or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Archives › Miscellaneous › Activism Archives › Anyone out there still love Dubya?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Anyone out there still love Dubya? - Page 3

post #41 of 67
Quote:
I'm just a kid
Welcome aboard, matey. Just be careful not to fall in with the wrong crowd here... I think you know what I mean.

I'll steer my boy to your website. He's into all of that funky Japanese stuff; I don't get it myself.
post #42 of 67
Quote:
The Green Party said *specifically* that there was no difference between Bush and Gore in 2000 so vote for them to send a *message.* Do people still think there is no difference.
I've been sending my message for years..............wish more would send it with me

Yes, I still think, basically, there is no difference.

But, this is T and meant for a different day, different thread.


Devi, too funny!!! Thanks.


El
post #43 of 67
Green Party Stuff...???

I think there are differences, but would like to see a greater divide between the two parties.

I've started a new thread on this subject called "Damned Big Difference."

Keep in mind it's a Democratic POV, but it might be of interest to some...?

At the very least it might make for good discussion.

Glad you enjoyed the funny.

Question for the bush lovers:

Quote:
What do you find 'conservative' about 'W'?
post #44 of 67
Your site is very cool and welcome.


What Hilary is saying is, don't hang around threads with him-- he is the wrong crowd around these parts!!

L
post #45 of 67

Austin is VERY cool

I will admit that I am from and live in Texas. Austin is like you've left the state. I can only count a handful of politically liberal people that I know personally out of Austin. In Austin, most of the people I know are liberal. They can be proud of their bumper stickers:LOL(There's even a nude "beach" here)

Did anyone get that Survivor Texas e-mail about how far you could go across the state with a liberal bumper sticker?
post #46 of 67
Thankies!! Most people find my website...off beat and irrelivent Oh well. Whats wrong with Hilary? I hardly know any one around here...hm.

-Sky
post #47 of 67
Quote:
Whats wrong with Hilary?
No one is quite sure what's wrong with me, or maybe they're just too polite to say. I like to think that I'm in a class by myself.
post #48 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by TiredX2
Nothing is wrong with Nader, the person. In fact, he has done some great thing. What is wrong with Nader, the presidential candidate, is that if he had not intentionally moved votes from Gore to Bush, we would now have Gore in the WH. The Green Party said *specifically* that there was no difference between Bush and Gore in 2000 so vote for them to send a *message.* Do people still think there is no difference.
I totally, totally agree. I voted for Nader against Clinton in '96 (because I was mad about welfare reform and knew he would win anyway) and I voted Gore in 2000, although I loved Nader. And I also feel anger about his role in Gore's "loss" (ahem).
post #49 of 67
The 2000 election should have been a no-brainer for Gore. He could have easily won the election, with or without Nader in the race. It's a testament to his lack of leadership and vision that he lost the election. I believe the SCA said something like "I beat the trifecta: peace, prosperity and incumbency." Or, something along those lines.

For the record, I abstained in the 2000 election, as I did in 1996, and as I probably will do again in 2004, unless the Dems nominate someone more palatable than Dick Gephardt or Joe Lieberman.
post #50 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by dfoy
Take a look at these 2 links. This has been painstakingly pieced together from news reports (reputable news agencies), interviews, and public government documents - some of which are now being supressed. Take the time to read all the way through. You will be shocked and incensed.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/t...eabridged.html
From this one:
Quote:
1988: Prior to this year, George Bush Jr. is a failed oil man. Three times friends and investors have bailed him out to keep him from going bankrupt. But in this year, the same year his father becomes President, some Saudis buy a portion of his small company, Harken, which has never worked outside of Texas. Later in the year, Harken wins a contract in the Persian Gulf and starts doing well financially. These transactions seem so suspicious that the Wall Street Journal in 1991 states it "raises the question of ... an effort to cozy up to a presidential son." Two major investors in Bush's company during this time are Salem bin Laden, Osama bin Laden's father, and Khaled bin Mahfouz. In 1999 bin Mahfouz will be placed under house arrest in Saudi Arabia for contributions he gave to organizations closely linked to al-Qaeda. His sister is married to Osama bin Laden.
That is just the beginning, it gets curiouser and curiouser . . . and it is not flaming trite - it is a collection of facts that can easily be proven. I agree with Kylix's observation on the mentality of "always".
post #51 of 67
El Casey S, I still have not gotten through everything on that site that I posted:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/index2.html


And you are right, everything there can be easily proven save the documents which used to be open public record that are now being suppressed by the administration.

I am now going through the "latest updates" portion of this website which documents the erosion of our freedoms/rights over the last few years.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/t...licestate.html

It is just as scary.

For a humorous satirical article from the Onion that is not far from the truth:

http://www.theonion.com/onion3847/bill_of_rights.html

QUOTE:
'The Fourth Amendment, which long protected citizens' homes against unreasonable search and seizure, was among the eliminated amendments. Also stricken was the Ninth Amendment, which stated that the enumeration of certain Constitutional rights does not result in the abrogation of rights not mentioned.

"Quite honestly, I could never get my head around what the Ninth Amendment meant anyway," said outgoing House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX), one of the leading advocates of the revised Bill of Rights. "So goodbye to that one."
post #52 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by Hilary Briss
The 2000 election should have been a no-brainer for Gore. He could have easily won the election, with or without Nader in the race. It's a testament to his lack of leadership and vision that he lost the election. I believe the SCA said something like "I beat the trifecta: peace, prosperity and incumbency." Or, something along those lines.

For the record, I abstained in the 2000 election, as I did in 1996, and as I probably will do again in 2004, unless the Dems nominate someone more palatable than Dick Gephardt or Joe Lieberman.
I'm curious. Why wouldn't you vote for a 3rd party?

Is it because you've been repeatedly told it is throwing your vote away? I used to feel guilty of that - but then I realized that the 3rd party candidates are exercising more democracy than the 2 biggies by getting in and trying in spite of the odds.

If Jesse Ventura could do it.................................

Also, there is a model that says if you don't vote it is the same as giving 2 votes to the guy that got in!!!!!!! What say you now, Mr. Briss?




El
post #53 of 67
Quote:
Why wouldn't you vote for a 3rd party?
Actually, I would have voted for Nader, but I just didn't want to go through the hassle of driving all the way out to the Diplomatic Quarter, enduring the U.S. Embassy security check, requesting an absentee ballot, and then voting, only to have my vote get counted months after the election.

I did vote 3rd party in 1992, which is the last presidential election I voted in. I tend to vote straight Democrat in local elections, and, in Wisconsin, being a Democrat still does mean something, on occasion.

I promise I'll vote for someone this time around, OK?
post #54 of 67
Quote:
Also, there is a model that says if you don't vote it is the same as giving 2 votes to the guy that got in!!!!!!!
Was that Cindy Crawford that said that???
post #55 of 67
I still support George W. Bush and I will vote for him in 2004 if he runs.

Gossamer
post #56 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by Hilary Briss
Was that Cindy Crawford that said that???


hehehehe

Actually, that was put to me 20+ yrs ago when I didn't vote. A little before Cindy's time. I'll hunt around and see if I can find something on it. I was drinking way back then and my memory is a bit pickled.........Christ, maybe I made the whole thing up


And, I'll hold you to your promise. Especially since you are here this time.


El
post #57 of 67
I'm sure people who LOVE him have their reasons, but his resume speaks volumes of the person he is...

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributor...23_resume.html

A few beauties:


Changed pollution laws for power and oil companies and made Texas the most polluted state in the Union. Replaced Los Angeles with Houston as the most smog ridden city in America. Cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas government to the tune of billions in borrowed money. Set record for most executions by any Governor in American history.


First president in US history to enter office with a criminal record.

First year in office set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history.

After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, presided over the worst security failure in US history.

Set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips than any other president in US history.

Cut unemployment benefits for more out of work Americans than any president in US history.

Set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12 month period.

Appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any president in US history.

Signed more laws and executive orders amending the Constitution than any president in US history.

Cut healthcare benefits for war veterans.

Set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind. (www.hyperreal.org/~dana/marches/)

Dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history.

My presidency is the most secretive and un-accountable of any in US history.

Members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US history. (the 'poorest' multi-millionaire, Condoleeza Rice has an Chevron oil tanker named after her).

First president in US history to have all 50 states of the Union simultaneously go bankrupt.

Presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud of any market in any country in the history of the world.

First president in US history to order a US attack and military occupation of a sovereign nation.

Created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States.

Set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any president in US history.

Removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of congressional oversight than any presidential administration in US history.

Rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant.

Withdrew from the World Court of Law.

Refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.

First president in US history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 US elections).

All-time US (and world) record holder for most corporate campaign donations.

Spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in US history.

Fist US president in history to have a majority of the people of Europe (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and stability.

First US president in history to have the people of South Korea more threatened by the US than their immediate neighbor, North Korea.

Set all-time record for number of administration appointees who violated US law by not selling huge investments in corporations bidding for government contracts.

Failed to fulfill my pledge to get Osama Bin Laden 'dead or alive'.

Entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down.

At least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine (Texas driving record has been erased and is not available).

AWOL from National Guard and Deserted the military during a time of war.

All records of my tenure as governor of Texas have been spirited away to my father's library, sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.

All records of any SEC investigations into my insider trading or bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.

All minutes of meetings for any public corporation I served on the board are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.

Any records or minutes from meetings I (or my VP) attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public review.
post #58 of 67
Quote:
At least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine (Texas driving record has been erased and is not available).
My cousin is the one who brought that tidbit to the attention of the public.
post #59 of 67
Wow, Illaria, thank you.

I'm certifiably depressed now. What a travesty this administration is to our nation and the world.
post #60 of 67

Shrub is not conservative.

Historically, "conservative" was used for people who didn't want change. They wanted life to go on as it always had, same social structure, same life. Radicals wanted overnight change. Reactionaries wanted to return to some time before when things had been 'better'. Liberals were not bound by what they considered antiquated forms of political and religious philosophy. Of course these have to change depending on the surrounding conditions.

I think that in the scheme of the 20th Century (into the 21st), Shrub is really a reactionary. He wants to return the country to the 1870's, 1880's, and 1890's. Robber Barons, cartels, tax scandals, child labor, economic barriers to basic justice, the lynchings, individuals getting franchises from the government for private gain in various out-of-sight-out-of-mind locations like Alaska, excessive patriotism whipped up by the press (leading into the Spanish-American War), etc. etc.

At the very least, I think that the word conservative should apply to people who don't want to go back to what the country was like before World War One.

To me, in my, I suppose, naive, stuck in a rut (or MUD as it is still spring) New England conservative way, Republicans should have a bit of nobless oblige. That implies, however patronizing it may be, a bit of feeling responsibility for those less fortunate than ourselves. Shrub does not have this. In general, New England Republicans see/saw the wisdom in funding education. He doesn't see that.

I should stop now. I sense a thesis developing here. I'll quit while you all are still reading.



New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Activism Archives
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Archives › Miscellaneous › Activism Archives › Anyone out there still love Dubya?