Waggie, where are you man? You still haven't named a single candidate to replace Bush. Remember I don't need 10 names or 100 names, just one. You would figure with as much as you have complained about him, surely you could name one person that would do a better job. I'll be waiting.
Bungrider, that is just complete bullshit. You are talking out of your ass about matters that it is clear you know next to nothing about. (WTC 1 happened in 1993, not 1992, btw.) It is painfully obvious that the only reason you are spinning that crap is that it is in line with the Democrat cause. Liberals are apologists for radical Islam, it is simple as that. If you truly want to debate this point, come right along buddy and get exposed to some truth. You might like it. (I know, I know, liberals...truth... but anything's possible...) ps -- I bet I know at least 20 times as many muslims as you, bro. No sweat.
I already told you that it was Jerry Brown and you didn't believe me??? Hey, let me watch the Stanford vs Washington game first, ok? Then I will be back to you. Contrary to popular belief, I do try to enjoy my Weekends off ET.
NEW YORK--"Have the Democrats totally flipped their lids?" asks David Brooks in The Weekly Standard, quasi-official organ of the Bush Administration. "Because every day some Democrat seems to make a manic or totally over-the-top statement about George Bush, the Republican party, and the state of the nation today." True, Democrats loathe Dubya with greater intensity than any Republican standard-bearer in modern political history. Even the diabolical Richard Nixon--who, after all, created the EPA, went to China and imposed price controls to stop corporate gouging-- rates higher in liberal eyes. "It's mystifying," writes Brooks. Let me explain. First but not foremost, Bush's detractors despise him viscerally, as a man. Where working-class populists see him as a smug, effeminate frat boy who wouldn't recognize a hard day's work if it kicked him in his self-satisfied ass, intellectuals see a simian-faced idiot unqualified to mow his own lawn, much less lead the free world. Another group, which includes me, is more patronizing than spiteful. I feel sorry for the dude; he looks so pathetic, so out of his depth, out there under the klieg lights, squinting, searching for nouns and verbs, looking like he's been snatched from his bed and beamed in, and is still half asleep, not sure where he is. Each speech looks as if Bush had been beamed from his bed fast asleep. And he's willfully ignorant. On Fox News, Bush admits that he doesn't even read the newspaper: "I glance at the headlines just to kind of [sic] a flavor for what's moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably read [sic] the news themselves." All these takes on Bush boil down to the same thing: The guy who holds the launch codes isn't smart enough to know that's he's stupid. And that's scary. Fear breeds hatred, and Bush's policies create a lot of both. U.S. citizens like Jose Padilla and Yasser Hamdi disappear into the night, never to be heard from again. A concentration camp rises at Guantánamo. Stasi-like spies tap our phones and read our mail; thanks to the ironically-named Patriot Act, these thugs don't even need a warrant. As individual rights are trampled, corporate profits are sacrosanct. An aggressive, expansionist military invades other nations "preemptively" to eliminate the threat of non- existent weapons, and American troops die to enrich a company that buys off the Vice President. Time to dust off the F word. "Whenever people start locking up enemies because of national security without much legal care, you are coming close [to fascism]," warns Robert Paxton, emeritus professor of history at Columbia University and author of the upcoming book "Fascism in Action." We're supposed to hate fascists--or has that changed because of 9/11? Bush bashers hate Bush for his personal hypocrisy--the draft-dodger who went AWOL during Vietnam yet sent other young men to die in Afghanistan (news - web sites) and Iraq (news - web sites), the philandering cocaine addict who dares to call gays immoral--as well as for his attacks on peace and prosperity. But even that doesn't explain why we hate him so much. Bush is guilty of a single irredeemable act so heinous and anti-American that Nixon's corruption and Reagan's intellectual inferiority pale by comparison. No matter what he does, Democrats and Republicans who love their country more than their party will never forgive him for it. Bush stole the presidency. The United States enjoyed two centuries of uninterrupted democracy before George W. Bush came along. The Brits burned the White House, civil war slaughtered millions and depressions brought economic chaos, yet presidential elections always took place on schedule and the winners always took office. Bush ended all that, suing to stop a ballot count that subsequent newspaper recounts proved he had lost. He had his GOP-run Supreme Court, a federal institution, rule extrajurisdictionally on the disputed election, a matter that under our system of laws falls to the states. Bush's recount guru, James Baker, went on national TV to threaten to use force to install him as president if Gore didn't step aside: "If we keep being put in the position of having to respond to recount after recount after recount of the same ballots, then we just can't sit on our hands, and we will be forced to do what might be in our best personal interest--but not--it would not be in the best interest of our wonderful country." Bush isn't president, but he plays one on TV. His presence in the White House is an affront to everything that this country stands for. His fake presidency is treasonous; our passive tolerance for it sad testimony to post-9/11 cowardice. As I wrote in December 2000, "George W. Bush is not the President of the United States of America." And millions of Americans agree. Two months after 9/11, when Bush's job approval rating was soaring at 89 percent, 47 percent of Americans told a Gallup poll that he had not won the presidency legitimately. "The election controversy...could make a comeback if Bush's approval ratings were to fall significantly," predicted Byron York in The National Review. Two years later, 3 million jobs are gone, Bush's wars have gone sour, and just 50 percent of voters approve of his performance. If York is correct, most Americans now consider Bush to be no more legitimate than Saddam Hussein (news - web sites), who also came to power in a coup d'état. And that's why we hate him. (Ted Rall is the author of the graphic travelogue "To Afghanistan and Back," an award-winning recounting of his experiences covering the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. It is now available in a revised and updated paperback edition containing new material. Ordering information is available at amazon.com.)
Blah, blah, blah. What a bunch of crap. But you know something? I hope Bush loses. I'm a lifelong Republican, but I think George Bush is a lightweight who should not have been the party's candidate in 2000. But that's not the reason I hope he loses. I think we are going to see some tough economic times ahead. So give the Dems what they want and watch them implode as they totally blow it. Maybe it will be the last Democratic Prez for decades. Irma
Bush, Blair Misled by Intelligence on Iraq - Blix Mar 6, 9:45 AM (ET) LONDON (Reuters) - George Bush and Tony Blair, perhaps fired by a religious conviction they were battling evil, were seduced by unproven intelligence reports of Iraq's illegal weapons, former chief U.N. arms inspector Hans Blix says. In a book, excerpts of which Britain's Guardian newspaper published on Saturday, Blix says that in the run-up to war, the British prime minister and envoys of the U.S. president seemed convinced by the information from their intelligence agencies. Blix, who said he came under intense U.S. pressure to accept such intelligence as fact and was vilified for refusing, said he personally believed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein still had hidden illegal weapons but had told Blair he needed proof. "I added that it would prove paradoxical and absurd if 250,000 troops were to invade Iraq and find very little," he wrote about their meeting on February 20, 2003. "Blair responded that the intelligence was clear that Saddam had reconstituted his weapons of mass destruction program. Blair clearly relied on the intelligence and was convinced." Blix wrote that Western intelligence claims shared with his inspectors about, for example, mobile laboratories to make biological agents had proved embarrassing and added: "I am not aware of any other intelligence 'shared' with us that has been substantiated by credible evidence." "Perhaps Blair and Bush, both religious men, felt strengthened in their political determination by the feeling they were fighting evil, not only (arms) proliferation," he wrote. In the new book "Disarming Iraq -- The search for weapons of mass destruction," Blix said French intelligence services had also been convinced weapons of mass destruction remained in Iraq, but that President Jacques Chirac -- as staunchly opposed to war as Bush and Blair were in favor -- was more skeptical. "The intelligence services sometimes 'intoxicate each other'," he said, citing Chirac. Blix described an increasingly frantic round of diplomatic activity as the troop build-up in Kuwait gathered pace and the arms inspectors scouring Iraq came up empty-handed. Nearly a year after the invasion and Saddam's overthrow U.S.-led forces have not found any illegal weapons. Blair and Bush have both seen their popularity plummet over the unpopular war and its bloody aftermath. On Friday Blair raised the prospect of a rethink of international law and the United Nations to legalize pre-emptive strikes by foreign forces against so-called rogue states.
And that's why we hate him. "Hatred paralyzes life; love releases it. Hatred confuses life; love harmonizes it. Hatred darkens life; love illumines it" --Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968) "If you hate a person, you hate something in him that is a part of yourself. What isn't part of ourselves doesn't disturb us." --Herman Hesse "Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity. Hate destroys a man's sense of values and his objectivity. It causes him to describe the beautiful as ugly and the ugly as beautiful, and to confuse the true with the false and the false with the true. Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice. Justice at its best is love correcting everything that stands against love." --Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968) "Hate is a cancer that spreads one cell at a time." --Dave Pelzer, Author "It is better to be hated for what you are than to be loved for what you are not." Andre Gide (1869 - 1951) "We hate some persons because we do not know them; and we will not know them because we hate them." Charles Caleb Colton (1780 - 1832) "Hate no one; hate their vices, not themselves." J. G. C. Brainard
It is so nice that Republicans never hated the Clintons the way the Democrats hate Bush, that they never hated Bill for anything he did, and that they don't hate Hillary now or even if should she should ever run for President.
You can't defend one wrong to another wrong. Come on ART. You are so much smarter then that. Two wrongs don't make a right. You are suppose to lead by example. "Two wrongs don't make a right, but they make a good excuse." --Thomas Szasz, M.D.
(The RNC claims it is not about content, but about funding. If moveon.org were showing pro-Bush ads, would the RNC be trying to stop them?) RNC tells TV stations not to run anti-Bush ads GOP committee says MoveOn.org's spots are illegally financed WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Republican National Committee is warning television stations across the country not to run ads from the MoveOn.org Voter Fund that criticize President Bush, charging that the left-leaning political group is paying for them with money raised in violation of the new campaign-finance law. "As a broadcaster licensed by the Federal Communications Commission, you have a responsibility to the viewing public, and to your licensing agency, to refrain from complicity in any illegal activity," said the RNC's chief counsel, Jill Holtzman Vogel, in a letter sent to about 250 stations Friday. "Now that you have been apprised of the law, to prevent further violations of federal law, we urge you to remove these advertisements from your station's broadcast rotation." But MoveOn.org's lawyer, Joseph Sandler, said in a statement that the ads were funded legally, calling the RNC's letter "a complete misrepresentation of the law." "The federal campaign laws have permitted precisely this use of money for advertising for the past 25 years," he said. And MoveOn.org, which was planning to spend $1.9 million on an ad buy that started Thursday, said Friday that it would spend another $1 million. 'Soft money' targeted The RNC charges that because the ads are designed to help defeat President Bush, the group cannot pay for them with unlimited "soft money" contributions but only with contributions raised in amounts less than $5,000. Although MoveOn.org is a so-called "Section 527" organization that is legally allowed to raise soft money in unlimited amounts from donors, the new campaign-finance law prohibits the group from using those funds to pay for ads that directly attack Bush, Vogel said. And in a bit of political one-upmanship, the letter quotes the presumptive Democratic nominee, Sen. John Kerry, as saying that the objective of the new law "is to eliminate altogether the capacity of soft money to play the role that it does in our politics." But MoveOn.org says it has raised $10 million for advertising from 160,000 donors, in amounts averaging $50-$60. It is running two ads in 67 TV markets in what its Web site describes as 17 "battleground" states. "It's not surprising that [RNC Chairman] Ed Gillespie continues to make false claims about the legality of our campaign in order to silence us," Wes Boyd, president of the voter fund, said in a statement. "Our lawyers continue to assure us that our advertising, and the small contributions from tens of thousands of our members that pay for it, conform in every way to existing campaign-finance laws." The group maintains that a recent ruling from the Federal Election Commission supports the method it is using to fund the ads. But in her letter to the stations, Vogel said that FEC ruling makes it clear that any ad that "promotes, supports, attacks or opposes" a federal candidate comes under the contribution limits, which she charges MoveOn is violating. One of the ads, called "Worker," ends with the tag line, "George Bush. He's not on our side." The other, called "Child's Play," shows small children working at various jobs and ends with the tag line, "Guess who's going to pay off President Bush's $1 trillion deficit?" RNC: Problem with funding, not content Vogel insisted that the RNC's problem with the ads stemmed from their funding, not their content. "I write not because of the misleading allegations contained in the advertisement, which will be answered in due time, but because running this advertisement breaks the law," Vogel's letter said. MoveOn.org has been running ads for several months on cable channels, which don't fall under FCC regulations. However, CBS refused to broadcast the group's ads during the Super Bowl, saying the network did not run issue advertising. MoveOn.org and other groups trying to defeat Bush have been raising money to help the Democratic nominee compete with the president's vast war chest in the period between the end of the Democratic primaries and the political conventions. The Bush-Cheney campaign, which launched its first ad salvo this week, has more than $100 million to spend. The RNC has complained that though it is no longer allowed to use soft money for campaigning, MoveOn.org is accepting large soft money contributions from a cadre of wealthy donors, including billionaire financier George Soros and film producer Steven Bing, in its quest to defeat the president. Soros has said ousting Bush this year is now the "central focus of my life."