CheesalaIsGood

People sorta made a stink (for all the good it did) about Hilary in NY and Mitt Romney in Mass. Not sure people really care that much if out-of-staters win elections. Of course they SHOULD! Yay politics.

Here is a link to a short film that was VERY interesting concerning Iraq during Clintins term in office. www.republicanfilms.com http://www.republicanfilms.com/ oops. edit

Clinton being the one to preside over the policy towards Iraq doesn't necessarily show him in a positive light, especially after not actively doing anything with it--you do know of the petition (which was signed by John Kerry mind you) for the use of military force in Iraq similar to now, don't you? So they're highlighting that, yes the policy was the same. Clinton just happened to be there at the time, making him a mere byproduct. I guess if you are under the assumption that Clinton was actually a Republican president then you aren't being contradictory. Being President of the United States is a mere byproduct?

Gimmie THREE! Plus a plug in the back of my head. We trust in NEO.

I'm not sure where you got the idea I was trying to do myself some kind of favor. I can only guess that your right-wing mind seeing ALL in black and white cannot understand that some one NOT for Bush doesn't mean they are FOR Kerry. In fact my post has nothing to do with the election. Paranoid? Even though the film does beat the viewer over the head with rhetoric and talking points the novelty of the republican slanted film piece that shows Bill Clinton in ANY sort of positive light is too sweet. Cuz, GODAMN they hated his ass! After all the talk of blow jobs, cumstains, and impeachments here is the right actually having to legitimize Clinton to support a point they are trying to make. Something greatone has chosen to ignore thus far. Which is fine by me. Since greatone has made this thread more about my beliefs than about my post let me clarify. I am against this war for these reasons. 1. The conflict of interest w/ Haliburton. Sorry, rightys. The fact that anyone would at least ASK about the involved parties and the connections between them is just stupid. But I guess it would be more patroitic of me to just assume they (Bush/Cheney/Haliburton) will play fair as an act of faith. Overcharging anyone? 2. No foreseeable exit strategy. You know, the REASON King George the 1st pulled back 13 years ago. Trying to mold a culture that we don't understand in our image will leave us with more enemies and in fighting than we can handle. When we DO LEAVE the job will remain undone and we will have made enemies of those over there who might have supported the US being there in the beginning but turned feeling abandoned. Sorta like in Afganistan after they fought our proxy war with the Soviets. 3. The lack of support for vets in post war conditions. Hell, lack of support while still in service! I've known too many vietnam vets in my time to simply ignore the fact that we have a really bad track record of taking care of our heroes once the fighting is over. Be it Gulf War Syndrome to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, to Agent Orange, you name it. Our defenders of FREEDOM get the shit end of the stick when we no longer need them. Well FUCK THAT! It takes more than a parade for us to truly give thanks. Isn't it great they work cheap? Pfft. Yes, I do think we were mislead. On purpose. Ok, fuck it call it lies. I never bought Clinton as a true liberal after passing NAFTA and GATT. If Bush and Clinton are in agreement about something I'm not surprised. A (corporate) puppeteer has two hands does he not? So I don't see how I am being contradictory. Then again, I don't see in just black and white.

Hey, whats the exit strategy again?

Just watch the film and shut the fuck up. I don't care who you vote for. The point is the the FILM is a twist on the perspective. I POV on the war isn't changed, because MY take on the war has NOTHING to do with WMDS. Pay attention and maybe you might learn something jailbait.

Its mostly a quotefest of things Clinton said about wanting to get rid of Saddam, WMDs, etc. The novelty about it is that its very right-wing slanted yet with all the Clintons quotes shows him in this BIZARRE positive light. Not your typical conservative M.O. MMkay. I just thought it was really odd, and yet interesting. If you can get it to work, enjoy you right-wing nutjobs.

Watch the film dipshit.

Funny though.

Fluff. Non-issue. Sorry Rant.

[Cheesala]HE IS A HERO TO STAND UP TO THE EVIL BUSH REGIME![/Cheesala] -=Mike Well that saves me the trouble, phew! You'll have to work on the Kerry fanboy cheerleading by yourself though, deal? Yes, a Kerry fanboy. Thats exactly what I am.

[Cheesala]HE IS A HERO TO STAND UP TO THE EVIL BUSH REGIME![/Cheesala] -=Mike Well that saves me the trouble, phew!

I would like to voice my support for the dance off.

We have only one option to counter this crisis. Execution. Burn them, for they are WITCHES!

Now, now. Scott Ritter is a "disgrace" who dared to make a movie with money from an Iraqi businessman. What was this movie about? IRAQ!!! Can you believe the NERVE of this former marine and weapons inspector? THEN he came out and said that if there were no WMDs found in Iraq, that Bush should resign! That if there were no WMDs that an invasion would be a really bad idea! That if we had no exit plan WE SHOULDN'T FUCKING GO THERE! What an asshole right? RIGHT? Nevermind that his apperances on Fox News and MSNBC he crushed every question about his validity and where his loyalties lay. The man loves his country and YET holds it to a higher standard. But NOOOOOO, since he was against the war (ONLY if there were no WMDs) his name MUST be run through the mud!!! Commie liberal hippie! Yeah, TRY and label ANY marine that way. See how far it gets you.

Are the network execs shareholders? Just a bunch of rich fucks screwing over other rich fucks. Let them all rot.

"The media is only as liberal as the conservative white men who own it." Plus, they are there to ONLY serve advertisers. Rating folks! It's what its all about. All of it. It's sad when the news is no longer there as a public service, instead competing for ad revenues. Just like everything else, those involved in the news have sold out.

Moulton woman says she lost job for sporting Kerry sticker on car By Clyde L. Stancil DAILY Staff Writer [email protected] · 340-2443 MOULTON — Lynne Gobbell never imagined the cost of a John Kerry-John Edwards bumper sticker could run so high. DAILY Photo by Clyde Stancil Lynne Gobbell said her boss fired her last week because of the Kerry-Edwards campaign sticker on the back of her car. Gobbell of Moulton didn't pay a cent for the sticker that she proudly displays on the rear windshield of her Chevrolet Lumina, but said it cost her job at a local factory after it angered her boss, Phil Geddes. Geddes, a Decatur bankruptcy attorney, owns Enviromate, a cellulose insulation company in Moulton. Geddes did not return phone calls from THE DAILY about the alleged Thursday firing. Gobbell said she consulted a lawyer, but then changed her mind about going to see him. She said she has cried about the incident and must do without income for three weeks while the state unemployment commission decides if she is eligible for compensation. Gobbell said she was averaging 50 to 60 hours a week on the plant's bagging machine. "The lady there (at the unemployment commission) said that she has never heard of a firing like this before," Gobbell said. Gobbell gave this account: "We were going back to work from break, and my manager told me that Phil said to remove the sticker off my car or I was fired," she said. "I told him that Phil couldn't tell me who to vote for. He said, 'Go tell him.' " She went to Geddes' office, knocked on the door and entered on his orders. "Phil and another man who works there were there," she said. "I asked him if he said to remove the sticker and he said, 'Yes, I did.' I told him he couldn't tell me who to vote for. When I told him that, he told me, 'I own this place.' I told him he still couldn't tell me who to vote for." Gobbell said Geddes told her to "get out of here." "I asked him if I was fired and he told me he was thinking about it," she said. "I said, 'Well, am I fired?' He hollered and said, 'Get out of here and shut the door.' " She said her manager was standing in another room and she asked him if that meant for her to go back to work or go home. The manager told her to go back to work, but he came back a few minutes later and said, " 'I reckon you're fired. You could either work for him or John Kerry,' " Gobbell said. "I took off my gloves and threw them in the garbage and left," Gobbell said. Though she is unemployed and uncertain if she will get her job back, Gobbell said, she doesn't regret her decision to keep the sticker on her windshield. "I would like to find another job, but I would take that job back because I need to work," she said. "It upset me and made me mad that he could put a letter in my check expressing his (political) opinion, but I can't put something on my car expressing mine." She was referring to a flier that she said Geddes placed in employee envelopes to remind them of the positive impact that President Bush's policies have had on them. An employee at the plant who would not identify himself confirmed the contents of the letter. Gobbell provided a copy of the flier. It says: "Just so you will know, because of the Bush tax (cut): # I was able to buy the new Hammer Mill # I was able to finance our receivables # I was able to get the new CAT skid steer # I was able to get the wire cutter # I was able to give you a job" It further says: "You got the benefit of the Bush tax cut. Everyone did." Leave feedback on this or another story. THE DECATUR DAILY 201 1st Ave. SE P.O. Box 2213 Decatur, Ala. 35609 (256) 353-4612 [email protected] I'll just save some folks on here the time and say "The bitch deserved it!"

While it is very easy to play "King of Pain" , people are shitty to each other regardless of their political affiliation. Good thing we have "the rule of law" to protect us.

How about posting on a messageboard?

The weird thing about it is that Stern is a hard habit to break. They could coast alot longer on personailty than anybody else in radio.

Author's Note | I spent Tuesday evening watching the debate, and then writing about it. When I was done, I went to the website Dick Cheney told Americans to visit in order to get the truth about Kerry's record. Cheney said we should view 'FactCheck.com,' but as a seasoned internet scrambler, I knew immediately he meant 'FactCheck.org'. Not much difference between a .com and a .org, right? Wrong. FactCheck.com is a website owned by George Soros. The banner headline across the top of the page reads 'WHY WE MUST NOT RE-ELECT PRESIDENT BUSH.' You can assume what the content to follow has to say, or you can go visit the site yourself. I'd love to see what Soros' hit counts look like on Wednesday morning. This is a fairly solid allegory for Dick Cheney's night at the desk. - wrp Cheney's Avalanche of Lies By William Rivers Pitt t r u t h o u t | Perspective Wednesday 06 October 2004 "The vice president, I'm surprised to hear him talk about records. When he was one of 435 members of the United States House, he was one of 10 to vote against Head Start, one of four to vote against banning plastic weapons that can pass through metal detectors. He voted against the Department of Education. He voted against funding for Meals on Wheels for seniors. He voted against a holiday for Martin Luther King. He voted against a resolution calling for the release of Nelson Mandela in South Africa. It's amazing to hear him criticize either my record or John Kerry's." - Senator John Edwards, 10/05/04 Cheney and Edwards at the National Prayer Breakfast, 02/01/01 Clearly, Dick Cheney is no George W. Bush. On Thursday night in Florida, Bush exposed himself as unprepared, easily ruffled, angry, excitable and muddled. As one wag put it, he came to a 90 minute debate with 10 minutes of material. On Tuesday night in Ohio, Cheney showed the American people who is really running things at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. He was controlled, calm, every inch the CEO in charge. Cheney was also every inch the snarling, hunch-shouldered golem that has made him one of the least popular politicians in recent memory. He seldom looked up at moderator Gwen Ifill, or at the cameras facing him, choosing instead to speak into his own chest for the entire night. Cheney appeared, overall, to cut quite the frightening figure, the dark night to Edwards' optimistic day. The other problem for Cheney, of course, was the way he lied with nearly every word that passed his curled lips. It was a virtuoso performance of prevarication, obfuscation and outright balderdash. On Thursday night, George W. Bush played the part of a man who couldn't possibly defend his record. On Tuesday night, Cheney acted as though that record did not exist. Cheney was behind the eight-ball before he even entered the hall, tasked to defend his administration's rationale for invading and occupying Iraq. Unfortunately for him, journalists record statements made by important people. In 1992, then-Defense Secretary Cheney spoke to the Discovery Institute in Seattle, WA. Recall that the United States was flush from the trouncing of Iraq in the first Gulf War. Cheney was asked why coalition forces didn't roll tanks on Baghdad and depose Saddam Hussein. Cheney's response, given 14 years ago, could well describe the mess we currently find ourselves in. "I would guess if we had gone in there," said Cheney in 1992, "I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home. And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties. And while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war." For the record, 1,064 American soldiers have died in this second round of war in Iraq. An additional 138 soldiers from the 'coalition' Bush and Cheney assembled have also died, bringing the total to 1,202. Edwards made the point several times that the United States was bearing "90% of the coalition causalities" in Iraq, and that the American people are bearing "90% of the costs of the effort in Iraq." Cheney tried to say this wasn't true, but the body count numbers don't lie, and never mind the burden being carried by the Iraqi people, more than 20,000 of whom have perished since the invasion began. "And the question in my mind," continued Cheney in 1992, "is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq." Cheney's answer to this glaring contradiction, of course, is "September 11," i.e. the terrorist attacks changed everything. It doesn't change the facts of a disastrous occupation, or the overwhelming financial burden being placed on American taxpayers because of Bush administration failures, and it certainly doesn't explain 1,064 folded American flags handed to American families who thought their sons, daughters, husbands, wives, mothers and fathers were going to Iraq to destroy weapons of mass destruction and protect the United States. Page 01 of the Washington Post for Wednesday 06 October carries an article titled 'Report Discounts Iraq Arms Threat,' which reads in paragraph one: "The government's most definitive account of Iraq's arms programs, to be released today, will show that Saddam Hussein posed a diminishing threat at the time the United States invaded and did not possess, or have concrete plans to develop, nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, U.S. officials said yesterday." Yes, the lies were thick before Cheney took his seat at the desk on Tuesday night. They got thicker. Edwards, in a theme repeated throughout the night, stated that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the attacks of September 11, and that the Bush administration had erred grievously by diverting attention from Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda and into Iraq. Several times, Edwards accused Cheney of rhetorically combining Iraq and 9/11. "I have not," replied Cheney, "suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11." Hm. "His regime has had high-level contacts with al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to al Qaeda terrorists." - Cheney, 12/2/02 "His regime aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. He could decide secretly to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against us." - Cheney, 1/30/03 "I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government." - Cheney, 1/22/04 "There's been enormous confusion over the Iraq and al-Qaeda connection, Gloria. First of all, on the question of - of whether or not there was any kind of a relationship, there was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming. It goes back to the early '90s...There's clearly been a relationship." - Cheney, 6/17/04 One could argue, perhaps, the definition of "is" on this matter. Cheney did not state specifically in any of the above quotes that Iraq was involved with 9/11. But the repeated claim that Iraq was connected to al Qaeda, a claim that has been shot to pieces dozens of times over, establishes enough of an Iraq-9/11 connection to satisfy a man who appears to believe that a frightened populace is a happy populace. George W. Bush doesn't even believe Cheney on this point. An article by Reuters from September 18, 2003, had Bush telling reporters, "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in September 11." Bush was forced into this scramble because his Vice President had, again, made this discredited connection between Iraq and 9/11 on 'Meet the Press' the previous Sunday by claiming, "more and more" evidence was being found to justify the connection. It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now. Cheney's unruffled, monotone demeanor became demonstrably agitated only a few times on Tuesday, but those times were telling. They came when John Edwards mentioned Halliburton. Edwards accused Halliburton, essentially, of war profiteering, and went so far as to describe how the company, while run by Cheney, was trading with nations now considered to be enemies of America. "While he was CEO of Halliburton," said Edwards, "they paid millions of dollars in fines for providing false information on their company, just like Enron and Ken Lay. They did business with Libya and Iran, two sworn enemies of the United States. They're now under investigation for having bribed foreign officials during that period of time. Not only that, they've gotten a $7.5 billion no-bid contract in Iraq, and instead of part of their money being withheld, which is the way it's normally done, because they're under investigation, they've continued to get their money." Cheney was allotted 30 seconds to reply to this explosive charge. His response: "The reason they keep mentioning Halliburton is because they're trying to throw up a smokescreen. They know the charges are false." Edwards' reply to this in-depth rejoinder: "These are the facts. The facts are the vice president's company that he was CEO of, that did business with sworn enemies of the United States, paid millions of dollars in fines for providing false financial information, it's under investigation for bribing foreign officials. The same company that got a $7.5 billion no-bid contract, the rule is that part of their money is supposed to be withheld when they're under investigation, as they are now, for having overcharged the American taxpayer, but they're getting every dime of their money." A few more facts: According to the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Houston Chronicle, the New York Times, the Petroleum Economist and scores of other reporters and media outlets, Halliburton in the time of Dick Cheney dealt with both Iraq, Iran and Libya through a variety of subsidiaries and in defiance of scores of international sanctions. Cheney did not like the sanctions against these countries, and went out of his way to make sure Halliburton could get around them and turn a tidy profit. On June 13, 2000, one month before joining the Republican presidential ticket, the Los Angeles Times reported Cheney's claim that, "We're kept out of (Iran) primarily by our own government, which has made a decision that U.S. firms should not be allowed to invest significantly in Iran, and I think that's a mistake." When speaking to the Cato Institute on June 23, 1998, Cheney stated, "Unfortunately, Iran is sitting right in the middle of the (Caspian Sea) area and the United States has declared unilateral economic sanctions against that country. As a result, American firms are prohibited from dealing with Iran and find themselves cut out of the action." Cut out of the action? It went on like this for 90 minutes, and got quite silly at one point. Cheney tried to paint Edwards as an absentee Senator by claiming he'd not met Edwards until that night. CNN and the other networks, a couple of hours later, began showing video of the two of them sitting together for several hours during the National Prayer Breakfast in February of 2001. It seems a silly thing to lie about, what with all the chaos and dead people we're all dealing with, but the media appeared happy to seize upon it. So it goes. Cheney looked for all the world as if the whole thing bored him. One can hardly blame him. When your entire professional and political career is a tapestry of untruths, telling them again for the umpteenth time could indeed be quite dull. William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times and international bestseller of two books - 'War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know' and 'The Greatest Sedition is Silence.' ------- Still, isn't gonna get me to vote for Kerry/Edwards, but HEY its almost as good as a vote for Bush/Cheney right guys?

What was this thread about? Oh nevermind.

You know you really hit the mark when you get them to get all bent out of shape like THAT ^. Next is the part where he tells me and INXS and whoever else is supposedly a liberal on this board to go away. See but *I* don't want MikeSC to go away. Cuz while I consider him and his point of view to be predictable, I still find it to be hilarious. I take back any bad thing I said about. You are awesome.