Reason # 18,435 to hate Bush

[TrailBate]

Martin Peretz, whoever that is. Thanks to that article, he will probably be the next foreign ambassador to Isreal, or something.

[TrailBate]

also on the GOP website:


"Today, the government released new jobs figures - and the data show steady job gains. Payroll employment rose by 110,000 people in February, and the economy has created over 3 million jobs since May 2003. There have been steady jobs gains for each of the last twenty-two months - and more Americans are working than ever before.

The President has put forth an ambitious agenda to ensure that America's economy remains the most prosperous in the world. To accomplish this, he has proposed a three-pillar strategy, which includes: restraining spending by the Federal Government; working with Congress to pass legislation that promotes economic growth - including making the tax cuts permanent; and reforming the institutions fundamental to American society so that they can meet the realities of the new century."


Hmm, somehow "Bush" and "reality" don't seem to quite go together......

[truckboy]

"Rarely has there been a sweeter irony."

Damn straight.

BG



The idea that History is told by the Victors comes to mind. It's all spin.

[BG]

Just like they teach it in school.

BG

[Rych]

Trailbait,

Just wondering, did your father have similar feelings about Reagan taking credit for the fall of the USSR? Was the USSR's demise a coincidence too?

[Mr_Cheeze]

Depend upon whether his father was a die hard Republican or a realist. I think Reagan was a good President. That being said, the demise of the USSR was mostly a result of the curruption that befell the country and it's consequential implosion. It didn't really matter who was US President. The Soviet downfall was imminent. But, yes, Reagan is given credit - especially by those on the right - because it happened while he was in office. I guess that makes it a coincidence.

In the same regard, Clinton is given credit by Democrats for the booming 90's economy, even though it had mostly to do with the dot-com explosion and corporate real estate. But Bubba was there when it happened, so he get's to say, "Hey, look what I did."


Iraq is different in that George W. Bush precipitated the action which will decide the consequences, whether they will be good or bad. I still think democracy in Iraq has about as much chance of happening as the Tampa Bay Devil Rays have of winning the American League pennant in the next 5 years. However one might feel about the war in Iraq, one thing will remain clear. George Bush will get either credit or blame for success or failure, and rightly so.

[TrailBate]

Trailbait,

Just wondering, did your father have similar feelings about Reagan taking credit for the fall of the USSR? Was the USSR's demise a coincidence too?


The only way you can say Reagan had anything to do with the fall of the Soviet Union is to say that the arms race bankrupted the Soviets. Otherwise, No, Reagan had little to do with it.
My dad cares more about Charlie's Angels reruns than he does about politics. He has never voted.

And don't get me started on Reagan!!

[Mr_Cheeze]

The REAL reason for the downfall of the Soviet Union.

[TrailBate]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/01/voting.problems.ap/index.html

[Rych]

Trailbait,

Just wondering, did your father have similar feelings about Reagan taking credit for the fall of the USSR? Was the USSR's demise a coincidence too?


The only way you can say Reagan had anything to do with the fall of the Soviet Union is to say that the arms race bankrupted the Soviets. Otherwise, No, Reagan had little to do with it.
My dad cares more about Charlie's Angels reruns than he does about politics. He has never voted.

And don't get me started on Reagan!!


That's 100% true. Reagan's policies bankrupted the Soviets. I think that's the only way to look at it.

[TrailBate]

'course, I doubt this was Reagan's intention, unless he was REALLY stupid, which is possible.
"uh, er uh. How about...uh...well... we make the soviets build eh, uh...well...so many tanks, planes, and nukes (half of which turned out to be fake, empty) and soldiers...uh...so that....well....they go bankrupt?"
"great Idea Mr President! Brilliant! make them build the largest military in the world! Good idea!"

[TrailBate]

How to Create a Fascist State.

Step 1


White House Employing 2004 Campaign Tactics at Bush Events
During the 2004 campaign, the RNC ripped up tickets and removed Democrats and others waiting in line to see the President at private campaign rallies. This practice has now been copied by the White House, who now also screens those with tickets to see the President pitch his domestic agenda, including Social Security. The difference is that these recent Bush events are taxpayer-funded and should be open to the public.

February 3rd: Fargo, ND
40 People Barred From Bush Event in North Dakota; White House Says "List" Created by Volunteers. "Not everyone was welcome, apparently, at President Bush's speech in North Dakota yesterday. The Fargo Forum reported that a city commissioner, a liberal radio producer, a deputy Democratic campaign manager and a number of university professors were among more than 40 area residents who were barred from attending the Bush event. Their names were on a list supplied to workers at two ticket distribution sites." The White House "said the list may have come from volunteers; it did not come from the White House." [Washington Post, 2/4/05]

March 21st: Denver, CO
Two Men Removed From Bush's Denver Event. "The man near the entrance of George Bush's nonpolitical, taxpayer-financed 'town hall' meeting Monday stopped Karen Bauer and Leslie Weise. He directed the two Denver women toward a man in a smiley-face tie. 'You've been ID'd,' the second man told them. Bauer and Weise were amazed. Hidden under their business suits, the members of the group Denver Progressives wore T-shirts that said 'Stop the lies.' Along with another Denver Progressives member, Alex Young, they planned to expose the T-shirts as the president talked about Social Security. … Soon, a stocky man with a shaved head, an earpiece and a red lapel pin arrived. He never identified himself as a Secret Service agent, but he did have a message. 'He said we were allowed to go in, but if we caused any problems, we'd be taken to jail,' said Bauer, a 38-year-old marketing coordinator." [Denver Post, 3/23/05]

Secret Service Said They Were on a "List" Provided by the GOP. According to Lon Garner, special agent in charge of the Secret Service's Denver district, "his agents don't remove people from presidential gatherings unless they break the law. The Republican staff, on the other hand, may ask people to leave, Garner said. And like the Secret Service, they also wear lapel pins and earpieces.' Garner said he understood that Republicans had two names on a 'list.'" [Denver Post, 3/23/05]

Colorado GOP Later Confirmed that it was a White House Event; Nevertheless, GOP Organizers Told them it was a "Private Event." "More than an hour before the president arrived, Bauer, Weise and Young were ordered to leave the Wings Over the Rockies Museum. … 'The guy said, 'If the staff asks you to leave, you have to leave. This is a private event.'' It wasn't. Bush's Denver appearance probably cost taxpayers tens of thousands in jet fuel, room rent and personnel. 'This was an official White House event and not a political event,' Colorado GOP executive director David Wardrop explained." [Denver Post, 3/23/05]

Secret Service Now Investigating. "The U.S. Secret Service on Monday said it was investigating the claims of three people who said they were removed from President Bush's town hall meeting on Social Security last week after being singled out because of a bumper sticker on their car." [Rocky Mountain News, 3/29/05]

March 22nd: Tuscon, AZ
University of Arizona Student Had Ticket Ripped Up and was Denied Entrance to White House Event; Student Placed on "List". "UA Young Democrat Steven Gerner, a political science and pre-pharmacy sophomore, said he and three other Young Democrats had been waiting in line with their tickets for about 40 minutes when a staff member approached him and asked to read his T-shirt. Gerner was the only one of the four wearing a UAYD T-shirt, which read, 'Don't be a smart (image of a donkey, the Democratic Party symbol). UA Young Democrats.' Gerner said the staffer, who refused to provide his name, asked for Gerner's ticket and crumpled it up. The staffer walked away, returned in 20 minutes, and told Gerner his name had been added to a list banning him from entering the convention center for the speech." Gerner received his ticket from Representative Grijalva's (D-AZ) office and his name was printed on the ticket. [Arizona Daily Wildcat, 3/22/05, http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/98/118/01_2.html]

Facility Administrators Said Orders Came from the White House; Secret Service Confirms that Event Organizers Were in Charge. "Kate Calhoun, TCC sales and marketing manager, said the venue's staff did not control entrance to the event, but said the Secret Service was taking tickets and exercising 'no discrimination whatsoever.' 'The venue does not issue or check or take tickets,' Calhoun said. 'It's coming straight from the White House - we rent them our space and don't get involved. It was a smooth operation from start to finish, and I did not see anyone denied entry.' Jonathan Cherry, Secret Service spokesman, said the Secret Service was not taking tickets at the event. 'The host committee controls who gets in and who gets out,' Cherry said. 'Secret Service agents are not ticket takers.'" [Arizona Daily Wildcat, 3/22/05, http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/98/118/01_2.html]

[TrailBate]

and I promised myself I wouldn't post any political stuff today. DOh!! I need a 12 step program.....


I am the resurrection and the life. He who believeth in me shall not suffer taxes, even if he liveth in opulence. George 11:25

[TrailBate]

I haven't had a political rant in a while. i need my fix.

Some pretty strong evidence that Bush's re-election was completely fraudulent.

http://www.pollingreport.com/right.htm

how do you win re-election when less than 45% of the people like the direction the country is going in?

[felixatvtc]

I haven't had a political rant in a while. i need my fix.

Some pretty strong evidence that Bush's re-election was completely fraudulent.

http://www.pollingreport.com/right.htm

how do you win re-election when less than 45% of the people like the direction the country is going in?


So what can we do about it? Blow up DC? Hire a sniper? the whole system is ****** and needs to be flushed IMO

[Rych]

I haven't had a political rant in a while. i need my fix.

Some pretty strong evidence that Bush's re-election was completely fraudulent.

http://www.pollingreport.com/right.htm

how do you win re-election when less than 45% of the people like the direction the country is going in?


Because the alternative was John F. Kerry.

[TrailBate]

I haven't had a political rant in a while. i need my fix.

Some pretty strong evidence that Bush's re-election was completely fraudulent.

http://www.pollingreport.com/right.htm

how do you win re-election when less than 45% of the people like the direction the country is going in?


Because the alternative was John F. Kerry.


sad, but true

[TrailBate]

Part of Bush's speech at the Lincoln Museum. With my own comments inserted. Applause are not mine.


The convictions that have guided our history are also at issue in our world. We also face some questions in our time: Do the promises of the Declaration apply beyond the culture that produced it? Are some, because of birth or background, destined to live in tyranny(evidently “yes”, Guatanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, the Patriot Act) -- or do all, regardless of birth or background, deserve to live in freedom? Americans have no right or calling to impose our own form of government on others (but we do it anyway). Yet, American interests and values are both served by standing for liberty in every part of the world (except Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, because they are our “allies”). (Applause.)

Our interests are served when former enemies become democratic partners -- because free governments do not support terror or seek to conquer their neighbors (hmm, I guess America is NOT a free government). Our interests are served by the spread of democratic societies -- because free societies reward the hopes of their citizens (Unless you’re gay, or non-christian), instead of feeding the hatreds that lead to violence. Our deepest values are also served when we take our part in freedom's advance -- when the chains of millions are broken and the captives are set free (except the Abu Ghraib and Guatanamo people) , because we are honored to serve the cause that gave us birth (because the country that invaded America to set us free was……???). (Applause.)

Sometimes the progress of liberty comes gradually, like water that cuts through stone (or through anti-constitutional legislation). Sometimes progress comes like a wildfire, kindled by example and courage (9/11 ?). We see that example and courage today in Afghanistan and Kyrgystan, Ukraine, Georgia and Iraq. We believe that people in Zimbabwe and Iran and Lebanon and beyond have the same hopes, the same rights, and the same future of self-government. The principles of the Declaration still inspire, and the words of the Declaration are forever true. So we will stick to it; we will stand firmly by it (except Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, China, Russia, Rwanda, Congo, Sudan, Palestine, Syria, Chechnya, Tibet…….). (Applause.)

[Slider]

If Bush had two asses he'd talk out them both.

Slider

[TrailBate]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/04/21/myanmar.rights/index.html

Let's see- an oppressive regime, people getting killed, chemical weapons....hmmm...why isn't Bush sending troops here....can't quite put my finger on it....something is missing.......????? oh yea, no oil. ah well, sucks to be them.

[BG]

Oil, GOOD
Golden Pagodas and white washed stupas, BAD

BG

[SloMoJo]

Oh my Gosh!

In my absence from the forum, I have totally forgot my civic duty of trash talking the president. Where have I been?

"That gosh darn president! He can't do anything right...he makes me just wanna whine like a like schoolgirl! .... Waaaaaaa"

There .... I feel soo much better now. ::)

[TrailBate]

Oh my Gosh!

In my absence from the forum, I have totally forgot my civic duty of trash talking the president. Where have I been?

"That gosh darn president! He can't do anything right...he makes me just wanna whine like a like schoolgirl! .... Waaaaaaa"

There .... I feel soo much better now. ::)


or you can whine about people whining. Or you can find something more intellectual to whine about, like the Jackson trial, since the future of the planet is not worth whining about.

[MTBME]

I have a feeling the planet will still be here... long after were gone.

[Slider]

Yeah, but not in the the shape we got it, thanks to people like Bush. And out term here is likely to be a lot shorter than it would be otherwise, again thanks to folks like him.

Slider

[BG]

Bush is just a pimple on the ass of this planet. I think you give him to much credit for something which has been long in the making.

BG

[Slider]

If we can say lack of enforcement, and lack of restrictive regulation are letting ATVs **** up the trails, we can certainly say Bush's anti-environmental, pro-corporation policies are ******* up the planet. There's a direct parallel.

Slider

[BG]

Then let's just legalize ATV's and illegal aliens at the same time and f**k up evertything.

BG

[Slider]

Huh?

Slider

[TrailBate]

Hey, not only are Democrats "anti-faith" (they hate jesus), they also hate blacks!! According to GOP.com anyway...


From TownHall.com

By Herman Cain
Op-Ed
April 20, 2005


I can still remember the separate water fountains and segregated buses as a young boy growing up in Atlanta in the 1950?s. ... Thanks to the leadership of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., U.S. House and Senate Republicans, and the sacrifices of many others, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted to end this discrimination ...

It is now evident that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not apply to the Social Security system. Due to the rising retirement age, differences in life expectancy between Blacks and Whites, and mandatory payroll tax deductions, the system by its very nature discriminates against black men and women. ...

The original retirement age to begin receiving Social Security benefits was set at 65 years. Black women in 1935 lived to an average age of 55, and black men to the age of 51. ...

This disparity in life expectancy still exists, but unfortunately so does the discriminatory nature of Social Security. Black males today have an average life expectancy of 68 years, yet Congress continues to raise the retirement age. ...

To compound the discrimination, your mandatory payroll tax deductions do not go to your heirs when you die ...

Blacks are disadvantaged further ... because most have few dollars to invest in their own 401(k) or IRA plans. ... 38 percent of black retirees rely solely on Social Security ...

Under President Bush?s plan to restructureSocial Security, all of the nation?s younger workers, regardless of race or sex, would have the option to divert a portion of their ... payroll tax deduction to a personal retirement account they control and own. All current and near retirees would receive their guaranteed Social Security benefit ...

Given that we have a President willing to finally address the disparities and discrimination inherent in Social Security, why are Democratic leaders so vehemently opposed to the President?s plan? ... The answer is that congressional Democrats do not want all Americans to drink from the same retirement fountains. ... Members of Congress and all federal workers have personal retirement accounts in what is called the Thrift Savings Plan. ...

Yet, their Democrat[s] ... want to deny us the same access to retirement security they enjoy and let the entire Social Security structure go bankrupt. ...

If we start now, we can end the discrimination in Social Security by demanding that Congress enact an optional system of personal retirement accounts. ...

[BG]

And don't forget the ILLEGAL ALIENS, they are discriminated against too, They don't get social security. Or do they???
Nah, die too young.
I'm going to live to be 110. Life is unfair.

BG

[Slider]

Golly, it wasn't the Army Commanders responsible for the torture in Iraq at all! Just some wayward troops. Luckily, that means it had nothing to do with the Bush administration's efforts to rationalize torture, long before it ever happened. Good thing that Justice Department research had nothing to do with it. I was really worried for a minute there...

Today's Globe:

Brass cleared in Abu Ghraib scandal
Army review said to exonerate four
By Robert Burns, Associated Press | April 23, 2005

WASHINGTON -- The Army has cleared four top officers, including the three-star general who commanded all US forces in Iraq, of all allegations of wrongdoing in connection with prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, officials said yesterday.

Lieutenant General Ricardo A. Sanchez, who became the senior commander in Iraq in June 2003, two months after the fall of Baghdad, had been faulted in earlier investigations for leadership lapses that may have contributed to prisoner abuse. He is the highest-ranking officer to face official allegations of leadership failures in Iraq, but he has not been accused of criminal violations.

After assessing the allegations against Sanchez and taking sworn statements from 37 people involved in Iraq, the Army's inspector general, Lieutenant General Stanley E. Green, concluded that the allegations were unsubstantiated, said the officials who were familiar with the details of Green's probe.

Green reached the same conclusion in the cases of two generals and a colonel who worked for Sanchez.

The officials who disclosed the findings spoke on condition of anonymity because Congress has not yet been fully briefed on Green's findings and the information has not yet been publicly released. Green had scrutinized the actions of Sanchez and 11 other officers.

Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib were physically abused and sexually humiliated by military police and intelligence soldiers in the fall of 2003. Photos of some of the abuse created a firestorm of criticism worldwide.

Congress has hotly debated the question of accountability among senior Army and Defense Department officials who were in positions of responsibility on Iraq detention and interrogation policy. Some Democrats have accused the Pentagon of placing all blame on low-ranking soldiers.

In a statement yesterday that did not mention specific cases, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, Republican of Virginia, said that as soon as all Pentagon assessments of accountability are complete, he will hold a hearing ''to examine the adequacy of those reviews" and to hear senior civilian and military officials address the issue.

Warner said he strongly agrees with one investigation report that concluded last year that commanders should be held accountable for their action or inaction and that military as well as civilian leaders in the Pentagon ''share this burden of responsibility."

The office of Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, a top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, declined to comment.

Some have said the blame should rest with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, although none of the 10 investigations done so far has concluded that he was directly at fault.

Asked about public expectations of punishment for senior officers associated with Abu Ghraib, the Army's chief public affairs officer, Brigadier General Vincent Brooks, said the Army went to great lengths to make its investigations thorough and fair.

In an interview yesterday, three senior defense officials associated with the Green investigations cited mitigating circumstances in the Sanchez case, including the fact that his organization in Iraq, known as Combined Joint Task Force 7, initially was short of the senior officers it required. They also cited other complicating factors, including the upsurge in insurgent violence shortly after Sanchez took command. The three officials spoke on condition of anonymity.

Sanchez has been at the center of the Abu Ghraib controversy from its start. He issued a policy on acceptable interrogation techniques on Sept. 14, 2003, and revised it Oct. 12, about the time the abuses were occurring. The Army inspector general found in an investigation last year that the policies were subject to misinterpretation by soldiers.

Sanchez remains commander of the Army's Fifth Corps, based in Germany.

[BG]

Done deal

BG

[Slider]

Done deal

BG


I suppose that's true, regarding the Army's input anyway. I doubt anyone expected any more from them than they'd get from the Justice Department. But both Republicans and Democrats on the Hill will probably step in for a real inquiry now. They know what a whitwash like this does to both troop moral and the ability of the US to exert influence in the world. We gotta come clean or give up the idea of spreading democracy.

The interesting hearings will come later.

Slider

[Rych]

Happy belated Tax Freedom day, up until April 24th every dollar a Massachusetts resident earns gets confiscated by income taxes.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxfreedomday.html

Of course I don’t think this date takes into count:
Gas Tax
Property Tax
Excise Tax
Sales Tax
Fees
Tolls
Inspection stickers

[TrailBate]

from Lying Media Bastards:

Long story short, in the latest Bush budget, there is a single paragraph which allows the president to appoint an 8-member “Sunset Commission". The commission would review all government programs every ten years, and the ones that they didn’t like (that are “not producing results") would be eliminated unless Congress stepped up and did something to save them.

Near as I can figure, the panel has no oversight, and the president can appoint anyone to it he wants. In other words, this is a de facto way that the president can delete any government programs he wants. He can just appoint a panel that will hate the same programs he does, and they’re gone. Unless the opposition party in Congress has the will and the clout to stop it.

The article’s author points out that the villain behind this plan is Clay Johnson, who worked with Bush when he was governor of Texas. Johnson is a **** for corporate interests, attempting to slash regulations and constraints on big business whenever possible. For example, “One of his first acts in Texas was to remove all three members of the state environmental-protection commission and replace them with a former Monsanto executive, an official with the Texas Beef Council and a lawyer for the oil industry". The article goes on to explain how Johnson instituted something like the Sunset Commission in Texas, and used it to cut funding for effective social programs and increase funding to ineffective partisan programs (e.g. a program that tried to “reduce the number of poor people claiming a low-income tax credit.").

Apparently this Commission idea is potentially unconstitutional, violating the Separation of Powers clause. But they already have a back-up plan: give Congress the power to create the commission. While that’s slightly more Constitutional and democratic, with the Republicans in firm control of the legislature, the results would likely be the same.

[TrailBate]

check this out.
If you go to GOP.com, they'll tell you that most people support ending the filibuster, and they give you nice polling results that seem to support this:

http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=5401

Now go to pollingreport.com, a non-partisan website that collects various polls across the country, and you get a completely opposite result

http://www.pollingreport.com/congress.htm#Misc

hmmm... why is that? I notice GOP.com's social security polls also don't match any national polls. hmmmm......??

[Slider]

More Fascist policy from Bush, among the most sound reasons to hate him and his amazing capacity for evil. He has absolutely no honor whatsoever, and any lip service he pays to ideals like democracy or other moral issues are laughable in their transparency.

Slider

May 1, 2005
U.S. Recruits A Rough Ally To Be a Jailer
By DON VAN NATTA Jr.

Seven months before Sept. 11, 2001, the State Department issued a human rights report on Uzbekistan. It was a litany of horrors.

The police repeatedly tortured prisoners, State Department officials wrote, noting that the most common techniques were "beating, often with blunt weapons, and asphyxiation with a gas mask." Separately, international human rights groups had reported that torture in Uzbek jails included boiling of body parts, using electroshock on genitals and plucking off fingernails and toenails with pliers. Two prisoners were boiled to death, the groups reported. The February 2001 State Department report stated bluntly, "Uzbekistan is an authoritarian state with limited civil rights."

Immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks, however, the Bush administration turned to Uzbekistan as a partner in fighting global terrorism. The nation, a former Soviet republic in Central Asia, granted the United States the use of a military base for fighting the Taliban across the border in Afghanistan. President Bush welcomed President Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan to the White House, and the United States has given Uzbekistan more than $500 million for border control and other security measures.

Now there is growing evidence that the United States has sent terror suspects to Uzbekistan for detention and interrogation, even as Uzbekistan's treatment of its own prisoners continues to earn it admonishments from around the world, including from the State Department.

The so-called rendition program, under which the Central Intelligence Agency transfers terrorism suspects to foreign countries to be held and interrogated, has linked the United States to other countries with poor human rights records. But the turnabout in relations with Uzbekistan is particularly sharp. Before Sept. 11, 2001, there was little high-level contact between Washington and Tashkent, the Uzbek capital, beyond the United States' criticism.

Uzbekistan's role as a surrogate jailer for the United States was confirmed by a half-dozen current and former intelligence officials working in Europe, the Middle East and the United States. The C.I.A. declined to comment on the prisoner transfer program, but an intelligence official estimated that the number of terrorism suspects sent by the United States to Tashkent was in the dozens.

There is other evidence of the United States' reliance on Uzbekistan in the program. On Sept. 21, 2003, two American-registered airplanes - a Gulfstream jet and a Boeing 737 - landed at the international airport in Tashkent, according to flight logs obtained by The New York Times.

Although the precise purpose of those flights is not known, over a span of about three years, from late 2001 until early this year, the C.I.A. used those two planes to ferry terror suspects in American custody to countries around the world for questioning, according to interviews with former and current intelligence officials and flight logs showing the movements of the planes. On the day the planes landed in Tashkent, the Gulfstream had taken off from Baghdad, while the 737 had departed from the Czech Republic, the logs show.

The logs show at least seven flights were made to Uzbekistan by those planes from early 2002 to late 2003, but the records are incomplete.

More here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/01/international/01renditions.htmlhp&ex=1114920000&en=c27c4d556b30a 6ba&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[TrailBate]

Bush's "energy policy"

[BG]

I like coal...I got it in my stocking once.

BG

[Mr_Cheeze]

I think we should burn the homeless. Fix two problems at once.

[BG]

I think we should burn the homeless. Fix two problems at once.



Might only solve one problem...The BTU output in general is too low per person, not enough fat on the bones. Still probably a worthwhile consideration though, at least they are renewable. ;D

BG

[TrailBate]

Then you can make them into soap!

[BG]

Then you can make them into soap!



Ironic, soap from the homeless who never used soap. Would it be bio-degraedable?
Homeless Soap...Hmmmm... could it be marketed as antibacterial? Would it be bio-ethical? Would it smell bad but work good? Could each bar have the face of the donor imptinted on it? Maybe an ethnic limited issue? In different colors, nationalities? Soap from a doper? Wino soap? Wash your ass crack with a former CEO soap?
Come on help me out here, it's raining and i'm bored. This could be big.

BG

[Slider]

From today's NY Times. Are we building toward real class warfare?

This part is scary: "Since 1973 the average income of the top 1 percent of Americans has doubled, and the income of the top 0.1 percent has tripled." If that is not a recipe for revolution, I don't know what is. Economic repression is real, and it never leads to good things. Development of a super-rich class parallels all those now-overthrown European monarchies. We need to get back to a formula for taxation that prevents enormous wealth accumulation.

Slider

June 10, 2005
Losing Our Country
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Baby boomers like me grew up in a relatively equal society. In the 1960's America was a place in which very few people were extremely wealthy, many blue-collar workers earned wages that placed them comfortably in the middle class, and working families could expect steadily rising living standards and a reasonable degree of economic security.

But as The Times's series on class in America reminds us, that was another country. The middle-class society I grew up in no longer exists.

Working families have seen little if any progress over the past 30 years. Adjusted for inflation, the income of the median family doubled between 1947 and 1973. But it rose only 22 percent from 1973 to 2003, and much of that gain was the result of wives' entering the paid labor force or working longer hours, not rising wages.

Meanwhile, economic security is a thing of the past: year-to-year fluctuations in the incomes of working families are far larger than they were a generation ago. All it takes is a bit of bad luck in employment or health to plunge a family that seems solidly middle-class into poverty.

But the wealthy have done very well indeed. Since 1973 the average income of the top 1 percent of Americans has doubled, and the income of the top 0.1 percent has tripled.

Why is this happening? I'll have more to say on that another day, but for now let me just point out that middle-class America didn't emerge by accident. It was created by what has been called the Great Compression of incomes that took place during World War II, and sustained for a generation by social norms that favored equality, strong labor unions and progressive taxation. Since the 1970's, all of those sustaining forces have lost their power.

Since 1980 in particular, U.S. government policies have consistently favored the wealthy at the expense of working families - and under the current administration, that favoritism has become extreme and relentless. From tax cuts that favor the rich to bankruptcy "reform" that punishes the unlucky, almost every domestic policy seems intended to accelerate our march back to the robber baron era.

It's not a pretty picture - which is why right-wing partisans try so hard to discredit anyone who tries to explain to the public what's going on.

These partisans rely in part on obfuscation: shaping, slicing and selectively presenting data in an attempt to mislead. For example, it's a plain fact that the Bush tax cuts heavily favor the rich, especially those who derive most of their income from inherited wealth. Yet this year's Economic Report of the President, in a bravura demonstration of how to lie with statistics, claimed that the cuts "increased the overall progressivity of the federal tax system."

The partisans also rely in part on scare tactics, insisting that any attempt to limit inequality would undermine economic incentives and reduce all of us to shared misery. That claim ignores the fact of U.S. economic success after World War II. It also ignores the lesson we should have learned from recent corporate scandals: sometimes the prospect of great wealth for those who succeed provides an incentive not for high performance, but for fraud.

Above all, the partisans engage in name-calling. To suggest that sustaining programs like Social Security, which protects working Americans from economic risk, should have priority over tax cuts for the rich is to practice "class warfare." To show concern over the growing inequality is to engage in the "politics of envy."

But the real reasons to worry about the explosion of inequality since the 1970's have nothing to do with envy. The fact is that working families aren't sharing in the economy's growth, and face growing economic insecurity. And there's good reason to believe that a society in which most people can reasonably be considered middle class is a better society - and more likely to be a functioning democracy - than one in which there are great extremes of wealth and poverty.

Reversing the rise in inequality and economic insecurity won't be easy: the middle-class society we have lost emerged only after the country was shaken by depression and war. But we can make a start by calling attention to the politicians who systematically make things worse in catering to their contributors. Never mind that straw man, the politics of envy. Let's try to do something about the politics of greed.

[kernel crash]

"Since 1980 in particular, U.S. government policies have consistently favored the wealthy at the expense of working families"

The whole system is a mess. But remember, we have had Democratic administrations during that period. What the answer. Hillary? Romney? Were Fu@ked.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Well, I guess Slider prefers to burn and make soap out of the rich. I guess a decent compromise could be to take both the top and bottom 0.1 percent of income earners and burn them all. The marketing strategies have endless potential.

New From Dial

BILL GATES Body Wash

Made from the genuine charred remains of Bill Gates!

Caution: For those with allergies, this product may contain remains of homeless people with lupus and leprosy.

[Slider]

Well, I guess Slider prefers to burn and make soap out of the rich. I guess a decent compromise could be to take both the top and bottom 0.1 percent of income earners and burn them all. The marketing strategies have endless potential.


I don't want to burn anyone, just take money away from some.

Slider

[MTBME]

"Were Fu@ked. "

Yeah it would appear that way. I use to piss and moan that the companies I worked for had no retirement plans for employees. Now I don't feel so bad as talk of scaling back retirement benefits are on the increase across the board. Imagine getting hit with that when your ready to retire! Ya this country need a top to bottom makeover. I'm almost looking forward to the next election but I'm not sure there's anybody good out there. Oh there out there. It's just that those people don't make it to the big dance. They get brushed aside by the system.

[TrailBate]

"[We] have been led in Mesopotamia into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honour. [We] have been tricked into it by a steady withholding of information. The Baghdad communiqués are belated, insincere, incomplete. Things have been far worse than we have been told, our administration more bloody and inefficient than the public knows... Our unfortunate troops,... under hard conditions of climate and supply, are policing an immense area, paying dearly every day in lives for the willfully wrong policy of the civil administration in Baghdad." - T.E. Lawrence, Sunday Times of London, August 22, 1920

[slapheadmofo]

From today's NY Times. Are we building toward real class warfare?

This part is scary: "Since 1973 the average income of the top 1 percent of Americans has doubled, and the income of the top 0.1 percent has tripled."


Sounds familiar - the company I contract for has laid off well over a thousand people in the past few years, has frozen wages for over 5 years, cut back on or raised the employee contributions for benefits, and is planning more layoffs. Meanwhile, the CEO just got a 680% raise. 680%!! I think companies should have to justify things like that somehow.

[TrailBate]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/22/congress.flagburning.ap/index.html

You know who else wouldn't allow you to burn the country's flag? Saddam Hussein, fer chrissakes!

We're straight on the path to fascism........

[kernel crash]

I got to get me one of these!

[BG]

"We're straight on the path to fascism........ "


I didn't realize my father came to, and i grew up in a facist country. Live and learn.

BG

[Slider]

Your father didn't, nor did you and I. But our kids will.

Slider

[BG]

Sweet, fair market value and cheesey fiesta potatoes for life...Yum.

BG



http://www.tacobell.com/bbvm/

Whooops..wrong place...but does it really matter? Just enjpy the theme song.

BG

[Slider]

Our Secretary of Defense, today:

"There is no Ho Chi Minh or Mao (Zedong) there," Rumsfeld said, referring to the famed revolutionary leaders in Vietnam and China.

"There's a Jordanian terrorist who's killing Iraqi people. There's no national movement in that country. They don't have a vision. They're losers, and they're going to lose," he said.

It is scary to me that the man responsible for leading our efforts in Iraq would seem to be so clueless. Talk about underestimating your enemy.

It comes down to this: Bush and Rumsfeld have given a healthy shove to any Muslims on the fence. They are lightening rods drawing every last bit of hate out of any of them that might consider backing the Iraqi government. They've done more to build the "insurgency" than bin Laden ever could.

They don't need a Ho or a Mao, ignoring the fact that Osama comes close - they have hate, hate that they did not feel prior to our invasion. Hate is a far stronger motivator than any more ethereal ideal we propose. And until Rumsfeld and Bush see that, our effort there is doomed.

Now don't give me this crap about "backing our troops." I am backing them, by calling for less incompetent leadership. Our own ever rising death toll is penalty enough. The Iraqi nationals are in for far worse once we're forced to abandon that country far short of the "nation building" goals we set.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

There is a difference between criticizing the war, and those pushing it, with criticizing the military for doing their jobs and making stupid, nonsensical comparisons to murderous regimes of the past, which accomplishes nothing but inflaming further the hatred that many in the world have towards the US. I agree that this war is nothing but a debacle. It cannot be won. I hear Bush supporters say things like, "The Iraqi's want us there. They want Democracy." I guess the insurgents don't count, then. Because it seems to me that they certainly don't want us there.

[kernel crash]

"I guess the insurgents don't count, then. Because it seems to me that they certainly don't want us there. "

Certainly some of them don't count. The ones from Saudia Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Pakistan, Iran etc. Then you have the local insurgents from the Bath Party, Sunni's etc that have always been the minority party in Iraq. Should their vision for Iraq be forced onto the rest of the country?

[Mr_Cheeze]

As opposed to Bush's vision of democracy being forced onto the rest of the country? You do remember that's not why we originally invaded... to impose democracy. No, it was to find WMD, which we now know never existed. So instead, we are going to spread our precious democracy. Great. What a good deal for those soldiers that continue to get blown to pieces by people who are willing to blow themselves up, believing to become martyrs and achieve salvation for their god. Barbarians.

I agree with Howard Stern. We should have been sending over porn.

[TrailBate]

Hey, Cheeze, weren't you FOR this war once?

[Mr_Cheeze]

Sigh.

Yea, once, when I, like many Americans, actually believed that they had credible data showing the presence of WMD and attempts to procure material to build nuclear weapons. I'm not willing to go as far as some of you guys by stating with certainty that we were lied to. For all I know, Bush was duped. It's certainly easy to believe he could have been.

So, yes, I think we went in for the right reason. We are still there for all of the wrong reasons. I think you'll find that this is a common position these days.

Why is it that you and Slider seem unable to come to grips with the realization that disagreeing with you on any semblance of issues does not make someone a) a Republican and b) a Bush supporter. It gets tiring having to constantly explain this.

Also, maybe you would care to explain why it is so difficult for so many lefties to criticize someone on your side for saying stupid things, like Durbin and Dean and Kennedy? You love to needle the blind followers on the right who listen to Limbaugh, et. al., and think everything Bush and Rumsfield does and says is laced with silver. Yet, and ironically, you are often blinded by your own bias when you defend someone like Durbin and stand behind someone like Hillary Clinton when she, instead of castigating Durbin, later demands that Carl Rove and George Bush apologize for simply pointing out facts about the Democrats stance on the war on terror from the very beginning.

At times, I'm not sure what is worse, the seething and almost palpable Bush hatred by the left; or the blind allegiance to the President and his evidently failed war. Neither are productive and are symptoms of our failing political system.

[TrailBate]

Why is it that you and Slider seem unable to come to grips with the realization that disagreeing with you on any semblance of issues does not make someone a) a Republican and b) a Bush supporter. It gets tiring having to constantly explain this.


well, you gotta admit that most pro-war people are also pro-Bush people, and vice versa. Other than the anti-abortion crowd, Bush won the last election based on the Iraq war and the "their coming to kill us" shtick. (election fraud aside)

[MTBME]

"Bush won the last election based on the Iraq war and the "their coming to kill us" shtick. (election fraud aside) "

Actually I think the polls would say that people felt Bush would do a better job on the war on terrorism not on how he was conducting the Iraqui war. If not for the war, the biggest election total votes in history could have been even bigger.

[Slider]

Too bad all those voters were so wrong. Here's a blogger who gets it. It is an opinion piece, but very accurate:

_http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/kristen-breitweiser/karl-roves-
understandin_3103.html_ (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/kristen-breitweiser/karl-roves-
understandin_3103.html_)

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

Bad link.... here is the one you want: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/kristen-breitweiser/karl-roves-understandin_3103.html

My only comment: people need to understand that Rove is doing his job to take the heat and defend his bosses. That's all he does. He doesn't make policy or decision that affect the country. He is a mouthpiece. That's it. So I think Ms. Breitweiser's comments are somewhat wrongly aimed.

Here's another good one for any Larry David fans... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/larry-david/the-roving-thoughts-of-a-_3287.html

I don't always agree with Ms. Huffington, but I like her nonetheless. Something about her.

[Slider]

I appreciate the correction.

But I think you underestimate Rove's role. He's the Svengali behind Bush. Started with a simple understanding of direct mail which grew to incredibly effective fund-raising.

Here's the connection to policy: The Bush crew has abandoned any sort of idealism or morality in their political maneuverings. It is all about demographics. Rove tells them what will fly with the target group, and Bush makes policy accordingly. The idea is to consolidate and grow power, not to lead the country to a better place.

They're an amoral bunch, with Rove leading the way.

Slider

[TrailBate]

here is an interesting graphic:

http://www.obleek.com/iraq/index.html

[Rych]

I appreciate the correction.

But I think you underestimate Rove's role. He's the Svengali behind Bush. Started with a simple understanding of direct mail which grew to incredibly effective fund-raising.

Here's the connection to policy: The Bush crew has abandoned any sort of idealism or morality in their political maneuverings. It is all about demographics. Rove tells them what will fly with the target group, and Bush makes policy accordingly. The idea is to consolidate and grow power, not to lead the country to a better place.

They're an amoral bunch, with Rove leading the way.

Slider


So who is your moral alternative in '08?

[Slider]

Anyone but, just like last time around.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

I appreciate the correction.

But I think you underestimate Rove's role. He's the Svengali behind Bush. Started with a simple understanding of direct mail which grew to incredibly effective fund-raising.

Here's the connection to policy: The Bush crew has abandoned any sort of idealism or morality in their political maneuverings. It is all about demographics. Rove tells them what will fly with the target group, and Bush makes policy accordingly. The idea is to consolidate and grow power, not to lead the country to a better place.

They're an amoral bunch, with Rove leading the way.

Slider


I know you dislike the invoking of Clinton, but I don't see how what you cite is any different from what his Presidency was all about from day one... really from before day one when he, like his wife is doing right now, reinvented himself as a moderate. Bush did the same thing. That's the game and is why I rail against both major parties. I just wish more people were able to see through the facades.

[Slider]

Clinton didn't drag us into a pointless war, or help us towards a global war between Muslims and the West. We had prosperity, and for the most part, peace.

I am a bottom line kinda man. Bush's bottom line reflects the pockets of him and his friends. Clinton's, whatever the motivation you care to assign him, led to better times for us all.

Slider

[Rych]

Anyone but, just like last time around.

Slider


I'm sorry Slider but that is the typical liberal response.

See other another liberal response:

Conservative “We need to fix Social Security, here’s the Bush plan.”

Typical Liberal response, “This will kill Social Security yada yada yada”

Conservative, “Ok, what is your plan?”

Typical Liberal, “anything but that plan.”

[Rych]

Clinton didn't drag us into a pointless war,

I am a bottom line kinda man. Bush's bottom line reflects the pockets of him and his friends. Clinton's, whatever the motivation you care to assign him, led to better times for us all.

Slider


Didn't Clinton drag us into a pointless war?...Was Kosovo sanctioned by the UN? Was Kosovo a clear and present danger to the United States?

[TrailBate]

Kosovo was a NATO war. No american lives were lost.

[Slider]

Are we still in Kosovo? What did it cost us? Somewhere near the $200billion we are fast approaching in Iraq? Sorry, there's no comparison to Kosovo. Bush stepped in it big time, and it will be a long time before he can scrape it off his shoes.

But I am not the one who even brought up Clinton. I am saying, very simply, that you have to look very far before you can come up with a worse moron or a more compromised sell-out, than Bush. Bring on anyone who is not willing to sell the country down the river to help the bottom line of the Haliburtons of the world, and we will all be far better off.

Re: Social Security - the whole idea that there is a crisis is yet another manufactured load of crap Bush has created. Repeat after me: There is no crisis. At least nothing that a little fiscal responsibility wouldn't fix. Yet again, the President is trying to screw all the near-retirement taxpayers so that his corporate friends can benefit. He may be too stupid to know it, but Bush it attempting to create a class system in America, the kind we revolted against many years ago.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

Clinton didn't drag us into a pointless war, or help us towards a global war between Muslims and the West. We had prosperity, and for the most part, peace.

I am a bottom line kinda man. Bush's bottom line reflects the pockets of him and his friends. Clinton's, whatever the motivation you care to assign him, led to better times for us all.

Slider


I'm sorry, but maybe I missed something. Did Bush incite the fundamentalist Muslims to attack the WTC on 9/11?

[Slider]

I don't think so. But, since 9/11 is unrelated to Iraq, I don't see the connection.

Slider

[Rych]

So what you’re saying is the United States can only respond after being smacked in the mouth? According to all the data that we had, data that Kerry and Clinton agreed with, Iraq was developing WMDs. If a nuke manufactured in Iraq was snuck into NYC people would be screaming “Why didn’t Bush protect us”. Under the 1991 Gulf War ending treaty the burden was on the Iraqis to proof that they had no WMD programs. If we’re not going to hold countries to the treaties they sign then the treaties are not worth the paper on which they are written.

[TrailBate]

So what you’re saying is the United States can only respond after being smacked in the mouth? According to all the data that we had, data that Kerry and Clinton agreed with, Iraq was developing WMDs. If a nuke manufactured in Iraq was snuck into NYC people would be screaming “Why didn’t Bush protect us”. Under the 1991 Gulf War ending treaty the burden was on the Iraqis to proof that they had no WMD programs. If we’re not going to hold countries to the treaties they sign then the treaties are not worth the paper on which they are written.


Yeah, evidence that was fabricated.

And what is with this logic that they had to prove that they did not have it? Wtf is that?

[Slider]

So what you’re saying is the United States can only respond after being smacked in the mouth? According to all the data that we had, data that Kerry and Clinton agreed with, Iraq was developing WMDs. If a nuke manufactured in Iraq was snuck into NYC people would be screaming “Why didn’t Bush protect us”.

Iraq under Saddam could not, in their dreams, successfully attack the US. That was never a threat. "Manufactured" nukes were not a threat. Substitute North Korea or Iran in that sentence, and maybe you'd have a case.

Smuggled fissionable material, on the other hand, is an enormous concern, and Bush has done NOTHING to contain it since 9/11. I would predict that we will someday see a dirty bomb attack on our soil, yet here we are preoccupying ourselves in a no-win war, so that Bush can hand out billions of your money, and mine, to Halliburton, and lots more to who knows who, since there is very little accounting. I am guessing Halliburton got far more than the $12billion or so that actually shows on the books as havng been paid to them, and there is LOTS more to come.

Now, the radiation spread fror a dirty bomb attack won't be too destructive, but the PR value to the terrorists, along with the panic-inducement, will have huge repercussions, economic mostly, and US prestige will fall dramatically.

Attacking Iraq simply made our enemies more successful in their recruiting, and will help them mount such an attack on us. Our government's responsibility is to protect our country, not widen our exposure. Bush is an effing moron.

Slider

[Rych]

Iraq under Saddam could not, in their dreams, successfully attack the US.



Did Sadam dream of trying to Assassinate Bush 41? No he actually attempted that. Assassination. Sounds like an act of war to me. Iraq produce over 8000 liters of liquefied anthrax before gulf war 1. Liquefied Anthrax is not as much of a treat as the powder version that was used in the letter attacks in 2001-2002, however how would you feel if some terrorist dumped a teaspoon of it into you local reservoir? Where did this antrax go? Iraq could not just flush it down the toilet. Under the first gulf war treaty, Iraq was responsible for proving to the world that this and other WMDs were destroyed. They failed to do so.

[kernel crash]

"Attacking Iraq simply made our enemies more successful in their recruiting, and will help them mount such an attack on us. "

Wait. Didn't 9/11 happen before this latest Iraq war? Also the attck on the USS Cole in Yemen. The attack on US embassies in Africa. The 1st attack on the World Trade center. Seems to me our enemies have been busy long before we went back to Iraq.

[Slider]

So why invade? Why not regulary bomb the hell out of them as we were so successfully doing before?

Slider

[TrailBate]

Did Sadam dream of trying to Assassinate Bush 41? No he actually attempted that. Assassination. Sounds like an act of war to me. Iraq produce over 8000 liters of liquefied anthrax before gulf war 1. Liquefied Anthrax is not as much of a treat as the powder version that was used in the letter attacks in 2001-2002, however how would you feel if some terrorist dumped a teaspoon of it into you local reservoir? Where did this antrax go? Iraq could not just flush it down the toilet. Under the first gulf war treaty, Iraq was responsible for proving to the world that this and other WMDs were destroyed. They failed to do so


Rych, it has been proven time and time again that he had NO WMD's since the first Gulf War. Why do you guys keep bringing this up?

[Mr_Cheeze]

That's not true. Why do you think Saddam kicked out the inspectors in 1998? Because he really thought they were all spies? Or because he had somehting to hide? I'll take the latter.

Why did we not find any when we went back? Well maybe we would have if we didn't wait a year to form a stupid coalition, giving them time to move everything to Syria, Jordan, and Pakistan. Maybe he didn't have much, but a guy like Saddam is too arrogant to sit back and do nothing.

Look, don't get me wrong. I'm not defending the war effort right now. The present conflict has nothing to do with why we originally went in there. This whole promoting democracy ******** is just that... ********. It's the height of arrogance... or ignorance to believe that we can change something that has been unchanged for 6000+ years.

[TrailBate]

That's not true. Why do you think Saddam kicked out the inspectors in 1998? Because he really thought they were all spies? Or because he had somehting to hide? I'll take the latter.

Why did we not find any when we went back? Well maybe we would have if we didn't wait a year to form a stupid coalition, giving them time to move everything to Syria, Jordan, and Pakistan. Maybe he didn't have much, but a guy like Saddam is too arrogant to sit back and do nothing.




Why did he kick them out? Probably because he knew no matter what he did, It wouldn't be good enough. Or he was just being a defiant dick. He let them back in before the second war, and they STILL couldn't find anything, even after Bush said he had proof (but didn't feel like sharing it with anyone.)

As for the "sneaking it into other countries". I don't buy it. I've read the government and independent reports that said this would be impossible without anyone noticing.

So we have no proof he had any, no proof he moved it. Yet this was good enough to get tens of thousands of people killed. Why? So Saddam couldn't use his phantom WMD's and get thousands of people killed!

[TrailBate]

This is just another reason to hate Romney.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/06/28/gop_governors_donors_hobnob_at_the_hall_faneuil_me eting_excludes_public/

[kernel crash]

Just curious. Are there any Democrats you hate?

[TrailBate]

Just curious. Are there any Democrats you hate?




I don't "hate" any democrats, but I do think a lot of them are semi-retarded and pussies.

[TrailBate]

Iraq propaganda starts skipping

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/07/24/military.release/index.html


Insert your 1984 quote here:

[truckboy]

Jeebuz,

I expect better from the military propaganists. Sloppy work.

[BrianK]

Hey, what's new with the Karl Rove outing scandal?

Are people really going to just forget this? I guess the supreme court nomination first distracted people and then once the bombings in London happened and with this UN representative nomination, there's been no room to talk about the leaking of classified information by some of Bush's staff...

[TrailBate]

Hey, what's new with the Karl Rove outing scandal?

Are people really going to just forget this? I guess the supreme court nomination first distracted people and then once the bombings in London happened and with this UN representative nomination, there's been no room to talk about the leaking of classified information by some of Bush's staff...


hey now. Didn't you hear about that bride who woke up with her groom missing and a bloody room? How about the plane crash? Or Brad Pitt and what's-her-name? Didn't you hear the runaway bride is finally going to marry that guy?

[Slider]

At some point, the special investigator is going to release his report calling for indictments. It seems he's being pretty thorough, and is now tying up loose ends, talking to lower staffers to confirm or disprove specific facts.

I think we're in the calm before the storm. Don't expect much actual governing to take place once it arrives in the next month or two.

Slider

[TrailBate]

They better not interrupt my Runaway Bride wedding on TV with this stupid Rove-traitor-Bush-murderer-liar crap! Can't you whiny liberals just trust the government, instead of hating Bush for NO reason, and enjoy a good wedding instead?

[Slider]

In this story, we have a career bureaucrat carefully watching our for our tax dollars, who smells scam in the awarding of billions of dollars in no-bid contracts to the profiteers at Halliburton. She gets and award, and the the money is returned, right?

Well, in the Bush reality, she becomes an obstructionist who is liked by nobody, and demoted. Most likely she'll lose her career and possibbly worse. And no one is chasing our money.

So here are the steps: The Treasonater hands out billions to his buds, gets called on it, and sends the person who is trying to protect you and me off to the netherworld.

I've followed this story for a while, and am truly hoping the light of day will send the scum scurrying. The man, the administration, and all his other henchmen deserve nothing less than hell. Read more here if you don't agree, or if you simply want to be sickened by the depth to which they can stoop.

Short excerpt below, more at this link to the Globe.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/08/07/army_whistleblower_draws_fire/

Slider

Army whistleblower draws fire
By Deborah Hastings, AP National Writer | August 7, 2005

WASHINGTON --In the world as Bunnatine Greenhouse sees it, people do the right thing. They stand up for the greater good and they speak up when things go wrong. She believes God has a purpose for each life and she prays every day for that purpose to be made evident. These days she is praying her heart out, because she is in a great deal of trouble.

Bunnatine "Bunny" Greenhouse is the Principal Assistant Responsible for Contracting ("PARC" in the alphabet soup of military acronyms) in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Lest the title fool, she is responsible for awarding billions upon billions in taxpayers' money to private companies hired to resurrect war-torn Iraq and to feed, clothe, shelter and do the laundry of American troops stationed there.

She has rained a mighty storm upon herself for standing up, before members of Congress and live on C-SPAN to proclaim things are just not right in this staggeringly profitable business.

She has asked many questions: Why is Halliburton -- a giant Texas firm that holds more than 50 percent of all rebuilding efforts in Iraq -- getting billions in contracts without competitive bidding? Do the durations of those contracts make sense? Have there been violations of federal laws regulating how the government can spend its money?

Halliburton denies any wrongdoing. "These false allegations have been recycled in the media ad nauseam," the company said in response to a list of e-mailed questions from The Associated Press.

Now Bunny Greenhouse may lose her job -- and her reputation, which she spent a lifetime building.

She is a black woman in a world of mostly white men; a 60-year-old workaholic who abides neither fools nor frauds. But she is out of her element in this fight, her former boss said.

"What Bunny is caught up in is politics of the highest damn order," said retired Gen. Joe Ballard, who hired Greenhouse and headed the Corps until 2000. "This is real hardball they're playing here. Bunny is a procurement officer, she's not a politician. She's not trained to do this."

[TrailBate]

How do you stop an uncomfortable probe (hee hee)? Hire an old Skull and Bones friend to oversee the investigation!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8853002/site/newsweek/

where is Lee Harvey Oswald when you need him?

[FriedRys]

How do you stop an uncomfortable probe (hee hee)? Hire an old Skull and Bones friend to oversee the investigation!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8853002/site/newsweek/

where is Lee Harvey Oswald when you need him?
Are you implying you think the president should be assasinated? Real cool.

[TrailBate]

Oh, my bad. I meant Oswald. The cartoon with the big round blue octopuss.

[FriedRys]

Oh, my bad. I meant Oswald. The cartoon with the big round blue octopuss.
Way to back-pedal buddy, can't imagine how the Dems lost with supporters like you. ::)

[TrailBate]

Oh, my bad. I meant Oswald. The cartoon with the big round blue octopuss.
Way to back-pedal buddy, can't imagine how the Dems lost with supporters like you. ::)


Back-pedaling? Is that like when Bush said he'd fire anyone involved with the leak, then changed his mind and said he'd fire only someone convicted of a crime?

Or is that like when Bush went through a myriad of difference excuses for sending 1800 Americans off to die, every time his previous excuse was proven wrong?

Or is that like when Bush criticized Clinton over not having a withdrawal date for Bosnia, then said that setting a withdrawal date for Iraq would help the terrorists?

Or is that when he said he wanted Osama dead or alive, then when he found out he was a complete failure at finding him, said he wasn't that concerned about him?

[FriedRys]

Oh, my bad. I meant Oswald. The cartoon with the big round blue octopuss.
Way to back-pedal buddy, can't imagine how the Dems lost with supporters like you. ::)


Back-pedaling? Is that like when Bush said he'd fire anyone involved with the leak, then changed his mind and said he'd fire only someone convicted of a crime?

Or is that like when Bush went through a myriad of difference excuses for sending 1800 Americans off to die, every time his previous excuse was proven wrong?

Or is that like when Bush criticized Clinton over not having a withdrawal date for Bosnia, then said that setting a withdrawal date for Iraq would help the terrorists?

Or is that when he said he wanted Osama dead or alive, then when he found out he was a complete failure at finding him, said he wasn't that concerned about him?
Yup, your no better than he is.

[Slider]

We'll, you'd have to admit that Trailbait doesn't have quite as much of an opportunity to f**k things up.

Slider

[TrailBate]

Yup, your no better than he is.


uh huh, riiiiiight..... ::)

[slapheadmofo]

We'll, you'd have to admit that Trailbait doesn't have quite as much of an opportunity to f**k things up.

Slider


True, he'll just spout treasonous drivel, but never actually do anything about it.
Hmmm...seems to fit the M.O. around here doesn't it now?

[Slider]

It is a lot more meaningful than the drivel that supports the Treasonator. The guy is as bad as they come. He is screwing you, me, and the rest of the planet.

Slider

[TrailBate]

True, he'll just spout treasonous drivel, but never actually do anything about it.
Hmmm...seems to fit the M.O. around here doesn't it now?


What would you like me to do? What can I do? I vote, I write my reps, I share Bush's criminal acts with others hoping that they will get a clue.

Who is treasonous? The guy who outs undercover agents, gets 1800 americans killed over a lie, allows more lead and mercury into your drinking water?

Just because he's the president, doesn't make me "treasonous" because I hate his lying guts. Bush is the traitor.

[slapheadmofo]

Advocating the assassination of a US President strikes me as treasonous. Try and dance around it all you want.

[TrailBate]

Advocating the assassination of a US President strikes me as treasonous. Try and dance around it all you want.


If I were a German, and wanted to assassinate Hitler, what would you call that? Or if I were Russian, and wanted to kill Stalin?

It was a joke anyway. Lighten up, francis. What is sad is Bush supporters labeling anyone "treasonous" or "anti-american" that doesn't support this administration's corruption.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Well don't give up hope, all of you so-called "bleeding heart" liberals. There is still time... and history is on your side:
[hr]


THE ZERO FACTOR: Deaths and Assassinations of US Presidents in Years Ending With Zero

1.. Elected in 1840, William Henry Harrison
Died April 6, 1841 of pneumonia.
Vice Ppresident John Tyler

2.. Elected in 1860, Abraham Lincoln
Assassinated April 14, 1865
Succeeded by Vice Ppresident Andrew Johnson

3.. Elected in 1880, James Abram Garfield
Assassinated July 2, 1881
Succeeded by Vice Ppresident Chester Alan Arthur

4.. Elected in 1900, William McKinley
Assassinated September, 6 1901
Succeeded by Vice Ppresident Theodore Roosevelt

5.. Elected in 1920, Warren Gamaliel Harding
Died August 2, 1923 from food poisoning
Succeeded by Vice PpresidentCalvin Coolidge

6.. Elected in 1940, Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Died April 12, 1945, stroke, medical records missing
Succeeded by Vice PpresidentHarry Truman

7.. Elected in 1960, John Fitzgerald Kennedy
Assassinated November 22, 1963
Succeeded by Vice PpresidentLydon Baines Johnson

8.. Elected in 1980, Ronald Wilson Reagan
Assassination attempt on March 30, 1981
Succeeded by George Bush by election.

9.. Elected in 2000, ????? [George W. Bush] update 2001

[TrailBate]

9.. Elected in 2000, ????? [George W. Bush] update 2001

[/tt]


Just don't put my name under there!

[FriedRys]

Advocating the assassination of a US President strikes me as treasonous. Try and dance around it all you want.


If I were a German, and wanted to assassinate Hitler, what would you call that? Or if I were Russian, and wanted to kill Stalin?

It was a joke anyway. Lighten up, francis. What is sad is Bush supporters labeling anyone "treasonous" or "anti-american" that doesn't support this administration's corruption.
I fail to see the humor here, but with luck the Secret Service will get it.

[Mr_Cheeze]

You want to talk humor? Democracy in Iraq. Now that's humor!

[truckboy]

Cheeze,
If you think it's "funny" now, why were you in support of going over there in the first place. What's changed?

[Mr_Cheeze]

Do we have to go over this again? ::)

Fine... why were we originally told that we were going into Iraq? Hmmm? What that? To impose Democracy? To Take out Saddam? To train Iraqi in the arts of education and security?

No... no and no. As I believe you know very well, we were told about WMD, an imminent threat posing a clear and present danger. And I, like many, many, many people were in support of removing that threat. But now I, like many, many, many people, feel we should have left once the WMD factor was erased. Period. Case closed. So stop acting like I've flip flopped. I haven't. It's a distinct, easy to defend position.

So what is it, are you just slow or ignorant to the differences between being for the original stated intent versus the current boondoggle? I'm figuring it's more ignorance to the possibility of independent, non-partisan thought.

[stich]

Do we have to go over this again? ::)

Fine... why were we originally told that we were going into Iraq? Hmmm? What that? To impose Democracy? To Take out Saddam? To train Iraqi in the arts of education and security?

Ok, In case you haven't been paying attention to the signs.
Lemme give you a hint:

It was because Israel told GWB that if he didn't take out saddam, then they would (with a nuke).

The WMD cover up, was just that... a cover up, because we all know the public can't handle news like that.

Get on with it.

Stich

[Mr_Cheeze]

How about we dispense with the Monday morning quarterbacking theories and conspiracies and unfounded suppositions and just go on what we know. Back when this Iraq thing started in 2002, nobody was talking about anything but whether or not there was WMD and/or credible evidence showing as such... even the liberals, many of whom, I remind you, were in favor of sending troops to search for weapons. At this point, there are 2000 theories as to what was really behind all of this, from Israel, to Cheney and his oil and Halliburton cronies, to my personal favorite, the New World Order headed by our beloved Skull and Bonesmen in league to rule the world starting with the Middle east. But I can buy your Israel theory as certainly plausible... in a revisionist kind of fashion. If we are going to talk about who supported what and when, however, we can only start with what information we had at a given point. Nobody should be criticized for changing their position based on the fact that the reasons behind this Iraq debacle have morphed from the very beginning. Take up your beef with those mindless sheep who continue to support Bush no matter what they say, regardless of the evidence contrary to their positions.

[TrailBate]

I fail to see the humor here, but with luck the Secret Service will get it.


what are you saying? I should fear the SS now? What country is this?

Maybe if I'm lucky, I'll get to go to Gitmo. You know, the best prison camp in the history of the world, according to Rumsfeld. Or "club gitmo" according to Rush and other neo-con morons.

[MTBME]

Here's a guy with the most "powerful" job in the universe. What an opportunity. Or is it? Can you come up with a plan or even a vision that you can articulate to the American public about the future of this country? Employment is up yet Manufacturing jobs are evaporating in record numbers. Health care and social security are still a mess. No real fix in sight.

And what with gas prices these days. There seems to be no rhyme or reason to the ever increasing prices! An oil pipe in Iraq gets blown up. Oil rises. Storm in the Gulf of Mexico. Oil goes up. Jose from platform 36 calls in sick. Oil prices rises. There seems to be a plan to keep the prices high. Good luck with the heating oil this winter.

You would think that a guy like George, coming from an oil background, and with major backing from the oil industry, would at least try to create the appearance that he would like to do something about it. Meanwhile, valuable time and opportunities are slipping away. At least Ronald Regan could get in front of the TV set and make you feel like he gave a crap. Somethings gotta change. And I'm not talking about Hillary!

[Mr_Cheeze]

I don't understand your discontent. I mean, our President is in tune with what is truly important to Americans... Democracy in Iraq and social security. What's the beef?

[TrailBate]

This is what I love about oil:

When oil prices drop, you'll hear everyone saying that you won't see it at the pumps for several months, because there is a lag.

When oil prices go up, you see it at the pumps IMMEDIATELY.

Bush says he has no "magic wand" to lower prices, meanwhile Exxon posts the largest quarterly profit in the history of the stock market.

What is his answer? Tax breaks to oil companies, and billions of dollars in research for COAL!!!!!


freakin' douche bag.

[Slider]

One clause in the new energy bill that is representative of it as a whole (hole?).

It provides a $500 million to the oil industry for deep water exploration research. Now, the oil industry has posted huge windfall profits in recent quarters. They are already heavily committed to deep water exploration research. There is NFW that they need any incentives from the taxpayer. The bill is nothing more than a huge handout to the oil industry, from our pockets to theirs, at a time when thay are already taking vast amounts of money from us at the pump.

Screw job.

Slider

[TrailBate]

Oil hit $66 a barrel today.

One year ago today, it was $44

Condie should be able to buy a few more oil tankers for herself. The "Condoleeza Rice 2", the "Condoleeza Rice 3", and the "I can't believe americans are so stupid"

[BrianK]

This is what I love about oil:

When oil prices drop, you'll hear everyone saying that you won't see it at the pumps for several months, because there is a lag.

When oil prices go up, you see it at the pumps IMMEDIATELY.

Bush says he has no "magic wand" to lower prices, meanwhile Exxon posts the largest quarterly profit in the history of the stock market.

What is his answer? Tax breaks to oil companies, and billions of dollars in research for COAL!!!!!


freakin' douche bag.



Damn straight. I couldn't believe my ears when I heard oil companies were getting tax incentives for exploration and alternate energy technologies... because they're the appropriate companies to be looking into how to get us to use less oil.... right...

Its no suprise though because Bush has made it no secret he's in bed with the oil industry.

[FriedRys]

I fail to see the humor here, but with luck the Secret Service will get it.


what are you saying? I should fear the SS now? What country is this?

Maybe if I'm lucky, I'll get to go to Gitmo. You know, the best prison camp in the history of the world, according to Rumsfeld. Or "club gitmo" according to Rush and other neo-con morons.
The Secret Service investigates threats against the president, and you are in a country where making threats (even implied threats) against the president is illegal. Regarding Gitmo, where would you rather spend a prison term in Gitmo or Rikers Island. Let's see Gitmo-good food, plenty of prayer time, and "torture" consisting of toomuch/too litle A/C or Rikers- good food, an hour in the yard and torture consisting of prison gang-rape? Seems to me like the guys at Gitmo are way better off than anybody in a maximum security prison here in America.

[Slider]

So what threat is implied in wishing we had Oswald back? Isn't that more of a statement that Trailbait is NOT the one to do the job? And are you the pussy that is going to make more of this than the joke that it was? And are you defending the treasonous, fascist, whore-sellout that we have for a President?

Lastly, do you endorse a Nazi-like country where a joke gets felony status?

Slider

[slapheadmofo]

"Pussy"?! >:(
Sounds like there's someone else here making more out of something than it really is. Get over yourself you blowhard, and mind your manners a little bit.

[Slider]

The only threat I see in this thread was the one where FriedRys threatens to tell mommy, daddy, and the SS that Trailbait was picking on the Treasonator.

Qualifies as pussy in my book.

Slider

[TrailBate]

The only threat I see in this thread was the one where FriedRys threatens to tell mommy, daddy, and the SS that Trailbait was picking on the Treasonator.

Qualifies as pussy in my book.

Slider


If he's lucky, he'll get a sweet little uniform with an armband.

[off piste]

The only threat I see in this thread was the one where FriedRys threatens to tell mommy, daddy, and the SS that Trailbait was picking on the Treasonator.

Qualifies as pussy in my book.

Slider


Where the frig does FR threaten to "tell on" anyone? All I could get out of his words is that he's stating that it's illegal to make threats against the Pres -- not that he's going to report anyone. AFAIK, that's the truth. I'm sure your reading comprehension goes way beyond mine though, so I welcome the chance to have you break his post down to show that he implied that he was going to report anything to anyone.

[FriedRys]

Show me where I threatened to "tell" on anyone, I assumed with a horrible facist regime like we're living under, that big-brother would be monitoring things like mountainbike bulletin boards. Trailbaits upset cuz he said something stupid and didn't want to retract it. Slider, don't know what your problem is, but as a wise man once said " Go fornicate yourself"

[TrailBate]

This just In!!!

Local mountain biker calls the Feds, get's all employees of Amazon.com arrested!


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0002U6R9G/002-1491484-6524040

[FriedRys]

This just In!!!

Local mountain biker calls the Feds, get's all employees of Amazon.com arrested!


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0002U6R9G/002-1491484-6524040


been saving that up for some time now havn't you?

[TrailBate]

been saving that up for some time now havn't you?


What do you mean?

[Slider]

Show me where I threatened to "tell" on anyone, I assumed with a horrible facist regime like we're living under, that big-brother would be monitoring things like mountainbike bulletin boards. Trailbaits upset cuz he said something stupid and didn't want to retract it. Slider, don't know what your problem is, but as a wise man once said " Go fornicate yourself"


"I fail to see the humor here, but with luck the Secret Service will get it."

Try reading it this way: "I fail to see the humor here young man, and I am sure your parents won't either. " If you don't think that sounds like a prissy schoolmarm, well, read it over a few times.

I really like this deep indignation. Sorta sounds more like desperation, since the Treasonator is clearly not quite living up to your hopes.

Slider

[off piste]

Show me where I threatened to "tell" on anyone, I assumed with a horrible facist regime like we're living under, that big-brother would be monitoring things like mountainbike bulletin boards. Trailbaits upset cuz he said something stupid and didn't want to retract it. Slider, don't know what your problem is, but as a wise man once said " Go fornicate yourself"


"I fail to see the humor here, but with luck the Secret Service will get it."

Try reading it this way: "I fail to see the humor here young man, and I am sure your parents won't either. " If you don't think that sounds like a prissy schoolmarm, well, read it over a few times.

I really like this deep indignation. Sorta sounds more like desperation, since the Treasonator is clearly not quite living up to your hopes.

Slider




Hmmm, I read it as " I didn't get the humor, but hopefully the Secret Service will, and won't act on it because they understood it as a joke." But then again, you're the smart one.....

But, you still didn't establish where he said he was going to actually call the authorities, as you eluded to in your original post. All you're offering up now is what amounts to the beginnings of a back peddle.

Mark

[TrailBate]

Show me where I threatened to "tell" on anyone, I assumed with a horrible facist regime like we're living under, that big-brother would be monitoring things like mountainbike bulletin boards. Trailbaits upset cuz he said something stupid and didn't want to retract it. Slider, don't know what your problem is, but as a wise man once said " Go fornicate yourself"


"I fail to see the humor here, but with luck the Secret Service will get it."

Try reading it this way: "I fail to see the humor here young man, and I am sure your parents won't either. " If you don't think that sounds like a prissy schoolmarm, well, read it over a few times.

I really like this deep indignation. Sorta sounds more like desperation, since the Treasonator is clearly not quite living up to your hopes.

Slider





I see. He says that I was implying that I wanted to kill Bush, but he did NOT imply he wanted to snitch, and gets upset if you think he did. a little double standard there, I guess.

[kernel crash]

"I really like this deep indignation. Sorta sounds more like desperation, since the Treasonator is clearly not quite living up to your hopes."

I think there's enough desperation to go around here. Slider and TB seem frustrated because GW is still standing upright at a time when they had hoped he would be on the mat for the count. And that may still happen. But in the meantime, in this post 9-11 world, you do need to be careful about statements that you post. You could get a knock on the door. I think that's all FR was alluding to.

[Slider]

Hmmm, I read it as " I didn't get the humor, but hopefully the Secret Service will, and won't act on it because they understood it as a joke." But then again, you're the smart one.....

But, you still didn't establish where he said he was going to actually call the authorities, as you eluded to in your original post. All you're offering up now is what amounts to the beginnings of a back peddle.

Mark


Umm, read much? ::)

Like you say, I'm the smart one.

SLider

[FriedRys]

Show me where I threatened to "tell" on anyone, I assumed with a horrible facist regime like we're living under, that big-brother would be monitoring things like mountainbike bulletin boards. Trailbaits upset cuz he said something stupid and didn't want to retract it. Slider, don't know what your problem is, but as a wise man once said " Go fornicate yourself"


"I fail to see the humor here, but with luck the Secret Service will get it."

Try reading it this way: "I fail to see the humor here young man, and I am sure your parents won't either. " If you don't think that sounds like a prissy schoolmarm, well, read it over a few times.

I really like this deep indignation. Sorta sounds more like desperation, since the Treasonator is clearly not quite living up to your hopes.

Slider





I see. He says that I was implying that I wanted to kill Bush, but he did NOT imply he wanted to snitch, and gets upset if you think he did. a little double standard there, I guess.
an implied threat to commit a capital offence and an implied threat that threatening to commit a capital offence is bad idea.....yup, I guess they are the same thing.

[off piste]

Hmmm, I read it as " I didn't get the humor, but hopefully the Secret Service will, and won't act on it because they understood it as a joke." But then again, you're the smart one.....

But, you still didn't establish where he said he was going to actually call the authorities, as you eluded to in your original post. All you're offering up now is what amounts to the beginnings of a back peddle.

Mark


Umm, read much? ::)

Like you say, I'm the smart one.

SLider


I'm sure you're right. So much that, once again I ask -- please show me where in the above statement he claimed he'd cal the authorities. That's all I asked, and you didn't answer it. Spell it out in excruciatiing simplicity, down at my level, so I read it, slap my forehead, exclaim "That's so obvious, I'm such an idiot!!", and slink off. All you offered with your response above was more evidence supporting my statement that you couln't do so and were in the first stages of a back peddle.

Mark

[TrailBate]

I'm sure you're right. So much that, once again I ask -- please show me where in the above statement he claimed he'd cal the authorities. That's all I asked, and you didn't answer it. Spell it out in excruciatiing simplicity, down at my level, so I read it, slap my forehead, exclaim "That's so obvious, I'm such an idiot!!", and slink off. All you offered with your response above was more evidence supporting my statement that you couln't do so and were in the first stages of a back peddle.

Mark


ah, so the mistake was in the inferrence. We should have inferred he was saying the SS reads this forum, instead of inferring he meant the SS was going to find out through him? Our bad!! ::)

[TrailBate]

an implied threat to commit a capital offence and an implied threat that threatening to commit a capital offence is bad idea.....yup, I guess they are the same thing.


No, you are inferring something I did not say, then accuse me of back pedaling when I defend it. Then you claim we are inferring something YOU did not say. Make up yer mind.

jesus, this is like arguing with a PMS'ing woman.

[FriedRys]

an implied threat to commit a capital offence and an implied threat that threatening to commit a capital offence is bad idea.....yup, I guess they are the same thing.


No, you are inferring something I did not say, then accuse me of back pedaling when I defend it. Then you claim we are inferring something YOU did not say. Make up yer mind.

jesus, this is like arguing with a PMS'ing woman.
"We should have inferred he was saying the SS reads this forum, instead of inferring he meant the SS was going to find out through him? Our bad!! "
So did I say it or did you infer it, make up your mind, jeez it's like arguing with a pms'ing woman

[FriedRys]

an implied threat to commit a capital offence and an implied threat that threatening to commit a capital offence is bad idea.....yup, I guess they are the same thing.


No, you are inferring something I did not say, then accuse me of back pedaling when I defend it. Then you claim we are inferring something YOU did not say. Make up yer mind.

jesus, this is like arguing with a PMS'ing woman.
"We should have inferred he was saying the SS reads this forum, instead of inferring he meant the SS was going to find out through him? Our bad!! "
So did I say it or did you infer it, make up your mind, jeez it's like arguing with a pms'ing woman


"something I did not say, then accuse me of back pedaling when I defend it."
so your defending something you did not say?

[off piste]

I'm sure you're right. So much that, once again I ask -- please show me where in the above statement he claimed he'd cal the authorities. That's all I asked, and you didn't answer it. Spell it out in excruciatiing simplicity, down at my level, so I read it, slap my forehead, exclaim "That's so obvious, I'm such an idiot!!", and slink off. All you offered with your response above was more evidence supporting my statement that you couln't do so and were in the first stages of a back peddle.

Mark


ah, so the mistake was in the inferrence. We should have inferred he was saying the SS reads this forum, instead of inferring he meant the SS was going to find out through him? Our bad!! ::)


He made the statement that it is illegal to make a threat against the President. Once again, AFAIK, this is true. Nowhere did he say that you were gonna get reported for an alleged "threat" or not. Google "President, threat, arrest", or something similar, and maybe "FBI Carnivore" while you're at it. Slider, however, explicity stated that FR said he was going to contact the authorities. That's a fact. I was just asking hime to show me where FR said he was going to "report" you.

[slapheadmofo]

Blowhard rampage.

[TrailBate]

"something I did not say, then accuse me of back pedaling when I defend it."
so your defending something you did not say?



Fried, get back to me when you improve on your comprehension skills.

[Slider]

Yeah, no backpedalling here. I read a threat to play tattletale on what I read as a joke, you disagree. No problem.

But this is definitely old.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

All I know is that this is a pretty ridiculous argument precipitated by some hyperbolic indignation over an obvious sarcastic remark, and has degraded into redundant bickering.

ENOUGH!!!!!

Final score: Bush Backers 9 Bush Haters 3



(This score has been paid for by the Rove Committee for Fair Partisanship)

[slapheadmofo]

Blowhards, stand down!

[catbbq]

I think we can all agree that everyone sucks.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Speak for yourself.

In the words of the immortal Richie Cunningham... sit on it!






To this day, I do not know what that means.

[FriedRys]

I think we can all agree that everyone sucks.
recent clinical studies show there are no answers.

[Slider]

Getting the topic back on point...

If we ignore the treason, war-mongering, environmental rape, and fascist tendencies, can we at least agree that Bush is screwing us financially? How else to explain this?

From today's NY Times:

August 29, 2005
Army Contract Official Critical of Halliburton Pact Is Demoted
By ERIK ECKHOLM
A top Army contracting official who criticized a large, noncompetitive contract with the Halliburton Company for work in Iraq was demoted Saturday for what the Army called poor job performance.

The official, Bunnatine H. Greenhouse, has worked in military procurement for 20 years and for the past several years had been the chief overseer of contracts at the Army Corps of Engineers, the agency that has managed much of the reconstruction work in Iraq.

The demotion removes her from the elite Senior Executive Service and reassigns her to a lesser job in the corps' civil works division.

Ms. Greenhouse's lawyer, Michael Kohn, called the action an "obvious reprisal" for the strong objections she raised in 2003 to a series of corps decisions involving the Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root, which has garnered more than $10 billion for work in Iraq.

Dick Cheney led Halliburton, which is based in Texas, before he became vice president.

"She is being demoted because of her strict adherence to procurement requirements and the Army's preference to sidestep them when it suits their needs," Mr. Kohn said Sunday in an interview. He also said the Army had violated a commitment to delay Ms. Greenhouse's dismissal until the completion of an inquiry by the Pentagon's inspector general.

Carol Sanders, spokeswoman for the Army Corps of Engineers, said Sunday that the personnel action against Ms. Greenhouse had been approved by the Department of the Army. And in a memorandum dated June 3, 2005, as the demotion was being arranged, the commander of the corps, Lt. Gen. Carl A. Strock, said the administrative record "clearly demonstrates that Ms. Greenhouse's removal from the S.E.S. is based on her performance and not in retaliation for any disclosures of alleged improprieties that she may have made."

Known as a stickler for the rules on competition, Ms. Greenhouse initially received stellar performance ratings, Mr. Kohn said. But her reviews became negative at roughly the time she began objecting to decisions she saw as improperly favoring Kellogg Brown & Root, he said. Often she hand-wrote her concerns on the contract documents, a practice that corps leaders called unprofessional and confusing.

In October 2004, General Strock, citing two consecutive performance reviews that called Ms. Greenhouse an uncooperative manager, informed her that she would be demoted.

Ms. Greenhouse fought the demotion through official channels, and publicly described her clashes with Corps of Engineers leaders over a five-year, $7 billion oil-repair contract awarded to Kellogg Brown & Root. She had argued that if urgency required a no-bid contract, its duration should be brief.

Ms. Greenhouse had also fought the granting of a waiver to Kellogg Brown & Root in December 2003, approving the high prices it had paid for fuel imports for Iraq, and had objected to extending its five-year contract for logistical support in the Balkans for 11 months and $165 million without competitive bidding. In late June, ignoring warnings from her superiors, Ms. Greenhouse appeared before a Congressional panel, calling the Kellogg Brown & Root oil contract "the most blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed during the course of my professional career." She also said the defense secretary's office had improperly interfered in the awarding of the contract.

Her demotion was delayed when the Army's senior legal officials said they would first seek an independent investigation of her reprisal complaint. "The Army has referred this matter to the Department of Defense inspector general for their review and action, as appropriate," said an Oct. 22, 2004, letter to Ms. Greenhouse's lawyer from Robert M. Fano, the Army's chief of civilian personnel law. The