Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditIs it possible the White House doesn't want Republicans to win the congressional elections? I know this sounds crazy. But consider the evidence.
1. Last week, George W. Bush vowed to retain Donald Rumsfeld as secretary of defense until the end of his presidency. (He said the same about Dick Cheney.) The debacle in Iraq is responsible for Bush's political decline and the GOP's poor electoral prospects. And Rumsfeld is the poster boy for that debacle. (Days ago, the Army Times called for his resignation.) Bush had no obligation to say whether Rumsfeld would remain at the Pentagon for another two years. He went out of his way in the homestretch of an election to tether himself to the fellow who symbolizes the mess in Iraq. Why do that--unless he has a political death wish?
2. On Friday, Dick Cheney said that the administration would indeed stay with its current course in Iraq and move "full speed ahead." He said, "We've got the basic strategy right." He added, "It may not be popular with the public--it doesn't matter in the sense that we have to continue the mission and do what we think is right. And that's exactly what we're doing. We're not running for office. We're doing what we think is right." Perhaps. But the previous week, his boss held a press conference and tried to convey the impression (though false) that the administration was going to rejigger its Iraq policy by introducing and aiming for "benchmarks." Bush's benchmark comments were not sufficient to win the confidence of the electorate. Days later, a New York Times/CBS News poll noted that only 29 percent of Americans approve of how Bush is handling the war in Iraq. So if 71 percent do not have faith in the White House's Iraq policy, why would Cheney make a point of declaring--defiantly--that he and Bush are committed to racing down that unpopular road? It was as if he were shooting the bird at the American public.
3. Speaking of which, on the weekend before the election, Cheney's office had an announcement: Cheney would spend Election Day on his first hunting trip since he shot a friend while trying to kill quail on a private ranch last February. Was this the right time for the White House to remind voters of Cheney's hapless moment? Couldn't Cheney wait until after the election before picking up a gun again? Why won't he be in a toss-up state stumping for a Republican candidate on Election Day? Or knocking on doors? And why does he get the day off? Election Day is not a federal holiday.
All of the above is quite puzzling behavior for a president and vice president facing the possibility their agenda, their war, and their party are about to be soundly refuted by American voters. Do they already know all is lost? On Sunday, I spoke with a former senior Bush administration official who has publicly predicted the Republicans will retain a one- or two-seat majority in the House and keep control of the Senate. But his manner indicated he didn't believe it. "This is what I have to say," he told me. "This is my public position." I asked what his private view was. He rolled his eyes.
Of course, the Republican Party is doing all its can to beat back what appears to be an anti-GOP wave--and that includes airing far-below-the-belt negative ads. Bush and Cheney have been campaigning in conservative areas--in spots where they won't do harm to Republicans. (On Monday, the Republican gubernatorial candidate in Florida elected not to campaign with Bush in the Sunshine State.) And GOPers are talking up the vaunted get-out-the-vote machine created by Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman that is now in motion. So it is bizarre that in the closing days of this critical election Bush and Cheney would so dramatically remind voters of what they don't like about the Bush-Cheney administration. If these episodes are not indicators of a secret desire to lose, they are additional signs that Bush and Cheney are woefully out of sync with the public. This prompts a question: if the electorate does rise up against Bush, his party and their war, will Bush and Cheney be able to process that? If not, the republic may be in for a rather bumpy ride.
******
DON"T FORGET ABOUT HUBRIS: THE INSIDE STORY OF SPIN, SCANDAL, AND THE SELLING OF THE IRAQ WAR, the best-selling book by David Corn and Michael Isikoff. Click here for information on the book. The New York Times calls Hubris "the most comprehensive account of the White House's political machinations" and "fascinating reading." The Washington Post says, "There have been many books about the Iraq war....This one, however, pulls together with unusually shocking clarity the multiple failures of process and statecraft." Tom Brokaw notes Hubris "is a bold and provocative book that will quickly become an explosive part of the national debate on how we got involved in Iraq." Hendrik Hertzberg, senior editor of The New Yorker notes, "The selling of Bush's Iraq debacle is one of the most important--and appalling--stories of the last half-century, and Michael Isikoff and David Corn have reported the hell out of it." For highlights from Hubris, click here.
Share this article
David Corn
Washington--a city of denials, spin, and political calculations. They may speak English there, but most citizens still need an interpreter to understand its ways and meanings. DAVID CORN, the Washington editor of The Nation magazine, has spent years analyzing the policies and pursuing the lies that spew out of the nation's capital. He is a novelist, biographer, and television and radio commentator who is able to both decipher and scrutinize Washington.
In his dispatches, he takes on the day-by-day political and policy battles under way in the Capitol, the White House, the think tanks, and the television studios. With an informed, unconventional perspective, he holds the politicians, policymakers and pundits accountable and reports the important facts and views that go uncovered elsewhere.
Check out David Corn's latest book, (co-written with Michael Isikoff and now available in paperback), Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War (Crown Publishers). For information, visit his personal blog at davidcorn.com.
Photo Credit: Michael Lorenzini
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Is it possible the White House doesn't want Republicans to win the congressional elections on Tuesday?
Yes. If the other party has some power, they can shoulder some of the blame when things continue to go poorly (as they will). Also, a Democratic Congress now may increase the likelihood of a GOP president two years from now.
Posted by BlueSpark at 11/06/2006 @ 11:56am
It is always prudent to look over prospective events with a long view to potential ramifications. In this connection, if the Republicans can concede power not only to Democrats but also to a female president before the whole shithouse goes up in flames then the ensuing misery can be pinned on effeminate leadership and the burgeoning threat to masculine power can thus be put down for a good long time.
Posted by John_A at 11/06/2006 @ 11:59am
Posted by JOHN_A 11/06/2006 @ 11:59am
That is exactly the Michigan Republican Party platfrom!!
Posted by crabwalk at 11/06/2006 @ 12:04pm
Crazy...but possible.
BLUESPARK called it. Think of it, Iraq "Baker Plan" enacted, and Iraq goes to hell as we pull-out. Dems rested the entire 2006 Election on pushing a pull-out plan so they LEAP to take credit for Bush being "forced" into doing it.
Then 2008 rolls around, Iraq makes Rwanda in the 90s look like Switzerland, and the GOP blames the Dems for "losing the war".
Impossible? "They can't do that, Iraq was Bush's mess".....maybe.
I'd agree with you but the problem is...nobody thought you could take a decorated VN Navy war hero and turn him into a "coward who faked his wounds for Purple Hearts" either...did they?
Plus throw in the "Pelosi Promise" not to impeach. Bush and Cheney safe, but "Speaker Nancy" in a pickle. She pisses off the Liberal Base who want Dubya and Dick in the dock and "justice"....or she backtracks and does it (and guarenteed to fail in the Senate trial), and loses moderates and independents who don't want to be put through it...again.
Posted by Mask at 11/06/2006 @ 12:08pm
Two possible alternatives, with the second one the most likely. (1) The fix is in with voter supression and Diebold hacking, so Pres. Bush and V.P. Cheney know in advance that the Rs will win, so why bother caring about the results, since the voters will not impact the results? (2) Bush and Cheney are completely divorced from reality, as Mr. Nichols implies.
Posted by trabaris at 11/06/2006 @ 12:12pm
I would add one additional thought -- and this is, I think, a statement of the obvious -- Bush & Cheney do not want to lose an R majority in either the House or Senate, BLUESPARK and MASK's contentions notwithstanding. The last thing they want to do is to allow the Ds to investigate them.
Posted by trabaris at 11/06/2006 @ 12:15pm
Posted by TRABARIS 11/06/2006 @ 12:12am
2.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/06/2006 @ 12:15pm
Ignore my 3rd e mail, and also substitute "Corn" for "Nichols". I need to wake-up!
Posted by trabaris at 11/06/2006 @ 12:17pm
Do Bush and Cheney Want To Lose?
Well I don't know...they did manage to convince Cheney to delay his hunting trip until the day of the actual election...just in case he manages to SHOOT A GUY IN THE FACE...again.
Posted by Lillian at 11/06/2006 @ 12:31pm
Posted by TRABARIS 11/06/2006 @ 12:15am
Why not?...again, Pelosi has promised no impeachment. And if the Dems get bogged down in ENDLESS investigations, the Right paints them as merely "out to get the President and Vice-President...not help the American people".
Bush becomes a martyr and can legitimately refuse to WORK WITH the Dem Congress on any issue and not be tarred as "the bad guy" on refusing to help pass some health care or education bill...because he's "under assault" from that same Congress.
Conyers becomes the "face" of the Dems in Congress, as does Alcee Hastings (an impeached judge)...and unlike Sam Ervin who never faced a Limbaugh/Hannity/Fox News counter-assault...they'd be raked over the coals and investigated themselves.
Posted by Mask at 11/06/2006 @ 12:33pm
NONSENSE,
...no one who has attained power will give it up unless there is no choice...if the dems win and they end Iraq in a worse situation than it is in now, then they will be "hung" with the lost Iraq like ol' Jimmy did with Iran..
Posted by john maasch at 11/06/2006 @ 12:43pm
WHY NOT PELOSI, CONYERS, OR RANGEL,?
SEE BELOW, I RECEIVED THIS TODAY..
: Tax tax tax and more tax
What Happened?
At first I thought this was funny...then I realized the awful truth of it.
Be sure to read all the way to the end!
Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table. At which he's fed.
Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes. Are the rule.
Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.
Tax his ties,
Tax his shirt,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.
Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he tries to think.
Tax his cigars,
Tax his beers,
If he cries, then
Tax his tears.
Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his ass
Tax all he has
Then let him know
That you won't be done
Till he has no dough.
When he screams and hollers,
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till
He's good and sore.
Then tax his coffin,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in which he's laid.
Put these words upon his tomb,
"Taxes drove me to my doom..."
When he's gone,
Do not relax,
Its time to apply
The inheritance tax.
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax,
Fuel permit tax
Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon)
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Interest expense
Inventory tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service charge taxes
Social Security Tax
Road usage taxes
Sales Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone federal excise tax
Telephone federal universal service fee tax
Telephone federal, state and local surcharge taxes
Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax
Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax
Telephone state and local tax
Telephone usage charge tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
COMMENTS: Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the
most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest
middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
What happened?
And I still have to "press 1" for English I hope this goes around world 10 times
Posted by john maasch at 11/06/2006 @ 12:58pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 11/06/2006 @ 12:58am
Stand by for the inevitable "We are WOEFULLY UNDER-taxed in this country...look at (insert Northern European country of choice here)"
or the more popular "Look at the top marginals under Eisenhower" (and the equally inevitable IGNORING of JFK's call for tax cuts).
Few these days old enough to remember the "Good Ol' Days" of the 70s, before Howard Jarvis taught us it was actually OKAY to fight against higher and higher taxes.
Fortunately, the MOST any sane Dem will call for now is a repeal of the Bush cuts....1993 tax hike killed them and they won't repeat that mistake again.
Posted by Mask at 11/06/2006 @ 1:05pm
JMaasch posted: "COMMENTS: Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids."
More yearning for the "good old days" when women didn't work. The French hated women when feminists started to actually gain leverage and women started to leave the home to earn a living. There are certainly many men in this country, in the past and currently, who would love nothing more than to go back to the days when women didn't work. JMaasch is simply one in those ranks. Also, it's easy to be "prosperous and have no national debt" (and I'm not even sure that's correct, but I'll grant you that presumption for purporses of this post) when the poor people who do all the labor are granted very little rights. Oh yeah, and when the other large group of people, slaves, were emancipated just 30-40 years previous. If I had a country where nearly all of the difficult, "blue-collar" (as we'd call it today) work is done by slaves who have no rights, and poor people who have virtually no rights --- then sure, the economy can be prosperous for those higher than the lowest caste of society.
JMaasch posted: "And I still have to "press 1" for English I hope this goes around world 10 times"
Just more blatant racism. This is clearly a slam at Spanish-speakers.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/06/2006 @ 1:09pm
JMaasch - we also didn't have the infrastructure in the early 20th century that we have today.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/06/2006 @ 1:22pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 11/06/2006 @ 12:58am
I would have thought whining about taxes beneath you.
Believe it or not, I really don't mind paying my fair share of tax. It's part of the responsibilities of citizenship, right up there with voting and jury duty.
What I do mind is being handed a five pound sack stuffed with ten pounds of shit, which is exactly what I feel that we have been handed by the repug congress and our feckless leader.
In return for my hard-earned cash, they have squandered our nation's position as first among equals, have gutted our treasury, have poisoned the very air that we breathe, wiped their collective backsides with the Constitution and sent thousands of sacred souls to their deaths for no verifiable reason whatsoever.
Throw the bums out, I say.
(Which works, because right now there are more of their bums than there are of our bums)
Posted by skeletonman at 11/06/2006 @ 1:26pm
"We are WOEFULLY UNDER-taxed in this country...look at (insert Northern European country of choice here)"
"Look at the top marginals under Eisenhower"
"Good Ol' Days"
Posted by MASK 11/06/2006 @ 1:05pm | ignore this person
With so many imaginary voices talking in your head Mask, it must be really tough to get a thought in edgewise!!
Or do they occasionally let you speak too?
Posted by Lillian at 11/06/2006 @ 1:29pm
Posted by LILLIAN 11/06/2006 @ 1:29pm
Only when he presses "1" for English!
Posted by leftofcenter at 11/06/2006 @ 1:33pm
One of those voices is yours Lillian. It is inevitable that you will post a retort to Mask, usually off-topic in some way, rather than a substantive attack or counter-point.
Why not attack the substance of his posts?
Posted by urmygyro at 11/06/2006 @ 1:34pm
Why not attack the substance of his posts?
Posted by URMYGYRO 11/06/2006 @ 1:34pm
She can't.
1. She might agree with me (on the libertarian issues) (That's usually when she DOESN'T reply to me though...hehe).
2. I might refute what she believes with a fact or two, that even fellow libs would have to acknowledge. (totally embaressing).
3. Those "voices", i.e. predictions of the inevitable responses from the knee-jerk Left who have become SO predictable?....are probably what SHE would have said!
Posted by Mask at 11/06/2006 @ 1:43pm
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 11/06/2006 @ 1:33pm
I realize in your world "They're ALL the same"....but I believe it was JOHN MAASCH who put in the comment about "Press 1 for English", wasn't it?
Posted by Mask at 11/06/2006 @ 1:45pm
I say it's a tossup between " The fix is in with voter supression and Diebold hacking, so Pres. Bush and V.P. Cheney know in advance that the Rs will win, so why bother caring about the results, since the voters will not impact the results?" and that the two are arrogant and delusional. Correct me if I'm wrong, but not even bush sr. has campaigned for the gop to any extent.
Posted by dnluce at 11/06/2006 @ 1:45pm
Marybretbrad- you're spot on when you say that we need a strong government to protect property rights, otherwise the accumulation of wealth would simply be a dream. And I do believe treating workers fairly only helps protect the wealth of those at the top of the economic spectrum.
As far as working mothers - not all mothers have the flexible schedule of a nurse, or even the convenient schedule of a teacher. It's fine that your prideful that your wife has a job which allows her to have a flexible schedule - but there are plenty of mothers who don't have that flexible schedule and they aren't working simply to buy stuff for themselves - they need to work to support themselves and their children (and that's not just single mothers either).
And there's nothing wrong, indeed it's fantastic - that women want to work powerful jobs, like business owners or corporate big-wigs, or doctors or lawyers, etc.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/06/2006 @ 1:45pm
Also, the incidence of working mothers is more a reflection of rampant consumerism than of onerous taxes. I'm proud to the point of boastfulness that my wife, a registered nurse, has been able to stay home with our children and help out at their schools.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 11/06/2006 @ 1:35pm
Wow, what a paternalistic, misogynistic view.
Do you allow that women have brains of their own and can think for themselves?
Does it occur to you that many women may have aspirations beyond carrying our seed to fruition and then raising our brats ... I mean progeny?
Exactly what time is it where you live, dude? I mean the century, not the hour and minutes?
I'm proud to the point of boastfulness that my wife is (at least) my intellectual equal and is gifted at what she does (not to mention putting up with my BS).
Posted by skeletonman at 11/06/2006 @ 1:49pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 11/06/2006 @ 1:44pm
Those that support high taxes primarily to "cull the rich" are followers of the neo-Marxist view. And it's sadly quite prevalent, but fortunately powerless.
Your average Democrat should, even classic liberals did, support progressive taxes for the purposes of budgetary responsibility. Many post-modern "liberals" though, see it as a way to impose a "hyper-egalitarian" society in which there are NO "super-rich", even at the expense of entrepeneurship or a "brain drain".
They LOATHE guys like Bill Gates (though he deserves loathing for "Windows") merely for the AMOUNT of money he has "when so many are poor". Taxing Gates at 99%, even if it didn't help in any budgetary sense, is about "going after the Plutocrats" and other hippie/college coffee shop rhetoric.
Fortunately, I suppose, most Democratic politicians are also quite wealthy...and not financially suicidal. They'll push for repealing Bush's cuts, maybe a SMALL hike...but nothing suicidal that will cost them an election...and NEVER anything that approaches the ridiculous tax "ideas" of their Hard Left base.
Posted by Mask at 11/06/2006 @ 1:51pm
Desperate Republicans unite! Excuses, everybody, excuses! Why has Clinton allowed the war to come to this?
Posted by rmjlattanzi at 11/06/2006 @ 1:54pm
Skeletonman - Marybretbrad (which I assume is that poster's three children? or his, his wife's and his only child's name? - am I right Marybretbrad?) and LoveLiberty and others sincerely wish wives would stay home and care for kids while they go work. This return to "old-fashioned" values is code for anti-women's liberation and women's economic power.
There's a reason they are obsessed with founder's intent when it comes to anything constitutional - because there's at the very least an unconscious or sub-conscious desire to live in a time where men had virutally all the power.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/06/2006 @ 1:54pm
No, I think digby (below) is right, but it's more than just lying us into another reality-- it's fearing us into disbelieving our abilities to function without their reality, to a point, it really doesn't matter what we think or do as they tell us what's ultimately around the corner even if we know they're lying...
First borns, even with the motor skills can't move until the hard-wired concepts of foreshortening, overlapping and linear perspective kick in. What the hsuB admin and GOP have done, literally, is make the kid doubt in his own ability to navigate without their ok or direction. Yes, their consistently conflicting and mangled rhetoric have created the frustrated and angry borgeople that are way more advanced than the passive sheeple. Borgeople can attack and kill on command.
Thus the hsuB admin can be their idiotic selfs without a worry in the world because of their control of the BORGEOPLE!!!!
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Perverting Reality
by digby
I have long written that the right has retired the concept of hypocrisy. But until I read this piece by David Frum over at alicublog I didn't realize that they had actually formulated a moral philosophy to justify it. It is truly astonishing:
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
It is innate common sense to hold those who fail to practice what they preach to their own standards --- otherwise there are no such thing as standards in the first place and there is no moral value in honesty. Dear God, is he 12?
I had heard Kate O'Beirne make Frum's argument on Friday on Chris Matthews' show and just thought she was blubbering incoherently because she didn't know how to spin it. Apparently Frum's piece had just been injected into the Borg and hadn't been fully assimilated.
But this isn't really all that unusual. For instance, it also fits with their earlier admonition that parents should lie to their teen-agers about having taken drugs when they were younger. The right wingers say it's better to lie than admit that you have regrets (or don't.) They are enshrining dishonesty and hypocrisy as a moral imperative.
Frum and his fellow neo-cons and faith-based robots have spent the last few years mangling the discourse with so much hypocrisy, so many outright lies and twisted moral reasoning that they may have permanently built an alternate universe that they can turn to whenever the need arises. Witness two events that happened just last week.
First you had the John Kerry flap. After the first news cycle everyone knew he'd blown a punchline. There were even plenty of conservatives who admitted it. But that didn't matter. What mattered was forcing him to apologize for something he never said. It was a pure act of force, as if they put their foot on his neck and demanded that he agree that "up is down and black is white" --- a modern show trial in which Kerry agreed to confess in order to spare his party's chances in the upcoming election. He instinctively resisted, as sane people always do when forced to deny reality. But the sheer power of the coordinated Republican outcry (with the willing help of cynical Dems and the media) finally made it imperative for him to issue an apology for something he never said.
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_11_01_digbysblog_ archive.html#116278777424008117
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/06/2006 @ 1:55pm
Just more blatant racism. This is clearly a slam at Spanish-speakers.
That wasn't a racist slam URMY. JM, (like myself) grow up in a time when you were able to speak to a live person from the phone company or any other company. There was no automation of that kind. We also talked to each other face-to-face and wrote letters to our loved ones. You were probably too little to remember such things.
I miss those times when things were a bit slower.
Posted by ACook at 11/06/2006 @ 1:58pm
I sure wish my husband was more receptive to me staying home. Hell, I'm tired of working as hard as he does. I was meant to put my feet up on the sofa in the mornings and spend his money in the afternoons while he's out working through the evening. ;-)
Posted by ACook at 11/06/2006 @ 2:09pm
There's a reason they are obsessed with founder's intent when it comes to anything constitutional - because there's at the very least an unconscious or sub-conscious desire to live in a time where men had virutally all the power.
Posted by URMYGYRO 11/06/2006 @ 1:54pm
Which dovetails with why evangelical protestantism in general and groups like Promisekeepers in particular suck in people like our beloved fellow posters.
BTW - my Uncle was a professor of physics at UConn for many years. I'm a UMass, Amherst grad myself, though.
Posted by skeletonman at 11/06/2006 @ 2:11pm
Why not attack the substance of his posts?
Posted by URMYGYRO 11/06/2006 @ 1:34pm | ignore this person
Actually Urmy, on the rare occasions when his posts contain substance, I'm happy to do that. It's just that, like the 1:05pm post, he's become so lazy that he relies on the "Stand by for the inevitable..." Maskian future based, not on what anybody, anywhere, has actually said, but on those 'liberal voices' in his head.
Posted by Lillian at 11/06/2006 @ 2:25pm
Wow, you must love Europe. And Cuba must be a taxpayer's paradise for you.
We all look forward to seeing your posts once you have relocated in one of those tax paying paradises.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/06/2006 @ 1:55pm
Wrong again, luvvy. I am an American, through and through. Shit, my ancestors were giving small pox infested blankets to Native Americans long before there was a United States (and they were the 3rd or 4th generation on these shores). So don't try to paint me as something I am not.
I made my original statement knowing that someone would take it out of context and bash me for it.
I also made that statement knowing full well that my federal tax bill alone is more than the average household income in my state (this is a statement of fact, and not intended to be a boast. And yes, I recognize how fortunate I am AND just how much hard work of my own went into getting to this point).
The point is not really about how much tax we pay (or try to avoid, in many cases), it is about whether one conceives her/himself to be well served by those taxes.
At this point, I cannot think of a single new initiative by this administration or this congress that qualifies, but I could be in error in that statement. I'll have to think about it some.
Posted by skeletonman at 11/06/2006 @ 2:25pm
Your average Democrat...They LOATHE guys like Bill Gates (though he deserves loathing for "Windows") merely for the AMOUNT of money he has "when so many are poor". Taxing Gates at 99%, even if it didn't help in any budgetary sense, is about "going after the Plutocrats" and other hippie/college coffee shop rhetoric.
Posted by MASK 11/06/2006 @ 1:51pm | ignore this person
I seem to recall a rather memorable photograph from a few months ago of Bill Gates Jr. standing behind Bill Sr., beaming with pride, as, in respinse to tax cut proposals, the elder Mr. Gates explained that, in the Gates family, they considered paying thier fair share of taxes to be the socially responsible thing to do.
As an avaerage Democrat, I really LIKE Mr. Gates for that!
Posted by Lillian at 11/06/2006 @ 2:32pm
MARYBRETBRAD 11/06/2006 @ 1:35pm
Geez Darin, I hope you're for universal healthcare. I keeled over and cracked my head after reading your post, and I may need long term care if you keep it up. Justifying the role of government, indeed. How dare you violate my prejudical view of you.
I'm gonna file it right up there with when Todd said Cheney was an embarassment.
Posted by MyParadigm at 11/06/2006 @ 2:34pm
Why not attack the substance of his posts?
Posted by URMYGYRO 11/06/2006 @ 1:34pm | ignore this person
And Urmy, I'm not always trying to attack his points (though he's convinced otherwise). In cases like this one, I'm attacking his methods...because making up the 'other guy's' words out of thin air, is a really dishonest debate tactic!
Posted by Lillian at 11/06/2006 @ 2:34pm
Posted by MASK 11/06/2006 @ 1:45pm
Actaully, you aren't "all the same" - a simple mistake. My bad! Actually Mask, we generally, kinda, sorta get along....
My upthread snipe should indeed be directed at JM
Posted by leftofcenter at 11/06/2006 @ 2:39pm
Posted by MASK 11/06/2006 @ 1:45pm
Actually, you aren't "all the same" - a simple mistake. My bad! Actually Mask, we generally, kinda, sorta get along....
My upthread snipe should indeed be directed at JM
Posted by leftofcenter at 11/06/2006 @ 2:39pm
Huh? Double-mint gum commercial blogging engine?
Posted by leftofcenter at 11/06/2006 @ 2:40pm
HEY MASK,
Don't let 'em rattle ya, Mask, your "Insert Northern European Country of Choice Here" was classic.
Had a guy reference how the Europeans do things politically as an excuse for doing the same just last week. I suggested that the French are in their FIFTH republic now, the Italians have had over 300 Gov'ts since 1945, Spain has been in a constant state of turmoil since 1936, and the only reason Germany is Democratic at all is cause we made them that way. So why would anyone with any sense of political systems here want to do things the way they do?
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/06/2006 @ 2:56pm
"Do Bush and Cheney Want to Lose?"
OK, that's pretty tongue-in-cheek, but the strategy is still a head-scratcher.
Plus, today there's an article on HuffPo that says that since Charlie Crist has ducked Bush in Florida, the prez plans to spend the day before the elections with brother Jeb and...
..Katherine Harris!
!!!
Posted by drhammer at 11/06/2006 @ 2:58pm
Perhaps then you could intercede with my wife for me. She complains about working since I do not provide enough income for her to stay at home and live in the manner of her expectations.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/06/2006 @ 1:58pm
LL - your wife's desire to not work and stay at home is not the desire of all women, it's not even the desire of all women. If she doesn't have aspirations to have a career outside of the home, which earns her money, that's just fine. But it's not who all women are.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/06/2006 @ 3:07pm
That wasn't a racist slam URMY. JM, (like myself) grow up in a time when you were able to speak to a live person from the phone company or any other company. There was no automation of that kind. We also talked to each other face-to-face and wrote letters to our loved ones. You were probably too little to remember such things.
I miss those times when things were a bit slower.
Posted by ACOOK 11/06/2006 @ 1:58pm
It was clearly a racist comment, Acook. You can wish for a time when technology wasn't what it is today - and that's a sentiment certainly shared by many on both the political left and right - but that has absolutely nothing to do with the comment posted by JMaasch.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/06/2006 @ 3:10pm
I'm sure there are Christians who do not live in the kind of transparency I just described but I think they are a minority, not a majority.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/06/2006 @ 2:22pm
Pure speculation.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/06/2006 @ 3:12pm
Posted by LILLIAN 11/06/2006 @ 2:25pm
Lillian - he's using the tactic of pre-emption. Trying to weaken the other side's argument by addressing it before they do. He's not "speaking to voices in his head."
Posted by urmygyro at 11/06/2006 @ 3:13pm
At this point, I cannot think of a single new initiative by this administration or this congress that qualifies, but I could be in error in that statement. I'll have to think about it some.
Posted by SKELETONMAN 11/06/2006 @ 2:25pm
I agree.
Conservatives bash public education but then say how great it is that Bush created "No child left behind". Conservatives say if dems get elected they'll just throw more money at homeland security, but they boast about how Bush created that department.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/06/2006 @ 3:16pm
Prospect: So, I understand I wont be sent to Iraq if I join?
Recruiter: Who told you that? Thats a bunch of BS. If you join you will be sent straight to Iraq, and you cant get out.
Prospect: Is it true that I can be in the Army Rap Band instead of going to Iraq?
Recruiter: Army Rap Band? What? Never heard of it.
Prospect: Ok, I tell you what, I`ll call you later.
Sarge: Recruiter, get in here.
Recruiter: Yes, sarge.
Sarge: What are you telling the prospects?
Recruiter: Just the truth, sarge.
Sarge: Dammnit, what did I imply to you about that official policy?
Recruiter: That if I keep it up I`ll be sent back to Iraq, sir.
Sarge: Yes, about 100 times. Look, I tell you what, say whatever you want, tell them the truth, tell them theyre going to be killed or seriously wounded or sent back for another tour until they are. I dont care. BUT, YOU EITHER START SIGNING PEOPLE UP, OR ITS YOU KNOW WHAT. I SURE THE FUCCK AINT GOING BACK TO IRAQ BECAUSE OF YOUR WORTHLESS NON-RECRUITING AZSS.
Posted by LiberalPride at 11/06/2006 @ 3:17pm
COMMENTS: Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the
most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest
middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 11/06/2006 @ 12:58am |
A hundred years ago moms were forced to stay home and feed the kids cereal infested with rat feces and body parts for breakfast ("buyer beware" was the only existing protection for comsumers), prior to the little tykes running off to work 16 hour days in the local sweat shop. Ah, the good ole' days.
Posted by Oustbush at 11/06/2006 @ 3:21pm
why would bush say that he will keep cheney in office until the end of his presidency? we (not me) elected cheney.....bush can't fire him, can he? so why say he's still on board?
it's baffling...
Posted by darladoon at 11/06/2006 @ 3:26pm
Mask - I agree that public policy should be for promoting the accumulation of wealth, because that's what drives business. Massachusetts is a perfect example. Mass courts consistently hold employees to non-compete clauses. Of course, this applies to not giving or selling secrets to competing companies, and not working for competing company X while you work for company Y - but these clauses usually also bar the employee from working for any competing companies in the respective industry for a year after they've stopped working for company X. That's incredibly bad for business on many levels. Productive employees decide they don't want to take the chance of being stuck with company X, and company X can keep pay artificially down by levergaing non-compete clauses against their employees.
The brain drain in Mass has hurt the Mass high tech field, known locally as the "route 128" corridor. Sure, taxes in Mass are high, but the businesses aren't successful without great employees. Many of those employees left to California. The taxes there are high too, but California courts do not enforce non-compete clauses (the not working for a year after employment terminates clauses) against employees. Employees feel free to take jobs and feel more comfortable staying because they have better bargaining power with their employers.
Taxes is not the end-all be-all argument. Mass high-tech industry compared to California high-tech industry is a perfect example of why. And, liberals AND conservatives should like this - increased employee bargaining power, including non-enforcement of non-compete clauses by the courts, is actually good for both the employees and for business!
Wow - a win-win!
Posted by urmygyro at 11/06/2006 @ 3:27pm
Making assumptions again. Many conservatives like myself do not applaud Bush for No Child Left Behind. It is unconstitutional and the Fed has no business in a state and local issue which is where education belongs.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/06/2006 @ 3:25pm | ignore this person
Ah but LVL, tomorrow let's face it, all will be forgiven by you when you put your dirty paw print next to the candidates with R behind their name right?
Posted by freedomplease at 11/06/2006 @ 3:28pm
Of course it is, but it surely is based upon a great sense of the reality based upon living in that world whereas your opinion is based merely upon an outsiders bias and no first hand evidence either way.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/06/2006 @ 3:22pm
Again, pure speculation. You're getting good at this. Or, more likely, you've always been good at this.
;)
Posted by urmygyro at 11/06/2006 @ 3:29pm
Making assumptions again. Many conservatives like myself do not applaud Bush for No Child Left Behind. It is unconstitutional and the Fed has no business in a state and local issue which is where education belongs.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/06/2006 @ 3:25pm
Wrong again. I didn't quantify how many conservatives were making those statements - and I didn't quantify how many conservatives would disagree (to be sure - there are conservatives such as yourself who are against No Child Left Behind (truly fiscally conservative)- but are probably also for a boondoogle such as Homeland Security (not fiscally conservative)
Posted by urmygyro at 11/06/2006 @ 3:31pm
They are sticking to their guns because they are going to steal the elections and then say that the people are behind their policies.
Posted by megr at 11/06/2006 @ 3:34pm
Posted by DARLADOON 11/06/2006 @ 3:26pm
Darla - are you asking a sincere question (which would lead me to a follow-up question - are you that incredibly naive about politics)?
Or are you just asking rhetorical questions?
Posted by urmygyro at 11/06/2006 @ 3:34pm
I agree with TRABARIS but I pick option 1. This makes sense to me since they've rigged the elections before and they don't want to be investigated.
Posted by crutherford at 11/06/2006 @ 3:38pm
Ah but LVL, tomorrow let's face it, all will be forgiven by you when you put your dirty paw print next to the candidates with R behind their name right?
Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 11/06/2006 @ 3:28pm
Of course - LL is proving that being an "informed" voter (as he surely would call himself) doesn't mean those you vote for have to agree with everything you'd want them to do. Indeed, LL made it clear on another post that this election is all about Iraq - because if democrats win who knows when the extremist muslims will attack next?!?! So it's not ok to be a single-issue voter if you vote for a democrat - because that makes you "stupid" and "uninformed". But if you're a single issue voter and you vote for republicans - well, that's just fine and dandy - you're fulfilling you're duty.
And LL - before you blow and gasket and start calling me, what's your favorite buzz-phrase again?...oh yeah - "intellectually dishonest" - I wasn't quoting you directly above, just paraphrasing arguments you've made on these threads. ;)
Posted by urmygyro at 11/06/2006 @ 3:40pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 11/06/2006 @ 3:11pm
So once again, allowing 'the market' to rule is what is being advocated.
Well, Slick, it might surpise you to know that some of the best, most cost effective care is rendered by a government run system (the VA, actually, Dubya's budget cuts not withstanding) and some of the most expensive care is rendered by for-profit institutions (like those owned by Bill Frist and family).
[This is fairly arcane stuff from medical economics literature, but if you want the citations, I'll dig them up for you.]
People who advocate competition as the solution for all our medical system woes would do well to have a better understanding of the complexity of what is being advocated. In the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson, 'be careful of what you wish for, for you will surely get it.'
As an example, take graduate medical education (residency training). Right now, residencies bill Medicare (only, private insurers are off the hook, as is Medicaid, currently) according to a (complicated, idiosyncratic) formula for services provided by doctors in training.
Under a market-based solution, teaching hospitals would go broke very rapidly, because it has clearly been shown (again, arcane medical econ lit) that doctors in training provide care that is more costly and have longer lengths of stay than experienced physicians and surgeons.
The formula employed by Medicare accounts for this; market-driven solutions can be counted on to put the good of the shareholder (or more likely, the CEO) ahead of the public good. Pretty soon, when those of us in practice start croaking off, you're going to have a serious shortage of docs.
The existence of an effective, efficient, self correcting system of medical care is in the public interest; personally, I would put it in the same category as national defense, legal jurisprudence, public education, citizenship and infrastructure. If nothing else, you can't expect a bunch of chubby kids with Type II Diabetes to go off and fight Georgie's war.
In short, it's way to important to leave to hackers by Bill Frist.
Posted by skeletonman at 11/06/2006 @ 3:43pm
Corn the comedian, oops Corn the "author". Does this mean you are about to release a new book about the secret Bush/Cheney plan to lose the election?
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/06/2006 @ 11:49am
Everyone's expectantly waiting to see your book explaining how Jesus Christ wrote the Old Testament. It's humorous seeing you call David Corn a "comedian".
Posted by fromredbird at 11/06/2006 @ 3:46pm
To all,
I added nothing to the email /post I received ..just thought it was interesting.
I don't mind paying taxes and would like to see the system taken off earnings and placed on a consumption system with exemptions..
Anyway, I don't want to go back 100 years....oh, ..my wife has been a homemaker for 17 years and in the last 3 years I put her through school and she has started her own business. We decided that if one does the math in a two working in the home, that the entire salary of the lower earner in the house GOES ENTIRELY TO TAXES, that we could manage without her working and my children would benefit from their mother raising them and not Hillarys village...
And we are right...now my wife can work and I can make obscene profits, travel, avoid taxes and drive the most here nuts by having a prospeous and happy life style.
Posted by john maasch at 11/06/2006 @ 3:46pm
DOESN'T THE LIST OFF TAXES BOTHER ANYONE HERE IN THE EMAIL I RECEIVED?
THIS IS WHY I WANT NO ONE FROM THIS SITE IN CHARGE OF ANYTHING...
Posted by john maasch at 11/06/2006 @ 3:49pm
Ah but LVL, tomorrow let's face it, all will be forgiven by you when you put your dirty paw print next to the candidates with R behind their name right?
Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 11/06/2006 @ 3:28pm
Of course he will. The smell of burning flesh in the morning is far more important to America's stone age religion crowd than a silly little education program.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/06/2006 @ 3:50pm
Skeletonman,
Would you say that the nation's medical health is of similar titanic importantance as habeas corpus?
Posted by freedomplease at 11/06/2006 @ 3:50pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 11/06/2006 @ 3:46pm
I don't think making profits, even "obscene" profits - is a bad thing. If your wife would rather stay home than work, and if you have influence over that decisions - there is also nothing wrong with that. I like that the choice is there if women choose to work, and not just at menial jobs.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/06/2006 @ 3:50pm
Conservatives bash public education but then say how great it is that Bush created "No child left behind". Conservatives say if dems get elected they'll just throw more money at homeland security, but they boast about how Bush created that department.
Posted by URMYGYRO 11/06/2006 @ 3:16pm
Yeah, the Feckless Leader has done a great job with DHS - my city (of 35,000, the 2nd largest city in my state) has not 1, but 2 "Command and Control" vehicles capable of tracking the movement of microbes on a gnat's ass, at over $100k a pop.
Even the firefighters here think it's a joke (and having grown up next to the fire station in my home town, I know how much that culture appreciates bright, shiny things). The only time I've seen in in use was this summer at a local music festival, when the truck was being used to watch Fox News (no shit, it really was. You can't make shit like that up).
Posted by skeletonman at 11/06/2006 @ 3:50pm
Upset about which ones JMaasch?
The taxes on my tears, my thoughts, my ass, my screams, my hollers, or the tobacco or cigars I don't smoke?
Posted by urmygyro at 11/06/2006 @ 3:54pm
I would challenge you to cite any evidence that any more than 5% of children in the US worked as you charge, if they worked at all.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/06/2006 @ 3:46pm
5% is all that's required to enable LVLIBERTY1 to live like Pharoah?
Posted by fromredbird at 11/06/2006 @ 3:55pm
Already voted. I vote absentee ballot each election since I am often out of town. Yes I voted to re-elect Republicans in CA since the Dems here are to the left of Fidel
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/06/2006 @ 3:49pm
Why don't you move to some Deliverance-type locality and feel more at home? Or would that make it too difficult for an indolent to oversee his family inheritance?
Posted by fromredbird at 11/06/2006 @ 3:59pm
JMaasch - you listed a lot of taxes - but everyone doesn't pay all those taxes - many of those taxes were specific to certain businesses. Many of the taxes you listed are also very small. People spend more on their daily coffee and bagel/donut/muffin than they do on some of the taxes you listed.
Simply listing a litany of taxes is suppose to get everyone up in arms?
Posted by urmygyro at 11/06/2006 @ 4:03pm
I'm sure there are Christians who do not live in the kind of transparency I just described but I think they are a minority, not a majority
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/06/2006 @ 2:22pm
L?¬¡,
Read hsuB's lips:
Monday, February 21, 2005 Posted: 10:47 PM EST (0347 GMT) NEW YORK (CNN)
Bush says he "wouldn't answer the marijuana question ... 'cause I don't want some little kid doing what I tried."
"But you gotta understand, I want to be president, I want to lead. I want to set -- Do you want your little kid to say, 'Hey daddy, President Bush tried marijuana, I think I will?' " he said.
In a segment of the tapes played on ABC's "Good Morning America," Bush says the same holds true for questions about cocaine use, which have dogged him since the 2000 election.
"The cocaine thing, let me tell you my strategy on that," Bush said on the tape. "Rather than saying no ... I think it's time for someone to draw the line and look people in the eye and say, you know, 'I'm not going to participate in ugly rumors about me and blame my opponent,' and hold the line. Stand up for a system that will not allow this kind of crap to go on."
Bush also corrected Wead when he said that an evangelical leader had said Bush promised not to hire gay men and lesbians.
"No, what I said was I wouldn't fire gays," (like Mark Foley) he said on the tapes. "I'm not going to discriminate against people."
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Aug. 20, 1999 | "George Bush has given a half a dozen different answers today to this story," Jay Leno said Thursday night. "First, he said that hadn't done drugs in the past 15 years. Then, later, he changed that. He said, no, no, he hadn't done drugs in the past 25 years. Then, really, just like an hour ago, what he really meant to say was, he hadn't done drugs since he was 28. And then, finally, he admitted, he said, 'Look, I'm so high, I don't know what the hell I'm saying.'"
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/06/2006 @ 4:07pm
Posted by LILLIAN 11/06/2006 @ 2:32pm
WOW...an argument, but not antagonism....impressive.
No, LIL, not referencing Brother Bill for himself, just the example of the "uber-rich". Most billionaires don't mind forking over an extra million.
The problem comes with "super rich" starts getting defined DOWNWARD...as a liberal politician sometime what they consider the HIGH end of "middle class" and therefore outside the purvue of "soaking the winners of life's lottery" (to quote Dick Gephart).
Posted by Mask at 11/06/2006 @ 4:13pm
Skeletonman,
Would you say that the nation's medical health is of similar titanic importantance as habeas corpus?
Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 11/06/2006 @ 3:50pm
The assault on habeas corpus by Bushco is one of the gravest things that we have endured as a nation in my life time (JFK was president at the time I was born). We have sat too long as one after another of the basic assumptions about our country that accrue to being an American have been sullied by his handlers and this man. Having a go at this most basic of principles of Anglo-American law may have been the last straw for Bush and those of his ilk, that remains to be seen. Singlehandedly, and with the stroke of a pen, GWB inflicted more damage upon our nation than - arguably - did the entire cold war.
It boggles the mind to think of the unintended consequences of this action. When one man takes it upon himself to declare anyone he so chooses an enemy of the state AND denies that person the right of redress, as a nation we are deep in tiger country.
Where does a functional medical system fit with regard to that picture?
Is basic, affordable preventative and general medical care in the public interest? Without question.
Does it rise to the level of importance of habeas corpus at the present moment? Probably not - to be safe from the prosecutions of an unchecked government would trump virtually any other consideration until rectified.
Posted by skeletonman at 11/06/2006 @ 4:17pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 11/06/2006 @ 12:58am
Ah yes, the dance of the welfare repubs, don't tax me I don't participate in US society, the US society participates around me.
"ME, memememememe. It's all mine and I'm taking it with me. Fuck you all." vioce ala SP/Cartman.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/06/2006 @ 4:19pm
Posted by URMYGYRO 11/06/2006 @ 3:13pm
If they're smart, they don't address it that way to begin with!
Posted by URMYGYRO 11/06/2006 @ 3:27pm
I don't think taxes are an "end all" argument either. But I don't think we get to enjoy innovation and entrepreneurship if they're oppressive or skewed towards some super-egalitarian world-view.
Plus the definitions get toyed around with too much (as noted to LILLIAN)....the line between "super rich" and "middle class" seems to start high (during campaign season) and sink lower and lower when the politicians (usually Dems) get into office.
And I think those advocating higher taxes would have a better argument, if they could demonstrate that they are willing to reform or even decrease programs (not "re-organize" or "root out abuse"), especially when those programs aren't working (but have political factions that want them continued regardless).
Posted by Mask at 11/06/2006 @ 4:19pm
. . . and therefore outside the purvue of "soaking the winners of life's lottery" (to quote Dick Gephart).
Posted by MASK 11/06/2006 @ 4:13pm
Purvue? What's that- Republican-talk?
Posted by fromredbird at 11/06/2006 @ 4:20pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/06/2006 @ 4:07pm
Bushfools - that was a great counter-point to LoveLiberty. The man he's voted for President, twice, tries to conceal his own past instead of reveal it for the good of the young who may benefit from learning a lesson about drug use.
Of course, if he reveals he was a drug user (and has been arrested numerous times) then children may think it's just fine to use drugs and get arrested numerous times as a kid (if "kid" means up to and until you're 40 years old) as long as later you join a religion and ask Jesus for forgiveness.
Of course, it's cynicism at its worse - the "do as I say not as I do" crowd are hypocrites.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/06/2006 @ 4:21pm
The richer one is in the US the more one benefits from being here in the US-- thus the more one should feel obligated to give back. I give to charity and pay loads of taxes, but because of the benefits to me and my family it doesn't bother me if it's I or the gov or both giving back. But then it easier for a camel to fit through an eye of a needle than for repub... Oh you know the rest.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/06/2006 @ 4:25pm
I dunno, David. Maybe they figure they've still got enough "base" voters that if they can motivate every single one of them to the polls they can salvage both houses. But that's just as delusional as everything else they're doing.
Posted by ash at 11/06/2006 @ 4:26pm
Everyone's expectantly waiting to see your book explaining how Jesus Christ wrote the Old Testament. It's humorous seeing you call David Corn a "comedian".
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/06/2006 @ 3:46pm
There is no need for me to do so. But you can read about Jesus as the author beginning with John 1:1,14 and Revelation 19:13, 1 Peter 1:10,11,
a sample of other authors on Jesus and the Bible include
http://www.jesusfactorfiction.com/answer.php?trust_bible
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/06/2006 @ 4:18pm
You're a real jewel. When Will C. brought that up a while back you denied ever saying it. Now you're back to the first version. Just another example of Republicans whose lips are moving.
Have you ever used methamphetamine while paying for sex with a male prostitute? Just checking to see if you practice what you preach.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/06/2006 @ 4:26pm
Mask wrote: "I don't think taxes are an "end all" argument either. But I don't think we get to enjoy innovation and entrepreneurship if they're oppressive or skewed towards some super-egalitarian world-view. Plus the definitions get toyed around with too much (as noted to LILLIAN)....the line between "super rich" and "middle class" seems to start high (during campaign season) and sink lower and lower when the politicians (usually Dems) get into office. And I think those advocating higher taxes would have a better argument, if they could demonstrate that they are willing to reform or even decrease programs (not "re-organize" or "root out abuse"), especially when those programs aren't working (but have political factions that want them continued regardless)."
I don't ask this sarcastically,and this is certainly a generalization - what do you think is the line for companies in which they say "we're outta here" when a munipality/state over-taxes them? What's the tax percentage or $$ they're willing to pay before it becomes "oppresive"?
As far as your second part - which programs (this list obviously doesn't need to be exhaustive, merely illustrative) need to be "reformed" or "decreased"?
Posted by urmygyro at 11/06/2006 @ 4:27pm
Mask wrote: "If they're smart, they don't address it that way to begin with!"
I actually think this undercuts my defense of, and your use of, preempting the arguments of those who will disagree with you - if they would be "smart" to not even make the argument - then you don't get any credit for refuting it ahead of time. You get credit if it's an intelligent argument you're pre-butting (is that a word? if not, I'd like to claim it - lol!) because it shows you had the foresight to see your opponent's counter-attack. But I can't give you credit for seeing in advance what you think are simply sterotypical, trite, counter-arguments.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/06/2006 @ 4:31pm
There is no need for me to do so. But you can read about Jesus as the author beginning with John 1:1,14 and Revelation 19:13, 1 Peter 1:10,11,
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/06/2006 @ 4:18pm
And, your biblical sophistry is an obvious attempt to make Christianity less Christian by pouring the old wine back into the wine skins. One more proof of your preference for stone age tribal gods over the "good news".
Posted by fromredbird at 11/06/2006 @ 4:40pm
Hate to jump in the middle of what is obviously carryover from an ongoing feud, but just wondered what "Mask" and "J Raasch" plan on bitching about when China decides to call the trillions in our bonds they own. I suppose then it will be the Dems' fault for not putting up enough of a fight on Bush's bankrupting tax cuts?
Posted by pcpatterson at 11/06/2006 @ 4:40pm
I suppose then it will be the Dems' fault for not putting up enough of a fight on Bush's bankrupting tax cuts?
Posted by PCPATTERSON 11/06/2006 @ 4:40pm
You mean it isn't?
Posted by skeletonman at 11/06/2006 @ 4:48pm
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/06/2006 @ 4:20pm
You're right, FRB...I mis-spelled "purview"...you automatically win the debate on the issue.
Now...what was the issue again?....Oh, yes.
The fact that even with a Dem Congress you're blatent anti-Israel agenda and hope for its destruction STILL places you WELL outside the mainstream of politics on the Right AND Left and you and a few Buchananites can have your "Tel Aviv Belongs to Hamas" Picnic in a coat closet next year.
Posted by Mask at 11/06/2006 @ 4:48pm
Posted by URMYGYRO 11/06/2006 @ 4:27pm | ignore this person
Obviously such rates would be determinable by the local electorate and with studies of what rates encourage and which discourage investment in the area. Therefore they'd vary from place to place.
Posted by URMYGYRO 11/06/2006 @ 4:31pm
That would be true, if I expected a lot of intelligent responses on the typical political blog.
Usually, the Right and Left are pretty knee-jerk. Religious Righties like LVLIB, RIO, CPT have their talking points and "Those guys are evil" responsess....and guys on the Left have theirs.
The MYTH though...is that somehow liberals/progressives/whatever are more intelligent, reasonable, and honest about their ideology and politics...and it's false. Just as (with certain scandals we've seen lately) that the MYTH of the Right being more "moral" is false too.
Posted by Mask at 11/06/2006 @ 4:53pm
Not to belabor the point or bore anyone with medical economics issues, but rather a question:
How do you think Americans living in rural locales would fare under a market-driven system?
Posted by skeletonman at 11/06/2006 @ 4:53pm
Your rants are amusing considering your are someone who supports jihadists who want to make everyone live under their 7th century worldview.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/06/2006 @ 4:55pm
I would regard this as a fairly wild accusation; your evidence for this statement is?
Posted by skeletonman at 11/06/2006 @ 4:57pm
The fact that even with a Dem Congress you're blatent anti-Israel agenda and hope for its destruction STILL places you WELL outside the mainstream of politics on the Right AND Left and you and a few Buchananites can have your "Tel Aviv Belongs to Hamas" Picnic in a coat closet next year.
Posted by MASK 11/06/2006 @ 4:48pm
You're really good at castigating someone for words and thoughts that YOU created and of which you can't provide any evidence that they said anything even slightly similar.
It's really, really embarassing, too, to be associated by you with the victims of a terror machine which has dozens of UN resolutions against it for violating the Geneva Conventions while you so proudly associate yourself with the perpetrators.
"you're (SIC) blatent anti-Israel agenda"? LOL. How did you ever miss out on a role in Deliverance? Can you play a banjo?
Posted by fromredbird at 11/06/2006 @ 4:59pm
Do you get these distorted views of history from reading too many Dickens novels or is this part of the fiction section of MoveOn.org?
Just to educate you a little, most people didn't eat cereal a 100 years ago. Nor did most children work in sweat shops. I would challenge you to cite any evidence that any more than 5% of children in the US worked as you charge, if they worked at all.
http://www.fitnessandfreebies.com/health/cereal.html
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/06/2006 @ 3:46pm |
Liberty,
I've seen enough of your style of "education" over the years, and I must confess that I prefer to observe the world as it is in objective measurable terms, rather than using the faith-based, dogmatic filtered world-views you hide behind.
This is an excerpt and link to some statistics and photographs posted on the national Archive site. The photos might help, considering your reluctance to believe whether "they worked at all" in factories.
"The number of children under the age of 15 who worked in industrial jobs for wages climbed from 1.5 million in 1890 to 2 million in 1910. Businesses liked to hire children because they worked in unskilled jobs for lower wages than adults, and their small hands made them more adept at handling small parts and tools. Children were seen as part of the family economy. Immigrants and rural migrants often sent their children to work, or worked alongside them. However, child laborers barely experienced their youth. Going to school to prepare for a better future was an opportunity these underage workers rarely enjoyed. As children worked in industrial settings, they began to develop serious health problems. Many child laborers were underweight. Some suffered from stunted growth and curvature of the spine. They developed diseases related to their work environment, such as tuberculosis and bronchitis for those who worked in coal mines or cotton mills. They faced high accident rates due to physical and mental fatigue caused by hard work and long hours."
http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/hine-photos/
Posted by Oustbush at 11/06/2006 @ 5:00pm
And, your biblical sophistry is an obvious attempt to make Christianity less Christian by pouring the old wine back into the wine skins. One more proof of your preference for stone age tribal gods over the "good news".
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/06/2006 @ 4:40pm
Your rants are amusing considering your are someone who supports jihadists who want to make everyone live under their 7th century worldview.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/06/2006 @ 4:55pm
Can you provide ONE quote to substantiate that claim? You and MASK should start a Jim Jones-style self-sufficient community somewhere in rural America, preferably a place that doesn't have internet access.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/06/2006 @ 5:02pm
"your are someone who supports jihadists"
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/06/2006 @ 4:55pm
You're as equally literate as MASK.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/06/2006 @ 5:06pm
Can you provide ONE quote to substantiate that claim?
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/06/2006 @ 5:02pm
He can't of course; I challenged on that up thread a bit, and as he has since posted on one of the other threads, I'd say he was wankin' it when he made the accusation.
Probably still is.
Posted by skeletonman at 11/06/2006 @ 5:08pm
Your rants are amusing . . .
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/06/2006 @ 4:55pm
Could I take this to mean that you are going to prove that israel has NOT been violating the Geneva Conventions for almost sixty years? Or, are you going to argue that violating the Geneva Conventions is OK as long as those "other" people are the victims?
Posted by fromredbird at 11/06/2006 @ 5:09pm
Mask wrote: "Obviously such rates would be determinable by the local electorate and with studies of what rates encourage and which discourage investment in the area. Therefore they'd vary from place to place."
I didn't realize it was so "obvious." So tax rates would be by referendum or ballot initiative? Do you really think that would lower rates?
Posted by urmygyro at 11/06/2006 @ 5:09pm
The MYTH though...is that somehow liberals/progressives/whatever are more intelligent, reasonable, and honest about their ideology and politics...and it's false. Just as (with certain scandals we've seen lately) that the MYTH of the Right being more "moral" is false too.
Posted by MASK 11/06/2006 @ 4:53pm
I would concur that both of those are pretty much true. Although I think most people think of all politicians, not just dems or repubs, as dishonest by nature.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/06/2006 @ 5:11pm
Can you provide ONE quote to substantiate that claim?
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/06/2006 @ 5:02pm
He can't of course; I challenged on that up thread a bit, and as he has since posted on one of the other threads, I'd say he was wankin' it when he made the accusation.
Probably still is.
Posted by SKELETONMAN 11/06/2006 @ 5:08pm
He's still got the "anti-semitism" card to play in lieu of anything factual to say. The card that MASK usually starts with.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/06/2006 @ 5:12pm
Mask wrote: "That would be true, if I expected a lot of intelligent responses on the typical political blog."
If you don't expect intelligent responses then why spend time refuting trite arguments? What's the point?
Where would you, by the way, expect "intelligent responses"? On other blogs? If so, please point them out to me.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/06/2006 @ 5:13pm
I didn't realize it was so "obvious." So tax rates would be by referendum or ballot initiative? Do you really think that would lower rates?
Posted by URMYGYRO 11/06/2006 @ 5:09pm
Actually, we have an initiative on the ballot this year that is something like this in concept. It purports to be a taxpayer bill of rights, but is more about giving power to a minority of anti-tax zealots.
Among the more heinous of it's provisions is that it would give control over ANY tax increase anywhere in the state to 1/3 plus 1 additional vote of the electorate in the cognizant jurisdiction. So much for majority rule.
Posted by skeletonman at 11/06/2006 @ 5:14pm
Mask wrote: "Obviously such rates would be determinable by the local electorate and with studies of what rates encourage and which discourage investment in the area. Therefore they'd vary from place to place."
And Mask, that answer is a bit of a cop-out. I'm not asking you to give me the numbers in every district or state, just give me an example with some numbers. You obviously have an opinion about what is excessive, so share it...pretend you're one of the voters who gets to decide.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/06/2006 @ 5:19pm
When LL writes something like "your are someone who supports jihadists" of course he's alluding to if we vote for democrats we're enablers to jihadists becuase democrats are "weak on terror."
Just more of the same-old same-old nonsense.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/06/2006 @ 5:22pm
Posted by OUSTBUSH 11/06/2006 @ 5:00pm
I'm glad you didn't let LL get away with it. We'll see if he actually responds....{probably not}....
Posted by urmygyro at 11/06/2006 @ 5:22pm
A nifty little tool to help voters on Tuesday who value the lives of American troops:
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America
The IAVA Rating is based on a legislator's voting history on issues that affect US troops, Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans, and military families.
It's easy to find a Senator or House Member's grades. Just follow these simple instructions.
1) Start at www.iavaaction.org.
2) Click on the large red button in the middle of the page, reading "Click here to see your Representatives' Ratings"
3) Search for your representatives by zip code, or by last name.
4) Click on the picture of the representative whose grade you want to see. You will automatically be taken to a page with a large letter grade right next to their name. This is their official IAVA Rating.
What are these grades based on?
A complete analysis of the voting methodology (http://iava.org/index.php? option=com_content&task=view&id=2056&Itemid=214) and a complete list of the legislation (http://capwiz.com/iava/keyvotes.xc/?lvl=C) used to calculate the grades is also offered. You can also reach these pages by clicking on the letter grade next to the picture of any representative.
----------------------------------
Just for fun, look up John McCain and review his voting record...
Then look up Nancy Pelosi.
Posted by New Dawn at 11/06/2006 @ 5:26pm
Your rants are amusing . . .
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/06/2006 @ 4:55pm
Could I take this to mean that you are going to prove that israel has NOT been violating the Geneva Conventions for almost sixty years? Or, are you going to argue that violating the Geneva Conventions is OK as long as those "other" people are the victims?
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/06/2006 @ 5:09pm | ignore this person
He may argue that all those 155-3 votes in the UN against Israeli violations are simply the result of the world's other, less important nations carrying out irrational grudges due to their hatred of freedom and jealousy of American and Israeli success. Sore loser-type stuff that accompany the "why do they hate us" crapola.
Posted by Oustbush at 11/06/2006 @ 5:27pm
John Maasch - HOW DARE YOU complain about your taxes being too high. Republicans have been in power for 6 years, man. Republicans have been in power for 6 years, man. Why wont the Republicans LOWER your taxes? Why didnt the Republicans LOWER YOUR taxes? Apparently, you arent in the court of Marie Antoinette, owing to your laziness. Actually, I take that back - instead of blaming the Republicans for not lowering your taxes in the last 6 years, why dont you accept responsibility for being too lazy to work hard and earn a tax cut.
Republican motto: Tax cuts for Marie Antoinette, NO TAX CUTS FOR JOHN MAASCH
Posted by LiberalPride at 11/06/2006 @ 5:58pm
Are YOUR taxes lower than 6 years ago?
Support 3000 more troops.
We were never stay the course.
Posted by LiberalPride at 11/06/2006 @ 5:59pm
OK, so tell me again why these kind of poll numbers, (below) the hsuB admin feel confident to goof at the drop of a hat?
Oh yeah, they want to be restrained. They're crying for help of an adiction too horrendous to reveal even to those able to toterate the other failures and scandals: hsuB never stopped taking massive quanities of drugs, AWOL/Nat. Guard hsuB, 9/11 incompetence, lying us into Iraq, Niger forgeries, Plame-gate, Mark Foley/Rove/Hastert connection, Memogate repub hacking of dems, torture in Abu Ghraib, ongoing investigations of Halliburton/no bid contracts/missing money/bribes/Iran, illegal transfer of $700 mil from Afghanistan to Iraq, DOJ's bungled terrorism case, Iraq/energy task force link, Indian gaming scandal, Pentagon's Larry Franklin spying for Isreal, State Dept's Donald Keyser spying for Taiwan, Tom Delay, Abramoff, Cunningham, Jeff Gannon, New Hampshire, Republican Party/Virginia-GOP Marketplace Election Day "jamming"the Democratic Party phone bank scheme, Thomas Scully Medicare Money Scandal, Bogus Medicare "Video News Release", Ground Zero's Unsafe Air, Armstrong Williams $240,000/NCLB, Antonin Scalia's Legal Conflicts, Gitmo torture and no habeas corpus, Iraq failure, Afghanistan failure, US debt, ...
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/01/18/ scandal/index.html?pn=1
Yes, it's much much worse-- really, it is. Why doesn't anyone believe me? It really can get worse.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
CNN Poll conducted by Opinion Research Corporation. Nov. 3-5, 2006. N=1,008 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"If the Democrats win control of Congress in this November's election, do you think that their policies would move the country in the right direction or the wrong direction in each of the following areas? Iraq."
________Right Direction___Wrong Direction___Unsure
11/3-5/06_______54___________39___________7
"If the Republicans retain control of Congress in this November's election, do you think that their policies would move the country in the right direction or the wrong direction in each of the following areas? Iraq."
________Right Direction____Wrong Direction___Unsure
11/3-5/06_______34____________60___________6
"Do you favor or oppose the U.S. war in Iraq?"
Date____________Favor_____Oppose___Unsure
11/3-5/06_________33_________61_______6
10/27-29/06_______38_________59_______3
"Do you think the war with Iraq has made the U.S. safer or less safe from terrorism?"
___________Safer______Less Safe__No Change__Unsure
11/3-5/06____35__________56________7_________2
10/6-8/06____36__________53________7_________4
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/06/2006 @ 6:00pm
I would regard this as a fairly wild accusation; your evidence for this statement is?
Posted by SKELETONMAN 11/06/2006 @ 4:57pm
He has openly supported Hamas, the PLO, and Hezbollah. That is sufficient in the eyes of many here, right or left, as both sides of the spectrum attacked him for those views.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/06/2006 @ 5:22pm
Doesn't everyone see? If you point out the obvious fact that israel is the worst violator of the Geneva Conventions in the modern era then you are "openly supporting Hamas, the PLO, and Hezbollah". As distinct, I guess, from being legally forbidden to state israel's human rights crimes publicly, as he would apparently prefer. You're also "anti-semitic" if you don't think our taxes should be used to support the daily israeli atrocities and the imposition of a planned program of malnutrition on Palestinian children.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/06/2006 @ 6:15pm
Speaking of polls:
Democrat Jim Webb has surged ahead of Republican George Allen in the last poll of the campaign, conducted for News-7 by SurveyUSA.
The survey shows Webb with 52% of the likely voters, with 44% going to Allen.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/06/2006 @ 6:16pm
No, I just could care less about the anti-semetic hatred of Israel that has been ongoing since Israel's beginning.
Further, seeing as I have no respectful regard for the UN itself, it hardly matters to me what they say.
Not about "sore loser" complaints, the UN is simply a US hating and Jewish hating organization that we will hopefully kick out of the United States once and for all.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/06/2006 @ 5:38pm
There you go, you're getting into your "anti-semitism" stride now. Like Charle Manson saying he was being persecuted by society because he was "free", it had nothing to do with his behavior. LVLIBERTY1, you and your other "israel-is-my-God" cohorts here are the closest thing I've seen to a cross between Squeaky Fromme and Jim Jones.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/06/2006 @ 6:23pm
Which is the last word on LVLIBERTY1's religion- it isn't Christianity at all, his God is israel and it's a completely material God. He considers creepy, daily human-sacrifice heaven on earth. He's straight out of the stone age.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/06/2006 @ 6:28pm
And I still have to "press 1" for English I hope this goes around world 10 times
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 11/06/2006 @ 12:58am
Dang! Sounds like the Reagan and Poppy Bush years.
Posted by doumer at 11/06/2006 @ 6:55pm
Prospect: So, I wouldnt be sent to Iraq if I joined?
Recruiter: No - actually I get alot of volunteers who are very patriotic and who want to go to Iraq to win the war on terror, but that war is winding down. As they stand up we are standing down - and I just dont have alot of Iraq slots open anymore - so I actually have to turn people down who want to go to Iraq - alot.
Prospect: And if I join, I can get out of here right away?
Recruiter: Yes, all you have to do is sign here, and you will be released from prison within one day - that I CAN guarantee. Only thing is, we`ll need to send you to treatment - get you off Crack - it isnt good for you anyway. We`ll get you into treatment - get you clean and sober - then its off to boot camp to get you buffed up.
Prospect: Treatment? Fucck that shhit man. I want to smoke crack I`ll fuccken smoke crack. You wastin my time man. I`m going to the fucck back to my cell.
Recruiter: How about if I waive the treatment?
Posted by LiberalPride at 11/06/2006 @ 7:20pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/06/2006 @ 5:26pm
Luvvy, you are real, living...ooops, undead... proof of an axiom that my father imparted to me many years ago:
HA/H > 1
In words, there are more horses asses in the world than there are horses.
Posted by skeletonman at 11/06/2006 @ 7:38pm
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/06/2006 @ 6:15pm
Better watch out Bird Man. You might be branded by The Feckless Leader as a supporter of terrorism and find yourself stripped of habeas corpus. Shrub can do that, you know. And dinks like Luvvy think it's just great.
Posted by skeletonman at 11/06/2006 @ 7:41pm
First you blow them up, they get free health care.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/06/2006 @ 5:26pm
As opposed to Shrub's strateregy in Iraq, which seems to be
first you blow them up, then you deprive them of electricity, basic sanitation AND medical care, then you leave our troops under armed and under armored and wait for the inevitable backlash, at which time you blame everyone but yourself for the debacle, all the while screaming 'stay the course.'
That sound about right Luvster?
Posted by skeletonman at 11/06/2006 @ 7:45pm
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/06/2006 @ 6:15pm
Better watch out Bird Man. You might be branded by The Feckless Leader as a supporter of terrorism and find yourself stripped of habeas corpus. Shrub can do that, you know. And dinks like Luvvy think it's just great.
Posted by SKELETONMAN 11/06/2006 @ 7:41pm
That homicidal, war-worshipping nut will love it until it's used against him. Then he'll have an epiphany and a big, big heart filled with sympathy for the victims. Because then the victim will be him instead of the "other".
Posted by fromredbird at 11/06/2006 @ 7:51pm
Republican: But, I`m not a terrorist, I`m not even a liberal, I voted for George Bush.
Jackboot: I understand, just get on the box-car and we can clear this whole thing up when you get to the comfort camp.
Republican: OK...
Posted by LiberalPride at 11/06/2006 @ 7:53pm
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/06/2006 @ 4:59pm
Call Howard Dean and...explain how the Dems should treat Israel, FRB.
I'd LOVE to listen in on that call!
Posted by Mask at 11/06/2006 @ 7:56pm
now that the jihadist lovers and the lovers of socialized medicine and all things are wonderful with big government crowd are having a love fest, it is time to go out and work for a while.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/06/2006 @ 5:26pm
Collecting rent checks from inherited property is work like Bush showing up once in two years at his base to get a dental check up is "serving his country".
Posted by fromredbird at 11/06/2006 @ 7:56pm
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/06/2006 @ 4:59pm
Call Howard Dean and...explain how the Dems should treat Israel, FRB.
I'd LOVE to listen in on that call!
Posted by MASK 11/06/2006 @ 7:56pm
I have a better idea. Why don't you explain right here why shipping billions upon billions of our tax dollars to a terrorist organization that created a base for itself by murder, rape, and expulsion of over 700,000 people from their homes and land is something that should be considered normal?
Posted by fromredbird at 11/06/2006 @ 8:00pm
Posted by URMYGYRO 11/06/2006 @ 5:19pm
In my state?...on the order of 7-8% of net profits. But in tune with a 33% Fed rate (lower than the 40% now...which is only beat by Japan).
Look, I realize that infrastructure, state minimum wages, and a million other things play into it....
but if the Fed takes 40% and the states start pushing 20-30-40 themselves, eventually you don't get more income...you get a business/entrepeneur class that either closes up shop...or FIGHTS BACK and considers one party more "unfriendly" to its interests than another.
And if that one party considers "soaking the rich and/or business" as its gravy train to infinite largesse and endlessly growing government benefits....
well.....
Posted by Mask at 11/06/2006 @ 8:04pm
Republican: But, I`m not a terrorist, I`m not even a liberal, I voted for George Bush.
Jackboot: I understand, just get on the box-car and we can clear this whole thing up when you get to the comfort camp.
Republican: OK...
Posted by LIBERALPRIDE 11/06/2006 @ 7:53pm
Here's an illustrative multiple choice question:
Whose side were people like LVLIBERTY1 on when the German nazis were shipping Jews to concentration camps?
a) the nazis b) the nazis c) the nazis d) the nazis
For him, the Arabs and Muslims are the new Jews.
Posted by fromredbird at 11/06/2006 @ 8:05pm
Living in a bubble with a narcissistic borderline personality allows Bush to live in a world of his own. If Bush believes he'll win then dag-nab-it he'll win! Until reality hits him head on, (as in Hamdan v. Rumsfield) motivating Bush to force his terrorizing, corrupt, immoral, intolerant, hateful, sophomoric, unethical, irrational, and unrealistic reality upon the world.
Posted by claire pool at 11/06/2006 @ 8:08pm
(Posted by NEW DAWN 11/06/2006 @ 5:26pm)
All quiet on the rightward front from the usual suspects who tout their support of the military, and - by extension - the political leaders they vote for, whom we assume also share their vocal "support" of the military...
But, tell us, do tell, how many "C"s and "D"s did the men you guys vote for get from my Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America link?
No takers? Guess that the actual votes on matters of concern to our troops bring a little harsh light (and measured silence) from otherwise vocal posters? I won't mention the "biases" of the actual veterans who compiled the records and passed the grades on, since the link as posted will show you the actual votes of the representatives - no slant required.
-------------------------
And hey, here's another fun little list that was forwarded to me today - I haven't checked the veracity of every time and date, but I'm fairly politically savvy, most of the names are familiar, and this sounds about right. Corrections are welcome, as I didn't compile the list - apparently, the Congressman at the bottom did:
Enjoy, and high hopes tomorrow that the best men and women (for our country) win big!
--------------
It is interesting to note who in government has served in the Military.... and who has not....
With just days left, talk to people you know that might be undecided
DEMOCRATS:
* Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71.
* David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72.
* Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72.
* Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam Jan. 1971 as an army journalist in 20th Engineer Brigade.
* Bob Kerrey: Lt. j.g. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam.
* Daniel Inouye: Army 1943-47; Medal of Honor, WWII.
* John Kerry: Lt., Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, Purple Hearts.
* Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea.
* Max Cleland: Captain, Army 1965-68; Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam. Paraplegic from war injuries. Served in Congress.
* Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-53.
* Tom Harkin: Lt., Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74.
* Jack Reed: Army Ranger, 1971 -1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91.
* Fritz Hollings: Army officer in WWII; Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons.
* Leonard Boswell: Lt. Col., Army 1956-76; Vietnam, DFCs, Bronze Stars, and Soldier's Medal.
* Pete Peterson: Air Force Captain, POW. Purple Heart, Silver Star and Legion of Merit.
* Mike Thompson: Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne, Purple Heart.
* Bill McBride: Candidate for Fla. Governor. Marine in Vietnam; Bronze Star with Combat V.
* Gray Davis: Army Captain in Vietnam, Bronze Star.
* Pete Stark: Air Force 1955-57
* Chuck Robb: Vietnam
* Howell Heflin: Silver Star
* George McGovern: Silver Star & DFC during WWII.
* Bill Clinton: Did not serve. Student deferments. Entered draft but received #311.
* Jimmy Carter: Seven years in the Navy.
* Walter Mondale: Army 1951-1953
* John Glenn: WWII and Korea; six DFCs and AirMedal with 18 Clusters.
* Tom Lantos: Served in Hungarian underground in WWII. Saved by Raoul Wallenberg.
REPUBLICANS -- and these are the guys SENDING PEOPLE TO WAR:
* Dick Cheney: did not serve. Several deferments, the last by marriage.
* Dennis Hastert: did not serve.
* Tom Delay: did not serve.
* Roy Blunt: did not serve.
* Bill Frist: did not serve.
* Mitch McConnell: did not serve.
* Rick Santorum: did not serve.
* Trent Lott: did not serve.
* John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business.
* Jeb Bush: did not serve.
* Karl Rove: did not serve.
* Saxby Chambliss: did not serve. "Bad knee." The man who attacked Max Cleland's patriotism.
* Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve.
* Vin Weber: did not serve.
* Richard Perle: did not serve.
* Douglas Feith: did not serve.
* Eliot Abrams: did not serve.
* Richard Shelby: did not serve.
* Jon Kyl: did not serve.
* Tim Hutchison: did not serve.
* Christopher Cox: did not serve.
* Newt Gingrich: did not serve.
* Don Rumsfeld: served in Navy (1954-57) as flight instructor.
* George W. Bush: did not complete his six-year National Guard; was assigned to Alabama so he could campaign for family friend running for U.S. Senate; failed to show up for required medical exam, disappeared from duty.
* Ronald Reagan: due to poor eyesight, served in a non-combat role making movies.
* B-1 Bob Dornan: Consciously enlisted after fighting was over in Korea.
* Phil Gramm: did not serve.
* John McCain: Vietnam POW, Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross. Remember how the Bush campaign trashed him in the Republican primaries in 2000?
* Dana Rohrabacher: did not serve.
* John M. McHugh: did not serve.
* JC Watts: did not serve.
* Jack Kemp: did not serve. "Knee problem, " although continued in NFL for 8 years as quarterback. (Win one for the Gipper!!)
* Dan Quayle: Journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard.
* Rudy Giuliani: did not serve.
* George Pataki: did not serve.
* Spencer Abraham: did not serve.
* John Engler: did not serve.
* Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer.
* Arnold Schwarzenegger: AWOL from Austrian army base. (Our gift from Austria)
Pundits & Preachers & Proselytizers
* Sean Hannity: did not serve.
* Rush Limbaugh: did not serve (4-F with a 'pilonidal cyst.')
* Bill O'Reilly: did not serve.
* Michael Savage: did not serve.
* George Will: did not serve.
* Chris Matthews: did not serve.
* Paul Gigot: did not serve.
* Bill Bennett: did not serve.
* Pat Buchanan: did not serve.
* John Wayne: did not serve.
* Bill Kristol: did not serve.
* Kenneth Starr: did not serve.
* Antonin Scalia: did not serve.
* Clarence Thomas: did not serve.
* Ralph Reed: did not serve.
* Michael Medved: did not serve.
* Charlie Daniels: did not serve.
* Ted Nugent: did not serve. (He only shoots at things that don't shoot back.)
Please keep this information circulating -- Illinois State Sen. Howard W.Carroll
Posted by New Dawn at 11/06/2006 @ 8:20pm
Posted by NEW DAWN 11/06/2006 @ 8:20pm
Strong work, Nudie
Posted by skeletonman at 11/06/2006 @ 8:36pm
* Rush Limbaugh: did not serve (4-F with a 'pilonidal cyst.')
Posted by NEW DAWN 11/06/2006 @ 8:20pm
This is a joke, right?
A pilonidal cyst, is, well, a (large) zit in one's ass crack.
There you have it folks, the pimple on the asshole of humanity skipped out on his duty by being himself.
Posted by skeletonman at 11/06/2006 @ 8:38pm
Missing from the 'Pub list is Robert Dole, who served honorably and was severely wounded in WWII.
Posted by skeletonman at 11/06/2006 @ 8:44pm
Posted by SKELETONMAN 11/06/2006 @ 8:36pm
Thank you.
Posted by SKELETONMAN 11/06/2006 @ 8:38pm
You've been cracking me up today, man... This: HA/H > 1 was an instant classic.
Posted by SKELETONMAN 11/06/2006 @ 8:44pm
And Mr. Dole's service should be duly noted and deservedly praised.
Posted by New Dawn at 11/06/2006 @ 8:51pm
Our government SUCKS
Posted by spiritdog at 11/06/2006 @ 8:56pm
Never attribute to complex or obscure motives what can be safely explained by stupidity. Bush and Cheney had five years of success at shaping perceptions, it hasn't sunk in yet that it's not working anymore. This is what they get from being insulated from people who don't agree with them, and it's their perennial weakness.
Posted by cheopys at 11/06/2006 @ 8:57pm
"If the other party has some power, they can shoulder some of the blame when things continue to go poorly (as they will). Also, a Democratic Congress now may increase the likelihood of a GOP president two years from now."
there is also the risk that the upstart party will spend two years passing responsible and popular legislation and solidify (or create) the impression that they are a viable alternative to the party of Terry Chiavo feeding tubes and gay marriage amendments
Posted by cheopys at 11/06/2006 @ 9:14pm
It would REALLY!!!! be nice if all the fat-cat, dumb assed republicans would quit worrying about taxes (most don't pay their fair share anyway), and start worrying about our country, our constitution, and our morals going to hell in a hand-cart!
Posted by JimmyJ at 11/06/2006 @ 9:39pm
maasch, how can you say you're happy, when you're always bitching about taxes?
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/06/2006 @ 10:51pm
You're a real jewel. When Will C. brought that up a while back you denied ever saying it. Now you're back to the first version. Just another example of Republicans whose lips are moving.
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/06/2006 @ 4:26pm
what's even funnier is that over the weeekend luvvy said he would rather die then deny christ.
yet like you say, there was luvvy... denying him
:)
Posted by Will C. at 11/06/2006 @ 11:16pm
Mask,
"Obviously such rates would be determinable by the local electorate and with studies of what rates encourage and which discourage investment in the area. Therefore they'd vary from place to place."
Maybe if it was rephrased?
How about putting a number on your "living tax code"?
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 11/06/2006 @ 11:37pm
If the Dems/greens/liberals hate America and want to enable the jihadists...
And the neo-cons are losing in Iraq...
Isn't a vote for the dems or greens just ensuring America's victory?
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 11/06/2006 @ 11:41pm
Maashy, You are quite the selfish twit. So you think that "it" should all be for free. The only reason that you bitch about taxation is because your skills as a "business asshole" are undoubtedly, only marginally successful. So you welfare sponging failure, up yours.
With bemused intolerance,
Bloppy
Posted by bloppy at 11/07/2006 @ 12:24am
Too many people here think that the Democrats cannot win even if they do win. The fact is that if the GOP loses Congress they are in all sorts of electoral trouble. People can fantasize all they want about how the GOP will come up with some wonderful spin about how everything is the Democrats fault and people will believe it.
Not going to happen. If the GOP is ousted this will be a very big deal. They will be ousted in the midst of a war they initiated and losing their majority will also suggest several trends that make them more of a rump party with an electoral base in the South but losing considerable ground in the Northeast, Middle West and Mountain States. That is a very big deal and with all of the gerrymandering that is going on, not to mention how as many as 8 governor's seats are slated to go to the Democrats, this can spell trouble for a long time to come.
The antipathy towards the GOP is not just going to disappear overnight, we will still have Bush around to remind us how wonderful it is to have Republican leadership.
If the GOP loses Congress this will be repudiation. That is not something that will just magically disappear in 2008 and additionally, if the Democrats have an opportunity to pursue the type of legislation the public says it has been wanting like say alternative energy, a hike in the minimum wage, a new prescription drug proposal, a reexamination of the ever escalating cost of health care, the GOP will no longer be able to call them the party with no ideas.
The GOP is no invincible. And this whole insanity about taxes (see John Maasch's post) and craven fear mongering about terrorism is pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. The GOP's goose looks to be cooked and they are just relying on fear, prejudice and hate. It's a losing strategy this time around. Though no doubt they will bring it back. . . after all, that is their playbook.
Posted by hhemwm at 11/07/2006 @ 01:33am
hsuB now admitted on the stump to being able to control the price of gasoline via charging that terrorist would be able to control it and use it against us unless the US 'stay the course' in Iraq... Our US troops in Iraq doing what again? -- CONTROLLING THE FUCKING PRICE OF FUCKING GASOLINE! OUR TROOPS ARE IN IRAQ DYING SO HSUB CAN CONTROL THE FUCKING PRICE AT THE PUMP. hsuB is such an asshole. Anything to win an election= morals only another mother could love. There's a special place in hell reserved for this peice of hsuB shit. I hope the dems sweep the election and hsuB weeps. That would be a start.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/07/2006 @ 01:42am
HHEMWM - agreed. This is a far different republican version than the one that existed in the early 90's with their Contract with America.
We'll see tomorrow if the "party of ideas" has been focusing on the wrong ideas or not.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/07/2006 @ 01:48am
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/07/2006 @ 01:42am
Can you point me to a newspaper story or internet story where Bush "admitted to being able to control the price of gasoline"
Thanks
Posted by urmygyro at 11/07/2006 @ 01:50am
And this whole insanity about taxes (see John Maasch's post) and craven fear mongering about terrorism is pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.
Posted by HHEMWM 11/07/2006 @ 01:33am
Yeah, the only way that repub spiel is persuasive is if you're already one sick scared greedy morally bankrupt soulless shell of what once was called a human being; a mindless borg. You're right-- pathetic.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/07/2006 @ 01:53am
Here's one:
Bush Says U.S. Pullout Would Let Iraq Radicals Use Oil as a Weapon
By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 5, 2006; Page A06
GREELEY, Colo., Nov. 4 -- During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, President Bush and his aides sternly dismissed suggestions that the war was all about oil. "Nonsense," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld declared. "This is not about that," said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer.
Now, more than 3 1/2 years later, someone else is asserting that the war is about oil -- President Bush.
Bush has been citing oil as a reason to stay in Iraq. If the United States pulled its troops out prematurely and surrendered the country to insurgents, he warns audiences, it would effectively hand over Iraq's considerable petroleum reserves to terrorists who would use it as a weapon against other countries.
You can imagine a world in which these extremists and radicals got control of energy resources," he said at a rally here Saturday for Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.). "And then you can imagine them saying, 'We're going to pull a bunch of oil off the market to run your price of oil up unless you do the following. And the following would be along the lines of, well, 'Retreat and let us continue to expand our dark vision.' "
Bush said extremists controlling Iraq "would use energy as economic blackmail" and try to pressure the United States to abandon its alliance with Israel. At a stop in Missouri on Friday, he suggested that such radicals would be "able to pull millions of barrels of oil off the market, driving the price up to $300 or $400 a barrel."
Fratto, the White House spokesman, argued that even if radicals could not move the markets dramatically with Iraqi oil, they would use the country as a base to topple other governments in the Middle East such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, which would give them "a lot more oil to blackmail with."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ article/2006/11/04/AR2006110401025.html
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/07/2006 @ 02:10am
Thus if the terrorist can do it if they had pull with the Saudis, Kuwait and Iraq oil, ergo since hsuB already has that pull-- can control the price of gasoline.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/07/2006 @ 02:15am
It's not the first time hsuB has said that, except he did not say they'd control the price:
Bush gives new reason for Iraq war
Says US must prevent oil fields from falling into hands of terrorists
By Jennifer Loven, Associated Press | August 31, 2005
CORONADO, Calif. -- President Bush answered growing antiwar protests yesterday with a fresh reason for US troops to continue fighting in Iraq: protection of the country's vast oil fields, which he said would otherwise fall under the control of terrorist extremists.
''If Zarqawi and [Osama] bin Laden gain control of Iraq, they would create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks," Bush said. ''They'd seize oil fields to fund their ambitions. They could recruit more terrorists by claiming a historic victory over the United States and our coalition."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/08/31/ bush_gives_new_reason_for_iraq_war/
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/07/2006 @ 02:23am
Lastly, good night:
http://www.einnews.com/indiana/newsfeed-indiana-terrorism
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/07/2006 @ 02:29am
Every day The Dick is not working is good for all of us and may be during the coming hunting he gets too exited and ?
Posted by abdosoliman at 11/07/2006 @ 02:33am
That awful sound again...
" You are quite the selfish twit"
and you are just plain..twit through and through.
Posted by john maasch at 11/07/2006 @ 02:37am
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/06/2006 @ 4:26pm
what's even funnier is that over the weeekend luvvy said he would rather die then deny christ.
yet like you say, there was luvvy... denying him
:)
Posted by WILL C. 11/06/2006 @ 11:16pm
LUVCHILD is a Judas on steroids. If he really believed what he preaches he would be trembling at the thought of Jesus flinging him into the lake of fire.
What earliest Christians did & encouraged --- What earliest Christians did not do & discouraged [bibletexts.com]
Posted by fromredbird at 11/07/2006 @ 02:50am
Is it true that Dick Cheney is going hunting tomorrow with Mark Foley?
Posted by fromredbird at 11/07/2006 @ 02:51am
Ooops forgot to state that last year at this time gasoline was .20 higher. Prices jump back up as production goes down after the summer slump, just the opposite when repubs are in office up for a vote, when it's dems in office up for a vote prices go up...
http://zfacts.com/p/35.html
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/07/2006 @ 03:06am
Is it true that Dick Cheney is going hunting tomorrow with Mark Foley?
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/07/2006 @ 02:51am
They plan to shoot each other in the face just for fun.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/07/2006 @ 03:08am
there is also the risk that the upstart party will spend two years passing responsible and popular legislation and solidify (or create) the impression that they are a viable alternative to the party of Terry Chiavo feeding tubes and gay marriage amendments
You see the Democrats pulling this off? May you be correct. My guess: the Dems with Presidential hopes will collectively (but not necessarily purposely) act as a monkey wrench in such an endeavor. Witness the recent flap over Kerry's joke. The Dems with Presidential hopes walked in lockstep with the GOP spin machine, in hopes of taking down a competitor, truth and justice be damned. I see no reason for their behavior to change before 2008.
(Is the term "monkey wrench" anti-monkey? Cuz I like monkeys, and wouldn't ever want to disparage them in any way.)
Posted by BlueSpark at 11/07/2006 @ 08:10am
They plan to shoot each other in the face just for fun.
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/07/2006 @ 03:08am
What do you 'spose Foley will be using for "buckshot?"
Posted by skeletonman at 11/07/2006 @ 08:18am
Posted by SKELETONMAN 11/07/2006 @ 08:18a
UUuugh, too late and still too close to Holloween. Images of I'boo Grab...
XXXXXXXXXX
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gr5tx0lcyQc&eurl=
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/07/2006 @ 08:47am
Posted by MALCONTENT 11/06/2006 @ 11:37pm
I did, Eric. 33% Federal and a state rate no higher than to reach 50%.
But your snarky analogy doesn't hold. How much the Government TAKES from a business, isn't analogous to how much a person can earn as a wage. Business can't get a "Government guarenteed profit", now can they?
Posted by Mask at 11/07/2006 @ 08:53am
Posted by MASK 11/07/2006 @ 08:53am
But gov can level the playing field. But shouldn't the gov also not make a profit for their elite buds at the top, profiteer on an unnecessary war, feel like it need not ballance its own books or treat all its employees/shareholders equally so that everyone benefits not the few at the top, be the impartial arbitor, magnanimous, gov of all the people, etc.; all of which is anti hsuB repub and GOP? To be a hsuB repub is to be truly antiAmerican.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/07/2006 @ 09:12am
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/07/2006 @ 09:12am
Problem HSUB, is the number of people who want MORE than "just a level playing field"...they want nobody to "win the game"...or atleast not by "TOO many points".
Posted by Mask at 11/07/2006 @ 10:07am
John Maasch - HOW DARE YOU complain about your taxes being too high. Republicans have been in power for 6 years, man. Republicans have been in power for 6 years, man. Why wont the Republicans LOWER your taxes? Why didnt the Republicans LOWER YOUR taxes? Apparently, you arent in the court of Marie Antoinette, owing to your laziness. Actually, I take that back - instead of blaming the Republicans for not lowering your taxes in the last 6 years, why dont you accept responsibility for being too lazy to work hard and earn a tax cut.
Republican motto: Tax cuts for Marie Antoinette, NO TAX CUTS FOR JOHN MAASCH
Posted by LIBERALPRIDE 11/06/2006 @ 5:58pm
Read my posts carefully...
I don't complain about the taxation, rather the formula and the number of hidden taxes...just change the formula for a fair system.
Bush did lower my taxes by quite a bit and I used the money for my family..
If you did not get a tax cut, then you didn't PAY any, and therefore are not really qualified to tell me about taxes and how much I should pay...IMO
Posted by john maasch at 11/07/2006 @ 10:41am
And,libpride,
Nancy will try to steal more from me without looking at the system as whole or listening to other ideas...you know, change?..anyway, the dems should have 2 years before they are send back into the dead zone for years and years.
when the nation gets a dose of ALCEE HASTINGS, Conyers, Frank,....the 08 should be a blood bath....it is going to be an interesting ride the next 2 years...I will give it this, the Repubs brought this on themselves...
Posted by john maasch at 11/07/2006 @ 10:45am
Hey. Some nut job left a business card on my card which eventfully lead me to this site.
The person claimed to clean bumper stickers off of cars. I want to get a new Bush sticker. Can he remove the old one and apply a newer one. If the service is not legitimate don't litter!!!
Posted by WTF at 11/07/2006 @ 11:34am
Please refrain from straying off-topic and making personal attacks. Your comment may be edited or removed at the discretion of Nation staff. Our goal is not to stifle debate but to keep it relevant.
hahaha of course,,, The left loves and i mean LOVES censorship.
Posted by WTF at 11/07/2006 @ 11:35am
LVL,
I agree on the ever slide left, but there are many of us who slow the process down..and the next generation may not be as weak as the 60s generation as far as national defence and pride. I teach mine how to build wealth and prosperity through their own work...and they get it..
...don't worry too much..the next generation is more conservative than the last, just as the libs are more lib than the past, the numbers are not the only method of power..education is, and if the conservatives can save the US from the public shool system, then all is not lost....and as you know, we are hard at work on that..who would have thought the MSM would have fallen so far...look at how hard they pushed the democrat talking points, and if the dems take congress it will be only by a few seats..in the past they would have picked up 50 seats,and today because of their fall, nothing close to 50 seats will happen..just enough enough to screw themselves into the beach, and a possibility of a split into two by 08 as the dems face extinction when the Pelosis, Conyers, et al, drive over the cliff...the truth is the repubs brought this upon themselves and only they can fix it, which, they will...if the public school system can be scrapped or saved, so will the nation...and the nation is not happy with the school system and those who run and spend it into last place in the world..be patient.
In the mean time, I move even farther into the Libertarian camp.
Posted by john maasch at 11/07/2006 @ 11:53am
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/07/2006 @ 11:39am
Sounds like "Rapture" time....and if your kids and grandkids are "saved", they won't be "around" anyway, will they?
Posted by Mask at 11/07/2006 @ 12:31pm
Let LL have his fictions.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/07/2006 @ 12:46pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/07/2006 @ 12:32am
Okay...then....why are your children and grandkids going to be in trouble, LL....what are them liberal sek'lar 'umanists going to DO to them?
Posted by Mask at 11/07/2006 @ 1:06pm
This year has demonstrated that real strength of conviction in doing the right thing is met with the purest form of hate that is as old as mankind itself. Evil hates good and it is now apparent that it has permeated even those who marginally hate.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/07/2006 @ 11:39am
wow luvvy, you're whack jobidness has stuttered itself across multiple threads
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2006 @ 1:25pm
See the biggest mistake that the liberal/progressive/socialist/secular movement has is no solutions.
Here is a forum for you to pat each other on the back and say WOW we have really risen up and hated G.W. Bush together. Unfortunately you never offer solutions. I mean G.W. Bush may not be a great president, but what were the our options. Kerry? You know that the DNC ran him to lose. He showed a little strength so the DNC tied and albatross to his neck to guarantee that he would never make it to the white house.
But this is all Bush's fault? No it is the 2 party systems fault and especially the your left party, which kept my candidate of the ballot in most states.
Posted by WTF at 11/07/2006 @ 1:58pm
Posted by WTF 11/07/2006 @ 1:58pm
pick and issue, i'll give you a solution
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2006 @ 2:18pm
and then we can laugh about what a shit head you are
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2006 @ 2:19pm
Will C,
Move to Canada and assist them with their attempt to stay liberal/progressive/socialist/secular
or
Why did your splendid party choose keep Nader off the ballot in most states?
Posted by WTF at 11/07/2006 @ 2:22pm
hahaha of course,,, The left loves and i mean LOVES censorship.
Posted by WTF 11/07/2006 @ 11:35am | ignore this person
you are an idiot. if you spent more than a moment on this blog, you would know that the management has a hands off policy here.
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/07/2006 @ 2:25pm
Hey. I am Some nut job Posted by WTF 11/07/2006 @ 11:34am | ignore this person
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/07/2006 @ 2:26pm
JOHANNESROLF,
You spend your time leaving crap on peoples windshield because you don't like Bush?
What was i supposed to do? "Oh gosh i should have voted for Kerry because deep down i hate the USA and all it stands for"
Get a clue i live in a Democratic country. G.W. Bush won the election he is the president. Instead of spreading FUD place a card with a positive statement about what ever you are standing for today. Try and allow a person to come to their own decision about policy/candidates/______ and not just I don't like the person who WON the election and neither should you.
Ummm, sore loser syndrome?
Posted by WTF at 11/07/2006 @ 2:35pm
Move to Canada and assist them with their attempt to stay liberal/progressive/socialist/secular
or
Why did your splendid party choose keep Nader off the ballot in most states?
Posted by WTF 11/07/2006 @ 2:22pm
those are issues?
We can't start laughing about what a shit head you are until you give me an issue you silly hamster
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2006 @ 2:37pm
David is right to find mystifying the last-minute campaign belligerence on Iraq of Bush and Cheney. Apart from trying to fire up the base, there's a more plausible explanation than that they're trying to lose the House: If there is, as many observers now contend, an active electronic-voting fraud operation being run by Republicans, and they know they plan to flip a dozen or more House races, it would make perfect sense to come out with more extreme declarations at the end of the campaign, in order to be able to claim a mandate of public endorsement of those views, once the Republicans retain the House...
Posted by JackVA at 11/07/2006 @ 3:02pm
...The strength of the hatred manifested by your enemies is a sure sign that you are doing the right things....
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/07/2006 @ 11:39am
Ergo, Saddam was doing the right things.
Posted by nathanhale at 11/07/2006 @ 3:06pm
WILL C.,
You are the supreme authority on shit. Since you wont provide any issues i will file you and you comments in the Bush hating fanboy category. And let you lead your delusional life. Hopefully one day you will actually stand for something or have an opinion. Until such time you have everyones permission fill you life with hatred get ulcers.
Posted by WTF at 11/07/2006 @ 3:13pm
WTF, coming in here flinging shit has two results. you are covered with it and you are ignored. if you wanna participate learn some manners first.
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/07/2006 @ 3:15pm
Naw, I think hsuB and Cheney are tired of being controlled by aliens and would rather be convicted for their crimes against humanity than continue messing up the world like a couple of drugged up idiots w/out a clue for history and their progeny to ridicule for decades to come. If it comes out eventually that they through the election in order to foul up the alien plans for world domination-- they'll be hailed as heroic martyrs and not what they currently are, pathetic scumbags.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/07/2006 @ 3:17pm
ah, threw
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/07/2006 @ 3:19pm
This is the challange I put forward...
Posted by WTF 11/07/2006 @ 1:58pm
pick and issue, i'll give you a solution
Posted by WILL C. 11/07/2006 @ 2:18pm
and this is shit head WTF"s response
You are the supreme authority on shit. Since you wont provide any issues i will file you and you comments in the Bush hating fanboy category. And let you lead your delusional life. Hopefully one day you will actually stand for something or have an opinion. Until such time you have everyones permission fill you life with hatred get ulcers.
Posted by WTF 11/07/2006 @ 3:13pm
now what is supremely funny about the whole thing is that after this accusation...
See the biggest mistake that the liberal/progressive/socialist/secular movement has is no solutions.
Posted by WTF 11/07/2006 @ 1:58pm
we find out that this shit head hamster (WTF) has no issues for we in the great liberal center to have solutions for.
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2006 @ 3:30pm
you may all start laughing at WTF now
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2006 @ 3:30pm
Will - what I found funny was how someone accusing the left of harboring "hate" leads with "You are the supreme authority on shit."
classic.
Posted by Hman23 at 11/07/2006 @ 3:53pm
If you did not get a tax cut, then you didn't PAY any,
this is bull, horse, whatever shit. everybody pays sales tax, FICA etc. it's just not true.
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/07/2006 @ 4:02pm
Posted by WILL C. 11/07/2006 @ 3:30pm
I love lines like "Until such time you have everyones permission fill you life with hatred get ulcers."
I guess in hamsterland, that passes for English.
Posted by nathanhale at 11/07/2006 @ 4:02pm
JOHANNESROLF,
i am not flinging crap. i am not calling names. I am annoyed that there is such hatred for the USA and Democracy here. And all the holy then thou pompousness can come up with is placing business with no message other then hate Bush like us. Get over it. Start building and promoting a candidate/platform/whatever for the next election. The People have spoken and your FUD is not working for you or anyone else.
I understand that the lack of platform and general lack of morality make a cozy home for the paranoid and the week willed. But you also need to understand and pull yourselves together and promote something other then hatred.
Posted by WTF at 11/07/2006 @ 4:11pm
Posted by NEW DAWN 11/06/2006 @ 8:20pm
much applause!
Posted by leftofcenter at 11/07/2006 @ 4:22pm
WTF
Listen up, pinhead. I don't know where you get your political worldview from, but whatever it is, turn it off. Strike the word hate from your vocabulary and see if you have anything left to say.
Most of what is good about this country today was built on principles that are now labeled liberal, and are actually basic moral principles applied with common sense over generations. Read some history. And grow up a little.
Posted by MyParadigm at 11/07/2006 @ 4:25pm
I am annoyed that there is such hatred for the USA and Democracy here.
Posted by WTF 11/07/2006 @ 4:11pm
care to offer some examples of hatred for the USA and democracy that you found here?
or can we conclude that your ramblings are those of a shit head?
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2006 @ 4:25pm
oh and I almost forgot...
Bwah Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
Posted by Will C. at 11/07/2006 @ 4:26pm
WTF, another example of the axiom
HA/H > 1
Posted by skeletonman at 11/07/2006 @ 4:29pm
Last week, George W. Bush vowed to retain Donald Rumsfeld as secretary of defense until the end of his presidency. (He said the same about Dick Cheney.)
Um, Mr. Corn, I am fairly sure that Dubya cannot fire an elected official, such as Dick Cheney.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/07/2006 @ 5:43pm
It would REALLY!!!! be nice if all the fat-cat, dumb assed republicans would quit worrying about taxes (most don't pay their fair share anyway), and start worrying about our country, our constitution, and our morals going to hell in a hand-cart!
Posted by JimmyJ at 11/07/2006 @ 5:43pm
Couldn't Cheney wait until after the election before picking up a gun again?
Maybe he's taking some Democrats on this trip...
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/07/2006 @ 5:45pm
Physics, no the pres can't just fire Cheney. However in the real world he can ask for his resignation, he can cut him out of the loop etc. in our present situation we should be asking, can Cheney fire Bush?
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/07/2006 @ 5:48pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 11/06/2006 @ 12:58am
John, why are you posting lies??? You claim that COMMENTS: Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago
However, the truth is, some of the very first taxes used to fund our government were on alcohol and tobaco.
Also, the reason that there were no taxes 100 years ago is that the vehicle was a brand new invention!
One of the first telephone taxes was used to fund the Spanish-American war in the 1890's!!!
Stop spreading lies!!!
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/07/2006 @ 5:53pm
also, MAASCH, there is no tax on tears.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/07/2006 @ 5:53pm
Posted by WTF 11/07/2006 @ 4:11pm | ignore this person
incoherent.
the people have spoken, well by tomorrow maybe.
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/07/2006 @ 5:54pm
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 11/07/2006 @ 5:43pm
hsuB can ask Cheney if he'd like to resign, pretty please, but only if he wants to for sure. Or rather Cheney will tell hsuB that he's resigning and who to select for VP for next repub pres '08. Then before Cheney has to go to court per his hands on all the corruption and missing billions, he fakes his own death, cremates the fake bod and disappears to ghost heaven.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/07/2006 @ 5:54pm
It might just be that Rove et al. are hoping for the Dems to win Congress. The Dems will then slash funds for the war in Iraq. The troops will have to withdraw and the horrible bloody mess that ensues in Iraq will give Bush an opportunity to cook up his own version of Germany 1918: The American troops having been stabbed in the back by the Dems and the Dems being responsible for losing the war.
Posted by Ostade at 11/07/2006 @ 6:01pm
Hey. I am Some nut job Posted by WTF 11/07/2006 @ 11:34am | ignore this person
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 11/07/2006 @ 2:26pm
Living in reality qualifies you as such, apparently.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/07/2006 @ 6:11pm
er, I think we can safely label Iraq a failure of enormous proportions and it's all hsuB's fault, nobody else's. When the dems save what's left of our forces and rebuild them for 'real' current and future threats, the dems will be viewed as heros. hsuB will forever be viewed as the punk-ass loser he's always been.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/07/2006 @ 6:13pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/07/2006 @ 11:39am:
If there is one consolation for conservatives no matter the outcome today, we can be assured in our convictions by the breadth and depth of the "liberal/progressive" hatred for Bush. The strength of the hatred manifested by your enemies is a sure sign that you are doing the right things.
Liberals/progressives were assured in their convictions by the breadth and depth of "conservative" hatred for Bill Clinton. The strength of the hatred of Clinton manifested by bigoted conservatives was a sure sign that he was doing the right thing.
This year has demonstrated that real strength of conviction in doing the right thing is met with the purest form of hate that is as old as mankind itself. Evil hates good and it is now apparent that it has permeated even those who marginally hate.
The Clinton presidency demonstrated that the real strength of conviction in doing the right thing is met by the purest form of conservative hatred that is as old as mankind. Conservatives hate good and it is apparent that it has permeated even those who marginally hate Clinton.
Modern Liberalism which already destroyed whatever good Europe once manifested, has now risen to a level of destructive force in the United States that probably cannot be reversed.
Modern conservatism has already destroyed whatever good that old-line conservatism once manifested, and has now risen to a level fo destructive force that the World cannot reverse.
I have previously said that the US probably only has 8-12 years more in which conservativism can stem the tide of this destructive political and ethically challenged philosophy. By the middle of the next decade, the forces of liberalism will take us on a downward slide into the status of a 3rd world nation. That is if the jihadists do not finish the job first.
Experts have stated that the US has less than ten years to stem the tide of destruction to this country brought on by George Bush. By 2015 the US will be in a downward spiral to 3rd world status brought on by the stupidity of Bush and those who voted for him (twice).
Last night I watched Flight 93. It was noteworthy to see the one European passenger who wanted to appease the jihadists. He was as much a danger to the passengers as the jihadists themselves. So it is with liberalism.
Last night I was watching a fictional movie and I confused it with reality because I don't know any better.
God help my children and grandchildren once liberalism gains the foothold in US politics it so desparately seeks.
God help the USA because of the stupidity of the GOP.
Conservatives may temporarily hold back this evil today, but unfortunately, we are now reaping the fruit of the spread of godlessness in our nation as it forgets/ignores God who blessed it's creation.
The election of 2006 may hold back the evil of conservatives today, but unfortunate we will reap their stupidy in the spread of conservatism as our nation forgets common sense and reason, which is requisite for successful governance.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/07/2006 @ 6:30pm
Outstanding work, ILP.
Turnabout, as they say, is fair play.
Posted by New Dawn at 11/07/2006 @ 7:43pm
Thanks, NEW DAWN. One thing I neglected to mention is that, judging from LL's original 11:39 AM post, he and other conservatives know that their bankrupt policies are wrecking the country. So he and others are already laying the groundwork to blame their debacle on democrats/liberals/progressives.
Shocking to think that you can be out of power in the House for 12 years, out of power in the senate for the lion's share of that time, and out of the presidency for 8 years, yet these partisans will still blame you for what their guys do to the country. Absolutely stupefying...
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/07/2006 @ 8:40pm
LL needs an enemy. It sustains him.
Posted by urmygyro at 11/07/2006 @ 9:00pm
Isn't it obvious, David, these clowns want a scapegoat for their failed policies. They've come to realize they can't go on putting lipstick on a pig and selling it to the American public. I can almost hear it now," Dick, they're not as stupid as we think they are". So the next step is to throw that flaming turd to the Democrats. Something tells me they'll get away with it, too!
Posted by BenL at 11/07/2006 @ 9:22pm
LOSERS, REPUBS NOW HAVE THE HSUB 'POLITICAL CAPITAL' SHOVED UP THEIR ASS-- THINK THEY LOVE HERR LEADER IN THE LEAST, NOPE.
So a lot of the repubs that survived are moving over to support whatever the dems want and hsuB is asking Cheney and Rumy when they're going to step down.
Yep, I'm celerbrating-- BIG TIME. Another tequilla please. Hahahahahaahheheheehaw! Dean, calm down.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/08/2006 @ 12:11am
liberty, god blah blah blah, god blah blah blah.
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/08/2006 @ 6:09pm