|
THE OFFICIAL CALIFORNIA PLUS BOOMER 'N WHISKERS THREAD! (pg. 494)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Boomer187 |
| quote: | Originally posted by montie
can you open a charge account with them? |
run a tab, get in the frequent fuckers club.
hhmm, I might have to resort to my friends house sister...is that what you call it....his dad divorces....then remarried and had him...his divorced wife had a baby and it is this slut.
so not really sisters brother....hhhmmm, I missed out last night cause she went up to david blains room...that illusionary jerk..
maybe tonight. |
|
|
| DaveSZ |
| quote: | Originally posted by getfoul
I hate myself for saying this, but i am still voting Bush because i do not want to see some get into office just cause they dislike the current prez w.o showing much promise theirself.
After hearing about how he is trying to destroy the national forests I am doubting myself on voting for him. Though he is still the one with colin powell |
Foul I agree with you that Kerry needs to be more positive like Edwards is instead of so negative. I think it's just the way that Kery speaks, and that is a real liability for him.
Kerry was not my first choice to go against Bush, and actually I was rooting for General Clark since he's probably got the best plan for getting us out of this Iraq mess. I think Clark will probably be tapped as either Sec. of State or foreign policy advisor, though it’s a near certainty he will have a role in a new Democrat administration.
Far left candidates like Sharpton, Kucinich, and Nader have little to zero chance of being elected in this country, and personally I would not trust any of them to be able to get us out of the Iraqi mess regardless of whether I agree with them more on some domestic issues.
Anyways, just hear me out and you'll see that my gripes against the Bush Admin. are not based on irrational, or blind hatred, but on genuine criticism of policy. I actually like Bush in terms of his charisma and folksiness, but other than that there’s nothing really substantial there.
I do give credit where it's due however. I thought GWB did a great job of handling the aftermath of 9/11, and also in building a true coalition of nations in breaking up Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
However, GWB had a huge amount of political capital after 9/11, he had a 70% approval rating in the polls, and he had the world's sympathy on his (our) side. He blew it all by misleading the world about the extent of the threat that Saddam posed, and invaded Iraq virtually unilaterally. Before the invasion of Iraq our approval rating in much of the Arab world was actually quite high considering our support for Israel (often as high as 60-70% in some Arab countries like Egypt), and now that we have invaded Iraq as a seemingly bullying colonial power, our approval rating has fallen into the single digits in most of those same Arab world countries. How does creating more anger and hatred of the US in those countries that are the bastion of potential Islamic extremist terrorists help keep us safer?
Meanwhile here at home, the economic policies of the Bush Admin are completely reckless. When you cut taxes, you have to also cut a proportional amount of government spending to avoid creating massive budget deficits that stifle consumer and investor confidence. GWB has increased non-defense discretionary spending by over 25%, started two wars, all while granting largely regressive tax breaks for the wealthiest tax bracket that shift the burden of taxation onto lower incomes.
Much of the spending is just on stupid pork barrel projects like building an indoor rainforest in Iowa, for example.
The majority of Americans did not get a tax cut. They got a check of a few hundred dollars, but their college tuition increased, their healthcare costs increased, and their property taxes increased to compensate for the service gap.
Tax cuts stimulate the economy in the short-term, but in the long term creating massive deficits can hamper economic growth. I’m convinced that any democrat would be much more fiscally conservative than GWB, especially given the fact that the House of Representatives is GOP controlled. Greenspan wants the Dems to win so they can help get the deficits under control, and that’s why he gave them the social security issue as ammunition. Most people have paid into SS and Medicare their entire lives, and now that they are to collect they hear that their benefits will have to be cut to give millionaires tax breaks.
These are his exact words:
http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/26/com...s/hays/?cnn=yes
| quote: |
As he puts it, Greenspan urges cutting benefits "to pay for President Bush's massive tax breaks for millionaires -- which have turned record budget surpluses into deficits." |
Economic libertarian Ron Paul’s words on the Bush Admin. Fiscal policies:
| quote: | The unfortunate truth is that the Bush administration, aided by a Republican Congress, has increased spending more in three years than the previous administration did in eight. Federal spending has grown by more than 25 percent since President Bush took office.
-Ron Paul
|
No other American president has ever gone to war and cut taxes simultaneously.
Those were the last three years.
Now this year Bush has been trying to be more fiscally responsible perhaps because of the huge deficits he created, but I still question his spending priorities. If I had to cut anywhere, it would be in non-necessary programs like Pork Barrel projects or something like that, but Bush has cut 800 million dollars in the proposed 2005 budget alone (Weekly Standard) from firemen, policemen, and other emergency workers who would be the first to respond to another terror attack.
That’s the last place we need to be cutting if you think about it. The Iraq war has created widespread anti-American sentiment in most of the rest of the world (especially the Arab world), and has caused Al Quaeda’s ranks to swell. Simultaneously riling up the terrorists and reducing our first responders’ abilities to respond to a terror attack here at home is not what I would deem, “making us safer.”
If that budget passes without revision we will see the laying off of many of these fine folks (police, fire, emergency workers), along with a significant degradation of the services those who keep their jobs can provide for the public. Maybe that’s why some of them are so upset that Bush is using fire fighters in his reelection ads. I’m sure there are firefighters who do support the President, but I can guarantee you that those who see their pay cut, equipment stipend cut, or lose their jobs will not be very cheery.
Bush has also only allocated about 1/10 of that which the Coast Guard asked for to fight terrorism, and completely neglected to fund the military for several months in the 2005 budget.
http://www.military.com/NewsContent..._021104,00.html
| quote: |
U.S. Military May Run Out Of Money United Press International February 11, 2004
WASHINGTON - The military will have no money to pay for the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for three months beginning Oct. 1 because the White House is declining to ask Congress for funding until December or January, well after the presidential election.
Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker told the Senate Armed Services Committee the $38 billion he has for 2004 war operations will last only until the end of September, as he spends $3.7 billion a month in Iraq and about $900 million a month in Afghanistan. The Army has about 114,000 soldiers in Iraq and roughly 10,000 in Afghanistan.
"I am concerned on how we bridge between the end of this fiscal year and when we can get a supplemental in the next fiscal year," Schoomaker told the committee.
The fiscal year -- the government's spending year -- runs from Oct. 1 to Sept. 30 annually. Funds for 2004, therefore, run out Sept. 30, 2004.
The Marine Corps, which will send about 75,000 Marines to Iraq in 2004/2005 and expects to need $1.5 billion, is in a similar financial bind.
"I share the concerns of the chief of staff of the army about this," said Marine Commandant Gen. Michael Hagee.
The war has been funded by emergency supplemental appropriations, separate from the Pentagon's annual budget, which is not set up to pay for "contingency operations."
The first Iraq supplemental, requested in March 2003, gave the Pentagon around $63 billion for the war. The second supplemental of $87 billion was requested by President Bush in September 2003. It will run out on Oct. 1. Roughly $19 billion of that total is going toward Iraq civil reconstruction. About $10 billion is for Afghanistan.
President Bush is not asking Congress for a 2005 supplemental until December or January, according to Pentagon comptroller Dov Zakheim.
U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters Tuesday the decision not to request a supplemental rested with the White House. He could not explain why the administration would allow a three-month gap in funding the war on terror, ostensibly its top priority.
"They have so many factors to consider. They have to look at all the departments and agencies. I don't know -- they'll certainly know a lot more," Rumsfeld said.
Rumsfeld and Zakheim have said the delay has to do with wanting to wait to get better detail on what the spending needs will be.
Zakheim said the services can cover the gap by shifting funding around in regular budgets until the White House requests additional money.
"As you move into the fiscal year, Oct. 1, November, December, January, you're going to know an awful lot more than you know today in February," Rumsfeld said Tuesday.
The White House had sufficient detail and foresight last year to request $87 billion for the coming fiscal year on Sept. 7, 2003.
That date however, coincided with a precipitous drop in President Bush's approval ratings, according to polling data from the Gallup Organization.
Between Aug. 25 and 26, Bush had an approval rating of 59 percent. In polls conducted Sept. 8-10, it had dropped to 52 percent. Less than two weeks later, Bush's approval rating was at 50 percent -- the lowest ever in his three years in office. His approval rating bounced back to 63 percent immediately after Saddam Hussein was captured in Iraq in December, but dipped to 49 the last week of January. It has risen back to 52 percent this week.
With early polls suggesting likely Democratic candidate Sen. John Kerry and President Bush very close in approval ratings, the White House may not want to risk a drop related to asking for additional funding so close to the November election.
If the current spending rate continues in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Pentagon is likely to need around $50 billion for military operations alone.
|
Basically he’s playing politics with our young soldiers’ lives to hide the true cost of the war from the public before the election.
Yes I actually wish it had been Colin Powell elected instead of W since he's very smart and more moderate. He probably would have been like an HW Bush Administration.
The thing about Powell though is he's basically just a showpiece or figurehead of the Administration, and the Neocon chicken hawks like Cheney and Wofowitz are the ones really calling the shots. The environmental, fiscal, and foreign policies of the Bush Administration are shining examples of that fact.
The former head of the EPA, Christie Whitman, was forced to resign because Cheney and the energy companies strong-armed her so much she couldn't do her job. Paul O’Neal was fired after he questioned the fiscal responsibility of a 4th round of tax cuts. Colin Powell is left out of most major policy decisions, and numerous other Administration officials have been fired for opposing the neocon policies.
There are too many numerous horrendous policies that the Bush Administration has implemented when it comes to environmental policy for me to list, but rewriting the Clean Air Act to allow coal burning industries to release many times more mercury into the air a week or two after advising pregnant women not to eat fish because of the methyl mercury contamination is by far the most galling considering most of our country’s fresh water bodies are contaminated with methyl mercury. I believe it’s around 8% of women who have enough mercury in their bodies to cause harm to their unborn child.
In most states you cannot safely eat the fish you catch because of this problem, and about 98% of the methyl mercury in the fresh water bodies, therefore the fish, is from coal emissions (not from natural sources).
The Bush Administration’s social policies basically mirror those of Christian Right leaders Pat Robertson, James Dobson, and Jerry Falwell. This recent proposal to enshrine discrimination in the US Constitution is only the most recent Fundie policy to which I take exception. There is also Bush’s call for increasing funding for “abstinence only” sex education, with which only 15% of the American public is in support of. Bush has also used Executive Order to funnel taxpayer funds into far right Christian organizations that are allowed to discriminate in their hiring practices (vis-à-vis a new House bill that recently passed). The fact that he doesn’t believe in the separation of church and state puts Bush well out of the mainstream with 59% of Americans supporting S.C.S.
See here for more info:
http://www.au.org/site/PageServer
(Americans United is a coalition of religious organizations who fight to maintain the First Amendment).
I don't think Kerry's foreign policy would be that different except for that he'd help bring more help from other countries into Iraq so it's not a unilateral occupation, and we won't have to call up 45 y/o National Guard members who are needed here at home in case of an emergency like an earthquake or riots. The main difference between the two is that Bush and the Neocons are unilateralists, and Kerry is a multi-lateralist.
I personally believe that when we bully other nations, it only serves to increase anti-American sentiment (and therefore terrorism) around the world. I believe the US is strongest with her allies by her side.
Kerry will not cut and run from Iraq and leave it a failed state. My guess is that General Clark will be helping Kerry formulate his plan for Iraq. Right now as I type this, the US is shouldering the burden of 90% of the troops, and US taxpayers will shoulder over 90% of the cost of the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq as soon as we have a fiscally responsible Administration in the White House which will provide proper funding for the military.
As for the state of Iraq:
Only within the past week well over 200 people, Iraqis and US soldiers alike, have been killed from terror attacks, and the Shiites have refused to sign the Iraqi constitution if it does not give them the power to establish an Islamic state of their own chosen sect of Islam. I suspect that the end conclusion of all this will not be a cohesive Iraq, but instead a splintering off of three different independent countries. My only hope is that we don’t have to go through a full-fledged civil war to get to that point like we had in India when Pakistan was created.
Since I have family members and friends in Iraq, I have a cousin who is a firefighter, and I care for preserving the environment for future generations, I cannot afford the luxury of complacency and indeed I take these failed policies of our leadership very personally; hence the justifiable anger.
Speaking honestly, I think Bush himself is also a charismatic figurehead, and it’s really Cheney and the other guys running the show.
I’ve been meaning to read Paul O’ Neal’s book, The Price of Loyalty, as it gives an insider’s view of the workings of the Bush Admin. The fact that Bush signed that recent economic report predicting over 2 million new jobs would be created in the next year, at least in my mind, shows how truly detached he is. I want someone who knows what they’re doing at the helm of the ship, instead of merely rubber-stamping whatever rubbish comes across their desk.
Bush has not vetoed a single pork barrel spending bill in all his time in office.
When that idiot Wofowitz says that suicide bombings in Iraq show that the US is "succeeding," I do take issue with that since he’s talking about the death of somebody’s brother, sister, cousin, mother, or father.
If you've read any of the Neocon agenda, it will be clear to you that should they gain another four years, they will almost certainly invade another Arab world country. With a GOP congress, I wouldn't rule out a draft either since they'll need fresh meat for the invasion.
I certainly disagree with Kerry on some issues.
Kerry’s faults include voting for the Patriot Act, his wanting to place more unreasonable (in my opinion) restrictions on the Second Amendment, and voting for the Iraq War resolution. But then, most Senators voted for the Patriot Act, reauthorization of the Assault Weapons ban, and Iraq War resolution. The only Senator who didn’t vote for any of those pieces of legislation was Russ Feingold, and I’m a big fan of his.
Yes I would have preferred someone from the South, but I will support Kerry and hope that Edwards gets the VP slot. I can't imagine that any other Administration would be as inept as our current one regardless of whether or not I agree or disagree with them on some issues.
At least Kerry will care for the environment, appoint reasonable judicial nominees that aren't Fundie gay bashers, and properly fund police and firemen. :) |
|
|
| Bondor |
| quote: | Originally posted by DaveSZ
Foul I agree with you that Kerry needs to be more positive like Edwards is instead of so negative. I think it's just the way that Kery speaks, and that is a real liability for him.
Kerry was not my first choice to go against Bush, and actually I was rooting for General Clark since he's probably got the best plan for getting us out of this Iraq mess. I think Clark will probably be tapped as either Sec. of State or foreign policy advisor, though it’s a near certainty he will have a role in a new Democrat administration.
Far left candidates like Sharpton, Kucinich, and Nader have little to zero chance of being elected in this country, and personally I would not trust any of them to be able to get us out of the Iraqi mess regardless of whether I agree with them more on some domestic issues.
Anyways, just hear me out and you'll see that my gripes against the Bush Admin. are not based on irrational, or blind hatred, but on genuine criticism of policy. I actually like Bush in terms of his charisma and folksiness, but other than that there’s nothing really substantial there.
I do give credit where it's due however. I thought GWB did a great job of handling the aftermath of 9/11, and also in building a true coalition of nations in breaking up Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
However, GWB had a huge amount of political capital after 9/11, he had a 70% approval rating in the polls, and he had the world's sympathy on his (our) side. He blew it all by misleading the world about the extent of the threat that Saddam posed, and invaded Iraq virtually unilaterally. Before the invasion of Iraq our approval rating in much of the Arab world was actually quite high considering our support for Israel (often as high as 60-70% in some Arab countries like Egypt), and now that we have invaded Iraq as a seemingly bullying colonial power, our approval rating has fallen into the single digits in most of those same Arab world countries. How does creating more anger and hatred of the US in those countries that are the bastion of potential Islamic extremist terrorists help keep us safer?
Meanwhile here at home, the economic policies of the Bush Admin are completely reckless. When you cut taxes, you have to also cut a proportional amount of government spending to avoid creating massive budget deficits that stifle consumer and investor confidence. GWB has increased non-defense discretionary spending by over 25%, started two wars, all while granting largely regressive tax breaks for the wealthiest tax bracket that shift the burden of taxation onto lower incomes.
Much of the spending is just on stupid pork barrel projects like building an indoor rainforest in Iowa, for example.
The majority of Americans did not get a tax cut. They got a check of a few hundred dollars, but their college tuition increased, their healthcare costs increased, and their property taxes increased to compensate for the service gap.
Tax cuts stimulate the economy in the short-term, but in the long term creating massive deficits can hamper economic growth. I’m convinced that any democrat would be much more fiscally conservative than GWB, especially given the fact that the House of Representatives is GOP controlled. Greenspan wants the Dems to win so they can help get the deficits under control, and that’s why he gave them the social security issue as ammunition. Most people have paid into SS and Medicare their entire lives, and now that they are to collect they hear that their benefits will have to be cut to give millionaires tax breaks.
These are his exact words:
http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/26/com...s/hays/?cnn=yes
Economic libertarian Ron Paul’s words on the Bush Admin. Fiscal policies:
No other American president has ever gone to war and cut taxes simultaneously.
Those were the last three years.
Now this year Bush has been trying to be more fiscally responsible perhaps because of the huge deficits he created, but I still question his spending priorities. If I had to cut anywhere, it would be in non-necessary programs like Pork Barrel projects or something like that, but Bush has cut 800 million dollars in the proposed 2005 budget alone (Weekly Standard) from firemen, policemen, and other emergency workers who would be the first to respond to another terror attack.
That’s the last place we need to be cutting if you think about it. The Iraq war has created widespread anti-American sentiment in most of the rest of the world (especially the Arab world), and has caused Al Quaeda’s ranks to swell. Simultaneously riling up the terrorists and reducing our first responders’ abilities to respond to a terror attack here at home is not what I would deem, “making us safer.”
If that budget passes without revision we will see the laying off of many of these fine folks (police, fire, emergency workers), along with a significant degradation of the services those who keep their jobs can provide for the public. Maybe that’s why some of them are so upset that Bush is using fire fighters in his reelection ads. I’m sure there are firefighters who do support the President, but I can guarantee you that those who see their pay cut, equipment stipend cut, or lose their jobs will not be very cheery.
Bush has also only allocated about 1/10 of that which the Coast Guard asked for to fight terrorism, and completely neglected to fund the military for several months in the 2005 budget.
http://www.military.com/NewsContent..._021104,00.html
Basically he’s playing politics with our young soldiers’ lives to hide the true cost of the war from the public before the election.
Yes I actually wish it had been Colin Powell elected instead of W since he's very smart and more moderate. He probably would have been like an HW Bush Administration.
The thing about Powell though is he's basically just a showpiece or figurehead of the Administration, and the Neocon chicken hawks like Cheney and Wofowitz are the ones really calling the shots. The environmental, fiscal, and foreign policies of the Bush Administration are shining examples of that fact.
The former head of the EPA, Christie Whitman, was forced to resign because Cheney and the energy companies strong-armed her so much she couldn't do her job. Paul O’Neal was fired after he questioned the fiscal responsibility of a 4th round of tax cuts. Colin Powell is left out of most major policy decisions, and numerous other Administration officials have been fired for opposing the neocon policies.
There are too many numerous horrendous policies that the Bush Administration has implemented when it comes to environmental policy for me to list, but rewriting the Clean Air Act to allow coal burning industries to release many times more mercury into the air a week or two after advising pregnant women not to eat fish because of the methyl mercury contamination is by far the most galling considering most of our country’s fresh water bodies are contaminated with methyl mercury. I believe it’s around 8% of women who have enough mercury in their bodies to cause harm to their unborn child.
In most states you cannot safely eat the fish you catch because of this problem, and about 98% of the methyl mercury in the fresh water bodies, therefore the fish, is from coal emissions (not from natural sources).
The Bush Administration’s social policies basically mirror those of Christian Right leaders Pat Robertson, James Dobson, and Jerry Falwell. This recent proposal to enshrine discrimination in the US Constitution is only the most recent Fundie policy to which I take exception. There is also Bush’s call for increasing funding for “abstinence only” sex education, with which only 15% of the American public is in support of. Bush has also used Executive Order to funnel taxpayer funds into far right Christian organizations that are allowed to discriminate in their hiring practices (vis-à-vis a new House bill that recently passed). The fact that he doesn’t believe in the separation of church and state puts Bush well out of the mainstream with 59% of Americans supporting S.C.S.
See here for more info:
http://www.au.org/site/PageServer
(Americans United is a coalition of religious organizations who fight to maintain the First Amendment).
I don't think Kerry's foreign policy would be that different except for that he'd help bring more help from other countries into Iraq so it's not a unilateral occupation, and we won't have to call up 45 y/o National Guard members who are needed here at home in case of an emergency like an earthquake or riots. The main difference between the two is that Bush and the Neocons are unilateralists, and Kerry is a multi-literalist.
I personally believe that when we bully other nations, it only serves to increase anti-American sentiment (and therefore terrorism) around the world. I believe the US is strongest with her allies by her side.
Kerry will not cut and run from Iraq and leave it a failed state. My guess is that General Clark will be helping Kerry formulate his plan for Iraq. Right now as I type this, the US is shouldering the burden of 90% of the troops, and US taxpayers will shoulder over 90% of the cost of the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq as soon as we have a fiscally responsible Administration in the White House which will provide proper funding for the military.
As for the state of Iraq:
Only within the past week well over 200 people, Iraqis and US soldiers alike, have been killed from terror attacks, and the Shiites have refused to sign the Iraqi constitution if it does not give them the power to establish an Islamic state of their own chosen sect of Islam. I suspect that the end conclusion of all this will not be a cohesive Iraq, but instead a splintering off of three different independent countries. My only hope is that we don’t have to go through a full-fledged civil war to get to that point like we had in India when Pakistan was created.
Since I have family members and friends in Iraq, I have a cousin who is a firefighter, and I care for preserving the environment for future generations, I cannot afford the luxury of complacency and indeed I take these failed policies of our leadership very personally; hence the justifiable anger.
Speaking honestly, I think Bush himself is also a charismatic figurehead, and it’s really Cheney and the other guys running the show.
I’ve been meaning to read Paul O’ Neal’s book, The Price of Loyalty, as it gives an insider’s view of the workings of the Bush Admin. The fact that Bush signed that recent economic report predicting over 2 million new jobs would be created in the next year, at least in my mind, shows how truly detached he is. I want someone who knows what they’re doing at the helm of the ship, instead of merely rubber-stamping whatever rubbish comes across their desk.
Bush has not vetoed a single pork barrel spending bill in all his time in office.
When that idiot Wofowitz says that suicide bombings in Iraq show that the US is "succeeding," I do take issue with that since he’s talking about the death of somebody’s brother, sister, cousin, mother, or father.
If you've read any of the Neocon agenda, it will be clear to you that should they gain another four years, they will almost certainly invade another Arab world country. With a GOP congress, I wouldn't rule out a draft either since they'll need fresh meat for the invasion.
I certainly disagree with Kerry on some issues.
Kerry’s faults include voting for the Patriot Act, his wanting to place more unreasonable (in my opinion) restrictions on the Second Amendment, and voting for the Iraq War resolution. But then, most Senators voted for the Patriot Act, reauthorization of the Assault Weapons ban, and Iraq War resolution. The only Senator who didn’t vote for any of those pieces of legislation was Russ Feingold, and I’m a big fan of his.
Yes I would have preferred someone from the South, but I will support Kerry and hope that Edwards gets the VP slot. I can't imagine that any other Administration would be as inept as our current one regardless of whether or not I agree or disagree with them on some issues.
At least Kerry will care for the environment, appoint reasonable judicial nominees that aren't Fundie gay bashers, and properly fund police and firemen. :) |
i want a baloon! |
|
|
| montie |
| quote: | Originally posted by Bondor
i want a baloon! |
 |
|
|
| Bondor |
| quote: | Originally posted by montie
|
nice. |
|
|
| Bondor |
| quote: | Originally posted by Bondor
nice. |
yeah all say. YO im comming tonight! WAHOO! |
|
|
| Emil |
Boomer,
Give up man, you aren't getting laid. :toothless |
|
|
| whiskers |
my spoon is too big :(
 |
|
|
| fuct4less |
| quote: | Originally posted by montie
|
yes!
| quote: | Originally posted by whiskers
my spoon is too big :(
|
im a bannana |
|
|
| Emil |
| quote: | Originally posted by fuct4less
yes!
im a bannana |
You're a monkey. |
|
|
| DaveSZ |
| quote: | Originally posted by DaveSZ
and Kerry is a multi-literalist.
|
LOL damn you spell check!:whip: |
|
|
| Bondor |
| quote: | Originally posted by fuct4less
yes!
im a bannana |
ok this has happend 700 times in this thread....:happy2: |
|
|
|
|
