ROTFLMAO@U

Not a hair on your nuts, eh ed???

LOL...I see your rose-colored glasses are in fine form. O'Neill had to grudgingly admitt Kerry showed courage, that he was shot at more than once yet wants to dispute what awards, if any, he deserves. Of course, he wasn't there to talk about Bush's military service.

Devastating for Kerry?? Your hatred for Kerry is obvious. Mathews look foolish?? O'Neill was given plenty of time to say what he had to say and then he accuses Mathews of not having enough time??? Change the subject so O'Neill couldn't finish?? His longwinded filibusters void of facts said it all. Fact is, he had plenty of time to make his case and spoke far more than the other guest. Watch it again or better yet, let your wife break it down for you.


Zit for brains, on your best day you can only aspire to reach inept.

F6....er, is that what you would call a 'flip-flop'???

Bush Broke Pledge, Decided to Send Waste to Yucca --

Sluggo...good stuff, thanks. That right wing station I referred to had this author/former secretary of commerce on...good interview. He has a book out that cuts the Reps and Dems no slack...supposed to be a quick read. I'll be lookin' for it...

http://www.centrists.org/pages/2004/07/6_guest_budget.html

Hey zitidiot, since you love pickin' at zits, everything pointless and so-called events 35 years old all the while ignoring Bush's record the past 3 1/2 years, I am sure you enjoyed Mathews' Hardball tonight as he took apart O'Neill. But, of course, you'll put your zitidiotic spin to it. Y'all so lame!!!

F6, please clean up your language. I believe you are saying 'no Cheneying way'

no *&^%ing way

Sluggo...sad to see our debt counter exploding under the fiscally responsible Republicans. What a joke! Heard on a right wing radio station today that the national debt is increasing 2 billion dollars a day. You right wing nuts bitch all you want about the 'tax and spend' Democrats while your party 'cuts taxes and spends'. But, of course, Reagan proved deficits don't matter. Zitocrites!!!

ROTFLMAO@U

Those poor, puzzled Canadians

By Molly Ivins

(Note: my bold)


KANANASKIS, Alberta - These nice Canadians, whom George W. Bush once managed to triumphantly identify as "our most important neighbors to the north" are famous for their reticence.

Canada, Land of the Understatement. I once proposed that their national motto should be: "Now, Let's Not Get Excited." Not that I would ever generalize. I attribute their commendable phlegm to being too cold to waste much energy and regular ingestion of oatmeal.

Nice, polite, calm, reserved, chock-full of common sense and living next to us -- what a fate. For them, it's like having the Simpsons for next-door neighbors.

A few years ago, during the height of our national meltdown over Monica Lewinsky, a host on the Canadian Broadcasting Co.'s evening news program began an interview by gingerly asking me, "So, having another of your little psychodramas down there, eh?"

This year, the American psychodrama, eh, is the election, and Canadians are taking unusual care, even by their standards, to try to phrase their questions delicately.

"You couldn't possibly …" they begin, only to break off. "Are you not aware of what …" "Surely you realize how …"

But they can think of no polite way of asking if we are such freaking idiots that we haven't noticed the damage that has been done by the Bush administration to the American reputation all over the world.

One tries to explain that "Who cares what the rest of the world thinks?" is a common American reaction, leaving the poor Canadians to quietly mutter, "Oh, dear."

Just FYI: Of the many allies whom the Bush White House managed to gratuitously insult on the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, we miffed the Canadians by blowing off their last-minute attempt to work out a deal for continued inspections under a strict time frame. We not only blew it off but went to the trouble of being rude and arrogant about it.

Among other unpleasant traits, bad manners rank quite high on this administration's list of failings. In addition, some right-wingers weighed in with juvenile taunts along the intellectually brilliant lines of "nyah-nyah-nyah." (Sounds like our resident big brain's one-liners)

National Review published a cover story headlined "Wimps!" Bill O'Reilly of Fox News got all huffy over something a Toronto columnist wrote and decided to appoint himself our national spokesman. Diplomacy is not O'Reilly's forte. (He called Canadians "dishonest pinheads").

Of the many stupid things that our country has done lately, alienating the best neighbor any country ever had ranks fairly high on the All-Time Stupid list.

So I have been at some pains to try to answer the ever-so-delicately phrased questions: Are you people actually going to re-elect that nincompoop? (I doubt a Canadian would ever actually ask an American that question -- this is free interpretation on my part.)

What makes the delicacy even more interesting is that Alberta is the province of Canada most like West Texas and the American mountain states.

Lot of ranchers, oil-and-gas men, conservative if not right-wing, a big anti-environmental movement -- just like home. Same deal: timber industry, mining, all the extractive industries and hunters all lined up against environmentalists, who are outmanned and outgunned but perceived to have the federal government on their side.

You can find Albertans who think John Kerry would ruin the U.S. economy because they are under the impression that Democrats are all deficit spenders. When our economy catches cold, theirs gets pneumonia, so this is a source of real concern here. Pointing out that Bush is already doing trillions in deficit spending, and that he came into office with a huge surplus, draws sad agreement.

What is most striking to me every time I visit this country is how much more Canadians know about the United States and the rest of the world than many Americans do.

Because they are generally less provincial than we and certainly pay more attention to world news, they are acutely aware of how much the Bush administration has increased anti-Americanism around the globe. That's why so many of them are stupefied at the idea he might be re-elected: They perceive him as having done great harm to his own country.

So here I am trying to explain to these politely astonished people how Americans could vote for George W. Bush. Some days are much tougher sledding than others.

And you call yourself a member of the 'big brain' club. Dang, zit, I think I will just let stand that zitidiotic comment on it's own. Your ability to hit new lows is impressive, indeed.

there's only one event that raised recruiting levels in al qaeda, and that's the attack of 9-11 itself.....period!

F6, you are right. Take those Clinton haters who did everything to cut his legs out yet he tried mightly to bring Israel and Palestine to some sort of settlement. Arafat threw the opportunity away. Bush comes to office with a policy of ABC (anything but Clinton), has no interest in solving this problem and gives Sharon the green light to do as he pleases. I also blame all those politicians who don't have the nuts to formulate an energy policy based on conservation. It's been 30 years since the first gas crunch and what do we have to show for it: tax breaks if you buy a 3,000 pound gas hog. The list is endless.

F6, in responding to that post you dug into the archives, lol. Sadly, bin Laden is no longer a name but a movement or cause. Chris Matthews last night posed the question of whether our invasion of Iraq had increased the number of recruits to the cause and the chairman of Bush's (re)election committee (can't remember his name) stated no, he feels that has not occurred and 'we are safer today' (the party line). I'm hard pressed to figure how all the big brains out there can believe this. As your article stated:

To counter al-Qaeda, "Anonymous" advocates a coordinated strategy of tough military action, diplomacy, intelligence, energy independence, propaganda and debate over longstanding US policies.

All I have seen is military action, period, and poorly done at that. And this guy wants to get (re)elected, yeah, right!

And this coming from chief bird brain...

I think Kerry spends a lot more than 32 minutes at a time not thinking...

Hey big brain, you're real good with the lame one-liners sucking up to someone but how come you have no thoughts of your own?? You got such a big brain and are so full of opinions (if you are a 'man', I guess that makes you smart and informed, huh??), how come you can't answer a question posed to you?? Are you that big a wimp with nary a thought of your own or just a suck-azz right winger that has been Hannitized and then Savaged??

As I asked you once before, let's see if you will answer F6's comment and question posed to your post with a coherent big brain thought. If not, you are a fascist, big brainfart hiding behind a keyboard and I am ROTFLMAO@U.



F6, let's see if chief 'us big brains' has the nuts to reply with a thoughtful answer or gives another lame, 'pointless' one liner buttressing his fascist views.

-- or are you actually suggesting that Americans do not have any right to express disagreement with a sitting President at an official appearance of that President (without being shunted to a 'designated area' that amounts to not being allowed to attend the appearance)?

http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=3776163

Help us find the truth....now that is rich.

Stick to Oprah, zit boy, you wouldn't know the truth if it slapped you upside the head.

zitidiot, 1968...keep up the great detective work!!! 35 years from now, your son can investigate and report how the Bush administration trampled on the Constitution (while our founding fathers puked in their graves) and the liberal medial said little.

But, of course, no comment on this article from our resident fascist and his ankle-biting, nit-picking zit.

Your desperation/fixation on the Kerry's is bordering on whacky. How come no article on Laura defending her hubby's position on stem cell research??

California Helps Kerry Set Fundraising Records
Anti-Bush sentiment adds up to the most money a candidate has ever raised in one state.





By Lisa Getter, Times Staff Writer


WASHINGTON — Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry has raised more money from California than any candidate has ever collected in one state in any election.

Fueled by a fierce sentiment against President Bush, California donors have given nearly $3 million more to Kerry's presidential bid than Bush has raised from his home state of Texas, traditionally his biggest source of campaign cash.



Though California has been a virtual automatic teller machine for national candidates, the amount of money poured into Kerry's campaign — and into the liberal independent groups seeking to oust Bush in November — is surprising even the most seasoned fundraisers in the state.

Altogether, Kerry, liberal groups and the Democratic National Committee have raised $47.5 million in California, compared with $31.9 million for Bush and the Republican National Committee.

"They're reaching into their pocketbooks. They're doing it again and again. I've never seen anything like it," said Michael Thorsnes, a San Diego trial attorney who had raised $2.6 million for the Kerry campaign.

Kerry had raised $23.6 million from Californians by the end of June, according to PoliticalMoneyLine, which tracks campaign finance data. That amounts to about 21% of his donations nationwide.

The president, in comparison, raised $17.6 million in California as of the end of June. Bush raised $9.2 million in 2000, the most anyone had ever collected in the Golden State before he and Kerry smashed all records this year. Both candidates opted out of the public financing system in the primaries, allowing them to raise unlimited cash.

All fundraising totals are based on contributions of $200 or more — which, by law, must be individually reported by the campaigns. They do not include the millions the Kerry and Bush campaigns have amassed from California in small donations over the Internet or through direct mail.

"California has been a huge success for John Kerry because we have so many committed fundraising leaders," said Kerry state Finance Chairman Mark Gorenberg, a San Francisco venture capitalist.

Combined, the Kerry campaign and independent groups — called 527s, after the tax code that regulates them — have raised more in California than former Vice President Al Gore collected nationwide for his presidential bid four years ago.

Gore raised $5 million in California from about 7,700 donors. In this election, Kerry's money came from more than 39,600 donors in the state, according to PoliticalMoneyLine.

Neither Bush nor Kerry is spending much time campaigning or airing many ads in California, since voters there are expected to back the Democratic nominee come November. But with its wealth and population, the state remains a popular money stop. It's No. 1 in the nation for political giving.

Bush and Kerry are returning to Southern California this month — the president is attending a fundraising dinner for the RNC on Thursday in Santa Monica, and Kerry will attend a DNC fundraiser in Los Angeles on Aug. 26.

The explosion in California fundraising is due in large part to the fact that Kerry and Bush opted not to accept public funds during their parties' primaries. Doing so lifted federal caps on fundraising.

Political observers all point to the same reason Democrats outpaced Republicans: intense anti-Bush sentiment that was deepened by the administration's policies on the environment, energy and the war in Iraq.

"We're talking real anger here," said Larry Gersten, a political scientist at San Jose State University. "That has led folks to open up their wallets in ways they'd never thought they'd do."

Bob Mullholland, the state Democratic Party political director, said Kerry's familiarity with the state also had made fundraising easy for Democrats. "Kerry fits California like a surfer," he said.

He said the senator from Massachusetts could legitimately call the state his home — he received naval training and was stationed in Coronado and Treasure Island in 1967 and 1968.

The president raised nearly twice as much this year in the state as he did in 2000 — mirroring his success nationwide. Part of that can be attributed to a new federal law doubling contribution limits for donors — to $2,000 per person this cycle.

"John Kerry might have Hollywood contributors in his pocket, but we believe Californians as a whole will support the president's policies, which have put more money in the pockets of everyday Americans and created 1.5 million new jobs since August alone," said Bush campaign representative Tracey Schmitt.

The president had 44 California fundraisers who collected at least $100,000 each in individual donations.

The Republican National Committee has collected more donations throughout the state than the Democratic National Committee — $14.3 million for the RNC compared to $7.9 million for the DNC, according to figures provided by Morris.

Under the 2002 McCain-Feingold legislation, a $25,000 cap was placed on individual donations to political parties. So the wealthy Californians who traditionally donated millions to the DNC have instead given their money this year to the 527s, which under tax laws can accept unlimited contributions.

Donors who gave $200 or more to Kerry cut across a wide range of occupations: academics, government workers, Hollywood producers and actors, trial attorneys and corporate lawyers, and high-tech professionals who live in the Silicon Valley.

The largest amount came from people affiliated with the University of California. UC faculty members, students and campus employees are Kerry's largest givers, both in the state and nationwide, according to an analysis by Dwight L. Morris and Associates, a nonpartisan research group.

Money also rolled in from professors, students and employees at Stanford University, as well as people who work for the state of California, Time Warner, Kaiser Permanente and the law firm of Morrison & Foerster. The firm has eight offices in California and employs three of Kerry's top fundraisers, including Judy Droz Keyes, whose husband served with Kerry in Vietnam but was killed there. She protested the war with Kerry in 1969.

Kerry's finance operation in California — the biggest in any state — had 158 fundraisers who raised more than $50,000 each.

Los Angeles emergency room physician Stanley Toy, one of the campaign's deputy national finance chairs, said he had raised "well over six figures" for both Kerry and the DNC.

He first reached out to a network of Chinese American professionals in Southern California, then to his friends in Jewish and African American communities, eventually calling or speaking to thousands.

Toy said he had followed the candidate's career since Kerry was elected to the Senate 20 years ago, admiring his stance against the Vietnam War. He began raising money for Kerry after meeting him in 2002, motivated in part by his concerns about healthcare.

"A lot of us got involved because we're not happy with the direction this country is heading," Toy said. "Forty-four million uninsured Americans is something to be concerned about."

Among the people who were crucial to Kerry's fundraising were: Toy, Paramount Pictures Chief Executive Sherry Lansing; actor Dennis Hopper's wife, Victoria Hopper; former Jim Henson Co. chief executive Charlie Rivkin; former U.S. Rep. Lynn Schenk; Arden Realty chief executive Richard Ziman; state Treasurer Phil Angelides; state Controller Steve Westly; Esprit clothing founder Susie Buell; Palo Alto corporate lawyer John Roos; and longtime Berkeley residents Alison Teal and Sam W. Brown Jr.

Victoria Hopper, who has never raised presidential money before, said she got involved in the campaign after she gave birth to a daughter last year and her "perception of the future got a little more intense."

"It's not because I get great joy in asking people for things. I do believe in the results."

Teal and Brown began helping Kerry when he was campaigning in Iowa last winter. The couple have raised about $800,000 for the campaign, including about $300,000 from supporters in the East Bay area, which Teal referred to as "ideological money."

Brown, a student leader of the antiwar movement in the 1960s, served in the Carter and Clinton administrations.

He and Teal collected money for Kerry by hosting house parties, seeking donations from strangers on the grocery line, and soliciting contributions through Teal's online election blog.

Kerry made 10 trips to California before he announced his candidacy, cultivating supporters up and down the coast. He has spent another 34 days in the state since 2003.

Gorenberg, Kerry's state finance chairman, said the Democrat's money was evenly split between Northern and Southern California. Bush raised most of his money in the Southern part of the state.

Kerry stopped raising private donations on July 29, when he accepted the Democratic nomination in Boston.

Tracy Sturman, the campaign's national finance director in the West, said the finance staff was working overtime inputting the final tallies. The campaign expects to report that Kerry raised more than $225 million nationwide.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-califmoney11aug11,1,3151826.story?coll=la-headl...

Damn shame it has come to a point where our elections are no better than a banana republic, but, of course, in your zitocritical 'big brain' as long as the Right party is 'elected' all is well with democracy.

Talk about our founding fathers puking from their graves...

An American Hiroshima
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

Published: August 11, 2004



ASPEN, Colo. — If a 10-kiloton nuclear weapon, a midget even smaller than the one that destroyed Hiroshima, exploded in Times Square, the fireball would reach tens of millions of degrees Fahrenheit.

It would vaporize or destroy the theater district, Madison Square Garden, the Empire State Building, Grand Central Terminal and Carnegie Hall (along with me and my building). The blast would partly destroy a much larger area, including the United Nations. On a weekday some 500,000 people would be killed.

Could this happen?

Unfortunately, it could - and many experts believe that such an attack, somewhere, is likely. The Aspen Strategy Group, a bipartisan assortment of policy mavens, focused on nuclear risks at its annual meeting here last week, and the consensus was twofold: the danger of nuclear terrorism is much greater than the public believes, and our government hasn't done nearly enough to reduce it.

Graham Allison, a Harvard professor whose terrifying new book, "Nuclear Terrorism," offers the example cited above, notes that he did not pluck it from thin air. He writes that on Oct. 11, 2001, exactly a month after 9/11, aides told President Bush that a C.I.A. source code-named Dragonfire had reported that Al Qaeda had obtained a 10-kiloton nuclear weapon and smuggled it into New York City.

The C.I.A. found the report plausible. The weapon had supposedly been stolen from Russia, which indeed has many 10-kiloton weapons. Russia is reported to have lost some of its nuclear materials, and Al Qaeda has mounted a determined effort to get or make such a weapon. And the C.I.A. had picked up Al Qaeda chatter about an "American Hiroshima."

President Bush dispatched nuclear experts to New York to search for the weapon and sent Dick Cheney and other officials out of town to ensure the continuity of government in case a weapon exploded in Washington instead. But to avoid panic, the White House told no one in New York City, not even Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

Dragonfire's report was wrong, but similar reports - that Al Qaeda has its hands on a nuclear weapon from the former Soviet Union - have regularly surfaced in the intelligence community, even though such a report has never been confirmed. We do know several troubling things: Al Qaeda negotiated for a $1.5 million purchase of uranium (apparently of South African origin) from a retired Sudanese cabinet minister; its envoys traveled repeatedly to Central Asia to buy weapons-grade nuclear materials; and Osama bin Laden's top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, boasted, "We sent our people to Moscow, to Tashkent, to other Central Asian states, and they negotiated, and we purchased some suitcase [nuclear] bombs."

Professor Allison offers a standing bet at 51-to-49 odds that, barring radical new antiproliferation steps, a terrorist nuclear strike will occur somewhere in the world in the next 10 years. So I took his bet. If there is no such nuclear attack by August 2014, he owes me $5.10. If there is an attack, I owe him $4.90.

I took the bet because I don't think the odds of nuclear terror are quite as great as he does. If I were guessing wildly, I would say a 20 percent risk over 10 years. In any case, if I lose the bet, then I'll probably be vaporized and won't have much use for money.

Unfortunately, plenty of smart people think I've made a bad bet. William Perry, the former secretary of defense, says there is an even chance of a nuclear terror strike within this decade - that is, in the next six years.

"We're racing toward unprecedented catastrophe," Mr. Perry warns. "This is preventable, but we're not doing the things that could prevent it."

That is what I find baffling: an utter failure of the political process. The Bush administration responded aggressively on military fronts after 9/11, and in November 2003, Mr. Bush observed, "The greatest threat of our age is nuclear, chemical or biological weapons in the hands of terrorists, and the dictators who aid them." But the White House has insisted on tackling the most peripheral elements of the W.M.D. threat, like Iraq, while largely ignoring the central threat, nuclear proliferation. The upshot is that the risk that a nuclear explosion will devastate an American city is greater now than it was during the cold war, and it's growing.

In my next column, I'll explain how we can reduce the risk of an American Hiroshima.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/11/opinion/11kris.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2...

Spin the Payrolls
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: August 10, 2004



When Friday's dismal job report was released, traders in the Chicago pit began chanting, "Kerry, Kerry." But apologists for President Bush's economic policies are frantically spinning the bad news. Here's a guide to their techniques.

First, they talk about recent increases in the number of jobs, not the fact that payroll employment is still far below its previous peak, and even further below anything one could call full employment. Because job growth has finally turned positive, some economists (who probably know better) claim that prosperity has returned - and some partisans have even claimed that we have the best economy in 20 years.

But job growth, by itself, says nothing about prosperity: growth can be higher in a bad year than a good year, if the bad year follows a terrible year while the good year follows another good year. I've drawn a chart of job growth for the 1930's; there was rapid nonfarm job growth (8.1 percent) in 1934, a year of mass unemployment and widespread misery - but that year was slightly less terrible than 1933.

So have we returned to prosperity? No: jobs are harder to find, by any measure, than they were at any point during Bill Clinton's second term. The job situation might have improved somewhat in the past year, but it's still not good.

Second, the apologists give numbers without context. President Bush boasts about 1.5 million new jobs over the past 11 months. Yet this was barely enough to keep up with population growth, and it's worse than any 11-month stretch during the Clinton years.

Third, they cherry-pick any good numbers they can find.

The shocking news that the economy added only 32,000 jobs in July comes from payroll data. Experts say what Alan Greenspan said in February: "Everything we've looked at suggests that it's the payroll data which are the series which you have to follow." Another measure of employment, from the household survey, fluctuates erratically; for example, it fell by 265,000 in February, a result nobody believes. Yet because July's household number was good, suddenly administration officials were telling reporters to look at that number, not the more reliable payroll data.

By the way, over the longer term all the available data tell the same story: the job situation deteriorated drastically between early 2001 and the summer of 2003, and has, at best, improved modestly since then.

Fourth, apologists try to shift the blame. Officials often claim, falsely, that the 2001 recession began under Bill Clinton, or at least that it was somehow his fault. But even if you attribute the eight-month recession that began in March 2001 to Mr. Clinton - a very dubious proposition - job loss during the recession wasn't exceptionally severe. The reason the employment picture looks so bad now is the unprecedented weakness of job growth in the subsequent recovery.

Nor is it plausible to continue attributing poor economic performance to terrorism, three years after 9/11. Bear in mind that in the 2002 Economic Report of the President, the administration's own economists predicted full recovery by 2004, with payroll employment rising to 138 million, 7 million more than the actual number.

Finally, many apologists have returned to that old standby: the claim that presidents don't control the economy. But that's not what the administration said when selling its tax policies. Last year's tax cut was officially named the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 - and administration economists provided a glowing projection of the job growth that would follow the bill's passage. That projection has, needless to say, proved to be wildly overoptimistic.

What we've just seen is as clear a test of trickledown economics as we're ever likely to get. Twice, in 2001 and in 2003, the administration insisted that a tax cut heavily tilted toward the affluent was just what the economy needed. Officials brushed aside pleas to give relief instead to lower- and middle-income families, who would be more likely to spend the money, and to cash-strapped state and local governments. Given the actual results - huge deficits, but minimal job growth - don't you wish the administration had listened to that advice?

Oh, and on a nonpolitical note: even before Friday's grim report on jobs, I was puzzled by Mr. Greenspan's eagerness to start raising interest rates. Now I don't understand his policy at all.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/10/opinion/10krugman.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dE...

Republic or Empire?
by JOSEPH WILSON

A good read written prior to the invasion. You zitocrites and fascists can skip this and save yourself shooting the messenger.

[from the March 3, 2003 issue]

As the senior American diplomat in Baghdad during Desert Shield, I advocated a muscular US response to Saddam's brutal annexation of Kuwait in flagrant violation of the United Nations charter. Only the credible threat of force could hope to reverse his invasion. Our in-your-face strategy secured the release of the 150 American "human shields"--hostages--but ultimately it took war to drive Iraq from Kuwait. I was disconsolate at the failure of diplomacy, but Desert Storm was necessitated by Saddam's intransigence, it was sanctioned by the UN and it was conducted with a broad international military coalition. The goal was explicit and focused; war was the last resort.

The upcoming military operation also has one objective, though different from the several offered by the Bush Administration. This war is not about weapons of mass destruction. The intrusive inspections are disrupting Saddam's programs, as even the Administration has acknowledged. Nor is it about terrorism. Virtually all agree war will spawn more terrorism, not less. It is not even about liberation of an oppressed people. Killing innocent Iraqi civilians in a full frontal assault is hardly the only or best way to liberate a people. The underlying objective of this war is the imposition of a Pax Americana on the region and installation of vassal regimes that will control restive populations.

Without the firing of a single cruise missile, the Administration has already established a massive footprint in the Gulf and Southwest Asia from which to project power. US generals, admirals and diplomats have crisscrossed the region like modern-day proconsuls, cajoling fragile governments to permit American access and operations from their territories.

Bases have been established as stepping stones to Afghanistan and Iraq, but also as tripwires in countries that fear their neighbors. Northern Kuwait has been ceded to American forces and a significant military presence established in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman. The over-the-horizon posture of a decade ago has given way to boots on the ground and forward command headquarters. Nations in the region, having contracted with the United States for their security umbrella, will now listen when Washington tells them to tailor policies and curb anti-Western dissent. Hegemony in the Arab nations of the Gulf has been achieved.

Meanwhile, Saddam might well squirm, but even without an invasion, he's finished. He is surrounded, foreigners are swarming through his palaces, and as Colin Powell so compellingly showed at the UN, we are watching and we are listening. International will to disarm Iraq will not wane as it did in the 1990s, for the simple reason that George W. Bush keeps challenging the organization to remain relevant by keeping pressure on Saddam. Nations that worry that, as John le Carré puts it, "America has entered one of its periods of historical madness" will not want to jettison the one institution that, absent a competing military power, might constrain US ambition.

Then what's the point of this new American imperialism? The neoconservatives with a stranglehold on the foreign policy of the Republican Party, a party that traditionally eschewed foreign military adventures, want to go beyond expanding US global influence to force revolutionary change on the region. American pre-eminence in the Gulf is necessary but not sufficient for the hawks. Nothing short of conquest, occupation and imposition of handpicked leaders on a vanquished population will suffice. Iraq is the linchpin for this broader assault on the region. The new imperialists will not rest until governments that ape our worldview are implanted throughout the region, a breathtakingly ambitious undertaking, smacking of hubris in the extreme. Arabs who complain about American-supported antidemocratic regimes today will find us in even more direct control tomorrow. The leader of the future in the Arab world will look a lot more like Pakistan's Pervez Musharraf than Thomas Jefferson.

There is a huge risk of overreach in this tack. The projection of influence and power through the use of force will breed resistance in the Arab world that will sorely test our political will and stamina. Passion for independence is as great in the Arab world as it is elsewhere. The hawks compare this mission to Japan and Germany after World War II. It could easily look like Lebanon, Somalia and Northern Ireland instead.

Our global leadership will be undermined as fear gives way to resentment and strategies to weaken our stranglehold. American businessmen already complain about hostility when overseas, and Arabs speak openly of boycotting American products. Foreign capital is fleeing American stocks and bonds; the United States is no longer a friendly destination for international investors. For a borrow-and-spend Administration, as this one is, the effects on our economic growth will be felt for a long time to come. Essential trust has been seriously damaged and will be difficult to repair.

Even in the unlikely event that war does not come to pass, the would-be imperialists have achieved much of what they sought, some of it good. It is encouraging that the international community is looking hard at terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. But the upcoming battle for Baghdad and the lengthy occupation of Iraq will utterly undermine any steps forward. And with the costs to our military, our treasury and our international standing, we will be forced to learn whether our republican roots and traditions can accommodate the Administration's imperial ambitions. It may be a bitter lesson.
http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20030303&s=wilson

What's sense to a rooster?????

and Bush can't keep his silver foot out of his!!!!

WHAT A BAFFOON! WHOAWHOAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I have two words if Bush is elected...

RICHARD NIXON! WHOAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

F6, let's see if chief 'us big brains' has the nuts to reply with a thoughtful answer or gives another lame, 'pointless' one liner buttressing his fascist views.

-- or are you actually suggesting that Americans do not have any right to express disagreement with a sitting President at an official appearance of that President (without being shunted to a 'designated area' that amounts to not being allowed to attend the appearance)?

As zitocrite would say, this is called 'winning the peace' and making the world (which last time I checked we were a part) a safer place.

Senator Hollings spanks Lieutenant AWOL. “We have turned Iraq into a shooting gallery. More than 900 American soldiers have been killed. More than 6,000 are wounded. Ten thousand Iraqi civilians are dead since we moved in. New polls show Arabs hate our Iraq policy. They still like our products, technologies and movies, but as a result of our policies, now an unheard of 98 percent of Egyptians have an unfavorable attitude toward America; 89 percent of Moroccans, and 85 percent of Jordanians do.”

Hey bird brain, once again your assinine pointless statement with savage's assertion as some sort of validation proves your allegiance to party is your sole determinate of 'leadership'.

Born in a different place and time, say Germany, 1910 or so, you would have been goose-stepping with Hitler while proclaiming his 'leadership' qualities. Do you dispute he was a 'leader'?

zit for brains: if your defintion of a real leader is Bush, I'll take Kerry's dreams for the next four years.

LOL, zitidiot, back on the attack with his ever growing fixation on everything Kerry, Kerry, Kerry. No matter what has transpired in the news, unless, of course, it is good news for Bush or not so good for Kerry, you can't stop thinking about Kerry. You know, sluggo just may have been on to something.

No comment on the recent articles discussing Iraq, it's implicatons on the war on terror, jobs or the lack thereof, no, just more Kerry. Oh to have a big zit brain.

Easy....bolded a paragraph of your post.

MEDIA – O'REILLY HURLS RACIAL/RELIGIOUS INSULTS: In the last few days, it appears Fox News' Bill O'Reilly has outdone even his own previous efforts to insult people. On Thursday, O'Reilly denigrated Muslims, in an effort to attack the new movie Outfoxed. Debating reporter Alex Ben Block, O'Reilly equated the term "Muslim" to other denigrating labels, as if it were an insult: "I could make you, Mr. Block, look like a communist, a fascist, a Muslim, or a mud-wrestling woman." Then in a debate this weekend with New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, O'Reilly equated a nonprofit organization with a racist organization for having the nerve to publicize his most offensive quotes. When Krugman read O'Reilly one of those quotes, O'Reilly said they were transcribed by Media Matters, which he said is "like me calling some Klan operation." Though O'Reilly did not dispute that the quote was accurate, he said, "Why don't I call the Ku Klux Klan?"

Jobs Grow, Optimism Shrinks in Wisconsin

Displaced workers find new employment, but they're earning less in a service economy.



By Warren Vieth, Times Staff Writer


GREEN BAY, Wis. — For several months, the city known as "Titletown" — for its football prowess — has been earning recognition of a different sort. Green Bay was the nation's fifth-fastest-growing job market in June. The previous month, it tied Laredo, Texas, for first place.

But Steve Anderson sees little to celebrate.

"Supposedly there's a whole mess of new jobs being created, but they're not jobs we can live with," said Anderson, a 50-year-old factory worker whose career in manufacturing will come to an end today.

"Look at this," he said, leafing through a stack of recent job postings. "They're paying $9 an hour. Five years ago, it would have paid maybe $18…. This one is paying $12…. Here's one for $8.75…. These are the great new jobs that are opening up in Green Bay."

Anderson's frustration reflects a characteristic of the current recovery. Yes, the U.S. economy is creating new jobs. But to some of the workers who have been displaced during the downturn of the last three years, the new jobs look a lot worse than their old jobs.

Since December, Wisconsin has recovered all of the jobs it lost over the previous three years, turning a 76,000-job deficit into a net gain of 700.

But not all jobs are created equal. Although the lion's share of Wisconsin's losses were in the high-paying manufacturing sector, most of the gains have been in service industries with widely varying pay scales, some quite low.

In effect, the state has been swapping well-paying factory jobs for positions in restaurants, hotels, casinos, hospitals, banks, insurance firms and temp agencies.

The tectonic shifts within Wisconsin's labor force help explain why some workers are still feeling grumpy, despite six months of job growth. In manufacturing-intensive swing states such as Wisconsin, where George W. Bush trailed Al Gore by a mere 5,708 votes in 2000, the issue could pack a punch in this year's presidential race.

"The pain and suffering is a little more acute here," said Dennis K. Winters, vice president of NorthStar Economics in Madison, the state capital.

Nationwide, employers have added 1.5 million jobs since last August, restoring more than half of the 2.6 million lost during the first 2 1/2 years of President's Bush's term.

But new Labor Department figures released Friday called into question the strength of the recovery and returned job creation to the forefront of the election debate.

Employment growth slowed to an anemic 32,000 new payroll positions in July, and June's gain was revised down to 78,000 — far short of the 295,000 average of the previous three months.

The new numbers also brought attention to the nagging question of job quality: As the nation struggles to recover from the longest employment slump since World War II, are the new jobs as good as the jobs that were lost?

Democratic challenger Sen. John F. Kerry refers to statistics suggesting that most of the job growth has been in industries such as leisure and hospitality that pay below-average wages. One study cited by his campaign concluded that jobs in the growing industries pay on average $9,160 less per year than jobs in contracting industries.

The president and his supporters insist the new jobs are as good or better than the old jobs. They offer their own set of statistics suggesting that the majority of the jobs created over the last year are in occupations paying above-average wages, such as management, education and healthcare.

Mark Zandi, chief economist of Economy.com in West Chester, Pa., has crunched the numbers that both the Kerry and Bush campaigns use. He is convinced that the quality of jobs has declined.

"We lost a large number of very highly compensated jobs. That was unique to this downturn," Zandi said. "The jobs that are being created now, at least over the past year, are still predominately lower-paying." Some analysts said the shift helped explain why workers' average hourly earnings failed to keep pace with inflation in recent months.

The issue of job quality is a growing concern in Green Bay, which may be a harbinger of workplace changes coming to other factory towns.

Employers in the Green Bay metro area, which has a population of 235,000 and a labor force of 146,000, added 6,100 jobs during the 12 months ended in June. Of those, 1,300 were in higher-paying manufacturing and construction, and 4,800 in services with varying pay scales.

The biggest increase in the services sector — 2,200 jobs — was in the leisure and hospitality fields, which paid its workers an average of $9 an hour last year, less than half the $18.55 average for all Green Bay employees.

"As the mayor, I'm trying to promote the higher-wage job … but we do our share of food service here," said James J. Schmitt. "When you lose some high-end, union paper-making jobs, I'll admit, it is difficult to replace that dollar for dollar."

Home to the oldest NFL franchise, the Packers, Green Bay's economy long has been dominated by the paper industry and the big industrial machinery makers who serve it. A display at a downtown museum highlights the importance that tissue and toilet paper have played in the city's history.

The paper industry has been consolidating in recent years, and Green Bay is caught in the squeeze. Procter & Gamble Co. shut down its East River Mill this year, laying off 135 workers. Georgia-Pacific Corp., the city's biggest employer, has announced plans to eliminate 200 mill jobs.

Some of the growth in services has produced higher-wage jobs. The healthcare sector is booming, spurred by the opening of a fourth regional hospital, Aurora BayCare. And several big insurers and banks have beefed up the ranks of business professionals and white-collar support staffers.

Then there is the Packerland factor: Green Bay's storied football team has turned the city into a major tourist destination, with 1.9 million visitors last year. Lambeau Field, the Packers' stadium, completed a $295 million renovation last year, and the city is sprouting new hotels, restaurants, sports bars and retail outlets.

Another big draw is the Oneida Bingo and Casino complex, located next to the airport on land owned by the tribe. With 3,050 people on their payroll, the Oneidas are the metro area's second-biggest employer.

Community leaders are grateful for the employment growth but acknowledge they may have a problem on the quality front.

"While tourism brings a lot of money, it brings low-paying jobs," said business owner Paul Linzmeyer, who is chairman of the 10-county Bay Area Workforce Development Board.

Linzmeyer said it irks him that politicians and policymakers tended to focus on the monthly job count, as if the number of payroll positions was all that mattered. "The system doesn't reward you for the quality of jobs," he said. "It just rewards you for the quantity."

Interviews with about a dozen displaced factory workers in northeast Wisconsin seemed to reflect his concern.

Some of the workers found new jobs, but at reduced pay. Some were still looking, but unable to find jobs they considered acceptable. And others were completing government-financed training programs in such fields as healthcare, information technology and accounting. But even those in the education programs anticipated substantial pay cuts as they launched their new careers.

"It's going to take me probably five to seven years to get back to where I was," said Rick Rolain, 34, a laid-off electrical assembler who was training to become an X-ray technician. "In my mind, though, it's worth the trade-off. They can't ship these older people that need hospital care overseas. So those jobs are here to stay."

Randy Zeuske, another laid-off assembler, figured it would take him at least five years to catch up financially once he earned a bachelor's degree in accounting in December. But Zeuske had a more immediate concern: He has been trying for months to find a new employer, and so far no one seems interested.

"I've been applying for anything and everything … entry-level bookkeeping jobs up to jobs that require a bachelor's degree," said Zeuske, 42. "The letters I get all say about the same thing…. 'Your qualifications are nice, but you just don't meet the criteria. All your experience is in manufacturing, and that just doesn't translate well into accounting.' "

But some workers were still holding out for what they had before.

"I'm a highly trained electrician," said Craig Miller, a 50-year-old union worker who lives in Manitowoc, about 40 miles south of Green Bay. He has been jobless since March. "I've got years and years of continuous schooling. What am I supposed to do, go to Wal-Mart and work for $8 an hour as a greeter? I shouldn't have to do that."

Many of Green Bay's displaced workers had been on the payroll of Paper Converting Machine Co., one of Green Bay's bigger and better-paying employers. The family-owned firm makes the big machines used by paper mills to spin and slice raw tissue into finished paper towels and toilet paper, a thousand rolls per minute.

For several years, Paper Converting has been engaged in a Darwinian competition with overseas rivals that have the advantage of lower costs and undervalued currencies. It has reduced its Green Bay workforce from 1,625 to 918. The company has also wrangled wage concessions from its production workers, lowering the average hourly pay from $22.50 to about $19.

"It's still too high," said chief executive Rick Baer, whose grandfather took over the firm in 1936. "But I have a hard time trying to imagine how people can have a reasonable standard of living [if they make] much lower than that."

Baer acknowledged that some of the company's problems were of its own making. But he said he was worried about what he called the "Wal-Mart effect" and its role on the quality of U.S. jobs.

"Long-term, I really struggle with their constant mania of driving prices down, down, down, down, down," Baer said. "People are displaced into lower-paying jobs…. Their purchasing power goes down, so they can't go into Wal-Mart and buy as much as they used to. How will that work in the end?"

Dan Aude, who lost his job as a maintenance electrician at Paper Converting last October, said very few of its displaced workers would be able to maintain their previous standards of living.

"There are not many jobs out there, and if there are, the pay is significantly lower," said Aude, 39. "After so many years you develop a lifestyle, not a rich and famous one, but it's based on your wage. To go backward that much, a lot of guys can't do it."

Still unemployed, Aude is running for a seat in the state Assembly, telling potential constituents he would work to bring manufacturing jobs back to Green Bay.

To be sure, not all workers in the Green Bay area are dissatisfied. In fact, some seem quite happy working for wages far below those earned by disgruntled factory workers.

Three years ago, Jerry Cornelius lost his job as a welder at Lindquist Machine Shop after 23 years with the company. He took a $5-an-hour pay cut to get a job with the Oneida Nation, where he works as an inventory clerk in the groundskeeping department. "We have better benefits, so there's a whole package…. I'm glad I'm over here," said Cornelius, 57.

Steve Anderson, the factory worker whose manufacturing career was about to end, has been laid off and rehired several times during his 18 years at Paper Converting. Earlier this year, he accepted a pay cut and a reduced job classification as conditions of coming back to work. He was put on notice that another layoff was likely this month.

For several years, Anderson has been preparing for life after manufacturing. Last year, he received an associate's degree as a computer specialist. He has been searching ever since for an entry-level tech job. "I thought I would get a job as soon as I got out of school," he said. "But I probably have a few strikes against me. I'm 50 years old."

Last week, Anderson's luck appeared to turn. IBM offered him a temporary job as a desktop support staffer in Racine, a three-hour drive from Green Bay. He plans to sleep on the couch in his son's apartment in Milwaukee and drive home on weekends. The job pays about $5 an hour less than he once made, provides no benefits and is short-term — good for only 12 to 18 months.

Today, Anderson will exercise his right to go on layoff ahead of schedule. He will start with IBM a week later.

"I've taken a real hit," he said. "If there were jobs in the area here, I wouldn't be doing something like this. But I'm at a point where I really don't have a choice. If I want to continue working, this is what I have to do."


http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/2004/la-na-wisconsin9aug09,1,1714529.story?coll=la-home-headlin...

Resident bigbrains: Skip this article as you know it all. (Note: my bold added)

KFC: be a rooster and come out the henhouse!

Admit We Have a Problem
By BOB HERBERT

Published: August 9, 2004



I suppose there are people who still believe that enormous tax cuts for the very wealthy will lead to the creation of millions of good jobs for working people. In the twilight of his first term, the president, stumping for votes in regions scarred by the demon of unemployment, continues to sing from the tattered pages of his economic hymnbook:

"The economy is strong,'' he says again and again and again, "and it's growing stronger."

At a riverfront rally under cloudy skies in Davenport, Iowa, last week, Mr. Bush told a crowd of 5,000, "We are turning the corner and we're not going back."

In another four years, he says, "The economy will be better."

His tax cuts, he insists, couldn't have been better timed.

The true believers were jolted Friday by the news from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that employers added a meager 32,000 jobs in July. In an economy the size of America's, that's roughly equivalent to no jobs at all.

July's poor job-creation performance was widely described as unexpected. But it's important to keep in mind that it didn't occur in a vacuum and that there is no quick fix coming. American workers are hurting.

"The weak job market continues to put downward pressure on wage growth," said Jared Bernstein, a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute in Washington. He noted that nominal wage growth on a year-over-year basis has been decelerating even as inflation is increasing, which is bad news for an economy so dependent upon consumer spending.

In a report released by the institute on Friday, Mr. Bernstein wrote, "These job and wage dynamics erode workers' buying power, and this has negative implications for the strength of the recovery."

Retail sales in July were disappointing, hampered by high gasoline prices as well as anemic wage growth. And the stock market is in a prolonged swoon.

Despite the rosy rhetoric that comes nonstop from the administration, millions upon millions of American families, including many that consider themselves solidly in the middle class, are in deep economic trouble. Friday's Wall Street Journal featured a page-one article with the ominous headline: "New Group Swells Bankruptcy Court: The Middle-Aged."

Personal bankruptcy filings in the U.S. are at an all-time high. The Journal story focused on "an emerging class of middle-age, white-collar Americans who make the grim odyssey from comfortable circumstances to going broke." Among the villains of this disturbing piece are the unstable job market and staggering amounts of personal debt.

It's getting harder and harder to close our eyes to the growing economic devastation. Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard law professor and co-author of "The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers and Fathers Are Going Broke," wrote in 2003:

"This year, more people will end up bankrupt than will suffer a heart attack. More adults will file for bankruptcy than will be diagnosed with cancer. More people will file for bankruptcy than will graduate from college. And, in an era when traditionalists decry the demise of the institution of marriage, Americans will file more petitions for bankruptcy than for divorce."

The Century Foundation, in a recent study, addressed the problem of outstanding debt. For many families borrowing has morphed from a tool that, used judiciously, can enhance their standard of living into a nightmare that threatens to destroy their economic viability.

"Debt burdens," the study said, "are at record levels because families have been stretched to the limit in recent years. With more income going to housing and other rising expenses related to medical care, education, vehicles, child care, and so forth, families are relying on credit as a way to meet everyday needs. Remarkably, a family with two earners today actually has less discretionary income, after fixed costs like medical insurance and mortgage payments are accounted for, than did a family with only one breadwinner in the 1970's."

There is no plan from the administration that I've heard of to brighten this bleak picture of the American economic landscape. John Kerry and John Edwards have an opportunity in the presidential campaign to offer their prescriptions. The first essential step for anyone serious about a search for solutions would be to recognize and acknowledge the sheer enormity of the problem.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/09/opinion/09herbert.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dE...

ahhhhh, chief big brainfart is back

What About Iraq?
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: August 6, 2004





A funny thing happened after the United States transferred sovereignty over Iraq. On the ground, things didn't change, except for the worse.

But as Matthew Yglesias of The American Prospect puts it, the cosmetic change in regime had the effect of "Afghanizing" the media coverage of Iraq.

He's referring to the way news coverage of Afghanistan dropped off sharply after the initial military defeat of the Taliban. A nation we had gone to war to liberate and had promised to secure and rebuild - a promise largely broken - once again became a small, faraway country of which we knew nothing.

Incredibly, the same thing happened to Iraq after June 28. Iraq stories moved to the inside pages of newspapers, and largely off TV screens. Many people got the impression that things had improved. Even journalists were taken in: a number of newspaper stories asserted that the rate of U.S. losses there fell after the handoff. (Actual figures: 42 American soldiers died in June, and 54 in July.)

The trouble with this shift of attention is that if we don't have a clear picture of what's actually happening in Iraq, we can't have a serious discussion of the options that remain for making the best of a very bad situation.

The military reality in Iraq is that there has been no letup in the insurgency, and large parts of the country seem to be effectively under the control of groups hostile to the U.S.-supported government.

In the spring, American forces won an impressive military victory against the Shiite forces of Moktada al-Sadr. But this victory hasn't curbed the movement; Mr. Sadr's forces, according to many reports, are the de facto government of Sadr City, a Baghdad slum with 2.5 million people, and seem to have strengthened their position in Najaf and other cities.

In Sunni areas, Falluja is enemy territory. Elsewhere in western Iraq, according to reports from Knight Ridder and The Los Angeles Times, U.S. forces have hunkered down, manning watch posts but not patrolling. In effect, this cedes control of the population to the insurgents. And everywhere, of course, the mortar attacks, bombings, kidnappings and assassinations go on.

Despite a two-month truce between Mr. Sadr and the United States military, heavy fighting broke out yesterday in Najaf, where a U.S. helicopter was shot down. There was also sporadic violence in Sadr City - where, according to reporters, American planes appeared to drop bombs - and in Basra.

Meanwhile, reconstruction has languished.

This summer, like last summer, there are severe shortages of electricity. Sewage is tainting the water supply, and typhoid and hepatitis are on the rise. Unemployment remains sky-high. Needless to say, all this undermines any chance for the new Iraqi government to gain wide support.

My point in describing all this bad news is not to be defeatist. It is to set some realistic context for the political debate.

One thing is clear: calls to "stay the course" are fatuous. The course we're on leads downhill. American soldiers keep winning battles, but we're losing the war: our military is under severe strain; we're creating more terrorists than we're killing; our reputation, including our moral authority, is damaged each month this goes on.

So am I saying we should cut and run? That's another loaded phrase. Nobody wants to see helicopters lifting the last Americans off the roofs of the Green Zone.

But we need to move quickly to end our position as "an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land," the fate that none other than former President George H. W. Bush correctly warned could be the result of an invasion of Iraq. And that means turning real power over to Iraqis.

Again and again since the early months after the fall of Baghdad - when Paul Bremer III canceled local elections in order to keep the seats warm for our favorite exiles - U.S. officials have passed up the chance to promote credible Iraqi leaders. And each time the remaining choices get worse.

Yet we're still doing it. Ayad Allawi is, probably, something of a thug. Still, it's in our interests that he succeed.

But when Mr. Allawi proposed an amnesty for insurgents - a move that was obviously calculated to show that he wasn't an American puppet - American officials, probably concerned about how it would look at home, stepped in to insist that insurgents who have killed Americans be excluded. Inevitably, this suggestion that American lives matter more than Iraqi lives led to an unraveling of the whole thing, so Mr. Allawi now looks like a puppet.

Should we cut and run? No. But we should get realistic, and look in earnest for an exit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/06/opinion/06krugman.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dE....

Yeah, easy, I have watched The O'Reilly Factor many times and listen to his radio show when time permits but to watch his condescending manner, name calling and vitriol directed at Krugman, who was far to nice but more importantly undeserving of such remarks, was appalling. I must say,in my opinion, I sense a new energy coupled with desperation from the Right that Bush is vulnerable, that is ratcheting up the level of rhetoric and hatred such as exhibited by O'Reilly.

I know the big brains of this board have Bush winning the election and that could happen, but I keep thinking how Bush lost the popular vote by 500,000 in 2000, and it is hard for me to imagine, with all that has come down these past three plus years that Bush can come close to improving on that deficit.

Desperation breeds FEAR and the Right are masters of promoting FEAR to their advantage. Playing the FEAR card means we are gonna hear alot about Iran and Korea these next 80 days or so....sure can't talk much about Iraq, now can they??

By the way, haven't heard from chief big brain and kfc since the jobs numbers.....hmmm, somethin' tells me if they were 300,000 or so we'd be listenin' to their chortling and I told you so's. Wonder what Rush has to say???

To all: Check out Tim Russert's show on CNBC which should replay this weekend. The hour long show had Krugman and O'Reilly.

If you want to see the Right as they really are (not the bs convention with all their moderates parading before the camera), their true feelings and how 'they' view the world and other humans (best skip this one zit), this is one to watch. The hatred clothed in 'conversation' exhibited by O'Reilly left even Russert speechless. Every undecided voter should view this one.



Zit for brains, I'm still laughing at THE ONLY edge. Lot of desperation being shown these days....better warm up those Diebold machines. I'm sure big bird, er, bird brain, er, big brain is warming them up Right now.

LOL, thanks for the laughs ed, your 'point' was well taken.

good grief, zitidiot, you and your ilk are becoming more desperate by the day. The truth (that word is a tough one for you) is you Right wing crazies have made Kerry's war record an issue and the reason is you can't run on YOUR (Bush's) record. And as if that is THE ONLY edge he has on gwb.

EDGE??? How come no 'zit' about the jobs number, you zitocrite??? 'Cause they suck, that's why!!! How come no talk about Iraq and how we are winning the peace, mr. honorary member of the big brain club??? 'Cause we are losing the war, the war you so boastfully proclaimed we won, you 'peace' of zit. The fact is, zit for brains, just because YOU declared the war over and MISSION ACCOMPLISHED doesn't mean it is over and you can thank YOUR president for this mess. THE ONLY edge, you zitwit, yeah, right.

Then you got the nerve to talk about human intellectuality and basic intelligence, as if you have a clue. Tell you what.....pretend you're a real human (I know, it will take real effort), weigh out ALL of the evidence and it will become crystal clear to you. Just admit to yourself the real chickenhawk, draft-dodging story about Bush.

Bush's daddy moved his lil' boy to the top of the list over a couple hundred more qualified people (there is a story here, kinda like the Peter Principle), he skated through his 'service', disappeared for a time, partied hard, did drugs, picked up a couple DUI's, self-admittedly had 'youthful indiscretions' until he was....oh, say 40 years of age or so....he never volunteered to be in the line of fire....he never vounteered to put his life on the line......he never had that choice, but what did he really chose?.....he chose to be on the sidelines. Sound familiar???????????????????????????????????????????????

THE ONLY edge, you zitocrite???? Be a man and stand up for his record and I'll cut you some slack and make it reeeeal easy. Let's just talk about his years in office. After all, Bush IS running on his record....or is he running on fear, your favorite four letter word, well, maybe not YOUR favorite four letter word.

Admit it zit, you intellectual monster, the alpha of big brains, your CHENEYED!!

are you that dense, biased and lacking even one iota of objectivity to not see the truth of bush's fraudulent military record that is being perpetrated on the american people with a big MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner in the background???

EDIT: Yeah, you are that dense, biased and lacking even one iota of objectivity

Good grief, zithead, I was worried that with those great job numbers you have never failed to mention the last few months, the good news on winning the peace in Iraq and the recent eloquent words of our president (again), you may have decided to lay low. But then, with less than 10 posts left to read, you pop up like a huge zit...and a cute audio clip, no less.

And, of course, being the true zitocrite you are with a Karl Rove 30-second ad mentality, you get Right back on your rabid ankle-biting attack....of Kerry's war record with some mumbo-jumbo first amendment dialogue.

Those have got to be best rose-colored glasses known to man. Thanks for the levity!!