|| Replies ||

User	joeyalphabet | 2006-11-14 |
Subject	untitled
Message	If people don’t take the time to inform themselves and participate by voting, they get the government they deserve.

User	| 2006-11-13 |
Subject	untitled
Message	It seems the only thing we can agree on is that there’s a lot of "opinions" in regards to our gov’t officals, which brings to mind the old saying : Opinions are like buttholes, everyone has one and they all stink! lol No matter if you like our current prez or wish desperately for something else, I think we can all agree that things need to be changed. Maybe we don’t have much of a voice when it comes to our elected officals, but it’s better than no voice at all. This is our home, we at least have to try. *onetruesmartass*

User	Blue Monk | 2006-11-13 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Do not fool yourself into thinking that the populace of the U.S. has any control over who is governing them. Look at your last "choices", Kerry or Bush. Who do you suppose put those guys at the top of their respective tickets? If you know, please share that info with the rest of us. Trust me when I say that in spite of the great many "problems" with the history of Hillary C. and her hubby, she will sail into the Whitehouse nevertheless because the sheeple will be convinced by then that she is the only "man" for the job. How many carpetbaggers do you know who could just walk into New York and be elected a U.S. Senator? The ex co-President has collected a lot of power over the years and now has her focus on but one thing. Like those working in the White House (including Bill) during her earlier stay, better learn to run and hide if you hear her storming down a hallway.

User	DrkRomeo_sGirl | 2006-11-13 |
Subject	untitled
Message	BUSH SUCKS! A-TEE-HEHE

User	mae | 2006-11-12 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Can we stop voting democratic or republican and start voting smart??? Man, wouldn’t that be great! Even worse than the people voting democrat or republican is that no governing gets done. When all our Senators and Congressmen are concerned about is the party line, common sense and the will of the people goes right out the window, because EVERYBODY thinks they speak for the people. I was listening to a top Democrat right after the election and he was saying that maybe now they can get something done. Now, the Democrats only have a one vote majority. If they and the Republicans couldn’t figure out how to get something done when the Republicans had the majority, why does he think they can now that the Democrats have the majority. Just vote them all down? Where’s the idea of compromise? Nothing will be any different. Nothing got done before and it won’t now. I don’t know a single person who isn’t sick of all the partisan wrangling. Why can’t the legislators hear us? Maybe we’re speaking a different language. mae

User	joeyalphabet | 2006-11-11 |
Subject	untitled
Message	EVERY president in their sixth year is a lame duck. It’s a great historical tradition.

User	Chell | 2006-11-11 |
Subject	untitled
Message	We shouldn’t have a lame duck presidency is the president has no control over anything. If it’s the administration that is responsible for everything and all the blame lies with the people that were just ousted in Congress and the Senate, then we should be able to get loads of stuff fixed. Of course, now we’re going to swing too far the other direction and end up just as screwed. Can we stop voting democratic or republican and start voting smart???

User	mae | 2006-11-11 |
Subject	untitled
Message	**At the present time, he is not a shareholder in Halliburton.** Cheney told "Meet the Press" in 2003 that he didn’t have any financial ties to the firm. ** So? He’s not a shareholder. I didn’t say anything else. My question - **What is it, exactly, that you expect either the President or Vice-President to do Your answer - the U.S. government; The Army awarded; The Pentagon’s report; Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA). I repeat, what do you expect the PRESIDENT and the VICE-PRESIDENT to do about it? **Bush does have the power to use line-item veto… ** That is incorrect. Line-item veto was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1998. ** (Traci)He dissolved NAFTA and refuses to put tarrifs on companies that take their business overseas. ** Huh? NAFTA has not been dissolved. What do overseas countries have to do with it? NAFTA only affects Mexico, the U.S. and Canada. NAFTA stands for NORTH AMERICAN Free Trade Agreement. Do you really think President Bush sits at his desk reviewing which countries have had tariffs imposed? I doubt it. Folks, I have no problem with the fact that you disagree with or openly dislike President Bush. What I have a problem with are the statements that are being made. They make no sense. You’re laying blame for all kinds of things at the feet of the President when he does not direct the action you’re referring to. You’re taking the media’s favorite phrase "the Bush administration" and leaving off the "administration" part. If you want to disagree with the President, or even lambast him, that’s fine. Just say something factual and reasonable, not inflammatory or plain old wrong. It’s just dumb. mae

User	screams | 2006-11-10 |
Subject	untitled
Message	lets just hope that the tallest blades of grass will be the first to go

User	Chell | 2006-11-10 |
Subject	untitled
Message	**If all our troops were to leave next week, the country would absolutely erupt. The insurgents would overrun everyone else, not by numbers since they are in the minority, but in sheer terror and violence. We just happen to be a good excuse.** If our troops EVER leave the country it will erupt. The same reasons for them drifting into the current civil war will remain when we leave. They were instable before we arrived and they’ll fall back into instability when we leave- whether it’s now or in 20 years. Injecting American troops into another country’s civil war is never a good idea. Fundamentalist Islam and Democracy do not work well together. The Koran is very clear about how laws are to be kept and followed. In order to bring a democratic government into control in Iraq, Iran, or any other truly Islamic nation, America will have to undermine their religion. (Maybe Bush was on to something with the crusade comment after all…) Democracy is government by men, whereas Islam is the government set up by God. When you attack someone’s religion, they will only become more adamant (extreme) about holding onto their beliefs. ** While the media and many others (you?) like to accuse us of going about willy-nilly invading other countries, we have to have a darn good reason before that happens. If they don’t do something to us first, or aid someone who has, then they don’t have anything to fear from us, militarily at least. ** I forget, what was our reasoning for going into Iraq? In the lead up to the Iraq War, U.S. president George W. Bush alleged that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda might conspire to launch terrorist attacks on the United States, basing the administration’s rationale for war, in part, on this allegation and others. The consensus of intelligence experts has been that these contacts never led to an operational relationship, and that consensus is backed up by reports from the independent 9/11 Commission as well as by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, whose 2006 report of Phase II of its investigation into prewar intelligence reports concluded that there was no evidence of Saddam Hussein ties to al-Qaeda. Critics of the Bush Administration have said Bush was intentionally building a case for war with Iraq without regard to the facts. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda) ** The Vice-President has unexercised stock options, not stock. At the present time, he is not a shareholder in Halliburton.** Cheney told "Meet the Press" in 2003 that he didn’t have any financial ties to the firm. “Since I left Halliburton to become George Bush’s vice president, I’ve severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest," the Vice President said. "I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven’t had, now, for over three years.” Cheney continues to receive a deferred salary from the company. According to financial disclosure forms, he was paid $205,298 in 2001; $162,392 in 2002; $178,437 in 2003; and $194,852 in 2004. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) concluded in Sept. 2003 that holding stock options while in elective office DOES constitute a “financial interest” REGARDLESS of whether the holder of the options will donate proceeds to charities. CRS also found that receiving deferred compensation is a financial interest. **What is it, exactly, that you expect either the President or Vice-President to do when irregularity are discovered in billing to the government?** Ummm, if someone steals from the government- like the IRS – they go to trail, the go to jail, they lose their contracts, they are held accountable… Halliburton Co., the largest U.S. contractor in Iraq, has impeded efforts by the U.S. government to oversee its work and check its bills, according to a new audit. (http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Cheneys_stock_options_rose_3281_last_1011.html) The Army awarded Halliburton a no-bid contract in March 2003 despite a secret Pentagon report which found the company had "significant deficiencies" that could lead to defrauding the government. The Pentagon’s report was given to Hearst News Service under the Freedom of Information Act over Halliburton’s objections. Seven months before the Army awarded the controversial no-bid Iraq contract to Halliburton’s subsidiary, KBR, the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) found KBR’s deficient billing procedures could lead to fraudulent cost overcharges. The DCAA said the deficiencies "have adversely affected the organization’s ability to record, process, summarize and report billings" charged to U.S. military contracts. **You are completely ignoring the role of Congress in economic policies.** You’re right on this one, but, having a Republican House, a Republican Senate, and a Republican presidency means that there are no checks and balances on spending. And Bush does have the power to use line-item veto…

User	mae | 2006-11-10 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Traci, your post is not full of ’facts’ - it’s full of exaggeration and out and out mistakes. (I won’t call them lies because I don’t think they’re meant to deceive, at least not from you.) From Traci - "And lets really look at what kind of president he’s been. He started a war that has ultimately caused the civil war in another country on a lie. We still don’t know the real reason we’re there. Because of this war, other countries are developing nuclear weapons to protect themselves in case we invade under the guise of liberation. " mae - First off, our presence has not caused the civil war. Iraq has been fighting wtihin itself for years. That region has been fighting for years. The basic instability of the area and of Iraq specifically, the strong religious element (all sides of it) and the culture of violence that Al Qaeda supports, as well as many Muslims, are what are leading Iraq to edge of civil war. If all our troops were to leave next week, the country would absolutely erupt. The insurgents would overrun everyone else, not by numbers since they are in the minority, but in sheer terror and violence. We just happen to be a good excuse. It takes many years to develop a nuclear program, especially one for weapons. You can be sure that the nations who are now showing that they have nuclear weapons started developing them long before we entered Iraq. Do you honestly think Iran and Korea are afraid of us? Why should they be? Russia has nuclear weapon capability. Did they develop it because they were afraid of us? What about England and France? While the media and many others (you?) like to accuse us of going about willy-nilly invading other countries, we have to have a darn good reason before that happens. If they don’t do something to us first, or aid someone who has, then they don’t have anything to fear from us, militarily at least (economically is another story). Traci -He gave a war-time contract to a company that the vice-president at one time ran (and who still ownes stock) then just shrugs when it’s discovered that the company is ripping the military off by charging for meals, equipment and services that weren’t rendered. mae - the President does not let the military contracts. The Vice-President has unexercised stock options, not stock. At the present time, he is not a shareholder in Halliburton. What is it, exactly, that you expect either the President or Vice-President to do when irregularity are discovered in billing to the government? You say they just shrugged. Do you really know what they did? As I read it, Halliburton has been investigated and will continue to be investigated for overbilling, as will many other defense and government contractors. The fact is, many companies see a contract with the government as a get-rich-quick scheme, not just Halliburton. That’s the President’s fault? Traci - Then we come to the deficit. In January of 2000 when that man stepped into office, our country was at an all time low for unemployemnt and had over a trillion (or was it billion?) dollar surplus. Within nine months he had us in a deficit that has continued to grow. Next we’re on his war on the middle class. We’re disappearing rapidly and getting absolutely no help from our gov’t. He dissolved NAFTA and refuses to put tarrifs on companies that take their business overseas. Hmm.... mae- You are completely ignoring the role of Congress in economic policies. The President doesn’t approve the spending. The House and Senate do. Budgets get "massaged" and reshaped and finally voted on. When a budget is finally passed, it usually bears little resemblance to the original. Senators add government funding for this project in their state, or that study by the University in their state. It’s called ’pork-barrel’. Traci- George W. Bush is the worst thing that has ever stepped into the oval office. He’s taken us from a respected position among world leaders to one shaky step above tyrants. mae - You honestly think we were respected after Bill Clinton’s antics? The fact is, a presidency cannot be judged accurately until it’s over. Abraham Lincoln was barely re-elected at the end of the Civil War, and was greatly reviled during it. He obviously did NOT survive an assasination. Yet now we revere him as a truly great president. The same with FDR. His economic policies during WWII were viewed as the first step to ruin for this country. He instituted deficit spending, took us off the gold standard, started Social Security and ’make-work’ programs. He was roundly denounced in the press and among economists, but he brought us through a horrible war and got people back on their feet after the Great Depression. On the flip side, JFK was a hugely popular president, but he was one of the most ineffective presidents we’ve ever had. Your statements do not bear the mark of reason, Traci, but of an inflammatory media. mae

User	joeyalphabet | 2006-11-10 |
Subject	untitled
Message	The reason the media don’t report things like that is 1: they are corporately owned, and 2: they are beholden to their advertisers. If you want more accurate news, watch PBS and overseas newscasts too. I attend a very liberal college and haven’t seen much protest activity at all. Here’s why – there’s no draft. If there hadn’t been a draft during Vietnam, I think it’s much more likely there never would have been war protests. If and when ones comes (and I think there’s a good chance it might in the next 5 years) THAT’S when you’ll see big protests on college campuses.

User	Blue Monk | 2006-11-09 |
Subject	untitled
Message	onetrue - It could be that I know better how things really work in the real world than most people, but that’s just my opinion. Repeat, it could be... that’s just my opinion. Not exactly flaunting an ego here. "television, radio or computer" are just windows voicing the opinions of others, all too often being very selective in what actual "news" is reported. I heard a call-in to a radio show talking about being in the area of a demonstration. He said there was a large group of people there to "support the troops", and a relatively small bunch of very vocal people demonstrating against the war, against Bush, etc. He was there and saw it in person, but, when he got home and watched it on the "news" they depicted it only as an anti-war rally and did not show the support of the troops. That’s your "news" service, servicing their own agenda. Multiply that times ten thousand or so and wonder what you really know. You can’t believe everything you come across because it’s too easy to manipulate. How about those doctored photos of the extent of the bombing in Lebanon? Ever hear any good news at all out of Iraq? Sorry about your loss. War is hell, ask those who lost to 911 and the various other terrorist activities. Blame always rises to the top, it goes with the job.

User	joeyalphabet | 2006-11-09 |
Subject	untitled
Message	I worry too. My older son is starting to look at colleges and I have no idea how we’re going to afford it. I go to school (luckily on my company’s dime) and see too many people struggling to make ends meet with all the costs involved. It’s a disgrace that the richest country in the world doesn’t help its less affluent citizens get educated. I hear politicians on both sides pay lip service to education - lots of it - but when it comes time to do something, the only thing they know (like our governor Corzine here in NJ) is cut cut cut. Bush’s ’No Child Left Behind’, which he loves to tout, is a disgrace. No teacher I have talked to (and I’ve talked to plenty) thinks it’s worth a damn. His doesctic policies haven’t done anything to help the poor and middle class, and he opposes pretty much anything that will.

User	| 2006-11-08 |
Subject	untitled
Message	My goodness, what an ego we have. Because you happen to have twenty years on me you have a better understanding of how the real world works? Interesting. The statements in my post were not opinions, they were fact. Anyone with a television, radio or computer knows about each and every thing I stated. If you want my opinion, I feel that Mr. Bush is a liar, cheat and murderer. I hold him personally responsible for the deaths of two of my cousins and three friends in Iraq. Where did I say that Cheney was a crook? The company he one time was VP of is crooked as a candy cane and owe we the American people our money back. I wouldn’t advertise working for them if I were you. I’m not sure what bearing your military record has on the discussion, but I’ll say thank you for your service anyway. All our military, current and retired, should be respected and admired for their service. You and your fellow personnel have made it so we have the opportunity to argue like this. So again, thank you. Well, the "Dems" (seriously hate that term) have taken the House and Senate, so I suppose the American public agrees with those "opinions". "Faith is what you have left when the rest is scraped away" Faith may fill alot of voids for people, but it’s not going to fill your stomach. *onetruesmartass*

User	Blue Monk | 2006-11-08 |
Subject	untitled
Message	I have three kids, the youngest 8. That’s a common boat. I don’t believe SSI will be there, but when Bush tried to address it, he got shut down altogether by the Dems and AARP lobby (the old folks) and then both were proud of it. Apparently, they figure it will last long enough for them to plunder anyway. Faith is what you have left when the rest is scraped away.

User	Chell | 2006-11-08 |
Subject	untitled
Message	So, who do the people in my generation get to blame for the horrible state of things??? I’m glad you got to go to college. My kids will more than likely not get to enjoy the same privilege seeing as college funding is being drained, middle income jobs are being sent overseas, the government isn’t paying military tuition as promised, and my husband and I will need to put our income into savings as our contributions to Social Security will not be there for us when we will need it. I want to know, if unemployment is so low, why 5 of my closest friends- some with college degrees can’t find gainful employment- and haven’t been able to for almost a year now. Maybe you do know how things work a bit better than the rest of us, but I want to know how the real world is going be for my kids and grandkids. And the real world of your day and age has very little to do with the real world my kids are facing. Or maybe that is of no concern seeing how shit won’t hit the fan until after you’ve met your maker...

User	Blue Monk | 2006-11-08 |
Subject	untitled
Message	I can’t agree on much with those opinions, but many such opinions are picked up by the populace regardless. I’ve worked for Halliburton and we’re very lucky to have Cheney where he is. He’s no crook. I’ve served in a couple of different branches of our armed forces for over 8 years. I’m a college graduate, not Ivy league, but OK. I’m over 50 now but not quite senile yet. It could be that I know better how things really work in the real world than most people, but that’s just my opinion.

User	onetruesmartass | 2006-11-08 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Oh, damn, I forgot about his rather brief military career where not only can they not find any record of him on the base he was stationed, but he got out early thanks to daddy! Why is this man in charge of our country? *onetruesmartass*

User	onetruesmartass | 2006-11-08 |
Subject	untitled
Message	I don’t give a damn if the man went to Harvard, Yale or a local community college. Education is NO substitute for good old common sense. What bearing does the location of his college have on what kind of president he’s been? And lets really look at what kind of president he’s been. He started a war that has ultimately caused the civil war in another country on a lie. We still don’t know the real reason we’re there. Because of this war, other countries are developing nuclear weapons to protect themselves in case we invade under the guise of liberation. He gave a war-time contract to a company that the vice-president at one time ran (and who still ownes stock) without making them bid for the job, then just shrugs when it’s discovered that the company is ripping the military off by charging for meals, equipment and services that weren’t rendered. Then we come to the deficit. In January of 2000 when that man stepped into office, our country was at an all time low for unemployemnt and had over a trillion (or was it billion?) dollar surplus. Within nine months he had us in a deficit that has continued to grow. Next we’re on his war on the middle class. We’re disappearing rapidly and getting absolutely no help from our gov’t. He dissolved NAFTA and refuses to put tarrifs on companies that take their business overseas. Hmm.... And of course, let’s take a look at Bush himself. He’s a complete laughingstock with the international community, has alienated us from our allies due to his cowboy attitude, uses words like "crusade" and "axis of evil". I don’t care if a speech writer wrote it, he said it. Countless press conferences and public apperances have proven the man is a moron, regardless of what the diploma on the wall might say. He’s going to get us all killed, be if from war when the other nations finally have enough, or by starvation when all our jobs are in India. George W. Bush is the worst thing that has ever stepped into the oval office. He’s taken us from a respected position among world leaders to one shaky step above tyrants. And am I the only one that thinks he has a frightfully strong resemblence to Alfred E. Newman from Mad magazine? *onetruesmartass*