Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dan B. who wrote (67675)	9/28/2005 11:48:25 PM
From: Skywatcher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Why We Hate George W. Bush. by Delaware Dem Invariably, when the Right has nothing left to argue, or when they have no excuse, or when they have yet to receive that day's RNC talking points, they fall back on answering a question or a criticism with a question of their own: Why does the Left hate Bush so much? But only the nice ones on the Right ask the question. The more experienced in evil ones simply state it as a fact to mute the criticism: "The Left hates Bush" or "All you Democrats do is hate." For once, the Right is....er ah....right. We do hate George W. Bush. We hate him for: For 1,900+ dead American soldiers. 15,000+ American soldiers wounded. Countless numbers of innocent Iraqi civilians dead. ("We don't do body counts.") For what? For nothing. For doing squat since 9/11 to make us safer here at home. For the policies that have led to the tripling of global terrorist attacks around the world. For seizing on the fear that surged across this country post-9/11 to push your unjustified, unnecessary war on Iraq. Mushroom clouds anyone? For "fixing the facts around the policy." For flat-out lying about WMDs. And soooo many other things. For joking about those missing WMDs while soldiers were still dying. Yep, that was hilarious. For attempting to conduct a 'war on the cheap'. For not putting enough troops on the ground in the first place. For not properly equipping our troops before sending them to war. For failing completely to plan for or understand the post-invasion chaos and insurgency. Rumsfeld's explanation? "Stuff happens." For not firing Donald Rumsfeld. For losing track of $1 billion in Iraq earlier this week, added to the $8.8 billion you lost earlier. And hey, how about the $300 billion already spent on this endeavor? We can pretty much consider that 'lost' too, can't we? $300 billion... that's like an entire hurricane. For approving the interrogation practices that led to torture at Abu Ghraib. For the August 6, 2001 PDB which stated "Bin Laden determined to strike in the U.S." For being too busy 'clearing brush' to pay attention to that memo. For clearing brush. Period. For 'My Pet Goat'. For continuing to cover-up 9/11 failures. By the way, where is Osama? For that bullshit bullhorn moment. For squandering the good will the world showered upon us after 9/11. For turning so many goddam corners in Iraq that we're now running in circles with no way out. For sending America's children to be blowed up when you yourself spent the Vietnam era swilling beer in Alabama. For the Swift Boat attacks. For Karl fucking Rove. For rushing back to DC from your ranch to 'rescue' Terri Schiavo. For fiddling at your ranch while not rescuing the entire city of New Orleans. For having the audacity to link anything, including Hurricane Katrina, to the War (Struggle?) on Terror in order to justify your policies. For continuing to reward loyalty over competency, moving forward with your policy of cronyism (and nepotism!) even in the face of the Michael 'Heckuvajob' Brownie debacle For continuing to allow the crooks and thieves who permeate your party to run wild. For having Lynyrd Skynyrd on your iPod. For completely ignoring the environment. For saying "the jury is still out" on Global Warming. For saying "the jury is still out" on Evolution. For thinking Jesus Christ was a philosopher. And a Republican. For being the only president ever to cut taxes during wartime. And for cutting them in such a way that the richest 1% benefit the most. For continuing to insist on making those tax cuts permanent, even in the face of a $200 billion+ reconstruction effort in New Orleans. For proposing cuts to benefits for military families to pay for that reconstruction instead. For repeatedly treating disaster as an opportunity. For an all-time high trade deficit nearing $700 billion. For the 7 percent decrease in real value of minimum wage over the past four years. For the 11 percent increase in poverty over the past four years. For four straight years in which median household incomes have not increased. For the 6 million more uninsured Americans created in the last four years. For hiding the true cost of your Medicare prescription drug bill until it was already passed. For ramming through a transportation bill filled with a record amount of pork to support such "special projects" as Alaskan Don Young's "bridges to nowhere". For pushing through an energy bill which includes billions in tax breaks for your oily friends as gas prices continue to soar. For treating your failed war as though it were a charity, asking Americans for donations to support it. Talk about last throes. For ignoring real crises while claiming a "crisis" in Social Security when there isn't one. For being a divider, not a uniter. For fueling discrimination and hatred of homosexuals by pushing the frivolous idea of a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in order to polarize the electorate so you could win re-election. For "Mission Accomplished" For "Bring 'em on" For "Last Throes" For "We'll be greeted as liberators" For "Smoke 'em out" For "Watch me hit this drive" For generally being an asshole. And what are we forgetting? Add your own in the comments. Yes, I know hate is a strong word. But I do hate the man. I hate him. And you what? I think I might have hated him before even the election of 2000. Why do you think that is? dailykos.com

To: Dan B. who wrote (67675)	9/29/2005 8:41:00 AM
From: Orcastraiter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Bush's first reason for taking over Iraq was economic. There was no threat from Iraq. No WMD. O'Niel's statements are clear on that. And he is clear on what the discussion was in the National Security Council. Planning for regime change. For pre-emptive war. It's clear that the plan to do so was discussed from day one...well before 9-11. It's also clear that this administration is made up of a cabal of members of the PNAC, who's goal is global domination by the United States. Who's tools include military force. The stated goal was to invade Iraq, to secure the oil fields. They even stated that some "event" such as a "Pearl Harbor" would be needed to justify such an attack to the American people. These are the words of the the neocons that found themselves in control of our government after 2000. They've been driving the nation into the ground ever since. No doubt that 9-11 served as a "Pearl Harbor" like event for the neocons. I did not suggest that it was a conspiracy. That was your injection. Perhaps you are disturbed by the many unanswered questions regarding the events of 9-11. We all should be. Orca

To: Dan B. who wrote (67675)	9/30/2005 4:20:59 PM
From: Orcastraiter	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 81568

I just wanted to point out that you completely disregard a man who was present in the NSC meetings. O'Neil was the CEO of Alcoa. He's not a flaming liberal kook that you are trying to make him out to be. You seize on the so called inferred conspiracy theory and discount the rest of the information. I was only repeating exactly what was written by the members of the PNAC, That another "Pearl Harbor" would be needed to sell the war to the American people. Well, we've established motive. Certainly there was opportunity. All we need now is the smoking gun. Perhaps the collapse of WTC# 7 is the smoking gun? How did that building collapse? The official report said more study is needed to determine why it collapsed. Well...where is the study? Why has this collapse not been investigated? Then again...the near freefall timing of the collapse of the WTC #1 and #2 seems to indicate that a controlled demolition was the cause of the collapse. Simply stated, if the upper portion simply fell on the lower portion, then a lot of energy...and time would have been used up in the collapse, due to buckling columns. That does not seems to be the case. I'm not advocating that a conspiracy was the cause of 9-11...but I do have some questions...perhaps you can answer some of my questions here? Orca