The big news of course of the past couple of days is the complete destruction of our rights by the President. With the passage of the joke of a bill which allows Bush and only that JACKA$$ BUsh to decide how to treat prisoners. Habeas Corpus is gone. We don't have rights. Bush can take ANY U.S. CITIZEN, ANYONE HE WANTS, he can lock him or her up for ANY amount of time WITHOUT charging them. He CAN now torture U.S. CITIZEN he chooses if he wants. The person DOES NOT have access to lawyers CAN NOT face his/her accusers. Anyone BUSH choses.
Yes I'm angry. We are now communist Russia. This is the darkest day in American history. Congrats to Osama Bin Laden. He won the war on terror.
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Lots of News
Lots going on in the past couple of days so let's get caught up a bit. First I'd like to talk about Mark Foley. A Republican in Florda who resigned (smartly) because he was exchanging, shall we say, disturbing video with a 16 year old congressional page. That's disgusting and it violates a law that he wrote. I guess he wrote it to eliminate compitition. Now off hand you would think that would be that. The case would be turned over and we should see if charges will be fired but looking around there apparently is more. First I have a Foley quote during the Lewinsky witch-hunt in 1998: "It's vile," said Rep. Mark Foley, R-West Palm Beach. "It's more sad than anything else, to see someone with such potential throw it all down the drain because of a sexual addiction."
Isn't that funny? But there is even more information and that is the Republicans knew about it and didn't advise Democrats that they are investigating the congressmen. Here is a list of the Republicans who knew which is also availible at Rawstory. Drop these sick freaks an email please:
_The congressional sponsor of the page, Rep. Rodney Alexander, R-La., said he was asked by the youth's parents not to pursue the matter, so he dropped it.
_Alexander said that before deciding to end his involvement, he passed on what he knew to the chairman of the House Republican campaign organization, Rep. Thomas Reynolds, R-N.Y. Reynolds' spokesman, Carl Forti, said the campaign chairman also took no action in deference to the parents' wishes.
_Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., chairman of the Page Board that oversees the congressional work-study program for high schoolers, said he did investigate but Foley falsely assured him he was only mentoring the boy. Pages are high school students who attend classes under congressional supervision and work as messengers.
Add a couple of Republicans in power, aka Dennis Hasert and House Majority Leader John Boehner and you can see. By the way I'm going to add something simular which is along these lines from another Republican. Rep. John Doolittle (R) from California apparently knew of a sex slave, forced abortions, and sweatshop conditions in the U.S. territory of the Northern Marianas Islands. He looked the other way because disgraced lobbyest Jack Abramoff (who was in charge of it) paid him money.
That's right the Republican Party. The party of values. I'd love to hear any excuse for this disturbing behavior.
Isn't that funny? But there is even more information and that is the Republicans knew about it and didn't advise Democrats that they are investigating the congressmen. Here is a list of the Republicans who knew which is also availible at Rawstory. Drop these sick freaks an email please:
_The congressional sponsor of the page, Rep. Rodney Alexander, R-La., said he was asked by the youth's parents not to pursue the matter, so he dropped it.
_Alexander said that before deciding to end his involvement, he passed on what he knew to the chairman of the House Republican campaign organization, Rep. Thomas Reynolds, R-N.Y. Reynolds' spokesman, Carl Forti, said the campaign chairman also took no action in deference to the parents' wishes.
_Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., chairman of the Page Board that oversees the congressional work-study program for high schoolers, said he did investigate but Foley falsely assured him he was only mentoring the boy. Pages are high school students who attend classes under congressional supervision and work as messengers.
Add a couple of Republicans in power, aka Dennis Hasert and House Majority Leader John Boehner and you can see. By the way I'm going to add something simular which is along these lines from another Republican. Rep. John Doolittle (R) from California apparently knew of a sex slave, forced abortions, and sweatshop conditions in the U.S. territory of the Northern Marianas Islands. He looked the other way because disgraced lobbyest Jack Abramoff (who was in charge of it) paid him money.
That's right the Republican Party. The party of values. I'd love to hear any excuse for this disturbing behavior.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Handicapping the races
Actually I don't mean the political races I mean in Baseball. You all know I'm a sports fan and once in awhile I like to talk sports. So here we go.
NL Manager of the year:
Choices
A) Charlie Manuel (Phillies)
B) Joe Girardi (Marlins)
C) Grady Little (Dodgers)
D) Willie Randolph (Mets)
To me this is a no-brainer Joe Girardi. Shame he's going to get fired cause he doesn't get along with the owner he's done a great job.
AL Manager of the year:
Jim Leyland (Tigers)
Ron Gardenhire (Twins)
Joe Torre (Yankees)
The obvious choice is Jim Leyland of the Tigers. Took a team that lost over 100 games a couple of years ago and look at them now.
NL Rookie of the year:
Choices
A) Russell Martin (Dodgers)
B) Andre Eithier (Dodgers)
C) Ryan Zimmerman (Nationals)
D) Dan Uggla (Marlins)
My pick. As much as I'd like to say Martin Uggla deserves it. He's had a hell of a year..
AL ROY
Jared Weaver (Angles)
Francisco Liriano (Twins)
My Pick. Weaver. Amazing year
NL Cy Young:
Trevor Hoffman (Padres)
Chris Carpenter (Cardinals)
Roger Clemens (Astros)
My Pick: Hoffman. It would be Clemens but Hoffman's been pretty impressive all year.
AL Cy Young:
Johan Santana (Twins)
Kenny ROgers (Tigers)
Chein-Ming Wang (Yankees)
My pick. Santana. Duh??
NL and AL comeback player of the year: I combined them both because to me the winners were obvious. But then again.
NL Nomar Garciaparra AL Frank Thomas. Where would their teams be without them.
NL MVP
Albert Puljos (Cardinals)
Ryan Howard (Phillies)
My pick: It's a tough call but I think Howard's been so dominating this year he deserves it.
AL MVP
Frank Thomas (A's)
Derek Jeter (Yankees)
Papi Ortiz (Red Sox)
This is so tough. BUt the Yankees always contend and the A's would be absolutely nowhere if they didn't have Thomas bat. I know he's a DH and that will hold some people back but I give it to Frank Thomas in the narrowist of margins.
Tell me what you think. Am I right or wrong?
NL Manager of the year:
Choices
A) Charlie Manuel (Phillies)
B) Joe Girardi (Marlins)
C) Grady Little (Dodgers)
D) Willie Randolph (Mets)
To me this is a no-brainer Joe Girardi. Shame he's going to get fired cause he doesn't get along with the owner he's done a great job.
AL Manager of the year:
Jim Leyland (Tigers)
Ron Gardenhire (Twins)
Joe Torre (Yankees)
The obvious choice is Jim Leyland of the Tigers. Took a team that lost over 100 games a couple of years ago and look at them now.
NL Rookie of the year:
Choices
A) Russell Martin (Dodgers)
B) Andre Eithier (Dodgers)
C) Ryan Zimmerman (Nationals)
D) Dan Uggla (Marlins)
My pick. As much as I'd like to say Martin Uggla deserves it. He's had a hell of a year..
AL ROY
Jared Weaver (Angles)
Francisco Liriano (Twins)
My Pick. Weaver. Amazing year
NL Cy Young:
Trevor Hoffman (Padres)
Chris Carpenter (Cardinals)
Roger Clemens (Astros)
My Pick: Hoffman. It would be Clemens but Hoffman's been pretty impressive all year.
AL Cy Young:
Johan Santana (Twins)
Kenny ROgers (Tigers)
Chein-Ming Wang (Yankees)
My pick. Santana. Duh??
NL and AL comeback player of the year: I combined them both because to me the winners were obvious. But then again.
NL Nomar Garciaparra AL Frank Thomas. Where would their teams be without them.
NL MVP
Albert Puljos (Cardinals)
Ryan Howard (Phillies)
My pick: It's a tough call but I think Howard's been so dominating this year he deserves it.
AL MVP
Frank Thomas (A's)
Derek Jeter (Yankees)
Papi Ortiz (Red Sox)
This is so tough. BUt the Yankees always contend and the A's would be absolutely nowhere if they didn't have Thomas bat. I know he's a DH and that will hold some people back but I give it to Frank Thomas in the narrowist of margins.
Tell me what you think. Am I right or wrong?
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
More Lies
It's funny how President Clinton went through the impeachment hearings for lying yet Bush and the Administration that currently occupies the White HOuse tells so many lies they don't could say it's weather is clear when there is a blizzard outside.
Here is more proof. Sec. Rice responding to what President Clinton said in the NY TImes: “We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda,” Rice responded during the hourlong session.
Here is what the 9/11 commission said: As the Clinton administration drew to a close, Clarke and his staff developed a policy paper of their own [which] incorporated the CIA’s new ideas from the Blue Sky memo, and posed several near-term policy options. Clarke and his staff proposed a goal to “roll back” al Qaeda over a period of three to five years …[including] covert aid to the Northern Alliance, covert aid to Uzbekistan, and renewed Predator flights in March 2001. A sentence called for military action to destroy al Qaeda command-and control targets and infrastructure and Taliban military and command assets. The paper also expressed concern about the presence of al Qaeda operatives in the United States.” [p. 197]
Here is more from the report: The same day, [Counterterrorism Czar Richard] Clarke convened a meeting of his CSG [Counterterrorism Security Group] to discuss both the hijacking concern and the antiaircraft missile threat. To address the hijacking warning, the group agreed that New York airports should go to maximum security starting that weekend. They agreed to boost security at other East coast airports. The CIA agreed to distribute versions of the report to the FBI and FAA to pass to the New York Police Department and the airlines. The FAA issued a security directive on December 8, with specific requirements for more intensive air carrier screening of passengers and more oversight of the screening process, at all three New York area airports. [pg. 128-30]
On August 6, 2001, the Bush administration received a President’s Daily Brief entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike U.S.” Here’s how the Bush administration reacted, according to the 9/11 Commission report:
[President Bush] did not recall discussing the August 6 report with the Attorney General or whether Rice had done so.[p. 260]
We have found no indication of any further discussion before September 11 among the President and his top advisers of the possibility of a threat of an al Qaeda attack in the United States. DCI Tenet visited President Bush in Crawford, Texas, on August 17 and participated in the PDB briefings of the President between August 31 (after the President had returned to Washington) and September 10. But Tenet does not recall any discussions with the President of the domestic threat during this period. [p. 262]
So again President Clinton tried to kill Bin Laden while Bush has and continues to do nothing. Remember that right-wingers
Here is more proof. Sec. Rice responding to what President Clinton said in the NY TImes: “We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda,” Rice responded during the hourlong session.
Here is what the 9/11 commission said: As the Clinton administration drew to a close, Clarke and his staff developed a policy paper of their own [which] incorporated the CIA’s new ideas from the Blue Sky memo, and posed several near-term policy options. Clarke and his staff proposed a goal to “roll back” al Qaeda over a period of three to five years …[including] covert aid to the Northern Alliance, covert aid to Uzbekistan, and renewed Predator flights in March 2001. A sentence called for military action to destroy al Qaeda command-and control targets and infrastructure and Taliban military and command assets. The paper also expressed concern about the presence of al Qaeda operatives in the United States.” [p. 197]
Here is more from the report: The same day, [Counterterrorism Czar Richard] Clarke convened a meeting of his CSG [Counterterrorism Security Group] to discuss both the hijacking concern and the antiaircraft missile threat. To address the hijacking warning, the group agreed that New York airports should go to maximum security starting that weekend. They agreed to boost security at other East coast airports. The CIA agreed to distribute versions of the report to the FBI and FAA to pass to the New York Police Department and the airlines. The FAA issued a security directive on December 8, with specific requirements for more intensive air carrier screening of passengers and more oversight of the screening process, at all three New York area airports. [pg. 128-30]
On August 6, 2001, the Bush administration received a President’s Daily Brief entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike U.S.” Here’s how the Bush administration reacted, according to the 9/11 Commission report:
[President Bush] did not recall discussing the August 6 report with the Attorney General or whether Rice had done so.[p. 260]
We have found no indication of any further discussion before September 11 among the President and his top advisers of the possibility of a threat of an al Qaeda attack in the United States. DCI Tenet visited President Bush in Crawford, Texas, on August 17 and participated in the PDB briefings of the President between August 31 (after the President had returned to Washington) and September 10. But Tenet does not recall any discussions with the President of the domestic threat during this period. [p. 262]
So again President Clinton tried to kill Bin Laden while Bush has and continues to do nothing. Remember that right-wingers
Monday, September 25, 2006
Remember when?
Remember when President Bill Clinton wanted to go after Osama Bin Laden? I always say how he was rediculed by the right wing? No one belives me when I say this. Here is the proof courtesy of thinkprogress.org and salon.com:
Rep. Jim Gibbons (R-NV):
“‘Look at the movie Wag the Dog. I think this has all the elements of that movie,’ Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., said. ‘Our reaction to the embassy bombings should be based on sound credible evidence, not a knee-jerk reaction to try to direct public attention away from his personal problems.’” [Ottawa Citizen, 8/21/98]
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA):
“There’s an obvious issue which will be raised internationally about the response here as to whether there is any diversionary motive involved. … I have deliberated consciously any references to Ms. Monica Lewinsky, but when you ask the question in very blunt terms, the president’s current problems have to be on the minds of many people.” [CNN, 8/20/98]
Former Sen. John Ashcroft (R-MO):
“‘We support the president out of a sense of duty whenever he deploys military forces, but we’re not sure - were these forces sent at this time because he needed to divert our attention from his personal problems?‘ Ashcroft said during the taping of a TV program in Manchester, N.H.” [St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 8/21/98]
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX):
“I’m very supportive of the strike that has happened, but I will tell you that the timing is very questionable. This was the day that Monica Lewinsky has gone back to the grand jury, evidently enraged. Certainly that information will be overshadowed.” [Dallas Morning News, 8/21/98]
Former Sen. Dan Coats (R-IN):
“Coats (R-IN), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement, ‘While there is clearly much more we need to learn about this attack and why it was ordered today, given the president’s personal difficulties this week, it is legitimate to question the timing of this action.‘” [CNN, 8/20/98]
Rep. Dave Weldon (R-FL):
“‘The obvious question is, are the two connected?’ asked Rep. Dave Weldon (R-Fla.), who chairs the National Security Committee’s research subcommittee. ‘That’s the unthinkable, and I would hope it would never occur in America, but I can tell you, a lot of people are wondering about it today.‘” [Los Angeles Times, 8/21/98]
Former Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA):
“All I’m saying is if factors other than good intelligence, military necessity, being prepared for the consequences entered into it, then it is wrong, and it appears that one of those factors that may have entered into it is to take something that could have been done a week ago and do it today in an effort to divert some attention.” [Fox News, 8/20/98]
Rep. Dick Armey, GOP majority leader: "The suspicion some people have about the president's motives in this attack [on Iraq] is itself a powerful argument for impeachment," Armey said in a statement. "After months of lies, the president has given millions of people around the world reason to doubt that he has sent Americans into battle for the right reasons."
Rep. Gerald Solomon, R-N.Y.: "It is obvious that they're (the Clinton White House) doing everything they can to postpone the vote on this impeachment in order to try to get whatever kind of leverage they can, and the American people ought to be as outraged as I am about it," Solomon said in an interview with CNN. Asked if he was accusing Clinton of playing with American lives for political expediency, Solomon said, "Whether he knows it or not, that's exactly what he's doing."
GOP Sen. Dan Coats: Coats, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement, "While there is clearly much more we need to learn about this attack [on bin Laden] and why it was ordered today, given the president's personal difficulties this week, it is legitimate to question the timing of this action."
Sen. Larry Craig, U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee: "The foregoing, the premise of the recent film 'Wag the Dog,' might once have seemed farfetched. Yet it can hardly escape comment that on the very day, August 17, that President Bill Clinton is scheduled to testify before a federal grand jury to explain his possibly criminal behavior, Commander-in-Chief Bill Clinton has ordered U.S. Marines and air crews to commence several days of ground and air exercises in, yes, Albania as a warning of possible NATO intervention in next-door Kosovo ...
"Not too many years ago, it would not have entered the mind of even the worst of cynics to speculate whether any American president, whatever his political difficulties, would even consider sending U.S. military personnel into harm's way to serve his own, personal needs. But in an era when pundits openly weigh the question of whether President Clinton will (or should) tell the truth under oath not because he has a simple obligation to do so but because of the possible impact on his political 'viability' -- is it self-evident that military decisions are not affected by similar considerations? Under the circumstances, it is fair to ask to what extent the Clinton Administration has forfeited the benefit of the doubt as to the motives behind its actions."
GOP activist Paul Weyrich: "Paul Weyrich, a leading conservative activist, said Clinton's decision to bomb on the eve of the impeachment vote 'is more of an impeachable offense than anything he is being charged with in Congress.'"
Wall Street Journal editorial: "It is dangerous for an American president to launch a military strike, however justified, at a time when many will conclude he acted only out of narrow self-interest to forestall or postpone his own impeachment."
Sen. Trent Lott, GOP majority leader: "I cannot support this military action in the Persian Gulf at this time," Lott said in a statement. "Both the timing and the policy are subject to question."
Rep. Gerald Solomon: "'Never underestimate a desperate president,' said a furious House Rules Committee Chairman Gerald B.H. Solomon (R-N.Y.). 'What option is left for getting impeachment off the front page and maybe even postponed? And how else to explain the sudden appearance of a backbone that has been invisible up to now?'"
Rep. Tillie Folwer: "'It [the bombing of Iraq] is certainly rather suspicious timing,' said Rep. Tillie Fowler (R-Florida). 'I think the president is shameless in what he would do to stay in office.'"
Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum: "First, it [intervention in Kosovo] is a 'wag the dog' public relations ploy to involve us in a war in order to divert attention from his personal scandals (only a few of which were addressed in the Senate trial). He is again following the scenario of the 'life is truer than fiction' movie 'Wag the Dog.' The very day after his acquittal, Clinton moved quickly to 'move on' from the subject of impeachment by announcing threats to bomb and to send U.S. ground troops into the civil war in Kosovo between Serbian authorities and ethnic Albanians fighting for independence. He scheduled Americans to be part of a NATO force under non-American command."
Jim Hoagland, Washington Post: "President Clinton has indelibly associated a justified military response ... with his own wrongdoing ... Clinton has now injected the impeachment process against him into foreign policy, and vice versa."
Wall Street Journal editorial: "Perceptions that the American president is less interested in the global consequences than in taking any action that will enable him to hold onto power [are] a further demonstration that he has dangerously compromised himself in conducting the nation's affairs, and should be impeached."
How does it feel right-wingers to have egg on your face YET AGAIN??
Rep. Jim Gibbons (R-NV):
“‘Look at the movie Wag the Dog. I think this has all the elements of that movie,’ Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., said. ‘Our reaction to the embassy bombings should be based on sound credible evidence, not a knee-jerk reaction to try to direct public attention away from his personal problems.’” [Ottawa Citizen, 8/21/98]
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA):
“There’s an obvious issue which will be raised internationally about the response here as to whether there is any diversionary motive involved. … I have deliberated consciously any references to Ms. Monica Lewinsky, but when you ask the question in very blunt terms, the president’s current problems have to be on the minds of many people.” [CNN, 8/20/98]
Former Sen. John Ashcroft (R-MO):
“‘We support the president out of a sense of duty whenever he deploys military forces, but we’re not sure - were these forces sent at this time because he needed to divert our attention from his personal problems?‘ Ashcroft said during the taping of a TV program in Manchester, N.H.” [St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 8/21/98]
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX):
“I’m very supportive of the strike that has happened, but I will tell you that the timing is very questionable. This was the day that Monica Lewinsky has gone back to the grand jury, evidently enraged. Certainly that information will be overshadowed.” [Dallas Morning News, 8/21/98]
Former Sen. Dan Coats (R-IN):
“Coats (R-IN), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement, ‘While there is clearly much more we need to learn about this attack and why it was ordered today, given the president’s personal difficulties this week, it is legitimate to question the timing of this action.‘” [CNN, 8/20/98]
Rep. Dave Weldon (R-FL):
“‘The obvious question is, are the two connected?’ asked Rep. Dave Weldon (R-Fla.), who chairs the National Security Committee’s research subcommittee. ‘That’s the unthinkable, and I would hope it would never occur in America, but I can tell you, a lot of people are wondering about it today.‘” [Los Angeles Times, 8/21/98]
Former Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA):
“All I’m saying is if factors other than good intelligence, military necessity, being prepared for the consequences entered into it, then it is wrong, and it appears that one of those factors that may have entered into it is to take something that could have been done a week ago and do it today in an effort to divert some attention.” [Fox News, 8/20/98]
Rep. Dick Armey, GOP majority leader: "The suspicion some people have about the president's motives in this attack [on Iraq] is itself a powerful argument for impeachment," Armey said in a statement. "After months of lies, the president has given millions of people around the world reason to doubt that he has sent Americans into battle for the right reasons."
Rep. Gerald Solomon, R-N.Y.: "It is obvious that they're (the Clinton White House) doing everything they can to postpone the vote on this impeachment in order to try to get whatever kind of leverage they can, and the American people ought to be as outraged as I am about it," Solomon said in an interview with CNN. Asked if he was accusing Clinton of playing with American lives for political expediency, Solomon said, "Whether he knows it or not, that's exactly what he's doing."
GOP Sen. Dan Coats: Coats, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement, "While there is clearly much more we need to learn about this attack [on bin Laden] and why it was ordered today, given the president's personal difficulties this week, it is legitimate to question the timing of this action."
Sen. Larry Craig, U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee: "The foregoing, the premise of the recent film 'Wag the Dog,' might once have seemed farfetched. Yet it can hardly escape comment that on the very day, August 17, that President Bill Clinton is scheduled to testify before a federal grand jury to explain his possibly criminal behavior, Commander-in-Chief Bill Clinton has ordered U.S. Marines and air crews to commence several days of ground and air exercises in, yes, Albania as a warning of possible NATO intervention in next-door Kosovo ...
"Not too many years ago, it would not have entered the mind of even the worst of cynics to speculate whether any American president, whatever his political difficulties, would even consider sending U.S. military personnel into harm's way to serve his own, personal needs. But in an era when pundits openly weigh the question of whether President Clinton will (or should) tell the truth under oath not because he has a simple obligation to do so but because of the possible impact on his political 'viability' -- is it self-evident that military decisions are not affected by similar considerations? Under the circumstances, it is fair to ask to what extent the Clinton Administration has forfeited the benefit of the doubt as to the motives behind its actions."
GOP activist Paul Weyrich: "Paul Weyrich, a leading conservative activist, said Clinton's decision to bomb on the eve of the impeachment vote 'is more of an impeachable offense than anything he is being charged with in Congress.'"
Wall Street Journal editorial: "It is dangerous for an American president to launch a military strike, however justified, at a time when many will conclude he acted only out of narrow self-interest to forestall or postpone his own impeachment."
Sen. Trent Lott, GOP majority leader: "I cannot support this military action in the Persian Gulf at this time," Lott said in a statement. "Both the timing and the policy are subject to question."
Rep. Gerald Solomon: "'Never underestimate a desperate president,' said a furious House Rules Committee Chairman Gerald B.H. Solomon (R-N.Y.). 'What option is left for getting impeachment off the front page and maybe even postponed? And how else to explain the sudden appearance of a backbone that has been invisible up to now?'"
Rep. Tillie Folwer: "'It [the bombing of Iraq] is certainly rather suspicious timing,' said Rep. Tillie Fowler (R-Florida). 'I think the president is shameless in what he would do to stay in office.'"
Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum: "First, it [intervention in Kosovo] is a 'wag the dog' public relations ploy to involve us in a war in order to divert attention from his personal scandals (only a few of which were addressed in the Senate trial). He is again following the scenario of the 'life is truer than fiction' movie 'Wag the Dog.' The very day after his acquittal, Clinton moved quickly to 'move on' from the subject of impeachment by announcing threats to bomb and to send U.S. ground troops into the civil war in Kosovo between Serbian authorities and ethnic Albanians fighting for independence. He scheduled Americans to be part of a NATO force under non-American command."
Jim Hoagland, Washington Post: "President Clinton has indelibly associated a justified military response ... with his own wrongdoing ... Clinton has now injected the impeachment process against him into foreign policy, and vice versa."
Wall Street Journal editorial: "Perceptions that the American president is less interested in the global consequences than in taking any action that will enable him to hold onto power [are] a further demonstration that he has dangerously compromised himself in conducting the nation's affairs, and should be impeached."
How does it feel right-wingers to have egg on your face YET AGAIN??
Sunday, September 24, 2006
Advice Plesae
I need some advice here. I've always been honest with you with my life. Both good and bad. I feel if you want to know me you should know both the positive and negative.
In the past I've told you I drink. I've always felt with maybe 5 or so exceptions I've always been in control and even when I am drunk I've not the "a$$hole drunk" I'm more the "happy drunk" or so I'm told. I've always felt that when you drink it enhances your personality one way or the other.
The reason I bring it up is this. I have a place where I go to all the time where I can go and hang out and godforbid relax which is something I really don't have much of a chance to do. So last night a friend of mine named Jeff (yes I'm using his name he deserves all the embarassment he can get) who drinks all the time and is an A$$hole drunk shows up. Jeff's one of the nicest guys I know until he gets drunk and then I don't wanna deal with him. Jeff is there and we are hanging out last night and another friend of ours shows up and he goes over to talk with him and his girlfriend. Now Jeff gets really loud and obnoxious as I said when he is drunk but is normally harmless. I leave for a few minutes to use the restroom and as I said Jeff is talking with my other friend. I come back and Jeff is on the floor and my other friend is beating the snot out of him cause Jeff was in my friends face for an underserved reason. In other words Jeff had it coming.
Now normally I would be the first to defend Jeff but there is no excuse for that. One of the things I always have said is we are responsible for our own actions and Jeff was responsible cause he was the one who was piss drunk.
My bottom line is I'm going to see Jeff we go around to a lot of the same places but I've lost so much respect for him I don't really know how to react to him when I see him. I need some help here.
In the past I've told you I drink. I've always felt with maybe 5 or so exceptions I've always been in control and even when I am drunk I've not the "a$$hole drunk" I'm more the "happy drunk" or so I'm told. I've always felt that when you drink it enhances your personality one way or the other.
The reason I bring it up is this. I have a place where I go to all the time where I can go and hang out and godforbid relax which is something I really don't have much of a chance to do. So last night a friend of mine named Jeff (yes I'm using his name he deserves all the embarassment he can get) who drinks all the time and is an A$$hole drunk shows up. Jeff's one of the nicest guys I know until he gets drunk and then I don't wanna deal with him. Jeff is there and we are hanging out last night and another friend of ours shows up and he goes over to talk with him and his girlfriend. Now Jeff gets really loud and obnoxious as I said when he is drunk but is normally harmless. I leave for a few minutes to use the restroom and as I said Jeff is talking with my other friend. I come back and Jeff is on the floor and my other friend is beating the snot out of him cause Jeff was in my friends face for an underserved reason. In other words Jeff had it coming.
Now normally I would be the first to defend Jeff but there is no excuse for that. One of the things I always have said is we are responsible for our own actions and Jeff was responsible cause he was the one who was piss drunk.
My bottom line is I'm going to see Jeff we go around to a lot of the same places but I've lost so much respect for him I don't really know how to react to him when I see him. I need some help here.
Just Wondering
Just wondering the following: We know how Bush has sent the IRS after a church here in Pasadena for the only reason they gave an anti-Bush sermon before the 2004 election. As long as it's fair I don't mind it but we know it isn't. I have the following quote recently from another person who supports the right-wing named Jerry Falwell:
"Nothing will motivate conservative evangelical Christians to vote Republican in the 2008 presidential election more than a Democratic nominee named Hillary Rodham Clinton — not even a run by the devil himself,"
That was in today's Los ANgeles Times. Here's more
"I certainly hope that Hillary is the candidate," Falwell said, according to the recording. "She has $300 million so far. But I hope she's the candidate. Because nothing will energize my [constituency] like Hillary Clinton."
Cheers and laughter filled the room as Falwell continued: "If Lucifer ran, he wouldn't."
Doesn't that sound like an attack? Now let me add two other pro-Bush preachers, Pat Robertson and James Dobson and many churches (who I have the quotes on my site in the archives are NOT being investigated by the IRS. This is a witchhunt if I ever heard of one and it's gotta stop.
By the way where is the outrage on that quote because I'm just wondering the outrage was there when Bush was called the devil by Venezuela President Hugo Chavez.
Typical right-wing hypocrites as always.
"Nothing will motivate conservative evangelical Christians to vote Republican in the 2008 presidential election more than a Democratic nominee named Hillary Rodham Clinton — not even a run by the devil himself,"
That was in today's Los ANgeles Times. Here's more
"I certainly hope that Hillary is the candidate," Falwell said, according to the recording. "She has $300 million so far. But I hope she's the candidate. Because nothing will energize my [constituency] like Hillary Clinton."
Cheers and laughter filled the room as Falwell continued: "If Lucifer ran, he wouldn't."
Doesn't that sound like an attack? Now let me add two other pro-Bush preachers, Pat Robertson and James Dobson and many churches (who I have the quotes on my site in the archives are NOT being investigated by the IRS. This is a witchhunt if I ever heard of one and it's gotta stop.
By the way where is the outrage on that quote because I'm just wondering the outrage was there when Bush was called the devil by Venezuela President Hugo Chavez.
Typical right-wing hypocrites as always.
The Usual
I read the headline in Bill O'Idiot's column today and got really excited. The headline read the following "Hyper-Partisans are damaging America".
First his definition of hyper-partisans: A hyerper-partisan is a person who does not seek the truth; rather, he or she tailors information to fit a perconceived political viewpoint. What is actually happening in the world is not important to those ideological zombies; it's all about reinforcing their core beliefs.
I thought my god he might have a column that makes sense for the first time ever. Then I remembered who I was dealing with. He goes to bash liberals and democrats. You see what he forgets is that definition applies mainly to him and his ilk. Remember they are in control of all aspects of our lives. The so-called liberal media (which is complete bs) gives Bush a pass on EVERYTHING and doesn't call him for the lying SOB he is. The right-wing radio hosts are allowed to make up things and state them as facts.
You want an example more recently? President Bill Clinton was on the Wallace show this morning on Fox News. After being ambushed by Wallace and the usual right-wing lies about him and after President Bill Clinton retaliated here is what the headline reads on Fox News: "Clinton gets crazed". Now you tell me if that's hyper-partisan. By the way Fox News employs Bill O'Idiot.
First his definition of hyper-partisans: A hyerper-partisan is a person who does not seek the truth; rather, he or she tailors information to fit a perconceived political viewpoint. What is actually happening in the world is not important to those ideological zombies; it's all about reinforcing their core beliefs.
I thought my god he might have a column that makes sense for the first time ever. Then I remembered who I was dealing with. He goes to bash liberals and democrats. You see what he forgets is that definition applies mainly to him and his ilk. Remember they are in control of all aspects of our lives. The so-called liberal media (which is complete bs) gives Bush a pass on EVERYTHING and doesn't call him for the lying SOB he is. The right-wing radio hosts are allowed to make up things and state them as facts.
You want an example more recently? President Bill Clinton was on the Wallace show this morning on Fox News. After being ambushed by Wallace and the usual right-wing lies about him and after President Bill Clinton retaliated here is what the headline reads on Fox News: "Clinton gets crazed". Now you tell me if that's hyper-partisan. By the way Fox News employs Bill O'Idiot.
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Could it be true?
I'm back after a couple of days of my monitor dying on me (if you want a new one Best Buy has great deals) but I'd like to talk about some potential breaking news. The possible death of Bin Laden due to not the wasted taxpayer money the U.S. has spent trying to capture or kill him BUT typhoid fever.
I don't really believe it's true but if it is isn't that the ultimate insult to Bush after the money he blew trying to get him? Yes it is and it is yet another reason to impeach the SOB.
On a side note how come it's ok for Bush to peronally attack other nations BUT when he is attacked everyone goes crazy?
I don't really believe it's true but if it is isn't that the ultimate insult to Bush after the money he blew trying to get him? Yes it is and it is yet another reason to impeach the SOB.
On a side note how come it's ok for Bush to peronally attack other nations BUT when he is attacked everyone goes crazy?
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Computer Problems
Hey my computer isn't working (monitor) so I might be down for a day or so. I am using a library computer. Will get things working as soon as possible.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Huh
Ok so everyone heard the Pope's comments. Now the Muslim religion is typical reaction is violence which proved the Pope's point doesn't it?
"Iran supports Terror"
That's what Bush has told the U.N. today. Do I believe him?? Absolutely NOT! Bush has lied to the U.N. so many times and has lied to the United States so many times (funny isn't that what got President Clinton impeached??) I don't believe a word he says. He lied about Iraq, lied about Bin Laden (and his interest in capturing him) why should I believe a word he says??
Survivor
Ladies and gentlemen I don't watch survivor. I don't watch much "reality" tv. I find it hosestly stupid for the most part but I'd like to make a comment on the new season of Survivor which has members of different races segregated together.
For some reason that has created an uproar. I don't know why I really don't BUT I really have a simple idea if you don't like it and it's the only way that CBS will stop doing it: Don't watch the show.
CBS will see the ratings drop and that will be the end of that.
For some reason that has created an uproar. I don't know why I really don't BUT I really have a simple idea if you don't like it and it's the only way that CBS will stop doing it: Don't watch the show.
CBS will see the ratings drop and that will be the end of that.
Monday, September 18, 2006
Free Speech??
Just wondering if anyone has noticed besides me how the new evening news at CBS has had a segment called free speech. Now that's a great idea but there is a problem: Every night it's been on so far we hear one point of view which of course is the conservative point of view as if they don't have enough outlets to speak them. Want proof? Among the guests so far:
Rush Limbaugh
George Bush
Rudolph Guliani
And no progressive/liberals.
Free speech is a one way street now isn't it?
Rush Limbaugh
George Bush
Rudolph Guliani
And no progressive/liberals.
Free speech is a one way street now isn't it?
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Bias?
Here is more proof on how the media is bias toward the Republicans. Here is a list of who is on the Sunday talk shows today:
* MTP: VA-SEN debate with Sen. George Allen (R) and ex-Navy Sec. Jim Webb (D)
* Face the Nation: NSA Stephen Hadley; Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Arlen Specter (R-PA), and Carl Levin (D-MI).
* This Week: Hadley; Sen. John McCain (R-AZ); Singer/songwriter Jewel about breast cancer awareness; roundtable with George Will, Cokie Roberts and Sam Donaldson
* Fox News Sunday: House Maj. Leader John Boehner; Hadley.
* Late Edition: Hadley; George Soros; Sens. Evan Bayh (D-IN) and John Cornyn (R-TX); Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni; Iraqi national security advisor Dr. Mowaffak al-Rubaie; Lt. Gen. Ali Mohammad Jan Aurakzai (Gov. of Pakistan's Waziristan province)
Now by my count thats 6 Republicans vs 4 Democrats (including Soros).
That's fair isn't it?
* MTP: VA-SEN debate with Sen. George Allen (R) and ex-Navy Sec. Jim Webb (D)
* Face the Nation: NSA Stephen Hadley; Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Arlen Specter (R-PA), and Carl Levin (D-MI).
* This Week: Hadley; Sen. John McCain (R-AZ); Singer/songwriter Jewel about breast cancer awareness; roundtable with George Will, Cokie Roberts and Sam Donaldson
* Fox News Sunday: House Maj. Leader John Boehner; Hadley.
* Late Edition: Hadley; George Soros; Sens. Evan Bayh (D-IN) and John Cornyn (R-TX); Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni; Iraqi national security advisor Dr. Mowaffak al-Rubaie; Lt. Gen. Ali Mohammad Jan Aurakzai (Gov. of Pakistan's Waziristan province)
Now by my count thats 6 Republicans vs 4 Democrats (including Soros).
That's fair isn't it?
Saturday, September 16, 2006
Question
Bush has said many many times how "the United States doesn't torture". Why is he then is he supporting a bill that allows torture? And what will happen WHEN other countries do the same because if it's ok for us to do it then it applies to all shouldn't it?
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Field Day
You know the Republican Party is going to attack mercilessly on this one:
Democrat Keith Ellison won his primary in Michigan yesterday and I say congrats to him. New blood is always good and if he wins he will be the first Muslim elected to Congress.
Here is the problem: You know the Republicans are going to attack huge on this. I see ads morphing him into Bin laden and I see ads saying exactly how Democrats are helping terrorists like him. That's right they are going to accuse him of being a terrorist. You know it I know it.
Republicans don't know how to run on issues just smear and fear.
Democrat Keith Ellison won his primary in Michigan yesterday and I say congrats to him. New blood is always good and if he wins he will be the first Muslim elected to Congress.
Here is the problem: You know the Republicans are going to attack huge on this. I see ads morphing him into Bin laden and I see ads saying exactly how Democrats are helping terrorists like him. That's right they are going to accuse him of being a terrorist. You know it I know it.
Republicans don't know how to run on issues just smear and fear.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
9/11
I didn't talk much about 9/11 yesterday cause it's an emotional day for me. As I've said I knew people who died on 9/11 in the World Trade Center so that's in part why I get so pissed at Republicans who are making this a political issue. And it is only them who are doing it. An example was yesterday at the ceremony Bush was at. I didn't see the Democratic Senators there, just the Republicans. That's why I get really disgusted at that loser.
Monday, September 11, 2006
How Disgusting Can He Be?
I don't know why I get suckered in everytime the loser in the White House speaks. The embarassment of the so-called President Bush is growing more and more. The loser in his speach tonight contradicted himself YET AGAIN by saying Al-Queda and Iraq had ties. JUST TWO WEEKS AGO that he never claimed that and I EVEN THEN posted examples where he has. This guy is disgusting.
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Payback
I got a question I'd like to bring to the table:
With the sham of a movie that's airing on ABC that SOLELY blames President Bill Clinton for 9/11 I'm wondering the following:
Is this film payback for taxbreaks they have received from Gov. Bush of Florida and Pres Bush?
The reason I asked is the Michael Moore film Fahrrenheit 9/11 was originally supposed to be distibuted by Disney BUT they declined because "it was too political." So why would Disney change that policy unless it's payback.
With the sham of a movie that's airing on ABC that SOLELY blames President Bill Clinton for 9/11 I'm wondering the following:
Is this film payback for taxbreaks they have received from Gov. Bush of Florida and Pres Bush?
The reason I asked is the Michael Moore film Fahrrenheit 9/11 was originally supposed to be distibuted by Disney BUT they declined because "it was too political." So why would Disney change that policy unless it's payback.
The media giving a free ride
Here is another example how the media give Bush a free ride. The Senate released a non-partisan report which said "The Committee’s investigation into prewar intelligence on Iraq has revealed that the Bush Administration’s case for war in Iraq was fundamentally misleading. The Administration pursued a deceptive strategy of using intelligence reporting that the Intelligence community had already warned was uncorroborated, unreliable, and in critical instances, fabricated."
Now have I heard anything about the report by the media? No I haven't. In fact dispite the report I have the following quotes from Rice and Cheney JUST TODAY ON THE TALK SHOWS:
First Rice: "There were ties going on between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s regime going back for a decade.”
Now Cheney: You’ve got Iraq and Al Qaeda, testimony from the Director of C.I.A. that there was indeed a relationship — Zarqawi in baghdad. et cetera."
It's unbelievable how the media, so vigilant on President Bill Clinton's private life, is letting Bush slide on EVERYTHING. It's sad how the Congress and Senate won't hold impeachment hearings on this cause it's so obvious they broke the law and have murdered troops because of this.
Now have I heard anything about the report by the media? No I haven't. In fact dispite the report I have the following quotes from Rice and Cheney JUST TODAY ON THE TALK SHOWS:
First Rice: "There were ties going on between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s regime going back for a decade.”
Now Cheney: You’ve got Iraq and Al Qaeda, testimony from the Director of C.I.A. that there was indeed a relationship — Zarqawi in baghdad. et cetera."
It's unbelievable how the media, so vigilant on President Bill Clinton's private life, is letting Bush slide on EVERYTHING. It's sad how the Congress and Senate won't hold impeachment hearings on this cause it's so obvious they broke the law and have murdered troops because of this.
O'Idiot
I wanna talk about the BS in Bill O'Idiot's column in today's Los Angeles Daily News. He's more off the wall then usual but what would I expect from someone who is out of touch with reality like he and his ilk are.
Now the headline reads "Parallels between Nazi, Islamic fascism" but he doesn't even talk about it. He goes on a tirade about the chair of the Democratic Party Howard Dean and the so-called liberal media which has given Bush nothing but a free ride.
First the attack on Gov. Dean. He says "I blame the news media first, and irresponsible politicians like Howard Dean second." But as usual he gives no reasons why anything is Howard Dean's fault and nothing really is. If you seem to recall if anything is anyone's fault it IS the repulicans since THEY ARE IN CHARGE! Remember that.
Now with the media. I'm going to have a post in a minute how the media has done nothing to blame Bush about anything especially something that was just released by the Senate. The media has done nothing but support Bush blindly and there is so much proof on that it's scary.
Now one last point I'd like to make is O'Idiot seems to forget how Bush has done more to promote what terrorists want then they have. Bush has taken away our freedoms which is exactly how and why they are winning.
Now the headline reads "Parallels between Nazi, Islamic fascism" but he doesn't even talk about it. He goes on a tirade about the chair of the Democratic Party Howard Dean and the so-called liberal media which has given Bush nothing but a free ride.
First the attack on Gov. Dean. He says "I blame the news media first, and irresponsible politicians like Howard Dean second." But as usual he gives no reasons why anything is Howard Dean's fault and nothing really is. If you seem to recall if anything is anyone's fault it IS the repulicans since THEY ARE IN CHARGE! Remember that.
Now with the media. I'm going to have a post in a minute how the media has done nothing to blame Bush about anything especially something that was just released by the Senate. The media has done nothing but support Bush blindly and there is so much proof on that it's scary.
Now one last point I'd like to make is O'Idiot seems to forget how Bush has done more to promote what terrorists want then they have. Bush has taken away our freedoms which is exactly how and why they are winning.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Dropping The Ball
Now with that joke of a movie that is going to appear on ABC this weekend that falsely accuses President Bill Clinton of dropping the ball on Osama Bin Laden I seem to recall when we were in Afghanastan before Bush decided to invade Iraq we had Osama Bin Laden surrounded at Tora Bora. I remember BUSH dropping the ball and ease up on the attack allowing him to escape. That's reality not the fantasy that ABC is allowing on the airwaves.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Croc Hunter
I guess, even though it's been a couple of days I'd like to talk a bit about the Croc Hunter Steve Irwin and his tragic passing in an accident with a stingray.
I remember first watching him and thinking how crazy he was and he was going to get hurt messing with animals that are wild in nature. His passion is undenyable and his love of wildlife is unmatched I feel. When I watched I learned something from him about animals I knew little or nothing about. I even tried to overcome my fear of snakes by watching his shows to learn about them.
Mr. Irwin you will be missed and hopefully your hard work will continue on.
He leaves behind a wife and two kids.
I remember first watching him and thinking how crazy he was and he was going to get hurt messing with animals that are wild in nature. His passion is undenyable and his love of wildlife is unmatched I feel. When I watched I learned something from him about animals I knew little or nothing about. I even tried to overcome my fear of snakes by watching his shows to learn about them.
Mr. Irwin you will be missed and hopefully your hard work will continue on.
He leaves behind a wife and two kids.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Sham of a movie
Two movies coming up I'd like to talk briefly about. Now I think by now you know I don't like Bush at all (if not I'd like to know what you are on and if I can have some) but I guess there is a movie that shows an asassination of Bush. I don't know if it's supposed to be satire or not but believe me as much as he should be impeached and put on trial for warcrimes and sent to jail for the murders of all the soldiers he has had killed in Iraq, I do not wish asassination of him.
Second is a little more serious. They are going to show a "miniseries" that basically absolves Bush of ANY blame for 9/11 and places the blame on President Bill Clinton. Again I need to remind to remind people how President Bill Clinton attacked the camp in Sudan where Bin Laden was supposed to be and was nothing BUT rediculed by the right-wing media, congress and senante. Now the same right-wing media is giving Bush, who has the same amount of military experience as President Clinton (none) a pass on Bush's failure to capture Bin Laden who is responsible for 9/11.
Bush is the sole person cause he has failed to protect our country even though he was warned.
Second is a little more serious. They are going to show a "miniseries" that basically absolves Bush of ANY blame for 9/11 and places the blame on President Bill Clinton. Again I need to remind to remind people how President Bill Clinton attacked the camp in Sudan where Bin Laden was supposed to be and was nothing BUT rediculed by the right-wing media, congress and senante. Now the same right-wing media is giving Bush, who has the same amount of military experience as President Clinton (none) a pass on Bush's failure to capture Bin Laden who is responsible for 9/11.
Bush is the sole person cause he has failed to protect our country even though he was warned.
Monday, September 04, 2006
A letter
I'm on a roll today aren't I :)
Here is a letter in the Los Angeles Daily News (nothing in the times that I haven't talked about already).
There is a letter today saying how Bush has apologized for mishandling Katrina and how it's the Army COrps of Engineerys who failed to recognize the importance of building levees that met specifications. This person is so wrong on both counts.
First I never heard Bush apologize. Someone feel free to send me a link showing that cause I didn't see or hear it. Second the Army Corps of Engineers have been talking about the levees for years, every year asked for money to fix the levees AND WAS DECLINED BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION due to the Iraq Occupation.
Remember that ladies and gentlement.
Here is a letter in the Los Angeles Daily News (nothing in the times that I haven't talked about already).
There is a letter today saying how Bush has apologized for mishandling Katrina and how it's the Army COrps of Engineerys who failed to recognize the importance of building levees that met specifications. This person is so wrong on both counts.
First I never heard Bush apologize. Someone feel free to send me a link showing that cause I didn't see or hear it. Second the Army Corps of Engineers have been talking about the levees for years, every year asked for money to fix the levees AND WAS DECLINED BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION due to the Iraq Occupation.
Remember that ladies and gentlement.
Rich Lowry
I'd like to talk about Rich Lowry's column a bit that appears in today's Los Angeles Daily News. There are two points that he is so obviously lying I'm praying someone calls him on it besides me:
"When it comes to the Iraq War the Democrats are the party of defeat. This is not a partisan smear but a fact."
First my question would be what's wrong with wanting our troops home and protecting our borders? Fighting them over there has done NOTHING to decrease the threat of a terror attack and everytime a soldier is murdered in the occupation of Iraq is on Bush's hands.
"Politically, Iraq is a loser for Republicans, except for the bright spot that the American public is not yet ready to quit. A CNN poll in August found that 69 percent of Americans oppose withdrawing American troops by the end of the year and 66 percent believe that we can win the war there."
I wish I knew where to go with that. EVERY poll I see shows Americans want the troops home and I've searched everywhere on CNN and the polls I see there say that the majority of Americans want the troops home. He's just making it up.
"When it comes to the Iraq War the Democrats are the party of defeat. This is not a partisan smear but a fact."
First my question would be what's wrong with wanting our troops home and protecting our borders? Fighting them over there has done NOTHING to decrease the threat of a terror attack and everytime a soldier is murdered in the occupation of Iraq is on Bush's hands.
"Politically, Iraq is a loser for Republicans, except for the bright spot that the American public is not yet ready to quit. A CNN poll in August found that 69 percent of Americans oppose withdrawing American troops by the end of the year and 66 percent believe that we can win the war there."
I wish I knew where to go with that. EVERY poll I see shows Americans want the troops home and I've searched everywhere on CNN and the polls I see there say that the majority of Americans want the troops home. He's just making it up.
Not Suprising
So this is allegedly but it goes what I've been saying with the right wing I absolutely believe Bush would say something like this:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Book_Bush_told_reporter_Jews_are_0902.html
"You know what I'm gonna tell those Jews when I get to Israel, don't you Herman?" a then Governor George W. Bush allegedly asked a reporter for the Austin American-Statesman.
When the journalist, Ken Herman, replied that he did not know, Bush reportedly delivered the punch line: "I'm telling 'em they're all going to hell."
There is nothing funny about that. It's actually very disgusting but again considering what I've been posting about Right-Wingers and he's the leader I remember an old saying the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Book_Bush_told_reporter_Jews_are_0902.html
"You know what I'm gonna tell those Jews when I get to Israel, don't you Herman?" a then Governor George W. Bush allegedly asked a reporter for the Austin American-Statesman.
When the journalist, Ken Herman, replied that he did not know, Bush reportedly delivered the punch line: "I'm telling 'em they're all going to hell."
There is nothing funny about that. It's actually very disgusting but again considering what I've been posting about Right-Wingers and he's the leader I remember an old saying the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
Sunday, September 03, 2006
Bill O'Idiot
You know how much I love every week to prove how out of touch Bill O'Idiot is with reality. Here is some more.
This week the moran decides to attack Hollywood for an unknown reason. Only thing I can think of is jealousy. Here are the quotes:
"So let's be straight here: My money says Tina Fey doesn't know anything about the roots of terrorism or how to how to prevent the next terror attack. The woman can sneer all day long, but I'll put her on my TV program in a heartbeat if she wants to prove me wrong."
"Neil Young can write all the mediocre music he wants about how evil the Bush administration is, but while he is rockin in the free world, I know it wouldn't be fre if Young were in charge"
"When the pouty Dixie Chicks, who are having big trouble selling concert tickets this sumer can tell me the orgin of the Islamic Brotherhood, then I might go to one of their shows."
I don't know why O'Idiot is so angry all the time I don't. But let's take it point by point here:
First regarding the comments about Tina Fey - I realize O'Idiot lives in Fantasyland BUT not even Bush can prevent the next terror attack so why ask an actress when the big military machine can't do it?
Now Neil Youngs album Living With War is a brilliant album BUT I would like to ask O'Idiot how many freedoms have we lost under Bush? Many is the answer and it's only getting worse.
With the Dixie Chicks he, like all right-wingers need to get over it. But they dwell on the past so much they are sick.
He also takes nonsense shots at Bill Maher,George Clooney, Jon Stewart. I don't get it. I really don't. WHy the anger about people who are taking a stand? IF you disagree with them that's fine but I am willing to make a bet that all of those things you attacked them for you wouldn't be able to find without your staff and couldn't name them off the top of your head.
This week the moran decides to attack Hollywood for an unknown reason. Only thing I can think of is jealousy. Here are the quotes:
"So let's be straight here: My money says Tina Fey doesn't know anything about the roots of terrorism or how to how to prevent the next terror attack. The woman can sneer all day long, but I'll put her on my TV program in a heartbeat if she wants to prove me wrong."
"Neil Young can write all the mediocre music he wants about how evil the Bush administration is, but while he is rockin in the free world, I know it wouldn't be fre if Young were in charge"
"When the pouty Dixie Chicks, who are having big trouble selling concert tickets this sumer can tell me the orgin of the Islamic Brotherhood, then I might go to one of their shows."
I don't know why O'Idiot is so angry all the time I don't. But let's take it point by point here:
First regarding the comments about Tina Fey - I realize O'Idiot lives in Fantasyland BUT not even Bush can prevent the next terror attack so why ask an actress when the big military machine can't do it?
Now Neil Youngs album Living With War is a brilliant album BUT I would like to ask O'Idiot how many freedoms have we lost under Bush? Many is the answer and it's only getting worse.
With the Dixie Chicks he, like all right-wingers need to get over it. But they dwell on the past so much they are sick.
He also takes nonsense shots at Bill Maher,George Clooney, Jon Stewart. I don't get it. I really don't. WHy the anger about people who are taking a stand? IF you disagree with them that's fine but I am willing to make a bet that all of those things you attacked them for you wouldn't be able to find without your staff and couldn't name them off the top of your head.
Saturday, September 02, 2006
Caught in a lie
This is the weekend I was supposed to take my first real vacation in I don't know how long. Naturally I had a cold that didn't ease up til today so I just wasted a lot of money for nothing. So if I'm more upset then normal you can understand why.
But I'd like to comment on a statement released from the White House regarding the term "Stay the course". Here is the comment:
Many Democrats accuse the president of advocating “stay the course” in Iraq, but the White House rejects the phrase and regularly emphasizes that it is adapting tactics to changing circumstances, such as moving more U.S. troops into Baghdad recently after a previous security strategy appeared to fail.
So the White House reject the phrase stay the course. Hmmm I wonder how many times I've heard that: (thanks to thinkprogress for a partial list)
BUSH: We will stay the course, we will complete the job in Iraq. [8/4/05]
SNOW: The second thing you do is you stay the course. [7/10/06]
SNOW: But on the other hand, you also cannot be a President in a wartime and not realize that you’ve got to stay the course. [8/17/06]
BUSH: We will stay the course. [8/30/06]
BUSH: We will stay the course until the job is done, Steve. And the temptation is to try to get the President or somebody to put a timetable on the definition of getting the job done. We’re just going to stay the course. [12/15/03]
BUSH: And my message today to those in Iraq is: We’ll stay the course. [4/13/04]
SNOW: People are going to want more of it, and that’s why the President is determined to stay the course. April. [8/16/06]
BUSH: And that’s why we’re going to stay the course in Iraq. And that’s why when we say something in Iraq, we’re going to do it. [4/16/04]
BUSH: And so we’ve got tough action in Iraq. But we will stay the course. [4/5/04]
Sound to me like someone, or everyone, in the White House doesn't know what they are talking about.
But I'd like to comment on a statement released from the White House regarding the term "Stay the course". Here is the comment:
Many Democrats accuse the president of advocating “stay the course” in Iraq, but the White House rejects the phrase and regularly emphasizes that it is adapting tactics to changing circumstances, such as moving more U.S. troops into Baghdad recently after a previous security strategy appeared to fail.
So the White House reject the phrase stay the course. Hmmm I wonder how many times I've heard that: (thanks to thinkprogress for a partial list)
BUSH: We will stay the course, we will complete the job in Iraq. [8/4/05]
SNOW: The second thing you do is you stay the course. [7/10/06]
SNOW: But on the other hand, you also cannot be a President in a wartime and not realize that you’ve got to stay the course. [8/17/06]
BUSH: We will stay the course. [8/30/06]
BUSH: We will stay the course until the job is done, Steve. And the temptation is to try to get the President or somebody to put a timetable on the definition of getting the job done. We’re just going to stay the course. [12/15/03]
BUSH: And my message today to those in Iraq is: We’ll stay the course. [4/13/04]
SNOW: People are going to want more of it, and that’s why the President is determined to stay the course. April. [8/16/06]
BUSH: And that’s why we’re going to stay the course in Iraq. And that’s why when we say something in Iraq, we’re going to do it. [4/16/04]
BUSH: And so we’ve got tough action in Iraq. But we will stay the course. [4/5/04]
Sound to me like someone, or everyone, in the White House doesn't know what they are talking about.
Friday, September 01, 2006
Where to Begin
I guess if you are a conservative especially in the Bush Administration you can have op-ed pieces anywhere. THere is more nonsense from Rummy in today's so-called liberal Los Angeles Times. While most of it is just the continued nonsense from the speech the other day one paragraph caught my eye:
"Then there is the case of Amnesty International, a long-respected human-rights organization, which called the detention facillity at Guantanamo Bay the "gulag of our times" - a reference to the vast system of Soviet prisons and labor camps where innocent citizens were starved, torturned and murdered. The facillity at Guantanamo Bay, by contrast, includes a volleyball court, basketball court, soccer field and library (the book most requested is Harry Potter). The food, served in accordance with Islamic diets, costs more per detainee than the average U.S. military ration."
I'd like to respond. First it's well known that the military IS torturing prisoners down there. There are numberous reports of that. Second there are innocent people there as well. People kidnapped from their country. Now not all of them are don't get me wrong but I bet there are more innocent people there then guilty. Third the rosey picture he wants to paint there is fine. The very fact is he said the military is not spending enough on our soldiers is reason enough for him to resign or be fired.
That's what I think.
"Then there is the case of Amnesty International, a long-respected human-rights organization, which called the detention facillity at Guantanamo Bay the "gulag of our times" - a reference to the vast system of Soviet prisons and labor camps where innocent citizens were starved, torturned and murdered. The facillity at Guantanamo Bay, by contrast, includes a volleyball court, basketball court, soccer field and library (the book most requested is Harry Potter). The food, served in accordance with Islamic diets, costs more per detainee than the average U.S. military ration."
I'd like to respond. First it's well known that the military IS torturing prisoners down there. There are numberous reports of that. Second there are innocent people there as well. People kidnapped from their country. Now not all of them are don't get me wrong but I bet there are more innocent people there then guilty. Third the rosey picture he wants to paint there is fine. The very fact is he said the military is not spending enough on our soldiers is reason enough for him to resign or be fired.
That's what I think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)