Scalliwag Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 [quote name='worr lord'][quote name='Macho555']Honestly? I don't understand why the hell his speach is picked on so much. I mean god damn, just because they guy can't say certain things, and has a strange way of talking doesn't mean he sucks as a person, or is stupid. Those conclusions pretty much became obvious from about everything else he's ever done. Zing.[/quote] I don't care if he graduated with C's. It's insane to pick on a person's intelligence after they've graduated an Ivy League school.[/quote] The grandson of a senator, the son of a congressman (at the time) that was refused admission to UT. Accepted at Yale and Harvard ONLY because Dad and Granddad were alumni. Went on to work and/or be on the board of a few companies that ALL went into the red while he was there..... ummm, yes I do believe I will call his intelligence into question. Even he admits alot of his problems in Iraq are due to poor intelligence. Those of us that understand his whole life was based on poor intelligence find it very ironic The State of the Union and last nights vote are a reflection on his and those that still support the guy's intelligence. Cheney said repubs would keep both the house and the senate, and I thought he was supposed to be the smart one? Oh, wait, no Cheney was the one that told the reporter when asked why he did not want to go to Vietnam that "he had better things to do". Like the 58,000 that died didn't. So I guess he was as stupid as any supporters he has left as well Try another more intelligent argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonthert Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Voted blue...heard they took back the House. Go blue! Eisenhower warned about the Military Industrial Complex influencing our country...we have Cheney, former CEO of Halliburton which has vaulted itself from nowhere to top 10 corporations in the US since Cheney has been in office mainly through its subsidiary United Defense. I heard that Halliburton was awarded a contract to rebuild Iraq prior to 9/11...already determined, huh? Bush and the oil connection, oil drive tanks and jeeps alike...war is good for the oil business and Pennzoil (whom George H. Bush was CEO of) and other oil companies are reaping huge profits...most corrupt presidency in history...even Nixon did it for personal reasons...not to get stinkin' rich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SanguineSolitude Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 but but but sonthert... bush wouldnt lie to us. he speaks with a southern everyman's accent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scalliwag Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 [quote name='Sonthert']Voted blue...heard they took back the House. Go blue! Eisenhower warned about the Military Industrial Complex influencing our country...we have Cheney, former CEO of Halliburton which has vaulted itself from nowhere to top 10 corporations in the US since Cheney has been in office mainly through its subsidiary United Defense. I heard that Halliburton was awarded a contract to rebuild Iraq prior to 9/11...already determined, huh? Bush and the oil connection, oil drive tanks and jeeps alike...war is good for the oil business and Pennzoil (whom George H. Bush was CEO of) and other oil companies are reaping huge profits...most corrupt presidency in history...even Nixon did it for personal reasons...not to get stinkin' rich.[/quote] Nixon was vice-prez during the McCarthy era, went on to the Watergate debacle, but everybody needs to remember they firebombed Daniel Ellsburg's psychiatrist's office to cover up stealing his records and had an administration that did not believe in the rule of law whatsoever. Reagan's administration sold missiles to a terrorist country (Iran). To me that was treason and Ollie North should have been put in front of a firing squad and worked their way up the ladder from there. Cheney, Rumsfield, and others in GW's administration were part of Nixon's administration. So Dubya and his administration have deep rooted corruption that makes blowjows look pretty damn ethical. I keep this in mind any time I hear a republican say anything about "family values" I am like "you gotta be kidding". Their history shows otherwise. But dems are a bunch of candyasses that will not break their necks while they have them down. They need to tell Bush that they are going to start investigations. It is okay if they talk bipartisan just like Dubya did. But impeaching Bush and Cheney needs to be high on the real agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skimo Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 [quote name='Scalliwag'][quote name='Skimo']damnit that sucks balls, looks like im moving to Canada for 4 years lol then hopefully we'll get a lot better person in office[/quote] What ya squalkin bout Skimo, ain't ya going to join GW's army and get in on the crusade? (just kidding, I will kick your ass!!!)[/quote] just because Im going to go fight in a war I know nothing about doesnt mean anything, I would have liked to have Kinky as governor before I left lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scalliwag Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 [quote name='Skimo']I would have liked to have Kinky as governor before I left lol[/quote] Well anybody but Perry would have worked. But a helluva lot more people voted against him than for him. He is still the winner but since he was the incumbent to have that low a number of people vote for you says most people do not like you. He needs to be reminded early and often Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonthert Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Well, Scalli, my observations tell me this: The Democrats, although not above bullshit, tend to be more dignified in their discharging of their offices and avoid scandal more so than the republicans, who try to kick it up at every turn, trying to cover up for the fact that they stand for deregulation (so companies can make more money), privatization (so companies can make more money), spending up obscene national deficits (so companies can make more money) and the only thing they can cover their tracks with is starting wars (so companies can make more money) and tax cuts (so people have more money to spend and companies can make more money) although its at the expense of our country and our national debt. The republicans also stand for easing environmental protections (so companies can make more money) and making it easier for jobs to leave the US and already existing jobs can be given over to foreign workers (so companies can make more money). They also stand for telling people what they can do in the privacy of their own homes, but so do the democrats. At least the republicans support tobacco (so tobacco companies can make more money). Really, aside from a few slanted right wing-christian platforms, the republicans don't stand for anything other than businesses. Even the republican platform on immigration is hollow and looks to benefit businesses. Who said "Government is the shadow that big business casts on society"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
worr lord Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 I believe philosopher John Dewey was responsible for that quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonthert Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 The corollary to my previous post is, there is no solid evidence that shows when giant companies make more money the citizens are better off. These policies help a select few, not the people of the United States of America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scalliwag Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 QUOTE (Sonthert)The corollary to my previous post is, there is no solid evidence that shows when giant companies make more money the citizens are better off. These policies help a select few, not the people of the United States of America. There is definately more solid evidence that when giant companies make record profits it is at the cost to the people. Cases in point, Exxon makes record profits while we paid record gas prices. Electric companies made record profits at record costs to consumers. Only an idiot will try to make a case that it was not price gouging. It cost us in other ways. Other products and services went up because of cost of operations due to energy costs. If the dems do one thing and one thing well I hope that some of the energy executives go to prison in record time from ferocious investigations. Read this story http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/01/...ain620626.shtml Let me tell you what I want. I want the people involved in these conversations brought before congress for two thing; completely embarrass the republicans that let this go on for so long and to put faces and names (and addresses would be handy) to the people that so gleefully enjoyed pulling this scam. The American people deserve to know who these people are, what these people did and they should be recognized wherever they may go. I would like nothing more than to step on an elevator with one of these pricks and hit the emergency stop and beat the hell out of them until I get tired of it These people are as evil as any mass murderer in my book and nothing bad could happen to any of them that would bother me. And remember the Bush administration refused to launch investigations into price fixing and blamed blackouts on Californias energy policy. So in fact Bush was derelect in his duties to protect the people from "evil doers" THe Bush administration has swept this under the table and only after evidence became clear to everyone they had no intention of investigating. republicans allow us to get screwed silly and any so-called tax breaks most of us got were far less than the gas and energy gouging that hit our wallets a lot more. All the while they turn blind eyes and have hearings for show and didn't even swear the oil execs under oath. Dems needs to bust these guys up and make their lives as miserable as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonthert Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 Wait a minute...Scalli sounds like something more rare than a three-legged dog...a Texas liberal!!! Shit man, you live in Austin, or what? Yes, your general points seem to be opposed to deregulation...which I agree with...Milton Fucking Freidman is one of the main architects of deregulation. Everybody has forgotten the Savings and Loan Industry Deregulation in the 80s under Reagan, which cost the taxpayers something like 480 Billion dollars , costing each man, woman and child in this country like $1800 or some absurd number. Where did that money go? Junk bonds, into some corrupt Michael Milken type's pocket. Guy's got $2B! Any country thats had success with changing regulatory status has improved their regulatory system...not just gotten rid of oversight. It seems to be completly absurd to think anybody who stands behind deregulation has any understanding of it. We only need to point of the Savings and Loan and Electricity deregulations as disasters to show deregulation has some nasty outcomes possible when crooked men get into the business. True; cable, telephone, natural gas (regulation reduction) and airline deregulation went slightly better...but still not some panaceae of economic prosperity. Despite deregulation, airlines are teetering on the brink of bankruptcy when things get a little tough. Cable and phone prices have continued real drops in prices since deregulation. Only problem is, prices in those industries were going down at the same rate before deregulation, so you would be hard pressed to demonstrate deregulation had any effect. Natural gas prices had remained fairly stable after deregulation, but now natural gas prices have been rising without any noticeable driving force in the market. So we have two cases of disaster and four break-even cases...seems like a really good idea. Anybody who wants to, I'll play a game with you, come by, bring some money. I'll roll a 6-sided die. If a 1 or a 2 comes up, you give me a dollar. If any other number comes up, I'll give you nothing. I'll play all night, trust me. The republicans are the guys getting the money for the game, or at least represent some people cashing in on that game...why do the American people let them continue to play? I've always loved James Earl Carter as a president, except his damned conservative democrat streak that included supporting deregulation. Edit: Gray Davis was the governor of California went the power shortages hit. My mother said "There's going to be electricity shortages this year...maybe blackouts." I said "Why? There was plenty of power last year. What's different?" Gray Davis went out and secured stable price assurances for electricity. At three times the normal price. The prices went down later that year (Enron had just cahed a huge, multi-billion dollar hostage situation with California, why not?) and Davis looked like an idiot. Schwartzenegger was waiting in the wings (and he has some shadowy connection to Bush and Enron, I just can't remember what I'd heard) and the recall the governor campaign was on the way. Granted, Davis was not the best governor ever, bust he was a solid 6.5 out of 10. Edit #2:The PUC (The Public Utilities Comission) who is responsible for regulating the price of electricity (Which was not deregulated) was asked after the electricity crisis why they hadn't stopped the excessive prices. The quote that they released to the press was:"We don't know." These are the guy's who's only job is to make sure the consumers of California are receiving utilities at a fair price. Doesn't sound like a widespread conspiracy, now does it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scalliwag Posted November 12, 2006 Share Posted November 12, 2006 I am pretty much a moderate. There are things that republicans campaign on but the only thing they work on when they get in is making loopholes for people that are already rich to get richer. When there are things pending like figuring ways to make medical care available the make big deals about flag burning, gay marriage, and butting into the Terri Shiavo lawsuit to get brownie point with the nutcases of their party. They talk about the dems wanting to raise taxes but let energy companies gouge us, let insurance companies rip Katrina victims off and make laws to where if a defective product harms someone that make taking them to court and suing them nearly impossible. They make trial lawyers sound like the scum of the earth but it is company lawyers that try their best to screw people over when they have legitimate complaints. People with industry related illnesses on many occassions they wait out the people until they die when they were at fault the whole time. Republicans are masters of changing the subject and making out that the poor little rich people are under attack. If republicans ran on what they actually do it would be "we are going to help the wealthiest become more wealthy". GW's promise to never commit our troops to a war without an exit strategy and that rebuilding nations was not our business proved him to be what he would call a "flip-flopper". So it's not that I disagree with a lot of the things they say as much as I completely despise most of the things they actually do. One thing you may remember Tang. The Reagan administration knew about the S&L failure over a year before the 1988 election and they waited until after that election to drop it on us. They are corrupt and have cost us out the ass. And spend? Try the Star Wars program and this war that has cost over 350 billion so far. This is a third world country folks. Why does it cost so much? Halliburton and others are raping us folks. And it's the repubs letting that happen. The dems are going to raise taxes? At what the repubs have cost me I am more than willing to take my chances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moosepotatoes Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 FUCK. No. That's wrong. Moses had a speech impediment fucktard. He was far from stupid. I'd like to see some of you guys get up on stage in frnt of thousands of people and not make a single mistake. Bulshit. I have been in theatre for years, and worked on public speaking skills, in speech tournaments and in plays. Trust me, you wont do it. You couldn't do it. People call bush stupid because they dont agree with what he says, BECAUSE... it's the rockstar way. To be a rebel. I guarantee people will be just as unhappy in a couple years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scalliwag Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 A speech impediment would be muh better than the other impediments Bush suffers from. We were in a lot better shape 6 years ago before GW came along and I hope we get another moderate that governs from the center instead of an extreme to either side. This dufus came in by the sllimmest of margins and acted like he won by a landslide. Hopefully that dems will act the same and give him a good dose of his own medicine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonthert Posted November 26, 2006 Share Posted November 26, 2006 QUOTE (moosepotatoes)FUCK. No. That's wrong. Moses had a speech impediment fucktard. He was far from stupid. I'd like to see some of you guys get up on stage in frnt of thousands of people and not make a single mistake. Bulshit. I have been in theatre for years, and worked on public speaking skills, in speech tournaments and in plays. Trust me, you wont do it. You couldn't do it. People call bush stupid because they dont agree with what he says, BECAUSE... it's the rockstar way. To be a rebel. I guarantee people will be just as unhappy in a couple years. Theres a difference between making mistakes and lying. Bush lies...has lied, will continue to lie. He also intentionally distorts facts, like his whole thing with the repeal of estate tax..."Death Tax", he intentionally misrepresented the truth of the matter. Estate Tax only applies to estates in excess of $2M. That means 99.5% of Americans will never see any benefit from cutting Estate Tax. The richest .5% of Americans are the ones who will reap the benefits. Reap...death...funny! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scalliwag Posted November 26, 2006 Share Posted November 26, 2006 Well Eric be fair, in all honesty the people affected by the estate taxes are 100% of the only Americans him and Cheney really care about anyways. What you may see as the other 99.5% to them do not count. Cheney is the most egotistical prick to walk the earth. He told a senator that may just become his worst nightmare to fugg himself. Wouldn't it be nice now that some real investigations can be had that his ticker really gets put thru a good workout? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuie Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 Well It Looks like Kinky is gearing up to Run Again as the Democratic Candidate. Thank God! Anything to Get Perry Out! Kinky I voted for you last time will again this time. Parties be damned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now