Home > Uncategorized > It Makes You Want to Scream

It Makes You Want to Scream

In honor of tonight’s marathon debate in the U.S. Senate on Iraq, here’s more bad news for the President:

“The White House faced fresh political peril yesterday in the form of a new intelligence assessment that raised sharp questions about the success of its counterterrorism strategy and judgment in making Iraq the focus of that effort.

Since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush has been able to deflect criticism of his counterterrorism policy by repeatedly noting the absence of any new domestic attacks and by citing the continuing threat that terrorists in Iraq pose to U.S. interests.

But this line of defense seemed to unravel a bit yesterday with the release of a new National Intelligence Estimate that concludes that al-Qaeda “has protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability” by reestablishing a haven in Pakistan and reconstituting its top leadership. The report also notes that al-Qaeda has been able “to recruit and indoctrinate operatives, including for Homeland attacks,” by associating itself with an Iraqi subsidiary.”

So please allow me to pose a question to all the Bush supporters out there: How has our presence in Iraq since 2002 affected Bin Laden? What have we been able to accomplish in the War on Terrorism by devoting so much time and energy to Iraq? Seems to me that we focused on the wrong part of the world.

Advertisements
  1. ANONYMOUS
    July 18, 2007 at 4:07 am

    yes! yes! yes! finally my friend Dave! More bush hating!
    No my sister in allah will post again! Speak your hate for the ifidels! Post your hate for bush!
    In the end he will fall and we will win for the democrats are with us in spirit! (too bad they will have to perish too!)
    Allah will reign! Bush will fall in discrace and allah will once again rule his paradise free from war mongering infidels!
    lalalalalalalalaaaaa!

  2. The New Tone of San Luis Obispo
    July 18, 2007 at 5:38 am

    Dave, I’ll Bite. The moslem extremists (terrorists) have been focused on defeating us in the areas of Afganistan and Iraq. They have supporters in Saudi Arabia and Iran. They have stated themselves that Iraq is the central point in their war against the west.

    If we were never in Iraq, they would be fighting us somewhere else and Saddams rape rooms and WMD programs would still be in operation just like Gore and Clinton told us from 1996 through at least 2003. Nothing changed except the hate Bush people took over.

    As for the people that wrote after my response to Mr. Downtrodden Bob, I am not associated with them or their talk about homosexuals. I do not believe it profitable to mention and make light of activities that I believe to be wrong. All of us have the capability to sin, and sexual sins are no different. Adultery, fornication, and homosexuality are all the same. There are none that are worse than another. If a person is not a Christian, and they are sinning, so what. The important thing is to lead them to Christ and help them see their sin, not hate them because of their sin. They are no worse than you or I.

    I seriously doubt, by the way, that a Christian would respond to anyone the way that the “truth” guy did so please don’t consider him a Christian or a conservative for that matter.

    Those are the posts you need to delete, Dave.

  3. Peter Farwell
    July 18, 2007 at 6:34 am

    This first posting makes no sense at all. I think Dave raises a legitimate question. Just think how much further ahead we would have been if we had applied all this money, effort, troops, and time in Afghanistan. We would have taken out Bin Laden and dismantled the main core of the terrorists.

    One of the main problems in Iraq is that we’ve ended up CREATING more terrorists than we’ve killed or captured. We are despised on the global stage and there are generations of young people turning against us.

    There is no reason why Bin Laden shouldn’t have been captured by now. I pray every night that we won’t be attacked again on our soil, but I fear this president has failed.

  4. Anonymous
    July 18, 2007 at 12:56 pm

    Well if you don’t like Iraq change it! You libs have the biggest “do nothing” congress in history! Big deal…minimum wage went up and put hundreds of thousands of teens out of work. That’s it!
    If you want out of Iraq then do it!..or shut up and let us keep this nation safe while you do nothing but beat your own lefty chets.
    Cowards! Your congress has the lowest rating (now in the teens) of any congress since polls began.
    Let’s talk about that!

    As for newtunes. You my friend are “luke warm! and will be spit of out of the mouth of God!
    lame post.

  5. ANONYMOUS
    July 18, 2007 at 12:59 pm

    marilyn? Bob? C’mon! help me here! we all need to hate bush so we can get the US out of Iraq so we can implement Allah’s plan! The democrats are on our side! Let’s take advantage now!

  6. The New Tone of San Luis Obispo
    July 18, 2007 at 2:03 pm

    I am not interested in a debate here, but how exactly am I lukewarm. I don’t know what your understanding is of the Bible, but the apostle Paul did not condemn any unbelievers in his letters to the Church. Paul was rebuking believers acting like unbelievers. Same for Christ. We can expect non-believers to act in accordance to the sinful nature. It is not our job to change the world, only encourage change in those who are different by the belief in Christ. If someone claims to be a Christian then that is just a whole different story there.

    By the way, this nation is not a Christian Nation and 80% of people are not Christians. Christian values are declining in our country and it is just going to get worse and worse. I am very concerned about the future of our country. But I guess it was written about many years before and seems to be even closer to the last days where perilous days will come.

  7. Paul
    July 18, 2007 at 7:38 pm

    How has our presence… affected Bin Laden?
    We don’t know. He’s not the point. We aren’t in a war with Bin Laden we are in a war with Islamic terrorists, he’s just one of them.
    We have accomplished a number of things in Iraq-
    we’ve given them a chance at a democratic government.
    we’ve given the Kurds a chance to prosper.
    we’ve got a base of operations in the backyard of Iran and Syria.
    We took out Saddam and allowed him to be brought to trial.
    We’ve finally engaged the battle with people who have been at war with us for decades.

    Now let me pose a question.
    Does the constant effort of the left to undermine this war encourage the enemy to keep fighting?

  8. rob in los osos
    July 19, 2007 at 2:25 am

    Paul

    You think the problem is that they hate us because we’re christians. They don’t. They hate us because we’re in their part of the world. On the day after september 11th we should have:

    1 – Invaded Afghanistan with an army, not the token force thats there now, and found that piece of s#$t and captured or killed him. You’re wrong, he is the point, and to act like he doesn’t matter is utterly stupid.
    2 – Invested even half of the, what is it, 300 billion we’ve spent on Iraq to this point, on becoming energy independent – and if that means drilling in alaska, off the cal. coast for the short term, then fine – but have some kind of a f#$%ing plan to be free of oil use by 2025 – look at Brazil, the Netherlands, Sweden, etc…If they can do it, we certainly can.

    We had the whole (well almost) world behind us on sept. 11. Check and see how they feel about us now

  9. Downtown Bob
    July 19, 2007 at 3:29 am

    So, bin laden isn’t the point? Incredible. The head should have been cut off of the snake that is al qaeda long ago. To say that it would have not made any difference is to definitely have your head buried in the sand. The administration wants the world to believe that most of the foreign fighters in Iraq are from Iran, so we should confront Iran; NEWS-FLASH: Saudi Arabia is where most of the foreign fighters in Iraq are coming from, and Pakistan is gaining a larger al Qaeda “base” than any other nation, including Iraq. Do we confront the Saudis or the Pakistanis? Not this administration; their collective noses are firmly planted in the Saudi anatomy where the sun doesn’t shine, and General Musharraf is a friend of the Bush Administration. Now, I have embedded two links to news sites that have the stories to back up what I am saying, and, I only mentioned that Bush Administration has not confronted these two countries about their role in sponsoring or condoning or allowing al Qaeda to operate in their countries; please explain to me (in simple terms so I can understand) how this is “hating” President Bush.

  10. miko
    July 19, 2007 at 3:39 am

    Bob when you check in with reality let us know. Otherwise I can read moveon or media matters directly from their websites

  11. Paul
    July 19, 2007 at 6:13 am

    Rob
    I don’t think they hate us because we are christians, I think they hate us because we are not muslim, and because they (the radicals) think that killing us is what allah wants them to do.
    And screw them if they don’t want us over there, we went over there at the invitation of the Suadi, and Kuwati governments, and we wouldn’t have to be there at all if they would quit acting like psychos. Bin Laden and his crew don’t represent anyone but criminals. He got thrown out of his own country. He doesn’t have the authority to tell us anything.
    Killing him is not going to stop this war either, I’m sure there are plenty who will pick up where he gets dropped. So to think getting him will fix this whole mess is short sighted and simplistic.
    This war is bigger than Iraq and Afaganistan. And it is a war, not a police action. Taking out Bin Laden would make us feel good, but I doubt it would have any lasting effect.

  12. Downtown Bob
    July 19, 2007 at 6:32 am

    miko: So, the L.A. Times and ABC News don’t represent reality? Really? And you think that I’m the one that is disconnected to reality? Wow.

    Oh wait; you were probably too afraid to click the links provided and simply assumed that anything I link to will be a left leaning site only. You know what they say when you assume, don’t you? Okie dokie then.

  13. Thomas W
    July 19, 2007 at 6:51 pm

    To the first anonymous contributor on this particular blog.
    I have carefully reread Dave’s original posting and no where in it do I find the word hate or related words. I do not understand your message. Are you trying to be funny? Or are you the one filled with hate. I don’t think that Dave hates President Bush. But, like Dave I worry about our constitution and the threat to it furnished by the actions of this administration. When the conservative gentleman, Mr. Fein, who wrote the articles of impeachment on President Clinton now calls for impeaching our current president, one would think that would be a wake up call for even you.
    Like most, I do not hate our president. I am very concerned about his usurping the powers of both congress and justice and incorporating them into the administration.
    I am afraid, however, that our do nothing congress will let this pass. So the next president will have all of these new powers available to him/her. And that will really put America in trouble and our constitution in crisis. These are dire times and nobody seems to even care.

  14. the ghost of christmas past
    July 20, 2007 at 12:24 am

    The simple fact is that Osama bin Laden is DEAD! What else explains his absence from the world stage since 2002 and why Zawahiri is the front man now with the calss for jihad and the praise for different terrorists ripped from today’s headlines. bin Laden is irrelevant and we will never get our chance to prosecute him for the crimes he committed on 9/11 because he has already acheived room temperature. What this does though is give Liberal loonies the ability to chastise the president for “taking his eye off the ball” in Afghanistan and it gives the Right a boogeyman that they can throw at the American people why this that and the other thing needs to happen. face it, we are never going to get him.

  15. Anonymous
    July 20, 2007 at 12:51 am

    downtrodden bob! you are such a loon! LA times is dead…ABC is last in all ratings! Even the libs hate Katie Kercheif!
    You are quoting liberal lefty rags that are all but bankrupt! Whats with you and Dave/ Are you one and the same
    ? Dave quotes the NY times all the time! And last quarter they lost 10’s of millions of dollars!
    Get right and get it right! turn on KVEC 5 hours a day before all the liberal local jazz and learn the truth…or…
    were you tired from the pajama party in congress which was a HUGE embarassment to your beloved moveon’ers!
    hahahahaha!
    Bob, you are way to funny because you take yourself way too seriously!
    Go have a drink! (but don’t abuse any women while doing it!)

  16. Anonymous
    July 20, 2007 at 2:43 am

    what’s the matter mr anonymous? is my posting to truthful or do you just ignore anything that might serve to lower your preordained opinion of the president? Or perhaps you are content with the damage done to the constitution? I wish I could stick around for your answer, however, I have much more important things to do, you know like go camping. Sincerly,
    Thomas W

  17. the ghost of christmas past
    July 20, 2007 at 4:49 am

    What damage?!? What exactly has Bush done to damage irrepairably to the constitution? The only correct answer is that Bush has done things he and only he as the duely elected president of the country felt necessary to keep us safe and to end the threat of terrorism against America. there have been dozens of terrorist plots that have been stopped because of the USA PATRIOT Act and the terrorist surveilence program. There is no one in our jails who’s rights have been violated by either. Yes, there was that Canadian guy that was arrested in Canada and sent to Eqypt where he was tortured by them. But that was not the fault of Bush and his two programs. It was the fault of overly eager CIA folks trying to bust bad guys, which was unfortunate. So many things has happened during ths Bush Administration that are only his fault because he sits in the Oval Office. Bush didn’t plan and execute 9/11, the terrorists did. Bush didn’t make Hurricane Katrina and the aftermath happen, corrupt local Democrat leaders and Mother Nature did. maybe Bush isn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer, but neither is he this archtypical evil meglomaniacal dictator that Dave, Marilyn and Bob make him out to be. What troubles all you Bush doubters (is that better than hater?) is that he is a man of conviction that believes what he believes and absolutely refuses to be talked into or pursueded into weakening his beliefs just to make you loony guys on the left happy. Bill Clinton stuck his finger in the air and governed by approval polls; Bush is not that kind of guy and you hate not having the influence over him that you had over Clinton. I’mm sure you all think I’m off my nut, but I know this to be true even if you all refuse to see this about yourselves.

    Have a lovely day.

  18. paul
    July 20, 2007 at 5:38 am

    So no takers on my question?
    I don’t blame you, I don’t like to have things I should be ashamed of pointed out either.
    If they do hit us again here it will be because people like you convinced them that we have no spine. Thanks guys. You are great Americans.
    Does anybody remember President Bush saying that this war against terrorists might outlast our generation? Wake up, this is bigger than Iraq.

  19. Downtown Bob
    July 20, 2007 at 6:59 am

    ghost: Very thoughtful second comment; unfortunately most who won’t look can’t see. Do you need a list? You yourself inadvertently listed one of his first “problems” with the Constitution; you say that Bush has done things he and only he as the duly elected President felt necessary …. that is tantamount to saying that he can do anything he deems necessary to do what he (or his advisers) is thinks is okay. Read the Constitution yourself. We are supposed to have THREE CO-EQUAL BRANCHES of government, not an executive branch that overreaches in grabbing as much power as they can. If you will actually read that great document, you will see that the framers mentioned the remedy of impeachment SIX separate times, because the did not want any future President to attempt to take more power than they were prescribed to have, according to the Constitution itself. Now, add to that the second item you brought up, the Canadian who was kidnapped by our government, sent to Egypt specifically to be tortured. You mentioned that there have been dozens of terrorists plots that have been stopped because of the Patriot Act; do you have any proof? News reports, links?
    … So many things has happened during this Bush Administration that are only his fault because he sits in the Oval Office. Yeah, he is the one sitting in the seat of power, making decisions that affect the entire country, so he does have to take the heat for things that happen on his watch. It wasn’t so much that 9/11 happened on his watch, but couple that with the absolute lack of preparation or planning when virtually everyone from the previous administration warned this administration that terrorism would be the number one concern of theirs. Hurricane Katrina was the Democratic Governor’s fault? Please. The Governor requested federal help two days before the hurricane made landfall, and even requested: “We need your help. We need everything you’ve got.” Link here to the article that quote was from.
    This President has been inept from the moment he was installed into office. He has not performed well, especially under stress (sat in the second grade classroom for seven minutes after being told of the second airliner crashing into the WTC), he has repeatedly thumbed his nose at the laws of our country, appointed cronies to oversee the same industries they were making money in, packed the federal courts so that the laws can be ignored at will, and has put his entire military exercises on the nation’s credit card, which our children and grandchildren will be stuck with paying. You make it abundantly clear that you are firmly in the twenty five percent that still support this President (what were the Saddam supporters called, dead enders?) and you will attempt to brush away any criticism because you don’t want to face reality. Like I said at the beginning of this comment; if you don’t look, you won’t see. Try taking a look at how badly George W. Bush has done, it is all out there, if you look.
    Paul: WTF? Did you even ask a question in your previous comment? Please ask again, in the form of a question; I’ll respond.

  20. Anonymous
    July 20, 2007 at 11:52 am

    Harry Reid is a piece of crap

  21. Anonymous
    July 20, 2007 at 1:55 pm

    Downtrodden boob! Great copy-n-paste! Good to see you back to doing the work of the radical socialist left! Good boy!

    Dingy hairy a peice of crap! I don’t think so!!!!!!
    A peice of crap has value. It can fertilize plants ect…

    Therefore Dingy hairy is not a peice of crap because he/she has no value at all, except to those big nosed muslims in dirty nightshirts!

    Dingy hairy is a worthless waste of flesh and should be hung in the public square at noon! Pay-per-view so we cna use the money to make more bullets to kill more muslims.
    If you are a muslim you are a terrorist. Your worthless allah punk orders it! Convert or kill!
    You may not like it, but that doesn’t make it less true.
    Stop all immagration of any muslim. Stop the building of all mosques, and massively deport any & all muslims now!
    We’ll deal with the mexicans later.

  22. Paul
    July 20, 2007 at 2:50 pm

    the question-

    Does the constant effort of the left to undermine this war encourage the enemy to keep fighting?

  23. Hoosier21
    July 20, 2007 at 4:54 pm

    Well, finally someone has finally said it. Osama Bin Laden is dead. It is extremely difficult to catch or kill someone who has already deceased. Even the Pakistani papers have reported this. He has “supposedly” died from lung complications. So, I guess the argument now is not to capture Bin Laden, but to find Al Qaeda. It is also apparent that we are in the right places, Afghanistan and Iraq. Without verifiable proof, there will be non believers. Just Google Bin Laden is dead. A person who enjoyed the limelight absent for years from video……he’s a goner.
    I happen to have a copy of the constitution hanging on my office wall. I read from it probably every day and still do not see anything in it where Bush would be impeachable.
    Facing mid-term elections, both houses of Congress adopted the Military Commissions Act of 2006 in September, permanently repealing habeas corpus for non-citizens and giving the president complete discretion to use whatever interrogation techniques he sees fit – short of murder and rape (By Ann M. Schneider)
    On July 31, 1998, the US Senate unanimously passed Senate Joint Resolution 54. Three days later the House passed the same resolution by a vote of 407 to 6 which stated:

    “Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threaten vital United States interests and international peace and security” and “That the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations, and therefore the President is urged to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.”

    Resolution 54 became PUBLIC LAW 105-235 on August 14, 1998 when it was signed by President Clinton.

    In early October, 1998 the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, unanimously passed the House and Senate and on October 31, 1998 was signed by President Clinton to become Public Law 105-338. It states:

    “It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.”

    A week after terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center and tried to destroy the Pentagon, the House and the Senate both unanimously passed Public Law 107-40 which states:

    “The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

    That is current law. Note, it is federal LAW for the president to “prevent future acts of international terrorism against the United States” by going after those HE DETERMINES planned, authorized, committed, aided or harbored persons and organizations that aided any who were involved in the 911 attacks. That would seem to include those involved in ongoing terrorist attacks against the United States such as people killing American soldiers in Iraq.

    It does not mention getting the approval after each congressional election of any new members or old members who want to surrender to the international terrorists.

    Finally, on October 22, 2002 Congress passed Public Law 107-243 which authorized the President:

    “to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to —
    (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
    (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

    So, how come Congress is now trying to blame the president for “starting” a war that Congress basically has declared over a period of 17 years? Public Law 107-243 SPECIFICALLY requires the President, not the female Speaker of the House, the Majority Leader of the Senate, the Washington Post or the Gallup Poll to “determine the necessary and appropriate order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.”
    (By Mary Mostert )

    So bottom line, if Bush did not go after terrorist, he would be breaking a public law and possible impeachable.

  24. Downtown Bob
    July 20, 2007 at 5:45 pm

    he question-

    Does the constant effort of the left to undermine this war encourage the enemy to keep fighting?

    Okay, which war are you talking about? The “war” in Afghanistan, the civil war we are in the middle of in Iraq, or the supposed greater “war” on terrorism?
    We invaded Afghanistan to capture or kill bin Laden for his role in the attacks of 9/11; one can say that almost every single American supported going into Afghanistan, as it was the correct thing to do. It was not the left that influenced the President to start shifting manpower and materials in preparation for invading Iraq, that was done by the President, as in his administration undermined the effort to “get” bin Laden by dropping the ball and farming out the capture to Afghani war lords. To say that the left had anything to do with that debacle is utterly false.
    The civil war engulfing Iraq at this time was brought about by our invading Iraq; had we not gone in there in the first place, Iraq would not be decimated as it is now. Al Qaeda was not a factor in Iraq while Saddam was in power; there were a few individuals who were trying to gain support and power, but they were actually protected from Saddam by our rules of “no-fly” zones in northern Iraq. Had Saddam been able to strike at al Qaeda in northern Iraq with air power, al Qaeda would have ceased to exist in Iraq completely. You (those on the right) want to blame the left for “undermining the war”; how many times did this administration make a statement that things were turning around in Iraq, that we only need to wait another six months, that we just need to give it a little more time? This “war” in Iraq has dragged on because of the incompetence of leadership by President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and their constant assurances that “they know what they’re doing”, all the while ignoring military leaders who told them they needed a much larger force to secure the country after it was conquered. The number of troops who have been killed and injured are directly the fault of this administration because they did not furnish the troops with the best available personal armor and protected vehicles. That is not the fault of those on the left. To say that the left’s calling for troop reductions, troop redeployments, troop drawdowns, troop withdrawals is undermining the “war” on terror is false on its face. The surge does not appear to be working; with the number of military troops in Iraq being doubled by the number of “contractors” in Iraq, one would think that that sheer number would see results in a positive manner. Why are we seeing more fatalities due to car bombings? Why have the last three months been the deadliest to our troops in all of the “war” in Iraq? The Iraqi Prime Minister has said that our troops can leave anytime now, and he believes that Iraqi forces can provide the security they need; that is not someone on the left saying that. The main reason our military remains in Iraq is because the “Oil Revenue Sharing Agreement” has not been made into law in Iraq, a measure that benefits big oil at the expense of the Iraqi people. If Iraq agreed to the ORSA tomorrow, how soon do you think that the military would start making noises about leaving Iraq?

    Pubic Law 107-243; read the text of the bill.

    President Bush did not go back to the UN as the bill required, nor has he furnished the reports the bill required. Since the terms of the bill were not adhered to by the President, the bill should be null and void, IMO.

  25. Anonymous
    July 21, 2007 at 12:39 am

    downtrodden puppet bob! You are hopeless! Listen pal, nobody is interested in your copy and paste dogma! Knock it off and have an original thought!
    You allegiance to move-on is no surprize as most dummies will migrate to that site to learn how to hate Bush more.
    Try something new boob! Hating bush and hating women while loving lefty socialism is not doing you any favors.

  26. Anonymous
    July 21, 2007 at 1:27 am

    “downtrodden puppet bob! You are hopeless! Listen pal, nobody is interested in your copy and paste dogma! Knock it off and have an original thought!
    You allegiance to move-on is no surprize as most dummies will migrate to that site to learn how to hate Bush more.
    Try something new boob! Hating bush and hating women while loving lefty socialism is not doing you any favors.

    5:39 PM

    If you are a muslim you are a terrorist. Your worthless allah punk orders it! Convert or kill!
    You may not like it, but that doesn’t make it less true.
    Stop all immagration of any muslim. Stop the building of all mosques, and massively deport any & all muslims now!
    We’ll deal with the mexicans later. “

    Jerry you are one messed up dude. Get some help.

  27. Anonymous
    July 21, 2007 at 3:36 am

    “downtrodden puppet bob! You are hopeless! Listen pal, nobody is interested in your copy and paste dogma! Knock it off and have an original thought!
    You allegiance to move-on is no surprize as most dummies will migrate to that site to learn how to hate Bush more.
    Try something new boob! Hating bush and hating women while loving lefty socialism is not doing you any favors.

  28. Anonymous
    July 21, 2007 at 3:37 am

    Harry Reid is a piece of crap

  29. Downtown Bob
    July 21, 2007 at 4:44 am

    Let’s see, I repeated a question so that my answer might make more sense; my answer to the question were my thoughts, written out by me, absolutely no cut ‘n paste. I embedded a link to the bill that was being discussed so that anyone who had a question about the bill could read it for themselves. So, anonymouse, what the hell is your problem? IF my own thoughts seem like a cut ‘n paste from some left leaning site, the only explanation I can offer is that there must be a lot of people who feel like I do. Go ahead, pooh pooh that idea, but did you listen to the segment on Dave’s show today with Dr. John Ashbaugh? The majority of America identifies with a leftward view of governing and of how government should work. How about the news today that President Bush has told Congress that he will not allow the Justice Department to process any Contempt of Congress charges? Are you aware that even though the President appoints the Attorney General, the Justice Department is supposed to be a wholly separate government entity, not a department of the administration. For the President to assert that he controls the Justice Department is a violation of the Constitution, an impeachable offense! The Justice Department must be free to investigate every branch of government that is possibly violating the laws of our great country, including the administration. Anonymouse, perhaps you can cut ‘n paste a response to my assertions that the President has violated the Constitution again.

  30. the ghost of christmas past
    July 21, 2007 at 4:49 am

    Bob, Hoosier said what I was going to say about the LAW’s that Bush enforced by going into Iraq.

    As for the issue of impeachment and the manner by which Bush has chosen to defend this country. There have been several plots that Bush and his team have thwarted using the Patriot Act and the warrentless terrorist surveilience program.

    First there was Jose Padilla, then there was the trucker that was planning on destroying the Brooklyn Bridge. By the way, this guy had met with bin Laden and formulated the plan to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge with Khalid Sheik Mohammed. There is also a plan to blow up a shopping mall in Ohio. There is the plot to blow up the Sears Tower by a bunch of seven people that were living in Miami when they were caught. They were Somali born. Then there is the plot by KSM to destoy our oil tankers in the straits of Hormuz.

    On the subject of Khalid Sheik Mohammed… it has been said that KSM lasted only 2 minutes, 30 seconds once hsi waterboarding began, longer than anyone else who had been waterboarded. After the 2 min, 30 secs of waterboarding he confessed everything he had ever done. Let me tell you this: if I were president and the scenario that Chris Wallace gave during the Republican presidental debate where we had a terrorist in our custody and he knew when and where a nuclear bomb was going to be detonated in America, I would not hesitate to waterboard that son of a bitch and not more than 2 minutes 30 seconds later I would have the intel our law enforcement would need to stop that bomb from going off. Waterboard the guy? You bet your ass I would and I would sleep very soundly knowing that Bullshit Bob was alive and well, cursing my name for “torturing’ that guy with the information. I don’t feel that Bush has done anything that merits impeachment. Actually, I think Bob is extremely ungrateful that Bush and not Bob has been in the position of leadership to make the tough calls that Bob and his panzy ass kind would be unwilling to make becasue of their liberal sensibilities.

    Finally, it has been said once and I guess it needs to be said, but it is the Democrats that refused to fix the levies in New Orleans before the hurricane hit, it was kathleen Blanco that refused to allow the military in for three days after the hurricane hit for fear of losing control of the reconstruction effort and it is the Democrats that have exploited the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina every chance they get to make it, in some twisted way, Bush’s fault that the hurricane even happened at all.

    You liberals need to get a glimpse of the real world. Your unadulteraed hatred and slander of all things Bush has warped your teeny tiny peasized brains beyond repair. I’m afraid that some of your kind may actually commit suicide once Bush leaves office because you will no longer have any reason to live. You are all that mired in Bush hatred. it’s sad.

    Just saw this, but Bush does control the Justice Department because it is in the Executive Branch. It is not a fourth unequal branch of government. An d by the way: the Attorney General works for Bus too. In case you didn’t know.

  31. Downtown Bob
    July 21, 2007 at 6:18 am

    ghost: Aaah, dueling views of Hurricane Katrina aftermath. I read the entire article you linked to, and I have another link for you to read, here. I look forward to your reply.
    You are correct that the Justice Department is not a fourth branch of government, but to assert that the Executive Branch has control over them is very wrong. The DOJ operates as a member of the Executive Branch, but, it is the premier law enforcement agency for the entire United States of America, no where will you find any mention that the DOJ is operated as an extension of, or is subservient in any way shape or form to the Executive Branch. They are supposed to be in service to the entire government operation.
    You conservatives need to get a grip on the reality of what is the ultimate goal of the Bush “team”; namely a permanent Republican majority in all branches of our government. Your blinders of admiration of all things the Bush Administration has done or is planning to do keep you from seeing the disservice being done to protect those in power. Wake up.

  32. NewsstandGreg
    July 21, 2007 at 6:40 am

    Posters,

    In response to their devastating election loss in November 2006, a secret branch of the Republican Party has developed a new organization, called “Trolls for The New American Way”, which channels funds from Republican campaign coffers around the country to pay these “trolls,” as they are known on the blogosphere.

    “It is good to see experienced right wing bloggers are finally getting paid for their work,” said one well-known troll who calls himself “Anonymous.”

    According to sources close to the source, this new wave of Republican paid trolls has been recruited to infest the left-of-center blogs on the internet. When asked why these blogs were targeted, one Republican operative, who spoke anonymously, answered “cuz those go%$#&mn tinfoil-hat lib’rul sunsabitches on the blogs lost us the last election!”

    When asked what they were being paid for their pieces, “Miko”, a recent newcomer to the paid-troll ranks, said “We only get paid when someone responds, but that’s so easy to do, all you gotta say is “Hate Bush more!” and you get a whole string of responses from these stupid leftwing geeks! I’m rakin’ in the dough, especially over at Dave Congalton’s blog!”

    When asked how much he was paid for his work, the new troll responded, “about a hundred bucks for every one who responds.”

    The interview then ended, because a fight broke out immdeiately among the trolls, apparently because some of the other trolls were only getting $50 for each response.

    “lalalalalalalalalala!”

    –Newsstand Greg

  33. paul
    July 21, 2007 at 3:31 pm

    Newstand- that was good! I got a chuckle out of that, really, thanks.

    Bob- I mean the supposed greater war on terrorism.
    The reason the violence is growing is because the insurgents see the division in this country and believe that if they press hard enough we will go away.

  34. Downtown Bob
    July 21, 2007 at 4:49 pm

    Paul: Okay then; if America is to truly fight a “war” on terrorism, we should do it in a manner that will give us and the world the best results. Spending our blood and national treasure in Iraq is not doing anything to make the United States safer. We should be doing more to protect our borders, scanning the containers of cargo ships for weapons and radiation, networking with intelligence groups around the world, and bringing to justice those who have done us harm. The Bush Administration has not done much of any of this, instead they have focused on Iraq which had no capacity to harm us, was not connected to the attacks of 9/11 in any way, shape or form and has made us look weaker in the eyes of the world because we have done so poorly in keeping peace in a country which we broke. To answer your question about if the left calling for a withdrawal from Iraq makes us weaker in the eyes of those who wish to do us harm, I say an emphatic NO.

  35. barry in los osos
    July 21, 2007 at 10:08 pm

    Downer Bob is a blog treasure on the scale of a Jerry Lewis in France.

  36. Bob Sr
    July 21, 2007 at 11:03 pm

    “To answer your question about if the left calling for a withdrawal from Iraq makes us weaker in the eyes of those who wish to do us harm, I say an emphatic NO.”

    Bob has once again has topped himself with this one.
    Bob you should know better, divide and conquer, its the Clinton way.

  37. lil black helicopters
    July 21, 2007 at 11:44 pm

    biasednewsstandgregg!
    Look over your dhoulder! See the men in black suits with ear peices? See the lil black helicpoters? Save us greeeg! Save us!
    hahahahaha…you fool! You lefties will believe anything your pope george sorros writes!
    Wise up greg! You stupidity is showing!

    PS: Downtrodden boob! I found 74% of everything in your last post verbatum on move-on! Yoiu are such a clown!

  38. grandfather bob
    July 21, 2007 at 11:46 pm

    bobby? Sonny! Shut up! You are ruining the family reputation!
    Get a hobby…or try liking women again!
    But stop playing the fool here!
    If for no other reason than to show respect for your father and myself!

  39. Downtown Bob
    July 22, 2007 at 7:41 pm

    You guys are getting more and more desperate; I explained via the segment John Ashbaugh did with Dave of Friday why my comments look as if I could have pulled them from any of the vastly numerous left leaning sites, because we are the majority in the United States; and you still can’t see that our opinion is what most Americans are thinking. Hum, no reality disconnect there…

    I own my own business (usually a badge of distinction for those on the right); I have been married for thirty four years (no divorce, no separations), our three adult children are productive members of society (all have graduated college, never been arrested, have no tattoos, no multiple piercings, they don’t smoke, they don’t drink excessively, they don’t do drugs, they have never joined a cult so they don’t vote Republican, both my father and grandfather served honorably in the military and have since passed on, so what else do you have in your arsenal to attempt to attack me with? Oh, that’s right, I never graduated college; (but wait, isn’t that also a badge of distinction by many on the right?) I would implore you to grow up, but I don’t think you have the ability to recognize what that means. Oh well, keep flinging your pooh, maybe something will stick.

  40. moveon codestink
    July 22, 2007 at 8:20 pm

    Check is in the mail Bob.

  41. another downtown biz owner
    July 22, 2007 at 11:09 pm

    hahahahaha! looks like ol bobby the downtrodden boy is on the run!
    hahahahaha! Bob you are hopeless and helpless! a discrace to your father & grandfather!
    an embarassment to your children! The right wouldn’t have the likes of you!
    So move-on boob! down the road to the left.
    as for your business, hmmmm, let’s see…how much to you make vs how much do your employees make? We know you have health insurance…do your employees? if so who pays for it?
    do you do business in anyw ay with china, etc? hmmm boob? do you?
    fess up that info you weasel of the left!
    or, you can just go on attempting to entertain us here.
    now this will be tough! cuz there ain’t no copy-n-paste for these questions. for one boob may have to tell the truth!
    hahahahaha!
    watch him dodge it! just watch!
    a few of us know who you are boob! what a hypocrite you are!

  42. Downtown Bob
    July 23, 2007 at 7:46 am

    another downtown biz owner: What my business is and how I conduct it are absolutely no one else’s business. How about if you go first: What is your business name, what is the location, how long have you been in business, how many employees do you have, do you pay insurance costs for them, do you buy any American made products … ?

    All of that information I asked you for is none of my or anyone else’s business. I do not expect you to answer most, if any, of the questions I asked of you. Conversely, I will not answer any of the questions that you have asked of me.

    To everyone else reading these exchanges, that smell is from the constant throwing of feces by those on the right, trying to elicit a response by anyone, because they are so desperate for validation. Truly sad.

  43. the ghost of christmas past
    July 23, 2007 at 8:28 am

    Whatever, Bob. You throw so much shit at people on the right you could grow corn six feet high in it. What sickens me is you sanctimoneous catterwalling about how the sky is falling because Bush is in the Oval Office and anyone that disagrees with you is a Bush lover. You, my friend, are the pathetic one. Get a life and stop huffing your own product. It rots your brain.

  44. the ghost of christmas past
    July 23, 2007 at 8:48 am

    Your DOJ argument is retarded. Of course it operates for the entire United States even though it is in the Executive Branch. As does the Departments of Defense, Treasury, Interior, Veterans Affairs, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Transportation, and State (did I miss anyone?). All of whom have secretaries that are selected by the President and confirmed with the consent of Congress. Actually, the argument could be made that the Democrat controlled Senate has violated it’s constitutional duties by refusing to even put to a vote such people as John Bolten for the UN Ambassadors job. They are in a very real way usurping the President’s Constitutional right to choose the people he wants for the job. By refusing to bring to the floor for a vote, they have elevated themselves above the president, in affect prempting the President’s choice. But back on topic, President Bush has every right to tell the AG, the top law enforcement officer of the entire United States, what the focus of his job will be and then the AG takes it make to the DOJ and implements that policy. That is why we elect presidents and that is why we don’t have 100 pissant wannabe presidents in the Senate telling the president who should be running those departments.

    And on your point about everything else we could be doing other than fighting the terrorists in Iraq: Where is the bill from the Democrats to do exactly what you propose? It is nowhere to be seen. The Democrats are too busy investigating the nonissues of the Bush Administration instead of trying to fix all of the malfeasance you claim has happened in the Bush White House. Who has taken their eye off the ball really, Bob? And don’t give me the cost of the Iraq War nonsense either. We are $8 trillion in debt for absolutely no other reason than our “representatives” buying votes. What is another 2 or 3 billion dollars if it fixes a hole in our national security? Write the freakin’ check!

    On the subject of our “representatives”, I have just finished “Outrage” by Dick Morris. In the book, he spends most of his time describing just how corrupted by political donations our “representatives” (he names a lot of names), equally by both parties, by political donations from everyone under the sun. It is high time that we ban all gifts and donations from lobbyists and special interests and start looking at the federally financed elections that Rich in Paso wrote about awhile back. President Bush is the least of our worries when earmarks, pandering and bribes by special interest groups, and lobbyist dollars have more to do with where our nation is going than the millions of people who think that their vote actually means something come this next election. Stew on that for a minute.

  45. UBL
    July 23, 2007 at 5:19 pm

    Thanks Bob for the subversive fight against the infidels army. We all know the war is illegal.You will be rewarded with 72 virgins and a personalized dirty nightshirt

  46. Anonymous
    July 23, 2007 at 8:51 pm

    HOW can this blog be “Award Winning”??? Only thing it is top in is being nasty, devisive and a waste of time. TRULY SAD.

  47. Anonymous
    July 23, 2007 at 9:22 pm

    take a hike loser we like bob

  48. Anonymous
    July 23, 2007 at 11:46 pm

    EXACTLY!!! I rest my case.

  49. Anonymous
    July 24, 2007 at 12:14 am

    take your sanctimonious bs and don’t let the door hit you in the ass, creep. bob is a icon here.

  50. another downtown business owner
    July 24, 2007 at 1:59 am

    BOOB! YOU ARE FULLASHIT!
    In the words of George Carlin…
    “F.O.M.F, E.S.& D”

    I own a comapny of over 230 employees. This is my 30th anniversary. I pay health care and 401K to everyone. In return I get 60+ million in sales annually.
    My business is in the logistics feild and I operate in 6 differant states yet I choose to live in SLO county.

    You are a disgrace to anyone that owns and operates a business, has a wife, or has children.

    You life is so full of hate for George Bush, our president for 8 years it has changed you into what you hate the most.

    You know nothing more than what you can copy and paste to make yourself look smart, but as you can see, most of the bloggers here have figured you out.

    You are a pompous ass bob, and nothing will ever change that.

    Downtown business owner?…you best diversify. Your downtown is dead! Maybe that’s why you are so bitter.

  51. Wilson
    July 24, 2007 at 5:49 am

    I heard Bob on with Ashbaugh and he was OK.

  52. Downtown Bob
    July 24, 2007 at 6:58 am

    ghost: My argument about the DOJ is retarded? When you have the Executive Branch telling Congress that the DOJ will not investigate any Contempt of Congress, can you tell why it would do so, if not to protect the Executive Branch? Most of the departments that you listed with exception to Defense and Homeland Security have been de-fanged to the point of not only not being effective, but almost not even needed given that industry insiders have been put in charge of overseeing the industries they just came from. State Department? Secretary Rice can’t even get newspapers to publish articles she has supposedly written. As for Homeland Defense, where the hell is all of the money they are spending going? Tightening our borders? Protecting our ports? How about more no-bid contracts for KBR and Halliburton? And then the icing on the cake of spending like a drunken sailor, the Defense Department. Iraq is costing us 2 Billion dollars a week; or the estimates of over 1.2 Trillion dollars total cost of the Iraq invasion. We, America, spend more on our military than all other nations of the world COMBINED! But President Bush threatens to veto a bill to provide health care for children, saying we can’t afford such programs. Pot, meet kettle, black.
    Getting back to the issue of Congressional Confirmations; do you even remember how many Clinton nominees were held up during his term? Just because the President nominates someone for a particular job, that does not mean that they are suited for the job, much less qualified to do the job, and your example of John Bolton is just such an example. How many lawyers in the Justice Department have degrees from third tier law schools, but are hired because of the allegiance to President Bush and the Republican Party? Did you see or hear when Monica Goodling testified to Congress she claimed she had taken an oath to President Bush and the Senator running the hearing had to remind her that she took an oath to serve the country and to “protect and defend the Constitution… ” ? If President Bush would nominate qualified people that could actually do the job they were being nominated for, Congress would have the “up or down vote” the right likes to crow about, but refuses to allow in the Senate for Democratic Bills.
    Where is the Democratic Legislation like I mentioned? It is not because of investigating “non-issues” as you put it; it is because there have been so many issues this administration has mucked up on purpose so that they could distract Congress from doing meaningful work, but they are too busy trying to put this government back together from the hollowing out the Bush White House has accomplished.
    As for political donations; I too remember Rich from Paso’s ideas for campaign reform and I do agree that there is way too much money in politics. The real answer is in Publicly Funded National Elections; no “issue” advertisements would also be great, but the Supreme Court has ruled that spending money on political issues is “free speech”; not too surprising given the make up of the current court. This is also an area where a particular controlled form of a “Fairness Doctrine” could be implemented: All radio and television shows would be required to give an equal amount of campaign advertising for the immediate three or four months prior to all elections. Free advertising nationally for national races, free statewide advertising for statewide offices, free districtwide advertising for district races and free local advertising for local offices. Of course candidates would have to meet certain stipulations to qualify, but in the long run this would ensure that our elections would be truly democratic, and please note that is a small “d” democratic.

  53. Downtown Bob
    July 24, 2007 at 7:17 am

    another downtown business owner: “You life is so full of hate for George Bush, our president for 8 years it has changed you into what you hate the most.”

    um, I would assume that you meant to type “Your” life is … , and President Bush has been in office for SIX years, so far.

    I have to assume that you have really good people, really smart people working for you for you to be so “successful”, because if you run your business like you post here, all I can say is “Damn”.

    Please remember it is called private enterprise, unless you are running a publicly traded company. But I am sure you already know that. I am glad your business is so successful, I would hate to see how bitter and vindictive you could be here if you were struggling. With all due respect, good job at running your business, and I do mean that sincerely. I do have a better understanding of your support for President Bush since he has reduced taxes so much for people in your income bracket. I still think you have blinders on though since you cannot apparently see anything that President Bush has done that is wrong, illegal or simply bad policy decisions. You will probably bring up how badly Congress is polling now, as proof that the Democrats can’t do anything; I believe that Congress will be viewed more positively when they do the job they were elected to do, namely reduce our presence in Iraq to the point that we can safely leave, and investigate exactly how many laws the Bush Administration have broken. Think about this for a bit, please; when we have a Democratic President in office on January 20, 2009, do you want them to have all of the power that the Bush Administration has gathered for itself?

  54. the ghost of christmas past
    July 24, 2007 at 10:06 am

    Bob, you crack me up. First you state that the Supreme Court has ruled that cash donations to campaigns is free speech and then you advocate for the suppression of free speech to force Dave and the rest of the political information/entertainment world to adhere to some form of nebulous “fairness” that is yet still undefined. You guys on the left just don’t get it. Ed Schultz advocates for the Fairness Doctrine in the same breath that he tells Sean Hannity how bad he is kicking his ass in X number of markets. If he is doing so well, why do you need the Fairness Doctrine? Why doesn’t Airhead America and the rest of liberal talk-radio follow Schultz’s lead and mirror his approach to liberal talk-radio instead of crying for some jackbooted thugs in the Congress to rescue liberal talk with a legislation? You all are just so whacked out it’s scary. I advocate for a Constitutional amendment that would prohibit any elected federal representative from taking any gift or cash from anyone while they are serving in office. That way at least a special interest or lobbyist would have to promise to pay their bribe after the scumbag left office. I think that $165K is plenty money for a congressman or senator to live on. You couple that with Rich’s term limits for senators and congressmen (I think it should be 12 in each house, but that’s just splitting hairs), and our elected representatives will start working for us again.

    As for everything else you were complaining about. Again, those departments serve at the pleasure of the president as the head of the executive branch. And since when does a congressional subpeona trump the separation of powers? Oversight is one thing but issuing an edict that not following results in a criminal act would be a violation of the separation of powers principle.

    And since there is no reason for the voters to vote for any of the Dmeocratic candidates, we’ll have to let Rudy or Fred decide how much of all this power Bush supposed has amassed they want to keep.

  55. Anonymous
    July 24, 2007 at 3:22 pm

    Downtrodden bob’s Real History

    “The story of how Bob’s were created”

    Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic
    hunters/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and
    would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter.

    The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer and
    the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer. These
    were the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for
    the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:

    1. Liberals and
    2. Conservatives

    Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of
    agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so
    while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they
    just stayed close to the brewery. That’s how villages were formed.

    Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to B-B-Q at night while
    they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the
    Conservative movement.

    Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the
    conservatives by showing up for the nightly B-B-Q’s and doing the sewing,
    fetching, and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement.
    Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became known
    as girliemen.

    Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the
    invention of group therapy, group hugs, and the concept of Democratic voting to
    decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided.

    Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful
    land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.

    Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine
    or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done.
    Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare.

    Another interesting evolutionary side note: most of their women have higher
    testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury
    attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals.
    Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn’t fair to make the
    pitcher also bat.

    Conservatives drink domestic beer. They eat red meat and still provide for their
    women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks,
    construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, corporate
    executives, athletes, Marines, and generally anyone who works productively.
    Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a
    living.

    Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide
    what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened
    than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when
    conservatives were coming to America. They crept in after the Wild West was
    tamed and created a business of trying to get more for nothing.

  56. Downtown Bob
    July 24, 2007 at 8:52 pm

    anonymouse: Nice story; why is it that conservatives always put more stock in stories and legends than actual facts? Liberal policies that have been implemented that most of us have come to accept as the norm:
    A forty hour work week.
    An eight hour work day.
    Unemployment insurance.
    Social Security.
    Medicare.
    Regulation to control false advertising (as in no more snake oil salesmen claiming their product will treat everything under the sun).
    Public Education.
    The G.I. Bill.

    This list is by no means all that have been accomplished by liberal policies, but it is a start, and these are real “facts”.

    What have Conservatives accomplished in government? Tax cuts. Government service cutbacks tied to the tax cuts. Reduction in oversight by government agencies. Some brave Republicans also led the charge to pass the Equal Rights Amendment, end the funding for the Vietnam War, and tell Richard Nixon that is was time for him to go to avoid certain impeachment.

    I hear-by challenge everyone who reads this blog to list other legislative accomplishments by either the right or the left, or both. Do the conservatives really want to tally the score of which movement has had more positive effects on the greater number of Americans?

  57. Anonymous
    July 24, 2007 at 9:05 pm

    I don’t understand…if Bob’s so proud of his views, and proud to be a business owner, why is he so secretive about what business he owns? You’d think he’d want the free publicity.

  58. tim in morro bay
    July 25, 2007 at 12:29 am

    Bob says

    “I hear-by challenge everyone who reads this blog to list other legislative accomplishments by either the right or the left, or both.”

    here we go

    Hillary Clinton-
    “married” to a former president

    Obama-
    minority

    Kucinich-
    bankrupted Cleveland

  59. Anonymous
    July 25, 2007 at 1:27 am

    Boob,
    Copy and paste this answer…
    How many wars were entered into by democrats and ended by republicans.

    ps: crow tastes good with salsa!

    I agree with anon! C’mom big bad downtown busines sowner bobby!
    Fess up! what business do you own? Or do you? Knothing you say is believable.
    copy and paste your pbusiness name here…or shut up!

  60. blog dectective
    July 25, 2007 at 1:33 am

    Bob is Marilyn! Yep! Tha’s right!
    Marilyn gets so hammered here that she created a white male “business owner” identity to try and add credibilty to her inane comments.
    bob/marilyn…you have been busted!

  61. not a racist
    July 25, 2007 at 1:43 am

    Why is it that when a person is 50% white & 50% black that person is called “black”

    Why is that? Whites don’t want their pure european blood diluted?

    1% black = 100% black? when did that happen?

    Obama is not black or white…He was born a muslim! And that training never goes away.

  62. the ghost of christmas past
    July 25, 2007 at 3:17 am

    You proceed on false assumptions about who did what and why. FDR did the 40 hour work week and the 8 hour day in order to create employment oppotunities during the great depression. Teddy Roosevelt, a republican, created the FDA that you cited. It was the Republican senators that passed the Civil Rights Act of 1965 over the objections of the racists southern senators, like SEN Fulbright, Bill Clinton’s idol (obligatory Bill Clinton slam), from Arkansas. Social Security was a Ponzi scheme that FDR created as another means of getting the elderly out of the workforce but still ensuring an acceptable standard of living. Same goes for the Fair labor Standards Act, which prohibited children under the age of 16 from working full time. Teddy Roosevelt was the first to actually press for this law but a wrong-headed Supreme Court overturned it on the grounds that it prevented children from contracting out their work. (no, really) FDR was attacking unemployment at both ends of the age spectrum. Still the only tangible thing that FDR did to get us out of the Great Depression was to allow WWII to start.

    Truman expanded the GI Bill to increase educational opportunities in 1952. The original GI Bill was very limited in scope when enacted in 1944.

    As for other positive Republican accomplishments:

    Teddy Roosevelt – Built the Panama Canal, started the National Park Service, first to break up monopolies, created the FDA, built up America as a global power

    Eisenhower – built the Insterstate Highway system; created the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, which elevated such things as the Social Security Adminstration to cabeinet level; also first president to support the Brown V. Board of Education with the Civil Rights Act of 1954. While weak, it did lay the foundation for the Civil Rights Act of 1965 that LBJ and the Republican senate passed 11 years later.

    Nixon – Began the thawing process of the Cold War by opening up relations with China and Russia. Began bombing the piss out of North Vietnam in retaliation to all of he NVA that were in South Vietnam. Never made any since to bomb the shit out the country you are trying to defend and not make the country doing the attacking pay a price at home. Yeah, Nixon is thin because he did more harm than good IMHO.

    Ford – Pardoned Nixon and started the national healing process. hell, even Dave liked Ford. Ford create the toll free number for his WIN campaign.

    Reagan – Well, what can you say. Jump started the economy from that sorry ass Carter’s malaise days. restored American confidence in America and her military after the terrible aftermath of the Vietnam War. 88 straight months of economic expansion. Brought the Soviet Union to its kneew with his defense build up, Star Wars, etc. Lowering taxes was a key component of ending Carter’s reign of terror on the economy.

    There you go from the republican side. I’ll comment on the positive Democrats contributions later.

    Not a racists: don’t think you’re a racists. 1% black = 100% black is because that is what he identifies himself as. Tiger Woods is the same way, only he doesn’t wish to be catagorized by one race. My kids are Whimexindipino, by the way. Obama wishes to be 100% black so he can counter Hillary’s ‘first woman president’ schtick with his own ‘first black president’ schtick and be able to court the black vote better. So it’s just about politics. Actually he could just as easily claim that he is the first white president that is half black. his schtick is not working well in the black community, by the by, because they question if he is “black enough” (their term not mine). I personally wouldn’t care if he was half Klingon. I just don’t think he is qualified to be president just because he has served two years in the Senate. But as to race, I firmly believe that the the route to world peace is when all of the races intermix and become one.

  63. David A
    July 25, 2007 at 3:21 am

    If we just leave Iraq the world will be better off.
    Impeach the criminal Bush

  64. Joe M
    July 25, 2007 at 4:08 am

    A simple thought from a simple mind.

  65. Anonymous
    July 25, 2007 at 1:58 pm

    Bob and Marilyn the same person? Somehow that just makes sense to me…
    Marilyn says who she is…Bob remains under the cloud of being anonymous.
    Stranger things have happened…and their rants do seem strangely alike. Second only to Bob’s posts are marilyn copy and paste antics.
    Interesting insight. I will be watching closely now.

  66. Downtown Bob
    July 26, 2007 at 7:40 am

    ghost: That was a very good response, but, you missed my point slightly; I specifically asked about Conservative and Liberal ideals, not Republican and Democratic. My understanding of Conservative philosophy is that the basics are operating the government in the smallest possible manner, paying the lowest amount of tax possible to keep the minimum amount of government afloat, privatizing as many government functions as possible, having as strong of a military as possible even if that means other needs are left unmet, regulation of business of any kind is not needed (or at least not desired), that free market capitalism will always do the right thing and bring about the best most desired results, and is probably summed up in a rewording of President Kennedy’s famous “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country”, into something like: Ask not what your country can do for you or what you can do for your country, but ask how can I get richer.

    If you need to have a little exercise to determine which way you view political philosophy, answer this question: Should government help those who need help? If you lean at all towards answering that government shouldn’t help anyone, or only help a select few, then you would be a conservative. If you think that government can help those in need, or feel that sometimes some people should be helped or that govnerment should be the final backstop to keep people from falling through the cracks of society, then you have a more liberal viewpoint.
    ghost, there have been many good Republican policies over the years, and many good Republican politicians to implement those policies and programs, but most of those programs or policies even though they were carried out by Republican politicians does not mean that they were conservative policies or programs. You mentioned Teddy Roosevelt establishing the National Parks and the FDA; the Bush Administration has undone many of the established rules concerning our National Parks and has reduced the effectiveness of the FDA to the point that Teddy Roosevelt would be ashamed that those things were done by a Republican. Eisenhower would be aghast at the attempts of privatization by the Bush Administration of many of our interstate roadways and would be ashamed of how weakened the Departments of Health, Education and Welfare have become and how this President would overturn Brown V. Board of Education if they could. Nixon did start up the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) which this administration has weaken like almost every other agency that is supposed to over see and police industry. As for President Ford and his pardon of Richard Nixon; I do believe his heart was in the right place, but his pardon was too vague, too sweeping in the area of allowing Nixon to be pardoned for all crimes committed. If Ford had narrowed his pardon for any crimes committed against the Constitution alone, I don’t think there would have been the precedent established that a President can pardon anyone for anything. Bush 41 and Clinton both abused the pardon capacity of the Executive and I am afraid that the current President Bush will pardon any and all current and/or former members of his administration for any and all crimes, past, present and future.

  67. move on dot org
    July 27, 2007 at 1:50 am

    Good boy Bobby! Keep up the good work!

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: