0
   

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

 
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2005 03:22 pm
Did he cuss out the officer, a la Kerry?

Nope.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2005 03:42 pm
http://cache.aftenposten.no/multimedia/archive/00300/US-BUSH-BICYCLE-ACC_300849h.jpg

US President George W. Bush, out for a spin on his bicycle at the Group of Eight summit venue, crashed into a policeman and had to be treated for scratches on his hands and arms
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2005 03:44 pm
Looks like his nose and chin got the worst of it.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2005 06:12 pm
That hurt!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2005 06:18 pm
Look ma, no hands!
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2005 06:23 pm
Oy! poor guy, those scrapes have gotta burn.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2005 06:33 pm
Isn't this his third bicycle accident since taking the presidency. Maybe he needs to take up walking.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2005 06:35 pm
He has been described as pretty much of a daredevil on his mountain bike. I don't think he takes it slow and careful. Smile
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2005 08:06 pm
Quote:
Isn't this his third bicycle accident since taking the presidency. Maybe he needs to take up walking.


And one Segway as well, don't forget.

http://www.ecotox.dk/segway.jpg

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2005 09:27 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
He has been described as pretty much of a daredevil on his mountain bike. I don't think he takes it slow and careful. Smile


Maybe it's time he started.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2005 09:49 pm
Yeah, if he would only slow down in trying to help this world, we would be better off. That 200 billion spent in Iraq so far is only seed money for what the future cost is gonna be, and you can bet your bottom dollar that our children and grandchildren will be footing the bill.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2005 10:56 pm
But for all we know, that 200 billion may help ensure a world in which our children and grandchildren don't have to worry about being blown up by terrorists in airplanes or boats or trains or whatever method they elect for the next grand mass murder. If so, I think they'll think it was worth it.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Jul, 2005 06:58 am
And the plot thickens. . . .sometimes it's so hard for the Democrats to keep the attention on GOP embarassment Smile

Thursday, July 07, 2005
Nancy Pelosi is in Trouble
By Debra Saunders

Rep. Nancy Pelosi is in trouble.

As House Democratic Leader, she is primed to go after House Majority Leader Tom DeLay for his ethical lapses. She has called for an investigation of a $70,000 trip made by Delay, his wife and aides to the United Kingdom, possibly bankrolled by a lobbyist. Others have assailed Delay for a 2001 trip to South Korea funded by a registered foreign agent.

But a funny thing happened on Pelosi's way to hers ethics coup: She ran afoul of the same rules she hurls at Delay

As The Washington Post reported, last week Pelosi filed delinquent reports for three trips she herself accepted from outside sponsors. The biggie was a week-long 1999 trip to Taiwan, paid for by the Chinese National Association of Industry and Commerce. The tab for Pelosi and her husband: about $8,000.

Just last month, Pelosi spokeswoman Jennifer Crider told Roll Call that Pelosi's "position is that the rules are clear; people need to follow them." Within days, Pelosi had to re-file because she failed to follow these "clear" rules.

Here's another glitch: A senior aide to Pelosi, Eddie Charmaine Manansala, went on a 2004 $9,887 trip sponsored by the same Korea-U.S. Exchange Council -- then failed to file the mandated paperwork until a reporter asked about the trip.

And while Pelosi bashes GOP ethics, PoliticalMoneyLine, a data firm, crunched the numbers and found that in the last five years, Democrats took 3,458 privately funded junkets, while Republicans took 2,666.

PoliticalMoneyLine quipped: "Join Congress -- See the World."

Are these trips unethical or illegal? I'll answer the second part first. House rules prohibit junkets funded by lobbyists. But it's not clear that there has been a rules violation if a congressman was not aware that a lobbyist paid for the trip.

What's more, the Korea-U.S. Exchange Council wasn't registered as a foreign agent when the Delay trip was planned. In fact, the group registered as a foreign agent only days before Delay and company departed -- three years before Pelosi's aide trekked Seoul-ward.

Are these trips ethical? Consider DeLay's Seoul trip and Pelosi's Taiwan travel to fall into gray territory. On the one hand, elected officials see a new part of the world; on the other hand, they see what their sponsors want them to see.

Ken Boehm of the conservative watchdog the National Legal and Policy Center noted a big hole in House rules: "The dirty little secret is that it's legal if it's sponsored by a nonprofit. It's not legal if it's sponsored by the lobbyist." But lobbyists can be on charity boards or join the junkets. Besides, whether you call them lobbyists or not, these groups have a clear agenda. Taiwanese or Korean, they want to boost commerce with their countries.

In a March press conference, Pelosi said that "every trip should be subjected to scrutiny." She also erroneously asserted, "we all have to be careful about whom we receive invitations from, and I haven't taken any trips."

Certainly, Delay's 2000 U.K. trip flunks the smell test. Even if it was legal, it suggests an arrogance and sense of entitlement that says Delay looks at public office, not so much as public service, but as privileged rank.

"There's a difference in degree here," Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly noted, especially if Delay solicited the trip.

I agree. There is a big difference in degree. But there is not a big difference in the level of opportunism between Delay and Pelosi.

As Ed Patru of the National Republican Congressional Committee noted, Pelosi has made "ethics the centerpiece of the Democratic Party's message," yet she is the only "the only minority leader who has been hit with fines for fund-raising violations."

Daly wasn't sure if Pelosi was the only minority leader to be fined. That's nice.

Pelosi spent seven years in House ethics committees. Nonetheless, the Federal Election Commission fined her after Team Pelosi created a second political action committee to skirt a $5,000 gift limit. "The main reason for the creation of the second PAC, frankly, was to give twice as much dollars," her treasurer, Leo McCarthy, told Roll Call.

(Daly argued that some at the FEC told McCarthy the second PAC was kosher, a charge the FEC has denied.) Tom Delay should be in hotter water.

But he is not because Pelosi's hits on him are so opportunistic, you can't take them seriously. Her office notes that the U.S. Korean group was a registered foreign agent -- even after a Pelosi aide traveled on that foreign agent's dime, and didn't report it. She says she supports ethics rules, then tries to skirt them.

It's that kind of talk that leads Americans to hate Washington. Some pols have so little shame, they're happy to give ethics a bad name.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-7_7_05_DS.html
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Jul, 2005 08:43 am
I am open to firing any and all of them who are guilty, including delay and Pelosi. Never liked her much anyway.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Jul, 2005 09:04 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
We're gonna 'shock and awe' you beyotches

And then we're not going to plan much for what happens afterwards

THEN we're gonna blame the problems on YOU

See how ya like it

Cheers (and here's a clink of the glass to interesting times)

Heh. Clever ;-)
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Jul, 2005 09:41 am
Both Pelosi and DeLay needs to be ousted. They're bad for the American People.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jul, 2005 10:07 am
Boortz sounds peeved today ... sorta echoing my mood.

Quote:
WHO?

OK .. I know I'm in the minority here .. but I'm still not totally convinced that this terrorist attack in London was committed by Islamic radicals. Relatively certain? Perhaps so. Convinced? No, although Prime Minister Tony Blair is. One thing we do know is that these bombings that killed more than 50 innocent people were almost certainly not the work of suicide suicide bombers. This means that whoever the people are who went on this killing rampage, they are still wandering around London free as birds. Will they quickly launch another attack to show their strength and to deepen the terror?

Then we have that rather strange Member of Parliament, George Galloway. He's blaming the attack on Tony Blair. Galloway is claiming credit for warning the world that if Bush invades Afghanistan and Iraq the world will become less safe. Hard to believe, but there are people out there who believe that the best way to handle Islamic jihadist murderers is not to seek them out and kill them, but to say nice things to and about them in hopes that they'll just calm down and go away.

The reality is that these Islamic radicals are pursuing their oft-stated goal of killing as many Americans as they possibly can, all with a goal of eventually bringing the world to heel under Islamic domination and rule. Never in the history of mankind have humans faced such an enemy on such a scale. Their goal is domination, and their means to that goal is mass murder. To these Islamic terrorists there are no innocents. If you are not Muslim you are an infidel, a non-believer, and thus destined to die. After all, it's Allah's will, right?

In the face of this we have to listen to the whining and cowardice of the appeasement crowd. To far too many Americans the real enemy here is George Bush, not the Islamic killers. How dare George Bush make good on his promise to seek out those who harbor and support terrorists and destroy them?

And please ... if you're one of those who wants to parrot that absurd line that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein's government and Al Qaeda ... save your breath. Share that idea with your fellow appeasers. Go ahead and ignore the 9/11Commission Report and the report of David Kay. The connection was clear, the threat clearer. I would rather listen to you spineless myrmidons ignorantly saying that it just ain't so than to have to listen to you wonder why Bush didn't act on the information that it was, in fact, so after it's too late to save tens of thousands of American lives.


...


SO WHAT'S THE ANSWER?

Since we can't police every person in every city and every street and every bus, the solution to fighting terrorism is to take the fight to the enemy. Essentially we should keep doing what we're doing, but really take the gloves off. There needs to be a zero tolerance policy with regard to Islamic terrorism. For instance, take Iran. They're known to harbor Al-Qaeda terrorists and they're pursuing nuclear weapons. If we take positive action to stop them we'll catch hell from the peace-at-any-price cowards. If we don't we'll be looking at tens or hundreds of thousands of dead Americans one day in the future.

The other thing we need to do is stop the political correctness before it has the deadly consequences that London experienced yesterday. The TSA needs to stop searching little old ladies and start racially profiling people. No person of Middle Eastern descent should be allowed on any airplane until they are searched. Now why would we do a thing like that? Just about every terrorist that has attacked America in the last 20 years has been an Islamic terrorist. We need to stop playing games and start protecting ourselves from the real enemy, which are radical Muslims. Political correctness may feel good and assuage your sense of propriety, but it will end up getting people killed. If the Muslim world doesn't like getting singled out for extra security and scrutiny, then maybe the Muslim world will actually take some strong action to do something about the radicals in their midst.

The way to defeat Islamic terrorists is to give them what they want: death. This is the only consequence they understand, and they don't even fear that. Kill them all.


HOW ABOUT GITMO NOW?

Given the outrage over the (probably) Islamic terror bombings in London, will we continue to hear the outrage from Democrats and the Euro-weenies over the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba? Let's take a quick look at the situation, shall we?

Down at Gitmo, we're housing these animals in a state-of-the-art prison, complete with three square meals a day, a free Koran and a prayer rug. We're treating these Islamic terrorists better than they've ever been treated. But that's not how the anti-war, blame-America-first crowd on the left sees it. To them, the United States is evil, and if we're running a prison for terrorists, then it must be a Gulag. They've been getting away with quite a lot of statements in the press criticizing us.

But now, with these terrorist bombings in London, will they shut up? People aren't going to be too receptive to the idea of worrying about the living conditions and judicial recourse of terrorists at a prison in Cuba when innocent commuters are being blown up during rush hour in London.

Then again, somebody might stick their neck out there. Some Democrat will probably say the bombings in London are Bush's fault...after all, he made them mad. We should appease them at all costs, you know. Let's just turn the Gitmo terrorists loose .. and then sit back to see where they'll strike.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jul, 2005 02:47 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Boortz sounds peeved today ... sorta echoing my mood.


Make that three of us. Especially, this part:

Quote:
In the face of this we have to listen to the whining and cowardice of the appeasement crowd.


And, especially knowing how Spain reacted after the terrorists bombed them. Makes me a bit nervous.

I am optimistic, though.

I think the Brits will take care of this. The majority of Brits are in the "real men" catagory. The weak will protest and whine, but the strong will simply go hunting.

God bless them.

.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jul, 2005 02:59 pm
JustWonders wrote:
And, especially knowing how Spain reacted after the terrorists bombed them. Makes me a bit nervous.


You mean one of the multiple ETA bombings? They acted similar as the British did and do re IRA bombings.

And I suppose, the British legal system will work with this bombing as did the Spanish with the train bombings.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jul, 2005 04:29 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
JustWonders wrote:
And, especially knowing how Spain reacted after the terrorists bombed them. Makes me a bit nervous.


You mean one of the multiple ETA bombings? They acted similar as the British did and do re IRA bombings.

And I suppose, the British legal system will work with this bombing as did the Spanish with the train bombings.


Walter, I believe you know that JW speaks of Spain's reaction vis-a-vis Iraq.
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
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 01:18:11