Slashdot Mirror

You have no idea what you are talking about. Under Clinton the federal government shrank by 30% and more than 250,000 jobs, while the private sector added 20,000,000 new jobs. PNAC is just another hare-brained think tank. One "liberal" answer would be this. But there are others.

and gee, I can't think of why that might be. Go here, about halfway down, to read up on poverty. Or, go here to read up on poverty and access to food.

Oh wait, I remember now how to deal with professional trolling organizations...

My hat's off to the MySpace users for thier democratic approach. Sometimes it works, Note to selves though, MURDOCH=FOX=FNC=Very Large Corp=Very Right Republican. Not always the best friend to the youth and their movements.

Easy to keep an eye on things when all on your servers it is.

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJR J8OVF&b=122948
Who is Rupert Murdoch?

How one right-wing billionaire uses his business and media empire to pursue a partisan agenda at the expense of democracy.

"the people will revolt within ten years."

I doubt it. Plenty of Americans have a brain but they tend to be brushed asided as extremists. Half the public is so programmed by now they trip over themselves to salute the flag and the military like the old Soviet May day military parades. (a sure sign of individualists and people concerned peace)

Americas view of freedom and human rights has become too distorted by TV mega-corps by now (like Rupert's ironfist control of Fox that forced all 170+ of his outlets to support the war in Iraq.).

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJR J8OVF&b=122948

  Some Americans are so naive they still think they are "freeing" Iraq--- when the Iraqi people themselves view them as an occupation force and the Neocons blantantly admit they are trying to export America.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4369350.stm
http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101 .html

Americans aren't the Nazis, but if you add up all the wars they've actively pursued and tens of million of people they've killed in the past 100 years for THEIR national security--they sure ain't the Swiss or Canadians nor can they remotely claim they are altruistic. Many of them view new age thought processes like Objectivism and libeterianism as something new-- when in fact it is very very old thinking that has caused countless wars and threatens our annihilation as a species.

If one is selfish... sure you can end up with lots of stuff-- when the people around you aren't as aggressive. When EVERYONE is selfish though--you end up with with a phenomena called EVIL. People (not just Americans) clearly mistake power for morality... and the ability to speak-- for the ability to effect change.

It's not even just America anymore. A good chunk of the world has been seduced into being easily manipulated shop-bots that just can't see they are actually economic slaves to a handful of related megacorps and venture capitalists.

  There I said it.

No. I don't wish for the Soviet Union but nor do I wish to exchange one set of masters for another. I also don't wish to turn this earth into a wasteland of mostly useless junk that will cause countless animal species to become extinct. Let's hope intelligent life out there doesn't treat us with the same regard.

OK I've said my peace. The spooks logged my IP and the data is a black mark in my file. I've been marked as a target for potential assasination or slander.

Freedom. Yeah right.

--------
"Agreed. Now find me a "time of need" in this situation. All I see is a bunch of member countries who want control of the toys, and have no clear direction on why or how they need them."
--------

    Unfortunately they have extremely clear national security reasons to take it out of US hands since it seems the US has moved in the direction of unilateralism. cough cough Iraq cough.

--------
"we're censured as being an "empire builders" or "warmongerers". Isn't it nice that so many countries can tell us what to do while they sit on their high horses?""
--------

      "empire builders" or "warmongerers". The US? Never. Cough Neocon philosophy, cough cough Ummm. Do Americans actually read the details of what GB conservatives support? I would suggest you turn off Rupert Murdock's mindnumbing propaganda machine and start here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_in_th e_United_States

(Here's Rupert's real opinions)
http://www.weeklystandard.com/default.asp
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJR J8OVF&b=122948

--------
"Again, the US doesn't "control" the internet. ICANN does. Check the first letter there: International"
--------

      If the Internet was completely internationalized this thread would be a non-issue. Apparently you found something important enough to bring out your flag and undermine the UN. True the UN ain't perfect (even Democratic values aren't) but here is a history lesson for you before you continue to shoot your own interests in the foot.

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

--------
"Because you may be surprised at what you find in the history of the internet's invention."
--------

      True Darpa got the ball rolling but it was a tiny propriatary network until the World Wide Web fixed things up. Berners Lee I seem to recall.

Anyhow I'm not really trying to put down the US here (you guys do lots of great stuff too). More like ignorant idiotic nationalistic flag waving (too much of that going on in the world already).

The rest of us (You know the other 5 billion or so that inhabit the rest of the world) will accept you warmly if you stop being a dick and put down your flag, fighting words and most importantly your tanks. Otherwise unfortunately balance of power theory suggests the world will engage in rearming itself to protect itself against aggressive expansionist interests (regardless the nation).

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

    Do you realy want to create another cold war--this time with America against the rest of the world? My suggestion is that continuing to gamble on unilateralism in a world of nukes is very risky. It seems more advisably and more profitable to join the rest of the human race as partners.

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

Today, the Census Bureau reported that 45 million Americans lacked health insurance in 2003, up by 1.4 million from 2002 and 5.2 million from 2000. The report states that this increase is "statistically significant." *

The United States needs to get its priorities straight. If we were not spending $177,000,000 per day on the war in Iraq, maybe we'd have a few billion dollars in spare change to do something that would:

a) inspire people to strive for a *better* world

b) provide technological benefits for the future

We can't spend all this money on the war *and* spend it on useful things (though with Bush's accounting methods, we might be able to swing it).

Check this out. One of my profs put together this timeline of the history of the arms race with the Center for American Progress. It's an interesting perspective, from the west.

Nope. The only reason why the switch hasn't occurred is because ethanol costs too much. We live in a market-based economy. If we had to spend 5 times as much energy to make the ethanol as it contained, but we got that energy from on-site ag-waste burning and managed to produce $1.50-per-gallon ethanol, people would flock to it.

Wholesale or retail? According to this data, Ethanol prices will reach about $1.80/gal by December. Unfortunately, Ethanol has not been widely tracked or promoted, so there's a LOT of inefficiency that's keeping the price up. If the market started demanding ethanol, the price equation would probably change considerably.

Truth be told, we *need* to get on it. The only thing holding down the price of gasoline (~$60/barrel and ~$2.30/gal retail!) is the constant the lowering of the dollar value. That's not something the US Economy can expect to maintain indefinitely without worldwide reprocussions.

By the way, all of the papers against ethanol were authored or coauthored by the same person: Pimental. He just keeps hashing his old, widely criticized as inaccurate data, and repeating the same calculations with it.

Nice. So the question is, why does anyone believe this guy? While it's tempting to point at big oil, it's not like they're not feeling the economic squeeze as well. Any thoughts?

According to the Center for American Progress, most corporations (60%) don't even pay income tax. [Source

Try again?

Also, one other note, there is a interesting paper on this "Protecting Privacy in the Digital Age." It's a pretty good read.

I just went to a very interesting panel discussion about just this very subject, hosted by hosted by the Center for American Progress (http://www.americanprogress.org). It featured some very insightful comments from the very knowledgeable James X. Dempsey of the Center for Democracy and Technology.

Video transcripts are also available (here)

I just went to a very interesting panel discussion about just this very subject, hosted by hosted by the Center for American Progress (http://www.americanprogress.org). It featured some very insightful comments from the very knowledgeable James X. Dempsey of the Center for Democracy and Technology.

Video transcripts are also available (here)

I just went to a very interesting panel discussion about just this very subject, hosted by hosted by the Center for American Progress (http://www.americanprogress.org). It featured some very insightful comments from the very knowledgeable James X. Dempsey of the Center for Democracy and Technology.

Video transcripts are also available (here)

You can help.

MoveOn.org donation page

MediaMatters donation page

Center for American Progress donation page

American Civil Liberties Union donation page

If your going to compete with the likes of Rush, Hannity, and the right you need to deliver facts and keep the slant off. Do not copy unless your doing so out of sincere flattery for someone else's job well done. Lastly do not EVER go off on a tirade that borders on a political stump speech.

Sean Hannity quotes about the war in Kosovo that sound exactly like the sort of quotes about the War in Iraq that he criticises as Unamerican.

The Center for American Progress creates a list of on-air lies by Sean Hannity in response to being challenged someone to "defend and explain one example where I -- where I said something that was so false." (Points 5 & 13 are the weakest IMHO.)

Sean Hannity suggested early in the Abu Ghraib scandal that photos of the torture of prisoners were a DNC plot. (Note that this post tried to defend the infamous CBS memos before they were verified to be false.)

Rush Limbaugh defends Abu Ghraib torturers as boys performing harmless pranks and blowing off steam.

Limbaugh spins an article about advances in medical technology as disappointment in the low levels of fatalities in the war by the anti-war camp to our troops while in Iraq.

Looks like pretty solid evidence to me. If the quotes or the conclusions are wrong for some reason I'd really like to know where.

*But* I don't think any of the lies go beyond what you could still call "political truth" i.e. selective memory etc. I wouldn't fire/put her on trial for that more for incompetence in letting 9/11 happen (doesn't mean a Gore administration would have prevented it but the Bush guys certainly didn't help)

Um, Osama got away with his attack in spite of any spying we were doing on him because when the president was notified of the threat he did nothing. Bush ignoring the August 6, 2001 Daily Briefing (more than a month before the attack) is one of the most ghastly mistakes in American history.

Anyways, postulating that threats make secrets necessary is just fearmongering. It also doesn't explain why Dick Cheney still refuses to release the energy task force records. Nor does it account for the long list of information Bush is withholding from the American electorate.

If you're going to compare to the EU, let's go all the way. The EU has a declining birthrate and a large number of people on the verge of retirement. Their socialist systems will implode under their own weight.

The same is being said about our Social Security system, which btw, is the largest socialist program that is not identified as a socialist program. Socialism in the US?! Never!!

Let's also mention military might. The EU spends about $0.35/year on their military budget, and that's why when some asshole in Absurdistan starts massacring people, the EU sends a platoon of potato peelers and the US sends 20 battallions of armed and trained Marines.

I'd rather we followed the prime directive. We don't. But despite spending almost as much as the rest of the world does on military, we don't have a stellar record of policing the world.

I don't remember any of our marines showing up when Pol Pot butchered a million (give or take a few hundred thousand) Cambodians. Or when Idi Amin "Dada" wiped out half a million of his subjects. Where exactly where our marines when Juvénal Habyarimana was waging a genocidal war against the Tutsis? (Of course, after his death another 800,000 were slaughtered, so can't directly credit him with every death.) BTW, it was the French who stepped in to bring a fragile "peace" (a little too late for all the dead), but our marines were quite conspicuous by their absence during all this turmoil. Did our marines show up when Augusto Pinochet was busy imprisoning, torturing and executing 30,000 Chileans?

So yes, we send our Marines only to the Absurdistans that happen to have oil. See how our marines took care of the "Butcher of Baghdad"; but let us not dampen our euphoria by also mentioning the 17,500 to 100,000 we have managed to wipe out in the process of deposing Saddam Hussein.

BTW, it is not as if the EU is stingy when it comes to spending money on their military. France, Germany, the UK, and Italy are 4 of the top 7 countries when it comes to the military expenditures. France, Norway, Greece, UK, Sweden, Germany, Denmark, Netherlands, Italy, Switzerland, Finland, all make it to the top 25 Military Expenditures per capita.

The EU socialist-lite system works because it depends on the charity of the American military.

For all the money we are pouring into the military complex, we'd better believe that we are doing it for charity, or we'll have to start asking some really disturbing questions. The EU may or may not collapse under the weight of their socialist systems. But one thing is certain - if current levels of military expenditures continue and 'boomers start to retire in 2010, then by 2015 the US budget will have little else to spend on other than the Defence, Soc. Sec, and medicare. No wriggle room.

By 2025 the proverbial shit will hit the fan. Don't take my or anyone else's word for it (such as the NYTimes, WashingtonPost or for that matter

This entire discussion is off-topic, including the post to which I replied.

But before calling people morons, you should read their posts and find out what they really say, not what you think they say. You seem to have completely misread what I wrote. I wrote about morons who blindly write about stuff they do not understand. I did not write about enocomy.

By the way, the answer you give to my question is wrong. It's the Americans who are paying more. I wasn't thinking of government taxation on individual people buying gasoline, but on a larger scale. The oil price is expressed in dollars and the diminishing value of the dollar is, for the European economies, a compensation for rising oil prices. See also this definitely non-european site. Until such time as the OPEC gets it and swithces to using euros as their reference, obviously, but so far it ain't happening yet. (See, NOW I wrote something about enonomy.)

Well, I said it was ONE of the reasons.

Take a look there, you'll see that that makes sense. They have a nice chart showing the correlation between oil prices rising and the dollar falling. Interesting.

The Congressional GAO reported these stats; the "Chamber of Commerce" denied them, but that denial is wrong in the face of the GAO report. I know about capital gains because that's how I pay my own taxes - the rate on capital gains, when not deferred (401k-style) is extremely low. It's one reason I prefer to be paid in equity rather than cash. But that doesn't mean I want the country to work that way - even if I'm not a martyr.

What a fucking baby. You are completely clueless if all you have to say about Bush is that you are irked about the Patriot Act.

How about making us less safe?
How about repealing environmental laws that protect all of us?
How about blurring the line between church and state?
What about lying about Iraq?
What about giving a huge tax break to the richest americans?
There are so many other things.

If all you can do is whine about being bothered by ads... fuck! You deserve the miserable piece of shit this country will become if we continue to have leaders like GWB.

Sometimes you need to vote against someone. Stop obsessing on Kerry and obsess on Bush.

You see, this statement:
If your best information indicated that a enemy has WMD...
Is just not true.
The POTUS used tailored information, not the best information. He only wanted to hear that they had WMD so that is the only information that made its way to his tiny little redneck wanna-be brain.
There were many in the CIA and other agencies (like the WEAPONS INSPECTORS, that were there)that informed him that there were no WMDs.
This may have not been a hard fact at the time, but W didn't even give them the chance before he launched his attack.
We know the facts now, and ..your best information... was just plian wrong.
Face it, we were lied to, so the POTUS could make his buddies at Halliburton even filthier in richness.

Regarding this:
I think he's been at best a mediocre president
and
Bush may promise things you don't like or want but he at least attempts to keep them and stick to them baring new information.

Please read these: here

Tell me, there is new information coming in all the time and this guy has stuck to his guns, even though that path has been wrong all along. [not enough troops, and the ones that were there weren't properly equipped, and they still arent] Where has it gotten us? 1100+ Americans dead, 7000+ wounded, hundreds of tons of missing explosives that he was warned about and decided not to guard, 10s of thousands ot innocent Iraqis dead, massive job losses, health care increases, poverty stricken increases, environmental failures.. the list goes on.
Here are some more

How can you say he is mediocre? There has never been a more pathetic display of what to do as POTUS in the entire history of there being a POTUS.
You are severely deluding yourself.
As far as Kerry is concerned, I guarantee he has a better grasp of things than W does. My dog has a better grasp than W. Kerry is intelligent and brave and has led men into real combat. Can W claim any of this? Can Cheney? Oh, they could, but like usual, they would be lying.

How can you claim empty promises when he hasn't had a chance to excute?
I am disgusted by the belief that W has been anything but a complete failure as POTUS, just like everything else in his life. He was handed a great job and he flushed it and everything surrounding it right down the sh1tter. Even when the entire world was for the USA after 9/11, he has managed to squander any good feeling towards us throughout the entire planet.
The republican and conservative world needs to face reality and give up on their Unholy Messiah.

...and some kind of "proof" that Bush is evil incarnate!
How about 101 reasons?
Here!

Or one big one:
Here

Actions speak pretty loudly.

100 Facts and 1 Opinion

by JUDD LEGUM

[from the November 8, 2004 issue]

Click here to download, circulate and distribute a PDF version of this article.

IRAQ

1. The Bush Administration has spent more than $140 billion on a war of choice in Iraq.

Source: American Progress

2. The Bush Administration sent troops into battle without adequate body armor or armored Humvees.

Sources: Fox News, The Boston Globe

3. The Bush Administration ignored estimates from Gen. Eric Shinseki that several hundred thousand troops would be required to secure Iraq.

Source: PBS

4. Vice President Cheney said Americans "will, in fact, be greeted as liberators" in Iraq.

Source: The Washington Post

5. During the Bush Administration's war in Iraq, more than 1,000 US troops have lost their lives and more than 7,000 have been injured.

Source: globalsecurity.org

6. In May 2003, President Bush landed on an aircraft carrier in a flight suit, stood under a banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished," and triumphantly announced that major combat operations were over in Iraq. Asked if he had any regrets about the stunt, Bush said he would do it all over again.

Source: Yahoo News

7. Vice President Cheney said that Iraq was "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11." The bipartisan 9/11 Commission found that Iraq had no involvement in the 9/11 attacks and no collaborative operational relationship with Al Qaeda.

Source: MSNBC , 9-11 Commission

8. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said that high-strength aluminum tubes acquired by Iraq were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," warning "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." The government's top nuclear scientists had told the Administration the tubes were "too narrow, too heavy, too long" to be of use in developing nuclear weapons and could be used for other purposes.

Source: New York Times

9. The Bush Administration has spent just $1.1 billion of the $18.4 billion Congress approved for Iraqi reconstruction.

Source: USA Today

10. According to the Administration's handpicked weapon's inspector, Charles Duelfer, there is "no evidence that Hussein had passed illicit weapons material to al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations, or had any intent to do so." After the release of the report, Bush continued to insist, "There was a risk--a real risk--that Sa

People are calling it a draft because it's involuntary military servitude - they're not parsing the words like some White House lawyer. Even people who are drafted signed agreements to comply with the Selective Service system - and involuntary service isn't voluntary, even though you signed up for it. Not enough are serving to support Bush's chosen war in Iraq. And what happens when a nondiscretionary demand for our troops comes up?

Grym,

You're the guy who posts those old, outdated, essays on how liberal the media is. Well here is a prime example of what you, and your cut-and-past essay, got wrong.

Broadcast TV:
The Sinclair family owns 62 television stations throughout the United States. They are the largest holders of such media, and they are going to play an anti-Kerry movie that has already been debunked as a Republican propoganda piece full of lies. They have absolutely no intention of fulfilling the "equal time" requirement.

Network TV:
Let's move on to Network TV. Just last week higher-ups at CBS pulled a story, with well backed documentation and sources, that exposed the rational Bush used to go to war in Iraq as lies. CBS pulled the plug on a biographical Reagan mini-series because it protrayed the Reagan's as something other than saints. The CEO of the company that owns CBS (VIACOMM) announced that he is pro-Bush.

Cable-TV News:
-FOX News, do I really need to explain how they are biased? It's well documented in several books, and websites. CAP has examples.
-CNN moved to the right in order to recapture FOX's market share.
-MSNBC cancled the liberal Phil Donahue show (despite being the highest reated show on MSNBC) in order to put on arch-conservative Michael Savage. Once again, they moved right in order to capture back FOX TV viewers.

AM-Radio:
AM Radio is the realm of political speech when it comes to the airwaves. Until this year there was not one single nationally broadcasted commercial liberal radio network. Not one! All the time major radio companies like Clear Channel, Viacomm, and Infinity Broadcasting claimed there was no market for liberal talk shows. Instead every single political talk radio station was far right conservative. That doesn't look like a bias to you Grym? Finally this year a bunch of liberals got togethor and formed Air America, the first commercial talk radio network for liberals. Guess what: It's out performing conservative stations in every market it has appeared in. So that begs the questions, was it a buisiness decision, or an editorial decision from the company executives, that kept liberal's off AM radio for the past 20 years?

FM-Radio:
FM radio is not known for much political talk. However, there are nationally syndicated morning shows on FM that do discuss political issues on occassion. Howard Stern was pro Bush during the 2000 election year cycle, nothing happened. Literally one day after Howard Stern declared he would not vote for Bush, and no longer supported Bush, Clear Channel dropped him from syndication on their radio stations. For those of you who are not aware, the owner of Clear Channel is a close friend of Geroge Bush. When the Dixie Chicks openly discussed their embarassment of having Bush as their President, it was Clear Channel who held Dixie Chicks CD destruction parties.

Well Grym, I'm sure you're saying to yourself: BUT that has nothing to do with the reporters!? Of course it does! That study you relied on to prove reporters are more liberal is 20 years old. The ownership of the media has changed considerably since then and now lies in the hands of very few (about 6) majority stock holders in various companies. Those owners are very conservative, often direct hiring practices, and editorial content through their power. In addition, as can be seen with Viacomm's decision to pull the anti-Bush CBS story, or Clear Channels firing of Howard Stern, it is too easy for them to say "you publish that, and I'll fire you."

It's funny that those same blogs don't fact-check the Bush administration as much as they do the Kerry campaign. Here is an administration that has told more lies to the public (in the few press conferences that they've had; they're also very secretive) than any that I can remember (Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II).

"Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, and we know where they are."
"Saddam is in cahoots with al Qaeda, and could give WMD to them."
"We went to war for the freedom of the Iraqi people."
"These tax cuts are going to stimulate the economy and create many new jobs by stimulating investment."
"We've inherited a recession from Clinton."
"You don't need to know who Cheney spoke to in his secret energy policy meetings."
"We're going to whole-heartedly support fighting AIDS in third-world countries."

It's so funny that I could cry.

Soros is a lunatic. Only a lunatic would claim that Bush is worse than Hitler.

When did Soros claim that Bush is worse then Hitler?

This web site also claims that Bush deliberately lied about the presence of WMDs in Iraq

He was either horribly wrong, or deliberately lied. Either way, the WMD which provided the reason for the war have yet to be found. There never was an Imminent' Threat.

Finally, no airplanes were allowed to fly to Saudia Arabia in the days after 9/11.

Nice spin there. Can you provide links to prove that no airplanes whatsoever flew to other countries in the days after?

Kerry don't need Bush at the debate because he can debate against himself for 90 minutes front of the audience.

lie:
"From: Bill Gates
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 2:22 PM
To: Microsoft and Subsidiaries: All FTE
Subject: Trustworthy computing

when we face a choice between adding features and resolving security issues, we need to choose security."

truth:
Windows Viruses up Sharply in 2004

And for good measure:
"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations." - President Bush, 3/16/03

vs.

U.N.: Iraq had no WMD after 1994" - David Kay, the former U.S. chief inspector 3/22/04

Those are the simple facts. Some of us are human enough to get emotional about these lies about security, and the catastrophes we accept when we accept the lies. What kind of emotions keep *you* perpetuating them?

Sorry, /. munged the url.
here

Dude, The New Republic is full of neo-conservatives and hardly qualifies as liberal. You want left/center-left, read The Nation or Dissent, or go to the Center for American Progress.

Hey CLinton had his number called and lied to get out of it, you speak as if this is something new.

"Everyone else does it, so why does it matter?" Sorry, but I didn't vote for Clinton back in '92, either. I don't think that people should get to lie about this stuff and not have that held against them. Oh, wait, you just like to lump people into neat categories of "Liberal asshole" and "Republican god", rather than face the messier reality of real life.

Umm for the umpteenth time Oil is fungable if all the Oil in Iraq went to france the cost US companies pay for oil would go down as much as if all the Oil came to the US. If you dont understand market economics dont pretend to know what you are talking about..

So, according to you, the only 2 options are:

1) All of Iraq's oil comes to the US
2) All of Iraq's oil goes to France

What about:

3) Iraq keeps its oil, and the US cuts down on its dependance on foriegn oil by ramping up utilization of non-fossil fuel energy sources

But, hey, if that happened, energy & oil companies (i.e. the backers of Bush & Cheney) wouldn't be able to continue making massive profits.

Yes because puttiong that information togeter as it has now been done had nothing to do with the fact it actually happened? Look at Perl Harbor, all indications were months in advance something was going to happen, if we let the modern Liberal run things then we would still have comitties on why the radar was not followed up on, and would not have actually done anything about Japan..

Have you any evidence that backs up your assertion that a "modern liberal" wouldn't have reacted to the attack on Perl Harbor? I believe that liberals and conservatives alike supported going into Afghanistan. Do you remember? You know, that other war that we're in that nobody talks about anymore? The vote was unanimous.

Second: There's a difference between a) doing absolutely NOTHING to keep an eye on terrorist activities and b) working as hard as you can and learning as much as possible about what terrorists are planing. Bush & Co. did (a): They ignored the Clinton-appointed terrorist adivsor Richard Clarke and FBI memos before September 11th. Which would you rather see, a President that did NOTHING to make terrorism a priority, or one that tried as hard as possible to prevent terrorist attacks, even if they failed? I, for one, would rather see the latter.

But, obviously, you're not concerned with reality, but just your black & white view of it. Critical thinking is _hard_, and if you don't want to do that, then only you will suffer the consequences.

The Washington Monthly

The Daily Kos

The Columbia Journalism Review Campaign Desk

The Center for American Progress

Talking Points Memo by Josh Marshall

Tom Toles political cartoons

Ben Sargent cartoons

Pat Oliphant cartoons

Jamie Zawinski's freinds

Ed Fitzgerald's blog

more to follow-up...

I also support worker safety protections and environmental regulations. I'm from the old school of business ethics, the companies obligation is to maximize its profits and nothing else. The markets tend to support this kind of thinking, and so it must be true. In such a non-utopian outlook on the market, the government must step in and set a bottom line on business practices because the market won't. This is far fairer than expecting companies to go out of their way to run ethical businesses; if the government sets the line than all companies have to start from that point and nobody is at a disadvantage for doing the right thing. If the market sets the line than only the ethical companies see their profits hurt.

Income tax collection was established in the 16th amendment, so it must be Constitutional. If you don't like it vote to have the amendment removed. And you'll find that when you look at Kerry's "flip flops", most are merely Republican over-simplifications of Kerry's positions. For instance, the "flip flop" over "No Child Left Behind". He supports the bill, but critized Bush* for not funding it properly. Yet somehow the "liberal" media has managed to turn that into a flip flop. He notably has changed position on the PATRIOT act, probably because they were expected to vote for it a few hours after recieving the several hundred page document and so didn't realize some of the nastier provisions contained therein. It's a shame stuff like that happens in the Senate. But people make mistakes, I'm willing to forgive if it means getting better policies.

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJR J8OVF&b=44515

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constituti on.amendmentxvi.html

• More than 60% of U.S. corporations didn't pay any federal taxes for 1996 through 2000
  
• By 2003, [corporate taxes] had fallen to just 7.4% of overall federal receipts
  
• most corporations that actually do owe taxes pay a rate less than 5%
  
• 94% of US-controlled companies and 89% of foreign-controlled companies paid zero to 4% in taxes
  

So a few weeks ago the Republican National Committee comes out with Kerryopoly, apparently criticizing John Kerry for being rich. Yes, that's right, republicans criticizing someone for being rich. The response? Contractopoly from the Centre for American Progress, where you get to collect no-bid Iraqi rebuilding contracts. There's an expression to do with pointing out the splinter in your neighbour's eye while not noticing the plank in your own, I think it might apply here.

So a few weeks ago the Republican National Committee comes out with Kerryopoly, apparently criticizing John Kerry for being rich. Yes, that's right, republicans criticizing someone for being rich. The response? Contractopoly from the Centre for American Progress, where you get to collect no-bid Iraqi rebuilding contracts. There's an expression to do with pointing out the splinter in your neighbour's eye while not noticing the plank in your own, I think it might apply here.

Has Bush done, said, implied, mimed, ANYTHING that would lead to the impression that he is a "messenger of God"

Yes - from Common Dreams (who, in turn was quoting the Israeli newspaper Haaretz):

Bush said: 'God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them.'

link for your convenience.

Another link

Ok, if you want to talk about lies and liars--and imply GW Bush (I assume that's who you are implying?) is a liar--what's an example of a lie he told?

Too many to even list here, but here's a typical example (from the Center for American Progress claim vs. fact db):

Claim: "The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons...And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes." [Source: White House Web site - since taken down]

Fact: "Iraq did not have a large, ongoing, centrally controlled chemical weapons program after 1991. Information found to date suggests that Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new CW munitions was reduced - if not entirely destroyed - during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections." - Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03

Bush knew, or should have known, that his claim was false.

Sean

The Republican Party has figured out that they can buy votes from the uneducated. After the last election, Bush handed out $300 Treasury checks left and right after telling people throughout the campaign that it was their money due (to the budget surplus). He never discussed the national debt or the fact that over 25% of all federal taxes collected pay interest on that debt. He never suggested paying down that debt first and then cutting taxes after it was paid down.

The economy is doing well and taxes are pouring in? That means you need a tax cut because "it's your money."

The economy is in the dumps and tax revenue is way down? That, too, means that you need a tax cut to "stimulate" the economy. (Apparently, "stimulating" the economy also involves giving tax incentives to large corporations to outsource good jobs to third world countries.)

What else has Bush done? Drasticially increased the size of government. Waged horribly expensive wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I see the dumb rednecks driving around with bumper stickers that say "I support the war in Iraq" and I think to myself, "yes you do -- to the tune of about $1000 for every man, woman, and child in your household."

And lets not forget the campaign donations. Bush has done everything he could to turn over public lands to oil companies for drilling. So when Exxon, Shell, et al, make billions despoiling the wilderness, how much money will you and I get? None. But our gas prices will be lower? Nope. The oil market is worldwide. If Shell can make more money selling the oil to China, then that's where it goes. Then there is Halliburton. Not only have they donated a ton to the Bush campaign, but with their ex-CEO in office, they have it made. They've received over $2.26billion in "no-bid" contracts in Iraq. That means that other firms weren't even allowed to compete. The way that Bush/Cheney are giving your tax dollars to Halliburtion is disgusting. I could go on and on, but Slashdot doesn't have the hard drive space to document all of the corruption in the Bush/Cheney White House.

To try to keep the record budget deficit (how much more the goverment has to borrow) to less than $500 billion dollars, Bush has cut many programs that provided federal tax dollars to the states for various programs. This has driven many states to the edge of bankruptcy. He's cut federal funding for any overseas aid organization which mentions abortion as an option (yeah, we don't want some woman with AIDS in sub-saharan Africa to have an abortion!). He's cut funding to the EPA repeatedly while increasing funding to the military to pay for his war against Iraq -- waged because of their Weapons of... scratch that... ties to terr... er, no... leader that Bush disliked.

The administration's position has always been that we should act before the threat became immediate. They never said that Iraq posed an immediate or imminent threat.

Come on now. Don't feed us this obvious revisionist bullshit. The administration did say on numerous occasions that the threat of Iraq was immediate/imminent. Go google the file 'RUMSFELDDENY4.WMV' or just go here for some of the more common examples. There is a reason why so many normal Americans were under the impression that Iraq was an immediate threat - the Bush administration kept telling us that.

I am sure other people with more energy for your lies can field some of the other points. (Love the 'a much closer role in 9/11 than we ever suspected' claim - closer than when Bush told Clarke to look into Iraq immediately after the attacks? Somehow I doubt that.)

Will the real Senator Kerry please stand up? [senatorflipflop.com]

The best part about you neo-con trolls is that I'm sure you believe every bit of that link.

Take a gander at what what a real flip-flopper looks like.

Nevermind that on most of the issues Kerry is actually, for a politician, rather consistent. But hey, if you were able to think you would not even be posting such garbage link's in the 1st place.

The UNMOVIC report you linked to doesn't seem to buttress your arguement, despite being released on March 6, 2003. (Weeks before the war) It states, "No proscribed activities, or the result of such activities from the period of 1998-2002 have, so far, been detected through inspections." If you really want to convince me, please show me some evidence like David Kay or similar, who in the end concluded that there were no WMDs.

"Not without interference, delay, and attempts to keep them out of various places." That's what Bush said. He has no credibility with me now. I was actively watching the events during that time, and the response by the experts in the field, including the Americans, was that Saddam isn't going to give any excuse for Bush to go to war, and he allowed them free access anywhere. See my emphasis on "caved in," by the time the war started, Saddam was willing to put on a leash and bark like an Abu Ghraib victim if it meant the US wasn't going to move in.

Go even further back and look at the signs that Bush was eager for war. The fact is, the US had 60,000 troops in the region of Iraq even before the weapons inspectors went in. Paul O'Neill said that at the first cabinet meeting in January 2001, Bush was already making plans for Iraq. Richard Clarke said that Bush was ignoring Al Qaeda before 9/11 unless he could tie it into Iraq.

Nobody said imminent threat? (Alternate link)Did you watch Donald Rumsfeld stutter when he was denying the claim and got caught with his own quotation?

Iraq's ties to Al Qaeda are still tenuous, despite the single article you showed me. Saddam had links to Ansar Al-Islam, which might have links to Al Qaeda. Before, they said that Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi went to Iraq to have medical treatment; his lef amputated. Well, it turns out that he didn't after all, and he may have been the man in the Nick Berg video, according to the US. The US' intelligence concerning Iraq is now under review, since Ahmad Chalabi was found to have fudged some information.

"Of course, you would have to have an open mind."
Now, now, I don't insult you, if you can't prove your case adequately then you shouldn't engage in ad insultium attacks

Interesting, I didn't really get to read Kay's report before. Kay did find some weapons, but not stockpiles as we were led to believe. His findings still fail to prove any of Powell's claims to be true, the "four tons of VX nerve gas" were not in Kay's report.

"We've found two [WMDs] so far..." Which? And why only 2?

"... uncovered research for biological weapons, work on missiles that constitute serious breaches of the UN resolutions, and many other activities."

*Groan*, not more hair-splitting over the missiles again. The UN set limits on how far Iraq's missiles could go, and when UN inspectors stripped the inside of one and launched it, it went slightly further. Not much of a big whoop, and if we went to war over that, I'd call the US just itching for a minor excuse to launch a war. They're no threat to the US. As for the rest of these "serious breaches," you will have to show me more.

"Regarding WMDs, even if we did know exactly where they were, are you saying Saddam's government couldn't have moved them? That is silly. It would only take a couple of tractor trailers to move them and they had a country the size of California to hide them."

Then why did the US and David Kay give up the search? It's because they realize it was futile. Even Bush isn't saying "soon" anymore, because those who continue to persist in the belief despite the evidenc

The UNMOVIC report you linked to doesn't seem to buttress your arguement, despite being released on March 6, 2003. (Weeks before the war) It states, "No proscribed activities, or the result of such activities from the period of 1998-2002 have, so far, been detected through inspections." If you really want to convince me, please show me some evidence like David Kay or similar, who in the end concluded that there were no WMDs.

"Not without interference, delay, and attempts to keep them out of various places." That's what Bush said. He has no credibility with me now. I was actively watching the events during that time, and the response by the experts in the field, including the Americans, was that Saddam isn't going to give any excuse for Bush to go to war, and he allowed them free access anywhere. See my emphasis on "caved in," by the time the war started, Saddam was willing to put on a leash and bark like an Abu Ghraib victim if it meant the US wasn't going to move in.

Go even further back and look at the signs that Bush was eager for war. The fact is, the US had 60,000 troops in the region of Iraq even before the weapons inspectors went in. Paul O'Neill said that at the first cabinet meeting in January 2001, Bush was already making plans for Iraq. Richard Clarke said that Bush was ignoring Al Qaeda before 9/11 unless he could tie it into Iraq.

Nobody said imminent threat? (Alternate link)Did you watch Donald Rumsfeld stutter when he was denying the claim and got caught with his own quotation?

Iraq's ties to Al Qaeda are still tenuous, despite the single article you showed me. Saddam had links to Ansar Al-Islam, which might have links to Al Qaeda. Before, they said that Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi went to Iraq to have medical treatment; his lef amputated. Well, it turns out that he didn't after all, and he may have been the man in the Nick Berg video, according to the US. The US' intelligence concerning Iraq is now under review, since Ahmad Chalabi was found to have fudged some information.

"Of course, you would have to have an open mind."
Now, now, I don't insult you, if you can't prove your case adequately then you shouldn't engage in ad insultium attacks

Interesting, I didn't really get to read Kay's report before. Kay did find some weapons, but not stockpiles as we were led to believe. His findings still fail to prove any of Powell's claims to be true, the "four tons of VX nerve gas" were not in Kay's report.

"We've found two [WMDs] so far..." Which? And why only 2?

"... uncovered research for biological weapons, work on missiles that constitute serious breaches of the UN resolutions, and many other activities."

*Groan*, not more hair-splitting over the missiles again. The UN set limits on how far Iraq's missiles could go, and when UN inspectors stripped the inside of one and launched it, it went slightly further. Not much of a big whoop, and if we went to war over that, I'd call the US just itching for a minor excuse to launch a war. They're no threat to the US. As for the rest of these "serious breaches," you will have to show me more.

"Regarding WMDs, even if we did know exactly where they were, are you saying Saddam's government couldn't have moved them? That is silly. It would only take a couple of tractor trailers to move them and they had a country the size of California to hide them."

Then why did the US and David Kay give up the search? It's because they realize it was futile. Even Bush isn't saying "soon" anymore, because those who continue to persist in the belief despite the evidenc

This won't mean dick because the sites can be easily shown to be biased, but:
americanprogress.org
Some AOLer's book review
A Rush-sucks website not exactly a venue for non-biased discussion... But, hey, you did ask.

Then there are the famous ones like the little oxycontin thing and his draft deferment for a non-existant football injury. (It's actually a Pilonidal cyst, basically a croncially reacurring pimple on his ass. It can apparently be quite uncomfortable when infected.)

And that the "abuse" (If it was done on American's it would be called torture.) was the result of a few people acting out fraturnity style partying when reports from the army itself indicate the abuse was widespread, systemic, and resulted from orders. (Trying to think of the name of one of the reports...) Well, I'll post a link to that one if I can remember it.

I wonder if I can remember some more. All I know is that if I turn on Rush, I end up spending my time yelling at the radio...