United Underground Railroad's Message Board

Please use the message board responsibly. Any messages encouraging illegal activity should be ignored. The opinions stated in any message on this board are not necessarily the opinions of the board's designers, sponsors, or any other individual or organization.

Suggestion Box

AMERICAS LIBERAL NEWSPAPERS CONTINUE THEIR DOWNWARD SPIRAL TO BANKRUPTCY! THEY BLAME

by ECONOMY,NOT LIBERAL HYPERBOLE! DREAM ON!



NY Times, other newspapers continue to struggle

NEW YORK (AP) — The New York Times Co. (NYT) and two other newspaper companies reported weaker revenue for the fourth quarter Thursday as an economic slowdown continued to hammer classified advertising.
Media General (MEG) and E.W. Scripps Co. (SSP) also posted weaker results as lower political advertising revenue from broadcasting and a particularly bad economic slump in Florida hurt both companies.

The Times swung to a net profit of $53 million from a loss of $648 million a year earlier, when it recorded a big charge to write down more than half the value of The Boston Globe and Worcester Telegram & Gazette, which have been hit by regional economic weakness and the consolidation of key advertisers.

But the Times' revenue also fell 7.1% in the quarter, or 1.7% without the effect of an extra week falling in the year-ago period, to $865.8 million, missing analysts' expectations. After posting gains in October and November, revenue weakened in December, Chief Executive Janet Robinson said, mainly on poor results in classifieds as well as retail.

Excluding one-time charges in both periods, the Times' earnings came to 44 cents a share, down from 46 cents a share a year ago.

Media General, a broadcast and newspaper company based in Richmond, Va., reported a 70% decline in profit due to a write-down, one less week in the period and less political revenue.

The company, which owns the Richmond Times-Dispatch, The Tampa Tribune and Winston-Salem Journal, earned $9.6 million, or 43 cents a share, vs. $31.6 million, or $1.33 per share, a year ago. Revenue fell 16% to $243.8 million, far below analysts' estimates of $261.3 million.

Both Media General and The New York Times are facing proxy fights with Harbinger Capital, an investment firm that wants to nominate directors to the boards of both companies.

Media General has called the action "unwarranted" but said it would pass along Harbinger's candidates to its board's nominating committee. The Times also said its board would consider Harbinger's proposed candidates.

Harbinger is Media General's second-largest shareholder, with 18.4% of the company's Class A shares. Harbinger and another investor called Firebrand Partners have 4.9% of the Times' shares.

Scripps, which is in the process of splitting off its cable networks business, reported an 8% decline in profit on lower ad sales at its newspapers and television stations.

The preliminary results did not include an anticipated charge for writing down the value of its uSwitch subsidiary, an online shopping site. Scripps said it would disclose the amount of the charge by Feb. 29.

Scripps earned $123.3 million, or 75 cents a share, down from $133.9 million, or 81 cents. Total revenue edged down 0.6% to $679.2 million.

Newspaper revenue at the company fell 9.6%, while revenue from television stations fell 18% and cable network advertising sales rose 14%.

Scripps, which also owns the Food Network and HGTV cable channels, also said it expects first-quarter earnings per share to be 38 to 42 cents, compared with 39 cents in the year-ago period and below the analysts' estimate of 44 cents.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.













Posted on Jan 31, 2008, 3:09 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

WALMART DIRECTOR, MRS BJ CLINTON REMAINED SILENT AS COMPANY BEAT DOWN AMERICAS PROUD UNION

by MOVEMENT! POWER TO THE PEOPLE,EH HILLARY?


Clinton Remained Silent As Wal-Mart Fought Unions
Tapes Reviewed by ABC News Show Clinton As a Loyal Company Woman
By BRIAN ROSS, MADDY SAUER and RHONDA SCHWARTZ
Jan. 31, 2008—



In six years as a member of the Wal-Mart board of directors, between 1986 and 1992, Hillary Clinton remained silent as the world's largest retailer waged a major campaign against labor unions seeking to represent store workers.

Clinton has been endorsed for president by more than a dozen unions, according to her campaign Web site, which omits any reference to her role at Wal-Mart in its detailed biography of her.

Wal-Mart's anti-union efforts were headed by one of Clinton's fellow board members, John Tate, a Wal-Mart executive vice president who also served on the board with Clinton for four of her six years.

Tate was fond of repeating, as he did at a managers meeting in 2004 after his retirement, what he said was his favorite phrase, "Labor unions are nothing but blood-sucking parasites living off the productive labor of people who work for a living."

Wal-Mart says Tate's comments "were his own and do not reflect Wal-Mart's views."

But Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton and other company officials often recounted how they relied on Tate to lead the company's successful anti-union efforts.

An ABC News analysis of the videotapes of at least four stockholder meetings where Clinton appeared shows she never once rose to defend the role of American labor unions.

The tapes, broadcast this morning on "Good Morning America," were provided to ABC News from the archives of Flagler Productions, a Lenexa, Kan., company hired by Wal-Mart to record its meetings and events.

A former board member told ABCNews.com that he had no recollection of Clinton defending unions during more than 20 board meetings held in private.

The tapes show Clinton in the role of a loyal company woman. "I'm always proud of Wal-Mart and what we do and the way we do it better than anybody else," she said at a June 1990 stockholders meeting.

Clinton would not agree to be interviewed on the subject but now says she no longer shares Wal-Mart's values and believes unions "have been essential to our nation's success."

The videotapes do show that Clinton used her role to push for more environmentally friendly policies and better treatment of women.

"We've got a very strong-willed young woman on our board now; her name is Hillary," said Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton at a 1987 stockholders meeting in describing Clinton's role in pushing for more women to be hired in management positions.

Critics say Clinton's efforts produced few tangible results, and Wal-Mart is now defending itself in a lawsuit brought by 16 current and former female employees.

"I don't doubt the sincerity of her efforts, but we don't see much evidence that conditions for women at Wal-Mart changed much during the late 1980s and early 1990s," said Joe Sellers, one of the lawyers suing Wal-Mart on behalf of the women.

Wal-Mart declined to comment to ABC News about the lawsuit, but the company has said previously that it is confident it did not discriminate against female employees.

Sen. Clinton has recently sought to distance herself from Wal-Mart.

In a campaign speech last year in New Hampshire, Sen. Clinton said, "Now I know that Wal-Mart's policies do not reflect the best way of doing business and the values that I think are important in America."

Her Senate campaign returned a $5,000 contribution from a Wal-Mart Political Action Committee, although ABCNews.com discovered another $20,000 in contributions from Wal-Mart executives and lobbyists.

Clinton spokesperson Howard Wolfson said, "There is no basis to return" the money.

According to the New York Times, Sen. Clinton "maintains close ties to Wal-Mart executives through the Democratic Party and the tightly knit Arkansas business community." The May 20, 2007 article also reported that her husband, former President Clinton, "speaks frequently to Wal-Mart's current chief executive, H. Lee Scott Jr." and held a private dinner at the Clinton's New York home in July 2006 for him.

President Clinton defended his wife's role on the Wal-Mart board last week after the issue was raised by Sen. Barack Obama in a CNN debate.


His wife did not try to change the company's minds about unions, the former Arkansas governor said.

"We lived in a state that had a very weak labor movement, where I always had the endorsement of the labor movement because I did what I could do to make it stronger. She knew there was no way she could change that, not with it headquartered in Arkansas, and she agreed to serve," President Clinton said.

In a written statement, Clinton spokesperson Wolfson said, "As President, she will fight alongside labor to promote the economic growth of America's middle class." He said Clinton strongly believes Wal-Mart workers should be able to unionize and bargain collectively.

He did not directly respond when asked why she did not quit the board over the conpany's anti-union efforts. "Wal-Mart was Arkansas's largest employer when Sam Walton asked Sen. Clinton to join the board," he said. "As the first woman to join Wal-Mart's board, she worked hard to make it a better corporate citizen."

In its statement, Wal-Mart described Sen. Clinton as "a valuable contributor" who "pushed us to be a better company."

Click Here for the Investigative Homepage.


Copyright © 2008 ABC News Internet Ventures


Posted on Jan 31, 2008, 2:58 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

FRANK GIUSTRA,BJ CLINTON CRONY! I THOUGHT ALL THE CORPORATE FAT CATS WERE REPUBLICAN?GREED

by IS GOOD IF YOU WANT TO BE A FRIEND OF BILL

January 31 » 2008

Profile:Frank Giustra

Doug Ward
Vancouver Sun


Thursday, June 21, 2007


VANCOUVER - Frank Giustra, a super-rich Vancouver mining and movie mogul with a midas touch, has used his wealth to become a friend of Bill -- Bill being former U.S. President Bill Clinton.

As such, Giustra has placed his private jet at Clinton's disposal, flying with the former president on trips to Asia and Africa during the past two years.

The former Howe Street wunderkind is a member of the board of trustees of the Clinton Foundation, the charitable and activist vehicle established by Clinton during his post-presidency.

Giustra organized a recent 60th birthday bash for Clinton at Toronto's Fairmont Royal York, which raised $21 million for the Clinton Foundation.

Clinton spoke in Victoria and Kelowna Friday. Whether Giustra had any role in Clinton's visit here is unknown. Giustra has preferred to fly under the media's radar and declined an interview request for this story.

Giustra, the son of a Sudbury nickel miner, was CEO of Yorkton Securities in the '90s, founder of Lions Gate Entertainment and now chair of Endeavour Financial, a merchant banking firm which finances mining companies.

Giustra is also a director of the International Crisis Group (Crisis Group), an independent, non-profit, non-governmental organization, established to prevent and resolve conflicts.

Last month Giustra was one of four chairs of the 2006 Global Leadership Awards dinner in New York where Clinton was honoured along with out-going UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.

Giustra's special relationship with Clinton and his philanthropic efforts was noted by journalists who accompanied Clinton this summer on a tour of Africa.

David Remnick, editor of The New Yorker, wrote a lengthy profile of Clinton in the magazine's Sept. 18 issue.

Remnick described a government leaders forum sponsored by Microsoft that was held in a hotel ballroom in Capetown, South Africa. Clinton sat with Microsoft founder Bill Gates and a variety of sub-Saharan heads of state.

"Several tables away, I was talking to Frank Giustra, a mining financier based in Vancouver, who started, ran, and sold Lionsgate Films. Giustra is in his late 40s. He is short and trim and has close-cut white hair.

"The plane in which Clinton was touring Africa was Giustra's, a MD-87 jet, complete with leather furniture and a stateroom. Giustra told me that he was still heavily involved in business -- he travels frequently to Kazakhstan, to check on mining interests he has there -- but that his wife had been pushing him to give away more of his money.

"'All of my chips, almost, are on Bill Clinton," he said. "He's a brand, worldwide brand, and he can do things and ask for things that no one else can.'"

Giustra's wife is Alison Lawton, 36, a human rights activist and producer of documentary films on humanitarian crises. She also knows Clinton and has worked with him on humanitarian efforts related to the civil war in Uganda -- a war which was the subject of her recent documentary Uganda Rising.

Remnick went on to say that Clinton is the first post-president to "tap into the newer generation of wealth" represented by people like Giustra.

The New Yorker editor added: "Clinton's appeal for these tycoons is obvious: In exchange for giving money to a good cause -- the Clinton Foundation's budget last year was $30 million dollars -- you not only have the usual tax break and the knowledge that you are doing good but also get to play Oh Hell [a card game] until five in the morning with a two-term ex-President who knows how to have a good time."

The Clinton-Giustra connection was also noted in a Financial Times article in August. Writer Andrew Jack described a meeting between Clinton and Nelson Mandela in Johannesburg.

"On the plane the following day, Frank Giustra effuses about Mandela: 'For me, he's up there with Mahatma Gandhi.' An Italian-Canadian with close-cropped white hair, Giustra is part of the most exclusive group in the Clinton entourage: the corporate sponsors.

"In fact, he is not travelling with us. We are travelling with him. Clinton is flying on Giustra's luxurious personal MD-87 jet, and his donations are substantially underwriting the foundation's pediatric HIV medicines programs.

"That gives him a regular place at the president's side, including the card table, where the two men and others gather on the flights and late at night in palatial hotel suites across Africa.

They play Oh Hell, a card game the film director Steven Spielberg taught Clinton when he was president.

"Giustra is coy about his fortune, much made through investments in mining. He describes his donations as 'significant,' saying he became close to Clinton after inviting him to get involved in a post-tsunami fundraiser 18 months ago."

Giustra and his wife Lawton staged a $10,000-a-couple fundraiser for tsunami-related relief at their waterfront home in West Vancouver last year, raising $1.7 million. They later held another fund-raising dinner with Clinton as guest of honour.

Giustra was born in Sudbury, Ont., and lived in Italy and Argentina as a child.

He graduated in 1979 from Douglas College where he spent his first year playing trumpet in the school's music program before switching over to business and finance.

Giustra's father was a stock market addict and introduced his son to his broker.

Giustra took a securities course and began his career in the investment industry in 1978 with Merrill Lynch as an assistant trader and then a stockbroker.











Posted on Jan 31, 2008, 2:47 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

OBAMA TOLD COLLEGE STUDENT HE WANTED TO DECRIMINALIZE MARAJUANA! GOOD IDEA HUSSAIN, SINCE

by THEY WILL BE JOBLESS FIGHTING GLOBAL WARMING


Washington Times
Obama: Decriminalize pot


January 31, 2008


By Jen Haberkorn - DEVELOPING STORY: Updated 8:52 a.m.

Last fall during a nationally televised presidential debate, Sen. Barack Obama hesitantly raised his hand and joined with most of his Democratic rivals to declare that he opposed decriminalizing marijuana.

But as a candidate for the U.S. Senate four years ago, Mr. Obama told Illinois college students that he supported eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana use or possession, according to a videotape of a little noticed debate that was obtained by The Washington Times.

"I think we need to rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws," Mr. Obama told an audience during a debate at Northwestern University in 2004. "But I'm not somebody who believes in legalization of marijuana."

Asked about the two different answers, Mr. Obama's presidential campaign said he in fact has "always" supported decriminalizing marijuana as he answered in 2004, meaning the candidate mistakenly raised his hand during the presidential debate last fall.

That position leaves Mr. Obama as the lone presidential candidate among the four leading challengers in either party who supports eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana. Mr. Obama's chief rival for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Hillary Clinton, opposes decriminalization, Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer said.


On the Republican side, Kevin Madden, spokesman for Mitt Romney, said the former Massachusetts governor is "not in favor of legalization of marijuana, and that includes medical purposes."

The campaign for Arizona Sen. John McCain did not respond immediately to questions. But the Marijuana Policy Project, which advocates decriminalization, says both Republicans have told its supporters they oppose that move, including in medical cases.

When asked by The Times about decriminalizing marijuana, the Obama campaign reiterated the candidate's opposition to legalization. "Senator Obama does not believe in legalization of marijuana, but agrees with President Bush that long minimum sentences for first-time drug users may not be the best way to occupy jail space or heal people from their disease," Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said.

The campaign went on to say that, as president, Mr. Obama "will review drug sentences to see where we can be smarter on crime and reduce the blind and counterproductive sentencing of non-violent offenders, and revisit instances where drug rehabilitation may be more appropriate." His campaign later stated that Mr. Obama "always" has supported decriminalizing marijuana.

Mr. Obama's differing answers on marijuana are among a half-dozen conflicts between positions he took while running for Senate in 2004 and those he now articulates while running for president, a review of debate tapes shows. Other conflicts
range from ending the embargo against Cuba to providing health care for illegal immigrants.

The Times obtained video footage of the public debates from a variety of sources, ranging from open sources such as YouTube to political operatives who oppose Mr. Obama's presidential campaign or his Senate bid four years ago in Illinois. Mrs. Clinton's campaign, for instance, recently released footage on its Web site of a 2004 speech in which Mr. Obama spoke about universal health care.

Check back for a full report on Mr. Obama's conflicting positions in tomorrow's editions of the newspaper.









Posted on Jan 31, 2008, 2:36 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

TOP AL QUEIDA COMMANDER DIES IN AFGHANISTAN. UNFORTUNATELY, HE DIDN'T LIVE IN BERKLEY.

by HE WOULD BE ALIVE AND ON THE CITY COUNCIL!

Qaeda operative in Afghanistan killed: Islamist website

Jan 31 02:44 PM US/Eastern


A leading Al-Qaeda operative in Afghanistan, Abu Laith al-Libi, has been killed, an Islamist website monitored by the US-based service SITE said on Thursday.
Al-Ekhlaas, an Al-Qaeda-affiliated forum, announced the death of Libi, who has appeared in the past in Al-Qaeda videos, it said, referring to media reports that he had been killed in a US air strike.

"As the banner was posted on Ekhlaas by a webmaster of the forum, it seems as if the announcement of his death has been confirmed to the forum administrators."

In Afghanistan, NATO-led forces said they had no information on whether Libi was killed.

But security officials in Pakistan said earlier Thursday that a clutch of Al-Qaeda militants, including seven Arabs and six Central Asians, were killed this week when a suspected US missile hit their hideout in Pakistan.

The missile hit a house in the troubled tribal district of North Waziristan late Monday.

Residents had reported that a pilotless drone aircraft of the type operated by US-led coalition forces based in Afghanistan was seen flying over the area shortly before the strike, near the town of Mir Ali.



Posted on Jan 31, 2008, 2:29 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

QUESTIONABLE FINANCIER DONATES TO CLINTON! GUESS A GOOD ECONOMY IS BAD FOR GLOBAL WARMING

by BUT GREAT WHEN BJ CLINTON IS THE BENEFACTOR?

New York Times

January 31, 2008
After Mining Deal, Financier Donated to Clinton
By JO BECKER and DON VAN NATTA Jr.
Late on Sept. 6, 2005, a private plane carrying the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra touched down in Almaty, a ruggedly picturesque city in southeast Kazakhstan. Several hundred miles to the west a fortune awaited: highly coveted deposits of uranium that could fuel nuclear reactors around the world. And Mr. Giustra was in hot pursuit of an exclusive deal to tap them.

Unlike more established competitors, Mr. Giustra was a newcomer to uranium mining in Kazakhstan, a former Soviet republic. But what his fledgling company lacked in experience, it made up for in connections. Accompanying Mr. Giustra on his luxuriously appointed MD-87 jet that day was a former president of the United States, Bill Clinton.

Upon landing on the first stop of a three-country philanthropic tour, the two men were whisked off to share a sumptuous midnight banquet with Kazakhstan’s president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev, whose 19-year stranglehold on the country has all but quashed political dissent.

Mr. Nazarbayev walked away from the table with a propaganda coup, after Mr. Clinton expressed enthusiastic support for the Kazakh leader’s bid to head an international organization that monitors elections and supports democracy. Mr. Clinton’s public declaration undercut both American foreign policy and sharp criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, Mr. Clinton’s wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

Within two days, corporate records show that Mr. Giustra also came up a winner when his company signed preliminary agreements giving it the right to buy into three uranium projects controlled by Kazakhstan’s state-owned uranium agency, Kazatomprom.

The monster deal stunned the mining industry, turning an unknown shell company into one of the world’s largest uranium producers in a transaction ultimately worth tens of millions of dollars to Mr. Giustra, analysts said.

Just months after the Kazakh pact was finalized, Mr. Clinton’s charitable foundation received its own windfall: a $31.3 million donation from Mr. Giustra that had remained a secret until he acknowledged it last month. The gift, combined with Mr. Giustra’s more recent and public pledge to give the William J. Clinton Foundation an additional $100 million, secured Mr. Giustra a place in Mr. Clinton’s inner circle, an exclusive club of wealthy entrepreneurs in which friendship with the former president has its privileges.

Mr. Giustra was invited to accompany the former president to Almaty just as the financier was trying to seal a deal he had been negotiating for months.

In separate written responses, both men said Mr. Giustra traveled with Mr. Clinton to Kazakhstan, India and China to see first-hand the philanthropic work done by his foundation.

A spokesman for Mr. Clinton said the former president knew that Mr. Giustra had mining interests in Kazakhstan but was unaware of “any particular efforts” and did nothing to help. Mr. Giustra said he was there as an “observer only” and there was “no discussion” of the deal with Mr. Nazarbayev or Mr. Clinton.

But Moukhtar Dzhakishev, president of Kazatomprom, said in an interview that Mr. Giustra did discuss it, directly with the Kazakh president, and that his friendship with Mr. Clinton “of course made an impression.” Mr. Dzhakishev added that Kazatomprom chose to form a partnership with Mr. Giustra’s company based solely on the merits of its offer.

After The Times told Mr. Giustra that others said he had discussed the deal with Mr. Nazarbayev, Mr. Giustra responded that he “may well have mentioned my general interest in the Kazakhstan mining business to him, but I did not discuss the ongoing” efforts.

As Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign has intensified, Mr. Clinton has begun severing financial ties with Ronald W. Burkle, the supermarket magnate, and Vinod Gupta, the chairman of InfoUSA, to avoid any conflicts of interest. Those two men have harnessed the former president’s clout to expand their businesses while making the Clintons rich through partnership and consulting arrangements.

Mr. Clinton has vowed to continue raising money for his foundation if Mrs. Clinton is elected president, maintaining his connections with a wide network of philanthropic partners.

Mr. Giustra said that while his friendship with the former president “may have elevated my profile in the news media, it has not directly affected any of my business transactions.”

Mining colleagues and analysts agree it has not hurt. Neil MacDonald, the chief executive of a Canadian merchant bank that specializes in mining deals, said Mr. Giustra’s financial success was partly due to a “fantastic network” crowned by Mr. Clinton. “That’s a very solid relationship for him,” Mr. MacDonald said. “I’m sure it’s very much a two-way relationship because that’s the way Frank operates.”

Foreseeing Opportunities

Mr. Giustra made his fortune in mining ventures as a broker on the Vancouver Stock Exchange, raising billions of dollars and developing a loyal following of investors. Just as the mining sector collapsed, Mr. Giustra, a lifelong film buff, founded the Lion’s Gate Entertainment Corporation in 1997. But he sold the studio in 2003 and returned to mining.

Mr. Giustra foresaw a bull market in gold and began investing in mines in Argentina, Australia and Mexico. He turned a $20 million shell company into a powerhouse that, after a $2.4 billion merger with Goldcorp Inc., became Canada’s second-largest gold company.

With a net worth estimated in the hundreds of millions of dollars, Mr. Giustra began looking for ways to put his wealth to good use. Meeting Mr. Clinton, and learning about the work his foundation was doing on issues like AIDS treatment in poor countries, “changed my life,” Mr. Giustra told The Vancouver Sun.

The two men were introduced in June 2005 at a fund-raiser for tsunami victims at Mr. Giustra’s Vancouver home and hit it off right away. They share a love of history, geopolitics and music — Mr. Giustra plays the trumpet to Mr. Clinton’s saxophone. Soon the dapper Canadian was a regular at Mr. Clinton’s side, as they flew around the world aboard Mr. Giustra’s plane.

Philanthropy may have become his passion, but Mr. Giustra, now 50, was still hunting for ways to make money.

Exploding demand for energy had helped revitalize the nuclear power industry, and uranium, the raw material for reactor fuel, was about to become a hot commodity. In late 2004, Mr. Giustra began talking to investors, and put together a company that would eventually be called UrAsia Energy Ltd.

Kazakhstan, which has about one-fifth of the world’s uranium reserves, was the place to be. But with plenty of suitors, Kazatomprom could be picky about its partners.

“Everyone was asking Kazatomprom to the dance,” said Fadi Shadid, a senior stock analyst covering the uranium industry for Friedman Billings Ramsey, an investment bank. “A second-tier junior player like UrAsia — you’d need all the help you could get.”

The Cameco Corporation, the world’s largest uranium producer, was already a partner of Kazatomprom. But when Cameco expressed interest in the properties Mr. Giustra was already eying, the government’s response was lukewarm. “The signals we were getting was, you’ve got your hands full,” said Gerald W. Grandey, Cameco president.

For Cameco, it took five years to “build the right connections” in Kazakhstan, Mr. Grandey said. UrAsia did not have that luxury. Profitability depended on striking before the price of uranium soared.

“Timing was everything,” said Sergey Kurzin, a Russian-born businessman whose London-based company was brought into the deal by UrAsia because of his connections in Kazakhstan. Even with those connections, Mr. Kurzin said, it took four months to arrange a meeting with Kazatomprom.

In August 2005, records show, the company sent an engineering consultant to Kazakhstan to assess the uranium properties. Less than four weeks later, Mr. Giustra arrived with Mr. Clinton.

Mr. Dzhakishev, the Kazatomprom chief, said an aide to Mr. Nazarbayev informed him that Mr. Giustra talked with Mr. Nazarbayev about the deal during the visit. “And when our president asked Giustra, ‘What do you do?’ he said, ‘I’m trying to do business with Kazatomprom,’ ” Mr. Dzhakishev said. He added that Mr. Nazarbayev replied, “Very good, go to it.”

Mr. Clinton’s Kazakhstan visit, the only one of his post-presidency, appears to have been arranged hastily. The United States Embassy got last-minute notice that the president would be making “a private visit,” said a State Department official, who said he was not authorized to speak on the record.

The publicly stated reason for the visit was to announce a Clinton Foundation agreement that enabled the government to buy discounted AIDS drugs. But during a news conference, Mr. Clinton wandered into delicate territory by commending Mr. Nazarbayev for “opening up the social and political life of your country.”

In a statement Kazakhstan would highlight in news releases, Mr. Clinton declared that he hoped it would achieve a top objective: leading the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which would confer legitimacy on Mr. Nazarbayev’s government.

“I think it’s time for that to happen, it’s an important step, and I’m glad you’re willing to undertake it,” Mr. Clinton said.

A Speedy Process

Mr. Clinton’s praise was odd, given that the United States did not support Mr. Nazarbayev’s bid. (Late last year, Kazakhstan finally won the chance to lead the security organization for one year, despite concerns raised by the Bush administration.) Moreover, Mr. Clinton’s wife, who sits on a Congressional commission with oversight of such matters, had also voiced skepticism.

Eleven months before Mr. Clinton’s statement, Mrs. Clinton co-signed a commission letter to the State Department that sounded “alarm bells” about the prospect that Kazakhstan might head the group. The letter stated that Kazakhstan’s bid “would not be acceptable,” citing “serious corruption,” canceled elections and government control of the news media.

In a written statement to The Times, Mr. Clinton’s spokesman said the former president saw “no contradiction” between his statements in Kazakhstan and the position of Mrs. Clinton, who said through a spokeswoman, “Senator Clinton’s position on Kazakhstan remains unchanged.”

Noting that the former president also met with opposition leaders in Almaty, Mr. Clinton’s spokesman said he was only “seeking to suggest that a commitment to political openness and to fair elections would reflect well on Kazakhstan’s efforts to chair the O.S.C.E.”

But Robert Herman, who worked for the State Department in the Clinton administration and is now at Freedom House, a human rights group, said the former president’s statement amounted to an endorsement of Kazakhstan’s readiness to lead the group, a position he called “patently absurd.”

“He was either going off his brief or he was sadly mistaken,” Mr. Herman said. “There was nothing in the record to suggest that they really wanted to move forward on democratic reform.”

Indeed, in December 2005, Mr. Nazarbayev won another election, which the security organization itself said was marred by an “atmosphere of intimidation” and “ballot-box stuffing.”

After Mr. Nazarbayev won with 91 percent of the vote, Mr. Clinton sent his congratulations. “Recognizing that your work has received an excellent grade is one of the most important rewards in life,” Mr. Clinton wrote in a letter released by the Kazakh embassy. Last September, just weeks after Kazakhstan held an election that once again failed to meet international standards, Mr. Clinton honored Mr. Nazarbayev by inviting him to his annual philanthropic conference.

Within 48 hours of Mr. Clinton’s departure from Almaty on Sept. 7, Mr. Giustra got his deal. UrAsia signed two memorandums of understanding that paved the way for the company to become partners with Kazatomprom in three mines.

The cost to UrAsia was more than $450 million, money the company did not have in hand and had only weeks to come up with. The transaction was finalized in November, after UrAsia raised the money through the largest initial public offering in the history of Canada’s Venture Exchange.

Mr. Giustra challenged the notion that UrAsia needed to court Kazatomprom’s favor to seal the deal, contending that the government agency’s approval was not required.

But Mr. Dzhakishev, analysts and Mr. Kurzin, one of Mr. Giustra’s own investors, said that approval was necessary. Mr. Dzhakishev, who said that the deal was almost done when Mr. Clinton arrived, said that Kazatomprom was impressed with the sum Mr. Giustra was willing to pay and his record of attracting investors. He said Mr. Nazarbayev himself ultimately signed off on the transaction.

Longtime market watchers were confounded. Kazatomprom’s choice of UrAsia was a “mystery,” said Gene Clark, the chief executive of Trade Tech, a uranium industry newsletter.

“UrAsia was able to jump-start the whole process somehow,” Mr. Clark said. The company became a “major uranium producer when it didn’t even exist before.”

A Profitable Sale

Records show that Mr. Giustra donated the $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation in the months that followed in 2006, but neither he nor a spokesman for Mr. Clinton would say exactly when.

In September 2006, Mr. Giustra co-produced a gala 60th birthday for Mr. Clinton that featured stars like Jon Bon Jovi and raised about $21 million for the Clinton Foundation.

In February 2007, a company called Uranium One agreed to pay $3.1 billion to acquire UrAsia. Mr. Giustra, a director and major shareholder in UrAsia, would be paid $7.05 per share for a company that just two years earlier was trading at 10 cents per share.

That same month, Mr. Dzhakishev, the Kazatomprom chief, said he traveled to Chappaqua, N.Y., to meet with Mr. Clinton at his home. Mr. Dzhakishev said Mr. Giustra arranged the three-hour meeting. Mr. Dzhakishev said he wanted to discuss Kazakhstan’s intention — not publicly known at the time — to buy a 10 percent stake in Westinghouse, a United States supplier of nuclear technology.

Nearly a year earlier, Mr. Clinton had advised Dubai on how to handle the political furor after one of that nation’s companies attempted to take over several American ports. Mrs. Clinton was among those on Capitol Hill who raised the national security concerns that helped kill the deal.

Mr. Dzhakishev said he was worried the proposed Westinghouse investment could face similar objections. Mr. Clinton told him that he would not lobby for him, but Mr. Dzhakishev came away pleased by the chance to promote his nation’s proposal to a former president.

Mr. Clinton “said this was very important for America,” said Mr. Dzhakishev, who added that Mr. Giustra was present at Mr. Clinton’s home.

Both Mr. Clinton and Mr. Giustra at first denied that any such meeting occurred. Mr. Giustra also denied ever arranging for Kazakh officials to meet with Mr. Clinton. Wednesday, after The Times told them that others said a meeting, in Mr. Clinton’s home, had in fact taken place, both men acknowledged it.

“You are correct that I asked the president to meet with the head of Kazatomprom,” Mr. Giustra said. “Mr. Dzhakishev asked me in February 2007 to set up a meeting with former President Clinton to discuss the future of the nuclear energy industry.” Mr. Giustra said the meeting “escaped my memory until you raised it.”

Wednesday, Mr. Clinton’s spokesman, Ben Yarrow, issued what he called a “correction,” saying: “Today, Mr. Giustra told our office that in February 2007, he brought Mr. Dzhakishev from Kazatomprom to meet with President Clinton to discuss the future of nuclear energy.”

Mr. Yarrow said his earlier denial was based on the former president’s records, which he said “show a Feb. 27 meeting with Mr. Giustra; no other attendees are listed.”

Mr. Dzhakishev said he had a vivid memory of his Chappaqua visit, and a souvenir to prove it: a photograph of himself with the former president.

“I hung up the photograph of us and people ask me if I met with Clinton and I say, Yes, I met with Clinton,” he said, smiling proudly.

David L. Stern and Margot Williams contributed reporting.






Posted on Jan 31, 2008, 2:22 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

DETROIT MAYOR PLEADS FOR FORGIVENESS. NO SWEAT KWAME,LIBERALS DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD AND

by FORGIVENESS.THEY WILL IGNORE LIBS ILLEGALITY!

Detroit Mayor Pleads for Forgiveness

Jan 30, 9:02 PM (ET)

By COREY WILLIAMS


DETROIT (AP) - Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick pleaded for forgiveness from his family and his constituents Wednesday in an emotional televised speech, his delayed response to recently revealed racy text messages that contradict his sworn testimony that he did not have a physical relationship with a key aide.

"I truly apologize to you," Kilpatrick said, turning to his wife, Carlita, who sat by his side, holding his hand, at their family church.

"I am the mayor. I made the mistake," Kilpatrick told Detroit residents, looking into the camera. "I am accountable."

He did not publicly specify, however, what he was apologizing for, saying legal matters prevented him from doing so.


A prosecutor is investigating whether the mayor and chief of staff Christine Beatty lied under oath during a whistle-blower's lawsuit last summer in which both denied having a physical relationship. A conviction of lying under oath can bring up to 15 years' imprisonment.

Kilpatrick vowed to remain mayor in the carefully orchestrated speech, which aired live in prime time on local television and radio stations.

"Make no mistake about it; since 2002, I have been in charge of the city. There have been ups and downs. There have been hills and mountains and valleys. But through it all, I remain in charge of the city," he said during the speech at Greater Emmanuel Institutional Church of God in Christ.

There was no audience and no reporters or photographers, save for the operator of the sole video camera used. Kilpatrick made no mention of the text messages or Beatty.

The mayor closed by saying, "God bless you, Detroit. I love you. I will see you at work tomorrow."

The speech ended a week of seclusion for Kilpatrick since the Detroit Free Press reported on the text messages. His only public response had been a written statement a week ago.

Carlita Kilpatrick also spoke Wednesday, describing the pain her husband had caused, but urging the city to remain committed to him.

"I am angry, hurt and disappointed," she said. "But no question I love my husband."

Kwame Kilpatrick, 37, is in his second term and could run again next year, but the revelation of the text messages from 2002 and 2003 could end his political career.

The messages call into question testimony Kilpatrick and Beatty gave in a lawsuit filed by two police officers who alleged they were fired for investigating claims that the mayor used his security unit to cover up extramarital affairs.

In court, Kilpatrick and Beatty denied having a physical relationship, but the text messages reveal that they carried on a flirty, sometimes sexually explicit dialogue about where to meet and how to conceal their trysts.

Kilpatrick wrote Beatty in 2002: "I've been dreaming all day about having you all to myself for 3 days. Relaxing, laughing, talking, sleeping and making love."

Beatty submitted a letter of resignation Monday, effective Feb. 8.

At a pro-Kilpatrick rally outside the mayor's office a few hours before his speech, supporters held signs reading "Leave Kwame Alone,""Protect the mayor - protect your city" and "Mayor Kilpatrick Progress."

"He is our mayor. We choose to judge this man by his entire character," said the Rev. Horace Sheffield III, pastor of New Galilee Missionary Baptist Church. "What the mayor has done is unexplainable but not unforgivable."

After another crowd gathered a short time later to call for the mayor's resignation, shouts of "resign" were drowned out by retorts of "We love Kwame."

"I feel he should go to jail for lying on the stand. He's embarrassing for everyone," said Joann Jackson, 63, who carried a white T-shirt bearing a depiction of Kilpatrick's face and the words: "JUST QUIT."

Controversy has surrounded Kilpatrick since his 2001 election as mayor.

Embraced by many Detroit residents for his boldness and confidence, Kilpatrick, then 31, embodied the new black politician and wore a diamond stud earring that helped foster his unofficial title as "Hip-Hop Mayor."

His first four years were marred by use of his city-issued credit card for expensive travel, the city's lease of a luxury Lincoln Navigator for his wife and unsubstantiated allegations of a wild party involving his security team and strippers at the mayor's mansion.

At the start of his second term, Kilpatrick vowed to not make the same mistakes and announced a residential redevelopment along Detroit's dormant riverfront, a successful Super Bowl that shone a light on the city's renewal efforts and other improvements.


Posted on Jan 31, 2008, 2:12 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

BERKLEY GIVES THE MARINES THE BOOT! THIS FIRING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH

by GLOBAL WARMING.BERKS LIBS ARE JUST CRAZY!

Berkeley gives Marines the boot
City Council says recruiting station not welcome; military mum for now
By Doug Oakley, STAFF WRITER
Article Last Updated: 01/31/2008 09:47:45 AM PST


BERKELEY — Hey-hey, ho-ho, the Marines in Berkeley have got to go.
That's the message from the Berkeley City Council, which voted 8-1 to tell the U.S. Marines that its Shattuck Avenue recruiting station "is not welcome in the city, and if recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome intruders."

In addition, the council voted to explore enforcing its law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation against the Marines because of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. And it officially encouraged the women's peace group Code Pink to impede the work of the Marines in the city by protesting in front of the station.

In a separate item, the council voted 8-1 to give Code Pink a designated parking space in front of the recruiting station once a week for six months and a free sound permit for protesting once a week from noon to 4 p.m.

Councilman Gordon Wozniak opposed both items.

The Marines have been in Berkeley for a little more than a year, having moved from Alameda in December 2006. For about the past four months, Code Pink has been protesting in front of the station.

"I believe in the Code Pink cause. The Marines don't belong here, they shouldn't have come here, and they should leave," Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates said after votes were cast.

A Marines representative did not respond to requests for comment.The resolution telling the Marines they are unwelcome and directing the city attorney to explore issues of sexual orientation discrimination was brought to the council by the city's Peace and Justice commission.
The recommendation to give Code Pink a parking space for protesting and a free sound permit was brought by council members Linda Maio and Max Anderson.

Code Pink on Wednesday started circulating petitions to put a measure on the November ballot in Berkeley that would make it more difficult to open military recruiting offices near homes, parks, schools, churches libraries or health clinics. The group needs 5,000 signatures to make the ballot.

Even though the council items passed, not everyone is happy with the work of Code Pink. Some employees and owners of businesses near the Marines office have had enough of the group and its protests.

"My husband's business is right upstairs, and this (protesting) is bordering on harassment," Dori Schmidt told the council. "I hope this stops."

An employee of a nearby business who asked not to be identified said Wednesday the elderly Code Pink protesters are aggressive, take up parking spaces, block the sidewalk with their yoga moves, smoke in the doorways, and are noisy.

"Most of the people around here think they're a joke," the woman said.

Wozniak said he was opposed to giving Code Pink a parking space because it favors free speech rights of one group over another.

"There's a line between protesting and harassing, and that concerns me," Wozniak said. "It looks like we are showing favoritism. We have to respect the other side, and not abuse their rights. This is not good policy."

Fran Rachel, 90, a Code Pink protester who spoke at the council meeting, said the group's request for a parking space and noise permit was especially important because the Marines are recruiting soldiers who may die in an unjust war.

"This is very serious," Rachel said. "This isn't a game; it's mass murder. There's a sickness of silence of people not speaking out against the war. We have to do this."

Anderson, a former Marine who said he was "drummed out" of the corps when he took a stand against the Vietnam War, said he'd love to see the Marines high-tail it out of town.

"We are confronted with an organization that can spend billions of dollars on propaganda," Anderson said. "This is not Okinawa here; we're involved in a naked act of aggression. If we can provide a space for ordinary people to express themselves against this kind of barbarity, then we should be doing it."


Posted on Jan 31, 2008, 2:04 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

OBAMA, THE MOST LIBERAL SENATOR OF THE YEAR! BJ, I'M GONNA HELP YOU FIGHT GLOBAL WARMING,

by AMERICA, YOU'RE FIRED AND HAVE A NICE DAY!

Obama Was THE Most Liberal Senator Last Year
January 31, 2008 1:37 PM

In the National Journal's annual ratings of senators' standings on the political prism you have to hang a Left before you find Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois.

Pass Barbara Boxer...Ted Kennedy...keep going.

Pass Sheldon Whitehouse....Robert Menendez...

Keep going....

Oh, look, here's Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a self-described socialist...

Keep going.

Ah, at the waaaaaaay end.

Senator Obama, good to see you sir.

"The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate," the National Journal writes. "Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., the other front-runner in the Democratic presidential race, also shifted to the left last year. She ranked as the 16th-most-liberal senator in the 2007 ratings, a computer-assisted analysis that used 99 key Senate votes, selected by NJ reporters and editors, to place every senator on a liberal-to-conservative scale in each of three issue categories. In 2006, Clinton was the 32nd-most-liberal senator. "

http://abcnews.com

Posted on Jan 31, 2008, 1:54 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

FLAWED LIBERAL LOGIC IN ACTION#43.BJ CLINTON SEZ."WE JUST HAVE TO SLOW DOWN THE ECONOMY TO

by FIGHT GLOBAL WARMING! AMERICA, YOU'RE FIRED!

Bill: "We Just Have to Slow Down Our Economy" to Fight Global Warming
January 31, 2008 9:26 AM

Former President Bill Clinton was in Denver, Colorado, stumping for his wife yesterday.

In a long, and interesting speech, he characterized what the U.S. and other industrialized nations need to do to combat global warming this way: "We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren."

At a time that the nation is worried about a recession is that really the characterization his wife would want him making? "Slow down our economy"?

I don't really think there's much debate that, at least initially, a full commitment to reduce greenhouse gases would slow down the economy….So was this a moment of candor?

He went on to say that his the U.S. -- and those countries that have committed to reducing greenhouse gases -- could ultimately increase jobs and raise wages with a good energy plan..

So there was something of a contradiction there.

Or perhaps he mis-spoke.

Or perhaps this characterization was a description of what would happen if there isn't a worldwide effort…I'm not quite certain.

You can watch that one clip HERE or you can watch the whole speech at the website of ABC News' great Denver affiliate KMGH by clicking HERE.

It's worth watching -- he also pushed back against a 9/11 conspiracy theorist heckling him.

"Everybody knows that global warming is real," Mr. Clinton said, giving a shout-out to Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize, "but we cannot solve it alone."

"And maybe America, and Europe, and Japan, and Canada -- the rich counties -- would say, 'OK, we just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.' We could do that.

"But if we did that, you know as well as I do, China and India and Indonesia and Vietnam and Mexico and Brazil and the Ukraine, and all the other countries will never agree to stay poor to save the planet for our grandchildren. The only way we can do this is if we get back in the world's fight against global warming and prove it is good economics that we will create more jobs to build a sustainable economy that saves the planet for our children and grandchildren. It is the only way it will work.

"And guess what? The only places in the world today in rich countries where you have rising wages and declining inequality are places that have generated more jobs than rich countries because they made a commitment we didn't. They got serious about a clean, efficient, green, independent energy future… If you want that in America, if you want the millions of jobs that will come from it, if you would like to see a new energy trust fund to finance solar energy and wind energy and biomass and responsible bio-fuels and electric hybrid plug-in vehicles that will soon get 100 miles a gallon, if you want every facility in this country to be made maximally energy efficient that will create millions and millions and millions of jobs, vote for her. She'll give it to you. She's got the right energy plan."

In other Bubba News, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, told the spectacular Kate Snow yesterday that this is her campaign, not Bill's, and told Nightline anchor Cynthia McFadden last night that she can control him.

(Which begs the question -- does she want to slow down the economy?)


Posted on Jan 31, 2008, 1:49 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

The Repuglican Iraq Recession: Debate Raging Over War's Economic Impact

by Anonymous

The Iraq Recession: Debate Raging Over War's Economic Impact

Within the halls of Congress and on editorial pages of the country's newspapers, questions are being raised as to whether the Iraq war bears responsibility for the looming economic recession. Among opponents of the war the answer seems evident: there are clear ties between America's military deployment in the Middle East and its economic struggles at home. Moveon.org has dubbed it the "Iraq Recession."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/30/the-iraq-recession-debat_n_84060.html

Posted on Jan 31, 2008, 11:28 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Suicides Among Active-Duty Soldiers Reach Record High

by The Repuglican Noble Cause takes its Toll

Soldier Suicides at Record Level
Increase Linked to Long Wars, Lack of Army Resources

Lt. Elizabeth Whiteside, a psychiatric outpatient at Walter Reed Army Medical Center who was waiting for the Army to decide whether to court-martial her for endangering another soldier and turning a gun on herself last year in Iraq, attempted to kill herself Monday evening. In so doing, the 25-year-old Army reservist joined a record number of soldiers who have committed or tried to commit suicide after serving in Iraq or Afghanistan.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/30/AR2008013003106.html?wpisrc=_rssworld

Posted on Jan 31, 2008, 11:26 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Shell Posts "Obscene" Profit as a result of Repugs' Illegal War on Iraq Oil Production

by Con-servative Greed is Good

Shell's 'obscene' Ł13.9billion profit is biggest ever by British company
Last updated at 11:53am on 31st January 2008


Shell smashed all-time British company profit records today, posting 2007 earnings of $27.5billion (Ł13.9billion), and immediately ran into a storm with union leaders, who are demanding the Government hits the oil giant with a windfall tax.


Shell's profit surge - it is now making a staggering $75million (Ł38million) a day - on the back of a booming oil price that touched $100 a barrel this winter, was labelled as "obscene" by Tony Woodley of Unite, the UK's largest trade union, as Britons struggle with soaring energy costs.

"Shell shareholders are doing very nicely while the rest of us are paying the price and struggling," said Woodley.

Scroll down for more...


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=511387&in_page_id=1770

Posted on Jan 31, 2008, 11:23 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Bush, the supposedly recovering alchoholic, confuses step 1 and step 2

by of The Program's 12 Steps

Bush, the supposedly recovering alchoholic, confuses step 1 and step 2 of The Program's 12 Steps

He really is a dry drunk, isn’t he?

Words fail me. This is a lovely little vignette, so typical in every way of the man our famously free press thought we’d want to sit down and have a beer with in the Year of Our Lord 2000:

“I understand addiction, and I understand how a changed heart can help you deal with addiction,” he told the two men [during a visit to Episcopal Community Services of Maryland.] “There’s some kind of commonality.”

He asked Adolphus Mosely and Tom Boyd how they stopped using drugs — and then answered his own question.

So typical. Hasn’t that arrogant son of a bitch ever heard the slogan “Listen and learn”? You don’t need to answer that.

“First is to recognize that there is a higher power,” Bush said. “It helped me in my life. It helped me quit drinking.”

“That’s right, there is a higher power,” Mosely said.

“Step One, right?” Bush said, apparently referring to the Alcoholics Anonymous twelve-steps program. Actually, it is the second step.

Anyone remember what the first step is?

We admitted we were powerless over alcohol — that our lives had become unmanageable.

Gee, does that strike a chord? Especially the unmanageable part?

Bush can’t take the First Step, never has, and so the whole country’s been forced onto his Merry-Go-Round Called Denial since January 20, 2001.


http://www.correntewire.com/bush_the_supposedly_recovering_alchoholic_confuses_step_1_and_step_2_of_the_programs_12_steps

Posted on Jan 30, 2008, 11:57 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

YOU'VE CONVINCED ME! YOU HAVE CAPTURED THE LIBERAL THOUGHT PROCESS COMPLETELY.

by SO WHY ARE LIBERALS CALLED PROGRESSIVE?

LIBERALS WANT TO DWELL IN THE PAST.

Posted on Jan 31, 2008, 12:45 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

I thought the democrats impeached him? Didn't they win the election?

by Maybe they were too busy stopping the war?

They've had over a year. I thought they only needed 100 days?

Posted on Jan 31, 2008, 3:01 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Scarborough: McCain’s Platform Is ‘Less Jobs And More Wars’

by No wonder Repugs like him

During the coverage of this evening’s Florida primary results, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough discussed the impact of John McCain’s victory with Pat Buchanan. The Republican establishment will rally around McCain and say “he’s the guy,” Buchanan said, but he cautioned that McCain’s vision for America was foreboding.

“What does he say? The jobs are never coming back, the illegals are never going home, but we’re gonna have a lot more wars,” Buchanan said of McCain. Scarborough remarked that McCain’s “inviting” presidential platform for the fall consists of “less jobs and more wars”:

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/29/more-wars/

Posted on Jan 30, 2008, 11:47 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

"No wonder Repugs like him"

by AS MUCH AS LIBERALS LOVE THE RACIST CLINTONS?

IF WE COULD ONLY VOTE IN NOVEMBER FOR "NONE OF THE ABOVE"?

Posted on Jan 31, 2008, 12:48 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

HILLARY WINS PRIMARY BUT NO DELEGATES! DEMOCRATS DEPRIVE FLORIDIANS OF THEIR VOTING RIGHTS

by AS LIBERALS CONTINUE TO PRACTICE VOTE FRAUD!

Clinton Wins Primary but No Delegates


Jan 29, 8:58 PM (ET)

By MIKE GLOVER

DAVIE, Fla. (AP) - Hillary Rodham Clinton won the Florida Democratic primary Tuesday night, an event that drew no campaigning by any of her presidential rivals and awarded no delegates to the winner.

But Clinton promptly declared it a welcome victory.

The New York senator, fresh off her lopsided loss to Barack Obama in last weekend's South Carolina primary, arranged a rally in the state as the polls were closing, an evident attempt to gain campaign momentum.

She and Obama collide next week in a coast-to-coast competition for delegates across 22 states.

"I am convinced that with this resounding vote, with the millions of Americans who will vote next Tuesday, we will send a clear message that America is back and we will take charge of our destiny once again," she said to a boisterous crowd.

Last year, the national party stripped Florida of its delegates as punishment for moving its primary ahead of Feb. 5 and the candidates pledged to bypass the state. At stake Tuesday were 185 delegates.

Still, Clinton winked at that pledge, holding two closed fundraisers in recent days and scheduling a rally with supporters after the polls closed in Florida.

It is expected that the eventual nominee will try to seat delegates from Florida and Michigan, reversing the Democratic National Committee's punishment.

"I could not come here in person to ask you for your votes, but I am here to thank you for your votes today," she said. "This has been a record turnout because Floridians wanted their voices to be heard. I promise you I will do everything I can to make sure not only are Florida's Democratic delegates seated but Florida is in the winning column for the Democrats in 2008."

Michigan also violated party rules by moving its primary to Jan. 15, and party leaders voted to strip the state of its 156 delegates as punishment. Clinton has also made a plea for Michigan delegates to be seated at the convention

Democrats participated in Tuesday's primary, driven to vote in part by ballot initiatives on property tax relief and gambling in some counties.

Exit polls of Florida Democrats conducted for The Associated Press and the television networks showed that the economy was the most important issue facing the country. Half of Democrats called the economy poor, compared to only about one in seven Republican primary voters.

Both parties' electorates were older than in any other presidential contest this year. A third or more in each primary were at least 65 years old. In earlier Democratic contests no more than a quarter were senior citizens.


Posted on Jan 30, 2008, 5:36 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS MAY GET REBATES BY USING FRADULENT TAX ID'S

by LIBERALS REJOICE MORE ILLEGAL ACITVITY!

January 30, 2008

Lou Dobbs alert: Illegal immigrants may get rebates


In their bipartisan zeal to quickly cut a deal on an economic stimulus bill, GOP lawmakers overlooked something that will certainly inflame the conservative base _ illegal immigrants could receive a tax rebate check from the government.

But late Wednesday, the Senate Finance Committee was scrambling to fix the problem contained in the House bill by only allowing taxpayers using legitimate Social Security numbers to receive rebates.

The text of the House passed bill contains language making "non resident aliens" illegal immigrants ineligible for the tax rebates. But every year, hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants use individual taxpayer identification numbers, known as ITINs, to file income tax returns with the IRS. These ID numbers are used instead of Social Security numbers. There are no exact statistics for how many illegal immigrants file tax returns, but this New York Times story from last year details the significant increase in use of ITINs. This story also lays out the issue.

Immigration advocates point out that many legal immigrants use ITINs, so it would be impossible to tell who is legal and who is not from those who use these IDs. The Senate version of the bill would prohibit use of ITINs, meaning some legal immigrants would not receive rebates.

Republicans who were involved in negotiating the bipartisan economic stimulus package would like to avoid the illegal immigration debate as the $146 billion bill comes to the Senate this week. Congressional aides say the problem is that the IRS is not a law enforcement agency, so it doesn't check immigration status when people file tax returns.

"The reality is that those who filed a tax return will be eligible" for tax rebates of $600 to $1,200, said Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.). "This [issue] has not been addressed" by the senators writing the bill.

The issue has certainly caught on in the conservative blogosphere, though, and you can bet a few conservative senators will bring this up as the stimulus bill hits the Senate floor. CNN's Lou Dobbs will probably have a field day with the issue as well.

A spokesman for House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) points out that illegal immigrants are ineligible for any rebates and are committing tax fraud if they fraudulently obtain taxpayer ID numbers to file tax returns. Republicans also issued a memo Wednesday trying to defuse any controversy over immigrants and tax rebates.

"The bill includes language similar to the provisions included in the 2001 and 2003 tax relief bills designed to prevent illegal immigrants from receiving benefits," Boehner spokesman Kevin Smith said. "There is no language in the measure that would enable illegal immigrants to receive a tax rebate.”

Mark Krikorian, director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a conservative organization, says the problem is not with the economic stimulus bill but with the lack of coordination between the IRS and immigration enforcement agencies.

"If the IRS was cooperating with Social Security or DHS [Homeland Security] ... they would know who the illegal immigrants are who file tax returns," Krikorian said.

It's not clear if the Senate fix will stay in the bill as the legislation heads to the Senate floor tomorrow.





Posted on Jan 30, 2008, 5:24 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Quote du Jour

by Junior

The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubts.
— Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), British philosopher, historian, logician and mathematician

Posted on Jan 29, 2008, 9:24 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Chickens coming home to roost? Life imitating Art? Reality pregnant with Symbolism?

by Werner Von Braun

AF General: Spy Satellite Could Hit US

WASHINGTON — The U.S. military is developing contingency plans to deal with the possibility that a large spy satellite expected to fall to Earth in late February or early March could hit North America.

Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, who heads of U.S. Northern Command, told The Associated Press on Tuesday that the size of the satellite suggests that some number of pieces will not burn up as the orbiting vehicle re-enters the Earth's atmosphere and will hit the ground.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/29/af-general-spy-satellite_n_83938.html

Posted on Jan 30, 2008, 9:41 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

McCain’s ’secret plan’ to get bin Laden

by WSJ

McCain’s Secret Plan to Capture Bin Laden

Alex Frangos reports from Florida on the presidential race.

John McCain says in almost every stump speech that he knows how to capture Osama bin Laden and that he’d follow the al Qaeda leader to the “Gates of Hell.”

So Washington Wire was wondering, what does McCain know that President Bush and the Pentagon don’t about how to sweep up America’s most elusive enemy.

“One thing I will not do is telegraph my punches. Osama bin Laden will be the last to know,” he said today while riding on the back of his bus between Florida events. In other words: he’s not telling. Why not share his strategy with the current occupant of the White House? “Because I have my own ideas and it would require implementation of certain policies and procedures that only as the president of the United States can be taken.”

That response, of course, echoes Richard Nixon’s campaign promise in 1968 to stop the Vietnam War. Nixon also declined to say what his plan was. America’s involvement in the Vietnam war continued until 1973.

As for the Gates of Hell themselves, McCain says he knows all about them. “I think I’ve been close,” he joked.


http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/01/27/mccains-secret-plan-to-capture-bin-laden/

Posted on Jan 29, 2008, 9:10 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Romney and McCain call each other liberals.

by Anonymous

Not too much is being made in the media over the out and out slug-fest between Romney and McCain:

Mitt Romney and John McCain accused each other Monday of being liberals, a charge tantamount to blasphemy in the caustic campaign for the Republican presidential nomination.

One day before the crucial Florida primary, Romney lambasted the Arizona senator for a host of “liberal answers” to the country’s problems.

He added, “The truth is, Mitt Romney was a liberal governor of Massachusetts who raised taxes, imposed with Ted Kennedy a big government mandate health care plan that is now a quarter of a billion dollars in the red, and managed his state’s economy incompetently, leaving Massachusetts with less job growth than 46 other states.”

McCain told a Jacksonville audience that Romney has been “entirely consistent,” then quipped: “He’s consistently taken at least two sides of every issue, sometimes more than two.”

I wonder where our media is over their epic and nasty fight to win Florida? I guess they don’t feel the need to report all that much on the Republican primary knife fight it would appear.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/01/29/romney-and-mccain-call-each-other-liberals/

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080128/ap_on_el_pr/republicans_florida

Posted on Jan 29, 2008, 9:06 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Final Bush State of the Union Speech Responsible for 21 Deaths Nationwide

by Anonymous


Anita Sparin, 25, passed out in front of television at O'Malley's Pub in Miami, FL


Washington, DC (UPSI) - The federal government's Center for Disease Control this morning reported that President Bush's final State of the Union address last night had been indirectly linked to 21 deaths nationwide from alcohol poisoning, and cautioned that the number may grow throughout the day. The CDC's report came as a result of querying available nationwide databases linking together the nation's Hospital emergency rooms. The victims appeared to have been voluntarily participating in a traditional "State of the Union drinking game" in which they had selected beforehand key words and phrases for which they would have to consume a quantity of alcohol.


"I don't know if we'll ever realized the depth and breadth of this unfolding tragedy," stated Dr. Yumas B. Kreitzei, a CDC researcher. "It appears that a lot of people had attempted to play safe, and not choose words and topics such as the economy, anticipating that this is where Bush would concentrate his speech. They instead chose topics such as terrorism, thinking that this had been exhausted in previous speeches and that the president would not choose to wallow in abject failure. They chose wrong. With the highest concentration of his speech dwelling on terrorism at an estimated 23 references, this resulted in lethal blood-alcohol concentrations of .4 in some victims."

Dr. Kreitzei went on to say that the number of casualties would likely grow throughout the day as would the numbers of those severely sickened and injured. "If you do the potential math here," added Kreitzei, "this will be a severe one day blow to the economy, factoring in lost employee production, sick leave, and health-care costs. It could easily negate the president's proposed $150 billion economic stimulus package."

Kreitzei went on to say that the CDC would be referring their findings to the Justice Department to see if charges needed to be pressed against the Bush administration.

"I guess I'm one of the lucky ones," stated Ben Latten, a 45-year-old import/export executive from New York. "I was looking to have a little fun last night, so I chose the economy. I had about three shots at the start of his speech and that was it. My friend, our designated driver, chose terrorism just to play along. He's in the intensive care unit this morning suffering from water intoxication... the doctors say he's probably going to be okay."


http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/29/73758/6969/185/445271

Posted on Jan 29, 2008, 8:37 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Bush Hateses Naaasty Earmarks! Hateses!

by Anonymous

If you weren't sleeping during Bush's last SOTU address last night you probably noticed how concerned Bush is with earmarks. Earmarks, the Deciderer has decided are very, very bad.

Hmmm... Where was the concern for those naaasty earmarks during the period of Republican control of Congress? You know, that period where we saw record levels of earmarks and not a single Bush veto of those earmark laden bills?

Not to mention that Bush himself stuffed bills with billions of dollars worth of his own earmarks.

The actual number, according to watchdog groups, is nearly impossible to tally, but Senate Democrats recently pointed to hundreds, including 580 worth $15.6 billion that Bush included in his appropriation request for military construction and veterans affairs.




And don't forget those special perks for friends and family members.

Some presidential earmarks have obvious roots, such as $24 million for the Laura Bush 21st Century Librarian Program. The president earmarked a billion dollars for the Reading First program, which was criticized by government auditors for steering contracts to favored companies. He also sought $8.9 million for the Points of Light foundation, a pet project started by his father, former President George H.W. Bush.


Now the Deciderer is all, "Naaasty Filthy earmarks! Bad earmarks!! Gaaaahhhh!!!" when just a couple of years ago it was :et pet:: "Niiice earmarks! Goooood earmarks! Bush loves Republican earmarks!".

Funny how that works.





http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/29/113220/573/73/445383

Posted on Jan 29, 2008, 11:58 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Inside The New Terror Capital Of Iraq

by Anonymous

(CBS) On any corner of Mosul, chaos can come any second, CBS News correspondent Mark Strassmann reports. In video, a U.S. patrol is attacked, in a city that's under fire.

Video of the firefight, obtained exclusively by CBS News, was recorded by a camera mounted on a U.S. soldier's helmet.

American big guns arrive. Attack helicopters and Bradley fighting vehicles.

Mosul has become "insurgent central" in Iraq - al-Qaeda's base of money and foreign fighters.

In recent weeks, much of Iraq - especially Baghdad - is quieter, safer. Insurgents have cut and run.

Not in Mosul. Five-thousand U.S. troops sweep a scared city of almost 2 million scared people. And five U.S. troops were killed in the area within recent days.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/28/eveningnews/main3761979.shtml?source=RSSattr=World_3761979

Posted on Jan 29, 2008, 8:24 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Combat casualties in Iraq up in January

by Anonymous

In January, there were “twice as many combat casualties” in Iraq “than there were in all of December 2007,” according to analysis from Cybercast News Service. There have been 28 deaths through Jan. 28 in comparison with 14 in December.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200801/NAT20080129a.html

Posted on Jan 29, 2008, 8:27 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

SOTU: Veterans Health Care Has Gotten Worse Under Bush

by Anonymous

Bush said: “Over the past 7 years, we have increased funding for veterans by more than 95 percent. As we increase funding, we must also reform our veterans system to meet the needs of a new war and a new generation.”

FACT — 1.8 MILLION VETERANS LACK HEALTH INSURANCE: “The new study, published in the American Journal of Public Health, estimated that in 2004 nearly 1.8 million veterans were uninsured and unable to get care in veterans’ facilities.” [New York Times, 11/9/07]

FACT — NUMBER OF UNINSURED VETERANS INCREASED BETWEEN 2000 AND 2004: “Just under two million veterans (12.7 percent of non-elderly veterans) were uninsured in 2004, up 290,000 since 2000, the study published in the December, 2007 issue of the American Journal of Public Health found.” [Harvard Science, 10/30/07]

FACT — NEARLY 20 PERCENT OF VETERANS RETURNING FROM IRAQ HAVE MILD TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURIES: “Screening efforts show 10% to 20% of Marines and soldiers returning from Afghanistan and Iraq may have suffered this wound, according to the Army. The task force last May found that ‘major gaps’ in identifying and treating the injury ‘were created by a lack of coordination and policy-driven approaches.’” [USA Today, 1/18/08]

FACT — NUMBER OF PTSD CASES INCREASING DRAMATICALLY: “The number of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans seeking treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder from the Department of Veterans Affairs jumped by nearly 20,000 — almost 70% — in the 12 months ending June 30, VA records show.” [USA Today, 10/18/07]


http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/28/sotu-veterans-health-care-has-gotten-worse-under-bush/

Posted on Jan 29, 2008, 8:28 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

SOTU: Iraqi Security Forces May Not Be Ready For Another Decade

by Anonymous

Bush said: “American troops are shifting from leading operations, to partnering with Iraqi forces, and, eventually, to a protective overwatch mission.”

FACT — IRAQIS ANTICIPATE TAKING CONTROL OF SECURITY BY 2018:
Iraqi defense minister Abdul Qadir “that his nation would not be able to take full responsibility for its internal security until 2012, nor be able on its own to defend Iraq’s borders from external threat until at least 2018.” [New York Times, 1/15/08]

FACT — CORRUPTION AND SECTARIANISM PLAGUE SECURITY FORCES: “Rampant corruption and lingering sectarianism” within Iraqi security forces are “major hurdles that Iraqi defense and police leaders must overcome in order to take responsibility for Iraq’s security,” according to Gen. James Dubik, head of the Multi-National Security Transition Command in Iraq. “[S]hortages of key personnel, equipment, weaponry and logistical capabilities mean that Iraq’s security forces will probably require U.S. military support for as long as a decade.” [Washington Post, 1/18/08]

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/28/sotu-iraqi-security-forces-may-not-be-ready-for-another-decade/

Posted on Jan 29, 2008, 8:30 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

SOTU: Bush Is Forced To Withraw Troops From Iraq Because Of Weakened Military

by Anonymous

Bush said: “When we met last year, our troop levels in Iraq were on the rise. Today, because of the progress just described, we are implementing a policy of ‘return on success,’ and the surge forces we sent to Iraq are beginning to come home.”

FACT — SURGE HAS WEAKENED THE MILITARY: Army Chief of Staff General George Casey warned that “the current demand for our forces exceeds the sustainable supply” and also that “the surge has sucked all the flexibility out of the system.” Yesterday, Gen. Petraeus “said the Pentagon wants to bring troops home quickly to reduce the strain on the armed services.” [WSJ, 1/17/08; CNN, 1/28/08]

FACT — THE LONGER WE STAY IN IRAQ, THE MORE OUR MILITARY IS BURDENED: “It’s going to take us three or four years and a substantial amount of resources to put ourselves back in balance. … The question is, when does the conflict end?,” said Army Chief of Staff George Casey in October. [General Casey, 10/9/07]

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/28/sotu-bush-is-forced-to-withraw-troops-from-iraq-because-of-weakened-military/

Posted on Jan 29, 2008, 8:31 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Sibel Edmonds: 'Buckle up, there's much more coming.'

by Anonymous

Sibel Edmonds: 'Buckle up, there's much more coming.'

Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 10:23:42 AM PST

In the last few weeks, UK's Times has run a series of articles about the so-called 'Sibel Edmonds case.' ('For sale: West’s deadly nuclear secrets, 'FBI denies file exposing nuclear secrets theft' and 'Tip-off thwarted nuclear spy ring probe')

Former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds stumbled into a world of espionage, nuclear black market, narcotics trafficking, money laundering, and corruption at the highest levels of the US government.

I interviewed Sibel yesterday regarding the current investigation and reporting by the Times, the failures of the US media, and last week's decision by the Bush administration to legalize the sale of nuclear technology to Turkey, in an apparent effort to exonerate prior criminal activity by officials in his administration.

Sibel also has some urgent 'action items' so that we can stop these dangerous nuclear proliferation activities. I urge you to act on her suggestions.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/28/132342/754/923/444533

Posted on Jan 28, 2008, 9:17 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

LIBERALS, HERE'S YOUR PLAN.TELL BUSH SOME DUDE IN VERMONT IS ON TO HOW HE PLANNED 9/11.

by BUSH GOES THERE TO WACK HIM AND IS ARRESTED!

AS ALL INTELLIGENT LIBERALS SUSPECT, BUSH PLANNED 9/11 AND FLEW ONE OF THE PLANES INTO THE WTC. JUST BEFORE IMPACT, BUSH EJECTED IN THE ESCAPE POD. HE THEN CALLED HIS HALF BROTHER OSAMA BIN LADEN AND ALLOWED HIM TO USE AIR FORCE ONE TO MAKE HIS ESCAPE TO TORA BORA!

BUSH, IN AN EFFORT TO SILENCE THE DUDE THAT WANTS TO RAT HIM OUT AND DESTROY THE ONLY PROOF THAT CAN INCRIMINATE HIM. WILL TRAVEL TO VERMONT TO WACK THE INFORMANT.

NOT KNOWING HE IS A WANTED MAN IN BRATTLEBORO, BUSH ARRIVES AND THE HIGH SHERIFF WILL SLAP THE CUFFS ON "W" BEFORE HE KNOWS WHAT HAPPENED.

AN IMPARTIAL JURY OF LIBERALS WILL FIND BUSH GUILTY AND HE WILL BE HANGED!

VERMONT WONT PUNISH CHILD MOLESTERS, HOWEVER BUSH IS ANOTHER STORY.

LIBERAL JUSTICE IS, NO FACTS, NO PROOF, NO PROBLEM.............

Posted on Jan 28, 2008, 11:08 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

BRATTLEBORO,VT TO VOTE ON ARRESTING BUSH & CHENEY! LIBERAL SYMBOLISM AT IT'S FINEST!

by SYMBOLISM OVER SUBSTANCE, THE LIBERAL WAY!

Brattleboro to vote on arresting Bush, Cheney

January 26, 2008

By Susan Smallheer Herald Staff

BRATTLEBORO — Brattleboro residents will vote at town meeting on whether President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney should be indicted and arrested for war crimes, perjury or obstruction of justice if they ever step foot in Vermont.

The Brattleboro Select Board voted 3-2 Friday to put the controversial item on the Town Meeting Day warning.

According to Town Clerk Annette Cappy, organizers of the Bush-Cheney issue gathered enough signatures, and it was up to the Select Board whether Brattleboro voters would consider the issue in March.

Cappy said residents will get to vote on the matter by paper balloting March 4.

Kurt Daims, 54, of Brattleboro, the organizer of the petition drive, said Friday the debate to get the issue on the ballot was a good one. Opposition to the vote focused on whether the town had any power to endorse the matter.

"It is an advisory thing," said Daims, a retired prototype machinist and stay-at-home dad of three daughters.

So far, Vermont is the only state Bush hasn't visited since he became president in 2001.

Daims said the most grievous crime committed by Bush and Cheney was perjury — lying to Congress and U.S. citizens about the basis of a war in Iraq.

He said the latest count showed a total of 600,000 people have died in the war.

Daims also said he believed Bush and Cheney were also guilty of espionage for spying on American people and obstruction of justice, for the politically generated firings of U.S. attorneys.

Voting to put the matter on the town ballot were Chairwoman Audrey Garfield and board members Richard Garrant and Dora Boubalis.

Voting against the idea were board members Richard DeGray and Stephen Steidle.

Daims said the names submitted to the town clerk's office were the second wave of signatures the petition drive had to collect, because he had to rewrite the wording of the petition.

He said he gathered nearly 500 signatures in about three weeks, and he said most people he encountered were eager to sign it. He started the petition drive about three months ago.

"Everybody I talked to wanted Bush to go," he said, noting that even members of the local police department supported the drive.

"This is exactly what the charter envisioned as a citizen initiative," Daims said. "People want to express themselves and they want to say how they feel."

He said the idea is spreading: Activists in Louisville, Ky., are spearheading a similar drive, and he said activists were also working in Montague, Mass., a Berkshires town.

The article asked the town attorney to "draft indictments against President Bush and Vice President Cheney for crimes against our Constitution and publish said indictments for consideration by other authorities."

The article goes on to say the indictments would be the "law of the town of Brattleboro that the Brattleboro police ... arrest and detain George Bush and Richard Cheney in Brattleboro, if they are not duly impeached ..."

Daims said people in Brattleboro were willing to "think outside the box" and consider the issue.

Daims had no compunction in comparing Bush and Cheney with one of the most notorious people in history.

"If Hitler were still alive and walked through Brattleboro, I think the local police would arrest him for war crimes," Daims said.




Posted on Jan 28, 2008, 1:25 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Repugs continue to line their pockets and Democraps cower in the shadow of the Lame Duck

by Election Year Clitoral Economics 101

Stimulus Deal: the Bane of Bipartisanship
By Robert Borosage
January 25th, 2008 - 7:18am ET
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/stimulus-deal-bane-bipartisanship

Barbara Ehrenreich memorably called the talk about the
stimulus "clitoral economics." And that was before we
got screwed.

The stimulus deal just announced is being praised more
for its existence than its content. Much lamented
partisan bickering was overcome; bipartisan cooperation
that got it done. With Wall Street bankers in panic,
better something than nothing. So the parties came
together and split the difference and created an
agreement (which still has to survive the minefield
called the U.S. Senate).

It's worth taking a look under the hood. Despite
approval ratings rivaling those of Idi Amin, President
Bush set the terms: Tax cuts only. No spending on public
works (that is, nothing for stuff we need that actually
puts people to work). No increase in food stamps. No
strengthening of our tattered unemployment system. (That
is, no money to those who we know will spend it on basic
needs). Must include a big package of business tax
breaks (tax write-offs for investments that would be
made anyway, according to any reputable economic study).
No money for states that are about to be forced to cut
billions to balance their budgets, largely by cutting
education and Medicaid spending and deferring basic
infrastructure spending. (Remember the bridge that
collapsed in Minneapolis or the sewage valve that shut
down lower Manhattan?)

Democrats, despite having the majority in both Houses,
accepted those terms. They demanded, sensibly enough,
that the tax cuts include 45 million in low-income
families that the president would have excluded. They
demanded the president take extending his tax cuts
beyond 2010 off the table. They got some help for
imperiled homeowners through the Federal Housing
Authority and Fannie Mae.

So only $40 billion of the $150 billion package gets
squandered on business tax boondoggles. The rebates -
what Jesse Jackson calls Wal-Mart gift certificates -
will get handed out by August at best. It might help a
bit, although if the economy is still in bad shape in
August, people are more likely to be paying down credit-
card debt than buying a new TV made in China.

But $40 billion isn't the largest cost. The real price
is the continued misdirection of the economy and
miseducation of the country.

We need what the stimulus package excludes. We need long
term investment in rebuilding America - spending money
on mass transit, on basic sewers and water disposal, on
the electric grid, on renewable energy, on a green
rebuilding of our urban areas, on schools and teachers,
pre-K and affordable college. We need to stop
squandering money abroad in misbegotten wars - now
approaching $1 trillion spent on Iraq. We need to revive
progressive taxation so at the very least hedge fund
billionaires stop enjoying a lower tax rate than their
secretaries. We need to develop a national strategy for
the global economy, ending our addiction to oil, curbing
the casino speculation that will eventually bring down
the house, and balancing our trade with the mercantilist
nations while capturing the new green industries of the
future.

None of this, needless to say, is in the stimulus
package. Instead we're taught the wrong lessons: tax
cuts are good, particularly business tax breaks; lower
interest rates are a free lunch; the "fundamentals," as
the president constantly says, "are good."

In fact, the foundation in crumbling. A fundamental
change of economic strategy and priorities is vital. And
the economic titillation of this bipartisan "stimulus"
package will benefit the politicians with their press
far more than the economy with its perils.

Posted on Jan 28, 2008, 10:15 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Clinton says Obama reminds him of Jesse Jackson

by They all look alike anyway

Scratch a democrat deep enough and his inner racist roots from George Wallace, Bull Connor, Robert KKK Byrd comes out.

Another example of Billy Jeff racializing this campaign:

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/27/billy-jeff-hey-you-know-who-obama-reminds-me-of-jesse-jackson/

Duly flagged in last night’s primary thread when it broke, I’m bringing it back because it’s too sweet not to reprise. The Clenis got a bad rap on race-baiting for his “fairy tale” comment but he’s caught red-handed here and seems to realize it. What’s shocking isn’t the fact that the Clintons would stoop to playing racial games — unless your name’s Jonathan Chait — but the clumsiness of the way Slick plays this one. The question has nothing to do with race or Jesse Jackson; Clinton injects that, then appears to catch himself and backtrack about what a super-keen campaign Obama’s run. The left’s picked this up (the video is from TPM) so expect some media attention for it in the next day or two, especially to bolster the congealing storyline that BJ’s tactics killed Hillary in South Carolina. This little parting shot may hurt her most of all, in fact, as the sheer artlessness of it throws a spotlight on any attempts by Team Clinton going forward to frame Obama’s win as a “black” victory.

Posted on Jan 28, 2008, 9:17 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

The Repugs' Quintessential Macaca Moment

by Who are you trying to kid?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=r90z0PMnKwI

Posted on Jan 28, 2008, 9:57 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Repug Lott apologizes for Thurmond comment praising Segregation

by It's in their blood

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Incoming Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott issued a written apology Monday evening over his comment that the United States would have avoided "all these problems" if then-segregationist Strom Thurmond had been elected president in 1948.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/09/lott.comment/

Posted on Jan 28, 2008, 10:00 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Is El Rushbutt a Racist?

by Anonymous

http://www.seancoon.org/2005/09/rush-limbaugh-a.html

Posted on Jan 28, 2008, 10:02 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Repug Racism

by Anonymous

Republican Racism
By Mike Hersh
Jul 8, 2004



Yes, Republicans are so supportive of Black people. Just ask JC Watts, the highest ranking Black in Congress. Oh yeah, he's gone. The top Republicans "dissed" him and he quit. This because Republicans only use Blacks - as tokens and tools. Colin Powell is getting the same treatment. Cheney ordered Powell to lie to the world at the UN to get us into the Iraq War. Powell is now ashamed and disgraced.
Racism is nothing new to Republicans. Right wingers quit the Democratic Party in anger over Harry Truman's desegregation of the armed forces. One-time "Dixiecrats" like Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms joined the GOP, which embraced these racists and their racism.

Nixon's "Southern Strategy" depended on racist policies and won support from racists. Reagan launched his 1980 campaign for president in Philadelphia Mississippi as a tribute to anti-civil rights lynching. Bush I race-baited using the Black face of "Willie" Horton to scare suburban Whites into voting for him then vetoed the updated Civil Rights Act while lying about it.

Bush II vetoed a Hate Crimes law in Texas, then lied about it in the 2000 debates. Bush II refused to meet with the family of James Byrd, the victim of a vicious racially based torture / murder. Bush II embraced the avowed racist Bob Jones III during the 2000 campaign, and his operatives accused John McCain of father a "Black Baby" to turn the tide in South Carolina.

No wonder Blacks voted more than 9 to 1 for Gore over Bush. Gore would have won Florida easily if racists Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris and Clay Roberts hadn't illegally thrown 10,000s of Black voters off the lists and thrown out several more legal Black votes.

Bush II continues to champion racist policies and nominate racist judges. Once in office, obtained through racist tactics in Florida, Bush II lied about policies to help deserving minorities attend quality colleges and grad schools. This after the highly unqualified W Bush got into Yale and Harvard through family ties and pulled strings. Bush II actually claimed these efforts mandated quotas - just like his lying old man. Even the right wing US Supreme Court rejected that dishonest racist analysis.

Republican racism just keeps rolling along. Jeb Bush added even more innocent Black voters to his phony felon list in Florida. After Katherine Harris had to admit wrongdoing in a lawsuit settlement, you might think they'd have learned better. Maybe they have. They learned the lesson that they can prosper through racism even after getting caught breaking the law if they just keep throwing out more Black votes and voters.

Republicans think they can fool all of the people some of the time by holding up a few Black faces while pushing racist policies. Smart people see through the tokenism and fake inclusion of the racist Republican Party. Hopefully there are more smart voters than racist voters in America today. If so, then Bush has no chance.

© Copyright 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 by MikeHersh.com and identified authors. MikeHersh.com invites you to broadcast any material at this site, provided you identify the source as MikeHersh.com. All print, Internet, email and other summaries, excerpts or other written reproductions must include this blurb and a link to http://www.MikeHersh.com.


http://www.mikehersh.com/Republican_Racism.shtml

Posted on Jan 28, 2008, 10:05 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Repuglicans and Race

by Anonymous

Republicans and Race


One of the few appeals of compassionate conservatism was the hope that it might mark the end of the Republican's race-baiting Southern strategy. Anyone who still believes that hasn't been listening to the Kings of Republican Comedy.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?bid=7&pid=117495

Posted on Jan 28, 2008, 10:06 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Lott, Reagan and Repuglican Racism

by Anonymous

Lott, Reagan and Republican Racism

Southern Strategy: The race question has haunted Reagan and the GOP for decades


Here's some advice for Republicans eager to attract more African-American supporters: don't stop with Trent Lott. Blacks won't take their commitment to expanding the party seriously until they admit that the GOP's wrongheadedness about race goes way beyond Lott and infects their entire party. The sad truth is that many Republican leaders remain in a massive state of denial about the party's four-decade-long addiction to race-baiting. They won't make any headway with blacks by bashing Lott if they persist in giving Ronald Reagan a pass for his racial policies.


http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,399921,00.html?cnn=yes

Posted on Jan 28, 2008, 10:09 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

WAS "RACIST" YOUR GOOGLE SEARCH OF THE DAY,

by OR DID YOU TYPE IN CLINTON AND GOT RACIST?

I ENJOY YOUR DIFFERENT SEARCH EVERY DAY, BUT I WAS NOT AWARE YOU KNEW THAT MANY WORDS.

Posted on Jan 28, 2008, 1:18 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Friends Don't Let Friends Vote Repuglican!

by Anonymous

Friends Don't Let Friends Vote Republican!

Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:24:08 AM PST


Things you have to believe to be a U.S. Republican today:

1- Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of peace, the environment, homosexuals, healthcare for kids and Hillary.

2- Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him, and a bad guy again when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion - but Kerry was the flip flopper

3- Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is Communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

4- The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iran.

5- A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.

6- The best way to "support the troops" and improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches, while slashing veterans' benefits, combat pay, retracting bonuses for being mamed, over-extending terms, breaking rules to keep them re-engaged most.

7- If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

8- A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, verbally attack and enflame entire nations without proof, then demand their cooperation and money.

9- Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy, but providing health care to all Americans is socialism. HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart and are not focused on maximizing profits at the expense of our care.

10- Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.

11- A president lying about an extra-marital affair is an impeachable offense, but a president lying 1000s of documented times, developing entire campaigns and teams of liars with our own dollars to enlist support for a war in which 100s of thousands die is solid defense policy.

12- Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages, pot and censoring the Internet.

13- The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving and military records are none of our business.

14- Being a drug addict, having married affairs and soliciting teen prostitues is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers, funds and forgiveness for your recovery.

15- What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '60s is irrelevant?


http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/25/101051/883/494/442936

Posted on Jan 25, 2008, 9:35 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Story that illustrates Dumbya's and all Repugs' problem of living in a fantasy world

by Repug Dogma trumps Reality

A Charge to Keep???



This painting hung on the wall during Bush's tenure as Gov. in Texas. Here's the memo he wrote to his staff about it (emphasis mine):

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/25/193725/904/173/443257




Seems Commander Codpiece has been worshipping a horse thief. How appropriate.

Posted on Jan 26, 2008, 11:00 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

YOUR VOTES DONT MATTER, WE CONTROL THE VOTING MACHINES AND THE JUDGES!

by ISN'T THAT WHAT THE LIBERALS THINK?

WHAT DID I JUST SAY, LIBERALS THINK? LIBERALS DONT THINK, THEY FEEL..........

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Posted on Jan 27, 2008, 5:57 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

The Illusion of the Repuglican Economy's Growth is Revealed

by But I'm voting for more of the same

The Illusion of the Bush Economy's Growth is Revealed

Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:17:11 AM PST

Ever since I have been writing about the economy (about 4 years) I have focused on the mammoth increase in US debt during this expansion. It has led me to question the underlying vitality of this expansion as a whole. Events of the last six months indicate the markets are also asking the same question right now, although in a somewhat different way.

In effect, the economic dominoes are starting to fall. Ultra-low interest rates which inflated asset prices and allowed an explosion of debt are starting to seriously bite as a financial system is burdened with too much bad debt on its books. In addition, the market is starting to realize that asset prices -- namely housing -- were ephemeral and will have to drop. In effect, the entire economy is going through a process of reevaluating "the greatest story never told" and is discovering it wasn't that good a deal to begin with.


Let's start with a few basic charts.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/25/7124/52079/557/442873

Posted on Jan 25, 2008, 9:32 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

"Ever since I have been writing about the economy (about 4 years)"

by YOU DIDNT WRITE THIS SHIT,SOME BLOG IDIOT DID

AGAIN, FEELINGS ARE FACT WHEN IT COMES TO LIBERAL SOCILAISM

Posted on Jan 27, 2008, 6:02 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Typical Repug Candidate: "Well, I'm Not Concerned About The Voters"

by Anonymous

Mitt Romney: "Well, I'm Not Concerned About The Voters"

It's a sound bite that probably wouldn't play well without any context.

"Well, I'm not concerned about the voters," Mitt Romney said during Thursday's presidential debate.

Keep reading.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/25/romney-im-not-concerned-about-voters/

Posted on Jan 25, 2008, 9:26 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

AT LEAST HE PAYS HIS OWN WAY, UNLIKE LIBERALS WHO ALWAYS SUCK THE GOVERNMENT TEAT

by IT'S ALL LIBERALS KNOW.............

GOOD TO SEE YOU'RE FOCUSED ON A GUY WHO WONT WIN ANYWAY.

Posted on Jan 27, 2008, 6:07 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

OBAMA: I AM A DEVOUT CHRISTIAN! THIS ISN'T GOOD FOR THE LIBERALS, THEY HATE GOD......

by LOOKS LIKE SATAN'S DAUGHTER HILLARY WILL WIN

January 25, 2008



The following article is located at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/januaryweb-only/104-32.0.html

Home > 2008 > January (Web-only) Christianity Today, January (Web-only), 2008

Q&A: Barack Obama
"I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ."
Interview by Sarah Pulliam and Ted Olsen | posted 1/23/2008 02:18PM


Barack Obama wants to set the record straight. He is not a Muslim, as recent e-mails falsely claim.

The Democratic presidential candidate is fighting the e-mails that have been widely circulated. Obama has been continually speaking about the role of faith in politics since his Call to Renewal address in June 2006.

In the days before the South Carolina primary, he is driving efforts to speaking with media to emphasize his Christian beliefs. His campaign also sent out a recent mailer portraying the candidate with his head bowed in prayer and says that he will be guided by prayer when he is in office.

The senator from Illinois spoke with Sarah Pulliam and Ted Olsen today about his faith, abortion, and the evangelical vote.

You've talked about your experience walking down the aisle at Trinity United Church of Christ, and kneeling beneath the cross, having your sins redeemed, and submitting to God's will. Would you describe that as a conversion? Do you consider yourself born again?

I am a Christian, and I am a devout Christian. I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life. But most importantly, I believe in the example that Jesus set by feeding the hungry and healing the sick and always prioritizing the least of these over the powerful. I didn't 'fall out in church' as they say, but there was a very strong awakening in me of the importance of these issues in my life. I didn't want to walk alone on this journey. Accepting Jesus Christ in my life has been a powerful guide for my conduct and my values and my ideals.

What do you think your biggest obstacle will be in reaching evangelicals?

You know, I think that there's been a set of habits of thinking about the interaction between evangelicals and Democrats that we have to change. Democrats haven't shown up. Evangelicals have come to believe often times that Democrats are anti-faith. Part of my job in this campaign, something that I started doing well before this campaign, was to make sure I was showing up and reaching out and sharing my faith experience with people who share that faith. Hopefully we can build some bridges that can allow us to move the country forward.

What would you do in office differently than Hillary Clinton or John Edwards that would appeal to evangelicals?

I have not focused on all of their policies so I don't want to speak about what their positions will be. I know that as president, I want to celebrate the richness and diversity of our faith experience in this country. I think it is important for us to encourage churches and congregations all across the country to involve themselves in rebuilding communities. One of the things I have consistently argued is that we can structure faith-based programs that prove to be successful — like substance abuse or prison ministries — without violating church and state. We should make sure they are rebuilding the lives of people even if they're not members of a particular congregation. That's the kind of involvement that I think many churches are pursuing, including my own. It can make a real difference in the lives of people all across the country.

So would you keep the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives open or restructure it?

You know, what I'd like to do is I'd like to see how it's been operating. One of the things that I think churches have to be mindful of is that if the federal government starts paying the piper, then they get to call the tune. It can, over the long term, be an encroachment on religious freedom. So, I want to see how moneys have been allocated through that office before I make a firm commitment in terms of sustaining practices that may not have worked as well as they should have.

One of the critiques of the Bush office on faith-based initiatives — beyond the church and state question — is that while it opened up competition to religious organizations or church-based organizations to compete for some of these federal funds, there was no additional allocation; there was no change in the funding. Instead, there were more organizations competing for the same the slice of pie.

I think that's right. There's always a danger in those situations that money is being allocating based on politics, as opposed to merit and substance. That doesn't just compromise government. More importantly, it compromises potentially our religious institutions.

For many evangelicals, abortion is a key, if not the key factor in their vote. You voted against banning partial birth abortion and voted against notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. What role do you think the President should play in creating national abortion policies?

I don't know anybody who is pro-abortion. I think it's very important to start with that premise. I think people recognize what a wrenching, difficult issue it is. I do think that those who diminish the moral elements of the decision aren't expressing the full reality of it. But what I believe is that women do not make these decisions casually, and that they struggle with it fervently with their pastors, with their spouses, with their doctors.

Our goal should be to make abortion less common, that we should be discouraging unwanted pregnancies, that we should encourage adoption wherever possible. There is a range of ways that we can educate our young people about the sacredness of sex and we should not be promoting the sort of casual activities that end up resulting in so many unwanted pregnancies.

Ultimately, women are in the best position to make a decision at the end of the day about these issues. With significant constraints. For example, I think we can legitimately say — the state can legitimately say — that we are prohibiting late-term abortions as long as there's an exception for the mother's health. Those provisions that I voted against typically didn't have those exceptions, which raises profound questions where you might have a mother at great risk. Those are issues that I don't think the government can unilaterally make a decision about. I think they need to be made in consultation with doctors, they have to be prayed upon, or people have to be consulting their conscience on it. I think we have to keep that decision-making with the person themselves.

You've talked about your experience walking down the aisle at Trinity United Church of Christ, and kneeling beneath the cross, having your sins redeemed, and submitting to God's will. Would you describe that as a conversion? Do you consider yourself born again?

I am a Christian, and I am a devout Christian. I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life. But most importantly, I believe in the example that Jesus set by feeding the hungry and healing the sick and always prioritizing the least of these over the powerful. I didn't 'fall out in church' as they say, but there was a very strong awakening in me of the importance of these issues in my life. I didn't want to walk alone on this journey. Accepting Jesus Christ in my life has been a powerful guide for my conduct and my values and my ideals.

There is one thing that I want to mention that I think is important. Part of what we've been seeing during the course this campaign is some scurrilous e-mails that have been sent out, denying my faith, talking about me being a Muslim, suggesting that I got sworn in the U.S. Senate with a Quran in my hand or that I don't pledge allegiance to the flag. I think it's really important for your readers to know that I have been a member of the same church for almost 20 years, and I have never practiced Islam. I am respectful of the religion, but it's not my own. One of the things that's very important in this day and age is that we don't use religion as a political tool and certainly that we don't lie about religion as a way to score political points. I just thought it was important to get that in there to dispel rumors that have been over the Internet. We've done so repeatedly, but obviously it's a political tactic of somebody to try to provide this misinformation.

Is there any sense of how wide this e-mail has been distributed?

This is similar to these smear tactics that were used against John McCain in 2000. We have to continually chase down this stuff. It's obviously being sent out in a systematic way. You guys really help by getting the story straight.

Copyright © 2008 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.





© 2008 Christianity Today International




Posted on Jan 25, 2008, 3:14 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Don't Be Fooled by the Myth of John McCain

by K. R. Ove

Don't Be Fooled by the Myth of John McCain

By Johann Hari

January 24, 2008, The Independent/UK

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-dont-be-fooled-by-the-myth-of-john-mccain-773072.html

A lazy, hazy myth has arisen out of the mists of New
Hampshire and South Carolina. Across the pan-Atlantic press,
the grizzled 71-year-old Vietnam vet, John McCain, is being
billed as the Republican liberals can live with. He is 'a
bipartisan progressive'", 'a principled hard liberal', 'a
decent man' - in the words of liberal newspapers. His fragile
new frontrunner status as we go into Super Tuesday is being
seen as something to cautiously welcome, a kick to the rotten
Republican establishment.

But the truth is that McCain is the candidate we should most
fear. Not only is he to the right of Bush on a whole range of
subjects, he is also the Republican candidate most likely to
dispense with Hillary or Barack.

McCain is third-generation navy royalty, raised from a young
age to be a senior figure in the Armed Forces, like his
father and grandfather before him. He was sent to one of the
most elite boarding schools in America, then to a naval
academy where he ranked 894th out of 899 students in ability.
He used nepotism to get ahead: when he was rejected by the
National War College, he used his father's contacts with the
Secretary of the Navy to make them reconsider. He then
swiftly married the heiress to a multi-million dollar
fortune.

Right up to his twenties, he remained a strikingly violent
man, 'ready to fight at the drop of a hat', according to his
biographer Robert Timberg. This rage seems to be at the core
of his personality: describing his own childhood, McCain has
written: 'At the smallest provocation I would go off into a
mad frenzy, and then suddenly crash to the floor unconscious.
When I got angry I held my breath until I blacked out.'

But he claims he was transformed by his experiences in
Vietnam - a war he still defends as 'noble' and 'winnable',
if only it had been fought harder. (More than three million
Vietnamese died; how much harder could it be?) His plane was
shot down on a bombing raid over Hanoi, and he was captured
and tortured for five years. To this day, he cannot lift his
arms high enough to comb his own hair.

On his release, he used his wife's fortune to run to as a
Republican senator. He was a standard-issue Reaganite
corporate Republican - until the Keating Five corruption
scandal consumed him. In 1987, it was revealed that McCain,
along with four other senators, had taken huge campaign
donations from a fraudster called Charles Keating. In return
they pressured government regulators not to look too hard
into Keating's affairs, allowing him to commit even more
fraud. McCain later admitted: 'I did it for no other reason
than I valued [Keating's] support.'

McCain took the only course that could possibly preserve his
reputation: he turned the scandal into a debate about the
political system, rather than his own personal corruption. He
said it showed how 'we need to drive the special interests
out of Washington', and became a high-profile campaigner for
campaign finance reform. But privately, his behaviour hasn't
changed much. For example, in 2000 he lobbied federal
regulators hard on behalf of a major campaign contributor,
Paxson Communications, in an act the regulators spluttered
was 'highly unusual'. He has never won an election without
outspending his opponent.

But McCain has distinguished himself most as an ĂĽber-hawk on
foreign policy. To give a brief smorgasbord of his views: at
a recent rally, he sang 'Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran,' to the
tune of the Beach Boys' 'Barbara Ann'. He says North Korea
should be threatened with 'extinction'.

McCain has mostly opposed using US power for humanitarian
goals, jeering at proposals to intervene in Rwanda or Bosnia
- but he is very keen to use it for great power imperialism.
He learnt this philosophy from his father and his granddad
Slew, who fought in the Philippine wars at the turn of the
20th century, where he was part of a mission to crush the
local resistance to the US invasion. They did it by forcing
the entire population from their homes at gunpoint into
'protection zones', and gunning down anybody over the age of
ten who was found outside them. Today, McCain dreamily
describes this as 'an exotic adventure' which his grandfather
'generally enjoyed'.

Then McCain's father, John, led the US invasion of the
Dominican Republic in 1965, at a time when there was a
conflict on the Caribbean island. On one side, there were
forces loyal to Juan Bosch, the democratically elected left-
wing President who was committed to land redistribution and
helping the poor. On the other side, there were forces who
had overthrown the elected government and looked
nostalgically to the playboy tyranny of Rafael Trujillo. John
McCain Snr intervened to ensure the supporters of the
democratic government were crushed, bragging that it taught
the natives 'how to behave themselves'. He saw this as part
of a wider mission, where the US would take over Britain's
role as a 'world empire'.

These beliefs drive McCain today. He brags he would be happy
for US troops to remain in Iraq for 100 years, and declares:
'I'm not at all embarrassed of my friendship with Henry
Kissinger; I'm proud of it.' His most thorough biographer -
and recent supporter - Matt Welch concludes: 'McCain's
programme for fighting foreign wars would be the most openly
militaristic and interventionist platform in the White House
since Teddy Roosevelt - [it] is considerably more hawkish than
anything George Bush has ever practised.' With him as
president, we could expect much more aggressive
destabilisation of Venezuela and Bolivia - and more.

So why do so many nice liberals have a weak spot for McCain?
Well, to his credit, he doesn't hate immigrants: he proposed
a programme to legalise the 12 million undocumented workers
in the US. He sincerely opposes torture, as a survivor of it
himself. He has apologised for denying global warming and now
advocates a cap on greenhouse gas emissions - but only if
China and India can also be locked into the system. He is
somewhat uncomfortable with the religious right (while
supporting a ban on abortion and gay marriage). It is a sign
of how far to the right the Republican Party has drifted that
these are considered signs of liberalism, rather than basic
humanity.

Yet these sprinklings of sanity - onto a very extreme
programme - are enough for a superficial, glib press to
present McCain as 'bipartisan' and 'centrist'. Will this be
enough to put white hair into the White House? At the moment,
he has considerably higher positive ratings than Hillary
Clinton, and beats her in some match-up polls. If we don't
start warning that the Real McCain is not the Real McCoy, we
might sleepwalk into four more years of Republicanism.

j.hari@independent.co.uk

(c) 2008 The Independent

Posted on Jan 25, 2008, 1:58 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

John McCain's Temper Preceded Vietnam

by Junior

By his own account, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the front-runner for the 2008 presidential race, had trouble controlling his anger long before he was a prisoner of war in Vietnam.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/8/30/123006.shtml

Posted on Jan 25, 2008, 2:01 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Another John McCain Temper Tantrum

by Anonymous

Old Man John McCain apparently got flustered and angry from relatively simple questions Arianna Huffington asked him. Can the guy handle anything out of his ivory tower, when people don't treat McCain like the saint he believes he is (and which the mainstream press worships)?

http://www.oliverwillis.com/archives/2007/01/28/another-john-mccain-temper-tan/

Posted on Jan 25, 2008, 2:02 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Vanity Fair Tiptoes Around McCain's Explosive Temper

by Anonymous

WASHINGTON -- In its February issue, Vanity Fair questions whether Sen. John McCain has the temperament to be president, but the magazine ignores any serious examples of his out-of-control temper revealed in recent NewsMax articles.



"Will John McCain's Temper Derail Him?" asks a teaser on the cover of Vanity Fair.


"McCain's temperament may be the single most discussed element of his life and career," the story by Todd S. Purdum says. "In high school, his nicknames were ‘Punk' and ‘McNasty,' and a survey of senior Capitol Hill staffers by Washingtonian magazine last summer ranked McCain second for ‘Hottest Temper' in the Senate . . ."


http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/1/10/182118.shtml

Posted on Jan 25, 2008, 2:06 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Arizona Paper Faults McCain On His Temper

by Anonymous

The largest newspaper in Arizona, Senator John McCain's home state, is questioning whether he has the temperament to be president.

In an editorial today, the newspaper, The Arizona Republic, criticized Mr. McCain, a Republican, for a ''volcanic'' temper it said he had unleashed on other politicians, reporters and the public.

''If McCain is truly a serious contender for the presidency, it is time the rest of the nation learned about the John McCain we know in Arizona,'' it said. ''There is also reason to seriously question whether McCain has the temperament, and the political approach and skills, we want in the next president.''


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C03E4DC143BF932A35752C1A96F958260

Posted on Jan 25, 2008, 2:08 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

McCain Temper Flairs Up Against GOP Senator

by Anonymous

"Fuck you. I know more about this than anyone else in the room."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCAqm286eAM

Posted on Jan 25, 2008, 2:11 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

McCain lost five U.S. Navy aircraft.

by Vietnam Vets Against John McCain

Navy pilot John Sidney McCain III should have never been allowed to graduate from the U.S. Navy flight school. He was a below average student and a lousy pilot. Had his father and grandfather not been famous four star U.S. Navy admirals, McCain III would have never been allowed in the cockpit of a military aircraft.

His father John S. "Junior" McCain was commander of U.S. forces in Europe later becoming commander of American forces in Vietnam while McCain III was being held prisoner of war. McCain III's grandfather John S. McCain, Sr. commanded naval aviation at the Battle of Okinawa in 1945.

During his relative short stunt on flight status, McCain III lost five U.S. Navy aircraft, four in accidents and one in combat.


http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/cin_mccain_lost_five_u.htm

Posted on Jan 25, 2008, 2:17 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

THE MCCAIN MUTINY IS AN ACE? WHY DIDN'T YOU SAY SO BEFORE?

by HE'S GOT MY VOTE!

PARDON MY SPELLING. I MEANT TO SPELL ASS, NOT ACE. I WITHDRAW MY VOTE.

Posted on Jan 25, 2008, 3:04 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

John McCain wasn't so proud of our troops during the 1990s

by Anonymous

John McCain last night:

If we do what Senator Clinton said what she wanted to do night before last and wave the white flag of surrender and set a date for withdrawal, we will have expenses American blood and treasure will have one.... We're defending freedom. That's one of the obligations of being the world superpower.... I'm so proud that the jobs that the men and women in the military are doing there. And they don't want us to raise the white flag of surrender like Senator Clinton does. They know they can win. And the message to you and to me is let us win.


So then why was John McCain in favor of "surrender" and waving the white flag when US forces went to Haiti, and when US forces went to Somalia? Isn't McCain interested in defending freedom in those countries? Wasn't it an obligation of a superpower ten years ago when McCain demanded our withdrawal? Was McCain not proud of our men and women in the military who fought in Haiti and Somalia? Why didn't John McCain let them win? If John McCain is going to claim that per se "withdrawal equals surrender" then the media needs to ask him why he wasn't as much a traitor to our country in the 1990s. He can't have it both ways.


http://www.americablog.com/2008/01/john-mccain-wasnt-so-proud-of-our.html

Posted on Jan 25, 2008, 9:47 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

JOHN MCCAIN was directly responsible for the DEATHS of

by FELLOW AMERICAN PILOTS in VIETNAM

interview with Colonel Earl Hopper


http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/cin_hopper_video.htm

Posted on Jan 25, 2008, 9:54 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

McCain Fights Public Access to POW/MIA Files

by Bring Them Home

The War Secrets Senator John McCain Hides
Former POW Fights Public Access to POW/MIA Files

By Sydney Schanberg
April 25, 2000

NEW YORK (APBnews.com) — The voters who were drawn to John S. McCain in his run for the Republican presidential nomination this year often cited, as the core of his appeal, his openness and blunt candor and willingness to admit past lapses and release documents that other senators often hold back. These qualities also seemed to endear McCain to the campaign press corps, many of whom wrote about how refreshing it was to travel on the McCain campaign bus, “The Straight Talk Express,” and observe a maverick speaking his mind rather than a traditional candidate given to obfuscation and spin.

But there was one subject that was off-limits, a subject the Arizona senator almost never brings up and has never been open about — his long-time opposition to releasing documents and information about American prisoners of war in Vietnam and the missing in action who have still not been accounted for. Since McCain himself, a downed Navy pilot, was a prisoner in Hanoi for 5 1/2 years, his staunch resistance to laying open the POW/MIA records has baffled colleagues and others who have followed his career. Critics say his anti-disclosure campaign, in close cooperation with the Pentagon and the intelligence community, has been successful. Literally thousands of documents that would otherwise have been declassified long ago have been legislated into secrecy.

http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/cin_secretworldofmccain.htm

Posted on Jan 25, 2008, 9:57 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Why has McCain been Communist Vietnam's best friend in the US Congress?

by J. F. Onda

Was McCain blackmailed?
Is Vietnam still holding something over his head?
Was McCain brainwashed?

click on link below

http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/cin_whybestfreindvietam.htm

Posted on Jan 25, 2008, 9:59 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Was John McCain Brainwashed by his North Vietnamese Captors to Destroy this Nation?

by Man Chu Rian

Was McCain blackmailed?

Is Vietnam still holding something over his head?

Was McCain brainwashed?


http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/cin_wasmccainbrainswashed.htm

Posted on Jan 25, 2008, 10:01 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

A Glimpse inside McCain Campaign Headquarters

by Anonymous



Posted on Jan 25, 2008, 10:06 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Time for a little "Straight Talk" from Senator McCain about these 2 spy satellite images

by Anonymous

By Ted Sampley
U.S. Veteran Dispatch
www.usvetdsp.com

January 12, 2008

When I read this week in the online Cedar Rapids Gazette that Senator John McCain had on the campaign trail in Iowa raised the issue of the deployment of his son, Marine Corporal Jimmy McCain, to Iraq, I realized it's time for some "straight talk" from the Senator about 2 spy satellite images.

Senator McCain, with the critically important South Carolina Primary only days away, I ask you this hypothetical question: "What, if you become President, would you do if your son Jimmy was reported missing in action and you were informed that a U.S. spy satellite passing over Iraq had photographed a military distress code message in the desert that correlated to Jimmy?"




I ask this because, during your "investigation" of missing American servicemen in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in 1991-1993, you ridiculed a similar satellite photo taken in 1988 that showed what Department of Defense (DOD) experts testified was a valid, classified United States military Pilot Distress code in a dry rice paddy in Sam Neua Province, Laos.

According to DOD documents cited in the 2007 New York Times bestseller - An Enormous Crime - those DOD experts testified that each of the letters in the "USA" were 12 feet tall and together the 3 letters stretched 37 feet across the dry paddy, and the highly classified "Walking K" Escape and Evasion symbol beneath the "USA" was 24 feet tall and 19 feet across. DOD experts told you that this "USA Walking K" pilot distress code "must be considered valid until proven otherwise."

Despite the expert testimony - and the fact that roughly 90 independent intelligence sources had reported the presence of American POWs in Sam Neua Province after the Vietnam War; that a radio intercept had told of US POWs in the province; and that a different satellite photo - also taken in 1988 - had shown the name of a US pilot laid out beside a trail near where the "USA Walking K" was seen in the rice paddy - despite all that you declared at the time and later in your 2002 memoir - Worth The Fighting For - that the "USA Walking K" pilot distress code was not a plea for rescue as the DOD experts said, but instead was "a young Laotian boy's handiwork that he had copied off an envelope."

Really, really cute, Senator!

Having observed how you so callously abandoned missing American servicemen (my son's grandfather, Green Beret SFC Robert D. Owen included) to a lifetime of captivity in Southeast Asia during your 1991-1993 "investigation," I, along with many other POW/MIA family members, fear that you may similarly abandon more brave Americans if you are elected President.

So I ask you now, Senator McCain - before the election - how would you handle a similar distress code message from the Iraqi desert (especially if it pertained to Jimmy McCain)? Would you callously blow it off as nothing more than the handiwork of a young Iraqi boy who copied it off an envelope, or...?

Join the U.S. Veteran Dispatch Eagle message board.

http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/cin_straighttalk_ted.htm

Posted on Jan 25, 2008, 10:19 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

McCain Warns: "There Will Be Other Wars"

by And more money for the Profiteers



The presidential candidate who sang "Bomb bomb Iran" is already looking towards the war after the war in Iraq.

Sen. John McCain told a crowd of supporters on Sunday, "It's a tough war we're in. It's not going to be over right away. There's going to be other wars." Offering more of his increasingly bleak "straight talk," he repeated the claim: "I'm sorry to tell you, there's going to be other wars. We will never surrender but there will be other wars."

McCain did not elaborate who the United States would be fighting. But he did warn the crowd to be ready for the ramifications of current and future battles.

"And right now - we're gonna have a lot of PTSD [post traumatic stress disorder] to treat, my friends," he said. "We're gonna have a lot of combat wounds that have to do with these terrible explosive IEDs that inflict such severe wounds. And my friends, it's gonna be tough, we're gonna have a lot to do."

Watch the video:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/27/mccain-warns-there-will_n_83459.html

Posted on Jan 27, 2008, 3:29 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

AL GORE DETERMINES CLIMATE CHANGE IS SIGNIFICANTLY WORSE THAN FEARED! ONLY 5 YEARS REMAIN!

by NO SENSE SWEATING THE ELECTION,WERE DOOMED!




Climate change 'significantly worse' than feared: Al Gore

Jan 24 05:20 AM US/Eastern


Climate change is occurring far more rapidly than even the worst predictions of the UN's Nobel Prize-winning scientific panel on climate change, Al Gore said on Thursday.
Recent evidence shows "the climate crisis is significantly worse and unfolding more rapidly than those on the pessimistic side of the IPCC projections had warned us," climate campaigner and former US vice-president Gore said.

There are now forecasts that the North Pole ice caps may disappear entirely during summer months within five years, he told a gathering at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a massive report the size of three phone books on the reality and risks of climate change, its 4th assessment in 18 years.

Global warming is a key theme at this year's meeting of the world's business and political elite in Davos.


Copyright AFP 2007, AFP stories and photos shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium






Posted on Jan 24, 2008, 2:33 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

THEN LETS MAKE "FREDO" KUCINICH PRESIDENT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS?

by LET'S HAVE A GOOD LAUGH BEFORE THE END!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA UH,OH! WERE GONNA DIE! MUST BE TRUE, AL GORE SAYS SO. OF COURSE HE ALSO THOUGHT HE WAS PRESIDENT...

Posted on Jan 24, 2008, 2:38 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

OBAMA SEZ, "IS BJ CLINTON REALLY A BROTHER? I'D HAVE TO SEE HIM DANCE" SINCE BARACK IS

by HALF WHITE, IS HE THEN ONLY HALF RACIST?

January 22, 2008
Obama: Is Bill Clinton really a 'brother'? I'd have to see him dance
Posted: 09:35 AM ET


Watch Barack Obama respond to a question about Bill Clinton.
(CNN) – The first leading black presidential candidate got a tough question last night about one of his biggest campaign trail foes: the ‘first black president.’

CNN’s Joe Johns asked Barack Obama whether he thought former President Bill Clinton was the nation’s ‘first black president,’ an observation famously coined by black Nobel laureate Toni Morrison.

“Bill Clinton did have an enormous affinity with the African-American community, and still does, and I think that’s well-earned,” said Obama, who has spent the past few days locked in a high-profile war of words with the former president, who has been stumping on behalf of his wife Hillary Clinton.

But he wasn’t quite ready to grant Clinton Morrison’s honorary title just yet. “I would have to investigate more Bill’s dancing abilities, you know, some of this other stuff before I accurately judged whether he was in fact a ‘brother,’” joked the Illinois senator.

Monday’s Democratic presidential debate was sponsored by CNN and the Congressional Black Caucus Institute and held on Martin Luther King Jr. Day in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Roughly half the Democratic primary voters in this Southern state are black.

The Democratic presidential primary will be held this Saturday, January 26.



Posted on Jan 24, 2008, 2:15 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

The Country Repugs Inherited, The Country Repugs Leave Behind

by Vote GOP. Vote for more of the Same.

THE LEGACY OF GEORGE W. BUSH’S PRESIDENCY

The Country He Inherited, The Country He Leaves Behind



http://www.dems.gov/index.asp?Type=B_PR&SEC={D68CD0B2-1442-4804-9F6B-AF67DE7FF585}&DE={FDD09C4F-E958-4E13-A92B-179C2FAC6FEA}&Design=PrintView

Posted on Jan 24, 2008, 10:21 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

NOT TO WORRY. THE LIBERALS SAID THEY WOULD IMPEACH BUSH AND HARRY REID SAID THE

by DEMOCRATS ARE IN CONTROL. RELAX!

HOW COME YOU HAVE SO LITTLE FAITH IN YOUR ELECTED LEADERS?

Posted on Jan 24, 2008, 1:42 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

US War Costs Increased By Nearly 50% In 2007

by Vote Borrow and Spend Repugs

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Iraq war may not dominate U.S. news reports as the carnage drops, but a new report underscores the financial burden of persistent combat that is helping run up the government's credit card.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080123/ts_nm/iraq_usa_spending_dc

Posted on Jan 24, 2008, 10:07 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Economists Predicted Prolonged Iraq War Could Spark Recession

by A. Smith

In yesterday's press briefing, a reporter asked White House Press Secretary Dana Perino about the tie between the current U.S. economy and the Iraq war. Perino quickly dismissed the reporter's question, insisting that the U.S. economy has been "very strong" and adding that the money was necessary to "take the fight to the enemy" after 9/11...

...Oil prices are at approximately $88 a barrel, although they have dropped from the record high of $100 earlier this month. As Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz recently noted in Vanity Fair, "The soaring price of oil is clearly related to the Iraq war. The issue is not whether to blame the war for this but simply how much to blame it."

Before the war, economists were predicting that oil prices at just $75 a barrel could potentially send the U.S. economy into a recession. Therefore, the current economic situation should not come as a complete shock to the Bush administration.

Read more, and watch video, here.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/23/economists-predicted-prol_n_82917.html

Posted on Jan 24, 2008, 10:08 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Bush "Agreement" Would Keep Us In Iraq For Decades

by More Repug Double-Speak

Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 09:45:11 AM PST

I've not seen this diaried and it's a critically important story that needs to be told. This will be short and sweet, I strongly recommend clicking through to the NPR article for all the details. It is deeply concerning.

The Bush administration is seeking... no has found and is working on a defacto treaty with Iraq that would obligate a large US military presence for decades to come. This so called "Declaration of Principals" would be binding on future US presidents so that they could not orchestrate a pullout or significant reduction of our troops. It would include a permanent and massive US military presence including permanent Military bases


The bush admimistration is attempting to cloak the deal by calling it an "Agreement" instead of a Treaty so that it won't require ratification by the US Senate (all treaties with foreign nations must be ratified by the senate), but even the Iraqi's are calling it a Treaty.

This from NPR this morning:

For their part, Iraqi leaders aren't mincing words. They call the upcoming agreement a treaty. At a recent press conference in Baghdad, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari called it a "long-term treaty."

And nobody should be under any illusions of the scope and durations of this "agreement".

"The declaration of principles would appear to commit the United States to keeping the elected Iraqi government in power against internal threats," says Kenneth Katzman, a Middle East analyst at the Congressional Research Service. "I leave it to the lawyers to determine whether that's the definition of a treaty or not but it certainly seems to be — is going to be — a hefty U.S. commitment to Iraq for a long time."

There is much more in the article and I strongly recommend a good thorough read of it. The link again.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/24/12935/9934/38/442359

Posted on Jan 24, 2008, 11:53 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

BUSH WILL SOON BE GONE AND THE DEMOCRATS ARE NOW IN CONTROL! BESIDES, AGREEMENTS NEVER

by MENT ANYTHING TO A LIBERAL POLITICIAN

EXAMPLE, REID AND PELOSI SAID THEY WOULD END THE WAR!

AGREEMENTS MEAN NOTHING, SO WHAT ARE YOU WORRIED ABOUT? OTHER THAN PELOSI AND REID...........

Posted on Jan 24, 2008, 1:39 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

HEY LIBERALS! HOW COME YOU GUYS DISLIKE THE CLINTONS SO MUCH? THEY'RE THE SAME LIARS YOU

by HAVE LOVED AND PRAISED SINCE 1992.

SINCE BJ CLINTON IS THE FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT, RACISM MUST BE THE REASON YOU TREAT HIM AND HIS LOVELY WIFE SO POORLY.

Ed Schultz: Bill Clinton is Lying
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-X9tEOp19o

Posted on Jan 24, 2008, 1:00 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Hey Neocon! You are a cultist!

by anonymous

And your pack of deluded numbskulls have led the nation into disaster!
http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/012705C.shtml


Posted on Jan 24, 2008, 8:15 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

HEY REPUGS! HOW COME YOU GUYS DISLIKE THE BUSHIES SO MUCH? THEY'RE THE SAME LIARS YOU

by HAVE LOVED AND PRAISED SINCE 1999.

SINCE AWOL BUSH IS THE FIRST MORON PRESIDENT, RETARDISM MUST BE THE REASON YOU TREAT HIM AND HIS LOVELY WIFE SO POORLY.

Study: Bush Officials gave 935 false statements before the war!!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/misinformation_study

Posted on Jan 24, 2008, 10:05 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

RETARDISM IS MANIFESTED BY THOSE WHO PARROT A COMMENT PREVIOUSLY MADE BY ANOTHER PERSON

by IT'S THE INABILITY TO THINK FOR YOURSELF

OF COURSE, THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE JOE BIDEN, HE'S JUST A PLAGARIST!

AS FOR YOU, BETTER CHECK YOUR MEDS. I THINK HALIBURTON IS DILUTING THE MEDICINE SUPPLY TO MAKE MORE MONEY! YOU ARE ONCE AGAIN A VICTIM..............

Posted on Jan 24, 2008, 2:09 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

BUT HOW DO EXPLAIN RON PAUL?

by SPACE ALIEN?

UNLIKE SOME AT THE UURR,I AM NOT A PSYCHIATRIST,SO I CANT EVALUATE THE MENTAL CAPACITY OF RON PAUL

MY MANNERS AND SENSETIVITY WILL NOT ALLOW ME TO USE A CAUSTIC DESCRIPTION LIKE RETARDED.

I SUPPOSE ALL THAT REMAINS IS SPACE ALIEN?

Posted on Jan 24, 2008, 2:26 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE FINDS NO EVIDENCE OF PRE WAR PRESSURE TO CHANGE IRAQ INTELLIGENCE

by SORRY LIBERALS, THIS WASN'T PAID FOR BY SOROS

MUST BE THE TRUTH.............

http://intelligence.senate.gov/prewar.pdf

Senate Select Committee Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs. At pages 284-285 the report states:


Conclusion 83. The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities.

[Redacted]

Conclusion 84. The Committee found no evidence that the Vice President's visits to the Central Intelligence Agency were attempts to pressure analysts, were perceived as intended to pressure analysts by those who participated in the briefings on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, or did pressure analysts to change their assessments.


Posted on Jan 23, 2008, 4:32 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Iraq's Alleged Al-Qaeda Ties Were Disputed Before War

by Anonymous

Iraq's Alleged Al-Qaeda Ties Were Disputed Before War
Links Were Cited to Justify U.S. Invasion, Report Says

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 9, 2006; Page A01

A declassified report released yesterday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence revealed that U.S. intelligence analysts were strongly disputing the alleged links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda while senior Bush administration officials were publicly asserting those links to justify invading Iraq.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/08/AR2006090800777.html

Posted on Jan 23, 2008, 11:53 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

How Bush Got It Wrong

by Anonymous

How Bush Got It Wrong
By Thomas Powers
Report on the US Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq
by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
July 7, 2004, 511 pp., with deletions

No tyrannical father presiding over an intimidated household was ever tiptoed around with greater caution than is the figure of President George W. Bush in the Senate Intelligence Committee's fat report of its investigation into the scary stories about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction cited by the President as all the justification he needed for going to war in Iraq.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/article-preview?article_id=17413

Posted on Jan 23, 2008, 11:55 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Main Subject of Today's Senate Intelligence Report Remains Largely Secret;

by Anonymous

CIA Whites Out Controversial Estimate on Iraq Weapons;

Main Subject of Today's Senate Intelligence Report Remains Largely Secret;

Agency Censors Document Despite Public CIA Speeches, Testimony, Statements



Washington D.C., 9 July 2004 - The CIA has decided to keep almost entirely secret the controversial October 2002 CIA intelligence estimate about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction that is the subject of today's Senate Intelligence Committee report, according to the CIA's June 1, 2004 response to a Freedom of Information Act request from the National Security Archive.

The CIA's response included a copy of the estimate, NIE 2002-16HC, October 2002, Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, consisting almost entirely of whited-out pages. Only 14 of the 93 pages provided actually contained text, and all of the text except for the two title pages and the two pages listing National Intelligence Council members had previously been released in July 2003. At that time, CIA responded to the first round of controversy over the Niger yellowcake story by declassifying the "Key Findings" section of the estimate and a few additional paragraphs.

The CIA's censorship of the estimate mirrors its apparent treatment of the Senate's own report. The Senate Intelligence Committee had previously noted, in a 17 June 2004 press release, that "The Committee is extremely disappointed by the CIA's excessive redactions to the report." News accounts quoting Senate sources estimate that this excessive redaction amounted to 50% of the entire text. After a month of back-and-forth, not only did a number of Senators gain an education in the subjectivity of classification, but also the CIA retreated, to a final censorship level (by word-count) of 16%. Perhaps the most egregious example of the CIA's knee-jerk secrecy occurs on pages 49-50, when only one sentence survives censorship in the Committee's discussion of the British White Paper - and that sentence reports that the British had actually published the Paper. Large sections of blacked-out discussion following the Committee's Conclusions - such as the CIA's misleading of Secretary of State Colin Powell for his February 2003 United Nations speech (pages 253-257) and the CIA's misleading the public in its October 2002 white paper that left out the caveats, hedged language, and dissents in the underlying intelligence (pages 295-297) - are currently under declassification review by CIA. The Committee itself withheld these sections from the CIA's review until release of the report so as not to be scooped or spun.

The estimate has been the subject of multiple public speeches, statements and testimony by CIA and other intelligence community officials - even more of which is published in today's Senate report. These include public statements by CIA director George Tenet on 11 July 2003 and 11 August 2003, Tenet's Georgetown speech of 5 February 2004, and NIC vice-chairman Stuart Cohen's statement of 28 November 2003.

The Republican chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kansas) today summed up the committee's 511-page report as follows: "[T]oday we know these assessments were wrong. And, as our inquiry will show, they were also unreasonable and largely unsupported by the available evidence." National Security Archive director Thomas Blanton commented, "The CIA's continued secrecy claims on a document that has been widely and publicly discussed by top CIA officials, and now by the Senate, is wrong, unreasonable, and largely unsupported by the available evidence."

Today's posting by the National Security Archive includes:



http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB129/index.htm

Posted on Jan 23, 2008, 11:59 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Your 2004 Report was only Phase One. The Repugs wouldn't let Phase Two be done.

by Anonymous

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
Report on U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar
Intelligence Assessments
PDF document

July 7, 2004 report on Phase I of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence review of prewar intelligence on Iraq's WMD capabilities. Since Phase I was only concerned with the quality and analysis of the intelligence, this report does not address how that intelligence was used or whether the administration's public statements were an accurate reflection of it.

http://downingstreetmemo.com/related.html

Posted on Jan 24, 2008, 12:04 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Cheney helped block Phase II report on Iraq

by Anonymous

We’ve been waiting for the Senate Intelligence Committee to report on the misuse of pre-war intelligence for so long, it’s easy to forget what a debacle the endeavor really is.

Here’s a quick review. The Intelligence Committee began a comprehensive investigation towards the end of 2003. Initially, the committee was prepared to release one authoritative document on the intelligence, what it said, and how it was handled. With the 2004 presidential election looming, then-Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) split the report in two — one on how wrong the intelligence community and agencies were (released before the election) and another on how the White House used/misused/abused the available information (released after the election).

Roberts has played fast and loose for years. First he said publicly that he’d “try” to have Phase Two available to the public before the 2004 election. He didn’t. Roberts then gave his word, in writing, that members of the Senate Intelligence Committee would have a draft report on controversial “public statements” from administration officials by April 5. He lied about that too. Then he indicated that he might just give up on the second part of the investigation altogether.

This week, we learn that this wasn’t just a matter of Roberts being a dishonest partisan hack; the investigation was impeded by the Vice President.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9737.html

Posted on Jan 24, 2008, 12:15 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Bush and C.I.A. Won't Release Paper on Prewar Intelligence

by Anonymous

Bush and C.I.A. Won't Release Paper on Prewar Intelligence
By DOUGLAS JEHL

Published: July 14, 2004


ASHINGTON, July 13 - The White House and the Central Intelligence Agency have refused to give the Senate Intelligence Committee a one-page summary of prewar intelligence in Iraq prepared for President Bush that contains few of the qualifiers and none of the dissents spelled out in longer intelligence reviews, according to Congressional officials.

Senate Democrats claim that the document could help clear up exactly what intelligence agencies told Mr. Bush about Iraq's illicit weapons. The administration and the C.I.A. say the White House is protected by executive privilege, and Republicans on the committee dismissed the Democrats' argument that the summary was significant.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/14/politics/14inte.html?ex=1247457600&en=54d4d05d5b84ef90&ei=5090

Posted on Jan 24, 2008, 12:11 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

REID: THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESS MUST HOLD THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION ACCOUNTABLE ON INTELLIGENC

by Anonymous

REID: THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESS MUST HOLD THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION ACCOUNTABLE ON INTELLIGENCE
Friday, March 3, 2006


Washington, DC -- Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid released the following statement on the Republican-controlled Intelligence Committee's failure to hold the Bush administration accountable.


A fact sheet on intelligence oversight failures and a letter to Senator Frist are attached.


"I agree with Senator Frist, the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee has been bogged down by partisanship. The only way we can restore this important committee's non-partisan tradition is for Leader Frist and Chairman Roberts to stop bowing to the pressure of the Bush White House and permit the committee to do its job. When faced with strong evidence that the Bush Administration has misused intelligence, misuses that have made America less secure, time and again the Senate Intelligence Committee has ducked its responsibilities and refused to hold the Administration accountable. The recent record of the Republican-controlled committee is most notable for its abdication of authority and responsibility.


"The Intelligence Committee's meeting on March 7th presents an important credibility test for Senator Frist and Senator Roberts. If both are serious about their desire to let this committee perform its duties, Chairman Roberts will keep his word and permit the committee to conduct a vote on Senator Rockefeller's reasonable proposal to review the Administration's controversial domestic spying program."



###

Editorial Boards and Commentators across the Country Have Blasted Senator Roberts' Lack of Oversight on the Republican- Controlled Intelligence Committee.



"Roberts' Credibility On Line" [Wichita (Kansas) Eagle, 2/18/06] "Advise and Assent" [L.A. Times, 2/19/06] "Doing the President's Dirty Work" [New York Times, 2/17/06] "Congress Tackles Surveillance" [Washington Post, 2/16/06] "Roberts at Center of Spying Firestorm" [Wichita Eagle, 2/27/06] "No Checks, Many Imbalances" [George Will, Washington Post, 2/16/06]


Intelligence Oversight in the Senate:

A Record of Partisanship and Failure


Despite the fact that the Senate Intelligence Committee has increased its staff size from 23 to 36 -- an increase of over 50% -- beginning in the fall of 2004 [S.Res.445, 10/1/04], Senator Frist claims that the Senate Intelligence Committee is over-burdened and that Democratic requests would require, "an overwhelming amount of staff time, attention and resources."


For the past several years the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee has failed to exercise its oversight responsibility.


Detention, Interrogation, and Rendition Controversy -- No Committee Investigation

o Despite numerous troubling reports about detainee abuse as a result of Bush Administration's detention, interrogation, and rendition policies and questions about role of intelligence community, the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee has refused to formally investigate these actions.


Iraq Pre-War Intelligence Controversy -- Committee Investigation Incomplete Nearly Three Years After Start of War

o After months of refusing to conduct an investigation of the Bush Administration's misuse and potential abuse of pre-war intelligence related to Iraq, the Republican majority grudgingly consented to conduct an investigation when it became apparent it lacked the votes to thwart it. Nearly three years after the start of the war and more than two years since the committee unanimously voted to initiate an investigation of these issues, this committee has yet to complete its work. Key Administration officials have still not been interviewed; key documents have not been reviewed. New information comes out every week about how these failures have undermined intelligence reform and our chances for victory in Iraq.


Oversight and Implementation of Intelligence Reform -- No Meaningful Committee Action

oT hroughout the tenure of the current chairman of the Intelligence Committee, there has been a refusal to undertake a comprehensive, systemic examination of the intelligence community's organization and effectiveness -- an extraordinary abdication of oversight responsibilities in the wake of all of the intelligence questions raised by the attacks of 9/11. The committee did not convene intelligence reform hearings until after the Senate leadership had vested responsibility for intelligence reform in the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee and only then held a few "me-too" hearings. As a result, the Senate Intelligence Committee was rendered irrelevant to the most significant intelligence community reform effort since the community was formed in 1947.


FY2006 Intelligence Authorization Bill -- Failed to Gain Senate Passage of Bill for First Time in the nearly 30 Year History of Committee

oDue to Republican objections, the Senate Intelligence Committee has failed to pass the Intelligence Authorization bill on the Senate floor for the first time in nearly 30 years.


Domestic Spying Program -- No Committee Investigation

o More than two months after the first request for an investigation and additional bipartisan requests thereafter, the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee has not agreed to initiate a thorough review of the numerous serious questions about the legality and operational effectiveness of the Bush Administration's domestic spying program.


All of this has led to the Committee's Democratic Vice-Chairman to say that he is concerned that the Committee will "continue its slide into irrelevance."


###


March 1, 2006



Senator Bill Frist

Majority Leader

United States Senate

Washington, D.C.


Dear Senator Frist:


As you know, the independent, bipartisan 9/11 Commission concluded in its report that improving and strengthening congressional oversight of the intelligence community would greatly contribute to America's security. In the Commission's view, effective congressional oversight would help our intelligence agencies deliver the accurate and unbiased intelligence that is so essential to America's success in the global war on terror.


Despite the unanimous finding of the Commission on this critical issue, I am concerned that the Republican-controlled Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is still not providing the kind of rigorous oversight urged by the 9/11 Commission and required by the Constitution and the Senate's Standing Rules. This Committee's failure to conduct oversight of critical and controversial national security decisions by this Administration contributes to the perception that this Republican Congress is unwilling to hold this Administration accountable for its mistakes and missteps.


For example, despite the fact that the Bush Administration's detainee, interrogation, and rendition policies have increased the risk to our troops and contravened or ignored international law, Chairman Roberts has blocked an investigation.


The Committee has a similar record on another issue of critical significance to our troops and our security -- how the Bush Administration used, and perhaps misused, intelligence to sell its case for war with Iraq. Although more than two years have passed since the Chairman grudgingly consented to launch an investigation, the Committee has yet to interview key Administration officials, let alone produce a report.


Finally, I am particularly concerned with the Chairman's inaction on the Bush Administration's efforts to conduct domestic surveillance on American citizens without a warrant. I strongly support efforts to take down Al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations but believe we must do so in the most effective means possible. However, I am concerned that by choosing to launch a program based on a shifting and questionable legal rationale, President Bush has jeopardized its effectiveness by increasing public awareness of this highly sensitive program, jeopardizing terrorist prosecutions, and dividing the American public whose support is critical for any effort we undertake against terrorists. Attorney General Gonzales' letter to the Senate yesterday is the latest demonstration of how the Administration's shifting rationale for this program has raised concerns that are causing members on both sides of the aisle to request a full and complete investigation.


I understand that Chairman Roberts committed to hold a committee vote to launch an investigation of the Administration's NSA program on February 16th.. Despite the Chairman's repeated assurances that he would permit such a vote, ultimately he refused to allow the committee to do so. Press reports indicate the Chairman reneged on his promise to hold a vote after heavy White House pressure.


I understand that the Chairman has reversed himself again, and has promised a vote for March 7th. This vote will be a critical test of whether this Republican-controlled Congress can conduct critical oversight of the Bush Administration, the intelligence community, and a Bush Administration surveillance program that has raised many legitimate concerns. While I appreciate the Chairman's commitment to this vote occurring on March 7th, further procedural maneuvers to delay or prevent reasonable and thorough oversight by the Intelligence Committee on the Administration's handling of pre-war intelligence or the NSA matter would be a troubling development that would require the attention of the full Senate.


In the post-9/11 world, America cannot afford a Congress or a congressional committee, especially one as important as the Senate Intelligence Committee, to become lax in its duties. I hope you will agree that the committee is too important to our national security for us to allow it to become an extension of the White House public relations operation, and that you will do everything in your power to ensure the March 7th vote takes place.



Sincerely,



Harry Reid

Democratic Leader


http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_cr/reid030306.html


Posted on Jan 24, 2008, 12:13 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

PAY ATTENTION YOU MORON. THIS IS THE NEW REPORT BY THE DEMOCRATIC CONTROLLED CONGRESS!

by GOT ANYTHING RELEVENT TO QUOTE?

THIS ISNT 2004 OR 2006. CATCH UP OR GO BACK TO SLEEP

Posted on Jan 24, 2008, 12:20 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

THE LIBERALS WILL CATCH UP AS SOON AS THEY SOLVE THE THEFT OF THE 2000 ELECTION! REID &

by PELOSI ARE IN CONTROL, IT WONT BE LONG NOW

THE LIBERALS HAVE BEEN BUSY ENDING THE WAR. HOW LONG HAS IT BEEN OVER, I FORGET?

Posted on Jan 24, 2008, 12:41 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

935 Iraq Falsehoods - Have Patience. Phase II is coming.

by Anonymous

Dan Froomkin reports today that the Senate Intelligence Committee’s long overdue Phase II report on “whether the White House intentionally deceived the public” prior to the war will be out “before the end of spring.”



935 Iraq Falsehoods

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Wednesday, January 23, 2008; 1:00 PM



A nonprofit group pursuing old-fashioned accountability journalism is out with a new report and database documenting 935 false statements by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials hyping the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the two years after Sept. 11, 2001.

The Center for Public Integrity reports that its "exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

The database also documents how Bush and others had reason to know, or at least suspect, what they were saying was not supported by the facts.

John H. Cushman Jr. writes in the New York Times: "There is no startling new information in the archive, because all the documents have been published previously. But the new computer tool is remarkable for its scope, and its replay of the crescendo of statements that led to the war. Muckrakers may find browsing the site reminiscent of what Richard M. Nixon used to dismissively call 'wallowing in Watergate.'"

And yet there are plenty of reasons why the deceitful run-up to war is not old news. For one, the war goes on. For another, government credibility remains severely damaged. And then there's the fact that the president has never really been held to account for his repeated falsehoods.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/01/23/BL2008012301758_pf.html



What About the Senate Intelligence Committee?

So what, you may well ask, ever happened to the Senate Intelligence Committee's promised inquiry into whether the White House intentionally deceived the public in the run-up to war? That, presumably, would provide an accountability moment of sorts.

You may recall that more than two years ago, in November 2005, Democrats were so upset about Republican foot-dragging on the inquiry that they brought the Senate to a halt with a rare closed session to demand that work resume.

The Republicans, not surprisingly, continued to stall anyway. But the Democrats have controlled the Senate for more than a year now. Where is the report?

Wendy Morigi, spokeswoman for Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller, told me this morning that it will be out before the end of spring.

Why the delay? Due to the "lack of comity on the committee" when Rockefeller took over the chairmanship, he decided that pushing ahead with the inquiry right away "would again create tension," Morigi said.

Nevertheless, the committee staff has "continued to work" on the report, she said. And a hearing on the matter will be held "within the next few months."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/01/23/BL2008012301758_pf.html


Posted on Jan 24, 2008, 10:16 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

THEN WHAT ARE YOU LIBERALS GONNA DO, IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT?

by TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE, ABOUT NOTHING!

BESIDES, CONGRESS WILL BE TOO BUSY RAISING YOUR TAXES.

Posted on Jan 24, 2008, 8:02 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Heath Ledger is dead

by Anonymous

and the homophobes at UURR don't care, they think because he was in Brokeback that he is gay. People he's an actor - show some compassion for him.

Posted on Jan 22, 2008, 6:19 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Don't do drugs.

by Anonymous

Your compassion ended at the word homophobe. Do you always assume the worse of people?

If you were in fact compassionate, you would warn others of the danger of drugs.

Posted on Jan 22, 2008, 7:51 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

HERE'S AN IDEA. LET'S GO BACK TO CLINTONS "NEW ECONOMY"! NOW THOSE WERE THE DAYS.

by NASDAQ DROPPED FROM 5,000 T0 2,000!

IT WAS GREAT UNTIL THE TECH BUBBLE BURST YOU REMEMBER, DON'T YOU?

Posted on Jan 22, 2008, 11:54 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

I'm voting for more of the same old Republican shit

by Bubba

It's bound to work eventually. If we live that long.

Posted on Jan 23, 2008, 12:25 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

BUSH ISN'T RUNNING AGAIN. BUT IF YOU VOTE FOR A LIBERAL, YOU WILL BE EATING SHIT AND

by HILLARY WILL TELL YOU IT'S APPLE BUTTER

AND FOR EVERY POUND OF SHIT YOU EAT, YOU WILL BE SAVING THE PLANET, MAKING THE WORLD LOVE US AGAIN, SHOWING "THE CORPORATE FAT CATS" WHO IS BOSS, LEAVING MORE FREE GOVERNMENT STEAK FOR THE ILLEGALS TO EAT AND ALL THIS WILL GET YOUR MIND RIGHT, ALLOWING YOU TO REALIZE THE TERRORISTS ARE OUR FRIENDS. SO START EATING APPLE BUTTER FOR WORLD PEACE!

Posted on Jan 23, 2008, 1:27 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Welcome to the Repuglican Recession

by H. Hoover

Righting Our Republican Recession

A compilation of excerpts from three articles and commentary on our Republican Recession, and the plans of the major candidates in both parties for righting it... Republican economic policy based on war, greed, cronyism, wastrel spending. and corruption has been great for millionaires, but that policy has landed the rest of us in the middle of a genuine Republican recession. The easy part here is knowing who to blame. There can be no doubt that Bush and the GOP are at fault. But what of the hard part? Now that we're in it, what do we do?

http://politicsplus.blogspot.com/2008/01/righting-our-republican-recession.html

Posted on Jan 22, 2008, 9:45 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Recession should worry Repuglicans, analysis shows

by Anonymous

Recession should worry Republicans, analysis shows

WASHINGTON - As Wall Street braces for an election-year recession, history suggests Republicans should be nervous.

Voters do not look favourably on an incumbent party that presides over a downturn.

http://www.financialpost.com/markets/news_releases/Story.html?id=226945

Posted on Jan 22, 2008, 9:47 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

The Repuglican Economic Record: Fiscal Irresponsibility and Economic Insecurity

by Anonymous

The Republican Economic Record: Fiscal Irresponsibility and Economic Insecurity


http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=fs-109-1-77

Posted on Jan 22, 2008, 9:49 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Indeed republicans dont understand economics

by or Recession is good for the Super-Rich

While the Clinton years saw the greatest growth America has ever seen (DOW tripled under his watch), here is what republican leadership has brought since the 1920s.

Hoover-Republican-depression
Eisenhower-Republican-recession
Nixon-Republican-recession
Ford-Republican-recession
Reagan-Republican-recession
Bush Sr-Republican-recession
Bush Lite-Republican-recession (now ramping up for his second recession)

Don't trust republicans with the economy, they have a history of destroying it!

Oh but somehow you are trying to "prove" Clinton wasn't a success by providing a biased report from only his 1st term? Not to mention that it was done by the republican congressman from NJ and a well known rabid Clinton hater. Are you serious? How laughable! LOL!!!!!

http://minneapolis.craigslist.org/pol/535091399.html

Posted on Jan 22, 2008, 9:53 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Repuglican nightmare: An election-year recession

by Anonymous

Republican nightmare: An election-year recession

Could the outlook for 2008 get any worse for Republican political strategists? On Monday Morgan-Stanley became the first big Wall Street investment bank to formally call for a recession in 2008.

http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2007/12/11/morgan_stanley_calls_a_recession/index.html

Posted on Jan 22, 2008, 9:56 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Stocks Plunge on Repuglican Recession Fears - GOP promises more of the same

by Concerned Voter

Wall Street Plunges On News... Check The NYSE... Check The Nasdaq... Paulson: "Time Is Of The Essence"… Largest Cut In 18 Years… Surpasses Cut Made After 9/11

NEW YORK — Wall Street fell sharply Tuesday, propelling the Dow Jones industrials down nearly 200 points after an interest rate cut by the Federal Reserve failed to assuage investors fearing a recession in the United States.

U.S. markets joined stock exchanges around the globe that fell precipitously in recent days amid concerns that a downturn might spread around the world. U.S. bonds were mixed, with investors seeking safer investments as stocks plummeted. The price of oil, meanwhile, fell amid expectations that a downturn would depress demand for energy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/22/stocks-plunge-on-recessio_n_82624.html

Posted on Jan 22, 2008, 10:00 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

We'll all pay for Repuglican hubris

by Anonymous

HUBRIS

Hubris or hybris (Greek ὕâńéň), according to its modern usage, is exaggerated self pride, arrogance or self-confidence (overbearing pride), often resulting in fatal retribution. In Ancient Greece, "hubris" referred to actions taken in order to shame and humiliate the victim, thereby making oneself seem superior.

Hubris was a crime in classical Athens. It was considered the greatest sin of the ancient Greek world. The category of acts constituting hubris for the ancient Greeks apparently broadened from the original specific reference to molestation of a corpse, or a humiliation of a defeated foe, to molestation, or irreverant, "outrageous treatment", in general. The meaning was further generalized in its modern English usage to apply to any outrageous act or exhibition of pride or disregard for basic moral law. Such an act may be referred to as an "act of hubris", or the person committing the act may be said to be hubristic. Ate, Greek for 'ruin, folly, delusion', is the action performed by the hero, usually because of his/her hubris, or great pride, that leads to his/her death or downfall.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris

Posted on Jan 22, 2008, 10:03 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Don't worry, Jesus is coming and boy is he PISSED

by Anonymous

Jesus and the Temple

http://www.bible-history.com/gentile_court/TEMPLECOURTJesus_and_the_Temple.htm

There was tremendous wealth in Jerusalem. Many of the rich publicans (tax-gatherers) and influential leaders resided in Jerusalem, not only in their houses, but their summer residences, their large parks, and their country estates. Their vast wealth reached unbelievable proportions in the days of Herod. These plutocratic families were powerful in government circles and "prided themselves in their excesses." The gulf between the rich and the poor was immense and the very poor families were often driven from their homes to become the slum-dwellers of Jerusalem.


http://www.bible-history.com/gentile_court/TEMPLECOURTJesus_and_the_Temple.htm

Posted on Jan 22, 2008, 10:06 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

USURY - What would Jesus do?

by Anonymous

Usury (/'juʒ(ə)ɹi/, from the Medieval Latin usuria, "interest" or "excessive interest", from Latin usura "interest") was defined originally as charging a fee for the use of money. This usually meant interest on loans, although charging a fee for changing money (as at a bureau de change) is included in the original meaning. After moderate-interest loans were made more easily available usury became an accepted part of the business world in the early modern age. Today, the word has come to refer to the charging of unreasonable or relatively high rates of interest.

The pivotal change in the English-speaking world seems to have come with the permission to charge interest on lent money: particularly the Act 'In restraint of usury' of Henry VIII in England in 1545 (see book references).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury

Posted on Jan 22, 2008, 10:09 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Jesus loved the poor, unlike most repugs

by Anonymous

"If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."

http://www.voiceofjesus.org/onthepoor.html

Posted on Jan 22, 2008, 10:11 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Good point - there never were any recessions until Bush was elected

by Anonymous

Republicans invented the business cycle.

fucking moron

Posted on Jan 22, 2008, 10:39 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Your logic is not supported by the historical data

by Anonymous

Repuglican policies of unbounded greed eventually result in unpalatable situations. Even the rational capitalists recognize that. That's when they allow the Democraps to toss a few crumbs to the masses in order to quiet their grumbling.

Get used to it you fucking idiot.

Posted on Jan 23, 2008, 12:28 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

"HOw the Holy Rollers and Neo-Cons destroyed the GOP"

by anonymous

Another insider breaks ranks and denounces the transformation of the GOP into a den of zealots and thieves.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10388.html


Posted on Jan 22, 2008, 11:11 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

BushCo Shows GOP how it's done. The BIG LIE and lots of little ones got us into the WAR

by and allowed the WAR-PROFITEERS to cash in

Study: Bush Officials gave 935 false statements before the war!!

Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 05:53:52 AM PST


Here is somthing we all knew to be true, but now will be archieved into the American History Books.

The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

Here's the entire article with links http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/misinformation_study


Manipulation, Distortion, corruption, and greed...

So given the state of the American economy which has been crippled by the Iraq war, why is this piece of crap Administration still in Office..

Here's the link for the Center for the Publicn Integrity http://www.publicintegrity.org

Great Site!!!!


The American public was manipulated and lied to in order to bolster billions (maybe two trillion before all is said and done) of dollars to fund the Military Industrial Complex's causation in order to help out big oil. I won't elaborate any more on this because this topic has been beat to death and nobody in the media seems to give a shit. Furthermore, the soldiers in Iraq, the innocent human life and senseless act is truely sad.

The number one concern the American public has is the economy. Iraq is not even in the forefront of the news anymore. Our country's future is grim. If someone can ask, how much damage could one person do to hurt the United States, the answer lies within George W. Bush. The worst President in the History of the America...


http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/23/83754/9922/776/441629


Posted on Jan 23, 2008, 9:10 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

OH! THE CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEGRITY? ANYTIME THE TERM "NONPARTISAN" IS USED

by YOU KNOW ITS A NEST OF LIBERALS........

"The Center is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, non-advocacy, independent journalism organization based in Washington, D.C."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Posted on Jan 23, 2008, 1:46 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

"HATE IS A GOOD THING. HOW ELSE WOULD WE KNOW WHEN WE LIKE SOMEONE."

by Repuglican Values on Display

The Party of HATE.

Posted on Jan 22, 2008, 1:00 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

"THE PARTY OF HATE"?

by YOU MEAN LAST NIGHTS DEMOCRATIC DEBATE?

THAT WAS A LOVE IN. DIDN'T YOU FEEL THE LOVE?

Posted on Jan 22, 2008, 11:56 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

The Modern Day Repug Party invented HATE

by Anonymous

You can't deny it. Rushbutt, Hannidy, Cultor, Turdblossom, and all the ditto-heads and "religious" zealots who think they can HATE their way into heaven.

And everyone knows HATE is contagious. You can't really blame the Democraps from doing a little HATING of their own after seeing how well it worked for YOU.

Posted on Jan 23, 2008, 12:33 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

LET'S HEAR FROM THE FAMILY WHO PERFECTED HATE, THE CLINTONS! BJ CLINTON SEZ, "I KIND

by OF LIKE TO SEE BARACK & HILLARY FIGHT"


Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Just when you thought the Clintons and Barack Obama couldn't get any nastier
BY STEPHANIE GASKELL in Greenwood, S.C. HELEN KENNEDY in Greenville, S.C. and IAN BISHOP in New York
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS

Wednesday, January 23rd 2008, 4:00 AM


Move over, Hatfields and McCoys.

That blood feud is looking downright civil compared with the trash talk in the Democratic duel between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, which took on the ring of schoolyard taunts the day after a debate melee in Myrtle Beach, S.C.

"Sen. Obama is very frustrated. The events of the last 10 or so days ... have apparently convinced him to adopt a different strategy," cracked Clinton, who appeared the morning after to revel in the bareknuckle brawl.

"He clearly came [Monday] night looking for a fight and he was determined and launched right in," she added.

"I wasn't looking for a fight," Obama retorted. "What I'm looking for is a correcting of the misstatements that have been coming out of the Clinton camp."

The intensity of their grudge match has kicked up a notch ahead of Saturday's South Carolina primary and the approach of Super Tuesday, Feb. 5, when New York, California and 20 other states hold primaries.

Clinton and Obama had no qualms about slinging mud Monday night and seemed to relish the personal and policy slaps - more comfortable territory than their flareup over race earlier this month.

Their verbal combat has gotten so nasty that rival John Edwards said he was happy to "represent the grownup wing of the Democratic Party."

Ex-President Bill Clinton, stumping in South Carolina Tuesday in his wife's stead while she campaigned in the West, suggested Democrats wringing their hands over the rancor should lighten up.

"I know you think it's crazy, but I kind of like to see Barack and Hillary fight," he said lightheartedly. "They're flesh-and- blood people and they have their differences - let 'em at it."

Obama told the Christian Broadcasting Network that Bill Clinton is "making stuff up" about his Iraq record.

Justifying his retaliation, Obama told a Palmetto State crowd: "I think its very clear that Sen. Clinton and President Clinton have been spending the last month attacking me in ways that are not accurate. At some point, it was important for us to address them."

Obama backer Tom Daschle, the former Democratic Senate boss, whacked the ex-President yesterday for his "overt distortions," which he branded unpresidential and warned could "destroy the party."

Hillary had no apologies for what the Clintons said, or will continue to say.

"Time and time again, we see where the words and actions don't match," she said.

If anyone is making stuff up, she contended, it's Obama. "Many of the points that he was making [Monday] night, his record doesn't support them," she said.



Posted on Jan 23, 2008, 1:03 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

WHILE GETTING A $400 HAIRCUT ,JOHN EDWARDS STOPPED TO SAY "HE WAS HAPPY TO REPRESENT THE

by GROWN UP WING OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY"

Their verbal combat has gotten so nasty that rival John Edwards said he was happy to "represent the grownup wing of the Democratic Party."

Posted on Jan 23, 2008, 1:07 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

AFTER I'M ELECTED PRESIDENT. AMERICAS LIBERALS CAN CALL ME DADDY!

by JOHN EDWARDS

AS RESPONSIBLE AS YOUR DADDY! THAT IS IF YOUR DADDY LIVES IN A THIRTY MILLION DOLLAR HOUSE, GETS $400 DOLLAR HAIRCUTS AND CHASES AMBULANCES?

Posted on Jan 23, 2008, 1:12 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Repuglican Pres. Candidates? They all suck.

by Anonymous

RedState: “They All Suck”

Erick Erickson, CEO of the Republican superblog RedState, isn’t impressed with the current crop of Republican presidential candidates.

They all suck. Let’s just admit it. Every one of the thus far announced Republican candidates for President sucks. From the lecherous adulterer to the egomaniacal nut job to the flip-flopping opportunist with the perfect hair to the guy who hates brown people to the guy we’ve never heard of to the guy who has a better chance of getting hit by a meteor while being consumed by a blue whale being struck by lightening.

They all suck. (Well, okay, Brownback doesn’t suck at all, but I perceive no viability for his candidacy.)

Erickson goes on to say that he wants Newt Gingrich to run, though he doesn’t think he can win. Gingrich, he says, can be a candidate that clearly articulates conservative values and set the field for a much strong nominee in 2012 (Erickson thinks it will be now Rep. Bobby Jindal, who he thinks will be governor of Louisiana at the time of his presidential run).

I’ll admit that as a Democrat no one in the Republican field scares me much in the general election (I used to be scared of McCain). But my grounds for thinking little of these candidates is based on that of a liberal activist. Erickson is talking about the people who would represent him and his party. Granted, I could make a case that all of the current Democratic contenders suck, though my argument would come more along lines of the pathology of apologizing for their political beliefs.

One last thing. I love Erickson’s description of McCain as an “egomaniacal nut job.”

http://rightsfield.com/2007/01/25/redstate-they-all-suck/


Posted on Jan 22, 2008, 12:54 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Well, it's official, all of our candidates suck.

by Anonymous

Lets review (in no particular order):

Rudy Giuliani
Pro choice/pro gay rights. Multiple affairs. Probably our best shot at winning, but he wouldn't get my vote because I don't trust a man who would cheat on his wife. It's going to be a tough race with him because I don't see the religious right backing him.

Mitt Romney
Former "Taxachusetts" governor who proposed Universal Health Care for the state of taxachusetts while he was in charge. This guy is no better than Hillary. The religious right isn't going to be thrilled about a mormon either.

John McCain
I think everything that can be said about McCain has already been said. He could win ... but would we want him to? At least we know he won't pull the troops out I guess.

Ron Paul
Ran unsuccessfully as a Libertarian 20 years ago. Now he thinks he's a Republican, except he doesn't act like one since he opposes the President and the Republicans in congress on pretty much everything and has a great reputation among the antiwar activists.

Sam Brownback
The Kansas Senator who no one has ever heard of outside of Kansas. His political strategy is to have Christian activists raise awareness about him... riiiiight.

John Cox
I really don't know anything about this guy other than he claims he would implement the "fair tax" if elected, and require Iraq to get their oil fields together and start pay ing for our expenses over there. Based on that (and that alone) he sounds like the best choice so far, but has anyone else even heard of him?

Duncan Hunter
Opposes illegal immigration and NAFTA, supports the war, and introduced a 'right to life' bill which gives equal protection to the born and the unborn. Again I don't really know much else about him, but campaigning on crap like abortion seems to be kind of a stupid thing to do right now given the current status of this country.

Things are looking pretty grim, folks. Anyone else I skipped over?


http://www.perspectives.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=135799&forum_id=5&page=1

Posted on Jan 22, 2008, 12:56 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

WELL DUH! THIS INSIGHTFUL COMMENT WAS POSTED ON 1/25/2007! DID IT TAKE YOU THIS LONG TO

by READ THE BLOG OR TO UNDERSTAND IT?

SURE THEY SUCK, AS DO THE LIBERAL CANDIDATES. WERE ALL SCREWED!

GET BACK TO ME IN A YEAR AFTER YOU HAVE COMPLETELY READ THIS AND ARE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THE POINT.

Posted on Jan 23, 2008, 4:45 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Bill Clinton - shows more disrespect to MLK

by Demorats - party of Robert KKK Byrd

http://donklephant.com/2008/01/21/bill-clinton-nods-off-during-mlk-tribute-speech/

Poor Bill. All those false attacks on Obama must be exhausting.



Posted on Jan 21, 2008, 8:03 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

YOU SOUND LIKE A LIBERAL IN SHEEPS CLOTHING

by COME OUT INTO THE OPEN, WERE ON TO YOU.

NO NEED TO HIDE. WE UNDERSTAND IT'S STYLISH FOR LIBS TO BASH BILL AND HILLARY. YOU WANTED THE CLINTONS FOR ALL THESE YEARS, NOW YOU'RE STUCK WITH THEM.

Posted on Jan 22, 2008, 12:31 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Iraq’s improvements too much to ignore, says…UN

by Calling Harry Reid

If only Harry Reid had been able to surrender a little earlier...

We cannot ignore the recent improvements both in the security and political situation in Iraq,” Staffan de Mistura, head of the U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI), said in a speech to the Security Council.

He said the reduced level of violence could be attributed to a number of factors including the increased presence of U.S. and other troops, a ceasefire declared by Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mehdi Army militia, and increased cooperation with Iraq’s neighbors.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/21/iraqs-improvements-too-much-to-ignore-saysun/

Posted on Jan 21, 2008, 6:33 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

When are you going to ship out and continue the good fight in Irak?

by Anonymous

We're still waiting for you to prove you're a real manly man.

Posted on Jan 22, 2008, 12:51 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

I'm a chick dumbass - is the state of "manlihood" in the RR

by Anonymous

so fucked up that you expect girls to go fight for you?

No wonder I bought a vibrator considering the pussies I work with on the yard are just like you.

Posted on Jan 22, 2008, 10:41 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

More likely a Transgendered Simpering Coward

by Anonymous

And you expect the boys to fight for you? You're the pussy.

Hiding behind your vibrator. Shame on you.

Posted on Jan 23, 2008, 12:23 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Wow the demoRATS are scared to death of McCain

by Anonymous

the multiple desperate anti McCain postings prove that. They would love to go up against the fucking evangelical moron Huckabee . Sorry demorats - aint gonna happen. Lets see how far your chickenhawk nominees go against a real god damn hero.

Posted on Jan 21, 2008, 6:31 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

NOW, NOW. DEMOCRATS THINK MCCAIN AND HUCK ARE EASY PREY.CONSERVATIVES THINK THE MUTUNY IS

by A SOCIAL LIB AND HUCK IS A SOCIAL LIB & A NUT

WHY ELSE DOES THE MEDIA FAWN OVER THESE TWO? THEY WANT AN EASY KILL ON ELECTION DAY.

JUST LIKE THEY FLOCK TO OBAMA AND HAVE THROWN HILLARY UNDER THE BUS, THE MEDIA WANTS TO CALL THE SHOTS.

THEN THERE IS EDWARDS, HE PREACHES THE TWO AMERICAS. UNFORTUNATELY FOR JOHN, NEITHER ONE WANTS HIM.

THE MCCAIN MUTUNY IS/WAS A WAR HERO. THAT WAS THEN, NOW THAT DOESNT MEAN ANYTHING TO TODAYS AMERICA. SURE WONT GET THE LIBERAL VOTE AND THE MUTUNY IS TOO LIBERAL TO GET THE CONSERVATIVES.

FACE IT, THERE IS A POOR SELECTION OFFERED FROM BOTH SIDES.

HERE'S A QUESTION. SINCE LIBERALS THINK ALL REPUBLICANS ARE RELIGIOUS ZELOTS AND DISDANE ANY MENTION OF GOD, HOW COME OBAMA,HILLARY AND GORE ALL REGULARLY VISITED CHURCHES TO PREACH THEIR IDOLOGY AND GAIN VOTES, YET THOSE THEY VISIT ARE NEVER CALLED ZELOTS? HOW ABOUT JESSE, GUESS HE NEVER MIXED RELIGION WITH POLITICS?

Posted on Jan 22, 2008, 12:25 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

The Mavrick may be a damn god, but he's still too old to be President

by Anonymous

Besides, just what did he do to survive in that prison camp. We still say he was a cheese rat.

Posted on Jan 22, 2008, 12:49 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

The Neocon thieves and Bible crazies hate McCain way more than the libs.

by anonymous

"An honest Republican!!!??? OUTRAGEOUS!!!"
I don't think Hilary or Barack have to worry about McCain getting nominated even if he does win the votes.

Posted on Jan 22, 2008, 10:22 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

THIS ALL SEEMS ACADEMIC AS THE ELECTION HAS BEED DECIDED! EVEN AFTER 2000 & 2004, IT STILL

by SEEMS LIBERALS FORGOT WE CONTROL THE VOTE?

WE WERE SCREWED, IT WAS VOTE FRAUD! HOW COULD AMERICA NOT ELECT FOR KERRY OR GORE?

ISN'T THAT THE RALLYING CRY OF AMERICAS LIBERALS?

IF WE DID IT THEN WE WILL DO IT AGAIN................

Posted on Jan 23, 2008, 4:53 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

ANOTHER INDICATION OF HOW UNAWARE LIBERALS ARE. I'VE WARNED YOU ABOUT "THE MCCAIN MUTUNY"

by NOW YOU ACT AS IF YOU HAVE DISCOVERED GOLD?

TOO BAD LIBERALS HAVEN'T DISCOVERED THE PROCESS OF THINKING.

NOW LIBERALS THINK THE MCCAIN MUTUNY HAS SOMEONES ATTENTION
AND MIGHT GET ELECTED, SO IT'S TIME TO TRASH HIM.

THE MUTUNY IS GOING NOWHERE AND WE ENLIGHTENED SOULS HAVE NOTED
HIS FAULTS FOR MANY MONTHS. ASIDE FROM HIS WAR RHETORIC, THE MUTUNY
ACTS MORE LIKE A LIBERAL THAN THE CONSERVATIVE HE CLAIMS TO BE.

NOT UNLIKE THE MCCAIN MUTUNY, LIBERALS ARE NOT AS INSIGHTFUL AS THEY CLAIM TO BE.

Posted on Jan 21, 2008, 5:15 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Hey Mr All caps! RUsh ought to sue you for plagarism!

by anonymous

Because your whole rap is stolen off here.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html
S'matter? You got no original thought of your own?

Posted on Jan 23, 2008, 10:26 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

GREAT MINDS DO THINK ALIKE. HOWEVER, DO YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC INSTANCE? I'VE BEEN USING THE

by TERM "MCCAIN MUTUNY" FOR SOME TIME

"You got no original thought of your own?" UNLIKE YOU, I HAVE MANY ORIGINAL THOUGHTS AND OPINIONS. I WAS NOT HINDERED BY A PUBLICALLY FUNDED EDUCATION. I WILL NOT APOLOGIZE FOR MY INSIGHTFUL AND WIDELY POPULAR PERSPECTIVE. IS IT YOU FEEL OUTNUMBERED BY THE MANY WHO SHARE A COMMON VIEW THAT DOES NOT REPRESENT YOURS?

FOR EXAMPLE, "THE MCCAIN MUTUNY" I DON'T KNOW OF ANYONE ELSE USING THIS DESCRIPTION?. ANYWAY, MILLIONS OF PEOPLE THINK THE MUTUNY IS MORE THE LIBERAL, THAN A CONSERVATIVE. YOUR HAVE A LACK OF A DEFINATIVE ARGUEMENT IS PROOF OF YOUR INABILITY TO ACCEPT YOUR OWN SHORTCOMINGS AND ALL YOU HAVE LEFT IS A FUTILE RANT, IN AN EFFORT TO DEFEND THE DEFENSELESS.

I ACCEPT YOUR SURRENDER AND WONT THINK ANY THE LESS OF YOU.



http://www.network54.com/Forum/41973/message/1185907790/ANOTHER+IDIOTIC+,+MOOT+SCENARIO.+POWELL+SAID+HE+WOULD+NEVER+RUN+BECAUSE+HIS+WIFE+SAID+NO

Posted on Jan 24, 2008, 8:43 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

When Did John McCain Go Crazy?

by Anonymous

Not to turn this into a video blog, but this is just too nuts to not comment on. “Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran?” Seriously? Sometimes I think the real John McCain must be locked in a secret prison somewhere because the guy that’s walking around calling himself John McCain nowadays is clearly batshit crazy.

http://fivethousand.net/blog/?p=86

Posted on Jan 21, 2008, 4:48 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

John McCain, Crazy Bastard

by Anonymous

I applaud John McCain for serving his country in Vietnam. I commend his bravery and strength for enduring captivity. But just because you get shot down over Vietnam by a Soviet missile does not mean you are entitled to your own fantasy world in Iraq. He has become the Jack Nicholson character in the The Shining. What hallucinogens is this guy on?

If you missed McCain's performance on Bill Bennett's radio show and Wolf Blitzer's the Situation Room it is must hear radio and must see TV. McCain repeatedly made the following laughable, outrageous claim:

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/mar/27/john_mccain_crazy_bastard

Posted on Jan 21, 2008, 4:46 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

McCain's Temper May Become an Issue

by Anonymous

PHOENIX –– While rising in the GOP presidential polls, Sen. John McCain is facing questions about what some Arizona political leaders view as his quick temper – and whether it might hinder him as president.

In a front page article and separate editorial Sunday, The Arizona Republic said it wanted the nation to know about the "volcanic" temper McCain has unleashed on several top state officials.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/19991031/aponline183823_000.htm

Posted on Jan 21, 2008, 4:43 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

McCain Goes Nuts Near Senate Floor

by Anonymous

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. and Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, launched into a shouting match during a Thursday Capitol Hill meeting, where reportedly the presidential candidate dropped the "F” word and more.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/5/19/210233.shtml?s=ic

Posted on Jan 21, 2008, 4:39 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Create your own forum at Network54
 Copyright © 1999-2009 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement