NationStates Jolt Archive

This isn't just another Bush bashing thread. This is an attempt get participation to build a thorough rap sheet of the Bush administrations (as well as the Republicans and their lobbyist friends in power during the reign of the Bush administration) "culture of corruption".

I know it sounds like a lot of work and probably is (because there is so much ground to cover) but I think it's something that many of you would enjoy participating in. Plus, if everyone just added one or two things, it might not be so much work afterall and we'll have a nice reference for future debates about Bush and Co.

I will list something with sources and information to begin, and as you add to the rap sheet I will edit the OP and link to your addition as long as there are no legitimate refutations.

If you want to add things that aren't criminal but just represhensible, I will include your contributions as well. I'm sure it will also be pretty lengthy.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Rap Sheet
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The report and database identify 237 lies specific misleading statements made by these officials in 125 separate public appearances (http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf#search='The%20report%20and%20database%20identify%20237%20lies%2 0specific%20misleading%20statements%20made%20by%20these%20officials%20in%20125%20separate%20public%2 0appearances')

Randy "Duke" Cunningham resigned his House seat after pleading guilty to taking over $2.4 million in bribes from defense contractor MZM (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/28/cunningham/)

Michael Scanlon, a former top aide to Rep. Tom DeLay and a onetime partner of high-powered Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff, pleaded guilty to a federal conspiracy charge (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/21/scanlon.plea/)

The CIA agent Valerie Plames cover blown (http://www.perrspectives.com/resources/documents.htm#plame)

Energy Policy - Repealing 22nd Amendment - Vote Fraud - WMD declarations - Corporate favouritism to the invasion (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10581982&postcount=2)

Curveball" correspondance - 4th Amendment violation by the current admin before 9/11 - large list of disturbing Bush facts - specific public address where Bush clarifies Bin Laden's significance in scope of the Administration's larger agenda - Martin Silverstein (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10582932&postcount=11)

covert propaganda: "Prepackaged news" (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10588631&postcount=57)

Downing Street memo and related stuff (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10588833&postcount=59)

loosening emission rules for aging coal-fired power plants - DHS earned a grade of F for the third straight year (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10598902&postcount=65)

State Republicans seek to block campaign probe (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10603533&postcount=66)

Operation Swarmer - Bush still sees no reason to apologise - Rumsfeld's Iraq-Germany analogy disputed (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10604835&postcount=81)

BUSH DIDN'T BUNGLE IRAQ, YOU FOOLS
THE MISSION WAS INDEED ACCCOMPLISHED (http://gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=483&row=0)

Claiming America For Christ (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/14118892.htm) - and here (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/palmbeach/sfl-pcreclaim18mar18,0,4026833.story?coll=sfla-news-palm) - And related stuff/discussion (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=473991)

More on Abramoff and friends (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10611913&postcount=121)



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The End?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And I liked this graphic so...
http://www.perrspectives.com/images/banana_repubs_120105.jpg

This isn't just another Bush bashing thread. This is an attempt get participation to build a thurough rap sheet of the Bush administrations "culture of corruption".

I know it sounds like a lot of work and probably is (because there is so much ground to cover) but I think it's something that many of you would enjoy participating in. Plus, if everyone just added one or two things, it might not be so much work afterall and we'll have a nice reference for future debates about Bush and Co.

I will list something with sources and information to begin, and as you add to the rap sheet I will edit the OP and link to your addition as long as there are no legitimate refutations.

If you want to add thigns that aren't criminal but just represhensible, I will create a special section just for your contributions as well. I'm sure it will also be pretty lengthy.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Rap Sheet
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Randy "Duke" Cunningham resigned his House seat after pleading guilty to taking over $2.4 million in bribes from defense contractor MZM (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/28/cunningham/)

Michael Scanlon, a former top aide to Rep. Tom DeLay and a onetime partner of high-powered Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff, pleaded guilty to a federal conspiracy charge (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/21/scanlon.plea/)

The CIA agent Valerie Plames cover blown (http://www.perrspectives.com/resources/documents.htm#plame)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The End?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And I liked this graphic so...
http://www.perrspectives.com/images/banana_repubs_120105.jpgA'ight, i'll bite.
Here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501842.html
"Energy Policy" and congressional testimony.

Repeal the 22nd Amendment?
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.J.RES.24.IH:

What the hell happened with the vote?
http://www.linkcrusader.com/vote_machines.htm

FactCheck.org's "clarification" of WMD declarations?
http://www.factcheck.org/article349.html

Corporate favouritism to the invasion?
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13160

That oughtta do for now, i hope i got something right.

ohhhhh

good stuff thanks!

Somehow I knew you would participate in this thread :D

ohhhhh

good stuff thanks!

Somehow I knew you would participate in this thread :D
Well, i wasn't gonna, but i believe in your mission. Right now, anyway!
*playing GTA:San Andreas*

And, i've got more if ya want 'em.

This isn't just another Bush bashing thread. This is an attempt get participation to build a thorough rap sheet of the Bush administrations "culture of corruption".


So...yeah. It is another Bush bashing thread. No need to deny it, it's not like they're unpopular or anything. :confused:

So...yeah. It is another Bush bashing thread. No need to deny it, it's not like they're unpopular or anything. :confused:
Noted: you have nothing to contribute. Carrion then.

Noted: you have nothing to contribute. Carrion then.

I contributed to the clarification of the thread's intent. But true, I do not intend on adding to the indictment list :rolleyes: . You may carrion without me.

I contributed to the clarification of the thread's intent. But true, I do not intend on adding to the indictment list :rolleyes: . You may carrion without me.
Ah, well clarified - AFAYK, that's the intent. It's an itchy, grey-line issue. ;) *nods*

we must keep a record of all the crimes of the Monster--his worst crimes are the unspeakable ones

So this is what the sound of one hand clapping sounds like.

we must keep a record of all the crimes of the Monster--his worst crimes are the unspeakable ones
Good thing i don't speak the same way i type. *nods*

"Curveball" correspondance and ... "who brought the bum"?
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10876252/site/newsweek/

Was there 4th Amendment violation by the current admin *before* 9/11?
http://www.counterbias.com/527.html

A quick primer/skirting of varying inconsistencies and outright falsehoods engaged/participated in by the Bush Administration:
http://www.drivingvotes.org/bushfacts.shtml

The specific public address where Bush clarifies Bin Laden's significance in scope of the Administration's larger agenda:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html

Of course, where campaign contributions make the difference between being rich and being a rich, unqualified "public servant" in position of influence:
http://www.whitehouseforsale.org/ContributorsAndPaybacks/pioneer_profile.cfm?pioneer_ID=8
---
Note: if you're not pissed yet, you're probably catatonic or of comparable mental acuity.

So this is what the sound of one hand clapping sounds like.
Strangely enough, one-handed sounds are *EXACTLY* what i expected you to contribute.

Yours in enmity ... ;)

BTW, you should read the Slush thread again. You asked about ozone, now you got more to deal with.

EDIT: Ya know, this thread would be more fun if *you* used both hands with us!
Wanna go camping? ;)

I just get so tired of the endless Bush bashing that goes on here. Don't you all ever get tired of this?

Yours in enmity ... ;)

Copycat. Couldn't wait to use it, could you?

Wanna go camping? ;)

Why, would you tell me if I had a rubber hanging out of my *ss? (I am assuming - pun intended - that you had heard that same old joke as well......)

I just get so tired of the endless Bush bashing that goes on here. Don't you all ever get tired of this?
Well, i get tired of one or two factual references and the following PAGES of "interpretation" by various partisans on here. This has a different function, IMO, it's more of a database/ref thing. Saves time, and is participatory.


Copycat. Couldn't wait to use it, could you?Think of it as homage. You put in good effort, there's a payoff somewhere! ;)



Why, would you tell me if I had a rubber hanging out of my *ss? (I am assuming - pun intended - that you had heard that same old joke as well......):eek:
Seems like this thread is taking a dark and disturbing turn ...

EDIT: Actually i haven't heard the joke, but your version is fine with me. :D
And, of course, i'll record that for posterity, too.

So...yeah. It is another Bush bashing thread. No need to deny it, it's not like they're unpopular or anything. :confused:

Nope, it IS a Bush bashing thread BUT with a further goal of collecting all the misdeeds into one place for quick reference in future debates.

Well, i wasn't gonna, but i believe in your mission. Right now, anyway!
*playing GTA:San Andreas*

And, i've got more if ya want 'em.

I guess if noone else wants to participate you could keep em coming :D

I haven't played San Andreas yet because well I dont have PS2 but I really wanna!

we must keep a record of all the crimes of the Monster--his worst crimes are the unspeakable ones

Anything you wish to add, just give me a source and I'll post it.

So this is what the sound of one hand clapping sounds like.


Oh? Perhaps you should ease off the pron for a while and help either build the list or refute presented facts.

I guess if noone else wants to participate you could keep em coming :D

I haven't played San Andreas yet because well I dont have PS2 but I really wanna!
Well, i wouldn't call it a "morally wholesome" pastime - basically a lot of immolation and melee combat with giant purple double-headed sexual appendages. Great fun, great fun. I usually listen to their public radio efforts in the background while i'm doing that.
This, perhaps, reflects on my RL character somewhat, but you can never really be sure. :)

Here's a few more:

Bush Administration interferes with climate researchers at NASA:
http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060210/NEWS/602100316/1039

First declassified Al-Qaida memo ... as well as other memo-related Al-Qaida info:
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/

Thickness of intelligence argument on Iraq war stance, and how Bush administration ignored/misrepresented what was available:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85202-p0/paul-r-pillar/intelligence-policy-and-the-war-in-iraq.html

Bush (both of them) and their connections to Bin Laden ...(lot of doc'd photos to spice it up ;) ):
http://www.oilempire.us/bushbinladen.html

...and of course how that ties into Carlyle Group...
http://www.hereinreality.com/carlyle.html

Well, that's enough semi-spam for now.
There's a few other issues, but i'll give it a little while.

I just get so tired of the endless Bush bashing that goes on here. Don't you all ever get tired of this?



Copycat. Couldn't wait to use it, could you?



Why, would you tell me if I had a rubber hanging out of my *ss? (I am assuming - pun intended - that you had heard that same old joke as well......)
Unless your Bashing Bush then the Terrorists are winning

Anything you wish to add, just give me a source and I'll post it.
my sources are forbidden here:(

I'm extremely tempted to start a Democrat Rap Sheet. I'm sure we'd have just as many people on that one. I won't, however, out of the goodness of my heart.

...

And lack of anything on anyone at the moment.

my sources are forbidden here:(

Not many sources are banned here. In fact, the only websited banned on here deal with hardcore porno and/or bad things happening to your machine.

I'm extremely tempted to start a Democrat Rap Sheet. I'm sure we'd have just as many people on that one. I won't, however, out of the goodness of my heart.

...

And lack of anything on anyone at the moment.
there are a few bad dems but NO WAY just as many as there are rotten repubs

there are a few bad dems but NO WAY just as many as there are rotten repubs

They are practically one in the same.

Not many sources are banned here. In fact, the only websited banned on here deal with hardcore porno and/or bad things happening to your machine.
I am compelled to disagree

I am compelled to disagree

Do tell what has been banned on these forums. What could be so vile that the mods, who do not involve themselves in forum political debates, would ban them out of spite?

They are practically one in the same.
Aye. Politicians will be politicians, regardless of party. Quite frankly, the only politicians I trust are those on a local level. Like the county commisioners here in Colorado. I know 'em all. They're great people. If I were to EVER go into politics, it would only be on a local level.

They are practically one in the same.
False--the GOP has been subverted by an organized conspiracy of anti-human neocon extremists--the dems are made up stale old moderates

Do tell what has been banned on these forums. What could be so vile that the mods, who do not involve themselves in forum political debates, would ban them out of spite?
your trying to entrap me now

False--the GOP has been subverted by an organized conspiracy of anti-human neocon extremists--the dems are made up stale old moderates

Nothing changes when one party comes to power.

False--the GOP has been subverted by an organized conspiracy of anti-human neocon extremists--the dems are made up stale old moderates
Fact: You are a left-biased idiot. Neither party has been subverted per se: they simply have an amazing overabundance of corrupt politicians these days. Perhaps because it's become easier and easier to corrupt them. Transfer of money, for instance, is nigh impossible to trace nowadays due to computerization of banks.

I'm extremely tempted to start a Democrat Rap Sheet. I'm sure we'd have just as many people on that one. I won't, however, out of the goodness of my heart.

...

And lack of anything on anyone at the moment.:D
Oh come on, you know it'd be worthwhile ... and you'd owe Sumamba Buwhan for the idea.

Nothing changes when one party comes to power.
if dems liberated the congress and restored Democracy in America the direction the country is taking would be reversed 360 degrees

your trying to entrap me now

Well, what do you want? You claim to have things to add, but you refuse to provide them because they are "Banned".

Either provide your source, or retract your statement.

if dems liberated the congress and restored Democracy in America the direction the country is taking would be reversed 360 degrees

Really? Nothing changed, in the life of the typical american, when the government "changed" in 2001.

Fact: You are a left-biased idiot. Neither party has been subverted per se: they simply have an amazing overabundance of corrupt politicians these days. Perhaps because it's become easier and easier to corrupt them. Transfer of money, for instance, is nigh impossible to trace nowadays due to computerization of banks.
it also may have something to due with the culture of corruption thats emanating from the White House and is clearly affecting one party disproportinately

Folks, i don't mean to belittle you, but this thread inparticular maintains an advantage over typical partisan bickering.
It's in the OP.
Could you please, AT LEAST, indulge the OP'r or start another thread to *argue* on?

Well, what do you want? You claim to have things to add, but you refuse to provide them because they are "Banned".

Either provide your source, or retract your statement.
If I reveal my source I reveal alot more then just my source

:D
Oh come on, you know it'd be worthwhile ... and you'd owe Sumamba Buwhan for the idea.
Nah...it's really not worth it right now. Barbs at Tom Kennedy are fun though.

if dems liberated the congress and restored Democracy in America the direction the country is taking would be reversed 360 degrees
...

So it wouldn't change direction at all? Thanks for proving my claim about your idiocy. And culture of corruption my ass. The people in the White House have nothing to do with the corruption of others.

Really? Nothing changed, in the life of the typical american, when the government "changed" in 2001.
except for our tanked economy--3000 dead in the worst terrorist attack on American soil in our history--and a country stuck in an unwinnable war in Iraq and on the verge of WW3 starting and America waiting like a sitting duck to get hit by terrorists AGAIN--Id say there has been severely deep and horrific changes since Bush has seized power

Folks, i don't mean to belittle you, but this thread inparticular maintains an advantage over typical partisan bickering.
It's in the OP.
Could you please, AT LEAST, indulge the OP'r or start another thread to *argue* on?
My apologies. I shall halt at once. I cannot promise that Romulan Os will do the same, but then again, you never know what idiots will do.

Folks, i don't mean to belittle you, but this thread inparticular maintains an advantage over typical partisan bickering.
It's in the OP.
Could you please, AT LEAST, indulge the OP'r or start another thread to *argue* on?
whats OP?

If I reveal my source I reveal alot more then just my source

Errhmm...

So you are either unwilling or unable to back up your statements, at least publicly, for fear of recriminations.

On a personal level, I would like to know. If you would be so kind, would you please TG me the sources for your statements? I promise that I shall not reveal them on this forum, if you so with.

Nah...it's really not worth it right now. Barbs at Tom Kennedy are fun though.


...

So it wouldn't change direction at all? Thanks for proving my claim about your idiocy. And culture of corruption my ass. The people in the White House have nothing to do with the corruption of others.
the hell they dont--the WHite House sets the tone and the republican lemmings follow because repubs always blindly worship their leaders--it one of their strenghts as a party but in this case it has also corrupted them--plus the message from the GOP leaders to any possible defectors to the culture of corruption is if you stick your neck out your heads getting chopped off--apparently you have no idea how things go down in Congress

Errhmm...

So you are either unwilling or unable to back up your statements, at least publicly, for fear of recriminations.

On a personal level, I would like to know. If you would be so kind, would you please TG me the sources for your statements? I promise that I shall not reveal them on this forum, if you so with.
its not recriminations I fear...

the hell they dont--the WHite House sets the tone and the republican lemmings follow because repubs always blindly worship their leaders--it one of their strenghts as a party but in this case it has also corrupted them--plus the message from the GOP leaders to any possible defectors to the culture of corruption is if you stick your neck out your heads getting chopped off--apparently you have no idea how things go down in Congress
Excuse me Straughn.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Shut up. You don't know what in the hell you're talking about. It is true that party loyalty will often come into effect, but to expect the personal actions of White House personel to dictate those of the rest of their party in Congress is just idiotic. They are corruptable because they are politicians. Most of your precious Dems are corrupt as well. Now, please, for all our sakes, stop reading those far left political blogs and actually look up real information, THEN get back to us.

its not recriminations I fear...
Whatever it is, I would like to see these sources. Would you please TG them to me?

it is True that the Republican Party has been invaded by a cancer cluster of Globalist Parasites also known as Neocons who are the biggest threat to our Countrys Democracy since its Founding

Whatever it is, I would like to see these sources. Would you please TG them to me?
I TGed you but you werent there--I cant be in the TG realm and in the Forum at the same time

it is True that the Republican Party has been invaded by a cancer cluster of Globalist Parasites also known as Neocons who are the biggest threat to our Countrys Democracy since its Founding
Oh for the love of...

Dude. If you want to toss around your utterly biased, utterly false shit, make a new thread for it. Please.

I TGed you but you werent there--I cant be in the TG realm and in the Forum at the same time

No, TGs are like E-mail. Just TG me the links, please.

whats OP?
Original Post.

Oh for the love of...

Dude. If you want to toss around your utterly biased, utterly false shit, make a new thread for it. Please.
I see they got to you...but I will make a new thread for it and leave this one (even tho I know you will bitch about that too)

Original Post.
I thought this thread was about the all the atrocities of the Bush Crime Syndicate?

No, TGs are like E-mail. Just TG me the links, please.
how do I know your not an NS spy?

To keep this somewhat on track ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/13/AR2006021301897.html

UPDATE: PREPACKAGED NEWS
Tuesday, February 14, 2006; Page A13


How much is good press worth? To the Bush administration, about $1.6 billion.

That's how much seven federal departments spent from 2003 through the second quarter of 2005 on 343 contracts with public relations firms, advertising agencies, media organizations and individuals, according to a new Government Accountability Office report.

The 154-page report provides the most comprehensive look to date at the scope of federal spending in an area that generated substantial controversy last year. Congressional Democrats asked the GAO to look into federal public relations contracts last spring at the height of the furor over government-sponsored prepackaged news and journalism-for-sale.

Armstrong Williams, the conservative commentator, had been unmasked as a paid administration promoter who received $186,000 from the Education Department to speak favorably about President Bush's No Child Left Behind law in broadcast appearances.

Around the same time, a spat erupted between the GAO and the White House over whether the government's practice of feeding TV stations prepackaged, ready-to-air news stories that touted administration policies (but did not disclose the government as the source) amounted to "covert propaganda." The GAO said that it did. The administration disagreed, saying spreading information about federal programs is part of the agencies' mission, and that the burden of disclosure falls on the TV stations.

Congress sided with the GAO. Lawmakers inserted a provision into an annual spending bill requiring federal agencies to include "a clear notification" within the text or audio of a prepackaged news story that it was prepared or paid for by the government.

The new report reveals that federal public relations spending goes far beyond "video news releases." The contracts covered the waterfront, from a $6.3 million agreement to help the Department of Homeland Security educate Americans about how to respond to terrorist attacks; to a $647,350 contract to assist the Transportation Security Administration in producing video news releases and media tours on the subject of airport security procedures; to a $6,600 contract to train managers at the Bureau of Reclamation in dealing with the media.

"Careful oversight of this spending is essential given the track record of the Bush administration, which has used taxpayer dollars to fund covert propaganda within the United States," Rep. Henry A. Waxman (Calif.), ranking Democrat of the House Government Reform Committee, said in a statement yesterday.

I thought this thread was about the all the atrocities of the Bush Crime Syndicate?
Yes, but the thread is different from usual bicker threads BECAUSE of the EVIDENCE.
Links. I know you've already pointed out things that were biting problems in the past, but i've been doing this *a LONG time* - i think it might be just a matter of presentation.
Of course, Sumamba Buwhan is likely to point out what's fly and what's not, next time there's a visit or update (which has been a while).

And i should mention this series too:

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/

http://www.butlerreview.org.uk/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3892809.stm

http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/duelfer.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9790-2004Oct5.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12115-2004Oct6.html
---
There's another report from the BND about the Germans objecting to the Iraq invasion scenario "intelligence", but that one's harder to get.
Well, n'joy. If the thread's still around, i'll add more, but seriously there needs to be other links from other posters.

how do I know your not an NS spy?

I'm sorry for the semi-necropost, but...

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!

I just about died when I read that. That's so going in my sig.

Yes, but the thread is different from usual bicker threads BECAUSE of the EVIDENCE.
Links. I know you've already pointed out things that were biting problems in the past, but i've been doing this *a LONG time* - i think it might be just a matter of presentation.
Of course, Sumamba Buwhan is likely to point out what's fly and what's not, next time there's a visit or update (which has been a while).

Yeah I hope for it mostly to be a knowledge base of dirty Bush Admin dealings. I fully encourage the guy who wanted to do the Democratic rap sheet. I'd have liked to see that as well. I wonder who can come up with more crap... of course I am focusing on just one administration.

Perhaps we should have a Clinton Admin rap sheet or wait for the 2008 admin.

I don't care if people want to bicker at each other on this thread as long as they don't get it locked or something.

And i should mention this series too:

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/

http://www.butlerreview.org.uk/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3892809.stm

http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/duelfer.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9790-2004Oct5.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12115-2004Oct6.html
---
There's another report from the BND about the Germans objecting to the Iraq invasion scenario "intelligence", but that one's harder to get.
Well, n'joy. If the thread's still around, i'll add more, but seriously there needs to be other links from other posters.


Updated - hopefully this thread will grow large and full of good damning information - then everyone will signify the significance of this thread by putting it in their signature. :p

Updated - hopefully this thread will grow large and full of good damning information - then everyone will signify the significance of this thread by putting it in their signature. :p
I would be more help i think if the server hadn't been swapped. There was a *BUNCH* of stuff on that run that would be useful here. He's had quite a while to accumulate his laurels.
Yeah, when i figure sigs, i'll probably add it - as is, almost everything i posted was from my favourites.

I wonder why Myo hasn't stopped by on this thread. I think he has something to say about this subject.
I'll be in&out today, but there's a few more issues that need to be on this thread.

Well, here's today's fun:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0603180187mar18,1,540340.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed
Court blocks EPA from relaxing pollution rules in Clean Air Act
EPA sought to relax regulations on plants

By Juliet Eilperin
The Washington Post
Published March 18, 2006


WASHINGTON -- A federal appeals court blocked the Bush administration's four-year effort to loosen emission rules for aging coal-fired power plants, unanimously ruling Friday that the changes violated the Clean Air Act and that only Congress could authorize such revisions.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit sided with officials from 14 states, including New York, California and Maryland, who contended that the rule changes were illegal and could increase the amount of health-threateninig pollution in the atmosphere. The changes would have allowed older power plants, refineries and factories to upgrade their facilities without having to install the most advanced pollution controls.

The Environmental Protection Agency's New Source Review policy was formally issued in 2003 but has never taken effect because of legal challenges by state officials and environmental groups.

The administration has long argued that the existing standards are too stringent and have discouraged utility plants and other industries from upgrading and expanding their facilities. But opponents have characterized the rule changes as a favor to administration allies in the utility and coal industries that would greatly add to public health problems.

New York Atty. Gen. Eliot Spitzer, who led the court fight to block the administration's new policy, called Friday's ruling "a major victory for clean air and public health" and a "rejection of a flawed policy."

"It will encourage industry to build new and cleaner facilities, instead of prolonging the life of old, dirty plants," Spitzer said.

In a statement, EPA spokesman John Millet said: "We are disappointed that the court did not find in favor of the United States. We are reviewing and analyzing the opinion and cannot comment further at this time."

Some studies have linked pollution from coal-fired power plants to as many as 20,000 premature deaths in the United States every year. Environmental activists have made curbing this type of pollution one of their most pressing legislative and legal priorities.

--

And by extension ...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/15/AR2006031501589.html
DHS Gets Another F in Computer Security
Annual 'Report Card' Contends Many Key Agencies Don't Adequately Protect Networks

By Brian Krebs
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 15, 2006; 5:00 PM

Most federal agencies that play key roles in the war on terror are doing a dismal job of protecting their computers and information networks from hackers and viruses, according to portions of a report to be released by a key congressional oversight committee Thursday.

The Department of Homeland Security, which is charged with setting the government's cyber security agenda, earned a grade of F for the third straight year from the House Government Reform Committee. Other agencies whose failing marks went unchanged from 2004 include the departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, State, Health and Human Services, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs.

The House Government Reform Committee is expected to award the federal government an overall grade of D-plus for computer security in 2005, a score that remains virtually unchanged from 2004.

Several agencies saw a considerable drop in their scores. The Department of Justice went from a B-minus in 2004 to a "D" in 2005, while Interior earned failing marks after getting a C-plus in 2004.

The scores are "unacceptably low," committee Chairman Tom Davis (R-Va.) said in a statement. "DHS must have its house in order and should become a security leader among agencies. What's holding them up?"

The annual report bases the grades on the agencies' internal assessments and information they are required to submit annually to the White House Office of Management and Budget. The letter grades depended on how well agencies met the requirements set out in the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA).

FISMA requires agencies to meet a wide variety of computer security standards, ranging from operational details -- such as ensuring proper password management by workers and restricting employee access to sensitive networks and documents -- to creating procedures for reporting security problems.

As online attacks against consumers and businesses have skyrocketed, so have assaults against government information systems. Alan Paller, director of research for the SANS Institute, a group in Bethesda, Md., that trains and certifies computer security professionals, said a number of federal computer systems have been badly penetrated by hackers and viruses over the past several years, in part because many agencies do not adequately monitor their systems or apply software security updates in a timely manner.

But Paller argues that the yearly FISMA grades force agencies to apply scarce funding and employee time toward the wrong priorities.

"It turns out that the vast bulk of the federal information security money is spent on documenting these systems, not on securing or testing them against attacks," Paller said. "Most [agencies] are spending so much on the paperwork exercises that they don't have a lot of money left over to fix the problems they've identified."

Davis said he is interested in examining ways to ensure that FISMA compliance does not become a paperwork exercise where agencies comply with the letter, but not the spirit, of the law.

"We don't want them filling out forms to simply fill out forms, but in my experience, when it comes to information security, it is still difficult to get people -- even members of Congress -- engaged in the issue," Davis said. "An attack could originate anywhere at any time, and FISMA is the best tool we have to ensure that agencies are proactively securing themselves."

While a number of agencies performed worse last year than in 2004, many showed marked improvement in meeting federal computer security requirements.

The National Science Foundation and the General Services Administration each saw their scores rise from a C-plus in 2004 to an A last year. The Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Labor earned A-plus grades in 2005, up from B and B-minus respectively.

---

Here's another for the pile ....

http://www.boston.com/news/local/rhode_island/articles/2006/03/19/state_republicans_seek_to_block_campaign_probe
State Republicans seek to block campaign probe
March 19, 2006

PROVIDENCE, R.I. --The state Republican Party is seeking to block a campaign probe arguing it violates the GOP's due process and First Amendment rights.

The state Board of Elections is investigating a complaint that the Republican Party accepted an illegal campaign contribution to fund an ad backing Gov. Don Carcieri during the 2002 campaign.

The state GOP and Carcieri's campaign organization deny the charges, and are suing to stop the probe and dismiss the complaint.

The lawsuit, filed in Superior Court, claims the ad did not violate state law because the video didn't expressly advocate Carcieri's election and wasn't prepared in coordination with the Carcieri campaign.

The Republicans accompanied the court filing with critiques on how the Elections Board has investigated the complaint, which was prompted by Democratic State Chairman William Lynch.

They accused the board of allowing the Democratic Party to participate improperly in the investigation and of violating the Republicans' due process and First Amendment rights.

James Bopp Jr., a lawyer for the Republicans, said the party wants "nothing more than a fair hearing." But he said that because of the "magnitude of legal and procedural errors" by the board during the three years of "tainted investigation and political grandstanding," the only way to get a fair hearing is to stop the investigation.

But Lynch said that if Carcieri and the other Republican think they've done nothing wrong, "they should have no problems answering questions under oath."

Lynch accused the Republicans of stalling and said the latest court filing raises no new legal issues.

Meanwhile, H. Reed Witherby, the board's special counsel, on Tuesday served the Republicans with at least one subpoena seeking records for the investigation.

Witherby has already found that the state GOP apparently violated state election law when it used $250,000 from the national GOP to play for a 2002 TV ad supporting Carcieri. Witherby recommended that the board send the case to the attorney general for civil prosecution.

Witherby hasn't reached a conclusion about whether the Carcieri campaign and party violated another section of the law limiting how much a state party can give to a candidate.

I like Bush's policy: "Nuke Their Ass, Take the Gas."

I don't understand why some people want to blur the lines and blame the Bush Administration for everything bad any Republican has done during his term in office. Abramoff, Ney, DeLay, Cunningham - they've all been in their positions far longer than Bush has been President.

The Republican party is not the Bush Administration, and the Bush Administration is not the Republican party.

This kind of post is just muckraking. Its a blatant and poor attempt at character assassination by stringing together a number of individuals who have ethical lapses and linking them to the President through the Republican party. You could just as equally condemn causasian males over the age of 40 (because for some reason, Claude Allen isn't on the list) because they all fit.

There are a number of individuals who broke the law. They should be viewed as individuals, and this "culture of corruption" is nonsense - just a rhetorical exercise. On the flip side, just because Bill Clinton, Gary Hart, and various other Democrats had publicized affairs doesn't mean that there's a "culture of lewdness" within the Democratic party.

Repeal the 22nd Amendment?
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.J.RES.24.IH:


FYI - three of the five co-sponsors of that resolution are Democrats, including Steny Hoyer, the Minority Whip - the #2 Democratic in the House.

I don't understand why some people want to blur the lines and blame the Bush Administration for everything bad any Republican has done during his term in office. Abramoff, Ney, DeLay, Cunningham - they've all been in their positions far longer than Bush has been President.Read the OP.


The Republican party is not the Bush Administration, and the Bush Administration is not the Republican party. Actually, it was convenient to have *NO* distinction until fairly recently ... can we say "Dubai" and "wiretaps", folks?


This kind of post is just muckraking. Its a blatant and poor attempt at character assassination by stringing together a number of individuals who have ethical lapses and linking them to the President through the Republican party. You could just as equally condemn causasian males over the age of 40 (because for some reason, Claude Allen isn't on the list) because they all fit. Wrong. That's already been covered. Don't just jump in here, read the whole thread. Your opinion's worth more when you're educated. There's no "poor character assassination" .. that sounds like typical whiny conservative behaviour when confronted.

There are a number of individuals who broke the law. They should be viewed as individuals, and this "culture of corruption" is nonsense - just a rhetorical exercise. On the flip side, just because Bill Clinton, Gary Hart, and various other Democrats had publicized affairs doesn't mean that there's a "culture of lewdness" within the Democratic party.The challenge has already been welcomed. So ante up or deal with it. If you got the goods, go ahead and start your own thread.

FYI - three of the five co-sponsors of that resolution are Democrats, including Steny Hoyer, the Minority Whip - the #2 Democratic in the House.
Don't presume to educate me. I've had this up TWICE before, and i know what it says. Go look up my posts.
Also, is this the best you have? Your version of "character assassination?" :rolleyes:

Don't presume to educate me. I've had this up TWICE before, and i know what it says. Go look it up.

Don't presume that you have any idea what you're talking about. And I apologize - I thought Frank Pallone was a Republican. He's going to kick my ass when I tell him.

Steny Hoyer - Democrat, Maryland 5th, Minority Whip.
Martin Olav Sabo - Democrat, Minnesota 5th
Jim Sensenbrenner - Republican, Wisconsin 5th
Frank Pallone - Democrat, New Jersey 5th.
Howard Berman - Democrat, California 28th.

Also, the resolution has gone nowhere since it was introduced in February.

Was there any particular reason you thought this was a "Bush" conspiracy?

Read the OP.

I read it. It's funny - he mentions "Bush's culture of corruption", then throws in a bunch of stuff regarding Abramoff and Cunningham that have no connection to the administration.

If you guys really want to have a legitimate discussion of these issues, get your basic facts straight.

Actually, it was convenient to have *NO* distinction until fairly recently ... can we say "Dubai" and "wiretaps", folks?

Actually, there's always been a distinction. Whether or not you can see it is based on your level of partisanship.

Wrong. That's already been covered. Don't just jump in here, read the whole thread. Your opinion's worth more when you're educated. There's no "poor character assassination" .. that sounds like typical whiny conservative behaviour when confronted.

Obviously, it hasn't, because like I said, you're throwing a bunch of unconnected activities together and using them to smear the President.

If you want to talk about Bush's missteps, that's fine, but remove anything dealing with Cunningham, Abramoff, Frist, Taft, Fletcher, Schwarzeneggar and Ney because they aren't administration officials and Bush has no control over those folks.

The challenge has already been welcomed. So ante up or deal with it. If you got the goods, go ahead and start your own thread.

I would rather focus on correcting the obvious misunderstandings you have regarding American politics, and the relationship between the Bush Administration and Congressional Republicans. These kinds of misconceptions and misunderstandings dumb down the political process here and that annoys me, particularly when they're coming from non-Americans.

I read it. It's funny - he mentions "Bush's culture of corruption", then throws in a bunch of stuff regarding Abramoff and Cunningham that have no connection to the administration.

If you guys really want to have a legitimate discussion of these issues, get your basic facts straight.Well, show it with some links. Otherwise you've got nothing. That's the point of the thread. How many times do you really need to have that explained to you?



Actually, there's always been a distinction. Whether or not you can see it is based on your level of partisanship. It actually depends on if *you* understand what the post was.



Obviously, it hasn't, because like I said, you're throwing a bunch of unconnected activities together and using them to smear the President. Again, you didn't read the OP, or you simply don't have the cognitive skills to discuss this logically.

If you want to talk about Bush's missteps, that's fine, but remove anything dealing with Cunningham, Abramoff, Frist, Taft, Fletcher, Schwarzeneggar and Ney because they aren't administration officials and Bush has no control over those folks. What don't you understand about the OP? This is a little embarassing. Besides, don't tell the OP'r OR the people who contribute what to do unless you provide *ANYTHING* worthwhile. SO far, nothing.



I would rather focus on correcting the obvious misunderstandings you have regarding American politics, and the relationship between the Bush Administration and Congressional Republicans. These kinds of misconceptions and misunderstandings dumb down the political process here and that annoys me, particularly when they're coming from non-Americans.That may be the case, but that's different from this thread in a basic, crucial respect.
It's not the OP intent, and therefore a deliberate hijacking into semantic territory to make it more on the terms of what *you* want to argue about. And so far, since you have *no* posts to contribute to the OP, i have to use these:

This kind of post is just muckraking. Its a blatant and poor attempt at character assassination ...

..."culture of corruption" is nonsense - just a rhetorical exercise.


If you guys really want to have a legitimate discussion of these issues, get your basic facts straight.
The last one, of course by you, pretty much nails shut the difference between your intent and the nature of this thread.


Was there any particular reason you thought this was a "Bush" conspiracy?I didn't say it was. This is what i mean by *you* not presuming to educate me. Especially since your track record in that sense is ... well, wanting. I know what it says and i posted it for a reason you apparently can't understand, especially with your history of jumping here. It's apparent you jumped on a thread to argue what you thought was right, especially given your NS Player profile, so i'm under the impression there really isn't anything valuable you can contribute to this thread at all, ESPECIALLY given the ignorance of the information AND the OP, other than partisan bickering.
It isn't that you can't make a good point, but it's only about the things you want to talk about. And you're not doing so well so far.

The Republicans are no different than the Democrats. I have nothing but disdain for anybody that feels otherwise.

The proper name of this thread should have been “The US government’s rapsheet.”

I would rather focus on correcting the obvious misunderstandings you have regarding American politics, and the relationship between the Bush Administration and Congressional Republicans. These kinds of misconceptions and misunderstandings dumb down the political process here and that annoys me, particularly when they're coming from non-Americans.Well, this is an interesting post, since you haven't contributed anything to prove any misunderstanding on anyone else's part, and if you mean me specifically, you've got nada.
The "dumbing down" of the political process isn't a matter of people like me, it's people that tend to blow a lot of rhetoric about stuff without backing it up. Here's an example of the mentality that you appear to be espousing ...:

"See in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."-George W. Bush, Athena Performing Arts Center at Greece Athena Middle and High School Tuesday, May 24, 2005 in Rochester, NY
..
And you know what, i'm a citizen of the U.S.A. Prove otherwise, or back away from the thread with whatever scant dignity you have left, and start your own thread on some topic more along your lines, being argument and rhetoric instead of evidence.

Well, show it with some links. Otherwise you've got nothing. That's the point of the thread. How many times do you really need to have that explained to you?

I've read the original post. What I am saying is that the original post is imprecise and the entire point of it is suspect because of that imprecision.

Do a list that focuses on the Bush Administration and leave off the Congressional issues. Or do a list that focuses on the Republican party and put everything on it. But the characterizations of the OP are wrong, and I'm going to point that out until you get it.

What don't you understand about the OP? This is a little embarassing. Besides, don't tell the OP'r OR the people who contribute what to do unless you provide *ANYTHING* worthwhile. SO far, nothing.

I'm trying to provide an explanation so that those who read this thread may come away with it with a better understanding of the differences between the party and the Administration. It may not provide you with any more fodder to crow about corruption, but you'll be smarter for it.

I didn't say it was. This is what i mean by *you* not presuming to educate me. Especially since your track record in that sense is ... well, wanting. I know what it says and i posted it for a reason you apparently can't understand, especially with your history of jumping here. It's apparent you jumped on a thread to argue what you thought was right, especially given your NS Player profile, so i'm under the impression there really isn't anything valuable you can contribute to this thread at all, ESPECIALLY given the ignorance of the information AND the OP, other than partisan bickering.
It isn't that you can't make a good point, but it's only about the things you want to talk about. And you're not doing so well so far.

Thanks for the review.

All I am trying to say is that if the OP is serious and doesn't want this to be a Bush bashing thread, than he's got to be more precise in what he wants to list. Otherwise, any objective individual is going to see this thread as simple muckraking.

Well, this is an interesting post, since you haven't contributed anything to prove any misunderstanding on anyone else's part, and if you mean me specifically, you've got nada.

The "dumbing down" of the political process isn't a matter of people like me, it's people that tend to blow a lot of rhetoric about stuff without backing it up. Here's an example of the mentality that you appear to be espousing ...:

You've repeated yourself regarding what I've said about a half dozen times so far in this thread. Who's "capapulting the propaganda" here now?

The political process is dumbed down when people can't understand the basic functioning of the government and the dynamics of the political parties. This thread is just another example of that - its entire construction indicates a lack of understanding of the political process.

You can link as many news articles are you want - if you get basic things like seperating the Executive branch from the Republican party wrong, you're starting off on the wrong foot.

And you know what, i'm a citizen of the U.S.A. Prove otherwise, or back away from the thread with whatever scant dignity you have left, and start your own thread on some topic more along your lines, being argument and rhetoric instead of evidence.

Then learn how to spell "behavior". And I don't know many folks over here who would call themselves a "citizen of the U.S.A." We usually refer to ourselves as Americans. But if I'm wrong, I apologize.

I've read the original post. What I am saying is that the original post is imprecise and the entire point of it is suspect because of that imprecision. ...and that's where, if you aren't being disingenuous, you'll provide evidence to support your claim.

Do a list that focuses on the Bush Administration and leave off the Congressional issues. Or do a list that focuses on the Republican party and put everything on it. But the characterizations of the OP are wrong, and I'm going to point that out until you get it.How about you stop telling other people what to do? What don't you understand about the OP and everything i've been saying? You're the one who dosn't appear to get it. This is a
PROOF and EVIDENCE
thread, not a
Brians Room feels affronted and wants to explain his "feelings"
thread.



I'm trying to provide an explanation so that those who read this thread may come away with it with a better understanding of the differences between the party and the Administration. It may not provide you with any more fodder to crow about corruption, but you'll be smarter for it.[/QUOTE]THe best you can possibly do is to provide evidence, for which you have, again, failed miserably. You are doing the exact opposite of what you are saying. Actually, come to think of it, you are doing a not-so-bad job of representing the republicans, by complaining about the evidence and trying to switch the subject, and making broad assumptions about the posters. Pretty soon, i'll consider myself privileged to have you attack my "patriotism".



Thanks for the review.

All I am trying to say is that if the OP is serious and doesn't want this to be a Bush bashing thread, than he's got to be more precise in what he wants to list. Otherwise, any objective individual is going to see this thread as simple muckraking.
And indeed, as i said much, MUCH earlier, there is a distinction.
In fact, i can understand that it would bother you that people are going to be pointing out flaws in parties, i understand a lot.
I have also pointed that out in prior threads, just not in as much detail on this one perhaps, given its nature.

You've repeated yourself regarding what I've said about a half dozen times so far in this thread. Who's "capapulting the propaganda" here now?Kettle, meet pot. You seem to be missing the whole point, a lot.

The political process is dumbed down when people can't understand the basic functioning of the government and the dynamics of the political parties. This thread is just another example of that - its entire construction indicates a lack of understanding of the political process.This thread isn't the fault of that, it's the inevitable conclusion of the problems of a self-indulgent, morally bankrupt and corporate owned administration, and whether or not some of the people are directly responsible for things being the way they are, they're involved. That's exactly what *you* should expect.
If you want to talk about the "political process", i'm sure The Cat-Tribe wouldn't mind clarifying a few things for you.

You can link as many news articles are you want - if you get basic things like seperating the Executive branch from the Republican party wrong, you're starting off on the wrong foot.I didn't get anything wrong. They're not only the majority (remember your bloody precious "mandate" mantra?), they're in charge of just about everything. So apparently you aren't understanding the political process, which indeed doesn't bode well for your professed future occupation of desire.

Then learn how to spell "behavior". And I don't know many folks over here who would call themselves a "citizen of the U.S.A." We usually refer to ourselves as Americans. But if I'm wrong, I apologize.
I'm glad you apologize, since that would be the only modicum of "dignity" that i inferred earlier.
Again with the typical republican bullsh*t about telling people what to do to suit them.
Guess what, i can *spell* it any bloody way i wish. Guess what ELSE, this isn't even specifically AN "AMERICAN" FORUM. If that's how i feel like spelling it, i will for it suits me, because it does exactly what it did this time - exposing ignorance for what it is. Further, i can spell "capitalise" or "capitalize" either way, and IT'S STILL THE SAME WORD. Take your recommendations back to your talking point friends so you can share your ideas on how to run the world with people who are like minded.
There's SOUTH AMERICA as well as NORTH AMERICA. You're again welcome to start your own thread about it. Be happy with your results.

Here is another qualification .... current PR "techniques" vs. "shock & awe" ...

https://registration.ft.com/registration/barrier?referer=http://news.ft.com/cms/s/5eb0c8ba-b7b6-11da-b4c2-0000779e2340.html&location=http%3A//news.ft.com/cms/s/b9e05e26-b7b6-11da-b4c2-0000779e2340.html
Assault on minds
Published: March 20 2006 02:00 | Last updated: March 20 2006 02:00

The PR value of the US "Operation Swarmer" in Iraq was given full airing on anti-war websites. Billed as the largest "air assault" since the beginning of the Iraq war, the language of war was met with derision. "Shock and Awe was an assault from the air, but was not 'air assault' as defined by the US military," noted
www.mudvillegazette.com.
"Not a single shot was fired during the operation and not a single leading insurgent was captured" (phlipsrants. blogspot.com). Dramatic photos of aircraft were published, but bloggers picked up that the shots were Pentagon hand-outs. (defensetech.org)
--

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article352386.ece
Bush still sees no reason to apologise
By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
Published: 20 March 2006
If anyone was looking for even the slightest hint of second thoughts from those led the US into Iraq, they would have been sorely disappointed on the third anniversary of a war that is eating into America's soul and that may well reshape its political landscape.

More sacrifice would be required, but "our goal is nothing less than complete victory", President George Bush declared in his weekly radio address yesterday.

Ignore the doom-mongering, Dick Cheney urged his countrymen on CBS's Face the Nation programme. This was no civil war; rather the insurgents had reached "a stage of desperation". On both the security and political fronts, Iraq was showing "major progress".

Writing in The Washington Post, Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary - blamed by many for the absence of post-invasion planning - was equally unrepentant. The big picture would be determined by history, "not by daily headlines, website blogs, or the latest sensational attack", Mr Rumsfeld declared. To retreat now would be "the modern equivalent of handing post-war Germany back to the Nazis, or of asking the former Communist states of eastern Europe to return to Soviet domination because the West did not have the patience to see through the job of turning them into free countries".

The plain fact, however, is that back in March 2003, almost no Bush administration policy-maker could even imagine that yesterday the country would be in agonising debate over a conflict three years old with no end in sight - in an Iraq that even the pro-American former prime minister Iyad Allawi said was in the midst of a civil war.

When Mr Bush triumphantly proclaimed an end to the war in May 2003 from the deck of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln, the Pentagon's expectation was that by the end of that year no more than 30,000 US troops would be deployed in Iraq. Today 130,000 are still there - and General George Casey, the senior US commander in the country, warned yesterday that he saw "a couple of more years of this". The war has been a drain on American blood, treasure and morale. As of yesterday, at least 2,311 US servicemen had died there, and more than 13,000 had been wounded. By the end of 2006, the conflict will have cost $320bn (£183bn).

The psychological cost is unquantifiable, but enormous. For a minority the war has brought bereavement and personal sadness. Half of all Americans know someone who has served in Iraq; some 10 per cent of them had a relative or friend who had been killed or wounded there, according to a poll by USA Today.

Mr Bush's place in history will be determined by his decision to invade. Back in March 2003, his approval ratings stood at 70 per cent. Now they have dropped to less than 40 per cent. Two-thirds of the public believes the country is "on the wrong track". Iraq sweeps every other issue off the table.

This November's mid-term elections meanwhile may well turn into a referendum on Iraq, and the Republican Party may lose control of either the House of Representatives or the Senate, conceivably both.
(oh, be-have ;) )

Even among the Republican faithful, support for Mr Bush is starting to erode. "If you demand complete victory, you'll never leave," Senator Chuck Hagel, the Nebraska Republican who is mulling a 2008 White House run, said yesterday.

The war, he declared, was helping to bankrupt the country. "And if you ask, are we better off, is the Middle East more stable than three years ago, the answer is, 'Absolutely not'."

---
AND...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/19/rumsfeld.nazis/

Rumsfeld's Iraq-Germany analogy disputed
Former top officials disagree with comparison

Sunday, March 19, 2006; Posted: 10:11 p.m. EST (03:11 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former top officials in two presidential administrations -- one Democratic, one Republican -- disagreed Sunday with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's characterization of what would happen if the United States were to pull out of the war in Iraq.

"Turning our backs on postwar Iraq today would be the modern equivalent of handing postwar Germany back to the Nazis," Rumsfeld wrote in an opinion piece published Sunday -- the third anniversary of the beginning of the U.S.-led war in Iraq -- in the Washington Post.

The anniversary came as officials from Iraq and the United States differed on whether there is all-out civil war there. (Full story)

Henry Kissinger, who served with U.S. forces in Germany at the end of World War II and who served as secretary of state under Republican Presidents Nixon and Ford, said the situations are not analogous.

"In Germany, the opposition was completely crushed; there was no significant resistance movement," the German-born diplomat told CNN's "Late Edition."

Zbigniew Brzezinski, who served as national security adviser under President Carter, a Democrat, was less charitable.

"That is really absolutely crazy to anyone who knows history," he said. "There was no alternative to our presence. The Germans were totally crushed. For Secretary Rumsfeld to be talking this way suggests either he doesn't know history or he's simply demagoguing."

Rumsfeld has been a lightning rod for complaints against the wars on terrorism and Iraq since shortly after the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. (Watch the debate over Rumsfeld -- 2:38)

He told CNN in February 2005 that he had twice offered President Bush his resignation during the height of the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, but the president refused to accept it. (Full story)

His record in Iraq came in for fresh criticism Sunday from a man who worked under him.

"He has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically, and is far more than anyone else responsible for what has happened to our important mission in Iraq," said Paul D. Eaton, a retired Army major general who was in charge of training the Iraqi military from 2003 to 2004.

"Mr. Rumsfeld must step down," he wrote in an opinion piece published Sunday in the New York Times.

"Secretary Rumsfeld serves at the pleasure of the president," (oh, be-have ;) )
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said in a written statement Sunday. "Retired Gen. Eaton is certainly entitled to his opinion."

Eaton's opinion was shared by Sen. Joseph Biden, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a frequent critic of the defense secretary.

"Imagine what would happen if it were announced tomorrow in the headlines of the papers of America and throughout the world that Rumsfeld was fired," the Delaware senator told CNN.

"It would energize, energize the rest of the world, to be willing to help us. It would energize American forces, it would energize the political environment. Yes, he should step down."

Asked his opinion, Sen. Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican, chose neither to defend nor to criticize Rumsfeld.

"If President Bush ever wants to visit with me privately about my counsel on his Cabinet, I am sure he will ask me, but it appears to me it would not be helpful for me to make a comment," the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said.

U.S. officials have expressed hopes that the number of troops in Iraq could be reduced later this year depending on the country's progress with security and politics.

Bush delivered a speech last week at George Washington University where he said "as more capable Iraqi police and soldiers come on line, they will assume responsibility for more territory with the goal of having the Iraqis control more territory than the coalition, by the end of 2006."

...and that's where, if you aren't being disingenuous, you'll provide evidence to support your claim.

I thought it was clear in my first post on the matter, but I'll try and do a rough outline of this for you.

1.) The title of this thread is "Republican Rap Sheet".

2.) The OP then states that the purpose of this thread is to build a thorough 'rap sheet' of the Bush administrations "culture of corruption".


First, it is important to recognize that there is a difference between the "Bush Administration" and the "Republican Party". They are two seperate and distinct entities.

If you merely want to talk about Republican corruption, that's one thing. If you want to talk about Bush Administration scandals, that's another. If you want to talk about all of it, that's a third.

The OP's point in this thead is ambiguous - does he want to talk about corruption within the Republican party? Or just a list of Republican scandals?

Political corruption (as in "the culture of corruption") is usually defined as the use of a position of trust to benefit ones self illegal, through bribery or coersion.

If you are talking about Republican corruption, you should remove the Iraq War, Valerie Plame, 22nd amendment (which is ridiculous on its face), WMD declarations, 4th amendment, paid propaganda and Downing Street memos from the list. Those have nothing to do with public corruption.

If you want to talk about Bush Administration missteps, then you should remove the Cunningham, Scanlon/Abramoff, issues from the list, because those are Congressional, not administration, issues.

In any case, the entire point of this thread, based solely on the way the OP has written it, contradicts his claims that This isn't just another Bush bashing thread.

How about you stop telling other people what to do? What don't you understand about the OP and everything i've been saying? You're the one who dosn't appear to get it. This is a PROOF AND EVIDENCE thread

Is it really? I don't see any proof and evidence in here. I see a couple of news reports and a partisan report by the minority staff that talks about the Iraq war. The rest are links to various posts on these forums. If that's what you consider to be evidence, good luck.

The best you can possibly do is to provide evidence, for which you have, again, failed miserably. You are doing the exact opposite of what you are saying. Actually, come to think of it, you are doing a not-so-bad job of representing the republicans, by complaining about the evidence and trying to switch the subject, and making broad assumptions about the posters. Pretty soon, i'll consider myself privileged to have you attack my "patriotism".

And here we have another partisan fallacy. I'm not going to attack your "patriotism". As far as I know, you're not even an American. I'm not trying to switch the subject. You can talk all you want about the Bush Administration's mistakes. There are dozens of them, and they're big. You can talk about a elected officials who are crooks. There are plenty of them, in both parties (William Jefferson (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/15/AR2006021502752_pf.html)). But if you're going to do it, at least recognize that the Bush Administration and the Republican party are two seperate things - that's something the OP doesn't do.

If you lump all of this stuff together - things the President is responsible for and things he had absolutely no control over - all you're doing is a cheap character assassination. Call it whatever you want, but that's what you're doing.

When I see the kind of fundamental errors that are demonstrated in the OP, the first thing I think of is "this guy has no clue about how things really work," and I tend to give little credence to the rest of the post. Just thought you'd like to know - your attacks would be much more effective if you got your facts straight on the little things.

This thread isn't the fault of that, it's the inevitable conclusion of the problems of a self-indulgent, morally bankrupt and corporate owned administration, and whether or not some of the people are directly responsible for things being the way they are, they're involved.

The subject of the thread isn't the fault of that, but the construction of the thread is. It demonstrates that the OP can't grasp fundamental distinctions of how the government and politics function in the US.

That's exactly what *you* should expect.
If you want to talk about the "political process", i'm sure The Cat-Tribe wouldn't mind clarifying a few things for you.

I don't know who The Cat-Tribe is, but if he's got more experience and education on the process than I do, I'd be glad to talk to him.

I didn't get anything wrong. They're not only the majority (remember your bloody precious "mandate" mantra?), they're in charge of just about everything. So apparently you aren't understanding the political process, which indeed doesn't bode well for your professed future occupation of desire.

The OP got plenty wrong. And your own post regarding Hoyer's Constitutional amendment repealing the 22nd amendment (which I wholeheartedly support, but not because of Bush) in which you claim that this was part of a Republican plan, but fail to recognize that 4 of the 5 co-sponsors were Democrats and the original sponsor was the 2nd most powerful Democrat in the House. I'm a Republican but I like Steny Hoyer - he's smart, he's friendly and out-going, and he's a hard worker. I know that because I know the man. Have you ever met Congressman Hoyer?

The Republicans have a majority in the House and the Senate, but the majority in the Senate isn't filibuster proof, so Democrats can keep things from reaching the floor if they work together. That's power. The Executive is Republican. The Supreme Court is 5-4 liberal, or to be more precise 4 liberal, 4 conservative, 1 swing vote. That's hardly "control".

Guess what, i can *spell* it any bloody way i wish. Guess what ELSE, this isn't even specifically AN "AMERICAN" FORUM. If that's how i feel like spelling it, i will for it suits me, because it does exactly what it did this time - exposing ignorance for what it is.

You spell things in the British manner. You use "bloody" in the British manner. You call yourself a "Citizen of the U.S.A.". Those are not mannerisms of the average American. Where are you from? If I'm wrong, give me some evidence, as you're so fond of exclaiming.

I thought it was clear in my first post on the matter, but I'll try and do a rough outline of this for you.

1.) The title of this thread is "Republican Rap Sheet".

2.) The OP then states that the purpose of this thread is to build a thorough 'rap sheet' of the Bush administrations "culture of corruption".


First, it is important to recognize that there is a difference between the "Bush Administration" and the "Republican Party". They are two seperate and distinct entities. Again you don't understand what i said, being the truth, about who is in control of what. Only recently the repubs started showing a little personal integrity and dignity.

If you merely want to talk about Republican corruption, that's one thing. If you want to talk about Bush Administration scandals, that's another. If you want to talk about all of it, that's a third.

The OP's point in this thead is ambiguous - does he want to talk about corruption within the Republican party? Or just a list of Republican scandals?

Political corruption (as in "the culture of corruption") is usually defined as the use of a position of trust to benefit ones self illegal, through bribery or coersion. Try the OP'r. Frankly there's plenty here to deal with.

If you are talking about Republican corruption, you should remove the Iraq War, Valerie Plame, 22nd amendment (which is ridiculous on its face), WMD declarations, 4th amendment, paid propaganda and Downing Street memos from the list. Those have nothing to do with public corruption.No, again, the administration is supposed to be there for the service of the public, and you're being EXTREMELY disingenuous by intending to split them up.

If you want to talk about Bush Administration missteps, then you should remove the Cunningham, Scanlon/Abramoff, issues from the list, because those are Congressional, not administration, issues.Although you want to divy them up, again you can't. Perhaps you should TG the OP'r about it.

In any case, the entire point of this thread, based solely on the way the OP has written it, contradicts his claims that This isn't just another Bush bashing thread. I'll put it to you this way. Go back to the middle of this WHOLE thread, and note what i pointed out to the argument that Romulus Os was having with those other folks.
And it isn't "in any case". You don't have enough of *anything* to back that statement up.



Is it really? If you have to ask :rolleyes:
I don't see any proof and evidence in here.That mentality has already been addressed much earlier on.
I see a couple of news reports and a partisan report by the minority staff that talks about the Iraq war. The rest are links to various posts on these forums. If that's what you consider to be evidence, good luck.Good luck and good night, is more along what should be a response to your typical republican tactics. Besides, read what i just put up. Seriously, walk away before you dig yourself in even worse. This thread is literally FULL of evidence and proof, NONE of which you have disproven. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Instead, you KEEP TRYING TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT or to tell (people) to stop doing what you don't like! :rolleyes:



And here we have another partisan fallacy. I'm not going to attack your "patriotism". As far as I know, you're not even an American. I'm not trying to switch the subject. You can talk all you want about the Bush Administration's mistakes. There are dozens of them, and they're big. You can talk about a elected officials who are crooks. There are plenty of them, in both parties (William Jefferson (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/15/AR2006021502752_pf.html)). But if you're going to do it, at least recognize that the Bush Administration and the Republican party are two seperate things - that's something the OP doesn't do. I agree that there are dozens of mistakes, and that they're big. I'm happy to finally agree with you about something. The problem is (and here's where i start inferring my own angle) that the republicans are far too easily swain by conceptual partisan attacks, demonstrated succintly by Karl Rove's tactics. You've made a target out of a largely farcicle theory of "liberalism" while BLATENTLY ignoring most of the personal endeavours the "president" indulges in, for shame of hypocrisy. You've been willing to toe party line on things that you should have known, AS CONSERVATIVES, were not CONSERVATIVE ideas, but for republican rank, "you" stayed in the stink. For the last time, i'm saying that it took the border issues, the Dubai incident and the wiretapping to point out that you should have stood for principle a lot better than just attacking the last guy and running roughshod over "the political process" i keep hearing from you about just so you can secure control.

If you lump all of this stuff together - things the President is responsible for and things he had absolutely no control over That's the beauty of it. How does that go again ... "the buck stops here." And you just managed to pwn YOURSELF. Make up your mind. Bush & ADMINISTRATION, or Bush himself. Again, your divisional tactics point out their inherent flaws and intent.


When I see the kind of fundamental errors that are demonstrated in the OP, the first thing I think of is "this guy has no clue about how things really work," and I tend to give little credence to the rest of the post. Just thought you'd like to know - your attacks would be much more effective if you got your facts straight on the little things.Again, the last sentence here is unsubstantiated. You've got *NOTHING*. There's no other way to say it. How sad for you. You really should start your own thread to save face or something.

The subject of the thread isn't the fault of that, but the construction of the thread is. It demonstrates that the OP can't grasp fundamental distinctions of how the government and politics function in the US.
What don't you understand about the fact that you AREN'T GOING TO GET WHAT YOU WANT BY ASCRIBING YOUR THEORY TO THE THREAD?

I don't know who The Cat-Tribe is, but if he's got more experience and education on the process than I do, I'd be glad to talk to him.It would do you well. In most respects you come across as intelligent, it's unfortunate that you keep resorting to cheap tactics to change the subject.



The OP got plenty wrong. And your own post regarding Hoyer's Constitutional amendment repealing the 22nd amendment (which I wholeheartedly support, but not because of Bush) in which you claim that this was part of a Republican planWhere did i do that? POST IT EXACTLY WORD FOR WORD. I've pointed out that you don't understand a few things, but i'm pretty sure you don't know why i did it.
I'm a Republican but I like Steny Hoyer - he's smart, he's friendly and out-going, and he's a hard worker. I know that because I know the man. Have you ever met Congressman Hoyer? No. The guy might be a nice person personally, but i wouldn't know, and indeed, there is a seperation of personal likability from professional demeanor and agenda. I think we've covered that already with the whole "seperation of Republicans and Bush" thing. If you are truly an insider, you have an advantage that i admittedly do not possess. Perhaps you can do some good.

The Republicans have a majority in the House and the Senate, but the majority in the Senate isn't filibuster proof, so Democrats can keep things from reaching the floor if they work together. That's power. Admittedly, power they appear to be to stupid to know when and how to use effectively.
The Executive is Republican. The Supreme Court is 5-4 liberal, or to be more precise 4 liberal, 4 conservative, 1 swing vote. That's hardly "control". The same Supreme Court that Bush tried to stick Harriet Miers in? Do you really want to bring that up?



You spell things in the British manner. You use "bloody" in the British manner. You call yourself a "Citizen of the U.S.A.". Those are not mannerisms of the average American. Where are you from? If I'm wrong, give me some evidence, as you're so fond of exclaiming.As i said, it suits me to. Moddamn if you don't snatch every little morsel. So what do you think of my not capitalising "i"? Do you want to ascribe that to some kind of regional malfunction or misunderstanding of your personal tastes?

I'll tell you what - i'll indulge you a smidge if you renig on the whole "telling people on the thread how to interpret things" angle.

Again you don't understand what i said, being the truth, about who is in control of what. Only recently the repubs started showing a little personal integrity and dignity.

Your whole point here is laughable. If you were paying attention to any issues that didn't make the BBC or the front page of the Times, you'd recognize that the Republicans in Congress have been in a tug of war with the President on a variety of issues for his entire Presidency.

The NSA data-mining and the Dubai issue merely made the split front page news.

Congress and the President have been fighting on a variety of issues, not the least of which include the budget, entitlement spending (there was a good portion of the party unhappy with the Medicare prescription drug bill), transportation spending (including a White House veto threat), Katrina response and relief, including proper funding levels, Supreme Court nominees (remember Harriet Miers?) and a variety of other issues. Those are just off the top of my head. Just look at the recent election for House Majority Leader - if Bush was running a unified party, Roy Blunt would be Majority leader. But John Boehner got the job, and he's not a loyal Bush guy.

There is always a give and take between the Executive and Legislative branches, regardless of who controls each. But unless you're in DC, or you're in the political business, it's very difficult to see. I don't blame you that you assume that the party has been united up until now. The Republicans did a good job of projecting party unity.

No, again, the administration is supposed to be there for the service of the public, and you're being EXTREMELY disingenuous by intending to split them up.

You're calling anything that makes the Bush Administration look bad "corruption". That's not how the term is used in politics. Unless they're taking bribes or misusing public funds to their own benefit, they're not "corrupt". To call any kind of scandal corruption is an amateurish mistake.

I'll put it to you this way. Go back to the middle of this WHOLE thread, and note what i pointed out to the argument that Romulus Os was having with those other folks.
And it isn't "in any case". You don't have enough of *anything* to back that statement up.

I'm sorry, but if you can't see that the style and tone of the OP was merely a partisan attack, you're blinded by partisanship.

If you have to ask :rolleyes:
That mentality has already been addressed much earlier on.
Good luck and good night, is more along what should be a response to your typical republican tactics. Besides, read what i just put up. Seriously, walk away before you dig yourself in even worse. This thread is literally FULL of evidence and proof, NONE of which you have disproven. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Instead, you KEEP TRYING TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT or to tell (people) to stop doing what you don't like! :rolleyes:

I'm not here to disprove that the OP made a list of alleged scandals of the Administration. I'm not here defending the errors Bush has made, and the bad acts of certain politicians. What I am trying to do here is try and provide a little background about how things ACTUALLY work in DC to some people who have demonstrated through their writing that they don't have a full grasp of that subject.

If anything, I'm trying to help you guys by giving you a clue as to how things actually work. But you're more than content to assume you have a complete and mature understanding of the subject matter when you make juvenile mistakes that completely destroy your credability. The OP did it with his inability to seperate Bush and the Republican party, and you did it with you rant about Hoyer's 22nd amendment repeal.

I agree that there are dozens of mistakes, and that they're big. I'm happy to finally agree with you about something. The problem is (and here's where i start inferring my own angle) that the republicans are far too easily swain by conceptual partisan attacks, demonstrated succintly by Karl Rove's tactics.

This statement ignores basic fundamentals of politics.

Rove doesn't give a flying rats ass about "swaying" Republicans. He doesn't need to do that. Republicans will back the President and the party no matter what they do. Those who self identify as Republicans are the heart of the party - the true-believers. The people Rove is trying to sway are the moderates - that 20% of the electorate that doesn't identify with a particular party and can vote either way depending on who they think is best.

The rest of Rove's tactics focus on getting as high a Republican voter turnout as is possible, and that means motivating the base - that doesn't mean swaying them. It just means getting them mad enough to stand in line for half an hour to vote on election day. And he's been singularly good at that.

You've made a target out of a largely farcicle theory of "liberalism" while BLATENTLY ignoring most of the personal endeavours the "president" indulges in, for shame of hypocrisy.

I have no idea what this means.

You've been willing to toe party line on things that you should have known, AS CONSERVATIVES, were not CONSERVATIVE ideas, but for republican rank, "you" stayed in the stink.

I certainly haven't, nor has the entire party. A majority perhaps, but not the entire party. And there were other reasons behind this.

You've also got to understand that not every "conservative" is a Republican.

For the last time, i'm saying that it took the border issues, the Dubai incident and the wiretapping to point out that you should have stood for principle a lot better than just attacking the last guy and running roughshod over "the political process" i keep hearing from you about just so you can secure control.

That's incorrect, but I can understand why you think that way. See my above discussion regarding this point.

That's the beauty of it. How does that go again ... "the buck stops here." And you just managed to pwn YOURSELF. Make up your mind. Bush & ADMINISTRATION, or Bush himself. Again, your divisional tactics point out their inherent flaws and intent.

I don't think I "pwned" myself at all. The President is the President. He may be the figurehead at the top of the party hierarchy because he holds the highest elected office, but he is most definitely not the head of the Republican party. That's a tough one to pinpoint - its equally as tough with the Democrats.

And just because your statement here made me question whether you understand the difference, the "Bush Administration" refers to the President, Vice President, Cabinet and political appointees within the Executive branch of the government only. It's a governmental apparatus. The House Republican Conference and the Senate Republican Conference are two seperate things as well. And the Republican party is a also an entirely seperate thing. The Chairman of the Republican Party isn't George W. Bush.

Again, the last sentence here is unsubstantiated. You've got *NOTHING*. There's no other way to say it. How sad for you. You really should start your own thread to save face or something.

This is the fifth time you've suggested that I start my own thread to "save face or something." I'm not the one who keeps making childish errors. I'm trying my best to help you not make them, if only so you don't have to keep trying to "save face" with large fonts and asterisks.

I would like to note that it was Democrat corruption that allowed The Republicans to take control of the government.

What don't you understand about the fact that you AREN'T GOING TO GET WHAT YOU WANT BY ASCRIBING YOUR THEORY TO THE THREAD?

I'm not putting up a theory here. I'm just telling you guys you're making stupid mistakes and it kills your credability.

It would do you well. In most respects you come across as intelligent, it's unfortunate that you keep resorting to cheap tactics to change the subject.

Well, get him in here. What's his resume?

Where did i do that? POST IT EXACTLY WORD FOR WORD. I've pointed out that you don't understand a few things, but i'm pretty sure you don't know why i did it.

You posted a link about repealing the 22nd amendment in a thread that you've said repeatedly was to catalogue a listing of the "rap sheet" of the "Bush Administration's Culture of Corruption".

Why did you do that?

No. The guy might be a nice person personally, but i wouldn't know, and indeed, there is a seperation of personal likability from professional demeanor and agenda. I think we've covered that already with the whole "seperation of Republicans and Bush" thing. If you are truly an insider, you have an advantage that i admittedly do not possess. Perhaps you can do some good.

I do my best to do that every day.

Admittedly, power they appear to be to stupid to know when and how to use effectively.

Sometimes they use it effectively, sometimes they don't. More often than not they don't but I think that's more because they don't have a coherent, national agenda and message - one core issue that unites the entire party. The Republicans do (or, at least, they did).

The same Supreme Court that Bush tried to stick Harriet Miers in? Do you really want to bring that up?

Sure. It was a giant mistake for Bush to do that, and he paid the price for it. But there are still only four solid conservative votes on the court now, if you assume that Roberts is a solid conservative vote. I think the jury's still out on him (pun intended) but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

As i said, it suits me to. Moddamn if you don't snatch every little morsel. So what do you think of my not capitalising "i"? Do you want to ascribe that to some kind of regional malfunction or misunderstanding of your personal tastes?

I just figured that was a typo. I'm observant. Sorry.

I'll tell you what - i'll indulge you a smidge if you renig on the whole "telling people on the thread how to interpret things" angle.

I apologize if that's what you think I'm doing. I'm not trying to force my interpretation on others. I just think that when you're going to talking about issues as important as the ones in this thread - political corruption, mismanagement and government waste, etc. - you need to be as precise as possible.

I would like to note that it was Democrat corruption that allowed The Republicans to take control of the government.

Well, to be fair, it was the perception of Democratic corruption, rather than the actual corruption, that helped the Republicans take back the House and Senate.

The House banking and House post office scandals can be considered corruption because they directly benefited the members caught in them. And they were a big deal at the time.

The entire Democratic party wasn't corrupt. Just a few people. That, coupled with a variety of other factors did contribute to the Republican win.

Your whole point here is laughable. If you were paying attention to any issues that didn't make the BBC or the front page of the Times, you'd recognize that the Republicans in Congress have been in a tug of war with the President on a variety of issues for his entire Presidency. Again, that's gotta be embarassing for you. I provide the thread SOURCE for my posts. 'nuff said.

The NSA data-mining and the Dubai issue merely made the split front page news.

Congress and the President have been fighting on a variety of issues, not the least of which include the budget, entitlement spending (there was a good portion of the party unhappy with the Medicare prescription drug bill), transportation spending (including a White House veto threat), Katrina response and relief, including proper funding levels, Supreme Court nominees (remember Harriet Miers?) You've given the very STRONG impression that YOU CAN'T READ. I JUST BROUGHT MIERS UP! CONTEXTUALLY! As for veto "threats", that's just whacking off. Name one veto he actually did. ONE.
Just look at the recent election for House Majority Leader - if Bush was running a unified party, Roy Blunt would be Majority leader. But John Boehner got the job, and he's not a loyal Bush guy. The thing with that issue was ... oh what was the word ... TAINT. Even publicly expressed!
You got nothin'.

There is always a give and take between the Executive and Legislative branches, regardless of who controls each. But unless you're in DC, or you're in the political business, it's very difficult to see. I don't blame you that you assume that the party has been united up until now.It's funny to hear a republican espousing the elitism they slander everyone who isn't a republican with.
The Republicans did a good job of projecting party unity. It's the vote that counts isn't it? Public image vs. private concerns vs. professional agenda, which i posted in the last post.

You're calling anything that makes the Bush Administration look bad "corruption". That's not how the term is used in politics. It depends on if *YOU* did it or not.
Unless they're taking bribes or misusing public funds to their own benefit, they're not "corrupt". To call any kind of scandal corruption is an amateurish mistake. So it's all about the kindness and wholesomeness of their democratic republic crusade, no doubt :rolleyes:
A professional can confuse people. You're not one. One would think you might've learned not to name call this far in, seeing as how often you've been wrong.



I'm sorry, but if you can't see that the style and tone of the OP was merely a partisan attack, you're blinded by partisanship.Again with the kettle/black mystique. You are trying to change the identity of the thread, and you are trying to qualify *your* POV by attacking the understanding of other people on issues. You're LIVING the partisanship.
Further, while you continue with the attacks, i continue with the evidence, you know, the stuff you can't refute? That stuff?



I'm not here to disprove that the OP made a list of alleged scandals of the Administration. I'm not here defending the errors Bush has made, and the bad acts of certain politicians. What I am trying to do here is try and provide a little background about how things ACTUALLY work in DC to some people who have demonstrated through their writing that they don't have a full grasp of that subject. Who asked for it?
You want that, GO START ANOTHER THREAD!

If anything, I'm trying to help you guys by giving you a clue as to how things actually work. No one asked for it. If you want that kind of treatment, i recommend you begin a thread saying
"Political interpretation advice, 5 cents"
like Lucy Van Pelt had.
But you're more than content to assume you have a complete and mature understanding of the subject matter when you make juvenile mistakes that completely destroy your credability.There's nothing here to destroy of a personal nature! Why are you so dense in attempting to prove otherwise? If anyone needs help here, it's you!
You haven't even ESTABLISHED a point of credibility to argue it! This is what we've established so far :

Brians Room feels affronted and wants to explain his "feelings"

The OP did it with his inability to seperate Bush and the Republican party, and you did it with you rant about Hoyer's 22nd amendment repeal.Again, you don't know why i posted it. I'll further to point out it's *THE ONLY POST* you think you can "nail" me on. Perhaps you haven't thought hard enough about that, just like the ASSUMPTION of my nationality?

Rove doesn't give a flying rats ass about "swaying" Republicans. He doesn't need to do that. Republicans will back the President and the party no matter what they do. Again, you just pwned yourself. Thanks again for the consistency:

First, it is important to recognize that there is a difference between the "Bush Administration" and the "Republican Party". They are two seperate and distinct entities.
And how many of your quotes need to be rehashed here? I think you're done.


I have no idea what this means.
That would stem from claiming you're an insider but not being privy to the lingo, i'm afraid.


I certainly haven't, nor has the entire party. A majority perhaps, but not the entire party.
This is the keeper here. Coup de grace. (oh, am i French now? Are you going to take away my "freedom fries"? :rolleyes: )
IN THIS SAME POST:
Republicans will back the President and the party no matter what they do. [/QUOTE]



You've also got to understand that not every "conservative" is a Republican. I do. That's what's so putrid about your "partyline" mentality. It's disgraceful.
And, btw, you have to understand that not everyone who says "behaviour" is from the U.K. or an affiliate.




That's incorrect, but I can understand why you think that way. See my above discussion regarding this point. No it isn't, and it wouldn't be too hard to make a comparison by poll ratings and public pronouncement. Oh wait, The Nazz already has.



I don't think I "pwned" myself at all.
"That is why you fail."
The President is the President. I recall you saying something like this ...
Your whole point here is laughable.
Whoa, AGAIN FROM THIS HERE POST! Goshgollygeewhillikershucks!
[QUOTE=Brians Room]He may be the figurehead at the top of the party hierarchy because he holds the highest elected office, but he is most definitely not the head of the Republican party. That's a tough one to pinpoint - its equally as tough with the Democrats. Pragmatically, a rational person would agree with you. We've been through this, however.

And blah blah blah ...Again, i say go with the
"Political interpretation advice, 5 cents" thread. You certainly seem to think there's a willing ear somewhere.
Again, i didn't ask for it. I look my own stuff up. I have a *STRONG* suspicion that this is where we differ the most.


This is the fifth time you've suggested that I start my own thread to "save face or something." I'm not the one who keeps making childish errors. I'm trying my best to help you not make them, if only so you don't have to keep trying to "save face" with large fonts and asterisks.How many times have you implied some kind of authoritarian position? You express yourself as being an expert on what YOU talk about, and continue to attempt to shift the nature of the thread to what YOU want to talk about. I can't help you if you don't get it, and i'm moving to more interesting things to talk about now. I will say you're as much fun as Corneliu "The Great Southern Threadkill" due your persistence, but c'mon, we both have more important things to do.

I'm not putting up a theory here. I'm just telling you guys you're making stupid mistakes and it kills your credability.You've established that you correlate your opinion with other people's credibility. We've been through that.

Well, get him in here. What's his resume?That's where *you* punch his name up on the Forum Archives.

You posted a link about repealing the 22nd amendment in a thread that you've said repeatedly was to catalogue a listing of the "rap sheet" of the "Bush Administration's Culture of Corruption".

Why did you do that? Why do i spell the way i do? Same reason.

I do my best to do that every day. Good. Then there's indeed hope for you and who you deal with.

Sometimes they use it effectively, sometimes they don't. More often than not they don't but I think that's more because they don't have a coherent, national agenda and message - one core issue that unites the entire party. The Republicans do (or, at least, they did).I agree with you that they are VERY VERY BAD at working as a cohesive unit with an easy to understand message, on average. At least, you have to look a lot harder or at the right places for it to make sense. I think Barack Obama isn't far at all from it, m'self.

Sure. It was a giant mistake for Bush to do that, and he paid the price for it. But there are still only four solid conservative votes on the court now, if you assume that Roberts is a solid conservative vote. I think the jury's still out on him (pun intended) but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Pun as much as you need. Politics needs more puns and less pain, IMO.
I'm relatively sure that Roberts is a solid conservative vote, but he doesn't raise my hackles. And he's more qualified for that position.
If they hold true to public exclamation of "strict adherence to constitution" or the like message, then i have no reasonable problem whatsoever.

I just figured that was a typo. I'm observant. Sorry.You needn't apologize for being observant, it isn't warranted here - nay, it's encouraged. It's the assumption that tends to lead to problems.
I post it for certain self-deprecational reasons, not much more.

I apologize if that's what you think I'm doing. I'm not trying to force my interpretation on others. I just think that when you're going to talking about issues as important as the ones in this thread - political corruption, mismanagement and government waste, etc. - you need to be as precise as possible.Agreed. And, as i said, it helps more if you post the links along with the issues. In fact, you could control the characteristics of the thread if you were to post your own, and as Sumamba Buwhan posted earlier, it's welcomed.

Again, that's gotta be embarassing for you. I provide the thread SOURCE for my posts. 'nuff said.

You should have kept reading.

You've given the very STRONG impression that YOU CAN'T READ. I JUST BROUGHT MIERS UP! CONTEXTUALLY!

I didn't read that until after I had already written this post. I was typing when you posted it.

As for veto "threats", that's just whacking off. Name one veto he actually did. ONE.

He hasn't vetoed anything. Have you ever stopped to wonder why?

In case you haven't, here's why: to keep up the illusion of party unity. The Republicans control both the House and the Senate. If Bush vetoed something they passed, he'd be admitting publicly that he can't control them. Until the Dubai deal broke the illusion fully, he had never wanted to do that.

It's funny to hear a republican espousing the elitism they slander everyone who isn't a republican with.

It's not elitism. It's a fact of life. Contrary to popular belief, there's a lot more going on in DC than you get outside this city. Even within the city there's a lot going on that you can't see unless you're involved in it.

I'm not slandering anybody. There are just as many Democrats in this town who understand the process, too. Neither party has a monopoly on expert politicos.

It's the vote that counts isn't it? Public image vs. private concerns vs. professional agenda, which i posted in the last post.

Perception is reality in politics. If people think the party is unified it is. If they don't, it isn't. But perception changes as you move through different layers of understanding. That's my point.

It depends on if *YOU* did it or not.

No, it simply means what it means. Democratic political corruption and Republican political corruption have the same definitions.

So it's all about the kindness and wholesomeness of their democratic republic crusade, no doubt :rolleyes:

I don't understand what you mean by this.

A professional can confuse people. You're not one. One would think you might've learned not to name call this far in, seeing as how often you've been wrong.

I am a professional, and I'm wasn't name calling. I was stating an objective fact. I don't think I've been wrong yet, at least not in a factual way.

Again with the kettle/black mystique. You are trying to change the identity of the thread, and you are trying to qualify *your* POV by attacking the understanding of other people on issues. You're LIVING the partisanship.
Further, while you continue with the attacks, i continue with the evidence, you know, the stuff you can't refute? That stuff?

I never came here to "refute" any evidence. Read every post I've made in this thread again. All I have said is that the OP and yourself are trying to string a bunch of scandals involving Republicans together to try and form some kind of "corruption" motif. You have responded by pointing to the OP like its the Holy Grail, but like I've been saying, its first sentence contradicts the entire rest of what's posted, and that kills the credability of the entire thing.

Why should I care what your "evidence" is if you can't tell the difference between the Administration and the Party?

Who asked for it?
You want that, GO START ANOTHER THREAD!

Who's telling who what to do now? :)

No one asked for it. If you want that kind of treatment, i recommend you begin a thread saying
"Political interpretation advice, 5 cents"
like Lucy Van Pelt had.

Mainly because I either give it out for free, or charge quite a bit higher than that for it.

There's nothing here to destroy of a personal nature! Why are you so dense in attempting to prove otherwise? If anyone needs help here, it's you!
You haven't even ESTABLISHED a point of credibility to argue it! This is what we've established so far

And here we go again. You start repeating the same crap you've been repeating throughout this thread. You're not even trying to read what I'm writing.

Again, you don't know why i posted it. I'll further to point out it's *THE ONLY POST* you think you can "nail" me on. Perhaps you haven't thought hard enough about that, just like the ASSUMPTION of my nationality?

No, I don't. I've asked you to explain yourself, and you've not done so yet. Perhaps when I post this, you'll have answered my question.

And I'm not making any kind of an assumption about your nationality. I'm making an educated guess based on the context clues and your writing style. If I'm wrong, I'll be pleasantly surprised.

Again, you just pwned yourself. Thanks again for the consistency:

Read it again, and put it into the context I put it into. I'm being consistent. Your average Republican is not the same as the elected Republican officials in the Congress. I'm sorry - I didn't think I needed to make that clear. I assumed it was obvious. My mistake.

And how many of your quotes need to be rehashed here? I think you're done.

It's still early.

That would stem from claiming you're an insider but not being privy to the lingo, i'm afraid.

And that lingo would be what? Your sentence made absolutely no sense. Can you dumb it down for us Americans? Sometimes I miss the nuances when I'm reading Queen's English.

This is the keeper here. Coup de grace. (oh, am i French now? Are you going to take away my "freedom fries"? :rolleyes: )
IN THIS SAME POST:
Republicans will back the President and the party no matter what they do.

Oh, you've caught me. I was inconsistent.

You're right. I should have been more clear earlier. What I should have said "Rove believes that..." That was the intent of my statement, anyhow.

I do. That's what's so putrid about your "partyline" mentality. It's disgraceful.
And, btw, you have to understand that not everyone who says "behaviour" is from the U.K. or an affiliate.

I certainly don't have a party line mentality. If you are an American, you're the first American I've met who consistently writes like an Englishman. Congratulations.

No it isn't, and it wouldn't be too hard to make a comparison by poll ratings and public pronouncement. Oh wait, The Nazz already has.

It is incorrect, because you're relying on polling data that samples the average American. And I've already said that the party has done an excellent job of projected party unity when that wasn't, in fact, the case.

Again, i say go with the
"Political interpretation advice, 5 cents" thread. You certainly seem to think there's a willing ear somewhere.
Again, i didn't ask for it. I look my own stuff up. I have a *STRONG* suspicion that this is where we differ the most.

You're still reading and responding to what I'm saying, and I'm sure that there are more than you and I reading this thread.

As for the "looking my own stuff up", I doubt we differ as much as you think there, but I can assure you I have access to much better material than you do.

How many times have you implied some kind of authoritarian position? You express yourself as being an expert on what YOU talk about, and continue to attempt to shift the nature of the thread to what YOU want to talk about. I can't help you if you don't get it, and i'm moving to more interesting things to talk about now. I will say you're as much fun as Corneliu "The Great Southern Threadkill" due your persistence, but c'mon, we both have more important things to do.

I'm a political professional. I do this for a living. It's my job to understand in detail how the process works, in all branches of the government. The people who's name's you're throwing around are people I see and work with every day. I am probably the only person with this level of knowledge and experience who posts on these forums. I like to argue, and I've got insomnia, so this helps pass the time.

You guys can talk about as many scandals as you want, but if you keep mixing up terminology and lumping in Congressional and Administration scandals and generally sounding like a bunch of tin-foil-hat wearing loonies, I'm going to keep pointing it out until you wise up, or give up. That's one thing that Corneliu and I have in common. We're stubborn.

You've established that you correlate your opinion with other people's credibility. We've been through that.

No, I correlate other people's grasp of basic facts with their credability.

That's where *you* punch his name up on the Forum Archives.

I did. He posts a lot, and links to a lot of stories. I don't see anything that makes me think he's a political pro, and seeing as how he's from San Diego and not DC, that makes me think he isn't in the same line of work that I am.

Did I miss something?

Why do i spell the way i do? Same reason.

Way to dodge the question.

Seriously though. What was your point in linking that Hoyer resolution in this thread? What were you trying to say?

I agree with you that they are VERY VERY BAD at working as a cohesive unit with an easy to understand message, on average. At least, you have to look a lot harder or at the right places for it to make sense. I think Barack Obama isn't far at all from it, m'self.

Their problem is that the Democratic party is still an umbrella party. There are conservative Democrats and liberal Democrats. You don't see that kind of ideological split in the Republicans anymore. The fact that I am pro-labor and pro-environment makes me as close to the fringe as one can get within the party, and I've been called a RINO before, too. The point is, there is no single issue that EVERY Democrat can agree with that separates them from the Republicans. The closest thing they've got is education and health care, but even there you've got widely disperate views as to what should be done about each.

Obama's a good guy, and he'll be okay if he doesn't let his "star" status get to his head. He's already got a quite a few of the old Dems looking at him enviously. I'd keep an eye over my shoulder if I were him.

Reminds me of an old joke they say here - In DC, you can always tell if someone is your friend because a friend will stick the knife in your chest, not your back.

Pun as much as you need. Politics needs more puns and less pain, IMO.

I'm relatively sure that Roberts is a solid conservative vote, but he doesn't raise my hackles. And he's more qualified for that position.

If they hold true to public exclamation of "strict adherence to constitution" or the like message, then i have no reasonable problem whatsoever.

We'll see. South Dakota is forcing the abortion issue, so he'll get his chance to shine soon enough.

You needn't apologize for being observant, it isn't warranted here - nay, it's encouraged. It's the assumption that tends to lead to problems.
I post it for certain self-deprecational reasons, not much more.

Like I said - I'm not assuming, just making an educated guess.

Agreed. And, as i said, it helps more if you post the links along with the issues. In fact, you could control the characteristics of the thread if you were to post your own, and as Sumamba Buwhan posted earlier, it's welcomed.

The thing is, I'm not here to refute the substance of what he posted. I mean, some of that stuff is debatable, at least the Plame and the election stuff, but the Cunningham, Abramoff and a few of the others are just plain true. I just don't think they affect the President or should be laid at his feet as something he screwed up.

It's kind of like I've been trying to tell you along, Straughn. Conservatives are the ones with the independent thoughts and processes. We do not "rubber-stamp" his policies automatically and give a thumbs up to every single thing that comes out of Bush's mouth, just because it is him. This is not to say that every thing they do is golden and perfect. But they at least are trying to do something. And they are willing to listen to arrive at a consensus. Democrats are not interested in doing anything that does not directly lead to bringing home their pork projects home and attaining their own re-elections. Republicans construct, Democrats obstruct. If you need any proof of that, look to what they do every time Bush produces a new Supreme Court candidate. What happens? First they attempt to smear the candidate's reputation, and then if that doesn't work, one or more of the leading Democrats attempt to organize a filibuster to block them. They attack conservative policies because frankly, I feel they have a paucity of ideas of their own. And this is probably is why they are so unremitting in their attacks. If they ever stopped, the public would have time to actually focus on the issues and see just how bereft the Democrats are of any real sense of morality and focus and strength of purpose. I am personally somewhat less than happy with Bush's performance in the White House. I feel he has dropped the ball on the budget deficit rather spectacularly. He is not perfect. But the alternative is unthinkable at this point.

Bravo, Brian's Room. Keep up the good fight.

You should have kept reading.

I didn't read that until after I had already written this post. I was typing when you posted it.
Ah, comprendo. My apologies for jumping your sh*t, then.

He hasn't vetoed anything. Have you ever stopped to wonder why?

In case you haven't, here's why: to keep up the illusion of party unity. The Republicans control both the House and the Senate. If Bush vetoed something they passed, he'd be admitting publicly that he can't control them. Until the Dubai deal broke the illusion fully, he had never wanted to do that. How many people allowed bad decisions to get that far as well? If there wasn't so much "party unity" simply put, so many bad decisions wouldn't have gone through.



It's not elitism. It's a fact of life.That's a keeper.
Contrary to popular belief, there's a lot more going on in DC than you get outside this city. Even within the city there's a lot going on that you can't see unless you're involved in it. That wouldn't surprise me. What i do find dubious is that you don't know what i was referring to, as an insider.

I'm not slandering anybody. There are just as many Democrats in this town who understand the process, too. Neither party has a monopoly on expert politicos.Then you shouldn't extend assumption to the idea that you know the background of everyone else here as well. Just because you claim to be an insider doesn't mean you're the only one who thinks they are. I can't prove it, but it's basically immaterial to this *particular* thread.



Perception is reality in politics. If people think the party is unified it is. If they don't, it isn't. But perception changes as you move through different layers of understanding. That's my point.This is where the juggernaut of PR betrays the nature of what is actually going on. This is also what distinguishes discussions of a semantic nature, which i'm insisting against and you seem to be implying, from discussions of the pragmatic nature, from which you take EVIDENCE and CIRCUMSTANCE for which you can seperate the wishes from the fishes.



No, it simply means what it means. Democratic political corruption and Republican political corruption have the same definitions.
corrupt:
-corrupted, unsound, rotten, debased, venal.
OF.
(Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology)
Of course, given your parameters, i may allude to Ambrose Bierce's definition of "corrupt" ... inherently political ;)


I don't understand what you mean by this. No one ever seems to assume that politicians have anything other than the most honourable of intentions?

I am a professional, and I'm wasn't name calling. I was stating an objective fact. I don't think I've been wrong yet, at least not in a factual way. So far you have almost nothing that qualifies as fact. That's the problem. When you post links to corroborate your opinions, you distinguish yourself from another bloviator.

I never came here to "refute" any evidence. Read every post I've made in this thread again. All I have said is that the OP and yourself are trying to string a bunch of scandals involving Republicans together to try and form some kind of "corruption" motif. You have responded by pointing to the OP like its the Holy Grail, but like I've been saying, its first sentence contradicts the entire rest of what's posted, and that kills the credability of the entire thing. It's not the "Holy Grail". It's the point of the thread. Think of it as the topic sentence, which again, it is. Regardless of your personal opinion, it stands in intent and design. Some fail, some don't, but that's the standard.

Why should I care what your "evidence" is if you can't tell the difference between the Administration and the Party?Translated:why should you care if i don't want to speak on your terms?

Who's telling who what to do now? :)Well, read my above post.

Mainly because I either give it out for free, or charge quite a bit higher than that for it. Remember what it's actually worth.

And here we go again. You start repeating the same crap you've been repeating throughout this thread. You're not even trying to read what I'm writing. Not accepting it is not the same as not trying to read it.
I'll clarify: These aren't blog posts. Savvy?


No, I don't. I've asked you to explain yourself, and you've not done so yet. Perhaps when I post this, you'll have answered my question.

And I'm not making any kind of an assumption about your nationality. I'm making an educated guess based on the context clues and your writing style. If I'm wrong, I'll be pleasantly surprised. I called you on it the first time. At least have the dignity to admit that you were hasty.
You don't need to be "educated" to notice a dissimilarity, as evidenced by your telling ME "how" to type something.

Read it again, and put it into the context I put it into. I'm being consistent. Your average Republican is not the same as the elected Republican officials in the Congress. I'm sorry - I didn't think I needed to make that clear. I assumed it was obvious. My mistake.

Oh, you've caught me. I was inconsistent. :D

You're right. I should have been more clear earlier. What I should have said "Rove believes that..." That was the intent of my statement, anyhow. Fair enough.


And that lingo would be what? Your sentence made absolutely no sense. Can you dumb it down for us Americans? Sometimes I miss the nuances when I'm reading Queen's English.
To your credit, you aren't yelling "liberalism" at every little issue of discord. That's what i was talking about. I would normally think you are being coy but you haven't really given enough evidence for me to hold conviction as such, so i'll give you benefit of the doubt.
---
It's still early. :D

I certainly don't have a party line mentality. If you are an American, you're the first American I've met who consistently writes like an Englishman. Congratulations.
I'll stop being so pretentious at this point, and say that this forum has a significant blessing of anonymity. You can express yourself as holding completely self-contradictory viewpoints or ones that have almost nothing to do with your own philosophies, like role-playing. Indeed, that was the intent of the nation part of it. Some people put different spins on their posts. I do.


It is incorrect, because you're relying on polling data that samples the average American. And I've already said that the party has done an excellent job of projected party unity when that wasn't, in fact, the case. You are qualifying your position with a sweeping generalization, that would leave your idea to be the example to make me dismiss my POV. I'm not so easily swain. I tend to go with the evidence.



You're still reading and responding to what I'm saying, and I'm sure that there are more than you and I reading this thread.

As for the "looking my own stuff up", I doubt we differ as much as you think there, but I can assure you I have access to much better material than you do. You can't assure me of any such thing. As i said, you're obviously intelligent, but frankly i'll still go with the utter moron who is right than the Rhodes Scholar who is being deliberately deceitful. If i were to ask you to prove it, you would have to do more than semantic argument. You'd have to post links. You need to understand that's just how it is, especially given this thread. And if what you had were any more valuable than what i have access to, you would of course protest release of said material on grounds of "confidentiality". It's a ruse i don't subscribe to.
Thankfully, we can both bypass that little quagmire by doing what i've been doing here so far, as per the directive of the OP.



I'm a political professional. I do this for a living. It's my job to understand in detail how the process works, in all branches of the government. The people who's name's you're throwing around are people I see and work with every day. I am probably the only person with this level of knowledge and experience who posts on these forums. I like to argue, and I've got insomnia, so this helps pass the time. Okay, i'm not a Brit. Now we're on par of mutual trust and discrimination of writing/prosaic traits.
Another thing, it would be *a hoot* if you would have anyone mentioned on this thread drop in some time. That would be another good thread, no joke.
As for insomnia, well, you have my sympathies. I had it for years. Then came the apnea, joy. A snide comment would be that it's a given condition of your environment, but i think you already thought that when you posted it, likely.

You guys can talk about as many scandals as you want, but if you keep mixing up terminology and lumping in Congressional and Administration scandals and generally sounding like a bunch of tin-foil-hat wearing loonies, I'm going to keep pointing it out until you wise up, or give up. That's one thing that Corneliu and I have in common. We're stubborn.Bush is stubborn, and it's due his stupidity. This is a great opportunity to disprove it for either of you. Corneliu "The Great Southern Threadkill" isn't stupid IMO, but he also admits that the stubbornness is somewhat due the RP nature of his character.

It's kind of like I've been trying to tell you along, Straughn. Conservatives are the ones with the independent thoughts and processes. We do not "rubber-stamp" his policies automatically and give a thumbs up to every single thing that comes out of Bush's mouth, just because it is him. This is not to say that every thing they do is golden and perfect. But they at least are trying to do something. And they are willing to listen to arrive at a consensus. Democrats are not interested in doing anything that does not directly lead to bringing home their pork projects home and attaining their own re-elections. Republicans construct, Democrats obstruct. If you need any proof of that, look to what they do every time Bush produces a new Supreme Court candidate. What happens? First they attempt to smear the candidate's reputation, and then if that doesn't work, one or more of the leading Democrats attempt to organize a filibuster to block them. They attack conservative policies because frankly, I feel they have a paucity of ideas of their own. And this is probably is why they are so unremitting in their attacks. If they ever stopped, the public would have time to actually focus on the issues and see just how bereft the Democrats are of any real sense of morality and focus and strength of purpose. I am personally somewhat less than happy with Bush's performance in the White House. I feel he has dropped the ball on the budget deficit rather spectacularly. He is not perfect. But the alternative is unthinkable at this point.

Bravo, Brian's Room. Keep up the good fight.
Man, at least get the poster's name right! I almost always have to fix my misspelling of yours!
I'll let brevity do here, and recap what i said earlier to Brians Room:
More should *have been* and *be* done to distinguish what philosophies truly stand for what, in what contrast, with what integrity.
And you're utterly wrong about your theory of democratic morality.
And you're also wrong about pork-barrel projects being the sole drive of democrats, indeed, read what i've already posted about Ted "The Hulk" Stevens.



---

And it's time to grow up and think of alternatives. You're truly doomed if you don't. THAT BOLDED PART RIGHT THERE is the problem with conservatives, in your own post. Good job pwning yourself. :D

No, I correlate other people's grasp of basic facts with their credability. This is the time for you to post some of those "facts" we keep arguing about.

I did. He posts a lot, and links to a lot of stories. I don't see anything that makes me think he's a political pro, and seeing as how he's from San Diego and not DC, that makes me think he isn't in the same line of work that I am. You've given rhetoric and ground-floor political 101. Yes, he's a professional. I implore you to argue with him the same way you do here, indeed even over the same things. See how similar the run will go.

Did I miss something?Yes, we did, the part where you actually started backing things up with links. As you said, it's early ... ;)

Way to dodge the question.

Seriously though. What was your point in linking that Hoyer resolution in this thread? What were you trying to say? Time will tell. Perhaps you've already gotten my inferences.

Their problem is that the Democratic party is still an umbrella party. There are conservative Democrats and liberal Democrats. You don't see that kind of ideological split in the Republicans anymore. The fact that I am pro-labor and pro-environment makes me as close to the fringe as one can get within the party, and I've been called a RINO before, too. The point is, there is no single issue that EVERY Democrat can agree with that separates them from the Republicans. The closest thing they've got is education and health care, but even there you've got widely disperate views as to what should be done about each.

Obama's a good guy, and he'll be okay if he doesn't let his "star" status get to his head. He's already got a quite a few of the old Dems looking at him enviously. I'd keep an eye over my shoulder if I were him.

Reminds me of an old joke they say here - In DC, you can always tell if someone is your friend because a friend will stick the knife in your chest, not your back.Good post. The one, with my personal bias, i like the best. And surprisingly enough, i've heard that quote before. *nods*

We'll see. South Dakota is forcing the abortion issue, so he'll get his chance to shine soon enough.And how then did you not catch The Cat-Tribe's experience? You probably didn't read many posts from him.

Like I said - I'm not assuming, just making an educated guess. Well your education betrayed you, it would appear.

The thing is, I'm not here to refute the substance of what he posted. I mean, some of that stuff is debatable, at least the Plame and the election stuff, but the Cunningham, Abramoff and a few of the others are just plain true. I just don't think they affect the President or should be laid at his feet as something he screwed up.Okay, that's fair to say that you think they shouldn't be included. And this is where my identification with Sumamba Buwhan is split, because it's their call as to what is pertinent to the update of the OP. That's what i've been saying all along.

I contributed to the clarification of the thread's intent. But true, I do not intend on adding to the indictment list :rolleyes: . You may carrion without me.

Carrion - isn't that decaying meat that's eaten by hyenas and vultures? Seems apt.

Stop bashing Bush ok? he's a great leader

Carrion - isn't that decaying meat that's eaten by hyenas and vultures? Seems apt.
Glad someone else finally noticed it.

And as the entire argument was so utterly boring I only read one of Brian's posts...it seems Brian does have a point. This thread is actually a cleverly concealed Bush bashing thread, despite how it might seem otherwise. While I'm all for Bush-bashing, misleading is bad. After all, that's what peeps think the Bush administration did with the War in Iraq, right?

Carrion - isn't that decaying meat that's eaten by hyenas and vultures? Seems apt.
*FLORT*
That's
i exactly !
what i was shooting for! I daresay you win the thread.

Glad someone else finally noticed it.

And as the entire argument was so utterly boring

You're telling me! :rolleyes:

I only read one of Brian's posts...it seems Brian does have a point. This thread is actually a cleverly concealed Bush bashing thread, despite how it might seem otherwise. While I'm all for Bush-bashing, misleading is bad. After all, that's what peeps think the Bush administration did with the War in Iraq, right?Well, the point was to have all the links in one easy to get to spot. Seriously, there are *SO MANY* disconnected threads that it would appear Sumamba Buwhan was attempting their version of a "public service" for the forum.
It was also suggested that the less gruntled folk of the opposite polarity opt to start their own thread, but alas, no fruition. :(

Stop bashing Bush ok? he's a great leader
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10605858&postcount=31
They're right! Do you do parties?

You're telling me! :rolleyes:

Well, the point was to have all the links in one easy to get to spot. Seriously, there are *SO MANY* disconnected threads that it would appear Sumamba Buwhan was attempting their version of a "public service" for the forum.
It was also suggested that the less gruntled folk of the opposite polarity opt to start their own thread, but alas, no fruition. :(
Well, as I said, I've got nothing and am too lazy to start one. =/

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10605858&postcount=31
They're right! Do you do parties?
Um, Im not sure what your talking about, like political parties? Cause I recently became I registered Republican.

Well, as I said, I've got nothing and am too lazy to start one. =/
Someone'll get around to it, perhaps.
Maybe even me.
But i've currently got commitments of the entertainment-kind. I'm watching dudes get gored by bulls in the alimentary canal (on Max-Ex) It's hilarity-central.

Someone'll get around to it, perhaps.
Maybe even me.
But i've currently got commitments of the entertainment-kind. I'm watching dudes get gored by bulls in the alimentary canal (on Max-Ex) It's hilarity-central.
=/

Ohokay then. Enjoy.

Um, Im not sure what your talking about, like political parties? Cause I recently became I registered Republican.
Stop! You're killing me! I just ate! Don't make me eat it twice!
Hahahaha!
*FLORT*
:D
:D

=/

Ohokay then. Enjoy.
I was wrong. That butt-goring segment was too short to make a lasting effect. But
The UN ambassadorship is making my sides hurt. Seriously, i haven't laughed this hard in a while. It's like my sugar-high/stay-up-'til-5am days.

OK I suppose Brian does have a point. I changed the wording in the OP so that it includes not only the Bush administration (who are indeed Republicans) but also any Republicans, that can't be included as part of the Bush administration, and possibly their lobbyist friends who conspire with them during the reign of the Bush administration.

Of course there are Republicans doing illegal things without the direct help of the Bush administration and there are Bush admin officials doing illegal things without the backing of the Republican party as a whole, but there are also times when the lines are blurred so they aren't all that easy to separate into distinctly different groups (and that is because they aren't - The entire Bush administration is Republican after all and we keep seeing scandals from the whole spectrum of corporate sellouts and war hawks).

I was wrong. That butt-goring segment was too short to make a lasting effect. But
The UN ambassadorship is making my sides hurt. Seriously, i haven't laughed this hard in a while. It's like my sugar-high/stay-up-'til-5am days.
I still dont get why Im so funny, I just tell it like it is.

Enough with the jokes already. :p

Enough with the jokes already. :p
what jokes?

what jokes?
Gawd, how do you do that?!
Hahahahaha!
If it were a mirror, you know you'd be in stitches. Seriously, it's a working formula. The road's big enough, you should do it!

OK I suppose Brian does have a point. I changed the wording in the OP so that it includes not only the Bush administration (who are indeed Republicans) but also any Republicans, that can't be included as part of the Bush administration, and possibly their lobbyist friends who conspire with them during the reign of the Bush administration.

Of course there are Republicans doing illegal things without the direct help of the Bush administration and there are Bush admin officials doing illegal things without the backing of the Republican party as a whole, but there are also times when the lines are blurred so they aren't all that easy to separate into distinctly different groups (and that is because they aren't - The entire Bush administration is Republican after all and we keep seeing scandals from the whole spectrum of corporate sellouts and war hawks).
Good post. *bows*

Also, it's somewhat disappointing that s/he didn't finish off. Perhaps later after that snifter w/Kerry s/he mentioned earlier.

Good post. *bows*

Also, it's somewhat disappointing that s/he didn't finish off. Perhaps later after that snifter w/Kerry s/he mentioned earlier.

He, and I don't drink with Kerry. Not a big fan of the guy. I was at his house for a fundraiser back before he was running for President. Not very personable.

Thanks for making the thread more clear.

He, and I don't drink with Kerry. Not a big fan of the guy. I was at his house for a fundraiser back before he was running for President. Not very personable. I just recall you saying something about possibly having found his pub somewhere, and you were musing. Or at least you posted as such.
Perhaps you should indulge in some snowboarding then? ;)

Thanks for making the thread more clear.I'm (hopefully not mistakenly) assuming you didn't mean me specifically here.

I just recall you saying something about possibly having found his pub somewhere, and you were musing. Or at least you posted as such.
Perhaps you should indulge in some snowboarding then? ;)

LOL, not my thing either.

One of the articles talking about impeachment mentioned that Kerry was drinking in an Irish bar in Capitol Hill. There are two right next to each other, the Dubliner and the Irish Times - I hang out at the Dubliner quite a bit, since it's a block from my office and they have good food. I just doubt it's the kind of place Kerry would be caught dead in, although comparing it to the Irish Times makes it look like comparing the Palm with KFC.

I think there is one other Irish bar on the other side of the Capitol, closer to the House side, but I can't remember exactly. Been a long time since I was there.

I'm (hopefully not mistakenly) assuming you didn't mean me specifically here.

I was thanking Sumamba Buwhan for editing the thread, but you get some credit too, after all the freaking out about me not following the rules. :)

LOL, not my thing either.

One of the articles talking about impeachment mentioned that Kerry was drinking in an Irish bar in Capitol Hill. There are two right next to each other, the Dubliner and the Irish Times - I hang out at the Dubliner quite a bit, since it's a block from my office and they have good food. I just doubt it's the kind of place Kerry would be caught dead in, although comparing it to the Irish Times makes it look like comparing the Palm with KFC.

I think there is one other Irish bar on the other side of the Capitol, closer to the House side, but I can't remember exactly. Been a long time since I was there.
It's funny you say "caught dead in" ... that's not beyond some people's mindset. Gotta watch for puffy, orangeskin-pocked faces (Yuschenko). You know the "right" might work some kind of scenario where Hillary gets "caught" with Kerry doing some bizarre, illegal sexual practice. :P


I was thanking Sumamba Buwhan for editing the thread, but you get some credit too, after all the freaking out about me not following the rules. :)No prob. *bows*

My apologies if this isn't in order, Sumamba Buwhan ... I'll remove it/adjust it if you wish:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=473991

Also, this factors in. Strange how i remember a topic flitting 'round this ...

Current issues with Abramoff and connections:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20060319-9999-1n19dolittle.html

and

http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Roll_Call_Abramoff_charities_probed_by_0314.html

My apologies if this isn't in order, Sumamba Buwhan ... I'll remove it/adjust it if you wish:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=473991


No, this is great. It's a good idea to link to other threads where people pwn the Republicans abusing their power these days. Especially since very few are participating in this thread, we can use their efforts from elsewhere, so if you see good stuff, never hesitate to link me here :D

No, this is great. It's a good idea to link to other threads where people pwn the Republicans abusing their power these days. Especially since very few are participating in this thread, we can use their efforts from elsewhere, so if you see good stuff, never hesitate to link me here :D
Excelsior! *bows*

I have another issue i heard about but i'm gonna be busy today so i'm not making promises for when it's getting posted. There's two others about Bush specifically that i haven't gotten 'round to yet, my apologies.