Re: Palestinians Under Attack
HEMI-Powered
jour ...
>>Stephen, one of the many euphemisms I HATE is "spin", which
>>today means to tell a story to be most favorable to your side
>>when in reality, it is really a LIE. Ray and some others attempt
>>to spin the truth to make it sound more believable and more
>>palitable to normal folk but succeed in neither.
>
> Exactly. In self-righteous anger they somehow believe that
> lying and personal attacks are justified because they *think*
> they have the moral high ground. In their limited worldview,
> they truly think that the end justifies the means. Lie, quote
> out of context, erase the words of others, avoid questions and
> repeatedly bring home the false accuation of "liar, liar."
> It's all so transparent. That's why I've called Ray a Nazi,
> because he uses their tactics against the opposition.
>
I just replied to you in another post that a strange side of being a
liberal is vigorous defense of freedom of expression EXCEPT when the
other person doesn't agree with the Liberal view of the world.
Then there's the strange circularity of political ideology where as
one moves Left, eventually you get to Socialism, Marxism, and
Communism but then the ideology wraps around and re-enters from the
far right as Facsism and back to the left again as reactionary,
neocon, and so on. I think the idea SHOULD be to stay somewhere just
left or just right of center and not get so sidetracked as to be
either a Far Left OR a Far Right Loon.
--
HP, aka Jerry
"The government that governs least, governs best" - Thomas Jefferson
"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
problem!" - Ronald Reagan
Ray Fischer
>I just replied to you in another post that a strange side of being a
>liberal is vigorous defense of freedom of expression EXCEPT when the
>other person doesn't agree with the Liberal view of the world.
I see you right-wingers doing exactly that. Who is it that's been
using the government to impose censorship of TV and radio and books?
So-called "conservatives".
>Then there's the strange circularity of political ideology where as
>one moves Left, eventually you get to Socialism, Marxism, and
>Communism but then the ideology wraps around and re-enters from the
>far right as Facsism and back to the left again as reactionary,
>neocon, and so on. I think the idea SHOULD be to stay somewhere just
>left or just right of center and not get so sidetracked as to be
>either a Far Left OR a Far Right Loon.
Are you against liberty or do you defend liberty?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Stephen Bishop
>HEMI-Powered <no...@none.gn> wrote:
>>I just replied to you in another post that a strange side of being a
>>liberal is vigorous defense of freedom of expression EXCEPT when the
>>other person doesn't agree with the Liberal view of the world.
>
>I see you right-wingers doing exactly that. Who is it that's been
>using the government to impose censorship of TV and radio and books?
>So-called "conservatives".
Ray, if you think he is a "right winger," how do you view yourself?
>>Then there's the strange circularity of political ideology where as
>>one moves Left, eventually you get to Socialism, Marxism, and
>>Communism but then the ideology wraps around and re-enters from the
>>far right as Facsism and back to the left again as reactionary,
>>neocon, and so on. I think the idea SHOULD be to stay somewhere just
>>left or just right of center and not get so sidetracked as to be
>>either a Far Left OR a Far Right Loon.
>Are you against liberty or do you defend liberty?
Liberty in your view would appear to be the freedom to shout down
those who disagree with you, Ray. Freedom of speech is great unless
what is said doesn't fit Ray's narrow worldview. Hmmmmmm...
Stephen Bishop
Oh, and while you rant about liberty, what have you actually done to
defend it? I served in the military, Ray, when did you do the same?
Or maybe you just aren't aware that the liberty you speak of was won
at the cost of thousands of deaths, beginning in the 1770's.
HEMI-Powered
jour ...
>>HEMI-Powered <no...@none.gn> wrote:
>>>I just replied to you in another post that a strange side of
>>>being a liberal is vigorous defense of freedom of expression
>>>EXCEPT when the other person doesn't agree with the Liberal
>>>view of the world.
>>
>>I see you right-wingers doing exactly that. Who is it that's
>>been using the government to impose censorship of TV and radio
>>and books? So-called "conservatives".
>
> Ray, if you think he is a "right winger," how do you view
> yourself?
The Far Left Loons are trying to resurrect a failed idea from the
1950s/1960s called the Fairness Doctrine which required radio and
TV stations using FCC free frequencies to give opposing views equal
time. This made a little sense in the early days when only a few
stations existed but NO sense today. In today's warped view of
Liberal freedom of speech, if they can't get the courts to impose
censorship on ideas they don't agree with, they will try to remove
the sources of opposing ideas - conservative talk radio and TV.
Again, Liberalism turned Fascist.
>
>>>Then there's the strange circularity of political ideology
>>>where as one moves Left, eventually you get to Socialism,
>>>Marxism, and Communism but then the ideology wraps around and
>>>re-enters from the far right as Facsism and back to the left
>>>again as reactionary, neocon, and so on. I think the idea
>>>SHOULD be to stay somewhere just left or just right of center
>>>and not get so sidetracked as to be either a Far Left OR a Far
>>>Right Loon.
>
>>Are you against liberty or do you defend liberty?
>
> Liberty in your view would appear to be the freedom to shout
> down those who disagree with you, Ray. Freedom of speech is
> great unless what is said doesn't fit Ray's narrow worldview.
> Hmmmmmm...
>
Ray makes a wonderful poster boy to illustrate my point here about
Liberals being for freedom of speech UNTIL one dare's to dispute
their drivel.
HEMI-Powered
jour ...
>>Are you against liberty or do you defend liberty?
>
> Oh, and while you rant about liberty, what have you actually
> done to defend it? I served in the military, Ray, when did you
> do the same?
>
> Or maybe you just aren't aware that the liberty you speak of was
> won at the cost of thousands of deaths, beginning in the 1770's.
>
I also served in the military, the US Army. And, my father was a WWII
Marine who fought at Saipan, Tinian, and Iwo Jima. The thing about
liberty is that it MUST be defended VIGOROUSLY by all, else it will
soon be lost. Thus, the true cost of war's awful casualties often is
freedom itself, followed closely by national security.
Stephen Bishop
wrote:
>Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
>jour ...
>
>>>Are you against liberty or do you defend liberty?
>>
>> Oh, and while you rant about liberty, what have you actually
>> done to defend it? I served in the military, Ray, when did you
>> do the same?
>>
>> Or maybe you just aren't aware that the liberty you speak of was
>> won at the cost of thousands of deaths, beginning in the 1770's.
>>
>I also served in the military, the US Army. And, my father was a WWII
>Marine who fought at Saipan, Tinian, and Iwo Jima. The thing about
>liberty is that it MUST be defended VIGOROUSLY by all, else it will
>soon be lost. Thus, the true cost of war's awful casualties often is
>freedom itself, followed closely by national security.
Absolutely true. The left-wing loons who shout the loudest about
liberty have *no idea* how fragile it really is or what it really
costs to maintain it.
And then there are many of those in Europe who think they have liberty
because they have a parlimentary form of government that trumps the
monarchy; but they really don't have a clue about what liberty really
is. They still look to the government to provide their every need
and regulate all aspects of their lives. That's why so many of them
are so bewildered when they come over here.
Ray Fischer
>Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
>jour ...
>
>>>HEMI-Powered <no...@none.gn> wrote:
>>>>I just replied to you in another post that a strange side of
>>>>being a liberal is vigorous defense of freedom of expression
>>>>EXCEPT when the other person doesn't agree with the Liberal
>>>>view of the world.
>>>
>>>I see you right-wingers doing exactly that. Who is it that's
>>>been using the government to impose censorship of TV and radio
>>>and books? So-called "conservatives".
>>
>> Ray, if you think he is a "right winger," how do you view
>> yourself?
>
>The Far Left Loons are trying to resurrect a failed idea from the
Fascists hate liberals.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>HEMI-Powered <no...@none.gn> wrote:
>>>I just replied to you in another post that a strange side of being a
>>>liberal is vigorous defense of freedom of expression EXCEPT when the
>>>other person doesn't agree with the Liberal view of the world.
>>
>>I see you right-wingers doing exactly that. Who is it that's been
>>using the government to impose censorship of TV and radio and books?
>>So-called "conservatives".
>>
>>>Then there's the strange circularity of political ideology where as
>>>one moves Left, eventually you get to Socialism, Marxism, and
>>>Communism but then the ideology wraps around and re-enters from the
>>>far right as Facsism and back to the left again as reactionary,
>>>neocon, and so on. I think the idea SHOULD be to stay somewhere just
>>>left or just right of center and not get so sidetracked as to be
>>>either a Far Left OR a Far Right Loon.
>>
>>Are you against liberty or do you defend liberty?
>
>Oh, and while you rant about liberty, what have you actually done to
>defend it?
That isn't an answer. In fact you don't even try to answer the
question. Why is that?
> I served in the military,
So what?
> Ray, when did you do the same?
Don't play that fake patriot crap game with me, asshole. I don't buy
your propaganda.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
> "HEMI-Powered" <no...@none.gn>
>>Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
>>jour ...
>>
>>>>Are you against liberty or do you defend liberty?
>>>
>>> Oh, and while you rant about liberty, what have you actually
>>> done to defend it? I served in the military, Ray, when did you
>>> do the same?
>>>
>>> Or maybe you just aren't aware that the liberty you speak of was
>>> won at the cost of thousands of deaths, beginning in the 1770's.
>>>
>>I also served in the military, the US Army. And, my father was a WWII
>>Marine who fought at Saipan, Tinian, and Iwo Jima. The thing about
>>liberty is that it MUST be defended VIGOROUSLY by all, else it will
>>soon be lost. Thus, the true cost of war's awful casualties often is
>>freedom itself, followed closely by national security.
>
>Absolutely true. The left-wing loons who shout the loudest about
>liberty have *no idea* how fragile it really is or what it really
>costs to maintain it.
We see how you rightards support killing people, kidnapping them,
torturing them, all in order to "defend" liberty.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
HEMI-Powered
jour ...
>>> Oh, and while you rant about liberty, what have you actually
>>> done to defend it? I served in the military, Ray, when did
>>> you do the same?
>>>
>>> Or maybe you just aren't aware that the liberty you speak of
>>> was won at the cost of thousands of deaths, beginning in the
>>> 1770's.
>>>
>>I also served in the military, the US Army. And, my father was a
>>WWII Marine who fought at Saipan, Tinian, and Iwo Jima. The
>>thing about liberty is that it MUST be defended VIGOROUSLY by
>>all, else it will soon be lost. Thus, the true cost of war's
>>awful casualties often is freedom itself, followed closely by
>>national security.
>
> Absolutely true. The left-wing loons who shout the loudest
> about liberty have *no idea* how fragile it really is or what it
> really costs to maintain it.
>
> And then there are many of those in Europe who think they have
> liberty because they have a parlimentary form of government that
> trumps the monarchy; but they really don't have a clue about
> what liberty really is. They still look to the government to
> provide their every need and regulate all aspects of their
> lives. That's why so many of them are so bewildered when they
> come over here.
>
I try to make it a practice to talk about WHAT is going on but NOT
to openly trash a sitting president. Thus, although I was VERY
vocal about Obama during the campaign, he won, and I will refer to
him as Mr. President or President Obama now. The Hussein thing was
an intentional stunt since HE decided to use that name during his
swearing in.
In keeping with my stance on criticism of sitting presidents, I
will only say in reply to your comments above that President Obama
has but about 6 months to make it at least LOOK like the economy is
turning around or Bush's Recession WILL become Obama's Recession.
And, if he isn't VERY careful in Afghanistan, it will become his
albatross just as surely as Iraq doomed Bush.
As to why so many people want to drink the poison Kook-Aid of
"free" government benefits, consider that by the time the current
plan for tax cuts is enacted, some 52% of ALL Americans will pay
ZERO IRS taxes while almost all of it will be paid by those in the
top 10-15%. Thus, those who pay NO taxes at all will surely drink
the poison of "free" because THEY don't have to pay for it.
Likewise, as philosophers have said many times, if the politicians
had to go to war to defend THEIR notions of freedom and world
democracy instead of our young men and women, things MIGHT be
different.
Chris H
<no...@none.gn> writes
>>
>I try to make it a practice to talk about WHAT is going on but NOT
>to openly trash a sitting president. Thus, although I was VERY
>vocal about Obama during the campaign, he won, and I will refer to
>him as Mr. President or President Obama now. The Hussein thing was
>an intentional stunt since HE decided to use that name during his
>swearing in.
Does he have a choice? I thought you had to use your full name when
swearing like that?
>In keeping with my stance on criticism of sitting presidents, I
>will only say in reply to your comments above that President Obama
>has but about 6 months to make it at least LOOK like the economy is
>turning around or Bush's Recession WILL become Obama's Recession.
>And, if he isn't VERY careful in Afghanistan, it will become his
>albatross just as surely as Iraq doomed Bush.
I agree... He has a poisoned chalice. If he has not started to improve
things he will get the blame even though it was Bush who caused it.
People have short memories
>As to why so many people want to drink the poison Kook-Aid of
>"free" government benefits, consider that by the time the current
>plan for tax cuts is enacted, some 52% of ALL Americans will pay
>ZERO IRS taxes while almost all of it will be paid by those in the
>top 10-15%. Thus, those who pay NO taxes at all will surely drink
>the poison of "free" because THEY don't have to pay for it.
However the top 10% can probably afford to move out of the US and can do
so easily..... Then what?
>Likewise, as philosophers have said many times, if the politicians
>had to go to war to defend THEIR notions of freedom and world
>democracy instead of our young men and women, things MIGHT be
>different.
But like the Bush's they make sure their own children don't have to go
to war.... GWB managed to get in to the National Guard and not even turn
up.
There are a lot of ex-servicemen in government But how many have
children in the military? Michael Moore looked into this in the US and
found very few. I don't have data for the UK but I bet it is similar.
However in the current Royal Family probably 50% have seen active
service
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Stephen Bishop
Another totally baseless and uninformed insulting false accusation
from clueless Ray.
Look out for those black helicopters, they're after you. Your phone
is tapped, too. You're next on our list, and there is nowhere you
can hide. Sheeeesh.
Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>Stephen Bishop <nospam...@now.com> wrote:
>>> "HEMI-Powered" <no...@none.gn>
>>>>Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
>>>>jour ...
>>>>
>>>>>>Are you against liberty or do you defend liberty?
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, and while you rant about liberty, what have you actually
>>>>> done to defend it? I served in the military, Ray, when did you
>>>>> do the same?
>>>>>
>>>>> Or maybe you just aren't aware that the liberty you speak of was
>>>>> won at the cost of thousands of deaths, beginning in the 1770's.
>>>>>
>>>>I also served in the military, the US Army. And, my father was a WWII
>>>>Marine who fought at Saipan, Tinian, and Iwo Jima. The thing about
>>>>liberty is that it MUST be defended VIGOROUSLY by all, else it will
>>>>soon be lost. Thus, the true cost of war's awful casualties often is
>>>>freedom itself, followed closely by national security.
>>>
>>>Absolutely true. The left-wing loons who shout the loudest about
>>>liberty have *no idea* how fragile it really is or what it really
>>>costs to maintain it.
>>
>>We see how you rightards support killing people, kidnapping them,
>>torturing them, all in order to "defend" liberty.
>
>Another totally baseless and uninformed insulting false accusation
>from clueless Ray.
Quit whining, rightard. The prison at Guantanamo Bay, the kidnapping
of suspected militants by the US, the torture of people to extract
infomation, all supported by you rightards.
And now you even support killing innocent people, calling them
"military targets" because they're not allowed to escape the fighting.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>I try to make it a practice to talk about WHAT is going on but NOT
>to openly trash a sitting president. Thus, although I was VERY
>vocal about Obama during the campaign, he won, and I will refer to
>him as Mr. President or President Obama now. The Hussein thing was
>an intentional stunt since HE decided to use that name during his
>swearing in.
Since it is traditional for presidents to use their full name during a
swearing in, it becomes quite cler that you're an anti-Arab bigot who
thinks that the name Hussein makes a person bad.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Stephen Bishop
>Stephen Bishop <nospam...@now.com> wrote:
>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>HEMI-Powered <no...@none.gn> wrote:
>>>>I just replied to you in another post that a strange side of being a
>>>>liberal is vigorous defense of freedom of expression EXCEPT when the
>>>>other person doesn't agree with the Liberal view of the world.
>>>
>>>I see you right-wingers doing exactly that. Who is it that's been
>>>using the government to impose censorship of TV and radio and books?
>>>So-called "conservatives".
>>>
>>>>Then there's the strange circularity of political ideology where as
>>>>one moves Left, eventually you get to Socialism, Marxism, and
>>>>Communism but then the ideology wraps around and re-enters from the
>>>>far right as Facsism and back to the left again as reactionary,
>>>>neocon, and so on. I think the idea SHOULD be to stay somewhere just
>>>>left or just right of center and not get so sidetracked as to be
>>>>either a Far Left OR a Far Right Loon.
>>>
>>>Are you against liberty or do you defend liberty?
>>
>>Oh, and while you rant about liberty, what have you actually done to
>>defend it?
>
>That isn't an answer. In fact you don't even try to answer the
>question. Why is that?
The answer is that I support and defend liberty.
How about you?
>> I served in the military,
>
>So what?
So I've actually put my belief in liberty in action and have performed
some very substantial service to this country. How about you? What
have you done, walked in some protest marches?
>> Ray, when did you do the same?
>
>Don't play that fake patriot crap game with me, asshole. I don't buy
>your propaganda.
Let me quote you directly: "That isn't an answer. In fact you don't
even try to answer the question. Why is that?"
I suspect your answer is no. That being the case, you are just a
virtual patriot who thinks he is defending liberty by calling other
people scatalogical names when they don't share your leftist
sensibilities. Fake indeed. And to think that it is people like you
for whom so many have made extreme sacrifices to protect.
Stephen Bishop
All your above words are nothing but left-wing talking points repeated
over and over by whining bigots like yourself.
I suppose you now think Obama is a rightard as well. He announced
closing Guantanamo, but he is merely moving the operations into the
states and interrogations of prisoners will continue. He also
recently approved a missile strike in Pakistan that killed some 16
"innocent" people.
Get a clue, Ray, the world doesn't rotate around your paranoid left
wing fantasies.
Stephen Bishop
That story was thoroughly debunked and Dan Rather was forced to resign
from his job for reporting such nonsense from sources proven to be
fabricated.
>
>There are a lot of ex-servicemen in government But how many have
>children in the military? Michael Moore looked into this in the US and
>found very few. I don't have data for the UK but I bet it is similar.
You really are gullible, aren't you? Michael Moore is one of the
most disreputable producers of lying "documentaries" we have. If you
believe what he says, it's no wonder you believe all the Palestinian
propaganda and other one-sided reporting about "Israeli War Crimes."
Ray Fischer
Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>Stephen Bishop <nospam...@now.com> wrote:
>>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>HEMI-Powered <no...@none.gn> wrote:
>>>>>I just replied to you in another post that a strange side of being a
>>>>>liberal is vigorous defense of freedom of expression EXCEPT when the
>>>>>other person doesn't agree with the Liberal view of the world.
>>>>
>>>>I see you right-wingers doing exactly that. Who is it that's been
>>>>using the government to impose censorship of TV and radio and books?
>>>>So-called "conservatives".
>>>>
>>>>>Then there's the strange circularity of political ideology where as
>>>>>one moves Left, eventually you get to Socialism, Marxism, and
>>>>>Communism but then the ideology wraps around and re-enters from the
>>>>>far right as Facsism and back to the left again as reactionary,
>>>>>neocon, and so on. I think the idea SHOULD be to stay somewhere just
>>>>>left or just right of center and not get so sidetracked as to be
>>>>>either a Far Left OR a Far Right Loon.
>>>>
>>>>Are you against liberty or do you defend liberty?
>>>
>>>Oh, and while you rant about liberty, what have you actually done to
>>>defend it?
>>
>>That isn't an answer. In fact you don't even try to answer the
>>question. Why is that?
>
>The answer is that I support and defend liberty.
Even for Palestinians?
Even for Liberals?
>How about you?
Always.
>>> I served in the military,
>>
>>So what?
>
>So I've actually put my belief in liberty in action
Bullshit. Military service in NO WAY proves a commitment to liberty.
>>> Ray, when did you do the same?
>>
>>Don't play that fake patriot crap game with me, asshole. I don't buy
>>your propaganda.
>
>Let me quote you directly: "That isn't an answer. In fact you don't
>even try to answer the question. Why is that?"
None of your business, fascist wannabe.
Tell us: How many people did you kill when you were "supposedly" in
the military?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
HEMI-Powered
jour ...
>>But like the Bush's they make sure their own children don't have
>>to go to war.... GWB managed to get in to the National Guard and
>>not even turn up.
>
> That story was thoroughly debunked and Dan Rather was forced to
> resign from his job for reporting such nonsense from sources
> proven to be fabricated.
As far as Dan Rather is concerned, this is true. However. George W.
Bush DID make a conscious decision to seek a commission in the
Texas Air National Guard. Nothing unusual or unethical about that
at all. What he did after he received his commission WAS irregular
in that he sought the help of a Colonel in the TANG to get him a
sweetheart deal that would keep him stateside and out of harm's
way. Still nothing too unusual about that, lots of people who think
they're important pull strings.
But, FAILING to show up for 6 MONTHS worth of weekend NG meetings
and his required summer 2-week tour IS a violation of his oath of
commission, unethical, and unacceptable. THIS is what was widely
reported and IS true. Rather screwed up by running with a varient
of the story that proved to be false on it's face.
Here's the thing about people who are otherwise good men and women
who someday decide to seek public office: they simply MUST make
damn well sure that there is NOTHING in their past of ANY kind that
might later be viewed as improper. OR, if they make what many of us
do - mistakes of our youth - they MUST reveal this to the public
BEFORE seeking office. To do otherwise is highly unethical and may
even be illegal, e.g., the recent spate of tax evaders in the Obama
camp.
>
>>There are a lot of ex-servicemen in government But how many have
>>children in the military? Michael Moore looked into this in
>>the US and found very few. I don't have data for the UK but I
>>bet it is similar.
>
> You really are gullible, aren't you? Michael Moore is one of
> the most disreputable producers of lying "documentaries" we
> have. If you believe what he says, it's no wonder you believe
> all the Palestinian propaganda and other one-sided reporting
> about "Israeli War Crimes."
>
Moore is a gasconading poltroon who goes around intentionally
smearing people in the name of "truth", but really just to enhance
his own reputation and line his pockets. He is, in Bill O'Reilly's
terms, a pinhead.
tony cooper
wrote:
>(Michael) Moore is a gasconading poltroon who goes around intentionally
>smearing people in the name of "truth", but really just to enhance
>his own reputation and line his pockets. He is, in Bill O'Reilly's
>terms, a pinhead.
While I generally avoid bromides, "It takes one to know one" comes to
mind when reading that Bill O'Reilly has called someone else a
"pinhead".
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
HEMI-Powered
...
>>(Michael) Moore is a gasconading poltroon who goes around
>>intentionally smearing people in the name of "truth", but really
>>just to enhance his own reputation and line his pockets. He is,
>>in Bill O'Reilly's terms, a pinhead.
>
> While I generally avoid bromides, "It takes one to know one"
> comes to mind when reading that Bill O'Reilly has called someone
> else a "pinhead".
>
You're certainly welcome to your opinion, but I find it most
interesting that the majority of people who don't like Fox News and
it's commentators rarely actually WATCH it OR look for themselves to
see what is true and untrue. I watch CNN and MSNBC as well. If you're
a Liberal, then I'm sure you like Keith Oberman and Rachel Maddow who
support the Kalyfornia Far Left Loon agenda.
Have a nice day!
tony cooper
wrote:
>tony cooper added these comments in the current discussion du jour
>...
>
>>>(Michael) Moore is a gasconading poltroon who goes around
>>>intentionally smearing people in the name of "truth", but really
>>>just to enhance his own reputation and line his pockets. He is,
>>>in Bill O'Reilly's terms, a pinhead.
>>
>> While I generally avoid bromides, "It takes one to know one"
>> comes to mind when reading that Bill O'Reilly has called someone
>> else a "pinhead".
>>
>You're certainly welcome to your opinion, but I find it most
>interesting that the majority of people who don't like Fox News and
>it's commentators rarely actually WATCH it OR look for themselves to
>see what is true and untrue. I watch CNN and MSNBC as well. If you're
>a Liberal, then I'm sure you like Keith Oberman and Rachel Maddow who
>support the Kalyfornia Far Left Loon agenda.
I'm neither a liberal nor a conservative. I have liberal views on
certain issues, and conservative views on certain issues.
I dislike O'Reilly because he regularly engages in innuendo and
extremely one-side biased commentary. I don't blame him, though.
He's found a cash cow in pandering to the right. His fans expect the
one-sided drivel he provides, and he makes a good living in doing so.
The only real objection that I have is that he claims to be a
journalist and newsman. He is neither. Like Limbaugh and Hannity, he
preaches to his own choir.
If you like O'Reilly, you like hearing your own views echoed and
dislike hearing any balancing information that more accurately
portrays what we call news.
The hard core O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and Hannity listeners are like baby
birds. They want their mind food brought to them by someone else and
pre-digested and fed to them.
Ray Fischer
>Here's the thing about people who are otherwise good men and women
>who someday decide to seek public office: they simply MUST make
>damn well sure that there is NOTHING in their past of ANY kind that
>might later be viewed as improper. OR, if they make what many of us
>do - mistakes of our youth - they MUST reveal this to the public
>BEFORE seeking office. To do otherwise is highly unethical and may
>even be illegal, e.g., the recent spate of tax evaders in the Obama
>camp.
Or they can run as a "conservative" where ethical standards are a lot
more ... "flexible".
:-)
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>tony cooper added these comments in the current discussion du jour
>>>(Michael) Moore is a gasconading poltroon who goes around
>>>intentionally smearing people in the name of "truth", but really
>>>just to enhance his own reputation and line his pockets. He is,
>>>in Bill O'Reilly's terms, a pinhead.
>>
>> While I generally avoid bromides, "It takes one to know one"
>> comes to mind when reading that Bill O'Reilly has called someone
>> else a "pinhead".
>>
>You're certainly welcome to your opinion, but I find it most
>interesting that the majority of people who don't like Fox News and
>it's commentators rarely actually WATCH it OR look for themselves to
>see what is true and untrue.
It doesn't take very long to figure out that sewers are filthy.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Stephen Bishop
The leftard again removes the facts, pretends they aren't there, and
then accuses others of running away.
Here's an idea for you, Ray. Why don't you really run away? Judging
from the reactions of many people to your ignorant and insulting style
on usenet over the years, you really aren't welcome here. Just do a
search for yourself on Google and you'll see a consistent pattern of
bilge that you've thrown at people; how they've pointed out your
potty-mouth bigoted attitudes, and then kill-filed you when they've
had enough of it.
Stephen Bishop
wrote:
>tony cooper added these comments in the current discussion du jour
>...
>
>>>(Michael) Moore is a gasconading poltroon who goes around
>>>intentionally smearing people in the name of "truth", but really
>>>just to enhance his own reputation and line his pockets. He is,
>>>in Bill O'Reilly's terms, a pinhead.
>>
>> While I generally avoid bromides, "It takes one to know one"
>> comes to mind when reading that Bill O'Reilly has called someone
>> else a "pinhead".
>>
>You're certainly welcome to your opinion, but I find it most
>interesting that the majority of people who don't like Fox News and
>it's commentators rarely actually WATCH it OR look for themselves to
>see what is true and untrue. I watch CNN and MSNBC as well. If you're
>a Liberal, then I'm sure you like Keith Oberman and Rachel Maddow who
>support the Kalyfornia Far Left Loon agenda.
>
>Have a nice day!
I would say without a doubt that Keith Olberman is the very definition
of pinhead.... I'd think that even if his ignorant disrespectful
style promoted conservative opinions.
Stephen Bishop
Well you should know since that is where you obviously spend most of
your time.
Stephen Bishop
For everyone.
>>How about you?
>
>Always.
Then why do you spout such bigoted opinions and use such idiotic
stereotypes when referring to people you don't agree with?
>
>>>> I served in the military,
>>>
>>>So what?
>>
>>So I've actually put my belief in liberty in action
>
>Bullshit. Military service in NO WAY proves a commitment to liberty.
That's what people who are either too afraid of military service or
who hate the military often say.
But the fact is that unless you put feet to your opinions, that is all
they are. What have you actually done, Ray boy? Being a cranky fool
for many years on usenet spouting your left-wing opinions does nothing
to promote liberty.
Seriously, what have you done?
>>>> Ray, when did you do the same?
>>>
>>>Don't play that fake patriot crap game with me, asshole. I don't buy
>>>your propaganda.
>>
>>Let me quote you directly: "That isn't an answer. In fact you don't
>>even try to answer the question. Why is that?"
>
>None of your business, fascist wannabe.
In other words, you have no deeds to back up your bigoted words. But
we all knew that. You've always just been a hot air machine.
>Tell us: How many people did you kill when you were "supposedly" in
>the military?
Thousands and thousands. All with my bare hands. That's what you
want to hear, isn't it? After all, to you I'm just another one of
those murderous people want to see other people dead.
You are truly a fool who should be thankful for those in the military
who have protected your right to make an idiot of yourself in public
like you do.
Ray Fischer
And yet you continue to support the oppressors.
>>>How about you?
>>
>>Always.
>
>Then why do you spout such bigoted opinions
I don't. You're a liar and a rabid bigot who hates everybody who
doesn't agree with your fascist agenda.
>>>>> I served in the military,
>>>>
>>>>So what?
>>>
>>>So I've actually put my belief in liberty in action
>>
>>Bullshit. Military service in NO WAY proves a commitment to liberty.
>
>That's what people who are either too afraid of military service or
>who hate the military often say.
So you argue that the Nazi SS and the Gestapo were promoters of
liberty.
>>>>> Ray, when did you do the same?
>>>>
>>>>Don't play that fake patriot crap game with me, asshole. I don't buy
>>>>your propaganda.
>>>
>>>Let me quote you directly: "That isn't an answer. In fact you don't
>>>even try to answer the question. Why is that?"
>>
>>None of your business, fascist wannabe.
>
>In other words, you have no deeds to back up your bigoted words.
You'll never know, fascist bootlicker.
>>Tell us: How many people did you kill when you were "supposedly" in
>>the military?
>
>Thousands and thousands. All with my bare hands.
That says EVERYTHING we need to know about your supposed military
service.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Chris H
<nospam...@now.com> writes
>On 04 Feb 2009 05:07:14 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>> I served in the military,
>>>>
>>>>So what?
>>>
>>>So I've actually put my belief in liberty in action
>>
>>Bullshit. Military service in NO WAY proves a commitment to liberty.
I agree with that completely.
>That's what people who are either too afraid of military service or
>who hate the military often say.
I have about a decade's military service and you are WRONG
>But the fact is that unless you put feet to your opinions, that is all
>they are.
This is a red herring. Being in the military (especially the US
military) had nothing to do with liberty. The US military has a very
poor trak record of promoting Liberty. It does project US interests
abroad. It says they are promoting Liberty but that is not what it
does.
The British Army is under no illusions of the sort of clap trap the US
military spouts about liberty and freedoms.
> What have you actually done, Ray boy? Being a cranky fool
>for many years on usenet spouting your left-wing opinions does nothing
>to promote liberty.
Ray is not left win. More of a pragmatist and Stephen I have seen
nothing you have said that promotes "liberty" Most propaganda people
use terms like "liberty" , "Freedom", "Democracy" life the Peoples
Liberation Army (China), the Democratic Federal Republic (East Germany)
etc
>Seriously, what have you done?
Classified... As you said :-)
but involved Iran , Iraq, Syria Kurdistan and talking to people there..
Not bombing from 10K or driving around in a tank. As you said unless
you have been there with your feet on the ground your words are just
uniformed opinion.
>You are truly a fool who should be thankful for those in the military
>who have protected your right to make an idiot of yourself in public
>like you do.
SO how did you protect Ray? Since 1946 the US has been the aggressor and
attacked others.... So much so it caused several terrorist groups to
fight back.
It got so bad that OBL said "Enough" we will fight back and did three
RETALIATION attacks (as he stated in an interview 6 weeks before the
first one). It was the two embassies and then the finally 9/11
So the US military has made things LESS safe and delivered Democracy to
no one. The only "democracy" Iraq has is the ability to vote and say
"things are worse than under Saddam" They have no electricity, water
and sanitation which they had under Saddam. They security situation is
WORSE and there are fewer jobs.
They recent election has said we want the US out "NOW!" not in 12
months,... well will the US give them democracy and get out as they ask?
Stephen Bishop
There you go again, spouting one of your ignorant bigoted opinions.
For the record, Ray, I don't hate you at all. I just think you are a
bigoted fool who can't see beyond his own mindless hatred for anything
that even looks like it might be on the right side of the political
spectrum.
>
>>>>>> I served in the military,
>>>>>
>>>>>So what?
>>>>
>>>>So I've actually put my belief in liberty in action
>>>
>>>Bullshit. Military service in NO WAY proves a commitment to liberty.
>>
>>That's what people who are either too afraid of military service or
>>who hate the military often say.
>
>So you argue that the Nazi SS and the Gestapo were promoters of
>liberty.
Perfect example of your habit of twisting things to support your
paranioa. You are equating the U.S. military with the Nazi
military. All that does is to demonstrate your bigoted opinion that
all military service involves jack-booted oppression of the innocent.
You are truly ignorant.
>
>>>>>> Ray, when did you do the same?
>>>>>
>>>>>Don't play that fake patriot crap game with me, asshole. I don't buy
>>>>>your propaganda.
>>>>
>>>>Let me quote you directly: "That isn't an answer. In fact you don't
>>>>even try to answer the question. Why is that?"
>>>
>>>None of your business, fascist wannabe.
>>
>>In other words, you have no deeds to back up your bigoted words.
>
>You'll never know, fascist bootlicker.
More of your pathetic bigoted insults to avoid answering a question.
Why won't I ever know, Ray? Because you have never done anything to
promote liberty other than spout rectally-obsessed insults at people
who don't share your left wing worldview.
>
>>>Tell us: How many people did you kill when you were "supposedly" in
>>>the military?
>>
>>Thousands and thousands. All with my bare hands.
>
>That says EVERYTHING we need to know about your supposed military
>service.
And yet again you fell into the trap set for you to illustrate how you
selectively clip away text to change the context. The sad thing is
that you probably actually think you are being clever, when all you
are doing is showing the world how pathetic you really are.
Here is the entire context including what you clipped away:
Stephen Bishop
And another elitist country with bigoted opinions is heard from...
HEMI-Powered
...
>>> While I generally avoid bromides, "It takes one to know one"
>>> comes to mind when reading that Bill O'Reilly has called
>>> someone else a "pinhead".
>>>
>>You're certainly welcome to your opinion, but I find it most
>>interesting that the majority of people who don't like Fox News
>>and it's commentators rarely actually WATCH it OR look for
>>themselves to see what is true and untrue. I watch CNN and MSNBC
>>as well. If you're a Liberal, then I'm sure you like Keith
>>Oberman and Rachel Maddow who support the Kalyfornia Far Left
>>Loon agenda.
>
> I'm neither a liberal nor a conservative. I have liberal views
> on certain issues, and conservative views on certain issues.
>
> I dislike O'Reilly because he regularly engages in innuendo and
> extremely one-side biased commentary. I don't blame him,
> though. He's found a cash cow in pandering to the right. His
> fans expect the one-sided drivel he provides, and he makes a
> good living in doing so. The only real objection that I have is
> that he claims to be a journalist and newsman. He is neither.
> Like Limbaugh and Hannity, he preaches to his own choir.
Again, I have NO problem with that, Tony.
> If you like O'Reilly, you like hearing your own views echoed and
> dislike hearing any balancing information that more accurately
> portrays what we call news.
No, you have that entirely WRONG, as I suspected you would. As I've
said a number of times, I watch ALL points of view, not just the
conservative ones, and decide for myself what is likely to be true
and what is spin. I have to ask you,though, how much O'Reilly
Factor or Hannity or Glenn Beck you watch? Five hours/week, 5
minutes, or none?
>
> The hard core O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and Hannity listeners are like
> baby birds. They want their mind food brought to them by
> someone else and pre-digested and fed to them.
>
Limbaugh is a nutbag, I don't listen to him at all. But, if you
feel as you've indicated in this last, I won't even attempt to
reason with you as you've proven yourself the fool. Get a life, and
get some REAL information and STOP drinking the poison Kool-Aid of
the Far Left Loons and Green Nazis. YOU decide for yourself if YOU
can decide how best to spend your money and run your own life OR if
YOU want some partisan beaurocrats running it for you.
HEMI-Powered
jour ...
>>> While I generally avoid bromides, "It takes one to know one"
>>> comes to mind when reading that Bill O'Reilly has called
>>> someone else a "pinhead".
>>>
>>You're certainly welcome to your opinion, but I find it most
>>interesting that the majority of people who don't like Fox News
>>and it's commentators rarely actually WATCH it OR look for
>>themselves to see what is true and untrue. I watch CNN and MSNBC
>>as well. If you're a Liberal, then I'm sure you like Keith
>>Oberman and Rachel Maddow who support the Kalyfornia Far Left
>>Loon agenda.
>>
> I would say without a doubt that Keith Olberman is the very
> definition of pinhead.... I'd think that even if his ignorant
> disrespectful style promoted conservative opinions.
>
After the November election, both Oberman and Maddow went totally
nutso in blasting out-going President Bush, Oberman having a nighly
segment called "Bush-whacked" which was blatantly disrespectful.
What I find positively fascinating and highly amusing is that
Oberman and Maddow NOW are completely disenchanted with the new
president NOT because he's a bad guy but because he apparently is
Left enough!
I doubt anyone will believe me when I say this, but I DO think that
Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity ARE highly biased in a
great many areas. It is VERY apparent in what they talk about with
their guests, the kind of questions they ask and how they ask them,
and their own style of veiled spin. That said, at least it is
obvious when they stray from the correct message. OTOH, MSNBC's
Chris Mathew, Keith Oberman, and Rachel Maddow plus a few others
NEVER let up on the Far Left Loon/Green Nazi/I Hate Republican line
to even present opposing viewpoints.
Which is why the Left is trying to restart the Fairness Doctrine
again and why it is promoting card check to attempt to streamline
unionization of industry and business. When it became apparent many
years ago that these two things were NOT how mainstream America
views them, it became ultra important to make it LOOK like the Left
and it's media stooges were for free speech and free union
elections when what they REALLY are for is POWER - power to run OUR
lives and spend OUR money. If what people want is a nanny state,
welcome to the New Order!
Chris H
In short you have no answer to the comments above.
Ray Fischer
>Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
>jour ...
>
>>>> While I generally avoid bromides, "It takes one to know one"
>>>> comes to mind when reading that Bill O'Reilly has called
>>>> someone else a "pinhead".
>>>>
>>>You're certainly welcome to your opinion, but I find it most
>>>interesting that the majority of people who don't like Fox News
>>>and it's commentators rarely actually WATCH it OR look for
>>>themselves to see what is true and untrue. I watch CNN and MSNBC
>>>as well. If you're a Liberal, then I'm sure you like Keith
>>>Oberman and Rachel Maddow who support the Kalyfornia Far Left
>>>Loon agenda.
>>>
>> I would say without a doubt that Keith Olberman is the very
>> definition of pinhead.... I'd think that even if his ignorant
>> disrespectful style promoted conservative opinions.
>>
>After the November election, both Oberman and Maddow went totally
>nutso in blasting out-going President Bush, Oberman having a nighly
>segment called "Bush-whacked" which was blatantly disrespectful.
Bush is so currupt, immoral, arrogant, and dishonest that he doesn't
deserve respect. His corrupt incompetance has cost every person in
the country thousands of dollars.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>Stephen Bishop <nospam...@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> I served in the military,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So what?
>>>>>
>>>>>So I've actually put my belief in liberty in action
>>>>
>>>>Bullshit. Military service in NO WAY proves a commitment to liberty.
>>>
>>>That's what people who are either too afraid of military service or
>>>who hate the military often say.
>>
>>So you argue that the Nazi SS and the Gestapo were promoters of
>>liberty.
>
>Perfect example of your habit of twisting things to support your
>paranioa.
It is what you wrote.
> You are equating the U.S. military with the Nazi
>military.
You lying ashsole. I am demonstrating why YOUR claim was stupid dishonesty.
But if you want to confine your claims to JUST the US military, what
of events like My Lai?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
J. Clarke
> Stephen Bishop <nospam...@now.com> wrote:
>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>> Stephen Bishop <nospam...@now.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> I served in the military,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So what?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I've actually put my belief in liberty in action
>>>>>
>>>>> Bullshit. Military service in NO WAY proves a commitment to
>>>>> liberty.
>>>>
>>>> That's what people who are either too afraid of military service
>>>> or
>>>> who hate the military often say.
>>>
>>> So you argue that the Nazi SS and the Gestapo were promoters of
>>> liberty.
>>
>> Perfect example of your habit of twisting things to support your
>> paranioa.
>
> It is what you wrote.
>
>> You are equating the U.S. military with the Nazi
>> military.
>
> You lying ashsole. I am demonstrating why YOUR claim was stupid
> dishonesty.
>
> But if you want to confine your claims to JUST the US military, what
> of events like My Lai?
What about it, the person responsible was tried and convicted. When
did the Nazis try anybody for committing an atrocity?
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Twibil
> After the November election, both Oberman and Maddow went totally
> nutso in blasting out-going President Bush, Oberman having a nighly
> segment called "Bush-whacked" which was blatantly disrespectful.
Er, could you point out where it says in the Constitution -or any
other document- that citizens are supposed to be "respectful" of
someone with whom they not only disagee politically, but who they
believe has done great damage to the country?
Do you -for instance- see right-wing commentators frequently speaking
of Bill Clinton with great respect?
> What I find positively fascinating and highly amusing is that
> Oberman and Maddow NOW are completely disenchanted with the new
> president NOT because he's a bad guy but because he apparently is
> Left enough!
Well, no, you missed it clean: it's their *job* to point out screw-ups
on the part of whoever's in power, and for the next four years that's
going to be Obama. (This means you can expect them to continue
pointing it out whenever they can catch him at anything embarassing,
and this *should* make you very happy.)
> I doubt anyone will believe me when I say this, but I DO think that
> Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity ARE highly biased in a
> great many areas.
Gee, you think?
> It is VERY apparent in what they talk about with
> their guests, the kind of questions they ask and how they ask them,
> and their own style of veiled spin.
"Using the words "Bill O'Reilly" and "veiled spin" in the same
sentence is closely akin to using "Hitler' and "philanthropist" in the
same way.
> That said, at least it is
> obvious when they stray from the correct message. OTOH, MSNBC's
> Chris Mathew, Keith Oberman, and Rachel Maddow plus a few others
> NEVER let up on the Far Left Loon/Green Nazi/I Hate Republican line
> to even present opposing viewpoints.
>
> Which is why the Left is trying to restart the Fairness Doctrine
> again and why it is promoting card check to attempt to streamline
> unionization of industry and business.
"Hemi-powered", meet Mr. Non-Sequitur.
> When it became apparent many
> years ago that these two things were NOT how mainstream America
> views them, it became ultra important to make it LOOK like the Left
> and it's media stooges were for free speech and free union
> elections when what they REALLY are for is POWER - power to run OUR
> lives and spend OUR money. If what people want is a nanny state,
> welcome to the New Order!
Hmmm. Looks as if something over 50% of the electorate wanted it more
than they wanted the alternative that was being presented.
What's amazing to *me* is that even after Sarah Palin managed to sink
McCain's campaign, she's still out there trying to position herself
for a Presidential run in 2012, and the far right is lapping it up as
if they think the bimbo would make a *great* President, despite the
poll numbers that show McCain's numbers started dropping like a brick
as soon as he picked her!
This is what's know as 'shooting yourself in the foot".
~Pete
Stephen Bishop
To be fair, Tony, the above statement also applies to those who get
their information from sources like MSNBC, the BBC, NPR and the major
news networks.
Rush is first and foremost an entertainer, and he acknowledges this.
He is very good at what he does because he keeps tripping up liberals
into making him the issue rather than whatever topic is at hand. Most
people who listen to him or Hannity don't follow their every word as
gospel, but rather appreciate that what they hear provides a good
balance to the liberal glop that can be found from other "mainstream"
sources.
Stephen Bishop
wrote:
The difference that most people miss is that guys like Hannity and
Rush very openly admit their conservative viewpoint, while the airbags
on the other side pretend that what they spew is fair and neutral.
>Which is why the Left is trying to restart the Fairness Doctrine
>again and why it is promoting card check to attempt to streamline
>unionization of industry and business. When it became apparent many
>years ago that these two things were NOT how mainstream America
>views them, it became ultra important to make it LOOK like the Left
>and it's media stooges were for free speech and free union
>elections when what they REALLY are for is POWER - power to run OUR
>lives and spend OUR money. If what people want is a nanny state,
>welcome to the New Order!
If something like the "fairness doctrine" were to ever be implemented,
I would be amazed at how liberals could look themselves in the mirror
and pretend that they are advocates of free speech or any other part
of the Bill of Rights.
Stephen Bishop
Thanks, Ray, for providing an illustration of the standard crybaby
liberal talking points of Bush-is-wrong-no-matter-what.
Tell us, Ray, how many thousands of dollars came out of your pocket
that would still be there as the result of President Bush? And
exactly where did it go? Be specific, we'd really like to know.
If you are referring to losses in the stock market and real estate,
the facts point very much away from Bush and directly at democrats,
who forced subprime mortgages down everyone's thoats and refused
investigation and regulation when it became apparent that things were
amiss at Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. The seeds of the meltdown go all
the way back to the Clinton administration.
Stephen Bishop
wrote:
>On Feb 5, 3:56 am, "HEMI-Powered" <n...@none.sn> wrote:
>
>> After the November election, both Oberman and Maddow went totally
>> nutso in blasting out-going President Bush, Oberman having a nighly
>> segment called "Bush-whacked" which was blatantly disrespectful.
>
>Er, could you point out where it says in the Constitution -or any
>other document- that citizens are supposed to be "respectful" of
>someone with whom they not only disagee politically, but who they
>believe has done great damage to the country?
No, that isn't a Constitutional issue. Free speech is free speech.
They are as free to be disrespectful as others are free to dismiss
their rants as coming from obsessed lunatics.
>Do you -for instance- see right-wing commentators frequently speaking
>of Bill Clinton with great respect?
The difference is that Clinton was actually caught lying and
obstructing justice, and he was impeached for it. He was also
disbarred. Quite honestly he's lucky to not be in prison.
Clinton is also justly criticized for his failure to properly deal
with terrorists during his administration, which directly led to the
9/11 attacks.
OTOH, most of the anti-Bush rhetoric is blind hatred and irrational
shrillness.
>
>> What I find positively fascinating and highly amusing is that
>> Oberman and Maddow NOW are completely disenchanted with the new
>> president NOT because he's a bad guy but because he apparently is
>> Left enough!
>
>Well, no, you missed it clean: it's their *job* to point out screw-ups
>on the part of whoever's in power, and for the next four years that's
>going to be Obama. (This means you can expect them to continue
>pointing it out whenever they can catch him at anything embarassing,
>and this *should* make you very happy.)
Come back and tell us when Olberman starts shouting and raving about
Obama with the same shrillness and vigor that he does about Bush.
>> I doubt anyone will believe me when I say this, but I DO think that
>> Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity ARE highly biased in a
>> great many areas.
>
>Gee, you think?
Those who are most critical of those guys tend not to listen to them,
but rely on soundbites and on what others say to judge them. If you
really listen, you'll understand that they openly acknowledge their
conservative points of view. They are very honest about it, unlike
the liberals in media who pretend that their views are fair and even.
>
>> It is VERY apparent in what they talk about with
>> their guests, the kind of questions they ask and how they ask them,
>> and their own style of veiled spin.
>
>"Using the words "Bill O'Reilly" and "veiled spin" in the same
>sentence is closely akin to using "Hitler' and "philanthropist" in the
>same way.
>
>> That said, at least it is
>> obvious when they stray from the correct message. OTOH, MSNBC's
>> Chris Mathew, Keith Oberman, and Rachel Maddow plus a few others
>> NEVER let up on the Far Left Loon/Green Nazi/I Hate Republican line
>> to even present opposing viewpoints.
>>
>> Which is why the Left is trying to restart the Fairness Doctrine
>> again and why it is promoting card check to attempt to streamline
>> unionization of industry and business.
>
>"Hemi-powered", meet Mr. Non-Sequitur.
>
>> When it became apparent many
>> years ago that these two things were NOT how mainstream America
>> views them, it became ultra important to make it LOOK like the Left
>> and it's media stooges were for free speech and free union
>> elections when what they REALLY are for is POWER - power to run OUR
>> lives and spend OUR money. If what people want is a nanny state,
>> welcome to the New Order!
>
>Hmmm. Looks as if something over 50% of the electorate wanted it more
>than they wanted the alternative that was being presented.
Let's just see how quickly those over-50% get disillusioned and start
expressing buyer's remorse. Obama's approval ratings are already
falling now that the voters are seeing that this "stimulus package" he
is pushing so hard is nothing but an excuse to spend billions of
taxpayer dollars on pet projects of the democrats in congress.
>What's amazing to *me* is that even after Sarah Palin managed to sink
>McCain's campaign, she's still out there trying to position herself
>for a Presidential run in 2012, and the far right is lapping it up as
>if they think the bimbo would make a *great* President, despite the
>poll numbers that show McCain's numbers started dropping like a brick
>as soon as he picked her!
And what is amazing to *me* is that even after the election is over,
so many people still want to make Palin an issue. She wasn't even
running for president. The fact is, she was a HUGE threat to the
liberal establishment, as evidenced by the immediate personal attacks
on her and her family when she was announced as McCain's running mate.
Those attacks have still not stopped. Even you call her a "bimbo"
while ignoring her record of actual accomplishments. Pssst, here's a
hint: Tina Fey is really not Sarah Palin.
>
>This is what's know as 'shooting yourself in the foot".
Otherwise known as, "Voting for Obama because you actually swallowed
the bumper sticker slogans and got caught up in the cult of his
personality."
What is truly scary is that if job should prove to be too much for
him, then next people in line for the job would be Joe Biden and Nancy
Pelosi.
>~Pete
HEMI-Powered
jour ...
>>If you like O'Reilly, you like hearing your own views echoed and
>>dislike hearing any balancing information that more accurately
>>portrays what we call news.
>>
>>The hard core O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and Hannity listeners are like
>>baby birds. They want their mind food brought to them by
>>someone else and pre-digested and fed to them.
>
> To be fair, Tony, the above statement also applies to those who
> get their information from sources like MSNBC, the BBC, NPR and
> the major news networks.
The nature of political talk show hosts on either TV or radio is
such that they DO have a bias and an agenda and thus maintain an
audience that likes their viewpoint. That's why I watch Left,
Right, and Center cable news shows to try to at least get the full
gamut of "facts" but it CAN be tough. In short, just like watching
Congress in session on C-SPAN, it can be VERY tough to see that
various people are actually talking about the same things, their
slant/spin is SO extremely different.
I watched Chris Mathew, Keith Oberman, and Rachel Maddow last night
and the night before alone with Lou Dobbs, Glenn Beck, O'Reilly,
Sean Hannity and the day time cable news hosts, because I wanted to
hear what each was saying about the stimulus plan debate then going
on in the Senate.
Just as I expected, the MSNBC crowd took the low road in
criticizing the Republicans as being obstructionist while at the
same time defending President Obama's "tough talk." It is QUITE
obvious that these clowns just haven't read even a summary of the
bill OR they are just partisan stooges. In this particular debate,
it is refreshing to listen to Fox and even CNN/CNN Headlines
because it appears that they HAVE read and understood the House and
Senate bills.
As to feeding baby birds, that is more an indictment or accusation
that viewers are too stupid to recognize truth and separate it from
bias reporting and spin. I find that to be the most egegious aspect
of the typical Liberal response to ANY political debate. They just
want to shout down and stiffle dissent from even centrist
commentators, much less those evil people on the Right.
> Rush is first and foremost an entertainer, and he acknowledges
> this. He is very good at what he does because he keeps tripping
> up liberals into making him the issue rather than whatever topic
> is at hand. Most people who listen to him or Hannity don't
> follow their every word as gospel, but rather appreciate that
> what they hear provides a good balance to the liberal glop that
> can be found from other "mainstream" sources.
>
He is a good entertainer and listeners should know and understand
that he comes with a STRONG agenda. As for tripping up the
liberals, it is about as easy to do that as it is for them to trip
up those conservatives who are bobble-headed ideologues. It truly
astounds, flummoxes, and saddans me that our elected officials seem
FAR more interested in advancing THEIR agendas and that of their
party instead of doing the bidding of the American people.
WRT the stimulus package, I think it is going to die a cruel-but-
deserved death in it's present form. Right now, CNN, Fox, AND MSNBC
are saying that over 25,000 phone calls and a like number of E-
mails is coming into Congress PER DAY! I say, great!
Obama tried to belittle the Red Team at his party's lavish retreat
last night by saying that he inherited the mess. Sorry to say this,
Mr. President, but YOU were one of the Senators that approved of
the Treasury's TARP bill. I DO want Obama to succeed in helping our
country out of this economic malaise but NOT because I like him or
his policies. He has ONLY one chance at this, else it will be
Obama's Depression by spring.
Likewise, President Obama's entire foreign policy agenda including
winding down Iraq, expanding the war in Afghanistan, trying to
mediate the Israeli/Hamas mini-war, Iran, etc. will VERY quickly
transpose criticism by the Far Left Loons that this is George
Bush's failure IF by later this year things are just as bad. It
wasn't so much that the American people hated Bush per se, they
hated his policies and actions. So, if Obama cannot truly make
"change we can believe in" then HE will quite quickly get the
unwanted mantra of this being Obama's War. Interesting also was
Obama noting in a short speech yesterday that he understood that he
HAD to get the economy right and quickly else he KNOWS he'd be a
one term president. Ya think?!
HEMI-Powered
jour ...
>>I doubt anyone will believe me when I say this, but I DO think
>>that Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity ARE highly
>>biased in a great many areas. It is VERY apparent in what they
>>talk about with their guests, the kind of questions they ask and
>>how they ask them, and their own style of veiled spin. That
>>said, at least it is obvious when they stray from the correct
>>message. OTOH, MSNBC's Chris Mathew, Keith Oberman, and Rachel
>>Maddow plus a few others NEVER let up on the Far Left Loon/Green
>>Nazi/I Hate Republican line to even present opposing
>>viewpoints.
>
> The difference that most people miss is that guys like Hannity
> and Rush very openly admit their conservative viewpoint, while
> the airbags on the other side pretend that what they spew is
> fair and neutral.
>
You are so right here! Actually, that is the MAIN difference
between Liberals and Conservatives in general - the Liberals almost
always resort to disparaging the Conservatives in a vain attempt to
distract the American people.
Again, Hannity IS biased to the right, O'Reilly IS biased, Beck IS
biased, but like you say, they do not mince words about where there
feelings lie, they bring BOTH points of view to their nightly TV
shows, and I think they show opposing views a great amount of
respect, contrary to the Left.
>>Which is why the Left is trying to restart the Fairness Doctrine
>>again and why it is promoting card check to attempt to
>>streamline unionization of industry and business. When it became
>>apparent many years ago that these two things were NOT how
>>mainstream America views them, it became ultra important to make
>>it LOOK like the Left and it's media stooges were for free
>>speech and free union elections when what they REALLY are for is
>>POWER - power to run OUR lives and spend OUR money. If what
>>people want is a nanny state, welcome to the New Order!
>
> If something like the "fairness doctrine" were to ever be
> implemented, I would be amazed at how liberals could look
> themselves in the mirror and pretend that they are advocates of
> free speech or any other part of the Bill of Rights.
>
Did you see the details of the Liberal version of SCHIP?
"Children" are defined as - are you ready for this? - up to age 30!
And, the poverty level for eligibility in SCHIP has been raised to
$70,000/year plus ALL children of illegal aliens are fully covered!
This is very transparently the first shots fired in a mandatory
national healthcare system. What makes the new SCHIP so ludicrous
is that to pay for it in the short-term, the Administration
actually needs 26,000 NEW cigarette smokers to start smoking!
Puleeze!
HEMI-Powered
jour ...
>>Do you -for instance- see right-wing commentators frequently
>>speaking of Bill Clinton with great respect?
>
> The difference is that Clinton was actually caught lying and
> obstructing justice, and he was impeached for it. He was also
> disbarred. Quite honestly he's lucky to not be in prison.
I've always like him looking so serious on prime-time TV with "I
did NOT have sexual relations with that woman!" then admitting just
2 weeks later that he had, a number of times.
> Clinton is also justly criticized for his failure to properly
> deal with terrorists during his administration, which directly
> led to the 9/11 attacks.
>
> OTOH, most of the anti-Bush rhetoric is blind hatred and
> irrational shrillness.
>
See one of my other replies. In the beginning, I doubt many hated
George W. Bush. After all, his handling of the post-9/11 situation
was widely lauded and his approval ratings soared for a time. He
fell out of favor in starting a war in Iraq that not only killed
and maimed our military people but also led to the massive
deficits. It was NOT the tax cuts that caused the deficits, it was
the War On Terror. And, it was NOT a tax cut for the rich. Easy
example: since 80%+ of ALL Americans own market securities directly
or indirectly through their pension plans, cutting cap gains to 15%
helped 80%+ of ALL taxpayers. Don't hear the Liberals talk about
that either.
Then, too, there's the accusation that Bush squandered the Clinton
prosperity and budget surplus except that the FACTS show that the
economy was going soft even during the 2000 election mainly by the
dot.com bubble bursting. The country would likely have gone into
recession anyway but even a Liberal in office would NOT have likely
correctly anticipated the World Trade Center attack.
>>
>>> What I find positively fascinating and highly amusing is that
>>> Oberman and Maddow NOW are completely disenchanted with the
>>> new president NOT because he's a bad guy but because he
>>> apparently is Left enough!
>>
>>Well, no, you missed it clean: it's their *job* to point out
>>screw-ups on the part of whoever's in power, and for the next
>>four years that's going to be Obama. (This means you can expect
>>them to continue pointing it out whenever they can catch him at
>>anything embarassing, and this *should* make you very happy.)
>
> Come back and tell us when Olberman starts shouting and raving
> about Obama with the same shrillness and vigor that he does
> about Bush.
Oberman and Maddow are now caught in a cosmic dilemma: one the one
hand, they LOVE a Far Left Loon and Green Nazi in the White House
and the Liberals with a strangle hold on Congress, but so far,
Obama appears NOT to be fulfilling THEIR view on the issues. So,
what amuses me so much is exactly what I said yesterday - these two
twits don't know whether to hunt or fetch just yet.
>
>>> I doubt anyone will believe me when I say this, but I DO think
>>> that Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity ARE highly
>>> biased in a great many areas.
>>
>>Gee, you think?
>
> Those who are most critical of those guys tend not to listen to
> them, but rely on soundbites and on what others say to judge
> them. If you really listen, you'll understand that they openly
> acknowledge their conservative points of view. They are very
> honest about it, unlike the liberals in media who pretend that
> their views are fair and even.
>
O'Reilly had Ted Turner, a certifiable Loon, on his show before
Christmas. Turner ADMITTED he never watched the Factor nor ever
watches Fox. O'Reilly correctly said "then, Mr. Turner, I suggest
that you watch our show before you make incorrect critical
statements about us." or words to that effect. Says it all, I
think.
>
>>Hmmm. Looks as if something over 50% of the electorate wanted it
>>more than they wanted the alternative that was being presented.
>
> Let's just see how quickly those over-50% get disillusioned and
> start expressing buyer's remorse. Obama's approval ratings are
> already falling now that the voters are seeing that this
> "stimulus package" he is pushing so hard is nothing but an
> excuse to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on pet projects of
> the democrats in congress.
The elections' popular vote was a little over 52% for Obama and a
little over 46% for McCain. The Electoral College tally, though,
was 365 to 165, a "landslide" showing the foolishness of continuing
that system.
SMS
> Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
> jour ...
>
>>> Do you -for instance- see right-wing commentators frequently
>>> speaking of Bill Clinton with great respect?
>> The difference is that Clinton was actually caught lying and
>> obstructing justice, and he was impeached for it. He was also
>> disbarred. Quite honestly he's lucky to not be in prison.
>
> I've always like him looking so serious on prime-time TV with "I
> did NOT have sexual relations with that woman!" then admitting just
> 2 weeks later that he had, a number of times.
He never admitted it. His definition of sexual relations was
intercourse, and that didn't happen.
I find it amusing that the neo-cons continue to harp on this minor
indiscretion of Clinton while ignoring the incredible damage Bush was
responsible for, including turning a surplus into the largest deficits
in history, causing the worst recession since the depression (and now
finally economists are starting to use the D word instead of the R
word), and causing the 9-11 attacks by ignoring the information that the
outgoing Clinton administration gave them.
Anyway, it seems like Obama has been able to calm the situation in the
liberated territories. Rocket attacks by Hamas are way down, so the
retaliations by Israel have also decreased. Israel now seems intent on
targeting the tunnels used to smuggle weapons into Gaza from Israel.
This may be the best we can hope for until Hamas is overthrown from within.
Chris H
<scharf...@geemail.com> writes
>HEMI-Powered wrote:
>> Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
>> jour ...
>>>> Do you -for instance- see right-wing commentators frequently
>>>> speaking of Bill Clinton with great respect?
>>> The difference is that Clinton was actually caught lying and
>>> obstructing justice, and he was impeached for it. He was also
>>> disbarred. Quite honestly he's lucky to not be in prison.
>> I've always like him looking so serious on prime-time TV with "I
>>did NOT have sexual relations with that woman!" then admitting just 2
>>weeks later that he had, a number of times.
>
>He never admitted it. His definition of sexual relations was
>intercourse, and that didn't happen.
>
>I find it amusing that the neo-cons continue to harp on this minor
>indiscretion of Clinton
As the French President said " Just the ONE Mistress.....?" :-)
Personally I think he should have said "Yes.... so what? " It has
nothing to do with his capabilities as a politician.
>while ignoring the incredible damage Bush was responsible for,
>including turning a surplus into the largest deficits in history,
>causing the worst recession since the depression (and now finally
>economists are starting to use the D word instead of the R word), and
>causing the 9-11 attacks by ignoring the information that the outgoing
>Clinton administration gave them.
Not to mention flouting international Law., pissing off all the USA's
friends.
>Anyway, it seems like Obama has been able to calm the situation in the
>liberated territories. Rocket attacks by Hamas are way down, so the
>retaliations by Israel have also decreased. Israel now seems intent on
>targeting the tunnels used to smuggle weapons into Gaza from Israel.
Not sure this is all down to Obama.
>This may be the best we can hope for until Hamas is overthrown from
>within.
Or better still Israel removed altogether.
Deep Reset
"Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:sU8NTiFr...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In message <H5_il.13090$as4....@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com>, SMS
> <scharf...@geemail.com> writes
>>HEMI-Powered wrote:
>>> Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
>>> jour ...
>>>>> Do you -for instance- see right-wing commentators frequently
>>>>> speaking of Bill Clinton with great respect?
>>>> The difference is that Clinton was actually caught lying and
>>>> obstructing justice, and he was impeached for it. He was also
>>>> disbarred. Quite honestly he's lucky to not be in prison.
>>> I've always like him looking so serious on prime-time TV with "I did
>>> NOT have sexual relations with that woman!" then admitting just 2 weeks
>>> later that he had, a number of times.
>>
>>He never admitted it. His definition of sexual relations was intercourse,
>>and that didn't happen.
>>
>>I find it amusing that the neo-cons continue to harp on this minor
>>indiscretion of Clinton
>
> As the French President said " Just the ONE Mistress.....?" :-)
>
> Personally I think he should have said "Yes.... so what? " It has nothing
> to do with his capabilities as a politician.
OTOH, if he was doing that to his wife, to whom he had made certain vows,
what was he doing to other institutions which he had promised to uphold?
My thought.
Deep.
Chris H
Stephen Bishop
>Stephen Bishop <nospam...@now.com> wrote:
>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>Stephen Bishop <nospam...@now.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> I served in the military,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So what?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So I've actually put my belief in liberty in action
>>>>>
>>>>>Bullshit. Military service in NO WAY proves a commitment to liberty.
>>>>
>>>>That's what people who are either too afraid of military service or
>>>>who hate the military often say.
>>>
>>>So you argue that the Nazi SS and the Gestapo were promoters of
>>>liberty.
>>
>>Perfect example of your habit of twisting things to support your
>>paranioa.
>
>It is what you wrote.
You are a lying rayhole. That isn't what I wrote.
>> You are equating the U.S. military with the Nazi
>>military.
>
>You lying ashsole. I am demonstrating why YOUR claim was stupid dishonesty.
No, rayhole, you were just dishonestly twisting words again. As usual.
>But if you want to confine your claims to JUST the US military, what
>of events like My Lai?
Your graying ponytail must be wedged in your panties again.
Don't forget Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Oh, and Wounded Knee.
Or probably your favorite, Kent State.
Sounds to me like you were one of those freedom-loving Americans who
shouted "baby killers" when our soldiers returned home from VietNam.
Stephen Bishop
Answers? There are no answers to that kind of anti-American
propaganda and twisted logic other than to ignore it. I can hear the
same garbage on Radio Havana any time I want to.
You think the UK is superior, you think the British military is
superior, and you think Americans are a bunch of rednecks. You have
no concept of liberty because you have never earned it for yourselves.
Your empire began its descent into historical insignificance when we
fought for our liberty from British tyranny well over 200 years ago...
with the help of the ... gulp... the French, who humiliated you in
the process.
But we are really a forgiving people, and have a long history of
helping those who have opposed us in the past. No doubt we will be
helping to pull your feet out of the fire yet again when the time
comes.
Stephen Bishop
wrote:
>Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
>jour ...
>
>>>Do you -for instance- see right-wing commentators frequently
>>>speaking of Bill Clinton with great respect?
>>
>> The difference is that Clinton was actually caught lying and
>> obstructing justice, and he was impeached for it. He was also
>> disbarred. Quite honestly he's lucky to not be in prison.
>
>I've always like him looking so serious on prime-time TV with "I
>did NOT have sexual relations with that woman!" then admitting just
>2 weeks later that he had, a number of times.
>
>> Clinton is also justly criticized for his failure to properly
>> deal with terrorists during his administration, which directly
>> led to the 9/11 attacks.
>>
>> OTOH, most of the anti-Bush rhetoric is blind hatred and
>> irrational shrillness.
>>
>See one of my other replies. In the beginning, I doubt many hated
>George W. Bush. After all, his handling of the post-9/11 situation
>was widely lauded and his approval ratings soared for a time. He
>fell out of favor in starting a war in Iraq that not only killed
>and maimed our military people but also led to the massive
>deficits.
As unpopular as that war was within some sectors of the population,
let's remember that it was fought by troops who were volunteers and
overwhelmingly believed in the mission themselves; and the war was
also approved by a huge majority in Congress who had access to the
same intelligence information that Bush had.
John Kerry's amazing line says it all: "I voted for it before I voted
against it."
> It was NOT the tax cuts that caused the deficits, it was
>the War On Terror. And, it was NOT a tax cut for the rich. Easy
>example: since 80%+ of ALL Americans own market securities directly
>or indirectly through their pension plans, cutting cap gains to 15%
>helped 80%+ of ALL taxpayers. Don't hear the Liberals talk about
>that either.
BINGO !
I'm FAR from rich and the tax cuts helped me substantially. To keep
this thread somewhat on the topic of photography, Bush's tax cuts
enabled me to buy my D200 and some nice lenses for it.
One thing I *DO* like about Ted Turner is that he owns an AWESOME
chain of restaurants named "Ted's Montana Grill." I don't think
there are any in Michigan, but there are several I've been to in Ohio
and Kentucky. They specialize in bison steaks and burgers, some of
the best eating I've had anywhere.
http://www.tedsmontanagrill.com/
Seriously, whenever I bite into one of those amazing bison ribeye
steaks I forgive Ted for his loonie far left views. :-)
>>
>>>Hmmm. Looks as if something over 50% of the electorate wanted it
>>>more than they wanted the alternative that was being presented.
>>
>> Let's just see how quickly those over-50% get disillusioned and
>> start expressing buyer's remorse. Obama's approval ratings are
>> already falling now that the voters are seeing that this
>> "stimulus package" he is pushing so hard is nothing but an
>> excuse to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on pet projects of
>> the democrats in congress.
>
>The elections' popular vote was a little over 52% for Obama and a
>little over 46% for McCain. The Electoral College tally, though,
>was 365 to 165, a "landslide" showing the foolishness of continuing
>that system.
There is still some merit in keeping the Electroral College, as it is
designed to give the states more of a say in the federal government.
After all, this is the United *States* of America, not just one big
country with all the power concentrated in Washington, DC. Many
still argue that the federal government has far too much power over
the states. Constitutionally, they are quite right in that there are
very few powers specifically granted the federal government in the
Constitution. The Electoral College is still very much in line with
the ideals of the Framers.
Personally, I think senators should still be appointed by the state
legislatures, as they originally were until the Constitution was
ammended to elect senators by popular vote. The House was to be the
representatives of the people, while the Senate was to be the
representatives of the states. The Electoral College provides a
balance between the two by giving the citizens the right to vote for
the President, but those votes are moderated by the relative
population of the individual states. Remember, we are a
Representative Republic, not a democracy controlled by the whims of
the mob.
Stephen Bishop
wrote:
Talk about SPIN ! That one made me dizzy.
My side is hurting from the laugh over that... There is nothing that
you wrote above that isn't drenched in liberal democrat talking points
and gross distortions of facts.
Of course you understand that Clinton's legal problems had little to
do with what he actually did with Monica, but that he lied and
obstructed justice, including during a sexual-harassment lawsuit
brought against him by yet a different woman.
Ray Fischer
Whch is not what I wrote, but you right-wing morons are nothing if not
stupid. You're so attached to Bush's ass that you actually dont' mind
that he burned through thousands of dollars of your money.
>Tell us, Ray, how many thousands of dollars came out of your pocket
>that would still be there as the result of President Bush?
About $20,000.
> And
>exactly where did it go?
Iraq war - $3,000 for every man, woman, and child in the country.
Tax cuts to the rich (and the resulting $5,000,000,000,000 worth of
deficit) - about $15,000 for every man, woman, and child in the
country.
Well clearly I underestimated. Look like the total for me and my
family is closer to $70,000.
>If you are referring to losses in the stock market and real estate,
>the facts point very much away from Bush and directly at democrats,
>who forced subprime mortgages down everyone's thoats and refused
You're lying again, rightward.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
> Twibil <noway...@gmail.com>
>>Do you -for instance- see right-wing commentators frequently speaking
>>of Bill Clinton with great respect?
>
>The difference is that Clinton was actually caught lying and
>obstructing justice, and he was impeached for it.
And acquitted.
> He was also
>disbarred. Quite honestly he's lucky to not be in prison.
So you think that having sex is worse than lying to the country in
order to involve the US in a war that has killed thousands of
Americans and cost hundreds of billions of dollars.
It's amazing that you rightards can even remember to breathe.
>Clinton is also justly criticized for his failure to properly deal
>with terrorists during his administration,
That's a stupid lie.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>See one of my other replies. In the beginning, I doubt many hated
>George W. Bush. After all, his handling of the post-9/11 situation
>was widely lauded and his approval ratings soared for a time. He
>fell out of favor in starting a war in Iraq that not only killed
>and maimed our military people but also led to the massive
>deficits.
About $1,000,000,000,000 worth.
> It was NOT the tax cuts that caused the deficits,
Yes it was.
> it was
>the War On Terror.
$5 trillion dollars worth? Not a chance.
> And, it was NOT a tax cut for the rich. Easy
>example: since 80%+ of ALL Americans own market securities directly
>or indirectly through their pension plans, cutting cap gains to 15%
>helped 80%+ of ALL taxpayers.
LOL! You're a sucker! People don't PAY taxes on earnings they get in
their IRAs and 401k accounts. Dividend tax cuts have NO EFFECT on the
vast majoority of Americans.
Read this. Think.
By Ryan J. Donmoyer
Bloomberg News
The average tax rate paid by the richest 400 Americans fell by a third
to 17.2 percent through the first six years of the Bush administration
and their average income doubled to $263.3 million, new IRS data
shows.
The 17.2 percent tax rate in 2006 was the lowest since the IRS began
tracking the 400 largest taxpayers in 1992, although the richest 400
Americans paid more tax on an inflation-adjusted basis than in any
year since 2000.
The drop from 2001's tax rate of 22.9 percent was due largely to
former President George W. Bush's push to cut tax rates on most
capital gains to 15 percent in 2003.
Capital gains made up 63 percent of the richest 400 Americans'
adjusted gross income in 2006, or a combined $66.1 billion, according
to the data. In all, the 400 wealthiest Americans reported a combined
$105.3 billion of adjusted gross income in 2006, the most recent year
for which the IRS has data.
"The big explosion in income for this group is clearly on the capital
gains side, although there are also sharp increases in dividend and
interest income," said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for
Economic Policy and Research in Washington.
In addition, "they are realizing more of their gains due to the lower
tax rate," Baker said.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>HEMI-Powered wrote:
>> Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
>> jour ...
>>
>>>> Do you -for instance- see right-wing commentators frequently
>>>> speaking of Bill Clinton with great respect?
>>> The difference is that Clinton was actually caught lying and
>>> obstructing justice, and he was impeached for it. He was also
>>> disbarred. Quite honestly he's lucky to not be in prison.
>>
>> I've always like him looking so serious on prime-time TV with "I
>> did NOT have sexual relations with that woman!" then admitting just
>> 2 weeks later that he had, a number of times.
>
>He never admitted it. His definition of sexual relations was
>intercourse, and that didn't happen.
Not HIS definition. The definition agreed to by both parties.
>I find it amusing that the neo-cons continue to harp on this minor
>indiscretion of Clinton while ignoring the incredible damage Bush was
>responsible for, including turning a surplus into the largest deficits
>in history, causing the worst recession since the depression (and now
>finally economists are starting to use the D word instead of the R
>word), and causing the 9-11 attacks by ignoring the information that the
>outgoing Clinton administration gave them.
It's all about political intolerance and bigotry.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
Ray Fischer
Another outright lie. Access to intelligence information was
controlled by the Bush administration.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On 06 Feb 2009 04:42:05 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>Stephen Bishop <nospam...@now.com> wrote:
>>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospam...@now.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> I served in the military,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>So what?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So I've actually put my belief in liberty in action
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Bullshit. Military service in NO WAY proves a commitment to liberty.
>>>>>
>>>>>That's what people who are either too afraid of military service or
>>>>>who hate the military often say.
>>>>
>>>>So you argue that the Nazi SS and the Gestapo were promoters of
>>>>liberty.
>>>
>>>Perfect example of your habit of twisting things to support your
>>>paranioa.
>>
>>It is what you wrote.
>
>You are a lying rayhole. That isn't what I wrote.
"That's what people who are either too afraid of military service or
who hate the military often say."
So, either you lied about your military service, or you hate
the military, or you insist that the SS were promoters of liberty.
Which is it?
>>> You are equating the U.S. military with the Nazi
>>>military.
>>
>>You lying ashsole. I am demonstrating why YOUR claim was stupid dishonesty.
>
>No,
Stop lying, asshole.
>>But if you want to confine your claims to JUST the US military, what
>>of events like My Lai?
>
>Your graying ponytail must be wedged in your panties again.
Run away, bigot.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
J. Clarke
You really think that Presidents have the power to cause or prevent
economic recessions? So far it looks like Congress is going to try to
buy its way out of this one but the cupboard is getting pretty bare
and the Japanese aren't likely to launch any convenient attacks on
Pearl Harbor.
J. Clarke
> Stephen Bishop <nospam...@now.com> wrote:
>> Twibil <noway...@gmail.com>
>
>>> Do you -for instance- see right-wing commentators frequently
>>> speaking of Bill Clinton with great respect?
>>
>> The difference is that Clinton was actually caught lying and
>> obstructing justice, and he was impeached for it.
>
> And acquitted.
>
>> He was also
>> disbarred. Quite honestly he's lucky to not be in prison.
>
> So you think that having sex is worse than lying to the country in
> order to involve the US in a war that has killed thousands of
> Americans and cost hundreds of billions of dollars.
Very convenient for you knee-jerk lefties to make up facts to suit
yourselves. If you believe that Bush lied, please quote the lie.
> It's amazing that you rightards can even remember to breathe.
If Obama read this his reaction would probably be "God save us from
our friends".
>> Clinton is also justly criticized for his failure to properly deal
>> with terrorists during his administration,
>
> That's a stupid lie.
So what did he do about terrorists? His main claim to fame in that
regard was tucking his tail between his legs when it got hot in
Somalia.
Chris H
<jclarke...@cox.net> writes
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Stephen Bishop <nospam...@now.com> wrote:
>>> Twibil <noway...@gmail.com>
>>
>>>> Do you -for instance- see right-wing commentators frequently
>>>> speaking of Bill Clinton with great respect?
>>>
>>> The difference is that Clinton was actually caught lying and
>>> obstructing justice, and he was impeached for it.
>>
>> And acquitted.
>>
>>> He was also
>>> disbarred. Quite honestly he's lucky to not be in prison.
>>
>> So you think that having sex is worse than lying to the country in
>> order to involve the US in a war that has killed thousands of
>> Americans and cost hundreds of billions of dollars.
>
>Very convenient for you knee-jerk lefties to make up facts to suit
>yourselves. If you believe that Bush lied, please quote the lie.
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Columnist
Tuesday 08 April 2008
No one is such a liar as the indignant man.
- Friedrich Nietzsche
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/040808J.shtml
George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz,
Condoleezza Rice, along with a slew of administration underlings and a
revolving-door cavalcade of brass hats from the Pentagon, have been
making claims regarding Iraq for many years now.
They claimed Iraq was in possession of 26,000 liters of anthrax,
"enough to kill several million people," according to a page on the
White House web site titled Disarm Saddam Hussein.
They lied.
They claimed Iraq was in possession of 38,000 liters of botulinum
toxin.
They lied.
They claimed Iraq was in possession of 500 tons, which equals
1,000,000 pounds, of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.
They lied.
They claimed Iraq was in possession of nearly 30,000 munitions
capable of delivering these agents.
They lied.
They claimed Iraq was in possession of several mobile biological
weapons labs.
They lied.
They claimed Iraq was operating an "advanced" nuclear weapons
program.
They lied.
They claimed Iraq had been seeking "significant quantities" of
uranium from Africa for use in this "advanced" nuclear weapons program.
They lied.
They claimed Iraq attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes
"suitable for nuclear weapons."
They lied.
They claimed America needed to invade, overthrow and occupy Iraq in
order to remove this menace from our world. "It would take just one
vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country," went the White
House line, "to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known."
They lied.
"Simply stated," said Dick Cheney in August of 2002, "there is no
doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
Liar.
"Right now," said George W. Bush in September of 2002, "Iraq is
expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of
nuclear weapons."
Liar.
"We know for a fact," said White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer
in January of 2003, "that there are weapons there."
Liar.
"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of
mass destruction," said Colin Powell in February of 2003, "is determined
to make more."
Liar.
"We know where they are," said Donald Rumsfeld in March of 2003.
"They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad, and east, south, west
and north somewhat."
Liar.
"The Iraqi people understand what this crisis is about," said Paul
Wolfowitz in March of 2003. "Like the people of France in the 1940s,
they view us as their hoped-for liberator."
Liar.
"No one ever said that we knew precisely where all of these agents
were," said Condoleezza Rice in June of 2003, "where they were stored."
Liar.
"I have absolute confidence that there are weapons of mass
destruction inside this country," said Gen. Tommy Franks in April of
2003. "Whether we will turn out, at the end of the day, to find them in
one of the 2,000 or 3,000 sites we already know about or whether contact
with one of these officials who we may come in contact with will tell
us, 'Oh, well, there's actually another site,' and we'll find it there,
I'm not sure."
Wrong.
"Before the war," said Gen. Michael Hagee in May of 2003, "there's
no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction,
biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect
them to be found."
Wrong.
"Given time," said Gen. Richard Myers in May of 2003, "given the
number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that
we're going to find weapons of mass destruction."
Wrong.
"Do I think we're going to find something? Yeah, I kind of do," said
Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton in May of 2003, "because I think there's a lot of
information out there."
Wrong.
Gen. David Petraeus, commander of US forces in Iraq, is about to
give testimony before the Senate regarding the current state of affairs
in that battle-savaged country. He is a political general, one of many
America has seen and heard over the last five years, one who would leap
nude from the Capitol dome before telling the real truth about matters
in Iraq ... or who would speak using words fed to him by liars, and thus
be wrong.
Remember: they lie. They all lie, from the top man down to the
bottom. If their lips are moving, a lie is unfolding. If they say water
is wet, get into the shower to make sure.
They lie.
Period.
The 'misunderestimated' president?
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/americas/7809160.stm
Published: 2009/01/07 18:02:34 GMT
All politicians are prone to make slips of the tongue in the heat of the
moment - and President George W Bush has made more than most.
The word "Bushism" has been coined to label his occasional verbal lapses
during eight years in office, which come to an end on 20 January.
Here are some of his most memorable pronouncements.
ON HIMSELF
"They misunderestimated me."
Bentonville, Arkansas, 6 November, 2000
"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in
Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on... shame on you. Fool me -
you can't get fooled again."
Nashville, Tennessee, 17 September, 2002
"There's no question that the minute I got elected, the storm clouds on
the
horizon were getting nearly directly overhead."
Washington DC, 11 May, 2001
"I want to thank my friend, Senator Bill Frist, for joining us today. He
married a Texas girl, I want you to know. Karyn is with us. A West Texas
girl, just like me."
Nashville, Tennessee, 27 May, 2004
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
"For a century and a half now, America and Japan have formed one of the
great and enduring alliances of modern times."
Tokyo, 18 February, 2002
"The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of
Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein, and his willingness to
terrorise
himself."
Grand Rapids, Michigan, 29 January, 2003
"I think war is a dangerous place."
Washington DC, 7 May, 2003
"The ambassador and the general were briefing me on the - the vast
majority of Iraqis want to live in a peaceful, free world. And we will
find these
people and we will bring them to justice."
Washington DC, 27 October, 2003
"Free societies are hopeful societies. And free societies will be allies
against these hateful few who have no conscience, who kill at the whim
of a
hat."
Washington DC, 17 September, 2004
"You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the
war
on terror."
CBS News, Washington DC, 6 September, 2006
EDUCATION
"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?" Florence,
South Carolina, 11 January, 2000
"Reading is the basics for all learning."
Reston, Virginia, 28 March, 2000
"As governor of Texas, I have set high standards for our public schools,
and
I have met those standards."
CNN, 30 August, 2000
"You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a
literacy
test.''
Townsend, Tennessee, 21 February, 2001
ECONOMICS
"I understand small business growth. I was one." New York Daily News, 19
February, 2000
"It's clearly a budget. It's got a lot of numbers in it." Reuters, 5
May, 2000
"I do remain confident in Linda. She'll make a fine Labour Secretary.
From what I've read in the press accounts, she's perfectly qualified."
Austin, Texas, 8 January, 2001
"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily
killers. Just because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're
willing to
kill."
Washington DC, 19 May, 2003
HEALTHCARE
"I don't think we need to be subliminable about the differences between
our
views on prescription drugs."
Orlando, Florida, 12 September, 2000
"Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB/GYN's
aren't able to practice their love with women all across the country."
Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 6 September, 2004
TECHNOLOGY
"Will the highways on the internet become more few?" Concord, New
Hampshire, 29 January, 2000
"It would be a mistake for the United States Senate to allow any kind of
human cloning to come out of that chamber."
Washington DC, 10 April, 2002
"Information is moving. You know, nightly news is one way, of course,
but it's also moving through the blogosphere and through the Internets."
Washington DC, 2 May, 2007
OUT OF LEFT FIELD
"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." Saginaw,
Michigan, 29 September, 2000
"Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream."
LaCrosse, Wisconsin, 18 October, 2000
"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law." Tucson,
Arizona, 28 November, 2005
"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The
interesting thing about him is that I read three - three or four books
about him last year. Isn't that interesting?" Speaking to reporter Kai
Diekmann, Washington DC, 5 May, 2006
ON GOVERNING
"I have a different vision of leadership. A leadership is someone who
brings
people together."
Bartlett, Tennessee, 18 August, 2000
"I'm the decider, and I decide what is best."
Washington DC, 18 April, 2006
"And truth of the matter is, a lot of reports in Washington are never
read by anybody. To show you how important this one is, I read it, and
[Tony Blair] read it." On the publication of the Baker-Hamilton Report,
Washington DC, 7 December, 2006
"All I can tell you is when the governor calls, I answer his phone." San
Diego, California, 25 October, 2007
"I'll be long gone before some smart person ever figures out what
happened
inside this Oval Office."
Washington DC, 12 May, 2008
===
And, while we're at it, let's not forget his sidekick Rumsfeld.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2081042/
HEMI-Powered
jour ...
>>But if you want to confine your claims to JUST the US military,
>>what of events like My Lai?
>
> Your graying ponytail must be wedged in your panties again.
>
> Don't forget Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
>
> Oh, and Wounded Knee.
>
> Or probably your favorite, Kent State.
>
> Sounds to me like you were one of those freedom-loving Americans
> who shouted "baby killers" when our soldiers returned home from
> VietNam.
>
My Lai was an aberration caused NOT by US government or military
policy but by a couple of officer's strange interpretation of their
orders and mission. Hiroshima and Nagasacki COULD have been averted
IF the Japs had agreed to even modest surrender terms prior to when
the Allies decided that surrender must be unconditional. Even so,
the A-Bomb undoubtedly saved millions of lives on both sides so it
was a clear net gain in stopping a heinous war that had gone on far
too long.
On another note, Stephen, I sent you a second E-mail to your
throwaway gmail account. Hope you're receiving them. If you haven't
gotten either, let me know and we'll try something else.
Have a pleasant weekend!
--
HP, aka Jerry
"The government that governs least, governs best" - Thomas
Jefferson
"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
problem!" - Ronald Reagan
Chris H
<no...@none.sn> writes
>Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
>jour ...
>
>>>But if you want to confine your claims to JUST the US military,
>>>what of events like My Lai?
>>
>> Your graying ponytail must be wedged in your panties again.
>>
>> Don't forget Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
>>
>> Oh, and Wounded Knee.
>>
>> Or probably your favorite, Kent State.
>>
>> Sounds to me like you were one of those freedom-loving Americans
>> who shouted "baby killers" when our soldiers returned home from
>> VietNam.
>>
>My Lai was an aberration caused NOT by US government or military
>policy but by a couple of officer's strange interpretation of their
>orders and mission.
Quite so. Occasionally individual soldiers do go off the rails. Was can
have that effect. Gaza war crimes were by contrast deliberate and
orchestrated Israeli government/military policy.
>Hiroshima and Nagasacki COULD have been averted
>IF the Japs had agreed to even modest surrender terms prior to when
>the Allies decided that surrender must be unconditional.
Not at all. The Allies wanted an excuse to use the A-bomb. Partly as a
demonstration to the Russians Also none of the A-bomb countries had ever
seen one in use other than in testing.
> Even so,
>the A-Bomb undoubtedly saved millions of lives on both sides so it
>was a clear net gain in stopping a heinous war that had gone on far
>too long.
Quite probably. Though the resultant (and at the time not really
understood) continuing problems of radiation sickness and mutations
through the generations may in the long run make it a very finely
balanced argument.
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Stephen Bishop <nospam...@now.com> wrote:
>>> Twibil <noway...@gmail.com>
>>
>>>> Do you -for instance- see right-wing commentators frequently
>>>> speaking of Bill Clinton with great respect?
>>>
>>> The difference is that Clinton was actually caught lying and
>>> obstructing justice, and he was impeached for it.
>>
>> And acquitted.
>>
>>> He was also
>>> disbarred. Quite honestly he's lucky to not be in prison.
>>
>> So you think that having sex is worse than lying to the country in
>> order to involve the US in a war that has killed thousands of
>> Americans and cost hundreds of billions of dollars.
>
>Very convenient for you knee-jerk lefties to make up facts to suit
>yourselves.
The truth does seem to have a liberal bias.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Stephen Bishop
You left-wing rayholes are nothing if not bigoted and paranoid about
anything and anyone you see as more conservative than you are.
>
>>Tell us, Ray, how many thousands of dollars came out of your pocket
>>that would still be there as the result of President Bush?
>
>About $20,000.
>
>> And
>>exactly where did it go?
>
>Iraq war - $3,000 for every man, woman, and child in the country.
>Tax cuts to the rich (and the resulting $5,000,000,000,000 worth of
>deficit) - about $15,000 for every man, woman, and child in the
>country.
>
>Well clearly I underestimated. Look like the total for me and my
>family is closer to $70,000.
Interesting. If you had that much actual cash on hand to lose, then
that would place you among the "rich" that you despise. I hope you
enjoyed your tax cut. Did you send Bush a thank you note?
Your numbers show how stupid you really are. $5,000,000,000,000 in
tax cuts to the rich? No wonder you leftards actually believe your
idiodic role models like Nancy Pelosi when she says that 500 million
jobs will be lost each month that her sleazy and dishonest "stimulus"
bill isn't passed.
>>If you are referring to losses in the stock market and real estate,
>>the facts point very much away from Bush and directly at democrats,
>>who forced subprime mortgages down everyone's thoats and refused
>
>You're lying again, rightward.
It's documented, leftard rayhole.
Stephen Bishop
Hate? You have to be kidding. Oh, that's right. Your usual
leftard response is to accuse everybody of what you are full of.
Stephen Bishop
>SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>HEMI-Powered wrote:
>>> Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
>>> jour ...
>>>
>>>>> Do you -for instance- see right-wing commentators frequently
>>>>> speaking of Bill Clinton with great respect?
>>>> The difference is that Clinton was actually caught lying and
>>>> obstructing justice, and he was impeached for it. He was also
>>>> disbarred. Quite honestly he's lucky to not be in prison.
>>>
>>> I've always like him looking so serious on prime-time TV with "I
>>> did NOT have sexual relations with that woman!" then admitting just
>>> 2 weeks later that he had, a number of times.
>>
>>He never admitted it. His definition of sexual relations was
>>intercourse, and that didn't happen.
>
>Not HIS definition. The definition agreed to by both parties.
Parsing words has never changed the fact that he LIED and obstructed
justice in a lawsuit against him.
You hate liars so much, rayhole, why do you make excuses for Clinton?
>
>>I find it amusing that the neo-cons continue to harp on this minor
>>indiscretion of Clinton while ignoring the incredible damage Bush was
>>responsible for, including turning a surplus into the largest deficits
>>in history, causing the worst recession since the depression (and now
>>finally economists are starting to use the D word instead of the R
>>word), and causing the 9-11 attacks by ignoring the information that the
>>outgoing Clinton administration gave them.
>
>It's all about political intolerance and bigotry.
Exactly, which is what you leftard rayholes live and breathe every
day. Distort and lie about the other side when you can't provide
anything of substance. That's why you are such a self-righteous
bigot.
Stephen Bishop
The best way I've heard it put is that government trying to spend its
way out of a recession is like an alcoholic trying to drink his way
out of his addiction.
>
>--
Stephen Bishop
Stephen Bishop
Hillary Clinton, in a speech on the Senate floor in 2002 said, " if
left unchecked, Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage
biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop
nuclear weapons.”
Perhaps she had an independent source of intelligence information?
Or how about what these leading democrats said, some even *before Bush
took office?*
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb.
17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a
great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will
use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies
is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18,
1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser,
Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with
the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including,
if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to
respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its
weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton,
signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry,
and others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region
and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep.
Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright,
Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his
weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and
nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War
status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and
is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop
longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our
allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D,
FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin
(D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible
to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as
Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA),
Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course
to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein
because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction
in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John
F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have
always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of
weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10,
2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,
every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and
destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity.
This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports
show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and
biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his
nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to
terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that
if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his
capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying
to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10,
2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing
capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to
his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
So, rayhole, if you are going to call me a liar then you will have to
do the same to all your liberal democratic friends.
Stephen Bishop
>HEMI-Powered <no...@none.sn> wrote:
>>See one of my other replies. In the beginning, I doubt many hated
>>George W. Bush. After all, his handling of the post-9/11 situation
>>was widely lauded and his approval ratings soared for a time. He
>>fell out of favor in starting a war in Iraq that not only killed
>>and maimed our military people but also led to the massive
>>deficits.
>
>About $1,000,000,000,000 worth.
>
>> It was NOT the tax cuts that caused the deficits,
>
>Yes it was.
>
>> it was
>>the War On Terror.
>
>$5 trillion dollars worth? Not a chance.
>
>> And, it was NOT a tax cut for the rich. Easy
>>example: since 80%+ of ALL Americans own market securities directly
>>or indirectly through their pension plans, cutting cap gains to 15%
>>helped 80%+ of ALL taxpayers.
>
>LOL! You're a sucker! People don't PAY taxes on earnings they get in
>their IRAs and 401k accounts. Dividend tax cuts have NO EFFECT on the
>vast majoority of Americans.
>
>Read this. Think.
Something you obvioiusly haven't done.
>
> By Ryan J. Donmoyer
> Bloomberg News
>
> The average tax rate paid by the richest 400 Americans fell by a third
> to 17.2 percent through the first six years of the Bush administration
> and their average income doubled to $263.3 million, new IRS data
> shows.
>
> The 17.2 percent tax rate in 2006 was the lowest since the IRS began
> tracking the 400 largest taxpayers in 1992, although the richest 400
> Americans paid more tax on an inflation-adjusted basis than in any
> year since 2000.
>
> The drop from 2001's tax rate of 22.9 percent was due largely to
> former President George W. Bush's push to cut tax rates on most
> capital gains to 15 percent in 2003.
>
> Capital gains made up 63 percent of the richest 400 Americans'
> adjusted gross income in 2006, or a combined $66.1 billion, according
> to the data. In all, the 400 wealthiest Americans reported a combined
> $105.3 billion of adjusted gross income in 2006, the most recent year
> for which the IRS has data.
>
> "The big explosion in income for this group is clearly on the capital
> gains side, although there are also sharp increases in dividend and
> interest income," said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for
> Economic Policy and Research in Washington.
>
> In addition, "they are realizing more of their gains due to the lower
> tax rate," Baker said.
If Bush came up with a cure for cancer you would find a way to blame
him for all the deaths in the world from chickenpox.
Stephen Bishop
>Stephen Bishop <nospam...@now.com> wrote:
>> Twibil <noway...@gmail.com>
>
>>>Do you -for instance- see right-wing commentators frequently speaking
>>>of Bill Clinton with great respect?
>>
>>The difference is that Clinton was actually caught lying and
>>obstructing justice, and he was impeached for it.
>
>And acquitted.
Not aquitted, his impeachment and disbarrment still stands.
He was just not kicked out of office by the Senate, who ignored
evidence for political reasons.
>
>> He was also
>>disbarred. Quite honestly he's lucky to not be in prison.
>
>So you think that having sex is worse than lying to the country in
>order to involve the US in a war that has killed thousands of
>Americans and cost hundreds of billions of dollars.
Again, you use the rayhole-ish ploy of using your own false
conclusions about something as a basis for a meaningless question.
Tell us, Ray, are you STILL molesting young boys?
You are too stupid to understand; Clinton's problems were not about
sex, but about his compulsive lying and obstruction of justice. Those
are exactly the same things that got Nixon in hot water. Trying to
deflect the blame for his character defects on what you *think* Bush
did years later is just dumb. But typical of a self-righteous bigot
like yourself.
>It's amazing that you rightards can even remember to breathe.
No, that would be the leftards who are too busy blaming their own
shortcomings on "Bushies," "right-wingers," "neocons," or any other
group of people they can label and demonize.
>
>>Clinton is also justly criticized for his failure to properly deal
>>with terrorists during his administration,
>
>That's a stupid lie.
Not a lie at all. He botched catching Bin Laden; he did not fully
prosecute the first WTC bombing; he did not respond to an act of war
on one of our Naval ships; he put up a wall that restricted
communication between domestic and foreign intelligence agencies so
they couldn't share information, etc etc.
Oh, but he did send a cruise missile at an aspirin factory to try to
divert attention from his scandals in office.
HEMI-Powered
jour ...
>>See one of my other replies. In the beginning, I doubt many
>>hated George W. Bush. After all, his handling of the post-9/11
>>situation was widely lauded and his approval ratings soared for
>>a time. He fell out of favor in starting a war in Iraq that not
>>only killed and maimed our military people but also led to the
>>massive deficits.
>
> As unpopular as that war was within some sectors of the
> population, let's remember that it was fought by troops who were
> volunteers and overwhelmingly believed in the mission
> themselves; and the war was also approved by a huge majority in
> Congress who had access to the same intelligence information
> that Bush had.
In the interest of balanced reporting, I'd like to disagree with
you to a degree about Iraq being an all-volunteer effort. For a
number of reasons, Bush knew that reinstituting the draft would be
so instantly unpopular that it would've derailed the entire War on
Terror initiative plus it would have taken time to build a large
standing armed force. So, he chose to use an obscure section of his
powers as CinC to call up National Guard units and send them into
war. Those people hardly volunteered for that, especially those now
on their 3rd or 4th tours. This was a real sore point during
Katrina when Louisiana found itself with over 60% of it's Guard
unavailable to help because they were in Iraq.
However, once the precedent had been set, it IS true that our
soldiers, Marines, airmen, and sailors continued to re-up even in
the NG although they were fairly certain they have to go to war
again and again.
> John Kerry's amazing line says it all: "I voted for it before I
> voted against it."
Yes, it's interesting NOW that if one looks at the vote in both
houses of Congress, it was overwhelmingly in favor of going to war
and staying at war. President Obama, when he was Sen. Obama,
insisted that he was always against the war, but we'll never know
since he was not in the Senate back then. But, chances are HIGH
that he would have gone along. And, he DID vote in favor of much of
the war's realities including funding, FISA, USA PATRIOT Act, etc.,
but the Liberal spin prevented him from ever admitting that the
2007 Iraq surge worked.
>
>> It was NOT the tax cuts that caused the deficits, it was
>>the War On Terror. And, it was NOT a tax cut for the rich. Easy
>>example: since 80%+ of ALL Americans own market securities
>>directly or indirectly through their pension plans, cutting cap
>>gains to 15% helped 80%+ of ALL taxpayers. Don't hear the
>>Liberals talk about that either.
>
> BINGO !
If one looks back to some successful Democratic Administrations,
JFK, LBJ, and even Clinton CUT taxes in order to spur both business
investment and JOBS because they KNEW that this Keynesian crap is
just that - crap. But, so far at least, President Obama seems not
to have gotten the message and even those in Congress who SHOULD
remember that it was Clinton's tax CUTS that fueled both the
dot.com economy AND increased revenues that allowed him to balance
the budget and NOT gross social spending or "soak the rich"
nonsense.
It truly saddans me that the Democrats always seem to forget when
even THEIR presidents have succeeded by cutting taxes. Each and
every time, a rookie Liberal TRIES to do the tax and spend gig,
sees it fall flat, and then moves to the center to govern
successfully and usually win a 2nd term. This time, maybe the
president is trying to get all the bad news out of the way early.
But, for those who wrongly believe in the New Deal, even the CMO
and OMB stated during their analysis of the stimulus package that
in today's dollars, the ENTIRE price of the New Deal was "just"
$550B, barely half what even ONE bill will cost taxpayers!
Isn't truth and transparency a healthy thing? Yes.
>
> I'm FAR from rich and the tax cuts helped me substantially. To
> keep this thread somewhat on the topic of photography, Bush's
> tax cuts enabled me to buy my D200 and some nice lenses for it.
DITTO!
>>O'Reilly had Ted Turner, a certifiable Loon, on his show before
>>Christmas. Turner ADMITTED he never watched the Factor nor ever
>>watches Fox. O'Reilly correctly said "then, Mr. Turner, I
>>suggest that you watch our show before you make incorrect
>>critical statements about us." or words to that effect. Says it
>>all, I think.
>
> One thing I *DO* like about Ted Turner is that he owns an
> AWESOME chain of restaurants named "Ted's Montana Grill." I
> don't think there are any in Michigan, but there are several
> I've been to in Ohio and Kentucky. They specialize in bison
> steaks and burgers, some of the best eating I've had anywhere.
>
> http://www.tedsmontanagrill.com/
>
> Seriously, whenever I bite into one of those amazing bison
> ribeye steaks I forgive Ted for his loonie far left views. :-)
>
Never heard of those, I guess we don't have any in Michigan. But,
what do you think of Turner's politics and his revisionist view of
both history and economics?
>
>>The elections' popular vote was a little over 52% for Obama and
>>a little over 46% for McCain. The Electoral College tally,
>>though, was 365 to 165, a "landslide" showing the foolishness
>>of continuing that system.
>
> There is still some merit in keeping the Electroral College, as
> it is designed to give the states more of a say in the federal
> government. After all, this is the United *States* of America,
> not just one big country with all the power concentrated in
> Washington, DC. Many still argue that the federal government
> has far too much power over the states. Constitutionally, they
> are quite right in that there are very few powers specifically
> granted the federal government in the Constitution. The
> Electoral College is still very much in line with the ideals of
> the Framers.
Well, .... no, I don't agree. The plan LOOKS like it gives states
greater control much like the initial idea for the Senate was to
give the smaller states some say, but in reality, instead of
presidential candidates talking to the entire country - as they
should - they instead play Electoral math and create yet another
bullshit euphemism, that of "battleground states." Why should ANY
state be a battleground for anything?!
I do agree that the Federal government has WAY too much control
over the states, but they STILL have the 10th Amendment. And,
absent realistic federal control, we have nonsense like 16 states
wanting individual auto emissions, carbon, and safety laws!
So, my take on this election is that unlike Obama's current
rhetoric, he really did NOT get a mandate to throw out the entire
notion of the Bush White House, but especially NOT tax policy or
even spending. His margin across the country was actually quite low
considering that for him to go up 1% required McCain to drop by 1%
so another way to look at the election is that it was really only
two points apart and NOT a 2X landslide margin as depicted in the
EC.
But, I think what really keeps the EC is that neither major party
has EVER dared to fiddle with it for fear of losing an election.
e.g., in 2000, it was widely charged that Bush had "stolen" the
election from Gore by only 150 hanging chads in Florida giving him
the required 270, but he WAS a minority president in the popular
vote. I'm hardly rooting for Gore here, just pointing out why
NOBODY will even propose adjusting the EC because it is just as
much a political 3rd rail as is Social Security.
>
> Personally, I think senators should still be appointed by the
> state legislatures, as they originally were until the
> Constitution was ammended to elect senators by popular vote.
> The House was to be the representatives of the people, while the
> Senate was to be the representatives of the states. The
> Electoral College provides a balance between the two by giving
> the citizens the right to vote for the President, but those
> votes are moderated by the relative population of the individual
> states. Remember, we are a Representative Republic, not a
> democracy controlled by the whims of the mob.
>
Sorry, I have to disagree again, mainly because that removes the
people in the states from directly electing those who sit in the
more powerful of the two houses of Congress by virtue of the
Senate's "advise and consent" powers.
What I think I'd like to see is to have presidents restricted to
ONE term of SIX years, the House restricted to term limits 4 12
years at THREE years each, and the Senate stay as it is but be
term-limited to two. My notion is that if they haven't accomplished
anything by then, they deserve to leave. Besides which, super
incumbents lead to the nasty problem where even though a
Representative or Senator may be ineffective or even corrupt, their
seat is "safe." I'd extend House seats from 2 years to 3 mainly to
STOP Representatives from immediately begining their next campaign
before even being swown in to the one they just won.
I'd be more ameneble to the EC if it were proportional and not
winner-take-all which leads to skewing of results based on campaign
spending and state vs. state vs. state warfare.
But, I am certainly OPEN to discussion and compromise if you or
others have some better ideas than either the status quo or mine
for IMPROVING the quality of our elected officials and REDUCING the
very obvious abuses in today's scheme.
Cheers!
HEMI-Powered
jour ...
> Of course you understand that Clinton's legal problems had
> little to do with what he actually did with Monica, but that he
> lied and obstructed justice, including during a
> sexual-harassment lawsuit brought against him by yet a different
> woman.
>
YES. The "misdeameanor" he was impeached on wasn't really what he
did, but that he perjured himself to both the American people and to
Congress. That said, I am NOT in favor of suddenly changing over to
removing presidents not by democratic elections but by fiat via some
likely trumped up impeachable offense. And, believe me, if the
Democrats thought they could even begin to prove all the accusations
leveled against Bush, they surely would have.
HEMI-Powered
jour ...
>>You really think that Presidents have the power to cause or
>>prevent economic recessions? So far it looks like Congress is
>>going to try to buy its way out of this one but the cupboard is
>>getting pretty bare and the Japanese aren't likely to launch any
>>convenient attacks on Pearl Harbor.
>
> The best way I've heard it put is that government trying to
> spend its way out of a recession is like an alcoholic trying to
> drink his way out of his addiction.
>
In reality, presidents demostrably have LITTLE influence to get the
economy OUT of recessions but a HUGE role in getting the country IN
a recession. In the current case, BOTH parties can be blamed for
the sub-prime mess, first the Dems who promoted the idea under
Clinton and then Bush and the Repubs for failing to enact proper
regulation of Fannie and Freddie even though they had the
Congressional muscle (until 2006) to do it.
Absent a major war, about the only thing that has EVER cured a
recession is to encourage the business community to invest in their
businesses which in turn creates jobs AND for citizens to have more
money to spend.
Take a look at the current status of the stimulus bill. I've lost
track of what happened last night, but it was shaping up at around
$820B and the estimated jobs created varied from about 1.5 million
to about 3.5 million, maybe a bit higher. So, everybody, do the
math: that works out to a MIN of $250,000 PER JOB created but MAY
be as high as 3/4 MILLION dollars PER JOB! Think about how that
same money could be better spent by letting those who EARN it KEEP
it!
HEMI-Powered
jour ...
>>The elections' popular vote was a little over 52% for Obama and
>>a little over 46% for McCain. The Electoral College tally,
>>though, was 365 to 165, a "landslide" showing the foolishness
>>of continuing that system.
>
> There is still some merit in keeping the Electroral College, as
> it is designed to give the states more of a say in the federal
> government. After all, this is the United *States* of America,
> not just one big country with all the power concentrated in
> Washington, DC. Many still argue that the federal government
> has far too much power over the states. Constitutionally, they
> are quite right in that there are very few powers specifically
> granted the federal government in the Constitution. The
> Electoral College is still very much in line with the ideals of
> the Framers.
One other thing I neglected to mention: I think it is WRONG, almost
criminal, to run for one Federal office while holding another. Even
worse, is running for two at the same time and then choosing! Yeah,
people BOTH are entirely legal under our Constituition.
In 2004, John Kerry went right back to work in the Senate the day
after the election and this year, McCain is hard at work again. I'm
no hypocrite so I won't deny McCain the same advantage. But, I have
to ask WHO was representing the states of Illinois and Arizona for
TWO YEARS while Obama and McCain ran for higher office? And,
shouldn't Joe Biden have been force to choose whether he wanted to
run for re-election as a Senator OR be elected as Vice President?
What I find so egegious about this is that there is relatively NO
penalty for engaging in longer and LONGER campaigns where
Congressional districts, or entire states in examples where a
presidential candidate is a Senator or Governor results in the
PEOPLE being denied representation.
Likewise, I believe that to run for higher state office, one must
resign ANY current state office OR to run for Federal office a
current state office holder MUST resign their office to make the
run. This in only fair in that the PEOPLE have a right to full-time
representation. And, please Liberal Loons - not you, Steve! - don't
try to tell me that we'd drive away otherwise good candidates. That
doesn't even pass the laugh test any more than the current high bar
in the Obama White House which is supposed to keep out lobbyists
and those who've broken the law from being appointed to a new post.
Ooops! Let me see, Bill Richardson, Nancy Killefer, and Tom Daschle
had to withdraw their names, Tim Geithner should have as should the
new Deputy AG Ogden who has a rather unsavory past as a trial
attorney who supported child porn! Then too, we have the case of
the Rebublican Senator tapped to be Commerce Sec. but stripped of
his supervision of the 2010 census because the Hispanic community
thinks he's unfair. Huh?! Look, Mr. President, I have NO problem
with your pledge to reform government, institute change, get the
BEST possible people, and rid your Administration of corruption and
conflict of interest. Now, would you PLEASE get on with it?!
> Personally, I think senators should still be appointed by the
> state legislatures, as they originally were until the
> Constitution was ammended to elect senators by popular vote.
> The House was to be the representatives of the people, while the
> Senate was to be the representatives of the states. The
> Electoral College provides a balance between the two by giving
> the citizens the right to vote for the President, but those
> votes are moderated by the relative population of the individual
> states. Remember, we are a Representative Republic, not a
> democracy controlled by the whims of the mob.
>
--
Stephen Bishop
>In message <gmjda...@news3.newsguy.com>, J. Clarke
><jclarke...@cox.net> writes
>>Ray Fischer wrote:
>>> Stephen Bishop <nospam...@now.com> wrote:
>>>> Twibil <noway...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>>>> Do you -for instance- see right-wing commentators frequently
>>>>> speaking of Bill Clinton with great respect?
>>>>
>>>> The difference is that Clinton was actually caught lying and
>>>> obstructing justice, and he was impeached for it.
>>>
>>> And acquitted.
>>>
>>>> He was also
>>>> disbarred. Quite honestly he's lucky to not be in prison.
>>>
>>> So you think that having sex is worse than lying to the country in
>>> order to involve the US in a war that has killed thousands of
>>> Americans and cost hundreds of billions of dollars.
>>
>>Very convenient for you knee-jerk lefties to make up facts to suit
>>yourselves. If you believe that Bush lied, please quote the lie.
>
>
Those are very laughable articles, since the language shows that they
are anything but unbiased news reports, just a laundry list of angry
talking points and accusations.
Truthout, the BBC and Slate are hardly neutral sources regardless of
what they claim themslves to be.
In your research, did you also find the list of quotes from the
leading liberal democrats where they were saying the same kinds of
things about Iraq and Saddam's WMD? How convenient, I suppose they
were telling the truth when they spoke:
> By William Rivers Pitt
Stephen Bishop
>Stephen Bishop <nospam...@now.com> wrote:
>>On 06 Feb 2009 04:42:05 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>Stephen Bishop <nospam...@now.com> wrote:
>>>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospam...@now.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I served in the military,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>So what?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>So I've actually put my belief in liberty in action
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Bullshit. Military service in NO WAY proves a commitment to liberty.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's what people who are either too afraid of military service or
>>>>>>who hate the military often say.
>>>>>
>>>>>So you argue that the Nazi SS and the Gestapo were promoters of
>>>>>liberty.
>>>>
>>>>Perfect example of your habit of twisting things to support your
>>>>paranioa.
>>>
>>>It is what you wrote.
>>
>>You are a lying rayhole. That isn't what I wrote.
>
>"That's what people who are either too afraid of military service or
> who hate the military often say."
>
>So, either you lied about your military service, or you hate
>the military, or you insist that the SS were promoters of liberty.
>
>Which is it?
Neither, rayhole. I did not say that. That's just your
self-righteous biased spin.
You made a stupid conclusion that just because you detest the military
and refused to serve, then those who did serve must believe that the
SS promoted liberty.
>
>>>> You are equating the U.S. military with the Nazi
>>>>military.
>>>
>>>You lying ashsole. I am demonstrating why YOUR claim was stupid dishonesty.
>>
>>No,
>
>Stop lying, asshole.
You're the habitual liar and word-twister, rayhole.
>
>>>But if you want to confine your claims to JUST the US military, what
>>>of events like My Lai?
>>
>>Your graying ponytail must be wedged in your panties again.
>
>Run away, bigot.
You keep saying that. But you demonstrate your bigotry every time
you vent your hatred against conservatives and clip away other
peoples' words.
You clearly don't see that it's you who is running.
Stephen Bishop
wrote:
>Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
>jour ...
>
>>>But if you want to confine your claims to JUST the US military,
>>>what of events like My Lai?
>>
>> Your graying ponytail must be wedged in your panties again.
>>
>> Don't forget Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
>>
>> Oh, and Wounded Knee.
>>
>> Or probably your favorite, Kent State.
>>
>> Sounds to me like you were one of those freedom-loving Americans
>> who shouted "baby killers" when our soldiers returned home from
>> VietNam.
>>
>My Lai was an aberration caused NOT by US government or military
>policy but by a couple of officer's strange interpretation of their
>orders and mission.
Very true.
>Hiroshima and Nagasacki COULD have been averted
>IF the Japs had agreed to even modest surrender terms prior to when
>the Allies decided that surrender must be unconditional. Even so,
>the A-Bomb undoubtedly saved millions of lives on both sides so it
>was a clear net gain in stopping a heinous war that had gone on far
>too long.
Also true. But it also had the advantage of keeping the Soviets from
invading Japan at the last minute, averting them from being an Asian
version of the Iron Curtain after the war.
>
>On another note, Stephen, I sent you a second E-mail to your
>throwaway gmail account. Hope you're receiving them. If you haven't
>gotten either, let me know and we'll try something else.
I responded to the first one. Did you get that?
>
>Have a pleasant weekend!
Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>Stephen Bishop <nospam...@now.com> wrote:
>>>Thanks, Ray, for providing an illustration of the standard crybaby
>>>liberal talking points of Bush-is-wrong-no-matter-what.
>>
>>Whch is not what I wrote, but you right-wing morons are nothing if not
>>stupid. You're so attached to Bush's ass that you actually dont' mind
>>that he burned through thousands of dollars of your money.
>
>You left-wing rayholes are nothing if not bigoted and paranoid about
You lied (again) about what I wrote. Now you're making excuses for
being a gullible sucker.
>>>Tell us, Ray, how many thousands of dollars came out of your pocket
>>>that would still be there as the result of President Bush?
>>
>>About $20,000.
>>
>>> And
>>>exactly where did it go?
>>
>>Iraq war - $3,000 for every man, woman, and child in the country.
>>Tax cuts to the rich (and the resulting $5,000,000,000,000 worth of
>>deficit) - about $15,000 for every man, woman, and child in the
>>country.
>>
>>Well clearly I underestimated. Look like the total for me and my
>>family is closer to $70,000.
>
>Interesting. If you had that much actual cash on hand to lose, then
>that would place you among the "rich" that you despise.
Again you show everybody what a dumbshit bigot you are.
I don't despise the rich. I despise gullible morons who worship the
rich and are willing to give the rich anything that they ask for.
>Your numbers show how stupid you really are. $5,000,000,000,000 in
>tax cuts to the rich?
That's how much the debt went up as a result of Bush's tax cuts.
> No wonder you leftards
As opposed to you fascist rightards?
>idiodic role models like Nancy Pelosi when she says that 500 million
>jobs will be lost each month
Which she obviously never did, but you're a lying bigot who will spew
any manny of sleazy idiocy.
>>>If you are referring to losses in the stock market and real estate,
>>>the facts point very much away from Bush and directly at democrats,
>>>who forced subprime mortgages down everyone's thoats and refused
>>
>>You're lying again, rightward.
>
>It's documented,
Where, bigot?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
You're pretty stupid. She was given the same "adjusted" intelligence
that other memebers of Congress were given.
>Or how about what these leading democrats said, some even *before Bush
>took office?*
Here's a clue, moron: What Iraq may have had 15 years ago is no
excuse for invading 6 years ago.
But I'm hardly surprised to see you AGAIN trying to justify killing
thousands to hundreds of thousands of people. You really must HATE
brown-skinned people with a passion.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>HEMI-Powered <no...@none.sn> wrote:
>>>See one of my other replies. In the beginning, I doubt many hated
>>>George W. Bush. After all, his handling of the post-9/11 situation
>>>was widely lauded and his approval ratings soared for a time. He
>>>fell out of favor in starting a war in Iraq that not only killed
>>>and maimed our military people but also led to the massive
>>>deficits.
>>
>>About $1,000,000,000,000 worth.
>>
>>> It was NOT the tax cuts that caused the deficits,
>>
>>Yes it was.
>>
>>> it was
>>>the War On Terror.
>>
>>$5 trillion dollars worth? Not a chance.
>>
>>> And, it was NOT a tax cut for the rich. Easy
>>>example: since 80%+ of ALL Americans own market securities directly
>>>or indirectly through their pension plans, cutting cap gains to 15%
>>>helped 80%+ of ALL taxpayers.
>>
>>LOL! You're a sucker! People don't PAY taxes on earnings they get in
>>their IRAs and 401k accounts. Dividend tax cuts have NO EFFECT on the
>>vast majoority of Americans.
>>
>>Read this. Think.
>
>Something you obvioiusly haven't done.
And yet you can offer not one single word to argue against what I
wrote. You don't LIKE it that the truth has a liberal bias, but
that's no excuse for clinging to lies.
>> By Ryan J. Donmoyer
>> Bloomberg News
>>
>> The average tax rate paid by the richest 400 Americans fell by a third
>> to 17.2 percent through the first six years of the Bush administration
>> and their average income doubled to $263.3 million, new IRS data
>> shows.
>>
>> The 17.2 percent tax rate in 2006 was the lowest since the IRS began
>> tracking the 400 largest taxpayers in 1992, although the richest 400
>> Americans paid more tax on an inflation-adjusted basis than in any
>> year since 2000.
>>
>> The drop from 2001's tax rate of 22.9 percent was due largely to
>> former President George W. Bush's push to cut tax rates on most
>> capital gains to 15 percent in 2003.
>>
>> Capital gains made up 63 percent of the richest 400 Americans'
>> adjusted gross income in 2006, or a combined $66.1 billion, according
>> to the data. In all, the 400 wealthiest Americans reported a combined
>> $105.3 billion of adjusted gross income in 2006, the most recent year
>> for which the IRS has data.
>>
>> "The big explosion in income for this group is clearly on the capital
>> gains side, although there are also sharp increases in dividend and
>> interest income," said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for
>> Economic Policy and Research in Washington.
>>
>> In addition, "they are realizing more of their gains due to the lower
>> tax rate," Baker said.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On 07 Feb 2009 04:57:30 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>Stephen Bishop <nospam...@now.com> wrote:
>>> Twibil <noway...@gmail.com>
>>
>>>>Do you -for instance- see right-wing commentators frequently speaking
>>>>of Bill Clinton with great respect?
>>>
>>>The difference is that Clinton was actually caught lying and
>>>obstructing justice, and he was impeached for it.
>>
>>And acquitted.
>
>Not aquitted,
You're a lying dumbshit. The Senate ACQUITTED Clinton of all charges.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
HEMI-Powered
jour ...
>
> Those are very laughable articles, since the language shows that
> they are anything but unbiased news reports, just a laundry list
> of angry talking points and accusations.
>
> Truthout, the BBC and Slate are hardly neutral sources
> regardless of what they claim themslves to be.
>
> In your research, did you also find the list of quotes from the
> leading liberal democrats where they were saying the same kinds
> of things about Iraq and Saddam's WMD? How convenient, I
> suppose they were telling the truth when they spoke:
Interesting quotes, thanks for posting them, Stephen.
I'd say two things overall on the entire sordid mess of WMD in Bush's
decision, ratified by both Congress and the UN, to go to war against
Saddam in Iraq:
1) There most clearly WERE WMD, we know it, the UN inspectors knew
it, the Kurds knew it first hand. But, as we later found there to be
no WMD after our successful 3-week campaign to rid Iraq of Saddam, it
is also CLEAR that he moved them, rather than destroying them.
2) We had either a failure of the intelligence network including the
CIA and NSA in confirming the original existance of WMD in Iraq and
subsequent movement of same OR a failure of the NSA/CIA to create
true actionable intelligence as to WMD.
Later investigation showed that the intelligence community itself,
option 1, failed to prove that known WMD had somehow been spirited
out without them knowing about it AND that the directors of the two
key agencies were unable to tell the difference between LACK of
actual actionable intelligence and LACK of the WMD.
Whatever happened within the hallowed halls of NSA/CIA, we also know
- much later - that President Bush knew that there were NO WMD at the
time we went to war, in fact, he knew that there were NO WMD even
during the preparations to go to war which required then Sec. State
Colin Powell to make presentations to both Congress and the UN. The
reason that we KNOW that Bush was aware that AT THE TIME there were
NO LONGER any WMD is that Colin Powell clearly said that himself
after he resigned from office in early 2005.
It is also clear but hardly provable that there was a major power
struggle between Powell, Cheney/Rumsfeld, and the president where
Bush sided with Cheney and against Powell. Colin Powell was a good
man IMO, he was just too much of an idealist to understand that his
position within the inner circles of the Bush Administration was
itself highly political and he got ambushed by Cheney.
Therefore, AF FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, no one in the Bush White House
truly LIED to the American people, Congress, or the UN about the
existance of WMD because AT THE TIME it was NOT known that there had
been some kind of failure of the intelligence community. It is true
that Powell was very suspicious of the data he carried to the UN and
would have preferred NOT to have made that strong a case, but he
stopped short of saying that HE had misled the UN or lied OR that
Bush had misled or lied to him.
Because of the secretive nature of the Bush Administration and it's
stand to this day that executive privilege prevents ANYONE from even
testifying before Congress about most anything at all, I think it is
highly doubtful that we will ever know the actual truth about WMD
prior to going to war in March, 2003.
I will also make this clarification so that no one misunderstands my
assertions: I made some interpretation of what Colin Powell was
talking about when he gave his short "admission" after resigning as
Sec. State and the rest happened well AFTER the decision to go to war
and all of the alleged falsified justification based on WMD. Anyone
interested enough can spend some time researching what did and did
not happen from the public record same as I did.
What I would have preferred is NOT to have hung our hat so much on
JUST WMD, and been more forthright with Congress, the UN, and the
American people that although Saddam Hussein wasn't at all implicated
in the 9/11 attacks nor really about to use WMD, he was STILL a very
BAD person who destabilized the region for a long time and needed to
be taken out in order to prevent yet another debacle like Saddam's
invasion of Kuwait that resulted in Desert Storm and an environmental
disaster with 1,000 oil wells set on fire.
This is MY take on the entire WMD issue, everyone, please take it or
leave it.
--
HP, aka Jerry
"The government that governs least, governs best" - Thomas Jefferson
"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
problem!" - Ronald Reagan
HEMI-Powered
jour ...
>>Hiroshima and Nagasacki COULD have been averted
>>IF the Japs had agreed to even modest surrender terms prior to
>>when the Allies decided that surrender must be unconditional.
>>Even so, the A-Bomb undoubtedly saved millions of lives on both
>>sides so it was a clear net gain in stopping a heinous war that
>>had gone on far too long.
>
> Also true. But it also had the advantage of keeping the
> Soviets from invading Japan at the last minute, averting them
> from being an Asian version of the Iron Curtain after the war.
>
Most definitely. The Soviets did, in fact, declare war on Japan and
attempted to occupy the northern island but MacArthur refused to
allow them to do so. It was Winston Churchhill that convinced Harry
Truman NOT to tell Stalin about the A-Bomb, which was both
strategically and tactically brilliant.
>>On another note, Stephen, I sent you a second E-mail to your
>>throwaway gmail account. Hope you're receiving them. If you
>>haven't gotten either, let me know and we'll try something else.
>
> I responded to the first one. Did you get that?
>
Yes, I did and I sent a reply to your comments and another E-mail
with three pictures in it later. Both were before Noon, I think.
Hopefully you're getting these in a timely manner and they're not
being delayed somehow. Thanks.
J. Clarke
> Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
> jour ...
>
>>> Hiroshima and Nagasacki COULD have been averted
>>> IF the Japs had agreed to even modest surrender terms prior to
>>> when the Allies decided that surrender must be unconditional.
>>> Even so, the A-Bomb undoubtedly saved millions of lives on both
>>> sides so it was a clear net gain in stopping a heinous war that
>>> had gone on far too long.
>>
>> Also true. But it also had the advantage of keeping the
>> Soviets from invading Japan at the last minute, averting them
>> from being an Asian version of the Iron Curtain after the war.
>>
> Most definitely. The Soviets did, in fact, declare war on Japan and
> attempted to occupy the northern island but MacArthur refused to
> allow them to do so. It was Winston Churchhill that convinced Harry
> Truman NOT to tell Stalin about the A-Bomb, which was both
> strategically and tactically brilliant.
I would like to have seen the Soviets attempt to invade Japan. The
northern islands, which they did take and continue to hold, yes. But
one of the main islands against resistance? The Japanese would have
eaten them for breakfast. The Soviets beat the Nazis by brute force
and awfulness, not by cleverness of strategy. They didn't have the
sealift to do that to Japan and after they'd tried it they'd have had
a damn sight _less_ sealift.
>>> On another note, Stephen, I sent you a second E-mail to your
>>> throwaway gmail account. Hope you're receiving them. If you
>>> haven't gotten either, let me know and we'll try something else.
>>
>> I responded to the first one. Did you get that?
>>
> Yes, I did and I sent a reply to your comments and another E-mail
> with three pictures in it later. Both were before Noon, I think.
> Hopefully you're getting these in a timely manner and they're not
> being delayed somehow. Thanks.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Ray Fischer
>Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
>jour ...
>
>>
>> Those are very laughable articles, since the language shows that
>> they are anything but unbiased news reports, just a laundry list
>> of angry talking points and accusations.
>>
>> Truthout, the BBC and Slate are hardly neutral sources
>> regardless of what they claim themslves to be.
>>
>> In your research, did you also find the list of quotes from the
>> leading liberal democrats where they were saying the same kinds
>> of things about Iraq and Saddam's WMD? How convenient, I
>> suppose they were telling the truth when they spoke:
>
>Interesting quotes, thanks for posting them, Stephen.
>
>I'd say two things overall on the entire sordid mess of WMD in Bush's
>decision, ratified by both Congress and the UN, to go to war against
>Saddam in Iraq:
>
>1) There most clearly WERE WMD, we know it, the UN inspectors knew
>it, the Kurds knew it first hand. But, as we later found there to be
>no WMD after our successful 3-week campaign to rid Iraq of Saddam, it
>is also CLEAR that he moved them, rather than destroying them.
The UN weapons inspectors had free access to find them, the US told
them where to look, and no WMD were ever found, nor any evidence that
they existed at the time of the invasion.
And how do you figure that they were moved? Of all the people that
would have to have been involved not one has said anything. There
has been no trace of there supposed existence.
To insist that killing a hundred thousand people was justified because
of such a claim requires some real evidence and not just a paranoid
belief in a conspiracy.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Chris H
<no...@none.sn> writes
>Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
>jour ...
>
>>
>> Those are very laughable articles, since the language shows that
>> they are anything but unbiased news reports, just a laundry list
>> of angry talking points and accusations.
>>
>> Truthout, the BBC and Slate are hardly neutral sources
>> regardless of what they claim themslves to be.
>>
>> In your research, did you also find the list of quotes from the
>> leading liberal democrats where they were saying the same kinds
>> of things about Iraq and Saddam's WMD? How convenient, I
>> suppose they were telling the truth when they spoke:
>
>Interesting quotes, thanks for posting them, Stephen.
>
>I'd say two things overall on the entire sordid mess of WMD in Bush's
>decision, ratified by both Congress and the UN, to go to war against
>Saddam in Iraq:
>
>1) There most clearly WERE WMD, we know it,
You think you know it
>the UN inspectors knew
>it,
They UN said there were NO WMD
> the Kurds knew it first hand.
That was back in 1988. (I know I was there) However the WMD had gone by
1995
> But, as we later found there to be
>no WMD after our successful 3-week campaign to rid Iraq of Saddam,
However the US insisted that they WERE there right up to the invasion
> it
>is also CLEAR that he moved them, rather than destroying them.
That is not clear. Any movement on that scale would have been seen
either by satellites or the on the ground reccon who were there for 6
months prior to the invasion. They said there were no WMD
>2) We had either a failure of the intelligence network including the
>CIA and NSA in confirming the original existance of WMD in Iraq
They were saying they could not find any. As did the SIS and DGSE
>and
>subsequent movement of same OR a failure of the NSA/CIA to create
>true actionable intelligence as to WMD.
Not so. The surveillance both electronic and on the ground was very
tight. There is no way all the supposed WMD could have been moved
>Later investigation showed that the intelligence community itself,
>option 1, failed to prove that known WMD had somehow been spirited
>out without them knowing about it
This is incorrect the CIA, NSA, SIS DGSE said there were no WMD just as
the UN inspectors had said.
> AND that the directors of the two
>key agencies were unable to tell the difference between LACK of
>actual actionable intelligence and LACK of the WMD.
Only in your mind.
>Whatever happened within the hallowed halls of NSA/CIA, we also know
>- much later - that President Bush knew that there were NO WMD at the
>time we went to war, in fact, he knew that there were NO WMD even
>during the preparations to go to war
Correct HE LIED
> which required then Sec. State
>Colin Powell to make presentations to both Congress and the UN. The
>reason that we KNOW that Bush was aware that AT THE TIME there were
>NO LONGER any WMD is that Colin Powell clearly said that himself
>after he resigned from office in early 2005.
So the US lied to the UN....
>It is also clear but hardly provable that there was a major power
>struggle between Powell, Cheney/Rumsfeld, and the president where
>Bush sided with Cheney and against Powell. Colin Powell was a good
>man IMO, he was just too much of an idealist to understand that his
>position within the inner circles of the Bush Administration was
>itself highly political and he got ambushed by Cheney.
We agree for once.
>Therefore, AF FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, no one in the Bush White House
>truly LIED to the American people, Congress, or the UN about the
>existance of WMD because AT THE TIME it was NOT known that there had
>been some kind of failure of the intelligence community.
This is incorrect the LIE was by the administration the CIA and NSA AT
THE TIME said there were no WMD as did the SIS and DGSE.
> It is true
>that Powell was very suspicious of the data he carried to the UN and
>would have preferred NOT to have made that strong a case, but he
>stopped short of saying that HE had misled the UN or lied OR that
>Bush had misled or lied to him.
He is a politician :-)
>Because of the secretive nature of the Bush Administration and it's
>stand to this day that executive privilege prevents ANYONE from even
>testifying before Congress about most anything at all, I think it is
>highly doubtful that we will ever know the actual truth about WMD
>prior to going to war in March, 2003.
It will come out in the next 12-24 months now Bush has gone. Most
informed sources knew there was no WMD before the invasion CIA, SIS and
others were leaking information
>What I would have preferred is NOT to have hung our hat so much on
>JUST WMD, and been more forthright with Congress, the UN, and the
>American people that although Saddam Hussein wasn't at all implicated
>in the 9/11 attacks nor really about to use WMD, he was STILL a very
>BAD person who destabilized the region for a long time
I agee on that
>and needed to
>be taken out in order to prevent yet another debacle like Saddam's
>invasion of Kuwait that resulted in Desert Storm and an environmental
>disaster with 1,000 oil wells set on fire.
Sorry that is illegal. BTW Saddam was a US/CIA asset
there are many other worse regimes in the world Israel for example. Like
Saddam's Iraq also heavily supported by the USA
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Stephen Bishop
Right. You hate the rich.
>
>>Your numbers show how stupid you really are. $5,000,000,000,000 in
>>tax cuts to the rich?
>
>That's how much the debt went up as a result of Bush's tax cuts.
For the debt to go up directly as the result of the tax cuts, then
that would have to be the exact amount that taxes were reduced by.
Hmmmmmm.... there aren't enough rich people in this country to get
that much money.
>
>> No wonder you leftards
>
>As opposed to you fascist rightards?
>
>>idiodic role models like Nancy Pelosi when she says that 500 million
>>jobs will be lost each month
>
>Which she obviously never did, but you're a lying bigot who will spew
>any manny of sleazy idiocy.
How can you lie like that and then call other people liars? That's
EXACTLY what she said, and it was recorded by the media. You must
really be stupid to think that deny something so obvious will make it
go away. That's why you are a self-righteous bigot, Ray. You lie
about the facts and then call others liars when they show you the
facts.
But wait a minute. I have to keep reminding myself that you're just a
troll and nobody takes you seriously, anyway. My bad for even trying
to use truth in a discussion with you.
>>>>If you are referring to losses in the stock market and real estate,
>>>>the facts point very much away from Bush and directly at democrats,
>>>>who forced subprime mortgages down everyone's thoats and refused
>>>
>>>You're lying again, rightward.
>>
>>It's documented,
>
>Where, bigot?
It's on tape, spigot. Just one example:
Stephen Bishop
wrote:
>Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
>jour ...
>
>> Of course you understand that Clinton's legal problems had
>> little to do with what he actually did with Monica, but that he
>> lied and obstructed justice, including during a
>> sexual-harassment lawsuit brought against him by yet a different
>> woman.
>>
>YES. The "misdeameanor" he was impeached on wasn't really what he
>did, but that he perjured himself to both the American people and to
>Congress. That said, I am NOT in favor of suddenly changing over to
>removing presidents not by democratic elections but by fiat via some
>likely trumped up impeachable offense. And, believe me, if the
>Democrats thought they could even begin to prove all the accusations
>leveled against Bush, they surely would have.
You do bring up a really good point. If all the charges of Bush's
supposed lies and crimes had any merit at all, he would never have
made it through his second term with a democratic-controlled congress
run by the likes of Pelosi and Reid. They would have nailed him
quicker than they could have said, "this one is for Bill Clinton."
Stephen Bishop
What you're saying is that *she* is pretty stupid, then, to make such
statements based on suspect intelligence.
Prove that anyone in the Bush administration deliberately falsified
intelligence information for the purpose of starting a war that he
knew would be his own political undoing. What in the world do you
think Bush thought he was going to gain if he deliberately started a
war under false pretenses?
>>Or how about what these leading democrats said, some even *before Bush
>>took office?*
>
>Here's a clue, moron: What Iraq may have had 15 years ago is no
>excuse for invading 6 years ago.
Here's a clue, rayhole: Deleting all the evidence like you just did
doesn't make it go away. Much of what you deleted was from 6 years
ago and justified the invasion. Either you are a complete fool or
you are merely a sleazy liar.
>But I'm hardly surprised to see you AGAIN trying to justify killing
>thousands to hundreds of thousands of people. You really must HATE
>brown-skinned people with a passion.
Once again you resort to insane false charges of prejudice and wanting
to kill people when you deny facts and can't provide an intelligent
response. And you wonder why I call you a self-righteous bigot? And
you wonder why the usenet world knows you for a troll?
Stephen Bishop
Lies like your foolish claim that the tax cuts caused the huge
deficits. Just like all left wing loonies, you're blind to the
spending part of the equation; thinking all the government has to do
to balance the budget is squeeze the population more by rasing taxes.
Stephen Bishop
wrote:
Personally, I ignore what Ted Turner says. :-)
But seriously, if you ever get to a place that has one of his
restaurants, just check your politics at the door and enjoy an awesome
meal.
>>
>>>The elections' popular vote was a little over 52% for Obama and
>>>a little over 46% for McCain. The Electoral College tally,
>>>though, was 365 to 165, a "landslide" showing the foolishness
>>>of continuing that system.
>>
>> There is still some merit in keeping the Electroral College, as
>> it is designed to give the states more of a say in the federal
>> government. After all, this is the United *States* of America,
>> not just one big country with all the power concentrated in
>> Washington, DC. Many still argue that the federal government
>> has far too much power over the states. Constitutionally, they
>> are quite right in that there are very few powers specifically
>> granted the federal government in the Constitution. The
>> Electoral College is still very much in line with the ideals of
>> the Framers.
>
>Well, .... no, I don't agree. The plan LOOKS like it gives states
>greater control much like the initial idea for the Senate was to
>give the smaller states some say, but in reality, instead of
>presidential candidates talking to the entire country - as they
>should - they instead play Electoral math and create yet another
>bullshit euphemism, that of "battleground states." Why should ANY
>state be a battleground for anything?!
I do see that point, but perhaps the better solution would be to
reform campaigning methods rather than doing away with a system that
the Founding Fathers obviously considered to be a part of the checks
and balances built into the entire system.
One thing that is somewhat related is in regard to primary elections.
I personally think they should all be on the same day so that the
results of each state primary doesn't have a ripple effect on the
outcome of the others.
>
>I do agree that the Federal government has WAY too much control
>over the states, but they STILL have the 10th Amendment. And,
>absent realistic federal control, we have nonsense like 16 states
>wanting individual auto emissions, carbon, and safety laws!
>
>So, my take on this election is that unlike Obama's current
>rhetoric, he really did NOT get a mandate to throw out the entire
>notion of the Bush White House, but especially NOT tax policy or
>even spending. His margin across the country was actually quite low
>considering that for him to go up 1% required McCain to drop by 1%
>so another way to look at the election is that it was really only
>two points apart and NOT a 2X landslide margin as depicted in the
>EC.
The upside to that is that there are plenty of voters who can turn the
tables on him and all the other democrats the next time, should they
screw things up.
As much as I want Obama to succeed, he hasn't impressed me yet as
someone who actually has a handle on what is going on and who wants to
work with both parties to do the right thing.
>But, I think what really keeps the EC is that neither major party
>has EVER dared to fiddle with it for fear of losing an election.
>e.g., in 2000, it was widely charged that Bush had "stolen" the
>election from Gore by only 150 hanging chads in Florida giving him
>the required 270, but he WAS a minority president in the popular
>vote. I'm hardly rooting for Gore here, just pointing out why
>NOBODY will even propose adjusting the EC because it is just as
>much a political 3rd rail as is Social Security.
>>
>> Personally, I think senators should still be appointed by the
>> state legislatures, as they originally were until the
>> Constitution was ammended to elect senators by popular vote.
>> The House was to be the representatives of the people, while the
>> Senate was to be the representatives of the states. The
>> Electoral College provides a balance between the two by giving
>> the citizens the right to vote for the President, but those
>> votes are moderated by the relative population of the individual
>> states. Remember, we are a Representative Republic, not a
>> democracy controlled by the whims of the mob.
>>
>Sorry, I have to disagree again, mainly because that removes the
>people in the states from directly electing those who sit in the
>more powerful of the two houses of Congress by virtue of the
>Senate's "advise and consent" powers.
I think the original intent of the Founding Fathers was for the states
to have more influence in the more powerful house of Congress. To me,
that makes sense. But indeed the people do have a say in that,
because it is the people of each state who elect their own state
representatives, who had the power to appoint U.S. Senators.
But either way it's water under the bridge because the system is what
it is.
Stephen Bishop
wrote:
Whatever the details turn out to be regardless of
who-knew-what-and-when, four things are very clear:
1. Iraq most definitely had WMDs and used them against its own
people.
2. Iraq did not fully cooperate with inspectors to determine once and
for all if they had truly destroyed their WMDs and truly given up any
efforts to develop them.
3. Virtually every intelligence service believed there was evidence
that Sadaam still had them. Nobody stepped up and said "wait a
minute, we have proof that he actually destroyed all those weapons and
development facilities."
4. Regardless of what Iraq was doing, the U.S. invasion of Iraq
inspired Khadaffi to willingly fess up to Libya's own WMD programs and
dismantle them. That, IMO, is perhaps one of the most postitive
outcomes of that war that a lot of people don't talk about.