense, just because he's the president Can you not think for yourselves, are you all so blind, or just as stupid as your president!
Bush once stated he was a "uniter" (which by the way is not even a word) "not a devider." It seems to me his policies have divided this country right down the middle.
WAKE UP, CONSERVATIVES, WAKE UP AND SMELL YOUR PRESIDENT ... HE STINKS!!!!
Comment by lzeitlin— 2006/01/31 @ 02:57 PM — (Reply)
You assume much to say we are not personally affected.
Where is it written that beyond America live lesser people?
People too weak to defend themselves, let them die?
Is the law of America the law of the world? NO.
There are laws that enslave men and laws that set them free. Either what we hold to be right and good and true IS right and good and true,for ALL mankind, under God, or we're just another dictatorship.
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/01/31 @ 05:01 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/01/31 @ 05:15 PM — (Reply)
Not that it's any of your business sir. I have two children, 3 grandchildren, and two more on the way this year. Is that so hard to believe? (And I've been married 39 years to the same man.)
I worry ... what kind of country is Bush going to leave my children once he's out of office. Thank, God he'll be out of here in, approximately, 1000 days. Yeah, you bet I'm counting!!!
And FYI, I do not hate Republicans, some of my best freinds are Republican, and certainly don't agree with everything Democrats say or do, and I did not hate his father, or Reagan, or Ford. At least I could agree with them sometimes, at least they showes some intelligence.
This president is being lead by the nose by our unelected "faux" president, that slime, Dick Chaney.
And as for Ms. C-mom, if my grammar doesn't suit you, that's too bad. You should concern yourself more with the state of our nation. Bush pretends to care about this country. Heaven only knows what drivel he's spouting out in his address to the nation this evening, which I would not waste my time watching. I predict that this year will go down for Bush, as badly as 2005 went for him.
Comment by Lzeitlin— 2006/01/31 @ 06:53 PM — (Reply)
You want to know why there is no civil discourse in Washington? Because it is populated entirely with people LIKE YOU! I ask you direct questions, you conintue to evade and spew hateful rhetoric. It takes two to tango and it takes two to make a peace. Show me the money - WHERE ARE YOUR SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS?
Comment by Cate— 2006/01/31 @ 07:27 PM — (Reply)
No, you tell me what solutions are needed, you guys are supposed to know it all.
Comment by lzeitlin— 2006/01/31 @ 07:32 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2006/01/31 @ 08:01 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2006/01/31 @ 08:02 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2006/01/31 @ 08:03 PM — (Reply)
Saying,"some of my best friends are republcans," is like a racist saying, some of my best friends are black. Its laughable.
Oh, and the President DID offer solutions in the SoUA (Which you didn't watch, so you wouldn't know...) last night; democrats booed and sat like sullen, spoiled children the whole time. They have proven that they have no answers, but answers from the other side of the aisle won't do either.They don't care about solving problems, only that their side wins. That, madame, is a sorry party to belong to.
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/02/01 @ 06:23 AM — (Reply)
FYI, I would not watch this president, but I did read the STOU transcript in the Washington Times, a very conservative paper, by the way, so I don’t just read liberal newspapers.
There are very likely hundreds of constitutional violations being committed by the Bush administration, but they somehow manage to make the claim that whatever they do is done in the name of national security and so it all goes away, and we never hear anymore about it.
Conservatives and Republicans oppose the idea of torture and spying and a number of other constitutional violations, but they adopt an attitude that wrong is only wrong if you get caught doing it and toss it off that it’s all done in the legitimate interest of national security. Baloney!! This administration will lie and lie, until one day the American public wakes up and impeaches him.
Comment by lzeitlin— 2006/02/01 @ 07:14 PM — (Reply)
sounds like sour grapes over the election to me.
Comment by — 2006/02/01 @ 09:27 PM — (Reply)
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/02/02 @ 06:16 AM — (Reply)
where were you when Bill and Hillary were in office? I was at a parade in Chicago once that they attended and they had a couple arrested for wearing t-shirts calling for Bill's impeachment. That couple was held in jail for several days (local legend has it that this was a personal demand of the Clintons). Talk about an invasion of rights - the police didn't even give them a warning.
If every president respected all of the freedoms garaunteed in the constitution, the southern half of this country would be a separate nation. From the minute Lincoln removed the right of secession from the governed, this country has been experiencing a continual makeover WRT personal liberty. It doesn't just end where your neighbor's personal liberty begins, it ends at the door of the common good.
You hard line liberals want to have unfettered personal freedom while regulating the hell out of corporations. What gives? You only believe in freedom if it is yours! You want the freedom to take my excess tax money and give it to people who don't even pay into the system, you want the freedom the raise my children for me by allowing my thirteen year old daughter to have sex and an abortion without even talking to me about it, you want the freedom to shout ugly epithets at wounded soldiers from outside their hospital room windows. You fight to protect the rights of the pornographer and the criminal. You appeal to the courts to reinforce liberties that even the animal kingdom would reject.
Alexis De Tocqueville in Democracy in America said that America was a good nation because people were restrained by morality from doing all the things that true liberty by its very nature allows. Freedom, true personal freedom allows for just about anything - when this nation began many of the social ills we see today were less prevalent because a majority of people accepted a majority of judeo-christian ethics. Now we have people like you fighting to allow all of the most degrading and despicable behaviors imaginable.
Look at yourselves. You are an ugly and offensive lot.
Comment by passing thru— 2006/02/02 @ 07:06 AM — (Reply)
When are you guys going to get over the Clintons? This country was in far better shape when Mr. Clinton was in office. And if there is impeachment, it should be for the laws Mr. Bush is presently committing. Here we are six years later, and you're still on the Clintons ... get over it!!
And yes, I want freedom, that's what this country is about. And I sure as hell don't want religious fanatics to tell me what I can or cannot do, morally. As long as I don't hurt anyone, leave me alone.
I happen to live a moral life. I grew up a Catholic, and went to Catholic school, so I think I know a little about "morality.
I've raised good God-fearing, honest young men, who are now excellent fathers and husbands. I don't deny you your freedom; do whatever you want, it's not my business. And that's the point, what others do is not your business. Why are you so threatened?
And if you raise your 13year old in the right way, sex, pregnancy and abortion should not ever be an issue ... see, I've raised teenagers, you're do not have lock on raising kids. I know how hard it is. When your daughter grows up I pray that you are as lucky as I've been. It's what they are taught at home.
If you have a good relationship, she will talk to you. Do you need the government to help you with that ... shame on you.
Yes, I do fight to protect the speech of anyone, even if I don't like what it is they are saying, whether it pornography, or otherwise. You are sick if you think I agree with animal behavior for human beings; I never would ever think of such things ... seems that you have. That makes me wonder.
Don't tell me about morality, you have no right to impose on me your morality ... that's why I'm so disgusted with people like you. I don't want you, or the government to tell me how to live my life either morally, or otherwise.
And excuse me if I think we should know what our government is up to.
We are so busy, sticking our noses where it does not belong in the name of promoting democracy in other countries, that in the process we could very well be losing our own.
We don’t know what our executive branch is doing, and neither does Congress. Secrecy is not a part of a democracy, in my book. And I feel I have the right to speak up, because those of us who really want to know what our elected officials are doing need to protest, and we will continue to do so until we get answers.
The secrecy of the Bush administration is frightening to me, is it not for you? Or do you just follow blindly behind whatever he says.
I find it interesting how President Bush, Sr., seems to have embraced President Clinton. Could it be that Bush, Sr., recognizes the intelligence of Bill Clinton, and doesn’t agree how Bush, Jr. is running this country. Isn’t it interesting that Bush, Jr. looks Bill Clinton to discuss various issues. Yeah, it's true, it's well known that he's talked to Clinton about foreign policy.
So, enough already … this country is going to the dogs. Face it and live with it. It’s people like you who put this man in the White House. I’m counting down the days until he’s out of office.
Comment by lzeitlin— 2006/02/02 @ 04:21 PM — (Reply)
I'm guessing we'll get over bill and hill when you guys remove the Kerry-Edwards bumper stickers from your cars
And for the record I meant animalistic behaviors as in not enlightened but degrading (like porn - which you defend) what were YOU thinking?
Comment by — 2006/02/02 @ 04:58 PM — (Reply)
YEAH, you get it, we have not gotten over the election, and I won't until the next one.
Well, I have now posted my last message ... you won't change my mind; I won't change yours, it's ashame, because in the end the truth will come out about Bush!
So, have a good year! I've had enough of Republican conservatives.
Comment by lzeitlin— 2006/02/02 @ 05:13 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/02/02 @ 05:24 PM — (Reply)
WELL GOOD RIDDANCE TO ALL OF YOU, TOO, you all deserve what comes your way with your president.
Comment by lzeitlin— 2006/02/03 @ 06:02 PM — (Reply)
Probably when you get over GW. Thanks for signing off and for the traffic.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/02/03 @ 07:00 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/02/03 @ 07:32 PM — (Reply)
Comment by No More millard— 2006/02/03 @ 07:42 PM — (Reply)
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/02/04 @ 05:40 AM — (Reply)
Comment by lzeitlin— 2006/02/04 @ 08:27 PM — (Reply)
So, your friend in the WH wants to outsource our ports to his Arabian friends … oh, boy, he really is totally nuts! Good move? Giving our security to away to foreigners?
The issue seems to be, if there is a profit to be gained, the hell with our security, they’re willing to sell us down the river … all the way!!!!
This is the most corrupt and inept administration in the history of this country. And if you can’t see this, if you don’t understand what’s going on, you are all more stupid than it’s possible to believe.
This administration lies, and lies, as evidenced by what Chaney was trying to get away with last week.
Comment by LM— 2006/02/21 @ 01:25 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2006/02/21 @ 02:22 PM — (Reply)
Who the hell cares what the former president said at a funeral ... that's not worth a moment's thought. This bothers you more than selling out to the Arabs? Are you kidding me. Do you live near a port? I do! It scares me to death that a dirty bomb could end up in one of those containers.
Interesting, that there's opposition by some Republicans, but yet, you concern yourself with what was said at a funeral. Geeze ... I just don't get you people.
Are you totally dense? What do you have to say for yourself? Or you just don't care, whatever Bush says, is okay by you ... follow like sheep, I guess!
So, this is more important than selling off our ports to an Arab nation? A speech, a lousy speech at a funeral, you concern yourself with, hmm, interesting.
BUSH IS A BIG SPENDER, by the way, not very Republican like.
Comment by LM— 2006/02/21 @ 05:02 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/02/21 @ 05:17 PM — (Reply)
I merely pointed out that it wasn't a partisan issue - and that charges of corruption and ineptitude go both ways.
That's all - but thanks for showing your intelligence again by making ASSumptions.
Furthermore, people like you falsely interred Japanese during WWII, refused to share your drinking fountains with blacks and depicted Germans as monstrous mr. hyde's when it suited your needs. "The Arabs" you call them, the company that owns P&O Port Works. Very racist. Arab doesn't equal muslim, terrorist, or even anti-American.
Has it ever occurred to your pea-brained mind that to outright deny the contract after having it outsourced to a British company would be seen as a complete alliance breaking insult with UAE. You liberals always calling for us to play nice with other countries and then when the rubber meets the road, where are you?
You want to see a real war with the Arab/Muslim world? Show outright, unwarranted discrimination after a business has gone through the contracting process and proven themselves trustworthy and qualified. The you'll only validate the jihad that is already occurring and give further reason to hate and attack the US. Ever think of that.
I'm still not in favor but I can see beyond my own backyard and into the international ramifications if we refuse to do business simply based on race/nationality.
Comment by Cate— 2006/02/21 @ 05:30 PM — (Reply)
That's the long and short of it. Even if the Prez wanted to cave to the knee-jerk reaction the port story is getting, he couldn't very well do it without screwing what good relations we have with the UAE.
I'm going to sit back and watch this one for a while, untill there is enough information out there to form a cogent opinion. I would suggest, LM, that you do the same.
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/02/21 @ 06:15 PM — (Reply)
First of all the P&O Port, I believe, is owned works by the UK.
So, are you now calling me a racist? Talk about ASSumptions, guess, you're one, too.
I come from a multi-racial family, with members of my family, i.e., grandparents, cousins, and other members who who were killed in German camps. Discrimination is not ever in my vocabulary. But, that was then, this is now, I have no animosity with the German people. Interesting that Germany certainly didn't stand with George
W. Bush and the Iraq war.
And so, you want this country to be bullied by the Arabs, and do whatever they want. And I speak not of American Arabs, but those nuts in the Middle East. Did you forget who gave us 9-11? Did you forget where the highjackers came from.
No, I would not say all Arabs our terrorists, but to sell out to a group who are trying to kill us, no, I don't agree at all.
The only prejudice I guess I do have is to people who follow like sheep!
Comment by LMZ— 2006/02/21 @ 06:16 PM — (Reply)
Civil war in Iraq, selling our ports to Dubai ... wow! Sounds like Bush is in big trouble, and the world will suffer for it all. IMPEACH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by lmz— 2006/02/23 @ 05:01 PM — (Reply)
And if I'm an ass I'm an honest one - I call them as I see them not as a political party tells me I should - you referred to a business (a for profit corporation run by people of many ethnicities and nationalities) as "the Arabs" - If I'd said that, you'd have given the ACLU my phone number.
And just so you don't continue to look foolish - people who aren't racist don't feel the need to enumerate a litany of proofs to the contrary.
Comment by Cate— 2006/02/23 @ 06:14 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2006/02/23 @ 06:19 PM — (Reply)
I agree with the "pig" as you call this person. What does that make you calling someone names?
Comment by rose— 2006/02/23 @ 06:33 PM — (Reply)
I'm curious, is anyone who reads this forum aware of the fact that one of the 9-11 hijackers was from the UAE, that they traveled through Dubai, and used financial resources there.
Dibai was also reported to be a major transfer point for smuggled nuclear components. So should there be concern that Dubai ports could be infiltrated by extremists and/or terrorists all that farfetched? Come on, folks, wake up and look at what this govenment is doing.
Bush and "his" government, as he was heard to say "his," government should never have approved this -- and if, as Bush claims, didn't know about this situation, well, why not, why didn't he know. Why isn't he top of this kind of thing.
I can only hope that this focuses attention on what this nation is doing, which is precious little so far, which is to protect "our" country from the next atrocity to hit this country through a sealed container on a cargo ship.
Comment by Rose— 2006/02/23 @ 06:55 PM — (Reply)
OH we're aware, but I thought the libs considered this all to be racial profiling...what used to be a big no no...?????????????
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/02/23 @ 07:03 PM — (Reply)
You presume too much, sir. I never claimed to be a lib ... I just say it as I see it. I don't agree with what the Dems say and do, but the Republicans are the ones running the show, so they need to take full responsibility for their ineptness!! And they are inept, you have got to see that, right?
Comment by Rose— 2006/02/23 @ 07:16 PM — (Reply)
You go, Rose!
Comment by lmz— 2006/02/23 @ 07:17 PM — (Reply)
You need to back off ladies, even the liberals are now admitting this ports deal is a non-issue
Comment by SM— 2006/02/23 @ 07:37 PM — (Reply)
Check out my blog for the real scoop
Comment by SM— 2006/02/23 @ 07:39 PM — (Reply)
who said I was talking to you?
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/02/23 @ 09:11 PM — (Reply)
Wrong, I think we do need to profile at airports. If a person with red hair committed a terrible crime, wouldn't we look for all persons with red air? Yes, absolutely profile. And, my, my did I hit a sore spot?
Comment by Rose— 2006/02/24 @ 06:39 AM — (Reply)
Rose, I think that you're overreacting to Cate's comment about "wrestling with the pig."
Its a metaphor for futility; she wasn't calling anyone a pig.
I DO think its pretty funny that we aren't supposed to 'profile' when conducting security at airports, yet we can't let 'those arabs' have our ports.
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/02/24 @ 06:02 AM — (Reply)
You know, a lot of the cargo that comes in to the U.S. comes in containers that probably never gets checked, or are largely neglected … that is until now, and many experts have been complaining about this situation for years, years. Mr. Bush are you listening?
And don’t give me crap about what Clinton or Bush, Sr., did, or didn’t do. Bush, Jr. is supposed to our protector, he was supposed to keep us safe, that’s why you guys voted for him ... well, what say you, now? He’s got to be the dumbest president in history. And don’t go telling me, well, he’s better than Clinton because of Clintons shenanigans. We probably would be better off if Bush messed around, then he’d not have time to get our country in so much trouble. Now, we’ll have civil war in Iraq … oh, smart move going to war.
So, I digress!
The Bush administration has made a colossal mistake selling out to the State of Debai. Thanks to this government’s foolishness, and all the brouhaha over it, now everyone knows how vulnerable we are at our ports.
Our sneaky government, without informing anyone, decided to approve the purchase of the British Company to a Gulf-oil sheikdom, the UAE, which means all operations will fall to Dubai control.
I find this troubling, don’t you? I live near one of these ports and our state officials were not put on notice of the deal. WHAT?
According to federal officials the UAE is pro-American. How interesting, considering the fact that one of the 911 hijackers was from the UAE, and other hijackers traveled through this country and was reported to be a major transfer point for smuggled nuclear material. It was also reported that a Pakistani scientist was involved in dispatching this nuclear material through Iran, and who knows through what other countries.
So, shouldn’t we worry that Dubai Ports could be infiltrated by extremists and/or terrorists? I think so. Is this too farfetched for you pinheads to understand? Probably!!!
As far as I can tell, the government never should have allowed this, and the nerve to have done so without consultation with the states involved or to further investigate this company, to be sure they can be trusted.
Profiling, when it comes to the safety of my country? Yep!! I don’t think foreign companies should be operating any U.S. facility which have major security concerns. What’s next sell our airports to these foreign companies, whether from the Middle East or anywhere else? No, I don’t think so.
The one good thing is the big stink that has now been made, so Bush has to now back down ... wow, could it be he admits he made a mistake, holy cow, maybe I’m smoking something!!
Attention has now been focused on what Bush and this government is up to, which is precious little -- so far in preventing the next terrorist attack to this country by way of a sealed container on a cargo ship heading in to a port near me!!!
And, by the way, UAE, stand for UNITED ARAB EMIRATES,
Comment by Rose— 2006/02/25 @ 07:47 AM — (Reply)
Why wast your time explaining anything to these nuts. They just follow blindly whatever Bush, Chaney, et al want to do. Maybe these religous nuts think religion and God will protect them. But, God helps thouse who help themselves, and we are not helping ourselves with these kinds of actions with terrorists.
Comment by lz— 2006/02/25 @ 07:54 AM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/02/25 @ 08:04 AM — (Reply)
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/02/25 @ 08:35 AM — (Reply)
Who cares what you think, Mr. Conservative Realist. I KNOW that, eventually, you will realize the many mistakes that this government has been making.
Do you think outright civil war is a good thing. Do you think selling our country off to the AEI is correct ... I don't know why I waste my time here, I really don't. I can certainly understand lz's frustration, because you folks just will never get it.
Comment by rose— 2006/02/25 @ 06:09 PM — (Reply)
Comment by lz— 2006/02/25 @ 07:09 PM — (Reply)
Well, it looks like Bush is in the celler of approval ratings, especially with regard to the ports. Do we really want to see a foreign flag from this country flying over our ports, and not the old red, white and blue? Does the coast guard want to take it's orders from a foreign country. Bad, bad, bad!!
This man has lost his mind. I do not trust this man with our security ... it's time to impeach.
Comment by lmz— 2006/02/28 @ 02:22 PM — (Reply)
You got that right, lmz, this man has totally lost his mind. It's down right scary. Dubai taking over all these ports, this is how we handle the "war on terror."
This man better start staying up later at night, listen to what the people in this country are saying.
I just now heard that Chaney's approval ratings are in the teens, and Bush's approval numbers are down below 35%! Could it be that the American public is finally getting smart as to the stupidity of this president. You're right IMPEACH, IMPEACH, IMPEACH -- for the sake of this country.
Comment by Rose— 2006/02/28 @ 02:30 PM — (Reply)
Just because you dems don't like him doesn't mean you can impeach him. Unlike Pres. 'lay and lie' Clinton, he didn't do anything illegal.
But, just so you don't FEEL bad: Haliburton, Haliburton, Haliburton! Who, BTW, is one American company who could handle managing our ports...
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/03/01 @ 05:07 AM — (Reply)
Are you aware that Dubai is already in violation as to ports, that they are banning anything going into or from Israel.
Haliburton, Haliburton, Haliburton! How nice for Dick Chaney, another reason he wanted us to go to war ... MONEY, MONEY, MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! To bad his friend didn't shoot him!!!!!!!!!
Clinton lied about sex that's all. Not a good thing I agree. But, it is a personal matter, and he did his job for this country. A PERSONAL MATTER, THAT ONLY HE AND HIS FAMILY NEEDED TO DEAL WITH. How many people in this country, including some very high-ranking Republicans had affairs. A personal matter, or are you interested in what goes on in someone else's personal life.
No matter, he continued to work extremely hard for this country. Something this president knows absolutely nothing aobut.
How many vacations did he take away from the WH. He took even more vacations than Reagan and his dear old dad. And I've got news for you, his father is not happy about this war in Iraq. He stayed away from going to Bagdad because he knew a civil war would ensue. And guess what HE WAS RIGHT!
So, grow up, at least others in this party of Republicans are beginning to see the light and tune this asshole out!
Comment by Rose— 2006/03/01 @ 07:53 AM — (Reply)
You're right - Clinton worked his country hard.
He worked incerdibly hard for the Chinese as well, selling them nuclear technology.
Also worked wonderfully hard for Mark Rich - payoff pardon.
Worked hard for the safety of New Yorkers by chasing Al-Quaida when they bombed the WTC in 1993 - and then authorizing the dropping of a token bomb just in time to divert newscasters from Monica's recall to the grand jury (Can you say wag the dog?)
He certainly protected American soldiers who were being shot at routinely in the Iraqi no fly zones - not.
And being the great international leader that he is, he saved countles Rwandans from genocide - oh, wait, no he didn't he voted to pull UN peacekeepers out and to leave those people to the hands of sharpened machetes.
Also on the international scene he created a war in Kosovo and invented massacres that didn't exist - UN and international investigators never found a single mass grave - not even evidence of any sort of genocide whatsoever. Actual death toll was less than 2000 all dead from various causes (including some perfectly natural)
But all that doesn't matter because it's the economy, stupid. That's right, the economy that was already turning sharply upward in 1991 before he took office, thanks to the policies of Congress under George Bush Sr.
You know, considering all he did for health care though he really ought to be lauded - oops, that's right, slick Willie couldn't get that passed either.
Just what did he do in office? (aside from the interns)
He played a mean saxophone - okay, not really but I hate to be all negative.
Just a suggestion - but you'd better clean the windows of that glass house you're living in before you throw any more stones - especially if you are going to prop Clinton up as your party's poster boy.
Comment by — 2006/03/01 @ 10:22 AM — (Reply)
Did I forget to mention that HE LET BIN LADEN GO?
Comment by — 2006/03/01 @ 10:22 AM — (Reply)
Too bad his friend didn't shoot him? How sadly hateful.
As long as we're growing here, try forming a sense of humor!
Haliburton, Haliburton, Haliburton!!!
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/03/01 @ 08:36 AM — (Reply)
QUOTE FROM YOUR PRESIDENT: “ FREE NATIONS DON'T ATTACK EACH OTHER. FREE NATIONS DON'T DEVELOP WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.”
This statement from a man who is turning the U.S. into a country that believes in preemptively attacking any country that he and his neo-con advisors think may possibly, somehow, maybe, someday in the future, might just possibly attack us? And we are a country that has nukes (as does Israel, India, Pakistan, France etc, etc.) and still has chemical weapons.
What is he talking about, and what is he thinking??? What are his speech writers thinking? Unless, and this is almost too horrible to contemplate ... we, the United States, are no longer a free country.
Comment by Guess who?— 2006/03/02 @ 04:34 PM — (Reply)
It looks like the American people are finally getting regarding the war in Iraq, and why we are there.
For you on the right, who don’t know why we are in Iraq, I’ll tell you.
Bush’s war was intended from the time we ran for president, when he had already decided if he became president we would go to war with Iraq.
Bush’s goal, and his advisors, i.e., Chaney was to amerce this country, The United States of American as a full-fledged global world empire. He wanted the United States take on the role of global policeman. This plan as been in the works since the last Gulf war, the war where “daddy” decided the worse thing we could do is bring the war to Baghdad which would certainly lead to civil war!! Hello, get it?
Bush, Sr., did not want to go into all out war over there. Bush, Jr. believes that the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination even if it means that we become American Imperialists. Isn’t that what we have been accused being by our enemies.
He’s leading this country and the world down a dangerous path.
But, I am actually feeling quite optimistic in the fact that America is waking up, and the 2006 election will be one in both houses by the Democrats. Good for the American people. I always knew they would wake up out of the trance the Bush has put them, the wool has been pulled of the American people for too long. It's all over Bush and the Republicans!
Comment by GMM— 2006/03/02 @ 04:59 PM — (Reply)
Don't you know that we are the only country who goes to war and then gives the land back to its inhabitants? Name one American colony abroad that has been taken by conquest. Explain why, when we liberated France and most of Europe in WWII why we gave it back instead of planting our 'imperialist' flag on their weak soil. Explain why our southern and northern boarders are not covered in razor wire with illegal crossers being shot on site.
Make no mistake: If we were in Iraq to conquer it, the land would have been signed , sealed and delivered.(And we'd be paying a heck of a lot less for gasoline!)
You live in the nation repleate with opportunity, and all you can do is spew your vitriolic hatred.
I really do pity you.
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/03/03 @ 04:49 AM — (Reply)
True we did give those countries back, but that was when Bush was not president. When Bush ran for office he spoke about "nation building." That we are not trying to nation build. Well, it sure looks like that's what he would like to do in Iraq, he said he didn't want regime change, yet it sure looks like that to me.
Why do we need to ram down the throats of other countries, what we think they should do, and what they should be. How many other countries does he want to go to war with.
Who are we to force democracy on other countries, if they don't want democracy.
Face facts, the Iraqi people are worse off today than they were before this war. They have no water, they have no electricity, or if they do, it comes and goes.
Face facts, that until we went to Iraq it was not being overrun by insurgents as it is today.
Please tell me how this war is helping them. Please tell me how many more civilians need to die in Bush's war. Please tell me how many sons and daughters have to die in this "no win" war. Please tell me how many civilians have to die for Bush's cause. Please tell me why there were no WMDs found. Please tell me why the American people are turning on Bush's war. Please tell me why his approval ratings as the man who will protect us is down below 39%? Please tell me why his own party is turning on him?
Please tell me why you don't see that this man, is not suitable to be president. Please tell me why you stand behind him even though everyone else seems to be running for the hills?
Comment by GMM— 2006/03/03 @ 05:38 AM — (Reply)
You are truly ignorant.Realize that with the US's military might, we could own most of this planet if we so desired. History will show this war to be a victory for humanity, and you will go the way of the dodo.News polls are notoriously slanted in the wording of their questions, reflecting whatever the poll taker's agenda is. The suggestion that the US has conquered Iraq and Afghanistan is ridiculous, and it shows just how much you hate democracy and this country. I would suggest that you move to Iraq under Saddam's reign, where he won elections with 100% of the population voting for him, or under the Taliban of Afghanistan, where women are forbidden from learning how to read, or so much as stepping one foot outside of their homes without walking behind their husbands. Try your political dissention there, and not only would you be put to a painful death, but your entire family with you!
Wake up and realize that you live in one of the greatest nations on earth! If that statement makes me a jingoist, then so be it!
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/03/03 @ 06:20 AM — (Reply)
Never mind the fact that polls judge PERCEPTION not reality.
Are you seriously suggestiong that a nation of people who can name more American Idols than U.S. Senators knows the absolute truth about the war on terror?
Basing your argument against George Bush on 'everybody's doing it' style logic begs the question... are you 15? If you're suggesting we define American foreign policy based on the results of twenty questions or a popularity contest, may I recommend that you take your expertise to a career better suited to you - perhaps as the campaign manager for a high school homecoming queen.
If you have real issues with the war in Iraq then let's hear them. But no regurgitation of Farenheit 9/11 propaganda or deceptive political rhetoric.
Tell me when you have spoken to Iraqis on the ground. Or soldiers on the ground - not the 6 at Abu Graib who lost us the PR war or the dozen hiding in Canada - but the 250000 who are working hard to rebuild a nation where institutionalized terror encouraged putting dissenters feet first through a wood chipper and dropping political opponents from the roof of a 3 story building with their hands and feet tied AS A MATTER OF ROUTINE AND STATE SANCTIONED PRACTICE.
As for insurgents, most are Iraqi baathists trying to regain power - the number of outside terrorists is much smaller.
If you are interested in information from someone who actually was in Iraq for 14 months, try reading My Year in Iraq by Paul Bremer.
Comment by Cate— 2006/03/03 @ 09:10 AM — (Reply)
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/03/03 @ 09:23 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2006/03/03 @ 09:51 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Susan— 2006/03/03 @ 11:39 AM — (Reply)
I hear Omaha beach was a hell hole, too. At least the neighbor boys you claim to be talking to are back home safe.
You're right, I am not in Iraq. Instead I get to support my husband (who been deployed to the Middle East 3 times in our marriage), raise our children and put up with spoiled American liberals who've never tasted oppression complain about how the military is filled with baby killers.
But you just keep assuming that you know the people you're slandering and we'll just keep forgiving your ignorance.
Comment by Cate— 2006/03/03 @ 02:59 PM — (Reply)
This was a reply to GMM below- I accidently hit reply under your post.
Thanks for the kind words, btw, I'll contact you in another forum - this one has gotten too hostile for posting my personal email.
Comment by Cate— 2006/03/03 @ 03:25 PM — (Reply)
I believe that America should be committed to a foreign policy that holds dear our nation’s highest values.
I disagree with the militarization of foreign policy and the effects it has here at home and abroad. That's obvious by the hatred I saw when I was abroad recently. They hate this government, and the president. Folks that spoke with me actually said they are afraid of the Bush policies, that he's a danger to peace in the world.
I also believe in the commitment to fighting terrorism, and the proliferation of weapons, but do not agree with the policy of -- and read this -- UNILATERAL MILITARY PREEMPTION. No other president has ever used the word "preemption," except this administration. I'm not sure he even knows what the word means.
I believe we should work for international cooperation and attempt to enforce laws which will provide this country and the world the greatest chance for a free, healthy, safe and just society.
With this president in office, that will never happen. He's a war monger, this from a man who never served in the military.
Comment by A liberal for peace— 2006/03/03 @ 12:12 PM — (Reply)
The wheels are coming off this administratrion, the people are beginning to see the light. He is mired in the lowest poll ratings thus fa. The American people are feeling nothing bu pessimissim in how this man is running the country and HIS war.
Comment by Rose— 2006/03/03 @ 12:16 PM — (Reply)
Must be the weakend everyone seems to be weighing in.
To CAT -- I happen to live in an area where a lot of our young men have gone to Iraq. Some I know personally, and what they've told me is that they follow the company line while they are there. They will not say anything negative until they are out of the military.
However, when they come home and are asked what it's like there, they say it's hell. The people are scared and miserable, and almost feel they were better off before we set foot on Iraqi soil.
They didn't ask us to go over there. We forced ourselves on them not to help them but for our own agenda.
No, I don't know everything, but these young men said it's a hell hole, and it's absolutely NOT getting better.
I don't see you running over there to help these people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by GMM— 2006/03/03 @ 12:34 PM — (Reply)
I hear Omaha beach was a hell hole, too. At least the neighbor boys you claim to be talking to are back home safe.
You're right, I am not in Iraq. Instead I get to support my husband (who been deployed to the Middle East 3 times in our marriage), raise our children and put up with spoiled American liberals who've never tasted oppression complain about how the military is filled with baby killers.
Comment by Cate— 2006/03/03 @ 03:14 PM — (Reply)
Well, aren't we special and know it all!!
Comment by gmm— 2006/03/03 @ 04:55 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2006/03/03 @ 07:03 PM — (Reply)
Tell me, because I'd love to know why you think the sacrifices my family makes are trivial enough to be laughed at. I'd really like to know where you come off making light of what I and so many others like me willingly give up so that you can sleep safely and so that people in Indonesia get food airlifted after earthquakes. What part of someone else;s blood being on the line for your sorry ass do you find amusing?
You must be the most lovely person to have for a friend.
Comment by Cate— 2006/03/03 @ 07:16 PM — (Reply)
Poor old Bushie and wife had to sneek into Pakistan ... geeze!!!!
Comment by rose— 2006/03/03 @ 05:16 PM — (Reply)
I do support the troops in Iraq. I’ve given up over 60,000 frequent-flyer miles to soldiers in Iraq so some they can come home on R&R … if that’s what they call it these day. I’ve sent care packages, I have even bought donated funds so that they can call home I’ve donated money to help buy better vests for our soldiers to help protect them, something our government has failed to do.
So, now, can I ask why Bush wants us to suppor the troops, yet he was trying to gut military pay of U.S. troops? Can you give me the rationale for cutting troop pay????
Comment by gmm— 2006/03/03 @ 05:50 PM — (Reply)
FYI, our pay has increased every year and while the projected increase for 2007 has slowed, the pay raises continue - in fact, there have been targeted pay raises for most mid grade enlisted and officer ranks.
I cash those pay checks - you don't know what you're talking about.
Comment by Cate— 2006/03/03 @ 07:02 PM — (Reply)
After 20 years in the military, you can be sure we know who supports our troops. We've seen the Democrats and we are not impressed. One significant pay raise under Clinton - when? 2000, when he was laying the groundwork for a Democratic successor and trying to buy the military off.
You may not like the war in Iraq or this president but don't show your ignorance by assuming the Democrats have been watching the backs of the men in uniform. It just ain't so.
Comment by Cate— 2006/03/03 @ 07:23 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/03 @ 06:25 PM — (Reply)
BTW, President Bush DID serve in the military; in the Guard. You may be thinking of Clinton, who did not serve and protested our military in the 70's, and gutted the military.
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/03/03 @ 07:00 PM — (Reply)
I'm making too much sense so they're just calling me names again - wrestle, wrestle, wrestle...
Comment by Cate— 2006/03/03 @ 07:07 PM — (Reply)
The guard, are you kidding me. What combat did he see. He was in the guard because of daddy-kins. What's your problem. Kerry went to war, Kerry fought, what did bush do, hide where at the time. And don't give me crap about thowing away medals. If anyone had the right it's somone who actual fought in a war. What did Bush, but take the easy way out.
As for Clinton, no he didn't go to war, nor did Chaney, or Bush... you guys are so full of crap it totally makes me sick.
The more I read what you have to say the more I believe you're all full of SH*T!!
Comment by — 2006/03/03 @ 07:59 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/03/08 @ 08:07 PM — (Reply)
Hey, remember this one? Out of the mouth of your brilliant president?
“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.” —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004
Ah, what a guy!
Comment by lmz— 2006/03/03 @ 08:28 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Susan— 2006/03/03 @ 09:02 PM — (Reply)
Susan the segue is never there and it's all starts to sound the same after awhile.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/03/05 @ 07:45 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Susan— 2006/03/05 @ 08:11 PM — (Reply)
I was thinking that when Bush ran for office in 2000, you know the election he didn’t win? Well, I was thinking about what he said about being a “uniter, not a divider.” And I think this is one time that I believe him and I think he is just that. True we have been a divided country … until now !!!
As I see it, the American people are coming together BECAUSE of Bush. I think the American people no matter what party they belong to are uniting against the president. And his poll numbers prove that. He’s a lame-duck president, before most presidents become lame ducks.
What has happened to his base, they’re all running from him.
On his trip to India, both Muslims and Hindus united against Bush. For heaven’s sake, he had to sneak in to the damn country. Oh, yeah, he’s a uniter (not a word, by the way) all right.
And does he care what his own base thinks, that they don’t stand with him anymore? Doesn’t look like it to me. He doesn’t care what anyone says about him, or thinks about him.
A Hindu politician told a crowd in India, "Whether Hindu or Muslim, the people of India have gathered here to show our anger. We have only one message — killer Bush go home."
I want to thank Bush for being a uniter … he’s united both parties against him. But, there are a few who stand with him no matter what he does.
He’s a lame duck now, well before most other second-term presidents become lame ducks. Unfortunately, we’re stuck with him for three more years, unless he’s impeached. And that is a good possibility.
Besides the disaster he brought upon the country and the world with his war in Iraq, we have people in our own country suffering from that flood, because his inability to know what to do, or didn’t care to do. I think even more than the war, Katrina will be what really alienates the rest of the country. If he were to run again, he would lose for sure.
Bush is stupid, he’s a liar, and he runs the government in secret.
I don’t understand how you guys can still stand behind him.
I have a friend who feels the general public is stupid. I didn’t want to believe him, but have reading how you all stand behind this man, maybe he’s right.
Oh, by the way I reard him today refer to India and Muslin country. What???????
Comment by lmz— 2006/03/03 @ 09:17 PM — (Reply)
Vietnam was a bad war, we should never have been there ... but, we sent our boys, friends of mine who were killed, because that was the war we had to suffer with, and guess what they came back in shame. And these guys were poor young men, and they were treated like crap.
That won't happen to our military now, despite the fact this war is just as bad.
I will honor those who are in Iraq. I do believe they are brave young men and women, and they have my respect.]
But, don't tell me about the Vietnam war you were not around I'm certain.
Comment by rmn— 2006/03/03 @ 09:33 PM — (Reply)
I dare you to walk up to any Guardsman and tell him his is not real service, and that he never sees combat. Guardsmen get the same training as active military and a good chunk of the men abroad are activated reservists/guard.
You can't have it both ways. You cannot say that you support the troops out of one side of your mouth while disrespecting them out of the other.
The bottom line is that you hate republicans, period. It is irrelevant WHO is in charge, and the only argument you are capable of is, republicans bad, democrats good. Its really quite sad.
Hey, Susan. I've got the bluberry pie, if you'll bring the bananna cream!
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/03/04 @ 06:52 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Susan— 2006/03/04 @ 08:01 PM — (Reply)
To all you "Walmart" type commentaries-especially the non-americans they sell disinfectant at WALMART you better hurry to a store near you. Those in glass houses on foreign land as visitors, should not be throwing bricks from their computer screen.
Comment by Proud American— 2006/03/04 @ 10:07 AM — (Reply)
I'll be back!!
Comment by rose— 2006/03/05 @ 07:40 PM — (Reply)
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/03/05 @ 07:40 PM — (Reply)
Bush continues to use rhetoric to define his national defense policy. IT’S NOT WORKING!! The president has defended his position saying “ we will continue to lead.” This does not fix the damage that has been done by his failed policies. We need the facts “just the facts,” behind this statement.
He is so fixated with spreading democracy, and his policies will not bring stability to the region. But, he wil notl listen to anyone. Bush knows it all!!
Democaracy? Is the world safer with the gains made by Hamas? Is Iraq or the region more stable as a result of our military intervention in Iraq? What proof do we have that the President's policies are working?
The world, the region, will be safer, and more stable when we leave Iraq and put our resources to work where they belong.
I believe Bush's war in Iraq has sidetracked attention away from fighting global terrorism and because of that, Bush has depleted the required resources needed to wage an effective war. Where the hell is Osama … when Bush said “I hear you,” after 911, I was all the way behind him. I didn’t vote for him, but I was ready to stand tall with “our” president! I believed him. He’s lied to the global community and he’s lied to us. I can not stand behind an incompentent president!!
How many more men and women and civilians have to die because of this man's policies that are not working, how many more will die when civil war breaks out. HOW MANY???????????
Comment by rrm— 2006/03/07 @ 03:35 PM — (Reply)
Well, I'm here again, and I reread the comments on this blog. One, of course, was my poor spelling, or poor grammar. Well, when I get angry with stupid people my typying goes faster than it should, and I lose all sense of proper grammar.
However, after reading the following comment from GWs statement after Katrina where he said the following:
"At any rate, we look forward to working with you. Let me put it another way: We look forward to hearing your vision, so we can more better do our job. That's what I'm telling you."
Spoken after Katrina by Bush
I think that's a reall hoot! Now, come on, this man is the president of the United States, doesn't it embarrass you what comes out of his mouth? This is just one of sooooooo many Bushisms.
Comment by louise— 2006/03/07 @ 04:29 PM — (Reply)
“Duck and Cover” Am I reliving my youth of the 50s and 60s? We were in the middle of a nuclear-arms race. But, then someone said the nuclear arms race was over!!
Now, we are probably embarking on a new arms race thanks to George W. Bush who has decided that the world needs another arms race so by going to India and signing a new agreement with India.
This flies in the face of five decades of a successful Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty which India has refused to sign.
Is he crazy, and will my grandchildren soon be hearing “duck and cover? Sure scares the s--t out of me!!!!
Comment by rose— 2006/03/07 @ 04:41 PM — (Reply)
That must be one big scare lady cause I'd say from your what you've posted here that you are full of it.
Comment by Ed— 2006/03/07 @ 04:51 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/07 @ 05:19 PM — (Reply)
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/03/07 @ 05:58 PM — (Reply)
Boy, oh boy, you guys just don''t want to face the truth do you. It amazes me how thickheaded you all are.
If Bush is doing a great job then why, please tell me, is his numbers so in the tank with the Armerican people. They've lost all confidence in him ... but, you guys just live in a fantasy world.
Comment by Louise— 2006/03/08 @ 08:52 AM — (Reply)
THAT'S why the polls reflect what they do. Because the questions can be phrased in such a way as to make the answer reflect the opinions of the poll taker.
Hey, it's nice of you to give us yet another example of liberal name-calling and insulting attitudes. You prove my point without my saying a word. Thanks!
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/03/08 @ 09:39 AM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/08 @ 12:03 PM — (Reply)
Whatever you say ... poll numbers, I guess they're right if they fall on your side!!!!!!!
Comment by Louise— 2006/03/08 @ 06:23 PM — (Reply)
Of course I'm right, are you kidding me? Look, he said "mission accomplished," oh, really? Then why have so many people died, why, why, why. Why? Because he didn't do it right going over there in the first place, is why. Once again, he lied.
Comment by louise— 2006/03/08 @ 06:29 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/03/08 @ 08:04 PM — (Reply)
The time has come to set things in motion to impeach Bush, and here's why.
President Bush should be impeached and charged with war crimes. His war with Iraq has been nothing short of criminal.
He violated international law as well as our own laws causing the death of many people, and undermining the Constitution while trampling upon the rights of the citizens of this nation.
President Bush defends these actions against Iraq by wrapping himself in the flag and claiming that his actions are necessary.
It''s time to impeach, and the wheels are in motion.
He defends his illegal activities in this country by simply claiming necessity and privilege. What a liar.
Comment by newhouse— 2006/03/08 @ 07:18 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/08 @ 07:21 PM — (Reply)
I know exactly what the Patriot Act is, it gives the federal government the power to violate the Bill of Rights. And if you don’t believe that, that’s because no one in the media will talk about it.
Comment by louise— 2006/03/08 @ 07:36 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/03/08 @ 08:09 PM — (Reply)
Well, hooray, hooray, Americans spoke, because of the American mistrust of this misdeeds of Bush helped shoot down the port deal to Dibaii.
Our ports should not be in the hands of another country, but in our hands. No foreign entity should own and operate our ports, not now, not ever. To have our ports in the hands of other courtries is an invitation to disaster. And I'll tell you why, one minute a country can be our friend, and the next our foe, we can't take that chance when it comes to national security.
The consequence of our ports coming under control of another country makes no sense at all.
Comment by rmn— 2006/03/09 @ 02:15 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/09 @ 06:43 PM — (Reply)
This what I think about the Bush Administration:
The war in Iraq is worse than ever, and our leader, George W. Bush, has squandered every opportunity to gain favor with the Iraqi people!
We have a deficit that is mind blowing, with tax cuts going to 1 percent of the people. I say repeal all tax cuts for the rich! These tax cuts are not helping the average American in this country.
The Katrina relief effort was appalling and an embarrassment, with hundreds of our American citizens suffering and/or dying. We look like a third-world country to others around the world, who can’t even help our own people in a disaster. What happens if there’s another terrorist attack, GOD HELP US!
GW Bush’s prescription-drug program is a total failure. This administration seems to protect the drug companies instead of helping to protect older Americans.
Famous words from our president:
“I’m coming back to Washington to take charge of relief efforts.”
“Good job, Brownie.”
“I have full faith in Donald Rumsfeld”
I will restore faith in our government.”
And this is my favorite:
“Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.”
“Freedom is on the march.”
It seems to me that the march is by Bush’s friends and supporters right into the nearest bank.
The President is eroding civil liberties and is silencing the media by not allowing access. This is Nixon all over again!!
With Bush’s approval rating hovering at 39 percent, it appears that the American people, whether they are Republicans or Democrats they are all seeing a president who is incompetent, morally bankrupt, and probably the worse president in the history of or nation.
I’m am depressed, and I am scared. Yeah, I am scared as is others on this forum.
The only good news, once again, is that we are seeing this president for who and what he is, a man who is destroying our country, and making us less safe than before 911.
It’s the truth and history will prove me right on this. That’s provided we live through this president’s huge mistakes, and can one day look back at his presidency. Thank goodness, it now looks like most Republicans are running scared from this president in droves.
Comment by John — 2006/03/10 @ 02:59 PM — (Reply)
Boy, you really hit the nail on the head. Thank you.
Comment by Louise— 2006/03/10 @ 03:33 PM — (Reply)
The House next week will vote on the ports deal! Great!!!!
For once the Republicans are doing the right thing, I stand right behind them for once. Congratulations to the Republicans ... a no-confidence vote against the president.
This country is waking up to our national security issues, and we don''t have to look to the president anymore for keeping us safe. Now, Bush has to look at other issues, what they possibly could be, we'll have to wait and see. He'll have to find something to take our minds off the ports deal and Iraq.
The polls on the issue of this war is extremely low, what does that tell you. This man still will not face the facts that this country [Iraq] is already in a civil war over there. When will he face the music and when will he wake up?
LAME DUCK PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!!!! Maybe he can't do us too much arm in the next two and a half years.
Comment by Rose— 2006/03/10 @ 03:46 PM — (Reply)
The House next week will vote on the ports deal! Great!!!!
For once the Republicans are doing the right thing, I stand right behind them for once. Congratulations to the Republicans ... a no-confidence vote against the president.
This country is waking up to our national security issues, and we don''t have to look to the president anymore for keeping us safe. Now, Bush has to look at other issues, what they possibly could be, we'll have to wait and see. He'll have to find something to take our minds off the ports deal and Iraq.
The polls on the issue of this war is extremely low, what does that tell you. This man still will not face the facts that this country [Iraq] is already in a civil war over there. When will he face the music and when will he wake up?
LAME DUCK PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!!!! Maybe he can't do us too much arm in the next two and a half years.
Comment by Rose— 2006/03/10 @ 03:47 PM — (Reply)
My, my things have been quiet here ... wonder why?
Comment by rose— 2006/03/11 @ 07:35 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/11 @ 08:11 PM — (Reply)
Uh, don't you mean,"duh?" Hmm, have to wonder about you, Mr. Conservative
Or may you meant "doh?"
Comment by Rose— 2006/03/12 @ 04:55 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/12 @ 05:50 PM — (Reply)
I'M NOT YOUR "HON." You are presumptuous, sir.
Comment by Rose— 2006/03/12 @ 05:56 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Blasting left wingers— 2006/03/12 @ 05:59 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/12 @ 06:25 PM — (Reply)
I wouldn't let you take me for a spin if you were that last Democrat on earth!
But, I am very lovely.
I wouldn't let you take me for a spin if you were the last Democrat on earth.
Comment by rose— 2006/03/12 @ 07:13 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/12 @ 07:18 PM — (Reply)
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/03/13 @ 05:07 AM — (Reply)
C-mom, are you gay?
Comment by Rose— 2006/03/13 @ 06:51 AM — (Reply)
Do you like to make fun of fat people, C-mom? That's not very "Christian" of you!!!
You dislike when I make fun of Bush, saying he's stupid, but yet you can make fun of overweight people .... that's really terrible, and sad. You're not very enlightened.
Comment by Rose— 2006/03/13 @ 06:54 AM — (Reply)
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/03/13 @ 08:28 AM — (Reply)
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/03/13 @ 08:29 AM — (Reply)
Interesting-Rose not even a U.S.citizen able to vote-So whY is she debating Bush on the site? She's a Canadian?
Her info says she lives in Belleville Ontario-Canada-according to her web site at www.todays-women.net site. Her government is in plenty of trouble why not debate in Cabada?
Comment by Jenna— 2006/03/13 @ 08:47 AM — (Reply)
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!
i am not Canadian, where you got that is beyond me.
I'm U. S. Citizen just like you.
Comment by rose— 2006/03/13 @ 01:59 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/13 @ 05:03 PM — (Reply)
What are you totally nuts, you want me to post online here for everyone to see my Social Security Card ... I don't think so. Fore-getta-about it!!!!
Comment by rose— 2006/03/14 @ 06:32 AM — (Reply)
I also might add, that you are very crude as well. Why don't you go and put it where the sun don't shine.
Comment by rose— 2006/03/14 @ 06:34 AM — (Reply)
Just found this forum quite interesting. What looked like it was about forBush vs. against Bush, seems to have become personal!
Rose, I understand where you're coming from, but you need to be more knowledgeable about the facts as you state them. Because, the conservatives can never see the the mistakes, and lies Bush makes. You need to be able to support your facts better.
Comment by lmz— 2006/03/14 @ 02:41 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/14 @ 04:02 PM — (Reply)
Heres the blog address: for Rose ("the American") http://rosedesrochers.blogspot.com/
Comment by Jenna— 2006/03/14 @ 04:14 PM — (Reply)
READ MY LIPS -- I AM NOT FRENCH CANADIAN, I DO NOT HAVE A URL. However, I did check out my so-called blog that Jenna sent ... very nice blog, but, once again, IT AIN'T MY BLOG!!!!!
Get it, I am a first-generation "proud" American citizen but ashamed of the man who claims to be our president!!!
He makes us all like like fools over here thankis to the idots who voted for him!!
Comment by rose— 2006/03/14 @ 04:36 PM — (Reply)
HEY, CAN YOU REPUBLICANS HEAR ME? George Bush has the lowest approval rating of any president at this point in his second term, according to Gallup polls going back to World War II. He presently stands at 36% approval rating/60% disaproval rating. And he's not looking too good with his Republican base.
Now, tell me, do all you conservative on this forum still back him. As the Iraq was looks more, and more like a disaster, so does the Bush presidency. WAKE UP, WAKE UP!!!:
Comment by LOUISE— 2006/03/14 @ 04:48 PM — (Reply)
BUSH, CHANEY, AND RUMSFELD "ASSES OF EVIL"
Comment by rOSE— 2006/03/14 @ 05:03 PM — (Reply)
Come on now millardo....everyone is onto your louise routine...try something NEW for a change.
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/14 @ 05:29 PM — (Reply)
Boy-oh-boy have I got you going, Really, this is so funny
Really, it's quite amusing
Comment by millardo— 2006/03/14 @ 06:27 PM — (Reply)
Boy-oh-boy have I got you going. Really, this is so funny
Really, it's quite amusing
Comment by millardo— 2006/03/14 @ 06:28 PM — (Reply)
Bush is not qualified for the job he stole. We must impeach Bush and remove him from office to save America and restore our republic.
The publicans stole the election by cheating, lying us into war, and other crimes Bush, Cheney and others committed demand that good Americans oppose the Bush Occupation and work for its removal. The time has come, face it, Bush is not a good man, he's far from bright, and he has surrounded himself with people just as bad, or worse than he is.
Comment by — 2006/03/14 @ 06:32 PM — (Reply)
Bush says the economy is great, Iraq is great, everything is great. He's delusional.
Comment by Rose— 2006/03/14 @ 06:34 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/14 @ 06:41 PM — (Reply)
Now, you really make me mad. How can you say things are beautiful here? How, how??? Sure for all you rich folk things are beatiful, but what about those people who are not as fortunate. Bush, has not made this country beautifull for a lot of people. There are too many in this country who don't have it all so beautiful or so easy. Who struggle to pay their bills, have no health care, who have to decide if they should put food on the table, or spend the money on their medications.
Bush cares little for the environment, and little for the average American in this country. Not everyone is some rich "dude" like yourself!!
Yes, people like you make me angry, because as long as you have it all, the hell with the rest.
Comment by rose— 2006/03/14 @ 06:49 PM — (Reply)
A suggestion to liberals....there will be no redo of the 2000 election....get over it.
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/14 @ 06:54 PM — (Reply)
I can't get over the 2000 election, because with Bush stealing it, this country has suffered for it.
So, I ask when are you all going to face the facts.
This president deserves to be impeached.
Comment by rose— 2006/03/15 @ 06:34 AM — (Reply)
And another thing, he lies ... he lies, and he lies.
Comment by Rose— 2006/03/15 @ 06:47 AM — (Reply)
He is the ultimate in pride and that will be his ruin, and if not stopped, the end of the world as we know it.
His insane ideas about the "willingness" to use nuclear weapons and walk away from all of the progress of the past 20 years is a sin of unspeakable magnitude, and an indication he has no clue about morality.
Comment by — 2006/03/15 @ 07:38 AM — (Reply)
Barry, you seem to have gotten a certain someone hot under the collar!
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/03/15 @ 07:48 AM — (Reply)
Secondly, it is more than disingenious for the liberal left in this country, who manipulate the judiciary with the ferocity of an abusive lover, to call the 2000 election stolen. The same black robes who've been feeding the left's lunacy and caving in to ludicrous liberal causes ruled on the election - and suddenly the lefties have got their panties in a bunch? In the moral community that's what we refer to as HYPOCRISY.
And finally, your poor, poor me diatribe about Americans suffering is a load of rubbish. To the pain of real conservatives, the government under GWB has spent more than ever on social programs like health care and unemployment. Americans are sitting around accepting the redistribution of my hard earned middle class income in droves under this administration and there is historic growth in federal aid. If you are upset about not getting your handout, Rose, perhaps you should consider abolishing presidential term limits and reelecting Bush. After all, he has become the new sugar daddy, in spite of what your liberal friends are telling you.
That's an issue that would have lost him some support in the last election but dems couldn't really point at Bush and say, "Don't reelect him, he spends like us."
All in all, it's a win for your side - you should just shut up and enjoy spending our money before we elect a true conservative.
Comment by Cate— 2006/03/15 @ 07:51 AM — (Reply)
As usual, your cogent points will be shot down by another round of nuh-uh!
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/03/15 @ 07:54 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2006/03/15 @ 08:19 AM — (Reply)
YOU KNOW WHAT "F" all of you ... lying about sex is on thing ... lying about things important to the American people is another. So, again, "F" all of you!
The day will come when you stupid idiots realize what's really going on in this country. This whole administration sucks and are a bunch lying rotten people. They care about one thing and one thing only themselves ... thank God we have less than 1000 days left of Bush. If father must be turning in his bed at night, wondering what next his idiot son will do next.
Bush can't hold a candle to his father. In fact he can't hold a candle to the lowest insect on this earth.
Comment by rose— 2006/03/15 @ 12:04 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2006/03/15 @ 12:27 PM — (Reply)
To Rose , or should I say" Dear Canadian", why are you so angry? I haPPEN TO KNOW FOR A FACT you are not an American Citizen so why are you jumping up and down? A rose by another name who is not an american, for shame and
Calling us names we are not the ones to Blame.
Comment by Jenna— 2006/03/15 @ 12:51 PM — (Reply)
CAT -- FYI, you can believe or not, but I am not looking for any handouts. I far from need it as we can probably put ourselves in the upper middle class. And, yes, probably make more than you.
My husband and I worked hard to get where are, we, saved to put our boys through college, donate to about every charity we can. I am ready willing an able to share the wealth with those not so fortunate.
I am not complaining that I don't get anything out of the government. In fact, I think Bush should increase taxes, min and yours. Cutting taxes is a farce that is perpetrated by Republicans that it helps the economy. What a bunch of crap.
I don't need handouts from anyone. I'm not asking anything from you or anyone else.
Comment by rOSE— 2006/03/15 @ 01:48 PM — (Reply)
The fact that you think Bush should incerase my taxes shows clearly that you don't know anything about economics. Raising taxes only produces more working poor. If you have it to give, good on you - you are richly blessed. But don't assume that everyone is in that position.
Most Americans are working like crazy and living in debt - you'd raise our taxes??? Most Americans drive used cars and shop at Wal-Mart because that's the only way to afforably feed and clothe a family. And you'd take more of their money to offer benefits to people who don't bother to get a job?
Yesterday's government spending report showed that people collecting unemployment stay out of work an average of 20 weeks while those who don't get unemployment checks tend to find work within 8 weeks. Take a good look at those numbers. It means people are getting over and collecting our money for twice as long as they need to.
And the Dems want to take more from us - yeah - sounds reasonable.
Comment by Cate— 2006/03/15 @ 03:20 PM — (Reply)
Jen, I am an American and have been for my whole life, I was born here and have every right to say my whatever I please ... that's called "freedom of speech," the last time I looked that was still my right as an American, although as long as Bush is in office that could soon will disappear and you won't be able to speak your mind either.
Make no mistake, I am an American and I've voted in every presidential election since the early 1970s! Oh, and by the way, I have voted for a Republican, not often, but I have. I am foremost a Democrat and damn proud of it, too.
I also worked on the Kerry campaign in the 2004 election.
And make no mistake I love this country, my father fought in WWII and fought for this country, and he was a nationaized citizen from Europe.
Think I'm Canadian knock yourself out. If I were a Canadian I would not get so upset over Bush ... ya' think?
Comment by Rose— 2006/03/15 @ 04:00 PM — (Reply)
Hey, Rose, have you seen the latest poll numbers for Bush's job approval is down to 36% Can it be that the American public is finally seeing the light.
The don't like what he's doing with the war, they don't believe him, and his number are falling, falling, but yet, the nutcases on this forum, still stand behind him. Give me a break.
Comment by Louise— 2006/03/15 @ 04:04 PM — (Reply)
Three words that identify Bush are, incompetent, liar and idiot.
Comment by Guess who— 2006/03/15 @ 04:14 PM — (Reply)
To the rest of you tools: Please show up here for the party!
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/03/15 @ 04:40 PM — (Reply)
Okay, one more time:
The stupider someone is, the less likely he is to offer compromise, to open his mind to other options, to admit a misjudgment, no matter how slight -- because, then, wouldn't people see how unqualified that someone is?
But his willingness to admit a mistake is the sign of a confident person, an intelligent person -- a big person. And once again he’s humiliated himself and our nation by demonstrating how small he truly is … a very small man, indeed..
The proportion of people who strongly approve of him has fallen to 20%, its lowest ever. The proportion who strongly disapprove has risen to 44%, the highest ever.
More people disapprove than approve of Bush in every single category of job performance, from Iraq to the health care to the environment to the so-called "war on terror." Every single category, including honesty and trustworthiness -- except one.
52 to 47 percent of the American people seem to think he's "a strong and decisive leader." I guess, that’s because he makes rash decisions, and then defends them strongly when the facts come out. He will never admit he’s made a mistake.
Facts like the absence of Saddam's WMDs, for which we attacked a sovereign nation, killing tens of thousands of their people and ours. Facts like the illegality of his torture policies and domestic spying. Facts like his being amply warned of the damage Katrina would do.
But he's not really strong and decisive, is he. If he were, anyone involved in leaking the name of a covert CIA agent -- namely Karl Rove -- would be gone, as he promised. We would have captured Osama "dead or alive," as he promised. And Iraq's oil revenues would be paying for Iraq's reconstruction, instead of our tax dollars. As he so strongly and decisively promised.
Americans can no longer deny it (and for the most part, they don't) -- the man they (sort of) elected president is a moron. Someone who lies and belligerently defies the will of the vast majority of Congress and the people who (sort of) elected him, because he fears his incompetence will become all too obvious.
It's sad, really. And embarrassing to watch. I almost feel sorry for George Bush, this man I hate. And I definitely feel sorry for the country I love. Because it's being irreparably damaged by a smirking, jackass-stubborn simpleton.
Comment by rrm— 2006/03/15 @ 04:44 PM — (Reply)
Censure, censure ... Andrew Jackson was censured in 1834 for refusing to hand over papers to Congress and assuming power not granted by the Constitution. With his stonewalling of the investigation and by ignoring FISA, this is exactly what President Bush has done, and he should also be censured accordingly.
Comment by — 2006/03/15 @ 05:27 PM — (Reply)
Good for you, keep 'em coming ... I'm trully enjoying this!
Comment by Louise— 2006/03/15 @ 05:28 PM — (Reply)
And, another thing, the President admitted he did not brief the full intelligence committees. This is against the law
Comment by — 2006/03/15 @ 05:32 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/15 @ 05:39 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/15 @ 05:46 PM — (Reply)
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/03/15 @ 05:48 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/15 @ 06:04 PM — (Reply)
Oh, Mr. Realist, are you a Walmart employe? Well, how nice for you. Well, I will not step foot in Walmart because of their treatment of Walmart employees.
PEW POLL FOR BUSH IS @ 33% DISAPROVAL.
Comment by — 2006/03/15 @ 07:02 PM — (Reply)
I feel sorry for Rose's family members. Nag,Nah,Nag, Nah, Nag.
You should consider volunteering your time at a hearing impaired facility.
Comment by Jenna— 2006/03/15 @ 08:53 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/16 @ 04:42 AM — (Reply)
Wal-Mart treats their employees fairly enough. If you want to be a cashier all of your life, you've got to settle for low pay and drudgery. If you want more, go to school on one of those fat, taxpayer funded aid programs and get a better job!
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/03/16 @ 04:51 AM — (Reply)
So, I guess you consider the GI-Bill as an aid bill?
The GI Bill is what enabled my father to go to art school and become a successful artist, which he was until the day he died. He was able to support our family because of this education. Had he not received this help, we would have had a very difficult life, since both my parents being from another country had no education. My mother also worked all my life, while growin up, to help support us, while dad went to school. No, we were not rich at all, but because of the government, dad was able to finish his education, and go out and make a successfull living. But, even with that my mother continued to work.
Both he, and my mother, were able to afford their first house thanks to the government's help. And both he and my mother both had no problem paying taxes because they felt that by paying taxes, they were repaying the government for what the help they got to get them on their feet. Thiis is what most Americans did after the war.
My parents received social security when they retired thanks to Roosevelt ... a "tax fat-funded aid program," as you call it. It was NOT a Republican that gave us social security was it?
No, with Republicans it's I've got mine, the hell with the rest of people.
You see, we believe in being our brothers keeper, and are always willing to help those less fortunate ... sometihing you guys know nothing about, or care!!!
Comment by Rose— 2006/03/16 @ 05:28 AM — (Reply)
At comment 199, you suggest raising taxes on everyone - since you are, as you freely advertise, doing so well, you've got yours. The heck with the rest of us working class joes & janes, huh?
The GI Bill is a job benefit (which is a pittance compared to what civilian federal employees get as benefits for a safe 9-5). As for SS, well, social security is financed irresponsibility - whole generations now rely on it instead planning for their future. If you are poor as an aged person then you should qualify for welfare - you shouldn't collect a check just for having a birthday.
Listen to yourself - do you believe that being born means being entitled to maintenance for life? Do you really believe that the best way to live is by forking over all our money to the state and then letting them take care of us? That, my friend, is what we call communism. And it results in really long lines at grocery stores with really empty shelves. No one gets taken care of well when we give away our right and responsibility to be self-reliant.
You are purposefully confusing the argument by suggesting that conservatives would not care for their neighbors. We are more charitable, by far, than those liberals sipping mocha at Starbucks. But we give our money freely to organizations with a much better track record of helping the poor, the sick and the hungry than the ridiculous beauracracy driven beast of a government we now have.
Comment by Cate— 2006/03/16 @ 06:44 AM — (Reply)
I think I should keep that money, and spend it charitably on the cause/person that I SEE FIT. I should have the CHOICE.
I should look out for myself to take care of myself.
Have some pride in yourself!
Comment by Blasting left wingers— 2006/03/16 @ 06:11 AM — (Reply)
SO THE HELL WITH EVERYONE ELSE WHO IS DOWN AND OUT -- that's so very Christian of you
How selfish of you ... but, should you get in to some sort of trouble, you'll be the first to look for the handout.
Comment by Rose— 2006/03/16 @ 06:30 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/03/27 @ 11:22 AM — (Reply)
See, Rose, the way these Republicans handle things is they take out a gun and shoot anyone who doesn't agree with them, (see this rightwinger's link). They grab a gun fill it with bullets and shoot ... just like Chaney did. He proably shot his buddy because his buddy killed more quail than he did!!!
Comment by louise— 2006/03/16 @ 07:30 AM — (Reply)
The problem with the down and out is that once sugar daddy big government comes along with his free ride, there is NO incentive to take care of onesself. Why should you, when you are getting something for nothing?
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/03/16 @ 09:44 AM — (Reply)
give a man a fish feed him for a day;
teach a man to fish feed him for a lifetime; teach a man to teach to fish and feed a whole village....
Programs that empower are not programs that require nothing more than receiving aid. They are programs that require effort.
Comment by Cate— 2006/03/16 @ 10:10 AM — (Reply)
People like Bush, Chaney, Rumsfeld, et al have no personal experience with war and what’s at stake, they have no clue, nothing.
These people are the result of a privileged upbringing and are in no way capable of understanding the pain and suffering, their war has brought the families, the and the soldiers of the Iraq war. It’s so easy to send others to war, as long as they, or members of their families don’t have to go and fight this disgusting war.
Comment by — 2006/03/16 @ 02:36 PM — (Reply)
Let me know if any of these help.
Your friend, Barry
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/16 @ 04:56 PM — (Reply)
Barry, you look like an old guy, you know what the Bill of Right is, but the rest of the wet-nose generation that I assume is reading this forum, this if for them, the smartasses!
The GI Bill of Rights was signed into law President Franklin D. Roosevelt, a Democrat, at the end of WWII.
It made possible billions of dollars in education, training, housing, and small business investments for millions of veteran, which brought about huge change in our society, for folks like my parents.
This helped bring a change in that people who would have been poor, down and out, and uneducated, allowed them the education needed to help improve income opportunities, which in turn brought the poor into middle class. More Americans were able to own a home, improve their standard of living and raise their children, my generation, in a comfortable and happy environment, and allow them to achieve a higher education, which in turn gave us a better country.
But, oh, no, once again, you prove to be selfish, once again you probably see that as a handout. But, without this program, this country would not have made the strides it did in the early 50s and 60's.
But, your generation, just don't want to help anyone, shame on you, shame!!!!
was a dramatically changed society. The GI Bill was responsiblethe American middle class. Education, income opportunities, and home ownership combined to improve the standard of living for many Americans. More families were able to raise their children in comfortable environments and provide higher education for their children.
Comment by It's me!!!!— 2006/03/16 @ 05:10 PM — (Reply)
No one here knocked the GI Bill. In fact, I referred to it as a job benefit - that's hardly a handout. People earned that benefit. People who willingly put their lives on the line to free opressed Europeans from a tyrannical killer. People who fought for justice against the Japanese empire that struck Pearl Harbor.
And yet the people on the left in this country think this is what America is about.
Comment by Cate— 2006/03/16 @ 05:27 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/16 @ 05:51 PM — (Reply)
Yeah, yeah, yeah, you know it all.
Comment by — 2006/03/16 @ 06:07 PM — (Reply)
I just love yanking your chains!!!
Comment by — 2006/03/16 @ 06:08 PM — (Reply)
Okay, Cate I'll respond to one of your comments "babe" Are you gay?
Comment by Rose— 2006/03/16 @ 06:11 PM — (Reply)
Trust me, I'm not your type.
Comment by Cate— 2006/03/16 @ 06:47 PM — (Reply)
Well, I a newby here and just a brief comment, is anyone here aware of the fact that in violation of international law when he advocates preemptive war? The U.N. Charter, Geneva, Nuremberg. We violate international law when we advocate attacking a country that did not attack us.
Comment by Howard— 2006/03/16 @ 06:29 PM — (Reply)
Well, then stop calling me, "babe," Cate!!!
And I'm not interested in links you give me, you're not interested in anything I have to say ... you're in the right, and I'm not!! So be it!
Comment by rose— 2006/03/16 @ 07:25 PM — (Reply)
I repeat: Read the comments instead of listening to the voices in your head.
Comment by Cate— 2006/03/16 @ 08:21 PM — (Reply)
FYI -- I do support the troops, I want them to come home asap. I don't want to see anymore young people die; I saw enough of that during the Vietnam War, a war by the way where, unfortunately, people didn't support our fighting men, who were sent then through a draft, and not because they wanted to go there. Young men who were mostly poor, with little education, while the rich managed to keep their sons home, like your president.
I will always stand byhind the men and women who fight.
What I can't stand behind is a coward such as GW Bush, who other than probably shooting quail with his VP, never saw combat of any kind, none, nada, yet, he's comfortable sending young people to war into a country that never attacked us in the first place.
Oh, yeah, Clinton didn't go either, so don't hand me that one; however, Kerry did serve in the Vietnam war, and if anyone had a right to speak on war, and the reasons to go war or not got to war it's kerry. This man was a war hero. Bush is not a war hero, he's a war monger!!!
Comment by rose— 2006/03/16 @ 07:36 PM — (Reply)
Wow, you guys are really hot under the collar ... interesting.
Comment by Howard— 2006/03/16 @ 07:44 PM — (Reply)
Uh Rose...driving airplanes is inherently dangerous...care to discuss that one? Or that Bush met or exceeded the requirements every year he was in the guard? I can hand you the Clinton comparison if you are gonna hand me the Kerry one. I can speak from experience..20 year Navy retiree and Iraqi Freedom combat veteran. Are you just as angry that Clinton never had an exit strategy from Kosovo? Or that we are still there fighting and dying and getting wounded?
Comment by Elmers brother— 2006/03/16 @ 11:13 PM — (Reply)
Y'know, Cate, so far Rose has inquired as to both our sexual orientations, even though the post and our comments have nothing to do with sexual subject matter.
I think someones a little preocupied, ya' get?
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/03/17 @ 04:05 AM — (Reply)
And now Bush is wagging the dog with large attack in Iraq, three years since he started this sinful war, and after claiming 'MISSION IMPOSSIBLE" on a Navy ship!
What's that all about? Could it be that people in this country don't believe or trust him. His numbers are in the tank ... come on get with the program.
And as for you who was in the Navy, don't you think the fact that Kerry went to war that you could support him?
Comment by — 2006/03/17 @ 04:36 AM — (Reply)
Flying planes is dangerous, but flying planes in practice certainly is not as dangerous as flying planes in a war. It's not the same thing ... and you can't tell me he flew planes in the Vietnam war.
And tell me when we became a country to have a "first strike policy." This is not what our country is all about. So, thanks to this policy, any county that wants to can do the same to us. This opens up all kinds of problems.
Look, I backed the president after 911. You could say I was even proud of the moxy he showed. But, since then he's lead us in to a war without the proper planning or a exit policy.
So, now when his popularity has sank to the lowest levels of any president, what does he do, he goes back out and does another attack, come on, this man is looney tunes.
Comment by — 2006/03/17 @ 05:11 AM — (Reply)
I don't support people simply based on the fact that he was in the Navy, that's ludicrous. I respect his service to the country despite the fact that he is a war hero in North Vietnam and met with our enemies in Paris before the war was over.
I will reiterate for the less literate that Navy ships often put signs like "mission accomplished" after a long deployment, ...another e.g. a broom for a clean sweep..it's often done whether at war or not.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/03/17 @ 06:52 AM — (Reply)
Here is the caption that follows that photo.
Photograph of John Kerry meeting with Comrade Do Muoi, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam, in Vietnam. Photo displayed in the War Remnants Museum (formerly the “War Crimes Museum”) in Saigon. The June 2, 2003 edition of the “Viet Nam News” is held beside the Kerry photograph to confirm the date the photo was taken. English-language placard below the photograph reads: “Mr. Do Muoi, Secretary General of the Vietnam Communist Party met with Congressmen and Veterans Delegation in Vietnam (July 15-18, 1993).
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/03/17 @ 06:53 AM — (Reply)
Apparently concerned about influencing the U.S. presidential campaign, Vietnamese communist officials ordered a war museum in Ho Chi Minh City to remove a photograph of John Kerry from a display that was highlighted in "Unfit for Command," the best-seller challenging the senator's version of his military service and his antiwar activities.
Vietnam veteran Bob Paris at a Ho Chi Minh City war museum Friday with a photograph formerly on display. At right is a copy of "Unfit for Command." (Courtesy: Bob Paris)
"Unfit for Command" described the photo as "part of an exhibit honoring heroes who had helped the Vietnamese communists win the war against the United States."
An angered American veteran of the Vietnam War who learned of the photograph through the book, traveled last week to the former Saigon to see it for himself.
But Bob Paris, an ex-Army helicopter pilot who now lives in Hawaii, said he discovered Thursday that the museum manager removed the picture from the display about one month ago and stuffed it in a desk drawer.
Saturday, however, Paris returned to the museum to find the picture had been put back on the wall – this time in a display clearly designed to emphasize Kerry's diplomatic efforts as a senator rather than his more controversial antiwar activities.
"Unfit for Command" co-author Jerome Corsi believes the removal and recasting of the photo is indication Vietnamese officials don't want to embarrass Kerry.
"The communists don't want to do anything that would be detrimental to him being elected," Corsi told WND. "If he wants foreign leaders to support him, he can certainly count on Vietnam's communist regime."
As WND reported in June, the Vietnamese Communist War Remnants Museum – formerly known as the "War Crimes Museum" – displayed the picture in a hall that, according to a plaque, honored activists around the world for their "wholehearted support and strong encouragement to our people's patriotic resistance against the U.S. for national salvation."
The photograph shows Sen. Kerry meeting communist officials in 1993 as a member of a U.S. delegation.
The English placard below the photo read: "Mr. Do Muoi, Secretary General of the Vietnamese Communist Party met with Congressman and Veterans Delegation in Vietnam (July 15-18, 1993)."
In an e-mail obtained by WND, Paris said that when he arrived Thursday, he couldn't find the photo and began searching the grounds.
He found the manager and asked about it.
"This is when I witnessed [the manager] take the picture out of his desk drawer, and I was told that he had been directed to remove the picture a month earlier," Paris said.
The veteran said he was able to get permission to have himself photographed with the Kerry picture Friday afternoon.
Vietnam veteran Bill Lupetti took this photograph of a display at a Ho Chi Minh City museum honoring war protesters.
The first documentation of the picture was acquired by Vietnam veteran Bill Lupetti and publicized by Vietnam Vets for the Truth, a group that held a rally against Kerry's candidacy in Washington in September.
The group said the photograph's "unquestionable significance" lies in its placement in the American protesters' section of the museum.
"The Vietnamese communists clearly recognize John Kerry's contributions to their victory," group spokesman Jeff Epstein said in June.
Now, according to a report from Paris yesterday, "There was a new display of pictures and the hard communist war rhetoric that was present in the old display is now been changed. Kerry is no longer featured as a North Vietnamese war hero, but as a visiting American diplomat."
Corsi believes Vietnamese officials' attempt to modify the display reinforces a major point made in "Unfit for Command."
"The Vietnamese communists have always seen John Kerry as their go-to guy," he said.
Here he met with them in Paris as a matter of congressional record.
LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS RELATING TO THE WAR IN SOUTHEAST ASIA
THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 1971
UNITED STATES SENATE;
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:05 a.m., in Room 4221, New Senate Office Building, Senator J. W. Fulbright (Chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Fulbright, Symington, Pell, Aiken, Case, and Javits.
Thank you. [Applause]
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Kerry, it is quite evident from that demonstration that you are speaking not only for yourself but for all your associates, as you properly said in the beginning.
COMMENDATION OF WITNESS
You said you wished to communicate. I can't imagine anyone communicating more eloquently than you did. I think it is extremely helpful and beneficial to the committee and the country to have you make such a statement.
You said you had been awake all night. I can see that you spent that time very well indeed. [Laughter.]
Perhaps that was the better part, better that you should be awake than otherwise.
PROPOSALS BEFORE COMMITTEES
You have said that the question before this committee and the Congress is really how to end the war. The resolutions about which we have been hearing testimony during the past several days, the sponsors of which are some members of this committee, are seeking the most practical way that we can find and, I believe, to do it at the earliest opportunity that we can. That is the purpose of these hearings and that is why you were brought here.
You have been very eloquent about the reasons why we should proceed as quickly as possible. Are you familiar With some of the proposals before this committee?
Mr. KERRY. Yes, I am, Senator.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you support or do you have any particular views about any one of them you wish to give the committee?
Mr. KERRY. My feeling, Senator, is undoubtedly this Congress, and I don't mean to sound pessimistic, but I do not believe that this Congress will, in fact, end the war as we would like to, which is immediately and unilaterally and, therefore, if I were to speak I would say we would set a date and the date obviously would be the earliest possible date. But I would like to say, in answering that, that I do not believe it is necessary to stall any longer. I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government and of all eight of Madam Binh's points it has been stated time and time again, and was stated by Senator Vance Hartke when he returned from Paris, and it has been stated by many other officials of this Government, if the United States were to set a date for withdrawal the prisoners of war would be returned.
I think this negates very clearly the argument of the President that we have to maintain a presence in Vietnam, to use as a negotiating block for the return of those prisoners. The setting of a date will accomplish that.
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=Testimony
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/03/17 @ 07:02 AM — (Reply)
The election is over, Kerry lost, I have to accept that, enough already with lies, and more lies.
Comment by Rose— 2006/03/18 @ 06:45 PM — (Reply)
And another thing I might add: George Bush is no better than Richard “Dick” Nixon when Nixon was fighting the Vietnam War. Like Nixon, Bush seems to feel bolstered by the circumstances of 911 and the this present war to believe that he is above the law and can do whatever he wants, when he wants, no matter what the American people say or think.
He continues to act unilaterally, which is a very dangerous thing for a president to do. But, he’s so full of himself, he just can’t see it. He’s right, and even if people say he isn’t that he’s making serious mistakes, he does whatever he wants, and to hell with what anyone else has to say about it.
Comment by Rose— 2006/03/18 @ 06:47 PM — (Reply)
Why I hate Bush: Do I hate this president because he is a Republican, a Texan, and white male? No!
I hate George W. Bush and all of his people because they have done an incredible amount of damage to this nation I hold so dear. I hate them because they are professional liars, thieves, who live their lives without conscience. I hate them, fully and completely, and I am not ashamed to say it.
Comment by Mothers against Bush— 2006/03/18 @ 07:05 PM — (Reply)
We hate Bush for his policies!!!
I look at the State of the Union today, and I hardly recognize my country anymore!
The Republicans have done an incredible amount of damage to our government, to our country, and to the American populace as a whole.
Comment by SMillard— 2006/03/18 @ 07:18 PM — (Reply)
The Party of Unmitigated Hate, and right from your own mouths! Its sad, really, that you blindly hate everyone else on the other side of the isle, whereas I can point to democrats that I do like and agree with.
While I expect this kind of nonesense from the trolls on this post, I'm surprised at this kind of attitute coming from you, Millard, a minority who has had to face blind hatred and sterotype judgments every day.
What a great example of hypocracy. So much for truth to power!
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/03/19 @ 05:16 AM — (Reply)
Hey, we learned from the hatred that came out of the right wing Republicans, all those years Clinton was in office. Every right-wing radio show with folks like Bill O'Riley, or Rush, any of them, from the time we got into office all I ever heard was nasty, mean, false statements, and this long before the Monica ordeal.
When Clinton was in office, at least we had the respect of countries around the world. When I traveled abroad during those years, I was never ashamed to say I was an American. Now, however, we are hated all over the world. No president before this Bush were we hated so much. His father had more respect from people all over the world. I may not have agreed with Bush, Sr. but I had respect for this man, and I was behind him during the first Gulf War.
So, if we show so much hate it' s because we learned from the best YOU REPUBLICANS.
Comment by lmz— 2006/03/19 @ 08:27 AM — (Reply)
Then please explain the Cole, the first bombing of the WTC, the marine barracks that were bombed...all under the *ahem* respectable Bill Clinton.
We won't even get into the shame of him being a philanderer here.
It's sad really that you are so full of vitriolic, mindless hatred. If we are to take examples of it from the other side of the isle, we have on the left Al Franken, Celine Dion, Jane Fonda, Randi Rhodes, Bill Maher, Barbara Striesand, Micheal Moore, George Clooney, Janeane Garofalo, Martain Sheen, Alec Baldwin.... and the list goes on and on!
I, for one, am grateful to not be so easily influenced by celebrity personalities.
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/03/19 @ 07:26 PM — (Reply)
Senator Murther laid out another heavy dose of truth regarding Iraq yesterday on Meet The Press. Dick Cheney, on the other hand, did his best to distort it on Face The Nation.
Now the U.S. is accused of executing civilians including a 75-year-old women and a 6-month-old baby...and are willing to sign their names to the report.
Operation Swarmer...just another photo-op. Sick, sick, sick!!
Comment by Howard— 2006/03/20 @ 02:54 PM — (Reply)
the same fellow suggested to Clinton that we pull out of Somalia and all it did was embolden Bin Laden...no don't think I'll be going to him for advice
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/03/20 @ 04:09 PM — (Reply)
Thank you, Mr. Bush. I heard to that at this time aach man, woman and child now owes $30,000 on the average for the US National Debt. It is now $9 trillion. Most of it is owed to Communist China. Thanks, Bush, and the Republicans.
It won't only be my children and grandchildren paying off the debt, but great granchildren, too. How very say ... but, this is okay with all of you? I just don't get it.
Comment by Louise— 2006/03/20 @ 03:18 PM — (Reply)
Who exactly is it that is accusing us of executing babies and elderly people? WHO is willing to sign their name to that.
How can you possibly support our soldiers while accusing them of such nonsense?
Shame on you!
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/03/20 @ 03:20 PM — (Reply)
C-Mom you are a real stupid woman. Bush has been in office now for almost 5 years, and you really think he's doing a good job. Really????????????? Do you care about the future of this country, that what Bush has done will take years, and years to undo, that it will take 'till after your probably dead, and me, too???
Comment by Rose— 2006/03/20 @ 03:22 PM — (Reply)
DO YOU STAY UP ON THE LATEST NEWS, IF NOT READ THE FOLLOWING:
Knight Ridder: Iraqi Police Claim U.S. Soldiers Executed 11 Civilians Last Week
By E&P Staff
Published: March 20, 2006 10:05 AM ET
NEW YORK Matthew Schofield, a Knight Ridder reporter in Baghdad, has obtained an Iraqi police report which, he reveals today, accuses American troops of executing 11 people, including a 75-year-old woman and a 6-month-old infant, in the aftermath of a raid last Wednesday on a house about 60 miles north of Baghdad.
The villagers were killed after American troops herded them into a single room of the house, according to the police. Then the soldiers burned three vehicles, killed the villagers' animals and blew
Comment by howard— 2006/03/20 @ 03:28 PM — (Reply)
The facts are in dispute on this Knight Ridder report and undoubtedly a huge investigation will ensue. Either way, I know from personal experience that behavior like this and like what happened in Abu Ghraib is not institutionally sanctioned. - This ain't Denzel Washington in Man on Fire. It really just doesn't work that way.
I've been on the other end of the phone when my husband calls to explain that he has "night court" and is working late because they have to kick someone out of the military. To use incidents like this one (which, I can't imagine to be true - having shared my dinner table with hundreds of military men and women) as an example of administrative or institutional corruption is akin to blaming the entire police force for a few bad cops. And in the case of the military - there is such a gap between the "institution" or the civilian leadership and the boots on the ground in Baghdad, that to link any outrageous acts there to Washington requires a conspiracy theory that wouldn't even hold water on the X-Files.
What is completely unbelievable to me is that some Americans are so willing to believe the worst (and thanks to pvt. Lindy, her loser lover at Abu Ghraib and the other four pervs who lost us the PR war, doubters are somewhat justified) about people in uniform when in reality there are more murders in Detroit on any given day than in Iraq.
As to the actual events of the report - it fails the rationality test. These guys would all have to be willing to face UCMJ punishment, which civilian courts can't hold a candle to. Military justice, as we saw in the Abu Ghraib case - is swift and soldiers are held to a much higher standard of responsibility than in civilian trials. You won't find soldiers or sailors languishing in prison awaiting a trial date. Soldiers are trained in the UCMJ from the minute they enter service because they are accountable to it from the minute they take the oath.
The whole Rambo commando Hollywood genre, while containing some truth is highly exaggerated - it's fiction - the SF guys who do covert ops are still liable to the UCMJ and held accountable for murder. Not even an order from the President himself can suspend that - just like any law enacted by Congress - soldiers are bound to uphold it and are thrown in jail, booted from service, fined, punished, whatever when in violation.
Comment by Cate— 2006/03/20 @ 04:32 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/03/27 @ 11:00 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/03/27 @ 11:04 AM — (Reply)
Don't you support our troops?
Comment by Howard— 2006/03/20 @ 03:32 PM — (Reply)
I do stay up on current events, and probably do a better job of it than you do. However, I try to get my news from reputable sources. Knight Ridder's front page is nothing more than an advertisement for their stockholders.
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/03/20 @ 03:32 PM — (Reply)
To C-Mom -- You are right, madam, I have hate spilling out of me because of idiots like you who will belive and follow whatever Bush says ... how many people must die before you wake up to this miserable, useless war?
The report of the killing of innocent people was signed byThe report was signed by Col. Fadhil Muhammed Khalaf, who was described in the document as the assistant chief of the Joint Coordination Center.
Comment by howard— 2006/03/20 @ 03:39 PM — (Reply)
Do you know that fifty or sixty people are being killed every day ... and Bush just keeps believing his policy is right. This war is out of control. This is a very dangerous man sitting in the oval office. I hope the momentum for impeachment keeps growing.
No matter what happens, I believe that the Republicans will be voted out of office in droves, thanks to their president.
Comment by Howard— 2006/03/20 @ 03:47 PM — (Reply)
Bush's overall approval now stands at below 35%, the lowest rating of his presidency.
Bush's personal image has weakened and is reflected in people's one-word description of the president.
Honesty was … WAS the single trait most closely associated with Bush, but in a recent survey "incompetent" was the word used now to describe him and his administration.
Three years into this war, and what have we got to show for it, more dead Americans and civilians, women and children, and now a civil war. The sectarian violence is continuing. This war will bring the president down.
When are you going to admit this war is a wrong, it will never be a “right” war. Sadam had nothing to do with 911, there were no WMDs. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld want to go to war with Iraq, for their own greedy reasons, and innocent people continue to die.
Comment by lmz— 2006/03/20 @ 03:50 PM — (Reply)
President Bush has utterly failed in his responsibility as Commander-in-Chief. He sent our troops to war without the proper equipment, based on flawed, inaccurate intelligence and no plan for success. Too many lives are being lost and too little progress is being made because of this President’s failures as costs continue to escalate and Iraq becomes the international training ground of choice for terrorists. Our troops, our allies and the American people deserve better.
The President can’t make up for the mistakes that led us to war in Iraq. But he can stop ignoring the facts, ignoring the experts and ignoring the legitimate concerns of the American people.
He needs to answer the question that every American is struggling to answer: What is our plan to succeed in Iraq and at what point can our troops begin to return home? And he needs to do that sooner rather than later, because our troops aren’t getting what they deserve from this Administration.
Comment by rmn— 2006/03/20 @ 04:07 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/20 @ 04:45 PM — (Reply)
Who the hell is Milardo?????
Comment by rmn— 2006/03/20 @ 04:53 PM — (Reply)
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/03/20 @ 05:19 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/20 @ 05:37 PM — (Reply)
Defend this
This is what Bush said today! He should keep track of what he says, when he said it, and where he said it, because he sounds like a liar.
He said today, and I quote: "First, just if I might correct a misperception, I don't think we ever said -- at least I know I didn't say that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein."
FALSE: Three years ago this is what he said verbatim! Tell me I’m wrong.
"The use of armed forces against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." [President George W. Bush, Letter to Congress, 3/21/03]
Typical of Bush et al. Ignore the reality on the ground, cover up past failures and distortions, and attack the patriotism of anyone who demands accountability
Comment by Howard— 2006/03/20 @ 06:13 PM — (Reply)
It unfortunate that Bush can’t make up for the mistakes that led us to war in Iraq, and that so many lives have been lost. But, can admit he made this mistake and stop ignoring the facts, ignoring the experts and ignoring the legitimate concerns of the American people. If he did that, I might have some respect for the man.
Comment by — 2006/03/20 @ 06:24 PM — (Reply)
What's the matter no answer to Bush's lies? Can't answer my question about his contradicting himself?
Comment by Howard— 2006/03/20 @ 06:34 PM — (Reply)
Wait, wait. I know this one....
"I did not have sex with that woman."
Comment by Politicians Suck— 2006/03/20 @ 06:40 PM — (Reply)
Men and women are being killed on a daily basis in Iraq, and all you can think about is Clinton's sex-capades. F-YOU!! That shows where your head is at, and I assume you're a male, so your head is between your legs. Could you be jealous???
Comment by — 2006/03/20 @ 06:47 PM — (Reply)
by the media's standards of 50 killed a day in Iraq we are having a civil war here in the US also...average body count due to murder in the US........47
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/03/21 @ 05:33 PM — (Reply)
U.S. Rep. John P. Murtha has dedicated his life to serving his country both in the military and in the halls of Congress. He had a long and distinguished 37-year career in the U.S. Marine Corps, retiring from the Marine Corps Reserve as a colonel in 1990.
Yet, it doesn't seem to matter, you show no respect for a man who has spent his life serving his country.
Bush, on the other hand, may have flown planes at some time, but never in a combat situation. Once again, he send young people to fight, and he's never fought in any war at any time. Face the facts, he's a Bush, he got out of the war in Vietname.
Comment by Fed up American— 2006/03/20 @ 07:01 PM — (Reply)
What bothers me the most is how this American president has no respect for individual rights. Not like the last one.
Comment by Elian Gonzalez— 2006/03/20 @ 07:19 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/03/25 @ 08:19 PM — (Reply)
Who are you kidding?
Comment by Fed up ...— 2006/03/20 @ 07:47 PM — (Reply)
Guess, this so-called fake "Elian," thinks we don't remember the name. They can only bring up the past, but not look to the future of what Bush is bringing this country.
Notice how these folks haven't responded to the last couple of comments made against Bush. See, they have no good argument for what's he's been doing and saying ... his contradictions, etc.
There are so many right wing conservatives, who have up until now supported Bush, like William F. Buckly or George Will, even they don't understand what the hell Bush is doing, or saying.
This war is a bad war, and Bush can't get himself out of it, meanwhile people are dying every day while he tries to figure it out ... what a shame, and what a sin. I feel sorry for Bush when his time comes to meet his maker.
Comment by Rose— 2006/03/20 @ 07:56 PM — (Reply)
Anyone remember how Bill said American forces would only be in Bosnia for 5 years?
Tick tock. We're at year 11 now.
Comment by Slobodan— 2006/03/20 @ 08:18 PM — (Reply)
President Bush just continues to feed the American people, and the world a steady stream of propaganda. First he declares "Mission Accomplished", then his vice president describes the insurgency to be in its "last throes" while Iraq descends into civil war. What has he be smoking?
Comment by Louise— 2006/03/21 @ 08:21 AM — (Reply)
We have a theocracy because Bush went into Iraq and that's what the apocolyptic crazy Christian nuts want him to do
Comment by Rose— 2006/03/21 @ 08:31 AM — (Reply)
Apocolyptic crazy Chrisitian nuts? Why, that sounds like hate-speech! So much for the party of tolerance.
Oh, BTW, Howard, I have better things to do than wait next to my computer with baited breath for the next ignorant rant you will go on...I have better things to do, like watch 24!
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/03/21 @ 08:41 AM — (Reply)
the·oc·ra·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-kr-s)
n. pl. the·oc·ra·cies
A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.
Since when did any religion sanction George Bush - they are all just as divided as the secularists about his presidency.
Comment by Mr. Webster— 2006/03/21 @ 09:15 AM — (Reply)
This country is not to be ruled by a religion, not your, not mine.
Comment by Rose— 2006/03/21 @ 12:22 PM — (Reply)
Rose as a Canadian Citizen isn't there some worthy cause you can take up besides beating a bush? I mean come on the jig is up you reside in Canada not the United States. I know your really busy these days doing your charity check writing and all but your not even a member of bloghi and you don't have a voters card, girl not in America, anyway. Go back to blogspot and write yout tea columns.
Comment by Rose is Canadian— 2006/03/21 @ 12:36 PM — (Reply)
Rose is Canadian? Then why is she debating American Presidents on a Blog? She should create her own Blog-she's so talented and outspoken maybe others want to hear politics on America From a Canadian- NOT
Comment by E.T— 2006/03/21 @ 12:46 PM — (Reply)
HELLO OUT THERE!! I am not, nor have I ever been a citizen of the Canada. If I were, then I wouldn't give a rats ass about Bush. No, sir, I am 100% American and until Bush came in to office, I was a PROUD American ... HELLO!!!!!!!!!!!! Wake up folks. A Canadian may not like Bush, but would he care on iota about what is happening in THIS country? HELLO??
Comment by ROSE— 2006/03/21 @ 01:56 PM — (Reply)
Rose is Canadian? No worry guys, I'm on it...
Comment by Dana Scully - INS— 2006/03/21 @ 02:00 PM — (Reply)
Nope Rose-you are the founder of todayswoman.net based in Canada-the information was posted some time ago as you recall. You are a writer, mother and wife. I can't disclose any more details otherwise you'll figure this out. You and I talked and you told me about the site and how upset you were at the comments. YOU ARE A CANADIAN-GO AWAY
Comment by Jenna— 2006/03/21 @ 02:33 PM — (Reply)
Well, I don't know where you get my information, this is a real hoot. I can't believe it, guess I'll have to check out "this" site you're speaking about. In info is all wrong, I'm not who you seem to think I am, nor have I spoken to anyone that's been on this forum. I just came on here to tweak some of you, and I'm having an absolute ball, thank you very much.
Comment by Rose— 2006/03/21 @ 03:10 PM — (Reply)
And "we" are: Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Liberals, Conservatives, and Greens. We are Americans, and we hate Bush. Why? Read on:
1. Bush and his buddies sabotaged American democracy so they could pillage taxpayer resources.
2. Bush and his henchmen lied to the American people about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, and they continue to obscure the truth while their companies cash in, Iraqis suffer and American soldiers die.
3. Bush is bad for business and the economy. He is only interested in enriching himself and his friends.
4. Bush is bad for the future. He is compromising the prosperity of tomorrow's America by shortchanging today's children.
5. Bush is bad for the environment.
6. The Bush Administration has manipulated the media to the point of undermining the Constitutional guarantees of a Free Press.
7. Bush has tried to undermine the United Nations, a democratic institution created in large measure by Presidents Eisenhower and Truman. Without even understanding what the UN does, Bush has called it "irrelevant" when it fails to fall in line with his dictates.
8. Bush is inarticulate and projects a stereotype abroad of Americans being ignorant and myopic.
9. Bush torpedoes global agreements on everything from racism and global warming to biological weapons and land mines, and then expects the world to line up behind him.
10. Bush took positive patriotism and global support in the wake of 9/11 and forced it behind his own narrow self-interests in Iraq. He hijacked 9/11 for his own benefit.
11. Bush stands against everything America stands for.
Comment by Howard— 2006/03/21 @ 04:20 PM — (Reply)
I can't help it, I have to weigh in here: There's a lot of folks hot under the collar, but -- and you'll all hate this, but I stand with Howard and Rose when it comes to Bush, and I, by the way did, in fact, vote for Bush the first time, but not the second time. This president doesn't ever want to admit when he's made a mistake, he just marches on doing whatever he wishes, no matter what the public or the polls say about him. Here're are further thoughts on this issue.
Republicans are screwing with the American people when they threaten and scare us and when they accuse us of being unAmerican, not supporting the troops, not wanting to keep us safe.
But, they are the ones who let us get attacked by ignoring warnings. This isn't about any wacky conspiracy theory or wild speculation. On 9/11, the Bush people failed to keep American safe worse than anyone ever has in our history. They can argue all about that, but these are the facts, folks, read it and weep!
Cheney refused to meet with the Anti-Terror task force. Why? too busy meeting with Enron, perhaps?
Rice claimed it wasn't her job to worry about terrorists inside the US.
Rumsfeld opposed Congress' plans to move money from :Star Wars: to anti-terrorism.
Bush ignored a memo entitled "bin Laden Determined to Attack inside the US." He saw in August - in time to prevent the 9/11/01 attacks - but went jogging and played golf instead of calling an all-out effort to catch the al Qaeda terrorists.
Please understand, I am in no accusing Bush of planning 9/11 only that he foolish, lazy or worse to do anything to prevent it. He should have done something. He did nothing.
The what does he do, he attacks the wrong people afterward. Bush attacked Iraq, a country that did nothing to us - and he and nearly his entire administration lied to us before and afterward. They're still lying about it.
And just today he said something to the effect, this whole mess will go to the next president, [not verbatim]. How nice, so he already admits, this war will not be over while he’s in office.
Comment by DBZ— 2006/03/21 @ 04:36 PM — (Reply)
You are conveniently forgetting that these conditions all existed under the Clinton administration as well and that when given the opportunity to take Bin Laden into custody - HE REFUSED. Even knowing that OBL was behind previous al-quaida attacks on Americans.
Furthermore, Clinton left us with Bosnia and Kosovo. We are still in Korea and Germany. War isn't a mini-series that's pre-planned to end in 7 days. It is a dangerous conflict that has no start date or end date - only end conditions.
There is a serious short-sightedness that is afflicting so many in this country with respect to the war. And that is dangerous.
Comment by Cate— 2006/03/21 @ 04:55 PM — (Reply)
Hey, I listened to Bush today, and even he's lost optimism about the end of this war when he says troops will still be there after he leaves office. WOW! The other thing is that despite this comment during his speech and/or new conference, he was very upbeat. How can he be so upbeat when so many people are being killed every day.
Iraq is in a civil war and he's upbeat, what the devil is this man thinking?
Comment by Rose— 2006/03/21 @ 04:51 PM — (Reply)
Wow this despite all the progress in the Kurdish part of Iraq, the southern part of Iraq. Hey imagine if Lincoln had quit when there were 50 deaths a day. We might have two countries instead of one. By the media's standards there is a civil war here also. The US averages 47 murders a day.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/03/21 @ 05:53 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/21 @ 05:50 PM — (Reply)
we could get back to the abortion issue any time....
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/03/21 @ 05:55 PM — (Reply)
BTW, no has invited me to join the anti-shalana cult.
Comment by Cate— 2006/03/21 @ 05:58 PM — (Reply)
consider the invitation made and here's to C-mom and the 300th
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/03/21 @ 06:11 PM — (Reply)
oh and I guess I owe barry $20
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/03/21 @ 06:12 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/21 @ 06:15 PM — (Reply)
such a worthy cause...your benevolence has touched me Barry
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/03/21 @ 06:20 PM — (Reply)
47 murders a day! So what, that doesn't mean we have to go out of way through the government and bring about killing in another country. The fact that there are murders here, makes it okay to go over and kill people ... WHAT? What "f" stupid comment !!!
Comment by — 2006/03/22 @ 05:50 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/03/25 @ 08:18 PM — (Reply)
BELIEVE IT OR NOT!
Our Patriot Act at work … nuns could be terrorists! Oh my God!!!
The nuns of the Holy Name Monastery say they have been swept into the net cast by the nation's antiterrorism laws.
Their bank account was suddenly frozen, [because they suddenly had extra money in the account0 with no notice to these nuns, there accounts were frozen, and their checks to charities, etc. were bouncing like rubber balls.
So, apparently, someone must have thought that these nuns were members of a dangerous religious cult known as "Christians, and that they are led by a radical subversive named Jesus.
Well, I for one am so glad that our government is protecting us from these types of people. Even though the government has not provided any reasons for doing what they did, I am sure that they had good reasons and that is good enough for me. Thank you G. W. Bush
Comment by ROSE— 2006/03/22 @ 11:38 AM — (Reply)
How can one tell Bush and Chaney are liars, when they move their lips.
Comment by — 2006/03/22 @ 03:01 PM — (Reply)
Catee, Cate, Cate ... my dear, whatever Clinton did, or didn't do, is not the issue anymore. He's gone, okay. Like like him or not [of course you don't like him, that's fine] but he's gone. Okay? Get over him, already!!!!
Bush is president now and he's continued to lie to the American people. The war was going to be a "slam dunk, people will be welcoming us with opened arms, throwing flowers at us," but what are they doing their throwing bombs at our young soldiers. Killing our young soldiers every single day, EVERY SINGLE DAY, with no sign of it ending any time soon!
Bush has single handedly put this country in jeopardy, more so than any president before him. This war, according to, "shoot 'em" up Chaney and Bush said this war would be brief.
Now, we're beginning the fourth year. How many people have to die, how many?
We're not any safer now than before 911. And Bush said he'd go after those people who attacked us. When is it going to get through your stubborn head, that Iraq did not attack the WTC.
How can you believe such a lying SOB!
Comment by DBZ— 2006/03/22 @ 07:01 PM — (Reply)
I never said I believed that Iraq attacked the WTC - you apparently think people can't read the comments and don't realize when you're putting words in my mouth?
My point is and remains that it is hypocritical to get hysterical over Iraq. We've gone to war for lots, lots less.
C-Mom, Your turn to wrestle.
Comment by Cate— 2006/03/22 @ 07:55 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2006/03/22 @ 07:57 PM — (Reply)
Sincerely,your friend,
Barry
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/23 @ 02:55 AM — (Reply)
Liberals today are of the drive-through mentality, my way right away. Instant gratification is the sign of a spoiled, bratty and immature person.
As my father says, if you're going to rush through and half-@ss a job, better to not do it at all.
My suggestion to the liberal trolls on this site: Move out of your parent's basements (trope) and start living in the real world. Bad things happen, and adults do not stick their heads in the sand and refuse to accept reality.We deal with the situation as best as we can.
Comment by Brooke— 2006/03/23 @ 05:22 AM — (Reply)
No, we can't cut and run NOW! The problem is there's no strategy for getting out of there, and that's probably because Bush et al did not look beyond the attack, they didn't think about how to get out, or when ... they had no clue that we may be stuck in a quagmire.
Comment by — 2006/03/23 @ 06:02 AM — (Reply)
George Bush is just about the only person in Washington these days who doesn't know that the United States has lost the war in Iraq.
Comment by Rose— 2006/03/23 @ 06:08 AM — (Reply)
If you want to know everything sitting on the President's desk, perhaps you should consider running for the job.
There's just nothing worse than an armchair quarterback!
Comment by Brooke— 2006/03/23 @ 07:44 AM — (Reply)
#311 et al. You DO NOT have a need to know. I worked in a HQ for plans and I assure you there were, are and had been plans for contingencies before, during and after major combat in Iraq and elsewhere. Without revealing more than necessary, read: Every Man A Tiger, by General Horner. It describes what I just alluded to above. Sadam lost that war, signed a cease fire agreement, renegged on it which has led to our present circumstances.
Comment by Chief RZ— 2006/03/23 @ 08:18 AM — (Reply)
I thought the exit strategy was clear - remove Saddam, set up a democratic government, train Iraqis to run it, leave when they can function with a reasonable level of independence.
Comment by Cate— 2006/03/23 @ 08:54 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Brooke— 2006/03/23 @ 09:07 AM — (Reply)
Oh, you people just never learn. You're all so smart, aren't you. But, we still have a stupid man in office. You just can't get yourself to admit that.
HE HAS NO EXIT STRATEGY, THAT'S IT ... !! We will never know what this man has in mind, because he's so damn secretive.
Comment by — 2006/03/23 @ 01:12 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Brooke— 2006/03/23 @ 07:03 PM — (Reply)
Hey, when you've got the money, a monkey can get into any university .. hence Bush got into Harvard ... he himself admitted he was a lousy student, when he said to a graduating class, in so many words, "hey, look at me, I got to be president and I was only a C student, so follow in my footsteps.
Don't you think it would be nice to have someone who is president to have graduated at the top his class.
There are companies in this country that would never higher someone with his scholastic grades to work for them. Face it, daddy and mommy got Bush into Harvard, it was not because he was some braniac, because obviously that's one thing we know he is not!!!
Comment by Rose— 2006/03/23 @ 07:13 PM — (Reply)
Hey, when you've got the money, a monkey can get into any university .. hence Bush got into Harvard ... he himself admitted he was a lousy student, when he said to a graduating class, in so many words, "hey, look at me, I got to be president and I was only a C student, so follow in my footsteps." Would you ask your children to aspire to be ONLY a C student. I don't think so, but that's what he was telling these young people ... you don't have to work so hard to get to where I am. Good advice, very good advice.
It's also well known how he ran a couple of business in to the ground, what does that tell you.
There are companies in this country that would never higher someone with his scholastic grades to work for them. Face it, daddy and mommy got Bush into Harvard, it was not because he was some braniac, because obviously that's one thing we know he is not!!! If he worked for a private company, he would have been fired for all the mistakes he's made over the last five years ... FIRED!!
Comment by Rose— 2006/03/23 @ 07:17 PM — (Reply)
And I quote, verbatim right out of the mouth GW Bush,
"Some in this class are graduating with honors, and I congratulate all of you on an achievement that took a lot of discipline. Others may have spent a little less time in the library -- a little more time keeping the stools warm down at The Chimes. But you earned your degree, and you, too, can leave today with high hopes. I speak with some authority here -- I've seen how things can work out pretty well for a C student.
Ha, ha, isn't he funny ... telling kids, you don't have to work hard look where it got him. Yeah, now look where it got our country!
Comment by Rose— 2006/03/23 @ 07:29 PM — (Reply)
he had a higher GPA than Kerry and he got a masters
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/03/23 @ 09:19 PM — (Reply)
And Rose Dear, what University Did You Attend? Can you say University of Ottawa, Canada that is. For shame. If one reads the words on your comments you be a trying a litle too hard to sound American.
Comment by Angel Boy— 2006/03/23 @ 10:20 PM — (Reply)
Sincerely, your friend,
Barry
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/24 @ 02:52 AM — (Reply)
So, let me get this straight...when a democrat goes to a 'upper crust' school, he is respectable and intellegent, yet when a repubilcan attends, he just bought his way in? Just more of the wacko left double-standard.
So let's recap: So far you have invalidated a Harvard education with a masters and a better GPA than Kerry achieved(Thanks EB), and disrespected National Guardsmen/Airmen by saying that their service isn't real military time...
Its a good thing that you are so shameless, because you would have died of self-embarrassment by now.
Comment by Brooke— 2006/03/24 @ 04:14 AM — (Reply)
Republicans in the White House and Congress have a three-part political strategy on Iraq: ignore the reality on the ground, cover up past failures and distortions, and attack the patriotism of anyone who demands accountability. None of that will solve anything in Iraq, and none of it will make America safer.
Comment by DBZ— 2006/03/24 @ 03:18 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/03/24 @ 06:35 PM — (Reply)
The President can’t make up for the mistakes that led us to war in Iraq. But he can stop ignoring the facts, ignoring the experts and ignoring the legitimate concerns of the American people.
He needs to answer the question that every American is struggling to answer: What is our plan to succeed in Iraq and at what point can our troops begin to return home? And he needs to do that sooner rather than later, because our troops aren’t getting what they deserve from this Administration.
Comment by LIBERAL THINKER— 2006/03/24 @ 03:27 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/24 @ 04:33 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/24 @ 04:36 PM — (Reply)
After skimming the comments of our liberal friends the last week or so about Iraq, I am pretty clear that they do not care for the current situation. What I am not clear about is what any of our liberal friends has as a plan for what to do from here. I am curious what our liberal friends have in mind since they are not satisfied with the status quo. I pledge to carefully consider and thoughtfully comments about, if appropriate, all plans going forward with Iraq that I read written by our liberal friends.
Sincerely,your friend,
Barry
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/24 @ 04:39 PM — (Reply)
After skimming the comments of our liberal friends the last week or so about Iraq, I am pretty clear that they do not care for the current situation. What I am not clear about is what any of our liberal friends has as a plan for what to do from here. I am curious what our liberal friends have in mind since they are not satisfied with the status quo. I pledge to carefully consider and thoughtfully comments about, if appropriate, all plans going forward with Iraq that I read written by our liberal friends.
Sincerely,your friend,
Barry
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/24 @ 04:39 PM — (Reply)
Hey, if I had all the answers, I would be running for office; however, I don't, so I am not running.
You guys voted for this president because, you felt he had the answers. Well????
Comment by Rose— 2006/03/24 @ 05:32 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/03/24 @ 08:39 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/24 @ 06:59 PM — (Reply)
In monitoring Fox New Live from 12 noon to 1 p.m. we got a dose of Happy Iraq stories from Bill Hemmer who was reporting from Camp Fallujah. He spoke with Major General Richard Zilmer about all of the progress that's being made in Iraq and how great the morale of the troops was.
However, the segment was cut short by President Bush's speech in Cleveland at the City Club of Cleveland. His speech was filled with the wonderful story of the city of Tal Afar. But that wasn't telling. What was telling was how President Bush, during the question and answer session, either didn't choose to answer or didn't understand the question. I caught one of the questions at the end of my monitoring time. The question was surprising, the answer was shocking. The President completely didn't understand or chose not to answer the question and instead started to ramble about 9/11 and the war on terror.
The first question came from a woman in the audience and her question was: "Thank you for coming to Cleveland, Mr. President and the Cleveland Club. My question is that author and former Nixon administration official, Kevin (it sounded like 'Captain', thanks to reader Max for the correction) Phillips ,in his latest book, American Theocracy, discusses what has been called radical Christianity and it's growing involvement into government and politics. He makes the point that members of your administration have reached out to prophetic Christians who see the war in Iraq and the rise in terrorism as signs of the apocalypse. Do you believe this? That the war in Iraq and the rise in terrorism are signs of the apocalypse. And, if not, why not?"
President Bush: Um..uh...er...(laughter from audience and Bush)...um..uh... I....the answer is...I haven't really thought of it that way (heh, heh) (crowd laughs). Here's how I think of it. Um...first, I've heard of that by the way. I..uh.. the...uh..I, I guess...um...I'm more of a practical fellow. I vowed after September 11th that I would do everything I could to protect the American people. And...uh...my attitude, of course, was affected by the attacks.
I knew we were at a war. I knew that the enemy obviously had to be sophisticated and lethal to fly hijacked airplanes...uh...into facilities of people, innocent people doing nothing, just sitting there going to work. I also knew this about this war on terror that...uh..that uh....the farther we got away from September 11th the more likely that people would, you know, seek comfort and not think about this global war on terror as a global war on terror. And, that's good, by the way.
It's hard to take risks if you're a small business owner, for example, if you're worried that the next attack is going to come tomorrow. (heh) I understand that. (Comment: Excuse me, but what the hell is he talking about and why mention small business owners all of the time?)
But I also understand that my most important job, the most important job of any president today and I predict, down the road, is to protect America. And so..uh..I...uh..told the American people that we would..um...find the terrorists and bring them to justice. And we needed to defeat them overseas so we wouldn't have to face them here at home.
I also understood that the war on terror required some clear doctrine. And one of the doctrines that I laid out was that if you harbor a terrorist you're equally as guilty as the terrorist. (Comment: Unless you're Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, or.......) And...and..uh...and...so...uh..the first time that doctrine was really challenged was in Afghanistan. Now, I guess the Taliban didn't believe us, or me. And so we acted. 25 million people now are free. And Afghanistan is no longer a safe haven for the terrorists. (Comment: Taliban factions are still in Afghanistan and heroin production has gone up from 74 metric tons under the Taliban to now, under U.S. control, 3600 metric tons, an amount that is equal to 90 percent of the world's supply)
And the other doctrine that's really important and it's a change of attitude. It's going to require a change of attitude for a while in that when you see a threat you've got to deal with it before it hurts you. (heh-heh) (Comment: What's with the nervous laugh all of the time?)
Foreign policy used to be dictated by the fact that we had two oceans to protect us. Even if we saw a threat (we) could deal with it if we needed to, or not. But we would be safe. My most important job is to protect you. It's to protect the American people. Therefore when we see threats given the lesson of September 11th, we've got to deal with them. That does not mean militarily (pause) necessarily.
Obviously the first job of a president has got to be diplomacy. That's what you're watching in Iran right now. I see a threat in Iran. I'm kinda getting off subject here, not because I don't want to answer your question (Comment: Does he even know or understand the question?) but I guess that's what happens in Washington. We get a little long winded. (Comment: Or maybe you don't understand or want to answer the question?) (laughter from audience)
But, now that I'm on Iran (more laughter from audience, smiling smirk from the president). The threat to Iran, of course (heh from President, laughter from the audience). The threat of Iran, of course, their stated objective is to destroy our strong ally, Israel. That's a threat, a serious threat. It's a threat to world peace. It's a threat, in essence, to..to..a long alliance. I made it clear and I'll make it clear again that we will use military might to protect our ally, Israel.
And, um...(applause) at any rate, our objective is to solve this issue diplomatically and so our message must b a united message. A message not only from the United States, but from Great Britain and France and Germany as well as Russia, hopefully, and China.
In order to say to Iran loud and clearly that, this is unacceptable behavior. Your desire to have a nuclear weapon is unacceptable.
And so, to answer your question, (Comment: finally) I take a practical view of doing the job that you want me to do which is how do we defeat an enemy that still wants to hurt us. And how do we deal with threats before they fully materialize? What do we do to protect us (pause) from harm? That's my job. and that job came home on September the 11th for me. Loud and clear.
And I think about my job of protecting you everyday. Every single day of the presidency. I'm concerned about the safety of the American people.
Comments: The next question was in regard to WMD's, Iraqi and 9/11 ties and Iraq trying to find uranium in Niger as all found out as false and why should the American people trust the intelligence now. President Bush said, 'I don't think I ever said there was a direct link to 9/11 and Iraq." But, I'll let the News Hound who covers our 1 to 2 p.m. coverage tell you about that.
My point was this was a 'happy Iraqi' segment. But, I had to share the question that came at the end of my monitoring duties to show you how the president not only didn't answer the question but started rambling about 9/11 and protecting the American people. Maybe someone can explain how he could take a question like that and answer it in the manner that he did -- I'm at a loss. And if he said one more time about 'my job is protecting Americans' I think I was going to lose it. He just never answers the questions.
Comment by Donna— 2006/03/24 @ 07:05 PM — (Reply)
WOW, Donna, good job!!!! Kudos to you. Let's see them handle your comment
Comment by Rose— 2006/03/24 @ 07:21 PM — (Reply)
Part 2 of comment 306 contains a simple question for my liberal friends that so far none of them has even attempted to answer. Putting on your thinking caps, liberal friends and give it a shot. To repeat:
After skimming the comments of our liberal friends the last week or so about Iraq, I am pretty clear that they do not care for the current situation. What I am not clear about is what any of our liberal friends has as a plan for what to do from here. I am curious what our liberal friends have in mind since they are not satisfied with the status quo. I pledge to carefully consider and thoughtfully comments about, if appropriate, all plans going forward with Iraq that I read written by our liberal friends.
Sincerely,your friend,
Barry
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/24 @ 08:24 PM — (Reply)
They all say stupid stuff. Here's some from Al Gore and Bill Clinton.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/03/24 @ 08:37 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/24 @ 08:50 PM — (Reply)
Keep thinking I'm Canadian, what do care. Once again, if I were would I hate Bush this much?
Comment by rose— 2006/03/24 @ 09:06 PM — (Reply)
Are you a red neck, Elmer's Brother? You loook like one!
Comment by — 2006/03/24 @ 09:13 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/03/25 @ 08:12 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/24 @ 09:21 PM — (Reply)
Can you blame the President for not having a good answer to someone asking if he started the apocolypse? For Pete's sake... If that's the best you libs can come up with, it just shows how pathetic you really are.
#342...Or, by the writing style, should I say millardo, is that a racist epitaph you are making?
The bottom line is that these liberal trolls have no plan for our future other than: Republican=bad, Democrat=good.
Give us ONE suggestion on how to effectively deal with terrorism. Just ONE. I'm not even asking for a solution from you trolls. Just a method.
And, after 344 comments that have NOTHING to do with abortion, I'm still waiting...
Comment by Brooke— 2006/03/25 @ 05:50 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Brooke— 2006/03/25 @ 05:52 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2006/03/25 @ 06:27 AM — (Reply)
Okay, you need to talk about abortion. This is how I feel and think, but what does it matter, anyway. We will not agree on the issue of abortion, but you asked for it, so here it goes.
The coat hanger and the back alley abortions were moving arguments which originally convinced many to work for legalized abortion.
Prior to becoming legal, dangerous methods of do-it-yourself abortions were attempted using instruments, or also using herbal methods such as combining pennyroyal with black cohosh or blue cohosh.
If abortion was again forbidden we would see a return to these back alley abortions, resulting in thousands of women dying. How many women used to die from illegal abortions? Anyone who gives you a figure on the total number of illegal abortions can provide, at best, a MINIMUM number. By definition, illegal abortions are not recorded. They are matters of secrecy. The only way to estimate the number of illegal abortions is to first determine how many women died from abortions, and compare those numbers for times and locations where abortion was legal and compare it with when it was criminalized.
When abortion is legal, we do have good numbers for deaths resulting from abortion; when abortion is criminalized, many of the deaths are chalked up to other causes, so any numbers we do have are an absolute minimum. The actual numbers will necessarily be much higher.
So, bottom line we know the effects of prohibiting abortions. It is an industry because there is demand. Make that industry illegal and its practice will be carried out by the untrained in 'back alleys' and other unsanitary settings and lives will be unnecessarily ruined or wasted.
And one more thing, if abortion becomes illegal, the women who will die will be mostly low-come women, who have too many children, and can't afford to care for this new baby when it comes in to the world. So, she will go to some back-alley doctor, and have it performed, and not only with the "fetus" die, but quite possibly the mother.
While the low-income women will have to resort to "quacks" in order to get an abortion, the RICH women, upper-middle income women will be able to fly to some far away country, and get their abortion, anyway. Abortion will not stop because you make it illegal!!!
Making abortion illegal WILL NOT STOP abortions. But, the religious right want to stick their noses in other people's business.
I really wonder what would happen if George Bush's daughters became pregnant through rape, what they would do. Do you think he, they, would have the daughter keep the baby, would she want to keep the baby. What if it's incest, does the woman or young girl who was forced to have sex with a relative, should she keep the child?
Come on folks, grow up!
Comment by Donna— 2006/03/25 @ 11:46 AM — (Reply)
And if it is number you want, try this one on for size...
"Pro-choicers continue to use the old lie that illegal abortions killed 5,000 to 10,000 women every year.
Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of the National Abortion Rights Action League, said, "I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the ‘morality' of the revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics. The overriding concern was to get the laws eliminated, and anything within reason which had to be done was permissible."
Abortion guru Christopher Tietze called the 10,000 number "unmitigated nonsense."
Planned Parenthood's medical director, Mary Calderone, put the number at under 300 a year.
Granted, even one death is one too many. But you have to question the logic of people who would look at a criminal activity, observe that it kills women, and declare that the activity should be legalized"
Comment by Cate— 2006/03/25 @ 01:44 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/03/25 @ 08:16 PM — (Reply)
George Bush's daughter? Not likely since the secret service is with them 24-7. Poor example. Your coat hanger excuse is really outdated. Your arguments/views very week. The problem with your last comment Grow Up would directly point to you and your computer keyboard.
Comment by Jenna— 2006/03/25 @ 12:33 PM — (Reply)
You're all against abortion, but having the death penalty is okay. Isn't that a life, too, that you'd be taking. Doesn't sound very Christian to me.
As for Bush's daughters, I am well aware they are protected night and day. The fact is, if they WERE just normal everyday run-of-the-mill young women and they were raped by a sick evil person, and not of the social strata of the Bush family, what do you think they would do? Keep the child? I doubt it.
You people want to climb up in to MY vagina, live in my uterus, and take over and my body! Because, honey, legal or not, abortions will never go away, and the only way you can stop them is to take over my body!!!
Comment by Brenda— 2006/03/25 @ 07:24 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/03/26 @ 04:02 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/03/26 @ 04:03 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Susan— 2006/03/25 @ 07:40 PM — (Reply)
The question is not whether abortion is right or wrong, but, Who decides? The individual woman, or the government? If you're opposed to abortion, don't have one, but don't try to impose your morality on others. Abortion is a personal choice between a woman and her doctor.
Comment by Howard— 2006/03/25 @ 07:51 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/03/25 @ 08:41 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/03/25 @ 08:43 PM — (Reply)
Listen Honey the last thing I want to do is to get up in your uterus but I do want to prevent an innocetn unborn child from dying.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/03/25 @ 08:11 PM — (Reply)
No, I'm NOT a Christian, not all of us are. I am of a different faith, and I observe that faith diligently.
I have my own beliefs, just as you do, the difference is, I don't feel it's necessary to impose them on anyone else, as the Christian rights seems to want to do on everyone else.
Comment by Howard— 2006/03/25 @ 08:29 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/03/25 @ 08:41 PM — (Reply)
So how about laws that tell people what they can and can't do with their bodies for example:
if you have AIDS you can't give blood
can't rape a woman just cuz you feel like it
or
the law that tells a man he has to wait a month and have his WIFE approve before he can have a vasectomy?
is this what you are talking about?
Comment by Blasting left wingers— 2006/03/25 @ 10:22 PM — (Reply)
In this day and age, if a woman doesn't want a baby, she can easily prevent it.
Comment by Brooke— 2006/03/26 @ 05:35 AM — (Reply)
You guys are beginning to disappoint me. Where are the intellectual theories you "support' with fervor?
Part 2 of comment 306 contains a simple question for my liberal friends that so far none of them has even attempted to answer. Putting on your thinking caps, liberal friends and give it a shot. To repeat:
After skimming the comments of my liberal friends the last week or so about Iraq, I am pretty clear that they do not care for the current situation. What I am not clear about is what any of my liberal friends has as a plan for what to do from here. I am curious what my liberal friends have in mind since they are not satisfied with the status quo. I pledge to carefully consider and thoughtfully comments about, if appropriate, all plans going forward with Iraq that I read written by my liberal friends.
Sincerely,your friend,
Barry
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/26 @ 07:25 AM — (Reply)
Comment by — 2006/03/26 @ 08:44 AM — (Reply)
Your friend, Barry
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/26 @ 08:57 AM — (Reply)
Barry, logic and reason are not in their vocabulary. Just vitriol and cussing...by now you should be used to it. Now if you ask them how they FEEL about it you might get an answer.
Your compadre,
Elmers Brother
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/03/26 @ 10:10 AM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/26 @ 10:34 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Brooke— 2006/03/27 @ 05:21 AM — (Reply)
Actually, I have better things to do. But, I take offense that you think anyone who is not a conservative has no values. That's really a crock, and now I'll say it out right "it's a crock of shit!!?" So, you'll be pleased to hear, I am quite sure, that I no longer will post on your forum. I really don't care what you all think, any longer, I've really had enough.
FYI I happen to have very many friends who are conservative. I live in a state with a large military population, and tends to be conservative and we get along fine. We agree to disagree. And though they do not agree with me, never have they said or gave me the impression they thought I had no values. Why do YOU people think you have a lock on values. Why do you think that if one is not a Christian, they have no values? Why do you think if someone doesn't practice the Christian faith, they have no values?
I am a proud American, I live a good decent, and honest life. I care about my fellow man
I fly my flag every single day of the year, without fail, and have done so since the first Gulf War. I tear up when I hear our Anthem. I am proud to live in this country, and I have every right, as a person who's voted since the late 60s in every election. Oh, and believe it or not, I have voted Republican on a occasion ... Iwill vote for the person who I believe will do the best job. Unfortunately, in most cases, I don't believe the Republicans have the average guy in mind when they make decisions.
So, you all can continue to preach your drivel. I really don't care anymore. But, as I've done in the past, I will work harder in the coming mid-term elections to get rid of the Republicans presently in office, as well as some Democrats I feel aren't working for us. I will work in '08, to make sure we don't have another disaster like Bush. But, then again, no one can be as bad as Bush. He's the worst president in the history of this country, and the dumbest. I just hope this country and the world can survive until he's out of office.
I will pray for that -- yep, believe it or not, I pray!!!
GOOD-BYE!!
Comment by Rose— 2006/03/27 @ 07:05 AM — (Reply)
Check wikipedia Carter is almost dead last as far as president's go. # 39 i think.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/03/27 @ 10:34 AM — (Reply)
c-mom didn't mention christian values rose she said conservative values
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/03/27 @ 10:35 AM — (Reply)
Immediately thereafter, you draw a line in the sand regarding the president and terming everything as "his" and "your" - if you want to be civil then why not respect that fact that in this republican democracy, we can disagree, we can have disgust for policies, we can not be supportive of actions or legislation but when it comes down to it we are all Americans and any president like it or not is "ours" - ALL of ours. If things need changing you work to change them - you don't call names.
Furthermore, you handle hostility by calling people gay and accuse them of calling you "babe" when you don't even bother to read their coments.
That is why you are pegged as being without values - because one highly prized value when people are voicing their opinions is RESPECT. It's a value we all need more of and a value that largely left this post at comment 3. Others, like yourself, who entered later, didn't even bother to enter the discussion with any.
Other values sadly lacking in our public discourse:
the MATURITY to accept dissent
the INTELLIGENCE to attack issues and not attack people
the COURAGE to say without guile, "I just plain disagree." and the NOBILITY to grant others the same option
So go, Rose, go and work for the next elections - if you are truly the embodiment of the values that you say you have, we will all be better for your efforts.
Comment by Cate— 2006/03/27 @ 10:40 AM — (Reply)
You guys are beginning to disappoint me. Where are the intellectual theories you "support' with fervor? Yet another day has gone by without an Iraq plan being advanced by my liberal friends.
To repeat:
After skimming the comments of my liberal friends the last several weeks criticizing President Bush about Iraq, I am pretty clear that my liberal friends do not care for the current situation. What I am not clear about is what any of my liberal friends has as a plan for what to do from here. I am curious what my liberal friends have in mind since they are not satisfied with the status quo. I pledge to carefully consider and thoughtfully comments about, if appropriate, all plans going forward with Iraq that I read written by my liberal friends.
Sincerely,your friend,
Barry
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/27 @ 05:16 PM — (Reply)
Sorry, Barry, but frankly, I'll have to agree with Rose, enough is enough. I'm tired, and family commitments preclude me the luxury of sparring with you on the above-mentioned matters. I feel the same about our differences and we'll never come to any semblance of agreement on these matters.
I wish I could express myself better than I have, but I spoke with a real passion on this forum of how and what I believe ... so much so, when I read the posts answering mine, I get so angry I want to throw something, because I’ll never understand any of you.
Thanks to this administration we look like bullies, we look like ... "do it our way, or no way." We say we don't believe in regime change, but that's exactly what we are doing in Iraq, no other reason, THERE WERE NO WMDs.
The worst thing of all is. unlike all the other administrations before him, Bush believes in preemption. We'll attack before they attack. Well, what's to stop them from doing the same thing to us … I’m sure there are countries worried that we will attack at any moment. Might they not decide to attack, first … “preemption?”
As for the abortion issue, I am pro-choice, that’s it!!! It’s a personal decision, you have not right to decide for me, or anyone else.
So, like rose, enough, already, I really don't care what you all think of me, one way or the other. And I don’t care much about you, either.
I know what I feel and believe and I will fight to the death my right as a citizen to do so, despite the fact that this administration seems to want to take away my right to say it, especially if I say anything against them.
So, I too will leave this forum, I will continue to work, as Rose will, to get this country back to where it was before YOUR president totally destroys it. And I promise you with every fiber of my being that one day you will come to see how right I am. One day you will wake up and realize this country is worse off today than before Bush came in to office.
Comment by — 2006/03/27 @ 05:55 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/03/27 @ 08:27 PM — (Reply)
Sounds like someone could use a little anger managment therapy.
Gee, I guess I'll be bereft and lonely now that Rose and her buddies are gone...Adieu.
To everyone else:You've been fantastic!Thank You!
Comment by Brooke— 2006/03/28 @ 05:22 AM — (Reply)
Boo
Comment by — 2006/03/28 @ 12:14 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/28 @ 04:13 PM — (Reply)
The difference between conservatives and liberals as I see it.
Conservatives choose beliefs based on what someone else has told them and stick to those beliefs, even if they are proven to be 100% wrong. Liberals study various sources of information, come up with their beliefs based on the best available evidence and revise those beliefs when new evidence warrants such a change.
Conservatives know that what they believe is right. Liberals know that evidence and facts have no ideology or political party and that the evidence has to be examined, not the ideology.
Conservatives base their facts on their own opinions. Liberals base their opinions on objective, verifiable facts.
Conservatives are pessimistic about the future and about human nature. Liberals know that the present is better than the past and the future will be better than the present. Liberals know that human beings are basically good at heart and with some help, almost anyone can become a productive member of society.
Conservatives claim to oppose big government. Liberals know that conservatives really want small federal government and big local government, where they can exert more control. Liberals know that the federal government was at its smallest size in the last 50 years during the Clinton and Kennedy administrations and that the current Republican leadership loves big government.
Conservatives champion states rights at the expense of the federal government. Liberals know this divides the country, increases opportunities for fraud and government waste and allow states and communities to deny the rights of American citizens who do not fit in with the majority.
Conservatives believe that money is free speech. Liberals know that money allows the rich elites to silence the free speech and eliminate other freedoms of the masses.
Conservatives feel that it is okay to censor ideas or art they disagree with or find offensive and voices that disagree with them. Liberals know that censorship is the biggest threat to democracy.
Conservatives believe that there is a liberal media bias. Liberals know that the evidence strongly shows no such bias. Liberals know that the media is owned by corporations and that the media is pro-business and pro-establishment (meaning pro-conservative).
Conservatives are likely to see conspiracies in government, foreign countries, the media and parties that disagree with them. Liberals know that real conspiracies rarely work because people are usually not competent enough to pull them off and people have little resistance to money, so that any conspiracy can be sold out by just one member.
AMERICAN VALUES
Comment by Donna— 2006/03/29 @ 05:38 PM — (Reply)
A conservative would type exactly what you typed merely reversely where the terms liberal and conservative are used.
Right now as the party out of power seeking to be in power the reality is that what you typed presently applies to liberal, has applied to conservatives in the past and will apply to both at different times in the future.
Both liberals and conservatives are Americans and the next two elections will sort things out.
I like a lot of things about my liberal friends and often their ideas are very good. Not all of them. Same thing for my conservative friends.
Your friend,
Barry
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/29 @ 05:54 PM — (Reply)
Thank you
Comment by Donna— 2006/03/29 @ 06:04 PM — (Reply)
To be a Liberal is to defend the freedom - the Liberty - of all people who make up our great nation. To be a Liberal is to trust individuals and families TO RUN THEIR OWN LIVES: as they see fit. To be a Liberal is to create a nation where anyone can excel if they are willing to do the work.
Comment by Howard S— 2006/03/30 @ 06:46 PM — (Reply)
Trusting people to run their own lives??? Like forcing AIDS education on 5 year olds and withholding choice through vouchers. Maybe you're referring to forcing morally opposed people to subsidize abortions and demanding that Wal-Mart, a private business, carry emergency contraception. Could you be talking about trusting child molesters not to repeat offend by fighting Jessica's law?
I don't know what it's like down there in the fantasy land you're living in but here in America, being a liberal is all about demanding that people live according to Nancy Pelosi's convictions rather than their own. It's about having your right to protect your children undermined to protect the fair treatment of pedophiles (thank you ACLU) and it's about being trusted enough to take care of yourself that with days of warning, you still expect the POTUS to pull up in front of your house and drive you out of town before a hurricane hits.
I know you're having fun trying to rile the conservatives bloggers up - but geez, even Goebbels wouldn't try a lie that big.
Comment by R U pathological, dude?— 2006/03/30 @ 09:08 PM — (Reply)
You sound more like a conservative Howard, I thought liberals wanted the government to run our lives by raising taxes and providing programs because we can't take care of ourselves. Welcome to the fold.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/03/30 @ 06:56 PM — (Reply)
Realizing that Reagan was shot 25 years ago got me thinking ...
In looking back over my lifetime of watching presidents, I thought Reagan was one of the worst presidents in history. But Bush 43 lapped him so long ago, the race is over and the judges have gone home.
President Reagan at the very least DID in fact unite the country, for the most part. He did actually find a strategy that advanced the US's foreign position. What has Bush done to advance our position around the world???? And by and large, Reagan governed in the way that he said he was going to when he was elected. None of these can be said for Bush.
Reagan as you might guess was not my favorite president, but I could respect the man. He never had that "cowpoke" attitude that Bush 43 seems to have, you know "the swagger?" Respect for Reagan, yes, Bush, no!
Comment by — 2006/03/30 @ 07:02 PM — (Reply)
You should read this. GWB doesn't come close to being last and he beats Jimmy Carter out by about 20 presidents.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/03/30 @ 07:33 PM — (Reply)
I agree Carter was not a good president, by a long shot. I believe he was really not comfortable as president. But, as a former president, he never sat on his laurels. To this day he's out there working and helping people. Lousy president, yeah, good former president, absolutely.
This is a man who's earn respect all over the country. But, Bush, I suspect when he's out of office for a number of years, he will probably be rated even lower than Bush ...
Comment by dbz— 2006/03/31 @ 05:43 AM — (Reply)
I wouldn't call Carter's support of Hamas endearing, but I do like his work with Habitat for Humanity.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/03/31 @ 05:55 AM — (Reply)
Bush should read what President Theodore Roosevelt said in a letter to the American Defense Society all the way back in 1919.
"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...
There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
--Theodore Roosevelt, 1919
Comment by Howard S.— 2006/03/31 @ 06:48 PM — (Reply)
I'd like to hear [read] what all you conservatives think of Bush's proposal of amnesty for illegal immigrants.
I truly believe that he wants to to further a horrid system where indebted, low-paid Mexican citizens come here to work their asses off for our corporations, the rich, for less than a living wage to better aid them in reaching a highly profitable bottom line that helps further drive the nail into the coffin of our middle class here; nothing more, nothing less. Good thinking, Mr. Bush. What say the rest of you on this forum.
Comment by DBZ— 2006/03/31 @ 06:59 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/03/31 @ 08:02 PM — (Reply)
The problem with the lion's share of illegal immigrants is that they DON'T assimilate. They won't learn the language, pay taxes, and the Mexican flag waving in California proves it.
This is a big strike for President Bush. He's only going to alienate (no pun intended) his loyal base.
Personally, I don't care how much money one makes; there is always opportunity in this country to get a better job. But saying that we need these folks to do the work that Americans won't do? Let Americans who think they're too good to do a job starve! Anyone who thinks that a certain kind of work is beneath them deserves it! And saying we need a class of people to perform labor that American's won't do smacks of saying that we need a slave class, or at the very least, a caste of menial people who serve the needs of pompous people who are too good to take care of their own basic needs...
No matter which way you try to slice it, it just doesn't sound good, and I don't like it.
Besides, are we missing the fact that these folks are ILLEGAL! Why would we want a bunch of lawbreakers here in the first place? It costs upwards of 65 billion a year to take care of these folks through social programs, medical care and warehousing them in prisons. In California, over 60% of inmates are estimated to be illegal.
Don't you think that for 65 Billion dollars, the cost of illegals to this country for just one year, we could afford to protect our boarder? Mexico has military force on their southern boarder, because they don't want the even poorer Central Americans coming up. Yet they threaten us for wanting the same?
To quote Earl Pitts, Wake up, America!
Comment by Brooke— 2006/04/01 @ 05:59 AM — (Reply)
If you want to know my take go here
I do think Bush is wrong on this issue but so are a lot of our politicians on both side of the issue, all of them are just pandering.
and there is always what Margaret Thatcher said:
"Consensus is the lack of leadership"
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/04/01 @ 01:36 PM — (Reply)
Oh, my God, I have to agree with Brook on this illegal immigrant situation.
As a first-generation American, whose husband was not born in this country, I have no problem with anyone at all comeing in to this country, I welcome everyone with opened arms ... PROVIDED they come in legally, and are willing to learn the language of this country, assimilate, and if they fly any flag, it should be The American Flag ... (they can fly the flag of their country, but below the flag of this nation!)
My folks came over here in the late 30's, my husband came over here with his family in the late 40s, and in both instances, when they had children they were taught to learn the English language, while still being able to speak the native language at home.
My parents insisted on assimilating, they loved being in this country, and were proud to become American citizens and worked for the American dream, as did my husband's family.
My father fought in WW II, and was proud of it. He believed he owed that to this country, to keep us a free nation. My father thought this was the greatest country in the world.
Lady Liberty welcomes everyone into this country, but if people want to come here, then they should become Americans, legally, and learn our language to live here.
I have huge resentment towards people who come here, illegally, want to make a living, live the American dream, but don't go through the normal channels to come here legally, while other people in other countries are sitting back waiting to get in to the U.S.A. the right way.
If my parents, my husband's parents, and my husband could come here, legally, learn to speak English, so should every other person (Mexicans or whomever) who wishes to live in our great country.
Though I may disagree with the majority of the people on this forum on a lot of subjects, we are all, under our skin, proud to be Americans. And for the record, I do not hate people who are Replicans, I just disagree big time!!
So, come one, come all, but come LEGALLY!!! I don't like Bush's plan at all. What is he thinking, anyway??
Comment by — 2006/04/01 @ 06:01 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Blasting left wingers— 2006/04/02 @ 11:45 AM — (Reply)
Re the Valery Plame situation, a quote from Bush: "There's leaks at the executive branch, there's leaks in the legislative branch. There's just too many leaks. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is."
Well, well, after learning what Skooter Libby had to say today, Bush had better look to himself as the leak..ee! Shameful, absolutely shameful. Lies, lies, and more lies keep coming out of this administration.
Sooner or later, all these lies from Bush and his administration are going to come back and bit him in his Presidential ass!!!!!
Comment by RWM— 2006/04/06 @ 02:44 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/04/06 @ 06:17 PM — (Reply)
So ... what IS the topic? And why stick to one topic.
Oh, by the way I am not, nor have I ever been a liberal. I can swing both ways depending on the better man, or woman, running for office.
Just like a conservative, you want to curtail any free speech that derides any negativity regarding Bush.
Come on, folks, get with the program. Bush is a liar!
Comment by RWM— 2006/04/06 @ 06:54 PM — (Reply)
is that why millardo keeps deleting my comments? the topic WAS abortion
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/04/06 @ 10:48 PM — (Reply)
Politics and crime what's the difference - Don Corleone Godfather III
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/04/06 @ 10:49 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/04/06 @ 07:08 PM — (Reply)
I agree with you, most presidents have probably lied during their time in office. In fact, most people lie about something, at some point their lives.
The reason I point out that Bush is a liar, is the fact that when he was he was running for office the first time we heard, in so many words, from him that this was going to be a different administration. That he would bring respect back to the WH. Well? A lie by a president, who proposes to be a born-again Christian, a man with "morals" is not living up to his promises. So, he not only lies but breaks his promises. Do you understand what I'm saying.
All politicans lie, unfortunately, no doubt about it, and you don't know who to believe anymore, but pretending to be holier than thou, is disingenuous to say the least.
Comment by RWM— 2006/04/06 @ 07:29 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/04/06 @ 07:31 PM — (Reply)
One more comment.
The Skooter Libby situation only suggests to me that this administration was looking to release this classified information by Bush and the vice president in their attempt to make their case case for the invasion of Iraq. Unbelieveable!!
Comment by RWM— 2006/04/06 @ 07:34 PM — (Reply)
Your friend,
Barry
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/04/06 @ 07:46 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2006/04/06 @ 11:40 PM — (Reply)
'anyone but Bush'?
Comment by Brooke— 2006/04/07 @ 12:23 PM — (Reply)
Yep, you got it anybody BUT Bush. And 63 percent of the public disapprove of Bush ... oops, and now look, he's been caught with his pants down. As the weeks and months go by, you will learn and hear how this man has mislead the American public. Get reardy, it's coming.
And after learning he's been pulling the wool over YOUR eyes, I want to know what you have to say about him, then.
Comment by RWM— 2006/04/07 @ 04:23 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/04/07 @ 04:29 PM — (Reply)
And who is running congress???????
Comment by — 2006/04/07 @ 04:31 PM — (Reply)
i don't care who is running congress. all of them regardless of party are pandering for votes and ignoring those who put them in office. honestly I never put much faith in any of them and I know that politics will not solve our problems, regardless of party. The Republicans aren't listening and the Dems have no ideas.
Comment by elmer's brother— 2006/04/10 @ 06:36 AM — (Reply)
By the way aren't you ELMER's brother?
Comment by — 2006/04/07 @ 04:32 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/04/07 @ 04:33 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/04/07 @ 05:22 PM — (Reply)
Barry, EB, Cate and Susan can choose whatever cabinet positions they would like.
How's that suit 'ya?
Comment by Brooke— 2006/04/07 @ 05:26 PM — (Reply)
I'll take DOD. You can expect cruise missile strikes every 28 days wherever the heck I please. Look out Iran. You, too, France - I hate yer stinky cheese and crusty bread. And Mr. North Korea had better keep his filthy paws off the little Japanese girls or I'm gonna start juggling nuclear warheads.
Barry, EB, Susan, Ya'll all clear on foreign policy?
Comment by Cate— 2006/04/07 @ 05:39 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/04/07 @ 06:06 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Susan— 2006/04/07 @ 08:37 PM — (Reply)
You got it, folks, anyone but Bush ... I'd vote for Mickey Mouse. Anyone has got to be better
Comment by Howard— 2006/04/08 @ 06:45 PM — (Reply)
Hey, it's me, "Millardo" Where do you do come in on this poll? Maybe there ARE some Republicans out there who are getting smart?
Six in 10 Republicans said they disapproved of the GOP-led Congress.
Comment by — 2006/04/08 @ 08:08 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/04/08 @ 08:18 PM — (Reply)
I want the job of booting Bush out of office, via impeachment.
Comment by millardo— 2006/04/09 @ 12:29 PM — (Reply)
I'd like be the Sec. of the Navy!
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/04/09 @ 01:07 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/04/09 @ 01:59 PM — (Reply)
Hey, I'm curious. Whereas, I am now using the name, "Millardo," it really isn't my name, I use it because you insist that's my name.
Why on earth do you think my name is "Millardo?" I'm funn'n with you by using it, but you really think you know who I am?
Comment by Millardo— 2006/04/10 @ 05:39 AM — (Reply)
you seem to have us down regardless of whether we say certain things or not, stereotyping and marginalizing is your forte and Millardo is simply, as I have said before a euphemism for any liberal, progressive lefty.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/04/10 @ 06:33 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Brooke— 2006/04/10 @ 10:32 AM — (Reply)
So, are all you folks anxiously waiting for us to nuke Iran? And if we do, what do you expect to happen? Oh, and I know Bush is denying this is even on his agenda, but I seem to remember him saying that when he denied we were not planning attack Iraq, and ... do you think our military can handle TWO wars? Oh, wait, there won't be TWO wars, it will just turn in to one great big Middle Eastern war between us and them.
And do you realize that we would go this all one alone? No UK, no smaller countries will stand with us in another attack of another country; no other country is going to be sucker punched in going along with this possible attack by Bush and his henchmen.
Do you not see that this man is probably the most dangerous man in the world right now.
I was thinking that back during the Cuban Missile
Crisis, which I lived through, and was scared to death at the time, that had Bush been president, we would have had WW III, and we and Bush would not be here to start another war that would include nuclear weapons.
Maybe one of those countries ought to attack us, first, before we attack them ... that's what I would do, if I were them.
And now I understand there are some commanders in the military that would leave if Bush decides to go this route.
Your president is crazy dangerous ... but, that's okay stick by him ... he is single-handly making American the most hated country in the world. Go ahead stick by him ... your all f'n idiots.
Comment by — 2006/04/10 @ 02:12 PM — (Reply)
Europe actually does seem willing to help us. Have you heard anything Ahmanedijad has said? If you spent half your time educating yourself on our enemy you would undoubtedly be more upset with him then with Bush. I don't agree with a lot of what Bush does, but the radical Muslims want to destroy you. How does a nice burka sound to you? Perhaps you would like ot be wife #3 or 4? Which is it? I for one do not believe it will come to nuclear weapons. Although a conventional war seems unlikely it is more plausible. No doubt some left wing liberal will convince us all that it's a criminal matter. That worked didn't it? Perhaps you should educate yourself on our enemy. The 30+ countries that were with us in Iraq (3 of which I served with) appreciate your insults and the people of Iraq appreciate your liberal compassion.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/04/10 @ 02:21 PM — (Reply)
No, I don't agree with you .. your man in the WH is God damn cowboys and he and he alone will bring us to WW III all by himself.
!!!!
You have no idea what it was like to live with the threats during the cold war, maybe if you had, you might use some common sense in your stupid comments.
Thank you for service to your country, I will always stand behind men and women in the military, but I will not ever, ever, ever, ever believe that Bush knows what the hell he's doing. Again, he's a F'n idiot! Talk about evil
Comment by — 2006/04/10 @ 02:38 PM — (Reply)
I do remember and I served during the Cold War as well as in Iraq. Imagine if we had left Germany and Japan after WWII?
Your attacks on Bush are understandable given that you are liberal, but he's not the anti-christ that you think he is. The same things were said about Reagan, Lincoln, FDR and Truman. What I think you are really upset about is a bunch of hanging chads.
Tell me what do you know of radical Islam? Do you know what a dhimmi is? Do you know what the jizya tax is? Do you know what a caliphate is? Believe me the threat we face today is a lot like the cold war. The radical Muslims wish to set up a worldwide theocracy and unless you wake up you will end up someone's third wife. This will last longer than GWB's tenure and if you want a yellow bellied liberal to protect us you just have to convince at least 51% of those voters that you're right.
Comment by — 2006/04/10 @ 02:49 PM — (Reply)
last comment by elmer's brother
Comment by elmer's brother— 2006/04/10 @ 02:50 PM — (Reply)
I might agree with you to some extent, and if it was anyone else than this idiot I'd sure as hell feel a lot better, or at least different. I don't care if it was another Republican president. Because, over the years, I've lived through both Democratic and Republican president. No, I didn't like having a Republican as president, but every one of them, at least I could feel that they knew what they were doing. I at least could believe they had some brains in their heads. But Bush? Oh, my God ... he scares the living hell out of me.
Remember Goldwater, he scared a lot of us in those days when he was running for president, but I never believed he would really start WW III!
We have, and again, I'll say it, a total idiot in the WH. You can give me all kinds of examples and comments, experience, but you'll never convince me he knows what he's doing ... he is stupid, STUIPD!!! I don't care about chads, that's over. 9/11 I stood behind Bush. I gave him the benifit of the doubt, then! No more.
He is so stupid, he's an embarssment. HE MAKING A MESS OF EVERYTHING!!! Maybe to feel like a man he ought to do a Clinton and get laid.
Comment by Bush hater— 2006/04/10 @ 03:09 PM — (Reply)
Why are so many people in the government, by the way, calling for Rumsfelt to resign. Hmm???
Bush says there's no truth of attacking Iran; didn't he do that about Iraq 3 plus years ago.
Comment by Bush hater— 2006/04/10 @ 03:28 PM — (Reply)
I asked you what you knew of radical Islam? I know you hate bush you have said that.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/04/10 @ 03:43 PM — (Reply)
I know about radical Islam, you'd have to have your head in the sand not to know who, or what they're all about. They scary, very scary people. So, what! What does Bush know, other than what his people tell him.
Look, he's had an agenda since before he took office. We know they hates us, but running over there and attacking another country isn't going to help the situation. Ah, what's the point ????
Comment by Bush hater— 2006/04/10 @ 03:50 PM — (Reply)
It has everything to do with it. You should be directing you disgust at those who cut Nicholas Berg's head off while pig sounds were being played in the background or the 3 terrorists who dressed like women in traditional Islamic dress and blew up 70+ people at a Mosque the other day or the writer of this blog.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/04/10 @ 03:58 PM — (Reply)
Maybe if we weren't over there in a war, we wouldn't have any Americans trying follow this war, and getting their heads chopped off.
When you go in and attack a country, what you would expect, we'd be welcome with applause and flowers? Give me a break. They hated us already, and they hate us even more for going in there in the first place. Sorry, your arguments doesn't work for me.
Comment by Hater— 2006/04/10 @ 04:06 PM — (Reply)
What about the Khobar towers, our embassies, the USS Cole etc.....yea we created the terrorists I know...do you realize that this is like saying women who wear skimpy clothes deserve to be raped? It's the same argument.
Comment by — 2006/04/10 @ 04:24 PM — (Reply)
think about it this wasy BS, I mean BH
1. No body count on American soil.
2. Radical Islam is the enemy, take the war to them.
3. Create a scenario that is emminently winnable, in a pariah state(Iraq).
4. Secure and protect allies (Israel) through heightened Military presence.
5. Draw every mad, crazed murderous Islamofascist Jihadii son-of-a-bitch to the honeypot.
6. Kill them.
They came in droves. They are still coming.
Seems the scenario has permutations….and the Sunni/Shiite centuries old fracas is also an ally of the cause. Whatever, I cannot weep, or even summon up much concern, as the true sons of Allah “work out” their salvation. Get it on, boys! Welcome to the honeypot.
Comment by — 2006/04/10 @ 04:29 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/04/10 @ 04:50 PM — (Reply)
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/04/11 @ 07:13 AM — (Reply)
You do not need to explain anything to me, thank you, very much.
I'm curious, however, I don't read much ranting or raving over Bush's immigration plan. What say you all?
Comment by Hater— 2006/04/11 @ 04:56 PM — (Reply)
changed the subject eh?
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/04/25 @ 02:34 PM — (Reply)
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/04/11 @ 05:35 PM — (Reply)
Your friend, Barry
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/04/11 @ 05:39 PM — (Reply)
Well, how about that, I can actually say to you, I agree with you 100%. See, we liberal can agree with you once in a while. Yipee!!
Comment by Hater— 2006/04/11 @ 07:10 PM — (Reply)
Well let's start first with the real Nutter in Chief the president of Iran who says that he will be able to bring about the return of the Mahdi (Islam's Messiah) within the next two years. How does he propose to do that? By bringing about the apocalypse. Shall we wait to see if he means it? I'll elucidate on the rest in a bit.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/04/11 @ 07:26 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/04/11 @ 07:43 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Blasting left wingers— 2006/04/11 @ 07:47 PM — (Reply)
You are all as mad as Bush ... ready to nuke another country. And what do you suppose a pre-emptive strike will do in that part of the world. I think all you nutcases are looking for more trouble than we can handle. Are you all going over there to fight another war with Iran. You scare the bejeeses out of me.
Comment by Hater— 2006/04/12 @ 07:54 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/04/12 @ 07:58 PM — (Reply)
Dear BH,
A sense of humor is require here. The comment about nukes was tongue in cheek.
Comment by blasting left wingers— 2006/04/12 @ 08:57 PM — (Reply)
Sorry, I don't think talking of potential attack on another country is particularly funny. Those of you who are pro-life should be more sensitive to people who will die in a war that we start.
Comment by BH— 2006/04/14 @ 04:30 PM — (Reply)
so did you hear crazy mahmood today? He wants to annhilate Israel. What should we do BH?
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/04/14 @ 05:47 PM — (Reply)
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/04/14 @ 06:02 PM — (Reply)
The Bush administration thinks world military
dominance will protect the U.S., all this does is
scare other nations into building opposing alliances.
Our so-called Iraq “coalition” is ridiculous, a joke –
most Iraqis want us out of their county, and only the
UK has provided more than a token contribution. The
British people are against this war, too.
But, old Mr. Bush has fallen into Osama ‘s trap, with
the war making us “the enemy” to much of the Islamic
world. For every dead Iraqi, there’s and extended
family who only sees us as intruders and murderers.
Therefore, we breed more suicide bombers.
Bush says we’re helping to spread democracy. Well,
you only have to look to Hamas winning legally and
Iran democratically electing an extremist hard-liner,
rather than a reformer.
Bush’s claim (and Chaney’s) claim of WMDs was an out,
and out lie. We’ve had years of looking for them, and
found nothing.
It’s important, it’s urgent that we need to change our
foreign policy, because Bush could start a war with
Iran, a country with three times the population of
Iraq. An attack on Iran or an all-out civil war could
plunge the Middle East into war, turning off the oil
spigot, and collapse our entire economy.
Bush keeps saying over, and over, and over, that the
9-11 attack requires that we accept the 2,300
soldiers’ lives lost thus far, the torture of
prisoners and losing our civil liberties at home,
while at home we watched Katrina drown New Orleans!
Nothing could be further from the truth. We should
have been focusing our attention on building new
alliances all over the world, and go after and finish
off al-Qaida in Afghanistan.
But, instead, what do we have? We have a world that
now sees us as a pariah. Our credibility is in the
toilet, destroyed by the man that you put in the
White House, because of war that he didn’t give enough
though to, and it’s possible consequences, and exit
strategy if we did go to war with Iraq.
This war needs to be ended as soon as possible and all
those responsible for this war removed, impeached,
whatever it takes, from power.
And all of you should be ashamed for being fooled by
this man.
Comment by Howard— 2006/04/14 @ 06:31 PM — (Reply)
Uh Howard there were over thirty countries in Iraq when I was there. I served with the British, the Australian, the Spanish and the Nepalese. How long were you there? The Iraqi's I met were damn glad we were there. We gave them food and water, money out of our own pockets.
Again the left offers no answers only complaints. Unless you call running away an answer.
Comment by — 2006/04/14 @ 06:48 PM — (Reply)
So, what. His father had a better and stronger coalistion than Bushie, Jr. Give me a break, you want to count on these countries when we go to a bigger war, with such small armies. Come on, get real.
Comment by Howard— 2006/04/14 @ 08:03 PM — (Reply)
Your friend, Barry
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/04/14 @ 09:07 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/04/14 @ 09:13 PM — (Reply)
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/04/15 @ 05:05 AM — (Reply)
PS: Libraries are closed on Easter dude.
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/04/15 @ 03:09 PM — (Reply)
"I'm the decider?"
Is that even a word? What a nut job. Maybe a comic book could come out with Bush wearing a mask and cape with a BIG "D" on it!
Paul Rummy, being attacked. Frankly, I think Rummy should stay. I decided Bush should go with his press secretary.
NUT JOB!!!!!!!!!
Comment by BH— 2006/04/20 @ 11:02 AM — (Reply)
Retired AND serving (through Rep. John Murtha) generals alike are revolting and for damn good reason. The unnecessary corporate war in Iraq is an unequivocal bloody disaster, Bush & Co. has gutted and sadistically abused the military and our veterans, and the Brass must now work to prevent these madmen from starting a NUCLEAR WAR! Wake up everyone and stop this insanity, that mean you crazy f...'n' Republicans.
Comment by RR— 2006/04/24 @ 02:52 PM — (Reply)
who cares Murtha was the one who had Clinton appease Bin laden in Somalia
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/04/25 @ 02:36 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Brooke— 2006/04/24 @ 04:28 PM — (Reply)
I hate liberals. Abortion is murder!
Comment by cheeseburger— 2006/04/24 @ 04:50 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/04/24 @ 05:37 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Brooke— 2006/04/24 @ 05:48 PM — (Reply)
Trying to make a rational comment here is pointless since all you see in GWB is a hero, a GREAT PRESIDENT! Even giving a good argument, you'll still disagree with it.
Well, my friends, you are now in the minority, as your "hero" is not looked upon kindly by most of the American people. His ratings are down to 32% ... ouch! So, how smart are you?
He and his cronies are a bunch of lying, dispicable men, who could very well put us in to a WW III whatever number we're at now.
I don't know about you people but that scares the SHIT out of me. Single handedly he's going to bring about a war, because he needs to get our minds off the disaster in Iraq. And by nuking Iran, he thinks he will be looked upon as a hero. No way, Jose!!
You see, even I can see the shortcomings of past "Democratic" presidents, certainly they didn't do all the right things and indeed made mistakes. But this man makes mistakes, and people die, or will die. But you guys just go chugging along "standing by your man." Get over him ... he's damn idiot. Even Tony Blair won't stand behind him in the next attack. No one with a half a brain would stand by this president!
He's a war monger, and he's no better than Hitler by wanting to go into these countries. NO BETTER!!!!
Oh, EXCUSE ME, you guys will ... so you are all half-brains, too, I guess.
Comment by — 2006/04/25 @ 05:39 AM — (Reply)
What I see is a yellow bellied left who can't see past GWB...who can't see the utter vapidness in a religion that wantso to enslave you. This goes way beyond GWB, genius.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/04/25 @ 03:34 PM — (Reply)
BTW my heroes are the American people and the troops not some politician. Politics and criminals - one and the same - Don Corleone Godfather III
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/04/25 @ 03:36 PM — (Reply)
Comparing Bush to Hitler is ridiculous! He's nothing of the sort; the last time I checked we weren't pushing millions of Muslims into gas chambers. You are a delusional, hysterical person. I suggest that you get help now! If you want a budding Hitler, I would suggest that you turn your gaze toward Iran.
Bush isn't a warmonger; I AM! If I had my druthers, the sedition laws would be re-instated and you would be sitting in a cell somewhere. History is full of other Presidents doing this, even Democratic ones. I don't hear you crying about them!
After 9-11, there would have been desisive military action, not the dickering around that we have now. There would be NO Islamic theocracies left.
So there you go. Think on that for a minute, and try not to hyperventilate too much.
Comment by Brooke— 2006/04/25 @ 06:09 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2006/04/25 @ 06:28 AM — (Reply)
At polls giving Bush a 32% approval rating, NOW, he decides he needs to do something about the high gas prices? Is he kidding. They've been creeping, and creeping up all year. I guess now he, and his gas-oil company buddies, have made their profits and now want to get prices back down. Doesn't he read the newspapers -- oh, wait, he doesn't read, I forgot!
Comment by — 2006/04/25 @ 12:50 PM — (Reply)
yea I mean at 9 cents a gallon the oil companies are really taking it to you...never mind that AOL and I think Wachovia bank had more in profits last year. Just like the left wanting to punish people for being successful. Where were you when gas was $10 a barrel and people in the oil industry were out of work. Nope the government needs to relax the taxes on our gas prices...nearly a dollar a gallon between federal, state and local.
Nice to hear from you millardo or her wannabe.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/04/25 @ 02:32 PM — (Reply)
this is definitely Millardo and her fanciful tales of Bush not reading...queue the X-files soundtrack Brooke got another one here...who actually believes he doesn't read? What is this on your blog Millard? Even if it's true there are a lot of people who don't read the tripe that comes out of most of these liberal newspapers.
Millard we know where you get your info from. George Soros is on the phone for you.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/04/25 @ 02:39 PM — (Reply)
BROOK, YOU'RE SO FULL OF IT, IT'S LAUGHABLE. I do not understand any of you. No other president has done the stupid ass things this one has, and believe you me, you will all regret it. I am so sick of you nut cases, who think you know it all.
So, you would have gone in and nuked Iraq. You are a pathetic mother.
Comment by — 2006/04/25 @ 12:54 PM — (Reply)
Let's see...Anonymous comments, cursing, and insulting my mothering abilities... You're right Cate, It must be millardo.
Typicall liberal. No cogent argument, so he/she resorts to insults.
Comment by Brooke— 2006/04/25 @ 02:14 PM — (Reply)
you forgot that they lack ideas. I think you are fine mother BROOKE.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/04/25 @ 02:30 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Brooke— 2006/04/25 @ 02:40 PM — (Reply)
oooh, it's me the scary Millardo, whoever that is!
Comment by — 2006/04/25 @ 02:54 PM — (Reply)
Millardo is just a euphemism for every other liberal wacko...nobody is afraid of her...hahahahahahahahahaha
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/04/25 @ 03:24 PM — (Reply)
Brook with an "e" ... if you're such a good mother, how can you want to have another war. And, I do know, we're in WW III, thanks to Mr. Bush. I beg that he gets inpeached and when the Democrats win both houses in November, you'll soon see his head roll, and they will try to impeach him.
This does not compare to Clinton. Clinton stained a dress, Bush stained our reputation throughout the world. Frankly, I think think Bush's stain is far worse. I wish Bush was busy staining someone's dress, just so he stop trying to run the world.
Comment by — 2006/04/25 @ 02:58 PM — (Reply)
Clinton was an idiot who did nothing but appease Bin Laden...his nickname should be Neville Chamberlain
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/04/25 @ 03:07 PM — (Reply)
IMPEACHMENT, it's starting already in Illinois. Frankly, this whole administration needs to be impeached. I agree with "Millardo" all the way.
Comment by — 2006/04/25 @ 03:00 PM — (Reply)
nice of you to agree with yourself, you're not fooling us retardo
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/04/25 @ 03:05 PM — (Reply)
It is wrong for the United States to attack other countries without provocation. It is criminal to attack other countries based on lies cooked up in the bowels of the White House. It is hypocritical and lacking of all humanity to even think of using a nuclear weapon against Iran in order to prevent that country from developing nuclear weapons.
Comment by Howard— 2006/04/25 @ 03:07 PM — (Reply)
Howard again we'll ask you for an idea...what should we do with Iran? Can you answer the question without a bunch of anti-Bush rhetoric? BTW do you suppose we should wait for Iran to attack us or Israel with a nuke before we do anything? I for one think after doing some reading that it would be a good idea to encourage the rather large pro-democracy segment of Iranian society, this might be clandestine...is this okay with you Howard?
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/04/25 @ 03:22 PM — (Reply)
You can stop with the impeachment nonsense. Everybody with eyes knows that it's a flimsy cover for "we'll get you back." BTW, Clinton staining a dress dishonored himself, and more importantly, our country in the eyes of the world. Clinton was and is a whorehound, and we will be dealing with attacks on this country due to percieved weakness from him for many years to come.
Have you asked yourself why a country repleat with oil needs nuclear power for energy? THAT seems a little hypocritical to me...
Comment by Brooke— 2006/04/25 @ 03:26 PM — (Reply)
All of you are bonifide idiots, and no, I do not have all the answers, but you all seem to think you are. If you're so smart why don't run for Republican office.
You are the people who really scare the hell out people. You are dangerous, crazy mfs!!!
Comment by — 2006/04/25 @ 05:01 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Blasting left wingers— 2006/04/25 @ 05:03 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/04/25 @ 05:04 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/04/25 @ 05:05 PM — (Reply)
Perhaps it is a good idea for Iran to have nuclear capability. Perhaps Iran plans to use the technology as an alternative energy source, freeing up more oil for Russian, Japan and the US.
Perhaps there will be a time when President Bush is viewed as the worst president in US history. It has happened before. For example there were times when Presidents Lincoln and Roosevelt were reviled and when President Harding was a hero.
There is no way I can guarantee what is going to happen down the road. The one thing I feel safe in predicting is that the next President will be more of a centrist. Maybe someone like Christine Todd Whitman.
There is no reason to suspect that any of my friends who write blogs are anything less than superior parents. There is no reason to believe that all my blog friends, both conservative and liberal are highly intelligent concerned Americans with everyone's best interests at heart.
I am delighted tht there is a place where all points of view may be freely aired and respected.
your friend,
Barry
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/04/25 @ 05:57 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Susan— 2006/04/25 @ 06:31 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Brooke— 2006/04/26 @ 06:53 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2006/05/04 @ 07:36 PM — (Reply)
Either we are a nation of laws or we’re not. It is time someone put a stop to President’s Bush’s constant and continuing flouting of the laws of this nation. There is no reason whatsoever for this, except that he seems to want to be king, not a president of this great country.
Censure is a good first step, in my opinion. Impeachment would be more satisfactory, but then who we would be left with as president, Dick Cheney? God help us.
It’s time that Congress stood up and do what’s right
-- for onc
Comment by HS— 2006/05/04 @ 06:32 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/05/04 @ 06:39 PM — (Reply)
So, when you don't have an answer or don't like what's said here, you have to comment on something totally stupid. Who cares???
Comment by — 2006/05/04 @ 06:47 PM — (Reply)
So, when you don't have an answer or don't like what's said here, you have to comment on something totally stupid. Who cares???
Comment by — 2006/05/04 @ 06:51 PM — (Reply)
That's a fact. Rebut it smartypants.
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/05/04 @ 07:10 PM — (Reply)
Listen, I don't care one rat's ass about the Kennedy's ... the thing I focus on is the lying son-of-a-bitch sitting in the WH and his lacky, Secretary of Defense, Rummy, who today was caught with his pants down by a former CIA agent telling Rummy he a lied about the war and that he (the agent) can back it up with Rummy's own words which have now come back to bite Rummy in the his lousy ass.
You want to talk about murderers, then think about all the people being murdered by our president in this sinful war!
How stupid are you, you still don't get it ... everyone knows this administration lied, but you just can't see it, or can't admit you all made a mistake voting for Bush.
This president needs censure, he lied about Iraw, he clearly violated the law by ordering wiretaps of U.S. citizens without warrants.
And if you don't believe that, READ THE LAW!!! No person, and no president, is above the law. It could not be clearer, if you know how to read ... oops, that's right Bush doesn't read, sorry. In a democracy, this cannot be tolerated.
And for those folks who say the president uses this power only on "terrorists": Well, if he knows who the terrorists are, he should go and arrest them.
Comment by — 2006/05/04 @ 07:27 PM — (Reply)
Speaking of laws, aren't those boozing murdering Kennedy's in the legal news today?
That's a fact. Rebut it smartypants.
PS: Your language offends my delicate sensibilities and may be reported to the webmaster at my whim.
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/05/04 @ 07:41 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/05/04 @ 10:38 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dark Knight Raid— 2006/05/05 @ 05:35 AM — (Reply)
I guess the troll is going to make another 100 identical comments.
Comment by Brooke— 2006/05/05 @ 06:00 AM — (Reply)
Sensibilities???
... isn't there a photo of Uncle Sam with the stars and stripes and a caption under it that says "BIG Mistake, Assholes?" Where are your sensibilities when a caption such as this appears at the top of this site? Give me a break ... you are all full of you no what!!!!
Comment by — 2006/05/05 @ 07:57 AM — (Reply)
Hey, Barry, seems like you're getting your shorts in a not yourself. Watch those wedgies ...
Comment by — 2006/05/05 @ 07:59 AM — (Reply)
Obviously the point of my AV has been lost on your whining, simpering liberal types...
Uncle Sam, the personification of American pride and stick-to-it-ive-ness, coming out of the smoke and destruction of 9-11 carrying out our flag,still complete in all it's splendor,with his finger pointed towards our enemies issuing an ultimatum...
Truly the awakening of the Sleeping Giant, slow though it may be.
Comment by Brooke— 2006/05/05 @ 10:23 AM — (Reply)
Excuses, excuses!! You have an excuse and explanation for everything.
Bush is going down in flames ... and so are the Republicans in November.
Comment by — 2006/05/05 @ 12:45 PM — (Reply)
Nothing. Typical lib, can't stay on track to save their life.
Comment by Brooke— 2006/05/05 @ 01:03 PM — (Reply)
Ten Reasons Why people, Democrats and Republicans, (except for you guys on this website) hate Bush and, therefore, his poll ratings are falling in to a deep, deep hole, and will soon bury him:
1. Bush and his oligarchic companions sabotaged American democracy so they could pillage taxpayer resources.
2. Bush and his cabal of henchmen lied to the American people about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, and they continue to obfuscate the truth while their companies cash in, Iraqis suffer and American soldiers die.
3. Bush is bad for business and the economy. He is only interested in enriching himself and his friends.
4. Bush is bad for the future. He is compromising the prosperity of tomorrow's America by shortchanging today's children.
5. Bush is bad for the environment.
6. The Bush Administration has manipulated the media to the point of undermining the Constitutional guarantees of a Free Press.
7. Bush has tried to undermine the United Nations, a democratic institution created in large measure by Presidents Eisenhower and Truman. Without even understanding what the UN does, Bush has called it "irrelevant" when it fails to fall in line with his dictates.
8. Bush is inarticulate and projects a stereotype abroad of Americans being ignorant and myopic.
9. Bush torpedoes global agreements on everything from racism and global warming to biological weapons and land mines, and then expects the world to line up behind him.
10. Bush took positive patriotism and global support in the wake of 9/11 and forced it behind his own narrow self-interest in Iraq. He hijacked 9/11 for his own benefit.
11.Bush stands against everything America stands for.
Comment by — 2006/05/05 @ 02:10 PM — (Reply)
FYI that last comment was from me, your old friend, MILLARDO.
I'm a stinker aren't I?
Comment by Millardo— 2006/05/05 @ 02:13 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/05/05 @ 02:15 PM — (Reply)
Lots of interesting things going on with the Bush Admin of late ... something stinks in D.C. and it's coming out of the WH.
Comment by — 2006/05/05 @ 04:20 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dark Knight Raid— 2006/05/06 @ 10:14 AM — (Reply)
The stink coming out of Washington, is a stench that we can all smell, as what happens there is detrimental to us all. Get off the pot with the Kennedy family.
When Bush tenure is up, a lot old dirty laundry and/or dirty tricks and lies will be bubbling up, mark my words.
You'll all have mud on your faces.
You voted for him, I didn't, you have to live with yourselves, and explain to your children why you voted for idiot man.
Comment by — 2006/05/06 @ 07:36 PM — (Reply)
The problem is that they can't and they won't.
"idiot man", huh? I could use the phrase "the pot calling the kettle black", but racial issues aren't my thing.
Why are you so ANGRY?
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/05/06 @ 07:50 PM — (Reply)
I am angry, very, very angry that this man is president, have you not gotten that yet?
I have never in all my years hated a president as I HATE THIS MAN! I didn't dislike his father this much, or Reagan, or even "Tricky" Dick, because though I did not vote for them, I had respect for these men. They were smart, they had good intentions. This man does not, he's STUPID!
And as long as the Bush Regime continues to disgrace the country in which I live, I will continue to verbalize my hatred for him, and for those who support him.
YOU BET I'M ANGRY, AND FED UP. This man is a stinking liar, and it will one day come to light. And people are dying for these lies.
Comment by — 2006/05/06 @ 08:16 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/05/06 @ 08:23 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/05/06 @ 08:26 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2006/05/06 @ 08:29 PM — (Reply)
A BEDTIME STORY ABOUT A U.S. PRESIDENT
(CAUTION: R-rated do not read this bedtime story to children, we don't want them to have nightmares, this is just for stupid adults.) Now, here it goes, folks:
Once upon a time there was a stupid, lazy, inarticulate, evil man. His father had been president of the United States, and Evil Guy thought that was a pretty cool gig, so he decided to become president, too. However, actually getting elected was not a viable option for this malevolent dunce, so he had Daddy's corrupt friends on the Supreme Court just hand the job to him.
Once in office, Evil Guy screwed up in every way imaginable. He allowed America to be terrorized. His feudalistic tax policies plunged the nation into recession. Crime rose. Test scores plummeted. He was such a rotten leader that even pretzels hated his (lack of) guts, to the point where one brutally assaulted him while he was guzzling "non-alcoholic" beer.
When it came time to run for re-appointment, Evil Guy sicced a pack of vicious liars upon his war hero opponent, thereby keeping the election close enough to steal yet again. Once reinstalled, he continued his policies of robbing from the poor and giving to the rich, all in the name of Our Lord and Savior. His approval ratings kept falling, but it didn't really matter because there was no significant opposition party to rub his hideously smirking face in the horrible mess he had created.
In the end, after having bankrupted the nation and confiscated personal liberties, Evil Guy retired to Crawford, Texas where he continued to serve society by playing video games until the Grim Reaper ultimately came calling. Upon his demise, Evil Guy packed his suitcase full of asbestos clothing and traveled to his new home on the River Styx to live with his roommates Adolf, Genghis, and Tricky Dick.
The moral of the story, children, is that when a Democratic president takes office he must never graciously give his predecessor a free pass on felonies that have been committed (Iran Contra, for example) because the predecessor's idiot/evil son may subsequently run for the White House and rupture the country.
Sweet dreams.
Comment by MILLARDO— 2006/05/06 @ 08:34 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2006/05/06 @ 08:37 PM — (Reply)
Why thank you!
Comment by — 2006/05/06 @ 08:38 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/05/06 @ 08:47 PM — (Reply)
Thank, conservative guy!
Comment by — 2006/05/08 @ 02:50 PM — (Reply)
President George W. Bush's approval rating fell to 31 percent in a USA Today/Gallup Poll released on Monday, the lowest recorded in the survey and a drop of three percentage points in a single week. Tah-dah!!!!
Comment by — 2006/05/08 @ 02:53 PM — (Reply)
AN APOLOGY FROM A BUSH VOTER
There’s nothing harder in public life than admitting you’re wrong. By the way, admitting you’re wrong can be even tougher in private life. If you don’t believe me, just ask Bill Clinton or Charlie Sheen. But when you go out on the limb in public, it’s out there where everyone can see it, or in my case, hear it.
So, I’m saying today, I was wrong to have voted for George W. Bush. In historic terms, I believe George W. Bush is the worst two-term President in the history of the country. Worse than Grant. I also believe a case can be made that he’s the worst President, period.
In 2000, I was a McCain guy. I wasn’t sure about the Texas Governor. He had name recognition and a lot of money behind him, but other than that? What? Still, I was sick of all the Clinton shenanigans and the thought of President Gore was… unthinkable. So, GWB became my guy.
For the first few months he was just flubbing along like most new Presidents, no great shakes, but no disasters either. He cut taxes and I like tax cuts.
Then September 11th happened. September 11th changed everything for me, like it did for so many of you. After September 11th, all the intramural idiocy of American politics stopped being funny. We had been attacked by a vicious and determined enemy and it was time for all of us to row in the same direction.
And we did for the blink of an eye. I believed the President when he said we were going to hunt down Bin Laden and all those responsible for the 9-11 murders. I believed President Bush when he said we would go after the terrorists and the nations that harbored them.
I supported the President when he sent our troops into Afghanistan, after all, that’s where the Taliban was, that’s where al-Qaida trained the killers, that’s where Bin Laden was.
And I cheered when we quickly toppled the Taliban government, but winced when we let Bin Laden escape from Tora-Bora.
Then, the talk turned to Iraq and I winced again.
I thought the connection to 9-11 was sketchy at best. But Colin Powell impressed me at the UN, and Tony Blair was in, and after all, he was a Clinton guy, not a Bush guy, so I thought the case had to be strong. I was worried though, because I had read the Wolfowitz paper, “The Project for the New American Century.” It’s been around since ‘92, and it raised alarm bells because it was based on a theory, “Democratizing the Middle East” and I prefer pragmatism over theory. I was worried because Iraq was being justified on a radical new basis, “pre-emptive war.” Any time we do something without historical precedent I get nervous.
But the President shifted the argument to WMDs and the urgent threat of Iraq getting atomic weapons. The debate turned to Saddam passing nukes on to terror groups. After 9-11, the risk was too great. As the President said, “The next smoking gun might be a mushroom cloud.” At least that’s what I thought at the time.
I grew up in New York and watched them build the World Trade Center. I worked with a guy, Frank O’Brien, who put the elevators in both towers. I lost a very close friend on September 11th. 103 floor, tower one, Cantor Fitzgerald. Tim Coughlin was his name. If we had to take out Iraq to make sure something like that, or worse, never happened again, so be it. I knew the consequences. We have a soldier in our house. None of this was theoretical in my house.
But in the months and years since shock and awe I have been shocked repeatedly by a consistent litany of excuses, alibis, double-talk, inaccuracies, bogus predictions, and flat out lies. I have watched as the President and his administration changed the goals, redefined the reasons for going into Iraq, and fumbled the good will of the world and the focus necessary to catch the real killers of September 11th.
I have watched the President say the commanders on the ground will make the battlefield decisions, and the war won’t be run from Washington. Yet, politics has consistently determined what the troops can and can’t do on the ground and any commander who did not go along with the administration was sacked, and in some cases, maligned.
I watched and tried to justify the looting in Iraq after the fall of Saddam. I watched and tried to justify the dismantling of the entire Iraqi army. I tired to explain the complexities of building a functional new Iraqi army. I urged patience when no WMDs were found. Then the Vice President told us we were in the “waning days of the insurgency.” And I started wincing again. The President says we have to stay the course but what if it’s the wrong course?
It was the wrong course. All of it was wrong. We are not on the road to victory. We’re about to slink home with our tail between our legs, leaving civil war in Iraq and a nuclear armed Iran in our wake. Bali was bombed. Madrid was bombed. London was bombed. And Bin Laden is still making tapes. It’s unspeakable. The liberal media didn’t create this reality, bad policy did.
Most historians believe it takes 30-50 years before we get a reasonably accurate take on a President’s place in history. So, maybe 50 years from now Iraq will be a peaceful member of the brotherhood of nations and George W. Bush will be celebrated as a visionary genius.
But we don’t live fifty years in the future. We live now. We have to make public policy decisions now. We have to live with the consequences of the votes we cast and the leaders we chose now.
After five years of carefully watching George W. Bush I’ve reached the conclusion he’s either grossly incompetent, or a hand puppet for a gaggle of detached theorists with their own private view of how the world works. Or both.
Presidential failures. James Buchanan, Franklin Pierce, Jimmy Carter, Warren Harding — the competition is fierce for the worst of the worst. Still, the damage this President has done is enormous. It will take decades to undo, and that’s assuming we do everything right from now on. His mistakes have global implications, while the other failed Presidents mostly authored domestic embarrassments.
And speaking of domestic embarrassments, let’s talk for a minute about President Bush’s domestic record. Yes, he cut taxes. But tax cuts combined with reckless spending and borrowing is criminal mismanagement of the public’s money. We’re drunk at the mall with our great grandchildren’s credit cards. Whatever happened to the party of fiscal responsibility?
Bush created a giant new entitlement, the prescription drug plan. He lied to his own party to get it passed. He lied to the country about its true cost. It was written by and for the pharmaceutical industry. It helps nobody except the multinationals that lobbied for it. So much for smaller government. In fact, virtually every tentacle of government has grown exponentially under Bush. Unless, of course, it was an agency to look after the public interest, or environmental protection, and/or worker’s rights.
I’ve talked so often about the border issue, I won’t bore you with a rehash. It’s enough to say this President has been a catastrophe for the wages of working people; he’s debased the work ethic itself. “Jobs Americans won’t do!” He doesn’t believe in the sovereign borders of the country he’s sworn to protect and defend. And his devotion to cheap labor for his corporate benefactors, along with his worship of multinational trade deals, makes an utter mockery of homeland security in a post 9-11 world. The President’s January 7th, 2004 speech on immigration, his first trial balloon on his guest worker scheme, was a deal breaker for me. I couldn’t and didn’t vote for him in 2004. And I’m glad I didn’t.
Katrina, Harriet Myers, The Dubai Port Deal, skyrocketing gas prices, shrinking wages for working people, staggering debt, astronomical foreign debt, outsourcing, open borders, contempt for the opinion of the American people, the war on science, media manipulation, faith based initives, a cavalier attitude toward fundamental freedoms-- this President has run the most arrogant and out-of-touch administration in my lifetime, perhaps, in any American’s lifetime.
You can make a case that Abraham Lincoln did what he had to do, the public be damned. If you roll the dice on your gut and you’re right, history remembers you well. But, when your gut led you from one business failure to another, when your gut told you to trade Sammy Sosa to the Cubs, and you use the same gut to send our sons and daughters to fight and die in a distraction from the real war on terror, then history will and should be unapologetic in its condemnation.
None of this, by the way, should be interpreted as an endorsement of the opposition party. The Democrats are equally bankrupt. This is the second crime of our age. Again, historically speaking, its times like these when America needs a vibrant opposition to check the power of a run-amuck majority party. It requires it. It doesn’t work without one. Like the high and low tides keep the oceans alive, a healthy, positive opposition offers a path back to the center where all healthy societies live.
Tragically, the Democrats have allowed crackpots, leftists and demagogic cowards to snipe from the sidelines while taking no responsibility for anything. In fairness, I don’t believe a Democrat president would have gone into Iraq. Unfortunately, I don’t know if President Gore would have gone into Afghanistan. And that’s one of the many problems with the Democrats.
The two party system has always been clumsy and imperfect, but it has only collapsed once, in the 1850s, and the result was civil war.
I believe, as I have said countless times, the two party system is on the brink of a second collapsed. It’s currently running on spin, anger, revenge, and pots and pots and pots of money.
We’re being governed by paper-mache patriots; brightly painted red, white and blue, but hollow to the core. Both parties have mastered the cynical arts of media manipulation and fund raising. They’ve learned the lessons of Watergate and burn the tapes. They have learned to divide the nation for their own gain. They have demonstrated the willingness to exploit any tragedy for personal advantage. The contempt they have for the American people is without parallel.
This is painful to say, and I’m sure for many of you, painful to read. But it’s impossible to heal the country until we’re willing to acknowledge the truth no matter how painful. We have to wean ourselves off sugar coated partisan lies.
With a belated tip of the cap to Ralph Nader, the system is broken, so broken, it’s almost inevitable it pukes up the Al Gores and George W. Bushes. Where are the Trumans and the Eisenhowers? Where are the men and women of vision and accomplishment? Why do we have to settle for recycled hacks and malleable ciphers? Greatness is always rare, but is basic competence and simple honesty too much to ask?
It may be decades before we have the full picture of how paranoid and contemptuous this administration has been. And I am open to the possibility that I’m all wet about everything I’ve just said. But I’m putting it out there, because I have to call it as I see it, and this is how I see it today. I don’t say any of this lightly. I’ve thought about this for months and months. But eventually, the weight of evidence takes on a gravitational force of its own.
I believe that George W. Bush has taken us down a terrible road. I don’t believe the Democrats are offering an alternative. That means we’re on our own to save this magnificent country. The United States of America is a gift to the world, but it has been badly abused and it’s rightful owners, We the People, had better step up to the plate and reclaim it before the damage becomes irreparable.
So, accept my apology for allowing partisanship to blind me to an obvious truth; our President is incapable of the tasks he is charged with. I almost feel sorry for him. He is clearly in over his head. Yet, he doesn’t generate the sympathy Warren Harding earned. Harding, a spectacular mediocrity, had the self-knowledge to tell any and all he shouldn’t be President. George W. Bush continues to act the part, but at this point whose buying the act?
Does this make me a waffler? A flip-flopper? Maybe, although I prefer to call it realism. And, for those of you who never supported Bush, its also fair to accuse me of kicking Bush while he’s down. After all, you were kicking him while he was up.
You were right, I was wrong.
Comment by — 2006/05/08 @ 03:06 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/05/08 @ 05:58 PM — (Reply)
Does it matter whether this was ghostwritten or not. You're more interested in that fact than the fact that this person makes a whole lot of sense, he made some good points. He finally sees the light, what about you?
Comment by Howard— 2006/05/09 @ 06:35 AM — (Reply)
Every time I turn in the computer...
Comment by Brooke— 2006/05/09 @ 10:28 AM — (Reply)
ooh, scary!!!!
Comment by — 2006/05/09 @ 01:39 PM — (Reply)
Why argue about it now....During the Civil War people wanted to impeach President Lincoln...How does history view President Lincoln. I don't mean to compare President Bush and President Lincoln of course. The point is....despite all the noise, there is simply not enough information to make judgments.
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/05/09 @ 05:01 PM — (Reply)
Recently, revisionists have decided that they [the historians] are responsible for fostering the idea that presidents who expand presidential power are successes and they are trying now to rewrite history to paint these same men as bad executives.
A little reading over at HNN is quite eye-opening. Historians are storytellers and they substantiate their work simply by picking and choosing which "authorities" support their preconceived notions.
Life doesn't happen in a vacuum and te retelling of events can never be objective or completely truthful.
Comment by Cate— 2006/05/10 @ 08:08 AM — (Reply)
The fact of the matter isthat the 31 per cent of the American public think this country is going in the wrong direction. I'd venture to say he may even go as low as President Nixon.
How can you be for this president with the mess he's made of everything? Every day you hear more and more what a disaster he's been to this country, and the world.
You're either blind, deaf or dumb, or all three, to see what's wrong with this country under Bush's administration. Every day new facts come out that he's made serious errors, doesn't know how to correct them, because he's just plane incompetent. Admit it for heaven's sake ...
No, you can't compare Bush to Lincoln, or even put Bush in the same sentence with Lincoln is ridiculous.
Comment by Howard— 2006/05/10 @ 06:22 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Brooke— 2006/05/10 @ 08:53 AM — (Reply)
I guess if you base your convictions on how popular they are then you would have a point Howard. But as Margaret Thatcher once said, "Concensus is the absence of leadership."
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/05/10 @ 09:40 AM — (Reply)
Well, we'll all see in November what the true concensus his. Prepare yourselves.
Comment by Howard— 2006/05/10 @ 03:06 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/05/10 @ 05:10 PM — (Reply)
Hey, big brother is watching you, your president and your government is listening and watching you. How do you like that? Ordinary citizens being listened to on their phones.
This is illegal, that mean there is a law against this, yet this govenment is allowing it, behind this listening in on Americans. Hope you watch what you say on your personal phones, you never know what the govenrment will do to you.
Time to really think about impeaching the president.
Comment by Howard— 2006/05/11 @ 02:49 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/05/11 @ 03:54 PM — (Reply)
If this isn't something to be concerned about? This concerns our Constitution, and you throw crap out to me about Gates, etc., give me a break.
You know what, I hope the hell, they're listening to you and your family ... you seem so pleased this is a good idea. On top of all this look who Bush hires for to head the CIA.
If I'm going to lose my freedom, then I'm just ready to lead the terrorists come and bomb all of us. Once again, Bush is in the hole and now more scare tactics will be coming out.
You know what you people scare me worse than terrorists.
This administration is becomeing BIG BROTHER!!!
Comment by Howarrd— 2006/05/11 @ 04:07 PM — (Reply)
Seriously, is my telephone being listened to right now? I still would like to hear your thoughts about internet monitoring and how that is different than phones.
your friend, Barry
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/05/11 @ 05:23 PM — (Reply)
Brooke I think you birthed an overgrown cow here
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/05/11 @ 07:00 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/05/11 @ 07:05 PM — (Reply)
ya know Barry like a cash cow...call it a comment cow...if you will
your pal,
EB
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/05/11 @ 08:55 PM — (Reply)
I don't want any of it, apparently, it's all okay with "you people" to be snooped on, listened to, wahtever.
You're all nuts.
Comment by Howard— 2006/05/11 @ 07:27 PM — (Reply)
Howard....Boo!
Comment by Elmers brother— 2006/05/11 @ 08:54 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Brooke— 2006/05/12 @ 07:12 AM — (Reply)
Yep, and it's illegal ... someone must have died and made Bush a dictator. Oh, by the way latest poll is he's down to 29% And don't give me all that crap that this happens to a lot of presidents and the come back up in the polls; for Buhs, it's too late, baby!!
Comment by Howard— 2006/05/12 @ 08:04 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/05/12 @ 12:11 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Brooke— 2006/05/12 @ 01:39 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/05/12 @ 01:41 PM — (Reply)
Geeze, I can't believe Bush is going to make a speech tonigh, doesn't he know its "ratings sweeps? Gosh, what is he thinking?
Comment by — 2006/05/12 @ 02:02 PM — (Reply)
Geeze, I can't believe Bush is going to make a speech tonight, doesn't he know its "ratings sweeps? Gosh, what is he thinking? He really has his nerve interupting my T.V. viewing. At least he didn't try to make a speech during American Idol ... I mean, that would really make me blow my stack.
Comment by — 2006/05/12 @ 02:04 PM — (Reply)
No kidding! At least when the Democrats interrupt my regularly scheduled programming, they show some respect for the television format. I was watching a Biography channel documentary about Hugh Hefner and I was two hours into it before I realized they'd switched to the Clinton impeachment hearings.
Comment by Put your tin foil hat back on, have a sip of kool-aid and STFU— 2006/05/12 @ 02:27 PM — (Reply)
You sure you weren't watching the impeachment hearings from the beginning?
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/05/12 @ 02:30 PM — (Reply)
Hang in there, you may get to see another impeachment Hearing of the president. And by the way, if he's a conservative, what's all this stuff that he's doing with "big" government. I thought you all were against big govenment. Looks like Bush has fooled all of you, ha, ha!!
He's a very big government president, who knew ... surprise!!!
Comment by — 2006/05/12 @ 02:33 PM — (Reply)
Millard...you're not supposed to be on the computer during working hours
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/05/12 @ 02:44 PM — (Reply)
Well at least Bill left the money shot on the dress, don't know if HH could do that with out the litle blue pill.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/05/12 @ 02:49 PM — (Reply)
I don't have to work, I'm extremly wealthy ... I do this as a hobby annoying all of you.
Comment by "M"— 2006/05/12 @ 07:28 PM — (Reply)
Thanks
Comment by Cate— 2006/05/12 @ 07:43 PM — (Reply)
Ooooh, now that you said that, can't come back, can't see keeping a group of conservative nutballs going, bye all. I won't cry for you in November.
Comment by M— 2006/05/12 @ 08:32 PM — (Reply)
Just couldn't stay away, especially when Bush's numbers are falling like a rock, and I just wanted to remined you, once again, this man has no idea of what he's doing:
REMEMBER THESE WORDS, FOLKS?? It's quite funny ...
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." - G.W. Bush, 9/13/01
Then he says:
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It' s not that important. It's not our priority." - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02 (This at a press dinner, and people are being killed ... nice work.)
No, it's not that important, it's more important that we started THIS war! He doesn't care, it's not that important, what's up with this guy. It's aways "open mouth; insert foot!
Comment by Rose (I'm back)— 2006/05/13 @ 07:36 AM — (Reply)
Just couldn't stay away, especially when Bush's numbers are falling like a rock, and I just wanted to remined you, once again, this man has no idea of what he's doing:
REMEMBER THESE WORDS, FOLKS?? It's quite funny ...
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." - G.W. Bush, 9/13/01
Then he says:
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It' s not that important. It's not our priority." - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02 (This at a press dinner, and people are being killed ... nice work.)
No, it's not that important, it's more important that we started THIS war! He doesn't care, it's not that important, what's up with this guy. It's aways "open mouth; insert foot!
Comment by Rose (I'm back)— 2006/05/13 @ 07:36 AM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/05/13 @ 07:47 AM — (Reply)
Here's to you Barry!
Your pal,
Elmers Brother
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/05/13 @ 08:50 AM — (Reply)
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/madein.htm
Comment by Dugg— 2006/05/13 @ 09:54 AM — (Reply)
You folks will never admit you were wrong, when it comes to Bushie, so you're all willing to go down with the ship, but beware, since you'll go down with the ship, Bush will go about his merry way to Crawford when he's done, and put his feet up, hopefully, without his mouth stuck in it, and let the rest of you go down with your ship. Woopie-dee-doo
Comment by Horward— 2006/05/13 @ 12:19 PM — (Reply)
your friend, Barry
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/05/13 @ 12:52 PM — (Reply)
No one is going down with any ship. America sails on and I am glad to be an American and I bet so are you. Present opinions may be all over the landscape which is everyone's right. In the end, history will decide.
your friend, Barry
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/05/13 @ 12:54 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Brooke— 2006/05/13 @ 01:40 PM — (Reply)
Dear Barry,
Why of course Dugg is entitled, why do you think I served for 20 years! I think the world of Dugg. We also have more in common than he knows, but I think Dugg is an awesome guy.
Now Howard I am afraid does not seem to recognize the true enemy here and look way beyond GWB's administration. Hmmmm?
Could it be...yes Howard has tunnel vision.
Comment by — 2006/05/13 @ 01:43 PM — (Reply)
Barry the last comment by your friend and pal
Elmers brother
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/05/13 @ 01:44 PM — (Reply)
How can you even put Bush and President Reagan in the same sentence, Brook, shame on you.
I didn't vote for Reagan, but I could respect him. At least he didn't have the whole world hating him as they do Bush.
Reagan, Ford, the first President Bush, even President Nixon, these were/are bright articulate men. I cannot remember people in other countries disliking these presidents the wait they hate Bush.
I have a good friend who was here from Brazil and he commented to me how it's not AMERICANS other countries hate, it's Bush, he's in inarticulate when he speaks, he's arrogant, he walks with a swagger. He thinks he's right all the time, and when he makes mistakes (though in his mind he's never wrong about anything) he won't face up to it and admit it. He has no humility ... I can't believe his attituded, but judging by the polls the American people are not finally understanding what a horrible, dangerous man he is.
He's "the Ugly American!" How terrible, how sad. Because of him, there are people in other countries that think ALL Americans are like him.
If I was Mrs. Reagan, I would be insulted to have my husband put in the same sentence wither her husband. Shame, shame on you.
Comment by M— 2006/05/13 @ 08:24 PM — (Reply)
Definition of Fascism:
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.
That is what the Bush administration is. We are now living in a facist govenment. Are you all happy now?
Comment by Howard— 2006/05/19 @ 10:45 AM — (Reply)
Musollini's Italy
Hitler's Germany
Chavez Bolivia
Not there yet Howard
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/05/19 @ 11:37 AM — (Reply)
1). "I have lost the right to ____________________".
2). "Because of this, I can no longer ____________________".
EXAMPLE:
1). "I have lost the right to peaceably assemble".
2). "Because of this, I can no longer meet with my local political party".
and then read this.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/05/19 @ 11:44 AM — (Reply)
1). "I have lost the right to ____________________".
2). "Because of this, I can no longer ____________________".
EXAMPLE:
1). "I have lost the right to peaceably assemble".
2). "Because of this, I can no longer meet with my local political party".
and then read this.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/05/19 @ 11:47 AM — (Reply)
1). "I have lost the right to ____________________".
2). "Because of this, I can no longer ____________________".
EXAMPLE:
1). "I have lost the right to peaceably assemble".
2). "Because of this, I can no longer meet with my local political party".
and then read this.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/05/19 @ 11:50 AM — (Reply)
Howard nobody here is gonna accept your rhetoric at face value - give me a call from the gulag and we can talk it over
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/05/19 @ 11:51 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/05/19 @ 12:07 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/05/19 @ 12:09 PM — (Reply)
Nothing is funny about facism. And to think all liberals lean this way, you're totally nuts. Look, Republicans care only about themselves. They want everyone to march lock and step with their ideas, i.e., etc.
My own 84 own mother wonders what's happening to our country.
She's been through the depression, through WW II and pays attention to what's happening and she's afraid for her great granchildren, and the kind of country Bushs's policies will leave from behind for them.
You must be in the minority of conservatives that still believe in Bush ... God help you!
Comment by — 2006/05/19 @ 02:31 PM — (Reply)
The term for this kind of behavior is HYPOCRISY.
Comment by Cate— 2006/05/19 @ 07:35 PM — (Reply)
No problem EB; another reason I switched to Blogger. (Still lobbying.
)
Comment by Brooke— 2006/05/19 @ 02:59 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/05/19 @ 03:47 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/05/19 @ 03:48 PM — (Reply)
FREAKIN HILARIOUS
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/05/19 @ 03:58 PM — (Reply)
And now...#600! An all-time bloghi record!
Comment by Brooke— 2006/05/19 @ 07:10 PM — (Reply)
I think everyone on this blog is "FREAK'N HILARIOUS!" That's the saddest thing of all, all of you.
Comment by — 2006/05/19 @ 07:30 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/05/19 @ 07:37 PM — (Reply)
yes fill in the blanks to #589, let's have some examples. If this is a fascist country as you claim then fill in the blanks for us.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/05/19 @ 11:01 PM — (Reply)
Life under Bush sucks!!! Little by little we're losing our freedoms under his dictatorship. And if you can's see that, well, you must not have you're screwed on tight.
Comment by — 2006/05/20 @ 07:39 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2006/05/20 @ 07:46 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/05/20 @ 07:55 PM — (Reply)
YOU KNOW WHAT, YOU ALL DON'T KNOW SQUAT!!!
Comment by — 2006/05/20 @ 08:21 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/05/20 @ 09:32 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/05/20 @ 10:20 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/05/21 @ 06:20 AM — (Reply)
1). "I have lost the right to ____________________".
2). "Because of this, I can no longer ____________________".
EXAMPLE:
1). "I have lost the right to peaceably assemble".
2). "Because of this, I can no longer meet with my local political party".
and then read this.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/05/21 @ 07:56 AM — (Reply)
Lies, lies and more lies
I am so sick of talk show hosts who say things like "everyone thought that there were WMDs in Iraq at the time of the invasion." That is just not true! And I am frustrated at Democrats for not refuting this claim more forcefully. On April 13, 2006, a moderator on CNN said that no one could have known there were no WMDs in Iraq before going to war. But we did know. There were people in high ranking positions who seriously questioned our intelligence before Bush invaded Iraq.
Scott Ritter, a senior UN's weapons inspector in Iraq until 1998, loudly stated in the media and in front of congress that we were being led astray. In 2002 he stated, "Saddam Hussein had no WMDs -- at least none of any consequence or that posed an imminent danger to the United States. Certainly nothing that would warrant a rushed invasion. We can't go to war based on rhetoric and speculation ... We'd better make sure there is a threat out there worth fighting."
I remember hearing Ritter speak saying even if Saddam had biological weapons at one time, they had a very short shelf life.
Ritter further went on to say after the invasion, that the Bush Administration and the CIA knew all along that the Iraqis had no WMDs and were lying to the Congress and the American people.
Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson attacked Bush's claim in his State of the Union address that Iraq sought uranium in Africa. Wilson stated that the Administration had "twisted" intelligence to "exaggerate" the Iraqi threat.
And the French vociferously shared their belief that the intelligence regarding the threat of WMDs in Iraq was very weak. Based on French intelligence, leaders of the French government were not supportive of the claim that Iraq posed a serious threat to international security.
While they came in later in the conversation, former Chief UN Inspector David Kay and Director General of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency Hans Blix agreed with these earlier assumptions. Regardless of whether they vocalized these sentiments before the invasion or years after, both Kay and Blix knew that the Administration was rushing to war and that there was no evidence of WMDs in Iraq at the time of invasion.
David Kay has said that there was "nothing that would indicate large-scale production" of WMDs in Iraq. He claimed on NPR's weekend edition, "my summary view, based on what I've seen, is we're very unlikely to find large stockpiles of weapons...I don't think they exist."
From 1981 to 1997, Hans Blix was in charge of overseeing inspections of Iraq's nuclear program. Blix has stated how willing the Administration was to quickly ride over allies, the U.N., and, to a large degree, the truth of what was really known about Iraqi WMDs in pursuit of its goals.
We can't let moderators frame questions that give false impressions. Millions of people are watching and listening. The US intelligence community could not and did not provide sufficient evidence of the existence of a developed weapons program in Iraq, nor did the international intelligence agencies, thus resulting in a lack of support from the international community in waging this war. However, the Bush Administration was set on invading Iraq regardless. Bush knew the information he was putting forth to Congress and the American public was false at the time he used it to justify invading Iraq. It is important that these facts are told.
Posted April 3, 2006
...Barbra Streisand
Perhaps the Real Reason Bush Went to War
Two years before 9/11, Presidential candidate George W. Bush was already privately talking about invading Iraq. Mickey Herskowitz, a long-time Bush family friend who worked with the candidate as a ghostwriter on his memoir, claimed Bush was obsessed with the notion and was simply just looking for justification to do so. Less than a year into his presidency, the warmongering Bush Administration was given the perfect rationale for waging a war: combating terrorism.
Immediately following the 9/11 attacks, Bush saw himself surging to historical highs in the polls. His cabal of advisors saw the opportunity to cement their place in American history by starting a war under the guise of protecting the American people against terrorists. However, Bush shifted his focus from al Qaeda, terrorist group and sole perpetrator of the 9/11 attacks, to Iraq and a ruthless dictator who had no connection to 9/11. Even though 15 of the highjackers were from Saudi Arabia and Osama bin Laden, mastermind of 9/11 and leader of al Qaeda, was hiding in Afghanistan, Bush chose to invade Iraq.
In his unfinished authorized memoir of the President, Mickey Herskowitz touched upon the psycho-social reasons relating to Bush’s decision to invade Iraq: a long-standing father and son competition based on feelings of jealousy and inadequacy. Herskowitz stated that Bush felt his father wasted all of his political capitol he acquired during the Gulf War. George W. Bush was quoted saying "If I have a chance to invade, if I had that much capitol, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I am going to have a successful presidency." In invading Iraq, Bush saw the opportunity to emerge from his father's shadow and no longer be seen as the perpetual underachiever who consistently failed under the watchful eye of his accomplished father. He had the chance to finish what he feels his father was unable to finish. And he could finally have the opportunity to achieve something his father was unsuccessful in achieving...a two-term presidency.
History has proved that war-time presidents gain immense political capitol. And war-time presidents tend to have high approval ratings because when fighting an enemy, the country rallies around the flag and their Commander-in-Chief. But most importantly, war-time presidents get re-elected. According to Herskowitz, Bush accepted the view that without a military "win" under his belt no president could be considered truly successful. Bush knew what it took to get re-elected, but the stupidity was not to comprehend the repercussions of his own actions
Comment by BS— 2006/05/21 @ 04:01 PM — (Reply)
You can spin the truth any way you want. REALITY is that Gore LOST in 2000 and Kerry LOST in 2004 and Clinton will LOSE is 2008.
YOU lose every year.
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/05/21 @ 05:06 PM — (Reply)
Not very 'Christian" of you calling smeone "ungly."
But, enough about being not being a good Christian.
You want to know what the Iraq is all about, watch BAGDAD ER on HBO. This is real, these are real soldiers wounded in this GD war of Bush's.
Look at what this war has done to our soldiers. Look at what Bush's stinking war, that he planned even before 9/11.
Where are Bush's daughters, where was he during Vietnam? How the hell does he have the nerve to send our young people into a war that was necessary.
Watch this real-life program and if you have any heart you'll cry for these young people.
One day, God will look upon Bush when he dies and, hopefully, God won't put Bush in with all these brave young soldiers, (and their doctors) are sent.
You tell me how this justifies his war. This is all crap.
He doesn't belong with heroes.
Comment by Howard— 2006/05/21 @ 05:27 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/05/21 @ 05:38 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/05/21 @ 05:40 PM — (Reply)
I am tired of liberals not being intellectually honest. They say we live in a fascist country and then can't answer one right that they have lost. Hmmmmm Let's ask the question again Barry.
1). "I have lost the right to ____________________".
2). "Because of this, I can no longer ____________________".
EXAMPLE:
1). "I have lost the right to peaceably assemble".
2). "Because of this, I can no longer meet with my local political party".
Barbara Streisand now there is a fascist. She had the will of the people in Colorada reversed when they voted on the propostion dealing with homosexuality. ODL!
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/05/21 @ 05:44 PM — (Reply)
Cut your loses now Elmer/Barry -
Comment by Dugg— 2006/05/21 @ 05:48 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2006/05/21 @ 05:49 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/05/21 @ 05:50 PM — (Reply)
2004 - Kerry LOST
2008 - Clinton LOSES
Say hello to President McCain and Vice President Rice Dugg and Howard (Dean - Goebbels), not to mention Secretary of State Cheney.
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/05/21 @ 05:55 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/05/21 @ 05:58 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2006/05/21 @ 06:52 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/05/21 @ 07:04 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/05/21 @ 07:15 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/05/21 @ 05:59 PM — (Reply)
2). "Because of this, I can no longer ____________________".
EXAMPLE:
1). "I have lost the right to peaceably assemble".
2). "Because of this, I can no longer meet with my local political party".
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/05/21 @ 06:00 PM — (Reply)
Some conservative Republicans are just way too stupid to see the forest for the trees. They just cannot come to grips with just how badly our country is doing thanks to Bush, Chaney et al.
Once again, WATCH BAGDAD ER, and see what is happening right on you television screen. All these young soldiers fighting a war that Bush doesn't have the guts, or common sense to bring the kids home and cut our losses.
How anyone on this blog can't see the disaster happening before their eyes, are blind, or just don't give shit as they all sit home in the warm, comfry homes, riding their big SUVs, paying outrageous prices for Bush to continue to make is millions on foreign oil.
Comment by — 2006/05/21 @ 06:01 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/05/21 @ 06:19 PM — (Reply)
By the way over 17,000 Americans have been injured in ths GD War
Comment by — 2006/05/21 @ 06:03 PM — (Reply)
Babs, Brolin pay for tix? 'Impossible'
When James Brolin and Barbra Streisand got a free slide into their neighborhood theater, another Malibu denizen, Jennifer Grossman, was outraged.
Mega-diva Barbra Streisand and television actor James Brolin might be millionaires many times over, but don't expect them to pay $20 for a pair of movie tickets.
Arriving at the Mann Agoura Hills 8 near their Malibu estate on Friday night — apparently to see "Mission: Impossible III" — the 64-year-old singer-actress and her 65-year-old hubby wheedled their way into free seats by schmoozing the teenager in charge.
"We asked especially for you," Streisand cooed to the young man at the customer service desk, as Brolin smiled a winsome supporting-actor smile. "We haven't seen you in a while," La Streisand went on.
The flattered young man said he'd been transferred briefly to a different Mann multiplex, and added: "You're always welcome here. We'll take care of you."
Then he waved the happy couple past the ticket-takers.
Unluckily for Babs and Jim, the transaction was witnessed by paying customer Jennifer Grossman, a fellow Malibu resident and self-described "subversive right-winger" who doesn't much care for Streisand's Democratic politics.
"I just couldn't believe it," Grossman told me yesterday. "It's one thing to be comped their tickets, but it's quite another to ask to be comped, in order to save a lousy $20 bucks. But she's notorious for being this way. I wonder if she goes to Ralph's in Malibu and asks if she can have her groceries for free."
Yesterday, Streisand's PR rep said it's customary for "major stars" to get into movies for free. "It's a professional courtesy that many theaters extend to film stars." But Mann's doesn't have a policy of comping celebs.
Tom Cruise's rep, Paul Bloch, declined to comment on the Streisand freebies, but did crow that "M:i:III" had grossed $213 million worldwide as of this past weekend. "It was Tom's biggest non-holiday opening."
No thanks to Streisand and Brolin.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/05/21 @ 06:04 PM — (Reply)
Bwaahaaahaaa!
Comment by Broole— 2006/05/22 @ 03:53 AM — (Reply)
from the Mudville Gazette
There is nothing to celebrate in the numbers of injured, nothing can make war less ugly than it is. In spite of that, folks like those who write feel compelled to toss out outlandishly exagerated claims of "15,000 mutilated" - we are left to make our own assumptions as to why the truth
is ignored.
Don't feign that you care about them.
Now for the fifth or sixth time answer the question.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/05/21 @ 06:12 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/05/21 @ 06:18 PM — (Reply)
Getting one's facts straight and not make some seriously erroneous assumptions are important parts of intelligent public discourse.
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/05/21 @ 06:43 PM — (Reply)
Columbia ----------------------- 61.7
New Orleans (before Katrina) -- 53.1
South Africa -------------------- 49.6
Washington, DC ---------------- 45.9
Baltimore ---------------------- 37.7
Atlanta ------------------------- 34.9
Jamiaca ------------------------ 32.4
Venezuela ---------------------- 31.6
Iraq --------------------------- 25.71
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/05/21 @ 06:49 PM — (Reply)
You know the only reason some of us keep coming back on this so-called blog, is to annoy the "f" out all of you. We love getting your goat. Hee ... hee.
As long as Bush is president until '08 when a Democart wins, some of us will keep coming here to drive you all crazy.
Comment by — 2006/05/21 @ 07:07 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/05/21 @ 07:08 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/05/21 @ 07:10 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/05/21 @ 07:16 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/05/21 @ 07:27 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/05/21 @ 07:28 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/05/21 @ 07:29 PM — (Reply)
democratic lackey, government hack, liberal wacko, etc. I think you get the picture.
Do you have more suggestions?
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/05/21 @ 07:41 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/05/21 @ 08:15 PM — (Reply)
The Republican Party brought about what they’ve longed for, the fascist government of George W. Bush.
Bush election was sham in 2000. With a fascist government, elections can be manipulated by smear campaigns against opposing candidates as was the case when Bush was running in 2000.
They use legislation to control voting numbers, i.e., the 2000 “fraud” election of G. W. Bush. They use manipulation of the media. And, most typically, they will use their judiciaries to manipulate or control an election, i.e., the Supreme Court in deciding the 2000 election. Thus, we now have a fascist government.
This government is being taken over by religious fanatics. Here we are sending our military over to Iraq to bring the Iraqi people freedom, while here at home, one-by-one, we are losing our freedoms.
This is not the government for and by the people any longer, but a government for and by the religious right, who want to force their fundamental religious beliefs on the rest of us, and finally.
The fundamentalists in this country has brought down upon this nation a fascist government.
If these religious nuts could have their way, they’d turn anyone who is not of their faith into Christians.
If they could they’d force the Christian faith on Muslim countries. These people don’t like anyone who is not of the same mind. AND THAT IS SCARY!!
Comment by hs— 2006/05/21 @ 09:03 PM — (Reply)
Bwaahaaahaaa!
I wonder if hs has actually ever read the Bible? Nowhere does Christ say to go out and conquer in His name, rather, go forth and spread his teaching to all nations.
You are confused with the doctrine of the Quaran, which implicitly tells Muslims to kill those who will not convert, or to enslave them. The Quaran refers to non-Muslims, or "infidels" as pigs, dogs, and filth, and forbids the Muslim from taking one as a friend.
The Bible calls all men the children of God, and commands Christians to treat every man as his brother.
In Muslim countries, choosing to leave Islam is punishable by death, no questions asked. Christians are forbbiden from even possessing a Bible.
Who is forcing faith/ doesn't like anyone of the same mind?
Comment by Broole— 2006/05/22 @ 04:24 AM — (Reply)
The bible may tell Christians all that, and I venture to say most Christians abide by that. However, there is a segment of the Christian population who are fanatics.
They want to mix church and state, and that is NOT what this country is all about. Where John F. Kennedy did not run around the country telling everyone "God wants him to be president," President Bush seems to think God is speaking to him. That's fine, if he believes that, but to run around wearing his religion on his sleeve, running this country the way he wants to because he has this thing about God telling him what he should be doing.
Comment by — 2006/05/22 @ 06:06 AM — (Reply)
You still have not given me an example of some of the "rights" you no longer have. So all you have is rhetoric.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/05/22 @ 09:25 AM — (Reply)
You asked; here it is. How we are slowly losing our rights.
Americans, we are led to believe, are willing to give up their Constitution out of fear and for a sense of security? The Republican establishment has illegally wrought Constitutional changes without going through the established processes embodied in our Constitution.
As an example of what has been taken away from the people of America are the Rights contained in the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution.
The First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
(The California Anti-Terrorism Information Center has been gathering and analyzing information on activists and protest activity, in the state. This information is being used to compile dossiers on a wide range of organizations.)
Fourth Amendment. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated....
(Tell that to the folks who had their computers removed from their homes and businesses all with out probable cause and oath of affirmation. Or how about the Patriot permitting ‘wire taps, surveillances, searches, seizures all without Court approval! How about the so-call Patriot act permitting their secret agents to force libraries to tell them what books you are checking out?)
Fifth Amendment. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
(Under the Patriot Act, administered by the new Homeland Security Department individuals can now be jailed and held for and indefinite detention of both citizens and non-citizens without formal charges. The definition of terrorists is so broad that no one is immune from its net.)
Sixth Amendment. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
(Check out the John Walker Lindh case. Its scary what the American Gestapo is doing to our citizens under cover of the illegal Patriots Act.
In regards to suspected terrorist be held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, it has been revealed that the United States will hold military tribunals. Tribunals where the defendants will be prosecuted by the military and defended by the military, and the jury will be comprised of military personnel. And if/when found guilt it has been reported that they could be executed there as well.)
Through the Patriot Act, in conjunction with the Homeland Security Department, the checks and balances provide by the United States Constitution have been usurped! President George W. Bush has plunged this country into war, debt, and has brought about the deaths of 170 American servicemen! All of this was carried out with only the support of the Republican members of the Congress. The Democratic members had no say. Iraq has been and is an action of the Republican President, a Republican administration, and a Republican controlled Senate and Congress. What we have is a unilateral action by one party. The rest of the nation had no say. Our Constitution has been defiled and made irrelevant by the Republican Party.
Hispanics, as well a all other citizens of this country, struggled in the courts and streets to bring compliance with these rights and freedoms as past administrations and overzealous authorities attempted to deny such Constitutional guarantees in the past such as: The right to assemble peacefully without fear of surveillance and threat of authority. It was back in the 60’s and 70’s that the Hispanic community was harassed by the FBI, the U.S. Attorney General, and the police forces of this country as they attempted to deny them their right to assemble peacefully.
The Present Administration is attempting to take away our Constitutional Rights, to a fair and speedy trial, to be innocent until found guilty by Court of Law. Can we ever forget the Sleepy Lagoon trials? And now once again these rights are being taken away. Recently, at the Super Bowl, Hispanics were rounded up, jailed and deported under the Patriot Act. Our Constitutional Rights were totally ignored and disregarded by the zealots in the current administration.
As has been stated at various times in the pages of La Prensa San Diego: “ What makes America so special and different than all other countries is its Constitution, its Amendments to the Constitution, and its Bill of Rights. With out those safeguards, America will quickly become a single party nation ruled over by power-hungry zealots.
How long are the people of these United States going to stand by and see their precious Founding Documents be subverted by zealots of the Extreme Right wing of the Republican Party?
Need I say more. But, I understand, you're all too stupid to get it, and will follow like sheep whatever King George tells you.
Comment by HS— 2006/05/22 @ 11:18 AM — (Reply)
for the complete post try it here also.
I am not asking for some political diatribe or more rhetoric what can't YOU do that you couldn't do before GWB?
Give me a concrete answer.
The d'RATS, of course, immediately launched into tomes longer than "War and Peace". They all started with 'If-I-were-arrested...', 'If-I-were-held-at-Gitmo...', 'If-I-called-overseas...' and ended with '...I'd-have-no-representation', '...I'd-be-held-indefinitely', and '...my-wires-would-be-tapped'. (Bless their hearts--they think they are important enough for all that!) I had to tell them, 'No, no, no--NOT hypotheticals, NOT worst-case-MIGHT-happens, NOT whatever fevered branches of paranoia your 'is-this-good-enough-for-a-screenplay?' minds can reach for--I wanna know about your REAL LIVES.
(Cricket chirp.......chirp....................chirp; I evidently needed to make it REEEELLY easy for them...)
I said okay; let's just have you fill in the blanks:
1). "I have lost the right to ____________________".
2). "Because of this, I can no longer ____________________".
EXAMPLE:
1). "I have lost the right to peaceably assemble".
2). "Because of this, I can no longer meet with my local political party".
Sounds simple enough, right? According to the d'RATS decrepit style in which they now must live under President Bush, and their tremendous loss of freedoms about which they continually complain, you'd think these two questions would be easily filled out and answered--repetitively so...(surely ad nauseam!) Then why in the hell could not ONE d'Rat, Democrat party member, leftist, liberal--anarchist, communist--give me one damned answer??? I asked these questions many times, in many places, of many people. If THEY are right--and 'life as we've known it is over'--WHY CAN'T THEY ANSWER THIS?
EVERY American citizen--especially those of voting age--needs to ask themselves that question. Therein will be found the perfect definition of the the term 'propaganda'; they haven't lost their 'rights'--I don't care what their poisonous ideology tells them and what they choose to believe--what they've really 'lost' is their marbles.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/05/22 @ 11:30 AM — (Reply)
I don't have to give any answer, who are you. What I am saying IS, we slowly losing our rights.
We already have our damn phones taped, and that's only the beginning. I fear for our rights with the president, more than any other president we've had.
The fact of the matter, no matter what he does, it's never wrong in your eyes. He is the perfect president --- NOT!!!
Comment by — 2006/05/22 @ 11:52 AM — (Reply)
What's the point, no mstter what anyone says about Bush, you all have an excuse for his damn stupidity. He's a fascist, plane and simple.
Comment by HS— 2006/05/22 @ 11:55 AM — (Reply)
"Conservatives aren't necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill
Comment by Anonymous — 2006/05/22 @ 12:01 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2006/05/23 @ 08:17 AM — (Reply)
I am not defending Bush in the last few comments dumb*ss, I am trying to get you to clarify your own assertion...HELLO
and the difference is you never answered my question
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/05/22 @ 12:06 PM — (Reply)
I think the stupid one is the one who asserts we live in a fascist country and then fails to give an example.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/05/22 @ 12:10 PM — (Reply)
Denial is not a river in Egypt and the Bush Republicans refuse to recognize their Fascist and anti-American nature.
Comment by BL— 2006/05/22 @ 02:30 PM — (Reply)
George Bush is a power hungry, out of control person who is aided and abetted by a bunch of old war lords who have convinced him that he is above the laws of this land, that he can do as he pleases. It's time to hold Bush & the United States Congress to the oaths of their office. We The People have been shoved aside, dismissed, by a bunch of corrupt war-mongering, fake Christians who seem to think they have the divine right to trample on our rights in order to obtain their own greedy, self-serving goals.
In the process we believe that they have committed war crimes & crimes against humanity with their vile policies. A friend, (Edward P) wrote that "Bush & Cheney are not scared of the rest of the world. Their response is simple: f**K them, Nuke them, Move on, No Problem"
Let's make it a problem for George Bush and his gang of thugs who have violated our Constitution and made a mockery of our entire justice system. Whether you believe that Bush/Cheney were legally elected or not, it's time to get rid of this gang of crooks. They have no respect for the laws of the land nor for We The People. It's Impeachment time. These abusers of the Constitution of the United States should be impeached, removed from office & prosecuted for their crimes against the Constitution & the citizens of this country.
Comment by Howard— 2006/05/22 @ 02:46 PM — (Reply)
THIS Administration maintains a massive database of phone calls between you and your mother, your psychiatrist, your doctor, your pharmacist, your baby sitter, your friends and neighbors, and the Home Shopping Network.
They know when you order a pizza, they know when you call your bank, and they know when you call that 900 number you thought was your own little secret, oh, oh!! They even know when you talk against the administration to a friend.
They can track anything their little heart desires. They can track people running against them. They can know who's doing what, when and where when election times comes.
Editorializing in favor of a Republican Congress exercising oversight over President Bush is like buying a lottery ticket: Sure, it'll be great if it works out -- but you shouldn't get your hopes up.
More than 50 members of Congress have now called for the appointment of a special counsel ..
The only reason to believe the call monitoring is used only to fight terrorism is that the Bush administration says so -- the same administration that said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and the same administration that said it was monitoring only international calls of suspected terrorists ..
What a bunch of thugs! But, they're YOUR thugs, and you love them no matter what
Comment by Hey, I'm back!!! Guess who?— 2006/05/22 @ 02:58 PM — (Reply)
I have asked for an example, care to provide one? Fill in the blanks there BS I mean BL
1). "I have lost the right to ____________________".
2). "Because of this, I can no longer ____________________".
EXAMPLE:
1). "I have lost the right to peaceably assemble".
2). "Because of this, I can no longer meet with my local political party".
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/05/22 @ 02:58 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/05/22 @ 04:28 PM — (Reply)
your pal,
Elmers Brother
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/05/22 @ 04:44 PM — (Reply)
Rich Republicans ... guess tax cuts help buying a summer house in AZ, huh?
Comment by HS— 2006/05/22 @ 07:43 PM — (Reply)
Barry Goldwater was from Az. This is a joke there HS.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/05/22 @ 09:06 PM — (Reply)
What a surprise. A liberal devoid of humor.
Guess what? The spam prevention word spells caliph...Co-incidence?
Where's Dugg when we need him?
Comment by Brooke— 2006/05/23 @ 05:17 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/05/23 @ 05:23 PM — (Reply)
Hey, how the hell are all of you? Looks like things have been quiet of late ... hmmm, have to do something about that, don't want you to miss my comments.
Comment by Howard— 2006/06/12 @ 06:31 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/06/12 @ 06:56 PM — (Reply)
Your comments about Hillary and the Kennedy, tsk, tsk, not very CHRISTIAN of youMr. Concersvative Realist. I guess you're cut from the smae clother as Ms. Ann Coulter ... now there is a nasty, mean bitch!!!
Comment by — 2006/06/18 @ 05:09 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/06/18 @ 07:37 PM — (Reply)
A swearing, foaming at the mouth libbie who wants tolerance from the right while at the same time flinging insults at them.
Tool.
Comment by Brooke— 2006/06/19 @ 05:41 AM — (Reply)
Yep, you got it, Joe!!! It's the Republican/Conservative attitude that wants everyone to march their way, and their way only that brings out the venomon ... you created every bit of it, all of you.
Comment by libbie— 2006/06/19 @ 02:25 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/06/19 @ 06:03 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/06/19 @ 06:06 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/06/19 @ 06:10 PM — (Reply)
So, anyone who says, does or thinks diffrently, you all think they're gay, or had a sex change ... WHAT???
Comment by — 2006/06/19 @ 06:55 PM — (Reply)
So, anyone who says, does or thinks diffrently, you all think they're gay, or had a sex change ... WHAT???
Comment by — 2006/06/19 @ 06:55 PM — (Reply)
Yep, you got it, Joe!!! It's the Republican/Conservative attitude that wants everyone to march their way, and their way only that brings out the venomon ... you created every bit of it, all of you.
Comment by libbie— 2006/06/19 @ 05:25 PM — (Reply)
Let me get this straight "libbie". It is someone else's fault that you are rude, hateful, untruthful and venomous. Therefor behaving that way is fine. Tell me "libbie", did you use your Katrina ATM card for booze or porn?
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/06/19 @ 07:55 PM — (Reply)
we just think you're gay libbie
Comment by — 2006/06/19 @ 10:00 PM — (Reply)
Can one of you geniuses tell me, or explain to me now, why we went into Iraq, because of the "so-called" WMDs? When we now know, and Bush knew, there were no WMDs? So, we go to Iraq while North Korea may have has a ballistic missile capable of hitting U.S. We were not in any jeopardy of being attacked by Iraq, but we may be now by North Korea. Tell me how this makes us safer by being in Iraq right now?
This time in our country, since Bush has been president, scares me more than when I grew up in the "duck and cover" days of my childwood. He is so stupid, he's creating a more dangerous world with his polices, because we are hated all over the world because of him.
This is a facist president and government, you Republicans are fascists. This is not the Republican Party I remember. This is a fascist Republican party.
I'm afraid that by the time Bush is out of office, we will be worse for it. This is a scary time, thanks to the nit-wit sitting in the oval office.
Comment by — 2006/06/20 @ 02:37 PM — (Reply)
Please oh please answer the question.
I have asked for an example, care to provide one? Fill in the blanks.
1). "I have lost the right to ____________________".
2). "Because of this, I can no longer ____________________".
EXAMPLE:
1). "I have lost the right to peaceably assemble".
2). "Because of this, I can no longer meet with my local political party".
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/06/20 @ 03:49 PM — (Reply)
Second, please explain your current Iraq plan in detail.
Third, did you or did you not receive a Katrina ATM card?
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/06/20 @ 04:17 PM — (Reply)
FU
Comment by — 2006/06/21 @ 04:37 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/06/21 @ 04:44 AM — (Reply)
I think this blog may break 700 posthumously!
So anonymous... can you elucidate on FU? Do you mean Florida University? Frilly Underwear? Forensic Urinalysis?
Heeeeyyy...... You don't think anonymous meant...
Comment by Brooke— 2006/06/21 @ 05:13 AM — (Reply)
"fed up" ooh, did you think of something else a "bad" word? Shame, shame. You have a dirty mind!
Comment by — 2006/06/21 @ 10:19 AM — (Reply)
Wowee, the Supreme Court slapped Bush "up side the head" with their ruling today. Finally, the Supreme Court tells Bush he does not have "cart blanch" of his power. Finally, finally ... no President should have indiscrminate power. The is a great day for the United States. It's time we reel this president in. If we want other countries to live by the Geneva Convention, then so should we.
Tbey grabed the prez by the "you know whats" and stopped him, yippee!!!
Comment by Howard— 2006/06/29 @ 05:11 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2006/06/29 @ 05:32 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/06/29 @ 06:12 PM — (Reply)
HHey, Mr. Conservative, how the hell are you? My proposal is get things in order for a withdrawal.
Oh, I have a lot of favorite Democrats ... but, by in large it's "anyone but a Republican!!!" And remember one important thing, any powers that Bush has now and keeps through the end of his presidency, I want you to picture this, really, really, picture this. Any and all power that George has given himself, will go right to the next president, a DEMOCRATIC president. How would you like that?
Comment by Howard— 2006/06/29 @ 06:22 PM — (Reply)
So..any democrat huh? You are OK with say Al Gore, Al Franken, John Kerry?
Come on bud, take a position...say you were king of the world...what particular democrat would you like to see in the White House?
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/06/29 @ 06:35 PM — (Reply)
I told you, I don't know just yet, and fyf, no it's not the former first lady! You didn't answer question, about the powers bush has amassed for himself.
Comment by — 2006/06/29 @ 06:40 PM — (Reply)
I do not know, at the moment, I need to see who will be out there running; until I know that ... I can't answer your question. There are some good people out there ... let's turn it around, who would you like to see replace the idiot president?
Comment by Howard— 2006/06/29 @ 07:36 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/06/29 @ 08:18 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/06/29 @ 08:19 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/06/29 @ 08:23 PM — (Reply)
Both parties are corrupt and need to be flushed. Time to give someone else a chance.
Comment by Dugg— 2006/06/29 @ 10:04 PM — (Reply)
Well, Christi Whitman, huh, very funny, the Republicans wouldn't elect her for dog catcher these days!!! I think she dumped on the administrtion, the last I heard.
I'm not too happy with the Dems at the moment; however, I think they can find someone that will beat the corrupt Republicans. Yeah, the Dems have problems, but I want to see someone who wants to keep the Constitution in tackt.'
And once again, anyone but Bush, ANY Bush ... no Jeb, God help us.
Comment by — 2006/06/30 @ 06:11 AM — (Reply)
So, what? We attacked Iraq because of imagined WMDs, we over extend ourselves in a rediculous war, that we all know is probably all about oil, anyway. Iraq was not a REAL threat, but Bush gets his underwear all in a knot, and goes to war. Hope he enjoyed is wedgie ...
Today, and yesteday, North Korea sends up missles, is a clear danger to he US, and the world at large, and what does Mr. Prez say about it, virtually, nothing, he acted like he had his thumb up his nose, and didn't know this missle task by NK was a real threat. IS HE TOTALLY OUT OF HIS FIGGEN MIND? Geezes, what the "f" is wrong with this man. Was this not one of the countries part of what he called "the axis of evil!!!!!!!!!"
He doen't know how to respond, now he looks to our allies, ahem, what allies, we have no allies, really!!! He "f'd" up again.
Comment by HS— 2006/07/05 @ 02:01 PM — (Reply)
There have been over 500 chemical shells discovered and evidence that WMD was shipped to Syria.
Now could you provide for us the number and text of the UN Security Council resolution that stated that Iraq could keep any chemical weapons stocks regardless of their numbers and condition?
The first Gulf War was not officially over and Saddam had broken the cease fire too many times to count. Then there are the ties to Al Queda and Al Zarqawi making ricin in northern Iraq prior to the war (2002)and there is this from ABC news in 1999.
Let me know when you're done with your rhetoric HS and please please answer the question about what rights you have lost.
Please oh please answer the question.
I have asked for an example, care to provide one? Fill in the blanks.
1). "I have lost the right to ____________________".
2). "Because of this, I can no longer ____________________".
EXAMPLE:
1). "I have lost the right to peaceably assemble".
2). "Because of this, I can no longer meet with my local political party".
You do know that the left's crying wolf about supposed lost rights is what ushered Hitler into power?
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/07/05 @ 03:58 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/07/05 @ 05:48 PM — (Reply)
If Bush doesn't do anything, you'll whine about how he is a clear danger to us. BTW, do you remember Kerry saying before the elections that Iraq was a clear and present danger to us? Probably not. You have the attention span of an average goldfish.
As for the "war for oil"... I'm not even going there with you, as the argument is so unintelligent that my five year old could easily debunk it.
Comment by Brooke— 2006/07/06 @ 05:03 AM — (Reply)
Oh, and just so you can't go off on some half-awake, uninformed rant, I submit this:
What Did The Democrats Say About Iraq's WMD
JANUARY 30, 2004 | Printable Version
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source
Comment by Brooke— 2006/07/06 @ 05:19 AM — (Reply)
Hey, I have an idea, if we are in a "WAR ON TERROR," then we should go after all who perpetrate terror, including right=wingers, since Timothy McVee was a right-winger ... the right-wingers, YOU foks, are are who I truly fear.
Had to finally put my two cents in, once again. This whole country is going to hell in a handbasket
Comment by Louise— 2006/07/11 @ 07:24 AM — (Reply)
and Hitler was a left winger. (Socialist?)Stalin (communist)
I have asked for an example of how bad things are, care to provide one? Fill in the blanks.
1). "I have lost the right to ____________________".
2). "Because of this, I can no longer ____________________".
EXAMPLE:
1). "I have lost the right to peaceably assemble".
2). "Because of this, I can no longer meet with my local political party".
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/07/11 @ 08:08 AM — (Reply)
Darn those pesky facts, huh, Louise?
Comment by Brooke— 2006/07/11 @ 02:21 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/07/11 @ 04:23 PM — (Reply)
Well, there is a story in my area where a youing boy 16 has lymphoma, you know what that is, right? Well, he was in remission, but now it's returned. He no longer wants chemo, as it leaves him too week, so he is seeking an alternative treatment, but because it's unconventinal treatment a court is trying to block this treatment.
What I want to know is, does the American family have a right when it concerns their child, to decide on the treatment they wish to have, or does a judge (Republican, by the way,) have a right to come in and determine the treatment himself. This is another case of the government getting into our personal family business.
I thought Republicans wanted government to stay out of our lives, yet, every time a read newspaper, it read otherwise.
What do you have to say. Should not this 16 year old and his parents decide on the treatment he wants.
hat it boils down to is does the American family have the right to decide on the health of their child," Jay Cherrix said, "or is the government allowed to come in and determine that themselves and threaten one way or the other to split our family up?"
Comment by — 2006/07/12 @ 02:23 PM — (Reply)
and yet, anonymous commenter, American parents must pay to educate the children of others while not getting vouchers to choose how to educate their own children. Most American parents are forced to subsidize schools that promote values inconsistent with their own. Is that less government? Oh- wait - the dems never even paid lip service to 'less government'. They are all for socialism. They want us all forced into paying for the permanent underclass of minority voters they have fostered and funneled into a voting bloc. They don't give a rat's a$$ about minorities or homosexuals or anyone but their own power. They are all about putting together a coalition of brainwashed "victims" to keep themselves in power.
Tell me why Republicans haven't jumped ship on family values even though there appears to be votes made by supporting gays and pro-abortion PACS? Go to GOP.com and check out the party platform. I'm not suggesting they haven't done a fair bit of selling out. But your example is a weak one. WACO happened on Clinton's watch as did the whole Elian Gonzalez fiasco. Talk about infringement on individual rights!
Comment by — 2006/07/12 @ 04:20 PM — (Reply)
The issue you mentinoned does not seem to be either a right or left issue. The treatment should be reasonable otherwise the parents may be seen as being negligent. As a homeschooling parent we have run into this issue several times and I could share stories of overreaching child protective services who try to take kids away from parents who just want a choice in their child's education. You can thank the liberal teachers unions, the US dept of education (we don't need this agency) and overreaching lackeys in state education departments. When we lived in California the Sup. of Education for the state sent us a letter stating that we must go to the local public school, register our children for an independent study program. The school would provide the curriculum and they would check on us periodically. Do you think they really cared about my kids education? Hell no. As long as they could count my kid as part of the local public school they could receive more federal education money. She of course had no right to require this, the law did not require it.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/07/12 @ 07:41 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/07/12 @ 06:07 PM — (Reply)
Are you conservatives reading the news lately? It seems to me that this administration and our country is up shit's creek.
I predict we will eventually have to bring the draft back, because the way things are going around the world, no one in his or her right mind will enlist in the military... that's virtual suicide, these days. So, a a draft is in our unfortunate future. And my grandchildren and your grandchildren will have to pay for the mess that Bush has created.
Thanks to Bush’s our image around the world is totally shattered and our military strength has been totally decimated, thanks to the fool who sits in the White House.
Oh, wait, at the rate Bush is going there won't be a draft, BECAUSE WE WILL ALL BE DEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He's an evil, evil man, and one day he will meet his maker, and God will say, "you can't come through these gates," because of the evil you perpertrated one earth.
Yes, Clinton made a moral mistake with a young intern, but Bush made a bigger moral mistake for what he has perpetrated upon this country and the world.
Comment by Louise— 2006/07/13 @ 07:32 AM — (Reply)
Well, the proof is in the pudding, let's see what kind of a so-called leader Bush is now, with the mess in the Middle East. Where are his friends, oh, that's right, he doesn't have any. Did I hear he wants dipolomacy, he's a joke, a real joke ... he may just be the man to cause the entire Middle East go up in flames. A civil was is going on in Iraq, no doubt about that, no thanks to Bush, "they have WMDs, and despite what Bush keeps telling us, that things are getting better there. A joke, what a joke, but sadly I can't seem to laugh. People are dying so now he wants to try deiplomacy. Ugh, I see a devil
and he looks like George W. Bush.
What we need are real leaders like his daddy and Bill, that's what we need. Because baby Bush can't lead his way out of a paper sack, no siree-bob!!
I would love to see Bush be able to succeed in calming things down, then I might back off, but until then, no way!!!
Comment by RMN— 2006/07/13 @ 07:16 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/07/13 @ 08:00 PM — (Reply)
Get with it, I seem to remember "bozo" said not too very long ago, "the world is safer now .... blah, blah, blah.
You know, I thought you were smarter than that, sir. I guess, I'm wrong ... oh, well ... at least I can admit when I'm wrong, but so are you, my dear sir.
If Bush can calm the seas, maybe I can give him a tip of the hat, I'd love to be able to do that, but, it just doesn't seem that that's going to happen, we're on the brink, it's not all Bush's fault, by I do blame him for all his mistakes, in underestimating the rest of the world. He lives in a bubble .. so sad, so very sad ... for all of us.
Comment by — 2006/07/13 @ 08:10 PM — (Reply)
Saw Bush on TV with the German chancellor ... the world is up in flames, and he's at a press conference, says he "can't wait for the feast tonight and the pig they will be eating." Come on, doesn't he embarrass you?
Then a news reporter stands up at the press conference asking about the Middle East, Lebanon and the fighting, and and Bush retorts back, "I thought you were going to ask about the Pig!! (smirks, of course) Okay? Jokes are fine, but this was not the time for joke, he is simply ... simple.
What a pathetic excuse for a president of these United States.
Comment by — 2006/07/13 @ 08:19 PM — (Reply)
To the person who did not give their name on the last comment, isn't it interesting they can't give you answer to your question/comment. Pathetic, isn't it?
Comment by Louise— 2006/07/19 @ 07:57 PM — (Reply)
Conservative Central is rather quiet of late. Could it be that they've FINALLY realized that going into Iraq, taking out Sadam, thus destablizing the whole Middle East, and now total disaster with what is presently going on between Lebanon and Israel.
This is a mess that we will pay for for the next, God only knows, how many years. This president hasn't a clue as to what he has brought to he region by invading Iraq over WMDs that didn't exist. And now there are at least 100 people dying every day. What say you, conservatives? How do you defend "idiot" president.
Comment by RMN— 2006/07/20 @ 02:41 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2006/07/20 @ 03:17 PM — (Reply)
we mentioned that about 200 comments ago but it doesn't surprise me that those on the other side of the aisle have a hard time with reading comprehension
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/07/20 @ 07:01 PM — (Reply)
Thanks Cate and EB! I mentioned this fact a long time ago in this thread, and the last post made on this blog gives the details and a link.
Duh.
Comment by Brooke— 2006/07/21 @ 06:15 AM — (Reply)
SO, WHAT HAS THE PRESIDENT DONE FOR US LATELY?
Comment by — 2006/07/27 @ 10:44 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Brooke— 2006/07/28 @ 05:24 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/07/28 @ 05:35 AM — (Reply)
Liar.
Comment by Brooke— 2006/08/01 @ 06:20 PM — (Reply)
Now, who's calling people names. If you want to know what a real turd looks like, look into the WH.
Comment by — 2006/08/05 @ 12:13 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/08/05 @ 05:15 PM — (Reply)
Oh, ya'll so darn smart ... well, you probably are ... about as smart as the "turd" in the WH. Now, there's a REAL Eistein! We're so lucky to have him in there, he's done such a damn good job, ha!!!
Comment by — 2006/08/05 @ 08:15 PM — (Reply)
Oh, ya'll so darn smart ... well, you probably are ... about as smart as the "turd" in the WH. Now, there's a REAL Eistein! We're so lucky to have him in there, he's done such a damn good job, ha!!!
Comment by — 2006/08/05 @ 08:16 PM — (Reply)
You have got to give up on these people, they believed Bush before, and they'll continue to believe him until he's out of office. They just can't get enough of his "bushit."
How pathetic ... they'll go to their graves singing his praises.
Comment by RRM— 2006/08/05 @ 08:30 PM — (Reply)
732....nice shot at the President, exactly where did the conversation involve the President other than your potshot?
"these people"? you sound a little like a cracker bigot 732.
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/08/05 @ 08:53 PM — (Reply)
Some facts, and no fiction: Read it and Weep!
Let’s get real here. When Bush came into office. Bill Clinton left him a $230 billion surplus and a balanced budget.
Not only isn’t the budget balanced, that surplus from five years ago has turned into a deficit of $7.95 trillion, increasing at the rate of about $1.7 billion a day.
About 45 million Americans, including about nine million children, don’t have health insurance, according to the American Public Health Association. The United States is the only country in the developed nations that doesn’t have universal health care....
George W. Bush had broad-based popular support from all Americans after 9/11, and manipulated that into a second term victory. But, through his own arrogance and incompetence, stupidity, and not willing to admit he made a mistake, he has long ago spent whatever capital he thought he had, although it took the American people nine months after the 2004 election to finally speak out.
No matter which poll you believe, they all reveal the same thing—if George W. Bush was the United States of America being graded on the standards of his No Child Left Behind Act, he’d fail.
And if the election were held today, he’d lose. Now, are country is worse off now than be for the ’04 election, and it will take years to fix ALL the mistakes that he’s made. But, wait there’s more.
As for Iraq, we will not bring our soldiers home until right before the ’08 election, hoping that will help a Republican get the WH once again. I pray to GOD that the American people will wake up, and realize that it is time for change.
The America I grew up in, and was proud of, is no longer, it’s just a country in turmoil, created by the His Holiness, George W. Bush. How any one man could destroy a proud American in such a short time, is beyond my comprehension.
But, as long as there are people like the neo-cons standing up a permitting this destruction, I see no hope for returning our country to what it once was. How sad, for us, for our children, our grandchildren, and great grandchildren. Who will fix what he has broken?
Comment by WMB— 2006/08/06 @ 08:47 AM — (Reply)
You are so correct, sir, I am a bigot, I'm a bigot against your president of the Unidted States of America. I'm the biggest bigot of them all when it comes to GWB. And I can say that about him, because I think we still have free speech here in this country.
Comment by — 2006/08/06 @ 09:26 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2006/08/06 @ 10:46 AM — (Reply)
Hitler
Bush
Saddam
Son of Sam
Stalin
Mussolini
Castro
Ted Bundy
Jimmy Carter
WMB.....please explain in detail how your personal life is different and in what way than it was in 2000. You can play too Dugg and anyone else.
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/08/06 @ 03:10 PM — (Reply)
Bush #2
Comment by Dugg— 2006/08/06 @ 03:14 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/08/06 @ 03:20 PM — (Reply)
If things keep up, Bush will be Number 1!
Comment by — 2006/08/06 @ 08:03 PM — (Reply)
So... All of this anti-Bush stuff aside, can you tell me anything that the Democratic party stands for? A cursory view of their beliefs? What direction do they want to take the country?
Even a mere glance at the news provides little insight, other than the Democrats are the "anti-Bush" party. How can you reasonably expect me to vote for a Dem, if they offer nothing but "You should hate that guy more than you might hate me."? I don't WANT the lesser of two evils; I want a good party that carries strong values and has a clear purpose. I think that most Americans would rather follow a guy that may have the wrong answer, as long as he HAS AN ANSWER! The Dems offer nothing, except negitivism. Americans don't want that.
Until the Democratic party can once again offer a clear, positive vision for the future, they are destined for failure. Discourse and new ideas should be encouraged, especially in the situation they are in. Instead, if one dares to break even a little bit from towing the party line, the Dems punish rather than listen and consider. Sending "a message" to Lieberman is just shooting themselves in the foot. Lieberman will break off from the Dems and run independant, and WIPE THE FLOOR with the donkey!
Comment by Brooke— 2006/08/07 @ 08:49 AM — (Reply)
You asked, here it is, this is what we Democrats want and hope to achieve when we take over in '08. All the things that have not been accomplished, thus far, by the you, the Republicans and the president.
End the Republican culture of corruption and restore a government as good as the people it serves, starting with real ethics reform. REAL ETHICS, not your kind of ethics.
To protect Americans at home and lead the world by telling the truth to our troops, our citizens and our allies. We believe in a strong national defense that is both tough and smart, recognizing that homeland security begins with hometown security. We're sick and tired of the lies by Bush, Chaney and Rumsfeld.
We will create a cleaner, greener and stronger America by reducing our dependence on foreign oil, eliminating billions in subsidies for oil and gas companies and use the savings to provide consumer relief and develop energy alternatives, and investing in energy independent technology. Something the president has shown little interest in, thus far.
To create jobs that stay in America and restore opportunity for all Americans, starting with raising the minimum wage, expanding Pell grants and making college tuition tax deductible. We also believe in budget discipline that reduces our deficit.
Ensure that a retirement with dignity is the right and expectation of every single American, starting with pension reform, expanding saving incentives and preventing the privatization of social security.
To join other industrialized nations in making sure everyone has access to affordable health care, starting by fixing the prescription drug program and investing in stem cell and other medical research. And stem cell research, as the mother of a daughter who could benefit from stem cell research, this man has no thought to the millions of people who this research can benefit. Of course, if he needed it for his family, some how, and in some way, he will manage to have it. But, for my daughter, who could possibly, die, doctors have said, this kind of research could help her, or others in the future.
But, Bush would rather see someone die than to use cells, that would be thrown in the trash, than to help various people and their ilnesses.
The Republican Party stand for "All for one (Republicans), and one for all, Republicans, and the hell with the rest of the population!!!
You all make me sick, and, yes, I'm bitter, very bitter for what this adminsitrations has done to this country, or better, yet, NOT done for this country.
Comment by — 2006/08/07 @ 03:53 PM — (Reply)
With the Republican Party pretty much in shambles itself, who are you to give the Democrats advice?
Comment by RHM— 2006/08/07 @ 04:59 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/08/07 @ 05:43 PM — (Reply)
I could care less about Hillary. Do you think she's the only possible candidate in '08 for the Dems ... don't think so.
There are others waiting in the wings. I for one would love to Bill Richardson as a candidate. There could be someone out there, that no one is even thinking about.
One thing is for sure the majority of the country have now come around to realize that going into Iraq was BIG mistake, and want our troops out. That, for sure, will be a negative for any Republican that stands with Bush. Oh, but wait, it seems a slew of them are all running from being seen with Bushie ... maybe even his wife?
Look, I'm no fan of Hillary, but I'll give her this, she's bright and articulate, that's more than you can say for Bush.
And by the way, I see no one has really bothered to comment to the person who answered Brook's question as to what Democrats are all about, what their issues are, and how they could clean up the mess Bush will be leaving us.
Comment by RHM— 2006/08/07 @ 07:24 PM — (Reply)
Wonder what the Repubs would do if Hillary got the nomination and won the '08 election ... run for the hills, ya' think? That would be great, I think. Oh, boy another Clinton WH, that would stick in their throats.
The first female president, and a Demorcrat to boot, ya-hoooooo!!!
I think having Hillary would be really cool!!!!
Comment by HD— 2006/08/07 @ 07:53 PM — (Reply)
Still waiting to the request of what the Democrats would do?
Funny, all of a sudden no one is out there? Come on, folks, get with it.
Comment by — 2006/08/07 @ 08:00 PM — (Reply)
A mass killer is no longer controlling Iraq and doing more killing.
Please do not presume to speak for anyone other than yourself. In the case of yourself, a little factual research an accuracy would at least make you appear less uninformed.
#742 lists a few vague generalities that anyone would agree with for the most part. However like the dnc, #742 has no plan to implement anything and has presented nothing new....so why bother responding to basically more of Howard Dean's hot empty air.
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/08/07 @ 09:35 PM — (Reply)
Hillary will carry New York, you're only wisful thinking, and you ARE, as ususual, full of BUSHSHIT!!!
As for the "mass killer," yeah, he's gone, but now they're in an all-out civil war, and mass killing each other. Oh year, they're better off with Sadam gone.
Can't you see and read and hear what a mess is going on in Iraq, a mess that we perpetrated by going in there in the first place? Are you blind, AND deaf, man? Geeze, wake up, WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by — 2006/08/08 @ 06:47 AM — (Reply)
What the hell is going on??? Yesterday, we're told that "the UK foiled another terrorist plot” ... make note, it's the U.S. NOT the U.S. Government who foiled this threat. But, no matter, what in the hell was Tony Snow doing making a statement about this event and making it a political moment for Bush and his minions?
After Lamont wins against Lieberman, Snow for Bush and the Republicans come out and say, in so many words, that Lamont's success will put us in danger of another terrorist attack. I see it differently,
Lieberman’s loss means the American public want out of the Iraq war.
A day later, low and behold, a terrorist attack is foiled, again, not by us, by someone else. Is someone trying to tell us we’d be safer with the Republicans, and that the Democrats, can’t keep us safe? They want to say to us, “be afraid, stick with us. We’ll keep you safe. They’re full of crap. Five years after 9/11 are we safer now, than we were, then, obviously not, if we continue to have these incidences. Maybe we need to try the Dems.
Then Bush has the "balls" to come on TV and make some stupid statement that is just a rerun of what he's said over and over since 9/11.
And isn't interesting after Lamont wins against Lieberman, that the Republicans come out and say, in so many words, that Lamont's success will put us in danger of another terrorist attack. And whoa ... lo and behold, a day later, a terrorist attack is foiled, again, not by us, by someone else.
And why didn't Bush mention that the Pakistani government were the ones who learned of this so-called attack. Could it be that Bush wants us to the think it's the Brits and us who prevented this attack?
And, someone tell me why both Bush and Blair are sitting on their fat asses remaining on vacation. Wasn't this SO important that they could cut short their respective vacations, and return home. Yet, everyone else traveling has to change their trip plans, etc., and be inconvenienced, but the "fat asses" remain on vacation, as if this is no big deal. Could it not be they didn’t think it was a bid deal, because they already knew about it?
THIS ALL SMELLS. And what about the War in Iraq; hey, is it over???? I haven’t heard about it? I hear nothing from the administration, nor the right-wing media; i.e., Fox, about what's happening in Iraq.
Are they counting on the war in the Middle East to keep the focus of the American people off the disaster, and civil war that IS now going on in Iraq.
I hear nothing of late about Bush’s great war on terror … Iraq?
Here's what I see: the Republicans will continue to tell us to be afraid, so that they can keep their seats in Congress and in the Senate. I predict, we will have another one of these so-called threat of attack once more before November, and then once again, before the '08 election.
Hopefully the American people will wake up from their big sleep and see this administration and the Republicans for what they are liars. Liars, liars, liars!!!!!!
Comment by Lmz— 2006/08/10 @ 02:05 PM — (Reply)
We need to rid ourselves of this “imperial" presidency, and bring the executive branch to be co-equal with the other two branches of government.
We need to disband the primary instrument of presidential power, i.e., Office of Homeland Security, and require the president, no matter who he/she is, to meet in an open forum, with ALL members of Congress.
Comment by TH— 2006/08/10 @ 02:32 PM — (Reply)
Hi, I'm back and I have a question. Do you all think we're going to be at highest terror-elert level until election day in November?
Hmmmmmmm!!!
Comment by Louise— 2006/08/10 @ 07:55 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/08/10 @ 09:05 PM — (Reply)
I have a question too....when are you going to tell us what rights you no longer have? What a maroon.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/08/10 @ 09:51 PM — (Reply)
"Hopefully the American people will wake up from their big sleep and see this administration and the Republicans for what they are liars. Liars, liars, liars!!!!!!"
What's next? Pants on fire?
Comment by Brooke— 2006/08/11 @ 07:37 AM — (Reply)
Republicans determined to win in November are up against a troublesome trend — growing opposition to
President Bush.
An Associated Press-Ipsos poll conducted this week found the president's approval rating has dropped to 33 percent, matching his low in May. His handling of nearly every issue, from the
Iraq war to foreign policy, contributed to the president's decline around the nation, even in the Republican-friendly South.
More sobering for the GOP are the number of voters who backed Bush in 2004 who are ready to vote Democratic in the fall's congressional elections — 19 percent. These one-time Bush voters are more likely to be female, self-described moderates, low- to middle-income and from the Northeast and Midwest.
Comment by HD— 2006/08/11 @ 09:12 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Brooke— 2006/08/13 @ 03:56 PM — (Reply)
We will see YOU out. You will never get rid of us! What's the matter can't take it anymore. What's wrong don't like when we pick on Mr. Bush, uh, too, too, bad.
Comment by — 2006/08/14 @ 04:30 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/08/14 @ 05:33 PM — (Reply)
I'm curious Elmer, that picture you have on this blog, do you know you look like a terrorist? Watch out, be careful, George may be watching you. Ooooh! You should really get a new pix.
Comment by — 2006/08/14 @ 05:46 PM — (Reply)
Um... I'm NOT getting rid of you, moron. This entire bloghi site is closing.
Um... Did you notice the international 'NO' sign through the terrorist's face? Moron.
Comment by Brooke— 2006/08/15 @ 03:07 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2006/08/15 @ 04:38 PM — (Reply)
You still look like a terrorist to me, AH.
Hey, have you seen what's been on TV lately? Finally, others are noticing what I've known all along. There's some speculation that Bush is very stupid. CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT ... it's taken this long for some of these yahoos to ask, "do ya' think he's stupid?" Come on, folks, smell the coffee.
Dugg, it's hopeless for this group here, they will never see him as he is, but only through rose-colored glasses.
Sadly, we have a way to go with Bush, hopefully, it won't be too late for this country, when the next administration comes in. And, if there is a Moron, he's sitting in the WH!
And all the things that this administration has put into place, will be there for the Democrats, I wonder how they'll like that.
Comment by RRM— 2006/08/15 @ 07:08 PM — (Reply)
I've been reading, and I've been following a lot of news from overseas, and there is a lot of people who believe that the "terrorist attacked," that was to have occurred a few days ago, was a hoax put up by Bush and Blair.
You know, I wouldn't put it past Bush, that's for sure. Every time things start to look really bad for Bush and the Republicans (the general election coming up fast) we hear about a so-called "imminent attack. But, are always able to thwart these so-called terrorist plots.
Hmm, intersting. I even have to wonder about 9/11. I think, maybe, Bush and his men, had something to do with that, too. Maybe they planned something, but didn't expect it to go as it did. Maybe it was a plan gone wrong. Maybe, they wanted to scare us, so they could justify the war in Iraw, and tie it to terrorism. Let's be honest here, the war was on Bush's agenda before even stole the first election. This will all come out one day, I'm absolutely sure of that.
Comment by Louise— 2006/08/15 @ 07:29 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2006/08/15 @ 07:53 PM — (Reply)
Thank you ... the truth will come out.
Comment by Luise— 2006/08/16 @ 05:48 AM — (Reply)
Even though I dislike the policies of the libbies in our gov't, I don't think that one side or another is EVIL. That's the difference between us, I guess. One side believes in and hopes for the best, yet will act against the worst, while the other side expects the worst all of the time.
Comment by Brooke— 2006/08/17 @ 05:22 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2006/08/17 @ 07:03 AM — (Reply)
How short our memories are, think way back to when Clinton was president and let's, for the moment, forget the Monica situation.
From the first day Clinton became president, the same crap that you see and hear about what the liberals think about Bush, happened during Clinton's 8 years in office.
Every right-wing tv and radio show, I heard, and every Repbulican I knew and spoke to spouted every nasty comment they could make, they hated Clinton, no doubt about it.
Tell me you didn't hate Clinton as much as these people did.
Oh, never mind, YOU probably don't have the word "hate" in your vacabulary.
See, I think that's where the problem comes in. You guys wouldn't give Clinton the time of day, EVERYTHING he did you hated.
My theory is, that ever since Nixon left office, because he would have been impeached had he not left, you guys, Republicans, have never gotten over it. Well, now we feel the same way.
However, Clinton was impeached over a damn sex scandal, and Nixon got impeached because he was dishonest and broke the law. And PLEASE don't give me shit about how Clinton lied, under oath. Yeah, he did lie, that was wrong, no doubt about it, but he lied on a personal embarrassing matter, he shouldn't have done what it did. However, we we all know that half the politians in office are screwing someone other than their wife.
I also remember that when Bush, the father, was in office, he didn't generate the kind of hatred from people like me, the way we hate his son. Could it be that it because, theough we (I) didn't vote for him, we respected the man. He was experienced and smart. His son, however, is creating havoc in this country and around the world, and he's an idiot, what can I say.
I cannot, and will not ever understand how so-called smart people like you can still stand behind this president, I just can't. "splane to me Lucy."
He lied, but at least no one was killed because of a "sex" lied told under oath.
Comment by — 2006/08/17 @ 06:18 AM — (Reply)
Well, all I know is that, every time we get to any kind of an election, we seem to have a terror scare, why is that? Can anyone tell me? I'd really like to know.
Uh, crap, this Bush is a "schmuck," and so are all his pals.
Comment by Louise— 2006/08/17 @ 11:42 AM — (Reply)
What? No one was killed because of Clinton?
How about the Cole bombing, the FIRST WTC bombing, the Marine barracks bombing and the embassy bombing, for starters. Clinton was so busy screwing Lewinsky that he let all of those things happen, along with allowing the market to tank just as Bush took office.
I don't HATE Clinton, but I do think he was unethical and borderline incompetent.
Bush pulled it out, and straightened some of this country's military weakness, and you won't give credit for those things.
BTW, Dugg, Republicans haven't killed 3000 American civilians, either.Suggesting that they have is vile.
Comment by Brooke— 2006/08/18 @ 08:09 AM — (Reply)
Clinton might be an asshole - but nobody thinks he engineered the incidents you name - - - but many, many people are convinced that Bush & Big Dick were in on 911. Those responsible and guilty would love for all like me to remain silent - but it ain't gonna happen.
Comment by MOS— 2006/08/18 @ 09:04 AM — (Reply)
Brooke, you are a very funny lady, where do you get this stuff. Dugg, is right, people like you are not going to keep us quiet, not anymore. Fear is what you Republicans thrive on, "fear this, fear that, we'll keep you safe." That's such a lot of crap.
We're not going to take these lies anymore. We're far less safe, because instead of focusing on Ben Laden, we focused on Iraq, and their so-called threat with WMDs. I notice Bush doesn't talk about the Iraq war so much anymore, but terrorism in general. Well, where the hell has he been over the last five years. Sleepy head has awoken, and realized we have a problem? Oh, my God!!! Will any of us even live to see the end of this presidence?
His war in Iraq has created a danger of terroists taking up shop in Iraqw. If Sadam had been left alone, everyone would have been better of in the Middle East, because they were afraid of him. Now, we have Iran and Syria getting into the action, because there's no Sadam, to go after them.
More people will die now than ever before, since his capture.
Our threat comes from within, and the whole Bush administration. I think the American people are finally going to get smart, and not trust an administration that has brought on so many potential dangers to our country in the name of this damn Iraq war.
The majority of the American people are against the war in Iraq, because they see it as the route of the problems that we are experiencing now.
I am against this war, and I am against this president, and I can only hope that the impeachment movement on Bush gathers some steam and moves forward to boot this maniac out of office.
Comment by Louise— 2006/08/18 @ 02:39 PM — (Reply)
I think what Bush, Chaney, et al are attempting to do is to make a puppet state out of Iraq. They want control over this country which, in turn, would mean they could control the oil reserves.
It's all about oil, always has been about oil, and nothing but oil, and in the meantime thousand of our soldies have died, and will continue to die until Bush is out of office, because of this desire to control the oil fields.
Isn't that what the Bush people are all about, isn't that how they all got so rich?
Comment by RMM— 2006/08/18 @ 02:55 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/08/18 @ 03:30 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/08/18 @ 03:32 PM — (Reply)
Yes, you are 100% correct, sir, and I plan to vote out any Democratre who voted for this damn war out of office.
The Democrats are not immuned to this lunacy ... God only knows, they're just as stupid as Bush. Now, they're running around with tails between the legs, and between Bush's tail as well deserve each. Lieberman deserved what he got, he's a Republican under the skin, and it will cost him big time.
I'd like to know how many of the elected officials who voted for this war, have sons and/or daughters fighting in Iraq. Very, very few I would imagine.
Comment by — 2006/08/18 @ 08:08 PM — (Reply)
Fortunately I am not a Connecticut resident and will not be hurt by that hack the DNC bought the primary for if he is elected. At least the New Jersey hack Jon Corzine bought his senate seat and governorship with his own money. When the DNC targeted Liebermann they could have had the decency to come up with a semi qualified candidate even if they had to import a clinton or kennedy.
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/08/18 @ 08:14 PM — (Reply)
"Who the hell is "Ben Laden"?
ROTFLMAO!
Comment by — 2006/08/19 @ 07:18 AM — (Reply)
Barry, unlike some politicians, both Democrat and Republicans, I was against this war when he was only "smelling" like there would be a war with Iraq.
I was against the war then, and now, and I did indeed speak against it. Unfortunately, Bush has the majority of the country so scared, they'll stick with Mickey Mouse, if he was on the scene during 9/11.
But, we're not a against "the terrorists" who brought 9/11, we are having a war with Iraq, a country who posed no threat to us ... now, we have a problem, because of what's going on there. War begets war, and we will be in this war for long time, longer than we were during WWII, and we were fighting Japan and Germany. And we will, most likely go to war with Iran, because I smell that already.
Why the hell didn't he go to Iran, when there was evidence they were trying to get nuclear weapons. This war with Iran will be impossible, because it's a hell of lot bigger country that Iraq.
All that this Iraq war accomplished is that, while we were messing with them, Iran was quietly getting nuclear weapons. Get the picture!
LONGER THAN WWII! Isn't that a hell of thing. I have 4 grandsons, and because of Bush, we will be embroiled in so many wars, that the day will come, once again, that the draft will be brought back, and MY grandsons will have to fight somewhere over there. And where will Bush's grandsons be, if he ever has any, sitting on their fat, rich asses, and watching on the sideliens.
But, then again, at the rate we are going, we may end up blowing us all up. But, that's okay, Bush has his religion and he probably thinks this will bring the SECOND COMING. Maybe that's his plan ... He's so stupid!!!
Comment by RMN— 2006/08/19 @ 07:21 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2006/08/19 @ 10:36 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/08/19 @ 07:39 AM — (Reply)
Don’t blame this on Clinton. You want to go back in history on this whole situation, maybe you can go all the way back to his father who determined it would be insane to go all the way to Baghdad. Why not blame his father.
His father was smart. He knew the consequences of this action. And by the way, I supported his father 100% at the time, for going after Sadam , for going into and taking over Kuwait. He invaded that country; just like we’re doing to his country.
No, idiot, ever since 9/11 Bush has applied his “national security” mantra to enlist the American people in support of his war policy. His policy
“schmuck-o,” was his desire to become a global empire. And what has this “sick-o” policy gotten us? Nowhere, except to bring upon the entire world, “global terrorism.” You like that, huh? You like having the whole world against us. “You’re either against us, or with us,” well, we know the answer to that one, don’t we.
Have you heard Bush lately, it’s no longer just about Iraq, now it’s about “Islamic fascism.” Well, he should know about that, because that’s what he is and his administration is “fascists.” They can sleep in the same bed together.
Comment by RMN— 2006/08/19 @ 09:03 AM — (Reply)
What? No one was killed because of Clinton?
How about the Cole bombing, the FIRST WTC bombing, the Marine barracks bombing and the embassy bombing, for starters. Clinton was so busy screwing Lewinsky that he let all of those things happen, along with allowing the market to tank just as Bush took office.
I don't HATE Clinton, but I do think he was unethical and borderline incompetent.
Comment by Brooke— 2006/08/19 @ 09:20 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/08/19 @ 10:45 AM — (Reply)
Hey Brooke this post has taken a life of it's own. I wonder who is commenting...Millardo's evil twin, Dugg....????
I wonder who Dugg will blame when GWB goes home to Crawford after the 2008 election? The Getty's, the Rothchild's...Colonel Sanders....it's all so very confusing?
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/08/19 @ 10:45 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2006/08/20 @ 07:01 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/08/20 @ 07:34 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2006/08/19 @ 10:46 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/08/19 @ 10:49 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2006/08/20 @ 07:11 AM — (Reply)
My way of life has not changed due to this country's security measures. I believe the Islamo Nazi terrorists have absolutely no rights. They are deliberately ignored and in total violation of the Geneva convention despite the fact that they themselves claim to be soldiers.
How has your way of life been threatened by the United States Dugg? The Islamo Nazi terrorists have publicly told you and all Americans that our lives are threatened. Does that concern you?
The most important job of our government is keeping us safe and coming up with twenty first century methodology to deal with a type of threat the world has never seen before.
Just looking at the numbers, the Japanese and Nazis together were small potatoes compared to the number of Islamo Nazi terrorists whose publicly stated goal is our elimination.
Liberal whiners threaten the security of Americans and give aid and comfort to enemies of the United States.
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/08/20 @ 07:50 AM — (Reply)
No offense Dugg. That comparison sounds totally delusional. Please explain how your personal day to day life is different now than it was in 1999 in ways caused by the federal government.
My life is basically the same other than paying less tax. I live in the same house. Say and write what I want. Go where I want. Eat what I want. Buy what I want. Have access to any information I want.
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/08/19 @ 10:50 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2006/08/20 @ 07:15 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/08/20 @ 07:21 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/08/19 @ 10:53 AM — (Reply)
Your either afraid of the truth or stupid or both - or worse. I wonder how you'll spin it to your grand children one day when they ask you how you let it get this way?
Aren't you guys moving to Wordpress or somewhere you can all sit around and kiss each other's asses about how smart you are?
Comment by Dugg— 2006/08/19 @ 11:00 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/08/19 @ 03:05 PM — (Reply)
What Jesus taught me about the military was that when he comes back He'll do away with it and bust their weaponry into plow shares.
War is for easily led suckers who go die to make rich people richer. And if it's not - please explain to me why the man who says we are fighting for freedom, for the cause of our lifetimes, for our very lives - has two children of age who don't believe in his cause enough to join and serve.
Gulf of Tonkin = lie.
Pearl Harbor = lie.
911 = lie.
Comment by Dugg— 2006/08/19 @ 03:46 PM — (Reply)
Yes I saw a lot of truth you won't find and it does bring credibility to my position. Our Judeo-Christian values are what makes this country so great. I have been to more third world countries where women are relegated to second class citizens and people who are REALLY poor live in the streets (vice somebody here who because they don't have a microwave are considered to live below the poverty level).
The turn the other cheek argument from the Bible applies to individual persecution and is hardly justification for a national foreign policy. If you read Romans 13 it talks about the government being ordained by God and has the authority to kill. (capital punishment also comes to mind). If you read the Old Testament you will see many times where Israel also went to war when necessary. Your argument that we shouldn't fight evil with killing (if necessary) is ludicrous. Jesus never once rolled over when it came to evil and wickedness. If you want to for the sake of appeasement then go right ahead but it can't be justified Biblically.
I am proud of my service. I learned a lot. While I served as a "jack booted thug" we did more to ease people's suffering than any other military in the world. (volcano in Philippines, orphanages in Korea, schools in Indonesia). I could go on but you could care less. You and your tin foil hat club will end up with their head on the chopping block not because of Bush but because you ignored the real evil and chose to do nothing but write a blog.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/08/19 @ 04:05 PM — (Reply)
And even the History Channel acknowledges The Gulf of Tonkin hoax.
Comment by Dugg— 2006/08/19 @ 04:14 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/08/19 @ 05:37 PM — (Reply)
No, Sadam is no longer killing the Iraqi people, WE ARE, damn it. Our being there is causing mass loss of life. Have you heard how many innocent civilian Iraqis have died so far, or do you all just watch the government-owned FOX NEWS "fair and balanced" news channel... I'll give you "fair and balanced" right here!!!! Gezzes, you're all dense!
And how many more will die when the civil war breaks out, which I think is aleady happening. And after more civlians, die, do you still believe they, the Iraqi people, will be happy we went in there. Ugh, you all make me puke!
Comment by RMN— 2006/08/19 @ 06:00 PM — (Reply)
Hey, Dugg, not all of us are Christians ... maybe we don't believe they way you do. That's the problem, everyone has to believe in what you believe.
Comment by — 2006/08/19 @ 07:25 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2006/08/20 @ 06:51 AM — (Reply)
Hey, Dugg, not all of us are Christians ... maybe we don't believe they way you do. That's the problem, everyone has to believe in what you believe.
Comment by — 2006/08/19 @ 07:29 PM — (Reply)
Let me read your spin about how it is the United States fault that Iran has nuclear weapons and has vowed to exterminate Israel. I can't wait.
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/08/19 @ 07:47 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Brooke— 2006/08/20 @ 05:57 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2006/08/20 @ 06:55 AM — (Reply)
Dugg - you said my programming was completed so the jack booted thug thing was just in jest. I didn't mean you should be killing Muslims. A little support of the troops would be nice. Instead of finding fault and believing the worst in them is one example. I am not a war monger and I don't hate Muslims. My wife and I support a group that reaches out to Muslims by providing safe water shelter etc.
Radical Islam doesn't understand negotiating. It's not interested in that. It's interested in imposing Islam on you and your family, like it or not. It's interested in establishing a worldwide caliphate and sharia law. Talk does no good. The only thing they understand is murder for the furtherance of their cause. How should we defend ourselves? I believe it's necessary to kill them before they kill us. I don't believe this is war mongering but self defense, necessary for our very survival.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/08/20 @ 09:48 AM — (Reply)
In March 2004, about 65 percent of Americans supported the decision to wage war in Iraq.
In the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, support has sagged to 44 percent.
What say all of you?
Comment by — 2006/08/20 @ 05:59 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/08/20 @ 06:28 PM — (Reply)
Just posting facts, numbers don't lie! You keep denying that Bush's war is losing favor with Ameericans, can't face the truth? Huh?
Comment by RMN— 2006/08/20 @ 07:55 PM — (Reply)
It says a lot for you that you would sleep like a baby so long as Saddam was continuing to murder innocent people indiscriminately.
What do you think of Hillary...RMN?
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/08/20 @ 08:28 PM — (Reply)
THE FACTS ARE: Before 9/11 there had been no talk of striking Iraq. The attack on 9/11 should not have changed that fact.
To this day, there has been no evidence between Iraq, the so-called imaginary WMDs and 9/11 which WAS an act of terrorism. So, Bush and friends, decided to use this event, and the fear created by 9/11 in order to gain support for his war against Iraq. He had no real justification for a plan already that was already on his mind before this event.
Interestingly enough, there’s little talk now of why we went into Iraq; now we’re not fighting Iraq, but “fighting a war on terror.” He’s trying to keep us safe. This is a little like a dog chasing his tail, don’t you think.
He has not shown any proof that there was any connection between the 9/11 and Iraq. IRAQ DID NOT ATTACK YS!! But, he went ahead anyway, regardless of the fact that invading Iraq could inflame our enemies, which in all likelihood could lead to more attacks. What was the point of this war, other than the expansion of U.S. power and the ability to one day control the Middle East and its oil.
Comment by Howard— 2006/08/20 @ 08:31 PM — (Reply)
The Democrats also talked of getting rid of Saddam. The list included Bill Clinton (while still pres.) John Kerry, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi etc all before GWB ever took office. Bill Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Act in 1998. He just didn't have the nuts to do anything about it.
The first Gulf War technically hadn't ended. There was a cease fire and Saddam had violated it by not only making it difficult by sending in inspectors but by shooting at OUR PLANES. In the President's state of the union address in 2003, WMD was only one reason to go to war not the only one. There has been evidence that has been ignored about WMD but it's neither here nor there because the angry left refuses to believe it. Zarqawi was in Northern Iraq in 2002 and helped to plan the 7/7 attack on London and was developing a plan to deliver a chemical attack. The way I see it Saddam violated the cease fire, harbored terrorists and was killing hundreds of thousands of his own people. I guess you're not very compassionate as you feel the Iraqi's don't deserve to live free.
Comment by — 2006/08/20 @ 08:49 PM — (Reply)
If we went into Iraq for nothing more than being sick of hearing the UN pass resolution after resolution and wanted to put an end to it... OK by me!
Comment by Brooke— 2006/08/21 @ 06:20 AM — (Reply)
I don't wamt Hillary for president. Not because I don't like her; she can't win. My goal is to get the Republicans out of office, every last one of them.
Comment by — 2006/08/21 @ 06:31 AM — (Reply)
The Republican’s drumbeat has already begun of accusations that the Democrats cannot keep our country safe from terrorism. The Republicans will start throwing around this charge indiscriminately at Democratic candidates, and even the voters -- one only has to witness Dick Cheney’s recent remarks on Ned Larmont’s win in the senatorial primary in Connecticut.
It’s up to the voters to do some real checking, They need to think to themselves, has anything that the Republicans have done decreased our safety/security more than our war in Iraq. Of all things, they have reduced spending in many area of homeland security. As a person, who has family in NYC and in the D.C. area, why on earth would they cut funds to these very vulnerable cities. How can one believe anything that Bush, or the Republicans tell us.
Comment by RMN— 2006/08/21 @ 05:10 PM — (Reply)
Guess what Howard and RMN? The MAJORITY of voting Americans will choose the next President in accordance with the Constitution as they have every President.
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/08/21 @ 05:41 PM — (Reply)
Meanwhile, Bush, and the Republicans have left the "Republican" challenger holding his balls, while they run in circles grabbing on to Lieberman's coattails. What's that all about? Here they have their own guy in the running, and they are making ga-ga over turncoat, Lieberman. But, maybe that's good, Lieberman will will, anyway, and then he'll vote with the Democrats.
Comment by rmn— 2006/08/21 @ 06:54 PM — (Reply)
Meanwhile, Bush, and the Republicans have left the "Republican" challenger holding his balls, while they run in circles grabbing on to Lieberman's coattails. What's that all about? Here they have their own guy in the running, and they are making ga-ga over turncoat, Lieberman. But, maybe that's good, Lieberman will will, anyway, and then he'll vote with the Democrats.
Comment by rmn— 2006/08/21 @ 07:02 PM — (Reply)
By the way, Lieberman caused this all himself, by voting for the war. Anyone voting for the war, should prepare to look for a new job, that includes, both Dems and Republicans
Comment by — 2006/08/21 @ 07:04 PM — (Reply)
Didn't your pal Teresa Heinz's boy toy vote FOR the war? You want him re-elected? What if he pulls an Al Gore and tries to run for President? I bet you voted for Kerry in 2004 even though at the time you knew full well he voted FOR the war.
The more you write the more you expose yourself as a hypocrite....surprise surprise.
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/08/21 @ 07:15 PM — (Reply)
But,Barry... He voted FOR it before he voted AGAINST it!
Hmm... I'm suddenly in the mood for waffles!
Comment by Brooke— 2006/08/22 @ 05:53 AM — (Reply)
Okay, here is a simple question. Why did we go to Iraq in the first place ... I want to hear the real reason, no more crap about WMDs, that's is a non-issue since we never did find any weapons of mass distruction. I want someone to tell me, the REAL raason we went to Iraq to start a war. Tnak you!
Comment by Louise— 2006/08/22 @ 04:18 PM — (Reply)
What they should admit to you is that the war in Iraq, and the War on terror are two separate wars, but they won't.
Comment by Howard— 2006/08/22 @ 05:20 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/08/22 @ 05:37 PM — (Reply)
Well, it sure as hell didn't have a thing to do with 9/11 did it, now. There were no Iraqis on those planes on 9/11.
And where is Ben Laden, and why are we not fighting that war on terrorism. Why have we not found him? He's 6 ft 4 in. tall come on? I'm not stupid, all this talk about we have to fight them there, or they'll come over here. They already came over here, on 9/11!!! And I didn't see Iraqi written on the pictures of the terrorists that flew those planes into the WTC and the Pentagon. THESE PEOPLE WERE NOT IRAQUIS!!
The war on terrorism has expanded now, because of our being in Iraq, which has given those terrorists involved in 9/11 another place to hange their turbans, and set us up for more attacks.
See, I think, had we not gone to Iraq, we would not be facing every known terrorist in the Middle Eaat. We brought this upon ourselves. Excuse me, Bush brought his terror war to us.
Comment by — 2006/08/22 @ 06:11 PM — (Reply)
Who the hell is "Ben Laden"?
If the President's strategy is so bad why does Hillary for example agree with him? Hint: It is because the President is correct. Saddam's random murdering of Iraqis was wrong and needed to be stopped. The wmd issue is about words and the spindoctoring the democrat left has done for political advantage.
Hopefully the next President will have the courage to also keep America's best interests first and foremost and will not just go along with the lame UN.
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/08/22 @ 06:24 PM — (Reply)
Comment by jim— 2006/08/22 @ 07:01 PM — (Reply)
Say, do you have a thing for Hillary, you keep bringing her up? Is that all you have, Hillary?????? Good grief, man, wake up. I may be a Democrat, but that doesn't mean I have the hots for Hill, as you seem to. I am not a Hill fan, by any stetch. There are better Dems out there that CAN and WILL the win WH in in 08, after they win in November, 06!!
Bush's policy will soon be unravelling. Oh, have you heard, Bush has put feelers out to see who he can replace Rumsfeld with.
Hillary made a bad mistake going along with Bush on this war. I don't know what SHE was thinking. And it will cost her, as it will cost any politician who is standing behind Bush. There are a lot of Republicans who are running from Bush.
And for what it's worth, when we win in '08, whoever the Democratic president will be, he ir she will not embarrass us, that person will be a better president, a smarter president, he will bring respect back to the WH. We're not very popular since John Wayne Bush took office. He's a joke around the world. Yep, things will be a lot better, and you all can leave the country.
Comment by — 2006/08/22 @ 07:43 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Brooke— 2006/08/23 @ 09:32 AM — (Reply)
Are you so stupid that you think I spelled "Bin Laden's" name that way on purpose. Ever hear of typographical errors.
Oh, you're so much smarter than I, aren't you? I KNOW HOW TO SPELL "BIN LADEN."
Of course, you never make a mistake, right, Brooke. Did I spell YOUR name, correctly?
No, in fact, the BIG joke is sitting in the White House.
Comment by — 2006/08/23 @ 11:08 AM — (Reply)
It's your right to write all the hate you want to, your time would be educating yourself regarding the facts you are lamely attempting to interpret.
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/08/23 @ 04:23 PM — (Reply)
George W. Bush should be ousted from office for his outrageous lies, for waging a murderous and utterly illegitimate war in Iraq, with other countries in their sight. Bush and his administration is responsible for the following crimes.
The government is openly torturing people, and justifying it.
The govenment puts people in jail on the merest suspicion, refusing them lawyers, and either holding them indefinitely or deporting them in the dead of night.
The government is moving each day closer to a theocracy, where a narrow and hateful brand of Christian fundamentalism will rule.
The goveernment suppresses the science that doesn't fit its religious, political and economic agenda, forcing present and future generations to pay a terrible price.
The government is moving to deny women here, and all over the world, the right to birth control and abortion.
The government enforces a culture of greed, bigotry, intolerance and ignorance.
Need I say more, because there's plenty more I can say on why Bush must go!!
Comment by RRM— 2006/08/23 @ 07:33 PM — (Reply)
Are you a registered voter? If so, you have a voice in 2008 in choosing the next President.
Do you believe that only mothers have rights regarding unborn babies or that both mothers and fathers have rights regarding unborn babies?
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/08/23 @ 07:54 PM — (Reply)
It depends on the situation, of course, dads have rights,, it all depends on the sitaution.
If a mother's health is at risk, and my daughter-in-law's health is at risk right now since she recently learned she Cancer and also is pregnant; she and my son have to make a very important decision on how she can have treatment, try to still have this baby, or not, and what are the consequences for her on either decision. The treatment she needs to have may be harmful to my grandchild.
They have two other children, who need their mom. I don't know what their decision will be as to having the baby or not. I have my thoughts, but it's been a difficult few weeks. But, whatever they decide to do, have it or not to have it is their decision to make, not yours, not mine, nor George Bush's.
Whatever decision they make, may haunt them one way or the other. This baby could have some serious side effects from any chemo she may get. Got any suggestions, Mr. Conservative. This has been a trying month for our family regarding her treatment and the baby. I hope you never have to experience anything like this.
Comment by — 2006/08/24 @ 11:47 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/08/24 @ 07:56 PM — (Reply)
Do YOU believe that mothers and fathers have a right to choose together? Isn't it not up to both, in a situation, such as the one mentioned above, something they must take to heart, and make the decision appropriate to what they're facing?
From what I understand, this mother has to make a horrendous decision. She can have treatment while pregant, continue the pregnancy, while taking chemo, etc., which could be harmful to her baby, and in doing so, could be detrimental to her cure, or she may decide to not have the baby, because her health and life is at risk, while having two other children already on this earth, who need both their mother and their father, but could lose one of them, the mom!!
What decision could you make, and live with. I love how everyone knows what's best for everone else. I love how Republicans want government to stay out of our private lives, but yet, what to get inside a woman's body and decide what's best for her, and her family.
Comment by RMN— 2006/08/24 @ 07:58 PM — (Reply)
The woman who is ill with cancer and must decide certainly has my sympathies and no pro life person I know would hold it against her if she did. Most abortions however are done (99.6%) are done for the convenience of the mother, not to save her life or due to rape or incest, but because it's INCONVENIENT.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/08/24 @ 08:55 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2006/08/24 @ 09:24 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/08/24 @ 10:05 PM — (Reply)
So, bottom line, a woman has a baby, knowing it could possibly kill her if she has it, and that's NOT murder, or at the least suicide? She should have the baby, even if she loses her life, and her children end up without a mother? That's a better scenario?
Oh, you have sympathy, how nice for you. But, you want to make it illegal, anyway. So, that those who really need to make this difficult decision one day will be breaking the law.
You damn holier-than-thou folks irritate the crap out of me.
It's my business what I want to do with my body, and you can just go to hell! We don't need you symathy.
You want to punish a person who has a health problem when pregnant and may have to abort, because of what others people who use it as birth control? Give me a break. I don't condone that either, but you can't take the right away from a legitimate situation.
It's people like you that I hate with all my being!!!!!!!!!
You should drop dead. Yours is a life we can definitely do without!
And I resent any man telling me what to do with my body, god I hate you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You right-to-lifers are full of crap!
Comment by Female— 2006/08/25 @ 06:40 AM — (Reply)
You really should seek some help for your anger.
Do you believe it was right for the state of California to charge Scott Peterson with 2 murders?
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/08/25 @ 09:35 AM — (Reply)
You really should seek some help for your anger.
Do you believe it was right for the state of California to charge Scott Peterson with 2 murders?
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/08/25 @ 10:43 AM — (Reply)
In order for me to have a vasectomy in California I had to wait a month (it's called a cooling off period), I had to be at least 32 years old, I had to have at least 2 children and I needed MY WIFE'S permission. Don't talk to me about resentment.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/08/25 @ 10:46 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2006/08/25 @ 06:59 PM — (Reply)
Optional solely for "fun" abortions are something the government can and should regulate.
Mothers have no superior moral right to choose than fathers.
As stated earlier, I have the family situation outlined above in my prayers.
Why not leave the hate mongering at the door please "female".
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/08/25 @ 01:21 PM — (Reply)
Indeed, there are plenty more women's rights issues for you to focus your energies on than the issue of abortion, which has been nullified by BIRTH CONTROL.
Why not speak out against the practice of routine female genital mutilation in Africa and other such places? How about the degregation of women under Sharia law, where they are given little to no rights, and their speach is worth one half of a man's?
Any time now...
Comment by Brooke— 2006/08/27 @ 05:27 AM — (Reply)
It wasn't birth control that rendered aborion null but the supreme court. They should have left it to the states. Hey but after almost one thousand comments we are back on topic. (somewhat)
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/08/27 @ 07:12 AM — (Reply)
Comment by — 2006/08/27 @ 06:09 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/08/27 @ 06:48 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2006/08/27 @ 07:10 PM — (Reply)
Amen Dugg. You're absolutely right.
So anonymous how about California?
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/08/27 @ 08:55 PM — (Reply)
Preach it, brotha' Dugg!
I don't know how that doesn't make sense to anyone with even a portion of a working brain!
Comment by Brooke— 2006/08/28 @ 06:44 AM — (Reply)
F..k all of you
Comment by — 2006/09/04 @ 02:00 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Cynthia McKinney and her ilk are whack jobs— 2006/09/05 @ 05:01 AM — (Reply)
The Fifth Anniversary of 9/11 is a week away, with Election Day 2006 entering the post-Labor Day home stretch, and you can expect the White House will once again play the fear card. That’s all they know how to do, these days, and that’s to sell fear. But, why not, after all, banging the drum of fear every time they need a bump in the polls has worked like a charm for the administration.. They can pull that trick out of the hat any time they wish, when they want to divert attention to the shamelessness of this government. But, I think they’re in for a rude awakening when the American people are will be deaf to this tired old drum beat.!!
Comment by RMN— 2006/09/05 @ 06:43 AM — (Reply)
anonymous thanks for proving our point may I suggest a 12 step program
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/09/05 @ 09:04 AM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2006/09/05 @ 04:09 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2006/09/05 @ 07:36 PM — (Reply)
The chronically no-fault White House and its no-fault President were on their no-fault roll again around the country. George W. Bush, the Commander-in-Chief of the politics of non-faultism-went on another redundant symbolic trip to Katrina land. There, near the wreckage that even now is much of New Orleans, he announced: "I take full responsibility for the federal government's response."
Politicians often resort to such "full responsibility" language when they know no one can impose any real accountability-in this case for a continuing cascade of Bush's governmental blunders, incompetence, corrupt contracting and fundamental dereliction of duty. All these abysmal failures are occurring in spite of the many billions of dollars made available by Congress for rebuilding and critical services.
Month after month, the same pictures of huge swaths of the devastated city dominate television news programs. Half of the population of New Orleans has not returned because there is still nothing to return to. Most of the hospitals are still closed.
Thousands of trailers purchased for the people who lost their homes are still parked, undistributed along the affected Gulf regions, in Hope, Arkansas-the hometown of Bill Clinton. Your 400 million tax dollars at work.
If George W. Bush heard one message from the bone-weary residents during his trip again and again, it was the question, "Mr. President, are you going to turn your back on me?" "Not again," he replied to one witness. And then off he flew to the ranch at Crawford before taking off again to visit cities sounding his anti-terrorism theme. A theme he is hoping will win for the Republicans in the November mid-term elections.
Polls and other indicators show that he is losing ground. More and more Americans are going with the majority who don't believe him on Iraq and not just his fabricated arguments for the boomeranging invasion of 2003. They don't believe the Iraq war is: worth the cost; worth the distraction from the problems here at home, or has anything to do with the terrorism he invokes when he speaks of 9/11.
This past week the President-obsessively-compulsed with his disastrous war policies-chose assemblies of veteran groups to reach new depths of historical hysteria. He compared the struggle against "Islamic extremists" to the battles against Nazism and Communism.
Consider this grotesque exaggeration. The Nazis launched an expansionist world war against numerous countries with what was then the most powerful military machine in the world. They slaughtered many millions of civilians. The Soviet communists possessed multiple nuclear capabilities which could destroy the United States in an hour-as the U.S. could do to them. Does George W. Bush have any idea what his prepared cue cards are telling him to utter?
The thrust of the opposition to the U.S. in the Middle East is to get the U.S. out of their land, their oil resources, and to stop backstopping the Israeli occupations of Arab land and control of precious Arab water in Palestine and Syria. Many in the Middle East want an end to the decades long military, political and diplomatic support of what they see as dictatorships over their own people.
As Mr. Bush, Secretary of State Colin Powell and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld each said once in the aftermath of 9/11, dictatorships, destitution, poverty and hopelessness are breeding grounds for the emergence of terrorists. But Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rumsfeld are not following the logic of such a recognition in perpetuating their failed and perilous policies overseas.
Inside the Bush Administration-from the General Casey to then CIA Director, Porter Goss-to outside the government among prominent former Generals, Ambassadors and intelligence officials, there is the realization that our military presence in Iraq is a recruiting magnet for training more and more young men for violent sabotage.
Many of the retired government officials, who have served under Republican and Democratic Administrations, have spoken out. They have written articles, given media interviews, co-signed letters, testified and some have marched in protest. But they're not yet ready to say publicly that Bush and Cheney should resign for their disastrous performances against the interests of the United States and its position in the world.
The Bush regime simply has no standards for failures in its operations because it has no intention of ever admitting their failures and changing course. The no-fault-Bush and Cheney have every intention of continuing the loss of the lives of American soldiers and the bloody casualties among Iraqis until they hand the situation in Iraq over to their successors in January 2009. Mr. Bush has said as much a few weeks ago.
He will never withdraw our troops and close our military bases no matter what the cost to our country and its ignored critical necessities here at home.
So, taking the lead in full page advertisements in The New York Times is a new group by the name of The World Can't Wait. They are not waiting for Congress to impeach Bush. They want a mass mobilization to make Bush/Cheney resign. Richard Nixon resigned and Vice President, Spiro Agnew, resigned for causes far less momentous than the crimes of these stubborn recidivists in control of our federal government.
In one of his desperate rhetorical reaches last week, Mr. Bush assailed his critics as "blaming American first." No, Mr. Bush, a growing majority of Americans are blaming you-George W. Bush-not America. Every day you demonstrate how you are ruining America.
Accept your responsibility at long last and retire to Texas along with Mr. Cheney, as an act of mercy.
Comment by RN— 2006/09/05 @ 06:30 PM — (Reply)
Wow more rhetoric....the problem RN is that you and your liberal buddies have so far underestimated the real enemy found in the Islamists who want to impose the religion of peace on you. You still haven't answered any questions. I suppose rhetoric is all you have.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/09/05 @ 08:04 PM — (Reply)
Yeah, and what does Jerry Falwell want to do? Impose his beliefs on the rest of us ... no different than the Islamist fanatics wanting to impose their beliefs and religion on the rest of us, it seems to me.
Comment by — 2006/09/05 @ 08:44 PM — (Reply)
Jerry Falwell isn't blowing people up idiot!
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/09/05 @ 09:48 PM — (Reply)
Okay, you keep saying “nothing but rhetoric. Here are some facts:
The administration insists on going after terrorists with an all-encompassing fishing expedition. I resent my rights being at risk while they go through MY private information. I don’t see that any judge would deny warrants if they show there are good reasons such as fighting terrorism.
When the Republicans attack the liberties that make our country great, the terrorists win. When this Congress and this Administration sanction illegal wiretapping, and read your bank records without a warrant, or spy on peace demonstrators, they're saying "we don't think we're strong enough to defend ourselves and the Constitution."
You could accurately say that these conservatives "hate our freedoms," but why give them the airspace? Just say that if the terrorists really "hate our freedoms," why let them provoke us into taking them away? Since when do a bunch of fanatics in a cave make us bow down?
By letting the terrorists change our way of life, the terrorists win. They don’t need to come over here and attack us!!
Comment by — 2006/09/05 @ 09:09 PM — (Reply)
Again I will ask you what rights or liberties you have lost. You have asserted this claim several times but still have failed to list one. Once again for the hard of hearing:
I have asked for an example of how bad things are, care to provide one? Fill in the blanks.
1). "I have lost the right to ____________________".
2). "Because of this, I can no longer ____________________".
EXAMPLE:
1). "I have lost the right to peaceably assemble".
2). "Because of this, I can no longer meet with my local political party".
I have asked you and your liberal friends in a recent comment about abortion:
Was the state of California correct in prosecuting Scott Peterson for two murders?
None of you seem to want to answer these very simple questions. The fanatics in the cave made us pay attention when they killed nearly 3000 of us on 9/11, blew up Khobar Towers, blew up the USS Cole, blew up two embassies in Africa...need I go on...
The only right I can think of that you might have lost is the one to call Bin Laden on his cell phone. Make sure you tell him hi for me.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/09/05 @ 09:47 PM — (Reply)
So, folks, did you hear the news. President Musharraf, you know him, the president of Pakistan, a friend of Bush? Yeah, right. Don't think so. Just heard on the news that Musharraf has signed a peace accord with the Taliban, remember them? The accord is to provide a "safe haven" for them, the Taliban, and will withdraw his troops. Guess he decided the "for us, or against us," mantra doesn't sit well with him anymore, and decided to save his own ass, and cut a deal with the Taliban.
How can we take down terrorists in Pakistan, if Musharraf cuts a deal with the Taliban? Guess, he's not that much of a friend of the United States, afterall.
You see had we spent our time and energy in that part of the world, five years ago and on to the present, and not in Iraq, we would be in better shape.
So, what do you all have to say about this news? I'd love to hear Bush's take on this one ... sucker!!!!!
Comment by — 2006/09/06 @ 03:24 PM — (Reply)
Your negativity fails to take into account that Pakistan and India hate each other and if the United States had to pick sides, Pakistan knows it would be India.
Find something else to bitch and bash about...sucker.
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/09/06 @ 04:06 PM — (Reply)
Still no answers from millardo Barry...she won't debate on her own site...she's gotta come here
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/09/06 @ 05:11 PM — (Reply)
I didn't know we left Afghanistan, had you heard that one Barry? Last I checked we were still fighting there. What a sucker.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/09/06 @ 05:12 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/09/06 @ 05:24 PM — (Reply)
BTW the treaty requires local tribesman to give up foreign fighters and requires the taliban to cease cross border attacks...this while we have pushed them into a corner in Afganistan for their annihilation and only affects Northern Waziristan.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/09/06 @ 05:26 PM — (Reply)
Interesting Barry...you're not banned anymore?
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/09/06 @ 05:28 PM — (Reply)
tee-hee, what makes you "suckers" think I'm female? Huh, huh?? I do love tweeking you guys, you really are such suckers!!!!!
Comment by — 2006/09/06 @ 05:31 PM — (Reply)
No matter what they say to you, Millardo," if that is your name, the fact of the matter is, Bush, glossed right over that subject today. I think our prez may have a problem he had not counted on!! More to come on this matter. But, be confident, we Dems will take House in November!
Comment by RMN— 2006/09/06 @ 05:33 PM — (Reply)
suckers??? At least we answer your questions. You must be millardo...she would be afraid of signing her name. Well you could be any other moonbat liberal for that matter.
I am sure Brooke loves the traffic. I think you're setting a record here.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/09/06 @ 05:38 PM — (Reply)
The only thing that counts are the results on election night.
If Pakistan plays it's cards right, it could join the axis of evil. Worse yet, more lynksis, verizon, hp, etc. customer support teams could work from there.
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/09/06 @ 05:41 PM — (Reply)
You're right Barry. With over 100,000 calls a day going to Pakistan from the US can you imagine the number of judges alone the government will have to employ (if the liberals had their way) just to get a search warrant. That's the conspiracy Dugg should be lookning into. How the libs are setting us up for unelected unaccountable judges to override the voice of the people. Dugg can you get right on that.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/09/06 @ 06:00 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/09/06 @ 06:20 PM — (Reply)
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, and more blah, blah, blah, blah, and more blah. blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, and more blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah!!!!!!! Tee-hee, you guys are hysterically funny ... you just can't admit you're all full crap!
Comment by — 2006/09/06 @ 07:08 PM — (Reply)
anonymous is so eloquent.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/09/06 @ 07:36 PM — (Reply)
No kidding ... what more can one say to you folks!!! I'm at a loss to get you to all wake up and face the facts.
Comment by — 2006/09/07 @ 05:15 AM — (Reply)
I'm actually kind of shocked that they haven't assaulted my new Blogger site... Just goes to show that they aren't reading the rest of the blog, huh? LOL!
Comment by Brooke— 2006/09/08 @ 11:17 AM — (Reply)
WE DON'T CARE!! i'VE BEEN ON YOUR NEW SITE, CHOSE NOT TO TRY IT JUST YET!
Comment by — 2006/09/08 @ 01:31 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Brooke— 2006/09/09 @ 03:29 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/09/09 @ 04:41 PM — (Reply)
Hey, without us messing around with your heads, where else would you have fun.
This site was a snooze from the get-go, I think we've made it far more interesting, expecially, since we could care less what you think of us.
Comment by rmn— 2006/09/09 @ 07:01 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/09/09 @ 07:41 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/09/09 @ 07:58 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/09/09 @ 08:52 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/09/09 @ 09:57 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Brooke— 2006/09/10 @ 05:26 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/09/10 @ 07:01 PM — (Reply)
What do conservatives no about "environment?"
Comment by — 2006/09/10 @ 07:39 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/09/10 @ 07:43 PM — (Reply)
... and I'm not here to insult anybody. There's there's a lot of nasty stuff on this site. People are angry, people are fed up, with one another, they are fed up with our politicians. Liberals don't understand conservatives; conservatives don't understand liberals.
I am a liberal, and I'm here to explain to you, the conservative, what we liberals are all about, and what we believe.
I am a liberal, and I am accountable to God. Yes, believe it or not we do believe in God.
Liberalism has deep roots in the Protestant Reformation and in the formation of the United States of America. The author of the Declaration of Independence and our third president, Thomas Jefferson was a liberal, as were Benjamin Franklin and the Adamses.
Liberals rarely accept biased definitions of what constitutes "liberalism," especially from conservatives; but, they point to Jesus, who was not only a liberal for his time, but held liberal values cherished today.
Liberals believe all persons should be treated as we ourselves would like to be treated. We treasure God's commandments, that we love God with our whole heart, mind, soul and strength, and our neighbor as ourselves. How much we love God has great bearing on how we treat God’s world; how we treat ourselves is the standard for how we treat our neighbors.
Liberals believe children everywhere have an inherent right to live in a world free of poverty, terrorism and war; a world of clean air and clean water; a world of progress and opportunity. Individuals, great and small, have a right "to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
We believe women and men are different, but also equal. Liberals believe in standards of morality and are appalled by politicians who lie, cheat and steal to gain office under the guise of "moral" superiority.
Liberals are confused by those who claim to believe the Ten Commandments while supporting capital punishment, but not the right to make personal medical decisions. Conservatives put the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" into their own context.
Liberals believe faith is a very personal thing and should not be injected into politics. We believe the Constitution does, indeed, point to separation of church and state.
Liberals believe that God gives us knowledge and technology so we can better serve the cause of all humankind. To put it simply, God gave humans the ability to think and reason. To accept as "literal" truth the ancient faith stories and attempt to apply them literally to our modern lifestyle is absurd.
Liberals believe government should protect and provide for those too young or too old to provide for themselves. We believe individuals should be allowed to commit themselves to those they love. Liberals believe the world will be a better place when everyone is allowed to live his or her God-given life without the interference of bigotry, hatred and judgmentalism.
Liberals believe every young person is free to bow his or her head in prayer inside the classroom at any time. Liberals believe the Ten Commandments can be posted in many appropriate places, including church bulletin boards. If churches would post the Ten Commandments and welcome and affirm all people, we shouldn’t need to worry if they are not posted in public buildings.
Liberals believe parents and churches, not the government, should be the guardians of moral values.
I’m proud to be a liberal. Thank you for allowing me to say my piece.
Comment by I am a Liberal ...— 2006/09/10 @ 08:00 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/09/10 @ 08:09 PM — (Reply)
It does, and as I suspected, there is no talking to people such as yourself. I tried to explain what we liberals believe, but I should have known better. People of your ilk, don't want to understand us, nor do you care to try.
I came across this site by chance, and thought people such as yourself would at least read, and try to understand, even a little. Well, what can one expect come to this place?
I will sleep quite well, thank you, and unlike the other folks here, I will not waste another moment of my valuable time trying to explain what we are about. Hence, the reason this country is so divided, you're one of the problems, judging by your unfriendly and unkind coments. That's not very Christian of you .. are you a true Christian, doesn't seem like it.
Good-by.
Comment by — 2006/09/10 @ 08:32 PM — (Reply)
Cutting and pasting commentary by the michael moore lapdog keith olbermann does nothing other than undermine your house of cards further. olbermann has the audacity to refer to himself as a newsman. he is a bitter loser. you share that with him.
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/09/11 @ 06:25 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/09/10 @ 10:24 PM — (Reply)
Five years later, there's still a huge hole in my city ... what has Bush done there. Iraq is all he cares about, meanwhile, at the present time, al Qaeda now owns 50,000 square miles in the Middle East. A present from George W. Bush, for going into Iraq in the first place. Good job, George, good job!
Are we better off now, than we were 5 years ago, NOT!!!!
Comment by rmn— 2006/09/11 @ 05:42 PM — (Reply)
I WANT you to read the following commentary. These are NOT my words, they are the words of another. But, I ask you to read these words, and think, and remember how it was five years ago, when even a liberal such as I stood fully behind this president. Read these words and understand why I could no longer stand behind a president who I have no respect for. Read and understand why we are in the mess that we are in.
The only positive on 9/11 and the days and weeks that so slowly and painfully followed it was the unanimous humanity, here, and throughout the country. The government, the President in particular, was given every possible measure of support.
Those who did not belong to his party—tabled that.
Those who doubted the mechanics of his election—ignored that.
Those who wondered of his qualifications—forgot that.
History teaches us that nearly unanimous support of a government cannot be taken away from that government by its critics.
It can only be squandered by those who use it not to heal a nation’s wounds, but to take political advantage.
Terrorists did not come and steal our newly-regained sense of being American first, and political, fiftieth. Nor did the Democrats. Nor did the media. Nor did the people.
The President—and those around him—did that.
They promised bi-partisanship, and then showed that to them, “bi-partisanship” meant that their party would rule and the rest would have to follow, or be branded, with ever-escalating hysteria, as morally or intellectually confused; as appeasers; as those who, in the Vice President’s words yesterday, “validate the strategy of the terrorists.”
They promised protection, and then showed that to them “protection” meant going to war against a despot whose hand they had once shaken, a despot who we now learn from our own Senate Intelligence Committee hated Al-Qaeda as much as we did.
The polite phrase for how so many of us were duped into supporting a war, on the false premise that it had ‘something to do’ with 9/11, is “lying by implication.”
The impolite phrase is: "impeachable offense."
Comments? Email KOlbermann@msnbc.com
Watch “Countdown” each weeknight at 8 p.m. ET on MSNBC TV
Sept. 5, 2006 | 8:00 p.m. ET
'Have you no sense of decency, sir?'
It is to our deep national shame—and ultimately it will be to the President’s deep personal regret—that he has followed his Secretary of Defense down the path of trying to tie those loyal Americans who disagree with his policies—or even question their effectiveness or execution—to the Nazis of the past, and the al Qaeda of the present.
Today, in the same subtle terms in which Mr. Bush and his colleagues muddied the clear line separating Iraq and 9/11 -- without ever actually saying so—the President quoted a purported Osama Bin Laden letter that spoke of launching, “a media campaign to create a wedge between the American people and their government.”
Make no mistake here—the intent of that is to get us to confuse the psychotic scheming of an international terrorist, with that familiar bogeyman of the right, the “media.”
The President and the Vice President and others have often attacked freedom of speech, and freedom of dissent, and freedom of the press.
Now, Mr. Bush has signaled that his unparalleled and unprincipled attack on reporting has a new and venomous side angle:
The attempt to link, by the simple expediency of one word—“media”—the honest, patriotic, and indeed vital questions and questioning from American reporters, with the evil of Al-Qaeda propaganda.
That linkage is more than just indefensible. It is un-American.
Mr. Bush and his colleagues have led us before to such waters.
We will not drink again.
And the President’s re-writing and sanitizing of history, so it fits the expediencies of domestic politics, is just as false, and just as scurrilous.
“In the 1920’s a failed Austrian painter published a book in which he explained his intention to build an Aryan super-state in Germany and take revenge on Europe and eradicate the Jews,” President Bush said today, “the world ignored Hitler’s words, and paid a terrible price.”
Whatever the true nature of al Qaeda and other international terrorist threats, to ceaselessly compare them to the Nazi State of Germany serves only to embolden them.
More over, Mr. Bush, you are accomplishing in part what Osama Bin Laden and others seek—a fearful American populace, easily manipulated, and willing to throw away any measure of restraint, any loyalty to our own ideals and freedoms, for the comforting illusion of safety.
It thus becomes necessary to remind the President that his administration’s recent Nazi “kick” is an awful and cynical thing.
And it becomes necessary to reach back into our history, for yet another quote, from yet another time and to ask it of Mr. Bush:
“Have you no sense of decency, sir?”
Comment by — 2006/09/11 @ 05:58 PM — (Reply)
Are you listening to Bush right now during his news conference, what a f'n' idiot! That's all I have to say. Even his own party is going against him.
Comment by Do you listen to him?— 2006/09/15 @ 08:34 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2006/09/15 @ 10:34 AM — (Reply)
You got that right, Dugg! I hope that goes for the rest of his administration cronies.
Comment by rmn— 2006/09/15 @ 01:24 PM — (Reply)
Well, well, maybe there is hope for this country, yet,
when Republicans start opposing President Bush on his military tribunal bill? Or could it be they’re just afraid they could one day be put on trial for war crimes??
I’m happy to also see that, although this administration has always pulled rank over the military, that maybe, finally, the times, they are a-change’n’ when the military at last stands up and says no to Bush’s disgraceful, and unlawful policies. It’s about time
Comment by Howard— 2006/09/15 @ 01:53 PM — (Reply)
How sorry is it when the entire world hates George W. Bush????
Comment by — 2006/09/23 @ 05:37 PM — (Reply)
Only if you count dumb (Chavez) and Dumber (ahmadenijad)
Comment by — 2006/09/23 @ 05:59 PM — (Reply)
You only have to go online nd visit newpapers around the world and read what they think of our president. These are reasonable countries who have always supported us, who didn't hate us. Well, actually, they don't hate "us," they hate the prez!!!!!
Comment by — 2006/09/23 @ 07:24 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/09/23 @ 07:33 PM — (Reply)
"entire" is quite the exaggeration there anonymous
Comment by — 2006/09/23 @ 09:44 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Brooke— 2006/09/24 @ 07:39 AM — (Reply)
ah, you're all a bunch of idiots. You're positively hopeless, and you can't see the writing on the wall. And "fool" who's the fool, but those who are blind to what's happening around the world at the hands of our presideent!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by — 2006/09/24 @ 03:40 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/09/24 @ 03:59 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2006/09/24 @ 06:23 PM — (Reply)
Wise men talk because they have something to say, fools talk because they have to say something. - Plato
I'd say you're the fool.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/09/24 @ 06:50 PM — (Reply)
aza spada you're a biggot ... using terms like "whitie" I can only imagine what you call African Americans, you know the word?
Comment by — 2006/09/25 @ 06:42 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/09/25 @ 06:52 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2006/09/25 @ 07:08 PM — (Reply)
Hey, I figure everyone is too thinned skinned nowadays.
I liked it better when I was a cracker and I could call you whatever racist term fit your nationality - and we'd all laugh. PC sucks!
Comment by Dugg— 2006/09/25 @ 07:13 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2006/09/25 @ 07:50 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2006/09/25 @ 07:55 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2006/09/25 @ 07:57 PM — (Reply)
Aza is right in one aspect... How can one take a "race" who decries a particular "N" word, yet has a "culture" in which it is acceptable to use it oneself?
Groups like "La Raza" are hate-based racial supremacy groups, yet you don't hear anything bad about them from the MSM, nor decriements from the left because they are a "minority."
Race is a very real issue, and it exists in EVERY ethnic group.
Comment by Brooke— 2006/09/26 @ 06:22 AM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2006/09/26 @ 12:26 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Brooke— 2006/09/27 @ 08:14 AM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2006/09/27 @ 08:53 AM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2006/09/27 @ 09:04 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2006/09/27 @ 10:05 AM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2006/09/27 @ 12:07 PM — (Reply)
We've got to hate evil. Love the sinner hate the sin.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/09/27 @ 11:29 AM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2006/09/27 @ 11:41 AM — (Reply)
Who the hell are you, Aza Spada, where did you learn to write English, anyway. You sound really stupid!!
Comment by Newbee to this site!— 2006/09/29 @ 01:56 PM — (Reply)
He sounds like one of the religious fanatics, that think their way is the only way!!! GOD HELP US ALL from these kinds of people.
Comment by — 2006/09/29 @ 01:57 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2006/09/29 @ 05:54 PM — (Reply)
Let's get back to important matters, such as the f--king Iraq War:
This entire war has been the worst executed military operation in American History. You can not invade a country and win a war unless you secure the border and go house to house and eliminate all the combatants and remove all the weapons and munitions.
These two things; failure to secure the border and failure to commit enough troops to go house to house, ensure that the United State military can never win this war. Until those two things are done all we are doing is conducting an exercise in futility which is a horrible tragedy that will cost the lives of thousands of American Soldiers and Marines.
There is no doubt in my mind George Bush will be regarded as the worst president the United States has ever had surpassing LBJ only because he was not smart enough to learned from LBJ's mistakes during Vietnam.
There is no doubt in my mind Robert McNamara will no longer be the worst Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld will forever be enshrined in that position.
Don't be afraid to support our troops and condemn the leadership at the same time. You do not have to blindly support the leadership to support our troops. I believe we can best support our troops by affecting change in our leadership which prevents the bloodshed of American Soldiers without a clearly articulated and achievable tactical mission. Our leaders have no right to conduct Political missions using the miltary without a workable tactical mission on the ground.
General Zinni and and General Powell both indicated this was not a workable military plan and the president executed it anyway.
This administration was lied, will continue to lie, and the Iraqi people and our troops fighting this nonsense will continue to pay with their lives.
And those of you who insist this is a just war, well, I the hell don't you all sign up, and go over there and fight Bush's war.
Comment by Former Persian-Gulf War Veteran— 2006/09/29 @ 02:30 PM — (Reply)
That's what I'm talking about!
Comment by Dugg— 2006/09/29 @ 06:29 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Brooke— 2006/09/30 @ 06:18 AM — (Reply)
I did sign up for twenty years and go over there. Brooke the owner of this blog is also a veteran. I suggest you stop with the rhetoric cuz that's about all you got. Did you serve in the most recent conflict or in the first gulf war?
I agree with Dugg that you can support the troops and disagree with the reasons for going to war/leadership/policies.
As for the worst President....I think Jimmy Carter actually ranks right up there as one of the worst...but if you want to see how scholars rank them check this out
Comment by — 2006/09/30 @ 08:05 AM — (Reply)
I made the last comment
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/09/30 @ 08:06 AM — (Reply)
Well, hope you live long enough but there's a damn good chance that Bush, Jr. will rank lower than Carter for worst president. Maybe Carter wasn't a good president, I grant you that. He never should have been president, but not because he was stupid, as this president certainly is. Carter is a decent man, doesn't try to run his faith down our throats, as this president does. Carter thinks for himself with is God-given mind, wheras, Bush thinks God is taling directly to him, and governs this way. What a stupid, stupid man!!
Comment by — 2006/10/01 @ 06:57 PM — (Reply)
I served in the FIRST Gulf War, the one that Bush, Sr. ran with competence! If Bush, Sr. was dead, he would be turning over in his grave. He must be so ashamed at what his son has brought upon our country and the world ... single handedly, I might add
Comment by Veteran— 2006/10/01 @ 07:08 PM — (Reply)
I take it you're not a religious man...because then you would understand Bush's comments. Carter was more overt in his religiosity and if you think his support of leftists like Chavez is thinking with his God given mind....well certainly you are entitled to your opinion. Your opinion of the present president is just that and nothing more.
and thanks for your service
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/10/01 @ 09:15 PM — (Reply)
As I am about to atone for my sins a the synagogue today, I consider myself religious, I just don't have to preach to everyone else. I believe is separation in church and state. Kennedy was a Catholic but he didn't run the country by way of the Pope. Separation of church and state, that's how this country was founded, that's why people came to America to pray at they see fit, and let everyone else believe as the felt.
Why does Bush have to talk about how he believes, who cares. That's his business. Was he such a sinful person now he's making up for lost time. Atone for your sins but do it privately.
Comment by — 2006/10/02 @ 06:06 AM — (Reply)
Well then you know how God can speak to you then don't you. Unless of course the rabbi or yourself do not communicate with God through prayer or by reading the Torah etc.
word verification - kosher
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/10/03 @ 09:45 AM — (Reply)
You are mistaken. The Constitution does not guarantee seperation of church and state, rather, freedom of religion. We do not have laws requiring the religion of the US to be Christian, Muslim, Buhhdist, or any other.
Nor are we permitted to make laws requiring us to worship in our basements. We have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM it.
If the President is a religious man, then he has the freedom to express that. If most of the country didn't like that, we wouldn't have elected him. I am surprised that you would want him to refrain from proclaiming his faith in public, considering how badly persecuted the Jewish faith is throughout history.
And, in the words of our founding fathers:
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798--John Adams
“ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” –Constitutional Convention of 1787 --Benjamin Franklin
“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” [May 1765 Speech to the House of Burgesses]--Patrick Henry
“ Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” Source: October 12, 1816. The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, ed., (New York: Burt Franklin, 1970), Vol. IV, p. 393.--John Jay
“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” (excerpts are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in the nations capital) [Source: Merrill . D. Peterson, ed., Jefferson Writings, (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), Vol. IV, p. 289. From Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781.]--Thomas Jefferson
"To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoys. . . . Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all blessings which flow from them, must fall with them."--Jedediah Morse
Public utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of the Holy Scriptures. The doctrine they preach, the obligations they impose, the punishment they threaten, the rewards they promise, the stamp and image of divinity they bear, which produces a conviction of their truths, can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses, and at the same time enjoy quiet conscience.--James McHenry
“ It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.”--George Washington
'Nuff said?
Comment by Brooke— 2006/10/03 @ 06:13 AM — (Reply)
You're right, Bush has a right to speak about his faith in BGod, and religion. No question. But, God gave him a brain, maybe, he should rule with his brain, and common sense, not religion. That's what the "yahoos" are doing over in the Middle East, try to run their country and their people according to THEIR beliefs, and THEIR religion ... ahem, where has that gotten them but US invading their country.
And, by the way, Brookie, not to "beat a dead horse," as they say, GEORGE BUSH WAS NOT ELECTED the first time!!!! The second time is questionable ... I was in Ohio campaigning, there was a lot of funny stuff going on before those polls closed.
Comment by RRM— 2006/10/04 @ 11:00 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Brooke— 2006/10/05 @ 08:56 AM — (Reply)
What Will the "Elephants" Come Up With Next:
Is the GOP self destructing before our eyes, I hope so. It’s hard not to be optimistic about the Democrats chances of taking control of perhaps both chambers of Congress next month, but that optimism is tempered by a palpable fear of what the White House will cook up in order to assure that doesn’t happen. We’ve learned over the last six years that nothing is out of bounds for this group, hell, they’ll start wars for political gain, what wouldn’t they do? For me there are two sides to this growing storm of discontent with the GOP. First there is the election and what they will dredge up in order to stay in control, and second is the realization that even if the Democrats take over, not much is really going to change.
My biggest fear is an attack on Iran before the midterm elections. I have been asking everyone I know why I shouldn’t be concerned about that and I have received many intelligent, thoughtful answers, but none have fully convinced me that it’s not in the White House’s best interest to do so, at least for the short term. Yes, dropping bombs on Iran could very well be the last straw for many of the Generals, State Dept. officials and the old school statesmen that still have a voice (however marginalized) in the GOP, but it still seems to me that mass resignations would be preferable (to the Bush administration anyway) to real investigations into the manipulation of pre-war intelligence, a domestic spying program that is operating outside of the law and war crimes, including rendition and torture, that were not only known to the President and Vice President, but likely directed by them. The Bush administration has done a fantastic job of keeping their side in line, I have no doubt they have the ammunition necessary to continue to do so.
The country has been sufficiently gerrymandered to make holding onto power a distinct possibility even if two-dozen more Republican Congressmen are exposed as pedophiles because they don’t actually have to win, they just have to make a win seem plausible. Dropping a few bombs on Iran would increase turnout among their base and make the ten or so closely contested races plausible wins for the GOP. I can see Bush on television justifying his case for dropping a few nukes on Iran in my mind perfectly.
“These Generals that have resigned in protest are cowards, afraid to take on the fight that we know we must. Iran is no longer a gathering threat, they have crossed the line and it is critical that we destroy their nuclear facilities before they destroy us. We have captured the number two man in Al Qaeda and from our interrogation, we have learned that there is a plan in the works to detonate nuclear devises in seven of our cities. We’re not sure at what stage the planning is, but we are on the hunt and I will do everything in my power to protect the American people, even if that means going it alone. I will not back down. We will not have another September 11th on my watch.”
Can’t you hear the cheering crowd, the guttural sounds of men hell bent on vengeance? Can’t you see the American flags on trucks, houses, hats and t-shirts popping up again all across this country? There is no real America anymore, there is only the pre-packaged patriotism that need only be marketed to the masses of uncurious, unquestioning and uneducated Americans that will support anything that they can understand from a 30 second sound bite and that makes them feel powerful. We are a psychological mess and the perfect dupes for an administration that has studied the art of manipulation rather than diplomacy. The only thing that might be protecting us from this scenario is the fact that the Democrats have not shown any real signs that they would do anything meaningful to punish this administration for crimes already committed.
If the Democrats are allowed to take over Congress, I suspect that they will go forward with the investigations that have been stymied by the Republicans, but I don’t expect that they would actually follow them to the end and they certainly won’t proceed with an impeachment, so what really changes? Those of us that know the details of the crimes this President and Vice President have committed will just become more enraged and those that don’t, won’t pay attention anyway. And if they do, so what? Even if 70% of the country favored impeachment, the Democrats still wouldn’t do it. If popular will was a consideration for Congressional action, we’d be withdrawing troops from Iraq and we’d have universal healthcare already! What we want doesn’t matter because we haven’t effectively turned our feelings into action. Until there is a price to be paid for defying the public’s will, we will never have representation in government. In the past, protest, a vigorous press and the vote were the tools we used to get that done, but with those options nearly gone, how exactly are we to exert our will? We need 21st century tactics to grab back the levers of power and we better come up with some pretty damn quick, because the old ways surely aren’t working.
Comment by Liberal Girl— 2006/10/04 @ 11:45 AM — (Reply)
I wonder if the American people, i.e., the deaf and blind Republicans understand that our troops are being attacked very 15 minutes!!! Or don't they care? They think they're right, and like their president, will never admit that this war is wrong, wrong, and wrong.
But, I'll be fair here, they don't know how bad it is in Iraq, because the, ahem, liberal media just doesn't cover the story.
Comment by RMM— 2006/10/04 @ 02:25 PM — (Reply)
Well, at least Bill diddled with a legal 21-year old adult, not a minor child, as Foley has done.
Oh, yeah, morality, the Republicans are of moral character! Really, they don't sin like the rest of us. Foley stands on a soapbox and preaches "protecting" our children from these sorts of things ... what a hypocrit. And now he wants to blame it all on booze? Doesn't anyone take responsibility for his actions anymore.
Comment by RRM— 2006/10/04 @ 02:38 PM — (Reply)
Isn't it ironic that Congress legislates these laws to protect our children, and it's a congressman who breaks the same law, and a congressman who was very involved with John Walsh, and who was heard saying, something to the effect that anyone who is doing these kinds of things with children, should be afraid of Walsh, etc. Sick, very sick ... now, I'm not saying the Dems don't do these horendous things, there is fact out there that this has gone on before Foley commited his folly, by Democrats, but at least the Democrats are not going around preaching morality to the world, again, a hypocrit speaks louder, and louder about the "so-called moral Majority!!!"
Comment by Louise (Yep, I[m back, can't help it.)— 2006/10/04 @ 02:58 PM — (Reply)
nobody is accusing foley of diddling anyone as reprehensible as his emails and IM's are. the last diddler of a page was actually a Democrat Rep. Studds who took his page to Morrocco for sex so he couldn't be prosecuted in the States. Then when Congress censured him he turned his back during the proceedings, held a press conference with the page in question declaring his innocence and then remained in Congress till 1996.
How do Dems protect children?
--By keeping them in failing schools and fighting school choice
--By making sure children can get abortions on demand
--By undermining efforts to track terrorists and prevent terrorism
--By exploiting the page involved in Foley's IM chat
I doubt Middle America views those actions as in the best interests of children.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/10/04 @ 04:17 PM — (Reply)
Bush running the country like a religion....you can't be serious..hahahahaha that's the funniest thing I ever hoid.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/10/04 @ 04:19 PM — (Reply)
Melvin Jay "Mel" Reynolds (born January 8, 1952) was a Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives from the state of Illinois. Reynolds currently works for Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition.
Reynolds was born in Mound Bayou, Mississippi and he graduated from Roosevelt University and the University of Illinois. An academic achiever, he won a Rhodes Scholarship to Lincoln College in the University of Oxford.
Reynolds was unsuccessful in his 1986, 1988, and 1990 campaigns against Congressman Gus Savage. However, Reynolds was able to defeat Savage in 1992. He served in the House of Representatives from 1993 to 1995.
In August 1994, he was indicted for having sex with a 16-year-old campaign volunteer. Despite the charges, he continued his campaign and was re-elected in November 1994. Reynolds initially denied the charges, which he claimed were racially motivated. On August 22, 1995 he was convicted on 12 counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice and solicitation of child pornography. He resigned his seat on October 1, 1995.
Reynolds was sentenced to five years in prison and expected to be released in 1998. However, in April 1997, he was convicted on 15 unrelated counts of bank fraud and lying to SEC investigators. These charges resulted in an additional sentence of 78 months in federal prison. Reynolds served all of his first sentence and served forty-two months in prison for the later charges. At that point, U.S. President Bill Clinton commuted the sentence for bank fraud. As a result, Reynolds was released from prison and served the remaining time in a half way house. [1][2]
In 2004, he was overwhelmingly defeated by Jesse Jackson, Jr., in his attempt to win back his old House seat.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/10/04 @ 04:53 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/10/04 @ 04:55 PM — (Reply)
What Sudds did is ABSOLUTELY wrong, wrong, and disgusting. The fact that Foley didn't take his page on trip ... are you kidding, give me a break, he probably hadn't figured out how to do it. He was stupid enough to send emails to this kid
... hello!!! He was probably too stupid to figure out how to take this kid on trip out of the country. Be that as it may, he's slime, he is a fake, representing himself as a moral person, more than that, now he's trying to cover it up with excuses. And then YOUR speaking of the house says he didn't know about this last year ... well, looks like by next week he will be looking for another job.
Come on, folks, your party is imploding in front of your eyes, I see big trouble in November ... and then there is the fact that every 15 min. as mentioned somewhere above, our troops are being killed, AND, AND, we've lost more young people in Iraq in these first days of October, than any other month since the war began ... oh, yeah, the war is going well ... what is Bush smoking, what are all of you smoking. I'd like some of that, but then I've never smoked anything in my whole life!
Better get out your walking shoes and knock on doors, if you have any prayer of winning in November. I truly look forward to November!
Comment by — 2006/10/04 @ 05:07 PM — (Reply)
What this site is hot tonight ... you keep mentioned other slimeballs, the fact of the matter, is your party is supposed to represent the moral thinking in this country ... uh, what's happened.
Comment by — 2006/10/04 @ 05:09 PM — (Reply)
More and more will be coming out about what the Republicans, read that as Hastert, knew, and when they knew it, and why they didn't throw the bum out! Oh, but, no, they're Republicans, they can not make mistakes ... well, looks like a big one has been made by Foley.
The Republicans knew and DID NOT DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT ... could there be other accomplices trying to cover the ASSES?
Comment by Liberal Girl— 2006/10/04 @ 05:13 PM — (Reply)
Foley resigned. End of story. Since you demlibs have no other plans for America all you have in your desperation is beating the Foley drum.
Guess what? Americans are smarter than you michael moore types give us credit for. Americans know exactly why you are beating the Foley drum. Since you had NOTHING, this at least give you something to blame ALL Republicans about.
What it really shows Americans is that democrats are desperate, have no plan for America and continue blindly along in Kerry's flip flopping losing wake.
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/10/04 @ 05:15 PM — (Reply)
I mention other slimeballs because you demlibs think this is unique to the Republican party. I wouldn't defend Foley or anyone who helped to cover it up if that is indeed what happened, but painting every Republican as a pedophile enabler is just well it's silly....does every Democrat cheat on their spouse because Clinton did it? Foley was no conservative anyway. The truth is sin is universal it crosses even political lines...in fact political ideology has nothing to do with it. If you need me to I can spell it out in simpler terms.
I often have to do that with my own children.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/10/04 @ 05:23 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/10/04 @ 05:28 PM — (Reply)
Foley resigned because he was found out! If he was really honest and remorseful, he should have done that long ago. HE GOT CAUGH, period. And sleeze balls, whether Republican, or Democrat should be thrown out. Foley claims addiction for his sleezy ways ... come on folks, excuses. People who have known him claim they've never seeb him drink. Rehab, ha, that's a laugh, rehab is just a place to hide out.
Comment by — 2006/10/04 @ 05:57 PM — (Reply)
Hey there's a new soap opera called, As the Party Turns, a party in power about to dump Hastert.
AND, guess what the Republicans have gays in their House!!! Wow, imagine ... what will we learn next, that Republicanjs have abortions ... only cow, the wheels are coming off the Republican party.
Comment by — 2006/10/04 @ 06:10 PM — (Reply)
Well here's a newsflash for you again genius not all Republicans are conservative (mccain) and not all Dems are liberals (Zell miller) so why would it surprise anyone that there are homosexual Republicans or GASP! conservative Christian Democrats! hahahahaha
At least the Republicans knew the best thing for the people were for them to leave. And guess what, it's coming out now that there were some Democrats that knew about Foley. Even the Miami Hearals and the St. Petersburg newspaper knew of the same emails Hastert did and they didn't think it was a story. The lurid things you have been reading were in private IM. I am not defending Foley at all. It's the double standard the Dems try to deal.
How come Jefferson didn't resign? How come Clinton pardoned the criminal Mel Reynolds? Delay did. Livingston did. Trent Lott resigned from his leadership position. Studds stayed in office. Getting caught doesn't mean s*it to the liberals.
Comment by — 2006/10/04 @ 06:19 PM — (Reply)
Oh, you are absolutely right, we've got conservative liberals, liberal conservatives. The difference is the majority of the conservative party preach they are "holier than thou." They against gays for the most part, your own vp of the U.S., until it was publicly brought out that he had a gay daughter.
See, the operable word here is "hypocrit." I also find it interesting that the Republican nesw station FOX news, is trying to cover up, when they have Foley's name mentioned on the crawl line at the bottom of the screen that had him listed as a Democrat ... or, really? A mistake? Nope, the removed it later, and had his name with NO PARTY AFFLIATION!
Comment by — 2006/10/04 @ 06:34 PM — (Reply)
and the same party forced Foley out..do you believe the dems are more moral because they let jefferson and studds stay in office?....genius..you need a new dictionary..
hypocrite - a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he or she does not hold in order to conceal his or her real feelings or motives -
if you can look at someone and determine motives then maybe I should stop going to church, show up at your door and make supplication..yawn
using a broad paint brush really is unbecoming...Foley was no conservative please...
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/10/04 @ 06:43 PM — (Reply)
Interesting, as I clearly stated NONE of you demlibs has a plan for American. The demlib dream is to get into power by trashing Republicans and hope for the best.
Personally I prefer more foresight and in depth thought in the leaders I vote for. Watching the demlibs drool over this is a bad combination of watching Oprah and the View or so I am told.
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/10/04 @ 06:44 PM — (Reply)
Foley was gay they couldn't have been THAT against it.
Comment by eb— 2006/10/04 @ 06:44 PM — (Reply)
I think it's more like Jerry Springer Barry. Who'd have thought that the Dems would come out against a homosexual?
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/10/04 @ 06:46 PM — (Reply)
Forsight, sir, forseight in your leaders, well, that leaves Bush out, he doesn't know what the word means.
Rehab for Ted and Patrick ... I make no excused for either of them. Using drug and/or alcohol abuse to excuse a dirty deed, is wrong, I don't care who they are, or what party!!
See, you folks just don't get. I guess, all I can say, to be perfectly honest with you, is that I am getting great entertainment watch the Republican party goes down the drain, it gives me more hope that we will take over in November. So, frankly, I don't care what names you call me, what you think of me, because in the end WE WILL WIN!!!
Comment by — 2006/10/04 @ 07:02 PM — (Reply)
oh it looks like now that page may have actually been 18 at the time. Have to see how that plays out. Either the media sat on it till election time...or they sat on it till election time.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/10/04 @ 07:07 PM — (Reply)
If what EB is reporting is true (not a doubt there), then there is perhaps a larger conspiracy and web of lies and deceit out there generated by the demlibs in cooperation with the media. All it will take is ONE on them ratting out the sordid scheme.
None of all this excuses Foley and resigning did not excuse him. Resigning was the right thing to do but it made nothing go away.
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/10/04 @ 07:34 PM — (Reply)
This young man may have been 18, haven't heard that, myself, (you probably heard from that "fair and balanced" imitation of a news show, FOX, but no matter, he apparently went after other boys as well, sorry it doesn't fly ... the fact of the matter is, he shouldn't have done what he did, he was in his early late 40s to early 50s. Come on, had this been a Democratic congressman, you would have given the guy no slack at all, so I'm not giving your guy any slack, either. Wr
ong is wrong, he was man in a powerful job taking advantage of an underling.
If what Bill did was wrong, it's wrong now, period!! You can have your excuses, but the Republican party is drowning big time. The writing is on the wall, "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."
So, good night, now, sleep well, I know I will, with a smile on my face, and by the way, "don't let the Democrats bite!"
Comment by — 2006/10/04 @ 07:44 PM — (Reply)
Okay it may be wrong but with an 18 year old it's
1. not illegal
2. you and others have said "at least Democrats consort with consenting adults", if he was 18 then it was consenting adults
3. the media and the ensuing panic it caused would have some splaining to do Lucy
4. I am not providing excuses I am alluding to the double standard genius
5. your "if this was a Democratic Rep...." is a straw man
6. I have not excused Foley, homosexuality I believe is wrong
7. It wasn't Fox but Communist News Network
Are you going to answer my question?
Comment by — 2006/10/04 @ 08:04 PM — (Reply)
last comment by elmers brother
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/10/04 @ 08:05 PM — (Reply)
Have you seen Demi Moore and Austin Kutcher
Woody Allen and Soon-Yi Previn
Sleep well? I sleep like a log. I can donate an organ and swat liberals like flies at the same time. yawn
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/10/04 @ 08:09 PM — (Reply)
ABC news mistakenly released the IM identity of the page who exchanged IM messages with former Rep. Mark Foley. Bloggers Wild Bill from Passionate America and Ms. Underestimated tracked the AOL profile from the unredacted IM message and are reporting that the person is a 21 year old Deputy Campaign Manager for Congressman Ernest Istook in Oklahoma.
The current age of the person would put him at 17 or 18 years of age at the time of the IM exchange although ABC released a statement saying that the messages took place before and after the man's 18th birthday.
Further, the bloggers discovered that the indivudual was a member of the departing 2001-2002 Page class. A check of the Thomson Library of congress shows that the person was not a member of the 2003 class.
Matt Drudge has since picked up on the story and received a statement from ABC News.
ABC ONLINE GLITCH LEADS TO IDENTITY OF FOLEY ACCUSER
FEATURED IM EXCHANGE WAS WITH 18 YEAR OLD
Wed Oct 04 2006 20:32:06 ET
A posting on ABCNEWS.COM of an unredacted instant message sessions between Rep. Mark Foley and a former congressional page has exposed the identity of the now 21 year-old accuser.
The website PASSIONATE AMERICA detailed the startling exposure late Wednesday.
ABCNEWS said in a statement: "We go to great lengths to prevent the names of alleged sex crime victims from being revealed. On Friday there was a very brief technical glitch on our site which was overridden immediately. It is possible that during that very brief interval a screen name could have been captured. Reviews of the site since then show no unredacted screen names."
SEX CHAT WAS WITH 18 YEAR OLD
On Tuesday ABC news released a high-impact instant message exchange between Foley and, as ABC explained, a young man "under the age of 18."
ABC headlined the story: "New Foley Instant Messages; Had Internet Sex While Awaiting House Vote"
But upon reviewing the records, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, the young man was in fact over the age of 18 at the time of the exchange.
A network source explains, messages with the young man and disgraced former Congressman Foley took place before and after the 18th birthday.
Developing...
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/10/04 @ 10:45 PM — (Reply)
We'll see! So, why did Foley resign if this kid was of legal age. Got an answer for that one, elmo!
Comment by — 2006/10/05 @ 07:05 AM — (Reply)
Brooke please elmo??? Did you see the previous comments where the demlibs offer no solution other than to drop the "f" bomb and tell us how much they hate us? Now that's reasonable.
Which is more than we can say for our liberal friends like Rep. Studds.
Now that I've answered your question...care to answer mine? None of your dhimmi demlib friends have given it a shot yet.
1). "I have lost the right to ____________________".
2). "Because of this, I can no longer ____________________".
EXAMPLE:
1). "I have lost the right to peaceably assemble".
2). "Because of this, I can no longer meet with my local political party".
Hey when Clinton apologizes for appeasing the radical Muslims, the bombing of the USS Cole and his lack of response, letting Bin Laden slip away and lying to a grand jury...I'll send Bush a personal letter asking him to consider apologizing.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/10/09 @ 10:41 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/10/09 @ 10:43 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Brooke— 2006/10/05 @ 09:03 AM — (Reply)
You can do what you like, it's your site, if you want to "take your ball and run home, so be it, but where, please tell me where I call anyone a name? By the way, is not "slimeballs" calling someone a name? Le'ts be fair here, okay?
Comment by — 2006/10/05 @ 09:40 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Brooke— 2006/10/05 @ 12:44 PM — (Reply)
Well, I never said I was a good typist. Never took typing in school, so I fly by the seat of my pants/dress, whatever. I do my best, though! So, my dear, you jump to conclusions. No one was calling anyone ANY names, period.
But, One word for Republicans, oh, sorry, two: "gloom and doom!
Comment by — 2006/10/05 @ 02:05 PM — (Reply)
Ha, "left-wing conspiracy," ... that's what the Republicans are saying, now ... something they claimed Hill did, and she was making excuses for Bill?
The speaker should go, he's handled this very badly, he's a terrible speaker, and soon we'll have a NEW Democratic speaker. Can you all spell "Pelosi? WOW! What a nice ring that has ...
Comment by RRM— 2006/10/05 @ 03:37 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/10/05 @ 04:51 PM — (Reply)
Ah, you dream, my friend. The Repubs are slows but surely burying themselves. You see, it's the hypocrits in your party that are the problem. You preach about morality, but you all are no better than anyone else.
No, we are not perfect, but we're not out there banging the drums telling people how to LIVE a moral life. We are not out there gay bashing, hiding them in a bushel barrel.
No, my friend, I'm enjoying this because it's all over for you guys, all over, all over, all over, yeah, it's all over.
And just wait, we'll soon bring the president for all his cover ups. Just wait, when we win, he's going down!
Comment by — 2006/10/05 @ 05:16 PM — (Reply)
Good for you (person who last posted). Now, I want someone to explain to me, getting away from this dispicable Foley thing, "Foley folly," as someone else said, I liked that, cool!
How come we've lost more Americans in these last few days than any time during this God-for-saken Bush war. Why are we putting more troops in, and we have fewer Iraqis on the street fighting? Explain, please?
We just lost a young man from our community here in Maryland.
For what, Mr. Bush, because you have a you know what up your you know what?
Bush is a liar, liar, liar, pants on fire, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
Comment by Louise— 2006/10/05 @ 05:22 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2006/10/05 @ 05:40 PM — (Reply)
Listen and read more, Dugg, and you will find out more about the lies this president has told. I'm running out tomorrow to get Woordward's book. The Republicans, are becomming undone, and they're blaming everyone but themselves.
This president is slowly but surely, bringing down his own party, by his lies, and he's bringing down our country.
Look, folks, I'm a Democrat, but I don't want to see our country be taken down. Once again, I've never felt about a non-Democratic president with such hate, as I do this one, and I've been around since Ike was president. I voted for the first time, in the late 60s, I have even voted for Republicans, twice. I don't agree with most Republicans, but I do believe that the majority of them are good "moral" Americans, I really do, but how you can stand behind this president, after all these years, is just beyond me. It's unbelievable.
Come on, conservatives, stand by those values you profess, and tell us, that those in the know of the lies by Bush, and who knew about Foley, should all step down. What's the dif, anyway, they won't have a job after November, but at least they'll look like honorable folks who know when it's time to get out of dodge. Save face, look like "menches" and not like a bunch of Nixonion coverups. Can they do that, you think.
GOP hyprocracies is killing the party ... and what do they do, they blame it on Soros, the Dems, ABC. Hey, if there was no truth to this story, it would be over it.
By the way, any of you listen to Keith Olberman today? He really gave it to Bush -- BIG TIME!!!
Comment by — 2006/10/05 @ 06:21 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/10/05 @ 07:06 PM — (Reply)
What, are you dumb, do I sound like someone who would vote for Nixon. Well, then can we agree that we have Olberman, and you have that hack O'Riley. Olberman tells it like it is, O'Riley makes it up, to suit people such as yourselves.
So, where does that leave us. So, what. You still haven't come up with an explanation for how your party is behaving during this Foley debacle. You condone hiding any info those folks may have had?
Comment by — 2006/10/05 @ 07:33 PM — (Reply)
And one more thing, I stopped watching O'Riley long ago when I saw what an egotistcal hack he is; but, you, you know what Olberman has to say, you watch him. Because, if you didn't you couldn't make such a blanket statement.
Comment by — 2006/10/05 @ 07:35 PM — (Reply)
And one more thing, yes, I never hated Nixon as I do Bush. Nixon lied, too, he tried to cover it up, but he saw the light as they said, listen to his confidents, and HE stepped down.
I have respect for that; I have no respect for the present man in the oval office. He's a killer, he's killing millions of people, he's no better than Sadam.
Comment by — 2006/10/05 @ 07:39 PM — (Reply)
I like Ken Melman the RNC chair. He speaks for me.
I personally have condoned nothing. Is that a little projection there sport? Exploiting this situation as they have will ultimately explode in the demlibs faces. Neither side has been at their best. Didn't Gary Condit actually get reelected after being an alleged murderer?
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/10/05 @ 07:44 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/10/05 @ 07:45 PM — (Reply)
Wish I can say I wrote this, but I didn't, but you should a brilliant commentary:
Olbermann: And lastly tonight, a Special Comment, about — lying. While the leadership in Congress has self-destructed over the revelations of an unmatched, and unrelieved, march through a cesspool… While the leadership inside the White House has self-destructed over the revelations of a book with a glowing red cover…
The President of the United States — unbowed, undeterred, and unconnected to reality — has continued his extraordinary trek through our country rooting out the enemies of freedom: The Democrats.
Transcripts below the fold
Yesterday at a fundraiser for an Arizona Congressman, Mr. Bush claimed, quote, "177 of the opposition party said 'You know, we don't think we ought to be listening to the conversations of terrorists."
The hell they did.
177 Democrats opposed the President's seizure of another part of the Constitution*.
Not even the White House press office could actually name a single Democrat who had ever said the government shouldn't be listening to the conversations of terrorists.
President Bush hears… what he wants.
Tuesday, at another fundraiser in California, he had said "Democrats take a law enforcement approach to terrorism. That means America will wait until we're attacked again before we respond."
Mr. Bush fabricated that, too.
And evidently he has begun to fancy himself as a mind-reader.
"If you listen closely to some of the leaders of the Democratic Party," the President said at another fundraiser Monday in Nevada, "it sounds like they think the best way to protect the American people is — wait until we're attacked again."
The President doesn't just hear what he wants. He hears things, that only he can hear.
It defies belief that this President and his administration could continue to find new unexplored political gutters into which they could wallow.
Yet they do.
It is startling enough that such things could be said out loud by any President of this nation.
Rhetorically, it is about an inch short of Mr. Bush accusing Democratic leaders; Democrats; the majority of Americans who disagree with his policies — of treason.
But it is the context that truly makes the head spin.
Just 25 days ago, on the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, this same man spoke to this nation and insisted, quote, "we must put aside our differences and work together to meet the test that history has given us."
Mr. Bush, this is a test you have already failed.
If your commitment to "put aside differences and work together" is replaced in the span of just three weeks by claiming your political opponents prefer to wait to see this country attacked again, and by spewing fabrications about what they've said, then the questions your critics need to be asking, are no longer about your policies.
They are, instead — solemn and even terrible questions, about your fitness to fulfill the responsibilities of your office.
No Democrat, sir, has ever said anything approaching the suggestion that the best means of self-defense is to "wait until we're attacked again."
No critic, no commentator, no reluctant Republican in the Senate, has ever said anything that any responsible person could even have exaggerated into the slander you spoke in Nevada on Monday night, nor the slander you spoke in California on Tuesday, nor the slander you spoke in Arizona on Wednesday… nor whatever is next.
You have dishonored your party, sir — you have dishonored your supporters — you have dishonored yourself.
But tonight the stark question we must face is - why?
Why has the ferocity of your venom against the Democrats, now exceeded the ferocity of your venom against the terrorists?
Why have you chosen to go down in history as the President who made things up?
In less than one month you have gone from a flawed call to unity, to this clarion call to hatred of Americans, by Americans.
If this is not simply the most shameless example of the rhetoric of political hackery, then it would have to be the cry of a leader crumbling under the weight of his own lies.
We have, of course, survived all manner of political hackery, of every shape, size, and party.
We will have to suffer it, for as long as the Republic stands.
But the premise of a President who comes across as a compulsive liar — is nothing less than terrifying.
A President who since 9/11 will not listen, is not listening — and thanks to Bob Woodward's most recent account — evidently has never listened.
Comment by — 2006/10/05 @ 07:58 PM — (Reply)
Wish I can say I wrote this, but I didn't, but you should a brilliant commentary:
Olbermann: And lastly tonight, a Special Comment, about — lying. While the leadership in Congress has self-destructed over the revelations of an unmatched, and unrelieved, march through a cesspool… While the leadership inside the White House has self-destructed over the revelations of a book with a glowing red cover…
The President of the United States — unbowed, undeterred, and unconnected to reality — has continued his extraordinary trek through our country rooting out the enemies of freedom: The Democrats.
Transcripts below the fold
Yesterday at a fundraiser for an Arizona Congressman, Mr. Bush claimed, quote, "177 of the opposition party said 'You know, we don't think we ought to be listening to the conversations of terrorists."
The hell they did.
177 Democrats opposed the President's seizure of another part of the Constitution*.
Not even the White House press office could actually name a single Democrat who had ever said the government shouldn't be listening to the conversations of terrorists.
President Bush hears… what he wants.
Tuesday, at another fundraiser in California, he had said "Democrats take a law enforcement approach to terrorism. That means America will wait until we're attacked again before we respond."
Mr. Bush fabricated that, too.
And evidently he has begun to fancy himself as a mind-reader.
"If you listen closely to some of the leaders of the Democratic Party," the President said at another fundraiser Monday in Nevada, "it sounds like they think the best way to protect the American people is — wait until we're attacked again."
The President doesn't just hear what he wants. He hears things, that only he can hear.
It defies belief that this President and his administration could continue to find new unexplored political gutters into which they could wallow.
Yet they do.
It is startling enough that such things could be said out loud by any President of this nation.
Rhetorically, it is about an inch short of Mr. Bush accusing Democratic leaders; Democrats; the majority of Americans who disagree with his policies — of treason.
But it is the context that truly makes the head spin.
Just 25 days ago, on the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, this same man spoke to this nation and insisted, quote, "we must put aside our differences and work together to meet the test that history has given us."
Mr. Bush, this is a test you have already failed.
If your commitment to "put aside differences and work together" is replaced in the span of just three weeks by claiming your political opponents prefer to wait to see this country attacked again, and by spewing fabrications about what they've said, then the questions your critics need to be asking, are no longer about your policies.
They are, instead — solemn and even terrible questions, about your fitness to fulfill the responsibilities of your office.
No Democrat, sir, has ever said anything approaching the suggestion that the best means of self-defense is to "wait until we're attacked again."
No critic, no commentator, no reluctant Republican in the Senate, has ever said anything that any responsible person could even have exaggerated into the slander you spoke in Nevada on Monday night, nor the slander you spoke in California on Tuesday, nor the slander you spoke in Arizona on Wednesday… nor whatever is next.
You have dishonored your party, sir — you have dishonored your supporters — you have dishonored yourself.
But tonight the stark question we must face is - why?
Why has the ferocity of your venom against the Democrats, now exceeded the ferocity of your venom against the terrorists?
Why have you chosen to go down in history as the President who made things up?
In less than one month you have gone from a flawed call to unity, to this clarion call to hatred of Americans, by Americans.
If this is not simply the most shameless example of the rhetoric of political hackery, then it would have to be the cry of a leader crumbling under the weight of his own lies.
We have, of course, survived all manner of political hackery, of every shape, size, and party.
We will have to suffer it, for as long as the Republic stands.
But the premise of a President who comes across as a compulsive liar — is nothing less than terrifying.
A President who since 9/11 will not listen, is not listening — and thanks to Bob Woodward's most recent account — evidently has never listened.
Comment by — 2006/10/05 @ 08:03 PM — (Reply)
I do understand one thing, Bush says his job is to keep us safe; i.e., his job is to be, and I quote, "on the lookout," no wonder comedians have so much comic material with this guy every nigh. His job is to do a lot of things, "to shake hands, and smile," he's a joke all by himself.
Comment by LMZ— 2006/10/05 @ 08:09 PM — (Reply)
His job to do his job ...
Comment by — 2006/10/05 @ 08:10 PM — (Reply)
Ace of Spades says:
Let's see... (Republicans) running on national security and the economy, they're (Dems) running on general anti-faggotry.
Democrats - soft on terrorism Hard on fags
Comment by — 2006/10/05 @ 10:14 PM — (Reply)
Jihadis - nonissue. Homophobes - highest national security issue."
Comment by — 2006/10/05 @ 10:28 PM — (Reply)
You're right, homophobes are the scariest people on this earth,
Why they even care what someone else's sexual orientation is, is beyond me.
My theory is, that they fear the could be a "little light in the loafers," themselves, and are afraid if there are gay people around them, they may be sucked in to that lifstyle. Oops!
Comment by — 2006/10/06 @ 06:52 AM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2006/10/06 @ 08:13 AM — (Reply)
I believe the comment was tongue in cheek.
Comment by — 2006/10/06 @ 09:06 AM — (Reply)
Hey Aza. where did you go to school and learn English can you spell "Y-O-U?"
Comment by — 2006/10/06 @ 10:50 AM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2006/10/06 @ 11:15 AM — (Reply)
That's funny, I like that!
Comment by — 2006/10/06 @ 01:07 PM — (Reply)
BULLITIN: 21 American soldiers dead since the beginning of this month! How's the war going?
Senator Warner, who just returned from Iraq, is not liking the the course this war has taken, this senator is a stauch supporter of Bush, and he's very worried, very!!
Comment by RRM— 2006/10/06 @ 01:15 PM — (Reply)
The president’s approval rating has fallen to a new all-time low for the Newsweek poll: 33 percent, down from an already anemic 36 percent in August. Only 25 percent of Americans are satisfied with the direction of the country.
Alas, the country is smartening up and paying attention to the follies of this whole party.
Comment by RRM— 2006/10/09 @ 11:18 AM — (Reply)
Well, thanks to Bush inability or willingness to deal with one of the "axis of evil" countries, North Korea has tested another nucclear weapon. So, 5 and 1/2 years of wasted time in Iraq, and he's allowed NK to continue to acquire neclear weapons ... but, all he worred about the imaginary ones in Iraq. What an idiot, and now how do you put the lid on NK.
I'v never remember having such an inept adminsitration.
All this time, and Bush didn't worry about this "axis of evil" country. No wonder, Bush and his party are going to be up the creek come November. Seems to be Bush is the evil one
Comment by Louise— 2006/10/09 @ 05:08 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/10/09 @ 05:24 PM — (Reply)
Yep ... I blame him when I have diarrhea, I blame him when I get nasaeus, which I become every time I see, or hear him.
Yes, I blame him for all the things going wrong in this country, and others are seeing that as well. Sorry, but that's the way it is.
Comment by Louise— 2006/10/09 @ 06:16 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/10/09 @ 07:33 PM — (Reply)
Well, why can't I BE perfect. Bush NEVER makes mistakes, according to him, right? Or ... if he does, he won't admit to them. I have a REAL problem with that, a person who doesn't see that he can make mistakes is a fool.
Comment by — 2006/10/09 @ 08:31 PM — (Reply)
A person who can't admits mistakes, especially a person as powerful as Bush is, is dangerous and an idiot!
Comment by — 2006/10/09 @ 08:57 PM — (Reply)
She blames Bush but she can't name a single liberty she has lost.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/10/09 @ 10:34 PM — (Reply)
Countries that haven't attacked us have been deemed threats because of their potential to attack - we invaded Iraq because of their*potential* to attack us.
Bush has the potential to become dictator and incarcerate us all. Wake up!
Comment by Dugg— 2006/10/10 @ 06:26 AM — (Reply)
you haven't been detained have you? How long were you held, did they water board you or just beat you? What did you say that got you detained?
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/10/10 @ 08:00 AM — (Reply)
You don't line things up to be possible for no reason.
Comment by Dugg— 2006/10/10 @ 10:19 AM — (Reply)
dugg premptive war is not a new policy...ever heard of the Korean War, Vietnam War (both started by Dems).....hello...do you need another history lesson?
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/10/10 @ 08:03 AM — (Reply)
My point was - you have no problem seeing us premptively strike a country because of the potential of what they might do to us. But you can't seem to see the problem of Bush having dictatorial powers. He hasn't done it yet/what freedoms have you lost? - you say. Well, to that I say - Iran/Iraq/N.Korea haven't attacked us - but everybody sure is worried anyway.
Comment by Dugg— 2006/10/10 @ 10:32 AM — (Reply)
You know, you guys just don't get it, don't want to admit but Bush has been out of office since 2000, Bush is president NOW, and, God help us, 2 or less years, he has made the mess we are in, i.e., Iraq and Iran and Korea, he is at the helm, he is the one who is in charge and he has failed misserably. Any man/woman who wants this job, after the mess Bush has put us in, has to be totally nuts. I will take more than a geration for us to get out of this disaster he has creasted.
THE WRITING IS ON THE WALL, READ IT!!! When Bush is out of office, he could be charged with war crimes, he's no better than the folks why were tried at the Nuremberg Trial. He is a war criminal.
Carter, Clinton, Bush, Sr., all presidents have made some bad mistakes, but none have been accused of war crimes. This man will be. He has put both us, and the world, at risk for his shenanigans and what makes me sick, is that future generations, in particular my 5 grandchildren, and grandchildren, and great grandchilder will be paying for this so-called president's mistakes.
You look like an older guy, sir, I hope you're around to see it, sir, then you can pray for forgiveness for voting for president, George W. Bush.
Comment by — 2006/10/10 @ 05:56 AM — (Reply)
Bush will not become a dictator. He would have to constrain the entire country with our own military, who wouldn't do such a thing... But for the sake of argument, let's say that they would. In order to maintain that kind of military control, he'd need a LOT more troops... Where would he get them if we are abroad fighting a war? Would he draft them? Who would show up to shoot at their fellow countrymen for a despot?
It's just an illogical argument from the get-go. In 2008, this country will elect someone else, be they Dem or GOP, and Bush will step down.
Psst.... Anonymous... I don't know if you are refering to Barry or EB when you say "you look like an older guy", but here's a little helper: I'll bet they don't really look like their avatars. Do you think Dugg really looks like a Winkie's sign, or that I am truly Uncle Sam?
Sheesh. And you call our President stupid.
Comment by Brooke— 2006/10/10 @ 07:01 AM — (Reply)
Who do you think Franks believes will be the military patrolling us when this happens? UN troops, maybe?
Comment by Dugg— 2006/10/10 @ 09:29 AM — (Reply)
And besides, Franks is just speculating. If Bush is so darn evil, what makes you think he's going to broadcast his plans? One too many B movies, my friend!
Comment by Brooke— 2006/10/10 @ 10:57 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2006/10/10 @ 12:40 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/10/11 @ 12:35 PM — (Reply)
You don't line things up to be possible for no reason.
Comment by Dugg— 2006/10/11 @ 12:57 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/10/11 @ 01:30 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/10/11 @ 01:34 PM — (Reply)