November 22, 2005
Bush vs. The United States (Part 1)
George W. Bush is not the leader of the United States. He is our enemy. We should have wanted posters offering a reward for his capture. He has committed crimes against the United States environment. He has committed crimes against our military. He has committed crimes against the future of the United States and it’s people.
Is it true that Bill Clinton brought a certain level of shame to the oval office? Yes.
Was he a perfect president? No. Reagan and Bush senior had flaws too.
The difference is that this is a corrupt government that lies and kills at will.
Crimes against our environment
Bush oil and gas drilling policy forces taxpayers to pay a heavy cleanup price (12/26/04)
Bush oil and gas drilling policy forces taxpayers to pay a heavy cleanup price (12/26/04)
BLM makes environmental cleanup optional for oil and gas companies (08/05/05)
National forest rules rewritten to help timber industry (12/22/04)
Bush administration officials accused of downplaying danger of water diversion to fish populations (12/19/04)
Bush administration impedes progress at international global warming talks (12/18/04)
Interior Department official sides with industry over wildlife protections (12/18/04)
White House developing regulatory "hit list" at behest of industry (12/17/04)
White House institutes controversial 'peer review' process (12/17/04)
Outgoing EPA head approves increased use of cancer-causing pesticide (12/16/04)
Federal court blocks EPA plan to cripple Clean Air Act (12/24/03)
Another senior EPA official resigns in protest to Bush administration policies (12/23/03)
Bush administration streamlining oil and gas permits (12/23/03)
White House abandons plans to weaken Clean Water Act protections (12/16/03)
Smart enforcement or no enforcement? Bush lets polluters off the hook (12/09/03)
Timber! Bush signs bill allowing lots more logging (12/04/03)
EPA exempts oil and gas industry from stormwater pollution rules (12/30/02)
Bush administration backtracking on policy of 'no net loss" of wetlands (12/26/02)
Judge deals setback to Bush oil drilling plans in Utah (12/23/02)
Bush administration weakens federal program for cleaning up dirty waters (12/21/02)
These are a tiny fraction of the headlines demonstrating the open hostility the Bush administration has shown towards the United States environment in favor of oil and energy companies.
He has a very lengthy "Rap Sheet"
Crimes against our military
Monday 01 August 2005
After the grotesque torture photographs emerged from Abu Ghraib prison in April 2004, Bush said, "I shared a deep disgust that those prisoners were treated the way they were treated." He vowed the incidents would be investigated and the perpetrators would "be taken care of."
Bush seemed shocked to learn of torture committed by US forces. But then someone leaked an explosive Department of Justice memorandum that had been written in August 2002. The memo presented a blueprint explaining how interrogators could torture prisoners and everyone in the chain of command could escape criminal liability for war crimes. It said the President was above the law. That memo set the stage for the torture of prisoners in US custody.
Now we learn that, in early 2003, several senior uniformed military lawyers from each of the services voiced vigorous dissents to the policies outlined in the Justice Department's 2002 memo.
Maj. Gen. Jack L. Rives, the Air Force deputy judge advocate general, wrote that several of the "more extreme interrogation techniques, on their face, amount to violations of domestic criminal law" as well as military law. In fact, Rives added, use of many of these techniques "puts the interrogators and the chain of command at risk of criminal accusations abroad." Rives was talking about the well-established concept of universal jurisdiction, according to which any nation has the authority to prosecute any person for the commission of war crimes.
The tactics proposed in the 2002 memorandum also troubled Rives because he felt the new interrogation policies threatened to undo progress the military had made since the Vietnam War. Accusations of war crimes committed by US forces during Vietnam damaged the military "culture and self-image," Rives wrote. Post-Vietnam military programs that emphasize compliance with the laws of war have "greatly restored the culture and self-image of US armed forces," according to Rives.
Moreover, Brig. Gen. Kevin M. Sandkuhler, a senior Marine lawyer, wrote that military lawyers believed the harsh interrogation system could have adverse consequences for American service members. These might include diminished "public support and respect of US armed forces, [as well as loss of] pride, discipline, and self-respect within the US armed forces." The interrogation regime could also jeopardize military intelligence-gathering and efforts to obtain support from allied countries.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democratic presidential candidates led up to Veterans Day by attacking President Bush's treatment of former service members and outlining their own plans for improving benefits.
The Democrats argue that veterans and members of the military face hardships that have been perpetuated by the commander in chief.
"When I hear about how we're not giving our veterans their due and when I hear about how we're shortchanging our soldiers, I take it personally," Gen. Wesley Clark said in a speech prepared for an appearance Monday in Arizona.
POW Shoshana Johnson has had to fight the Pentagon for benefits.
Over the last year and a half, President Bush has staged more than a third of his major public events before active military personnel or veterans. His rowdy “Hoo-ah”s and policy pronouncements—even when they have nothing to do with military matters—are predictably greeted with rabid applause.
But those easy and unquestioning crowds at military bases and American Legion halls will be increasingly hard to come by as soldiers and veterans start to notice the string of insults and budget cuts inflicted upon them.
Even more than his father, and Ronald Reagan before him, Bush is cutting budgets for myriad programs intended to protect or improve the lives of veterans and active-duty soldiers. Bush’s handlers have worked hard, through the use of snappy salutes and fly-boy stunts, to present the service-ducking former National Guardsman as the soldiers’ friend. But though Republicans enjoy widespread military support, Bill Clinton was the only president of the last four to cut weapons programs instead of veteran benefits.
Consider the following:
With 130,000 soldiers still in the heat of battle in Iraq and more fighting and dying in Afghanistan, the Bush administration sought this year to cut $75 a month from the “imminent danger” pay added to soldiers’ paychecks when in battle zones. The administration sought to cut by $150 a month the family separation allowance offered to those same soldiers and others who serve overseas away from their families. Although they were termed “wasteful and unnecessary” by the White House, Congress blocked those cuts this year, largely because of Democratic votes.
This year’s White House budget for Veterans Affairs cut $3 billion from VA hospitals—despite 9,000 casualties in Iraq and as aging Vietnam veterans demand more care. VA spending today averages $2,800 less per patient than nine years ago.
The administration also proposed levying a $250 annual charge on all Priority 8 veterans—those with “non-service-related illnesses”—who seek treatment at VA facilities, and seeks to close VA hospitals to Priority 8 veterans who earn more than $26,000 a year.
Until protests led to a policy change, the Bush administration also was charging injured GIs from Iraq $8 a day for food when they arrived for medical treatment at the Fort Stewart, Georgia, base where most injured are treated.
In mid-October, the Pentagon, at the request of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, announced plans to shutter 19 commissaries—military-run stores that offer discounted food and merchandise that helps low-paid enlisted troops and their families get by—along with the possiblility of closing 19 more.
At the same time, the Pentagon also announced it was trying to determine whether to shutter 58 military-run schools for soldiers’ children at 14 military installations.
The White House is seeking to block a federal judge’s award of damages to a group of servicemen who sued the Iraqi government for torture during the 1991 Gulf War. The White House claims the money, to come from Iraqi assets confiscated by the United States, is needed for that country’s reconstruction.
The administration beat back a bipartisan attempt in Congress to add $1.3 billion for VA hospitals to Bush’s request of $87 billion for war and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In perhaps its most dangerous policy, the White House is refusing to provide more than 40,000 active-duty troops in Iraq with Kevlar body armor, leaving it up to them and their families to buy this life-saving equipment. This last bit of penny-pinching prompted Pentagon critic and Vietnam veteran Col. David Hackworth to point to “the cost of the extraordinary security” during Bush’s recent trip to Asia, which he noted grimly “would cover a vest for every soldier” in Iraq.
Woody Powell, executive director of Veterans for Peace and a veteran of the Korean War, says these White House efforts should be viewed as attacks against American soldiers.
The Human Cost of Occupation
Edited by Michael Ewens :: Contact American Military Casualties in Iraq
Date Total In Combat
American Deaths Total In Combat
Since war began (3/19/03): 2096 1686
Since "Mission Accomplished" (5/1/03) 1959 1578
Since Capture of Saddam (12/13/03): 1629 1381
Since Handover (6/29/04): 1230 1053
Since Election (1/31/05): 658 577
American Wounded Official Estimated
Total Wounded: 15704 15000 - 48100
Remember this:
Specialist Thomas Wilson, a scout with a Tennessee National Guard unit scheduled to roll into Iraq this week, said soldiers had to scrounge through local landfills here for pieces of rusty scrap metal and bulletproof glass - what they called "hillbilly armor" - to bolt on to their trucks for protection against roadside bombs in Iraq.
"Why don't we have those resources readily available to us?" Specialist Wilson asked Mr. Rumsfeld, drawing cheers and applause from many of the 2,300 troops assembled in a cavernous hangar here to meet the secretary. Mr. Rumsfeld responded that the military was producing extra armor for Humvees and trucks as fast as possible.
A few minutes later, a soldier from the Idaho National Guard's 116th Armor Cavalry Brigade asked Mr. Rumsfeld what he and the Army were doing "to address shortages and antiquated equipment" National Guard soldiers heading to Iraq were struggling with.
Mr. Rumsfeld seemed taken aback by the question and a murmur began spreading through the ranks before he silenced them. "Now settle down, settle down," he said. "Hell, I'm an old man, it's early in the morning and I'm gathering my thoughts here."
This is when he essentially says, Deal with it. We're not perfect.
Next we will examine G.W. Bush's crimes against the poor and elderly, our future economic strength, the constitution and civil liberties, world opinion and credibility, our sense of security. New Orleans.
Why is this criminal allowed to walk free among us?
He's our President.
Posted by Andre M. Hernandez at November 22, 2005 10:10 AMNo doubt this article is going to labeled “Bush Bashing” by someone here, but before any of the squabling starts, I just wanted to say:
Five Stars - highest rating, Andre!
Andre, Andre, Andre. Your comments about Bush are becoming more and more virulent. I appreciate the fact that you backed up the Bush bashing with facts; however, as usual, you’re way off.
Bush is the leader of the US and he has not committed crimes against our military. He was the only Prez that actually took terrorism head on instead of the useless tactics (or lack thereof) from every other Prez other than his father. And, his father did it half-heartedly w/ Saddam so that’s why he’s included. And the reason why nobody did take them on is b/c they would have to suffer politically for it. This whole multiculturalism has infected our society and people are now actually looking at Bush as the terrorist rather than the actual terrorists. And it’s b/c he took a stand against them. Plain and simple.
You keep focusing on American toture and not enough of the terrorists torture; or as the left like to refer to them as “freedom fighters”. Why don’t you write a piece on that? Stop bothering us with this US torture and comment on the enemy and their sick, way of life. Or better yet, why don’t you talk about actually winning the war. Or, I should ask, do you believe we can win?
Posted by: rahdigly at November 22, 2005 12:39 PMrah:
“Your comments about Bush are becoming more and more virulent. I appreciate the fact that you backed up the Bush bashing with facts; however, as usual, you€™re way off.
Bush is the leader of the US and he has not committed crimes against our military.”
Andre has laid out why Bush is a misleader, rather than a leader. And as usual, when faced with the cold hard facts (in this case a very long list of them), all you’re doing is posturing.
Such empty gestures do nothing to support anything this president has done, they just serve to make us more and more angry that you keep refusing to acknowledge the facts no matter how many times they’re presented to you.
All of the finger pointing is getting a bit old. The plain and simple truth is that it all boils down to perception. If you are a repub then your perception is probably positive. If you are a dem then your perception is negative. The only thing you can really do is deal with it until the next election. If we win, good we deserve it. Now lets do some good, but we probably won’t be able to because of the repub. They will do the same things we are doing right now. If we lose then the grade school bickering should stop. Whatever happens it is a majority vote. The country as a whole should embrace the decision and work together to make the USA a better place.
Posted by: David at November 22, 2005 01:19 PMThis is full of a lot of information that can be taken at face value and/or spun either way. rahdigly, you have to ask yourself would you join the military with bush as prez? I doubt it. look. bush did 1 thing right. he went into afghanistan to get the REAL terrorists. then he ran to “finish daddys work”. The war on terror is a posture point that is no longer valid for this topic. Look at where we are as a nation and see if you would stand next to the man in combat, which he never saw, and never will for himself.
Posted by: Thomas at November 22, 2005 01:20 PMDavid:
“If you are a repub then your perception is probably positive. If you are a dem then your perception is negative.”
Facts are facts. Bush has done everything that Andre listed above. Either people will acknowledge those facts, or they will not. Period.
Posted by: Adrienne at November 22, 2005 01:23 PMTrial by headlines. I love it. Welcome to the fever swamp liberal tin hat-land where up is down and black is white.
And who wrote these headlines? Michael Moore? They obviously have to do with points on which the administration disagrees with far left environmental groups. But I’m glad to hear that disagreeeing with a liberal now consitutes a “crime.” Joseph Stalin would be proud.
I guess if I can find a headline somewhere that says “Liberals Eat Babies,” then Addrienne will call it a “a cold hard fact” and say that contradicting it just posturing.
Streamlining regulations, the rulings of judges in Utah—all of these are “crimes.” Liberating millions of Arabs—an bigger crime.
Andre’s post is far off the mark, so warped by blind partisanship, that I’ve already given it more of a response than it deserves.
Posted by: sanger at November 22, 2005 01:24 PMrahdigly writes:
“Bush is the leader of the US and he has not committed crimes against our military. He was the only Prez that actually took terrorism head on…”
Yes, and by doing so, Bush has turned Iraq into the premier incubator for radical Islamic terrorists worldwide. That’s some real “head-on” leadership for you.
Outstanding post, Andre.
Posted by: Mister Magoo at November 22, 2005 01:24 PMFuck Facts. Bus is a GOD, we must bow down and revere im, untill he destroys us……
Posted by: HereticSpeaks at November 22, 2005 01:27 PMAndre
Pieces like this make me puke.
If this were the second world war,you would be put up against a wall and shot for those comments.
This man is the Commander in Chief.
What a disgrace.
Posted by: sicilianeagle at November 22, 2005 01:38 PMSanger wrote:
I guess if I can find a headline somewhere that says €œLiberals Eat Babies,€ then Addrienne will call it a €œa cold hard fact€ and say that contradicting it just posturing.
________________________________
No, judging by her previous comments she’ll probably say something like “Five Stars - highest rating, Andre!”.
Sanger, you just got to love the liberal lovefest. Do you think the lefties will be able to keep up the lovefest when the militant islamists take over b/c these libs won’t fight terrorism?!!
Posted by: rahdigly at November 22, 2005 01:38 PMAndre,
This is complete drivvel. How exactly do you commit a crime against the environment? Which part of the environment called the cops? Was it the air? The sea? The dirt? or maybe the trees called??
You’re an idiot.
Todd Gandee,
We don’t have idiots here. Only those who abide by our policy and enjoy their permission to participate here, and those who don’t abide our policy and lose the very privilege they apparently desired to exercise. Your participation here is cancelled for failing to abide our policy of Critique the Message, Not the Messenger. —WatchBlog Managing Editor.
Posted by: todd gandee at November 22, 2005 02:02 PMThat’s a pretty big laundry list.
Calling them crimes is harsh but no harsher than the Republican viewpoint would be were the tables reversed. They can dish it out.
The red team response is absolutely Rahdiglious.
Posted by: Schwamp at November 22, 2005 02:06 PMsanger, rah,
In my view, again and again you two are presented with facts laid out you by the left in this blog, and you either choose to ignore those facts, or claim they are based upon biased reporting of events. But the truth is, it is really now up to you to de-bunk the list that Andre has presented you with.
So, rather than attacking me and other liberals in a general, maybe you’d better get to work? Otherwise, we may view what you’re doing as either just a lot of empty posturing, or willfully going along with what can only be considered a pathetic and mindless sort of “faith based” belief in your Dear Leader.
This is complete drivvel. How exactly do you commit a crime against the environment? Which part of the environment called the cops? Was it the air? The sea? The dirt? or maybe the trees called??
You€™re an idiot.
=============
Ok you toolbox. If the environment had thumbs it would have picked up that phone fifty years ago and made that call…
Go out and take a sip from your local stream, taste funny? Go eat some tuna, like chewing on mercury? Take a hike in the adirondaks and look for fish in streams? Can’t find them? They were there 100 years ago. But hey, there can’t be anything wrong here… im a drone, i believe what i am told and do no research whatsoever. Our prez says everything is fine and i believe him. Why? because im the idiot. Anyone who thinks things can be better is a liberal like Michael Moore and because fox news says that he is full of shit, he must be.
Todd, people like you are why things are the way they are. All of these facts staring you in the face but you won’t read them, why? Because if you did you would have to do something unprecidented, like change your mind (if there is one in there).
How do you committ a crime against the environment? Ask GE. Look up PCB’s and its effects. Look up agricultural farming methods that use toxic pesticides and their effects on us. Look at the dramatic rise in CO2 levels the past fifty years and you will be able to make your own conclusions— hopefully (though i doubt it).
Peace.
Adrienne,
The problem is that what you call “facts” by Andre have no support by them. There is no link to back up the statements or to the site this came off of. Merely listing headlines and a date do not a fact make. So how can someone debunk that which is not supported?
Mike P
Posted by: Mike P at November 22, 2005 02:21 PMGreat piece Andre!
None of his crimes against the military can even be justified by the results in Iraq
The truth is we lost the war in Iraq, but Bush is just unwilling to admit it to the public for the consequences he will face, so we just keep hanging on.
This isn’t Vietnam - we’ve won the ground war against Saddam - and we won some milestones as well:
- interim government
- constitution
- December elections
It doesn’t matter - we won the battles but lost the war(alot like the British here 200+ years ago).
Forget the WMD discussion, I believe the real objective in Iraq were:
-install a democratically elected government (check) that is friendly to the US and our interests (no, not really)
-increase political stability in the region (not even close)
-restrain the spread of Iranian religious fanaticism in the region (just the opposite)
-maintain Iraq as a counterbalance to Iran (it’s clear that Iraq is on the path to be a real ally of Iran - nightmare scenario)
-make progress against terrorism (not sure this was a real objective or just one stated publicly, but it doesn’t matter - total failure)
-show the Middle Eastern world that the US is a friend (yeah, we blew that one too)
Not only were none of these real political objectives not realized, most strategic thinkers doubted we could have acheived these outcomes from a war in Iraq.
Remaining in Iraq will not achieve any of the objective stated above.
If anyone has an opinion to the contrary, please note which objectives we will achieve by remaining in Iraq or what other objectives we will obtain.
Posted by: CPAdams at November 22, 2005 02:22 PMThomas wrote:
“rahdigly, you have to ask yourself would you join the military with bush as prez? I doubt it.”
__________________________________
Oh yes I would!! I’m too old now and have a disability; however, I volunteered and served during one of my least favorite Commander in Chief, Bill Clinton. Our troops deserve the utmost respect for “volunteering” in the time of war. And, these same troops voted to reelect this President by nearly a 4 to 1 margin; that’s with all the hate that was thrown at Bush and they still (STILL!) voted for him bigtime!
Posted by: rahdigly at November 22, 2005 02:28 PM“If the environment had thumbs it would have picked up that phone fifty years ago and made that call€”
posted by treehugger-
BUT IT’S ALL BUSH’S FAULT! The environment didn’t actually become destroyed until Bush took office!
If Clinton had done a better job repairing the environment Bush could’t have destroyed it THAT FAST!
It’s Clinton’s fault!!!!
MikeP:
“So how can someone debunk that which is not supported?”
Google. Look for govt. websites, or independent sources for articles. Have fun!
Posted by: Adrienne at November 22, 2005 02:31 PMAdrienne,
Nice dodge. You call what Andre wrote as a “fact” yet you do not hold his post to the same standards as those you disagree wiht?
Why not have Andre actually prove he is presenting a fact before requesting someone to debunk it?
Mike P
Posted by: Mike P at November 22, 2005 02:38 PMSteven,
“So, rather than attacking me and other liberals in a general, maybe you€™d better get to work? Otherwise, we may view what you€™re doing as either just a lot of empty posturing, or willfully going along with what can only be considered a pathetic and mindless sort of €œfaith based€ belief in your Dear Leader.”
Tell me again how the Democrats are not anti-faith and that all Muslims Christians, Jews and Hindus should vote and support the DNC.
jo
Posted by: jo at November 22, 2005 02:40 PMrahdigly, thanks for responding to my question for you. and your volunteer service to the country. but what about he rest of the comment? do you really think we are better as a nation today with him? Safer? Stabler economically? Socially? Educationally? Facts and opinions are at everyones fingertips, it is up to you and everyone to respond with educated responses not name calling and posturing.
Posted by: Thomas at November 22, 2005 02:48 PMFirst, if you’re going to cite headlines, please mention the source as well. I’m not saying these are made up, but it would be nice to know if they came from the Washington Post or the DNC newsletter.
Second, this “Bush is the enemy” garbage is lightweight, sandbox radicalism….a brand of grandstanding rhetoric that makes most Americans wince when lefties speak and leaves the left politically irrelevant.
I’d be willing to bet that prior to the Iraq war you had no clue how well equipped the US military was. In short, I think your concern is less about our troops’ well being and more about grasping at every possible means of criticizing the President.
That said, you do raise some legitimate issues, especially regarding torture. The perpetrators of those acts have, by and large, been prosecuted and punished. Should it have gone higher up the chain of command? Probably, yes. Should Rumsfeld have resigned for this and other reasons? Yes, I think so. But pinning it on Bush is an unreasonable stretch.
The Justice Department memo was written shortly after 9/11, when the nation and administration werein shock, we didn’t know if more attacks would occur day to day and didn’t know the true magnitude of the al Qaeda network domestically or globally. As a New Yorker who lived through 9/11 up close and personal, I would not have minded if the CIA had captured Mohammed Atta on September 8, 2001 and been less than polite in interrogating him.
9/11 shocked us all out of a complacency about a war that had been declared on us years earlier. Our political, military, intelligence and law enforcement establishments all had to change course on a dime. Mistakes of policy, tactics and strategy were inevitable and we still have lots of work to do.
That said, I think what we would have tolerated in the name of security in the early days of this conflict are not tolerable now. I hope we have learned the lesson that torture is not only inhumane, it is counterproductive in eliciting information and deleterious to our global image. We have made mistakes, some by the hands of imbeciles like Lindy England, some as a matter of policy makers trying clumsily to find their way through the early days of a new and unprecendented (in our history) type of war. I hope we’ve learned these lessons and that our policies continue to evolve.
Posted by: boojum at November 22, 2005 02:50 PMI like the bit on the enviornment, like mother nature doesn’t do damage to herself. Do you know that there are oil seeps all the time in the ocean? All the time. It’s a natural occuring event in mother nature.
So, before you try to blame Bush for the enviornment, take a look at these articles:
http://oils.gpa.unep.org/facts/natural-sources.htm
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2000/200001261633.html
Posted by: rahdigly at November 22, 2005 02:55 PMMikeP:
“You call what Andre wrote as a €œfact€ yet you do not hold his post to the same standards as those you disagree wiht?”
I recognize many of Andre’s facts as things I’ve researched and read about before. I know that Andre is telling the truth. You guys are the ones who are questioning his list, therefore, it is up to you to look into whatever seems questionable.
“Why not have Andre actually prove he is presenting a fact before requesting someone to debunk it?”
All you have to do is Google the individual pieces of info he’s given you along with the dates. Now quit stalling and get to work, righties.
Posted by: Adrienne at November 22, 2005 03:00 PMMike P,
The Natural Resources Defense Council
www.nrdc.org
it keeps a record of Environmental issues and those who vote for or against them.
In other words, liberal, left wing, socialists, hell bent on the destruction of our god-fearing American way of life.
Rhadigly, Sanger, Scicilianeagle,
Based on your comments, can I assume i’m not invited to Thanksgiving dinner?
Oh, and liberals do eat babies.
You guys are the ones who are questioning his list, therefore, it is up to you to look into whatever seems questionable.
Wow, why didn’t i ever think of this come-back in school? Hey teacher, YOU look it up! :p
Posted by: jo at November 22, 2005 03:04 PMAdrienne,
The facts of the matter are this…If these things were factually true, Bush would be long gone by now…
And you can google all you want…
Posted by: Discerner at November 22, 2005 03:08 PMtoddgandee,
I am an idiot.
It feels good to get that off my chest. Thank you.
Andre
You are free to come over for Thanksgiving if you want.
I will be serving Democratic crow….you must of had that before,haven’t you?
I mean,the Democratics have been eating it since the election…..
Posted by: sicilianeagle at November 22, 2005 03:18 PMNewcomers to this forum may benefit from learning to read between the lines of far left rhetoric. Ever seen Subliminal Man on SNL? Here’s how it works.
I recognize many of Andre’s facts [partisan talking points} as things I’ve researched and read about before [on far left blogs and in socialist newspapers]. I know that Andre is telling the truth [he says exactly what I already believe].Posted by: sanger at November 22, 2005 03:18 PM
Andre
For desert we will be serving a nice slice of Yellowcake too.
Posted by: sicilianeagle at November 22, 2005 03:20 PMAndre
Geez..I almost forgot..we will be serving as an elegant “appertif” a nice bottle of Chateau D’noballs….from an elegant San Fransico winery…
Posted by: Siclilianeagle at November 22, 2005 03:25 PM€œIf the environment had thumbs it would have picked up that phone fifty years ago and made that call⦣x20AC;?€
posted by treehugger-
BUT IT€™S ALL BUSH€™S FAULT! The environment didn€™t actually become destroyed until Bush took office!
If Clinton had done a better job repairing the environment Bush could€™t have destroyed it THAT FAST!
It€™s Clinton€™s fault!!!!
=============
Its been every president’s fault for the last 60 years you goofball. My post said nothing about Bush although he has done a bit more than even his predicessors to degrade it further and faster.
And PS, because i dislike bush doesn’t mean i am a democrat and that i loved clinton. somepeople aren’t blind loyal to a party man, wake up.
jo:
“Tell me again how the Democrats are not anti-faith and that all Muslims Christians, Jews and Hindus should vote and support the DNC.”
The Democrats are not anti-faith. Muslims, Christians, Jews, and Hindus should support whatever political party they want.
Personally and though I am an agnostic, I’ve always liked this part from the the sermon on the mount where Jesus told his disciples:
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them.”
IMO, George Bush is a man who has not proven himself to be honest or trustworthy or good, therefore, simply having faith in him because he he is the president and because he talks a lot about God, makes no sense to me.
Posted by: Adrienne at November 22, 2005 03:29 PMAwesome post! You could write unlimited more and have plenty of facts to back them up. Bush-Cheney and their minions are facist criminals, nothing less.
Posted by: Marko at November 22, 2005 03:33 PMThomas wrote:
“do you really think we are better as a nation today with him? Safer? Stabler economically? Socially? Educationally? Facts and opinions are at everyones fingertips, it is up to you and everyone to respond with educated responses not name calling and posturing.
_______________________
Yes, I truly do believe we’re are better off with Bush as Prez. One of the reasons is his foreign policy; it’s bold, he’s taking a very tough stand on terrorism. All the Prez’s before him did little to nothing when it came to terrorism, not this Prez. He also realigned our allies to help us in the middle east; Pakistan is a big ally in the War on Terrorism. Big Ally!
Another thing I like about Bush is that, when you look back at the 2004 election campaigns, Kerry was telling the people what they wanted to hear, Bush was telling people what they didn’t want to hear. One of the main issues I’m referring to is on the war in Iraq. This war was messy and, it didn’t look like there was any hope at times, and Bush was saying we’re going to stay until the job is complete. I think that takes courage, fortitude and commitment to do something like that; I mean, that was his political career on the line and he didn’t fold.
Economically, I definitely believe that we are better off with Bush; those tax cuts kept us from an even deeper recession, especially with that perfect storm (dotcom bubble, corporate scandals and 9/11). We also knocked down $100 billion in the budget deficit this year alone due to more tax revenues generated by the tax cuts. And, you look at our economy right now, we’ve had almost a 4% growth in this past quater and that included hurricanes Katrina and Rita which wiped out 30% of our gas supply at one point.
I believe that good/great leaders lead not to be liked, they make decisions based on what they believe is right. I think this president has done that thus far. Now, I’m sure the “crazies” will come out of the woodwork on this comment; however, based on the facts and realities presented before us, Bush is a leader that I truly respect.
Posted by: rahdigly at November 22, 2005 03:39 PMsicilianeagle,
Whatever you do, don’t serve sheep, that would make you a cannibal.
I would like to recommend Chateau’Ignorethefacts, It tastes however you want it to taste and if you decide it doesn’t taste good anymore, you can change the flavor.If anyone says it tastes like shit, you have permission to attack them for disagreeing with you about how it tastes. ;)
Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at November 22, 2005 03:41 PMAdrienne,
Disagreeing with President Bush, Republican candidates or the GOP platform is fine; i do it all the time. However, when the Democrats support anti-faith rhetoric in either substance or silence, the message i sclear to people of faith… you are not welcome in the Democratic Party. If you try to come here— drop your faith, it will not be tolerated.
Posted by: jo at November 22, 2005 03:43 PMAndre
I have already enjoyed the wine you suggested.I passed the recommendation along to my friends in high government circles too.
Sheep I have no familiarity with except that I do know that certain of your party date them occasionially and some have even married.As a matter of fact,I saw a whole flock of them on CSPAN bleeting last Friday night.
Posted by: sicilianeagle at November 22, 2005 03:58 PMGood point Jo. Case is point is Bill Maher’s show. He is clearly quite liberal as is 99% of his live audience. He is openly hostile toward religion and religious people, whom he blithely mocks as idiots. When he does so, his audience is either silent or applauds. While this certainly isn’t an official Dem Party show, it gives people of faith a clear impression of how they are regarded by liberals.
Posted by: boojum at November 22, 2005 04:02 PMSo, not one of you intends to de-bunk anything that Andre has listed?
Like I said, empty posturing.
Go ahead, take all the pot-shots at us you want to — but you still haven’t proved a thing.
jo,
You are always saying that the Democratic party is faithless and hostile to people of faith, meanwhile, many of my friends and family are very happy being both people of faith and liberal voters. Go figure.
Adrienne,
Some people have different priorities. Some value politics over faith. Go figure.
Posted by: jo at November 22, 2005 04:07 PMpost script:
A person does not have to vote DNC to be liberal.
Posted by: jo at November 22, 2005 04:09 PMFinally an honest post from the left.
Bush is the enemy in the minds of the left. More so than any ‘so-called’ terrorists.
I find it instructive that the crimes listed by Andre are political in nature. No doubt, in a fully progressive America political crimes will carry severe penalties as they do in other countries when the left comes into power.
jo:
“Some value politics over faith.”
And some people, like my friends and family, see that politics can be a reflection of their faith.
“For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you will, you can do good to them”
“It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
Therefore, IMO, Jesus would never stand on the right side of the political isle, because the Republican’s are, and always have been, the party of rich men who care little for the plight of the poor.
Posted by: Adrienne at November 22, 2005 04:32 PMIMO, God is God of all, not one side or another.
Posted by: jo at November 22, 2005 04:37 PMSure, God (if he or she or it exists) is God of all, but Jesus took a stand, and asked his disciples to follow.
Posted by: Adrienne at November 22, 2005 04:43 PMSanger said,They obviously have to do with points on which the administration disagrees with far left environmental groups,
Actually, the Bush administration does not agree with any environmental groups. Or even scientists for that matter. Bush only listens to God and those special interest that got him elected.
Posted by: Ronnie Wright at November 22, 2005 04:44 PMericsimonson,
Once again you argue that Bush is not a bad guy compared to terrorists. If we say Bush is a bad guy then we must not think the terrorists are.
That logic is frightening.
Are you O.K. with him signing the bills that were mentioned that effect our environment, all for the sake of “Big Oil and Energy comapanies?
Are you O.K with the cuts to troops benefits?
Why not answer the charges instead of bitching about the Left?
Adrienne,
Jesus also said to love your enemies. How are those in the DNC who profess faith in God reflect this.. the GOP being the enemy of the DNC?
Posted by: jo at November 22, 2005 04:54 PMSomebody on the other side asked me for a definition of hate. I can’t really define it in all its forms, but I think I have found an example.
We evidently don’t live in the same country. I spend a lot of time “in nature” and have not noticed things getting worse over the past six years. In fact, where I live this year we had no code red days at all this year. Six years ago we used to have them every summer. Wildife is jumping around all over the place. In fact I hope somebody shoots more of those deer, bear and wild turkeys. The forests are healthier than they were because we can make some decent management cuts. There is a little less stink in the air since the Bush Administration passed the off road engine legislation a couple years back, but I suppose since you didn’t see that smoke it didn’t matter much.
Posted by: Jack at November 22, 2005 05:08 PMThe fact is there are few good politicians in this country at this time and fewer statesmen. The Republicans have given up all semblance of morality by their continued supprt of a third rate political hack just so they can maintain power. Just because their political trickery and the use of the big lie is working(the use and misuse of domogoguery and Christianity etc. to advance the cause of big business and commerce at any price) most definitely doesn’t make it right.
The Democrats, well any idea, of associating them with true liberal ideas is a joke. Since the Reagan years they have been running from a label they should take pride in. Reember the true meaning of the word and realize that for liberals we would live in a world much like the middle ages where only the few had any powers or rights, where women many men were just chattel, where most men and many children labored seven days a week for a subsistance (if they were lucky) level.
It is time the people in this country looked around and paid attention to what is really happening, conservatives and liberals alike,because neither could possibly be truly happy about the direction our leaders are leading us.
I, just happen to be a true liberal who cares about the weakest among us,(the children, the poor, the hungry, the uneducated, soon to be-the middle class) the world God has given us(see you can be liberal and a Christian too, much like Christ Himself), which includes the environment we all have to live in, the air we breathe, the water we drink and the land we walk upon.
It is the responsbility of everyone to care for and educate their children, and to watch out for and help our neighbors(which is inclusive of the entire human race), even when we don’t like them.
Back to Bush, sadly, the man should be arrested and put on public trial as an example to the world that the U.S. still has ideals to be respected and emulated.
(see you can be liberal and a Christian too, much like Christ Himself)
:)
Sing it, hum it, live it.
jo,
Enemy is a little harsh, don’t you think?
Opposition definitely, but not enemy.
Jesus said, when standing before Pilate (undoubtedly his enemy):
“Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”
I happen to think that people on left much more closely follow the active and open-hearted philosophy of Jesus’ truth, rather than displaying the qualities of false prophets who merely paying lip-service to his name.
Andre Andre Andre let me guess you voted for the “WAR HERO” Kerry. Guess what incase you missed it kerry lost Bush Won get over it get a life. A truth tp you liberals is like garlic to a vampire.
Posted by: Thomas at November 22, 2005 05:25 PMThanks, Andre, for the beginnings of a list of the problems with the Bush administration. The part about speaking before a military audience is really creepy, and sounds like mind control or a scene out of the Manchurian Candidate. (Insert a favorite annunaki reference here, like this one: ).”>http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/eridu.html).
On the “faith” question, Rpblcns believe that “the end justifies the means”, which is contrary to any religion. They favor local government over the federal government. The local governments are the most oppressive, and always claim the right to confiscate people’s property. The federal government is our protection against real estate developers who can easily control local governments.
The torture question was resolved centuries ago, but this administration wants to believe that useful information can be obtained from prisoners, because they think they are much better at torture than people were in the past. Is that the kind of expertise we want our government to be bragging about? Our government is in the hands of a lunatic fringe, who might as well be aliens from another galaxy.
Posted by: ray at November 22, 2005 05:31 PMAdrienne,
I happen to think that people on left much more closely follow the active and open-hearted philosophy of Jesus€™ truth, rather than displaying the qualities of false prophets who merely paying lip-service to his name.
Active, open-hearted? Is that the message people of faith receive from the DNC? Or is that professed tolerance limited to members of the DNC?
Posted by: jo at November 22, 2005 05:32 PM
Adrienne:
I happen to think that people on left much more closely follow the active and open-hearted philosophy of Jesus€™ truth, rather than displaying the qualities of false prophets who merely paying lip-service to his name.
Jesus did have a heart for the godless, and he called the religious right a broad of vipers.
You might be right.
Craig
sanger
if I can find a headline somewhere that says €œLiberals Eat Babies,€If there was a headline like that, Ericsimonson would already have posted it - or made it up, after discovering that at least one liberal ate veal. Posted by: ElliottBay at November 22, 2005 05:34 PM
Thomas,
That was deep. You really have a keen insight into the world around you. You have shed so much light on the subject being discussed.
I’m sure I speak for all of us you accuse of being liberals, when I say that what you typed has changed my views on our government. Your vampire analogy was moving and amusing. Your Kerry remarks were so on point. I’m a changed person thanks to you and your infinite wisdom.
I am going to join the cause. I now support and admire the Bush administration. It is now my sworn duty, as a new Bush supporter to shove my head up my @$$ and ignore all of the facts and attack those who try to convince me that facts and research and science are good.
Thank you Thomas, or can I call you brother Thomas. We are now a team. Go USA! Go NRA! Go WWE!
I’m in the mood to buy a pick-up truck.
rahdigly said:
Pakistan is a big ally in the War on Terrorism. Big Ally!……. 2004 election campaigns….Bush was saying we€™re going to stay until the job is complete. …..$100 billion in the budget deficit this year alone …..however, based on the facts and realities presented before us, Bush is a leader that I truly respect
Okay. I can respect your opinion and that is what this is about, right. So here is my take on your points. If Pakistan is such a great ally, why dont they allow us to go get the person who attacked us? Why didnt we follow him into their territory? It was forbidden. The real war has been pushed aside.
as far as i can remember the 2004 election the ONLY thing the bush group and gop ever talked about was the war on terrorism. That was in Afghanistan, what was going on in Iraq? bickering over sanctions by the UN. that is all!!! Fear is what they based it all on. oh that and gay marriage. REMEMBER? Staying until the job is complete would mean you would have to know what the end goal is. No real policies were discussed. even now the last word any gop member states is,”he (the president)is busy fighting the war on terror.” Where was the talk of medical care, education, economics and the nations real needs? no one.
CPAdams has the best post yet.
As far as economics. I do not have a degree but when GM closes plants and unemployment rises I fail to see that your point is right. We still have a deficit that we did not have before.
I disagree with you on your respect for bush. I think he is a failure. He is a one trick pony and that trick is old.
Disagreeing with President Bush, Republican candidates or the GOP platform is fine; i do it all the time. However, when the Democrats support anti-faith rhetoric in either substance or silence, the message i sclear to people of faith€ you are not welcome in the Democratic Party. If you try to come here€” drop your faith, it will not be tolerated.Posted by: jo at November 22, 2005 03:43 PM
I will have to say that I can’t remember any Democrats ever supporting anti-faith rhetoric. Ever! In fact, almost every Democrat I know personally are Christians. What I have seen over and over are Democrats that support the separation of church and state as presented in our Constitution. Where as the Republican Party, having been taken over by right wing Evangelicals (American Taliban), are trying to takeover and run our country according to their extreme religious faith. And, try to force their extreme religious faith on everyone. I find it disturbing when Republicans try to claim that Christians who don€™t support the thinking of right wing Evangelicals (American Taliban) are not really Christians. I see no difference between them (American Taliban) and the radical Islamist we are fighting in Iraq and elsewhere. The American Taliban even has their own terrorist who bomb abortion clinics and assassinate doctors, nurses, and other staff at abortion clinics. Some of the Evangelical leaders even call on the death penalty for gays and others they don€™t like. There is no end to the evil that these people will do if given the chance. I think it is in our countries best interest to toss these people out of our government. It€™s time to end Bushes crusade.
To learn more about the Right Wing Evangelical takeover of the Republican Party visit: Theocracy Watch
to the other thomas. specify a last intial. you make me look like an ass!
The “war hero” kerry crack is old. his service IN COUNTRY is proven. Where are your boys documents?
Wow! Jo, Your perception od Democtats not being inclusive of “people of faith” is laughable. I am a member of several organizations that are faith based and the vast majority of the members of these groups are of the “liberal” mindset.
Posted by: Marko at November 22, 2005 05:53 PMI find it disturbing when Republicans try to claim that Christians who don’t support the thinking of right wing Evangelicals (American Taliban) are not really Christians.
Ronnie Wright,
i would be one of those considered not really Christian. Adrienne is a regular contributor here on watchblog yet his remark which i initially addressed has not once in this column been criticized by any Democrat. “willfully going along with what can only be considered a pathetic and mindless sort of “faith based” belief in your Dear Leader”
Since that original posting, there have been several other disparaging references to Christians in particular and people of faith in general.. which would include Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Deists as well as Christians. Yet this rhetoric goes unquestioned because it is the status quo for the DNC. It is expected. It is the party line, written or not.
i find it more disturbing when Democrats try to claim that people who do not support the thinking of the progressive humanists are not really Americans and have not evolved enough to claim the equality written in the constitution nor the right to express their faith outside their own homes (preferably with the shades drawn and then in muffled whispers.)
Posted by: jo at November 22, 2005 06:19 PMRe: the budget deficit…it is common macroeconomic practice to run a deficity during a recession because a)the recession causes a decline in tax receipts and b)increased government spending helps stimulate the economy. That is not a partisan point. Any administration of either party would have run a deficit of some size in the early 2000’s in response to the recession (which was very short and mild by historical standards).
Bush said during the campaign that we would halve the deficit by the midpoint of his second term and we are on schedule to do just that. Tax cuts are one, but certainly not the only, reason the economy is growing and tax revenues are up.
Re: unemployment. The overall economy is gaining jobs, not losing them. The GM layoffs is not a symptom is weakness in the economy, but rather a symptom of poor management, pension and health benefits burdens that have hurt competitiveness. They need to shed these jobs and probably more to stay out of bankrupty. Again, this is not a partisan point, but standard econimics.
As for Pakistan, the region in which Bin Laden is thought to be hiding is essentially an autonomous region that is hostile to the central government. Plus Musharraf has to contend with Islamic fundamentalists in his own country (including in the army and itel agency) and, as the refusal to hand over AQ Khan shows, his domestic situation precludes him from being TOO close to the US.
Posted by: boojum at November 22, 2005 06:20 PMHi Guys,
Infrequent responder here (maybe some of you remember my blogging from last year).
It seems that this blog has created some interesting debate here, which I haven´t seen in awhile on this blog…good.
So for my 2 or 3 euro (because I´m in Spain) cents:
Andre,
Good Post, although they are right that links makes substantiation easier (I´m lazy).
jo said,
You guys are the ones who are questioning his list, therefore, it is up to you to look into whatever seems questionable.
Wow, why didn€™t i ever think of this come-back in school? Hey teacher, YOU look it up! :p
Actually thats backwards. The correct relation there would be like the teacher (not implying that Andre is a teacher) handing you a list of articles to lookup online and you telling HER/HIM to look it up for you; at least that´s the way I interpret it.
Sanger said,
Newcomers to this forum may benefit from learning to read between the lines of far left rhetoric. Ever seen Subliminal Man on SNL? Here€™s how it works.
I recognize many of Andre€™s facts [partisan talking points} as things I€™ve researched and read about before [on far left blogs and in socialist newspapers]. I know that Andre is telling the truth [he says exactly what I already believe].
Yes, you are right, the NRDC is most likely a left leaning group whose main concern is the environment. But does that surprise you? We are the only ones who seem to care about it. I never hear people or organizations from the right mention anything about the environment….oh wait I´m sorry Bush did mention something a few years back about forest thinning to prevent forest fires (I always like the logic of that one, help prevent trees from burning down by cutting them down).
And not everything he quoted came from liberal news papers. If you notice (in the military crimes section) he did quote an AP article (I assume Andre that you did not alter it in any way??) and he also quoted our very own Defense Secretary (I´m not sure, but I don´t think he is socialist).
Sanger also said,
But I€™m glad to hear that disagreeeing with a liberal now consitutes a €œcrime.€ Joseph Stalin would be proud.
I am surprised nobody has said anything about this but I am absolutely offended by this statement.
First, don´t be ignorant, the word “crime” is multifaceted and can be used to describe things other than human imposed legal restrictions. Is your (sorry webblog manager) command of the English language so poor that you have nothing but a fundamental understanding of it?
And for another thing, as far as I know (someone feel free to provide me with proof otherwise), it has never been a crime (literal translation) to disagree with liberals. I would love to know one person in the America who was ever conviced of a crime for the simple fact of disagreeing with a liberal.
Second, and more important, Joeseph Stalin was an absolutely abominable man whose crimes (literal translation) mirrored if not surpassed those of Adolf Hitler. If you disagree with this statement, visit the “House of Terror” museum in Budapest, Hungary and find out for yourself about the atrocities (and their similarities) performed upon the Hungarian people by both maniacal dictators. Would you like it if I said things about conservative to the effect:”Adolf Hitler would be proud.”
I think I and other liberals deserve an apology for that below the belt shot. In fact, on that note, where has any of us on this webblog ever heralded “the tenets of National Socialism” (John Goodman, “Big Lebowski”). I think we all prefer and will continue to prefer Democracy.
Remember, Aristotle once said,
Plato! Get your hand off my….
wait thats not right…
Democracy is the worst form of Government; bar all others.Posted by: Nick at November 22, 2005 06:22 PM
jo:
“Active, open-hearted?”
Yes. “You shall know them by their fruits”, rather their words, which can often be empty of meaning.
“Is that the message people of faith receive from the DNC? Or is that professed tolerance limited to members of the DNC?”
When Democrats talk about allowing everyone to have equal rights and freedoms, or giving assistance to the poor, I’ve never seen them drawing party lines around who should receive such things, have you?
Craig:
“Jesus did have a heart for the godless,”
So, despite everything I and several others have said here, you guys are still insisting the left is completely godless?
I guess I’ll never understand why so many feel that way, seeing as how I grew up in a large Catholic family (on both my mothers and fathers sides) which generally voted for liberal candidates.
Btw, believing that our America should have a separation of church and state doesn’t mean those advocating it are godless either, instead, it means that our govt. should be inclusive toward everyone of all religions, or those who aren’t religious at all. In other words a government by and for ALL the people.
jo:
“Yet this rhetoric goes unquestioned because it is the status quo for the DNC. It is expected. It is the party line, written or not.”
No, it goes unquestioned because those of us on the left know Bush and the GOP’s “faith based” rhetoric is quite empty and meaningless, so we openly mock it. If it was real and displayed actions to back up that rhetoric, I’d never have made that crack at all.
Posted by: Adrienne at November 22, 2005 06:36 PMAdrienne,
The words “faith based” did not and do not include the word republican or GOP. If you want to direct your mockery at someone, you might consider what means you use to direct it.
Faith based means what? Republicans? And then you complain that people think only the GOP are Christians? YOU make the divisions. YOU mock FAITH. YOU do not distinguish between republicans or democrats, Hindus or Jews. YOU allow progressive humanists to alineate people of ALL faiths (and those w/o who are tolerant of ithers) from your party by allowing, repeating and multiplying their mockery of faith.
BTW, is mockery also a reflection of your faith?
Posted by: jo at November 22, 2005 06:46 PMAdrienne,
Therefore, IMO, Jesus would never stand on the right side of the political isle, because the Republican€™s are, and always have been, the party of rich men who care little for the plight of the poor.
How very judgemental of you, and might I say it is a very, ‘disdainful and sweeping generalization about people’ on the right.
God commands that we take care of the poor. Notice that he didn’t say “make ye a Federal program” to take care of the poor.
One of the verses you partially quoted is in Mark. Jesus was in fact responding to those who were indignant that a woman anointed His feet with expensive oil. No doubt this was a rich woman who spent an extravagant amount of money on Jesus’s feet. The ‘murmurers’ had it in their minds that they knew better than this woman how to spend her wealth and were indulging in some self-righteous anger over her wastefulness.
And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured it on his head.4 And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of the ointment made?
5 For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her.
6 And Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on me.7 For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.
8 She hath done what she could: she is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying.
9 Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her.
10 And Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went unto the chief priests, to betray him unto them. biblegateway.com
Two things I’d like to point out about this is 1) the murmurers felt that they were better informed as to how this woman’s wealth should be spent. 2) Verse 7, which you quoted, actually says, “whensoever ye will ye may do them good”. This puts it on you and me, my dear, to help the poor. I do not consider a dysfunctional welfare system run by socialist minded folks to be adequet in fulfilling my responsibilities toward god in taking care of the poor, do you?
The point being that disagreeing with a welfare policy does not make one hateful of the poor. To argue that it does is flatly wrong.
Posted by: esimonson at November 22, 2005 06:56 PMjo,
You’re an embarassment to most Christians (and especially to this one). Where’s the love for your fellow human? Real Christians don’t behave like you, and aren’t as full of hate as you.
Eric,
i disagree with your statement:Notice that he didn€™t say €œmake ye a Federal program€ to take care of the poor.
In Ezekiel, it is the collective ie, the government/society being addressed
Eze 16:49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.
You might also try looking at King Saul’s example of what God thinks of people claiming they are successful due to their own hard work and virtue.
Posted by: jo at November 22, 2005 07:04 PM“The only thing you can really do is deal with it until the next election.”
Why? Ever heard of Impeachment?
Unfortunately, I got here 8 hours after your post and had to read all the inane rebuttals and republican talking heads spin but I would like to say one thing to the author.
Thank you for the recap Andre, Great Post. Hope you don’t mind if I copy it and post it at work on the bulletin boards (I will of course post it as your article).
BTW, Al Franken’s book, The Truth, with jokes.” is excellent. And for those to lazy to read, it just came out on audio CD so you can laugh at the jokes, and cry about the state of the country on your was home from work.
Posted by: Pat at November 22, 2005 07:06 PMRealChristian,
Thank you for exemplifying your faith in public. i know i need a lot of work and it helps when others are willing to lend a hand demonstrating the humility of Christ so that others like me may learn and follow.
jo
Posted by: jo at November 22, 2005 07:09 PM“IMO, God is God of all, not one side or another”.
Please direct me to the evidence that supports this claim.
You can’t just as I can’t provide evidence to the contrary, thus no real argument and without argument there is no need for politics.
So why do you people continue to politicize your religious beliefs?
Posted by: expatUSA_Indonesia at November 22, 2005 07:11 PMexpat,
i stated my opinion in response to another’s opinion. i do not think either of us claimed emperical or factual standing.
Andre,
Once again you argue that Bush is not a bad guy compared to terrorists. If we say Bush is a bad guy then we must not think the terrorists are. That logic is frightening.
Fortunately, that’s not what I said.
My comparison is that the left is perfectly willing to praise real terrorists, minimizing their brutality and criminality and while on the other hand condemning Bush as a criminal who, “lies and kills at will.”
You have a real problem when terrorists are ‘brave people’ who are ‘just misunderstood’, and yet they behead people and plainly pronounce their intention to kill everyone who will not bow before them. While Bush is an American President who is not a killer or a terrorist. I’m not sure that you get very far with that kind of platform. I must admit though that I was hoping for a Dean candidacy in the last election. Maybe the next?
Are you O.K. with him signing the bills that were mentioned that effect our environment, all for the sake of “Big Oil and Energy comapanies? Are you O.K with the cuts to troops benefits?
Again, these are ‘political crimes’ Andre. You and I are ‘affecting our environment’ with our very existance. Would you have me believe that ‘affecting our environment’ is a crime? You haven’t exactly set forth the case of why Oil and Energy companies are criminal either and if cutting troop benefits were a crime wouldn’t most of the democrats throughout the seventies be in jail?
Why not answer the charges instead of bitching about the Left?
When you come up with some real charges I guess I’ll have to answer them. As it is you make my point that the left is over the top with their hateful rhetoric against Republicans.
Posted by: esimonson at November 22, 2005 07:17 PM“The words €œfaith based€ did not and do not include the word republican or GOP.”
That’s right, that’s why I said:
“Otherwise, we may view what you€™re doing as either just a lot of empty posturing, or willfully going along with what can only be considered a pathetic and mindless sort of €œfaith based€ belief in your Dear Leader.”
“Faith based means what?”
In this instance it means having his followers show misplaced faith in Bush and this administration, simply because they talk a lot about their supposed faith, though none of their actions have ever shown that they take the words in the bible to heart.
In other words, I think they’re an orchard full of bad trees that bear nothing but bad fruit, and their followers are trying to gather grapes from thornbushes, and figs from thistles.
See, I want my govt. to be an orchard of good trees that bear good fruit, that’s why I think we should cut these bad trees down and throw them into the fire — in this instance, that means impeachment trials.
“BTW, is mockery also a reflection of your faith?”
No. My mockery is a reflection of my intellect and intuition. I’ve always had the uncanny ability to know a charlatan when I see and hear one.
Oh, and as I mentioned earlier, I’m an agnostic, so I withold judgement on whether God exists. However, like I’ve said to you before, I also know how to spot a loving heart and a good philosophy when I read it, and so, the words of Jesus have always made perfect sense to me.
Thank you for exemplifying your faith in public. i know i need a lot of work and it helps when others are willing to lend a hand demonstrating the humility of Christ so that others like me may learn and follow.
==========
Some people will never follow. Some like to find their own path. Christ, he was a great man, had some very liberal ideas and as such should been looked upon with great respect. He used the same vision that many are criticized for using today. To progress you need look outside of convention, to find the truth in that which we all percieve, as well as identify the evil buried in the choices we make. That is what the liberals who criticize the president are doing. They aren’t doing so with the selfish intention of preventing you from finding peace in your life, but merely the ways in which the system of government we live under should be improved so that we may all benefit from an increase in the quality of life. How is that villianized? I have no idea.
My point is Jesus loves liberals because he can relate to them. I know this because Jesus called me last week and left an obnoxiously long message on my answering machine. He just goes on and on… Nice guy, but he can talk.
Posted by: TreeHugger at November 22, 2005 07:28 PMAdrienne,
i am familiar with and respect doubt. i am not asking that you agree with my beliefs or the existence of God. i am merely doing my best to express the inhospitable climate of this rhetoric to many people of all faiths. i am optimistic and hope that people of faith in the future find a less hostile environment in the DNC.
Posted by: jo at November 22, 2005 07:33 PMWow, what an awful lot of uninformed venom being spewed by the sycophants in this post today.
To: Jo, Craig, SicilianEagle, Sanger, boojum, Thomas, etc.: aren’t you getting tired of having your ignorance pointed out to you by people who have forgotten more than you will ever learn (you kick ass Adrienne)? At what point will shame get you to crawl back into your dirty little ideological dogmatic holes? Must you continue to embarass yourselves publicly with lines of crap that no one but you think are funny or true? If I’m not mistaken, there’s a Republican/Conservative forum - wouldn’t you be better off there with your fellow troglodytes? At least then your relative intelligence level would be significantly improved by virtue of association.
Posted by: roger at November 22, 2005 08:36 PMPS. Excellent post Andre. Don’t let the fools shout you down.
Posted by: roger at November 22, 2005 08:39 PMsicilianeagle,
“Pieces like this make me puke.
If this were the second world war,you would be put up against a wall and shot for those comments.
This man is the Commander in Chief.
What a disgrace.”
——
Please don’t take this the wrong way, but I’ve been meaning to ask you…
Is there any circumstance, in your opinion, where it’s justifiable to fault the President of the United States? Your response to Andre’s post above and to other posts lead me to believe that your answer will be “no”— simply because you maintain that Bush is our President and as such, is above reproach. I realize I might be simplifying, but am I basically correct? I’d really like to know.
I ask, because your unwavering support for our Commander in Chief seems to be based on Bush’s job title rather than what he does in that job. If this were North Korea, I’d fully expect you to be saying that Andre’s exposition of the facts concerning Kim Jong Il’s reckless incompetence is likewise treasonous because he is, after all, our dear leader. (I know, I know…you WOULD be shot in North Korea and all of your family members would be placed into gulags for saying such things.. .but that’s kinda my point. Why isn’t it okay to be against Bush’s policies while still being supportive of the position he holds?)
Do you really support Bush JUST because he’s the President? Do the facts (not opinions) that Andre and others in this blog put forth mean nothing? Just wondering…
At what point will shame get you to crawl back into your dirty little ideological dogmatic holes? Must you continue to embarass yourselves publicly with lines of crap that no one but you think are funny or true? If I’m not mistaken, there’s a Republican/Conservative forum - wouldn€™t you be better off there with your fellow troglodytes? At least then your relative intelligence level would be significantly improved by virtue of association.
Hello Roger. Thank you for the… familiar DNC welcome. Glad to see you back made it back home to the Democrat side.
Posted by: jo at November 22, 2005 08:53 PMNice post, tree hugger! :^) Loved the message machine bit at the end there.
jo:
“i am optimistic and hope that people of faith in the future find a less hostile environment in the DNC.”
jo,
Have you done a lot of hanging around out at the Democratic National Committee? You keep mentioning “the DNC” like you’d spent a lot of time in the building taking a whole lot of flak from hordes of Democrats. ;^)
No, but seriously, have you spent much time at all in the company of people who consider themselves liberals? I have to say that I kind of doubt it, because if you had, you’d already know that we’re comprised of people from all walks of life — and that our numbers do indeed include a great many who are devoutly religious. The priest at my local parish, for instance — the man’s extremely religious (naturally), he’s got a great (I’d love to say wicked, but won’t! :^) sense of humor, and he’s a total lefty.
I think that what you’d find is that while some really hardcore-atheists on the left always go around trying to divest everyone of their faith (something I personally find every bit as annoying as those who do the opposite in the form of pushing religion), you’d find that the majority of liberal people you’ll meet will show you nothing but respect. Indeed I think most of us tend to show respect for people of all faiths, (but like I said, perhaps that’s as long as folks aren’t constantly moralizing or proselytizing).
I think tree hugger really hit on something there when she? he? talked about liberals feeling the need to discover their own paths — that we’re highly individualistic. I think that’s very true, and I honestly believe that because of that fact, the majority of us don’t go around disrespecting the many spiritual or intellectual paths that others choose to take.
Just some food for your thoughts.
Sorry Jo, but just because intelligent people will not let the right wing christian zealots impose their strictures on our society does not make us or those we support anti-religious. You implying that it does renders your arguments silly at best and not worth listening to.
Frankly I do think organized religion of every stripe is pretty dumb, but I also think that your right and every other American’s right to practice it (or not) is sacrosant in our democracy and I’d fight to protect it as much as I’ll fight to protect my agnosticism. Deal with it.
Posted by: roger at November 22, 2005 09:10 PMThanks for the compliment roger (I like lots of your posts too!), but I’m not yet ready to put jo in the same league as the others you’ve named. And definitely not Craig — who I feel reaches out on both sides. Indeed, probably more than I do, but should.
Adrienne you are welcome for the compliment - I have complete respect for anyone who belies the liberal weenie stereotype as you so well do. Having said that, and as you probably realize by now, i see no reason at this point in time to be reaching out to anyone further than the middle or to those on the right who, unlike so many of the wingnut posters in here, are rational, considerate people in the mold of say Chuck Hagel or John Warner. I think too many posts from the far right in here are merely lies and obfuscations that waste the time of intelligent people like yourself and render them irrelevant in the debate.
Craig, Adrienne is right. What separates us from the wingnuts is our ability to recognize when we’re wrong and correct course. I therefore apologize for lumping you in as I did (I’ve done this to Jack too). I still disagree with most of your posts but see them as being of that Hagel/Warner ilk that I indicated above. Jo I cannot give you the same consideration based upon what I’ve seen you write but will keep an open mind moving forward. Please see my last post.
Posted by: roger at November 22, 2005 09:30 PMPS.. Adrienne - I love the way you articulate the liberal understanding of Jesus’ teachings and heart. Why can’t they understand the separation of divinity and philosophy?
Posted by: roger at November 22, 2005 09:46 PMAndre,
Great post. I can’t wait for: G.W. Bush’s crimes against the poor and elderly, our future economic strength, the constitution and civil liberties, world opinion and credibility, our sense of security. New Orleans.
This is truly an administration of smoke and mirrors.
Posted by: JayJay Snowman at November 22, 2005 11:06 PMBoojum, you must not have been in the military or do not know anyone who is or was. It is forced on you from the time you walk into basic training that you follow your co’s orders. In the case of Lindy England and others like her(not that I agree with what was done)they were just following their co’s orders(which had to come from somewhere)They are just the scapegoats that have to pay the price of following orders. My husband was in the navy, my father in the army as well as a nephew serving for a second time in Iraq. I have the utmost respect for the service men and women. What I do not have respect for is someone shoving terror down my throat everytime something happens that goes wrong with what this administration has planned. Again it is a proven fact that the idea to invade Iraq was on this presidents mind even before 9/11, it was just the excuse. Another proven fact is as stated by Bush himself on national tv is that even he thinks that this is an unwinnable war. Yes there are jobs out there but are they jobs that someone could support a family on? NO. Yes probably the job cuts at GM and Ford are of their own making, but it doesn’t make it any better that they are going from a job that pays good money with benifits, to a job that won’t even pay the bills let alone pay to send their kids to college. As for the economy what a joke, the same can of cambells soup that used to cost 59 cents now costs 1.29 or more, and our paychecks are staying the same or getting smaller. Then god forbid you are retired and are on medicare, look out. For example my father who worked on the railroad for 30+ years is on 2 medications, medicare pays for 1 month half for the second month and they have to pay for it out of their pocket. Fortunatly his railroad pension is decent. There are elderly out there who are not so fortunate and have to pay for it out of their pension checks. This president has repeatedly shot down any talks of forcing the drug companies to regulate the cost of medications or any kind of drug reform but at the same time why should he, he and everyone in the administration don’t have to worry about it. The congressmen don’t have to worry as long as they keep getting re-elected. If they are unsuccesful at re-electiong there’s always special interest groups willing to hire anyone who’s willing to sell their soul to the devil just to get what they want. I for one am not willing to do that. The few people in congress that start out willing to help the people who elected them into that office either are not re-elected because they didn’t kiss someones ass or they become sell outs. Or in Mr. Murtha’s case called a coward when in all reality it’s those same ones doing the name calling that should be called the cowards. There are very few in congress that have served and actually completed tours of duty or even went further than the desk job that was gotten for them. Hell Bush had no clue about what he was doing which is why in his first term he had to surround himself with the same puppets his father had. I’m sorry I wasn’t a fan of pres Clinton but he was going to be impeached for far less than what pres Bush has done and will continue to do unless we start to stand up for ourselves.
Posted by: Sherri at November 23, 2005 12:36 AMroger: fyi, sycophants, by definition, don’t spew venom, they suck up to the people they are addressing. Regardless, I have “spewed venom” at no one, but have rather respectively offered my opinion.
Sherri: No, I have not been in the military—too old at this point and there were no imminent conflicts when I was of military age. And, as I said quite clearly, I think the Abu Graib mess should have gone higher up the chain of command than it did.
Re Iraq: Yes it was on Bush’s mind before 9/11. It was also on Clinton’s mind when he was president and Congress’mind. That’s why the official policy of the US before Bush took office was regime change in Iraq. Former head UN weapons inspector Richard Butler called Saddam the most dangerous man alive when he left UNSCOM, and he was joined in that assessment by his presecessors.
Bill Clinton in 1998:
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons-of-mass-destruction program”
Secretary of State Madeline Albright, also speaking in 1998:
“Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton’s National Security Adviser:
“He (Saddam) will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Notice you don’t hear any of these people joining the latest whiny Dem chorus about Bush “misleading” the American people.
Regarding economics, you really should read more. We are and have been for several years in a new economy. The era of guranteed jobs impervious to competition is long over.
Posted by: boojum at November 23, 2005 02:54 AMYou guys quoting Clinton never seem to realize that they’re all from 1998. Do you remember what happened in December of 1998? Clinton bombed the crap out of every single suspected WMD site Saddam had. Mission accomplished.
Find me a similar quote from Clinton or Albright from AFTER 1998. Hell, find me a similar quote from Bush, Condi, or Powell from before 2002.
And yes, regime change in Iraq was Clinton’s idea, and I can think of 50 ways to do it without unilaterally invading and occupying Iraq without overwhelming force, without clearly defined goals, and without an exit strategy.
Posted by: American Pundit at November 23, 2005 07:21 AMGeorge W. Bush is not the leader of the United States. He is our enemy.
Andre, that’s way over the top.
Posted by: American Pundit at November 23, 2005 07:23 AMMorning All:
Looking over the previous posts in this thread, all I can say is: “Andre, You hit the nail squarely on the head and drove it home with one mighty swing of the pen”. Keep up the good work. Wish you all a Safe and Happy Thanksgiving.
Take Care,
Wayne
Boojum - indicative of the usual right wing fare, you play word games. For five years, the objects of your sycophancy have played those games on the American public to hide the realities that are too difficult for them to face without spin.
I am not fooled by such wordplay, nor does it seem anymore, is the American public. You being a sycophant is based upon your clearly written support of the evil and/or incompetent idiots currently running our country. Just because you rehash the lies instilled in you by those you’re sucking up to does not change the fact that it’s venomous.
You can say it respectfully, but it’s still dangerous (to our nation’s health and well being) bullshit.
Posted by: roger at November 23, 2005 09:17 AMAmerican Pundit - with all due respect, calling Bush an enemy within certain (non-violent) context is not at all over the top. The man has denigrated and shamed our country and wreaked havoc on our democratic ideals. Enemy may not be the best word, but it is most certainly applicable. Bush bashing it is, but with complete and absolute merit.
Posted by: roger at November 23, 2005 09:22 AMroger, you can call him incompetent, dim, dishonest, and in the pocket of his major campaign donors, but calling him an “enemy” of America really is over the line.
Posted by: American Pundit at November 23, 2005 09:48 AMYes, it is our rational minds and decent hearts that bind liberals/progressives and I understand how that forces us to fight for our values more honorably than the other side. However, given the damage wrought by Bush and the republican leadership, I have to continue to disagree with you on this particular matter AP.
I compare to Neville Chamberlain who did more damage to his nation but it was his intention to do the right thing however misguided - not the acts of an enemy. After all this time, I cannot give Bush the same benefit of the doubt. I (and a great many others - probably you too) think he has pissed on this country with callous disregard for and derision of what it stands for. He abuses his office, stands for the abuse of its citizenry and environment and makes false claims of a monopoly on patriotism and even god. I know you too see the threat to the very foundations and security of our country caused directly by Bush et al. These, in many a rational mind, can clearly be considered the acts of an enemy.
Now, is it politically smart to label him so? Maybe, maybe not. We should not hesitate to use certain epithets anymore. Few other words can give an accurate account of the extent of the right-wing’s crimes and errors. We like to think the American people don’t like slash and burn politics, but I’ve seen their response to the rapture-right’s exploitation of their 9/11 engendered fears, and the sad proof time and again of the effectiveness of negativity in campaigns.
Posted by: roger at November 23, 2005 10:28 AMroger:
“After all this time, I cannot give Bush the same benefit of the doubt. I (and a great many others - probably you too) think he has pissed on this country with callous disregard for and derision of what it stands for. He abuses his office, stands for the abuse of its citizenry and environment and makes false claims of a monopoly on patriotism and even god. I know you too see the threat to the very foundations and security of our country caused directly by Bush et al. These, in many a rational mind, can clearly be considered the acts of an enemy.”
I’ll back you up here, Roger. I’ve thought of Bushco as enemies of the United States ever since they rushed their Patriot Act through the Congress without giving anyone enough time to read it, and right after 9/11 when they knew they could get away with it without argument. The Constitution is the very lifeblood of this nation and our founders knew that anyone who abridged or abolished our rights and freedoms should be considered an enemy of the US — and so do I.
If that alone is not enough, this administration furthered their status as our enemy when in all our names they broke international law with the use of torture upon captive prisoners. This is not only a complete debasement of what our American government is supposed to stand for, it’s rightfully considered a punishable criminal offense by all who signed onto the Geneva Conventions.
Adrienne, yet again I yield to your better articulation of our shared ideals.
Posted by: roger at November 23, 2005 11:39 AMDarn, this was a good thread, sorry I missed it.
I’ll have to save any pithy insights for the next round (once I come up with them, as if I’ve ever had any, as if I could keep up with Adrienne).
Have a great holiday all…
Posted by: Dave at November 23, 2005 02:13 PMThanks very much, Roger and Dave!
And Happy Thanksgiving to all!
Posted by: Adrienne at November 23, 2005 04:31 PMWashington has become a government for the oil companies against the people. This is no longer America governed by the people for the people. With the help of Diebold and the media, our country has been stolen from us.
The environment is our childrens problem.
The poor can just starve.
If the middle class is good, we won’t take everything from them, there will always be room for them in the projects.
So true Adrianne there have been countless dictators and the like tried and convicted for doing the same as Bush has done, all in the name of the Geneva Convention.
Posted by: Sherri at November 23, 2005 07:07 PMO.M.G. did this peice hit on the head.only thing i see you forgot was the pulling of escorts for civil military personal.my friends brother as a military civil worker killed in sept because bush pull the escort patrols and as they rounded the corner they we gunned down. my feelings are no he really doesn t care about the military just his personal agenda.what were we thinking these last 2 elections.
Posted by: dan g at November 23, 2005 09:17 PMI’m sorry I didn’t get in on this thread, I was stuck over on the red side. The comments from Jo were especially perplexing to me.
My religious freedoms and beliefs have never been under attack as much as they are now. These attacks are not coming from the DNC, but from The Republican administration and fundamentalist Christians.
This administration blatantly panders to the religious right, putting one faith or belief above all others. They are even willing to go as far as to write a Constitutional amendment based on these beliefs, and appoint Judges who will erode our protections.
This administration does not respect the idea of seperation of church and state. That is a dangerous proposition not only for our religious freedoms as individuals but for the church itself. While you may be willing to hand your religious freedoms over to this administration because it believes as you do, how do you know future administrations will? And once you destroy that wall, it will be difficult to build it back.
The reason, I believe, you have this perception that Democtats are not being inclusive of €œpeople of faith€ is because the Democrats are welcoming of “people of all faiths”. They do not pander to one over the other.
Posted by: JayJay Snowman at November 24, 2005 03:50 AMJayJay,
That i understand many of their positions as well as those of humanists (i have both in my family) helps alleviate any fear— Either of the moderna evangelical fundamentalists (who on a personal note have been more tolerant and willing to change) or the humanists (who continue to sneer down their noses and advocate censorship of others not in compliance with their personal ideologies— again a personal antecdotal note only).
i am not a protestant fundametalist and do not fit their definition of ‘really christian’. Nevertheless, my faith has had more both historical and recent history of subjugation, censorship, and yes, persecuation from humanists, communists and Muslims than most other faiths represented in America.
If any here are at all interested in learning how the ‘other side’ might view things, i offer a link
Posted by: jo at November 24, 2005 12:04 PMSo much blah blah..we have to make changes in our policies and how we fit in with our fellow humans. Possibly we need to learn from the Swiss universal Military service for all… This would produce several desired effects. 1) we would be better prepared to defend our selves from foreign and domestic threats. 2) we would probably think twice about starting conflicts. 3) it might instill a more pragmatic veiw for the military brass as they would be forced to deal with all points of veiw.
As for the Rove/Bush Camp using the evangelical faithful …..they are like the fatted sheep being led to slaughter…. they are willing to be led to god knows where by a group of preachers with a large appetite for a tax free ride on their flocks. This unholy alliance can rob us of the freedoms we have come to enjoy in this great country…. we need to take a page from the RNC and get out the talking points and find some canidates that can take back 40 seats in the house and 5 or 6 in the senate… It’s a tall order but concidering how many people feel that Bush & Co have lied and commited high crimes and other impeachable acts… we have to unseat the majority party to get any traction on that agenda.
andre,
you have made me stop and think about alot of things, thank you, i think. my husband serviced in the u s navy in the 80’s and was there when the marine barracks got blown up. his son died while he was there. his son was two months old.
he never asked this country for a stinking dime. he put in a request about two years ago for his benefits. he has filled out all the paper work, donw all the leg work, that he can,he was injured in the service. he is in a wheelchair. the government has not gotten back to us. so when you wrote about “bush” cutting benefits, i got scared. so my husband, who worked for the last twenty years of his life, until 2001, served his country and then didn’t ask for anything in return
until now. he wont get a damn thing? we need only fifty two people in our government. one person for each state. then we need to get a REAL PERSON in the White House. get all those old, dying, demented, so called judges, replaced with, again, REAL PEOPLE. we need someone in the White House who has been where our poor and indegent people are. we don’t need some snot nosed, silver platter, spoon in their mouth, s o b in OUR White House, YES I SAID OUR WHITE HOUSE. WE OWN IT PEOPLE, LET’S STAND UP AND TAKE A QUE FROM OUR COUSINS IN FRANCE. STAND THE HELL UP AND TAKE THIS COUNTRY BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
give OUR TROOPS the back up they need, and if they want to come home, i say “BRING THEM THE *&^(
HOME. I don’t care if i have stepped on a few toes. this is still a free country, not fo