I think Glenn Beck Will Have a Real Breakdown Very Soon!!

[Hot Mega]

Well he invaded for several reason
1. Kuwait had heavily funded the 8 year long Iraqi war against Iran. By the time the war ended, Iraq was not in a financial position to repay the $40 billion which it had borrowed from Kuwait to finance its war. Kuwait's reluctance to pardon the debt created strains in the relationship between the two Arab countries.

2. According to George Piro, the FBI interrogator who questioned Saddam Hussein after his capture (in 2003), Iraq tried repaying its debts by raising the prices of oil through OPEC's oil production cuts. However, Kuwait, a member of the OPEC, prevented a global increase in petroleum prices by increasing its own petroleum production, thus lowering the price and preventing recovery of the war-crippled Iraqi economy

3. Iraqi government justified its invasion by claiming that Kuwait was a natural part of Iraq carved off due to British imperialism.

4. At the same time the Iraqi military intelligence was receiving warnings about Israeli plans to attack Iraqi nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

Kuwait being one of the 3 backers of Iraq's war with the Iran (the US and Saudia Arabia being the others) supported Iraq's war effort financially.

Since an Iranian journey to Mecca and Medina travels right through Iraq and Kuwait to Saudi Arabia...It was apparently understood that the Kuwaitis and Saudis were doing their part to defeat this Iranian effort with funding.

In effect, Saddam was the muscle protecting them in this case. Now in general terms, when someone is paid to provide defense or security for someone else it's always a payment for some service render and never a loan.

The Kuwaitis apparently were reneging...some suggested at the prodding of the US to go after Saddam for repayment. All the while the US is suggesting to Saddam when he appeals to us for intervention in the matter...that we have on position on the matter. Reports suggest Saddam even discussed with us the view that Kuwait doesn't actually exist and if they persist in pursuing repayment Iraq will have to consider the fact that Kuwait is actually a part of Iraq. We were mum on that.

Now how can a country like Kuwait actually threaten a country like Iraq? I mean, couldn't Iraq simply thumb their noses at Kuwait and tell them send your army up her to get your money if want it that bad all the while laughing at them??? Probably so. But the problem with having oil reserves and a neighbor who believes you owe them money is the prospect that they will side drill to tap your reserves to effect repayment that way. That's what set Saddam off.

That's why Saddam torched Kuwait's oil wells...and not his own.

The problem is, if the US didn't want those two at war or Saddam to invade Kuwait we could have easily prevented it as he requested our advice and help with the situation several times before it came to an invasion. Why didn't we simply convince him otherwise those many other times instead of eventually watching him invade them mount up a force to eject him?? Hell, GIVE THEM THE FUCKING $40b for him(if that's the accurate amount) as we could have easily spent that much money in an extended conflict with Iraq and not deaded up nearly as many people.

I guess naivety would assign it to just a monumental foreign policy blunder.

 

[Member2019]

Kuwait being one of the 3 backers of Iraq's war with the Iran (the US and Saudia Arabia being the others) supported Iraq's war effort financially.

You forgot the French and German sales in there.

Yes, Sunni on Shites, we're well aware, among other factors.

The problem is, if the US didn't want those two at war or Saddam to invade Kuwait we could have easily prevented it as he requested our advice and help with the situation several times before it came to an invasion.

Agreed! Unfortunately, US policy changes, because US policy is more than just about the US.

Several leaders in the EU took serious issue with Iraq doubling its capacity and having more influence in raising prices on oil from the Middle East. The US regularly reverses policy because of such.

The funny part of all this is that you just contradicted yourself. You're lashing out with "facts" without putting them together, assuming that you'll "look smart" and trying to "make a point" not recognizing they undo your prior statements.

The US is a ball of political mess that has no single directly, not even during the same administration. The US has repeatedly fucked up on many matters, and it's why we had 9/11 and are in Afghanistan right now too.

It's not a right-wing only agenda, or at the hands of only Republicans, but constant issue with American policy in general. We could go into the contradictions and issues with the Clinton administration as well as Obama's.

So, again, how does any of this support your assertions on Republicans? Fox News? My alleged ... let me quote you here ...

"You "give it to Fox" because you identify with the politics."

The reality is that the US is so fucked up by many aspects of trying to please everyone, in all parties, for all citizens and allies, that we constantly fuck up bad. As much as Democrats want to blame Republicans and Republicans want to blame Democrats, play hypocritical games, etc..., this is reality.

W. and the Republicans were hardly alone in wanting to invade Iraq. I remember Vice President Bidden in 2002 reguarly stating that while I disagreed with the immediate action approach the President was taking, he was not in disagreement with the continued issues with Iraq's non-compliance with terms and UN resolutions, and quoted Blix as well.

This is the reality people. It's why I didn't vote for Obama any more than I did not for W. I'm not interested in this bullshit apology and ignorance of reality. People have "re-written" things from Clinton-Gore, everything from Iraq and Al Quieda to NAFTA and many other things. Heck, people still don't believe me until I show them that Gore was one of the architects of the Bush Sr. tax increase, and the architect of the subsequent tax increase of Clinton-Gore, which only increased debt further.

It's why I refer to such Democrats as "Gorons." I need to come up with a similar one for the Republicans.

I respect Democrats who have well-defined, solid, non-hypocritical views on social agendas and don't play blame games. But the Marxists that use bleeding heart and half-truth politics where their own, aligned leaders have pulled the same bullshit (again, it's so easy to go after Gore and even Clinton on such) are just as bad as Fox News.

I think we've seen a repeat issue of this on this board with some people who get caught in their hypocrisy. Just like I see it on right-wing boards where W. and Reagan "did no wrong."

But back on the point of this thread ... What Fox News does is expose things that the Big 3 media outlets would not for political and focus reasons. Likewise, I don't remotely trust Fox News to expect most Republican wrong-doings either, and that's what the Big 3 continue to do as well. Sometimes they both come together regardless of party. But that's less than 2% of their existence, which sucks, but the reason why the other 98% is worth dealing with.

This "man" is a problem for his own party. His excuses and claims of "oh, I only signed a petition" and "oh, I was being sarcastic" are not where they end. Besides, don't Michael Moore thrive on catching people out-of-context? How many times have we seen W. making a joke, in the forum of comedy, and it was used against him as if setting US policy?

Hypocrisy, pure and simple. I do not excuse anyone for what they say when it is clearly their agenda. You know mine, stay the fuck out of my bedroom and stay the fuck out of wallet -- I can do far more for charity with my dollar than the government, and pay a heck of a lot more salaries than Obama can (and W. before him) in what he collects from me.

Fox News is just another organization that wants to pry into my life, so I show them no love either. But I'm glad they are around, just like the Big 3. Hate them, but glad they exist, even though I watch PBS if I'm going to watch anything and often just hit independent outlets via Google News for 98% of my news anyway.

 

[Hot Mega]

Re: Fox blatant right v. Big 3 bleeding heart

To weaken Saddam Hussein's grip of power, Clinton signed H.R. 4655 into law on October 31, 1998, which instituted a policy of "regime change" against Iraq, though it explicitly stated it did not speak to the use of American military forces. The administration then launched a four-day bombing campaign named Operation Desert Fox, lasting from December 16 to December 19, 1998. For the last two years of Clinton's presidency U.S. aircraft routinely attacked hostile Iraqi anti-air installations inside the Iraqi no-fly zones


Apprenlty he did consider military overthrow

Read what you posted. Clinton never supported armed US military intervention in overthrowing the Baathist. Desert Fox was a response to Iraq's no compliance and while it had a state goal of disrupting Saddam's power...That could be intended for many reason...to ease or force compliance or to create the circumstances for internal revolt.

Also from H.R. 4655;

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.

The exceptions were military training and education to opposition forces.

So again, Clinton never considered armed US military intervention in Iraq to effect "regime change" or overthrow of Saddam.

Case closed?

 

[Hot Mega]

Agreed! Unfortunately, US policy changes, because US policy is more than just about the US.

Several leaders in the EU took serious issue with Iraq doubling its capacity and having more influence in raising prices on oil from the Middle East. The US regularly reverses policy because of such.

The funny part of all this is that you just contradicted yourself. You're lashing out with "facts" without putting them together, assuming that you'll "look smart" and trying to "make a point" not recognizing they undo your prior statements.

Okay, I'll bite. Where??? Show one statement I made you believe undoes another.

 

[Member2019]

Re: Fox blatant right v. Big 3 bleeding heart

So again, Clinton never considered armed US military intervention in Iraq to effect "regime change" or overthrow of Saddam. Case closed?

Okay, let me get this straight.

First you're limiting your focus on the terms of resolutions he signed, "redefining" the terms as fit your agenda (regardless of what they meant), but not considering anything else. But you won't do the same for Republicans?

In fact, you define Republican policy as Fox News and Rush?

Secondly, you're ignoring Albright and all of the "town all meetings" and other things, which explicitly talked about invading Iraq! I mean, what world do you live in? Oh, that's right, you're 100% Goron. You apply Gore logic to an argument, no matter how many times you are proven to be hypocritical.

This is the definitely of my long-standing "Goron" term every since David Brinkley caught Gore lying his ass off in 1992 about the Bush Sr. tax increases.

 

[maildude]

Good. He can share a padded room with Limbaugh.

 

[Hot Mega]

Re: Fox blatant right v. Big 3 bleeding heart

Okay, let me get this straight.

First you're limiting your focus on the terms of resolutions he signed, "redefining" the terms as fit your agenda (regardless of what they meant), but not considering anything else. But you won't do the same for Republicans?

In fact, you define Republican policy as Fox News and Rush?

Secondly, you're ignoring Albright and all of the "town all meetings" and other things, which explicitly talked about invading Iraq! I mean, what world do you live in? Oh, that's right, you're 100% Goron. You apply Gore logic to an argument, no matter how many times you are proven to be hypocritical.

This is the definitely of my long-standing "Goron" term every since David Brinkley caught Gore lying his ass off in 1992 about the Bush Sr. tax increases.

What did I redefine to fit my agenda??? All have to go by is what statements were signed what they ACTUALLY said. What redefinition are you conjuring up??

Clinton never considered a US invasion to change Iraq's government. That's a simple fucking fact.

Clinton was from Hope fucking Arkansas....he wasn't some beltway think tanker sitting around a bunch of eggheads trying to figure how to change the world.

He more than likely didn't give a shit what was happening in Iraq beyond what he inherited as POTUS.

You claim Albright made statements in some town hall about I presume preemptively invading Iraq to change their government. I've never seen or heard of that....so show me something....anything which backs that claim up.

I am aware of her saying the invasion of Iraq may end up being one of the worst disasters in American foreign policy history.

I can back that statement up and I'm sure it would only take 10 seconds to find a link with her quotes....IN CONTEXT.

 

[Member2019]

Re: Fox blatant right v. Big 3 bleeding heart

Clinton was from Hope fucking Arkansas....he wasn't some beltway think tanker sitting around a bunch of eggheads trying to figure how to change the world.
He more than likely didn't give a shit what was happening in Iraq beyond what he inherited as POTUS.

Hmmm, I thought he was a scholar of some travels, regardless of what he did in the backwaters of Arkansas because he could.

I leave you to everything else you love to trip yourself over. I loved Gore for the same reasons, too damn easy.

 

[Hot Mega]

Re: Fox blatant right v. Big 3 bleeding heart

Hmmm, I thought he was a scholar of some travels, regardless of what he did in the backwaters of Arkansas because he could.

I leave you to everything else you love to trip yourself over. I loved Gore for the same reasons, too damn easy.

So you're not even going to try and back up your claims??

Figgers..too damned easy....:wave2:

 

[Jane Burgess]

Appealing to school children?
Like every other past president, he's going to reinforce the value of getting a good education and encourage them to study hard.
That anyone sees any other motive in this is absolutely astounding

The past presidents didn't ask that you write a letter on how to help the president. He is the only one that has ever encouraged that. It is also not the first time he has used kids to try and get a point across. :thumbsup:

 

[Hot Mega]

The past presidents didn't ask that you write a letter on how to help the president. He is the only one that has ever encouraged that. It is also not the first time he has used kids to try and get a point across.

If the past presidents ask you to write a letter to them telling him how they could help what effect do you believe that would have beyond encouraging them to think for themselves about some of today's issues?

Is there a difference between that and groups who encourage school children to write letters in any other circumstance?

If so, how so?

Also, why didn't anyone take issue with this?

GWB

"I ask you to join in a special effort to help the children of Afghanistan," he said. "Their country has been through a great deal of war and suffering." President Bush asked each child in America to earn one dollar for a special fund that will provide badly needed food and medicine for the children of Afghanistan.

 

[Facial_King]

Jane, they've already dropped the letter-writing component of this. But really, if a parent is THAT afraid of their kid being brainwashed by the prez in a 20 min. speech about boring, run-of-the-mill topics (Work hard, don't do drugs, aim for success.....snoooooze) then they should probably reconsider sending their kids out of the house for ANY reason at all.

A smart right-wing or Ayn-Rand-worshipping kid could surely find 101 ways to write the letter about helping the president in such a way as to both make fun of the exercise and point out the weaknesses in the administration's policies. I only wish I'd been in school during the Dubya years and had him ask me how to help him fight the War on Terrah or whatever... That would've been fun. And I wouldn't be afraid (nor would my parents) that I'd be brainwashed to become a neo-con in 20 mins. of his mangling the English language, either.

 

[Hot Mega]

Jane, they've already dropped the letter-writing component of this.

Obama shouldn't have....this is where he gives these hacks too much credit.

They should have showed where other presidents have done worse with respect to asking kids for things and told these partisan hacks to sit down and STFU (in the nicest possible terms of course).

If they didn't want their kids participating....keep them home and don't ruin it for the other kids.

But if you run a public school or teach at one and the president....(I don't give a shit if Dan Quayle managed to stumble into the job...or worse, Sarah Palin) wants to tell your students to stay in school or even write a letter...sit down and STFU....or get a new job.

Obama has got to stop kneejerking to every whim of these political hacks....There are just some people who don't like him and he's always going to be their mortal enemy in their eyes. He should recognize this is what it is and stop trying to appease these fucks.

It's obvious these idiots will attempt to preempt everything he does in hopes of derailing it no matter what it is.

So he has to start preempting these idiots and have his minions make these fools out for the idiots they are.....

 

[Member2019]

Taking on Joe and Jane American ...

Obama shouldn't have....this is where he gives these hacks too much credit.
They should have showed where other presidents have done worse with respect to asking kids for things and told these partisan hacks to sit down and STFU (in the nicest possible terms of course).

Actually, I think the Reagans were the best. They led by example. They actually took a high road on the matter.

Clinton joked about his drug history. W. didn't. Both are guilty of substance abuse, but one considered it a joke. Why? Half his staff in his first administration had issues with it too. The W. administration did not have such a staff.

Leading by example actually does wonders. Permanent White House staffers noted a huge difference between the Clinton and W. administrations. Guess which ones they preferred?

I don't give a shit if Dan Quayle managed to stumble into the job

Dan Qualye is an ultra-right wing Christian who was placed there by the right-wing Christians because he is a squeaky-clean Republican. He represents their ideal, including intelligence (most everything about him was otherwise, including the potato incident where he referred to the card and the spelling the teacher taught the kids), character and other things.

Dan Quayle was also a judgemental SoB, like most Republicans. He wanted to decide what was right and wrong in America. He wanted to take away individual freedoms as much as the Gorons were destroying them. The problem the media had with him was because he was so squeaky-clean, he could be judgemental with a backbone, unlike a lot of Republicans, so they went after him.

He stupidly crossed politically correct lines, regardless of any merits of his point, and that undid him with a segment of the US population -- especially women.

...or worse, Sarah Palin

And even worse than Quayle, a right-wing, Christian Republican woman (let alone who is attractive)! Now you don't have the problem with Quayle did being a man.

The problem for her is that she was thrown into the race for the White House only months before the election. Obama had far, far longer to learn, and screwed up heavily in his first few months. There's nothing wrong with Palin other than she's judgmental like most Republicans. But she had the backbone for it like Quayle, only the common man card could not be played against her by Democrats.

Quayle and Palin represent a problem for Democrats and the Big 3 media. So they use other tactics. It only strengthens the resolve of the people who believe in them, because the jokes only cater to those that didn't want them in the first place. And the non-sense comes full circle. Especially in the case of Palin. With every transgress, it only builds on her popularity.

But I'll take Quayle and Palin's integrity to Gore's any day. And that's really sad considering the Peace Prize, and why most everyone now agrees it's political, and not remotely objective. Because anyone who knows the first thing about Gore knows he's a hypocrite, like most politicians. Quayle and Palin were simple believers, judgemental, but believers. Gore doesn't believe, and that's his undoing, regardless of the platform.

Obama has got to stop kneejerking to every whim of these political hacks....

Agreed. He's actually more flipper than Kerry at times. Kerry actually showed some backbone at times. Obama has gotta stop trying to please everyone.

He has his agenda and should stick with it.

There are just some people who don't like him and he's always going to be their mortal enemy in their eyes. He should recognize this is what it is and stop trying to appease these fucks.

Like W. did. They're going to dislike you regardless.

I think Palin was smart when she got out. She didn't need it. She rolled with it for her time, but then decided it wasn't worth it.

I noted Colin Powell took the same route. His only mistake is when he came back as Secretary of State. And we saw what happened to him as a result. I think Bill Cosby summed that up best.

And I think the majority of Republicans agree that Colin Powell would have been a shitload better President than W.

It's obvious these idiots will attempt to preempt everything he does in hopes of derailing it no matter what it is.

Sounds like what they did to W. as well.

So he has to start preempting these idiots and have his minions make these fools out for the idiots they are.....

He already tried that with Rush and look where it got the White House.

Rush was at least a talk show host. Taking on Joe and Jane American might lead to even worst results.

I think that last statement right there ...

"he has to start preempting these idiots and have his minions make these fools out for the idiots they are"

Is why I'm glad people like you aren't a part of the Obama administration. He just needs to keep his head up high, ignore the dissenters, and be Presidential.

Listening to your non-sense would put him at odds with the Supreme Court. Honestly, dude, you're in the lun.

 

[max0rz]

Not to worry folks, Olby is looking out for Beck now.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/9/6/777880/-Send-Me-Everything-You-Can-Find-About-Glenn-Beck

It's the war of the century I tells ya.

Olby is so gonna end up with egg on his face though

 

[Hot Mega]

Re: Taking on Joe and Jane American ...

Actually, I think the Reagans were the best. They led by example. They actually took a high road on the matter.

Clinton joked about his drug history. W. didn't. Both are guilty of substance abuse, but one considered it a joke. Why? Half his staff in his first administration had issues with it too. The W. administration did not have such a staff.

Leading by example actually does wonders. Permanent White House staffers noted a huge difference between the Clinton and W. administrations. Guess which ones they preferred?

Simply priceless (this whole post)! You've outdone yourself.

Where did the phrase, "Just Say No" come from? Also, you should really investigate just a little how previous presidents have addressed the nation's youth and asked of them. I mean, if you want to actually sound like you know what you're talking about on this and all(i.e. not sure what the permanent staffs at the WH have to do with any of this).

Dan Qualye is an ultra-right wing Christian who was placed there by the right-wing Christians because he is a squeaky-clean Republican. He represents their ideal, including intelligence (most everything about him was otherwise, including the potato incident where he referred to the card and the spelling the teacher taught the kids), character and other things.

Dan Quayle was also a judgemental SoB, like most Republicans. He wanted to decide what was right and wrong in America. He wanted to take away individual freedoms as much as the Gorons were destroying them. The problem the media had with him was because he was so squeaky-clean, he could be judgemental with a backbone, unlike a lot of Republicans, so they went after him.

He stupidly crossed politically correct lines, regardless of any merits of his point, and that undid him with a segment of the US population -- especially women.

And even worse than Quayle, a right-wing, Christian Republican woman (let alone who is attractive)! Now you don't have the problem with Quayle did being a man.

The problem for her is that she was thrown into the race for the White House only months before the election. Obama had far, far longer to learn, and screwed up heavily in his first few months. There's nothing wrong with Palin other than she's judgmental like most Republicans. But she had the backbone for it like Quayle, only the common man card could not be played against her by Democrats.

Quayle and Palin represent a problem for Democrats and the Big 3 media. So they use other tactics. It only strengthens the resolve of the people who believe in them, because the jokes only cater to those that didn't want them in the first place. And the non-sense comes full circle. Especially in the case of Palin. With every transgress, it only builds on her popularity.

But I'll take Quayle and Palin's integrity to Gore's any day. And that's really sad considering the Peace Prize, and why most everyone now agrees it's political, and not remotely objective. Because anyone who knows the first thing about Gore knows he's a hypocrite, like most politicians. Quayle and Palin were simple believers, judgemental, but believers. Gore doesn't believe, and that's his undoing, regardless of the platform.

Uh, sorry....Quayle gave the perception that he was an imbecile by coming across as one countless times. He created that perception all on his own. That perception was reinforced when he was shown instructing a school kid on how to misspell a word. It wasn't just in what Quayle did but what he said and how he acted which further instilled the reality that he was one.

Certainly had that been Clinton, Gore, Obama, etc. who instructed a kid to erroneously spell a word..some goofy GOPer somewhere would have attempted to incite some other goofy GOPer somewhere else to file a lawsuit against them.

Sarah Palin? See Dan Quayle minus the potato reference. BTW, Palin quit on her job....She's not Colin Powell. Putting her in the same sentence is laughable.

Agreed. He's actually more flipper than Kerry at times. Kerry actually showed some backbone at times. Obama has gotta stop trying to please everyone.

Wrong! Kerry is a Senator today in all likelihood because he didn't "speak truth to stupid". Just like Obama is failing to do. There is no line of bullshit so patently absurd that GOPer hacks and activists won't contend in order to smear an opponent. Of course it's a mistake to sit around playing whack-a-mole with every idiotic notion trotted out...as that is the point sometimes to simply drag the opponent into the mud as anyone who wrestles with a pig, win or lose will get muddy. But some of the idiocy needs to be stopped dead in it's tracks for it's absurdity. That's partially why Kerry is still in the Senate....he allowed a band of idiots to run around smearing him on the basis that their claims we so absurd they wouldn't be taken seriously. Unfortunately he gave the American voter too much credit.

I think Palin was smart when she got out. She didn't need it. She rolled with it for her time, but then decided it wasn't worth it.

Palin hasn't gotten out of anything except for a job she was in over her head with to try and possibly pursue a job even further over her head...or to cash in on her 15mins.

Is why I'm glad people like you aren't a part of the Obama administration. He just needs to keep his head up high, ignore the dissenters, and be Presidential.

Listening to your non-sense would put him at odds with the Supreme Court. Honestly, dude, you're in the lun.

:1orglaugh Yeah right! You can't dream of anything more pleasurable than Obama or any Demo failing but you know how best he should proceed.

How exactly will Obama's spokesperson coherently challenging the idiocy being trotted out put him at odds with the Supreme Ct???

 

[Member2019]

Re: Taking on Joe and Jane American ...

(i.e. not sure what the permanent staffs at the WH have to do with any of this).

Those who lived and serviced the White House with both the Clinton and W. administration, and the type of staffers and attitudes they were exposed to. You don't hear about it in the media much, but there are some great reads out there.

Certainly had that been Clinton, Gore, Obama, etc. who instructed a kid to erroneously spell a word..some goofy GOPer somewhere would have attempted to incite some other goofy GOPer somewhere else to file a lawsuit against them.

Actually, Gore has been so involved. He's been caught red handed with misuses of terminology, and spelling wasn't his strong suit either (at least Quayle was just relaying the spelling that the teacher had incorrectly taught).

There was a game in the late '80s played called "buzzword bingo" whenever Gore came to speak, especially popular at institutions of education. The game died once enough people in the audiences stood up and said "bingo" and his advisors informed him that he was over-doing it.

By the late '90s there was a resurgence of it on both trade (e.g., NAFTA) and the environment, but Gore had his hands put a quick end to it. No one dares play it with him any more, especially with the corporate influence he can bring down on anyone. I cannot stress this enough, Gore's family is not to be messed with, and it explains his own investments as well (I highly recommend people read up on him).

So I will re-iterate that Democrats are "big business" as much as Republicans. One of the things that thoroughly pissed me about NAFTA were the tie-ins to Gore aligned investments, among others (including Republicans).

Sarah Palin? See Dan Quayle minus the potato reference.

I could easily say the same thing about Obama in 2006. He just had 2 years to learn. Palin did not, she had only 4 months.

BTW, Palin quit on her job....She's not Colin Powell. Putting her in the same sentence is laughable.

But for the same reasons. Once Powell started getting the "Uncle Tom" non-sense, he decided it wasn't worth running for public office as a Republican. As I said, Bill Cosby said it best (especially years later).

Just like Obama is failing to do.

Obama's understanding of small business insults a lot of intelligences. When he actually starts paying attention to small businesses, he'll get my vote. Until then, the Democrats are as bad, sometimes worse than Republicans at times.

People bitch about what Republicans let businesses do, but in many cases, it's all businesses. Democrats prevent all businesses from those avenues, then grant exceptions for a few. I worked at a competitor to Loral and virtually everyone in the industry who wasn't working for Loral hates the little known Clinton bullshit from the period. And people complain about Halburton and use it as an example? Hardly a singleton.

But NAFTA is still my favorite. It wasn't free trade. Perot tried to warn people. Anyone who read it noted he spoke the truth. Gore championed that fucker, and I wonder why? Oh, no, wait, it's the Republicans fault now, right?

There is no line of bullshit so patently absurd that GOPer hacks and activists won't contend in order to smear an opponent.

More absolutist remarks ... goodbye.

Seriously, this "my party doesn't, your party does" gets old. And I'm not even a Republican.

I get this type of shit over on right-leaning boards as well, only defending Clinton, Obama and others (I don't bother with Gore though, can't find much).

I'm not a Republican. I'm a Libertarian-Capitalist. We haven't had either at the hands of Democrats and Republicans. The sooner people like yourself stop excusing one party while blaming another for the same actions, the sooner we can hold both parties to the same standard.

Be an American, not a partisan. And definitely don't be a Goron.

 

[Jane Burgess]

If the past presidents ask you to write a letter to them telling him how they could help what effect do you believe that would have beyond encouraging them to think for themselves about some of today's issues?

Is there a difference between that and groups who encourage school children to write letters in any other circumstance?

If so, how so?

Also, why didn't anyone take issue with this?

GWB

That is not encouraging them to think for themselves. That is Obama wanting to plant the bullshit in the minds of children. I do not care how much you personally like Obama, and it is clear that you must worship him since anytime someone says anything negative about him you feel the need to respond back.

Asking to raise funds for other school children is not the same as trying to get children on board for his policies. GWB didn't ask kids to write letters on how to help him.

 

[Jane Burgess]

Jane, they've already dropped the letter-writing component of this. But really, if a parent is THAT afraid of their kid being brainwashed by the prez in a 20 min. speech about boring, run-of-the-mill topics (Work hard, don't do drugs, aim for success.....snoooooze) then they should probably reconsider sending their kids out of the house for ANY reason at all.

A smart right-wing or Ayn-Rand-worshipping kid could surely find 101 ways to write the letter about helping the president in such a way as to both make fun of the exercise and point out the weaknesses in the administration's policies. I only wish I'd been in school during the Dubya years and had him ask me how to help him fight the War on Terrah or whatever... That would've been fun. And I wouldn't be afraid (nor would my parents) that I'd be brainwashed to become a neo-con in 20 mins. of his mangling the English language, either.

The difference is Bush never asked for school kids to "help the president" It sounds like a desperate attempt for Obama to try to brainwash a bunch of kids.

 

[YMIHERE]

GWB didn't ask kids to write letters on how to help him.

But other recent presidents did ask for a letter of help from school children.

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/ne...te-letters-to-help-them-meet-their-goals.html