Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread III

That's amateurish fm. Prince Charles flew to New Tork with a retinue of 20 to receive an award for his environmental work.

The scientific community seem somewhat confused on green issues.

It's all a rather tasteless joke I think. It's all caused by fornication. What else?

I once worked out for you all what a new born American baby will be consuming in barrels in the 80 or so years of it's fulfilling life and it was considerably more that the babies in a lot of other countries.

They do say though that leaders often have to do evil in order to do good, unlike ordinary folks.

Don't you yet know that the game's up.




* It's not censored on Google.

<yawn>

Still vigorously (is it "vigourously" in Britain?) stirring the turd, I see.

Mysteryman, it's just a case of "sloppyness" so don't pick on them. Remember Sandy Berger stuffing classified documents / papers in his pants or socks, whatever, and sliding them under a fence in a construction area outside the building. Merely a case of "sloppiness." Make sure you remember that.

Berger was convicted of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material - you think this to be in the same category?

All Dems are in the same category to these guys - the only difference is those who have been caught, and those who haven't.

The funny part of this of course is that there have never been a higher percentage of Republican office holders convicted and in jail since at least the Nixon era....

Cycloptichorn

That's a fine description of your president- and you a supporter, too.

He is a mean-minded small excuse for a man, a failure in everything he has so far tried to turn his hand to. I can see why you're upset.

We spell it the same as you in this case.

No, I don't. I am simply pointing out the difference as treated in the media, and by the Democrats themselves. If a newly selected Republican Speaker of the House had been found to do the same thing, suffice it to say the play in the media would be far more visible. In this case, it is merely a minor glitch of paperwork. If a Republican was found to do this, it would be "very troubling," and perhaps a "very serious ethics violation," blah, blah, blah, and it might be played as a symptom of deeper and possibly not yet revealed corruption.

HILLARY SUPPPORTING THE WAR

This is a 2003 video of Hillary Clinton talking to an anti-war group, Code Pink, explaining how she had reviewed the data re Saddam Husseins WMD and other abuses and why she voted for the resolution to go to war. Even as she trashed George W. Bush on the economy, she explained why it was necessary for the United States to act unilaterally without UN approval just as it was necessary for Bill Clinton to send troops to Bosnia/Kosovo when he couldn't get UN approval.

Hillary's remarks start about halfway through the video.l

Now she is saying that "Bush deceived her" and "if she had known then what she knows now she would never have voted for the resolution to go to war."

Isn't that special.

Its called "sticking your finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing," Foxfyre. No conviction, no honesty, no standing for what you said yesterday or made a decision on yesterday, no nothing like that. Its all about polling and walking the fence. This is nothing different than we've known about lots of politicians these days.

I'm not upset, McT. What lead you to that rash conclusion?

Lets see,he graduated from Yale and Harvard Business school...yup,thats a failure

He was a USAF fighter pilot,something a very small percentage of AF pilots do...yup,that was a failure also.

He was elected governor of Texas...yup,that was a afilure also.

He was elected President TWICE...Yup that was a failure also

Since 9/11 America has not been attacked again,that is a failure also.

Now,no matter how much you wanna whine about his policies,you cannot claim that he was a failure at everything he has tried.

You should be such a failure with your life.

He was accepted as a legacy student. and he was tutored. Hes not a dunce, but couldnt get into an Ivy (or a Pachysandara) on his own.

. Like driving a taxi or a semi . Pilots have nothing special except a desire to be a pilot. There seems to be some discrepencies in his tenure as a pilot. yep, and most of his plotocratic policies have since been reversed by the legislature. actually he was selected the first time. His opponent , AL Gore actually polled higher than Bush so the old Electoral College decided and therein lay the discrepency

How about his life as a business man? what propped his failed business life up? We all know the answer but some of us are just so partisan that we cannot call a possum a marsupial.

I believe he made profit from all his "failed" business ventures. Those failures probably taught him more then success would have.

He may have, but his investors? Not so much.

I do believe that he did learn something from that, McG.

Cycloptichorn

Bush learned that failure is an option. He repeats that failure over and over again. Most tag Bush with adjectives or verbs like "incompetence" and "mismanaged." People's ability to prop up a failed governor and president speaks well for those who continue to support this dunce.

I must give Bush credit for consistency. He is consistently wrong -- wrong about everything.

In the S of the U speech, he essentially tied our energy future to ethanol. Unfortunately, this is counterproductive for our country.


^1/29/07: The Sum of All Ears

By PAUL KRUGMAN

For those hoping for real action on global warming and energy policy,
the State of the Union address was a downer. There had been hints and
hopes that the speech would be a Nixon-goes-to-China moment, with
President Bush turning conservationist. But it ended up being more of a
Nixon-bombs-Cambodia moment.

Too bad: the rumors were tantalizing. Al Hubbard, the chairman of the
National Economic Council, predicted "headlines above the fold that will
knock your socks off in terms of our commitment to energy independence."
British officials told the newspaper The Observer that Mr. Bush would
"make a historic shift in his position on global warming."

None of it happened. Mr. Bush acknowledged that climate change is a
problem, but you missed it if you sneezed. He said something vague about
fuel economy, but the White House fact sheet on energy makes it clear
that there was even less there than met the ear.

The only real substance was Mr. Bush's call for a huge increase in the
supply of "alternative fuels." Mainly that means using ethanol to
replace gasoline. Unfortunately, that's a really bad idea.

There is a place for ethanol in the world's energy future -- but that
place is in the tropics. Brazil has managed to replace a lot of its
gasoline consumption with ethanol. But Brazil's ethanol comes from sugar
cane.

In the United States, ethanol comes overwhelmingly from corn, a much
less suitable raw material. In fact, corn is such a poor source of
ethanol that researchers at the University of Minnesota estimate that
converting the entire U.S. corn crop -- the sum of all our ears -- into
ethanol would replace only 12 percent of our gasoline consumption.

Still, doesn't every little bit help? Well, this little bit would come
at a very high price compared with the obvious alternative --
conservation. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that reducing
gasoline consumption 10 percent through an increase in fuel economy
standards would cost producers and consumers about $3.6 billion a year.
Achieving the same result by expanding ethanol production would cost
taxpayers at least $10 billion a year, based on the subsidies ethanol
already receives -- and probably much more, because expanding production
would require higher subsidies.

What's more, ethanol production has hidden costs. Even the Department of
Energy, which is relatively optimistic, says that the net energy savings
from replacing a gallon of gasoline with ethanol are only the equivalent
of about a quarter of a gallon, because of the energy used to grow corn,
transport it, run ethanol plants, and so on. And these energy inputs
come almost entirely from fossil fuels, so it's not clear whether
promoting ethanol does anything to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

So why is ethanol, not conservation, the centerpiece of the
administration's energy policy? Actually, it's not entirely Mr. Bush's
fault.

To be sure, at this point Mr. Bush's people seem less concerned with
devising good policy than with finding something, anything, for the
president to talk about that doesn't end with the letter "q." And the
malign influence of Dick "Sign of Personal Virtue" Cheney, who no doubt
still sneers at conservation, continues to hang over everything.

But even after the Bushies are gone, bad energy policy ideas will have
powerful constituencies, while good ideas won't.

Subsidizing ethanol benefits two well-organized groups: corn growers and
ethanol producers (especially the corporate giant Archer Daniels
Midland). As a result, it's bad policy with bipartisan support. For
example, earlier this month legislation calling for a huge increase in
ethanol use was introduced by five senators, of whom four, including
presidential aspirants Barack Obama and Joseph Biden, were Democrats. In
a recent town meeting in Iowa, Hillary Clinton managed to mention
ethanol twice, according to The Politico.

Meanwhile, conservation doesn't have anything like the same natural
political mojo. Where's the organized, powerful constituency for tougher
fuel economy standards, a higher gasoline tax, or a cap-and-trade system
on carbon dioxide emissions?

Can anything be done to promote good energy policy? Public education is
a necessary first step, which is why Al Gore deserves all the praise
he's getting. It would also help to have a president who gets scientific
advice from scientists, not oil company executives and novelists.

But there's still a huge gap between what obviously should be done and
what seems politically possible. And I don't know how to close that gap.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Can you demonstrate for me any businessman that goes into business to make others wealthy instead of himself?

I don't believe any investment is safe from failure, ask those poor souls that invested in Enron.

Bush's attempts to talk about national interests were only diversions from Iraq where his main problems lie. Anybody with a brain would understand that, but some Americans (about 30 percent) still trust Bush to tell us the truth, and buys into his rhetoric of alternative energy and health care.

Foxy wrote-



Being deceived by the bloke who is described up above is hardly the stuff of which Commander in Chiefs are made.


Why do you Yanks do this two-term limit when all you get is four years of a lame duck. A politician lives and breathes garnering votes and you get a man for four long years who has no further interest in that. If the public like a guy why should they be disenfranchised from voting for him?