That's interesting; its also a shovel full of horse apples. Look at the famous 16 words from the SOTU. The American Right has been screaming that Bush's statements were supported by the recent Bulter investigation by the british government. However, Bush NEVER ONCE passed on the notion that all intel regarding WMD was limited in nature and needed to be investigated by people on the ground. That is his lie. The inspections, however, were giving real on the ground intel (BTW, don't gnaw on the old bone of the UN not being reliable; their 1998 reports are where most of the intel Bush relied on his claims came from.). The UN inspectors visited EVERY SITE listed by our intelligence services and found nothing. The best intel at the time contradicted every statement he made.

First of all Paul , I urge you to read my other post under "You can't make this stuff up."

Second of all....*sigh*....Here I go:

"You are a fruitcake! "

Oh no, my friend. I believe you are the fruity one here.

"And again, if every country says Saddam had WMD, Bush did not lie. "

See my other post about WMD. You can't go into other countries and start killing people because you "think" they might use a weapon. Do you own a gun? How would you feel if someone came and killed you in the middle of the night because they were afraid you were going to use your gun someday?

"You guys are actually aiding and abetting the enemy when you say stuff like that."

Oh yes. I'm sure there's some guy living in Iraq who just read Brad's post and said, "Ha-ha! They're weakening! Our plan is working! Mwahahahahaah!"
You watch too many movies.

" You are not being intellectually honest with yourself."

*LOL*! Intellectually honest? How can one be intellectually honest? Please. Enlighten me.

"Oh I forgot, with liberals, it's all about emotion!"

Emotion? No. Heart. Reality. Truth. Yes. But hey, if you're all about the "system" and "logic", tell me how you would feel if you were wrongly accused of a murder but thrown in jail anyway because all the facts pointed to yes? It doesn't feel nice when it's about you , does it?

"Economy is growing like crazy (it's the economy stupid!)"

Huh????? What does that mean? Because its the "economy" , it has to grow? Have you ever studied economics?

"Abortion restrictions"

I'm going to pretend I didn't read that. Consider yourself lucky.

"Fetus as a legal person - murder a pregnant woman and you kill two people"

Dear God. Please impregnate him. PLEASE impregnate him.

"Capturing terrorists all over the world"

So is Bush going to turn himself in too?

"Largest spending of HIV/AIDS help ever"

I'm extremely curious. You obviously don't believe in women's rights or gay marriage. So why would you support a disease that is mainly spread by pre-marital and gay sex? (I am only asking this to make a point guys).

"Tax cuts for every worker - I know you got one"

Ahhh...It's ALL about the tax cuts. How much better are you living since you got yours?

"Federal spending for the first time for stem cell research"

Oh LORD !!! Fruitcake! Do you know anything about stem cell research? Do you know they are isolated from human embryos? Why support it when you don't support abortion? Do you just make up rules as you go along? Please take your foot out of your mouth.

"Opposing Gay Marriage ? (? = no such thing as marriage outside of a man and woman) "

Because.... you say so??! Okay. Then I think you should stop drinking because "I" say so. And not just alchohol. I think you should only drink water because it's natural. It's just as arbitrary ...

"He's not Kerry"

Yeah. He's Bush.

*gag*

Correction, my other post is under "Say it ain't so... "

You guys are a lot of fun - LOL. 9th district court saying that "under God" in our pledge is unconstitutional. That is legislation from the bench. SCOTUS judges who came up with the "right to privacy" so a woman could have an abortion. That is legislation from the bench. Judges that deem that forbidding homosexual marriages is unconstitutional. That is legislation from the bench.

You guys cannot win at the ballot box so you have to find some activist judge somewhere to change the law for you or stop the law that was passed by the people. Seems like I remember something in California called Prop 187. Is that correct?

> You obviously don't believe in women's rights

I do believe in women's rights. I believe in the right of life for the unborn women. Be thankful you didn't get your brains sucked out as you were coming out of the womb.

> Have you ever studied economics?

Of course. Look at the numbers. Growth rates like we have not seen in 20 years, since Reaganomics. I am a Keynesian supply-sider.

> Do you know anything about stem cell research?

Is Bush or the gov't spending the money or not? Yes they are. And, my friend, stem cells are not just embryonic.

Paul --- answer my other questions please.

#1 : How would you feel if someone came and killed you in the middle of the night because they were afraid you were going to use your gun someday?
#2: How can one be intellectually honest?
#3: Is Bush going to turn himself in.
#4: Why would you support a disease that is mainly spread by pre-marital and gay sex (Aids)?
#5: How much better are you living since you got your tax cut?
#6: Are you going to stop drinking because I say so?

"I do believe in women's rights. I believe in the right of life for the unborn women. Be thankful you didn't get your brains sucked out as you were coming out of the womb."

That's horseshit and you know it. You should be thankful that you're not accidentally impregnated and forced to give up your body. Do you really want to have this conversation?? I'm warning you, but if you do, bring it.

" Is Bush or the gov't spending the money or not?"

LIke i said...Do you make up the rules as you go along? Stem cell research? ONE step in the right direction. Next comes abortion rights and gay marriages.

" Yes they are. And, my friend, stem cells are not just embryonic."

Do your research before you talk . Learn about stem cell research.

Your questions are stupid and I do not want to waste my time in answering them.

Paul,

Puh-lease. The reasons you come up with not answering questions are innumerable.

Oh my.... That's your answer???

Puh-lease is right !!

That's almost as good as "Cause it's my blog and I can do what I want!!" .

You know damn well they aren't stupid questions. I raised many pertinent issues & responded to all of your ridiculous comments. The fact of the matter is, you *feel* stupid.

There's a difference.

Re: Paul's attempt to label intepretation of US and State Constitution and law (as they are required to do according to the US Constitution) as "legislating from the bench" the way he's been taught by his Republican Propoganda Masters:

"9th district court saying that "under God" in our pledge is unconstitutional. That is legislation from the bench."

That is interpretation of law and the constitution.

"SCOTUS judges who came up with the "right to privacy" so a woman could have an abortion. That is legislation from the bench."

Again, you don't seem to like their interpretation of law, so you call it "legislating from the bench". The fact that this "legislation from the bench" has held up against every legal "angel" and attack for the last 35 years should make that point clear. But facts don't seem to matter to you guys on the right. Just emotion.

"Judges that deem that forbidding homosexual marriages is unconstitutional. That is legislation from the bench."

Again, one has to wonder why it is that you hate the Constitution so much? Whether it's the US or State Constitution. Furthermore, why it is that you are so against State's Rights.

I'd think you'd support the very conservative interpretation (and I mean "conservative" in the real sense, not in the way you have been taught to use it) in Massacheusettes of their State Constitution. If you were familiar with their actual ruling, instead of the propoganda you've been taught to retype, you'd understand that very clearly.

"You guys cannot win at the ballot box so you have to find some activist judge somewhere to change the law for you or stop the law that was passed by the people."

heheh...Thanks, Rush! And thanks for the reminder about what folks who can't win at the ballot box do in this country to acchieve power (See Florida 2000 and California 2003 for just a coupla swell examples!)

"Seems like I remember something in California called Prop 187. Is that correct?"

You probably do. The one that was held to be Unconstitutional? You probably also recall another Prop in CA that allowed for use of Medical Marijuana and was widely approved by the voters, only to be ignored and/or overruled by the US Justice Department. Not based on any Constitutional Hearing or Trial, just simply because they didn't like it.

See also popularly passed Assisted Suicide bills in Oregon that were "overruled by fiat" of the John Ashcroft Justice Dept. Again, in an attempt to bypass the legal system and the voters in this country.

You can re-type all the pablum you hear on Rush as much as you like. Doesn't put the facts on your side however. If you had a well-rounded education of what was going on, insted of relying on / believing in the Agenda Based "News" Resources that you do, you might find yourself right once in a while, or at least having fact (instead of emotion and misleading propoganda) on your side.

> You obviously don't believe in women's rights

I do believe in women's rights. I believe in the right of life for the unborn women. Be thankful you didn't get your brains sucked out as you were coming out of the womb.

> Have you ever studied economics?

Of course. Look at the numbers. Growth rates like we have not seen in 20 years, since Reaganomics. I am a Keynesian supply-sider.

> Do you know anything about stem cell research?

Is Bush or the gov't spending the money or not? Yes they are. And, my friend, stem cells are not just embryonic.

Ok Johanna, you sweet thang you - I will answer your stupid questions -

#1 : How would you feel if someone came and killed you in the middle of the night because they were afraid you were going to use your gun someday?

I'd stop then first if they came in my house. In case you do not understand, stop means to stop them from what they are doing, which means I would use my gun on them.

#2: How can one be intellectually honest?

Not lying to oneself. So filled with hate and emotion and conspiracy theories that one can't think rationally.

#3: Is Bush going to turn himself in.

What does that mean? Why would he turn himself in?

#4: Why would you support a disease that is mainly spread by pre-marital and gay sex (Aids)?

I never said I supported the disease. I said "Largest spending of HIV/AIDS help ever" which translates to "Bush has appropriated the largest amount of money for fighting AIDS than anyone else before him." Do you not know how to read?

#5: How much better are you living since you got your tax cut?

Doing very well thank you! 401Ks are way up. Looking at buying about 10 acres of land and/or a house and land in the most expensive county in Texas. A county that had a conservative Democrat who was only 1 of 4 Democrat house members to vote to impeach Clinton. After an entire life of being a Democrat, this 70 year-old plus congressman did switch parties recently - the Honorable Ralph Hall.

#6: Are you going to stop drinking because I say so?

What kind of question is that?

#4 through #6 are definately stupid questions.

> 1.8 Million Jobs Lost in the Private Sector

A boom in the 90's for telecom, internet, cell phones, technology. I have been in telecom for almost 20 years. Then a bust! Bust of the stock market and companies lying about their debt during the Clinton years like Enron, Global Crossing, and WorldCom. It's all begining to come back though.

> Families spend, on average, 25% more on healthcare than before January of 2001

My healthcare costs went from about $100 a month to $54 a month in April of 2000 and remain that way. Plus, much better coverage.

> The deaths of more than 900 American military

Some accidents and some suicide.

> The deaths of more than 10,000 Iraqi civilians with the use of weapons such as cluster bombs

Also used in 1991. More precise missiles than in 1991.

> Lying to the American public during his state of the union

Is this about Brit intelligence indicating Iraq trying to buy WMDs from Africa? Where did he lie? Brits have not retracted it.

Why don't you just come out and say it? You are ANTI-WAR so matter what!!!!!!!!!

Paul,

i hate to point this out but how could you be so wrong on every point?

Are you saying that there are not 1.8 million less jobs than in the 90s? Are you saying that the jobs that are coming back are as good as those lost? Of course not. And thats really what matters, a stability in the economy.

Congrats you spend less. i hate to tell you this but the universe and the American economy does not center on you.

"Some accidents and some suicide." What matters is where they died. i don't know many people who drowned in the Tigris in a tank that was not in Iraq. Bush put those people in danger for NO reason. That is the issue.

The use of cluster bombs in 1991 does not justify the use of cluster bombs in 2004. They are immoral weapopns that are built to inflict civilian casualties.

You are correct. The British have not retracted the claim. But what have they said about it? Read the Butler report:

"seriously flawed" "open to doubt" "unreliable or questionable"

"Language in the dossier may have left with readers the impression that there was fuller and firmer intelligence behind the judgments than was the case. Our view, having reviewed all of the material, is that the judgments in the dossier went to (although not beyond) the outer limits of the intelligence available."

The problem is that this Administration, like Blair, did not inform the public of the seriously limited nature of the information. In other words they passed off the uranium claim as if it were certain. This was by no means the case. That is why Bush is taking so much crap; that and putting more trust in the British than American intel which had debunked the claim. i also find it interesting that you put more trust in this info than Bush who has said he shouldn't have put it in the SOTU. What you guys wont apologize for.

As for war, i have no problem with military action as long as there is an actual reason for its use and it is used properly.

Ugh. Paul .

Those are you answers? I liked it better when you felt stupid.

"I'd stop then first if they came in my house. In case you do not understand, stop means to stop them from what they are doing, which means I would use my gun on them."

Yes, that's great and everything. But in Iraq, most people don't have guns. You're not understanding my point at all. It's like talking to a stapler.

"Not lying to oneself. So filled with hate and emotion and conspiracy theories that one can't think rationally."

That's intellectually honest? *LOL*! That's f*cking hilarious. Please call Oxford and tell them to add that to their 2005 edition. *LMAO*!!! You're a hoot.

"What does that mean? Why would he turn himself in?"

Because you slow poke (how do you not hurt yourself more?!). YOU SAID: "Capturing terrorists all over the world", so I'm wondering if Bush will turn himself in too because he is also a terrorist. Oh and don't EVEN think of barking back on this one. Look up terrorist and terrorism in the dictionary. I'm right.

"I never said I supported the disease."

You're a jackass. Yes you did.

"I said "Largest spending of HIV/AIDS help ever" which translates to "Bush has appropriated the largest amount of money for fighting AIDS than anyone else before him." Do you not know how to read?"

Listen --- stapler. Re-read your own posts. If you are using the "largest spending of HIV/AIds" as a PRO for Bush, then you are saying that fighting Aids is a good thing. I think fighting Aids is great, but YOU, are confused.

Now I am asking YOU , WHY (read slowly now, you can do this), do YOU think fighting AIDS is a GOOD thing when AIDS is a disease mainly spread by un-safe pre-marital sex and gay sex??!

If you don't support gay sex, then why are you saying that fighting AIDS is a good thing?

Do. You. Understand. Now? I don't know how many ways I can say it!

"Are you going to stop drinking because I say so?
What kind of question is that?"

Well. You don't believe in Gay Marriage. That's your opinion. I don't believe you should drink. That's my opinion. Therefore, I'm saying that if you have the right to prevent gay people from doing things, I should have the right to prevent YOU from doing something. Get it?

I'm giving YOU a taste of your own medicine and yes, yes!!! Its' very bitter, I know. But people like you don't see the consequences of their actions. They only think about one thing.

"#4 through #6 are definately stupid questions."

They are only stupid to you because...Ah , forget it. Out of respect for Brad, I'm not going to be "intellectually honest" with you.

Just...go staple something.

To add to johnhp's comment about "uranium from Niger" that Paul (as instructed by Rush and Newsmax) can't seem to get right...I'd also add that the CIA on at least 2 occassions (possibly more) had told Bush to remove that same phrase from previous speeches because they couldn't support it.

By the time they got to the State of the Union Address, the CIA was trumped by the idealogues of the Bush Administration who wanted it in anyway. As usual, for political purposes.

That's misleading at best, lying at worst. By the CIA/Admin's own clear actions.

Johanna - you are twisting my words (figthing AIDS with money for research and a cure is good - what causes AIDS [gay sex/drug use] is not good] , therefore, I am signing off to you Bush haters for good.

Enjoy talking to yourselves.