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.

he was obviously born for politics.

Originally posted by Sean Taugher > Originally posted by Tristan Jayol> > > > not by the people of california> > > So 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. I love how issa funded the recal, but I just hope either Riordan or Arnold win.

alright michael. fair enough. i would love to challenge you to a match in FIFA on the XBox with Strangeways on the CD player...loser has to vote for the other side! I just can't believe you accept what Bush, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld and Cheney are doing to our Country and the rest of the world. The reason i don't argue points is i've tried with Republicans for years and they NEVER FUCKING LISTEN TO REASON. EVER. But a night on the XBox does sound like fun.

Bubba vs. Dubya

Bush or Chimp?

The Chimp vs. Bush

Originally posted by PIPs Spanky 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.

a) if the democrats did it, so that makes it ok for the republicans to do it in florida?

b) having worked in a county board of elections and run votes through the counter myself, i can tell you that if votes are legal (i.e. postmarked on time, signed by the voter and a witness, one voter, one vote, etc. at which time we cannot even see who the party has voted for anyway!) we don't have the time to even look at who people voted for, nor do we really care. we just want to get the job done and get the hell home because it's tedious work. it only becomes an issue once there's a recall. so i ask you, what are these three or four states and how was this information gathered if there was no recount, since the votes are then sealed carefully in boxes, and, as i said before, unless there's a recount the workers at the boards of elections can't tell who the voter has chosen when they determine if a ballot is legal or not anyway?

c) as i thought i made clear in my post, it wasn't the democrats who 'pulled strings' in the florida recount, but the republicans, by putting extreme pressure on boards of elections in republican-held counties to bend the rules when recounting while demanding that democratic strongholds maintain the strictest legal standards in their recounts.

d) al gore was not 'looking defeat in the face.' the election was too close to tell, electorally, and he already had the popular vote by half a million! this is hardly a defeat! it certainly makes sense to double and triple-check votes in this case. i'm sure george bush would have done the same thing were he in gore's shoes. and i would have supported his right to do so rather than complain about him being a 'sore loser.' when you've won the popular vote, you certainly don't want to concede an election until all has been done to ensure that you didn't win the electoral college, as well! (this discrepancy is why i have a problem with the electoral college, but that's a whole other story.)

and, no, i am not a democrat! :)

Originally posted by AgentWood > Originally posted by PIPs Spanky> 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.

a) if the democrats did it, so that makes it ok for the republicans to do it in florida?

b) having worked in a county board of elections and run votes through the counter myself, i can tell you that if votes are legal (i.e. postmarked on time, signed by the voter and a witness, one voter, one vote, etc. at which time we cannot even see who the party has voted for anyway!) we don't have the time to even look at who people voted for, nor do we really care. we just want to get the job done and get the hell home because it's tedious work. it only becomes an issue once there's a recall. so i ask you, what are these three or four states and how was this information gathered if there was no recount, since the votes are then sealed carefully in boxes, and, as i said before, unless there's a recount the workers at the boards of elections can't tell who the voter has chosen when they determine if a ballot is legal or not anyway?

c) as i thought i made clear in my post, it wasn't the democrats who 'pulled strings' in the florida recount, but the republicans, by putting extreme pressure on boards of elections in republican-held counties to bend the rules when recounting while demanding that democratic strongholds maintain the strictest legal standards in their recounts.

d) al gore was not 'looking defeat in the face.' the election was too close to tell, electorally, and he already had the popular vote by half a million! this is hardly a defeat! it certainly makes sense to double and triple-check votes in this case. i'm sure george bush would have done the same thing were he in gore's shoes. and i would have supported his right to do so rather than complain about him being a 'sore loser.' when you've won the popular vote, you certainly don't want to concede an election until all has been done to ensure that you didn't win the electoral college, as well! (this discrepancy is why i have a problem with the electoral college, but that's a whole other story.)

and, no, i am not a democrat! :) Then you are a member of the Green party

Originally posted by Tristan Jayol Then you are a member of the Green party

sh*t! is it that obvious!

of course, i could be an independent...but no.

i was a democrat until a few months ago, but i thought the party was getting too conservative and not standing up for themselves enough, anyway. plus, i like the idea of having a multi-party system, like most democracies have. i think it's healthier than our bipartisan way.

strength in numbers...

i get yelled at by my family for being green. "it's your kind that lets scum like bush slip into office!" talk about over-reactionaries! kermit was right, this isn't easy. but at least in the last election, gore cleaned up in CA. i can sleep at night knowing that, even for voting green, bush didn't get these electorals!

Originally posted by Sean Taugher strength in numbers...i get yelled at by my family for being green. "it's your kind that lets scum like bush slip into office!" talk about over-reactionaries! kermit was right, this isn't easy. but at least in the last election, gore cleaned up in CA. i can sleep at night knowing that, even for voting green, bush didn't get these electorals!

living in florida...no comment.

although, i was living in israel at the time of the 2000 election. i'm terribly ashamed to say i didn't vote that year, either. i never got my ass in gear to pick up an absentee ballot. and since there are so many people with dual US/israeli citizenship living in israel, the israeli embassy, which was walking distance from my place in tel aviv, was disributing them, as well! no excuse, christy! looking back, my one vote could have made all the difference! damn me to hell! well, flori-duh, absentee ballots, who the hell knows....

Like the "good-looking and stylish New Order" roll call, I'll make it three.

Originally posted by AgentWood > Originally posted by Tristan Jayol> > Then you are a member of the Green party

sh*t! is it that obvious!

of course, i could be an independent...but no.

i was a democrat until a few months ago, but i thought the party was getting too conservative and not standing up for themselves enough, anyway. plus, i like the idea of having a multi-party system, like most democracies have. i think it's healthier than our bipartisan way.

Actually, we are a republic....... :D

Originally posted by Michael McDermott Actually, we are a republic....... :D

and a democracy. sometimes.

oh, and i specifically said democracy because, as you know, many democracies are not republics.

Originally posted by AgentWood > Originally posted by Tristan Jayol> > Then you are a member of the Green party

sh*t! is it that obvious!

of course, i could be an independent...but no.

i was a democrat until a few months ago, but i thought the party was getting too conservative and not standing up for themselves enough, anyway. plus, i like the idea of having a multi-party system, like most democracies have. i think it's healthier than our bipartisan way. It's too bad that your party is getting no where fast (at least you are not a Libertarian)

instant gratification isn't on the agenda for the greens. if it was, we'd start a green militia and train in the forrests of the Pac-NW.

I'm still a Democrat, but I think the party as a whole hasn't been living up to its repsonsibilities and taking on the Republicans over Iraq. The main Presidential nominees opposing the Bush Administration, Dean and Graham, are probably far from being the contender next year. Nonetheless, I can't just give up on the Dems, if we have to have four more years of Bush then I want to know that I at least made myself heard come November. It'll be a campaign more of wishful thinking than strong possiblities unless the Bush Administration really screws up, but I want to at least try. Maybe in '08 we'll have a decent candidate (Gore, perhaps?)

Originally posted by Taboo # 7 I'm still a Democrat, but I think the party as a whole hasn't been living up to its repsonsibilities and taking on the Republicans over Iraq. The main Presidential nominees opposing the Bush Administration, Dean and Graham, are probably far from being the contender next year. Nonetheless, I can't just give up on the Dems, if we have to have four more years of Bush then I want to know that I at least made myself heard come November. It'll be a campaign more of wishful thinking than strong possiblities unless the Bush Administration really screws up, but I want to at least try. Maybe in '08 we'll have a decent candidate (Gore, perhaps?)

more like Hilary, or maybe the Dems will get Gray Davis to run

naw... davis is too liberal. maybe they can get Riordan to race for their team?

Originally posted by Sean Taugher naw... davis is too liberal. maybe they can get Riordan to race for their team?

Davis is not liberal, he just mishandles money, he's more of the moderate Democrat, which California seems to love :barf:

i guess i am not as funny as i thought...

Originally posted by Sean Taugher i guess i am not as funny as i thought...

aww, ur funny, Riordan haha, but Schwarzenegger as the Democratic candidate for pres in 04 would be hilarious, but he's a Republican so it won't happen

don't placate me...

i know how you REALLY feel...

(you know i am just f*ckin' with you, right?) :D

of course I do, San Diegans aren't serious people

not at all! i am surprised we get anything done down here...

What if this keeps happening......

US economy grows 2.4 percent in second quarter Thu Jul 31,10:19 AM ET Add Top Stories - AFP to My Yahoo!

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US economic growth shot to an annual pace of 2.4 percent in the second quarter, shattering sluggish expectations.

Commerce Dept./HO Photo

Defying forecasts for growth closer to 1.5 percent, the US economy gave the clearest sign yet it is shaking off Iraq (news - web sites) war-inspired shock and gathering speed, with business investment finally back.

The return in business investment, a 52-year record surge in defense spending, robust consumer spending, and a red-hot housing market powered growth, early Commerce Department (news - web sites) estimates showed.

"This is a very positive confirmation that the economy is turning the corner," said BMO Financial Group economist Sal Guatieri.

Gross domestic product, which had grown at a sickly 1.4-percent pace in the first quarter, appeared to be responding to a double dose of tax cuts and 45-year record low interest rates.

Businesses, long cowed by the Iraq war uncertainties, lifted non-residential fixed investment by 6.9 percent, with spending on structures such as factories up by a 43-year high of 4.8 percent and equipment/software expenditure up 7.5 percent.

"The economy truly does look to be on the mend," said Naroff Economic Advisors president Joel Naroff, noting that investment in buildings had climbed for the first time since 2001.

Defense spending roared 44.1 percent higher, the sharpest increase since 1951 during the Korean war, as President George W. Bush (news - web sites)'s administration conducted the Iraq war and a terrorism offensive.

As a result, federal government expenditure advanced 25.1 percent, the steepest increase since 1967, even as state and local governments trimmed spending by 1.5 percent.

Consumers stepped up spending 3.3 percent despite lingering agony in the labor market.

People ploughed 22.6 percent more money into big-ticket, durable items such as cars or washing machines. Residential fixed investment, coaxed by rock-bottom mortgage rates, surged 6.0 percent.

The US unemployment rate hit a nine-year high of 6.4 percent in June. The unemployment tally for July is due Friday.

Recovery hopes were bolstered by a separate Labor Department (news - web sites) report showing the seasonally adjusted number of new jobless benefit claimants shrank 3,000 to a five-month low 388,000 last week.

The bullish news tallied with a Federal Reserve (news - web sites) Beige Book survey, released Wednesday, indicating the economy had picked up speed by "a notch" in the past six weeks.

Factories, which had shed 2.7 million jobs during a three-year contraction, were finally coming out of the doldrums, it said.

"Consistent with the generally more positive assessments of economic activity, several districts noted increased optimism about economic prospects in coming months," the Federal Reserve said.

Bush, who has passed a 350-billion-dollar tax-cut package told a news conference on Wednesday that he saw "hopeful signs" the economy was accelerating and would generate more jobs.

His chief economic policymaker, Treasury Secretary John Snow, has forecast economic growth of more than three percent in the third quarter of this year, 3.5 percent in the last quarter and four percent in 2004.

The latest figures showed international trade was a drag on the economy, however, with exports sliding 3.1 percent in the second quarter. Imports, which detract from economic output, leapt by 9.2 percent.

Businesses trimmed their inventories by 17.9 billion dollars in the period, eroding 0.77 percentage points from the overall economic growth pace, the data showed.

and this happens....

www.boortz.com/nealznuz.htm UH OH .. THIS DOESN'T LOOK GOOD

Well ... if the rumors pan out let's just say it doesn't look good for Democrats.

There's a bit of a buzz around Washington that our investigators in Iraq are meeting with more success than you have been lead to believe in the search for Saddam's weapons. One rumor has it that we can expect to learn a lot more in, say, about six months. I've been floating this idea for a few weeks not ... our D.C. pal Jamie Dupree has been pooh-poohing it.

Some might say that if Bush has the goods on Saddam now he should make the information available now. No way, not after that ridiculous 16-word fiasco. Cross all the "Ts" and dot all the Is" and then when you're absolutely sure .. call the press conference.

Now ... let's just say that we do discover incontrovertible proof that Saddam was building his ugly weapons. Somehow the left is going to have to make the case that it makes no difference, and that we shouldn't have been there in the first place. We'll leave it to Howard Dean to make that case.

What will the Dems do in '04? What message will they craft to combat news of economic growth and found eveidence of WMD's? They will find themselves if the awkward position of denouncing economic growth and military success. Maybe hillary will just go ahead and hang on to that Senate seat......

All partisianship aside, I would really like to know what you think the Dem strategy should/will be.

In answer to your first question, a sluggish to mild "recovery" coupled with record unemployment means the apple doesn't fall far from the tree: GW Bush, one-term loser.

Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr In answer to your first question, a sluggish to mild "recovery" coupled with record unemployment means the apple doesn't fall far from the tree: GW Bush, one-term loser.

When you say "record unemployment", what kind of numbers are talking about? Jimmy Cater-esque unemployment or the 2-3 point above "full employment" unemployment we have now?

Originally posted by Michael McDermott What if this keeps happening......The US unemployment rate hit a nine-year high of 6.4 percent in June. The unemployment tally for July is due Friday.

I was talking about the numbers in the article you provided. Contrast those numbers with GHW Bush's numbers, and Clinton's numbers, whatever they were.

Originally posted by Michael McDermott > Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr> In answer to your first question, a sluggish to mild "recovery" coupled with record unemployment means the apple doesn't fall far from the tree: GW Bush, one-term loser.

When you say "record unemployment", what kind of numbers are talking about? Jimmy Cater-esque unemployment or the 2-3 point above "full employment" unemployment we have now?

the official percentage of 6.4 doesnt include discouraged workers. I was watching a segment on jim lehrer last night (I don't want to hear peep about the 'librul' media), and whilst the guy kinda grabbed at every straw he could to bloat the rate, when you factor in people who havent actually looked for a job in the past 4 weeks, it gets around 7-8%, which is getting vaguely closer to the 10.4 of carter. Trust me, theres no jobs out there.

And if you want to talk about WMD's I think the dem strategy is simple. All they really need to do is roll the footage from the numerous speeches from september through march by Condi, Cheney, the SOTU preaching hellfire, brimstone and mushroom clouds and them run clips of Rummy, Wolfie and the POTUS from the past 2 months backpedaling and talking about how 'we *might* find evidence of a weapons *program*'. Where's the ##,### liters of anthrax? Where's the ##,### shells ready to fire on innocents in 45 minutes? I've also heard those murmurings about the potential smoking gun in Iraq. If that was the case, wouldnt you think that the administration would have rolled it out by now to shut everyone up? And with these guys' track record, I don't trust anything they say. Remember the weekly proclamations of the found WMD, only the retracted the very next day? I think the dems should also mention the 9/11 report that says that theres no significant links between Iraq and AlQaeda and I think you have a sufficient case to show that we were totally railroaded into war.

I also think the repubs shameless convention in NYC is gonna blow up in their faces. I think when all those firemen and cops show up asking 'where is our goddamned money?' it wont look very good on tv. Assuming the liberal media wants to show any of the massive protests that are gonna be outside of that shindig.

GDP update:

HOW FAST IS THE ECONOMY GROWING?....The BEA announced today that GDP increased 2.4% in the second quarter. That's better than predicted and generally good news.

However, General Glut points out an interesting anomaly. First, here's how the increase was calculated:

First quarter GDP was $9,552 billion

Second quarter GDP was $56.1 billion higher.

That's an increase of .587%.

Multiply by 4 (actually a bit more than 4) to get the annualized rate and it's a 2.36% increase, which gets rounded off to 2.4%

But here's an interesting factoid: the war in Iraq provided a one-time spike in defense spending (and therefore GDP) of about $40 billion, all of it deficit spending. Without the war, GDP would have increased by only $16 billion, an annualized rate of .67%. That's not so hot.

So, um, are we going to have another war this quarter to keep the numbers up?

Also keep in mind the bond market isn't too hot. If you were a foreign country, would you invest in a country with massive debt as far as the eye can see with no end to spending or an increase in revenue in sight? And who's gonna finance the national debt? You? Also keep in mind the fact that we don't look too hot in the eyes of most anyone who lives outside of our borders...

Originally posted by we be scrubbins > Originally posted by Michael McDermott> > > > Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr> > In answer to your first question, a sluggish to mild "recovery" coupled with record unemployment means the apple doesn't fall far from the tree: GW Bush, one-term loser.>

When you say "record unemployment", what kind of numbers are talking about? Jimmy Cater-esque unemployment or the 2-3 point above "full employment" unemployment we have now?

the official percentage of 6.4 doesnt include discouraged workers. I was watching a segment on jim lehrer last night (I don't want to hear peep about the 'librul' media), and whilst the guy kinda grabbed at every straw he could to bloat the rate, when you factor in people who havent actually looked for a job in the past 4 weeks, it gets around 7-8%, which is getting vaguely closer to the 10.4 of carter. Trust me, theres no jobs out there.

And if you want to talk about WMD's I think the dem strategy is simple. All they really need to do is roll the footage from the numerous speeches from september through march by Condi, Cheney, the SOTU preaching hellfire, brimstone and mushroom clouds and them run clips of Rummy, Wolfie and the POTUS from the past 2 months backpedaling and talking about how 'we *might* find evidence of a weapons *program*'. Where's the ##,### liters of anthrax? Where's the ##,### shells ready to fire on innocents in 45 minutes? I've also heard those murmurings about the potential smoking gun in Iraq. If that was the case, wouldnt you think that the administration would have rolled it out by now to shut everyone up? And with these guys' track record, I don't trust anything they say. Remember the weekly proclamations of the found WMD, only the retracted the very next day? I think the dems should also mention the 9/11 report that says that theres no significant links between Iraq and AlQaeda and I think you have a sufficient case to show that we were totally railroaded into war.

I also think the repubs shameless convention in NYC is gonna blow up in their faces. I think when all those firemen and cops show up asking 'where is our goddamned money?' it wont look very good on tv. Assuming the liberal media wants to show any of the massive protests that are gonna be outside of that shindig.

So if Clinton INC. had persuaded the DNC to step on 'ol Uncle Teddy's toes and have THEIR convention in NYC, it would also have been shameless, right?

Originally posted by Michael McDermott So if Clinton INC. had persuaded the DNC to step on 'ol Uncle Teddy's toes and have THEIR convention in NYC, it would also have been shameless, right?

Of course. I think its disgusting to constantly pull at people's heart strings for any kind of political gain. I wouldn't be surprised that if a dem was in power right now they might try the same kind of stunt. I'll concede that point. But Bush is clearly not above it. He even evoked 9/11 during the press conference yesterday when he was answering some question about whether he would focus more on campaigning in the next couple months. (I think, don't hold me to that one.. he definately brought it up matter of factly during a completely irrelevant line of questioning)

back to the case on WMD: it's essentially irrelevant now, as the damage has already been done. the war in iraq has raised the potential of terrorism against the US (as was predicted), there are several different groups of iraqis hoping to gain power in the new government (as predicted), a gulf is developing between the shi'ite and sunni communities (again, predicted), and the US is now facing guerrilla warfare (no surprise there).

last summer i spoke with someone i know who is a diplomat who served in saudi arabia for several years and we discussed our common interest in the middle east for several hours. he told me that the majority of the state department and many high-ranking military officers were, at that time, cringing and holding their breath at the impending bush administration and (primarily) bipartisan congressional decision to go to war so soon, because they were aware of the consequences. as a person who has studied the middle east i agreed with him entirely, and while i felt vindicated in my position by someone with much more expertise than i i was horrified to find that an entire branch of the government, that very branch with the most knowledge of, and expertise in, the area of dealing with the middle east, was being ignored.

my point is, if the US finds weapons of mass destruction, don't be deluded into thinking that we've 'won' anything. there is no vindication, because our actions will have long-lasting repercussions. saddam hussein may have been removed but, in the long run, we have no idea who, or what, will take his place.

Originally posted by Michael McDermott www.boortz.com/nealznuz.htmUH OH .. THIS DOESN'T LOOK GOOD Well ... if the rumors pan out let's just say it doesn't look good for Democrats.There's a bit of a buzz around Washington that our investigators in Iraq are meeting with more success than you have been lead to believe in the search for Saddam's weapons. One rumor has it that we can expect to learn a lot more in, say, about six months. I've been floating this idea for a few weeks not ... our D.C. pal Jamie Dupree has been pooh-poohing it. Some might say that if Bush has the goods on Saddam now he should make the information available now. No way, not after that ridiculous 16-word fiasco. Cross all the "Ts" and dot all the Is" and then when you're absolutely sure .. call the press conference.Now ... let's just say that we do discover incontrovertible proof that Saddam was building his ugly weapons. Somehow the left is going to have to make the case that it makes no difference, and that we shouldn't have been there in the first place. We'll leave it to Howard Dean to make that case.What will the Dems do in '04? What message will they craft to combat news of economic growth and found eveidence of WMD's? They will find themselves if the awkward position of denouncing economic growth and military success. Maybe hillary will just go ahead and hang on to that Senate seat......All partisianship aside, I would really like to know what you think the Dem strategy should/will be.

Speaking of talk radio...

Talk Radio

And on and on and on it goes

Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr > Originally posted by Michael McDermott> What if this keeps happening......> > The US unemployment rate hit a nine-year high of 6.4 percent in June. The unemployment tally for July is due Friday. >

I was talking about the numbers in the article you provided. Contrast those numbers with GHW Bush's numbers, and Clinton's numbers, whatever they were.

source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Unemployment figures for: George Herbert Hoover Bush

1989: 5.3% 1990: 5.6% 1991: 6.8% 1992: 7.5%

Note: The high unemployment rates for 1991 and 1992 occurred AFTER recovery from the recession had been declared.

Unemployment figures for: Bill Clinton

1993: 6.9% 1994: 6.1% 1995: 5.6% 1996: 5.4%

1997: 4.9% 1998: 4.5% 1999: 4.2% 2000: 4.0%

Unemployment figures for: George W. Bush

2001: 4.7% 2002: 5.8%

2003: Jan: 5.7% Feb: 5.8% Mar: 5.8% Apr: 6.0% May: 6.1% Jun: 6.4% Jul: 6.2%

And, Michael, since you bring up Jimmy Carter, here are Carter's and Reagan's numbers (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics):

Unemployment figures for: Jimmy Carter

1977: 7.1% 1978: 6.1% 1979: 5.8% 1980: 7.1%

Unemplyment figures for: Ronald Raygun:

1981: 7.6% 1982: 9.7% 1983: 9.6% 1984: 7.5%

1985: 7.2% 1986: 7.0% 1987: 6.2% 1988: 5.5%

Honestly, Michael, if you wanted to reach back into the past to look for higher figures than GW's, you didn't have to go all the way back to Carter. Ronald Reagan had much higher unemployment figures than Carter ever did.

Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr And on and on and on it goes

this is one of my favorite cartoons at the moment. san diego is over-run with conservative media, and it seemed very bleek for a while. then, one of the newer, liberal publications began running "this mordern world." it was like a breath of fresh air on a smoggy L.A. day.

US jobless rate falls BBC World News

The US unemployment rate has fallen, but the drop was down to fewer workers searching for jobs rather than more jobs being created. Official figures showed the jobless rate fell to 6.2% last month, down from 6.4% in June when US unemployment reached its highest level for nine years.

The data suggests that sluggish economic growth is still leading the US economy to shed jobs, with July seeing a net loss of 44,000 jobs, following a revised loss of 72,000 jobs in June.

Meanwhile some 556,000 workers left the potential pool of workers, discouraged that no jobs were available.

They are no longer counted as unemployed because they are not actively searching for work.

Mixed manufacturing picture

Manufacturing suffered the biggest losses, with 71,000 job losses.

Despite the recent falls in the value of the dollar, which helps boost US exports, manufacturing jobs have been lost every month for the last three years.

"I think it's a little disappointing," said Jay Bryson, an economist at Wachovia Securities.

"We're not generating job growth in manufacturing, and that's where job losses were concentrated."

But a monthly poll of purchasing managers who buy goods for their companies has suggested grounds for cautious optimism.

The ISM survey showed that manufacturing was expanding for the first time in five months, with a July reading of 51.8, up from 49.8 in June.

An index figure above 50 indicates expansion.

"While the overall economy continues to improve, the manufacturing sector reversed its recent trend of contraction," said ISM's Norbert Ore.

Growth returns

There are other signs that the US economy is on the rebound.

Preliminary estimates on Thursday suggested that US GDP had increased at an annual rate of 2.4% in the second quarter of 2003, up from 1.4% in the first three months of the year.

And on Friday the government reported that consumer spending rose by 0.3% in June, after a revised increase of 0.4% in May.

Personal income also rose by 0.3%, in line with expectations.

Consumer spending makes up two-thirds of economic output, and so far it has been holding up despite the weak economy.

The Bush administration is hoping that its $350bn tax cut, which includes extra cash for households with children in July, will help boost economic growth, and ultimately lead to job creation.

Defence boost

Many economists believe that economy would have to grow at a rate closer to 3.5%-4% in the second half of the year to generate more jobs.

However, much of the growth in the second quarter was driven by a 44% increase in defence spending, the largest rise since the Korean War in l950.

"Without the voracious winds of government spending, the USS Economy might have been a rudderless dinghy," said Rich Yamarone, an economist at Argus Research.

The US central bank, the Federal Reserve, has cut interest rates to a 48 year low of 1% in June, in order to spur growth.

If economic weaknesses continues, it may be tempted to make a further cut at its next rate-setting meeting on 12 August.

First they downplayed weapons of mass destruction, now they're downplaying their own jobs predictions; What's next, downplaying Bush's "electability"?

Tick, tick, tick....

Three more weeks! :\party: Three more weeks! Three more weeks!

Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr Tick, tick, tick.... Three more weeks! :\party: Three more weeks! Three more weeks!

Three more weeks, three more weeks,... until our Lord and Savior gets the vote from the American people.

Oh, he'll get the vote all right. Unfortunately, it won't be the one he's hoping for. No, the vote he'll be getting is for what we on Planet Earth call a "pink slip."

Tick, tick, tick...

2 more days :\party: 2 more days 2 more days :sex:

Just finished my ballot, dropping it off tomorrow. Marked the slot that reads "George Bush, you're fired. Clean out your desk and get the fcuk out of Dodge."

Tick, tick, tick...

Won't happen...And thank christ is won't. I'd rather die than live with that limp dick liberal dweeb Kerry in the WH.

Originally posted by Sir CHUNKS Won't happen...And thank christ is won't. I'd rather die than live with that limp dick liberal dweeb Kerry in the WH.

Rather have a limp dick than a dripping sodding ASSHOLE

Asshole are more fun.

The great Dennis Leary spoke: "I'm an asshole, and pround of it."

Good words Mr. Leary...because I am an Asshole too...and VERY proud of it!!!

Tick, tick, tick...

He fell farther away! Dubya in for a second term!