Dubya's Resume

Really Dubia has nothing to hide just a "little" nazi family past - I heard some americans say that they would have never voted for him if only they knew but it's never too late to try to repair one's error at least for future time :

http://www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm
from this book (who is now also wholly available online for free so to alert the public)
"George Bush:
The
Unauthorized
Biography

by
Webster G. Tarpley
&
Anton Chaitkin "


http://www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm

"Chapter - II - The Hitler Project

Bush Property Seized--Trading with the Enemy

In October 1942, ten months after entering World War II, America was preparing its first assault against Nazi military forces. Prescott Bush was managing partner of Brown Brothers Harriman. His 18-year-old son George, the future U.S. President, had just begun training to become a naval pilot. On Oct. 20, 1942, the U.S. government ordered the seizure of Nazi German banking operations in New York City which were being conducted by Prescott Bush.
"

http://www.tarpley.net/bushint.htm

"George Bush wants key aspects of his life to remain covert. At the same time, he senses that his need for coverup is a vulnerability. The need to protect this weak flank accounts for the steady stream of fake biographical and historical material concerning George, as well as the spin given to many studies of recent history that may never mention George directly. "
 
I saw the Democrat presidential aspirants had their first debate. No wonder you liberals are so depressed. What a collection.

And while I'm getting the benefits of so many lectures on constitutional law and what it means to be an american and what is true conservatism, would someone explain to me why treating religion the way it was treated for the first 200 years of our country is so threatening? It's only in the last 25 or 30 years that religion has become so toxic that somehow it is unconstitutional for a kid to recite the pledge of allegiance.

Attorney General Ashcroft is a man of faith. Should that somehow disqualify him from public office? Or is the problem that he actually means it? I'm not aware that he has imposed a state religion or is persecuting infidels.

I don't want to impose my faith on anyone else, but I think the religious values that this country was founded on ought to get at least as much respect in our institutions as Islam, Bhuddism and nature worship. Guess that makes me intolerant.
 
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:



Yes, it sounds swell until you realize two things. One, they are liars who do not mean a word of it. Their true agenda is (1)increase taxes on productive people, (2) introduce socialism as a means to get more power for themselves and their cronies and increase the voters' dependency, and (3) seek to divide people by race, class, ethnicity,etc.
More...


Well at least you do have a sense of humor, unlike so many "conservatives".....I guess you think we should increase taxes on less productive people. Socialism? Like what? FDR's Social Security that is now a pet of the Republican Party? And increase voter's dependency? How do you do that? Divide people by race, class, and ethnicity? What political party are YOU talking about? Jesse Helms was a liberal? George Wallace? Lester Maddox? What are you talking about?????

And two, they dare not run on their true platform because they would lose every election. So they lie. I'm still waiting for that middle class tax cut Clinton ran on.
More...


Uh.....who was running the congress then? Remember the "Contract with America"?

The idea that Republicans somehow invented the politics of division is laughable. Just ask which party wants to allocate all of society's benefits by race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic background, etc. Which party treats every serious policy issue as a chance to whip up class hatred.
More...


No need to ask. But since it is apparent you and I disagree, how about an example of what you are talking about?

Ever hear of Robert Bork? Or Clarence Thomas for that matter. Ask them which party specializes in the politics of personal destruction. You might also ask all the women that were smeared and threatened by your favorite president's thugs.
More...

Bork and Thomas? Now I KNOW you have a sense of humor. What was in it for Anita Hill other than humiliation if not just getting the facts on the record? And Bork? A joke. One does NOT go to be confirmed for the Supreme Court and give their personal views. The job is to uphold the constitution, and make JUDGEMENTS based on LAW, not personal opinions. Not even a municipal judge, let alone a Supreme Court Justice. He did himself in. It wasn't the "damn democrats" as Hapaboy would say. And exactly WHO is the "favorite President" and his thugs? Let me guess.....Clinton? Good President, not such a good man. But womanizing is not the same as dismantling the Constitution. Going to war unprovoked. Lying about sex doesn't seem to me as impacting on the country as lying about the Watergate cover-up. Or Iran-Contra. Or tax evasion. Or in the case of some of your esteemed "conservatives", defying presidential orders (from both Eisenhower, a Republican, and from Kennedy, a democrat). Maybe you are too young to remember what happened when southern schools were forced to integrate.

Peace,
Rs8.5
 
Quote from bungrider:

Clinton gets a blowjob and all of a sudden let's blow millions of dollars shaking him out!

I just don't get it.

More...
It wasn't the blowjob that did him in, it was lying about it under oath and to the public on television. Then there was Whitewater, Hillary's billing, the Vince Foster affair, alleged connections to a large scale cocaine dealer, the questionable pardons, Kathleen Wiley, Paula Jones, Elizabeth Ward Gracen, Sally Perdue, Dolly Kyle Browning, etc., etc., etc., etc.
 
Madison,

I was specifically addressing RS's comment that Ashcroft doesn't understand separation of church and state. Balancing the constitution against the need to protect against terrorism is a difficult task. Ultimately, the Supreme Court will have the final word on whether or not current and proposed laws go too far. I admit to being concerned about this issue, but if I were in Ashcroft's shoes, I suppose I would also tend to err on the side of protecting the people against terrorism.

I don't think it is a coincidence that we had not had any major terrorist activity since the government made rounding up suspicious aliens a priority. Of course that does not justify holding innocent people without trial.
 
Regarding Clinton's lying about a tax cut, the Dem's controlled the congress until '94. One fo the factors that lead to them losing control of the House no doubt was the enormous Clinton tax hike.

If the Dem's think we are undertaxed, I think they are entitled to make their case to the American people on that issue. Since we are nearing the point that over 50% of the population is on the receiving end of government benefits paid for by a smaller and smaller slice of taxpayers, that may become a popular position. But is it too much to ask for them to make the case honestly and not lie about it?
 
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

I admit to being concerned about this issue, but if I were in Ashcroft's shoes, I suppose I would also tend to err on the side of protecting the people against terrorism.
More...

power will be abused, always. whether by the right, left, or in between. the Constitutional framework was brilliantly laid out to check that power, and protect the people (and the government) from the human nature of those in charge. any tampering with that framework should be viewed with the highest suspicion and subject to the most vigorous review. the US, now, has neither.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top