« Cheney's Surprise Visit to Iraq | Main | NYC Transit Strike: Selfish or a Necessary Stand? »
December 19, 2005
Big Brother Bush?
Last week The New York Times leaked that President Bush authorized domestic eavesdropping after the September 11th attacks.
Some critics find this surveillance disturbing, likening a spying National Security Agency to a "Big Brother." BBC News reports that "The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said eavesdropping in the US without a court order and without complying with the procedures of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was 'both illegal and unconstitutional.'"
Bush, according to ScienceDaily.com, "defended the program as important in being able to stop future attacks and suggested it was harmed by being publicly known." Bush also said he would continue the program "for so long as the nation faces the continuing threat of an enemy that wants to kill American citizens," and added the program "included safeguards to protect civil liberties," reported Chron.com.
Is government surveillance of possible terrorists necessary in this time of war, or is it disturbing to your sense of civil liberties? Is America turning from land of the free to a government of Big Brother?
Posted by Tuck at December 19, 2005 11:27 AM
Comments
You know, I assumed everyone knew that this type of spying has been going on since the Carter years (remember Clinton's spy program 'Echelon' in the 1990's?) and since there are no laws broken, I think the real concern is just who is leaking top secret information to the NY Times. That's a much bigger story in my opinion. It's like the Valerie Plame scandal - lots of phoney indictments and it all turns out to be about corruption in the media.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not crazy about spying, but at least it's constitutionally legit during wartime. Clinton started up 'Echelon' in order to get data on his political enemies, not the enemies of our country. I never heard a word from the ACLU back then. He used article 2 of the constitution and we are still letting the government intercept phone and email messages under that program. Bush just decided to tell us about it even though I thought everyone knew about it long ago. Some people seem surprised, I must admit.
So unfortunately there's nothing illegal about it, but it does concern me. So far there have been no cases of violating the rights of fellow Americans, but I wish we didn't have to give up our liberty for safety. Of course, ignoring the problem of terrorism is what got us into this mess in the first place.
Not to upset anyone at this time of the year, but since the Democrats opposed renewing the Patriot Act it will be easier for Al Qaeda to attack us again. Funny... they voted for it 2 years ago. I guess they've already forgotten about 9/11. They sure have short memories.
If we get attacked again, remember the names of those who opposed renewing the act.
Don't worry, everything is going to be fine.
Have a Merry Christmas (or whatever you want to celebrate this time of year.)
Posted by: Ted at December 20, 2005 08:31 PM
I know the press wants to say that Bush is the only president to spy on enemies on our soil, but if you look at our history it tells another story. I know, I know, the press is biased and won't report anything that doesn't support their agenda and then lies about what it does report. There's really nothing we can do about that, but we can find out the truth.
For instance, did anyone know that JFK wiretapped Martin Luther King's phones? I guess everyone knew about the phone tapping and email tapping that Clinton did in the 1990's (and it's still going on), but I guess we just don't care anymore about our privacy. Now with the necessity to stop terrorists from killing us, we'll give up all sorts of freedoms. I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said that if we give up liberty for security we'll end up losing both. Unfortunately, he may be right.
Whether we like it or not, it's part of our law and nothing Bush has done violates any laws or even goes against our constitution. Still, I'm not happy about giving up our privacy even though I realize that there seems to be little choice if we want to live.
I don't know how many of the bloggers on this site are in college, but has anyone noticed just how wrong our history books are these days? It's been shown that 95% of college professors are liberal, but the real annoying thing is that they don't want to hear any facts that go against their liberal beliefs. Freedom of speech is not something liberals hold dearly.
For example, in high school we were told that FDR was a "great" president, but if you dig deep and read the facts on this guy you'd think different. For the damage he did to the economy and the socialist programs alone, he may actually be one of our worst.
Did you know that FDR actually slaughtered 6 million pigs and destroyed 10 million acres of cotton in order to increase the prices of those items to "boost the economy" and all this while unemployment was at almost 20% and people were starving in the streets? He even ordered the destruction of millions of lemons, oranges and raisins in order to keep prices high. The fact that he raised prices so high on sugar caused unfair competition overseas, so it's no wonder we had such a horrible economy during his era. I feel sorry for the way he treated Americans during his reign.
His total inability to understand economics caused the depression to last much longer than it would have normally. His creation of NIRA was ludicrous. Forcing minimum prices destroyed the economy even worse and caused illegal cartels to immerge.
Part of his "New Deal" destroyed any incentive for people in America to produce goods, while giving more and more money to the government at the expense of workers.
He even bought votes in the methods he used to spend money through his Works Progress Administration. What a totally corrupt and evil president he was.
He even lied to Americans about his intentions to go into WWII, but that's another story...
Anyway, I didn't mean to be so long winded, just wanted people to know that just because it's in a high school or college history book doesn't mean it's true. We have to search for the truth these days, but believe me, it's out there.
The fact that we can't trust anything the NY Times and LA Times say is a known fact and mostly understood by intelligent people these days, but to find out your colleges are biased and lying to us is a little upsetting. But I guess I should've known.
BTW, don't mention these facts about FDR to any college professor if you want good grades. They'll flunk you if you don't buy their agenda. I found out the hard way.
No wonder enrollment in colleges are declining.
But do not fear, we are becoming a more educated America every day thanks to alternatives in the media and the internet.
So to everyone out there:
Happy Holidays !! :^D
Posted by: Amber at December 21, 2005 12:06 PM
FDR was not an "evil" president. You're reading too much Ann Coulter. If that's true then Dubya is just as "evil" for the deaths of thousands of Iraqis and US troops, which is also a totally ludicrous statement.
Posted by: Henry at December 22, 2005 05:01 PM
If it wasn't for FDR we would not get our Social Security checks when we retire. Although Ronald Reagan was a Republican and dismantled some of the New Deal programs, Reagan admired FDR so does that make Reagan an "evil" man too? I don't think so.
Posted by: Henry at December 23, 2005 07:27 PM
And JFK did not wiretap Martin Luther King's phones, that was J. Edgar Hoover.
Posted by: Henry at December 26, 2005 08:40 AM
I find the rhetoric that Bush lied and led us into an illegal war very ironic because the same thing was said about FDR and WWII. The difference is that Bush didn't lie, almost all of Congress agreed to take Saddam out and they all agreed that Saddam was funding the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. In fact, they all agreed there were WMD's there and there are several books out that show that not only did we find reserves of WMD's, but there is satellite evidence of them being truckloaded out to Syria and Iran. But anyway, I really wanted to continue with the FDR subject.
Another parallel with Bush and FDR is the civil liberties issue. Lately the press has been lying (as usual) about Bush being the only president to allow wiretapping etc, even though it's well established that it's been going on since the 60's. But did anyone know the full story of FDR's abuses of power in the 30's and 40's? It's not taught in schools because the people who control the public schools and universities censor anything that paints liberals in a bad light. It's no mystery that our school history books have been changed considerably, but as several people have said, the truth is out there if you take the time to look for it. Most people don't believe anything coming out of the mainstream media these days, and that is bad in another way, but I digress.
FDR was not only a believer in the communist ideals, but he saw how war was an answer to reaching that means. He tried to get the US into WWII several different ways and succeeded even though most americans didn't want to get involved in that war. Now I'll admit that perhaps it was good to fight the Nazis, but FDR did it to support Stalin and the Communists. He was also against the Japanese control of China, since he wanted the Communists to take over there. And they did and they still control China. FDR also violated civil rights by wiretapping and arresting anti-war groups like the AFC. He was very fond of Joseph Stalin, who was one of the most blood-thirsty tyrants in the history of the world. In fact, FDR called him "Uncle Joe" and did everything he could to help spread communism throughout Eastern Europe.
And who can forget FDR's violations of civil liberties by his internment of 100 thousand Japanese. You may not even know how he ordered the drugging of Russians in order to send them back to Russia. The list goes on an on. FDR was probably the biggest violator of civil rights in the history of this country. Of course it's nothing compared to the violations of other country's rulers, like Castro, Stalin & Hitler, but that's another story. Aiding mass murderers is still a bad thing to most people.
In retrospect, it turned out ok in some ways since FDR helped the communists destroy the Nazis and to counter the later takeover of communism, Reagan was able to slow down the USSR's attempts to communize the world. Admittedly there are still many horrific communist rulers out there, but we've minimized them some.
Why rulers like FDR were so enamored by communism is beyond me. Perhaps he was misguided. Even more recent, we had rulers like Carter who support communism by saying the mass murderer Castro is a "fine man." Carter was directly responsible for the Islamic overthrow of the middle east and we're paying for that now, but I don't think people take Carter seriously anymore. He's considered to be a harmless idiot now, but we'll be paying for his incompetence for years to come.
Also we had Albright and Clinton along with Carter sending taxpayer money to China to arm them as well as North Korea, so maybe we'll find out how wrong that was later on when they attack us, but I hope that doesn't ever happen.
Anyway, I just wanted to finish off my thoughts on FDR. Yes, Amber, he probably was one of the most destructive presidents we ever had, and yes it's true that most economists concur that he had no idea how to get through the great depression and his ingorance on economics caused it to last longer than it should have. I can't think of anything he did that was good for America. Even Social Security turned out to be a mess, but I think we've learned how to stop another depression from happening, if we could just keep the government out of economics. Let the free enterprise system work. It's the best way to let an economy flourish. As long as leaders don't repeat the mistakes that Carter and FDR did, we can continue to see a strong economy in the US, and that's a Christmas wish we all would like to see come true.
Hope everyone had a great Holiday Season.
Posted by: Ted at December 27, 2005 01:18 PM
Henry, you said: If it wasn't for FDR we would not get our Social Security checks when we retire.
Tell me something, do you really think you'll be getting a Social Security check when you retire?
Be honest now.
Most Americans are positive they won't get a penny. It's a bankrupt system and all they want to do is take more and more money from the hard working people to pay for the retirees. That's no solution and any attempt to fix it is met with strong opposition by the left.
You can wish it will be there when you retire, but unless we fix it, don't count on it.
Posted by: Art at December 27, 2005 03:25 PM
Recently when Kerry was on TV lying about how our troops in Iraq are terrorizing innocent people in the middle of night, it brought back the memory of Elian Gonzalez.
Remember him? He was the little boy that was terrorized at gun point in the middle of the night by Clinton and Reno's gunmen and then forced to go back to Cuba.
Hard to picture a worse violation of civil rights done by a presidential administration. I can still see the look on that poor kid's face while the SWAT teams held machine guns to his head as he hid in his closet.
It's funny that whenever the liberals lie about Bush they are really talking the truth about their own party's past actions. I think we're catching on to their tactics.
Posted by: Fred at December 28, 2005 07:41 PM
Amazing how the President can wiretap as long as he has a warrant which is amazingly easy to do. Every President since Carter has spied on foreign nationals with a FISA warrant.
So why is Bush doing different? Is it maybe because it's just a tad bit harder to get warrant when you're spying on American citizens with no ties to terror than on an Al-Quaida operative?
Posted by: Paul at December 29, 2005 01:14 PM
I agree Art. We better hope our current president doesn't screw it up through privatization, for our sake. There must be other proposals to fix Social Security from both sides.
Haben Sie ein glückliches neues Jahr 2006!
Posted by: Henry at December 29, 2005 04:03 PM
Yeah, right Paul. Bush is busy listening to me talk to grandma. Wake up dude !! Since Clinton started the Echelon system, they've been tapping our phones and emails for a decade now without any warrants at all. Get used to it, it was even worse back in the 40's, 50's and 60's. They've all done it without FISA. Hell, Clinton was busy spying on his political opponents. Hillary was busy getting FBI files on her domestic enemies. The NY Times was printing out private phone conversations made by Gingrich years ago. And remember JFK spied on MLK. It's been going on for a long time. You may have just found out about it, but most of us have known for decades.
The recent polls show that 75% of this country agrees with spying on our enemies in order to prevent terrorist attacks. Even 53% of liberals are on Bush's side. Now that's a first.
Posted by: Fred at December 31, 2005 12:06 AM
Before I go off into my New Year celebration, I just want to clear a few things up.
I think I heard somebody say that we fought the Nazis just to support the Communists? I never heard such an outrageous statement about American history. I don't think President Bush would agree with that either. Like O'Reilly would say, somebody has been drinking too much Kool-aid and it's not me.
We fought the Nazis because Germany declared war on us after we were attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor in December 1941. FDR also wanted to support Winston Churchill because Great Britain was the last European power fighting against Germany and if the British fell, the Nazis would have been able to attack the United States. FDR also supported Stalin through the Lend-Lease Act because Hitler was more of a threat than he was. But Stalin was upset with both FDR and Churchill because the US and Britain were taking their time opening up a Western front in France. Stalin wanted a Western front opened up as soon as possible so Soviet forces in the Eastern front could be relieved. The US and Britain did not open up a Western front until June 6, 1944.
FDR was not a communist either. He conceived of the New Deal as an alternative to socialism on the left, Nazism on the right, and the inaction of upholders of unregulated capitalism. He hoped to reconcile democracy, individual liberty, and economic planning. He expanded the role of government in people's lives because of the Great Depression. The First New Deal focused on economic recovery. The Second New Deal, launched in 1935, focused on economic security. The New Deal did not end the Great Depression but it was very popular with the working-class, who provided the majority of support for the Democratic Party at that time. Otherwise FDR would not have been reelected by a landslide in 1936. Some of his actions like slaughtering 10 million pigs, packing the Supreme Court, and interning Americans of Japanese descent were controversial. Not all presidents are perfect. However, he is frequently regarded as the third best president after Lincoln and Washington because of his ability to lead the nation through the worst economic disaster of all time as well as the worst war of all time. If the people thought that FDR was such a bad president, he would not have been reelected 3 times.
Posted by: Henry at December 31, 2005 10:49 AM
Paul,
Nice try. Clinton and Clinton legal aides have all said what the president did is in his scope of power. Keep up the misinformation, maybe some of your pinko commie buddies will beleive you. LOL
Posted by: Wayne at January 1, 2006 08:42 AM
So far Henry, "privatization" is the only proposal anyone ever came up with. Actually Social Security has always been privatized. The press uses that term to confuse the unknowing. The last proposal I heard from Bush involved letting the people who contribute the money decide how it should be invested instead of letting the gov do what it wants with all that cash. We already know how bad they are at managing money.
So "privatization" was never a proposal for fixing SS, since it's already privatized.
Just wanted to set the record straight.
Posted by: Art at January 2, 2006 12:04 AM
Some Democratic presidents used wiretaps. If it takes eavesdropping to prevent another 9/11 the president should by all means continue it just as long as the spying concerns national security. If it doesn't concern national security then it's simply illegal.
Posted by: Henry at January 2, 2006 09:39 PM
Has anyone noticed how the Abramoff scandal investigation is starting to fan out across Congress?
It now looks like Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid may be involved in the scandal as well.
This could be big !!
Posted by: Caine at January 6, 2006 12:47 PM
Remember when President Bush once said that intelligent design ought to be taught alongside the theory of evolution so people can understand what the debate is about? That's a good idea!
But hey, why stop there Mr. President?
We could also teach "The Lord of the Rings" alongside the history of the United States. In math, we could teach fortune-telling alongside the Pythagorean Theorem. And for all you Physics students, how about learning "War of the Worlds" alongside the Law of Gravity?
Now THOSE are MUCH better ideas to make the curriculum more understandable.
If any of you are going to bash me because you can't take a joke then so be it. I have a right to be sarcastic if I want to.
Posted by: Henry at January 6, 2006 07:59 PM
Clinton and Reid may also have been involved in the Abramoff scandal but most of the guys implicated are republicans, including Tom DeLay.
Posted by: Henry at January 9, 2006 02:01 PM
Maybe DeLay will be lucky enough to have his prison sentence delayed...LOL!
Posted by: Henry at January 9, 2006 02:11 PM
Henry,
Usually jokes are funny. I can take a joke but I like to laugh at it. Your a very hard person to understand sometimes. You have random thughts of conservatism with a liberal heart.
Heres a joke for you, what do you call a bus load of democrats moving to Canada?
A GOOD START!
Now thats not that funny but doesn't it sound nice?
Happy new year!
Posted by: Wayne at January 10, 2006 07:40 AM
Now that the Iraqi documents have revealed that Saddam was running at least 3 terrorist training camps for Al Qaeda and trained over 8,000 terrorists during the 90's and after 9/11, I wonder if the sympathy for him from the left will diminish any.
Probably not.
Posted by: Caine at January 10, 2006 11:01 AM
Thanks for the compliment. That joke about the Dems moving to Canada isn't exactly Jerry Seinfeld material but it wasn't that bad.
Posted by: Henry at January 11, 2006 05:22 PM
I just have one question for you Wayne. You didn't post here in a while. Glad to hear from you again. What made you change your mind to come back? Hope your child is doing great.
Posted by: Henry at January 11, 2006 07:48 PM
Sometimes I forget to add things that I really want to say or type. I apologize for the numerous posts but I want to clear up just one more thing that Wayne said.
I don't think I'm hard to understand. I do have some conservative positions but I admit most of my positions are liberal. Therefore you could characterize me as a liberal moderate or moderate liberal, as opposed to a far-left or radical liberal. After all, I live in a city where Democrats outnumber Republicans by a 4 to 1 ratio so that would explain my liberal-leaning tendencies.
Posted by: Henry at January 12, 2006 12:06 AM
Henry,
The reason I came back was I wasnt getting enough Bush bashing here near Philadelphia. I missed mis-informed people gossiping about our president.
Thanks for asking about my kids, they are both great.
Posted by: Wayne at January 13, 2006 05:34 PM
Good you bring that up, Caine. We suspected he was funding terrorism, but proof that he was actually training them is important information everyone should know about.
I don't think there's any logical thinking person out there who doesn't understand why we had to take out Saddam in order to prevent more terrorist attacks, but I still don't understand why the president doesn't use this information against those that insist on avoiding the truth.
Hearing Kerry or Dean or even Pelosi stand up there and blatantly lie is annoying, but it's good to know that most of America knows they're just lying to stay in power.
Oh, and the Abramoff scandal is destined to be bigger than the Valerie Plame deal. The Plame fiasco was mostly a media scandal, but this one could make a difference in the upcoming elections. Who knows?
I hope everyone is having a good year so far. We certainly are.
God Bless America !!
Posted by: Ted at January 16, 2006 09:58 AM
Just talking about politics is boring. I'm not going to talk about the president anymore now that I already said everything I wanted to say about him.
Anybody watching the playoffs? I wish I could have watched the game between the Colts and the Steelers but my power went out because of the storm. The Colts had a 15-1 standing and were favored to win but somehow Pittsburgh won in an upset.
The game between Carolina and Chicago was great too. At least the Bears were able to score 3 touchdowns unlike the Giants, who lost to the Panthers 23 to NOTHING. With the elimination of the Indianapolis Colts, the Broncos are now favored to win the Super Bowl after they beat the Pats. Well anyway, I'm going to root for the Carolina Panthers because they never won a Super Bowl and I think Jake Delhomme is a great quarterback.
Posted by: Henry at January 17, 2006 12:05 PM
Bummer Henry. You missed the most amazing ending to a football game ever !!!
The Steelers led the whole way and the Colts started trying to come back near the end and got to within 3 points. Then with a minute left, Pittsburgh sacks Manning on 4th down on the Colts 2 yd line. All Pittsburgh had to do was sit on it for a minute or just go on in for the TD and make it impossible for the Colts to come back.
But then the incredible happened - Bettis fumbles, a Colts guy picks it up, runs 35 yds and would've run in for the winning TD if the QB Roethlisberger hadn't managed to trip the guy with his hand at the last second. And then to top it off they get close enough to kick a FG to tie the game and the guy misses it.
That was the most incredible ending ever !! So even though the Steelers had it wrapped up, the Colts really could've won or tied the game. I really thought destiny was giving the Colts one last chance. Most people thought they were destined to win this year, but they really didn't look good the whole game.
Still, what an ending !!
I think it's gonna be the Panthers and the Broncos in the Superbowl. I'll be rooting for the Panthers if they beat Seattle. Go Jake !!
You know Cartman is rooting for Denver.
Posted by: Art at January 19, 2006 10:43 PM
AWWW S--T I can't believe I missed that!
Well thanks for filling me in Art.
Posted by: Henry at January 20, 2006 01:56 PM
I agree, Art, that was quite an ending.
Stranger still is the fact that Harper - the guy who picked up the ball for the Colts and might've rumbled for a touchdown - was stabbed in the knee the night before by his wife.
One wonders if he hadn't been injured maybe he could've avoided that tackle and scored.
I guess we'll never know.
Maybe the destiny you speak of is with Pittsburgh.
So, I'm betting on the Steelers.
The party's already started. The game's starting soon. I better get back out there and watch the game. (by the time this is posted, the game will be over) Current date/time: 1-22-06 2:50pm EST.
I'll know in about 3 hrs whether they even make it to the Superbowl. Go Steelers !!!
Posted by: Ted at January 22, 2006 02:51 PM
I'm putting my money on Pittsburgh in the Super Bowl. I was hoping the Panthers would win but they were just steamrolled by Seattle 34-14. Looked like the Seahawks' defense was too much for Carolina. At the beginning Delhomme couldn't make a lot of yardage and there were too many interceptions by the home team. By the time Seattle's Darrell Jackson caught that amazing pass by Hasselbeck in the 3rd quarter I knew the game was already over.
Hopefully the Super Bowl will be much more competitive rather than a blowout.
Posted by: Henry at January 22, 2006 10:16 PM
Hey Ted - Your Steelers did it !!!
Did anyone notice that both QB's named Jake lost yesterday? Bad day for Jakes. I think the Superbowl should be a good one this year. Has anyone noticed that both winning QB's have German sounding names? I'm such a goof, I guess I notice junk like that.
Since the Panthers lost, I'm rooting for Seattle (just to be difficult.) They really looked good yesterday. If they play that way in 2 weeks they should be able to beat the Steelers.
Oh, Eve, I read the Fairtax book. It's small and an easy read. I can't believe we've let the politicians take us so badly over the years. The tax code is ridiculous. I'm contacting my congressmen and demanding they adopt the proposal. I even signed the petition.
There's a bunch of support for this new tax system, but we have to quit being lazy and take the bull by the horns.
Another cool website on the subject is
http://fairtaxgroups.com/
It's run by a bunch of 20 year olds who see the benefits of bringing money back to the US and want a prosperous country to grow up in.
Now Ford is closing plants because they can't compete here where the taxes are outrageous. I know it's mostly the Unions that destroyed their jobs, but don't discount the tax burden of running a business in the US.
Let's say no to the IRS and bring corporate money back to the US !!!
Go Seahawks ! Go USA !!
Posted by: Art at January 23, 2006 12:09 PM
Didn't we have a section for jokes?
Well I can't find it and I was sent this from someone recently. Some funny stuff about the last prez. He's been gone 5 years, but the jokes are still kinda funny.
So I cut and pasted this in for you guys.
Enjoy it !!
======================
Subject: Missing Bill Clinton
Missing Bill Clinton! It doesn't matter what party you belong to - this is absolutely hilarious.
On a Canadian TV show there was a black comedian who said he misses Bill Clinton.
"Yep, that's right - I miss Bill Clinton! He was the closest thing we ever had for a black man as President.
Number 1- He played the sax.
Number 2- He smoked weed.
Number 3-He had his way with ugly white women.
Even now? Look at him... his wife works, and he doesn't!
And, he gets a check from the government every month.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Manufacturers announced today that they will be stocking America's shelves this week with "Clinton Soup," in honor of one of the nations' most distinguished men. It consists primarily of a weenie in hot water.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Chrysler Corporation is adding a new car to its line to honor Bill Clinton.
The Dodge Drafter will be built in Canada.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
When asked what he thought about foreign affairs, Clinton replied, I don't know, I never had one.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
American Indians nicknamed Bill Clinton "Walking Eagle" because he is so full of crap he can't fly.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clinton lacked only three things to become one of America's finest leaders: integrity, vision, wisdom.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clinton was doing the work of three men: Larry, Curly and Moe.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Clinton revised judicial oath: "I solemnly swear to tell the truth as I know it, the whole truth as I believe it to be, and nothing but what I think you need to know.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clinton will be recorded in history as the only President to do Hanky Panky between Bushes. :)
======================
Hadn't heard some of these before. That last one was clever.
later dudes >>>>>>>>>
Posted by: Fred at January 25, 2006 08:52 PM
I don't agree with everything Fred says but I gotta admit - some of his jokes were funnier than mine.
My favorite - "Clinton was doing the work of three men: Larry, Curly and Moe." LOL
Good one!
Posted by: Henry at January 30, 2006 05:38 PM
"I don't agree with everything Fred says but I gotta admit - some of his jokes were funnier than mine. " - Henry 1-30-06.
Henry, if you agreed with everything I said there'd be no need for both of us to exist.
?? Wot the hell does that mean? Just kidding (as usual). Glad your sense of humor is still in tact.
Speaking of humor.
Did anyone see the scowl on Hillary's face when Bush said he and Bill were brothers? Priceless !!!
There's a host of reasons why Hillary will never be president. For one thing, she doesn't have the sense of humor of her husband. He would've laughed at that statement. She's bitter and scary, no one wants a president like that.
Hey Art - your stupid Seahocks lost !! What is wrong with those guys? They should've been able to beat the Steelers, but just lacked the will, I guess. What losers !!
We were rooting for Pittsburgh, so I'm a happy guy. Made some big bucks too !!
Posted by: Fred at February 6, 2006 11:42 PM
You wanna know something else funny? Here's a parody of the intro to the president's state of union speech:
"Mr. Speaker, distinguished lobbyists, indicted and unindicted members of Congress, incompetent cronies, the State of the Union is..."
And here's another joke -
It's great to have grey hair. Just ask a bald guy - LOL!
Posted by: Henry at February 9, 2006 07:03 PM
The Muslims are blowing all this anger over a Muhammad cartoon out of proportion. Christianity and Judaism are usually poked fun at but you don't see Jews or Christians rioting violently. What do you think?
Posted by: Henry at February 10, 2006 02:30 AM
Here's some more jokes, but this time about Cheney's shooting accident:
1. After pulling the trigger Cheney said "I tawt I taw a Democwat!"
2. Guns don't shoot people. The vice president shoots people.
3. We can't get bin Laden but we nailed a 78-year-old attorney instead.
4. I think Cheney is starting to lose it. After he shot the poor guy Cheney screamed, "ANYONE ELSE WANNA CALL DOMESTIC WIRETAPPING ILLEGAL?!"
Posted by: Henry at February 14, 2006 07:48 PM
Yeah, and the cartoons came out like 6 months ago. So why the big delay in rioting over them?
As usual, they don't really need an excuse to kill "infidels," but this way they can say it's someone else's fault for their behavior.
The terrorists I'm talking about are the Islamofascists. I like to believe that most Muslims mean well, but I sure wish they'd speak out against the radical extremists in their faith, but there's a lot I wish for.
Like a fair media. Maybe someday...
Posted by: Fred at February 15, 2006 10:01 AM
I would rather go hunting with Cheney than go driving with Kennedy. At least Cheney would take you to the hospital after an accident, not leave you to die like Kennedy did.
I've heard several versions of that joke lately.
You know we've got a biased mainstream media when a shooting accident makes front page news for a whole week, and the story about the WMD's is hidden on page 6.
Why don't they just go back to making up news like Dan Rather used to do on CBS? Oh wait, they haven't stopped doing that. What am I thinking?
Posted by: Fred at February 16, 2006 09:37 PM
Then you should stop calling them the "mainstream" media and start calling them the "bulls--t" media.
Posted by: Henry at February 18, 2006 07:45 PM
You're right Henry. They ARE the "bull$#!t" media. That's a given. And they're not really "mainstream" since they don't represent the beliefs of the majority of this country. But they have a ton of influence because they own a monopoly on about 90% of all media out there. And that includes TV, movies, newspapers, magazines, music, books, etc etc.
They don't even mind losing money as long as they control the media outlets and can thus continue to declare their warped agenda as mainstream.
That's why, for example, book publisher Regnery has grown so much in the last few years. They're the only ones I know of who publish conservative books. The liberal owned major publishing houses like Simon & Schuster (maybe it should be Simon & Shyster :-)) - to name just one - won't publish conservative books, so they lose a lot of money because of their biases. After all, we know liberals don't read. :^)
Thank God for the free market. It always works.
Posted by: Fred at February 23, 2006 03:46 PM
