Bush may have had it right...

Gosh yes, keep an open eye on all pols, even the ones you vote for or even give money to. Do not trust any of them, keep ever vigilant.

The leftists of America put their faith in their leaders in a blind trust. They are blind to any wrongs, and give undeserved trust.

Why? Because they are devout socialists who worship government. When you realize that government needs to be kept to a minimum, and distrust all pols as a result, you have become a realist who loves his liberty.

How many times have you seen pols come into a bit of money and declared that they found some "good deed" that they "always wanted to do", they have enough to "start it" but don't know where the money will come from for years 2,3, etc. but "we will find it then"...

grab your wallet, its under attack...

And how about the..."this tax ends soon, but vote to keep it since you don't get the money now anyway"...(when some bond tax is due to set)

Well, let those taxes die, I don't care if it is costing me 80 cents a year!

 

You're full of it. Gore won the popular vote, but lost the election because the nitwits in the "red" states believed Bush's lies. Bush won the second time because his PR boys were able to scare the bloody Ezekiels out of those same nitwits (and a couple of million more). No one ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of suckers like you. The Republicans know this very well. They know that moralistic talk moves the suckers to vote. But the only thing that really speaks to the Republican leadership is money.

So they mouth the right words to keep the lunatic Christian fundamentalists happy, even while they're in bed with the governments of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait--both of which look the other way as elements of their ruling classes send millions to the likes of Bin Laden. And then there is our great friend, Pakistan, the track record of which makes it a prime candidate for supplying the first nuclear weapon to a lunatic fundamentalist organization.

 

Blue state liberal rants about us "nitwits" will maintain the red state and Republican majority. We "nitwits" don't know nothin' bout the real world and sho' do 'preciate you'uns from California heppin' us stay 'live.

 

Thank you for your kind words. I too am quite pessimistic, though I'm more pessimistic for my kids than myself. I think our generation will be mostly OK. But with the ascendency of the right wing and thereby the corporations, the future of the US is bleak overall.

It seems that the liberal take on things, or the progressive one, is somewhat lacking even in priuschat. Polls have been taken and overall, it seems that upwards of 75% of us are liberals. Yet there are quite a few right leaning posters and they seem to overwhelm the rest of us.

And have you seen some of them? One guy even thinks that they found WMD in Iraq, something even Bush himself has said has not happened!

And have you noticed the debating technique of rather than attacking the points we make, they simply ridicule our posts? Such a sad state.

 

Gore also won in Florida. That press pool that studied that election found that if every legal vote had been counted statewide, Gore would have won by about 20,000 votes.

What that press group also found was that if Gore had won his case, and only certain counties were recounted, he still would have lost. This is the story that the press played and this is the story that has stuck, that Gore still would have lost Florida.

But what is also known is that the Florida Supreme Court was about to rule that every vote in Florida would have to be recounted. And the judge involved in the case was also about to rule that way. Thus, had the Supremes not invented law in an "activist court" way, Gore would have not only won, he would also be president.

 

In theory yes, but in the 19th century government was tiny and you had to fear the railroads and factory owners.

In the 20th century, government put restrictions on the corresponding 20th century larger corporations that replaced those factories and railroads. This resulted in a very real and quite extraordinary increase in freedom for the masses, for regular people. But it meant a bit less freedom for the factory owners.

So as we make our government smaller you are deceiving yourself if this will result in you being more free, unless you make over a million per year. You just replace one set of masters with another. And in the USA, the people are the government so I'd rather have them as my master because them is us.

Under your model, the master becomes the corporations and they don't have to follow the constitution the same way government does. Corporations can spy on you in ways the government -- at least prior to the Patriot Act -- cannot. How can that be a good thing?

 

Nevertheless, hypocrisy is hypocrisy.

"It is difficult for men in high office to avoid the malady of self-delusion. They are always surrounded by worshipers. They are constantly, and for the most part sincerely, assured of their greatness."
~ Calvin Coolidge (1872-1933)

 

Boy have you got that right. An us dum nitwits sho do preciate dem smart liberals fo helpin us dum nitwits see de lite.

Seriously, if you want an example of intrusive Socialist government, look no further than Canada under the Liberal Government of Canada.

Under the Liberals, government spending and intrusive government has skyrocketed, many highly paid professionals have moved to the United States, taxes are sky high, and real income growth has remained flat for almost 15 years. Health care is in absolute crisis mode, and Canadians are cashing their retirement savings and even borrowing to be able to afford health care in the United States.

However, the Liberal Government saw fit to "reward" strong political boosters in a thing called Sponsorship, which was a PR campaign to toot Canada's own horn to fellow Canadians. Also to convince Quebec not to separate from Canada. Basically it amounted to almost $200 million taxpayer dollars given away to friends of PM Jean Chretien and Finance Minister Paul Martin.

Oddly enough, the Crown Corporation CBC (Canadian Broadcast Corporation) and the Liberal-friendly CTV and Toronto Globe and Mail (Both now owned by Liberal-friendly Bell Canada) didn't say one peep about the scandals with Sponsorship, EDC, and CIDA. At the same time, they painted such a rosy picture of Canadian job growth and opportunity that even CBC "comedians" were making fun of it.

The Canadian government encouraged telco giant Bell Canada to purchase CTV and The Globe And Mail is response to criticism the CBC was too "friendly" to the Liberal Party. Of course, all that happened was that CTV and The Globe And Mail are indirectly friendly to the Liberal Party, as they only reluctantly covered all the recent scandals, never in detail.

I listen to all the news sources and then have to figure out which one is telling me the truth. Since this magic "surplus" doesn't appear to even exist, and Canada Free Press blew the whistle on that and also the many scandals with Sponsorshop and EDC/CIDA, guess this dum Canuck hick will keep getting his news from Canada Free Press.

As far as the name calling, look at both sides please. Especially the inference that Canada is a glorious free Socialist Workers Paradise that is being undermined by the Evil influence of the Canada Free Press.

I think it's a hoot how an American tells me "liberals good conservatives bad," then will glance at Canada Free Press, proclaim it "Bad," without even bothering to look at the details involved in the many scandals and quagmires up here, and tell me Canada is now "lost."

That's like telling a Canadian that he is dum as a box of rocks for getting his news from Canada Free Press, when obviously he should believe every bulls*** lie that the CBC and CTV tries to shove down his throat.

A lot of Canadians don't trust their government and certainly not the endless bulls*** flying out of it. That is directly reflected in the very low voter participation rates, as a lot of folks are tuning it out. But as long as the Liberal Government shovels billions into Toronto and Montreal to buy votes, there is nothing the average Canadian living in other provinces can do about it.

Remember, the true master of Canada is the Queen. Even the "elected" Prime Minister must be affirmed by the Queen's Duly Appointed Representative, the Governor General. So "elections" as they are up here are limited on purpose, eg Senators are appointed.

Many Canadians are shocked to discover just how many choices the average American must make on election day. If we even vote, we're expected to stroll in, make a single "x" by whatever party we feel lucky about (Liberal, PC, NDP, Communist, Marijuana - no I'm not kidding) and stroll back out. Two minutes tops.

What disaffected voters should be doing is either setting up a new political party, like how the Reform Party got started in Alberta, or getting very vocal and demanding change.

 

Sounds like Canada could use the services of a “Governator†too.

Maybe Celine Dion. She could sing her political messages . . . her rival politicos could not object to her message because they would have their fingers in their ears.

 

Yes, we had a war. Early Americans were unhappy with being under the thumb of an oppressive Monarchy, so they organized themselves and declared their Independence from that Monarchy. They then defended that declaration through the course of war. The difference between that and what the President is doing is that if the people of foreign countries are unhappy with the way things are, it's their responsibility to do something about it. "Spreading Democracy" (as if it was a disease) is not our responsibility. The great thing about this world is that it is made up of different cultures. By making the world one big homogenized democracy lessens the world. It's important for individual countries to maintain their own traditions. Of course if someone poses a genuine threat (not an imagined one) it is our responsibility to do something about it. Other than that, the countries of the world should be left to govern themselves.

 

It is hilarious to read the neo-cons slam the liberals while doing more damage to the country than the lefties ever did.

As a conservative and former Republican (I resigned when the neo-cons went after the Constitution), I find it ironic that the tax and spend liberals have been replaced by the no-tax and spend neo-cons.

In case you missed it, here is an excerpt from the neo-con tax bill passed last week: http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/news/050314d.asp

Last week, the House of Representatives passed the transportation bill, at a whopping $284 billion. In it were some 4,000 pet projects, some of them added at the last minute, totaling an estimated $12 billion in add-ons. And that amount is expected to go up even more when the Senate gets through with its version of the bill.

Some of the local projects include:

* $200 million for a bridge in Ketchikan, Alaska that would connect to an island of 50 people.
* $15 million for a ferry system in New York.
* $2.88 million to construct a bike and pedestrian path in Oregon.
* And, three million dollars to expand an Ohio national Museum, honoring the old Packard motor car.

Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH) commented, “Three million dollars for that museum will help us bring travel tourism and stimulate the local economy. It's great for us and it's a boost to our economy.â€

Other projects in the bill include:

* The Daniel Boone Wilderness Trail, earmarked to receive $3.2 million for a new interpretative center.
* Seven million dollars for a snowmobile trail in Vermont.
* And two million dollars to build a parking facility in Bozeman, Montana.

Keith Ashdown of Taxpayers for Common Sense, said, “American taxpayers and American drivers pay for these projects.â€

Those projects may not be as popular in the Senate, but some senators are already lining up to add their projects to the bill this week.



And this does not include the cost of overcoming the weapons of mass destruction/regime change/bringing democracy.

Attention all neo-cons... get your hands out of my pockets, my children's pockets, and my grandchildren's pockets!

 

Patrick:

Never mind the fingers in my ears, how about a few Cyanide pills to put my ears out of their misery?? EEEEwwwwwwwwww!

 

You won't get any argument from me on that.

It's hard to slap a label on a person based on their political views. I really doubt you can pigeonhole a person to "just" one party.

I suppose I would be most closely aligned with the Libertarian Party.

The first thing I would do if elected is fire most civil servants. They're nothing but a bunch of useless paper-pushers and drones, dreaming up new ways to p*** away my taxpayer money.

Hate to say it, but most folks out there demand *more* from their gov while expecting to spend *less*. Sorry doesn't work that way. You want something, expect to pay for it one way or another. Nothing in life is free, either work for it or shut up.

First and foremost, I expect a person to take personal responsibility for their actions. Don't blame society for all your bulls*** problems, just look in the mirror and DEAL WITH IT. Especially these drug-dazed criminals. I personally could care less if a homeowner tossed a burglar onto a table saw and fired it up, you don't break into a person's home.

Both Dems and Republicans have created solutions and also created huge problems too. A good 80-90% of public projects out there are pure pork oink oink. Whether you belong to an American taxpayer federation or a Canadian one (http://www.taxpayer.com) the results are the same: we pay $$$$ for s***.

All those who feel we have beat this dead horse long enough, raise your hands. Thank you.

 

Hear Hear!!!!
[stream:3bac7666df]http://www.dailywav.com/1100/kennedy.wav[/stream:3bac7666df]

 

She may have a wonderful voice, but by virtue of becoming politically outspoken, artists’ work becomes “persona non grata†to political adversaries. As such, she could politically get her way because her adversaries would be cringing at the sound of her voice, not necessarily her message.

With Arnold, every time he does something theatrical with one of his political speeches, his rivals cry foul . . “How dare he! He called us Girly Men! How gauche! Barbarian!!!†- I think it’s funny. He sure beats Gray Davis for the entertainment value. Watching Grey Davis was kind of like watching for President Gerald Ford to bump his head on something. You just knew Grey was going to bumble into some situation to make himself look like a doof.

Canadian Prime Minister Celine Dion addressing the Parliament would be a hoot! She would be up there singing away, while her rivals would be plugging their ears and mumbling “na na nan naaaa na, we can’t hear you. Na na na na.†:lol: :lol: :lol: :wink:

 

Bolton to the U.N. He can't save it but at least may he speak the truth about that rotting edifice.

 

:crazyeyes:

Patrick:

The stuff nightmares are made of ...

 

Robert:

The UN?? They are beyond rotten.

Stick a fork in them already. They're DONE.

 

oh so much to say.....

i guess i'll start with the u.n. while the u.n. is non-binding, it does serve the purpose of at least trying to facilitate cooperation and some semblance of justice in the world... problem is, instead of setting an example of how great the spirit of global cooperation and compromise is, our admin pooh poohs the u.n. when the the main members don't agree with what we want to do, and we run to them for help when we get backed into a corner... talk about mixed messages.... the success of the u.n. depends on the spirit of cooperation..

btw, the iaea, an arm of the u.n. had correct intel on iraq's wmd (lack thereof) and we had almost completely erroneous intel... no wonder the u.n. weapons inspectors wanted more time...

ok...now how about the differences between the fiscal habits of the parties... basically it's either tax and spend or borrow and spend and there's alot of pork rolling around everywhere.... and our economy has many factors that shape it, it's not just the 'natural' flow of things... there are many factors, including the implementation of policy by any branch of the gov't...some policies can help or hurt or hurry the state of the economy... and i think it takes a real concerted and bipartisan effort between congress and the president to make things work... an example would be the republican congress and the clinton white house... an example of bad policy digging us into a hole would be the tax cuts of 2001 may... instead of using the surplus as cushion in case we needed it, we gave it all away in a massive tax cut... and lo and behold, sept 11 came and there was a need for the extra, but it was gone....

and i don't want to hear about how great the economy is doing.... sure it's not in recession, but the rich/poor gap is becoming a huge crevasse... kind of similar to the era of big business in the late 1800s and early 1900s... that laissez faire attitude created a huge rich/poor gap that led ultimately to the depression... when folks can't buy, everybody suffers...

and one last word about taxes... here's some fun info for ya.... we rank 17th (as of 2003) in percentage of total taxation based on our gdp...

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/tax_to...t_tax_as_of_gdp

but where it pains us the most is in the fact that the percentage of that tax that comes from personal income tax is huge - we rank 3rd... maybe we should up the taxes on the big multimillion dollar corps to offset a lowering of the taxes for the common people... just an idea...

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/tax_co...tax_per_inc_tax

ok, now for vocabulary... my don't we have a lot of names for each other... i always used to wonder how the word 'liberal' became the equivalent of a dirty word when it comes to politics... in my dictionary (american heritage) the defs are:

1a) open-minded; tolerant
1b) favoring civil and political liberties, democratic reforms, and protection from arbitrary authority
2a) tending to give freely; generous
2b) abundant; ample
3) not strict or literal; approximate
4) of or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or a university curriculum

geez, damn dirty stinking liberals.... i would think that 'liberal' would be a compliment... how did 'conservative' get off the hook, because ya gotta admit it just isn't used in that same nasty way 'liberal' is...

ah yes, but i can maybe shed a little light.... as far as unified goes, the republicans have been a fairly tight group since the 80s and are probably hitting their peak or just about moving beyond it as i write... in the 1990s, a memo was circulated to republicans regarding the power of vocabulary... i believe the original one was in 1990, but there was an update later during the gingrich years... it's brilliant, because in the society we are in, people can only listen (or only care to listen) briefly, so vocab plays an all important part of shaping public opinion....

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/a...article4443.htm

now, if you look at the list and then start watching the buzz words that the republican politicians use, you will notice the implementation... that's why in polls during speeches and debates, they look at repetitive use of words.. the repubs have put this to work beautifully and the democrats just can't seem to grasp that they should be doing it too... i mean... think about this... all politicians flip flop.... even bush... yet during the campaign year, every republican was using the word flip flop in respect to kerry... very repetitive.... and look at public perception... most people associate the (negative) term flip flop with kerry, in spite of both candidates having public examples of 'flip flopping' out there....

the 'liberal media' is another one of those wonderful vocab uses that has dug it's way in to the belief system in this country, in spite of the fact that the general media is fairly well split and as of late tending to trend conservative, but oh, there would be someone swearing about the 'liberal' media even if fox owned and operated all media... vocabulary is all powerful.....

well, i guess that's it for now...i'm sure someone will be able to pick it apart.... and i have to say is kudos to those using examples - examples are great ways to illustrate points.... if you can't back it up, it's just empty rhetoric....