"Everyone is walking around smiling and grinning and happy like the bright light of the sun just destroyed all the bloodsucking vampires." - A Comment from Mike, about Democrats winning a majority of seats in Congress.
Happy Veterans Day! GOD BLESS OUR LOST LOVED ONES... and a special THANK YOU to Clif, Desert Storm Commander; Marcus, currently stationed in Iraq — and John Conley, Marine Combat Vet who sent me his Purple Heart for speaking out against the invasion of Iraq. We need to take care of our troops, who made the ultimate sacrifice.
BUSH AND THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESS CUT VETERANS BENEFITS!! What a shameful legacy. Haliburton should pay for our handicapped Veterans' severed limbs and all the medical bills and life support these Vets and their families need. Cheney and Haliburton, war profiteers, who charged $45 for a case of Coke in Iraq! They enriched themselves at the expense of our soliders, while cutting their benefits.
DEMOCRATS TOOK CONGRESS and WE ARE ECSTATIC!! Fascism was defeated and there is HOPE again! America's glory and esteem in the world has a chance now. Good always wins over evil, because evil has no real power. There were almost too many text-book scandals on the republican side. It almost seemed like divine intervention.
Two articles I wrote on this administration, "BUSH'S LAST WILL AND TESTICLE" and "DEATH IS SEXIER THAN SEX (to Ann Coulter), will be reprinted here soon -- or you can find them in various news journals in the sidebar. The books HOW TO TALK TO ANN COULTER, IF YOU MUST ; BLOGGING WITH THE DEVIL and FALLING UP are in the pipeline, not necessarily in that order.
"Watch FOX the day after the election. It is like watching Soviet TV after Brezhnev died." Quote from my friend Steve Kelly, head of programming over at KPSI, the ABC affliiate in Palm Springs.
"I can't help but notice the history channel is showing 'The Fall of the Nazi party'.
Wonder if this was scheduled, or impromptu?" - Doctor Von Worfeus
Got this letter today:
Lydia,
Some time ago I wrote you an e-mail, my first of a few to you, in which I wrote about my fears that we were on the verge of a new dark age. You wrote me a nice e-mail back and mentioned in your blog that you were confident that things would turn around and that the people of this nation would awaken to what was going on. Never have I been happier about being wrong.Now if we can just start moving ahead. It's my hope that our party will show everyone how our government is supposed to work. A democracy is based on compromise. We mustn't act like the Republicans did in 1994. We must work together and move forward. I have no doubt that is exactly what we will do. During the past two to three years I have had little faith in the future of our nation, but now, finally, the morning has broken.
May we make the day that has dawned the beginning of a new, bright and enlightened age for all Americans, regardless of race, creed or political philosophy. May we bring that enlightened age to the world through understanding and communication.
Your faith has been rewarded Lydia. In the future I will endeavor to keep the faith myself.
Thank you, with love, Thomas J. Comer
Thank you to all commenters on this blog. Your committment and unrelenting troll-bashing have actually helped win this election in some small way, in this blog. Every single voice counts. Every prayer counts. And we actually made a difference. Also, after doing over 30 radio shows across the country from a spiritual-progressive perspective, and in the South and Southeast — I know for a fact that we changed some hearts and minds. Everything we do makes a dent in the machine.
"Perseverance is more prevailing than violence; and many things which cannot be overcome when they are together, yield themselves up when taken little by little." Plutarch
Love & Peace xoxo
Lydia
I would like to thank all the veterans all over this country and especially the ones who never got to return to it for their service and sacrifices.
ReplyDeleteIt is the Veteran, NOT the preacher,
who has given us freedom of religion.
It is the Veteran, NOT the reporter,
who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the Veteran, NOT the poet,
who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the Veteran, NOT the campus organizer,
who has given us freedom to assemble.
It is the Veteran, NOT the lawyer,
who has given us the right to a fair trial.
It is the Veteran, NOT the politician,
who has given us the right to vote.
It is the Veteran, who salutes the flag.
It is the Veteran, who serves under the flag.
Clif - Happy Veterans Day! I am posting your name on the front page.
ReplyDeleteHappy Veterans Day Clif and Marcus, hopefully next Veterans Day will be even better for you guys and our nation as a whole!
ReplyDeleteLydia said "BUSH AND THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESS CUT VETERANS BENEFITS!! What a shameful legacy. Haliburton should pay for our handicapped Veterans' severed limbs and all the medical bills and life support these Vets and their families need. Cheney and Haliburton, war profiteers, who charged $45 for a case of Coke in Iraq! They enriched themselves at the expene of our soliders, while cutting their benefits."
ReplyDeleteThat is truely despicable the our self proclaimed "war president"
and his self serving rubberstamping Congress of criminals and thieves cut veterans benefits during a war.
I want to take this time to ask all the repug chickenhawks how they can possibly support the war and not support the troops and their familys we have veterans and current soldiers who are on welfare and public assistance and cant afford to get proper medical treatment or to feed and support their familys.
come on TT and Volt and Rusty, do you support the military and our veterans or the Greedy self serving Neo Cons and their rubberstanping congress?
Clif said, "It is the Veteran, NOT the preacher,
ReplyDeletewho has given us freedom of religion.
It is the Veteran, NOT the reporter,
who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the Veteran, NOT the poet,
who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the Veteran, NOT the campus organizer,
who has given us freedom to assemble.
It is the Veteran, NOT the lawyer,
who has given us the right to a fair trial.
It is the Veteran, NOT the politician,
who has given us the right to vote.
It is the Veteran, who salutes the flag.
It is the Veteran, who serves under the flag."
Those words were delivered at the Republican National Convention in 2004. FYI.
Mike said...
ReplyDeleteLook at the pathetic paronoid tinfoil hat wearing Neo Con, thinking the whole world is constantly plotting to attack just like THEY ARE, their answer for everything is "just trust me
TT and the rest of the neocon idiot machine have been wrong about every damn thing for the last 6 years.
But we should just listen to the idiots now.
Sorry, but I've already reached my "listen to the numbskulls" quota for the year.
Clif said, "I understand it commemorates the 'noble' wars, celebrates the patriotism of brave men and women and commiserates bereaved families."
ReplyDeleteIt commemorates vets of ALL wars, conflicts and police actions. The Vietnam War has been unpopular for over thirty years, but the veterans of that war are still veterans. They served their country and fought just as hard as veterans of other wars.
If you talk to foreigners, they are a little baffled at the respect we show our men and women in uniform, but it's the right thing to do. So screw them. They are always willing to take the benefit of spilt American blood without sacrificing their own blood.
This was true in WW2, and it is true today, so happy Veterans Day.
"British Gary said...
ReplyDeleteClif,
I'm not sure whether to say 'happy vets day' or 'I'm sorry America needs to have a vets day'."
We could have made a deal with Hitlet, Gary, and the UK would be speaking German about now, so please just either honor the vets, or shut the hell up.
Our veterans are what made this country.
ReplyDeleteThank God for the brave men and women of the United States Military.
May we never misuse them in a war for political gain again.
Tiny those words were around LONG before the repug convention where the repugs agreed to cut both veterans and active duty benefits.
ReplyDeleteSorry son BUT the repugs do NOT own those words, the vets DO they hang in every VFW and American Legion I have ever been in LONG before you neo-cons tried to STEAL them.
GET a clue son you do not do much for veterans, but say you honor them while you CUT their benefits.
TalllTexan said...
ReplyDeleteWe could have made a deal with Hitlet, Gary, and the UK would be speaking German about now, so please just either honor the vets, or shut the hell up.
You've got no business telling anyone in here to shut the hell up you warmongering but too afraid to serve chickenhawk jackass.
Gary, it was American blood and American sacrifice that saved the UK, so attacking Veterans Day is fine -- if you want to turn the clocks back 60 years when we were very close to listening to the appeasers and isolationists in our own ranks that counseled that we should stay out of the European conflict.
ReplyDeleteWorf, I take offense at some foreigner who took the benefit of our sacrifice and now sneers at the very people who prevented Hitler from overrunning England, and I can tell whomever I please to "shut the hell up," just as you can.
ReplyDeleteTiny you made ONE mistake it was AMERICAN soldiers blood and sacrifice, not gutless chickenhawks like you that fought in WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War 1, Afghanistan, and Iraq, and have preserved the freedoms of this planet, QUIT trying to piggy back on their sacrifice son.
ReplyDelete"clif said...
ReplyDeleteTiny you made ONE mistake it was AMERICAN soldiers blood and sacrifice, not gutless chickenhawks like you that fought in WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War 1, Afghanistan, and Iraq, and have preserved the freedoms of this planet, QUIT trying to piggy back on their sacrifice son.
4:11 PM"
Really? I guess FDR was a chickenhawk under that definition.
TT how do you and your ilk honor the veterans and troops, by cutting veterans benefits so they cant get medical treatment and paying the troops so little they are on welfare and cant feed their family's but like true eliteists pushing your self serving agenda you give the Generals an 8%-9% raise as hush money so they wont speak out against your idiotic war of choice, while the regular soldiers who cant feed their familys get 2% raise that is below the rate of inflation so essentially they lost money and became poorer.
ReplyDeleteThats how you honor the troops and veterans isnt it Troll Tex you chickenhawk hippocrite, if anyone here shouls STHU its you you hippocritical troll!
How was FDR a chicken hawk halfwit, he entered the war when WE WERE ATTACKED PRE+EPTIVELY, NOT WHEN WE WERE THE AGRESSOR DOING THE PRE-EMPTIVE ATTACKS>
ReplyDeleteGROW up and admit it is repug chicken hawks that did NOTHING to protect freedoms, it was real patriots Like John McCain, John Kerry, John Murtha, Joe Sestak, James Webb, Max Cleland, who walked into harms way, offer themselves up for sacrifice if need be just to defend this country,
ReplyDeleteSOMETHING GUTLESS CHICKEN HAWKS have NEVER done.
So get it straight son, they did you did not, and you repugs SLIME them all the time.
you oughta quit while your behind, or your just gonna dig that hole deeper and look more stupid just like GWB.
ReplyDeleteMike, what do you suggest? That we pay PFCs the same as generals?
ReplyDeleteActually, I think they all deserve a pay raise, including members of Congress, so that these institutions can attract the best and the brightest.
and NO son Roosevelt WAS NOT a chicken hawk son, he did not bomb Japan preemptively nor did he attack them FIRST like the gutless idiot Bush did.
ReplyDeleteand HE allowed the military to WIN the war, not back a sycophantic Idiot like Dumsfeld who has LOST Iraq,because he thought he knew more than the generals.
TalllTexan said...
ReplyDeleteWorf, I take offense at some foreigner who took the benefit of our sacrifice and now sneers at the very people who prevented Hitler from overrunning England,
First of all he didn't sneer at Veterans day. I just read what he said and he was just trying to make a point about the war on terror.
I don't think his intention was to disrespect Veterans day, at least I don't see that in it. I'll let Gary answer on that one, but I have a question for you.
For someone who is so gung ho about veterans day, answer us this.
How is it you never served?
You worship war, from your posts thats clear. So how is it you yourself haven't jumped into the fray?
I KNOW there are plenty of civillian contractor jobs in Iraq, in case you're too old to enlist in the military.
Why are you here, criticizing brave men like Clif and Marcus, who DID serve, and DID put on the military uniform, and risk it all by going into harms way for their country.
How is it, guys like you, rusty and volt, love to insult Clif, who served THIRTEEN YEARS in uniform, AND served in combat, or Marcus, who is RIGHT NOW serving in the war you guys are in here pushing?
Don't you feel just a little punkish, in here TALKING all big and bad while at the same time being unwilling to serve like the guys who you're in here insulting?
Answer that one tough guy.
Answer that one.
A chicken hawk does NOT offer to serve when it is their turn, BUT advocates for OPTIONAL wars like Iraq and tells others to go fight them.
ReplyDeleteGet a clue son, even if you have to go to K-mart and BUY one.
ReplyDeleteCause I really want to know.
ReplyDeleteBTW tiny you have little to crow about from 2004 election when the repugs slandered a veteran, especially when they did not serve, and on veterans day itself,
ReplyDeletedidn't hubris like this get you morons in enough trouble already?
I'm serious TT old buddy.
ReplyDeleteI'm not discussing one more thing with you until you answer that one.
Read my 4:24 post and answer that one simple question for me.
I'm all ears.
You may think standing at a wall staring at a name ...even a name of a relative is honoring a veteran, but go spend some time with them,
ReplyDeleteBuy one a meal TODAY, offer to give a widow a ride to the cemetery TODAY, or even next week, that is what honorable people would do.
Like usual TT you take the argument into absurdity, what I suggest is that the soldiers over there dying that couldnt support or feed their familys on what they are making should have got the 9% raise or at the very least everyone should have got the same raise but giving a raise less than the rate of inflation is insulting. Same with Congress they SHOULD NEVER GIVE THEMSELVES A RAISE WHILE VOTING NOT TO RAISE MINIMUM WAGE. minimum wage should be indexed to the CPI so it is not political, which should even be good for you since you always put politics ahead of doing what is right.
ReplyDeleteI've NEVER criticized Clif on the basis of his military service. Not once.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I have disagreed with him over other issues that have been raised here in this blog, which is fair game.
see TT giving the generals a big fat 9% increase was to buy their silence for political gain.
ReplyDeleteBTW troll I never said soldiers should be making the same as generals, thats your own dishonesty trying to change the topic, I said they should receive a living wage and an increase above the rate of inflation and at least on par with the fat cat generals you attempted to buy off.
Vets need MORE than a parade and a political speech every now and then.
ReplyDeleteSome of them need help finding a place to live, some need a hell of a lot of medical care, but many get turned away because Bush's million dollar welfare program of tax cuts BEFORE vets care denies them that.
Many vets need a lot you repugs deny them, but you want to crow some assclown STOLE OUR words to speak at a repug convention where they planned to underfund the VA and deny active duty benefits even MORE?
GET real son, you got NOTHING to crow about.
My father served in Korea, but until I...ME not him signed up, I was not a vet, HE was.
ReplyDeleteAnd until I served in Desert Storm, HE was the only person who put HIS ass on the line, NOT me, I had not until I climbed into a C-141 and flew to Daharan Saudi Arabia, and stepped off that plane into a combat zone,
so IF you have not DONE the deed your self YOU personally have NOTHING to say.
Clif, do you think the 1991 Gulf War was optional?
ReplyDeleteAnd you idiotic want to CUT more from Veterans benefits, and want the active duty personnel to PAY more for their medical care and that for their dependents is telling.
ReplyDeleteReagan the asshole was the First president to CUT benefits for active duty personnel, as bad as NIXON he never did, in fact in 1972, Richard Nixon DOUBLED the pay for every service person in the military,
DOUBLED son.
GFY tiny that is the dumbest question you asked
ReplyDeleteTalllTexan said...
ReplyDeleteI've NEVER criticized Clif on the basis of his military service. Not once.
Perhaps not directly to his service, but you insult him and, and pal around with guys like rusty and voltaire, who mock his service.
The clear lack of respect is a tribute to the right wings lack of concern for the vets.
Suck it up you tell them, as you grab yourself another King Prawn, and pour another glass of port.
You don't see it, or maybe you do.
But one things for sure.
Everyone else does.
Nixon doubled the pay because he ended the draft. Next question.
ReplyDeleteYour nothing but slime asshole, yopu come in here spewing reichwing talking points but refuse to answer worfeus question, answer the question worfeus asked gutless.
ReplyDeleteSo answer my question please TT.
ReplyDeleteTell us why, you support wars, criticize those who fight in them, and yet have been unwilling to join in the fight yourself.
Answer me that one Patton, and we can chat some more.
Answer me this son.
ReplyDeleteShould Active duty personnel get FULL benefits for themselves AND their dependants LIKE. Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter agreed they should have or get them CUT like the asshole REeagan did.
Should the Military pay the troops enough so they DO NOT have to sign up for FOOD STAMPS son?
ReplyDeleteShould the government give every veteran care at the VA?
ReplyDeleteShould the federal government be allowed to retro actively CHANGE a contract they signed with a vet YEARS later, or should they have to do as John McCain forced it to do?
ReplyDeleteShould Congress be allowed to give themselves a 30,000 pay raise over the last ten years while troops still have to rely on Food stamps to feed their families?
ReplyDeleteWhat's the matta son, the repugs who DID this do not look so good?
ReplyDeleteThey scream they support the troops BUT make them rely on FOOD STAMPS to feed their families, even while in combat.
ReplyDelete"clif said...
ReplyDeleteAnswer me this son.
Should Active duty personnel get FULL benefits for themselves AND their dependants LIKE. Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter agreed they should have or get them CUT like the asshole REeagan did.
4:44 PM"
Yes. But Reagan was not an asshole. He won the cold war, something almost everyone thought was impossible.
Repugs CUT the VA under Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush 43, that is not supporting the troops, it is a knife in their backs after they served honorably.
ReplyDelete"clif said...
ReplyDeleteShould Congress be allowed to give themselves a 30,000 pay raise over the last ten years while troops still have to rely on Food stamps to feed their families?
4:48 PM"
As I said, they should all get raises, even members of Congress. We need to attract the best people who put their lives on the line, or who make policy in Congress.
Reagan was an asshole for cutting benefits of the troops WHO were the ones who stood the posts that WON the cold war, NOT Ronald Depends Reagan.
ReplyDeleteReagan no more won the cold war than Roosevelt defeated Hitler, Roosevelt was commander in chief, BUT he never claimed to have WON WW2,
YOU assclowns claim a lot you never personally do.
Everyone who serves in combat should be supported for the REST OF THEIR LIVES.
ReplyDeleteThats right.
TT won't like that, but ROME thought it was good enough for the troops who served, so why shouldn't we?
If they need it, they should never have to work a day in their life again. We can afford it. We certainly have the money and resources, just apparently not the will.
Which shows why men like TT can so arbitraily send so many young people to their deaths, and feel himself a good man at the end of the day.
Cause he just doesn't give a shit.
And thats the truth.
"clif said...
ReplyDeleteReagan was an asshole for cutting benefits of the troops WHO were the ones who stood the posts that WON the cold war, NOT Ronald Depends Reagan.
Reagan no more won the cold war than Roosevelt defeated Hitler, Roosevelt was commander in chief, BUT he never claimed to have WON WW2,
YOU assclowns claim a lot you never personally do.
4:52 PM"
So who won the Cold War? Clinton? That's a good one.
Congress DOES not need any pay raised until they balance the budget, and complete all their work in the year it need to be finished by, like spending bills before the fiscal years start, LONG before assclown amendments like anti melhman amendments to keep kenny boy from getting married.
ReplyDeleteNo son the troops who stood the posts from 1946 until 1992.
ReplyDeleteThey woin that war, just as the troops who served in WW@ won thaty one, and the troops who served in WW1 won that one, and the troops who fought the british won the revolution.
ReplyDeleteTHE vets won the war IDIOT.
You still want to find a way to claim props for the politicians instead of the troops.
ReplyDeleteBUT it is troops who win wars if the politicians stay OUT of the way.
You're just not going to answer my question, are you TT?
ReplyDeleteYou'll dodge it, skirt aroud it, talk about other crap, but not answer one simple question.
Well, until you do, I'm on a TT strike.
Reagan did NOT win the Cold war because the USSR was collapsing before he was sworn in, he just accelerated the process, Afghanistan had as much to do with the collapse of the USSR as Reagan did.
ReplyDeleteBut no matter what the USSR was not going to last another decade after they collapsed in Afghanistan, they did not have the ability to rebuild their infrastructure and their military with what they had at the time.
Reagan DID NOT win the cold war, and he began the process which has destroyed our fiscal position.
ReplyDeleteHE is an IDIOT when it came to fiscal responsibility.
He laid the ground work and began borrowing and spending like a drunken sailor on crack, and his debts are still NOT paid, we are still paying interest on HIS debt.
ReplyDelete26 years later.
stupid Texan, Reagan did not win the cold war, the soviets beat themselves by destroying their military and bankrupting themselves fighting unwinnable wars in Afghanistan............kinda like we are doing right now in Iraq AND FOOLS LIKE YOU SUPPORT this senseless war of choice that makes us far less safe and squanders are military and financial might and marches us ever closer to the same abyss the soviets fell down.
ReplyDeleteSo the idiot screwed the troops, screwed the vets, and screwed the country in the end.
ReplyDeleteIt is just assclowns like you who want to make HIM into something he NEVER was.
ReplyDeleteHe did much more damage to the troops and vets than Carter or Clinton ever did.
ReplyDeleteNo wonder YOU worship the FOOLE.
Bobby Muller is on C-Span 2, discussing why the repugs in the government are as bad as they are for the troops and vets.
ReplyDeleteHow abot answering this TT how do you and your ilk honor the veterans and troops, by cutting veterans benefits so they cant get medical treatment and paying the troops so little they are on welfare and cant feed their family's but like true eliteists pushing your self serving agenda you give the Generals an 8%-9% raise as hush money so they wont speak out against your idiotic war of choice, while the regular soldiers who cant feed their familys get 2% raise that is below the rate of inflation so essentially they lost money and became poorer.
ReplyDeleteThats how you honor the troops and veterans isnt it Troll Tex you chickenhawk hippocrite, if anyone here should STHU its you you hippocritical troll!
And tiny he gave of himself, UNLIKE you have personally done, he fought in Vietnam, and came home paralyzed from the waist down.
ReplyDeleteHe sacrificed in that war, and continues to carry HIS burden from that war.
UNLIKE the gutless chicken hawks like dick cheney who had something better to do, so he GOT FIVE deferments.
But Cheney thinks it is OK to LIE now and make MORE Bobby Mullers.
Worf, I think I said quite awhile ago that I had worked for a contractor. I actually thought quite seriously about enlisting, but the pay was MUCH better at the contractor, so I choose the contractor, and America needs contractors almost as much as men in uniform. That said, if my only choice was to enlist, I would have done so, and gladly. To be honest, I sometimes regret not enlisting because of the training and espirt de corps.
ReplyDeleteThat's my history, Worf, and is does not preclude me from having an opinion on matters of war and piece.
Over the years, I've done well, and I'm not ashamed of that. I also recognize that the real heroes are those who put the uniform on.
see TT giving the generals a big fat 9% increase was to buy their silence for political gain.
ReplyDeleteBTW troll I never said soldiers should be making the same as generals, thats your own dishonesty trying to change the topic, I said they should receive a living wage and an increase above the rate of inflation and at least on par with the fat cat generals you attempted to buy off.
you make the claim you can hold your own in here troll tex if that is so, why the need for dishonesty, refusing to answer our questions and the troll tactics like pulling the bait and switch and reframing our arguments into the absurd.
I NEVER SAID SOLDIERS SHOULD BE PAID THE SAME AS GENERALS....yet you lied like a typical troll and tried to imply i did, I WANT TO KNOW WHY, are your arguments so hollow and weak you have to resort to dishonesty and lies and attempt to dishonestly reframe our arguments like a typical slimy Reich Wing Troll?
And the Bush Administration HAS lied to congress about the problems at the VA in 2006 even.
ReplyDeleteThis time line shows that.
TT said "hat said, if my only choice was to enlist, I would have done so, "
ReplyDeletewhat the hell does this gobbldy gook double talk mean we all have choices to enlist and like a typical repug you CHOSE NOT TO, like a typical repug you chose MONEY over standing up for principles you claim to believe in..............you are a hollow empty greedy thug just like GWB.
You claim to believe in war yet you chose the path of money while others die to enrich you and your Neo Con Cronnies.
ReplyDeleteHere is senator patty Murays remarks about it.
ReplyDeleteMurray Calls for a Real Budget Based on Real Demands after GAO Report Reveals VA Failures
GAO Report finds that past VA budget planning was based on "unrealistic assumptions, errors in estimation, and insufficient data."
GAO Report
(Washington D.C.) – U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) today called on Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Secretary Jim Nicholson to provide Congress with an accurate plan for the health care of America's veterans, a plan based on real numbers and real demands for service. The call comes after the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a stunning report detailing the VA's failure to provide accurate information for budget needs in fiscal years 2005 and 2006. The report found that the VA used faulty information when planning for overall health care demands and that it estimated health care costs for service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan based on prewar data.
"Protecting and taking care of our soldiers is the most basic responsibility for those planning and executing a war," said Murray. "Unfortunately, this report offers a stunning indictment of this Administration's commitment to our troops when they return home from Iraq and Afghanistan."
The GAO report was commissioned to investigate two emergency budget requests made by the President in 2005 for a total of nearly $3 billion. Those Presidential requests came after Senator Murray made a similar request for additional funds based on reports of under-funded services for veterans. The GAO looked into why realistic funding levels were not initially requested by the VA and why additional funds were needed. The GAO report found that the additional funding was necessary because the VA prepared their '05 and '06 budgets using "unrealistic assumptions, errors in estimation, and insufficient data." Specifically, the report found that:
* The VA failed to report the problems they were experiencing to Congress in a timely manner.
* The VA underestimated the cost of serving veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan because they used budget information that predates the war.
* The VA used faulty information on when they would see real dollars from proposed cost saving measures.
* The VA in many cases did not have any actual means of implementing proposed cost saving measures.
"This is really about the VA being frank with Congress and the American people about its needs," said Murray. "When the VA plays politics with their budget, America's veterans get shortchanged."
"It's time for Secretary Nicholson to explain how the VA is going to put in place a system that will be able to handle the cost of providing mental health care, reducing patient wait times, and providing for an influx of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans," said Murray. "I have not seen that plan, and today's report certainly does not lead me to believe such a plan exists."
"This independent report once again illustrates a VA that is incapable of preparing a real plan for the care of our nation's veterans," said Senator Murray. "There was no plan when service members were sent off to Iraq and Afghanistan, there is no plan now, and most tragically, there is no plan in place for when they return home."
Senator Murray has consistently called upon Secretary Nicholson to provide Congress with the full scope of the VA's fiscal needs.
In March 2005, after hearing reports from various veterans groups citing long lines for care Senator Murray requested $2.85 billion in supplemental spending to meet the increased demand. In the months after Murray's request, the VA continually misled Congress about the existence of a budget shortfall.
In April of 2005, Secretary Nicholson wrote that he did not "foresee any challenges" that would preclude the VA from providing "timely, quality service." The Secretary also testified in a June 2005 Senate Veterans Affairs Committee hearing that the VA had "an adequate level right now" for mental health. However, those on the front lines of the VA's effort to provide care have not echoed the Secretary's confidence in the Department's ability to provide for Veterans. In fact, as recently as earlier this year, Frances Murphy, M.D., Undersecretary for Health Policy Coordination at our Department of Veterans Affairs, noted that some VA clinics could not provide mental health or substance abuse care to veterans, or if they do, "waiting lists render that care virtually inaccessible."
Senator Murray's 2005 request for $2.85 billion in supplemental funding was ultimately denied by the Republican-led Senate. Shortly after Murray's effort was thwarted, the President's requests provided the funding for the $3 billion budget shortfall that the VA revealed in June 2005.
The GAO report released today was requested by Senators Daniel Akaka (D-HI), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Ken Salazar (D-CO) and Murray. Senator Murray is a member of the Veterans Affairs Committee.
REAL simple question TINY, are you willing to GIVE up some of your revered tax cut, to take care of the TROOPS and the VETS?
ReplyDeleteand son the question is ARE YOU willing, not spin it into funds can come from other places.
ARE YOU WILLING to sacrifice for the troops?
"clif said...
ReplyDeleteREAL simple question TINY, are you willing to GIVE up some of your revered tax cut, to take care of the TROOPS and the VETS?
and son the question is ARE YOU willing, not spin it into funds can come from other places.
ARE YOU WILLING to sacrifice for the troops?
5:25 PM
Yes, I donate every year.
You still havent answered how you can Claim to support the war but not support the troops and veterans and if you do not oppose veterans benefits cut where they cant get medical treatment or soldiers on welfare who cant feed their families getting a raise BELOW the cost of inflation while the generals get a fat raise to buy their silence FOR POLITICAL GAIN then you dont support the troops.
ReplyDeleteI would like to here you say you feel we need to take care of our troops and veterans even if it means giving back the tax cut for the wealthy to pay fot their benefits if you say that, maybe i'll buy you support the troops......otherwise your just another repug chickenhawk hippocrite!
a chartitable donation doesnt support the troops TT, if your too afraid to enlist to support your war tou should at least support giving up the tax cuts, since you allready claim to give you wont even notice.
ReplyDeleteBTW since you claim to give how bout providing some canceled check stubs to PROVE it, your word here isnt very good.
Mike, I agree with everything in your last post, except for the source of the funds. We should have an across the board tax increase if needed. If you tax the wealthy, you are taxing someone's boss, most likely, and at some point, that boss will have to make tough employment decisions.
ReplyDeleteMost people are employed by people richer than they are, so taxing the rich with confiscatory taxation rates is not the answer. Jimmy Carter tried that, and we got stagflation.
Now, I've answered all the personal questions tonight, and I have obligations elswhere, so TTFN.
One last point: mike said "Mike said...
ReplyDeletea chartitable donation doesnt support the troops TT"
Really. What about FallenHeroesFund.org
G'night, all.
You guys always say "tax the rich," the problem is you never really say who the rich are.
ReplyDeletea. Are the rich a family making $50,000 per year.
b. Are the rich a family making $100,000 per year?
c. Are the rich a family making $150,000 per year?
d. Are the rich a family making over $200,000 per year.
Just exactly who are these rich people you want to tax?
Its like you always want the minimum wage raised,all that does is raise prices,any company that wants to stay in business is going to pass the increase on to the end user.
ReplyDeleteTalllTexan said...
ReplyDelete"clif said...
REAL simple question TINY, are you willing to GIVE up some of your revered tax cut, to take care of the TROOPS and the VETS?
and son the question is ARE YOU willing, not spin it into funds can come from other places.
ARE YOU WILLING to sacrifice for the troops?
5:25 PM
Yes, I donate every year.
5:27 PM
NOT an answer to the question, ARE YOU willing ti GIVE up some tax cuts, son.
Give some tax money back to the federal government to FULLY fund the VA.
And your asinine post about the minimum wage raising prices is bogus.
ReplyDeleteYou assclowns pay a pittance but where the minimum wage is HIGHER more jobs are created and less people live in poverty.
A GUTLESS MORON said;
ReplyDeleteYou guys always say "tax the rich," the problem is you never really say who the rich are.
a. Are the rich a family making $50,000 per year.
NO son they are barely middle class.
b. Are the rich a family making $100,000 per year?
No son they are JUST middle class.
c. Are the rich a family making $150,000 per year?
No son not close yet.
d. Are the rich a family making over $200,000 per year.
starting to get warm, but how about just raising the tax rates BACK to where Ronald Reagan agreed in 1986 they should be?
Just exactly who are these rich people you want to tax?
To me anybody with a taxable income of $1,000,000 or more, and Dividends should be taxed as INCOME.
BTW tiny are YOU willing to return YOUR tax cuts to make SURE every veterans has the treatment he or she needs, YOU nobody else, ARE you willing to RETURN your tax cuts. It is simple son, are YOU willing to sacrifice for the vets who TOOK your place.
ReplyDeleteHell,I contribute,I buy those little red poppies every year.
ReplyDeleteMore jobs are created when the minimum wage is raised? Where,in Oz? Thats one of your more stupid statements.
ReplyDeleteI told you Klink,my taxes are paying your monthly check.So in theory you work for me.....get up and wash the dishes.
ReplyDeleteSon I do not work for you, but since you post as BOTH Rusty Shackleford, when you said that the first TIME, and as wufuss daddy, we all know your just a sock puppet to cowardly to POST under your real identity.
ReplyDeleteNOW son GO F*CK YOURSELF and if you have a problem with that ask Dick Cheney about it.
The ISG farce, Part 2
ReplyDelete"..The group of mainstream foreign policy experts is not poised to make radical suggestions when it unveils its report, but official Washington has expected both parties to seize on its ideas for political cover..." Kessler and Ricks in Washpost.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't changed my mind about the likelihood of a major change in American policy in Iraq. The "decider" ain't got it in him. What do people think he is going to "decide?" To withdraw from Iraq? If he does that, then he will be seen for all time as a failed president. He knows that. Is he going to accept giving Syria and Iran a direct stake in the outcome in Iraq? His position on Iran is public and well known. More failure on his part will be perceived if he lets the Persians play the role that they want. Syria? Hah!! Hah!! Hah!!
What we should hope for is that he has no more compunction about abandoning his "game face" vis a vis the "evildoers" than he has announced with regard to the Democrats whom he was denouncing as akin to traitors a week ago.
Most amazing of all is the "newsy" hysteria being generated by the 24/7 broadcast media over the ISG/SECDEF business. In recent years it has become evident that the cable news outfits have become generators of mass hysteria. They bring in their tub thumping anchors, their "experts," their favorite print news people, their favorite congress people and among themselves conduct an orgy of mutual intellectual masturbation that starts with rumor and quickly becomes self sustaining.
The Baker/ISG thing is just the latest, and will not be the last example. The same press people were deeply complicit in building war hysteria before we entered Iraq. These are the same folks who now eagerly agree with each other that "no one" could have known.
Pat Lang
*********************************************
Looks like Pat Lang thinks Jimmy Bakers plan to fix up the mess Bush ET AL created is just another Bush family inspired farce.
and they have NOT given up on the idea of controlling the oil assets of the middle east either directly or thru surrogates.
General Van Riper
ReplyDeleteRumsfeld's War Games
Joe Galloway
Of those generals who have stepped forward to criticize Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and his conduct of the Iraq War, none has pointed out the mistakes of a man who admits no error with more specificity than retired Marine Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper.
Van Riper is widely respected as a military thinker who emerged from combat in Vietnam determined to help get to the bottom of what went wrong there and why and how it should be fixed.
Van Riper, who commanded both the Marine War College at Quantico, Va., and the prestigious National War College in Washington before retiring in 1997, told an interviewer in October 2004 that the military got the lessons all wrong after World War II and that mistake resulted in two disasters -- Korea and Vietnam.
"My great fear is we're off to something very similar to what happened after World War II, that is getting it completely wrong again," the general said of the course in Iraq.
The general made it clear he is no anti-war crusader. "We have to stay," he said of Iraq this week. "We have to finish it, but let's do it right."
Van Riper told Knight Ridder that in looking at Rumsfeld's leadership he found three particular areas of inability and incompetence.
First, he said, if any battalion commander under him had created so "poor a climate of leadership" and the "bullying" that goes on in the Pentagon under Rumsfeld he would order an investigation and relieve that commander.
"Even more than that I focus on (his) incompetence when it comes to preparing American military forces for the future," Van Riper said. "His idea of transformation turns on empty buzz words. There's none of the Scholarship and doctrinal examination that has to go on before you begin changing the force."
Third, he said, under Rumsfeld there's been no oversight of military acquisition.
"Mr. Rumsfeld has failed 360 degrees in the job. He is incompetent," Van Riper concluded. "Any military man who made the mistakes he has made, tactically and strategically, would be relieved on the spot."
One event that shocked Van Riper occurred in 2002 when he was asked, as he had been before, to play the commander of an enemy Red Force in a huge $250 million three-week war game titled Millennium Challenge 2002. It was widely advertised as the best kind of such exercises -- a free-play unscripted test of some of the Pentagon's and Rumsfeld's fondest ideas and theories.
Though fictional names were applied, it involved a crisis moving toward war in the Persian Gulf and in actuality was a barely veiled test of an invasion of Iran.
In the computer-controlled game, a flotilla of Navy warships and Marine amphibious warfare ships steamed into the Persian Gulf for what Van Riper assumed would be a pre-emptive strike against the country he was defending.
Van Riper resolved to strike first and unconventionally using fast patrol boats and converted pleasure boats fitted with ship-to-ship missiles as well as first generation shore-launched anti-ship cruise missiles. He packed small boats and small propeller aircraft with explosives for one mass wave of suicide attacks against the Blue fleet. Last, the general shut down all radio traffic and sent commands by motorcycle messengers, beyond the reach of the code-breakers.
At the appointed hour he sent hundreds of missiles screaming into the fleet, and dozens of kamikaze boats and planes plunging into the Navy ships in a simultaneous sneak attack that overwhelmed the Navy's much-vaunted defenses based on its Aegis cruisers and their radar controlled Gatling guns.
When the figurative smoke cleared it was found that the Red Forces had sunk 16 Navy ships, including an aircraft carrier. Thousands of Marines and sailors were dead.
The referees stopped the game, which is normal when a victory is won so early. Van Riper assumed that the Blue Force would draw new, better plans and the free play war games would resume.
Instead he learned that the war game was now following a script drafted to ensure a Blue Force victory: He was ordered to turn on all his anti-aircraft radar so it could be destroyed and he was told his forces would not be allowed to shoot down any of the aircraft bringing Blue Force troops ashore.
The Pentagon has never explained. It classified Van Riper's 21-page report criticizing the results and conduct of the rest of the exercise, along with the report of another DOD observer. Pentagon officials have not released Joint Forces Command's own report on the exercise.
Van Riper walked out and didn't come back. He was furious that the war game had turned from an honest, open free play test of America's war-fighting capabilities into a rigidly controlled and scripted exercise meant to end in an overwhelming American victory.
********************************************
Gen Riper is the real deal, too bad they could NOT get somebody LIKE him for Sec Def, instead of another Bush family hitman.
Tell ya the truth spanky,I'd rather F*UK Mrs.Col Klink.....again.
ReplyDeleteBTW dufuss moron;
ReplyDeleteStill Working Well:
Washington's Minimum Wage and the
Beginnings of Economic Recovery
Fast Facts
• Washington's 2004 minimum wage is $7.16.
• The federal minimum wage of $5.15 has not increased since 1997, and has lost about
$1.00 in buying power.
• 8 of the 11 states that had a minimum wage above the federal level in 2003 did better at
job creation than the United States as a whole – including Washington.
• Between June 1998 and November 2003, Washington lost 85,000 jobs in durable goods
manufacturing – mostly high wage jobs.
• Restaurant jobs in Washington fell in 2002 as a result of the recession, but grew in 2003
and are now above pre-recession levels.
• Other sectors of the economy with large numbers of minimum wage jobs, including retail
trade, accommodations, and nursing and residential care facilities, also showed job
growth in 2003.
Summary
In 1998, Washington voters overwhelmingly approved an initiative to increase the minimum
wage and to make annual cost of living increases automatic beginning in 2001. While the
lowest wage earners in much of the rest of the nation have suffered a steady erosion of income,
with no increase since 1997, low wage workers in Washington have been able to maintain their
purchasing power. Minimum wage workers in Washington earn $7.16 an hour in 2004, or an
annual income of $14,893 for full time workers. Although this level of income is inadequate to
meet basic family expenses in any community in Washington, it is well above the $5.15 an hour
and $10,712 in annual income earned by workers in the 38 states that rely on the federal
minimum wage.
Critics of Washington's pathbreaking minimum wage law have repeatedly pointed to our state's
relatively high minimum wage as a cause of our higher than average unemployment rate.
However, the data do not support a causal connection. The United States as a whole and
Washington state have continued to lose jobs since the official end of the recession in
November 2001, but Washington has lost jobs at a lower rate than the national average. In fact,
8 of the 11 states that had a minimum wage above the federal level in 2003 are doing better at
job creation than the United States as a whole. The jobs Washington has lost have been
concentrated in high wage sectors, especially manufacturing. Low wage sectors of our state
economy have done relatively well, and are even experiencing some job growth. At the same
time, Washington’s working age population is estimated to be growing at a faster pace than the
national average.
*******************************************
Wufuus daddy is that crow with or without salt?
Sorry son but there is NO way you slimy little comment of 6:40 is true, but I'll never let you know why son.
ReplyDeleteSee gutless troll some things YOU can never know, so what you said art 6:40 is NOT something you can say is the truth.
ReplyDeleteBut continue to spew slimy little comments like THAT and be seen as the gutless troll you are, too gutless to serve, and too gutless to TELL the truth.
ReplyDeleteGeneral Shinseki For Secretary Of Defense
ReplyDeleteby tristero
Now that I have your attention...
We all know why Bush chose Robert Gates. Yes, he's apparently a competent bureaucrat but that's not the real reason. The real reason is he's a longtime Bush family fluffer. And Crawford's Own Churchill - bold, brave George - is too insecure to work with anyone else.
Those are Gates' only two qualifications. Now, what's the downside to this guy? Well, among other things, as we all know by now he was so close to Iran/Contra he nearly got indicted. That's kind of a big downside, given how scandal-prone this administration is. But there's another problem with him:
Robert Gates has no specific qualifications to run the Department of Defense.
The only job experience that comes close is that he was in the Air Force from 1967 to 1969. Now this just may be fuzzy math, but by my calculation that's, let's see...yup, that's 37 years ago. But let's not exaggerate. It's true, back then they did have computers just like they do now! Of course, many were the size of a warehouse and were programmed as often from punch cards as they were terminals, but they were computers. I'm sure Gates can easily grasp the basics of modern weapons technology to make informed decisions in no more than, oh, about 5 or 6 years. (That, of course, leaves him no time to study anything else connected with the operation of the modern military, like tactics, deployment issues, and overall strategery. Anyone remember Tom Ridge? Gates may be smarter but still...)
So what else makes Bush think Gates can run the Pentagon? Well, Gates has been in the Baker/Hamilton Iraq study group for at least 5 or 6 hours now, or is it minutes? But I'm sure he's been working real hard.
Meanwhile, General Eric Shinseki has spent his entire career in the military. Plus he had the guts to challenge Rumsfeld's lowball numbers, and he did it in public.
Shinseki: Competent. Knowledgeable. Independent. Not even a whiff of scandal.
Gates: Competent. Not knowledgeable. Bush family loyalist. The best that can be said is there wasn't enough evidence to indict him in Iran/Contra.
I see no reason why Congress shouldn't insist on the best.
---
Ok, lemme make it plain what I've been saying here.
Of course, I know that Bush would never accept Shinseki. And of course, just about no one with an ounce of self-respect or talent would agree to report directly to George W. Bush unless they were a longtime family friend.
The real point of this post is two-fold. First of all, Bush hasn't changed in the slightest and is still jerking the country around, including the troops who are laying down their lives implementing his utterly insane war.
More importantly, given how much political capital Dems have right now, there is only one reason I can think of why this country should tolerate any more of Bush's clowning: We're so used to it we can't think of anything better. But let's conduct a quick thought experiment: Imagine a presidency where top positions were filled by qualified women and and men, not goons so unconditionally loyal they had knee pads surgically attached.
In truth, I don't have to imagine such a presidency. I can easily remember one.
So I can't think of a single reason why Bush can't start behaving like a real president instead of a scared rabbit. There is nothing to stop him from appointing competent AND knowledgeable people to high positions who don't have incidents in their past that seriously call into question their integrity. Provided Democrats insist.
And I think, for a lot of reasons the Democrats should insist. Bush can start right now. Gates should never have been nominated and he should not be confirmed.
Supporting The Troops
ReplyDeleteby digby
Veteran's Day is a good day to take a look at one of the greatest building blocks of the American middle class, the GI Bill:
On June 22, 1944, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the "Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944," better known as the "GI Bill of Rights." At first the subject of intense debate and parliamentary maneuvering, the famed legislation for veteran of World War II has since been recognized as one of the most important acts of Congress.
During the past five decades, the law has made possible the investment of billions of dollars in education and training for millions of veterans. The nation has in return earned many times its investment in increased taxes and a dramatically changed society.
The law also made possible the loan of billions of dollars to purchase homes for millions of veterans, and helped transform the majority of Americans from renters to homeowners.
Most people would call that a good thing, right? A successful government program that helped millions of people improve their lives in tangible ways must be unassailable.
*Uh, no:
The public purpose of the G.I. Bill was to smooth the transition from military to civilian life after the war. But ulterior motives were also present. Washington Keynesians wrongly feared the economic consequences of putting this many people in the private sector at once; better to let them flounder around in schools for a few years.
Left-liberals wanted universities to be "democratized" and purged of traditional notions of merit and class. These ideologues saw veterans as a helpful tool (90 percent were eligible to receive funds) in this egalitarian effort. Moreover, colleges and universities across the country wanted government subsidies, just as they do today.
There’s a myth that most veterans would not have attended college without federal government help. In fact, myriad programs existed at all levels of society. Virtually every major church, civic organization, and large corporation raised money to provide them, and most states established loan programs as well. These could have worked without negative effects on schools. But they were preempted by the feds and history’s largest infusion of public dollars to education.
In 1946, the program’s first year, the government dumped $1.3 billion on higher education. This may not seem like much today, but it was then the largest program giving direct payments to individuals, exceeding unemployment benefits, Social Security (by four times), military retirement (by one third), and even agricultural subsidies during the heyday of rural central planning. Two years later, it had exploded in cost by 250 percent.
As veterans grew older, spending stabilized and declined, but the program left an awful political legacy. It served as a model for how politicians can grow the government without provoking public revolt, and caused an entire generation to regard government as a benefactor.
As Bob Dole said on the campaign trail, promoting federally funded vouchers, "I want to help young people to have an education, just as I had an education after World War II with the G.I. Bill of Rights."
The bastard.
This is essentially the conservative argument against the New Deal and it's been driving the political and economic debate for decades now. If the government does it --- no matter how efficiently or how many people benefit -- it must be wrong. And anyone who promotes such things is a self-interested liberal ideologue who wants nothing more than to destroy America's will to succeed and make people dependent on them. It's such an awful problem that they can't even give government benefits to people who put their lives on the line because people might get the idea that government programs work and that sends the wrong message. Slippery slope, don't you know.
They've never had the nerve to really go after the GI Bill, of course. It would be political suicide. But they hate it and if Grover Norquist and his ilk have their way they would drown government veteran's benefits in the bathtub right along with social security --- or transform them into faith-based programs where Vets could get training from Ted Haggard (if they asked nicely.)
And it wasn't as if we hadn't tried it their way before:
Among the motives inspiring the legislation was the desire to spare the veterans and the nation the economic hardships that accompanied the return, years before, of those who fought in World War I.
... and resulted in this:
The Bonus march of 1932, when World War I veterans rallied in Washington DC for more effective veterans benefits during the height of the Depression was broken up when the US army sent tanks and soldiers with bayonet-affixed rifles into the veteran camps to clear the veterans out and burn the camp down, killing some (including William Hushka), and injuring many more.
(There are some surviving veterans of WWI, by the way.)
The GI Bill was a case of the government learning from mistakes, being responsive to a problem --- and solving it. It worked.
Now who is it that supports the troops again --- the conservative Club for Growth-style extremists like that guy I quoted above, or the Democratic party? The Democrats will make sure the VA works (as it has beautifully ever since Bill Clinton had it overhauled in the 90's) and the GI bill and other more modern benefits will continue to be available to Veterans. The other side won't because when you get down to it they just don't believe that government is in the problem solving business. It's really that simple.
* ironically, this article weighs in against the conservative hobby horse,school vouchers, because they are just as pernicious as the GI Bill in installing government into the private education system. It's pretty clear, although not explicit, that he would just prefer a totally private educational system for everyone --- let the hoi-polloi teach themselves.
TalllTexan said...
ReplyDeleteWorf, I think I said quite awhile ago that I had worked for a contractor. I actually thought quite seriously about enlisting, but the pay was MUCH better at the contractor, so I choose the contractor,
Where?
In Iraq? Did you go to Iraq in the last 3 years? Tell me you did that and I'll get off it.
I work for a contractor too, but I never went to Iraq.
ReplyDeleteAnd I don't plan to.
TalllTexan said...
ReplyDeleteThat's my history, Worf, and is does not preclude me from having an opinion on matters of war and piece
No. But it does preclude you from talking down to those who have.
Tiny was getting spanked again so Dusty-wufuss strolled in, nice of the sock puppet to acknowledge the two were really ONE, but I believe he-it uses OTHER sock puppet names here also.
ReplyDeleteTalllTexan said...
ReplyDeleteI also recognize that the real heroes are those who put the uniform on.
If you did, you'd stop sending them to Iraq to fight for your oil.
Worfeus did you hear the British are asking...get this...Howard dean for political advice,
ReplyDeletestick that in you pipe and smoke it KKKarl.
the pubie trolls who LAUGHED about Dean must be crying still about the trouncing HE gave them with his 50 state strategy, which will continue to pay dividends for YEARS to come.
I know it ain't gonna happen but;
ReplyDeleteDo you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment?
* 372421 responses
1. Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial.
87%
2. No, like any president, he has made a few missteps, but nothing approaching "high crimes and misdemeanors."
4.4%
3. No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching.
6.5%
4. I don't know.
1.9%
NOW Georgie, THAT is a mandate.
I hope you had a good Veterans day Clif.
ReplyDeleteYou are the man.
I did, until I found a good friends very sick father died, he was both a WW2 and Korean war vet, but had been quite sick the last 5 years.
ReplyDeleteI spent a bit of today talking with my friend, and he accepts that his father is done suffering from his illness, and is at peace.
Life can be funny, because I had some plans about helping vets today, and ended up helping one with part of life which is difficult to deal with, but we all have to time to time.
Both my friend are vets and our father were also, so we had quite a bit in common, in fact My buddy taught my daughter how to march and explained basic training to her,(he used to be a drill sergeant), and after my daughter got done with basic, she said he helped her a lot, because she was slightly prepared, but understood that the drills were just people like my friend.
Thats sad Clif, but its good you were there for them.
ReplyDeleteLike I said, you're the man.
A good man.
ReplyDeleteSomething that we need so many of right now in America.
Presently, we seem to have sufficient quantities of the opposite.
As is evidenced daily even in this little blog.
ReplyDeleteAnd of COURSE we should impeach the President.
ReplyDeleteIf ever there was a stronger sign we could send to future leaders, that this type of power run amuck will not be tolerated in our democracy, it would be impeachment.
Not to mention sending a strong signal to the international community that America is not a country full of fools willing to invade and occupy nations at will.
We could do a lot to repair our relationships internationally, and ease the hatred of us around the globe.
Of COURSE we should impeach the President.
Veteran's Day Message To Karl Rove: Take Your Terror Scares and Shove Them Up Your Ass!
ReplyDeleteBy Brent Budowsky
HuffingtonPost.Com
Here is my reaction to Fox, to Rove, to Bush, to Cheney and anyone else who has been peddling the politics of fear: kiss my ass.
If there is one thing we are going to kill, bury, and put away forever it is this politics of fear. This sad, pathetic, exploitive wimpy view of America that we are a nation of cowards and that we can be intimidated by fear.
Maybe Bush, Cheney, Rove, and Fox News can be intimidated by fear.
We are not.
The American are not.
Read the entire article here
This is what we've been saying in here all along.
ReplyDeleteIts the right wing whose afraid of the terrorists. Its the right wing who craps bullets everytime a bag of white poweder is found on the subway.
Its the right wing who actually believes that a bunch of guys running around in rags and sandals, can overthrow the most powerful country on the face of the planet.
Living free means living with risk, like the risks we Americans, particularly those of us who live or work in large city's, deal with every day.
I work often in DC and Baltimore. People shoot people in the head in DC and Baltimore for a wristwatch.
But we didnt' decide to abandon our constitution and become a city of passive sheep, bowing to the police and government so we can be safe little people. Most of these crimes, the shootings, particularly in Baltimore are committed by black men, between the ages of 17 and 25.
But we didn't start locking up all black men between the ages of 17 and 25. Because we recognize that even though they represent a large portion of crimes involving handguns, they are only part of a much larger number of black males between the ages of 17 and 25 who do NOT commit these crimes.
Living free, and keeping your humanity, means being willing to live with risk.
And considering terrorists have only killed less than 5,000 Americans in the last decade, while almost 100 times that amount have been killed in handgun crimes in the same time period, terrorists should be the LAST thing Americans are worried about.
You have a better chance of being hit by a bus, than you do of being killed by a terrorist.
Rove doesn't understand that because he has "special math", (must be from the special school he attended as a child) but the rest of the republicans have no excuse.
Someone needs to give them a good Patton slap across the face, and tell em to stand up and act like men.
American men.
The soul and substance of what customarily ranks as patriotism is moral cowardice, and always has been.
ReplyDeleteMark Twain
Worfeus they can't stand up as "men" at least until the rev haggard leaves the room.........LOL
ReplyDeleteBTW as an epitaph of the last six years, I think somebody the reichwing hated back then and still does said it bets;
ReplyDelete"the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" FDR
And Bush is NO Roosevelt, Teddy or Franklin.
From Juan Coles Blog:
ReplyDeleteThe US military in Iraq says that the troops are increasingly targetted by sniper fire from trained Sunni Arab guerrillas. Funny thing, when CNN reported this story, using videotape produced by the guerrillas, Lynn Cheney accused them of lack of patriotism. But here we have the US officer corps admitting the story is entirely true and quite important. So is Lynn Cheney on the side of democracy, or of its enemies? Or maybe she thinks the officer corps is full of traitors?
Lynn Cheney did as much to help win our election as Howard Dean.
ReplyDeleteHer interview with Wolf Blitxer, gave Americans a keen glimpse into the workings of the Bush's and the Cheney's, and those who align their thinking with them.
America expected a cordial, gracious women who reflected the dignity normally aquainted with the wife of a President or Vice President.
Instead they saw a bitter, almost foul, snotty, arrogant women who seemed more concerned with selling her book, than she did for the young Americans dying in Iraq.
And in seeing that in her, they saw that same trait in the boys in power, Oberfuhrer Busch, and Unterfuhrer Cheney.
And thats why the majority of Americans, voted their henchmen out. Plain and simple.
The majority of Americans had vision, while the rest of them are still wearing bifocals
10 cool things about Democratic power in congress
ReplyDeleteby RightThinkGirl.com
November 9th, 2006 by RTG
1. When we are nuked to hell and beyond, we will have the gratification of saying, ‘I told you so’ to the Lefty voters.
2. With boat fuel more expensive than ever, my husband will resort to ever more perverted sex acts to get that adrenaline rush.
3. Impeachment hearings are fun to watch while on the elliptical. I’ll probably get down to 82 pounds just because I’ll be so enthralled, I won’t want to get off the damn exercise machine.
4. A Secretary of Defense who believes in talking with Iran will prove to the rest of the world that we are reasonable people open to dialogue - right before #1 happens.
5. We’ll find Osama because he’ll be invited to speak on the House floor. Maybe the Senate, too, during the impeachment hearings.
6. One free abortion before the age of 30 will be every American’s right.
7. With higher taxes, nobody will want to innovate - which is good because it’s such a chore trying to keep up with rapidly changing technology.
8. Terrorism will vanish when the troops come home. Awesome!
9. Cindy Sheehan will finally shut the hell up.
10. Living in dhimmitude must have some advantages - otherwise the Dems wouldn’t crave it so much. Right?
Clif, you have a lot of personal questions for me this weekend. How about telling us what rank you were?
ReplyDeleteWorf, Lynn Cheney basically bitchslapped that wannabe Uboat commander and exposed his Liberal bias.
ReplyDeleteBG, tell us more about your suggestion that, perhaps, we shouldn't even have a Veteran's Day. That's about as smart as your initial thoughts on circumscribing free speech.
ReplyDeleteYou have some very unsound ideas.
Excellent post, Volt.
ReplyDeleteI am reposting Rudolph Giuliani's comments in the weeks after 9/11. I wonder if BG disagrees.
"On one side is democracy, the rule of law, and respect for human life; on the other is tyranny, arbitrary executions, and mass murder.
"We're right and they're wrong. It's as simple as that.
"And by that I mean that America and its allies are right about democracy, about religious, political, and economic freedom.
"The terrorists are wrong, and in fact evil, in their mass destruction of human life in the name of addressing alleged injustices.
"Let those who say that we must understand the reasons for terrorism come with me to the thousands of funerals we are having in New York City and explain those insane, maniacal reasons to the children who will grow up without fathers and mothers, to the parents who have had their children ripped from them for no reason at all.
"Instead, I ask each of you to allow me to say at those funerals that your nation stands with America in making a solemn promise and pledge that we will achieve unconditional victory over terrorism and terrorists.
"There is no excuse for mass murder, just as there is no excuse for genocide. Those who practice terrorism - murdering or victimizing innocent civilians - lose any right to have their cause understood by decent people and lawful nations.
"On this issue - terrorism - the United Nations must draw a line. The era of moral relativism between those who practice or condone terrorism, and those nations who stand up against it, must end. Moral relativism does not have a place in this discussion and debate."
Volt, it's interesting that our last two posts were time stamped at 9:11. Makes you wonder.
ReplyDeleteBG, I don't root for political parties the way you root for Manchester United.
ReplyDeleteI favor sound policies. Party all you want while you live under the protection of the United States' security umbrella.
Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani
ReplyDeleteOpening Remarks to the United Nations General Assembly
Special Session on Terrorism
Monday, October 1st, 2001
As Delivered
On September 11th 2001, New York City - the most diverse City in the world - was viciously attacked in an unprovoked act of war. More than five thousand innocent men, women, and children of every race, religion, and ethnicity are lost. Among these were people from 80 different nations. To their representatives here today, I offer my condolences to you as well on behalf of all New Yorkers who share this loss with you. This was the deadliest terrorist attack in history. It claimed more lives than Pearl Harbor or D-Day.
This was not just an attack on the City of New York or on the United States of America. It was an attack on the very idea of a free, inclusive, and civil society.
It was a direct assault on the founding principles of the United Nations itself. The Preamble to the U.N. Charter states that this organization exists "to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person...to practice tolerance and live together in peace as good neighbors…[and] to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security."
Indeed, this vicious attack places in jeopardy the whole purpose of the United Nations.
Terrorism is based on the persistent and deliberate violation of fundamental human rights. With bullets and bombs - and now with hijacked airplanes - terrorists deny the dignity of human life. Terrorism preys particularly on cultures and communities that practice openness and tolerance. Their targeting of innocent civilians mocks the efforts of those who seek to live together in peace as neighbors. It defies the very notion of being a neighbor.
This massive attack was intended to break our spirit. It has not done that. It has made us stronger, more determined and more resolved.
The bravery of our firefighters, our police officers, our emergency workers, and civilians we may never learn of, in saving over 25,000 lives that day - carrying out the most effective rescue operation in our history - inspires all of us. I am very honored to have with me, as their representative, the Fire Commissioner of New York City, Tom Von Essen, and the Police Commissioner of New York City, Bernard Kerik. [Applause]
The determination, resolve, and leadership of President George W. Bush has unified America and all decent men and women around the world.
The response of many of your nations - your leaders and people - spontaneously demonstrating in the days after the attack your support for New York and America, and your understanding of what needs to be done to remove the threat of terrorism, gives us great, great hope that we will prevail.
The strength of America's response, please understand, flows from the principles upon which we stand.
Americans are not a single ethnic group.
Americans are not of one race or one religion.
Americans emerge from all your nations.
We are defined as Americans by our beliefs - not by our ethnic origins, our race or our religion. Our beliefs in religious freedom, political freedom, and economic freedom - that's what makes an American. Our belief in democracy, the rule of law, and respect for human life - that's how you become an American. It is these very principles - and the opportunities these principles give to so many to create a better life for themselves and their families - that make America, and New York, a "shining city on a hill."
There is no nation, and no City, in the history of the world that has seen more immigrants, in less time, than America. People continue to come here in large numbers to seek freedom, opportunity, decency, and civility.
Each of your nations - I am certain - has contributed citizens to the United States and to New York. I believe I can take every one of you someplace in New York City, where you can find someone from your country, someone from your village or town, that speaks your language and practices your religion. In each of your lands there are many who are Americans in spirit, by virtue of their commitment to our shared principles.
It is tragic and perverse that it is because of these very principles - particularly our religious, political and economic freedoms - that we find ourselves under attack by terrorists.
Our freedom threatens them, because they know that if our ideas of freedom gain a foothold among their people it will destroy their power. So they strike out against us to keep those ideas from reaching their people.
The best long-term deterrent to terrorism - obviously - is the spread of our principles of freedom, democracy, the rule of law, and respect for human life. The more that spreads around the globe, the safer we will all be.
These are very powerful ideas and once they gain a foothold, they cannot be stopped.
In fact, the rise that we have seen in terrorism and terrorist groups, I believe, is in no small measure a response to the spread of these ideas of freedom and democracy to many nations, particularly over the past 15 years.
The terrorists have no ideas or ideals with which to combat freedom and democracy. So their only defense is to strike out against innocent civilians, destroying human life in massive numbers and hoping to deter all of us from our pursuit and expansion of freedom.
But the long-term deterrent of spreading our ideals throughout the world is just not enough, and may never be realized, if we do not act - and act together - to remove the clear and present danger posed by terrorism and terrorists.
The United Nations must hold accountable any country that supports or condones terrorism, otherwise you will fail in your primary mission as peacekeeper.
It must ostracize any nation that supports terrorism.
It must isolate any nation that remains neutral in the fight against terrorism.
Now is the time, in the words of the UN Charter, "to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security." This is not a time for further study or vague directives. The evidence of terrorism's brutality and inhumanity - of its contempt for life and the concept of peace - is lying beneath the rubble of the World Trade Center less than two miles from where we meet today.
Look at that destruction, that massive, senseless, cruel loss of human life…and then I ask you to look in your hearts and recognize that there is no room for neutrality on the issue of terrorism. You're either with civilization or with terrorists.
On one side is democracy, the rule of law, and respect for human life; on the other is tyranny, arbitrary executions, and mass murder.
We're right and they're wrong. It's as simple as that.
And by that I mean that America and its allies are right about democracy, about religious, political, and economic freedom.
The terrorists are wrong, and in fact evil, in their mass destruction of human life in the name of addressing alleged injustices.
Let those who say that we must understand the reasons for terrorism come with me to the thousands of funerals we are having in New York City and explain those insane, maniacal reasons to the children who will grow up without fathers and mothers, to the parents who have had their children ripped from them for no reason at all.
Instead, I ask each of you to allow me to say at those funerals that your nation stands with America in making a solemn promise and pledge that we will achieve unconditional victory over terrorism and terrorists.
There is no excuse for mass murder, just as there is no excuse for genocide. Those who practice terrorism - murdering or victimizing innocent civilians - lose any right to have their cause understood by decent people and lawful nations.
On this issue - terrorism - the United Nations must draw a line. The era of moral relativism between those who practice or condone terrorism, and those nations who stand up against it, must end. Moral relativism does not have a place in this discussion and debate.
There is no moral way to sympathize with grossly immoral actions. And by trying to do that, unfortunately, a fertile field has been created in which terrorism has grown.
The best and most practical way to promote peace is to stand up to terror and intimidation. The Security Council's unanimous passage of Resolution 1373, adopting wide ranging anti-terrorism measures in the international community is a very good first step. It's necessary to establish accountability for the subsidizing of terrorism.
As a former United States Attorney, I am particularly encouraged that the UN has answered President Bush's call to cut terrorists off from their money and their funding. It's enormously important. We've done that successfully with organized crime groups in America. By taking away their ability to mass large amounts of money, you take away their ability to have others carry on their functioning for them, even if they are removed, arrested, prosecuted, or eliminated through war or through law enforcement. It cuts off the life-blood of the organization. So I believe this is a very good first step.
But now it's up to the member states to enforce this and other aspects of the resolution, and for the United Nations to enforce these new mechanisms to take the financial base away from the terrorists. Take away their money, take away their access to money, and you reduce their ability to carry out complex missions.
Each of you is sitting in this room because of your country's commitment to being part of the family of nations.
We need to unite as a family as never before - across all our differences, in recognition of the fact that the United Nations stands for the proposition that human beings we have more in common than divides us.
If you need to be reminded of this, you don't need to look very far. Just go outside for a walk in the streets and parks of New York City. You can't walk a block in New York City without seeing somebody that looks different than you, acts different than you, talks different than you, believes different than you. If you grow up in New York City, you learn that. And if you're an intelligent or decent person, you learn that all those differences are nothing in comparison to the things that unite us.
We are a City of immigrants - unlike any other City - within a nation of immigrants. Like the victims of the World Trade Center attack, we are of every race, religion, and ethnicity. Our diversity has always been our greatest source of strength. It's the thing that renews us and revives us in every generation - our openness to new people from all over the world.
So from the first day of this attack, an attack on New York and America, and I believe an attack on the basic principles that underlie this organization, I have told the people of New York that we should not allow this to divide us, because then we would really lose what this City is all about. We have very strong and vibrant Arab and Muslim communities in New York City. They are an equally important part of the life of our City. We respect their religious beliefs. We respect everybody's religious beliefs - that's what America's about, that's what New York City is about. I have urged New Yorkers not to engage in any form of group blame or group hatred. This is exactly the evil that we are confronting with these terrorists. And if we are going to prevail over terror, our ideals, principles, and values must transcend all forms of prejudice. This is a very important part of the struggle against terrorism.
This is not a dispute between religions or ethnic groups. All religions, all decent people, are united in their desire to achieve peace, and understand that we have to eliminate terrorism. We're not divided about this.
There have been many days in New York when I was running for Mayor, and then since I've been Mayor, when I would have a weekend in which I would go to a mosque on Friday, and a synagogue on Saturday, and a church - sometimes two churches - on a Sunday. And by the time I finished, I would say to myself, 'I know that we're through to God.' We're talking to him in every language that He understands, we're using every liturgy that exists, and I know that we getting through to the same God, even though we may be doing it in slightly different ways.
God is known by many different names and many different traditions, but identified by one consistent feeling, love. Love for humanity, particularly love for our children. Love does eventually conquer hate, but it needs our help. Good intentions alone are not enough to conquer evil.
Remember British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who - armed only with good intentions - negotiated with the Nazis and emerged hopeful that he had achieved peace in his time. Hitler's wave of terror was only encouraged by these attempts at appeasement. At the cost of millions of lives, we learned that words - though important - are not enough to guarantee peace. It is action alone that counts.
For the UN, and individual nations, decisive action is needed to stop terrorism from ever orphaning another child.
That's for nations. For individuals, the most effective course of action they can take to aid our recovery is to be determined to go ahead with their lives. We can't let terrorists change the way we live - otherwise they will have succeeded.
In some ways, the resilience of life in New York City is the ultimate sign of defiance to terrorism. We call ourselves the Capital of the World in large part because we are the most diverse City in the world, home to the United Nations. The spirit of unity amid all our diversity has never been stronger.
On Saturday Night I walked through Times Square, it was crowded, it was bright, it was lively. Thousands of people were visiting from all parts of the United States and all parts of the world. And many of them came up to me and shook my hand and patted me on the back and said, "We're here because we want to show our support for the City of New York." And that's why there has never been a better time to come to New York City.
I say to people across the country and around the world: if you were planning to come to New York sometime in the future, come here now. Come to enjoy our thousands of restaurants, museums, theaters, sporting events, and shopping...but also come to take a stand against terrorism.
We need to heed the words of a hymn that I, and the Police Commissioner, and the Fire Commissioner, have heard at the many funerals and memorial services that we've gone to in the last two weeks. The hymn begins, "Be Not Afraid."
Freedom from Fear is a basic human right. We need to reassert our right to live free from fear with greater confidence and determination than ever before…here in New York City…across America…and around the World. With one clear voice, unanimously, we need to say that we will not give in to terrorism.
Surrounded by our friends of every faith, we know that this is not a clash of civilizations; it is a conflict between murderers and humanity.
This is not a question of retaliation or revenge. It is a matter of justice leading to peace. The only acceptable result is the complete and total eradication of terrorism.
New Yorkers are strong and resilient. We are unified. And we will not yield to terror. We do not let fear make our decisions for us.
We choose to live in freedom.
Thank you, and God bless you.
Lying Texan said "BG, I don't root for political parties the way you root for Manchester United.
ReplyDeleteI favor sound policies."
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..........you really not only like but believe your own koolaide Troll Tex, you are the biggest partisan cheerleader i've EVER seen, and as for saying you FAVOR sound policies better watch it pinochio your nose has to be 20 feet long after that whopper. LOL
Interesting show coming up on the History Channel, about whether the the Oklahoma federal building bombings had ties to the Middle East.
ReplyDeleteDolty boy said;
ReplyDeleteRegarding American deaths due to terrorists, here's a sample of what the "Religeon of Peace" has done in the last 10 years....blah blah blah...
Guess it wasn't bad to get you GUTLESS chicken hawks into uniform eh dolty?
tiny Texan said...
ReplyDeleteExcellent post, Volt.
I am reposting Rudolph Giuliani's comments in the weeks after 9/11...blah blah blah...
But I AM too gutless to actually SIGN UP myself, I prefer OTHERS to do my fighting for me, while I make MONEY, lots and Lots of MONEY, while OTHERS sacrifice in MY place.
Dolty Boy and Tiny, in here fighting the war before the election in the best GUTLESS 102nd chicken hawk keyboard commando tradition, too much of a PUSSY to sign up, but they can spew hate from their keyboards,
ReplyDeleteI can see them telling their grndchildren when they ask "what did you do in the WAR grandpa?"
"I let real heros take my place because I am too Gutless to go myself," will be their responses.
They will explain repugs do BETTER if they remain gutless chicken hawks and SLANDER the service of those who went, when they oppose the idiotic wars the gutless chicken hawks want to start.
They will explain that they were far too valuable to the re[pug slime and spin machine to actually walk into harms way THEMSELVES, so they sent OTHERS to take their place, and they do honor the sacrifices of others every Veterans Day, but do continue to cut their benefits for MORE repug tax cuts.
They will explain that is WHAT GOOD repugs do, and if a repugs does not do it, they are NOT being good repugs.
The repug motto being...GREED before Service, after all there are dems whop will serve, and we can swiftboat the after if they run for office.
Tiny Texan said...
ReplyDeleteInteresting show coming up on the History Channel, about whether the the Oklahoma federal building bombings had ties to the Middle East.
Getting DESPERATE gutless?
Trying to spin a reichwingnut attack on the Federal Government into repug spin machine.
Foole you NOW have stopped drinking you kool aid out a mug, and GO directly to the toilet for it.
TalllTexan said...
ReplyDeleteWorf, Lynn Cheney basically bitchslapped that wannabe Uboat commander and exposed his Liberal bias.
Sure big guy, sure.
Thats why you guys won the election 2 days later, right?
Lol.
You keep telling yourself that.
Drapes of Wrath
ReplyDeleteby Maureen Dowd
November 11, 2006
The new Democratic sweep conjures up an ancient image: Furies swooping down to punish bullies.
Angry winged goddesses with dog heads, serpent hair and blood eyes, unmoved by tears, prayer, sacrifice or nasty campaign ads, avenging offenses by insolent transgressors.
This will be known as the year macho politics failed — mainly because it was macho politics by marshmallow men. Voters were sick of phony swaggering, blustering and bellicosity, absent competency and accountability. They were ready to trade in the deadbeat Daddy party for the sheltering Mommy party.
All the conservative sneering about a fem-lib from San Francisco who was measuring the drapes for the speaker’s office didn’t work. Americans wanted new drapes, and an Armani granny with a whip in charge.
A recent study found that the testosterone of American men has been dropping for 20 years, but in Republican Washington, it was running amok, and not in a good way. Men who had refused to go to an untenable war themselves were now refusing to find an end to another untenable war that they had recklessly started.
Republicans were oddly oblivious to the fact that they had turned into a Thomas Nast cartoon: an unappetizing tableau of bloated, corrupt, dissembling, feckless white hacks who were leaving kids unprotected. Tom DeLay and Bob Ney sneaking out of Congress with dollar bills flying out of their pockets. Denny Hastert playing Cardinal Bernard Law, shielding Mark Foley. Rummy, cocky and obtuse as he presided over an imploding Iraq, while failing to give young men and women in the military the armor, support and strategy they needed to come home safely. Dick Cheney, vowing bullheadedly to move “full speed ahead” on Iraq no matter what the voters decided. W. frantically yelling about how Democrats would let the terrorists win, when his lame-brained policies had spawned more terrorists.
After 9/11, Americans had responded to bellicosity, drawn to the image, as old as the Western frontier myth, of the strong father protecting the home from invaders. But this time, many voters, especially women, rejected the rough Rovian scare and divide tactics.
The macho poses and tough talk of the cowboy president were undercut when he seemed flaccid in the face of the vicious Katrina and the vicious Iraq insurgency.
Even former members of the administration conceded they were tired of the muscle-bound style, longing for a more maternal approach to the globe. “We were exporting our anger and our fear, hatred for what had happened,” Richard Armitage, the former deputy secretary of state, said in a speech in Australia, referring to the 9/11 attacks. He said America needed “to turn another face to the world and get back to more traditional things, such as the export of hope and opportunity and inspiration.”
Talking about hope and opportunity and inspiration has propelled Barack Obama into the presidential arena. His approach seems downright feminine when compared with the Bushies, or even Hillary Clinton. He languidly poses in fashion magazines, shares feelings with Oprah and dishes with the ladies on “The View.” After six years of chest-puffing, Senator Obama seems very soothing.
Because of the power of female consumers, some marketing experts predict we will end up a matriarchy. This year, women also flexed their muscle at the polls, transformed into electoral Furies by the administration’s stubborn course in Iraq.
On Tuesday, 51 percent of the voters were women, and 55 percent of women voted for the Democratic candidate. It was a revival of the style of Bill Clinton, dubbed our first female president, who knitted together a winning coalition of independents, moderates and suburbanites.
According to The Times’s exit polls, women were more likely than men to want some or all of the troops to be withdrawn from Iraq now, and 64 percent of women said that the war in Iraq has not improved U.S. security.
The Senate has a new high of 16 women and the House has a new high of at least 70, with a few races outstanding. Hillary’s big win will strengthen her presidential tentacles.
Nancy Pelosi, who will be the first female speaker, softened her voice and look as she cracked the whip on her undisciplined party, taking care not to sound shrill. When she needs to, though, she says she can use her “mother-of-five voice.”
At least for the moment, W. isn’t blustering and Cheney has lost his tubby swagger. The president is trying to ride the Mommy vibe. He even offered Madame Speaker help with those new drapes.
******************************************
Actually Dolty Boy, Lynn "lesbian novel" Cheney never came close to bitch slapping any body with her latest screeching episode, even though she LIED in it.
But both Maureen Dowd with this article, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi have BITCH slapped the little punk who pretends to be pResident. The little PUNK after his swagger LAST week, offered to HELP pick out the drapes, the gutless little feckless foole he is.
Good ole all "hat no balls" bush cutting and running AGAIN.
TalllTexan said...
ReplyDeleteBG, tell us more about your suggestion that, perhaps, we shouldn't even have a Veteran's Day.
Dude, if I was Ken Melhman I'da ask for my money back.
Is that the BEST you can do?
Change what he said so you can try and smear BG?
He never said that hayseed, nor did he imply it.
Here, since you're obviously too inbred stupid to read, let me repost what he said for you, so your tiny little tumbleweed brain can comprehend it (oops, there I go again using polysyllabic words...I know how they make your head hurt).
BG said he was SORRY we had to have a Veterans day. He never said anything to the effect of we "SHOULDn'T have a veterans day" as you just falsely attributed to him.
Here is what he said;
'I'm sorry America needs to have a vets day'.
See?
Never does the word "SHOULD'NT" appear.
So you LIED.
And you just got caught LYING.
You falsely attributed something to someone else, in an dirty little attempt to smear him.
And that makes you neither decent, nor honest.
Gary, with henry Kissinger advising them, they feel they have NOTHING to fear, after all he has successfully eluded Justice for 35 years.
ReplyDeleteWorfeus said;
ReplyDeleteAnd that makes you neither decent, nor honest.
and a good GUTLESS repug.
A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speaketh lies shall perish
ReplyDeleteProverbs 19:9
Worfeus, LYING is what good repugs DO.
ReplyDeleteThey MUST lie the be good repugs, they can't help it, it is part of being the Greedy Odd Pervert party, lie and spin till the bitter end.
Voltron said...
ReplyDeleteThe libs didn't win on ideology
Thats right genius, we didn't win on ideaology.
Thats because we're pragmatists, not ideologs. Ideology is your schtick. You use your guts, and your fantasies. We use facts, figures and pragmatic reason.
But don't worry. Unlike many of my friends here I don't believe the dems won the election because of suddenly all of America suddenly loves the democrats.
We won, because Americans across the country are sick and tired of the right wing.
We won because we are ashamed of the republicans, and what they have done.
Ashamed of their corruption, lies, deceit and out and out wanton slaughter of so many people in the name of keeping safe.
We won, because America woke up and saw what you were, and the majority of Americans said NO MORE.
We won, because the majority of Americans said "This is NOT who were are".
We won, because Americans see the right wing as cowards who trade their humanity for a good nights sleep.
We won because you guys SUCK.
ReplyDeleteGreat article Cliff:
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting such an informative and truthful insight into the weak minds of George W Bush and his Haggard supporting friends.
Worfeus, I have NO illusions that America is in love with the democrats right now or suddenly woke up Tuesday wanting Nancy Pelosi to be speaker.
ReplyDeleteNo Americans decided lying was not something they wanted their government to do.
They decided covering up for child predators was no more welcome in the House than the catholic church.
They decided corruption on a massive scale and coordinated was not something they wanted practiced in Washington.
They wanted competent adult leadership at the pentagon.
They wanted people who cared more about the voters than the lobbyists.
So they decided to give the democrats a chance...a chance to govern from the Congress, and if the democrats screw up like the repugs have they will throw them out just as fast.
But having people like Tiny and Dolty boy here spewing the same old trash which was rejected at the polls last Tuesday will not help the repugs send the message they have LEARNED and are willing to change and SERVE the people not the lobbyists and those who pay them.
This is for all the Trolls who support the Bush Homeland Security Act, which takes away Americans rights.
ReplyDeleteDo they have the Trolls drivers license now that Bush has passed his "Homeland Security Act"?
Look here Trolls and view your drivers license and other pertinent information. www.license.shorturl.com.
Good luck with what you find Trolls.
This is a typical Bush act
I wasn't referencing anyone in particular as believing that. I am not sure where everyone stands on Tuesdays victory, (although now I see that Clif, BG and myself are pretty much on the same page), I just wanted to point out to Voltaire, in case he has any delusions of sitting there insulting democrats, that on our worst day, people don't hate the dems as bad as they do the republicans on their best day.
ReplyDeleteI have never seen such hatred for the republican party as I see here now.
People despise them, and despise what they stood for.
Idiot republicans are in here talking like they have anything to say. But I've got news for them.
They've already said it all and people are done listening.
The holier than thou smugness, while at the same time showing absolute moral cowardice, has turned off the American people (finally) and theres not much they can do to repair that.
In other words, look for a terrorist attack.
Republicans used the lowly tools of fear, avarice, prejudice, intimidation, gerrymandering, vote tampering and down right brutish bullying, to win their races.
ReplyDeleteThey see thuggery as a virtue, and deception as a doctrine.
Yo Worfeus, I just searched for Dolty Boy's license, you should see it.
ReplyDeleteFrom Larry's post search here
Cliff:
ReplyDeleteYour link isn't getting there.
What a republican calls patriotism is a national submission to fear, followed by absolute blind obedience and the voluntary resignation of the liberties, freedoms and values that those who went before held so dear.
ReplyDeleteAnd given their defination of patriot, I can happily proclaim, that I am no patriot.
Yo Worfeus, I just searched for Dolty Boy's license, you should see it.
ReplyDeleteFrom Larry's post search here
11:35 AM
LMFAO.
ReplyDeleteHoly Crap CLIF, I bet thats an exact likeness of moo moo.
LOL, too damned funny.
It is NOW, so something happened last time I posted, because I used the same link both times.
ReplyDeleteYour link worked for me clif, and that gave me the laugh I needed this morning.
ReplyDeleteToo funny.
Bush's spying and snooping programs have "some" value eh Worf?
ReplyDeleteI wonder if Fantasy Foole has recovered from the intervention yet, after all he must have collapsed when he realized...Nancy Pelosi would be doing the drapes in HER new office with Georgie's help.
ReplyDeleteAnd Charlie Rangle was gonna chair ways and means.....I imagine his fantasy world just swirled around him until the synapses just failed and his mind melted down like 3 Mile Island.
ReplyDeleteI mean what I said by the republicans using deception as a "doctrine".
ReplyDeleteJust look at Bush.
The day before the election, he tells us that "Rummy is going to stay to the end of my term".
The day AFTER the election, he FIRES him.
When asked why the contradicting stories, he simply states, "oh well thats what I had to say then".
See?
He has no concept of truth, or honesty. Lying is so common that he does it regularly, on cue, without even thinking about it.
He didn't realize that in that moment, he just admitted to lying once more, the same thing that got Bill Clinton impeached.
He didn't realize it, because to Bush, they're not lies.
They are just things he needs to say "at the moment". His doctrine, is just a long unrelenting series of lies, falsehoods and fabrications.
clif said...
ReplyDeleteBush's spying and snooping programs have "some" value eh Worf?
Yea. And if he goes to that sight, and types in his name, for him, it'll be like looking in a mirror.
Gary I was just wondering if his mind completely melted down, or it was stuck in the endless fantasy loop he has been living in for the last years.
ReplyDeleteSeems a intervention of reality like Tuesday night might have sent him into a liquid mindless state for a while.
I hope the Trolls enjoy seeing what Bush can do with his "Homeland Security Agency".
ReplyDeleteAnd I wonder what TT thinks about his hero, that lying sack of shit, Rush Limpbaugh tossing the republican party under the bus?
ReplyDeleteOne day after losing an election, the long time stalwart defender of all that is republican, said screw the republicans.
No honor amongst theives, ay?
TT's been quoting that putrid sack of dung for as long as he's been in here.
ReplyDeleteNow that the putrid sack of dung has denounced the right wing, whats a Tall Texan to do?
LOL
Worfeus, I wonder what tiny thinks about Limpballs admission that he LIED for the repugs.
ReplyDeleteAnd Tiny posted those lies....interesting.
I see a pattern, a repug lies, limpballs spreads the lie and other repugs quote limpballs, ....interesting.
You're right Clif. TT posted endless limpbaugh posts, like they were gospel or something.
ReplyDeleteThen in one felt swoop, limpbaugh reveals himself to be nothing more than a right wing "waterboy", saying things he himself may not have believed, just to sell a war.
Thats gotta hurt.
"Lots of" religious right leaders knew #1 evangelical leader, Ted Haggard, was gay long before the scandal - and did nothing about it
ReplyDeleteWhat a bunch of freaking hypocrites. They knew that the number one leader of their movement, a movement devoted to anti-gay causes, was gay, and they didn't do a damn thing about it.
What a bunch of freaking hypocrites.
This is akin to being a pedophile, in these people's warped, bigoted minds, yet they did nothing about their leader being one of the abominations they daily rant against. They tolerated a known gay man running their entire movement while trying to pass anti-gay legislation to ruin the rest of our lives. They thumbed their nose at the word of God because it was convenient.
It seems that religious right leader Lou Shelon has some questions to answer, including: Who else among the religious right leaders knew Haggard was gay and did nothing about it?
From Jewish Week, via Talk2Action and dogemperor:
Sheldon disclosed that he and “a lot” of others knew about Haggard’s homosexuality “for awhile ... but we weren’t sure just how to deal with it.”
Months before a male prostitute publicly revealed Haggard’s secret relationship with him, and the reverend’s drug use as well, “Ted and I had a discussion,” explained Sheldon, who said Haggard gave him a telltale signal then: “He said homosexuality is genetic. I said, no it isn’t. But I just knew he was covering up. They need to say that.”
Boy, Lou Sheldon sure is up on his gay code. I didn't realize that people who think being gay is genetic - like, uh, scientists who have actually studied it - are per se all gay because they think it's genetic. What a fascinating man. And a hypocrite.
Seems like not only repugs cover up for their members who do not keep the faith, but reichwingnut religious leaders COVER UP also.
a pattern emerges.
they all covered up to keep repugs in power, but since EVERYBODY knew sins were being committed, whaT did they want all that access to power for?
MONEY....the root of reichwingnut religious people.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteWhats really funny is how these rubes come skipping in here like they have some sort of mandate or something.
ReplyDeleteToo funny.
Did you know that not ONE, and I mean not ONE Democrat incumbent lost his seat, ANYWHERE in the COUNTRY???
NOT ONE!!!
Americans spoke LOUD AND CLEAR, and they said unanimously, REPUBLICANS SUCK!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteNot ONE democrat lost his seat.
ReplyDeleteNot ONE.
What does that tell you TT?
And if your answer is, that it tells you republicans SUCK, then you're on the right track.
I'm watching "A Bridge Too Far".
ReplyDeleteWhat a great movie.
Even the Lieberman ran back to the democrats as fast as he could realizing he need to be SEEN as a democrat as soon as possible, other wise people might associate him with the repugs who pushed HIM over their own candidate,
ReplyDeletePriceless, rove pushes for Lieberman, even send him MONEY band gutless college repugs too chicken to fight the war they are for, and Lieberman sticks the knife in almost as fast as Georgie did to Dumsfeld, just way too funny, Rove ends with NOTHING to show for all his scheming.
Baghdad:
ReplyDeleteTwo suicide bombs killed at least 35 and wounded dozens of other police recruits today.
75 bodies were found in Baghdad and Baquoba having been murdered and many tortured.
Surely daily events like these couldn't be why the Repugs lost Tuesday, Could They?
MSNBC just showed a new Newsweek poll.
ReplyDeleteBush's approvals just keep falling.
He is now down to a dismal, 29 percent approval rating.
29 percent.
Theres your mandate TT.
Here is the breakdown of the election;
ReplyDeleteParty Sen House Gov
Dems: 51 232 28
Reps: 49 203 22
D+/-: +6 +29 +6
Looks like Tiny was wrong, Rove was wrong, Bush was wrong....AGAIN.
When will they ever learn that being wrong so much does affect their believability.
They seem to be wrong so much lately....must have something to do with the fantasy world they keep trying to sell to all of us.
You know the one where THEY create the reality, NOT live in reality.
Jack Murtha is right Clif.
ReplyDeleteHe says we should get out now.
Every day we stay, more Americans will die for a failed policy. In other words they'll die for nothing.
We can't afford to wait for those in power to come to the conculsions that those in knowledge already know.
That whether we leave now, or ten years from now, the only differnce will be in the body count.
Its time to go.
Newsweek has an article in their latest issue about Rove calling the elections all wrong, and Bush believing his predictions all the way.
ReplyDeleteIt is on MSNBC's website.
Time For A Big Ol' Cup Of 'Shut The F*** Up'
ReplyDeleteLast week, I described a nightmare scenario in which the Republicans won the midterm prompting the president, high on mandate juice, to form the Department of Shut The F*** Up, headed by a sock puppet named Secretary Fiddlesticks.
Now that the Democrats have taken back the Congress and 51+ percent of America finally has a voice in government again, I think it's time to seriously let fly. So at the risk of sounding contentious in this all-too-genuine era (several days) of bipartisanship, here now is a roll call of people who must officially shut the f*** up.
1) Republican trolls who wrap up their anonymous and incomprehensible criticisms of progressives with the phrase, "and that's why your party never wins," need to shut the f*** up.
2) The cowards who so easily disregard our liberties by shrugging off the president's illegal wiretapping; the cowards who shrug off the Military Commissions Act and the death of habeas corpus; and the cowards who shrug off torture with the phrases, "I'm not doing anything wrong, so I have nothing to worry about," or, "You can't [blank] if you're dead," ought to shut the f*** up.
3) Anyone who still believes that global warming is a myth? Shut the f*** up.
4) Rush Limbaugh must shut the f*** up. On second thought, strike that. The more we see Violet Beauregard flapping his arms and mocking Parkinson's patients, the better off the rest of the nation will be.
5) In Ann Coulter's latest column, he wondered when the Democrats would be fitting Senator-Elect Jon Tester with a "leotard." Speaking of tards, Mr. Coulter needs to shut the f*** up. And this order stands for anyone who claims Senator-Elect Tester is a "conservative Democrat." He could very well be the face of the New Progressive Democrat and one of the most genuine lawmakers elected Tuesday. Prediction: if he isn't already, Tester will quickly become a rock star in this party.
6) I think it was Bill Maher who mentioned this but it stands repeating here: neocons who have made multiple rosy predictions about Iraq need to shut the f*** up and are forthwith banned from making any more predictions.
7) Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and other homophobes who use the "San Francisco Liberal" label for Speaker-Elect Pelosi must... you know. We all understand that it's right-wing code language meaning "homo-values." If that's what you mean, just say it. That is, unless you're not man enough.
8) If you still believe that Karl Rove is a genius, wizard, architect or anything short of overrated, you must shut the f*** up. One popular vote loss, one win, one near loss to a disorganized opponent and one outright loss means one thing and one thing only: mediocrity. Racking up this kind of record by means of dirty tricks, race-baiting and questioning the patriotism of decorated war veterans makes Rove a mediocre hack at best.
9) Ed Gillespie, the man who's just a neck with a mouth, is officially ordered for the last time to shut the f*** up.
10) The devilish wordsmiths who think it's strategic and clever to refer to the Democratic Party as the "Democrat Party" need to stop it. Shut the f*** up. The official name of the party is the Democratic Party, with the "ic" at the end. Yeah, I know. Newt Gingrich and Frank Luntz invented the idea of saying "Democrat Party" or "the Democrat leadership" or "the Democrat voters" in order to emphasize the "rat" syllable, leaving a rat-like subliminal hint in the minds of listeners. President Bush, in his so-called "conciliatory" press conference Wednesday, used this incorrect pronunciation several times.
"And while the ballots are still being counted in the Senate, it is clear the Democrat Party had a good night last night, and I congratulate them on their victories."
"This morning I spoke with Republican and Democrat leadership in the House and Senate."
"...we'll begin consultations with the Democrat leadership starting Thursday and Friday."
"...and now work with Democrat leaders in the Congress because they control the committees and they control the flow of bills."
"We got some tax cuts passed with Democrat votes."
11) And finally... Mr. President. Saying that you're going to work with Congress and compromise for the sake of the nation doesn't mean shoving your unconstitutional Terrorist Surveillance Act and your bellicose anti-U.N. U.N. ambassador through a lame duck session. So if you don't really intend to be bipartisan, then shut the f*** up. You pride yourself on letting people know exactly where you stand and, despite the fact that you routinely stand on dangerous principles, there's at least some cold comfort in knowing what you're up to. But it's clear that that President Bush is long gone -- replaced by a man who can't even be honest with his own base about things like the Iraq War, subsequently leaving his allies alone, confused and scrambling to assuage the anger of an increasingly hostile constituency. This last part? Keep it up, thank you.
And that's the roll call. I've spent the last several days not only breathing in the sweet aroma of real-life governmental checks and balances, but I've also been evaluating where we go from here. Clearly Speaker-Elect Pelosi and the Democratic leadership have the daunting task of working with the White House to not only push through vital pieces of legislation, but they also must do so in a way that doesn't raze their chances for further pickups in 2008. It goes without saying that any misstep in the face of this Republican Party (and its media lapdogs) could spell disaster. So they have to play nice in some ways, but you and I are best served by remaining on the attack and never hesitating to tell those who deserve it to shut the f*** up.
------
UPDATE: I've been told that Joe McCarthy was the first to use the "Democrat [sic] Party" misnomer. However, its use became much more pervasive when Gingrich and Luntz practically made it mandatory in the ranks of the GOP.
***********************************************
Sounds good to me.....real good.
Larry said...
ReplyDeleteNewsweek has an article in their latest issue about Rove calling the elections all wrong, and Bush believing his predictions all the way.
You watch. Rove will be dumped next. Sure it will most likely be in the form of a "reassignment", but we'll know what it really is.
Roves done.
The republicans, like John McCain, (who is a good enough man to know better), want to turn Iraq, which was a failure the moment we struck out alone, into a success.
ReplyDeleteThey want to make "lemonade out of this lemon".
They think they can somehow turn an idea, the idea that you can invade a soverign nation, and FORCE them into democracy, or any other form of government of YOUR choosing, at the barrel of a gun.
That idea has been tried for thousands of years, and it never worked. Whenever a stronger country tries to force its views on a smaller country, the smaller country will resist. Whenever a stronger nation tries to bully a weaker nation, the weaker nation resists.
Occupation has NEVER worked, and it won't work here. Doing the same thing that has been tried and failed for thousands of years, and expecting that somehow, "this time it will be different", is not only foolish, its criminally stupid.
Throwing more troops into it will only inflame the situation, and HARDEN the resitances resolve. Its sad that McCain can't see that.
But it looks like Mr McCain, like his master, herr Busch, has only one way to honor the sacrifce of our fallen troops.
By sacrificing more troops.
But I'll tell you what.
ReplyDeleteLets make Iraq a literally a "war of choice". But lets give the troops the "choice".
Lets make deployment in Iraq an "option" for troops. Lets have a truly ALL VOLUNTEER ARMY in Iraq.
Let ever man who supports this war fight it, and ever man who does not, come home.
I would be VERY interested to see the numbers of troops we had in Iraq after say, about 6 months.
The troops would be willing to fight any fight they believed in.
ReplyDeleteMy hunch is not as many believe in it, as Rummy liked to tell us.
But thank God that hubristic self righteous arrogant pompous prick got his walking papers.
ReplyDeleteHand delivered.
By the American people.
The Israeli Prime Minister exited his meeting with Bush, telling reporters that he knows the United States will never allow Iran to have Nuclear Weapons.
ReplyDeleteSounds like Bush sent the Israeli Prime Minister out in front of the cameras to pave the way for his next futile plan.
Sounds like Bush is planning on another war no matter what the public said Tuesday.
He can plan all he wants.
ReplyDeleteThe democrats in Congress hold the majority now, and they will NOT vote for another war, nor will they fund it.
The People of England are correct.
ReplyDeleteBush is the most dangerous man on the face of the planet.
U.S. Rep. Jim Gibbons (R-NV) was elected governor of Nevada last week despite the allegations of late-night carousing and sexual assault involving a cocktail waitress three decades his junior. A new round of subpoenas suggests police may be looking at whether obstruction of justice occurred in the case.
ReplyDeleteLocal law enforcement investigating the allegations made by Chrissy Mazzeo has subpoenaed the phone records of all those in the Gibbons' party on that fateful Friday the 13th of October, according to the Las Vegas Sun:
Metro Police have subpoenaed telephone records of Republican Gov.-elect Jim Gibbons, political strategist Sig Rogich and other witnesses in the investigation into allegations that Gibbons assaulted a woman and tried to force himself on her sexually.
Home and cell phone records of everyone who was drinking with Gibbons and Rogich at McCormick & Schmick's restaurant before the Oct. 13 alleged assault on Chrissy Mazzeo were among the records subpoenaed, sources close to the investigation told the Sun.
It's not clear whether the phone records were subpoened as part of the investigation of Mazzeo's underlying assault claim or her later claim that she was pressured into keeping silent about the incident. Another possible area of interest for law enforcement is the security video from the parking garage where the incident is alleged to have happened, which went missing for several days before being turned over to police.
Police plan another round of witness interviews, including of the governor-elect himself, according to the Sun.
-- David Kurtz
Looks like somebody dusty-wufuus would know. Maybe one idiot gives the other ideas about how to act with women.
I doubt that dumbass has ever been with a women who didn't have an air valve.
ReplyDeleteBut he may just act the same way as the might be future Gov, cause if the might be future gov, lied to police, he is TOAST, and that would about put a nail in the GOP for a while.
ReplyDeleteBush Waterboy Joe Lieberman says the election results from Tuesday were not a realignment, because of the war, but merely has both parties on probation.
ReplyDeleteLieberman sounds like Rove. He must be using the White House talking points.
Liebermans a hack. He won because the republicans voted for him.
ReplyDeleteTell the trolls to take a look at the cover of newsweek.
ReplyDeleteLet them see what the REST OF US SEE.
Lieberman is a hack and he will spend the next 6 years doing everything he can to screw everything up.
ReplyDeleteIn other word, EVERYBODY but them.
ReplyDeletePat Buchanan is on MSNBC everyday claiming he is against the war, but still defends staying there.
ReplyDeleteAnother Phony!
Soft-bigotry-of-low-expectations watch
ReplyDeleteI believe it’s important that Americans appreciate the democratic process, but this seems to have “soft bigotry of low expectations” written all over it. From yesterday’s presidential radio address:
One freedom that defines our way of life is the freedom to choose our leaders at the ballot box. We saw that freedom earlier this week, when millions of Americans went to the polls to cast their votes for a new Congress. Whatever your opinion of the outcome, all Americans can take pride in the example our democracy sets for the world by holding elections even in a time of war.” (emphasis added)
We should be “proud” that the federal government didn’t cancel our elections? That the Bush administration didn’t use the war as an excuse to interrupt the democratic process?
Sure like Roosevelt never held elections in 1944, Bush is an IDIOT of the first order.
You know I read that Clif.
ReplyDeleteNice of him to let us vote, huh?
Bush's firing of Rumsfeld pissed off the republican base and I know why.
ReplyDeleteBecause up until now Bush was "supposed" to be a "man of his word". When Bush said something, he stuck to it, so if he said someone was going to stay, he meant they were going to stay.
At least thats what they claimed.
But now hes lost all credibility. He said Rummy wasn't going anywhere, and then FIRED him the very next day after the elections.
What a simpleton. He tried to diffuse the bomb after it already went off.
And now, his base is abandoning him, and George W Bush is on his way to being the Lame Duck President he was going to be right before the Twin Towers fell.
So like I said last night, be looking for another terrorist attack.
You know right before September 2001, Bush had a low approval rating. It was down in the high 40's and low 50's, with some polls showing as low as 39 percent.
ReplyDeleteThen he skyrocketed, right after 911. Then his rating went steadly down, till now, its in the high 20's! LOL.
Bush has truly earned the moniker, WORST PRESIDENT EVER.
He truly has.
You're just not gonna be happy till we reach all out nuclear war, are you dolt?
ReplyDeleteI mean, you're just a f@$#@kin loser, who has nothing to live for himself, and you want to take everyone else with you, right?
Isn't that it.
You won't be happy till the planet is an uninhabitable wasteland, that is clear.
Then you can sit back and say see? We showed them Chinese.
Oh wait, you'll be dead too.
Well maybe the cockroaches will think you're cool.