Saturday, February 25, 2006

Whos Government?

Yesterday morning, President Bush, while responding to a reporter’s question on the controversy surrounding the management of six U.S. ports being turned over to a United Arab Emirates-owned company, remarked that the transaction had been vetted by "my government" and that the ports would remain secure.

I agree with Jack Cafferty on this. I even remarked about this on the show one day. Here is the opposition view.

First, any politican should be thinking and refering to it as "our" government... always.... in my book. I require that. Sorry. You'd think that would be politics 101.

If he would have said "my administration" or "my people"(although that would probably draw some ire too) he would have been more factually accurate.

This in some cases might not be a big deal. Slip of the tougue. But when dealing with an administration, an executive, that wants to do so many things in secret, force their will at whatever it takes stakes, saying "my government" bothers some of us. Like it or not.

Friday, February 24, 2006

Game Time!

Compare this to this. Who appears to make the most reasoned arguement? Which one strikes you as "intelligent"?

If you chose the later please return to that page every day and enjoy your sense of reality.
If you chose the first please go here, here and here everyday.

Thursday, February 23, 2006

Stupidest Man On The Planet?

I was listening to the talk show chief of pain management today. I usually listen for about 5 or 10 minutes during my lunch time(about all I can usually handle anyway). I swear he's on the drugs again. He was totally off the rails today. Maybe he just sees the ship sinking and is angry about it. Regardless it was the most ignominious day I have ever heard from him, and that takes some effort. He was screaming " civil war, civil war". "The libs are so happy, that's what they wanted all the time. They just want Bush to be wrong." He went on and on about how happy the libs and the media and all the opponets of the war were. Then he just screamed "civil war, civil war".
It's been a long time since I have heard someone say something so disgusting. It would have been more civil if he would have said "go f**k yourself". First of all, nearly 60% of America opposes the war. If he truly feels that 60% of the population want mass death just to see Bush look bad then he needs far more than rehab. I believe one of the main reasons people hate war is because of the senseless deaths. How could a person with a national platform say something so blatantly, painfully idiotic? Oh, I forgot who we are talking about.
He also called Supreme court justice Souter a girl "attitudinally". I have a feeling even many of the Bush supporters are having a hard time taking him seriously these days. Rush, you're a bully and an honest to God butt head. Take your drugs and stay home, you are a disgrace to our country.

Then of course we have this.

Sunday, February 19, 2006

Sunday Editorial


The one thing that, these days, strikes me worse than the Administration is cultobush whiners who defend his every move. The democrats are spineless not to stand up to them but the cultobush supporters have no solid principal and wouldn't step up for it if it hit them in the face. The only way they would agree is if the lead sheep herders, Limbaugh et al, said they could. Want proof?

This Glenn Greenwald post points it out as well as I have seen:

We see the same thing happening to hard-core conservative Bob Barr due to his criticism of Bush's violations of FISA . Similarly, the minute a Senator with years of conservatism behind them deviates from a Bush decree on a single issue, they are no longer "conservative."

George Voinovich became a "liberal" the minute he refused to support John Bolton's nomination; John Sununu is now "liberal" because he did not favor immediate renewal of every single provision of the Patriot Act which Bush demanded, and Senators like Chuck Hagel and John McCain long ago gave up any "conservative" status because of their insistence on forming opinions that occasionally deviate from the decrees from the White House. People who self-identify as "conservatives" and have always been considered to be conservatives become liberal heathens the moment they dissent, even on the most non-ideological grounds, from a Bush decree. That's because "conservatism" is now a term used to describe personal loyalty to the leader (just as "liberal" is used to describe disloyalty to that leader), and no longer refers to a set of beliefs about government.

As much as any policy prescriptions, conservatism has always been based, more than anything else, on a fundamental distrust of the power of the federal government and a corresponding belief that that power ought to be as restrained as possible, particularly when it comes to its application by the Government to American citizens.
It was that deeply rooted distrust that led to conservatives vigorous advocacy of states rights over centralized power in the federal government, accompanied by demands that the intrusion of the Federal Government in the lives of American citizens be minimized.Is there anything more antithetical to that ethos than the rabid, power-hungry appetites of Bush followers? There is not an iota of distrust of the Federal Government among them. Quite the contrary. Whereas distrust of the government was quite recently a hallmark of conservatism, expressing distrust of George Bush and the expansive governmental powers he is pursuing subjects one to accusations of being a leftist, subversive loon.

Like the posts pointed out here.

When Clinton signed Executive Order 12949 on February 9, the frightening mandate of the FISA, court was greatly expanded: It now has legal authority to approve black-bag operations to authorize Department of Justice (DoJ) requests to conduct physical as well as electronic searches, without obtaining a warrant in open court, without notifying the subject, without providing an inventory of items seized. The targets need not be under suspicion of committing a crime, but may be investigated when probable cause results solely from their associations or status: for example, belonging to, or aiding and abetting organizations deemed to pose a threat to U.S. national security. Furthermore, despite a lowered standard for applying the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure than is necessary in other U.S. courts, under the 1995 expansion, evidence gathered by the FISA court may now be used in criminal trials. Previously, evidence was collected and stockpiled solely for intelligence purposes.

Geez, back then they were quite worried and now it is the greatest thing since drop seat underwear.
See, we could get together if they didn't form such a moving target. These people don't want to do anything but attain power. There is no base to their beliefs. We faced the Soviet threat with all the things we are facing now and more and didn't have to ruin our country doing it.

I think it (hopefully) goes without saying that the claim of the Republicans (conservatives) were always against big government, large debt, big spending and, believe it or not foreign intervention. Like these.

If we could ever reason with them maybe we could come to a consensus but if they keep moving the target all I can do is write them off and hope that more reasoned and capable minds will present themselves. They think Micheal Moore is crazy and Anne Coulter is smart and capable. Al Franken is a goofball and Rush Limbaugh is a hero. While their viewpoints may be opposite their approaches are amazingly similar, which brings me to another point.

They now have this holier than thou attitude. They are just as much the crude and vile ones as anybody, but would never admit to it.
I use to go to a commenters right wing blog and comment myself on occasion. I just got to the point that it was a waste to go to a place where people found it more important to oppose you than to find consensus. I can't take any of these idiots seriously anymore.