Fight the good fight: Bush and his "ilk" have got

[hyperbole123]

I am new to this site, and have a goal; the total loss of power of Bush and his "cronies".
Here is a post that I made with some serious info about
Bush and his buddies:

http://thetechlounge.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=12965#12965

Read these posts and lets discuss. If you have any interest in this topic, check out this site.
http:\\www.neilrogers.com

They have the best collection of articles that I have ever seen on the Bush debacle subject:

[Brian]

Welcome hyperbole. That sucks that you got banned from TTZ for that...

This forum isn't nearly as active as the one you came from, but I think you'll find that most people here will agree with your position against Bush.

[Blinkin]

bush suxx0rs :twisted:

[DnD]

You all are just sad little cows because Bush won and Kerry lost :P GO BUSH GO BUSH! Yay ^^

[Brian]

You all are just sad little cows because Bush won and Kerry lost :P GO BUSH GO BUSH! Yay ^^

*BANNED*

[DnD]

You all are just sad little cows because Bush won and Kerry lost :P GO BUSH GO BUSH! Yay ^^

*BANNED*

Awwww....NOOOOO I'll be a good boy!

Bush still won haha!

[Brian]

Bush still won haha!

*DOUBLE BANNED*

[DnD]

Ahahaha I am immuned to bannishment It seems *goes to start a campaign of terror and fear across the boards*

[MaNiAk21]

*goes to start a campaign of terror and fear across the boards*

Sounds like we've got a real avid Bushling here. -_-;

[DnD]

don't mind me i'm bored and my ADD is kicking in ^^

[hyperbole123]

You all are just sad little cows because Bush won and Kerry lost Razz GO BUSH GO BUSH! Yay ^^I may be a cow, but you and the rest of the Bush supporters are SHEEP...BAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! Just keep following him blindly, and he'll lead you and the rest right off the edge of a cliff! Bush didn't win, he had it given to him by weasels that only care about money. I know, I lived in Florida through the 2000 AND the 2004 elections. The owner of Diebold(Wally O'Dell) said on numerous occaisons that he would do everything in his power to MAKE SURE that they won the elections, And, the competition to Diebold is owned by his brother, so BOTH companies are totally corrupt. Anyone who believes otherwise is naive and living in a make-believe world.
If you have kept score of the Ohio election, has anyone noticed that in EVERY INSTANCE of the vote tally being wrong(500 people voting and over 8000 votes being registered in some townships), Bush got the advantage. If that isn't proof of the vote being "fixed" in Bush's favor, I don't know what is!

This is what Bush thinks of us,(Honest, hard-working people that make up the majority of Americans)
http://i.neilrogers.com/images/features/2004110404-bush-finger.jpg

[DnD]

You all are just sad little cows because Bush won and Kerry lost Razz GO BUSH GO BUSH! Yay ^^I may be a cow, but you and the rest of the Bush supporters are SHEEP...BAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!


Wow lol, I'd actually feel insulted about this if I wasn't used to it and know that anyone who says such a thing is a fanatic of the other side (This means you)


Just keep following him blindly, and he'll lead you and the rest right off the edge of a cliff! Bush didn't win, he had it given to him by weasels that only care about money. I know, I lived in Florida through the 2000 AND the 2004 elections. The owner of Diebold(Wally O'Dell) said on numerous occaisons that he would do everything in his power to MAKE SURE that they won the elections, And, the competition to Diebold is owned by his brother, so BOTH companies are totally corrupt. Anyone who believes otherwise is naive and living in a make-believe world.


Lol omfg were you born moronicly or did you take classes? Seriously, which part of corporate America isn't 'corrupt'? I mean on both sides you have rich people who are owners of companies putting they're money in to the President they like. Its not 'Corruption' its politics grow up read and learn a little bit. You're the one who is naive and living in the make-believe world if you think only the people on the Republican's side is 'Corrupt'


If you have kept score of the Ohio election, has anyone noticed that in EVERY INSTANCE of the vote tally being wrong(500 people voting and over 8000 votes being registered in some townships), Bush got the advantage. If that isn't proof of the vote being "fixed" in Bush's favor, I don't know what is!


I'd like to see the documented proof of this.



This is what Bush thinks of us,(Honest, hard-working people that make up the majority of Americans)


I'm seriously laughing at what you just showed me here, its an undated picture and not told to whom he's giving the finger so....heh.

Come back when you actually know how to debate seriously and I'll talk with ye.

[hyperbole123]

Lol omfg were you born moronicly or did you take classes? [quote]
Typical Neo-con, resorting to name-calling when they can't make an intelligent response...
[quote]I'd like to see the documented proof of this.

Maybe if you had bothered to get any of your' information from anyone other than Oxy-chewing Limbaugh, or Bill "heavy phone-Breather" O'Reilly, or (fake-make-it-up if you have to) Fox news, you might have heard something other than the twisted version of the truth that they spew on this and other subjects pertaining to what is politically happening in this country...

Normally, if there was just one or two crackpots spouting off about the way they were ripped off, I would agree with you that there was probably no foul-play in the election, but there are reams of evidence, and tens-of-thousands of complaints!

here you are, from auditthevote.org site...

The Voting Integrity Project (http://www.usvip.org) points to ten factors that must lead any fair person to question the "official" tally and insist upon an objective recount:
1. Systematic, Widespread Voting Machine Irregularities
2. Highly Irregular Intervention by Federal Authorities
3. Impossible Vote Totals ( Some with a 1-in-250,000 chance of being accurate, according to expert statisticians! )
4. Openly Partisan Election Officials
5. Openly Partisan and Untrustworthy Vendors of Election Machinery
6. Unexplained Exit Poll Disparities ( Exit polls were correct where there was a paper trail and incorrect (+5% for Bush) where there was no paper trail. )
7. Unreliable and Inadequate Numbers of Voting Equipment in Poor and Working Class (non-Republican) Areas
8. Anomalous and Atypical Voting Pattern Changes from 2000 to 2004
9. Uncounted Ballots, Double Un-matching Sets of Tally Tapes and Uncooperative Officials in Many Areas
10. Widespread Illegal Voter Suppression Activities

12/5/2004 - The Cleveland Plain Dealer has this chart "Untangling the voting controversies" on the front page of their Sunday edition. [/url]http://www.cleveland.com/news/wide/index.ssf?/politics/conspiracies.html[/url]

12/10/2004 - Richard Hayes Phillips has submitted a "sworn affidavit" which results from his ongoing statistical analysis of the Ohio election results.
[/url]http://web.northnet.org/minstrel/supreme.htm[/url]

12/24/2004 - Here is a summary of Arnebeck's Lawsuit Before the Ohio Supreme Court
http://www.usvip.org/article.asp?id=72

12/24/2004 - A video of voter suppresion activities is available here
http://www.jeff04.com/footage.mov

12/22/2004 - The Arnebeck lawsuit, previously rejected, was accepted by the Ohio Supreme Court.
http://198.234.109.19/rod/newpdf/0/2004/2004-ohio-6994.pdf

US: Election study finds widespread ballot-counting problems
Scripps-Howard News Service, December 20, 2004

A review of election results in a 10-county sampling revealed more than 12,000 ballots that failed to record a vote for a certain presidential candidate, almost one in every 10 ballots cast. The unofficial audit by Scripps Howard News Service uncovered malfunctioning voting machines, improperly designed ballots and poor accounting procedures around the nation.
Read More:
http://www.auditthevote.org/news.jsp?key=1043

Another point of interest:
The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled (with some persuasion from above, and I don't mean GOD) that individual votes can not be verified by the voter, DESPITE the constitution guarenteeing the RIGHT to verifying them, because the Diebold and other machines are built with Proprietary and SECRET programming, and by seeing the ballot, the person would be violating the companies' RIGHT TO PRIVACY! Is this a load of horse Cra_ or what?
If you are a true Neo-con, I already know what your response is:
It all bull,
or "it was honest mistake by the voting machines"
or "the government wouldn't do something like that"
or " you haven't proven a thing"
or "its (the information)all made-up (by the "liberal Democrats")"
This is too much irrefutable proof to be debated, there is no rersponse by someone grounded in reality that can debate these facts.
Facts, not conjecture, or opinion, or guesses, or "messages from god'(which Bush claims to regularly get)Here's another one thats not dated...
http://i.neilrogers.com/images/features/2004110405-George%20W%20Newman.jpg

By the way, test scores from IQ tests taken from Yale's computer archives by hackers have verified that GW's IQ is recorded as 88, which is 28 points above retarded. This is supposedly an unsubstantiated rumor, but I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt, just like Bush's supporters give him...

[EmoMakesMeCry]

did you join this forum simply to argue?

[PsychoSnowMan]

Oh joy, un-informed political discourse is overtaking this small bastion of sanity.
I just love it when that happens.

[Kurtis]

yes, in fact i think he did join simply to argue :)

[DnD]

Wow..just wow you're yelling at me for insulting somebody when his stupidity was verified. And yet you yell at someone who went to Yale and especially when you got unconfirmed numbers...now aren't you smart.

Damn thats a big post, if it weren't 2am right now I'd respond to it all, I got about 1/3 of it responded to but I'm not going to post till later. Cya

*Edit* Just noticed I was calling you an idiot :roll:

[Brian]

Let's keep it down here guys. You can debate this stuff, but don't resort to flaming.

[Kurtis]

don't worry brian if there is a fire i will put it out promptly. the ladies don't call me mr. fireman for nothin ya know...

[Brian]

don't worry brian if there is a fire i will put it out promptly. the ladies don't call me mr. fireman for nothin ya know...

hmm...

I don't even know how to respond to that.

Did you have one too many Pina Coladas today? :-P

[Kurtis]

no, but i had that white chocolate cocoa that someone gave me for christmas, and i didn't like it :(

[hyperbole123]

did you join this forum simply to argue?

dictionary.com defines argue as:

ar·gue Audio pronunciation of "argue" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ärgy)
v. ar·gued, ar·gu·ing, ar·gues
v. tr.

1. To put forth reasons for or against; debate: “It is time to stop arguing tax-rate reductions and to enact them” (Paul Craig Roberts).
2. To attempt to prove by reasoning; maintain or contend: The speaker argued that more immigrants should be admitted to the country.
3. To give evidence of; indicate: “Similarities cannot always be used to argue descent” (Isaac Asimov).
4. To persuade or influence (another), as by presenting reasons: argued the clerk into lowering the price.


v. intr.

1. To put forth reasons for or against something: argued for dismissal of the case; argued against an immediate counterattack.
2. To engage in a quarrel; dispute.


[Middle English arguen, from Old French arguer, from Latin argtre, to babble, chatter, frequentative of arguere, to make clear. See arg- in Indo-European Roots.]

No, if you look, youll find that I have posted in more than just this thread, but it is the more important of the topics.

Wow..just wow you're yelling at me for insulting somebody when his stupidity was verified. And yet you yell at someone who went to Yale and especially when you got unconfirmed numbers...now aren't you smart.

Damn thats a big post, if it weren't 2am right now I'd respond to it all, I got about 1/3 of it responded to but I'm not going to post till later. Cya

*Edit* Just noticed I was calling you an idiot Rolling Eyes

I am not "yelling" at anyone, I'm simply stating the obvious (obvious to me and millions of others) Whose the idiot?
I just gave 7 examples that prove my point. All you have offer is insults, and lame ones at that... If Bush is so smart, then why couldn't he keep more than a "C" average? He got into Yale in the first place for one reason, he was born into priveledge. That is how he has gotten everything in his life. Not by hard work(quote: "its hard work" ) LOL!!!
He has schemed and weaseled his way into and out of everything he has has ever taken an intertest in!(which are few and far between if they didn't involve scamming someone out of money)
He has never had a sucessful business venture in his entire life.
He claims to be "pro-life"(anti-abortion), except when it somes to his own life(he got a girl pregnant when he was in his twenties and drove her to the Doctors office, and paid for the abortion), and his sister-in-law has stated under-oath that he was doing Coke at Camp David when his father was there negotiating with foreign heads of state.
Oh yeah, thats a real "winner"
Who do you plan to vote for next election?
David Duke? or maybe Jerry Falwell is more to your liking?
They both are big Bush supporters...
Probably because Bush has allocated money for one religious organization since he has taken office...the one he belongs to.
A couple of weeks ago, Pat Robertson made a statement:
A White House spokesman denied Wednesday that President Bush told Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson that he did not expect casualties from the invasion of Iraq.
He lied, again, and Over and over again we have seen evidence that Bush and his main flunky Rumsfeld, expected our troops to be "greeted by flowers, candy, and parades and that they didn't expect any resistance in the "freeing"of Iraq. So who is lying? A man that has been a devout religious figure in the U.S. for more than half a decade, or a guy who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, and who has been accused of lying about and being involved in the biggest election scandal the country has ever seen?



Just curious,
I am not sure what "flaming": means (at least in this instance)

[EmoMakesMeCry]

oh my god. kurtis he did join to argue.

[hyperbole123]

debating and arguing are two different things. I am not just sittting here thinking up new things to say about Bush; here is the other thread that I have joined:
http://thetechlounge.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=13034#13034

[Kurtis]

dictionary.com defines argue as:
1. To put forth reasons for or against; debate:

to argue is to debate, and yet to debate is not to argue? now i'm just confused :roll:

[Brian]

dictionary.com defines argue as:
1. To put forth reasons for or against; debate:

to argue is to debate, and yet to debate is not to argue? now i'm just confused :roll:

Don't stress yourself :-P

They are similar yet different. You should know that.

[Kurtis]

hehe im just being hard on him :P

i was ARGUING, not DEBATING :)

[hyperbole123]

Arguing would be just having a differing opinion for arguments sake, debating is joining in a conversasion while subscribing in a give-and-take of Ideas and the facts that support them.

[MaNiAk21]

When you are talking about Bush's "pro-life" nature, I suggest you also bring up the fact that he supports the death penalty (more than supports, heh) and that he started a war. They're pretty anti-life things to do. Especially considering over 10,000 more innocent Iraqis have died compared with those who were killed on 9/11 in a terrorist attack entirely non-related to Iraq. It's really tragic. :(

[hyperbole123]

When you are talking about Bush's "pro-life" nature, I suggest you also bring up the fact that he supports the death penalty (more than supports, heh) and that he started a war. They're pretty anti-life things to do. Especially considering over 10,000 more innocent Iraqis have died compared with those who were killed on 9/11 in a terrorist attack entirely non-related to Iraq. It's really tragic. Sad
Evactly! He a wealseling, lying, two-faced moron that does the opposite of what he SWEARS he is going to do. (with alot of help from his hand-picked {not by him but by his "daddy"} team of facist neo-cons by his side) He tears down some of the most necessary legislation this country has ever had, and then tells us he is "looking out for us"...and that he has to protect us(the country) I just wish there was somebody to protect us from him and the gang of corporate scumbags he is giving our taxes and retirement funds to.
The sad thing is that a sizeable portion of the population is not paying enough attention to see what he is actually doing...(pissing on our' legs and telling us its raining) here's an accurate satire:
http://i.neilrogers.com/news/media/sbs041227.gif

[Brian]

Hah, that's great. Wonder what the excuse will be tomorrow.

Iranian leader is of alien descent! MUST DESTROY IRAN!

... the aliens are in kahoots with the terrorists.

[Kurtis]

Dirka Dirka Dirka Mohamed!

[Mr.B]

When you are talking about Bush's "pro-life" nature, I suggest you also bring up the fact that he supports the death penalty (more than supports, heh) and that he started a war. They're pretty anti-life things to do. Especially considering over 10,000 more innocent Iraqis have died compared with those who were killed on 9/11 in a terrorist attack entirely non-related to Iraq. It's really tragic. :(

First off, whether someone chooses to go to war has absolutely nothing to do with whether that person is pro-life or anything. Your trying to make this weak point that if hes pro-life, that he should not involve our country in any type of activity that has to do with people losing life. Thats pretty much the most ignorant argument ive ever heard LOL. Common! sigh* going to war has to deal with the soveriegnty and security of the nation, as well as the rest of the other state actors in the international system we inhabit. Going to war probably saved more lives than it cost (ie, countless Iraqi citizens who would have died under the evil hand of Sadams authoritarian regime and the countless others he would have slaughtered in his remaining time as a dicator in that country, the terrorist attacks that have been prevented due to dismemberment of Alquida and terrorist operatives, the planning of Terrorists to further assult United States citizens on American soil).

And as far as the death penalty is concerned. What do you suggest we do with these people, keep them in the jails so it further overcrowds the facilites forcing us to release people who have committed crimes and other offenses on society????

[MaNiAk21]

It's kind of hard to just accidentally kill that many civilians so far as I could assume. I'm not sure killing them ourselves is any better than Saddam doing it himself. Dismembering Iraq's dictatorship and dismembering Alquida are two completely seperate initiatives, and Iraq never threatened anything upon our country to begin with.

When I am arguing pro-life, I am taking it literaly, and to point out to those in the extremist Christian sect (with which I deal with on a daily basis) that seem to be ignoring any issue associated with the president besides abortion.

I do indeed agree that Saddam needed to be ousted, but it seems like there must be some other way of going about things that isn't so sloppy and unjust.

[hyperbole123]

When you are talking about Bush's "pro-life" nature, I suggest you also bring up the fact that he supports the death penalty (more than supports, heh) and that he started a war. They're pretty anti-life things to do.
First off, whether someone chooses to go to war has absolutely nothing to do with whether that person is pro-life or anything. Your trying to make this weak point that if hes pro-life, that he should not involve our country in any type of activity that has to do with people losing life. Thats pretty much the most ignorant argument ive ever heard LOL.
Iam not saying he's pro-life, HE IS...
Like I said...He says one thing, and does the opposite...that should be obvious by now (at least to those that don't play "ostrich"(burying thier' heads in the sand)
Here is an excerpt from an interesting article that lays some os this out, in a roundabout way:
Link- http://news.neilrogers.com/news/articles/2004123008.html

FROM-"Republican Hypocrisy 101: Always Play the Victim - Often and Loudly"
by Doug Basham

................Looking back at this Christmas season and what it’s supposed to represent, namely, the whole "Christ thing" republicans always get their edible undies and leather G-strings in a wad over; I found myself pondering a few remarks attributed to alleged "Christian" spokespeople. You have Pat Robertson rallying millions to lobby God for the deaths of liberal Supreme Court justices – recommending prayers for coronaries and cancer; you have the gluttonous Jerry Falwell calling for the deaths of our enemies; and you’ve got the chaste Jimmy Swaggart calling for the deaths of gays.
I then thought about the millions of brainwashed, brain-dead, Bush boot lickers who continue on their merry quest for a seemingly utopian, fascist state (where blissful, willful ignorance reigns supreme) and continue to support the wanton murder of innocent human beings in Iraq (and anywhere else the Bush administration lies them into thinking they have go to kill people). And yet, over the holidays, I would hear these same people - these same self-professed "Christians" - call conservative talk radio, completely unaware of what colossal hypocrites and fools there were exposing themselves to be.
On the one hand, they seemed completely oblivious to the fact of how they have willfully eliminated the "Thou Shalt Not Kill" Commandment from their subverted, perverted and immensely watered down republican version of Christianity (not to mention being their brother’s keeper or loving their enemy). They seemed equally unconscious to how they’re completely ignoring the atrocities and war crimes against humanity that they are sanctioning and allowing to be committed in their name. Instead, remarkably - the only thing these perverters and subverters of true Christianity seemed to be concerned about this holiday season with regards to Christianity was chastising department store clerks for saying "Happy Holidays", instead of "Merry Christmas."
Talk about misguided priorities! But we always have to remember - this is all just part of the conservative republican ideology. Live in delusion, denial and ignorance - and the most important element, of course, remains - whine, moan, bitch and complain, and accuse the other side of that which they are most guilty of themselves. Author Paul Waldman (Fraud) calls it "Orwellian Misdirection."

From this site) http:\\www.neilrogers.com

Lots of great articles and extras -they take some of the best articles and put them in one place! and it has some of the funniest "parody bits" I have ever heard! Open the "Neils Noises" for the bits, and they have a new naked celebrity every weekday!(click "behind the beaded curtain")

[hyperbole123]

Here is another interesting article showing Bush's TRUE colors, Again...

Commander-In-Thief; 'Bush vacations — again'
Posted on Sunday, January 02 @ 10:21:46 EST By Les Payne, Newsday

On the morning of the fourth day, the president spake.
The voice defending the United States from charges of being niggardly with its tsunami aid was indeed that of President George W. Bush. From the ranch at Crawford, Texas, the cowboy-in-chief went into his defensive crouch. The TV caption said "Western White House," which is to say: presidential vacation. Late December, as all of August, means vacation, come hellfire or tsunami.
The Sunday tsunami knocked out 12 nations following a 9.0 earthquake that jolted the floor of the Indian Ocean so violently that it shuttered the very rotation of our planet. Inland villages, to say nothing of the ones beachfront, were shredded clean to the bone, from Indonesia all the way west to Somalia.
The death toll has spiked above 100,000, with untold lives never to be accounted for by mankind. The ravenous sea has swallowed hundreds, and perhaps thousands, who could have been accounted for only by others who now have no one to account for them. Winds off some of the tsunamis were clocked over 500 mph, pushing avalanches of waters 40 feet high. Sri Lanka and Indonesia were double-barreled as the waves ripped the shorelines of India, Thailand and Mogadishu (the last some 3,000 miles from the epicenter).
Some 72 hours passed before President Bush changed his vacation clothes to address the catastrophe.
The first words from the wealthiest nation on earth had come from his administration promising $15 million in assistance. This initial insult in our name rose to $35 million in the face of charges from a United Nations official that America was being "stingy." Secretary of State Colin Powell rode out to counter the "stingy" charge only to have his white steed splattered with mud. Concerned Americans who see themselves as citizens of the world noted that, since the onset of this most calamitous natural disaster of our time, President Bush had remained both out of sight and silent.
Under Bush, this steel-helmet republic is spending $87B-plus to wage an unprovoked war against an Arab state whose plight under siege is hardening the hearts of Muslims against this increasingly evangelical White House. Western nations also look askance at Bush's with-us or agin'-us approach to world diplomacy. The Sept. 11 attacks offered a chance for the United States to lead a united front against terrorism orchestrated by Osama bin Laden. This time, the earthquake-tsunami afforded an opening for statecraft.
The U.S. war president could have doubled as a missionary of peace and compassion, with a respectable tsunami-aid package and a few timely words. He could have extended an olive branch to the world's largest Muslim country, in Indonesia, as well as to the Hindu-Islamic-Buddhist populations of Sri Lanka, India, Thailand, Somalia and the rest.
It is tempting to conclude that some sinister White House policy is at play here. Would Bush have reacted so slowly had the victims not been primarily brown-skinned? The answer may lie in the president's shocking immobility when his chief of staff informed him that a second jet plane had crashed into the World Trade Center on Sept. 11. What the nation apparently has saddled itself with is a sitting president who, left alone, is incapable of responding rationally to unscripted events.
The Bush schedule last week called for vacation.
The American people cannot say they weren't warned about his Advanced Vacation Syndrone (AVS). Barely six months into his first term, he dropped everything - and took a month off. Most American workers, with one-week allotments, would have still been on probation. Bush's absence almost tied Richard Nixon's record for the longest presidential stay away from the White House. Even horseback-riding, underbrush-clearing, Ronald Reagan could manage only 28 days away.
The 43rd president put the vacation record out where it poses a serious challenge for his second term. Back in the spring, prior to his August slumber, Bush had spent 40 percent of his time away from the White House, according to The Guardian newspaper, which takes note of such things. Between his inauguration and the 2004 Easter weekend, Bush had reportedly spent 233 days, or almost eight months, in 33 visits to Crawford, Texas, according to CBS News, which conducts a body watch on the president, but at a mandated out-of-sight distance. Tacking on his 78 visits to Camp David and five to the family compound at Kennebunkport, Maine, The Guardian clocked 500 presidential days spent "out of the office while in office."
The friendlier Washington Post, by August 2003, had clocked Bush with 27 percent of his presidency spent on vacation. Although, to be fair, much of this time is classified as "working vacation." Work indeed intrudes on the president's vacation schedule, as it did on Aug. 6, 2001. As reported in the 9/11 Commission Report, Bush's regular August vacation was interrupted by that CIA briefing warning that Osama bin Laden was determined to attack the United States.
The threat of an al-Qaida attack did not deter Bush from his vacation in 2001. Last week he likely slumbered through the earthquake-tsunamis. Such dedication.

You know what would Bush say: "IT'S HARD WORK!"
He wouldn't know hard work if it bit him on the ass!!!!

[handrail]

well what do you expect? we spent all our money on war toys.

maybe we can send them some stealth bombers...we seem to have plenty of those.

[hyperbole123]

He would if he could find them...they are stealth planes, after all...
Bush can spend 87Billion+ on a bogus trumped-up war, but he can only spare 15 Million to send to help the millions(150-thou dead) of victims of the tsunami(initially-till he heard all of the "cheap Americans" comments from all of the other countries, then he bumped it to 35 Mil.)
Facing the next four years - Republicans are talking as if they have a blank check from the American people to do anything they want.
by Jack Lessenberry
Link to Article

Two months ago, George W. Bush, a man I believe to be the worst president this nation has had in two centuries, was re-elected. The result was much closer than commonly portrayed these days, but it was clear.

We can't blame the turnout. Sixty percent of Americans trooped to the polls, and a record number of them voted -- and voted for more of the same. Democrats lost seats in Congress too. This week, that newly elected Congress, with a grinning Dick Cheney presiding, will formally count the electoral votes and certify Bush's re-election. Then, get ready for four years of more war(s), assaults on civil liberties, appalling nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court and lots of other delights we can't even imagine yet, like high inflation.

So now -- what do we do? What can we do? Play dead? Try to accept that our economy is being ruined and our boys and thousands of civilians are being slaughtered every day in a senseless war? Not if we're true Americans, and not if we're true patriots.

There's an old civil rights song that sums up our duty exactly:
I know if there was one thing we did right,
It was the day we started to fight,
Keep your eyes on the prize,
Hold on.
Listen up: The fact that Bush narrowly won the election and Republicans kept control of Congress doesn't give him, or them, a mandate to do anything except try to govern.

There are no final victories in politics. What do you suppose the result would have been had people in the Deep South voted in 1964 on whether black people should have equal rights? Common decency would have lost in every state. Yet within a few years, nobody would dream of challenging blacks voting anywhere.

Republicans are talking as if they have a blank check from the American people to do anything they want, from mining the national parks to getting rid of inconvenient ethics rules. What if Bill Clinton had asserted that since he had been elected, nobody should challenge his decisions? Newt Gingrich would have rightly gone supernova.

Clinton, by the way, would have had far better reason to think that way; he won by more than 8 million votes the second time, with a far smaller turnout. Bush was re-elected by far less.

To the best of my knowledge, the final election returns haven't been published anywhere. So here they are: George Bush 62,040,736. John Kerry 59,028,649. That is a margin of barely two points -- 50.7 percent to 48.3 percent.

There were many reasons why people voted for Bush. Fred Manuel, a highly intelligent Detroit newspaper executive whom I have known for many years, wrote me a detailed critique of the column I did on that topic after the election.

Much of what he said was scathingly accurate. He notes that on the issue of the war, "Kerry offered nothing concrete and/or different." Unfortunately, he was totally right. Manuel also added, "In the end, leaders have to make decisions; the perception of Kerry was that he simply couldn't. He allowed himself to be so burdened by the pursuit of knowledge about an issue that he couldn't reasonably come to a conclusion."

Personally, I think that wasn't true, but that was the perception, and, in politics, perception is usually everything. Kerry didn't deal well with the outrageous Swift Boat smears spread by the draft dodger's supporters.

Most damning, Kerry failed to articulate any kind of strategy for Iraq except to stupidly promise that he would "win" the war. He didn't say how, or when.

Yet given all that, our great decisive hero president nearly lost, and outside the solid South, did lose the rest of the nation. Nearly every major state -- California, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey -- turned thumbs down on the shrub.

We would do well to remember that. Manuel ridiculed my belief that the Osama tape released the weekend before the election was decisive. "Nearly all surveys show people had their minds made up days before," he argued. But if that was so, why did Kerry win more of the absentee votes? Bush's margin declined in nearly every state as the votes cast long before were slowly tallied.

My guess is that in less than two years, there will be a rash of bumper stickers that say "Don't blame me; I voted for Kerry," and some will be on cars owned by onetime Bush voters.

This is not wishful thinking. The ignorant know-nothings who are making our policy now have sealed their eventual doom. In the meantime, what's most outrageous is the perception that Bush supporters are more "moral" and have better "values." That's because corrupt or stupid preachers have successfully convinced media bubbleheads that morality and values are defined by crooked politicians who cynically denounce abortion and gay marriage.

On this topic, Fred Manuel seems to have been successfully snookered. "Please tell me with concrete evidence as to how you measure integrity (and defend your assertion) that Bush has little and John Kerry more?" he wrote, referring to my statement that Bush "beat an opponent who had more integrity, class, experience and intelligence."

For once, I got a softball, over the center of the plate. George Bush has no public integrity worth discussing. He's done perhaps the most evil thing any president has ever done: He lied us into starting a war, and the blood of thousands is on his hands. The killing goes on, of our soldiers and their civilians, and he hasn't a clue how to stop it, or any realization that in Iraq and the court of world opinion, he already has lost.

Our war criminal president claimed, as did legions of surrogates and hangers-on, that he had absolute proof that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. He didn't. And we launched an unprovoked war against a small nation that had done nothing to us.

Additionally, Bush's administration worked hard to deliberately mislead America about a supposed connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime. Every expert knew those were lies.

Now the man of integrity is continuing to run deficits that will mortgage our children's future, and pursue environmental policies that may ruin all our futures.

Since the election, the moral and ethical Republicans in Congress have been working hard to change the rules in Congress so Tom DeLay can remain House majority leader even if he's indicted. They're taking other steps to weaken the ethics rules, and have threatened to remove their own chairman of the House Ethics Committee for being too concerned about, well, ethics.

George Bush is removing anyone with any independence from his cabinet, and installing his amen corner.

And in a bold new foreign policy move, the administration is now, according to The Washington Post, planning to detain suspected terrorists for life -- including those it doesn't have enough evidence to charge in any court. That's the sort of policy Adolf Hitler would've loved.

We're going to have four years of this stuff, and it's up to all of us to put down the goddamn Game Boy or squash racket or remote and pay attention. And fight.

Sooner or later, America will get it. Until then ... http://i.neilrogers.com/news/media/str050103.gif

[hyperbole123]

Here's a new way that Bush is trying to take advantage of a particular minority, and twist the information he has to get what he wants:
"Little Black Lies" - http://news.neilrogers.com/news/articles/2005012907.html
By the way, Bush said in 1981 that Social security would be BANKRUPT BY 1988! ROFLOL!!!
He must think we are as stupid as he is!

[Rich]

This web site may be a bit partisan, but some of the information is truely disturbing.

http://democrats.reform.house.gov/features/politics_and_science/index.htm

[hyperbole123]

Partisan while being a democrat means you tell the truth, being partisan while being a Republican now means typically lying about everything...good site! thanks man!

[MaNiAk21]

Partisan while being a democrat means you tell the truth, being partisan while being a Republican now means typically lying about everything...good site! thanks man!

Heh, no one is perfect, not even democrats ;); I wouldn't go so far as to say that... >.>;

[hyperbole123]

http://i.neilrogers.com/news/media/str050131.gif
God loves everyone, especially Republicans (not!)