0
   

Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

 
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2004 08:15 am
ACTUALLY...

Dubya will be replaced in 2008! Period! He can't go longer than that! Beep beep beep game over!!

<feels better, momentarily...>
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2004 08:18 am
PDiddie wrote:
This came in my inbox in the last few days:

Quote:
I work at a domestic violence shelter in a rural conservative district in Mich. that has had its economy gutted by NAFTA and where Christianity dominates the culture.

Yesterday while reflecting about 4 more years of Bush I was talking with a woman staying in the shelter. I will give her a fake name, lets call her Laura B. Laura is 28, pregnant, (never considered an abortion). She finished high school and did a year of college before dropping out to have a couple of kids with her military husband. Living in Virginia on base with her autocratic mate (he doesn't allow the boys 3 and 4 to say "yeap" they have to answer "yes sir") drove her crazy and she was hospitalized for suicidal thoughts. Military dude divorced her and has custody.

She came home to Mom in Mich and ended up at our shelter to try and sort out her life. (Mom has no money either and her own problems.) We, like all secular agencies, have seen a steady erosion of funds.

Laura B. has found a job working in the kitchen at a local faith based Christian College. She makes $6/hour. She drives a dying Ford Escort wagon and pays $2.15/gallon for gas. Her latest crisis is her insurance expired on Oct. 9 (her ex-partner cancelled policy). She needs to come up with $211 to get insurance for one month or face a $1,000 fine if she gets caught driving with no insurance. We have some public transportation, Dial-a Ride, minibus runs between 7 am and 6 p.m., M-F $1.50 one-way. She has to be at work at 6am.

She has been walking to work lately but it is about 2 miles. She is 5 months pregnant, it is dark at 5 am, and winter is coming. Solution? Go begging at the churches who seem to have money for these things. They will give her the money if she attends bible school. So last night she was at bible school until 9 p.m.

She has never attended our domestic violence support groups as she is too tired at night and goes to bed early, but the bible study was not optional.

She was excited about "God's message" when she came back.

This week she moves into low income subsidized housing. Her newest crisis is she has found out when the college is closed for the Christmas holiday (one month) she has no employment. She is hoping to find temporary employment as a seasonal retail worker if the Christmas sales are brisk to tide her over. She doesn't know what she will do when the baby is born, hopes she can work up till the last week (she is on her feet all day with this job). She will be eligible for subsidized daycare.

She voted for Bush because of his "family values."


I have absolutely nothing to add to that.

That is too ****ing sad.

And also a must-read.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Dec, 2004 08:45 am
Quote:
Newly Obtained FBI Records Call Defense Department's Methods "Torture," Express Concerns Over "Cover-Up" That May Leave FBI "Holding the Bag" for Abuses

NEW YORK -- A document released for the first time today by the American Civil Liberties Union suggests that President Bush issued an Executive Order authorizing the use of inhumane interrogation methods against detainees in Iraq. Also released by the ACLU today are a slew of other records including a December 2003 FBI e-mail that characterizes methods used by the Defense Department as "torture" and a June 2004 "Urgent Report" to the Director of the FBI that raises concerns that abuse of detainees is being covered up.

"These documents raise grave questions about where the blame for widespread detainee abuse ultimately rests," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. "Top government officials can no longer hide from public scrutiny by pointing the finger at a few low-ranking soldiers."

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=17216&c=206
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Dec, 2004 11:15 am
blatham, I was wondering why somebody went through the bother of posting on this forum, but after reading the article, I can see why. I'm gonna paste this one on the Iraq forum. Thx, c.i.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Dec, 2004 10:39 am
Be my guest, ci...and merry christmas to you and yours.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Dec, 2004 11:16 am
Same to you and yours. HAVE A GREAT ONE!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Dec, 2004 01:43 pm
Governors Unite in Medicaid Fight
By PAM BELLUCK

Published: December 26, 2004


BOSTON, Dec. 25 - Fearful that President Bush plans to shift more Medicaid costs to the states, the nation's governors are mounting a bipartisan lobbying effort to stave off new federal limits on the program.

Medicaid, the nation's largest health insurance program, is costing the states and the federal government more than $300 billion a year. The growth of the program, which covers the poor and disabled, has outpaced state revenues, and Medicaid is now a larger component of total state spending than elementary and secondary education combined, according to the National Governors Association.

Showing rare bipartisan unity, governors of both parties said in interviews this week that they would press hard in the coming months to preserve or even increase their current Medicaid allotments.

"I certainly understand the need to balance the federal budget," said Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, a Republican and the vice chairman of the governors association. "But people need to remember that to balance the federal budget off the backs of the poorest people in the country is simply unacceptable. You don't pull feeding tubes from people. You don't pull the wheelchair out from under the child with muscular dystrophy."

The association's chairman, Gov. Mark Warner of Virginia, a Democrat, said the governors were "much more in unanimity on this issue than they are on most issues." He added, "We do see on a regular basis that unless the governors step up, you will see cost-shifting done because it relieves the federal problem."

The governors could find themselves on a collision course with Mr. Bush, who has pledged to cut the federal budget deficit in half in the next five years. A bipartisan lobbying effort would also put pressure on the Republican-controlled Congress.

The White House has not tipped its hand on its new budget and has declined to comment on its plans for Medicaid. Federal officials, however, have said they are sending auditors to state capitals to review Medicaid programs and cracking down on methods that states have been using to try to get as much federal Medicaid money as possible.

The governors, who will be forming a committee to press their Medicaid agenda, say they are determined to avoid repeating their experience the last time they tried to negotiate Medicaid changes with federal officials, in 2003. Mr. Bush at that time proposed giving each state a fixed amount of federal money each year for 10 years, instead of basing federal payments on actual health costs and enrollment.

"They tried to cap it the last time around," said Gov. Bob Taft of Ohio, a Republican. "Then, you're asking the states to take a risk - what if the caseload grows?" That effort to make major changes in the program collapsed after lengthy negotiations between federal officials and a bipartisan group of governors.

The governors say Medicaid, which insures a quarter of the nation's children and two-thirds of its nursing-home patients, has become so expensive that it now, on average, makes up 22 percent of states' budgets, compared with 10 percent in 1987.

"It's just a huge problem for Ohio and almost every other state that I know about," said Mr. Taft, adding that he had titled a recent speech "Medicaid: The Monster in the Middle of the Road."

"We're going to have to do cuts in services, cuts in people on the caseload," Mr. Taft said. "We're going to have to freeze or possibly even cut some provider rates just to restrain the growth. It's squeezing what we can do for schools, what we can do for higher education. We're constraining and tightening our belt in every way, cutting the number of state employees. If we could control Medicaid we wouldn't have budget problems in Ohio."

Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts is among several governors battling the Bush administration's efforts to eliminate a practice some states use to get more federal Medicaid money. The federal government says these states' practice of transferring money to county governments or local hospitals is a way to get more federal Medicaid money by making it appear that they are spending more on Medicaid than they are.

In Massachusetts, the Bush administration says $580 million in federal Medicaid money obtained using such a practice was an improper grant. Mr. Romney disagrees.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2005 08:15 am
Quote:
One of the sorriest chapters of American history, the gulling of native Indian tribes, is continuing apace in Washington, where two Capitol insiders close to the House majority leader, Tom DeLay, are being investigated for allegedly fleecing six tribes of more than $80 million with inflated promises of V.I.P. access. The shameful dealings of Jack Abramoff, a Republican power lobbyist, and Michael Scanlon, Mr. DeLay's former spokesman, are coming to light as Senate and Justice Department investigators follow leads from nouveau-riche tribes whose casino profits spurred a new category of lucre and greed in the hyperkinetic world of Washington lobbying.

Even as the two fast-talking political brokers banked large profits for three years of minimal labor, it was found, they were exchanging gleeful private messages mocking tribal leaders as "morons," "troglodytes" and "monkeys." "I want all their MONEY!!!" Mr. Scanlon exuberantly e-mailed in the midst of one deal.

The outrageous affair includes evidence that the two sought to manipulate tribal elections to ensure their lobbying boondoggles, while dropping the names of Mr. DeLay and other leaders and urging tribal contributions to Republican political funds. In the latest high-roller abuses laid bare by The Washington Post, Mr. Abramoff was found to have prodded the tribes to pay for his luxury skyboxes at Washington sports arenas - yes, even at the home of the football Redskins - so he could impress Capitol politicians, staff members and fund-raisers with swank perches to push causes unrelated to tribal issues. A colleague pronounced Mr. Abramoff a master of schmooze, but sleaze seems a far better word...

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/02/opinion/02sun2.html?oref=login&hp
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2005 08:29 am
Quote:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration is preparing plans for possible lifetime detention of suspected terrorists, including hundreds whom the government does not have enough evidence to charge in courts, The Washington Post reported Sunday.
Citing intelligence, defense and diplomatic officials, the newspaper said the Pentagon and the CIA had asked the White House to decide on a more permanent approach for those it would not set free or turn over to courts at home or abroad. As part of a solution, the Defense Department, which holds 500 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, plans to ask the U.S. Congress for $25 million to build a 200-bed prison to hold detainees who are unlikely to ever go through a military tribunal for lack of evidence, defense officials told the newspaper.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2005 08:40 am
This administration's conduct regarding those imprisoned at Guatanemo Bay is completely vile.

On the presumption that these prisoners might return to Afghanistan or Iraq or somewhere else and wage war against us again, they will simply be held there.

And tortured:

Quote:
Using the Freedom of Information Act, the American Civil Liberties Union has uncovered thousands of government documents detailing torture of detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay. One FBI memo about Gitmo cited "strangulation, beatings, placement of lit cigarettes into the detainees' ear openings, and unauthorized interrogations." It also repeatedly referred to a "cover-up."

The White House has long insisted that detainee abuses, first detailed at Abu Ghraib, were isolated, unrelated to interrogations, and certainly not happening at Gitmo. While the documents don't prove that torture was official policy, they do, as an acerbic Washington Post editorial put it, "establish beyond any doubt that every part of this cover story is false."


FOIA Eyes Only

This isn't a goddamn bit different than what Saddam was doing.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2005 11:01 am
Trends to watch...

China has just cut deals for oil with both Canada and Venezuela. As their demands for the resource continue to grow, and as their clout in the world economy continues to grow, China will increasingly be in competition with the US.

Note today in various media that US oil corp execs are doing the bow and scrape to Khadafy because of oil supplies there, which ought to be tossed into the mid-east equation of the last four years.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2005 12:33 pm
This administration used torture on these suspects without charges of criminal behavior, and now they are going to hold them indefinitely. Where's the world community and courts? These guys are running roughshod over international and Geneva Convention rules and regulations, and most Americans are saying nothing! This is part and parcel of what's happening in Iraq; America has lost it's moral voice.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2005 03:36 pm
Actually it is quite a bit different. To my knowledge Saddam's regime did not respond to Freedon of information requests from the ACLU. These documents have been characterized by the ACLU as indicating what they say amounts to systematic torture, however the government of the United States denys, which released the documents denys their interpretation. The ACLU have offered no comparable account of what was found in Saddam's torture establishment as a basis on which to establish that the two are at all comparable.

Hyperbole and hyperventillation about not much at all.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2005 03:49 pm
Yes, the two are different...as murder is different from merely chopping off someone's hand.

The "government of the US denies [it]". And that denial is precisely as valuable as any statement in any courtroom coming from the person on trial that he/she is innocent.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2005 03:54 pm
Even Scott Peterson denied killing his wife and baby. Says alot about some people's mind-set about honesty, ethics, and laws.
0 Replies
 
Greyfan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2005 04:14 pm
Happy New Year.

Just popped in to point out the title of this 584 page thread appears to be in need of some slight revision. Some have perhaps mentioned this already.

We are stuck with Mr. Bush, with only the consolation that he is at least now a lame duck.

Let's talk about replacing the neocons in 2005.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2005 04:58 pm
Greyfan, I'm all for that! Why don't you start a new forum. You can create the title. Don't forget to link it from this thread. ;-)
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2005 04:59 pm
BTW, read this past week that Bush's handling of the war in Iraq is below 50 percent. That's bouund to head further south as more violence is reported in the media.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2005 05:32 pm
It will become increasingly clear to those of us who really do not much like Bush and team nor the interest groups and policies aligned with Bush that we are very fortunate indeed that Kerry did not win this last election.

There is very little good news ahead. That would not have changed with a Kerry win. And as things continue to fall apart (as in Iraq) it will become apparent to more that present policies and individuals are greatly responsible for what has gone wrong.

Don't lie. Try not to exaggerate. Keep yourself educated and intellectually honest. And keep yelling loudly at the ugly crap these guys are doing.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2005 09:16 pm
As more mothers, fathers, siblings, and friends realize the futility of this war in Iraq as they lose their loved ones, just maybe, they'll begin to wake up to the reality that their sacrifice doesn't have much meaning. Some will continue to delude themselves that this president did it for the good of the American People.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 06/14/2021 at 02:08:05