He’s a Zionist shill and it’s no surprise he’s on the NYT staff..

I think we’re seeing the effects of what Rupert Murdoch agreed would be Fox News channel’s relentless support of the Bush agenda. They’ll basically say anything to support Bush. I’m sure there are many Americans who would find it hard to believe that a news organization would lie in their faces or mislead them so thoroughly, but the numbers don’t lie. About 30% of the people seem to believe that secular dictator Saddam Hussein would cooperate and work with a fundamentalist religious group calling for his ouster that he had pledged to wipe out in Iraq. We live in very interesting times.

Are people that stupid or do they really think that somehow Iraq had anything to do with 9/11? I guess the propganda catapultion was successful. If that’s even a word.

I appreciate your logic RCJR.

If 15 Cubans and 4 Venezuelans had carried out the 9-11 attack, would you have agreed with an invasion of Mexico. You know, there are people in Mexico who hate us.

Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — October 29, 2007 @ 4:44 pm

I try to avoid fortune telling, Colonel, I have read too much history to predict it in advance. He also has another 15 months to go. But I don’t expect anyone here to not loathe Bush, and I have little interest in defending him, I was just answering a direct question from Annie.

I’m afraid you’re a little late on that one. You may have missed it. The verdict’s already in. Historic tampering with the constitution. Historically bad jobs creation performance. Historically low value to the U.S. dollar. Declining purchasing power and quality of life for the working classes, historic debt and deficit, historic trade imbalance, historic gaps between the rich and poor – all brought to us, as usual, by the kind of unregulated corporate capitalism this president has championed throughout his career. He’s “Hoover,” only much worse. He lied to the American people to start a shooting war. You can obfuscate this all you want, but history will be clear on this. These are some of the reasons why he will be remembered as one of, if not the, worst presidents in history.

Guy, yes. Republicans Hates Facts assures me I am an idiot in just about every post he makes, so I’ll leave it to you to judge my intelligence.

>>Do you really buy into what they tell you?

Comment by Leftside Annie — October 29, 2007 @ 2:38 pm

Of course not, they are politicians, I don’t believe what any elected official has to say merely on principle.

As to the Bush record, it is a bit hard to address the totality of the admin here. I am not a homophobe, I am not a Christian, I am not a xenophobe, so to the extent he/they are I do not agree with them. I do not believe that it was Israel or the US government that attacked us on 9-11. I believe that a forceful response was necessary to that event. There are lots of Muslims who hate us and would kill us just because we are non-Muslims. That is a fact. It is also a sad fact that raw power is the coin of the realm in the Middle East and has been since Sargon formed in worlds first Empire 5,000 years ago. I thought removing Saddam was a good thing. I think the invasion went well, the post planning was obviously a disaster. Bush spending is a disaster. Non border enforcement, disaster. General PR slickness, total disaster. Ethical government a mixed bag.

Basically, I see Bush as a mixed bag, some good, some bad. I am not a major ideologue, I can see some good things in both liberal and conservative government.

But I am ready for a new Presdent, definitely. The problem is, the people who are likely to win do not impress….

Dream team!

I agree! The idea was to “keep SS working”, but he started the whole “IUO’s for money” scheme that is causing problems today.

“But, then, in the biggest “bait and switch” in history, they took this working class money, used it for government spending and capped it all off with Bush giving hundreds of billions of it to the most wealthy. ” Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — October 29, 2007 @ 3:01 pm

Well, to be fair to Pres. Reagan, in 1982 when Pres. Reagan realized how much debt the US was getting themselves into, he pushed to reduce his “tax cuts”, in essence re-raising the taxes he originally cut. He was operating under the assumption that the economic benefits from his tax-cuts would generate the revenue to pay back the defecit and stop the Federal Govt. from consistently raiding the Social Security excess funding.

It’s too bad that the myth of the “fiscally conservative Republican” was to last until now, when it’s more than obvious that this particular “animal” is and was about a “real” as the Easter Bunny!

“OUR tax dollars” stopped being “OUR tax dollars” when the National Credit Card was run up past the first 4-6 trillion in the Reagan/Bush Years!

I wonder when China is going to call that debt “due” and bankrupt the US?

Basically, yes, it’s a sham.

For the past 30 years (or more) the US Federal Government has been talking the surplus that Social Security has generated, and applying it to the current budgets. Of course, there’s an IOU that the Federal Government has submitted for all this borrowed money.

The thing is, this IOU bill is not in the trillions of dollars! (The exact number differs based on the bias of the organizations following this info.) If, and I repeat IF, the Federal Government accept personal responsibility for their actions and these IOU’s, then there will be NO Social Security “crisis”.

The whole idea of a “lock box” for Social Security? THAT is a sham! And a mockery. A “sham-ockery” if you will. ;-)

She’s much closer to being a “Lieberman Democrat” than she is to being a real liberal.

KUCINICH is the real liberal in the bunch.

Because I just can’t wrap my head around the hate-filled stuff I hear from these people daily, i.e., that all Muslims want to kill us, that we need to shove homosexuals back into the closet (or kill them – depending on who you listen to), that if we nuke Iran they’ll welcome us with open arms…etc. etc. — ad nauseum.

And, given the proposed TRILLIONS of our tax dollars spent on this war, the term “fiscal conservative” absolutely does NOT apply to any Republican alive these days.

Do you really buy into what they tell you?

Wow. Seriously? I keep hearing about how the system will crash in its current form as the Baby Boomers retire. Is that really not true? The system can continue in its current form and still be okay? If true, that is one hell of a cover up. Are you saying the debate in Congress in 2005 was completely a sham?

There is no Social Security “crisis.” This is a phony problem. The reason our corporate/fascist media keeps allowing people to lie about this is that the solution to any future problem with Social Security involves raising taxes on the wealthy. This is perfectly fair, since most of the SS fund created by doubling SS taxes in 1983 ended up in the pockets of our most wealthy citizens after Bush’s tax cuts.

Comment by Keltoi — October 29, 2007 @ 1:28 pm

As the good Retired Colonel says, Hillary is a moderate and a corporatist. Most liberals recognize that. She’s hardly the “socialist” that so many knee-jerk right-wingers like to shout about.

And as for Hillary being “an anathema to… uber-conservatives”, name a single politician with a “D” next to their name who wouldn’t be? And I don’t think Hillary is much of an anathema to many who aren’t conservative.

Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — October 29, 2007 @ 1:42 pm

Well, I guess it all depends on where your own personal frame of reference is located. There are certainly extemist elements in both parties. It seems sometimes like nothing ever gets done, whoever is in power. Like Social Security. When O when are our “leaders” going to face that one? Ever?