curmudgeon's tags:
curmudgeon's most popular posts:
curmudgeon reads (55):
Who's reading curmudgeon (60):

The Democratic Dearth of Reason

curmudgeon posted on Jul 15, 2009 | views: 269 | Tags: politics, Obama, progressives, haters, bush, saddam, Bush Bashing
Yesterday, President Obama defiantly (belatedly, actually) took ownership of the American economy and all of its accompanying troubles. He did so while at the same time blaming "the folks who got us into this mess" - I assume he's attempting to castigate President Bush and the Republicans here, even though the Dems had the House and Senate since 2006, and had strong minorities all through the Bush years. Such is one sad example of the illogic of Democratic rhetoric.

Here are a few others:

When President Bush originally commenced military operations in Afghanistan, professional Bush-haters (they like to call themselves journalists, but we really ought to use accurate terminology) began using the old bugaboo comparison of the Vietnam.  Now that President Obama has stepped up operations in that part of the world, with resulting deaths of American servicepeople, where's the Vietnam yap? Nowhere.

Of course, PBHs (that's Professional Bush Haters) used Vietnam to compare our involvement in Iraq when Bush was President, too, even though with all of the rebuilding we were doing it was far more like Japan. Criticism about Iraq - actually any journalistic attention at all - has been scant as Obama took over that operation.

Then there's the deficit! Boy, do Bush Haters love to bring up that "surplus" that Clinton left us and the deficits brought on by Bush and the Republicans in Congress! If memory serves me, we started going down the deficit path in a post 9/11 recession. Whether or not Bush cut taxes, that surplus would have vanished in a heartbeat.

But the Democratic illogic here is that while Bush's deficits were unreasonable or irresponsible, somehow Obama's deficit spending - an order of magnitude greater than Bush's - are necessary to "stimulate" the economy. Huh?

Returning for a moment to international affairs, how about those ongoing drone attacks that are currently killing terrorists and innocent civilians in Pakistan? I'll admit there was scant criticism of these operations when Bush was President, but given the liberal penchant for diplomacy, and following international law, one might think that they would have some criticism of bombing a country with which we are not at war, with no public input from Congress. As silence equals consent, Democratic voters and the leaders who represent tham now must assume the mantle of international criminals and can rightly be called baby killers. Their allegiance to Obama has led them to set aside their valued principles.

Oh - and there's health care. One sixth of a population of 300 million are having problems paying for health insurance and treatment. Holy fuck! That means we need to implement a single-payer system, thereby rationing care for the 250 million folks who aren't having insurance problems! Where the hell is the sense in this???

And please, quit lying about this whole "government option" thing. The ultimate liberal-socialist agenda is single payer, and the government option will eventually bring this about. They know this, that's why they want this. The sooner liberals come clean, the sooner we can have an honest debate about health care and explore other viable options. But seeing as some Senate committee just passed some version of a health care reform bill, I doubt we're going to have an honest debate about anything.

Get your visas ready - you'll soon be heading off to India for that transplant you need!

And here's the latest one: The nomination of Sonia Sotomayor. Yesterday, she testified that she will follow the law. She testified that - contrary to past statements she has made out of court settings - as a judge, it is not her role to make law, but to interpret law and to set aside her personal feelings. Today's caption on CNN reads that she will not allow precedents in foreign law to influence her decision making in court. In other words, she is posturing as a judicial conservative who follows the law and adheres to the US Constitution.

If this is the case, why would Obama nominate her? And when he nominated her, why did he bill her as a judge who would display "empathy" towards "oppressed" people who appeared in the Supreme Court? Her testimony before Congress is demonstrating an approach to the law anathema to Obama's wishes.

One can only ask here - is Sotomayor really who she is making herself out to be? She is testifying under oath before Congress, mind you. If she is, why would Obama bother nominating her? If she is simply posturing to win confirmation and will actuall render judgements based on her "wise Latina" intuition and empathy for the oppressed, is she not lying before the nation this very day?

Of course, none of this matters. This is a dog and pony show formality. The Democrats have the numbers and they could confirm a ham sandwich if they so desired. So they will do all they can to dress up their Hispanic race and gender pimpess as a constructionist judge just to make her acceptable to white independents, knowing all the while that this is all a huge lie.

In other words, none of the Democratic rhetoric or agenda is based on anything coming even close to reason. They now have the power, and yes, finally, at least one of them is claiming responsibility for the mess we're in.

If only he would claim responsibility for the bigger mess he is making. But that would take honesty and reason now, wouldn't it?


send to a friend del.icio.us Digg reddit StumbleUpon

Comments

  • sheltercrow said on Jul 15, 2009....
    A 'strong' minority? Hum.

    George W. Bush Vetoes (all in his second term when 'the Dems had the House and Senate').

    1. July 19, 2006: Vetoed H.R. 810, Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, a bill to ease restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Override attempt failed in House, 235-193 (286 needed).

    2. May 1, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 1591, U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007. Override attempt failed in House, 222-203 (284 needed). A later version of the bill that excluded certain aspects of the initial legislation that the President disapproved of... H.R. 2206, was enacted as Pub.L. 110-28 with the President's approval.

    3. June 20, 2007: Vetoed S. 5, Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007.

    4. October 3, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 976, Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 ("SCHIP"). Override attempt failed in House, 273-156 (286 votes needed).

    5. November 2, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 1495, Water Resources Development Act of 2007. Overridden by House, 361-54 (277 votes needed). Overridden by Senate, 79-14 (62 needed), and enacted as Pub.L. 110-114 over President's veto.

    6. November 13, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 3043, Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2008. Override attempt failed in House, 277-141 (279 votes needed).

    7. December 12, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 3963, Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007.[20] Override attempt failed in House, 260-152 (275 votes needed).

    8. December 28, 2007: Pocket Vetoed H.R. 1585, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008[21]. A later version of the bill that changed a minor provision of which the President disapproved was quickly passed by Congress (H.R. 4986) and was enacted with the President's approval as Pub.L. 110-181 on 28 January 2008.

    9. March 8, 2008: Vetoed H.R. 2082, Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008.[22][23] Override attempt failed in House, 225-188.

    10. May 21, 2008: Vetoed H.R. 2419, 2007 U.S. Farm Bill.[24][25] Overridden by House, 316-108 (283 votes needed). Overridden by Senate, 82-13 (64 votes needed). Enacted as Pub.L. 110-234 over the President's veto. Due to a clerical error, this act was repealed by Pub.L. 110-246.

    11. 18 June 2008: Vetoed H.R. 6124, 2007 U.S. Farm Bill, re-passed by Congress to correct a clerical error in HR 2419.[26] Overridden by House, 317-109 (284 votes required). Overridden by Senate, 80-14 (63 votes needed). Enacted as Pub.L. 110-246 over the President's veto.

    12. July 15, 2008: Vetoed H.R. 6331, Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act.[27] Overridden by House, 383-41 (283 votes required.) Overridden by Senate, 70-26 (64 votes required). Enacted as Pub.L. 110-275 over the President's veto.

    Link
  • sheltercrow said on Jul 15, 2009....
    This is where your 'strong' anything goes bonkers.

    2001 to 2009 were the Bush years

                                Senate                  House

    2001–2003     50/50                    212/221/2
    2003–2005     48/51                    205/229/1
    2005–2007     44/55                    202/231/1/1
    2007–2009     49/49/2                 236/199
    2009–2011     56-57-58/41-40     257/178

    Then there are the Blue Dogs.

    The Blue Dog Democratic Coalition is a group of currently 48 to 52 moderate and conservative Democratic Party members of the United States House of Representatives.

    The Blue Dog Coalition is often involved in finding a compromise between liberal and conservative positions.

    Link

    It is these 'conservative' Democrats that make a Democratic Party majority an illusion.
  • curmudgeon said on Jul 15, 2009....
    Shelter - "strong" in a numerical sense, not in the sense that they were competent enough to garner sufficient bipartisan (READ: veto-proof) support for various legislation. Were you to read this post, you would understand that the Democrats are not competent in the slightest, even with a majority.

    Think of it this way - if Obama wields that veto pen for the next year or so, it will be against his fellow Democrats, not the Republicans.

    Funny how you turn this entire post into yet another indictment against a President gone seven months now. Sorry - not letting you or any other lib get away with attempting to change the subject.
  • sheltercrow said on Jul 15, 2009....
    'even though with all of the rebuilding we were doing it was far more like Japan.'

    I don't believe that japan had a guerrilla war going on during it's reconstruction.

    See:

    A Reconstruction Abyss in Iraq | May 1, 2006 | By the Council on Foreign Relations

    The Seven Deadly Sins of Failure in Iraq: A Retrospective Analysis of the Reconstruction | December 01, 2006 | The Brookings Institution

    Auditors Report Billions in Reconstruction Waste and Fraud in Iraq | 19 January 2007 | Voice of America (note: the videos are for real player)
  • sheltercrow said on Jul 15, 2009....
    'you or any other lib'?

    I'm neither a democrat nor a republican. Nor am I a liberal or a conservative. I am more a progressive politically.

    As far a Barack... I see him as a pragmatic center-right politician.
  • sheltercrow said on Jul 15, 2009....
    'we started going down the deficit path in a post 9/11 recession. Whether or not Bush cut taxes, that surplus would have vanished in a heartbeat.'

    The facts do not back that assertion.

    9/11 was on Bush's watch + many credible warnings ignored = Bush owns the 'post 9/11 recession.'
  • sheltercrow said on Jul 15, 2009....
    'an order of magnitude greater than Bush's'

    Orders of magnitude = A range of values between a designated lower value and an upper value ten times as large.

    The annual deficit is how much the debt increases each year.

    Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2008

    09/30/2001     5,807,463,412,200.06
    09/30/2002     6,228,235,965,597.16
    09/30/2003     6,783,231,062,743.62
    09/30/2004     7,379,052,696,330.32
    09/30/2005     7,932,709,661,723.50
    09/30/2006     8,506,973,899,215.23
    09/30/2007     9,007,653,372,262.48
    09/30/2008   10,024,724,896,912.49

    link

    From the data shown above taken from the 'U.S. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Public Debt' we already hit a trillion last year. So Obama inherited a trillion plus deficit from Bush.

    CBO projects that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion, or 8.3 percent of GDP. Enactment of an economic stimulus package would add to that deficit.

    Link

    In total, those changes would increase budget deficits (or reduce future surpluses) by $152 billion in 2008 and by a net amount of $124 billion over the 2008-2018 period.

    Link

    1.2 trillion + 152 Billion = 1.35 Trillion

    Not an 'order of magnitude' larger which would have been 10 trillion.
  • curmudgeon said on Jul 15, 2009....
    Obama is center-right? News to me. From my perspective he's as liberal-progressive-socialist as the day is long.

    How is a progressive different from a liberal? Is there some nuance to promoting government takeover of our daily lives and profound impotence in matters of foreign policy?

    As far as 9/11 goes, the hijackers, and the warnings, came as early as when Clinton was in office. But please let the buck stop where you want to pass it, which is invariably on Bush. No surprise there.

    I was talking about the deficits run by Bush just after 9/11, not the deficits run after the 2007 crash. You're right about the math, though. All the same, doesn't the fact that Obama is running the same amount of debt that Bush did bother you? Where's the "CHANGE??" Does the fact that Obama's deficit doesn't seem all that much higher by (projected, facts not in evidence until 9/30/2009) comparison help you sleep at night?

    The question is - if Bush was wrong to run a deficit, why is Obama right to do so now? If people worried about Bush mortgaging their childrens' future, why is it all of a sudden necessary for Obama to do so now, and to do so in such a hurry Congress doesn't even have time to read the legislation? Still not seeing the logic there, shelter.

    It's fantastic - even though you post all these wonderful facts and figures and nitpick on my admittedly awful math, you still don't want to engage with the fact that there is neither rhyme nor reason to the Democratic platform.
  • SeanRenaud said on Jul 15, 2009....

    Wow.  Just wow.  I guess I'll have to try my damnest to break this into noticable chunks cus there is WAY too much looney jumping around her.

    1.  I don't remember the Bush Haters coming out in large numbers to complain about Afghanistan when it was fresh.  I don't even remember them coming out in large numbers against it once the Iraq war got bad.  They've been quiet by the large on it the whole time because everybody agrees that Osama at least WAS there and that was the nation that attacked us. 

    2.  The surpluses that Clinton left likely would have fallen in regardless, it's also true that Bush had some interesting years with that and Katrina.  However there is no denying how much cash was spent on Iraq.  There is also no doubt that tax breaks do not help the government get out of debt.  Any idiot knows that once things start going well that's when you increase your taxes slowly and also back off on government spending letting the private sector pick up where it can..  If Bush had done his job properly Obama would be able to do what he's SUPPOSED to do.  Which is increase government spending AND lower taxes.  But he can only do the more important one which is inrease government spending.

    Shelter, Bush didn't cause 9/11.  it just fucking happened.  Period.  There are ALWAYS threats claiming he ignored credible threats, well Clinton had him in the cross hairs and didn't shoot.  Seriously, stop being stupid.

    3. Hey Pakistan seems to be where Osama is hiding, and to be fair where we are bombing is only Pakistan in the technical sense.  Its more accurately called a buffer zone, a place so fucked that the local real government has close to no power.  More than that I agreed that this was the right decision back when Bush made it and it's still the right decisions now.

    4.  Shelter.  You aren't a libera.  You are THE CRAZY LIBERAL.  It doesn't matter what you think of yourself, it matters what you are.  And you are THE LIBERAL.  Every single time someone is talking about a liberal they mean you and your mindset and your beliefs.  Every one of them.

    5.  Government health care doesn't HAVE to mean single payer.  If people like you (and me) allow that to happen then we got what we deserved.  Again schools, mail and security are all proof that having a government net doesn't prevent the private sector from existing and even thriving.

    6.  Sotomayor is starting to look like a huge mistake, mostly because she lacks the courage of her convictions and I have no support for that.  The fact that a latina has life expereinces that no white male has is a simple fact and she shouldn't be running from the comment.  She's a coward and I've no use for those.

    7.  Obama shouldn't claim the economy until 2010.  It's not his until he's had at least a full year.  Its funny that a party who NEVER claimed responsibility for the economy.  The Good times were all Bushs' brilliance but the crash was Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton's faults.  Seven years after one had left office and what nearly thirty for the other?  But who cares one of the Democrats is manly enough to take his lumps.  Guess OBamas not a coward.

  • curmudgeon said on Jul 15, 2009....
    Sean - "Guess OBamas not a coward."

    Indeed. There may be many of his policies I disagree with, but a coward he definitely is not. I do kind of wish he'd take on the jerkoffs in congress, though. If Obama really does want to move forward and away from rehashing and prosecuting Bush-era interrogation and intelligence gathering methods, then he needs to be the one to tell Pelosi and the others to shut up.

    If Obama really wants to engage in vindictive prosecution, he should admit it up front, go ahead and do it with balls, and hope that he gets re-elected and that a Democrat wins in 2016. Eight years is a long time for scandals to rack up. The indictments will come his way if goes down this path.
  • sheltercrow said on Jul 15, 2009....
    I don't endorse center right politics.
  • SeanRenaud said on Jul 15, 2009....

    I concur that Obama would be wise to tell Pelosi and that clan to shut up.  We've most past that and we aren't going to pursue them nor their goals any longer.  It's just over and lets get some other shit done.

    Now that its starting to look like Arnold might try to push through the legalization of pot in a desperate effort to balance the budget I'm curious what Obama will do when the issue is brought up by a governor.  And a Governor of a HUGE democrat state at that, a state that by the large would like to legalize pot.  It'll be interesting.  He'll make the wrong call and say no, I almost gaurantee but it'll be nice to see.  Maybe I'll get lucky and he'll surprise me.

  • sheltercrow said on Jul 15, 2009....
    Sean: to repeat myself...

    '9/11 was on Bush's watch + many credible warnings ignored = Bush owns the 'post 9/11 recession.'

    That does not imply active participation. It implies passive failure.

    Some 'warnings ignored'

    ...the CIA sent President Bush a daily intelligence briefing on August 6, 2001, saying the agency had "detected patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings," no one in the administration acted on the report.

    The subject title on the memo says more in a few words than the likely illegal NSA domestic spy program Bush and Cheney claim would have helped prevent 9/11 if it were in place back then: "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S."

    ...

    There were earlier warnings as well. One of which was eerily prophetic.

    Former CIA Director George Tenet told Congress that Osama bin Laden remained the single greatest threat to US interests.

    "Terrorists are also becoming more operationally adept and more technically sophisticated in order to defeat counter-terrorism measures," the former CIA director said. "For example, as we have increased security around government and military facilities, terrorists are seeking out "softer" targets that provide opportunities for mass casualties."

    "Osama bin Laden and his global network of lieutenants and associates remain the most immediate and serious threat," he added.

    Link
  • D6fer said on Jul 15, 2009....
    Obama is a coward.....he is saying one thing and allowing another, because he knows he has his henchmen in Congress to do the dirty work for him.....same thing with gay marriage....he said he believes that marriage should only be between a man and a woman....we all know that he is lying....does anyone here really believe that he meant that?

    and yes shelter.....you are a liberal....why not own it?......progressive.....ha!......that's like calling a used car "pre-owned"
  • sheltercrow said on Jul 15, 2009....
    Dfer: Your words of kindness are wasted on me. But I sense you are, as usual, advancing a typical political slur. You should get out more often and mix a little. The liberals you so dearly hate are just a little less offensive then the corporate toadies you so dearly love.

    The use of pejorative terms such as "bleeding-heart liberal", "knee-jerk liberal", "tax-and-spend liberal", "cut-and-run liberal", "Massachusetts liberal", "limousine liberal", and "liberal elite", is a common political tactic in modern American politics.

    ...the use of slogans by conservatives to reshape the image of liberalism... into a Tax-Raising, Latte-Drinking, Sushi-Eating, Volvo-Driving, New York Times-Reading, Body-Piercing, Hollywood-Loving, Left-Wing Freak Show is an extended list of liberal slurs.
  • D6fer said on Jul 15, 2009....
    find some good examples of liberalism here and then get back to me!
  • sheltercrow said on Jul 16, 2009....
    Would these corporations PAC's, employees, owners, and their members immediate families invest in a socialist?

    Goldman Sachs ($994,795), Microsoft Corp ($833,617), Google Inc ($803,436), Citigroup Inc ($699,790), JPMorgan Chase & Co ($695,132), Time Warner ($589,334), Sidley Austin LLP ($588,598), National Amusements Inc ($550,683), UBS AG ($543,219), Wilmerhale Llp ($542,618), Skadden, Arps et al ($530,839), IBM Corp ($527,572), Morgan Stanley ($514,881), General Electric ($499,130) and Latham & Watkins ($493,835).
  • ALIENated said on Jul 16, 2009....

    Wow, skittlecarp just proved my point (nice cutting and pasting by the way). Saying corporations are in the back pocket of Republicans is a little stupid these days. NBC (MSNB, CNBC), the voice of OhBummer, is owned by General Electric, to name just one.

    As far as your post, Borax is one thing, he is a socialist, but it is amazing what the Democrats in congress are doing, their lack of integrity and stupidity. I keep hoping that some of them are not the goofballs I think they are and, sure enough, they are. Sonia Sotomayor is a perfect example. If she gets confirmed, Democrats lose all credibility and history takes a really bad turn. If she gets one Republican vote, they are going to lose credibility as well. It is one thing to kick around ideas and blather about your philosophy on the Sunday morning talk shows, but every one in congress should put their country first when it comes to something like confirming a Supreme Court justice. Even liberal law experts are saying she is not the right person for the job. Democrats in congress need to send Mr. Borax a message, that they are not his toady socialist cohorts, that they put their country first, not his socialist agenda. The more they go along with him, the less credible they become. Voters are not stupid, they will turn on anyone who just serves themselves and forgets who put them in office. That is probably because more and more voters are finding it hard to identify with either side. And that is because both sides are more concerned with their own agendas instead of the common good.

  • kevinunknown said on Jul 16, 2009....

    Crum- getting back to your original blog i understand what you’re saying and to some extent i do agree it’s unfair of the media to trash Bush for things like attacking Pakistan but when Obama dose it its fine, although i do agree with the attacks regardless of who is president. However there is not getting away from the fact that when Bush was in power he took America into 2 wars and left the economy in an awful state. I do also agree however that it is rather premature of Obama to claim victory over the economy.

    Sheltercrow- first of all i don’t think you’re a liberal and i am very impressed with your apparent knowledge in this subject and there is nothing liberal about reporting facts. What you said about 9/11 warnings was interesting although you would be better reading into Able danger who it is claimed actually identified some of the highjack’s and gave prior warning about Muhammad Atta. The CIA already knew about the threat Al-Qaeda posed so much so that they had the “bin laden station” or “Alec Station” as it is sometimes called in place since 1996 after Bin laden issued a Fatwa against the west.

    The idea that a widespread NSA domestic spy program would have prevented 9/11 is rubbish because they already had one it’s called ECHELON. I have never understood why Bush bothered to introduce unwarranted wiretapping other than to expand the ECHELON program in a time of American venerability but even at that it was a stupid move.

     

     

  • curmudgeon said on Jul 16, 2009....
    shelter - hmm...you don't endorse center right politics, you spew nothing but criticism of Bush but refuse to say anything at all about Obama, defense or criticism. Seems to me that the only stand you take is that of Bush-hater. You're a "progressive" who won't state your opinions, probably because you can't back them up without resorting to someone else's links.  Sadly, the farther we get away from the Bush Administration the more irrelevant your posts - and your responses - will become. You're already boring me with your numerous links to 9/11 stuff.

    It's funny - This week Obama claimed ownership of the economy, but just today Biden tossed responsibility for the recession right back at Bush - as if Biden and his fellow liberal idiots weren't in the House and Senate for the last eight and a half years. As if they didn't vote for the invasion of Iraq. As if they actually said anything even remotely critical of the housing bubble - and the government's role in lending money to folks who couldn't afford it - prior to the burst. Who did? Oh right, President Bush did, but it fell on deaf ears. What was that stuff I heard shelter say about passivity being failure?

    Seriously - these morons we have in the White House can't get their messages straight. Obama says one thing, Biden says the opposite and that mushmouthed nitwit Gibbs has to do damage control for Biden's big, fat, incompetent mouth. Seriously, Obama's choice of Biden for VP calls Obama's judgment into question. What other liabilities does he have on his team? His "car czar" quit after just six months on the job.

    Do Biden and Obama even talk to each other? With each passing day, the Vice President proves my point. The Dems talk and govern without a stitch of rhyme or reason.
  • sheltercrow said on Jul 16, 2009....
    Curm, one of your main drawbacks is that you are in love with your own voice. With respect your opinions are very shallow and self-serving.
  • sheltercrow said on Jul 16, 2009....
    Here is why you say what you say my friend...

    Mastermind of conservative talking points Frank Luntz has authored a 26-page report advising Republicans on how best to frame the debate over health care reform, the Politico reported last week. Luntz advised that Republicans must acknowledge there's a "crisis" and warn against a "Washington takeover" that could lead to bureaucrats "making people stand in line and denying treatment like they do in other countries with national healthcare."

    Link

    GOP wordsmith Frank Luntz has authored a new messaging memo defining the Republican rhetoric on health care reform (READ FULL MEMO HERE). The memo is titled “The Language of Health Care 2009″ and it lays out the argument for “stopping the Washington takeover” of health care.” But if fully implemented it may very well stop health care reform:

    This document is based on polling results and Instant Response dial sessions conducted in April 2009. It captures not just what Americans want to see but exactly what they want to hear. The Words That Work boxes that follow are already being used by a few Congressional and Senatorial Republicans. From today forward, they should be used by everyone.

    Link

    Health Industry Lobbying Tops $1.4 Million Daily

    By Eliza Krigman

    In a new report released today, the government watchdog group Common Cause found that major health care interests have spent upwards of $1.4 million a day to lobby Capitol Hill so far this year.

    According to the report, entitled 'legislating under the influence,' political spending by the health industries has increased 73 percent since 2000. Health interests contributed $94 million to candidates in Congress during the 2008 election cycle, a $40 million jump from the 2000 election cycle figure.

    Link

    The Center for Responsive Politics, a watchdog group, maintains a number of comprehensive resources on money and politics on their Web site, OpenSecrets.org. Their health care coverage provides several ways to investigate ties between politicians and industry.
  • SeanRenaud said on Jul 16, 2009....

    1.  Sotomoyor is a good judge, her failure is in backing away from what makes her stand out. 

    2.  We get warnings about attacks all the time, 9/11 was inevitable.  Giving Bush credit for that act or any of the immediate effects is just stupid.

    3. Bush said something about the housing bubble, and he had a Republican majority.  If it didn't get through it's his own fault for being inept at getting his own party to follow him. 

    4.  Biden really is a loose cannon.  I mean beating a dead horse here I know but really in eight years the only positive thing anybody will say about Biden is that he's not Palin.

  • sheltercrow said on Jul 16, 2009....
    Why did the democrats 'vote for the invasion of Iraq?'

    Colin Powell tells a whopper...

    In late January 2003, as Secretary of State Colin Powell prepared to argue the Bush administration's case against Iraq at the United Nations, veteran CIA officer Tyler Drumheller sat down with a classified draft of Powell's speech to look for errors. He found a whopper: a claim about mobile biological labs built by Iraq for germ warfare.

    Drumheller instantly recognized the source, an Iraqi defector suspected of being mentally unstable and a liar. The CIA officer took his pen, he recounted in an interview, and crossed out the whole paragraph.

    Source 'Warnings on WMD 'Fabricator' Were Ignored, Ex-CIA Aide Says' WaPo

    Bush tells a whopper...

    The CIA had evidence Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction six months before the 2003 US-led invasion but was ignored by a White House intent on ousting Saddam Hussein, a former senior CIA official said, according to CBS.

    Tyler Drumheller, who headed CIA covert operations in Europe during the run-up to the Iraq war, said intelligence opposing administration claims of a WMD threat came from a top Iraqi official who provided the US spy agency with other credible information.

    The source "told us that there were no active weapons of mass destruction programs," Drumheller said in a CBS interview to be aired on Sunday on the US network's 60 Minutes.

    Source 'White House knew there were no WMD: CIA' The Sydney Morning Herald

    Aluminium tubes and uranium from Niger were refuted by IAEA

    Aluminium tubes: The IAEA has conducted a thorough investigation of Iraq's attempts to purchase large quantities of high-strength aluminium tubes. As previously reported, Iraq has maintained that these aluminium tubes were sought for rocket production. Extensive field investigation and document analysis have failed to uncover any evidence that Iraq intended to use these 81mm tubes for any project other than the reverse engineering of rockets.

    ...

    The IAEA has made progress in its investigation into reports that Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger in recent years. The investigation was centred on documents provided by a number of States that pointed to an agreement between Niger and Iraq for the sale of uranium between 1999 and 2001.

    ...

    Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents - which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger - are in fact not authentic. We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded. However, we will continue to follow up any additional evidence, if it emerges, relevant to efforts by Iraq to illicitly import nuclear materials.

    Source 'The Status of Nuclear Inspections in Iraq: An Update' IAEA

    I could go on but you get the picture.
  • ALIENated said on Jul 16, 2009....

    Let me explain, in more simple terms, why we went into Iraq ... Sodamn Hussein needed killin. Sorry I do not have three pages of crap to paste in to back that up, but we all know it is true. Plus, we needed someone's ass to kick over the 9/11 attack. I say two birds with one stone. Sometimes things just need to be done whether bleeding heart liberals agree or not. And it takes someone with testicles, like Bush and Cheney or Reagan, to do it. Borax will get his chance to demonstrate what a pussy he is at some point. He has already demonstrated it pretty well on his European "I hate America" tour. What a disgrace we have in the White House.

  • SeanRenaud said on Jul 16, 2009....
    No it takes an idiot. Saddam had not gotten any worse and wasn't going to do anything worse.  now becaus some idiot jumped the gun we CAN'T go after N. Korea as they launch missiles all willy nilly or Iran as they complete the Nukes because the military is pretty much over stretched.  We had someone to kick the shit out of, Afghanistan, remember them?
  • kevinunknown said on Jul 17, 2009....

    Alien- Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. That was why you invaded Afghanistan remember?

    Sean- you’re totally right if Bush hadn’t put America into two long term wars then maybe North Korea and Iran could be dealt with in a more direct manor but the military is over stretched so Obama’s hands are tied as he can’t threaten war against either country to gain some leverage all he can do is talk.

     

  • SeanRenaud said on Jul 17, 2009....

    Which is not to say that Saddam didn't need killing and worse than most people.  Simply that it wasn't his time.  Clinton should have dropped the hammer the very first time Saddam kicked out weapons inspectors.  Or Bush one should have finished this when he had boots on the ground in 91.  Bush 2 was stupid to enter that war.

     

  • kevinunknown said on Jul 17, 2009....

    Again i agree, in 1991 Bush should have finished the job and he probably could have and saved allot of trouble further down the line. I still get really annoyed though when people start saying Saddam was involved in 9/11

  • stopmediabias said on Jul 17, 2009....

    Sean-You guys always miss the point.  We had a massive list of reasons to go after Saddam but the main reasons was the terrorist activity in his country, his possible arming of future terrorists, and breaking of Gulf War agreements .  You say he wasn't going to get any worse, are you aware of what Saddam did in the time of his presidency?  And his two son's standing right in line behind him? 

    And it is always Bush, this was a collective agreement and a lot of prominent Democrats pushed to take Saddam out.  The military is not overstretched, good God man do some research.  And do you actually think President Obama is going to do anything militarily about North Korea?

    But lets say you are right about Saddam.  Ok, Saddam is still in power and we are fighting Al Qaeda and other terrorists all around the world.  Sound easy? 

    Alien- "skittlecarp" that's fucking funny :>

  • javadewd said on Jul 17, 2009....
    All of you progressives are just haters. You ooze hate. I can hear it in your two-dimensional typing! You hate Bush. You speak irresponsible words and propagandize teleprompter phrases. You suck Dick. Haters!!
  • SeanRenaud said on Jul 17, 2009....

    The military IS overstretched, not only have I done the research but I've only just ended my official 8 year contract!  You haven't the foggiest idea of what you are talking about.  Also there was little to no terrorist activity in Saddams Iraq and we know it and knew that going in.  We thought there was a chance he might be providing them to others but even that wasn't a good reason.

    Obama CAN'T do anything about N Korea or Iran, we don't have enough military to do it if he wanted to.  Now in your fantasy verse where Bush didn't waste energy on Iraq. . .even if you don't trust Obama to send troops as I recall N. Korea was launching missles in 07 and 08 and Iran didn't magically get close to the nuke January 21st.  Bush didn't do anything about either scenario because he couldn't either.  Seeing how OBama has been handling Pakistan yeah I'm inclined to believe he'd put pressure on N. Korea but the truth is we'll never know because he has no choice.

  • ALIENated said on Jul 17, 2009....

    Clinton should have dropped the hammer the very first time Saddam kicked out weapons inspectors. Or Bush one should have finished this when he had boots on the ground in 91. Bush 2 was stupid to enter that war.

    So Bush Sr. and Clinton should have dealt with Hussein, but George Dubya should not have? Oh, I forgot, everything Dubya did was wrong.

    And I was not saying Sodamn Hussein had anything to do with 9/11 (as far as we know). I was saying we needed to kick someone's ass because of it. It is like suicide bombers. Who do you punish for their actions? I think everyone, including Democrats, wanted to kick someone's ass after 9/11. Bush just got left holding the bag for it.

    As far as overstretched, maybe manpower-wise. You are assuming we would need to send soldiers into a totally anialiated Iran or North Korea. We did surgical attacks on Iraq, trying to do as little damage to civilians as possible. Nothing says we have to do that in Iran or North Korea, especially to ignorant bastards that try to lob a nuke at us. We would be in trouble fighting most countries if we were planning to fight a conventional war, but we only fight conventional wars if we choose to.

  • sheltercrow said on Jul 17, 2009....
    Some lies caught on camera

    Bush says Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11?



    Cheney: I never linked Iraq with 9/11. Oh really?

  • sheltercrow said on Jul 17, 2009....
    Bush Knew Trailers Weren't Labs



    For all those that argue Saddam MUST of had WMD's because of "all the games he played with inspectors", and "if he didn't have them, why not just let the inspectors in?"



  • sheltercrow said on Jul 17, 2009....
    The GOP has been trying to rewrite history, claiming "Saddam would not let the inspectors back in" to justify invading Iraq.

    Unfortunately for them, we have a little something called "video tape". Clips of UN/UNMOVIC inspectors in Iraq destroying Saddam's stockpile of al-Samoud missiles in the MONTHS just prior to the invasion of Iraq before President Bush orders everyone out of Iraq the week before the invasion on March 19, 2003.

  • sheltercrow said on Jul 17, 2009....
    Curm: I haven't posted anything about Obama because there are no nut case Obama supports here to comment to.
  • sheltercrow said on Jul 18, 2009....
    Re: "We had a massive list of reasons to go after Saddam..."

    From "Institue for Defense Analyses. Joint Advanced Warfighting Program. IDA Paper P-4287. Iraqi Perspectives Project. Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents. Volume 1 (Redacted). Kevin M. Woods, Project Leader with James Lacey." obtained from wikileaks.org

    This study found no "smoking gun" (i.e., direct connection) between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda. Saddam's interest in, and support for, non-state actors was spread across a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist, and Islamic terrorist organizations. Some in the regime recognized the potential high internal and external costs of maintaining relationships with radical Islamic groups, yet they concluded that in some cases, the benefits of association outweighed the risks.

    What it says is...

    A review of available Iraqi documents indicated the following:
    • The Iraqi regime was involved in regional and international terrorist operations prior to OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM. The predominant targets of Iraqi state terror operations were Iraqi citizens, both inside and outside of Iraq.
    • On occasion, the Iraqi intelligence services directly targeted the regime's perceived enemies, including non-Iraqis. Non-Iraqi casualties often resulted from Iraqi sponsorship of non-governmental terrorist groups.
    • Saddam's regime often cooperated directly, albeit cautiously, with terrorist groups when they believed such groups could help advance Iraq's long-term goals. The regime carefully recorded its connections to Palestinian terror organizations in numerous government memos. One such example documents Iraqi financial support to families of suicide bombers in Gaza and the West Bank.
    • State sponsorship of terrorism became such a routine tool of state power that Iraq developed elaborate bureaucratic processes to monitor progress and accountability in the recruiting, training, and resourcing of terrorists. Examples include the regime's development, construction, certification, and training for car bombs and suicide vests in 1999 and 2000.
  • SeanRenaud said on Jul 18, 2009....

    So Bush Sr. and Clinton should have dealt with Hussein, but George Dubya should not have? Oh, I forgot, everything Dubya did was wrong.

    Do me a favor ALIEN.  Stop defending Bush jr and be rational.  When Bush Senior attacked Iraq during the Gulf War remind me what other major military actions we had going.  (I was 8 so maybe I forgot about a war)) in 98 when Saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors there was no other major military action, no other WAR going on at the time that one I know for sure.  There were hots spots but no war.  When Bush jr attacked Iraq WE WERE ALREADY ENGAGED WITH THE REAL TERRORISTS IN AFGHANISTAN!!!!!!!!  Its not a matter of everything Bush did was wrong it's a matter of specifics. 

    As for your next statement it's both juvenile and ignores known facts.  I mean we shoudln't be indiscriminatly kicking ass anyway.  We got bombed!  Who do we attack?  IT doesn't matter I'm angry!!!!! is clearly what you just said.  What's more is we were kickign someones ass.  They are called the AFGHANS!!!!!!  Or did you forget about them?  You know just becuase the media ignores them we still are fighting that war.

    You're last statement is just evidents of your ignorance of military numbers.  Going back as far as Vietnam (and probably farther than that actually) the majority of a military's manpower isn't boots and rifles it's support.  Let me break this down for you (and granted with a fuck load of retraining we could cut these numbers considerably (and also by nessessity double the minimal contract)  If we were going to bomb Country A.  You would need two teams of at least 5 Ordnance man (I level and O level) basically one team that builds the weapons, maintains them, keeps count of them and sets them up and another team that loads them onto the air craft.  You need a team of electricians to trouble shoot said plane.  You need Air Traffic Controllers to keep said planes from crashing into each other.  You need an Air Craft Carrier and the entire crew that goes along with it.  You seem to have this idea in yoru head bombing uses less man power.

    Besides unless you are only looking ot destroy Building A and not to kill/capture an individual boots on the ground are a neccessity and will be until we can build Terminator Robots capable of taking over the the world.

  • stopmediabias said on Jul 19, 2009....

    "No it takes an idiot. Saddam had not gotten any worse and wasn't going to do anything worse.  now because some idiot jumped the gun we CAN'T go after N. Korea as they launch missiles all willy nilly or Iran as they complete the Nukes because the military is pretty much over stretched.  We had someone to kick the shit out of, Afghanistan, remember them?"

    This was your quote that I took exception to.  Bush an idiot? No, Saddam had not gotten any worse?  Are you kidding me?  It's like saying a serial killer only killed 5 people this year instead of his usual 50 and that diminishes his threat.  We CAN'T go after N Korea?  Your telling us we don't have the military capability  that if an emergency situation came about we couldn't engage North Korea?  I find that very hard to believe.  Afghanistan was ruled by a bunch of warlords who called themselves the Taliban and harbored Al Qaeda and built terrorist training camps.  We knocked the Taliban out of power and installed another government.  Taliban insurgence has come from the vast areas around the Afghan landscape we cannot go.  

     

  • sheltercrow said on Jul 19, 2009....
    Why do the Taliban fight?

    'War Crimes and the White House: The Bush Administration's Cover-Up of the Dasht-e-Leili Massacre'



    Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) has issued a call for a criminal probe in the wake of a major New York Times story by James Risen with new evidence that the Bush Administration impeded at least three federal investigations into alleged war crimes in Afghanistan in 2002. ("U.S. Inaction Seen After Taliban P.O.W.s Died" - NYTimes.com http://bit.ly/wHwpc)

    PHR is calling for the Department of Justice to investigate why the Bush Administration impeded an FBI criminal probe of the alleged Dasht-e-Leili massacre.

    According to US government documents obtained by PHR, as many as 2,000 surrendered Taliban fighters were reportedly suffocated in container trucks by Afghan forces operating jointly with the US in November 2001. The bodies were reportedly buried in mass graves in the Dasht-e-Leili desert near Sheberghan, Afghanistan. Notorious Afghan warlord General Abdul Rashid Dostum, who was reportedly on the CIA payroll, is allegedly responsible for the massacre.

    Source: http://AfghanMassGrave.org.
  • SeanRenaud said on Jul 19, 2009....

    This was your quote that I took exception to.  Bush an idiot?

    Yeah under the circumstances Bush was an idiot.  Just as Obama has made moves, most notably his stance on marijuana that make him an idiot.

     

     No, Saddam had not gotten any worse?  Are you kidding me?  It's like saying a serial killer only killed 5 people this year instead of his usual 50 and that diminishes his threat. 

    For starters yeah a killer who normally kills 50 and is down to 5 is a diminished threat.  A greatly diminished threat at that.  That’s however not the point you are making.  The point you are making is that killing five people a year still makes you evil and you should still be brought to justice.  Which is of course true.  As I pointed out Bush 1 or Clinton had the moral right (more like moral requirement) to take him out of power.  They also had the resources free to do so and really no other pressing concerns.  Sadly for twenty years Saddam was the Big Bad of the world. 

    Bush was already involved in Afghanistan.  He still had the moral right but he didn’t have the resources and was a fool to overcommit.

     

    We CAN'T go after N Korea?  Your telling us we don't have the military capability  that if an emergency situation came about we couldn't engage North Korea? 

    If an EMERGENCY situation came, which basically can’t happen yes we could go to 100% deployment and deal with it.  But nothing Korea is even theoritcally capable of rates that high on the emergency scale.  There is a reason why we haven’t done ANYTHING to them or Iran though and  it’s because we are over stretched.  Deployments are supposed to be 6 months.  Even at the beginning of this Iraq thing they were stretched to 9 months.  And according to every report and first hand knowledge anybody has it’s been all downhill from there.  Which amongst other things has increased the suicide rate of our military.

     

  • ALIENated said on Jul 19, 2009....

    You are thinking in terms of an all volunteer army. There is some point at which there would have to be a draft to up our numbers. Also, I was talking about silohs opening and missiles being launch (worse case) or missiles being launched from ships at sea. And not taking out a building here and there, but taking out everything is the larger cities. Remember how we ended the war with Japan. I think we are a bit more advanced than that now. The boots on the ground crap is mostly to keep China and Russia from coming into the battle. If we are attacked with nukes, they would just have to understand that we are going to respond in kind. It would probably mean WWIII. So I doubt that Iran or North Korea, or any country is going to toss the first nuke. If they do, que sera sera.

  • sheltercrow said on Jul 20, 2009....
    Before we all go into never-never land a brief interlude about North Korea.

    In June of last year, North Korea dutifully carried out “Phase Two” of the 2007 Six-Party talks by giving China the details of its plutonium program. In a separate agreement with the U.S., Pyongyang agreed to disclose its uranium enrichment program and any technology proliferation to other countries. In turn, the U.S. would take North Korea off its “state sponsor of terrorism” list.

    However, under pressure from the right-wing governments of Japan and South Korea, the Bush Administration moved the goal posts and demanded strict verification procedures before it would fulfill its end of the bargain. Verification, however, was not part of Phase Two, as then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice admitted in a speech to the Heritage Foundation last year. “What we’ve done, in a sense, is to move up issues that were to be taken up in Phase Three, like verification, like access to the reactor, into Phase Two.”

    The North Korea responded by halting the dismantlement of its plutonium-producing Yongbyon reactor.

    The U.S. then backed off and agreed to modify the verification procedures and, when North Korea accepted these, the White House took Pyongyang off the terror list. But when Japan and South Korea again protested, the Bush Administration reversed course and refused to take North Korea off the terrorism list unless it agreed to the new demands.

    If your foreign policy is schizoid you are liable to make people act crazy. And sure enough, North Korea began testing long-range missiles and carried out a nuclear explosion.

    Unfortunately, the Obama Administration is using the same carrot and stick approach that failed so dismally for the Bush administration. “I’m not sure who is giving the president his advice on North Korea, but it is all wrong,” says John Feffer, Korea expert and author of “North Korea, South Korea: U.S. Policy at a Time of Crisis.” Feffer says Obama’s “show of ‘resolve’ has only made matters worse.”

    From 'Dealing With North Korea' by Conn Hallinan | June 29, 2009 CounterPunch
  • sheltercrow said on Jul 20, 2009....
    From Manuel Garcia, Jr. in 'Fearful Pride' dated May 26, 2009

    In the simplest terms, world capitalism under the direction of the United States wants the North Koreans to dismantle their DPRK state and to integrate their economy and workforce into that of an expanded Republic of Korea (South Korea) in a manner similar to the dissolution of the East German communist state (Democratic Republic of Germany, 7 October 1949 to 3 October 1990). The foreign policy of the DPRK, of which its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs are a part, is aimed at combating the existential threat to the DPRK governing elite.

    [...]

    The DPRK has made the clearest possible statement that the best defense against domination by superior powers is nuclear weaponry. The greater care with which the U.S. and Security Council Nuclear Powers approach the DPRK confirms this argument. When observing the situations of Palestine, Iraq and Iran, most of the rest of the world would concede the validity of the argument.

    The policy of the U.S. is to encourage other nations to abide by the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty -- and renounce nuclear weapons -- while exempting itself from it; essentially "disarm that we may more easily rule." The DPRK posture is a rejection of the US policy, and a pointed example of rebellion calling out to the rest of the world.

    Another aspect of the DPRK's nuclear weapons politics is to put its near neighbors on notice not to think of colonizing it. This message is particularly aimed at South Korea, seen as an extension of US capitalism, and to Japan. There are still Koreans living who remember being brutally enslaved by Imperial Japan, which forcibly annexed Korea during 1910 to 1945. Even more Koreans remember the 1950-1953 war between China and the U.S., on their peninsula. The casualties of that war, for the US-led anti-communist forces, were 474,000; the combined casualties for the communist Chinese and North Korean forces were between 1.19 million and 1.58 million; and the total number of Korean civilians killed or wounded is estimated at 2 million (5).
  • kevinunknown said on Jul 20, 2009....

    With regards to the argument that the military is to overstretched to undertake combat operations in North Korea I would like to point out that the USA has 29000 troops stationed in South Korea just as a deterrent. The reality is though that North Korea dose not poses a threat large enough for the United States to engage in a full scale war. If needs be America could cripple North Korea overnight but it’s not as simple as that and it never is. “Diplomacy is always the best policy” and right now Obama is doing reasonable job it could always be better though.

    It’s China that has to act against North Korea not America.  

  • SeanRenaud said on Jul 20, 2009....

    True we could draft.  Drafting makes for inferior militaries but if push comes to shove yeah we can put a gun in the hands of ever man between ages of 16 and 30.  That would only happen if China or Russia were to start a war though or something of simliar levels.  We aren't going to start the draft up because Iran or Korea are acting stupid.  We simply aren't. 

     

  • sheltercrow said on Jul 21, 2009....
    Reality Check Needed.

    War Made Easy: How Presidents & Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death (1/7)



    War Made Easy, narrated by Sean Penn, reaches into the Orwellian memory hole to expose a 50-year pattern of government deception and media spin that has dragged the United States into one war after another from Vietnam to Iraq. Narrated by actor and activist Sean Penn, the film exhumes remarkable archival footage of official distortion and exaggeration from LBJ to George W. Bush, revealing in stunning detail how the American news media have uncritically disseminated the pro-war messages of successive presidential administrations.

  • sheltercrow said on Jul 21, 2009....
    Norman Solomon: War Made Easy



    Media critic Norman Solomon discusses pro-war propaganda generated by U.S. governments during military operations and the influence the media has on public opinion. From the invasion of the Dominican Republic to the current war in Iraq Solomon explores ways the media is used to bolster support for military intervention.
  • ALIENated said on Jul 21, 2009....

    Dear skittlecarp, evidently someone forgot to tell you. Bush and Cheney are no longer in the White House. No one cares what they did anymore. Everyone freely admits that they were a disappointment because they were not really conservative enough and got too engrossed in winning the war against terrorists instead of doing the things they promised to do. Anyway, Mr. OhBummer is to blame these days. Everything is now his fault along with the Democrat majority in congress. And thanks for pasting everything you can find inline here, but it is much easier to just use Yahoo and enter WHAT ARE THE LIBERAL NUTJOBS THINKING THESE DAYS.

  • ALIENated said on Jul 21, 2009....

    I know you will not actually try that so here ya go ...

    http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=WHAT+ARE+THE+LIBERAL+NUTJOBS+THINKING+THESE+DAYS

  • SeanRenaud said on Jul 21, 2009....

    That simply isn't fair or right ALIEN to say that everything is OBama's fault six months (to the day) into office.  We should have left Iraq alone (until we had finished with Afghanistan and then faster pussy cat kill kill) but once we put men in that country we had a responsibility to care for them.  We don't have the right to simply abandon them (and we haven't).  Also I think Skittlecrap might be like Fred Krueger.  You know if we ignore and forget her she'll just fade away.  Though to be fair like Javadork she's disproving my theory fairly regularly.

     

  • ALIENated said on Jul 21, 2009....

    I am no Clinton fan, but OhBummer would do well to follow his lead instead of his socialist agenda. He is trying to ram all this crap through without even knowing the consequences. He thinks people wanted his agenda simple because they had to vote for him in order to reject John McCain, the Republican. They did not want Borax. They just did not want another Republican for a while, no matter how stupid that may be. He is wrong to think that Americans want his socialist agenda and he is finding that out. Once blacks open their eyes to what he is up to instead of simply worshiping him because he is (part) black, his numbers are going to plummet and hopefully he will simply be remembered as the one-term, first non-white president. Otherwise, he will most likely be remembered as the president that put the last nail in America's coffin. No American, Republican or Democrat, should be comfortable with giving the federal government as much power as OhBummer wants it to have. Bush bashers need to move on and get out of their "cut off your nose to spite your face" attitude. America has serious problems that are not going to be solved by Borax's socialist agenda, by giving Big Brother more power.

  • sheltercrow said on Jul 22, 2009....
    To the right honorable anal-cyst. Thanks for the always positive input.
  • SeanRenaud said on Jul 22, 2009....

    To be fair ALIEN you guys are spending a lot of time making sure Bush haters don't get over it by not giving Obama a fair shake.  You guys are helping his numbers stay high.  And again our Capitalist (sorta) system spends more government money than ANY socialist system.  So the proper capitalist thing to do is to switch.  And nobody on yourside is talking about how to cut our current system to improve it.  Just like on the enviroment you guys have no answers to improve the system.  Your answer is The current system works.  And even a three year old can look at what's going on and know that isn't true.

    Also duh people voted as much against McCain as for OBama however the margin (which even I didn't expect and you called me crazy for expecting the margin I did expect) shows that people really did vote FOR him.

  • ALIENated said on Jul 22, 2009....

    I think people voted for a bunch of fancy words and a tremendous bunch of propaganda from ABC, CBS, NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, and CNN. Fair shake? I think you mean roll over and play stupid. What has he done that should not be criticized? Push us to a trillion dollar debt, push through a pay-back-his-friends bailout bill, cap and trade, and now the government takeover of healthcare? Why would you want to give him a fair shake on any of that? Borax is an embodiment of liberal/socialist though, a dream candidate, the first non-white president. Could Speilberg produce a better movie than OhBummer becoming president and saving the day after the evil Republicans and the evil George Dubya being in power for so many years? Mandate my ass. OhBummer will be hated even more that Jimmy Carter before it is all over with.

  • sheltercrow said on Jul 23, 2009....
    To the right honorable anal-cyst.

  • ALIENated said on Jul 23, 2009....

    Yeah, yeah. That seems to be the new trend. Democrats / liberals cannot admit what their party has become so now they hate everyone in politics.

    http://www.soulcast.com/post/show/233579/Face-It,-All-Politicians-Are-...-Politicians#

Comment on "The Democratic Dearth of Reason"


(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)

Obama Administration Sinks To New Low

stopmediabias posted 5 days ago | views: 75 | Tags: politics, President Obama, Kalid Sheik Mohammed
Weak on foreign policy, sold out to the nutty left on domestic policy, now lets fuck with national security and have trials for terrorists in federal courts.... read entire post 9 comments

How Would You Answer The Obama A-Bomb Question?

stopmediabias posted 5 days ago | views: 48 | Tags: politics, atomic bomb, President Obama, Japan
He didn't even try to answer it. What would be your answer? Were we right in dropping the bombs on Japan?... read entire post 8 comments

Obama takes a big shit - Hailed a success!

javadewd posted 3 days ago | views: 49 | Tags: politics, Obama, slavery, taxes, bloviations
The only human being on the planet that can eject a huge turd, yet somehow dupe the media into thinking it's a golden egg that smells like roses.... read entire post 6 comments

9 Month Stimulus Update

stopmediabias posted 6 days ago | views: 50 | Tags: politics, stimulus, economy
How's Obama doing with the economy and his stimulus....... read entire post 5 comments

Thanksgiving Sucks?

pickersplock posted 1 day ago | views: 44 | Tags: politics, thanksgiving, life, wisdom
Every week, I delve into our local city entertainment/op-ed/newspaper.... read entire post 4 comments