0
   

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

 
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Aug, 2005 05:29 pm
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Aug, 2005 11:43 am
The AirAmerica debacle's legs are pumping up; AP now runs the story:

Quote:
Investigators probe community center loan to Air America Radio

By DAVID B. CARUSO
Associated Press Writer

August 12, 2005, 7:01 PM EDT


NEW YORK -- State and city officials are investigating how $875,000 from a community center in the Bronx wound up in the coffers of Air America, the liberal radio network.

A spokesman for Attorney General Eliot Spitzer said his office has opened a probe into the financial dealings of the Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club, which runs programs for poor children and senior citizens and was funded largely by government grants and contracts.

The center and officials at Air America Radio have acknowledged that at about the time of the network's founding in early 2004, the club made a series of loans to a company called Progress Media, which was then Air America's parent company.

Both entitites have said the payments were arranged by Air America co-founder Evan Cohen, who, at the time, was also a development director at Gloria Wise.

Cohen's involvement with Air America was severed in May 2004 amid confusion surrounding the network's finances just a month after it went on the air. A new corporation, Piquant LLC, purchased the assets of Progress Media later that spring.

In June 2005, city agencies began canceling contracts with the Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club while the city's Department of Investigation probed allegations that the club approved inappropriate transactions and falsified documents submitted to city agencies.

Department of Investigation spokeswoman Emily Gest said Friday that the probe is ongoing. Spitzer spokesman Brad Maione declined to comment on the attorney general's investigation into the club's activities, other than to confirm its existence.

Air America Radio said in a statement posted on its Web site that it had agreed to repay the $875,000, although it believed that the now-defunct Progress Media was legally responsible for the debt.

"If the allegations of mismanagement and corruption at Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club are true, it is absolutely disgraceful," the statement said.

The network's star, comedian and talk show host Al Franken, addressed the issue briefly on his show Monday. He called Cohen "a crook" and said the network's current managers had discovered the loans through forensic accounting.

"I don't know why they did it and I don't know where the money went. I don't know if it was used for operations, which I imagine it was," Franken said. "I think he was robbing Peter to pay Paul."

He added that he believed the station has a moral obligation to repay the money.

A spokeswoman for Gloria Wise said the center is in "continuing discussions" with Air America on a repayment schedule for the loans.

Attempts to locate Evan Cohen were not immediately successful.


Budding has-been Franken says " ... I think he was robbing Peter to pay Paul." No, Al, you've got that wrong; he was robbing taxpayers and impoverished kids to pay YOU. Gotta wonder - what did Franken know, and when did he know it?


Yup, this is getting betterer and betterer. Every time The Dems find a "smoking gun", its in their own hands and pointing directly at a new hole in their own foot.


Democracy is breakling out all over, the economy is booming despite energy price increases, the deficit is shrinking, North Korea returns to the table, conservatives win big all over the planet, the Repubs succeed at passing major legislation time after time ... and now, the Able-Danger flap - its obvious what the Clinton administration knew and when they knew it, and its obvious that Jamie Goreleck, pushing further into the bungling, misguided feel-good policies initiated in the Carter Administration, all but assured the success of the 9/11 plot, her "wall" in effect providing cover for the badguys to hide behind, thus enabling the danger, to coin a phrase.

No wonder the Dems are angry; they just can't catch a break.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Aug, 2005 12:48 pm
Have you noticed how Tom Delay has stort of dropped off the radar screen lately; especially since the Dems found the investigation of him wasn't turning up much, but it was turning up some pretty interesting stuff about NancyPelosi et al re the same kinds of 'evil wrongdoing'? But where are the front page stories about Nancy in the NYT or the Washington Post?

Franken's statement was amazing when you think about it. But that is why almost none of them have any credibility with most of us on the right.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Aug, 2005 01:48 pm
Are Bush supporters ready to support another Bush war?


Germany attacks US on Iran threat
German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has warned the US to back away from the possibility of military action against Iran over its nuclear programme.
His comments come a day after President Bush reiterated that force remained an option but only as a last resort.

Iran has resumed what it says is a civilian nuclear research programme but which the West fears could be used to develop nuclear arms.

Germany, France and the UK have led efforts to end the crisis peacefully.


Let's take the military option off the table. We have seen it doesn't work
Gerhard Schroeder


Mr Schroeder's rejection of force came at the official launch of his party's election campaign.
The BBC's Ray Furlong - reporting from Hanover - says there was an echo of his last election campaign three years ago, when his steadfast opposition to the use of force against Iraq helped get him re-elected.

Applause

Mr Schroeder directly challenged Mr Bush's comment that "all options are on the table" over the Iran crisis.

"Let's take the military option off the table. We have seen it doesn't work," Mr Schroeder told Social Democrats at the rally in Hanover, to rapturous applause from the crowd.


Mr Schroeder said it remained important that Iran did not gain atomic weapons, and a strong negotiating position was important.

"The Europeans and the Americans are united in this goal," he said. "Up to now we were also united in the way to pursue this."


Mr Schroeder reiterates his views in an interview to be published Sunday in the German weekly Bild am Sonntag, labelling military action "extremely dangerous".

"This is why I can with certainty exclude any participation by the German government under my direction," Mr Schroeder tells the paper.

Mr Schroeder was among Europe's sternest critics of the Iraq war, causing a bitter rift with the US which poisoned relations between the two countries.

His opposition, in tandem with that President Jacques Chirac's France, led to US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld's stinging attack on "old Europe".


NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
Mined uranium ore is purified and reconstituted into solid form known as yellowcake
Yellowcake is converted into a gas by heating it to about 64C (147F)
Gas is fed through centrifuges, where its isotopes separate and process is repeated until uranium is enriched
Low-level enriched uranium is used for nuclear fuel
Highly enriched uranium can be used in nuclear weapons


The UN's atomic watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, backed a resolution this week expressing "serious concern" at the resumption of the nuclear programme, and demanding it be halted again at once.


Mr Bush's comments about the military option came in an interview on Israeli TV.

The BBC's Jonathan Beale in Washington says the president wants to send a clear warning to Tehran, although in reality the US already has its hands full in neighbouring Iraq.

Mr Schroeder is lagging well behind his conservative rivals in the German election campaign, but has been narrowing the gap in recent days.

In the 2002 poll, he came from behind to snatch victory after anti-Iraq war feeling - and an outbreak of serious flooding in Germany - helped him attract last-minute support.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/4149090.stm

Published: 2005/08/13 16:19:43 GMT
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Aug, 2005 02:44 pm
Well, Bush told an Israeli T-V interviewer today

Quote:
[...]that the United States and Israel "are united in our objective to make sure that Iran does not have a weapon."

But, he said, if diplomacy fails "all options are on the table. The use of force is the last option for any President. You know, we've used force in the recent past to secure our country."
Source

But I doubt that president Bush will send troops to Iran since
Quote:
And when that mission of defeating the terrorists in Iraq is complete, our troops will come home to a proud and grateful nation.
source: transcript: Bush's radio address published by FOXNews
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Aug, 2005 03:53 pm
Walter, That's what Bush said about Iraq; "war is the last option." Guess what? It was their first option; the war was planned before 9-11.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Aug, 2005 04:05 pm
If he wants to start a war with Iran, he's gonna have to institute the conscription, or move the soldiers in Iraq to Iran.

All the generals are telling Bush we have enough soldiers in Iraq to do the job required.

Seen any generals on the front lines lately?
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Aug, 2005 05:34 pm
c.i. wrote : " All the generals are telling Bush we have enough soldiers in Iraq to do the job required".

isn't that what the generals were saying during he vietnam war ? oh how frail our memories are. hbg
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Aug, 2005 12:35 am
I suppose, you suporters will soon change this :wink:

Quote:
Aug 15, 2005


Bush Rating Lower That Other Recent 2-Term Leaders


By WILL LESTER
The Associated Press


WASHINGTON - President Bush's standing with an American public anxious about Iraq and the nation's direction is lower than that of the last two presidents who won re-election - Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton - at this point in their second terms.
But solid backing from his base supporters has kept Bush from sinking to the depths of some of his predecessors.

``This president should be glad he's not running for re- election,'' said Karlyn Bowman, a public opinion analyst from the American Enterprise Institute. ``But the president is clearly holding his base. It's very important for him to keep the base support in terms of getting things done.''

Indeed, Republicans in Congress are starting to fret about the 2006 election. If Bush's approval ratings sink lower, more of them might be unwilling to go along with his major initiatives for fear of voter backlash.

Bush's job approval was 42 percent in the latest AP-Ipsos poll. His ratings on issues including Iraq and Social Security are at their lowest levels.

Reagan was at 57 percent at this stage of his presidency and Clinton was at 61 percent, according to Gallup polling.

The partisan divide for Bush is stark - 80 percent of Democrats disapprove of his performance, while nearly 90 percent of Republicans approve.

Charles Black, a veteran GOP strategist and close Bush ally, said Republicans are sticking with Bush for two reasons: personal affection and loyalty.

``Bush follows through on issues that are largely popular with the base, even when it's not popular with the general public to do so,'' Black said.

Bush might have a hard time raising his numbers because issues such as Iraq and gas prices are largely out of his control.

But Bush's efforts to put conservatives on the Supreme Court and overhaul the federal tax code are likely to please his conservative base.
Source
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Aug, 2005 09:14 am
Walter wrote:
I suppose, you suporters will soon change this Wink





Tell me Walter.....and I ask this of you because you are such a well qualified student of American culture, political preferences, and just overall expert on characteristics of any and all Americans.........why Bush or his supporters should be worried.

He is not running for re-election, and he is getting most of what he wants from Congress although there is much "heel dragging" from the usual obstructionists.

So please enlighten me Walter......why should we be worried? Please try to be original.......without using your vast array of "Google" resources.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Aug, 2005 09:18 am
Rayban
rayban1 wrote:
Walter wrote:
I suppose, you suporters will soon change this Wink


Tell me Walter.....and I ask this of you because you are such a well qualified student of American culture, political preferences, and just overall expert on characteristics of any and all Americans.........why Bush or his supporters should be worried.

He is not running for re-election, and he is getting most of what he wants from Congress although there is much "heel dragging" from the usual obstructionists.

So please enlighten me Walter......why should we be worried? Please try to be original.......without using your vast array of "Google" resources.


Rayban, if you cared as much about people in war areas as you do about getting Republicans relected, you might deserve more respect.

BBB
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Aug, 2005 09:26 am
Given that our previous president governed almost 100% exclusively by what the polls said each morning, you can interpret poll ratings a number of ways. So what do the current poll ratings mean:

1) Polls are being conducted during the day with mostly soap-opera
and Oprah watchers who get their political education from the movies?,
or

2) Polls indicate that the predominantly negative media is driving them?
or

3) Polls indicate that we have a president of conviction and moral center who is not overly influenced by the polls?

4) Polls indicate that the president is a morally corrupt, evil, despicable, incompetent idiot.

Political hacks who have only hatred and resentment to sustain them will no doubt go with theory 4. The rest of the free world who see things a bit more clearly will probably pick 1, 2, or 3.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Aug, 2005 09:33 am
rayban1 wrote:

Tell me Walter.....and I ask this of you because you are such a well qualified student of American culture, political preferences, and just overall expert on characteristics of any and all Americans.........why Bush or his supporters should be worried.


Thanks for asking me.

I studied indeed a bit, but none of the subjects you named above.

And if you, rayban, had not only quoted me correctly but actually read what I wrote,
namely Walter wrote:
I suppose, you suporters will soon change this :wink:


you would - perhaps - have noted that I didn't mention anything similar to why you should be worried.

I really thought that the original Bush supporters might soon be again following their original voting, especially, when noticing these polls.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Aug, 2005 09:37 am
You certainly may be right, Foxfyre.

But that doesn't change the fact that Bush's rating is lower than that of other recent two-term-leaders.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Aug, 2005 09:38 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
I really thought that the original Bush supporters might soon be again following their original voting, especially, when noticing these polls.


Really? Is that what you thought, Walter? See, I thought your posting a story negative to Bush was done with glee, as if you were very pleased to be able to point out low polling numbers for Bush. Not that you were trying to motivate his base.

Must have you pegged wrong, huh?
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Aug, 2005 09:41 am
Foxy - I vote for #3 Smile

<But, then, I've always known Bush is a real man, not concerned with polls or what others think...unlike some politicians we could name> Smile
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Aug, 2005 09:42 am
I wonder how you can not only look over such a distance but how especially those, who actually have never met me know me best.



But actually about how a negative poll 'activates' supporters a good a decent mark in a Political Science exam.

And I still believe this to be true - although that examination is ages back.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Aug, 2005 09:50 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
I wonder how you can not only look over such a distance but how especially those, who actually have never met me know me best.


I've relied on your posts and the words you use to form my opinion of you, and your motives. Was I wrong?
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Aug, 2005 09:52 am
JustWonders wrote:
<But, then, I've always known Bush is a real man


You really want him, don't you? Laughing

Sorry. He's gay. Haven't you noticed? Cool
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Aug, 2005 09:53 am
Ticomaya wrote:

I've relied on your posts and the words you use to form my opinion of you, and your motives. Was I wrong?


Well, I didn't know that you do distant-personalty-checks as well :wink:

My above quoted response is an answer to your
Ticomaya wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:
I really thought that the original Bush supporters might soon be again following their original voting, especially, when noticing these polls.


Really? Is that what you thought, Walter? See, I thought your posting a story negative to Bush was done with glee, as if you were very pleased to be able to point out low polling numbers for Bush. Not that you were trying to motivate his base.

Must have you pegged wrong, huh?


And re this, yes, you are wrong.
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 0.05 seconds on 04/27/2024 at 09:00:22