Message board comments 
from January through March, 2003

Date:

04 Jan 2006

Time:

17:08:28

Comments

In his 38th book, Something for Nothing: The All-Consuming Desire that Turns the American Dream into a Social Nightmare, Tracy describes how mankind's inborn nature to be "lazy, greedy, ambitious, selfish, vain, ignorant and impatient" without regard to others, has plunged our nation into crisis.

Of course, the propensity of humans to expect and even scheme about how to get something for nothing is certainly nothing knew to the human condition or to Americans. And the devastating effects that such expectations and attitudes have on the individual and his personal character have been well-documented throughout history. As Thomas Jefferson once said, "The worst day of a man's life is when he sits down and begins thinking about how he can get something for nothing."

Date:

05 Jan 2006

Time:

06:57:57

Comments

I hope all interested in human rights will visit the following sites which details one of the world's worst totalitarian regimes: http://www.cubaarchive.org/ Any comments?

Date:

08 Jan 2006

Time:

17:58:30

Comments

Hello, I am one of the evil right wingers who occasionally posts here. I wish to say to the ones who post garbage here that you have too much free time on your hands. If you have nothing constructive to post, go play on the freeway. I would rather read well writen communist propaganda than your silly porn links. If you cannot argue reasonably, you are no better than the present day Democrats in congress.

For a link worth seeing, go to: http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2005/12/if_pearl_harbor.php

Date:

23 Jan 2006

Time:

19:17:18

Comments

why are mexicans treated better than us here in usa us being americans they can get goverment grants never have to pay back not have to pay taxes for seven years and for every american dollor they take back to mexico they get three for it but us americans cant do this no wonder they can buy new homes new cars.with the drugs they sell and the money from that,and the free help they live like kings.but let a poor 25,000a year american need help see if his own country will help him and his familey our own country will turn away from its own to help them and.the poor has been sweaped under the rug execpt when it is time to pay taxes so the rich higher ups wont have to.

Date:

02 Feb 2006

Time:

07:02:39

Comments

The Chavez-controlled legislature has passed new media laws that included this choice provision: "Anyone who offends with his words or in writing or in any other way disrespects the president of the republic or whomever is fulfilling his duties will be punished with prison of six to 30 months if the offense is serious, and half of that if it is light." This is the same Chavez Cindy Sheehan embraced.

Date:

02 Feb 2006

Time:

07:05:21

Comments

re: spam on this site. Hey asshole, you must have lots of time on your hands to harass the free speech of those you disagree with. Read the above and see whose side you are on. Could I buy you a set of legos so you may better occupy your time.

Date:

03 Feb 2006

Time:

07:16:17

Comments

'St. Jack' and the Bullies in the Pulpit John Danforth Says It's Time the GOP Center Took On The Christian Right

By Peter Slevin Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, February 2, 2006; Page C01

Jack Danforth wishes the Republican right would step down from its pulpit. Instead, he sees a constant flow of religion into national politics. And not just any religion, either, but the us-versus-them, my-God-is-bigger-than-your-God, velvet-fist variety of Christian evangelism.

As a mainline Episcopal priest, retired U.S. senator and diplomat, Danforth worships a humbler God and considers the right's certainty a sin. Legislating against gay marriage, for instance? "It's just cussedness." As he sees it, many Republican leaders have lost their bearings and, if they don't change, will lose their grip on power. Not to mention make the United States a meaner place.

Danforth is no squalling liberal. He is a lifelong Republican. And his own political history shows he is no milquetoast.

A man of God and the GOP, he is speaking out for moderation -- in religion, politics, science and government. The lanky figure once dubbed "St. Jack," not always warmly, for the perch he seemed to occupy on Washington's moral high ground, expects people will sour on the assertive brand of Christianity so closely branded Republican.

"I'm counting on nausea," he says…

Date:

06 Feb 2006

Time:

14:34:53

Comments

Kevin, thanks for taking the time to eliminate the garbage. If you are the one who posted the piece on Danforth, don't let anyone know that we agree. We could lose standing among our respective party followers if word got out. In fact I doubt that I would be wrong to say that a lot of conservatives are disgusted with a Republican party that has morphed into the party we voted out. Let us hope that Boehner will point the GOP in the right direction. Right now a sensible Democrat would be acceptable to a lot of us but the Democratic party has been hijacked by a bunch of loonies. A JFK, Sam Nunn, or maybe even Bill Richardson would be a refreshing change.

My question to you, would you consider voting for a Republican who would represent your opinions more that the corrupt Democratic "leadership" of the likes of Chappaquidic Teddy?

Evil right winger

Date:

07 Feb 2006

Time:

06:08:53

Hi Evil.

I think I've managed to take out the garbage by filtering posts containing hyperlinks.

Actually, Matilda posted the Danforth article but I think we may all be in agreement here. However, I would take issue with your contention that the Republican Party has morphed into the opposition. My feeling is that the Democratic Party has been much too complacent, has strayed too far from its traditional base, and has become in effect a rubber stamp for the unconscionable agenda of the neocons.

I feel that I am rather to the left of the DLC and, in some ways, more conservative than the current Republican leadership.

When I was growing up, my view was that conservatism was about fiscal responsibility, conservation of resources and steadfast dedication to the principles of the Constitution (all of it). Is the current administration concerned with any of these core conservative values?

With the advent of Reaganomics and the abandonment of the Fairness Doctrine in media, we saw the rise of far right talk radio and the lies of Limbaugh, Hannity and O’Reilly left unchallenged. The frothing of Fallwell and other far right ‘preachers’ also contributed to an atmosphere in which Reagan’s mythical ‘welfare queen’ would enter unhindered into public consciousness.

This was fertile ground for the seeds of the neocon philosophy to take root. And take root it has… Take a close look at the ‘Project for the New American Century’ and compare it with current foreign policy. Look at tax reform and the ideal 'government drowned in a bathtub' by Grover Norquist. Look at Halliburton… ‘nuff said.

We have got to rein these guys in. The mid-term elections may be our last chance to save our beloved democracy. This is not hyperbole. The neocons are, and have always been, after absolute power no matter what it takes. I would never vote for any Republican as long as the neocons are running the Party.

You and I are entitled to different opinions. That's freedom. I remember when the entire country was a 'Free Speech Zone'. However, we aren't entitled to different facts. Take a look at the facts. Then consider this:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Date:

09 Feb 2006

Time:

22:02:25

Comments

"What the American people have seen is this incredible disparity in which those people who had cars and money got out and those people who were impoverished drowned."

-- Senator Ted Kennedy, on Hurricane Katrina

"Ditto!"

-- Mary Jo Kopechne

Date:

10 Feb 2006

Time:

22:11:06

Comments

What a great web-site this is. It is unfortunate that it is being used to say such negative things about each other. That is why this country is in the shape it's in. We are the people who can make peace and instead we just slam each other. If everyone truly had a consciousness of peace the world would be peaceful.

Date:

11 Feb 2006

Time:

08:11:25

Comments

Oh my goodness, don't let Matilda know that an evil right winger agreed with her.

First, thanks for a reasonable posting.

So many topics for me to address, I will try. The two parties have indeed morphed into an obscene blob. I do not accept that the Democratic party has been too complacent. It certainly has not been quiet. I will also argue that it may indeed have strayed from its base, but that the majority of Democrats, the real base of the party is not what you would like. That may be the reason for their recent losses. The Democratic party is simply not keeping pace with a political landscape theat keeps changing. I has become marginalized, a party of the angry elite of the far left to the point where Hillary is no longer the left wing of your party. It is too bad that you would not considet voting for a Republican. Do you prefer a pro-war Lieberman or Republican anti-war Chyck Hager? Would you vote for anti-abortion Democrat Robert P. Casey (picked by Charles Schumer, btw) or pro-choice Republican Specter. How about choosing between tax cutting Bill Richardson of N.M. and Ohio's tax raising Taft? I even read that Louisiana's Blanco lowered taxes after the hurricanes, so should she be kicked out othe the Democratic party for straying from its base? I can tell you that I honestly would voter for the candidate that I believe would fir most closely with my philosophy, ragardless of party affilation.

As Detoquevill predicted a couple of hundred years ago, the nation now is in danger because of politicians who have perfected the bribing of their constituents with their own money. If you think democrats are immune from such criticism, take a look how your side protests that not enough money is being spent on______ (fill in the blank). There is no fiscal responsibility now, and to blame Bush is letting Congress off the hook. In fact, I will also fault the current administration for pushing many of the big spending, big government programs I would expect from a Democrat: the farm bill, no child left behind, drug coverage, etc.

I am having problems posting, so I will continue as another post.

evil right winger

Date:

11 Feb 2006

Time:

08:30:24

Comments

Regarding the fairness doctrine, or how to protect ideas that would not survive in the market of public opinion. The country has changed a lot since 1949, and the number and diversity of TV and radio stations, as well as ther Internet render the doctrine meaningless. Is it through coercion that people listen to Rush, Bill or Sean? Why are Al Franken and Air America floundering? Al is a comedian of SNL fame, he should gather a larger audience. Could it be that is message is not popular? Do we nee a Big Government program to force people to hear him. Should we also guarantee air time to the COmmunist party, Hezbolah, the Ku Klux Klan and the Elvis is alive crowd? Do you want to have a station manager decide what is the proper response? If you prefer to let a bureaucrat decide, look at a post above regarding Chavez and how he has taken control over what is heard and read. Falwell i fact reaches only a paltry one and a half million each week, so should we guarantee him greater national airtime in ithe interest of "fairness". Why does Limbaugh on KSFO have nearly three times the audience of Al Franken on KQKE for the same time slot, in San Francisco of all places, and what program would you suggest to correct that discrepancy? In truth, is it not like Democracy, with many choices put to the people and the market share representing votes? Could it be that the neocon philosophy has bloomed because people have found that it represents their core beliefs? I agree with you that we have to rein in "these guys", but we may not agree which guys have to be reined in, what has to be reined, or how to do it.

Evil right winger

Date:

18 Feb 2006

Time:

08:25:59

Comments

An industrial nation is not a theme park where the retirees are younger and younger, the students older and older, the work week shorter and shorter, and the vacations longer and longer.

Helmut Kohl

Date:

18 Feb 2006

Time:

09:17:05

Comments

Kinda slow here. How about a little game, and let us see who can first guess who said the following:

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races -- that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

Hint: it was a Republican.

Date:

19 Feb 2006

Time:

18:07:56

Comments

I don't know, it seems like it would be said a long time ago.

You wouldn't be trying to use that "race baiting" tactic Democrats are so fond of, would you?

Date:

20 Feb 2006

Time:

16:56:13

Comments

At least now I know somebody read the post. You know I was I was trying to bait somebody. Just having a little fun with little known facts that do not mesh with the national ideal. You were right that it was a long time ago. The orator was Abraham Lincoln, in his fourth debate with Stephen Douglas.

Date:

22 Feb 2006

Time:

07:15:39

Comments

Dear friends....Well, I've made it to my 85th birthday after a scary hospital stay. I truly did not expect to live this long, but since I've been given more time, I guess it's because I still have to work on straightening out this scrawed-up universe, no?

GOOD News::: My son-in-law, Steve Frances who lives in Southbend, Indiana is running for Congress. He's our kind of liberal and we should do all we can to help him get elected. The primary is in May, and if he makes that, he will run against a Republican in November. Please visit his website: www.francisforuscongress.com We both thank you from the bottom of our liberal hearts!! 

Matilda

Date:

25 Feb 2006

Time:

08:23:05

Comments

Today's hypocrisy file: In 1977 President Carter and his attorney general, Griffin B.Bell, authorized warrantless electronic surveillance used in the conviction of two men, Truong Dinh Hung and Ronald Louis Humphrey, for spying on behalf of Viet Nam. The 4th Circuit Court unanimously ruled that the warrantless searches did not violate the men's rights.

Date:

28 Feb 2006

Time:

03:27:58

Comments

Happy birthday, Matilda. This evil right winger is glad you are out of the hospital and wishes you a speedy recovery.

Regarding your son in law's run, I wish him the best and hope he runs a clean and successful campaign. I have no idea what his constituency is like, but if he represents their political leanings, he deserves to win. If he falls outside the mainstream and loses, that is also democracy at work.

ERW.

BTW, I look forward to when Kevin finds the time to continue our discussion on the Fairness Doctrine, or any topic for that matter.

Date:

10 Mar 2006

Time:

08:18:45

Comments

= "I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. And because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do the something that I can do. What I can do, I should do. And what I should do, by the grace of God, I will do." - Edward Everett Hale

Date:

14 Mar 2006

Time:

16:39:11

Comments

Tuesday, March 14, 06 It's pretty interesting that you all have the right to log onto this site and state your opinions. Have you given serious thought that that right is bought and paid for by our military, now and in the past? My son has said, "We fight the war on terrorism over there, so that it doesn't come here. I for one think you should be proud to have a leader that takes a stand on this world's inhumanity to man. As neither of our countries have implemented the draft, those soldiers are there because they choose to be there. They see deep value in assisting those in need. SL Canada

Date:

16 Mar 2006

Time:

13:00:07

Comments

Quote of the Day

Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You didn't place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible.
- Jamie Raskin, testifying Wednesday, March 1, 2006 before the Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee in response to a question from Republican Senator Nancy Jacobs about whether marriage discrimination against gay people is required by "God's Law."

Date:

16 Mar 2006

Time:

21:42:53

Comments

I happen to agree with Raskin on this one, but I am always amazed that the only time some people seem to show appreciation of and respect for the constitution is when they find it at odds with religion. If you are the same person who quoted Edward Hale, here is another from the same Clergyman (as in religious) and writer, Mr Hale: "war - Hard apprenticeship of freedom.

If you would like to escape superficiality and discuss Mr. Raskin and what he stands for, I would enjoy that very much. Nobody seems to want to "talk sense" here.

ERW

Date:

16 Mar 2006

Time:

21:56:34

Comments

SL from Canada, welcome here. Good to have fresh input from the north. You piqued my interest, I thought Canadians were anti war and generally antipathic to the US, and that it appears to not be the case with you, eh.

Veli Grith Gerwin

Date:

17 Mar 2006

Time:

14:00:41

Comments

The lesson for Democrats who want to stand and fight is that they must respond to this three-sided problem with a three-pronged solution: challenging Republican wrongdoing without fear or equivocation; building media outlets that will circumvent the smug mainstream press; and standing behind the rare Democratic politician who shows some courage.

From "Make Them Accountable" Matilda

Date:

17 Mar 2006

Time:

22:36:53

Comments

How about another "quote of the day"? Suppose they gave a war, and nobody came? Why then, the war would come to you! Bertol Brecht.

Date:

17 Mar 2006

Time:

23:02:17

Comments

Maybe it should be "quotes of the day"

"The American people must be willing to give up a degree of personal privacy in exchange for safety and security." -- Louis Freeh, Director of the FBI, 1993

"I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious." -- Thomas Jefferson Letter to William Ludlow, 1824

"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." -- John F. Kennedy (Life member of the NRA)

"One of the annoying things about believing in free will and individual responsibility is the difficulty of finding somebody to blame your problems on. And when you do find somebody, it's remarkable how often his picture turns up on your driver's license." -- P. J. O'Rourke

Date:

18 Mar 2006

Time:

22:02:17

Comments

I am just curious, what "smug mainstream press" are you reading? By all means give us some examples!!! I am reading what I think is the mainstream press, and it nostly looks like loony left wing rags to me. Unless you are so far out in left field that you cannot see the catcher, I do not understand. I went to the Make Them Accountable site, and I am not impressed. Let us on to what you consider to be some of their brilliant analyses.

Levi

Date:

19 Mar 2006

Time:

21:04:22

Comments

Date:

20 Mar 2006

Time:

07:36:38

Comments

Bush, it now appears, authorized KGB-like "black back jobs," with law enforcement authorities breaking and entering into businesses and homes of U.S. Citizens.

At his infamous hearings hearings on illegal NSA wiretappings, Gonzales would NOT definitively say that Bush did NOT authorize illegal NSA wiretapping conducted for partisan purposes. In short, one can infer that he did allow snooping for political purposes.

Shouldn't that get the Democrats a little riled up, instead of angry with Russ Feingold for calling for Bush's censure?

Like what would it take for the Democratic leadership in Congress to really get outraged? Bush on a videotape having sex with a cow on his ranch? Bush personally strangling a prisoner at Guantanamo who had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda or the Taliban?

No, the Democratic leadership in Congress would probably say that, "We aren't in a position to judge until hearings are held." Of course, the Democrats know that the Republicans will never allow hearings to be held. Cults don't expose their leader.

Like how much more damage to America's interests will it take before the Dems in leadership positions see Bush as the guy to get lathered up about, not Dems who are trying to save the nation?

Exactly, why does the Democratic leadership keep thinking an opposition party will come along to save THEM and America?

Would someone tell them that they are the opposition party -- and that an unfit commander in chief is in the White House doing illegal things and shredding the Constitution?

Please, someone tell them. But first get rid of all those Gucci- loafered, losing political consultants that they use.

What a bunch of pocket-stuffing wimps.

BuzzFlash

Date:

21 Mar 2006

Time:

04:31:01

Comments

The old parties are husks, with no real soul within either, divided on artificial lines, boss-ridden and privilege-controlled, each a jumble of incongruous elements, and neither daring to speak out wisely and fearlessly on what should be said on the vital issues of the day : Theodore Roosevelt

= "The civilized have created the wretched, quite coldly and deliberately, and do not intend to change the status quo; are responsible for their slaughter and enslavement; rain down bombs on defenseless children whenever and wherever they decide that their 'vital interests' are menaced, and think nothing of torturing a man to death: these people are not to be taken seriously when they speak of the 'sanctity' of human life, or the 'conscience' of the civilized world." : James Baldwin - From chapter one of "The Devil Finds Work" (orig. pub. 1976)

= "My notion of democracy is that under it the weakest shall have the same opportunities as the strongest...no country in the world today shows any but patronizing regard for the weak... Western democracy, as it functions today, is diluted fascism...true democracy cannot be worked by twenty men sitting at the center. It has to be worked from below, by the people of every village." : Gandhi

Date:

21 Mar 2006

Time:

05:17:02

Comments

From BuzzFlash...

Let's face it, there are only three segments left to the much-vaunted GOP Base: the corporate profiteers who wouldn't care if Satan was president, as long as they got their pockets lined with taxpayer funded no-bid contracts; the Stepford Evangelicals; and the Bush cultists.

(If you are wondering why the Neo-Cons are not listed here, it is because there are clear signs that most of them now understand that their policy in Iraq has failed. Although there are enough left supporting Bush wholeheartedly that you can and them to the cult list, if you prefer. We won't object.)

Because Bushevism long ago became a cult. After all, what is a cult?

It's a movement that is comprised of people who believe in a leader contrary to reality and the harm that the person does them.

That sounds like people who support Bush alright, except for the corporate profiteers (who will always be hanging around for the money, no matter who is in power.)

Okay, honestly, and we are not being provocative. If a foreign enemy wanted to place someone in power as a mole to destroy and bankrupt America, could they have done better than George W. Bush? We think not. Jim Jones is dead and wasn't available for the part.

But, let's talk amongst ourselves here. Sit down and make two lists.

On one side, put down what Bush has done that has made America better. On the other side, put down what Bush had done to make America worse and less secure.

We rest our case.

Matilda

Date:

21 Mar 2006

Time:

22:08:57

Comments

If that is the best evidence you can present before resting your case, as the only objective judge here, you leave me no other option. CASE DISMISSED!!!

Date:

22 Mar 2006

Time:

06:43:19

Comments

Your reply disqualifies you as an "objective judge" my friend. I will not consider the case dismissed with your answer. If you're really objective, why not make the two lists I suggested? I'll be waiting. Matilda

Date:

22 Mar 2006

Time:

21:03:04

Comments

First, let me thank you for calling me friend, and I hope it was meant sincerely. I also hope you will agree that although neither of us is impartial, we should try to maintain some degree of objectivity. In any case, we can still celebrate our freedom, our diversity, and our ability to discuss our differences without fear of retribution from some government entity.

Now, Ami, I will give one in one list, we can discuss it, and then you it will be your turn to give one that we discuss, but if you don't like the one I give, we will skip it and go on to the next.

Like JFK and Reagan before him, the best thing I think Bush has done is to cut taxes.

Your turn to hack away at my choice and to present yours.

Date:

23 Mar 2006

Time:

05:43:32

Comments

My dear friends.....Here's the best news I've received recently. My son-in-law, Steve Francis, is now running for the US Congress in Indiana. He has a website I wish you would visit: www.francisforuscongress.com He is a remarkable man, liberal of course, and would make an excellent representative. He's HONEST as well as highly intelligent and caring. I wish you could all vote for him. But I know there are not too many of my readers in Indiana....too bad. Matilda

Date:

24 Mar 2006

Time:

06:55:46

Comments

About the "good and bad" lists.....you mention cutting taxes. I'm not too well informed on world economics, but it seems to me, and to millions of other Americans, that Bush's tax cuts favored a small percentage of the population....the scandalously rich who did not need the cuts. The CEO's make about 500 times the daily minimum wage per HOUR. That's obscene!!! Plus they pay hardly any taxes and have overseas addresses to avoid paying other taxes. This is money needed for programs for the poor. When you consider that the US of A is the richest country in the world, and that we have over 45 million people (including many children) with NO health coverage....it's hard to understand why tax cuts to these super rich is one of Bush's 'good' things. Who benefits from such an action except those who made huge campaign contributions to the Bush elections? I would have listed the tax cuts as one of the 'bad' things Bush has done. Matilda

Date:

24 Mar 2006

Time:

22:13:41

Comments

I would have to agree with you that you are not too well informed on world economics, nor on US economics, but that is easily remedied, and I will try to help with some easily verifiable data. To address your concerns, Bush's tax cuts did indeed favor a small percentage of the population: the half of us who do in fact pay taxes. The freeloaders did not get a tax cut because they do not pay taxes!!! The scandalously rich pay the majority of taxes to start with, to be exact the top 1% pay 35% of all taxes, and the top 25% pay 83% of all taxes. Remember, again, that the lowest 50% pay NO taxes. Since the tax cuts have gone into effect, the share the "rich" pay has gone up. Please note that in the eighties, the tax receipts went up by almost 100% despite tax cuts. If you do not undestand that, you could probably believe that raising taxes from 35% to 100% would triple the tax revenues. The median family with two dependents pays less than 7% of their income in taxes for the last period I could find, and that is the lowest in twenty years.

Regarding that myth about CEO's making 500 times the minimum wage per hour, that data was put out by the union spinsters, inflating the numerator and taking a small denominator. How many minimum wage earners are there in the industries with big salaried CEO's? That data was the result of taking the minimum wage and comparing that to the benefits of a small class of highly paid CEO's, but you will not find that in the democratic talking points. If you disagree, try to disapprove it with factual real life examples. The assertion that those highly paid CEO's pay no taxes is patently false, and I challenge you to prove otherwise. The "money needed for programs for the poor"...give me a break. What programs get the poor out of poverty? Those programs keep the poor in poverty. We have spent untold billions on the war on poverty, and forty years later, poverty rates are unchanged. Would you not say that it is a war we cannot win, and that we must pull out now? I have read your rants on a senseless war that is doing more damage than good and here is one you could better dedicate you efforts to. Pulllease don't give me any of that crap about the millions being uninsured. Many have made a choice to be uninsured because of the expense, because they are young and healthy. We all make choices. None go without health care. They CANNOT be denied treatment at any emergency room, and most have Medicaid or could get it. Do you have any idea how much a family can earn and still qualify for "the card"? If you do not, you have no right to comment on the subject until you have educated yourself. Which brings us back to why health insurance is so expensive: the cost of treatment for all including the uninsured is absorbed by those of us who pay. The hospitals and doctors adjust charges so they can stay afloat, and in so doing, the prices for those of us who do pay are raised to cover the cost of care for those who do not pay. I had to pay for some surgery recently, and while I was making arrangements with the hospital so I could pay the deductible, some piece of human flotsam was being coached on how to fill the government papers to get the hospital compensated at no cost to the patient. The same economics you did not understand are at work here again. If you would like some good basic economics books, I will recommend some.

Some benefit from Bush policies. Would you like to assert that no one benefits from Democratic policies with huge payoffs? Please, for your sake do not go there, I could easily disprove that.

Date:

24 Mar 2006

Time:

22:25:48

Comments

I just thought of a good introduction to economics. I cannot post the link, but do a search on yahoo for an interview with the Kenyan economist James Shikwati, entitled "please stop the aid". Try to understand his reasoning and the unintended consequences to foreign aid.

Date:

30 Mar 2006

Time:

03:43:48

Comments

"A patriot sets himself apart in his own country under his own flag, sneers at other nations and keeps an army of uniformed assassins on hand at heavy expense to grab slices of other people's countries and keep them from grabbing slices of his. In the intervals between campaigns he washes the blood off his hands and works for 'the universal brotherhood of man' - with his mouth." : Mark Twain, The Lowest Animal

= "This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism on command, senseless violence and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism." : Albert Einstein

= "Patriotism means advocating plunder in the interests of the privileged class of your particular country. The time will soon come when calling someone a patriot will be the deepest insult." -Ernest. B. Bax

Date:

31 Mar 2006

Time:

08:15:02

Comments

It's hard being a stickler about the Constitution sometimes.

I mean, you are considered sort of radical or a disruptor of the Democratic Party mid-term message (whatever that might be) to say that Bush should not act illegally. And the Stepford Republicans claim that you are aiding "the enemy," which is kind of strange since the Republicans on the Hill and in the White House ARE the enemy of democracy.

I mean, why bother with a legal system, a Constitution, a Congress, and so forth, if the "unitary executive" can do whatever he damn well pleases, the law be damned?

BuzzFlash heroes like Henry Waxman keep asking prickly questions about Bush's illegal behavior, such as how he came to sign a law that wasn't passed by both Houses of Congress. In case you need a brush-up on U.S. Government 101, what Bush did was sign a law that's not legally a law -- and no one but Waxman and a few other patriotic Congressional representatives seem to care.

It's certainly not been something that appears to be of much interest, if any, to the mainstream media.

But Waxman, as always, just keeps asking questions and denouncing Bush's illegal behavior, once again.

Standing up for the Constitution is just so old-fashioned and "yesterday," we guess.

Now, we don't have a nation of laws. It's a government run by men who think they are Masters of the Universe, subject to no law.

That's not a presidency; that's a crime.

From Buzzflash

Date:

31 Mar 2006

Time:

08:15:05

Comments

It's hard being a stickler about the Constitution sometimes.

I mean, you are considered sort of radical or a disruptor of the Democratic Party mid-term message (whatever that might be) to say that Bush should not act illegally. And the Stepford Republicans claim that you are aiding "the enemy," which is kind of strange since the Republicans on the Hill and in the White House ARE the enemy of democracy.

I mean, why bother with a legal system, a Consitution, a Congress, and so forth, if the "unitary executive" can do whatever he damn well pleases, the law be damned?

BuzzFlash heroes like Henry Waxman keep asking prickly questions about Bush's illegal behavior, such as how he came to sign a law that wasn't passed by both Houses of Congress. In case you need a brush-up on U.S. Government 101, what Bush did was sign a law that's not legally a law -- and no one but Waxman and a few other patriotic Congressional representatives seem to care.

It's certainly not been something that appears to be of much interest, if any, to the mainstream media.

But Waxman, as always, just keeps asking questions and denouncing Bush's illegal behavior, once again.

Standing up for the Constitution is just so old-fashioned and "yesterday," we guess.

Now, we don't have a nation of laws. It's a government run by men who think they are Masters of the Universe, subject to no law.

That's not a presidency; that's a crime.

From Buzzflash

Date:

31 Mar 2006

Time:

03:01:05

No  one I've asked has been able to explain to me WHY Bush has spent over 250 BILLION Dollars...and god only know how many lives, Iraqi and American....just for Oil.  It seems only logical to me that it would have been simpler, cheaper and more humane to simply BUY the F-----ing oil, no?   Sadaam would be only too happy to sell it to us, and even if he increased his normal price, it still would have been CHEAPER, EASIER AND KINDER to buy the oil.

 I read a short article recently by Noam Chomsky where he said..."Don't let anyone tell you this war is being fought to remove a tyrant and dictator.  There are plenty of other tyrants in the world that could and should be removed (by their own people with perhaps a little help from outside).  Do you think for a minute that if Iraq were growing celery and pickles, Bush would have gone to such an extent to remove him?!!"

When I think of what good things could have been done with that almost trillion dollars.....not only for our people here, but for working on substitutes for oil....not to mention the thousands of unnecessary deaths....... I could cry....in fact I do cry!!!!!

What I wouldn't give to be able to interview Bush UNDER OATH!!!  They made Clinton do it and put it on TV and the internet, and all for what....a thing that was none of their business
and that hurt no one.  How can we get Bush to testify under oath....and Cheney too...about 9/11, about Wellstone, about the war motives???

Matilda

Date:

31 Mar 2006

Time:

18:09:38

Comments

For oil? where is this oil? Guess I'm missing all that Iranien oil selling for cents on the dollar.

It seems only logical to me that it would have been simpler, cheaper and more humane to simply BUY the oil? Sadaam would be only too happy to sell it to us, and even if he increased his normal price, it still would have been CHEAPER, EASIER AND KINDER to buy the oil.

Kinder? Yeah "kind" is a funny word to describe a brutal murdering dictator like Saddam.

Do you think for a minute that if Iraq were growing celery and pickles, Bush would have gone to such an extent to remove him?!!"

Yeah, then we wouldn't have all that oil flowing over here from Iran. O yeah, we don't.

When I think of what good things could have been done with that almost trillion dollars.....not only for our people here, but for working on substitutes for oil....not to mention the thousands of unnecessary deaths....... I could cry....in fact I do cry!!!!!

Boohoo.

Our servicemen chose to join and give their lives for our country and to help others. Be proud for them. Cry for the thousands of innocents that were brutally tortured and killed by Saddam.

What I wouldn't give to be able to interview Bush UNDER OATH!!!

Even if they would testify under oath, you don't have the brains to be chosen to be the one doing the interview. Nor would you have the right, you're French.