| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | M - Th 11p / 10c | |||
| Six Days Seven Nights | ||||
| ||||
. . . and another of malfeasance.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | M - Th 11p / 10c | |||
| Excuse Me Your Dick Is Out | ||||
| ||||
Showing posts with label George W Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label George W Bush. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
A Tale of Two Despicable Men.
One portrait of nonfeasance . . .
. . . and another of malfeasance.
. . . and another of malfeasance.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
It Takes an Idiot to Make a Village
Me and Mr. Lenin, discussing our respective Idiots.Back in the day (around 1905 to 1917), when everyone who was anyone was trying to dump Tsar Nicholas II of the Russian Empire as was, there was a general consensus that the best way to do so was to target the Tsar himself. The contrarian view, as frequently was his wont, came from Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, who dismissed the Tsar as wholly unimportant to seizing power. In fact, when compelled to actually talk about the Tsar, Lenin referred to him as "Idiot Romanov" (as opposed to the Royal cousins "Moron," "Stooge," and "Noodlebrain" Romanov I guess). I have always enjoyed that whatever is the opposite of a term of endearment, and have made liberal use of that slur, especially in regards to virtually the entire Bush Administration.
But now, the chief idiot, Idiot Bush, has come forward in a CNN interview, rending his garments is a series of mea culpas. Maestro, cue the line "Regrets--I've had a few..." from the Sid Vicious version of "My Way."
What does Idiot I mean President (no I don't) Bush regret? He regrets when he got all dressed up like GI Joe, sat in the back of an aeroplane (sic) that someone else flew, landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003 and declared that major combat operations in Iraq were over. No wait--my bad. He doesn't regret any of that. He feels bad that behind him, while he was mouthing that horse hockey, there was a banner that read "Mission Accomplished." "To some, it said, well, 'Bush thinks the was in Iraq is over,' when I didn't think that. It conveyed the wrong message," thus spake the Idiot.
Well . . . I guess. But I was one of the other "some" who said "Bush thinks the war in Iraq is over," when Bush said that major combat operations in Iraq were over, regardless of what banner was hanging behind him. Call me crazy.
But now, the chief idiot, Idiot Bush, has come forward in a CNN interview, rending his garments is a series of mea culpas. Maestro, cue the line "Regrets--I've had a few..." from the Sid Vicious version of "My Way."
What does Idiot I mean President (no I don't) Bush regret? He regrets when he got all dressed up like GI Joe, sat in the back of an aeroplane (sic) that someone else flew, landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003 and declared that major combat operations in Iraq were over. No wait--my bad. He doesn't regret any of that. He feels bad that behind him, while he was mouthing that horse hockey, there was a banner that read "Mission Accomplished." "To some, it said, well, 'Bush thinks the was in Iraq is over,' when I didn't think that. It conveyed the wrong message," thus spake the Idiot.
Well . . . I guess. But I was one of the other "some" who said "Bush thinks the war in Iraq is over," when Bush said that major combat operations in Iraq were over, regardless of what banner was hanging behind him. Call me crazy. The First Idiot, dressed up like GI Joe. I know this picture is a repeat, but it is too appropriate not to include.
Which is one of my largest sources of rage and frustration with this administration: the almost pathological denial of any sense of accountability or even history of its own actions. Apparently, President Bush is troubled by the fact that some banner behind his head may have give people the wrong impression ie that he meant what he was saying. Fine. But what was left unsaid among Bush's regrets was the series of lies his Press Secretary and assorted White House flacks spun about that banner, denying any connection between the banner and the White House--even claiming that the banner was the work of the sailors (I guess) of the Abraham Lincoln. I could respect Bush (yes, even Idiot Bush) had he said someone like "Yes, that whole photo opportunity, speech, and banner was a mistake--and an even bigger mistake was denying that I had anything to do with that banner. The American people would have to be morons to believe that the White House had nothing to do with that banner, and I am embarrassed to have been part of campaign that assumed the American people were morons."
But that note is just not on President Bush's trumpet.
But there's always hope. In the interview, President Bush did say that after he leaves the White House, he will return to Texas and write a book. "I want people to know what it was like to make some of the decisions I had to make. I've had one of those presidencies where I've had to make some tough calls, and I want people to know the truth about what it was like sitting in the Oval Office," he said.
Which is one of my largest sources of rage and frustration with this administration: the almost pathological denial of any sense of accountability or even history of its own actions. Apparently, President Bush is troubled by the fact that some banner behind his head may have give people the wrong impression ie that he meant what he was saying. Fine. But what was left unsaid among Bush's regrets was the series of lies his Press Secretary and assorted White House flacks spun about that banner, denying any connection between the banner and the White House--even claiming that the banner was the work of the sailors (I guess) of the Abraham Lincoln. I could respect Bush (yes, even Idiot Bush) had he said someone like "Yes, that whole photo opportunity, speech, and banner was a mistake--and an even bigger mistake was denying that I had anything to do with that banner. The American people would have to be morons to believe that the White House had nothing to do with that banner, and I am embarrassed to have been part of campaign that assumed the American people were morons."
But that note is just not on President Bush's trumpet.
But there's always hope. In the interview, President Bush did say that after he leaves the White House, he will return to Texas and write a book. "I want people to know what it was like to make some of the decisions I had to make. I've had one of those presidencies where I've had to make some tough calls, and I want people to know the truth about what it was like sitting in the Oval Office," he said. Ms. Sophia Loren. Unfortunately, she has nothing to do with this note.
Uh huh. Well, President idiot, if you need some ideas about what you need to tell the truth about, I'd certainly love to help out. Just off the top of my head:
1. What about the 2000 South Carolina primary, where the Bush campaign told every GOP voter that Senator McCain had fathered a child with a black prostitute and that Cindy McCain was a junkie? Does that ever bother you?
2. How about the whole Joseph Bloom and Valerie Palme saga? Everything you said at every step of the way was a lie, from denying that you sent Ambassador Bloom to Niger, to the Ambassador's correct conclusion that Iraq had not been trying to import uranium, you still stuck to your assumption about Iraq's nuclear program--knowing it was wrong, and your administration engaged in a campaign to destroy Mr. Bloom and Ms. Palme by leaking Ms. Plame's status as a CIA agent--and then to this day your are still denying it.
3. Speaking of WMD and Iraq, how about the fact that prior to the invasion, Sadam Hussein's chief of intelligence had flipped as a CIA source, and given you good intelligence that Iraq was not engaged in WMD, did not have a nuclear nor biological weapons programs, and was not supporting terrorist organizations? And do you have any regrets, as Mr. Ron Suskind documents in his book "The Way of the World," your administration after the fact forged a letter from this Iraqi, falsely stating that Iraq was involved in a nuclear program and connected with al Qaida?
4. Or how about after your people finally admitted there were no WMDs in Iraq, Condeleeza Rice, Karen Hughes, and the usual gang of idiots were all over the media, claiming that your critics were trying to "re-write history" by claiming that the purpose of the Iraq invasion was BECAUSE of Iraq had been illegally producing WMDs? Do you regret that lie?
Uh huh. Well, President idiot, if you need some ideas about what you need to tell the truth about, I'd certainly love to help out. Just off the top of my head:
1. What about the 2000 South Carolina primary, where the Bush campaign told every GOP voter that Senator McCain had fathered a child with a black prostitute and that Cindy McCain was a junkie? Does that ever bother you?
2. How about the whole Joseph Bloom and Valerie Palme saga? Everything you said at every step of the way was a lie, from denying that you sent Ambassador Bloom to Niger, to the Ambassador's correct conclusion that Iraq had not been trying to import uranium, you still stuck to your assumption about Iraq's nuclear program--knowing it was wrong, and your administration engaged in a campaign to destroy Mr. Bloom and Ms. Palme by leaking Ms. Plame's status as a CIA agent--and then to this day your are still denying it.
3. Speaking of WMD and Iraq, how about the fact that prior to the invasion, Sadam Hussein's chief of intelligence had flipped as a CIA source, and given you good intelligence that Iraq was not engaged in WMD, did not have a nuclear nor biological weapons programs, and was not supporting terrorist organizations? And do you have any regrets, as Mr. Ron Suskind documents in his book "The Way of the World," your administration after the fact forged a letter from this Iraqi, falsely stating that Iraq was involved in a nuclear program and connected with al Qaida?
4. Or how about after your people finally admitted there were no WMDs in Iraq, Condeleeza Rice, Karen Hughes, and the usual gang of idiots were all over the media, claiming that your critics were trying to "re-write history" by claiming that the purpose of the Iraq invasion was BECAUSE of Iraq had been illegally producing WMDs? Do you regret that lie? Ms. Marlene Dietrich. She does not appear in this note, but she has much more characterand deserves more respect than Karen Hughes.
5. Speaking of the truth, what about when Tony Snow said that the media had inflated the number of times you said "stay the course" regarding the absence of a coherent strategy in Iraq? Mr. Snow acknowledged you said it maybe seven or eight times--he was off about sixty times, I believe.
6.. Or how about prior to the 2004 election, all the times that VP "Darth" Cheney insisted that Iraq had engaged in a nuclear program, supported al Qaida, and had WMDs--and this was AFTER the 9/11 Commission had released their report, stating none of those assertions were true?
7. What about Condeleeza Rice trying to justify the pending Iraq invasion by saying "We don't want to have the smoking gun from Iraq come in the form of a mushroom cloud"?
8. And don't forget that chapter about what you did to the Department of Justice: The unprecedented firing of the US Attorneys for blatant political reasons; Monica Goodling illegally insisting on political criteria in DOJ hires; your stooges going behind the acting Attorney General to John Ashcroft's hospital bed, in a futile effort to get Mr. Ashcroft to sign off on an illegal domestic spying program;
5. Speaking of the truth, what about when Tony Snow said that the media had inflated the number of times you said "stay the course" regarding the absence of a coherent strategy in Iraq? Mr. Snow acknowledged you said it maybe seven or eight times--he was off about sixty times, I believe.
6.. Or how about prior to the 2004 election, all the times that VP "Darth" Cheney insisted that Iraq had engaged in a nuclear program, supported al Qaida, and had WMDs--and this was AFTER the 9/11 Commission had released their report, stating none of those assertions were true?
7. What about Condeleeza Rice trying to justify the pending Iraq invasion by saying "We don't want to have the smoking gun from Iraq come in the form of a mushroom cloud"?
8. And don't forget that chapter about what you did to the Department of Justice: The unprecedented firing of the US Attorneys for blatant political reasons; Monica Goodling illegally insisting on political criteria in DOJ hires; your stooges going behind the acting Attorney General to John Ashcroft's hospital bed, in a futile effort to get Mr. Ashcroft to sign off on an illegal domestic spying program; Attorney General Alberto Gonzales--at least, so far as I can remember. . .
your friend Attorney General Alberto Gonzales screwing up everything he could touch, to the point I thought Senator Arlen Spector was going to kill the guy--and then, when Gonzales FINALLY stuck a fork in his ass and resigned, you had the temerity to claim that a "good man" had been "unfairly run out of office."
9. Remember when you gave L. Paul Bremmer the Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award that you can bestow? He headed the Coalition Provisional Authority or CPA (affectionately known as "Can't Produce Anything"). Now THERE was a winner. Under Mr. Bremmer, the CPA's first two orders were 1) dissolve the Iraqi army, and 2) prohibit the involvement of any former Bathist Party members in any government position. How'd that work out for you?
9. Remember when you gave L. Paul Bremmer the Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award that you can bestow? He headed the Coalition Provisional Authority or CPA (affectionately known as "Can't Produce Anything"). Now THERE was a winner. Under Mr. Bremmer, the CPA's first two orders were 1) dissolve the Iraqi army, and 2) prohibit the involvement of any former Bathist Party members in any government position. How'd that work out for you?
Ms. Janet Leigh. She also wants you to know the truth about what it's like to sit in the oval office.
And that's just while I'm sitting here. But I can't wait to read what you consider to be the "truth about what it was like sitting in the Oval Office," because the truth is you are a profound disgrace to the office where you sat, to the country you professed to represent, and to every principle you claim to hold.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Dumb People Ruin Everything
"Wait wait wait--I'm a little weak on the whole 'good' and 'bad' thing. . . "
--Dr. Venkman, Bill Murray's character in the film 'Ghostbusters.'
On September 28 2008, thirty-three ministers who are part of the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative Christian organization, decided to build a test case to challenge the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) restrictions on churches engaging in political activity. At issue is the 1954 amendment to the tax code at 26 USC sec. 501(c)(3), introduced by then Texas Senator Lyndon Johnson, which does not allow a tax-exempt church to "participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in
opposition to) any candidate for public office." Coordinated by Mr. Erik Stanley, a tax attorney, the ministers endorsed by name a candidate for the up-coming United States Presidential election, and then notified the IRS of their actions. If the IRS chooses to enforce the limitation on political activity by taking away the churches' tax exempt status, then Mr. Stanley will bring the IRS to federal court, asking a judge to strike down that limitation as a violation on the ministers' first amendment right to freedom of speech.
I know I said Bill Murray--but I just like Sigourney Weaver, Okay?
As you can well imagine, everyone is very excited about this, making bold and important sounding statements about my two least favorite legal clichés: 'freedom of speech' and 'separation of church and state.' I really hate that. At another time, for those of you who really care, I will give brief rundown on what 'freedom of speech' and 'separation of church and state' mean, and how they apply in this context (and if you don't care: no worries. Only I care. I know this).
Instead, I want to comment on a curious aspect of censorship: the dangers of Dumb People.
'Censorship' means an authority has restricted some information, because the authority believes communicating that information is dangerous. Narrowing further, censored information poses a threat, either because it is true--or because it is false.
The former, censorship of information that is true, is the less controversial. Rightly or wrongly, our political system has determined that some information cannot be expressed publicly, because knowing that information poses a threat to society. For example, I cannot post technical information about how to best separate the two main isotopes of uranium (uranium 235 and uranium 238) necessary for building an atomic bomb.
Ms. Vivian Leigh. Repeat after me, Wall Street: "As God is my witness, I'll NEVER be poor a-gain!"
In conclusion, do I disagree with the Johnson Amendment, and think ministers should be able to endorse political candidates from their pulpits, and keep their tax exempt status? Absolutely not. But not because I am worried about ministers unduly influencing the Dumb People. I object, because I am a cheapskate, and do not want to pay money to subsidize their political activity by paying for the infrastructure that provides their water, sewer, police and fire protection, and road maintenance.
You want to write childish things about Presidential candidates that no one cares about, then give up your tax breaks and get a blog like the rest of us losers---I mean zealots.
--Dr. Venkman, Bill Murray's character in the film 'Ghostbusters.'
On September 28 2008, thirty-three ministers who are part of the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative Christian organization, decided to build a test case to challenge the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) restrictions on churches engaging in political activity. At issue is the 1954 amendment to the tax code at 26 USC sec. 501(c)(3), introduced by then Texas Senator Lyndon Johnson, which does not allow a tax-exempt church to "participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in
opposition to) any candidate for public office." Coordinated by Mr. Erik Stanley, a tax attorney, the ministers endorsed by name a candidate for the up-coming United States Presidential election, and then notified the IRS of their actions. If the IRS chooses to enforce the limitation on political activity by taking away the churches' tax exempt status, then Mr. Stanley will bring the IRS to federal court, asking a judge to strike down that limitation as a violation on the ministers' first amendment right to freedom of speech.I know I said Bill Murray--but I just like Sigourney Weaver, Okay?
As you can well imagine, everyone is very excited about this, making bold and important sounding statements about my two least favorite legal clichés: 'freedom of speech' and 'separation of church and state.' I really hate that. At another time, for those of you who really care, I will give brief rundown on what 'freedom of speech' and 'separation of church and state' mean, and how they apply in this context (and if you don't care: no worries. Only I care. I know this).
Instead, I want to comment on a curious aspect of censorship: the dangers of Dumb People.
'Censorship' means an authority has restricted some information, because the authority believes communicating that information is dangerous. Narrowing further, censored information poses a threat, either because it is true--or because it is false.
The former, censorship of information that is true, is the less controversial. Rightly or wrongly, our political system has determined that some information cannot be expressed publicly, because knowing that information poses a threat to society. For example, I cannot post technical information about how to best separate the two main isotopes of uranium (uranium 235 and uranium 238) necessary for building an atomic bomb.
Ms. Shirley Eaton. She used to work for Goldfinger, but now she works for the US Department of the Treasury
Censoring incorrect information ('incorrect' for whatever reason a person believes it to be false) poses an interesting question that touches on the foundations of a pluralistic liberal democracy. For example, placement of certain books in libraries, idiotic political advertisements, and opinions expressed by media pundits, all invite raucous comment--especially when whoever's commenting believes the opinion, advertisement, or book is 'wrong' or 'biased.' The offending information must be restricted or banned, so the argument goes, because its propaganda value will convince a significant portion of society to think the false information is in fact true. But if you were to ask the raucous commentators if they felt swayed by the false propaganda, they would assure you that had not. No one (that I am aware of) has ever said 'Please restrict this false information, because if I keep hearing it, I am going to believe it.' No, the people who want to restrict information are not worried about themselves--they are worried about the OTHER people who hear it: the Dumb People.
If everyone was 'smart' (meaning had the same judgment and values as the people advocating the censorship), there would be no need to restrict the information: all right thinking people would recognize the falsity, and dismiss it out of hand. But those who don't know better, they might believe the false information, to the detriment of the Smart People. Dumb People: they ruin it for everybody.
Take, for instance, a book that urges everyone to become gay, have a same-sex marriage, raise gay children, and live a gay life style. There is a portion of American society who would find that book offensive, and not want it placed in public libraries. But not because they are afraid that they might accidentally read the book, and become gay themselves. No--the worry is that Dumb People or impressionable children (i.e. Dumb Kids) will read the book, and become gay. Nevermind the fact that no one has ever chosen their sexual identity based on book learin', the Smart People still need to protect themselves from the Dumb People--you never know.
Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson. Would you buy a used car from this man? How about giving him $700 billion USD, no restrictions and no oversight?
If everyone was 'smart' (meaning had the same judgment and values as the people advocating the censorship), there would be no need to restrict the information: all right thinking people would recognize the falsity, and dismiss it out of hand. But those who don't know better, they might believe the false information, to the detriment of the Smart People. Dumb People: they ruin it for everybody.
Take, for instance, a book that urges everyone to become gay, have a same-sex marriage, raise gay children, and live a gay life style. There is a portion of American society who would find that book offensive, and not want it placed in public libraries. But not because they are afraid that they might accidentally read the book, and become gay themselves. No--the worry is that Dumb People or impressionable children (i.e. Dumb Kids) will read the book, and become gay. Nevermind the fact that no one has ever chosen their sexual identity based on book learin', the Smart People still need to protect themselves from the Dumb People--you never know.
Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson. Would you buy a used car from this man? How about giving him $700 billion USD, no restrictions and no oversight?
Getting back to the Alliance Defense Fund ministers, if I attended one of their services, I imagine I would be told that God wanted me to vote Republican, because God is tough on national defense, abortion, and earmarks--just like Senator McCain. Or I would hear that God's platform includes national health care, increased funding for education, and a tax cut for middle class families earning less than $250,000 USD a year--just like Senator Obama. Or maybe God had come out for Ron Paul or Libertarian candidate Bob Barr. Or God is now on the side of Ralph Nader or Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney. Following the Divine Endorsement, what would I do?
I'll tell you right now: even if Jesus, Mohammed, Moses, the Gotama Buddha, Vishnu, and Bertrand Russell all gave a homily on how I needed to vote the McCain-Palin ticket--no soap, is all I have to say. On the other hand, even a below-average speaker could probably shame me in voting for either Mr. Nader or Ms. McKinney (if not both). Why? Because I am already favorably disposed towards the Greens, and have a tattoo of Ralph Nader across my chest.
My point is, I am skeptical of the value of endorsements: I think by and large, the people persuaded by hearing that God Is On Our Side, they were leaning that way already. Even the Dumb People.
I'll tell you right now: even if Jesus, Mohammed, Moses, the Gotama Buddha, Vishnu, and Bertrand Russell all gave a homily on how I needed to vote the McCain-Palin ticket--no soap, is all I have to say. On the other hand, even a below-average speaker could probably shame me in voting for either Mr. Nader or Ms. McKinney (if not both). Why? Because I am already favorably disposed towards the Greens, and have a tattoo of Ralph Nader across my chest.
My point is, I am skeptical of the value of endorsements: I think by and large, the people persuaded by hearing that God Is On Our Side, they were leaning that way already. Even the Dumb People.
Mr. Ralph Nader. We're still waiting to see if he will accept his pending endorsement from the Supreme Being
Of course, as President Lincoln famously warned, you can fool all of the people some of the time--to their great detriment. A classic example is what happened during the 2000 South Carolina Republican presidential primary. Just prior to that election, Senator McCain had beaten then Governor George W. Bush in the New Hampshire primary, and it looked like he would also win in South Carolina. Fearing the momentum would make Senator McCain unbeatable, Governor Bush launched one of the more disgusting campaigns of our time. For example, Bush covered the state with the rumour that Senator McCain fathered a BLACK CHILD out of wedlock with a BLACK PROSTITUTE. Senator McCain does have a dark-skinned daughter: he and his wife adopted an orphan from Bangladesh. Nevertheless, enough Dumb People believed Bush's smear campaign, and Senator McCain lost badly. The McCain campaign never recovered.
Would truth, justice, and democracy have been better served if George Bush had been prevented from lying to the Dumb People? I would say no, and for two reason. First, I cannot imagine any effective way to screen the truthful sleazeball campaigns from the lying sleazeball campaigns. One of the early principles that arose from the US Supreme Court freedom of speech litigation is that the better remedy for 'bad' speech is to encourage more speech, as opposed to restricting the bad speech. For example, instead of some South Carolina Caliph issuing a wholly unenforceable order for Governor Bush to 'stop lying,' the McCain campaign and independent local media should have passed the dual message of Senator McCain's adoption and Governor Bush being a lying pig face sack of goose goo. Did that happen? Obviously, not enough.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! Wait--What? Oh, not again!
Would truth, justice, and democracy have been better served if George Bush had been prevented from lying to the Dumb People? I would say no, and for two reason. First, I cannot imagine any effective way to screen the truthful sleazeball campaigns from the lying sleazeball campaigns. One of the early principles that arose from the US Supreme Court freedom of speech litigation is that the better remedy for 'bad' speech is to encourage more speech, as opposed to restricting the bad speech. For example, instead of some South Carolina Caliph issuing a wholly unenforceable order for Governor Bush to 'stop lying,' the McCain campaign and independent local media should have passed the dual message of Senator McCain's adoption and Governor Bush being a lying pig face sack of goose goo. Did that happen? Obviously, not enough.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! Wait--What? Oh, not again!
Still, second (and for me the more important point), is that as a society with a republican form of democracy, we depend on an informed populace. While voters often make mistakes, on balance executive power must have a popular check on its authority. So how do we get informed plebs to make a good plebiscite? By letting them make mistakes. If anyone in South Carolina voted for George W. Bush, because they thought Senator McCain fathered a child with a black prostitute--then that person was a complete moron. However, I believe that morons eventually stop being morons, if their moron-ity is pointed out to them. Education--not unlike manure--happens.
Why do I believe that? Because I'm a gullible, bleeding heart liberal. But then again......On September 29 2008, the US House of Representatives shocked President Bush, the Democratic and Republican Leadership, Senators McCain and Obama--and probably even god--when they voted down the brokered compromise 'rescue plan,' giving Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson $700 billion USD of mad money. Is there a fiscal crisis, demanding immediate action and an outpouring of princely sums? Probably. But I was delighted to hear several representatives saying that the last time President Bush was declaring a national emergency, and he needed immediate piles of money and authority, it was for the Iraq War. Given that the last time this White House was handed a blank check, it turned out not only to NOT be an emergency, but President Bush went on to make a pig's breakfast of the whole situation. So--no soap, President Bush--as they say where I come from. You say you need seven hundred large--I mean EXTRA large? Show us--do some of that 'advise and consent' stuff. Then we can talk. The formerly Dumb People have spoken.
Why do I believe that? Because I'm a gullible, bleeding heart liberal. But then again......On September 29 2008, the US House of Representatives shocked President Bush, the Democratic and Republican Leadership, Senators McCain and Obama--and probably even god--when they voted down the brokered compromise 'rescue plan,' giving Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson $700 billion USD of mad money. Is there a fiscal crisis, demanding immediate action and an outpouring of princely sums? Probably. But I was delighted to hear several representatives saying that the last time President Bush was declaring a national emergency, and he needed immediate piles of money and authority, it was for the Iraq War. Given that the last time this White House was handed a blank check, it turned out not only to NOT be an emergency, but President Bush went on to make a pig's breakfast of the whole situation. So--no soap, President Bush--as they say where I come from. You say you need seven hundred large--I mean EXTRA large? Show us--do some of that 'advise and consent' stuff. Then we can talk. The formerly Dumb People have spoken.
Ms. Vivian Leigh. Repeat after me, Wall Street: "As God is my witness, I'll NEVER be poor a-gain!"In conclusion, do I disagree with the Johnson Amendment, and think ministers should be able to endorse political candidates from their pulpits, and keep their tax exempt status? Absolutely not. But not because I am worried about ministers unduly influencing the Dumb People. I object, because I am a cheapskate, and do not want to pay money to subsidize their political activity by paying for the infrastructure that provides their water, sewer, police and fire protection, and road maintenance.
You want to write childish things about Presidential candidates that no one cares about, then give up your tax breaks and get a blog like the rest of us losers---I mean zealots.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
