Owndizzled.

Fo'shizzle.

Taking it off the table for Dems in 2006.

About time he said it! -- Guess the plan to increase supplies has hit a bump in the road; So now he wants us to conserve!

Sonner or later he had to get the right answer! Is later better than never?

The best part is always the pained look on the faces of Ted, Nancy, Diane, Hillary! and the rest of the loons, when they are obliged to stand and applaud. Especially when Bush mentioned Sam Alito!

HAR~! HAR~!

Spam from the "Three Apostles". "Rightnuts" will show up shortly to make it a foursome.

Bless you all.

Spam from the "Three Apostles". "Rightnuts" will show up shortly to make it a foursome.

Bless you all.

========

I'm here! and so is another lame defense to a pro republican post. GO DEMS!!!

A couple of thoughts on Fox's coverage on the State of The Union.

1) Why is it when the spoke of King's wife dying, they only show blacks in the audience. Whites apparently dont grieve for blacks.

2) Who is this asshat speaking in the background as I type. Kaine, he just complained about the huge debt, then said Bush didnt fund No Child Left Behind, WTF wont that increase the debt. Why does he have an Alan Combs left eyebrow. Oh shit now he's complaining about the decision to invade Iraq, shit thats old news, now its time to win.

3) Where's Scalia, plotting the overthrow of Roe vs Wade.

4) Did Bush throw out something for everyone, redifine marriage, we need illegals, do away with AIDs, hey Iranians your leader is a nut.

5) Why didnt they arrest Cindy Shehan on national TV, that would have received the loudest cheer.

6) Didn't you get the feeling every time Bush looked at the Dems when they stayed seated he was thinking you losers.

"Sonner or later he had to get the right answer! Is later better than never?"

Maybe, but I doubt it. These people have denied the negative effects of petroleum addiction for decades. We have an entire urban-suburban infrastructure built around cheap oil. It's one thing to buy a more economical car, quite another to change living patterns.

How about a 100% sales tax on guzzle-mobiles? Who's Pimpin' now?

"Taking it off the table for Dems in 2006."

Yep. Tryin' to anyway.

Fortunately for him, the Loyalty Oathers don't mind being lied to, even when they know it's a lie, right?

Tell the Big Lie, not the small one. That's the Straussian way.

The End Of the Oil-based Society!!!

Hahhahahhhaaahhhahah!!!

Flap flap flap. That's the sound of a lame duck. He said much the same thing two years ago in the SOTU and nothing happened. Same thing now---let's see some money for this alternative energy start to flow. Bush always talks the talk---never walks the walk. He's just another gum flapping chickenhawk parroting words someone with some brains gave him. Did you see the look on his face just after he gave his great address when he looked ar one of his cronies? It went from sincerity to--(hee hee--they bought it again). Look at the end of the speech again--you'll see what I mean. Those of you not blinded by His Holiness' great light that is.

Bush mentioned "African American" churches. Ever hear "White churches" other than describing the building itself? I guess it is ok for Blacks to have THEIR churches - right? Yeah, they can do whatever they want and not be "racists." How come these "African-American" churches are so lacking in diversity?

Corky:
Fortunately for him, the Loyalty Oathers don't mind being lied to, even when they know it's a lie, right?

Well they only have to believe until after the 06 midterm elections.

Hey is Ben Nelson switching to the Republican side. How about those looks from Dodd and blonde from Louisanna when he stood for the Patriot Act.

Paleocon--When Bush mentioned black churches he was showing his bigotry. He should have just said churches. He got his bigotry from his parents--where did you get yours from?

How about Hillery's jaw dropping to the floor when Bush explained the wiretapping. Someone had to goose her from behind; was Bill there.

Paleo-tron
If you had ever been to an A.M.E. zion church i think youd understand. But Ill agree with you. There ARE white churches. Usually the service involves dancing with snakes and drinking strychnine. You should give it a try. Gawd will protect you. Right?

At least you are honest about your koolade drinking, 2ND.

And since the ends of getting elected justify the means of lying to do it, that's OK with you.

I liked his joke about his age and Clinton and his Dad--funny.

He hit all the points..

Yeah Alito!!


Murphy

Buffalochip:
"Flap flap flap. That's the sound of a lame duck. He said much the same thing two years ago in the SOTU and nothing happened."


Thats funny, I thought I read somewhere that we gained control of the Surpreme Court.
Click your heels together Bob and keep repeating there's no place like home.

How about Hillery's jaw dropping to the floor when Bush explained the wiretapping. Someone had to goose her from behind; was Bill there.

Posted by 2ndCrusade at 2006-01-31 10:50 PM

In one word: incredulous

You mean, they werent black churches?

You'll have to use a bit smaller word if you're talking to 2ND, Nessy.

Paleocon--When Bush mentioned black churches he was showing his bigotry. He should have just said churches. He got his bigotry from his parents--where did you get yours from?

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2006-01-31 10:49 PM | Reply

They werent black churches?

Thats funny, I thought I read somewhere that we gained control of the Surpreme Court.
Posted by 2ndCrusade at 2006-01-31 10:54 PM

This is exactly the problem with the country. The supreme court was not designed to have a "slant" Unchecked partisanship has made it that way. Our goal as Americans should be to have a supreme court that is so non partisan, that everyone can feel confident about their decisions. As it is now, The SC might as well be congress with a penis.

Dirtywhiteboy:
"But, that is more Proof that BUSH is a "heckuva stupid President"..!"

But whats that say about you and your party, considering Bush has WON two elections, increased the majority in the House and Senate, and push the Surpreme Court to the right for many years to come.
That smirk Bush was giving was for you dirtywhiteboy.

You mean with the HELP of Diebold don't You 2ndCrusade Hmmmmm

Larry

You mean, they werent black churches?

Posted by JMFJ at 2006-01-31 10:54 PM | Reply

Corky, Buffalochip, Dirtywhiteboy -
Hey Sean Hannity is just starting, now you can really get some incite about this speech.

Corky:
State of the Union = spin
Come on did you see all those Dems trying to get thier mug in the camera shot as Bush strolled in. Its all a game, the Dems say what thier base wants to hear, as do the Reps.

2ND


So it's all just unimportant, meaningless bullshit and that's why you post here.

That's what I thought, I just wanted to hear it from the jacka... horse's mouth.

6) Didn't you get the feeling every time Bush looked at the Dems when they stayed seated he was thinking you losers.


I was thinking the same thing! I am already campaigning heavily with my family in Louisiana to NOT relect and Democrat running for office. (They all vote Democrat, ug). However, when I educate, they are beginning to see the light.

I get rid of the anti-war sentiment with one short statement.

Who do you want to be in control of middle east oil revenues when China starts to really need gasoline?!!??? Our friends or Al Queda?

Corky:
Well that and to piss everyone off.

Didn't you get the memo, Denver?

The Oil-based Society is over...ROFLMAO!!!

Is Kennedy going to fillabuster Alito?

Paleocon- When a white person says something racial about blacks(or any minorities) Its not good. You agree with me on this. When a black person says something racial about a white person, it is also a bad thing (see kanye west). When a white person says something racial about a white person-its funny. And vice versa. Ever notice how there arent very many gentile comedians who can get away with making fun of jews? There is a very fine cultural concept at play here that I dont think you understand.
That being said, youre totally a douche, dude.

Who do you want to be in control of middle east oil revenues when China starts to really need gasoline?!!??? Our friends or Al Queda?

Posted by denver_coder at 2006-01-31 11:07 PM | Reply

Denver Coder---With Bushs new energy program we won't need oil any more---didn't you hear---he's going to save us from being addicted to oil. Read the thread heading. I thought Bush already destroyed Al Queda---oops that's right---he gave them a fresh start in Iraq. I'm sure they will appreciate his help when the Chinese roll in.

So Ness, they weren't black churches?

Corky
I only watch them because one of these days I expect to see some Japanese politics. The left gets up and charges the right and wala a good ole brawl. I'll lay odds that Kennedy trys to drown a female Republican aide in a pitcher of water.

"What is He saying? We should WALK!?"
Exactly!
Its amazing. Bush stumbles thru the same old lame sound bites of meaniningless politico babble and the righties start gushing all over it.
Bushco and the oil industry are pissing on America's back and telling us its raining.

Having an oil man, who relies upon the oil industry to formulate your energy policy, critcize your "addition to oil" is like having your crack dealer, who just shot the leader of the rival drug-dealing gang in the head, sympathetically decry your "addiction to cocaine": it -- at a minimum -- seems somewhat lacking in sincerity.

Bob, why do the dems like Kennedy hate america and stand in the way of green energy like Wind mills?

But, that is more Proof that BUSH is a "heckuva stupid President"..!

grow up buddy.

I was looking at polls tonight and it seems that older people support Bush on the wide spread of issues as a whole.

you lefties are illogical. If older people are wiser and more intelligent, then why are you saying that Bush is a dumby? Hmmm....

Just trying to piss you off.

Corky:
I actually understood that word, but your right keep em simple.

Thanks, 2ND!

TPS and I were talking about this today. We surmised that you and a dozen or so others, like Rnut and R- this and that, and Darkstuff and most you other guys thought that this was all just bullshit and that you were just here to disrupt and piss people off.

Thanks again. Cheerio!

Paleocon- When a white person says something racial about blacks(or any minorities) Its not good. You agree with me on this. When a black person says something racial about a white person, it is also a bad thing (see kanye west). When a white person says something racial about a white person-its funny. And vice versa. Ever notice how there arent very many gentile comedians who can get away with making fun of jews? There is a very fine cultural concept at play here that I dont think you understand.
That being said, youre totally a douche, dude.

Posted by ness_gadol at 2006-01-31 11:09 PM | Reply

So Ness, they weren't black churches?

Posted by JMFJ at 2006-01-31 11:11 PM | Reply
I dont understand what you are asking

2nd kook Aide,
Short memory from all the Limbong mental-crack?

Again, Bush LOST 2000 election, STOLE 2004 election in Ohio, Congress stole majority Repugs in 94' and even Repubs now admit BUSH is an IDIOT!

You must be a Bush licker!
Just get it off to your Dumbya Poster, already, and Nod off for the nite.....

"Didn't you get the memo, Denver?

The Oil-based Socie"ty is over...ROFLMAO!!!"


LOL

Hmmm, interesting homework for drudgies, left or right, name the administration that has invested the most in alternative sources of energy in our history.

Please report on this ASAP!

Paleo-leave Meyers out of this, hes canadian. Anyway, i do agree with you that there is more leeway given to minorities when they criticize the majority, but cant you see that that's a small concession. So what if they can get away with making fun of whites. Are you PERSONALLY offended? If so, you have no sense of humor. Unless you think that subhumans cant make jokes.

Hmmm, interesting homework for drudgies, left or right, name the administration that has invested the most in alternative sources of energy in our history.

Please report on this ASAP!

Posted by JMFJ at 2006-01-31 11:15 PM | Reply

Paleo-leave Meyers out of this, hes canadian. Anyway, i do agree with you that there is more leeway given to minorities when they criticize the majority, but cant you see that that's a small concession. So what if they can get away with making fun of whites. Are you PERSONALLY offended? If so, you have no sense of humor. Unless you think that subhumans cant make jokes.

Posted by ness_gadol at 2006-01-31 11:18 PM | Reply

Denver Coder---With Bushs new energy program we won't need oil any more---didn't you hear---...

BuffaloBob,
You completely missed the point. You are one of the smarter ones on this board. Maybe I should dumb it down for you guys.

The Chinese are going to be needing a great deal more oil than they are using now. This means that they are going to be buying from anyone and everyone who will sell it to them. If Al Queda is in control of Saudi oil, then they will make the oil profits and build very large rockets with the money. There are also nations in this world who would sell arms to them.

THINK!!!! Al Queda would have taken over the Saudi government if we did not do anything in the middle east. They are Saudis, remember? I'm sorry, this is probably too serious for you.

Hmmm, interesting homework for drudgies, left or right, name the administration that has invested the most in alternative sources of energy in our history.

I'm guessing Jimmy Carter.

"Concession" Minorities need to be making the concessions since they are the biggest drain on this nation.
Posted by paleocon at 2006-01-31 11:20 PM | Reply



That would be You You know the Bigot Homophobe Racists Mental Midgit.

Larry

The Oil-based Socie"ty is over...ROFLMAO!!!"

I'm sorry 2ndCrusade, I don't understand. How much have you had to drink?

Coder-
Are you saying that the war in Iraq was "about" oil, and that the rest was just duplicitous engineering of consent from the congress and the American people in the wake of 9-11?

"Concession" Minorities need to be making the concessions since they are the biggest drain on this nation.
Posted by paleocon at 2006-01-31 11:20 PM |

A drain?
Watch an episode of COPS. By the third or fourth time you see a fat, sweaty white bitch with more children than teeth involved in some domestic dispute with her drunk ass, white husband, you might reconsider.
Oh wait. No you wont.







Douche.

Nope, Carter's contribution was a sweater, and lust in the heart.

"I'm guessing Jimmy Carter."

You'd be guessing right ... and immediately dismantled by Reagan

The Chinese are going to be needing a great deal more oil than they are using now. This means that they are going to be buying from anyone and everyone who will sell it to them. If Al Queda is in control of Saudi oil, then they will make the oil profits and build very large rockets with the money. There are also nations in this world who would sell arms to them.

THINK!!!! Al Queda would have taken over the Saudi government if we did not do anything in the middle east. They are Saudis, remember? I'm sorry, this is probably too serious for you.

Posted by denver_coder at 2006-01-31 11:20 PM | Reply

That would be You You know the Bigot Homophobe Racists Mental Midgit.

You forgot my favorite, anti-semitic. It's an argument stopper. You know. You pull out the race card and you think you win. But, nobody wins. You simply don't argue and the debate is a draw, no contest. Just someone looks a little less intelligent.

A drain?
Watch an episode of COPS. By the third or fourth time you see a fat, sweaty white bitch with more children than teeth involved in some domestic dispute with her drunk ass, white husband, you might reconsider.
Oh wait. No you wont.

Douche.

Posted by ness_gadol at 2006-01-31 11:24 PM | Reply

The Chinese are going to be needing a great deal more oil than they are using now. This means that they are going to be buying from anyone and everyone who will sell it to them. If Al Queda is in control of Saudi oil, then they will make the oil profits and build very large rockets with the money. There are also nations in this world who would sell arms to them.
Posted by denver_coder at 2006-01-31 11:20 PM
So what is your solution? For the US to invade all of the M.E., conquer all of the oil reserves so that the Chinese have to buy it from us? I think you underestimate the patience of the Chinese. Lets compare:
USA-230 years old
China-3700 years old

Who do you think will prevail in the long run?

...also the cops refuse to go into the housing projects, so well you know, the show could be all minority.

Are you saying that the war in Iraq was "about" oil

Yep, that's what I think. To really throw you for a loop, it's not about Bush and his croneis making a profit from it, either. That would be, well, silly, wouldn't it. I don't think anyone would be dumb enough to think that we went there so that a few Americans could make money. LOL. anyway....

It's really to control the region and to control the oil revenues. You don't want the religious zealots building HUGE Islamic armies, do you? Somehow, I don't think they will be as nice as our army.

You go Ness, you idiot.

USA 230 years-Baddest motherfucking country ever.

I have an idea- lets give all the minorities the exact same opprtunities given to whites now. (I cant believe Im arguing this) Now, lets take all the whites, put them in substandard housing in the ghetto, and short change their schools. Stir in 50 years time, and what do you get?

You go Ness, you idiot.

USA 230 years-Baddest motherfucking country ever.
Posted by JMFJ at 2006-01-31 11:31 PM | Reply

Baddest ever? So thats why the rest of the world thinks we're so cool right? Have you been out of the country lately?

Who do you think will prevail in the long run?

I don't want you to jump to that conclusion. I am not saying that China is a threat. I am saying that Al Queda or other Religous Republic is a threat.

Coder-
Your candor is as refreshing as it is cynical.

In fact China is not a threat. As you say, they are 1000's of years old. They are not imperialistic like US, Egland, Germany, Japan, etc. They don't want to conquer us.

Yup, been out a the woods a wee bit. Some place you might rather live Ness? No ones holding you back, yet wait, here you still are.

Yep, that's what I think. To really throw you for a loop, it's not about Bush and his croneis making a profit from it, either. That would be, well, silly, wouldn't it. I don't think anyone would be dumb enough to think that we went there so that a few Americans could make money. LOL. anyway....

It's really to control the region and to control the oil revenues. You don't want the religious zealots building HUGE Islamic armies, do you? Somehow, I don't think they will be as nice as our army.

Posted by denver_coder at 2006-01-31 11:31 PM | Reply

Coder- agreed. Personally, as much as I believe in the inherent quality and potential of the US, I cant help but feel that we will tear ourselves apart with partisanship. We have such a potentially great system that is being mismanaged by personal interest. On ALL sides. Its sad. But if the US cant pull its head out of its own ass, Im expatriating. They need doctors all over the world.

I have an idea- lets give all the minorities the exact same opprtunities given to whites now. (I cant believe Im arguing this) Now, lets take all the whites, put them in substandard housing in the ghetto, and short change their schools. Stir in 50 years time, and what do you get?

Posted by ness_gadol at 2006-01-31 11:32 PM | Reply

Your candor is as refreshing as it is cynical.

Cynical? LOL. Crazy, but not cynical. It's really called "thinking outside the box."

Coder-
"It's really to control the region and to control the oil revenues. You don't want the religious zealots building HUGE Islamic armies, do you? Somehow, I don't think they will be as nice as our army."

Your plan isn't quite going as planned, Coder. The shift throughout the region since the invasion has been toward fundamentalist Islam (see Palestine, Egypt, Iraq, Pakistan, and Iran)

It was called "Reconstruction."
OMG, thank you! I did not even think of that.

JMFJ- there is indeed something holding me back- I need to finish my M.D. Other than that, if I had a lot of money, I would be living in the Dutch countryside, enjoying the benefits that a true progressive country can offer.


I'd also be toking up on that sweet, non-addictive, only mildly impairing pot.

"Cynical? LOL. Crazy, but not cynical. It's really called 'thinking outside the box.'"

Actually, it's called misleading the American people.

Denver:
I dont drink anymore, but I got to give credit where credit is due, Bush spoke about weening ourselfs off of oil, and you brought up oil. And Corky nailed you on it.

Bushco!
Warmongering imperialists!
Killing innocence in the name of oil and profits!

It was called "Reconstruction."

Posted by paleocon at 2006-01-31 11:37 PM

haha, I admit, I have to give you some points for that. But in all seriousness, do you REALLY think that minorites have access to ALL of the advantages that the average white middle class family has?

Why stay in a place you despise Ness?

Your plan isn't quite going as planned, Coder. The shift throughout the region since the invasion has been toward fundamentalist Islam (see Palestine, Egypt, Iraq, Pakistan, and Iran)

I know, but turning Fund. Islam is like a hardening process to become so brittle that they soon break into a million pieces.

Iran will be the first. They are the most brittle. The young people of the country will take over. The government is taking measures to subdue them though. Many of the youngsters are heroin addicts now. It's a great tool. I got this info from people on the streets of Tehran.

This is all conjecture, don't take me seriously, but consider thinking outside the talking points.

The sad thing about Iran is that, given 20 or 30 more years, the youth of the nation (most Iranians are under 30), who are very jealous of American democracy, would start to come to power. They would have come to democracy on their own terms. Unfortunately, they are being forced to play the nuke card in response to increasingly hostile actions by the west. They have been set back decades now. I feel sad for my Persian ancestors.

Well its time to go watch a movie, Palecon's done screwed up this thread with his paranoia about the Jews, Blacks, Mexicans, Chinamen waiting in the bushes outside for him.

Impeaching the Bushling White House would be the first step in weaning ourselves from the ME oil tit. Those Bush/Walker assholes have been fucking camels for seven decades and dragging the US with them.

think that minorites have access to ALL of the advantages that the average white middle class family has?

Yes, but they have to make concessions. They have to be assimilated into the white middle class so that it becomes just middle class.

Why stay in a place you despise Ness?

Posted by JMFJ at 2006-01-31 11:44 PM

I do NOT despise the US. I despise the fact that things are heading way south, right before my eyes, and there is nothing I can do about it. My country is being ruined by closemindedness and belligerence.

Impeaching the Bushling White House would be the first step in weaning ourselves from the ME oil tit. Those Bush/Walker assholes have been fucking camels for seven decades and dragging the US with them.

HEY HEY HEY !!!!

This is a discussion for smart people. Please go away. MORON!!! do your research and then come back, if you can.

"Corky nailed you on it"

If I had a hammer, I'd hammer in the mor-or-nin',

I hammer in the eve-enin', all over this land!

I'd hammer out Denver, I'd hammer out Vernon, I'd hammer out Paleo.... All over this la-and!

I'd hammer out justice, I'd hammer out free-eedom...

And love between my brothers and my sisters (Nicey) aw awll over this l a n d ! !

I dont drink anymore, but I got to give credit where credit is due, Bush spoke about weening ourselfs off of oil, and you brought up oil. And Corky nailed you on it.

On this thread? I don't think so.

I am not talking about the "WEENING" Thing, DUH!!

I am talking about the who controls the middle east oil revenue. Holy crap, I'm done with you.

'I know, but turning Fund. Islam is like a hardening process to become so brittle that they soon break into a million pieces."

Are you saying that recent advances of the fundies in the wake of our occupation are signs that they are in their "last throes"?

Warmongering imperialists!
Killing innocence in the name of oil and profits!

I hope we can gather enough votes for cloture...oh wait....

Hey Denver(Gomer Pyle) Coder!
If this conversation is for smart people,
Then WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING HERE?

SHAZAAM!

Sorry 2nd, I see now that I should have addressed Corky. But did you mean nail as in retort? It was a weak, inattentive retort. It was a retort I would expect from someone not paying attention or not has the intelligence to understand the argument, Or, was drinking.


Didn't you get the memo, Denver?
The Oil-based Society is over...ROFLMAO!!!
Corky


Corky, Are you even reading the thread? It's not about Oil-based Society, China will be using oil for a long, long time. We won't be, but China will.

Bushco!
Warmongering imperialists!
Killing innocence in the name of oil and profits!

Oh Jeff, the Danes still consider you a big fucking loser, even if you are delivering goods around their country, you are trash to them.

Hey Denver(Gomer Pyle) Coder!
If this conversation is for smart people,
Then WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING HERE?

Why do you say that? Am I not smart because you do not agree with me? Hmmmm. You need a smarter retort than that. Comeon smart guy. LOL

BTW, how old are you? about 16?

Denver:
"Sorry 2nd, I see now that I should have addressed Corky. But did you mean nail as in retort? It was a weak, inattentive retort. It was a retort I would expect from someone not paying attention or not has the intelligence to understand the argument, Or, was drinking."

No it was funny considering the headline of this blog and first few remarks.

...if you aren't Danish, and you aren't you are trash, thats why they look at you funny.

I have to admit; when I read the STOTU transcripts I was moved, for a moment. And then reality set in, this speech was nothing more than a republican campaign jumpstart. That was the most heavy handed load of BS I think I've even experienced. Bipartisan politics? Anti oil addiction anitiatives? Yeah right! HAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAA! All of a sudden Republicans are going to about face? This MUST be a joke. I'd like to see who gets the 50 bil or so he promised for "alternative energy research". Can't wait.

I'd hammer out justice, I'd hammer out free-eedom...

You must mean, you would hammer out injustice and you would hammer out tyranny.

Comeon man, you don't have to try and insult me because my argument is better than yours.

No it was funny considering the headline of this blog and first few remarks.

No, the headline gave me this train of thought. I've been looking for a place to dump this line of thinking. Maybe people aren't ready for it. Give it a few years.

JMFJ,
If you knew half as much as you thought you knew you would be retarded.
Denver,
I don't even read your posts because they are fucking ignorant. So why would I waste my time debating you.

Bushco!
Warmongering imperialists!
Killing innocence in the name of oil and profits!

Ness, You are Persian? You must be having a terrible time with this nuke thing. Half my family is Persian, 1st generation. They have mixed feelings. Really mixed feelings. I tell them to organize and fight the Islamic-fascism that is gripping their nation.

Coder-
It's obvious that you are correct in your theory. Painfully obvious.

Are you willing to accept its implications?

I know the Danish despise you, you are trash to them so you know less than I you imbecile.

Killing innocence in the name of oil and profits!

I'm curious. Do you say this so that people will hurl insults at you or do you really not know what's going on.

Can you do me a big favor and point to a place where innocent people were killed in the name of oil profits? I've been looking, but there is no proof. Just stories from "journalist"

THIS IS WHY WE ARE IN IRAQ NOW!


YES!! You are right. That's why we are there.

Someone had the foresight to see that oil was going to build wealth, huge wealth. Mix wealth and islamic-facisism and you get something undisirable.

You do get it Denmark. But, somehow you think that this is for a person, or a family to get rich. No, I really think that it's to keep the oil revenues out of the hands of the fanatics.

Hey Jeffey, go to work its almost 7 there. The Danes need you to deliver there stuff under their disdainful watch.

Ness, You are Persian? You must be having a terrible time with this nuke thing. Half my family is Persian, 1st generation. They have mixed feelings. Really mixed feelings. I tell them to organize and fight the Islamic-fascism that is gripping their nation.

Posted by denver_coder at 2006-02-01 12:19 AM |

I am persian by blood, and jewish by adoption. So Im totally caught in the middle . I also think that those in Iran who want democracy (I understand there a quite a few) should go to great lengths to nip this in the bud asap. I have no idea how dissent is treated there tho, I imagine it is pretty frowned upon. Tell me what you know, Id like to be more informed.

Are you willing to accept its implications?

What do you think the implications will be?

In addition, what alternative is there, if we could go back, say 15 years.

I think we should have taken Sadam right then. We would have accomplished the same thing and the world would be hating us now.

It's interesting to see JMFJ and Coder agree on the true reason for the war.

I never thought they seemed to agree on much, but I guess it was all about control of resources.

"if we could go back, say 15 years."

Hell, lets go back 25 years, and admit we didn't learn the lesson of the oil crunch. We should already be off this teat, and it only goes to the weakness of the electorate for tolerating leaders who aren't really statesmen. The blame lies in the mirror.

Danforth-
Bingo.

I'll think of that as I drive to work tomorrow.

My country is being ruined by closemindedness and belligerence.

Posted by ness_gadol at 2006-01-31 11:49 PM | Reply

Ness,
I know no more than you do. My family stays far away from politics and would not like to get involved in anything like that. But, I can tell you this. They would not do anything there or here for fear of reprisal from the state. Half of the family is here and the other half is in Tehran. It's scarey.

We had a few visits from the FBI, who were investigating for "domestic" reasons. But I think that this domestic bullying was left over from the Clinton/Reno FBI. It's all over now, noone was in in trouble. I really think they wanted to get to know us better. Poke and prod to see if any terrorists jumped out.

Other than that, noone speaks out about the Islamic Republic of Iran or of Islam itself. You could get killed for that!!!

But, you can talk bad about GW all day long here.

WHATACOUNTRY!!!!!

We could agree on that but it would depend on the definition of "closedmindedness." ;-)

Posted by paleocon at 2006-02-01 12:42 AM

Ill take what I can get.

Paleo-
We could use you as the personified version of the definition.

(talk to me when the mud people are no longer out to get you)

"Hell, lets go back 25 years, and admit we didn't learn the lesson of the oil crunch"

Sure didn't. 25 years ago John Anderson proposed a 50 cents a gallon gas tax. Doesn't sound like much now, but adjusted for inflation, it might have prevented the SUV boom and be saving us millions of barrels of oil today. Neo-con favorite Charles Krauthammer proposed, and still favors, a dollar a gallon gas tax. But gutless politicians pander to the public's desire for a free lunch.

That cheap gas, it turns out, wasn't so cheap after all.

Coder, very glad you are here, hope the other half stays safe.

Danforth,

I agree. The only thing I didn't like about Reagon is what he did with the energy program that Carter put together. Carter was great in that capacity. I was too young to understnad it then, but I personally saw several energy businesses turn belly up six months after Reagan took office.

These were companies were building solar heating units, doing research into solar cells, ground water reseach, etc. For me, it was fun stuff.

If Bush brings back Carter's plan, then I will see that he is serious. Anything else is fog.

I support Bush in everything else though. Especially, tax cuts for the rich. All of my clients are rich!!! If I get more work, then I can hire more people. Jobs Jobs Jobs.

JMFJ, thanks.

re: solar energy - did anyone see that "Scientific American" show with Alan Alda. He talked to one guy who had solar panels that were very innovative. Much more rugged and more effient in partial light (less so in direct light, however). Cool stuff.

Denver,

Can you at least admit 60% tax cuts for the wealthy are obscene?

Danforth,

Care to explain where you come up with your figures?

JMJF,

There's a class of uber-wealthy in this country. They make their income from what are called Qualified Dividends (the majority of dividends paid) and Capital Gains. When Bush took office, a taxpayer with $10,000,000 of taxable income in Qualified Dividends and/or Capital Gains paid $3,938,779 in Federal Income Tax. Today, that same scenario triggers only $1,497,030 in Federal Income Tax, a tax cut of 61.99%.

What do you think about that?

Can you at least admit 60% tax cuts for the wealthy are obscene?

No, not really. Why should anyone pay more than their fair share? In fact, I think we need a drastic cut of taxes everywhere. I take a more libertarian slant on this subject. But it's way down the list. I pay about 55% in taxes. This includes the major taxes plus all of the other hidden taxes such as sales, properties, etc.

But, The system works and I am not complaining because over the years, I've seen the ebb and flow of tax cuts and tax hikes. It's just life. I know that every time the rich get a tax cut, I go back to work right away. Everyone benefits.

*first example: Tax return for TY 2000

second example: Tax return for TY 2005

Coder the dems would rather you forgot about the "TOTAL" tax we pay.

Danforth, one of my sis' falls into this category and the fact she, an idividual has to pay that much is bogus.

Danforth,

My reasoning is that I would rather a smart rich guy, but wait, what if it's inherited, nevermind. Anyway, I would rather a smart rich guy have more of his money to spend than he have to give it to the government and it get sucked up into the vaccuum of non-productivity.

"Why should anyone pay more than their fair share?"

I'm talking about people paying MUCH LESS than their fair share. How much of a tax cut did YOU get?

"In fact, I think we need a drastic cut of taxes everywhere."

Whoa, what about our back bills? What about our current bills? If the economy is hitting on all cylinders, why can't we run a balanced budget? If we can't pay the debt down now, what will happen when we hit some serious road bumps, like the upcoming Medicare and Social Security train wrecks? Certainly you don't believe we can borrow more and more from China forever. What's better, incremental changes today, or forced drastic changes at some guaranteed time in the future? You can't deny America is in for the same fate as a typical taxpayer who finally charges too much. I'm all for tax cuts, right after we run enough surplus budgets to pay off the National Debt.

There are those who blame Clinton's parsing of oral sex vs intercourse for the current increase in oral sex. They now must equally blame Bush's blithe disregard for borrowing for the nation's negative savings rate.

As one of those uber-rich guys (trust fund, natch!), I must respectfully say that the dividend income shouldn't be taxed at all. It's been taxed once before by the income tax paid by the companies that issue it.

I certainly don't want my easy-gotten dollars (well, some Euros too, I'm prudent) going to something as idiotic as Gulf War II when I could be preparing my bunker for the Post Services Economy.

But Denver,

a 60% cut?!? Again, how much did YOU get?

Don't forget, the person in America who pays the highest percentage of their annual income in taxes is an employee making $94,200.

JMFJ,

"the fact she, an individual has to pay that much is bogus."

Do you mean 62% wasn't ENOUGH of a tax cut?!?

No, not really. Why should anyone pay more than their fair share?

Yes, why should the rich live off the tit of the poor. It is quite clear you don't know shit about what you are talking about.

Social Security train wrecks

Danforth, in good faith please name one fucking democrat who is willing to address SS?

Yup, thats exactly what I mean.

But, you can talk bad about GW all day long here.

WHATACOUNTRY!!!!!

Posted by denver_coder at 2006-02-01 12:45 AM

haha, yeah, even though I have sympathy for Iran, you cant argue with the facts. Hell, even in China political discourse is frowned upon.
I went to school with 2 other Iranian Americans (which is totally f'ud up, considering I grew up in rural NC). My friend Shaun once visited Iran with his family...he took pictures of signs in the Tehran airport that said things like "America is the devil!" in ENGLISH! As much pride as I may feel for my ancestors accomplishments (i.e., the Persian empire used to be the shizzy...), I cannot condone that kind of hatred. Sad thing is, Americans do it too...

Did I say bunker? I meant: I should be using those (increased) tax savings to bolster my third world, permaculture supported, indentured servant employing island haven!

Man, the fishing is great here!

"I must respectfully say that the dividend income shouldn't be taxed at all. It's been taxed once before by the income tax paid by the companies that issue it."

TOTALLY BOGUS.

Income is taxed everytime it changes hands. When a fireman earns $100, it's taxed. Using regime change's logic, when he comes to me and pays me $100 for financial planning, it should be TAX FREE to me!

I'd agree, but the IRS gets pissy....

JMFJ,

I'll address the same question to you: Who pays for all this? Do we EVER pay off our bills?

When these pricks say "our children and our grandchildren are going to pay", look at their ages. WE are the children. OUR KIDS are the grandchildren.

Dividends should not be taxed! This is sadly laughable.

Less than 20% of America even owns stock that provides dividends. So, we should not tax the rich at all.

"we should not tax the rich at all."

Money,

That pretty much sums up Dubya's tax codes.

dan4th(of July),

you get kicked off the island...

I laugh at the republican right mantra.

They received the benefits 30 years ago of taking care of our poor and less fortunate and don't or won't acknowledge this fact.

The teacher in elementary school who received government grants to get through college and then taught you fractions.

The Doctor who received financial aid and grants to rise out of the slums to clean you blood.

The professor in college who taught you economics, biology, physics are all receivers of your so called lazy no good free loading poor.

Get a clue!

Regime Change,

I understand why you would vote me off.

The truth hurts! ;-)

Progressive tax is so last century! everybody knows consumption tax is the answer...just look at that other island kingdom, England...er...or...don't...

Flat tax? How about a Human Impact Tax: Cost of running the country divided by the number of people = individual tax bill. Discounts for those who amortize that cost: Bike riding solar loving hippies who kill their own food pay next to nothing, while energy slurping plutocrats like me get charged market rate for services.

Oh, wait, there aren't going to be many services are there?

And the list goes on. The entire infrastructure that they use everyday. The Interstate Highway System, the Internet, dams, aqueducts, etc. None of these clowns will pay enough in taxes to build one mile of the roads they use everyday. All built by previous generations of taxpayers and maintained by all current taxpayers.

D4: I vote you off because you didn't get my first joke. I thought you were smarter then that.

Or, maybe, aping dittohead points in a subtle fashioin is too easily mistaken as sincerity, rather than satire.
State of the Union, indeed.

Or maybe I thought I was funnier...

I find it extremely amusing that anyone would think; without reservation, that what we have done in Iraq is a good thing...i.e. the possibility that the vote for hamas in the palistinian elections is a distinct possibility for the whole region. Once in power NONE of these islamists will relinquish it though peaceful processes.

And yes. that encludes the ham handed way we removed saddam... there were other alternatives short of invasion and there were alternative ways to conduct the invasion. The bush/rumsfeld way was folly and it will become apparent just how big that mistake was when we get out... if we do.

I bet within 5yrs. that every country in that region that allows a popularly elected govt., will be a radical theocracy at best and be absolutely fanatical in their opposition to anything american.

This alone should focus us on developing alternative energy sources that remove the dependance on middle east oil. Failure is surely not an option on this subject and if we do fail it is going to be a very ugly time indeed.

"D4: I vote you off because you didn't get my first joke."

WHAT?!? You're NOT a trust fund baby?!? Dang, I won't ask for a case of 97 Brunello Riserva, then. Dang again!

"I thought you were smarter then that."

That's okay. I started that rumor.

Money,

I paid back my student loan from the early eighties, why do think someone needs a handout versus a hand.

I do not think that anyone here l or r has a problem with the scenarios you sight, but what are your thoughts as you view a project that was so beautiful at inception, built to help the needy, and turned into what they are now? This is the type of "handout" I have a problem with, and I dont give a shit what color the people are, these place are ours, and we said here, live here and they fucked it up, virtually shitting in the nest.

RC,

Maybe it's 'cause your spoofs were so spot on.

JMFJ,

Did you hear about the Conn. plan to eliminate welfare cheats and abuse? It was a 2 year, $2,000,000 program, and it found something like SIX people. It made other states realize the scare was probably overblown.

Jmfj,

What are you talking about? More than 70% of our retiring folks and rich are recipients of government hand outs at one time in there life.

You are either very short sighted or just unknowing as to how much getting money to the less fortunate and poor lifts the society out of being poor.

Just in numbers alone you lack the ability to see the reality of what we will be faced with if we don't turn around our ever increasing poor and poverty.

Over 18 million children live in poverty, over 12% of our nation is in poverty and is increasing not by thousands but by millions every couple of years.

You sit and talk about not taxing the rich but fail to even realize they are the only ones who have enough money to be taxed. Robbing the poor to help the poor is your answer?

No, it's true, I am disgustingly wealthy. I just don't feel good about being made more so by this war mongering, profiteering, judicial junta appointee.

I had the decency to be born rich, get my gentleman's C and then leave well enough alone. Hell, without a middle class and a stable geopolitical system, it's just not safe to be in the oligarchy anymore. I think that's why the Conservatives alway used to be "compassionate"--they needed the help to be happy.

So, good thing there is a huge, barely tapped workforce living now (or in the near future) in abject poverty! Screw happiness, they'll settle for food!

Oh, and I forgot to mention: It's the poor's own damn fault!

jmfj,

I paid back my student loan from the early eighties, why do think someone needs a handout versus a hand.

How did you get the student loan? It was not on your good graces I can tell you that.

It was a loan which was probably 2% interest rate but you wash out the fact that the loan was probably 6 to 7% interest and the government paid the difference. You Free loader you!

I didn't see the speech, just going by his past ones I'm guessing I didn't miss much. Watching Bush speak always gives me migranes. I just keep wondering why John Kerry just didn't beat that girly-man cheerleader to death.

Anyway, I read about Bush FINALLY agreeing with Carter when he said he had to break the US's dependance on foreign oil. To think that it only took 4 presidents to get there, too. Even more surprising is that it took a moron to realize that a Nobel Prize winner was right all along.

Danforth, in good faith please name one fucking democrat who is willing to address SS?

Posted by JMFJ at 2006-02-01 01:34 AM | Reply


EASY ANswer and it would work wonders too. Raise the Maximum amount taxed to social Security from 91,000 to 500,000.00 it would be solvent for YEARS. Sure the rich fucks would piss and moan cause they are greedy fucks but it would solve alot of problems. People need to quit being so damned greedy.

Larry

Kerry didn't win because when it came down to calling Bush out, when he could have said: "As I smelled the gunpowder while under fire in a hostile land and then returned a hero and risked everything to denounce our own atrocities, you committed atrocities of your own by snorting yet another product of imperialism up your nose and getting preferential treatment to avoid any possibility of sacrifice--and when it comes to protecting this land I know the American people will trust more in someone who has actually defended Her honor than a faux cowboy trading on myth and subterfuge!"

--but, he didn't.

Oh, and newsflash: He's lying about agreeing with Carter. $50bn for alternative energy? How about (insert astronomical $200bn+ final Iraq war plan figure here)?? That would have been leadership. And a lot cheaper This is just more crap.

Good night and good luck!

"EASY ANswer and it would work wonders too. Raise the Maximum amount taxed to social Security from 91,000 to 500,000.00 it would be solvent for YEARS."

Larry,

That turns out not to be as fair as it sounds. It would only effect those who earn that much ON A W-2, and over about $150K, more and more people are paid other ways, like excercisable stock discounts, expense accounts, company perks, or deferred payment plans.

"why do think someone needs a handout versus a hand."

Another conservative freeloader who's opposed to every government program except that ones that benefit him. So what else is new?

That turns out not to be as fair as it sounds. It would only effect those who earn that much ON A W-2, and over about $150K, more and more people are paid other ways, like excercisable stock discounts, expense accounts, company perks, or deferred payment plans.

Posted by Danforth at 2006-02-01 02:44 AM | Reply



Sure it would. if they made that much they would just have to pay it simple as that. Sounds very fair to me.

Larry

Larry,

What I'm saying is alternatives to taxable income would pop up like crazy, even more than they do now.

i stayed up in the UK and watched the speech; i thought it was carefully crafted and appealed to those whom see bush as some messianic figure, who will socially re-engineer the world in some republican image of what the world should be like (the disinfecting light of goodness leading entire nations to 'freedom'. i'm glad he mentioned burma, but saddened he did'nt single out ang san suu Kyi for special mention as a person the US will champion. why chalabi and not her?)
but his defense of a strident foreign policy to date(i don't mean the more recent US attempt to coral the UNSC to deal with iran, but iraq and the fallout from that) was a clue as to what future splits could tear republicans as much as it has neutered democrats; that is the competition between the isolationists and the unilateralists. the rise of china and her confident assertion of her national security 'rights'(re. her constant search for oil to power her economy) will bring this isolationist and unilateralist division into sharp relief.
the speech should also highlight to the democrats the need to urgently start a two or three decade policy to reassert themselves in the domestic discourse. GW's mention of alito was a nod to the long campaign initiated by GOPers in the 1980s to flavour the SC with judges of their ideological persuasion.
but knowing the democrats and their masochistic tendencies, they'll go and select hillary and pelosi for 2008.
but i'm puzzled by the constant standing ovations and the back slapping by dissemblers like frist. reminds me of malcolm muggeridge's description of a plenary session of the supreme soviet under stalin. the members would start an ovation and refuse to stop clapping or sit for fear of geting shot.

but i'm puzzled by the constant standing ovations and the back slapping by dissemblers like frist. reminds me of malcolm muggeridge's description of a plenary session of the supreme soviet under stalin. the members would start an ovation and refuse to stop clapping or sit for fear of geting shot.

==============

thats probably it. theres no way in hell they could be clapping because they agreed with anything the president said. there was a gun to their head most likely.

and for stdbitch et al to fvz, he began his speech with an appeal to civility, that disagreements not 'harden to anger' (nice). he's also the one that says democrats don't want to defend america. you work it out.....
but iraq as an AQ safe haven? then why is the US in back channel discussions with sunni nationalists, who not too long ago were called terrorists? and there are increasing reports of local nationalist elements turning against foreign jihadis in country. if you think that iraq is a manichean (sp?) good vs 'evil' battle then you ignore sectarian violence that could collapse that nation, leading to genuine terrorist enclaves like the bekaa valley or how khandahar was during taleban rule.
and the winking at the family of the dead soldier seemed insincere, but maybe i'm not switched on to the theatrics.
i loved his combative defense of those 'survelliance programs'. he believes they could have prevented IX/XI. did anyone mention 'able danger' or the fact that the fbi failed to share their suspicions with other agencies?
the domestic stuff i did'nt follow too well.
i'm beginning to think we should have a sotu speech here in the UK. it would begin with 'the union of great britain no longer exists. the taffs have their own assembly, northern ireland is still trying to get theirs, scotland is the most violent country in the developed world (true), and england is a failing multicultural society. other than that, her majesty should be proud'......

richarcm,
it was a humourous analogy, or at least an attempt in the style of peter ustinov.
but carry on..........

and democrats should stop looking so embittered. makes them look too obstructionist and negative.

Praise Ceazar......fuckin' sheep!

It would only effect those who earn that much ON A W-2, and over about $150K, more and more people are paid other ways, like excercisable stock discounts, expense accounts, company perks, or deferred payment plans.

Posted by Danforth at 2006-02-01 02:44 AM | Reply

It would also effect people who have an unincoporated business and partnerships with self employment income. Such as doctors and lawyers and accountants.

Non qualified stock options are considered compensation when excercised, so they would be included.

Changing the tax rules that self employment income s corporations would be subject to self employment tax (social security) would also help the system. I see plenty of s corporations where the owner takes a salary of $25,000 which is subject to social security tax, but then takes 1/2 million dollars in s corp dividends that are not subject to social security tax.

The only companies that have enough cash to invest in alternative fuel technologies is the oil industry and they are making to much money raping us to cut their own throats by investing in new technology to replace their cash cows.

jimmy'
i'll bet you a galleon of petrol in 2025 that the oil comapnies will invest in new technologies or simply diversify away from oil a la tobacco. the public pressure on them and automakers is tremendous......
how about a 1 litre engined porsche car that chucks out 250bhp, weighs about 900lbs, does 40miles to the galleon, and is 90% recyclable whilst maintaining the same crash test integrity of today's cars?
i just woke up......sorry

The wingnuts seem to be pleased. Let them have their day, the real Bush will be being the real Bush at least five more times before the next one. SOTU has long been more about style than substance anyway and is pure theater. All that mechanized applause is about as spontaneous as the seventh-inning stretch or "The Wave". How many standing ovations did he get? How many times did the Democrats stand and applaud? Did it look genuine? What a waste of time. All the above applied to any Clinton SOTU too except that the sight of watching the wingnuts being "respectful" while not being respectful was even more of a turnoff. Maybe I'm wrong about last night's performance because I was watching season two of ER on DVD and not watching Bush being "presidential" while reading a script with applause lines carefully built in.

And Bush spouting about the US addiction to oil and how something MUST be done about it? Sounds as convincing as a Colombian coca-grower saying that something must be done about the US addiction to cocaine when the real agenda is that something must be done about the US addiction to crystal meth.

blue, did'nt evo say something but without the crystal meth part?
crystal meth is hillbilly 'hair'ron?' i thought it was oxy-something....

when I first read the headline I thought that here was another wacko leftist insult about bush and then it hit me.....SPOUTS cures...I get it......spouts oil....get it....get it...


and vernon or someone was so right early on......just how will the democrats tell people that they dont agree with this...which was the first thing I thought of as he was talking and the looks on the dems face is really classic as someone else said.....doesnt hillary know that the camera is going to be tight on her.....oh..that sounds bad.....and she still looks like she is constipated..

I support Bush in everything else though. Especially, tax cuts for the rich. All of my clients are rich!!! If I get more work, then I can hire more people. Jobs Jobs Jobs.

Posted by denver_coder at 2006-02-01 12:54 AM | Reply


and so you are at least one person who can see how this works then......


and is there any bipartisan support for tax reform?

The supreme court was not designed to have a "slant"

Posted by ness_gadol at 2006-01-31 10:57 PM | Reply

What the hell has the court been for the past years?! When it's slanted left you're fine with it, when it's slanted right you bitch. WTF!

kofi......do you understand just how true your last post was? that of course means that you will be called a stupid republican asshole any minute now...I mean come on.....you cant call out the libs for the hypocritical folks that they are so often and not expect to get called names back.

and the court has been changed for a long time to come and not a minute too soon....and every time the camera showed the supremes on the front row all I could think about was giving the ole bronx cheer to teddy boy and his band of dip shits....

and here is a look into they the dems cant win.....the only time they got really excited was when they stood and clapped because they OBSTRUCTED REFORM AND PROGRESS IN SS>......what a telling look into why they are out and will be out as long as they are more proud of blocking refrom than acutally bringing reform.........
now I thought they were wrong in this case but I do like the back and forth sometimes because bush KICKED THEIR ASS with his next comment that the problem wont go away.......BOOM.......

Again, Bush LOST 2000 election, STOLE 2004 election in Ohio, Congress stole majority Repugs in 94' and even Repubs now admit BUSH is an IDIOT!

You must be a Bush licker!
Just get it off to your Dumbya Poster, already, and Nod off for the nite.....

Posted by DirtyRIGHTboy at 2006-01-31 11:15 PM

First off I'm not going to say anything to your comments about loosing or stealing an election, because nothing I will say will change you're warped view. Second. '94 was the Clinton years so STFU. And where the hell do get off saying "even Repubs now admit BUSH is an IDIOT!". Lets see the proof of that. And not from some leftwing drither website either. You wanna post crap like that then back it up or shut up. Thats the biggest problem with "you libs" is you shoot your mouth off about crap that you THINK, not what is hard fact (or at least in your opinion you think it is hard fact because your read it on a blog or some leftwing webpage or AL Frankin said it.) Give me a break!

"GEORGE BUSH bluntly told America last night to break its "addiction to oil" and its energy dependency on imported fuel from unstable regimes in the Middle East"

Yup, the whole whopping 5%!

But facts aside, (not knew for this guy) I find it convenient that after the looting of the American trust, he decides to put a stop too it after the fact!

"Taking it off the table for Dems in 2006."

Yeah, you all have cornered the market on sleaze and dirt bag representation.

Tunde,

evo - and elsewhere PSD IZ? You gotta use standard English or colloquial American otherwise WTF will be the reaction.

Over here hillbilly heroin usually describes Oxycontin but it seems more perfect to describe crystal meth which is popular in rural America where hillbillies came from back in the day. America and Britain -- you seem to be British -- are two very different places, particularly rural America and rural Britain. So you'd have to know a whole lot about America to appreciate the nuances about crystal meth, ecstasy, cocaine, marijuana, Oyycontin and heroin abuse by various American demographics. Even then you end up going round in circles getting nowhere as the War on Drugs does.

Calling oil consumption in America an addiction is a pretty good comparison, though. We all act like junkies around it. So "electing" oilmen to run the country was only the natural thing to do.

from above...

"Taking it off the table for Dems in 2006"

I fail to see how this truly takes it off the table for Dems, as the answer has been staring him (G.W.) in the directly in the face at least since we started this War in Iraq. And, that his timetable (by 2025) is far too far off in the future...try by
2015, or 2020 by the latest...

also from above...

"About time he said it! -- Guess the plan to increase supplies has hit a bump in the road; So now he wants us to conserve!

Sonner or later he had to get the right answer! Is later better than never?"


True, its always better late than not at all. BUT, lets look at 2 things.

1. The consequences of his failure to realise this in the first place. Which has caused over 2,600 U.S. servicemen and women to lose their lives, and increased our national debt by ~1 trillion dollars. Couple this with the incongruency that companies that have supported the current
administration have made (bilked?) billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to "rebuild Iraq" (their portfolios), and his
sudden turnaround seems fairly suspect...

2. He has obviously borrowed "his plan" from the Progressive Democratic/Green movement in this country who have been touting this very idea for at least the last 5 years. Great, come over to the other side. But too little, too late is what I say. Trying to Co-opt another parties platform, and then pretending that excuses you from the fiasco that you've created in point number 1 above, is tantamount to Saddam saying that he is sorry that he tortured and killed people in the opposition...(i.e. its the last desperate ploy of man who realises that reality has finally caught up with him)...

DO NOT BE FOOLED PEOPLE...AND DON'T LET HIM OR HIS PARTY OFF THE HOOK...

all i've got to say...

Yes, why should the rich live off the tit of the poor. It is quite clear you don't know shit about what you are talking about.

Posted by moneywar at 2006-02-01 01:34 AM | Reply

are you sure that he said unstable in the middle east????? I thought he made it more general than that ....like from venezula and other places like that...I really dont recall the middle east coming after the unstable government remark....am I wrong????/ oh please of course not me wrong...NNNOOOOOOOOOOoo

Thanks bushlovertwo for pointing out ANOTHER instance of the lib spin!

Just to put the post I put up about the percentage of oil from the P.G. region in perspective... Our biggest supplier of oil is our meighbor to the north Canada. The percentage of oil that we import from Canada is 16.019032% compared to the 23.79064% from the P.G. region.

Think about that for a while.

it never ceases to amaze me the underlying subtext of bl2 and kofi's recent postings. bl2 is estactic that the SC is now ideologically wound to the right. it's a jab in the eye for 'libs'. (and conversely it's a 'Godsend' for conservatives). subtext: it's a continuation of the culture wars; liberals are the enemy. liberals caused america's defeat in vietnam. liberals are pathetic environmentalists. liberals hate america (and speak chinese, visit france and drink merlot! quelle horreur).
demonise the opposition as obstructionists/rejectionists/
commies/terrorist enablers. for what reason? so as to pursue your partisan objectives. and with such venom. and then say they lack ideas? mind-boggling.
from the coronation of clinton to now. the republican's target is not AQ; it's not 'defending america' (c.f. lack of armour-body or vehicular (strong on defense), subborning the traditional expertise of the CIA to new bureaucracies, politicising in extremis the CIA, curtailing individual freedoms at home etc);
it was always to destroy the 'libs'/
'libscum'.
well, you virtually have a one-party state, so spineless has the democrats been in the face of this dogged republican assault. and yet you have the brass to say that the democrats have no message or are obstructionist when the entire political discourse of your country has been presented to you by the republican message machine.
perhaps i may point this out to you. republicans control the SC, the senate, the congress and the WH. what do you have to show for it? iraq? and that was 'clinton's fault?'.
from time to time the subtext leaks out; like when rove said that democrats wanted to 'empathise' with AQ. link by association. or when bush, through surrogates impugn's the service of his 'fellow american' when he did'nt bother to complete his service. forked tongue speak.
you can criticise the dems all you want (they sure deserve it). but i don't think you want even that.
what you, sir, desire, is a republican led dictatorship. karl rove's value to american political discourse has been invaluable.

and kofi,
of course spinning is a 'lib'-specific disease. L.Y.N.C.H?

I never said it was "lib-specific". I know there are plenty of Conservs out ther ethat put there own spin on things. I giving facts to either prove or disprove a statement.

fair enough kofi; i over-reached and apologise.

perhaps i may point this out to you. republicans control the SC, the senate, the congress and the WH. what do you have to show for it? iraq? and that was 'clinton's fault?'.

Posted by tunde at 2006-02-01 10:10 AM

Except for a growing economy and low unenployment, not to mention the increase in jobs, you're right nothing. Is there still room for improvment, you betcha. But to say the only thing we have to "show" is Iraq is narrow minded.

kofi, what is bush's legacy(cies) and what has he spent so much national treasure on? perhaps you're correct-it is the economy. besides, i always thought the economy had been fine under bush right?

Apart from the opportunity to spew venom about libscum and the like it's hard to figure just what BL2 et al do want. Would one of them please say how America has benefited as a whole during the five years Bush has been in power?

Excluding the anthrax scare, there has only been one one major terrorist attack in America during his watch, perhaps? Anything else?

sorry blue i missed your earlier post. evo referred to evo morales, recently elected coca grower to the bolivian presidency(?). and PSD (personal security detail). IZ or formerly the 'Green Zone' (till hamas won-joke) is now known as the International Zone.

I don't know what the Presidents legacy is going to be. He and I don't talk to each other. Most Presidents know what they want there legacy to be and strive to accomplish that in thier term in office. The media and the like try to impart thier wishes for a legacy of a President (ie. Clinton was a great man, Bush is a lier). Only time will tell.

kofi, may i be so presumptious as to assume you voted for a man and you have no idea to what purpose your political capital was used? you can do better than that! at least humour me! we can at least safely agree it is'nt rebuilding NO.
or are you a libertarian?

If you vote for a person based on what his "legacy" is, then you shouldn't vote. Vote for someone based on his goals and plans. What does he stand for and how does that align with my belief structure? That is the question I ask my self when voting. The "legacy" is something that comes down the road.

Give me a break!

Bush: T-squared L-squared

(As Bob Haldeman, may he rest in peace, used to sagely observe.)

TUNDE!

What are you doing? Don't get them stirred up. They have a Jackboot on their throat and don't know how to remove it.

I'll give Bush his props for stating what the Dems have been crying about for years: namely, the "addiction" of our petroleum-based economy. But to be fair, he only said it trying to steal Dems thunder and as a desperate act of raising his polling numbers. His administration has done NOTHING to wean us off of oil. But hey, maybe ExxonMobil and others will use those record profits to R+D new non-petroleum technology. But I won't hold my breath on that.

The supreme court was not designed to have a "slant"

Posted by ness_gadol at 2006-01-31 10:57 PM | Reply

What the hell has the court been for the past years?! When it's slanted left you're fine with it, when it's slanted right you bitch. WTF!

Posted by Kofi at 2006-02-01 09:10 AM |
When did I ever say I wanted it to be slanted to the left, let alone bitched about it. I am not on the left wing or right wing, Kofi. There is such a thing as a moderate who wants whats best for the COUNTRY, not just the PARTY. You are blind to not see this.

If we are addicted to oil, then perhaps we should have a war on oil? Make it illegal, just like with other addictions we have.
That will surely work, just like the war on drugs.

If oil were illegal what would it cost?

Well, Bush knows all about addictions.

Carter called for this very same thing...reduction of dependence on foreign oil, and he was ridiculed.

Now, somehow, when an Oil man himself (and a failure at that too) says it, it's revolutionary. Wow...as if the repugnantscum have nevr heard anything so brilliant.

Baaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh!!

The Arab oil embargo was in 1973.
Nobody had a clue then. Nobody has a clue now. The oil keeps running out and the population bomb keeps on ticking.

"... maybe ExxonMobil and others will use those record profits to R+D new non-petroleum technology."

Ha ha. Ho ho. {{ smile }}

(Soon, pigs will fly.)

"Carter ... ridiculed."

Carter(D) preached less energy dependence and getting inflation and the federal debt under control. All in pretty tough times.

Why did Jimmy hate America?

"Carter(D) preached less energy dependence and getting inflation and the federal debt under control. All in pretty tough times."

But now, with Bush claiming the economy is strong, we can't even pay our current year's bills, much less our back bills. What will happen when things actually get tough?

I have a great idea to help cut oil usage: telecommuting.

Every single person in my building has access to cable or DSL service and phone service. We could easily do our jobs from an office within our homes. Doing so would greatly reduce traffic, cut company fuel consumption for heating and cooling office space and contribute to employee morale.

Yet very few businesses take advantage of telecommuting. Why is that?

Dont wanna pay for gas? Tie a meth-head to the front of your car and dangle some of that rock. 0-60 in .473 seconds.

"(Bush) has done nothing to wean us off of oil" Sorry...did you listen to the address? I would say spending 4 billion is not "nothing"....I would also say that the tax incentive on Hybrids that he put in was not "nothing" and I would add that the billion invested in Hydrogen fuel cells (including buying them to support military bases) in not Nothing.

But he sees both sides - we cannot do the change over night, and most of these alternative energy sources do not price in when oil is less than $40 per barrel and will take some time to be generically available.

Which is why we need to drill in the Arctic as well as do these alternative fuels. Pragmatic approaches to FIXING problems (as compared to complaining about them and then blocking any solution Like the Dems have done for about EVERY issue) is the only way forward

"0-60 in .473 seconds"

ROFL

But you need a new one every 1/4 mile.

"...we can't even pay our current year's bills, much less our back bills. What will happen when things actually get tough?"

If current trends continue, the total federal debt will nearly double on Bush2's watch. Bush2 will have been "better" for the debt than even Reagan or Bush1. And Bush2 is the first MBA president? (This might be part of the problem.)

On the other hand, the debt trend can't continue ... forever. Maybe that's when things get "tough".

"Tie a meth-head to the front of your car"

But they burn-out so quickly and you have to go looking for another one. The mpmh(miles/meth-head) is poor. Keep looking. The answer is out there.

"If" the trend continues, Bush2 will have added as much to the total federal debt as ... his eleven predecessors combined.

MBA math works differently than what I use. I don't understand MBA types.

But you need a new one every 1/4 mile.

Posted by zatoichi at 2006-02-01 03:15 PM

Funny, thats about the average density in western NC...you might be on to something there...

"Funny, thats about the average density in western NC...you might be on to something there..."

Speed freak leap frog.

Biscuit,

Have patience. The mpmh technology is in it's infancy.

2 more coal mining deaths today, 16 for the year.

How many of our boys have to die to feed America's horrible addiction?

No more blood for coal!!

Bush mentioned "African American" churches. Ever hear "White churches" other than describing the building itself? I guess it is ok for Blacks to have THEIR churches - right? Yeah, they can do whatever they want and not be "racists." How come these "African-American" churches are so lacking in diversity?

Posted by paleocon at 2006-01-31 10:43 PM | Reply

Tell you what paleo... form a "White Church" where sermons don't involve the death, exportation, or otherwise harming of niggers, jews, and fags and I'll gladly call it a non-racist church.

Lastly "African American" churches exist for much the same reasons "White Supremacy" groups do.

And really? With racist assholes like Paleo, and hes wondering why blacks want to have they're own churches? Yeah I'm sure a black man would just love to sit in the front row with a biggot like you at church. Just as much as you'd like to suck a big black dick.

the death, exportation, or otherwise harming of niggers, jews, and fags

You are an idiot pinkhawk.

Tell me of a church you were in that a sermon involved the fucking bullshit you claim.

the death, exportation, or otherwise harming of niggers, jews, and fags

You are an idiot pinkhawk.

Tell me of a church you were in that a sermon involved the fucking bullshit you claim.

but hey on the other hand pinkhawk, maybe you are a father, and someone like clinton will stick cigars in your daughter's cunt, now there is religion.

Lastly "African American" churches exist for much the same reasons "White Supremacy" groups do.

Posted by KnightHawk at 2006-02-01 08:33 PM

Hawk, that doesn't say very much for "African American" Churches. I don't think they want to be referred to that way.

JMFJ,

PUT DOWN THE BOTTLE. YOU'VE HAD ENOUGH.

Unless of course, you haven't had anything to drink, in which case...

PICK UP A BOTTLE SOMEWHERE. YOU NEED IT!

"Hawk, that doesn't say very much for "African American" Churches. I don't think they want to be referred to that way."
Posted by eberly

You're kidding, right? What about the AME churches?!?

You're kidding, right? What about the AME churches?!?

Posted by Danforth at 2006-02-01 11:30 PM

Dan, explain please - I'm just a plain ole Catholic who doesn't pay a lot of attention to other faiths.

Eberly,

AME = AFRICAN Methodist Episcopal.

BTW, I'm a plain ole Catholic, too...just a recovered one.

Eberly,

AME = AFRICAN Methodist Episcopal.

BTW, I'm a plain ole Catholic, too...just a recovered one.