Religions > Atheism > MI Plants To Lay Off 100. Thank You Bush (No, We REALLY Turned The Corner!!!!)
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Yang, AthD h.c" |
| Date: |
17 Aug 2004 09:42:13 PM |
| Object: |
MI Plants To Lay Off 100. Thank You Bush (No, We REALLY Turned The Corner!!!!) |
http://www.freep.com/news/latestnews/pm21097_20040812.htm
Remember how Bush's "stimulus" package was supopsed to lead to massive
jobs growth right about.... now?
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -947 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
| User: "torresB" |
|
| Title: Crazy Like A Fox News Viewer |
17 Aug 2004 10:54:18 PM |
|
|
Crazy Like A Fox News Viewer
Ann Coulter
May 12, 2004
Last week, John S. Carroll, editor of the Los Angeles Times, delivered
a lecture during "Ethics Week" of the Society of Professional
Journalists. The speaker has not yet been announced for "Abstinence
Week" of the Society of Professional Whores.
Showing the fierce independence of the mainstream media, Carroll's
speech was yet another liberal rant about the threat to freedom and
democracy posed by the Fox News Channel. Carroll cited the hoax poll
liberals quote every 10 minutes that purports to show people who watch
Fox News are ignorant retards.
The poll was taken by the "Program on International Policy Attitudes,"
which specializes in polling Americans about pointless little factoids
loved by liberals. One PIPA poll, for example, asked whether "so far
this year, more Israelis or more Palestinians have died in the
conflict, or is the number roughly equal?" To the shock and dismay of
the researchers, "only 32 percent of respondents were aware that more
deaths have occurred on the Palestinian side than on the Israeli
side."
There was no poll question about which group was more likely to die as
a result of suicide bombings against innocent civilians and which as a
result of strategic strikes against known terrorists. During World War
II, PIPA would have been issuing indignant press releases announcing
that "only 32 percent of respondents are aware Hitler is kind to his
dog."
The most famous PIPA poll claims to demonstrate that "the Fox News
audience showed the highest average rate of misperceptions" about the
war with Iraq -- by which they mean "misperceptions of pointless
liberal factoids about the war with Iraq." You say the average
American can't regurgitate liberal talking points on command? Well,
I'll be darned! And the public schools are trying so hard!
The poll asked questions like this: "Is it your impression that the
U.S. has or has not found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein
was working closely with the al-Qaida terrorist organization?"
Sixty-seven percent of Fox News Channel viewers said the United States
had found evidence of a link. Liberals view this as a "misperception."
Admittedly the evidence may not be as "clear" as the evidence proving
a link between Osama bin Laden and Halliburton, but among other
evidence connecting Iraq to al-Qaida, consider just these three items.
Last year papers were found in Iraqi intelligence headquarters
documenting Saddam's feverish efforts to establish a working
relationship with al-Qaida. In response to Iraq's generous invitation
to pay all travel and hotel expenses, a top aide to Osama bin Laden
visited Iraq in 1998, bearing a message from bin Laden. The meeting
went so well that bin Laden's aide stayed for a week. Iraq
intelligence officers sent a message back to bin Laden, the documents
note, concerning "the future of our relationship."
In addition, according to Czech intelligence, a few months before the
9-11 attacks, Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence agents in
Prague.
Finally, a Clinton-appointed federal judge, U.S. District Court judge
Harold Baer, has made a legal finding that Iraq was behind the 9-11
attacks -- a ruling upheld by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals last
October. When some judge discovers a right to gay marriage in a
200-year-old document written by John Adams, Americans are forced to
treat the decision like the God-given truth. But when a federal judge
issues a decision concluding that Iraq was behind the 9-11 attacks, it
is a "misperception" being foisted on the nation by Fox New Channel.
Interestingly, liberals refuse to believe Czech intelligence on the
Prague meeting ... because the CIA doesn't believe it. Apparently,
this is the lone, singular assertion by the CIA that liberals
wholeheartedly trust. The CIA also concluded that evidence of WMDs in
Iraq was -- in the words of CIA director George Tenet -- a "slam dunk
case." But liberals hysterically denounce that CIA conclusion as a
"misperception" created by Fox News Channel.
Thus another question in the PIPA poll was this: "Since the war with
Iraq ended, is it your impression that the U.S. has or has not found
Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?" Thirty-three percent of Fox News
viewers said they believed the U.S. had found WMDs, compared to only
11 percent of those smart NPR listeners. (How about asking NPR
listeners which kills more children -- handguns or buckets?)
By "weapons of mass destruction," what liberals mean is: missiles
pointed at Washington, D.C., with their "Ready to Fire" lights
blinking ominously and their warhead payloads clearly marked "Weapons
of Mass Destruction! Next Stop, The Great Satan America!" - basically
what you might see on an episode of the original Batman TV series.
When we didn't find that, the "Bush lied, kids died!" screaming began.
David Kay's report said we hadn't found "stockpiles" of WMDs in Iraq,
but we have found:
-- chemical and biological weapons systems, plans, "recipes" and
equipment, all of which could have resumed production on a moment's
notice with Saddam's approval;
-- reference strains of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents
(found in the home of a prominent Iraqi biological warfare scientist);
-- new research on brucella and Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever, and
continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin;
-- a prison laboratory complex for testing biological weapons on
humans;
-- long-range missiles (prohibited by United Nations resolutions)
suitable for delivering WMDs;
-- documents showing Saddam tried to obtain long-range ballistic
missiles from North Korea;
-- facilities for manufacturing fuel propellant useful only for
prohibited Scud-variant missiles.
Sorry to bore Fox News viewers with these facts. I'm doing it as a
favor to readers of the Los Angeles Times.
.
|
|
|
| User: "James Chamblee" |
|
| Title: Re: Crazy Like A Fox News Viewer |
18 Aug 2004 03:32:13 AM |
|
|
torresB <torresB@N0SPAM.C0M> wrote:
Crazy Like A Fox News Viewer
Ann Coulter
May 12, 2004
Last week, John S. Carroll, editor of the Los Angeles Times, delivered
a lecture during "Ethics Week" of the Society of Professional
Journalists. The speaker has not yet been announced for "Abstinence
Week" of the Society of Professional Whores.
Showing the fierce independence of the mainstream media, Carroll's
speech was yet another liberal rant about the threat to freedom and
democracy posed by the Fox News Channel. Carroll cited the hoax poll
liberals quote every 10 minutes that purports to show people who watch
Fox News are ignorant retards.
Once again, Coulter cannot write two paragraphs without lying. It must be
genetic.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: Crazy Like A Fox News Viewer |
18 Aug 2004 11:54:22 AM |
|
|
In article <okk5i0himveshj8b5peee7p4auqiqrd7pa@4ax.com>,
torresB <torresB@N0SPAM.C0M> wrote:
Crazy Like A Fox News Viewer
Ann Coulter
May 12, 2004
Last week, John S. Carroll, editor of the Los Angeles Times, delivered
a lecture during "Ethics Week" of the Society of Professional
Journalists. The speaker has not yet been announced for "Abstinence
Week" of the Society of Professional Whores.
Showing the fierce independence of the mainstream media, Carroll's
speech was yet another liberal rant about the threat to freedom and
democracy posed by the Fox News Channel. Carroll cited the hoax poll
liberals quote every 10 minutes that purports to show people who watch
Fox News are ignorant retards.
The poll was taken by the "Program on International Policy Attitudes,"
which specializes in polling Americans about pointless little factoids
loved by liberals. One PIPA poll, for example, asked whether "so far
this year, more Israelis or more Palestinians have died in the
conflict, or is the number roughly equal?" To the shock and dismay of
the researchers, "only 32 percent of respondents were aware that more
deaths have occurred on the Palestinian side than on the Israeli
side."
There was no poll question about which group was more likely to die as
a result of suicide bombings against innocent civilians and which as a
result of strategic strikes against known terrorists. During World War
II, PIPA would have been issuing indignant press releases announcing
that "only 32 percent of respondents are aware Hitler is kind to his
dog."
The most famous PIPA poll claims to demonstrate that "the Fox News
audience showed the highest average rate of misperceptions" about the
war with Iraq -- by which they mean "misperceptions of pointless
liberal factoids about the war with Iraq." You say the average
American can't regurgitate liberal talking points on command? Well,
I'll be darned! And the public schools are trying so hard!
The poll asked questions like this: "Is it your impression that the
U.S. has or has not found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein
was working closely with the al-Qaida terrorist organization?"
Sixty-seven percent of Fox News Channel viewers said the United States
had found evidence of a link. Liberals view this as a "misperception."
Admittedly the evidence may not be as "clear" as the evidence proving
a link between Osama bin Laden and Halliburton, but among other
evidence connecting Iraq to al-Qaida, consider just these three items.
Last year papers were found in Iraqi intelligence headquarters
documenting Saddam's feverish efforts to establish a working
relationship with al-Qaida. In response to Iraq's generous invitation
to pay all travel and hotel expenses, a top aide to Osama bin Laden
visited Iraq in 1998, bearing a message from bin Laden. The meeting
went so well that bin Laden's aide stayed for a week. Iraq
intelligence officers sent a message back to bin Laden, the documents
note, concerning "the future of our relationship."
And Rumsfeld visited Saddam and told him he was our friend. Does that tie
Bush I to him?
In addition, according to Czech intelligence, a few months before the
9-11 attacks, Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence agents in
Prague.
Which has now been totally discredited. Keep up.
Finally, a Clinton-appointed federal judge, U.S. District Court judge
Harold Baer, has made a legal finding that Iraq was behind the 9-11
attacks -- a ruling upheld by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals last
October.
No he didn't.
When some judge discovers a right to gay marriage in a
200-year-old document written by John Adams, Americans are forced to
treat the decision like the God-given truth. But when a federal judge
issues a decision concluding that Iraq was behind the 9-11 attacks, it
is a "misperception" being foisted on the nation by Fox New Channel.
Or a lie by you, quite likely.
Interestingly, liberals refuse to believe Czech intelligence on the
Prague meeting ...
Because it's been discredited. Again, read the 9/11 report.
because the CIA doesn't believe it. Apparently,
this is the lone, singular assertion by the CIA that liberals
wholeheartedly trust. The CIA also concluded that evidence of WMDs in
Iraq was -- in the words of CIA director George Tenet -- a "slam dunk
case." But liberals hysterically denounce that CIA conclusion as a
"misperception" created by Fox News Channel.
Thus another question in the PIPA poll was this: "Since the war with
Iraq ended, is it your impression that the U.S. has or has not found
Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?" Thirty-three percent of Fox News
viewers said they believed the U.S. had found WMDs, compared to only
11 percent of those smart NPR listeners. (How about asking NPR
listeners which kills more children -- handguns or buckets?)
By "weapons of mass destruction," what liberals mean is: missiles
pointed at Washington, D.C., with their "Ready to Fire" lights
blinking ominously and their warhead payloads clearly marked "Weapons
of Mass Destruction! Next Stop, The Great Satan America!" - basically
what you might see on an episode of the original Batman TV series.
When we didn't find that, the "Bush lied, kids died!" screaming began.
David Kay's report said we hadn't found "stockpiles" of WMDs in Iraq,
but we have found:
-- chemical and biological weapons systems, plans, "recipes" and
equipment, all of which could have resumed production on a moment's
notice with Saddam's approval;
Even Bush now just says "weapons of mass destruction program related
activities."
-- reference strains of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents
(found in the home of a prominent Iraqi biological warfare scientist);
Which the US sold them.
-- new research on brucella and Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever, and
continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin;
-- a prison laboratory complex for testing biological weapons on
humans;
-- long-range missiles (prohibited by United Nations resolutions)
suitable for delivering WMDs;
Uh, not so.
-- documents showing Saddam tried to obtain long-range ballistic
missiles from North Korea;
Not so.
-- facilities for manufacturing fuel propellant useful only for
prohibited Scud-variant missiles.
Not so.
Sorry to bore Fox News viewers with these facts. I'm doing it as a
favor to readers of the Los Angeles Times.
Tell us about the uranium from Niger and the aluminum tubes next.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mr.Excitement" |
|
| Title: Re: Crazy Like A Fox News Viewer |
21 Aug 2004 06:43:11 PM |
|
|
ARE YOU THE SAME IDIOT FROM RASN????????????
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:cg0fk0$9v9$20@puck.cc.emory.edu...
In article <okk5i0himveshj8b5peee7p4auqiqrd7pa@4ax.com>,
torresB <torresB@N0SPAM.C0M> wrote:
Crazy Like A Fox News Viewer
Ann Coulter
May 12, 2004
Last week, John S. Carroll, editor of the Los Angeles Times, delivered
a lecture during "Ethics Week" of the Society of Professional
Journalists. The speaker has not yet been announced for "Abstinence
Week" of the Society of Professional Whores.
Showing the fierce independence of the mainstream media, Carroll's
speech was yet another liberal rant about the threat to freedom and
democracy posed by the Fox News Channel. Carroll cited the hoax poll
liberals quote every 10 minutes that purports to show people who watch
Fox News are ignorant retards.
The poll was taken by the "Program on International Policy Attitudes,"
which specializes in polling Americans about pointless little factoids
loved by liberals. One PIPA poll, for example, asked whether "so far
this year, more Israelis or more Palestinians have died in the
conflict, or is the number roughly equal?" To the shock and dismay of
the researchers, "only 32 percent of respondents were aware that more
deaths have occurred on the Palestinian side than on the Israeli
side."
There was no poll question about which group was more likely to die as
a result of suicide bombings against innocent civilians and which as a
result of strategic strikes against known terrorists. During World War
II, PIPA would have been issuing indignant press releases announcing
that "only 32 percent of respondents are aware Hitler is kind to his
dog."
The most famous PIPA poll claims to demonstrate that "the Fox News
audience showed the highest average rate of misperceptions" about the
war with Iraq -- by which they mean "misperceptions of pointless
liberal factoids about the war with Iraq." You say the average
American can't regurgitate liberal talking points on command? Well,
I'll be darned! And the public schools are trying so hard!
The poll asked questions like this: "Is it your impression that the
U.S. has or has not found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein
was working closely with the al-Qaida terrorist organization?"
Sixty-seven percent of Fox News Channel viewers said the United States
had found evidence of a link. Liberals view this as a "misperception."
Admittedly the evidence may not be as "clear" as the evidence proving
a link between Osama bin Laden and Halliburton, but among other
evidence connecting Iraq to al-Qaida, consider just these three items.
Last year papers were found in Iraqi intelligence headquarters
documenting Saddam's feverish efforts to establish a working
relationship with al-Qaida. In response to Iraq's generous invitation
to pay all travel and hotel expenses, a top aide to Osama bin Laden
visited Iraq in 1998, bearing a message from bin Laden. The meeting
went so well that bin Laden's aide stayed for a week. Iraq
intelligence officers sent a message back to bin Laden, the documents
note, concerning "the future of our relationship."
And Rumsfeld visited Saddam and told him he was our friend. Does that tie
Bush I to him?
In addition, according to Czech intelligence, a few months before the
9-11 attacks, Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence agents in
Prague.
Which has now been totally discredited. Keep up.
Finally, a Clinton-appointed federal judge, U.S. District Court judge
Harold Baer, has made a legal finding that Iraq was behind the 9-11
attacks -- a ruling upheld by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals last
October.
No he didn't.
When some judge discovers a right to gay marriage in a
200-year-old document written by John Adams, Americans are forced to
treat the decision like the God-given truth. But when a federal judge
issues a decision concluding that Iraq was behind the 9-11 attacks, it
is a "misperception" being foisted on the nation by Fox New Channel.
Or a lie by you, quite likely.
Interestingly, liberals refuse to believe Czech intelligence on the
Prague meeting ...
Because it's been discredited. Again, read the 9/11 report.
because the CIA doesn't believe it. Apparently,
this is the lone, singular assertion by the CIA that liberals
wholeheartedly trust. The CIA also concluded that evidence of WMDs in
Iraq was -- in the words of CIA director George Tenet -- a "slam dunk
case." But liberals hysterically denounce that CIA conclusion as a
"misperception" created by Fox News Channel.
Thus another question in the PIPA poll was this: "Since the war with
Iraq ended, is it your impression that the U.S. has or has not found
Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?" Thirty-three percent of Fox News
viewers said they believed the U.S. had found WMDs, compared to only
11 percent of those smart NPR listeners. (How about asking NPR
listeners which kills more children -- handguns or buckets?)
By "weapons of mass destruction," what liberals mean is: missiles
pointed at Washington, D.C., with their "Ready to Fire" lights
blinking ominously and their warhead payloads clearly marked "Weapons
of Mass Destruction! Next Stop, The Great Satan America!" - basically
what you might see on an episode of the original Batman TV series.
When we didn't find that, the "Bush lied, kids died!" screaming began.
David Kay's report said we hadn't found "stockpiles" of WMDs in Iraq,
but we have found:
-- chemical and biological weapons systems, plans, "recipes" and
equipment, all of which could have resumed production on a moment's
notice with Saddam's approval;
Even Bush now just says "weapons of mass destruction program related
activities."
-- reference strains of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents
(found in the home of a prominent Iraqi biological warfare scientist);
Which the US sold them.
-- new research on brucella and Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever, and
continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin;
-- a prison laboratory complex for testing biological weapons on
humans;
-- long-range missiles (prohibited by United Nations resolutions)
suitable for delivering WMDs;
Uh, not so.
-- documents showing Saddam tried to obtain long-range ballistic
missiles from North Korea;
Not so.
-- facilities for manufacturing fuel propellant useful only for
prohibited Scud-variant missiles.
Not so.
Sorry to bore Fox News viewers with these facts. I'm doing it as a
favor to readers of the Los Angeles Times.
Tell us about the uranium from Niger and the aluminum tubes next.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jerry Okamura" |
|
| Title: Re: MI Plants To Lay Off 100. Thank You Bush (No, We REALLY Turned The Corner!!!!) |
18 Aug 2004 12:50:43 PM |
|
|
I do not recall the President or any of his minions saying that there would
be "massive job growth". Can you cite someone who said that?
Besides, why do we keep thinking that a President should push for "massive"
job growth? "Massive job growth" means that inflation is bound to rear its
ugly head. That in turn would force the Federal Reserve Bank to fight the
inflationary trend. That in turn would most likely result in a recession.
A recession which would cause an increase in unemployment.
"Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in message
news:p4g5i0pb074n55l2mtqpr0a7bk0qhfibu6@4ax.com...
http://www.freep.com/news/latestnews/pm21097_20040812.htm
Remember how Bush's "stimulus" package was supopsed to lead to massive
jobs growth right about.... now?
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -947 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, AthD h.c" |
|
| Title: Re: MI Plants To Lay Off 100. Thank You Bush (No, We REALLY Turned The Corner!!!!) |
18 Aug 2004 10:31:56 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 17:50:43 GMT, "Jerry Okamura"
<okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
I do not recall the President or any of his minions saying that there would
be "massive job growth". Can you cite someone who said that?
You morons like AWOL?
"The jobs and growth proposals I've outlined today are a focused plan
to encourage consumer spending, to promote small business growth, to
boost confidence in our markets, and to give critical help to
unemployed citizens."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030107-5.html
Besides, why do we keep thinking that a President should push for "massive"
job growth? "Massive job growth" means that inflation is bound to rear its
ugly head. That in turn would force the Federal Reserve Bank to fight the
inflationary trend. That in turn would most likely result in a recession.
A recession which would cause an increase in unemployment.
I see, you're dumber than I gve you credit for. Are you going to belly
ache to me about the run-away inflation that accomplanied the
20-million jobs growth under Clinton?
"Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in message
news:p4g5i0pb074n55l2mtqpr0a7bk0qhfibu6@4ax.com...
http://www.freep.com/news/latestnews/pm21097_20040812.htm
Remember how Bush's "stimulus" package was supopsed to lead to massive
jobs growth right about.... now?
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -947 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -947 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jerry Okamura" |
|
| Title: Re: MI Plants To Lay Off 100. Thank You Bush (No, We REALLY Turned The Corner!!!!) |
19 Aug 2004 02:20:41 PM |
|
|
"Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in message
news:uh78i01gip240e2blb1dlmp4822m8evan0@4ax.com...
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 17:50:43 GMT, "Jerry Okamura"
<okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
I do not recall the President or any of his minions saying that there
would
be "massive job growth". Can you cite someone who said that?
You morons like AWOL?
"The jobs and growth proposals I've outlined today are a focused plan
to encourage consumer spending, to promote small business growth, to
boost confidence in our markets, and to give critical help to
unemployed citizens."
Nothing in your posted statement says anything about "massive job growth".
Besides, why do we keep thinking that a President should push for
"massive"
job growth? "Massive job growth" means that inflation is bound to rear
its
ugly head. That in turn would force the Federal Reserve Bank to fight
the
inflationary trend. That in turn would most likely result in a
recession.
A recession which would cause an increase in unemployment.
I see, you're dumber than I gve you credit for. Are you going to belly
ache to me about the run-away inflation that accomplanied the
20-million jobs growth under Clinton?
No, I think that you need a lesson in reading. I said nothing about runaway
inflation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, AthD h.c" |
|
| Title: Re: MI Plants To Lay Off 100. Thank You Bush (No, We REALLY Turned The Corner!!!!) |
20 Aug 2004 12:45:26 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 19:20:41 GMT, "Jerry Okamura"
<okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
"Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in message
news:uh78i01gip240e2blb1dlmp4822m8evan0@4ax.com...
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 17:50:43 GMT, "Jerry Okamura"
<okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
I do not recall the President or any of his minions saying that there
would
be "massive job growth". Can you cite someone who said that?
You morons like AWOL?
"The jobs and growth proposals I've outlined today are a focused plan
to encourage consumer spending, to promote small business growth, to
boost confidence in our markets, and to give critical help to
unemployed citizens."
Nothing in your posted statement says anything about "massive job growth".
Funny, not only have there been no massive jobs growth, there have
been anty serious jobs growth due from Bush's "stimulus" policy.
Besides, why do we keep thinking that a President should push for
"massive"
job growth? "Massive job growth" means that inflation is bound to rear
its
ugly head. That in turn would force the Federal Reserve Bank to fight
the
inflationary trend. That in turn would most likely result in a
recession.
A recession which would cause an increase in unemployment.
I see, you're dumber than I gve you credit for. Are you going to belly
ache to me about the run-away inflation that accomplanied the
20-million jobs growth under Clinton?
No, I think that you need a lesson in reading. I said nothing about runaway
inflation.
Why don't you explain to me how inflation reared its "ugly head" in
reposnse to the 20 million jobs created under Clinton?
Oh, and when are you going to go get Michelle Malkin's "In Defense of
Internment"?
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -952 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wang, AthD h.c." |
|
| Title: On Loathing Bush - It’s not about what he does!!! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!!!!!!! |
20 Aug 2004 01:24:50 AM |
|
|
On Loathing Bush - It’s not about what he does!!! LIBERALS HATE
AMERICA!!!!!!!!
August 13, 2004, 8:13 a.m.
On Loathing Bush
It’s not about what he does.
For now Americans seem to be split 50-50 over the reelection of George
W. Bush. Such a hotly contested election is hardly new. We saw races
just as close in 1960, 1968, and 1976. Had Ross Perot not run in 1992
- and perhaps even in 1996 - Bill Clinton (who didn't receive a 50
percent majority in either of his presidential races) may well have
found himself in the same predicament as Gore did in Florida, 2000 -
struggling to win the Electoral College while losing the popular vote
to George Bush Sr.
There are a number of issues in this contest on which reasonable
people can differ. If one is out of work or without comprehensive
health insurance, then the economy is rocky, to be measured not by
historically low unemployment figures but by the number of actual jobs
lost or gained. For others more fortunate, by any fair measure of
housing, transportation, or consumer goods, the United States has
achieved a standard of living well beyond even that of Europe.
One can argue that the post-bellum reconstruction of Iraq was
unforeseeably messy and fouled-up. Or, one can argue that it's
striking that after a mere three years the United States has liberated
50 million and implemented democratic reform in place of what were the
two most fascistic governments in the world - all without another 9/11
mass murder.
Furthermore, our troubles with Europe can be seen as either provoking
tried and tested friends or lancing a boil that was growing for years
as a result of our different histories, the end of the Cold War, and
the utopianism of the EU. We could all disagree further about
education, illegal immigration, energy policy, taxation, and a host of
other issues.
But what is not explicable in terms of rational disagreement is the
Left's pathological hatred of George W. Bush. It transcends all
contention over the issues, the Democratic hurt over the Florida
elections, and even the animus once shown Bill Clinton by the activist
Right. From where does this near-religious anger arise and what does
it portend?
Let's start with the admission that much of the invective is
irrational, fueled by emotion rather than reason. Thus the black
leadership uses slurs such as "Taliban" and "Confederacy" against
Bush, even though no other president has selected an African-American
secretary of State and national-security adviser or pledged so many
billions for AIDS relief in Africa. Liberals talk of social programs
starved, but domestic spending under Bush increased at annual rates
greater than during any Democratic administration in recent history.
Just read howls of conservatives who worry about Bush's Great
Society-like programs.
On foreign policy, Kerry rips Bush apart - but can't say whether he
would have gone into Afghanistan and Iraq and is unable to specify how
he would have gotten pacifistic Europeans on board. It is common to
caricature Ashcroft as some Seven Days in May insurrectionist, bent on
overthrowing the Constitution; but given the almost daily arrests of
terror suspects in the United States, Kerry cannot tell us how exactly
the Patriot Act has eroded our freedoms, much less why it is
unnecessary in hunting down potential mass murderers.
What is it about Bush that elicits such hatred, that galvanizes even
usually mindless rock stars, self-indulgent Hollywood actors,
lethargic ex-presidents and vice presidents, and hypocritical
Democratic senators to embrace such canonical fury? Why was the Left
content to make fun of Ford's clumsiness, Reagan's forgetfulness, and
George Sr.'s preppiness, but now calls George W. a Nazi and worse
still? Why are there forthcoming novels and plays that discuss the
assassination of George W. Bush? Why did we not get a Reaganwacked, a
Reaganworld, a Lies of Ronald Reagan - a similar vast industry of
paperback pulp equating Reagan with evil incarnate?
THE SOUTHERN ALBATROSS
Bush is a southerner, with a drawl - but not one who is either liberal
or Democratic. We forget just how rare that is.
In fact, we have not seen a twanged president or vice president who
was conservative in over a half-century. The previous rule? A Lyndon
Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Lloyd Bentsen, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, or John
Edwards could serve or run for executive national office only on a
simple triangulating premise - they offered moderate and regional
balance to Yankee liberalism and yet did not in the slightest scare
the rest of the country with images of a redneck South.
Any unrepentant conservatives from the south - former Democrats like a
John Connolly or a Phil Graham - who sought the presidency quickly
faded. Mr. Bush is unusual - an adopted Texan who reflects the
attitudes and beliefs of most Southerners, and who counts on real
political affinity rather than mere regional loyalty for support south
of the Mason-Dixon Line. Nixon-Lodge, Goldwater-Miller, Nixon-Agnew,
Ford-Dole, Reagan-Bush, Bush-Quayle, Dole-Kemp, Bush-Cheney - not a
Southern conservative Republican to be found on any ticket, a trend
that surely keeps Karl Rove's wheels spinning each night.
For the Left, Mr. Bush is automatically under a cloud of suspicion; he
is an unapologetic twanger who likes guns, barbeques, NASCAR, "the
ranch," and pick-up trucks. It matters little that George Bush's
record on classical civil-rights issues is impeccable, without a hint
of the deplorable racism of a younger Senator Byrd, a Lyndon Johnson,
or an Al Gore Sr. Every statement Bush drawls out about religion,
affirmative action, or abortion is forever suspect - sort of what
would happen should a Germanic-sounding Arnold Schwarzenegger quite
rightly lecture Californians about the need for greater order,
efficiency, cohesiveness, and the willpower to regain pride and
purpose. Necessary, yes - but for some, given his accent, Wagnerian
and spooky all the same.
BIBLE THUMPING
Similarly, Bush's Christianity seems evangelical and literal. It comes
across as disturbing to liberals of the country who see religion as a
mere social formality at best, useful for weddings and funerals,
perhaps comforting at Christmas and Easter of course, but otherwise a
potential threat to the full expression of lifestyle "choices."
American politicos like their candidates to be Episcopalian,
Unitarian, or Congregationalist, perhaps even mainstream but quiet
Methodists or Presbyterians. Baptists of the southern flavor, or
anything not found in a New England township, reflect a real belief in
the literalness of the Bible - primordial ideas that religion is not a
social necessity but a fire-and-brimstone path to eternal salvation.
Jimmy Carter came closest to the edge with his talk of being born
again. Yet his liberalism, his close friendship with Walter Mondale,
and his talk of American pathology convinced the Left that he was just
a southern version of a Daniel Berrigan or William Sloan Coffin - a
little weird, perhaps, but useful all the same in drawing the powers
of Christianity into the liberal crusade. In contrast, if Bush evokes
the name of God one one-thousandth as often as did Abraham Lincoln or
Reverend Jackson, he is dismissed as an unhinged zealot eager to
incite a Hundred Years' War with the Muslims.
MR. MANICHEAN
Critics accuse Mr. Bush of Manichaeism - of tough, black-and-white
talk about good and evil. They are right. He certainly sounds
different from the usual suburban moralist, especially in an age of
irony, skepticism, and cynicism. Our era is dominated by pundits,
professors, and journalists to whom hip nuance is everything. The Time
magazine style of reporting starts off with Theme A, then reverses
course half-way through with counterargument B, only to conclude with
Theme A lite.
I like David Letterman and Jon Stewart, but like most Americans I can
never really tell when or whether they are ever sincere. Not long ago
a Frenchman explained to me why he hates Bush, who "thinks linearly"
and has no sense of the "problematique." Face it: We are now an
information society, with a premium on talk, not action. To suggest
that one need not be 100 percent certain - but perhaps only 60 percent
certain - to act is deeply disturbing. And when you add lingo like
"bring 'em on," the caricature that Bush belongs on the main street of
Gunsmoke rather than in Sex in the City or The West Wing is only
strengthened.
Go back to the early 1960s and listen to the accents on shows like
Have Gun Will Travel and GE Playhouse and contrast those characters'
speech with today's television diction: The former are square,
one-dimensional, blunt - almost flat and Midwestern in tone - the
latter speak nasally, their speech drawn out and full of ironic,
sarcastic under-the-breath asides, often striving to reflect
sophisticated uncertainty, if not camp.
We not only have an evangelical Christian as president in the age or
irony, but one who really makes it sound like we have the ability to
make choices that are more right than wrong and then act on them. In a
world in which our elites can give 1,000 reasons for inaction and not
one for resolution, Mr. Bush seems precipitous, unnuanced,
one-dimensional, and oh-so-retro.
RENEGADE ARISTOCRAT
George Bush is a traitor of the most frightening sort to his class: He
is not an ideological tribune like Roosevelt or Kennedy, but someone
far worse, who seems to dislike the entire baggage of sophisticated,
highbrow society. An Eastern blueblood who initially did all the right
things - Prep School, the Ivy league, Skull and Bones - he then,
accent and all, not only went back to rural Texas, but embraced a
popular culture antithetical to the preppie, wonkish, aristocratic
world of the East Coast elite.
So Bush suffers additional invective not accorded his father, whose
cadre of Wall Street stockbrokers, Council on Foreign Relations
pin-stripers, and State Department sober and judicious insiders could
assure the liberal establishment that, well, here was a man like us
who believed in noblesse oblige, sent his kids to our schools, and
simply had a smidgen less compassion for the down-trodden.
But W.? His wife is pure Texas: a closet smoker from a family that
does not have lots of money or status - not a Kennedy or Kerry spouse
replete with loot, connections, and European sophistication. Unlike
Teresa, Hillary, or Tipper, Laura has no angst about her own career;
she doesn't give sermons about super-moaning as wife, mother, and
activist exec. Worse still, Laura Bush is happy, proud, and likes who
and what she is.
We don't hear that the Bush twins are like the Kerry offspring at
Harvard Med, or slashing through Stanford Chelsea-style, or even like
the Gore girls, lecturing the faithful on their father's liberalism.
Somehow the purportedly non-New York Times reading, non-NPR-listening,
non-Guggenheim-visiting George W. Bush veered off onto the wrong path,
and his recalcitrance seems to drive his aristocratic rivals nuts. His
antipathy, after all, is one of choice, not fueled by an outsider's
envy or prior poverty.
"Pushy" neocons - not Shimon Peres groupies - advise him on Israel.
Bush talks to confident black entrepreneurs, not the elite CEOs of the
race industry. He is at home more with ministers in polyester than
with elbow-patched, turtle-necked scholars of religion. So it is not
just what Bush does, but how he does it that matters so much to the
exasperated, out-of-the-loop op-ed boards, Malibu filmmakers, elite
newsrooms, faculty lounges, and foundation panels.
In short, the Left hates George W. Bush for who he is rather than what
he does. Southern conservatism, evangelical Christianity, a
black-and-white worldview, and a wealthy man's disdain for elite
culture - none by itself earns hatred, of course, but each is a force
multiplier of the other and so helps explain the evolution of
disagreement into pathological venom.
September 11 cooled the furor of these aristocratic critics, but Iraq
re-ignited it. Not voting for George Bush is, of course understandable
and millions in fact will do precisely that. But for those haters who
demonize the man, their knee-jerk disgust tells us far more about
their own shallow characters than it does anything about our wartime
president.
And there is a great danger in all these manifestations of pure
hatred. We are in a war. And in these tumultuous days, the Left's
unhinged odium will resonate with and embolden not only our enemies
abroad, but also the deranged, dangerous folk here at home.
----------
Liberals Hate America!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Forbis" |
|
| Title: Re: On Loathing Bush - It?s not about what he does!!! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!!!!!!! |
20 Aug 2004 07:45:15 AM |
|
|
Wang, AthD (h.c.) <wank@D0RK.0RG> wrote in message news:<986bi0144d34nquck77vv7bcdviusfnc3c@4ax.com>...
On Loathing Bush - It?s not about what he does!!! LIBERALS HATE
AMERICA!!!!!!!!
Liberals are America. Conservatives hate America.
Are you part of a right wing conspiracy to use assertion as propiganda?
You are a divider not a uniter. This is the United States of America.
United we stand, divided we fall. If you loved America you would want
it to stand. qed.
Hating dividers show one loves America. Liberals hate dividers. qed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al" |
|
| Title: Re: On Loathing Bush - It?s not about what he does!!! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!!!!!!! |
20 Aug 2004 02:18:33 PM |
|
|
(Gary Forbis) wrote in message news:<5a1238fe.0408200445.4eb40fdd@posting.google.com>...
Wang, AthD (h.c.) <wank@D0RK.0RG> wrote in message news:<986bi0144d34nquck77vv7bcdviusfnc3c@4ax.com>...
On Loathing Bush - It?s not about what he does!!! LIBERALS HATE
AMERICA!!!!!!!!
Liberals are America. Conservatives hate America.
Liberals don't like America the way it is, they want to change it.
That is closer to hate than conservatives who like America the way it
is and don't want it to change.
Are you part of a right wing conspiracy to use assertion as propiganda?
You are a divider not a uniter. This is the United States of America.
United we stand, divided we fall. If you loved America you would want
it to stand. qed.
Hating dividers show one loves America. Liberals hate dividers. qed.
Liberals try to divide the country between rich and poor, white and
minority.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wexford" |
|
| Title: Re: On Loathing Bush - It?s not about what he does!!! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!!!!!!! |
21 Aug 2004 05:12:03 PM |
|
|
(Al) wrote in message news:<3965eb5d.0408201118.3062ee56@posting.google.com>...
forbisgaryg@msn.com (Gary Forbis) wrote in message news:<5a1238fe.0408200445.4eb40fdd@posting.google.com>...
Wang, AthD (h.c.) <wank@D0RK.0RG> wrote in message news:<986bi0144d34nquck77vv7bcdviusfnc3c@4ax.com>...
On Loathing Bush - It?s not about what he does!!! LIBERALS HATE
AMERICA!!!!!!!!
Liberals are America. Conservatives hate America.
Liberals don't like America the way it is, they want to change it.
That is closer to hate than conservatives who like America the way it
is and don't want it to change.
Conservatives like America the way it is? No, they don't. They want to
pollute the waters, dirty the air, move the burden of taxes away from
people who so much wealth they don't know what to do with it (The
president of Microsoft saved $200,000,000 on his dividend payment of
$1 bil because of Repub tax cuts. I guess he really needed that.), set
up the world for outsourcing jobs, be indemnified against the risk of
lawsuit, and erode the Bill of Rights (among other things). That is
not liking America as it is. That is remaking America to suit their
friends and interests.
Are you part of a right wing conspiracy to use assertion as propiganda?
You are a divider not a uniter. This is the United States of America.
United we stand, divided we fall. If you loved America you would want
it to stand. qed.
Uh... I want it to stand. I don't know of Liberal who wants it to
fall. Conservatives want to outsource jobs, and continue the
concentration of wealth among a few. That's pretty divisive.
Hating dividers show one loves America. Liberals hate dividers. qed.
Liberals try to divide the country between rich and poor, white and
minority.
The country IS divided between rich and poor, and among whites,
blacks, asians, latins, native americans, et cetera. Liberals -- since
the founding of the once Liberal Republican party -- have been trying
to break down those divisions and make the county less stratified and
divided. It's conservatives who have fought for segregation and
discrimination.
Wexford
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al" |
|
| Title: Re: On Loathing Bush - It?s not about what he does!!! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!!!!!!! |
22 Aug 2004 04:53:27 PM |
|
|
(Wexford) wrote in message news:<f53a27bf.0408211412.78dd7626@posting.google.com>...
caddyshack_al@my-deja.com (Al) wrote in message news:<3965eb5d.0408201118.3062ee56@posting.google.com>...
forbisgaryg@msn.com (Gary Forbis) wrote in message news:<5a1238fe.0408200445.4eb40fdd@posting.google.com>...
Wang, AthD (h.c.) <wank@D0RK.0RG> wrote in message news:<986bi0144d34nquck77vv7bcdviusfnc3c@4ax.com>...
On Loathing Bush - It?s not about what he does!!! LIBERALS HATE
AMERICA!!!!!!!!
Liberals are America. Conservatives hate America.
Liberals don't like America the way it is, they want to change it.
That is closer to hate than conservatives who like America the way it
is and don't want it to change.
Conservatives like America the way it is? No, they don't. They want to
pollute the waters, dirty the air,
Of course that is not true. Nobody wants to do that.
move the burden of taxes away from
people who so much wealth they don't know what to do with it (The
president of Microsoft saved $200,000,000 on his dividend payment of
$1 bil because of Repub tax cuts.
If true, he still payed more in taxes than you will earn in a
lifetime. Everyone who payed taxes got a tax cut. Those with smaller
incomes got a greater percentage of their taxes back. Bill Gates could
give his tax break back in the government.
Did you know MA on their income tax has just such a provision - you
can pay a higher rate if you like? Kerry chose not to pay the higher
rate. Go figure.
What do you think rich people do with their tax cuts? The put it back
into the economy which creates jobs and wealth for everyone.
I guess he really needed that.), set
up the world for outsourcing jobs,
You are saying that the Republicans are responsible for low wages in
China and India? That's crazy.
be indemnified against the risk of
lawsuit, and erode the Bill of Rights (among other things). That is
not liking America as it is. That is remaking America to suit their
friends and interests.
You should be specific to things that aren't endorsed by Democrats as
well. What are you talking about?
Are you part of a right wing conspiracy to use assertion as propiganda?
You are a divider not a uniter. This is the United States of America.
United we stand, divided we fall. If you loved America you would want
it to stand. qed.
Uh... I want it to stand. I don't know of Liberal who wants it to
fall. Conservatives want to outsource jobs,
This is just stupid. Why would conservatives want to outsource? Labor
is cheaper elsewhere and everyone
and continue the
concentration of wealth among a few. That's pretty divisive.
We have a great tradition of creating new millionaires in this
country. What are you talking about?
Hating dividers show one loves America. Liberals hate dividers. qed.
Liberals try to divide the country between rich and poor, white and
minority.
The country IS divided between rich and poor, and among whites,
blacks, asians, latins, native americans, et cetera. Liberals -- since
the founding of the once Liberal Republican party -- have been trying
to break down those divisions and make the county less stratified and
divided. It's conservatives who have fought for segregation and
discrimination.
When have conservatives fought for segregation and discrimination?
Do you realize that racial quotas divide America?
.
|
|
|
| User: "john grove" |
|
| Title: Re: On Loathing Bush - It?s not about what he does!!! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!!!!!!! |
25 Aug 2004 06:47:52 PM |
|
|
(Al) wrote in message news:<3965eb5d.0408221353.b5ea7e0@posting.google.com>...
wexford1778@yahoo.com (Wexford) wrote in message news:<f53a27bf.0408211412.78dd7626@posting.google.com>...
(Al) wrote in message news:<3965eb5d.0408201118.3062ee56@posting.google.com>...
forbisgaryg@msn.com (Gary Forbis) wrote in message news:<5a1238fe.0408200445.4eb40fdd@posting.google.com>...
Wang, AthD (h.c.) <wank@D0RK.0RG> wrote in message news:<986bi0144d34nquck77vv7bcdviusfnc3c@4ax.com>...
On Loathing Bush - It?s not about what he does!!! LIBERALS HATE
AMERICA!!!!!!!!
Liberals are America. Conservatives hate America.
Liberals don't like America the way it is, they want to change it.
That is closer to hate than conservatives who like America the way it
is and don't want it to change.
Conservatives like America the way it is? No, they don't. They want to
pollute the waters, dirty the air,
Of course that is not true. Nobody wants to do that.
move the burden of taxes away from
people who so much wealth they don't know what to do with it (The
president of Microsoft saved $200,000,000 on his dividend payment of
$1 bil because of Repub tax cuts.
If true, he still payed more in taxes than you will earn in a
lifetime. Everyone who payed taxes got a tax cut. Those with smaller
incomes got a greater percentage of their taxes back. Bill Gates could
give his tax break back in the government.
Did you know MA on their income tax has just such a provision - you
can pay a higher rate if you like? Kerry chose not to pay the higher
rate. Go figure.
What do you think rich people do with their tax cuts? The put it back
into the economy which creates jobs and wealth for everyone.
I guess he really needed that.), set
up the world for outsourcing jobs,
You are saying that the Republicans are responsible for low wages in
China and India? That's crazy.
be indemnified against the risk of
lawsuit, and erode the Bill of Rights (among other things). That is
not liking America as it is. That is remaking America to suit their
friends and interests.
You should be specific to things that aren't endorsed by Democrats as
well. What are you talking about?
Are you part of a right wing conspiracy to use assertion as propiganda?
You are a divider not a uniter. This is the United States of America.
United we stand, divided we fall. If you loved America you would want
it to stand. qed.
Uh... I want it to stand. I don't know of Liberal who wants it to
fall. Conservatives want to outsource jobs,
This is just stupid. Why would conservatives want to outsource? Labor
is cheaper elsewhere and everyone
and continue the
concentration of wealth among a few. That's pretty divisive.
We have a great tradition of creating new millionaires in this
country. What are you talking about?
Hating dividers show one loves America. Liberals hate dividers. qed.
Liberals try to divide the country between rich and poor, white and
minority.
The country IS divided between rich and poor, and among whites,
blacks, asians, latins, native americans, et cetera. Liberals -- since
the founding of the once Liberal Republican party -- have been trying
to break down those divisions and make the county less stratified and
divided. It's conservatives who have fought for segregation and
discrimination.
When have conservatives fought for segregation and discrimination?
Why is it that conservative policies brought millions to demonstrate in the
streets (vietnam, civil rights) and even started a civil war (slavery)?
The shifty hallibuddies have continued to caused street demonstrations during
their term, 2001-2004.
JG
Do you realize that racial quotas divide America?
.
|
|
|
| User: "uncleward" |
|
| Title: RISE in numbers of citizens living in poverty |
26 Aug 2004 04:45:57 PM |
|
|
BUSH TRIES TO HIDE POVERTY NUMBERS
Anticipating the release of devastating new poverty and health care
statistics, the Bush administration today took the extraordinary step
today
of trying to bury the numbers. Specifically, the Administration had
its top
political appointee at the Census Bureau release the numbers a month
earlier
than usual, during the August congressional recess when many reporters
and
Americans take their summer vacations. The rescheduling of the
announcement
also means that the bad numbers will not come out in September
immediately
after the Republican National Convention, when they have traditionally
been
released.
With the President's economic and health care agenda leaving millions
behind, the Associated Press reports, "the statistics today show the
number
of Americans living in poverty increased by 1.3 million last year,
while the
ranks of the uninsured swelled by 1.4 million."[1]
This is not the first time the White House and Republicans have gone
to
great lengths to hide damning information. As CBS News reported,
President
Bush released his military service records late on a Friday night on
the eve
of a three day weekend in order to make sure the story about his poor
attendance was seen by as few people as possible.[2]
In Congress, GOP leaders regularly pass the most controversial bills
in the
middle of the night. Those included bills to slash veterans benefits
and
health/education funding, as well as spending $87 billion on war in
Iraq and
passing the President's Medicare bill.[3]
Sources:
1. "Ranks of Poverty, Uninsured Rose in 2003," The Guardian, 8/26/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2415926&l=52131.
2. "Bush's Records: All In The Timing," CBS News, 2/15/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2415926&l=52132.
3. "Under The Cover Of Darkness," TomPaine.com,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2415926&l=52133.
---------------------------------------------------
"You know I could run for governor but I'm basically
a media creation. I've never done anything. I've worked
for my dad. I worked in the oil business. But that's
not the kind of profile you have to have to get elected
to public office."
George W. Bush, 1989
----------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "jenn" |
|
| Title: Re: On Loathing Bush - It?s not about what he does!!! LIBERALS HATEAMERICA!!!!!!!! |
22 Aug 2004 05:52:46 PM |
|
|
Al wrote:
wexford1778@yahoo.com (Wexford) wrote in message news:<f53a27bf.0408211412.78dd7626@posting.google.com>...
caddyshack_al@my-deja.com (Al) wrote in message news:<3965eb5d.0408201118.3062ee56@posting.google.com>...
forbisgaryg@msn.com (Gary Forbis) wrote in message news:<5a1238fe.0408200445.4eb40fdd@posting.google.com>...
Wang, AthD (h.c.) <wank@D0RK.0RG> wrote in message news:<986bi0144d34nquck77vv7bcdviusfnc3c@4ax.com>...
On Loathing Bush - It?s not about what he does!!! LIBERALS HATE
AMERICA!!!!!!!!
Liberals are America. Conservatives hate America.
Liberals don't like America the way it is, they want to change it.
That is closer to hate than conservatives who like America the way it
is and don't want it to change.
Conservatives like America the way it is? No, they don't. They want to
pollute the waters, dirty the air,
Of course that is not true. Nobody wants to do that.
LOL THAT is the GOP agenda -- under bush once again they are shearing
off mountains in kentucky and then dumping the trash into streams --
under bush they are once again sending snowmobiles through Yellowstone
-- under bush they are clearcutting forrests and building roads into
wilderness areas to make it easier to clearcut the last of the old
growth timber -- timber that it takes 250+ years to grow. under bush
the government is refusing to release safety data on product defects in
order to make it easier for businesses to sell defective products ---
they don't care about the future -- they are the most selfish and least
conservative group of leaders in our nation's history AND they have
totally failed in their international leadership against terrorism and
in security our ports, chemical plants etc against terror strikes.
no wonder they want to attack Kerry's war record -- they have no
accomplishments to point to
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: On Loathing Bush - It?s not about what he does!!! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!!!!!!! |
20 Aug 2004 01:05:25 PM |
|
|
In article <3965eb5d.0408201118.3062ee56@posting.google.com>,
(Al) wrote:
forbisgaryg@msn.com (Gary Forbis) wrote in message
news:<5a1238fe.0408200445.4eb40fdd@posting.google.com>...
Wang, AthD (h.c.) <wank@D0RK.0RG> wrote in message
news:<986bi0144d34nquck77vv7bcdviusfnc3c@4ax.com>...
On Loathing Bush - It?s not about what he does!!! LIBERALS HATE
AMERICA!!!!!!!!
Liberals are America. Conservatives hate America.
Liberals don't like America the way it is, they want to change it.
That is closer to hate than conservatives who like America the way it
is and don't want it to change.
Yeah, liberals got rid of slavery and segregation. So you're saying the
conservatives who wanted to keep both of these loved America more? Looney
tunes!
Are you part of a right wing conspiracy to use assertion as propiganda?
You are a divider not a uniter. This is the United States of America.
United we stand, divided we fall. If you loved America you would want
it to stand. qed.
Hating dividers show one loves America. Liberals hate dividers. qed.
Liberals try to divide the country between rich and poor, white and
minority.
Bush has already accomplished that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al" |
|
| Title: Re: On Loathing Bush - It?s not about what he does!!! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!!!!!!! |
20 Aug 2004 11:25:47 PM |
|
|
(Lloyd Parker) wrote in message news:<cg5sh5$l06$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>...
In article <3965eb5d.0408201118.3062ee56@posting.google.com>,
caddyshack_al@my-deja.com (Al) wrote:
forbisgaryg@msn.com (Gary Forbis) wrote in message
news:<5a1238fe.0408200445.4eb40fdd@posting.google.com>...
Wang, AthD (h.c.) <wank@D0RK.0RG> wrote in message
news:<986bi0144d34nquck77vv7bcdviusfnc3c@4ax.com>...
On Loathing Bush - It?s not about what he does!!! LIBERALS HATE
AMERICA!!!!!!!!
Liberals are America. Conservatives hate America.
Liberals don't like America the way it is, they want to change it.
That is closer to hate than conservatives who like America the way it
is and don't want it to change.
Yeah, liberals got rid of slavery and segregation.
Lincoln was a Republican and it was the Republicans that passed the
equal rights bill of 1964.
So you're saying the
conservatives who wanted to keep both of these loved America more? Looney
tunes!
Southern Democrats in both cases.
Are you part of a right wing conspiracy to use assertion as propiganda?
You are a divider not a uniter. This is the United States of America.
United we stand, divided we fall. If you loved America you would want
it to stand. qed.
Hating dividers show one loves America. Liberals hate dividers. qed.
Liberals try to divide the country between rich and poor, white and
minority.
Bush has already accomplished that.
How did he do that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Forbis" |
|
| Title: Re: On Loathing Bush - It?s not about what he does!!! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!!!!!!! |
21 Aug 2004 07:55:19 AM |
|
|
(Al) wrote in message news:<3965eb5d.0408202025.2efa9c5c@posting.google.com>...
lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote in message news:<cg5sh5$l06$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>...
In article <3965eb5d.0408201118.3062ee56@posting.google.com>,
(Al) wrote:
forbisgaryg@msn.com (Gary Forbis) wrote in message
news:<5a1238fe.0408200445.4eb40fdd@posting.google.com>...
Wang, AthD (h.c.) <wank@D0RK.0RG> wrote in message
news:<986bi0144d34nquck77vv7bcdviusfnc3c@4ax.com>...
On Loathing Bush - It?s not about what he does!!! LIBERALS HATE
AMERICA!!!!!!!!
Liberals are America. Conservatives hate America.
Liberals don't like America the way it is, they want to change it.
That is closer to hate than conservatives who like America the way it
is and don't want it to change.
Yeah, liberals got rid of slavery and segregation.
Lincoln was a Republican and it was the Republicans that passed the
equal rights bill of 1964.
Conservative and Republican didn't always go together.
I'm a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. I was Republican until
Reagan became president then switched to being a Democrat. (I vote
Democrat most of the time but I'm really independent. I attended a
few cacuses but they turn my stomach.)
When I was in Boy Scouts I was going for my God and Country award then
my father was transfered from Wichita to Seattle. Seattle was an
eye opener. I realized just how bigotted I was. I still tithed to
the the church as my disallusionment grew and even continued to do so,
by mail, for about four years after I quit attending. Gaining my
moral compass was hard.
Until Pat Robertson decided the Republicans were a failed party he
could take over Republicans were fiscal conservatives and social
liberals unlike the Democrats who were loose with other people's
money and bigotted. It was during this time the south switched
from solid Democratic, in response to Lincoln's actions, to Republican.
So you're saying the
conservatives who wanted to keep both of these loved America more? Looney
tunes!
Southern Democrats in both cases.
Yes, Sothern Democrats are known to be conservatives.
Are you part of a right wing conspiracy to use assertion as propiganda?
You are a divider not a uniter. This is the United States of America.
United we stand, divided we fall. If you loved America you would want
it to stand. qed.
Hating dividers show one loves America. Liberals hate dividers. qed.
Liberals try to divide the country between rich and poor, white and
minority.
Not real liberals.
There is a sense in which liberals, loving liberty, see how our economic
system favors one group over another and want to maximize liberty for
all. The economic system is a social contruct so it can be modified
as a social construct. There's nothing wrong with correcting for
favoritism created by the power elite. None the less, wacko things
done under the banner of "liberal", such as trying to have a tax on
brewed coffee to pay for child care, are just stealing and are effective
towards neither mitigating an economic wrong nor expanding responsible
liberty.
Bush has already accomplished that.
How did he do that?
By promoting policies favoring one group over another. This heightens
the sense of deservedness on the part of those favored and resentment
from those coming out on the short end.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: On Loathing Bush - It?s not about what he does!!! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!!!!!!! |
21 Aug 2004 05:35:41 AM |
|
|
In article <3965eb5d.0408202025.2efa9c5c@posting.google.com>,
(Al) wrote:
lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote in message
news:<cg5sh5$l06$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>...
In article <3965eb5d.0408201118.3062ee56@posting.google.com>,
(Al) wrote:
forbisgaryg@msn.com (Gary Forbis) wrote in message
news:<5a1238fe.0408200445.4eb40fdd@posting.google.com>...
Wang, AthD (h.c.) <wank@D0RK.0RG> wrote in message
news:<986bi0144d34nquck77vv7bcdviusfnc3c@4ax.com>...
On Loathing Bush - It?s not about what he does!!! LIBERALS HATE
AMERICA!!!!!!!!
Liberals are America. Conservatives hate America.
Liberals don't like America the way it is, they want to change it.
That is closer to hate than conservatives who like America the way it
is and don't want it to change.
Yeah, liberals got rid of slavery and segregation.
Lincoln was a Republican and it was the Republicans that passed the
equal rights bill of 1964.
Wrong. And the Republican party of today bears as much relation to that of
Lincoln (or even TR) that it might as well have a new name.
So you're saying the
conservatives who wanted to keep both of these loved America more? Looney
tunes!
Southern Democrats in both cases.
Many of whom switched to the Republican party right after (Thurmond, for
example).
Are you part of a right wing conspiracy to use assertion as propiganda?
You are a divider not a uniter. This is the United States of America.
United we stand, divided we fall. If you loved America you would want
it to stand. qed.
Hating dividers show one loves America. Liberals hate dividers. qed.
Liberals try to divide the country between rich and poor, white and
minority.
Bush has already accomplished that.
How did he do that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al" |
|
| Title: Re: On Loathing Bush - It?s not about what he does!!! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!!!!!!! |
22 Aug 2004 04:36:29 PM |
|
|
(Lloyd Parker) wrote in message news:<cg7mhs$n1l$15@puck.cc.emory.edu>...
In article <3965eb5d.0408202025.2efa9c5c@posting.google.com>,
caddyshack_al@my-deja.com (Al) wrote:
(Lloyd Parker) wrote in message
news:<cg5sh5$l06$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>...
In article <3965eb5d.0408201118.3062ee56@posting.google.com>,
caddyshack_al@my-deja.com (Al) wrote:
forbisgaryg@msn.com (Gary Forbis) wrote in message
news:<5a1238fe.0408200445.4eb40fdd@posting.google.com>...
Wang, AthD (h.c.) <wank@D0RK.0RG> wrote in message
news:<986bi0144d34nquck77vv7bcdviusfnc3c@4ax.com>...
On Loathing Bush - It?s not about what he does!!! LIBERALS HATE
AMERICA!!!!!!!!
Liberals are America. Conservatives hate America.
Liberals don't like America the way it is, they want to change it.
That is closer to hate than conservatives who like America the way it
is and don't want it to change.
Yeah, liberals got rid of slavery and segregation.
Lincoln was a Republican and it was the Republicans that passed the
equal rights bill of 1964.
Wrong. And the Republican party of today bears as much relation to that of
Lincoln (or even TR) that it might as well have a new name.
Could you list some of the major differences between modern and 19th
century Republicans? Thanks.
So you're saying the
conservatives who wanted to keep both of these loved America more? Looney
tunes!
Southern Democrats in both cases.
Many of whom switched to the Republican party right after (Thurmond, for
example).
And many stayed (Robert Byrd); so what?
Are you part of a right wing conspiracy to use assertion as propiganda?
You are a divider not a uniter. This is the United States of America.
United we stand, divided we fall. If you loved America you would want
it to stand. qed.
Hating dividers show one loves America. Liberals hate dividers. qed.
Liberals try to divide the country between rich and poor, white and
minority.
Bush has already accomplished that.
How did he do that?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rumpelstiltskin" |
|
| Title: Re: On Loathing Bush - It?s not about what he does!!! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!!!!!!! |
21 Aug 2004 04:32:56 AM |
|
|
On 20 Aug 2004 21:25:47 -0700, (Al) wrote:
lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote in message news:<cg5sh5$l06$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>...
In article <3965eb5d.0408201118.3062ee56@posting.google.com>,
(Al) wrote:
forbisgaryg@msn.com (Gary Forbis) wrote in message
news:<5a1238fe.0408200445.4eb40fdd@posting.google.com>...
Wang, AthD (h.c.) <wank@D0RK.0RG> wrote in message
news:<986bi0144d34nquck77vv7bcdviusfnc3c@4ax.com>...
On Loathing Bush - It?s not about what he does!!! LIBERALS HATE
AMERICA!!!!!!!!
Liberals are America. Conservatives hate America.
Liberals don't like America the way it is, they want to change it.
That is closer to hate than conservatives who like America the way it
is and don't want it to change.
Yeah, liberals got rid of slavery and segregation.
Lincoln was a Republican and it was the Republicans that passed the
equal rights bill of 1964.
The Republican party was then 180 degrees away from where
it is now.
So you're saying the
conservatives who wanted to keep both of these loved America more? Looney
tunes!
Southern Democrats in both cases.
Southern Democrats of the old school were never modern
Democrats. They just remained Democrats in name and in
uneasy alliance for a while after the parties changed character,
because of their hatred of Lincoln. The Democratic party is
spiritually better off now without them, IMV.
Are you part of a right wing conspiracy to use assertion as propiganda?
You are a divider not a uniter. This is the United States of America.
United we stand, divided we fall. If you loved America you would want
it to stand. qed.
Hating dividers show one loves America. Liberals hate dividers. qed.
Liberals try to divide the country between rich and poor, white and
minority.
Bush has already accomplished that.
How did he do that?
Weren't you watching?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al" |
|
| Title: Re: On Loathing Bush - It?s not about what he does!!! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!!!!!!! |
21 Aug 2004 02:42:25 PM |
|
|
Rumpelstiltskin <PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@nowhere.net> wrote in message news:<b73ei0hrt6g3pd876os1m9m7ndo8qj5pcr@4ax.com>...
On 20 Aug 2004 21:25:47 -0700, (Al) wrote:
lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote in message news:<cg5sh5$l06$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>...
In article <3965eb5d.0408201118.3062ee56@posting.google.com>,
(Al) wrote:
forbisgaryg@msn.com (Gary Forbis) wrote in message
news:<5a1238fe.0408200445.4eb40fdd@posting.google.com>...
Wang, AthD (h.c.) <wank@D0RK.0RG> wrote in message
news:<986bi0144d34nquck77vv7bcdviusfnc3c@4ax.com>...
On Loathing Bush - It?s not about what he does!!! LIBERALS HATE
AMERICA!!!!!!!!
Liberals are America. Conservatives hate America.
Liberals don't like America the way it is, they want to change it.
That is closer to hate than conservatives who like America the way it
is and don't want it to change.
Yeah, liberals got rid of slavery and segregation.
Lincoln was a Republican and it was the Republicans that passed the
equal rights bill of 1964.
The Republican party was then 180 degrees away from where
it is now.
How so?They advocated equal rights for everyone. The Democrats wanted
affirmative action for whites back then, now they want affirmative
action for blacks.
So you're saying the
conservatives who wanted to keep both of these loved America more? Looney
tunes!
Southern Democrats in both cases.
Southern Democrats of the old school were never modern
Democrats. They just remained Democrats in name and in
uneasy alliance for a while after the parties changed character,
because of their hatred of Lincoln. The Democratic party is
spiritually better off now without them, IMV.
They were, like they are now, the political opponents of the
Republicans.
Are you part of a right wing conspiracy to use assertion as propiganda?
You are a divider not a uniter. This is the United States of America.
United we stand, divided we fall. If you loved America you would want
it to stand. qed.
Hating dividers show one loves America. Liberals hate dividers. qed.
Liberals try to divide the country between rich and poor, white and
minority.
Bush has already accomplished that.
How did he do that?
Weren't you watching?
Yes. It's been the Democrats who've been crying, "Tax breaks for the
rich!" even though the rich still pay the lion's share and after
Bush's tax cuts many people don't pay taxes at all.
It's the Democrats that advocate affirmative action based on skin
color.
What I said stands and you did not refute that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rumpelstiltskin" |
|
| Title: Re: On Loathing Bush - It?s not about what he does!!! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!!!!!!! |
21 Aug 2004 07:51:00 PM |
|
|
On 21 Aug 2004 12:42:25 -0700, (Al) wrote:
Rumpelstiltskin <PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@nowhere.net> wrote in message news:<b73ei0hrt6g3pd876os1m9m7ndo8qj5pcr@4ax.com>...
On 20 Aug 2004 21:25:47 -0700, (Al) wrote:
lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote in message news:<cg5sh5$l06$2@puck.cc.emory.edu>...
In article <3965eb5d.0408201118.3062ee56@posting.google.com>,
(Al) wrote:
forbisgaryg@msn.com (Gary Forbis) wrote in message
news:<5a1238fe.0408200445.4eb40fdd@posting.google.com>...
Wang, AthD (h.c.) <wank@D0RK.0RG> wrote in message
news:<986bi0144d34nquck77vv7bcdviusfnc3c@4ax.com>...
On Loathing Bush - It?s not about what he does!!! LIBERALS HATE
AMERICA!!!!!!!!
Liberals are America. Conservatives hate America.
Liberals don't like America the way it is, they want to change it.
That is closer to hate than conservatives who like America the way it
is and don't want it to change.
Yeah, liberals got rid of slavery and segregation.
Lincoln was a Republican and it was the Republicans that passed the
equal rights bill of 1964.
The Republican party was then 180 degrees away from where
it is now.
How so?They advocated equal rights for everyone. The Democrats wanted
affirmative action for whites back then, now they want affirmative
action for blacks.
We might well agree on some aspects, but because of
how you've packaged things together right from the start,
I don't see any point to discussing it.
So you're saying the
conservatives who wanted to keep both of these loved America more? Looney
tunes!
Southern Democrats in both cases.
Southern Democrats of the old school were never modern
Democrats. They just remained Democrats in name and in
uneasy alliance for a while after the parties changed character,
because of their hatred of Lincoln. The Democratic party is
spiritually better off now without them, IMV.
They were, like they are now, the political opponents of the
Republicans.
The Mujahadeen were the political allies of the USA when
the Soviet Union was in Afghanistan. Then they became our
enemies when they were renamed theTaliban and gave
sanctuary to bin Laden. (Yes, I know it's not a 100% matchup
between the Mujahadeen and the Taliban, just a 95% matchup.)
The alliance of Southern Democrats with the rest of Democrats
strikes me as the same kind of alliance as the Mujahadeen with
the USA, one based on momentary convenience rather that
any real common philosophy.
Are you part of a right wing conspiracy to use assertion as propiganda?
You are a divider not a uniter. This is the United States of America.
United we stand, divided we fall. If you loved America you would want
it to stand. qed.
Hating dividers show one loves America. Liberals hate dividers. qed.
Liberals try to divide the country between rich and poor, white and
minority.
Bush has already accomplished that.
How did he do that?
Weren't you watching?
Yes. It's been the Democrats who've been crying, "Tax breaks for the
rich!" even though the rich still pay the lion's share and after
Bush's tax cuts many people don't pay taxes at all.
It's the Democrats that advocate affirmative action based on skin
color.
What I said stands and you did not refute that.
I'm sure nothing I could say could change your mind.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | |
