The Freedom Clock, started over a thousand days ago, indicates that we are exactly one year away from the end of George The Worst’s reign. At which point one hopes that the country will rise, blinking, as if shaking off an extended and hideous dream, and return to the land of the living.
Long national nightmare indeed.
PAD
• 
How about a short list of the good things Billy did for this country?
or make it long if you wish….
or how about a list of accomplishments from the house and senate since the Dems have taken over?
Hmmm. Pat, the failure of the Democrats to accomplish anything in Congress is mostly due to the fillabusters of the GOP and the vetoes of Shrub. Another reason to hope that the Democrats win 10 more seats in the Senate.
The Dems could very well overide any one of Georges vetoes but they just never seem to have enough votes. Why? Because they themselves dont believe what they are doing.
That’s strange. It sounds almost like you’re saying that there are enough democrats in the Senate and House that, if every democrat voted to, they’d be able to override any veto.
Well, let’s take a brief trip into the land of basic arithmetic. Overriding a veto requires a two-thirds majority in both houses of congress. That’s 67 votes in the Senate, and 290 in the House. There are currently 49 democrats in the Senate and 232 democrats in the House. Both of these numbers are less than that required for a veto-proof majority.
Unless, of course, you actually meant that if the democrats had the Power Of Belief, they’d be able to magically convince 18 republican senators and 58 republican representatives to break with the president and their party to override any veto. Because, I supposes, the republicans don’t believe in what they’re doing, so any little amount of conviction from the opposing side would win them over with no trouble.
Yeah, right.
Posted by David Gian-Cursio at January 21, 2008 11:32 AM
Unless, of course, you actually meant that if the democrats had the Power Of Belief, they’d be able to magically convince 18 republican senators and
58 republican representatives to break with the president and their party to override any veto. Because, I supposes, the republicans don’t believe in what they’re doing, so any little amount of conviction from the opposing side would win them over with no trouble.
Yeah, right.
You mean politics.. You mean actually proving what you believe to be true?
Yeah right.
Look everyone is screaming about George being Satans love child but I have yet to see something different. TELL ME what you plan to do. Show me what you plan on doing. Quit telling me how bad George is or how bad he will be remembered.
What do Bush and Slinkies have in common?
Neither is of any real practical value, nor requires any great skill to operate…
BUT…
The thought of pushing them down a set of stairs is enough to bring a smile to your face.
Uh, Pat….the point remains, the numbers don’t add up. Can’t over-ride the veto if you don’t have the numbers.
Plenty of other things to criticize the Dems on (caving on water boarding and Iraq), but referencing vetoes seems rather innumerate.
I know the numbers but it doesnt mean you cannot get a Reb. to agree and help turn a vote. Mccain sure had no prob with the finance reform
Either side can only get the other side to do something if they want to. If a President vetos something, you can’t point at one side and say, “they could have overruled it if they believed in what they’re doing.” It takes both sides.
Overriding a Presidential veto is extremely rare. Saying that it isn’t happening because the majority group in Congress doesn’t believe in themselves is basically saying that there has never been a Congress that believed in itself. The truth is, vetos are incredibly powerful and the Democrats cann’t overrule them by themselves. You have to give the Republicans in Congress some of that responibility.
In his pandering to the Republican base, John McCain has lost whatever credibility I thought he had.
McCain supported Bush after racist attacks were made on his family by Bush’s people.
Of course, McCain himself is a racist. If he was using words like “ņìggër” or “kike”, he’d be compared to David Duke. How is “gook” any different? Yes, his jailers were Asian people,
but so were our allies in Vietnam, as in the world today, as are many hard-working Americans.
Racism can never be rationalized.
He referred to the Christian Right as “agents of intolerance” but then went and spoke at Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University.
The Republican Party’s right-wing has managed to do something that the Hanoi Hilton could not.
They’ve broken the will of John McCain.
Bush is certainly the best president ever…
at being the worst president ever.
Our Grandchilren are gonna be PÍSSÊÐ that we let him back in office the second time.
McCain (or Romney) has no other choice. If he wants the nomination, he has to appear more conservative than he really is. This is just one of the legacies of the eight years of George the Worst: the entire American political spectrum has shifted to the right.
If McCain or Romney didn’t publicly assume more extreme positions than they have in the past, the nomination would fall on Huckabee’s lap, and then the šhìŧ would really hit the fan, because it seems that Huckabee really is as conservative as he says he is.
The reason so few bills are getting to the vote process is that the Republicans are filibustering at a record pace. In 2007, they filibustered more often than in any one year, having made enough filibusters in one year to reach a normal 2-year average.
Such is the nature of so-called Republican bi-partisanship.
I think Rene sums up my feelings on McCain. I think McCain is someone who wants to be honest, to the point that he’ll tell voters in Michigan that some jobs aren’t coming back while Romney blows smoke up their butts. But McCain knows he has to appeal to Republicans to get the Republican nomination. So he dances, just like all politicians dance. In the end, I think he’s a better candidate than Romney or Huckabee.
Besides, if he messes up, he knows better than anyone how much crap he’ll take from Jon Stewart.
Um, what does party affiliation mean, anyway?
Sorry, but this is just an inane argument. No one can take it seriously.
Posted by roger Tang at January 21, 2008 07:26 PM
I know the numbers but it doesnt mean you cannot get a Reb. to agree and help turn a vote
Um, what does party affiliation mean, anyway?
Sorry, but this is just an inane argument. No one can take it seriously.
Lets see…from the dreaded Wikipedia:
John McCain and Russ Feingold Bipartisan campaign reform act of 2002
Gang of 14:
Republicans-John McCain
Lindsey Graham
John Warner
Olympia Snowe
Susan Collins
Mike DeWine
Lincoln Chafee
Democrats-Joe Lieberman
Robert (KKK) Byrd
Ben Nelson
Mary Landrieu
Daniel Inouye
Mark Pryor
Ken Salazar
Its called Bipartisan politics you know the often talked about, always promised but rarely seen.
so you see its not really all that inane.
Mccain sure had no prob with the finance reform
McCain also had no problem goose stepping with the administration on issues such as torture.
If McCain still has a pair, he needs to find them.
Its called Bipartisan politics you know the often talked about, always promised but rarely seen.
And you see the Republicans doing a whole helluva lot of it over the last couple of years, haven’t you?
Do you actually have any other examples besides the “Gang of 14”?
“McCain also had no problem goose stepping with the administration on issues such as torture.”
Really? He seemed to break with the current administration more than any other Republican on the issue of torture.
In Republican debates the other candidates would answer the torture question by saying they support whatever is necessary. The crowds cheered when the made Jack Bauer jokes. McCain said torture was wrong to deafening silence. The Republican party has wanted him to support torture, but in everything I’ve seen he hasn’t.
Posted by Alan Coil
Our Grandchilren are gonna be PÍSSÊÐ that we let him back in office the second time.
Wouldn’t bet on it, as the current electorate is in large part composed of the children and grandchildren of the electorate that put Nixon in office twice. (The upcoming election will, after all, be thirty-six years since Nixon’s second victory…)
*Without* a packed Supreme Court overriding the real election results.
Do you really think that future generations will be any better at learning from history? Especially since it appears the every succeeding generation is managing to be more poorly educated than the previous one?
In a story blurb in “Astounding”, John W Campbell Jr once said “History doesn’t always repeat iteslf. Sometimes it just screams ‘Why aren’t you listening to me?’ and lets fly with a club.”
McCain also had no problem goose stepping with the administration on issues such as torture.
That will come as news to me…from what I’ve seen there are some republicans who keep harping on how McCain has been naive to condemn torture. What makes you think he’s with the pro-waterboarders on this?
Posted by roger Tang at January 21, 2008 09:42 PM
Blaming the Democrats and not the Republicans? Inane is the kindest word for it.
Hey I just asked what have the Dems done since they have taken the House and the Senate. They promised great changes. They made some pretty strong promises to their constituents but not much productivity. I think that is going to bite some of them on the @$$. Just my opinion mind you.
Now the Republicans dont have much to brag about either. We still have wide open borders. They still spend like theres no tomorrow. Social Security is still a mess. This tax rebate George is promising is a joke. The Rep. are not innocent by any means.
Posted by Craig J. Ries at January 21, 2008 10:10 PM
Do you actually have any other examples besides the “Gang of 14”?
other than the finance reform no not off the top of my head.
I just think its weird some of you feel he’s pandering to the “Neocons” When I think its the opposite.
Well, fixing on the lack of veto-overrides is probably not the best argument to use. There’s much better fodder in the set-asides, caving in to the White House on issues they said they’d challenge on, backing down on trying to fund continued entitlements and benefts and so on. Disappointing to say the least….
Your right pretty weak at best. but come on Im trying to meet you guys somewhat halfway:)
Considering of what I’ve seen of the future, I have only this thought.
“The Past is Prolouge”
Cynical I know. But from what I’ve seen, it’s not going to get any better.
JP
Considering of what I’ve seen of the future, I have only this thought.
“The Past is Prolouge”
Cynical I know. But from what I’ve seen, it’s not going to get any better.
JP
Considering of what I’ve seen of the future, I have only this thought.
“The Past is Prolouge”
Cynical I know. But from what I’ve seen, it’s not going to get any better.
JP
It’ll take a lot more than a new President. Remember, people _put_ him there. Twice.
>Look everyone is screaming about George … but I have yet to see something different. TELL ME what you plan to do. Show me what you plan on doing. Quit telling me how bad George is or how bad he will be remembered.
High on the list of ways to tell when someone’s on a power grab, rather than posessed of a genuine desire to help people, is when they gleefully attack the other guys without, for all that, bothering to present any specifics as to what they’d do differently and how.
The Canadian federal Liberals (our version of the Democrats … sort of) in ’93 savagely attacked the Progressive Conservatives (who richly deserved it) but kept telling voters “you’ll see how we plan to carry out our promises *after the election*” That set off alarm bells in my mind and, for once, I voted for another party. Unfortunately, too many people fell for their bull and they got in with a majority, whereupon voters learned the fine-sounding promises were just so many lies, and the Liberals just carried on with the Conservatives’ agenda.
Trouble is, it works. How often and for how many years have all too many people voted AGAINST some one/some Party rather than FOR? Should we blame Party machines for going with that trend? Well, yes, but …
In order to truly improve on the current mess, it will be necessary to stop voting based on 15 second sound bites. Those little nibbles of quasi-information are calculated to say whatever the listener wants to hear. Read the entire speech, ignore the town hall press scrum. Ask the really tough questions and demand answers.
We are all going to have to hold our leadership to a higher standard, and since in a democracy we (in theory) choose those leaders, the higher standard begins with us.
“McCain also had no problem goose stepping with the administration on issues such as torture.”
Really? He seemed to break with the current administration more than any other Republican on the issue of torture.
His acquiescence allowed the Military Commisions Act to go through. That doesn’t speak well of him. His silence on Mukasey’s inability to affirm waterboarding as torture didn’t win me over either.
He seemed to break with the current administration more than any other Republican on the issue of torture.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/01/politics/main3441067.shtml?source=RSSattr=Politics_3441067
McCain seems to be under the impression, like this Administration is, that we do not torture, that we do not waterboard.
That’s either naive on what he thinks our government has been doing, considering how the Bush Administration has run things, or a blunt lie. Take your pick; I think he’s full of it.
Sasha also addresses a couple of other points.
Woohoo! Lookit that sucker go! -0362:18:18:19…no, 14…no 10…no wait, it’s actually 04…
>High on the list of ways to tell when someone’s >on a power grab, rather than posessed of a >genuine desire to help people, is when they >gleefully attack the other guys without, for all >that, bothering to present any specifics as to >what they’d do differently and how.
It’s a rare politician that isn’t on a power grab, correct? I suppose genuine desire to help people comes much lower in their list of motivations.
You have to vote on the power-grabber that least offends you.
And I very much doubt the Democrats will just continue what the Republicans are doing. You might make a case that they’re going to find different ways to screw things up, though.
Even so, were I American, I’d vote on the Democrats, because I just can’t make myself vote on social conservatives.
For those comic book and Batman fans who haven’t already heard, actor Heath Ledger has passed away.
No, it’s not a joke or hoax. Imdb, Wikipedia, and all other sites corroborate it. Imdb and Wikipedia in particular have links to news sites with stories on his passing.
Potentially of some interest in regard to Bush and his “legacy”:
[snip]
The whole article is available online.
Also, you might want to check out this cartoon by Tom Toles – looks as if the Shrub has decided that if he can’t equal Reagan any other way, he’s going to try to imitate him in boosting the National Debt…
Sorry but I dont take a study done by a George Soros funded organization serious.
Posted by Pat Nolan
Sorry but I dont take a study done by a George Soros funded organization serious.
The documents they studies are available online, though i don’t have the link handy.
And, considering that it basically confirms what anyone whop was actually listening already knew…
Posted by Pat Nolan
Sorry but I dont take a study done by a George Soros funded organization serious.
The documents used in the studies are available online, though i don’t have the link handy.
And, considering that it basically confirms what anyone whop was actually listening already knew…
…if he can’t equal Reagan any other way…
Who can?
http://www.superdickery.com/oneshot/44.html
And sometimes Reagan defends toy stores from robbers. (Only the first and last panel make sense without reading the story):
http://www.shortpacked.com/d/20060201.html
Database of untrue statements by MisAdministration members at http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/
Pat Nolan said:
“Sorry but I dont take a study done by a George Soros funded organization serious.”
=====
Typical.
“I don’t agree with the results of that study, so it must be wrong. Let me find a reason.”
I worked with a guy who exemplified this. A news report would say something he disagreed with, so it was the “Liberal Media”. A Fox News report would say something he disagreed with, so his reply was “I’d have to see how they asked the questions before I can comment.” It was always something. Then he started telling everyone about the space ships he had seen. Then how he could stop time with his mind. Then I would think, “This might be possible. It seems like hours that I have been stuck listening to him, but it’s only been 5 minutes.”
Pat Nolan said:
“Sorry but I dont take a study done by a George Soros funded organization serious.”
=====
Typical.
“I don’t agree with the results of that study, so it must be wrong. Let me find a reason.”
Typical.
“I dont agree with the results of that study, because it showed absolutly nothing new that has not been reported Ad nauseam just because it has a different name (Center for Public Integrity, please!!) attached to it doesnt make it anymore reliable. Its the school of “If I say it enough everyone will believe it”
So yeah Typical!
I have to agree with Pat on one thing–the fact that the connection to Soros was not mentioned seems a rather egregious omission.
If, for example, a study was released showing that lax gunlaws resulted in a decrease in crime…and it turned out that the study was funded in part by the NRA…wouldn’t you at least want that information submitted for your consideration?
Even if one is not bothered by the Soros connection, the methodology of the study gives me pause. Saying that any statement that “referenced Iraq’s contemporaneous possession, possible possession, or efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction” is an example of a “direct false statement” seems questionable to me. One will be able to find many many statements by critics of the administration that also would be considered false under that criterion.
If the purpose of the study was to show that people were wrong about Iraq’s possession of WMD, well, ok, but that’s not exactly news. If the purpose was to show deliberate lying the methodology doesn’t support it–people saying what was conventional wisdom at the time that has since been proven wrong falls short of that goal.
So… because the report gathers data that had been previously reported, instead of somehow finding Brand New Data (coming soon from Marvel!), that makes it false?
That’s an… interesting worldview…
It doesn’t make it false, it just means it doesn’t prove what it says it proves.
Did Bush say that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? Yes.
Was Bush lying when he said that? We can’t say for sure. It would be nice to know.
Does proving that he said it, and said it a lot, prove that he waging a campaign of false pretenses? No, the fact that he said it a lot doesn’t prove that he knew the information was wrong.
The study isn’t doing anything wrong by showing how much he spread his version of the facts. But they are being sloppy by making a claim that isn’t supported by their data.
Posted by: Jason M. Bryant
Did Bush say that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? Yes.
Rather as with Nixon’s denial of any knowledge of the Watergate break-in (If hw knew, he was engaging in illegal activities and lying about it, if he didn’t know, he had let his people get out of control – in either case, not someone one would want as President), Bush is dámņëd either way here:
If he knew what he was sdaying was false, then he was lying.
And if he *didn’t* know it was false, he was not listening to his own intelligence services, wheter from stupidity or because their reports contradicted what he needed to say to advance his own agenda.
An example: The CIA told him that there was no evidence to support the Niger/yellowcake story, but he claimed it as fact in his State of the Union Address.
Was Bush lying when he said that? We can’t say for sure. It would be nice to know.
Were his lips moving?
Does proving that he said it, and said it a lot, prove that he waging a campaign of false pretenses? No, the fact that he said it a lot doesn’t prove that he knew the information was wrong.
If he didn’t know, then he’s incompetent, because his ownb intel;ligence community, as well as the inspectors on the ground, were telling him.
When Clinton lied, nobody died.
Oh, I’m not disagreeing with any of that, mike weber. He was either lying or incompetent, no arguing from me. I’m just saying that the study makes claims about proving something, but their data doesn’t prove it and doesn’t actually tell us anything we didn’t already know.
It’s like they said that someone bathed in horse manure and that was the thing that caused him to get cancer later. Whether the horse manure actually gave him cancer or not, telling me the exact volume to the milliliter of the horse manure doesn’t prove anything about it being cancerous. Also, I certainly didn’t need to know that exact volume to know that bathing in the stuff was a bad idea.