Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Disappointing to watch Ron Paul stay silent at the debate Tuesday night when Mitt Romney kicked it off with a big lie giving Bush and the GOP cover for starting the war.
"MITT ROMNEY, FORMER GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS: Well, the question is, kind of, a non sequitur, if you will. What I mean by that -- or a null set -- that is that if you're saying let's turn back the clock and Saddam Hussein had opening up his country to IAEA inspectors and they'd come in and they'd found that there were no weapons of mass destruction, had Saddam Hussein therefore not violated United Nations resolutions, we wouldn't be in the conflict we're in.
But he didn't do those things, and we knew what we knew at the point we made the decision to get in."
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0706/05/se.01.html
Two people at the debate had a duty to call Romney on that outrageous lie - Blitzer as the "neutral" moderator and Paul as the lone war opponent but both folded like cheap suites.
>>>Republican debate, nauseating, nonsense<<<
Worse yet, the whole spectacle was kicked off (fittingly) with a massive lie by Mitt Romney which went totally unchallenged by Wolf Blitzer. Great way to set the tone and an even better way to lose disgusted viewers right out of the gate.
"MITT ROMNEY, FORMER GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS: Well, the question is, kind of, a non sequitur, if you will. What I mean by that -- or a null set -- that is that if you're saying let's turn back the clock and Saddam Hussein had opening up his country to IAEA inspectors and they'd come in and they'd found that there were no weapons of mass destruction, had Saddam Hussein therefore not violated United Nations resolutions, we wouldn't be in the conflict we're in.
But he didn't do those things, and we knew what we knew at the point we made the decision to get in."
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0706/05/se.01.html
That's gotta border on criminal negligence for a moderator of a presidential debate to let such garbage pass without comment. Not like Blitzer didn't know the inspectors WERE in iraq and then thrown out. He asked Powell about it himself days before the war started.
"MR. BLITZER: Well, why not just keep the pressure on? Keep the troops there. Keep the threat going and continue to let the inspectors destroy weapons?
MR. BLITZER: Mr. Secretary, is it time for the UN inspectors, the international humanitarian aid workers and journalists to leave Baghdad?'
http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2003/18755.htm
>>>Yeah, I'm sure yo went back and read all the links I've posted<<<
Say what now? As steph pointed out.......you don't do links. You do Bush friendly tirades minus links and that's about all you do and all you can do to maintain your phony faith in this bloodbath.
>>>Point out one link that I've provided that was false.<<<
See previous.
>>>You idiot libs don't realize that the war will not go on much longer<<<
For once you're right. Although I'm not a "lib", I had no idea the war was about to end. Can you tell us how much longer and what will prompt the sudden finish? Oh but wait.......is it.... the surge?
I see..........Baghdad is still a smoldering hell hole and getting worse but some desert out west has been secured so "progress in Iraq" is what we should be talking about.
What's it like to live these lies every day anyway? Takes a special kind......that much I know.
>>>What makes you conclude the surge has failed?? There is a lot of evidence to the contrary<<<
You could share some of that abundance of evidence you know. I'd like to see it.
BAGHDAD, June 3 — Three months after the start of the Baghdad security plan that has added thousands of American and Iraqi troops to the capital, they control fewer than one-third of the city’s neighborhoods, far short of the initial goal for the operation, according to some commanders and an internal military assessment.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/04/world/middleeast/04surge.html?ex=1181534400&en=ee19d05a1146124...
>>>If I'm understanding media reports (hysteria) correctly, the patient had tested positive for a multi-drug resistant strain of TB, but was asymptomatic and therefore not considered contageous.<<<
That's what they're saying now. Full blown hysteria for homeland security reasons over a US personal injury lawyer sneaking back into the country. Meanwhile, British Airways has daily flights between London (popular Al Qaeda hangout) and Mexico City (popular launching spot for trips across hundreds of miles of unguarded US border) http://www.britishairways.com/travel/fx/public/en_gb?eId=111011×tamp=0603055435.
Everytime someone beats the US/Canada border guards a major homeland security crisis is declared. Meanwhile, a steady flow of who knows what is maintained across the Mexican border but the only concern with that is in what fashion those who made it here should be processed for legal status. Radical muslim terrorists only enter the US from the north or the northeast?
>>>With that I will add one of my favorite dishes is real Chilean Seabass. Alas at $24/lb. it is a dish for special occasions. The one and only place I will purchase such fine piece of fish is here. Best supermarket in the country.<<<
Surprised to see an ideologue like yourself even get near a Whole Foods market. If it's anything at all like the one in my home town that is. Here.......from the moment you enter where the produce guy has a peace symbol tatooed on his forearm to the checkout lane where.....let's call it "left leaning" CD's and magazines are sold, it's obvious that this is not conservative territory. And they're not subtle about it. But like you said.....best grocery chain around.
Chilean seabass for goes for $24/lb here too so yes......special occasion fish only, like for January 20th, 2009 when I plan a large purchase regardless of who's taking over the throne.
>>>When you think about it, AIDS is a far deadlier disease than TB and far more easily contagious to others, but you never hear of anyone being quarantined for AIDS.<<<
One of us is hopelessly misinformed here and I'm afraid it's you although I'm always ready to stand corrected.
Last I heard AIDS is ONLY spread through intimate contact while the TB germ is airborne and spreads much like the common cold. In other words, you can travel aboard an airplane full of AIDS patients with zero risk to your health so long as you refrain from sexual or intimate contact with the passengers. ONE single TB infected person on the other hand could theoretically infect an entire plane load of passengers simply by taking periodic strolls through the cabin, coughing while others are breathing. Making which disease more easily contagious? By the way......the TB strain carried by the guy now quarantined has a fatality rate of between 33% and 50% from the reports I've read.
>>>I saw Paul perform in the debates and quickly eliminated him from having any chance of securing the nomination.<<<
Probably the first time I ever agreed with anything you ever said here. Didn't necessarily dislike what he said but how he said it. Pissed off, high strung and too much "get off my yard" posturing for my likes.
>>>My point is that the fact Bush expoited 9/11 to get into Iraq doesn't in any way prove he is behind 9/11.<<<
Depends on what you mean by "behind 9/11". Did he plan it and execute it? Probably not. Given the intel available to him during the months prior to the attack, did he act with the urgency one would expect from someone who tries to prevent a major terrorist attack? Doesn't seem like it. So my question is: Does it make a difference if he planned and carried out the attack or if he had a good idea something big was in the works and he in a sense allowed it to happen?
Tenet had been losing sleep over the recent intelligence he'd seen. There was no conclusive, smoking-gun intelligence, but there was such a huge volume of data that an intelligence officer's instinct strongly suggested that something was coming. He and Black hoped to convey the depth of their anxiety and get Rice to kick-start the government into immediate action.
He did not know when, where or how, but Tenet felt there was too much noise in the intelligence systems. Two weeks earlier, he had told Richard A. Clarke, the National Security Council's counterterrorism director: "It's my sixth sense, but I feel it coming. This is going to be the big one."
Tenet and Black felt they were not getting through to Rice. She was polite, but they felt the brush-off. President Bush had said he didn't want to swat at flies.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/30/AR2006093000282.html
>>>what do 76 percent of soldiers in Iraq think?<<<
The point both you and hap miss or ignore is what 76% of americans base their wish to end the war on. It's not tabloid headlines or too much blood and gore and not enough good Iraqi news by the liberal press. It's the war doing its own talking in various ways.
Some statistics can't be spun either way no matter who's reporting. 4 years now, 100+ US troops still killed every month and still the lingering question of what they actually died for except obeying orders to save face for George Bush.
How many high ranking military men have come forward saying this is madness and how many have actually retired just so they could speak their mind and speak the truth? Same exact scenario at the CIA where even George Tenet has started to confess before he's too old and it's too late.
Thing to remember is that the average citizen likes to keep things simple. "One thing at at a time please or I'll lose my bearings". That's how Bush kept support for the war up as long as he did. Scary headlines blurred the big picture but 4 years later even the one-thing-at-a-time type has had enough time to assemble a broader view and he doesn't like what he sees. When that many people have taken that long to form an opinion they have stuck with for almost 6 months now you can't pass it off as just another number. But then......you probably can......for your own benefit.
>>>In war only those in the chain of command have an opinion that matters<<<
In terms of immediate execution - yes. As for strategy going forward, progress assessment and plain reality checks, you can't see the benefit of including voices from outside the sworn to loyalty crowd?
>>>and the winner is -- the magnificient United States of America -- what wonderful people our founders were -- to design such a government<<<
Glad you're impressed cause I'm not.....so much anymore. What's so magnificent about a system that allows a retarded buffoon to not only retain power after starting a bogus war but to completely ignore the will of 76% of the people who for the past 18 months have told him: "Stop........this is obviously not working".
"A majority of the public, 76 percent, including a majority of Republicans, say the additional troops sent to Iraq this year by Bush have either had no impact or are making things worse in Iraq."
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/world/stories/DN-iraqpoll_25int.ART.State.Edition2....
By the way.......I'm not just blaming the moron currently in charge for crapping on the founder's blueprint but the rest of the participants too including senators, house members and 30% of the electorate.
>>>Yes, the premise that God exists is not provable, but that does not mean that it is not true. We believe many things are true that are not provable-- that is why we have theories.<<<
I agree except.........don't you take it beyond "theory" when you say that "God exists is chief among absolute truths and the rest flow from that one"? When you declare something "chief among absolute truths", how can it qualify as a mere theory any longer?
>>>If it can't be proven, it also can't be unproven.<<<
But why designate as "the chief of all truths and what all other truths flow from" something that can neither be proven or unproven when the universe is littered with truths that actually can be both proven and unproven?
>>>there are some things that are absolute truth irrespective of whether or not you believe them -- "God exists" is chief among them,and the rest flow from that one.<<<
"Chief among the absolute truths" and the basis for all other truths is something that's impossible to prove. A difficult premise on which to hold broad based, constructive dialogue some would say.
>>>I couldn't care less what some of your unnamed and unsighted "top international" polls say.<<<
BBC reported and Pew research did the polling. Got a problem with either one's legitimacy?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5077984.stm
>>>Go live in one of those countries in the mid-east then come back here and tell me about tyranny.<<<
Tyranny comes in a lot of different flavors and doesn't have to include lopping people's heads off with dull knives. If you're in charge of a super power, would you say it's tyranny to start a preemptive war against a third world country that pose no threat? And/or is it tyranny to kill 3% of that country's civilian population and destroy its infrastructure?
>>>I didn't know tyrants were democratically elected.<<<
If you paid attention you'd know it just happened in your own back yard. George Bush tops international polls all the time for greatest threat to world peace which undoubtedly qualifies him as a tyrant:
ty·rant (tī'rənt)
A ruler who exercises power in a harsh, cruel manner.
The president and Wolfowitz
Article published May 18, 2007
FAILURES OF LEADERSHIP
The president and Wolfowitz
As Paul Wolfowitz is to the World Bank, the U.S. is becoming to the world.
We should look at the battle unfolding at the World Bank not as the story of one man falling to earth, but as a moral tale of the risks the U.S. faces unless the Bush administration spends more time rebuilding bridges it has burned all over the world.
Wolfowitz genuinely aspired to help Africa develop, but he ended up isolated, friendless and vulnerable; receiving no credit for his genuine accomplishments; and unable to make progress on the issues he cares about. And the U.S. is in a similar position today.
The similarity arises in part because although President Bush's best-known role has been as a conservative hawk -- and everything he has done in that role has been a disaster -- he has also aspired to fight poverty and help Africa. And Bush has genuinely scored some major accomplishments as a humanitarian.
OK, pick yourself off the floor: It's true. In the world of foreign aid, Bush has done better than almost anyone realizes -- or gives him credit for. It's his only significant positive legacy, and it consists of four elements.
First and most important, Bush started Pepfar, his Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief in Africa -- the best single thing he has done in his life. It's a huge increase over earlier programs and will save more than 9 million lives. Granted, it has been too ideological about promoting "abstinence only" programs, but at the grass-roots level it is increasingly pragmatic (don't tell the White House, but the U.S. still gives out far more condoms than any other country).
Second, Bush started a major new foreign aid program, the millennium challenge account. This involves giving large sums to countries selected for their good governance and from top to bottom reflects smart new approaches to foreign aid.
Third, the Bush administration elevated sex trafficking on the international agenda. Bush spoke about it to the U.N., and he appointed a first-rate ambassador for the issue, John Miller, who until his resignation late last year hectored and sanctioned foreign countries into curbing this form of modern slavery. (Alas, since Miller left, the administration's anti-trafficking efforts have faltered.)
Fourth, Bush has begun to focus attention and funds on malaria, which kills more than a million people a year in poor countries and imposes a huge economic burden on Africa in particular.
So why doesn't Bush get any credit for these achievements? Partly, I think, because he never seems very interested in them himself. And partly because, like Wolfowitz, Bush's approach to governing is to circle the wagons rather than build coalitions; they both antagonize fence-sitters by coming across as unilateralist, sanctimonious, arrogant and incompetent.
In December, the White House held an event to call attention to malaria. But Bush's staff barred me from attending: They apparently didn't want coverage of malaria if it came from a columnist they didn't like.
I can't recall an administration as suspicious and partisan as this one, one so disinclined to outreach, one that so openly adheres to the ancient Roman maxim of Oderint dum metuant: Let them hate, so long as they fear.
So Bush, unwilling to concede any error, unwilling to reach out, unwilling to shuffle his Cabinet, staggers on. And the U.S. itself has been tainted by the same haughtiness; long after Wolfowitz has gone, and even after Bush has gone, the next president will have to detoxify our relations with the rest of the world.
Moreover, even in those areas where Bush has done well, like foreign aid, our strained relations with the rest of the world have undermined our ability to succeed. Indeed, Bill Clinton (who wasn't nearly as generous with foreign aid as Bush when he was in the White House) has shown in recent years how much can be accomplished when a leader cooperates with partners on issues like AIDS and development. If Clinton were pursuing Bush's development agenda, it would be in a flurry of meetings and visits and multilateralism that would be far more effective in seeing that agenda put in place.
But instead the international stage is riven in ways that mirror the World Bank itself. And it looks as if we're drifting toward the end of a failed presidency of the United States that parallels Wolfowitz's failed presidency of the World Bank.
http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070518/NEWS/705180845/-1/HELP0530
>>>"We have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of the American people, since the war in Vietnam,"<<<
This has to be worse. Biggest con job ever hoisted on the american people imo, and it's still ongoing. Watch any of the political cable shows and you'll hear at least one republican every day assuring us that our brave soldiers are in Iraq to "defend our freedom and our way of life". Often followed by Bush who says that if we leave Iraq the evildoers will follow us here.
I really wish someone with a microphone would ask him why those who want to kill americans would choose to follow 140,000 heavily armed soldiers rather than just come here now and face that much less resistance.
>>>When he said " WE"VE BEEN BOMBING IRAQ FOR 10 YEARS" are you trying to say he meant we've been bombing ARAB NEIGHBORHOODS for 10 years.<<<
Again....Paul's comment: "They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years."
I'm not even a Ron Paul supporter (nobody with an R after the past 6 years thank you) but what I heard him say was........."They attack us because we've been over there meddling in their affairs forever. Lately.....we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years".
As for bombing arab neighborhoods, bombing Iraqi neighborhoods don't count as arab neighborhoods? And further.....what part of this post wasn't clear enough on what else I was talking about on this issue?
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=19797713
>>>And the next line of the quote was " We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years "<<<
Ok, so we're back where we started again which seems to be how it always works out with you (and extel). What makes you so certain that "We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years" means that "we've been over there" only referred to Iraq? Especially since has qualified that sentence and pointed out that he obviously talked about the ME in general just like the 9/11 commission did.
>>>Read much??? The discussion was about bombing Iraq<<<
This is why a constructive discussion with you is almost impossible. If you ever manage to assemble a big picture of the topic it seems to shatter within minutes and you have to start over with your own warped thoughts. Like you just did....
From my first post on this subject and the very reason for it:
How do you interpret "over there" as only referring to Iraq if you have an independent, objective bone in your body?
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=19785569
>>>In the past you and I have debated the Clinton Admin's dealings with the Mid East as it relates to 9/11. You've defended them<<<
What part of Clinton's ME policies have I defended? Certainly not the obligatory love fest with Israel. Can't stand it no matter who's in charge of it. I think I may have pointed out that he actually DID destroy most of Iraq's chemical weapon's infrastructure in 1998........something most americans don't even know about since republican patriots had the country upside down and inside out looking for Clinton semen stains at the time.... (this is when the party began to fall apart imo.)
David Kay, Bush appointed weapons inspector:
"In addition, Dr. Kay said, it is now clear that an American bombing campaign against Iraq in 1998 destroyed much of the remaining infrastructure in chemical weapons programs.'
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/26/international/middleeast/26KAY.html?ei=5007&en=aa6636a7be1d3b5....
Credit where it's due. Is that a problem?
>>>So you admit your "bombing Arab neighborhoods" was myth<<<
No I don't admit that's a myth. Try to pay attention to the fact that I'm talking about the arab world's PERCEPTION with respect to american bombs flying in their neighborhoods. Not technicalities or fine print that may or may not make certain missions legal on paper.
You also understand that every bullet, bomb or grenade launched by Israel have american fingerprints on them no matter where they explode? Again..........arab world PERCEPTION.
Here........the result of Israel's "measured" response to Lebanon after three soldiers were captured. A response that later turned out to be coordinated with Washington.
How long do I have to stare at this before it starts to look like a myth...?
>>>why would his neighbors want him to maintain his strength after he invaded Kuwait??<<<
Ask them cause apparently they did no matter how they voted previously. Not a single arab nation joined the Bush coalition to overthrow SH.
>>>Even forgetting the "over there" comment,<<<
Oh....so you want to forget the the two key words to his comment so you can declare it all stupid? Now who looks stupid? I'll give you this though: He chose his words poorly. Should have said.... "we've been over there, meddling in arab's lives for decades".... or something to that effect.
>>>The bombing of Iraq was simply due to violation of the no fly zone that was mandated by the UN<<<
You think arabs on the ground are more understanding if they're given Washington's reason for american bombs dropping on their neighborhood?
>>>THE whole world- including Iraq'a Arab neighbors agreed to the UN sanctions.<<<
Which arab neighbors would that be? Links please.
>>>Who's afraid of Ron Paul?<<<
Wolf Blitzer? This is how he interpreted Paul's comment:
BLITZER: Well, but the impression that I got from what you were saying is that the U.S. monitoring in the no-fly zones in Iraq for 10 years before the war, that that was -- that was responsible for Al Qaeda coming to the United States and blowing up the World Trade Center?
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0705/16/sitroom.02.html
(Paul's comment: They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years.)
How do you interpret "over there" as only referring to Iraq if you have an independent, objective bone in your body? Especially if you cover politics on the largest global news network on earth? As Paul pointed out.......even the 9/11 commission mentioned US middle east policy as a contributing factor.
good post eddy. finally something we can agree on..
>>>my knowledge of Falwell is pretty limited, but from your post, I suspect that the same is true for you.<<<
Maybe so. I'll stick with my gut instinct though and say that he was a lousy ambassador for mainstream american Christians but a decent businessman. I believe his faith was questionable at best, totally phony at worst but he did well exploiting it for both political and financial purposes.
>>>I've been following this truly incredible story<<<
Thought I was pretty hardened by now in terms of what to expect from this WH but this really leaves you with your chin in your lap. Even Hardball's Chris Matthews just sat there with his mouth wide open after playing the tape of Comey's testimony. And Bush himself quickly removed any doubts about his involvement in this story during yesterday's press conference. To the self proclaimed Christians on this board, please tell us there's a corner in hell reserved for George Bush.
Gonzo and Ashcroft
Mr. Comey's Tale
A standoff at a hospital bedside speaks volumes about Attorney General Gonzales.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007; A14
JAMES B. COMEY, the straight-as-an-arrow former No. 2 official at the Justice Department, yesterday offered the Senate Judiciary Committee an account of Bush administration lawlessness so shocking it would have been unbelievable coming from a less reputable source. The episode involved a 2004 nighttime visit to the hospital room of then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft by Alberto Gonzales, then the White House counsel, and Andrew H. Card Jr., then the White House chief of staff. Only the broadest outlines of this visit were previously known: that Mr. Comey, who was acting as attorney general during Mr. Ashcroft's illness, had refused to recertify the legality of the administration's warrantless wiretapping program; that Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Card had tried to do an end-run around Mr. Comey; that Mr. Ashcroft had rebuffed them.
Mr. Comey's vivid depiction, worthy of a Hollywood script, showed the lengths to which the administration and the man who is now attorney general were willing to go to pursue the surveillance program. First, they tried to coerce a man in intensive care -- a man so sick he had transferred the reins of power to Mr. Comey -- to grant them legal approval. Having failed, they were willing to defy the conclusions of the nation's chief law enforcement officer and pursue the surveillance without Justice's authorization. Only in the face of the prospect of mass resignations -- Mr. Comey, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III and most likely Mr. Ashcroft himself -- did the president back down.
As Mr. Comey testified, "I couldn't stay, if the administration was going to engage in conduct that the Department of Justice had said had no legal basis." The crisis was averted only when, the morning after the program was reauthorized without Justice's approval, President Bush agreed to fix whatever problem Justice had with it (the details remain classified). "We had the president's direction to do . . . what the Justice Department believed was necessary to put this matter on a footing where we could certify to its legality," Mr. Comey said.
The dramatic details should not obscure the bottom line: the administration's alarming willingness, championed by, among others, Vice President Cheney and his counsel, David Addington, to ignore its own lawyers. Remember, this was a Justice Department that had embraced an expansive view of the president's inherent constitutional powers, allowing the administration to dispense with following the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Justice's conclusions are supposed to be the final word in the executive branch about what is lawful or not, and the administration has emphasized since the warrantless wiretapping story broke that it was being done under the department's supervision.
Now, it emerges, they were willing to override Justice if need be. That Mr. Gonzales is now in charge of the department he tried to steamroll may be most disturbing of all."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/15/AR2007051501945.html?nav=rss_opinion
Can't wait to hear the Bush patriots spin this into something good.
Actually I think we're talking about two different things. My initial comment was directed at the cowards who celebrated getting rid of a web board opponent who took their pants off everyday as they were busy calling him names. The glee over Falwell relates to issues on a totally different level imo. Not only was he misrepresenting Christianity for political and financial reasons but his extreme views were never a problem for the Bush WH where he obviously had a great deal of influence.
WASHINGTON – The Rev. Jerry Falwell said yesterday that evangelical Christians, after nearly 25 years of increasing political activism, now control the Republican Party and the fate of President Bush in the November election.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040925/news_1n25christ.html
Glee or not......getting rid of a White House advisor who blamed 9/11 on homosexuals and pro choice supporters probably won't hurt us.
well then.....you made your point poorly. I wasn't righteous but just observing how people react.......which is exactly the same on both sides.
>>>Rudy Giuliani did Ron Paul’s campaign a big favor by singling him out<<<
how's the bible belters gonna deal with Rudi if he's the candidate? Pro abortion and who knows how many other views that they usually associate with eternal hellfire.
>>>Thanks for proving my point about liberals and their own righteous indignation. Everything you do is justified where as Conservatives deserve eternal damnation. You judge everything by relative morality yet somehow you guys have the higher ground?<<<
Don't know what you're babbling about but I think it's tunnel vision related as usual. What I said was this: Falwell has made a career of trashing liberals, calling them unpatriotic scum and worse than lucifer which might explain why some liberals did some venting when he died. Likewise.......Michael moore has made a career of trashing conservatives so why would anyone be surprised at some rejoice from conservatives when Moore expires? This reasoning makes me a righteous liberal?
>>>What do you think about the glee among your ranks over Falwell's death<<<
You really think Falwell himself would care or expect anything less? Big part of his calling was to instigate liberals, ridicule liberals and paint them as enemies of america being responsible for both 9/11 and hurricane Katrina and thus the death of 5,000 citizens. And you expect dignified sorrow from that community? Guess we just look at the big picture through different lenses. When and if Michael Moore passes away, do you expect the hard right to bid him farewell with kindness and respect? I sure don't and won't raise an eyebrow once the trashing commences. Your last reality check was....when?
>>>So what, in the end, is the purpose of a heart-to-heart between the United States and Iran?
To deliver notice to Iran, face to face, that there will be a severe price to pay for continuing to meddle with murderous intent in its neighbors’ affairs, for failing to act in its own interest.
That, after all, is a good reason for a little talk.<<<
That's been a good reason for a little talk since Bush took office but he just now figured it out? Can you finally agree he's a dangerous idiot?
>>>What the freak does it take to Impeach this President?"<<<
Same thing as it takes for politicians to do anything - public support which translates to votes. It's all about doing the popular thing - not the right thing.
"The poll from InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion asked a sample of 621 Americans, "Would you favor or oppose the impeachment by Congress of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney?"
A total of 39% who answered said they favored impeachment, according to Towery. In opposition were 55% of respondents, with 6% answering undecided or don't know. There was a 4% margin of error."
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Poll_shows_39_of_Americans_support_0508.html
As usual, the american public demonstrates that stupidity is an important part of being a superpower. Only 28% approve of Bush's work overall, 52% believe he lied us into war
http://www.angusreid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/14100 but only 39% support impeachment. Which suggests that some 15% of the US population think Bush is a criminal who so far has gotten 3,400 US soldiers and 600,000 Iraqi civilians killed in a bogus war but that's no reason to remove him from office.
>>>McCain admits Bush hurts GOP<<<
"Hagel-Bloomberg In '08? You Never Know
Senator Says Today's GOP Is Not The Party He Joined; Considers An Independent Ticket In '08
"I am not happy with the Republican Party today," Hagel said. "It's been hijacked by a group of single-minded almost isolationists, insulationists, power-projectors."
After dining with former New York's mayor, who is also said to be considering a run for president as an independent, Hagel said people might want to consider the two on a ticket.
"We didn't make any deals, but I think Mayor Bloomberg is the kind of individual who should seriously think about this," Hagel said. "He is the mayor of one of the greatest cities on earth. He makes that city work. That's what America wants."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/13/ftn/main2795705.shtml