Bush Bashing

[hm0504]

Originally posted by Conor B:
And, re: extra-legal 'protecting us from the terrrrrrists':

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790), Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

Love Ya all

Great quotation. Wouldn't the founding fathers be amazed to hear what is going on today. Of course, what would they expect when the President refers to the U.S. Constitution as "just a *******ed piece of paper". [1]

[1] http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml

While I think it best if the government does not have unlimited powers to spy on its citizens, if security reasons make that practice essential, then there must also be a very high level of freedom of speech. What really frightens me is that on this latter front, the U.S. government is seeking to suffocate that. As I said earlier, if the FCC imposes the same impositions on cable as it does on broadcast, then one has to wonder if the U.S. should really call itself a democracy any more.

[gormenghast20]

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"The Tax Foundation has data showing roughly 20 percent of individuals between ages 45 and 64 claim capital gains, while about 30 percent of seniors over 65 claim them. Roughly half of seniors rely on dividend income, with about one-third of the 45 to 64 crowd. Also, over 80 percent of taxpayers claiming dividend income, and 76 percent claiming capital gains, earned less than $100,000 dollars in 2004. And, of course with 57 million households owning stock these days, the younger cohorts that have 15-20 percent of their incomes from capital gains and dividends will only rise as they get older."


This is misleading because it makes little attempt to quantify the amount of capital gains taxes those households pay. It is a very small amount for most people in the bottom 95%. Capital gains are less than income tax - a tax paid on wages. The neo-con class warriors want it to be zero, so that only working people have to pay taxes. Sound fair to you?

<UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI>According to James Poterba and Andrew Samwick (of Dartmouth), although 36.8 percent of families held some stock, directly or indirectly in 1992, only 28.9 percent of families owned more than $2,000 worth of stock. Stock ownership is highly skewed: Half of all stock held by U.S. families is owned by the best-off 5 percent. In contrast, the bottom three-fourths of households own less than 20 percent of all stock, with the bottom half owning less than 5 percent. I wonder whom Samuel son considers "middle class."

There may be millions of people who own stock, but the gains from higher profitability and the stock market boom primarily benefit the best-off families and not the typical working family. Ordinary people still depend mainly on salaries and wages, and capital income has soared at the expense of their livelihood.
http://tinyurl.com/cfs8e[/list]

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Investments are the best way for working-class people to move out of the working class (my plan of hitting the lottery isn't working too well), how could taxing such investments be a good thing?

I found this link...now to me, this all makes sense...but I probably don't have your financial sense. Could you please read through it, if you have the time, and let me know with what you agree and what you don't...and the reason why. I've heard of the Cato Institute before...not sure if some will decry it as fascist or right-wing or whatever.

The ABCs of the Capital Gains Tax (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-242.html)

[gormenghast20]

Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gormenghast20:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gormenghast20:
Albinus,

Yeah, but your statements made some time ago don't answer at all any of those specific "charges" which I provided links to.


No doubt your ability to both extrapolate and consider the source has been impaired. When your abilit to connect the dots reappears you will no doubt scream "EUREKA".

When all else fails, follow the wisdom of the phrase coined in the Watergate investigation, "follow the money". When you realize that the organizations that support this writer (and others) raise millions of dollars and enrich themselves by reving up their base it will all become clear to you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, you're saying that organizations that DON'T support this writer aren't interested in money? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never said any such thing. But you still refuse to consider the source. This writer's odds of stating the truth is no greater then the odds of the stories that the Pentagon paid to appear in Iraqi newspapers honestly discussing Bush and his motives.

When money from mega churches are siphoned off to right wing think tanks do you think that they will pay for writing that is contrary to their belief without regard to the truth? Of course not. They only pay for that which supports their viewpoint - truth, lies, and intellectual dishonesty notwithstanding. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the clarification...but the same thing can be said for the left-side of the debate also...they're just as big a bunch of liars.

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by gormenghast20:
Could you please read through it, if you have the time, and let me know with what you agree and what you don't...and the reason why. I've heard of the Cato Institute before...not sure if some will decry it as fascist or right-wing or whatever.


Many of your most recent posts indicate that either you are incapable of understanding the ideology of that which you read, or you just wish others to do your vetting for you. Perhaps there is some other agenda.

FYI - The Cato Institute is a liberterian think tank. They believe not in human rights or the rights of the state; they believe in the rights of corporate and business concerns above all else. Liberterians believe that gov't should not be involved in anything not specifically named in the Constitution. They also believe that there should be no controls on business or corporate entities.

Yes, they believe that the gov't should be involved in our nation's defense. Defense was specifically mentioned in The Constitution.

The safety of the food that you eat and the quality of the air that you breath as well as the quality of the water you drink are not part of govt's role since they are not specifically mentioned in The Constitution. Therefore, they oppose the very existence of the EPA and the FDA.

In short, they oppose gov't agencies that protect the public and place controls on industry and business.

Should you choose to get your information from an organization and political viewpoint like that fine - but consider the source!

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by gormenghast20:
Thanks for the clarification...but the same thing can be said for the left-side of the debate also...they're just as big a bunch of liars.

What are you specifically saying is a lie?

[gormenghast20]

Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gormenghast20:
Could you please read through it, if you have the time, and let me know with what you agree and what you don't...and the reason why. I've heard of the Cato Institute before...not sure if some will decry it as fascist or right-wing or whatever.


Many of your most recent posts indicate that either you are incapable of understanding the ideology of that which you read, or you just wish others to do your vetting for you. Perhaps there is some other agenda.

FYI - The Cato Institute is a liberterian think tank. They believe not in human rights or the rights of the state; they believe in the rights of corporate and business concerns above all else. Liberterians believe that gov't should not be involved in anything not specifically named in the Constitution. They also believe that there should be no controls on business or corporate entities.

Yes, they believe that the gov't should be involved in our nation's defense. Defense was specifically mentioned in The Constitution.

The safety of the food that you eat and the quality of the air that you breath as well as the quality of the water you drink are not part of govt's role since they are not specifically mentioned in The Constitution. Therefore, they oppose the very existence of the EPA and the FDA.

In short, they oppose gov't agencies that protect the public and place controls on industry and business.

Should you choose to get your information from an organization and political viewpoint like that fine - but consider the source! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the info...I'll have to check into them. What about their info...is that credible?

[gormenghast20]

Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gormenghast20:
Thanks for the clarification...but the same thing can be said for the left-side of the debate also...they're just as big a bunch of liars.

What are you specifically saying is a lie? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I wasn't actually speaking specifically...but both sides, liberal and conservative, have reverted to mud-slinging and outright lying, in order to push their agendas.

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by gormenghast20:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gormenghast20:
Thanks for the clarification...but the same thing can be said for the left-side of the debate also...they're just as big a bunch of liars.

What are you specifically saying is a lie? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I wasn't actually speaking specifically...but both sides, liberal and conservative, have reverted to mud-slinging and outright lying, in order to push their agendas. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Twice in one day you have now posted that Liberals are liars. Being a proud Liberal, I'd like you to identify those lies. If you make a broad statement such as you did, you need to provide specific examples.

[Conor B]

The Cato Inst. is fairly reliable, as far as that goes. Their actual influence on the administration is quite limited, as demonstrated by the collossal expansion of the government and the profound influence on The Religious Right, both of which, as Libertarians they deeply oppose.

While investments are good, let us not overestimate the actual size of the portrfolios owned by most of those 'bottom 95%-ers', especially the bottom 60% or so. And, since people in that bracket do not tend to sell their stocks, but rather hold them for retirement (often in tax deferred accounts) they do not actual realize any gain and therefore have no tax to pay; when they do cash out during retirement it is at a significantly lower marginal rate.

Cap Gains taxes are paid predominantly by the wealthy, and reductions therefore favor them.

Progressives should, though realize that the main reason that the overwhelming share of tax cuts go to the rich is because the rich pay a very very very large amount of the taxes. Do a tax return for a person who pays 500,000 in Federal income tax (not counting Medicare and social security taxes, another 7.65%)and you do see the tax code in a different light.

But, the reality is that the country has done better, (less deficets greater growth) under Democratic Administrations.

[Conor B]

What are you specifically saying is a lie?[/QUOTE]

Well, I wasn't actually speaking specifically...but both sides, liberal and conservative, have reverted to mud-slinging and outright lying, in order to push their agendas.[/QUOTE]

If That were true, the Dems would have been alot more successful, sad to say

[Sanslines]

If anyone really study Income Tax Forms and Code, they will see that the lower income classes pay and have always paid too much tax given the amount of income that they receive. BOTH parties are failures at lowering income tax rates for the lowest wage earners. One party would rather tax the lower wage income earners then give them either credits or checks for this or that 'need'. The other party would not even bother and is a bit better when it comes to lowering income tax on the lowest wage earners but the tax rate is still too high. Why are we as a country so afraid to allow people to keep more of their income and spend it as they wish? For example, if people chose to spend their income on luxuries and then do not have enough money to pay for heating fuels this Winter then so be it. Why do we think that it is the governments job to save everyone from themselves and control their spending? In the not so old days, people would accept responsibility for their own actions including their spending habits and be held accountable for what they do. Today, the prevailing attitude when something happens is 'it's not my fault, let's find someone or something else to blame.'

[nacktman]

Today, the prevailing attitude when something happens is 'it's not my fault, let's find someone or something else to blame.'

The republican mantra in a nutshell. Screw over everyone and blame everyone for the screwing. This is true today and has been since the "party's" inception, and America's collective arses have been sore since then.

[nacktman]

The latest national polls just came out and Herr bushie flopped despite his stumping and speechifying.

56% of the nation thinks this president is a failure and not handling the job he stole.

52% of the nation thinks it was a mistake to have invaded Iraq...now there's an understatement.

61% of the nation thinks bushie is bumbling the handling of the war he started in the first place.

So, where is the "MAJORITY" that the republicans and conservatives falsely claim as following them in lockstep goosestepping in line?

[hm0504]

Interesting to see that the former masterminds behind Iraq's long-gone WMD program have now be released uncharged:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10529622/

I assume with the evidence showing that here had been no WMD activity since the sanctions, there was no point keeping them in custody.

[Sanslines]

Today's polls have come out and here is what was said:

"President Bush's approval rating has surged in recent weeks, reversing what had been an extended period of decline, with Americans now expressing renewed optimism about the future of democracy in Iraq, the campaign against terrorism and the U.S. economy, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News Poll.

Bush's overall approval rating rose to 47 percent, from 39 percent in early November, with 52 percent saying they disapprove of how he is handling his job. His approval rating on Iraq jumped 10 percentage points since early November, to 46 percent, while his rating on the economy rose 11 points, to 47 percent. A clear majority, 56 percent, said they approve of the way Bush is handling the fight against terrorism -- a traditional strong point in his reputation that nonetheless had flagged to 48 percent in the November poll."

[hm0504]

I think what polls, other research, and my own observations show is that people are much too fickle in their political leanings -- their views shift with the winds du jour.

The most recent Iraq elections have gone off well, at least regarding voting. So the TVs show lots of happy Iraqis and most people in North America assume Iraq is going very well so Bush gets the credit, as he should if that were the case.

However, if in a few months, Americans are being killed at the rate of a 100 per month, there are no clear troop reductions, and Iraq seems no further ahead than it was a year ago, then people begin to wonder if the Iraq "nation building" was such a good idea. If things look bad, the Bush gets the blame, as he should.

[Sanslines]

Albinus,

What you say is so true. In addition, you can find a poll or statistics to support any viewpoint that you wish. It's all part of political games.

[hm0504]

Unfortunately, the reality is that many people really do not seem to have any inkling that there might be complexities and depth to issues. Hence, a political campaign is often just a barrage of one-liners and attack ads where the main news stories are about silly missteps by a politician.

Politicians treat the electorate like idiots because, frankly, it works. And, ultimately, that is not the politician's fault.

[nacktman]

Sanslines, don't know what poll you were looking at but it is not the poll that was released yesterday.

NO poll says anything about any surge that even resembles a hint that bushie gained ground on any point. Quite the contrary, there is ample proof a surge in the dissatisfaction with him and his policies is building.

Face it, conservatives, right-wing fundys, et al., are a distinct minority and their 15 minutes are up.

[Sanslines]

Nackman,

The above quotes were from this morning's MSN news and they quote the poll from ABC News / Washington Post as stated above. This is a real story on MSN that refers to a real poll. Anyone can create any poll that they want and people will believe whatever they want to believe and find evidence to support their beliefs. I have read polls all over the place and many times different polls contradict one another. Polls should all be taken with a grain of salt.

[usmc1]

Originally posted by Sanslines:
Nackman,

The above quotes were from this morning's MSN news and they quote the poll from ABC News / Washington Post as stated above. This is a real story on MSN that refers to a real poll. Anyone can create any poll that they want and people will believe whatever they want to believe and find evidence to support their beliefs. I have read polls all over the place and many times different polls contradict one another. Polls should all be taken with a grain of salt.

CNN/Gallup This morning reported their poll saying that 52% of Americans now believe going into Iraq was a mistake and 61% disapprove specifically to his ahndling of the war.

The WP is putting a positive spin on what are esentially similar numbers.

I think the real story is that a war time president who has been, for over a week, on what can only be called a public relations campaign was only able to move dismal numbers to slightly less dismal numbers.

Anyone taking comfort in that is just whistling through the graveyard!

Less than half of Americans approve of the guy. And with reason.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/19/bush.poll/index.html

And for those of you who say the polls be damned, here's how its playing in Peoria--literally.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_di...ontent_id=1001701127 (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001701127)

[Sanslines]

Why is the CNN/Gallop poll any more valid or invalid as compared to the ABC/Washington Post poll? Which poll do people believe? I suppose it all boils down to this. If you support the president you will believe one poll as support for your positiion and if you don't then you will believe in another poll. We really should conduct a poll here to ask if people really believe in polls???

[nacktman]

Sanslines even the poll you cite from shows bushie at a loss and disatisfaction growing. Attempting to blow smoke and say otherwise is a disservice to all.

It is over for the conservatives, their fouling of our nation and the world is coming to a sudden stop and all on their coat tails will crash and burn with them.

To answer your question: Gallop has been doing polling far longer and with less bias than the other and is respected world wide because of its more unbiased approach. Therefore, is considered more reliable and accurate by the entire world, not just some self serving group.

[nacktman]

hm0504, it is odd that those held responsible for the WMD program in Iraq were released without any criminal charges and with the statement "that they are no longer considered a threat...".

So, just why did we invade Iraq in the first place again?

[Sanslines]

Originally posted by nacktman:
Sanslines even the poll you cite from shows bushie at a loss and disatisfaction growing. Attempting to blow smoke and say otherwise is a disservice to all.

It is over for the conservatives, their fouling of our nation and the world is coming to a sudden stop and all on their coat tails will crash and burn with them.

To answer your question: Gallop has been doing polling far longer and with less bias than the other and is respected world wide because of its more unbiased approach. Therefore, is considered more reliable and accurate by the entire world, not just some self serving group.

Do you mean that making statements about the accuracy of polls is 'a disservice to all"? How is bringing up the point that people use whatever polls they want to support their claims a disservice to all? Two polls were conducted that put a different 'spin' on the 'facts'. This does not mean that I entirely believe either poll. I only presented the other poll to show how people use polls to show whatever they want. Of course most people are not happy with the current state of affairs. I don't agree with much of what is going on either. I do however listen to both sides and make up my mind after hearing everyone's thoughts. Liberals after all do keep and open mind and weight all facts before making a decision.

[Conor B]

So, just why did we invade Iraq in the first place again?

Iraq has the second greatest oil reserves in the world.

(Oddly enough, this may be the most legitimate reason too)

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by Sanslines:
Why is the CNN/Gallop poll any more valid or invalid as compared to the ABC/Washington Post poll? Which poll do people believe? I suppose it all boils down to this. If you support the president you will believe one poll as support for your positiion and if you don't then you will believe in another poll. We really should conduct a poll here to ask if people really believe in polls???

I was just walking past the TV and they were discussing this on MSNBC. It seems the results are depend on subsegments. Bush did rebound when polling his loyal base - who were recently more and more disenfranchised with him. However, his poll numbers are still in the toilet once you leave his core group of supporters.

[nacktman]

Thanks Conor B, forgot there for a minute. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[nacktman]

Sanslines I was speaking to the "spin" the Post and others were attempting to give to the numbers.

Christoper is right; subsection demographics who supported the shrub before the poll regained a point here and there after losing points for weeks, though the total is still both a gross and net loss on a continual downward spiral this "president" has been on since the beginning. Which translates into ...he is losing his base support almost as fast as he is losing any non-base support, something he has lost almost completely.

[Conor B]

Originally posted by nacktman:
Thanks Conor B, forgot there for a minute. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Quite understandable, maybe even desirable;

My fave quote recently: "I think we are welcomed. But it was not a peaceful welcome." G. W. Bush

[Naturist Mark]

Originally posted by gormenghast20:Investments are the best way for working-class people to move out of the working class (my plan of hitting the lottery isn't working too well), how could taxing such investments be a good thing?

I found this link...now to me, this all makes sense...but I probably don't have your financial sense. Could you please read through it, if you have the time, and let me know with what you agree and what you don't...and the reason why. I've heard of the Cato Institute before...not sure if some will decry it as fascist or right-wing or whatever.

The ABCs of the Capital Gains Tax

Taxing Capital Gains and Investment income at lower levels than ordinary (wage) income as a way to spur economic growth and to raise the poor to a higher station sounds good, but fails in practice.

Like the so called "trickle down effect" the theory makes sense, but has never been observed. Both boil down to: the poor benefit when the rich become richer.

Unfortunately the real effect is often the opposite. By being taxed lower than the highest wage income taxes, capital gains mainly benefit those in high income brackets. The very poor, if they had substantial capital gains would see no benefit from a lower captial gains or dividend tax - concievably they would pay more than if it was taxed as wage income. Of course this is not an issue since most investments held by those in the bottom 95% are tax deferred retirement savings.

Even worse, the low investment tax rates on dividends and capital gains encourages economically unproductive tax shelters that massively benefit the wealthy, but do little good for the economy and often harm it.

It has long been argued that a cut in capital gains and investiment taxes will pay for itself in increased tax revenues after gains are realized by profit taking. What is seldom mentioned in the same arguements is that capital gains and investment tax INCREASES do even better as people realize capital gains and pay dividends prior to the new tax rate taking effect - and there is no corresponding long term hit to the treasury from lower tax rates. However, neither increases nor cuts have historically had ANY long term effect on total investment or economic growth. The stimulative effect is absent in reality.

Here is a short audio commentary about just this subject that ran today on Marketplace (http://www.publicradio.org/tools/media/player/marketplace/2005/12/20_mpp?start=00:00:08:28.0&end=00:00:11:06.0).

More reading for those so inclined:
DIVIDEND AND CAPITAL GAINS TAX CUTS UNLIKELY TO YIELD TOUTED ECONOMIC GAINS (http://www.cbpp.org/3-10-05tax.htm)
Capital Gains Tax Rates, Stock Markets, and Growth (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/template.cfm?PubID=9494)

-Mark

[Qikdraw]

Originally posted by Conor B:
Iraq has the second greatest oil reserves in the world.

Actually Iraq has the 3rd largest. Canada has the largest, Saudi next, then Iraq. I'm guessing Canada will be found with WMDs soon. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

(Canada has the Athabasca Oil Sands)

Qikdraw

[Sanslines]

Originally posted by nacktman:
Sanslines I was speaking to the "spin" the Post and others were attempting to give to the numbers.

Christoper is right; subsection demographics who supported the shrub before the poll regained a point here and there after losing points for weeks, though the total is still both a gross and net loss on a continual downward spiral this "president" has been on since the beginning. Which translates into ...he is losing his base support almost as fast as he is losing any non-base support, something he has lost almost completely.

nacktman,

Yes he continues to lose his base support. One very serious problem we have right now in the Northeast US and Southern Ontario Canada is acid rain and methyl mercury emissions from midwest coal burning power plants. The technology exists to solve this problem and yet nothing is done. I see our woods and forests up here dying and the only solution is for people to make noise and demand that our air be cleaned up. This is just one of so many problems that the current administration does not address. Where is the Congress in all of this?

[nacktman]

Qikdraw, don't you know the United States annexed Canada years ago we just forgot to tell the Canadian public. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[nacktman]

Sanalines, congress is in the hip pocket of those causing the weather affect.

Whenever there is a republican controlled congress and a republican in the white house the country gets screwed over.

This does not happen with a democratic controlled congress even with a republican in the white hoouse....the country makes some progressive moves during these times.

With democrats in control of congress and in the white house our country progesses well.

[Qikdraw]

Originally posted by nacktman:
Sanalines, congress is in the hip pocket of those causing the weather affect.

Whenever there is a republican controlled congress and a republican in the white house the country gets screwed over.

This does not happen with a democratic controlled congress even with a republican in the white hoouse....the country makes some progressive moves during these times.

With democrats in control of congress and in the white house our country progesses well.

Well then why didn't Clinton clean up the problem of coal burnng plants? The same problems you mention under Republicans, happens under Democrats as well. Sure more social issues are addressed, but the business stuff pretty much stays the same.

Qikdraw

[nacktman]

So true Qikdraw sad but so true.

I read on one of these forums the quote from the gettysburg address if given today would be "...this nation of the corporation, by the corporation, for the corporation...", and it would be to our detriment.

Democrats do a better job in working to clean up problems but many are still hand in hand with corporate interests. Which leaves one with a choice of lesser evils, democrats and some progress or republicans and no progress.

True representation of the wishes of the American people is a dream at this time and will remain so until we elect honest politicians (which is an huge oxymoron) to represent us. And that it is the ones actually elected by majority vote allowed to serve in office. When this day comes we will be able to solve most of the problems without the influence of special interest groups pandering to corporate greed.

Imagine you are on a spaceship and all you had to survive was on that ship, would you waste it? The planet is a spaceship, people!

[nacktman]

Back to trimming shrubbery.

Has anyone else noticed when bushie lies his lips move. And that when he is particularly happy with some idotic statement he has made he smirks.

[hm0504]

Canada does indeed have the world's second largest oil reserves but it is relatively expensive oil.

Iraq was tied with Iran for the third position. However, the big problem is that with the insurgency, very little oil is actually flowing. Thankfully, for the Bush administration, most Americans do not remember that in the prelude to the war, Wolfowitz said that reconstructing Iraq would cost no more than $1.7 Billion because Iraq's oil output would more than fund its recovery. Well, here we are several hundred billion dollars later...

Skill testing question: Who was the White House economic advisor who was fired for daring to state, in 2002 September, that an Iraq war could cost as much as $200 Billion? Answer at bottom.

Yes, those were the halcyon days when the Iraq war would be cheap and short, when Wolfowitz said it would be hard to imagine any sizable number of troops having to stay beyond a couple of months after victory in Baghdad.

Hey everyone, when Bush keeps saying that the U.S. went into Iraq so it could fight terrorism there, that sure the heck was NOT what he said three years ago.

Answer to skill testing question: See
http://www.house.gov/schakowsky/iraqquotes_web.htm

Oh yeah,

[Conor B]

Let it not be said that I'm closed minded...

I mean, W appointed the guy who wrote this:

....Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on I(ntelligent) D(esign), who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.

[nacktman]

Conor B, I recognize a snow job when I see one, the statement cited was a poorly disguised attempt to hide the fact that the position of bushie and his cronies was wrong and illegal and the courts said so, by saying they were for the "right" decision all along.

[nacktman]

hm0504 yes it seems bushie can speak out of both sides of his mouth at the same time.

I have detected drool several times as he spoke maybe they have started him on cogentin to help with the shakes from the haldol he must surely be taking for the voices in his head.

[Conor B]

Originally posted by nacktman:
Conor B, I recognize a snow job when I see one, the statement cited was a poorly disguised attempt to hide the fact that the position of bushie and his cronies was wrong and illegal and the courts said so, by saying they were for the "right" decision all along.

I don't think there was much attempt to hide that point. "Inanity" is a word that I believe rarely shows up in subtle legal documents.

Well, I'm just trying to fit in in the neo-Orwellian BushworldOrder.

Actually, yeaterday's decision in the Dover Scopes Trial is a true highlight of my year. I've been battling this issue since eighth grade (and, baby, that was a loooooong time ago.)

Viva Darwin

[hm0504]

Originally posted by nacktman:
hm0504 yes it seems bushie can speak out of both sides of his mouth at the same time.

I have detected drool several times as he spoke maybe they have started him on cogentin to help with the shakes from the haldol he must surely be taking for the voices in his head.

I wouldn't say Bush is "speak(ing) out of both sides of his mouth at the same time" because what he is busy doing is rewriting history. Bush talks again and again how the U.S. had to invade Iraq as part of the War on Terror and makes it seem like being in for the long haul was the plan from Day 1.

This is a total fabrication. In 2002, the White House was talking about eliminating WMD, kicking Saddam Hussein out, and then the troops come home in a couple of months. There was nothing about an ongoing bloody insurgency that would cost hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of American lives (or 30,000 Iraqi ones).

The truly sad thing is that in the U.S., Canada, and elsewhere, voters cannot remember what happened more than two weeks ago and they're too lazy to do any actual fact checking or analysis.

[hm0504]

Out of curiousity, can anyone think of deceptions bigger than Iraq foisted on the American people by their White House? Or is Iraq the biggest?

[ncnudlady]

The attempted labeling of Bush as a president comes to mind. But then again it has failed.

Maybe Nixon saying he didn't lie?

No, Iraq is it.

[Conor B]

Originally posted by hm0504:
Out of curiousity, can anyone think of deceptions bigger than Iraq foisted on the American people by their White House? Or is Iraq the biggest?

M/B the Spanish American War.... but, you have to give Hearst some Credit (of course now we have Fox News).

[hm0504]

I considered Nixon but I don't think he comes close to Bush.

The Spanish American looks like a suitable comparison and quite analagous in many ways. Let us hope it is also analagous in that the Americans will also win in Iraq.

[Unwired]

Originally posted by Conor B:

I mean, W appointed the guy who wrote this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">....Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Already there, your honor, already there:


At the Discovery Institute in Seattle, a high-profile research organization dedicated to giving intelligent design some intelligent substance, there was fury at [Judge John E.] Jones's identification of their mission with that of Dover's religious fundamentalists. John West, associate director of the institute's Center for Science and Culture said the ruling "makes it clear that [Jones] wants his place in history as the judge who issued a definitive decision about intelligent design. This is an activist judge who has delusions of grandeur."

The article from which that came can be referenced here (http://www.alternet.org/story/29897/). In addition, a very revealing (IMO) rebuttal can be read here (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3113&program=CSC&callingPage=discoMainPage). Again: disregarding the Establishment Clause = strict constructionism, and adhering to it = judicial activism. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif



UW

[Conor B]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Unwired:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Conor B:Already there, your honor, already there:[QUOTE]

See, now I'm gonna get all not open-minded and all disgusted and then....

[hm0504]

Any legislation that does not promote religious fundamentalism is termed "judicial activism". Like the term "Intelligent Design", "judicial activism" is a neutral-sounding term that hides a very specific religious agenda.

[hm0504]

"The election, billed by Mr Bush and Mr Blair, as the birth of a new Iraqi state may in fact prove to be its funeral."

Iraq Election Spells Total Defeat for US:
http://www.voy.com/178771/107083.html

As I said earlier, the next year in Iraq is going to be very interesting indeed.

[jon71]

Ironically Iraq had more freedom under Hussein than most of the middle east, including our allies Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and others. Hussein was a secular military dictator and most of the mid-east are theocratic dictators and far more repressive. I'm not saying he was good, he certainly wasn't, just that King Fahd et. al. are worse.

[Unwired]

Originally posted by hm0504:
Like the term "Intelligent Design", "judicial activism" is a neutral-sounding term that hides a very specific religious agenda.

Oh, Alb...on the contrary, I think that term was specifically intended to not be neutral. It's intended to incite and promote outrage against "jurists on the rampage, out to dismantle everything we hold dear," and so forth. As you correctly stated, this happens whenever a ruling runs afoul of people who themselves tend to take a rather "activist" interpretation of the Establishment Clause.



Un

[MJ_KC]

Originally posted by Unwired:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
Like the term "Intelligent Design", "judicial activism" is a neutral-sounding term that hides a very specific religious agenda.

Oh, Alb...on the contrary, I think that term was specifically intended to not be neutral. It's intended to incite and promote outrage against "jurists on the rampage, out to dismantle everything we hold dear," and so forth. As you correctly stated, this happens whenever a ruling runs afoul of people who themselves tend to take a rather "activist" interpretation of the Establishment Clause.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have seen "judicial activism" used to describe judges who decide to rule contrary to numerous other cases that establish a clear pattern of what people consider to be the meaning of a particular law.

A judge will come along and turn established law on its ear and that is what many people do not like. This gets done by both liberal and conservative judges.

[nacktman]

We should have listened.

[Qikdraw]

Originally posted by hm0504:
Canada does indeed have the world's second largest oil reserves but it is relatively expensive oil.

The oil is more expensive to seperate from the sand than it is just to pump it yes, but technology has come a long way with this, and the last I heard its only a few more dollars per barrel than regular oil barrels. When oil is as high as it is now, a few dollars per barrel is nothing. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Qikdraw

[Qikdraw]

Originally posted by hm0504:
Out of curiousity, can anyone think of deceptions bigger than Iraq foisted on the American people by their White House? Or is Iraq the biggest?

Gulf of Tonkin (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2261), which lead to the Vietnam war. Democrat president no less.

"American Planes Hit North Vietnam After Second Attack on Our Destroyers; Move Taken to Halt New Aggression", announced a Washington Post headline on Aug. 5, 1964.

That same day, the front page of the New York Times reported: "President Johnson has ordered retaliatory action against gunboats and 'certain supporting facilities in North Vietnam' after renewed attacks against American destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin."

But there was no "second attack" by North Vietnam — no "renewed attacks against American destroyers." By reporting official claims as absolute truths, American journalism opened the floodgates for the bloody Vietnam War.

A pattern took hold: continuous government lies passed on by pliant mass media...leading to over 50,000 American deaths and millions of Vietnamese casualties.

Those who do not study history, are condemned to repeat it.

Qikdraw

[hm0504]

Check this out!
http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2685392

Click "Skip Ad", then "Watch", (you'll have to wait for the pre-mercial to go past first).

[Boreas]

That is pretty funny!

[hm0504]

Originally posted by Still_Boreas:
That is pretty funny!

Thank goodness for modern technology!

[hm0504]

Very interesting analysis of the Iraq elections by Larry Diamond, senior fellow at Stanford University, founding coeditor of the Journal of Democracy, and a senior adviser on governance to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad for three months in 2004:
http://www.startribune.com/stories/722/5797588.html

Iraq is starting to get interesting folks.

[usmc1]

Past as prologue.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=24150&mode=nested&order=0

[nacktman]

Great link there usmc1.

[NudeTopher]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by usmc1:
Past as prologue.

------------------------------------------------
Not funny. So not funny. I've been having recurring nightmares in which Busch dispels the Constitution and declares himself President for life!

[MJ_KC]

I don't like how it appears that Bush feels he can set aside judicial or Senate oversight and just go ahead and do whatever he wants.

[Boreas]

Originally posted by usmc1:
Past as prologue.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=24150&mode=nested&order=0

Well that is truly scary. May it not continue in that manner!

[hm0504]

Originally posted by Still_Boreas:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usmc1:
Past as prologue.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=24150&mode=nested&order=0

Well that is truly scary. May it not continue in that manner! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't know if anyone else caught it on CNN yesterday, but there was a very interesting article on Dick Cheney's concern over the "erosion" of power of the President from Nixon's time. Cheney is very keen that the Presidency be much more powerful than it is today.

As background:
http://hnn.us/articles/printfriendly/1192.html

[Boreas]

Don't know if anyone else caught it on CNN yesterday, but there was a very interesting article on Dick Cheney's concern over the "erosion" of power of the President from Nixon's time. Cheney is very keen that the Presidency be much more powerful than it is today.

Oh my. No I did not catch that! Hopefuly Cheney will not get his way.

[nacktman]

Meglomania, it appears Cheney suffers from this affliction.

The real power of the president is his character and his ability to persuade others to his ideas. The last president who was able to have the right character AND the ability to persuade others was "Give'em Hell" Harry, Harry S. Truman. Presidents since then have been strong in one aspect or the other or stong in none.

Cheney while not "officially" president has none of the abilities a president needs and would never be president, then again the "Official" president has none either...

[usmc1]

Things to be thankful for. Falling off the chair, giggling, and blowing snot bubbles funny. More funny than a barrel load of ebola- infected, feces slinging monkeys.

My favorite: Thankful that the Iraqis voted with ink-stained fingers instead of Diboll voting machines, or else Bush would have been elected there also.

or maybe, the one about Bush The Elder's surrogate son Bill Clinton because his real sons are such droolers.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=24185&mode=nested&order=0

[ncnudlady]

LMAO, Great link usmc1.

Funny that it's all true we have just those points to be thankful for.

I said it before and I'll say it again. The only good bush is at the top of my legs, not in the White House!

Compare and contrast:

1995: Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN), then chair of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, investigated whether taxpayers were footing the cost of stationery and postage for the fan club dedicated to President Clinton’s cat, Socks. (They were not - and it turns out Barbara Bush’s dog Millie had a fan club too.)

2005: Two weeks ago, President Bush admitted he willfully flouted a law that requires him to get warrants before wiretapping U.S. citizens. His justification for ignoring the law appears to be nobless oblige. In reaction, Republicans in charge of the Senate Judiciary Committee announced on Friday that they are planning “oversight” hearings into the matter.

The president has admitted he broke the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) hundreds of times. Isn’t it a bit late for “oversight?”

[jon71]

Thank you Cyndiann for pointing out the incredible double standard. I guess it's a case of the right wing seeing the speck in someone elses eye and not noticing the beam in their own.

[nacktman]

What I would like to know is where are the calls for the impeachment of the shrub going?

And how fast can we find a tree and a rope after the guilty verdict for a Texas style execution of sentence? http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Naturist Mark]

Originally posted by nacktman:
What I would like to know is where are the calls for the impeachment of the shrub going?

No where.

Bush is impeachment proof so long as Republicans control Congress. That is also why there have been no hearings about the numerous violations of law committed by this administration.

-Mark

[nacktman]

Mark, after the '06 elections there will be a change in the congress and the shrub's war crimes/treason trial can begin.

[usmc1]

Growing up in a small town and around the farms in the area of Southern Illinois known as Little Egypt, I learned two life lessons from experience that have stood me in good sted throughout my life.

The first was that square bailing in August behind a mule-drawn bailer and wagon is a damned hard way to earn one's beer money.

The other was that chickens always come home to roost.

It would appear that Bush The Lesser has some chickens pecking at his door looking for the roost. One fervently hopes so, anyway.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/printer_7913.shtml

[nacktman]

Been there too usmc1, just try a imagine walking behind that bailer in August further south. Then again it is one helluva total body workout and the girls swarmed around like flies to honey after a sweaty day in the fields, so it wasn't all that bad, now was it.

And those chickens are pecking holes in the coop as we speak.

[Naturist Mark]

Originally posted by nacktman:
Mark, after the '06 elections there will be a change in the congress and the shrub's war crimes/treason trial can begin.

Don't count on it. Right now it looks like they are election proof. It no longer matters how we vote, it only matters how the vote is counted. Ohio just passed a law that makes it next to impossible to challenge a local or state election result - and ILLEGAL to challenge national election results - and this was right after an election where two state election reform issues went down to overwhelming official defeat despite being certain winners in multiple opinion polls (It is unheard of for professional political polls to be off by 28%, yet it happened in Ohio). Has American Democracy Died an Electronic Death in Ohio 2005's Referenda Defeats? (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1112-21.htm)

-Mark

[nacktman]

Mark the farce in Ohio will never be allowed to stand. Obivious rigged results, no poll much less muliple polls is off by 28%, it just proves the desperate measures the right wing nut jobs will attempt to pervert America.

[Naturist Mark]

Originally posted by nacktman:
Mark the farce in Ohio will never be allowed to stand. Obivious rigged results, no poll much less muliple polls is off by 28%, it just proves the desperate measures the right wing nut jobs will attempt to pervert America.

It is not legal in Ohio to challenge the result of the referenda because the official count had them lose by over 3%. In Ohio if you steal enough votes, you can't be held to account.

-Mark

[nacktman]

Mark, the Ohio referenda will not stand because it places limits on FEDERAL ELECTIONS therefore will not last in the courts and it will be challenged. Once the federal courts declares that portion pertaining to federal elections unconstitutional they will declare the entire referenda so and nullify the entire referenda.

No legislative body nor electorate can limit the right of citizens to question elections and their results, much less where Diebold makes and programs the voting machine computers.

This perversion of the United States will not be allowed. The shrub and the rest of the hedge row are going to be pruned back by the good gardeners of this nation.

[Naturist Mark]

Originally posted by nacktman:
Mark, the Ohio referenda will not stand because it places limits on FEDERAL ELECTIONS therefore will not last in the courts and it will be challenged. Once the federal courts declares that portion pertaining to federal elections unconstitutional they will declare the entire referenda so and nullify the entire referenda.

The referenda in question were State Constitutional amendments to reform elections, and they failed - even though they probably passed.

It was a law passed by the legislature that limits the ability to challenge elections. It restricts who has standing to challenge election results. Voters do not, only candidates do. Another new law says that the challenger must pay the entire cost of a recount, and that cost has been increased to $5000 per district, so a full statewide recount will now cost the candidate multiple millions of dollars. Another new law says a challenge can only be made if the official result is within a very small margin (I think 3%) of reversing the outcome.

That same new laws do a number of other nasty things to ensure that people be dropped from the voter rolls due to poor mail service, low income, attending college or military service, and creates so much new red tape that voter registration drives are a practical impossibility. Each of the measures have been enacted in other States and have survived judicial challenge - Ohio is special only in throwing every monkey wrench possible into keeping citizens out of the political process.

The party in power in Ohio controls every single statewide office except one seat on the State Supreme Court. They control both houses of the legislature. They have never been in lower repute with the citizenry - the governor was recently convicted of taking bribes, but remains in office - his approval ratings are in the teens or lower. Most of the party leadership is under investigation for money laundering of illegal campaign contributions - some of which was stolen from the state's Worker's Compensation fund. This party has absolute power in Ohio and dares not face a fair election.

Last year the Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court dismissed an election fraud case that included his own election. When a single party controls every branch of government - even though it is a minority of the citizenry - who has the power to stop it?

I used to have faith in an independent judiciary and the ability of the democratic process to correct abuses. But in Ohio, and I suspect many other parts of the US, we no longer have an independent judiciary and the democratic process is an illusion.

-Mark

[usmc1]

Two stories caught my eye today. One, Bush has unleashed the Justice Department on the whistle blower who alerted the world to his criminal spying on American citizens.

Repeat after me: Stalin, Stalin, Stalin, Stalin.

And this,,,it seems the natives in hardscrabble S.W. VA have caught on and are getting restless.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7919.shtml

[nacktman]

Its and old picture but every time I think about the shrub and his hedgerow this image just comes to mind.

[Naturist Mark]

Originally posted by usmc1:
Two stories caught my eye today. One, Bush has unleashed the Justice Department on the whistle blower who alerted the world to his criminal spying on American citizens.

Apparently it isn't a single whistleblower, according to the NYT there were a dozen sources, apparently throughout the government.

The Bush Justice Dept is intent on finding and punishing the whistleblowers for revealing classified secrets. In this case the secret was that the government was deliberately breaking the law - no doubt that is why so many officials found it necessary to leak.

The administration KNEW about the leaks for at least 1.5 years - well before the Nov 2004 election. Bush intervened with the Times and persuaded them to not publish the story for well over a year (and safely past the election). But it is only now that Bush is siccing justice on the "lawbreakers" who disclosed his lawbreaking.

Under a strict constructionist judicial philosophy, I don't think a court could rule that it is a violation of official secrets when the diclosure is of officials violating the law. Let's see if the White House realizes this and suddenly pulls the nomination of Samuel Alito.

-Mark

[jon71]

Let's hope. The whistle blowers are patriots and heroes as it the N.Y. Times. I hope they share in the congressional medal of honor.

[gormenghast20]

Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gormenghast20:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gormenghast20:
Thanks for the clarification...but the same thing can be said for the left-side of the debate also...they're just as big a bunch of liars.

What are you specifically saying is a lie? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I wasn't actually speaking specifically...but both sides, liberal and conservative, have reverted to mud-slinging and outright lying, in order to push their agendas. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Twice in one day you have now posted that Liberals are liars. Being a proud Liberal, I'd like you to identify those lies. If you make a broad statement such as you did, you need to provide specific examples. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

One would be the Al Gore's screeching to "count every vote" after the 2000 presidential elections as they were hand counting votes in 3 highly Democratic counties. While trying to disqualify military votes. I believe it's a violation of Federal Law to change the rules of an election after the election. Of course the liberal Florida Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Gore campaign until the U.S. Supreme court stepped in. Liberals continue to believe that George Bush stole the election.

[ncnudlady]

Liberals continue to believe that George Bush stole the election.

Nope, we don't believe it, we know it and so does the rest of the world. It is only brain dead troglodytes that believe he didn't.

[jon71]

Gore never once tried to get the military votes discounted. In fact he and Leiberman were very clear that they should be counted. The Fla. supreme court ruled correctly on the Fla state constitution. The Supreme court didn't even have jurisdiction since it was about Fla law. That was a very careful and clear decision.

[nacktman]

I see someone is still trying to rewrite reality.

Two stolen elections and the unmitigated gall to think the Farce in Ohio will stand to allow the "Legality" of them and future elections at least in Ohio is insane.

Do not begin to fantasize about other states attempting such as Ohio has it will not happen. Even the most apathetic of citizens will make their voice heard and woe be it to conservatives when they do. The United States has always been a progressive and liberal nation and it will right itself from this current regin of terror and continue to be a beacon for those oppressed by conservatism from within and without.

[gormenghast20]

Again this is not entirely true -- Gore (who I personally like because he's more centrist than any hack the Democratic Party can trot out nowadays) may not have wanted some of the military vote thrown out...but the Democractic Party did. Just because some overseas ballots were missing postmarks or filled out incorrectly the Democrats moved to have ALL overseas ballots thrown out -- the largest group of overseas ballots were from the military.

For every Katherine Harris controversy a point can be made in the other direction. For instance, why did the new media call the state for Gore before 8:00 while Florida voters who were in the Central Time Zone (western panhandle) were still voting. I suppose the fact that the area is heavily Republican had nothing to do with it. Also reported: polls in Florida had closed when the polls in the CST were still open. The media also announced polls were closed in Florida while polls in CST were open. Surveys have been done that showed as many as 15,000 voters did not vote due to confusion about the vote being called for Bush and/or the polls being closed. These surveys have also pointed out that Bush may have lost as many as an additional 5,000 votes over any Gore would have gotten. Who knows if voters in other states stayed away from the polls because of these inaccurate statements. I'm not saying that Bush is a better President than Gore would have been, but get at least some of the opposing viewpoint out there. Gore could have won this election...all he had to do was win his home state, which he didn't.

[gormenghast20]

Originally posted by ncnudlady:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Liberals continue to believe that George Bush stole the election.

Nope, we don't believe it, we know it and so does the rest of the world. It is only brain dead troglodytes that believe he didn't. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, no facts to support your viewpoint. Why don't you point out Xavier Suarez (sp?), that would make your argument so much easier. Here's another "lie" for you to consider -- that of the "vast right wing conspiracy." The same "vast right wing conspiracy" that Hillary Clinton blamed on the "Today" show for inventing stories when there were just allegations of an affair between her husband and Monica Lewinsky. Guess the "vast right wing conspiracy" wasn't to blame for inventing this story, was it? Turns out that the allegations were true, weren't they? I would say that the far right is a smaller part of the Republican party than the far left is of the Democratic party. In fact, the far left appears to BE the Democratic party. Why do they consistently sell their souls to every lunatic fringe element out there, when it is entirely possible to defeat the Republican party? And if they've got an economic plan that makes sense, I've yet to see it. More likely, there's a vast left-wing conspiracy due to liberal bias in the media...and that statement about liberal bias comes from Walter Cronkite...so call him an ignoramus, not me. If the Democrats were to put the right man forth, I would see no problem in voting for him.

[nacktman]

There is not a Liberal Bias in the Media or Libera Media as conservatives continue to howl.

In all reputable media outlets there is a centered bias more so than anything.

Then again there is FOXNews, the propoganda arm of the neofacist conservative minority that rigged the last two national presidental elections to steal what they could not win, and scores of other local and regional elections as well.

But I was talking about reputable media sources, wasn't I?

KrystalNacht zwei is just around the corner if conservatives remain in political power but in America the people will not allow der Fuhrer to change it into Amerika.

True Americans care for there gardens and pull out and destroy diseased bushes before they can infect other plants and it is time for the winter clearing.

[Naturist Mark]

With all the year end wrap ups I'm finding a lot of video gems online.

First up is from the late late show with Craig Ferguson on whether George Bush is drinking again: Late Late Show (mov) (http://anon.salon.speedera.net/anon.salon/media/video_dog/2005/december%202005/ferguson.mov)

Keith Olbermann takes on Bill O'Reilly and John Gibson over their phoney "War on Christmas" story: World's Worst (wmv) (http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Countdown-Gibson-Worst-12-27-05.wmv)

Scheduling error at Fox: O'Reilly books a guest he can't push around: Howard Stern shuts up O'Reilly (mov) (http://anon.salon.speedera.net/anon.salon/media/video_dog/2005/december%202005/oreilly.stern.mov) and Donohue watches O'Reilly's head explode (wmv) (http://movies.crooksandliars.com/fox_of_donahue_sheehan_050921a.wmv)

As part of the campaign to win back the popularity among the public that has deserted the admnistration this year, Team Bush created this ad - featuring President Bush, Scott McClellan, Karl Rove, Lynne Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, Margaret Spellings, Harriet Miers and Barney: We're for Puppies (mov) (http://anon.salon.speedera.net/anon.salon/media/video_dog/2005/pup.mov)

Fox News reporting that these are the End of Days (I'm NOT kidding): Fox 11 news (mov) (http://anon.salon.speedera.net/anon.salon/media/video_dog/2005/endofdays.mov)

[nacktman]

Great post Mark enjoyed the links.

Under reported item from the so called liberal media:

Death toll of US Military personal was at 841 as of 9:05 am edt December 31st for the year of 2005.

The highest yearly total prior was in 2004 with 846 dead.

Do you think the shrub's lil' ole war has improved conditions in iraq and the region and world or do you think we can still up that count for 2005, there is some more time in the year, let's go boys (and girls) let's do it for the gipper.

[Naturist Mark]

Originally posted by nacktman:
Under reported item from the so called liberal media:

Here's more examples of the "liberal media" not exercising due diligence in reporting on the illegal wiretapping by the administration:

Top 12 media myths and falsehoods on the Bush administration's spying scandal (http://mediamatters.org/items/200512240002)

[Jason Heh]

I wish someone would listen in on G double ya's phone calls.

He's dropped the ball. And no one around him can pick it up. Hey he chose THAT team

Peace

[Naturist Mark]

Originally posted by Jason Heh:
I wish someone would listen in on G double ya's phone calls. http://www.wisopinion.com/blogs/uploaded_images/bush_dial_m_4_moron-719224.jpg (http://www.wisopinion.com/blogs/uploaded_images/bushnixonwiretappingnytad122905-774242.jpg)

[ncnudlady]

And you still wonder?

[nacktman]

Now, now we all know the conservatives don't fix elections. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Yes Miss Alder I'll take my medication now.

[Boreas]

Originally posted by nacktman:
Now, now we all know the conservatives don't fix elections. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Yes Miss Alder I'll take my medication now.

Of course not. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif That is just what the "Liberal Media" want you to think. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Whyever would anyone fix elections???? Can't they get in on their own steam? http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

[Jason Heh]

Naturist Mark, Thanks for my 1st laff of the day.


Peace

[usmc1]

A series of great links and articles:

This site and SmirkingChimp help me keep my sanity with the knowledge that the sociopahtic little dry-drunk, draft dodger is being caught out.

http://www.DAILYKOS.COM/

[nacktman]

The shocker of the day: Bill O'Riley told the truth!*

*The amazing event occured last night on FOXNews when he shut his mouth and before he opened it again! Ann Colter is said to have had a stroke when she heard bill speak the truth.

The shrub had this to say "Hammina, hammina, hammina".

More as this miracle develops.....

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

To find out how the conservative mind works(?) stare into the picture below until it begins moving. It will give you the sense of the minds conservatives have if it doesn't make you throw up first.

[usmc1]

Last week the report was of Bush losing support from a core constituiency, hardscrabble southwest VA, now the erosion has spread to the military. This poll shows an 11 to 9 percent drop in support from what is described as military careerists.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/02/060102234337.if0cb0yj.html

Oh yeah, the source?, that ultra-liberal, knee-jerk, bleeding-heart, fellow-traveling left-wing rag, The Military Times.

[nacktman]

Found this slide show. It expresses the mood of the people right now.

[usmc1]

Now we're fighting back:

Sorry, I can't just post the link, and had to clip and paste the article:

Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 01:37:38 PM PDT
The National Journal's subscription-only Hotline has a good piece on what Dean has accomplished. The sort of piece you won't see in the WaPo or other publications too busy pushing the "Dean is insane and ineffective" storyline.

With permission from the publication, here it is in whole:



DNC: Spreading The Word. And The Boots.

"Howard Dean has turned out to be the biggest surprise of the season. He's a good man. And he truly gets it." Those are the words of Charles Soechting, the TX Dem chair who when Dean announced his bid for DNC chair had Soechting grtting his teeth. At the time, the Texan worried that Dean didn't get the problems parties grappled with and certainly didn't possess the regional sympathy to figure out how to win elections in the South.

But now, closing in on Dean's 1st anniversary as DNC chair, Soechting has seen enough to convince him that Dean "knows what it to makes Texas truly competitive."

Veterans of Dem politics who work on state and local campaigns are eager to praise Dean. In part, that's because Dean has devoted the bulk of the DNC's staff, energy and time to fulfilling his chairman's campaign promise: to revitalize the Dem Party at the precinct level.

Dem strategists in DC often ask their colleagues: "What is Dean good for?" They moan that he's not raising as much as money as they expected or his surrogates promised; that he hasn't been Joe Trippi-like and revolutionized the party's small donor outreach; that he can't shut his liberal mouth. Dean's admirers have ready counter-arguments, but they've lacked something tangible to bat down the critics. But now, they say, the party's investment in states is beginning to pay off.

There are approximately 1,963 election precincts in WV. At the beginning of '05, the state Dem Party could only identify six with active Dem organizers. Twenty years ago, WV Dems abandoned their precinct-level party building operations. Part of the problem was parochial: precinct chairs didn't trust county chairs, who didn't trust the elites running the state party, who certainly didn't trust the effete liberals running the national party. The cycle of neglect desiccated what organization remained.

When Dean was running for chair, he took a keen interest in that state's tale of woe. And it was typical of what he saw in states across the country. So Dean promised state chairs: where the party had nothing, it would have something. The DNC would pay for organizers to spend four years in their states, training county chairs and precinct captains. In return for the paid staff, Dean would expect results -- larger voter files, more volunteers, higher vote totals. State chairs liked the message. Dems like Soechting, in TX, had complained for years that the national party saw them as ATMs and ignored them most of the time. Dean promised he'd repair the relationship between the party and its state affiliates. In large measure, he did. (Soecthing says today that the state party feels more connected to the DNC than ever before.)

Dean's defenders say he's making good on his pledge. The DNC has trained 136 new organizers and sent them to 30 states, and by the end of 3/06, party officials say every state's precinct training program will be up and running. In WV, the party now employs four full-time organizers. Recalcitrant county chairs are warming to their presence; one small county that had zero precinct captains in 2004 has twelve today.

"That may not seem like a huge step," says Parag Mehta, the DNC's director of training, "but in that party of West Virginia, where Democrats were afraid to put up yard signs for fear of being taunted, suddenly, there's a Democratic presence."

[nacktman]

Has any one been able to find a news article on the final body count of Dubya's war in 2005. I haven't had time to look just yet and wanted to know if others have. It would be even more sorrowful if the count did increase from the five bodies less than the highest total to date of 2004 before the end of the year.

[usmc1]

Oh around 2200 (2188 at the moment, but then the day is not yet over) American troops dead, somewhere between 16,000 to 40,000 wounded, maimed, burned, crippled, blinded, driven nuts and injured since the beginning.

Iraqi civilians?, conservative estimate would be around 25, to 30 thousand with the real possibility of twice that many killed.

One site has the various counts as of event benchmarks.

http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/

http://icasualties.org/oif/

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/iraq/casualties.html

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

[hm0504]

Originally posted by usmc1:
Oh around 2200 (2188 at the moment, but then the day is not yet over) American troops dead, somewhere between 16,000 to 40,000 wounded, maimed, burned, crippled, blinded, driven nuts and injured since the beginning.

Iraqi civilians?, conservative estimate would be around 25, to 30 thousand with the real possibility of twice that many killed.

One site has the various counts as of event benchmarks.

http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/

http://icasualties.org/oif/

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/iraq/casualties.html

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

Bush said 30,000 a few weeks ago so I doubt that the actual figure is any lower.

[nacktman]

Thanks for the leads on the links they were informative.

Here is a link for all those that still believe what the propaganda machine says about the 'war' in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The authors of the works on this website are military service personel that have actually been there and done that.
And tain't the shrub they's a supportin'.

Operation Truth (http://www.optruth.org/)

[Qikdraw]

I heard the 2200 number of American dead may be larger. From what I have heard is that the Pentagon isn't counting deaths that happen outside Iraq, even if the wounding happened inside it.

I'd look for some links, but I'm kinda lazy right now. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/tongue.gif

Qikdraw

[jon71]

In addition to that there is 11 or 12 thousand casualties (wounded) in addition to the approx. 2200 dead. Iraq was not worth one drop of American blood. A real leader would have realized that instead of disrespecting and dishonoring our military by sending them to die in vain. Of course what can one expect from a coward, buffoon, and criminal like Bush. If Hussein can be tried for invading another country without provocation hopefully Bush will rot in prison one day too.

[nacktman]

Qikdraw I am sure the number of dead is larger but we wont hear it from the mass media and we may never hear of the total numbers. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/cry.gif

There are after all "Black Ops" units as the literary world likes to call them http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/rolleyes2.gif that have, are and will operate in the region; Not every member of those units will remain alive throughout every operation it is a mathmatical impossibility. However, deaths that occured during these operations would not be counted in the casulity lists, if they are ever counted at all. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/angry.gif

[usmc1]

As I said, the day was not over: now 2,194 official,

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10703607/

[hm0504]

There are also several hundred dead American security contractors (e.g. "private military") too.

[usmc1]

Vote To Impeach Bush website:

https://secure2.convio.net/pepib/site/ConsProfileUser?J...005=9vfli4i0o2.app7b (https://secure2.convio.net/pepib/site/ConsProfileUser?JServSessionIdr005=9vfli4i0o2.app7 b)

[Naturist Mark]

Washington is spinning furiously these days. Alito, Mine disaster, Abramoff, and Illegal wiretapping.

Today we'll address the wiretapping. The following is quoted from The Left Coaster (http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/006455.php):

<a name="more"></a>
<hr align="left" size="1" width="100%">
<a name="1"></a>1. Bush did not violate the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act)
TALKING POINT: Bush's secret, warrantless spying on Americans is consistent with FISA statutes.
FACT: Utterly (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/claiming-right-to-break-law.html) and completely (http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_firedoglake_archive.html#11362132841403 1262) false (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/latest-from-bush-followers.html). The administration has repeatedly (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/claiming-right-to-break-law.html) admitted (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_digbysblog_archive.html#113641228933068 600) that what they did violates the FISA statutes (and so did (http://armando.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/21/1121/7453) some of its legal defenders).</p>
TALKING POINT: The wording of the FISA statute allows the Bush administration to do what they did.
FACT: False (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/purposely-misquoting-fisa-to-defend.html). </p>
<hr align="left" size="1" width="20%">
<a name="2"></a>2. Bush did not break the law
TALKING POINT: Bush's secret, warrantless spying on Americans is constitutional and legal.
FACT: False (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/bushs-spy-program-and-th_b_13167.html) and false (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_digbysblog_archive.html#113641228933068 600). In fact, the administration's withholding critical information from Congress was also likely a crime (http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/breaking_news/13550341.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp), one that violated the National Security Act. Not to mention, it appears that the warrantless spying was started even without a Presidential Executive Order and possibly even before 9/11 (http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/006446.php). </p>
TALKING POINT: Warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence have been carried out previously.
FACT: First of all, the issue here is not foreign intelligence but intelligence on U.S. persons (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/22/myths-as-news/). Secondly, warrantless physical searches relating to foreign intelligence were not illegal (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/the-gorelick-myth/) per the FISA in 1994, but were made illegal subsequent to that through a Clinton-supported update to the FISA law in 1995. </p>
TALKING POINT: The warrantless spying on Americans was legal since the Justice Department signed off on it.
FACT: Separate from the fact that the Justice Department is not the final legal authority (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/move-over-supreme-court/) in the US (the Supreme Court is), senior Justice Department officials objected (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/01/politics/01spy.html) to at least parts of the spying program and the special FISA judge complained about some aspect of the program (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_12_25_digbysblog_archive.html#113574468796228 634). In fact, acting Attorney General James Comey objected to some provisions of the illegal spying in 2004 (http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2005_12_25_firedoglake_archive.html#11360872122634 8050) and the Bush administration went to John Ashcroft for his approval even though Ashcroft was in hospital. Apparently Ashcroft was also reluctant to give blanket approval and (http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2005_12_25_firedoglake_archive.html#11360872122634 8050) "in early 2004, about the time of the hospital meeting, the White House suspended parts of the surveillance program for several months and moved ahead with more stringent requirements on the National Security Agency on how the program was used." </p>
TALKING POINT: The 9/18/01 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) by Congress gave the President the right to order secret, warrantless wiretaps and searches on U.S. persons.
FACT: False (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/23/doj-memo-debunked/), false (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/compendium-of-white-house-incoherence.html), false (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/22/2384/4062) and false (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/did-not-expand/). Further, as Glenn Greenwald has noted (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_digbysblog_archive.html#113641228933068 600): "In the case of Breuer v. Jim’s Concrete of Brevard (http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/1554/), 538 U.S. 691 (2003), the Administration vehemently (and successfully) argued in a Brief to the U.S. Supreme Court (.pdf) (http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/02-337/02-337.mer.ami.usa.pdf), signed by Bush’s own Solicitor General, Theodore Olson, that a statute (such as FISA) cannot be "amended by implication" in the absence of clear Congressional intent to amend it." </p>
TALKING POINT: Per Article II of the Constitution, Bush's spying program was legal.
FACT: False (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_digbysblog_archive.html#113641228933068 600). </p>
TALKING POINT: An Appeals Court ruled in the Truong case that the Executive had the right to secretly wiretap or spy on Americans without a warrant.
FACT: False (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/21/appeals-court-myth/). The Truong case related to an incident that occurred before the FISA law was passed (and the court acknowledged that). Once the FISA law passed in 1978 such spying was declared illegal. </p>
TALKING POINT: In the case United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan et al. (1972), the court ruled that warrantless spying on Americans is constitutional.
FACT: False (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/new-constitutional-excuse-for.html). The court ruled exactly the opposite. </p>
TALKING POINT: Based on historical (legal) evidence, Bush has the authority under the Constitution to spy on Americans without a warrant.
FACT: False (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/bush-justifications-for-law-breaking.html). Moreover, since Bush's actions violated Congressionally enacted FISA statues, as Glenn Greenwald explains (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/bush-justifications-for-law-breaking.html): "...The issue is not whether the President has this authority to eavesdrop without a warrant but whether it is legal for him to do so in the face of a Congressional law which makes it a crime to engage in such conduct. And none of the authorities they cite conclude that the President has such a royal power. Not one." In the case Youngstown Co. v. Sawyer (1952), the Supreme Court specifically held (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/supreme-court-already-rejected-bush.html) that: "the President does not have the right to exercise his "inherent executive authority" in contravention of Congressional law." As Justice Jackson said (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/bush-justifications-for-law-breaking.html): "The Executive, except for recommendation and veto, has no legislative power." </p>
TALKING POINT: Congress cannot authorize something that needs to remain classified.
FACT: False (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/22/malkin-civics/). </p>
<hr align="left" size="1" width="20%">
<a name="3"></a>3. History shows American Presidents have the power to violate the law, especially in times of war
TALKING POINT: Courts have ruled that the limitations imposed by FISA on the President, especially in times of war, are unconstitutional.
FACT: False (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/23/doj-memo-debunked/). </p>
TALKING POINT: In a time of war, the President has a blank check to break the law in order to "protect the country".
FACT: This claim is completely (http://armando.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/28/134521/54) false (http://armando.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/31/175219/64) and has been rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court on more than one occasion. </p>
TALKING POINT: Presidents should be allowed to break the law under certain circumstances.
FACT: If you are an America-hater, yes (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/12/17.html#a6367). But if you are an American, no. [Certainly if the President happens to be a Democrat, Republicans have a history of loudly saying NO (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/republicans-speak-out-forcefully-for.html).] </p>
<hr align="left" size="1" width="20%">
<a name="4"></a>4. History shows that other Presidents like Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter did the same by overriding FISA
TALKING POINT: Bill Clinton bypassed FISA to order warrantless physical searches of Americans.
FACT: False (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/26/no-holiday/). </p>
TALKING POINT: Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter authorized warrantless wiretapping/spying on Americans.
FACT: Totally (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/21/AR2005122102253.html) and completely (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/drudge-fact-check/) false (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/21/drudges-slime-and-weave/). </p>
TALKING POINT: Bill Clinton and Jamie Gorelick (who was in the Clinton Justice Department) argued that Clinton had the power to ignore FISA.
FACT: False (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/21/york-clinging/) and false (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/the-gorelick-myth/). As Judd Legum (Think Progress) noted (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/21/york-clinging/): "Both her testimony and in the Legal Times quote [sic], were about physical searches. In 1994, the FISA did not cover physical searches. She was explaining what the President’s authority was in the absence of any congressional statute. She wasn’t arguing that the President had the authority to ignore FISA. In 1995, with President Clinton’s signature, FISA was amended to include physical searches (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2001/10/06/MN183971.DTL). That law prohibited warrantless domestic physical searches. No one in the Clinton administration, including Gorelick, ever argued that the administration could ignore the law, before or after it was amended." </p>
TALKING POINT: Bill Clinton's top secret Echelon project violated FISA and spied on Americans.
FACT: False (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/the-echelon-myth/). </p>
<hr align="left" size="1" width="20%">
<a name="5"></a>5. Secret warrantless spying of Americans was/is required for national security reasons, since FISA was inadequate, and secret spying could have prevented 9/11
TALKING POINT: Secret, illegal, warrantless spying on Americans enhances our national security.
FACT: Certainly no more than secret, legal, warrant-based spying; further, the illegal spying actually (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/01/americans-at-risk/) threatens (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/28/guilty-terrorists/) America's national security because of the aid and comfort it gives to real terrorist supporters when they go to court (not Bush's kangaroo courts but the real court system in the United States). It also makes it easier (http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013526.html) to challenge Government prosecutions against alleged criminals.</p>
TALKING POINT: The warrantless illegal spying was required to monitor calls from Al Qaeda affiliated individuals overseas and Americans on US soil.
FACT: False (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/still-unanswered-question.html). As Glenn Greenwald notes (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/still-unanswered-question.html): "...that defense makes no sense because eavesdropping on conversations involving al Qaeda members is exactly the circumstance in which it would be most unnecessary to bypass the FISA court. For that reason, the Administration's claim that it only eavesdropped on conversations involving al Qaeda members simply cannot be reconciled with the Administration’s claimed need to operate outside of FISA, since if FISA allows anything, it would allow eavsdropping on al Qaeda." </p>
TALKING POINT: The illegal spying program could have prevented 9/11 by helping us rope in two 9/11 terrorists in San Diego.
FACT: False (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/19/cheney-911/).</p>
TALKING POINT: The illegal spying program could have helped us pick up two 9/11 terrorists who flew a plane into the Pentagon.
FACT: False (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/04/cheney-911-2/).</p>
TALKING POINT: The illegal spying program could have roped in Zacarias Moussaoui or Mohammad Atta and prevented 9/11.
FACT: False (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/18/kristol-blames-clinton/) and false (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/29/moussaoui-myth/), not to mention (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/23/AR2005122301480.html) Moussaoui (and Atta) were foreign nationals to whom FISA already applied and a FISA warrant was not obtained in Moussaoui's case because the Justice Department was not asked by the FBI to obtain a FISA warrant.</p>
TALKING POINT: There was insufficient evidence to get a FISA warrant in the case of Moussaoui.
FACT: False (http://agonist.org/story/2005/12/26/22501/131). </p>
TALKING POINT: The FISA law was inadequate and led to the FBI's not inspecting Moussaoui's personal effects.
FACT: False (http://agonist.org/story/2005/12/26/22501/131). </p>
TALKING POINT: FISA required reform which had not happened even after 9/11.
FACT: False. Even though experts felt FISA required reform after 9/11, that already (http://agonist.org/story/2005/12/26/22501/131) occurred (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/27/we-did-amend-fisa/) via the Orwellian "PATRIOT" Act. </p>
TALKING POINT: The FISA process is not fast or agile enough to catch terrorists or prevent terrorism.
FACT: Totally (http://agonist.org/story/2005/12/26/22501/131) and completely (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/compendium-of-white-house-incoherence.html) false (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/21/cheney-critics/). In fact, FISA actually allows secret, warrantless spying for up to 72 hours, which is more than sufficient for emergencies. If the Bush administration wanted an extension to that they could have asked Congress to pass a FISA amendment. [Not to mention, it appears that the warrantless spying was started even without a Presidential Executive Order and possibly even before 9/11 (http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/006446.php). If it was indeed started before 9/11, it certainly didn't prevent 9/11]. </p>
<hr align="left" size="1" width="20%">
<a name="6"></a>6. Secretly spying on foreigners is legal and constitutional
TALKING POINT: It has long been agreed that secret, warrantless spying on foreigners is constitutional and legal.
FACT: This is a misleading talking point. The issue is not whether the US Government can spy on foreigners without a warrant (it can). The issue is (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/22/myths-as-news/) Bush's unconstitutional, illegal, secret spying on Americans (on American soil). </p>
<hr align="left" size="1" width="20%">
<a name="7"></a>7. The secret spying only focused on Al Qaeda, terrorists and their supporters and one end of the intercepted communications was always in foreign soil
TALKING POINT: The "physics" of Bush's illegal spying operation was such that it only captured two-way communications with one end inside "foreign soil".
FACT: False (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/21/not-just-international-calls/). </p>
TALKING POINT: The spying was restricted to a "small" number of Americans who had links to terrorists.
FACT: False (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/24/big-brother-just-got-a-whole-lot-bigger/). </p>
TALKING POINT: The illegal wiretapping occurred only on calls originating from outside the U.S.
FACT: False (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/bushs-confusion-about-eavesdropping-he.html). </p>
TALKING POINT: The illegal spying was required to monitor "calls from very bad people to very bad people who have a history of blowing up commuter trains, weddings and churches"
FACT: False (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/administrations-very-bad-people.html) and false (http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2005_12_18_firedoglake_archive.html#11354035878642 0045). If this were true, where is the list of people who blew up commuter trains, weddings and churches? Why are these monsters being hidden from public view and why were they only "monitored" and not arrested and deported from US soil? </p>
<hr align="left" size="1" width="20%">
<a name="8"></a>8. The leak to the New York Times, of Bush's secret spying on Americans, was a crime and had nothing to do with whistleblowers
TALKING POINT: The revelations about illegal domestic spying were not from whistleblowers.
FACT: False (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/03/pure-whistleblower/) (also see here (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/01/04.html#a6577)). In fact some NSA officials were disturbed (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/22/nsa-agents-disturbed/) when they got to know about the illegal spying.</p>
TALKING POINT: Confirming the NYT story on Bush's illegal spying on Americans would compromise national security.
FACT: False (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/17/protect-the-people/), false (http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2005/12/inside_nsas_wor.html) and false (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-is-bush-helping-terrorists-by.html). Not only did Bush himself subsequently confirm the story, as Glenn Greenwald notes (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-is-bush-helping-terrorists-by.html): "...this same George Bush over the last two years -- as he campaigned for his own re-election and then as he campaigned for the permanent renewal of the Patriot Act – has repeatedly talked about, in detail, how we engage in surveillance against terrorists, how we try to eavesdrop on their communications, and what methods we have created and now use to monitor what they are doing and saying...Bush has done so in far greater detail than anything the Times said. Worse, Bush has made similar public disclosures with regard to countless other intelligence and surveillance techniques which we use against terrorists...[more (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-is-bush-helping-terrorists-by.html)] " As William Arkin notes (http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2005/12/inside_nsas_wor.html): " I doubt that there is a terrorist out there who doesn't assume that the NSA is listening in on their communications..." </p>
TALKING POINT: The leak to the New York Times of the illegal spying program was a crime.
FACT: False (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/threatening-administration-critics.html). As Glenn Greenwald has explained (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/threatening-administration-critics.html), not only is it actually a crime to classify information in order to hide Government wrong-doing (like Bush did in this case), leaks of classified information may or may not be crimes depending on the objective of the leak (http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2005_12_25_firedoglake_archive.html#11357417591297 9186). A leak that exposes a crime (like the one to the NYT that exposed Bush's criminal actions) easily falls into the category of a whistleblower action that is not criminal. </p>
TALKING POINT: The leak to the New York Times of the illegal spying program was a crime because it compromised national security just like when "news media published a U.S. government leak in 1998 about Osama bin Laden's use of a satellite phone, alerting the al Qaeda leader to government monitoring and prompting him to abandon the device."
FACT: False (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/21/AR2005122101994.html?sub=AR). The bin Laden story is completely false (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/21/AR2005122101994.html?sub=AR). </p>
TALKING POINT: Such spying issues should have been settled in private rather than leak it to the New York Times.
FACT: Some people did try (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/23/contradiction-confusion-and-irony-from-the-right-wing-on-warrantless-searches/) to settle some of the spying in private but were threatened with loss of jobs. </p>
<hr align="left" size="1" width="20%">
<a name="9"></a>9. Bush's critics are just partisan political hacks
TALKING POINT: The critics of President Bush are just partisan Democrats who have an axe to grind.
FACT: False (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/01/01.html#a6539), false (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/27/federalist-society-board-member/), false (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/01/lugar-supports-hearings/), false (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/17/former-rep-bob-barr-r-ga-on-bush%E2%80%99s/) and false (http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2005_12_18_firedoglake_archive.html#11350549028643 4581).</p>
<hr align="left" size="1" width="20%">
<a name="10"></a>10. Top Democrats in Congress supported the illegal spying
TALKING POINT: Democratic leaders were aware of all the details of the illegal spying and they did not express any reservations.
FACT: False (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10663996/site/newsweek/page/3/), false (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/19/rockefeller-letter/), false (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/18/graham-no-reference/). Moreover, as Glenn Greenwald notes (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/compendium-of-white-house-incoherence.html): "The Administration forced these Congressional Democrats to remain silent and are now using that forced silence as evidence of their approval of this program. That reasoning is appallingly corrupt." </p>
<hr align="left" size="1" width="20%">
<a name="11"></a>11. You can trust Bush 100% to not misuse the spying program
TALKING POINT: Bush and his senior staff have always been honest about wiretaps and court orders.
FACT: False (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/bush-caught-on-tape/), false (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/bushs-confusion-about-eavesdropping-he.html), false (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/19/nsa-director/), false (http://armando.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/1/151548/2281), false (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/18/gonzales-january/). Bush in particular has lied brazenly and repeatedly about the true nature of the program. </p>
TALKING POINT: The Bush administration can be fully trusted to not misuse its powers when it illegally spies on Americans.
FACT: False (http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2005_12_25_firedoglake_archive.html#11357075807233 1329) and false (http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/23124prs20051220.html) (to cite just two recent examples).

[nacktman]

Geesh, Mark after all of us telling the neo-cons to do their own research you've gone and done it for them, what will we do with you.

How many do you think will actually check your links and learn the truth?

[usmc1]

Talking Points

1. Bush did not violate the FISA

2. Bush did not break the law

3. History shows American Presidents have the power to violate the law, especially in times of war

9. Bush's critics are just partisan political hacks

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10741787/

Analysts: Bush spying rationale legally shaky. Memo questions use of presidential power in wiretapping without approval.

WP-Leonning-WASHINGTON - A report by Congress's research arm concluded yesterday that the administration's justification for the warrantless eavesdropping authorized by President Bush conflicts with existing law and hinges on weak legal arguments.

The Congressional Research Service's report rebuts the central assertions made recently by Bush and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales about the president's authority to order secret intercepts of telephone and e-mail exchanges between people inside the United States and their contacts abroad.

The findings, the first nonpartisan assessment of the program's legality to date, prompted Democratic lawmakers and civil liberties advocates to repeat calls yesterday for Congress to conduct hearings on the monitoring program and attempt to halt it.

[jon71]

It is blatant that Bush and Gonzales have no respect for the law. After Bush's illegal wiretapping was reported Gonzales went after the patriotic whistle-blowers, not the criminal Bush. The Bush white house really is bizarro world.

[usmc1]

Reuters is reporting that Cheney is now walking with a cane due to a "foot problem".

Must be a post surgical condition, after the procedure to remove his foot from his mouth!

[nacktman]

Have you found this Door hanger on your door yet?

[ncnudlady]

Good one usmc. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/applause.gif

[nifocinphx]

Originally posted by nacktman:
Have you found this Door hanger on your door yet?

Not yet , but I wouldn't be surprised to see one soon. Just checked and the CarryaBigSticker website has them for sale, memo pads of 25 sheets - http://carryabigsticker.com/

BTW - Today's forecast high is 75 here in the Arizona desert. Should be able to get some color in my cheeks http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/blush.gif

BUSH JOB SAFETY RECORD SEEN AT COAL MINE

In 2002, President Bush posed at a photo opp when a mine collapse nearly
resulted in a large number of worker deaths. Once the TV lights were turned
off, he went back to Washington and pushed for - you guessed it! - cuts in
mining safety inspections.

And that's one of the reasons behind the deadly collapse in early January at
central West Virginia's Sago Mine.

The Clinton Administration came down hard on the mine and demanded several
changes to made to enhance safety. Under the Bush regime, the mine was
slapped on the wrist for some very serious problems, but then allowed to go
about its business.

As the Washington Post reported: "J. Davitt McAteer, who headed MSHA during
the Clinton administration, said he was troubled by an apparent spike in
accidents and violations that occurred beginning about two years ago. 'The
violations are not the worst I've ever seen -- and certainly not the best --
but I'm concerned about the trend and the direction they're going in. It's
indication to those running the operation that you've got a problem here.'"

http://www.americasdemocrats.org/exposing_gop.cfm

[usmc1]

Impeachment NOW! TODAY! THIS MINUTE!

http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/2006.01.01_arch.html#1136792050265

[gormenghast20]

Originally posted by nacktman:
Thanks for the leads on the links they were informative.

Here is a link for all those that still believe what the propaganda machine says about the 'war' in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The authors of the works on this website are military service personel that have actually been there and done that.
And tain't the shrub they's a supportin'.

Operation Truth (http://www.optruth.org/)

Operation Truth...this is the same organization that Stan Goff (a prominent member of "Bring Them Home Now!") has been critical of for being too far left (and he's an avowed Socialist!). He also called Operation Truth's executive director Paul Rieckhoff a hack of the Democratic Party.

I get told to "consider my sources" whenever my source is a conservative one...apparently, on this message board, the far-left has a monopoly on what is right and wrong...or what is the truth.

[Naturist Mark]

Dissent will now be illegal under revised Patriot Act which creates the new crime of " disruption (http://www.patriotdaily.com/bm/blog/bush-to-criminalize-prote.shtml) ": <UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI> Bush wants to create the new criminal of "disruptor" who can be jailed for the crime of "disruptive behavior." A "little-noticed provision" in the latest version of the Patriot Act will empower Secret Service to charge protesters with a new crime of "disrupting major events including political conventions and the Olympics." Secret Service would also be empowered to charge persons with "breaching security" and to charge for "entering a restricted area" which is "where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting." In short, be sure to stay in those wired, fenced containments or free speech zones.
<LI> Who is the "disruptor"? Bush Team history tells us the disruptor is an American citizen with the audacity to attend Bush events wearing a T-shirt that criticizes Bush; or a member of civil rights, environmental, anti-war or counter-recruiting groups who protest Bush policies; or a person who invades Bush's bubble by criticizing his policies. A disruptor is also a person who interferes in someone else's activity, such as interrupting Bush when he is speaking at a press conference or during an interview. [/list]
- Throatwarbler McWoofWoof (http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance,+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html?part=rss&tag=6022491&subj=news)

[Naturist Mark]

Originally posted by gormenghast20:

Operation Truth...this is the same organization that Stan Goff (a prominent member of "Bring Them Home Now!") has been critical of for being too far left

Neo-cons hate the Truth, whatever its source.

Thanks to TruthOut we now know that Bush began illegal spying on Americans BEFORE 9/11 (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011306Z.shtml) : <UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI>On orders from Defense Department officials and President Bush, the agency kept a running list of the names of Americans in its system and made it readily available to a number of senior officials in the Bush administration, these sources said, which in essence meant the NSA was conducting a covert domestic surveillance operation in violation of the law.

James Risen, author of the book State of War and credited with first breaking the story about the NSA's domestic surveillance operations, said President Bush personally authorized a change in the agency's long-standing policies shortly after he was sworn in in 2001.

"The president personally and directly authorized new operations, like the NSA's domestic surveillance program, that almost certainly would never have been approved under normal circumstances and that raised serious legal or political questions," Risen wrote in the book. "Because of the fevered climate created throughout the government by the president and his senior advisers, Bush sent signals of what he wanted done, without explicit presidential orders" and "the most ambitious got the message." [/list]Throatwarbler McWoofWoof (http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance,+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html?part=rss&tag=6022491&subj=news)

[Qikdraw]

Originally posted by gormenghast20:
I get told to "consider my sources" whenever my source is a conservative one...apparently, on this message board, the far-left has a monopoly on what is right and wrong...or what is the truth.

Not really. In the time I've been posting here I've noticed that the moderators traditionally side with the Conservative side more so than the Democrat side. In other words a right-winger can cuss out a left-winger, but the reverse isn't true.

As with sources, consider the source. I look at Nacktman as far left, and look at what he says with care. Thats doesn't mean he doesn't say some good things from time to time, its just that I don't trust all his sources, nor all of what he says. Just like I do with links from the right side.

I'm critical of most things I read, and try and read things from both sides before I form an opinion. Usually I try and form an opinion from foriegn news rather than US news. US news is too biased for me.

Qikdraw

[nacktman]

Qikdraw, I am actually "far center" and use my own mind and check all available sources before I form an opinion or take a position on any matter. I get my news from ALL sources not just domestic or one 'wing' or another to have basis for my stances on issues profound and mundane.
It may seem otherwise because after digesting the data from all sources what is seen as "the left" has reality on its side an I base my opinions on reality and the truth.

As to looking at what I say with care I would be offended if you didn't. Blindly following anyone or any thing is the one thing I will not tolerate in anyone be they following the concept of the cosmos or little old me or anything in between. If you have to be spoon fed your opinion by others then you deserve what you get is my philosophy.

Also, you are correct about the moderators is does seem they allow the conservatives to spew bile and vitrol and personally attack others that do not goosestep in line with them and do not allow the same from liberal persectives. While this may not be the actual case with the moderators it does appear to be so and this is what the average user sees.

Back to original topic as to those bashing the shrub were (ex)military or not...yes they're quite a few of us.

[Naturist Mark]

It Can Happen Here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Can%27t_Happen_Here)

George W. Bush has signed (http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7986.shtml) an executive order authorizing the imposition of marshall law throughout the United States - to be implemented at his sole discretion. It has already secretly created the “Northern Command for National Defense":
A wide-ranging program that includes FEMA, the Pentagon, the FBI and the National Security Agency. Executive orders already signed by Bush allow the Northern Command to send troops into American streets, seize control of radio and television stations and networks and impose martial law “in times of national emergency.”

The authority to declare what is or is not a national emergency rests entirely with Bush who does not have to either consult or seek the approval of Congress for permission to assume absolute control over the government of the United States.

-Mark

[Naturist Mark]

It looks like all the scandals are coalescing into a single vast right-wing conspiracy (to coin a phrase).

The Soon-to-be-Indicted Rep. Bob Ney of Ohio's Connection To Electoral Fraud
The Dots Connect Between Abramoff, Ohio 2004 Election Smokescreen and Ney's Former Staffer Revealed to be on Diebold's Payroll While Working for White House Law Firm: long title to story on the Brad Blog. (http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002261.htm)

-Mark

[hm0504]

Interesting how with every passing week, the U.S. seems to be becoming more like the old Soviet Union. Wake up America!

[ncnudlady]

So very true! So very true!

America has woken up though and that is why the intense rush to rig the laws to be a totalitarian state by the neo-cons.
They seek to prevent the people from taking back their country by any and all means possible.

[usmc1]

Beavis's pal is back down to 39% overall approval.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1056

[nacktman]

Hey Mark , What ever happened to the Margie Schoedinger investigation after her death (by gunshot) on September 22nd of 2003?
Do you think that her filing an complaint of RAPE against one George W. Bush in December of 2002 in Fort Bend County, Texas had anything to do with it do you?
And what about the harrasment and intimidation as well as actual physical beatings and economical constraints on her bank accounts she suffered after she filed her complaint, do you think they are being investigated?

[usmc1]

Hey Ghormangast...remember our discussion about the investor class. You opined they were inlove with Bush.

Au Contraire, Mon Amie...

According to Zogby, the "investor class is deserting the little putz.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...&address=102x2043745 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2043745)

It's nice to be remembered ain't it?

[nacktman]

The REAL Axis of Evil!

[gormenghast20]

Originally posted by usmc1:
Hey Ghormangast...remember our discussion about the investor class. You opined they were inlove with Bush.

Au Contraire, Mon Amie...

According to Zogby, the "investor class is deserting the little putz.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...&address=102x2043745 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2043745)

It's nice to be remembered ain't it?

Yes, I remember...I'll check out the information...thank you!

[gormenghast20]

Originally posted by nacktman:
Hey Mark , What ever happened to the Margie Schoedinger investigation after her death (by gunshot) on September 22nd of 2003?
Do you think that her filing an complaint of RAPE against one George W. Bush in December of 2002 in Fort Bend County, Texas had anything to do with it do you?
And what about the harrasment and intimidation as well as actual physical beatings and economical constraints on her bank accounts she suffered after she filed her complaint, do you think they are being investigated?

Nacktman, old buddy, ever hear about all the strange deaths/suicides associated with the Clintons? Here's food for thought (http://www.jeremiahproject.com/prophecy/clintbodycnt.html)

Personally, I don't read anything too much into this -- everyone has to go sometime, right? Besides, I haven't got the time to actually delve into all the specific incidents...it's probably just another urban legend, just like the one about no plane hitting the Pentagon. Still, you're so interested in political shenanigans that I'd figured this information would fascinate you.

[gormenghast20]

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
Dissent will now be illegal under revised Patriot Act which creates the new crime of " disruption (http://www.patriotdaily.com/bm/blog/bush-to-criminalize-prote.shtml) ": <UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI> Bush wants to create the new criminal of "disruptor" who can be jailed for the crime of "disruptive behavior." A "little-noticed provision" in the latest version of the Patriot Act will empower Secret Service to charge protesters with a new crime of "disrupting major events including political conventions and the Olympics." Secret Service would also be empowered to charge persons with "breaching security" and to charge for "entering a restricted area" which is "where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting." In short, be sure to stay in those wired, fenced containments or free speech zones.
<LI> Who is the "disruptor"? Bush Team history tells us the disruptor is an American citizen with the audacity to attend Bush events wearing a T-shirt that criticizes Bush; or a member of civil rights, environmental, anti-war or counter-recruiting groups who protest Bush policies; or a person who invades Bush's bubble by criticizing his policies. A disruptor is also a person who interferes in someone else's activity, such as interrupting Bush when he is speaking at a press conference or during an interview. [/list]
- Throatwarbler McWoofWoof (http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance,+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html?part=rss&tag=6022491&subj=news)

Hey Mark,

I can't say that I disagree with the first one, for safety's sake. But I do not agree with the last one...that's a violation of free speech. In fact, I had wanted to attend the Alito hearings wearing my "Chappaquiddick Triathlon: Drink, Drive, Swim" t-shirt...that would be a bummer if you can't even wear a stinking t-shirt that doesn't have profanity on it!

[gormenghast20]

Originally posted by Qikdraw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gormenghast20:
I get told to "consider my sources" whenever my source is a conservative one...apparently, on this message board, the far-left has a monopoly on what is right and wrong...or what is the truth.

Not really. In the time I've been posting here I've noticed that the moderators traditionally side with the Conservative side more so than the Democrat side. In other words a right-winger can cuss out a left-winger, but the reverse isn't true.

As with sources, consider the source. I look at Nacktman as far left, and look at what he says with care. Thats doesn't mean he doesn't say some good things from time to time, its just that I don't trust all his sources, nor all of what he says. Just like I do with links from the right side.

I'm critical of most things I read, and try and read things from both sides before I form an opinion. Usually I try and form an opinion from foriegn news rather than US news. US news is too biased for me.

Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Qikdraw,

Some of the overseas media you have to watch for...wasn't it the "Guardian" (and I'm not sure this is the newspaper) that wrote as it's headline -- "How Can 53 Million People Be So Stupid?" when Bush won the last election? Again, I'm not sure that that's the exact headline...but it was along those lines. For a newspaper to run that kind of headline...about anybody...points out that they are worlds away from being impartial. When I have the time, I watch the various world news programs on MhZ Networks...not sure if that's country-wide...here in the DC area, provided you have Cox cable, it's channel 6 on expanded cable. I used to pick up Russian newspapers in Borders, but the one here doesn't carry foreign papers anymore and its been too long since college anyway...it was taking me way too long to get through one.

I hope I'm not one of those right-wingers viewed as cussing-out the other side...I may get animated, at times...but a lot of stuff I say has to be taken tongue-in-cheek.

[nacktman]

Nope, its not an urban legend the case is on file at the Fort Bend County courthouse and just where the investigatiotn is, is nobody knows.
Who killed her and why? "Official" reports are inconsistant and the "determined" cause of death by a self inflicted gunshot wound to the head does not matchup with the evidence. Something about that "determination" is a bit too convienent for GWB.

[Naturist Mark]

Murtha and the Mudslingers (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/16/AR2006011600913.html)
I underestimated the viciousness of the right wing.

Last November, Rep. John Murtha, a Democrat and a decorated Marine combat veteran, came out for a rapid American withdrawal from Iraq. At the time, I wrote: "It will be difficult for Bush's acolytes to cast Murtha, who has regularly stood up for the military policies of Republican presidents during his 31 years in Congress, as some kind of extreme partisan or hippie protester."

No, the conservative hit squad didn't accuse Murtha of being a hippie. But a crowd that regularly defends President Bush for serving in the Texas Air National Guard instead of going to Vietnam has continued its war on actual Vietnam veterans. An outfit called the Cybercast News Service last week questioned the circumstances surrounding the awarding of two Purple Hearts to Murtha because of wounds he suffered in the Vietnam War.

John Kerry, as well as John McCain -- who faced scurrilous attacks on his war record when he was running against Bush in the 2000 South Carolina primary -- could have warned Murtha: If you're a Vietnam veteran, don't you dare get in the way of George W. Bush.

David Thibault, editor in chief of Cybercast, made it very clear to The Post's Howard Kurtz and Shailagh Murray that Murtha was facing accusations about his 1967 service now because "the congressman has really put himself in the forefront of the antiwar movement." In other words, if Murtha had just shut up and gone along with Bush, nothing would have been said about his service.

As it is, the charges are remarkably flimsy. Former representative Don Bailey (D-Pa.), whom Murtha defeated in a 1982 congressional primary after a redistricting, said that Murtha had told him he did not deserve his Purple Hearts, Kurtz and Murray reported. Bailey, who won a Silver Star and three Bronze Stars in Vietnam, recalled Murtha saying: "Hey, I didn't do anything like you did. I got a little scratch on the cheek."

Authentic war heroes (including McCain) often play down their own heroism. In any event, what we know about Murtha, McCain, Kerry and, yes, Bailey, is that they served in combat in Vietnam. What we know about Bush and Vice President Cheney ("I had other priorities in the '60s than military service'') is that they didn't.

What's maddening here is the unblushing hypocrisy of the right wing and the way it circulates -- usually through Web sites or talk radio -- personal vilification to abort honest political debate. Murtha's views on withdrawing troops from Iraq are certainly the object of legitimate contention. Many in Murtha's party disagree with him. But Murtha's right-wing critics can't content themselves with going after his ideas. They have to try to discredit his service.

Moreover, the right has demonstrated that its attitude toward military service is entirely opportunistic. In the 1992 presidential campaign, when the first President Bush confronted Bill Clinton -- who, like Cheney, avoided military service entirely -- conservatives could hardly speak or write a paragraph about Clinton that didn't accuse him of being a draft dodger. In October 1992, Bush himself assailed Clinton. "A lot of being president is about respect for that office and about telling the truth and serving your country," Bush told a crowd in New Jersey. "And you are all familiar with Governor Clinton's various stories on what he did to evade the draft."

But from 2000 forward, the Republicans had a problem: They confronted Democrats, first Al Gore and then John Kerry, who actually did go to Vietnam, while it was their own standard-bearers who had skipped the war. Suddenly, service in Vietnam wasn't the thing at all. When a Democrat went to war, there must have been something wrong with the way he did it. Gore's service was dismissed because he worked "only" as a military journalist. You can even find Bush's defenders back in 2000 daring to argue that flying planes over Texas was actually more dangerous than joining the Army and serving in Vietnam the way Gore did.

The Republicans had an even bigger problem with Kerry, who did unquestionably dangerous duty patrolling rivers. Not to worry. The Swift Boat Veterans simply smeared him.

"War's a nasty business," Murtha said on CBS's "60 Minutes" on Sunday. "It sears the soul. The shadow of friends killed, the shadow of killing people lives with you the rest of your life. So there's no experience like being in combat."

Unfortunately, politics is a nasty business, too. And there is no honor given to those who serve if they choose later to take on the powers that be.

By E. J. Dionne Jr.


-Mark

[jon71]

Bush is a coward and a deserter. His treatmeant of Murtha, McCain, and Kerry shows that he has a vicious hatred of real veterans. He has a problem with anyone who has the guts to show up for duty, guts he can't even dream about having.

[Qikdraw]

Originally posted by gormenghast20:
Some of the overseas media you have to watch for...wasn't it the "Guardian" (and I'm not sure this is the newspaper) that wrote as it's headline -- "How Can 53 Million People Be So Stupid?" when Bush won the last election? Again, I'm not sure that that's the exact headline...but it was along those lines. For a newspaper to run that kind of headline...about anybody...points out that they are worlds away from being impartial.

Shall we call Fox News leftist for running a story that doesn't put the Bush admin in a good light? Picking a few stories and saying the entire nwespaper is biased is rather silly. Overall foriegn newspapers tend to be less biased than American newspapers and news stations.

I see stuff in foriegn newspapers that just don't show up here, and yet its about what the American government is doing. I've seen stuff show up in foriegn newspapers that don't make it to US newspapers until months and months later.

Media in Amrerica has failed in what it is supposed to be. It has turned to the almighty dollar over proper reporting.

"We're not in the business of providing news and information, We're simply in the business of selling our customers' products. "
Clear Channel CEO Lowry Mays

This is what it should be...

"Paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people..."
Hugo Black, Supreme Court Justice

American media corporations have sat quietly while the US government makes fake news and sends it out to act as 'real' news, they've taken payment from this administration to spout off their propoganda, they've sat on stories because it would look bad on this administration, they've taken at face value what this administration has said instead of investigating. They let issues important to American people to either be completely unreported, or it is buried. Things that make big news, rarely last long.
Whats funny is people still say there is a liberal media, nothing could be further from the truth. The sad truth is that we do not have a free press anymore, its been willingly lead down a path that simply follows the concerns of its owners, of which there are only a few who own the majority.


I hope I'm not one of those right-wingers viewed as cussing-out the other side...I may get animated, at times...but a lot of stuff I say has to be taken tongue-in-cheek.

Actually I think you play the Devil's advocate at times. Taking a postition, even if you disagree with it, just to spark a debate. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

Qikdraw

[Qikdraw]

On a lighter note...

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/greater.html

Qikdraw

[usmc1]

quote:
Originally posted by gormenghast20:
Some of the overseas media you have to watch for...wasn't it the "Guardian" (and I'm not sure this is the newspaper) that wrote as it's headline -- "How Can 53 Million People Be So Stupid?" when Bush won the last election? Again, I'm not sure that that's the exact headline...but it was along those lines. For a newspaper to run that kind of headline...about anybody...points out that they are worlds away from being impartial.

Actually, there were (and are) some 59,012,107 Americans asking the same question.

History will substantiate, as current events are proving, that headline to be especially prescient.

[gormenghast20]

Originally posted by usmc1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote:
Originally posted by gormenghast20:
Some of the overseas media you have to watch for...wasn't it the "Guardian" (and I'm not sure this is the newspaper) that wrote as it's headline -- "How Can 53 Million People Be So Stupid?" when Bush won the last election? Again, I'm not sure that that's the exact headline...but it was along those lines. For a newspaper to run that kind of headline...about anybody...points out that they are worlds away from being impartial.

Actually, there were (and are) some 59,012,107 Americans asking the same question.

History will substantiate, as current events are proving, that headline to be especially prescient. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, this may very well be true...but I don't think a statement like that should be the headline of a newspaper...it's fine for an editorial. Mainstream newspapers should at least pretend to be unbiased.

[gormenghast20]

Originally posted by usmc1:
Hey Ghormangast...remember our discussion about the investor class. You opined they were inlove with Bush.

Au Contraire, Mon Amie...

According to Zogby, the "investor class is deserting the little putz.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...&address=102x2043745 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2043745)

It's nice to be remembered ain't it?

Touche sir! The facts, as you state them, bear out.

Ugh, all I can find to "retaliate" is from one of the latest Time polls:

President Bush’s approval rating has risen to 53%, according to the latest TIME poll conducted January 12 and 13. His approval rating is up 4 points from his Dec. 13-14 approval rating of 49%. The President’s approval numbers have improved across a variety of issues, including his handling of the economy (51% approve, up from 40% approve in September), his handling of the situation in Iraq (45% approve, up from 41% approval in September), and his handling of the war on terrorism (56% approve, up from 49% in September).

Again...you can take or leave any poll, they really don't mean to much...IMHO.

By the way, are you for or against exit polling in regards to elections?

[gormenghast20]

Read all about it! (http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6028701.html?tag=nl.e589) The Feds are seeking millions of Google (among others') search records!

Who says I'm not fair and balanced? Like Fox News, baby! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/sneaky.gif

[gormenghast20]

Ooops, forgot to mention in my previous posting...it's no great surprise Microsoft complied. It's not very well known, but there is a backdoor built into every Windows system. This is a reason some prefer Linux...but, by far, not the main reason for switching.

[usmc1]

by the way, are you for or against exit polling in regards to elections?

Way too broad a question for a meaningful reply.

But, if the question has to do with my thoughts on the validity of their methodology..yes.

In my early years as a journalist I saw them used with great effectivness when coupled with "precinct profile analysis".

The problem has been in recent years people would give the pollsters information they thought was factual...saying "I voted for Gore", but the vote tally didn't jibe because of either voter confusion, incomplete votes and/or outright fraud. They thought they voted for someone but for some reason that vote did not result in a counted ballot.

Now if your question has to do with the release of exit polls and projections prior to the closing of the last meaningful poll, I don't like that and have never liked it regardless of who the projected winner was.

[usmc1]

Yes, this may very well be true...but I don't think a statement like that should be the headline of a newspaper...it's fine for an editorial. Mainstream newspapers should at least pretend to be unbiased.

Well two thoughts. First the Brits have quite a different journalistic tradition than we.

And second, were you as upset with the Vince Foster Murdered headline of The American Spectator.

No. Wait, nevermind you did qualify your quetions with mainstream and the Spectator is lot of things, but mainstream ain't one o'them.

[nacktman]

What is the main difference between Iraq and Vietnam?


Bush went to Iraq!

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/rofl5.gif

[usmc1]

That bastion of left wing propaganda, Bloomberg declares taht latest polls indicate support for Bush continues to wane.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aLH...refer=top_world_news (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aLH_qReYSQGc&refer=top_world_news)

[ncnudlady]

Great link usmc1. The walls are tumbling down.

[nacktman]

Glad to see someone finally put this equation in terms even the starboard ala can understand.

[usmc1]

It's too early to kennel the dogs and go set by the fire with our boots off sipping on bourban and branch while ragaling each other with our stories, but it looks as though maybe we're about to tree the elephant.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9665505/#060130a

[Hooked]

There's no way I'm going to read over 58 pages on Bush bashing when I have a couple hundred pages of British Lit to read for class so let me just add this:


BUSH SUCKS! IMPEACH HIM NOW!!!

hahaha punk @ss chump!

[usmc1]

Now its the Atlanta Journal Constituion questioning the administration's loss of faith with the American people.

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/bookman/index.html

[hm0504]

Interesting article about the thousands of Coalition troops with battle-caused brain injuries:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2037633,00.html

[usmc1]

From KOS this morning, just about sums it up!

"From the GREAT STATE OF MAINE...

And now, a brief history of George W. Bush and his Republican Congress's record of "bipartisanship" over the past 5 years:

Democrats: We should fix the environment.
Republicans: Shut up!

We should make the Medicare prescription drug program better...
Sit down!

Can we at least let the federal government negotiate with drug companies to get lower prices?
Sit on my face and wriggle, assmunch!

Can we discuss the ramifications of the Patriot Act?
Eat our boogers!

Perhaps the deficit is getting a bit high and we should consider...
Considering is for losers!

But certainly we can agree that war-profiteering in Iraq must be stopped...
You know what needs to be stopped? Your mouth!

Ethics violations?
Sock puppets!

You know global warming is real. Can we at least discuss the Kyoto...
Kyo-NO!

Perhaps an exit strategy for Iraq?
Perhaps a sandpaper wedgie!?

Poverty?
[Snort!] Poor people make lousy campaign contributors. Deeee-nied.

Would you like to see our ideas on job-creation?
Would you like to see our ideas on sticking your head in a toilet?

Real Social Security reform?
Knee to the groin?

Basic equality for gays?
Fairy lovers.

Adequate funding for our VA hospitals?
Tch...they can deal with combat, they can deal with a little prostate cancer.

Making abortion safe, legal and, most important, rare?
Women...can't live with `em, can't imagine a threesome without `em!! Par-tay!!!!!!!

Safeguards against price-gouging by oil companies?
Let me think about that for a moment...um...No.

But polls show that Americans want...
Here's a pole. You know where to stick it.

And so it goes. As palpable as my frustration is with the Democratic leadership, I save my deepest contempt for the Republican leadership and the way they've destroyed any sense of equality, fairness and compassion for Americans. They lie, they cheat, they steal. They bamboozle, they spin, they obfuscate. They deceive, they stonewall, they bully. They're uncivil, unethical and unresponsive. It's in their DNA. All in the name of "drowning the federal government in the bathtub."

I'm no think-tank intellectual, nor am I a political scientist. But I know how to call bull****. So, since I haven't done it in awhile: Frist, Hastert, Boehner, Scalia, Thomas, Santorum, Hannity, Bush, Coburn, Bolton, Roberts, Coleman, DeLay, Lott, Card, Stevens, Hughes, McCain, Matalin, Hutchison, Cheney, Hatch, Brownback, Limbaugh, Thune, Rove, DeWine, McClellan, Burns and whoever else you think oughtta be on the list: I say with all the due respect you've shown us: SCREW YOU!"

[nacktman]

Undeniable proof dogs can read.

[hootowl]

Interesting too, is how many people believe all the news,(media)

[nacktman]

hm0504, it is an alarming lack of reporting about the "hidden" costs of the war that is bothering a lot of people.

The article you linked was not any eye opener to an old vet, but should be to anybody else.

Thanks for posting it.

[usmc1]

Who says the scottish are dour humourless people?

Who says a dry-drunk sociopath can't provide a guffaw or two?

Who told shrub he could ride, wave and speak at the same time.

http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=297002006

[hm0504]

And from the BBC...

Bin Laden 'likes hugs not kisses':
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4754570.stm

[Naturist Mark]

Originally posted by usmc1:
Who says the scottish are dour humourless people?

Who says a dry-drunk sociopath can't provide a guffaw or two?

Who told shrub he could ride, wave and speak at the same time.

http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=297002006

This is W's 3rd bicycle accident (that we know of), not to mention his falling off a Segway scooter - which is designed to be practically impossible to lose your balance on.

I think I know what the problem is. The brain damage associated with Warnke-Korsakoff syndrome has caused him to lose his sense of equilibrium. That "mystery bulge (http://tinyurl.com/eue6w)" on his back is now explained, it isn't a portable defibrilator or a transmitter-receiver that Rove uses to feed words to him - it is a gyroscope!

-Mark

[nifocinphx]

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
... That "mystery bulge (http://tinyurl.com/eue6w)" on his back is now explained, it isn't a portable defibrilator or a transmitter-receiver that Rove uses to feed words to him - it is a gyroscope!

"... it is a gyroscope!"

That's funny Naturist Mark! Great to see a little levity in this thread http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

nifocinphx http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/cool4.gif
---------------------------

[nacktman]

This is too easy.

[usmc1]

Buried in this not so startling, but extremely good, Bush is a Dope on a string controlled by neo-cons piece, is the startling estimation that so far our invasion and occupation of Iraq has cost each American $20,000. Now we all know that such comparisons are not literal, but merely the cost divided by etc, etc.

But, Conseervatives, tell me please, how do you feel about your tax dollars being whizzed away down that rathole? $20K, hell the NRA could of used that for some gun-safety training in some elementary schools and pre-schools somewhere, right?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3449870/

[nacktman]

This was over heard in the oval office as the secretary was relaying a message to the shrub.

[usmc1]

Who says Gym Rats are all muscle and no brains? Not me for sure, being that weird combination of gym rat and library geek.

But, there's a guy in D.C. that is one smart Gym Rat.

According to Drudge today, Jenna Bush was in a workout class when the instructor ranked on her Daddy. Poor Jenna, a dose of reality.

But, if the guy gets fired, let's find him another job.

[nacktman]

The offical portrait of the shrub that will hang in the White House has been completed and will be unveiled in a state ceremony in the basement bathroom where it will hang over the toilet so all future White House pernament staffers can be reminded of the lost years every time they answer the call of nature.

Here is a sneak peek at the finished portait.

[usmc1]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-08-bush-approval_x.htm

USA Today and Gallup Poll. 31% approval rating for the dry-drunk sociopath. 68% of GOP still love him, but 48% of conservatives have turned on him.

So the wealthy elite are hanging in there with him. No surprise, but even the conservatoids are catching on.

I bet this was what Poppy meant by "deep doo doo".

[nacktman]

Damn, I was just getting used to using the term 32%ers and now I gotta start using 31%ers.
If this keeps up we'll be at 0%ers by the end of summer.

[Nu]

Wow, 60 pages of bashing.
Surely, the poor guy is "flattened" by now.

[usmc1]

Originally posted by Nu:
Wow, 60 pages of bashing.
Surely, the poor guy is "flattened" by now.

Not quite. And, he ain't no "poor guy". He is a dry-drunk sociopath who at the behest of his masters, stateless wealthy elites, is building up huge deficit in order to destroy federal funding for the health, education and welfare of our country and has launched us into an illegal preemporty war of invasion and occupation based on lies, causing the deaths, maimings, blindings, cripplings, and psychological woundings of tens of thousands of Americans and Iraqis.

All of which is to say, your sympathy is misguided and misplaced.

[jon71]

My sympathy is with our soldiers sent to be maimed and killed in a war based on lies, under staffed, under armored, and with the most pathetic "leadership" in charge in all of history. They, like all of America, deserve better than the brain damaged loser in the white house now and all of his neo-con loser buddies like Rummy and Cheney et al.

[nacktman]

Even the French are better than the shrub.

Notice the bewildered and insane look on the shrub's face.

[usmc1]

29% - 29% - 29% - 29% - 29% - 29% - 29% - 29%
That monument to the liberal media, the Wall Street Journal reports today that the latest Harris Poll shows that Bush's approval ratings have fallen to 29% and congress to 18%.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2006/05/11/bushs-approval-ratings/

[nacktman]

The 29% speaks, but it doesn't say anything.
Still trying to prop up a failure.

All I can say is "Bull Hockey" to those that think (oh, that's right they don't think) that the shrub is a good leader.
http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/rofl5.gifhttp://oakhurstonline.com/icon/rofl5.gifhttp://oakhurstonline.com/icon/rofl5.gifhttp://oakhurstonline.com/icon/rofl5.gifhttp://oakhurstonline.com/icon/rofl5.gif

[jon71]

Most Americans have a clue you're right. This "president" is a lame duck now. Expect the Democratic party to relegate him to his well deserved irrelevance following Novembers election. America will win back at least one probably both houses of congress and we'll put things back on track. Tackle the defecit, restrained spending policy, even restore some sanity to our foreign policy and set the stage for our troops returning home.
As for S. Korea our troops aren't dying there for lies, it's not a worry.

[nacktman]

No sidestepping, just not worthy of response is all. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/smash.gif

[usmc1]

Originally posted by LamontCranston:
A second term President doesn't need approval ratings. They're about as relevant as the water temp in the North Atlantic.[QUOTE]

Lamont, I just channeled Margot Lane and she wants to fill in your knowledge gaps regarding world affairs and domestic politics. Here's what she says....

Oh yes he does, if he expects to be able to get his policies and programs through Congress. He does if he wants to use the power of the Presidency, the so-called Bully Pulpit, to get the people behind him. He does if he wants to forestall investigations and hearings into his administration's abuses of power and illegal activities. A lame-duck President with only 29% approval is about as hamnstrung as a politician gets.

[QUOTE] Let's see if the 71% really has the stomach to bring troops home:[QUOTE]

Err, that, according to analysts from both sides of the political fence is a large part of what has driven the disapproval. But, yes, a recentralization of force and drawdown is certainly a sustainable strategy.

[QUOTE]Let's bring home all those troops and equipment stationed in South Korea. Things cooled off there, what? 50 years ago. Should be a political certainty.[QUOTE]

Korea has cooled off? When did that happen? You know what Lamont? That comment really displays a tremendous dearth of knowledge on your part. Korea remains a trigger spot.

But, all that aside, diplomatically we should be pushing the PRC to cool off the North Koreans and the Japanese and otehr Asians to step up their participation in guarding the DMZ.


[QUOTE]Or maybe closing those bases guarding the East German border over ten years past it's disappearance.[QUOTE]

Which specific bases are you speaking of. The one's we use for staging, logistical, intelligence gathering, medical and other reasons, including NATO obligations, for our adventures in Central Asia and the middle-east.

[QUOTE]So let's do that. Let's bring the troops home from South Korea and Germany. Then we'll get political momentum going and keep it going into the 2008 election season.

Or is this fixation with irrelevant approval ratings really being used as a distraction? Hiding the fact that the 71% are politically impotent.[QUOTE]

Well, I beg to differ, we're deep into the 2008 election campaign. We're out here at a grassroots level working to reclaim Congress, to build organizations, alliances and coalitions.

Personally, I will be at a grassroots policy implementation session next Tuesday near Dallas. Deep in the heart of Republican Red Texas, this left-winger has been invited to be a presenter and to co-chair a day-long panel.

Att hat session, I will also be recruiting people to assist in the upcoming 2006 elections and to get seats as delegates to the National conventions and to build registration and voter strategies for 2008.

Oh yeah, it's on. Howard Dean may shoot from the lip, but, I got to tell you, he has built a strong grassroots level organization with money and organizers and operatives in key districts all over America.

[QUOTE]Do something already.. make a move. Any move. [QUOTE]

Ditto above!

[QUOTE] A real measure of the Bush Administration effectiveness is the idea that an Iranian Parliament gives a hoot what the Americans might do.

Khomeni could care less during a presidency led by a democrat. Not so today.

And this came to you in a dream?

Lamont, you are woefully lacking in knowledge or undersatnding of the real world and have demonstrated how it can be, with all the evidence to the contrary, that Bush and his coven of hobgoblins is still worthy of support, and that there remains 29% of the electorate who claim they support him and his policies.

[TimO\'C]

Originally posted by jon71:
Expect the Democratic party to . . . put things back on track. Tackle the defecit [sic], restrained spending policy

I agree with Aristotle that we should judge people by their actions. So let's look at the history of actions by the Democrats whom Jon promises will "tackle the defecit" with a "restrained spending policy."

The Democrats controlled the House for 40 years from 1954 to 1994. For all but six of those years, they controlled the Senate too. The President may submit a budget, it is true, but ultimately it is Congress, and more particularly the House, which truly controls the public purse.

According to Office of Management & Budget statistics, the Federal government ran a deficit during 36 of those 40 years of Democratic control of the budget and spending. Jon, Nacktman, and the rest, you can read the numbers for yourself at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/sheets/hist01z1.xls.

So Jon, you must understand why I and others laugh at your promises of the Dems pursuing a "restrained spending policy." It's been literally generations since they've been capable of that. These are the same people, remember, who saddled us with, among other things, the Social Security Ponzi scheme that's compulsory and "legitimate" when the Feds do it, but would get an individual thrown in prison if he tried it himself. So when you toss out whoppers like the Dems will pursue "restrained spending policy," do you wonder why you have no credibility with those on the other side of the aisle?

And, for the record, I think the Republicans are traitors to their own professed financial ideals too. I'm as pissed off at their collective hypocrisy as I have been at anything in a long time.

[hm0504]

Originally posted by TimO'C:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
Expect the Democratic party to . . . put things back on track. Tackle the defecit [sic], restrained spending policy

I agree with Aristotle that we should judge people by their actions. So let's look at the history of actions by the Democrats whom Jon promises will "tackle the defecit" with a "restrained spending policy."

The Democrats controlled the House for 40 years from 1954 to 1994. For all but six of those years, they controlled the Senate too. The President may submit a budget, it is true, but ultimately it is Congress, and more particularly the House, which truly controls the public purse.

According to Office of Management & Budget statistics, the Federal government ran a deficit during 36 of those 40 years of Democratic control of the budget and spending. Jon, Nacktman, and the rest, you can read the numbers for yourself at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/sheets/hist01z1.xls.

So Jon, you must understand why I and others laugh at your promises of the Dems pursuing a "restrained spending policy." It's been literally generations since they've been capable of that. These are the same people, remember, who saddled us with, among other things, the Social Security Ponzi scheme that's compulsory and "legitimate" when the Feds do it, but would get an individual thrown in prison if he tried it himself. So when you toss out whoppers like the Dems will pursue "restrained spending policy," do you wonder why you have no credibility with those on the other side of the aisle?

And, for the record, I think the Republicans are traitors to their own professed financial ideals too. I'm as pissed off at their collective hypocrisy as I have been at anything in a long time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I looked at the spreadsheet and disagree with your analysis.

As the Democrats have controlled the House and Senate for most of the years, the variable part is then the Presidency. From what I see, deficits have tended slowly downwards during Democrat Presidents and skyrocketed during Republican ones. In Canada, we have the same thing, the so-called Conservatives spend like drunken sailors and the so-called tax-and-spend Liberals are proven fiscal managers.

Let's not be silly now, it is President who sets the budget and is the Executive Branch.

[Trailscout]

Albinus,

I sort of agree. The president has not vetoed one bill the whole time he has been in office. This is unprecedented. And most of these bills required additional spending.

Many conservatives are not angry with Bush for claiming to be a conservative, but for failing to act in accordance with the principles that genuinely constitute conservatism.

I think there is a resurgent populism similar to that espoused by Ross Perot and Jesse Ventura. Maybe a third party should arise to fill the void. Until then, a lot of us are voting Democratic in the next election. We moderates and conservatives can debate with the radical left later on. Our first priority is to get the cronies of corporate America out of office. And yes, Mr. Bush, that means you.

I wish Lou Dobbs would run for president!

[TimO\'C]

Originally posted by hm0504:
I looked at the spreadsheet and disagree with your analysis.

As the Democrats have controlled the House and Senate for most of the years, the variable part is then the Presidency. From what I see, deficits have tended slowly downwards during Democrat Presidents and skyrocketed during Republican ones. In Canada, we have the same thing, the so-called Conservatives spend like drunken sailors and the so-called tax-and-spend Liberals are proven fiscal managers.

Let's not be silly now, it is President who sets the budget and is the Executive Branch.

Not the Presidency. The President has no Constitutional authority to spend money. He can propose all he wants, and he can veto what he gets, but ultimately it is Congress, and particularly the House of Representatives, which actually appropriates and authorizes expenditures. Check U.S. Constitution Article 7.1. This was done deliberately by the Founders so that the people whose money was being spent by Congress could hold that Congress responsible for its fiscal behavior every two years. A very wise arrangement. Ultimately it is the House of Representatives who is responsible for Federal spending.

If there is a variable, it is not the Presidency. It is revenues as a function of general economic health & performance vs. Federal expenditures. I have no patience with any member of Congress of either party who spends irresponsibly, but it is just plain ignorant to try to claim that the Democrats have a better track record than the Republicans in this area. The OMB stats do not establish that Republican presidents spent like drunken sailors. PRESIDENTS DO NOT SPEND. CONGRESS SPENDS. And the numbers don't lie: for 36 of 40 years in power, DEMOCRATS produced deficits.

[Sanslines]

Both parties stink royally! Anyone need look no further then the do nothing Congress which is represented by both Repubs and Dems.

[jon71]

In fact when Clinton was president we balanced the budget and actually REDUCED the deficit. This is something that Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 never got close too. In fact the deficit has never increased faster than under Bush 2. Additionally look at Reagan. For the six years Republicans had the senate and basically the house (with southern conservative Dems joining them) spending was plenty bad but less than Reagan asked for. The last two years with Democrats in charge of the senate and a bigger majority in the house they approved FAR less spending than Reagan asked for. Tackiling the deficit and and restrained spending are EXCLUSIVELY Democratic priorities. If you want restraint you vote Democratic. If you prefer the drunken sailor approach vote Republican, just don't be surprised when your taxes go up to cover all the g.o.p.s i.o.u.s.

[Naturist Mark]

And the numbers don't lie: for 36 of 40 years in power, DEMOCRATS produced deficits.

And in the last 5.5 years, the Republican Congress has outspent every Congress since the beginning of the nation combined. So what is your point?

-Mark

[TimO\'C]

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And the numbers don't lie: for 36 of 40 years in power, DEMOCRATS produced deficits.

And in the last 5.5 years, the Republican Congress has outspent every Congress since the beginning of the nation combined. So what is your point?

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mark, I agree with you that the current Republican Congress has been stunningly irresponsible with the Federal budget, and as I have already said, I'm as angry about that as I have been about anything for a long time. I'm not defending them one bit. My point is simply that history shows that when the Democrats have been in power, they have been just as irresponsible, so Jon71 is in total fantasyland if he thinks the Democrats will be any more fiscally responsible if they regain Congressional control.

[Naturist Mark]

when the Democrats have been in power, they have been just as irresponsible

My point is that Democrats have not been nearly as irresponsible.

Just think about that - there are people who are actually less responsible than the Democrats - and those are the people in charge! Mind bloggling but true.

-Mark

[TimO\'C]

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
My point is that Democrats have not been nearly as irresponsible.
-Mark

When you can show me 36 years of Republican-generated deficits AND efforts to fight off Democratic efforts to balance the budget, then I will agree with you.

[Naturist Mark]

Originally posted by TimO'C:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
My point is that Democrats have not been nearly as irresponsible.
-Mark

When you can show me 36 years of Republican-generated deficits AND efforts to fight off Democratic efforts to balance the budget, then I will agree with you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can show you 5.5 years of it. And I can show you that the scale of deficit spending under Democrats never ever reached the magnitude of the present crowd of irresponsible Republicans.

-Mark

[TimO\'C]

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
I can show you 5.5 years of it. And I can show you that the scale of deficit spending under Democrats never ever reached the magnitude of the present crowd of irresponsible Republicans.

-Mark

Then you've got 29 years to go. Quite honestly, I'm stunned at the hypocrisy of any Democrat who suddenly discovers the religion of fiscal restraint after their own party ran deficits of any size for 36 years. Since when was a balanced budget important to Democrats, historically speaking? It NEVER was. They consistently fought Republican efforts to balance the budget, and there are indications that the balanced budget achieved on Mr. Clinton's watch was, as I previously alluded to, a function of greatly increased tax receipts as a result of good economic times, NOT because Congress or the President were able to restrain themselves. It is incredible that Democrats are now squawking about deficits when they were the ones who for decades produced them.

I make no excuses for the current Republican Congress' irresponsibility. But for Democrats to now suddenly get religion on this is just too transparent. The only possible conclusion is that deficits are OK when you're the party in power, and they're not when you're not.

[hm0504]

Originally posted by TimO'C:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
I can show you 5.5 years of it. And I can show you that the scale of deficit spending under Democrats never ever reached the magnitude of the present crowd of irresponsible Republicans.

-Mark

Then you've got 29 years to go. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think what Tim O'C is saying is that the Democrats are bad but the Republicans are much, much worse. If the Republicans were to act for 29 more years like they have in the past five years, I doubt if there would be much of a Republic left to talk about.

[Naturist Mark]

Since when was a balanced budget important to Democrats, historically speaking? It NEVER was. They consistently fought Republican efforts to balance the budget, and there are indications that the balanced budget achieved on Mr. Clinton's watch was, as I previously alluded to, a function of greatly increased tax receipts as a result of good economic times, NOT because Congress or the President were able to restrain themselves.

For the past 5 years Republicans have had absolute power in Washington and the majority of Statehouses, so why haven't they even introduced a Balanced Budget Amendment - much less passed it? Because it is a bad idea - to be reasonable it would have to have so many loopholes and exceptions as to be a useless exercise.

But I do have my own proposal - For every year that the Federal government runs a deficit, there must be in the following year an indexed tax surcharge up to 10%, AND, the salaries of all elected officials and political appointees must be reduced by the same amount.

The taxpayers and the politicians - and their staffs - will take their lumps in times of emergency - such as a defensive war or a Katrina type disaster - Americans are patriotic people willing to sacrifice for good reason, but they sure won't allow it to happen often.

Clinton's surpluses were the result of his economic stimulus package that he passed in his first year (during the recession that started under GHWB), passed without a single Republican vote, that rescinded a portion of the Reagan tax cuts for the very rich and cut taxes for the poor and middle class so that they could stimulate the economy by buying goods rather than securities. It worked, it could work again. Instead the robber barons in charge are doing just the opposite and 95% of Americans are worse off than they were 6 years ago.

-Mark

[TimO\'C]

But I do have my own proposal - For every year that the Federal government runs a deficit, there must be in the following year an indexed tax surcharge up to 10%, AND, the salaries of all elected officials and political appointees must be reduced by the same amount.

The taxpayers and the politicians - and their staffs - will take their lumps in times of emergency - such as a defensive war or a Katrina type disaster - Americans are patriotic people willing to sacrifice for good reason, but they sure won't allow it to happen often.
-Mark

An interesting idea! Very intriguing. Obviously we need to thinkg of doing something differently. I have two ideas which I think would fundamentally simplify and clean up much of the mess--and for that reason I know these would never happen. But they are: 1) stop withholding. It is a total scam and has created all kinds of distorted financial attitudes & opinions amongst American taxpayers. Make everybody write out a check once a year. 2) change election day to the day after tax payments are due. See how many incumbents keep their jobs and how much more Congressional attention is paid to real fiscal discipline.

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by TimO'C:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But I do have my own proposal - For every year that the Federal government runs a deficit, there must be in the following year an indexed tax surcharge up to 10%, AND, the salaries of all elected officials and political appointees must be reduced by the same amount.

The taxpayers and the politicians - and their staffs - will take their lumps in times of emergency - such as a defensive war or a Katrina type disaster - Americans are patriotic people willing to sacrifice for good reason, but they sure won't allow it to happen often.
-Mark

An interesting idea! Very intriguing. Obviously we need to thinkg of doing something differently. I have two ideas which I think would fundamentally simplify and clean up much of the mess--and for that reason I know these would never happen. But they are: 1) stop withholding. It is a total scam and has created all kinds of distorted financial attitudes & opinions amongst American taxpayers. Make everybody write out a check once a year. 2) change election day to the day after tax payments are due. See how many incumbents keep their jobs and how much more Congressional attention is paid to real fiscal discipline. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hm
Hm
Hm Hm Hm
Why is it that so many who label themselves Conservatives consider taxes, and taxation, to be the single most important topic? There are so many more important issues including education, health care, renewable energy sources, and of course defense. But, it's taxes that get's the R/C's writing the most letters to the editiors' in the newspapers. There is a term for those who want everybody else to pay their fair share except themselves - selfish.

Earlier in this discussion Tim disparaged perhaps the single most important safety net to the middle class and poor - Social Security. Yes, that program that is resposible for allowing seniors and the disabled to live with a minumum income and a degree of dignity. Yes, the program that was, and would be well funded, except that the likes of Bush raided the coffers. Is it not intellectually dishonest for Bush to say that he has seen the IOU's in the Social Security lock box when it was him that signed the IOU's?

Now, who might be in favor of cutting this insurance policy called Social Security in favor of "individual investment accounts"? No doubt those in the financial community and those that feed at the trough of Wall Street since they would get the spoils.

Now, if we look at Tim's profile it states that his occupation is "financial services" - no wonder he is against Social Security; it is against his business interests.

[TimO\'C]

I see someone's going for a new record of how many straw men can be packed into one post and then knocked down.


Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):
Why is it that so many who label themselves Conservatives consider taxes, and taxation, to be the single most important topic? There are so many more important issues including education, health care, renewable energy sources, and of course defense.

Mistaken assumption Number One: I think money is more important than anything else. Wrong.


But, it's taxes that get's the R/C's writing the most letters to the editiors' in the newspapers.

Well, it's close to the top of the list, yes, because taxes are, at bottom, me and everyone else being forced to hand over the fruits of our own individual hard work to someone else for them to spend the way they want. If it were not the government doing this, there would be a name for that: robbery. I AM NOT SAYING TAXES ARE ROBBERY. But the effect is the same. When someone forcibly takes from you something you worked hard for, why wouldn't you want to minimize the occurrence as much as possible, and why wouldn't you protest if the rate of occurrence threatens to rise?


There is a term for those who want everybody else to pay their fair share except themselves - selfish.

Typical Left-wing trick. Start with the personal attacks when someone doesn't seem want to meekly hand over to the government as much as the government wants to take. May I remind you that the Founders went to war over this very principle. That's how you got the freedoms you enjoy, buddy. And who gets to decide what my "fair share" is? You?


Earlier in this discussion Tim disparaged perhaps the single most important safety net to the middle class and poor - Social Security. Yes, that program that is resposible for allowing seniors and the disabled to live with a minumum income and a degree of dignity.

Spare me the pious high-flown rhetoric. It is immaterial to the fact that as currently administered, Social Security is in all essential respects no different than a Ponzi scheme. What gives you the right to say I'm selfish because I don't like being forced to hand over a significant chunk of money I worked hard for in order to pay for the retirement of someone I've never met and who I otherwise have absolutely no obligations to?


Yes, the program that was, and would be well funded, except that the likes of Bush raided the coffers. Is it not intellectually dishonest for Bush to say that he has seen the IOU's in the Social Security lock box when it was him that signed the IOU's?

Such incredible ignorance about how government works. CONGRESS SPENDS, NOT THE PRESIDENT. If you want to blame someone for raiding "the lock box," blame Congress. Republicans and Democrats alike. It has been going on for decades under both Republican and Democratic administrations.


Now, who might be in favor of cutting this insurance policy called Social Security in favor of "individual investment accounts"? No doubt those in the financial community and those that feed at the trough of Wall Street since they would get the spoils. Now, if we look at Tim's profile it states that his occupation is "financial services" - no wonder he is against Social Security; it is against his business interests.

LOL. Straw man #3. Do you believe everybody puts the absolute truth in their profile? BIG boo-boo here, pal. Another personal attack based on a false assumption. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Look, the original goals of SS may have been laudable. I'll grant you that. But the program has been so distorted and expanded and twisted from its original premises, and the demographic assumptions that underlay it have changed so drastically, that it is now an unsustainable Ponzi scheme that simply can't go on the way it has been. That's just a fundamental fiscal fact. Both parties are going to have to acquire some cojones and do something about it. I don't "hate" Social Security's premise. I hate what both parties have done to the program over the decades and what it's become. And the burden that it threatens to place on my children.

[nacktman]

Guys don't let the troll stir the debate it's only here to confuse, and cause as much rancor as it can in the hopes of getting the thread closed because it is not favorable to the starboard ala.

Besides it is never correct on anything it posts.
Only accusing others of it's very methods and inabilities.

[TimO\'C]

Originally posted by nacktman:
Guys don't let the troll stir the debate it's only here to confuse, and cause as much rancor as it can in the hopes of getting the thread closed because it is not favorable to the starboard ala.

Besides it is never correct on anything it posts.
Only accusing others of it's very methods and inabilities.

ROTFL. Ridiculus Est Ira Scymnus! Thanks Nacktman for confirming that this thread, like so many others, is merely a closed circle of mutual back-patting for the anointed and enlightened. Dissent, debate, freedom of thought rigorously excluded. It's not like most of us didn't already recognize that. But thanks for letting us know we were right. LOL.

[nacktman]

'nuff said.

[nacktman]

Ditto.

[nacktman]

Ditto ... Again!

[jon71]

The truth remains that Democrats have always spent less than republicans. This is not new. Granted Bush 2 is the worst ever but it's no accident that the only balanced budget in decades came from Clinton. In a recent speech in Chicago Senator Clinto proposed a very liberal idea, that congress pay as we go. At this point we can't say that controlling the deficit and spending are even conservative ideas, they are a part of the liberal canon. There might be a token number of conservatives who still believe in responsibility but they're hard to find. On most issues (health care, education, defense) you see Democrats approaching things responsibly and Republicans looking for sound bites to use in their next campaign so that being the case with the deficit is no surprise. There are a few exceptions of responsible Reps and irresponsible Dems but it's rare. I do want to point out one thing to Tim O'C. prior to Bush the worst six years spending and deficit wise were Jan '81 to Jan '87 when the g.o.p. had the Senate and practically had the house. Time to face the ugly truth.

[usmc1]

The Republican train wreck is coming and a man named Fitzgerald has his hand on the throttle of one of the engines that is about to jump the track.

We're not far away from the day that the questions is asked in Congress; "We just want to know what the president knew and when he knew it1"

Meanwhile it's neat watching the 29%ers bleat and whimper and rake through old shibboleths, canards and outright lies to try to shift the focus.

A few less bombers and stars wars nonsense and Social Security is fixed. A few fewer tax breaks for ultra-rich, stateless oligarchs and Social Security is fixed.

Tim, Lamont and et ux, you guys are still swallowing camels and gagging on gnats.

[nacktman]

Do you relize that the republicans have started every war that the US has started, with the lone expection of the Mexican War in the 1840's. Ok the Whigs started the early 1800's indian wars, but the whigs broke up and later reformed as republicans. The Revolution was not started by the United States but by Americans which at the time were not the same and the British invaded in 1812.

The war between the United States and the Confederate States right out the gate as the new party in the 1860's.
The war with Spain at the turn of the last century.
The war with Iraq 1990's.
The war with Iraq today.
(this is not counting all the indian wars of the 1860's through 1900)

What's more, republican policies had forced the US into every other war we have fought since 1860 with the exception of Korea in the 1950's which was a UN obligation

WWI and WWII were fought under democratic leadership after the polices of republicans left no option, and we won.

Vietnam was a quagmire that republians put us into which under democratic leadership we were winning, but when the republicans took over it went to hell in a handbasket. (I was there during the switch and saw it up close and personal)

Every time the country gets a through hosing with the republicans (The REAL tax and spend party. They have just been able to blow enough smoke until now to lull people into believing otherwise) and the 1% make more money for it and the top 5% make more and pay less and then have the unmittigated gall to whine about paying too much taxes.

Now let's review:

War with Mexico ... Democratic lead ... won
War between States ... republican lead ... undecided
War with Spain ... republican lead ... won
WWI ... Democratic lead ... won
WWII ... Democratic lead ... won
Korea ... UN lead ... undecided
Vietnam ... Democratic lead ... winning ... republican lead ... lost
Iraq I ... republican lead ... undecided
Iraq II ... republican lead ... loosing

That's the Democrats 3.5 - 0 - 0
republicans 1 - 2.5 - 2

And republicans claim to be the ones who fight our wars and win them?!

Now think about it ... of this impressive list of failures, the shrub is the ultimate failure.

[Naturist Mark]

And all you folks comparing deficits need to consider the time value of money. While it's dramatic to say this one outspends that one, the dollars are worth less today than before.

Every economist knows enough to make deficit comparisons in constant (inflation adjusted) dollars. But even that is understating the real size of current deficits - since these debts are being passed on to future generations, perhaps we should be valuing them by future cost. Deficits are funded by Treasury bills. Perhaps we should be counting their maturity value as the real deficit.

-Mark

[Naturist Mark]

Last night's address from President Al Gore. (http://movies.crooksandliars.com/SNL-Al-Gore-5-14-06.wmv) (wmv)

Thanks C&L (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/05/14.html#a8280)

-Mark

[Naturist Mark]

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:0wLxEl7BALl9eM:www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2006/04/17/apocalypto_narrowweb__300x459,0.jpg See what happens when I go through the Sunday morning news? Post Post Post.

Actor turned Director Mel Gibson says "The fear-mongering we depict in the film reminds me of President Bush and his guys". Referring to his new film Apocalypto, about the decline and fall of the Mayan Empire. Gibson reveals he used present day American politics as an inspiration, claiming the government callously plays on the nation's insecurities to maintain power. Yahoo News. (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/12052006/364/gibson-inspired-fear-mongering-bush.html)

Because Gibson is a conservative Christian, who's film "The Passion of the Christ" was so enthusiastically embraced by the religious right, it has been assumed by many that he is a RRR Bush supporter - not realizing that he has had a long friendship with Michael Moore - and was an early financial backer of the film Fahrenheit 9/11.

Gibson's Icon Productions is also producing a miniseries for USA Network called Peace Out (http://www.zap2it.com/tv/news/zap-usanetworkiraqseries,0,7624397.story?coll=zap-news-headlines) described as a M*A*S*H like drama/dark comedy set in the period just following the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.

-Mark

[jon71]

That's what people get for assuming. I'm a Christian and as liberal as people come, there are a lot of us.

[usmc1]

Many of us have strong spiritual lives but are not right-wing religious fanatics. In fact, it seems to me, that those who have such idealogical "my way is the God-revealed and only true way" religious basis are way less spiritual than they are materialistic and political with their fingers crossed for some sort of afterlife which would merely be a continuation of this life.

I've a hunch they're in for a shock over yonder.

[usmc1]

Hey Lamont & Tim & et us of that ilk. Here's another little factoid to burst your bubbles.

CNN Poll, Americans yearn for Clinton, majority believe he did a better job!

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/12/bush.clinton.poll/index.html

[gormenghast20]

What Republican policy led to either or the World Wars? The economic blockade of an aggressor raping/pillaging it's way across Asia (Japan)?

I doubt that either U.S. Grant or W.T. Sherman would agree with the Civil War being classified as a draw...especially after both stomped Confederate butt (forgive me, Robert E. Lee -- I am a native Virginian, after all) all over the South in the end. Besides, how can a side that formally surrenders be considered a victor?

But, I did run across the following lists -- and since you seem know a lot about military history I'd like your (or anyone's, really) opinion of both.

Top 10 Confederate Generals (in order):

Nathan B. Forrest
Robert E. Lee
Patrick R. Cleburne
Thomas J. Jackson
James Longstreet
A.P. Hill
J.E.B. Stuart
John B. Hood (1862-1863)
D.H. Hill
William J. Hardee

Top 10 Union Generals (in order):

Ulysses S. Grant
Benjamin H. Grierson
George H. Thomas
William T. Sherman
Winfield S. Hancock
John A. Logan
Quincy Gillmore
Andrew A. Humphreys
James B. McPherson
John M. Schofield

Anyways, I thought this book on the Civil War was interesting...it has many lists made up by military historians and many interesting fact -- such as the only man to have ever been both a general and an admiral in American history, and other stuff like that.

[usmc1]

I think yaw'l ole boys is over lookin' Ginrals Meade and fighting Phil Sheridan. Sheridan's Shenandoah campaign pretty much took away the South's Victory Garden. And Meade did send Bobby Lee a scramblin' back home to Va'ginny.

Some fault Meade for not pressing Lee following Gettysburg, byt yaw'l know whut? Ah'm a thinkin' that after that battle, everyone was pretty much tuckered and to leave the defensive positions that won the day might not have been the best thing to do.

Ole Bobby Lee might just have turned on him and sent him a skedaddling all the way back to D.C., especially onect he got across the river.

Just like right chere yaw'l, they's a bunch of second guessing that goes on, but, Meade whipped ole Bobby Lee fair and square, and Phil Sheridan would fight your *** anywhere, anytime and most likely win, even if he needed to gnaw your ears offen you or gouge your eyes out.

You-uns need to go ahead and put them two ole boys on your list.

And FYI, Arlington is hallowed ground. But, the Estate, which Lee managed actually, if I recall correctly, came by way of his wife's Custis line, by descent from Martha Washington.

Lee's daddy was the notorious rake-hell and Revolutionary War hero, Lighthorse Harry Lee who died a disgraced debtor down in Jamaica Mon, or some other Carribean island.

Robert E. Lee, had abandonment issues and was somewhat fixated on his momma--and, never indicated any real skill at anything other than Generaling.

After the war he was given a sinecure at what is now, I believe, William and Mary University, and died way too soon.

Those who really know and study the man will probably assert that he was much less a Confederate than he was a Virginian. That's a distinction taht might be too fine for yaw'l ole boys, but, I think had Virginia stayed in the Union, General Lee would have worn blue rather than butternut.

[gormenghast20]

Hey Mike,

Reading from the book: "Brig. Gen. Samuel Powhatan Carter was a lieutenant in the Navy on the outbreak of the war, when he volunteered for the army: continuing in the Navy after the war, he retired as a rear admiral, thus becoming the only man in American History to have been both a general and an admiral."

There are numerous incidents of both Union and Confederate naval officers joining the army...but none achieved such high rank in both branches of service.

There were also a large number of foreign born generals...and some distinguished foreign officers who did not become Union generals:

George Ernest Boulanger, who later muffed the chance to become military dictator of France...and...Giuseppi Garibaldi, hero of the Uruguayan and Italian Revolutions, who was offered a corps in 1862, but declined since Lincoln was not at the time willing to declare immediate emancipation....kinda nice to see someone put a bigger ideal ahead of themselves.

I was looking to see whether or not W.T. Sherman was listed in among the Top 10 List of the Best Commanded Battles of the war, but he wasn't...guess his ranking is based on his overall success rate, regardless of the strength of his opponent...I know he did face some very capable Confederate generals.


Originally posted by LamontCranston:
Now we're talking something that can hold my interest through a pitcher of ale...

>the only man to have ever been both a general and an admiral in American history

John Paul Jones?

I can't be sure of the reference, but I believe General Lee was quoted as saying J.E.B. Stuart's death was his biggest blow. Stuart was a master with cavalry. Based on that he could be ranked higher.

Not sure about William T. Sherman. His march through the South was against a much weakened foe and didn't require changing tactics during battle or winning against superior numbers. I'd have to review accounts of his earlier exploits to put him in the top 10.

And I'm quite glad to see George McClellan missing from the Union list. Lincoln was frustrated with him.

Anyway, thanks for the lists. Waaaaaay better than the same ole same ole Bush bashing.

[gormenghast20]

Yes, I was born in Alexandria. I've been to Fredericksburg many times...have wanted to visit Cold Harbor, but haven't made it as yet. I've only been to Arlington a few times -- to clean the gravestone of my uncle who was killed during World War II.


Originally posted by LamontCranston:
gormenghast20, you're a native Virginian?

I visited a Confederate Cemetery in Fredricksburg, VA duing a soft January snow. There's a giant oak tree in the back that might be as old as the tombstones.

Standing there made me wonder why they do it. *They* being soldiers everywhere and everywhen.

I had the same feeling at Arlington Cemetery. There's a spot where you turn in every direction and see nothing but unbroken lines of polished white granite out to the horizon.

Did you know Arlington Cemetery was Robert E. Lee's home? The Union seized it for unpaid taxes in a ploy to lure Lee back for capture. Didn't work. The Army Department used it as a hospital and buried the war dead on the grounds.

They still do.

[gormenghast20]

A person earning a lot of money -- who gets even the smallest sized tax break -- is going to save more money than the average wage earner getting a much larger tax break. Every time the Republican have put forth a proposed tax cut the Democrats argue about how much more money the larger wage earner will save...no kidding, they're getting a tax break also -- after all, this isn't an entitlement program. Class warfare shouldn't be used to cheat everyone out of a tax break.

Face it: bring up almost any tax reduction plan and the Democrats have been opposed to it. If you are the average middle-classer in America, you're paying close to 50% (of your income) in taxes...which is a huge obstacle if your aim is to actually accumulate wealth...this means that taxes are the single biggest issue affecting middle class families on a daily basis. And taxes don't just include income tax...taxes on alcohol and cigarettes, utility taxes, automobile registration fees, county surtaxes, etc.... Democrats are not for the middle class...they support anyone and any agenda in order to get money in their coffers and votes at the polling station...which is why the Democrats are pro-choice (going for the votes of women), pro-affirmitive action (going for the minority vote), don't support school vouchers (going for the union vote), don't support drilling for oil in the Anwar (going for the environmentalist vote), etc...Now, I'm not necessarily for, or against, any of these positions...but it's pretty transparent when a party will tailor its platform based on who will give it money.

Regarding privatizing Social Security...as I understand it, and I'm no genius, isn't this program supposed to be voluntary? In reality, Social Security is nothing more than a bond fund. I know that if someone had've invested their $300 a month in a mutual fund they'd have a hell of a lot more money than had they put that into Social Security...there has been roughly a 10% return during the S & P 500's lifetime. That $300 investment over 40 years, with compound interest, would equate roughly to $2,000,000 in the end...and this is a conservative (heh, heh) number. Meaning one could withdraw as much as 10% a year (or almost $200,000) and never exhaust one's money...in other words, that's about $20,000 a month. You're telling me that the $1,800 you get from your Social Security is better than this!!! The best way to gain wealth is long-term systematic investing. Why shouldn't the person who actually has to work for a living (sorry rich people!) and makes a modest wage have access to a plan like this? They most likely don't have enough surplus money -- as things stand now -- to take advantage of this system and also contribute to Social Security...for God's sake, let them invest in a program like this if they want to.


Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TimO'C:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But I do have my own proposal - For every year that the Federal government runs a deficit, there must be in the following year an indexed tax surcharge up to 10%, AND, the salaries of all elected officials and political appointees must be reduced by the same amount.

The taxpayers and the politicians - and their staffs - will take their lumps in times of emergency - such as a defensive war or a Katrina type disaster - Americans are patriotic people willing to sacrifice for good reason, but they sure won't allow it to happen often.
-Mark

An interesting idea! Very intriguing. Obviously we need to thinkg of doing something differently. I have two ideas which I think would fundamentally simplify and clean up much of the mess--and for that reason I know these would never happen. But they are: 1) stop withholding. It is a total scam and has created all kinds of distorted financial attitudes & opinions amongst American taxpayers. Make everybody write out a check once a year. 2) change election day to the day after tax payments are due. See how many incumbents keep their jobs and how much more Congressional attention is paid to real fiscal discipline. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hm
Hm
Hm Hm Hm
Why is it that so many who label themselves Conservatives consider taxes, and taxation, to be the single most important topic? There are so many more important issues including education, health care, renewable energy sources, and of course defense. But, it's taxes that get's the R/C's writing the most letters to the editiors' in the newspapers. There is a term for those who want everybody else to pay their fair share except themselves - selfish.

Earlier in this discussion Tim disparaged perhaps the single most important safety net to the middle class and poor - Social Security. Yes, that program that is resposible for allowing seniors and the disabled to live with a minumum income and a degree of dignity. Yes, the program that was, and would be well funded, except that the likes of Bush raided the coffers. Is it not intellectually dishonest for Bush to say that he has seen the IOU's in the Social Security lock box when it was him that signed the IOU's?

Now, who might be in favor of cutting this insurance policy called Social Security in favor of "individual investment accounts"? No doubt those in the financial community and those that feed at the trough of Wall Street since they would get the spoils.

Now, if we look at Tim's profile it states that his occupation is "financial services" - no wonder he is against Social Security; it is against his business interests. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

[gormenghast20]

Actually USMC1 it was Washington and Lee University that Robert E. Lee went on to become president of (and his son after him)...although the university was named Washington College at that time. Nevertheless, it's one of the oldest colleges in the United States...along with William and Mary. Robert E. Lee is buried in the Lee chapel and his mount, Traveler, is also buried on the grounds of the university.
Regarding Meade and Sheridan, I'm just going by the lists in the book...they neither made the best 10 Union generals, nor the worst 10 Union generals.

Yes, the house at Arlington was R.E. Lee's wife's property...FYI: if you want to take an extremely boring house tour go through Woodlawn. The tour of the house at Mount Vernon is too short for anyone to get bored. It's more interesting, in my opinion, to tour the grounds...Washington's crypt, etc...

[gormenghast20]

Actually, I think Gettysburg was more bad generalship on Lee's part rather than good generalship on Meade's part.

I think Sheridan had a lot to do with Lee's eventual defeat...his was the first campaign of total destruction, providing an example in the Shenandoah for Sherman to follow in his march to the sea.

p.s. I think what Mike was writing about was your use of a supposed Southern drawl in your post...it don't matter none to me, I speak like that anyways -- so I don't take no offense.


Originally posted by usmc1:
I think yaw'l ole boys is over lookin' Ginrals Meade and fighting Phil Sheridan. Sheridan's Shenandoah campaign pretty much took away the South's Victory Garden. And Meade did send Bobby Lee a scramblin' back home to Va'ginny.

Some fault Meade for not pressing Lee following Gettysburg, byt yaw'l know whut? Ah'm a thinkin' that after that battle, everyone was pretty much tuckered and to leave the defensive positions that won the day might not have been the best thing to do.

Ole Bobby Lee might just have turned on him and sent him a skedaddling all the way back to D.C., especially onect he got across the river.

Just like right chere yaw'l, they's a bunch of second guessing that goes on, but, Meade whipped ole Bobby Lee fair and square, and Phil Sheridan would fight your *** anywhere, anytime and most likely win, even if he needed to gnaw your ears offen you or gouge your eyes out.

You-uns need to go ahead and put them two ole boys on your list.

And FYI, Arlington is hallowed ground. But, the Estate, which Lee managed actually, if I recall correctly, came by way of his wife's Custis line, by descent from Martha Washington.

Lee's daddy was the notorious rake-hell and Revolutionary War hero, Lighthorse Harry Lee who died a disgraced debtor down in Jamaica Mon, or some other Carribean island.

Robert E. Lee, had abandonment issues and was somewhat fixated on his momma--and, never indicated any real skill at anything other than Generaling.

After the war he was given a sinecure at what is now, I believe, William and Mary University, and died way too soon.

Those who really know and study the man will probably assert that he was much less a Confederate than he was a Virginian. That's a distinction taht might be too fine for yaw'l ole boys, but, I think had Virginia stayed in the Union, General Lee would have worn blue rather than butternut.

[Naturist Mark]

Every time the Republican have put forth a proposed tax cut the Democrats argue about how much more money the larger wage earner will save...no kidding, they're getting a tax break also -- after all, this isn't an entitlement program. Class warfare shouldn't be used to cheat everyone out of a tax break.
Ever notice that everytime a Democrat criticizes Republican class warfare, that Democrat is accused of class warfare?

Regarding privatizing Social Security...as I understand it, and I'm no genius, isn't this program supposed to be voluntary?
Wrong

I know that if someone had've invested their $300 a month in a mutual fund they'd have a hell of a lot more money than had they put that into Social Security.
Social Security is not a bond fund, it is not a retirement account, it is not a prepaid annuity. It is an insurance program with a retirement benefit. Far from being in a funding crisis, it is the most financially sound government program in existence. Less than 1% of funds are used for administrative costs, a level of efficiency Wall Street can't approach. You would have to pay far more than your personal and employers payroll taxes to buy equivalent private insurance and retirement benefits. But if you don't believe me, go to Chile and opt for their privatized system - Bush's blueprint for 'reforming' our system - unfortunately the Chilean system is in full collapse.

-Mark

[nacktman]

Thanks for the links Mark and usmc1.

It's reaffirming to know I have been right about how America felt about Clinton and the shrub.

And Al Gore was hilarious and right on the money.

[TimO\'C]

Originally posted by usmc1:
You have much by which to be embarrassed, none of which has any connection to anything I've posted. But, please tell me, which of my posts have offended you so. I'd like to repeat it.

Lamont Cranston, you must remember that USMC1 is actually a very modest person. That's because he has much to be modest about.

[nacktman]

So funny!

Imagine a troll attempting to admonish someone!

That's just too much!

[nacktman]

The dominoes are falling and they can't get up no matter how hard the starboard ala wants it to be.

That burning smell and heat you are experiencing is from the friction burns from the uncontrollable free fall the starboard ala are in.
All the phoney outershells they have used to fool people have burnt off so far and we can see their true "naked" forms and they ain't pretty.

America has awoken and she is removing the refuse from the front porch and floors and putting it in the dump where it belongs!

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by gormenghast20:

.

Regarding privatizing Social Security...as I understand it, and I'm no genius, isn't this program supposed to be voluntary? In reality, Social Security is nothing more than a bond fund. I know that if someone had've invested their $300 a month in a mutual fund they'd have a hell of a lot more money than had they put that into Social Security...there has been roughly a 10% return during the S & P 500's lifetime. That $300 investment over 40 years, with compound interest, would equate roughly to $2,000,000 in the end...and this is a conservative (heh, heh) number. Meaning one could withdraw as much as 10% a year (or almost $200,000) and never exhaust one's money...in other words, that's about $20,000 a month. You're telling me that the $1,800 you get from your Social Security is better than this!!! The best way to gain wealth is long-term systematic investing. Why shouldn't the person who actually has to work for a living (sorry rich people!) and makes a modest wage have access to a plan like this? They most likely don't have enough surplus money -- as things stand now -- to take advantage of this system and also contribute to Social Security...for God's sake, let them invest in a program like this if they want to.


Not only are you not a genius, you are not working with correct information. FYI Social Security is an INSURANCE POLICY. Voluntary? Where did you get that? The entire genius of Social Security is that with the entire country paying premiums the entire population would have coverage.

Under the current Social Security system if a person gets ill, or a parent dies during the begining of their working life they and their minor children would receive a minimum income so that they are not 100% impoverished. If this was an investment plan, as you seem to think, if a person became unable to work during the begining of their career, or if a parent died and left minor children they would get $0! Investment accounts would have NO MONEY early on.

Not only is Social Security an insurance policy and not an investvent vehicle - it has the lowest possible administration cost. The numbers that you use are pie-in-the-sky since you didn't factor in the great expenses that investment companies would assess.

Sorry, you have no clue as to what you are talking about with regard to Social Security!

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by TimO'C:
I see someone's going for a new record of how many straw men can be packed into one post and then knocked down.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):
Why is it that so many who label themselves Conservatives consider taxes, and taxation, to be the single most important topic? There are so many more important issues including education, health care, renewable energy sources, and of course defense...


Well, it's close to the top of the list, yes, because taxes are, at bottom, me and everyone else being forced to hand over the fruits of our own individual hard work to someone else for them to spend the way they want. If it were not the government doing this, there would be a name for that: robbery. I AM NOT SAYING TAXES ARE ROBBERY. But the effect is the same. When someone forcibly takes from you something you worked hard for, why wouldn't you want to minimize the occurrence as much as possible, and why wouldn't you protest if the rate of occurrence threatens to rise? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What a shock. Money is more important to you then anything else.

Since you mouth-off about the taxes here, have you looked at the taxation rates of other western societies? If you compare our tax rate(s) to those in the UK and Western Europe our is actually quite low. So, by what measure are your saying that our tax rate(s) are too high?

Fine, it has been established that you want to reduce your taxes. Would you please cross off the following benefits that you get from the gov't that you no longer wish to enjoy?
-Clean Air enforcement
-Clean Water enforcement
-Meat standards
-roads
-parks
-the benefits of medical research
-national defense
-police
-education
ad infinitem ad nausium.

Tim, you want the benefits that our society without the cost of our society. That is unreasonable, short-sighted, selfish, and cheap!

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by TimO'C:

Look, the original goals of SS may have been laudable. I'll grant you that. But the program has been so distorted and expanded and twisted from its original premises, and the demographic assumptions that underlay it have changed so drastically, that it is now an unsustainable Ponzi scheme that simply can't go on the way it has been. That's just a fundamental fiscal fact. Both parties are going to have to acquire some cojones and do something about it. I don't "hate" Social Security's premise. I hate what both parties have done to the program over the decades and what it's become. And the burden that it threatens to place on my children.

Ignorance on the hoof.

You know damn well that (1) Wall Street could never administer a program the size of Social Security for less money then SSA has. So, stop the bull. (2) When it comes to spreading the manure you certainly are in it up to your eyes when you state that Social Security will be the financial burdon for your children and grandchildren. You know that Bush's folly in Iraq a/k/a CRUSADES II is being paid for with a credit card that future generations will be forced to pay.

Oh, and from reading your posts, and understanding your positions and priorities in life - you are a wonderful member of the community. You have absolutely no concept of community or social responsibility; after all it could cost you a dollar.

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by TimO'C:


LOL. Straw man #3. Do you believe everybody puts the absolute truth in their profile? BIG boo-boo here, pal. Another personal attack based on a false assumption. Sorry to burst your bubble.[/QUOTE]

Let's see, this is an anonymous forum. Nobody would be able to know your identity. Yet, you decided to post false information into your profile. That sir is both dishonest and trolling. Since I have no interest in interacting with a troll, enjoy continuing to expose yourself for what you are. I will no longer be replying to your posts on this thread that illustrate how you think that you are better then the rest of society, how you wish to take the fruits of what our nation has to offer without paying your fair share. I will no longer reply to your total lack of understanding about Social Security. I will no longer reply to your not understanding the single largest financial threat to your childrens' future - the war. You sir, are what you are; and this is punishment enough for you.

[usmc1]

Originally posted by gormenghast20:
Actually USMC1 it was Washington and Lee University that Robert E. Lee went on to become president of (and his son after him)...although the university was named Washington College at that time. Nevertheless, it's one of the oldest colleges in the United States...along with William and Mary. Robert E. Lee is buried in the Lee chapel and his mount, Traveler, is also buried on the grounds of the university.
Regarding Meade and Sheridan, I'm just going by the lists in the book...they neither made the best 10 Union generals, nor the worst 10 Union generals.

Yes, the house at Arlington was R.E. Lee's wife's property...FYI: if you want to take an extremely boring house tour go through Woodlawn. The tour of the house at Mount Vernon is too short for anyone to get bored. It's more interesting, in my opinion, to tour the grounds...Washington's crypt, etc...

Thanks for the correction, I knew I was sort of soft on what was coming to mind about the college's name. I don't recall the name of the book, but there is out there an outstanding biography of his few living years after Appomatox.

Richard Adams, of Watership Down fame, wrote a nifty book about Lee from Traveler's point of view. Traveler enjoys as much fame as does Lee, it seems. Of course, he did have others, And one of those injured him severely at some point during the war causing some historians to debate that injury's effect on a subsequent engagement.

My own point of view of Gettysburg is that Meade had very strong and capable Generals who he listened to and managed to position and reinforce them so to win the battle.

Lee, for whatever reason, just did not take the advice of his, particularly Longstreet who tried to tell him he was fixing to cut a fat hog in the ***.

Like lots of Americans, I had ancestors on both sides of that war, one great-grandpap rode with Confederate calvalry unit, one went in as private and came out a First Sergeant of a Michigan unit, and another fought with an Illinois infantry outfit and mustered out in San Antonio.

Benbrook Texas and Piggott Arkansas are named after ancestors of mine, which pretty much ascertain my Southern roots. And since my Michigan and Illinois forebears were mostly abolishist damn-yankees and my Georgia, (Slaten) ancestors were Methodist abolishionists I feel I get to criticize either side equally with all blinders off.

As to your pal Lamont, well anyone who would get their knickers knotted up over my writing in the vernacular of the common soldier on both sides, of that era, well, I just say; "Pshaw, yaw'l!. Pshaw"

[usmc1]

Originally posted by TimO'C:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usmc1:
You have much by which to be embarrassed, none of which has any connection to anything I've posted. But, please tell me, which of my posts have offended you so. I'd like to repeat it.

Lamont Cranston, you must remember that USMC1 is actually a very modest person. That's because he has much to be modest about. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. You have flattered me so. Was this your first attempt at sincerity?

[TimO\'C]

Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):Let's see, this is an anonymous forum. Nobody would be able to know your identity. Yet, you decided to post false information into your profile. That sir is both dishonest and trolling. Since I have no interest in interacting with a troll, enjoy continuing to expose yourself for what you are. I will no longer be replying to your posts on this thread that illustrate how you think that you are better then the rest of society, how you wish to take the fruits of what our nation has to offer without paying your fair share. I will no longer reply to your total lack of understanding about Social Security. I will no longer reply to your not understanding the single largest financial threat to your childrens' future - the war. You sir, are what you are; and this is punishment enough for you.

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/applause.gif ROTFLOL. Thank you Christopher for brightening the start of my day. You have made so many false assumptions and slung so many non sequiturs that it's clear you have not a single accurate clue about what I am, what I do, or what I believe. That's fine. And I will agree with you on one thing, it is probably not fruitful for you to continue to reply to any post of mine. You have demonstrated that you're so far from reality in so many ways that it would be a waste of time. As for the jaw-dropping arrogance, the personal attacks and name-calling which seem to be a standard attribute of anyone on the Left when they encounter disagreement that doesn't meekly roll over and say "please kick me again," I can only think of what my brother in law said. When you get kicked by a [donkey], just consider the source. See ya!

[nacktman]

And still it tries to admonish! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/rolleyes2.gif
Will the hilarity ever stop?!?! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/bonk.gif
Can't take laughing so hard all the time ... my sides are hurting as it is now! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/eusa_dance.gif

[usmc1]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TimO'C:
QUOTE] "...the personal attacks and name-calling which seem to be a standard attribute of anyone on the Left when they encounter disagreement that doesn't meekly roll over and say "please kick me again," [QUOTE]


quote:
Originally posted by LamontCranston:
usmc1 -- "your post strikes me as the most insensitive and offensive and ignorant and childish and just plain stupid of any post I think I've ever read in any forum.

You, sir, are a cad..."

Hey Lamont, I think Tim just called you a lefty!

Dang it all, yaw'l. You'uns make it so easy to expose yaw'l to the the ridicule you deserve.

What a hoot!

[TimO\'C]

Originally posted by usmc1:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TimO'C:
QUOTE] "...the personal attacks and name-calling which seem to be a standard attribute of anyone on the Left when they encounter disagreement that doesn't meekly roll over and say "please kick me again," [QUOTE]


quote:
Originally posted by LamontCranston:
usmc1 -- "your post strikes me as the most insensitive and offensive and ignorant and childish and just plain stupid of any post I think I've ever read in any forum.

You, sir, are a cad..."

Hey Lamont, I think Tim just called you a lefty!

Dang it all, yaw'l. You'uns make it so easy to expose yaw'l to the the ridicule you deserve.

What a hoot!

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/laugh.gif Your thread references are as convoluted as your "reasoning," pal. I think if you re-trace the steps you'll find that your conclusions here are as off base as your pretended political wisdom. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/laugh.gif

[nacktman]

Make it stop, for the love of Pete, make it stop!

My poor sides!

How much jocularity can one be expected to take?

[nacktman]

the shrub always tells the truth!?!

[TimO\'C]

Originally posted by nacktman:
And still it tries to admonish! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/rolleyes2.gif
Will the hilarity ever stop?!?! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/bonk.gif
Can't take laughing so hard all the time ... my sides are hurting as it is now! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/eusa_dance.gif

ROTFL! Fine with me, Nacktman! As long as you keep giggling hysterically while monopolizing half the threads on CFF, you'll be too busy to actually step away from your desk and do anything damaging in the real world!

Ridiculus est ira scymnus!

[nacktman]

We're driving the shrub insane ... granted it was a short drive. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/laugh.gif

[missouriboy]

"I make no excuses for the current Republican Congress' irresponsibility. But for Democrats to now suddenly get religion on this is just too transparent. The only possible conclusion is that deficits are OK when you're the party in power, and they're not when you're not."

Bingo! But this is only recognized when you can get above the partisan fray and realize that it's government that wastes our money, and that means BOTH parties.

As opined two years ago by the non-Democrat, non-Republican Editor of LIBERTY Magazine:

Deficits, good and bad -- I grew up during a time when Democrats ran the government and Republicans were constantly railing against the Democrats' huge budget deficits. As the deficits skyrocket under George W. Bush and the first GOP-controlled Congress in more than a half century, it is interesting to see the left-wing Democrats wailing about Bush's awful budget deficits.

There's no mystery to this: the party in power wants big deficits because increased spending gets them more votes and raising taxes gets them fewer votes. So the party in power has an agenda of more spending and lower taxes.

The only time the budget is balanced is when there is an economic boom that increases income -- and therefore income taxes -- so fast that the politicians can't figure out how to spend the money fast enough.

-- R. W. Bradford

[nacktman]

Let's call'em as they truely are:

TAX AND SPEND CONSERVATIVES

Economic downturns always accompany conservative/republican control of government and therefore huge deficits due to the lack of tax income so they raise taxes on the people least able to afford new tax burdens and give themselves less.

They have been able to fool people into believing their tripe that they are the finanical and fiscal responsible ones, but no longer ... Dumbya has opened America's eyes to the truth.

At least the idiot was good for something after all.

[TimO\'C]

Originally posted by nacktman:
Oh, Thimothy,

Si vos ire utor Latin, utique tendo quod adepto is vox, bardus.

If you have trouble understanding, do you own research (oh, wait, you don't do your own research, now do you, sorry my bad) to find out what it means.

Just a typical shrubette ... not comprehending when they're getting their arses booted.

Cute, Nacktman! Another mistaken assumption, though, that I wouldn't understand what you said, bardus magnus. Lingua factiosi, inertes opera! Hominem ego iracundiorem quam te novi neminem. You are proof, pal, that one can acquire many years of life and knowledge but no wisdom.