The Apple Doesn't Fall Far From The Tree :evil4:

So nice to see young George Bush following in his father's footsteps towards next year's election. Just in the last two days, we've had:

1)News of a half-trillion dollar budget deficit, brought to us by the so-called fiscally conservative party that runs both the executive and legislative branches (and for that matter, the judicial branch as well). You're in charge, guys. You have the White House AND the Congress, you just pushed through a HUGE tax giveaway for the wealthy, and now you discover you've got a budget deficit.

2)The CIA essentially saying Bush lied to the American people about Iraq. The CIA.

Add that news to the ongoing recession, and it looks like wee Georgie will soon be following in his father's footsteps...right out of the White House!!!

So let me be the first to say: Adios, you one-term loser!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And don't let the door hit you where the good Lord split you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm just glad that I'm past the legal voting age now. Bush is one candidate that deserves to be thrown from the White House.

Originally posted by Who is this man that follows me? I'm just glad that I'm past the legal voting age now. Bush is one candidate that deserves to be thrown from the White House.

who else would we put as president? Gore was a pathetic fool, especially during the Clinton scandals (Lewinsky, Paula, and Tibetan monks in the Lincoln bedroom, and so on). The current Democratic candidates all have greater flaws than Bush, i.e. Sharpton's past, Kerry's haunting looks, etc. The only persons I could see replace Bush adequately would be my favorite McCain or Edwards. The funny thing is that I would not mind Gore as president especially after he took the rod off from his ass after going on SNL. I wish I were alive during the days of Reagan and Nixon :(

Originally posted by Tristan Jayol > Originally posted by Who is this man that follows me?> I'm just glad that I'm past the legal voting age now. Bush is one candidate that deserves to be thrown from the White House.

who else would we put as president? Gore was a pathetic fool, especially during the Clinton scandals (Lewinsky, Paula, and Tibetan monks in the Lincoln bedroom, and so on). The current Democratic candidates all have greater flaws than Bush, i.e. Sharpton's past, Kerry's haunting looks, etc. The only persons I could see replace Bush adequately would be my favorite McCain or Edwards. The funny thing is that I would not mind Gore as president especially after he took the rod off from his ass after going on SNL. I wish I were alive during the days of Reagan and Nixon :(

Well, when Bush loses the 2004 election, we'll put in whoever wins the election. Unless we have a repeat of 2000, where Gore actually won the election but lost the White House.

I think your reasoning on the candidates is flawed. Gore had nothing whatsoever to do with Clinton's so-called "scandals," which were more pecadilloes than scandals. Clinton getting blow jobs in the Oval Office does not even begin to rise to the level of scandal that wee George is engaged in-- lying to the American public about intelligence reports to justify a war being one example. Again, Gore had nothing to do with Clinton's pecadilloes. You'd seriously choose a bald-faced liar and fiscal incompetent like Bush over another candidate because he allegedly has "haunting looks"? As for McCain, I wish he HAD beaten the pants off that smirking punk-ass in 2000.

And if you're seriously concerned about scandals in the White House, be glad you WEREN'T alive during the days of Reagan and Nixon.

Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr > Originally posted by Tristan Jayol> > > > Originally posted by Who is this man that follows me?> > I'm just glad that I'm past the legal voting age now. Bush is one candidate that deserves to be thrown from the White House.>

who else would we put as president? Gore was a pathetic fool, especially during the Clinton scandals (Lewinsky, Paula, and Tibetan monks in the Lincoln bedroom, and so on). The current Democratic candidates all have greater flaws than Bush, i.e. Sharpton's past, Kerry's haunting looks, etc. The only persons I could see replace Bush adequately would be my favorite McCain or Edwards. The funny thing is that I would not mind Gore as president especially after he took the rod off from his ass after going on SNL. I wish I were alive during the days of Reagan and Nixon :(

Well, when Bush loses the 2004 election, we'll put in whoever wins the election. Unless we have a repeat of 2000, where Gore actually won the election but lost the White House.

I think your reasoning on the candidates is flawed. Gore had nothing whatsoever to do with Clinton's so-called "scandals," which were more pecadilloes than scandals. Clinton getting blow jobs in the Oval Office does not even begin to rise to the level of scandal that wee George is engaged in-- lying to the American public about intelligence reports to justify a war being one example. Again, Gore had nothing to do with Clinton's pecadilloes. You'd seriously choose a bald-faced liar and fiscal incompetent like Bush over another candidate because he allegedly has "haunting looks"? As for McCain, I wish he HAD beaten the pants off that smirking punk-ass in 2000.

And if you're seriously concerned about scandals in the White House, be glad you WEREN'T alive during the days of Reagan and Nixon.

I was kidding about Nixon and Reagan. About Gore he did deal w/ the Tibetans, and he probably did not have anything to do w/ the other scandals, since Vernon Jordan was there to help Clinton. Also Bush' attack on Iraq may not have been well-based on the supposed WMD's, but when you look at the bottom of the situation there lies oil, and oil and other resources have drove this nation to economic superiority for decades, and frankly removing Saddam and receiving oil was quite a nice incentive to go to war. Right now I do not agree how Bush is dealing w/ Iraq since American soldiers are nearly dying everyday. I believe that we should have been ready to restore livable conditions for the Iraqi people so that they wouldn't be uprising like they are now. Also you can blame Clinton for nearly wiping out the power of our CIA Am I pig-headed, yeah you can say that, but if we stop the Iraqis in their current uprisings, I believe that the war was just for the American people, but hell not for the Iraqis, but who cares I am not an Iraqi.

Also looking at the Democratic presidential candidates currently, there is no one figure that could even touch Bush in an election especially looking at his money from fundraisers, now that's a damn scandal. I hope the liberals can live with Bush for another four years, have fun!

I am the Eternal Pessimist when it comes to the upcoming election, I'm torn bewteen Edwards and Dean but I don't think either of the two can mount a successful campaign against the "Love It or Leave It!" Republicans in '04. I'm even less optimistic about '08, when it looks like Hillary will make her play for a "Clinton Restoration". The minute she decided to stay with Bill, even after ha had lied about Monica, I said "to hell with her." I seriously doubts she's "trying to work things out" with Bill, she just realizes she has a better chance with the Clinton name than without. She's swiftly becoming the favorite of the '08 field, but I wouldn't vote for her. Bill was a decent president who was dragged down by his opponents almost from the moment he announced his campaign (and by his own indiscretions), but Hillary is just oppertunistic.

As for the Iraq debacle, every day that another soldier dies is another day we shouldn't be in Baghdad. it's getting to be so bad, even the troops don't want to be over there another day. And if the Bush Administration lied about the WMDs, well, payback is a bitch. If Clinton can get impeached for leaving his zipper undone, Bush shouldn't get off so easy. I have the sneaky feeling we're living through another Watergate, complete with a secretive administration and questionable actions, but I won't go that far just yet.

So it's either Dean or Edwards vs. the Baghdad Boys (who will probably win unless more shit hits the fan between now and next November), and Hillary in '08. Whoop-de-shit

I thought the faux redneck was unbeatable in 2004. But things have changed in the last week. The President lied to the American people to justify starting a war that now appears to have no justification. This charge is not coming from the Democrats, it's coming from the CIA. The outfit his father used to run. The robust economy he inherited from Clinton has been mismanaged into shambles, and he's overspent and underfunded government to the tune of a half-trillion dollars, all while shoveling enormous amounts of money to the richest of the rich. This changed scenario leads me to conclude that wee Georgie is about to get a hiding at the polls, which is why I wanted to be the first to say "Adios, you one-term loser."

Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr The robust economy he inherited from Clinton has been mismanaged into shambles, and he's overspent and underfunded government to the tune of a half-trillion dollars, all while shoveling enormous amounts of money to the richest of the rich

well thats were you are not right at all. The economics during this presidency are a result from the previous adminstration. the dot bust and all of the other misfortunes are a result clinton, and bust is having to deal with it, just like clinton rode the good economy for 8 years was the result of bush senior. The econimics go as follows when times are bad you cut taxes, nad lower intrest rates to stimulate the economy so that people will spend money on goods. On the other hand when times are good its best to raise taxes and intrest rates to get people to save more for when times arent so good. this is why economies around the world are cyclical they go up nad down all the time and have done this for centuries. it is just the way thing are

If you went and studied economics you would understand this

Also ask your self this who is responsable for starting the debt in the first place it was the Democrats (Johnson) who in his term contributed 35% of the current national debt with his great plan, which has turned into nothing now a days, so quit blaming the republicans they just have to clean up a democrat mess.

and thats my .02 cents

Originally posted by PIPs Spanky > Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr> The robust economy he inherited from Clinton has been mismanaged into shambles, and he's overspent and underfunded government to the tune of a half-trillion dollars, all while shoveling enormous amounts of money to the richest of the rich

well thats were you are not right at all. The economics during this presidency are a result from the previous adminstration. the dot bust and all of the other misfortunes are a result clinton, and bust is having to deal with it, just like clinton rode the good economy for 8 years was the result of bush senior. The econimics go as follows when times are bad you cut taxes, nad lower intrest rates to stimulate the economy so that people will spend money on goods. On the other hand when times are good its best to raise taxes and intrest rates to get people to save more for when times arent so good. this is why economies around the world are cyclical they go up nad down all the time and have done this for centuries. it is just the way thing are

If you went and studied economics you would understand this

Also ask your self this who is responsable for starting the debt in the first place it was the Democrats (Johnson) who in his term contributed 35% of the current national debt with his great plan, which has turned into nothing now a days, so quit blaming the republicans they just have to clean up a democrat mess.

and thats my .02 cents AMEN

Also Bush will be near unbeatable come 2004, especially since the news is focusing on Kobe Bryant rather than speak about Iraq.

PIP's Spanky:

As an undergraduate I received an A in each of the following courses: Macroeconomics, Microeconomics, and Political Economy.

Let's just say for now that there's more than one way to deal with a bad economy, some of which have proven track records, and some of which have been thoroughly discredited.

Economies cycle because supply exceeds demand, or vice versa, not because of fiscal policy. If anything, fiscal policy is meant as a moderating influence on what would otherwise be more extreme cycles.

Finally, I was talking about a budget deficit of half a trillion dollars, not the national debt of God-knows-what. Bush and the Republican Congress are entirely responsible for the budget deficit.

Tristan:

As for Kobe Bryant's influence on the 2004 election, if Bush is counting on that bit of news fluff to keep him in office, he can start packing his bags now. People vote their pocketbooks, not sports scandals. If the economy is booming, Bush will win. If the economy is still in the toilet, Bush will lose.

Come 2004 the economy won't be booming compared to the stock market surge in the past, but it will be on the rebound. We just need another war to jumpstart the economy, and maybe some sex scandals against Kerry and some others and Bush should be just fine

the democrates (except maybe dean) are a joke. that's why i've gone green.

Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr So nice to see young George Bush following in his father's footsteps towards next year's election. Just in the last two days, we've had:1)News of a half-trillion dollar budget deficit, brought to us by the so-called fiscally conservative party that runs both the executive and legislative branches (and for that matter, the judicial branch as well). You're in charge, guys. You have the White House AND the Congress, you just pushed through a HUGE tax giveaway for the wealthy, and now you discover you've got a budget deficit.2)The CIA essentially saying Bush lied to the American people about Iraq. The CIA.Add that news to the ongoing recession, and it looks like wee Georgie will soon be following in his father's footsteps...right out of the White House!!!So let me be the first to say: Adios, you one-term loser!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!And don't let the door hit you where the good Lord split you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In the name of all that is sweet and clean.............

Point One: The Recession is over....

money.cnn.com/2003/07/17/news/economy/recession.reut/

Group declares recession over

Economists say downturn ended in November 2001 but note the job market's still very weak. July 17, 2003: 1:42 PM EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The panel that decides U.S. business cycles Thursday declared the economy pulled out of its recession after eight months in November 2001 and is now in a recovery phase.

The announcement from the National Bureau of Economic Research confirmed what many economists already believed: that the economy has resumed growing, albeit slowly.

"The committee determined that a trough in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in November 2001," the NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee said in a statement.

In making the determination, the panel of top-notch academic economists made clear it was not passing judgment on the economy's current health.

"In determining that a trough occurred in November 2001, the committee did not conclude that economic conditions since that month have been favorable or that the economy has returned to operating at normal capacity," it said.

In fact, it took note that employment -- one of the key factors it considers in making recession calls -- was stuck in the doldrums. "Indeed, the most recent data indicate that employment has not begun to recover at all," it said.

Members of the panel, widely accepted as the arbiter of U.S. business cycles, had said determining when the recession ended had been complicated by the surprising gains in the productivity of U.S. businesses, which had enabled firms to boost output while laying off workers.

They recently decided to give more weight to measures of U.S. gross domestic product in their deliberations, a decision NBER President Martin Feldstein said would likely make it easier to conclude when the recession ended.

GDP, the broadest measure of the nation's economy, has been growing slowly since late 2001, and the panel noted that it was now 3.3 percent above its pre-recession peak in the fourth quarter of 2000.

The committee said the length of the downturn, which started in March 2001, was "slightly less than average" for recessions in the post World War II period.

Point Two: The President did not lie.

No matter how much you, the DNC or the gargoyle faced twins of Carville and Begalla want it to be , the President didn't lie. The CIA NEVER said he lied.

However, political and press rhetoric in the current world, of course, is instead consumed by the revelation that intelligence analysts sifting ambiguous reports sometimes disagree. Desperate Democratic presidential (who don't have a snowballs chance by the way) candidates and the neurotic anti-Vietnam left take the intelligence controversy as the latest excuse for belittling the president's military in Iraq.

A lie is a falsehood told knowingly. President Bush didn't do that. A recent former president we could all name who's initials are bill clinton told a lie on national television to the American people. He was busted by a blue dress. He was disbarred and impeached because the lecherous piece of garbage lied, ie: perjured himself, in the Paula Jones hearings....NOT because he got hummers and inserted cigars in private places ON THE PEOPLE'S TIME.

Point Three: The Deficit.....

WHO CARES!?! As a whole number with no context surrounding, it seems big, BUT.......goodness gracious! In relation to our current GDP, it's small, small potatoes.

Point Four: Just who do you consider "the wealthy"????

You mean people that actually pay federal income tax? Come on bro' , save the class warfare stuff.

And finally, Point Five: Bush stole the election of '00......

Good God............

Here we go again, just for you:

All the ballots were counted twice by machine, and Bush lead algore. algore wanted to recount the ballots by hand in an unconstitutional way, and only in four counties.

The Florida Supreme Court recognized the flaw of recounting in only four counties and ruled it must be done in all Florida counties, but could still be done in the same unconstitutional way.

Then, The U.S. Supreme Court rules 7-2 that the count, as it was being done, was unconstitutional, and stopped the count from continuing.

Finally, The U.S. Supreme Court also ruled, 5-4, that there was no way a different, constitutional way of recounting could be devised, certified, challenged, and complete in five days.

In addition, the only members of the Supreme Court that did not rule the recount was unconstitutional were the two most liberal judges. It can be argued that those were the two motivated by politics, rather than the other seven, which constituted conservatives, moderates, and one liberal.

Oh, by the way:

Jag -yoo-uh V-12 E-Type (tin top) best English sports car.

Ferrari 512 BB best Italian sports car.

Michael! Welcome back! Who would have known I'd find you on this thread!

Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr Michael! Welcome back! Who would have known I'd find you on this thread!

The bait was happily taken...... :D

i will come back to you re your point five

but more importantly which model of the e-type? the mark 2? & what about the d-type? surely more of an out & out sports car...

Well, I guess U.S. intelligence isn't so bad after all.....

NEWS RELEASE HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES CENTRAL COMMAND 7115 South Boundary Boulevard MacDill AFB, Fla. 33621-5101 Phone: (813) 827-5894; FAX: (813) 827-2211; DSN 651-5894

July 22, 2003 Release Number: 03-07-68

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

STATEMENT REGARDING OPERATION IN MOSUL, IRAQ

Statement from US Central Command:

On Tuesday, July 22, forces associated with the 101st Airborne Division and Special Operations Forces conducted an operation against suspected regime figures at a residence in Mosul, Iraq. The site is currently being exploited. Four Iraqis were killed in the operation. We have confirmed that two of the dead were Saddam’s sons Uday and Qusay.

Originally posted by Michael McDermott > > > Point One: The Recession is over....> > Point Two: The President did not lie.> > Point Three: The Deficit.....> > Point Four: Just who do you consider "the wealthy"???? > > And finally, Point Five: Bush stole the election of '00......> > Oh, by the way:> > Jag -yoo-uh V-12 E-Type (tin top) best English sports car.> > Ferrari 512 BB best Italian sports car.

Point One: Yes, I've seen the reports that the recession is over. However, it's a jobless recovery (whatever that is supposed to mean), just like the jobless recovery during Bush I's administration. That jobless recovery led to a change in administrations.

Point Two: My initial post was that the CIA is essentially saying that the President lied. Clearly, George Tenet is not on the front page of the NY Times saying Bush lied. But the CIA is saying that they advised the President that the report regarding attempts to procure nuclear materials was not accurate, and that he used that report in his State of the Union address anyway to build support for a war against Iraq. That is a falsehood knowingly told, and thus, by your own definition, a lie.

Additionally, I trake issue with you calling the armed forces "The President's military." They are the nation's military, not the President's military. And the reports of George Bush's lies to the American public are not being used by anybody to belittle the American armed forces. They are being brought into the open because in a democracy, we don't tolerate secrecy and lies in pursuit of hidden political agendas. Really, your argument here is third-rate cheeseball rhetoric- "belittling the President's military." You could at least stick to what's actually being printed in the papers.

Point Three: Who cares about the deficit? Are you saying the American people don't care? I find that hard to believe. The Republicans have three options here: They can raise taxes, they can borrow and increase the national debt, or they can cut spending. My guess is they'll cut spending. And that is an issue that is properly debated in the next election.

Who cares? If the Democrats had mismanaged the budget into a half trillion dollar deficit, the Republicans would be calling for a new Congress and President at the next election. You know that, I know that, and everybody else in this country knows that. The Republicans have traditionally painted the Democrats as fiscally irresponsible on taxes and spending. Well, what goes around comes around.

Point Four: The wealthy and class warfare: I pay federal income tax, and I'm not wealthy. The majority of Americans pay federal income tax, and the majority of Americans are not wealthy. In my book, poverty is class warfare. Do I have anything against the wealthy? No, not per se. I think they should pay their taxes like everybody else, and then enjoy their wealth, because life is short. But when they organize politically AS A CLASS to protect the interests of their class, to the detriment of everybody else in society, as if life is a zero-sum game, that is class warfare. And when they get called on their class warfare, the first thing they do is cry that they are the victims of class warfare.

Point Five: I did not say that Bush stole the election. However, my post was probably not as clear as it could have been. My point was that Gore won the popular vote, but lost the election. That is what I was referring to when i mentioned the possibility of a repeat of 2000. My mistake in phrasing.

Point six: I never said there was a problem with U.S. Intelligence (although our foreign friends may wish to quibble ); I said that Bush essentially lied to the American people to justify going to war. He's feeling the heat now precisely because American intelligence had warned him about the innacuracy of the report he used to justify the war, and he chose to ignore the warning.

Point seven: Yes, the Jag E-Type is a beauty.

Originally posted by Michael McDermott And finally, Point Five: Bush stole the election of '00......Good God............Here we go again, just for you:All the ballots were counted twice by machine, and Bush lead algore.algore wanted to recount the ballots by hand in an unconstitutional way, and only in four counties. The Florida Supreme Court recognized the flaw of recounting in only four counties and ruled it must be done in all Florida counties, but could still be done in the same unconstitutional way. Then, The U.S. Supreme Court rules 7-2 that the count, as it was being done, was unconstitutional, and stopped the count from continuing. Finally, The U.S. Supreme Court also ruled, 5-4, that there was no way a different, constitutional way of recounting could be devised, certified, challenged, and complete in five days. In addition, the only members of the Supreme Court that did not rule the recount was unconstitutional were the two most liberal judges. It can be argued that those were the two motivated by politics, rather than the other seven, which constituted conservatives, moderates, and one liberal. Oh, by the way:Jag -yoo-uh V-12 E-Type (tin top) best English sports car.Ferrari 512 BB best Italian sports car.

first: al gore received more votes in florida than george bush. the ballot question was first raised in a six-month investigation by the new york times (no, not by jayson blair), and later validated in a paper done through the harvard department of government. the reason that bush appeared to receive more votes than gore was because many overseas ballots (particularly military ballots) which were postmarked after the due date of nov. 17 were included in the tallying, some votes were counted from people who were not even registered, and some military personnel voted both in the united states and overseas, all federal offenses which were overlooked (and greatly benefited george bush). in other words, had these illegal votes been thrown out, gore would have carried florida by a very small margin.

second: katharine harris rejected the recounts from both palm beach county and miami-dade county, which gave gore 349 more votes because they came in several hours after the supreme court deadline. both (democrat-leaning) counties had told the secretary of state that their recounts would not be complete by the deadline, but their requests for a one-day extension were ignored. had these votes been counted, gore's win would have been by even more than if one only considers the absentee ballot fiasco. it's odd that the five conservative members of the supreme court, the ones who normally advocate states' rights, voted to intervene in the florida recount and refused to allow a one day grace period for miami-dade and palm beach counties! they esentially halted the recount before it was complete, intervening in a matter that is without precedent in federal court, taking, essentially, a political, rather than legal stance. the conservative members of the supreme court should have never agreed to hear the bush vs. gore case at all, as they (i thought) were loathe to intervene in state matters! (note the tone of justice antonin scalia's dissenting opinion in the recent lawrence v. texas decision)

third: even if the above counties could not meet their legal duty to complete the recount (and katharine harris did not have to grant them an extension) there is ample evidence that great pressure was placed in counties that were bush strongholds to bend the rules, or even ignore them, when recounting votes, especially absentee ballots. absentee ballots that were once declared illegal were opened and counted (as in santa rosa county). on the other hand, democratic-leaning counties were held up to the strictest standards when counting absentee ballots, and fewer were recounted in these counties. if all ballots had been recounted, legally, in all counties in florida, gore would have won the election.

one last point: in florida, any prior felony committed in any state automatically disqualifies one from voting in florida. interestingly, the secretary of state received a large packet, from texas, of all former felons in that state (who were now free citizens mind you), who were now living in florida to be disqualified. unfortunately many of the names of these former felons were misentered in computers and unwitting registered voters found that they were unable to vote once they got to their polling places, and were told that the problem could not be dealt with until after the election. this law affects a disproportionate number of black male voters (who tend to vote democratic), and, interestingly, jeb bush's wife, who has a felony conviction herself, was not forbidden from voting in the election.

as for those who complain that gore was 'whining' about losing the election i can only say this: if an election is this close, i certainly hope there is a recount and i imagine (and expect) george bush would have done the same thing in this situation! however, al gore didn't have a cousin working for fox news who called the election prematurely, which caused a lot of confusion in the first place!

oh, one more thing: as for cars...i don't know much about them. all i know is that i want a mini. red. please.

California Governor Gray Davis will be facing a recall election this year. This raises interesting questions- is California's budget deficit of $38 billion a legitimate political target for California Republicans in an election, and if so, isn't Bush's national biudget deficit also a legitimate political target in an election?

Or, if the Republican response to Bush's deficit is truly "so what," then shouldn't the Republicans be saying "so what" in California as well?

Oh, and that's an excellent choice, AgentWood.

Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr California Governor Gray Davis will be facing a recall election this year. This raises interesting questions- is California's budget deficit of $38 billion a legitimate political target for California Republicans in an election, and if so, isn't Bush's national biudget deficit also a legitimate political target in an election?Or, if the Republican response to Bush's deficit is truly "so what," then shouldn't the Republicans be saying "so what" in California as well?Oh, and that's an excellent choice, AgentWood.

what disturbs me the most about the davis recall is that it's being spearheaded by a multi-millionaire who himself is running for office, not by the people of california. california is not unmanageable because of who sits in the governor's office, it's been falling apart for a while now. the budget stand-off in the sacramento statehouse between the democrats and republicans is partisan bickering that is not entirely davis' fault, and the senate majority leader has threatened other republican members that if they vote for tax increases to alleviate the deficit (which some want to do) their careers in politics will be over. this despite the fact that he has voted for tax increases in the past. as we saw in the reagan administration, massive tax cuts only lead to inevitable tax increases in the future (reagan raised them twice after lowering them in 1981) and it didn't end reagan, bush, or dole's careers, so just get over it and work together, people, instead of blaming it all on the governor! i blame the brouhaha in sacramento for the state of, erm, the state. but mostly that bloody issa man, who is just itching to get into the governor's chair no matter how much money it takes (damn the democratic processes!), even though he's probably going to lose to schwarzenegger, anyway!

not by the people of california

So I guess the 1.6 million signatures were not from the people of California

this thing about the votes contested is complete BS because if you look at the votes in question in other states that were thrown out would have been a drop in the bucket compared to floridas couple of thousand.

If i remember correctly that the washington post put our a article in the first part of 2002 that gave a state by state accounting of votes that were thrown out and reasons that that they were thrown out. It came out that there were like 3 or 4 democratic states that threw out like 50000 + votes for george bush, and very few for gore. it was like this across the board but when it came to florida and the democrats were looking defeat in the face they stated pulling as many strings and foul crys as possible.

still full of shit Micheal. good to see things never change. especially when you're a Republican. btw, do you actually listen to NewOrder or do you just troll the boards looking for an argument?

Originally posted by Biznotic Love Trapezoid still full of shit Micheal. good to see things never change. especially when you're a Republican. btw, do you actually listen to NewOrder or do you just troll the boards looking for an argument?

So bitter for such a young guy.....

Speaking of things that never change, it's comforting to know that you'll attack me personally first while not bothering to challenge my arguments. You've learned well at the foot of the DNC, grasshopper.

What is it that really bothers you, Brian? Is it the fact that YOU JUST CAN'T HANDLE the fact that someone who is politically conservative, a practicing Catholic and a *gasp* Texan is a fan of New Order? Does that burst some notion of yours that NO wouldn't draw a person like me? Or, is there some deep seeded bigotry that you have towards folks like me? Remember Brian, the first step to recovery is admitting that you have a problem.

Ya' know what else? When it's dark, and it's just me, my XBox and FIFA 2002, I listen to the Smiths............and like it.

Originally posted by Michael McDermott Well, I guess U.S. intelligence isn't so bad after all.....NEWS RELEASEHEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES CENTRAL COMMAND7115 South Boundary BoulevardMacDill AFB, Fla. 33621-5101Phone: (813) 827-5894; FAX: (813) 827-2211; DSN 651-5894 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- July 22, 2003Release Number: 03-07-68FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASESTATEMENT REGARDING OPERATION IN MOSUL, IRAQStatement from US Central Command:On Tuesday, July 22, forces associated with the 101st Airborne Division and Special Operations Forces conducted an operation against suspected regime figures at a residence in Mosul, Iraq. The site is currently being exploited. Four Iraqis were killed in the operation. We have confirmed that two of the dead were Saddam’s sons Uday and Qusay.

unfortunately this jolly good news has no relation to this:

Ambush kills three soldiers from unit that attacked Saddam sons

Jonathan Steele and AP in Baghdad Friday July 25, 2003 The Guardian

Three American soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division, whose troops killed the two sons of Saddam Hussein on Tuesday, died yesterday in an attack on their convoy.

It came under grenade and small-arms fire as it drove towards Qayara, a few miles south of Mosul, where units of the division attacked the house in which the Hussein brothers were hiding. .......... The past week has seen 11 American deaths, a quarter of the 44 who have died since President George Bush declared "major combat operations" were over on May 1.

Originally posted by Tristan Jayol > not by the people of californiaSo I guess the 1.6 million signatures were not from the people of California

tristan, agent did use the term "spearheaded," meaning that this attempt to recall davis is being lead by Issa instead of some angry coalition of voters. this recall's primary function is more about defacing Davis, than actually recalling him, just before Issa has to face him in the election. it is a more of a pre-campaign mud-sling than an honest attempt to remove davis.

From auto thief to corporate thief to election thief; that guy Issa's had quite a career progression.