Bush’s One Hour Argument With Himself
Bush’s One Hour Argument With Himself
Last night, President Bush conducted a one hour argument with himself, otherwise known as the State of the Union.
First, he warned of the dangers of isolationism. He is right. However, it has been the President himself that has pursued policies that have isolated the United States from the rest of the world. Beginning in 2001, the President retreated from international agreements regarding missile defense, the environment and non-proliferation. It was the Bush administration that retreated from engagement policies regarding North Korea and the Middle East Peace Process. It was the President who decided to rush into Iraq without a real international coalition, and then blocked open bidding on contracts that could have drawn the international community into efforts to reconstruct Iraq. It is the arrogance of the Bush administration that has turned world opinion against the United States and caused the world to fear rather than embrace us.
Second, the President advocated the advance of democracy and freedom around the world. He is right. However, the promotion of democracy around the world cannot come at the expense of the rule of law and transparent government here at home. We must practice what we preach. When confronting difficult and unprecedented questions regarding the imperatives of security and privacy, the American people ultimately get to decide after an open and vigorous debate that demonstrates to the world – and to terrorists – what freedom and democracy really mean. These decisions cannot be made by one man, acting in secret and operating above the law.
And, finally, Mr. Bush challenged the country to reduce its dependence on Middle East oil by 75 percent by the year 2025. He is right. Unfortunately, we have squandered five years as the President and his administration chose the opposite course – maximum production that made us more dependent on imported oil, not less. To paraphrase the Vice President, conservation and a balanced approach to our energy security is not a virtue, but a 21st century national security necessity. Current rates of global consumption of oil are unsustainable. Unless we change course, oil will be the most likely future source of international conflict. We need greater diversity in our energy supply – bio-fuels, renewables and even nuclear energy within a stronger international framework. We need to build greater redundancy in our delivery systems to avoid costly market disruptions like we witnessed following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Unfortunately, the President’s vision will take 20 years to achieve. We would be more secure had he put the national interest ahead of special interests when he first came into office.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
You forgot calling the UN and Geneva Convention “quaint.” They said something about NATO being outdated or something like that.
Bush and friends are the ultimate isolationists.
February 1st, 2006 at 12:54 pmGood summation. One hour argument with himself. It was also like the abusive drunk’s flowery promises and pipe dreams made to their victim/ enabler in the honeymoon/make-up phase of the cycle of abuse.
February 1st, 2006 at 12:55 pmGWB vs. GWB — A battle of wits with an unarmed man.
February 1st, 2006 at 12:57 pmAh, yes. I remember Ari Fleischer being asked during one of his first press briefings if the president was going to call on all Americans to conserve. Ari’s answer? “That’s a big ‘No’.” He said that the president felt that our nation’s use of oil was an “American way of life.”
Don’t get me wrong. I’m glad to see that he appears to be coming to his senses on this issue. But will he ever admit that he was wrong in the first place to say we shouldn’t conserve? I doubt it very much. When does he ever admit he was wrong?
And what was with all those warnings about “isolationism”? PJ Crowley is right in that it was the Bush Adminstration whose policies were driving us toward isolationism. But you wouldn’t have gotten that idea from the speech.
And I also agree that the talk about “democracy” was just that – talk. Our nation always says that, but we’ve always been just as happy to prop up tin pot dictators who brutalize their people in order to keep Corporate America able to exploit that country’s resources for our benefit. They like that the royal Saudi family treats their people like crap, as long as we can access to their oil. A democratically elected government in Saudi Arabioa might not want to do business with a president like George W. Bush. I know I don’t.
February 1st, 2006 at 12:57 pmWhy oh why couldn’t Democrats have looked at this website for salient talking points that could have easily been used in the Democratic response last night? You do an excellent job of pointing out clearly and succinctly the difference between what Bush says and reality.
February 1st, 2006 at 1:07 pmThis speech was more for the soundbites than the content. If you’re a supporter and anti-opposition,there are quotes for you(”the advance of freedom is the great story of our time”;”some men rage and fight against it”;”difference between responsible criticism …and defeatism…”).If you’re a Reagan Republican,upset over the growth of government and spending,there are quotes for you(”reduce or eliminate more than 140 programs that are performing poorly”).If you want to have a more civil exchange of ideas,there are quotes for you(”even tough debates can be conducted in a civil tone”). In sum,there are quotes for each and every interest group the speechwriters could reasonably consider. Except,of course, the group who hates him no matter what he says, and then the whole thing doesn’t matter anyway.
February 1st, 2006 at 1:10 pmYou shouldn’t view this as a blueprint,this was just the usual,empty rhetoric we have come to know from our presidents.
One month extension for the Patriot act!
Right after his SOTU! That’s not a lame duck president. That’s a paraplegic fowl president LMAO!
February 1st, 2006 at 1:12 pmTJM I think you have diagnosed the speech quite properly.soundbites not content.
kinda exactally matches his domestic policies soundbites not content,
and the stay the course policy in Iraq, soundbite not content,
I could go on but why waste another hour
February 1st, 2006 at 1:18 pmAmerica rejects the false comfort of isolationism. We are the Nation that saved liberty in Europe, and liberated death camps, and helped raise up democracies, and faced down an evil empire. Once again, we accept the call of history to deliver the oppressed, and move this world toward peace.
Bush is rejecting isolationism only in the sense that he wants to justify imperialism, military aggression. So it’s a sort of unilateral non-isolationism to “deliver the oppressed” (if they happen to have oil).
February 1st, 2006 at 1:18 pmI think we should contact every news organization and tell them to stop calling Cindy Sheehan’s t-shirt an anti war slogan when all it had was the # killed in Iraq.
February 1st, 2006 at 1:19 pm[...] Item for item, issue for issue, Mr. Bush proudly re-proclaimed the same list of promises he has left unfulfilled or actively opposed in his presidency. Meanwhile, Time Kaine showed how Democrats in Virginia have achieved results. [...]
February 1st, 2006 at 1:27 pmHow can there be an anti-war slogan when we’re (apparently) not at war? The Congress never voted for war, and King George never mentioned ‘war’ once in his speech. Why, what we’re doing is promoting peace and democracy, and if you’re not with us you’re against us and our worthy goals. So, yeah, don’t call it an anti-war slogan, call it an anti-peace statement. The sheeple will eat it up.
February 1st, 2006 at 1:31 pmDoesn’t anyone at TP know anything about American history?
This “Guest” has no idea what he/she is talking about. As any 10th grade history student knows, isolationism is a foreign policy doctrine whose premise is that Amercia is protected from attack by two oceans, east and west, plus two friendly neighbors, north and south, and is therefore free to isolate itself by remaining uninvolved in conflicts on other continents.
Isolationism was quite prevalent during the early years of World War I. If memory serves, President Wilson ran for re-election in 1916 on the slogan, “He kept us out of war.” However, President Wilson concluded that America had to join the war against the Allied powers in 1917, and we did so, to decisive effect. World War I ended in 1918, only 18 months after America entered the war.
Isolationism again took hold, though, from 1918 tthrough 1941. In fact, FDR ran for re-election in 1940 on a promise of continued isolationism. When Germany swallowed up Poland, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Holland, Belgium and France in 1939-40, then attacked Britain, we officially stayed out of “Europe’s war.”
The doctrine of isolationism was shattered forever when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. Its final epitaph was written when the al Qaeda terrorists flew passenger jets into the twin towers and the Pentagon. Yet there are still those who believe, against all the evidence of history, that we should withdraw from the fight, and from the world, in a desperate effort to seek peace. It was to those people that President Bush spoke last night, when he underscored that America will never return to an isolationist foreign policy.
The Bush foreign policy, while sometimes at odds with the foreign policies of other nations, has consistently been internationalist and pro-democracy. It has never been one of isolationism. “Guest” should know this, if he/she knows anything at all about American history. If he/she doesn’t know this, “Guest” has no business posting on this subject, and TP should find someone else who knows what he/she is talking about.
February 1st, 2006 at 1:33 pm#10, Jane, Cindy also said that she had the shirt on under a jacket, and, as soon as she went to remove her jacket, a stormtrooper (sorry, my term)grabbed her, took her out, handcuffed and arrested her. Cindy said that she would have been willing to keep her jacket on, but no one gave her time to even offer.
February 1st, 2006 at 1:34 pmTo be fair to King George, he doesn’t understand the meaning of the word isolationism.
From my reading of the speech, he views his imperialistic use of the military as a rejection of isolationism. What he doesn’t understand is that unilateralism isolates America. And what he will never understand is that when other nations reject his unilateral policies, they are rejections of his policies, not expressions of anti-Americanism.
Anyways, I didn’t watch last night, but the one question I would like to put to the Dems is this…. Why the f*ck wasn’t Al Gore unleashed last night? Perfect opportunity. Missed.
February 1st, 2006 at 1:36 pmI suggest that “Guest” re-read the Constitution. We are a republic, not a democracy, and nothing in the Constitution mandates public transparency in every official act. Quite the contrary, it is well within the constitutional authority of Congress, the Executive and the Judiciary to transact business in secret. This is especially so with respect to the activities of the commander in chief during wartime.
“Guest” should know better, and so should TP.
February 1st, 2006 at 1:39 pmI’m with Wayne, I was confused last night with Bushes talk of rejecting isolationism. He made it sound as though isolationism was a policy that the Democrats were pursuing. I certainly have never heard any Democrat or liberal advocating isolationism–Bush himself is the cause of any American isolationism.
February 1st, 2006 at 1:42 pm#9 In fact USA don’t saved liberty in ALL western Europe. I let you guess wich fascist dictator was left in his “mandate” 40 years… until he died in a bed. In fact, the USA profited from the need of the dictator of international relations, agreeing in a treaty to install a series of military bases (surprise, surprise), at the expense of recognize some international traits of the dictator’s, and appeasing him with a good bunch of dollars… but Marshall plan never helped the poor here, because we were not “liberated” with the rest of Europe at the end of WWII.
It’s because this we don’t trust very much in foreing adventures of the USA… June 6th means nothing for us. And hearing those rep whackos saying that all Europe owes them our liberty… not me, sorry.
Bitter? Well, not much. Time has passed, and all the actors or nearly all, of the Fascist War (1936: Begin of Spanish Civil War-1945: End of the WWII) are dead.
Distrustful of the USA foreing policy? You can bet milions of dollars on it.
February 1st, 2006 at 1:42 pmDoes anyone know where the idea of human-animal hybrids came from other than the obvious myths and fictional entertainment? Is someone really trying to do this? Or was it some type of emotional manipulation. I would really like to know if any Right Wingers know about it, I don’t think even crazy Coulter has ever mentioned it in her right to life emotionally charged drama.
February 1st, 2006 at 1:43 pmLet’s see, the Dems filibustered ANWR oil drilling. What energy alternatives would the fever swamp prefer? How about more expensive hydrogen and “clean” coal technology? How about cheaper and safer nuclear technology (after all, the French do it)? Sooner or later ya gotta pick one. Which one will it be?
February 1st, 2006 at 1:43 pmBSR,
The problem is the hypocricy.
CNN
February 1, 2006
Shirt tales different for Sheehan, Republican’s wife
Why was Cindy Sheehan arrested, but Beverly Young was only asked to leave. Neither one was loud or obnoctious. They just had different views on the “war.”
February 1st, 2006 at 1:44 pmThe world SHOULD fear us. We’re not in control of our own government.
February 1st, 2006 at 1:44 pmAbout 40 mins if you subtract the 20 mins of applause time.
February 1st, 2006 at 1:44 pmANWR drilling could feed our need for oil for 1-6 months, if we soley depended on it.
February 1st, 2006 at 1:45 pmThis “Guest†has no idea what he/she is talking about. As any 10th grade history student knows, isolationism is a foreign policy doctrine whose premise is that Amercia is protected from attack by two oceans, east and west, plus two friendly neighbors, north and south, and is therefore free to isolate itself by remaining uninvolved in conflicts on other continents.
The dangers of hoam skoolin!
February 1st, 2006 at 1:46 pmThe admin practices isolationism on a daily basis.
February 1st, 2006 at 1:47 pmI suggest that “Guest†re-read the Constitution. We are a republic, not a democracy, and nothing in the Constitution mandates public transparency in every official act. Quite the contrary, it is well within the constitutional authority of Congress, the Executive and the Judiciary to transact business in secret. This is especially so with respect to the activities of the commander in chief during wartime.
“Guest†should know better, and so should TP.
Comment by Blue State Red
He’s gone off his hoam manifractured “remedeez”!
February 1st, 2006 at 1:48 pmBush-The King of Isolation.
February 1st, 2006 at 1:49 pmHe is truly pathetic.
Why the f*ck wasn’t Al Gore unleashed last night? Perfect opportunity. Missed.
There isn’t one Republican worth his GOP soul who wouldn’t have loved to see Al Gore “unleashed” last night. It would be like the debate “stalker” (Gore) and the Iowa “screamer” (Dean) all rolled into one. Just the kind of thing to increase GOP fundraising, and boost GOP poll numbers, in this election year.
Please, please, somebody “unleash” Al Gore.
February 1st, 2006 at 1:50 pmComment by Blue State Red
Don’t respond directly to this idiot. You may tease him mercilessly as if he wasn’t here. He’s not all there.
February 1st, 2006 at 1:50 pmI think Bush had some points to be made on education, taxes, line items, and energy.
February 1st, 2006 at 1:55 pmWe should hold our heads in shame for the sory ass performance and the applauds it received .
February 1st, 2006 at 2:12 pmGawd! You are an idiot! Do you have any idea how ridiculous you look? Most of the founders, primarily Washington, admonished the new nation about entanglements in foreign wars. There were no “friendlies” on northern or southern borders. Mexico has repeatedly invaded our country. In fact, if the reports are true, the Mexican military just did it again a few days ago.
Isolationism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
International
Relations
Theory
Realism
Liberalism
Idealism
Neoconservatism
Institutionalism
Functionalism
Marxism
Critical theory
Isolationism
Isolationism is a foreign policy which combines a non-interventionist military and political policy with a policy of economic nationalism (protectionism). In other words, it asserts both of the following:
Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense.
There should be legal barriers to prevent trade and cultural exchange with people in other states.
The term “isolationism” was coined by military interventionists as a pejorative term during World War I to refer to people who opposed the United States’ entry into that war. Later, the term “isolationism” was used 1939-41 to refer to opponents of United States’ entry into World War Two. The two most prominent leaders were Charles Lindbergh and historian Charles A. Beard. See America First Committee. “Isolationism” is often misused to refer to non-interventionism in general, rather than non-intervention conjoined with economic nationalism.
BSR is an America Firster who wants to eradicate the brown people. He’d rather let the Nazis do it but they are no longer around, because we, the left, had to drag his kind of lazy assed fascist, kicking and screaming, into the war to stop the Nazis.
February 1st, 2006 at 2:15 pmI think Bush had some points to be made on education, taxes, line items, and energy.
Comment by Chris
What’s your point? Talk is cheap. It just costs more at the SOTU. It’s all the security and the venue is pricey.
February 1st, 2006 at 2:19 pmHow about cheaper and safer nuclear technology (after all, the French do it)? Sooner or later ya gotta pick one. Which one will it be?
Comment by Blue State Red #20
Fool’s State inb’Red,
Nuclear explosion in your neighborhood, the radiation mixed with the hot air from your tired a*s ought to keep America warm til the next ice age!
February 1st, 2006 at 2:31 pmBSR “How about cheaper and safer nuclear technology (after all, the French do it)? Sooner or later ya gotta pick one. Which one will it be?”
You don’t have to pick one like it’s the only friggin choices. What Bush needs to do is listen to experts in the field of energy. I’m not talking Oil Excecutives – they are business experts that don’t want thier profits to go anywhere but skyward. I’m talking people with scientific knowledge. Unfortunately, Bush doesn’t believe in science.
February 1st, 2006 at 2:42 pmUnfortunately, Bush doesn’t believe in science.
Comment by Bob Loblaw
Christian science?
February 1st, 2006 at 3:12 pmSo an international coalition is not “real” unless it includes France, Germany and/or Canada?
February 1st, 2006 at 3:34 pmPersonally, I thought it was a one hour handjob on the entire nation.
Freedom is such a great word–especially when it only applies to people who think like you and never question anything you say.
Ask Cindy Sheehan about “freedom”.
February 1st, 2006 at 3:42 pmSo an international coalition is not “real†unless it includes France, Germany and/or Canada?
Comment by hawkseye — February 1, 2006 @ 3:34 pm
A real coalition would have a more balanced numbers of troops from the member countries, for starters.
US forces are around 140,000 and the rest of the countries have around 22,000 personnel (not all are troops). So the US contributes to the “coalition of the willing” roughly 88% of its personnel, and about the same proportion of casualties. Those percentages will increase after the imminent withdrawal of more countries from Iraq.
Also, a real coalition does not need its members to bebribed and bullied as the Bush adminsitration did to many of the countries in their “coalition of the willing” -which has turned out to be anything but that.
February 1st, 2006 at 4:07 pmWas Bushie claiming “isolationism” against those who disagree with his plan to trip around the world toppling governments that don’t meet his ideal — those who opposed his illegal invasion of Iraq — what was he talking about?
February 1st, 2006 at 4:31 pmThis was a lame speech given by a lame duck, spoken by a real dumbass man.
For another take on the SOTU — should Americans trust Bush’s call for “goodwill” — check out this JABBS post.
February 1st, 2006 at 4:36 pmYep! TP and all posters. It was a boring 1 hour argument with him self and like many mentaly impaired, he lost those arguments. Sad thing is we and the world sill continue to pay for this dumb asses mistakes for years, maybe generations….Blessings
February 1st, 2006 at 4:49 pmTalk about Orwellian or what! WOW!!! W says….
February 1st, 2006 at 6:14 pm“However, the promotion of democracy around the world cannot come at the expense of the rule of law and transparent government here at home.”
This is the usual contemptuous, lying, hypocritical bs that comes out of that admin. Whatever semblance of democracy he thinks he is fostering abroad is absolutely coming at the expence of the rule of law and transparent gov’ment at home. The very next sentence in the speech is amazing in it’s brazenness.
“We must practice what we preach.”…..he says.
What a joke. Sad part is….. most of America still has
the hook in thier mouth!
No kidding! I was flabbergasted last night by the number of proposals in last night’s SOTU which flat-out contradicted policy decisions Bush has made in the past — such as the simultaneous call to reduce the skyrocketing deficits while at the same time making his tax cuts permanent. (I ask ya…did anyone else hear a faint echo of Daddy Bush’s infamous “read my lips” quote when Sonny Bush talked about that? That money has to come from *somewhere*.) Then there was that corker about wanting to encourage American youth to study math and science so that they can help with the energy situation — somehow conveniently forgetting that he recently slashed billions from the student loan program which might have actually helped make this possible. I swer…given this man’s incredible talent for dissociating one thing from another, it’s enough to make me wonder if he might not have multiple personality disorder like the “Three Faces Of Eve” — anyone else remember Eve White and Eve Black?
February 1st, 2006 at 6:24 pmBy LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
10 minutes ago
WASHINGTON – Capitol Police dropped a charge of unlawful conduct against anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan on Wednesday and apologized for ejecting her and a congressman’s wife from President Bush’s State of the Union address for wearing T-shirts with war messages.
“The officers made a good faith, but mistaken effort to enforce an old unwritten interpretation of the prohibitions about demonstrating in the Capitol,” Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer said in a statement late Wednesday.
“The policy and procedures were too vague,” he added. “The failure to adequately prepare the officers is mine.”
February 1st, 2006 at 7:08 pm“Last night, President Bush conducted a one hour argument with himself”
true… but the bushcrimincal always, ALWAYS talks out his ass so its OK.
February 1st, 2006 at 8:20 pm.
As a longtime energy industry worker, I agree entirely with the article’s contention that “conservation and a balanced approach to our energy security is not a virtue, but a 21st century national security necessity.” The cheapest energy is the stuff you don’t use. This applies both to transportation (re: oil) and electric power generation and heating (gas, coal, nuclear.)
PS: If viewers would like to read an inside account of the US nuclear industry written with the lay person in mind, see http://RadDecision.blogspot.com for my techno-thriller novel. It is available free to readers, has gotten a lot of positive comments at the website, and has been endorsed by Stewart Brand, founder of The Whole Earth Catalog. Again: no cost or exposure to advertising is involved.
February 1st, 2006 at 10:19 pmBush having a argument with himself is probably true, because he is bi-polar! Which means he loves himself and then hates himself too! He thinks he helps Americans and then wants to spy on them! He must resign because he is mentally ill!
February 1st, 2006 at 10:20 pmThis is especially so with respect to the activities of the commander in chief during wartime.
“Guest†should know better, and so should TP.
Comment by Blue State Red — February 1, 2006 @ 1:39 pm
As you have seen, Bush spends much of His time on Photo-ops or Vacations. From the E.O.’s that I have Read, the President has signed Over, most if not all of his War Duties to Others, Such as Condi, Rummy etc..
Hes Not a Commander In Chief, hes a ‘Vacationer In Chief’ of Photo ops and Rhetoric.
How So Blue State ReD does Bush, the Commander In Chief taking so many vacations not Weaken National Security
February 2nd, 2006 at 3:55 amIn Fact Bush took a Vacation for a Month right before 9/11
This is especially so with respect to the activities of the commander in chief during wartime.
“Guest†should know better, and so should TP.
Comment by Blue State Red — February 1, 2006 @ 1:39 pm
You dont Earn Respect by Making Misleading Statements on the SOTU, then Later on State “Dont take what Bush Says Literally”
thats Crazy Talk.
Respect is Earned BSR, Not Given.
We Dont Do ‘Kings’ in The USA.
February 2nd, 2006 at 4:00 amIf you Want to Kiss Bush Butt, Fine.
Just Leave Me outta of your Bush ‘Imagination’
And you WANT Bushco to have Warrantless Taps when he CANT even CONTROL his OWn Admin?
I cannot phathom, honestly BSR, how anyone at this point, can defend this Mans Word?
Who Will Guard the Guardians?
Porn activity detected at DHS
January 27, 2006
by Alice Lipowicz
Washington Technology
The Homeland Security Department’s internal computer network generated 65 million security alerts during a three-month period and 6.5 million of those may be linked to employees accessing pornographic words or materials, according to a report today from DHS inspector general Richard Skinner.
Nearly three-quarters of the automated “security event messages†and “detect.misuse.porn†alerts originated from 16 devices on the department’s wide area network, according to the report. However, DHS could not identify the specific workstations that had generated the messages, the inspector general found.
Under DHS policy, employees are forbidden to access pornographic materials from workstations. However, the “detect.misuse.porn†message may not necessarily indicate pornography, the IG report explains in a footnote.
DHS’ automated network security tools—which create warnings when detecting a possible breach of IT security—are programmed to look for pornographic keywords such as “oral.†But sometimes alerts are generated when the keywords are embedded in other words, such as in “behavioral,†the report said.
February 2nd, 2006 at 4:05 amVery, very good summation of the scandal that is called the white house under Bush. For a promotor of democracy Bush isn’t very keen on it, since he stole the 2000 election. Liberty? He only gives people the liberty to die, to dehydrate, and …… to buy. Furthermore, for a promotor of spirituality and christianity, he isn’t very keen on the virtues that they’re based on. Don’t lie, don’t steal, don’t kill, turn the other cheek, practice what you preach; be good to your neighbour (ANY neighbour). It doesn’t seem to ring any bells for Bush (what a Christian!). The White house-nitwits don’t realize the hell they’re bringing on themselves.
February 2nd, 2006 at 7:46 am“…since he stole the 2000 election.”
That made me laugh out loud. Thanks so much! I love it when you liberals fall apart.
February 2nd, 2006 at 8:43 amThat made me laugh out loud. Thanks so much! I love it when you liberals fall apart.
Comment by Pfunk — February 2, 2006 @ 8:43 am
Once again the Dimbaughs are out seeking Liberals. but Hey Im not a Liberal. Care to try that Again?
Sure you have some Data to back up what you say, if you dont then your truly are unable to stand on your own two feet, and fall back upon some Pundit for your daily speaking points. By the Looks of it, you are parroting Rush DimBulb and the ‘Liberal’ Word, which means nothng to me.
If I were to Use one of your Euphemisms, the RUSH, the Oxycontin addict, a drug user, is a Liberal. Or perhaps Vice versa. Since Rush is an Addict, but hes a CON. The CONS, by your logic of Addiction is related to Politico Choice, then the Neo-cons, and the Limbaugh ‘Conservatives’ are actually the
Drug using ‘Liberals’ you try so hard to Identify on your Rabid ankle biting searches thru the Internet.
\
Only to find that Rush Lied to you, and your Latent Racisms, why?, for Ratings of course? And you helped support a Lying Drug User? A neo-Con?
Your point is not only Moot, its Backwards. NEo-cons are ‘Liberals’ in your codeified Speak.
February 2nd, 2006 at 10:03 amI notice Pfunky, that you skipped right over my posts, whats wrong, this ‘Liberal’ as you say, wrongly, got your tongue?
February 2nd, 2006 at 10:07 amAt least one person is convinced about victory & the positive state of the union, g.ee w.hizz himself. But then again, delusional as he is, he probably thinks theres 2 people when hes looking in the mirror practicing his speech.
February 2nd, 2006 at 5:16 pmIts a slam dunk argument.
Bush should be hunting animals and collecting bugs.. He’s a cowboy with too much money, having a daddy with too much influence
May 4th, 2006 at 12:00 pmGreat post, I see racial self-segregation all the time, and I want to investigate the issue more thoroughly.
November 2nd, 2006 at 8:26 amI always find something new and interesting every time I come around here – thanks.