idrankwhat

Oh yea......well..........ok you got us with that one. Actually I think the French bashing is because it's hard for some folks over here to admit that the French were right about the Iraq war.

How about a cite? Kallend, J.S., et. al., (2007), These Slimeball Politicians. Dropzone.com., Speakers Corner. 3, 8.

Big cuts in Medicare to pay for Bush's war? DEAD ON ARRIVAL. Regardless of party affiliation, the senior citizens' lobby has a LOT of voting power. Big pharma too. They're making a killing off of the seniors as well as the part of the Medicare program that Bush insists that we pay retail prices for.

Pretty much, he's good at dumping things off on other people. Practice makes perfect. In this case the next President(s) and the middle class taxpayers and their children get to handle this one.

I haven't seen the ad yet but, regarding the title of the thread, I'm trying to figure out "anti-homophobe". Is that some sort of double negative or does it just mean "pro-normal"

At least he included the wars in this request. I wonder if that will put an end to his "emergency" spending.

I honestly don't really care what he said. I'm too pissed off at that arrogant screw up of a president. Not because of all the mistakes he's made in the last six years but because of the huge temporary flight restriction area that they imposed around him this weekend. He f'd up the only decent jumping window we had all weekend!!!!! I hadn't thought about this before but I guess he does this wherever he goes now. I wish he would just go back to Crawford and stay there for the next year and a half like a good lame d_ck.

Ok, I get it, we're joking around. Sorry, I'm slow today edited to add: I should probably read the rest of the thread before I chime in.

He's accomplished what he's set out to do, and I quote: "I always say my real purpose is to attract the largest audience I can, and hold it for as long as I can, so I can charge confiscatory advertising rates,"

. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAAAA!! Holy crap, I think I just wet myself!!! These aren't by any chance the same people who wrote: The Patriot Act Clear Skies initiative, Healthy Forests initiative, Fair Pay initiative, I'm seeing a similar pattern.

Yeah, Prometheus was a liberal! Why else would he have wanted to redistribute the wealth from the top down? The fire didn't represent "wealth", it was enlightenment. And Zeus was apparently very afraid of enlightened mortals. Funny how "the top's" fears have changed so little

You forgot to mention that it was liberals who figured out how to brew beer, documented the migration habits of the deer and discovered fire

I thought we were already picking up the R&D tab. So basically it would be lateral move.........to an entity........with even more overhead. Damn. Nevermind.

Damn. I'm sorry to hear that. She was a sharp one. Fuckin' cancer. I'm really getting tired of that crap. Thanks Molly.

Great rant, it's always nice to get another perspective. My only advice would be to get some sleep though. Then you can revisit that part of your rant that tied the Iraq debacle with the war on terrorism. I understand though, I've got a two and a half year old and a 4 month old. It's easy to fall victim to disinformation when you're that sleep deprived. I don't think you're that far gone yet though, unless of course you've ever shot video of the wrong student

Ban federal funds to any company involved in direct consumer marketing of their products. And hire someone to figure out why in the hell nearly one third of each health care dollar is spent on administrative expenses. Oh yea, almost forgot. This is not a bill.

Can't say daddy didn't warn him/us. We certainly had the military capability to go on to Baghdad, but for what purpose? To get Saddam Hussein? I doubt that he would have waited at his palace for us to drive up and get him. So we would have needed to send a very large force and might well have faced intensive combat inside the city. The artillery, tanks, and air power that performed so well for us in the open desert would not have been very useful inside a major city. That would have cost us dearly in terms of additional casualties. And I'm not sure what we would have done with Baghdad, once we had it. But once we had prevailed and had toppled Saddam Hussein's government, we presumably would have had to stay there and put another government in place. And what would that have been: a Suni government, a Shia government, a Kurdish government, or another Bathist regime? How long would US forces have been required to say in to prop the government up? And how effective could it have been if the government we put in had been perceived as a puppet of the US military? My guess is that if we had gone to Baghdad, we'd still have US forces there today. And to involve American forces in a civil war inside Iraq would have been a quagmire, because we would have gone in there with no clear-cut military objective. It's just as important to know when not to use force as it is to know when to use it. And we got it right both times.

As I pointed out the other day, yes..the trust as written is irrevocable. But that doesn't mean a damn thing because it states in the contract, section 8c, that Cheney can withold the money for any reason and that the charities have no legal recourse. So basically Cheney can do whatever he wants with the money. BFD if it's irrevocable. But the bigger picture is that you have a VP who has ties to a war profiteering contractor which has been busted for defrauding the taxpayer under the VP's watch, been busted numerous times for overbilling, does business with Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, or basically anyone who will do business through their Cayman fax machine, bribes Nigerian officials, gives kickbacks to Kuwaiti contractors, etc. The list is quite long and in the end, the VP drives the foreign policy which creates profits for himself and his "old" company and the taxpayer takes it up the backside. I really don't see how anyone can defend this sort of relationship between business and government.

You've still not proven it. Sorry, maybe you'll take the word of the Congressional Research Service report on the matter. http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/crs.pdf

I looked into it and you're right. It's interesting that we don't make "peace" anymore. Only "cease fire". Which brings me to ask the question, can you actually make a peace agreement if you never declared war? P.S. In my search I did find that the Gulf War was indeed backed by a UN mandate based on numerous resolutions, starting with 660. It looks like 678 gave member states authority to use any means necessary to implement them.

He has a financial interest in Halliburton. Whether he cashes in the remaining 50,000 shares for his retirement mad money, or you consider the Richard B. Cheney Cardiac Institute, or the tax write off that Halliburton gets from the exercise of the options, or his deferred salary, or any future position he may hold with the company, he still has a significant financial interest in the company. He specifically stated that he did not.

Right. They were a temporary measure to help protect the Kurd uprising that Baghdad tried to suppress in the north and the retreating Shiites in the south. The US, Britain and France took part in patrolling the zones. France pulled out in 1996 because the "temporary" humanitarian mission had changed into something else. So basically, the war was over and two countries took it solely upon themselves to maintain these no fly zones over Iraq's sovereign airspace. Saddam never recognized them and there was no international support for the measure. So basically I can't say that his firing on our aircraft in his airspace could be considered an act of war. What if Iran started patrolling our airspace? Which would be the act of war, their invasion of our airspace and active targeting of our radar installations or our shooting at them?

Apparently not as tired of it as I am.

Why should we go back and rehash the details of this crap again? Basically each point made in the original post is simply a repost of a pro-war argument. It just seems that someone thinks that if you tidy them up into a top ten list that people are somehow supposed to think that they're all accurate and present a valid case for war. Call it "Rose Colored Revisionism" if you will.

I find it interesting that more people blame Clinton for GW than deny GW is occurring