JTT wrote:cjhsa wrote:Love wins, but peace comes through superior firepower.
Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq stand as three excellent examples that, as has always been the case, you don't know your ass from a shotgun barrel.
Now, that's telling an arsehole like it really is! Good on ya, JTT.
JTT wrote:cjhsa wrote:Love wins, but peace comes through superior firepower.
Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq stand as three excellent examples that, as has always been the case, you don't know your ass from a shotgun barrel.
All three wars vehemently opposed by smelly hippy liberal numbnuts such as yourself, cutting the military off at the knees and causing a media storm at home showing only the failures, not the successes.
How the **** do you sleep at night, you creep?
Advocate wrote:mysteryman wrote:Advocate wrote:That is a typical Rep reaction to the corruption of one their own. Were it, say, Clinton doing this stuff, the Reps would be screaming their heads off.
Probably, and the dems would be the ones saying "yawn" about the whole situation.
Dont believe me?
Look at any of the threads that were going when Clinton was being investigated and accused of corruption.
Is it right for parties to act that way?...NO it isnt
Is it the way things are done in politics?...Yes it is.
We knew that the pursuit of Clinton was a witchhunt, which it proved to be.
Clinton wrote the book on contributions for his library. Remember?
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/11/surprise-another-clinton-donor-scandal.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a99b62033ef.htm
mysteryman wrote:Advocate wrote:mysteryman wrote:Advocate wrote:That is a typical Rep reaction to the corruption of one their own. Were it, say, Clinton doing this stuff, the Reps would be screaming their heads off.
Probably, and the dems would be the ones saying "yawn" about the whole situation.
Dont believe me?
Look at any of the threads that were going when Clinton was being investigated and accused of corruption.
Is it right for parties to act that way?...NO it isnt
Is it the way things are done in politics?...Yes it is.
We knew that the pursuit of Clinton was a witchhunt, which it proved to be.
Then please explain why so many in the Clinton camp were convicted and sent to jail?
Who was sent to jail for taking bribes? Were any of the convictions for official corruption?
The only convictions I recall were for acts while they were NOT Federal government officials. Corruption while in office requires the crime to occur while they were in office.
woiyo wrote:Advocate wrote:mysteryman wrote:Advocate wrote:That is a typical Rep reaction to the corruption of one their own. Were it, say, Clinton doing this stuff, the Reps would be screaming their heads off.
Probably, and the dems would be the ones saying "yawn" about the whole situation.
Dont believe me?
Look at any of the threads that were going when Clinton was being investigated and accused of corruption.
Is it right for parties to act that way?...NO it isnt
Is it the way things are done in politics?...Yes it is.
We knew that the pursuit of Clinton was a witchhunt, which it proved to be.
Clinton wrote the book on contributions for his library. Remember?
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/11/surprise-another-clinton-donor-scandal.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a99b62033ef.htm
Those are quite funny woiyo
Quote:The Clinton's were taking funds from a company that makes a profit off of bilking senior citizens:
Wow.. that's a standard that if applied to the Bush administration would mean they are pretty damn guilty.
Your second link doesn't work but it is "freerepublic."
woiyo, assuming arguendo that Clinton did the same thing, does that make if a yawn (OK) for Bush and company? Clinton is historical.
BTW, your links are to a couple of cheap blogs. Some support!
Advocate wrote:woiyo, assuming arguendo that Clinton did the same thing, does that make if a yawn (OK) for Bush and company? Clinton is historical.
BTW, your links are to a couple of cheap blogs. Some support!
Yep. Same yawn as if you can trust any politician. The blogs are only "cheap" because you do no want to agree with the facts.
Get back with your herd.
Liberals cannot understand reality.
JTT wrote:woiyo wrote:Advocate wrote:woiyo, assuming arguendo that Clinton did the same thing, does that make if a yawn (OK) for Bush and company? Clinton is historical.
BTW, your links are to a couple of cheap blogs. Some support!
Yep. Same yawn as if you can trust any politician. The blogs are only "cheap" because you do no want to agree with the facts.
Get back with your herd.
Reality, Earth.
Another gem of a comment from the herd.
How can liberals understand reality when a republican president has trashed this country's economy, our good name by approving torture of prisoners, lies about "supporting our troops" while cutting their benefits and services, broke our constitution - lied about complying with the FISA laws, broke international laws of habeas corpus, and still tells us we are making progress on the war in Iraq while spending 2.7 billion every week?
The reality for republicans is that our president is doing a very good job, and we need to follow the current presidents policies by electing McCain.
Bush's biggest legacy is the body of lies told about nearly everything. The following relates to his recent statements and actions to open our precious shorelines to drilling.
ENERGY
Wells Of Mass Deception
Note: The team that brings you The Progress Report is heading to the Netroots Nation conference in Austin, TX this week. There will be no Progress Report July 16-18, but we will resume again on Monday, July 21. In the meantime, check out our blog ThinkProgress.org for news and updates throughout the day. (By the way, if you're planning to be in Austin, please join us for our media training workshop, "The Pundit Project: How To Outtalk The Talking Heads," on Thursday at 9:00 AM or 1:00 PM CST. Members of The Progress Report team, along with progressive commentators Cliff Schecter and Matthew Yglesias, will be hosting the session.)
Yesterday, citing the "squeeze of rising prices at the pump," President Bush rescinded the presidential moratorium on offshore drilling. The moratorium on lease sales in the Outer Continental Shelf was established in 1990 by his father, George H.W. Bush, in response to the devastating Exxon Valdez oil spill and extended by President Clinton. Bush's action pressures Congress to follow him in "capitulation to the oil companies" by lifting their moratorium, which must be renewed annually. In response, Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) said at a press conference that Bush "is invoking the specter of another WMD: wells of mass deception." At the Huffington Post, activist Martin Bosworth wrote, "Americans are smarter than we are often given credit for, and many of us do realize that destroying precious environmental resources and wildlife reserves to allow more domestic drilling is a psychological panacea -- a placebo to make us feel like 'something is being done.'" However, polls show increasing support for expanded offshore drilling. Conservatives are preying on Americans' concern over skyrocketing gas prices by propagating false myths that drilling for oil off our coasts will allow us to "pay less" at the pump, that it's "environmentally safe," and that drilling is already underway by communist China. Because "only real beneficiaries will be the oil companies that are trying to lock up every last acre of public land," their political allies must resort to selling falsehoods.
MYTH #1 -- 'DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW, PAY LESS': Newt Gingrich's 527 organization, American Solutions, is promoting a "Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less" campaign, collecting over one million signatures on its petition to Congress to "act immediately to lower gasoline prices" by "authorizing the exploration of proven energy reserves" off our coasts. American Solutions is funded by right-wing Las Vegas billionaire Sheldon Adelson, who wants Americans to place another bad bet on oil drilling. As the Energy Information Administration (EIA) has explained, "access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030." But because United States demand for oil far outstrips production -- we consume 25 percent of the world's supply but have two percent of the proven reserves -- further exploitation of domestic resources will not have a long-term impact either. After 2030, the EIA found, "any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant." There are numerous ways to immediately affect prices, from use of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to improved oversight of the oil markets. Over the long term, we must fight global warming and break our addiction to oil through modern technology like plug-in hybrids and smart growth planning.
MYTH #2 -- CHINA ON OUR COASTS: Conservatives from Rudy Giuliani to Dick Cheney have repeatedly claimed that the United States needs to start drilling for off-shore oil because China is taking "American oil" off the coast of Cuba, just "60 miles off the coast of Florida." Cheney exhorted, "Even the communists have figured out that a good answer to high prices is more supply." That same day, Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO) wrote that Castro was allowing drilling "45 miles from the Florida keys." Rep. George Radanovich (R-CA) and House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) have also raised the specter of Chinese drilling just off U.S. shores. However, this modern invocation of the Red Scare the claim is completely false. As Cheney was forced to acknowledge, "no Chinese firm is drilling" off Cuba's coast. Talking Points Memo has recorded the large number of conservatives hyping the false story. The Washington Post's Ben Pershing said the China/Cuba oil drilling claim is the "myth that keeps on giving," calling it "just too juicy not to repeat."
MYTH #3 -- 'NOT A DROP WAS SPILLED': Offshore drilling advocates know that the specter of oil-slicked beaches would doom their campaign, so they are desperate to wish its environmental impact away. Yesterday, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) claimed "not a drop of oil was spilled during Katrina or Rita." This myth has been told again and again by the likes of Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA), Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, Mike Huckabee, George Will, and Bill O'Reilly. There were, in fact, major onshore and offshore spills due to the hurricanes. According to the official Minerals Management Service report, the hurricanes caused 124 offshore spills for a total of 743,700 gallons, six spilling 42,000 gallons or more. The largest of these spills dropped 152,250 gallons, well over the 100,000 gallon threshhold considered a "major spill." In addition, the hurricanes caused disastrous spills onshore throughout southeast Louisiana and the rest of the Gulf Coast as tanks, pipelines, refineries and other industrial facilities were destroyed, for a total of 595 different oil spills. The nine million gallons reported spilled were comparable with the Exxon Valdez's 10.8 million gallons, but unlike the Exxon Valdez, they were distributed throughout Louisiana, Mississippi, and other Gulf Coast states, many in residential areas.
americanprogressaction.org
Give me a break. Anything with "progress" in the name might as well say "rainbow". Gay, dope smoking, hippy ****.
cjhsa wrote:Give me a break. Anything with "progress" in the name might as well say "rainbow". Gay, dope smoking, hippy ****.
cjhsa, I know how you feel -- the truth is a bitch. But everything there is true. Bush's own Energy Dept. says this. But you and the other Reps are dying to dissolve another 20 B barrels into the atmosphere.
Have fun with all your gay hippy buds in Austin. The wart Texas would love to remove.
When his lips move, he's lying. What a legacy!
Quote:
A Tale Of Two Economies: Bush, Bernanke Differ On Where US Is Heading
On the same day, President Bush and Federal Reserve Chief Ben Bernanke gave two very different assessments of where the US economy is going. Bush was Mr. Positive while Chairman Bernanke's testimony forewarned of the pain to come. Read excerpts from the two takes below.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/15/a-tale-of-two-economies-b_n_112937.html
JTT, What's the irony about the two conflicting reports today is that many republicans will trust Bush (the president who trashed our economy over seven years) over Bernanke.
I can't find any rational answer for that kind of devotion. They must be sheltered from all the crisis happening around us; higher fuel and food prices, hundreds of thousands of families losing their jobs and homes, most losing a good percentage of the value in their retirement portfolios, many losing money they had in their bank, and the war in Iraq costing our country 2.7 billion every week while all this is happening.
cicerone imposter wrote:
I can't find any rational answer for that kind of devotion.
Absolute blind stupidity, CI, on a scale that has, heretofore, been unimaginable.
I might point out to you that Bush was elected by a majority of the voters in the last election. I would also like to point out that there are not enough republican voters to elect someone to the presidency. Therefore the fact Bush was elected was due to the stupidity of the democratic politicians. Bush started a war on lies and the democrats were too frightened to point it out to the voters and keep pointing it out. From what I can see the democrats don't have the bal-s to do anything but make a temporary stand and than give in to pressure from the republicans and their business friends. How about someone explaining to me why I should vote for a bunch of politicians who are only worried about being reelected to office.
