Posts Tagged ‘bush’

Fair and Balanced

Friday, September 15th, 2006

This letter in today’s Amarillo Globe news made me thank once again that I believe in personal responsibility.

James Fluegel says, among other things, “It is time conservatives who backed Bush on the Iraq misadventure admit we were deceived and wrong.”

His LTE says a lot of other stuff and makes some decent points about getting back to conservatism, which I agree with, but this is the only line I somewhat disagree with.

Fluegel, along with the left and democrats, are scapegoating Bush for their own poor decisions.  The left and their supporters have so much hatred for Bush they forget they signed the resolution to go to war and made a bug fuss about Saddam having WMDs and whatever else.  I am sure you remember those quote passed around in e-mails and in various videos out there. 

If Bush is a liar, all of the other people who repeated what he said are liars, too.  Given that, how many people do you honestly think will admit they are liars?  My bet is none.

Secondly, if Mr. Fuegel wants to think he was deceived and he was wrong to support OIF, that’s fine, but there is a lot more blame to be spread around as opposed to putting it all on Bush’s shoulders.

Bush, amarillo, amarillo globe news, congress, democrats, liberal, conservative, republican

Learn From Our Government’s Mistakes

Tuesday, August 29th, 2006

Today (yesterday at 11:30 pm actually) is the anniversary of the beginning of one of the greatest governmental failures of the entire United State’s history.

Wikipedia has a great write up on Katrina.

The greatest thing I think we learned from that disaster was the grand ineptitude of government.   Many arguments can be made where the failures are rooted and the partisans will bicker endlessly.  One thing is for certain, though, and that is government cannot be trusted, especially when it comes to disaster relief.

I feel sorriest for the souls reaching for handouts in the days after the disaster.  They are the ones who actively depended on the government and the government left a lot of them to die.

Don’t get me wrong, though.  I would be quite thankful if the government helped me get on my feet after a huge disaster.  The difference is, I am not going to “ride out the storm” and then expect the government to swoop down and rescue me.

While I am thinking of it, one of the most outlandish claims from the left came from Randall Robinson at the Huffington post saying that people were eating corpses to survive only 4 days after the worst of the storm had passed.  Robinson has since retracted his claim but I recall reading the original post and the comment when unnoticed by the editors for quite some time.  Talk about fear mongering.

Katrina, Louisiana, New Orleans, Mississippi, government, nagin, blanco, bush

Fascism? Fear mongering?

Tuesday, August 22nd, 2006

I caught an article today that contained words from a man named John  Orman, who is a political science professor at Fairfield University, requesting that Joe Lieberman should be kept off the ballot in Connecticut’s coming election.  I understand there might be some hard feelings among some voters over there, but isn’t it Lieberman’s constitutional right to run for Senator, or any other office for that matter?

I have heard similar claims on other democrat message boards and what not, but this is one of the most prominent persons I have seen who is advocating violating the constitution.  Actions like professor Orman’s are why I believe democrats are talking out of their back sides when it comes to civil liberties.

Back when Lamont won the Democrat primary Cheney had some harsh words to share about supporting the Al-Qaeda candidate, or something along those lines.  Democrats and leftists called Cheney out for fear mongering.  I don’t blame the dems for saying as such because that sounds a lot like fear mongering to me.  However, who do the democrats think they are complaining about fear mongering?  You would think that if liberals are complaining so much about fear mongering wouldn’t they want to do it from a non hypocritical standpoint?

Liberals are screaming loudest over the alleged loss of civil liberties (and the Iraqi Freedom arm of the GWoT, but that is a different post), all of this spearheaded by the ACLU.  What is the official ACLU position on the right to keep and bear arms?  They believe arms of any type should only be use by militias.  Read for yourself here.  Liberals are picking and choosing their battles about constitutional rights and using a fear mongering tactic to discredit Bush and win opposition votes.  Lamont’s entire anti-war campaign is based on fear mongering about Bush’s handling about Iraq.

Think about some of the stuff you read in the news and on liberal websites.  Recall the cries of “this country is going downhill,” “bush is destroying America,” “Bush is a fascist,” “jackbooted government thugs are gonna get us,” etc.  All of this stuff is fear mongering.  Don’t let the left fool you with their dishonest talking points.

Continuing with the civil liberties discussion, I will admit the Bush’s actions may very well be in violation of the constitution, however, liberals are ignoring other parts of the constitution such as the amendments that give citizen’s the right to a fair trial and presumes their innocence.  Combine this with the liberal disdain for the 2nd amendment and the denying of the right to life to countless children, and the left is no worse than the right is when it comes to constitutional violations.

libearsl, democrats, republicans, conservative, bush, cheney, liberman, lamont, fear mongering, civil liberties, civil rights, 2nd ammendments, right to privacy, constitution, connecticut

Open Thread

Friday, August 18th, 2006

Here are some topics for conversaiton.

The Jonebenet case in the news 10 years later.

ACLU Once again subverts national security.

US blocked Iran from shipping missiles to Hezbollah.

jonbenet, aclu, karr, bush, nsa, Anna Diggs Taylor, iran, hezbollah

Lies?!?!

Tuesday, August 15th, 2006

Recently the question was asked, “Why does the Globe-Republican (Amarillo Globe News) allow letter writers to blatantly lie?“  I would like to ask the newspaper the same question in regards to Jayne Farris’ recently published letter.

Ms. Farris makes many outlandish claims that can be construed as lies, willful ignorance, brain washing, or just plain mental deficiency.  Of these claims one of the most outlandish is this: “Democrats believe there should be fair and equitable taxation. Republicans believe that only the dwindling middle class should be taxed and the rich should be exempt.”

I wonder what fair and equitable taxation would be? Would that mean the current regressive tax system we have where the top 50% of wage earners pay approximately 96% of all individual income taxes, or does Ms. Farris want a flat tax for all wage earners?  I am curious where she would set the bar. 4% would be just as fair as 100% just as long as everyone is taxed that way.

Another gross misstatement by Ms Farris is this: “Democrats believe workers should be paid for their production. Republicans believe all workers should remain in bondage and CEOs should have golden parachutes.”

I would like to see where she draws her conclusions.  I have never heard anyone on the right say that people should “remain in bondage” in any form or fashion.  I would also like to know what her problem with “Golden Parachutes” are.  Wouldn’t it be nice to receive a $400 million retirement package?  Golden Parachutes and high executive salaries are what makes junior executives and lower employees productive.  CEO’s high earnings and large benefits packages are what people set their standards and goals by.  I learned this in my economics class this summer.  I am open to hear other opinions on the subject.

Somewhat out of sequence Farris makes the claim, “Democrats believe everyone should have access to health care. Republicans believe only the wealthy should have access to health care.”

This statement comes despite the fact that anyone can walk into an emergency room and receive more than adequate health care, no matter their income.  Everyone has access to healthcare and I am unaware of any legislation or talking points from any politician that says anyone but the rich should have access to healthcare.

Continuing, Farris writes, “Democrats believe there should be an energy policy. Republicans believe that what is good for the Bush family and Dick Cheney is good for the country.”

Now I could be missing something here, but voting to keep ANWR closed is not much of an energy policy, not to mention these lines leave “non sequitur” lingering in my mind.  I bet the mentioning of Bush and Cheney has something to do with Haliburton or “War for oil” rhetoric.  Come to think of it, Bush and Cheney, if the war really is for oil, have done far more to ensure our energy independence than any democrat has.  Maybe she is referring to Ted Kennedy’s Nantucket Sound energy policy.

So really, why does the Amarillo Globe News allow letter writers to blatantly lie?”

amarillo, Bush, Cheney, democrats, globe, healthcare, lies, news, republicans, rich, taxes

“Worst President Ever” discussion on Digg.com

Friday, August 11th, 2006

First, a reiteration of digg. Digg is a site that promotes user submitted content that spans a wide variety of topics. Sports, gaming, entertainment, technology, and my favorite, politics. I like the politics the most because a wide variety of opinions is dished up in one location.

Here is the original caption of this article”

Although George W. Bush is probably not the worst president in U.S. history (Woodrow Wilson may have that dubious honour), the president may be in contention for that title in the post-Second World War era.

The article isn’t the most iteresting part, it is the discussion on digg. Not only do the articles have a wide variety of content, bu the comments of each article have a wide variety of opinions as well. In this particular submission, commenters make the case for even worse presidents than GWB, such as Abraham Lincoln, FDR, Nixon, Carter, and probably lots more, I haven’t read all of the comments.

People get the most offended when others call out Lincoln or FDR. The usual response is that Lincoln took away more civil liberties than Bush ever dreamed about and that FDR enacted terrible welfar programs, social security, and could have done more to prevent WWII.

I thought about it for a little bit and the logic behind critisizing Lincoln and FDR seems pretty fair, in today’s standards however I don’t think the lens in which we look back at those presidents is ground correctly. No one knows if we would have been better or worse off had Lincoln not freed the slaves and rebuilt the union. I agree there might be a strong case that we would be worse off, but look at the constitutional laws that were broken at the time to get us where we are today. No one can really say with any degree of certainty if we would have been better off without social security and poor welfare programs. I agree there might be a strong case that we would be better off had better alternatives been implemented, but what alternatives, that were viable at the time, were better? Can we fix these problems today? No one can really say yes or no with any certainty.

As far as GWB goes, I say time will tell. I agree there is a strong case that he will be one of the worst if not the worst, but, as with other presidents, his actions will be dealt with for long periods of time after his presidency is over. Once the positive or negative outcomes of his actions are fully known and understood, then I think it will be fair to judge GWB. I can also understand that people want to prevent any negative outcomes of his presidency and I don’t fault them for that.

What do you think? Who do you think is the worst US president ever and why?

read more | digg story

worst, president, bush, lincoln, roosivelt, carter, digg