Re: Brandon
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:These posts strike me as relatively pointless. It's clear that there's virtually nothing Bush could do that wouldn't be criticized by you. For instance, had he not gone to New Orleans, someone in your crowd would have said that he was indifferent to the plight of ordinary people. Since he did go, I have seen it here described as a photo op. The good things that happen in the country are attributed to his subordinates or external forces, all bad things to him. You rarely provide evidence or analysis to back up your claims or your attacks on other peoples' claims. These are simply worthless expressions of your hatred of the president.
People who need evidence or analysis to understand Bush's massive failure of governance have their heads up their butts.
BBB
You can throw around your insults and cheap shots, but the fact remains that claims without evidence are always improper in debating forums such as this, unless what is being claimed is truly self-evident. You don't back up what you say simply because what you say is wrong and not susceptible to being backed up.
Brandon, why do you always think everything posted on A2K is for the purpose of debating? Not everyone is obsessive about debating.
BBB
If you want to make statements requiring evidence, but give none, and counter your opponents' logical arguments with clever cracks instead of reasoning, go ahead, but it doesn't say anything very good about your viewpoint or character.
Okay, this one's for Brandon... Evidence and all.
Bush didn't even button his shirt right for last nights address to the... State of the... um, press release.
And here's the video
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2005/09/15/VI2005091502332.html
That's not his fault... it's abviously total incompetence on the part of the person who's supposed to dress him.
Brandon,
So,
You're happy with a war, high oil prices, dropping real estate prices, increasing interest rates, a huge trade deficit with China, and now more money being spent on Katrina? With no cuts anywhere? AND tax cuts STILL being given to the rich AND the Estate tax eliminated? Especially given the fact that tax cuts LOWER revenue, not raise it?
You want to be all things to all people with a budget like that. It is not sustainable. It is foolish in the extreme.
Cycloptichorn
Brandon9000 wrote:These posts strike me as relatively pointless. It's clear that there's virtually nothing Bush could do that wouldn't be criticized by you. For instance, had he not gone to New Orleans, someone in your crowd would have said that he was indifferent to the plight of ordinary people. Since he did go, I have seen it here described as a photo op. The good things that happen in the country are attributed to his subordinates or external forces, all bad things to him. You rarely provide evidence or analysis to back up your claims or your attacks on other peoples' claims. These are simply worthless expressions of your hatred of the president.
Actually I approved of his speech and giving money to New Orleans and the gulf coast. I just don't see how it can logically done given our already over stretched budget.
Even Bush lovers would have to admit that the rolled up sleeves and open collar bit was a bit phoney?
Good grief!
He cannot button his shirt correctly...and he doesn't have aides who would check him out like a mother would check a kids dress on the way to school.
How did we ever stoop so low as to have a clown like this as our president?
Not sure, Frank.
You'd have to ask the 45% that voted for him. :wink:
Frank, from now on if you drop your car keys kick 'em to the car.... you never know when an opportunistic government official could be watching...
Cycloptichorn wrote:Brandon,
So,
You're happy with a war, high oil prices, dropping real estate prices, increasing interest rates, a huge trade deficit with China, and now more money being spent on Katrina? With no cuts anywhere? AND tax cuts STILL being given to the rich AND the Estate tax eliminated? Especially given the fact that tax cuts LOWER revenue, not raise it?
You want to be all things to all people with a budget like that. It is not sustainable. It is foolish in the extreme.
Cycloptichorn
I think you're posting in the wrong thread.
BBB
Lets not let Brandon get away again with popping in as is his practice to disrupt another thread and sidetrack it.
BBB
Bear
Bear, forgive me, but I've been thinking outside the box again.
I think we and the Media have missed something important in Bush's speech.
Bear called it pandering, and it was. But I'm beginning to think it was clever pandering. Remember what Molly Ivins said about Bush? He's good at politics but stinks at governing.
Remember what is upper most in Bush mind. Protect and enhance his presidential legacy.
Could it be that Bush's over the top pandering is deliberate. Is he certain that the fiscal conservatives, both Republican and Democrat, will not vote to approve the hundreds of billions of dollars that his proposals would cost?
Has he and Karl Rove figured out a way to win no matter which way the Congress votes?
If Congress refuses to approve the funding, Bush wins because he then can blame the congress. Once again it's not his fault.
If Congress approves the funding, Bush wins. But if Congress requires that a lot of programs be eliminated to create the money to fund Bush's proposal, then Bush will win again. He will be successful in getting rid of more of the New Deal programs that has been his goal all along---all in the name of helping the hurricane victims. He will win by wrapping himself in pity for them.
The Republicans will be resistant to reversing Bush's tax cuts to the wealthy, which will put even more pressure on Congress to eliminate programs due to the financial crunch. Republicans never want to raise taxes; it is the kiss of death.
If Congress votes to add the costs to the deficit rather than cut programs and keep the current tax cuts and it leads to rapid inflation and a recession or depression, then Bush can blame the Congress and it's not his fault.
Bush wins no matter what and people won't blame him. After all, he tried to help them per his speech. Blame everyone else for letting them suffer.
Damn smart politically. Amoral as President.
BBB
One of my co-workers is a Micheal Savage conservative, he is furious that Bush is planning to dole out all this money to "those people."
What a faker.
BBB's indignant asshole "journalist" pretended to know what he was talking about in his hatchet job on Bush...
It's GATEmouth Brown, not Gatesmouth, which he said wrong twice.
Lash
Lash wrote:What a faker.
BBB's indignant **** "journalist" pretended to know what he was talking about in his hatchet job on Bush...
It's GATEmouth Brown, not Gatesmouth, which he said wrong twice.
Huh? What are you talking about?
BBB
Re: Bush, and Satchmo, in New Orleans
You don't read your own crap?
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:Bush, and Satchmo, in New Orleans
By Greg Mitchell
Editors and Publishers
September 15, 2005
It seemed almost a sacrilege for the president to stand in the jazz-mad French Quarter, using the St. Louis Cathedral and statue of Andrew Jackson as a Disney-like backdrop, and announce that NOW he is going to do something, after the death and destruction are done.
President Bush closed his comeback speech in New Orleans on Thursday night, standing not far from where Louis Armstrong grew up and Preservation Hall still (somehow) stands, with a reference to the local tradition of jazz funerals, which begin as dirges and end with the joyful "second-line."
With that, Satchmo must have rolled over in his grave. But at least he has a grave, unlike the hundreds or perhaps thousands of fellow African-Americans who were killed by, among other things, federal indifference to the flood threat before it happened, and criminal negligence after it struck.
Armstrong, of course, sang it best in his 1930 classic "Black and Blue":
How will it end? Ain't got a friend
My only sin, is in my skin
What did I do? To be so black and blue
It seemed almost a sacrilege for the president to stand in the jazz-mad French Quarter, using the St. Louis Cathedral and statue of Andrew Jackson as a Disney-like backdrop, and announce that NOW he is going to do something, after the death and destruction are done, leaving the taxpayers with a $200 billion bill (much of which will go straight into the already Iraq-packed pockets of his friends at Halliburton and Bechtel and the like). His speech came on the very day The New York Times published an article about the many jazz and blues musicians from the Big Easy now forced to live in Cajun country and beyond, perhaps never to return to their homes and livelihoods.
In the White House pool report just before the speech, the president's men boasted that they had thrown extra light on the cathedral backdrop. One aide said of the extra illumination: "Oh, it's heated up. It's going to print loud.''
Somewhat late in life, I have come to love the city, people, food, and music of New Orleans, site of many recent newspaper industry conventions (including one of our own), not to mention the beloved JazzFest. In fact, I spent many hours, while chronicling the disaster two weeks ago here at E&P Online, searching for news of local musicians. On various days, I reported, for example, that Fats Domino, Pete Fountain, and "Gatesmouth" Brown were missing, then lost, then found -- though Gates later passed away after evacuating to Texas.
Talks about "Gates" like they wuz buds. Didn't know the man's name--and likely made everything else up as well.
Lash
Lash, are you deliberately trying to get this thread locked?
BBB
BBB-
Mother Jones had an interesting perspective.
Squinney
Years ago I used to subscribe to Mother Jones. I do miss it's outlook.
BBB
