Our President Does Not Care About America

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
Blogs are the new investigative journalism - if you can't handle that, then you need to go back to reading your papyrus scrolls...

times change man -- Blogs are breaking the big stories now ahead of the news media...

RB

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea man, listen to some whack job who has a blog, but call the National Review "right wing propaganda".

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I love when you guys use "blog" sites as your factual basis for arguments. Read a book on rhetoric.

May I suggest

The Trivium : The Liberal Arts of Logic, Grammar, and Rhetoric by Sister Miriam Joseph, Marguerite McGlinn (Editor) (Paperback)

[/ QUOTE ]

I know it has been said, but are you retarded? The source is the Washington Post, did you even click the link?

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I cannot believe people are stupid enough to actually consider the Washington Post a source.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, I cannot believe people are stupid enough to actually consider the Washington Post an unbiased source with no agenda.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Congrats. This is the dumbest sheeot I have heard all day.
Here are some facts for you, but if you are the typical liberal then facts mean nothing to you:

** Halfway through President Clinton's tenure in office in 1996, the poverty rate was 13.7 percent. Halfway through President Bush's tenure, the rate is 12.7 percent, a full point lower.
** In 1996, the Clinton budget allotted $191 billion for poverty entitlements. That was 12.2 percent of the budget and a whopping amount of money. That's why Bill Clinton was called the first black president by some.
However, the Bush 2006 budget allots a record shattering $368 billion for poverty entitlements, 14.6 percent of the entire budget, a huge increase over Clinton's spending on poverty entitlements.

Yea Bush is in it just for his buddies. Now Liberals back up what you spit out with some facts.

[pankwindu]

[ QUOTE ]
Congrats. This is the dumbest sheeot I have heard all day.
Here are some facts for you, but if you are the typical liberal then facts mean nothing to you:

** Halfway through President Clinton's tenure in office in 1996, the poverty rate was 13.7 percent. Halfway through President Bush's tenure, the rate is 12.7 percent, a full point lower.
** In 1996, the Clinton budget allotted $191 billion for poverty entitlements. That was 12.2 percent of the budget and a whopping amount of money. That's why Bill Clinton was called the first black president by some.
However, the Bush 2006 budget allots a record shattering $368 billion for poverty entitlements, 14.6 percent of the entire budget, a huge increase over Clinton's spending on poverty entitlements.

Yea Bush is in it just for his buddies. Now Liberals back up what you spit out with some facts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh oh, O'Reilly alert!

Actually, I cannot dispute your facts - as far as I know they are entirely correct.

I can even prove they are correct:

Clinton:
1993...... 15.1
1994...... 14.5
1995...... 13.8
1996...... 13.7
1997...... 13.3
1998...... 12.7
1999...... 11.9
2000...... 11.3

Bush:
2001...... 11.7
2002...... 12.1
2003...... 12.5
2004...... 12.7

See pretty picture here.

Or more information here.

Indeed, we should be quite proud that poverty is steadily rising even though we are throwing record shattering amounts of cash at it.

[mosta]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And by the way, Bush nominated Flanigan to be Deputy Attorney General after his tenure as General Counsel for Tyco, where he sought a way for the company to avoid paying taxes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Chimpy always rewards his friends. If you rape and plunder well enough, he might even give you a medal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I feel at a loss to enter many political debates because I'm in no position to substantiate the charges counter charges and denials. eg: Did the Bush admin throw manna into the laps of the energy and pharmaceutical industries in the most shameless way possible? I don't know. I haven't heard or sought out specific enough information.

But this week I'm editing a law review article that leaves me in no doubt. Do a little google research on Daniel Troy, FDA (former cheif counsel), and preemption. Bush appointed an industry defense lawyer, to "regulate" his former clients, and he literally did their bidding at their request, intervening in lawsuits for them. That's not even the really galling part: he's pushing a highly technical legal argument (which the FDA had officially disavowed previously) to try to strip _all_ consumers of _any_ remedy for injury from faulty medical devices (and pharmaceuticals too, ideally) that FDA has approved for the market. It blows my mind, literally makes me dizzy, that the same guys who purport to adore strict constructionist, anti-federalist, states-rights, personal-responsibility, would attempt to eliminate the entire state private common law system for redressing injuries. and the arguments they make are straight up communist: THE PARTY/FDA APPROVES MEDICAL DEVICES. WHEN THE PARTY APPROVES A MEDICAL DEVICE THE PARTY WILL NOT BE QUESTIONED. JUDGES AND JURIES ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO QUESTION THE PARTY. ALL PARTY DECISIONS ARE FINAL. THE PARTY DOES NOT MAKE MISTAKES. QUESTIONING THE PARTY WOULD LEAD TO SOCIAL DISORDER AND CHAOS.

No death and no hell will be painful enough for what these people deserve. And they sure do love Americans.

see Horn v. Thoratec Corp., 376 F.3d 163 (3d Cir. 2004)
particularly Troy's Amicus Brief for the fda.
for a summary also see:
http://progressiveregulation.org/art...preemption.pdf
(even though I don't generally like to associate with "progressives".)

[ QUOTE ]

I really wanna run his ass up on treason charges...

RB

[/ QUOTE ]

How did you feel when Clinton turned over the reins of his own military to the Pakistan Government (under the cape of the UN) in Somolia... and then turned over control of the Army to the UN during Bosnia...

Both of these a clear violation of the Constitution

[richie]

I've been a republican all my life (FWIW), but I'm ready to make the switch to Libertarian. How anyone can defend the policies and decisions of the Bush neoconservative administration is beyond me. This guy is worse than any Democrat IMO. Constitutional violations?? haha How about the war in Iraq and the Patriot Act? I cannot think of one decision that this chimp has made to improve this country.
This government is so pathetically fraudulent I don't even know where to begin. Seriously. Both parties are pathetic [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[2+2 wannabe]

[ QUOTE ]

Uh oh, O'Reilly alert!

Actually, I cannot dispute your facts - as far as I know they are entirely correct.

I can even prove they are correct:

Clinton:
1993...... 15.1
1994...... 14.5
1995...... 13.8
1996...... 13.7
1997...... 13.3
1998...... 12.7
1999...... 11.9
2000...... 11.3

Bush:
2001...... 11.7
2002...... 12.1
2003...... 12.5
2004...... 12.7

See pretty picture here.

Or more information here.

Indeed, we should be quite proud that poverty is steadily rising even though we are throwing record shattering amounts of cash at it.

[/ QUOTE ]

owned