« London Bombing: Terrorists Strike Back | Main | Is Bush to Blame for Katrina's Aftermath? »
July 07, 2005
British Prime Minister Tony Blair Condemns Terrorist Attacks
Tony Blair spoke on the terrorist attacks from the G8 Summit which opened today in Scotland. Tony Blair mentioned how it is so unfortunate that the attacks occurred on a day when so many people of different countries were meeting together at the G8 Summit to try and better the conditions of certain parts of the world.
Blair also announced that he would be returning to London because of the attack to get a full report from the emergency services team, and that he would be back in Scotland for the rest of the summit later tonight. Tony Blair stated that the terrorists who executed the bombing "have no respect for human life".
Tony Blair stated that would not let any type of violence change the values of their society. Blair explained that the desire to defend his values and way of life is far greater than the desire of the terrorists to cause death and destruction.
Posted by Tuck at July 7, 2005 02:09 PM
Comments
Oh my God, not again. Poor London - hit twice in two weeks. Thank God not as many people were hurt this time.
Posted by: Henry at July 21, 2005 11:22 AM
Hey Henry, I guess you're the only one left on this site. Seems like every time we get a good conversation going they cut it off. I can't even find the old blogs we wrote.
Oh well, I've been busy lately anyway, but it's good to see you're still kicking.
I can't remember if you liked to read books much or not, but if you do I've got a good one for you.
I just read "The Terrible Truth About Liberals" by Neal Boortz. It's only 166 pages, so it's a very quick read, and goes straight to the point.
Being a Libertarian, it struck a chord with me. Most of the things we know about Liberals has been discussed, but this book puts them all together in easy comparisons.
Check it out, I think you'll like it. Write back once you read it and we can discuss the points in the book.
Posted by: Art at July 27, 2005 10:51 AM
Sure, I like to read books. But I'm not interested in reading how liberals hate America and trash the military and all that cr@*. Whether the book is anti-liberal or anti-conservative, I couldn't care less about someone else's views on politics. I prefer to read short blogs than to read pages and pages of boring political garbage.
Posted by: Henry at July 30, 2005 02:04 PM
Hey, guys! Gosh, it was hard to find where you all went!!! Anyway, I can't talk now, but I'm glad I found you (:
Peace,
Flaming Liberal
Posted by: FlamingLiberal at August 7, 2005 08:53 PM
Well I guess we won't hear from Art again until we find out if Henry can read. That may take a while. ;-)
I've actually read that book. It came out in 2000, I think. It's not what you think it is Henry, but God forbid you should read something to further your knowledgebase. Need to keep that ignorant Liberal feeling going. It just feeeeeels better to be ignorant.
Speaking of ignorance, just the other day I saw Abel perpetuating all the lies about Karl Rove on some blog somewhere. What a loser. I guess all the truth got to him and he left this blog some time ago. I sometimes wonder if he really believes all that crap he spouts, but maybe it's just his wishful thinking. It must be sad to be such a depressing person, and to be old and senile at the same time. Well, I won't talk about him anymore since he no longer frequents this blog.
I guess we could talk about how it's now been proven that it was Gorelick and Reno in the Clinton Administration who suppressed the knowledge about the 911 terrorists a year before they attacked. It's now called the "Gorelick-Reno wall." And the Dems put Gorelick in charge of the 911 commission. That can't be a coincidence. Did they really think we wouldn't find out the truth eventually?
But it's interesting news, even thought we all kinda knew that Clinton didn't want to deal with terrorism even as it was happening. He knew fighting terrorism would be a long messy ordeal and preferred not to dirty his hands with such incidentals as our freedom and security. Hope we've heard the last of that loser too, but bad people seem to linger. I hear his wicked bride may even run for president some day. She rigged the polls in NY and oozed into the Senate. I'm sure she can do it again.
I just thought of something. Can we get the families who lost loved ones on 911 to file a class action lawsuit against Bill Clinton and the Democrats for letting thousands of innocent people get slaughtered?
Probably not. He's got a lot of power with the biased media on his side. The only good thing is that more Americans are becoming enlightened to the truth and no longer believe the mainstream media's lies. Also, I think most people don't care to rehash all of the shortcomings of past presidents. We remember that it was Clinton who was responsible for arming China and North Korea with nuclear bombs, but we are hopeful that we don't have to pay for that some day.
And if we do get nuked, I'm sure the liberal-baised media will find someone else to blame. They've had 40 years to get good at this propaganda thing.
Posted by: Fred at August 12, 2005 03:04 PM
Yea whatever, Fred. I'm not a liberal by the way, I'm a moderate. I get my news from newspapers like Newsday, The Metro, and even the O'Reilly Factor.
Your hero Bush did nothing about terrorism before 9/11 when he received that memo on August 6th, 2001 titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US." So he's just as guilty as Clinton as doing nothing about terrorism. Where is Osama bin Laden by the way? Saddam Hussein was not the one who knocked down the Twin Towers and damaged the Pentagon. Now we're stuck in Iraq when we're supposed to be focusing on Afghanistan.
And remember when Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, recently said that protecting subways and buses from terrorist activity is not Washington's problem? Why doesn't that insensitive bum come down here to NYC and tell me that face-to-face? I live in NYC and I use the subway everyday along with millions of other people to go to work. Of course the federal government has to pitch in to keep terrorists from bombing our public transportation systems. After what happened in London, it's the Bush administration's job to protect us no matter what sort of transportation we use, don't you think?
Posted by: Henry at August 12, 2005 08:44 PM
I am sick and tired of being called ignorant by all these Republican sympathizers on this blog. I disagree with them and they bash me. Art and Fred are starting to behave like the left-wing media. Did I insult or bash anybody?
Well anyway, polls show that the president's approval ratings are very low. Because of the unpopular war in Iraq and the high gas prices, the Dems have a chance to pick up a few more seats in the 2006 mid-term elections.
Posted by: Henry at August 13, 2005 12:25 AM
Hey Freddie. Wot's up?
We could also talk about how the radical left have recruited some lady named Cindy Sheehan to stand outside the President's place and protest. She's absolutely insane. They love the kooky ones cuz they can manipulate them so much easier.
I guess it'd be best to just ignore a nut like her, but of course the mainstream media want to turn her into a celebrity. They never stop, do they? Don't they realize they've become inconsequential? No one reads NYTimes, no one with cable bothers to watch news on NBC, CBS, ABC etc. Even cable users don't bother with CNN anymore. It used to be a good news channel. Now it's ludicrous.
Ok, there's two things to talk about:
>Radical left at it again !!Biased press follow pointless story< (and notice they don't mention that she's already met with Bush once and had nothing but good things to say about the encounter back then.)
I guess there's no real debate on these subjects actually, since we all know the mainstream media is controlled by the radical left wing kooks.
We could debate on why the Democrats in office still cowtow to the radical left. How 'bout that?
Posted by: Ted at August 15, 2005 11:35 AM
Yeah, isn't that amazing that now we're finding out all the truth about a conspiracy in the Clinton admin that allowed the bombing on 9/11.
The Bush haters will still try to blame him even though all this happened on Bubbah's watch.
Did you know that the reason the ultra-left liberals like to say they are moderate is that they know their beliefs are against the majority of Americans and they don't want to let on that they belong to that group of radicals? The talking points are how you tell the difference.
Funny how people say that they are being bashed when others find them to be ignorant. Not knowing the latest news from intelligence found in Iraq that Saddam was directly connected with funding Al Quaeda, shows ignorance in my opinion. Can't ignorant people just learn something so people won't call them that? Or do they suffer from bad self-esteem? Who knows?
Here's one to debate: Just what was Sandy Berger stealing from the top secret archives. He's pleaded guilty, but he shredded the evidence. I bet it ties all those liberals like Reno and Gorelick, as well as Clinton himself to the 9/11 coverup.
I admit that the biased media has performed the "thousand cuts" technique they love so much and I know that has hurt Bush's popularity some, but I'm glad we have a leader who does what he says he'll do even if it's not 100% popular. Clinton wouldn't do anything without a poll telling him what to do.
Clinton is now considered the worst president we ever had (not counting Carter). He ruined the economy, left us vulnerable by reducing the military and then conspired to help the terrorists. I'm not a big Bush fan, but his tax cuts sure gave our economy the boost it needed.
Gas prices are the result of not doing the right things perhaps 10 years ago. Can't completely blame Clinton for the fact that we've been letting ourselves depend on foreign oil. It'll take a while, but if we start drilling in Alaska and off the coast of California or even more in the Gulf we'll get those prices down a lot, I think. Unfortunately it will take a while.
As for polls, I don't believe half of the results they give us. The Zogby has been proven to be biased and they purposely word the questions to get the result they want. That's just crooked, in my opinion.
Bush is not a hero to me, but he's done a lot of good things and he's had to endure a very unfair barrage of lies from the media and the left. From Rathergate to the lies about Rove and Delay, the American people are sick of the crap that the media makes up just to hurt our country and the man we voted into office twice.
Once you realize that the Liberals in the Senate and the Liberal mainstream media have directly caused the death of thousands of soldiers with their lies, you know you'll never vote for them again.
I guess a moderate wouldn't vote for a Democrat, right?
Posted by: Pete at August 15, 2005 05:35 PM
Henry, I didn't say one word about you. Are you sure you really CAN read? What did I say that qualifies as bashing? I didn't say you were ignorant, but I'm starting to believe it now. All I did was suggest a book to read so we could have a discussion, and you go off in a rant about books that bash liberals and call me names.
Calling me a "Republican sympathizer" isn't fair. I already told you I was a Libertarian. At least you admit the left-wing media is unfair. I wish you'd read what I said before you attack me for not doing anything to you. You certainly are ultra-sensitive.
I'm sorry about your troubles in NYC. Perhaps you can talk to you senator about the problem. I've read your state is worse off now than it was before Hitlary cheated her way into office. Put the blame where it belongs and quit bashing innocent people on this blog, ok?
Posted by: Art at August 15, 2005 05:46 PM
No Art. Last time we spoke about a month ago before our conversation was cut off, you said that I didn't know anything about history and that insulted me. I apologize for calling you a "Republican sympathizer" and I hope I didn't hurt your feelings. But I have a right to defend myself, right?
I don't know about Hillary cheating her way into office. I'm not sure if I can vote for Hillary now because I have a feeling she's just using New York as a doormat for her 2008 presidential bid. I'm beginning to think that she just has no interest in New York at all and she only cares about advancing her own political career. I'm not voting for that Pirro woman either, so I think I'll vote for the Independent or Conservative candidate.
By the way, do you watch that new TV series "Over There"? It's a pretty good show about the Iraq war and unlike the radical leftists like Greenpeace the troops are accurately portrayed as heroes instead of the villains. If you don't watch it I highly recommend it.
Posted by: Henry at August 16, 2005 06:35 PM
I'm sorry if I implied back then that you were not versed in historical knowledge, but that was my opinion based on your blogs. Sorry to have insulted you, but it got you motivated to learn more, didn't it? ;-)
You're showing me that you are trying to be more informed which is encouraging. Just the fact that you now see thru Hillary's tactics shows that you aren't mind numb like many out there.
Thanks for the pointer, I don't watch a lot of TV, but that sounds interesting. I'll try to check out "Over There." I really wish more truth were told about Iraq. Now that they're getting electricity, water etc for the first time is something we should be informed about more. And we should be proud on our successes there instead of constantly talking about the bad things.
I sincerely believe that if the left-wing press had not been so bent on hurting our cause against terrorism, we'd have accomplished much more. I don't think Bush has done the best he could, but I think the country believed that he was the best choice for the job.
What hurts is that their pure hatred for Bush is the most important thing to them, not the welfare and safety of our country. Sad, but true. That's why I despise the liberals. They care more about their power and influence on the masses than the welfare of honest Americans.
If you've been reading history now, you might even see the parallels with Vietnam. What many don't know is that we were winning the war against the communists there until the press started in with the negative lies. The press won, America lost. I don't think we'll fall for that again, but they were a powerful force against our freedom for many years. Glad we are now able to see thru their lies. Funny, but they continue to lie even when we're on to their game. Maybe they'll never learn.
Hey, did you hear they found a chemical warfare factory in Iraq just the other day? I knew they'd find more WMD's in Iraq even though we know they moved the large stuff into Iran & Syria.
So now that the WMD's are proven, the connection of Saddam to Bin Laden has been proven, do you think the left-wing nuts will give Bush a break? Don't count on it.
Later, dude !!
Posted by: Art at August 17, 2005 12:30 PM
Good point about Clinton dropping the ball. How does a memo months before 911 compare with years of ignoring terrorist attacks on our country.
Now Clinton is saying in one breath that he had Bin Laden and the Saudis didn't want him; and from the other side of his mouth he's saying he wished he'd caught Bin Laden and was obsessed with catching the guy. Even the less intelligent of our society can see that contradiction.
I laughed my head off at that one. Does he really think anyone respects his "legacy" ? What a loser. A top notch liar, but a loser nonetheless. We'll be paying for the Clinton years for many decades to come, unfortunately.
Posted by: Fred at August 18, 2005 02:54 PM
Cindy Sheehan is not an insane woman. She's just upset that her son was killed in an unnecessary war and all she wants are answers. The president should meet with her for 5 minutes just to get her off his back. Otherwise the president is sending the message that he does not care about all this death and destruction he got us into. Some have even called him a "coward " and a "chicken" for not meeting with this woman.
Sheehan's son is a patriot for sacrificing his life for other people's freedom but we can't pull out of Iraq immediately because it would embolden the enemy. Besides, 1800 American soldiers would have died in vain if we left prematurely.
Posted by: Henry at August 19, 2005 10:59 PM
Ted, you're right. It turns out it's another Clinton coverup. The CIA guy says the Able-Danger docs disappeared back in 2003. Maybe Berger shredded them to cover up the fact that they knew about the 911 tragedy before it happened. Gorelick has been proven to be behind the coverup with the Reno-Gorelick wall, as they call it.
So now the shoe is on the other foot. All those accusations during the 911 hearings were to cover up the actions (or inactions) done by the Clinton Administration. Boy, that guy sure was crooked. I just get so tired of them always blaming Bush for the problems they caused. They definitely have a loud megaphone, but it's falling on deaf ears these days.
As for Sheehan, no respectable Democrat is supporting her. (Actually, I can't think of any respectable Dems in office.) I feel sorry for Democrats who are good people. Their party has been taken over by the socialist/communist party, and now that we know it, we don't respond in "lock-step" they way they want us to. I just love this era: finally the biased media and the ultra-liberals have been exposed for their true agenda. They can't lie about who they are anymore.
Well, be good, and keep informed. That's the only way to beat the constant media lies.
You know, it sure is ironic: the Democratic party used to stand for the little guy. Now they're controlled by super rich communists like Soros. Sad, really, but I'm confident honesty will prevail, so don't worry too much.
Posted by: Fred at August 22, 2005 08:05 PM
Insane is just my opinion of her mental state, just like when you call it an "unnecessary war." That's your opinion, but I don't share that opinion. I believe that this is a very necessary war and it is with utmost necessity that we win, even if it takes years.
Sheehan may not be insane (that's better determined by a doctor), but she's definitely being used by the Anti-War left-wing kooks, getting her to spout hatred and lies about our country while the left-wing press laps it up. Since she already met with Bush a year ago, the press is deliberately lying by not mentioning that fact. If the president has to meet with everyone who has a beef with him he'd never get anything done, especially if he has to meet with them multiple times.
A better definition of Sheehand is "crack-pot." She has no facts, no support (except the ever vigilant biased press) and no concern whatsoever for her son's wishes, IMO. He was an honorable man who fought for our freedom, but she's working overtime trying to ruin his honor. I have absolutely no respect for such a hateful woman as Cindy Sheehan. Maybe she's not insane, but her family think she's lost her mind and her heart. They're out there trying to distance themselves from her. I bet her son would be totally embarrassed by her also, if he were alive. Poor guy. I feel sorry for the son for having such a hateful mother.
The press keeps saying that Bush needs to answer her questions, but she's already admitted that she doesn't have any legitimate questions for him. She just wants to call him names now that Soros is paying for her "camping trip" with 50 other people.
I feel sorry for the family and the son who died honorably and now his name is dragged thru the mud just so this woman can get on the news and the Bush-haters can attempt to spread their hatred all over this country.
How embarrassing for the son. I'd hate to have such a demented mother, who can't even keep her story straight. She met with Bush once and said it was a wonderful meeting and he was an honest man. Now she says that the meeting was a disaster and he didn't seem to care for her loss. Even you, Henry, can see the contradiction, right?
And don't say she changed her mind. How you felt at the time about meeting someone doesn't change. What changed was who got in her ear and got her to spout lies for an eager biased press.
You can fall for it, if you want, but most of America sees thru her hatred and deceit. The polls show that most people aren't happy with the way the war is being waged. In fact most want us to go harder and get this thing won. Very few actually want us to pull out and let millions die like in Vietnam. Sheehan is a loud voice because of the media, but she represents a very small radical group in this country.
Don't fall for it Henry, you're smarter than that, aren't you? I like to hope so.
Posted by: Art at August 26, 2005 12:01 PM
I agree with you, Art. The left-wing media sure does lie a lot. But I'm not sure of what President Bush says is true either (and no, I'm not calling him a liar). Because of the so-called wmd's in pre-war Iraq, the CIA leak, and Cheney's comment that the insurgency was "in its last throes," this Bush administration has lost a lot of credibility. A majority of the American people don't like how the president is handling Iraq.
Besides the media, you know why we lost in Vietnam? Because that war lost a lot of public support. You CANNOT win a war if the war lacks public support and history proved that. Right now the Iraq war has already lost a lot of public support. Many people now think that the Bush administration manipulated the intelligence on Iraq wmd's just to build up its case for war. We were attacked on 9/11 and then we were very successful in Afghanistan. You know why? Because that war had a lot of public support since the culprits who killed 3,000 of our own people were hiding there. And plus, the insurgency in Afghanistan was not as strong as the insurgency in Iraq.
I understand how Cindy Sheehan feels but now that she is going to appear with Al Sharpton, she is now going too far with her protest.
Posted by: Henry at August 26, 2005 06:08 PM
Did anyone hear about how the chairman of Air America has disappeared with over $800,000 he stole or embezzled from the Boys and Girls Clubs of New York?
You may not have heard of Air America. It's a radio station that has to be funded to exist. They have to pay radio stations to be aired, even though liberal stars like Al Frankin and Janine Garapalo(sp?) are on it.
You probably won't hear much about it anyway since it's pretty much folded for lack of interest and a rating too small to measure, but the guy in charge found a way to rip off children and escape to Hawaii or somewhere else unknown. Gotta hand it to the libs. No one can rip off minorities and children like those guys can. They're really good at it but then they've had a lot of practice.
More proof of the double standards in the mainstream media. If it were a conservative radio station this kind of news would be plastered all over the front pages of all the major newspapers. This story is a blatant example of rich jerks ripping off children, but the liberal press is not interested in the story since it's about liberal corruption.
I know... Whattaya expect? Fairness?
Posted by: Pete at August 26, 2005 10:26 PM
Whoops, forgot to mention about your comment on the chemical weapons factory in Mosul, Art.
According to Lieutenant Colonel Steve Boylan, that factory did NOT exist before the invasion in 2003. The insurgents must have stockpiled their chemical weapons there so they could kill more innocent Iraqis and coalition troops. Therefore, the wmd's the Bush administration was so obsessed about are still not found. You're right - it's possible that they could be in Iran or Syria. So far NO evidence has been found that links Saddam to Al Qaeda. Although it's now obvious that Al Qaeda is behind the insurgency.
Posted by: Henry at August 27, 2005 01:15 AM
Sheehan may not be insane, but she's a pawn, being used by the communists disguised as groups like PFAW and Code Pink. (Actually I guess using the word Pink in their name doesn't really disguise that they are communists, does it?)
If Sheehan were honest she'd protest the real reason her son died: LIBERALISM. If we could've fought this war the way we fought in WWII it would be over by now with a victory. The liberal PC crowd forced us to pussy-foot around and after capturing terrorists we had to let them go with their weapons so they could then hide amongst the civilians and create a guerrilla war. It could last this way for years.
We didn't do that in Germany. Patton had the enemies shot immediately so they couldn't come back to kill us.
Liberals love when our honorable soldiers die. They want us to lose the war and they want more Americans to die so we'll give in and let them convert us to liberal-communism-socialism, or whatever you want to call it. No freedom is how I define liberalism. Just look at how the liberals in the Supreme Court ruled to take away our property rights. And they want more liberals on the supreme court. Can you believe it? We've voted them out of office, but they still control the courts. What a mess.
I blame the liberal media and our Democrats in the Senate, as well as Republicans with no backbone to stand up and fight for what the majority of Americans voted them into office for. Americans voted overwhelmingly for conservative patriotic ideals, but the politicians seem reluctant to fulfill our wishes.
I was outraged that the liberal media was all upset when we put underwear on some terrorists' heads, but not even slightly concerned when our own people were having their heads cut off. Our real enemy is amongst us. It is the liberal media and others who hate this country and want to destroy it from within.
Bottom line, if we had fought against fascism, communism and naziism the way we fight against islamoterrorism, we'd have been enslaved long ago. Unfortunately we're headed that way now, thanks to liberalism and the anti-war, blame-America crowd.
I know there are no liberals on this blog anymore because they have no ability to debate on real issues. So they all left and went to some blog where they can scream hatred for America without seeming to be unpatriotic. What a joke, but I must say I'm glad those hate-filled liberals are gone, but it's unfortunate that they are blind to the truth.
Posted by: Ted at August 27, 2005 12:00 PM
Anyone who believes Sheehan is just some poor, sad mother who lost her son in a war, is being hoodwinked by the media and the far-left radicals. She's being used. I think we all know that. Her issues have turned to anti-semetism now with her attacks on Israel, so she's now proceeding with the Michael Moore/George Soros agenda.
I don't think anyone with any intelligence buys this garbage. The media keeps saying it represents a vast protest of the war, but in truth there are more Pro-Americans there protesting to counter the Sheehan liars. Most of this country are not represented by the Sheehan crowd, but you won't see them on the mainstream (read, left-biased) media outlets because they don't reflect their beliefs.
So don't worry that it seems like a lot of people hate and blame America for everything, it's not true. It's just that the media purposely amplify the left-wingers no matter how small in number they represent.
Posted by: Pete at August 29, 2005 02:54 PM
Look, a heartbroken mother is protesting and she just wants to voice her opinion. This is America, people can say whatever the hell they want, even if we disagree. However, she is being used by the far-left and she seems to have no problem with that. Therefore, she is hurting rather than helping her cause. No further comment on Cindy Sheehan.
Posted by: Henry at August 29, 2005 06:19 PM
Some of you conservatives are clearly exagerrating on the anti-liberal propaganda. Not all liberals are bad. I understand that liberals can complain a lot, spend less money on defense, insult the conservatives and sometimes the military, and control the media. But liberals trying to destroy America from within like the terrorists? That sounds a little too far-fetched and ridiculous.
Liberalism and socialism/communism are very different ideologies of the left-wing. Just like conservatism and fascism are two different ideologies of the right-wing. Liberals believe in freedom like conservatives do but liberals place more emphasis on civil rights while conservatives stress economic rights. We live in a liberal democracy which is a form of representative democracy. We elect our representatives who are moderated by a written constitution that protects our individual liberties and minority rights in society such as freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, etc. Therefore, liberalism is in stark contrast to totalitarianism. Liberals favor constitutional government, representative democracy and the rule of law. Liberals at various times have embraced both constitutional monarchy and republican government.
Socialism, on the other hand, is based on the belief that democratic means should be used to distribute wealth evenly throughout a society while communism believes this can only be achieved through revolution and class warfare. Although socialist nations may be democracies, socialism requires a high degree of central planning to achieve economic equality. American liberals, although they believe that government should be responsible for education and health, agree that there should be a far smaller role for the government in domestic affairs than socialists. Socialists and communists support much more active government intervention than liberals.
I know this because I studied political science.
Posted by: Henry at August 29, 2005 06:52 PM
Fascism is another left wing ideology that is sweeping this country, but thankfully we defeated it once with war and we can defeat it again if necessary. Conservatism is the opposite of fascism, but not according to the left-biased media. Just remember, if the NY Times or any other mainstream media says something, you can be sure that it's the opposite. Take the CIA leak, for instance. This woman hadn't been a spy for 9 years and her husband put her profile on the internet. And we're supposed to believe that Rove exposed her? Notice that the lie didn't work, so they quit talking about it. That's the plan: make up lies, talk about them constantly, but when everyone sees that they are lies, don't apologize, just quit talking about it. The liberal press is a disgrace. They have slander down to an artform.
Anyway, since Socialism and Communism have been proven to be complete failures every time they are tried, why do we even talk about them?
If anyone can name one thing Liberalism has done to help America, please let us all know, because I can't think of a thing.
Liberalism is no longer what people think it is. It used to contain free speech etc, but not anymore. That's why it's so hard to tell the difference between communism, liberalism, socialism and fascism. They've all become the same thing. I think the country is starting to see through the facade painted by a strongly biased media.
It's nice to speak about the ideologies of these political beliefs, but since liberals can't even be honest about what their agenda is, it's no wonder that the vast majority of Americans see liberalism as terrorism from within.
One last thing, there is overwhelming evidence that Saddam funded Al Qaida, so let's quit with the liberal lies, ok? And I don't want to argue about WMD's anymore. They've found plenty of evidence of their existance. Either believe it or don't, it's up to you. Clinton said they had them, so it must've been true. ;-)
Even a liberal posing as a moderate can see that.
Posted by: Pete at August 31, 2005 08:53 PM
I encourage you to donate something to the victims of Hurricane Katrina. You can do so by clicking on the website that I have attached to my name.
Pete, you have your own opinion. I got all that information on the different ideologies from my political science textbooks. "There is overwhelming evidence that Saddam funded Al Qaida." And you once called me ignorant. Okay if that's really true, then why don't you post all that evidence and give more specifics? This challenge is only for Pete. Conservatives are just as capable of lying as anybody else of the political spectrum. In my view, liberals are just simply annoying for all their bickering but I certainly don't think that they are comparable to Al Qaeda.
Posted by: Henry at September 1, 2005 02:07 PM
I did a search on Google for "Al Qaida funded by Saddam" and came up with a dozen or so articles from the Oil For Food scandal to his direct money transfers to Al Qaida leaders.
(I misspelled Al Qaeda, but it still came up with a lot of stuff.)
Here's some of the links that came up, but you can search for yourself if you don't believe me:
http://www.husseinandterror.com/
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41487
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/12/4/121101.shtml
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/jg20040317.shtml
Also there's a dozen or so books written on the subject. Whoops, I forgot you don't read books...sorry...
Posted by: Pete at September 4, 2005 02:51 PM
Because of his administration’s slow response to Hurricane Katrina, the current president is turning out to be one of the most incompetent presidents America ever had. It took him four days just to get something done about this tragedy. He can’t handle Iraq, he’s not doing enough about these outrageous gas prices, he can’t handle the out-of-control illegal immigration from Mexico, he can’t fix Social Security, and now he couldn’t even help the good people of New Orleans in time. That explains why the media is so tough on Bush – because he deserves it. If he acted like this before the 2004 presidential election, Kerry would have thrown him out of the White House. However, Bush still has the rest of his second term to redeem himself. It is NOT anti-American to criticize the president and his policies. In fact, it is un-American not to be allowed to criticize the president. On the other hand, criticizing the very foundations that make this country great and criticizing the very same people who risk their lives to keep us safe from harm IS anti-American.
Posted by: Henry at September 4, 2005 07:57 PM
Yeah, I guess we can forget Sheehan since she's finally departed.
Here's the latest report:
---------------
Cindy Sheehan, the "poster child" for the forces of the "hate-America" left, has gone too far. Since her first meeting with the president, she's called him a "lying b__tard," "filth spewer," "evil maniac," "f__king hypocrite," "fuehrer" and the world's "biggest terrorist" who is committing "blatant genocide" and "waging a nuclear war" in Iraq. Then she claimed to be "channeling" her son from heaven, where he "spoke out" against President Bush. This week, she even blamed the president for Hurricane Katrina.
---------------------
Now anyone who still doesn't think she's nuts must be either biased or nuts themselves.
That reminds me. Did anyone see that cropped picture of her with Al Sharpton kneeling? The complete photo shows that everyone else there is part of the media crew. So everyone there on her behalf were paid to be there. That makes since. Libs don't do anything without being paid. Pretty funny. We had fun for a while. Maybe moveon.org will come up with another crazy person to put on the front pages soon. Can't wait.
Posted by: Ted at September 4, 2005 11:43 PM
I have to say that I'm deeply shocked about Cindy Sheehan and I now feel very sorry for defending her. And all this time I thought she was just a grieving mother. Now I know she's an anti-American radical who needs therapy. You were right, Ted, she is out of her mind. She even called the terrorists who killed her son "freedom fighters." Those far-left liberals must have drugged her and put her under their spell.
Posted by: Henry at September 6, 2005 06:09 PM
As we all suspected, Henry is a rabid ultra-liberal pretending to be a "moderate." His use of lies from the biased media is evidence that he doesn't even have the facts at his disposal.
Let's look at these one by one:
1) All of the info he says about the hurricane is completely wrong. In fact, what he's saying is in direct opposition to the truth. That's how you tell the real LIBERALS, who hide behind different names like "progressive" and "moderate" and "centrist", so no one will suspect their true nature of hatred for this country and all it stands for.
Here are some facts:
*President Bush declared Louisiana a disaster area two days before the hurricane struck the New Orleans area.
*President Bush urged New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin and Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco to order the mandatory evacuation that was issued on Sunday, August 28.
*First responders to a disaster are always state and local emergency agencies. FEMA is there to supplement the state and local activities.
*The hurricane threatened an area as large as 90,000 square miles covering three states. Immediate relief could not possibly have been delivered to all the places that required attention.
*An AP photo showed a large fleet of New Orleans buses soaking in six feet of water. The Democrat mayor apparently had the means to evacuate many of the folks who ended up stranded at the Superdome and the convention center.
*FEMA began its activities immediately, not expecting the magnitude of the flooding, the non-response at the city and state level, and the anarchy that resulted.
*The local and state governments had rehearsed for a different scenario. Disaster drills in New Orleans had taken place, but with a false assumption that the levees would hold.
--------
So the failure was on the local level, but in typical liberal hate-Bush fashion, Henry has distorted the facts to blame Bush instead of being concerned for the people involved in the disaster. Actually it sounds like he's quoting from the Hillary lies. She made a speech today covering up her husband's incompetance with the 9/11 disaster and at the same time blaming Bush for the hurricane screwups instead of the real culprits. What do you expect? He's marching in "lock-step" with the liberal/socialist/fascist/communist agenda. What else is new?
2)Iraq is not something to be handled. It's a war and it would be helpful if the liberal crowd would quit aiding and abetting the enemy with their constant lies that empower and embolden the enemy even more. That's why most of this country voted against the liberals and honestly believe that ultra-liberal jerks like Henry are anti-US because they want us to lose the war and become enslaved in some socialist empire ruled by Hitlary, or someone equally as insane and power-hungry.
3)I'll give him the Illegal Immigration problem. Bush is definitely not putting that as a top priority and I think he should. But then even the liberals are for illegal immigration. Apparently that's one area where Democrats and Republicans agree.
4)The Social Security fix was destroyed by the liberal propaganda machine. We know why, since liberals do not believe in individual freedom and wish to remove any way that the average worker can have any retirement without government control. Since most people want SS fixed, maybe he can try again to get it through. Who knows? I just know that the Bush-hating liberals will do anything to make Bush look bad and to blame him for lack of progress even though they are the ones who are stopping the progress. It's a very effective tool amplified by the left-biased press, and hate-mongers like Henry.
5)The reason the media is so tough on Bush is that they hate him and want to continue to stifle any progress he tries to make. I think that's extremely obvious even to Henry, but then he's on the same side as the left-biased mainstream media.
Henry is a hateful, spiteful, uncaring person in my opinion and I no longer want to debate with someone of such a low calibre. Anyone who cares more for blaming Bush than for the people caught up in the disaster is a disgrace to this country. I feel disgusted just mentioning his name.
Or maybe that's not his name. Remember he confessed to pretending to be at least one different person when he was exposed for his lies. Maybe he is really a she. Maybe he is Hitlary herself. Wow, what a thought.
Ok, Hitlary, you've been found out again. Come clean. Admit that you've been pretending to be an ignorant, slow-witted, blind liberal supporter named "Henry," ok?
Posted by: Fred at September 6, 2005 09:10 PM
Henry, I can't keep defending you if you continue to spread lies. I'm ashamed that I trusted you to be honest and objective. Apparently the others on this site were right calling you a liberal, despite your denials.
Maybe you get your info from Sean Penn or Michael Moore or Jessie Jackson, but either way it's wrong. I don't think those crazies have ever told the truth their whole life. Since most of America considers them to be wacky and worth ignoring, why do you quote from them?
For one thing, the evacuation plan was never implemented by the local and state politicians. I think they're Democrats, which explains why they are so eager to blame it on Bush when it's their own incompetance that made the natural disaster worse for those who didn't evacuate. The Gov of La. just plain dropped the ball. I don't know why. There's an investigation in progress, but what does that matter now?
I don't think blaming people is the right approach during a disaster, but if you're going to blame anyone, at least blame the ones actually responsible for not following procedures to help the people.
I even saw where before the hurricane even hit shore the crack-pot environmentalists were blaming the storm on Bush because he didn't sign the Kyoto treaty. Funny how they forget that it was voted against in 1999 by all of the Senate and even Clinton himself. Besides, it was a stupid treaty anyway and everyone knows it.
Besides, there's never been any scientific proof every produced in the last 20 years that makes humans responsible for "global warming." Even global warming isn't a proven thing, but if it's happening, it has nothing to do with humans since it's been going on for thousands of years.
I'm not that worried about an increase of 0.2 degrees every 100 years anyway. We have more to worry about than a bunch of phony science wasting our taxpayer money.
Anyway, most polls show that this country is becoming more aware of what's really going on and so can see thru the liberals and all their lies and manipulation of history and information.
Well... apparently not all Americans are becoming aware...
Maybe you're just not too bright, Henry, but that's ok. What upsets me is that you are putting politics before the safety of individuals. I won't be back until you apologize for you deliberate lies.
Posted by: Art at September 6, 2005 10:27 PM
Well at least we know where "Henry" is coming from now. He's part of the 10% of this country who blame Bush for everything, no matter what happens. This hatred is not healthy, but for some reason liberals are just naturally pessimistic. They want everyone to be as depressed as they are. Well, the recent polls show that the majority of this great country don't buy the liberal crap no matter how much they push it. A CNN poll shows that only 13% believe the lies people like Henry are spouting about the New Orleans disaster. And consider that's CNN, a left-biased news group, so it's probably even less.
Let's go thru the list of lies:
Dan Rather had papers forged to make Bush look like he didn't show up for National Guard duty.
The press said Tom DeLay did something wrong, but that was a lie.
The press said Karl Rove leaked a CIA member's name, but that turned out to be a lie.
The press said Judge Roberts was a racist, but that was a viscious lie as well.
After numerous lies, they come up with Sheehan, but that didn't work.
Now they want to blame Bush for Katrina, but that didn't work either.
I wonder what the next lie will be? I'm just glad that most American's don't believe them anymore.
They continue to keep throwing out lies hoping something will stick, but we're smarter than that (except for the likes of "Henry".)
But don't think that just because we've found them out that they will stop publishing the lies because they won't.
They have no idea that they are so out of touch with the rest of the country. We think they're idiots and most of us ignore the hatred.
The "death by a thousand cuts" used to work when the media controlled everything. Now that we have other sources for finding out the truth, their monopoly doesn't affect us anymore.
That is, except for the small percentage of ignorant nutcases like "Henry" or whoever he/she is. Could "Henry" be Abel???
To tell the truth, I think Henry's been spending too much time reading the democratic underground blogs with their hateful lies, but who cares since his credibility has now hit an all time low.
BTW, Henry, did you go to those websites and read the proof that Saddam was funding terrorism and Al Qaeda? Or are you spending all your time at the Bush-hating sites? You asked me to post the proof and when I do you ignore it. Typical of those who don't want the truth to be known, even by themselves.
You finally see that Sheehan was a pawn, but now you fall for the 'Bush is killing people in New Orleans' lies. I'm convinced you are basically an idiot and believe any lies told about anyone you don't like. Your hatred shows and you've been further exposed as the ULTRA-LIBERAL kook that you are.
Good bye and good riddance to bad rubbish (as the Aussies say.)
Posted by: Pete at September 7, 2005 12:43 PM
Isn't it funny that Hillary is now saying bad things about FEMA and Homeland Security even though she voted for it.
Why is it they can criticize things they vote for and no one asked them if they made a mistake?
Posted by: Eve at September 7, 2005 01:26 PM
“ultra-liberal jerks like Henry”
“hate-mongers like Henry”
“Hitlary”
- all by Fred
Cat got your tongue. Fred has just demonstrated that his side can spew as much hate and filth as the far-left. All I’m doing is expressing my opinion without insulting anyone else (did I offend any other blogger?). Fred is nothing but a far-right redneck (remember pal, you started the personal attacks...I didn’t) who won’t let others express their opinions unless he agrees with them. Alright so it’s okay to criticize Democratic presidents and lawmakers but it’s not okay for me to criticize a Republican president, is that right?
You should model yourself more on Art, at least he doesn’t give personal attacks if we’re at odds and that’s why he has my respect.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I understand that some people would call me a liberal. After all, I come from New York, one of the bluest states in the country. As long as you are not a far-left radical, there is nothing wrong with being called liberal. I do not think all liberals are bad. Not all conservatives are good either (like Fred) but I have met some very friendly ones on this website alone. I consider myself a moderate because I have BOTH liberal and conservative positions. If you don't believe me then fine I don't care. Just to get to know me better, I listed my views. Here they are:
A. My Conservative Views:
1. I support harsher punishment for drug dealers and thieves.
2. I support the death penalty.
3. I believe the mainstream media is liberally-biased and several times offended the US military and our allies.
4. I oppose gay marriage and any legal recognition of gay couples, although I do not think a constitutional amendment is necessary.
5. I believe that the far-left radicals from Hollywood have too much influence over the Democratic Party. The Democrats are also too secular as they are not willing to express or practice their religious beliefs in public as Republicans are.
6. I believe that the ACLU is an extremist far-left group because of its defense of Ku Klux Klan members and neo-Nazis.
7. I support tougher restrictions on immigration because too many illegal immigrants are pouring in from Mexico and taking advantage of hard-working Americans.
8. I oppose affirmative action because I believe it provides unfair advantages to minorities.
9. I STRONGLY support an increase in defense spending and the creation of a missile defense system. A strong American military is definitely needed in the War on Terrorism.
B. My Liberal Views:
1. I am pro choice.
2. I am against the war in Iraq since no wmd's, the main reason for the war, have been found. Thank you for those interesting websites Pete. It looks like Bush might have been right on an Al Qaeda-Saddam link. But why doesn’t the Bush administration tout all that incriminating info if it really wants more people to know that there really was an Al Qaeda-Saddam link?
3. I support limited gun control since terrorists could get their hands on assault weapons here in America and inflict considerable harm to innocent people. Regular rifles and pistols are okay. Assault rifles and machine guns should be outlawed unless you are a soldier or a law enforcement agent.
4. I support raising fuel efficiency standards for automobiles because scientific research indicates that global warming does exist. The Bush administration should rethink its position on global warming because it could have detrimental effects on the planet such as a rise in sea levels due to the melting of polar ice caps and glaciers, heavier rainfall, stronger tropical cyclones, and a depletion of the ozone layer increasing the risk of skin cancer worldwide (but nothing like the ridiculous movie Day After Tomorrow). We should not pollute God’s creation as an excuse to promote the economy. A booming economy and a healthy environment are perfectly capable of coexisting.
5. I STRONGLY endorse embryonic stem cell research because it could find cures for diseases like cancer, diabetes, etc.
6. I support raising taxes for the wealthiest people in the United States. The more you have, the more you should give to Uncle Sam.
7. I support raising the minimum wage.
8. Just like the far-left radicals took over the Democratic Party, I believe that the Christian Right has too much influence over the Republican Party because they are starting to intervene in private matters (example: Terri Schiavo). Also, Jesus Christ would never advocate the killing of any man, including a foreign leader (example: Pat Robertson’s call for the murder of Venezuela’s Chavez). Pat Robertson is insane because of other controversial statements he made in the past. He is nothing like Billy Graham, a real Christian evangelist.
Posted by: Henry at September 7, 2005 05:39 PM
Sorry Art, but I'm not apologizing for my "lies" because I think they're true. I have nothing personal against Dubya like the radical liberals do, he's the kind of guy I would want as my next-door neighbor or invite to a barbecue. I just don't like his presidency and I'm sure a lot of other people feel the same way. You see the difference here?
If you really aren't coming back, I'll miss you. I shouldn't come back either and leave this blog to Fred's ultra-conservative rantings. This used to be a good blog - not anymore.
Posted by: Henry at September 7, 2005 06:09 PM
I was wrong to blame the president directly for the slow response. I jumped to conclusions and I didn't know all the facts. Actually, state and local officials, including Governor Blanco and the New Orleans mayor, bear most of the responsibility. The federal government is also to blame for the slow response and because of that, President Bush should fire FEMA director Michael D. Brown immediately for his ineptitude and bungling of the relief effort.
My criticism of Bush's handling on Iraq, oil prices (they lowered a bit but they're still too high), Social Security (most people oppose wrecking it through privatization), and illegal immigration still stands. Most Americans disapprove his handling of these issues and that's why his approval numbers are low. Since he can't handle these issues properly, he deserves to be criticized by the media for it.
I was watching a very good documentary on Hurricane Katrina on the Discovery Channel. Katrina was originally a Category 5 hurricane but as soon as she reached the landfall, she was labeled as a category 4 hurricane with a reduced windspeed. If she hadn't lost any windspeed then the effects would have been much more devastating. According to scientists, Katrina was just the beginning. More powerful hurricanes will inevitably strike the United States in the near future. We should expect more powerful hurricanes with a Category 5 or higher and with far more damage and destruction than we have ever seen.
Posted by: Henry at September 8, 2005 11:26 PM
There is one thing that you can blame Bush for... his slow response. To say otherwise is a boldfaced lie. It was obvious that the gulf coast needed help and since it wasn't coming sufficiently from the state level, the federal government, with all of its resources, should have been available in a more timely manner. They did it in Florida, they could have done it in Louisiana. Are we supposed to forget the response that happened in Florida? Why couldn't it be replicated in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama? Oh wait, I forgot. The hurricanes in Florida happened just before Bush's re-election and Florida was a state of utmost importance to his re-election. And don't forget the brother Bush governor. It was a win win for both of them. A little self-interest, I would venture to say.
Also, President Bush's first speech about the Katrina catastrophe was inappropriate. The country needed a LEADER, not a cheerleader.
Posted by: JM at September 9, 2005 10:25 PM
Pete and Fred seem to be a couple of condescending neocons. Personal attacks and bullying people are their forte. That is a common tactic of the right. When someone doesn't agree with them, attack them. Thank God for our democracy and freedom of speech.
Posted by: JM at September 9, 2005 10:35 PM
Good point Eve.
The Dems are big on handing out blame, but never apologize for lying and never take the blame themselves even when they are directly to blame for the problems.
Notice that they no longer want an investigation into the Katrina fiasco. That's because they now realize that most intelligent people don't believe Bush is to blame. The most recent info shows that the Mayor didn't evacuate the people and instead let all the city buses just get flooded. Also the governor kept the American Red Cross out when the people needed them the most and she didn't call for the National Guard when they were needed either. She's totally incompetent, but let's all blame Bush instead, right?
An investigation will show what we all already know: the Democrats were to blame for this screwup and they know it. So don't expect to hear much about that since the mainstream media will be trying to cover up the blame from now on.
It still sickens me that so many are so quick to blame Bush for every little thing that goes wrong. That's what we get with a Democratic party that is controlled by socialist, anti-American groups like Moveon.org, PFAW, NARAL, etc etc. Sickening that this country is rotting from within thanks to the liberals.
I think we need to call for Democrats in congress to apologize for FEMA mistakes, and their anti-military, anti-American remarks that encourage our enemies to kill more of our troops. Let's see, Kennedy, Clinton, Pelosi, Reid, Durbin, Byrd, Boxer... the list goes on. These people should be thrown out of office for their reckless lies that cause more of our troops to die.
I think we'll see some changes at the voting booths soon. Americans are just plain fed up with the liberal hatred of this country.
Posted by: Ted at September 12, 2005 10:49 AM
Bill O'Reilly is right. Just like he said in his Talking Points Memo in the O'Reilly Factor, President Bush should have sent the military in within 24 hours of the levee failure. Bush failed to fulfill his leadership role in the Katrina crisis and that's why his approval ratings have plunged to below 40 percent, into Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon territory. During times of national disaster Americans look to the president for leadership, not to confused governors and mayors.
Posted by: Henry at September 12, 2005 08:17 PM
The personal attacks by JM are not warranted. How come when people attack the lies told by the left they are considered "neocons making personal attacks?" Your argument doesn't wash. They're allowed their opinions and if they see someone deliberately lying they should be allowed to point that out. Perhaps those two you refer to where angry, but you're not the only one allowed to call people names.
Now I'm not defending Pete and Fred, but they seemed more upset over Henry propetuating the lies by the liberal media. He's apologized since then for being misled by the biased media.
Being upset about people lying does not make one a "neocon", whatever that is. I think I saw where it's the new term libs use for jews. Have liberals always been such bigots and racists? They hide it well, don't they?
Hey Henry, you sure have a knack for clearing out a blog. Maybe if you got to the democratic underground blog you'll bring that to a halt. Just a thought :-)
Posted by: Ted at September 13, 2005 10:31 AM
Bravo JM !!
Your right, Bush helped Misisippi and Florda but delayed on New Orlins because he hates poor black folks. He wanted those welfare mothers to die cuz he was sick of sending them cheks evry month. Their were probably a lot of gays there too, so he purposly waited a extra day to send the aid to them so theyd starve to deeth. He hates gays and blacks and poor people the most. I even think he planted some bombs on the levees too. If you think about it, he actally created Kattrina, then directed it with global warming straight into New Orleans. But he actully missed a little. Hes killed millions with his actons. We shood impeech him soon.
Posted by: CindyS at September 14, 2005 10:33 PM
Thank you Ted at least you're a mature enough guy not to insult me. You're alright. Find me a democratic blog and I'll sabotage that one (lol, just kidding). What do you think of that atheist wacko Newdow? He still wants to take "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance.
Pete, if you read my posts you will notice that I DID acknowledge your websites on the Al Qaeda-Saddam link. You owe me an apology for calling me an "idiot."
Fred, after deliberately misspelling my name as "Hitler" I'm not talking to you. As far as I'm concerned you do not even exist anymore.
Posted by: Henry at September 14, 2005 10:59 PM
Well thanks Henry. I understand when people get upset, but I try to stay level headed most of the time. I don't entirely blame Pete and Art and even Fred for their reactions. I know many people who are very sensitive to the constant lying by the media. And I can see how this can cause them to get very upset when it's repeated as fact. Anyway, maybe they'll come back some day and debate some more with us. Or maybe not...
Newdow is a kook, and nothing the ACLU does surprises me anymore. What most don't know is that our tax money plus money from the Ford Foundation and other organizations fund this extremely radical group. (I think Ford would be rolling in his grave if he knew what that money was going for.) We need to show more outrage of their actions and convey that to our local government. I don't like my tax money going towards lawyers who want to destroy everything that made this country great. They defend rapists and lobby against ways to protect children. To me they're the lowest form of life on earth.
Listen, I read your Liberal and Conservative sides you posted weeks ago. Very informative. I wanted to respond to it sooner, but I've been extremely busy lately thanks mostly to the boom in the economy.
I have some time later tonight, and I'll post a response and give you some feedback on that earlier posting you made.
It may not show up for a week, but I'll put it up tonight sometime.
Posted by: Ted at September 15, 2005 05:41 PM
Henry, I never got a chance to respond to your Liberal and Conservative views you published over a week ago, so here it is.
First I wanted to mention that in my opinion, the reason we pulled out of Vietnam and let millions get slaughtered was due to public response created by media lies. Since that's all we had back then, no one knew the mainstream media was lying to us. In actuality we were winning the war, but the media wanted us to lose, so created lies to turn the average person against the effort. You were right that public opinion was bad by then, but I wasn't sure if you knew it was falsely created by the press. Also we knew very little about that war and who we were fighting, unlike the Iraq war and the numerous wars of the late 90's. Now that the media can no longer continue unchecked, most know more about what's really happening there, and although we want it over with, most of us want our troops to finish the job and not run away with our tails between our legs.
As to your posting, under your section "My Liberal Views," you said scientific research indicates that global warming does exist. I'll agree that it is possible that the planet is increasing in temperature. What I saw quoted was that the increase was approx 1 degree every 100 years. In fact, more recent data has determined that this is more likely a cyclic phenomenon that has been going on for millions of years. All of this is theoretical, of course, so it could be true that every 100 years the average temperature goes up a degree, but no one really knows for sure, and it's not a top priority like Islamofascism is for me.
What I will tell you is that I do know for a fact that there is absolutely no evidence ever produced over the past 20 years to attribute human activity with this global phenomenon. Look at any study done on global warming and you'll find that there's no scientific proof that we are responsible for such a monumental affect on climate. We can't even move a hurricane or predict which way it will turn, so how can we cause global warming or sun spots or holes in the ozone or Brad & Jen's breakup even? And if we can't create global warming, how in the hell can we stop it??
Nevertheless, if we're so concerned with pollution, why don't we go after the real culprits like China and India. The US is by far the cleanest country in the world. Not only that, but no other country has as many restrictions on grades of gasoline and how refineries have to abide by numerous ridiculous guidelines that no other country has to abide by. That's why gasoline is so expensive. Don't blame Bush or Cheney or Haliburton or even Agassi's loss in the US Open. It all falls on the 'environmentalists.' What you may not know is that the environmentalist movement was hijacked years ago by radical left-wing socialists who hate capitalism and laugh whenever they cause the economy to stutter. So don't be fooled.
This brings us to taxes, which are way too high for everyone and just like Social Security, the whole code needs to be fixed and fast. What many don't know is that corporations don't pay taxes, workers do. Any increase on regulated taxes imposed on a company trickles down such that the money comes from the workers' paychecks. And then they tax us again when we get our paycheck and again when we buy and again when we invest and make a profit. I don't know about you, but being taxed 3 or 4 times for the same money is not fair in my mind. One proven fact is that tax relief improves the economy every time it has been done and that includes this last tax break that was given for all tax-payers in this country (not just the rich.) The economy is better now than it's been for the last 20 years and it's directly attributed to the tax cuts. That's undeniable. Revenues are higher than they've been for years, in fact there's a surplus right now. Debt is down, etc. Not bad, but it could be so much better. Recently the hurricane put some people out of work, but they'll find jobs, there are plenty out there.
Tell me, have you ever wondered why rich politicians like to say that the tax cuts are only for the rich? It's because they want the uninformed to believe that tax cuts don't help all taxpayers. Why would a politician want to let us keep more of our money anyway? Most have lived off the taxpayers for so long they just don't understand what it's like to have over 50% of your earned money taken from you. And if we let them, they'll take more and more from the working people so their retirement will continue to grow while our share will be nothing when we retire. I remember years ago reading that Tom Dashle, for example, was putting a million a year into his retirement fund from taxpayer money. He was finally voted out, but I don't think he'll have to worry about money the rest of his life.
You said "the more you have the more you should give to Uncle Sam." Two things are incorrect with that statement. Firstly, it's not "the more you have," it's "the more you *make*" There's a big difference. Wealthy people like Kerry for instance don't make much money, they live off of trust funds and collected wealth that they get tax breaks on. So they don't pay taxes on their wealth. Secondly, I have a problem with the word 'give' since we don't give it to the government, they take it from us whether we like it or not. If we don't 'give' it to them they will throw us in jail. Also, a flat percentage rate would guarantee that the more you make the more you have taken from you, but I don't think you meant that. I assumed since it was from the "liberal" part of you that you meant that richer people should have to pay not only more, but a higher percentage of their income. Am I correct, or are you for a flat tax rate?
One thing else. Did you know that currently the richest 10% pay over 90% of the taxes? I'm not in that category, but shouldn't we reward people who boost the economy by hiring people, instead of penalize them with outrageous taxes?
I'm currently hoping we can get the Fair Tax into motion. I read about it recently and it sounds like an incredible solution to the tax burden that plagues the middle class and stifles small businesses. This new tax method would increase the revenue of the government, take more from the rich, give more back to the poor and draw investment money back into the country. (And all of that without changing the price of goods.) You see, the over-taxing has reached such a glut now that investers take money from this country and invest it overseas because the tax penalties for profits are too heavy here. Remove income tax and suddenly companies can afford to hire people in this country instead of going overseas for employees. It's a win/win situation for all Americans. If you're curious, read the book. It's called "The Fair Tax," and it's been on the Amazon best sellers list for the last 2 months. I hope we can get it passed, because it would really help our economy do even better than it's now doing. The only reason the Fair Tax will have problems is that too many lobbyists would be upset because they couldn't pay off politicians to lower taxes for their special interests. Also politicians would have less control over our monitary freedoms, and that's exactly why they don't want to fix Social Security. Did you notice how Bush backed off the fixing SS issue? I'm not so sure he wants it fixed. I know the libs don't want it fixed. It's a giant slush fund for the politicians to spend any way they want and us "contributers" are already convinced that we won't receive any when we retire anyway, so we don't care anymore, right? You see, most politicians like to control our money instead of letting us invest it they way we want to. It's our money, don't forget that. I think we should have the freedom to invest it the way we see fit. I'm not sure how you feel about this freedom, but I'm all for freedom to do what we want with our own money. Funny, but anyone against letting people have a choice to invest their own money is a socialist, by definition. Does that describe anyone you know?
Sorry to go on so. I just thought you should know about these things. I know economics isn't taught in school these days, but I think everyone should learn about it.
Lastly, embryonic stem cell research, or any stem cell research looks to be a great way to help medicine and maybe save lives and promote better health. My issue is that I think this should be handled by the private sector and the government should keep their hands off of it. Everyone agrees that anything the government gets involved with wilts and dies while costing 100 times what it should, so why in the world would we want the government to fund research of any kind. Instead, why not encourage research by scientists with grants or by reducing taxes.
The other interesting point is that you put that particular issue under your "liberal views" section. That must've been a mistake. Did you know that Bush is the first president to invest government money into stem-cell research? Well, maybe you didn't know that. I hope you're learning things. So that's a conservative issue, even though most conservatives don't think the government should be doing things done much more successfully by the private sector.
I saw you mentioned Pat Robertson's suggestion that we "take out" Shavez. He has the right to say whatever he wants, but since he's not in politics, I don't worry too much about his opinion. Besides, he's almost as senile as Jimmy Carter and no one makes a big deal about Jimmy's insane rantings. I'd be willing to bet that you don't remember that Stefanopalus in the Clinton admin said we should assassinate Saddam back in 1999? Well he did. Frankly I don't see the big deal. Weren't there books out in the 2004 election time telling people how to assassinate Bush? I remember a lot of talk about that, but not a lot of outrage. So it's bad to talk about taking out a communist leader, but it's fine to talk about killing our president. What has happened to the mind and soul of this country?
One other point: I've never been able to define the so-called "religious right." Maybe Pat fits into it, but I know more members of the "Religious Left." Religious left like Sharpton and Jesse "the blackmailer" Jackson. Maybe even Louis Farakhan fits into that since he's a religious figure and he's weird and also hates this country.
Well, this has taken much longer than I intended. Sorry about that. I think you'd find more people would be willing to debate issues with you if you went to the trouble of checking on your facts before printing mistakes and spreading the b.s. That way you won't have to constantly apologize for publishing misinformation. I appreciate your apologizing for spreading those lies about Katrina. I hope Pete and Art forgive you. I guess we all suffer a little from "foot-in-mouth" disease, if you know what I mean. Don't let names upset you. I'm sure they're not bad people really.
Posted by: Ted at September 15, 2005 11:31 PM
Do we need any more proof that "Henry" not only can't read, but can't comprehend what is read to him/her.
His/her solution to misunderstanding what I said is to say that I no longer exist in his/her mind.
He/she's upset because I called him/her "Hitlery." That's just the popular term for Hillary Clinton these days. I was deducing that "Henry" was not a man and not even a typically ignorant liberal. I was deducing that "Henry" was in fact Hillary Clinton in disguise. We already know "Henry" has lied before about who he/she is, so why can't I make an assumption that he/she is in actuality the queen of Marxism, Hillary Rodham?
Actually, now that I think about it, it couldn't be Hillary (read: Hitlery). I believe that she has more than a first grade education.
So the mystery remains: just who or what is "Henry?" Maybe he/she doesn't really exist at all...
Posted by: Fred at September 18, 2005 11:02 AM
No, knucklehead, my name is not "Hitlery." Actually I'm Henry Smith, a full-time college student at Queens College, New York.
Posted by: Henry at September 20, 2005 12:01 AM
