More Downing Street revelations: In a confidential memo written in May 2003, John Sawers, Prime Minister Tony Blair’s envoy in Baghdad, characterized the U.S. postwar administration of Iraq as “No leadership, no strategy, no coordination, no structure and inaccessible to ordinary Iraqis.” At approximately the same time, Bush was declaring “Mission Accomplished.”
Pakistan’s foreign office “paid tens of thousands of dollars to lobbyists in the U.S. to get anti-Pakistan references dropped from the 9/11 inquiry commission report,” according to foreign service officials in a Pakistani weekly.
Right-wing Christian evangelist Pat Robertson shows no signs of slowing down after losing his seat earlier this month on the Religious Broadcasters’ Board over a series of hate-filled comments. Robertson yesterday called Muslims “satanic†and distanced himself from Bush by declaring Islam is not a religion of peace.
$1.05 million: Amount taxpayers spent last year on leasing vehicles for members of Congress, including “Lexuses, Lincolns, Cadillacs, an Infiniti, even a BMW 530i.”
Abramoff probe deepens: Senate investigators are reviewing new documents subpoenaed from Abramoff’s former lobby firms, Greenberg Traurig and Preston Gates and Ellis. “To date, those firms have largely dodged the bullet, pleading ignorance of Jack’s misdeeds. But scandal-watchers say that’s hard to swallow.”
Debt clock retired too soon? “When it shut down, the federal budget was running a surplus. … The rising debt tally is a reminder, economists say, that the nation is on an unsustainable fiscal course.”
“Executives from six major oil companies will make what is expected to be a standing-room-only appearance at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing where lawmakers will push for an explanation of the companies’ huge profits and what they plan to do to ease consumers’ soaring energy costs.” Will Specter pull a Stevens, or will he swear them in?
The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has reached “a new record level” and Arctic sea ice “has failed to re-form for the second consecutive winter, raising fears that global warming may have tipped the polar regions in to irreversible climate change far sooner than predicted.”
Morale is low at the Department of Homeland Security as “[v]acancies and personnel turnover have reached such high levels…that they may be hampering the agency’s effectiveness.”
And finally: Frederick Malek, the Advisory Committee member of Scooter Libby’s legal fund who infamously counted the number of Jews in a government agency, was arrested as a young man for killing, skinning, barbecuing, and eating a dog.
What did we miss? Let us know in the comments section.
mmmm….dog
March 14th, 2006 at 9:20 amRobertson and Falwell have drunk too much Koolaid. Time for them to grab Dobson, and the rest, head for the mountains to await the rapture, and spare the rest of us from their words of hate and intolerance, self-righteousness and false piety.
March 14th, 2006 at 9:25 amThe biggest vacancy at HS is still the one between Chertoff’s ears.
March 14th, 2006 at 9:32 am#2 As a conservative, I completly agree with you. These people def. do not help. I compare them to your guys Sheehans, Moore’s, and DailyKos types.
Sadly, they haven’t drank enough koolaid, isn’t it normally laced with stuff to go to their makers? Like that comet group from a few years back.
March 14th, 2006 at 9:39 am‘I compare them to your guys Sheehans, Moore’s, and DailyKos types. ‘…I take it you have first shift for ‘Trolls are us’..?
March 14th, 2006 at 9:55 amNot at all, but to me, the hardcore christian right is comparable in their lunacy to the hard core elements of the left, such as the ones I listed above.
March 14th, 2006 at 9:59 amYes a mother whose son was killed in a war and wants the president to say what the noble cause that he died for is, is right up there with Falwell and Robertson. Not that is a stretch. But you can make it if it makes you fell better. And correct me if I am wrong but I don’t recall Sheehan or Moore calling fo rthe deaths of others or sentencing them hell because they didn’t have the same beliefs as they did. Or hiding behind tax-exempt religious status while ranting political talking points.
Again if it makes you feel better….
March 14th, 2006 at 10:05 am#6 - Please, share with us your comparison between Ms. Sheenan and Mr. Flawell. Seriously! When I compare the two, I find very little in common.
Pat Robertson:
“just shows the kind of people we’re dealing with. These people are crazed fanatics, and I want to say it now: I believe it’s motivated by demonic power. It is satanic and it’s time we recognize what we’re dealing with.”
“the goal of Islam, ladies and gentlemen, whether you like it or not, is world domination.”
Cindy Sheehan:
“I don’t care if a human being is black, brown, white, yellow or pink. I don’t care if a human being is Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, or pagan. I don’t care what flag a person salutes: if a human being is hungry, then it is up to another human being to feed him/her. George Bush needs to stop talking, admit the mistakes of his all around failed administration, pull our troops out of occupied New Orleans and Iraq, and excuse his self from power. The only way America will become more secure is if we have a new administration that cares about Americans even if they don’t fall into the top two percent of the wealthiest.â€
March 14th, 2006 at 10:11 am“It is a Christ-like principal to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and shelter the homeless. That’s what is happening in Algiers and other places in Louisiana…but by the people of America, not the so-called “Christians” in charge. If George Bush truly listened to God and read the words of the Christ, Iraq and the devastation in New Orleans would have never happened.â€
Sheehan hides behind freedom of speech while ranting political talking points, and I don’t see Moore employing any minorities like he claims everyone else should be doing. Both sides are full of hypocracy and/or idiocy, and that was the extent of my point.
March 14th, 2006 at 10:12 am#8 - Personal Correction to my post:
Not “Flawell” (or Falwell spelled correctly) but Pat Robertson.
I would really like to hear “squegeeboo’s” comparison between these two people and find out how he can compare someone who calls others “satanic” and “motivated by demonic power” to another who says “(Pres.) George Bush needs to stop talking, admit the mistakes of his all around failed administration, pull our troops out of occupied New Orleans and Iraq, and excuse his self from power”.
March 14th, 2006 at 10:14 amif the primary use freedom of speech isn’t ranting poolitical talking points, what is?
March 14th, 2006 at 10:17 am#9 - OK, I can understand your position to a degree. Of course, I think you’re wrong to lump Cindy Sheehan with Pat Robertson, but we both have opinions.
And we all know what opinions are like: everyone has one and nobody really wants to hear from them. ;-)
Joking aside, I find the right wing to have a whole lot more of the people you define as “hiding behind freedom of speech while ranting political talking points” than the left ever had.
March 14th, 2006 at 10:17 am#9
Hiding behind the freedom of speech!?! Didn’t know anyone had to do that…well nowadays with Bush in power who knows.
So what is the breakdown of the poeple that Moore has working for him? I would like to see that information.
March 14th, 2006 at 10:20 amThe next time some one of the conservative ilk uses the Socialist word like a scurrilous slur, remind them of this example of US taxpayer supported funding of these companies. Sounds like Global Socialism to me.When are we going to get our Iraqi stipend? The way to solve the budget crisis is to pay Halliburton to run the country and charge them at a 90% income tax level.
March 14th, 2006 at 10:25 amIs anyone else as sickened as I am over the fact that lobbyists had that much control over what went into the 9/11 report? Makes you wonder what else didn’t make it in.
March 14th, 2006 at 10:26 am#15, it does doesn’t it? The 9-11 doc did have some value, but I judge the reactions of the families after it came out as a measure of it’s ‘truthiness’. It was not a whitewash, but it was a nice warm fuzzy shade that made you feel comfortable and numb all over.
March 14th, 2006 at 10:29 am#9 but only ONE side is activly getting thousands killed and that is the point
March 14th, 2006 at 10:30 am#12 My lumping of them is to put them both on the extremes of the side they are on.
If you consider the right having a whole lot more, what about 95% of Hollywood, who whenever they are challenged on their views, respond with “Your trying to suspend my freedom of speech”.
Thanks for at least being able to see my position.
Now on to your others:
#8 Cindy Sheehan has gotten where she is through simple manipulation, when you look at her orginal comments on her meeting with the president, and the subsequent comments during/after her 15 minutes the two do not match at all. This makes her a liar at least. Then, when you see that nearly every memeber of her extended family signed a statement saying they do not agree with her position, and her son, who re-upped in the military during the war, you have to realise that no one in her family, supports her, and from looking at the evidence if her son was alive he would prob. also not support her. Yet her she is, using the memory of her son to try and make her point. That sickens me, just like the crazy comments of Falwell, Robertson, and others, such as Buchanan.
#10 The woman is crazy, “occupied New Orleans” if she can say, and believe that, how solidly built can any of her other views be? The man is crazy, “motivated by demonic powers” if he can say, and believe that, how solidly built can any of his otehr views be? Hows that for a comparision? :)
March 14th, 2006 at 10:31 amGov’t Incompetence, Daily Update
Subject: Trust Who to Protect Us
Message:
In Today’s NY Times:
By NEIL A. LEWIS
Published: March 14, 2006
ALEXANDRIA, Va., March 13 — An angry federal judge delayed the sentencing trial of Zacarias Moussaoui on Monday and said she was considering ending the prosecution’s bid to have him executed after the disclosure that a government lawyer had improperly coached some witnesses.
http://www.nytimes.com/ 2006/ 03/ 14/ national/ 14moussaoui.html?_r=1&th=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&emc=th&adxnnlx=1142350188-id9zgPyflAByIoLQcwzhTA
March 14th, 2006 at 10:31 amwith all the wingnut lies out there, I hereby declare “Freedom FROM speech”. Like bushsaid:
“Fool me once..aaa…shame..on ….a….who’s on first?”
March 14th, 2006 at 10:34 am#13 sadly, I’m at work, and don’t have my source in front of me, it was covered in the book “Do as I Say, not as I Do” it is a biased source, but the Moore part had info/citations backing it up.
March 14th, 2006 at 10:38 am#10 The woman is crazy, “occupied New Orleans†if she can say, and believe that, how solidly built can any of her other views be?
Comment by squegeeboo — March 14, 2006 @ 10:31 am
True that. It’d be like saying “Mission Accomplished” years before you had even set guidelines for “victory.” I mean how solidly built could that person’s views be?
March 14th, 2006 at 10:38 am#22 Ouch, give me a few weeks, and maybe I can have a good reply built for that one.
March 14th, 2006 at 10:41 am#18 - You’ve given me food for thought. I’ll do some research when I’m not busy at work and get back to this subject.
While I still think your perception of Ms. Sheehan is incorrect, I’ll suspend my judgement until I can research the material your reference further.
I will agree that there are people on both ends of the spectrum that give the left/right a bad name. Personally, I find the far right to be far more hypocritical when compared to the so-called ‘values’ to which they claim to adhere than those on the left. Again, this is my opinion.
March 14th, 2006 at 10:41 am“The DailyKos types…”????
There are 75,000+ registered members of DailyKos. Which individuals do you happen to be referring to? What makes them a “type….”?
I happen to be a member there. As a conservative myself, and still a registered Republican (only because I’m alse a procrastinator), I have NOT been shunned, although I WAS banned at redstate when I had the audacity to hide behind freedom of speech to point out some facts that didn’t match the spin of the day.
Let me tell you, dude — conservative does NOT mean religious nutcase, homophobe, xenophobe, racist, mysogynist, or environmental rapist. There is NOTHING conservative about corruption, incompetence, aggression in the name of defense, or or eating the seed corn by looting the treasury in the holy name of tax cuts.
I knew Barry Goldwater. If he were alive today, he would be out front instead of Cindy Sheehan.
March 14th, 2006 at 10:44 am“Then, when you see that nearly every memeber of her extended family signed a statement saying they do not agree with her position[. . .]
I think giving birth to her son kind of trumps those who disagree. Did they spend time, or endure pain to give birth? She earned her right to bitch. What about you? What have you sacrificed for this country, that you can belittle other’s contributions?
Whether you like it or not, if you call yourself a conservative, Falwell, Dobson, and Robertson are your religious representatives, and no amount of “a pox on both their houses” -type talk is going to change that fact. Get used to it.
March 14th, 2006 at 10:46 amSheehan hides behind freedom of speech while ranting political talking points…
Comment by squegeeboo — March 14, 2006 @ 10:12 am
Please, I want to hear more about your rationale for the above statement. Certainly, one can hide behind the “freedom of speech” to commit crimes like perjury, libel, slander, and false advertising.
If my freedom of speech cannot be used for making whatever political statement I choose, then it is worthless, it is no freedom at all.
March 14th, 2006 at 10:46 amIt’s refreshing to read countering view points without the slander. keep it up
March 14th, 2006 at 10:46 amWhen the f-911 movie came out, every wingnut jumped on trying to show something in it that was untrue…..nothing,nada…zip. Sorry but ‘Rush was WRONG, and Moore was right’.
March 14th, 2006 at 10:47 amI would love to see a complete list of those congress people who lease cars at the taxpayers expense. Entitlement mentality……..
March 14th, 2006 at 10:48 amThank goodness for Pat Robertson.
While we were foolishly trying to address the many problems that Muslims have including failure to recognize the traumas of the Diaspora and the traumas from killing Imams and Shias and Ahmedis, Robertson has made an infallible diagnosis.
Now we see it all, any thing wrong is becoz they are Satanic.
OK, that’s it.
We don’t worry about wussy ass stuff like Diaspora trauma and killing Imams, we just call an exorcist and they will soon be happy little Muslims singing in the sun.
Thanks Pattycake, ya are always so smart.
Later dude.
March 14th, 2006 at 10:49 am#24 The far right, hypocritical? Nonsense, their just…misunderstood. Horribly, horribly, misunderstood…yah that’s it, now I can sleep at night.
I would say they’re more hypocritical because they state moral values and then pretend to stand by them. The far left tends to be less interested in morality than in economic issues, where they tend to also show their hypocrisy, issues such as support of public education while sending their children to private schools.
But it’s really just an issue of perspective, the far right is on my side, so I’m more forgiving to them, while the far left seems to be on yours, so you are probably a bit more forgiving to them instead.
March 14th, 2006 at 10:50 am#8
They are both tools.
March 14th, 2006 at 10:51 amDowning Street Revelations
Always love it when the Brits kvitch about us, especially behind our back.
Notice who got ahold of the memos, our very own, dearest Michael Gordon, he who is obsessed with the NOT ENOUGH TROOPS theory.
Yes, Mikey, like we told ya ass many times, we did NOT have enough troops.
Unfortunately ya ass never gets that they were never supposed to be OUR troops on the ground, but Iraqi troops.
We had ready made Militias of the Kurds and Sciris ready to fight for their country.
We did not use them becoz a bunch of ninny asses was scared of them.
Some other ninny asses used those laughable dummies of Chalabis who could not liberate a beer cooler.
When we go in with indigenous forces, we do spectacularly.
Stupid ass Bremer’s idiot notions of a Security Blanket of troops gave us wall to wall targets for theIED.
First rule of war is don’t make ya damn self a target.
Get a clue dummy.
Keep talking, the more ya talk, the more we remember all the ninny ass, dumb, moronic stupid crap the idiot press and the Washington insiders dumped on our troops ass in this war.
Yeah, we remember stuff too.
Later bobo.
March 14th, 2006 at 10:55 am#12
Hiding behind freedom of speech while making a biased political speech?…sounds alot like some thing that child manipulator Jay Bennish did in Colorado to a bunch of highschool students who had to sit there and listen to his rant.
March 14th, 2006 at 10:56 am#27 with a freedom there comes a responsibility, IMHO.
Sure, you can say what ever you want with freedom of speech, but because it is a freedom, I feel you should shy away from things like, lying, slander, etc. Some of which Sheehan has done, such as my above comment about her two different accounts of meeting with the Pres. Which one is true? Don’t know, but I know both can’t be.
#26 So his father, who also signed it, doesn’t matter? The man who watched him grow up? If only he had a womb, then we could count his view as valid. What exactly did she sacrifice? Her son was grown up, and on his own. He made the choice to sign up, he made the choice to resign up. He made the sacrifice, and from his letters that have been released since his death, he seemed to support Bush and the war. She is making a mockery of her son’s memory for her own advantage.
Talk to #25, he seems understands what being a conservative is about, maybe he can enlighten you. I was unaware I have religious representatives, in fact, I was unaware I was religious, one can be agnostic and be conservative.
March 14th, 2006 at 11:00 amThis time Pat is on target. Islam is very satanic. Before you pass this off as terribly prejudiced please read Islam’s Bible the Koran. The Islamic religion seeks and demands your death. And if that doesn’t open your eyes my friend you are blind!!!
March 14th, 2006 at 11:01 amWhy would it be immoral to believe in good public schooling and then send your child to a private school? There is nothing immoral about believing that your fellow citizens should get a ggod education so that everyone has a chance to be intelligent, informed and productive. Just because you are able to give your child the education you want doesn’t make you wrong. If you are rich do you have to eat cat food to prove that you care about the homeless and the poor and seek to have tax laws that are equal and the minimum wawge raised and etc.?
March 14th, 2006 at 11:02 am#38 You don’t see anything wrong in constantly being against vouchers that would give others a chance to send their children to a better school, while sending your own children to that school? Or what about the rich using anyloop hole they can find in current tax law, while lobbying for higher taxes on themselves, even though it’s purely symbolic because they will continue to use the loop holes?
It would be like me being against abortion, but when my GF gets pregnant having no issue convincing her to get one, becuase it’s different when the situation actually applies to me.
March 14th, 2006 at 11:08 am“I was unaware I was religious, one can be agnostic and be conservative.”
Comment by squegeeboo — March 14, 2006 @
Exactly what IS a “conservative” nowadays?
Fiscally responsible? Nope.
Religious? Nope (by your example).
Believers in smaller goverment? Nope.
Against nation building? Nope.
Champions of small business enterprise? Nope.
Against government intrusion into citizens’ private lives? Nope.
Believers in the rule of law? Nope.
Conservatism’s tenets were buried on 9/11.
March 14th, 2006 at 11:13 am#40 Republican != Conservative
Fiscally reponsible? Yes
Religious? Not necissarly, but a strong belief in morality
Small Gov’t? Yes
Against nation building? You talking about isolationist/realist conservatives, two diff. answers
Small Business? Yes, pretty much any business
Rule of law? Yes
Repubilicans on these, depends on the republican, conservatives on these? Most would match my set of answers, but politics is different for everybody, so some might differ. I know theres a diff between dems and liberals, you need to know theres a difference on my side as well.
March 14th, 2006 at 11:21 am“So his father, who also signed it, doesn’t matter? The man who watched him grow up? If only he had a womb, then we could count his view as valid. What exactly did she sacrifice? Her son was grown up, and on his own. He made the choice to sign up, he made the choice to resign up. He made the sacrifice, and from his letters that have been released since his death, he seemed to support Bush and the war. She is making a mockery of her son’s memory for her own advantage.”
I take from this the fact that when I asked what YOU had contributed, you gave a wordy non-answer.
Since his contribution to his son’s making consisted of a few drops of sperm, and no physical pain to birth him, I’d say yeah, their views are exactly equal. Try giving birth and get back to me.
March 14th, 2006 at 11:25 am#39
I have read about the proposed voucher systems that are being talked about abd have formed an opinion that they are flawed and would be detrimental to many communities as a whole.
On the tax issue yeah I do find it offensive that happens. What part of my answers make you think otherwise? I am for fair taxation…not what is set up at the moment. I don’t understand your argument.
March 14th, 2006 at 11:27 am#42 besides some money, your right, I haven’t contributed much. Your point being? I also support the police/firemen and others, but I’ve never done their job either. I’m sorry you seem to hate men, but try and realize that Sheehan didn’t do anything for the country either, her son did, and now she has belittled his memory.
Unfortunately work calls me away from my desk for most of the day from this point on, so sadly, I don’t know if I can respond to your biting incites as quickly again.
To the rest of you, it’s been fun having a real debate. I’ve learned some interesting, well thought out viewpoints, and hopefully so have some of you.
March 14th, 2006 at 11:31 amPat Robertson is a raving lunatic! No one should pay any attention to him!
March 14th, 2006 at 11:34 am#40 Republican != Conservative
Fiscally reponsible? Yes Biggest deficits in history, 8 billion American taxpayer dollars missing in Iraq.
Religious? Not necissarly, but a strong belief in morality Over thirty thousand dead Iraqis from a war of choice.
Small Gov’t? Yes Homeland security (what color is the threat status today comrade?)
Against nation building? You talking about isolationist/realist conservatives, two diff. answers Yet we heard nothing from mythic “isolationist” conservatives in the run-up to the war, did we?
Small Business? Yes, pretty much any business Wal-mart, Halliburton, Bectel, Cubic, etc. are making out quite well, as are all of the corporations with off-shore subsidiaries (and tax-shelters in the Caymans) but the little guys are taking it in the shorts from “conservative” policy, which is aimed at maximizing corporate political contributions - they go where the money is - and it ain’t Main Street, USA.
Rule of law? Yes Suspension of Habeus Corpus, prisoner rendition, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, warrantless tapping, this is the biggest fraud of all.
Repubilicans on these, depends on the republican, conservatives on these? Most would match my set of answers, but politics is different for everybody, so some might differ. I know theres a diff between dems and liberals, you need to know theres a difference on my side as well.
Comment by squegeeboo — March 14, 2006
No, your “side” called us unpatriotic, terrorist-enablers, dems. and liberals alike, and where were the conservative voices of reason, saying that dissent was patriotic? Nowhere - they were so afraid of being lumped with us “swampies” they were willing to mouthe the requisite cant. And now that things are going as badly as we predicted, suddenly its our fault for pointing it out. Conservatism as we knew it died on 9/11 - and was replaced by pee-in-your-pants republicanism.
March 14th, 2006 at 11:47 amMy apologies for the butchered script, I’m not adept at html.
March 14th, 2006 at 11:50 amBelittling her sons memory? How so? By exercising the very rights he swore an oath to protect? Tell you what, you might want to take a little time and read the presidential oath of office and the oath that service members take, they have a couple of things in common. They both pledge the oath taker to defend the constitution of the united states. Neither oath says anything about protecting the people of the united states. So every time that President tells us that he needs to do this or that to protect the people of the united states and this or that seems to be in violation of the constitution, like warrentless spying, each time he does that he admits to violating his oath of office. The idea of America, which is our constitution and our adherence to the constitution is more valuable than any individual’s life or safety. It’s more important than political ideology and it’s too important to trivialize in the name of hate. So you hate Cindy Sheehan, that’s fine, it does not mean that she does not have the right to free speech. It does not mean that her son served to protect only the speech that is pre-approved by the RNC. It does not mean that 230 years of blood sweat and tears should be demolished for the sake of political domination.
So what if some of her family do not agree with her, that in no way takes away her right to free speech. Heck my family does not agree with me, but I can still believe what I want and when I want to believe it. That is a ridiculous way of thinking.
I am really tired of how much republicans seem to ahte the ideas that made this country great. They seem to overwhelmingly dislike common law (judge made law, the basis of our legal system) They seem to overwhelmingly dislike the idea fo immigrants and the US as a cultural melting pot. They seem to overwhelmingly dislike the idea of the biblical jesus and seem to overwhelmingly like the idea of the hateful christ. They seem to hate most of the freedoms in the constituion, except the weapons thing, which they don’t actuallly know about or don’t care about the truth behind #2. They just hate America, yet they couch that hate in terms of hating the liberal spirit that made America what it is today.
March 14th, 2006 at 11:59 am#41, Your a victom of what use to be. An Abe Lincoln Republican was very different from todays republican leadership. My family was all republican, but they don’t approve of todays republican leadership one bit. We were all fooled and taken advantage of when 911 hit. We all got suckered somewhat. Now it the time to undo it. Thoes values of the past are gone in the repub. leaders. I first thought you were a troll, I WAS WRONG. Your a victom like the rest of us.
March 14th, 2006 at 11:59 am#43 Sorry for being vague. My taxation point was to point out the hypocrisy, or immorality, of the politicians who support higher taxes, while using any loop holes they can to get out of taxes for themselves. Along with the voucher point that I also feel shows their hypocrisy, as a general way to show some of the immorality on the left side of an argument, just like the right has immorality/hypocrisy on its side of the argument when it comes to other issues.
#48 belittling in the sense that from reading his letters home it seems like he supported the war and bush, and yet she used his death to attack both of those. Not in the sense that american service men serve and die to protect our freedoms. If she choose to present her views with out relying on the death of her son for sympathy I could agree with you, until then I can not.
#49 I might be, but I’ll fight it for a little longer, nice name by the way.
March 14th, 2006 at 12:13 pmCindy Sheehan is belittling her sons memory plain and simple.
Does she have a right to say it? Yes
Does she have a right to give aid and comfort to the enemy? Yes
Does she have a right to stand outside Bush’s ranch and protest? Yes
Does she have a right to go hang out with Harry Bellafonte and insult America? Yes
Should she? No
And quite frankly until you are sitting in Fallujah listening to a fellow soldiers mother consistantly tell you what a waste of time what your doing is, How your are a monster to the very people you are trying to help I couldn’t care less what you think. You can sit there in on your high horse claiming the moral high ground for his Mommy if it makes you feel good.
March 14th, 2006 at 12:21 pm#30 - Then go look it up.
March 14th, 2006 at 12:34 pm#51, interesting. Never would have thought I’d see ‘Fallujah’ and the words ‘moral high ground’ in the same paragraph.
March 14th, 2006 at 12:39 pmOn Tracy’s “entitlement mentality”…Those like you who very often use the word entitlement always seem to be viciously angry at those who get anything for “free” but never seem to appreciate the fact that they do not need assistance. You are not Christians by any meaning of the word. People like you, instead of loving what you have, you spend more time worrying about what others might get for free.
You have no problem running our country into poverty with debts we may never be able to pay but will spend freely money we do not have to fund a war that was premised on your leader’s lies.
I don’t see a place in heaven for such the greedy and uncaring and unkind. Care about your brother for a change. Stop caring only about you aren’t getting. It is extremely ugly and juvenile. Those with your mentality make us all look like pigs. But really, at least your posts show us all what kind of monster man can create. Because people like you are not born, you are created through mismanagment.
March 14th, 2006 at 12:43 pmOkay goofy trolls, how is free speech aid to the enemy. Who is the enemy? How do they find the aid of which you speak? Also, do you ever have a thought of your own? Do all republicans just parrot what they are told so they APPEAR a joined party?
March 14th, 2006 at 12:46 pm#54 On general entitlements, and the mentality in general, I live and work in a very poor suburb. For a few years I worked at the local grocery store to make ends meet, seeing the people who came in with food stamps who only bought junk food, or the people on Medicaid who would get drugs like Viagra completely covered has made me very hardened to nearly any hand out. I know there are people out there who actually need the help, but just from watching at the store I worked at, all I saw was constant abuse of the system. It’s what’s made me a supporter of entitlement reform, not removing it completely, but some sort of reform that holds people accountable and demands improvement, as opposed to continuous handouts, regardless of any effort on the person’s part.
I think that perhaps some similar experience is what has made Tracy feel similar.
March 14th, 2006 at 12:49 pm#50 You are just looking for a reason to hate. Funny, republicans always find lots of reasons.
March 14th, 2006 at 12:49 pm#55 google Kerry and Nam, he has his picture in a museum thanking him for his help in the war. The only way we can loose Iraq, just like Nam, is if we loose heart. The North Vietnamese admit they had lost the ground war, but stayed in because they sensed the American homefront was collapsing. Check out Al Jazeera, whenever theres slander of the war, its given constant coverage on their stations, thats how they get the aid. Moral support is a form of Aid. Do you have your own thoughts, or do you just parrot the DNC? The majority of points have been stated one way or the other by both sides, now its up to us to defend or attack them on there merrits.
March 14th, 2006 at 12:53 pm53
WOW Terry what have you “read” about Fallujah? I’m sure it was full of the same “Facts” as the rest of the war. I’m curious to hear of the atrocities that you were fortunate enough to “read” about.
March 14th, 2006 at 12:54 pm#46
Neither Democrats OR Republicans are fiscally responsible. The deficits were created by increased entitlements compounded by mandated military spending. At a time of war you cut spending from other programs in order to fund the military. Now whether or not the 2003 invasion was necessary is OPEN to debate and is in no way an open and shut case.
War of choice? Landing on the beaches of Normandy was a choice as was the liberation of France from the Germans.
Small Government? The concept of homeland security is mandated by the Constitution.
Against nation building? “Yet we heard nothing from mythic “isolationist†conservatives in the run-up to the war, did we?” Pat Buchanan yelled about this well before the invasion.
Small Business? “but the little guys are taking it in the shorts from “conservative†policy,” No they are not. If it wasn’t for the tax break incentives many small businesses, who employ the VAST majority of workers in the U.S., wouldn’t be hiring as they are today. Unemployment is at 4.8%, i.e. full employment.
Rule of Law? “Yes Suspension of Habeus Corpus, prisoner rendition, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, warrantless tapping, this is the biggest fraud of all.”
Those captured during a war are not obliged access to civilian courts because what they were doing isn’t a civilian crime but rather acts of war. Wire tapping of potential terrorists whether they are in the U.S. or abroad isn’t “domestic wire tapping”.
“No, your “side†called us unpatriotic, terrorist-enablers, dems. and liberals alike, and where were the conservative voices of reason, saying that dissent was patriotic?”
Desenting about the desenters is just as patriotic as the desenters themselves.
“Conservatism as we knew it died on 9/11 - and was replaced by pee-in-your-pants republicanism.”
And Liberalism didn’t change even after 9/11. All status quo. Change nothing.
March 14th, 2006 at 12:56 pm#57 where do I say I hate in that post?
My statement was:
1. I can not support Sheehan, because, to me, she is slandering the memory of her son
2. I feel democractic higherups are just as guilty of hypocrisy as are republican higher ups
3. I liked the one posters name
Why are you trying to start a flame war instead of having a debate where people can be informed?
March 14th, 2006 at 12:57 pm55
First off I’m not a Republican. I don’t get much into politics. I was sent this link from a friend who figured I would enjoy how a group of people think Cindy Sheehan is some “poor” victim mother.
Who is the enemy?
The person shooting at me or setting up an IED for the purpose of ummm killing me.
How do they find the aid of which you speak?
The rally around this crap like you can’t imagine. Propaganda 101
Also, do you ever have a thought of your own?
Yuppers
Do all republicans just parrot what they are told so they APPEAR a joined party?
March 14th, 2006 at 1:01 pmI guess they might, I wouldn’t know I am actually a registered green party member
#56 See, there you go, you see bad and you see reasons to hate wherever you look. Your issues are yours and were created. They can just as easily be healed but I believe you feed on your hatred.
Those same people you speak of buying “junk” are acting exacly like Tom Delay (and all of the K Street Band) and those you vote for. They are stealing, but you worry more about the stealing of candy on the government’s dime then the stealing of our way of life by quashing our freedoms that make us special.
What we, as Americans, regard as making us different from others and holding us up as a model is dying under republican efforts trying to make sure that no one gets anything more than the milk they should buy.
You call them handouts. Again showing your disdain for others before your pity or sympathy. It is cold and heartless thinking that will turn our country into the Russia that we despised in the 80s. It will be years before you can see the road we are on, but until then, I know WWJD and it would be to help the man buying “junk.”
You are petty and it is embarrassing for us as a welcoming country that protects its own to have some like you espousing everything negative. You will live longer and love much more if you let go of your hatred for those having less than yourself. And really, I have stories much worse than your own. Stop feeling to trodden upon. You have made yourself “hard” and you have no one to blame but yourself. Start taking account of your own feelings, you make them not others.
March 14th, 2006 at 1:06 pmSo much for being away from your desk to attend to the duties of your job. But she has the right to speak out no matter how the rest of the world feels. If she sees something wrong and feels it is wrong, as an American she not only has a right to speak, she has a duty to speak. Simply marching in lock step to whatever the dear leader says is wrong regardless of who leader is. Following without questioning means following without understanding.
Our founders would be disgusted by those who think that people should not voice their opinions.
March 14th, 2006 at 1:11 pm#58 So we lost in Vietnam because we didn’t have heart? Is it really than simple to you? And, really nice retort asking if I parrot the DNC. That was meaningless and stupid because if you will notice (and like you all are always saying) we are a divided party. Don’t you guys always say that? Do you know why? Because we are individuals and have different thoughts on different subjects. That is about the ratio of our population.
But with republicans, they all say the same thing like they have plugged in to a central computer. There is no way that all of you agree, but it is worth a little lying to make sure you get the votes. Because, really now, it’s about winning, right? It looks bogus to most of us and it looks fake.
March 14th, 2006 at 1:14 pm#64 Yes Mark, George Washington would no be happy with state of affairs.
March 14th, 2006 at 1:15 pmSO….PAT ROBERTSON WAS RESTRAINING HIMSELF ALL THAT TIME…AND NOW HE’S GOING TO SAY WHAT HE REALLY THINKS. WOW.
March 14th, 2006 at 1:18 pm#62 If they want to rally, they don’t need a reason. As if they sit around and wonder what Harry Reid is going to say so they can what? It is silly to think that. Just like Bush, dear leader, said…sometimes you have to say something over and over before they get it… That is brainwashing. These tactics are used by ad agencies in marketing. Like you hear the same quote about 6 times in a commercial? It is subversive. These are exactly the tactics used by the republican administration right now.
Don’t you see it? They all have the same line at the same time and never move away from the talking point. It is absurd to think anything other than they are using the power of advertising. Hell, come to think of it, maybe they did just hire a marketing firm; it is the same tactic.
March 14th, 2006 at 1:20 pm#62 Why do they want to kill you?
March 14th, 2006 at 1:23 pm#63 Once again, nothing about hating, just why I can’t support entitlement in its current form. Handouts? When you see the same people buying junk food for over a year, what else would you call them. If they can afford junk food, they obviously don’t need that much help, yet choose to take it anyways. If thats not a mentality of entitlement I don’t know what is. I could use a little extra to help me out every month, I’d love to be able to afford soda and chips and candy whenever I want, but I don’t feel its right to buy non-neccissaties with other peoples money.
#64 I was away for a bit, got finished sooner than I thought with my tasks. Yes, she has a right to speak, but she should not be using her dead son, who, from reading his letters seems to disagree with her, as a platform to speak from. She should also not lie, which she is doing in one of her two acounts of meeting the president. That is my point that I have reiterated over and over again.
March 14th, 2006 at 1:24 pm#70 I would call them friends. You have no right to judge others. And really, poor men shouldn’t have help with e.d.? We all have rights and we must protect one another. You worry too much about what others may get over you.
When we all decide to be a cohesive nation and stop the name calling we will then start to support one another. Listen, no one has less than my mother. She has nothing at all; not a dime and no insurance. SHE takes NOTHING from the government at all. I pay her way 100%. Yet, she does not look at others who get all sorts of checks and disfavor them. She sees them as friends and fellow Americans. You don’t even know that you are being used for a vote.
Like Delay said, the “wacko” christians will always be a vote in his favor. Anyone who takes anything from the government along the lines of any type of support AT ALL, should be ashamed for voting against their own and their children’s best interest. This administration abhors the poor, unless, of course, they can easily pick off their vote.
Doesn’t anyone ever wonder why most of the intelligencia votes dem? Why most of our wonderful artists are dem? Why our best poets and strongest voices are dem? Because it takes a certain kind of person to look beyond what some has or someone gets for free. Who are you to judge what others buy? What could you know about these people other than what they buy at your store?
March 14th, 2006 at 1:39 pm69
Why do they want to kill you?
The exact same reason they want to kill you, your family, friends, dog and gold fish. We can run around with the what did we do to these poor people mentality all you want, but it’s not going to change the fact they want me and you dead. If you don’t believe you have enemies I would like to suggest several places you can go wearing a pair of jeans and a South Pole shirt. I have a feeling you may have a change of heart or maybe that’s removal of heart, either way it gets rid of one more Cindy supporters.
March 14th, 2006 at 1:40 pm#59, oh nothing you’d see in the US media typically:
1. Use of chemical weapons by US forces in Fallujah - ’son-of-napalm’ in breach of a 1980 treaty on chemical weapons against civilians or built-up areas - The Independent paper in the UK, La Republica in Italy and an Italian TV documentary.
2. Attacking hospitals, calling them ‘propaganda centers’ in the Asia Times
3. Levelling a city to the ground without regard for civilians who could not leave in the UK Guardian newspaper and by independent US reporter Dahr Jamail
4. Then there was the
televised shooting of a wounded man
on November 13th, 2004
5. And finally, presumably the US forces used Depleted Uranium, the dust of which is now being blamed as the cause of a major epidmeic of cancer and birth defects in Iraq as well as the cause of GUlf War Syndrome, which has over 50% of Desert Storm troops now on permanent medical disability
Nothing much really, chemicals weapons used on civilians and in built up areas, attacking hospitals and killing wounded. I’d be happy to put each link in, but the spam filter is stopping me right now.
March 14th, 2006 at 1:41 pm#36. So she says contradictory things. What’s it to you? I have no interest in contesting the truth in Cindy Sheehan’s statements. She buried her child; she’s probably more than a little out of her mind right now, and might always will be.
What I really cannot understand is your characterization that she is “hiding behind the freedom of speech.” What exactly does that mean? She has a freedom to express her political view, however convoluted, contradictory or irresponsible you might find it. She can also backtrack and change her mind as often as the mood strikes. Call it lying if you want. You have that right.
But your statements that she is “hiding” and your characterization of her speech as “ranting” of “talking points” suggest to me that, somehow, you don’t approve of her right to express whatever political opinion she wants. If she says a monkey would be a better president, and then said the next day that she changed her mind and that George Bush is a much better president than any monkey, would that be hiding, too?
March 14th, 2006 at 1:46 pm#73, don’t take my word for some of this, listen to this man.
March 14th, 2006 at 1:55 pm#71 You have no right to judge others.
Society is built on judging others, its how we get our morality, and our civil and penal code.
Did you ever wonder why the majority of college grads with 2-4 year degrees vote republican, or how about why the majority of HS grads or lower vote democrat? Because one entered the work force and worked hard to get what they have, while the other learned that the democrats would constantly vote them higher entitlements.
“someone gets for free.” Its not free, its paid for by your and my tax dollars.
“Who are you to judge what others buy?” If you buy soda on a regular basis, and your on food stamps its a bad choice. If further, when I tell you your card dosnt have enough, and you put back the pasta, or bread, before you put back the chips/candy/soda etc. Its an even worse choice. And I will judge that choice, just like I and anyone else judge everything around them.
“What could you know about these people other than what they buy at your store?” From living in the same community, and from having mutual corespondance I learn about some of them, and the ones who abuse food stamps etc, also tend to have the worst choices in the rest of the personal life too, some how they can afford a sports car, but can’t paint their house, have bad kids, etc.
March 14th, 2006 at 1:59 pmbut it’s not going to change the fact they want me and you dead.
Comment by RandyO #72
RancidOsh*t,
…the difference is…
…you and your kind deserve to it…
March 14th, 2006 at 1:59 pm#77
What’s my kind?
March 14th, 2006 at 2:04 pmAs a conservative, I completly agree with you. These people def. do not help. I compare them to your guys Sheehans, Moore’s, and DailyKos types.
Comment by squegeeboo #4
scuzzeeboob,
The Sheehans, Moore’s and dailyKos types you refer too have more sense in their bowel movements than in all of your Bushite’s inbred TRAITOR gene pools put together…
…you should be eradicated, and your brand of TREASONOUS “conservatism” wiped out…
March 14th, 2006 at 2:04 pm#54
“Those like you who very often use the word entitlement always seem to be viciously angry at those who get anything for “free†but never seem to appreciate the fact that they do not need assistance.”
I am interested in giving to those who actually NEED the assistance. There is so much entitlement waste in government that it makes me want to pull my hair out when I hear some pundit say the programs are being cut when actually they aren’t. Most of the time the rate of increase in being reduced, but the actual dollar amount increases every year. No FY budget submitted by any U.S. president has been a reduction in the amount of spending. If the government would actually watch were our tax dollars go we all could pay much lower taxes.
March 14th, 2006 at 2:05 pmWhat’s my kind?
Comment by RandyO #78
inbred Bushite worshipping TRAITORS, and mass murderers…
March 14th, 2006 at 2:05 pmGod, where is my duct tape, my head is about to explode.
March 14th, 2006 at 2:50 pm“Neither Democrats OR Republicans are fiscally responsible. The deficits were created by increased entitlements compounded by mandated military spending. At a time of war you cut spending from other programs in order to fund the military. Now whether or not the 2003 invasion was necessary is OPEN to debate and is in no way an open and shut case.”
Bullshit. The real rise in spending happened because of the Laffer Goof, also known as the Laffer Curve. Reagan’s pie-in-the-sky supply-side, “voodoo economics” which didn’t take into account human nature.
Even Laffer himself later admitted it was flawed.
I see in your hatred of entitlement spending, you don’t even spare two words of condemnation of “corporate welfare” - I guess because you think they are somehow more deserving. Are you a corporatist? Do you believe that unfettered corporate greed will somehow make the poor less needy? Please explain why you rag on the poor and give corporations a pass.
March 14th, 2006 at 3:13 pmSponge bob, you over simplify everything. Yoru little tale of grocerystore food stamp hijinxs sounds amazingly like Reagans welfare queen pulling iun $150,000 comment. His comment turned out to be false by the way. He over estiamted her income by more than 10 times. Anyhow with food stamps they are limited as to what they can or can not buy. So if some do no buy food you approve of, it is none of your business.
You seemed more peeved about the poor getting food stamps than you do about the president destroying the budget on a year in and year out basis. You seem more peeved that soemone who is poor might have their hand out, but I hear not one peep about huge corporations getting no-bid cost plus contracts. Hmmm, which costs us more? By the way the no-bid contract idea is particularly loved by this adminsitration. It harms us, the taxpaying public by1) not encouraging competetive bidding, which could lower the total bill. 2) giving them cost + contracts allows them to not be at all judicious in their business dealings because they are guaranteed a profit. Thus harming the taxpayer once again. You seem much more peeved about things like food stamps and general help for the poor than you do abotu the horrible medicare bill that total screws the taxpayer. How so? Wal-Mart is successful because of their superior inventory and distribution ssytems., Ina ddition tot hat they have the mass of their corporate size to apply and gain lower prices when acquiring product to sell. With teh medicare bill you might think that the government would use the mass of their buying power to achieve lower costs for procuring drugs under the new medicare program. Nope they let the drug companies set the prices thus once more screwing the taxpayers out of their $$. But you please do continue ranting about important things like someone using food stamps to buy twinkees and presumably mis sue taxpayers money to the tune of $1 at a time, while the administration misuses taxpaer moneyto the tune of billions per day. Good sense of priorities and good christian values there.
Conservatives in general are a me-first group of people. So why are they not up in arms every time this administration and this congress make bad business decision after bad business decision? Why do these free market advocates (I am one actually) never raise their hands to say umm…American Farmer you are the largest recipient of welfare int hsi country. Your subsidies in no way reflect the free market system. You shoudl not be getting something for nothing. I live in the farm belt and these guys overwhelmingly vote republican, yet they get pretty good income from violating free market principles. They get subsidized out the yin yang and are stil never happy, yet they and the likes of sponge bob like to slam on a twinkee eating welfare queen who might want help with paying for public education.
March 14th, 2006 at 3:21 pm#83 the deficit was created when the lid was taken off the cookie jar and the republican controlled congress and republican administration realised that there were no checks and balances to stop them from doing whatever they pleased, regardless of the outcome.
March 14th, 2006 at 3:39 pm#76 You are incorrect or just lying. Most high school graduates vote republican and most college grads vote democrat.
March 14th, 2006 at 3:44 pm#83
The Laffer Curve? LOL! Tax revenue to the U.S. Treasury has ALWAYS increased after tax cuts begin to take effect. If you take away people’s incentive to work hard by taxing them to the eyeballs, their productivity will go down and soon revenues to the government will also. No really, spending increased because politicians got the dumb idea in their head that they can solve all of the people’s problems by using their money as THEY see fit.
“I see in your hatred of entitlement spending, you don’t even spare two words of condemnation of “corporate welfare†- I guess because you think they are somehow more deserving.”
I am not ragging on the poor and NEVER have. We were talking about wasteful government spending and how everyone would benefit if government kept a sharper eye on where the money went.
I will give you way more than two words about corporate welfare. I think that any company that can’t compete shouldn’t get handouts from the government. No subsidies to corporations. How’s that?
March 14th, 2006 at 3:47 pm#80 You just listened to Rush. I know, I heard him. I like to know what all of you are going to say before you say it. One shouldn’t give too much credence to drug addicts. You do know that he is a druggie, don’t you?
Again, you aren’t creating thoughts in your head, you are just parroting an oxy head. It is called hillbilly heroin and he is just that - hillbilly. Actually, to be precise, he is a redneck. Just ask Joe Sixpack.
So when you quote, verbatim, someone so clueless, you show your ignorance and naivity. Why would you believe him? I just don’t understand. I listen to him and he quite often doesn’t finish thought and always uses a funny voice when speaking of anyone he hates. He puffs and gasps for effect. He runs twice as many commercials. He is a salesman and you are the mark.
Listen, because Rush said it, doesn’t make it true.
And the government knows right where our money is - Iraq and Halliburton. Wake up.
March 14th, 2006 at 3:49 pm#83. “Tax revenue to the U.S. Treasury has ALWAYS increased after tax cuts begin to take effect.”
Comment by Tracy — March 14, 2006 @ 3:47 pm
I think you’re wrong. Show me. ALWAYS.
March 14th, 2006 at 3:53 pm#87 But Tracy, when you vote in your republicans, ala K Street, you have just voted for corporate welfare. You must put it together in your head. Bush is no conservative and if you were a conservative republican you would be disgusted by his using your party for his gain. Yes, his gain and not ours.
Besides, just the mere fact of installing, as our leader, someone with such low intelligence is harmful even if his intentions weren’t nefarious. I don’t trust foreign diplomacy to someone without ample decision making tools.
March 14th, 2006 at 3:56 pm#85 Absolute power corrupts absolutely. No one party should rule the land. Look at what happens.
March 14th, 2006 at 4:00 pm#72 I asked you why and you gave me a typical republican non-answer. I asked why and you tell me the exact same reason. What reason, man? Enough angry fluff. Why do they want us dead? Who and why?
March 14th, 2006 at 4:05 pm#86 I believe a majority (not overwhelming though) of people with undergraduate degrees do vote republican. But an overwhelming number of people with advanced degrees vote Democrat.
March 14th, 2006 at 4:45 pmI will give you way more than two words about corporate welfare. I think that any company that can’t compete shouldn’t get handouts from the government. No subsidies to corporations. How’s that?
Comment by Tracy — March 14, 2006 @ 3:47 pm
Guess we won the structural debate? :)
March 14th, 2006 at 4:45 pm73
1. No Clue, I wish I had my hands on some of that at the time though. I also wish someone would have told me to put my mask on at some point. Oh it must have been the slow killing kind of chemical weapon huh. Make them get cancer in 30 years, not real effective for immediate removal of the civilians but in 30 years they will see.
2.Yeah we figured the doctors weren’t busy enough with the carnage-taking place. This way the military docs could work twice as hard because there were no civilian doctors. Pretty smart idea huh?
3. This is about the stupidest argument I have heard. The biggest complaint from most people who oppose the war is that we handcuff our troops. Here you are saying there is no regard for civilians?
4. Oh Freedom of Speech is sacred, but innocent until proven guilty isn’t. I have no information as to the facts on this one.
5. Yeah they use depleted Uranium in 20mm rounds from the A-10. They are needed because they eat through metal. Pretty interesting statistic there though. I’ll take it up to the VA, I’m sure they would be shocked to learn about that.
#92 We could play the silly little game about the crusades etc or we can be more realistic and bring up events shortly after WWII. Either way I can’t change them. There are a million opinions why they hate us and I’m not going to pretend to know (I’m sure you know though!) the reason each one of them has for it.
#81 actually I pretty much despise Bush chowderhead. I think the only thing he has done worth a damn is the war in Iraq. His domestic policies are non-existent, his economic policies suck and don’t get me started on the environmental policies. But yeah I’m a bushite. This is how you treat people when they disagree about one issue with you huh? Very warming! Thanks!
March 14th, 2006 at 5:02 pmWhat do you think the odds are that Randyo who talks of the military in terms of we has never served?
March 14th, 2006 at 5:06 pmDarn got me Mark,
March 14th, 2006 at 5:11 pm#88
“So when you quote, verbatim, someone so clueless, you show your ignorance and naivity.”
Where exactly did I quote Rush, verbatim?
“Again, you aren’t creating thoughts in your head, you are just parroting an oxy head.”
LOL! Everything in this blog you write is someone else’s talking point! Why should I or anyone else believe that YOU have ever had an original thought? Do you have some evidence that ANYTHING you write here is your original thought? This iggnorant perception of yours is coming from someone who actually believes that the 9/11 attacks were planned and carried out by the U.S. governement. Asinine the the Nth degree.
What about spending increases, as I described them, is actually wrong? Would you mind actually commenting or debating on the substance of my post instead of squawking about irrelevant things?
BTW you don’t listen to morons like Al Frankin or Randi Rhodes do you?
March 14th, 2006 at 6:06 pm#89
Sorry…MOST of the time.
Example:
http://www.nytimes.com/ 2005/ 07/ 13/ business/ 13deficit.html?ei=5090&en=a410f8c74d4700a5&ex=1278907200&pagewanted=print
March 14th, 2006 at 6:16 pm[…] Think Progress […]
March 14th, 2006 at 6:25 pm#90
“…you have just voted for corporate welfare.”
So with all of the other things that I voted for by voting Republican, and luckly avoided by not voting for a Democrat, corporate welfare is something I can deal with and hopefully get changed. You can’t get everything you want in a candidate and most of the time you have to compromise and choose who BEST representes your values.
“Yes, his gain and not ours.”
I earned 72k last year and received a bigger tax return then I did last year.
“Besides, just the mere fact of installing, as our leader, someone with such low intelligence is harmful even if his intentions weren’t nefarious.”
Well I sure hope you didn’t vote for Kerry then…LOL! Dumb and liberal.
http://www.boston.com/ news/ nation/ washington/ articles/ 2005/ 06/ 07/ yale_grades_portray_kerry_as_a_lackluster_student?mode=PF
March 14th, 2006 at 6:28 pm#99. ARE YOU BLIND?
Your link cited ONE TIME. Your first post said ALWAYS. Your last post said MOST of the time. But your link cited 2005 as ONE TIME that revenue was running ahead, after a tax cut. But the link also cited THREE YEARS that revenue was running behind after a tax break. Show me where anyone says that it happens ALWAYS or MOST of the time.
Supply side Republican presidents have added 5.5 trillion dollars to the national debt. Reagan added $1.8T, Bush41 added $1.6T, Bush43 has added $2.1T. All together, the other 40 presidents added only HALF as much as these three. This president is increasing the Public Debt by over 8% per year.
If supply side economics worked, the deficit would go down and disappear.
March 14th, 2006 at 6:57 pm#102
OK here some more times:
Tax cuts in the 1920s
Kennedy’s tax cuts in the 1960s
Regan’s tax cuts in the 1980s
“If supply side economics worked, the deficit would go down and disappear.”
No, if the government would actually cut spending and watch where the money was spent, the deficit would go down. Do you know how much government spending has increased since 1980?
March 14th, 2006 at 7:18 pm“I will give you way more than two words about corporate welfare. I think that any company that can’t compete shouldn’t get handouts from the government. No subsidies to corporations. How’s that?”
Comment by Tracy — March 14, 2006 @ 3:47 pm
So Tracy, since the former CEO of Halliburton has been exposed as the chief architect of America’s invasion (he’s been pushing for invasion since Bush 1), and we continue to award Halliburton contracts, even after they’ve demonstrated that “they can’t compete” because they give soldiers spoiled food, contaminated water, and substandard service in so many areas that the inspector general determined and advocated holding back payments - I await your condemnation of them, or an apology for your blatant hypocrisy.
And when you rag on “entitlements”, you are indeed slamming the poor.
March 14th, 2006 at 7:30 pm“If supply side economics worked, the deficit would go down and disappear.â€
No, if the government would actually cut spending and watch where the money was spent, the deficit would go down. Do you know how much government spending has increased since 1980? ”
Comment by Tracy — March 14, 2006 @ 7:18 pm
The weakness in supply-side was always that it posited a world in which people don’t act like people, and politicians don’t act out of self-interest. Remember, they also had to raise taxes in Reagan’s term to offset the supply-side foolishness.
March 14th, 2006 at 7:38 pm“Do you know how much government spending has increased since 1980? â€
Comment by Tracy — March 14, 2006 @ 7:18 pm
Thank you! Finally some recognition!
March 14th, 2006 at 7:40 pmI’m so glad people like Tracy are protecting my legacy. Ironic, that conservatives rail against Hollywood, and yet they swallow tales of Mission Accomplished and pie-in-the-sky fiscal policy. God love’em.
March 14th, 2006 at 7:50 pm#95, Randy.
You should start your quest into depleted uranium here
On the Fallujah subject, perhaps I was not making myself clear:
1. The first Fallujah campaign appears to have been initiated by the White House.
2. The second campaign in November, 2004 targeted initially some 2-5000 insurgents beleived to be in the city of 300,000. Unfortunately that number appears to have been revised down to less than 600 as the campaign wound down.
3. In the course of the campaign, some 60% of the city was levelled chasing these 600 or so ‘bad guys’ around the town. According to the Red Cross at least 800 civilians were killed in the first 9 days of the offensive, including 59 people in the central health clinic bombed by US planes.
4. Clearly the planning and execution of the Fallujah campaigns was designed to casuse as much damage to property as possible and since noone was allowed out of Fallujah after November 13th, anyone, carrying a gun or not was targeted by US forces.
The goal is clearly to intimidate as large a population as possible by destroying their city in an attempt to break a small number of insurgents hold on the city, caused mainly by a lack of attention to the US imposing law and order in the aftermath of invasion in the first place. Causing that many civilian casualties, deliberately destroying a city to intimidate the population for a political gain is defined quite clearly here
You should read some of Dahr Jamail’s dispatches, since the US media gets all its news on Fallujah from the Pentagon. On the shooting incident, sure innocent until proven guilty, but then dozens of people have died in US custody in Abu Ghraib, Afghanistan and elsewhere and noone has been given more than a few months, I have little faith in US military justice. Look at what this British SAS man says about US forces:
This SAS man has thrown away his career because of what he saw US soldiers do. Does that make the CNN shooting just an isolated incident?
You argue that US forces should not have their hands tied. Do you really think that US forces unleashed to do what ever they want, to repeat Fallujah all over Iraq is going to stop the insurgency - win any hearts and minds?
March 14th, 2006 at 8:32 pm#103. Document at least one of those claims. You can say any BS that you want, but it’s pretty lame and hollow until you produce numbers. Especially after your NYT cite fell flat.
As far as how much government spending has increased since 1980, you might consider that it has been aupply-side Republicans in the White House for 18 of the 26 years since then. The only disciplined spending occurred in 1992-2000. You might also consider that for the last 6 years, Republicans have controlled both houses of Congress and the White House and they have spent about $2.5T more than revenue.
While you LOL about Kerry’s Yale grades, the most corrupt people to ever rob this country blind are being returned to office by you. Open your eyes. Your people are in charge and they can have it any way they want - and the way they choose is to steal trillions upon trillions and line the pockets of their family and friends.
And you claim that you want fiscally responsible government. You are pitiful.
March 14th, 2006 at 9:04 pmPeople like tracy forget that the economy stayed in the crapper in the early 1980’s even after the tax cuts and that Reagan was not doing so well. Taxes were increased and then the year or so before the 1984 elections things began to turn around. My economics professor, who proclaimed himself a conservative to the class, said that the Reagan cuts and theories did not work. They work on paper, but do nto work in reality.
Tracy if you recieved more of a refund this year than last year it is only because yoru withholding is too high. Refunds are irrelevant to the argument and only the uninformed base decisions on them. What truely maters is the total tax and the effective tax rate. When all things are equal from year to year you can still get a huge assed refund and yet be paying the same or higher effective tax rate. It could go down too. I have no clue as to your total tax picture, but do know intutivly that refunds mena nothing other than your withholding was too high, so please try again.
March 15th, 2006 at 12:45 amEntitlement Program ?!? Oh bother. Republicans are at it again. Renaming things to change peoples perception of them. Every person receiving a paycheck in this country is funding SS, etc. Up to $90,000 is subject to that payroll tax. After $90,000- zippo, nothing. So the poor and middle income bracket carry the load. Or how about the Estate Tax? Oh that’s right, Republicans renamed it, now it’s the Death Tax. Let’s make a little comparison, shall we? A family member dies, and leaves you $10,000,000 in the will. You did nothing to “earn” this money, it was just handed to you. Thanks to Republicans, you will get it tax free. Good for you. Another person goes to the local corner store and buys a lottery ticket for $1.00. And OMG!!! wins $10,000,000!!! And after paying state and federal taxes, will get a little less than $5,000,000. Why is that? The inheritor basically “won” the family lottery, so wouldn’t it be fair for that person to have to “share the wealth” as well? Both scenarios are about “chance”, but with widely differing outcomes. So as long as our system is unfairly weighted to the benefit of the wealthy and powerful in this country all of you whining about the unfairness of “Entitlement Programs” can go pound sand in your Asses!! And when your time comes, feel free to return the check, or better yet, cash it and donate the money to your local homeless shelter, or food bank. Yeah, that’ll be the day…
March 15th, 2006 at 4:18 am#110 Mark, it is so elementary. Basing one’s fiscal status on the amount of their refund is tantamount to a poor person voting for Bush. I have a peer that is caring for her daughter with MS, that daughter’s 5 year old son who has learning disabilities and can’t figure out why her Medicaid is being cut and her grandson’s aftercare has been phased out. She votes republican is completely disconnected with reality.
IQ, I’m thinking double digits. She just can’t decipher what her vote means. She makes less money than last year, pays higher taxes, and now has to choose between her phych meds and her heart drugs. She just has no clue. I find her problem is her very thin powers of deduction. I believe that is where one’s intelligence comes into factor. She just can’t, as Jethro put it, cipher. That is the only reason one would vote against their children’s best interests. She thinks socialized medicine would be crazy but doesn’t know why when asked to elaborate. It is just what she has heard in sound bytes from Rush telling her she would have to wait months for an appointment. She doesn’t care to, or know how to, investigate for herself. Rush is enough because, as she puts it, he sounds real. It is so sad and I worry. I worry that these kinds of people will be content accepting themselves as fodder and they’re being baited so easily. She is pro choice as well. Go figure, I can’t.
March 15th, 2006 at 9:09 amCyra, you are always so concise and it is much appreciated. I really enjoy your posts. Hats off!!
March 15th, 2006 at 9:10 am#109
It might do you well to remember that 1994-2000 real conservative Republicans were in charge of the money and FORCED Clinton to sign the balanced budget amendment. It might also do you well to remember that Congress not the President controls the spending. It further might do you well to remember that fourteen of those years, i.e. more the half, the Democrats controlled Congress.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm327.cfm
http://www.house.gov/ jec/ fiscal/ tx-grwth/ reagtxct/ reagtxct.htm
“You might also consider that for the last 6 years, Republicans have controlled both houses of Congress and the White House and they have spent about $2.5T more than revenue.”
Oh I know and they are going to get drilled for it in 2006; although don’t get the idea that the American people are going to just put a Democrat in to fix the problem. REAL conservatives need to replace the current lot.
March 15th, 2006 at 12:15 pm#110
“People like tracy forget that the economy stayed in the crapper in the early 1980’s even after the tax cuts and that Reagan was not doing so well.”
And people like you think that tax cuts immediately stimulate the economy and in turn increase revenue to the U.S. treasury.
“They work on paper, but do nto work in reality.”
But they did work in REALITY.
“Tracy if you recieved more of a refund this year than last year it is only because yoru withholding is too high.”
I didn’t change anything in my withholding status versus last year and yes my total taxes for the year went down.
March 15th, 2006 at 12:40 pmI will give you way more than two words about corporate welfare. I think that any company that can’t compete shouldn’t get handouts from the government. No subsidies to corporations. How’s that?
Comment by Tracy #87
Trashy,
…you’re a lying, back pedalling, flip-flopping inbred Bushite beeotch…
Karl Rove has taught you all well…
you support Halliburton and the war, Bushiva’s criminal negligence at home and abroad, and EVERYTHING “conservative TRAITORS stand for…
…stop attempting to play the “MODERATE”…
…you’re a criminal Bushite traitor and propaganda who*e of the first order̷