Can't you liberals get over the fact that YOU LOST. THE NATION HAS SPOKEN, AND THEY CHOSE GEORGE BUSH. YOU ARE THE MINORITY

:D

Yes...they need to accept it & hope that things work out.
All that matters is the country's health.

Too bad the Republicans couldn't do that very same thing for the 8 years that Clinton was in office.

I didn't like any of the candidates running. Maybe instead of telling young people to vote, they should just get better candidates. It would solve the problem with 18-21 year olds not voting, I can guarantee that.

Can't you liberals get over the fact that YOU LOST. THE NATION HAS SPOKEN, AND THEY CHOSE GEORGE BUSH. YOU ARE THE MINORITY

:D

why do you think there are bush haters here? what gave you that impression?

Can't you liberals get over the fact that YOU LOST. THE NATION HAS SPOKEN, AND THEY CHOSE GEORGE BUSH. YOU ARE THE MINORITY

:D
http://www.geocities.com/oh****27/clinton17.jpg

Bush rules, Kerry sucked

Can't you liberals get over the fact that YOU LOST. THE NATION HAS SPOKEN, AND THEY CHOSE GEORGE BUSH. YOU ARE THE MINORITY

:D

First of all, hatred of George Bush is not restricted to liberals.

Second if the man shows poor judgement everybody is just supposed to ignore it because the 51%-49% of the voting population picked him?

If the man ****s up, whether the man is democrat or republican, I will *****. Bush just happens to have ****ed up more in 1 term than any other president. I don't think ANY other president has ****ed up as much as he and gotten reelected. Illustrates how evangelical christians are excellent at ignoring reason and logic and blindly doing what Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson tell them to.

Bush rules, Kerry sucked

How old are you? Mentally and Physically?

Are you posting this because your dad voted for George Bush?

Bush rules, Kerry sucked
Here you have a guy who wins his first term under very dubious circumstances, creates a massive deficit with his tax cuts, half-asses and seldom supports education, cuts the budgets of a number of governmental programs in order pay for said tax cuts, rolls back over 200 environmental regulations, totally messes up Medicare, wants to privatize Social Security, promises to unite the country and yet sets out to create and widen the issues that divide us, refuses to admit to mistakes, essentially doesn't have the balls to face his critics, and to top it all off, he's committed us to a war with a half-ass plan to win the war and the peace, all the while having committed us to the war with a half-assed excuse.

Now, you tell me, just exactly how am I supposed to support this guy?

With everything I just mentioned, how the hell can you support him?

Bush is a national embarassment.

I certainly don't hate Bush, actually I find him amusing...however the CEO of the most powerful nation in the world wether republican or democrat better be one ****ing thing at the very least and that is BRILLIANT!

Even the biggest Bush lovers know Bush is not brilliant...say what you want about his dad but his pappa had the strongest coalition the world has ever seen and he did so in about an hour and a half..say what you want about Clinton but the man knew what the **** he was doing and saying...

McCain should have been nominated in 2000 but the bible belt republicans will never let that happen, if your pro gay, pro choice and have an R next to your name the establishement will drowned you and find someone they like better even if he is a quarter qualified..

Jab is right all that matters now is the state of the country...sooner or later there are going to be some real hard decision made about Iraq and Iran...I don't see a way out regardless of who is in the oval office...Bush has done nothing right up to this point...I hope he at least he has one good decision in him, or Karl Rove or Karen Hughes or whoever calls the shots...it's too bad it not the man the countrey elected though.

Bush should have been comissioner of baseball, not president of the united states!

I certainly don't hate Bush, actually I find him amusing...however the CEO of the most powerful nation in the world wether republican or democrat better be one ****ing thing at the very least and that is BRILLIANT!

Even the biggest Bush lovers know Bush is not brilliant...say what you want about his dad but his pappa had the strongest coalition the world has ever seen and he did so in about an hour and a half..say what you want about Clinton but the man knew what the **** he was doing and saying...

McCain should have been nominated in 2000 but the bible belt republicans will never let that happen, if your pro gay, pro choice and have an R next to your name the establishement will drowned you and find someone they like better even if he is a quarter qualified..

Jab is right all that matters now is the state of the country...sooner or later there are going to be some real hard decision made about Iraq and Iran...I don't see a way out regardless of who is in the oval office...Bush has done nothing right up to this point...I hope he at least he has one good decision in him, or Karl Rove or Karen Hughes or whoever calls the shots...it's too bad it not the man the countrey elected though.

Bush should have been comissioner of baseball, not president of the united states!


...GW is not the most eloquent speaker that there ever was. In fact, he ****s up at least once or twice in each speach he gives. However, he is still "brilliant" as his IQ testing and educational pedigree will tell you. Just because he is not a slick snake oil salesman that is trying to sell you a bridge with a silver tongue does not mean the man is not inteligent. Secondly, the situation in Iraq could be solved very easily and effectively if they would just ask me my opinion.:) I would pull all troops out of the old cold war soviet areas and Korea and re-deploy over 200,000 troops to Iraq. I would focus on crushing the insurgents and all of the terrorists who are making Iraq their home. What better opportunity to crush a growing terrorist hot spot and make sure democracy takes hold. The Korean situation is akin to a toddler throwing a tantrum and seeing what they can get out of it. Like say more candy(money) for example, lifted sanctions, etc. etc. I don't think that situation is a real threat at all and it's all just bravado and BS. We need to focus on the real threat and crushing those that would harm our troops.

It wasn't Bush-Cheney in '04, it was Bush-Diebold. See what oil can buy you? I find it ironic that this low-IQ president and his blood-soaked handlers are pissing and moaning about bringing democracy and fair elections to a couple of Arab states (one of them illegally occupied), yet democracy and fair elections are not permitted here in America.

So much for free enterprise, eh? Welcome to the Fourth Reich! Anyone who voted for Bush is a goddamn idiot.

Enough said.

Bush is a national embarassment.G - DUB is not the embarassment here, it is the 54 million plus combination of greedy scums and inbreds are the real embarrasment here.

Bush is a joke im sorry but if u wave to stevie wonder and ask why he didnt wave back u should be a garbage collector not running a country. I really dont care for Kerry either he is like a robot.

Here you have a guy who wins his first term under very dubious circumstances, creates a massive deficit with his tax cuts, half-asses and seldom supports education, cuts the budgets of a number of governmental programs in order pay for said tax cuts, rolls back over 200 environmental regulations, totally messes up Medicare, wants to privatize Social Security, promises to unite the country and yet sets out to create and widen the issues that divide us, refuses to admit to mistakes, essentially doesn't have the balls to face his critics, and to top it all off, he's committed us to a war with a half-ass plan to win the war and the peace, all the while having committed us to the war with a half-assed excuse.

Now, you tell me, just exactly how am I supposed to support this guy?

With everything I just mentioned, how the hell can you support him?


hey dodge how old are you man? just wondering. not trying to be smart ass its a serious question.

hey dodge how old are you man? just wondering. not trying to be smart ass its a serious question.


....He is 23 years young.

keep crying, liberals. waaaaaaaaaaaah waaaaaaaaaaah! go make out with your boyfriends.

I'm in the majority that picked Bush. How can you call it a close election when Bush won by popular vote on THE LARGEST MARGIN IN ELECTION HISTORY? Jesus, people, get with it!

Littlebigman....


Can someone dislike George Bush without being a liberal, in your eyes ?

I'm in the majority that picked Bush. How can you call it a close election when Bush won by popular vote on THE LARGEST MARGIN IN ELECTION HISTORY? Jesus, people, get with it!
http://www.geocities.com/oh****27/flip1a.jpg

I'm in the majority that picked Bush. How can you call it a close election when Bush won by popular vote on THE LARGEST MARGIN IN ELECTION HISTORY? Jesus, people, get with it!

Wow you wrote that in big letters. Unfortunately that is incorrect. Bush won by a 3million popular vote margin. Clinton beat his father by a 5 milliion popular vote margin.

Hell, Clinton beat Dole by 8 million votes. So I will say it in big letters so you understand. Check your facts dumbass.

bush is a retard, bring back my boy Clinton

bush is a retard, bring back my boy Clinton

There was things I didn't like about Clinton. But that is NOTHING compared to the laundry list of things I don't like about GW.

I voted for Nader in 2000 so I am not bitter about that election at all. I gave GW the benefit of the doubt and analyzed his performance objectively. He dissapointed at every turn.

McCain in 2008. PLEASE.

...GW is not the most eloquent speaker that there ever was. In fact, he ****s up at least once or twice in each speach he gives. However, he is still "brilliant" as his IQ testing and educational pedigree will tell you. Just because he is not a slick snake oil salesman that is trying to sell you a bridge with a silver tongue does not mean the man is not inteligent. Secondly, the situation in Iraq could be solved very easily and effectively if they would just ask me my opinion.:) I would pull all troops out of the old cold war soviet areas and Korea and re-deploy over 200,000 troops to Iraq. I would focus on crushing the insurgents and all of the terrorists who are making Iraq their home. What better opportunity to crush a growing terrorist hot spot and make sure democracy takes hold. The Korean situation is akin to a toddler throwing a tantrum and seeing what they can get out of it. Like say more candy(money) for example, lifted sanctions, etc. etc. I don't think that situation is a real threat at all and it's all just bravado and BS. We need to focus on the real threat and crushing those that would harm our troops.

You would pull out all american troops from the DMZ? Do you realize that the old soviet
Union is where a terrorist should go if he is looking for something nucluar? We are ****ed over there, we will either pull out in a year or so with about 2-3K dead or we will stay there for 5-10 years and loose 10K...either way the country will not take to democracy, democracy in Iraq in my mind is impossible.

It is too bad the mission wasn't sold to the American people as what it has become...had Bush told the world he was going into democratize Iraq there is no way the american people give the ok...W. was war first, diplomacy second and in my book that is dead wrong...especially when you jumped over thousands upon thousands to get in the guard...I can understand why warriors like McCain are for this war, they have been hawks there whole life but *****'s like Wolfowitz, Bush, and Cheney who had other things to do during Nam were far to gung ho on this mission.

We are ****ed in Iraq

http://infowars.com/articles/nwo/bush_inauguration_illuminati_hand_sign.htm

Here you have a guy who wins his first term under very dubious circumstances Only dubious to those that didn't want him elected. every time they recounted in Florida, Bush won. I live in a small state with only a few electoral votes. If we went with the majority vote in 2000, than my state had no voice. There are 50 states, why should California and New York decide who is president for the other 48 States? That is why we have the electoral collage.

creates a massive deficit with his tax cuts. 9-11 was an attack on our economy and our jobs, including yours. Think about that. That had more to do with our deficit than anything, directly or indirectly.
and seldom supports education Bush has spent more on education than any President in history.
cuts the budgets of a number of governmental programs in order pay for said tax cuts, rolls back over 200 environmental regulations, totally messes up Medicare
I would like to see you provide examples of this and how it negatively effected our country. Most of this is unnecessary or outdated programs. Such as asbestos mining regulations. Well in case you've been in a cave for 40 years, we don't use asbestos any more so why should we pay for a program to regulate it?
wants to privatize Social Security This is just totally untrue. When social security was created, it was never intended to be a retirement plan. It was to help prevent the elderly and disabled from becoming homeless and going hungry. GWB's plan is still government regulated, It simply allows you to invest your SS dollars. Therefore it is not "Privatization". In fact, it will become more like a retirement plan. Also, it's well known that SS is on a road to bankruptcy, someone has to do something. What's your solution?
promises to unite the country and yet sets out to create and widen the issues that divide us Now listen carefully, The division was "created by liberal democrats". The country was never more united than it was after 9-11. If everyone was united behind GWB in 2004,than the democratic party had no chance at winning the presidency. They had to create issues and blow things out of per portion, it was a matter of their survival. It was all campaign BS. If you bought into it, than shame on you.
refuses to admit to mistakes, essentially doesn't have the balls to face his critics You say that he didn't admit to mistakes, Well I say prove that he made one. To acknowledge the critics only served to benefit the critics. GWB had nothing to admit. And to say that GWB has no balls? Ask Saddam or the Taliban if they think GWB has no balls.
and to top it all off, he's committed us to a war with a half-ass plan to win the war and the peace Funny how you describe the most successful military campaign in the history of mankind as half assed. Just compare the US-Enemy Kill ratio to any other war in history. Please read the following slowly and carefully and hopefully you will get it - The United States conquered a heavily armed country the size of California with 35,000,000 people in three weeks, and two years later have lost a total of 1100 solders. Now all those lives are precious, but I challenge you to find a greater military success in history. Also, I challenge you to find another war in history that peace after major military operations was "planned" for. The term "Win the Peace" is exactly the divisive campaign rhetoric that was created by the democratic party. And you fell for it.
all the while having committed us to the war with a half-assed excuse. Saddam Hussein fired upon our aircraft in the no fly zone. this was a direct violation of the cease fire agreement he signed in 1991. This alone is enough to "resume" the original war in 1991. That is why GWB never "declared War" on Iraq.
As for the 9-11 commission, They only said they couldn't prove Saddam had anything to do with 9-11. That doesn't mean he didn't have anything to do with it. They just couldn't prove it.
Now to put this simply, I ask you hypothetically, are you more afraid of a gun - or the guy holding it? Now I ask you who in the world hated the US more than Saddam and Bin laden?
I could go on for ever about why we are there. The reasons are just and endless. Not to mention the murder of countless Iraqi citizens.

Now, you tell me, just exactly how am I supposed to support this guy? I think you made up your mind long ago not to support GWB.

With everything I just mentioned, how the hell can you support him? You fell for the divisive campaign rhetoric. The majority of us didn't.

Only dubious to those that didn't want him elected. every time they recounted in Florida, Bush won. I live in a small state with only a few electoral votes. If we went with the majority vote in 2000, than my state had no voice. There are 50 states, why should California and New York decide who is president for the other 48 States? That is why we have the electoral collage.

9-11 was an attack on our economy and our jobs, including yours. Think about that. That had more to do with our deficit than anything, directly or indirectly.
Bush has spent more on education than any President in history.

I would like to see you provide examples of this and how it negatively effected our country. Most of this is unnecessary or outdated programs. Such as asbestos mining regulations. Well in case you've been in a cave for 40 years, we don't use asbestos any more so why should we pay for a program to regulate it?
This is just totally untrue. When social security was created, it was never intended to be a retirement plan. It was to help prevent the elderly and disabled from becoming homeless and going hungry. GWB's plan is still government regulated, It simply allows you to invest your SS dollars. Therefore it is not "Privatization". In fact, it will become more like a retirement plan. Also, it's well known that SS is on a road to bankruptcy, someone has to do something. What's your solution?
Now listen carefully, The division was "created by liberal democrats". The country was never more united than it was after 9-11. If everyone was united behind GWB in 2004,than the democratic party had no chance at winning the presidency. They had to create issues and blow things out of per portion, it was a matter of their survival. It was all campaign BS. If you bought into it, than shame on you.
You say that he didn't admit to mistakes, Well I say prove that he made one. To acknowledge the critics only served to benefit the critics. GWB had nothing to admit. And to say that GWB has no balls? Ask Saddam or the Taliban if they think GWB has no balls.
Funny how you describe the most successful military campaign in the history of mankind as half assed. Just compare the US-Enemy Kill ratio to any other war in history. Please read the following slowly and carefully and hopefully you will get it - The United States conquered a heavily armed country the size of California with 35,000,000 people in three weeks, and two years later have lost a total of 1100 solders. Now all those lives are precious, but I challenge you to find a greater military success in history. Also, I challenge you to find another war in history that peace after major military operations was "planned" for. The term "Win the Peace" is exactly the divisive campaign rhetoric that was created by the democratic party. And you fell for it.
Saddam Hussein fired upon our aircraft in the no fly zone. this was a direct violation of the cease fire agreement he signed in 1991. This alone is enough to "resume" the original war in 1991. That is why GWB never "declared War" on Iraq.
As for the 9-11 commission, They only said they couldn't prove Saddam had anything to do with 9-11. That doesn't mean he didn't have anything to do with it. They just couldn't prove it.
Now to put this simply, I ask you hypothetically, are you more afraid of a gun - or the guy holding it? Now I ask you who in the world hated the US more than Saddam and Bin laden?
I could go on for ever about why we are there. The reasons are just and endless. Not to mention the murder of countless Iraqi citizens.

I think you made up your mind long ago not to support GWB.

You fell for the divisive campaign rhetoric. The majority of us didn't.G*ddamn your dumb! Stop smokin' Klitschko's pipe. How can anybody possibly like any of the Klitschko's?

Torino

Dodge should be ashamed for expressing his opinion? The only person who should be ashamed is you sir.

I don't see you holding yourself to the same standards of "PROVE IT" that he has.

GW Bush puts young men and women he doesn't know in harm's way and he is ballsy? No president who commits troops can be called ballsy. It is the ballsiness of the troops that won Afghanistan and Iraq. They deserve credit for being as successful as they have with such an ill concieved battle plan in Iraq.

Oh and successful operations are NOT measured in Kill Ratios. The success of an operation is determined by kill ratio AND meeting objectives. If the kill ratio is favorable AND the objectives were complete, then YES it is a success. Since this has not happened you are jumping the gun by calling it the most successful Military operation in history.

As far as mistakes go:
Lets see, 1500 soldiers dead after the mission was "Complete" and not counting the people who were kidnapped and beheaded. lets see, that sounds like a mistake to me.

I'd say more, but I have a class to go to. I'll get back.

Bush rules, Kerry sucked

Bush is an idiot. He held some kind of conference today and he kept interrupting the reporters. then they got pissed and started saying basically to shut up while they asked the questions.

Bush is an idiot. He held some kind of conference today and he kept interrupting the reporters. then they got pissed and started saying basically to shut up while they asked the questions.


....Cheech, obviously you have the political savy of an 8 year old and probably shouldn't comment. You know the old saying"it is better to keep ones mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt"?

Bush = Cunt

Bwaa ha ha ha

Dodge should be ashamed for expressing his opinion? The only person who should be ashamed is you sir.

I don't see you holding yourself to the same standards of "PROVE IT" that he has. Every thing I said is out in the open. It's all well known facts if you choose to see them.
As for being ashamed. I sleep well at night.

GW Bush puts young men and women he doesn't know in harm's way and he is ballsy? No president who commits troops can be called ballsy. It is the ballsiness of the troops that won Afghanistan and Iraq. They deserve credit for being as successful as they have with such an ill concieved battle plan in Iraq. Any time any president goes to war they get hammered by the hippies. GWB went to war knowing that people like you were going to try endlessly to end him. Also, it takes guts to go to war, you never know what will happen or if another country is going to join the enemy.
Oh, and like I said before, look at what the US military has accomplished, It was a brilliant battle plan. If you don't think so, what would you have realistically done better? It's not magic. It's real and people get killed.

Oh and successful operations are NOT measured in Kill Ratios. The success of an operation is determined by kill ratio AND meeting objectives. If the kill ratio is favorable AND the objectives were complete, then YES it is a success. Since this has not happened you are jumping the gun by calling it the most successful Military operation in history.I think you agree with me about the overwhelmingly one sided Kill ratio, so I guess you are arguing that The US hasn't finished yet. Well, lets revisit this topic in a week and maybe you will feel a little differently. So far they have succeeded in nearly every objective to date.That's reality.

As far as mistakes go:
Lets see, 1500 soldiers dead after the mission was "Complete" and not counting the people who were kidnapped and beheaded. lets see, that sounds like a mistake to me.
First, double check your numbers.
Second, GWB never said mission complete. And even if he did, their are many missions in any one war. It is well know that what he said was "end of major military operations" and that was true. He never said "The War is Over".
The campaign is over, Bush won. The BS can stop now.

I'd say more, but I have a class to go to. I'll get back.
This is the typical liberal view. For some reason you don't see that most of the rhetoric was created by the democratic party in an attempt to brainwash their way into the whitehouse.

GWB never sent young men and women into battle, he sent the highly trained, heavily armed, all volunteer US military to battle. I will give you simple advise. If you don't want to go to war then DON'T JOIN THE MILITARY. The US doesn't have an army to play hopscotch. If you join, you have to be willing to accept the possibility that you might go to war and they joined knowing that fact.

I noticed that you tried to pick what points to argue. Well do yourself a favor and look at what happened with your own eyes and then form an opinion. Don't take the word of a Liberal one-sided "fictional" film maker, A self motivated brainwashing professor, or a Presidential wannabe and his henchmen that only tell you what you what to hear regardless of the truth. Your not getting the big picture and blowing things out of per portion. Don't be foolish, think for yourself, don't let someone think for you.

....Cheech, obviously you have the political savy of an 8 year old and probably shouldn't comment. You know the old saying"it is better to keep ones mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt"?


whats ur point? i know what i like and i dont like. u feel the need to bash an 8 yr old then so be it.

Every thing I said is out in the open. It's all well known facts if you choose to see them.
As for being ashamed. I sleep well at night.

nobody should feel ashamed about a difference of opinion. See, you ASSUME that you are so right, when in fact the different opinions may not be totally right or wrong but just DIFFERENT.

PBDS, big_pappy and I bicker politically plenty. But I never said to them, nor they to I that either of us should be ashamed for the side we take.


Any time any president goes to war they get hammered by the hippies. GWB went to war knowing that people like you were going to try endlessly to end him. Also, it takes guts to go to war, you never know what will happen or if another country is going to join the enemy.

people like me? Again, you Neo Cons ASSUME you know EVERYTHING about the people who disagree with you. It takes guts to pick up a gun and go to war yes. But ORDERING other people to go? That doesn't take guts. I am not anti-war. But I think we should have a good reason to go before Americans are killed.

Oh, and like I said before, look at what the US military has accomplished, It was a brilliant battle plan. If you don't think so, what would you have realistically done better? It's not magic. It's real and people get killed.

What would have been better was, to not go in the first place. Because Saddam was CLEARLY NOT an immediate threat. Especially not when we have not secured Afghanistan.

As far as it being a brilliant plan....Please, tell me what the plan was. How did GW contribute to it?

I think you agree with me about the overwhelmingly one sided Kill ratio, so I guess you are arguing that The US hasn't finished yet. Well, lets revisit this topic in a week and maybe you will feel a little differently. So far they have succeeded in nearly every objective to date.That's reality.

Except for finding and neutralizing the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam supposedly had. Which was the primary justification for going there in the first place.


First, double check your numbers.
Second, GWB never said mission complete. And even if he did, their are many missions in any one war. It is well know that what he said was "end of major military operations" and that was true. He never said "The War is Over".
The campaign is over, Bush won. The BS can stop now.

Sorry I rounded off a bit. 1300 since the mission was supposedly complete.

And You are right, he never said mission complete. He said mission accomplished. Remember when he landed on the the aircraft carrier in full military uniform (he is the ONLY president to do so while in office BTW.)


This is the typical liberal view. For some reason you don't see that most of the rhetoric was created by the democratic party in an attempt to brainwash their way into the whitehouse.

Oh and the right wing doesn't do the same? By the way, I am not a liberal. I AM a registered Republican.

GWB never sent young men and women into battle, he sent the highly trained, heavily armed, all volunteer US military to battle. I will give you simple advise. If you don't want to go to war then DON'T JOIN THE MILITARY. The US doesn't have an army to play hopscotch. If you join, you have to be willing to accept the possibility that you might go to war and they joined knowing that fact.

He sent RESERVISTS. People who joined the military because the military has been marketed to these people as a good way to pay for college. And besides, its the RESERVES. Don't you USUALLY send in the reserves last? Granted he sent marines as well. I know many such people who joined up for that reason, I told em they were foolish for doing so. But they BELIEVED their recruiter when he told them THEY WERE NOT GETTING SENT.

I noticed that you tried to pick what points to argue. Well do yourself a favor and look at what happened with your own eyes and then form an opinion. Don't take the word of a Liberal one-sided "fictional" film maker, A self motivated brainwashing professor, or a Presidential wannabe and his henchmen that only tell you what you what to hear regardless of the truth. Your not getting the big picture and blowing things out of per portion. Don't be foolish, think for yourself, don't let someone think for you.

My opinion is formed with my own eyes. I don't get to watch the news much. I usually get it from USA Today online. I have NOT seen Farenheit 9-11 either.
What you failed to notice was that I said, I have a class to go to. Otherwise I would have loved to stay and jam with you. I have to go to class once again. I will try to revisit this this weekend hopefully I will have time.

Torino, Bush did not have the "guts" to fight when his nation needed him but he has the "guts" to send other young men into harms way. I wonder which one takes more "guts"?

They gave up the search foe WMD'S? Hmmm that's funny I thought that was the primary reason for us going to war in the first place. Where's Osama? Remember that guy? he was the one responsible for the deaths of 3,000 americans.
Did you see bush's limo with all that armor? Is there a way we can get some armor like that for our troops? We need to support those guys. So yesterday was the deadliest day since the war began? Over 1,400 dead u.s soldiers now since we accomplished the mission. What's that? Things are getting better? Wake up people!!!!!!!!!!!

Is this true that we have killed more innocent Iraqis than Saddam? Over 100,000! That's insane! That's no way to spread democracy. That's no way to win these people over is it?!!

Were not the ones bieng brainwashed here. I think it's the other way around. :mad:

Were not the ones bieng brainwashed here. I think it's the other way around. :mad:

Thats the thing about being brainwashed....you wouldn't know you are brainwashed. But a sign of being brainwashed is being absolutely and fanatically certain that you are right and all that is not covered by what you know is wrong.

Liberals are going to hate Rebublicans, no matter who they put in. As you all on this site get older, you'll realize one day how the rest of the world functions. When your young and dumb, (easily influenced and emotionally controlled) you'll be a democrat. When your older and wiser (more experienced to be exact) you'll be repbulican. It's the way its always been. Liberals don't do a god damn thing but give lip service. Maybe that's why their still around today. People would rather have smoke blown up their ass than hear the truth.

Liberals are going to hate Rebublicans, no matter who they put in. As you all on this site get older, you'll realize one day how the rest of the world functions. When your young and dumb, (easily influenced and emotionally controlled) you'll be a democrat. When your older and wiser (more experienced to be exact) you'll be repbulican. It's the way its always been. Liberals don't do a god damn thing but give lip service. Maybe that's why their still around today. People would rather have smoke blown up their ass than hear the truth.


...Tell it like it is colonel!!! The only ones who remain libs when they get older have been influenced by their parents and conditioned to believe they must be Kennedy democrats.

Liberals are going to hate Rebublicans, no matter who they put in. As you all on this site get older, you'll realize one day how the rest of the world functions. When your young and dumb, (easily influenced and emotionally controlled) you'll be a democrat. When your older and wiser (more experienced to be exact) you'll be repbulican. It's the way its always been. Liberals don't do a god damn thing but give lip service. Maybe that's why their still around today. People would rather have smoke blown up their ass than hear the truth.
Who said anything about hating republicans?

Q: How many Bush Administration officials does it take to screw in a light bulb?

A: None. There is nothing wrong with the light bulb; its conditions are improving every day. Any reports of its lack of incandescence are a delusional spin from the liberal media. That light bulb has served honorably, and anything you say undermines the lighting effect. Why do you hate freedom?

nobody should feel ashamed about a difference of opinion. See, you ASSUME that you are so right, when in fact the different opinions may not be totally right or wrong but just DIFFERENT.

PBDS, big_pappy and I bicker politically plenty. But I never said to them, nor they to I that either of us should be ashamed for the side we take.

I don't understand how expressing my opinion with facts, means that I'm saying no one else is entitled to one. If I say someone should be ashamed of themselves, that's my opinion and I'm entitled to it. Your complaining about this just sounds like you whining - IMO.


people like me? Again, you Neo Cons ASSUME you know EVERYTHING about the people who disagree with you. It takes guts to pick up a gun and go to war yes. But ORDERING other people to go? That doesn't take guts. I am not anti-war. But I think we should have a good reason to go before Americans are killed.


What would have been better was, to not go in the first place. Because Saddam was CLEARLY NOT an immediate threat. Especially not when we have not secured Afghanistan.

As far as it being a brilliant plan....Please, tell me what the plan was. How did GW contribute to it?



Except for finding and neutralizing the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam supposedly had. Which was the primary justification for going there in the first place.

So I guess you are saying if the battle plan is bad, it's GWB's fault, but if it's good, GWB had nothing to do with it? And you expect me to argue realistically with you?

One of the many reasons the US went to Iraq was WMD. Why did Saddam have 3000 Bio-Chem suits without WMD? Why did he need WMD delivery systems like Al-samoud missiles, or bio-nuke-chem artillery shells? Why did he evade inspectors for years? To think that he didn't have them would be foolish after he used Bio and Chem Weapons to kill hundreds of thousands of Iranians and Iraqi citizens. How hard would it be to hide a 55 gallon drum of anthrax in a country the size of California?

Saddam Hussein was open about his hatred for the US. He openly vowed that if he had one Nuclear Missile he would launch it at the US. What if the US did nothing and 200,000 people died in LA from a bio attack. Would you then say The US should have done something sooner? I would rather invade Iraq and be wrong about WMD (although I don't think the US is wrong) than not invade and suffer the consequences.

Reality is,.... this is just ONE of many reasons the US invaded.

Sorry I rounded off a bit. 1300 since the mission was supposedly complete.

And You are right, he never said mission complete. He said mission accomplished. Remember when he landed on the the aircraft carrier in full military uniform (he is the ONLY president to do so while in office BTW.)

First it's 1500, now 1300. Raising the KIA# 13.5% is not just a bit. And the KIA# isn't 1300 either. This is exactly the campaign rhetoric and exaggeration I'm talking about. You are not being realistic.

Oh, and who cares if he flew a plane? That's just petty liberal complaining.

Once again, GWB didn't say "Mission Accomplished or Completed". Now please read carefully..... he said exactly "The end of major military operations". That's it.... Not Mission accomplished,... Not Mission Completed,... Not the War was Over. Pay attention ..... The sign on the aircraft carrier said "mission accomplished". Meaning that the mission of that carrier was completed. Ok? Get it now? That was all campaign BS that you are apparently still spreading around.


Oh and the right wing doesn't do the same? By the way, I am not a liberal. I AM a registered Republican. I didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday.



He sent RESERVISTS. People who joined the military because the military has been marketed to these people as a good way to pay for college. And besides, its the RESERVES. Don't you USUALLY send in the reserves last? Granted he sent marines as well. I know many such people who joined up for that reason, I told em they were foolish for doing so. But they BELIEVED their recruiter when he told them THEY WERE NOT GETTING SENT.

Reserves or not , what difference does it make. You sign the same oath either way. Are you saying no one read the document?
The more we argue the weaker your argument gets. Your "recruiter said this or that" is just another one of your unrealistic, non provable statements.


My opinion is formed with my own eyes. I don't get to watch the news much. I usually get it from USA Today online. I have NOT seen Farenheit 9-11 either.
What you failed to notice was that I said, I have a class to go to. Otherwise I would have loved to stay and jam with you. I have to go to class once again. I will try to revisit this this weekend hopefully I will have time. I'm not going to argue with you forever. You have apparently formed your opinion regardless of what you base it on.

I truly believe that the war would be fought on the streets of the US if the terrorists weren't busy on the streets of Iraq. It's the doing nothing over the 1990's that got the US into the position it's in now.

History has taught us well what happens when we wait before acting. Just imagine what could have been avoided if The US invaded Germany in 1938. Just imagine if the US waited for Iraq to get a suitcase nuke.

Maybe in 4 years the US will have a President that will sit back and allow another Hitler to fester. Lucky for you, not this President.

Torino, Bush did not have the "guts" to fight when his nation needed him but he has the "guts" to send other young men into harms way. I wonder which one takes more "guts"?Actualy, It is a documented fact that GWB requested and was denied a transfer to Vietnam. GUTS?

They gave up the search foe WMD'S? Hmmm that's funny I thought that was the primary reason for us going to war in the first place. Where's Osama? Remember that guy? he was the one responsible for the deaths of 3,000 americans.
Did you see bush's limo with all that armor? Is there a way we can get some armor like that for our troops? We need to support those guys. So yesterday was the deadliest day since the war began? Over 1,400 dead u.s soldiers now since we accomplished the mission. What's that? Things are getting better? Wake up people!!!!!!!!!!!

35 Million people in Iraq.................. 1400 soldiers in Two years. even though It Is a terrible tragity to loose those men. Things must be pretty good over there. It's a miricle that it's only 1400 in a country of 35 million. I think those numbers are amaizing.

Is this true that we have killed more innocent Iraqis than Saddam? Over 100,000! That's insane! That's no way to spread democracy. That's no way to win these people over is it?!!Not even Close to True

You know why the anti Bush Rhetoric was so loud during the campaign? Because Liberals won't shut up, and consevatives just vote!

As an American.....I wish Liberals & Conservatives would both shut the **** up......stop worrying about what the other side's doing......& just help do what's best for the country.


Believe me, right-wingers are just as ****in' whiney as your average liberal.
I've listened to that guy Hannity.....my God, what a sorry lil' **** this guy is ! All he does is ***** about what's being said & done by the left-wingers....how the right-wing is constantly "under attack" by the liberal media machine.
I'm sure Hannity is against gay marriages.....but that doesn't keep me from thinking he's an absolute homo.


I say **** YOU to all liberals & conservatives. Get lives, sissies. Help the country out for a change.

Anyone eager to label someone else a "liberal" or "conservative" usually doesn't have anything else of substance to say.

Anyone who consistently identifies themself as a "liberal" or "conservative" usually doesn't think for themselves; they wait for the identifiable politician/commentator's stance and they echo it.

And to the Bohemain Grove boytoy who said that our current president wouldn't let another Hitler fester, he was correct; Bush wouldn't want anyone else stealing his thunder.

Anyone eager to label someone else a "liberal" or "conservative" usually doesn't have anything else of substance to say.

Anyone who consistently identifies themself as a "liberal" or "conservative" usually doesn't think for themselves; they wait for the identifiable politician/commentator's stance and they echo it.

And to the Bohemain Grove boytoy who said that our current president wouldn't let another Hitler fester, he was correct; Bush wouldn't want anyone else stealing his thunder.

??????............ LOL!!!!!

Hard to find substance in any of your posts. LOL!!!!!!!

??????............ LOL!!!!!

Hard to find substance in any of your posts. LOL!!!!!!!

You would think someone bold enough to congratulate another poster on their knowledge of history wouldn't need someone to spell out a reference to Bohemian Grove or its gay scandal.

But then, namecalling as a way to mock namecalling must give you a greater rise...

??????............ LOL!!!!!

Hard to find substance in any of your posts. LOL!!!!!!!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=542&e=5&u=/ap/bush_paid_columnists

More stuff to LOL at:

Third Columnist Was Paid by Bush Agency

2 hours, 24 minutes ago White House - AP Cabinet & State


By SIOBHAN McDONOUGH, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Department of Health and Human Services (news - web sites) said Friday that a third conservative columnist was paid to assist in promoting a Bush administration policy.



Columnist Mike McManus received $10,000 to train marriage counselors as part of the agency's initiative promoting marriage to build strong families, said Wade Horn, assistant secretary for children and families.


The disclosure came as the Government Accountability Office sent a letter to the Education Department on Friday asking for all materials related to its contract dealings with a prominent conservative media commentator.


That department, through a contract with the public relations firm Ketchum, hired commentator Armstrong Williams to produce ads that featured former Education Secretary Rod Paige and promoted President Bush (news - web sites)'s No Child Left Behind law. The contract also committed Williams, who is black, to provide media access for Paige and to persuade other black journalists to talk about the law.


Federal law bans the use of public money on propaganda.


The Education Department received the GAO's letter and is reviewing it, said department spokeswoman Susan Aspey. "Secretary Spelling has made it very clear she is getting to the bottom of this."


Margaret Spellings started this week, replacing Paige.


In a letter to Sens. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, dated Friday, Spellings wrote, "At this point, what I can say is that at a minimum, there were errors of judgments at the Department, and I am diligently working to get to the bottom of it all."


The lawmakers are the chairman and the ranking member of a panel that oversees education spending, and their subcommittee is looking into the matter.


Spellings also said the department has directed Ketchum to stop all work under the contract.


Earlier this week, Bush ordered his Cabinet secretaries not to hire columnists to promote administration agendas. The declaration was prompted by reports that Williams and another columnist, Maggie Gallagher, had been paid by the administration.


All three columnists failed to disclose to their readers their relationships with the administration.


Health and Human Services (news - web sites)' Horn stressed McManus was not paid to write favorably to about the administration. Still, he said, HHS has now implemented a rule to prohibit the use of outside consultants or contractors who have any connection with the press.


"There's a growing misperception that taxpayers' money is being used to pay columnists to use their position in the media to portray the administration in a positive light," Horn said. "I felt a compelling need to draw a bright line in order to restore the public's confidence that we are not doing that."


McManus was hired by the Lewin Group, which had a contract with HHS to support community-based programs. As co-founder and president of the nonprofit group Marriage Savers, his expertise was applied to help the community-based programs to build "the capacity to develop healthy marriage initiatives," Horn said.


The Institute for Youth Development, which got a grant from HHS, also is paying Marriage Savers $49,000 to offer guidance to unmarried couples who are having children, Horn said.


McManus has written supportively about the HHS marriage initiative in many of his columns since the consulting work began in January 2003.





McManus' weekly column appears in about 50 newspapers. He would not comment Friday but said he planned to issue a statement.

HHS spokesman Bill Pierce said he was unaware of any other columnists or commentators who were being paid to do work for the department.

Determining who is considered a journalist isn't always easy, Horn said.

"Oftentimes they will be experts in an area, write op-eds, be a media personality, write columns," he said. "The question really is: Is it legitimate for the government to draw upon that?"

Gallagher apologized this week to readers for not disclosing a $21,500 contract with HHS to help create materials promoting the marriage initiative.

The Education Department paid Williams $240,000 to produce television and radio ads promoting the No Child Left Behind Act. Williams has apologized and called it a mistake in judgment not to disclose that the administration was paying him.

Sens. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., had requested the GAO to expand a continuing inquiry into the matter.

"The issue here isn't just whether a journalist violated ethics, but whether the Bush Administration broke the law," Lautenberg said Friday. "If the GAO finds that the payment to Armstrong Williams was an illegal use of taxpayer dollars, then the money should be returned and Education Department officials should be held accountable."

USA Today first reported the McManus contract Friday

I don't understand how expressing my opinion with facts, means that I'm saying no one else is entitled to one. If I say someone should be ashamed of themselves, that's my opinion and I'm entitled to it. Your complaining about this just sounds like you whining - IMO.

I don't care what you call it. As much as you tout Bush as a symbol of freedom, INCLUDING the freedom to dissent, you say dodge should be ashamed for excercising his freedom. I think that is hypocritcal.

So I guess you are saying if the battle plan is bad, it's GWB's fault, but if it's good, GWB had nothing to do with it? And you expect me to argue realistically with you?

I don't know where I said any of this. You said his plan was brilliant. I asked you 'what was his plan?' 'what did you find brilliant about it?' You are reading WAAAAY to much into what I say.

One of the many reasons the US went to Iraq was WMD. Why did Saddam have 3000 Bio-Chem suits without WMD? Why did he need WMD delivery systems like Al-samoud missiles, or bio-nuke-chem artillery shells? Why did he evade inspectors for years? To think that he didn't have them would be foolish after he used Bio and Chem Weapons to kill hundreds of thousands of Iranians and Iraqi citizens. How hard would it be to hide a 55 gallon drum of anthrax in a country the size of California?

That was the primary justification for WHY it was an urgency though.

Saddam Hussein was open about his hatred for the US. He openly vowed that if he had one Nuclear Missile he would launch it at the US. What if the US did nothing and 200,000 people died in LA from a bio attack. Would you then say The US should have done something sooner? I would rather invade Iraq and be wrong about WMD (although I don't think the US is wrong) than not invade and suffer the consequences.

Reality is,.... this is just ONE of many reasons the US invaded.


Kim Jong Il of North Korea has been OPENLY threatening the United States interests in South Korea with Nukes for the last year or so. Unlike Saddam, WE KNOW Jong Il has them. Why did GW say we would pursue a diplomatic solution with North Korea. Especially when the PEOPLE of North Korea have been suffering FAR worse than the people of Iraq. And they have been suffering for longer as well. Why was Saddam and Iraq more of an urgency that Jong Il and Korea?

First it's 1500, now 1300. Raising the KIA# 13.5% is not just a bit. And the KIA# isn't 1300 either. This is exactly the campaign rhetoric and exaggeration I'm talking about. You are not being realistic.

I rounded off. I explainted this to you. It was not rhetoric, I pulled the number out of the top of the head. Also if it isn't 1300 please provide the correct numbers. Or don't you know.

Oh, and who cares if he flew a plane? That's just petty liberal complaining.

Once again, GWB didn't say "Mission Accomplished or Completed". Now please read carefully..... he said exactly "The end of major military operations". That's it.... Not Mission accomplished,... Not Mission Completed,... Not the War was Over. Pay attention ..... The sign on the aircraft carrier said "mission accomplished". Meaning that the mission of that carrier was completed. Ok? Get it now? That was all campaign BS that you are apparently still spreading around.

Oh so the banner was JUST for the cruiser? Are you making this **** up, or did you actually read that from somebody.

I mean if that is a military tradition for an individual cruiser to hoist a banner saying "Mission accomplished" if it applies ONLY to that cruiser, I will stand corrected. Otherwise, where are you getting that from?


I didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday..

How old are you?

Reserves or not , what difference does it make. You sign the same oath either way. Are you saying no one read the document?
The more we argue the weaker your argument gets. Your "recruiter said this or that" is just another one of your unrealistic, non provable statements. ..

Well, I wasn't in the recruiting office when the recruiter told one of my high school friends that he would not be sent. I can only go on what my friend told me.

I'm not going to argue with you forever. You have apparently formed your opinion regardless of what you base it on...

Say it until you believe it. That seems to be your tactic. I don't think I have said anything that is

I truly believe that the war would be fought on the streets of the US if the terrorists weren't busy on the streets of Iraq. It's the doing nothing over the 1990's that got the US into the position it's in now.

You have been watching too many Chuck Norris movies. Al Queda would NEVER fight "on the streets of the US". That is EVERY BIT as stupid as going into their backyard and engaging them in their streets (oh wait we did that already.). You believe there are enough terrorists to INVADE us? Morever that they have the military capacity for such an open attack? You are losing credibility RAPIDLy.

History has taught us well what happens when we wait before acting. Just imagine what could have been avoided if The US invaded Germany in 1938. Just imagine if the US waited for Iraq to get a suitcase nuke.

You are REALLY going to compare Germany to Iraq? If Hitler was taken out, then who is to say that Stalin wouldn't roll right over Germany and spread communism all the way to France.

Speaking of Stalin who WAS our ally.....how many jews did HE kill?

Maybe in 4 years the US will have a President that will sit back and allow another Hitler to fester. Lucky for you, not this President.

Kim Jong Il. Hello? I was MUCH more scared of what North Korea would do than Iraq.

??????............ LOL!!!!!

Hard to find substance in any of your posts. LOL!!!!!!!

BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT READING THEM. You are wearing your blinders.

Well, that was my piece. I am done for now. Got work to do.

Oh yeah,

Torino that "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" philosophy is extremely flawed. Any Republican NOT part of GW's coalition (Pat Buchanan, John McCain, Richard Luger for instance) will tell you that.

It is flawed because 'THEY' are probably already here. If Al Queda was ALL in Iraq that would be one thing, but they are not. They are in Syria, Iran and Afghanistan. So really, we aren't fighting them THERE at all.

Obviously Torino believes everything he reads from the Bush propaganda machine without checking his facts. The Funny thing is that Bush really isn't even a conservative.

Obviously Torino believes everything he reads from the Bush propaganda machine without checking his facts. The Funny thing is that Bush really isn't even a conservative.

I know! Nothing about his policy is at ALL conservative.

As an American.....I wish Liberals & Conservatives would both shut the **** up......stop worrying about what the other side's doing......& just help do what's best for the country.


Believe me, right-wingers are just as ****in' whiney as your average liberal.
I've listened to that guy Hannity.....my God, what a sorry lil' **** this guy is ! All he does is ***** about what's being said & done by the left-wingers....how the right-wing is constantly "under attack" by the liberal media machine.
I'm sure Hannity is against gay marriages.....but that doesn't keep me from thinking he's an absolute homo.


I say **** YOU to all liberals & conservatives. Get lives, sissies. Help the country out for a change.

Here Here!

Kim Jong Il of North Korea has been OPENLY threatening the United States interests in South Korea with Nukes for the last year or so. Unlike Saddam, WE KNOW Jong Il has them. Why did GW say we would pursue a diplomatic solution with North Korea. Especially when the PEOPLE of North Korea have been suffering FAR worse than the people of Iraq. And they have been suffering for longer as well. Why was Saddam and Iraq more of an urgency that Jong Il and Korea? Iraq was one of the axis of evil, North Korea is another.



I rounded off. I explainted this to you. It was not rhetoric, I pulled the number out of the top of the head. Also if it isn't 1300 please provide the correct numbers. Or don't you know.

My point was that you will exaggerate and blow the truth out of per potion to suit your agenda.

Well, I wasn't in the recruiting office when the recruiter told one of my high school friends that he would not be sent. I can only go on what my friend told me.

So you will spread propaganda and try to influence who is elected the leader of the free world based on a non provable incident your friend told you? I consider this type of voting dangerous. This is what I mean by "see with your own eyes"

You have been watching too many Chuck Norris movies. Al Queda would NEVER fight "on the streets of the US". That is EVERY BIT as stupid as going into their backyard and engaging them in their streets (oh wait we did that already.). You believe there are enough terrorists to INVADE us? Morever that they have the military capacity for such an open attack? You are losing credibility RAPIDLy.
I apologies. I shouldn't have assumed that you would understand such complex analogies.

To put it plainly, The US was attacked "on the streets of the US" on 9-11. The US fight in Iraq and Afghanistan are partly responsible for why the US hasn't had another terrorists attack. Who said anything about terrorists invading the US?
I'm not sure if you are blowing this out of per portion again or if you are really that narrow minded.

Kim Jong Il. Hello? I was MUCH more scared of what North Korea would do than Iraq.

I think the story behind NK is to first have China apply pressure on NK. China has more at stake and more influence on them.

Having said that, Who's to say they aren't next?

This argument is getting old. I have nothing to gain from it.

Liberals and Democrats are two different things. YOu can be liberal Republican. If youre referring to all the Michael Moore idiots and Deaniacs then just say "lowlives" or something like that

. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=542&e=5&u=/ap/bush_paid_columnists

More stuff to LOL at:

Third Columnist Was Paid by Bush Agency

2 hours, 24 minutes ago White House - AP Cabinet & State


By SIOBHAN McDONOUGH, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Department of Health and Human Services (news - web sites) said Friday that a third conservative columnist was paid to assist in promoting a Bush administration policy.



Columnist Mike McManus received $10,000 to train marriage counselors as part of the agency's initiative promoting marriage to build strong families, said Wade Horn, assistant secretary for children and families.


The disclosure came as the Government Accountability Office sent a letter to the Education Department on Friday asking for all materials related to its contract dealings with a prominent conservative media commentator.


That department, through a contract with the public relations firm Ketchum, hired commentator Armstrong Williams to produce ads that featured former Education Secretary Rod Paige and promoted President Bush (news - web sites)'s No Child Left Behind law. The contract also committed Williams, who is black, to provide media access for Paige and to persuade other black journalists to talk about the law.


Federal law bans the use of public money on propaganda.


The Education Department received the GAO's letter and is reviewing it, said department spokeswoman Susan Aspey. "Secretary Spelling has made it very clear she is getting to the bottom of this."


Margaret Spellings started this week, replacing Paige.


In a letter to Sens. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, dated Friday, Spellings wrote, "At this point, what I can say is that at a minimum, there were errors of judgments at the Department, and I am diligently working to get to the bottom of it all."


The lawmakers are the chairman and the ranking member of a panel that oversees education spending, and their subcommittee is looking into the matter.


Spellings also said the department has directed Ketchum to stop all work under the contract.


Earlier this week, Bush ordered his Cabinet secretaries not to hire columnists to promote administration agendas. The declaration was prompted by reports that Williams and another columnist, Maggie Gallagher, had been paid by the administration.


All three columnists failed to disclose to their readers their relationships with the administration.


Health and Human Services (news - web sites)' Horn stressed McManus was not paid to write favorably to about the administration. Still, he said, HHS has now implemented a rule to prohibit the use of outside consultants or contractors who have any connection with the press.


"There's a growing misperception that taxpayers' money is being used to pay columnists to use their position in the media to portray the administration in a positive light," Horn said. "I felt a compelling need to draw a bright line in order to restore the public's confidence that we are not doing that."


McManus was hired by the Lewin Group, which had a contract with HHS to support community-based programs. As co-founder and president of the nonprofit group Marriage Savers, his expertise was applied to help the community-based programs to build "the capacity to develop healthy marriage initiatives," Horn said.


The Institute for Youth Development, which got a grant from HHS, also is paying Marriage Savers $49,000 to offer guidance to unmarried couples who are having children, Horn said.


McManus has written supportively about the HHS marriage initiative in many of his columns since the consulting work began in January 2003.





McManus' weekly column appears in about 50 newspapers. He would not comment Friday but said he planned to issue a statement.

HHS spokesman Bill Pierce said he was unaware of any other columnists or commentators who were being paid to do work for the department.

Determining who is considered a journalist isn't always easy, Horn said.

"Oftentimes they will be experts in an area, write op-eds, be a media personality, write columns," he said. "The question really is: Is it legitimate for the government to draw upon that?"

Gallagher apologized this week to readers for not disclosing a $21,500 contract with HHS to help create materials promoting the marriage initiative.

The Education Department paid Williams $240,000 to produce television and radio ads promoting the No Child Left Behind Act. Williams has apologized and called it a mistake in judgment not to disclose that the administration was paying him.

Sens. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., had requested the GAO to expand a continuing inquiry into the matter.

"The issue here isn't just whether a journalist violated ethics, but whether the Bush Administration broke the law," Lautenberg said Friday. "If the GAO finds that the payment to Armstrong Williams was an illegal use of taxpayer dollars, then the money should be returned and Education Department officials should be held accountable."

USA Today first reported the McManus contract Friday
These stories went back and forth on both sides, Kerry and Bush. Nothing ever came of any of them. They are ALL just BS propaganda to me.

I find it very telling about you that you would only pick one regarding Bush. Hope you didn't spend too much time putting this together. :)

I think we can all agree that it was a good thing to capture Saddam. Now the people of Iraq can vote for their leaders. :)

.
These stories went back and forth on both sides, Kerry and Bush. Nothing ever came of any of them. They are ALL just BS propaganda to me.

I find it very telling about you that you would only pick one regarding Bush. Hope you didn't spend too much time putting this together. :)

Actually this story has been getting quite a bit of press. I have seen something about it on CNN, FoxNews and on the radio.

Torino

In response to your Karma message: Debates are FAR more fun than ones in which everyone agrees doncha think?

Iraq was one of the axis of evil, North Korea is another.

If we were to weigh the ends of the axis.....North Korea would outweigh, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan COMBINED.

My point was that you will exaggerate and blow the truth out of per potion to suit your agenda.

My agenda is the safety people I love. MY beliefs represent what I believe allows for the happiest existance of those people and myself.

So you will spread propaganda and try to influence who is elected the leader of the free world based on a non provable incident your friend told you? I consider this type of voting dangerous. This is what I mean by "see with your own eyes"

Both of these friends I spoke of voted for GW in the first election. Another one voted for him in the second (that was before he got sent.) I don't know about you, but if I am told such a story by my friends I believe it. I see no reason why they would lie to me.

I apologies. I shouldn't have assumed that you would understand such complex analogies.

To put it plainly, The US was attacked "on the streets of the US" on 9-11. The US fight in Iraq and Afghanistan are partly responsible for why the US hasn't had another terrorists attack. Who said anything about terrorists invading the US?
I'm not sure if you are blowing this out of per portion again or if you are really that narrow minded.

I understand the analogy perfectly. I just think it is full of ****. The guys who pulled off 9-11 are not the same guys who do the actual ground fighting in places like Afghanistan and Iraq.

Oh and Iraq has NOT committed a single act of terrorism on US soil.


I think the story behind NK is to first have China apply pressure on NK. China has more at stake and more influence on them.

Having said that, Who's to say they aren't next?

This argument is getting old. I have nothing to gain from it.

If they are next, then we have stretched ourselves WAY too thin. An attack on North Korea right now would be very bad.

Torino.

Not to accuse you of responding selectively but.....I think you missed this part.

So I guess you are saying if the battle plan is bad, it's GWB's fault, but if it's good, GWB had nothing to do with it? And you expect me to argue realistically with you?

To which I replied.



I don't know where I said any of this. You said his plan was brilliant. I asked you 'what was his plan?' 'what did you find brilliant about it?' You are reading WAAAAY to much into what I say.

.
These stories went back and forth on both sides, Kerry and Bush. Nothing ever came of any of them. They are ALL just BS propaganda to me.

I find it very telling about you that you would only pick one regarding Bush. Hope you didn't spend too much time putting this together. :)

Yes. cut and paste can be quite time consuming.

Iraq Election -
Some Just Voted For Food
By Dahr Jamail
Inter Press Service
1-31-5

BAGHDAD (IPS) - Voting in Baghdad was linked with receipt of food rations, several voters said after the Sunday poll.*

Many Iraqis said Monday that their names were marked on a list provided by the government agency that provides monthly food rations before they were allowed to vote.

"I went to the voting centre and gave my name and district where I lived to a man," said Wassif Hamsa, a 32-year-old journalist who lives in the predominantly Shia area Janila in Baghdad. "This man then sent me to the person who distributed my monthly food ration."

Mohammed Ra'ad, an engineering student who lives in the Baya'a district of the capital city reported a similar experience.

Ra'ad, 23, said he saw the man who distributed monthly food rations in his district at his polling station. "The food dealer, who I know personally of course, took my name and those of my family who were voting," he said. "Only then did I get my ballot and was allowed to vote."

"Two of the food dealers I know told me personally that our food rations would be withheld if we did not vote," said Saeed Jodhet, a 21-year-old engineering student who voted in the Hay al-Jihad district of Baghdad.

There has been no official indication that Iraqis who did not vote would not receive their monthly food rations.

Many Iraqis had expressed fears before the election that their monthly food rations would be cut if they did not vote. They said they had to sign voter registration forms in order to pick up their food supplies.

Their experiences on the day of polling have underscored many of their concerns about questionable methods used by the U.S.-backed Iraqi interim government to increase voter turnout.

Just days before the election, 52 year-old Amin Hajar who owns an auto garage in central Baghdad had said: "I'll vote because I can't afford to have my food ration cut...if that happened, me and my family would starve to death."

Hajar told IPS that when he picked up his monthly food ration recently, he was forced to sign a form stating that he had picked up his voter registration. He had feared that the government would use this information to track those who did not vote.

Calls to the Independent Electoral Commission for Iraq (IECI) and to the Ministry of Trade, which is responsible for the distribution of the monthly food ration, were not returned.

Other questions have arisen over methods to persuade people to vote. U.S. troops tried to coax voters in Ramadi, capital city of the al-Anbar province west of Baghdad to come out to vote, AP reported.

IECI officials have meanwhile 'downgraded' their earlier estimate of voter turnout.

IECI spokesman Farid Ayar had declared a 72 percent turnout earlier, a figure given also by the Bush Administration.

But at a press conference Ayar backtracked on his earlier figure, saying the turnout would be nearer 60 percent of registered voters.

The earlier figure of 72 percent, he said, was "only guessing" and "just an estimate" that had been based on "very rough, word of mouth estimates gathered informally from the field." He added that it will be some time before the IECI can issue accurate figures on the turnout.

"Percentages and numbers come only after counting and will be announced when it's over," he said. "It is too soon to say that those were the official numbers."

Where there was a large turnout, the motivation behind the voting and the processes both appeared questionable. The Kurds up north were voting for autonomy, if not independence. In the south and elsewhere Shias were competing with Kurds for a bigger say in the 275-member national assembly.

In some places like Mosul the turnout was heavier than expected. But many of the voters came from outside, and identity checks on voters appeared lax. Others spoke of vote-buying bids.

The Bush Administration has lauded the success of the Iraq election, but doubtful voting practices and claims about voter turnout are both mired in controversy.

Election violence too was being seen differently across the political spectrum.

More than 30 Iraqis, a U.S. soldier, and at least 10 British troops died Sunday. Hundreds of Iraqis were also wounded in attacks across Baghdad, in Baquba 50km northeast of the capital as well as in the northern cities Mosul and Kirkuk.

The British troops were on board a C-130 transport plane that crashed near Balad city just northwest of Baghdad. The British military has yet to reveal the cause of the crash.

Despite unprecedented security measures in which 300,000 U.S. and Iraqi security forces were brought in to curb the violence, nine suicide bombers and frequent mortar attacks took a heavy toll in the capital city, while strings of attacks were reported around the rest of the country.

As U..S. President George W. Bush saw it, "some Iraqis were killed while exercising their rights as citizens."

More writing, photos and commentary at http://dahrjamailiraq.com

I am glad they had elections. If that is a step toward bringing the troops home.

I am glad they had elections. If that is a step toward bringing the troops home.

We're not done in that region by a long shot. My brother-in-law just got sent in on his second tour.

We're not done in that region by a long shot. My brother-in-law just got sent in on his second tour.

I am trying to maintain just a little optimism.

One of the friends I talked about whose recruiter BSed him about not being set is a funny case. He joined up after Iraq was already being occupied.
I told him:
Me:"Dude you are going to get sent."
Him:"NO, I don't think so. I joined the Air Force Reserves. The recruiter said I won't be sent."
Me:"He actually said that to you?"
Him:"Yeah. He said that we won't be sent to Iraq."
Me:"And you believe him?"
Him:"He wouldn't lie."
Me:"His job is to get people to sign up. He better ****ing lie! Who is gonna sign up if he tells people that there is a chance of being sent to Iraq?"

I told him if he is gonna join, to forget about the reserves and join all the way so he would get better training. Again, he didn't listen to me. Now he is in Iraq with reservist's pay and reservist's training.

If I join.....I am joining the Navy Reserves. And I am NOT getting off the boat.

I can't get involved in this thread this late at night. This kinda stuff gives me headaches.

If we were to weigh the ends of the axis.....North Korea would outweigh, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan COMBINED.



My agenda is the safety people I love. MY beliefs represent what I believe allows for the happiest existance of those people and myself.



Both of these friends I spoke of voted for GW in the first election. Another one voted for him in the second (that was before he got sent.) I don't know about you, but if I am told such a story by my friends I believe it. I see no reason why they would lie to me.



I understand the analogy perfectly. I just think it is full of ****. The guys who pulled off 9-11 are not the same guys who do the actual ground fighting in places like Afghanistan and Iraq.

Oh and Iraq has NOT committed a single act of terrorism on US soil.



If they are next, then we have stretched ourselves WAY too thin. An attack on North Korea right now would be very bad.If you want to believe that we went to war unjustly, or if Bush shouldn't be president, That's your opinion and you are entitled to it.
However, I don't think it's appropriate for you to imply I said something that I didn't. I never said "Iraq committed any Terrorist attacks on the US". Even though attempting to Kill a former president could be considered a terrorist attack or even an act of war.

Also, Iraq was a well known terrorist state, funding terrorist organizations such as Hammas and Hesbola. Knowing this fact, don't you think It's foolish to believe the former Iraqi government wouldn't have anything to do with a terror attack on the US? How can anyone shed such a light of innocence or be so naive?

After all, it's a war on terror, not a war on the terrorists that attack the US.

If you want to believe that we went to war unjustly, or if Bush shouldn't be president, That's your opinion and you are entitled to it.
However, I don't think it's appropriate for you to imply I said something that I didn't. I never said "Iraq committed any Terrorist attacks on the US". Even though attempting to Kill a former president could be considered a terrorist attack or even an act of war.

Also, Iraq was a well known terrorist state, funding terrorist organizations such as Hammas and Hesbola. Knowing this fact, don't you think It's foolish to believe the former Iraqi government wouldn't have anything to do with a terror attack on the US? How can anyone shed such a light of innocence or be so naive?

After all, it's a war on terror, not a war on the terrorists that attack the US.

The problem with that is, Terrorism is a tactic. HOW CAN WE DECLARE WAR ON A TACTIC?

The war in Afganistan was justifiable. Going after Osama and the Taliban after the terrorist attacks of 9-11 should have been done sooner tham it was in my opinion. The war in Iraq was never justifiable and the Bush administration has tried to alter the reason for our invasion and the goals of the mission several times already. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that we went into Iraq to divert attention away from our embarrassing failure to capture/kill osama and to avenge Bush Sr. and finish the job he should have completed.

Remember when the Bush propaganda machine was spreading the word that Bin Laden was dead. :rolleyes:

You Republicans are so gullible and have such selective memories. lol :p

The problem with that is, Terrorism is a tactic. HOW CAN WE DECLARE WAR ON A TACTIC?

OK, now I'm convinced you are just creating arguments for the sake of arguing. That's unfortunate, because you are the only one that seemed mature enough to separate some of your personal feelings from reality on this thread. That's why I've mostly just responded to you. Some posters on this thread are just saying anything to discredit Bush, reality or not.

Terrorism is an act of war and is now considered a declaration of war. You fight those that conduct terror attacks. Every government is responsible for the actions of it's people and every government must attempt to suppress terrorist within it's borders. If they don't attempt to suppress terrorists, then they are just as guilty as the terrorists themselves.

Now I'm done playing games. This is a BS argument.

http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-editorialb4159329feb27,0,6975852,print.story?coll= ny-editorials-headlines

Shame on Bush for rights violation

February 27, 2005

An American citizen jailed and maybe tortured in Saudi Arabia for 20 months, possibly at the behest of the U.S. government, is the latest outrage in a litany of detention excesses in the war on terror.

That list of shame includes ghost detainees kept off the books by the CIA, captives abused in U.S.-run prisons abroad and prisoners designated enemy combatants and denied basic due process.

President George W. Bush should show more respect for the Constitution. Ceding the moral high ground on rights will do little to help the war effort and much to destroy the nation's standing as a champion of freedom.

Ahmed Omar Abu Ali was arrested June 11, 2003, while taking a final exam at the Islamic University of Medina in Saudi Arabia. Although charged with no crime there, he was held for 20 months.

His family sued in federal court seeking his return to the United States. According to evidence they presented, Abu Ali was held at the behest of the U.S. government and tortured by his captors. Rather than contest that astounding allegation, the government argued that U.S. courts had no jurisdiction.

U.S. District Judge John Bates rejected that view. He ruled in December that there was persuasive, unrebutted evidence that the United States initiated Abu Ali's arrest, interrogated him in the Saudi prison, controlled his detention and was "keeping Abu Ali in Saudi Arabia to avoid constitutional scrutiny in the United States."

He was returned to the United States last week and charged with providing material support to al Qaida. Abu Ali may or may not be what officials say he is, a terrorist wannabe who conspired to assassinate Bush. That will be judged in a court of law now, as it should be.

The nation needs to be aggressive in preventing terrorism. But pulling an end run around the Constitution, as it seems the administration did, is abominable. It erodes important elements of what makes this nation special: Its respect for the rule of law and individual rights.

I've been trying to stay away from the heated political discussion lately, but I couldn't sit still and let this article go by unnoticed.

I mean, our president is an NWO pawn, a vicious sold-his-soul-to-the-devil child murderer, certified nutcase, rights violator, blatant liar, and all-around piece of crap, but at least I'd say he's kind of ....sexy........?!?

on a side note, way to go Italian women...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=765&e=1&u=/nm/20050414/people_nm/bush_esquire_dc

Esquire Poll Gives Bush Low Marks for Sex Appeal

Thu Apr 14, 6:57 PM ET

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - He may be leader of the free world and Time magazine's "Person of the Year," but a new international survey of women makes certain that President Bush is far from being the sexiest man alive.

In a recent online poll conducted by Esquire magazine, 11,000 women in 15 countries were asked to rate Bush's sex appeal on a scale of one to 10, and America's commander-in-chief failed to register much more than a two.

Women in Australia, Germany and the Netherlands were the harshest judges of George W.'s sexual allure, giving him an average rating of 1.4 each, Esquire said in its survey released earlier this week.

By contrast, Indonesian women were the most generous, giving Bush an average score of 2.2; American women found their president slightly less appealing, rating him a 2.1

Other countries contributing to the survey included Austria, Brazil, Britain, Israel, Italy, the Philippines, Russia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden.

Bush has fared far better in other recent magazine rankings, having been named Time's "Person of the Year" in December and making that magazine's list of the world's 100 most influential people this week.

But Esquire magazine's "Global Survey of the Female Species" was not confined to questions about Bush.

Eighty-three percent of Italian women said they preferred sex to cuddling, for instance, compared to 63 percent of American women.

And while American women said it takes an average of 5.5 dates with a man before having sex with him, Swedish women said they would sleep with a man after 4 dates, the survey showed.

As an American.....I wish Liberals & Conservatives would both shut the **** up......stop worrying about what the other side's doing......& just help do what's best for the country.


Believe me, right-wingers are just as ****in' whiney as your average liberal.
I've listened to that guy Hannity.....my God, what a sorry lil' **** this guy is ! All he does is ***** about what's being said & done by the left-wingers....how the right-wing is constantly "under attack" by the liberal media machine.
I'm sure Hannity is against gay marriages.....but that doesn't keep me from thinking he's an absolute homo.


I say **** YOU to all liberals & conservatives. Get lives, sissies. Help the country out for a change.

the sad part is that the only way
liberals and conservatives agree is
in situations like 911
and yeah
you might think bush is an *******
or you might love him
but the truth is that he is the president.
he got elected by the people and you got nothing
but to put up with it and shut the **** up
once he is done you can elect another one
so other people can call him an *******.

but is he sexy? that's the real reason this thread got bumped...

http://www.staticfiends.com/bush/n-bush-as-a-woman.jpg

One of my good friends says that there are 2 things you don't talk about..that's religion and politics...i think he is right too, because no of us know enough to really support our arguments...

3 things

Religion, politics, and pimpin' on a messageboard...

lol

3 things

Religion, politics, and pimpin' on a messageboard...

lol
Yeah I will save pimpin for the rap websites

I remember when Too Short was still going platinum with every album he put out and he was asked if he really pimped. His response was quite telling - he said if he really pimped they'd arrest him at every show. He also had lived with the same girl at that time for over a year. That same issue of The source asked Del about his anti-white girl lyrics one of his songs, and he played it off BECAUSE HIS GIRLFRIEND WAS WHITE. Then Ice Cube was asked about his white people are snakes comment, which he gave a weak answer to try to do damage control, because he was on tour with the Red Hot Chili Peppers! It was then that the image of rappers changed in my mind. Real pimps don't rap, and rappers don't pimp, for the most part. Even Ice-T gave up the game when his rapping started to get noticed...

As for fashion, I've never understood it, but it's a big business. The whole macho image of rap of the 80s and early 90s didn't seem to support caring about the brand name of your suits. I blame P. Diddy for the pussification of the genre. At least for starting it...

You want to see bad fashion, watch the NBA Draft. Unbelievable...

One of my good friends says that there are 2 things you don't talk about..that's religion and politics...i think he is right too, because no of us know enough to really support our arguments...

No, that's not the reason. I know plenty about both topics. The reason is because people are passionate about their politics and religion and debating the two leads to fights.

And while American women said it takes an average of 5.5 dates with a man before having sex with him, Swedish women said they would sleep with a man after 4 dates, the survey showed.

When I was dating there was a strict 3 date limit. If I didn't at least get a blow job by then, there was no 4th date.

You want to see bad fashion, watch the NBA Draft. Unbelievable...

So you're saying white men can't jump, but black men can't dress. :p

When I was dating there was a strict 3 date limit. If I didn't at least get a blow job by then, there was no 4th date.
why don't you just date over the phone twice, then meet her in person the 3rd time? :D

Back to the topic, only stupid liberals are hatin on bush.

Back to the topic, only stupid liberals are hatin on bush.

don't be stupid. you should have been around in november to put in those kind of statements.

Now we're talking about pimp dress and whether Dubya is sexy...

http://www.glist.com/cartoon/satire/images/bush_it1_2.jpg

No, that's not the reason. I know plenty about both topics. The reason is because people are passionate about their politics and religion and debating the two leads to fights.
you know a lot? I'm about to ask you some questions, they manage to piss everyone off, they are real questions that I have so try your best to answer them with out us arguring?
First question...
What is your religion?

you know a lot? I'm about to ask you some questions, they manage to piss everyone off, they are real questions that I have so try your best to answer them with out us arguring?
First question...
What is your religion?

What is this with you, a dick waving contest? Do you think Sonny will "fall into your trap"? lol...

What is this with you, a dick waving contest? Do you think Sonny will "fall into your trap"? lol...
See you are already getting mad...Why are you trying to make this a negative thing? I was going to ask him some questions about religion, the same as I would ask anyone. I wasn't going to state any of my beliefs in response to anything he said, I was just going to see if he really knew what he was talking about?
Why are you always "dry snitching"...If you have been reading my posts I am trying to ease up and just speak my mind as others speak theres without starting arguments...Don't think becuase Living Legend has only been here for 2 days that I am a newbie, I have been here since november and have see you and others talk all kinds of crazy sh*t...Now it's my turn to talk...So chill with the trying to make me into a bad guy so that I can get banned...I come in peace, but I do carry a big stick...We don't have to agree all the time for us both to continue to be boxingscene forum posters...

See you are already getting mad...Why are you trying to make this a negative thing? I was going to ask him some questions about religion, the same as I would ask anyone. I wasn't going to state any of my beliefs in response to anything he said, I was just going to see if he really knew what he was talking about?
Why are you always "dry snitching"...If you have been reading my posts I am trying to ease up and just speak my mind as others speak theres without starting arguments...Don't think becuase Living Legend has only been here for 2 days that I am a newbie, I have been here since november and have see you and others talk all kinds of crazy sh*t...Now it's my turn to talk...So chill with the trying to make me into a bad guy so that I can get banned...I come in peace, but I do carry a big stick...We don't have to agree all the time for us both to continue to be boxingscene forum posters...

I'm not mad at all. But I've seen too many posters show up all ****y and look to stir up some stuff when most of the online topics are tame. **** was ugly around election time.

I'm not one who has contributed to that big red bar you walk around with, so don't accuse me of making it "negative". Plenty of others have done that.

You act like you have all the answers written down and you want to test everyone to see if they're as smart as you. The last thing I'm trying to do is start a feud; I've shooken off all the trolls I could and I usually ignore the rest. Which isn't to put you in that category, necessarily, but it seems you're looking to stir up some ****, which many of us who post here everyday try to avoid because it pollutes the boards with people "Waving their dicks at each other"

I'm not mad at all. But I've seen too many posters show up all ****y and look to stir up some stuff when most of the online topics are tame. **** was ugly around election time.

I'm not one who has contributed to that big red bar you walk around with, so don't accuse me of making it "negative". Plenty of others have done that.

You act like you have all the answers written down and you want to test everyone to see if they're as smart as you. The last thing I'm trying to do is start a feud; I've shooken off all the trolls I could and I usually ignore the rest. Which isn't to put you in that category, necessarily, but it seems you're looking to stir up some ****, which many of us who post here everyday try to avoid because it pollutes the boards with people "Waving their dicks at each other"
I ahve been here everyday since september of last year, I just don't always have something to say...I just recently changed my name and I'm much more talkative now...I'm not here to start trouble...and I got that red line because of the avatar tread I started but if you go and look at it, if you view my very first post, you tell me what everyone got so mad about...
You come off as a smart dude, why does it seem like you are intimidated by my intelligence? I don't have anything written down on paper, I don't have any special agenda, i'm just a bored boxing fan like yourself...

I ahve been here everyday since september of last year, I just don't always have something to say...I just recently changed my name and I'm much more talkative now...I'm not here to start trouble...and I got that red line because of the avatar tread I started but if you go and look at it, if you view my very first post, you tell me what everyone got so mad about...
You come off as a smart dude, why does it seem like you are intimidated by my intelligence? I don't have anything written down on paper, I don't have any special agenda, i'm just a bored boxing fan like yourself...

Nobody here's intimidated. Do your thing, Swift...

Nobody here's intimidated. Do your thing, Swift...
I'm the fartest from being johnny swift, see there you go dry snitching again...
Peace man...
I'm going to leave you alone neils, I thought you were cool when you posted that tupac hail mary verse a while, but I can see now you are a borderline hater...for your information, I used to go by babylon killah...

I wasn't saying you were Swift, but a Swift...like in rap, calling someone a Stan

there are some similarities, but it wasn't necessarily a direct insult. I was okay with him, til he went crazy and started putting my name in his sig and whatnot...

When I was dating there was a strict 3 date limit. If I didn't at least get a blow job by then, there was no 4th date.

would you wait for this chick?

http://img165.echo.cx/img165/4223/wgirl1ey.jpg

I'm in the majority that picked Bush. How can you call it a close election when Bush won by popular vote on THE LARGEST MARGIN IN ELECTION HISTORY? Jesus, people, get with it!


Is it not true that the largest voting group in america is the non voters? If so it doesn't really mean **** that Bush won the election. not all of america voted. The debates only featured two guys anyway.

how did George Bush win the largest margin in history????

I thought George Washington got like 90% of the vote?

I think you made that up LittleBigMan, your are a liar.

The Bush administration's
Top 40 Lies
about war and terrorism

http://www.citypages.com/databank/24/1182/article11417.asp

Another great link Neils.

From Feb 06 -

<P>The National Guard honored President Bush with a life-size bust at a gala ceremony in Washington, DC on <A href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/02/images/20060209-2_p020906pm-0089-515h.html">Thursday</A>. And what's the bronze Bush wearing?</P>
<P>A flight suit.</P>
<P><IMG height=379 alt=bush-bust.jpg src="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/bush-bust.jpg" width=514></P>
<P>But that's not the scary part. Notice the inscription on the marble pedestal.</P>
<P><IMG height=225 alt=bush-bust-closeup.jpg src="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/bush-bust-closeup.jpg" width=300></P>
<P>The inscription noting the duration of Bush's presidential term doesn't read "2001-2009." It reads "2001-BLANK." In other words, the statue says he's going to be president from 2001 through infinity! Everyone knows that Bush is supposed to leave office in January of 2009. No mystery. No uncertainty. The <A href="http://www.termlimits.org/Current_Info/22nd-Amendment-text.html">22nd Amendment</A> makes it so. It's the law. No gray area.</P>
<P>Or is there?</P>
<P>I knew this would slip out somehow, but I never thought the leak would come from a statue. Is someone at the National Guard trying to warn us? Does President Bush plan to use his Executive authority under his wartime powers to cancel the 2008 election because a change in leadership here might embolden the terrorists? The statue says 'yes.'</P>
<P>Go to the <A href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/02/images/20060209-2_p020906pm-0089-515h.html">White House website</A> and confirm that I didn't Photoshop a damn thing. It's absolutely real.</P>
<P><A href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/president-bush-forever_b_15375.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/president-bush-forever_b_15375.html</A></P>

From Feb 06 -

<P>The National Guard honored President Bush with a life-size bust at a gala ceremony in Washington, DC on <A href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/02/images/20060209-2_p020906pm-0089-515h.html">Thursday</A>. And what's the bronze Bush wearing?</P>
<P>A flight suit.</P>
<P><IMG height=379 alt=bush-bust.jpg src="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/bush-bust.jpg" width=514></P>
<P>But that's not the scary part. Notice the inscription on the marble pedestal.</P>
<P><IMG height=225 alt=bush-bust-closeup.jpg src="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/bush-bust-closeup.jpg" width=300></P>
<P>The inscription noting the duration of Bush's presidential term doesn't read "2001-2009." It reads "2001-BLANK." In other words, the statue says he's going to be president from 2001 through infinity! Everyone knows that Bush is supposed to leave office in January of 2009. No mystery. No uncertainty. The <A href="http://www.termlimits.org/Current_Info/22nd-Amendment-text.html">22nd Amendment</A> makes it so. It's the law. No gray area.</P>
<P>Or is there?</P>
<P>I knew this would slip out somehow, but I never thought the leak would come from a statue. Is someone at the National Guard trying to warn us? Does President Bush plan to use his Executive authority under his wartime powers to cancel the 2008 election because a change in leadership here might embolden the terrorists? The statue says 'yes.'</P>
<P>Go to the <A href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/02/images/20060209-2_p020906pm-0089-515h.html">White House website</A> and confirm that I didn't Photoshop a damn thing. It's absolutely real.</P>
<P><A href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/president-bush-forever_b_15375.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/president-bush-forever_b_15375.html</A></P>


....Neils, WTF are you going to post about when Bush leaves office? Don't you gert a little bored with it all after 6 plus years? Seriously!!!

....Neils, WTF are you going to post about when Bush leaves office? Don't you gert a little bored with it all after 6 plus years? Seriously!!!
I'll be on the next NWO shill same as I am now...

Can't you liberals get over the fact that YOU LOST. THE NATION HAS SPOKEN, AND THEY CHOSE GEORGE BUSH. YOU ARE THE MINORITY

:D


you are absolutely right he won the second election fair and square but if you are asking us to say the man is not a ****head many of us can't do that because he is a ****head, like an egg is an egg, a ****head is a ****head and nothing that any neo con can ever say is going to change that FACT.:cool:

<embed enableJavascript="false" allowScriptAccess="never" allownetworking="internal" style="FILTER: xray" src="http://movies.crooksandliars.com/CountDown-SpecialComment-BushLies.wmv" pluginspage="http://www.microsoft.com/windows/mediaplayer/" width="450" height="400" *********="1" showcontrols="1" showpositioncontrols="0" volume="0"></embed>