08 Feb 06
Originally posted by howardgeeSurely that makes him the Sheriff of Nottingham, then?
http://smh.com.au/news/world/young-and-old-losers-in-presidents-budget/2006/02/07/1139074228932.html
By cutting the Medicare budget and increasing the pot of money for his friends in the Arms industry (e.g. Haliburton), this modern day Robbing Hood is the opposite of Robin Hood.
08 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by cashthetrashSen. Byrd (Dem- W Va) didn't just join the Klan to "go along with the crowd".... He was actually a Kleagle (meaning that he was a Ku Klux Klan officer whose job is to recruit new members).
Yep Senator Bird did a lot of things that almost every Southern White family did during those Post civil war and pre- M L King / Rosa Parks civil rights movement days of educating Americans that Racism is wrong and immoral. (Some in the republican party still haven't learned and need a lot more education.) He owned a sheet not a plantation like the Bush votes. So why would he need to defend these issues to idiots who stand up for the wrong side?
He was in the Klan from his early 20s to his early 30s, but was still defending the Klan while in his 40s.
So who in the Republican Party still hasn't learned and needs a lot more education? Bush 43 has appointed more blacks to high level cabinet positions than any President in history, including the first black President, Bill Clinton... (the title "the firt black President" was given to Clinton by author/poet Toni Morrison).... who, as noted earlier, was a disciple of J. William Fulbright, a hard line segregationist.
Byrd was the one who became a KKK officer...and you're calling those of us who oppose him idiots who stand up for the wrong side??
08 Feb 06
Originally posted by TheBloopThe Key word is that he was. Meaning he is no longer. He had a change of mind and heart. Republican Senator Trent lot of Mississippi lost his leadership roll because of racist statements. Clinton also appointed more republicans to high level cabinet spots than bush has appointed democrats. (none) Just because Bushwhacker placed a couple of blacks in high level positions means nothing. There are racist Blacks too. Plantations have a word for them they call them Uncle Toms. Not that I am saying they are racist. I don't know. But they are after their pay checks and just go along. Power hunger has no color. And all Bush wanted was for weak minded people to say look at what Bush did he put a blacks in his cabinet. But then and ignored them. Except for his house mouse girl friend Condo Sleazy Lice. I wouldn't worry too much about the Fulbrite red Herring. Politicians always say nice things to each other while on camera. Its Corny but they all do it.
Sen. Byrd (Dem- W Va) didn't just join the Klan to "go along with the crowd".... He was actually a Kleagle (meaning that he was a Ku Klux Klan officer whose job is to recruit new members).
He was in the Klan from his early 20s to his early 30s, but was still defending the Klan while in his 40s.
So who in the Republican Party still hasn't learned and n ...[text shortened]... ...and you're calling those of us who oppose him idiots who stand up for the wrong side??
08 Feb 06
Originally posted by kmax87Bush hasn't stole from Iraq. He has stolen from the poor and middle class of America to give to the wealthy. While it is true that he is destroying it, while at the same time rebuilding it. It's what happens in war. It is possible to not support Bush policies and not support terrorism. The war has cost America much more than it has in it's national treasury. The reason that Iraq is suffering is because it houses terrorism and those who don't practice their Muslim beliefs. The vast majority of Iraq and the world does not support these radical fundamentalists Muslims, but thats where many are housed at this time. If Iraq wants to stop the destruction and live better and more secure lives with out the killing and what you call theft. Then tell the radical Muslim terrorist to surrender and stop killing and attacking other nations in what they call Jihad. The wrong minded thinking that somehow what they do pleases their god. God is not pleased by mans actions. He doesn't need our help we need Gods help. Stand up against terrorism and help stop it. Stop teaching it, and you will live in peace.
But he also steals from the powerful to grab even more power(UN), he steals from the wealthy(iraq) to create wealth for the powerful(haliburton). he steals from the world to give to america(GATT anyone),...... lets face it GWB is superman....... you know, the man of steal.....
08 Feb 06
Originally posted by howardgeeAnd yet, the public vote for him indifferently..
http://smh.com.au/news/world/young-and-old-losers-in-presidents-budget/2006/02/07/1139074228932.html
By cutting the Medicare budget and increasing the pot of money for his friends in the Arms industry (e.g. Haliburton), this modern day Robbing Hood is the opposite of Robin Hood.
08 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by cashthetrashThat's actually what happend to Lott, in a way.
... Republican Senator Trent lot of Mississippi lost his leadership roll because of racist statements....I wouldn't worry too much about the Fulbrite red Herring. Politicians always say nice things to each other while on camera. Its Corny but they all do it.
The comment that got Lott in trouble was something he said at the 100th birthday party of Strom Thurmond. (Thurmond ran for President in 1948 on the Dixiecrat (or States' Rights) ticket, whose primary campaign issue was the perpetuation of racial segregation in the U.S.
Lott said:
"I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."
That was it...just a little crack at another Senator's 100th birthday party. It was soon after this that he resigned his leadership position.
So, in your opinion, we need to let Clinton slide, because that was just one politician saying something nice about another politician while on camera, (i.e. calling a hard line segregationist his mentor and friend...couldn't he have left the 'mentor' out of it and just called Fulbright his friend?)... but with Lott, he's automatically a racist? Is that what I'm hearing?
With me, of course, it doesn't really matter...I never liked Lott as Majority Leader to begin with...and I don't like Frist either...
09 Feb 06
Originally posted by TheBloopWell by your standards if Clinton and Bush claim to be friends we should reject Bush. What is the difference? Part of being a friend is trying to change your friend from wrong thinking. People can be mentors on other subjects besides racism. And people can still be friends and reject certain parts of their behavior. But what Trent lot was implying was that he approves of segregation and wanted to return to those days of unequal but separate. And that he thinks Americans would be better off. But only part (might be better off). But as a nation we would not be. He proves what he is when you look at his votes. Of course that is hard to see because they fool people with Phony names like clean air initiative where they allow more pollution instead of less. Medacare reform where they give more to the drug commpanys maybe reduse drug costs by a fraction but increace insurance costs at the same time to where everyone including the taxpayer has to pay more for less when you add it all together. What do you want to believe what you hear or your lying eyes? Stop the spread of infectious lies. The world is dieing from them.
That's actually what happend to Lott, in a way.
The comment that got Lott in trouble was something he said at the 100th birthday party of Strom Thurmond. (Thurmond ran for President in 1948 on the Dixiecrat (or States' Rights) ticket, whose primary campaign issue was the perpetuation of racial segregation in the U.S.
Lott said:
"I want to sa ...[text shortened]... ver liked Lott as Majority Leader to begin with...and I don't like Frist either...
09 Feb 06
Originally posted by cashthetrashYou made some good points about friendship...
...But what Trent lot was implying was that he approves of segregation and wanted to return to those days of unequal but separate. And that he thinks Americans would be better off.....
But, imo, I don't think that we should take what Trent Lott said that day as reflective of how he actually feels about America today. He was just saying what he thought was something nice to a 100 year old man...
But I think that something else to keep in mind is the reaction of the Republican party as a whole after Trent said these things... he was pressured into resigning (and the pressure came from Republicans, not from Democrats. Lott would have never resigned if it was only Democrats pressuring him). In other words, Republicans, for the most part, don't put up with that kind of talk from their own leaders, whereas Democrats who have said far worse things get a pass from their constituents.
On the other hand, there was no pressure from Democrats on Gary Condit to resign, after his alleged involvement in the murder of Chandra Levy... (and we all know that he was either involved or he knew something about it). One wonders why Condit didn't resign simply to make things a little easier on his family (especially since he and Levy had an affair), and for the good of his party. Of course, the reason is that a Democrat will always put themself first, the party second and the country third (last).
Republicans (elected officials) haven't really been involved in as many murders as Democrats such as Condit and Kennedy (I won't even go into the Clinton body counts), but the few that have been found to have affairs (Bob Livingston, for example, just after he was named Majority Leader in the House, succeeding Mr. Newt), have usually resigned immediately, which is, imo, the proper thing to do, even though Democrats don't see it that way.
09 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by cashthetrashHe stole their sovereignty which administrations since Ronnie(remember adnan kashoggi) helped to insure, and in the process he stole our trust that any war could still be fought on the grounds of a truly just cause and not because of other grubbier personal greedbased and vengefull motives.
...Bush hasn't stole from Iraq. ....
09 Feb 06
Originally posted by TheBloopI don't think that we should take what Trent Lott said that day as reflective of how he actually feels about America today. He was just saying what he thought was something nice to a 100 year old man...
You made some good points about friendship...
But, imo, I don't think that we should take what Trent Lott said that day as reflective of how he actually feels about America today. He was just saying what he thought was something nice to a 100 year old man...
But I think that something else to keep in mind is the reaction of the Republican party as a ...[text shortened]... ately, which is, imo, the proper thing to do, even though Democrats don't see it that way.
I think there are better things to say to an Old Segregationist than We White Southern Men who's families Owned slaves would be better off if all those Blacks were still slaves and poor. We could have made them go to schools that don't educate but instead just teach how to pass a test. We look good they stay dumb and we can call them inferior lazy monkeys.
But I think that something else to keep in mind is the reaction of the Republican party as a whole after Trent said these things... he was pressured into resigning (and the pressure came from Republicans, not from Democrats. Lott would have never resigned if it was only Democrats pressuring him). In other words, Republicans, for the most part, don't put up with that kind of talk from their own leaders
That is because they want to appear Innocent when they stink like pigs in mud. Power hungry players are a dime a dozen in the Republican party. What difference does it make who the front man is? When they all vote the same way anyway. The lobbyist is who pays them the most sees to that.
On the other hand, there was no pressure from Democrats on Gary Condit to resign, after his alleged involvement in the murder of Chandra Levy... (and we all know that he was either involved or he knew something about it). One wonders why Condit didn't resign simply to make things a little easier on his family (especially since he and Levy had an affair), and for the good of his party. Of course, the reason is that a Democrat will always put themself first, the party second and the country third (last).
That's because there was no credible evidence of his involvement. No charges had been filed and the investigation had not been completed. As to why he didn't resign maybe because he wasn't guilty. How do you know he was involved? Were you part of the Republican conspiracy to frame him? If he is guilty he should be hung but sense he hasn't been hung and found guilty by the courts highly stacked Republican Judges stop the slander. Which half of the country is the Republican party putting first?
Republicans (elected officials) haven't really been involved in as many murders as Democrats such as Condit and Kennedy (I won't even go into the Clinton body counts), but the few that have been found to have affairs (Bob Livingston, for example, just after he was named Majority Leader in the House, succeeding Mr. Newt), have usually resigned immediately, which is, imo, the proper thing to do, even though Democrats don't see it that way.
You are correct. I hope there never is as many Republicans murdered as have been murdered in the Democratic Party. Like in mysterious Airplane crashes Like the son of JFK and his wife. Senator Wellstone from Minnesota And the Man who ran for Governor of Missouri. And died just before the elections. I have forgot his name. Maybe you can help? As to the honorable men who were told to resign. Well maybe because they (Livingston and Newt) were caught red handed in Hypocrisy. And like I said before there is always another Hypocrite in the Republican Party like the two you mentioned to take their place.
10 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by cashthetrashNothing mysterious about JFK Jr.'s crash...he didn't know what the hell he was doing.
...(bloop) Republicans (elected officials) haven't really been involved in as many murders as Democrats such as Condit and Kennedy (I won't even go into the Clinton body counts), but the few that have been found to have affairs (Bob Livingston, for example, just after he was named Majority Leader in the House, succeeding Mr. Newt), have usually resigne ays another Hypocrite in the Republican Party like the two you mentioned to take their place.
Wellstone's crash was mysterious in the sense that the plane had no flight data recorders...I'm sure they're in a landfill somewhere, with some Republican's fingerprints all over them...
Mel Carnahan was the former Missouri Governor who, while running for the Senate in 2000, was killed in a plane crash.
It was determined that the probable cause of the accident was the pilot’s failure to control the airplane while maneuvering because of spatial disorientation. Contributing to the accident were the failure of the airplane’s primary attitude indicator and the adverse weather conditions, including turbulence.
On October 17, 2000, Lieutenant Governor Roger B. Wilson succeeded Mel Carnahan to fill the Governor's office until January 2001. Because Missouri election law would not allow for Mel Carnahan's name to be removed from the November 7, 2000 ballot, Jean Carnahan, his widow, became the Democratic candidate unofficially. Acting governor Wilson promised to appoint her to the senate seat if it was vacant as a result of Mr. Carnahan being elected, and the campaign continued using the slogan "I'm Still With Mel." Mr. Carnahan won, and Mrs. Carnahan was then appointed to the Senate (which proved to be way, way over her head) and served until, in a special election in November 2002, she was defeated by James Talent, a Republican.
One other thing that happened after Carnahan was killed was the fact that John Ashcroft, the Republican candidate for Senate that year, could have challenged the results of the election (since the Democratic 'candidate' was dead). He decided not to challenge the results, hoping to give some comfort to Mrs. Carnahan (being the cold-hearted, cruel Republican that he was). Mrs. Carnahan rewarded Ashcroft by voting against him in his nomination for Attorney General (she was told to do it by the Democratic leadership, as I said, she was way, way over her head, the lady is a moron).
So if you're wondering what the difference is between Missouri and Illinois, it's the fact that in Missouri, a lot of Democrats vote for dead people, while in Illinois, a lot of dead people vote for Democrats.