news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060910/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/cheney
"Part of my job is to think about the unthinkable, to focus what in fact the terrorists may have in store for us," Cheney told NBC's "Meet the Press" when asked about his "dark side."
"Yes, the unthinkable, like that stuff I just made up to justify invading Iraq so my company's stock could go through the roof". Cheney then ripped the head off a young kitten and drank its blood "Mmm, the blood of the young really gets the juices flowing."
Cheney said he now recognizes that the insurgency in Iraq was not "in its last throes," as he said in May 2005.
No shit, Sherlock. Most of us figured that out before you said it. There's no medal for getting it right a year and a half late.
"I think there is no question but that we did not anticipate an insurgency that would last this long," the vice president said.
Again, most of us realized this was crap long ago, good of Dick to join us albeit several years (and thousands of lives) late. Forgive me if I'm not impressed that he's finally coming to these conclusions when it appears his bungling is going to cost his party the elections.
"It's still difficult. Obviously, major, major work to do is ahead of us. But the fact is, the world is better off today with Saddam Hussein out of power. Think where we'd be if he was still there," Cheney said.
Yes, where would we be. Well, several thousand of our young men and women would still be alive, I'm sure their parents are really glad that didn't happen. Many thousands of Iraqis would still be alive, I'm sure their families are cheering the fact that we didn't let their lives get in the way of Halliburton's stock price. We'd have most likely caught Osama if we hadn't taken our eyes off the prize and removed most of our special forces from Afghanistan so they could piss around Iraq and commit war crimes.
And of course let's not forget Saddam. He'd still be an impotent dictator who couldn't even exercise authority in a large portion of his country. Yeah, that was totally worth all the lives and billions of dollars and allowing Osama to remain free.
The vice president said the reports were about as valid "as the ones that said I was in charge of everything."
He then sat George Bush on his lap and drank a glass of water while Bush recited Mary Had a Little Lamb.
"I think we've done a pretty good job of securing the nation against terrorists. You know, we're here on the fifth anniversary (of the 9/11 attacks). And there has not been another attack on the United States. And that's not an accident, because we've done a hell of a job here at home," Cheney said in the broadcast interview. "I don't know how much better you can do than no, no attacks for the past five years."
Unless of course you still remember all those anthrax tainted letters that had everyone scared to open their mailboxes. But of course you don't remember that because the media's done its job of distracting you and making sure you don't remember.
And of course the lovely liberal media once again forgets to remind everyone how Cheney's statement is a bullshit lie.
Cheney disputed that he ever directly said Saddam had any role in the Sept. 11 attacks.
This would be the perfect gotcha moment for the media. Really stick it to Cheney by pointing out all the times he actually did say that Saddam was complicit in 9/11. But, yet again, the damn liberal media lets it go.
In an hourlong interview, Cheney also:
• Acknowledged the recent rise of violence in Afghanistan and the resurgence of the Taliban, saying the U.S. military would be in the country "for some considerable" time. He said the hunt for bin Laden remains a priority for the administration.
Yes, such a priority that the government abandoned the whole thing to concentrate on a war in Iraq that had nothing to do with Osama or 9/11.
_Said he still disagrees with the Supreme Court's decision in June that the administration overstepped its authority in holding suspected terrorists without trials or Geneva Conventions protections. He declined to discuss specific treatment of detainees, but said information gleaned from interrogations "helped us prevent attacks against the United States."
Yes, criminals often disagree when the court finds against them.
_Declined to criticize plans by Republicans to spend millions on negative campaign ads against Democrats. "I hope our guys have good hard-hitting advertisements. Certainly, the opposition does," he said. He predicted Republicans would keep control of both House and Senate.
And the captain of the Titanic said the ship was unsinkable. And the Hussein regime was still releasing reports saying the Americans were on the retreat even as we were bombing their asses from one side of Baghdad to another and Saddam was cowering in a hole.
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Saturday, September 09, 2006
As if we needed another reason...
news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060909/pl_nm/bush_...
Remember this story...Bush has said in no uncertain terms that if the Republicans win in November he will once again try to destroy Social Security. And an emboldened Republican Congress, released from the worry of reelection for a couple years, will be all too willing to give him the blank check they've always given him.
This, in and of itself, is reason enough not to vote for Republicans in November. Added to all the other crimes Bush will be able to commit against this country in his final years with a complacent Congress, voting for Republicans is unconscionable.
Remember this story...Bush has said in no uncertain terms that if the Republicans win in November he will once again try to destroy Social Security. And an emboldened Republican Congress, released from the worry of reelection for a couple years, will be all too willing to give him the blank check they've always given him.
This, in and of itself, is reason enough not to vote for Republicans in November. Added to all the other crimes Bush will be able to commit against this country in his final years with a complacent Congress, voting for Republicans is unconscionable.
Path to 9/11...or Path to Republican win in November?...
http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/09/05/true-or-false/#more-4331
I just get angrier and angrier every time I read more about this shit. This is a blatant attempt to influence peoples' voting patterns two months before election day (and on the anniversary of a very emotional event in American history). People will now go around claiming that Clinton was wholly and completely responsible for 9/11 and they'll use this crap as proof.
Imagine for a second, just a second, if NBC put out a documentary (an actual, fact based, documentary actually based on the 9/11 Commission Report and written by an actual legitimate historian/journalist). Of course such a documentary would place a good deal of the blame on the Bush Administration. The conservatives would have a freaking fit. They'd be burning down NBC headquarters.
Meanwhile, the supposed pro-Democrat ABC network is giving Bush a big sloppy kiss of an election year gift and the conservatives are acting like it's the bestest thing in the whole entire world. But come tomorrow they'll still label ABC a liberal front group.
And does anyone at ABC (owned by Disney) remember the outright hatred directed at Disney from the right when they dared to treat their employees fairly regardless of sexual orientation? Anybody? It's like the entire media has abused wife syndrome, the more the right beats them the more they think they deserve it and move further to the right. What they don't realize is that the conservatives don't hit them because of anything they do. The conservatives hit them because they like to and because it fits in well with their narrative of the way of the world.
If the conservatives admitted that they control the entire country, the media, and the schools they'd have nothing to bitch about and they'd quickly fall apart. They lack even the beginnings of a coherent agenda for the country so they compensate by bitching about how they can't get their way on anything. They've run this country with an iron fist for 6 years and, with few exceptions, have gotten everything they wanted. And yet they act like somehow the Democrats (who can't even get lobbying jobs on K Street) have any power to stop them.
I just get angrier and angrier every time I read more about this shit. This is a blatant attempt to influence peoples' voting patterns two months before election day (and on the anniversary of a very emotional event in American history). People will now go around claiming that Clinton was wholly and completely responsible for 9/11 and they'll use this crap as proof.
Imagine for a second, just a second, if NBC put out a documentary (an actual, fact based, documentary actually based on the 9/11 Commission Report and written by an actual legitimate historian/journalist). Of course such a documentary would place a good deal of the blame on the Bush Administration. The conservatives would have a freaking fit. They'd be burning down NBC headquarters.
Meanwhile, the supposed pro-Democrat ABC network is giving Bush a big sloppy kiss of an election year gift and the conservatives are acting like it's the bestest thing in the whole entire world. But come tomorrow they'll still label ABC a liberal front group.
And does anyone at ABC (owned by Disney) remember the outright hatred directed at Disney from the right when they dared to treat their employees fairly regardless of sexual orientation? Anybody? It's like the entire media has abused wife syndrome, the more the right beats them the more they think they deserve it and move further to the right. What they don't realize is that the conservatives don't hit them because of anything they do. The conservatives hit them because they like to and because it fits in well with their narrative of the way of the world.
If the conservatives admitted that they control the entire country, the media, and the schools they'd have nothing to bitch about and they'd quickly fall apart. They lack even the beginnings of a coherent agenda for the country so they compensate by bitching about how they can't get their way on anything. They've run this country with an iron fist for 6 years and, with few exceptions, have gotten everything they wanted. And yet they act like somehow the Democrats (who can't even get lobbying jobs on K Street) have any power to stop them.
Not paying attention...
www.firedoglake.com/2006/09/04/hijacking-911
Anybody who believes this movie is an idiot, an absolute idiot.
Seriously, if you buy any of the lies put forth by ABC you've obviously not been paying attention for the past 5 years. And you most definitely did not read the 9/11 report.
Anybody who believes this movie is an idiot, an absolute idiot.
Seriously, if you buy any of the lies put forth by ABC you've obviously not been paying attention for the past 5 years. And you most definitely did not read the 9/11 report.
Racists...
www.courierpostonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060827
No, really? White Supremacits are the ones waving Confederate flags and screaming slurs at women and children? I'd have never guessed it.
Nobody ever doubted that there was a significant outside presence in this. The whackos always come out of the woodwork for shit like this. The problem is that nobody on the side of the ordinance is kicking these people out. If I wanted my movement to be respectful I'd be kicking these Nazi fuckers' asses.
No, really? White Supremacits are the ones waving Confederate flags and screaming slurs at women and children? I'd have never guessed it.
Nobody ever doubted that there was a significant outside presence in this. The whackos always come out of the woodwork for shit like this. The problem is that nobody on the side of the ordinance is kicking these people out. If I wanted my movement to be respectful I'd be kicking these Nazi fuckers' asses.
Let's kill the schools to save them...
www.courierpostonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060813...
The answer to failing public schools is not to take away all their funding. I'm not quite sure why the government should be subsidizing the failing Catholic school system anyway. This whole thing seems to boil down to the diocese begging the government to bail them out after years of so-so education and outrageous tuition drove many of their students to public schools.
This is going to create a situation where parents who want their children to be indoctrinated in a religious philosophy will be able to send their children to private school while those who don't want their kids coming home and saying all gays are going to hell will have to leave their children in horrible hell holes stripped of all funding and quickly falling apart. It's going to be the most obvious public sanction of a particular religious philosophy. How many Jewish or Muslim all-day schools are there in this country? A few Jewish ones in New York maybe, perhaps a few Muslim ones in Detroit. To the best of my knowledge most religious Jewish children attend after school Hebrew schools akin to CCD in Catholic Schools. I don't recall even seeing any all-day Jewish schools in this area and there is quite a large Jewish community around here.
This is going to create a situation where the Christian faith will be advanced to the detrement of the rest of the community. It's going to throw the entire idea of public education on its head (public schools were created to be a religion-neutral place where all children regardless of race, income or religion could enjoy a good education free of prejudice or hatred). With vouchers, those kids who are not religious will be forced to attend public schools with ever dwindling student populations (all those who are religious will leave) and will suffer because of the lack of funding. The very idea of public schools will become extinct. We'll end up with a situation where the rich and religious will be able to get the best education money can buy and the poor and secular will be left behind.
And how about this quote:
"I think it's good for the kids in Camden, not so good for the people who worked very hard to buy a house in a good area with a good school system," Cinnaminson's Grace Porrini said.
Yes, how dare those people who don't make enough to live in Cinnaminson expect to have a decent education. It's enough to almost make someone support the vouchers just to shut her stupid, Republican elitist mouth up.
The answer to failing public schools is not to take away all their funding. I'm not quite sure why the government should be subsidizing the failing Catholic school system anyway. This whole thing seems to boil down to the diocese begging the government to bail them out after years of so-so education and outrageous tuition drove many of their students to public schools.
This is going to create a situation where parents who want their children to be indoctrinated in a religious philosophy will be able to send their children to private school while those who don't want their kids coming home and saying all gays are going to hell will have to leave their children in horrible hell holes stripped of all funding and quickly falling apart. It's going to be the most obvious public sanction of a particular religious philosophy. How many Jewish or Muslim all-day schools are there in this country? A few Jewish ones in New York maybe, perhaps a few Muslim ones in Detroit. To the best of my knowledge most religious Jewish children attend after school Hebrew schools akin to CCD in Catholic Schools. I don't recall even seeing any all-day Jewish schools in this area and there is quite a large Jewish community around here.
This is going to create a situation where the Christian faith will be advanced to the detrement of the rest of the community. It's going to throw the entire idea of public education on its head (public schools were created to be a religion-neutral place where all children regardless of race, income or religion could enjoy a good education free of prejudice or hatred). With vouchers, those kids who are not religious will be forced to attend public schools with ever dwindling student populations (all those who are religious will leave) and will suffer because of the lack of funding. The very idea of public schools will become extinct. We'll end up with a situation where the rich and religious will be able to get the best education money can buy and the poor and secular will be left behind.
And how about this quote:
"I think it's good for the kids in Camden, not so good for the people who worked very hard to buy a house in a good area with a good school system," Cinnaminson's Grace Porrini said.
Yes, how dare those people who don't make enough to live in Cinnaminson expect to have a decent education. It's enough to almost make someone support the vouchers just to shut her stupid, Republican elitist mouth up.
More lies...
www.courierpostonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060812/...
First off there's one fact that needs to be stated: the two options for the frozen embryos are getting thrown in the trash or being used to further scientific research and save millions of lives. Those are the only two options. There simply aren't enough people in the world to "adopt" all of them and carry them to term. That doesn't even take into account that most people are perfectly able to conceive on their own and don't need to "adopt" anyone's unwanted embryo.
Let's sort it out. No serious person would deny that a human embryo is nascent human life.
Funny, I thought that was the entire crux of the debate. The whole reason we're having this debate (abortion and stem cells) is because of a difference of opinion on when life actually begins. One side has decades of scientific research and provable evidence, the other doesn't. I'll leave it up to you to figure out which side is which. Because he knows he doesn't have a leg to stand on he immediately tries to dismiss the opposition as not serious. Nice try.
If we're going to start claiming that an embryo is as good as a human life where does it end? Do we criminalize masturbation because those sperm may some day fertilize an egg? Do we have police officers watching over girls during ovulation making sure they're trying their hardest to get pregnant since the alternative is letting that egg go to waste? If someone murders a woman is he or she guilty of killing every potential child that woman may ever have based on the eggs still inside her? Same question when talking about abortion, if you abort a girl (and it's considered murder) are you guilty of murdering every child she would have otherwise had?
To create human life solely to experiment on it and destroy it for the purpose of enhancing the well being of other human lives is bound to raise moral and ethical concerns for some people.
Nobody's suggesting creating new embryos for use in stem cell therapy, there are plenty ready to be discarded like garbage at in-vitro clinics across the nation.
Had Bush failed to veto the stem-cell bill and allowed federal funding of this morally problematic research, the personal morality of the writer and others sharing his view would have been imposed on those who believe the status quo is morally appropriate and should not be overturned.
Funding research that scientific research agrees could save millions is no more a push of personal morality than funding research on new medical procedures (Christian Scientists don't believe in medicine) or psychological medications (Scientologists don't believe in Psychology).
Professor Peter Singer of Princeton University is the only individual I have seen who both supports the writer's view and has addressed the underlying moral issue. He says, simply, human life has no particular value.
One doesn't have to believe that life has no value to agree with stem cell research. There is an active debate on when life begins and if you don't believe life begins at single-cell mode this has nothing to do with the value, or lack thereof, of human life.
www.courierpostonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060812...
Embryonic stem cells are obtained from living human embryos and require the destruction of the embryo.
Which would otherwise end up where? In a trashcan? An incinerator? Certainly they won't end up becoming living, breathing human beings.
A human embryo is the early stage of human life.
That's far from an undisputed fact.
Treatments using embryonic stem cells have not produced any clinical successes. Rather, they tend to create tumors in animal studies. The public should ask why the media do not cover such results.
Is this the new right-wing Christian mantra? Stem cells cause cancer? I must say, that's a new one for me. They just keep coming up with weirder and weirder excuses. I guess this important scientific research must have been conducted by the same doctor who determined that abortion causes an increase in breast cancer. These guys should stop picking on cancer patients and pick another horrid disease to blame on things they don't agree with.
First off there's one fact that needs to be stated: the two options for the frozen embryos are getting thrown in the trash or being used to further scientific research and save millions of lives. Those are the only two options. There simply aren't enough people in the world to "adopt" all of them and carry them to term. That doesn't even take into account that most people are perfectly able to conceive on their own and don't need to "adopt" anyone's unwanted embryo.
Let's sort it out. No serious person would deny that a human embryo is nascent human life.
Funny, I thought that was the entire crux of the debate. The whole reason we're having this debate (abortion and stem cells) is because of a difference of opinion on when life actually begins. One side has decades of scientific research and provable evidence, the other doesn't. I'll leave it up to you to figure out which side is which. Because he knows he doesn't have a leg to stand on he immediately tries to dismiss the opposition as not serious. Nice try.
If we're going to start claiming that an embryo is as good as a human life where does it end? Do we criminalize masturbation because those sperm may some day fertilize an egg? Do we have police officers watching over girls during ovulation making sure they're trying their hardest to get pregnant since the alternative is letting that egg go to waste? If someone murders a woman is he or she guilty of killing every potential child that woman may ever have based on the eggs still inside her? Same question when talking about abortion, if you abort a girl (and it's considered murder) are you guilty of murdering every child she would have otherwise had?
To create human life solely to experiment on it and destroy it for the purpose of enhancing the well being of other human lives is bound to raise moral and ethical concerns for some people.
Nobody's suggesting creating new embryos for use in stem cell therapy, there are plenty ready to be discarded like garbage at in-vitro clinics across the nation.
Had Bush failed to veto the stem-cell bill and allowed federal funding of this morally problematic research, the personal morality of the writer and others sharing his view would have been imposed on those who believe the status quo is morally appropriate and should not be overturned.
Funding research that scientific research agrees could save millions is no more a push of personal morality than funding research on new medical procedures (Christian Scientists don't believe in medicine) or psychological medications (Scientologists don't believe in Psychology).
Professor Peter Singer of Princeton University is the only individual I have seen who both supports the writer's view and has addressed the underlying moral issue. He says, simply, human life has no particular value.
One doesn't have to believe that life has no value to agree with stem cell research. There is an active debate on when life begins and if you don't believe life begins at single-cell mode this has nothing to do with the value, or lack thereof, of human life.
www.courierpostonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060812...
Embryonic stem cells are obtained from living human embryos and require the destruction of the embryo.
Which would otherwise end up where? In a trashcan? An incinerator? Certainly they won't end up becoming living, breathing human beings.
A human embryo is the early stage of human life.
That's far from an undisputed fact.
Treatments using embryonic stem cells have not produced any clinical successes. Rather, they tend to create tumors in animal studies. The public should ask why the media do not cover such results.
Is this the new right-wing Christian mantra? Stem cells cause cancer? I must say, that's a new one for me. They just keep coming up with weirder and weirder excuses. I guess this important scientific research must have been conducted by the same doctor who determined that abortion causes an increase in breast cancer. These guys should stop picking on cancer patients and pick another horrid disease to blame on things they don't agree with.
Joe Lieberman...
www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/2/14247/70377
This says more about Lieberman than anything else ever could.
This says more about Lieberman than anything else ever could.
Conflicted...
www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/112-07282006-690092.html
I don't know how I feel about this. On the one hand, the illegal immigrant situation has become a huge problem in Riverside in the past 10 years. They are causing a great strain on township services and a lot of people are understandably pissed off about it. On the other hand, the supporters of the law don't exactly do themselves any favors by acting like assholes in a public setting.
"This is not Ricki Lake or Jerry Springer," township Solicitor Douglas Heinold told the crowd as the pro-ordinance attendees shouted down anyone who objected to the ordinance.
Resident Steve Edwards led a "Go back, go back" chant as he pointed to several rows of Latino residents who had come to voice their displeasure with the ordinance.
"If you need help rounding them up, I'll be ready tonight. I'll go visit them tonight," Edwards said of the illegal immigrants living in the township.
This kind of activity doesn't make me want to take your side in any argument. That last quote is a threat of violence and the police should seriously considering following him to make sure he doesn't kill somebody. Besides, I doubt he's going to be checking papers so what's to stop him from accidentally rounding up a legal resident...or does he think that anyone hispanic should be deported regardless of their immigration status?
I don't know how I feel about this. On the one hand, the illegal immigrant situation has become a huge problem in Riverside in the past 10 years. They are causing a great strain on township services and a lot of people are understandably pissed off about it. On the other hand, the supporters of the law don't exactly do themselves any favors by acting like assholes in a public setting.
"This is not Ricki Lake or Jerry Springer," township Solicitor Douglas Heinold told the crowd as the pro-ordinance attendees shouted down anyone who objected to the ordinance.
Resident Steve Edwards led a "Go back, go back" chant as he pointed to several rows of Latino residents who had come to voice their displeasure with the ordinance.
"If you need help rounding them up, I'll be ready tonight. I'll go visit them tonight," Edwards said of the illegal immigrants living in the township.
This kind of activity doesn't make me want to take your side in any argument. That last quote is a threat of violence and the police should seriously considering following him to make sure he doesn't kill somebody. Besides, I doubt he's going to be checking papers so what's to stop him from accidentally rounding up a legal resident...or does he think that anyone hispanic should be deported regardless of their immigration status?
Subscribe to:
Comment Feed (RSS)