Forums Index >> General >> Thanks Democrats
Page : 1 . . . . . 5 : 6 : <7> : 8 : 9 . . . . . 23
...and so it goes.
(two fewer terrorists. Fighting them over there instead of over here. Freedom's on the march. Blah blah blah)
Last edited: Friday, June 17, 2005 at 4:51:18 AM
^^^ a good example of the real costs of this administration's policies.
Anything for power. Military power in the example. Gross economic power (in the hands of a select few, who control the economic lives of many, but hoard wealth), and do it in the name of "free enterprise" -exemplified by WalMart.
I wonder how aware people are of the donations the Walton family makes to shadowy political groups (ex: Evergreen Freedom Foundation, an anti-union, anti-public education political committee), who use truly nasty campaign tactics to help depower labor unions. (And they try desperately to hide who supports them) They also put tons of $ into many candidate's hands for campaigns... But only if you support their views.
I wonder how many of you are aware of WalMart's stance on employee's being able to be represented by a union? One store elected to be represented by a union, which they have the right to do legally.
WalMart closed the store.
If I buy at WalMart or Sam's Club, I'm supporting these activities. 
Why do they need a union? Wal-Mart's taking good care of them.
Then explain why they have such fear of unions, 44. When the store voted to have union representation, they close the store? Their workers obviously didn't think they were being treated well. If they did, they wouldn't have chosen to be represented.
Then, rather than allow the employees' to be represented, they shut down. Unfair. Also a threatening message to all other workers at all other WalMart's and Sam's Clubs.
Enrich the rich, keep the rest down. Why not responsibly enrich all people, not just themselves? How many billions is enough? There is a point where no one needs more than X amount.
I was involved with a trucking company a few years back (middle management) - we had an exclusive contract with Coca Cola to haul their product for several of their freight lanes in the southeastern US.
It was a first class operation - one of the first of it's kind in the Carolinas. We spent a ton of money on making sure the drivers had equipment they could be proud of, won several awards for safety programs, health care, etc. We had a waiting list of drivers wanting to sign on with us, as we were one of the higher paying carriers at the time.
One thing of note here....we shared the company financials with each employee in quarterly meeting which were well attended. Although we were a private company, we felt that since the employees' hard work was the gas that drove the engine, their being "up to speed" on the company's financial performance was a good thing and would allow them to take some ownership on their productivity. And it worked. The company operated as above for several years...making a ton of money for the owners and providing the employees with a good living. Some of the drivers made over $100k a year, after bonuses.
In 1996, we expanded into eastern TN with a new terminal as Coca Cola expanded our contract. It was an economically depressed area, and our announcement made the front page of the local paper. Created 40 new jobs.
Then here came the unions.
We didn't fight the vote, as surely we thought the drivers would never vote for representation.
Bottom line: the TN drivers did, and the next thing you know the local is demanding a meeting.
At this meeting, we were told how things were going to be. Increases in pay, decreases in quotas, guaranteed bonuses...you name it, they demanded it.
Once the math was done, it was obvious that we were going to lose our ass on this operation.
So, we shut it down.
Why? Because we weren't in the business of losing money.
The same thing with a number of businesses nowadays. Just read your local business section. Airlines, automotive, steel, lumber industries......the majority of these have union representation that just kills their financial viability.
Now, don't get me wrong here. Worker representation is a great thing, and if that is all it remained from the 1930's it would be flourishing today. Unfortunately, it has evolved into something else entirely, and has turned into the senior class girl with VD.
(Incidentally, the Wal Mart argument is one of the few areas I am in full agreement with the Stinkmeister.)
I hate to admit it, but too often unions abuse power too. I was specifically targeting WalMart, but didn't say so.
I've seen the problems you bring up, Chief. It sounds like your company was doing what I'd like to see. The workers were involved, they had a good thing going, and could influence the business. You saw the value of dedicated workers. Fair and balanced union represtentation didn't happen there, and I'm sorry that was how it went.
On the other hand, WalMart. Big bucks for owners, cheap products, cheap quality, and treat workers cheaply.
Chief: and so the only issue you are ever on the right side of...
Its a shame to see unions strong-arm themselves out of relevance...no one seems to understand compromise.
Chief: and so the only issue you are ever on the right side of...!
Its a shame to see unions strong-arm themselves out of relevance...no one seems to understand compromise.
So true, stink...
And now we have 50% on the left, 50% on the right, no compromise, and no one gets anything important done. (And the Washington State governor elected by 129 votes, with 50% angry)
So much for the two party system...
http://www.gophypocrites.com/2005/05/hyp05022.html
This is very amusing.
@ LGM
I really think that's what Sen Graham & co were going for in their judicial nomination compromise. It sucks they are getting beat up so badly in the media...but I'm not surprised. The michael Jackson trial is over and they need something to sell papers and advertising with.
The logic of the market: walmart buys plastic shit from third world countries (who don't have pesky environmental regulations, or worker safety advocates driving up prices) and sells them to you cheaper than ma and pa businesses ever could. Ma and pa go out of business.
Yeah right on Stinky, Walmart is bad you convinced me. I'm on
your side now!
OH! HOLD ON.......
Then, rather than allow the employees' to be represented, they shut down. Unfair. Also a threatening message to all other workers at all other WalMart's and Sam's Clubs.
Danm it you guys are confusing this old farm boy.
Let me get this stright...
Walmart is bad if they open
Walmart is bad if they are shut down.
I see.
T raider
@t raider
When a company runs a store, they buy labor. They have a responsibility to their employees to keep going if the business is profitable. Employees are allowed to have an election and decide if they want to be represented by a union.
When WalMart's employees did that, the company slammed the doors of the store and left their people out in the cold. Not fair. Kinda like taking the baseball and running home in the middle of the game.
@ Chief- I think Graham et al. Were doing what needed to be done to break a stupid stalemate. Good leadership on their parts. We need more talk, less posturing.
@ all- anybody see the dateline story about stores buying clothes from companies in Bangladesh?
"Human Cost behind bargain hunting" http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8243331/
The old saw on Walmart is that it closed down small town's main street. Just wiped those sweet old retailers off the map. *Sob*
While that may have been true a small percentage of the time, most small towns -- from my experience -- were usually at the mercy of Ralph's Pretty Good Groceries whose motto was "If we don't have it you can get along without it."
Even worse some small towns had little downtown monopolies, retailers who knew locals would have to drive 45 minutes to get better prices and didn't care. Then Walmart showed up and competition gets stiff.
Good thing.
But, a monopoly is a monopoly whether it's little Johnson's Clothing Store or Walmart.
Along with their good competitive pricing, at times, Walmart replaces the small town monopolies with their a big multi-national monopoly.
So in new global economy the whales are getting bigger and meaner.
However, the minnows are getting faster and smarter too, right now. (You actually see one here, IMO -- Bravetree and GG.) The small town retailers get sharper and better. I hope they eat whale...
To try and answer t raider's dilemma ;) , the whale doesn't need killing, it does need to stop monopolizing. More competition.
Interesting reading that if the recent Indonesian tsunami had hit several key ports, Walmart might have lost over 50% of its shelf stock until the ports reopened.
It's hiring problems are a separate issue...
Last edited: Saturday, June 18, 2005 at 8:35:43 AM
I like this forum because it has a lot of independent thinkers... (it has some independent stinkers too and I'm not talking about Stinkmeister...)
Towing the party line and "pop" opinions, sheesh. Those who can't say "yea" and "no" at the same time...
Like, yes, there was a Downing Street memo. Yes, it did talk about a "run-up" to war in Iraq. But no, it may not be CONSPIRACY!
The memo was not a transcript, it was notes from a British rep. What the person quoted actually meant...???? And the word "fixed"???
...I fixed supper.
...I had my dog fixed.
...the horse race was fixed
No wonder no news outlets have investigated.
Last edited: Saturday, June 18, 2005 at 9:01:18 AM
And speaking of wild generalizations...
I give you Sen. Richard J. Durbin on Gitmo:
"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners."
Very precise, very cool-headed, very inflammatory, very inaccurate, very...
Abuses possibly have or are happening there, but comparing death camps of WW2 to Gitmo? Ecce Homo. Behold the man...
Behold this...
(republican) Sen. Chuck Hagel is angry. He's upset about the more than 1,700 U.S. Soldiers killed and nearly 13,000 wounded in Iraq. He's also aggravated by the continued string of sunny assessments from the Bush administration, such as Vice President Dick Cheney's recent remark that the insurgency is in its "last throes." "Things aren't getting better; they're getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality," Hagel tells U.S. News. "It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq."
Uh-oh. Breaking reagan's commandment? What next...a mad dash away from self-centered bullshit...and toward...integrity?
Let's hope it's contagious.
"its like they're just making it up as they go along..." ha! No shit! But, how'd you like your tax break?
Right JJ, right chief? You get a tax break, 1700 american kids get a coffin. 13,000 kids get traumatized. You get tax breaks. Hurray for republicanism! The politics of "f$%k the other guy, I'm getting mine, now." and for the families of those dead soldiers -- who undoubtably represent the lower socio-economic classes -- let em eat...grief. And how bout a little anquish on the side? The hollow pit in your soul? Sorry but we needed your child to help prevent the iraqs from hitting us with WMDs...no, strike that...er...your son bravely gave his life to punish saddam for his connection to OBL...er....no...er...i mean, he died to force democracy onto a backwards desert nation...but that endeavor isn't really working out at the moment...i'm sure it'll catch on anytime now...er.
What's that you say? That Two Years Before 9/11, Candidate Bush was Already Talking Privately About Attacking Iraq, According to His Former Ghost Writer ? Next thing you know, you'll be waving the DSM in my face. And I can't have that...so I'll stick my head in the sand here next to JJ and chief while poor whites and brown-skinned unfortunates go to die for my tax break.
Lets hope hagel's blasphemy is contagious...
What was that BS one of you hacks was saying about the DSM? I'm thinking hagel doesn't share your opinions.
Anger-manage this:
All those who spoke "diplomacy!" "no conflict!" were complicit with the Germans, Russians, and other Europeans and their billion-dollar oil deals with Saddam in the "Iraqi-and-Kurd-blood-for-oil program."
The blood of thousands is on the heads of the anti-conflict movement.
Your idea is that as long as your finger doesn't rest on any weapon, whatever else goes on in the world around you is love, peace...and dopey.
Yea, for example, I see all the outrage about Darfur. The systematic murder of thousands in ethnic cleansing. How about a few web links to Darfur? How about you donate some money there? How about you put your money where you peace movement is.
No, I didn't think so. That is because you have a different agenda. You are interested in ideology only. What you accuse me so eloquently of. You want to save man for the new Utopia, whatever wild-hair idea that really is.
Think I'll stomp off in a hissy now... If it bleeds to death in front of you, don't touch it.
BTW, I donate $2,000 a year to a school child in Haiti. And that's not all. But I'm throwing down the first card. Wanna raise me? What do you do?
Last edited: Sunday, June 19, 2005 at 7:19:06 AM
And the UN needs to exist and needs a John Bolton to kick its fat butt...
Billion-dollar oil deals with Saddam in the "Iraqi-and-Kurd-blood-for-oil program."
Darfur. The systematic murder of thousands in ethnic cleansing.
Please choose a justification for the war. I don't care which one...WMDs, Al Qaeda, democracy in Middle East, fighting terrorists there instead of here, oil, kurds, darfur...
After you pick one (or two, if you like) go back and look how this war was sold to congress and the american people.
I know, I know...bad intelligence.
Only bad intelligence is that used by those who continue to tow the line.
You got me with the $2k..I can't beat that hand.
Course money trumps everything, don't it JJ?
Last edited: Sunday, June 19, 2005 at 10:10:08 AM
Embarrassing. This is why you cannot have civil debate with people—they just don't give a shit.
It was planned before 9.11? Ah yes, well, he's a bad dude, and they were stealing oil, and.....and......and......and......and......and......and......and......and......and......and......and......
and......and......
and......and......and......and......and......
and......and......and......and......and......and......and......and......and......
and......and......and......and......and......and......and......and......and......and......and......
and......and......and......and......http://newclips.crooksandliars.com/thisweek_condi_answers_downing_street_memo_050619-01.wmv...and......and......and......and......and......
History is going to bend bush over a table, I guarantee you that.
Last edited: Sunday, June 19, 2005 at 10:36:00 AM
I once gave a homeless man the remainder of a jelly doughnut and a copy of the employment section. Not to mention that I also pushed the street crossing button at a busy intersection for a blind man. I put a nickel a week in the poor box at church. That's been going on for 20 years, so let's do the math..05 x 52 x 20 = 52 beans
Ok, monetarily you've got me beat, but you can't deny my non-fiscal philanthropy.
Hmm. Justification for the war? I'll take WMDs for a thousand Alex. Woot! The Daily Double!
I'll be it all Alex.
Answer: WMDs.
Question: What was not found in Iraq?
Like a midget at a urinal, I was going to have to be on my toes.
Invite a retard to a picnic and you'd better expect to get drool in the potato salad.
@ Rogue
I am pretty sure the Kurds found them.
@ stinky
The only break from the gov't is in the past tense of the word....as in "broke it off in me...."
More later.....kinda hard to type on this small ass treo keyboard but it beats the crackberry.
In Summation:
http://allspinzone.com/blog/index.php?itemid=623
Respectable Khazering
http://www.moveleft.com/moveleft_essay_2005_06_20_bill_frist_md_trying_to_protect_vaccine_companies_from_civil_justice.asp
Jj: what do I do? Well, for a start I don't go waving money around in front of people who don't have any...i tell you what...the day I pay off my student loans (about 5000 a year over the next 20 years for the privalege of going to state schools) I'll take over your obligation with that illegitimate child you appeared to have fathered in haiti.
Until then perhaps what I DON'T do will suffice: I promise not to give support to an ideologically driven zealot or his henchmen. I promise not to be a hypocrite. I promise not to alienate myself or my fellow countrymen from the rest of the world. I promise not to impose my religious beliefs on anyone. I promise not to discriminate against anyone based on their ethinicity, nationality, sexual orientation, religion or race. I promise not to lend support to illegal wars or to rationalize murder; to play off torture and inhumanity; to wave a flag in your face; to pretend that americans are superior to all others; to be inconsistent in my ethics; to cut friends in on sweetheart deals; to steal; to lie; to watch fox news; to call the corporate press "liberal" to pretend to be enlighted, when really I'm just a small-minded bible thumper constrained by the small-minded people around me (ahem JJ ahem).etc, etc.
Oh, and what's that mish-mash your pecked about ideology? Dude, I come at you from so many angles you have no concept where I'm coming from...and that tired old dog-and-pony show you trot out is always trussed up in the ragged raiment of the fox news crowd.
So yeah, pay off your conscience with a little guilt money to some poor unfortunate (but undoubtably christian) kid in haiti. What ever it takes for you to ease your mind at what a nasty, intolerant, scared, anti-modernist, self-centered turd you've become. Oh, I guess I could have just said "modern republican."
Finished with the cliff notes on nietzsche yet?
Poster boy.
Last edited: Monday, June 20, 2005 at 7:01:58 PM
^ Bad sushi?
Just cause the man gives $2k a year to a orphan in Haiti doesn't mean it doesn't financially pain him to give it.
Assumptions assumptions assumptions. Let's go ahead and assume the kid is black and uneducated. Let's assume his mother was a prostitute and his father's some rich white Republican tourist who is back in the States.
Discrimination anyone? Assumption is a big part of it dude...and I can say that matter-of-factly in South Carolina. It is present here to this very day.
And what is the big deal if the kid is a Christian Stinky? Are you that anti-Christian or just anti-religion? I point this out because the majority of the American people identify themselves with SOME TYPE of "higher power" religion, be it Christ, Buddha, Allah, etc. It is pretty obvious that the left is on the attack against theology...and it has been going on a long time pre-GWB.
You make a helluva orator stink - you really should consider running for office one day.
And on the DSM (as it is becoming referred to) - someone's opinion. Hell, any one of you guys have written that a gazillion times. The only difference is y'all don't hold a position in the gov't. Now all of sudden because some mid-level bureaucrat wrote a "memo" about it it's factual?? Man, gimme a break.
The memo's just one man's opinion. It's another skirmish being fought on the fringe...unfortunately, Dean's remarks came at just the right time, and hasn't allowed this issue to see the full light of disclosure for what it really is.....the center left move a little further left daily....and that suits the shit outta me.
I guess no one wants to talk about the Kurds finding the WMD..........
"Now all of sudden because some mid-level bureaucrat wrote a "memo" "
The dude is the head of the M16. Not mid-level...
The dude prepared the minutes of a meeting (not a memo despite the name) for Tony Blair. And Tony read it.
So...that's a sillly dance you're doing there, sir.
But yeah, I could have written that myself. :) no surprises in it. Anyone with three operating neurons and four ounces of integrity already knew all that...maybe that's why the flaming liberal press refused to pounce on it? Old hat?
Chieftain...that crack about the "christian" orphan was based on my assumption that JJ's church is some how connected to saving the poor little bastard. "yeah kid, we'll give you a sandwich...but have you accepted jesus christ as your personal savior? No? Well then, give me back that goddam sandwich..."
Tally: "Embarrassing. This is why you cannot have civil debate with people—they just don't give a shit.
It was planned before 9.11? Ah yes, well, he's a bad dude, and they were stealing oil.."
YEP. That's why you don't debate them. Didn't you notice? They don't debate us. They just keep trotting out non-sequitors and leaps of faith gussied up as arguments...echo the fox bromides...but they don't debate.
Remember, they are ANTI-MODERNISTS! They only believe in reason and rational discourse when it serves their tiny purposes. They are BACKLASHERS! And they feel beset upon by ineluctable natural forces...not the least of which is demographics. They fight like cornered rats. This whole bush thing is a last ditch attempt to stop the march of time...
Don't waste your time reasoning with them. Kick them in the ass instead. It feels good. Scared, pasty white zealots aren't an increasing demographic...thank god for that.
Would JJ and Chief have the same view if it were
mandatory for bush supporter to fight in IRAQ???
Its one thing to talk its another to do. Instead of
debating about how right BUSHY is; maybe your
place is in the WAR, not your cozy home in
your cozy bed, with your families...
Ya, lets go fight for our tax break...
Im sure a lot of bush supporter would leave his side
if that was the case, maybe not u two but id say more than 50%.
Im sure the iraq scud missile threat to us is justified.
Or is it???
(they had a hard time hitting israeli)
Yes I agree support our troops, but you dont have to
blindly support the current administrative policy.
It just make me sick of people arguing a ideology if they are
not fully involved. (ie, the ones who are doing all the work.)
So if you are not in IRAQ then shut your trapps.
Peace
Oh BTW,
Hi stinks, you're still around... :)
Heya FO do-gg. Cya on the field...
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Hardball_DSM_Michael_Smith_6-20-05.mov
Mmmm, looks like the liberal media is brewing up a scandal, yes?
Shuster on the rinse cycle:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8158450/#050620a
And Bolton gets the boot. All's good in Bush land yes?
Yackety yack tomorrow.
Last edited: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 at 1:05:38 AM
Good morning dudes! Rise and shine! (Vash - that means get your lazy ass out of bed in military speak).
@ Stink
"Now all of sudden because some mid-level bureaucrat wrote a "memo" "
The dude is the head of the M16. Not mid-level...
The dude prepared the minutes of a meeting (not a memo despite the name) for Tony Blair. And Tony read it.
Point taken. Blair must have thought a lot of it.
...maybe that's why the flaming liberal press refused to pounce on it? Old hat?
LOL - no, they have visions of Dan Rather dancing in their heads. America's Newsman got kicked out on his ass for taking a very similar ball and running with it. Damn those leaks - call the plumber.
Chieftain...that crack about the "christian" orphan was based on my assumption that JJ's church is some how connected to saving the poor little bastard. "yeah kid, we'll give you a sandwich...but have you accepted jesus christ as your personal savior? No? Well then, give me back that goddam sandwich..."
Dude, I went and looked and never saw JJ make mention of a church anywhere in here. Period. You must be flashing back to the Rabban days. Come to think of it, I do happen to have a couple hits of yellow stars left around from a Dead show a few years ago. Let me know if you'd like me to fax them to you so you can deal.
That's why you don't debate them. Didn't you notice? They don't debate us. They just keep trotting out non-sequitors and leaps of faith gussied up as arguments...echo the fox bromides...but they don't debate.
I'm trying my damnedest to debate, killer. I have laid out facts that have been met with silence. I have asked questions that were met with witty ripostes. Great filler, but at the end of the day it's rhetorical popcorn.
Scared, pasty white zealots aren't an increasing demographic...thank god for that.
LOL - I concur - as a matter of fact their numbers are decreasing as the sky continues to not fall, black helicopters don't buzz the sky, and people continue to trust their gut when they vote.
@ Vash
Pardon me whilst I pay my taxes.
@ Da Ho
Sup dude?
:)
Love the clip. It would probably be taken more seriously if the objective webmasters of "crooksandliars.com" put a Susan McDoogle story up there though....or at least didn't put a Daily Show story beside it. But hey - WTF do I know. By the way - that Chris Matthews is one hardcore conservative attack dog. Grrrr grrrrr.
You have a point on the Bolton thing. I suspect they'll say "screw the truce" once one or two (actually boys and girls, rumor mill out of AZ is saying maybe as many as THREE) of the Supremes decide to stop touring.....and point at Bolton and (by my math) 6 other nominations that were scuttled in the Senate.
I simply cannot believe people fell for the truce thing. One more instance of the media leading the herd to the trough and saying "DRINK."
"Be the ball Danny." Traveling and Treoing until Friday so the posts will be short and sweet.
Last edited: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 at 6:04:01 AM
Not sure what most of that means, but there is a lot to respond to. Watch this space, bbl.
quickly: susan mc who? Find my earlier post. Try to stop killing the messenger for once and hear what cat has to say.
replay.
@ TH
You're right. I apologize for jumping the gun. Too much caffeine.
@khief
Would that be more like, reveille, reveille, reveille... Get you sorry a$$ outa bed.
and whilst pay your taxes with your a$$.
Last edited: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 at 10:46:30 AM
Sup vash?
Chief: read this over: funny to see blair back peddling.
And NOW you want to debate? That boat left a long time ago. Btw: interesting to see the nation's most visable republicans GW and schwartzneger take a major dive in the polls. Schwartz approval rating is 37%!
Perhaps the left aint dead yet, my dear backlashers...enjoy your little dance while it lasts. 3.5 years or something...unless GW gets impeached...for something like a blow job, or perhaps...starting an unnecessary war and bankrupting a country or somepin.
After GW, I doubt the term "conservative" will get much traction! Collasal GD failure as he is. "conservativism" will have the same meaning as "mc carthyism" or thereabouts.
Last edited: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 at 10:46:56 AM
@stinks
I have not been on the forums for a long time.
Last we spoke you were talkin about leaving tt all
together.
So I was surprise to see you
were still on the forums.
Are u back in the US?
Spam me later...
Peace
Last edited: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 at 12:59:29 PM
I'll take over your obligation with that illegitimate child you appeared to have fathered in haiti.
I serve it back to you your style and WHAT ?
Nice point about assumptions, Chief. Very nice point.
Basically it goes, if you don't do it my way, then it's the highway? Or more specific to here: If no civil debate happens, it's because I don't give a s$$t...
Very ironic.
Speaking of classic confusion from Star Wars :
"Oh, Anakin, let the diplomacy continue..."
Padme: "So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause."
Obi-Wan: "Only the Sith deal with absolutes."
Last edited: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 at 12:10:15 PM
<-------------------has a burr up his ass
Hey dude....don't feel bad. I've run into a few teenagers that looked like me too (hint hint - Chong)...(j/k).
:)
@ Stinky
I just read your article....and I felt like I was watching the original Star Wars again.
Why you ask?
For Blair, Iraq Issue Just Won't Go Away
By ALAN COWELL
Published: May 2, 2005
Dude....talk about lag...... :)
Last edited: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 at 11:51:40 AM
Darfur
No relative, legitimate or otherwise, used to be here:
[My EDIT: image deleted]
Source of map is here:
Village info on.pdf map. Google-type satellite images on "Clickable Maps".
Last edited: Thursday, June 23, 2005 at 1:55:35 PM
Hey man....you're stepping on my buzz.
You know what's kinda wierd here? The groups that are willing to go into places such as the above - and stay there irregardless of the danger - don't have a damn thing to do with the UN. The CRO, MRO, etc - who are all faith-based groups.....seem to be the ones that don't run when the pot boils over.
Just an observation.
^ Good point. Liberalism finally scores one.
"Hey buddy - can you spare an S&L?"
True, Flea. You liberals should be concerned about more than just oil wells and WMDs.
Dawg, Chief, should we talks sum dumb Southern and heps these fellers wit their angry-management sum more?
I sho think so. Let's do it all in lazy white religious cracker talk, suld we?
About diplomacy and the "run-up" to the war:
"Now, if you love a deal with a bad man who got sumpin you want and somebody looks to be interruptin yo plan, you say:
"'Now, hold on thar! Don't tack that man! He is compilin wit these here weepons inspectin boys!'
"But *wink wink* we knows he ain't. Is he hidin sumthin here or not? Lor, children, we don't cares! He's keepin it lo-cal , just gassin the locals, if you know wat I means..."
...but, you know, that's water under the bridge now. So why make fun of it? Let's get Gitmo instead.
Sounds like a good cheer: "Let's get Gitmo! Let's get Gitmo! Rah, rah, ree, kick it in the knee! Shut it down! Shut it down! Who's your leader? Take me to your leader? Impeach him, Impeach him! Throw him into prison one more timmmmmeeeeee! Yeah!"
WMC = Weapons of Mass Cheerleading
No, no, I'm sorry, I should take concerns about these things more seriously. I promise I will.
Last edited: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 at 2:39:49 PM
Uh, chief...i wanted you to read blair's take on the DSM. Yeah its old. But did you read what he said? Its comical.
? And what is that mess JJ? And now you give a shit about darfur? We've already covered iraq revisionism. Our assumption that you might be the least bit insensed about shifting rationale is based on another assumption: that you have any integrity. I dropped that assumption awhile ago. Nice new tactic there: the left just hates us. Spice it up with moronic dialogue and you have...well, exactly what you presented. Why bother? I don't understand why you even bother to write anything...why not just turn on fox and grab the lubriderm and some handi-wipes?
Last edited: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 at 2:35:49 PM
Revisionism is the tune of the day.
History repeats.
History repeats.
History repeats.
When your memory is short.
You think?
So now our...hmm...faux news boy wants to stray into darfur...i haven't seen fox since I left the DOD, so I can only guess that the reason for this attention is that the fox crew sees a way to continue its attack on the UN -- this time for its inability to do anything about the genocide in darfur.
Before I go on, let me quote John Bolton, who JJ -- who has never had a thought that didn't also occur to GW Bush -- thinks would be a great embassador: "
“There is an international community that occasionally can be led by the only real power left in the world and that is the United States when it suits our interest and when we can get others to go along. And I think it would be a real mistake to count on the U.N. As if it is some disembodied entity out there that can function on its own.”
(Global Structures Convocation, Feb. 3, 1994)"
I love it! So maybe it didn't suit our interests to intercede? As flea said, no WMDs, no oil. But its a bit more compicated:
Resolution 1593 (March 31, 2005)
The Security Council has decided to refer perpetrators of human rights abuse in Sudan’s Darfur region to the International Criminal Court (ICC), bringing an end to a long-standing discussion between Council members and overcoming the threat of a US veto. The adoption of Resolution 1593 importantly marks the first time the Security Council has referred a case to the ICC. But critics complain that the decision to exempt “States not Party to the Rome Statute” from compliance creates dangerous double standards, and amounts to no more than a trade-off in return for Washington’s vote.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/sudanindex.htm
UN Tussles With America on Trials for Darfur War Crimes
"The United States is not a signatory to the treaty that created the court, however, and the administration of President George Bush fears that acceptance of the United Nations text would signal tacit support for it. That would almost certainly cause a backlash against the White House by conservative Republicans."
And right on que, our faux"independent" thinker barks the faux news bark...
The reality is that the current calls for Annan's head are provoked by his opposition to America's pre-emptive war in Iraq. On December 4 the Minneapolis Star Tribune, the hometown newspaper of Senator Norm Coleman, who has called for Annan's resignation, provided perhaps the most succinct explanation of what lies behind the attacks. Describing Coleman's call as a "sordid move," the editorial explained: "For months before the election, the right-wing constellation of blogs and talk radio was alive with incendiary rhetoric about Annan and the oil-for-food scandal.... This is really all about Annan's refusal to toe the Bush line on Iraq and the administration's generally unilateral approach to foreign affairs. The right-wingers hate Annan and saw in the food-for-oil program a possible chink in his armor. They went after it with a venomous fury.
http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?I=20050110&s=williams
More John Bolton quotes:
"The European arguments against the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act demonstrate that some Europeans have never lost faith in appeasement as a way of life. It is clear that Iran is cynically manipulating gullible (or equally cynical) Europeans to advance its development of weapons of mass destruction."
"There's no such thing as the United Nations. If the U.N. Secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference. "
"We estimate that once Iraq acquires fissile material - whether from a foreign source or by securing the materials to build an indigenous fissile material capability - it could fabricate a nuclear weapon within one year. "
"Many Republicans in Congress - and perhaps a majority - not only do not care about losing the General Assembly vote but actually see it as a "make my day" outcome. Indeed, once the vote is lost, and the adverse consequences predicted by the U.N.'s supporters begin to occur, this will simply provide further evidence to many why nothing more should be paid to the U.N. System. "
Chump.
Last edited: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 at 4:14:04 PM
@ da stinkmeister
Au contraire mon friere. I was actually doing the "Hardball" growl. Hence the "grrrr....grrrrr....."
On a more serious note - yes, I did pay attention to Blair saying "hey look over there!"
I figured he was just being British........and I can honestly observe and affirm that yes, his behavior and reaction lends credence to your argument. I only wish he'd lop a Andrew Jackson or two off the price of Brent Crude if the US has him that deep in the pocket.
(I am pretty sure I ref'd all da EU homies in da house).
A quick question: when they decided to call the EU the "European Union", do you think they meant "literally" or just "conceptually"?
@ JJ
Isn't Darfur where all the casinos are in Haiti? We should have interceded much earlier. Black Hawk Down. Maybe my main man Bill can help us out on Darfur after he visits Gitmo? Ya know, isn't he 1 for 2...or was it 1 for 3...on the Dark Continent?
Well...my job is done here. Off to push little old ladies into traffic.
Caffeinatedly,
Chief
Page : 1 . . . . . 5 : 6 : <7> : 8 : 9 . . . . . 23
: :
Yeeeeeeeep, that's right. It ain't over 'til the fat lady has sung...and waffles are served for all.
First up - Social Security.
I bring you the following from an email I rec'd earlier today. Slightly partisan, but I though "What the hey...what's not lately?"
SO:
Subject: Social Security
We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like
a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the
handle.--Winston Churchill
SOCIAL SECURITY:
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the
Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be
completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into
the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to
put into the Program would be deductible from their
income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the
independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the
General operating fund, and therefore, would only be
used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program,
and no other Government program, and,
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees
would never be taxed as income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and
are now receiving a Social Security check every
month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed
on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal
government to "put away," you may be interested in
the following:
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from
the independent "Trust" fund and put it into the
General fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the
Democratically-controlled House and Senate.
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
"tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S.
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving
annuity payments to immigrants?
MY FAVORITE :
A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic
Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at
age 65, began to receive SSI Social Security
payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments
to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and
violation of the original contract (FICA), the
Democrats turn around and tell you that the
Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is, uninformed citizens
believe it!
I haven't had a chance to fact check yet - I'm sure someone will. I deleted the "pass this on" part of the email.
Well? Agree? Disagree?