WOW ! More sheeples are waking up !

I can hear the neoCons speaking out of the other side of their mouth now: "Polls are inaccurate" ... the same neoCons who quote polls when they are in their favor.

At least here we don't deny the polls when they are against us ... we just wonder how the body politic could fall for the neoCon bu$hit ...

Slowly, the Ambien is wearing off.....

It is interesting to see this.

The Bible warns us that, what we sow, so shall we reap.

Repubs sowed anger, hatred, discord and fear to get where they are. And now it is time to reap what they sowed.

I cannot be happy about this... even though it is what I have been dreaming of for the past 5 years. To see your enemy suffer is of little comfort.

It makes me wonder why things needed to go to this extreme in the first place. They chose absolute power, and it has corrupted them absolutely.

May the coming Democrat era be long, peaceful and prosperous... with NO (or at least VERY LITTLE) corruption... with fair, voter verified elections.

If only the "sheeple" as Texas Lady calls them had woken up this time last year, we wouldn't still be in this mess!!!

President Kerry would have responded much better to Hurricane Katrina.

David - you missed one!

Only 2% of African Americans approve of Bush

It's great to see the people are starting to wake up.

There is a highway blogger around Sacramento who has been posting signs which read "WAKE UP"

I have no idea what he is actualy refering to, but I choose to assume he is talking about our government and telling the people to wake up about it. (Makes my drive home from work enjoyable)

Darn, I have to get my 'media' controls fixed, can't get any streaming and it is so frustrating. I rely on the blogger and commenters because I turned off MSM. To the topic, I had been a listener of Art Bell
(I know, that doesn't surprise anyone) for years. Art would never discuss politics. He retired and came back to his show several times and finally gave it up. The new (for a couple of years?) host of Coast to Coast AM is a guy that does talk about politics. I don't listen much but the few times I have he seems to be very much onto what is happening in our Country. Art created a huge show with a huge (worldwide) listening audience. Perhaps George Noory (new host) is getting out the message to the audience and this is helping to wake people. I don't know if the show lost listeners when Art left, but I like Noory and think he should be talking politics. Some guests are 'tin foil hat wearers' (my kind of people), but others are very very well informed(also my kind of people) I turned off the show because it was being run on a fox network in my area but I am able to get on another station from another state, a bit fuzzy at times. Guess I better start listening again on a regular basis and hope I have not spoken prematurely. M4

Hopefully this will begin the end of the most evil administration America has allowed.

We can hope, that the vote fraud, the real facts of 9/11 will come out. So we can be the America we once were, and not be ashamed of what we have become.

One can only wonder how this administration can sleep at night with so much blood on their hands.
Hell is too good for this group.

Does anyone else wonder, that if you read at all, the staunchest Republican doesn't begin to think?

Just the very latest where this administration dropped the forgiveness clause in the contract for money going into the Gulf states. The first time, states receiving money for a disaster will have to repay it. Now some of this money came from those states!

Yet Iraq has NO repayment clause from the Bush administration for all our money spent.

Truly Bush and Co. need to leave the United States and be the "leaders" for other countries. Obviously they think more of the Saudi's and others than the Americans footing the bills.

M4... Yes, let's get in a plug for George Noory on Coast to Coast AM--now the second most listened-to show on radio (Rush is first), with five-ten million listeners tuned in.

I listen most nights, and am often amazed at what his guests are allowed to say, politically. Noory tries to keep them from what he calls "bashing"--and it's usually Bush and the Reps who are getting bashed--but still a lot gets through. Recent guests include Alex Jones, Don McAlvany, John Gatto, also the author of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.

However, one subject Noory studiously avoids is the theft of the 2004 elections; he just won't go there. Warned away?

Readers here who are unfamiliar with Coast to Coast AM might tune in. It comes on at 10 PM every night, on thousands of stations--easy to find on any dial. Advisory: sometimes the interviews are about UFO's or the Freemasons or the Bible Code--but try to catch the more political stuff!

Laura Ingraham:

"Yeah, Bush's approval ratings are down. Gas prices are up. When gas is up, approval is down."

End of story.

Re: #6

Oops, I guess I did't read David's post well enough, or did he slip the 2% in later?

Texas Lady #9.

Bush the leader of a foreign country?
I don't know - that is probably even more scary!

Hi Texaslady,
Remember it is "ELECTION" fraud, not "VOTE" fraud
sorry but I had to clarify that

The Fate of the Phonies is coming home to roost. The American public realizes the falseness of this "administration," that, in the first place and second place, never won a presidential election in 2000 and 2004. This is a faux president who was/is being used to slick the pockets of the greedy oilers who don't care if our troops are sent to fight a war that isn't. Also profiting from these antics are the arms companies, including Carlyle, where bush is a synonym.
How tragic that so many lives have been taken for and by these evil bastards who made sure 911 would be clear sailing for another "Pearl Harbor" and would bring them untold wealth, no doubt stored in their off-shore accounts set up by the vice president and his goons.
How much longer do the stupid politicians in Congress go along with this cadre of cronies and criminals? Where the hell is the hangman?

Hmm.. anyone else having problems getting comments to go through? Getting a filtering message that I have questionable content... odd..

It seems black people don't care about George Bush either.

I guess I consider having my vote changed or discounted as vote fraud. Just a matter of semantics.

#15 Haven't experienced that one yet. "Questionable content", Brad must have BB on alert. Or, it could just be me and my oh so very suspicious mind. M4

Bluebear - yes it would be scarey but Bush & Co keep giving our jobs and money to everyone but our own people.

Have to say, at least the Democrats are smart enough to let some of us have more trickle down than the Republicans.

Never mind more phony terror alerts, I worry about terror incidents themselves, created to scare people back into the war president's arms. I belive they are desperate and insecure enough to do it. Then, the public now mostly not trusting him ever again, would pin it on him right or wrong. This would REALLY get his approval ratings down.

Of course nothing will change if we don't get congress back into rational people's hands in 06 and that won't happen unless at a minimum election fraud is at least partially prevented by passage of the bill in search of more co sponsors....what is the name and link to that again?

I'd like to make one point to correct something that is being said about the republicans in regards to the idea that Bush's flock is starting to wake up.

I've always been awake and so have the rest of republicans. If you ask any American right now without an active interest in politics, you will see that a huge majority of the country is angry simply because of gas prices. Pure and simple. If the gas prcices drop, you'll see the rating fly back up.

Last week's drastic drop is of course his own base of people turning on him with the last Supreme Court Nomination. Instead of nominating a true qualified individual like Janice Rogers Brown, he nominates a nitwit who has no experience or credentials whatsoever.

Let it be known though that Republicans are not turning away from Bush because the democrats were RIGHT. We still do not believe that Kerry or Hillary would do anything whatsoever.

It is not because of the phony charges brought up against Delay, it is not because we are against democracy in Iraq, it's not because of prison detainees at Guantanamo, and it sure as hell isn't because of a nut like Cindy Sheehan!

Funnily enough the same website pollster.com came out last month with projected results of 2008 showing republicans winning based on Clinton and Kerry running. Guiliani and McCain were the other side. So with all of this negative press about Bush and republicans, REPUBLICANS WOULD STILL win based upon those polls.

Criticizing Bush for other issues such as the nomination of Harriet Miers by Republicans only proves that Republicans are not biased and partisian monkies to Bush. Though Democrats will do their best to portray it this way in a big attempt to shine for a few minutes.

Can't say as I blame them, looks like 2008 is going to look just like 2004 for the Barbra Streisands of the world. .

#s 15 & 18

I have had serveral strange things happen lately.

This morning I couldn't type in comment block - I had to type it in word then copy and paste.

Every time I tried to type the page would reset to the bottom.

Then yesterday (I think) the same thing happened in the "Link Text" block in the community assistant.

Then of course there is the Grey Matter 1.3 box that pops up if you forget to type in your name when you hit the submit button.

Steve F - You sound like a moderate republican, thanks for your insight. Isn't it true that party has been overtaken by the hard right? I believe they will continue tipping it over so far until it balances. And I think a significant % of GOP folks cannot now ignore the lack of critical thinking leading to unecessary deaths and huge deficits the Bush administration has brought us.

But people vote with their pocketbook thats for sure, I have heard normally compassionate people say they don't care what WALMART does to small town america, jobs, wages, etc. its a few cents cheaper so they shop there.

With only 2% of Blacks supporting Bush & the GOP, they will get really fucked out of their votes the next election.

It appears Ted Kennedy supports Kerry for 2008. I am very skeptical of Kerry after seeing him in action or lack of action after the 2004 election. In 2000 at least Gore, did have backbone to stand tall and fight for votes. Repugs made fun of him, but he did take a stand. I don't think I could support Kerry, so I guess maybe I'll sit the next election out. Why vote?? According to Steve F., the decisions been made. Let's have pollster.com decide!

DAVEK Thanks for your response. I am viewed by most as a biased right winger. I am pro war, pro life, and am a self employed man who likes low taxes.

Even hard nosed right wingers like Ann Coulter are opposing Bush right now for Harriet Miers and has made other pokes at him in the last few months.

The fact is, right wingers are principled and we don't follow everyone around and act as apologists for anyone if we disagree with them, even if the person is the President that we elected twice.

Which explains our outrage at Tom Delay's indictment as well, if we truly believed Tom Delay was a criminal, we'd say something about it. Ann has made comments about Karl Rove as well, isn't she supposed to be acting as an apologist for him?

The point is, is to make you understand that right wingers live by a set of philisophical principles. We don't buy into the Cindy Sheehan rhetoric, we believe GWB is NOT evil, and can criticize him when it is needed, particularily when he has screwed his entire base with this nomination.

I still think there are very very bad people in both parties. Congress isn't doing anything and the House isn't doing anything, because they're all fat and happy collecting on all their profits! They rule and we drool.

Impeach and/or jail most of them and then REPLACE THE REST ASAP. I want We the People to rule again and them to drool behind bars.

Don't forget to travel with cameras everyone!! Take pics of anything unusual in your area. Make sure there are no federal "exercises" in your neighborhood too, we all know there were on 9/11 and on the morning of London's bombs, both. Hey, they got away with it twice....or at least so far.....

OT for a second - here's an article from today in a "mini-MSN" (hey, it's a start!) venture into the world of reality about Bush. It's about him not wanting to give up torturing his prisoners, to the point of not passing this year's budget, which could do a lot of harm. It's from the Univeristy of Illinois' site (at Champaign-Urbana) and it's title is "Column: Abuses of power". I guess Cheney threatened VETO. Now there's a word never used in Bush's tenure, until now. He really really really wants to keep up the torture. How sick. I hope people better wake up soon.

Link here

"Why vote?? According to Steve F., the decisions been made. Let's have pollster.com decide!"

If you scroll up, you will see one liberal talk about how republicans talk about how unimportant polls are when it serves their purpose. Can the same be said for liberals when they make statements like this one?

The fact is I dont buy into polls, but since liberals prattle on about how important they are when it comes to low approval ratings, it's apparent that liberals believe in them. So which is it?

Steve: I too own my own business, love free enterprise properly regulated (we now see Adam Smith a hopelessly outdated naive romantic), supported the war in Afganistan and yes, was even reluctantly dragged into believing this invasion of Iraq was necessary after listening to every word uttered by Colin Powell, an honorable man I felt, on that address he gave to the UN. I believed him, he has of course now said that was the darkest day in his life, will regret it forever, etc. Let my guard down and never will again with the Neocons. Project for the New American Century says it all.

If some Repubs like you can see each issue clearly and make up your minds without the "groupthink" phenonmenon thats great, then I certainly hope you appreciate the extreme danger posed by our current election system....please spread the word to your brethern. If right wing values truly are in the majority in the land thats OK too, but only after the Diebolds are gone or submit to open source code so we have some sort of an actual election again. Your GOP guys cheated (hey it was not you personally of course) and our Democracy is dead right now because of this. You agree with me, that this is the one overarching problem that trumps just about everything right now?

Steve-O #21,

You are probably right about gas prices. If gas prices dropped, Bush would get a boost.

You say you have always been awake, however...

Conservatives are mad because Miers is incompetant, but where's the anger at other incompetant appointments? Mike Brown of FEMA had NO experience, Americans died because of it, not to mention wasting tax dollars, because incompetant Bush loyalists waste tons of money. There are "Mike Browns" in all kinds of departments - protecting our border security, our food & drug supply (FDA), etc. I guess I should be glad that staunch conservatives (who claim to want a small & effective government?) have finally, for once, got mad about one of GWB's many incompetant appointments in GWB's Big Government. Bush's cronyism gives aid and comfort to the enemy. Think about that. Remember that. Powerless liberals don't give aid and comfort to the enemy. Bush appointing people like Mike Brown to manage our emergency response to terrorism and natural disaster gives aid and comfort to the enemy.

I'll agree that Kerry or (especially) Hillary would be terrible candidates for 2008.

Tom Delay is one of the most corrupt politicians to ever walk the Earth. You need to wake up a little there. The charges are not phony. The charges are the tip of the ice burg. You have to realize much of the success of the Republican elite is money laundering from big corporations that don't give a fuck about you, your life, or the greatness of America. The GOP uses that money to make you feel good about the politicians who fuck you over year after year. The Dems do it too, but the current GOP has it down to an art form.

Nobody is against democracy in Iraq. But some people think war has no cost, while others say "At what cost?" I would love for people to be free, but Americans come first. The projected $$ cost of Iraq, if it last just a couple more years, is well over a trillion dollars. Doesn't sound conservative to me.

Cindy Sheehan may not be the most eloquent speaker, but she is not a nut. Everything Bush told us about Iraq was a LIE. Bush sent our brave soldiers to die in Iraq based on WMD intelligence he knew was bad. Niger uranium. Aluminum tubes. Mobile Bio Labs. "Fully Reconstituted Nuclear weapons". All based on evidence the Admin KNEW was bad, yet said was "solid". Have you ever wondered why Bush never got angry at the bad intelligence? If you were president, and went to war on bad intelligence, you'd be so pissed that you...hand out medals of freedom? When anyone points out the truth about WMD, like Joe Wilson, they smear, lie, distort, issue fake terror alerts, demote, etc. Everyone who is a loyal liar gets promoted and rewarded in the Bush admin.

The fact that Bush protects Karl Rove, who leaked CIA information that undermined our ability to track down WMD (that's what Plame's associates were doing before Novak blew the cover of Brewster, Jennings & Associates - Plame's front company). Bush's protection of Rove undermines this country. Don't take my word for it, that's what the retired CIA folks say. According to ex-CIA, this unpresidented deliberate leak of classified information, for revenge, from the highest levels of the Bush admin, that is covered up by the Bush admin, undermines the USA each and every day Bush protects Rove and everyone else.

Do you think it is crazy to oppose a war based on lies? It's killing our soldiers everyday. It's costing over $5 billion a month. Do you support a war based on lies? Bush told the truth you say? You need to wake up.

One last thing I saw in a recent press conference transcript that I thought was spooky, and I'll quit for the night, I promise lol. When they pressed Bush about (I'm starting to like those WH press people) the Miers nomination for the, oh.. 3rd or 4th time, at least, Bush finally told us how it is (about 3/4 the way through the transcript):

I know people are jumping to all kinds of conclusions. And that's fine. That's part of our process, you know. People are quick to opine.

And I'm hopeful she'll get confirmed. I certainly don't want to prejudge the senators. Somebody asked me about trying to avoid conflict. That's up to them to decide how they're going to treat this good woman.

*sigh* anyone else find a problem with being part of the process (para 1), yet not matter?

Transcript from the Washington Post

No, I disagree that there is some right-winged fixing of elections going on guaranteeing office to republicans. Democrats have all sorts of conspiracy theories as to why Bush won both elections. Not to mention the same party who accused blacks of being stupid and implying that the problem with the butterfly ballot was their fault. I would like to see one Democrat, even if it's you, pick one anti-Bush theory and actually stick to one. It seems to me the reasons keep changing.

There is no "groupthink", that's the point. I debate within my party all the time. I used to be a liberal and voted for Bill Clinton in his first term and realized my mistakes once I moved out on my own and started paying taxes.

Colin Powell I know has talked in specific terms of certain parts of the war that he disagrees with, but I've never heard him publicly announce being "anti-war" at least to the point that liberals and Cindy Sheehan are.

I contend, we could not trust weapons inspectors from a ridiculous organization like the U.N. after hearing motives of Hanz Blix and Secretary Annan for their own interests in Iraq.

If we disagree on that, fine. But that has always been my stance, and I choose to view the glass as half full rather than half emtpy. We captured Saddam, they voted, it took Japan 5 years after WW2 was won to complete their constitution, and it took Germany 50 years to complete theirs! Based on that and the fact that we lost more lives in single battles during WW2 than the Iraq war in it's entirety, I'd say this war is going magnificiently.

Benjamin075 #30 - Wow, well put! hey anybody else fall for that "mobile lab aerial photos" crap from Powell like I did? Please tell me I am not the only progressive that suffered from that "temporary insanity - lapse of judgement - I'll do anything to protect my family" mindset!

And Cindy may be just unsophisticated common people but she cuts through the crap beautifully. The only thing I can come close to quoting is like this: "its a free country, you can choose to support or oppose this war. If you support it, enlist and get your ass over to Iraq, theres someone that needs to come home and see their family. If you oppose it you need to spread the word every day" Speaking truth to power.

#22 Interesting. I would make a suggestion that anyone having problems post. I need to know I am not the one causing my problem...which I always believe I am due to my lack of knowledge.

As aside for the FOB, hope they are zillionaires, if not, they are already in our boat and we will take off their rose colored glasses before we make them walk the plank. LOL. M4

Steve #21

You state that the polls are low because of the price of gas. While I have to agree with Bejammin075 and Davek about the fact that people vote with their pocket books and a drop in gas prices would be a boost to Bush.

But there seems to be a lot more to it....

"2) The Katrina Job Rating. The analysis by Gallup's David Moore includes a helpful table that shows how the Katrina specific job rating compares to other issue job ratings of President Bush. As the table shows (MP recreated it to make it more legible in our format), the Katrina rating is slightly higher than Bush's overall rating, and higher still than ratings of Bush's performance on the economy and Iraq.

All of this leads Gallup's Frank Newport conclude, in his first Gallup Blog post since February (thanks to attentive MP reader "Y" for the tip):

I also suggest caution in accepting the argument that the hurricane caused precipitous damage to the president's standing. Americans had significantly downgraded their assessment of Bush before Katrina . . .

Most available data reinforce the fact that Bush's handling of Katrina is not his greatest weakness at this point. In Gallup's polls, Bush does worse on his handling of Iraq, the economy, foreign affairs, and in particular, gas prices . . .

In short, it is a mistake to assume that the public's mood, views of the economy, views of the top problems facing the country, and views of the administration have undergone profound changes as a result of Hurricane Katrina. The drift toward negativity on these measures was well underway in the late summer. The same problems that faced the nation --- and President Bush --- before the hurricane face him after the hurricane."

More Here

Steve F - curious have you ever served in the military or any of your family? Really faced death or the choice of killing someone?

I have yet to find anyone that has ever fought in a war, for war. Most ex soldiers are very reluctant to send anyone into hell. I volunteer at our VA hospital and not one patient has said his or her loss was worth it, many would like two minutes with Bush to hit him.

It is so very easy to send someone else for an idealogical cause or in this case and as in Vietnam for oil and because egos would not admit a mistake.

Ok, we toppled Saddam, now lets rebuild, get out and start actually helping the Iraqi people instead of burning their cities and tearing up their infra structure.

You say you have a business, well how far would you get without a business plan for the next year?
Can you see a plan in Iraq or even in New Orleans?

Would you partner in a business with a man who never suceeded in a business? Usually successful people are the ones to lead.

Alot of questions, however, you stated you are a thinking Republican, please let me hear your opinion.

SteveF: Hey WW II was an entirely justified war with a clear reason, sorry cannot accept your comparisons. And to say that we can't learn something in the 60 years since that has been over, I sure as hell hope we have moved on from high altitude-bombing, blitzkrieg, etc. so any war nowadays is bound to have far fewer casualties especially given the nature of fighting invisible insurgents (that we train for the Iraqi police/military by day only to have them give info to the insurgents by night), the point is we must as a society try to eliminate war as much as possible, remember your buddy's term "only as a last resort?" If only he actually meant it.

The "scandal" of Annan's oil for food program that Neocons tried to make trouble with was discredited (do the reserach) I will find the link for Powell's statement of regret, help anybody???

Even if you believe we have had squeaky-clean elections in 2000 and 2004 (trying to suppress laughter here) or even just within the normal range of error, why on earth would you support the use of black boxes controlled by ANY kind of partisan company? Both parties would do it if they had the chance, we must remove all doubt.

Response to Benjamin#30

"Conservatives are mad because Miers is incompetant, but where's the anger at other incompetant appointments? Mike Brown of FEMA had NO experience, Americans died because of it"

First of all, if conservatives had their way, ridiculous organizations like FEMA would not be around and federalized and promised out to the Godly promises set forth to them by dreamers and democrats. I don't believe in FEMA, I don't care about the FDA positions, I don't care about the UN Ambassadorships (dems filibustered John Bolton), I mean seriously you could put Teddy Kennedy in one or all of those positions for all I care.

When it comes to Miers, THIS IS THE SUPREME COURT....this is a lifetime sinecure position, it's the 3rd branch of our government!

As much of a nitwit as Michael Brown may be, I do contend that the local government and people in Louisiana needed to be the ones on the spot. Disasters happen everywhere...avalanches in Colorado, tornados in the Midwest, Earthquakes in California. New Orleans had been 20 feet below sea level ever since the Lousiana purchase in 1803 (Thanks France!) and we have gone though dozens of presidents since. The boil down truth is, that all presidents appointed nitwits to organizations like FEMA for years now. Also New Orleans had dodged this bullet for 201.5 years and the bullet finally hit them during the Bush administration where it served the left wings agenda who had basically run out of evey attempt to debate war and resorted to electing a spokesperson like Cindy Sheehan to articulate their thoughts since the old Downing Street Memo failed.

I respect your opinion but there is nothing to answer to in your Delay paragragh other than saying that the same ideas have been attempted by left wingers like Katrina VandenHeuvel and failed miserably. Admonish means: "to indicate duties or obligations to b : to express warning or disapproval to especially in a gentle, earnest, or solicitous manner", that's it! We are waiting for proof of something now, and waiting for conviction. But until then, let's just point out that Pelosi and Dean have publicly attacked Delay and have made it their mission to go after him. The proof is out there. Not to mention the fact that the indictment came less than a year before Delay's re-election. Coincidence?

Bush did not LIE about the war at all! I am glad that liberals think its a bad thing to lie now, but now they should learn what a lie is: it was Saddam who made a purposed bluff to the UN about WMD and after 9/11 and it was apparent that we could not take that threat lightly even after a corrupt organization like UN and Hanz Blix and Secretary Annan had told us for their OWN reasons, that Iraq was safe. Nobody knew, and nobody will know. The fact is that we need to move on from that part of the debate and get behind ouor troops now so that we win. You wanna bet me after the war is won that liberals will or will not be saying that "oh it's great now that Iraq is free, but we would have done it better".

Cindy Sheehan is seperate from those arguments. She is a press ham who was never taken seriously in her life, and who is, at the cost of her son's honor, allowed herself to be used by the far left wing who's intellectual attempts to debate war had failed miserably including the ever promising Downing Street Memo, to act as a reason to re-write foreign policy. Pure and simple.

Okay, thanks for the discussion, I can't possibly write anymore, sorry for the long post LOL.

Steve K Not quite did all Presidents appoint nitwits to FEMA, Clinton appointed and FUNDED FEMA with a man with experience. He put political cronies in the jobs where they did no harm.

I imagine you also believe that we most build more prisons rather than provide education and help for children. I think Ebeneezer Scrooge also shared your thinking.

TEXASLADY #39

"Steve K Not quite did all Presidents appoint nitwits to FEMA, Clinton appointed and FUNDED FEMA with a man with experience. He put political cronies in the jobs where they did no harm."

What was the name of this man? Also, how did he react when the biggest hurricane in 200-300 years hit? Oh wait, THERE WASN'T ONE during the Clinton administration. On a lighter note I have to say of all of us Clinton haters, during the Clinton years, among all of the Monica jokes and whatnot, WE NEVER blamed a hurricane on him!

In addition, political cronies are wrong no matter what and where. I agree (unless you missed my point earlier) that Miers must be a crony and she's not nearly as qualified as Janice Rogers Brown is to sit on the Supreme Court.

Lastly, I have family members and friends who served in the military. That argument is silly. To say that in order to support something, you must join something. If you truly believe that, join your local fire fighters and police department tomorrow in fighting crime and fighting fires, otherwise you do not suppor them.

Be a good liberal and at least debate the ideas honestly. Say something effective and persuasive. Are you for throwing pies at conservative speakers as well?

Steve K #39 No need to LOL about your long post, or cackle, or writhe in synthetic mirth ...

It is obviously (to us) simply more self-validating rhetoric which wing nut types use to self hypnotize themselves, numb and dumb and dumber themselves, and care less ... and less ... and less about everything ... except themselves.

Obviously the majority in the polling, the majority of the american people, and the majority of the people in the world are second place to such self-aggrandizing energies you splat upon us.

What you need to do instead of LOL is to apologize for the hundreds of thousands of useless deaths, damages, lies, and corruption you seek to pronounce holy by such sprinklings ...

We can still laugh about it ... but it does get tiring sometimes.

DAVEK

"Hey WW II was an entirely justified war with a clear reason, sorry cannot accept your comparisons."

Like now, not all absoutley agreed with FDR's rush to war.

The comparrisons are valid. Countries without democracy and constitutions. SO are you saying that even if the war was justified that you would say based on my comparisons earlier that the war has gone badly, considering the comparisons of casualties and time lines of constituions being written?

To Dredd:

"It is obviously (to us) simply more self-validating rhetoric which wing nut types use to self hypnotize themselves, numb and dumb and dumber themselves, and care less ... and less ... and less about everything ... except themselves."

Wow talk about self hypnosis. At least DAVEK provided a little logical thought.

Your entire post was a Cindy Sheehan speech, the only thing you forgot to do, was call Bush a terrorist.

Sorry for the "LOL", perhaps the website we are typing on should erase the smiles directly to the left of this box in which we are typing in right now to erase the connotation of positive human emotion such as laughter or smiles.

By the way, ever notice how terrorists never laugh or smile as well? Perhaps you could find more common ground with one of them seeings as they are probably more prone to writing with less "LOL" than me.

Compelling as always. Good old liberals.

Texaslady, Yeah it is symantics, thats what the Baker Carter comission is using, vote r fraud instead of election fraud, to steer the masses away from the real issue, it makes a difference when they form their talking points that way,

John Kerry and Al Gore were both excellent candidates and honorable men. They easily won the exit polls but lost the fraudulent vote count. I am a mathematician and I can assure you that the probabilty of exit polls being wrong is so small that it would not happen in one out of 10,000 elections.

If John Kerry runs again, I will support him. He will be a strong and fair leader. No democrat could have won in 2000 or 2004. The vote count was compromized.

Bu$hit at work again. I go to right wing blogs (this time Drudge Report, where they [link here], unlike Steve F) have the capacity to see the truth now more and more. The stench has even reached their nostrils.

They link to a report that shows the PURE PROPAGANDA bu$hit carried off (link here) today ... praise the laaard toadies.

Steve F (my grade for your rambling), here is you telling yourself how great you are now since you left employment and are now on your own and paying less taxes ... wooopeee freaking do ... stoke yourself in public for heavens sake

Steve F.. I wasn't gonna get in this, but you Repugs really burn my ass..

First off.. Shrubby DID lie to get us into Iraq.. He was TOLD LONG before he wen't "public" with the info, that the "yellowcake info was wrong and forged", yet he STILL tried to make it look "real" (just pushed it off onto British Intel, and at the same time exposed an undercover CIA agent? HELLOO??). The Downing Street Memos indicate that they PLAN was to invade LONG before they started making sure things were being set.. which means they were LYING about things to make sure it LOOKED like we needed to be in there. If I bothered to take the time, I could likely get at least 5 serious LIES perpitrated by Shrubby (and his cronies).

As far as "justified" in being in Iraq, are you on crack? How many countries in the world have no Constitution? have no "nice" leader or Democracy? LOTS, right? we gonna take on the responsibility as Americans to shove our foot up their asses? ... um.. NO? And, why are we busy trying to "fix other countries" when we don't even make sure all our OWN people are taken care of? 700,000 HOMELESS in this country? And what Democracy there?? Have you not noticed that the U.S. is driving their constitution to be benificial to the U.S.? and NOT to the people of Iraq? and the people of Iraq are NOT pleased with that? As is TRUE form for the U.S., we're setting them up for exploitation by our rich elite.. hello?

As for Powell.. He LIED during the FIRST invasion of Iraq, as did Daddy Bush. Remeber the photo of tanks along the Saudi border? FAKE.. remeber Saddam killing babies in hospitals? LIES and fabrications by the Kuwati Embassidor.. uh.. woops? WTF? Why weren't those people put in PRISON for their lies then? Instead, Shrubby took lessons (well, other people who are still in the game there) and they set up a bunch of LIES and fabrications -again-.. yet, still, no one goes to prison? Though, putting criminals in prison isn't on the Repug agenda, unless they are guilty of getting blown ..

"By the way, ever notice how terrorists never laugh or smile as well? Perhaps you could find more common ground with one of them seeings as they are probably more prone to writing with less "LOL" than me."

Another example of Repug ignorance and falicies to get their point.. Problem is, lots of people are just too unobservant enough to see it (which is what Repugs count on more than anything else.. take advantage of "average" folks who don't have education.. oh, duh.. and prevent the masses from BECOMING educated so they can CONTINUE using logical falicies against people).. So, terrorists don't smile or laugh and that means Dems are like them (the association you are trying to make) cause they want to stifle your laughing? Yet, there is LAUGHING and CHEERING in the streets by terrorists every time they "deal a blow to the infidels".. interesting.. so, not only are you LYING (intentionally since I doubt you believe terrorists don't laugh), you are trying to use some of the oldest tricks in the Repug book.. Pathetic, in true Repug form.

Now, before you go being a tool and trying to "lash back at Dems".. I'm no Democrat.. I dislike corruption in all forms and there are plenty of Dems that should be brought down as well (though, I"m hard pressed to find -anything- close to what Repugs do on a regular basis). Dems these days are more like Pugs than I care to see, and other times they go SOO far off the left that it's pathetic.. But know what? At least, when we're talking about "all things equal" and "nothing criminal", Dems (in principle) error on the side of PEOPLE, Repugs error on the side of RICH FOLKS, over and over and over. Personally, I don't give a rat's ass if you want to keep more money in your pocket.. if keeping that money means leaving Americans out in the street starving so you can upgrade your TV every year instead of every other year, TOO BAD. We -all- need to contribute.. and the Republican mantra is, "rich folks should be allowed to keep everything, let the poor help eachother". That's not acceptable.. that's the mentality our Founding Fathers were getting AWAY FROM.. You want to be an eliteist to the extent of letting people die so you can have more, despite having way more than "most" anyway? Then get the fuck out of my country.. Government is supposed to be OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE...and PROVIDE FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE.. 700,000 homeless isn't providing for the "general welfare"..

Then you have the entire "religious" problem of "republicans" and "conservatives".. Take your damn bible and shove it up your arse. If you want to live your life according to a nice story which is manipulated by folks looking to live high on the hog, so be it.. but you have no right trying to shove that crap down my throat. Religion is something that is meant to be "personal", not "political".. if you don't have a better reason for a law than 'the bible says it should be so', then your law is ignorant, period, end of story. I get tired of Religious types tyring to twist things into making it seem like Religion is rooted in our 'initial' heritage. Go read the documents and essays from our Founding Fathers. They were NOT Christains.. The "logical falicy" of "our laws are based on god's law" is ignorant.. our laws are based on logic and reason (for the most part), and things required for a "society to function" are INDEPENDANT of religion. Showing the 10 commandments is a violation of our Constitution, period. Forcing the Pledge or allowing for "prayer" in school and other such acts are also violations of the Constitution.. Not to mention, the Pledge originally was WITHOUT the word GOD.. that was added by our Government during the height of the Cold War when they believed Commies were "godless", and adding "god" in the pledge "proved we were right"..

Remeber the terrorists you talked about? they do it in the name of "god".. you psycho right-wingers are no better. Starving your own countrymen for profits, letting corperations shit on society for profits.. your god is money.

No Dredd no "LOL" or cute emotion symbals allowed LOL (sorry couldnt help myself).

If you see my website, you will see that I have a link to the DrudgeReport as one of my favorite links.

For the link you provided, you will see that Deb Reichmann (by searching google LOL) is a liberal inspired journalist who has been following the war since day one.

I read the news everyday, and am full of facts. If you scroll up you will see tha I am not a total apologist for Bush.

Secondly I haven't left employment, my family and myself run a firm we have had for 16 years now. We've worked very hard, pay our own health insurance, pay our own way for everything (plus have to pay 15.3% of our earnings into Social Security) as opposed to "employed" individual who pay 7.65% and the other half is covered by their employers. We pay it all on our own, we do not rely on federalizations to pay our way. This is what equality means. Eating bologna sandwiches everyday for three years, working outrageous hours to build our business without federalized overtime, meant we were willing to sacrifice to build our own. Now that we are successful, democrats want to raise the amount of the tax that higher income individuals to pay for the poor after we were the ones who sacrificed and worked our fingers to the bones, we are a little peeved!

We are giving enough, we don't need Hillary to pay for our Healthcare. Next time you whine about it, or any other liberal, pay one insurance premium for a quarter for any individual who is self employed.

Most of us though are fine with it, just leave us alone and pay your own way .

Hey Steve F!

Does your "friend" the Gay Conservative Dick Drier get any love in Washington!????

I heard they even ammended the constitution to ban him from LIVING with anybody!!!!!!

Hahahahahaha, guess that means the sucker has to live with JEFF GANNON NOW!?!??!

Why the hell do you even follow hypocrites like that, Steve?!?!?? The Iraq war is your FAULT. You bought the bullshit and followed these hypocrites, pay the price instead of blame those who did nothing.

Doug E.

...Steve F said on 10/13/2005 @ 5:21pm PT...
"I disagree that there is some right-winged fixing of elections going on guaranteeing office to republicans."

All the evidence points to theft. Have you got any which indicates it was all a coincidence that all the 'errors' and 'anomalies' favored Bush? Do you believe that all the individuals who aledge they were illegally prevented from voting or that their votes were thrown away or disallowed were lying? Do you disregard the evidence that in Ohio there weren't enough voting machines provided to areas where there were very large turnouts of Democrats? Do the exit polls which were sufficient to force a revote in Ukraine but were ignored in the U.S. not bother you? How do you dismiss the Conyers report of irregularities in Ohio? Does the evidence that the electronic voting machines are hackable and unauditable seem insufficient? What evidence is on your side of the ledger to balance all the Dems have presented?

Steve F:
"I'd say this war is going magnificiently."

So, what is the legal justification for being there?

Glad to have had Steve F's thoughts and comments on this thread. Reading his close-minded, party-first, anti-American views really serves to harden my resolve to do everything I can to bring down this disastrous administration and the lemmings who serve them (like Steve F. who actually thinks that right-wing nuts, like himself, are open-minded and willing to question this administration in ANY meaningful way- what a laugh!). What people like Steve F. are incapable of understanding is that many, if not most, of those of us who frequent this blog and generally agree with its themes are not strongly affiliated with either of the 2 major political parties. We may lean more to the traditions of the Democratic Party (traditions that are championed less and less by the current Democratic Party) but we are in no way wedded to that or any political party in the way this guy is to the criminalized version of the Republican Party that now runs amok in this country. Sorry Steve, but you are a pompous jerk who has allied himself with people and ideas that are self-serving, anti-democratic and will not stand the test of time.

SAVANSTER:

"First off.. Shrubby DID lie to get us into Iraq.. He was TOLD LONG before he wen't "public" with the info, that the "yellowcake info was wrong and forged", yet he STILL tried to make it look "real"

WHO told him that? Hanz Blix? The corrupt U.N.? Who are you trusting here? Even Howard Dean, the democratic party's spokesperson (aside from Cindy Sheehan of course) on Meet the Press with Tim Russert admitted there was no substantial "lie" but then said that GWB suggested that Iraq had ties with Osama in a "nuanced" way (translation: NO QUOTE for proof just Doctor Dean's obeservation). We went from mainstream democrats accusing the President of blatant lying to "nuanced" suggestion. Now if you believe that you have substantial facts to prove lies, by all means, contant Washington D.C. there are a few radical democrats on Capital Hill right now that are losing their hair that could use the facts and logic that you have to contribute.

"As far as "justified" in being in Iraq, are you on crack? How many countries in the world have no Constitution? have no "nice" leader or Democracy? LOTS, right?"

Who suggested that Iraq was the only sick country? Bush didn't, I didn't, I am not sure who you are debating here. But at the same time, can you tell me of all of the sad countries how many of them gassed 300,000 of their own people due to the Oil for Food scandal? Liberals for instance were enthusiastic about going to war in the Balkans based on some pretty phony numbers on human rights abuses, and compared to Milosevich...SADDAM IS A MONSTER! In addition, Barbara Boxer herself during the confirmation hearings of Condoloeeza Rice said "I never want Saddam to see the light of day again, but I am against the way we did it, we could have went in and nabbed him peacefully like we did with Milosevich", after Dr. Rice explained that with a regime like Saddam's, and after defying the President's request to surrender peacefully, this was IMPOSSIBLE.

"So, terrorists don't smile or laugh and that means Dems are like them (the association you are trying to make)"

No that comment was directed at Dredd, were you able to read the post entirely? By the way if Ann Coulter had paraphrased and added ideas to a liberal's statement like you had with mine, liberals would have crucified her!

"Then you have the entire "religious" problem of "republicans" and "conservatives".. Take your damn bible and shove it up your arse."

What are you talking about? I never brought up religion or God in any of my posts. Perhaps the crack pipe that you are alleging I am hitting has been smoked by you in it's entirety.

"The Downing Street Memos indicate that they PLAN was to invade LONG before they started making sure things were being set"

The Downing Street Memo was laughed at and refuted 3 months ago, this is why liberals had to embrace Cindy Sheehan to further their attempt to debate. But I am glad you brought that up, it seems that Saddam had been at war with our country before, yes that's true. But it was 1997, after Saddam was indeed deemed by the democrats as a "non threat" to the U.S., that George Stephanopolous advised Clinton to assassinate him because he believed otherwise. Could you imagine how the liberal media would have reacted to a "right winged relgious nut" like Pat Robertson saying the same thing about Hugo Chavez who wages war with America everyday in the press? Oh wait, WE HAVE SEEN THE LIBERAL REACTION to Pat Robertson. It was in the news a month ago, remember?

Your post is a lot of words of a small ineffective attack on me when you apparently do not know me. It was fun answering it, but you haven't provided much in terms of fact.

You just rehashed the debated arguments in the downing street memo with a little more compelling profanity .

Thanx.

Steve F. are you a total moron!???

The Downing Street Memo was never refuted at all! The war was based on total complete lies.

Downing Street Memo-Bush changed his story ever since

Your ignorance is astounding. They even almost started the RESOLUTION OF INQUIRY on the entire memo itself, but it was blocked by one neocon voter who wanted to cover up the lies!!!!!!!

Total joke. You and the rest of the conservatives are the laughing stock of the republican party. Tally ho to your demise, at 29% approval and falling old chap!

Doug E.

Steve F - you are curiously silent about Ohio and the stolen elections....gone to bed?

Steve (you should be so lucky to share a name with me) IT WAS A JOKE!

you said:

"like Steve F. who actually thinks that right-wing nuts, like himself, are open-minded and willing to question this administration in ANY meaningful way- what a laugh"

Well Steve, if you read most of what I am saying here you will see that most of my defense of Bush was for war, which I support.

However, you will also see that I criticize the administration on other issues, most recently the Miers nomination. He's nuts for nominating her!

I do fight for my party, that is correct. My comments here are not forced, they are answers to comments made by others as I truly enjoy debate. But your idea that I am a hard nosed-Bush sheep-aggressive defender at no cost is factually false if you READ my posts.

So find one thing in my posts that you want to debate with me, and we can discuss it. but don't unfairly generalize me to avoid true discussion that requires conherent thinking.

Doug, give it up! The Downing Street Memo has been a proven joke of liberal rants that have been put forth since 2002.

What they did was, took basic liberal rants, the most popular ones, and said "okay let's throw in a few words, make it look official, and post it.

It was posted in May, got about 1 week of coverage on CNN and Fox News. Was debated for 13 seconds, and laughed off.

The postings on the website are becoming more sparce...the last one was SEPTEMBER 2ND by some nut with a screenname that starts with "Iraq" and had a whole 8 comments that entertained it.

Come on, if liberals truly had hard fact with the Memo, they WOULDN'T HAVE NEEDED CINDY SHEEHAN! LOL.

Oh by the way, you said:

"Steve F. are you a total moron!???"

....and all you are saying...is give peace a chance.

DAVEK sorry i am a little overwhelemed here. (By the way I am working to beat the October 17th filing deadline for my clients so i appreciate the company even if I am hated LOL)

The Ohio AND Florida in both cases were decided upon by the rule of law. Which proves one of my anti-Bush rants.

Let's take 2000 for example. Katherine Harris followed the procedures of law that got him the win for Florida in 2000. In turn he asked Katherine to NOT run for Senate in flashing forward a couple years later. That was cruddy of him i my opinion.

Why I dont take the whole "voter fraud" allegations seriously is because after the second election when liberals actually agreed that Bush had won fair and square, they then were making silly statements like "How can 88 million people be that dumb"?
Now months and months later we are alleging that he got it corruptly and illegally. This is tiresome and pointless just like the Delay and Frist allegations - indictments. All we are hearing is "republican republican republican, corrupt corrupt corrupt" all the hysterical accusations but NO CONVICTIONS.

Futhermore, just like arguing WHY the war was started or WHY Bush was elected, the FACT is, we are where we are and why can't liberals throw away their emtpy rants, unite, and start right now with new ideas to world issues? They seem to be the "rut" party. Anybody need a shovel?

Doug went so far as to call me a moron or make fun of the fact that I am a gay conservative. In his eyes, gays, just like the blacks, should be convinced that republicans HATE them in order to get more votes for their base. When we fail to buy into the rhetoric, like myself, or countless other gay conservatives OR blacks like Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas, or Larry Elder beg to differ, they become enraged. Why is that?

"SAVANSTER:

"First off.. Shrubby DID lie to get us into Iraq.. He was TOLD LONG before he wen't "public" with the info, that the "yellowcake info was wrong and forged", yet he STILL tried to make it look "real"

WHO told him that? Hanz Blix? The corrupt U.N.? Who are you trusting here?

Before I even bother reading more.. Hey.. IDIOT.. let's stick to ONE point, not try to "distract" by spinning 2 things.

YELLOWCAKE.. not "Osama".. Remeber Joseph Willams? Valeri Plame's husband? and the CIA? and Tennet? THEY told Bush BEFORE he LIED to everyone about it.. OUR people told them OVER AND OVER (and we have documents to PROVE it) that there was no attempt to buy yellowcake, so Bush said it was BRIT intel that said he tried.. AFTER knowing it was WRONG.. So, when someone KNOWS what they are saying is WRONG based on TRUSTED sources.. and do it to IMPLY something else.. well, to me, that's CRIMINAL and UNEXCUSABLE.. For -anyone- to try and "justify" the lies is pathetic.. truely.. and reflects on just how ignorant you are.

And to try and spin it is laughable .. especially here.. we're not a bunch of poor uneducated folks here that will get all lost in your spin.. we know the facts, and find it amazing that, -despite- those facts, people like you keep making excuses and trying to defend your undefendable position.

Steve F,

You are a total fricking joke!!!

Do you mean the 2% of black african americans who actually give a crap about bush!????
Black America

Do you mean Super republican Jack Abramoff who was convicted for fraud and conspiracy, and can't leave the country now!???
Jack Abramoff

Do you mean the three time CONVICTED GOP operative who jammed phones for the 2002 and 2004 races?!????

Do you mean the same Governor of Kentucky who was convicted for discrimination AGAIN!????

Do you mean the Texas Congressman who was arrested for drinking alcohol again!??
Kevin Brady arrested

Do you mean the GOP heavy-weight Tom Delay who has violated law and will be convicted on money laundering charges!????
Beyond Delay

Do you mean the SAME Downing Street memos which convinced 64% of the public to turn against the war and also demand withdrawls!???
Downing Street

Do you mean the same bullshit laws that your foolish friends in Congress broke by voting AGAINST the investigation!???
Downing Street voted down by republicans

Or how about the SAME election fraud, where several Ohio workers have been convicted of tampering with the recount!???
Ohio elections

You are a total joke Steve! Keep it up with your bullshit Fox talking points, you'll get eaten alive so quickly without even counting to ten!

You will make the republicans look 500 times as worse than they already are, at this rate....

Keep going!!!!

Doug E.

This is gonna be fun.. well, not really.. you keep trying to spin stuff.. in true Repug form.. you have NO base, so you distract .. As said MANY times, I"ll not let you get away with trying to group 100 things into one argument.

"Who suggested that Iraq was the only sick country? Bush didn't, I didn't, I am not sure who you are debating here. But at the same time, can you tell me of all of the sad countries how many of them gassed 300,000 of their own people due to the Oil for Food scandal?"

Well, we have leaders NOW killing 100s of thousands of their own folks, and not even for profit.. just to do it.. South Africa comes to mind. There have been reports of MILLIONS being killed all around the globe, yet we're not invading them.. Oh, wait.. they don't have OIL, do they.. If it's really important to you.. if you don't believe me.. I'm sure we can come up with DOZENS of countries that are -currently- comitting autrocities.. though, I'm positive you'll dismiss them all..

Not to mention, it's NOT our BUSINESS to be invading countries.. period.. think about it.. Again, we have issues HERE to take care of.. why the hell are you content to have HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of YOUR tax dollars going to "freeing some other country", yet you don't want any going to help YOUR OWN PEOPLE?

Also, all the shifting "reasons" to go into Iraq make any "human rights" argument ignorant.. Bush didn't get infront of the U.N. or Congress and say "Saddam is a bad man.. he needs to be removed because he's killing Kurds".. NO.. they went to the world and said "He's gonna nuke us!", to which was replied "that's bull shit".. to which we said "he's got chemicals, he'll poison us!" to wich the world said "bullshit".. then we said "he's funding terrorists!" to wich the world said "bullshit".. Then we said "he's not letting us prove he's got nukes! we know he does! he better let us in NOW!".. to which Saddam said "FINE.. fine.. you got troops on my border.. I don't want bloodshed over this crap, I'll swallow my pride and let you rifle through my stuff".. to which WE said "TOO LATE!.. INVADE!!".. -now- we say "Saddam was a monster.. those poor folks needed to be freed".. yet, we're not asking them to repay us for "saving" them? we're not making sure their Constitution is what -they- want? why are we making sure it's "good for American Business" (note the lack of 'good for America' since most of all the profits won't be going to more than a tiny tiny few in this country)? And, again, why are YOU content to let hundreds of BILLIONS of your tax dollars go to save people 1/2 way around the world, but at the SAME TIME, don't want money spent on your OWN COUNTRYMEN ?

Steve F.-

Since you seem to think of yourself as such an independent thinker (and "that Republicans are not biased and partisian monkies to Bush"- your spelling), it would be interesting to hear of what other substantive issues about which you have disagreed with Bush or the Republican Party-line (you did say "I criticize the administration on other issues").

You also remark that "I do fight for my party". Personally, I choose to fight for the values upon which this country was founded and certainly not for any single political party. The Republican and Democratic party system, as now constituted, only serves to corrupt our country's founding principles and create a sham democracy. In referring to the Democratic Party in your closing remarks in your opening comment on this thread: "looks like 2008 is going to look just like 2004 for the Barbra Streisands of the world", you tell me all I need to know about how distainfully and simple-mindedly you choose to categorize a group of people.

I have read your thoughts on a number of issues in your previous comments. I have heard them a thousand times from people like you and have never found that "debating" in this kind of forum served any purpose other than to leave me and others even more appalled. I am quite certain that I have nothing new to learn from hearing any further reiteration of your political beliefs.

""So, terrorists don't smile or laugh and that means Dems are like them (the association you are trying to make)"

No that comment was directed at Dredd, were you able to read the post entirely? "

"Compelling as always. Good old liberals."

Um.. yeah, you DID imply "dems" via "liberals".. who can't comprehend a post?

" "Then you have the entire "religious" problem of "republicans" and "conservatives".. Take your damn bible and shove it up your arse."

What are you talking about? I never brought up religion or God in any of my posts. Perhaps the crack pipe that you are alleging I am hitting has been smoked by you in it's entirety. "

Um.. perhaps YOU aren't a good little Christian, but your PARTY -is-.. at least, that's a HUGE part of their platform.. or don't you get that? Money going to the rich, and forcing the Christian agenda down everyone's throats (normally for profit, too).

" Futhermore, just like arguing WHY the war was started or WHY Bush was elected, the FACT is, we are where we are and why can't liberals throw away their emtpy rants, unite, and start right now with new ideas to world issues? They seem to be the "rut" party. Anybody need a shovel?

Doug went so far as to call me a moron or make fun of the fact that I am a gay conservative. In his eyes, gays, just like the blacks, should be convinced that republicans HATE them in order to get more votes for their base. When we fail to buy into the rhetoric, like myself, or countless other gay conservatives OR blacks like Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas, or Larry Elder beg to differ, they become enraged. Why is that?"

Must have missed the post where being gay was discussed.. /shrug

but, it brings up some good debate material.. How can you be for a party that, as policy, thinks you should have rights removed? who thinks you are inferior and not worthy of all the rights and freedoms of others in this country? I just don't get how being sooooo greedy for a few extra bucks has you not care about losing other rights.. I just don't get it (oh, and now you HAVE brought up religion, since the ONLY argument the wing-nuts have to removing gay rights is the bible.. well, that and the ignorant argument that "marriage is between a man and woman".. especially since "marriage used to be a transfer of property.. women")..

Then your telling little statement (not that picking on things like this hold a lot of weight, but it sure seems to fit here).. "... just like the blacks..." .. Hmm.. "the blacks".. I guess I get a bit more of your position now.. your being gay, is in your mind, something "wrong", like "the blacks".. not refered to in a context of "people" but something "external and wrong".. Perhaps you will now fire off a long diatribe about how you aren't racist? You DO realize though, that MOST of the points made by Repugs dealing with welfare and crime is completely riddled with racism? Who just said, from the Repug party, "if your goal was to reduce the overall crime rate, just abort all the black babies"? then tried to spin it, but ended his spin on the SAME sentiment?

You people are pathetic. I'm done talking with you. When you decide to be intellectually honest, come back and discuss issues.. when you want to present facts, I'll listen.. and if those facts conflict with my current view, I'll change my view. The problem YOU are gonna have is, I know the difference between distractions and disinformation and facts. The -fact- is, Repugs care about money, not people. Iraq is about money, not people. If it was about people, like you try to spin some disinfo on, then how about taking care of our own first, then save the world? How about making sure businesses function -while- saving the environment isntead of making it easier to make a profit at the expense of the environment.. how about observing the rights of ALL Americans, not just the rich ones. etc etc etc..

Go away now.. you're boring me (and I'm sure all the rest)..

Doug:

"Do you mean the 2% of black african americans who actually give a crap about bush!????
Black America"

Assuming those are correct, perhaps its because of white elite liberals like Sean Penn, Barbra Streisand, and George Soros that keep insuating that Republicans hate blacks. (This is why we needed Janice Rogers Brown instead of Miers to join Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas, and Larry Elder and continue to prove otherwise). This is a problem, I agree, but it's not because Bush did anything to blacks. It's because of the liberal myth that I just explained. Furthermore liberals will say the most horrible things about blacks like accusing them of engaging in cannibalism or raping 2 year olds in order to better attack the President, but at the same time will campaign to convince them that republicans hate them in order to gladly take their votes. That's the extent of liberals caring and compassion for the blacks.

"Do you mean Super republican Jack Abramoff who was convicted for fraud and conspiracy, and can't leave the country now!???
Jack Abramoff"

Of course Abramoff is in trouble, the screams of corruption though against Bush and Delay are overwhelming to this. Might I remind you that Abramoff is not part of the Bush administration or Tom Delay's staff.

"Do you mean the three time CONVICTED GOP operative who jammed phones for the 2002 and 2004 races?!???? "

LOL, did you get that from one of those documents that Mary Mapes handed to Dan Rather?

"Do you mean the same Governor of Kentucky who was convicted for discrimination AGAIN!????"

Well first of all, you are talking about the GOVERNOR OF KENTUCKY lol, seondly he was NOT convicted of discrimination. Ernie Fletcher is his name and 11 members of his administation were indicted but there have been NO CONVICTIONS. If there is proof of anything, then let the law rule...but you are overstating this by using the word "conviction" (a lie)

"Do you mean the Texas Congressman who was arrested for drinking alcohol again!??"

Okay he was arrested and charged in South Dakota and the last reports confirmed that we were still waiting for the tests to come back. There are no headlines citing a conviction, and even if there was, this is a misdeameanor and not a felony as you are trying to pin on Delay and Frist.

"Do you mean the GOP heavy-weight Tom Delay who has violated law and will be convicted on money laundering charges!???? "

Wow, you sound just like Howard Dean, only 4 months ago on Meet The Press. Are you part of the conspiracy too? LOL. As we all know by now, Ronnie Earle prosecutes alot of people...read up on his false indictment of Kay Hutchincson.

"Do you mean the SAME Downing Street memos which convinced 64% of the public to turn against the war and also demand withdrawls!???"

Cindy Sheehan would be so hurt if she saw that! How could you possibly take the reason Americans were convinced away from her to the Memo that was wiped out of our memory after she showed up with Camp Casey?

According to liberals, most this country was already antiwar including Nancy Pelosi before the Downing Street Memo surfaced, so apparently now, another liberal in the mainstream has lied! (ready to quit yet?)

"Do you mean the same bullshit laws that your foolish friends in Congress broke by voting AGAINST the investigation!???"

Oh please, if the evidence was overwhelming and the democrats in Congress were so confidant, I am sure they would have filibustered the decision...LOL...don't you know anything about being a liberal?

"Or how about the SAME election fraud, where several Ohio workers have been convicted of tampering with the recount!???"

See my reply above on this. If this were deemed fact that this is the ONLY reason Bush was in office, trust me, Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan would have their own TV shows by now.

"You are a total joke Steve! Keep it up with your bullshit Fox talking points, you'll get eaten alive so quickly without even counting to ten!

You will make the republicans look 500 times as worse than they already are, at this rate....

Keep going!!!!"

How could anyone make republicans look any worse than the way you have portrayed them. Your book report was entertaining but based on lies, and faulty allegations.

This is fun for me, i will keep going as long as you want!

Mr. Steve F,

Look closely around you......Polls and opinions matter.

Will Bush ever rebound?

Over 70% say NO!

That's the official word......on the most biased corporate-whore poll in the nation. AOL-TIME WARNER!!!!!!!!!!

It also says, Steve F., that republicans are fully corrupt, that Bush's nazi actions will never recover, and the Miers nomination is doomed (And that won't help his ratings, EITHER!)

On top of this, it says democrats by a 70% margin will likely re-take congress.

Though many more of us are fed up with the democrats so it isn't likely the country will rebound until, the INDEPENDENTS take complete control of Congress.........Independents in every single office and Democrats who don't surrender to business.

That is a TRUE indication of how the country is heading, Steve....Get off the bullshit merry-go round! I double dare ya!

The god forsaken country will COLLAPSE under this horrific leadership and the freakish neocon zionists....It will NOT last! Everyone sees the writing on the wall, and are jumping ship to perform permanent changes.

Will you jump ship? Will you be one of the LAST? Do you know why everyone fled the USA anticipating this crash a YEAR AGO!???

Would you like to know why NOW?!??? Would you like to know it was once again due to republicans, Tom Delay, and this JOKE called "compassion"!????

I bet.....when you wake up Steve, its going to a long fall to the bottom! I don't think you'll like the Tile!

Doug E.

"Furthermore liberals will say the most horrible things about blacks like accusing them of engaging in cannibalism or raping 2 year olds in order to better attack the President, but at the same time will campaign to convince them that republicans hate them in order to gladly take their votes. That's the extent of liberals caring and compassion for the blacks."

OMFG! Please, show me where this was said! If some "liberal" said that, I'd bet dollars to pesos that they are one of those "repugs who signed up as a dem" (and I know one personally from college.. said he was padding his resume for later on in the Repug ranks)..

"Of course Abramoff is in trouble, the screams of corruption though against Bush and Delay are overwhelming to this. Might I remind you that Abramoff is not part of the Bush administration or Tom Delay's staff."

No, he just helped get tons of money funnled to them (well, DeLay).. and got them (well, DeLay, "a close personal friend" according to Shrubby) lots of "perks" that are illegal and determined to cause more corruption in an already broke system..

Also.. if you care to, please submit a link showing where the Downing Street Memo was "debunked".. though, keep in mind, some wing-nut talking head saying so doesn't count (it's enough for you, but not people interested in facts). Let's see where there's proof that the Memo was faked, since it's supposed to be documents from BEFORE the invasion, so your assertion that it's "Liberal spewing put on paper" is ignorant.

Also, touting liars like Rice and Powell don't do much to try and show how "the administration isn't racist".. all you are showing is, they will tolerate minorities as long as they tow the party line.

I agree Steve, let the rule of law handle them.

That's why we need to go by the rule of law, and not tamper with the evidence like what happened in the Hutchinson case!

Tom Delay isn't like Hutchinson. The wiggle room isn't there, Delay's 500 times as corrupt, the law and evidence is as clear as day, and the court isn't pre-staged in Forth Worth Texas, where Hutchinson's friends are "overly sympathetic" to her "problem"....

GOP Phone jammer convicted and sentenced to over 5 months in prison

GOP Governor Bob Taft convicted of misdemeanor charges and bribery

GOP Kentucky Governor pardons his entire staff for convictions, and gets indicted himself!

Tom Delay has funnelled money to at least 26 congress persons off-campaign, violating every state law

The LAW of Texas in scathing detail: Delay directly violated it

Does it take a genius to know this bullshit!???? HOW MANY GOP LUNATICS HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF CRIMES?!???

Too many to count!!!! What do you call this when it gets this widespread, like what's that, cancer.... "Culture of Corruption" is what you call it.

Howard Dean is dead on. You just proved him right, friend.

Doug E.

Steve F #57 There is a ton here to refute, I still hear silence from you on the issue of private companies controlling source code...its not that complicated, its just wrong. Am I missing something? Why is it OK to have a system that cannot be verified, isn't voting important to you? What about my wasted millions in tax dollars installing these machines from 99% GOP owned companies, big time porkbarrel stuff. I pay SS and quarterlies too.

"The Ohio AND Florida in both cases were decided upon by the rule of law. Which proves one of my anti-Bush rants. " Rule of law, hey sounds so good, case closed right Steve? The combination of Attorney Generals/Secretaries of State in bed with the Repub campaigns and black boxes that count the votes is deadly. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him see the truth I guess. Never mind the stuff that will be very difficult to prove (electronic vote flipping, etc) that you want to ignore, what about the lack of machines, initimidation, hundreds of things in the Conyers report. You want us to get over it right? Why I ask, is there not a single Repub who has any concern about this? Could it be, oh I dunno, they don't want the light shed on them???? So how would you feel if it was reversed and Dems were in those positions? Its clear, you are a coincidence theorist.

"You people are pathetic. I'm done talking with you"

Well if that were true, perhaps you'd stop responding in a hysterical rage full of lies and allegations of bringing up religion. For someone who is bored, you sure seem to be running in circles spitting and sputtering in self defense.

"if your goal was to reduce the overall crime rate, just abort all the black babies"

Oh yes the Bill Bennett rant. First of all, this was an argument put forth by 2 liberal economists a couple years ago and was defended by my people, the right-wingers, the right-to-lifers. Then our economist looked at the numbers put forth by liberal economists with their conclusions and realized they had cooked the books. So then Bill Bennett cites an argument put forth seriously by liberals in order to shoot it down and HE gets the heat for what liberals (your peeps) believe in the first place. Good tactic.

Are you saying that republicans and democrats are switching roles now with the pro-life/pro choice issue? Are we actually getting you to convert? LOL.

Lastly, I havent been denied anything by being gay. Its nothing to do with the civil rights movement of the 60's for the blacks. I am not forced to use public bathrooms marked "gay men only", and I am not sitting in the backs of busses. Your party, the liberals, have decided to throw gays, along with the blacks, into the victim pot in order to gain votes for your party. Good tactic I admit, but it's running out.

Okay, I think that covers it. I could tell you to "go away" but I won't. I will check for any ranting answers tomorrow, Im done here at the office and will be heading home.

Goodnight!

DaveK at #70.. what you are missing is, those people running Diebold likely went YEARS on bologna sandwiches.. worked hard, and now have theirs. How DARE you imply they might be doing something "illegal", "immoral", or "unethical"?? How DARE you try to take away their livelyhood by making it so their fancy "add one to this person" proprietary code should be exposed and ruin their Trade Secrets!? If you keep that up, I might have to think you are implying -I'M- somehow doing something illegal or amoral or unethical with MY hard-fought "firm".. (my take on what must be going through Steve F's brain about now)

Go to google and type in "Blacks, NEw Orleans, cannabilism" and you will see that many liberals wrote on Blacks resorting to Cannabilism in order to attack the President (i.e. they had no food - because of evil republicans that wanted them to starve to death)

Steve you got to be joking!!!!

What evidence do you have that liberals put forth the argument about "aborting black babies everywhere"?

Do you have any at all?!

Or is this yet ANOTHER case of "do as I say, not as I do" accusing the other side of doing the very thing YOUR RIGHT-WINGERS DO ON A DAILY BASIS?

Hmmm....What's it going to be?

Doug E.

"Well if that were true, perhaps you'd stop responding in a hysterical rage full of lies and allegations of bringing up religion."

uh.. what lies have I said? What allegations of "bringing up religion", other than stating a FACT that "your party" is heavily "religious" and wants to force their "religion" down everyone's throats?

*boggle*

http://newsbusters.org/node/1602

Read this in its entirety.

What the frick!?!??

You've just proved my point EXACTLY!!!!!

You lumped the bullshit semitic nonsense into quotes by Rhandi Rhodes, making it seem like she should be censured for giving the ammunition to Bennett!!!!

This is the stupidest crap I've ever seen. LOL!!! Did you figure it out yet, were you even IN New Orleans to see the devastation there?!???? People being thrown into the Superdome!??!???

Only "overly sensitive" jewish would object to BLACK AMERICANS BEING ROUNDED UP IN FEMA CAMPS, being compared to the holocaust.

And then you want to use that as an exscuse to "EXSCUSE" what happened in Louisiana and what Bennett said!???

Total frigging hypocrisy!!!!!!! No wonder you're so dispised, christ.

Doug

Bennett cited the book "Freakonomics" by University of Chicago economist Steven Levitt, which argues, among other things, that the increase in abortions since Roe vs. Wade has contributed considerably to the drop in the crime rate.

Look into this, and read up about how OUR economist John Lott refuted this argument.

Steve, you totally disgust me I mean that sincerely

Whether you want to admit it or not, the racism messages are there in your "conservative hate-talk radio" and that is why they all have abandoned your base

It is totally dispicable to talk about people that way, and then justify it by "divide and conquer" crap such as throwing jews or other disasters into the mix.

It also makes no sense and its why everyone hates conservatives. At least LIBERALS know the opposite action, of empathy and compassion for an entire race of people who hate being demonized.

And at least the rest of us progressives know bullshit when we see it. Like I saw right here, you used a wedge "racism" issue and it backfired. The black people dispise you now and I don't blame even one of them, wow...

Doug

Well, I read over some of that page.. and read Bennett's "statement" of how he said "it would be morally reprehensible" to abort those babies... but let me ask you this? He STILL doesn't say ANYTHING about "his beliefe that blacks are the cause of high crime rates", AND, there is NOTHING in there from the "original" statements, just his "defense" after the fact? You want me to see if your wackjob truely believes "blacks are part of the problem", or if he was "only showing a hypothetical"? then show me his original on-air statements with the caller.

And, another example of how ignorant your party is.. there is -nothing- that says just because you are "pro life" and "say it's morally reprehensible" to imply "mass killings" that you don't honestly believe "things would be better off" if you aborted all those babies. Again, the idea of logical falicy comes to mind. Just because there's an appearance doesn't mean there's a cause, and that goes both ways. I believe that if we retroactively aborted all the Repugs out there that the world would be a better place, but that is -independant- of me also thinking the mass killing of people for a perceived betterment is "wrong".. Two seperate things..

And all his ramblings about all the "civil rights" crap are moot as well.. Making it "look" like you care about a group is different than fighting "for them".. he also says he supports unalienable rights for all men, yet if he's a Republican, he CONDONES biggotry against Gays.. Are you segragated? not yet.. Let Santorim and Shrubby have their way and you will be.. they are starting with how "morally reprehensible" YOU are, from there, it's only a matter of time before the laws follow.. And how is it that you don't deserve to have the SAME LEGAL rights under "marriage" as everyone that isn't queer? Oh, right.. set up "legal unions" and give them the same rights as marriage.. problem there? you can start adjusting those rights SEPERATELY from marriage.. why even have that loophole?

Again, you want to reduce crime rate? EDUCATE EVERYONE, and PROVIDE JOBS.. stop sending jobs over seas, stop playing to "financial markets" and start playing back to "industrialization".. and make sure that those that "can't work" because our system demands some unemployment to "keep wages down", make sure those people have food and shelter.. that simple. That's against the Repug mindset, but it's the only answer.. Trying to paint our crime as a "black" issue, or trying to spin it to -any- minority is to try to spin it away from the real cause.. POVERTY, which CAN be fixed, if we STOP letting the richest 1% make all the rules, and stop making it easier for the top 10% to get more and harder for the other 90% to survive.

Oh, and that page, unless it's way down after the bashing on "liberals", didn't mention (nor did your boy) that the "idea of reducing crime by killing blacks" came from "liberal econimists" (and any "economist" that doesn't talk about reducing poverty is kind of ignorant.. that's the only way to reduce crime, get it?)

Doug, the fact that I disgust you is a compliment from someone who believes that Republicans are racist. What other proof other than Bill Bennetts statement (which is not even evidence and in of itself)

Let me give you some proof on your side.

Condoleezza Rice: Liberal cartoonists Jeff Danziger and Doonebury each published racist cartoons of Dr. Rice slurring slow black words about knowing "nuttin bout aluminum tubes" after it was learned that Bush nominated her for Secretary of State.

We sent Clinton flowers everyday for nominating Madeline Albright (oh wow the FIRST WOMAN secretary of State) but the evil President who whips up hurricanes to target an entire black area nominates the first ever BLACK FEMALE secretary of state. (what liberal media has praised him for this point on his resume of equal opportunity?)

NUMBEROUS liberals proved their racism when they constantly questioned her impeccable credentials, nobody ever asked that of Warren Christopher, what were his qualifications?

Clarence Thomas was constantly harrassed and made fun of and had qualifications questioned, nobody ever asked that of Justice William Brennan or Souter.

Janice Rogers Brown (a black woman) dismantled affirmative action laws in California after she climbed to her position on her own merit and intelligence.

Liberals are ridiculous, they patronize racism by saying affirmitive action is necessary because blacks are stupider and Janice shoots it down because she is insulted by this and proves otherwise.

The fact is liberals WANT black to feel victimized in order to get their votes. You arent at all interested in blacks moving ahead on their own merit. Otherwise you would have mentioned, as I have already Condi, Janice, Larry, Clarence, Colin, etc.

Lastly as I pointed out, the butterfly ballot in Florida in the 2000 elections, democrats blamed blacks for not being able to figure it out thus resulting in the loss of the election.

Liberals will say the most awful things about blacks when it serves their interest. This proof I have just given you is only the tip, Doug. Deny any of it.

So tell me, HONESTLY, do liberals have a problem with blacks? Or just blacks with republican interests?

Oh please!!!!

Condaleeza Rice and Clarence Thomas are about as Black as Martha fucking Stewart!!!!!!!!!

Do you think those african-americans, or Kenneth Blackwell, even respect their BLACK people at all!?!???

Yeah, these folks respect em' enough to DENY them the right to vote in Ohio. They are so "respectful" I can't tell you. They are just as RACIST and PREJUDICE against their own people as the republicans!!!!!

Don't give me that off-hand bullshit. At least the democrats welcome the blacks and fight for the HUMAN SUFFRAGE MOVEMENT!!!!!

Condi couldn't even be bothered to "help" her fellow blacks when they were all fucking dying while she had to go "SHOE SHOPPING"!!!!

Never tell me that right-wing whore respects anything but money. Just a few, brainwashed black-people who have gone totally racist. Since 1950 the southern democrats and the republican party have DISPISED the black people. They always have and nothing changed.

Plus there has never been one, not ONE program put in by Secretary Rice that helps any of the black people anywhere. She's just another racist, fucking coward. She sold her life to the OIL company. After living with the fundie church, being hated, she took her and a few other black people and joined UNOCOL oil to make something of herself.

And she turned into a monster just like all the white people there. That's all. There will never be ANYTHING, ANYTHING good at all about the black people in the republican party. They are totally devoid of morals. They are just the same racists as Justice Rhenquist and Katherine Harris.

The black people who used to BE republican have all left. Besides the same freaks who were always there. And that's not a liberal issue. That's a life-issue, a fact of life.

Doug E

"We sent Clinton flowers everyday for nominating Madeline Albright (oh wow the FIRST WOMAN secretary of State) but the evil President who whips up hurricanes to target an entire black area nominates the first ever BLACK FEMALE secretary of state. (what liberal media has praised him for this point on his resume of equal opportunity?)"

This kind of trite bullshit is why you are a moron.. No one said Shrubby "whipped up a hurricane", yet you jackasses keep trying to "spin" it like we say such things. What we SAID was, that asshole you like so much COMPLETELY FAILED in his responsiblities when NATURE tossed a Huricane at us.. AND, before that when his group of Repugs didn't think it would be worth it to spend money UPGRADING the LEVEYS.. duh? And, ANY president (again, for your slow Repug types.. I'm NOT a Dem) that failed to take actions to protect Americans (in a "real threat" kind of way, not "we think Saddam might some day decide to get nukes and some day get back at us for our illegal interfering) is a prick. Does that mean Clinton is to blame if he and the Dems didn't give the money to the Levey projects? YUP... that's what I"m saying. Funny how you can't say the same about Shrubby..

"NUMBEROUS liberals proved their racism when they constantly questioned her impeccable credentials, nobody ever asked that of Warren Christopher, what were his qualifications?"

This for her promotion? or original posting... either way, since she was someone who towed the party line and helped lie us into an illegal war, I don't see how you can say she has "impecable creditials".. Does Powell, with his 2 wars lied into, he have "impecable credentials" too? since he tows the party line? is that what "impecable credentials" means?

"Liberals are ridiculous, they patronize racism by saying affirmitive action is necessary because blacks are stupider and Janice shoots it down because she is insulted by this and proves otherwise."

are you really that retarded? You think "liberals" want affirmative action because they think "blacks are stupid"?? Are you REALLY that ignorant? Affirmative action is about ONE thing.. making sure RICH WHITE RACIST FUCKS don't discriminate, period. If anyone has -any- other argument, that argument, especially if the thought is to "help out those stupid blacks", is likely bullshit. Racisism is a serious problem in this country, in case you didn't notice. Making sure small business owners aren't discriminating is, sadly, something that needs to be done. Does Affirmative action have it's flaws? probably.. are there times when someone might hire a minority instead of a better qualified "white" person? possibly.. but I'm guessing it's 1 in 10,000,000 when that happens. I also guess that there are a lot more accusations of that happening, but I doubt it's a rampant problem in this country.

Not sure anything about "butterfly ballots" or "liberals saying blacks were just too dumb to figure it out".. to be honest, that sounds to me like something a wing-nut would "say" Liberals said, with no proof to back it up. Hate to do this to ya (not really), but if you want to lend any credibility to that claim, post some links..

-I- don't have any problem with African Americans.. I have a HUGE problem with rich white folks trying to maintain their privledge over everyone else. Look at the top 100 richest people in the world.. how many are non-white? Yet, white isn't the predominant color on the planet..

"Condaleeza Rice and Clarence Thomas are about as Black as Martha fucking Stewart!!!!!!!!!"

Wow, that is ULTRA racist to decide for TWO BLACKS indeed how black they are and how true they are to their race. I smile in reading your entire response. The fact that TRULY INTELLEGENT individuals (who happen to be black) rose on their own merits to their positions, and that people like you denounce this is so racist and sick that you have actually talked yourself into believing that you indeed know what is best for the black race!

Bravo you good liberal.

Do you know what equal opportunity means. Look up both words individually, put them together and you will see that it has absoutely nothing to do with affirmative action.

I can see that I struck a nerve in pointing out what racists the democrats are and how they have a BIG problem with blacks - not to mention black women.
You become enraged at my idea that blacks are as capable as any white to rise to positions on their own merit.

Don't you see? You in your own words are crying to keep blacks down in order to spit and sputter "racism" from the right without any proof just to acquire their votes. Only a liberal!

Lastly, every major democrat like Howard Dean, and of course Al Sharpton has sold Katrina as a black/white issue. New Orleans is 80% black, 100% of them were warned prior, and the vast majority of that 100% got the hell out! EQUAL OPPORTUNITY. It was never a black/white issue.

Yes liberals underneath it all are happy that Katrina happened and are blaming Katrina on Bush. Your phraseology can switch from one point to the next but at the end, it's a chance for you to scrape the bottom of the pudding cup for ideas to Bushbash since the antiwar/Cindy Sheehan fest failed miserably .

Stop insulting the blacks, and start giving them the benefit of the doubt. Quit using them for votes, they deserve better than that!

"Condaleeza Rice and Clarence Thomas are about as Black as Martha fucking Stewart!!!!!!!!!"

Wow, that is ULTRA racist to decide for TWO BLACKS indeed how black they are and how true they are to their race. I smile in reading your entire response. The fact that TRULY INTELLEGENT individuals (who happen to be black) rose on their own merits to their positions, and that people like you denounce this is so racist and sick that you have actually talked yourself into believing that you indeed know what is best for the black race!

Bravo you good liberal.

Do you know what equal opportunity means. Look up both words individually, put them together and you will see that it has absoutely nothing to do with affirmative action.

I can see that I struck a nerve in pointing out what racists the democrats are and how they have a BIG problem with blacks - not to mention black women.
You become enraged at my idea that blacks are as capable as any white to rise to positions on their own merit.

Don't you see? You in your own words are crying to keep blacks down in order to spit and sputter "racism" from the right without any proof just to acquire their votes. Only a liberal!

Lastly, every major democrat like Howard Dean, and of course Al Sharpton has sold Katrina as a black/white issue. New Orleans is 80% black, 100% of them were warned prior, and the vast majority of that 100% got the hell out! EQUAL OPPORTUNITY. It was never a black/white issue.

Yes liberals underneath it all are happy that Katrina happened and are blaming Katrina on Bush. Your phraseology can switch from one point to the next but at the end, it's a chance for you to scrape the bottom of the pudding cup for ideas to Bushbash since the antiwar/Cindy Sheehan fest failed miserably .

Stop insulting the blacks, and start giving them the benefit of the doubt. Quit using them for votes, they deserve better than that!

Sorry pal, I'm a progressive, and I don't agree with your liberal OR conservative bullshit.

Steve, you are totally sick and proving what a racist freak you are. You are saying that liberals "all" want to deny Black's equal opportunity, accusing them all of the same thing conservatives do.

If that isn't totally irrational, if that doesn't make a lick of sense I don't know what does!

THOSE BLACK PEOPLE WERE ROUNDED UP, AND STUCK IN THE DOMES BY FEMA!!!!!

By sick, totally deluded individuals like Michael Chertoff!!!!!!

Their water supply was CUT!!!!!!!!!!!!

You can't even compare any of those things, the BLACK community was so disgusted by the blatant racism you can't even CAPTURE it on television!!!!!!!!!!

By the way, YOU are obviously against opportunity for blacks of any sory!!!!!!!!

You know why!??? Because you don't have any interest in FIGHTING POVERTY brought on by the bullshit conservative agenda of "big government" being a useless piece of bureocratic garbage.

So instead, entire STATES drown!!!!!!!!!! And those black people, when they DO get into the highest positions of power and control companies like AT&T, and they don't BEND OVER FOR THE WHITE RICH FOLKS, they get spit upon and discriminated against. I've seen HUNDREDS of them discriminated in every single corporation, which is exactly where you work.

And you act like this shit is all the LIBERALS fault instead.

Give me a damn break. One time, one single time if you cons took responsibility for your klu-klux plan past you MIGHT get someone to see your point. You MIGHT get someone to take your side. Even one time. But no, instead you blame it all on everyone else.

You take responsibility for nothing, conservative my ass.

Doug

And if we take someone like Kenneth Blackwell for example:

A true died in the whool conservative, who helped Justice Rhenquist enforce racism country-wide after the Civil Rights suffrage march.

A man who has sold out his whole fucking soul to an army of White, Rich, Christians who have force-fed him fundamentalist bullshit since he was 20. So that he could rise, and end up TEARING UP voter cards of his OWN black comrades, who just happened to DISAGREE with his church or his viewpoint. What a great guy!!!!

As good as Joseph Goebells in fact or Baron Rothchild. He proved finally how racist he is against his own kind, and gave up on the thought of "giving democrats any kind of help."

Politics, that's all it was to Blackwell. He doesn't even recognize his own as humans does he? Is that the kind of BLACK PERSON we want on the fucking highest court in the land?!?!????

Wow, KKK here we come!!!!

Doug

"Lastly, every major democrat like Howard Dean, and of course Al Sharpton has sold Katrina as a black/white issue. New Orleans is 80% black, 100% of them were warned prior, and the vast majority of that 100% got the hell out! EQUAL OPPORTUNITY. It was never a black/white issue.

Stop insulting the blacks, and start giving them the benefit of the doubt. Quit using them for votes, they deserve better than that!"

Look, you ignorant twit.. Telling people with NO MEANS to get out, then blaming them for not leaving is the epitome of ignorance. To say "hey, we're treating them like normal human beings.. we warned them.. it's their own fault for not leaving" is to IGNORE that, with no car (poverty, it's a bitch), they didn't have your fabled (for them) "equal opportunity", and since the businesses bailed (no busses or rental cars, not that they could have afforded rental cars, duh?), they had no way out. Yet, you want to say "they have every opportunity that white people do, so it's their own fault".. which, while "strictly" true, fails to account for the CLASS DIFERENCES, which is what MOST of us are harping on. We're NOT saying "those poor stupid blacks, they needed more help cause they are just too dumb to leave".. we're saying "you rich fuckers (who are 90+ % whites) need to stop shitting on 30% of our society.. look at these folks with no cars and no money to buy their way out.. they got decimated". It's not OUR fault they are mostly black, that would be the underlying culture of racisim in this country, perpitrated by .. you guessed it.. doubletalking ignorant republicans bent on making sure "they keep theirs" at "what ever cost"

It's insulting (and telling of how pathetic you really are) to imply someone is "happy" about the devistation that hit this country. To even try and bring that premise into an arguement is to prove that you are so damn disjoint from reason as to be sad. You claim you "don't need to be in the military to have an opinion about war", which, while technically correct, gets bumped into "incredulous" since you are now showing your complete lack of empathy.. which is REQUIRED if you plan on having a "reasonable" opinion on such matters.

You sir, are an insult to decent human beings, and a credit to your psycho self-serving party.

Steve F. is paid to be here on this thread. Isn't that obvious? You cannot win against him, because he's like the Tar Baby. Noble efforts, though.

Steve, identify your family business for us. If it really exists, we'll all send you a few dollars to help you make it in these recessionary Republican times.

Otherwise, get an honest job, please. It's pathetic to shill for a living.

Steve Flesher #21

You said "I've always been awake and so have the rest of republicans."

I don't know whether to say "ok stevie, if you say so it must be ipso facto true" or to say "get some sleep, your mind is obviously tired".

You said "If you ask any American right now without an active interest in politics, you will see that a huge majority of the country is angry simply because of gas prices."

I have to congratulate you here ... for staying on topic sorta. I mean the subject matter you suggest is polls when you advocate "ask any american". Guess what Steve, that is what they did!

But you are a bit off because the more specific subject matter is what is said when americans are polled about what this President is doing.

These polls show a low opinion of the President, and that has been the trend for quite some time. The trend is the story.

You go on to say "Pure and simple" for your conclusion ... er uh ... interpretation of the poll you suggested.

So I wonder if you always go OT (off topic) and make up your own topic and then give a "pure and simple" conclusion? Is it only pure and simple if it is off topic (denial) and your own opinion?

The pollsters who have been at it for years, and who were taking the same polls when the President was very, very high in the polls have all of a sudden lost their purity and simplicity because the President is now very, very low in the same polls? Because of gas prices? I don't think you are gonna sell many lolly pops with that one Steve.

Why did these pollsters make such a mistake and ask "Do you approve of the job the President is doing?" and 39% approve and 54% disapprove? Should they have asked "Do you approve of the job gas prices are doing?"

Why did these pollsters make such a mistake and ask "Is the country headed in the right direction?" and 28% say yes and 59% say no? Should the pollsters have asked the same question for a different topic?

Why did these pollsters make such a mistake and ask "Who should take control in the upcoming elections?" and 39% say republicans and 48% say democrats? Should the pollsters have asked who do you want to set gas prices in 2006? That dog won't hunt Steve.

You concluded "If the gas prcices drop, you'll see the rating fly back up".

Well, I can say that your dogma is quite simple or more to the point quite simplistic. It is also naive. It is also wrong.

Let me get OT a moment, and bring up a Presidential Poll.

This poll (they ask americans questions) indicates:

"Forty-one percent of respondents said Bush's presidency will be seen as unsuccessful in the long run, while 26 percent said the opposite."

"People were inclined to say Bush's policies have made things worse on a wide range of issues such as the federal budget deficit, the gap between rich and poor, health care, the economy, relations with U.S. allies, the tax system and education" (link here).

When are these pollsters gonna get it and poll like Steve F does? When are they gonna realize it is pure and simple and ALL about gas prices?

Well stevie, the answer pure and simple is that the people do get it. Even with the incredibly huge MSM propaganda machine on its side the bu$hit lie storm has not gotten to the american people. They know bu$hit when they smell it.

And yes, they also know that bu$hit comes from the oil barrons as do the gas prices. They don't like any of it and I am one of them.

Just poll me.

If it weren't for the blogosphere (take a bow, Brad) the public might not "get it."

Nobody dislikes Bush more than I do, but if I can sympathize with him on anything, it's the fickleness of the mainstream media. After 9/11, when his poll ratings were at 75-80% approval, not one single reporter from a major paper or TV network had the guts to question Bush on anything. They bought the administration's story on 9/11 (stay tuned), on WMD (a closed question...none), on prisoner abuse (now we know the truth), and failed to explore the stolen 2004 election (stay tuned) and the collateral issues of Clint Curtis and Ray Lemme.

Cowards, every one of them. Now that Bush is at 39%, they're questioning everything. There's no fear of retaliation now, because the White House lacks the clout and the attention span to wreak revenge on media skeptics. Here's to Brad and other bloggers, who have been unafraid to speak truth to power all along.

Steve F - No one is blaming hurricanes on Bush, the blame is the handling, planning afterwards.
Which was none. Federal aid, for which taxes are paid is suppose to be there to help.

The lack of planning on everything this administration has gotten America into is what should make everyone mad. Where is all the money that we are now borrowing going to come from to repay China?

On the military issue, when you have the ability to send others to war you bet it is important that you have been there yourself.

Bush's war would end immediately if a draft was reinstated and ALL young men and women had to serve two years, no exceptions.

I like how %11 of people who say the country is on the wrong track also say Bush is doing a great job and Republicans should take control.

Republicans have control voer every single level of Gov't and arguably the media as well. It is their control and Bush's policies that are putting the country on the wrong track. How %11 can say the country is on the wrong track...but not blame it on Republicans or the President is just amazing to me.

Umm...

I fail to see how exactl the news is good?

After what you've done in the last few years alone, a wooping ~40% of the population that supports these actions proove that there truly is no hope... (other than a nuclear world war)

IRT ROSENCRANTZ's comments above:

I know you people learn history from hollywood and sociology from mtv, but this is simply hilarious...

You want to put people on Mars while 1 in 5 american adults belives the Sun revolves around Earth...

You are heading for a Dark Ages - director's cut speical edition - remake...

One more piece of american idiocy:

quote from above:

"Yeah, Bush's approval ratings are down. Gas prices are up. When gas is up, approval is down."

And there it is... Whether a dictator in Sudan or a president in Fascist States of America, all people in charge suffer when their citizens don't get their 'fix'...

Bush's ratings don't go down for slaughtering thousands upon thousands, not for using DU and other crap, not even for bringing back fascism in the 21th century, but because gas prices go up...

Gee.. what a moron... I mean, if he could somehow kept the price of gas low, you people would've been in a very "serious" debate over intelligent design...

Eh, well, live and learn...

I have a 1000$ bet that after all this is over, on the positive side of the story (aka, where you withdraw from Iraq, versus invading Iran, Syria and plunging the whole planet into 'nukular' war at which point my bet owuld be useless), you people will go on living the 'american dream' and Iraq and iraqis (what's left of them, anyway) will suffer the same fate as Vietnam...

Ok this is OT but please enlighten me. Why are the conservatives so upset with Miers nomination? How is she any different from the other 'no experience needed' people he has put in place?

And the why, well if you or your friends might have to go before the Supreme Court its best to have your friend be a judge isn't it? The friend who thinks you are the most intelligent man she has met? She really does need to enlarge her circle of acquaintences

2 comments:

1. Who are the 2% blacks who approve of Bush? And can you find some of them and get them on the Brad Radio Show???

2. The polls are accurate, as usual, and even the MSM quotes polls. Except the exit polls, which showed Kerry defeating Bush by 5 million votes. Again, the polls proved the election was stolen, but the MSM quotes polls every day, except the 2004 exit polls. And it means nothing, if a poll shows a Republican losing the pre-election polls & the exit polls, but then somehow winning the "final count" on the electronic voting machines. Watch...Casey is double-digits ahead of Santorum...and furthermore, the exit polls will show Casey smoking Santorum, but Santorum will win the "final count" 51%-49%.

...and don't forget, locate some of those 2% blacks who approve of Bush, and get them on the Brad Show.

Yesterday's Washington Post reported that when asked whether she would have invaded Iraq given the intelligence at the time, Lady Thatcher replied: "I was a scientist before I was a politician. And as a scientist I know you need facts, evidence and proof - and then you check, recheck and check again."

She added: "The fact was that there were no facts, there was no evidence, and there was no proof. As a politician the most serious decision you can take is to commit your armed services to war from which they may not return."

Wow even neoCon Thatcher knows what starting the war was based upon. Even tho she advocates war to depose dictators, she does not advocate doing so under false pretenses.

Wow awareness of distinction ... who knew?

STEVE F:

Please comment on the PNAC & WHIG...

Texas Lady #103

Read this article to expose the myths the right wing is arguing with the moderate republicans about.

Both are wrong and are laboring under intellectual deceit fostered by the neoCons for years.

I think there was a black politician at the RNC convention, wasn't there? I think they showed him from different angles, too!

One thing not mentioned in STEVE F's lopsided history lesson, is that the pro-slavery Democrats, known as the "Dixie-Crats", left the party for the GOP. There was a distinct anti-slavery liberal part of the Democratic Party at that time, and a distinct "Dixie-Crat" part of the party, whom all left to join the GOP. Zell "from hell" Miller is the last of the "Dixie-Crats", and can you really call him a Democrat? For Christ's sake, he was a keynote speaker at the RNC convention!!! And he challenged Chris Matthews to a duel!

So, the RNC had Zell Miller & that one black politician as speakers, and they kept showing him from different angles so it appeared there was more than one black politician at the RNC convention!

STEVE F would have us believe the GOP is the pro-black party! Nice propoganda, Steve! A good propogandist is an artist, and STEVE F is certainly one!

I'd like Steve's comments on the PNAC, WHIG (the secret Bush administration pro-Iraq war "group", and the 2004 exit polls saying Kerry won).

Dredd - thank you for that link.....of course a person's personal values plays a part in being a judge, who wouldn't believe that?

So, with her strong religious leanings the conservatives should rest in peace.

It astounds me that abortion is even a political issue, it is a religious issue. We let people die every day, with lack of healthcare, horrific foster care and poverty. Our infant mortality is worse than 1958 yet we are fighting about abortion, a personal choice that the person making it has to live with.

...and, Bush's response to "help" the mostly black population of New Orleans, was to get no-bid contracts for his crony Halliburton companies, lower the wages by subverting the wage law, and import non-New Orleans workers (lots of them illegal immigrants) instead of giving black New Orleans residents the rebuilding jobs. Real "pro-black" & "pro-American"!!! That was the expected GOP response to this disaster. They could've proved otherwise, but they always look for a way to pad their rich cronies and stick it to the poor/blacks. That is exactly why Bush's approval among blacks is 2%. I can't believe it's not 0%!! That's why I want these people on the Brad Show!!!

This had been very interesting reading. I came to this thread last night after watching a documentary on Rove. He was a master debater, which I knew, but hadn't really given much thought to. I have never been a debater (that I am consciously aware of anyway) so this 'debate' intrigued me. I am just not the debating type, my husband is. When he gets into a debate I always have called it an argument, I have been wrong. Debating is a Skill, (I remember we had a debate class in school), I just never gave the subject much thought. I now will be able to look at what I have always called 'arguments' in a different light. Now, if I am wrong (ie: this does not meet the guidelines of a true debate) please don't hesitate to tell me. Thanks all. M4

Wooo...
I just read all 99 comments in this stream, with assorted aside trips to other links...
Been offline a couple weeks; had to catch up and remember why it was great to go outside and watch sunsets.
My thoughts:
1. Steve F. is simply a hard working American who has bought into the Pub line that hard work can get you anywhere no matter what. I appreciate that his family worked long days; but I'll bet they had the family and educational (not to mention government-provided) infrastructure to be successful. I'll bet their whiteness opened doors that undereducated folks of color couldn't open. I agree that they deserve to keep their money instead of being taxed unfairly. But most, including conservative icon George Will, agreed that we, as a nation, (even under Clinton) are undertaxed. For the services we want - mimimally infrastructures, policing, regulation, defense - we must pay. And those who reap the most benifits must pay (in any fair system) more. Even in more heavily taxed countries, the rich haven't quit working because a bigger percentage of their money helps the government. They see that the tax money helps them make lots more money, even if they pay a higher percentage than the rank and file workers.
I appreciate that Steve F. has family that served in the military. So what? Most of us have military family. The question was why doesn't he go serve, and he didn't answer. Well, one problem would be that he is gay; and open gays cannot (despite much quality work by military gays elsewhere) serve in the US military.
2. I'm a small-d democrat, though I certainly agree with the "people's party" more often then with the party of the rich; however, I must take offense with someone else's opinion that Southern Dems are no different now than they ever were. No, in the 60s and 70s the racist and reactionary Dems in the South left and went with (first George Wallace and then) Nixon and became Pubs, the heart of their party now. The open-minded, fair-minded, progressive-minded, forward-looking among us stayed. And that includes most of the Blacks in the South. Why do Blacks stay Dem? Because the only Blacks to move up in the Pubs' party are the ones who have a stake in the rich man's game and are willing to do what the masters say in order to cover their stake. And the progressive Southern whites and blacks have elected a number of moderates over the last 30 years who have done well by doing right. Were there not ethically-challanged Dems? Of course there were, but I a lot of us didn't vote for 'em, and when we saw they had squandered the public trust, we tried to throw 'em out. And there doesn't seem to be nearly the lack of integrity among Dems as among Pubs.
3. I think Powell is basically a good man who served under Pub and Dem administrations doing the best he could. He was famously ignored during the run-up to the war and then convinced to come on board in time to talk to the UN. He convinced me at the time, as well as a lot of small-d Dems. Was he lying? I don't know. I think he was maybe just flummoxed by the hard-liners. I know at the time he expressed dismay or disagreement with some of the material he was told to use, but when he was apparantly brought around, as a patriotic Southern man (though not a warmonger) I was reluctantly brought in line with the idea of a war, if all else failed. Of course, all else didn't fail.
4. Stolen elections. The biggest issue. Steve F. ignores the facts. People are being convicted for election fraud. More to come. We all just hope it will be enough to frighten America into a verifiable paper ballot situation ASAP. Surely he is not in favor of elections coming down to our hackers vs. your hackers...
5. Current Polls. NOW IS THE TIME TO YELL ABOUT COMPROMISED OR QUESTIONABLE ELECTIONS! America agrees that we are being screwed! America may be receptive to the truth, as they are now starting to see the lies of their leaders. So let folks know in your conversations and in your newspapers and mainstram media. Some of the media are growing testes enough to consider reality. DON'T DO IT NEGATIVELY! Don't sound like sour grapes. Just point out that we need to make sure we never again can have to question whether the will of the people is being heard.
6. Steve F. says that we are hysterically saying the Pubs stole all their election wins. No we're not. Most election fraud observers agree that what they did was steal the presidency, and perhaps a few other spots. A senator here, a governor there. However, we have to have PAPER BALLOTS, and local elected officials of both parties, like ours here in TN, are starting to see it in terms of "this could happen to me..."
That's what we should be showing them.

I hope somebody reads this.

peace.

shw

Lord, Im afraid you all leave me no choice.

Im going to have to invade your niteclubs, kill your DJ's and convert you all to Abercrombie.

Comments such as the following:

"I'll bet their whiteness opened doors that undereducated folks of color couldn't open."

I suggest you read Condi's entire story on how oppressed her "color" story is in Alabama as a child, and see how her blackness opened just as many doors as my whiteness did for me.

"Surely he is not in favor of elections coming down to our hackers vs. your hackers... "

In terms of the alleged election fraud, that is a great point to bring up. Trust me, if Republicans indeed cheated, are you saying Democrats cheated less or about the same? If this is the case, after taking away the cheating element, wouldn't the results have come out the same? LOL. This is precisely why the stolen election theories have not gotten much coverage.

"One thing not mentioned in STEVE F's lopsided history lesson, is that the pro-slavery Democrats, known as the "Dixie-Crats", left the party for the GOP."

Lopsided? It was an entire timeline of events, copy and paste it and insert your own comments. Though I must say it will not change the facts that it was REPUBLICANS that enacted rights for blacks BY IN LARGE, and it was and remains REPUBLICANS that put them in high office. Not democrats....again look at the evidence, blacks only mean one thing to liberals...VOTES.

"Steve F. is paid to be here on this thread. Isn't that obvious? You cannot win against him"

LOL, I am not paid to be on here and I am not required to debate and defeat incoherent liberal arguments. LOL. It's kind of addicting actually.

The things people say!

Lord, Im afraid you all leave me no choice.

Im going to have to invade your niteclubs, kill your DJ's and convert you all to Abercrombie.

Comments such as the following:

"I'll bet their whiteness opened doors that undereducated folks of color couldn't open."

I suggest you read Condi's entire story on how oppressed her "color" story is in Alabama as a child, and see how her blackness opened just as many doors as my whiteness did for me.

"Surely he is not in favor of elections coming down to our hackers vs. your hackers... "

In terms of the alleged election fraud, that is a great point to bring up. Trust me, if Republicans indeed cheated, are you saying Democrats cheated less or about the same? If this is the case, after taking away the cheating element, wouldn't the results have come out the same? LOL. This is precisely why the stolen election theories have not gotten much coverage.

"One thing not mentioned in STEVE F's lopsided history lesson, is that the pro-slavery Democrats, known as the "Dixie-Crats", left the party for the GOP."

Lopsided? It was an entire timeline of events, copy and paste it and insert your own comments. Though I must say it will not change the facts that it was REPUBLICANS that enacted rights for blacks BY IN LARGE, and it was and remains REPUBLICANS that put them in high office. Not democrats....again look at the evidence, blacks only mean one thing to liberals...VOTES.

"Steve F. is paid to be here on this thread. Isn't that obvious? You cannot win against him"

LOL, I am not paid to be on here and I am not required to debate and defeat incoherent liberal arguments. LOL. It's kind of addicting actually. I just love to watch liberals go crazy when their absurd arguments are stepped on with logical thought.

The things people say!

Lord, Im afraid you all leave me no choice.

Im going to have to invade your niteclubs, kill your DJ's and convert you all to Abercrombie.

Comments such as the following:

"I'll bet their whiteness opened doors that undereducated folks of color couldn't open."

I suggest you read Condi's entire story on how oppressed her "color" story is in Alabama as a child, and see how her blackness opened just as many doors as my whiteness did for me.

"Surely he is not in favor of elections coming down to our hackers vs. your hackers... "

In terms of the alleged election fraud, that is a great point to bring up. Trust me, if Republicans indeed cheated, are you saying Democrats cheated less or about the same? If this is the case, after taking away the cheating element, wouldn't the results have come out the same? LOL. This is precisely why the stolen election theories have not gotten much coverage.

"One thing not mentioned in STEVE F's lopsided history lesson, is that the pro-slavery Democrats, known as the "Dixie-Crats", left the party for the GOP."

Lopsided? It was an entire timeline of events, copy and paste it and insert your own comments. Though I must say it will not change the facts that it was REPUBLICANS that enacted rights for blacks BY IN LARGE, and it was and remains REPUBLICANS that put them in high office. Not democrats....again look at the evidence, blacks only mean one thing to liberals...VOTES.

"Steve F. is paid to be here on this thread. Isn't that obvious? You cannot win against him"

LOL, I am not paid to be on here and I am not required to debate and defeat incoherent liberal arguments. LOL. It's kind of addicting actually. I just love to watch liberals go crazy when their absurd arguments are stepped on with logical thought.

The things people say!

Once again I state - Bush doesn't care about negative press and/or polls. Until very recently, the players around him suffered from the same total disconnect.

But, some are beginning to understand they screwed up. That's not just an "oops" in terms of polls or ballots in the midterm elections. It's legacy.

History is going to remember these folks for what they are - monsters.

Isn't it amazing how Steve F developed an amnesia about the time period 1961-1968? Sure the Republicans from Lincoln to Eisenhower were pro-equal rights, but from Kennedy&Johnson onward that changed. There is even a theory that the reason Kennedy was killed (especially in the South) was that he favored equal rights for the Blacks. Whatever the truth of that it showed that the Southern Dixiecrat Democrats really disliked Kennedy for his changed policy. Perhaps that's why Republicans today continue to refer to any any Democratic candidate for president as a Massachussets Liberal --- to remind Southerners of Kennedy.

Clearly, from Johnson forward the Democratic party, dominated by Northerners changed direction and decided equal rights was more iportant than keeping the Southern Dixiecrats onboard. Funny how Steve F didn't notice this monumental political change in America. I guess a lot of Republicans really are stupid.

After Nixon began his Soutern Strategy the change was complete: Democrats got the Black vote and Republicans got the "conservative" Southern racist vote (now called the Christian Right).

Any Republican who doesn't know this history is just an idiot.

That Republicans began using Blacks and women in more recent years is just P.R. The party is still ruled by the basic organic structure of a largely racist Southern conservatives dominating the country.

Democrats have registered a lot more voters in the last 8 years, but stolen elections negated that. If we can get that straightened-out it will be interesting to see how the vote split goes.

Mark H. is absolutely correct. "Republicans got the "conservative" Southern racist vote (now called the Christian Right)". And it isn't just southern, it's national. Hiding behind the Evangelical /Republican flag flies the warped and crooked cross of the Nazi movement in America. Their targets are Blacks, Jews, and Gays. Their goals are elimination, and they are on schedule.

The true history of the Republican and Democrat parties:

1854 The New Republican Party is formed from former Democrats and Whig Party members in opposition to the extension of slavery into the US Territories. James Fremont becomes the Party's first Presidential candidate in 1856.

1860 Abraham Lincoln becomes the first Republican elected as President of the United States.

1862 A presidential order abolishes slavery in the District of Columbia as a prelude to the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863.

1864 The Republican National Convention makes the abolition of slavery a plank in its platform.

1865 Lincoln's assassination leaves Vice President Andrew Johnson, a moderate Democrat from Tennessee, to oversee the beginning of Southern Reconstruction.

1865-1870 Republicans pass first Civil Rights Act of 1866 to have it weakened by Southern Democrats. Republican controlled Congress passes the 13th through 15th Constitutional amendments ending slavery, securing equal legal protection and voting rights for former slaves. African Americans align themselves with the Republican Party as a result for several generations.

1866 Formation of the original Ku Klux Klan, the terrorist wing of the Democratic Party, to intimidate Radical Republican legislators and African-American voters during Reconstruction.

1870 Hiram R Revels, a Republican African-American, is elected to fill US Senate seat formerly held by Jefferson Davis and Joseph H Rainey is elected as the first African American Congressman - also Republican. (By my research of putting just their name into Google, I had to check at least 10 different sites before I could find a mention of their political affiliation.)

1871 Republican President Grant signed into law a bill making the intimidation tactics of the Ku Klux Klan tantamount to rebellion. Enforcement of this Act helped bring about the decline of the Klan in the 19th Century.

1875 Republican Blanche K Bruce of Mississippi becomes the first African-American elected to a full term in the US Senate.

1878 Republican Senator A A Sargent from California, introduced the 19th Amendment. Sargent’s amendment (also known as the Susan B Anthony Amendment) was defeated four times in the ensuing years by the Democrat-controlled Senate. (yes, Repubilcans pioneered Woman's Suffrage too)

1920 The Republican National Convention declares that African-Americans must be admitted to all state and district conventions.

1932 Franklin Roosevelt is elected president over his opponent, incumbent Herbert Hoover as a result of Republicans being blamed in part for the economic Depression. Hoover receives more than 75% of the African-American vote.

1936 The Democratic Party wins support of African-Americans on economic grounds despite their stiff opposition to civil rights for blacks.

1952 Dwight D Eisenhower elected President in landslide victory. He continues a strong national defense foreign policy and halts all segregationist practices under his control in the Federal Government including the military.

1957 and 1960 - Eisenhower introduces a Civil Rights Bill to have it blocked by the Democratic majority in Congress. Democrats reject the bill despite Eisenhower's introduction of compromise language

1963 Kennedy reintroduces and pushes for a civil rights bill to congress after violent racial discord in Birmingham, AL. He is assassinated before its passage. President Johnson works with Senate Republicans and resurrects Eisenhower's compromise language in the bill in order to break the Democratic filibuster and allow its passage in 1964 and passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965.

MUST READ links regarding the true voting history of the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act. REPUBLICANS SUPPORTED IT FAR MORE THAN DEMOCRATS:

http://www.nationalcente.../NVDavisBradley1299.html

http://www.nationalcente...g/P21NVDavisGore599.html

1966 Edward W Brooke (R-MA) is the first African-American elected to the US Senate by popular vote.

1989 President Bush appoints General Colin L Powell as Chair of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Condoleezza Rice as director of National Security Council and Louis Sullivan as Secretary of Health and Human Services.

1991 President Bush appoints Clarence Thomas to US Supreme Court.

1998 US House of Representatives elects JC Watts (R-OK) to be Chairman of the House Republican Conference.

2001 President George W Bush appoints General Colin L Powell as Secretary of State, Roderick R Paige as Secretary of Education and Condoleezza Rice as Advisor of the National Security Council.

------------------------------

Now - how many prominent blacks in government have come out of the Democratic party? The record clearly shows that almost all of the groundbreaking elections and appointments of blacks into high office were by Republican voters and Republican Presidents.

The Democrat Party has agitated against Civil Rights throughout it's existence. It won black loyalty through propaganda and economic initiatives - basically, they lied for and bought the vote. Meanwhile, segregationist Robert Byrd (D-WV) still holds his office, and Trent Lott, a Republican, suffers more political fallout over Strom Thurmond's past than Strom Thurmond did. Incidentally, during all the history of Civil Rights activity, Strom Thurmond was a Democrat.

And yet, at every turn in the media and academia, it is the group-think-obsessed liberals and Democrats who are hailed as champions of Civil Rights. It is the most outrageous Pravda-like manipulation of history I have ever witnessed, even surpassing any rewriting of history I heard come out of the Soviet Union.

Plus Doug, you said:
"Steve, you are totally sick and proving what a racist freak you are. You are saying that liberals "all" want to deny Black's equal opportunity, accusing them all of the same thing conservatives do."

No Doug, this wouldn't make me a racist, it would make me a decent conservative man who believes in true equality. If anything, it would prove my upchuck reflex for liberals and people like yourself who insult blacks everyday with your nonsense.

Read a little American history, quit putting down blacks' potential for self growth, stop patronizing them, and come up with better arguments that "Bush is racist because of Katrina" or Bill Bennett's quote .

Goodnight!

LOL Steve, you have permanently doused in flames your arguments.

--The southern Democrats were JUST AS RACIST as the Republicans.

--I already POINTED this fact out to you in bold detail, and you ignored it.

--A large majority of the southern Democrats LEFT the Democratic party permanently, and became the true core of the REPUBLICAN party.

--From that point on, it has been openly racist and the new Klu-Kluks-Klan of the suffrage movement, thanks to southern Democrats and Constitutionalists.

--The rest of the Southern Democrats became Reagan voters of the Reagan era, elected a mistake called Reagan, and then created the DLC. (Democratic Leadership Council.)

--The DLC is almost just as openly racist. Besides the fact it put Barack Obama and many more into Senate seats.

--The true populist arm of the party basically left and formed the Greens, Libertarians, and so on.

--Anyone worth their salt wants the DLC destroyed permanently, nowadays and the republicans to fall for being RACIST.

--Yes it was the Southern Democrats fault, but the rest of the blame was on CONSERVATIVES alone, since nearly every one of them WERE conservative democrats or conservative angry white voters.

--They are now republicans, so there is NO reason to say anything else now.

I criticize both to my heart's content, but you don't ever say one thing against YOUR OWN? I wonder why that is? Hmmm......Could it be you're MORE than a little racist!????

I see minorities all the time getting equal rights, but when you go down south, away from the urban cities of good education, you see the opposite.....something much worse, brought on by racism and INDIFFERENCE to the poor and to poverty.

And if it was up to me, I'd have abolished the entire thing. Including the whole republican party and the DLC democrats who created them. Sorry I see things in the reality community, and not in some bullshit "filter" of who is worse.

Doug E.

--1989 President Bush appoints General Colin L Powell as Chair of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Condoleezza Rice as director of National Security Council and Louis Sullivan as Secretary of Health and Human Services.

--2001 President George W Bush appoints General Colin L Powell as Secretary of State, Roderick R Paige as Secretary of Education and Condoleezza Rice as Advisor of the National Security Council.

--Now - how many prominent blacks in government have come out of the Democratic party?

funny, and 2 of those 3 (off the top of my head) LIED to the PUBLIC multiple times, to pull the party line and pay back their masters for giving them those jobs.. Your point? Dragged our country into conflicts that had no business being faught (well, not overly sure about the first Gulf conflict, but the more I hear, the more it was bullshit too)? Powell should have been put in jail after the first war.. Kindasleezy Rice (and Powell) should be jailed this time (as should Shrubby and Rove and Cheney and Rumsfeld). Pathetic..

Bush isn't racits because of Katrina.. I've always disliked that position.. he's not racist if you ask me.. he hates all poor people. god likes him, he's rich.. and god hates those poor folks.. As for Bill Bennett, still not seen anything from his on-air comments, and you still haven't addressed the logical falicy I showed you.. hmm.. wonder why.. could it be that Bill BELIEVES that if you killed all the black babies (even though you can't, and it's morally reprehensible) that the crime rate would go down? Problem is, you could kill all the Repug babies and the crime rate would go down too, and you'd see a MUCH larger number of people benifit from the drop in -that- crime rate.. to the tune of 10s of millions, not 10s of thousands..

By the way you said Collin Powell was picked by Bush and to the highest position.....

So this proves there's no "racism", no "class warfare"

That's bullshit too.

Collin was a wealthy black-man, self-made and respected who said ambiguous things about the war in Vietnam.

He was appointed because of his usefulness, not anything to do with race.

Meanwhile true African-Americans like Maxine Waters who grew up poor have become probably the most wonderful people in Congress we will ever have.

I dare you to meet someone like Congresswoman Waters and say what you said to me. She will set you more than a little straight, since her life has been an uphill climb. And she welcomes all of her brothers and sisters to achieve what they can, be democrats, or vote for furthering Civil Rights.

Meanwhile, just like Bush the president of the DLC Al From also appointed African-Americans into key positions of power. Barack Obama is one such candidate purchased through their influence. Obama isn't a bad man, but just like Powell, he already lived a life of luxury, has gone to Yale, and everything else.

He was picked because of his credentials and business, not because of his race or anything associated with it. The DLC doesn't work that way.

So here we have two great examples: Powell and Obama, who you say, just because they were picked proves "no racism". I say look at the writing on the wall, the very reasons they were picked to use as public relations props, screams RACISM from the getgo.

They have been used, not exactly credited for the suffrage movement. The difference between Powell & Obama and someone like Maxine Waters is an entire million miles of ocean water-difference.

People who are already "priveledged" are picked because they are priveledged, not because of any other reason. Whereas in true democracies, people like Waters are picked because they have been there. They have what it takes and know the history of their city, their culture, and how to stop poverty.

There's absolutely no comparison at all. And you proved my point.

Doug E.

I'm with you, Doug (though, I know nothing of the "past" of the parties, and don't care). I'm not Dem or Repug.. I want equality for everyone (even ignorant gay republicans, go figure) and I"m all for making sure those who would be oppressors can't function.

Problem is, for people like Steve F, if they don't have a "them" to spit at, they have nothing. As you pointed out, he's full of vitrol against "democrats" and says nothing bad about TODAY'S repugs..

I think it's amuzing to watch them squirm when 90% of their position is "yeah, well look what dems did!", and us non-dems go "so? they were wrong too.. punish them ,indict them, bring charges.. we'll cheer for that too".. they have no place left to go, do they. And the other 10% of their arguments are typically faith-based, and so have no defensible position.. I love it

Oh, and Steve F.. I read over a bit from Freakanomics.. NO WHERE in there was race mentioned, not at all.. at least not in the bit from the web site. So, for your boy bennitt to talk about "aborting black babies" is for him to read WAY too much into it.. In a sense, that become like a Freudian Slip, doesn't it?

Back near the start I said,

Laura Ingraham:
"Yeah, Bush's approval ratings are down. Gas prices are up. When gas is up, approval is down."
End of story.

Please understand, I WAS MOCKING LAURA! I WASN'T AGREEING WITH HER!

There is NO WAY Steve F is NOT cut/pasting this shit from somewhere...it's too much, and it's too fast...

...and please notice that Steve F, as all conservative/rightwing bloggers do, avoid the questions.

Above, I asked for Steve F's comments on PNAC, WHIG, the 2004 exit polls showing Kerry won, and let's throw in the Downing Street memo's for good measure.

I really really hate when rightwing/conservative bloggers don't answer questions that make them look bad. Great propogandists do that, they are only good when they drive the topic...that's why they lose in courts of law, and that's why they hate courts of law.

In a court of law, the judge would say, "Answer the question, please".....

Big Dan, I agree with you. Too much, too fast, too slick. He's not the family-business entrepreneur he purports to be.

He's a shill. And he is paid to be here.

Merifour-

Luckily for Pennsylvania we don't have to worry about Santorum stealing it anymore. The voting machines were thrown out of PA. All they are using is paper ballots now and also overhauling the entire system to have international & citizen observers.

As long as Bob Casey keeps going the way he has he'll win.

The point of the matter: We need the machines out of the process alltogether or random manual audits period, or elections are never to be trusted as fair again based on what we've seen with Diebold/ES&S.

Steve F You are still raising the same talking-points repeatedly. Why don't you debate with a true conservative, George Will??? Tell him what you've told us, or told the liberals, and Mr. Will will definitely set you straight.

Better you hear it from him, a right-winger than one of the opposition.

Doug E.

Steve F #113,#114,#115

Here it does not work to repeat bu$hit over and over "until it sinks in".

We already know what you want is for it to stink in.

Not gonna happen here Steve. We got your number and your numbers. You are invalid.

You do not speak with intellectual honesty so you are not going to win any awards here, as conservative George Will did.

The reason? Again, intellectual honesty. I know you will not grasp it. It takes what you do not yet have.

But stick around, answer Big Dan #121 because his questions are valid. Take note of Mark H #117 and Margaret G #118, not to mention the other bloggers here who have indulged you.

Otherwise you will pass into the fog of Atty Jimmo and a whole host of lame folk we have kindly addressed ... up to a point. That point being intellectual honesty. Leave that Steve and you are a gonner ... a mist that will fade into ignominy like the rest of that ilk have.

Those conservatives like George Will and Judge John Sirica who are intellectually honest will find honor here ... even tho we disagree with their politics and they ours, at least we rate them as honest american brothers and sisters.

Not the faux conservative criminals we care to have nothing to do with. Trolls they be ... rank trolls.

Heed my words.

It seems to me that Steve F and Dru Faulk really just enjoy stirring the pot. Otherwise they would respond with actual debating points.

And I saw Ann Coulter on the rerun of Bill Maher last night and she actually made sense, no hysteria at all, not even the normal spitefullness. Amazing !

Steve F.. lets look at one PERFECT example of how ignorant you are (to anyone with a brain that understands debate).

""Surely he is not in favor of elections coming down to our hackers vs. your hackers... "

In terms of the alleged election fraud, that is a great point to bring up. Trust me, if Republicans indeed cheated, are you saying Democrats cheated less or about the same? If this is the case, after taking away the cheating element, wouldn't the results have come out the same? LOL. This is precisely why the stolen election theories have not gotten much coverage."

OK.. You try to make a premise that "both cheated equally", therefore all the cheating is a wash, therefore the counts were right (and you imply, though never answer, the exit polls were -wrong- for the -first time in history-). If you use that kind of logic for your "clients", you should be sued for incompetence.

Want ONE simple "example" of how "cheated same" has NO bearing on "a wash of result"? Lets say, for a second, that both parties cheated "the same amount".. here's the "amount".. each hacks the final tabulations on the central tabulator machines (the data is kept in a plain text Microsoft Windows Access Database, one of the crappiest DBs out there). The Dems hack first to make sure their guy wins.. 10 minutes later, the Rethugs hack to make their guy win.. "same amount of cheating", and no where NEAR a "wash"..

Your logic is pathetic. M4 pointed out that Debating is a Skill.. the only Skill "rethugs" bring to debates is the ability to lie, distract, and provide disinformation (like your little totally fucked up logic exercise there).

You are a tired little man. Pretty soon people here will come to realize that you are hopelessly lost. You are an enlitest who believes you have more rights than others.. you believe it's ok to exploit others "because it's their own fault for letting it happen".. You refuse to accept that humans have different levels of surviveability and that "modern societies" blow evolution out of the water when it comes to "survival of the fittest".. in that, it's OUR responsibility, as DECENT HUMAN BEINGS, to make sure opression and exploitation don't occur. In the "world without societies", people like me would happily destroy people like you when you came and tried to use your lies and deceit to take from me. Current society is supposed to do that now, but, "people like you" do your damndest to tip the scales in your favor, then lie and cheat and deceive to keep things "in your favor".

--done.. no more.. nut-cases that don't truely care about their fellow man are the only ones still supporting the nut-cases in office.. DESPITE all the evidence showing how corrupt and unjust they are. Pathetic.. and not worth my time anymore ... and I'd suggest all the rest of the BradBlog folks let this fruit (called Steve F) shrivle up on the vine. He's no longer even pretending to be "honest" or "sincere". Giving timelines from 200 years ago does NOTHING to justify drug-addicted-nut-jobs like Limbaugh being part of "his party" and being totally racist (well, again, racist is kind of a misnomer.. they just hate all "poor people" and believe they "deserve what they get".. it's a broader kind of hate)

WOW! Sorry I was away for the most part of the day WORKING and could not respond to EVERY SINGLE rant put forth.

I am pleased though that liberals have decided to "attempt" logical thinking, though it failed miserably as most of it did not make much sense or refute any fact that I stated previously.

Lord so much to respond to.

For starters, I find it odd that I wrote a post citing actual FACTS...the timeline NOT from 200 years ago, but for the last 200 years of facts and examples showing what racists the democrats really are and how they use the blacks as sheep to attain votes. It was that post, FULL OF FACTS that is what really stirred up the hysteria here, and it pleases me to no end, what facts really do to my debaters here.

"The art of debate" By SAV (copyright 2005)
#1 Call someone a moron.
#2 Use profanity to make a point.

I mean come on, I never claimed to be an expert debater, though the part about making liberals go crazy by citing facts I think is well proven on this thread .

Okay MARKH said "Isn't it amazing how Steve F developed an amnesia about the time period 1961-1968"

Well Mark, you apparently have lost the ability to read toward the end of the timeline of proof of what racist bigots the democrats are but to give you a few points from 1961 - 1968, let me recite them once more:

1963 Kennedy reintroduces and pushes for a civil rights bill to congress after violent racial discord in Birmingham, AL. He is assassinated before its passage. President Johnson works with Senate Republicans and resurrects Eisenhower's compromise language in the bill in order to break the Democratic filibuster and allow its passage in 1964 and passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965.

MUST READ links regarding the true voting history of the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act. REPUBLICANS SUPPORTED IT FAR MORE THAN DEMOCRATS:

http://www.nationalcente.../NVDavisBradley1299.html

http://www.nationalcente...g/P21NVDavisGore599.html

1966 Edward W Brooke (R-MA) is the first African-American elected to the US Senate by popular vote.

Read them again Mark, no amnesia on my end!

Your point basically comes down to: Republicans aren't republicans anymore and democrats aren't democrats anymore. So are you saying that 100 years ago would you have been a republican?

"There is even a theory that the reason Kennedy was killed (especially in the South) was that he favored equal rights for the Blacks."

Yes there was also a theory that Kennedy had been assassinated by the plot of his father in addition to the theory that Johnson had him assassinated as there were numerous federal investigations on Johnson under Kennedy. Kennedy's secretary Evelyn Lincoln made these charges herself.

for the liberal bible (New York Times) article that was published Feb 19, 1968, click the following:
LINK

For more on the multiple Kennedy assassination theories click the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/...y_assassination_theories

So after reading these, I think we can say it is a FACT that there were many theories, but being the good liberal that you are, I am sure that you will stick to the "theory" that [non existant] "republican racism" assassinated him. LOL.

It's so funny, that of all the facts I provide here, I AM THE ONE who gets accused of spewing meaningless words to stir up the pot.

MARGARET G said:
"Republicans got the "conservative" Southern racist vote (now called the Christian Right)".

Who is the religious right? Is it hicks from the south who eat grits for breakfast? Is it Pat Robertson? Is it Jerry Falwell? Click on the NY Times archives link provided above and type in the term "religious right"....I warn you, you will be reading for years but you will indeed learn ALOT. Most interestingly, you will find that it is not clearly defined. According to the New York Times it's mainly any American who wants his taxes lowered. According to liberals, it's EX-democrats, or Jerry Falwell. So before using terms like "Christian Right", liberals need to figure out exactly what it means before using an undefined phrase to support their boneheaded arguments.

BIG DAN said:

"There is NO WAY Steve F is NOT cut/pasting this shit from somewhere...it's too much, and it's too fast... "

Dan I research facts everyday when I talk to people, I have them saved on my harddrive, thousands of books, old newspapers, and even have CD roms full of old archived newspaper articles and columns to gain my own perspective on issues.

Of course, I went into one of those documents and copied and pasted from those documents that still provided debate and logic and FACT to the myth that liberals love black folks LOL. Excuse me if an entire 200 year timeline is not on the tip of my brain to sit here and freelance type to you as we speak.

Does the fact that I went into "my documents" and copied and pasted each point change that it's FACT? No of course not. Should I have recited the entire New Yorks Times articles and typed them on my own to prove to you that they are still FACTS?

Good lord!

More brilliant comments from BIGDAN:

"Above, I asked for Steve F's comments on PNAC, WHIG, the 2004 exit polls showing Kerry won, and let's throw in the Downing Street memo's for good measure."

Okay "BIGDAN" sorry (I feel like a student being scolded who was late with his book report).

For starters, I know the typical liberal approach is to ask my opinion in order to somehow connect that to WHY or WHY NOT someone supports the war. Overall, I think Americans leading is a great idea! We are the most sopisticated civil country in the world who constantly extends it's resources out to people all over the world.

One of the many controversies of the PNAC was when Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowicz wrote Clinton in 1998 and urged him to remove Saddam from power - thus creating somekind of a conspiritorial element to republicans who wanted to "rush" to war. Those arguments would be fine if democrats weren't urging the same thing as well! For example, GEORGE STEPHANOPOLIS advised Clinton to ASSASSINATE Saddam just one year prior to the Rumsfeld/Wolfowicz plea. See the following article:
http://www.newsmax.com/a...c/2005/8/24/122804.shtml

WHIG: I think it wasn't necessary. Americans with any brains especially being hit after 9/11, did not need to be convinced. Saddam Hussein made a purposed bluff to the UN about WMD himself in order to get more $$ for nuclear testing. After 9/11 had occured, with or without WHIG, we had no choice to invade! In other words, WHIG was not the reason we went to war.

In addition, see my Stephanapolous remark above.

Lastly, one FACT is, we removed a man who gassed hundreds of thousands of his own people. They also voted and they have a constitution in the works.

Again, why do liberals stay in the rut of false UNPROVEN conspiracies, and if they choose to stay there, they need to pull their own party into the mix as well who master the art of conspiracy [aka Pelosi, Dean, or Earle].

"2004 exit polls showing Kerry won"

SO what? The 2004 machine votes showed that Bush won. When Warren Mitofsky (co director of NEP) implied that more Kerry voters used exit polls than Bush voters did, it was laughed off by sore losing democrats.

The fact is that there are numbers and analysis that support both sides here. But IN ALL states with the EXCEPTION of Illinois in reference to John Kerry alone, EVEN IN states that he won, the Exit Polls for Kerry were always larger than the machine polls for Kerry. Taking Bush out of the equation entirely proves that point....that Kerry voters used exit polling moreso than they used machines.

Another reason why Kerry was winning early in the day is because all the republicans were at work! We had to wait until 5pm to cast our votes! LOL. (Okay that point was a "joke" but it's not totally invalid seeings as the democrats have went from the party who represented "the hard working man" to representing "the man who has to work...if he must"), it's only natural that their voters actually saw election day as a splendid reason to stay home from work .

BIGDAN also said:

"In a court of law, the judge would say, "Answer the question, please"..... "

Sorry I thought this was a thread and not a courtroom. I also was not aware that you were a judge (or a teacher demanding a book report). Though democrats are SUPPOSED to be the party who never judges LOL. By the way BIG DAN, aside from demanding book reports from me on my opinions, what FACTS have you brought to the table?

By the way "your honor" (I will grant that you have just as much right to sit on the supreme court as Miers does based on HER experience) could you please read Doug and Sav's posts and HOLD THEM IN CONTENT!? I haven't seen such foul mouthed language since the NTC (National Trucker's Convention).

UNIREAL:

"He's a shill. And he is paid to be here."

This is the second time you made this point, but no facts to debate anything. Now, Doug and Sav, is this what you mean by productive debate? LOL You guys are killing me!

And finally, the award for the most factual compelling "understand[ing] debate" poster-ranter of the day.....SAVANTSTER!

"Steve F.. lets look at one PERFECT example of how ignorant you are (to anyone with a brain that understands debate)."

"you should be sued for incompetence."

"Your logic is pathetic."

"You are a tired little man"

lol Thanx for that accepting love that liberals and democrats and "independents" feel that the republican party is lacking LOL. Based on those comments, I think you indeed were "stirred up", nothing pleases me more but when you are "stirred up", please try and speak with a coherent context.

you said:

"Lets say, for a second, that both parties cheated "the same amount".. here's the "amount".. each hacks the final tabulations on the central tabulator machines (the data is kept in a plain text Microsoft Windows Access Database, one of the crappiest DBs out there). The Dems hack first to make sure their guy wins.. 10 minutes later, the Rethugs hack to make their guy win."

You also said this just moments before telling me my logic was pathetic...and always bring up the term "fact" like your assertion that MWAD is a crappy DB)

You gave no fact in your rant to prove that Republicans would have cheated ANYMORE than democrats would. It was 8 paragraphs of slander and accusations. I implore you to skim through it and paste ONE PROVEN FACT. One that has been carried out with a conviction and not an ADMONISHMENT. LOL.

Secondly, you guys flooded me with questions and comments last night in an effort to persuade me to "wake up" to the grand swarm of corruption within my party by throwingat me; the REPUBLICAN GOV OF KENTUCKY and the CONGRESSMAN FROM TEXAS who was stopped for drunk driving, and then falsely alleging that he was convicted when indeed he was stopped and arrested and the "conviction" was yet to be proven. Who detours away from the main point? Here we were talking about a BIG ROLLER like Delay and you bring out false "facts" about the GOVERNOR OF KENTUCKY and I researched FOR YOU and answered FOR YOU in factual detail and depth on both cases. Based on all of this, your implications of my evasivness are unsubtantiated.

The fact is, (as this post will do) people like SAV and DOUG and "BIGDAN" (lol) are indeed overwhelmed by factual evidence and underwhelmed with the ability to "keep up" with liberal hysteria that exhausts them from debating logic. These posts prove exactly.

I have not missed any comments made, I have answered absolutely everything.

LOL at least debate me honestly and accuse me of replying with "partisian answers" LOL.

SAV:

you said "Giving timelines from 200 years ago does NOTHING to justify"

Well LOL, you obviously don't understand the concept of a "timeline". It starts 200 years ago, and it ends just a few years ago. The entire timeline in and of itself has no age, and the points are not ALL 200 years old!

By the way your final assertion of Rush Limbaugh being a drug addict adds to your merit of logical "staying on the subject" art of debate that you have yet to master.

LASTLY (perhaps the most brilliant thing you said):
"--done.. no more.. "

SAV you are in over your head and are enraged at the fact that I was able to point out what a racist you were and how you are a magnificient role model for liberals self patronizing of the blacks. I can see you spitting and sputtering as you type....;-).

I think you should actually do one thing that another liberal has never done before with your "done no more" brilliance: STICK to the philosophy and cut your losses. As proven above and mentioned to Dan, I am loaded with facts and articles, answers to the most brilliant liberal rants, and energy to carry them out.

(YES THIS POST IS INCREDIBLY LONG, but it was nescessary to cover BIG DAN's (our "Justice" Dan's) book report requirement.

Now, come back with some links and facts and explanations like I have before the Justice / defendant roles switch.

Regards!

Error:

"By the way "your honor" (I will grant that you have just as much right to sit on the supreme court as Miers does based on HER experience) could you please read Doug and Sav's posts and HOLD THEM IN CONTENT!? I haven't seen such foul mouthed language since the NTC (National Trucker's Convention)."

*HOLD THEM IN CONTEMPT!?

Someone needs to teach "smart Republican who looks up facts all day" how to look up HTML so he can stop breaking the blog..

Oh, and Brad, can you delete the lines that this idiot can't figure out how to link? For someone with "clients" and "information gatherer", he sure is sloppy..

Savanster, I am an accountant, not a web designer.
I am an information, news reading GEEK. Web designing is a new interest, I never said I was good at it, or at blogging for that matter. My apologies for breaking the blog. .

Steve..

does this mean you are willing to go back to debating and not keep pointing out commentaries and call that "your justifications"?

I had a small post that was in \ lines and it got ate.. but, in that, I pointed out that when I showed your lack of logical position (both cheat, it's a wash), you responded by pointing out my commentary.. never actually discussing the falicy I showed.. That's the kind of thing that totally discredits any of your arguments.. Sure, the debate would go better without it [comentary], but, as you point out, you intentionally set out to cause strife.. and as has been pointed out time and again, that's a favorite pasttime of Repubs with no solid position.

The fact that you are an accountant.. making a -living- off the rich by balancing their books and making sure they can burry as much of their money to prevent paying taxes on it.. also goes a long way to show where your motivation is. If government stopped catering to the rich, you'd have to find a real job

Also, since you are an accountant, I'm presuming you fully understand your attempt to provide disinformation when you talked about your having to pay the "full 15% for social security".. I wan't gonna bring it up because I wasn't sure if you were aware of all the loopholes, writeoffs, and inside tricks of business.. as an accountant, you better That means, you know FULL WELL that you get a LOT more in perks than the "average employee" -despite- your paying your own insurance, taxes, etc. And, you -also- know you can get it all written off (either by yourself as "self employed" or from your "firm".. either way). I"m not a "tax genious", but I am aware of the thousands of loopholes built into the law for -just that reason-.. I don't get to write off -any- of my Social Security tax, but you get to write off that 1/2 that comes from "the company", don't you? In the end, we're all paying the same. You pay the insurance, but get to write that off (well, pre-tax contribution anyway, I'd guess).. And, you get paid a lot more than an accountant working for "someone else".. And, when the "firm" buys a car that is to be used as a "company car" by staff, that car is a write off to the company, and the monthly cost is something you don't have to pay "from your pocket".. your salary is now worth MORE since you have LESS in monthly bills.. Some of us fully understand the "perks" of being in business "for your self", small family businesses are the same.. It makes -sense- that -you- are a republican, since their mantra is "let businesses have a chance!".. yet, that same idea should not apply to "corperate amercia" because that's where the large scale corruption comes in.. not small businesses like yours. And, personally, I'm all FOR small businesses being able to write off all kinds of stuff.. let YOU have those perks.. why? YOU aren't laying off thousands to get millions in bonuses.. The mentality of small business is totally different than that of big business. I"m all FOR encouraging small business, and all FOR massive regulation of large businesses..

Now, let's look at you and your "family firm".. You obviously should be able to understand that "most people aren't smart enough" to be accountants.. right? I mean, "average intelligence" isn't enough (typically) to be able to take care of all the tax code stuff (which is -also- part of why our tax code should be scrapped and redone.. it violates the basic tennets of "law", in that the average person should be able to understand them). Any idiot can "run their own business", but "average" folks need to hire accountants.. right? This brings up the entire "other" side of the world here.. You keep trying to say I'm "racist", but I keep saying that "people need help", and "people aren't all created equal".. that has nothing to do with race.. nothing at all. Affimative Action -is- about race, but -not- because minorities are "inferrior", but because "business owners have shown to be racist in the past" (and present, in a lot of places). I've heard some bad things about Affirmative Action, but I've heard great things about it too.. in "principle", I think it's a great idea.. it's a way to force non-discrimination to a certian degree.. and it is NOT saying "those poor stupid minorities.. can't do it on their own.. let's give them a leg up".. it's saying "those greedy racist assholes running major businesses need to support the entire country, not just white folks".. Racisim and Sexism are very much alive in this country, and things like Affirmative Action are meant to try and "break that down".. nothing more (at least, that's my take on it).

Oh, and again, for the timeline.. whether it be "from" 200 years ago, or "spanning 200 years", it's irrelivant. I don't care about "who was doing what" 200, 100, 50, or even 30 years ago.. all I care about is, what is out there TODAY.. Today, Limbauh, Hannity, O'Rielly, and your boy Bennitt seem to be kind of racist.. The "talking heads of the Republican party" all seem to be racist.. really.. Which means, it makes the Republican party look racist.. TODAY.. Please leave the history lesson in the past, it has no bearing on TODAY. And, again, I don't like Dems very much either.

Here's my basic take on the 2 parties.. both have corruption.. both have freaks and extremists.. but as "general principles [today]", this is what I see:

Democrats : care about "people". Want 'everyone' to have a decent quality of life. Understand there are differences in people's abilities, while we all have the same rights, we don't all have the same "ability".. therefore, it's encumbant on us, the smart and capable ones, to make sure EVERYONE has a decent life.

Republicans : care about "money". Hide behind the statement "everyone has the same 'chances', if they don't take advantage of it, that's their problem". Ignore the -fact- that people have different intelligence levels, and different educations cause different outlooks on things. That is, though, until it's time to build schools.. then the "rich folks" get together and build good schools, hire good teachers, and have good class sizes "for their kids", and tell the "poor people" to "fend for themselves". They INTENTIONALLY pass laws that let them keep more, and make "others" pay more. They pass laws that help the "richest" get "richer", and make it harder and harder for "average folks" to get by. They pass laws that destroy the environment (and people, for that matter) for PROFITS..

Basically, in "principle", Dems care about and protect people, Repubs care about and protect money. That's my take on the parties "today"

Oh.. and one more thing.. With regard to the exit polls and your comment about "the machines said Bush won".. That argument is seriously flawed for many reasons.. but, as a Software Engineer, let me explain why your assertion is irrelivant.

The code used to count the votes is hidden, seceret.. When you have a computer program that "adds", it will add the same way every time (unless there's some really bad bugs). But, what it's adding can be different than what "was put in".. that is, you vote for X.. the machine stores it as Y and adds one to Y. You pushed X.. at the end, X has 0, Y has 1.. every time you say "count", it will have the same, but WRONG, count.

The machines we're talking about have NO paper trail. So, if the code "flipped votes", there's NO way to prove it (and writing the code would be super easy.. it could be done in any one of hundreds of ways). You say "the machine said Bush won", but how do we know that Kerry wasn't pressed a lot more than Bush? we have -no- way to know.. We have to trust "the machine"? and the people who paid a LOT of money to Republicans, but not Dems? It's "obvious" where they want the votes to go, and we have no way to know if they "rigged it" or not.

Then, we have the -second- huge issue. The "data" is transmitted over the internet in plain text and lands on the "centeral tabulator" machines. The data is STORED in plain text, in a Microsoft Access database.. one of the WORST in the world. All someone has to do is.. open that file, see who won.. if they don't like it, FLIP THE NAMES so their guy is in the "winner's column".. It's been PROVED that a CHIMP can hack those voting machines and delete the entry log, no record. The Centeral Tabulators are on insecure hosts, and ONE person "inside" can rig the entire election.. and we have NO way to "find out what happened".

So, when the exit polls.. used around the world.. and trusted around the world, and by our OWN government, says "something isn't right".. we shouldn't just ignore it.

Even without all the "evidence" of problems with just the machines, there are a lot more problems in Ohio and other states. Your denying it doesn't change the facts, and, as was posted above (which you convienently avoided discussing further), convictions ARE being handed out in Ohio for electoin fraud.. -that- should concern even you.. what if next election the Dems get in and hack it away from a very well qualified Repub? that wouldn't bother you? See, most of us -here- want -fully disclosed elections-.. for BOTH sides, and for OUR protection.. not the protection of "the dems" or whatever. It amazes me how so many Repubs refuse to see that and keep trying to spin it to a Dem/Repub issue. This is an American Democracy issue, nothing more. Any conversations about anything else (dealing with elections) is pure distraction.

I disagree and WILL explain to you tomorrow regarding all of the tax stuff.

As well as the rest of the arguments.

I will end (though this is not within the rules of my "hating republican party") that I do believe in your right to believe in what you believe in. I have friends I debate with all the time (Hell Ann Coulter is friends with Bill Maher).

For some reason, (though im incredibly tired from writing and trying to figure out Frontpage2003) this last post of yours (#131) was my favorite of yours.

As much as off track you think I am, or as off track as I think you are, I believe you are passionate about it.

Off to watch some horror movies with my brothers now and giving my brain a rest for a while.

Goodnight, and I'll answer you sometime tomorrow.

I'm in a hurry, just checking in.

Did Steve F answer my questions about the PNAC, WHIG, 2004 exit polls, and/or Downing Street memos yet?

...or did he just cut/paste some giant propoganda SHITSTORM again???

Sorry, buddy. I still think you're a shill. It's too hard to believe that anyone with your apparent intelligence could believe what you apparently do.

Occam's Razor applies.

But you do have a legitimate company, right? So, here's your chance for some free advertising. State your name, address, and telephone # to prove you are what you say you are.

#132 Savanster, thank you for explaining the voting box issue in terms I can understand. I was hearing about the black box, no paper trail, 'alert' before the '04 election. I knew the experts talking about it were right and the vote was going to be rigged (Ohio-Deibold promise of a win to bush). I did not understand the mechanics behind it. The documentary I watched on rove showed how he went to a room in the WH and showed him and several others 'working their computers', this after the exit polls were showing bush was losing all over.
If I understand you correctly, the election could have been tampered with right in the WH. What a perfect place to do it, safe, secure, with the 'architect' architecting. M4

P.S.I have Conyer's book but haven't read it yet, I am sure I will get more insight there.

SAV:

Tax issues: When self employed individuals pay 15.3%, it is true that 10% of their self employment tax (the 15.3%) is an adjustment in the favor of the taxpayer before determining the AGI (Adjusted Gross Income) which is then taxed at whatever the bracket the individual falls in (yes the brackets are higher for higher income individuals). So let's say that the overall profit (gross income minus legit deductions) is $100,000. The self employment tax alone $15,300.00 is then multiplied by 10% 1,530.00 which is deducted from the AGI to determine taxable income. That 1,530.00 does not come near the half which of course is 7,650.00 as you described. Yes there IS tax "relief" and perks for IRA contributions and self employed health insurance premiums. BUT getting a slight tax brake versus the full costs of the insurance, and the 7,650.00 is a bit of a difference.

As I said though, I'm not "complaining", persay, but I am also aware of the extent of what I have put into the system. We've put in plenty. IF everything stayed the same now, and never changed, I'd be fine. The IRS has raised the mileage rate to 48.5 cents per mile for a larger auto deduction due to gas prices.

When a couple comes in to get their taxes prepared and they are lying and saying they are married in order for the mother to file single/HOH in order to take advantage of the EIC (Earned Income Credit) and walks out with 6,000.00 refunds (which is literally almost 50% of what her W2 reads for gross wages in total) I get a little put off. In addition, we are allowed to "ask" but cannot press to make sure they are being honest.

Last year, part of Bush's budget was to give $500,000,000 to the Internal Revenue Service's special investigation department. Since then of $40,000,000,000 in unjust EIC has been recovered. Before that bill was passed, the Internal Revenue Service audited exactly who Americans want them to audit, RICH people to make sure they weren't cheating. Now that they have more resources in the invesitagtion department, more returns are being examined. The tax years 2000, 2001, and 2002's examinations of the "rich" 1040's and the recovery amounts paled in comparrison to what has been put forth in 2003 and 2004 in stolen EIC.

These are the poor people who are being discriminated against. They had gotten away with this for years. There are FAR too many state and federalized programs that cater to single mothers, state and federalized daycares (I have 3 LARGE daycares that are 100% state funded, and among the 3, 2 of them are ALSO involved in the federalized Healthy Start program in which 25% of their payroll, food expenses, rent, utilities, etc are REIMBURSED EVEN AFTER the main income came from the state).

It is shams like this that have gotten out of hand. As Ann Coulter started her book, "How To Talk to a Liberal - If you Must", she said that historically, all it took for Americans to convert to conservatism was to move out of their parent's homes, get a job, and pay taxes. Watching how the government has catered to the "poor" victims who are using these government perks to enjoy life NOW rather than use them productively and build something secure so that they can enjoy life FOREVER and in turn start giving back to the system. THAT's the concept and it's never followed through upon.

SAV this money comes out of your pocket, my pocket, and EVERY other taxpayer's pockets endlessly. These are just a few things off the top of my head. I'm sure BIGDAN will demand another book report on economics. LOL, so I'm sure that's coming.

Quickly on your voting fraud theories. It seems that you use the term "flawed". DO you think that flawed equals fraud? Or do you think the flaws are used at the Republican's advantage, and if so, why haven't the Democrats adopted the philosophy of "if you can't beat em, join em", assuming they have been 100% corruption free when it comes to corruption (I doubt it LOL). Just for speculation though. Also, how do you think that votes should be cast in order to make yoou happy and secure.

One thing I did point out, that I am not sure if you picked up on or not, is EVEN looking at the States that Kerry won (fair and square that is) and comparring the exit polling to the machine polling. The exit polling (even when he won) figures were substantially higher for Kerry than Bush. (With the exception of Illinois where they were about the same (my goof old hometown of Chicago).

Basically "Kerry Exit" beats "Kerry Machine".
"Bush Machine" beats "Bush Exit".

I suppose next election if we throw out the machines and use only exit pollings that we could finally have 4 years of presidency without the indication of fraud on bealf of the President. Unless we all vote by mail like they do in Oregon.

BIGDAN if you missed my post that took up half the page in reference to your demands of a book report, then I am sorry. You posts are short and accusatory and you haven't said much other than "What did Steve do, what did Steve do?".

UNIREALIST I am not advertising my company on here, LOL. It's a small accounting firm in the south suburbs of Chicago that services 2.500 personal tax returns a year and about 100 small corporations. That's it. Small potatoes but prominent. We're thankful. Business can always go either way.

Steve F - I still hear nothing from you on the potential for hacking the vote, given all that has now been exposed about the vulnerability of the system. This apparently does not worry you in the slightest. You are open minded and willing to dwell in the gray areas when it comes to Miers yet stick to your guns that everything is just hunky dory on election fraud it seems. By the way, the excellent election system we taught to Germany and is still used goes like this: paper ballots are used, the night of the election the results of the exit polls are reported as the "provisional" winners until confirmed by the counting of ballots by carefully watched workers (takes a couple days). Everything is retained in case a recount or audit is necessary. That would be my answer to your question on what sort of system we should use.

...by the way I live in Oregon and the vote by mail is great in many ways but the tabulation machines are made, programmed, maintained by GOP-companies including Diebold.

See votersunite.org for a nice bipartisan explanation of some of this.

As one who watches dollars and cents in my own business and hates paying more taxes than I have to, there is a good precident being set right now by a very good attorney in Washington which attempts to redress the electronic voting problem as it played out in that state and which would if successful pay the citizens back for all the money they spent on this fancy system no one can understand but the techies that work for the company. http://www.votersunite.org/info/lehtolawsuit.asp

Simple is better.

Davek - Just read about a system that is electronic as well as paper. The voter is able to check his electronic vote against the paper receipt. Some what like the ATM. I would like a receipt as well since once you deposit your ballot its gone.

Also, what is wrong with allowing longer than one day to vote. We had a week here and it was great.
No excuse of long lines or not enough machines.

And lets have someone from both parties at all times in the voting and counting area. Really hard to buy off so many people.

The whole process from nomination to election need an overhaul. Forget the state to state two year drive. Limit the campaign money, each party can only spend the same amount, only have televised debates. And most important get rid of the Electoral College. So many feel why vote if the EC can overturn your vote. One person one vote.

We can spend tons of money for pork projects lets spend money for a better, cleaner election process.
Alot more important than a bridge in Alaska for a small community.

DaveK I wrote endlessly on my points on the voting frauds, exit pollings, machine pollings and yes even Oregon.

I appreciate what you are saying, I really do! BUT for you to assume that it's all a "GOP" corruption movement is as extreme as me saying that all liberals whine. (Wait is that extreme? LOL Kidding!)

Let's let it rest here: You and I can agree that there are corrupt individuals, conspiritorial individuals, and individuals with ethical shortcomings heading both parties.

If the "stupid" republicans in their "alleged" game of fraud and corruption are coming out on top each election, they why having the equally corrupt from the left tried beating them at their own games, and what does this really say about the democrats and their abilities to manipulate foreign policies and make good decisions for our country.

Howard Dean in May on Meet the Press started out with his slander of Tom Delay by stating that Tom Delay was not an "ethical person" and that he ought not be heading Congress. Then 20 minutes later, Tim Russert asked him why he attacked Rush Limbaugh as a "drug addict" especially when a man known as "Dr. Dean" knows that Rush's condition was "medical". Dean replied by saying that it was because Rush had always made fun of Mr & Mrs Clinton and other democrats on their "ethical shortcomings". .....here's the kicker.... he concluded this thought by saying "we all have ethical shortcomings, we ought not be lectured on our ethical shortcomings". HELLO...just 15 minutes earlier in the broadcast, Howard was trying to convince Americans that Delay was not an "ethical" person. The absolute height of hypocrisy.

My point is: if there are indeed "ethical shortcomings" on both sides of the political fences, then it is impossible for the elections be to controlled strictly by republicans uunless democrats are just plain stupid.

TEXASLADY: made a great point:
"And lets have someone from both parties at all times in the voting and counting area. Really hard to buy off so many people."

Okay fine....I agree....let's do it in 2008. Make sure this doesn't happen again if you believe IN YOUR HEART (which I STILL do not) that it's the ONLY reason why Bush is our President.

I'd like to see the democrats control the tallies and counting all the way down to the end, because when Condoleezza Rice wins in a landslide, burying Hillary, I don't want to hear this type of stuff again for another 4-8 years.

We need to move on from conspiracies on how everyone got their positions in government and work together as a country to win in Iraq.

By the way, anybody read of the success for the constitution turnout in Iraq today?

DaveK I wrote endlessly on my points on the voting frauds, exit pollings, machine pollings and yes even Oregon.

I appreciate what you are saying, I really do! BUT for you to assume that it's all a "GOP" corruption movement is as extreme as me saying that all liberals whine. (Wait is that extreme? LOL Kidding!)

Let's let it rest here: You and I can agree that there are corrupt individuals, conspiritorial individuals, and individuals with ethical shortcomings heading both parties.

If the "stupid" republicans in their "alleged" game of fraud and corruption are coming out on top each election, they why having the equally corrupt from the left tried beating them at their own games, and what does this really say about the democrats and their abilities to manipulate foreign policies and make good decisions for our country.

Howard Dean in May on Meet the Press started out with his slander of Tom Delay by stating that Tom Delay was not an "ethical person" and that he ought not be heading Congress. Then 20 minutes later, Tim Russert asked him why he attacked Rush Limbaugh as a "drug addict" especially when a man known as "Dr. Dean" knows that Rush's condition was "medical". Dean replied by saying that it was because Rush had always made fun of Mr & Mrs Clinton and other democrats on their "ethical shortcomings". .....here's the kicker.... he concluded this thought by saying "we all have ethical shortcomings, we ought not be lectured on our ethical shortcomings". HELLO...just 15 minutes earlier in the broadcast, Howard was trying to convince Americans that Delay was not an "ethical" person. The absolute height of hypocrisy.

My point is: if there are indeed "ethical shortcomings" on both sides of the political fences, then it is impossible for the elections be to controlled strictly by republicans uunless democrats are just plain stupid.

TEXASLADY: made a great point:
"And lets have someone from both parties at all times in the voting and counting area. Really hard to buy off so many people."

Okay fine....I agree....let's do it in 2008. Make sure this doesn't happen again if you believe IN YOUR HEART (which I STILL do not) that it's the ONLY reason why Bush is our President.

I'd like to see the democrats control the tallies and counting all the way down to the end, because when Condoleezza Rice wins in a landslide, burying Hillary, I don't want to hear this type of stuff again for another 4-8 years.

We need to move on from conspiracies on how everyone got their positions in government and work together as a country to win in Iraq.

By the way, anybody read of the success for the constitution turnout in Iraq today?

DaveK I wrote endlessly on my points on the voting frauds, exit pollings, machine pollings and yes even Oregon.

I appreciate what you are saying, I really do! BUT for you to assume that it's all a "GOP" corruption movement is as extreme as me saying that all liberals whine. (Wait is that extreme? LOL Kidding!)

Let's let it rest here: You and I can agree that there are corrupt individuals, conspiritorial individuals, and individuals with ethical shortcomings heading both parties.

If the "stupid" republicans in their "alleged" game of fraud and corruption are coming out on top each election, they why having the equally corrupt from the left tried beating them at their own games, and what does this really say about the democrats and their abilities to manipulate foreign policies and make good decisions for our country.

Howard Dean in May on Meet the Press started out with his slander of Tom Delay by stating that Tom Delay was not an "ethical person" and that he ought not be heading Congress. Then 20 minutes later, Tim Russert asked him why he attacked Rush Limbaugh as a "drug addict" especially when a man known as "Dr. Dean" knows that Rush's condition was "medical". Dean replied by saying that it was because Rush had always made fun of Mr & Mrs Clinton and other democrats on their "ethical shortcomings". .....here's the kicker.... he concluded this thought by saying "we all have ethical shortcomings, we ought not be lectured on our ethical shortcomings". HELLO...just 15 minutes earlier in the broadcast, Howard was trying to convince Americans that Delay was not an "ethical" person. The absolute height of hypocrisy.

My point is: if there are indeed "ethical shortcomings" on both sides of the political fences, then it is impossible for the elections be to controlled strictly by republicans uunless democrats are just plain stupid.

TEXASLADY: made a great point:
"And lets have someone from both parties at all times in the voting and counting area. Really hard to buy off so many people."

Okay fine....I agree....let's do it in 2008. Make sure this doesn't happen again if you believe IN YOUR HEART (which I STILL do not) that it's the ONLY reason why Bush is our President.

I'd like to see the democrats control the tallies and counting all the way down to the end, because when Condoleezza Rice wins in a landslide, burying Hillary, I don't want to hear this type of stuff again for another 4-8 years.

We need to move on from conspiracies on how everyone got their positions in government and work together as a country to win in Iraq.

By the way, anybody read of the success for the constitution turnout in Iraq today?

Sorry about the multiple postings....this only happens when my browser sticks.

Steve F you can read about the abysmal voting machine system from a bi-partisan organization BLACK BOX voting (link here).

One of the founders, a republican, has posted here in the past, and so has the other founder, a democrat or liberal. I can't remember. Can't remember is Jim is a conservative republican or not either.

Anyway, they have proven over and over, in front of congress, in front of election officials, and in front of the world how very childishly easy it is to hack into the Diebold machines (a republican owned company that is beginning to loose lawsuits and have their stock fall seriously). One top official of the Diebold company, a large contributor to RNC said he was committed to seeing bush win in '04.

There are other republican and conservatives (a la George Will) who acknowledge that it is quite likely that big time fraud happened in the last two elections. Voter machine fraud due to hackable voting machines. And they say it is most likely that republican interests did the hacking.

This is old news to us here, who have been discussing it for years.

article, science of exit polls, by several Ph.d scientistschapter of a book you should also read.

Matter of fact, read the whole book. It points out that felons who were doing time for computer fraud were hired while still doing time to write the software for voting machines that are used by millions of folk.

Steve F - I thought this was obvious: its the GOP access to the power through these voting machine contracts put in place over the years that makes it unethically unbalanced. Its not a "gee dems are bad too" its what is happening right now and has in the past two elections. How do you explain the almost unknown Chuck Hagel winning over a popular democrat? He owns the company that made the voting software thats how! Can we prove it? Probably not. By the way, there is plenty of time to fix this for the 2006 midterms when we kick your butts out of a majority position (heh, heh...) in at least one house of congress....this must be a fair and transparent election!

One final (OK probably not) word on election fraud and the reason I think a thinking person like yourself has so much trouble seeing this huge issue is the article "Psychological Resistence to Facing Election Fraud" excellent work, this gal is not some toucy feely shrink, believe me - http://www.commonwealins...ns/SilenceoftheScams.htm

I learned a lot reading it.... Iraq a bit later

"When a couple comes in to get their taxes prepared and they are lying and saying they are married in order for the mother to file single/HOH in order to take advantage of the EIC (Earned Income Credit) and walks out with 6,000.00 refunds (which is literally almost 50% of what her W2 reads for gross wages in total) I get a little put off. In addition, we are allowed to "ask" but cannot press to make sure they are being honest."

Lemme get this straight.. so, 6k in refunds.. their total wages were 12k for the year.. and you make, what? $120,000 or MORE, PLUS perks? See, I have MORE problem with YOU getting breaks on your gas when you don't need it than I do no those people cheating EIC when they need that money to LIVE.. They aren't "prospering", which is what Repubs like to try and imply. I've -lived- in poverty.. I've -lived- in the streets for 2 years.. -I KNOW- what a load of crap 12k is in today's society.. I'm pretty sure you piss away that much in perks from your company.. and YOU get to write it all off.. get it?

"Quickly on your voting fraud theories. It seems that you use the term "flawed". DO you think that flawed equals fraud? Or do you think the flaws are used at the Republican's advantage, and if so, why haven't the Democrats adopted the philosophy of "if you can't beat em, join em", assuming they have been 100% corruption free when it comes to corruption (I doubt it LOL). Just for speculation though. Also, how do you think that votes should be cast in order to make yoou happy and secure."

Well, not sure what you are talking about with "flaw" versus "fraud".. When I said "your logic was flawed" was to show that the conclusion you came to was absolutely INcorrect. NOT likely. and based on BAD thinking.. then I showed you "why".. and that was just "one" example.

How do -I- think votes should be cast? In person. On paper (or machines that print out a paper copy, or 2, one for you with a serial number on it, and one for the auditors, with a matching serial). Do away with "remote" voting, that's bullshit. If you're in the military and over seas, SET UP A POLLING STATION there, JUST like here.. then you don't have "dead people voting".. Want to help make sure you don't "double vote" (not that it's anywhere near as serious a problem as election fraud)? Stamp people's hands with a semi-permanant ink.. or dye.. or what haveyou. Then the "average joe" won't be cheating, only the parties with the resources to find ways to remove the dye (or, hell, take a pill with a tracer compound.. you light up on scans and takes 24 hours to break down.. or longer.. or whatever). Though, I -seriously- doubt all the ranting from the right about "dead people voting" is an issue.

Then.. if the exit polls are off after the "machine counting", YOU DO A HAND COUNT OF THE PAPER.. period, end of story.. AND, do a random sampling (based on statistical models that will work) and VERIFY the machines counted to match the paper... in at LEAST, I'd guess, 25% of all machine precincts. Lots of work? yeah.. but it's needed.. isn't it.. And, no more "terror scares" where they bring to ballotts into closed rooms.. NEVER.. EVER.. EVER.. -all- counting MUST be done in public.. period.. no excuse..

"Basically "Kerry Exit" beats "Kerry Machine".
"Bush Machine" beats "Bush Exit"."

Well, not sure where you got that from.. Everything I've seen showed that "where there were machines, we had serious problems".. Your other bit about "shy bush polling" was debunked a long time ago.. and I've never heard that the polls were "way off" even in "Kerry" districts.. but you know what? they well could have been, and WE WILL NEVER KNOW, because there is NO WAY TO VERIFY ANY OF IT.. get it?

So to Elections.. the question was posed to you, and you danced and danced and spit at Dems.. but never answered.. Do YOU want ACCOUNTABLE elections where the results can be VERIFIED? If so, "photo-ID" is not what you want to focus on (not now, anyway).. getting printers and publicly viewable source code on thsoe machines is what you want.

"I appreciate what you are saying, I really do! BUT for you to assume that it's all a "GOP" corruption movement is as extreme as me saying that all liberals whine. (Wait is that extreme? LOL Kidding!)

Let's let it rest here: You and I can agree that there are corrupt individuals, conspiritorial individuals, and individuals with ethical shortcomings heading both parties."

And the truth shall set you free.. as long as YOUR guys are cheating better, the system is OK.. as soon as the "other guys" cheat better, you'll be screaming.. Amzing..

"If the "stupid" republicans in their "alleged" game of fraud and corruption are coming out on top each election, they why having the equally corrupt from the left tried beating them at their own games, and what does this really say about the democrats and their abilities to manipulate foreign policies and make good decisions for our country."

LMFAO.. OMFG.. I hadn't read that before my last post.. NICE ARGUMENT.. "cheat better".. And you wonder why "most intelligent people" despise the kind of self-serving elitists who "still support Bush"? Course you do! He's giving TONS OF MONEY TO CORPERATIONS, and making sure those damn dirty poor people can't eat! WOOO..

Dude.. you SO blew it.. you had a chance to convince me you weren't totally part of the problem.. YOU ARE..

WOW..

". . .started out with his slander of Tom Delay by stating that Tom Delay was not an "ethical person""

Here we go AGAIN.. He was ADMONISHED 3 times for ETHICAL VIOLATIONS.. get it? I know that windbag Coulter wants to split hairs about "admonished" and "censured", but I looked them both up.. guess what? One is "strong", one is "mild", NEITHER means anything else different.. that MEANS, your shit-bag DeLay IS NOT ETHICAL.. THEREFORE.. no slander

(oh.. and I'm not spitting and sputtering like the other day.. I've given up hope of reaching any kind of reason with you.. you're a hatemonger, warmonger, elitist, and someone that just doesn't care about "this country", you only care about what you can suck out of it.. You are a disgrace )

"By the way, anybody read of the success for the constitution turnout in Iraq today? "

Yeah.. the Sunni (you know, the 20% that controlled the country before?) are trying to shoot it down. The leaders all got together last week and "agreed to let the Sunnis try to change the constitution later", but with no garuntees.. Hmm.. I smell a war a brewin!

Not to mention, about a month ago, I read an article where Iraqis were being polled.. Kurds and Shiites are not pleased with the draft either.. seems they don't really want the federalism either.. and the people don't like all the provisions that let FORIEGN interests OWN IRAQ .. the original drafts had all the oil rights, business rights, etc. to be wholely owned by Iraqi citizens.. The U.S. meddled behind closed doors for months, but they finally have the right to shaft the Iraqis now too!

I'll wait and see what the results are.. though, we've already heard one report of how the interim government was rigging the process to "ensure the contitution was passed no matter what", and that plan got scrapped.. wonder if they put in a new one? Diebold machines, perhaps?

SAVANSTER:
No, theyre total wage is not 12K. Its just 12K for the parent pretending to be filing HOH when indeed they are married and when their joint incomes together surpass the EIC threshold.

You failed to mention how Bush's additional 500,000,000 to the IRS special investigating team that 40,000,000,000 in stolen EIC was recovered far surpassing the "rich people" audits that liberals love to justify.

Secondly, your attempt to create facts, distort facts, and re-arrange them are failing big time. For starters, I do not have a gas card that is company paid for. Secondly, the 48.5 cents per mile mileage rate, which i use as my auto deduction is my deduction...as opposed to taking direct fuel expenses, oil changes, tires, depreciaton of my vehicle, etc...(you have a choice at which method you use). I told you the hard part of being self-employed (as I reiterate I do not mind, just quit trying to get more out of me) like health insurance (without Hillary), self employment tax, no federalized overtime for exceeding 40 hours (this week Im up to 59).

Your counterarguments are - I HAVE ALL OF THESE PERKS. Which is a lie. First off, you know nothing about my life. You are engaging in prejudice right now. I see these things everyday, I explain them to you, and you choose not to believe it. Fine, but don't act as if your opposition to my positions is based on facts when indeed they are based on your "made up facts" about my life and my "perks". LOL "gas" incentives....what are you talking about?

Secondly, my comment on "cheat better" was sarcastic in saying that if the "intellectual" democrats who we all agree at this point, are corrupt as well. (I contend they are better at it than the republicans) I mean this is the party of Teddy Kennedy and Bill Clinton for God sake. It was a point to show that IF the republicans were guilty of election fraud, that the "intellectual" liberals would be able to outsmart them. But seeings as they have not been, I highly doubt they would have formulated any clever plans to fight terrorism or fix Social Security, etc etc. You turned this into my admitting that republicans were factually super-corrupt and that I was advocating liberals do the same thing. In essence, I was just making a point that if both parties were cheating that it was only natural that republicans would do it better because they are smarter. Want evidence? Ann Coulter and David Horowicz. When speaking at college Universities when liberals have 3 mics to engage in "intellectual debating", they choose to use this as opportunity to douse Pat Buchanan in salad dressing, hurl pies at Ann Coulter, or hurl pies at David Horowicz. In addition, liberal college professors never go to the mic to debate Coulter, instead they wait until she is gone to attack her. My point of "cheat better" was an insult to the intelligence and coherent planning (or lack thereof) of liberals.

This was not an attempt to convince you. You implied very early on that I was a moron who had no logic. I posted facts and evidence to refute your goofy arguments. I explained the Kerry exit polling versus the Kerry machine polling, and literally asked your opinions on these things, and you come back somewhat insinuating that I was able to convince you in the first place when indeed you took a typical liberal stance of (our side always wins LOL - well everything accept elections).

This destroys your strong stance that you started out with that it was proof to you beyond the shadow of a doubt that republicans were the cheaters here. If you were so strong in the belief, you would not have been open to opposition in the first place.

You personal attacks on me, and your vitriolic slanderous words have shown your blatant partisianship for liberals. I love humorous invective, but only when there is a point...otherwise it's slander.

Good lord, I could have shared with you how my parents were poor and how my mother raised 4 kids in a second floor apartment that had 2 bedrooms. I know the value of a dollar, trust me. Which is why I concluded how thankful I was for the ability to work hard and strive for something better.

What about "good" needy people. For instance Elizabeth Murray, the girl who's parents died of AIDS in New York, who basically lived on the streets and had an awful upbringing, teeth aching all the time, clothes stinking all the time, never going to school, coming from a broken home, blah blah blah. Odds against her, worked her butt off, while homeless to attend Harvard University. Read her entire story yourself (as you spoke of how you lived in poverty once).

The truth is SAV, unless you are THAT partisian to liberals that you are willing to ignore it, that many government programs are there to better the "needy", but most of them are lazy and live off of the government with no aspirations to take advantage of state aid to become better educated.

I could be interested in your story if I thought it had any bearing whatsoever on reality. People were worse off than you were, and through help of others, beat the odds and moved forward. Not one person in this country has anymore potential than the next.

In fact, I know of a few high IQ types with no ambition to move forward.

Your whining SAV has done absolutely nothing to convince me but served as a building block to whining liberal agendas that believes it "takes a village".

Sorry for not convincing you, LOL. I'm just dying for your next post to take more of my words out of context, the REAL art of liberal debate.

This is really getting to you, isn't it .

By the way, where is this "common ground" that you so called "independent" believe in. This entire thread you have spent being an apologist for liberals.

Plus, PLEASE stop insinuating my Bush-sheep complex. I have attacked him on Miers, government spending, and his weak backbone in dealing with liberals. I DO NOT worship the ground that he walks on.

You've yet to produce one case with any evidence. Hey maybe you should work in Ronnie Earle's office! LOL.

Brilliant writing, by SAV:

"(oh.. and I'm not spitting and sputtering like the other day.. I've given up hope of reaching any kind of reason with you.. you're a hatemonger, warmonger, elitist, and someone that just doesn't care about "this country", you only care about what you can suck out of it.. You are a disgrace )"

The way your broken sentences and numerous typos in your verbal, crazed, deer-in-the-headlights look inspired rants to factual postings and links proves otherwise about the spitting and sputtering.

LOL....and btw, you called me every name accept "racist", did you just forget it, or did you give up on trying to convince me that I was one? LOL.

As annoying as you are, I don't even hate you SAV, and I mean that from the bottom of my money hungry heart.

Also, you again missed the point. The fact was Howard Dean said "we ought not be lectured about our ethical shortcomings" defending liberals when 10 minutes prior in the same interview said "This man [Tom Delay] is not an ethical person, he ought not be in Congress".

So when Dr. Dean said we shouldn't be lectured, did he also mean we shouldn't be admonished? I think a lecture is a lot more stern than an admonishment.

Admonishing is friendly advice basically, at worst a slap on the hand. Ann Coulter is correct. In terms of the charges of corruption SAV, we are still waiting for proof of something.

Understand?

"BAGHDAD, Iraq - Sunni Arabs voted in surprisingly high numbers on Iraq's new constitution Saturday, many of them hoping to defeat it in an intense competition with Shiites and Kurds over the shape of the nation's young democracy after decades of dictatorship. With little violence, turnout was more than 66 percent in the three most crucial provinces."

"The constitution still seemed likely to pass, as expected. But the large Sunni turnout made it possible that the vote would be close or even go the other way. Washington hopes the constitution will be approved so that Iraqis can form a legitimate, representative government, tame the insurgency and enable the 150,000 U.S. troops to begin to withdraw."

Read more here my little addicted-to-fact buddy .
http://news.yahoo.com/s/..._mi_ea/iraq_051015192106

what difference does it matte how low Bush's poll goes...if the man is not removed from office; and if the voting machines remain in place...they will ensure h, or his republican successor, gets elected again.

"and walks out with 6,000.00 refunds (which is literally almost 50% of what her W2 reads for gross wages in total) I get a little put off."

"No, theyre total wage is not 12K. Its just 12K for the parent pretending to be filing HOH when indeed they are married and when their joint incomes together surpass the EIC threshold."

Um, which is it? Either 1/2 of her total gross, like I said.. or not.. YOU are the one that said it, not me.. AND, like you pointed out, it PUTS YOU OFF to see someone POOR not have to starve to death.. See, you can't have it both ways.. And, if you are such an affluent firm, why are you dealing with cheats? If you are such an upstanding person who cares about the law, why not tell these heinous thieves that are trying to eek out a meager life that you refuse to take their money? Oh, right.. cause you ONLY CARE ABOUT MONEY.. so long as it's coming INTO your pockets.

"You failed to mention how Bush's additional 500,000,000 to the IRS special investigating team that 40,000,000,000 in stolen EIC was recovered far surpassing the "rich people" audits that liberals love to justify."

Because I've not read anything on this so I have no comment.. unlike others that love to spew nonsense when it serves their purposes..

I'll ask you this though.. why, when Oil Corperations are showing $10,000,000,000 in PROFITS for the QUARTER, is your president giving a lot of that "recouped $40 bil from stolen EIC money" to his RICH FRIENDS? That doesn't "put you off"?

"Your counterarguments are - I HAVE ALL OF THESE PERKS. Which is a lie. First off, you know nothing about my life. You are engaging in prejudice right now. I see these things everyday, I explain them to you, and you choose not to believe it. Fine, but don't act as if your opposition to my positions is based on facts when indeed they are based on your "made up facts" about my life and my "perks". LOL "gas" incentives....what are you talking about?"

Heh... well, you must be one shitty Accountant.. I had my own business for a while.. I -understand- about "buying a computer for the business", "leasing a car for the business", "writing off business dinners", and all that kind of crap. I've known SEVERAL people who have small businesses (in particular, a family where the brothers ran it after their dad retired) and I KNOW (not made up facts) you can write of a LOT of things.. Hell, you can even write off a SECOND HOME as a Business Expense, right? hello? PERKS? That woman who, by YOUR words, made $12k in gross and got $6k in refunds, SHE doesn't have a "company car" or "free computer" or "free meals". Get it? You can't win on that point with me, dumbass.. I've read the tax code (parts, anyway). I understand "business writeoffs", which, in THIS case, are PERKS for you "above and beyond" your salary.. See, MOST people making $120,000 a year don't get those free meals, free car, "free gas" (just tie your trip to Florida to business and it's all deductible, unlike our impoverished mother trying to feed her kids.. dirty crook, she is!)

"Secondly, my comment on "cheat better" [blah blah blah, rantings about things not germain... more party bashing which won't do any good here since I'm not "one of those evil Democrats"]"

*blink*

"This was not an attempt to convince you. You implied very early on that I was a moron who had no logic. I posted facts and evidence to refute your goofy arguments. I explained the Kerry exit polling versus the Kerry machine polling, and literally asked your opinions on these things, and you come back somewhat insinuating that I was able to convince you in the first place when indeed you took a typical liberal stance of (our side always wins LOL - well everything accept elections)."

This is starting to get boring.. First, your claiming "Kerry's polls were wrong at machine places too" means NOTHING to me unless you show reports to back it up. -I- explained to YOU that -I- heard different (read it in some articles, NEVER saw anything to support YOUR claim, though). The second part of that sentence up there made no sense.. Not that I'd expect it would.. You've convinced me of -nothing-, and I don't recall ever implying you did.. not sure what you're smoking now, but... might want to cut back some..

Oh.. and "tried"? I think I DID (show your logic was flawed). Just because you don't want to admit it.. kind of like you don't want to admit that Shrubby is about the worst pres. in history.. doesn't mean anything. Go back and read it.. I know it stings.. just suck it up.. you're a big boy.

"Good lord, I could have shared with you how my parents were poor and how my mother raised 4 kids in a second floor apartment that had 2 bedrooms. I know the value of a dollar, trust me. Which is why I concluded how thankful I was for the ability to work hard and strive for something better."

Yet, you have no problems telling OTHER people "Fuck you, get your own!", despite your "good fortune"? See, -thats- what makes you a prick The system doesn't -allow- for everyone to "get their own".. Well, it "could", but only if the richest 1% weren't rigging things to make sure that they were the only ones able to suck up wealth..

"What about "good" needy people. For instance Elizabeth Murray, the girl who's parents died of AIDS in New York, who basically lived on the streets and had an awful upbringing, teeth aching all the time, clothes stinking all the time, never going to school, coming from a broken home, blah blah blah. Odds against her, worked her butt off, while homeless to attend Harvard University. Read her entire story yourself (as you spoke of how you lived in poverty once)."

Ah.. the "american dream".. So, this ONE person (well, ok.. there are probably thousands of examples.. out of MILLIONS of cases) can do it, so we "all" can? Again, see my above post about how the richest folks are TRYING TO PREVENT THAT FROM HAPPENING ANY MORE..

"I could be interested in your story if I thought it had any bearing whatsoever on reality. People were worse off than you were, and through help of others, beat the odds and moved forward. Not one person in this country has anymore potential than the next."

And, now we see why you are an idiot, despite your being an Accountant.. If you -honestly- believe we "all" have the same "ability", you are deluded.. as I've said before. Someone with an IQ of 75 does NOT have the same "ability" as someone with an IQ of 100.. get it? Does that mean we should take advantage of or disparage or leave out to starve, those who have "lessor ability"? You say "yes", I say "no".. -that- is the fundamental difference between Repugs and Dems (though, I"m neither). You want to BLAME THEM if they don't "fix it themselves", claim "there are programs", yet while you are saying it, voting to REDUCE FUNDING and REMOVE those same programs. It's that two-faced lying bullshit attitude that codifies what it is to be Republican (today, not 200 years ago).

"Your whining SAV has done absolutely nothing to convince me but served as a building block to whining liberal agendas that believes it "takes a village"."

Funny, YOU said "People were worse off than you were, and through help of others, beat the odds and moved forward.", then imply you disagree with "it takes a village".. What the fuck do you think a Society is? How far would YOU get with no roads? no police? no farmers? It's your inability to see the connection that causes you to double talk. You accuse "me" of taking things out of context? You have on flippin idea what YOU mean. YOU keep contradicting your own ideas.. And you -wonder- why I call you a sad little man? First you say "do it your self!" then say "there are government programs to help!" then vote for people that want to REMOVE those plans? then STILL say "do it yourself!".. /boggle

"LOL....and btw, you called me every name accept "racist", did you just forget it, or did you give up on trying to convince me that I was one? LOL."

You haven't given me any reason to think YOU are a racist.. well, other than the "the blacks" perspective.. that has a connotation of "something else".. like you don't consider them fellow people like you. But, since it could be taken a lot of ways, I chalk up my perception to be "opinion" and not something convincing.. Oh, wait.. can I do that? actually give someone the benifit of the doubt when forming opinions? hope so..

"The way your broken sentences and numerous typos in your verbal, crazed, deer-in-the-headlights look inspired rants to factual postings and links proves otherwise about the spitting and sputtering."

And the fact that I type fast to get my ideas out on the screen, coupled with Dysgraphia and a distinct lack of concerne with being maticulous.. that doesn't count for anything?

"Admonishing is friendly advice basically, at worst a slap on the hand. Ann Coulter is correct. In terms of the charges of corruption SAV, we are still waiting for proof of something.

Understand?"

He was -admonished- for ethics violations.. understand? His PEERS officially told him "you are pushing the limit, knock it off".. 3 times.. Coulter is NOT correct, she is trying to distract. DeLay is a shit-bag, no question.. he's been "warned" by his peers on at least 3 occasion, and NOW he's pushed it "too far" and is under "criminal investigation".. We're not waiting for "proof", theoreticly, they have it. Wasn't he indicted? Doesn't that mean "they have some proof", but if it's "enough proof" or the "right proof" to "convict of the crime charged" is what needs to be answered by trial? Kind of like when the cop arrests your for drunk driving but the blood test hasn't been put on the offical entry of evidence for the hearing yet? Is he "guilty of the charges against him"? I got no idea.. I say wait and see.. Your ignorant bitch Coulter says "this is crap, let him go! leave him alone! this is partisan crap!" and does NOT care what the "facts" or "evidence" is, right? At least, when I heard her on the radio with Brad, that's the impression I got from her.. excuses and saying "theres no way" without any desire to have the trial.. innocent people don't mind trials (well.. ok, they do.. but guilty people like them even less).

"BAGHDAD, Iraq - Sunni Arabs . . ."

Uh, I think I pointed that out earlier? and mentioned something about how the interim government was already trying to secure the constitution -despite- the vote and got slapped for it? Those Iraqis.. already learning to play it like Bush.. set it up before hand so the vote is just cosmetic..

And, as I said before, we'll have to see how it goes. The earlier reports (from 3 or 4 wks ago) implied that even the Kurds and Shiite had large numbers that wanted to "shoot down the constitution".. it's a waiting game, to be sure.

Alright, its about time I throw myself into this debate. Steve F has been taking you all on by himself, he could use a little bit of support.

Savantster said "Lemme get this straight.. so, 6k in refunds.. their total wages were 12k for the year.. and you make, what? $120,000 or MORE, PLUS perks? See, I have MORE problem with YOU getting breaks on your gas when you don't need it than I do no those people cheating EIC when they need that money to LIVE.. They aren't "prospering", which is what Repubs like to try and imply. I've -lived- in poverty.. I've -lived- in the streets for 2 years.. -I KNOW- what a load of crap 12k is in today's society.. I'm pretty sure you piss away that much in perks from your company.. and YOU get to write it all off.. get it?"

He's using a hypothetical situation in which a THE WOMAN made 12k and got a 6k refund, not the couple making a total of 12k. And there's nothing redeaming about cheating on an income tax return. As for your attacks on him for making too much money - he's earned his money. It's not his fault other people are poor. Sure, there's a responsibilty for the government to provide for some people (especially kids), but when the government keeps asking for more and more of your hard earned money when you already give them close to a third of it, that's unfair. It's like this argument Dems make that the tax cuts were aimed at the rich. 33% of the tax cuts went to the top 1% of the tax bracket. But that top 1% supplies 38% of tax income. So post-tax cuts, the top 1% is paying an even bigger proportion of the taxes than before, yet all the dems do is complain about it. The tax cuts weren't aimed as much at the middle class because they don't pay as much of the taxes to begin with (but they still did get a larger tax cut than was proportional.) And the cuts worked - government revenue from tax receipts went UP after the cuts had a chance to stimulate the economy. (The big problem I have is that we didn't cut enough spending to eliminate most of the deficit - see this years Trans Bill with its ridiculous amount of pork).

Savantster in #150 -

Not everyone that disagrees with you is part of the problem, that's a little arrogant and unfair. As for your analysis of that statement he made that the Dems should cheat better, you're right. He did blow it there. Steve F, I lost you there.

Savantster said in 151 - "Here we go AGAIN.. He was ADMONISHED 3 times for ETHICAL VIOLATIONS.. get it? I know that windbag Coulter wants to split hairs about "admonished" and "censured", but I looked them both up.. guess what? One is "strong", one is "mild", NEITHER means anything else different.. that MEANS, your shit-bag DeLay IS NOT ETHICAL.. THEREFORE.. no slander

Until DeLay is convicted of something, you have to give him some leeway. But you're right about that windbag Coulter (off topic, why is she such a windbag? she is a good debater, but abrasive and arrogant at the same time) DeLay deserved to be admonished, because he's clearly done some pretty shady things, and his political career is probably over after 2006. This is for Brad - why isn't there any coverage here on Earll? I figured that the people here would be pissed off that such an incompetant and politically motivated asshole who is an insult to our criminal justice system is going after DeLay like this. Sure, DeLay deserves whats coming to him, but what if the reason he doesn't get convicted of anything is because the DA had a political axe to grind? The sooner someone competant takes this case over, the better chance that the facts will come out.

Savanster, for your comment on #47 about religion - you're an arrogant, egotistical, prejudiced moron. Sorry, I needed to say that.

As for this election fraud debate, Steve F, you're wasting your time. They firmly believe, based on their evidence, that Kerry won the election. They were anticipating the Ohio controversy before the election. And because people who agree with you about the election fraud (probably about 95% of the public) just shrug this off as a conspiracy, you're not going to find any defense of the 2004 election that they will buy. At least I haven't found anything yet. Nothing you say will change their mind. I don't even know if I believe that the election was legit anymore (although I haven't had enough time to review everything yet.) But if you want to attack them on social/welfare policy and fiscal/tax policy, I got your back.

Wow, I missed all of those above posts while I was writing my last one. Damn baseball game stealing my attention...

Savanster, DeLay was indicted on a law that doesn't exit. Then Earll went ballistic on a Grand Jury that wouldn't give an indictment, and tries to illegally hide that he ever went to that Grand Jury. Then he finally gets a true indictment from a Grand Jury that hadn't even been through orientation yet. Not to mention Earll promised Democrats at a fundraiser that he would eventually get his indictment. There's a lot of shady manuevering surrounding this indictment, so DeLay may be nothing more than a victim of criminalizing politics. Then again, his past shows that he probably did do something wrong. There are too many questions surrounding this to make a definitive statement that DeLay deserves to be in jail.

You two are making this way too personal. But lets get this straight - if you work hard and earn your money, no one should be criticizing you for having more money than poor people. This is not a Communist nation - you have a right to spend your money in whatever was you please. And there is nothing wrong the government trying to stop illegally obtained EIC's, even if its not the top 20% who's doing it.

As for the Oil Companies - what do they have to do with this conversation? Sure, they're making record profits, but that's because the price of oil went up, and our country can't supply enough gas at a really low price right now. OPEC is part of the problem. I will agree with you that some price gouging happened, probably from some illegal cartel activity among localized gas stations. But what does that have to do with high income people not wanting to pay ridiculous taxes?

Until DeLay is convicted of something, you have to give him some leeway. But you're right about that windbag Coulter (off topic, why is she such a windbag? she is a good debater, but abrasive and arrogant at the same time)"

Actually, no.. we DON'T need to give him leeway, he's an elected official who has crapped on our government several times (in shady things, as you put it), and now he's gonna stand trial for "serious criminal charges".. If he's "innocent", we should cut him some leeway, but not with what we know -currently- And Coulter isn't a "good debater" from what I've seen.. She does the same tired "spin, disinform, distract" that all those on the Right do. I watched her on the Ferenhype 911 movie (rebuttle to Moore's) and she said "heh, ppff.. if we're there for oil, why isn't gas getting any cheaper? Huh? tell me that? heh".. Uh.. cause controlling the rapidly dwindling oil supply in the world isn't about "gas prices", it's about "maintaning power"? That was just an ignorant point to try and make, and it served NOTHING but to try and "distract and disinform". Sure, it sounds reasonable at first.. unless you -know- about oil... unless you aren't some nit-wit working at McDonalds who can't see past the counter.. Some of us understand Peak Oil, understand Saudi Arabia's powerfull position, understand that Iraq, as a FREE COUNTRY, could sell that oil to anyone (highest bidder).. guess what WE got put in THEIR constitiution? The Iraq Government can SELL THE OIL RIGHTS to foriegn interests.. that means, a U.S. company can, for a ONE TIME PRICE, buy "oil fields" and "all the oil there".. uh, seeing how it's about a bit more than "gas prices"? Oh, and -another- reason gas prices aren't going down? BUSH OWNS OIL COMPANIES.. they are getting FILTHY RICH on the price of oil being high..

" he's earned his money. It's not his fault other people are poor. "

Go read some sociology.. go read some economics.. when HIS party passes laws that make it EASIER for him to MAKE MORE, and make it HARDER for "her" to make -any-, then he -is- to blame. The system can't continue making billionares out of a few people.. there just aren't enough resources to go around.

"Remeber the terrorists you talked about? they do it in the name of "god".. you psycho right-wingers are no better. Starving your own countrymen for profits, letting corperations shit on society for profits.. your god is money."

is that the one you mean? Well, I stand behind it, 1000%.. Do some research.. Just because "Christianities god" isn't the one they are killing for doesn't mean it's not a religious exercise. And, I also sand behind the corrilary.. Republicans pass laws that help corperations kill people for profit. When you dump toxic waste into a river "because it was too expensive to properly dispose of", and get a FINE that was "less than the cost to dispose of", you certianly are putting money over life.. and terrorists put their god over your life. To me, there's no distinct difference. If that offends you, then perhaps you should be demanding your Republican representitives start dismantling corperations that are killing people. Start with the coal and oil companies releasing billions of tons of toxic waste into our atmosphere cause it's cheaper than upgrading their equipment.

" As for this election fraud debate, Steve F, you're wasting your time. They firmly believe, based on their evidence, that Kerry won the election. They were anticipating the Ohio controversy before the election. And because people who agree with you about the election fraud (probably about 95% of the public) just shrug this off as a conspiracy, you're not going to find any defense of the 2004 election that they will buy. At least I haven't found anything yet. Nothing you say will change their mind. I don't even know if I believe that the election was legit anymore (although I haven't had enough time to review everything yet.) But if you want to attack them on social/welfare policy and fiscal/tax policy, I got your back.

"

Yes.. we're wasting our time.. because having invisible counting with no audits is "just us crying about sour grapes".. until YOUR side loses, then you'll change your toon. We're giving you the opportunity to show you arne't totally brain-washed and understand the problems our entire country is facing, not just "our party". And for "finding evidence to shut us up", showing you the CONVICTIONS and indicments and studies doesn't convince you either.. why? Cause you aren't about truth, you're about your slanted take on things because they help you sleep better.. in your nice houses, driving your nice cars, with your full bellies.. Won't do to admit that, for you to have that, someone is going without.. all because you don't think you should contribute.

Not gonna bother with the tax cut data.. I don't think I buy your "top 1% pays in 38% of taxes but only got back 33% of the refund".. And, I really don't see how you can think the "economy got better" because of that. When the average person got back $175 or so, that didn't "boost the economy".. and the deficit growing out of control means it was a really stupid thing to do (then, most of what this Administration is doing is stupid).

"You two are making this way too personal. But lets get this straight - if you work hard and earn your money, no one should be criticizing you for having more money than poor people. This is not a Communist nation - you have a right to spend your money in whatever was you please. And there is nothing wrong the government trying to stop illegally obtained EIC's, even if its not the top 20% who's doing it."

True, you should be able to spend your hard earned money any way you see fit. Who said differently? But, our LAWS are set up in such a way as to BENIFIT rich folks. That is, they are intentionally set up so that "if you have lots of money", it's easier for you to keep it. There are all kinds of "shelters" for you to stick your money into that 40% of our society doesn't have access to.. those shelters help you -avoid- paying taxes on the protected money, which keeps it from "helping others".. So, why is it that people with "lots of money" are ENCOURAGED to burry it so they don't have to pay taxes on it? Why are our LAWS set up to help the richest 1%? When you make $150 million/yr you can "start a ranch as a business".. You can then "invest" in your ranch and BURRY 10s of millions.. what's -actually- happening is, Rich guy is getting a Ranch at the EXPENSE of society. If he wants that ranch, then let him have it.. sure.. but why make it so he doesn't have to pay taxes on the money used to buy it? I don't get free ranches.. why should rich folks?

You really aren't understanding what people like me are saying when we say Republicans make it so rich folks don't pay their share.. When you make $250,000 and feel some call you "rich" and YOU are paying a lot in taxes (because you don't have the kind of funds we're talking about here).. YOU aren't who people like ME are talking about. I'm talking about people making hundreds of millions but having craploads of "tax breaks" they can use to still "enjoy that money directly without paying taxes on it".

"As for the Oil Companies - what do they have to do with this conversation? Sure, they're making record profits, but that's because the price of oil went up, and our country can't supply enough gas at a really low price right now. OPEC is part of the problem. I will agree with you that some price gouging happened, probably from some illegal cartel activity among localized gas stations. But what does that have to do with high income people not wanting to pay ridiculous taxes?"

Oil companies are part of this conversation because Republicans constantly bitch about "their hard earned money going to lazy scumbags", yet they seem to not CARE that Shrubby just gave $12,000,000,000 to oil companies.. well, that's the SECOND huge boon he gave them.. So, who do -I- think should have that 12 bill? A few dozen of the most profitous folks in the country, or thousands of families that are struggling to make ends meet.. Who do YOU think that money should go to? Why is it OK to give TAX DOLLARS to PROFITABLE COMPANIES, but -not- ok to give tax dollars to struggling citizens?

Oh, and there is no "shortage of ability to produce gas".. when Katrina hit, we saw a 10% drop in production.. that means our stores/stockpiles would have needed to be tapped (the industry ones, not government ones) to pull some gas out for consumption, but there was no where near enough of a "disruption" to justify a near 50% jump in price..

Also note that the "big oil companies" were operating at a loss many years ago to shut down smaller refineries. Big business put Smaller business out of .. well.. business.. so they could control the markets. We USED to have more refineries, now we have "fewer".. and, now Shrubby want's to pay the big companies billions to help them build more? uh.. but, they're PROFITABLE! they do NOT NEED GOVERNMENT HELP, yet your boy is giving them your tax dollars.

The question I always ask Republicans that complain about taxes and money going to "people they deem unfit".. I ask "would you rather your money go to people trying to get by or super-rich people.. your money is gonna be spent either way". That's basically what this boils down to. All the other crap spewed between the parties is just that.. crap.. The -biggest- jist is, pro-corp or pro-people.. Personally, I'm pro-people..

Actually, no.. we DON'T need to give him leeway, he's an elected official who has crapped on our government several times (in shady things, as you put it), and now he's gonna stand trial for "serious criminal charges".. If he's "innocent", we should cut him some leeway, but not with what we know -currently-

So, guilty until proven innocent? I personally don't like DeLay, but there's a serious problem with assuming guilt.

And Coulter isn't a "good debater" from what I've seen.. She does the same tired "spin, disinform, distract" that all those on the Right do.

I debated 4 years in high school, 2 years in college under a full scholarship for Pitt. I know what a good debater is. I'm necessarily implying I was one of them, but I've watched and competed with some of the smartest people in the country that are my age, and they were $%^&îng good. And if they couldn't "spin, disinform, distract", then they lost debates. And don't give me this bullshit that only people from the right do this.

Go read some sociology.. go read some economics.. when HIS party passes laws that make it EASIER for him to MAKE MORE, and make it HARDER for "her" to make -any-, then he -is- to blame. The system can't continue making billionares out of a few people.. there just aren't enough resources to go around.

First, I was defending him, not the government. You think he's a bad person because he makes money. Second, that's a non-argument - give me a reason why a progressive tax system makes it harder for poor people to make money.

is that the one you mean? Well, I stand behind it, 1000%.. Do some research.. Just because "Christianities god" isn't the one they are killing for doesn't mean it's not a religious exercise. And, I also sand behind the corrilary.. Republicans pass laws that help corperations kill people for profit. When you dump toxic waste into a river "because it was too expensive to properly dispose of", and get a FINE that was "less than the cost to dispose of", you certianly are putting money over life.. and terrorists put their god over your life. To me, there's no distinct difference. If that offends you, then perhaps you should be demanding your Republican representitives start dismantling corperations that are killing people. Start with the coal and oil companies releasing billions of tons of toxic waste into our atmosphere cause it's cheaper than upgrading their equipment.

It's a stretch to compare deregulation to terrorism. I agree with you that we need more environmentally friendly policies (make that A LOT more). But you are just using hateful rhetoric by saying that Republicans kill people with pollution. And that is an issue that is separate from taxing people. Way to "spin" the argument to something else.

Yes.. we're wasting our time.. because having invisible counting with no audits is "just us crying about sour grapes".. until YOUR side loses, then you'll change your toon. We're giving you the opportunity to show you arne't totally brain-washed and understand the problems our entire country is facing, not just "our party". And for "finding evidence to shut us up", showing you the CONVICTIONS and indicments and studies doesn't convince you either.. why? Cause you aren't about truth, you're about your slanted take on things because they help you sleep better.. in your nice houses, driving your nice cars, with your full bellies.. Won't do to admit that, for you to have that, someone is going without.. all because you don't think you should contribute.

Damn, settle down. I was saying Steve F is wasting his time, not you all here. I've had some pretty productive discussions with Brad et. al. about this issue over the past few days on a different post, and I am very interested in the issue now. I'm trying to find evidence that debunks this so I can see both sides of the controversy. I just think that Steve F's argumentation style on the issue is not adding anything to the conversation. You need to stop thinking that the person arguing with you is trying to make you look like shit all the time. Go read that post again.

Not gonna bother with the tax cut data.. I don't think I buy your "top 1% pays in 38% of taxes but only got back 33% of the refund".. And, I really don't see how you can think the "economy got better" because of that. When the average person got back $175 or so, that didn't "boost the economy".. and the deficit growing out of control means it was a really stupid thing to do (then, most of what this Administration is doing is stupid).

Alright look, I know there are arguments that this kind of tax cut doesn't do anything. I'm supply-side though, so I like tax cuts when the economy sucks. Putting more money in people's pocket boosts the marginal propensity to invest, and more investment kick starts the economy. And government income from tax receipts did go up after the tax cuts, which is an issue with the deficit, not the economy. And our economy did recover nicely.

As for the data, I was a little off - the top 1% pay 34.7% of the taxes, but their share of tax cuts was less than thet. And of course you wouldn't but something that hurts your position ("discredit"). And if the average person "only" got back $175 or so, whats the big deal with the tax cuts? The problem you have is that the average poor person didnt get $175 back, even though the top 50% only pays 3.5% of the taxes in this country. Simply, tax cuts go to those who pay taxes. (The bottom 50 did happen to get more than 3.5% back in the tax cuts, btw.)

Now for the deficits, they exist because the Repubs have abandoned some of their conservative ideals. The tax cuts were a good idea, but they fucked up on all the spending. Without the tax cuts though, there's an argument to be made that the economy wouldn't have rebounded enough to increase tax income as it did.

"Actually, no.. we DON'T need to give him leeway, he's an elected official who has crapped on our government several times (in shady things, as you put it), and now he's gonna stand trial for "serious criminal charges".. If he's "innocent", we should cut him some leeway, but not with what we know -currently-

So, guilty until proven innocent? I personally don't like DeLay, but there's a serious problem with assuming guilt."

No, but he's not "innocent", not completely.. right? there was enough to suggest to his PEERS that he was engaging in WRONG DOING.. just seemingly nothing "in direct violation of the law" with those.. And, "leeway" is one thing.. that's EXACTLY what I'm giving him.. by saying "let's see what the facts are".. Your friend Coulter said "leave him alone, he's done nothing wrong.. this is a witch hunt".. that's not "leeway", that's trying to hide the truth.. nevermind the "truth" just might be that he, in fact, has NOT committed a crime..

"And if they couldn't "spin, disinform, distract", then they lost debates. And don't give me this bullshit that only people from the right do this."

Go look up what debating is about.

de·bate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-bt)
v. de·bat·ed, de·bat·ing, de·bates
v. intr.

1. To consider something; deliberate.
2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See Synonyms at discuss.
4. Obsolete. To fight or quarrel.

See, in college, when you aren't in the real world, yeah.. someone has a position they might not believe, and might have to "spin, distract, disinform" to win.. But we're talking about the REAL WORLD.. where lives are in the balance and we're supposed to be honest. When you have a lie you want to make people believe for your OWN GAIN, you can't debate "reasonably".. so you have to cheat.. which is what spin, distraction, and disinformation are all about. When we're dealing with politics and laws that effect society, anyone that has to lie to get a law passed is OBVIOUSLY trying to cheat someone. So, when we're talking about "the real world" and having "real life consequences", if you can't be honest, you should go home. Lies and deceit cause lives to be lost (or lived in squaller). If you're a Republican, and 90% of your positions REQUIRE SPIN to "seem justified", certianly you can see how you dislike FACT, and have some kind of AGENDA that only benifits YOU (or those in "your group".. in this case, typically rich white folks that own 90% of everything and don't want to share).

"Go read some sociology.. go read some economics.. when HIS party passes laws that make it EASIER for him to MAKE MORE, and make it HARDER for "her" to make -any-, then he -is- to blame. The system can't continue making billionares out of a few people.. there just aren't enough resources to go around.

First, I was defending him, not the government. You think he's a bad person because he makes money. Second, that's a non-argument - give me a reason why a progressive tax system makes it harder for poor people to make money."

You are defending "republicans".. the type of government that continually imposes laws.. aw screwit.. I already posted all this..

"It's a stretch to compare deregulation to terrorism. I agree with you that we need more environmentally friendly policies (make that A LOT more). But you are just using hateful rhetoric by saying that Republicans kill people with pollution. And that is an issue that is separate from taxing people. Way to "spin" the argument to something else."

Nonono... Taxing is only PART of it.. The "bigger" problem is Corperate America.. One of the biggest reasons I have issue with Dems today is, they are getting into bed with Corps more and more. Up until.. well, Clinton's Admin, I've not noticed Dems sucking on the Corperate Teat like Repubs do. So, based on the underlying MAIN issues of MONEY (taxing and allowing corperations to avoid taxes while ALSO killing people for profit AND taking away jobs to "improve the bottom line" is what I'm talking about.. Taxes is part, but Repubs fully support "helping corperations", and I argue that that comes from a drive for money.. if you go for "corps", you can "invest in the market" and get "free money".. again, HUGE portions of our society don't have that luxury.. secondarily, again, voting Repub is voting "give me money, screw everyone else").

Again.. When corperations, with help of the Government and laws passed by Repubs (and now some Dems.. don't forget, I'm pissed at them too!), are allowed to kill for profit, that to me is NO different than Terrorists killing for -their- principles. It's just easier to dislike one over the other, for most people. Killing is killing.. when it benifits only a certian group, what's the difference?

"Alright look, I know there are arguments that this kind of tax cut doesn't do anything. I'm supply-side though, so I like tax cuts when the economy sucks. Putting more money in people's pocket boosts the marginal propensity to invest, and more investment kick starts the economy."

And here is where we have fundamentally differing views of what the economy should be... I think.. Personally, I -hate- that we have the stock market at all. I understand it has it's benifits, but, it also has HUGE problems. First being that for someone to get money, it has to come from someplace. Historically, you "invest" in a company, they get more capital, they build more and hire more workers.. right? That's not what happens today... You invest, I invest, millions "invest".. The board sucks up that profit (don't belive me? the CEO of GE was getting $91 mill a year in SALARY, plus $8 mil/yr in retirement money.. all the while, the average joe isn't getting their retirement benifits). In order for companies to "be competitive", they fire people? shut plants? when they are making "record profits"? How does that make any sense? It doesn't... So, sure, that $175 from "each average joe" hit "investments".. and those billions went to "industry" instead of "taxes".. but it MOSTLY ended up in the hands of a few thousand board members..

The stock market is broke.. our economy is broke.. we're on the edge here, and leaning over. We have a mass exedus our Industrial Base which is what is contributing to our Trade Deficite. We don't have jobs for "average folks" anymore, so the statement is made "hey, I got mine, get your own.. This is America, you can work hard and get rich".. but, that's not the "truth" of it anymore (hasn't been for near 100 years). I can't start up a textile company.. I can't compete with China because our Government isn't putting high enough tariffs on imports.. I can't make a new oil refinery cause Shell and Exxon can undercut me, take losses, borrow from the Fed and run me out of business (and they did just that to a lot of smaller companies in the 70s and 80s.. -thats- why we're short on refineries now).

If the government 'really' wants to kick up the economy, it would regulate the hell out of industry. Stop letting board members lay off thousands and take millions in bonuses. Stop letting board members get 50,000% in salary of what the average worker gets (that's not common, but there are a few examples of it). Limit what companies can do.. don't let them get all their write-offs so Exxon can't "run at a loss" to shut down other companies.. Stop letting companies get away with crime..

Here's my proposal for the next time a company does something illegal (like dumping toxic waste in the river). First, fine them like they do today. Then, convict EACH board member and put them in prison. Then "disolve the company". Once it's disolved, if the workers want to keep it, have them vote in a new board (most workers would love the raise). Companies that don't engage in illegal activities have nothing to worry about.. ones that DO will have the PEOPLE who did it pay the price.

We only seem to care when it's a HUGE issue like with Enron and billions and billions of stolen money (which, by the way, is where most of the investment money goes from "average folks".. the vaccume of bankruptcy). I say, don't let "companies" exist as "seperate entities" anymore.. make the PEOPLE making the descisions accountable (like we do when it goes waaaay tits-up like Enron).

Oh, and there is no "shortage of ability to produce gas".. when Katrina hit, we saw a 10% drop in production.. that means our stores/stockpiles would have needed to be tapped (the industry ones, not government ones) to pull some gas out for consumption, but there was no where near enough of a "disruption" to justify a near 50% jump in price..

I sort of agree with you. The degree of the jump in gas prices probably did have something to do with cartels and gouging. But a disruption causes a disproportional rise in prices because the market demand for gas is inelastic.

Also note that the "big oil companies" were operating at a loss many years ago to shut down smaller refineries. Big business put Smaller business out of .. well.. business.. so they could control the markets. We USED to have more refineries, now we have "fewer".. and, now Shrubby want's to pay the big companies billions to help them build more? uh.. but, they're PROFITABLE! they do NOT NEED GOVERNMENT HELP, yet your boy is giving them your tax dollars.

Look, there are some problems with how the government pays for this. But the refineries in this country are really old, and no new ones have been built in years. That has something to do with the fact that environmental regulations require billions of dollars and 10+ years to build a new refinery. The real problem with this is that it creates a cartel situation because the threshold for a new company to enter the market (which usually happens when companies make more than real profits) is too high. I guess the remedy is to pull money from the big companies and give it to the new ones entering the market, but I don't know if that's realistic.

The question I always ask Republicans that complain about taxes and money going to "people they deem unfit".. I ask "would you rather your money go to people trying to get by or super-rich people.. your money is gonna be spent either way". That's basically what this boils down to. All the other crap spewed between the parties is just that.. crap.. The -biggest- jist is, pro-corp or pro-people.. Personally, I'm pro-people..

Your spinning the argument to reflect the misuse of money by the current administration. True conservatives want to see taxes cut and the size and scope of government cut at the same time. Thats why I support tax cuts, but at the same time criticize the government for its out of control spending. This proves why big government is bad - it uses money inefficiently and gives it to the wrong people.

Your previous post - True, you should be able to spend your hard earned money any way you see fit. Who said differently? But, our LAWS are set up in such a way as to BENIFIT rich folks. That is, they are intentionally set up so that "if you have lots of money", it's easier for you to keep it. There are all kinds of "shelters" for you to stick your money into that 40% of our society doesn't have access to.. those shelters help you -avoid- paying taxes on the protected money, which keeps it from "helping others".. So, why is it that people with "lots of money" are ENCOURAGED to burry it so they don't have to pay taxes on it? Why are our LAWS set up to help the richest 1%? When you make $150 million/yr you can "start a ranch as a business".. You can then "invest" in your ranch and BURRY 10s of millions.. what's -actually- happening is, Rich guy is getting a Ranch at the EXPENSE of society. If he wants that ranch, then let him have it.. sure.. but why make it so he doesn't have to pay taxes on the money used to buy it? I don't get free ranches.. why should rich folks?

Maybe this gives some credence to implementing a flat tax and getting rid of all of the regressive taxes that exist (like sales tax.) Now these things exist because a)taxes are too high to begin with and b) the tax code is way too complicated. You fix this by simplifying the tax code. But then again, what about the write-offs you get for donating to charities. I guess we should get rid of those incentives to help people out who need the money too. And when you bury millions of money to avoid taxes, there's normally some shady reporting going on.

You really aren't understanding what people like me are saying when we say Republicans make it so rich folks don't pay their share.. When you make $250,000 and feel some call you "rich" and YOU are paying a lot in taxes (because you don't have the kind of funds we're talking about here).. YOU aren't who people like ME are talking about. I'm talking about people making hundreds of millions but having craploads of "tax breaks" they can use to still "enjoy that money directly without paying taxes on it".

First off, not that many people make hundreds of millions. Second, if you make hundreds of millions, why don't we go ahead and take all but 250K of it so you could live like the rest of us? That argument is infinitely regresive. As for the "tax breaks", see above.

Oil companies are part of this conversation because Republicans constantly bitch about "their hard earned money going to lazy scumbags", yet they seem to not CARE that Shrubby just gave $12,000,000,000 to oil companies.. well, that's the SECOND huge boon he gave them.. So, who do -I- think should have that 12 bill? A few dozen of the most profitous folks in the country, or thousands of families that are struggling to make ends meet.. Who do YOU think that money should go to? Why is it OK to give TAX DOLLARS to PROFITABLE COMPANIES, but -not- ok to give tax dollars to struggling citizens?

I covered this above, but we're not concerned with it going to "lazy scumbags." We're concerned with the government taking more than it should and than wasting the money in an inefficient manner. Pork-barrel and rich corporation-friendly policies come to mind when I say this.

As for helping "lazy scumbags," its your broad generalization of conservatives as being selfish that makes you hate them. We just have different values - that the most of the money you work hard for should not be left up to the government on how to spend. We also have different ideas for how to help those "lazy scumbags" as you so elegantly put it. Personally, I think that there's a cycle of poverty that exists, and shelling out money to poor people without any incentives to get them out of poverty is wasteful. Sure, there are millions of people out there who are disadvantaged (disabled people, children whose parents have low incomes, those that just lost their jobs from layoffs, etc.) who don't deserve to be left to fend for themselves as long as we have the means to help them. But when you don't get a job because you know that the welfare check will always be there next week, that's not American, it's lazy and selfish. And those on welfare don't really receive enough money to live the life an American should have the opportunity to live to begin with, but as long as they don't have to work, they're content, and they'll continue to vote Democrat to make sure that their breadbasket stays full.

"Look, there are some problems with how the government pays for this."

My point is, why is the Government paying -anything- at all? Look, 10 BILLION in ONE QUARTER in profits.. guess what they could spend ONE QUARTER's worth of their profits on? Why should the government NOT say "you refineries are too old and pollute too much.. update them or shut your doors"?

Republicans have been doing this for DECADES.. this isn't new, this isn't Shrubby.. This is Republicans.. Ever since I"ve been watching, they have been FUNDING BUSINESSES that don't need it. They fund them because lobbiests donate lots to campaigns, or lend out jets or various other perks. Jack Abromoff (sp) funnels MILLIONS to Republicans.. why? cause he likes them?

The point is, when government passes laws that make it easier for rich folks to get richer (we're talking the Board and owners of, say, Exxon here), they are doing a DISSERVICE to the public at large. Their JOB is to the "general welfare" and the "people". Republicans, as a general rule, have been about helping each other get richer.

"Your spinning the argument to reflect the misuse of money by the current administration."

see my above.. it's not "this" administration, it's Republicans in Congress and has been for the past near 20 years I've been watching. This administration is just more blatant and abusive about it.

"Maybe this gives some credence to implementing a flat tax and getting rid of all of the regressive taxes that exist (like sales tax.) Now these things exist because a)taxes are too high to begin with and b) the tax code is way too complicated. You fix this by simplifying the tax code. But then again, what about the write-offs you get for donating to charities. I guess we should get rid of those incentives to help people out who need the money too."

Flat tax would ONLY work if there were NO ways for ANYONE to burry money. That is, you get NOTHING for "investing".. But, that won't happen.. Again, everyone tries to come up with "some reason" this or that "should" be deductable. why? If you have extra and want to donate to charities, do it.. but why should the rest of society have to suck up the difference? What if -I- don't like your charity? your avoiding taxes on that money goes to something I don't like instead of the Government.. which, in theory, is what 'we all agree on".. If you want to give money to some Christian orginization, I don't think that should detract from government funds.. if I want to give to the KKK, that shouldn't detract from governemt funds. Bill Gates shouldn't get to write off millions for Windows computers he donates to schools to get kids hooked on Windows instead of Macs. He gets a benifit from that in the long run, why should that effect government funds?

And I think the "sales tax" should stay. That's the governments way of enjoying the fruits of it's labor with a healthy economy, and the better the economy and more money from sales tax, the more the flat tax can be lowered.. the more we can consume, and the more that can go in the government's coffers..

"First off, not that many people make hundreds of millions. Second, if you make hundreds of millions, why don't we go ahead and take all but 250K of it so you could live like the rest of us? That argument is infinitely regresive. As for the "tax breaks", see above."

But, that's my point.. exactly.. there aren't that many making 100s of millions, yet they own almost everything. When they own almost everything, and make sure laws are passed that ensure they can "take even more", they leave nothing for everyone else. That's the EXACT point. Should we "take all but $250,000"? hell no.. But, we should ALSO not allow them to have loophole after loophole designed to let them "keep it all". These people get rich off the things the government does (roads, airports, ports, infrastructure). Then they make sure they don't have to contribute back? But, their "keeping theirs" means that for every 1 of those guys, 10s of thousands have to pick up the slack.. why? Bill Gates is worth %51 billion dollars. What on earth could one man need $51 BILLION for? But, he can "buy a ranch for $500 mil as a business" and dump 100s of millions into it every year as a "loss" and not pay taxes on those 100s of millions. Why? How is that fair to the "country" that allows him to be so stinking rich? And it's not even like he's a decent guy! His empire is built on the destruction of all of his competitors in violation of law after law, yet now he gets to keep all that ill gotten money AND burry billions?

So, yeah.. kind of back to flat tax with NO loopholes.

as for your last paragraph.. no, our values aren't any different. The difference between us is I understand that our system -demands- there be poverty. You assertion that "people don't go out and get jobs" is, I'm sorry to say, the same old tired Republican mantra I hear over and over... But, again, Republicans make it so more and more jobs leave the country.. and argue that minimum wage is bad for business and blah blah. You are correct, poverty is a cycle.. and it can't be broke without a concerted effort. Studies have shown that someone's self esteem goes UP when they work and provide for themselves. The truely "lazy folks that want their welfare check" are actually a small number of people. No one wants to live like that.. they just get too used to it, and see no hope of anything changing. I've met a lot of scary people with the "wrong attitude", but defunding programs isn't gonna fix that. Building more prisons (private business paid for by tax dollars) isn't gonna fix it. Making the "haves" give up what amounts to a "pittance" to clean up our society is about the only "ethical" way..

Have you been to a house of someone perpetually on welfare? The stink? the rot? the lack of concerne? the hopelessness of it all? No one "wants" to live like that, trust me. You live what you know. When you are bombarded daily with TV and radio ads of "buy this and buy that" and you have no money, you get resentful because you know there are people out there buying stuff. When people are killing eachother over a pair of shoes it's time to take a serious look at our society and what we value. And again, I submit, that fundamentaly, Republicans value money, Dems value people. When Republicans in office defund programs and cause more strife to those people then say "let them get a job!", and on the SAME bill to defund programs pass a law that lets some local factory move to Indonesia and not pay any inport taxes on parts, I get kind of "pissy with Republicans in general".. you're right.. "lazy scumbags" is what Limbaugh, O'Rielly, Coulter, et. al. call poor people. Sometimes on air..

Anyway.. if you want to fix poverty, you can't defund programs that help those in poverty. You have to educate people.. you have to have jobs with livable wages for them to have.. if that means Government funded jobs, then so be it.. if that means the richest 1% have to lose their free ranches and jets, I'm all for it.

No, but he's not "innocent", not completely.. right? there was enough to suggest to his PEERS that he was engaging in WRONG DOING.. just seemingly nothing "in direct violation of the law" with those.. And, "leeway" is one thing.. that's EXACTLY what I'm giving him.. by saying "let's see what the facts are".. Your friend Coulter said "leave him alone, he's done nothing wrong.. this is a witch hunt".. that's not "leeway", that's trying to hide the truth.. nevermind the "truth" just might be that he, in fact, has NOT committed a crime..

Like I said, I don't like DeLay, and this is part of the reason. You said you're giving him leeway until you "see what the facts are." That's all that I was asking for you to do. The problem I have is that, regardless of ethics violations, many people are already branding him as a criminal, which is different from being unethical. All I want is for people to give the justice system a chance to do its job. Then you lump me in with Coulter - just because I think she's a good debater doesn't mean I agree with her or even like her (which I don't.) Frankly, I cán't stand her. But you have to agree with me that Ronnie Earll has sort of turned this into a witch hunt, and is going after DeLay for the wrong reasons. You should be advocating getting someone competent in there to prosecute DeLay, not defending the witch hunt.

See, in college, when you aren't in the real world, yeah.. someone has a position they might not believe, and might have to "spin, distract, disinform" to win.. But we're talking about the REAL WORLD.. where lives are in the balance and we're supposed to be honest. When you have a lie you want to make people believe for your OWN GAIN, you can't debate "reasonably".. so you have to cheat.. which is what spin, distraction, and disinformation are all about. When we're dealing with politics and laws that effect society, anyone that has to lie to get a law passed is OBVIOUSLY trying to cheat someone. So, when we're talking about "the real world" and having "real life consequences", if you can't be honest, you should go home. Lies and deceit cause lives to be lost (or lived in squaller). If you're a Republican, and 90% of your positions REQUIRE SPIN to "seem justified", certianly you can see how you dislike FACT, and have some kind of AGENDA that only benifits YOU (or those in "your group".. in this case, typically rich white folks that own 90% of everything and don't want to share).

Alright, you have a point about college debate. I have frequently argued for Marxism Good, Foucault's theory of Power, and various policies that I disagreed with in order to win debate rounds. But in debates, I had to spin different arguments and distract from certain powerful arguments because the other team would do the same thing. I was trying to win debate rounds (which is a selfish goal), not educate people. Part of being a good debater was also cutting through the shit, too. As for the "real world," debate isn't anything different. You need to realize that a dictionary doesn't necessarily describe what something is like in the real world. I guess what you're trying to say, is that people in the "real world" (or what I think you are referring to is the MSM and politicians) should cut through the shit and be honest. Touche. But Ann Coulter is a debater, not an honest advocate. So as I was saying, she is a "good debater." If you want to educate people, "discuss" the issues, don't debate them. (I also could just be talking out of my ass on this one.)

You are defending "republicans".. the type of government that continually imposes laws.. aw screwit.. I already posted all this..

You just effectively dropped my arguments. Giving up so easily? And I have no problem defending Republicans. I just refuse to defend Republicans in power right now. And I can assure you I will NOT be voting for these people in future primaries (nor have I voted for them in the few primaries I have participated in.)

Nonono... Taxing is only PART of it.. The "bigger" problem is Corperate America.. One of the biggest reasons I have issue with Dems today is, they are getting into bed with Corps more and more. Up until.. well, Clinton's Admin, I've not noticed Dems sucking on the Corperate Teat like Repubs do. So, based on the underlying MAIN issues of MONEY (taxing and allowing corperations to avoid taxes while ALSO killing people for profit AND taking away jobs to "improve the bottom line" is what I'm talking about.. Taxes is part, but Repubs fully support "helping corperations", and I argue that that comes from a drive for money.. if you go for "corps", you can "invest in the market" and get "free money".. again, HUGE portions of our society don't have that luxury.. secondarily, again, voting Repub is voting "give me money, screw everyone else").

Again.. When corperations, with help of the Government and laws passed by Repubs (and now some Dems.. don't forget, I'm pissed at them too!), are allowed to kill for profit, that to me is NO different than Terrorists killing for -their- principles. It's just easier to dislike one over the other, for most people. Killing is killing.. when it benifits only a certian group, what's the difference?

Look, you're going off on a tangent here to avoid debating me on the issue of taxes. I think this is what you would call "distracting." Sure, taxes are only part of the problem with our economy and with distributing income in a just manner. But what I was arguing you on was the theory and practicality of taxing people up the ass. I know that a lot of you here like to talk about Corporate America, and everything they do to ruin this country and ruin politics at the present (and rightfully you should talk about it, because frankly Corporate America sucks.) But you are using this strategy of defaulting to something you are good at ranting about instead of answering me (I mean, you're attacking Democrats over Corp America too, proves this isn't germaine to my arguments). Why haven't I heard any reasonable arguement out of you as to why a a Republican view taxing is a bad one? Why is rampant taxing and big government good?

About the only arguments you make are that 1) Republicans like tax cuts because it allows them to help corporations and 2) not everyone has the luxury to invest in these corporations. First, Republicans don't like tax cuts because they can help corporations, they like tax cuts because its THEIR money to begin with and because the government wastes it on things that don't benefit them or anyone who actually needs it. Your second argument, that not everyone has this luxury - this is infinitely regressive, and justifies saying that there shouldn't be investment because not everyone has that option. So either a)no one invests and our economy implodes, or b)we give our taxes to the government to invest in corporations (which leads to the EXACT problem you are indicating). So my argument is, cut taxes, and take away the money the government uses to fund Corporate America.

And here is where we have fundamentally differing views of what the economy should be... I think.. Personally, I -hate- that we have the stock market at all. I understand it has it's benifits, but, it also has HUGE problems. First being that for someone to get money, it has to come from someplace. Historically, you "invest" in a company, they get more capital, they build more and hire more workers.. right? That's not what happens today... You invest, I invest, millions "invest".. The board sucks up that profit (don't belive me? the CEO of GE was getting $91 mill a year in SALARY, plus $8 mil/yr in retirement money.. all the while, the average joe isn't getting their retirement benifits). In order for companies to "be competitive", they fire people? shut plants? when they are making "record profits"? How does that make any sense? It doesn't... So, sure, that $175 from "each average joe" hit "investments".. and those billions went to "industry" instead of "taxes".. but it MOSTLY ended up in the hands of a few thousand board members..

Wow, you are way off here. Sucking up investment money is ILLEGAL (see Tyco Corp). When you invest in a company, you are buying stock in it. That makes you a partial owner of the company (hence, a corporation being a "public company"). The CEO of GE makes that much money because he owns millions of shares in the company. And the stock market is essential to the existence of corporations. Ultimately, what you mean to say is you don't a capitalist economy. Thats a whole other debate. And they don't fire people when making record profits. Either they expand when they a making more than zero profit (if you don't know what zero profit is, go look it up), or new companies enter the market until all companies in an industry make zero profit. (Don't bother with the oil industry argument, thats a cartel, not a competitive market.)

The stock market is broke.. our economy is broke.. we're on the edge here, and leaning over. We have a mass exedus our Industrial Base which is what is contributing to our Trade Deficite. We don't have jobs for "average folks" anymore, so the statement is made "hey, I got mine, get your own.. This is America, you can work hard and get rich".. but, that's not the "truth" of it anymore (hasn't been for near 100 years). I can't start up a textile company.. I can't compete with China because our Government isn't putting high enough tariffs on imports.. I can't make a new oil refinery cause Shell and Exxon can undercut me, take losses, borrow from the Fed and run me out of business (and they did just that to a lot of smaller companies in the 70s and 80s.. -thats- why we're short on refineries now).

The stock market is broke, and the economy is broke, when did this happen? And outsourcing does not add to the trade deficit, it just causes unemployment (which may have an indirect effect on our exports.) We do have jobs for average folks, back that up with some statistics. And the "American Dream" hasn't been true for 100 years? If you want to argue that overall quality of life is worse now than 100 years ago, go ahead. You can't start a textile company here because China has a comparative advantage in textiles (meaning, we are more efficient in producing other goods, we have a comparative advantage in other things.) And it's illegal for us to put higher tariffs on imports (see WTO and other international law), not too mention that these tariffs (say on textiles) would make it more expensive for people who don't have a lot of money in this country to buy clothes and other necessities (but wait, I don't care about them). Its just a fact you have to deal with - globalization changes the face of our economy.

If the government 'really' wants to kick up the economy, it would regulate the hell out of industry. Stop letting board members lay off thousands and take millions in bonuses. Stop letting board members get 50,000% in salary of what the average worker gets (that's not common, but there are a few examples of it). Limit what companies can do.. don't let them get all their write-offs so Exxon can't "run at a loss" to shut down other companies.. Stop letting companies get away with crime..

Regulating the hell out of industry would immensely expand the scope of our government and would make our economy extremely inefficient. Also, companies that have favor in the government (which you agree is a problem now) will face less regulations than others and will have even more of an advantage over all of us. Highly regulated economies have NEVER WORKED, and always create a large amount of unemployment and low quality of life. This is why communist economies could never work. You need the market to make the economy as efficient as possible to produce as many goods as possible. Environmental regulations are what make it impossible for entires into the oil industry, thus taking away from competition in the industry. The only purpose of regulation is to root out inefficiencies in the economy (for instance, pollution creates unneccessary social costs, which makes certain goods have a net cost/gain that is inefficient, so we regulate to stop pollution.)

Here's my proposal for the next time a company does something illegal (like dumping toxic waste in the river). First, fine them like they do today. Then, convict EACH board member and put them in prison. Then "disolve the company". Once it's disolved, if the workers want to keep it, have them vote in a new board (most workers would love the raise). Companies that don't engage in illegal activities have nothing to worry about.. ones that DO will have the PEOPLE who did it pay the price.

We only seem to care when it's a HUGE issue like with Enron and billions and billions of stolen money (which, by the way, is where most of the investment money goes from "average folks".. the vaccume of bankruptcy). I say, don't let "companies" exist as "seperate entities" anymore.. make the PEOPLE making the descisions accountable (like we do when it goes waaaay tits-up like Enron).

That kind of prosecution is unjust and would effectively discredit the company enough in the public eye to bankrupt it, which would make the workers lose their jobs. True, someone should be held accountable for crimes such as dumping, but you can only go after people who have broken the law, not everyone associated with it. And the people making the decisions are accountable for what happens. In a corporation, everyone who has ownership and has invested has the opportunity to enter into the decision making calculus. Again, if someone has been stealing money (like in Enron or Tyco), they should go to jail.

"First of all, I'm going to preface this by saying that all of your arguments are based on abuses of politicians because of campaign contributions by corporate america. Furthermore, you are again attacking the actions of Republican politicians, not Republican ideologies. You aren't answering any of my arguments, you're avoiding them."

All I can say is, your "Republican ideals" mean exactly SQUAT when the people you ask to represnt you don't represent your ideals.. This has been going on for decades... Yes, the corruption is at insane levels, but it's nothing new to the Republican Leaders.. And, that's all my point is. Most of your "ideals" I can tend to agree with, or have no problem with.. The -problem- is, your ideals aren't in office.. your leaders are.. and you keep going back and voting for them -despite- all the crap they've been doing for the past few decades.. -thats- my point, and my problem with "Repubicans".

All the points you bring up about your "ideals" are contradicted by what your party does in practice. Just like I tell people who've not been to church in a decade.. you aren't "Catholic" because "catholics" have to go to chruch every sunday.. and take communion..and have confession.. etc etc. If you don't do the actions, don't say you are part of the group. It's a mis-nomer.. Your "views" are what "republicans" are "supposed to be", but not what "republicans have been showing us for decades"..

My grandfather considers himself a republican.. but that's "old school" republican, a "financial idea" republican.. I have no problem with "that kind of republican".. I have a problem with the kind like DeLay, Frist, Hastert, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld, et al. Crooks and Criminals, every one.. yet, "the republican party" keeps putting them BACK in office.. *shrug*

When the day is done, your party affiliation is about who in power you support. When you say you're "republican", you say you support those in power who are "republican". If those in power claiming to be "republican" aren't who you think they are, then quit voting for them (and quit donating to their campaigns, and quit defending them).. That's all

Anyway, I'm tired too.. and this thread has gone way off topic. You seem to be one of the decent honest Republicans that is pissed at your party.. Steve F loves them and only takes offense to rediculous things, like Meirs. He doesn't seem to care about any of the rest, he thinks the crooks and liars in office are, overall, pretty ok. I think they are the codification of sleeze, ignorance, and waste..

The definition I came up with with my grandfather for the kind of "republican" he is is "fiscally responsible with a personal accountability".. I'm that way too.. but I'm nothing like Republicans in office.. The road to "fiscally responsible" takes a lot of different paths... in the end, we -all- want a healthy economy.. we -all- want to have enough money to spend on nice things.. we -all- want to keep as much of our own money as we possibly can. Some of us don't mind telling the overly greedy and abusive few "too bad... you wanna live here, you contribute so we can -all- have a decent life" *shrug* Kind of like spanking your dog when it tries to eat the cat food.. hey, he's got his own food, he doesn't need to take from the cat too..

Wow. I really missed a lot here. Sorry I wasn’t in on this, I, at the last minute gave in to friends who begged me to go up to a lesbian hosted party up north. Funnily enough though, I wound up engaging in a political battle with a liberal which ends as all arguments do, in peace, with a hug LOL. SO I was debating, and I’m sure from thousands of miles away, SAVANTSTER was able to feel it.

The other day, heading into court, Earle refused to speculate his latest “odd” and “desperate” request for his latest subpoenas. THREE years into his investigation, his office is only now issuing subpoenas for “key” records which include phone, financial and credit card receipts for Delay and his DAUGHTER. When asked why as he was walking into the courthouse, Earle with a shaken voice said “I can’t comment on that”.

At the pre-trial hearing for Jim Ellis and John Colyandryo, the “charges” become crystal clear. The facts are as follows (as I am sure everyone knows by now)

1.) TRMPC sent gathered corporate donations in the sum of 190,000.00 to the RNC.
2.) Because Texas law doesn’t allow corporate money to be spent on state races, GOP officials took unrestricted money from different accounts and sent it back to Texas where it was distributed between 7 different candidates.

Everyone is in aggreement that this procress, in and of itself, was legal. But Earle calls this “criminal conspiracy”, and his proof? An “alleged list” that accompanied the $$ sent back to Texas.
Yesterday at that same pre-trial hearing, Assistant District Attorney Rick Reed maintained that his office had a copy of this list, but when asked by the judge to present this list, slowly and strangle un-confidently said “Uh, we are not in the position to represent that this is a copy of the same document”

HUH? Can anyone explain what he meant? LOL.

With boneheaded arguments from the top Districy Attorneys, and the fact that Delay is rushing for his trial to get underway, I’d say that Delay is confident that these charges are going to be dismissed.

In addition, I’m wondering why, if indeed this list exists, WHY Earle is now, after 3 years, subpoenaing Delay’s and his daughters financial, credit card, and phone records. Isn’t the list enough? LOL.

In Earle’s defense, maybe he’ll find out that Delay’s daughter was tardy more than once for homeroom, or that in the 4th grade, Tom Delay tried to buy his way of that pesky spelling test, of course which would give liberals more to rant on for another 5 months.

Taking all of this into consideration, I am wondering why liberals and “independents” like SAVANTSTER continue to say:

“No, but he's not "innocent", not completely.. right? there was enough to suggest to his PEERS that he was engaging in WRONG DOING”
Also you completely misquoted Ann Coulter and especially using quotes SAV when you say that Coulter implied that we should “leave him alone”. She never said that. She is just insinuating, as the rest of my right wingers are, that there is no substantial proof of anything to the level of criminality that you are ready to nail him to the cross for.

Regarding the admonishments, as Ann had pointed out, you have free will SAV to go to google and learn more about how these charges were dismissed! BY the way, you keep talking about how his “own” people, republicans, admonished him. But at the same time, you keep talking about the republican party in the most awful tone. Were they okay when they admonished Tom Delay?

As unimportant as the subject is, yes Ann Coulter is an excellent debater. She has written 4 New York Times bestsellers, has been on TV thousands of times, has written thousands of columns, and had pies hurled at her by liberals who were unable to “thrash their way to a coherent argument”. In addition has made mince meat out of Bob Beckel, Ellis Hennican, Alan Colmes, Katrina VandenHeuvel (interestingly enough does anyone find it ironic that the worst hurricane in history was named after a screaming liberal?)
LOL and if that’s not proof enough, just go to yahoo, type in “Ann Coulter” and click on “images” and see what liberals have done to her. Drawing devil ears, putting her in x-rated costumes, also implying that she in anorexic/bulemic, she’s a chain smoker who never eats...LOL. When liberals go out of their way to insult you personally, you know you have shaken them up in a good way.
SAV’s evil republican corporate conspiracy to kill Americans or “people”, is an extreme liberal rant. My life is not all roses. Today, Sunday, I will be working at least 8-10 hours beating a deadline. During tax season, I work 13 hours a day, 7 days a week from Jan 16th to April 15th. The republican party is not making sure my life is any easier SAV.
Like Ronnie Earle, Sav’s postings assigning blame to corporate Amercia are a lot of accusatory words without any proof whatsoever. It would be easy to convince America if we didn’t require proof of something. At least in my posts, I pull quotes from newspaper articles, historical and present to provide you with an opportunity to do your own research to prove me wrong. If you’re going to make a case, SAV, you need proof, and then you comment on the proof in order to “debate”.
BTW for DAVEK has been excellent in providing links to articulate his opinions on things. SAV you can do the same thing, can’t you?
Lastly, LION, you have been incredible in taking over here, your postings are incredibly articulate. Kudos to you! However, I wanted to remind you to skim up a few postings I explained to SAV what I meant by “cheat better”. I was entertaining SAV’s arguments of the “corrupt republican cheaters” in saying that if they were cheating, that they’d naturally be better at it. Gloatingly teasing him about the intellects of republicans versus democrats. It was a joke! Of course, SAV came back with rhetoric claiming that indeed it IS the GOP that is the “most” corrupt, showing his allegiance to the liberal agenda. Which is exactly what I predicted .

I ain't getting in the middle of this. So much hot air here it's blown this blog up like a balloon!

BlueBear2 its like spitting on a housefire, you will never change a Bushie supporter...

Just don't understand why Bushies aren't lining up outside the recruiter's office and signing that dotted line.

LOL I wish you guys would stop referring to people who support the war as "Bushies". Be politically correct and at least refer to me as a "Righty" LOL.

As I said before Texaslady, your philosophy of "you must join something to support something" is elementary and detours liberals from having to debate the "idea" of why or why not war(s) are nescessary.

Like I said, if you support your local fire department and police officer, by the criteria set forth by liberals with this argument, then you must join them in fighting fires and fighting crime. Any sane person would realize that you not joining them does not change the "idea" of having them to protect us and save our lives, but if people like you who makes this case exist, unfortnately there would be an opposition to the sanity element.

Sort of like liberals' opposition overall. ala Cindy Sheehan.

By the way, I'd like to acknowledge that not one of my posts has been deleted off of here. On the other hand, when I go to the mediamatter.org and argue with liberals, my posts usually always get deleted or "flagged" to eliminate opposing opinions. I think this proves Brad's philosophy of "right or wrong" by allowing diverse opinons. Which is awesome!

My point is, why is the Government paying -anything- at all? Look, 10 BILLION in ONE QUARTER in profits.. guess what they could spend ONE QUARTER's worth of their profits on? Why should the government NOT say "you refineries are too old and pollute too much.. update them or shut your doors"?

Republicans have been doing this for DECADES.. this isn't new, this isn't Shrubby.. This is Republicans.. Ever since I"ve been watching, they have been FUNDING BUSINESSES that don't need it. They fund them because lobbiests donate lots to campaigns, or lend out jets or various other perks. Jack Abromoff (sp) funnels MILLIONS to Republicans.. why? cause he likes them?

First of all, I'm going to preface this by saying that all of your arguments are based on abuses of politicians because of campaign contributions by corporate america. Furthermore, you are again attacking the actions of Republican politicians, not Republican ideologies. You aren't answering any of my arguments, you're avoiding them.

Next, I agree with you that the government should not be giving money to oil companies for new refineries. This is bullshit. But, again, its near impossible for new refineries because of environmental regulations. Ultimately, these regulations are discriminatory towards prospective entries to the oil market, and just help oil companies maintain their control on the market.
Now, these policies that you talk about, with the government giving away billions of dollars to businesses, are called subsidies. Subsidies are meant to protect domestic businesses, which is counterproductive to free trade. Someone who stays true to their Republican ideals would oppose these kind of policies, unless they are needed to counteract the subsidies of other countries (like the EU's Common Agricultural Policy and France's subsidies for AIRBUS), Republicans in power now are just losing sight of their ideals, and playing into the interests of powerful corporations.

Damn, I'm tired, I'll answer the rest of your post tomorrow.

"(I also could just be talking out of my ass on this one.)"

hehe.. that's my point.. kinda.. Debate versus Discuss.. same thing, techinically.. And, if we keep it in that light, then when someone (right or left) "spins" things, they are being dishonest. When you're dishonest while building your "point", your "point" is flawed. If your point is "flawed", it shouldn't be used as a basis of Law.. At least, that's my opinion. The "right" seems to take the opposite position.. that being "win at all costs", which I think is a disservice to all mankind, not just our country.

"Why haven't I heard any reasonable arguement out of you as to why a a Republican view taxing is a bad one? Why is rampant taxing and big government good?"

Well, you've not, that I can tell, mentioned anything "special" about taxing. I think we "all" agree that taxation should be reasonable.. should be fair.. When I say "Republicans give huge loopholes to the very rich", you said "there aren't that many very rich".. the rest is "where do we spend it".. you, yourself, said that there needs to be programs to protect "those that need help", and I agree. The difference would fall to "paying those that don't ever want to work". I would argue that we'll always have those, and it's part of human nature (gambling, lotteries, stock-market.. all about getting "free money" for doing.. well, pretty much nothing). We both agree that "limiting the number of 'freeloaders' is prudent", I would think, and we agree that Poverty is "a cycle that needs to be broken".. we differ on how to do that, I think. Taxes (and we'll not get into the invalidity of the 16th Amendment, or how no statute makes you "liable" for your personal income tax yet there -are- statutes that assign liability for other taxes, etc etc) are gonna have to be paid and collected. I think we -all- want to keep as much as we can in our pockets.. I think we -all- want our Government to be "responsible".. When you get to the point of what money should be put into what Government agencies to best get our goals met.. well, that's another question. Again, not sure what the point/argument about "taxing" would be..

"Look, you're going off on a tangent here to avoid debating me on the issue of taxes. I think this is what you would call "distracting." "

It's not a tangent.. we're discussing Republicans in Congress, in general and overall. At least, I thought we were..

" 1) Republicans like tax cuts because it allows them to help corporations ."

No, YOU said that.. those cuts are "invested and spark the economy".. I think MOST people that got refunds probably got drunk on it and pissed it in a toilet.. "rich" folks who got back 10s of thousands... -they- might have "invested" some.. but I -still- don't see that "kickstarting the economy"..

let me ask you this.. what do you use to gague "the economy"? I'm guessing the Financial Markets.. like all the "experts".. But, again, I submit that "Finacial Markets" only benifit a SMALL percentage of our population, therefore the "stimulated economy" isn't benifiting very many people.. kind of a moot point then, to me.

"2) not everyone has the luxury to invest in these corporations"

which was my "rebuttle" to YOUR statement about "those cuts allow people to invest". Putting that $175 into the market does pretty much nothing for anyone, but the $28,000 some got back, that they don't need because that means they probably made over $500,000 that year and already have tons of money to spend on things, -that- likely got put in the market..

"Wow, you are way off here. Sucking up investment money is ILLEGAL (see Tyco Corp). "

Um.. when board members vote themselves a $3 million dollar bonus, you don't think that comes from the cash from the market? When you buy stock and gain some ownership, that cash goes into the company's "account".. at the end of the year, the "profits" go to the "owners", right? in the form of dividends? BUT, board members get to vote on bonuses and the like, or salary raises. There are -plenty- of "legal" ways to absorb that money, all loopholes set up by .. um.. Republicans?

"The CEO of GE makes that much money because he owns millions of shares in the company."

Pretty sure that was his SALARY.. not his "dividends" or "interest value".. that's his CASH SALARY.. Cheney, now he went from $244,000 "worth" of Haliburton stock, to now that stock having a value of $8 mill. All while he swore "not to have a financial interest" in Hallyboys..

"And they don't fire people when making record profits. "

Actually, you're -wrong-.. Mars candy shut down their "most profitable plant" and fired something like 2500 people.. why? Their explination was "we need to be more competitive".. and they -were- showing record profits. Your "model" doesn't account for that, but our current system DOES THAT..

"And outsourcing does not add to the trade deficit, it just causes unemployment "

"You can't start a textile company here because China has a comparative advantage in textiles (meaning, we are more efficient in producing other goods, we have a comparative advantage in other things.)"

Not saying "outsorcing" is causing the deficit, saying our loss of our industrial base is causing the deficit. We produce LESS and import MORE. The "other things" we have advantage in is "financial markets", not "industry". We can't compete because companies are overly worried about "the bottom line" and how they look "in the market".. and Board Members want their millions a year in bonuses and salaries.. so instead of paying our own people to do the work, we move factories over seas to get the work done at a fraction of the cost. Do you realize Nike, an American Corperation.. makes no shoes in the United States? never has? How is that possible? and why do they cost $150 a pair when they cost $2 - $5 a pair to make? (might be up to $10 - $15 a pair to make now).

"And it's illegal for us to put higher tariffs on imports (see WTO and other international law)"

And therein lies part of the problem, doesn't it? to get things from other people cheaper so our companies can make things cheaper without paying Americans to build stuff, we signed an agreement that makes it so we can't regulate our own economy now.. nice.. And, with the advent of the Iraq invasion, what the hell do we care about "international law"?

"And the "American Dream" hasn't been true for 100 years? If you want to argue that overall quality of life is worse now than 100 years ago, go ahead."

The "american dream" isn't about being up to your ass in debt and 1/2 a step from losing it all if your company "down sizes" so the board members can get a few mill in bonuses. The "american dream" is the idea that you can start with nothing and work hard and "have a great life".. again, in case you didn't notice, that's not something "the masses" can do when 1% of the country owns 80% of "all there is".. There just isn't enough to go around anymore. Is life better now than 100 years ago? yeah.. but that's technology, not "every man has the -real- chance to move up".. hell, studies are showing a general "downward mobility" in our society.. that is, upper-middle class folks aren't "getting better off", they are "becoming worse off" financially... in terms of wealth. You can't compare "the quality of life" now to then.. back then, you didn't NEED a job, you could stake a claim on land and work that, and have a decent life.. Those days are long gone.

"Regulating the hell out of industry would immensely expand the scope of our government and would make our economy extremely inefficient. "

Yes, it would increase the size of government. But, I have yet to hear a reasonable argument as to why that would be bad, if the government is protecting us like it's supposed to. Big != bad. Big -could- be bad if it's not watched, but big is NOT the same as bad. Explain to me how "big is bad".. we always hear "we want smaller government".. what does that mean, exactly?

"Also, companies that have favor in the government (which you agree is a problem now) will face less regulations than others and will have even more of an advantage over all of us."

Here you are suggesting that if we force government to "do the right thing", they will still be corrupt? ALL companies in any given industry would be held to the SAME laws.. Only in our CURRENT government do we see laws being passed to "favor companies that buy the law".. we need to get corperations OUT of government.. completely.. NO favorites, NO passes for anyone. The -fact- that Companies heavily fund Republicans should clue you in. They are trying to buy perks, and usually at YOUR expense.

"The only purpose of regulation is to root out inefficiencies in the economy (for instance, pollution creates unneccessary social costs, which makes certain goods have a net cost/gain that is inefficient, so we regulate to stop pollution.)"

This is perhaps the most Republican thing you've said yet.. See how that makes NO sense? In "business", the only "human cost" is manpower.. not in how many people die outside of the business.. that is, dumping toxic waste is EFFICIENT, all the time, 100% for the company. GOVERNMENT has to REGULATE such things, not because it's "inefficient" to not pollute, but because DEPSITE it being efficient, it's WRONG. Thing is, -most- Republicans don't think -thats- fair either. They think it should be left to the company to decide (which brings us to your next point).. Government is, again, OF the people, by the people, FOR the people. Companies are for PROFIT, at what ever collateral cost. Monopolies don't make life "inefficient", they make life unbearably expensive.

"That kind of prosecution is unjust and would effectively discredit the company enough in the public eye to bankrupt it, which would make the workers lose their jobs. True, someone should be held accountable for crimes such as dumping, but you can only go after people who have broken the law, not everyone associated with it. And the people making the decisions are accountable for what happens. In a corporation, everyone who has ownership and has invested has the opportunity to enter into the decision making calculus. Again, if someone has been stealing money (like in Enron or Tyco), they should go to jail."

I think you missed the point. The BOARD MEMBERS are the ones who allowed the dumping to occur (in most cases). The "investors" didn't vote on that, they likely dind't know about it. However, it's the BOARD MEMBERS job to know, that's what they get paid for.. right? And, personally, I think it should IMPROVE the public's opinion of a company if they KNOW all the people who engaged in wrong doing were removed and all new people were put in. That's just me. Course, the 10s of millions in fines aren't reported for reasons you say.. so people "don't get a bad opinion".. well, that's bullshit if you ask me. Republicans are all about accountability, until it cuts into their bottom line.. right?

As a side note.. we don't have a Capitalism here in this country. One of the things require for that is "free access to Capital".. we don't have that here. again, 80% of all that is is owned by 1% of the people.. All these corperations buying up other corps is what's preventing new companies from forming.. We don't have new refineries for ONE reason.. The people that own the CURRENT ones won't let you make a new one. In a "Capitalism", access to the Capital to make a new one would be there for whomever wanted to make it. You go to your local bank and ask for $6 billion to build a refinery.. The economic model is there, it's a cash-cow.. you won't get the loan.. for 2 reasons.. One is the illegal activities of the current oil companies, they won't let you get it (good luck proving it in a court of law, right?).. and secondly, I'm guessing some obscure laws the oil companies paid to have put on the books will prevent you from doing it (which has nothing to do with polution or environmental laws.. it has to do with pure and simple corruption).

Our economic model isn't what's in the books. In theory, a lot of what you say is true (more regulation requires more government for oversight, etc). But, how does saying "board members and CEOs/Exec.s can only have 250% (or 500% or 1000% or something) of the average salary of the employees? Why would it be wrong to make sure people running companies weren't getting filthy rich on the backs of the workers? Do you -honestly- believe we'd not be able to find competent people to run companies if, as CEO, you only got $500,000 /yr?

And yes.. at my company.. a VERY large company.. they let go 7500 people to "improve their financials", and at the SAME time, the CEO got a $4,000,000 bonus (in addition to his salary).. So, explain to me again how companies don't directly, intentionally, and unjustly fuck over employees so the fat-cats can get more?

"Also you completely misquoted Ann Coulter and especially using quotes SAV when you say that Coulter implied that we should “leave him alone”. She never said that. She is just insinuating, as the rest of my right wingers are, that there is no substantial proof of anything to the level of criminality that you are ready to nail him to the cross for."

Liestning to the interview with Brad and sleezbitch.. She SAID "Earl will prosecute Republicans weather or not they've commited a crime". Um.. hello? She also keeps -ignoring- the -fact- that he's prosecuted 4 TIMES as many Dems as Repugs.. hello? He's not partisan. Does that mean he's justified in going after DeLay? Not sure, we're waiting on the -facts- to be brought out.. right?

Also, just because you do something "unethical" doesn't mean you did something "criminal".. right? again, your lack of ability to maintain proper logic causes you to mix things up. If he was ADMONISHED.. which is the "slap on the wrist" you guys like to talk about, that means he VIOLATED ETHICS.. not "criminal law".. get it? It's unethical for psychiatrist to sleep with a patient, not illegal. His peers could say "Jim, you really need to stop sleeping with your patient", but he might never be in violation of a law.. get the difference? When you "abuse your power", it doesn't automatically mean "you commited a crime". DeLay is a dirt-ball.. is he criminal? we'll see (I don't doubt for a minute that he is, but we don't convict people on how shitty they are, we convict them on facts.. we're waiting on those, right?).

"As unimportant as the subject is, yes Ann Coulter is an excellent debater."

Again, if you read about "debate", yeah.. she's excellent in "supporting bad ideas with lies and distraction and disinformation and spin".. Bad logic that "sounds good" to the average person is "not good debating" to anyone who's intellectually honest. Outside of college (or "debate team" or what have you), lying to get your point made makes you a shit-bag, not a "good debater". But, since the last bastion of the Right when they want to instill bad policiy or take advantage of the masses is to "debate" with lies, spin, disinformation, distraction, and let's add bad logic, I don't expect you to admit it.. You can't.. Also, just because you "write books" doesn't make you "right".. KKK members wright books.. does that make them right? The other psyhos in the KKK love those books.. Just because Ann can spit lies really well and use the dirtiest tricks of conversation that any intellectually honest person would concede implies a weak platform and a lot of ignorant people in this country (who, ironically, consider themselves intelligent) swallow it, doesn't make her "right" or "good"... makes her "popular", which is a sign of what's wrong in this country.

"As I said before Texaslady, your philosophy of "you must join something to support something" is elementary and detours liberals from having to debate the "idea" of why or why not war(s) are nescessary."

Wars are not -always- nescessary.. and this one in Iraq was far from nescessary.. And, as I said, the only time your argument of "don't need to do it to support it" only applies if you have empathy. I'm pretty sure you have none.. the whole premis of "everyone has the same opportunity" PROVES you are clueless and don't know jack shit about the people in this country, which also implies you can't sympathise with them.. You're sitting in your nice cozy house surrounded by your nice cozy things and sending poor people off to die in your illegal war. If your war was "nescessary", then you should be out there fighting for your cause. You aren't and won't and will do the same thing privledged people have always done during times of conflict.. send the poor do die for your "idea"..

"Like I said, if you support your local fire department and police officer, by the criteria set forth by liberals with this argument, then you must join them in fighting fires and fighting crime. Any sane person would realize that you not joining them does not change the "idea" of having them to protect us and save our lives, but if people like you who makes this case exist, unfortnately there would be an opposition to the sanity element."

Perfect example of totally flawed logic.. not that you'll see it. Waging war is not the same as being a fireman. You attempt to bring them to gether shows your pathetic nature. Distraction, spin, disinformation, logical falicies.. when you have no valid position, you resort to them.

" . . . claiming that indeed it IS the GOP that is the “most” corrupt, showing his allegiance to the liberal agenda"

Again, you show your limited ability to reason, or address me or my position. If it happens to be that my dislike of the GOP and corrupt Republican leaders corrisponds to what Liberals also feel, it does not automatically follow that I "support their agenda". That would be akin to saying "since Steve breathes air, he's on board with serial killers.. they breath air too". For your point to have any glimmer of credibility, you'd have to show that I "support liberals even when they do wrong".. but, I don't.. so your attempt at dredging up negative implications to people "like minded to you" by calling me "liberal" is.. well, pathetic ... again..

I have an allegience to the "agenda" of getting corruption out of Government.. getting corperations out of Government.. Getting Government out of my personal life.. Putting this country back on track to adhere to our Constitution and eliminate the travesties created by our Classist society where people of privledge believe they deserve more and better than the rest, and use the Government to secure their ideas. I want the United States to be a great country again.

Texaslady #176 - BlueBear2 its like spitting on a housefire, you will never change a Bushie supporter...

I have a serious problem with this statement. The stereotype of most people towards participants in "liberal" blogs like this that "Those people are so entrenched in their radical beliefs that you cannot change their oponions on anything." I've seen enough of this blog to know that this is an attitude is misleading. People here (for the most part) seem to be honest and open new ideas, and in fact aren't even necessarily liberal. When we have an ideology that is different from yours (since we are Republicans), why do you automatically label us as think-headed and stubborn?

BTW, I am a non-Bushie Republican. And join in on this debate - Savantster could use some help.

Heh.. well, Nittany..

I can only help so much as to say, -you- don't seem to be the same kind of "republican" we 'normally' get around here. And, I think they were more talking about Steve F.. not you..

The problem is, both sides say the same thing about the other because in large part, they are both right.. you can't convince the other side if they are sticking to a position that isn't founded in fact.. That is, if I say the sky is blue and someone else says it's red.. chances are I can't convince the other guy that he's wrong.. even though it's obvious to "honest people"..

When we're dealing with "politics", the lines get all blurred. When someone like Steve F. comes in and defends people like Coulter then sets out to use the same pitiful techniques to prove a point, they get dismissed. Sure, we'll try to given them a chance to make a point.. but when they say "I like getting you all pissed off", they lose all respect from the base.. When people like you come in and SHOW you are at least TRYING to have an honest debate, we embrace you with open arms.. at least, that's what I've seen here.. And, having been here off and on for 6 months or so, I'd have to say they are correct when they say "trying to get through to someone like Steve F is like spitting on a housefire".. doesn't merit any more time.. He isn't here to engage in honest debate, he's here to stirr up a rucus.. or, that's what it looks like to me (and others, it seems).

So, in a nut-shell.. Both sides have folks that have crazy positions and you can't pull them out of their shell.. A lot of us -here- aren't really on "either side", though some seem to be.. and "visitors" here, like Steve and you, well... more Steve as it seems, tend to come to stir up trouble then disappear after they piss on the wall..

Yeah, you're probably right...

So, in a nut-shell, you have counter-agents flooding the blogs...

Steve F #177

You could not have made a more vague statement, at least it qualifies for the top ten vague statements, by saying:

and detours liberals from having to debate the "idea" of why or why not war(s) are nescessary[sic] ...

First off you are dead wrong to infer that liberals, or conservatives for that matter, here would not debate any matter, including war. It happens all the time.

Sevantster #184 gives the real reason we do not entertain the ramblings of trolls here, even to, as you point out in your #178 this blog entertains contrary opinions which you rightly call an "awesome" policy.

Back to war. The reason I say your statement is vague, is that it does not give a context. Is your notion "why or why not war(s) are [necessary]" attaching to the military philosophy ("war pays our salary"), bu$hit philosophy ("war keeps the people in luv with me and God"), social philosophy ("war is acting out aggression"), the soldier philosophy ("war is hell"), the chicken hawk philosophy ("war is funner than a video game"), peace philosophy ("was is horrid"), opposing countries in a war ("we are right and they are wrong"), or what?

There are almost unlimited perspectives from which such a discussion could take place. I think you want to advance a very limited notion about why war is absolutely essential.

The #1 definition of "necessary" is "absolutely essential" (link here).

War is "absolutely essential" to whom? Warmongers? The conservative rhetoric is that "war is a last resort"? So I wonder how you would call war absolutely essential and still call yourself conservative?

Maybe you don't ... you keep using the term "righty" to describe yourself. How far right? Past the generals that do not like war?

I like the way "Stormin Norman" (Gulf war I general) spoke before the Iraq "war" (II) began. He said, "I, like many solders who have been in war, am a peace advocate. When you sit in a chair and participate in a war thru the TV, you have a different perspective from we who have been involved." (paraphrased)

His view is not the only view, because some people desperately need war for some reason, but most people do not think war is the apex of human behavior as others do.

Any politician that thinks war is absolutely essential would not be electable if he advocated it in public (the Goldwater experience). NeoCons like bu$hit have learned to lie about war feelings (the downing street memo, Against All Enemies, etc).

But sooner or later the bu$hit would show thru and that politician would drop in the polls like a rock. Like bu$hit has ... americans do not like war.

Since this was kind of mixed in on the whole Shrubman polls and the like..

here's a link that shows Iraq is taking true form with the U.S. .. sure they want Democracy, so long as it suits the guys willing to cheat the best.. Who cheated? who knows.. but I know the "right wing" in the U.S. are gonna say "those Sunni cheated.. nevermind there being too many 'shiite' based votes in the Sunni region".

No idea how they are gonna fix it either.. Audit? what? you have 250,000 votes there.. throw wich ones out?

Like I said, I smell a civil war a brewin over there.. GO BUSH!

but to be fair, there's a -chance- that the vote -really- passed the constitution there.. not that we'll ever know the truth without a total revote with tighter controls.. Perhaps we should get them all photo-IDs? The U.S. could pay for all of them, despite not wanting to do the same for it's own citizens.

And, to add to Dredd's point.. I can see that at TIMES war might be "necessary", but in and of it's self, he's absolutely correct.. you're being too vague. Could the world survive without war? hell yes.. that means it's not "necessary".. if someone tries to steal your land and murder your people and you want to prevent it.. might war be "necessary" to stop them? yeah.. but those are 2 different horses of colors different each..

Steve F #178 said:

"I think this proves Brad's philosophy of "right or wrong" by allowing diverse opinons. Which is awesome!"

Welcome to Brad Blog!

Well.. and since we were talking economics too..

a bit that shows companies don't do what we expect.. or what's intended.. but put the money -back- in the hands of investors (funneling profits and tax breaks) instead of "lowering prices" or "paying the workers"..