PDA

View Full Version : BUSH Impeachment Talk Getting Louder...


RVD
Mar 25th, 2006, 10:54 PM
As already reported, many powerful conservatives are becoming ever more disconcerted with this President
and his 'perpetually' corrupt administration. And now, even the President's lies are finally catching up to him. :cool:

However, there still exists some pockets of brain dead Democrats who can't bring themselves to do the right thing. :rolleyes:
Why am I not surprised?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12003304/
Dems split as impeachment whispers get louder
Some see anti-Bush movement as distracting from key issues, boosting GOP
__________________________________________________ __________________________________
This is by far the weakest democratic leadership I have ever had the displeasure of witnessing in all my
4 decades. And the most corrupt group of conservatives I've ever seen.

I fear that as a nation, we've completely blown it as world leaders. :sad:
We've invaded a sovereign nation based on a plethora of lies. :mad:
We've handed over Congressional power to a madman :mad:
We've re-elected an imperialist [read PNAC Doctrine] :scared:
There is a noticeably stark absence of opposition to the Republicans.
Politicians fear what this administration's power.
We are embroiled in a 'no-win-duo-war-quagmire' with no exit strategy and a refusal to cut our extensive loses.
Hello [b]rock ( no win - Iraq War)... let me introduce you to hard place (can't get involved or take sides - Civil War)
The American People are split between a [government induced] fear of terrorist attacks, and an inability to
separate fact from fiction. :rolleyes:

I made a prediction last year that the Republicans will retain the 2008 Presidency, while the Democrats will gain seats
in the Congress. The Democrats will not, however, gain control of either the House or the Senate; and wield very little
power or influence. :sad: :sad:

Americans are in for a very long...cold... hard... moral leadership drought. http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/traurig/sad-smiley-034.gif

NO NEED TO REPLY.
JUST DISAPPOINTED IN AMERICA'S MISSED OPPORTUNITIES. http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/traurig/sad-smiley-019.gif

ampers&
Mar 25th, 2006, 10:58 PM
i am now officially depressed. :sad:
thanks a lot Ree Vee. :ras: :awww:

RVD
Mar 26th, 2006, 12:55 AM
i am now officially depressed. :sad:
thanks a lot Ree Vee. :ras: :awww:Sorry. But at least you don't have to be depressed alone. :sad: :wavey:

Blonde_Ambition7
Mar 26th, 2006, 12:59 AM
So why don't Democrats do anything?

TF Chipmunk
Mar 26th, 2006, 01:01 AM
i am now officially depressed. :sad:
thanks a lot Ree Vee. :ras: :awww:
I know, this ruined my hopes of having a great few years to come :sad:

TF Chipmunk
Mar 26th, 2006, 01:02 AM
So why don't Democrats do anything?
Because they only know how to point out the problems :rolleyes:

^^ this was actually said by Gavin Newsom, the San Francisco Mayor who's a Democrat. He said that's the biggest problem with his party :o

dementieva's fan
Mar 26th, 2006, 01:02 AM
Bush and the Republicans are directly or indirectly responsible for 90% of problems on earth

RVD
Mar 26th, 2006, 06:02 AM
So why don't Democrats do anything?Oh let's see...how shall I put it...? http://deephousepage.com/smilies/scratchchin.gif

Okay, I've got it. Here's an example of what's got me pissed & depressed about the Dems:

Senator Russ Feingold (Dem) - introduced a resolution to censure the President, on March 13, 2006, for authorizing the no-warrant domestic surveillance program. Bush clearly broke the law, and admitted it. The law clearly states that you must have a court order to spy on Americans. The President says he doesn't need one and won't get one. :shrug:
He is changing the law of the land [the Constitution] on-the-fly, AND misleading Congress and the American people in the process.
http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/06/03/2006313.html
http://www.feingold.senate.gov/statements/06/03/2006316.html
And what do we hear...?
Bearly a peep. :mad:

This was an opportunity for ALL Democrats to galvanize and demonstrate their unity in at least limiting that traitor in the White House.
In fact, Bush should be IMPEACHED!!
But just look at the Democratic response...http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12003304/
Censure...Impeachment...it doesn't matter.
These Democrats can't agree on anything!

God, there's so much more, but it's just too depressing to even post. http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/traurig/sad-smiley-017.gif

Pheobo
Mar 26th, 2006, 06:17 AM
It's dumb if you ask me...he's been lying and being an overall shitface for a few years now and he does something that republicans don't like and NOW they're crying about it.

pcrtennis
Mar 26th, 2006, 06:39 AM
Hahahahahaha...he's not getting impeached...

TF Chipmunk
Mar 26th, 2006, 06:47 AM
Oh let's see...how shall I put it...? http://deephousepage.com/smilies/scratchchin.gif

Okay, I've got it. Here's an example of what's got me pissed & depressed about the Dems:

Senator Russ Feingold (Dem) - introduced a resolution to censure the President, on March 13, 2006, for authorizing the no-warrant domestic surveillance program. Bush clearly broke the law, and admitted it. The law clearly states that you must have a court order to spy on Americans. The President says he doesn't need one and won't get one. :shrug:
He is changing the law of the land [the Constitution] on-the-fly, AND misleading Congress and the American people in the process.
http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/06/03/2006313.html
http://www.feingold.senate.gov/statements/06/03/2006316.html
And what do we hear...?
Bearly a peep. :mad:

This was an opportunity for ALL Democrats to galvanize and demonstrate their unity in at least limiting that traitor in the White House.
In fact, Bush should be IMPEACHED!!
But just look at the Democratic response...http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12003304/
Censure...Impeachment...it doesn't matter.
These Democrats can't agree on anything!

God, there's so much more, but it's just too depressing to even post. http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/traurig/sad-smiley-017.gif
ReeVee your smilies are making me :sad: They're so emotional.

CJ07
Mar 26th, 2006, 07:01 AM
Honestly there is no way he'll get impeached. Not only do they not have the votes, but it would make the democrats look AWFUL for the upcoming elections. While the electorate isn't that much of a fan of Georgey right now, this would come off far far far too liberal, and the Democrats simply can't risk that.

If the Democrats lose the 2008 election, then there is something horribly wrong with the party. That would make 3 elections in a row that they choked.

They shouldn't even have this problem. George should still be in Texas. He should've never won in the first place. And I'm a republican.

The democrats are just too stupid to use whats in front of them to win anything. Like that guy said, they can't point out problems just fine, they just don't know what to do afterwards.

K.U.C.W-R.V
Mar 26th, 2006, 11:12 AM
Bush and the Republicans are directly or indirectly responsible for 90% of problems on earth

Hilarious. :haha:

(I'm going to remember that one).

RVD
Mar 26th, 2006, 11:24 AM
Honestly there is no way he'll get impeached. Not only do they not have the votes, but it would make the democrats look AWFUL for the upcoming elections. While the electorate isn't that much of a fan of Georgey right now, this would come off far far far too liberal, and the Democrats simply can't risk that.Which is what I find the overall problem to be with both parties. :shrug:
The conservatives won't impeach their boy because they enjoy their position of power, regardless of who suffers or the degree of lies told. Hell, even the Constitution was openly disrespected. Just reading posts from the conservatives on this board is indicative of the what the mass majority of Republicans think--- they don't care about the lies, deceit, Constitutional abuses, abuses of power, executive level corruption, judiciary wrangling, outing of their own CIA personnel, allotment of massive funding towards an unwinnable war [as well as a nation embroiled in civil war], the elevation of personal desires above the needs of the nation, the bastardization of the federal laws, etcetera, etcetera...
The Democrats believe that impeachment is a distraction, and censure simply reflects the polarization of politics. And yet they do little more than vote right along with the Republicans as if everything is just fine. :(
They are weak, ineffective, and devoid of any plans or meaningful compromises.

Impeachment would certainly not make the Democrats look bad. Doing and saying nothing about the rampant Republican corruption makes the Democrats look bad. Near silence in the face of historic level corruption makes the Democrats look bad.
And since when was battling immoral and corrupt officials a purely 'liberal' act? I'm sorry but I just don't understand that. Have things gotten so bad that crimes committed by federal executives go unpunished? Are you saying that the Executive Branch [and friends thereof] is/are above the law?
If the Democrats lose the 2008 election, then there is something horribly wrong with the party. That would make 3 elections in a row that they choked.But we really don't need another election to tell us what we know today. This administration's own Congressional party members are publicly stating dissatisfaction with their leader's recent decisions. The warrant-less spying and the UAE port deals are excellent examples.
They shouldn't even have this problem. George should still be in Texas. He should've never won in the first place. And I'm a republican.Agreed. But honestly, SMM, you represent less than a handful of conservatives on this board who feels this way. This is one reason why I respect your views. At least you are not afraid to call it the way it really is. :)
The democrats are just too stupid to use whats in front of them to win anything. Like that guy said, they can't point out problems just fine, they just don't know what to do afterwards.Too true. After the 2004 elections, I have to admit that I didn't know what the hell had happened. A democratic win should have been an afterthought. Yet our boy laid down and played dead. :mad: Just incredible.
I just don't get what's going on up there on Capitol Hill.

RVD
Mar 26th, 2006, 11:39 AM
ReeVee your smilies are making me :sad: They're so emotional.Didn't mean to you make you feel sad TF. :) It's just that I've been studying this 'sleepwalking' public for years now, and the deeper I dig, the more asleep they appear. And I can't determine what it would take to wake the people up.

Bush in dug in there like a mad blood sucking TICK! And even his own party can't control him or the corruption washing over their party.

CJ07
Mar 26th, 2006, 12:57 PM
You know ReeVee I'd comment but I honestly don't know enough about the situation to make a credible refutation.

But honestly, I think thats it for a lot of people.

As long as they have their tax cuts, abortion & gay marriage stopped and whatever else people are happy. They'll keep blindly supporting them.

I'm one of them. Why do I? Well, its better than the alternative I think. Theres no one single issue that I care about all that much, but hey as long as you get a bunch of conservatives in a room they'll think of something that they know you'll agree with, then you go ahead with it and continue. Thats probably my deal, as for plethora others.

The thing is I think because its not a grave issue, whatever "it" is, that people can wallow in ignorance and just see what they want to see. When I think of George, I think of the time I talked to him for a second back home. He was such a nice guy. Since theres nothing I really care about, and we share the same basic framework of ideas, thats all I need.

Is it good? No. Is it right? No. Does it change the fact that he may, or may not, be doing as you say? No.

But its a damn good strategy. And its working.

BMP
Mar 26th, 2006, 01:06 PM
How I wish he was impeached... The US deserve a lot better President than this dumbstick... :(

CJ07
Mar 26th, 2006, 01:12 PM
How I wish he was impeached... The US deserve a lot better President than this dumbstick... :(
well him being impeached won't do anything. even if he was impeached he surely would be acquitted, and even if they did convict they wouldn't remove him from office.

And only then you'd get Dick Cheney :tape:

Remember to be impeached is to be formally accused, thats all.

*JR*
Mar 26th, 2006, 02:25 PM
So why don't Democrats do anything?
Because the "Democratic base" (the motivated ppl who vote in primaries and caucuses) mistakenly thought in 2004: If we just nominate this combat veteran who's provn 2B in sync with our PC positions, we can't lose against a defacto draft dodger who started a "war of choice" (that was already going badly, had turned up no WMD, etc.) Hence, John F(ucking) Kerry.
:spit:

Martian KC
Mar 26th, 2006, 02:44 PM
Because the "Democratic base" (the motivated ppl who vote in primaries and caucuses) mistakenly thought in 2004: If we just nominate this combat veteran who's provn 2B in sync with our PC positions, we can't lose against a defacto draft dodger who started a "war of choice" (that was already going badly, had turned up no WMD, etc.) Hence, John F(ucking) Kerry.
:spit:

:lol:

Pureracket
Mar 26th, 2006, 02:53 PM
Because the "Democratic base" (the motivated ppl who vote in primaries and caucuses) mistakenly thought in 2004: If we just nominate this combat veteran who's provn 2B in sync with our PC positions, we can't lose against a defacto draft dodger who started a "war of choice" (that was already going badly, had turned up no WMD, etc.) Hence, John F(ucking) Kerry.
:spit:It's not so much that your posts lack credibility as much as they have absolutely nothing, nothing, nothing significant to add to the overall discussion.

Your rants about Kerry seemed kinda cute @ first, but now they seem intent on misguiding the general flow of the thread.

Pureracket
Mar 26th, 2006, 02:57 PM
Hilarious quote from Senator Harry Reid(D-NV) when Frist said that Reid had not ruled out impeachment:


Quite frankly I'd probably rule it out because the only President who could possibly be worse than George Bush would be Dick Cheney.

Infiniti2001
Mar 26th, 2006, 03:07 PM
Honestly there is no way he'll get impeached. Not only do they not have the votes, but it would make the democrats look AWFUL for the upcoming elections. While the electorate isn't that much of a fan of Georgey right now, this would come off far far far too liberal, and the Democrats simply can't risk that.

If the Democrats lose the 2008 election, then there is something horribly wrong with the party. That would make 3 elections in a row that they choked.

They shouldn't even have this problem. George should still be in Texas. He should've never won in the first place. And I'm a republican.

The democrats are just too stupid to use whats in front of them to win anything. Like that guy said, they can't point out problems just fine, they just don't know what to do afterwards.



The casualness with which the rethuglicans
impeached Clinton for nothing is almost stunning to me :eek: Meanwhile they want to jeer, ridicule and
intimidate anyone who suggests perhaps dubaiya should be impeached for breaking the law and
violating the constitution. Fucking hypocrites :fiery:

Infiniti2001
Mar 26th, 2006, 03:17 PM
Bush's Incompetent Criminals
Russ Baker
March 17, 2006



Investigative reporter and essayist Russ Baker is a longtime contributor to TomPaine.com. He is also the founder of the Real News Project, a new not-for-profit investigative journalism outlet. He can be reached at russ@russbaker.com.

Did you hear the one about the president’s top domestic policy adviser? Tired of helping the president pick the pockets of the poor and middle class on behalf of the rich, he found a more profitable target. Or Target, actually.

Last week, Claude Allen was arrested and charged with a scheme to rip off Target and other stores by "returning" more than $5,000 worth of merchandise he had allegedly never paid for in the first place. According to police, Allen would buy an item and put it in his car, then return and bring an identical item from the store shelves for a refund based on the original receipt.

Apparently, the White House had an inkling what was coming. Back on Feb 9, it announced that Allen was resigning in order to “spend more time with his family”—a bromide that any savvy observer should know masks something more serious. In a statement, Bush declared: "Claude Allen has been a trusted advisor since 2001 ... Claude is a good and compassionate man, and he has my deep respect and my gratitude. "

Behind this sad incident lurk two interrelated calamities of the Bush years: the continuing placement of the dubiously-qualified in high positions, and the use of people of color as window dressing for policies that harm communities of color.

Before Allen’s unique shopping habits were revealed, it was already becoming apparent that departments and agencies throughout the administration were jammed with incompetents and unfortunates who, based on relevant experience or temperament or values, shouldn’t be there at all (see “Appointees Guarding the Henhouse ").

One colleague previously hauled off to face justice is David Safavian, the head of the White House Office of Federal Procurement Policy—a former lobbyist and Hill staffer with scant experience in issuing federal contracts prior to his hiring by the Bush Administration, who was arrested in connection with the sprawling lobbying corruption scandal. Both Safavian and Allen will be on the docket in April.

In distancing the administration from Allen, unnamed White House sources insisted to reporters that, notwithstanding his title, it was never Allen who made domestic policy decisions; he was a merely ceremonial nobody. No, they said, it was former direct mail king Karl Rove—a man who believes that ‘policy’ and ‘politics’ are synonymous—who made all the policy decisions, while the ceremonial black guy actually just pushed paper. And that’s their spin, for goodness’ sake.

I’m apparently not alone in thinking that the brain center itself is looking especially grim these days. Of late, leading Republicans have begun advising Bush to get some "experienced" people into the White House—raising doubts even about Chief of Staff Andrew Card. And he’s probably the most qualified of the lot. Of course, experience can go hand in hand with chicanery: Dick Cheney’s former Chief of Staff Lewis “Scooter” Libby, qualified through long years of public—or at least party—service, has been arrested and charged with a serious crime: obstructing the investigation in the Valerie Plame leak investigation.

The process of distancing Allen from the administration is striking because, although nobody ever heard of him, he was the top-ranking African-American on the White House staff, and constantly at Bush's side both at White House events and on trips around the country. Claude Allen was like that one black in a suit stuck in every corporate group photo to represent a non-existent diversity. Doubt that? Even after Allen first told the White House about his little pick-up problem, he still was Laura Bush’s guest in her box at the State of the Union address. Why? Was he Laura’s good friend?

Sometimes, as with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the “nobody” routine means the exact opposite—that the miscreant was actually a major player. But Claude Allen was just an empty suit, a black pawn drafted to provide Bush with cover for all manner of regressive acts—starting with cutbacks to essential services, passing through tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and culminating in efforts to open minority scholarship programs to whites.

The Claude Allen story also is important in giving the lie once again to the GOP’s claim of moral superiority. In an interview before he got in hot water, Allen explained why, having been raised a Democrat, he had switched parties. "I realized after the fact that I agree more with the Republican Party platform, that it talked about independence, that it talked about individual responsibility, individual rights, it talked about the ability to guarantee opportunities, not outcomes," he said.

That interview, fittingly, was conducted by Armstrong Williams—another African American who was well-rewarded for backing an administration that has done everything possible to make life more difficult for others of their race. "It is a small circle of conservatives, especially when you are black," Williams would tell The New York Times. And what a circle: Williams was widely shellacked after it was disclosed that he’s been paid handsomely by the Bush administration to swoon over it in his newspaper columns.

And Allen presumed to speak of “individual responsibility.” Perhaps the Target situation would make a convenient point to bury that term forever, since it is hardly ever honestly employed, anyway.

Routinely described as born-again and a “devoted father,” Allen liked to talk about how his religious upbringing was a key factor in his steady march from a poor home to the pinnacle. Along the way, he befriended or worked for such advocates of color-blindness as the former senator Jesse Helms—one of the last of a generation recalling the days of segregation with fondness—and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, known for biting the affirmative-action hand that gave him a leg up. Allen lunched often with Thomas, who apparently lectured him on propriety. "He would always say to make sure I conducted myself appropriately," Allen told an interviewer.

Now that Allen has failed the "appropriateness" test, the administration has quickly washed its hands of him—with the general acquiescence of the press and the punditocracy, a woefully common scenario these past five years.

But, a few facts: Allen was on the highest White House pay scale, earning $161,000 a year, and had bought a $958,300 house the same month he allegedly began stealing. According to Newsweek, he was considered by fellow staffers to be “a bit stuffy and holier-than-thou.” Allen, who had clerked for a federal judge, went on to serve as the Health and Human Services secretary for Virginia, where according to the Los Angeles Times, he gained conservative credentials by denying a low-income rape victim Medicaid funds for an abortion.

Such a record apparently endeared him to the incoming Bush team, and in 2001, he was appointed to the No. 2 post at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. There he promoted abstinence-only AIDS-prevention programs. By 2003, despite slim legal credentials, Bush proposed Allen for a seat on the federal appeals court, though Democrats blocked his nomination. Apparently, Allen had once remarked that an opponent of his boss, Jesse Helms, was connected to “queers.” Explaining himself at his confirmation hearings, he told senators that by “queers” he meant people who were "odd, out of the ordinary." In 2005, he was brought to the White House.

Claude Allen returned lots of items to Target because, ostensibly, they weren’t up to snuff. He was actually perfectly happy with the items he is said to have improperly procured. The rest of us are left thinking about how to return to sender something bigger, something many of us never ordered in the first place, and which has turned into the worst kind of damaged goods: an entire administration rotten to the core.



Love the last line :lol:

Infiniti2001
Mar 26th, 2006, 03:19 PM
Hilarious quote from Senator Harry Reid(D-NV) when Frist said that Reid had not ruled out impeachment:


Quite frankly I'd probably rule it out because the only President who could possibly be worse than George Bush would be Dick Cheney.

You don't say :lol: He is nothing but a dangerous failure who should be in prison. Personally I would like to see him on American Idol(which he mentioned last week) because by the time they got through with him, he'd be whimpering like a baby :lol:

*JR*
Mar 26th, 2006, 03:55 PM
It's not so much that your posts lack credibility as much as they have absolutely nothing, nothing, nothing significant to add to the overall discussion.

Your rants about Kerry seemed kinda cute @ first, but now they seem intent on misguiding the general flow of the thread.
Sorry, but actions have consequences. (Which I told the self-gratification posters who were cheering the protestors' self-defeating tee shirts equating Bush with Hitler and calling him a ****, etc. during the late August '04 Republican convention).

I answered a post ITT about why the Democrats don't do anything. Because *duh* the Republicans control the White House, and both houses of Congress. (And thereby are solidifying the Supreme Court leaning their way, of course). What are the Democrats now to do that's not merely symbolic?

And the Democrats are quite unlikely to get a net gain of 6 Senate seats (with 34 up for election) this year. In other words, Kerry having dragged a few Democrats in close races down with him in '04 is why a net gain of perhaps 3 seats isn't enough.

So perhaps "better late than never", some of the PC robots here will grow up and realize that politics is serious, and one must "work smart, not just hard". The attitude reflected on this board in '03 and '04 (including by American posters) represents what helped get us where we are now.

Rollo
Mar 26th, 2006, 04:06 PM
LOL-what are you trying to do ReeVee-guarentee a Repulblican gets elected in 2008 as well?:lol:

The Democarats who argue against impeaching Bush are the only ones with brains.

Only the "preaching to the choir types" and a mayor of San Francisco (who could'nt be elected outside of San Francico) would agree with you.

None of that wins elections.

No doubt a lot of the people surrounding Bush are corrupt. So were a lot of the people around Clinton. And?

The war is sinking this presidency more than anything else. Surrounding issues
(corruption, mishandling of Katrina) are a contributing factor.

Start impeachment proceedings (on what grounds BTW-that Bush is violating personal freedoms in using this secret spy program?) and all that goes away and you handed the Rebublicans an issue sweets.

Mark old Rollo's words: (and I'll dig this up in November 2008-cause that's what it all about).

1. If the Democrats start impeachment proceedings this year it will hurt them
in picking up Congressional seats in November.

2. If you want the radical conservatives out listen to the wing of your party that criticizes without sounding ridiculously out of step with middle America.

3. Stop Hillary Clinton from being nominated. She's too liberal to be elected, and I bet you you'll NEVER hear her publicly admit Bush should be impeached, because she's too smart for that.

And if Hillary isn't going to touch it, neither should the rest of the party.

Mother_Marjorie
Mar 26th, 2006, 04:53 PM
I really wish they would get over the impeachment stuff, because it will never happen to a sitting Republican president while the congress is controlled by the same party.

The democrats need to run political ads showing how similar the war in Iraq is to Vietnam, then show Bush's State of The Union Address where he lied about the reasons we went to war.

The democrats need to run political ads showing mock FBI agents at telephone polls, with listening device, scrolling the words, "No Warrant needed".

The democrats need to run political ads showing President Bush shaking Abramhoff's hand during political fundraisers.

The democrats need to run political ads showing people in NO on their rooftops, with a message scrolling below saying, "where was your government?"

If the democrats want to succeed in '06, they need to remind the public of what these Republicans have done. The 2000 election was an assault on the US constitution and our current government seems hell bent on trampling our constitutional freedom as American citizens.

karl m
Mar 26th, 2006, 04:57 PM
I think Bush is doing a great job. :D

RVD
Mar 27th, 2006, 01:07 AM
Bush's Incompetent Criminals
Russ Baker
March 17, 2006



Investigative reporter and essayist Russ Baker is a longtime contributor to TomPaine.com. He is also the founder of the Real News Project, a new not-for-profit investigative journalism outlet. He can be reached at russ@russbaker.com.

Did you hear the one about the president’s top domestic policy adviser? Tired of helping the president pick the pockets of the poor and middle class on behalf of the rich, he found a more profitable target. Or Target, actually.

Last week, Claude Allen was arrested and charged with a scheme to rip off Target and other stores by "returning" more than $5,000 worth of merchandise he had allegedly never paid for in the first place. According to police, Allen would buy an item and put it in his car, then return and bring an identical item from the store shelves for a refund based on the original receipt.

Apparently, the White House had an inkling what was coming. Back on Feb 9, it announced that Allen was resigning in order to “spend more time with his family”—a bromide that any savvy observer should know masks something more serious. In a statement, Bush declared: "Claude Allen has been a trusted advisor since 2001 ... Claude is a good and compassionate man, and he has my deep respect and my gratitude. "

Behind this sad incident lurk two interrelated calamities of the Bush years: the continuing placement of the dubiously-qualified in high positions, and the use of people of color as window dressing for policies that harm communities of color.

Before Allen’s unique shopping habits were revealed, it was already becoming apparent that departments and agencies throughout the administration were jammed with incompetents and unfortunates who, based on relevant experience or temperament or values, shouldn’t be there at all (see “Appointees Guarding the Henhouse ").

One colleague previously hauled off to face justice is David Safavian, the head of the White House Office of Federal Procurement Policy—a former lobbyist and Hill staffer with scant experience in issuing federal contracts prior to his hiring by the Bush Administration, who was arrested in connection with the sprawling lobbying corruption scandal. Both Safavian and Allen will be on the docket in April.

In distancing the administration from Allen, unnamed White House sources insisted to reporters that, notwithstanding his title, it was never Allen who made domestic policy decisions; he was a merely ceremonial nobody. No, they said, it was former direct mail king Karl Rove—a man who believes that ‘policy’ and ‘politics’ are synonymous—who made all the policy decisions, while the ceremonial black guy actually just pushed paper. And that’s their spin, for goodness’ sake.

I’m apparently not alone in thinking that the brain center itself is looking especially grim these days. Of late, leading Republicans have begun advising Bush to get some "experienced" people into the White House—raising doubts even about Chief of Staff Andrew Card. And he’s probably the most qualified of the lot. Of course, experience can go hand in hand with chicanery: Dick Cheney’s former Chief of Staff Lewis “Scooter” Libby, qualified through long years of public—or at least party—service, has been arrested and charged with a serious crime: obstructing the investigation in the Valerie Plame leak investigation.

The process of distancing Allen from the administration is striking because, although nobody ever heard of him, he was the top-ranking African-American on the White House staff, and constantly at Bush's side both at White House events and on trips around the country. Claude Allen was like that one black in a suit stuck in every corporate group photo to represent a non-existent diversity. Doubt that? Even after Allen first told the White House about his little pick-up problem, he still was Laura Bush’s guest in her box at the State of the Union address. Why? Was he Laura’s good friend?

Sometimes, as with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the “nobody” routine means the exact opposite—that the miscreant was actually a major player. But Claude Allen was just an empty suit, a black pawn drafted to provide Bush with cover for all manner of regressive acts—starting with cutbacks to essential services, passing through tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and culminating in efforts to open minority scholarship programs to whites.

The Claude Allen story also is important in giving the lie once again to the GOP’s claim of moral superiority. In an interview before he got in hot water, Allen explained why, having been raised a Democrat, he had switched parties. "I realized after the fact that I agree more with the Republican Party platform, that it talked about independence, that it talked about individual responsibility, individual rights, it talked about the ability to guarantee opportunities, not outcomes," he said.

That interview, fittingly, was conducted by Armstrong Williams—another African American who was well-rewarded for backing an administration that has done everything possible to make life more difficult for others of their race. "It is a small circle of conservatives, especially when you are black," Williams would tell The New York Times. And what a circle: Williams was widely shellacked after it was disclosed that he’s been paid handsomely by the Bush administration to swoon over it in his newspaper columns.

And Allen presumed to speak of “individual responsibility.” Perhaps the Target situation would make a convenient point to bury that term forever, since it is hardly ever honestly employed, anyway.

Routinely described as born-again and a “devoted father,” Allen liked to talk about how his religious upbringing was a key factor in his steady march from a poor home to the pinnacle. Along the way, he befriended or worked for such advocates of color-blindness as the former senator Jesse Helms—one of the last of a generation recalling the days of segregation with fondness—and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, known for biting the affirmative-action hand that gave him a leg up. Allen lunched often with Thomas, who apparently lectured him on propriety. "He would always say to make sure I conducted myself appropriately," Allen told an interviewer.

Now that Allen has failed the "appropriateness" test, the administration has quickly washed its hands of him—with the general acquiescence of the press and the punditocracy, a woefully common scenario these past five years.

But, a few facts: Allen was on the highest White House pay scale, earning $161,000 a year, and had bought a $958,300 house the same month he allegedly began stealing. According to Newsweek, he was considered by fellow staffers to be “a bit stuffy and holier-than-thou.” Allen, who had clerked for a federal judge, went on to serve as the Health and Human Services secretary for Virginia, where according to the Los Angeles Times, he gained conservative credentials by denying a low-income rape victim Medicaid funds for an abortion.

Such a record apparently endeared him to the incoming Bush team, and in 2001, he was appointed to the No. 2 post at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. There he promoted abstinence-only AIDS-prevention programs. By 2003, despite slim legal credentials, Bush proposed Allen for a seat on the federal appeals court, though Democrats blocked his nomination. Apparently, Allen had once remarked that an opponent of his boss, Jesse Helms, was connected to “queers.” Explaining himself at his confirmation hearings, he told senators that by “queers” he meant people who were "odd, out of the ordinary." In 2005, he was brought to the White House.

Claude Allen returned lots of items to Target because, ostensibly, they weren’t up to snuff. He was actually perfectly happy with the items he is said to have improperly procured. The rest of us are left thinking about how to return to sender something bigger, something many of us never ordered in the first place, and which has turned into the worst kind of damaged goods: an entire administration rotten to the core.



Love the last line :lol:Great article!
And isn't it fascinating how Black Republicans allow themselves to be used so often, over and over, and still come back for more? :tape:
Incidentally, whatever happened to that solitary high ranking Black Republican [during the 2000 term] who finally figured out that he was little more than a racial tool, only to return and be used as a tool once again during the 2004 Chicago Mayoral race? :tape: :lol: Yep, Black Republicans don't have a great history with that party, do they?
At any rate, this entire article illustrates that no matter the color, if you are part of the Bush inner circle, immorality is a mandatory prerequisite.

dementieva's fan
Mar 27th, 2006, 01:33 AM
Hilarious. :haha:

(I'm going to remember that one).

Do you have any idea how many good reps I got of people agreeing with me on that?

SelesFan70
Mar 27th, 2006, 01:39 AM
If the Republicans don't grow a backbone and do something (anything!) to stop illegal immigration, they will lose the off-year elections this year, the Democraps will take over the Senate, and an impeachment process seems likely.

Too bad for the Democraps, though, that the illegal immigrants and their supporters are seriously over-playing their hand on this issue. The average American will not stomach illegal immigrants continuing to flood the country and overwhelming social services for which they are not even qualified to get. :tape:

And before you throw the "racist" bomb at me... :rolleyes: There is nothing racists about denying benefits to llegal immigrants. And before you tell me "they" do jobs no one else will...bullshit. I assure you someone would fill their shoes in a minute. However, they do it cheaper...it's called wage suppression. I'm surprised you anti-capitalists aren't more enraged at companies the hire illegal immigrants to do dirty work at dirt poor wages. Actually, I'm not surprised... :lol: But you just can't bring yourselves to support Bush's amnesty program which is exactly what the Democraps want because, well, it's BUSH's plan.

And ReeVeeDynasty...you're obsessed with Bush... :scared:

RVD
Mar 27th, 2006, 01:42 AM
LOL-what are you trying to do ReeVee-guarentee a Repulblican gets elected in 2008 as well?:lol:Naw, I'm trying to discover a glimmer of decency on either side side. But I [reluctantly] admit failure. Do you see some where I don't? :confused:
The Democarats who argue against impeaching Bush are the only ones with brains.So what you're saying is that the Democrats should continue to display weakness in the face of corruption? You are saying that this [Republican] party that ran on a campaign of 'returning mmoral integrity back to the White House' should not be held to that promise? Rollo, I'm surprised at you. :rolleyes:
Well, actually, I'm not. :lol:
Only the "preaching to the choir types" and a mayor of San Francisco (who could'nt be elected outside of San Francico) would agree with you.Really? What about the many senior Republicans of Congress who are coming out against the President? You can not be that naive my friend. I'll just mark it uo to youthful ignorance. :kiss:
Incidentally, you would do well to compare Mayor Gavin Newson's approval rating against that of the President's. I don't want to embarrass you here. ;)
None of that wins elections.

No doubt a lot of the people surrounding Bush are corrupt. So were a lot of the people around Clinton. And?

The war is sinking this presidency more than anything else. Surrounding issues
(corruption, mishandling of Katrina) are a contributing factor.

Start impeachment proceedings (on what grounds BTW-that Bush is violating personal freedoms in using this secret spy program?) and all that goes away and you handed the Rebublicans an issue sweets.

Mark old Rollo's words: (and I'll dig this up in November 2008-cause that's what it all about).

1. If the Democrats start impeachment proceedings this year it will hurt them
in picking up Congressional seats in November.

2. If you want the radical conservatives out listen to the wing of your party that criticizes without sounding ridiculously out of step with middle America.

3. Stop Hillary Clinton from being nominated. She's too liberal to be elected, and I bet you you'll NEVER hear her publicly admit Bush should be impeached, because she's too smart for that.

And if Hillary isn't going to touch it, neither should the rest of the party.So let me get this straight...
What you are endorsing is the 'do nothing', 'say nothing' approach.
Let the corruption go unchallenged and unrestricted.
Are you American? Are you one of those who voted for Bush...TWICE?
If so, I can see why we're in this predicament, and neither can i argue with your lemming-like logic.

However, I will still search for that small glimmer of hope. That hidden something that will serve to jettison a moron and his feckless lackeys out of power once and for all.

Pureracket
Mar 27th, 2006, 01:44 AM
If the Republicans don't grow a backbone and do something (anything!) to stop illegal immigration, they will lose the off-year elections this year, the Democraps will take over the Senate, and an impeachment process seems likely.

Too bad for the Democraps, though, that the illegal immigrants and their supporters are seriously over-playing their hand on this issue. The average American will not stomach illegal immigrants continuing to flood the country and overwhelming social services for which they are not even qualified to get. :tape:

And before you throw the "racist" bomb at me... :rolleyes: There is nothing racists about denying benefits to llegal immigrants. And before you tell me "they" do jobs no one else will...bullshit. I assure you someone would fill their shoes in a minute. However, they do it cheaper...it's called wage suppression. I'm surprised you anti-capitalists aren't more enraged at companies the hire illegal immigrants to do dirty work at dirt poor wages. Actually, I'm not surprised... :lol: But you just can't bring yourselves to support Bush's amnesty program which is exactly what the Democraps want because, well, it's BUSH's plan.

And ReeVeeDynasty...you're obsessed with Bush... :scared:Kinda surprised how, you, a homosexual, could be so far up the Republicans' ass(then again, maybe I shouldn't be).

SelesFan70
Mar 27th, 2006, 01:45 AM
Do you have any idea how many good reps I got of people agreeing with me on that?

It still is a ridiculous statement. And nothing about the hatred for Bush on this board surprises me. But he's still in power... :lol:

SelesFan70
Mar 27th, 2006, 01:49 AM
Kinda surprised how, you, a homosexual, could be so far up the Republicans' ass(then again, maybe I shouldn't be).

I am gay, but my life doesn't revolve around my gayness. I can still have differing opinions on different topics. :rolleyes:

Pureracket
Mar 27th, 2006, 01:57 AM
I am gay, but my life doesn't revolve around my gayness. I can still have differing opinions on different topics. :rolleyes:Weird. You and the Republicans won the last election based on the Republican voters denying rights to people like you.

Homophobia was the single, most galvanizing factor behind the mobilization of the Republican voters.

It baffles me how you are on their side in every political debate. Are you silent when the gay rights issue comes up?

*JR*
Mar 27th, 2006, 02:01 AM
Do you have any idea how many good reps I got of people agreeing with me on that?
And that kind of "preaching to the choir" hubris is a lot of the reason the Democrats lose most national elections, and have fallen to a 45-55 deficit in the very US Senate you'd need to deliver 67 votes out of 100 to "convict" dubya (to remove him from office). Go pat yourself on the back for all the good reps, though. And let the White House know about them, too.
:shrug:

RVD
Mar 27th, 2006, 02:01 AM
If the Republicans don't grow a backbone and do something (anything!) to stop illegal immigration, they will lose the off-year elections this year, the Democraps will take over the Senate, and an impeachment process seems likely.

Too bad for the Democraps, though, that the illegal immigrants and their supporters are seriously over-playing their hand on this issue. The average American will not stomach illegal immigrants continuing to flood the country and overwhelming social services for which they are not even qualified to get. :tape:

And before you throw the "racist" bomb at me... :rolleyes: There is nothing racists about denying benefits to llegal immigrants. And before you tell me "they" do jobs no one else will...bullshit. I assure you someone would fill their shoes in a minute. However, they do it cheaper...it's called wage suppression. I'm surprised you anti-capitalists aren't more enraged at companies the hire illegal immigrants to do dirty work at dirt poor wages. Actually, I'm not surprised... :lol: But you just can't bring yourselves to support Bush's amnesty program which is exactly what the Democraps want because, well, it's BUSH's plan.

And ReeVeeDynasty...you're obsessed with Bush... :scared:You know what...?
I actually agree with you for once. :eek:
Okay, who are you and what did you do with the real SelesFan70? :confused: :tape:

Rollo
Mar 27th, 2006, 02:09 AM
So let me get this straight...
What you are endorsing is the 'do nothing', 'say nothing' approach.
No, I'm saying be critical, but realize there's a point where it all starts to backfire-like talk of impeachment.

Let the corruption go unchallenged and unrestricted.
Attack all you want and gain points. Just realize that once you get to my age its a given that ALL of them are corrupt. You're telling me Clinton was clean? It's a good line of attack though-I'll give you that.

Are you American? Are you one of those who voted for Bush...TWICE?
If so, I can see why we're in this predicament, and neither can i argue with your lemming-like logic.

No, I voted for Nader in 2000 and yes, Bush in 2004. I also voted for Clinton once. And have you voted for a Republican in your lifetime as President? Sounds like your lemming-like in towing the good liberal old party line to me.

You CAN blame folks like me for electing Bush (and Clinton, etc) though. We're the swing votes that decide elections.

That doesn't make me right of course-but if old Rollo tells you "it won't work in Peoria" odds are it won't.

Believe it not I WOULD like to see a Democrat as President again before I die, but as long as Massachusetts, leftist-style thought predominates you'll continue to have the odds stacked against you.

RVD
Mar 27th, 2006, 02:11 AM
You know what...?
I actually agree with you for once. :eek:
Okay, who are you and what did you do with the real SelesFan70? :confused: :tape:
I'M KIDDING! BWA-HA-HA! ;) HAH!!

Rollo
Mar 27th, 2006, 02:13 AM
That's a cute avatar ReeVee-your family?

RVD
Mar 27th, 2006, 02:38 AM
No, I'm saying be critical, but realize there's a point where it all starts to backfire-like talk of impeachment.It is realized and noted, thank you. :) However, the Dems have yet to begin the process and from what I gather from your post, you suggest giving in before the attempt.
Did I misread you. :confused:
Attack all you want and gain points. Just realize that once you get to my age its a given that ALL of them are corrupt. You're telling me Clinton was clean? It's a good line of attack though-I'll give you that.But this has been my point all along. And of course Clinton wasn't entirely 'clean'. None of them are. But why bring Clinton into the discussion? What did Clinton do that remotely compares to Bush?
Has it come to that? I mean placing the blame on Clinton already? :lol:
Man! When all else fails, blame Clinton, right. :tape:

Okay, let's say we blame Clinton for everything that this administration has perpetrated upon the people from 2000-2006. Now what, in your opinion should be done to fix the problem of this WHite House?
No, I voted for Nader in 2000 and yes, Bush in 2004. I also voted for Clinton once. And have you voted for a Republican in your lifetime as President? Sounds like your lemming-like in towing the good liberal old party line to me.That's interesting. Nader, huh? :lol: Did you get a return on that investment? :lol: Naw, I kid. ;)
However, as a swing voter, what prompted you to continue trusting this President? I mean after the lies and all? Incidentally, I consider myself more of a Libertarian than a Democrat. But what's the difference, right?
[QUOTE=Rollo]You CAN blame folks like me for electing Bush (and Clinton, etc) though. We're the swing votes that decide elections.I blame the 51% of Americans who saw the problem, but chose ignore it. :shrug:
That doesn't make me right of course-but if old Rollo tells you "it won't work in Peoria" odds are it won't. But didn't you say that you voted for Bush in 2004? Why would I trust what 'ol Rollo has to say when 'ol Rollo's most recent mistake is endorsing aguy who is killing Americans and has no exist strategy for a quagmire of a war that has no way out; and endorses a man who boasts breaking federal laws? I'm sorry, but I'll pass on rollo's advice. ;) Again I kid. We all make mistakes. :wavey:
Believe it not I WOULD like to see a Democrat as President again before I die, but as long as Massachusetts, leftist-style thought predominates you'll continue to have the odds stacked against you.Why do so many paint so broad a picture with so small a brush?
Rollo, all I'm looking for is freaking integrity and honesty in the highest office of the land. I could care less who provides the leadership.
Is that too much to ask?

RVD
Mar 27th, 2006, 02:55 AM
That's a cute avatar ReeVee-your family?Yeah.
She's 9 now, going on 25. :lol:

dementieva's fan
Mar 27th, 2006, 03:32 AM
And that kind of "preaching to the choir" hubris is a lot of the reason the Democrats lose most national elections, and have fallen to a 45-55 deficit in the very US Senate you'd need to deliver 67 votes out of 100 to "convict" dubya (to remove him from office). Go pat yourself on the back for all the good reps, though. And let the White House know about them, too.
:shrug:
Lol the very reason you have a far-right party like the repulican in the office is that your country has a huge number of uneducated rednecks who vote for the republicans based on a few issues(religion, homosexuality and abortion). And people like you get kicks out of that. :lol: Most of the republican vote bank really does'nt really give a fuck about any of the issues other than a)religion b)homosexuality c)abortion . I can bet that if the democrats suddenly wake up tommorow and turn to the right on these three issues they would absolutely rape the elections.

Lord Nelson
Mar 27th, 2006, 01:42 PM
Lol the very reason you have a far-right party like the repulican in the office is that your country has a huge number of uneducated rednecks who vote for the republicans based on a few issues(religion, homosexuality and abortion). And people like you get kicks out of that. :lol: Most of the republican vote bank really does'nt really give a fuck about any of the issues other than a)religion b)homosexuality c)abortion . I can bet that if the democrats suddenly wake up tommorow and turn to the right on these three issues they would absolutely rape the elections.
So what about the non whites who vote for the republicans what are they. Brownies, niggas? So only brownies, niggas and rednecks vote for republicans? What about extremists like you. What are they called? Racists? :confused:

Scotso
Mar 27th, 2006, 01:47 PM
It would be political suicide for the Democrats to try to impeach him and take the light off him and onto them. Things are going well for the Democrats, so they need to just sit down and shut up and let Bush continue to piss people off until November.

Lord Nelson
Mar 27th, 2006, 01:58 PM
It would be political suicide for the Democrats to try to impeach him and take the light off him and onto them. Things are going well for the Democrats, so they need to just sit down and shut up and let Bush continue to piss people off until November.
Exactly, the dems should just shut up. Oh and Bush is not standing for re-election so who cares what he does since Cheney also is not standing for election. By the way your buddy Chardy did not win the title. Too bad I was waiting for your :eek:. post. Kristina had a good laugh at my post on that so I do seem to have a sense of humor. :)

CJ07
Mar 27th, 2006, 02:14 PM
Lol the very reason you have a far-right party like the repulican in the office is that your country has a huge number of uneducated rednecks who vote for the republicans based on a few issues(religion, homosexuality and abortion). And people like you get kicks out of that. :lol: Most of the republican vote bank really does'nt really give a fuck about any of the issues other than a)religion b)homosexuality c)abortion . I can bet that if the democrats suddenly wake up tommorow and turn to the right on these three issues they would absolutely rape the elections.
thats utterly rediculous. The majority of republicans is the upper class. You are right about central themes, but the ones you picked are wrong. Most republicans don't really care that much about those three topics. They probably agree with whats going on, but Evangilists (the main group you're referring to) are a very small portion of the party. They're just the loudest.

The most important thing to the republican party as a whole is low taxes, and limited government intervention, one way or another.

CJ07
Mar 27th, 2006, 02:24 PM
Weird. You and the Republicans won the last election based on the Republican voters denying rights to people like you.

Homophobia was the single, most galvanizing factor behind the mobilization of the Republican voters.

It baffles me how you are on their side in every political debate. Are you silent when the gay rights issue comes up?

Thats so wrong. First of all, its the liberal media who blew up that whole marriage crap way out of proportion.

Most of the party really doesn't care that much. Sure they'd rather not have "gay rights" laws to be passed, but its not the most important thing. Its just a certain wing of the party who is being very vocal (and spending a lot of money) on it and thats why you hear about it. But they're maybe a 1/3 of the party, max.

Pureracket
Mar 27th, 2006, 03:35 PM
Thats so wrong. First of all, its the liberal media who blew up that whole marriage crap way out of proportion.

Most of the party really doesn't care that much. Sure they'd rather not have "gay rights" laws to be passed, but its not the most important thing. Its just a certain wing of the party who is being very vocal (and spending a lot of money) on it and thats why you hear about it. But they're maybe a 1/3 of the party, max.:lol: You are seriously going to suggest that more than half of the rednecks in the red states didn't come out to the Diebold machines because of the gay/GoD issue?:lol:

You're speaking of WalMart workers and grocery store clerks, and you're going to seriously tell me these people voted Republican because they want less taxes and less government intervention?! No, they went to the polls because the Repukes shoved God in their faces.

*JR*
Mar 27th, 2006, 04:13 PM
Lol the very reason you have a far-right party like the repulican in the office is that your country has a huge number of uneducated rednecks who vote for the republicans based on a few issues (religion, homosexuality and abortion). And people like you get kicks out of that. :lol:
Your PC intolerance (a poison to the Democrats for ova 20 years in national elections) is showing. :rolleyes: I've been extremely critical of the Administration on a good number of issues (especially the war). But you take the fact that I won't "toe the PC line" re. abortion with no restrictions to lump me in with the religious right???
:confused:

Scotso
Mar 27th, 2006, 05:22 PM
Oh and Bush is not standing for re-election so who cares what he does

The entire country (and world). Especially the Republicans running for office since the public links them together... as goes Bush, so goes the party.

K.U.C.W-R.V
Mar 27th, 2006, 05:25 PM
Do you have any idea how many good reps I got of people agreeing with me on that?

Scary, but not surprising.

RunDown
Mar 27th, 2006, 05:57 PM
*JR*, you keep saying that Kerry was PC, and you keep referring to these "PC types"...What do you mean by that? :confused: Are you saying that he should have run more to the left ('yes. I'm against the war'...'yes, I'm for gay marriage') to differentiate himself more from Bush?

And purely because I want to pick your brain, who would be your ideal candidate for the Democrats to run in '08??

*JR*
Mar 27th, 2006, 06:16 PM
*JR*, you keep saying that Kerry was PC, and you keep referring to these "PC types"...What do you mean by that? :confused: Are you saying that he should have run more to the left ('yes. I'm against the war'...'yes, I'm for gay marriage') to differentiate himself more from Bush?

And purely because I want to pick your brain, who would be your ideal candidate for the Democrats to run in '08??
Re. Kerry, it was things like his ceding what the exit polls said was the #1 issue (family values). He could have defined that as better wages and benefits giving parents more time 2B with their kids, making sure they do their homework instead of playing video games, posting on wtaworld :o etc.

Re. '08, I'm still looking @ Edwards, ex-Governors Mark Warner of Virginia and Tom Vilsack of Iowa, Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, etc. (Essentially, anybody but Kerry or Hillary. I doubt that Al Gore will run, BTW).

RunDown
Mar 27th, 2006, 07:49 PM
Re. Kerry, it was things like his ceding what the exit polls said was the #1 issue (family values). He could have defined that as better wages and benefits giving parents more time 2B with their kids, making sure they do their homework instead of playing video games, posting on wtaworld :o etc.

Re. '08, I'm still looking @ Edwards, ex-Governors Mark Warner of Virginia and Tom Vilsack of Iowa, Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, etc. (Essentially, anybody but Kerry or Hillary. I doubt that Al Gore will run, BTW).

Ah...I can agree with that.

RVD
Mar 27th, 2006, 09:47 PM
If the Republicans don't grow a backbone and do something (anything!) to stop illegal immigration, they will lose the off-year elections this year, the Democraps will take over the Senate, and an impeachment process seems likely.

Too bad for the Democraps, though, that the illegal immigrants and their supporters are seriously over-playing their hand on this issue. The average American will not stomach illegal immigrants continuing to flood the country and overwhelming social services for which they are not even qualified to get. :tape:

And before you throw the "racist" bomb at me... :rolleyes: There is nothing racists about denying benefits to llegal immigrants. And before you tell me "they" do jobs no one else will...bullshit. I assure you someone would fill their shoes in a minute. However, they do it cheaper...it's called wage suppression. I'm surprised you anti-capitalists aren't more enraged at companies the hire illegal immigrants to do dirty work at dirt poor wages. Actually, I'm not surprised... :lol: But you just can't bring yourselves to support Bush's amnesty program which is exactly what the Democraps want because, well, it's BUSH's plan.

And ReeVeeDynasty...you're obsessed with Bush... :scared:Selesfan70, you are so contrary to what the Republicans stand for that I often wonder [and honestly worry] about you. I often wonder if you even know what the Republicans would do to gays if more people were to endorse [fully] their moral beliefs. At any rate, I saw this and just couldn't resist. And please don't take this the wrong way, but when you're so glaringly MISINFORMED :tape: , I must point it out. :wavey:

Read on:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12034586/
Senate lenient on helping illegal immigrants
The Senate Judiciary Committee adopted an amendment by Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., that would protect church and charitable groups, as well as individuals, from criminal prosecution for providing food, shelter, medical care and counseling to undocumented immigrants.

“Charitable organizations, like individuals, should be able to provide humanitarian assistance to immigrants without fearing prosecution,” Durbin said.So as to your little immigration quip about Republicans growing a backbone, it would seem that they agree with the Democrats on this one. :devil: :p

For the duration of my post, I choose to call these people what they actually are: [I]'UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS', for many would like nothing better than to become citizens and be accepted as Americans. ;)

You seem to know so little about the benefits of the undocumanted workers, so I thought I'd clue you in on a few choice pieces of facts.

* The immediate expulsion of illegal immigrants would wreck the U.S. economy.
* Undocumented workers are one of the most abused segments of society in the nation:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/mar2006/dayl-m10.shtml
http://usliberals.about.com/od/immigration/i/BushImmiReform.htm
* The declining U.S. economy is one of the reasons for the increasing population undocumented workers, because U.S. employers look to cut costs to remain competitive. [SO PLEASE DON'T PLACE SOLE BLAME ON THE UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS]
* Undocumented workers build our new homes and clean the homes of the rich and upper middle class. The majority of day laborers are hired either by homeowners/renters (49 percent) or by the construction industry (43 percent). Also, the report states that “more than two-thirds of day laborers (69 percent) are hired repeatedly by the same employer....” Eighty-three percent of day laborers have no other source of income: 70 percent look for work five or more days a week while 74 percent have worked in this job market for less than three years.
* The myth that 'if you get rid of the immigrant workers, the U.S. workers will fill those spots' is complete BS. The main reason they exist at all is due to the fact that they accept work for vastly lower wages.
* Not all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. Many work here for a short number of years and then return home.
* Illegal immigrants are given social security numbers by employers and/or friends or family, and pay into the social security fund, recognizing full well that they will not get that money back. The money eventually becomes the property of the federal government.
* These workers receive NO healthcare or other benefits.

There's more info that I could provide, but suffice it to say that the above should be more than enough to hopefully get you and others to THINK of these undocumented workers as people [first] who are helping to benefit the U.S., and not just be a drain on it.
That said, I find these workers to be more a benefit than a detriment to this nation, and apparently so does Congress. :cool: :)

Oh, and lastly... [/quote]In a larger sense, day labor is a form of hidden unemployment, a mode of existence for the vast army of unemployed workers [B]that is a ubiquitous feature of modern capitalism.[/quote]Though I'm not anti-capitalist, I thought you would get a kick out of the very last paragraph of the link above. In other words, in a capitalist society, you will always find a segment of society providing these low-wage services. :wavey:

Your turn. :angel:

RVD
Mar 27th, 2006, 09:56 PM
Re. Kerry, it was things like his ceding what the exit polls said was the #1 issue (family values). He could have defined that as better wages and benefits giving parents more time 2B with their kids, making sure they do their homework instead of playing video games, posting on wtaworld :o etc.

Re. '08, I'm still looking @ Edwards, ex-Governors Mark Warner of Virginia and Tom Vilsack of Iowa, Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, etc. (Essentially, anybody but Kerry or Hillary. I doubt that Al Gore will run, BTW).I agree with the top half, and your choice of Edwards [both me and wifie's 1st choice]. Russ Feingold 'appears' to be a good choice at the moment. Don't know enough about Bill Richardson.
Hilary has turned too many of her base off to make it past the Primaries.
And as far as Kerry...
He fell w-a-y short of expectations in 2004. :( He was intelligent but WEAK. Also, I can't see him entering the 2008 race after such an embarrassing defeat. Honestly, who would endorse him? :shrug:

John A Roark
Mar 27th, 2006, 10:58 PM
C'mon, Reeve, you have to know that impeachment is a pipe dream.
If we libertarians and neo-cons couldn't do it to Clinton, how do you think the radical left is going to get Dubya out?
If it hurts that bad, man, just grit yer teeth--2008 is coming. And you can always exact revenge on the Congress of 2006--if the U.S. turns the Republicans out, then we'll know that people have as serious doubts as you seem to think we should have.
But if not, will it make anyone on the left rethink their position on Bush?
Not a snowball's chance in hell.
Helen Thomas is the left's poster girl, and she hates Bush with an irrationality I could never have predicted even from Michael "Tell" Moore "lies."
But time will tell. I eagerly await the 2006 campaign season. It should be a scorcher. :devil:

*JR*
Mar 27th, 2006, 11:36 PM
And as far as Kerry...
He fell w-a-y short of expectations in 2004. :( He was intelligent but WEAK. Also, I can't see him entering the 2008 race after such an embarrassing defeat. Honestly, who would endorse him? :shrug:
Maybe his wife Teresa? :scratch:

RVD
Mar 28th, 2006, 12:15 AM
C'mon, Reeve, you have to know that impeachment is a pipe dream.
If we libertarians and neo-cons couldn't do it to Clinton, how do you think the radical left is going to get Dubya out?
If it hurts that bad, man, just grit yer teeth--2008 is coming. And you can always exact revenge on the Congress of 2006--if the U.S. turns the Republicans out, then we'll know that people have as serious doubts as you seem to think we should have.
But if not, will it make anyone on the left rethink their position on Bush?
Not a snowball's chance in hell.
Helen Thomas is the left's poster girl, and she hates Bush with an irrationality I could never have predicted even from Michael "Tell" Moore "lies."
But time will tell. I eagerly await the 2006 campaign season. It should be a scorcher. :devil:I believe you know me well enough to know that I think impeachment is a pipe dream. :) The effort would be based almost solely on the Conservative majority in Congress rediscovering why they are there... [to serve the people].

My point is that the Neo-Conservatives currently running the White House do not represent the sentiments of the vast majority of the Conservatives. In fact, after speaking to a good number of Conservative friends, I truly believe this to be the case overall. They absolutely HATE what's going on with teh war and the illegal spying more than I do. :eek: :)

Still, could you imagine the symbolic message this would send? Also, if done correctly, I believe that the Republicans could hold office for decades if they were eradicate that parasite and his cronies.
Also, I don't see were as they have anything to lose at this point. Bush has set things up perfectly on two fronts.
First, he's more than accomplished his goals. [The rich are richer, and the poor, poorer. The middle class has shrunk significantly, and the economy has in an uncontrollable downward near irrevocably damaged.
Second, if the Conservatives oust the buffoon at the 11th hour, they would be seen as the real heros. Not the lowly and weak democrats.
The Democrats and all parties for that matter, have a major mountain to climb in the next election. :scared: And judging from the public's short memories, and apathetic nature, I have very little to no confidence left in the American people's ability to do the right thing.

But I suppose you have a point about gritting my teeth and awaiting 2008.
However, do you actually see any significant changes post 2008? I honestly don't.
I hope I'm wrong and you're right. :)

RVD
Mar 28th, 2006, 12:17 AM
Maybe his wife Teresa? :scratch:I smell a divorce. :lol:

RJWCapriati
Mar 28th, 2006, 12:33 AM
Its amazing Bush even got elected - :smash:

cheesestix
Mar 28th, 2006, 12:39 AM
thats utterly rediculous. The majority of republicans is the upper class. You are right about central themes, but the ones you picked are wrong. Most republicans don't really care that much about those three topics. They probably agree with whats going on, but Evangilists (the main group you're referring to) are a very small portion of the party. They're just the loudest.

The most important thing to the republican party as a whole is low taxes, and limited government intervention, one way or another.

BINGO! :yeah:

cheesestix
Mar 28th, 2006, 12:40 AM
:lol: You are seriously going to suggest that more than half of the rednecks in the red states didn't come out to the Diebold machines because of the gay/GoD issue?:lol:

You're speaking of WalMart workers and grocery store clerks, and you're going to seriously tell me these people voted Republican because they want less taxes and less government intervention?! No, they went to the polls because the Repukes shoved God in their faces.

Stereotypes, anyone? :rolleyes:

Pureracket
Mar 28th, 2006, 02:27 AM
Stereotypes, anyone? :rolleyes:Exhibit A
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

CJ07
Mar 28th, 2006, 06:06 AM
:lol: You are seriously going to suggest that more than half of the rednecks in the red states didn't come out to the Diebold machines because of the gay/GoD issue?:lol:

You're speaking of WalMart workers and grocery store clerks, and you're going to seriously tell me these people voted Republican because they want less taxes and less government intervention?! No, they went to the polls because the Repukes shoved God in their faces.
You can talk about those "rednecks" all you want.

But they're not the ones writing the checks :)

CJ07
Mar 28th, 2006, 06:08 AM
Oh, and we need to round up all the illegals, put 'em on a boat and send 'em home.

It won't be cruel though, we can give them tacos y burritos :)