Why do you still support Bush?

I did read the Cole piece, but what is happening by congress to make the laws fit the Bush doctrine is what is so bothersome.

That's not nearly a done deal yet. There are Specter, McCain, Graham and the senior military legal people on the side of sanity here. If Cheney and Addington manage to bully this through, I'll sign on to your anger level.

blatham, But that is the issue: that congress even entertains the Bush doctrine while this president breaks the laws of this land.

Yes, that is a real problem which applies to many issues, this one included. The Cheney/Addington ideology on Presidential power and the sycophantic/totalitarian coloration of this congress works directly against the 'balance of powers' design of your founders and the wisdom and principles which drove that design.

And the "American conservative" apologists for and defenders of...these incompetent reprobates...are also a significant part of the problem.

Have I mentioned that I consider American conservatism to be the armpit of political philosophies?

If I haven't allow me to do so. I consider American conservatism to the the most morally depraved, hypocritical piece of dung ever to masquerade as a reasonable political position.

I keep hoping my American conservative friends will come to their senses and disassociate themselves from this pus. I must sadly report that most have not.

Frank, one of the things I like about you is that you never leave the reader in any doubt where you stand on an issue.

I do my best.

After all of the furor concering the Guantanamo prisoners, they are still in Guantanamo and the Senate is working on the possible revision of juridical procedures to be applied to those prisoners in the light of the rulings of the USSC. Perhaps the procedures will be ready by the time the next president is elected. In the meantime, the prisoners REMAIN in Guantanamo!!!


If Mr. Imposter does not agree with the behavior of the courts, he must work hard to elect those who will vote to appoint only those judges with which he agrees. However, up to this time, it is clear that President Bush has changed the legal personality of the Supreme Court with his deft nomination of Judges Roberts and Judge Alito.

Bernie has no understanding of how judges to the supreme court are given lifetime tenure.

President Bush does not listen 1) to opposing views, 2) consider any judge who is a democrat, and 3) does what he wants as the sociopathic king of the US.

It appears he does. It also appears you misunderstood what he wrote.



Perhaps Bush listened to opposing views, considered a democrat, and then selected the best persons for the job. Or perhaps he skipped the first two steps and just selected the best persons for the job (and I'm not speaking of Harriet Myers here).



More hysteria from the left.

That's not hysteria; it's fact. One just needs to open their eyes to see all the destruction Bush created in this world. Some people are just blind, deaf and dumb. They continue to support a moron, sociopathic president.

More republicans are beginning to see the destructive force of sociopath, king Bush.


Simmering Rage Within the GOP

By David S. Broder
Thursday, July 27, 2006

My weekend visitor was one of the founders of the postwar Republican Party in the South, one of those stubborn men who challenged the Democratic rule in his one-party state. He was conservative enough that in the [..] 1952 [primary], his sympathies were with Sen. Robert Taft of Ohio, not Dwight D. Eisenhower.

He has lived long enough to see Republicans elected as senator and governor of his state and to see a Republican from the Sun Belt behemoth of Texas capture the White House. His profession won't let him speak with his name attached, but he is sadly disillusioned.

"I thought it was stupid," he said [about the veto Bush administered to the bill expanding federal funding for embryonic stem cell research]. "I know too many people who are like this" -- and he shook his hands like a victim of Parkinson's disease -- "and their only hope of a cure is in stem cells. Now Bush is forcing that science to move overseas."

He went on: "How the hell long can they refuse to raise the minimum wage?" He was furious, he said, with the Republican leaders of Congress who keep blocking bills to raise the minimum wage, which has been stuck at $5.15 an hour for years. "I'm a conservative," he said, "but they make me sound like a damned liberal the way they act. They spend like fools, they run up the deficits and they refuse to give a raise to the working people who are struggling. How the hell are you supposed to live on $5.15 an hour these days?"

"If it wasn't for Pelosi," he said, "I'd just as soon the Democrats take over this fall. Get some checks and balances and teach these guys a lesson."

In the end, his dislike of the House minority leader, Nancy Pelosi of California, and his ingrained disdain for the Democrats may keep my friend voting Republican. But the complaints that I heard from him -- echoed by many of his contemporaries in the Taft-Goldwater-Reagan wing of the GOP -- are a significant factor in the dynamics of the midterm election. They could spell trouble for Republicans in mobilizing their vote this fall.

I first became aware of the spreading discontent on the right in visiting with people in the church social hall after the funeral this spring for Lyn Nofziger, Ronald Reagan's longtime press spokesman and adviser. The comments about the Bush White House people -- who were notable by their absence at the service -- startled me.

But since then I have heard the refrain over and over: They never reached out to us. They never thought they needed our help. Now they're in trouble. To hell with them.

Whether or not the complaints are justified, they are epidemic. They are often accompanied, as they were in the case of my weekend visitor, by the comment that everything the White House does seems to be aimed at pleasing only one section of the Republican coalition -- the religious right.

That is why there was so much high-fiving on e-mails and phone calls among other Republicans over the defeat last week of Ralph Reed, the one-time driving force of Pat Robertson's religious-political movement who lost the nomination for lieutenant governor of Georgia because of his links to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. [..]

But the dissent threatens Republican chances of avoiding a major defeat in the midterm elections. Andrew Kohut's survey for the respected Pew Research Center last month found Democrats far more motivated to vote this year than Republicans. The Democrats held a 16-point advantage over the GOP on the question Kohut uses to gauge the level of interest in voting, exactly the reverse of the situation in 1994, the year the Republicans took over Congress. [..]

Of COURSE Bush considered a Democrat for the Supreme Court. He just couldn't find a Democrat with exclusively right wing views! He couldn't find one that opposed abortion or favored war or appluaded cronyism or wanted to ban stem cell research. If he could have found a Democrat with his views he would have nominated them in a heartbeat!

Thank You, Ticomaya. When I wrote the post below( which Mr. Imposter does not understand) I know now I should have made it clearer to minds who do not understand how the process for nomination is made. I will do so now:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After all of the furor concering the Guantanamo prisoners, they are still in Guantanamo and the Senate is working on the possible revision of juridical procedures to be applied to those prisoners in the light of the rulings of the USSC. Perhaps the procedures will be ready by the time the next president is elected. In the meantime, the prisoners REMAIN in Guantanamo!!!


If Mr. Imposter does not agree with the behavior of the courts, he must work hard to elect those who will vote to appoint only those judges with which he agrees. However, up to this time, it is clear that President Bush has changed the legal personality of the Supreme Court with his deft nomination of Judges Roberts and Judge Alito.


************************************************************

It is obvious that Mr. Imposter does not understand that any President, who wishes to have any integrity with relation to his principles, must nominate candidates who are not only in line with his philosophy but are also generally acceptable to the rest of his party in the Senate.

Does Mr. Imposter dream that President Bush would have ever nominated the malignant dwarf-Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court seeing as how she was the chief counsel for the most destructive organization in America--the ACLU?

Not on your life!!

I will make a prediction for Mr. Imposter. Unless the election in 2008 is won by Billary Rodham Clinton or some other left wing extremist, it is certain that the next nomination for the Court will not be a left winger or even a centrist but rather one that leans to the right.

And, then, the left wing will have to moan and groan for the next twenty five years since the court will present--

Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito and the judge to be appointed>

If Mr. Imposter does not think that is important, he is referred to the remarks made by the undertaker- John Kerry- who, in a speech before the election in 2004 noted that it was important that people voted for himsince the new president would be making appointments to the Supreme Court and that those appointments were probaby the most crucial domestic decisions a president would make!

Moron Bush does not have any integrity; he lies.

Friday, February 04, 2005

05:41:51 PM
State Of the Union Analysis
From Address was full of lies, contradictions by Andrew Meyer
Sickening. Watching George W. Bush take the podium Wednesday night can be described as nothing else. Nevertheless, I stomached the entire State of the Union address and observed something I already knew: W can't go five seconds without contradicting himself or just plain lying. Here are a few excerpts from his speech:
"We are working with European allies to make clear to the Iranian regime that it must give up its uranium enrichment program and any plutonium reprocessing."

Reality: England, France and Germany are negotiating with Iran over these issues. Yet, despite the European Union's urgings, the administration is steering clear of these discussions altogether. If the United States does not step in as Bush claims we have, Iran will become a nuclear power.

"We are working closely with governments in Asia to convince North Korea to abandon its nuclear ambitions."

NOTE: This is the closest COLOR I can come to bull shet.


Again, this is false.

The six-party talks involving the United States, Russia, China, Japan, South Korea and North Korea are in suspension. Bush has rejected diplomacy in this instance, saying it would "reward bad behavior." North Korea resumed reprocessing two years ago and most likely has built a couple nukes since.

"There are still regimes seeking weapons of mass destruction - but no longer without attention and without consequence."

That's a strange thing to say when we apparently are ignoring both Iran and North Korea. It's funny Bush was so concerned about WMDs a couple of years ago, but now most of our military is committed to the one "Axis of Evil" country without any.
[The Independent Florida Alligator, 2/4/05]

Try reading my post. Mr. Imposter. If you cannot respond directly to it, please say so:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank You, Ticomaya. When I wrote the post below( which Mr. Imposter does not understand) I know now I should have made it clearer to minds who do not understand how the process for nomination is made. I will do so now:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After all of the furor concering the Guantanamo prisoners, they are still in Guantanamo and the Senate is working on the possible revision of juridical procedures to be applied to those prisoners in the light of the rulings of the USSC. Perhaps the procedures will be ready by the time the next president is elected. In the meantime, the prisoners REMAIN in Guantanamo!!!


If Mr. Imposter does not agree with the behavior of the courts, he must work hard to elect those who will vote to appoint only those judges with which he agrees. However, up to this time, it is clear that President Bush has changed the legal personality of the Supreme Court with his deft nomination of Judges Roberts and Judge Alito.


************************************************************

It is obvious that Mr. Imposter does not understand that any President, who wishes to have any integrity with relation to his principles, must nominate candidates who are not only in line with his philosophy but are also generally acceptable to the rest of his party in the Senate.

Does Mr. Imposter dream that President Bush would have ever nominated the malignant dwarf-Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court seeing as how she was the chief counsel for the most destructive organization in America--the ACLU?

Not on your life!!

I will make a prediction for Mr. Imposter. Unless the election in 2008 is won by Billary Rodham Clinton or some other left wing extremist, it is certain that the next nomination for the Court will not be a left winger or even a centrist but rather one that leans to the right.

And, then, the left wing will have to moan and groan for the next twenty five years since the court will present--

Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito and the judge to be appointed>

If Mr. Imposter does not think that is important, he is referred to the remarks made by the undertaker- John Kerry- who, in a speech before the election in 2004 noted that it was important that people voted for himsince the new president would be making appointments to the Supreme Court and that those appointments were probaby the most crucial domestic decisions a president would make!

Bernie, From reading everybody esle that responds to your posts tells me you're one of those morons who continue to support moron, incompetent, sociaopath, Bush. I just won't waste my time, but please continue to read my posts. LOL

"We are working closely with governments in Asia to convince North Korea to abandon its nuclear ambitions."

This sounds SO sincere! I can see it now:

US: C'mon Kim Jong-il. Give up the nuclear missiles. For the sake of the world. For the good of humanity. For your sake. For our sake.

Kim Jong-il: Yes. You're right. I will abandon my plans and become a Democracy. I see the error of my ways. Thank you America. Thank you Asia.

Won't this be great???

Repeat: Bush called Iraq, Iran and North Korea the "axis of evil," and only attacked Iraq that has no WMDs. We all know - or the world knows - that Iran and North Korea blatantly develops WMDs and missiles, but Bushco gives it only lip service.

What a smart guy!

Of course CI! It's much easier to fight a country that can't fight back! Of course, even with all our military might and expensive bombs we still haven't "won" this war.