 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 18 Jun 04 - 10:41 AM Bush behaving like Saddam, says Madonna |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 20 Jun 04 - 02:24 PM Writing for the on-line edition of The Atlantic, Jack Beatty characterizes the Bush administration as the miserable failure it is. Click to read. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Don Firth Date: 20 Jun 04 - 02:57 PM Pretty damned depressing. But let's hope that there's a glimmer of intelligence somewhere amoung a sufficient number of voters. Otherwise, fasten your seatbelt and hold your breath, because it's going to be a messy ride as we head down the drain. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 20 Jun 04 - 08:19 PM An excerpt from the above: "The Founders feared that the republic would succumb to corruption without republican citizenship—without citizens who could transcend privatism and hold elected officials to account, demanding probity and competence, and judging their performance against both the clamorous necessities of the time and the mute claims of posterity. They made property a criterion for voting because it secured a measure of economic independence. Property-less wage laborers, they feared, would vote as their employers instructed them to. The extension of democracy to those who could not rise to the responsibilities of republican freedom would corrupt the republic—hasten its decay into oligarchy or mob rule. For all their worldliness the Founders were naïve to regard property as a shield of incorruptibility or the property-less as inherently corruptible. Their core insight, however, remains valid. A republic can be corrupted at the top and bottom, by leaders and led. The re-election of George W. Bush would signal that a kind of corruption had set in among the led. Our miserable failure as republican citizens would match his as President." A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 26 Jun 04 - 09:48 PM An interesting perspective distributed by "From the Wilderness", a commentary of the inside of Washington. It appears there may be some serious explosions over the plame expose, with serious legal impact on Bush and his core courtlings. An excerpt: >The June 3rd issue of Capitol Hill Blue, the newspaper published for members >of Congress, bore the headline "Bush Knew About Leak of CIA Operative's >Name" >That article virtually guaranteed that the Plame investigation had enough to >pursue Bush criminally. The story's lead sentence described a criminal, >prosecutable offense: "Witnesses told a federal grand jury President George >W. Bush knew about, and took no action to stop, the release of a covert CIA >operative's name to a journalist in an attempt to discredit her husband, a >critic of administration policy in Iraq." > >A day later, on June 4th Capitol Hill Blue took another hard shot at the >administration. Titled "Bush's Erratic Behavior Worries White House Aides" > >story's first four paragraphs say everything. > >President George W. Bush's increasingly erratic behavior and wide mood >swings has the halls of the West Wing buzzing lately as aides privately >express growing concern over their leader's state of mind. > >In meetings with top aides and administration officials, the President goes >from quoting the Bible in one breath to obscene tantrums against the media, >Democrats and others that he classifies as "enemies of the state." > >Worried White House aides paint a portrait of a man on the edge, >increasingly wary of those who disagree with him and paranoid of a public >that no longer trusts his policies in Iraq or at home. > >"It reminds me of the Nixon days," says a longtime GOP political consultant >with contacts in the White House. "Everybody is an enemy; everybody is out >to get him. That's the mood over there." > >The attacks have not stopped. On June 8th, the same paper followed with >another story headlined, "Lawyers Told Bush He Could Order Suspects >Tortured" >. > >Journalist Wayne Madsen, a Washington veteran with excellent access to many >sources has indicated for this story that the Neocons have few remaining >friends anywhere. All of this is consistent with a CIA-led coup. > A |
|
Subject: Suppression of Science by the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 27 Jun 04 - 10:18 AM From the Times: WASHINGTON — The Bush administration has ordered that government scientists must be approved by a senior political appointee before they can participate in meetings convened by the World Health Organization, the leading international health and science agency. A top official from the Health and Human Services Department in April asked the WHO to begin routing requests for participation in its meetings to the department's secretary for review, rather than directly invite individual scientists, as has long been the case. Officials at the WHO, based in Geneva, Switzerland, have refused to implement the request thusfar, saying it could compromise the independence of international scientific deliberations. Denis G. Aitken, WHO assistant director-general, said Friday that he had been negotiating with Washington in an effort to reach a compromise. The request is the latest instance in which the Bush administration has been accused of allowing politics to intrude into once-sacrosanct areas of scientific deliberation. It has been criticized for replacing highly regarded scientists with industry and political allies on advisory panels. A biologist who was at odds with the administration's position on stem-cell research was dismissed from a presidential advisory commission. This year, 60 prominent scientists accused the administration of "misrepresenting and suppressing scientific knowledge for political purposes." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Metchosin Date: 27 Jun 04 - 11:58 AM Whoa, I was going to comment "Sieg Heil!", but that directive could have just as easily eminated from the former USSR.... odd thing about totalitarian orders. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 29 Jun 04 - 11:47 PM If you want a brief overview of the blatant stupidity of the US "plan" in dealing with the settling of Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam's military, look over this historical recapby an NBC correspondent. It shows up how uncoordinated and short on thoughtfuil analysis we have been overall. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 30 Jun 04 - 12:35 AM Iraq doubts keep Bush's popularity on the slide |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 06 Jul 04 - 07:00 PM The OpEd page of the New York Times contains a scathing indictment, for two reasons. One is the embarrassing things it says about the similarities between George today and the then-George of 1776 against whom the Declaration of Independence was written. It tries to be kind to our present George. The other is because of the many direct things it pussyfoots around, as though it would be a shame to name his madness for what it is. And I am not referring to Hanover, here. A |
|
Subject: Ashcroft Wins Villainy Award From: Amos Date: 07 Jul 04 - 09:20 AM John Ashcroft has been named Villain of the month for yet further incursions into ordinary rights of privacy. Somehow, his little face reminds me of certain 20-th century generals from Europe. A |
|
Subject: Ashcroft As Fascist From: Amos Date: 07 Jul 04 - 06:44 PM A New Angle onSuppressing Information: Do It Retroactively! A. WASHINGTON -- Sifting through old classified materials in the days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, FBI translator Sibel Edmonds said, she made an alarming discovery: Intercepts relevant to the terrorist plot, including references to skyscrapers, had been overlooked because they were badly translated into English. Edmonds, 34, who is fluent in Turkish and Farsi, said she quickly reported the mistake to an FBI superior. Five months later, after flagging what she said were several other security lapses in her division, she was fired. Now, after more than two years of investigations and congressional inquiries, Edmonds is at the center of an extraordinary storm over US classification rules that sheds new light on the secrecy imperative supported by members of the Bush administration. In a rare maneuver, Attorney General John Ashcroft has ordered that information about the Edmonds case be retroactively classified, even basic facts that have been posted on websites and discussed openly in meetings with members of Congress for two years. The Department of Justice also invoked the seldom-used ''state secrets" privilege to silence Edmonds in court. She has been blocked from testifying in a lawsuit brought by victims of the Sept. 11 attacks and was allowed to speak to the panel investigating the Sept. 11 attacks only behind closed doors. Meanwhile, the FBI has yet to release its internal investigation into her charges. And the Senate Judiciary Committee, which oversees the bureau, has been stymied in its attempt to get to the bottom of her allegations. Now that the case has been retroactively classified, lawmakers are wary of discussing the details, for fear of overstepping legal bounds. See http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/07/05/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 07 Jul 04 - 06:55 PM Further on the above case: "There's a great deal more info on this at http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Sibel_Edmonds including a link to a lengthy, detailed, and coherent interview from July 1: http://antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2920 Some of this may sound fantastic but see (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/25/60minutes/main526954.shtml) "She's credible," says Sen. Grassley. "And the reason I feel she's very credible is because people within the FBI have corroborated a lot of her story." Regards, A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: jack halyard Date: 08 Jul 04 - 05:07 PM I just heard a news analysis of the military tribunal process being used to try David Hicks. It is the most Stalinist show trial since the end of the Soviet Union. Hicks has no chance of being cleared and no chance of liberty unless Bush and Howard agree on a pre-election act of mercy. Truth, Justice and the American way! I say Bush needs to be up before an international court himself. He's a bully, a thug and a proven liar. Jack Halyard. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: TIA Date: 08 Jul 04 - 06:21 PM For this bunch, EVERYTHING is politics. The latest - the Bush Admin is pressuring Pakistan to kill or capture "high value targets" on July 26, 27, or 28 in order to upstage the Dem. convention. Here is the story. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 08 Jul 04 - 06:53 PM An excerpt: PAKISTAN FOR BUSH. July Surprise? by John B. Judis, Spencer Ackerman & Massoud Ansari Post date: 07.07.04 Issue date: 07.19.04 ate last month, President Bush lost his greatest advantage in his bid for reelection. A poll conducted by ABC News and The Washington Post discovered that challenger John Kerry was running even with the president on the critical question of whom voters trust to handle the war on terrorism. Largely as a result of the deteriorating occupation of Iraq, Bush lost what was, in April, a seemingly prohibitive 21-point advantage on his signature issue. But, even as the president's poll numbers were sliding, his administration was implementing a plan to insure the public's confidence in his hunt for Al Qaeda. This spring, the administration significantly increased its pressure on Pakistan to kill or capture Osama bin Laden, his deputy, Ayman Al Zawahiri, or the Taliban's Mullah Mohammed Omar, all of whom are believed to be hiding in the lawless tribal areas of Pakistan. A succession of high-level American officials--from outgoing CIA Director George Tenet to Secretary of State Colin Powell to Assistant Secretary of State Christina Rocca to State Department counterterrorism chief Cofer Black to a top CIA South Asia official--have visited Pakistan in recent months to urge General Pervez Musharraf's government to do more in the war on terrorism. In April, Zalmay Khalilzad, the American ambassador to Afghanistan, publicly chided the Pakistanis for providing a "sanctuary" for Al Qaeda and Taliban forces crossing the Afghan border. "The problem has not been solved and needs to be solved, the sooner the better," he said. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,TIA Date: 09 Jul 04 - 07:29 AM and what follows Amos' excerpt is... This public pressure would be appropriate, even laudable, had it not been accompanied by an unseemly private insistence that the Pakistanis deliver these high-value targets (HVTs) before Americans go to the polls in November. The Bush administration denies it has geared the war on terrorism to the electoral calendar. "Our attitude and actions have been the same since September 11 in terms of getting high-value targets off the street, and that doesn't change because of an election," says National Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack. But The New Republic has learned that Pakistani security officials have been told they must produce HVTs by the election. According to one source in Pakistan's powerful Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), "The Pakistani government is really desperate and wants to flush out bin Laden and his associates after the latest pressures from the U.S. administration to deliver before the [upcoming] U.S. elections." Introducing target dates for Al Qaeda captures is a new twist in U.S.-Pakistani counterterrorism relations--according to a recently departed intelligence official, "no timetable[s]" were discussed in 2002 or 2003--but the November election is apparently bringing a new deadline pressure to the hunt. Another official, this one from the Pakistani Interior Ministry, which is responsible for internal security, explains, "The Musharraf government has a history of rescuing the Bush administration. They now want Musharraf to bail them out when they are facing hard times in the coming elections." (These sources insisted on remaining anonymous. Under Pakistan's Official Secrets Act, an official leaking information to the press can be imprisoned for up to ten years.) A third source, an official who works under ISI's director, Lieutenant General Ehsan ul-Haq, informed tnr that the Pakistanis "have been told at every level that apprehension or killing of HVTs before [the] election is [an] absolute must." What's more, this source claims that Bush administration officials have told their Pakistani counterparts they have a date in mind for announcing this achievement: "The last ten days of July deadline has been given repeatedly by visitors to Islamabad and during [ul-Haq's] meetings in Washington." Says McCormack: "I'm aware of no such comment." But according to this ISI official, a White House aide told ul-Haq last spring that "it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any] HVT were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July"--the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston. |
|
Subject: More Ashcroft Crimes From: Amos Date: 09 Jul 04 - 05:53 PM CHARLESTON, W.Va. - Two Corpus Christi residents were arrested during President Bush's visit to the West Virginia Capitol to honor the country's veterans and gather support for invading Iraq. Nicole and Jeffery Rank were taken out from among the crowd of about 6,500 packed into the Capitol's north courtyard in restraints by police. They were issued citations for trespassing and released, said Jay Smithers, acting director of the Capitol police force. "We were told we couldn't be here because we were wearing these shirts that said we were against Bush," Nicole Rank shouted as police rushed her out. Smithers said the pair had tickets to the event and wore clothing over their anti-Bush T-shirts. Once through the security checkpoint, they removed their outer layers and mingled in the crowd. "We asked them to go out to the designated protest area but they refused," Smithers said. "They told our people they would not leave and sat down on their hands. We didn't have any choice." How about it folks? An appropriate response by a well-managed Administration? Or an effort to suppress dissent, quell free speech, and create false impressions of unanamity in a manner akin top Saddam's "election" A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,TIA Date: 10 Jul 04 - 07:41 AM The latter, the latter... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 10 Jul 04 - 10:44 AM The LA Times excoriates the Bush administrations long-term dedication to defrauding the US populace. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 10 Jul 04 - 09:23 PM "WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush says legalizing gay marriage would redefine the most fundamental institution of civilization and that a constitutional amendment is needed to protect it. A few activist judges and local officials have taken it on themselves to change the meaning of marriage, Bush said Saturday in his weekly radio address. Leading the chorus of support for an amendment, Bush said, "If courts create their own arbitrary definition of marriage as a mere legal contract, and cut marriage off from its cultural, religious and natural roots, then the meaning of marriage is lost and the institution is weakened." His remarks follow the opening of Senate debate Friday on a constitutional amendment effectively banning gay marriage. Reflecting the election-year sensitivity of the issue, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said Republicans are using the constitutional amendment as a bulletin board for campaign sloganeering." Has anyone pointed out to this lame-brained sack of sorry stupidity that the United States Consittiution is an ARCHITECTURE, and not a handbook of moral knee-jerk platitudes? Does he have any IDEA how he is degrading the most inspired social experiment ever designed, and dooming it to sorry desuetude by undermining it this way? He wants to take the moral value-judgements of a minority and make them boss by messing with the Consittution of the United States. The man is psychotic, I tell ya!! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Bobert Date: 10 Jul 04 - 10:08 PM So, ahhhhh, what's new, Amos..... Heck, when his lawyers and goon squads hyjacked the 2000 Election it was purdy danged apparent what these nazis had in mind... And now you are surprised? A few of us have been trying to tell folks what has gone down in America and it ain't too purdy... BTW, great article by Robert Scheer in the LA Times... And as fir the supposed 2004 Election? It's gonna take at least a 5% point win by Kerry to get rid of these crooks since the crooks have Diebold, the ballot counters on their side. Heck, make it 6%, maybe 7% just to win a friggin' election.... Like you said, these folks don't mind one bit messin' with the Constitution or any other law... fir that matter. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 11 Jul 04 - 12:44 PM From the Washington Post: ALBUQUERQUE, July 10 -- President Bush has governed in a dishonest fashion, trampling values on every issue except fighting terrorism and leaving voters "clamoring for restoration of credibility and trust in the White House again," John F. Kerry and John Edwards said in an interview. "The value of truth is one of the most central values in America, and this administration has violated" it, Kerry said in an interview with The Washington Post aboard the Democrats' campaign plane Friday. "Their values system is distorted and not based on truth." The Democratic nominee and his running mate said it was that kind of anger toward the president that prompted entertainers at Thursday's Democratic fundraising concert in New York to attack Bush as a "cheap thug" and a killer. "Obviously some performers, in my judgment and John's, stepped over a line neither of us believes appropriate, but we can't control that," Kerry said. "On the other hand, we understand the anger, we understand the frustration." Wow!! Even hearing a politician TALK about such a thing gets me all wet. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Terry Allan Hall Date: 11 Jul 04 - 06:51 PM Time to re-decorate the White House...throw out some bushes and install some johns... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Bobert Date: 11 Jul 04 - 07:57 PM I read that article, Amos, and I am warming up to Kerry one step at a time... When he says that restoring honesty to the executive branch he's saying stuff that needs to be said. I'm glad he's steppin' to the plate. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 12 Jul 04 - 01:02 PM Give it back, George (Greg Palast GregPalast.com ) Give it back, GeorgeBush and Republicans should give up ill-gotten Lay loot that bought the White HouseWhen the feds swoop down and cuff racketeers, they also load the vans with all the perp's ill-gotten gains: stacks of cash, BMWs, whatever. Their associates have to cough up the goodies too: lady friends must give up their diamond rocks. Under the racketeering law, RICO, even before a verdict, anything bought with the proceeds of the crime goes into the public treasury. But there seems to be special treatment afforded those who loaded up on the 'bennies' of Ken Lay's crimes. If the G-men don't know where the tainted loot is cached, try this address: 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Ask for George or Dick. Ken Lay and his Enron team are the ! Number One political career donors to George W. Bush. Mr. Lay and his Mrs., with no money to pay back bilked creditors, still managed to personally put up $100,000 for George's inaugural Ball plus $793,110 for personal donations to Republicans. Lay's Enron team dropped $4.2 million into the party that let Enron party. OK now, Mr. President, give it back -- the millions stuffed in the pockets of the Republican campaign kitty stolen from Enron retirees. And what else did Ken Lay buy with the money stolen from California electricity customers? Answer: the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Just before George Bush moved to Washington, Kenny-Boy handed his hand-picked president-to-be the name of the man Ken wanted as Chairman of the commission charged with investigating Enron's thievery. In a heartbeat, George Bush appointed Ken's boy,! Pat Wood. Think about that: the criminal gets to pick the police chief. Well, George, give it back. Dump Wood and end the de-criminalization of electricity price-gouging that you and Cheney and Wood laughably call "de-regulation." Give us back the government Lay bought with crime cash. And while we're gathering up the ill-gotten loot, let's stop by Brother Jeb's. The Governor of Florida picked up a cool $2 million from a Houston fundraiser at the home of Enron's former president long AFTER the company went bankrupt. Enron, not incidentally, obtained half a billion of Florida state pension money -- which has now disappeared down the Enron rat-hole. And Mr. Vice-President, don't you also have something to give back? In secret meetings with Dick Cheney in the Veep's bunker prior to the inauguration and after, you let Ken and his cohorts secretly draft the nation's energy plan -- taking a short break to eye oilfield maps of Iraq. Let us remember that the President's sticky-fingered brothers Neil and Marvin were on Enron's payroll, hired to sell pipelines to the Saudis. The Saudis didn't bite, but maybe a captive Iraq would be more pliant. So, Mr. Law and Order President, please follow the law and give up the Energy Plan that Mr. Lay bought with other people's money. When I worked as a racketeering investigator for government, nothing was spared, including houses bought with purloined loot. Let there be no exception here. It's time to tape up the White House gate and hang the sign: "Crime Scene: Property to be Confiscated. Vacate Premises Immediately." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 12 Jul 04 - 03:10 PM Subject: Please help right away -- we've got to stick together Dear Mudcatter, Congress is about to vote on amending the U.S. Constitution to deny marriage equality to same-sex couples. Never before has our Constitution been amended to take away anyone's rights. Yet our Senators will vote on this amendment in the next 48 hours. It's urgent that we speak up now. This hateful divisiveness has no place in America. Please join me in saying so, at: http://www.moveon.org/unitednotdivided/ Equality in marriage is the civil rights issue of our generation. We can't let anyone, or any group, be singled out for discrimination based on who they are or who they love. Thank you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 12 Jul 04 - 03:19 PM Hear, hear. There is no place in the Constitution for such an amendment. If there is a problem with the religious definition of marriage being threatened by same-sex unions, then the use of marriage by the US government (taxing status, for example)is an unlawful incursion of religion into state. Bruce |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 12 Jul 04 - 04:23 PM I'll be goddamned!! Bruce, a post after my own heart!! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Peace Date: 12 Jul 04 - 04:40 PM When bad people are allowed to chip away at a cherished document, soon the words thereon will be perverted to other ends. The Constitution of the United States of America is looked up to world wide. I wish Canada had such a document. I think Americans should not allow this to happen. I hope they don't. The issue is NOT gay marriage. The issue is human freedom. Stop the bastards. Please. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 12 Jul 04 - 04:43 PM Bobert: From Wired News today: Critics of electronic voting are suing Diebold under a whistleblower law, alleging that the company's shoddy balloting equipment exposed California elections to hackers and software bugs. California's attorney general unsealed the lawsuit Friday. It was filed in November but sealed under a provision that keeps such actions secret until the government decides whether to join the plaintiffs. Lawmakers from Maryland to California are expressing doubts about the integrity of paperless voting terminals made by several large manufacturers, which up to 50 million Americans will use in November. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 12 Jul 04 - 10:25 PM Refraichir pour le Bobert.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Bobert Date: 12 Jul 04 - 10:40 PM Sorry, Amos, but I'm not too sure if I took French in college but if I did I was too stoned to remember any of it.... Hey, who kidnapped beardedbruce? The one who posted above obviously ain't the one postin' under that handle on them I-rack threads.... Ahhhhh, back to you, Amos.... Yeah, I know that there's lots of states who ain't all that happy with Diebold. It's obvious 'er Bush wouldn't even bother to pull this sleeze politcial crap about the Constituional Ammendment. They are desperate. The prize is in sight. Four more years and they'll not only turn back the clock to pre-Emancipation Proclaimation days but have the entire working class, back, white, red and green, picking Boss Hog's cotton... Glory days.... I'm beginning to agree with Dreaded GUEST. Buy guns!!!... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 12 Jul 04 - 11:09 PM World-Class Doublespeak If you want a real world class example of doublespeak, read the release from the Gummint on changing the rules about logging. The Times' version is here. Requires a free subscription/cookie. These guys flip flop and say their new policies are providing conservational guidelines as though this was an improvement. Look a little closer and lo!! Thousands of acres open to logging that were previously closed. So GLAD they're taking care of things,. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Bobert Date: 12 Jul 04 - 11:17 PM Shoot, all they are doing is creating more fuel for forest fires by cuttin' old growth timber and leavin' everything but the "log" to sit there jus' dryin' out and gettin' ready to burn, baby, burn... Then, of course, they'll blame Clinton for the forest fire... Man, them cigars will get you in a heap o' trouble... I am convinced that given truth over lieing they will pick the lie 101 times out of a 100... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 12 Jul 04 - 11:59 PM It seems to be what they have the most practice at. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST Date: 13 Jul 04 - 08:31 AM "Wow!! Even hearing a politician TALK about such a thing gets me all wet." (Amos on a Washington Post article) What a weird expression to use. Wet with what? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Jul 04 - 08:45 AM Bobert, I happen to believe that the Constitution should be kept as it is- I object to liberals trying to remove the second amendment, and conservatives trying to weaken the separation of church and state. I object to changing the Electoral College- the states have always had the right to make their Electoral College votes proportional to the votes recieved, but very few have. ANd that has been under the control of both parties, so no blaming the neocons there. And I object to people here who deny that the Supreme Court is the deciding legal authority of the land. Face it, Bush was elected legally. You may not like it, and even I will admit it may have made better political sense to have a recount ( of the ENTIRE state, not just the ones where the Dems expected to pick up votes, which is what Gore asked for) in the 2000 election, but the Constitution allows the Supreme Court to make the decision it did. If one allows changes to the bill of rights for trivial reasons, the intent of the founding fathers ( see the Federalist Papers) will not be preserved. So far, I think we can agree that that intent has stood the test of time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Bobert Date: 13 Jul 04 - 08:47 AM So I hear this familiar voice last night on the news saying, "So I had a choice to make: either take the word of a madman or defend America. Given that choice I will defend America". Well I was thinkin' there fir a second, "Hmmmm, why would the new choose to air someone talking that mean about Bush? I mean calling him a mad man, and all?" So I look up to see who it is on the TV and it *IS* Bush... Imean, go figure??? Well, I think I'll take his advice and "defend America" against a "madman" by voting for someone other than Bush... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 13 Jul 04 - 08:54 AM That was not an election, but an appointment. In addition, it violated provisions of the Constitution concerning the authority of the Florida Supreme Court. So it wasn't as perfectly legal as all that,. But we abided by the decision of the Supreme Court thinking that was the honorable thing to do. Despite all the appearances of impropriety within the Court itself. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Jul 04 - 08:54 AM Voting for the candidate that you feel will represent your views the best is the appropriate thing to do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Jul 04 - 09:01 AM Amos, "That was not an election, but an appointment." This is a statement of your opinion. If you intend to present it as a statement of fact, please show me the legal rulings you are drawing upon. In MY opinion, the attempt by the Gore campaign to recount ontly the precincts that they felt would give them an advantage, and denial of both recounts and absentee ballots in areas where they expected to have Bush win was a blatent attempt to steal the election. In my opinion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Bobert Date: 13 Jul 04 - 09:10 AM Fir all the un-Gorey details, Greg Palist's book, "The Best Denocracy Money Can Buy" has them all. Photocopies of documents, the connectin' of dots, and enough evidence to warrent 5 members of the Supreme Court, as well and Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris resiging from public office... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Jul 04 - 09:17 AM If it was evidence, why has there been no court case? Sounds like even the Dems do not think that they have a case. I csn only go by the reports that I got during the election, from the radio and tv- that presented the press liasons of both campaigns. I HEARD the Dems asking that only the three districts that they thought should have had a higher vote for them be recounted, and that there was no reason to consider counting any others, especially those in the ( conservative) panhandle. Anyway, by the SRS rule, No one needs to look at any evidence that you present from an obviously partisan source. Sorry. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Bobert Date: 13 Jul 04 - 10:20 AM First of all, the Dems are caught between a rock and hard place. If they cry "foul" then the "Repubs" jump up an down and cry "bad loosers". Actually a case was brought in a Florida court by I believe the NAACP but the Repub. lawyers and Repub, appointed judges squashed it... As fir partisanship, since you haven't been around here long, I have been a Green Party mamber going back since the Bush I, so I have no particular love for the Democratic Party... Both the Repubs and Dems. are fully capable of stinking up the joint. With that said, I may (but may not) hold my nose and gvote for Kerry only to derail what even lots of us Greens see as a very, very dangerous Bush administartion... This ain't partisanship. Just reality... The checks and balances are way too out of wack and these current Repubs are making a push for complete and centralized control. Historically, this as been a bad combination and is one early warning that a system is ripe for implosion... But back to the book... I'll make you the same deal that I've made other Bushites. If you read Palist's book, I'll read any neo-con book you want me to. But I'm going to quiz you on it and expect the same from you... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Chris Green Date: 13 Jul 04 - 01:27 PM George Bush is an incompetent halfwit who isn't fit to run a knocking shop. Tony Blair is a marginally less incompetent halfwit who is probably just about fit to run a knocking shop but on being given the responsibility would instantly turn to George Bush for advice (or 'orders' as the rest of the world likes to call them). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 13 Jul 04 - 01:32 PM George Bush is an incompetent halfwit who isn't fit to run a knocking shop. I have no idea what gets done in a knocking shop, but I am sympathetic to the first half of your proposition. A |
|
Subject: More Criminality From our Esteemed Congress From: Amos Date: 13 Jul 04 - 05:38 PM ---| From the Editor |-------------------------------------- Last year, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) proposed an amendment that would criminalize war profiteering. The Republican leadership not only removed it, but raised the limit on no-bid contracts from $7.5 million to $200 million. At home, pork spending has enjoyed a stunning renaissance, from the creation of a $225 million African rainforest in Iowa, to a subsidy, procured by Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-La.), to help build a Hooters restaurant. Tom Delay, meanwhile, browbeat a D.C. restaurant manager to let him smoke a cigar at his table. Told that federal this would be against the law of the federal government, DeLay thundered back, "I am the federal government!" The 108th Congress, writes Jack Hitt, has been one of the most profligate - and least principled - in nearly a century. No shortage of candidates, then, for this year's Diddly Awards, Mother Jones' tribute to the most pork-happy, prejudiced, and pigheaded members of Congress. Writes Hitt, "[E]ven as they have scoffed at the rules the rest of us plebs must live by and spent like drunken sailors," members of the 108th Congress "still found myriad opportunities to, once again, do diddly." See >http://ga3.org/ct/Z1affE61iaGn/ Julian Brookes Assistant Editor, MotherJones.com |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 13 Jul 04 - 08:09 PM The corruption of Tom Delay and his connection with the Enron debacle is discussed in the NY Times Op Ed piece by Paul Krugman. This administration is so tangled up with big company bucks it is shameful. Not because of the profit motive but because they have done it at the expense of people all over the country who weren't even aware they were being scammed. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Bobert Date: 13 Jul 04 - 09:51 PM The Wsahington Post also ran a story on the Delay scandal but its 12 pages long (printed off the pudder) and my lexdexia keeps kickin' in around page 6 'er seven... Man, geeze o pete. This guy is not only a crook but he may end up sharin' a cell with his buddy, Ken Lay... More later on this story as it prolly deserves its own thread... Bobert |